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

KEE TISSA (CHAPTER 30:11–34:35)

SUMMARY OF THE TORAH PORTION

Laws pertaining to the census; the priests are told to wash in the laver before
performing services; the sacred vessels and the priests are to be anointed; Bezalel and
Oholiab are designated as Tabernacle architects; a reminder that the Sabbath is to be
observed; improper behavior with the Golden Calf; Moses destroys the Decalogue
tablets in anger and punishes the worshippers of the Golden Calf; Moses carves new
tablets; God reveals his thirteen attributes to Moses; Moses descends from Mount Sinai
with a radiant face.

ONKELOS AS AN ALTERNATIVE TRANSLATION

We have had occasion to present our Targum translation side by side with other
Torah translations to demonstrate its uniqueness. It is not our intention to suggest that
Onkelos alone provides the only authentic Torah translation. Rather, our view is
expressed well in our “Onkelos Highlights” to chapter 32 (page 226):1
Many scriptural words can be translated in several ways. In verse 32:25, “paru’a” can
mean “uncovered,” as Rashi translated it, or “ignored,” “empty,” or—as Onkelos
rendered it—“worthless.” When comparing biblical translations, we often ask which

1
All page numbers refer to the Onkelos on the Torah volume.

1
 rendering could be considered more accurate. Frequently, all of the translations are
correct, even though they lead to different understandings of the text. Simply stated,
the bible may be understood in different ways. Onkelos is an alternative to other
translations—an excellent ancient and rabbinically accepted alternative. Not only did
the rabbis endorse this fine work, but also mandated that all the Jews read it every
week as part of their Torah study.

Let us now review verse 32:25 (pages 224 and 225) in its entirety, and see how it is
treated in other translations and by other commentators. The verse introduces the
response of Moses to the terrible misdeed committed by the Israelites who ordered
Aaron to fashion a golden calf following God’s revelation on Mount Sinai. It was also
after Moses shattered the tablets of the Decalogue, commonly called the “Ten
Commandments,” upon witnessing the Israelites dancing around the calf. He had
already interceded with God who wished to destroy the nation because of their
infidelity, saving the nation from that fate. This is Moses’ reaction:
Onkelos: “Moses saw that the people were worthless, for Aaron had made them
worthless by getting them a bad name for generations.”
ArtScroll: “Moses saw the people, that it was exposed, for Aaron has exposed them
to disgrace among those who rise up against them.”
The Living Torah: “Moses realized that the people had actually been restrained.
Aaron had restrained them, doing only a small part of what the outspoken ones [had
demanded].”
S. R. Hirsch: “And Moshe saw the people, that it was unrestrained, that Aharon had
left it in its moral weakness, without restraints, to the degree of utter irresolution in
the midst of those of them who rose up against the Law.”
Soncino: “And when Moses has seen that the people were broken loose . . . for Aaron
had let them loose for a derision among their enemies.”
When comparing the translations, it almost looks as if the translators were not
looking at the same verse. Yet, there is a linguistic basis for each translation. Our
commentary (page 225) clarifies how various commentators understood this verse:
WERE WORTHLESS. Rashi and Saadiah translate the obscure Hebrew poetic “paru’a,”
found twice in this passage, as “uncovered,” as in Numbers 5:18, probably intending
the same general idea as the targumist. Nachmanides treats it as “ignore,” as in
Proverbs 1:25, meaning ignoring wise advice. Ibn Ezra refers to Proverbs 29:18,
where it is understood as casting off restraint.
BY GETTING THEM A BAD NAME FOR GENERATIONS. Bible: “a disgrace among their
enemies.” The targumist identifies the “disgrace” as “getting them a bad name.” He
does not treat the biblical “bekameihem” as “enemies,” as in Psalms 3:2, but as
“generations,” as in Numbers 32:14 and Deuteronomy 29:21. Nachmanides
elaborates: The “generations” are unborn, misguided Israelites who think that their

2
 ancestors acted properly. The targumist’s preference for “generations” over
“enemies” may be to protect Israel’s honor. He believed that the Israelites had not
sunk so low that even their enemies would mock them and probably thought it
unlikely that the non-Israelites would mock them for idol worship when they
themselves worshiped idols.

We add other translations to these many understandings of this passage in our

appendix to this verse on page 370:
Neophyti reads, “And Moses saw that the people were uncovered because they had
uncovered the crown of gold that had been on their heads, upon which the
distinguished name was engraved.” Pseudo-Jonathan is similar. Compare Exodus
Rabbah 45:4. The Greek Septuagint renders “l’shimtzah” as “secret joy” or “derision,”
and “bekameihem” as “enemies.”

Thus we see that Onkelos is one possible translation among many others.

ADDITIONAL DISCUSSIONS

ON ONKELOS

When studying Torah and confronted with multiple translations of the text, it is not
unusual for a student to ask: But what is the real and truthful meaning of a word, or
phrase, or verse? It cannot mean many things at the same time, especially if the
translations are dissimilar, can it? On the literary level, a response might be that the
quality of genius of an author of a work that has become a “classic” enables the reader
to understand what he writes in many ways. All of our brilliant classical biblical
commentators, or poets, for that matter, have often been understood in different ways
because their writings are pregnant with various meanings. How much more should we
be able to accept the wise comment of our sages, “the Torah has seventy faces.”
The wise Torah student searches for understanding and he uses all the tools at his
disposal. For example, would it not be profitable to understand how knowledge of some
ancient near eastern languages, such as Ugaritic and Akkadian, might shed light on
biblical Hebrew? What of ancient near eastern cultures? Would the story of Jacob’s gift
to Joseph of a coat of many colors (Onkelos: “robe with sleeves.” See commentary on
Genesis 37:3) be better understood if we discovered that in many cultures at that time,
special robes were given by heads of clans or tribes to those whom they designated as
their successors? Wouldn’t that knowledge clarify why Joseph’s brethren were so
jealous of him that they conspired to kill him?
Targum Onkelos is one of many tools that may be employed in our pursuit of
understanding Torah. It is important, first of all, because this late fourth century
translation is much older than the most important traditional commentaries: Saadiah
(882-942), Bechor Schor (c. 1140), Chazkunee (thirteenth century), ibn Ezra (1089-

3
1164), Nachmanides (c. 1195-1270); Rashi (1040-1105); Rashbam (1080-1170),
among others. The Onkelos translator actually incorporated translations from the many
oral Aramaic translations that preceded him, commencing in the fifth century BCE, and
copied from the early Midrashim. While the Targum cannot claim infallibility, its
antiquity certainly warrants the respect of “age,” having been that much closer to the
time the Torah was written.
Secondly, as we have often noted, it has the approbation of the greatest scholars of
Torah in Jewish history, from the period of the Talmud to this day. It would be a
foolhardy attempt, therefore, to comprehend Torah without the aid of its preeminent
translator. And, as we learn more about the targumist’s approach, style, methodology,
technique, and goals, we will be able to assess so much more effectively his contribution
to our quest for understanding the biblical text.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The story of the golden calf is one of the most tragic events in Jewish history and,
because in many ways it is enigmatic, it has been subject to myriad interpretations. Our
“Beyond the Text” on page 227, raises some basic questions worthy of attention:
How can we account for the disloyalty of the Israelites when, according to many
commentators, they had just experienced God’s revelation at Mount Sinai? How can
you explain Aaron’s complicity in the people’s sinfulness? Why should the nation have
suffered for the complicity of a small minority? Was Moses justified in destroying the
tablets? Was Moses’ appeal to God to forgive the Israelites plausible?

FOR FURTHER STUDY

1. See 31:18 and commentary, “FINGER OF THE LORD” and the “Onkelos Highlight” (pages
216 and 217). The targumist retains a gross anthropomorphism. Is it justified?

2. See 32:16 and commentary, “CLEAR” (page 223). Did God “engrave” the text on the
tablets of the “Ten Commandments?” The targumist thinks not.

3. See 33:3 and commentary, “PRODUCING” (page 229). Targum Onkelos consistently
alters the popular description of the Holy Land, as one that “flows with milk and honey.”