Post: See summary. These are competing theories, and they are only as good as their data points. and there is a dispute whether the 'taking' in Bamidbar 1:17 should be rendered as ודבר and ונסיב. Or maybe the direction is reversed, that one will select the appropriate of two possibilities based on the theory.
In Maamar, the printer writes:
"Targum Onkelos is ודבר, and in precise texts is written ונסיב. And the Meturgeman {=R' Eliyahu Bachur} misled the copyists to correct to ודבר, with what he said in the root דבר and in the root נסב: 'all language of taking which applies to man is translated with the word דבר, such as ..."What are these 'precise texts'? I don't know. I have not examined the handwritten manuscript copies of Onkelos. However, I did run through some early printings of Chumashim and Tanach's at JNUL, and can report on the few that have ונסיב and the many that don't.
We find ונסיב in #6, #7, and
#1, in the following Chumash with Onkelos and Rashi, we find ודבר. This is pretty early.
1482 | תנ"ך. תורה. רמ"ב. בולוניה |
 | |
[בולונייא : דפוס יוסף בן אברהם קרוויטה ; אברהם בן חיים מן הצבועים, רמ"ב]. |
#2, another Chumash and Onkelos, again ודבר:
1490 | תנ"ך. תורה. ר"ן. אישר |
| |
[אישאר : דפוס אליעזר בן אברהם אלאנתנסי, לפני ר"ן]. |
#3, another Chumash with Onkelos and Rashi, again with ודבר:
1491 | תנ"ך. תורה. רנ"א. ליסבון |
 | |
(אשבונה : דפוס אליעזר [טולידאנו], אב רנ"א). |
#4, Bomberg's first Mikraos Gedolos also has ודבר:
1518 | תנ"ך. רע"ח. ונציה |
| |
ויניציאה : דניאל בומבירגי, רע"ח. |
And #5, this Chumash with Onkelos, Rashi and Ramban also has ודבר.
1521 | תנ"ך. תורה. רפ"א. שלוניקי |
| |
(שאלוניקי : [דפוס יהודה גדליה], רפ"א). |
#6, in Bomberg's second Mikraos Gedolos, we finally encounter ונסיב.
1525 | תנ"ך. רפ"ה. ונציה |
| |
ויניצייא : דפוס ד. בומבירגי, (רפ"ה-רפ"ו). |
#7, we also find it in the Bomberg Chumash:
1524 | תנ"ך. תורה. רפ"ד. ונציה |
| |
ויניציאה : דפוס ד' בומבירגי, רפ"ד. |
Next, #8, in a Torah with three Targumim, back to ודבר:
1546 | תנ"ך. תורה. ש"ו. קושטא |
| |
[קושטאנדינא : א' שונצינו], (ש"ו). |
#9, next, a Chumash with several Targumim, we once again encounter ונסיב.
1547 | תנ"ך. תורה. ש"ז. קושטא |
| |
קושטנדינה : א. שונצין, ש"ז. |
Finally, #10, back to ודבר.
1680 | תנ"ך. תורה. ת"ם. אמשטרדם |
| |
אמשטרדאם : דפוס אורי בן אהרן הלוי, ת'ה'ל'ה' [ת"מ]. |
This does not really prove anything. It does establish, though, that some Chumashim and Tanachs did have ונסיב.
The 1524-25 Bomberg Mikraos Gedolos was worked on by a masoretic scholar, Yaakov Ben Chayim:
I have content for another post or two in me on this subject, but this is lengthy enough as it stands. Perhaps later, more evidence, and some analysis.
The 1524-25 Bomberg Mikraos Gedolos was worked on by a masoretic scholar, Yaakov Ben Chayim:
First published in 1524–25 by Daniel Bomberg in Venice, the Mikraot Gedolot was edited by the masoretic scholar Yaakov ben Hayyim. All of its elements - text, mesorah, Targum, and commentaries were based upon the manuscripts that Ben Hayyim had at hand (although he did not always have access to the best ones according to some, Ginsburg and some others argued that it was a good representation of the Ben Asher text).Of course, this is the text that Minchas Shai corrects again and again. But maybe this is good evidence in favor of ונסיב and in turn in favor of Maamar's theory of how to translate 'taking'.
I have content for another post or two in me on this subject, but this is lengthy enough as it stands. Perhaps later, more evidence, and some analysis.
No comments:
Post a Comment