LET’S STUDY ONKELOS

A Guide for Rabbis, Teachers and Torah Students to Study and Teach the Parashat
Hashavua through the Eyes of its Most Important Translator

By Stanley M. Wagner and Israel Drazin

Based on the five volume, Onkelos on the Torah (Genesis-Deuteronomy), Understanding the
Bible Text, by Israel Drazin and Stanley M. Wagner, published by Gefen Publishing House,
Jerusalem/New York, 2006-2010.

STUDY GUIDE

MIKEITZ (CHAPTER 41:1–44:17)

SUMMARY OF THE TORAH PORTION

Pharaoh has two dreams, but his advisors are unable to interpret them to his
satisfaction; His cupbearer informs Pharaoh of Joseph’s ability to interpret dreams;
Pharaoh summons Joseph who informs Pharaoh that his dreams are predictions that
Egypt will experience seven years of prosperity followed by seven years of famine;
Joseph suggests how Pharaoh should cope with the famine and Pharaoh appoints
Joseph as viceroy; Joseph marries and has two children, Manasseh and Ephraim; After
the years of prosperity, famine consumes Egypt; Joseph’s brothers, with the exception
of Benjamin, go to Egypt to purchase foods; Joseph recognizes them but does not reveal
his identify; Joseph accuses his brothers of being spies, but allows all of them, except
Simeon, to return home with provisions, but insists that they cannot return to Egypt
without their brother Benjamin; The brothers tell their father about Joseph’s unusual
demand, and when his food is almost completely consumed and the famine is severe,
Jacob reluctantly allows his sons to return to Egypt with Benjamin; Joseph orders that
his goblet be placed in Benjamin’s sack surreptitiously and then accuses Benjamin of
being a thief.

ONKELOS CLARIFIES THE BIBLICAL TEXT

The Onkelos translator set as one of his principle tasks that he not only to render
Scripture in a language that his audience could understand, but to explain what the
1
Bible means. These changes represent about half of the reasons why he altered the
literal reading of the text. This is a very problematic enterprise. People consider the
Torah to be holy, the word of God; how could anyone have the audacity to alter it? Don’t
revisions imply that the person making the alterations assumes that he knows more
than God? If the targumist is correct that the Torah means what he says it means, why
didn’t God say it clearly? What assumption is the targumist making when he changes
the Torah’s language?
There is also another series of questions. What kind of words or concepts does our
translator notice in the Torah that he feels needs clarification? What does he see that
others may want to clarify, but he does not address? Is this inconsistent?
In this portion’s Guide, we will look at the general idea of clarity and at altering
words to explain metaphors. We will see that by clarifying metaphors, the translator is
not changing the biblical thought. He is making the language clear. We will realize this
when we compare Onkelos to 41:47 (pages 280 and 281)1 to four other translations.
This verse describes how Joseph’s interpretation of Pharaoh’s dream is fulfilled.
Scripture reads in Hebrew: vata’as ha’aretz b’sheva sh’nei hasava likematzim.
Various Torah translations treat the verse differently. The following are four examples.
Two retain the Hebrew metaphor likematzim, “handfuls,” while two explain this figure
of speech as “heaps” and “loads of grain.”
1. Artscroll (page 229): “The earth produced during the seven years of abundance by the
handfuls.”

2. S.R.Hirsch Chumash (page 178, one volume): “The land produced by the handfuls
during the seven years of plenty.”

3. Soncino Chumash (page 259): “And in the seven years of plenty the earth brought
forth in heaps.”

4. The Living Torah (page 207): “During the seven years of surplus, the land produced
loads of grain.”
Our targumist strays further from a literal statement when he introduces the
concept of “granaries.” He writes: “The inhabitants of the land gathered grain for the
granaries during the seven years of plenty.” We explain why the targumist was not
literal in our commentary (page 281):
THE INHABITANTS . . . GATHERED . . . SEVEN YEARS OF PLENTY. Onkelos recasts the
entire verse, which reads in Scripture as: “the earth produced *grain+ during the seven
years of plenty, by the handfuls.” (1) “The inhabitants” (of the land) is added for
clarity; (2) the word “gathered”—as in verse 48—is used instead of “produced”; (3)

1
All page numbers refer to the Onkelos on the Torah volume.
2
 the object of the verb “gathered” is added: “grain”; and (4) The adverbial phrase “by
handfuls” is replaced with “granaries.” By making these changes, Onkelos connects
verses 47 and 48, both referring to the hoarding of grain.

In essence, we explained that the translator felt that the verse was unclear and he
made four modifications to clarify what the passage intended.
We added to our commentary a statement about Nachmanides’ understanding of the
verse’s final phrase. Nachmanides states that the Hebrew Bible’s likematzim is Aramaic.
While all other commentators agree that the Hebrew likematzim is “handfuls,”
Nachmanides takes this biblical word as an Aramaic noun that means “pits,” and
assumes that the pits were used as granaries. He suggests that this meaning
prompted the targumic paraphrase. It is more likely, however, that our targumist
understood “handfuls,” as Rashi states, as a figure of speech for the “plenty” (i.e.,
grain) that Joseph stored in the granaries.

Thus, Nachmanides felt that Onkelos substituted “granaries” for Scripture’s

“handfuls” because he translated likematzim as “pits.” We felt that the generally-
accepted view that the word is Hebrew and means “handful” is correct and that our
translator made the change to clarify that “handful” is a figure of speech for “plenty”
that, in turn, suggests the place where the plenty is stored, “granaries.”

ADDITIONAL DISCUSSIONS

ON ONKELOS

Here you have it. The Onkelos translator changed the biblical language because he
felt that the word “granaries” captures the true meaning and intent of the verse,
especially in view of the next verse which speaks of gathering the food. He veers from
the literal meaning of the words often when he can place the verse in a context of what
proceeds and follows.
But you may be bothered by his methodology. Does a translator really have the right
to alter the biblical text, even if he feels certain that his wording captures the biblical
intent? Words have multiple connotations, and when the translator offers his view, he
excludes others. The term “handfuls” could arguably suggest a personal involvement,
the hand-picking of the grain. Should a translator worry about excluding other possible
understandings of biblical phrases? Should he retain the ambiguity?

GENERAL DISCUSSION

Were all of the events in Joseph’s life merely a series of coincidences, or do we

discern the unfolding of a divine plan? Review the Joseph story until the point that he is

3
appointed as Pharaoh’s “second in command.” How do you account for the remarkable
“twists and turns” of the story?
Was God inspiring or prompting Joseph to speak?” Sometimes we feel that the “hand
of God” rests upon us, guiding our actions, almost taking hold of and controlling our
lives. Is that imaginary, or hallucinatory, or evidence of hashgachah peratit,
“providential intervention in our personal lives?” How can we tell the difference? How
can we judge whether God is moving us, or whether our actions are governed by our
own power of reason?
Joseph’s interpretation of Pharaoh’s dreams raises another series of questions. Do
dreams really predict the future? Does the Bible want us to believe that dreams have
this power? What prompted Joseph to recommend a course of action to Pharaoh based
on his interpretations (41:33–36 pages 276–279) when he was only told to interpret
the dreams? Wasn’t that rather presumptuous? Is it possible that Pharaoh asked Joseph
for his recommendation, the Bible does not state the request explicitly, but implies it?
In our “Beyond the Text” (page 283, #6), we raised a number of additional questions
regarding Joseph’s administration of his project during the years of famine:
Joseph did not immediately open the granaries when the people cried out for food.
He did so only when the famine intensified (41:55–56; see the commentary). Was
that an unnecessary hardship imposed upon the people? Those who govern other
people’s lives have an enormous responsibility. How can we make certain that they
will have the necessary sensitivity to the needs of those whom they represent? What
is the relationship between wisdom, judgment, and moral orientation? Joseph
treated the Egyptian priests in an extraordinarily generous manner, such as not
taxing them. Could this be the origin of the American practice of absolving churches
and synagogues from taxes? Is this proper?

FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION

1. See 41:8 and commentary, “MAGICIANS” (page 272) and “Beyond the Text” (page 282,
number 2). Who were the Egyptian chartumim?

2. See 41:43 and commentary, “FATHER TO THE KING” (page 278). Joseph is called
“avreikh.” What does this mean? Was Pharaoh speaking Hebrew?

3. See 43:2 and commentary, “FINISHED” (page 293). Rashi takes issue with the targumist.
Or, is this statement a scribal error?