Pinchas Doron, Methodology Of Targum Jonathan Analisis Of Non-literal Renderings In Isaiah 1

METHODOLOGY OF TARGUM JONATHAN: ANALISIS OF NON-LITERAL RENDERINGS IN ISAIAH 1

The following is an analysis of the major changes from the Hebrew ·text and the additions thereto by Jonathan. An attempt is made to detect Jonathan's aims in making these changes. Needless to say, the reassons given for the various changes and additions in Isaiah 1 do not exhaust all the types of non-literal translations. They are no more than a small sample that tells us something of Jonathan's methodology. Many other types of rendition may be found elsewhere in Jonathan. Only the parts of a given verse that have non-literal renderings will be cited, followed by the Aramaic renditions, both in transliteration. Literal translations are of no interest. The Hebrew text is indicated by H. and Jonathan by J. verse 2

H. J.

Shim'ü shamayim V'haazírñ eres Shma'ü shmayá d'za'ü kad y'havit orayti l'ami vaasítt 'ar'á' d'itrgishat min qotuim. pitgamay The above addítíons come to explain why the prophet calls upon heaven and earth. It is because they witnessed awestricken the Sinai epiphany and the giving or the Law to the Jewish people. Jonathan employs here the principle of "oomparative hermeneutics". Since Moses in his admonishment to Israel to keep the Torah called upon heaven and earth as witnesses, as stated in Deut. 31: 28-30, so also Isaíah in his rebuke calls upon them as witnesses to the giving of the law, which Israel transgressed 1• H. Baním (gidaltí v'rómamtí) J. Ami bét Israel qriti l'hon bnín This rendition reflects Deut. 14: 1 where Israel was expressly called the children of God.

Verse 3

H.

. .. Yísrá'él ló'yáda' ami ló'hitbónán Yísrá'él la alif l'mida' d'halti, 'amá' lá'ístakél l'metav l'i5rayti. The underlined words may be termed "sense-translation", they give the meaning of the passage, not fully understood from the text. J.

1

24

Cf. Qim}:ii on this verse.

370 Verse

PINCHAS DORON

H. J.

Hoy goy l).ote, 'am keved 'ávón, zera' m'ré'ím, báním mashh'ltím Vay d'itqri'ü 'am qadish vahato, Knisha b'tiira' v'asgí'ü hóvín, 'itkni'ü v'zar'á r'J:iim',a, v' 'av'íshü The above is a commentary on the Hebrew text rather than a direct translation. Jonathan divides each clause into two parts, the first giving the original state, the second the resultant condition. "Such and such became such and such". If we mark the transmition by arrows the Hebrew text should be read according to Jonathan thus: goy- hóté', 'am-» Keved 'ávón, zéra' - m'ré'ím, báriím - mashhítím 2 H. ázvú et Y-H-V-H, níasü et q'dósh Yisrá'el J. shvaqü yat puliuuui da Y-H-V-H, qásü b'iiatuüat qadísh' a ct'Ys11a'el Jonathan adds pulhan'á = "worship", and b'dahalat = "fear" to make the text sound less anthropomorphic. To say: "They left God, they loathed the Holy one of Israel", ímparts to Him human qualitíes of space and emotion. The words: uvdíl 'óvdéhón bíshay'a = "on account of their evil deeds" are J's addition to the text to explain the last clause názórü al).or = they turned backward.

4

Verse

5

In this verse J. makes two additions to the text: 1) !Ja' mistaklin l'mémár = "They do not ponder to say" (to themselves) , and {2) v'lá' 'ámrín máh den = "and they do not say '(to themselves)" wherefore". The reason for these additions is lJecause J. renders the whole verse in 1st person plural as the words of the people, not of the prophet to the people, as it appears from the text.

Verse

6

This whole verse is interpreted allegorically by J. rather than translated. Juxtaposing each clause of the Hebrew text to íts Aramaic counterpart will expose the ínherent allegory, H. Mikaf regel v'ad ró'sh 'en bó m'tóm J. Mish'ar 'ama' v'ad résha' lét bhón dishlím bídhaltí (From the common people to the heads there is none perfect among them in My worship) H. Pesa' v'haburah ümakah tríyah J. Kulhón sárvín ñmárdín ítga'alü v'hovín k'máha m'rassa (They are all stubborn and rebellious, soiled by iniquity like a crushed wound) H. 16' zórü v'lo' hubáshü J. lá'shávkín mízdónéhon v'Iá'mhamdín lityüvtah {They do not abandon their willful sins and do not desire r~pentance) 2

Cf. R. Joseph Kara's commentary on this verse.

V

VE

VE

371

M ETHODOLOGY OF TARGUM JONATH AN

H.

v'l6' rukkhah bashámen af la' zakhván lhón l'agána' 'aléhón (Neither do they have merits to protect them)

J. verse

7

3

H.

Ziirim 'ókhlim 'ótah üshmámah k'mahpékhat zdrim. 'ammaya' matisniti yátah üv.!J,óvehón sdí'at minkhón itJ:,,aLiifat vahavii, l'nükhrii'in The underlined words are in the nature of a sense-translation as J.

can be seen from Rashi's commentary, which is essentially the same as J's. The only words added by J. are "üvhovéhón" = and through their sins, and "minkhón" = from you. . .. k'sukáh v'khárem, kímlünáh v'miqsháh . .. k'mítalaltá' b'kharmá.' biitar d'qatfúhi, k'arsal mabtütá" v'miqshayá' bátar d'av'ayühi The underlined, additíons of J. to Hebrew text, come to clarify the meaning and ar-e a commentary to it, thus: batiir d'qatfühi = a/ter it (the vineyard) was plucked k'arsal = as a hammock {for night lodging) oiitar d'av',ayühi = a/ter it was layed bare. Hence there is no more

verses H. J.

need for a night watchman after the crops were destroyed. verse 9

In this verse J. adds severa! words which stress the loving-kindness and merey of the Lord toward His people, namely: mótiir túoen (da Y-H-V-H) = the exceedíng goodness of (the Lord of hosts), b'raturmohi = in His merey, 'it 'imiinii turoin = we have sins (for which we deserve to be annihilated like the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomarra)

Verse 10 H. J.

...q'~Iné sdóm .. .'am 'amóráh . .. shíltónayá' d' 'óvadehón bishin. kshiltóne sdóm ... 'ama d' 'óviidehón diimy,iin l' 'am 'amórah Here again J. adds a few words, those underlined, to clarify the metaphor of the text. Taken literally the verse can be misinterpreted to be a call to the officials of Sodom and Gomorra. Actually, of course, the prophet speaks to Jerusalem and its leaders and likens them to those of Sodom and Gomorra as J. points out.

Verse 13 H. J.

... mínhat shiiv' ... mínhat 'anisá

ló"ükhal 'éoen ua'asar/ih: Zii' shiivqin l},óvékhón lqabiii' $Z.ótkhón b' 'idan kní-shat-khón The rendering of shiiv' (vanity, falsehood, etc. by 'anisa

= "oppression, ill-gotten wealth" is probably based on the general tenor of rebuke concerning social crimes in this chapter, as in Verses. 16-17, 3

Cf. Rashi here.

372

PINCHAS DORON

21-23. The other underlined words merely explain in detail the meaning already contained in the Hebrew text in capsulized form. Verse 15

H. J.

uv'fariskhem kapékhem v'khad kahanayá' pársín y'dé hón l'slá'áh 'alékhón (When the príests spread their hands to pray for you) The above rendition is in accordance with Rabbinic interpretation, not the plain sense of the text 4• 'a' 'lím 'énay mikem m'saléqná' 'apé sh'khíntí minkhón (I shall remove the countenance of My presence from you) The underlined words come to obviate an anthropomorphísm (my eves) , as in the case of the rendition of 'énén: ehémé'a by la ra'asxi' qodomay l'qabiila s'lótkhón {There is no will befare Me to receive your prayer) where "I do not hear" is not only anthropomorphic, but felt be disrespectfut to the Lord. y'dékhem dámím málé'ü midi yedkhón dam zakay malyán The two additions underlined interpret the sense of the passage.

H. J.

H. J.

H. J. Verse 16

Rahasii hizakkü Tüvü l'órayta: v' 'idakkü mél},óvékhón The underlined words in J's rendition ínterpret the allegorícal meaning of the two Hebrew words in the text; the cleansíng and purification must be of a spiritual rather than a physical nature. H. mineged 'énay J. míqovél mémri {from before My Word) Here again J. obviates an anthropomorphism.

ve

ve

Vi

H. J.

Verse 17 H.

. . . Shiftü yátóm, rioii 'almánáh ... dünü din yatmá', 'avidü qabílü qvélat 'armaltá

J.

Te above Hebrew clauses rendered literally would give: "Judge a fatherless, contend {with) a widow). This is plainly not the meaning of the passage. By the few additions J. arrives at the intended meaníng of the text, whích is: "Judge the case of the orphan, do receive the plaint of the widow" . Verse 18a

The first three words of the verse are rendered by J. allegorically H. l'khüná' v'nivakhháh ... J. b'khén kad t'tüvün l' 'óraytá' tiv'ñn min quodomay v'' a'bed bá'ütkhón ... 4

Cf. Berakhot 3•2b and compare Qimhi on our verse.

VI

M ETHODOLOGY OF TARGUM JONATH AN

373

(Therefore when you return to the Torah you will resquest of Me and I shall fulfill your resquest" ... ) . verse 20 H. J.

H. J.

. . . herev t'uklü ... b'herev san',iih titqat-liiti By the two slight addítions J. clarifies the meaning of the passage 5 • Ki pi, Y-H-W-H dibbér 'are mérnrá da Y-H-W-H gzar kén. (For the Word of the Lord has so decreed) Here agaín J. obviates an anthropomorphic expressíon.

verse 21 H. J.

háytáh l'zónáh

verse 23 H. J.

. . . v'ródéf shalmóním ... 'ámrín g'var l'havréh 'a ved lí tav b'díní va'ashalém lákh

távü 'ovdáha l'mehevé ktá'itá' ("Her deeds became like the straying one") The underlined additíons clarify the sense.

b'dínákh

("They say one to another: Do me a good (turn) in my case and I shall repay you in your case") The above interpretation of the obscure Hebrew text envísages a corrupt criminal justice to such a degree that the erstwhile judges become culprits 6 • verse 24 H.

J.

.. . hoy 'enáhém mísaráy ... ... qartá y'rüshlém 'aná' 'atid l'nahamütáh. bram vay l'rashi'aya' kad 'itgle l'mé'bad pur'anüt din m'san'é 'ami ...

("City of Jerusalem, I shall console her, but woe to the wicked when I shall be revealed to meet out judgment to the enemies of My people") . The above rather lengthy free paraphrase is far from the plain sense of the passage. It comes, firstly, to obviate the anthropopathic expressíon: enáhém = "I shall be consoled" which is unbefitting regarding the Lord. Jonathan therefore renders it as if written 'anahém = "I shall console" and adds the object of consolation "the city of J erusalem". Secondly, he reads "mísáray" as if written "l'~áray" and combines: "hoy l'sáray" = "woe to my enemies". He furthermore identifies the enemies of God with the enemies of Hís people 7• Thus he arrives at the rendition: "woe to the wicked s Cf. Qimhi and Ibn Ezra here. 6 Interestingly most of the Medievals accept J's interpretation as the "plaín sense" of the idiom. Cf. Rashi, Kara, QimJ;li. . 7 Cf. Ps. 83•: 3-4 where those against Israel are considered the enemies of the Lord.

PINCHAS DORON

374

when I shall be revealed to meet out judgement to the enemies of My people". ... ya.di . . . sígáyíkh . . . b'díláyíkh . . . m'hat g'vürtí ... rashí'ayá ... hóvákh { ... stroke of My might ... the wicked ... sinners/guilty ones) . The ídíorn "the stroke of My might" obviates the anthropomorphism ínherent in "yádí" - My hand. The other two renderings explain the allegoríc metaphor of the Hebrew.

Verse 25 H.

J.

... v'shávéhá bísdáqáh ... v'dá 'avádü 'óraytá' y'tüvün láh b'zákhü

Verse 27 H.

J.

("and those who perform the Torah will return to her by, [their] merit") The above interpretation is the sense of the passage 8• ... v' 'ózvé Y-H-W-H ... v'díshváqü 'óraytii' da Y-H-W:H The Hebrew idiom: "Those who leave God" may be misinterpreted to assing limitation in space to God, and is therefore anthropomorphic. J. therefore changes it, thereby precluding a possible misinterpretation .

Verse 28 H.

J.

Verse 30 H.

... nóvelet 'álehá (whose leaves are withering) ... mnatar tarfóhi (whose leaves are falling) Is it possible that J's Vorlage read "nótelet" = falling? or is he just interpreting: Leaves that wither eventually fall?

J.

... üvá'arü shnéhem yahdáv v' 'en m'khabbeh ... krrui' dimq,arvin den listar den v'dálqín tarvéhón kahadá',

Verse 31 H.

J.

kén.

ysüfün

rashi'ay.a'

'iniin.

v'óvadehón

bishayii'

v'lá

y'hé

'aléhón hayas The underlined addítíons by J. provide the logícal links that are missing in the Hebrew text and interpret the intended parable. J. renders the word ( 1',pb~ ) "üfó'aló" (literally (its maker") by "their deeds", which 'Ieads one to belíeve that his Vorlage may have read: üf,6'016 (1',l?E)~) 9 • T: T

PINCHAS DORON

Of. Qimhi and Ibn Ezra to this verse. It is noteworthy that Rashi takes exception to J's rendering on the strength of MT reading. Cf. also J. Kara and Msudat David here. 8

9