.

An assistant to understanding Onkelos’s translation

(to be used in conjunction with ‘Get It Right’)

Alan Smith

Elibooks

Abbreviations used:

O. Onkelos* a comment that applies frequently and is not usually repeated> [ref.] See note on [ref.]» [ref.] See note in ‘Get It Right’ on [ref.]» G. See note in Get It Right, loc. cit.> intr. See introduction

G or Gen. GenesisE or Ex. ExodusL or Lev. LeviticusN or Num. NumbersD or Deut. Deuteronomy

Copyright © Alan Smith 5769 (2009)

C O N T E N T S

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Introducing Onkelos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Introductory Aramaic grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

GENESIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

EXODUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

LEVITICUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

NUMBERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

DEUTERONOMY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

4

P R E F A C E

First, I will not annoy or irritate the reader by spelling Onkelos with a Q!

The only justification for my writing a commentary on a translation or a commentary on a

commentary – I am fed up with commentaries on commentaries that only serve in taking you further

away from the original – is the fact that to a religious Jew the reading of Onkelos is (supposed to be)

compulsory. This was originally to help the Aramaic-speaking reader to understand the Hebrew text,

but the tradition has been maintained although the situation is reversed. We all learn to understand (or

misunderstand) Biblical Hebrew long before we begin to tackle Aramaic. Both the translation and the

‘interpretations’ of Onkelos are often at variance with our understanding of the plain meaning of the

text, but at other times they remove ambiguity and help to correct misunderstandings of the original.

It is therefore important, if Onkelos is to be of any use at all, to understand the language and to note

these variations. We must clearly distinguish betwen variations due to the requirements of the style of

a different language and variations due to an interpretation. A further point, we use Onkelos to indicate

an interpretation of the Hebrew, but not to tell us the interpretation, regardless of the original intention.

This volume is not intended as a dictionary, to translate all the Aramaic words, but to help the

reader to understand the language, to note the variances, and to try to understand the reason for them.

Where the variation is based on a midrash, the aim is to point this out but not to explain the midrash.

There are many Hebrew commentaries on Onkelos that will in this respect help anyone who is really

interested.

Texts of Onkelos vary considerably. The most reliable ones are the Yemenite texts, but these

are spoilt by prejudice. Minor variations exist and each Yemenite insists that only the version used by

his own particular community is the correct one. An unprejudiced version has appeared produced by

Yitzhak Frank and myself, with Hebrew and Aramaic in parallel. (Rabbi - but he hates titles) Frank is

the expert in Aramaic, and my teacher from whom I have learned all the Aramaic that I know, and the

text is his, my involvement being in the production. Any notes contained here are based on the version

appearing in that edition.

Throughout this volume I have frequently referred to ‘Get It Right’, a commentary that I have

written on the Torah, to which this may be considered as an addendum in which duplication is avoided

where possible. Without it the reader may find many things not properly explained.

Onkelos, whose original language was apparently Greek, certainly had a very clear insight into

Hebrew grammar which is rarely found among grammarians even to the present day. Sadly, many

commentators deal with ‘problems’ that arise because they have not properly understood the grammar

and necessary language style of the Hebrew, and then try to explain why Onkelos appears to change

it, when he merely adjusts to his language’s requirements. Trying to understand Onkelos without

appreciating the language, style and syntax of Biblical Hebrew, their commentaries on Onkelos show

their ignorance in this respect. Today, we understand Hebrew better than Aramaic, but we understand

Aramaic grammar better than Biblical Hebrew grammar! I have taken trouble to point out all such cases

that need explaining, often by referring the reader to Get It Right.

The notes (with exceptions) do NOT deal with

– the meaning of individual nouns and verbs used by Onkelos;

– where and why Onkelos uses different words to translate the same Hebrew word;

– where Onkelos uses a word that differs in meaning from the Hebrew;

– explaining any midrash or midrashic interpretation that Onkelos uses;

– where Onkelos uses round-about expressions in connection with God.

They DO attempt to deal with

– main points of grammar and language style, especially syntax;

– frequently used words that do not exactly correspond to the Hebrew;

– a comment wherever Onkelos adds words to the translation.

An asterisk * before an entry means that the entry deals with a matter that arises frequently and

that will not be discussed on each occasion. A sort of index helps the reader to find the first occurrence

of whatever it is, where it is explained.

Acknowledgements are due firstly to Yitzhak Frank, who has taught me all I know of Aramaic.

I have made extensive use of his ‘Grammar for Gemara and Targum Onkelos’, as well as his

commentary on Onkelos included in the first two volumes of ‘The Ariel Chumash’. I have also drawn

extensively from a small book, mainly an anthology of commentaries on Onkelos, entitled ÎÝÛ Í×Ó by

Yaakov Lev. However, the present work differs vastly from his, not only in language (English instead

of Hebrew) but in aim, approach, style and purpose. Finally I have carefully followed my own work

‘Get It Right’ to see where Onkelos coincides with or deviates from what I have written there.

A.S.

Eli, Mount Ephraim, Israel, 5769

6

I N T R O D U C I N G O N K E L O S

The rabbis strongly disapproved of the Greek translation of the Septuagint (‘its appearance was

a black day for Israel’) but highly praised the Aramaic translation of Onkelos. Why?

It is necessary to understand this in order to appreciate Onkelos for what it is, and not to try

to reconcile it with what it appears to be. The rabbis’ objection to the Septuagint was fundamental, and

not a criticism of its accuracy or quality. We must distinguish between the purpose for which the

Septuagint was written, the purpose for which it was used, and the purpose for which Onkelos was

written and used.

The Egyptian Emperor Ptolemy II was very proud of his library in Alexandria, and the

collection of culture it contained. Wnen he discovered that the Jews had a great literary work (the

Torah) of high cultural value that was not available in Greek, he asked them to send experts, whom he

looked after and fed well, to translate the work into Greek. The seventy experts produced what we call

the Septuagint (from a Latin word meaning seventy). The rabbis may or may not have approved of the

Torah being made available to foreigners, but that was not the problem.

At that time a large part of the Jewish population spoke and read Greek, and no longer

understood Hebrew. They took up and studied the Septuagint translation as their Bible, to save

themselves the trouble of struggling through a foreign language. Now in order to be readable, the

Septuagint did not translate the Hebrew literally, word by word, which would have been very clumsy,

but rephrased it into good readable Greek. This of necessity lost many of the nuances of the original,

for which it became (to very many Jews) a substitute.

Rabbi Akiva persuaded a Greek proselyte, Aquila, to make a more literal translation. While

perhaps increasing accuracy, this was of necessity very clumsy, and never really ‘caught on’.

Onkelos, also a proselyte (some claim that he was in fact Aquila), under the guidance of leading

Rabbis, produced an Aramaic translation that was in the main literal, word for word. Comparison with

the Aramaic of the Books of Daniel and Ezra show that this was in no way ‘good Aramaic’. The style

to an Aramaic-speaking reader would have been appalling. But it was never intended to be used by

Aramaic speakers as a substitute for the Hebrew, in the way the Septuagint had come to be used by

Greek speakers. Unlke Greek, Aramaic is very close to Hebrew, and the idea was to help Aramaic

speakers who were weak in Hebrew, but not ignorant of it. Taking the two in parallel, the Aramaic

would help the readers to understand difficult words and phrases. Once he undestood the Hebrew, the

reader could translate this in his own mind into ‘good Aramaic’, but specific nuances in the Hebrew

were still there.

Careful to keep to the Hebrew style and word order as far as possible, Onkelos still found that

there were things in Hebrew that Aramaic simply would not tolerate, and these he changed. For

example, 238 years might appear in Hebrew as ‘eight years and thirty year and two hundred year’, but

Onkelos would write ‘two hundred and thirty and eight years’. He found it necesary to make certain

other changes, but it is important to remember that his aim was to provide a literal translation word for

word as far as possible, and, once again, not to provide a readable alternative to the original, but a help

in understanding the original, word by word or at least phrase by phrase. For all that, he had, as pointed

out in the Preface above, a very clear insight into the language, idioms, grammar and style of Biblical

Hebrew (unlike the Mishnaic Hebrew of his day) and realised where this demanded changes in the

Aramaic. Today, when we read Onkelos in Aramaic as a new language, while we are somewhat familiar

7

with the original Hebrew, we can often read his translation and make some sense of it, thinking of it

as a dialect of Hebrew (much as we today read Chaucer or even Shakespeare in English), but the

Aramaic speakers among his contemporaries could not do that! (We may need, at least at first, to do

the reverse – use the Hebrew parallel to help us to understand Onkelos, at least till we get used to it.)

If you doubt this, just try to translate a portion of the Aramaic of Daniel or Ezra into Hebrew,

literally and word for word, and you will find in the result that the word order is appalling! There were

also words that were used in Hebrew but not used in Aramaic, but their presence in Hebrew was

important, and Onkelos had to find Aramaic words to use there. The most important is ¼ßLÎ which he

used to translate the Hebrew ¼ß JÅ (except when the latter meant ‘with’). One may compare translating

from French into English, where the word ‘voici’ used frequently has no equivalent. A Frenchman uses

it where an Englishman does not. The literal translator is then forced to use the archaic word ‘behold’

which sounds rather ridiculous in modern English, but he has no choice. The analogy is very close.

Though it cannot be proved, there seems little doubt that at times Onkelos could not find a

suitable Aramaic word and simply Aramaised the Hebrew. Those who study the language cannot always

be certain from Onkelos alone when the Aramaic word is almost identical to the Hebrew, which it often

is, and when an Aramaic word has been invented by adjusting the Hebrew word! In general, Onkelos

used the best word he could find to translate the Hebrew in the context.

A brief introduction to the grammar of Onkelos follows.

–––––––––––––––––––––––

[Note on incorrectly taught Hebrew grammar.

Many readers will have, like me, been taught Hebrew grammar incorrectly. In the following when referring

back to Hebrew grammar to compare and contrast the Aramaic, I have used seven words that may not be familiar,

and have been asked to add this section to explain them. They are: stretch, middle, gerund, aspect, perfective,

imperfective, optative.

1] Stretch and middle are explained and obvious from the tables.

2] What we are taught as ‘infinitive absolute’ is simply infinitive, i.e. of unchageable form.

What we are taught as ‘infinitive construct’ is NOT infinitive (it changes form when suffixes are added) and is a

verbal noun, called a gerund, which itself can be either absolute ( ¼ÒJÐ Dß JÅ ¼Å¼Î HÆ LÉ DÑ) or construct ( ¼Ñ IÅLÝ DKHÎ ¼ß ¼Å IÛ DT). The

confusion arises because it often corresponds to an English infinitive (e.g. I like eating, I like to eat). Onkelos

sometimes leaves it alone but often changes it, as will be explained.

3] In Biblical Hebrew, ¼Æ KßL] is NOT a past tense and ¼ÆÃf DÐHÎ is NOT a future tense (even though they are in Modern

Hebrew, and as will be explained, in Onkelos’s Aramaic). They are what is called aspects, namely perfective and

imperfective respectively, which are used, along with the participle, in combination with word order to produce

different tenses. As explained, this does not apply in the Aramaic where Onkelos uses the corresponding form for

tenses, as in Modern Hebrew.

4] These two aspect forms forms are ‘indicative’, that is to say they deal with facts or alleged facts. The optative form

deals with a desire, wish, hope, intention, command and so on. Its form in Hebrew is similar to that of the

imperfective (mis-named ‘future’), sometimes lengthened ( ¼É LÆ Df DÐ JÅ), sometimes shorter ( ¼Æ If DÐKÎ B ¼Å JÝIÎ), and sometimes

the same. It occurs in Biblical Aramaic, but as explained, does not occur in Onkelos, who uses the future instead.

Here is not the place to enter these matters more fully.]

8

T H E G R A M M A R O F O N K E L O S’ S A R A M A I C

A simplified introduction for those familiar with Biblical Hebrew – the notes may be

regarded as an update for Aramaic, not an introduction to a new language ab initio.

LETTERS VOWELS AND ROOTS

The same alphabet is used – 23 letters if you count ‘shin’ and ‘sin’ as different, and the same

characterstic of ‘three letter roots’ exists. Many of these roots can often be recognised from Hebrew

where they are the same, though the meaning may be slightly different. Many more would be but for

the change in certain letters from one language to another. For instance a Hebrew Ë very often (but not

always) changes into an Aramaic È. Take the word for ‘altar’ – Hebrew ÌÆËÓ, Aramaic ÌÆÈÓ. So if

you find a root in Aramaic that you do not recognise, see if it contains a letter È. If it does then change

this into a Ë and see if you now recognise it. The following are the main changes, and these should be

learned.

An Aramaic È may correspond to a Hebrew Ë

An Aramaic Í may correspond to a Hebrew Û

An Aramaic × may correspond to a Hebrew Û

An Aramaic ß may correspond to a Hebrew I.

They are usually taught the other way round, which helps you to write Aramaic but not to read

it. So always watch out for these, to help you to recognise a root. (It does not always work, but often

does.) Using Ö instead of Hebrew K came later, with rare exceptions.

Vowel changes.

The same vowel signs are used, and the weak and strong dagesh are as in Hebrew.

There is a tendency for a Hebrew holem to become an Aramaic kamets, and for a Hebrew

kamets to become an Aramaic patach. The way to remember this is to simply think of the Hebrew word

¼ÒLÑÃ× or ¼ÒLѼD ¼×, Aramaic ¼ÒKÑ L×.

In Aramaic itself, a tserey before a resh changes to patach, so that instead of ¼Ý IÓ LÅ (present

participle, Hebrew ¼Ý IÓÃÅ) we have ¼Ý KÓ LÅ which looks like a past because it is a past in Hebrew! But it

isn’t in Aramaic.

The following is more complicated. We know that in Hebrew the root letters Ê and Î are often

interchanged, and at the end of a word may be replaced by a silent É. Well, Aramaic muddles it up

more, by interchanging all these with Å. So the root ÈÆÅ may appear in some forms as ÈÆÎ or ÈÆÊ; the

present participle of ÒÊÜ is ¼Ò IÅ LÜ but the plural is ¼Ò¼Î HÓDÎ LÜ; and while in Hebrew the roots ÅÝÜ and ÉÝÜ

+ÎÝÜ, are quite different, the first meaning ‘read’ or ‘call’ and the second meaning ‘happen’, in Aramaic

both are the same, will appear as ÅÝÜ or ÎÝÜ, and only the context will tell the difference. There is also

a different confusion between the roots ÑÐÅ (eat) and ÑÐÎ (be able). This interchange of Å Ê ) Î is

of extreme importance in conjugating verbs and sometimes in nouns. Note especially the interchange

between Å and Î even within Aramaic. It takes a while to get used to.

Onkelos does not normally use the ‘silent hé’ at the end of a word except:

(a) after an alef to avoid two alefs coming together;

(b) in Hebrew names;

(c) in the verb ‘to be’ ÉÊÉ.

9

NOUNS AND ADJECTIVES

Nouns and adjectives are declined in much the same way (in the widest sense) as they are in

Hebrew, and likewise verbs are conjugated in much the same way, that is to say with prefixes and

suffixes to indicate subject and object, gender and number, and so on.

The forms of the Hebrew noun are characterised by number (singular or plural) and state

(absolute and construct). As each noun is allotted a gender (masculine or feminine) and the adjective

must agree with it, the characteristics of the latter are number and gender.

As in Hebrew, the forms of the noun are somewhat erratic, but of the adjective are more regular.

Aramaic has one very important addition. In Hebrew the definite article is indicated by adding

the letter É at the beginning, with different vowels and sometimes a following dagesh. In Aramaic,

instead the letter Å is added at the end. This produces a different ‘state’, called the definite; so the

Aramaic noun has three states – absolute (house), construct (house of) and definite (the house). The

adjective has two – absolute and definite, to agree with the noun it modifies.

[A marginal note here. Biblical Hebrew sometimes uses the definite when quite

unnecessary, e.g. ¼Ô JÓ JJKÆ ¼ÉLѼX¼Ñ DT instead of ¼Ô JÓ JI DÆ. In Aramaic this became steadily more

popular, such that Onkelos (and more so the Talmud) very often uses the definite state

unnecessarily.]

Whatever the masculine ends in, the definite usually ends in ¼Å L–, the plural absolute in ¼Ô¼Î H– (but

sometimes in ¼Î I–), the plural definite in ¼ÅL[ K–.Suffix Plural Singular

1 Sing. ¼- K2¼}¼- ¼- H2¼}¼-

2 Masc. ¼¦¼- L2¼}¼- ¼¦ L2¼}¼-

2 Fem. ¼- H/D- K2¼}¼- ¼¦¼- H2¼}¼-

3 Masc. ¼- H(¼} ¼2¼}¼- ¼{ I2¼}¼-

3 Fem. ¼{¼- K2¼}¼- ¼{ K2¼}¼-

1 Plural ¼$L4¼- K2¼}¼- ¼$L4 K2¼}¼-

2 Masc. ¼3¼} ¼/¼- I2¼}¼- ¼3¼} ¼/ D2¼}¼-

2 Fem. ¼3 I/¼- I2¼}¼- ¼3 I/ D2¼}¼-

3 Masc. ¼3¼} ¼(¼- I2¼}¼- ¼3¼} ¼( D2¼}¼-

3 Fem. ¼3 I(¼- I2¼}¼- ¼3 I( D2¼}¼-

Here is a table of the noun with pronoun suffixes.

With masculine plurals, the characteristic is the yod

before the suffix, as in Hebrew, and likewise it is sometimes

silent, but shows the difference between singular and plural.

Also, many prepositions behave like masculine plural nouns

(as in Hebrew). So just as in Hebrew you have ¼F¼ÎJÕ LÙ DÑ with a

silent yod, so in Aramaic you have ¼E¼Î LÓLÈGd with a silent yod.

The feminine singular in the absolute also usually ends

in ¼Å L–, so that for instance ¼ÅL] DÑ KÓ can be either ‘the king’ or ‘a

queen’. The feminine singular construct usually ends in ¼ß K–,

and the definite in ¼Å Lß ¼– or ¼Å Lf ¼–; the absolute plural in ¼Ô L–,

construct plural in ¼ß L– (Hebrew ¼ßÖ) and the definite plural in

¼Å Lß L–. This is only a rough guide. With participles the

distinction becomes much clearer and more regular.

So the difference between the singular and plural in

feminine construct is often simply whether the last vowel is a

patach (singular) or a kamets (plural). The context usually tells you which it is.

Note: with plural nouns of feminine form the same suffixes are used as those for the singular.

Feminine Plural Feminine Singular Masculine Plural Masculine Singular

¼3 L<¼} ¼º ¼$L<¼} ¼º ¼- I<¼} ¼º B¼3¼-V<¼} ¼º <}º Absolute

¼>L<¼} ¼º ¼>K<¼} ¼º ¼- I<¼} ¼º <}º Construct

¼$ L>L<¼} ¼º ¼$ L>U<¼} ¼º ¼$L£ K<¼} ¼º ¼$L<¼} ¼º Definite

10

NUMBERS

The formation and use of numbers in Hebrew is rather complicated, with a number of quirks.

In Aramaic there are somewhat less quirks. (‘Hebrew’ here refers to Biblical Hebrew and ‘Aramaic’

here refers only to Onkelos’s Aramaic.) Here is a comparison of the two, explaining the tables.

*** indicates where there is a difference in formation between the two.

Cardinal numbers

Numbers 1 and 2.

In Hebrew the masculine form is used for the masculine and the feminine for the feminine.

In Aramaic the same applies.

Numbers 3 to 10 (inclusive).

In Hebrew the masculine form is used for the feminine and the feminine form is used for the

masculine, an unexpected reversal.

In Aramaic the same quirk applies.

*** All numbers over 10.

In Hebrew the noun qualified by the number is placed in the singular, for an unknown reason.

In Aramaic the noun qualified by the number is placed in the plural as is expected.

Numbers from 11 to 19 inclusive.

In Hebrew, these are compounded from the unit followed by ten. The unit is reversed where

applicable, as above, but the ten is modified but not reversed!

In Aramaic the same applies.

*** Number 11 alternative.

In Hebrew there is an alternative for ‘eleven’ using ¼- Iº D K6 for both masculine and feminine.

In Aramaic there is no such alternative.

Numbers 20 to 90 inclusive, round ‘tens’.

Hebrew uses the plural of 10 for 20, and the plural of units for others (e.g. of 3 for 30 etc.).

Aramaic does the same.

*** Numbers 21 to 99 compound.

Hebrew uses the round ‘ten’ coupled with the unit, joined by ‘and’. For the order see below.

Aramaic does the same but the order is different, see below.

Number 100.

Hebrew has a name which is feminine.

Aramaic has more or less the same name, also feminine.

Number 200.

Hebrew uses the dual ‘two-hundred’.

Aramaic uses the dual ‘two-hundred’. This is probably the only dual found in Onkelos.

*** Numbers 300 to 900 (round hundreds).

Hebrew uses the number of hundreds (3 to 9) followed by the plural ‘hundreds’.

Aramaic uses the number of hundreds (3 to 9) followed by the singular ‘hundred’ (as in

English) – the only time it uses a singular after a number greater than one.

11

Number 1000.

Hebrew has a name which is masculine.

Aramaic has more or less the same name, also masculine.

*** Number 2000.

Hebrew uses the dual ‘two-thousand’.

Aramaic has no dual and uses simply ‘two thousands’ as in the following.

Numbers 3000 to 9000 (inclusive).

Hebrew uses the number of thousands (3 to 9) followed by the plural ‘thousands’.

Aramaic does the same.

*** Number 10,000 (a myriad).

Hebrew has a name ¼(L%L%U< but later books sometimes use the Aramaic word.

Aramaic uses ¼>¼}¼xV< (usually shortened in the singular absolute to ¼}¼xV<).

(Plural ‘myriads’: Hebrew ¼>¼}¼% D%V< B ¼>¼}¼%L%U<, Aramaic ¼$ L>L) DxV< B ¼>L) DxV< B¼3L) DxV<.)

*** Compound numbers (from 21 upwards).

Hebrew connects thousands, hundreds, tens and units (or teens) with ‘and’ between them, often

having to repeat the noun so that the units modify a plural ant the others a singular. It

also varies the order, sometimes putting first the units, then the tens, then the hundreds

etc. (but not always), e.g. ‘Enoch lived five and sixty year and three hundred year’, but

Sarah lived ‘a hundred year and twenty year and seven years’.

Armaic is consistent, always in descending order (thousands, hundreds, tens, units as in

English) joined by ‘and’, with the noun once only in the plural, e.g. ‘Enoch lived three

hundred and sixty and five years’, Sarah ‘a hundred and twenty and seven years’.

*** Construct form.

Hebrew sometimes uses the construct form of a number (2 to 9) but this makes no difference

to the meaning.

Aramaic does not use the construct form of a number.

Other numerical forms

Ordinal numbers: first, second, third, fourth .......tenth, last.

In Aramaic, ordinal numbers can be masculine or feminine. The masculine can be in the

absolute or definite states, in the feminine only the definite state form is found.

*** Ordinal numbers over ten.

Hebrew uses the cardinals and repeats the noun in the singular. (‘The twelfth day’ becomes

‘The day twelve day’.)

Aramaic uses the cardinals and repeats the noun in the plural. (‘The twelfth day’ becomes

‘The day twelve days’.)

*** Fractions.

Forms are found in Onkelos for half, third, quarter, fifth and tenth. Two-thirds (Heb. ¼1H-K4 D ¼- H²)

is expressed as ‘two parts’. ‘A fiftieth’ is ‘one from fifty’ (etc.) as in Hebrew.

*** Multipkes.

Double (Hebrew just ‘two’ or ¼(J4 D H2) is expressed in Aramaic as ‘on one, two’.

Seven times (Hebrew just ‘seven’) is expressed as just ‘seven’.

A hundred-fold (Hebrew ‘a hundred gateways’) is expressed as ‘on one, a hundred’.

12

Number tables

CARDINAL NUMBERS

Fem. Masc. Feminine Masculine Common

1 ¼$ L'F+ ¼'K+ 11 ¼- I< D5 K6 ¼$ L'F+ ¼< K5F6 ¼'K+

2 ¼3¼- IºU< Kº ¼3¼- I< Dº 12 ¼- I< D5 K6 ¼$ KºU< Kº ¼< K5F6 ¼- I< Dº 20 ¼3¼-V< D5 J6

3 >L0 Dº ¼$ L>L0 Dº 13 ¼- I< D5 K6 ¼>L0 Dº ¼< K5F6 ¼$ L>L0 Dº 30 ¼3¼- H>L0 Dº

4 ¼6KxU< K$ ¼$ L6 DxU< K$ 14 ¼- I< D5K6 ¼6KxU< K$ ¼< K5F6 ¼> K6 DxU< K$ 40 ¼3¼- H6 DxU< K$

5 ¼ I2F+ ¼$ L D2K+ 15 ¼- I< D5 K6 ¼ I2F+ ¼< K5F6 ¼> K I2F+ 50 ¼3¼- H D2 K+

6 ¼> I ¼$ Lº H 16 ¼- I< D5 K6 ¼> I ¼< K5F6 ¼> Kº H 60 ¼3¼- Hº H

7 ¼6K% D ¼$ L6 D% H 17 ¼- I< D5 K6 ¼6K% D ¼< K5F6 ¼> K6 D% H 70 ¼3¼- H6 D% H

8 ¼-I4 D2 Kº ¼$L- D4 L2 Dº 18 (¼- I< D5 K6 ¼-I4 D2 Kº) ¼< K5F6 ¼>K4 L2 Dº 80 ¼3K4 L2 Dº

9 ¼6 K Iº ¼$ L6 D Hº 19 ¼- I< D5 K6 ¼6 K= Dº (¼< K5F6 ¼> K6 D Hº) 90 ¼3¼- H6 D Hº

10 ¼< K5F6 ¼$L< D5 K6 (Forms in brackets are not actually found in Onkelos)

CARDINALS ORDINAL NUMBERS

100 ¼( L$ D2 Fem. Definite Masc.Definite Masculine

200 ¼3 K> ¼$ L2 1st ¼$ L> I2U' K; ( L$ L2U' K; - K2U' K;

300 ¼( L$ D2 ¼>L0 Dº 2nd ¼$ L>I- D4 Hº ¼$L4L- D4 Hº ¼3L- D4 Hº

1000 ¼$ L8 D0 K$/ ¼7K0F$ 3rd ¼$ L> I>¼- H0 Dº ( L$ L>¼- H0 Dº ¼- K>¼- H0 Dº

2000 ¼3¼- H8 D0 K$ ¼3¼- I< Dº 4th ¼$ L> I6¼- H%U< ¼( L$ L6¼- H%U< ¼- K6¼- H%U<

10,000 ¼$ L>}xV< 5th ¼$ L> I ¼- H2F+ ¼( L$ L ¼- H2F+ ¼- K ¼- H2F+

6th ¼$ L> I>¼- H> D ¼( L$ L>¼- H> D ¼- K>¼- H> D

FRACTIONS 7th ¼$ L> I6¼- H% D ¼( L$ L6¼- H% D=

1/2 ¼>¼|¼y H0 K² 8th ¼$ L>I4¼- H2 Dº ¼( L$L4¼- H2 Dº

1/3 ¼>¼| ¼º D0 Kº 9th ¼$ L> I6¼- H Dº ¼( L$ L6¼- H Dº

1/4 ¼>¼| ¼6 D%K< 10th ¼( L$L<¼- H5F6

1/5 ¼ J2N+ Last ¼$ L>I< D>Kx ¼( L$L< D>Kx

1/10 ¼$L< D5K6 ¼3 H2 ¼' K+ MULTIPLES

Double . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ¼3¼- I< Dº ¼'K+ ¼0 K6Seven times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ¼6K% DA hundred times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ¼( L$ D2 ¼'K+ ¼0 K6

2/3 ¼3¼- H;L0O+ ¼3¼- I< Dº

13

THE VERB SIMPLIFIED

The Aramaic verb is in many ways simpler than the Hebrew verb. It has the same general

characteristics of prefixes and suffixes to denote subject and sometimes also object, but many

complications in Hebrew are absent from Aramaic.

1. Hebrew has the conversive vav, which confuses everything and also changes and messes up the

verb form, so that the root is hard to recognise. Aramaic is not cursed with the conversive vav.

2. The Hebrew verb has five ‘moods’ – indicative, optative (with imperative subsidiary), infinitive

(mis-named ‘absolute’), gerund (mis-named ‘construct’) and participle. The optative is very widely

used, though the grammarians refuse to recognise it for what it is, and ignoring it as most people do

leads to large-scale misunderstanding of the text.

Onkelos does not use an optative (except imperative), but the future tense (see next paragraph)

instead. The beginner can consider the moods as indicative, imperative, participle and gerund.

3. The Hebrew indicative does not have tenses, but aspects (perfective and imperfective).

In Aramaic these have developed into past and future tenses, and the participle is often used as

a present tense, absent in Hebrew. So tenses are used much as in English. For a continuous tense (as

in English) he uses the participle with (or often without) the verb ‘to be’; he also uses the same thing

for a repeated tense where Hebrew uses the imperfective, e.g. Hebrew ¼ÆÃf DÐHÎ ‘he used to write’ or ‘he

writes (repeatedly)’ or ‘he will write (repeatedly)’.

Stretch and Voice

The first characteristic of the Hebrew verb is what we call, for want of a better name, the

‘stretch’. A verb root can be simple, or it can be stretched internally by doubling a letter (intensive),

or externally by adding a prefix É (extensive, more usually named by its meaning, ‘causative’).

Each stretch can have one of three ‘voices’ – active, passive, or middle (a sort of reflexive),

giving a pattern, in theory, of nine possibilities.

Classical Hebrew

Voice

Stretch

Active Passive Middle

Simple Ñ KÜ(except

participle)

Ñ K× DÙHÕ

Extensive(Causative)

ÑÎ H× DÙ HÉ Ñ K× DÙ LÉ X

Intensive Ñ I× Hb Ñ K×Ob Ñ I× Kb Dß HÉ

Onkelos

Voice

Stretch

Active PassiveParticiple

only

Middleused forpassive

Simple(0 K;)

YES(except

participle)

YES

Extensive(Causative)

YES(except

participle)

YES

Intensive YES(except

participle)

YES

Of the nine possibilities, one was already dead in Classical Hebrew, and one remained only in

the participle, leaving 7½ (known in Hebrew as binyanim, a term that confuses). The first table shows

the scheme with the traditional badly chosen Hebrew names. Applying these names, modified, in

Aramaic (afel, hafel, polel, itpeel, itpeil, itpael, itpaal, itafel and a few more) is even more confusing.

14

Instead just think of simple, intensive and causative, each active, middle or passive. From the right-

hand table, you will see that in the Aramaic of Onkelos all three passives have disappeared except for

the participle, and the middle is used instead.

(Understanding and using three stretches each with three voices you can easily see what is going

on in any Semitic language, even if some are ‘missing’, while ‘seven binyanim’ confuses even in

Hebrew.)

Tenses and Participle

The past and future tenses, like the Hebrew aspects, have person (first, second and third),

number (singular and plural) and gender (masculine and feminine, but not in the first person), but in

the past tense, unlike in Hebrew, the third person plural is different for masculine and feminine.

Onkelos used the participle both as a participle and as a present tense, as well as for forming

continuous and repeated tenses, but often changes the Hebrew participle as explained in the notes.

The Gerund

This corresponds to the English gerund (‘I enjoy eating’) or to the English infinitive (‘I want

to eat’). Onkelos often changes the Hebrew gerund, as explained in the notes.

The Infinitive

The Hebrew infinitive has two uses:

(a) Rare. Instead of a participle. Onkelos used the participle.

(b) Often. For emphasis. Onkelos uses the gerund absolute form, with a vowel change (patach to

kamets) in the kal.

Verb Tables

We are not going to give you long tables of all the verbs. The endings are much the same in

all forms, whether simple, intensive or causative, whether active, middle or passive.

We will give the kal (simple active forms) of the regular verb in full, and of the verb whose root

ends in Å Ê Î or silent É; then we will give the 3rd singular of past and future with tne masculine

singular participle of the other forms. Study these forms carefully so that you can recognise them.

Simple active (kal) forms

Feminine Masculine Participle Gerund

¼ÅLÎ DÕ LT ¼ÅLÆ DßL] ¼ÎIÕ LT ¼Æ IßL] Singular ¼Æ Kf DÐ HÓ

¼ÔLÎ DÕ LT ¼Ô LÆ DßL] ¼ÔKÕ LT ¼Ô¼Î HÆ DßL] Plural ¼ÎIÕ DÆ HÓ

15

1

¼ÎIÕ DÆ JÅ ¼ÆÃf DÐ JÅ ¼Î Hß¼ÎIÕ DT B ¼ß¼ÎIÕ DT ¼ß¼Î HÆ Iß D] ¼ß¼Î HÆ Kß D] 1 Sing.

¼ÎIÕ DÆ Hf ¼ÆÃf DÐ Hf Lß¼ÎIÕ DT Å Lf2 Df DÆ Iß D] Å Lf2 Df DÆ Kß D] 2 S.M.

¼ÔKÕ DÆ Hf ¼Ô¼Î HÆ Df DÐ Hf ¼ß¼ÎIÕ DT Df DÆ Iß D] Df DÆ Kß D] 2 S.F.

¼ÎIÕ DÆHÎ ¼ÆÃf DÐHÎ ¼ÅLÕ DT ¼Æ Iß D] ¼Æ Kß D] 3 S.M.

¼ÎIÕ DÆ Hf ¼ÆÃf DÐ Hf ¼ßLÕ DT ¼ß KÆ Iß D] ¼ßKÆ Kß D] 3 S.F.

¼ÎIÕ DÆHÕ ¼ÆÃf DÐHÕ ¼ÅLÕ¼ÎIÕ DT ¼ÅLÕ DÆ Iß D] ¼ÅLÕ DÆ Kß D] 1 Plur.

¼3¼}¼4 D% Hº ¼Ô¼X ¼Æ Df DÐ Hf ¼Ô¼D ¼ß¼ÎIÕ DT ¼Ô¼X ¼f DÆ Iß D] ¼Ô¼X ¼f DÆ Kß D] 2 P.M.

¼3L- D4 D% Hº ¼3 L% Dº D/ Hº ¼3¼- H>¼-I4 Dx ¼3 Lº D% I> D¤ ¼3 Lº D% K> D¤ 2 P.F.

¼Ô¼D¼Õ DÆHÎ ¼Ô¼X¼Æ Df DÐHÎ ¼D¼Õ DT ¼X ¼Æ Iß D] ¼X¼Æ Kß D] 3 P.M.

¼ÔLÎ DÕ DÆHÎ ¼Ô LÆ Df DÐHÎ ¼É LÅKÕ DT ¼ÅLÆ Iß D] ¼ÅLÆ Kß D] 3 P.F.

S = Singular P = Plural M = Masculine F = Feminine Alt. = Alternative form

Not all possible variations between alef, yod and final hé are shown.

Other forms

Gerund

Construct

Gerund

Absolute

Future Participle Past

––– ––– ¼Æ¼Î Hß D] ––– Simple Passive

¼ß¼X ¼Æ Lß D] Dß HÅ ¼ÅLÆ Lß D] Dß HÅ ¼Æ¼Î Hß D] DßHÎ ¼Æ¼Î Hß D] Dß HÓ ¼Æ¼Î Hß D] Dß HÅ Simple Middle *

¼Î IÆÃf DÐ KÅ B ¼ß¼X ¼Æ Lf DÐ KÅ ¼ÅLÆ Lf DÐ KÅ ¼Æ If DÐKÎ ¼Æ If DÐ KÓ ¼Æ If DÐ KÅ Causative Active

¼ß¼X ¼Æ Lf DÐ Kf HÅ ¼ÅLÆ Lf DÐ Kf HÅ ¼Æ If DÐ KfHÎ ¼Æ If DÐ Kf HÓ Æ If DÐ Kf HÅ Causative Middle *

¼Î IÆÃfK] B ¼ß¼X¼Æ LfK] ¼ÅLÆ LfK] ¼Æ IfKÐ DÎ ¼Æ IfKÐ DÓ ¼Æ IfK] Intensive Active

––– ––– ––– ¼Æ KfKÐ DÓ ––– Intensive Passive

¼Î IÆÃfK] Dß HÅ B ¼ß¼X ¼Æ LfK] Dß HÅ ¼ÅLÆ LfK] Dß HÅ ¼Æ KfK] DfHÎ ¼Æ KfK] Dß HÓ ¼Æ KfK] Dß HÅ Intensive Middle *

* Middle is used for reflexive and sometimes for passive

16

FO

RR

EF

ER

EN

CE

ON

LY

RE

GU

LA

RA

RA

MA

ICV

ER

B–

ON

KE

LO

S(P

rinc

ipal

form

s)

NO

RM

AL

CA

US

AT

IVE

INT

EN

SIV

E

Act

ive

(Kal

)(P

assi

ve)

Mid

dle/

Pas

sive

Act

ive

(Pas

sive

)M

iddl

e/P

assi

veA

ctiv

e(P

assi

ve)

Mid

dle/

Pas

sive

Infi

nit

ive

Infi

nit

ive

Infi

nit

ive

¼%LºD/H2

––––

––––

$L%L>D¤D>H$

¼$L%LºD/K$

––––

––––

$L%LºD/KºH$

$L%LºK¤

––––

––––

¼$L%LºK¤D>H$

Ger

un

dab

solu

teG

eru

nd

abso

lute

Ger

un

dab

solu

te

¼%KºD/H2

––––

––––

¼$L%L>D¤D>H$

¼$L%LºD/K$

––––

––––

$L%LºD/KºH$

$L%LºK¤

––––

––––

¼$L%LºK¤D>H$

Ger

un

dco

nst

ruct

Ger

un

dco

nst

ruct

Ger

un

dco

nst

ruct

¼%KºD/H2

––––

––––

¼>¼|¼%L>D¤D>H$

¼>¼|¼%LºD/K$

––––

––––

¼>¼|¼%LºD/KºH$

¼>¼|¼%LºK¤

––––

––––

¼>¼|¼%LºK¤D>H$

Pas

tP

ast

Pas

t

¼>¼-H%K>D¤DºD%K>D¤

DºD%K>D¤

(¼$LºD%K>D¤) ¼%K>D¤

>K%K>D¤ ¼$L4D%K>D¤ ¼3¼|¼ºD%K>D¤

¼3¼-HºD%K>D¤

¼|¼%K>D¤

¼$L%K>D¤

––––

––––

¼>¼-H%I>D¤D>H$ DºD%I>D¤D>H$

DºD%I>D¤D>H$

(LºD%I>D¤D>H$)

¼%I>D¤D>H$

¼>K%I>D¤D>H$

¼$L4D%I>D¤D>H$

¼3¼|¼ºD%I>D¤D>H$

¼3¼-HºD%I>D¤D>H$

¼|¼%¼-H>D¤D>H$

¼$L%¼-H>D¤D>H$

¼>¼-H%IºD/K$DºD%IºD/K$

DºD%IºD/K$

(¼$LºD%IºD/K$

)¼%IºD/K$

¼>K%IºD/K$ ¼$L4D%IºD/K$ ¼3¼|¼ºD%IºD/K$

¼3¼-HºD%IºD/K$

¼|¼%¼-HºD/K$

¼$L%¼-HºD/K$

––––

––––

¼>¼-H%KºD/KºH$ DºD%KºD/KºH$

DºD%KºD/KºH$ (¼$LºD%KºD/KºH$)

¼%KºD/KºH$

¼>K%KºK/KºH$

¼$L4D%KºD/KºH$

¼3¼-HºD%KºD/KºH$¼3¼|¼ºD%KºD/KºH$

¼|¼%KºD/KºH$

¼$L%KºD/KºH$

¼>¼-H%IºK¤DºD%IºK¤

DºD%IºK¤

(¼$LºD%IºK¤) ¼%IºK¤

¼>K%IºK¤ ¼$L4D%IºK¤ ¼3¼|¼ºD%IºK¤

¼3¼-HºD%IºK¤

¼|¼%¼-HºK¤

¼$L%¼-HºK¤

––––

––––

¼>¼-H%KºK¤D>H$ DºD%KºK¤D>H$

DºD%KºK¤D>H$ (¼$LºD%KºK¤D>H$)

¼%KºK¤D>H$

¼>K%KºK¤D>H$

¼$L4D%KºK¤D>H$

¼3¼-HºD%KºK¤D>H$¼3¼|¼ºD%KºK¤D>H$

¼|¼%KºK¤D>H$

¼$L%KºK¤D>H$

Par

tici

ple

/Pre

sen

tP

arti

cip

le/P

rese

nt

Par

tici

ple

/Pre

sen

t

¼%I>L¤

$L%D>L¤

¼3¼-H%D>L¤

¼3L%D>L¤

¼%¼-H>D¤

¼$L%¼-H>D¤

¼3¼-H%¼-H>D¤

¼3L%¼-H>D¤

¼%I>D¤D>H2

¼$L%D>K¤D>H2¼3¼-H%D>K¤D>H2

¼3L%D>K¤D>H2

¼%IºD/K2

¼$L%DºD/K2

¼3¼-H%DºD/K2

¼3L%DºD/K2

¼%KºD/K2

¼$L%DºD/K2

¼3¼-H%DºD/K2

¼3L%DºD/K2

¼%KºD/KºH2

¼$L%DºD/KºH2¼3¼-H%DºD/KºH2

¼3L%DºD/KºH2

¼%IºK/D2

¼$L%DºK/D2

¼3¼-H%DºK/D2

¼3L%DºK/D2

¼%KºK/D2

¼$L%DºK/D2

¼3¼-H%DºK/D2

¼3L%DºK/D2

¼%KºK¤D>H2

¼$L%DºK¤D>H2¼3¼-H%DºK¤D>H2

¼3L%DºK¤D>H2

Fu

ture

Fu

ture

Fu

ture

¼%NºD/J$

¼%NºD/Hº

¼3¼-H%DºD/Hº

¼%NºD/H-

¼%NºD/Hº ¼%Nº

D/H4¼3¼|¼%DºD/Hº

¼3L%DºD/Hº

¼3¼|¼%DºD/H-

¼3L%DºD/H-

––––

––––

¼%I>D¤D>J$ ¼%I>

D¤D>Hº

¼3¼-H%D>K¤D>Hº

¼%I>D¤D>H-

¼%I>D¤D>Hº ¼%I>D¤D>H4 ¼3¼|¼%D>K¤D>Hº

¼3L%D>K¤D>Hº

¼3¼|¼%D>K¤D>H-

¼3L%D>K¤D>H-

¼%IºD/K$

¼%IºD/Kº

¼3¼-H%DºD/Kº

¼%IºD/K-

¼%IºD/Kº ¼%Iº

D/K4¼3¼|¼%DºD/Kº

¼3L%DºD/Kº

¼3¼|¼%DºD/K-

¼3L%DºD/K-

––––

––––

¼%KºD/KºJ$¼%KºD/KºHº

¼3¼-H%DºD/KºHº

¼%KºD/KºH-

¼%KºD/KºHº ¼%KºD/KºH4 ¼3¼|¼%DºD/KºHº

¼3L%DºD/KºHº

¼3¼|¼%DºD/KºH-

¼3L%DºD/KºH-

¼%IºK/F$

¼%IºK/Dº

¼3¼-H%DºK/Dº

¼%IºK/D-

¼%IºK/Dº ¼%IºK/D4¼3¼|¼%DºK/Dº

¼3L%DºK/Dº

¼3¼|¼%DºK/D-

¼3L%DºK/D-

––––

––––

¼%KºK¤D>J$¼%KºK¤D>Hº

¼3¼-H%DºK¤D>Hº

¼%KºK¤D>H-

¼%KºK¤D>Hº

¼%KºK¤D>H4 ¼3¼|¼%DºK¤D>Hº

¼3L%DºK¤D>Hº

¼3¼|¼%DºK¤D>H-

¼3L%DºK¤D>H-

Imp

erat

ive

Imp

erat

ive

Imp

erat

ive

¼%N>D¤

¼-H%O>D¤

¼|¼%O>D¤

¼$L%O>D¤

––––

––––

¼%I>D¤D>H$

¼-H%¼-H>D¤D>H$¼|¼%¼-H>D¤D>H$

¼$L%¼-H>D¤D>H$

¼%IºD/K$

¼-H%¼-HºD/K$

¼|¼%¼-HºD/K$

¼$L%¼-HºD/K$

––––

––––

¼%KºD/KºH$

¼-H%KºD/KºH$

¼|¼%KºD/KºH$

¼$L%KºD/KºH$

¼%IºK¤

¼-H%¼-HºK¤

¼|¼%¼-HºK¤

¼$L%¼-HºK¤

––––

––––

¼%KºK¤D>H$

¼-H%KºK¤D>H$

¼|¼%DºK¤D>H$

¼$L%KºK¤D>H$

G E N E S I S

>-=$<%

G 1:1 ¼$L< Dx 3- H2U'K; DxRashi claims (with very good support) that the Hebrewword is construct. Apparently Onkelos does not agree,or he would have put ¼ÅLÝ DÆVV* ¼>L-Where the Hebrew word ¼ß IÅ + ¼ß JÅ, is used instead of ¼Ò H×to mean ‘with’, Onkelos uses ¼Ò H×. However in mostcases, as here, it is used simply te denote the object, andAramaic did not use it (see Daniel and Ezra). But sincethe rabbis who taught Onkelos often deduced thingsfrom it, it could not be left out, so Onkelos found theword ¼ßLÎ and used it for the purpose.* G 1:2 ¼$ L+¼|¼< D) ¼$ L2¼} ¼( D> SSSSS ¼$ L/WF+K)Lit. ‘the darkness’ etc. There was a tendency to use thedefinite article where it is not needed. This occurs,though rarely, even in the Hebrew of the Torah, but inthe Aramaic of Onkelos it is extremely frequent (and inthe Talmud even more so). In this verse alone we findthe unnecessary usage three times, and it is important tobe careful not to take the definite article too seriously.¼$L% D¹K4 D2 '( ¼1 L'G; ¼3 H2 ¼$ L+¼| ¼< D)» GIR. The two translations normally offered are either‘the Divine spirit hovering’ or ‘a mighty wind blowing’.Onkelos gives us ‘A wind from God blowing’.* L- D-Wherever ¼Ò¼Î HÉWÑ EÅ means or refers to God, Onkelostranslates it with the Holy 4-letter Name (written here inan abbreviated form) except in certain cases where thattranslation might cause problems.* G 1:5 $ L2 L2D-This word is consistently used by Onkelos to translatethe Hebrew ÒDÎ whenever it means ‘day’ as against‘night’, reserving ÒDÎ for ‘day’ as against ‘week’ &c.* G 1:10 ¼> L I4 D¤ ¼>¼- I% D0|In Aramaic, ßÎÆ normally means a ‘house’, as inHebrew, but is not used (alone) to mean ‘family’, as wewill see (nor ‘inside’). However it is often used to meana ‘place’ in a certain sense. Here the idea is expressedin the Hebrew by the prefix ?HÓ in ¼ÉIÊ DÜ HÓ, but Aramaichas no equivalent, so the word ßÎÆ is added.> L I4 D¤Plural, though the Hebrew is singular, since the Hebrewword ¼Ò¼Î H_KÎ shows that a plural is intended.G 1:11 ¼( L$ D>VzThe silent É is to prevent two ‘alefs’ coming together.The accepted translation is that the Hebrew is constructand the ta’am is revia (» G), but the use of the definitearticle, though unnecessary (> 1:2 above), shows thatOnkelos does not agree.* G 1:12 ¼- H(¼|¼4 D* H0The word ÎÉÊÕËÑ before vowel signs were inventedmisled scribes and printers to write ¼Î HɼD¼Õ DËHÑ, which makesno sense as it is plural. The normal Hebrew form ¼D¼Õ¼Î HÓis rendered by Onkelos as ¼WIÕ DË. The slightly archaicform ¼X ¼ÉIռΠHÓ means the same thing (cf. ¼X ¼É¼Î HÆ LÅ B¼Ê¼Î HÆ LÅ), andOnkelos, wishing to show the distinction, uses thecorresponding slightly archaic form ¼Î HɼX¼Õ DË (cf. ¼Î HɼX ¼ÆFÅ).[A similar error in the reverse direction occurred when each of the fivedivisions of the Torah, called ¼ J2N+ and written without vowels as =2)+,was mis-read as ¼ L2¼| ¼+, and later applied to the whole Torah.]

* G 1:14 ¼3¼} ¼(D-The Hebrew ¼Î HÉ DÎ is singular, because it is impersonal:‘Let there be’ followed by whatever there is to be letbe, whether masculine or feminine, singular or plural,the object of ‘be’, the subject being the impersonal‘there’. Grammarians call this object the ‘predicate’ anddemand (in English) that the verb should agree with itas if it were a subject. Onkelos refuses to accept theimpersonal, and twists the object round to become thesubject! ‘Let there be lights’ becomes ‘let lights he’.Rashbam (alone?) seems to have understood this.This impersonal verb is far more common in Hebrewthan in English, but always ‘corrected’ by Onkelos. Agood example is in 41:50: ¼Ò¼ÎHÕ LÆ ¼ÎIÕ II ¼È K OÎ ¼Ø IÖ¼D¼Î DѼX ‘toJoseph there was born –’ what was born? ‘– two sons’,Onkelos changes this to ‘to Joseph two sons were born’.[His actual word order is ‘to Joseph were born two sons’ but that ismerely because he puts the verb before the subject. He does not recognisethe implied impersonal ‘there’; the phrase ‘two sons’ in Onkelos is nolonger the object or predicate of the verb but has become the subject.]

* ¼3¼} ¼( D% ¼-I4 D2 H2 D0¼|Onkelos was a fussy literalist. (An anecdote illustrateswell the use of a phrase which cannot be misunderstoodeven if it is not strictly logical. A literalist at a partywas once approached by a friend who remarked ‘Yourglass is empty, let me get you another’, to which hereplied ‘Why should I want two empty glasses?’) TheTorah is not afraid of such phrases, but Onkelos is, andhe adds words to make the meaning quite clear. The sunis not intended to act as days and years, but to be usedfor counting days and years.G 1:16 ¼$L- D0¼- I0 Dx SSSS ¼$ L2 L2¼-Hx ¼,K0 D H2 D0Hebrew uses nouns ‘for the ruler of the day ...’ but O.translates it as ‘to rule by day ...’ (as verse 18).* G 1:21 ¼$ L F+L<UzThe Hebrew ¼ß JK JÓÃÝ LÉ, using the definite article with aparticiple where we would use a relative clause, createsa ‘participle phrase’. (Strictly a phrase is more than oneword and here there is only one word, but a prefixmakes it the equivalent of a phrase.) O. normallytranslates such an expression with the prefix ?È (‘that’)followed by a verb in the past, future or (as here)present, as appropriate.* G 1:26 ¼$ L L4F$Used by O. to translate ¼ÒLÈ LÅ when it means ‘man’ or‘mankind’. When it means a person, he uses ¼I KÙ DÕ, andwhen it means Adam he leaves it alone.* ¼-I4¼|¼4 DxThe Hebrew ¼ÉLÇLV is a collective, and O. often translatesa collective by a plural, though sometimes he does thereverse. It depends on the Aramaic idiom.G 2:2 ¼+L4 D)O. translates the root ßÆI as if it means ‘rest’.* G 2:4 'F%F6Kz SSSSS ¼| ¼$¼-V< Dx D> H$ ¼'K¤In each case the Hebrew gerund with a prefix forms theequivalent of a ‘gerund phrase’, which O. also does notlike (cf. the participle phrase explained in the note onverse 1:21 above). Again he prefers to use a verb in thefuture, present, or (as here) past, with the prefix ?È, orwith a word like ¼ÈK]. (Here the second Hebrew gerundis in the construct state and does not have a prefix.)¼1¼- H(W0E$ L-D-Here O. has no option, but he uses the second word asin the Hebrew and does not use the Aramaic form.

Gen. 19

G 2:5 ¼-I4L0¼- H$Plural for Hebrew collective.* ¼$ L6U< K$ D% ¼}¼)F( ¼$L0 ¼' K6Hebrew ¼ÉJÎ DÉHÎ ¼Ò JÝ JÍ ‘[being] yet (or still) about to be inthe ground’. This Hebrew construction using ¼Ò JÝ JÍ andthe imperfective is rendered in English by changing thetense to a past and inserting ‘not’ – ‘was not yet in theground’. O. does the same in Aramaic (merely invertingthe order ‘yet not’ instead of ‘not yet’). ¼Ì LÓ DÛHÎ ¼ÒJÝ JÍ‘[being] yet about to grow’ likewise becomes ‘had notyet grown’, rendered by O. as ‘yet not had grown’. Healways does this with ¼ÒÝ JÍ. » GIR, also » Gen. 19:4 forthe difference between this and ¼ÎIÕ DÙHÑ.* G 2:6 ¼;I0 L5 ¼$L)F(The Hebrew imperfective (often misnamed ‘future’)form is used for the future, for a strong command, andfor any repeated action in the past, present or future.When used for repeated action, O. renders it using theparticiple, with or without the verb ‘to be’ in past orfuture if applicable. Here he uses the participle with thepast tense of ‘be’ – ‘used to rise’. (This usage spread toMishnaic and subsequently Modern Hebrew.)G 2:7 $L0 D¬ K2 D2 K+|<The Hebrew root ÉÎÌ normally means ‘live’, giving atranslation here of ‘a living person’. But the root ÉÊÌmeans to declare (Ps. 19:3) and as root letters vav andyod are often interchanged, O. takes it that way here.G 2:9 ¼3 L0¼- H$tree. The Hebrew word can also mean the material‘wood’, for which O. has a diffeernt word.¼>¼| ¼6¼- H: D2HxHebrew simply means ‘within’ or ‘inside’, but O. takesit to mean ‘in the middle’.¼- I0 D/ L$UzThe Hebrew is grammatically very difficult, but theultimate meaning is clear, and O. puts it that way.G 2:11 ¼(L0¼-H)F+This is taken as a name, not a word. Often a place namestarts with a definite article in Hebrew (e.g. ¼Ò¼Î HZ HJ KÉ,compare the capital of Holland, called The Hague) andO. invariably drops this in his translation.G 2:14 ¼>L0 D&VzAn example of consonant changes in dialects. TheHebrew ¼Ñ JÜJV HÌ drops the prefix ?Ì, the Ü changes to Ç(compare Hebrew ¼Ò¼ÎVÈ IÜ DI, Aramaic ¼Ô¼ÎVÈ DÇ HI) and O. addsa suffix. More likely, as O. seems to have been at homein Mesopotamia, his version was the original local one.Just as k and g readily interchange, so do t and d (e.g.‘dollar’ from ‘thaler’), more rarely l and r (cf. Hebrew¼ÉLÕ LÓ DÑ KÅ, Aramaic ¼ÅLÑ DÓUÝ KÅ); dkl becomes tgr, hence Tigris.[Far-fetched? I once stayed at Almondsbury, a village called Armansbryby visitors, Armsbry by the locals, and Amesbry by nearby Bristolians!]

¼>L< D8The Greeks took phrat, added a suffix -es, and blessedthe river by adding a prefix eu- which means ‘good’ (cf.English ‘eulogy’ of Greek origin) giving us Euphrates.G 2:24 ¼- I% D¤ D H2 ¼>¼- IxAn addition. midrashic.G 3:3 ¼3¼|¼%U< D; H>Beware of Aramaic words that look like Hebrew onesbut do not mean exactly the same. In the kal form theAramaic root ÆÝÜ means ‘touch’.* G 3:5 L- D- ¼1 L'G; ¼-I0 D&Very often when God ‘does’ something or other (evensomething passive like hearing), O. tends to express thisin a very roundabout way.

* G 3:8 L-¼- K' ¼$L< D2¼- I2O. very very often uses this expresion (God’s word)instead of simply ‘God’ in the original.¼$ L>D Hy ¼3 L0¼- H$ ¼}¼& DxNormally the Hebrew is taken to mean ‘among the treesof the garden’, ¼Ú I× being collective. But O. takes itliterally as ‘inside a tree of the garden’. Here hetranslates ¼E¼D ¼ß DT as ‘inside’, contrast 2:9.G 3:15 ¼<¼- H/U' ¼- I(D-lit. ‘will remember’, the verb remember in Aramaic isalways passive. The translation of this half-versecontains midrashic additions.G 3:17 ¼$ Lº D0 Ix K;In Aramaic the root ×ÓI (as in verses 8, 10 above)only means to hear. When the Hebrew means listen to(and take notice of), ÑÆÜ is used.¼< K2¼- I2 D0the meaning of the word, not quite literal.G 3:20 ¼$ L L4F$ ¼-I4 DxIn English ‘the human race’. O. the literalist is afraidthat the Hebrew could be taken to mean all that lives,i.e. including the animals.G 3:21 ¼< L;¼-Vz ¼3¼- H ¼| ¼% D0respectable clothes. This is how he translates ¼ß¼D¼Õ DßL].¼3¼} ¼(U< H5Hx ¼¦ K D2 ¼0 K6O. clarifies that the Hebrew does not (as it may appear)mean ‘leather garments’ but clothes to cover the skin.G 3:22 SSS ¼{I H2 B ¼$ L2 D0 L6 Dx ¼- K'¼- H+D-A midrashic explanation that treats ¼X¼ J_ HÓ as third personsingular and not first person plural, and demands apunctuation differing from the Masoretic (te’amim).¼$ L2 D0Vzperhaps. The nearest Aramaic could get to ‘lest’.G 4:3 ¼3¼- H2¼}¼-The Hebrew is idiomatic for ‘a year’, but O. ignores thisand translates it as ‘days’.G 4:7O. translates the whole verse midrashically.* G 4:9 ¼$L4 D6 K'L-Present tense I (do not) know. The root ×ÈÎ in Aramaicmeans to know. Not so in Biblical Hebrew, where itmeans to discover, to get to know. To say in Hebrew ‘Iknow’ you must use a perfect tense, ‘I have got toknow’ ¼Î Hf D×KÈLÎ means ‘I know’ or ‘I realise’. Sowhenever the root ×ÈÎ occurs in the Hebrew, O. usesthe same root in a different tense.G 4:10 ¼3L-F6U<K*A midrashic explanation based on the fact that theHebrew uses a plural form ¼Î IÓUV instead of ¼ÒKV.G 4:13 ¼;Kx D H2 D¬ H2 ¼- H%¼} ¼+ ¼-Hy K5One of various possible translations of the text.G 4:15 ¼3¼-V< L' ¼$ L6 D% H D0The usual midrashic explanation. Lit. sevenfold.G 4:16O. wants to understand ¼ß KÓUÈ HÜ as ‘previous’, not as‘east’, so gives a long addition.G 4:17 ¼-I4Lx ¼(L)F(K)A straight translation, not suggesting ‘when he built’.G 4:18 ¼' I0¼} ¼$O. the literalist refuses to accept the illogical ¼ÈKÑLÎ.* G 4:19 ¼$ L'F+The masculine for ‘one’ is ¼È KÌ and the feminine is ¼ÅLÈFÌ.To avoid all possible confusion, O. never attaches a

Gen. 20

definite article to either of them, even if, as here, it ispresent in the Hebrew.G 4:21O. elaborates.G 4:23A midrashic elaboration.G 4:26 ¼3 I/ Dxthen. As it is a nice sounding word, someone decided toinsert it every now and then in the New Year prayers,without always worrying about what it means.* G 5:3 ¼3¼- H>L0 D>| ( L$ D2Regardless of the order in the Hebrew, O. always givesnumbers in the order hundreds and tens and units.* ¼3¼-H4 DHebrew uses the singular for numbers over ten, whichoften involves splitting (e.g. five years and a hundredyear, in verse 6). O. always uses the plural for numbersmore than ‘one’, and does not split.G 5:22 ¼$ L> D0 D+ K' DxO. adds to clarify.G 5:24 ¼>¼- H2F$A slight variation.G 6:3O. elaborates on the verse.¼3¼|¼%¼| ¼>D- SSSSS ¼$ L¤U< K$There are two explanations of the verse. One is that theywill be given 120 years to repent, the other that theirlife span will be (steadily) reduced to 120 years. It isquite clear that O. accepts the former.G 6:6 ¼<Kx D> H2 D0An added interpretation.G 6:8 ¼3¼- H2F+K<A play on words cannot be translated, not only intoGreek but even into Aramaic, and the subtelty is lost.As he original Hebrew script had no ‘final’ letters, ¼Ô IÌis KÌÂÕ spelt backwards, the way God saw it. (Cf. 38:7.)

+4

G 6:9 ¼$ L> D0 D+ K' Dx> 5:25.G 6:12 ¼ L4E$Added for clarification, viz. not animals. But earlierverses suggest that animals too were corrupt.G 6:13 ¼$L£ K ¼- Hx ¼3¼| ¼(¼- I'L%N6Added to explain ¼Ò JɼÎIÕ Db HÓ.G 6:16 ¼3¼-V<¼} ¼' D2Added for clarification.* G 6:20 ¼{I4 D* H0Masculine, while the Hebrew is feminine, because theHebrew ¼É LÓ IÉ DT is feminine, while the Aramaic ¼Ý¼Î H× DT ismasculine. We often find this situation, and vice-versa.O. uses the gender of the Aramaic word, which may notbe the same as that of the Hebrew word, so that theHebrew and Aramaic verbs and pronouns do not appearto match one another in gender.G 7:4 ¼3¼- H2¼}¼- ¼3 K2D* H0The extra word is demanded by Aramaic idiom.G 7:12 ¼> I+L4 ¼$L< D, H2 ¼(L)F(K)(i) ‘Rain was on the ground’ is too cryptic. O. explains‘rain fell on the ground’.* (ii) ¼ß IÌLÕ ¼ÉLÊFÉ and not just ¼ß KÌ DÕ because the rain ‘wasfalling’, a continuous action. Earlier we met this

construction – participle with verb be – for a continual,i.e. repeated, action. It is used for both. (In ModernHebrew it is used only for a repeated action and not fora continuous one, the reverse of English.)G 7:18 ¼$L/ D¬ K( D2¼|Participle, because the action was continuous. Hebrewwas less fussy.G 8:1 ¼<¼- H/U'¼|This looks like, but is not, a past tense. It is the passiveparticiple used as a present tense. In every reference toGod ‘remembering’, O. always uses the present tense.G 8:7 ¼% I$ L>D) ¼; L² H2 ¼;K8D4¼|» GIR.G 8:11 ¼<¼- H% DºThere is a long discussion about this.G 8:21 SSSSS ¼0Ix K;D)O. always translates KÌÃ̼ÎHÕ K̼ΠIÝ in this rather odd andpeculiar way. He seems, for some unknown reason, towish to avoid the simple meaning; possibly it was liableto be confused with some idolatrous custom of his time.¼- I%¼} ¼+Added for clarification. Alternatively, a literaltranslation might appear to mean ‘for man’s sake’, i.e.a blessing instead of a curse.G 9:5 ¼$ L2Uz >L- ¼'W¼-I-UzAdded for clarification.G 9:6 ¼$L£K4L£ Kz ¼< K2¼- I2 ¼0K6 ¼3¼-V'F( L5 DxMidrashic addition.G 9:15 ¼$L4U<¼- H/U'¼|Present tense, > 8:1.* G 10:11 ¼( L$L<¼| ¼º K$O. explains that the Hebrew ¼Ý¼X ¼J KÅ means ‘theAssyrians’. This cryptic usage is quite common inHebrew (‘Egypt’ for ‘the Egyptians’, ‘Moab’ for ‘theMoabites’ etc.) and O. always ‘corrects’ it.* G 10:18 ¼3 I¤ ¼< K>LxWhere the Hebrew is a preposition, O. uses ¼Ý KßLT, butwhere it is an adverb (as here) he uses ¼Ô I] ¼Ý KßLT.G 11:1 ¼' K+ ¼0K0 D2 K2¼)O. translates ‘unique words’ as ‘one speech’.G 11:2 ¼$ L> I2U' K; DxHebrew ¼ÒJÈ Jd HÓ does not mean ‘from the east’ but ‘to theeast’ or ‘eastwards’. However, O. sometimes translatesthis as time, not space, viz. ‘earlier’, ‘previously’, orhere ‘in the beginning’.G 11:3 ¼$L<¼|¼4 DxO. translates ‘to a burnt product’ as ‘in fire’. His editionmay have read ¼É LÙIÝ DK HT instead of ?HÑ. Alternatively, hetranslates ‘to burn’ as ‘to burn in fire’ (an addition alsofound at times in Hebrew) and ignores the word ¼É LÙIÝ DKHÑ.G 11:4 ¼$L£ K2 D ¼>¼- I: ¼'K6 ¼- I, L2O. adjusts the idiom. ¼È K× ¼Î IÍ LÓ (Hebrew ¼FFÅÃT) means ‘asfar as’ or ‘reaching up to’, and ¼ß¼Î IÛ is idiomatic.* G 11:5 ¼- H0 Dy D> H$D)Often O. changes the verb with God’s actions – he doesnot ‘descend’ but ‘reveals himself’. > 3:5.'K%N6O. explains.

.0 .0

G 12:5 ¼$ L>D- L<¼} ¼$ D0 ¼| ¼'¼- H%F6 K UzA midrashic explanation.

Gen. 21

* G 12:6 ¼- I< D ¼- I2O. uses this word to translate nine different Hebrewwords that all have quite different meanings.

¼É LÆLÝF× B ¼Ü JÓ I× B¼Ô¼Î I× B ¼Ý¼D ¼I¼Î HÓ B ¼ÝL]H] B¼Ô¼D ¼ KÅ B¼Ô¼D ¼Ñ IÅ B ¼Ñ¼Î IÅ B ¼Ñ IÆ LÅG 12:11 ¼$L4 ¼6 K'L-> 4:9.G 12:13 ¼>L+F$ KzNot ¼Î Hß LÌFÅ. Apparently Aramaic idiom. > 20:2,12.¼- H/D- K2L& D> H8 Dxby your words, an elaboration of the Hebrew.* G 12 16 ¼3¼-V<¼} ¼>D)and bulls. O. often had difficulty in translating names oftypes of animals, as Aramaic did not always have anexact equivalent, so he used the nearest. Here, there wasno word for ‘cattle’. [English has a similar problem intranslating ¼É JK (a sheep or goat) or its collective ¼Ô ¼ÅÃÛfor which Aramaic in fact does have a word ¼Ô ¼Å L× (¼Ô L×).]* G 12:17 ¼{ I>¼-Ix ¼ L4E$Hebrew often uses ßÎÆ to mean ‘household’. Aramaicwill not allow this, and O. always adds ¼ILÕEÅ.G 12:20 ¼| ¼$¼-H) D0 K$ D)Hebrew ¼X ¼Ì D KI DÎKÊ could mean ‘they released him’ (notappropriate here), or ‘they sent him away’ (drove himout), or ‘they accompanied him a little on his way’ (cf.Ex. 18:27). Here O. settles for the last one.G 13:4 ¼- H¬ K: D)O. translates ‘he prayed’, not ‘he preached’.* G 13:8 ¼3 K6 D/The Hebrew ¼ÅLÕ is used to convert a command into arequest. (There are also other ways of doing this.) Inthis way it corresponds roughly to our word ‘please’,which is in normal use not a strong word. (It is alsoused for telling oneself what to do.) It appears thatAramaic did not have a word like this, so Onkelosdecided to use the word ¼Ô K× D], meaning ‘now’, ascorresponding to our ‘please’. Even in English, ‘now’(strictly ‘at this time’) is often used in a very light non-literal sense (e.g. ‘Come, now, do you think that ....’).[The commentators argue as to whether the word ¼Ô K× D]actually means ‘please’ (as well as ‘now’) or whether O.translates ¼ÅLÕ as being literally ‘now’, but I find it hardto accept either of these opinions.]¼¦¼-L4¼- I%¼| ¼$L4¼- IxIn both Hebrew and Aramaic, many prepositions whenthey take a pronoun suffix demand that the latter is inthe plural (e.g. ¼Î KÑ L× not ¼Î HÑ L×). In Hebrew, ¼Ô¼Î IT is not oneof these, but it is in Aramaic, except that where thesuffix is in the first person singular we have ¼ÅLռΠIT.G 13:9 SSSSS ¼$L4¼| ¼² H: D0The Hebrew appears to be idiomatic ‘If you go left, I goright, if you go right I go left’, without ‘left’ and ‘right’being literal. (In other words, decide which way youwant to go and I will go the opposite way.) However O.takes this literally, ‘left’ being north and ‘right’ beingsouth. Commentators, sometimes ignorant of geography,discuss the implications. In fact in the end Lot went eastacross the Jordan and Abraham stayed put!G 13:10 ¼< K ¼- I2> 12:6.¼$L- D; H ¼>¼-Ix> 1:10.G 13:11 ¼$ L> I2U' K; Dx> 11:2.G 13:13 ¼3¼} ¼( D>L£H) D&Hx SSSSS ¼3¼} ¼(D4¼} ¼2 L2 DxAdds a midrashic explanation.

G 13:16 SSSSS ¼$ L2 D¤O. translates it all more fully and prosaically.G 13:18 ¼1 L'E;Typically a slight change.G 14:1 ¼- I2 D2 K6U'Is ¼ÒHμD¼U a name or a word? O. assumes the latter.* G 14:3 ¼$L£ K0 D; K+ ¼< K ¼- I2 D0A translation, and a surprising one anyway.Note the use of ¼Ý KI¼Î IÓ and compare the Hebrew in thefollowing verses: 3, 6, 7, (8, 10,) 13, 17. It isreminiscent of a joker in a pack of cards! (> 12:6.)¼< K>F$O. the literalist adds for clarification. It is an area thatwas later covered by the sea (or lake).G 14:4,5 ¼3¼-H4 DThe use of the plural the second time in verse 4 andagain in verse 5 is odd. We expect a singular.* G 14:6,7When O. meets a place or generic name he treats it inone of the following ways:(a) He translates it (or attempts to) into Aramaic,

¼$L4¼-Vz ¼&¼|¼¬ H² ¼< K ¼- I2 ← ¼, L² D H2 ¼3¼- I6(b) He uses the accepted Aramaic name instead,

¼1 K;U< ← ¼ I' L;(c) He Aramaises the name, or

¼- I$L<N+ ← ¼-V<N+ K((d) he leaves it alone

¼<¼- H6 Iµ ← ¼<¼- H6 Iµ¼-V'Jy ¼3¼- I6 is an exception, based on 2Chron. 20:2, q.v.

G 14:10 ¼3 L; D± K2O. explains.G 14:15 ¼$L4¼| ¼² H³ H2Vzto the north. Here this is necessary (unlike 13:9).G 14:19 ¼{I4L- D4 H;Uz‘whose possession is’, not ‘the owner (or perhapscreator) of’. Probably a literal translation into Aramaiccould be understood as ‘the acquirer of’, so O. changedit slightly to avoid this.G 14:22 ¼}¼0 D: H%An addition to explain.G 14:24 ¼<LxThe meaning of the Hebrew is clear, but the wording isdifficult to translate, so O. simplifies it.G 15:2 ¼'K0D) ¼$L0U'This is how O. translates ¼ÎVݼÎVÝF×, but » GIR.G 15:4 ¼' I0¼} ¼>UzO. simplifies.G 15:9 ¼$ L>L0 Dº ¼3¼- H0 D& H6O. translates as three calves, three goats and three rams!G 16:5 ¼- H0 ¼3¼- VzO. changes the meaning.¼¦L0O. simplifies. He does not need the detail of ¼F JܼΠIÌ DT.G 16:8 ¼- H> D4¼}¼xV<Note that for ‘mistress’ (in the old sense) Aramaic usesthe feminine form of the word for ‘master’, whereasHebrew uses totally different words.G 16:12 SSSSS ¼¦¼-V< D: ¼- I(D- $|(A possible but hard-to-accept explanation.G 16:13O. renders the entire verse midrashically.

Gen. 22

G 16:14 ¼{¼- K0F6 ¼-H*F+ D> H$ ¼$ L2L£ K; ¼¦ L$ D0 K2U' ¼$L<¼- IxAn attempt to translate the name according to midrash.¼$L< D& K+cf. verse 6 where it is ÝXI.G 17:5 ¼1L(L< D% K$Not even O. is able to tell us what the root ÒÉÝ meansand hence to understand the change. There is muchspeculation about this but no real support.* G 17:7 ¼{L0E$J0For a god. Three Hebrew words, with overlappingmeanings, are often used in the plural when the singularis intended – KWWÑ EÅ B¼Ô¼D ¼È LÅ B ¼Ñ K× KT. (Even for a single idol,whether male or female, the plural ¼Ò¼Î HÉWÑ EÅ, or in theconstruct ¼Î IÉWÑ EÅ, is used, e.g. 1Kings 11:33.) Onkelosnever allows this in Aramaic, though rarely he uses theactual Hebrew form (for God only) untranslated (> 2:4).G 17:11 ¼3|¼< D* D& H>D)The Hebrew verb ÑÊÓ is used sometimes in the active(kal) form and sometimes in the reflexive (nifal), hereonly the latter. There is a system, too comlicated toexplain here, but Onkelos does not follow this. He usesone or the other without reference to the Hebrew. Thisis unlike him, and most probably our text of Onkelos iscorrupted or has been ‘corrected’ by an ignoramus.

$<-)

G 18:3 L- D-O. follows the midrash and even the Masoretic vowel,but for the plain meaning see Rashbam. » 18:1.G 18:19 '( ¼1L'G; ¼3L4 D; L>Uz ¼3 L+U<N$‘The way of God’ could mean the way he goes and doesthings, but it does not mean that, it means the way hewants us to do things. O. the literalist clarifies.G 18:21 SSSSS ¼' I%E6 J$O. explains ¼É LÑL].* $L0 1 H$O. typically adds words in order to exclude therepentant (like the innocent) from punishment.G 18:23 ¼}¼0 D: Hx ¼ I® K D2Midrashic.G 18:24 ¼*K&U< H%F(Hebrew ¼Ø KÅ is a word of emphasis (indeed, even etc.)but it also means anger and O. takes it that way here.G 18:25 ¼¦¼-L4¼- Vz ¼3¼|¼ H$ ¼$ L, D O;O. tones down Abraham’s remark to a softer one.* ¼1K< Dx SSSSS ¼3L£ KzO. does not like rhetorical questions, and regularly turnsthem into statements. ‘Can the Universal Judge not dojustice?’ becomes ‘The Universal Judge will (certainly)do justice!’G 18:32 ¼$ L'L( ¼$L4 D2H*Hebrew adds the definite article to imply what iscurrent, and Aramaic does not use the idiom. ‘Thistime’ in Hebrew becomes ‘the time’, and to-daybecomes ‘the day’ ¼Ò¼D¼[ KÉ, but in Aramaic ‘this day’.G 19:2 ¼| ¼6L% DxO. translates the sense rather than the exact word.G 19:3 ¼3¼} ¼( D0The second one is an addition.G 19:7 ¼3 K6 D/ ¼| ¼6L% DxO. realises that here ¼ÅLÕ is a strong ‘please’ and does thebest he can with the idiomatic ¼ÅLÕ? ¼Ñ KÅ.

G 19:9 ¼$L4¼-Vz ¼3 I$ L' ¼$ L(D)Not quite literal but near enough.¼3 K6 D¤Here in its correct literal meaning, now.G 19:11 ¼6F< D>H%UzTwo Hebrew words used mean quite different things.¼ßJÑJV is a door, and ¼Ì Kß Jb (literally ‘entrance’) refers to asort of forecourt. Hebrew does not confuse them, nordoes Onkelos, but the traditional English translationdoes, calling both ‘door’ and so confusing the story.G 19:15 ¼(L)F(The extra word shows that ¼ÅLÝ DÙ KÛ is not exactly ¼Ý KÌ KJ.¼¦ L® H6 ¼3L4 D2¼- I( D2The Heb. is too cryptic and idiomatic, so O. explains.G 19:18 ¼| ¼6L% DxO. does the best he can. > 19:7 above.G 19:21 ¼{¼-K0F6Implied in the Hebrew. O. does not like to leave words‘implied’.G 19:27 SSSSS ¼ I® K Uz> 18:23 above.G 19:37 ¼- I%F$¼} ¼2UzThe Hebrew ‘Moab was the father of Moab’ looksstrange! O. explains that Moab was the father of [thetribe of] Moab, i.e. the Moabites. > 10:11.G 20:2 ¼0 K6O. removes the ambiguity.¼>L+F$Not ¼Î Hß LÌFÅ. Apparently Aramaic idiom. > vs. 12 below.G 20:9 ¼$ L'L%F6 D> H$ D0 ¼3¼-V< D L/ ¼$L0UzIn English, as in Hebrew, we might say ‘it is not done’(or ‘it is not the done thing’) but it has been done! Wemean ‘it is not supposed to be done’ as O. explains.G 20:12 ¼$ L® H$ SSSSS ¼$Lx K$O. without exception translates the Hebrew ¼Î HÆ LÅ as ¼ÅLT KÅ.Here likewise with ¼Å L_ HÅ. Also > 12:13, 20:2.G 20:13 ¼} ¼6 D, ¼'F¤A midrashic elaboration on the text.¼- K0F6> verse 2 above.* G 20:16 ¼3¼- H6 D0 H5O. adds ‘shekels’. Although shekel in Aramaic is ¼Ñ IÜ Df,the shekel was devalued, and a new coin, the sela, hadthe same value as the old shekel, so O. always uses it totranslate ¼Ñ JÜ JI which he claims is implied here.¼>¼| ¼5 D¤O. gives a midrashic elaboration of the rest of the verse.G 20:17 ¼| ¼+K)U< D> H$D)If the Aramaic were a translation of ¼X¼ÈIÑI[KÊ it would needto be in the feminine form ¼Å LÌKÊUÝ Dß HÅ DÊ, but the Hebrewneeds some explaining, since Abimelech did not givebirth! Onkelos substitutes a different word so as toinclude Abimelech, hence the masculine.G 21:7 ¼3 L2¼- I( D2O. as usual turns a rhetorical question into a statement.G 21:17 ¼< K>F$KxImplied in the Hebrew.G 21:23 ¼-V< Dx ¼<K% D%¼|Aramaic evidently had no word for ‘grandson’.G 21:28 ¼3 L8U<O+It is worth noting, for later, that the word means lambs.

Gen. 23

G 21:33 ¼$Lx D:H4It seems O. was not quite sure what tree it was.¼- H¬ K: D)According to O. ‘prayed’ not ‘preached’. But here itmakes little sense – what was the purpose of the tree?If he preached, it gave shade for people to sit and listento him, but he did not need shade in order to pray, andunlike idolaters he certainly did not use a tree for this.* G 22:2 ¼$ Lº D2 I+U<VzA general rule. In Aramaic the verb root ÒÌÝ in thekal form (as here) means to love (Hebrew ÆÉÅ), and inthe piel form it means approximately the same as ÒÌÝin Hebrew, to take pity on or show mercy to.G 22:13 ¼3 I¬ H$ ¼< K>LxO. moves the position of ¼Ý KÌ KÅ in the verse.G 22:14A whole midrashic explanation of the verse.

(<= --+

G 23:13 ¼|¼%¼- I, ¼- H0 DºU'K%F6 ¼1 H$The Hebrew is cryptic and O. explains.¼3 Iº J$For reasons of Classical Hebrew grammar which this isnot the place to explain, the Hebrew demanded ¼Î Hf KßLÕ,which is not a past tense. The Aramaic of O. (andEnglish likewise) required a future ¼Ô If JÅ. (Aramaic hassimple tense forms for past, present and future, whileBiblical Hebrew does not; instead it has aspects that areused in different ways to indicate tenses.)G 23:16 ¼$L4¼-V' D® ¼0L/ DxO. adds for clarification.G 23:18 ¼- H(¼}¼4¼- H% D* H0O. uses the plural (purchases) because there were theland, the cave and the trees. Hebrew uses the singularcollectively as one purchase.G 23:19 ¼>K< L6 D2HxHere it is the Hebrew that displays the literalist, heburied her into the cave, where O. as in English is lessfussy and says ‘in the cave’. [Students of Latin mayremember the difference between in with the accusativeimplying ‘into’ and in with the ablative.]G 24:10 ¼>L< D² ¼0 K6Uz ¼1K<F$K0The name ¼ÒLÝFÅ was used for both Syria and Meso-potamia, the latter known in Hebrew at that time as‘Aram of the Twin Rivers’, but to Onkelos as ‘Aram bythe Euphrates’. Neither name appears later, and in 25:20we will see another name. Since this was part of thecentre of the area where Aramaic was spoken (and theprobable home of O.), what O. called it is relevant.¼<¼} ¼+L4 U' ¼$ LºU< K; D0O. makes it clear that ¼Ý¼D ¼ÌLÕ ¼Ý¼Î H× means the town (or city)of Nahor (explaiend later as Harran), and not, as somesuggest, the town called Nahor, even thougharchaeologists have found relics of a town called Nahorin the region. This has implications later in 33:18.G 24:20 ¼$L- D; H ¼>¼- I% D0> 1:10.G 24:22 ¼$L0 D; HºThe Hebrew ¼× KÜ ¼T (lit. ‘split’) was a ‘half’ coin (cf. theold English half-crown and half-sovereign, and theAmerican half-dollar), actually worth half a (Hebrew)shekel. But later, before the time of O., the Aramaicshekel was devalued by 50%, and a new coin, the sela,worth two new shekels, was used by O. to translate the

Hebrew shekel. He used the new (cheaper) Aramaicshekel ¼Ñ IÜ Df or ¼ÅLÑ DÜ Hf to translate beka, half the Hebrewshekel. Later in the verse he assumes that ‘ten gold’means ten gold Hebrew shekels, which he includes andtranslates as sela, > 20:16. (See Ex. 38:26.)Notice how in both Hebrew and Aramaic the word for‘weight’ comes from the same root ÑÜß BÑÜI.G 24:23 ¼< K L¤O. the literalist adds the word ‘suitable’. ‘Place’ or‘room’ could mean anything.G 24:27 ¼$L4 D; LºAgain he adds ‘appropriate’ or ‘correct’.¼>¼- I% D0Hebrew normally indicates ‘to’ before a place by theword ¼Ñ ¼Å or the prefix ? DÑ, or by the suffix ¼É Lj, butoften, as here, it leaves it out, and O. then puts it in.G 24:32 ¼3 H2This apparently unnecessary word could probably beexplained as follows. Hebrew says that he unhitched thecamels. O. says that he unhitched the chain (or whateverit was that tied them together) from the camels. Thesame meaning, but the mode of expression differs.G 24:33 ¼| ¼$¼-H| K D)O. changes ‘it was put’ to ‘they put’.G 24:40 ¼>¼- H+K0 D8VzA variation, cf. 5:22, 6:1 with a different variation.G 24:42 ¼¦¼- L2 L'G; ¼$L)F6K<O. elaborates slightly.G 24:55 ¼3 Lz H6 Dx ¼3 Lz H6Apparently an Aramaic idiom corresponding to theHebrew idiom ¼Ò¼Î HÓLÎ for ‘a year’, but > 4:3.G 24:57 ¼$L< D2 L$ ¼$¼- H(U' ¼$ L2O. avoids the idiom and uses plain prose.G 24:60 ¼3L) DxV< D0¼| ¼3¼- H8 D0 K$ D0O. changes ‘thousands of myriads’ to ‘thousands andmyriads’ for some unknown reason.G 24:63 ¼( L$L¬ K: D0The midrash explains K̼X ¼KLÑ as ‘to pray’, and this isindeed the probable meaning, if not the literal one.G 24:67 SSSS ¼$L*F+K)A very elaborate midrashic expansion of the verse.G 25:6 ¼$ L+D4U' K2Here O. is not afraid to translate ¼ÒJÈ JÜ as ‘east’.

>'0)>

G 25:20 ¼1<F$Kz ¼3 Lz K² H2Padan of Aram. O. tells us that the region was notPadan-Aram (as we were taught) but Padan, which wasa part of Aram. (There may have been another Padansomewhere else, but not necessarily.) Jacob himself latercalled it simply Padan (48:7). The town was Harran.G 25:21 ¼{ I>¼} ¼0 D: ¼0Ix K;D)In Hebrew the passive could be used, but not inAramaic, so it had to be put a different way.G 25:23 ¼$L< I6 D* H0 ¼'Kx D6 Kº D H- ¼$LxK< D)The Hebrew is cryptic and unclear, with variouspossible meanings. O. chooses one of them.G 25:27 ¼$ LL8 D0 O$ ¼>¼- Ix ¼ I® K D2Midrashic.G 25:28 ¼0 I/ L$ ¼(L)F( ¼{ I'¼- I³ H2 ¼- I<F$O. chooses this interpretation, but » GIR.

Gen. 24

G 25:31 ¼3 I( D0Vz ¼1¼}¼- D¤Aramaic idiom demands this.G 26:7 ¼>L+F$> 12:13, 20:12.* G 26:10 3}²This word is not, as some suggest, meaningless. Nordoes it require a complicated explanation. O. sometimesuses it in either the protasis or the apodosis of aconditional sentence which deals with a suppositioncontrary to fact. (Such a sentence is expressed inEnglish using the conditional form of the verb or relicsof the old subjunctive; the word itself cannot betranslated.) Its use is not compulsory.[The above explanation may be meaningless to those unfamiliar with astudy of language and grammar, so some clarification is offered.Basically, a conditional sentence contains two clauses: ‘If A then B’,where ‘A’ is the condition clause, called the protasis, ‘B’ is theconsequence clause, called the apodosis. Such a sentence is of one of twotypes, each of which can refer to past, present or future, or a mixture:

(i) a sentence expressing a doubt, the protasis refers to somethingunknown: ‘If the shop is open, I will buy some bread’ – I do not knowif it is open or not.

(ii) a sentence containing a supposition contrary to fact: ‘If the shop wereopen (or ‘had the shop been open’) I would buy some bread’ – I knowthat it is not open. ‘Were’ in this sentence is not a past tense (whichwould be ‘was’) but a relic of the subjunctive. ‘I would buy’ is theconditional form of the verb. Neither Hebrew nor Aramaic had eitherconditional verb forms or subjunctives, Hebrew sometimes made thelatter clear by using XÑ instead of ¼Ò HÅ, and O. sometimes made it clearby sticking in ÔDb somewhere.]

* G 26:15 ¼3¼-H¼}¼0 D2| SSSSS ¼3¼-H¼| ¼2 L,‘Well’ is feminine, but Hebrew often uses the masculineform instead of the feminine for the third person pluralsuffix. (Vs. 18 shows a mixture.) O. ‘corrects’ it.G 26:26 ¼- H(¼} ¼2F+K< I2 ¼> K6¼- H5D)O. makes a number of changes from the plain text. (i)he takes ¼ßKY OÌFÅ as a noun instead of a name; (ii) heassumes that IÓ is a prefix (Hebrew K×IÝ IÓ is a noun, Jud.14:20); (iii) he takes ¼X ¼É I× IÝ IÓ as collective and translatesit as plural instead of singular.G 26:28 ¼$L4 K> L(L%F$ ¼3¼- IxNot in the Hebrew. For ¼X¼Õ¼ÎIռΠIT ¼X¼Õ¼Î Iß¼D¼Õ¼Î IT » G.G 26:35 ¼3L* DyU< K2¼| ¼3 L%U< L5 D2O. gives us the idea in different words.* G 27:6 ¼1 H6 ¼0 I¬ K2 D2Usually, as here (but not always), PÝTV means ‘tell’ inthe sense of telling someone to do something, giving aninstruction, a slightly milder word than ÉÊÛ (in nowunfashionable English, to ‘order’ or ‘command’,) hence¼Ò¼ÎVÝ LÆUV KÉ ¼ßJÝ JKF×, Ten Commandments, and ¼É JIÃÓ ¼Ñ JÅ *É ¼ÝITKÈ DÎKÊwhenever God gave Moses instructions, told him to dosomething. However, O. always treats the Hebrew rootPÝTV as if it means ‘talk’ or ‘speak’, and translates it by^^Ó followed by ¼Ò H× ‘with’ (as in American usage). Insuch a case the English usage (talk or speak tosomeone) is idiomatic and less logical. But when theword means ‘tell’ (instruct) the Hebrew ¼Ñ JÅ is vital.G 27:12 ¼3 L/U< H% SSSSS ¼3¼- H,L) D0O. treats the Hebrew as collective and uses the plural.G 27:13 ¼( L$¼| ¼% D4Hx ¼< K2F$ D> H$Midrashic addition. » G.G 27:28 ¼$L%| ¼¢ H2¼|Our masoretic text has no dagesh in the shin. » G.G 27:29 ¼¦¼- L/¼-V< D%¼| SSSSS ¼¦¼- L,¼- H0The Hebrew is ‘those who curse you are cursed andthose who bless you are blessed’. O. translates ‘thosewho are cursed by you are cursed and those who areblessed by you are blessed’, in other words yourblessings and curses should be effective. He does thesame with Balaam’s blessing in Num. 24:9.

G 27:36 ¼3¼-H4 D2H* ¼3¼- IºU< KºWhen Aramaic ¼Ô KÓ DË corresponds to the Hebrew ¼È I×¼D ¼Ó itis masculine; when it corresponds to ¼Ò K× Kb it is feminine.G 27:39 ¼$L%¼| ¼¢ H2> vs. 28 above.G 27:40 SSSSS ¼3¼|¼< Dx D6H-Midrashic addition.

$:-)

G 28:16 ¼- I< D '(K' ¼$L< L;D-A necessary addition.G 28:17Midrashic additions.G 28:22 '( ¼1 L'G; ¼{K0F6 ¼+K0 L8 ¼- I( I$UzAn interpretation.G 29:5 3¼| ¼º H6U'L-F(Present tense. > 4:9.¼3¼- H6U'L-The pronoun (we) is omitted, probably idiomatic.G 29:12 ¼>L+F$ ¼<K%O. the literalist is being precise.G 29:15 ¼- H+F$Kz H2F(The meaning of the Hebrew is clear, but the wording isnot. It is doubtful if O. is much better.G 30:2 SSSSS ¼-H H2F(O. gives the implication of Jacob’s words, not atranslation of them.G 30:8 SSSSS ¼0Ix K;A midrashic explanation far from the text.G 30:11 ¼'L& ¼$ L>F$Traditionally where there is ketiv ukeri we normallytranslate according to the keri, and O. does so here.G 30:20 ¼% L, SSSSS ¼% K(D-O. explains difficult words.G 30:32 ¼-Vz D6 K$There is much controversy over the Hebrew word ¼Ý IÖ LÉat this point. Is it an infinitive used as a participle?Others say it is an imperative, asking Laban to do this.O. takes the former meaning.G 30:34 ¼-K) D0 ¼3 I(The usual meanings of the Hebrew words XÑ ¼Ô IÉ presentgreat difficulties here. The English translation (KingJames) ‘Behold, I would it might be according to thyword’ fits the Hebrew best, but it implies that Laban didnot accept the terms, while the story implies that he did.JPS’s ‘Very well, let it be as you say’, NEB’s ‘Agreed,let it be as you said’ and Moffat’s ‘Good, so be it’ fitthe story but not the words, ignoring XÑ. O. tries togive the verse some meaning: ‘May it [we hope] be asyou say’, by assuming that XÑ does not have its usualmeaning (referring to something contrary to fact) but isthe same as the Aramaic ¼ÎKÊ DÑ. It would be typical ofLaban to say something that could mean all sorts ofthings when making an agreement. [Note: ¼Ô IÉ is shortfor ¼ÉI HÉ, and its use meaning ‘yes’ is post-biblical.]G 31:2 ¼<K% D5O. the literalist says that Jacob saw the expression onLaban’s face.G 31:9 ¼3 H2O. tactfully modifies the text.G 31:13 ? Dx ¼¦¼- L0F6 ¼- H>¼- H0 Dy D> H$UzO. clarifies, as the Hebrew is too cryptic.

Gen. 25

G 31:27 3}²> 26:10.G 31:32 ¼1K£ K; D>H- ¼$L0 SSSSS ¼< K>F$A rather far-fetched rendering. We know that laterRachel paid the penalty, but Laban did not have thesatisfaction of finding out what had happened.G 31:39 ¼$L4L- D4 H® H2 ¼$L- D& L ¼>L)F( KzO. paraphrases and explains.¼>¼-V< K,D4Midrashic.G 31:40 ¼- K0F6 ¼> K+ D4O. the literalist does not allow ¼ÎHÕ KÑLÐFÅ ¼ÌKÝ JÜ.G 31:42 3}8> 26:10¼; L+ D:H- ¼{ I0 ¼0 I+L'U'¼)One may ask why O. did not simply say ¼Ü LÌ DÛHÎUÈ ¼Å Lß DÑ DÌKÈ DÊto match the others. In all probability that is exactlywhat Jacob did say (to Laban in Aramaic, translated intoHebrew as ¼È KÌ Kb, which is why the expression in Hebrewoccurs only here and in verse 53 » GIR.). However, bythe time of O. nearly two thousand years later the wordhad probably acquired a connotation that specificallyimplied an idol, and O. had to avoid using it here.G 31:47 ¼' I6 D0KyJust as earlier in the verse the text is forced to retain theAramaic, so here O. is forced to retain the Hebrew.G 31:53 SSSSS ¼0 I+ L'U'Hx> vs. 42 above.

+0=-)

G 32:11 ¼- H>L) D/L*Added to explain.G 33:9 ¼+K0 D: K$An unusual change.G 33:10 ¼$L£ K%U< D%K<To avoid the other possibility.G 33:18 ¼1J/ D V' ¼$ LºU< K; D0 ¼1¼- H0 DA lot of evidence suggests that while the area known asShechem existed at the time, the town of that name hadbeen destroyed and not yet rebuilt. Despite that, someinterpret the verse that Jacob arrived healthy (or someother adjective) at the town (called) Shechem. Othersunderstand that Jacob came to Salem, a town ofShechem, i.e. in the region of Shechem or of a personcalled Shechem. Once again where there are twoexplanations O. takes the middle one, with the word¼ÒIÑ LI as an adjective, and Jacob coming to an (un-named)town of Shechem, > 24:10.G 33:19 ¼3 L8U<O+O. tanslates ¼É LͼΠHK DÜ (found only here and in Job 42:11)not as a coin but as ‘lambs’, see 21:28-30.G 33:19 ¼- H(¼}¼0F6 ¼+K0L8¼|A midrashic change.G 34:7 ¼< K L/O. clarifies: not ‘not done’ but ‘not to be done’.G 34:15 ¼<K* D& H2 D0> 17:11.G 34:25 ¼3¼} ¼(¼- I%¼- I¤ ¼3¼} ¼(¼- I0F6 ¼| ¼8¼- H; Dº ¼'K¤Apparently Aramaic (as English) did not have the verb.¼$L% D>L-UzAdded to explain.

G 34:27 ¼$ L:L¬ K+ D0An addition to the text.G 34:30 ¼3¼- I%¼| ¼$L4¼- Ix ¼| ¼%L%Uz ¼3 Kº H2 D0Hebrew ‘to make me stink’. O. tones this down.G 35:11 ¼$L£ K2 D2 K6 Dx ¼3¼- H, D0 L UzWhy the addition? Are there kings who do not rulenations? Perhaps O. had in mind petty kings who ruledtowns, and wished to exclude them.G 36:6 ¼-V<G+ L$A necessary addition, the Hebrew is cryptic.G 36:9 ¼- I$ L2¼} ¼'E$JzO. removes the apparent contradiction between verses 8and 9 by translating ¼Ò¼D ¼ÈEÅ differently.G 36:24 ¼$L£ K<LxHyO. translates the word as a group of people, others asanimals, plants, or water sources!G 36:37 ¼>L< D² ¼0 K6UzIn Hebrew ‘The River’ normally means the Euphrates.O. assumes that ‘the river’ always is.G 36:39 ¼$Lx D(Kz 7I< L: D2Goldwater was known in Aramaic as Goldsmith. Theychanged their names even in those days!

%=-)

G 37:26 ¼-I4F( D>H4 ¼3¼} ¼2 L2O. clarifies ‘what financial profit will we gain’.G 37:36 ¼- I$LK- U' H2¼|There has been considerable argument as to whether the¼Ò¼ÎHÕLÈ DÓ here and the ¼Ò¼ÎHÕLÎUÈ HÓ earlier (vs. 28) are the sameor not (bearing in mind that one of Abraham’s sons wascalled ¼Ô LÈ DÓ and another ¼ÔLÎUÈ HÓ, see 25:2). O. believes theywere the same.G 38:5 ¼%¼-H* D/HxWhat is the relevance of where Judah was at the time?It could be coincidence, but the Aramaic root ÊÑI orÉÑI is not far removed from the Hebrew root ÆËÐ(Aramaic ÆÈÐ). O. does not help, treating ¼Æ¼ÎHË D] as thename of a place which he does not translate.G 38:7 ¼ ¼- HxThe subtlety of the Hebrew ( ×Ý is Ý× in reverse) is lostin translation, > 6:8.G 38:9 ¼{ I2 D 0 K6O. explains.¼{ I+U<N$O. explains a bit.G 38:17 ¼< Kz K F$The Hebrew is for some unknown reason ¼Ì K KIFÅ insteadof ¼ÌKÑ DI JÅ. Normally O. uses ÌÑI to translate ÌÑI anduses Ì^I to translate Ì^I (i.e. kal for kal and piel forpiel, with the same root). Here he wants to neitherappear to contradict the Hebrew, nor use a wrong word,so he uses a different word entirely for ‘to send’. Thelast word in the verse shows that the meaning is clear.G 38:21 ¼>¼- I0O. shows that the Hebrew is not a past tense. One mustappreciate the subtleties of the use of aspects inHebrew, which here means approximately ‘there has notbeen’, a present perfect, and not ‘there was not’, asimple past. In Aramaic ¼ßLÊFÉ ¼ÅLÑ would mean ‘there wasnot’, so ¼ß¼Î IÑ, ‘there is not’, is closer to the original.G 38:26 ¼$L-Uz K6 D2Adding this word makes it mean ‘She is correct, thepregnancy is from me’, as against the taamey hamikra

Gen. 26

of the Masoretic text, which takes the two wordstogether to mean ‘She is more correct than me’.G 39:11 ¼{I4Lx D O+ ¼- I% L> D/Hx ¼; Kz D% H2 D0A midrashic addition instead of ¼W IfUÈHÆF× ¼È KT ¼× JÓ DÑ It is hardto see the purpose of this midrash.G 39:22 ¼'I%F6 D> H2 ¼(L)F( ¼{I< D2¼- I® H2O. the literalist rephrases the original to make it clear,as the original could be taken as ambiguous.G 40:8 ¼< K L8¼|We often find an Aramaic ß where Hebrew has a I,but in the case of ÝIÙ @ ÝßÙ we find the reverse.G 40:10 ¼3¼- HxK0 D%K0 ¼> K;I² K$Words added to clarify the previous word ¼ß KÌKÝ DÙ KÅ. Thereare three stages with a tree: first budding, and that is¼ß KÌKÝÃÙ ( ¼ÌKÝ Jb is a bud and not a flower); second come theleaves (not mentioned) along with the blossom orflowers ( ¼ÚIÕ is a flower, Hebrew ¼Ú¼Î HÛ); third in place ofthe flowers comes the fruit. (Num. 17:23 gives thissame order. » there concerning a popular mistake thathas been incorporated into the language, and alsoRashbam and Onkelos there.) ¼Ô¼Î HTKѼÆKÑ are sprouts orbuds, (NOT blossom or flowers) exactly as ¼ÌKÝ Jb inHebrew, and the same mistake has been made with both.G 40:13 ¼¦LV< K/UzH-It seems that the Hebrew idiom was not acceptable inAramaic, and unfortunately by paraphrasing O. lost thepun which came later in verse 19.

9;2

* G 41:1 ¼$L< D(K4O. always translates the Hebrew word ¼Ý LÉ L KÉ, a generalterm meaning ‘the river’, as ¼ßLÝ Db, the name of a specificriver, the Euphrates. Contrarily, ¼ÝÃÅ DÎ KÉ, the Hebrew namefor a specific river, the Nile, he translates as ¼ÅLÝ DÉKÕ, theriver.G 41:16 ¼3 I(L0E$ ¼- H> D2 D/ L+ ¼3 H2 ¼$L0O. explains.G 41:25 ¼'¼- H>F6About to do. Hebrew simply uses the participle, andOnkelos explains.G 41:27 ¼3L- D) D(H-‘Years’ are feminine, but the Hebrew is impersonal(there will be) for which the masculine is sufficient (oreven the singular would have been sufficient). O. triesto avoid the impersonal, > 1:14.G 41:31 ¼- I(¼- VzO. fusses over the grammar.G 41:35 ¼-I4 D2¼- I( D2Again a literalist. Pharaoh himself will not be troubled,the people appointed by him will deal with it.* G 41:36 ¼$ L® K6 (twice)The literalist. Where the Hebrew ‘the land’ means thepopulation, O. says ‘the people of the land.’G 41:38 ¼+K¤ D H4F(O. solves a problem. The HeHbrew could mean ‘is therefound?’ (nifal participle) or ‘has there been found?’(nifal perfective) or ‘will we find?’ (kal imperfective).Each has the same form in Hebrew but is different inAramaic, and O. decides on the last one. » 41:40).¼( L$¼| ¼% D4 K+¼|¼<One interpretation.G 41:43 ¼$ L>I- D4 H>O. translates it as ‘the second chariot’ as if the Hebrew

was ¼ß¼ÎHÕ IJ KÉ, and not ‘the chariot of the second-in-importance’ (cf. Est. 10:3). Pharaoh would hardly lethim use his own chariot, even the spare one.¼$ L¤ D0 K2 D0 ¼$Lx K$ ¼3 IzOne of many possible meanings.G 41:44 ¼$L- D5| ¼5 ¼0 K6 ¼%K¤U< H2 D0 SSSSS ¼3¼-I* ¼' K+¼- I2 D0Additions, possibly midrashic, attempting to explain.G 41:45 ¼{I0 ¼3L- D0Ly ¼3 L< D2 K¢ H2U' ¼$L< D%OyIf this is indeed a correct translation of an Egyptianname it is puzzling how Onkelos got to know it. It isanyway unusual for him to translate a personal name.¼$LxK<Lord. O. does not want to say that he was a priest.¼,¼- H¬ KAdds an explanation to a cryptic original.G 41:47O. expands a cryptic verse.G 42:1 ¼3 Kx KzD* H2O. adds ‘being sold’ to explain the rest of the verse.G 42:7 ¼0 I¬ K2U' ¼$ L2 ¼% I¹K+D)The plain meaning is that he made himself a stranger; itis not clear why O. changed this.G 42:16 ¼3¼-V< D2 L$ ¼3¼| ¼º K$The Hebrew is idiomatic. O. converts it to plain words.G 42:28 ¼6 Kz K2O. expands a cryptic idiom.G 42:36 ¼$L/ ¼(L)F( ¼$L0 SSSSS ¼- H(¼} ¼>¼- I0O. translates ¼X¼JռΠIÅ differently when it means ‘no longerin existence’ (Jacob assumed he was dead) and when itmeans ‘not with us’. But in verse 32 he uses ¼Î HɼD ¼ß¼Î IÑ forthe brothers’ remark when they had no idea whetherJoseph was dead or not, probably because they meantthat as far as they were concerned he no longer existed.G 43:12 ¼3¼- I< Dº ¼'K+ ¼0 K6Here, O. explains, ¼ÉJÕ DI HÓ means ‘double’.G 43:22 ¼$L4 D6 K'D- ¼$L0Something wrong here. This means ‘we did not know’,some texts have ¼ÅLÕ D×KÈLÎ ¼ÅLÑ which means ‘I do not know’,the correct version is ¼ÔLռΠH×UÈLÎ ¼ÅLÑ but this is not found.G 43:30 ¼$L% D¤ D H2 ¼>¼- IxA midrashic addition.G 43:32 SSSSS ¼$L<¼- H6 D% ¼- I<F$O. adds his own explanation, which is almost certainlycorrect but not in the text.G 44:2 ¼-V'¼- H¬ K¤What this rare Aramaic word means is unclear. O. (andJonathan in Jer. 35:5) uses it to translate K׼ΠHÆLU which isa jug or decanter from which the cups are filled. » GIR.

=&-)

G 45:3 ¼1L& D> H²Necessary in Aramaic.G 45:12 ¼3¼} ¼/ D4 L H0 D/In your language. A fanciful addition, that does not fitin well with the sentence (‘eyes see’, not ‘ears hear’).G 45:26 ¼$L£ K¬ H2 ¼( L$L)F(K)An addition to explain.G 45:27 ¼0 K6 ¼$ L U'O;Midrashic interpretation.G 45:28 ¼$L)U' J+ -H0Explanation of a cryptic word.

Gen. 27

G 46:26,27 ¼$L0 K6UzO. does not distinguish here between ¼É rLÅLT and ¼É LÅrLT,unlike in 29:6,9. There we had a participle used for‘about to come’ and a verb meaning ‘came’ or ‘arrived’,and O. was able to distinguish. Here verse 26 gives thenumber ‘coming’ (implying with Jacob), and O. as usualchanges the participle into a finite verb ‘who came’.Verse 27 includes Jacob himself and Joseph and sonswho were already there, giving the total number ‘whoarrived’ in Egypt, and O. is unable to change this.Aramaic grammar was not always able to cope withsubtle points of Hebrew grammar, though sometimes itis the reverse.G 46:28 ¼( L$L K8 D0‘To clear the way’. The word ¼ßÃݼD ¼É DÑ means to teach orinform or instruct. The usual understanding is that Judahwas sent on ahead ‘to inform [Joseph that Jacob hadarrived]’ but O. understands it that Judah was sent onahead to Joseph ‘[for Joseph] to instruct [the officials onthe way not to hinder their passage with bureaucratichindrances]’ i.e. for Joseph to clear the way. O. mayhave been familiar with Egyptian bureaucracy. In anycase ¼É LÅL KÙ DÑ is not a translation of ¼ßÃݼD ¼É DÑ but of thepurpose. O. does not translate the word itself.G 46:30 SSSSS ¼$L4F$ ¼|¼¬ H$O. expands a cryptic statement.G 46:34 ¼- I< L2O. the literalist adds this word.G 47:21 ¼- I< D; H0 ¼- I< D H2The Hebrew ¼Ò¼ÎVÝ L× JÑ could mean from the countrysideinto towns, i.e. urbanisation; or it could mean ‘bytowns’ i.e. relocation. O. clearly understands the latter.G 47:22 ¼$ L;L0O+O. understands (as everyone should, but some do not)that here ¼ÜÃÌ means an allotted portion, not a law.

G 47:24 ¼- I0N6 I$ DxAramaic demands this extra word.¼6K< D* ¼<K% D0Again Aramaic demands the extra word.

-+-)

G 48:17 ¼{ K>¼| ¼+L4 L$ D0O. the literalist adds a ‘missing’ word.G 48:22 ¼<¼- HºK-O. the literalist adds this.G 49:2 ¼3 L8 D0 O$Aramaic does not demand this extra word, but O. addsit in order to emphasise the meaning.G 49:3-27O. does not translate Jacob’s forecasts, but instead givesa midrashic explanation to each. [Trying to explain allthis is outside our scope.]G 50:7 ¼; I0 D5|Here this is the correct translation of ¼Ñ K×K[KÊ (kal).G 50:9 ¼| ¼;¼- H0 D5¼|For some unknown reason O. does not translate ¼Ñ K×K[KÊ,for which the Aramaic here should be ¼Ü Ia KÅ DÊ (hifil).G 50:10 ¼>¼- IxAs often, the place of, a necessary addition in Aramaic.G 50:19 '(K' ¼$L0F+LzTwo things. First O. does not like rhetorical questionsand changes them into statements. Second, he ‘tones itdown’ a bit.G 50:21 ¼3¼- H2¼| ¼+D4 KºO. expands a cryptic idiom.

*

Gen. 28

E X O D U S

>)2=

E 1:5 ¼(L)F( KzA slight variation from the Hebrew.E 1:8 ¼7 I5¼}¼- ¼>K<I* Dy ¼1I£ K; D2 ¼$L0UzHebrew ‘who had not known Joseph’. O. renders this as‘who did not observe Joseph’s law’. What law?E 1:10 ¼3¼} ¼( D0Hebrew treats ‘people’ as singular, O. as plural.¼$L4K H6U< L6D-The Hebrew ¼ÉLÕ ¼Å JÝ HÜ Hß has always been a problem, whya plural? O. takes it as if ¼X¼ JÅUÝ DÜ Hß, which may have beenthe version he had.E 1:11 ¼3¼- H F$ D% K2 ¼1¼-H4¼} ¼, D0 HA fanciful deviation from the Hebrew, missing the pointof ¼Ò¼Î Ha HÓ. » G.¼- I< D:¼} ¼$ ¼>¼- I%Treasuries. Used also in Hebrew, Neh.10:39. But whynot ÝÛÊÅ ÎßÆ?E 1:12 ¼- I$L< D: H2 D0Added for clarification, but not really needed. Orperhaps the word appeared in his edition.* E 1:16 ¼3 L' D¬K- D2 ¼3L- D) D( Hº ¼'K¤Note that ¼Ô LÈ D KÎ Df ¼ÈK], the simple future, would mean ‘[onthe (one) cccasion] when you ...’ The verb ‘be’ with theparticiple indicates all occasions, ‘whenever you ....’.This distinction between a simple future and a repeatedfuture is standard practice in O.E 1:22 ¼- I$ L'¼| ¼(¼- H0Clarification to avoid misunderstanding.E 2:3 ¼{ K>L8F+K)As if the Hebrew was ¼WLÝ DÓ DÌ KfKÊ.¼$L< D(K4> G.41:1E 2:5 ¼{ K> D® K$O. changes ¼É LÓ LÅ (slave) to ¼É L_ KÅ (arm).E 2:23 ¼3¼¼} ¼(¼-I0F6 ¼- I D; ¼(L)F( KzO. elaborates.E 2:25O. elaborates beyond the text.E 3:1 ¼$L< DxU' K2 D0 ¼$L- D6V< ¼< K8 D ¼< K>F$K0An interpretation.L-¼- K' ¼$L< L;D- ¼- H(¼}¼0F6 ¼- I0 Dy D> H$Uz ¼$L<¼| ¼, D0O. always translates ¼Ò¼Î HÉWÑ EÅ LÉ ¼Ý KÉ this way.E 3:14 (J- D( J$O. does not translate this, but keeps the original.* E 3:20 ¼- H>U<O% Dy ¼> K+ K2O. avoids suspicion of anthropomorphism.E 4:13 ¼+K0 D H2 D0 ¼< K L/UzAn addition to interpret the text as ‘send someone whois suitable to send.’E 4:20 L-D- ¼1 L'G; ¼3 H2 ¼3¼- H±H4 ¼{I% ¼| ¼'¼- H%F6 D> H$Uz ¼$L< D,O+Compare verse 1 above.E 4:24 ¼$L/F$ D0 K2A typical O. addition.E 4:25 SSSSS ¼$ L2U'HxMidrashic explanation.

E 4:26 SSSSS ¼- I0¼| ¼¬ H$Midrashic explanation.E 5:2 SSSS ¼$ L2 DO. tones down Pharaoh’s rudeness.E 5:13 ¼3¼} ¼/ D0 SSS ¼3¼- V' D% L6 ¼3¼| ¼>¼-I)F( KzO. adds to clarify.E 5:16 ¼3¼} ¼(¼- I0F6An addition.

$<$)

E 6:2 ¼>¼- H6 K'¼} ¼(O. treats the controversial ¼Î Hf D×KȼD¼Õ as ¼Î Hf D× KȼD ¼É.E 6:8 ¼-V< H2¼- I2 Dx ¼>¼- H2I£ K;UzTranslates the phrase, not the actual words.E 6:20 ¼- H(¼| ¼%F$ ¼>L+F$There was no Aramaic word for ‘aunt’.E 7:19 ¼-I4 L2 D%¼|O. explains that it does not mean ‘in the trees and in thestones’ but ‘in the wooden and stone articles’.E 8:5 ¼$L<¼| ¼% Dy ¼ªL0 ¼0 K$ DO. translates the phrase into an Aramaic idiom.E 8:15 L- D- ¼1 L'G; ¼3 H2 ¼$L+ K2O. assumes that it means ‘God’ and avoids using theword ‘finger’ for fear of anthropomorphism.E 8:19 ¼3 L;U<O8O. elaborates and adds to the words of the text.E 8:22O. adds a detailed explanation.E 8:25 ¼$L0Uz ¼0¼-V' DxAramaic lacked a single word.E 9:6 ¼- H(¼}¼< D>L%U' ¼$ L2¼}¼- DxAramaic lacked a single word for ‘the morrow’.E 9:15 ¼- K2 L'G; ¼%¼-V< L;Extra words to emphasise – see next note.3}² ¼>¼- H+K0 D Vz(that) I would have sent. Without ÔDb, ‘I sent’.E 9:23 ¼$ L/ D¬ K( D2¼|O. uses the participle. The meaning is the same.E 9:28O. elaborates, also assumes that ¼Ò¼Î HÉWÑ EÅ is God.

$%

E 10:2 ¼3¼- H±H4Clarification.E 10:5 ¼$ L D2 HO. interprets this as covering the sky. This seems to bebased on verse 15, q.v.E 10:7 ¼3 K6 D¤An addition.E 10:10 SSSSS ¼$ L ¼- H%An interpretation. There are others.E 10:12 ¼- I>¼-I- D)Added for clarification.

Ex. 29

E 10:15 ¼$ L D2 HHere this interpretation is more acceptable than it is inverse 5.E 10:21 SSSSS ¼< K>LxMidrashic interpretation.E 11:5 ¼'¼- H>F6KzClarification.E 11:6 ¼+Kx H2 D0Clarification.E 12:2, 5 ¼< K® H$The Hebrew word ¼É JK means one individual member ofa combined group of sheep and goats (of all ages, andnot only young ones as often taught). There is no wordfor this into English, nor in Aramaic, so O. uses theword ¼Ý K_ HÅ which strictly means a lamb. This can causeconfusion; verse 5 makes sense in Hebrew, but in theAramaic all we can say is that O. does his best.E 12:9 ¼0 K¹K% D2 ¼$L0 L¹KxThis does not agree with our text. » G.E 12:21 ¼$L4 L6 ¼-I4 Dx ¼3 H2O. the literalist clarifies.E 12:29 ¼'¼- H>F6KzAs in verse 5.E 12:43 ¼' K® Kº D H-Uz ¼0 I$L< DµH- ¼<Kx ¼0L¤Midrashic explanation.E 13:3 ¼3¼-V<¼- H/U' ¼}¼)F(‘Be remebering’, not just once.

+0=%

E 13:18 ¼7¼| ¼5U' ¼$ L®K- D0Clarification. Note this.E 14:15 ¼ª L>¼} ¼0 D: ¼>¼- H0Ix K;O. dislikes rhetorical questions.E 14:31 ¼>¼|¼£ H% D4 H%¼|Clarification, probably to avoid any idea that theydeified him or put him on the same level as God.E 15:1, 2, etc. to 21.Wherever there is poetry, O. interprets midrashically.E 15:6 ¼$L<¼-Vz K$Feminine, agreeing with ¼FLռΠH_KÎ and not with God. » G.E 16:3 ¼1 L'G;O. tones down the complaint.E 16:14 ¼<¼-H& D¤An addition.E 16:21 SSSSS ¼$ L2¼|Clarification. What they did not collect melted.E 16:23 ¼$ L8¼- I2 D0 ¼3¼-V'¼- H>F6O. offers one explanation.E 16:36 ¼3¼- H$ D5 ¼>L0 D> DxO. likes to translate currency and measures in terms ofunits current in his time.E 17:4 3}²O. takes it, not that in a little while they will stone me(as the text appears to state), but that they are going inthat direction. He had faith that God would certainly notlet it actually happen.E 17:12 ¼}¼0 D: Hx ¼3 L5¼-V< D²Midrashic.E 17:15 SSSSS ¼+ K0 D8¼|Midrashic.

E 17:16Midrashic.

)<>-

E 18:5 ¼{ I> Dº H$D) ¼- H(¼}¼4 D%¼|Surprising that O. does not bother to clarify that theywere the wife and children of Moses, not of Jethro!E 18:11 ¼{I H2 ¼<Lx ¼{L0E$ ¼>¼- I0 D)A literal translation might imply that God is the chief ofa number of gods. O. wishes to avoid that.SSSSS ¼|¼%¼- H¹ K+UzO. clarifies and adds a bit.E 18:19 ¼3 L8 D0 O$ ¼6K% LºO. generlaly uses roundabout expressions in such cases.¼- I>¼- I2 ¼- I( D>¼|Each time, not just once.E 19:13 ¼3 K U< O2Clarification. They are allowed to, not obliged to.E 19:18 ¼; I0 D5¼|Instead of ¼Ü Ia KÅ DÊ, » G.E 19:22 ¼$ L L® K D0Clarification.E 20:4 ¼3¼- H2 D0 D K2 ¼'K¤Excludes the repentant from punishment. > Gen.18:21.E 20:5 ¼3¼-V< L'Clarification.E 20:6 ¼- I2¼- I> ¼$L0Explanation.E 20:12 ¼ K8 D4Commentators discuss this extra word, some suggestingthat it has been misplaced.E 20:20 ¼+K0 D J$ ¼3 L® K> D0A roundabout expression, to avoid God ‘coming’.E 20:21 ¼1¼-V< D> ¼$ L2 D0Vz‘Lest you raise’ instead of ‘because you have raised’.

1-,8=2(

E 21:30 ¼3¼}¼| K D-O. Changes the passive to an impersonal active. (Hedoes not object to this type of impersonal.)E 21:31 SSS ¼0 I$L< DµH- ¼< K% D0Midrashic.E 21:35 ¼$ L>¼- H2 ¼- I2UzClarification.E 22:7, 10 ¼{I0 ¼< K5 D2V' ¼$ L2 DxClarification.E 22:12 ¼3¼-V'F( L5 ¼- I>D-K-Midrashic change.E 22:30 ¼$L£ K+ ¼$L)¼- I+ ¼3 H2 ¼ ¼- H0 DºMidrashic. He ignores ¼ÉJÈ LLKT.E 23:1 ¼{I0A (midrashic?) addition.E 23:2Midrashic explanation of the verse.E 23:5 SSSSS ¼;Lx D H2Midrashic.

Ex. 30

E 23:7 ¼$L4¼-V' ¼3 H2 ¼- K¤K* ¼;N²H-U'¼|Midrashic.E 23:18 ¼> K5 D/H4 B ¼$L< DxU' K® H2 ¼<LxAdditions for clarification.E 23:19 ¼%K0F+Kx ¼< K5 Dx ¼3¼|¼0 D/¼- I> ¼$L0Midrashic.E 23:27 ¼$L%L< D; ¼$ L+L& L$ D0Added for clarification.E 24:8 ¼$L< L² K/ D0 ¼$ L+ DxU' K2 ¼0 K6A (midrashic?) addition, incompatible with verse 6.E 24:10 ¼{I< L;D- ¼- I5¼< O¤Change to avoid anthropomorphism.¼$L% L, ¼3 J% J$‘a precious stone’ instead of naming it (sapphire).E 24:11 SSSSS ¼}¼)F(K)Midrashic.

(2)<>

E 25:7 ¼( L6 L K D0Clarification.E 25:25 ¼{ I2¼|¼<Clarification.E 25:28 ¼3¼- H0 D,L4 ¼3¼} ¼(¼-H)Passive changed to active.

():>

E 27:11 ¼$L% L,To distinguish a jeweller from a stonemason.E 27:17 ¼( L$ L2U' K;Added unnecessarily, unless it was in his text.E 27:25 ¼- H(¼}¼< D, H5 ¼3¼- I< Dº ¼0 K6Uz ¼3L0¼- V' Dy ¼3¼- IºU< KºO. reverses the order to clarify.E 27:33 ¼3¼} ¼(¼-I4¼- Ixbetween them (and not within them). Contrast 39:25.E 29:9 ¼$L4LxU< O; ¼% I< L; D>¼|This is how he understands Lß ¼Å I HÓ¼X.

$=>

E 30:12 ¼3 Kx D O+ ¼>L- ¼0 Ix K; D>This is how O. translates ¼I ¼ÅÃÝ ¼ß JÅ ¼Å LL Hß.¼3¼} ¼(¼-I4L- D4 H2 D0O. assumes that the root ÈÜÙ in this section refers tocounting and numbers.

E 30:23 ¼0 K; D> K2Added (twice and subsequently) for clarification.E 31:18 ¼$ L6 Dx D: J$ DxSurprisingly O. leaves this alone!E 32:1, 23 ¼$L4 D6 K'D-Probably a scribal error. Should be ¼ÔLռΠH×UÈLÎ.E 32:12 ¼$ Lº D0I¬ K2UzClarification.E 32:18 ¼3¼- HDx Kº H2Uz SSS ¼$L%L< D;Hx ¼3¼- H+ D:L4UzClarification.E 33:7 ¼% I5L4Participle (and following verbs) indicating repeatedaction.E 33:13 ¼ªL%¼| ¼, ¼+K<N$The extra word is probably demanded in Aramaic. Thesingular is used, although the Masoretic text marks theHebrew as plural (despite the missing vav).E 33:15 ¼$L4¼-K4¼- I%Clarification.E 33:19 L-¼- Kz ¼$ L2 D H%Contrary to the usual explanation of the text.E 34:5 L-¼- Kz ¼$ L2 D H%> 33⋅19.E 34:7Midrashic.E 34:19 ¼ Iz D; KºClarification.E 34:25 ¼- IxU< Kº SSS ¼$ L+ DxU' K® H2 ¼<LxClarification, as 23:18.E 34:26 ¼%K0F+Kx ¼< K5 DxAs 23:19.

0(;-)

E 35:9 ¼$ L6 L K D0Clarification.

-');8

E 39:10 ¼( L$ L2U'K; SSS ¼$L% L,As 27:17.E 39:25 ¼}¼& ¼xInside, not between. Contrast 27:33.E 40:38 ¼|¼*¼- I+D)Appearance of fire. Nothing actually got burnt.

*

Ex. 31

L E V I T I C U S

TRANSLATING NAMES OF ANIMALS

Comparing Lev. 1:10 ¼ÅL[KY D× ¼ÎIÕ DT ¼Ô HÓ ¼D ¼Å ¼ÅL[ KÝ H_ HHÅ ¼Ô HÓ with Ex.12:5 ¼ÅL[KY H× ¼ÎIÕ DT ¼Ô HÓ¼X ¼ÅL[ KÝ D_ HÅ ¼Ô HÓ, we notice a difference in

the Hebrew – here we have ¼Ò¼Î HÆ LK D] KÉ, sheep, and in Exodus we have ҼΠHK LÆ D] KÉ, lambs. Onkelos translates both as ¼ÅL[ KÝ D_ HÅ.

Accepting the general principle that with domestic animals permitted for food (and sacrifice) every language

(that concerns us) has different words for different types of animals, for groups, for individuals, and sometimes for

each sex (e.g. ram, ewe) –– accepting this principle, we discover that there are always some ‘missing’, and what are

missing are not the same in Hebrew, in English and in Aramaic. When the problem arises in the Bible, Hebrew deals

with it in a way that is not always consistent. When translating into English, which is not too fussy about sex, at least

in the plural, we find only three words missing that trouble us ( ¼É JK B¼Ô ¼ÅÃÛ BÝDI). But it is clear from Onkelos that

translating into Aramaic there were more missing, presenting great problems. We can ony say that if, as in many

cases, Onkelos’s translation was not satisfactory, it was at least the best that he could do. The table explains.

DESCRIPTION ENGLISH HEBREW ONKELOS

Group of bulls, cows etc. Cattle ¼Ý LÜ LÆ ¼ÎIÕ DT B ¼Ý LÜ LT O¼Ô¼ÎVݼD ¼f B¼Î IݼD ¼fQ -

Member of that group (any age, sex) ––– ¼Ý LÜ LT ¼Ô JT BÝDI O¼Î IݼD ¼f ¼ÝKT B ¼Ý¼D ¼fQ -

Adult male of the species Bull + ¼Ò¼ÎVÝLb, ¼Ý Kb +¼Ô¼ÎVݼD ¼f B¼Î IݼD ¼f, ÝDf

Adult female of the species Cow + ¼ß¼D ¼ÝLb, ¼É LÝ Lb +¼Ô LݼD ¼f, ¼ÅLݼD ¼f

Youbg male of the species Calf ¼ÑJÇ I× ¼ÑKÇ I×

Young female of the species Heifer ¼É LÑ DÇ J× ¼ÅLÑ DÇ J×

Group of sheep and goats combined ––– ¼Ô ¼ÅÃÛ ¼ÎIÕ DT B¼Ô ¼ÅÃÛ ¼Ô L×

Ditto, females only ––– ¼Ô ¼ÅÃÛ ¼Ô L×

Member of that group ––– ¼Ô ¼ÅÃÛ ¼Ô JT B ¼É JK O¼Ý K_ HÅQ -

Sheep (any age or sex) Sheep + ¼Ò¼Î HÆ LK D], ¼É LT DKH]? ¼Æ JK J]

¼Ò¼Î HÆ LK DÐ?É IK

O¼Ý K_ HÅQ -

Adult male sheep Ram + ¼Ò¼Î HѼΠIÅ, ¼ÑHÎ KÅ +¼Î IÝ DÐVV, ¼ÝKÐUV

Adult female sheep Ewe +ҼΠHÑ IÌUÝ, ¼Ñ IÌLÝ +¼Ô¼Î HÑ DÌKÝ B¼Î IÑ DÌKÝ, BÑÌÝ

Young male sheep Lamb + ¼Ò¼Î HK LÆ D], ¼K JÆ J] +¼Ô¼ÎVÝ D_ HÅ, ¼Ý K_ HÅ

Young female sheep (Ewe-)lamb ¼É LK DÆK] +¼Ô LÙUÝ OÌ, ¼ÅLÝ D_ HÅ

Goat (any age or sex) Goat O ¼Ò¼ÎHY H×Q O¼Ë I×Q -

¼Ò¼ÎHY H×? ¼É IK

O ¼ÅL[KY H× ¼ÎIÕ DT ¼Ô HÓQ -

Adult male goat (Billy-)goat ¼È¼X ¼f K× B ¼IHÎ Kf IÎß B+¼Ô¼ÎVÈ DU B¼Î IÈ DU, ¼ÎVÈ DU

Adult female goat (Nanny)-goat Ë I× +¼Ô¼ÎHY H× B¼ÎIY H×, Ë I×

Young male goat Kid ¼Ò¼ÎHY H×?ݼΠH× DK B ¼Ý¼Î H× LK ¼Ò¼ÎHY H× ¼Ý KT ¼Ý¼Î HÙ DÛ B ¼Ý¼Î HÙ DÛ

Young female goat Kid ¼Ë I× B ¼ÉLݼΠH× DK ¼ÅLY H× B ¼ÅLݼΠHÙ DÛ

Lev. 32

Square brackets [ ] indicate a word not strictly correct but with no alternative.

Round brackets ( ) indicate the plural form.

Both in Hebrew and in Aramaic (as sometimes in English) a masculine plural may include females.

The Hebrew in the table indicates Biblical usage as far as can be ascertained. Talmudic definitions of Hebrew

words are often inconsistent with Biblical usage. The Hebrew ¼ÎVÈ DU has not been included as its Biblical meaning is

uncertain. However, there are occasional inconsistencies. In English, nobody will refer to a cow as a bull, nor to a

mixed group of cattle as bulls, but non-farmers may refer to a heifer as a calf, and certainly to a mixed bunch as

calves. It seems that in all languages there are those who are fussy about usage, and those who are less fussy.

We see that Hebrew lacks a general word for a goat, and has to use the word for a female goat ¼Ë I× in a

general sense. Onkelos faces the same problem but is forced to tackle it differently.

English cannot translate either ¼Ô ¼ÅÃÛ or ¼É JK. (‘Flocks’ and ‘herds’ are ¼Ò¼ÎVÝLÈF×.) ‘Ox’ in archaic English is

exactly ÝDI, but today, despite the dictionary, that meaning is not used, and a different meaning springs to mind.

Aramaic has a word for ¼Ô ¼ÅÃÛ but not for ¼Ý LÜ LT (cattle) or for ¼Æ JK J] (sheep), as well as the problem with goats.

We must be careful not to analyse Onkelos too carefully in these words, remembering that he is merely doing

the best he can and may well be inconsistent.

Lev. 33

$<´-)

L 1:9 L-D- ¼1 L'G; ¼$L)F6K< Dx ¼0Kx K; D> H$Uz ¼3 KxU< O;This is how O. always tranlates KÌÃ̼ÎHÕ K̼ΠIÝ ¼É IJ HÅ.L 1:10 ¼$L£K~ D6 ¼-I4 Dx ¼3 H2 ¼} ¼$ ¼$L£K< H® HH$ ¼3 H2Compare with 3:12 and with Ex.12:5 See introductionabove on translating animal names. Also > 7:23.L 1:11 ¼<¼} ¼+ D5?¼<¼} ¼+ D5All round. This is the Aramaic idiom.L 1:16 ¼3¼-V' D ¼} ¼2UzClarification.L 2:4 ¼3¼-V<¼- H¢K² ¼3¼- H&N² D5 J$D) SSS ¼3 L<¼- H¢K²While the Hebrew ¼É Lc KÓ is a noun (unleavened bread),the Aramaic ¼Ý¼Î HZKb is, like the English ‘unleavened’, anadjective. (Cf. Gen. 19:3.) Hence the Hebrew of thepreceding noun is construct while the Aramaic isabsolute, e.g. Hebrew ¼Î IܼΠHÜUÝ does not give ¼ÎIÇÃb DÖ JÅ.L 3:1 ¼$L£ K U'O;Having no word for ¼Ò¼Î HÓLÑ DI he uses ‘holy things’.L 3:12 ¼$L£K~ H6 -I4 Dx ¼3 H2In Num. 15:27 he uses simply ¼ÅLY H×, because there itmeans a female goat, but here the Hebrew is not strictlycorrect, being used to mean a goat in general, which O.makes clear.L 4:2 ¼3¼-V< D L/Clarifies: not ‘not done’ but ‘not to be done’, compareGen. 34:7.L 4:12 ¼' K ¼- I2? ¼>¼- Ix ¼< K>F$O. clarifies.L 5:2 ¼$ K±K/ D2 ¼- I(¼-H)Over a period of time (the consequence of whathappens). ¼Å KaKÐ DÎ would imply what happens. Possibly theHebrew means that, but this is how O. understands it.L 5:3 ¼6 K'D-The Hebrew is literally ‘he had got to know’ i.e. heknew (or better, had known), hnece O. ¼×KÈ DÎ (past tense)not ¼× KÈLÎ (participle).L 5:11 ¼$L< D5 K6 ¼3 H2 ¼' K+O. translates the Hebrew ‘a tenth’ as ‘one from ten’, butlater (v. 15) he translates ‘its fifth’ as ¼W II DÓ OÌ.¼3¼- H$ H5 ¼>L0 D>H%O. uses the corresponding measures used in his time.

):

L 6:2 ¼$ L' D;¼} ¼º H2UzO. translates ‘on a place of burning’ as if ‘that is beingburned’ (or ‘made to burn’).L 6:2, 5, 6 ¼$ L' D;L- ¼- I( DºO. translates ‘will be made to burn’ (Hebrew hof’al) as‘will burn’ (kal).L 7:19 ¼$ L U'O;Three times, to clarify and avoid misunderstanding.L 7:23 ¼* I6 D)As also in Lev. 17:3 and 22:27, contrast 1:10 (see notethere). It seems that in ¼Ë I× ¼D ¼Å2 DÊ ¼Æ JK JÐ ¼D ¼Å2 DÊ ÝDI O. allowsthe word ¼Ë I× to remain.L 8:2 ¼$L£ K<¼- H¢ K8U'Plural. The singular (normally used) would imply thatthe basket is made of leaven!

-4-2=(

L 9:3 ¼3¼-H~ H6 ¼<KxAs usual.L 10:1 ¼3¼- H2 D5OxO. clarifies.L 10:3 ¼; I> D ¼|O. translates ¼ÒÃVH[KÊ as if ‘he was silent’.L 10:13 ¼ª L; L0O+Here O. translates ¼ÜÃÌ this way, but elsewhere hetranslates it as ¼ÒLÎ DÜ not only when it means ‘law’ butalso when it means, as here, portion, even in the next-but-one verse!L 10:18 ¼>¼- I% D0Added the first time and not the second, to clarify thedifference.L 10:19 ¼3 L; L6O. does not like to leave it ‘in the air’ with the meaningimplied, but prefers to be somewhat specific.L 11:21 ¼{I0UzO. translates according to the keri, as we do.L 11:43 3}²To clarify that it is not an instruction, but a consequenceif you were not to obey the instruction.

6-<*>

L 13:33 ¼1 H6U'¼| ¼$ L; D>H4 ¼-I4L< D+ K5O. explains.L 13:45 ¼$L0¼- H%F$K¤O. explains.¼| ¼%F$ Lº D5 H> ¼$L0D)O. gives the general idea in different words.L 13:55 ¼{ I>¼| ¼> Lz K+ D% ¼} ¼$ ¼{ I>¼| ¼;¼- H+ D HxDifferent to verse 42 because the same Hebrew wordshave a different meaning.

6<:2(

L 14:5 ¼$ L'F+Feminine. NOT ¼Å LfUÈ KÌ because O. never adds thedefinite article to numbers, masculine or feminine.

-<+$

L 16:4 ¼{ I ¼- I< Dx ¼> I+K-A demand of Aramaic. O. could use the Hebrew noun¼ß JÙJÕ DÛ HÓ but not the verb (which explains the noun).L 16:5 ¼-I~ H6 ¼- I<¼- H8 D:But see 9:3.L 16:6 ¼ L4E$> Gen. 12:17.L 16:12 ¼3¼- H;¼- H; KzAgrees with ¼Ô¼Î HÓ DÖOT. Hebrew ¼É Ld KV agrees with ¼ßJÝÃÍ DÜ.L 16:21 ¼ª L( D2H0O. adds this word.L 16:29 SSS ¼$L£ K%¼- H³K-The Hebrew is collective, so O. uses a plural.

Lev. 34

L 17:3 ¼* I6> 7:23.L 18:3 ?U' ¼$ L® K6O. the literalist insists on adding this.L 18:5 ¼$ L2 D0 L6 ¼-I£ K+ DxA midrashic addition.L 18:9 SSS ¼$ L'¼- H0¼-VzO. expresses the law in a more socially acceptable form.

1-=';

L 19:3 ¼- I2¼}¼-Either added because Aramaic demands it, or to excludethe interpretation that the Hebrew plural is used toinclude both Sabbath days and Sabbatical years.L 19:12 ¼0 I+ K> D)Surprising that this is not followed as expected by ÔDb.L 19:14 ¼-I* L+ ¼$L0Uz SSSSS ¼6 K2 L ¼$L0UzIt is hard to believe that Aramaic had no words for‘deaf’ or ‘blind’ (see 21:18). Probably O. wanted toremove a possible ambiguity in Aramaic.L 19:18 ¼|¼% L%UzO. clarifies, but there are other interpretations.L 19:20 ¼< L, D Hx SSSSS ¼$ L² D5K/ DxAdded for clarification according to midrash.L 19:23 ¼$ L'Lx K$ D0An addition.L 19:30 ¼>¼- I% D0¼|Clarification.L 19:32 ¼$ L>¼-L<¼} ¼$ Dx ¼< K% L5UzMidrashic.L 20:20, 21 ¼' K0D) ¼$L0Uz» Gen. 15:2.

<2$

L 21:9 ¼$L0F+ Kº H2 SSSSS ¼> K¹O' D H2O. adds a word, and with the same subject uses apassive instead of an active, changing the meaning.L 22:27 ¼* I6> 7:23.L 22:28 SSSSS ¼$ L>U<¼} ¼>D)The Hebrew words ¼É JK BÝDI are masculine in gender but

refer to all animals regardless of sex. O. does not havecorresponding words, and normally uses the masculinewords that strictly speaking refer to males, in order totranslate the Hebrew. But here the Hebrew (masculine)refers only to females (not obvious at first), and O.stresses this using the feminine forms.¼$ L>¼- H5Here O. uses a feminine corresponding to ¼É JK, but themasculine form had apparently dropped out of use, as healways uses ¼Ý K_ HÅ which is technically incorrect.L 23:6 ¼$L<¼- H¢K² SSS ¼$L£ K<¼- H¢ K²> 8:2.L 23:11,15 ¼$L% L, ¼$ L2¼}¼-Midrashic, to stress that it refers to the Festivsl and not(as some maintained) the weekly Sabbath. But he doesnot say specifically the first day. » G.L 23:17 ¼3 L:¼-V< DyAdded for clarification. Hebrew even allows ¼Ò JÌ JÑ ¼ÉLÝ LKF×(1 Sam 17:17). but O. the literalist will not allow it.L 23:40 ¼3¼- H±K'F(K) ¼3¼- HxK0W0Unusually omits some words – leaves and branches.L 23:43 ¼-H4L4F6 ¼>K¬ K, D2HxMidrashic. Versions ¼ÎIÕLÕ K× and ¼Ô¼ÎHÕLÕ K× seem better.L 23:44 ¼3¼|¼ H8 I¬ K$D) SSS ¼< K' D5Clarification.L 25:29 ¼$ L8 D K2O. the literalist: ‘a town surrounded by a wall’.L 25:35 ¼% K>¼} ¼ºH- D) ¼<¼| ¼'D-O. changes the nouns to verbs.L 25:45 ¼$L£K0U< K6O. adds.L 26:5 ¼- I;N² K$ D0An alternative form used for the gerund ¼Å LÜ Lb KÅ.¼$ L6U<K* ¼<K% ¼- I;N² K$ D0O. obscures the meaning! The text without O. is clearer.L 26:6 ¼3¼- H0 D, L;U'¼|Clarification.L 26:19 SSSSS ¼3 Iº J$D)Explanation of a terse text.L 26:25An explanation expressed in midrashic terms.L 26:43 ¼3¼} ¼(¼- I0F6 ¼- I>D- K$ ¼3 L/U< Hx ¼7L0F+ ¼3¼- H,L) D0This is not a translation of ¼Ô K×KÎ DƼX ¼Ô K×KÎ. Some explain it asan interpretation, others as an addition. It is alsopossible that O. had extra words in his text.

*

Lev. 35

N U M B E R S

<%'2%

N 1:2 ¼3 Kx D O+ ¼>L- ¼| ¼0¼- Hx K;O. translates ¼I ¼ÅÃÝ ¼ß JÅ ¼X ¼Å DK (enlist) as if it meant count.N 1:3 ¼3}¼4 D2 H>O. translates ¼X¼È DÜ DÙ Hf (appoint) as if it meant ‘count’.N 1:21 ¼3¼} ¼(¼-I4L- D4 H2O. translates ¼Ò JɼΠIÈ OÜ Db (those appointed – ‘numbered’ ismerely implied) as if it meant ‘their number’.N 3:10 ¼-I K2 DºHere he translates ¼ÈÃÜ DÙ Hf correctly, ‘appoint’.N 5:2 ¼- I2 D,Needs explaining.

$=4

N 5:17 ¼<¼}¼£ H/Interpretation.N 5:19,20 ¼<LxThe usual translation of ¼ß KÌ Kf is ‘while under (i.e.married to) your husband’. Some translate it ‘instead ofyour husband’ and O. as ‘other than your husband’, butsince it is talking about doing something wrong, both ofthese are hard to accept. The third ¼ÝLT (for ¼Î IÈF× DÑ KT HÓ)makes sense as it refers to doing something which is inorder if with her husband but otherwise not.N 6:3 ¼;¼- Hº K6D) ¼>K'F+ ¼< K2F+ I2O. assumes (with very good supporting evidence) that¼ÝLÐ II does not mean ‘strong drink’ (other than wine) butis a special kind of wine – he takes it to be old wine,while ¼ÔHÎKÎ alone is (relatively) new wine. Having nospecial words, he calls them ‘new’ and ‘old’ wine.N 6:27 ¼>K¤U<HxO. clarifies.N 7:13 ¼{I0 L; D> K2O. the literalist adds this, also ¼WKÑ LÜ Dß KÓ in the next verse.N 7:16 ¼3¼-H~ H6 ¼<KxAs usual.N 7:85,86 ¼0 K; D> K2(With variants.) Added as necessary, > 7:13.

.>06(%

N 9:6,7 ¼- I2 D,> 5:2.N 10:31 SSSSS ¼3 L<¼|¼% D&¼|Midrashic.N 10:36 ¼ªL< L;¼- H% ¼- I< DMidrashic.N 11:16 Dº D6 K'L-UzPresent tense, ‘that you know’ > Gen. 4:9.N 11:29 3}8 ¼$L4¼- I6U<I wish it could be (alas it cannot). Hence ÔDÙ.¼{ I>F$¼|¼% D4O. adds for clarification.N 11:31 ¼1¼| ¼< D/¼|O. the literalist inserts this.

N 12:1 ¼$ L>U<¼- H² KBeautiful. Midrashic.N 12:6 ¼$L4F$Added for clarification.N 12:10 ¼$L< D) L+‘White’, not in the Hebrew, and ¼ß K×KÝÃÛ DÓ (the first time)is not translated. The disease is not normally white.N 12:12A difficult translation instead of a simple one. » G.N 12:14 ¼| ¼¬ H$D)The literalist.

+0=

N 13:32 ¼ ¼- HxGenerally ¼É LTVV is taken to mean a report, the word ‘bad’being added where necessary (e.g. 14:37), but O. addsthis word here taking ¼É LTVV to mean a bad report.N 13:33 ¼$L4 K D8K4It is not clear why this is added instead of ¼ÅLÕ¼ÎKռΠI× DT.N 14:18Excludes repentants. > Gen. 18:21.N 15:4 ¼>¼| ¼6 D%K< DxNot ¼É L× DTUÝ KÅ ¼Ô HÓ ¼È KÌ. Likewise in verse 6 ¼ß¼X ¼ß¼Ñ Kf.N 15:27 ¼$L~ H6A (lit. ‘the’) female goat.

+<;

N 16:10 ¼$ L> DxK<Not in the Hebrew.N 17:23 ¼3¼- HxK0 D%K0Buds, as Hebrew ¼ÌKÝ JÙ (NOT flowers).¼9I4Flowers, as Hebrew ¼Ú¼Î HÛ.N 17:27O. elaborates.N 17:28 ¼%L< D; H2 ¼%I< L;UzO. changes the grammar. The Hebrew says ‘everyapproacher who approaches’.N 18:9 ¼< K>¼} ¼2O. the literalist. Aaron is not being given some of thefire, nor food rescued from the fire.N 18:20 SSSSS ¼3L4 Dº K2O. explains.

>;+

N 19:1 ¼3N<F( K$ D0¼| ¼( J N2 ¼1 H6The Torah makes no difference – ¼Ñ JÅ to each. Thedifferentiation made by O. is midrashic.N 19:14 ¼$L4 D¤ D K2 DxA note here is of importance because of generalmisunderstanding. In Hebrew ¼Ô L] DI HÓ is understood tomean a dwelling, and ¼Ñ JÉÃÅ to mean a tent. In actual fact,the two words are often interchangeable and evensynonymous. This is emphasised clearly by O. who

Num. 36

translates both words in Aramaic by ¼Ô K] DI KÓ. Also, inmany cases ¼Ñ JÉÃÅ does not mean a tent, but a ‘home’,something not understood by commentators because inmost languages there is no word for it and no suchconcept. Here the meaning is a home or dwelling, andalthough the legal implications may well be extended toa building (in the widest sense) which need not be adwelling, that is an extension of the law, not implied inthe word itself. With Onkelos’s use of the word ¼Ô K] DI KÓone is not misled into thinking of a tent.N 20:10 SSSSS ¼3 H2 K(In a few cases O. cannot avoid a rhetorical question.N 20:18 ¼3¼- H0 D, L;U'HxLiterally ¼ÆJÝ JÌ means a sword, but the word is sometimesused idiomatically to mean widespread murder, in whichcase O. adds ¼Ô¼Î HÑ DÍ LÜUV.N 20:19 ¼+K<N$ DxExtra word probably demanded by Aramaic idiom.¼ ¼- HxAdded to explain.N 21:5 ¼} ¼:D4 SSS ¼1 L'G;O. changes the meaning of the text both here and inverse 7. The people spoke against God and Moses.N 21:14The Masoretic text divides this verse in a certain wayby means of the te’amim. The meaning is obscure. O.divides it in a totally different way and adds words.N 21:18,19O. makes midrashic changes.N 21:28Midrashic.N 21:29 ¼3¼- H+ D0 L8UzThe Hebrew implies recognition of Chemosh as areality, which O. will not tolerate, even though it ismerely a quotation of the song of the bards.N 21:30O. ignores the first word and later adds others. Amidrashic explanation.

;0%

N 22:18 ¼| ¼ U< ¼- H0 ¼>¼-I0There are places where this is a necessary translation,here it is a possible one.N 22:32 SSSSS ¼- I0 D& ¼- I<F$The Hebrew is cryptic and O. explains.N 22:37 ¼< K2 L$ ¼$ L>¼-I)F(Addition to clarify.

N 23:2 ¼0 L¤ ¼0 K6Clarification (subsequently repeated a few times).N 23:9, 10Midrashic.N 23:10 ¼6KxU< K$ I2 ¼$L'F+(a) This is probably not the meaning of ¼× KÆÃÝ .(b) Even if it is, he does not say ¼ß¼X ¼× DÆKÝ.N 23:19-24Midrashic.N 24:5-9Midrashic.N 24:10 ¼3¼} ¼( D0The literalist adds to clarify.N 24:14 'I%F6 K>U' ¼$ L2 ¼ªL0 ¼-I~ K+F$K) ¼'I%F6 K>U' ¼$ L2 ¼ªL H/ D0 D2 J$An expansion of what is written in the text, that makessense of what follows later on.N 24:17-24Midrashic.N 24:25 ¼0N, D; ¼%L£ K+Uz ¼0N, D;¼| ¼3¼| ¼'D)O. typically adds to exclude the innocent and repentantfrom punishment. > Gen. 18:21.

5+4-8

N 27:18 ¼( L$¼|¼% D4Addition to show that it does not mean ‘a man of spirit’but a man with a spirit of divine origin.N 28:2 ¼<¼| ¼z H5 ¼1 I+ D0Probably a demand of Aramaic idiom.

>),2(

N 32:1 ¼< K L¤Suitable. Clarification.¼>¼- I% D0‘For keeping’. He does not say ‘for pasturing’!

-652

N 33:8 ¼1 L'G; ¼3 H2Note this. They had camped ¼ßÃݼΠHÌ KÉ ¼Î Hb ¼ÎIÕ DÙHÑ (Ex. 14:2)and ¼ÎIÕ Db HÓ means the same as ¼ÎIÕ DÙ H HÓ, not ¼Î Hb HÓ.N 35:17, 18 ¼% I5D4 D> H2Uz B ¼$L% D5K4 D> H2UzO. clarifies.

*

Num. 37

D E U T E R O N O M Y

1-<%'

D 1:1 SSSSS ¼+ K/¼} ¼$Midrashic addition.D 1:2 ¼ªK0 D( K2A distance. Added to explain, but does not decidewhether it means ‘at a distance of’ or ‘the distance is’» G.D 1:33 ¼- I< D H2 ¼>¼-IxAn apparently superfluous addition.D 2:7 ¼ª L¤¼< O: ¼ªL0 ¼; I8N5O. gives an explanation of the text.D 2:11 ¼-I4 L> D2 I$O. reasonably identifies ¼Ò¼Î HÓ IÅ here with ¼Ò¼Î HӼΠIÅmentioned in Gen. 14:5, as from the root ÒÎÅ – theMoabites called them ‘terrifiers’ so he translates it.D 2:20 ¼-I4Lx D J+Since the Torah merely tells us what the Ammonitescalled them (presumably in their own language) it issurprising that O. translates it! But > verse 11.D 3:9 ¼$Ly D0 Kº <|,The comment on 2:20 applies here too.

34+>$)

D 3:24 SSSSS ¼$¼|( Dº K$UzO. as usual avoids a rhetorical question.* D 3:25 ¼$ L Uz D; K2 ¼>¼- I%¼|Based on a midrash, O. often (but not always) translates‘Lebanon’ as ‘the Temple’.D 4:3 ¼- I+ D0 L8 DxO. the literalist clarifies.D 4:7 SSSSS ¼$L0Lx K; D0O. adds to elaborate and explain.D 4:22 ¼>¼- H$ L2O. takes the Hebrew ¼ß IÓ as perfective and translates itwith a past tense ‘I will have died’. This is better thanthe usual ‘I am about to die’ which would require ¼É I HÉ.D 4:39 ¼,¼- H¬ K D)The addition of this word supports the Masoreticdivision of the verse after ¼ß KÌ Lf HÓ and not after ¼Ñ K× K_ HÓ.D 5:8 ¼' K¤> Gen. 18:21, Ex. 20:4.D 5:9 ¼3¼-V< L'The traditional interpretation.D 6:9 ¼3¼|¼ H6 Dx D; H>D)Adds an important explanation.D 7:10O. gives a very interesting explanation of this verse, toenable it to fit in with experience.

%;6

D 8:7 ¼$ L' D&L4O. felt it necessary to add this word.D 8:8 ¼$ L' D% L6 ¼$¼- H( D)An addition.

D 8:15 ¼< K>F$The literalists adds this (twice).D 10:7 ¼$ L' D&L4> 8:7.D 10:12 ¼- H(¼} ¼2 L'G; ¼3L4 D; L>UzExplains ‘God’s ways’ as the ways he expects of us, nothis own ways.D 10:20 ¼3¼|¼ H6 Dx D; H>D)As in 6:9.

($<

D 12:15 ¼< K5 D% H¤The literalist clarifies ‘as you eat’, not ‘as they eat’ (asexplained in verse 22).D 14:4 ¼3¼-H~ H6Uz ¼3¼-V' D&¼| ¼3¼- H0F+K<Uz ¼3¼-V< D® H$While not literal, this is a far better rendering than O.uses elsewhere, and it is surprising that he does nottranslate this way elsewhere.D 16:1 ¼3¼- H±H4 ¼ªL0 ¼'K%F6K)Added to justify a midrash that contradicts the text.

1-,8=

D 18:8 SSSSS ¼$ LºU< K¢ K® H2 ¼<LxO. gives a possible explanation of an obscure verse.D 19:13 ¼- I' D L$Clarification. Not what the verse says, but what itobviously means.D 19:19 ¼' I% L6Similar to verse 13, see note above.D 20:11 ¼3¼- H± H2 ¼- I; D± K2in the Bible ¼Ö KÓ normally means a levy of menconscripted for forced labour; in later times it meant atax (money or produce), and it is uncertain which O.intended here, hence why he adds ¼Î IÜ Da KÓ.D 20:19 ( ¼$ L L4F$K/) ¼$L0Adding this word certainly makes the verse intelligible,but how can one add ‘not’ to the holy text? Possibly itwas there in his edition and has been lost in ours. Weknow that many editions with slight variations existedbefore the Masoretes standardised our present version.D 21:8 ¼3¼| ¼< D2¼-I- ¼$L£K4F( L¤An addition. Reasons have been given to justify this,although it is not in the text, but the style is surprising.We expect at least ¼ÅL[KÕFÉL] ¼Ô¼X ¼Ý DÓ¼ÎIÎ DÊ. Is it an addition toOnkelos made later on the basis of traditional law?

$:>

D 21:17 ¼3¼- H; L0O+ ¼3¼- I< DºO. translates correctly, two portions (or parts), which inthe case cited – only two sons – means two thirds, andnot, as popularly mistranslated, double. He cannot givehim double all that he has! The mistake has become apart of Modern Hebrew!D 21:20 ¼< K2F+ SSS ¼< K5 DxO. explains the terms.

Deut. 38

D 21:23 ¼% L+Uz ¼0K6O. gives a possible explanation of an obscure phrase.D 22:5 ¼3H-K* ¼3¼| ¼ HºO. gives the midrashic interpretation that it is not aprohibition of transvestism but refers to a weapon.D 22:19 ¼3¼- H6 D0 H5O. assumes that it means shekels, which he calls selas.D 23:13 ¼3 K K> D2 ¼< K>F$O. explains ¼ÈLÎ in this context.D 23:15 ¼$L% L,¼} ¼$ D¬ H2Clarification.D 23 16 ¼3¼- H2 D2 K6O. clarifies.D 23:18Entirely midrashic.D 23:6 ¼3¼} ¼( D% -I<F$Explanation of the meaning, not the words.

$)%>

D 26:5 SSSSS ¼3 L% L0A midrashic explanation of a difficult text.D 28:23 ¼3¼-V< I² ¼'Kx D6 J2 D¬ H2 SSS ¼$L< D, H2 ¼$ L>L+ K$ D¬ H2O. explains.D 28:31 ¼3 L<¼- H5 D2Why not ¼ÔLÎ DÊ DÉHÎ ? (Similarly next verse.)D 28:33 Lº D6 K'D-Not Df K×UÈLÎ because the Hebrew does not mean ‘do not

know’ but ‘have not known’ or ‘did not know’.D 29:2 ¼3¼- H%U< D%K< ¼3¼- D±H4An example of where the text has the definite articleand O. does not. This is less common than the reverse.

.0-)?1-%:4

D 29:18 ¼- I$ D, H+O. clarifies.D 29:22 ¼$ L' D;L- ¼- I( DºO. changes a noun (something burnt) into a verb.D 30:3 ¼ª L>L) D0LyCorrect in the next verse, but something wrong here.Certainly ¼ß¼X ¼Æ DI in this phrase has nothing to do withexile or captivity (a common mistake, see Job 42:10).

)4-*$(

D 32:1-43As usual, O. gives midrashic explanations to poetry.

(/<%(

D 33:1-29As usual, O. gives midrashic explanations to poetry.

* * * * *

Deut. 39

PARTIAL INDEX OF “FIRST OCCURRENCES”

All references are to Genesis unless othewise stated.

Name and actions of the Divinity

Usually translates 1-(0$ as -- if appropriate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:2Action by God expressed in a roundabout way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3:5, 11:5Use of $<2-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3:8Fear of anthropomorphism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ex. 3:20

General grammatical changes from the Hebrew

Use of the participle for repeated action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2:6Continuous and continual (repeated) actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7:12Dislikes the participle phrase and changes it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:21Dislikes the gerund phrase and changes it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2:4Dislikes the impersonal & changes it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:14Dislikes rhetorical questions and changes them to facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18:25, 21:7

In connection with numbers and plurals

Order of numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5:3Use of plural for all quantities except one . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5:3Numbers not used with definite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4:19Translation of collectives as plurals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:26Use of singular for 1-(0$ B1-4)'$ B1-06% where intended . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17:7Does not use masculine form for 3rd person feminine plural. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26:15

Specific usages

Literalist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:14Unnecesary use of the definite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:2Use and meaning of 3)8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26:10Use of >- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1:1Use of 36/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13:8Handling of place and generic names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14:6Use of generic (gentilic) where Hebrew uses name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10:11Additions to exclude the innocent from punishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18:21

Translations and use of words

Problems with names of animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12:16 & Lev. intro.Use of >-% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:10Use of >-% ¸4$ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12:17Use and meaning of verb 6'- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4:9Use of verb </' (remember) – passive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3:15Use of $22- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1:5Use of <>% and 3/ <>% to translate (-)<+$ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10:18Use of 605 for 0;¸ due to devaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20:16Translation of 1<, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2:5Translation of <%' and use of 002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27:6Translations of 1'$ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:26Translation of 3)4%0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Deut 3:25Translation of <)$- and <(4 – use of <(4 and ><8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41:1Meaning of 3/% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4:26Meanings of 1+< . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22:2Meanings of (-)<=-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12:6, 14:3The form of -()4*0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:12

* * * * *

Index 40