1 An Independent Recension of Palestinian Targum
As we have described in the introductory chapter, the Liturgical Targum refers to the units of Targum contained in liturgical manuscripts. This particular work focuses on the units of Liturgical Targum contained predominantly in mahzorim. The previous section provided a list of all these manuscripts in the corpus as well as descriptions of their contents, mise en page, vocalization, and treatment of the Hebrew text. This section will begin by describing the more general characteristics of the Liturgical Targum, including the material often accompanying it as well as its linguistic features. Afterwards, we will discuss the different textual families of the Liturgical Targum and then present the major expansions found in the Liturgical Targum.
The Liturgical Targum is first and foremost a recension of the Palestinian Targum tradition, sharing many exegetic expansions with other recensions and frequently aligning quite closely with other members of this tradition—especially FragTgP.1 The exact details of the affinities with this manuscript will be discussed in Chapter 4. For the sake of clarity, we will preface here briefly: the material in FragTgP corresponding to the liturgies for Pesach and Shavuot almost certainly comes from a mahzor. Another feature of the Liturgical Targum is the obvious influence of Targum Onqelos, though this is also shared by other PalTg recensions. This also warrants a discussion of its own, in Chapter 5.
There are certain characteristics that establish, in our view, that the Liturgical Targum is a distinct recension of Palestinian Targum, broadly aligned with the other witnesses of Palestinian Targum, but with its own unique history of transmission. First and foremost, the abundance of shared readings unique to witnesses of the Liturgical Targum establishes this recension as textually distinct. In other words, there is both enough internal textual coherence within the witnesses of the Liturgical Targum, as well as sufficient external textual variation with other recensions of the Palestinian Targum2 to establish the Liturgical Targum as an independent recension. In addition to establishing the Liturgical Targum as an independent recension of Palestinian Targum, our data reveals three distinct textual families within the Liturgical Targum recension. These textual families align with manuscript provenance (Ashkenazi, Italian, and Sephardi), which will be presented and discussed below.
It is perhaps unsurprising that the textual families of the liturgical manuscripts exhibit a more or less stable transmission, as these texts would have been read in front of an audience, ensuring that they would have been known and memorized by various members of the congregation.3 For each textual family below, some examples will be selected to illustrate their defining features, but these are certainly not exhaustive.
In addition to the vast number of shared readings, the Liturgical Targum contains lengthy midrashic expansions (toseftot) that are attached to, or follow, specific verses. Some of these also appear in other recensions of the Palestinian Targum, but characteristic of the Liturgical Targum is the transposition of these toseftot from their original verses to places within the Song of the Sea (Ex 14:30–15:18).4 The transposition of these toseftot greatly impacted their respective structures and contents and resulted in versions that are, to my knowledge, unique to the Liturgical Targum. The two most illustrative examples are
2 An Independent Line of Transmission
Aside from being textually distinct, the Liturgical Targum also had an independent line of transmission. In other words, in the context of our corpus, it is clear that the Liturgical Targum was transmitted largely from mahzor to mahzor. Even further, some manuscripts exhibit features that are shared only within mahzorim for a particular liturgical rite, suggesting that the Liturgical Targum was predominantly transmitted locally, e.g., from Ashkenazi mahzor to Ashkenazi mahzor.
The Liturgical Targum is always accompanied by piyyutim5 throughout the reading,6 most famously
Also characteristic of the Liturgical Targum are the prosaic and poetic additions accompanying the Decalogue. After each commandment, one finds one or more lengthy stories that help to illustrate or question elements of the preceding commandment. Some examples include the lengthy episode about Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah in the court of Nebuchadnezzar and a visit from the angel Gabriel following the second commandment, or the conversation between Isaac and his father and the importance of deference in
The features discussed above have no bearing on the textual nature of the Liturgical Targum, but they help to explain why the Liturgical Targum forms a separate textual recension. Namely, they show that the Liturgical Targum was compiled and expanded for a liturgical purpose, i.e., to be read out loud during festivals. At the same time, they can be used to help identify the source of material found in other manuscripts of Palestinian Targum. For example, the stories and piyyutim for the Decalogue are also found in the FragTgP, which is further evidence of this material coming directly from a witness to the Liturgical Targum.
3 Linguistic Features
Providing a comprehensive overview of the linguistic character of the Liturgical Targum would be an insurmountable task of limited value for two main reasons: 1) medieval scribes are not always consistent in their usage of a particular dialect of Aramaic and often combine Eastern and Western Aramaic features, and 2) the influence of other Targum texts on the Liturgical Targum (in particular Targum Onqelos) brings with it an added level of linguistic diversity, as traditionally Eastern or Western dialectal forms are used interchangeably throughout the witnesses. This further complicates the situation: do Babylonian forms in an otherwise Palestinian Targum text indicate Eastern influence in the text, or are they simply variants introduced due to the ubiquity of texts like Targum Onqelos? This latter phenomenon will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 5.
One typical example of inconsistency in the liturgical witnesses is the interchange of
Another example of Eastern and Western dialectic variation is the lexeme
We also find inconsistent usage of the 3rd masculine plural suffix on masculine plural nouns. In general, the Western Aramaic form is -
We find other interchanges such as the mixed usage of the forms
The inconsistency or diversity on the linguistic front has been noted in Targum research, particularly in the study of the toseftot.20 It is important to consider that manuscripts of the Liturgical Targum (as well as other contemporaneous Targum manuscripts) were transmitted by medieval European scribes, who did not speak Aramaic (or even Hebrew) as their native language. They learned Aramaic as part of their training, but on the basis of a variety of works of both Babylonian and Palestinian origins.21 As a result, and illustrated by our data, the boundaries between different dialects became vague. Eastern and Western forms became interchangeable, and texts became linguistically heterogenous in character.
3.1 Excursus: Vocalization
The vast majority of the manuscripts in the corpus are vocalized, which we have noted per manuscript in the previous section. However, we will not treat vocalization in this study for one main reason: the vocalization in Western Targum manuscripts is largely a picture of inconsistency and illegibility—an unfortunate reality that was already noted in the sixteenth century by linguist Eliyahu Baḥur, who argued that it was virtually impossible to compile a grammar of the Targums, the study of which is complicated greatly by the immense variation in vocalization.22 Patmore noted the numerous difficulties associated with the vocalization in liturgical manuscripts to the Prophets,23 and Lehnardt concluded that the evidence “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 […].”24 S. Heijmans has argued that the inconsistency noted by scholars past and present is due to a misinterpretation of the vocalization signs, and that a comprehensive study of the Tiberian vocalization in Western manuscripts is needed to reopen the question of inconsistency.25 Unfortunately, such a study is outside the scope of the present work.
4 The Textual Families of the Liturgical Targum
A text-critical analysis of the Targum units within the mahzorim of the corpus has revealed three underlying textual families: Italian (LTgi), Ashkenazi (LTga), and Sephardi (LTgs).26 These groupings can be justified on the basis of various criteria, including scope of content, shared readings, and associated toseftot (expansions), as will be elaborated below. The name of the textual family does not necessarily indicate the provenance of each manuscript it contains; it represents the provenance of the majority of the manuscripts that constitute the textual family. For example, the Romanian mahzor (ms Oppenheim Add. 4º 171) aligns most closely to the Italian family, while the mahzor from Carpentras (t1664s) aligns most closely to the Sephardi family.
In addition to the descriptions of each textual family below, the toseftot at the end of this chapter serve as an ideal ‘case study’ to illustrate the differences between each textual family. The passage of the Decalogue could have easily served this purpose as well; however, it will be presented in full in the comparison of the Liturgical Targum and the Fragment Targums in the next chapter. The shared readings of the textual families in the Decalogue will further justify our groupings here. It is for this reason that we will mainly focus on the passage of the Song of the Sea (Ex 14:30–15:18) in this section below.
4.1 The Ashkenazi Family (LTga)
4.1.1 Scope
The Ashkenazi family contains the Palestinian Targum for the Song of the Sea (Ex 14:30–15:17) and the Decalogue (Ex 19:25–20:17). If a manuscript contains the verses before or after the Song of the Sea (Ex 13:18–14:29; 15:18–26), we find Targum Onqelos. However, in the verses before the Song of the Sea, we occasionally find some units that seem to be conflations of Onqelos and the Palestinian Targum. For example (bold are PalTg units), ms JTS 8092 contains (Ex 14:13)
4.1.2 Shared Readings
Table 2 presents the readings common to all Ashkenazi manuscripts in the middle column, with exceptions in the footnotes. The right-hand column presents what is preserved in the other textual families of the Liturgical Targum.
As we see in Table 2, the Ashkenazi family shares many readings with the Sephardi family (LTgs), which indicates that these two textual families are more closely related to one another than to the Italian group (LTgi). This confirms the results of Kaufman and Maori, who grouped the Sephardi manuscript in their corpus (their ‘PRM’, our t1609s) together with the Ashkenazi mahzorim (as P/Mahzor)30 on account of their textual affinity. A large contributing factor to the variation between LTga,s and LTgi is the underlying influence of Targum Onqelos. Evidently the ubiquity of Onqelos had a strong impact on the transmission of LTga, as not infrequently do we find Onqelos forms where other families of LTg preserve PalTg (see Chapter 5).
The most significant variation between LTga and the other families can be found in the toseftot and the Decalogue,31 where LTga preserves versions that are different (often more expanded) than those found in LTgi, though some of them are very similar to those found in LTgs. For the Decalogue, both LTga and LTgs consistently preserve
Table 2
Shared readings of the Liturgical Targum in Ashkenazi manuscripts
|
Ex 14:30 |
|
= LTgs ≠ LTgi 35 |
|
Ex 14:31 |
|
= LTgs ≠ LTgi |
|
Ex 15:1 |
|
= LTgs ≠ LTgi |
|
Ex 15:2 |
|
= LTgs ≠ LTgi |
|
Ex 15:3 |
Tosefta Tosefta |
≈LTgi = LTgs ≠ LTgi (Ex 14:13–14) |
|
Ex 15:4 |
|
≠ LTgi |
|
Ex 15:5 |
|
≠ LTgi = LTgs ≠ LTgi ≠ LTgi |
|
Ex 15:6 |
|
≈LTgs ≠ LTgi = LTgs ≠ LTgi |
|
Ex 15:7 |
|
= LTgs ≠ LTgi |
|
|
= LTgs ≠ LTgi = LTgs ≠ LTgi |
|
|
Ex 15:8 |
|
= LTgs ≠ LTgi |
|
Ex 15:9 |
|
= LTgs ≠ LTgi = LTgs ≠ LTgi |
|
Ex 15:10 |
|
= LTgs ≠ LTgi |
|
Ex 15:11 |
|
= LTgs ≠ LTgi |
|
Ex 15:12 |
Tosefta |
= LTgs ≈LTgi |
|
Ex 15:13 |
|
= LTgs ≠ LTgi = t1636s ≠ t1609s ≠ LTgi |
|
Ex 15:14 |
|
= LTgs ≈LTgi ≠ LTgi,s |
|
Ex 15:15 |
|
= LTgs ≠ LTgi |
|
Ex 15:16 |
|
= LTgs ≠ LTgi = LTgs ≠ LTgi |
|
Ex 15:17 |
= LTgi = LTgs |
|
|
Ex 15:18 |
Tosefta 58 |
= LTgs ≠ LTgi |
4.1.3 Other Characteristics
The most important consideration concerning the Ashkenazi family is that the geographic region represented by this group is the largest of the three families. The Ashkenazi family contains manuscripts according to the Eastern and Western Ashkenazi liturgical rites as well as the (old) French rite.59 The fact that the manuscripts exhibit more variation vis-à-vis one another than the members of other textual families is therefore expected.
Even so, we find a great deal of internal variation among the witnesses of LTga,60 though the majority of these variants can be attributed to the influence of TgOnq, which is evident throughout the manuscripts (see Chapter 5). LTga in many cases appears to be a text that has undergone a ‘fluid’ transmission, with frequent corrections of the text in the margins. For example, ms Add. 19664 frequently corrects Onqelosized forms back to their Palestinian forms (e.g., Ex 14:13
Both LTga and LTgs exhibit a high affinity with the text for Pesach and Shavuot contained in FragTgP, to the extent that we could consider these to be closely genealogically related (see discussion in Chapter 4).
4.2 The Italian Family (LTgi)
4.2.1 Scope
While the other textual families generally span the entire reading of the seventh day of Pesach (Ex 13:17–15:26), LTgi only includes the PalTg toseftot for Ex 13:17 and 14:13–14, and then the entirety of a version of PalTg for the Song of the Sea (14:30–15:18).
4.2.2 Shared Readings
The variant readings with regard to LTga have been listed in Table 2 above. We present in Table 3 below any remaining readings shared by all witnesses to the Italian family.
LTgi contains unique versions of Ex 15:3 and Ex 15:18 [= TgCGFF] that essentially expand what we find in TgNeof.61 In fact, LTgi quite frequently aligns closely with TgNeof (e.g., in Ex 15:4 and Ex 15:7). This is perhaps most evident in the Decalogue, where LTgi often preserves a less expanded version of the commandments [≈TgNeof] than the ones we find in LTga,s. We also find minor variants, for example the clause (Ex 15:1)
4.2.3 Other Characteristics
Kaufman and Maori recognized that their grouping of P/Mahzor did not apply to the Italian mahzor they consulted (ms Sassoon 405).62 Indeed, a comparison of LTgi and LTga,s reveals significant differences. The most significant of these differences, as mentioned in the previous section, can be found in the toseftot, which will be discussed and presented below. It is worth mentioning here that the toseftot in LTgi are often presented as separate entities from the verse with which they are associated. For example, the expansion
Table 3
Shared readings for the Liturgical Targum in Italian manuscripts
|
Ex 14:13–14 |
Tosefta |
≠ LTga (Ex 15:3) |
|
Ex 15:3 |
|
≠ LTga,s (Tosefta |
|
Ex 15:4 |
|
≠ LTga,s |
|
Ex 15:18 |
|
≠ LTga,s (Tosefta |
The Italian manuscripts exhibit a stable transmission, with very little variation among the witnesses, especially in comparison to LTga. In general, we find a higher ‘loyalty’ to the PalTg, with very few instances of Onqelosization. In the many cases where we find LTga struggling with two or more forms (often due to influence from TgOnq), LTgi displays remarkable uniformity. For example, Ex 15:1 yields many different results for the Hebrew
4.3 The Sephardi Family (LTgs)
4.3.1 Scope
The Sephardi manuscripts are unique for two reasons: firstly, they are the smallest textual family in the corpus, with only three manuscripts (t1609s, t1636s, t1664s). The first two are manuscripts of the Passover Haggadah according to the Sephardi rite, and the last one is a mahzor according to the Rite of Carpentras (Southern France). Secondly, LTgs preserves the Liturgical Targum for the entirety of both the readings for the seventh day of Pesach (Ex 13:17–15:26) and the first day of Shavuot (Ex 19:1–20:26)—the only other known manuscript to contain these units is FragTgP. The passage of Pesach and Shavuot is presented back-to-back in the two manuscripts of the Passover Haggadah (t1609s and t1636s), in contrast to the mahzorim which contain prayers and blessings for each festival in between the passages. As explained in the previous sections, LTga preserves TgOnq for the verses preceding and following the Song of the Sea (Ex 14:30–15:17) and the Decalogue (Ex 20:1–20:17), whereas LTgi preserves only the PalTg for these two sections (and not the verses preceding or following).
4.3.2 Shared Readings
When they both preserve PalTg, LTgs and LTga often align very closely, which is why Kaufman and Maori grouped these two textual families under one umbrella together with FragTgP (P/Mahzor). However, as we will see in the discussion of the toseftot (below) and the following chapter, LTgs is a slightly different text than LTga on many occasions.
Regarding the toseftot, LTgs frequently aligns broadly with LTga, as we will see below. The
4.3.3 Other Characteristics
Table 4
Shared readings for the Liturgical Targum in Sephardi manuscripts
|
Ex 14:14 |
|
≠ LTga |
|
Ex 15:2 |
|
≠ LTgi ≠ LTga |
The verses before and after the Song of the Sea and the Decalogue preserved in LTgs align very closely to the texts of TgNeof and FragTgV,P; these texts show little variation regarding these parts of the readings. For the Song of the Sea and the Decalogue, LTga and LTgs align greatly with the text contained in FragTgP. However, as Kaufman and Maori correctly pointed out: “Paris 110 [= FragTgP] and Parma [= t1609s] are even more closely related in terms of their wording and, in particular, in the sharing of expansions unique to them dealing with the justification for the various commandments, expansions generally unparalleled elsewhere in preserved rabbinic literature.”66 Not only in the expansions associated with the Decalogue can we see that LTgs and FragTgP have a high affinity with each other—the amount of shared readings between only LTgs and FragTgP is overwhelming and it is clear that these form a distinct textual family, closely related to LTga but nonetheless separate. These verses warrant their own discussion in the following chapter.
Though we only have three manuscripts of this family in the corpus, they reflect a stable transmission, certainly when we compare it to LTga. Like LTgi, LTgs shows a high level of affinity with both the continuous PalTg and FragTg traditions, especially in the verses preceding and following the Song of the Sea and the Decalogue. There are more instances of Onqelosization than in LTgi, but far fewer than in LTga.
4.4 Summary
We have identified and discussed three different textual families within the Liturgical Targum. These families were differentiated on the basis of two main criteria: their scope (i.e., the verses covered) and their shared readings. Thirdly, we discussed some of their alignments with other known Targums, as well as matters of transmission.
LTga and LTgs are the largest in scope (i.e., contain the greatest number of verses) because they include the verses before and after the Song of the Sea and the Decalogue—which are missing from LTgi. However, where LTga preserves Onqelos for these verses, LTgs preserves a version of the PalTg that is very closely aligned to the text found in FragTgP (see the following chapter). For the Song of the Sea and the Decalogue, LTga and LTgs share many readings, however within the toseftot and the Decalogue, the distinctions between these two families become more evident. In general, LTgs preserves a text that is more or less ‘Palestinian’ in character, whereas LTga is very heavily influenced by Targum Onqelos. Whereas LTgs reflects a more or less stable transmission (bearing in mind we only have three witnesses for this family), LTga exhibits frequent (albeit often minor) variation among its witnesses and indicates a more ‘fluid’ transmission.
LTgi preserves the least number of verses but preserves a text that is greatly aligned to what we find in the continuous PalTg tradition (i.e., Targum Neofiti). It reflects very little influence from Targum Onqelos. The coherence of the Italian family is remarkable, with very little variation among the manuscripts.
5 Tosefta Targums
5.1 Background
Part of what makes the study of Targum more exciting, but simultaneously more complicated are the many toseftot (sg. tosefta; additions, expansions) found in and around the Targum texts. An exhaustive survey of previous literature has been made by Houtman and Sysling;67 we summarize only the most relevant parts in this section. The toseftot incorporate both halakhic and aggadic themes from across the Jewish corpus, and often serve to expand or interpret select passages from the Hebrew Bible. These works were composed by many different authors, varying not only in provenance but also greatly in chronology.68 Though many of the toseftot in our corpus were clearly popular—evidenced by their wide circulation—some toseftot were local compositions that were only transmitted within particular communities.69
As we just mentioned, a tosefta can also be called an addition; though this immediately begs the question: an addition to what? Past scholarly literature, beginning with the nineteenth-century Wissenschaft des Judentums movement, has largely used the designation of ‘Tosefta Targums’ in the context of Targum Jonathan. Zunz argued that the Tosefta Targums were evidence of a once complete Palestinian Targum to the Prophets,70 though his argument was unconvincing for some of his contemporaries as the language of the Tosefta Targums resembled that of the Babylonian Talmud more than the extant Palestinian Targums.71 The publication of the text of Targum Jonathan according to Codex Reuchlin and its marginalia by de Lagarde72 reignited the discussion of a once complete Palestinian Targum to the Prophets. Bacher73 went on to categorize the different toseftot on the basis of their headings within the manuscript and concluded in favor of the existence of a Palestinian Targum to the Prophets, though this opinion was not shared by all.74
Towards the end of the twentieth century, study of the Tosefta Targums in relation to Targum Jonathan would focus largely on issues of language and dialect. Tal75 argued that the language of the Tosefta Targums was diverse in Babylonian and Palestinian features because these works were composed much later than previously argued, by non-native speakers of Aramaic. These authors had learned Aramaic on the basis of a variety of sources, both Babylonian and Palestinian.
By far the greatest contribution to the study of the toseftot to Targum Jonathan was Kasher76 who collected and transcribed a large collection of toseftot to the Prophets, coming from a variety of sources. He argued that the corpus was heterogenous; these were expansions that were composed at different times by many different authors. The most prevalent context in which these toseftot are located is within the liturgical readings.77 Kasher’s work was further built upon by Houtman and Sysling,78 who followed Kasher’s logic and argued that the diversity of the toseftot made it impossible for any kind of generalization of the corpus.79 Contrary to Kasher, who argued that the toseftot originated in the context of the haftarot,80 Houtman and Sysling argued that there are no grounds to assume such an origin for the toseftot, and suggested that they may well have functioned in other contexts, such as the Beit Midrash.81 Ultimately they concluded that the toseftot must have developed from the text of Targum Jonathan itself, a conclusion that was also shared by Patmore in his work on the transmission of the Targum to Samuel.82
The twentieth century also saw a renewed interest in Targum with the Tosefta Targums taking center stage in research. The publication of material from the Cairo Genizah83 brought a wealth of manuscripts containing the Palestinian Targum, many of which contained toseftot to the Pentateuch.84 Some work had already been done concerning the toseftot to the Pentateuch (which we covered more exhaustively in the first chapter), but this work pales in comparison to that of the Prophets. We will briefly summarize the most relevant points. Most notably, Epstein85 and Ginsburger86 collected and presented some of the toseftot related to the liturgy. Both of them argued for a late date of composition for these works. Gleßmer dedicated some parts of his unpublished dissertation to the study of the toseftot in liturgical manuscripts (in particular
One of the problems faced by researchers of the toseftot to the Pentateuch, is inconsistent terminology. This is an issue that Houtman and Sysling brought to the foreground concerning the toseftot to the Prophets,90 but, in my view, its impact is much more prevalent in the study of the Pentateuch, and more specifically, the Liturgical Targum. One of the first inconsistencies in terminology is the interchangeable use of ‘Tosefta Targum’ and ‘Targumic Tosefta’.91 In our view, the former’s emphasis is on Targum (i.e., it adheres to the classifications applied to the ‘genre’ of Targum), while the latter refers to additional material that is related to the Targum, either because it was read or studied alongside it, or because it shares midrashic or aggadic material with the Targum.92 The exact distinction between these two terms is admittedly foggy, but we will try to substantiate our arguments with examples from our own corpus below.
Another inconsistent use of terminology is the misattribution of Tosefta Targums as reshuyyot or ‘introductory poems’.93 This is most evident in the work of Ginsburger, who considered
Part of the problem is exacerbated by the Italian mahzorim. Typical of the Italian family is to introduce the Targum reading as alfabetin (
The final terminological difficulty concerns the piyyutim that accompany the Liturgical Targum.99 The famous piyyut
Let us recapitulate. For the purpose of this work, under the term ‘Tosefta Targums’ to the Liturgical Targum, we consider material that replaces, has been incorporated within a verse (e.g.,
5.2 Tosefta Targums in the Liturgical Targum
Let us then turn to the Tosefta Targums. All witnesses of the Liturgical Targum contain the Palestinian Targum for the Song of the Sea (Ex 14:30–15:18) and the Decalogue (Ex 20:2–20:17). This Targum tradition is characterized by the large expansions that are common to all witnesses, most famously
The Tosefta Targums will be presented according to their most attested versions (i.e., the version that is shared by the majority of manuscripts within a textual family). For clarity and legibility, only the most significant textual variants will be noted in the footnotes. In the cases where there are two or more versions of a Tosefta Targum, these will be presented side-by-side with their major differences in bold.
5.2.1 Ex 13:17106 והוה כד שלח פרעה
|
LTgi |
LTga,s |
|
|---|---|---|
|
1 |
|
|
|
It happened that when Pharaoh sent the people out, the Lord did not lead them by the way of the land of the Philistines though it was near, for the Lord said: |
It happened that when Pharaoh sent the people out, the Lord did not lead them by the way of the land of the Philistines though it was near. |
|
|
‘Lest the people tremble when they see the war of their brothers who went out from Egypt before the (appointed) time (see 1 Chr 7:21) of the Lord, and return to Egypt’ (see Ex 13:17). |
||
|
2 |
|
|
|
For two hundred thousand great warriors wielding swords and spears, men of war that went out from Egypt with shields and weapons and spears, all of them were from the tribe of Ephraim. |
Two hundred thousand who went out from Egypt thirty years before the (appointed) time of the Lord (see 1 Chr 7:21), one hundred thousand footmen, men of war, all of them were from the tribe of Ephraim wielding shields and weapons and spears. |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
Behold! These are the dried bones that were brought to life by means of Ezekiel the prophet in the valley of Dura (see Ezek 37:1–14). |
Behold! These are the dried bones that were brought to life by means of Ezekiel the prophet in the valley of Dura (see Ezek 37:1–14). |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
From these bones were made drinking vessels for Nebuchadnezzar the wicked. |
From these bones were made vessels from which Nebuchadnezzar the wicked drank. |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
And in the hour that the Lord brought them to life by means of Ezekiel the prophet, they struck that wicked man upon his face, and bone was joined to bone; and they came to life and a great many armies stood upon their legs! |
And in the hour that the Lord brought them to life by means of Ezekiel the prophet, they struck him—that wicked man—upon his face, and bone was joined to bone; and they came to life and a great many armies stood upon their legs! |
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
All of them stood up except one that did not stand up; and the prophet said before the Lord: ‘Oh Master of all worlds, Oh Lord, what were the deeds of this man, for all of them that stood up, yet this man did not stand up?’ |
All of them stood up except one man that did not stand up. The prophet said: ‘What were the deeds of this man that did not stand up?’ |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
The Lord said to him: ‘He gave loans at excessive interest, should he live? He will not live!’ Thus, the Lord showed ( |
Thus, the Lord said to him: ‘He gave loans at excessive interest, should he live? He will not live!’ Thus, the Lord showed ( |
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
And thus the Lord said: ‘Lest the people tremble when they see war and return to Egypt.’ |
And thus the Lord said to him: ‘Lest the people tremble when they see their dead brothers, and be fearful, and return to Egypt.’ |
The first expansion one encounters in the mahzorim for the seventh day of Pesach (Ex 13:17),
Zunz143 and Ziemlich144 both mention the expansion though they do not transcribe it in full. Ginsburger was, to my knowledge, the first to publish a full transcription from a mahzor (the printed version of Mahzor Vitry, Hurwitz).145 Not long after, Epstein published the version of the tosefta he found in two Biblia Rabbinica (Constantinople 1546 and Salonica 1520). A century later, Díez-Macho published a transcription of the version in Parma, Palatina, ms 3089, a thirteenth-century French mahzor. Gleßmer developed an in-depth analysis of the evolution of the expansion and its composition in relation to other versions in the PalTg (and TgPsJ).146 Sperber also noted this expansion under
The midrashic character of the expansion is quite evident, though it is composed of a conflation of several different rabbinic traditions. A tosefta to Ez 37 (as found in the Biblia Rabbinica, Salonica 1520) contains much of the same content as LTg though spread out throughout a longer expansion.148 The expansion begins with the mention of a war
The second tradition (attributed to a baraita, b. Sanh. 92b) mentions the dried bones that were brought back to life by Ezekiel in the valley of Dura (see Ez 37), which ended up striking Nebuchadnezzar on the mouth. The conflation of these two traditions in LTg poses a geographical conundrum, as the first tradition took place in Gath (Palestine) whereas the second, referencing Nebuchadnezzar, was thought of as having taken place somewhere in Babylon. Gleßmer argues that originally the two traditions were circulating separately but over time influenced each other (i.e., the Ephraimites indirectly referenced in Ex 13:17 entered the text of Ez 37, after which the episode of Ezekiel entered the text of Ex 13:17, etc.).151 The overlap in material was likely catalyzed by the fact that Ez 37 is the passage read on the Sabbath preceding the seventh day of Pesach upon which Ex 13:17 is read. The depiction of the dried bones as drinking vessels for the wicked Nebuchadnezzar appears in a tosefta to Ez 37 though this seems to be an invention of the author of that tosefta.152 Additionally, the second half of the expansion mentions usury which also appears in Pirqe deRabbi Eliezer (pre).153
The Ashkenazi/Sephardi text begins with the first half of Targum Onqelos, after which follows the expansion, and ends with the second half of Targum Onqelos, replacing
The material in the two versions of the expansion is predominantly the same, though there are certain variants that are exclusive to each textual family. For example, in LTga,s we find explicit reference to the
Overall, the Italian tradition of this expansion is more stable. In general, the kinds of variants within the Italian group are minor, such as the substitution of the status constructus with
FragTgP, TgCGX, and LTga,s all share a remarkable resemblance in the case of Ex 13:17. All three have Onqelos as their ‘base’ text: starting with the first half of Onqelos, incorporating the expansion in the middle of the verse and ending with the second half of Onqelos again. Looking at LTga,s and FragTgP we see virtually identical texts—the variants between these two texts are limited to small morphological (e.g.,
TgCGX’s heading as
TgPsJ’s version of this verse presents all but the last two words of Targum Onqelos (albeit in different wording), with a small plus
5.2.2 Ex 14:13–14 / Ex 15:3154 ארבע כיתין
|
LTgi |
LTga |
LTgs |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
The Israelites formed four groups when they were standing by the Sea of Reeds. |
The Israelites formed four groups when they were standing by the Sea of Reeds. |
The Israelites formed four groups when they were standing on the shore of the Sea of Reeds. |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
One group said: ‘Let us return to Egypt.’ |
One said: ‘Let us fall into the sea.’ |
One said: ‘Let us fall into the sea.’ |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
One group said: ‘Let us fall to the sea.’ |
One said: ‘Let us return to Egypt.’ |
One said: ‘Let us return to Egypt.’ |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
One group said: ‘Let us form battle-ranks before them.’ |
One said: ‘Let us chant before them and confuse them.’ |
One said: ‘Let us form battle-ranks before them.’ |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
And one said: ‘Let us shout168 before them and confuse them.’ |
And one said: ‘Let us form battle-ranks before them.’ |
And one said: ‘Let us chant before them and confuse them.’ |
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
[Regarding] the group that said: ‘Let us fall to the sea,’ Moses said to them: ‘Do not fear, stand firm and see the salvation of the Lord, that he has performed for you this day.’ |
[Regarding] the group that said: ‘Let us fall to the sea,’ Moses said to them: ‘Do not fear, stand firm and see the salvation of the Lord, that he has performed for you this day.’ |
[Regarding] the group that said: ‘Let us fall to the sea,’ Moses said to them: ‘Do not fear, stand firm and see the salvation of the Lord—[the one] who has performed miracles for you—this day.’ |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
[Regarding] the group that said: ‘Let us return to Egypt,’ Moses said to them: ‘Do not fear, as you see the Egyptians this day, you will never see them ever again.’ |
[Regarding] the group that said: ‘Let us return to Egypt,’ Moses said to them: ‘Do not fear, because as you see the Egyptians this day, you will never see them ever again.’ |
[Regarding] the group that said: ‘Let us return to Egypt,’ Moses said to them: ‘Do not fear, because as you see the Egyptians this day, you will never see them ever again.’ |
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
[Regarding] the group that said: ‘Let us form battle-ranks before them,’ Moses said to them: ‘Do not fear, stand up, be silent, and give glory, praise and exultation to your God.’ |
[Regarding] the group that said: ‘Let us chant before them and confuse them,’ Moses said to them: ‘Do not fear, stand up, be silent and give glory, praise and exultation to your God.’ |
[Regarding] the group that said: ‘Let us form battle-ranks before them,’ Moses said to them: ‘Do not fear, stand up, be silent and give glory, praise, and exultation to your God.’ |
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
[Regarding] the group that said: ‘Let us shout before them and confuse them,’ Moses said to them: ‘Do not fear, the Lord is a warrior, (and) he will form the battle-ranks of your victorious battles.’ |
[Regarding] the group that said: ‘Let us form battle-ranks before them,’ Moses said to them: ‘Do not fear, the Lord is a warrior, and he will form the battle-ranks of your victorious battles.’ |
[Regarding] the group that said: ‘Let us chant before them and confuse them,’ Moses said to them: ‘Do not fear, the Lord is a warrior, and he will form the battle-ranks of your victorious battles.’ |
The expansion of the
Zunz184 mentions this expansion (though he only provides the opening words). Epstein185 published the version he found in Mahzor Vitry (Hurwitz), and Klein mentions this expansion in his discussion of the Fragment Targums.186 Díez-Macho published the expansion as he found it in Parma, Palatina, ms 3089 and discusses some of the rabbinic and midrashic parallels.187
The story of the four groups of Israelites standing on the shores of the Red Sea knew a history outside of its attestations within the various Palestinian Targums and a Hebrew version is attested in the Palestinian Talmud (y. Ta’an. 5:2). It endured a continued popularity throughout the Middle Ages, appearing in various midrashic collections such as Leqach tov, Sekhel tov, including an expanded version in Sefer haYashar. Exactly how and when the Aramaic version(s) of the expansion originated is unclear, however their attestations in various redactions of the Palestinian Targum as well as their continued transmission within liturgical manuscripts signify their popularity alongside their Hebrew counterparts.
The expansion is structured as a dialogue between the four groups of Israelites and Moses. With Pharaoh’s troops in pursuit, the four groups plead with Moses and suggest four different routes of action. To each of these suggestions, Moses provides an answer in the form of (part of) a biblical verse. The verses in question are Ex 14:13–14, which is also where the expansion is found in all but one of the Palestinian Targum witnesses, including LTgi. In FragTgP and LTga,s, we find the expansion at Ex 15:3.188 In this transposition, the text underwent a fundamental change.
|
The Israelites formed four groups … |
|
|
(a) One group said: ‘Let us fall into the sea.’ |
|
|
(b) One group said: ‘Let us return to Egypt.’ |
|
|
(c) One group said: ‘Let us form battle-ranks before them.’ |
|
|
(d) One group said: ‘Let us chant before them and confuse them.’ |
|
|
[Regarding] the group that said […], Moses said to them, ‘Do not fear […]’ |
|
|
(a) ‘Let us fall into the sea.’ |
( |
|
(b) ‘Let us return to Egypt.’ |
( |
|
(c) ‘Let us form battle-ranks before them.’ |
( |
|
(d) ‘Let us chant before them and confuse them.’ |
( |
The table above shows the ‘correct’ order of the suggestions and Moses’ answers. The four suggestions: (a)
If we compare with the rest of LTg, however, we find that Ex 15:3 has been incorporated into the expansion in (9), conflating with the first half of Ex 14:14 (
Michael Klein (1980) noticed the peculiar form of the
-
Festival-liturgical Targums191 frequently transfer expansions from their original places to verses within the Song of the Sea. And, as it is the case for most targumic expansions to end with the verse they are expanding, in the transposition of
ארבע כיתין , the ending was changed to accommodate its new place at Ex 15:3. This sometimes led to a case of alternative sequencing; answers (ג ) and (ד ) were switched so that the expansion would end with Ex 15:3. Klein noticed that in some liturgical manuscripts, suggestions (c) and (d) remained in their original positions, which led to incorrect sequencing: to the group that suggests to form battle-ranks (c), Moses answers (ד ) ‘stand and be silent’; and to the group that suggests to shout before them and confuse them, Moses answers (ג ) ‘the Lord is he who will fight your battles’. -
FragTgP also transposes
ארבע כיתין from Ex 14:13–14 to Ex 15:3, and contains the alternative sequencing, which, in Klein’s eyes, contributed to his suspicion of some of the material in FragTgP as belonging to the festival-liturgical genre.
Klein’s first observation was that many liturgical manuscripts transfer expansions from their original places to the Song of the Sea. This is certainly the case for
Furthermore, as Klein noticed in a few manuscripts, the transposition of the tosefta led to the adaptation of the text and the alternative sequencing of suggestions (c) and (d), and their corresponding answers (
The question remains why the expansion was transposed in the first place. This is likely due to the diminishing tradition of reading the Targum in the synagogue—the direct effect of which is already visible in the fact that, by the Middle Ages, only the readings for the seventh day of Pesach and the first day of Shavuot have stood the test of time. These readings, it would seem, were further reduced.
This reduction is most evident in the Italian mahzorim, which preserve only select expansions (e.g.,
Outside of the liturgical manuscripts, all PalTg witnesses have
|
Ex 14:13 |
|
|---|---|
|
|
TgOnq |
|
|
LTga |
|
|
LTgs |
|
|
FragTgP |
|
Ex 14:14 |
|
|---|---|
|
|
TgOnq |
|
|
LTga |
|
|
LTgs |
|
|
FragTgP |
For Ex 14:13, LTga filled the lacuna with the text of TgOnq, with some vestiges of PalTg visible in the footnotes. The text of
Another possibility, which becomes quite evident in Ex 14:14, is that scribes recycled or reconstructed material from the
5.2.3 Ex 15:2 והוה כד אישתעבידו
|
LTgi |
LTga |
|
|---|---|---|
|
1 |
|
[…] |
|
It happened when the Israelites were enslaved in Egypt after the death of Joseph the righteous, (that) [the Egyptians] decreed three severe decrees concerning them. |
When the Israelites were enslaved in Egypt after the death of Joseph the righteous, [the Egyptians] decreed three severe decrees concerning them. |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
The first decree: to make their lives bitter by means of clay and bricks. |
The first decree: to make their lives bitter by means of clay and bricks. |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
The second: [to make their lives bitter] with all work in the field. |
The second: [to make their lives bitter] with all work in the field. |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
The third: to kill, upon the birthstool, all of their male children. |
The third: to kill all their male children. |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
And when the wise women had mercy, they [= the Egyptians] decreed to throw them [= the children] into the river. |
And when the sorcerers saw that the midwives were begging the wise women, they [= the Egyptians] decreed to throw them [= the children] into the river. |
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
[As for] the daughters of Israel, what did they do when the time came to give birth? They went out to the field and gave birth there, then they abandoned their children there, and returned to their houses. |
When the time came for the women of Israel to give birth, they went out to the field and gave birth there, and abandoned their children and returned. |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
The angel would come and take him away and wash him and swaddle him, and place in his hands two stones. From one he sucked honey and from one he sucked milk until they were fully grown. And when they were fully grown, they returned to their houses. |
The angel would come and take him away and wash him, and place in his hands two stones. From one he sucked milk and from one he sucked honey until they were fully grown, and they returned to the house of their fathers. |
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
And when they saw that great hand between the waves, they recognized it, and they all opened their mouths together and said: ‘Our strength and our many praises are awesome for eternity. The Lord spoke by his Memrah and was our redeemer.’ And the Israelites said: ‘This is he, the God of our fathers, and we will exalt him.’ |
And the Egyptians came and saw them, and tried to grab them, but the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them [= the children]. And they [= the Egyptians] brought oxen and plowed over them but were unable to. And when they [= the children] saw that hand, here upon the sea, they opened their mouths and said: ‘This is he, our God, and we will praise the God of our fathers and exalt him.’ |
The expansion
Ginsburger assumed both versions of the tosefta were identical, though Klein pointed out this is not the case.217 Indeed there are some significant differences as we will see below. Klein published the version in our t1629a, along with an apparatus with all the variants in relation to t1618i (Parma, Palatina ms 3132, a fifteenth-century Italian mahzor; not in our corpus).218
Italian mahzorim preserve a version of the PalTg for Ex 15:2 that is more or less identical to what we find in TgNeof. The Ashkenazi mahzorim that do not preserve the expansion also contain the entirety of PalTg for Ex 15:2, identical to LTgi apart from one difference
This particular expansion seeks to answer the question: how did the Israelites know it was yhwh helping them at the splitting of the Red Sea?220 Klein noted a different tradition with some overlapping elements in FragTgN and TgPsJ;221 in fact this other tradition is also present in FragTgV and TgNeofMg1. We will present both versions here (our translation largely aligns with Klein’s).
|
FragTgN,V, TgNeofMg1 |
TgPsJ |
|---|---|
|
|
|
|
From their mothers’ breasts the babies (lit. sucklings) raised (lit. showed) their fingers to their fathers and said to them: ‘This is he, our Father, who let us suck honey from the rock and anointed us with oil from the flint stone.’ The Israelites responded and said to one another: ‘This is he, our God. Let us praise him, the God of our fathers, and exalt him.’ |
From their mothers’ breasts the babies (lit. sucklings) raised (lit. showed) their fingers to their fathers and said: ‘This is he, our God, who let us suck honey from the rock and anointed us from the flint stone. When our mothers went out to the field, gave birth, and abandoned us there, he sent the angel and washed us and swaddled us. Let us now praise him, the God of our fathers, and exalt him.’ |
As Klein pointed out, the binding element between the (non-LTg) traditions are the two stones from which the infants receive nourishment (the change of oil to milk in LTg is secondary because babies do not generally suck oil, argues Klein); which in itself is a midrash to Deut 32:13.222 There is, however, a significant difference between the tradition in LTg and the other PalTg witnesses. In LTg, the adult Israelites recall their childhood and the two stones that nourished them, and recognize the ‘hand that took them away, washed them, swaddled them’ parting the waves of the Red Sea. In the non-LTg tradition, the babies are indicating that they recognize their God and are (literally) pointing it out to the adult Israelites.223
Klein argues that the version we find in the other PalTg witnesses is secondary and artificial; in other words, the idea that the babies are both praising the Lord and recollecting the stones came about due to a conflation (and subsequent reduction) of two separate traditions.224 The original tradition found in the non-LTg witnesses is based on a midrash to Ps 8:3, which does not mention the two stones but was likely connected to Ex 15:2 due to their usage of
Klein pointed out that the version in TgPsJ must be secondary to the version in LTg but did not go further into the direct overlap in content between the version in LTg (more specifically LTgi) and TgPsJ, that is missing from the other PalTg witnesses. The ending of TgPsJ contains an addition namely:
5.2.4 Ex 15:3 והוה כד איתגלי
|
LTgi |
LTga |
|
|---|---|---|
|
1 |
|
|
|
It happened when the Lord revealed himself to Moses, that he sent him off before Pharaoh the wicked. |
It happened when the Lord revealed himself to Moses that he sent him before Pharaoh the wicked. |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
He said to him: ‘Go before Pharaoh the wicked and say to him: “The God of the Hebrews sent me before you so that you may send (out) his people, that they may worship before him in the desert.” ’ |
He said to him: ‘Go before Pharaoh and say to him: “The God of the Hebrews sent me before you that you may send (out) his people, that they may worship before him in the desert.” ’ |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
Moses went to the gate of the palace, and at the gate of the palace were lions, so that anyone who wanted to come before Pharaoh would throw meat, because they were afraid of them. |
At the gate of the palace were lions, so that anyone who wanted to come before Pharaoh would throw meat, because they were afraid of them. |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
When Moses came, the lions went out with great joy, like a dog (does) for his master when he returns from the field. |
Moses came to the gate of the palace of Pharaoh, and the lions went out with great joy, like a dog (does) for his master when he returns from the field. |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
Moses came before Pharaoh and said to him: ‘The God of the Hebrews sent me before you so that you may send out his people, that they may worship before him in the desert.’ |
Moses went before Pharaoh and said to him: ‘The God of the Hebrews sent me before you so that you may send out his people, that they may worship before him in the desert.’ |
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
Pharaoh said to him: ‘Go now and return to me in an hour.’ Immediately, Pharaoh sent for the sorcerers and all of them came before Pharaoh. Pharaoh said to them: ‘One of the Jews came before me and said to me: “The God of the Hebrews sent me before you so that you may send out his people, that they may worship before him in the desert.” ’ |
Pharaoh said to him: ‘Return before me in one hour.’ And Pharaoh sent for the sorcerers and all of them came before Pharaoh. Pharaoh said to them: ‘One of the Jews came to me and said to me: “The God of the Hebrews sent me before you so that you may send out his people, that they may worship before him in the desert.” ’ |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
The sorcerers answered and said to him: ‘How did he come before you, despite the lions that are at your gate?’ Pharaoh said to them: ‘These lions were made (to act) like foxes244 before him.’ The sorcerers answered and said to him: ‘These are spells that he has cast (lit. omens that he has spoken); he is a sorcerer, like us.’ |
The sorcerers answered and said to him: ‘How did he come before you, despite the lions that are at your gate?’ Pharaoh said to them: ‘These lions were made (to act) like foxes before him.’ The sorcerers answered and said to him: ‘These are spells that he has cast (lit. omens that he has spoken); he is a sorcerer, like us.’ |
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
Immediately, Pharaoh sent for Moses and Moses came before Pharaoh. Pharaoh said to him: ‘What did you say to me?’ Moses said to him: ‘The God of the Hebrews sent me before you so that you may release his people, that they may worship before him in the desert.’ Pharaoh said to him: ‘What is his name?’ Moses said to him: ‘Adonai is his name, like his name, so is his strength.’ (see Ex 15:3) |
Pharaoh sent for Moses and Moses came before Pharaoh. Pharaoh said to him: ‘Tell me what you said to me.’ Moses said to him: ‘The God of the Hebrews sent me before you that you may let his people go, that they may worship before him in the desert.’ |
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
Pharaoh said to him: ‘How many troops does your God have?’ Moses said to him: ‘Thousands of thousands will serve him; great multitudes will stand before him.’ (cf. Dan 7:10). |
Pharaoh said to him: ‘How many troops does your God have?’ Moses said to him: ‘Thousands of thousands will serve him; great multitudes will stand before him.’ (cf. Dan 7:10). |
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
Pharaoh said to him: ‘What are his deeds?’ Moses said to him: ‘He formed the suckling child in his mother’s womb, and he created you in your mother’s womb.’ |
And Pharaoh said to him: ‘What has he done?’ Moses said to him: ‘He formed the suckling children in their mother’s womb, and he created you in your mother’s womb.’ Pharaoh said to him: ‘What is his name?’ Moses said: ‘Adonai is his name.’ (see Ex 15:3) |
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
Pharaoh said to him: ‘There has never been a lie such as yours. For I have created myself and this river (see Ez 29:3). Adonai, I do not know, and Israel, I will not release.’ |
Pharaoh said to him: ‘There has never been slander or falsehood such as yours. For I have created myself and this river. Adonai, I do not know, and Israel, I will not let go.’ |
The tosefta
This tosefta shares many elements with versions found in medieval midrashic literature, such as the extended version found in Sefer haYashar.258 We find an abbreviated version in Yalkut Shimoni 176.4. Ginsburger argues that this tosefta is the ‘literal’ (“wörtliche”) Aramaic translation of this midrash.259 However, there are some significant differences between the version in Sefer haYashar and the one we find in LTg. In the midrash, Moses and Aaron travel to Pharaoh together. In order to let people pass to see Pharaoh, the sorcerers have to use incantations to subdue the lions—which the sorcerers reference in LTg’s version (7).260 In the version in LTg, however, the visitors throw meat at the lions to distract them. In the midrash, Moses lifts his rod to subdue the lions, whereas in our version, the lions are simply happy to see Moses and approach him without needing subduing. The phraseology concerning the shaping of suckling children in their mothers’ wombs (10) also occurs in a tosefta to Amos 4:13.261
Because this expansion has—so far—only been attested in mahzorim, we are inclined to argue that this material is late (i.e., medieval) in origin. However, contrary to Ginsburger’s opinion, we believe that the Aramaic version preceded the Hebrew version found in Sefer haYashar, though our evidence is admittedly limited. One thirteenth-century Ashkenazi mahzor in our corpus (t1668a) consistently renders
Strangely, Ginsburger attributes this tosefta to Ex 15:4, though the version he published clearly contains (most of) Ex 15:3 towards the end, just like our versions contain it at 8 (LTgi) and 10 (LTga). The Ashkenazi manuscripts in our corpus preserve the expansion directly before
5.2.5 Ex 15:12 ימא וארעא
|
LTgi |
LTga,s |
|
|---|---|---|
|
1 |
|
|
|
The Sea and the Earth were arguing together and speaking. The Sea said to the Earth: ‘Claim your children.’ The Earth said to the Sea: ‘Claim those that you have killed (lit. your killed ones).’ |
The Sea and the Earth were arguing together. The Sea said to the Earth: ‘Claim your children.’ The Earth said to the Sea: ‘Claim those that you have killed (lit. your killed ones).’ |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
The Sea did not want to claim them, and (neither) did the Earth want to swallow them. |
The Earth did not wish to claim them, and (neither) did the Sea wish to claim them. |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
The Earth was fearful of the great Day of Judgment, lest they be required of her in the world to come. |
The Earth was fearful of the Father who is in the Heavens, should he require them from her in the world to come. |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
Immediately, you raised your right hand concerning the Earth in oath, Lord, and vowed that you would not require them in the world to come. So, the Earth opened her mouth and swallowed them. |
Then you raised your right hand, Lord, in oath, that you would not require them from her in the world to come. Immediately, the Earth opened her mouth and swallowed them. |
The tosefta
When comparing LTg with the versions in other PalTg witnesses, it is quite clear that there were two recensions of this tosefta in circulation. Both versions contain more or less the same information but have some slight differences in wording. The first version is that of LTgi, which is also more or less what we find in TgNeof, TgPsJ, FragTgV, and TgCGFF, though the latter manuscript contains some variation (i.e., the reordering of
There are two main differences between the two versions. Firstly, we find the simple reordering of the parties in (2), where in LTga and FragTgP (as well as TgCGFF) the Earth is mentioned first (as opposed to vice-versa in the other tradition). The second significant difference is the mentioning of the earth’s fear: in LTgi and related PalTg witnesses, the
Its attestation in various PalTg witnesses other than LTg may indicate that this tosefta material is early, though exactly how early is uncertain. The themes of the personification of the Sea and the Earth are reminiscent of the piyyut
5.2.6 Ex 12:42 / 15:18 ארבע לילוון
|
LTga,s |
|
|---|---|
|
1 |
|
|
Four nights were written in the Book of Remembrances. |
|
|
2 |
|
|
The first night (was) when the Lord revealed himself to the world to create it. The world was formless and void, and darkness was spread over the surface of the deep. By means of his Memrah, it was brightly lit, and he called it the first night. |
|
|
3 |
|
|
The second night (was) when the Lord revealed himself to Abraham between the (covenant of the) pieces. Abraham was one hundred years old, and Sarah, his wife, was ninety years old, to fulfill what Scripture says: ‘Abraham begot at one hundred years old, and Sarah gave birth at ninety years old.’ [Gen 17:15, 17; 21:5] And Isaac was thirty years old when he was offered upon the altar. The heavens were lowered and descended, and Isaac saw their foundations. His eyes wept profusely towards the heavens (lit. upwards). And he called it the second night. |
|
|
4 |
|
|
The third night was when the Lord revealed himself to the Egyptians in the middle of the night. (While) his left hand slew the firstborns of the Egyptians, his right (hand) saved the firstborns of Israel, to fulfill what Scripture says: ‘Israel is my firstborn son.’ [Ex 4:22] And he called it the third night. |
|
|
5 |
|
|
The fourth night will be when the Lord makes the world complete (at) the time of its redeeming. Chains of iron will be broken, and the servants of evil will be destroyed. Moses will go out from the wilderness and the King Messiah from Rome. This one will lead the head of the flock, and this one will lead the head of the flock. And the Memrah of the Lord will lead between the two of them, and they will walk together. And the Israelites will say: ‘The Lord is he; his kingdom is in this world and the world to come. Forever and ever, it is his.’ |
The majority of Ashkenazi and Sephardi manuscripts end the reading for the seventh day of Pesach with this tosefta to Ex 15:18,
Like so many of the other liturgical toseftot, Zunz noted it in his Literaturgeschichte.293 Ginsburger294 noted that the version he found in a mahzor (though he did not specify any manuscript details) was the same as the one he found in Mahzor Vitry and ‘meinem Fragmententhargum’, which in this case must refer to FragTgP. Díez-Macho295 noted the expansion and compared some elements in the mahzor version with other PalTg witnesses, and Klein296 noted that liturgical manuscripts moved the expansion from Ex 12:42 to Ex 15:18. By far the most comprehensive treatment of the expansion was done by R. Le Déaut in his La nuit pascale, who published and discussed the version found in TgNeof.297
This tosefta combines elements from across the Jewish corpus, referencing the creation story, the binding of Isaac, the exodus from Egypt, and the coming of the Messiah. The most relevant section for the festival of Pesach is the third night (4), which mentions the liberation of the Israelites after the slaying of the Egyptian firstborns. This link with Exodus material is likely why it was appropriate to read this tosefta as part of the reading for Pesach.298
The mention of the Messiah’s coming
The following clause and the repetition of
Díez-Macho mentioned that the version of the tosefta preserved in Parma, Palatina ms 3089 contains plenty of errors.309 He mentions the reading
Characteristic of the version in LTg, is the addition of Ex 15:18 at the end of the expansion, a clause that is missing from the versions in the other PalTg witnesses. This clause is secondary, i.e., it was added to the text of LTg after it was transposed to Ex 15:18. We see a similar phenomenon occur in
5.3 Summary
Our analysis of the Tosefta Targums in the Liturgical Targum has highlighted certain aspects of their development and history of transmission, which we will summarize below. In their efforts to reconstruct a singular Palestinian Targum from Ex 20, Kaufman and Maori offered some rudimentary criteria for organizing the expansions they encountered in the various witnesses chronologically:310
-
Expansions found in all witnesses in the same place (i.e., attached to the same verse) were considered to belong to “a relatively ancient stratum of the PalTg”, i.e., are the earliest.
-
Expansions found in the Liturgical Targum (their ‘P/Mahzor’) at one verse, but connected elsewhere to another verse were considered later than 1.
-
Expansions only found in the Liturgical Targum are likely the latest.
If we apply this classification on our material, we are left with the following:
-
ימא וארעא (Ex 15:12) -
ארבע כיתין (Ex 14:13–14/15:3); ארבע לילוון (Ex 12:42/15:18) -
והוה כד שלח פרעה (Ex 13:17); והוה כד אישתעבידו (Ex 15:2); והוה כד אתגלי (Ex 15:3)
It would seem Kaufman and Maori’s criteria are in line with our findings concerning the toseftot. The ‘oldest’ tosefta in our corpus,
The second category is perhaps the most revealing about the Liturgical Targum.
The transposition of the toseftot also revealed important clues about the nature of some of the material in FragTgP. This manuscript also exhibits the unique features of LTg, namely: the transposition and subsequent adaptations of
Finally, the third category contains toseftot that are likely the latest in terms of composition. These toseftot appear only in liturgical manuscripts. There are some exceptions, however.
The expansions
Some of the toseftot in category 3 contain material that overlaps with elements in TgPsJ. The material for Ex 13:17 appears to be a summary of
See Kaufman and Maori, ‘The Targumim to Exodus 20’, pp. 13–78; Verrijssen, ‘The Liturgical Targum to Pesach’, pp. 166–168.
Except, of course, with FragTgP, for reasons stated above.
Patmore, The Transmission of Targum Jonathan, p. 308; A. Shinan, ‘Live Translation’, pp. 41–49; Smelik, The Targum of Judges, p. 37; See also Smelik, Rabbis, p. 222.
First noted by Klein, The Fragment Targums, p. 21.
Ginsburger, ‘Aramäische Introduktionen’, pp. 113–124; Ginsburger, ‘Les introductions araméennes’, pp. 14–26; J. Heinemann, ‘Remnants of Ancient Piyyutim in the Palestinian Targum Tradition’,
Only the Sephardi manuscripts do not contain the majority of these piyyutim.
For background information and a translation of this piyyut, consult L. Lieber, Jewish Aramaic Poetry from Late Antiquity: Translations and Commentaries (Boston: Brill, 2018) pp. 21–23.
J. Yahalom, ‘ “Ezel Moshe”—According to the Berlin Papyrus’, Mandel Institute for Jewish Studies 4.3 (1978), pp. 173–184.
See also the discussion in Kaufman and Maori, ‘The Targumim to Exodus 20’, pp. 21–22.
Zunz, Literaturgeschichte, p. 150.
Zunz, Literaturgeschichte, p. 470.
Zunz collected and attributed many of these piyyutim and reshuyyot to medieval European authors (Literaturgeschichte). For the most complete list of these piyyutim, consult Y. Frenkel,
For more information on this composition, see Hoffman, ‘Akdamut: History, Folklore, and Meaning’, pp. 161–183.
We also find an Ashkenazi variant in t1668a, t1673a, t1629a ‘
Ginsburger, ‘Les introductions araméennes’, pp. 14–26. The most recent and complete list of these expansions can be found in Y. Frenkel,
Klein, The Fragment Targums, p. 20.
S. Fassberg, A Grammar of the Palestinian Targum Fragments from the Cairo Genizah (Harvard Semitic Studies 38, Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1990) p. 197.
E. Cook, ‘The “Kaufman Effect” in the Pseudo-Jonathan Targum’, Aramaic Studies 4:2 (2006), pp. 123–132; Cook, ‘Rewriting the Bible’, p. 132; Fassberg, A Grammar of the Palestinian Targum, pp. 114–115.
M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period (Bar Ilan Press: Israel, 1990) p. 78. He notes: “The pl. form
A. Tal,
Gottlieb, ‘Composition of Targums’, p. 5. See also Houtman, ‘The Role of Targum’, pp. 86–93.
E. Levita,
Patmore, The Transmission of Targum Jonathan, pp. 332–333.
Lehnardt, ‘The Role of Targum Samuel’, p. 56.
Heijmans, ‘About the “Unreliability” of the Vocalization’, p. 288.
Patmore distinguished between two textual families, Italian and Ashkenazi in his work on the Targum to Samuel. His conclusions about each textual family often align with our findings. Patmore, The Transmission of Targum Jonathan, pp. 334–341.
The description in this paragraph is more or less in line with the manuscript descriptions in Kaufman and Maori, ‘The Targumim to Exodus 20’, pp. 18–19.
Hebr. Add. 3, t1668a, Michael 617, t1629a, B.H.3.
t1668a, t1685a, Michael 617, t1629a, B.H.3.
Kaufman and Maori, ‘The Targumim to Exodus 20’, p. 17.
See for example the third, fourth and fifth commandments, which are much more expanded in LTga,s than in LTgi.
Kaufman and Maori, ‘The Targumim to Exodus 20’, p. 17.
The movement of toseftot from their original places to the Song of the Sea was already noted by Klein, The Fragment Targums, p. 23.
Michael 617
t1604i
t1681a
t1604i, t1647i, t1652i, t1691i, t1626i
t1673a, JTS 8092
t1681a, t1646a, Or. 2735, Cod. Hebr. 313, Add. 19664, JTS 8092
t1673a, Add. 19664
t1668a, t1673a
t1636s
Cod. Hebr. 313
t1681a
t1696i, t1610i, t1601i
t1668a, t1673a, t1685a, t1629a, JTS 8092.
t1681a, t1646a, t1614a, Or. 2735, Cod. Hebr. 313, Add. 19664, B.H.3.
t1696i, t1610i, t1601i
t1604i, t1696i, t1610i, t1601i
t1673a, t1681a
t1668a, t1673a, t1681a, t1629a
t1668a, t1685a, t1629a
t1685a, t1646a
t1647i, t1652i
t1647i
t1614a, Or. 2735, Cod. Hebr. 313, Add. 19664, B.H.3, JTS 8092.
t1668a, t1673a, t1681a, t1685a, t1646a, t1629a.
t1629a, t1646a
These liturgical rites are indicated in the catalogue records as well as indicated as the title of the manuscript in many cases, e.g.
Patmore described the transmission of the haftarot readings in Ashkenazi mahzorim to exhibit a ‘fluid’ transmission, with many errors and omissions. Patmore, The Transmission of Targum Jonathan, pp. 338–341.
Klein called the version of Ex 15:18 in LTgi: “a local midrashic expansion to Ex 15:18”; Klein, The Fragment Targums, p. 23.
Kaufman and Maori, ‘The Targumim to Exodus 20’, p. 17.
Kaufman and Maori, ‘The Targumim to Exodus 20’, p. 17.
t1668a, t1673a, t1629a.
t1646a, B.H.3.
Kaufman and Maori, ‘The Targumim to Exodus 20’, p. 17.
Houtman and Sysling, Alternative Targum Traditions, pp. 41–48. See also Patmore, The Transmission of Targum Jonathan, pp. 345, 352–354.
For background on the heterogenous nature of the toseftot, consult Kasher,
Kasher,
Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge, pp. 80–83.
S. Luzzatto, ‘Nachträgliches über die Thargumim’, Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift für jüdische Theologie 5 (1844), pp. 124–137; Z. Frankel, Zu dem Targum der Propheten (Breslau, 1872), p. 40.
P. de Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice (Göttingen, 1872).
W. Bacher, ‘Kritische Untersuchungen zum Prophetentargum’, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 28 (1874), pp. 1–72. Patmore reconsidered Bacher’s headings and offered a new proposal for understanding the system of marginalia in Codex Reuchlinianus 3. Patmore, The Transmission of Targum Jonathan, pp. 261–300.
P. Churgin, Targum Jonathan to the Prophets (New Haven, 1907); P. Grelot, though much later, argued that the existence of a Palestinian Targum to the Prophets is uncertain, but that there must have been a Palestinian Targum to the haftarot. According to him, the formation of the toseftot must have occurred around the same time as the Palestinian Targum. P. Grelot, ‘L’exégèse messianique d’Isaïe, LXIII, 1–6’, Revue Biblique 70 (1963), pp. 371–380; ‘Une Tosephta targoumique sur Zacharie 2:14–15’, Revue Biblique 73 (1966), pp. 197–211; ‘Deux Tosephtas targoumiques inédites sur Isaïe LXVI’, Revue Biblique 79 (1972), pp. 511–543; ‘Á propos d’une tosephta targoumique’, Revue Biblique 80 (1973), p. 363; ‘Le Targoum d’Isaïe, X, 32–34 dans ses diverses recensions’, Revue Biblique 90 (1983), pp. 202–228.
Tal,
Kasher,
Kasher,
Houtman and Sysling, Alternative Targum Traditions.
Houtman and Sysling, Alternative Targum Traditions, pp. 41–46. See also the conclusions of Damsma, The Targumic Toseftot to Ezekiel, pp. 167–183; Patmore, The Transmission of Targum Jonathan, pp. 352–353.
Kasher,
Houtman and Sysling, Alternative Targum Traditions, pp. 134–135.
Patmore, The Transmission of Targum Jonathan, p. 354.
Klein, Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum.
M. Klein, ‘Targumic Toseftot from the Cairo Genizah’ in D. Muñoz Leon, Salvacion en la palabra (Madrid, Ediciones Cristiandad, 1986), pp. 409–418.
Epstein, ‘Tosefta du Targoum Yerouschalmi’.
Ginsburger, ‘Die Thargumim zur Thorahlection’; ‘Aramäische Introduktionen’; ‘Les introductions araméennes’.
Gleßmer, Entstehung, pp. 467, 471, 474.
Díez-Macho, ‘Nueva fuente para el Targum Palestino’, pp. 233–257.
M. Klein, ‘The Targumic Tosefta to Exodus 15:2’.
Houtman and Sysling, Alternative Targum Traditions, pp. 41–42.
Houtman and Sysling, Alternative Targum Traditions, p. 41.
In some cases, Tosefta Targums went on to inspire the composition of subsequent Targumic Toseftot, e.g., midrashic works such as Midrash vaYosha. See Mikva, ‘Midrash in the Synagogue’.
For a list of scholarship concerning this genre, consult Houtman and Sysling, Alternative Targum Traditions, pp. 51–52.
Ginsburger, ‘Aramäische Introduktionen’, p. 114. See also Ginsburger, ‘Les introductions araméennes’; Zunz, Literaturgeschichte, pp. 18–22, 74–80, 150–151; W. Bacher, ‘Alte aramäische Poesien zum Vortrage des haphtara-Targum’, Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 22 (1873), pp. 220–228.
See for example, M. Klein, ‘Introductory Poems (R’shuyot)’. See also Houtman and Sysling, Alternative Targum Traditions, p. 51.
The most obvious example of this is
Though we do not agree with Houtman and Sysling that some of these compositions earned the status of Tosefta Targum, as this undermines the entire terminological discussion. Houtman and Sysling, Alternative Targum Traditions, p. 53.
See also J. Yahalom, ‘The Aramaic Alfabetin: from Eretz-Israel to Italy’, Italia 13.15 (2001), pp. 31–37 [in Hebrew]; A. Rodrigues Pereira, ‘Targumic Poems from the Cairo Genizah’, pp. 66–67.
See also Houtman and Sysling, Alternative Targum Traditions, pp. 48–54.
Heinemann, ‘Remnants of Aramaic Piyyutim’, pp. 148–167 [in Hebrew].
Kaufman and Maori, ‘The Targumim to Exodus 20’, pp. 21–22.
Yahalom, ‘Ezel Moshe’, pp. 21–22.
Unless the only other attestation is in FragTgP, for reasons explained above (and in more detail in chapter 4).
The most complete list with bibliographic details about these compositions can be found in Frenkel,
Though
This section shares much of the same content as an article published by the author for Theology Research News entitled ‘A Story Held Together by Bones: A Medieval Expansion to Ex 13:17’ (published 5 February 2024).
t1604i
t1610i
t1668a
t1685a
t1681a
t1685a, t1614a, JTS 8092
t1647i
t1673a
t1673a, t1664s, t1636s, t1614a
t1664s, t1636s
t1652i
t1610i
t1614a
t1673a
Cod. Hebr. 313
t1681a
t1610i
t1685a, Add. 19664
t1681a, t1646a
t1616i, t1680i, t1689i, t1696i, t1601i
t1647i
t1610i
t1604i, t1647i, t1652i, t1610i
t1604i, t1647i, t1652i, t1691i, t1626i, t1610i
Cod. Hebr. 313, Add. 19664
t1685a
Harley 5714
t1614a, Hebr. Add. 3, Add. 19664
t1668a, t1681a, t1685a, Harley 5714, Michael 617, t1629a, t1614a, Hebr. Add. 3, B.H.3
t1614a, Cod. Hebr. 313
Or. 2735
t1610i
t1664s
t1681a, t1664s
X (Neubauer 318, Bodleian Library) is listed as a Genizah fragment by Klein; however, this is not the case. It is described as a flyleaf of an Arabic commentary on the Prophets, containing a ‘fragment of Thargum Yerushalmi headed
This expansion is missing from 1609s.
Zunz, Literaturgeschichte, p. 21.
Ziemlich, Machsor Nürnberg, pp. 20.
Ginsburger, ‘Die Thargumim zur Thorahlection’, pp. 101–102.
Gleßmer, Entstehung, pp. 449–454.
Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, p. 356.
Kasher,
Gleßmer, Entstehung, p. 449.
Gleßmer, Entstehung, pp. 439–442; Díez-Macho, ‘Nueva fuente para el Targum Palestino’, pp. 242–244. See also F. Gosling, ‘Were the Ephraimites to Blame?’, Vetus Testamentum 49.4 (1999), pp. 505–513.
Gleßmer, Entstehung, p. 454.
See Kasher,
Pirqe deRabbi Eliezer 33, 17. That some Targum authors relied on Pirqe deRabbi Eliezer has recently been argued in the context of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, see McDowell, ‘The Date and Provenance of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan’, pp. 121–154.
The material discussed in this section directly overlaps with a chapter published by the author in an edited volume, J. Verrijssen, ‘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 (Cambridge Semitic Languages and Cultures, Cambridge: Open Book, 2025), 385–404.
Oppenheim Add. 4º 171
t1691i, t1626i
Oppenheim Add. 4º 171
t1610i, Oppenheim Add. 4º 171
t1681a
t1610i, Oppenheim Add. 4º 171
t1685a
t1604i, t1616i, t1691i, t1696i, t1610i, t1601i
t1681a
t1609s
t1604i, t1652i, t1691i, t1626i, Oppenheim Add. 4º 171
t1681a, t1685a, t1646a, t1614a, Cod. Hebr. 313
t1609s
Most likely a corruption of the forms
t1691i, t1626i
t1691i, t1626i
Or. 2735
Oppenheim Add. 4º 171
t1691i, t1626i
Or. 2735
Oppenheim Add. 4º 171
t1681a, t1646a, t1614a, Add. 19664
t1609s
t1604i, t1652i, t1691i, t1626i, Oppenheim Add. 4º 171
t1616i, t1680i, t1689i, t1696i, t1601i
Oppenheim Add. 4º 171
t1646a, t1614a, Add. 19664
t1681a, t1614a
t1609s
Zunz, Literaturgeschichte, p. 21.
Epstein, ‘Tosefta du Targoum Yerouschalmi’, pp. 48–49.
Klein, The Fragment Targums, pp. 21–22.
Díez-Macho, ‘Nueva fuente para el Targum Palestino’, pp. 248–249.
The text in Cod. Hebr. 313 is badly corrupted and will not be taken into consideration for this comparison.
These two manuscripts preserve the ‘original’ order of the tosefta but add Ex 15:3 at the end of it.
For example, (
It is important to note that Klein’s designation of ‘festival-liturgical collections’ goes farther than simply the Targum units in mahzorim; he includes some (parts of) the Fragment Targums and manuscripts from the Cairo Genizah (some of which may actually be mahzorim) under this category.
See also Klein, The Fragment Targums, p. 23.
Klein only had two Italian manuscripts in his corpus and, as a result, assumed this was the work of an individual scribe. Klein, The Fragment Targums, p. 22.
Or. 2735
Add. 19664
t1614a, Or. 2735, Add. 19664
t1646a, Add. 19664
With a minor addition in LTgs,
Oppenheim Add. 4º 171
t1647i, t1652i, t1610i
t1652i, t1610i
t1647i, t1652i
Though the translation is our own, we follow Klein when he translates this word as ‘midwives’.
t1647i, t1652i, t1626i
t1673a
t1647i, t1652i
t1673a
t1673a
t1647i, t1652i
t1629a, B.H.3
t1647i, t1652i
Zunz, Literaturgeschichte, p. 21.
Ginsburger, ‘Aramäische Introduktionen’, pp. 120–123.
Klein, ‘The Targumic Tosefta to Ex 15:2’, pp. 133–140. See also Díez-Macho, ‘Nueva fuente para el Targum Palestino’, pp. 247–248.
The version in the Romanian mahzor (Oppenheim Add. 4º 171) is slightly different than the Italian mahzorim.
t1668a, t1673a, t1685a, t1629a, B.H.3.
Klein, ‘The Targumic Tosefta to Ex 15:2’, p. 134.
Beit-Arié and Richler, Hebrew Manuscripts in the Biblioteca Palatina, p. 222.
Klein noted in t1629a that his manuscript employed
Klein, ‘The Targumic Tosefta to Ex 15:2’, p. 138.
Klein, ‘The Targumic Tosefta to Ex 15:2’, p. 137.
Klein, ‘The Targumic Tosefta to Ex 15:2’, p. 137.
Klein, ‘The Targumic Tosefta to Ex 15:2’, p. 138.
Even further, as Klein pointed out, the corrupted version we find in t1681a shows this conflation carried out to the extreme:
Klein, ‘The Targumic Tosefta to Ex 15:2’, p. 138.
See for example, Exodus Rab. 23:9 and b. Soṭ. 11b. Klein, ‘The Targumic Tosefta to Ex 15:2’, p. 138.
Klein, ‘The Targumic Tosefta to Ex 15:2’, p. 138.
The other elements, such as an angel being sent instead of the Lord directly helping (as in the original midrash) are reflected in Exodus Rab. 1:16 as well as b. Soṭ. 11b; and also in the version in Sefer haYashar (ed. L. Goldschmidt, Berlin 1923) p. 141; see Klein, ‘The Targumic Tosefta to Ex 15:2’, p. 139.
t1691i, t1626i
t1610i
t1629a
t1610i, Oppenheim Add. 4º 171
t1610i
t1647i, t1652i, t1691i, t1610i
t1673a
t1673a
t1604i, t1647i, t1652i
t1647i, t1652i
One member of LTga (t1668a) consistently renders
t1668a, t1629a
t1691i, t1626i, t1610i
The Romanian mahzor contains an expansion here that is also reflected in the previous note in shorter form, describing how Pharaoh was overcome with trembling when he saw the lions acting this way for Moses. Oppenheim 4º 171
t1685a, B.H.3
The verb
t1626i, Oppenheim 4º 171
t1691i, t1610i
t1691i, t1610i, Oppenheim 4º 171
t1616i, t1689i, t1696i, t1601i, t1680i
t1668a
t1668a, t1629a
t1604
t1691i, t1626i, t1610i
B.H.3
t1668a, t1685a, B.H.3, t1673a, t1629a.
Zunz, Literaturgeschichte, p. 21.
Ginsburger, ‘Aramäische Introduktionen’, p. 121.
Rodrigues-Pereira wrote a commentary on the structure and contents of the poetic composition. See Rodrigues-Pereira, Studies in Aramaic Poetry, pp. 64–66. M. Bernstein describes a scenario regarding a tosefta to Gen 44:18, where a poetic version coexists alongside the tosefta but the relationship between the compositions remains unclear; M. Bernstein, ‘A New Manuscript of Tosefta Targum’, Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies 9 (1985), p. 155.
Sefer haYashar 43–44; see also Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, pp. 517–520, 556.
Ginsburger, ‘Aramäische Introduktionen’, p. 121.
The motif of two lions guarding a palace can also be found in 2 Chr 9:18, though here they are in reference to Solomon.
A similar phenomenon happened to
JTS 8092
t1673a, t1681a
t1646a, Add. 19664
t1673a
t1646a, t1614a, B.H.3
t1673a, t1685a, t1614a, Or. 2735, Add. 19664, B.H.3
t1626i
t1673a, t1685a, B.H.3
t1668a
See a similar discussion in Eikah Rabbah 1:37. See also Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, pp. 558–562; Díez-Macho, ‘Nueva fuente para el Targum Palestino’, p. 247.
Yahalom, ‘Ezel Moshe’, pp. 173–184; Lieber, Jewish Aramaic Poetry, pp. 21–22.
t1673a, t1681a, Or. 2735, Cod. Hebr. 313, Add. 19664, JTS 8092
Michael 617
t1646a, Or. 2735, Cod. Hebr. 313, B.H.3, JTS 8092
t1668a, t1685a, Michael 617
t1668a, Michael 617
LTgs
LTgs
LTgs, t1673a
t1614a, Cod. Hebr. 313, JTS 8092, t1664s
Or. 2735, Cod. Hebr. 313, Add. 19664
t1668a, Michael 617, B.H.3
Add. 19664, JTS 8092
t1673a, Cod. Hebr. 313, Add. 19664
Michael 617, Add. 19664, B.H.3
t1685a, t1646a, B.H.3, JTS 8092
LTgs
t1609s
Cod. Hebr. 313
See Klein, The Fragment Targums, p. 23.
Zunz, Literaturgeschichte, p. 21.
Ginsburger, ‘Aramäische Introduktionen’, p. 123.
Díez-Macho, ‘Nueva fuente para el Targum Palestino’, pp. 249–250.
Klein, The Fragment Targums, p. 23.
R. Le Déaut, La nuit pascale.
It would not be the first time that toseftot were moved from their original places to the Song of the Sea (see supra
Díez-Macho, ‘Nueva fuente para el Targum Palestino’, p. 249.
See Patmore, The Transmission of Targum Jonathan, pp. 219–222 and the references noted in fn. 5.
Kasher,
C. Hayward, ‘A Portrait of the Wicked Esau in the Targum of Codex Neofiti 1’, in D. Beattie and M. McNamara (eds.), The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 166, Sheffield 1994) pp. 292, 291–309; Patmore, The Transmission of Targum Jonathan, pp. 220–221. See also Le Déaut, La nuit pascale, pp. 271–272.
Venice, 1517–1518.
M. Klein, ‘ “The Messiah that Leadeth upon a Cloud”, in the Fragment-Targum to the Pentateuch?’, The Journal of Theological Studies, pp. 137–139.
Le Déaut, La nuit pascale, pp. 65, 266.
Ginsburger, Das Fragmententhargum (Berlin: Calvary, 1899) p. 37.
Klein, ‘The Messiah’, pp. 137–139; Díez-Macho, ‘Nueva fuente para el Targum Palestino’, pp. 249–250.
See for example, Midrash Tanhuma (Toledot 20) and b. Sanh. 98a.
Díez-Macho, ‘Nueva fuente para el Targum Palestino’, pp. 250.
Kaufman and Maori, ‘The Targumim to Exodus 20’, pp. 20–21.
Houtman and Sysling, Alternative Targum Traditions, pp. 239–247; Klein, ‘The Targumic Tosefta to Ex 15:2’, p. 140.