NEW DIRECTIONS IN BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP: Targum Yerushalmi to the Pentateuch

Author(s): David J. Martin and David S. Martin

Source: Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought, Vol. 13/14, Vol. 13, no. 4/Vol.
14, no. 1 (Spring-Summer, 1973), pp. 201-208
Published by: Rabbinical Council of America (RCA)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23257290
Accessed: 23-06-2016 03:13 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Rabbinical Council of America (RCA) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought

This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Thu, 23 Jun 2016 03:13:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 David J. Martin

The author of this essay is a graduate student at

Yeshiva University.

REVIEW ESSAY:

NEW DIRECTIONS IN BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP

Targum Yerushalmi to the Pentateuch

Until the second half of this cen ignored.5 Thus, with the passage of
tury, the amount of actual Biblical time, traditional forms of Biblical
or early commentary material avail study were being slowly supplanted
able to the modern Jewish scholar by these newer methods of Scriptu
was no greater than that which was ral scholarship.
available to his predecessor in the In the last thirty years, however,
Middle Ages. Indeed, in many ways major discoveries of ancient Bib
it had been diminished! The Alep lical texts and commentaries have
po Codex, for example, which was brought about a refocusing of Bib
used by the Rishonim in their textu lical research. The first and most
al studies,1 was almost entirely de obvious of these finds was the cache
stroyed; in the realm of comment of manuscripts in the Dead Sea re
ary, substantial portions of Midra gion. Of these much has been writ
shic material had been lost through ten® and it will be many years be
the ages.2 fore the final word will be entered
In keeping with the scholarly as to their significance. Other dis
quest for novelty, then, students of coveries have not enjoyed such
the Bible turned to new avenues of widespread recognition, but I be
Scriptural study. Some looked to lieve rank with the scrolls as a force
extra-Biblical sources, such as com in turning the direction of Biblical
parative Semitics,3 where a vast scholarship back to the examination
amount of untapped material await of ancient Biblical texts with special
ed them.4 Others became party to emphasis on aggadic and halakhic
relatively new approaches, such as commentary.
source criticism,4" where anything One such find* took place more
other than the Scriptural text itself than fifteen years ago in the manu
was by definition unnecessary and script division of the Vatican libra
•Neophyti I: Targum Palistinense, Ms. de la Biblioteca Vaticana. Ed. by Ale
jandro Diez Macho. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Madrid
Barcelona. Tomo I Genesis 1968, pp. 136*, 643. Tomo II Exodo 1970, pp.
79«, 579. Tomo III Levitico 1971, pp. 83*, 517.

201

This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Thu, 23 Jun 2016 03:13:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 TRADITION: A Journal of Orthodox Thought
ry. A Spanish scholar, Prof. Alejan
dro Diez Macho of the University
of Barcelona, while examining
manuscripts of the Targum Onke
los in the course of his work on a
new Polyglot, found a complete
manuscript of a Palestinian Targum
(Targum Yerushalmi) of the Pen
tateuch. The manuscript, errone
ously labeled both on its binding
and in the Vatican catalogues as a
Renaissance copy of the Onkelos,
was in fact a medieval (1504) copy
of a Targum that is believed to pre
date Onkelos, perhaps to First Tem
ple times. This Targum, which was
part of the Vatican's NeofitF col
lection, contains much material
either unknown entirely or known
to us only through secondary
sources.
In his original announcement,8
Prof. Diez Macho promised that a
critical edition of the Targum Yeru
shalmi would be forthcoming and
the Biblical scholarly world waited
anxiously. Although the historic ex
istence of a Palestinian Targum had
long been known, twentieth century
scholars had only a small portion
of this Targum available. At the
end of the last century fragments
of an ancient Palestinian Targum
were discovered in the Cairo geni
zah and published some years later
by Prof. Paul Kahle.9 Other frag
ments were published in some edi
tions of the Rabbinic Bible (Mik
raot Gedolot) and in a separate
volume by Moses Ginsburger near
ly seventy-five years ago.10 But all
of these materials combined repro
duced so tiny a portion of a Tar
gum to the entire Pentateuch that
some scholars suspected that no
separate, complete Targum Yeru
202
This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Thu, 23 Jun 2016 03:13:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
shalmi ever existed.11 Essentially,
the situation was not unlike that of
a millennium ago when R. Hai Ga
on commented that he did not
know who had composed the Tar
gum Yerushalim nor what its con
tents were.12 The Neofiti Targum
promised to change that situation
drastically.
In 1968, Prof. Diez-Macho pub
lished the Genesis portion of the
Neofiti Tar gum in a volume that
included a lengthy introduction, the
text of the Targum and three trans
lations: a Spanish version facing
the Aramaic text and French and
English translations in an appendix.
In 1970 the Exodus volume ap
peared and this year a companion
Leviticus was published. We will
have more to say about the tech
nical work itself but first, this much
material demands a review of the
identity and significance of the
Neofiti Targum.
Diez-Macho and others have ex
tensively examined the Neofiti text
and its relationship to known frag
ments of the Targum Yerushalmi
and other early Palestinian Aramaic
compositions.13 On the basis of
these comparisons the manuscript
was summarily identified as the
Palestinian Targum. None of these
scholars, however, has examined
the Neofiti and its relationship to
that Targum Yerushalmi cited by
early Biblical and Talmudic com
mentaries. Several examples ex
amined by this writer should show
conclusively that the Neofiti con
tains material which was known to
both chachmel Provence and
chachmei Sepharad as part of the
Targum Yerushalmi and is not
known in any other extant Targum.
 yew Directions in Biblical Scholarship
rhat is to say, this manuscript con
tins not only a Palestinian Tar
?um, but specifically that Targum
which was known to the early exe
ntes as Targum Yerushalmi.
In Genesis 48:14 we read that
when blessing Joseph's sons, Israel
'sikel et yadav (guided his hands
wittingly)." R. Chananel in his
:ommentary to the Talmud (B.M.
25a) quotes a "Targum Eretz Yis
rael" which interprets this verse
is "shalchephinu yeladohi (crossed
tiis hands)." This translation is un
known in any other Targum to this
verse but is found explicitly in the
Neofiti! This Targum is also cited
by Alf asi to B.M. ibid., Se fer Ha
Oruch (11th cent.) s.v. shalcheph,
and Rashbam on the Talmud (B.B.
99a).
Also in Genesis we find Joseph
beginning the description of his
dream as follows: "vehineh anach
nu mealmim alumim" (Genesis
37:7). The Targum Yerushalmi to
this verse is cited by Rashi (11th
cent.) in his commentary (J9.M.
21a s.v. kerichot) as "mekarkhin
kerikhin." Similarly Sefer HaOruch
(s.v. Karoch) writes: "mealmim
alumim Targum Yerushalmi mek
arkhin karkhon." The Onkelos Tar
gum has a completely different
translation while Targum Yonathan
renders slightly differently mephar
khin pirkhin, as does the printed
Targum Yerushalmi. Only the Neo
fiti translates the verse exactly as
the early commentaries record!
In Exodus (23:11) the verse
commands that the sabbatical fruits
lay at rest and fallow ("tishmeten■
oh unetashtoh"). Radak in Sefrr
Hasheroshim (s'.v. bkr) cites the
Targum Yerushalmi to this verse
This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Thu, 23 Jun 2016 03:13:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
ís: "tishmetun . . . untevakrun
{leave at rest and renounce)." A
¡imilar version is quoted in Ram
)an to Leviticus 19:20. The Neo
lti reads exactly as the Targum
:ited by Radak! We shall see later
hat this translation is not only im
sortant in establishing the identity
jf the Targum but also in its ha
akhic ramifications.
Hnally, in Genesis 44:12 we are
:old that the search for Joseph's
goblet began with the sack of the
eldest brother and ended (kilah) in
the sack of the youngest. R. Bahye
n his commentary cites the inter
pretation of the Tar gum Yerushal
mi to kilah as sayef. This is differ
;nt from Onkelos who employs a
iifferent verb and Yonathan who
ioes not provide a literal transla
tion. Only the Neofiti agrees with
R. Bahye's citation.
While by no means exhaustive,14
these examples suggest very defin
itely that the Neofiti is in fact the
Targum Yerushalmi (or Targum
Eretz Yisrael) known to the early
commentaries.
Having concluded this much, we
must turn to the more basic prob
lem of ascertaining the date of com
position for this Targum. On this
point the scholars have been divid
ed. Diez-Macho, in his introduction
and several other essays,15 sub
scribes to the theory that the Neo
fiti dates back, probably to the time
of Ezra, but by no means later than
the early Christian era. His ma
jor15" arguments fall into three cate
gories: legal, historical-referential,
and linguistic.
The legal arguments, essentially,
are based on Geiger's famous max
im that "what is contrary to the
203
 TRADITION: A Journal of Orthodox Thought
Mishnah is prior to it." Thus, when
Diez-Macho and others found sev
eral points where the Neofiti con
tradicted the accepted halakhic ex
planations they concluded that the
Neofiti reproduced legal interpreta
tions prior to, and rejected by,
Mishnaic decision and codification.
In a recent monograph, the edi
tor presents several such instances
of anti-Mishnaic interpretation as
compiled by his student Dr. M.
Ohana.18 One subtle, but interest
ing example is the Neofiti transla
tion to Exodus 22:4, a verse deal
ing with civil liability. Tannaitic
halakhah (B.K. 3a) understands
this verse as referring to nizkei
shen (damages caused by grazing)
and in accord is Onkelos who trans
lates veyaikhul bachakal (will eat
in the field). The Neofiti, however,
renders this verse with the verb yu
kad (will burn), thus referring to
nizkei esh (damages caused through
fire) and indeed eliminating the
scriptural basis for a whole section
of tort law. This reading, it should
be noted, is corrected by the glossal
notes to the Neofiti manuscript re
flecting an early concern that the
Tar gum Yerushalmi has deviated
from the accepted tradition. Ac
cording to Diez-Macho the contra
diction can only be satisfactorily
explained by assuming a pre-Mish
naic date for the Neofiti Targum.
A very serious argument against
this method of dating, however, has
been advanced by several writers.17
They argue that the Targum was an
aggadic rather than a halakhic doc
ument and thus would be more con
cerned with faithfulness to the text
than with conforming to technical
halakhic details. Thus, interpreta
204
This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Thu, 23 Jun 2016 03:13:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
tions which are antinomian are not,
in fact, definite indications of a pre
codification date.
This problem, of course, requires
further examination both in terms
of the Neofiti in particular and the
method in general. Specifically,
whether such a sharp dichotomy be
tween halakhah and aggadah ever
actually existed is doubtful. With
out attempting to decide any of
these problems, this writer would
call to mind that some of the early
medieval commentators who were
not only post-Mishnaic but also well
aware of the halakhah still chose to
interpret particular verses in a text
faithful rather than a halakhic
manner. One well-known example is
Rashbam who interprets leolam in
Exodus 21:6 to mean until the end
of the slave's life and not as the
halakhah renders18—until the Ju
bilee. Of course, it would be absurd
to use this type of evidence to date
a commentary to pre-Mishnaic
times, but where the line is to be
drawn in terms of this method's
usefulness remains an open ques
tion.
The second set of arguments is
the least convincing. Diez-Macho
claims that the absence in the Neo
fiti of such obviously late historical
and geographical references as the
names of the wife and daughter
of Mohammed (which are found
in Tar gum Yonathan to Gene
sis 21:21) must lead to an
early dating. Two obvious objec
tions to this sort of argument must
be presented. First, even the pres
ence of such references would not
in itself support a late dating. Cer
tainly, the entire Targum Yonathan
was not composed after the birth
 yew Directions in Biblical Scholarship
af Mohammed. At most, this evi
dence would prove late tampering
with the text. The unavailability of
the Tar gum Yerushalmi which we
have previously referred to, might
jxplain why this tampering did not
take place. Second, even if such
references would support a late
date, their absence does not deny
it. Targum Yonathan and Targum
Yerushalmi represent separate de
velopments and such comparative
proofs cannot be sustained. Of
:ourse, a very late date is impos
sible on the basis of the evidence
we have presented that this Targum
was known to the earliest of the
commentaries, but no pre-Geonic
date can thereby be set, either.
The final set of arguments, which
are linguistic in character, would
be the most convincing but they
are not yet sufficiently detailed.
Such analysis will require many
years of research into the develop
ment of early post-Biblical Aramaic
in light of some of the Dead Sea
discoveries, and then a comparison
of such texts with the Neofiti. Some
Aramaic scholars have expressed
reservations about the early date
of the Neofiti Aramaic on the ba
sis of such preliminary investiga
tions, but these are admitted to be
inconclusive.19 Diez-Macho also re
fers to the large number of Greek
words which are found in the Neo
fiti and cites them as evidence of a
first century or earlier date.20 This
type of examination, along with a
careful comparison of the Neofiti
to the language of the Peshita,
other Targumim, and the Palestin
ian Talmud is still in a state of
fluidity.
This brings us, then, to a tew
This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Thu, 23 Jun 2016 03:13:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
words on the importance or the
Neofiti to future studies, both Bib
lical and otherwise. Most obvious
ly, the Neofiti is a prime source of
the Aramaic which was popular in
the post-Biblical period. (Exactly
what period, of course, depends on
a final dating of the Targum.) We
know from several Talmudic ref
erences21 that the major function
af the Targumim was to serve as a
synagogue interpretation of the Bi
ble and as such surely the language
Df the translation was popular, if
not actually colloquial. The choice
of Aramaic as the language of
translation was for the very reason
that this was the language most
familiar to the people.
Second, this translation, like the
Targum Yonatan, contains not only
translation but also midrashic in
terpretation. Thus, for example, the
Neofiti in Genesis 44:19 records
a Midrash that Joseph commanded
his son Mannaseh to display his
physical prowess before the broth
ers. It was this act that was respon
sible for Judah's suspicion that the
people before him were from Ja
cob's household. This Midrash,
which is contained in a somewhat
shortened form in the printed por
tions of the Targum Yerushalmi,
is not found in the standard mid
rashim and is recounted in an only
vaguely similar form in Sefer Ha
yashar.22 Thus, the Neofiti should
serve as a fertile ground for the
study of the early stages of Midra
shic development.
In the field of Halakhah, this
Tar gum once independently dated
may answer several very important
questions including the identifica
tion of the minority or antinomian
205
 TRADITION: A Journal of Orthodox Thought
views against which the codified ha
lakhah directed itself. Further, the
Targum may also serve as a source
for some laws which do not find
mention in the Talmud. Of the lat
ter, the Targum to Exodus 23:11
which we have discussed above may
be an example. Recall that the Neo
fiti speaks of a renunciation of own
ership over fruits of the sabbatical
year. Many of the later Talmudic
commentaries23 have discussed the
problem of whether each individual
must renounce ownership of his
crops in the Sabbatical year or
whether they are automatically hef
ker. In terms of Exodus 23:11 the
problem is whether the phrase une
lash to demands action on the part
of the landowner or merely restricts
his exercise of dominion over the
crop. The Neofiti's use of the term
tevakrun (to renounce owner
ship)24 would suggest the opinion
of those who demand that the own
er render the crop hef ker:25 Indeed
in this instance the Neofiti has
strayed from the literal meaning of
the text lending even more support
to this theory.
The technical details of the pub
lication deserve a few words of
praise and several minor criticisms.
All three volumes which have ap
peared so far are sufficiently dis
tinguished for so important a find,
but in some ways are physically ov
erburdened. The three translations
are clearly unnecessary and I won
der if no translation whatsoever
might not have been advisable, es
206
This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Thu, 23 Jun 2016 03:13:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
pecxally if it would have lowered
the cost and preparation time of
the work. In any case, the choice
af the Spanish translation to face
the text is highly questionable.
Clearly, most readers will be using
sither the French or English trans
lations and one of these might bet
ter have been chosen to accompany
the Aramaic.
It is noteworthy that the editor
bas included translations of the
apparatus criticus, but the system
of notes is confusing and uncon
ventional. Diez-Macho has included
his emendations and corrections in
the text body itself. Thus, in those
cases where he believes the actual
Neofiti text to be faulty, he has
relegated it to a note.
Finally, the lengthy and very im
portant introductory remarks are
not translated from the Spanish and
as such present a serious obstacle
to many students of early Jewish
literature. The reader will also find
much of this material and signifi
cant additions in Prof. Diez-Ma
cho's new monograph "El Targum"
which, unfortunately, has not been
translated either.26
These reservations, however, are
minor criticisms of an otherwise
outstanding work. For their presen
tation of this important work, the
editor and his collaborators are to
be highly commended. Their pub
lication is sure to set the direction
of much future scholarship as it
presents a fertile challenge for seri
ous Torah study.
 New Directions in Biblical Scholarship

NOTES

1. Maimonides specifically is believed to have relied on the Aleppo Codex

in formulating the rules for writing a Torah scroll, Chapt. 8 Hilkhot Sefer
Torah. On this point see the article by Rabbi Jordan Penkower to be published
in the near future in Textus. Despite the convincing arguments of this thesis,
however, I do not see how the contradiction between the Bodleian manuscript
of the Mishneh Torah, purported to be in Maimonides' own hand, and the
Codex at Exodus 20:14 can be explained.
2. Much of the popular aggadic work, Sefer Hayashar, hints at otherwise
unknown midrashim. For an example of the value of the Neofiti specifically in
this regard, see below.
3. It has often Ijeen ignored by scholars that the Rishonim, too, occasionally
engaged in exegesis based on comparisons with other Semitic languages. Aside
from the more obvious instances of the use of comparative semitics by those
members of the Spanish school who were familiar with Arabic, we may also
point out that Rashi, the exegete par excellence of chachmei Provence, cited
to Arabic, Greek, and other languages. For a review of Rashi as a comparative
semiticist see Pereira-Mendoza, J., Rashi as Philologist, (Manchester University
Press, 1940). The Talmud, too, refers to other languages in interpretation of
scripture. See Rosh Hashanah 26a where such comparisons were the basis for
actual halakhic decisions.

4. For example, the tablets discovered at Ras Shamra in 1929 from which
the Ugaritic language has been reconstructed.
4a. There are some suggestions that the Rishonim, too, knew of source critical
theories. See Rashi and Ibn Ezra to Genesis 36:31, Ibn Ezra to Deut. 1:2, and
Ibn Ezra to Isaiah 40:1.
5. That source criticism has also ignored archaeological material which con
tradicted their hypotheses see Segal, M. H., The Pentateuch, Its composition and
its authorship and other Biblical studies, Magnes Press, (Jerusalem, 1967), pg. 2.
6. See the ongoing series of publications in Revue de Qumran; Sukenik, The
Dead Sea Scrolls of the Hebrew University (Jerusalem), Burrows, M„ The Dead
Sea Scrolls of St. Mark's Monastery (New Haven), Barthélémy, D. and Milik,
J. T., Discoveries in the Judaean Desert (1955 and subsequent volumes): Driver,
G. R., The Judaean Scrolls (New York, 1965): and the popular introduction to
the scrolls by Prof. Yigael Yadin, The Message of the Scrolls (New York, 1957).
7. The manuscript was originally part of the collection of the Neophytorum,
an institute for Moslem and Jewish converts to Christianity, and was transferred
to the Vatican in 1891.

8. "The Recently Discovered Palestinian Targum: Its Antiquity and Rela

tionship with the Other Targums," Vetus Testamentum Congress Volume (Lei
den, 1960), pg. 222.
9. Masoreten des Westens (Stuttgart, 1930).
10. Das Fragmententhargum (Thargum Jeruschalmi zum Pentateuch), (Berlin,
1899).
11. Cf. Heller, R. Haim Al HaTargum HaYerushalmi LaTorah (New York,

207

This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Thu, 23 Jun 2016 03:13:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 TRADITION: A Journal of Orthodox Thought

1921) for a decisive refutation of this theory which was propounded by R. Bin
yamin Mousfia in Mosaf HaOruch.
12. Quoted by R. Jechiel Weinberg Seridei Esh (Jerusalem, 1969), Vol. 4, pg.
271.
13. Vetus Testamentum, ibid, and his introduction to Targum Neofiti.
14. See also Radak to Exodus 15:27 citing a Targum Yerushalmi found only
in the Neofiti. Problematic, however, is the Targum Yerushalmi to Genesis 2:2
cited by early commentaries and unknown in the Neofiti. Cf. Heller's discussion
of this and comment that not all Rishonim had this Targum in a note op. cit.
Pg- !2
15. Vetus Testamentum, ibid, and El Targum: Introducción a las Traducci
ones Aramaicas de la Biblia (Barcelona, 1972).
15a. Diez-Macho has also based his conclusion for a very early dating on an
examination of the pre-Massoretic text which he believes Neofiti relies on. This
method, however, has been severely criticized in particular by Wernberg-Moller
"An Inquiry Into the Validity of the Text-Critical Method" Vetus Testamentum
12 (Leiden: 1964) and in general by R. Heller, op. cit.; Unterzüchungen Iber
Die Peshitah (Berlin, 1911) and HaNusach HaShomroni. See, also, Weinberg R.
Jechiel, "Al HaTargum HaSuri LaTanach" in Seridei Eish, Vol. 4, pg. 103
(Jerusalem: 1969).
16. Ibid., pg. 74.
17. See Albeck, H. in the Jubilee Volume in honor of M. Levin (Jerusalem,
1940), pp. 93 ff. Also cf. Heinemann, D. "Exodus 22:4 and the Early Halakhah"
Tarbiz Vol. 38 (1969), p. 294 in response to Reider, Tarbiz Vol. 38 (1968), pg. 5.
18. Kiddushin 15a.

19. Cf. Fitzmyer, J., Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 32, 1970, pg. 112.
20. Vetus Testamentum, ibid., pg. 230.
21. Mishnah Megillah 4:4, 4:10 (the third chapter of Megillah is considered
the fourth chapter in the Mishnayot and by several Rishonim).
22. Sefer HaYashar (Warsaw, 1858), pg. 43.
23. Cf. Minkhat Chinukh, mitzah 84 and authorities cited there.
24. The switch between bet and peh in various Semitic languages is well-attest
ed; thus hefker and hevker both mean goods which are not owned. Cf. Mishnah
Peah 1:3; commentary of Rash MiShantz and Dikdukei Soferim ad loc.
25. Rabbi Menachem Kasdan has called my attention to the fact that such
a decision is almost explicit in Sefer Yereim by R. Eliezer of Metz (New York:
1960), mitzvah 186.
Maimonides, Sefer Hamitzvot, mitzvat aseh 134 (ed. by R. Haim Heller,
Jerusalem, 1946) contains an enigmatic remark which seems to suggest a contra
diction between just these two theses. He begins by saying "tzivonu lehafkir,"
implying a duty to actually renounce but continues by saying "vehifkir" which
suggests that the renunciation is automatic. There are other texts which differ
slightly but all present the same problem. It is interesting that the well-known
Targum Yonathan translates "vetafker" supporting the Neofiti conclusion and
one wonders why this available Targum was not cited as support by any of the
authorities.
26. See note 15.

¿US

This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Thu, 23 Jun 2016 03:13:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms