tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post6372579357356246588..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: Targum Yonasan's "prophecy"joshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-26757453963267913092011-07-05T17:06:44.420-04:002011-07-05T17:06:44.420-04:00there is this on hebrewbooks:
http://hebrewbooks.o...there is this on hebrewbooks:<br />http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=35819&st=&pgnum=2joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-81744129515225024642011-07-05T17:00:31.299-04:002011-07-05T17:00:31.299-04:00thanks;
i'll try to track it down.
kt,
joshthanks;<br />i'll try to track it down.<br /><br />kt,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-4672608099675606822011-07-05T15:53:49.022-04:002011-07-05T15:53:49.022-04:00the full Tg Yerushalmi -- if we had it --
IIRC we...<i>the full Tg Yerushalmi -- if we had it --</i><br /><br />IIRC we do have it, in Torah Shlemah vol. 25 (?)Shmuelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-45557810738588536392011-07-04T16:27:47.011-04:002011-07-04T16:27:47.011-04:00See also Shadal who says the same about Targum Yon...See also Shadal who says the same about Targum Yonasan:<br /><br />http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20619&st=&pgnum=82<br /><br />kt,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-29023006777085497902011-07-04T11:30:49.604-04:002011-07-04T11:30:49.604-04:00'Doesn't the Recanati refer to T"Y as...'Doesn't the Recanati refer to T"Y as "Targum Jonathan"'<br /><br />yes. see above. i've also seen it argued that an ambiguous Zohar (that Yonatan wrote on 'mikra') helped things along. in terms of (2), pseudonomy sounds quite plausible to me. rav hai gaon referred to it as the targum yosef.<br /><br /><i> if anything, it's a manuscript error (13th or 14th century), not a printer's</i><br />indeed, that is how Jewish Encyclopedia puts it -- two manuscripts, not two printed texts:<br /><br />"Azariah dei Rossi, who lived in the sixteenth century, states ("Me'or 'Enayim," ed. Wilna, p. 127) that he saw two manuscripts of the Palestinian Targum which agreed in every detail, one of which was entitled "Targum Yerushalmi" and the other "Targum Jonathan b. Uzziel." The editio princeps of the complete Palestinian Targum was printed from the latter (Venice, 1591), thus giving currency to the erroneous title."<br /><br />kol tuv,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-8831553805927300162011-07-04T11:15:14.251-04:002011-07-04T11:15:14.251-04:00Oh, of course Dr. White agrees that the bits of T&...Oh, of course Dr. White agrees that the bits of T"Y which refer to later events, such as Islam or (here) Constantinople, are later accretions.Mar Gavrielnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-57039698592642796582011-07-04T11:14:06.998-04:002011-07-04T11:14:06.998-04:001. I think that the association of T"Y with J...1. I think that the association of T"Y with Jonathan ben Uzziel is older than printing; if anything, it's a manuscript error (13th or 14th century), not a printer's. Doesn't the Recanati refer to T"Y as "Targum Jonathan"?<br /><br />2. The explanation that the initials have been misinterpreted sounds dubious to me. (There are a number of similar stories about other words, and they are often incorrect.) Rather, I think that it's a simple case of pseudonomy -- the name of a famous Targumist has been associated with a late, anonymous Targum.<br /><br />3. Dr. Richard White, of Yeshiva University, has argued that the original layers of "Targum Jonathan" on the Torah actually do go back to Tannaitic times, and perhaps to the person Jonathan ben Uzziel. (He notes that T"Y translates ואהבת לרעך כמוך as דעלך סני לחברך אל תעבד, which is the rule of Hillel, supposedly Jonathan's teacher.) I'm not convinced by the arguments, but I think it's worth putting on the table that at least one serious scholar takes the idea seriously.Mar Gavrielnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-72872917704779290372011-07-04T10:45:23.514-04:002011-07-04T10:45:23.514-04:00"that is a bad sign that something might be w...<i>"that is a bad sign that something might be wrong with your ideas."</i><br /><br />there are ideas and there are testimonies. he said he saw these two manuscripts, side by side, nearly identical, but labelled differently. do you think he was lying?joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-90272263062560234722011-07-04T10:44:01.445-04:002011-07-04T10:44:01.445-04:00"Does the fact that Yonatan ben Uziel wrote t...<i>"Does the fact that Yonatan ben Uziel wrote the fully recognized targum on Navi preclude him from having written a prior peirush on the Chumash?"</i><br />yes, because the gemara explicitly writes who the (one) author of targum on Chumash was. and that same gemara said where he received his tradition of the targum on Neviim (chagai, zecharia and malachi), and that he was prevented from offering further Targum.<br /><br /><i>"My Mikra'ot Gedolot has two targumim on the Chumash besides Onkelos. There is a Targum Yonatan and a Targum Yerushalmi."</i><br />I have the same Mikraos Gedolos. <br />Targum Yerushalmi is fragmentary, and appears where there is a divergence from Yonatan, but does correspond quite closely to Tg Yonatan. If you would look at the full Tg Yerushalmi -- if we had it -- I would guess that it would be mainly identical with Tg Yonatan. I don't think de Rossi was lying to us. And there are different nuschaot in Onkelos as well, but since it never acquired separate names, no publisher of Mikraot Gedolot put them side by side as separate translations.<br /><br /><i>"Does anyone such as the Vilna Gaon or Rav Sa'adya Gaon or anyone of that stature in between come right out and say that Yonatan ben Uziel did not write a targum or a peirush on the Chumash?"</i><br />Rav Saadia Gaon, and those of that period, did <b>not</b> refer to it as Targum Yonatan. As the Wikipedia article states, " Its correct title is Targum Yerushalmi ("Jerusalem Targum"), <b>which is how it was known in medieval times</b>." They also never referred to a Targum by Ravina, even to say that they did not publish such a Targum.<br /><br />That is, you won't find early Rishonim referring to Targum Yonasan as Targum Yonasan, but as Targum Yerushalmi. That is pretty telling. (The first to ascribe this to Yonatan was R' Menachem Recanati.)<br /><br />I don't know of Acharonim offhand who say explicitly this about Targum Yonasan, no. I never bothered to accumulate sources. But not every one was aware of the evidence. This was not their general field of interest, and if it stated in some text that it was Tg Yonatan, who says that would have thought to even question it.<br /><br /><i>One way to know for sure is does the style of his targum on Navi vary substantially from the style of the peirush on the Chumash that is attributed to him?</i><br />according to <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=zutJAAAAMAAJ&lpg=PA3&ots=zNL5KAypAA&dq=azariah%20rossi%20targum&pg=PA3#v=onepage&q=azariah%20rossi%20targum&f=false" rel="nofollow">this book</a>, the linguistic style of Onkelos and Targum on Navi is quite similar; and separately, the linguistic style of Tg Yonatan and Targum Yerushalmi is quite similar.<br /><br /><i>Apikorsim who see that T"Y is speaking about cities that did not exist for another 300 years</i><br />Perhaps, but it was never originally a Jewish claim. And besides, it is a sensible claim even to a non-apikores. The Targum was meant to be readable and understandable to the common folk. I would have expected him to refer to it by the name they would have known.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-44403702992589713492011-07-04T10:35:04.914-04:002011-07-04T10:35:04.914-04:00Ah, just figured out which de Rossi the Wiki artic...Ah, just figured out which de Rossi the Wiki article linked to. It is Azariah ben Moses dei Rossi . His principle work was Me'or Eynaim. His work was sharply criticized by the Maharal of Prague and Rav Yosef Caro of the Shulchan Aruch wanted the book burned. But he passed away before signing the order to burn Dei Rossi's book. Apparently Dei Rossi did not get all the proper haskamot of the contemporaries of his day. Now, I personally am against book burning of any sort, but when the author of the Shulchan Aruch wants to burn your book, that is a bad sign that something might be wrong with your ideas.Dov Bar-Leibhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15915682856620634130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-45179410180420076802011-07-04T09:21:38.902-04:002011-07-04T09:21:38.902-04:00Does the fact that Yonatan ben Uziel wrote the ful...Does the fact that Yonatan ben Uziel wrote the fully recognized targum on Navi preclude him from having written a prior peirush on the Chumash? Who is this de Rossi to say that what he saw in the 16th century as the Targum Yerushalmi was not actually the Targum Yonatan ben Uziel? My Mikra'ot Gedolot has two targumim on the Chumash besides Onkelos. There is a Targum Yonatan and a Targum Yerushalmi. In short, when did the discussion of who wrote the T"Y on the Chumash originate? In what century? All we can say for sure from the Gemorrah in Megillah is that Yonatan ben Uziel wrote neither a peirush nor a targum on Kisuvim. Does anyone such as the Vilna Gaon or Rav Sa'adya Gaon or anyone of that stature in between come right out and say that Yonatan ben Uziel did not write a targum or a peirush on the Chumash? One way to know for sure is does the style of his targum on Navi vary substantially from the style of the peirush on the Chumash that is attributed to him? I am actually open to any reasonable proof from anyone who lived since he lived or from the 7th century onwards. The closer to the time of its authorhip, the easier it is provable.<br /><br />One has to be wary of attempts to disprove original scholarship. Some of these attempts may have come from Apikorsim who see that T"Y is speaking about cities that did not exist for another 300 years, and say to themselves that he could not have written about such cities at the time that he lived because the cities did not exist. The consequences of accepting that he did indeed mention those cities by name might be for such apikorsim too unfathomable to consider.Dov Bar-Leibhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15915682856620634130noreply@blogger.com