Post: In parashat Lech Lecha, we have an interesting deviation from the norm in Targum Onkelos, looking at the Nusach of the Teimanim:
| יג,ט הֲלֹא כָל-הָאָרֶץ לְפָנֶיךָ, הִפָּרֶד נָא מֵעָלָי: אִם-הַשְּׂמֹאל וְאֵימִנָה, וְאִם-הַיָּמִין וְאַשְׂמְאִילָה. | הֲלָא כָּל אַרְעָא קֳדָמָךְ, אִתְפָּרַשׁ כְּעַן מִלְּוָתִי: אִם אַתְּ לְצִפּוּנָא אֲנָא לְדָרוֹמָא, וְאִם אַתְּ לְדָרוֹמָא וְאַצְפְּנָךְ. |
In our Mikraos Gedolos, and so in texts that Shadal uses, such as dfus Savyonita (1557), we have instead אֲנָא לְצִפּוּנָא. Thus:
Is there a difference between the two? Some people say yes. For instance, the following in Chelek HaDikduk:
"Our Targum has וְאַצְפְּנָךְ, to explain, against your will [I will make you go to the North]. For the entire intent of Avraham was to go to the South, which was the Right. And so wrote the Rabbenu Bachya and the Shalah, that so was in the precise Nuschaos. And so writes the Ir Giborim."
Perhaps I could explain וְאַצְפְּנָךְ in a different manner. 'If you go to the right, then I will 'North' myself of you." I will make myself to the North of you. That would account for the ach ending. And the aleph patach beginning could be a first person singular imperfect, rather than some sort of aphel causative. Or, perhaps it indeed means this, but someone emended the text of Onkelos to mean what he wanted it to mean, based on objections from other pesukim. Or, perhaps it does mean this and it was original. All are possibilities.
Here is Rabbenu Bachya on this variant, referred to above:
וְאִם-הַיָּמִין, that is to say, if you want to go to the South, וְאַשְׂמְאִילָה, that is to say I will make myself go to the left. So did Rashi explain.
And there is to be confounded, he could he say אשמאיל את עצמי, when the intent of Avraham was to travel in the South? Rather, the explanation of וְאַשְׂמְאִילָה is that the intent is וְאַשְׂמְאִילָה אותך, that is to say, against your will, you will be required to go to the North.
And so I have heard that the Targum Onkelos is, in precise nuschaot, אִם אַתְּ לְצִפּוּנָא אֲנָא לְדָרוֹמָא, וְאִם אַתְּ לְדָרוֹמָא וְאַצְפְּנָךְ. That is to say, against your will, for I will not give you permission to stay about in the South because of the weight of the cattle which I have."
I would note that that pasuk of הלוך ונסוע הנגבה does not need to mean, on a peshat level, that Avraham's intent was to travel always to the South. It could just mean that at that point in time, he was moving about in the South of Eretz Yisrael. Now, Rashi brings a midrash on that pasuk that does indeed reflect such an intent:
| 9. And Abram traveled, continually traveling southward. | ט. וַיִּסַּע אַבְרָם הָלוֹךְ וְנָסוֹעַ הַנֶּגְבָּה: | |
| continually traveling: lit. going and traveling. [He traveled] in intervals, staying here for a month or more, traveling from there, and pitching his tent elsewhere. And all his travels were southward, to go to the south of the Land of Israel, and that is to the direction of Jerusalem, (The meaning is that Jerusalem was in the middle of the world and the end of the Land of Israel. So it is explained in Isaiah.) which is in the territory of Judah, who took [his portion] in the south of the Land of Israel, to Mount Moriah, which was his [Judah’s] heritage. (Gen. Rabbah 39:16). [Note that the parenthetic addendum appears in several editions of Rashi , but its connection to this verse is obscure, because the location of Jerusalem in the middle of the world is irrelevant.] | הלוך ונסוע: לפרקים, יושב כאן חדש או יותר ונוסע משם ונוטה אהלו במקום אחר, וכל מסעיו הנגבה ללכת לדרומה של ארץ ישראל והוא לצד ירושלים שהיא בחלקו של יהודה, שנטלו בדרומה של ארץ ישראל הר המוריה שהיא נחלתו: |
But it could be that this new situation emerged and he indeed offered Lot his choice in any direction, despite this previous desire. It is certainly difficult, on a peshat level, to say like Rabbenu Bachya. The pesukim continue with Lot choosing the nice land in the kikar hayarden, seeing how nice it was, indicating that there was a choice of which land to take.
R' Bentzion Berkowitz, in his Chalifot Semalot, writes as follows:
Without being aware of this alternate girsa, but discussing something else -- the presence or absence of of vavs in the two instances of אֲנָא (as opposed to va'ana) in Onkelos -- he brings a midrash:
"Rabbi Yochanan said: [This is comparable to two men who had to kur, one of wheat and one of barley. He said to him: If the wheat is mine, my barley is yours, and if my barley is your, the wheat is mine. Regardless, the wheat is mine.And it is implied there that so was the Targum, as is explained there -- if you are to the left, I to the Sourth, and if I am to to South, you are to the left.
And behold, the language of the midrash is indeed extremely difficult to understand the mashal corresponding to the nimshal, which is regarding Avraham. Is he seeking to best out {and trick} Lot his brother after he said to him, 'let there not be contention between us'? So how can he tell him that 'regardless, the wheat it mine, in the manner of the allegory? However, it is so that in truth Avraham knew at first that Lot wished to go to the North, for only Avraham was הלוך ונסוע הנגבה. But Avraham gave the choice to Lot to choose if he would go first to travel to the North or if he, Avraham, we begin his travel to the South, and afterwards Lot to the North. And this is what is being darshened from the language of ואשמאלה is not written here but וְאַשְׂמְאִילָה, that regardless, I will make that person go to the left [?], for I leave to left open before you. And behold, according to this, it is precise the vav of וְאֵימִנָה and וְאַשְׂמְאִילָה, for it as well is drawn after the choice of Lot, if he wanted to go to the left via my going to the right, as well as וְאַשְׂמְאִילָה. But according to the pashut, the vavs are extra, for the choice was not given to him except to go to one of the sides, and from what is understood is that the second side is left before him, and this is the reason for the omission of the vavs in Onkelos."
Then, in square brackets, he writes of his friend informing him of this Rabbenu Bachya. And after citing it, he [=the friend, I think] says: And behold, though the language of Chazal might be יצפין and ידרים, still, in Targum Onkelos it is meshubash.
We can find the midrash in Midrash Rabba on Lech Lecha:
אם השמאל ואימינה ואם הימין ואשמאילה אמר ליה: אם את לשמאלה, אנא לדרומה.This would seem to be a derasha based on the nikkud in the pasuk, rather than what appears in Targum Onkelos. But it is plausible that Targum Onkelos followed suit, or else was modified to conform to this idea.
ואם אנא לדרומה, את לשמאלה.
אמר רבי יוחנן:לשני בני אדם שהיו להם שתי כורים, אחד של חטים ואחד של שעורים.
אמר ליה: אם חטייא דידי, שערי דידך.
ואם שערי דידך, חטייא דידי.
מן כל אתר חטייא דידי!
כך, אם השמאל ואימינה, ואם הימין ואשמאילה
.
אמר רבי חנינא בר יצחק:ואשמאלה אין כתיב: כאן, אלא ואשמאילה מן כל אתר, אנא משמאיל לההוא גברא:
I would note that the Peshitta has an interesting twist on this pasuk, possibly of some relevance. It swaps the two directions:
הא כלה ארעא קדמיך פרוש מני אן אנת לימינא אנא לסמלא ואן אנת לסמלא אנא לימינא :
Even so, it still is an either/or choice, so it is not really so relevant.
No comments:
Post a Comment