Rabbi Yaakov Blau

Rabbi Yaakov Blau

Targum Yonatan is an invaluable resource for understanding Navi. The

Rishonim quote him extensively and held him in high esteem1. I would

like to touch on first his relationship to Targum Onkelos on Chumash and

then on how his translation can also serve as a form of commentary.

For how Targum Yonatan and Onkelos are similar, clearly many words

are translated in the same way in both translations, because that is how to

say the word in Aramaic. The chidush is when they have the same non-

literal translation. It is well known that they both avoid

anthropomorphism.2 In a similar fashion, both translate hester panim

(Hashem “covering His face”) as removing the shechinah (Devarim 31:18,

Yishayahu 53:3, Yechezkiel 39:23, and Micha 3:43). As well, Levanon is

translated as the Beit Hamikdash (Radak Yirmiyahu 22:20) and V’chay

Baham means Olam Haba (Radak Yechezkiel 20:11).

1 See Medieval Commentary in the Modern Era pp.75-83. 2 See Radak Yirmiyahu 14:8. In a similar vein, Yonatan at times translates “Hashem’s place” as “place of His shechina”, such as in Yishayahu 26:21, Yechezkiel 3:12 and 36:20, Micha 1:3 and Chabakuk 2:20, among others. 3 One could argue that this is the same as the previous category, but there are many ways to translate that phrase non-literally. 14

Beyond avoiding giving Hashem physical attributes, there is also an

attempt to consistently denigrate avodah zara as well. There are four

categories in which both Onkelos and Yonatan do this the same way, but

Yonatan has an additional fifth one as well.

1] When elohim is with another word (elohim acharim, elohi zahav etc.)

both translate it as mistake (Shemot 12:12, Yehoshua 24:2, and Yishayahu

31:74).

2] When the word by itself, it is dachla (Devarim 32:21, Melachim Aleph

18:27, Yishayahu 44:10 and 45:20, Yechezkiel 28:2, 6 and 9 and Hoshea

8:65).

3] The phrase “not a god” is translated as “has no purpose” (Devarim

32:176, Yirmiyahu 2:11, 16:20, Yechezkiel 28:2 and 9, Hoshea 8:6 and

Chabakuk 2:18).

4] The passukim describing serving other gods really means serving

idolaters who serve other gods (Devarim 4:28 and 28:36 and Yirmiyahu

16:13, but that might be because both believe that the Tanach should never

be saying that one should serve avodah zara)

4 There are many examples of this, in general, none of the lists in this article are meant to be exhaustive. 5 This example is part of the next category as well. 6 Melachim Aleph 18:21and 24 is questionable. 15

5] When idols are punished, Yonatan says it is those who serve the idols,

as in Yirmiyahu 51:44 and Yechezkiel 30:13, but Onkelos doesn’t say that

on Shemot 12:12 (most of the mefarshim on Shemot assume that the

Egyptian idols were destroyed, except the Ramban who has a mystical

approach; interestingly the Radak on Yechezkiel seems to think that the

Shemot example is also a parable for those who served the idols). Perhaps

Yonatan thought that destroying idols does not deserve mention, only

people getting punished7 .

However, a significant difference between the two Targumim is that

Yonatan adds phrases much more freely than Onkelos does8. For some

examples, on the first passuk in Nachum, he adds that the people of Ninveh

had done teshuva at the time of Yonah, but then sinned again. When

Malachai is first introduced in 1:1, Yonatan identifies him as being Ezra

Hasofer. Micha 6:4 lists Moshe, Aharon and Miriam as having taken us

out of Egypt. Yonatan adds the unique role that each one played. While

Yishayahu 64:1 is somewhat cryptic, Yonatan adding Eliyahu is not the

obvious meaning. Part of the reason why is that Yonatan is more

midrashic. Perhaps the genre is a factor as well. Onkelos adds much more

7 Along the same lines as all these categories, the second passuk of V’etchanan seems to compare Hashem to other gods and the Targum makes it just about Hashem. 8 Adding a word for meaning is typical of translations, so, of course, both do. 16

in the shirot, possibly Yonatan felt that much of Navi is poetical and

warranted being elaborated on more9 .

Clearly, the most important way the Targum works as a commentary is

when he adds words or when the passuk could be translated several ways

and he picks one. When, however,he translates the same words differently

in different contexts, it can give insight into how he understood each

context.

For a few examples: the word zopheh is often used in Shmuel and

Melachim and is translated as סכואה (as in Shmuel Bet perek 18 or

Melachim Bet perek 9), which, I believe, means watchman. However, in

Yechezkiel he translates it as” teacher” in 3:17 and “one who warns” in

perek 33, each one makes sense in its context, as Hashem is telling

Yechezkiel that it is his responsibility to warn the Jews on His behalf.

Chayil usual means some kind of warrior (like in Shoftim 18:2), but the

targum makes it “fearing sin” on Shmuel Bet 23:20, Melachim Aleph 1:42

and 52 and 2:2 (the passuk there just says “be a man”), which is a

midrashic understanding, I believe. The first examples are describing

9 Another interesting example is when the targum on Yishayahu 28:21 inserts Uzziah into the passuk. He is possibly being influenced the midrashic idea that an earthquake was caused by Uzziah trying to bring ketoret and therefore getting tzaraat (as described in Divrei Hayamim). See Medieval Commentary in the Modern Era pp. 23-25 for a broader discussion.

Binayahu and Yonatanand are saying that they were praiseworthy for their

spiritual strength, rather than their physical. The last example is David

exhorting Shlomo to be a worthy king10 .

Another example is a bit mystifying. Often Yonatan translates navi as navi

when it is a true navi and “false prophet” when the navi is false, as in

Yirmiyahu 8:1 and 29:811 . Sometimes though, it is translated as scribe.

Now several times that would seems to mean a navi in training, which

seems to be the Radak’s approach12. Some examples are Shmuel Aleph

10:5, 11 and 12 (the first “is Shmuel among the neviim?” story, in passuk

11 he translates the word “prophesize” as “praise”), 19:20 (the second “is

Shmuel among the neviim?” story, and he translates that Shaul got a “spirt

of nevuah”), and 28:6 (neviim wouldn’t answer Shaul, the Radak says it

means the students of Shmuel). Also, Melachim Bet 23:2, where neviim

are in the crowd hearing the king read the sefer habrit (the Radak says the

real neviim weren’t around), Yishayahu 3:2, which lists are the public

figures that Hashem will remove (although it is unclear if it is positive or

negative, kosem is in the same passuk, the Radak seems neutral that scribe

is someone who warns the people) and Zecharya 7:3, where they ask if

10 In Shemot perek 18, men of valor are listed with fearing sin in the list that Yitro gives Moshe, so that gives the approach somewhat of a textual basis. 11 And, interestingly, to describe the “other” navi in Melachim Aleph perek 13. 12 He comments on almost every one of the following passukim, except the Yirmiyahu ones.

they still need to do all the fasts (the Radak first says real neviim and then

seems to contrast that with the Targum), However, Yirmiyahu 26:8, when

Yirmiyahu is on trial, and 29:1, the neviim in exile,seem to be false neviim

(although the latter is somewhat ambiguous), yet they are translated as

scribes also?

One does need to be cautious, the Radak comments that the targum is not

always consistent in his translations of words. On Yehoshua 2:1 the Radak

at first use how Yonatan translates zona to understand it as an innkeeper.

He then says that that word might connotate prostitute as well and points

out that the targum is inconsistent with which word he uses for that

meaning. On Yechezkiel 8:5, the Radak tries to use how the targum

translates mizbach as a proof (he generally uses a different word for an

altar for hashem vs for avodah zara) that he understood the passuk as

referring to the mizbach of the beit hamikdash (as opposed to the Radak

understanding that it was for avodah zara) but says that he cannot prove

anything, because the targum is not always consistent with how he

translates it.

Understanding Targum Yonatan greatly enhances one’s understanding of

Navi. Hopefully, the study of Targum Yonatan will become more

integrated into our communities’ limud of tanach.