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

TZAV (CHAPTER 6:1–8:36)

SUMMARY OF THE TORAH PORTION

Moses is commanded to tell Aaron and his sons the laws of the burnt offering, the
fires that must continuously burn on the altar, and the removal of ashes accumulated on
the altar from the previous day’s offerings as the first service of the day; priests wore
different clothes for some of their duties; a number of laws pertaining to the meal and
other offerings are presented; the balance of the Torah portion pertains to: gifts that the
priest receives; the thanksgiving sacrifice; the loaves of unleavened and leavened bread
that were part of offerings; the disqualified sacrifice; the laws of fat and blood; the
allocation of parts of the sacrifices and rituals associated with them; and the
inauguration of the priests.

TARGUM ONKELOS AND THE HALAKHAH: ANOTHER LOOK

Much to the credit of the rabbinic sages who wanted to assure that the Torah would
be a “Torah of life,” and not a sacred document that would be irrelevant to the day in
and day out lives of the Jewish people in every age, the expansion of the Oral Law over
the centuries provided structure, meaning, and direction for Jews. The biblical authority
to extract such guidance from the Torah, through the application of hermeneutical rules
of interpretation, is based on Deuteronomy 17:8-13, which mandates that “In
accordance with the word of the Torah that they will teach you and the ruling that they
will tell you, you must do” (verse 11).
1
 Often, however, the passages in the Torah from which the sages derived many laws
do not state the laws explicitly and there is seemingly no connection between the literal
meaning of the verses and what the rabbis read into it. At times, the verses seem to
indicate something quite opposite from the rules the rabbis derived from them.
Now, our targumist’s challenge, as translator of the Torah, was to determine
whether to include the sages’ halakhic rulings that are based on their readings of the
verses into his translation if he felt that their understanding is not based on what is
literally in the biblical passage. He certainly had no intention to dispute these rulings or
the authority of the sages. The rabbis knew this. That is why they selected his
translation as the most authoritative one, and “required reading” for every Jew. He
simply felt that his responsibility was to translate and not interpret the Torah.
The attempts by many commentators to read into the Targum’s words halakhic
opinion are misplaced. These misreadings are exactly opposite what the translator
intended. This becomes clear by looking at a few samplings from this parashah.
In 6:2 (pages 36 and 37)1 we read concerning the burnt offering (olah), “This is the
law of the burnt offering . . . that is burned upon the altar all night until morning.” Our
commentary, “THAT IS BURNED” (page 37), explains:
Scripture’s “mokdah” is spelled with a reduced-sized “mem.” All of the Targums, as
well as the Septuagint, the Samaritan bible, Sifra, and other commentaries, handle
the word as if the “mem” were normal sized, as they do the “aleph” in “va’yikra” in
1:1 (see that commentary). We noted in our introduction that Onkelos attaches the
letter “daled,” usually meaning “of” or “that,” to 465 words in Leviticus. We also
mentioned that we will usually not point out all of these additions. However, it is
worth noting here that our targumist attaches a “daled” to the Aramaic version of
“mokdah” and thereby converts it from the noun “firewood”—as it is understood by
Saadiah and ibn Ezra—to a verb, “that is burned” (see page 292).

Our appendix (pages 292-293) comments on this word and makes the case for our
view that commentators see halakhah in Onkelos that is not there:
S. B. Schefftel (Biure Onkelos) argues that the targumist attached a “daled” to the
Aramaic version of “mokdah”, and turned it into “that is burned,” to reflect the
halakhah (Mishnah Zevachim 3:1) that objects burned on the altar are not removed
even after they become unfit. Onkelos never uses the “daled” elsewhere to teach a
halakhah: the targumist inserts the letter 465 times in Leviticus to enhance the clarity
of the plain meaning of the text and does so here as well. As we have repeated
frequently, this translation was not composed to teach halakhah and, indeed, has
many non-halakhic interpretations.

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

2
 In 6:3 (pages 36 and 37), Scripture states, “The priest should dress in garments of
linen with pants of linen next to his body.” In our commentary, “GARMENTS” (page 36),
we see that, again, the targumist ignores a rabbinic halakhah:
Scripture’s “mido” means “his measurement,” which is a figure of speech. Our
targumist captures its intent by pluralizing it to “garments,” since the priest wore
more than one garment. He also drops the pronoun “his” and uses the terminology in
the next passage and in Exodus 28:42. The singular form “mido” appears only once
more in Hebrew Scripture, in II Samuel 20:8, where it is also a collective term implying
the plural “garments,” and it is interpreted in this way by “Targum Jonathan to the
Prophets.” It occurs a third time as “k’mido” in Psalms 109:18, in a context that
requires the singular, and it is therefore left in the singular by the Psalms targumist.
In contrast, Sifra, the Babylonian Talmud, Yoma 23b, Saadiah, Rashi, and ibn Ezra
state that Scripture’s literal singular “his measurement” signifies the priest’s shirt,
mentioned in Exodus 28:40, which must be fitted to “his measurement.”

Our appendix (page 293) supports our view, which is contrary to Nachmanides:
Nachmanides, the originator of the practice of reading halakhah, derash, and
mysticism into Onkelos, argues that the targumist’s “the priest should dress in
garments of linen” reflects R. Dosa’s opinion (in the Babylonian Talmud, Yoma 12b,
and Sifra) that the common priest’s belt was made of linen and was unlike the high
priest’s belt, which was of blue, purple, and scarlet wool, and twined linen. All the
targumist did was interpret “his measurement” as a figure of speech for a garment.
The word “linen” was already in Scripture, and he left it unchanged, other than to
prefix it with the implied “daled,” “of,” a very frequent targumic practice. Neither the
biblical text nor Onkelos’s rendering of it suggests that every single garment worn by
the priest was made exclusively of linen.

In 7:16 (pages 45 and 45), the Torah instructs, “However, if the sacrifice that he
offers is a vow or free will offering, it must be eaten on the same day that he will offer
his sacrifice, but what remains may be eaten on the next day.”
Here, we have a controversy on a vav used by the Torah in the word v’hanotar,
“what remains,” as our commentary (page 44) points out:
WHAT REMAINS. Rashi contends that the introductory “vav” of “v’hanotar” here is
superfluous. He explains that there are many examples of superfluous “vavs” in
Scripture, such as Genesis 36:24 and Daniel 8:13. Saadiah translates the word as if it
lacked the “vav”. However, ibn Ezra argues that the “vav” is necessary here, and this
is how Onkelos renders the word.

In our appendix to this verse (pages 293 and 294), we make our case again:
Adler (Netina LaGer), whose Targum commentary is replete with halakhic
interpretations of Onkelos, argues that our targumist retains the Bible’s “vav” in
“v’hanotar” to teach the halakhah (found in Sifra) that the flesh of the votive or
freewill sacrifice may be eaten on the second day after it is offered only if it is left by

3
 chance. His interpretation is unlikely. First, our targumist is literal and nothing should
be read from a literal rendering that does not differ from the verse. Second, he also
preserves the “vav” in the Genesis verse cited by Rashi without this or any other
halakhic implication. Third, he does not retain a “vav” or any other letter elsewhere
for this or a similar purpose. Fourth, it is difficult to see how the single letter could
imply the Sifra teaching; Nachmanides, who mentions the teaching, does not base it
on the “vav”. Finally it is possible that our targumist simply felt, like ibn Ezra, S.R.
Hirsch (The Pentateuch: Leviticus, page 205), and others that the “vav” was not
superfluous.

The next example will show how the targumist differs from almost all translators
who base their translation on the rabbinical halakhic understanding of passages, but
not the literal meaning of the words. It shows how the targumist does not place
halakhah in his translation. In 7:30 (pages 48 and 49), the Torah informs us concerning
the shelamim, “in his own hands he shall bring the sacrifice . . . that the breast l’hanif
otah tenufah (may be waved for a wave offering) before the Lord.” That is the way
almost all translators translate the verb lehanif and the noun tenufah. But our translator
has “presented as a presentation,” literally “lift up as a lifting.” We explain the targumic
wording in our commentary on Exodus 29:24, where these terms first appear:
The biblical “veheinafta otam tenufah” may be translated in different ways. Rashi
here and on verse 27, ibn Ezra on verse 27, and the Babylonian Talmud (Menachot
62a) define “heinif” as “moving back and forth horizontally.” But the verb may also
mean “lift up,” as in 20:22, and Onkelos translates it so in this verse; literally, “lift it
as a lifting.”

Our appendix on page 294 in Exodus on this verse elaborates:

Rashi to Exodus 29:24 and 27, ibn Ezra to 29:27, Luzzatto (Commentary, page 403),
and the Babylonian Talmud, Menachot 62a, state the halakhah that “heinif” is a
horizontal movement back and forth, while “herim” is a vertical going up and down.
Actually, halakhah aside, “heinif” also means “lift up,” and Onkelos renders it so. The
verb “heinif” is related to the noun “nof,” “height,” “elevation,” “bough of a tree,”
and “landscape.” Exodus 20:22’s “ki charbecha heinafta” is translated by everyone as
“for you lifted your tool.” Similarly, the Babylonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah 24b’s
“hatenufi” means “ascend.” G.R. Driver (“Three Technical Terms in the Pentateuch,”
pages 100-105) denied that there is a biblical distinction between “terumah” and
“heinif.” J. Milgrom (“The Leg of the Contribution,” pages 1-11; “The Alleged Wave-
Offering in Israel and in the Ancient Near East,” pages 33–38) identified “terumah” as
the first stage in giving something to God, and said that not all objects went through
the higher “heinif” phase. Ehrlich (Mikra, page 194) recognizes “huram” and
“terumah” as important objects, as in I Samuel 9:24, and asserts that “heinif” is a gift
of greater quality. The modern explanations, seeing little or no distinction between
the terms, may reflect our targumist’s refusal to differentiate them.

4
ADDITIONAL DISCUSSIONS

ON ONKELOS

We offered our opinion concerning Onkelos’ relationship with halakhah based on

our research, our examination of more than a thousand verses, and after analyzing the
views and especially the reasoning of other scholars. But who should you believe? Most
Torah students are unwilling to spend the time it takes to examine all of the opinions
and all of the verses. That is understandable. What do you think about this issue?

GENERAL DISCUSSION

This above-mentioned problem of reading ideas into ancient statements exists with
the entire halakhic process, both ritualistic and social. It is much like the American legal
system that has expanded geometrically over the past two hundred years. American
federal law is based on the constitution, but it must be interpreted and reinterpreted to
guide the legal process. The constitution of the United States is a relatively small
document, while books on constitutional law fill a large library. Scholars and jurists
differ in how they think laws should be decided. The Torah is a sacred document. Many
of its interpretations are clearly based on biblical language. Others emerged from the
exegetical process. In traditional Judaism, both are binding. What is called the “Oral
Law,” contained in the multitude of rabbinic writings, far exceeds the Torah upon which
they are based. Yet, every page of the Talmud is filled with dispute concerning the law.
How do we cope with this problem of different opinions? How do we decide whose
opinion we will follow? Does the process seem chaotic to you?

FOR FURTHER STUDY

1. See 6:8 and commentary, “FROM IT” (page 39). The Targum changes genders of
Scripture’s words for consistency.

2. See 6:20 and commentary, “SPRINKLES . . . SPRINKLES” (page 41, continuing on page
40), and the appendix (page 293). The targumist changes a passive verb in the biblical
Hebrew to an active verb, as he often does, yet an attempt is made to derive a halakhah
from it.

3. See 7:17 and commentary, “A REJECTED THING” (page 44). What is the definition of an
offering that is called pigul in the Torah? Is it “defective,” “disgusting,” “revoked,” or
“rejected”?