Onkelos and the peshat of לֹא-יוּמְתוּ אָבוֹת עַל-בָּנִים

In a recent shiur on masechet Sanhedrin (either Introduction to Masechet Sanhedrin or Sanhedrin #1 - Beit Din and Dinei Mamonot), Rav Schachter pointed out an oddity in Onkelos on parashat Ki Teitzei:

כד,טז לֹא-יוּמְתוּ אָבוֹת עַל-בָּנִים, וּבָנִים לֹא-יוּמְתוּ עַל-אָבוֹת:  אִישׁ בְּחֶטְאוֹ, יוּמָתוּ.  {ס}

לָא יְמוּתוּן אֲבָהָן עַל פֹּם בְּנִין, וּבְנִין לָא יְמוּתוּן עַל פֹּם אֲבָהָן:  אֲנָשׁ בְּחוֹבֵיהּ, יְמוּתוּן.  {ס}

Onkelos' general style and purpose is to give the peshat translation of the pasuk. Yet here, in translating לֹא-יוּמְתוּ אָבוֹת עַל-בָּנִים, he renders the phrase as לָא יְמוּתוּן אֲבָהָן עַל פֹּם בְּנִין.

The peshat would be that one does not punish the fathers for the sins of the sons. The derashat Chazal is that the testimony of the sons cannot be used against the father (in a capital case). And עַל פֹּם means "on the mouth of", which is "on the word of".

So, Rav Schachter remarks, it is very strange that Onkelos here deviates and translates based on the derasha instead of the peshat.

It is a good question. However, I think the answer is that, indeed, Rav Schachter is right, that Onkelos regularly gives the peshat translation. If so, we should consider whether עַל פֹּם can convey the peshat meaning.

Looking to Jastrow, we see that sometimes, פם together with a preposition can mean "because of". On page 1142:

In the phrase עַל פֹּם, the word עַל is there because it is there in the pasuk, in the Biblical Hebrew. But maybe one might think עַל means "at the same time as," just as not taking the mother bird עַל the baby birds from a kan tzipor. And so, it is a little clearer to render the ambiguous עַל as עַל פֹּם. Father are not killed because of [the sins of] the sons, and sons are not killed because of [the sins of] their father.

Indeed, if עַל פֹּם meant "the testimony of" in Aramaic, then we would expect that phrase to appear in Onkelos when the pasuk itself uses עַל-פִּי to mean "the testimony of". Compare what happens in Ki Tzeitzei with the pasuk and Targum Onkelos in parashat Shofetim:

יז,ו עַל-פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים, אוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה עֵדִים--יוּמַת הַמֵּת:  לֹא יוּמַת, עַל-פִּי עֵד אֶחָד.

עַל מֵימַר תְּרֵין סָהֲדִין, אוֹ תְּלָתָא סָהֲדִין--יִתְקְטִיל דְּחַיָּב קְטוֹל:  לָא יִתְקְטִיל, עַל מֵימַר סָהִיד חַד.

Rather than writing עַל פֹּם, Onkelos writes there עַל מֵימַר. We might have even thought in parashat Shofetim that this עַל-פִּי to mean "because of" rather than "upon the mouth of", but Onkelos there emphasizes that פי is to be taken literally as "mouth", and thus the "statement".

And so, I would suggest the since Onkelos does not say עַל מֵימַר in Ki Teitzei, and because this would accord with the peshat meaning of the pasuk, he means עַל פֹּם as "because".

Sarah laughed with her relatives

Here is an interesting Torah Temimah on Vayera:

The pasuk is Bereishit 18:12:

וַתִּצְחַ֥ק שָׂרָ֖ה בְּקִרְבָּ֣הּ לֵאמֹ֑ר אַֽחֲרֵ֤י בְלֹתִי֙ הָֽיְתָה־לִּ֣י עֶדְנָ֔ה וַֽאדֹנִ֖י זָקֵֽן׃

"And Sarah laughed within herself, saying: 'After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?'"

Interestingly, the Targum Onkelos on this is

וְחַיֵּיכַת שָׂרָה, בִּמְעַהָא לְמֵימַר:  בָּתַר דְּסֵיבִית תְּהֵי לִי עוּלֵימוּ, וְרִבּוֹנִי סִיב. 

The word בִּמְעַהָא, in her innards, can be quite literal and anatomical. Maybe she is laughing about her innards, about the state of her womb. Compare to parashat Toledot, where it translates both the Hebrew bikirbah (as here), and means womb:

כה,כב וַיִּתְרֹצְצוּ הַבָּנִים, בְּקִרְבָּהּ, וַתֹּאמֶר אִם-כֵּן, לָמָּה זֶּה אָנֹכִי; וַתֵּלֶךְ, לִדְרֹשׁ אֶת-ה.

וְדָחֲקִין בְּנַיָּא, בִּמְעַהָא, וַאֲמַרַת אִם כֵּין, לְמָא דְּנָן אֲנָא; וַאֲזַלַת, לְמִתְבַּע אֻלְפָן מִן קֳדָם יְיָ.

as well as a few pesukim later where it serves as a translation for bivitnah:

כה,כד וַיִּמְלְאוּ יָמֶיהָ, לָלֶדֶת; וְהִנֵּה תוֹמִם, בְּבִטְנָהּ.

וּשְׁלִימוּ יוֹמַהָא, לְמֵילַד; וְהָא תְּיוֹמִין, בִּמְעַהָא.

At any rate, Torah Temimah directs our attention to a gemara in Megillah 9a, where Ptolemy compelled 70 Jewish Sages to translate the Torah to Greek:

מעשה בתלמי המלך שכינס שבעים ושנים זקנים והכניסן בשבעים ושנים בתים ולא גילה להם על מה כינסן ונכנס אצל כל אחד ואחד ואמר להם כתבו לי תורת משה רבכם נתן הקב"ה בלב כל אחד ואחד עצה והסכימו כולן לדעת אחת וכתבו לו (בראשית א, כז) אלהים ברא בראשית (בראשית א, א) אעשה אדם בצלם ובדמות (בראשית א, כו) ויכל ביום הששי וישבות ביום השביעי (בראשית ה, ב) זכר ונקבה בראו ולא כתבו בראם (בראשית יא, ז) הבה ארדה ואבלה שם שפתם (בראשית יח, יב) ותצחק שרה בקרוביה (בראשית מט, ו) כי באפם הרגו שור וברצונם עקרו אבוס (שמות ד, כ) ויקח משה את אשתו ואת בניו וירכיבם על נושא בני אדם (שמות יב, מ) ומושב בני ישראל אשר ישבו במצרים ובשאר ארצות ארבע מאות שנה (שמות כד, ה) וישלח את זאטוטי בני ישראל (שמות כד, יא) ואל זאטוטי בני ישראל לא שלח ידו (במדבר טז, טו) לא חמוד אחד מהם נשאתי (דברים ד, יט) אשר חלק ה' אלהיך אתם להאיר לכל העמים (דברים יז, ג) וילך ויעבוד אלהים אחרים אשר לא צויתי לעובדם וכתבו לו את צעירת הרגלים ולא כתבו לו (ויקרא יא, ו) את הארנבת מפני שאשתו של תלמי ארנבת שמה שלא יאמר שחקו בי היהודים והטילו שם אשתי בתורה:

Within this list is ותצחק שרה בקרוביה, that she laughed with her relatives. This looks like a slight misspelling of בקרבה, just as לא חמוד אחד מהם נשאתי (a desirous thing, rather than donkey) looks like a slight misspelling of לא חמור אחד מהם נשאתי, yet is, according to this midrash, a deliberate change, even as the target translation was Greek, where such close spellings seem irrelevant. I would point out that ואמר להם כתבו לי תורת משה רבכם does not imply any translation. Perhaps Ptolemy was demanding a mere transcription of the Hebrew text, rather than a translation?

Rashi on Megillah 9a explains the reasoning for this change, regarding Sarah laughing, as follows:

בקרוביה - שלא יאמר על אברהם לא הקפיד דכתיב ויצחק ועל שרה הקפיד לפיכך כתבו בקרוביה לומר אברהם בלבו והיא אמרה בקרוביה:

"That he should not say that about Avraham He was not strict, as is written [Bereishit 17:17 when Avraham fell on his face and laughed on hearing the news, in Lech Lecha] 'he laughed', while upon Sarah he was strict. Therefore they wrote בקרוביה, to say that Avraham was [laughing] in his heart while she said it among her relatives. [And therefore He was strict..]"

After citing Rashi, Torah Temimah continues:

"And if not for his words, once could suggest that they [the elders] changed this language because, in truth, it is difficult. For since she laughed internally, why should the verse state at all that she laughed? And in truth, in Midrash Rabba [?? I don't see it there], they sensed this, and said that with ruach hakodesh he [the malach?] knew that she laughed. And therefore they worried that Ptolmey would ask how they knew that, and the derasha of the Midrash Rabba that it was known via ruach hakodesh he would not have accepted. Therefore they wrote for him בקרוביה, such that she laughed in public..."

Interestingly enough, in what we call the Septuagint today, many of these emendations are missing. The change of חמוד for חמור is there, as I discuss in a different parshablog post. But here is what we have on this pasuk in Vayera:

12 And Sarrha laughed in herself, saying, The thing has not as yet happened to me, even until now, and my lord is old.

12 ἐγέλασεν δὲ Σαρρα ἐν ἑαυτῇ λέγουσα Οὔπω μέν μοι γέγονεν ἕως τοῦ νῦν, ὁ δὲ κύριός μου πρεσβύτερος.

So the change is missing.

How to understand כַיּוֹם in Yaakov's request to purchase the birthright

Summary: Shadal notes a girsological variation in Onkelos, and then points us to sefer Yud Aleph Resh, Savyonita, and Rashi and Ramban. Ramban discusses the meaning of the strange phrasing in Onkelos, זַבֵּין כְּיוֹם דִּלְהֵין.  I present and translate these sources.

Post: In parashat Toledot, consider this pasuk and Onkelos:

כה,לא וַיֹּאמֶר, יַעֲקֹב:  מִכְרָה כַיּוֹם אֶת-בְּכֹרָתְךָ, לִי.

וַאֲמַר, יַעֲקוֹב:  זַבֵּין כְּיוֹם דִּלְהֵין יָת בְּכֵירוּתָךְ, לִי.

Shadal, in Ohev Ger, notes as follows:

That in sefer Ya'ar, as well as in dfus Savyonita, it is translated as דִּלְהֵי, and so to in Kuf-Ayin-Alef, it is דִּילְהֵי. And so writes the Ramban, that it is so in the inspected and precise manuscripts. And the girsa of Rashi is like the majority of sefarim, namely דִּלְהֵין. And both this and that are closed to comprehension.

Thus far Shadal. Follow the hyperlinks I provided to see these manuscripts and texts inside.

Here is what Rashi had to say:

31. And Jacob said, "Sell me as of this day your birthright."		לא. וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב מִכְרָה כַיּוֹם אֶת בְּכֹרָתְךָ לִי:
Sell me as of this day: As the Targum renders: כְּיוֹם דִילְהֵן, “like this day” ; just as this day is clear, so sell it to me with a clear sale.		מכרה כיום: כתרגומו כיום דילהן, כיום שהוא ברור, כך מכור לי מכירה ברורה:

Here is what Ramban had to say:

(לא): מכרה כיום את בכורתך לי - 

כיום דילהן, כיום שהוא ברור כן מכור לי מכירה גמורה, לשון רש"י 

ופשוטו, כעת הזאת, וכן ואתה עמוד כיום ואשמיעך את דבר אלוהים (ש"א ט כז), אותו כהיום תמצאון אותו (שם יג), קטר יקטירון כיום את החלב (שם ב טז), ולנו בשת הפנים כהיום הזה (דניאל ט ז):

והנראה מדעת אונקלוס, כי בעבור היות מכירת הבכורה לאחר מיתת אביהם, אמר, מכרה לי הבכורה לאיזה יום שתפול בו, וזה שמוש "להן" בלשון ארמית, להן את אזיל, לאיזה מקום, מן הן את מודע לי, וכן בפרשת וישלח (ב"ר עח א): ולהן אינון אזלין, מן הן דאתברון. והוא לשון מורגל להם במקומות הרבה. ובדניאל (ב יא): בפתחות הלמד כטעם אלהן, להן אלהין די מדרהון עם בשרא לא איתוהי, וכן להן מלכא מלכי ישפר עלך (שם ד כד). ואונקלוס תרגם זולתי "אלהין", אלא הן. ובנוסחאות בדוקות ומדוקדקות מן התרגום כיום דלהי, והוא כמו שפירשתי, כי הי בלשונם איזה, כמו שאומר בתלמוד (ב"ק צט ב): הי רבי מאיר, הי רבי יהודה (ב"ב קמא א), וזולתן:

ואפשר שעשה אונקלוס "כיום" כאלו הוא "ביום", מכרה ביום שתבא בו הבכורה, כי כן מצאנו השמוש הזה לכ"ף, כאשר ילכו אפרוש עליהם רשתי (הושע ז יב), משפטו באשר, וכדמי בניך אשר נתתה להם (יחזקאל טז לו), כי כארבע רוחות השמים פרשתי אתכם (זכריה ב י):

ויש אומרים (הרד"ק בשם אביו): כי אין מחיר הבכורה הנזיד רק הכתוב יספר כי בבקשו לאכול והוא עיף אמר לו יעקב מכור לי בכורתך בכסף, ואחר כך אכול, וענה לו בפחזותו על האכילה למה זה לי בכורה, הרי היא מכורה לך, ונשבע עליה וישבו לאכול ולשתות, והכתוב לא פירש המחיר. ואין זו דעתי:

First he cites Rashi. Then he writes:
"And its simple meaning is 'at this time' and so too [I Shmuel 9:27]:

כז  הֵמָּה, יוֹרְדִים בִּקְצֵה הָעִיר, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר אֶל-שָׁאוּל אֱמֹר לַנַּעַר וְיַעֲבֹר לְפָנֵינוּ, וַיַּעֲבֹר; וְאַתָּה עֲמֹד כַּיּוֹם, וְאַשְׁמִיעֲךָ אֶת-דְּבַר אֱלֹהִים.  {פ}

27 As they were going down at the end of the city, Samuel said to Saul: 'Bid the servant pass on before us--and he passed on--but stand thou still at this time, that I may cause thee to hear the word of God.' {P}

and [same perek]:

יג  כְּבֹאֲכֶם הָעִיר כֵּן תִּמְצְאוּן אֹתוֹ בְּטֶרֶם יַעֲלֶה הַבָּמָתָה לֶאֱכֹל, כִּי לֹא-יֹאכַל הָעָם עַד-בֹּאוֹ--כִּי-הוּא יְבָרֵךְ הַזֶּבַח, אַחֲרֵי-כֵן יֹאכְלוּ הַקְּרֻאִים; וְעַתָּה עֲלוּ, כִּי-אֹתוֹ כְהַיּוֹם תִּמְצְאוּן אֹתוֹ.

13 As soon as ye are come into the city, ye shall straightway find him, before he go up to the high place to eat; for the people will not eat until he come, because he doth bless the sacrifice; and afterwards they eat that are bidden. Now therefore get you up; for at this time ye shall find him.'

and [I Shmuel 2:16]

טז  וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו הָאִישׁ, קַטֵּר יַקְטִירוּן כַּיּוֹם הַחֵלֶב, וְקַח-לְךָ, כַּאֲשֶׁר תְּאַוֶּה נַפְשֶׁךָ; וְאָמַר לו (לֹא), כִּי עַתָּה תִתֵּן--וְאִם-לֹא, לָקַחְתִּי בְחָזְקָה.

16 And if the man said unto him: 'Let the fat be made to smoke first of all, and then take as much as thy soul desireth'; then he would say: 'Nay, but thou shalt give it me now; and if not, I will take it by force.'

and [Daniel 9:7]:

ז  לְךָ אֲדֹנָי הַצְּדָקָה, וְלָנוּ בֹּשֶׁת הַפָּנִים כַּיּוֹם הַזֶּה; לְאִישׁ יְהוּדָה, וּלְיֹשְׁבֵי יְרוּשָׁלִַם, וּלְכָל-יִשְׂרָאֵל הַקְּרֹבִים וְהָרְחֹקִים בְּכָל-הָאֲרָצוֹת אֲשֶׁר הִדַּחְתָּם שָׁם, בְּמַעֲלָם אֲשֶׁר מָעֲלוּ-בָךְ.

7 Unto Thee, O Lord, belongeth righteousness, but unto us confusion of face, as at this day; to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and unto all Israel, that are near, and that are far off, through all the countries whither Thou hast driven them, because they dealt treacherously with Thee.

And that which appears from Onkelos' position is that since the sale of the birthright was [to take effect only] after their father's death, he said 'sell to me the birthright for whatever day it falls upon', and this is the function of להן in Aramaic, as in lehein at azeil, 'to what place'? [Josh: thus, like le'an.] And מן הן את מודע לי. And so too in parshat Vayishlach (Bereishit Rabba 78:1), להן אינון אזלין, [to where are they going], מן הן דאתברון. And it is a regular language for them in many places. And in Daniel 2:11, with a patach [Josh: kamatz?] on the lamed:

א  וּמִלְּתָא דִי-מַלְכָּה שָׁאֵל, יַקִּירָה, וְאָחֳרָן לָא אִיתַי, דִּי יְחַוִּנַּהּ קֳדָם מַלְכָּא; לָהֵן אֱלָהִין--דִּי מְדָרְהוֹן, עִם-בִּשְׂרָא לָא אִיתוֹהִי.

11 And it is a hard thing that the king asketh, and there is none other that can declare it before the king, except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh.'

and so too [Daniel 4:24]:

כד  לָהֵן מַלְכָּא, מִלְכִּי יִשְׁפַּר עליך (עֲלָךְ), וחטיך (וַחֲטָאָךְ) בְּצִדְקָה פְרֻק, וַעֲוָיָתָךְ בְּמִחַן עֲנָיִן; הֵן תֶּהֱוֵה אַרְכָה, לִשְׁלֵוְתָךְ.

24 Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee, and break off thy sins by almsgiving, and thine iniquities by showing mercy to the poor; if there may be a lengthening of thy prosperity.'

And Onkelos translates besides this the word אלהין as ela hein.

And in precise and investigated nuschaot of the Targum, it is כְּיוֹם דִּלְהֵי. And this is as I explained, for hei in their language means איזה, which, just as is stated in the Talmud (Bava Kamma 99b) "hei Rabbi Meir, hei Rabbi Yehuda" {which position of Rabbi Meir...}, and the like.

And it is possible that Onkelos made kayom as if it was bayom. 'Sell to me on the day on which the birthright comes', for we see this functionality for the kaf, such as in [Hoshea 7:12]

יב  כַּאֲשֶׁר יֵלֵכוּ, אֶפְרוֹשׂ עֲלֵיהֶם רִשְׁתִּי--כְּעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם, אוֹרִידֵם; אַיְסִירֵם, כְּשֵׁמַע לַעֲדָתָם.  {ס}

12 Even as they go, I will spread My net upon them; I will bring them down as the fowls of the heaven; I will chastise them, as their congregation hath been made to hear. {S}

and [Yechezkel 16:36]:

לו  כֹּה-אָמַר אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה, יַעַן הִשָּׁפֵךְ נְחֻשְׁתֵּךְ וַתִּגָּלֶה עֶרְוָתֵךְ, בְּתַזְנוּתַיִךְ, עַל-מְאַהֲבָיִךְ; וְעַל, כָּל-גִּלּוּלֵי תוֹעֲבוֹתַיִךְ, וְכִדְמֵי בָנַיִךְ, אֲשֶׁר נָתַתְּ לָהֶם.

36 Thus saith the Lord GOD: Because thy filthiness was poured out, and thy nakedness uncovered through thy harlotries with thy lovers; and because of all the idols of thy abominations, and for the blood of thy children, that thou didst give unto them;

and Zecharia 2:10:

י  הוֹי הוֹי, וְנֻסוּ מֵאֶרֶץ צָפוֹן--נְאֻם-יְהוָה:  כִּי כְּאַרְבַּע רוּחוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם, פֵּרַשְׂתִּי אֶתְכֶם--נְאֻם-ה.

10 Ho, ho, flee then from the land of the north, saith the LORD; for I have spread you abroad as the four winds of the heaven, saith the LORD.

And some say (the Radak in the name of his father) that the price of the firstborn rights was not the lentil stew, but rather the Scriptures relates that when he desired to eat, and he was tires, Yaakov said to him 'sell me you firstborn rights for money', and afterwards he ate, and answered him in rashness upon the food, 'what need do I have for the firstborn rights, behold it is sold to you', and he swore to him upon it, and they sat to eat and drink, and the verse does not specify the price. And this is not my position.

End quote of the Ramban.

Targum Onkelos, and the Hanging Gardens of Babylon

Summary: Why translate כְּגַנֹּת עֲלֵי נָהָר as כְּגִנַּת שִׁקְיָא דְּעַל פְּרָת, making it refer specifically to a garden on the Euphrates. Rav Chaim Kanievsky answers with a unique fertile property of the Euphrates. Rabbi Yitzchak Zeev Diskin suggests the same, as well as that it is a reference to Gan Eden. I suggest that there is a gzeira shava of nahar nahar to earlier in the parasha, to where the speaker, Bilaam, lived. And finally that it is a reference to one of the seven wonders of the ancient world, the Hanging Gardens of Babylon.

Post: A curious targum for a pasuk in Balak. Bemidbar 24:6:

כד,ה מַה-טֹּבוּ אֹהָלֶיךָ, יַעֲקֹב; מִשְׁכְּנֹתֶיךָ, יִשְׂרָאֵל.	מָא טָבָא אַרְעָךְ, יַעֲקוֹב; בֵּית מִשְׁרָךְ, יִשְׂרָאֵל.
כד,ו כִּנְחָלִים נִטָּיוּ, כְּגַנֹּת עֲלֵי נָהָר; כַּאֲהָלִים נָטַע ה, כַּאֲרָזִים עֲלֵי-מָיִם.	כְּנַחְלִין דְּמִדַּבְּרִין, כְּגִנַּת שִׁקְיָא דְּעַל פְּרָת; כְּבֻסְמַיָּא דִּנְצַב יְיָ, כְּאַרְזִין דִּנְצִיבִין עַל מַיָּא.

"Like a watered garden upon the Euphrates." Two aspects which strike me as strange are:

1) ganot in the Biblical Hebrew is plural, whereas ginat in the Aramaic is singular
2) Nahar is rendered not as river, nor as (typical unspecified Nahar) Nile, but as Peras, the Euphrates (the Nehar Hagadol Nehar Perat).

In terms of (1), we could just say that the nikkud is incorrect, and it should be plural. But why specifically the Euphrates? I've seen some answers, and I have one additional one I'll save for the end.

a) According to Rav Chaim Kanievsky, in Taama deKra:

Rav Chaim Kanievsky

כגנות עלי נהר ובתרגום כגנת שקיא דעל פרת וצ״ע למה דוקא על פרת וי״ל דמבואר בתוס׳ גיטין נ׳ א׳ ד״ה מאי דא״א לזרוע על שפת הנהר משום שהמים מקלקלין הזרעים א״כ איזה שבח זה כגנות על הנהר, אמנם בפרת אי׳ בב״ר פט״ז מעשי מודיעים עלי אדם נוטע בי ירק והיא' עומדת לג׳ ימים א״כ שם הגנות  מוצלחים ביותר וודאי לזריעה ולכן תרגם דעל פרת

"And it requires investigation, why specifically on the Euphrates? And there is to suggest that it is stated in Tosafot in Gittin 50a, d"h mai, that planting is not possible on the side of the river, because the water ruins the seeds. If so, what benefit is there in כְּגַנֹּת עֲלֵי נָהָר? However, regarding the Euphrates river, it is stated in Bereishit Rabba parasha 16, 'my actions testify upon me. A man plants me an herb and it flourishes in 3 days.' If so, there the gardens are extremely successful for planting, and therefore it translated 'upon the Euphrates'."

Perhaps; but perhaps if a garden is not directly on the riverbank, it can still prosper, such that the gemara and Tosafot is not such a problem.

Rabbi Yitzchak Zeev Diskin, in Zivchei Tzedek, offers two explanations.

The first is as Rav Kanievsky suggested. The second is to link it to Gan Eden, which is the כְּגִנַּת שִׁקְיָא, as we see in Bereishit that it is watered by the Euphrates.

I would suggest a third explanation. Who is the speaker here? It is Bilaam, who lived in Petor, which is on the Euphrates.

As we read earlier in the parasha:

ה  וַיִּשְׁלַח מַלְאָכִים אֶל-בִּלְעָם בֶּן-בְּעֹר, פְּתוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר עַל-הַנָּהָר אֶרֶץ בְּנֵי-עַמּוֹ--לִקְרֹא-לוֹ:  לֵאמֹר, הִנֵּה עַם יָצָא מִמִּצְרַיִם הִנֵּה כִסָּה אֶת-עֵין הָאָרֶץ, וְהוּא יֹשֵׁב, מִמֻּלִי.

5 And he sent messengers unto Balaam the son of Beor, to Pethor, which is by the River, to the land of the children of his people, to call him, saying: 'Behold, there is a people come out from Egypt; behold, they cover the face of the earth, and they abide over against me.

The Nahar is the one in Aram Naharayim, and refers to the Euphrates. If so, there is an obvious gezeira shava of Nahar Nahar, that when Bilaam speaks of Nahar, he is speaking of the Euphrates.

A 16th-century hand-coloured engraving of the
 "Hanging Gardens of Babylon" by Dutch artist
 Martin Heemskerck, with the Tower of Babel in
the background

Finally, there was a famous garden, or even better, a group of gardens, which are on the Euphrates river. They are one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World: The Hanging Gardens of Babylon.

To cite a description by Strabo (ca. 64 BCE – 21 CE):

"Babylon, too, lies in a plain; and the circuit of its wall is three hundred and eighty-five stadia. The thickness of its wall is thirty-two feet; the height thereof between the towers is fifty cubits; that of the towers is sixty cubits; and the passage on top of the wall is such that four-horse chariots can easily pass one another; and it is on this account that this and the hanging garden are called one of the Seven Wonders of the World. The garden is quadrangular in shape, and each side is four plethra in length. It consists of arched vaults, which are situated, one after another, on checkered, cube-like foundations. The checkered foundations, which are hollowed out, are covered so deep with earth that they admit of the largest of trees, having been constructed of baked brick and asphalt – the foundations themselves and the vaults and the arches. The ascent to the uppermost terrace-roofs is made by a stairway; and alongside these stairs there were screws, through which the water was continually conducted up into the garden from the Euphrates by those appointed for this purpose, for the river, a stadium in width, flows through the middle of the city; and the garden is on the bank of the river."^[5]

Note the text I bolded. This famous garden, or gardens (ganot / ginat) was watered (shikya) by the waters of the Euphrates (Perat).

It makes sense, in this poetic pasuk, to refer to that famous watered garden.

How to translate יוֹרִשֶׁנָּה. Should we emend Onkelos? Take II

Summary: Chelek HaDikduk explains why the Teimanim will disregard Rashi and preserve their reading of Onkelos, as יוֹרְתִנַּהּ. I agree, but take slight exception. Is Rashi setting out to emend the text, or to justify what he believes is the only extant reading of the Targum?

In parshat Shlach, Bemidbar 14:

24. But as for My servant Caleb, since he was possessed by another spirit, and he followed Me, I will bring him to the land to which he came, and his descendants will drive it[s inhabitants] out.

כד. וְעַבְדִּי כָלֵב עֵקֶב הָיְתָה רוּחַ אַחֶרֶת עִמּוֹ וַיְמַלֵּא אַחֲרָי וַהֲבִיאֹתִיו אֶל הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר בָּא שָׁמָּה וְזַרְעוֹ יוֹרִשֶׁנָּה:

Rashi writes:

will drive it[s inhabitants] out: Heb. יוֹרִשֶׁנָּה, as the Targum [Onkelos] renders,“They will drive out.” They will expel the giants and the people who dwell in it. But it [the word יוֹרִשֶׁנָּה] is not be rendered as“will inherit it” unless the text has יִירָשֶׁנָּה.

יורשנה: כתרגומו יתרכינה, יורישו את הענקים ואת העם אשר בה, ואין לתרגמו יירתינה, אלא במקום יירשנה:

Despite this, the Teimanim have a nusach in Onkelos which is precisely this:

יד,כד וְעַבְדִּי כָלֵב, עֵקֶב הָיְתָה רוּחַ אַחֶרֶת עִמּוֹ, וַיְמַלֵּא, אַחֲרָי--וַהֲבִיאֹתִיו, אֶל-הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר-בָּא שָׁמָּה, וְזַרְעוֹ, יוֹרִשֶׁנָּה.

וְעַבְדִּי כָּלֵב, חֲלָף דַּהֲוָת רוּחַ אֻחְרִי עִמֵּיהּ, וְאַשְׁלֵים, בָּתַר דַּחְלְתִי--וְאַעֵילִנֵּיהּ, לְאַרְעָא דְּעָאל לְתַמָּן, וּבְנוֹהִי, יוֹרְתִנַּהּ.

In Chelek HaDikduk, they justify this:

"In old manuscript nuschaos, the Targum is יורתינה, and so is it in the printings. And Rashi who wrote 'like its Targum ירתכינה' wrote according to the girsa which was before him. And our sefarim and printed sefarim argue on his girsa, and we should not change our girsa. For even in the variant girsaot which are found in the gemara, in matters which pertain to halacha, one does not change [הכרע] to one of the girsaot, as the Ramban writes in Masechet Yevamot, daf 419a in sefer haMilchamot, see there. So too here. And not only this, but also, there are many differences between our manuscript sefarim to the printed sefarim, even according to the girsa of the commentators of Targum. And many mefarshim have aready explained that it is a language of inheritance, as in ולזרעו יורישנה -- {and to his descendants he will inherit it}; and the intent is that it should not be removed from him to another, but rather should be as an inheritance to his descendants and to his descendants' descendants, and it is ensured. And see Radak, Chizkuni, and Abarbanel; And Rav Saadia Gaon za"l explained it in Arabic as ולנסלה יורתה {with the lamed, and as יורתה}, in agreement to the commentary of the Targum in manuscript, vedok."

That is, RaSaG writes:

My thoughts on this is that they certainly are entitled to maintain their nusach in Onkelos, and indeed, it may well be correct and thus reflect the original in Onkelos.

The only thing I am not so convinced about is the assertion that

And Rashi who wrote 'like its Targum ירתכינה' wrote according to the girsa which was before him.

There are two ways of interpreting Rashi.

1. One is that he had only one text of Onkelos before him, and he sided with it, explained it, and explained why the text of Onkelos was not different.
2. Another is that Rashi was well aware of the other girsa, namely the one the Teimanim have, and explained why he believed it to be incorrect. To that end, he made a grammatical argument as well as an appeal to how Onkelos translates throughout Torah.

My gut tells me that Rashi reads more like someone selecting between girsaot, or even emending the text on the basis of sevara. So, #2.

If so, then there is less basis for claiming that we should ignore Rashi's comment and side with the 'masoretic' Onkelos text. There is a difference between a text which is masiach lefi tumo and simply assumes a text, on the one hand, and a Rishon who compared the two alternatives and explicitly sided with one of the two, backing it up with argument, on the other. And likewise, there might be a greater imperative to preserve masoretic Torah text against sevara than to preserve Onkelos to such an onslaught.

Even so, I'll reiterate that they may well be right, and the discussion is not closed merely because Rashi said something.

Finally, see what I wrote about last year about this very Rashi and Onkelos.

The dispute between Onkelos and Rashi over לַחָפְשִׁי

Summary: Whether it is to freedom or to [be a slave] to a free man. I doubt such a dispute actually exists.

Post: I saw an interesting idea in Chelek HaDikduk.

Towards the start of Mishpatim, we encounter this pasuk:

2. Should you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall work [for] six years, and in the seventh [year], he shall go out to freedom without charge.

ב. כִּי תִקְנֶה עֶבֶד עִבְרִי שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים יַעֲבֹד וּבַשְּׁבִעִת יֵצֵא לַחָפְשִׁי חִנָּם:

and Rashi explains lechofshi as:

to freedom: Heb. לַחָפְשִׁי, to freedom.

לחפשי: לחירות:

As an uncommon word, it bears translation to a more familiar term. Onkelos renders it almost identically:

כא,ב כִּי תִקְנֶה עֶבֶד עִבְרִי, שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים יַעֲבֹד; וּבַשְּׁבִעִת--יֵצֵא לַחָפְשִׁי, חִנָּם.

אֲרֵי תִּזְבּוֹן עַבְדָּא בַּר יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֵׁית שְׁנִין יִפְלַח; וּבִשְׁבִיעֵיתָא--יִפּוֹק לְבַר חוֹרִין, מַגָּן.

Here, instead of meaning 'to freedom', as Rashi renders it, Onkelos renders it as 'to [be] a free man'. For both, it is a noun, but there is a slightly different way of presenting it.

According to Chelek HaDikduk, if I understand him correctly, Onkelos is not presenting this nuanced, slightly different explanation from Rashi, but basically saying the same thing. Rather, he is saying that he goes out to a [different] free man, to be a slave to that other free man.

To put it mildly, I doubt that this is what Onkelos intends. Perhaps if this is intended as remez, I am OK with it. But it certainly is not peshat in Onkelos.

I see he refers to Etz HaChaim, by Rabbi Chaim ben Yaakov Abulafia. See the bottom of the first column.

A nice deal on Onkelos in English, with commentary

I saw the following deal the other day, which seems nice. From KosherKouponz, a set of Onkelos on the Torah: Understanding the Bible Text, for only $130, where the regular price is $200.

They are also offering a similar deal at Amazon, but not as good a deal.


But if you look at the website for the YU Seforim sale, they have an even better deal:

Onkelos - Bamidbar(Numbers) $23.60 In Stock Add to Cart

Onkelos - Beraishit $23.60 In Stock Add to Cart

Onkelos - Devarim $23.60 In Stock Add to Cart

Onkelos - Shemot $23.60 In Stock Add to Cart

Onkelos - Vayikra $23.60 In Stock Add to Cart

Onkelos on the Torah 5 volume set $118.00 In Stock Add to Cart



To give you a sense of what this work on Onkelos is like, I'll provide this image. Follow the third link above in Amazon to get to Look Inside:

The pages alternate, and thus they also providing the Biblical Hebrew text of the Torah with Rashi (not shown). What is pictured above is a vocalized Onkelos, a facing English translation with interesting words or phrases bolded, and a running commentary below explaining what makes those words or phrases so interesting.

Further thoughts on לילי vs ליל in Onkelos on Bo

There were some rather good comments to a post on parashat Bo two weeks ago (perhaps read that post first), which I would like to bring to the fore and present and discuss in a post. The post was about the seeming plural of לילי in Targum Onkelos, in translating leil shimurim and while acknowledging that it is (or can be) the singular from a peshat perspective, taking it as the plural from the perspective of remez.

Onkelos:

יב,מב לֵיל שִׁמֻּרִים הוּא לַה', לְהוֹצִיאָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם:  הוּא-הַלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה לַה', שִׁמֻּרִים לְכָל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְדֹרֹתָם.  {פ}

לֵילֵי נְטִיר הוּא קֳדָם יְיָ, לְאַפָּקוּתְהוֹן מֵאַרְעָא דְּמִצְרָיִם:  הוּא לֵילְיָא הָדֵין קֳדָם יְיָ, נְטִיר לְכָל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְדָרֵיהוֹן.  {פ}

Mar Gavriel relates the why of it:

Right, Dr. Steiner has talked about this in class:

לֵלְיָא – why the yud? It must be from an old reduplicated form *laylayu.

This is like the old *maymaymu. For many years, Dr. Steiner wondered why the form מַ֫יִם looked dual. Now, he realizes – it’s neither plural nor dual: it’s singular!

In the Mishna, in a number of places, we find לֵילֵי שַׁבָּת (parallel to יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת), which is singular. Similarly, one construct form of מַיִם is מֵימֵי. (More common is just מֵי, and in medieval piyyut we see also מֵימוֹת.) Later, it was mis-analyzed as dual or plural, and construed this way—but we still find examples where מַ֫יִם is singular: 

There are various absolute forms of *laylayu in Hebrew: The most common form retains the case ending, לַ֫יְלָה; there also exist לֵיל (Isaiah in משא דומה); and לַיִל (in Isaiah 16:3).

And Yaak makes two interesting points.

First of all, some versions of Onkelos just has ליל.

Indeed. (Though Shadal in Ohev Ger does not note any differing versions.) Here is one such example, from Dfus Savyonita, 1557, one of the texts Shadal regularly references:


Thus, it seems like he had the apparent plural לילי consistently across the texts he consulted.

But consider this Chumash:

1703	תנ"ך. תורה. תס"ג. ברלין
	חמשה חומשי תורה : ... מקושטים ומלובשים בעשרה לבושי אורה ... והמה ... תרגום אונקלוס ותרגום יונתן ב"ע [בן עזיאל] ותרגום הירושלמי ... רש"י והרשב"ם והראב"ע ... המסורת ... ופירוש הרב בעל הטורים ... ובעל תולדת אהרן ... פי' הרד"ק על ההפטרות ...
	ברלין : [חמו"ל], תס"ג-תס"ח.

Still, if I would have to choose from ליל and לילי, I would select לילי. It seems to me to be an obvious case of lectio difficilior, the rule of the more difficult word being the original. The Biblical Hebrew text has simply ליל, and לילי looks, on a surface level, to be a plural. It makes a lot of sense that a scribe would consider לילי to be a scribal error and then 'correct' it to ליל.

An emendation in the opposite direction does not work as readily. Yes, a scribe might know the midrash and so change to לילי in order to support it, deviating from the singular in the Biblical Hebrew text. But this would be a deliberate emendation to introduce a midrash, which is not the typical role of a scribe. So, lectio difficilior supports לילי as the original.

Yaak also noted that:

Secondly, the Remez of the Chelek Hadikduk makes perfect sense to me (yes, Remez is my cup of tea - pardon the pun) since if you look at the Targum Yonatan and Targum Yerushalmi, it lists the nights that are hinted to.

This is a pretty strong point, IMHO. It is not just some random midrash but rather is a midrash that other (likely later, but still) Targumim saw fit to include in translating the verse. And I've seen both ליל and לילי in use in these Targumim.

Targum Yonasan reads:

Four nights are there written in the Book of Memorials before the Lord of the world. Night the first,--when He was revealed in creating the world; the second,--when He was revealed to Abraham; the third,--when He was revealed in Mizraim, His hand killing all the firstborn of Mizraim, and His right hand saving the firstborn of Israel; the fourth,--when He will yet be revealed to liberate the people of the house of Israel from among the nations. And all these are called Nights to be observed; for so explained Mosheh, and said thereof, It is to be observed on account of the liberation which is from the Lord, to lead forth the people of the sons of Israel from the land of Mizraim. This is that Night of preservation from the destroying angel for all the sons of Israel who were in Mizraim, and of redemption of their generations from their captivity.

And Targum Yerushalmi reads:

[JERUSALEM. TARGUM. It is a night to be observed and celebrated for the liberation from before the Lord in bringing forth the sons of Israel, made free from the land of Mizraim. Four nights are there written in the Book of Memorial. Night first; when the Word of the Lord was revealed upon the world as it was created; when the world was without form and void, and darkness was spread upon the face of the deep, and the Word of the Lord illuminated and made it light; and he called it the first night. Night second; when the Word of the Lord was revealed unto Abraham between the divided parts; when Abraham was a son of a hundred years, and Sarah was a daughter of ninety years, and that which the Scripture saith was confirmed,--Abraham a hundred years, can he beget? and Sarah, ninety year old, can she bear? Was not our father Izhak a son of thirty and seven years, at the time he was offered upon the altar? The heavens were (then) bowed down and brought low, and Izhak saw their realities, and his eyes were blinded at the sight, and he called it the second night. The third night; when the Word of the Lord was revealed upon the Mizraee, at the dividing of the night; His right hand slew the firstborn of the Mizraee, His right hand spared the firstborn of Israel; to fulfil what the Scripture hath said, Israel is My firstborn son. And he called it the third night. Night the fourth; when the end of the age will be accomplished, that it might be dissolved, the bands of wickedness destroyed and the iron yoke broken. Mosheh came forth from the midst of the desert; but the King Meshiha (comes) from the midst of Roma. The Cloud preceded that, and the Cloud will go before this one; and the Word of the Lord will lead between both, and they shall proceed together. This is the night of the Pascha before the Lord, to be observed and celebrated by the sons of Israel in all their generations.]

Despite this, I am not really persuaded. The nature of the derasha even in these Targumim is to see leil Shimurim as a general night of protection and salvation. Thus, a leil netir umezuman, perhaps withthe entire phrase or perhaps with just shimurim yielding umezuman. And we see in Tg. Yerushalmi a simple rendition of this idea. It does not require the plural, but rather the singular, whether that singular appears as ליל or לילי in the Aramaic text. The details of the four nights within this midrashic expansion comes from the same close derivation of each phrase in the pasuk that Chelek HaDikduk described.

So there is no need for the remez -- though that seems to be a major aspect of of remez in general, namely, allusions to midrashim which are elsewhere derived. I am not persuaded that this was Onkelos' intention.

A censored Onkelos and Rashi in parashat Bo

Summary: דְּיִשְׁתַּמַּד in Onkelos and ישראל משומד in Rashi were perceived as offensive to Christians, and so some texts cross them out or replace them with more innocuous alternatives.

Post:
While scanning through parashat Bo in a Chumash with Onkelos, dfus Savyonita (from 1557), last week, I noticed the following:

A word is partly crossed out in Targum Onkelos, towards the end of the parasha. That word is, I would guess, (mechon-mamre):

יב,מג וַיֹּאמֶר ה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן, זֹאת חֻקַּת הַפָּסַח:  כָּל-בֶּן-נֵכָר, לֹא-יֹאכַל בּוֹ.

וַאֲמַר יְיָ לְמֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרוֹן, דָּא גְּזֵירַת פִּסְחָא:  כָּל בַּר יִשְׂרָאֵל דְּיִשְׁתַּמַּד, לָא יֵיכוֹל בֵּיהּ.

This as a translation of ben neichar, since it is being taken to mean not (just) a gentile, but a Jew who has become a meshumad. Apparently, this is a pretty common word to be taken as offensive, and to be removed or replaced by the censor. Thus, to cite Wikipedia:

משומד הוא מי שהמיר את דתו מהיהדות לדת אחרת. במרוצת הדורות, בעקבות הצנזורה על ספרי הקודש, הומר הכינוי "משומד", שהובן על ידי הנוצרים כגנאי לנצרות, ותחתיו נכתב בכל מקום "מומר", במובן של המרת דת.

Here is Rashi on the pasuk, putting forth the same derasha as Onkelos:

43. The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "This is the statute of the Passover sacrifice: No estranged one may partake of it.

מג. וַיֹּאמֶר ה אֶל מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן זֹאת חֻקַּת הַפָּסַח כָּל בֶּן נֵכָר לֹא יֹאכַל בּוֹ:

No estranged one: Whose deeds have become estranged from his Father in heaven. Both a gentile and an Israelite apostate are meant. — [from Mechilta]

כל בן נכר: שנתנכרו מעשיו לאביו שבשמים. ואחד נכרי ואחד ישראל משומד במשמע:

And here is another Chumash, with some interesting emendations on both the Onkelos and the Rashi:

1703	תנ"ך. תורה. תס"ג. ברלין
	חמשה חומשי תורה : ... מקושטים ומלובשים בעשרה לבושי אורה ... והמה ... תרגום אונקלוס ותרגום יונתן ב"ע [בן עזיאל] ותרגום הירושלמי ... רש"י והרשב"ם והראב"ע ... המסורת ... ופירוש הרב בעל הטורים ... ובעל תולדת אהרן ... פי' הרד"ק על ההפטרות ...
	ברלין : [חמו"ל], תס"ג-תס"ח.

Thus, they replaced it with the more innocuous דאסתלק.

What about Rashi, which had ואחד נכרי ואחד ישראל משומד במשמע? The Chumash has the more innocuous alternative, מומר: