Post: Two short points here sparked by Onkelos. The first is that I thought I would note the interesting word in Onkelos towards the very beginning of parashat Vayakhel:
Assuming I recall correctly, I recall from several years back how Dr. Steiner gave this as an example of a back-formation. That is, language develops organically, and sometimes people reanalyze words in ways other than their initial etymology, which is then demonstrated by other forms. In this case, Shabbat is somehow Shabba in Aramaic. Why? Because שַׁבַּת looks like the construct form, "the day of rest of", it was taken as such. And then, to make the absolute form, we end up with Shabba.
Shadal in Ohev Ger notes a variant text of Onkelos, קע"א which does not have this back-formation. At least if I understand Shadal correctly.
In terms of the somewhat strange vowel pattern for Shevata, which does not accord with machon mamre (above) or with my Mikraos Gedolos, see also that dfus Savyonita has it as well:
Without getting into grammatical analyses, I suppose that it does make sense that the Aramaic translation of Shabbaton should differ from that of Ha-Shabbat.
Another thing Shadal mentions is the regarding the men coming with the women:
|לה,כב וַיָּבֹאוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים, עַל-הַנָּשִׁים; כֹּל נְדִיב לֵב, הֵבִיאוּ חָח וָנֶזֶם וְטַבַּעַת וְכוּמָז כָּל-כְּלִי זָהָב, וְכָל-אִישׁ, אֲשֶׁר הֵנִיף תְּנוּפַת זָהָב לַיהוָה.||וּמֵיתַן גֻּבְרַיָּא, עַל נְשַׁיָּא; כֹּל דְּאִתְרְעִי לִבֵּיהּ, אֵיתִיאוּ שֵׁירִין וְשַׁבִּין וְעִזְקָן וּמָחוֹךְ כָּל מָן דִּדְהַב, וְכָל גְּבַר, דַּאֲרֵים אֲרָמוּת דַּהְבָּא קֳדָם יְיָ.|
Shadal notes the textual evidence, and that a whole bunch of texts of Onkelos have עם rather than על, and that he thinks this is correct. And in קע"א it has על but on the margin, it notes that other seforim have עם:
I agree that on a peshat level, the pasuk means im. And this is how Rashi explains it, and how Ibn Ezra explains it.
In 2008, I noted a comment in Rashi which is likely not by Rashi:
with the women Heb. עַל הַנָּשִׁים, lit., [the jewelry was still] on the women. The men came with the women and [stood] near them. (The reason the Targum [Onkelos] left the passage in its simple sense is that he does not render וַיָּבֹאוּ הָאִנָשִׁים as וַאִתוֹ גַבְרַיָא, and the men came, but he renders: וּמַיְתַן, [and the men] brought, meaning that they brought bracelets and earrings while they were still on [i.e., being worn by] the women, as Rashi writes on “spun the goat hair” (verse 26), [which signifies that the women spun the hair while it was still on the goats].)See my comments in that post, where I explain that why I do not think that Rashi wrote this comment in parenthesis, and furthermore why I don't believe that Onkelos really intended what was suggested in the comment, but is rather translating literally and thus refraining from commenting.
I think I would part ways with Shadal here as to what is more likely original. Onkelos is allowed to be absolutely literal and in this way refrain from commenting. But the result looks strange and is at odds with Rashi on the verse. It sounds reasonable for a sofer to emend the text to accord with Rashi, rather than in the other direction. (Though the argument can be made for an overly literal sofer who saw al as one letter off than im and so corrected it.)
But more than that, I could make an argument from absence. If Onkelos were indeed in accord with Rashi on this pasuk, I would have expected Rashi to cite this as evidence, with, for example, כתרגומו. That he doesn't, and that a girsa exists in which Onkelos does not bolster Rashi, is perhaps telling in which girsa lay before Rashi.
(See also the discussion on al vs. im here.)
The third and last point is regarding the first pasuk in perek 36. But we need to get a running jump:
There are two ways to parse this entire pasuk. Note that in 35:30, Moshe begins his speech. Where are the closing quotation marks? Is 36:1 part of Moshe's quote, or does the quote end at the end of 35:35, where this new verse begins to designate action?
The difference between the two is as follows. The word וְעָשָׂה would seem to designate past action. But if Moshe is telling all of Klal Yisroel how great Betzalel is, then he should be telling them that he shall do the work in the future, for he has not done the work yet. In the Targum, if we see ועבד, then it would be past tense. If we see ועביד, as one commentator on Onkelos (Chalifot Semalot) suggested emending, then it could be a present tense verb. If we see ויעביד, then it is a future tense verb.
The nusach of Onkelos above came from Mechon Mamre, though I am not certain which manuscript they chose for this.
But in our own Mikraos Gedolos, as well as in Dfus Savyonita, we have what I would expect, ועבד:
If we look to the Samaritan Targum, they translate it this way as well. If we look to the Septuagint, we get:
1 And Beseleel wrought, and Eliab and every one wise in understanding, to whom was given wisdom and knowledge, to understand to do all the works according to the holy offices, according to all things which the Lord appointed.
1 ΚΑΙ ἐποίησε Βεσελεήλ καὶ Ἐλιὰβ καὶ πᾶς σοφὸς τῇ διανοίᾳ, ᾧ ἐδόθη σοφία καὶ ἐπιστήμη ἐν αὐτοῖς συνιέναι ποιεῖν πάντα τὰ ἔργα κατὰ τὰ ἅγια καθήκοντα, κατὰ πάντα ὅσα συνέταξε Κύριος.
Thus, past tense rather than future tense. The perek changes are not Jewish in origin. They were created by Jerome, a Christian. But I would guess that the clear reason that he changes to a new perek (36) right here is that he considers Moshe's quote to have ended and this to be describing the beginning of the actual work.
The Peshitta has this as well:
though I deliberately left out the English translation, since they embed it in quotes and make it into the future tense.
Targum (Pseudo-)Yonatan has ויעבד, which to me means that he considers this part of Moshe's quote.
Shadal does not discuss this variant in Ohev Ger, and that suggests to me that all manuscripts he saw had ועבד. Yet mechon-mamre does have the future tense. Where could this come from? Perhaps this is indeed original, or perhaps it is a scholarly emendation.
To cite Chalifot Semalot,
Thus, he notes that "in all nuschaot it states ועבד. And all the chachmei leiv already commented on this nusach", etc., etc. And notes the suggestion that he had already done studying and teaching in the past, and suggests instead that he was ragil to doing this, such that a present tense verb would serve nicely, and one could readily emend Onkelos to match this.
So, he presumably did not see the nusach underlying the (Temani?) text at Mechon Mamre, which "fixes" this issue.
Yet, I don't think it is such a difficultly. If we don't want to translate like Judaica Press, who place the end quote after this pasuk and use the word "shall":
|1. Bezalel and Oholiab and every wise hearted man into whom God had imbued wisdom and insight to know how to do, shall do all the work of the service of the Holy, according to all that the Lord has commanded."||א. וְעָשָׂה בְצַלְאֵל וְאָהֳלִיאָב וְכֹל אִישׁ חֲכַם לֵב אֲשֶׁר נָתַן יְ־הֹוָ־ה חָכְמָה וּתְבוּנָה בָּהֵמָּה לָדַעַת לַעֲשֹׂת אֶת כָּל מְלֶאכֶת עֲבֹדַת הַקֹּדֶשׁ לְכֹל אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָה:|
then all we need do is treat it as the summarizing start of the pesukim which follow.