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

VA’EIRA (CHAPTER 6:2–9:35)

SUMMARY OF THE TORAH PORTION

God reminds Moses of the covenant; Moses and Aaron fail in their attempt to
convince Pharaoh through miracles to free the Israelites; Pharaoh’s stubbornness
results in the first seven of the ten plagues that wreak havoc upon Egypt, but they do
not convince Pharaoh to free Israelites.

DOES EVERY LETTER COUNT IN THE TORAH?

Almost everyone knows that if a single letter is missing in the Torah, or if a single
letter is illegible, the Torah cannot be used either to carry it as part of the worship
service or to read from it when such a reading is required by Jewish law. Why is that so?
It is to impress the people of the sacredness of the Torah.
But do we have to treat every letter as sacred also when we interpret the Torah, that
because the Torah is God’s word, not one letter in the Torah is superfluous? This is the
question that was addressed by two outstanding sages of the second century C.E., Rabbi
Akiva and Rabbi Ishmael.
This controversy impacts on how we understand Targum Onkelos. As we explain in
our Introduction to the Book of Exodus (pages xxvi-xxviii),1 from which we excerpt:

1
All page numbers refer to the Onkelos on the Torah volume.
1
 Around the year 130 CE, two radically different methodologies arose, based on totally
different philosophies, as to how the Torah should be interpreted. Rabbi Akiva argued
that since the Torah is divine, it must communicate in a divine voice or manner. Since
God and the divine acts are perfect, the Torah text, emanating from God, must be
perfect and purposeful. It is inconceivable, argued Rabbi Akiva, that God would say or
communicate anything except that which is absolutely necessary. Thus, the Torah
cannot have superfluous words or letters. Everything in the books of Moses, even the
design of the letters used by God, was purposely placed in the Torah for a halakhic
reason and must be interpreted to reveal how God wants us to act.
Rabbi Ishmael disagreed. Rather than focusing on the divine communicator, he
looked, instead, at the human recipient. He stated that, since the Torah was revealed
to humans, it was written for humans: “the Torah speaks in human language.”
Accordingly, just as writers add words for emphasis, occasionally exaggerating or
beautifying their language with metaphors and repetitions, so, too, does the Torah.
Extra words should be understood as rhetorical enhancements that have no halakhic
implications.
Rabbi Ishmael felt that post-biblical rabbinic halakhah was not necessarily suggested
in the scriptural text, while Rabbi Akiva argued that naturally every halakhah can be
derived from the Bible if the context is ignored and the words are not read literally.
Once we understand the differences between the two schools, it becomes clear that
the Onkelos targumist, who was interested in explaining the plain, overt meaning of
the Bible verses, and who did not write this translation to show a biblical basis of
halakhah, must, of necessity, be following the view of Rabbi Ishmael. This logical
conclusion is borne out by the examination of verses in which the targumist
consistently renders the text according to its simple meaning, when Rabbi Akiva
contends that they should not be understood in such a fashion.

ADDITIONAL DISCUSSIONS

ON ONKELOS

Now let us focus on one small application of the principles outlined above. In 8:1-2
(pages 42 and 43), we find God commanding Moses to instruct Aaron to inflict the
Egyptians with the second of the “ten plagues.” He was told to stretch out his hand “and
bring up the frogs (tzefarde’im) upon the land of Egypt.” The Bible informs us that he
did so, and the frogs (tzefarde’a) ascended and covered the land of Egypt.” You will note,
however, that in the Hebrew in verse one, the word for “frogs” is written in the plural,
and in verse two, the word for “frogs” is in the singular, “frog,” “and the frog ascended.”
Since the targumist chose to translate the singular as a plural, our commentary,
“FROGS,” notes:

2
 The biblical reading is “bring up the frog” (in the singular), suggesting that one frog
covered the entire land. Indeed, Rashi cites an opinion found in the Babylonian
Talmud (Sanhedrin 67b) and the Midrash (Exodus Rabbah 10:4) that a single frog
came, split into other frogs and swarmed over Egypt. Our targumist prefers to
interpret the biblical singular as ‘frogs,” which is closer to the intended meaning.

Clearly our translator followed the view of Rabbi Ishmael, ignored the fact that the
sacred biblical word is singular, and renders it in the plural, paralleling the usage in
verses 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9, while the Talmud and Midrash followed the opinion of Rabbi
Akiva and offered a fanciful opinion as to why “frog” is in the singular.
We will have many opportunities in future Study Guides to examine other examples
of the two distinctly different approaches to understanding the biblical text.

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

The plague of frogs contains an exchange between Moses and Pharaoh not found in
the dialogues concerning any other of the “ten plagues.” And, that dialogue raises some
questions worth discussing, as we suggest in our “Beyond the Text” on page 47:
Not only do Moses and Aaron bring about the first plague and remove it, and cause
the frogs in the second plague to descend upon Egypt, but Moses now taunts
Pharaoh by saying to him, “Choose a time when you want the frogs to be destroyed”
(see commentary and appendix on 8:5). Pharaoh does, and Moses proves his God-
given ability, but Pharaoh soon “hardened his heart and was not receptive (8:11).”
What does it really take to convince people that “there is none like the Lord our
God?” Would people be convinced today of God’s reality if someone performed
miracles on His behalf? Would the conviction be permanent or, after a while, would
the “miracle” be regarded as an “illusion?” Can “miracles” be the foundation of an
enduring faith?

FOR FURTHER STUDY

1. See 7:1 (pages 36 and 37) and commentary, “APPOINTED YOU AS TEACHER.” Choosing
between acceptable alternative translations.

2. See 8:22 (pages 44 and 45) and commentary. The targumist’s clarification of almost an
entire verse.

3. See 9:1 (pages 48 and 49) and commentary “JEWS,” and appendix note on 1:15 (page
330). Onkelos exchanges the biblical “Hebrews” to “Judeans.”