The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context

TARGUM ONQELOS, HALAKHA AND THE HALAKHIC MIDRASHIM
Bernard Grossfeld
1. Onqelos and the Halakha
This subject has been explored by numerous scholars from as early as
1836 to as late as 1983. Most of these studies were concerned with the
problem of the criteria followed by Targum Onqelos in reflecting
Halakha in the translation of the Hebrew verse. I will limit myself in
outlining the three most prominent of these theories. 1
1. Z.H.Chajes2 and S.Y. Rapoport3
According to them, the criterion is based on the nature of the verse as
far as the target audience was concerned. The technical terms
employed are: "fa"? nmon and ^^ nmon. Was the biblical injunction
directed to the 'courts'/'judges'/'the Heads of the Sanhedrin' in which
these agencies were involved, and who would decide and act on the
case; or was it directed to all concerned, that is, to the masses for
every individual to incorporate into his personal conduct? If the
direction was i"^b nmon there was no need to reflect the Halakha in the
1. I have used the following editions in this essay: Bereshith Rabba (ed.
J. Theodor and Ch. Albeck; Jerusalem, 1965); Mekhilta de Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai
(ed. J.N. Epstein. Jerusalem, 1955); Mechilta D'Rabbi Ishmael (ed. H.S. Horovitz
and LA. Rabin; Jerusalem, 1970); Targum Jonathan ben Uzziel al ha-Torah (ed.
D. Rieder; Jerusalem, 1984-85); Sifra debe Rab (ed. I.H. Weiss; Vienna, 1862);
Siphre D'Be Rab (on Numbers) (ed. H.S. Horovitz; Jerusalem, 1966); Sifre on
Deuteronomy (ed. L. Finkelstein; New York, 1969); Siphre Zuta (ed. S. Lieberman;
New York, 1968); Targum Onqelos as edited by A. Sperber in The Bible on
Aramaic, I (Leiden, 1959).
2. Cf. his nrn no», pp. 901-29 and rnpn rrnK, pp. 495-516 in f"inn nao ^
rim (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Dibre Hakhamim, 1958), II.
3. Cf. his naKl nftc '~m (Prague, 1861), pp. 11-15; and Kerem Chemed 5
(1840), p. 223; 6 (1841), p. 220.