Not to be Translated in PublicMICHAEL L.

KLEIN HEBREW UNION COLLEGE

Introduction
T he subject of 'forbidden targumim' has been discussed periodically, in Tpapers devoted to the specific topic, as well as in more general studies of the relationship between the targumim and other rabbinic literature.' The point of departure of these studies has understandably been the lists contained in the Tannaitic sources and the discussion of those lists in the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmuds. Much effort has been expended in trying to establish a 'correct version' of the lists, in identifying the passages in question, and in search of a rationale for each of the particular forbidden items. As readily observed, there is almost complete unanimity among the rabbinic lists regarding the passages in the Pentateuch that 'may be read, but not translated', rrin prm rnp The Mishnah (Meg. 4:10), Tosefta (Meg. 4:35 ff.), and the later Talmudic sources2 all agree that the 'Story of Reuben' (Gen. 35:22) and the 'second account of the [golden] calf' (Exod. 32:21-35) fall into this category. The only other Pentateuchal passage assigned to this group is 'the priestly blessing' (Num. 6:24-26), according to the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmuds (bMeg. 25b; pMeg. 75c). But this seems to be based upon a compounded error. J. Heinemann has argued rather convincingly that the statement regarding the 'priestly blessing' was not originally related to the weekly Torah reading or its rendition into an Aramaic Targum. Rather, its context was the priestly 'raising of the hands'

Onkelos, Zweiter Theil (Berlin, 1884), pp. 217-18; M. Ginsburger, 'Verbotene Thargumim', Monatschrifi far Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthwns 44 (1900), 1-7; M. McNamara, 'Some Early Rabbinic Citations and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch', Rivista degli Studi Orientali 41 (1966), 1-15; and The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch [Analecta Biblica 27, 27a] Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1966, 1978, pp. 46-9, 292; J. Heinemann, 'The Priestly Blessing ... is Not Read', Bar-llan 6 (1968), 33-41 (in Hebrew; English synopsis on p. xiii); P. S. Alexander, 'The Rabbinic Lists of Forbidden Targumim', JJS 27 (1976), 177-91.
2

I E.g. A. Geiger, Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel (Breslau, 1857), pp. 367-70 (=rn'lnril ipnn Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1949, 1972, pp. 237-8); A. Berliner, Targum

bMegillah 25b; pMegillah 75c; and mSoferim 9:9, 10.

NOT TO BE TRANSLATED IN PUBLIC

81

to bless the people in the synagogue, during which the priests were to recite the blessing by heart, and not read it from a written text, Z)X-lpj X'.3 It was only due to the formulary similarity with rulings related to the public reading of the Torah, t3rinm tr,pa anrN xKl lnpi ,ririn xKi kip1 X', that the law regarding the priestly blessing was at a very early period compiled in the same Mishnah, and received the added phrase rninnz .4'i The logic seems to have been that if it may not be read in the original Hebrew, then surely it is not to be translated into Aramaic. The later Amoraic statements are, then, an attempt at 'correction': it was unreasonable for an innocuous, or even benedictory passage to be omitted from the public reading. The statement was therefore altered to 'may be read, but not translated', wnp1 trnn 2eh Thus evolved the various contradictory and inexplicable rulings regarding the reading and translating of the priestly blessing. This being the case, there remain only the two above-mentioned Pentateuchal passages, the story of Reuben and the second account of the golden calf, that according to the Tannaitic sources were to be 'read but not translated' in the synagogue. In contrast to the general agreement found among the rabbinic lists, we are confronted with quite a lot of variance in the extant manuscripts of the targumim of the Pentateuch. As noted by P. S. Alexander for the Palestinian Targum according to MS Neofiti 1, this goes far beyond the two or three passages in the rabbinic lists.4 Likewise, as already pointed out by A. Berliner over a century ago,5 there are Masoretic notes to Onqelos which indicate that certain verses of targum are not to be recited in the public synagogal services. These, too, are not limited to the passages indicated in the rabbinic lists. In fact, the avoidance of written translation in targumic manuscripts and the instructional notes against reciting certain passages in public worship are much more widespread than has previously been recorded. It is these two phenomena that I should like to describe and explain in the remainder of the present article.

See n. 1, Heinemann. See n. 1, Alexander. I A. Berliner, Die Massorah zum Onkelos (Berlin, 1875), p. 20 (=Leipzig, 1877, pp. 59, 84). See also S. Landauer, Die Masorah zum Onkelos (Amsterdam, 1896; reprinted Jerusalem, Makor, 1971), individual notes on pp. 25, 156.

3 4

82

JOURNAL OF JEWISH STUDIES

1. Gen. 35:22-The Story of Reuben* 'And Reuben went and lay with Bilhah, his father's concubine.' MT lm K,r'mm t= 11176 n[Iv r lim'lJn O ed [var] 11 1f51Ml 7 X113 nr : [oY] M'AM 7lWIM1 1Y O B-K A3mg -7 1v 2PY-2a pUri- In XR -1:: 3riNnn X12 X-V t 1pt H'I'TO m;llr' PsJ n: K3 n' :2:21 13eN- ~tXl XY%nnP

Neof Neof gl I (!) Neof gl M FT V(L)

*vX mrrnx nxen xy= :1 In wynv *,xn =v7 nz"l nn: n 7MIXImle lnax M:l7' nm
mi-nnD Izrm:(ru: MNlD nln: nm nztm) Inim1

~lt

As mentioned above, the 'Story of Reuben' is the first of the passages cited in the rabbinic lists as 'to be read but not translated'. This ruling is reflected in all of the extant Palestinian targumim in varying degrees. The basic text of Neofiti has retained the verb nnri in Hebrew. This is extended in the interlinear and marginal glosses to additional words and to the entire forbidden phrase. The Fragment-Targum V, which usually begins each verse with a one- or two-word Hebrew lemma, writes out the Hebrew passage in full; and, together with FT(L), adds the words 'not to be translated'. And Pseudo-Jonathan presents a midrashic paraphrase:
And Reuben went and confounded the bed of Bilhah, his father's concubine, which was opposite the bed of Leah his mother; and that was considered as though he had lain with her.
*

Abbreviations: Cairo Geniza, according to M. L. Klein, Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (Cincinnati: HUC Press, 1986) (manuscripts noted by Sigla). Fragment-Targum (MSS Paris/Vatican/Leipzig), according to M. L. Klein, The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch [Analecta Biblica 76] (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980). Masoretic Text, Hebrew Bible. MS Vatican Neofiti 1, according to A. Diez Macho, Neophyti I (Madrid and Barcelona: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1968-78). Interlinear and marginal glosses in MS Vatican Neofiti 1. Onqelos according to A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic I (Leiden: Brill,
1959).

CG
FT P/V/L MT Neof

Neof gl I/M O ed
O B-K/BM/Vat

PsJ

Onqelos according to MSS Budapest-Kaufmann Collection / British Museum / Vatican Library. Pseudo-Jonathan according to E. G. Clarke, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch (Hoboken, N.J.: Ktav, 1984); and D. Rieder, PseudoJonathan: Targum Jonathan ben Uziel on the Pentateuch (Jerusalem: Salamon's, 1974).

NOT TO BE TRANSLATED IN PUBLIC

83

All the Onqelos texts contain a literal translation of the entire verse. This is characteristic of Onqelos, as we shall see in the following examples. In MS Budapest-Kaufmann A3,6 we find a Masoretic footnote, in Hebrew, indicating that the first half of the verse is 'not to be translated in public', even though it appears in the written text. This corresponds to Masoretic notes cited by Berliner as Kt-fns rrmn xt. We will return to explain this phenomenon in the course of surveying additional examples in this and other manuscripts.
2. Gen. 49:4-Reference to the Story of Reuben 'For you mounted your father's bed; you brought disgrace-my couch he mounted!' MT n'76 wrIr nx n 1itI V?2=73 n bV:

0
O Vat 448 mg

2 rnm i,nx ,mnv Dn:1w2nx xrp

n,

nprc o-t

O B-K A3 mg PsJ

Neof, FT(V) CG Z

[X]ill'Y [Dl] 'n X' c'7Z nD ninn o 2ri x 1 ti i?n f rmv-r xm'nxnt y *v n:lwrimX rn 7-rv 91 mm nwy 1~ risy pbDn -ii-v xn ::nnTX l MX 2ZVn n bY'n n* Yls n ixn j['2 2=73] xr7s '

Here, as in Gen. 35:22, all the Palestinian targumim present the Hebrew text without any translation, while PsJ resorts to the euphemistic paraphrases 'as though' and 'confounding the bed'. Again, whereas the body of Onqelos remains literal, we find marginal notes in two manuscripts indicating that the written targum is not to be recited in public. In MS Vatican Ebr. 448, which is recognized as the best representative of the Babylonian tradition of Onqelos, the note is in the black ink of the original

hand.7 Whereas the Mishnah does not identify 'the Story of Reuben', the Tosefta and the Babylonian Talmud clearly do:
6 This is a mid-nineteenth century Yemenite trilingual text, with the standard Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic versions, verse by verse. It contains only occasional marginal notes. (Film no. 2812,.at the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts, of the Jewish National and University Library.) I This manuscript was published in facsimile by A. Diez Macho (Jerusalem, Makor, 1977), and is described in the Introduction (in Hebrew; summarized in English). It dates to the eleventh century and contains an early Babylonian vocalization in addition to the superimposed Tiberian pointings. A preliminary edition of the Masoretic notes to Onkelos in this manuscript was published by L. Diez Merino, 'The Targumic Masora of the Vat. Ebr. 448', Estudios Masoreticos (V Congreso de la IOMS), ed. E. Fernandez Tejero (Madrid: CSIC, 1983).

84

JOURNAL OF JEWISH STUDIES

9 x-ilKN 1:== K-:p1 voyo sN b 73 run -n nwYn onrine Kx>i pixi .rNnZ nx Xzv2 InJmKi 1TWl 'x Wnlvnp nm1 -i7Zow W'lf 'l, Ilrm?111

The Story of Reuben is to be read but not translated. It once happened that R. Hanania b. Gamliel stood up and read in Kabul, 'And Reuben went and lay with Bilhah ... and the sons of Jacob were twelve in number'; and he said to the meturgeman, 'translate only the latter part'. (tMeg. 4:35)

and:

mrnn br=: lrnv Kw~ DI min: n :ni rivni mi-nri xb1 KNpi IniKN mvyn nommn lim KN1i xsK mI-irr "K (pown) 78nrnnns 1* -iK1 sKn Trrn pzv .C3 2Dnt r1ilm rpNl
The Story of Reuben is to be read but not translated. It once happened that R. Hanina b. Gamliel went to Kabul, and the hazzan of the Synagogue was reading, 'And when Israel dwelt ...', and he said to the meturgeman, 'translate only the latter part'; and the rabbis praised him for it. (bMeg. 25b) Thus, although the rabbinic restriction seems originally to have been intended for Gen. 35:22, it was applied by the meturgemanim, or by those religious authorities who later instructed them in their art, to Gen. 49:4 as

well. Another biblical allusion to the story of Reuben is found in I Chr. 5:1, '... and when he defiled his father's bed ...':
MT

Tg

... nmxw7 K1xmr* p, -iD rrnzvrrp m'nlobnxw

... 1m2x'ir Y5

nnl_

This targum makes no attempt to ameliorate the story. In fact, it amplifies it by adding the verb p", which is the literal translation of n'*i, by association with rft' 'rs' in Gen. 49. However, since the Book of Chronicles was not read in the synagogue, its translator was not restricted by the rabbinic lists.
3. Exod. 12:33-The Death of the Egyptian First-Born '... for they said, "We shall all be dead"' MT
O

rvx wnnvz U ln
X71n 1,m r NllD8 nimi
-

-NK

O Vat 448 mg
PsJ

Neof, FT (P,V) CG AA

[-rnn wrn-smY rn"m K xls1z K!, . . . . rvox t3in rn-"n T"'r KwIs 'n MU ... fl?D DmlIN rnm 7iV? 18DK Dlbt

Here, there is no longer unanimity among the Palestinian targumim.

NOT TO BE TRANSLATED IN PUBLIC

85

Genizah MS AA is aligned with Onqelos and PsJ in presenting a literal translation, in contrast to Neofiti and the Fragment-Targums, which substitute 'all the Egyptians shall be dead' for 'we shall all be dead'. Were it not for the marginal note in Onqelos according to MS Vat Ebr 448, one would hardly have suspected that the paraphrase in the Palestinian targumim came to avoid the public translation of an offensive verse. After all, according to the Tosefta and the Babylonian Talmud, the 'admonitions and punishments' (Lev. 26:14 ff.) as well as the 'blessings and curses' (Num. 27:12 ff.), which are explicitly directed at Israel, may be 'read and translated'. In the present verse, the referent of the pronoun 'we' is clearly the Egyptians. That clarity is reinforced by the lengthy expansion in Neofiti and the Fragment-Targums: '... for they / the Egyptians said, If the Israelites remain here another moment ...'. And yet, the fear of expressing the words 'we shall all be dead', even when quoting the ancient Egyptians, was enough to prevent its translation in the synagogue. Once again, what is found as a directive note to the meturgeman in the relatively literal Onqelos (MS Vat 448) is incorporated into the body of the more paraphrastic Palestinian targumim.
4. Exod. 17:11-The Battle with Amalek '... and when he (Moses) let down his hands Amalek prevailed'

-ins yrr rinr tn jv'v o ip'ny rimU r'1211 nrr nlr -D O BM 2363 mg8 7-In5 O Vat 448 mg [Xtfl]:2 [Dri]7:in-13nn
MT
Masorah Onqelos9 Leningrad Antonin Ebr. III B 82 PsJ
Z Ina Ply [nifr rxtn:'s [inPiNr r lmzZ,Tz

77n r-ninmm x,bosnx

Neof, FT (P,V)
CG AA

rt7m

r-

z 1r nrpin

7p

In: n8r n3n nin -nr

'rr y n - z

r,D:n rln

e:n-p -rrt'in / mm-inn ' Pn PVz7T flT ;l7 J?z Yn17 VTTflTI T1Z

n1nnIfl

Onqelos and PsJ present a literal translation of the temporary victory of Amalek over Israel. The Masorah to Onqelos indicates that this embarrassing translation is not to be recited in public. The word r:nin 'prevailed', is
s This is one of the basic manuscripts in Sperber's edition. This Genizah manuscript was published by G. E. Weil, 'La Massorah Magna du Targum du Pentateuque', Textus 4 (1964), 30-54.
9

86

JOURNAL OF JEWISH STUDIES

to be replaced by r3m, 'was defeated / broken', by the deletion of a single letter, gimmel, for the synagogal reading. All the Palestinian targumim alter the body of the written targum text. Whereas the change is thorough-going in the Genizah manuscript, 'those of the house of Amalek were defeated, and fell by the sword', the change in Neofiti and in the Fragment-Targums is only partial. These versions add the words, 'and fell by the sword / in battle', to the end of the sentence, but leave the original 'prevailed' in place, thus producing a self-contradictory text. Perhaps 7i-=zn is a secondary scribal 'correction', under the influence of the Hebrew MT and the immediately preceding and parallel phrase '13 'xntr, which is universally translated 'krlr rnmm.

5. Exod. 20:23/26-Laws of the Altar 'Do not ascend My altar by steps, that your nakedness be not exposed upon it.' MT X"7 pm:w nn x,
.

PsJ

'm

-y v,?,nn,n x2th

Neof, FT(V)
Neof gl CG F CG FF

In-7lnyn$Imn X$'n '37 X$m xl( * rist Irrivr6nm 2t$ netk rn*]y7PDP-1V r

This is an example of a verse that is not included in the rabbinic lists of forbidden targumim, nor for which there are any known Masoretic notes to Onqelos indicating that the offensive phrase is not to be translated in public. Yet two written sources of the Palestinian targum felt it unseemly to suggest, in the vernacular, the possibility of the priests' nakedness being exposed upon the altar. This might reflect a hyper-sensitivity to the phrase mng i1'1 (= rnmn .1'), which in most other contexts denotes adulterous and incestuous relations. Probably the most important implication of the present example is that the principle, 'not to be translated in public', having been established, its application by pious meturgemanim or copyists could be extended far beyond the few verses cited in the rabbinic lists. 6. Exod. 32-The Accounts of the Golden Calf The Mishnah (Meg. 4:10) states: 131-nM X'1 M-11-7 VVIIl EWnMI M-11-P prtVX1,n '1Y nts17Y
the first account of the calf may be read and translated; the second may be read but not translated.

NOT TO BE TRANSLATED IN PUBLIC

87

The Tosefta and both Talmuds try to define the 'first' and 'second' accounts
as follows:

Tosefta (Meg. 4:36) nmnn 'D myn cyn 1~nVY rin 7-nnxI m nrnn -nmx :wn 1IY nvntY In l?Xl FIX FITZ l WV1 ,Irnx Ki 'n ln Y18 mmn Ift m1yl 'p rV nx TinnD x -DYn m 'nn l= -'3 IVx iyn nimx .vInvx ... and this is the second story of the calf: 'And Moses said to Aaron, What did this people do to you that you have brought such great sin upon them?' (v. 21); 'Moses saw that the people were out of control-since Aaron had let them out of control-so that they were derision to any who might oppose them' (v. 25). And another verse '... the calf that Aaron made' (v. 35). While it is possible that according to the Tosefta only three verses (21, 25, 35) from the second account are not to be translated, it may also be that verses 21-25 are intended, plus the additional verse 35. Palestinian Talmud (Meg. 75c)
aill' ,nrlbtgliln In tnr xnx
Y-1 D*ry 7-n m nInx -[Inn v nnlwnr: : or: n2* INNZ172: 12 In X -IX '1 .fllXi TI* 'M-P13vI 720 Inn -?1=1 ~IVnv1 XInv nv * : nri l nnx ID n n nxri =vn:nv nsnv zinp=> nr ncxIyn 7r nx IVY ncx sy xnY n, 'n xM721 x: .7--nvy vb

What constitutes the second account of the calf? R. Simon says in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi, from the response of Moses to Aaron (v. 21) to '... since Aaron had let them out of control ...' (v. 25). Hananiah b. Shalmeh says in the name of Rav, from Aaron's response to Moses (v. 22) to 'since Aaron had let them out of control ...' (v. 25). R. Aha says in the name of R. Ba', 'And the Lord smote the people (in Aramaic), for making (prh. worshipping) the calf that Aaron made' (in Hebrew; v. 35). It may be that R. Aha merely adds to Hananiah, in which case the two views of the Palestinian Talmud are verses 21-25, 35 or 22-25, 35.

Babylonian Talmud (Meg. 25b) -1121x -17VX In V-n x"n n71= x-1-

IMIMnx 18IPD 7nVIN

7=11=

*z IbY nM= n,rx 1Y nr1= 'MRx1 131V INz :X-M xn:nVb JTVV 11=11=1"Mn

What is the second account of the calf? From 'And Moses said' (v. 21) to 'And Moses saw' (v. 25). R. Shimon b. Elazar says, A person should always be careful with his answers, for from the answer of Aaron to Moses the sceptics / heretics broke away, as it says, 'I cast it into the fire and out came this calf' (v. 24). In the view of the Babylonian Talmud only verses 21-25 are not to be translated-with perhaps special emphasis on verse 24. The printed editions of Onqelos give no indication of targumic limitations, and produce the

88

JOURNAL OF JEWISH STUDIES

Aramaic texts in full. In contrast, the manuscripts of Onqelos, the Masorah to Onqelos, and the Palestinian targumim reflect the rabbinic rulings in varying degrees, though differing from one another no less than they differ from the rabbinic lists. O Vat 448 verses 22-25, 30-35. In all these ten verses we find supra-linear abbreviated notes in a tiny script above the first words that are not to be translated in public. The notes read sv nn X, ,2 ?a ' and : o: b (= x' wn= riznn). The selection of verses 22-25 is in agreement with Hananiah b. Shalmeh of the Palestinian Talmud, and verse 35 corresponds with views in the Tosefta and the Palestinian Talmud. However, as we have seen, in none of the lists are verses 30-34 included in the prohibition. O B-K A3 verses 21-25, 35. A marginal note at verse 21 (fol. 462 ='0) 9x 0'pio nw?rn, 'These five verses are read, reads: 0vli5i 'rinn zb6 oo- 1p but not translated in public'; a note at verse 26 reads: ou5: owonn 1eor 'from here on may be translated in public'; and a further note at verse 35 reads: 0li5: ozonn XrlI0pll oorl vil, 'this verse is read but not translated in public'. This is in perfect agreement with the Tosefta and the first opinion in the Palestinian Talmud. Masorah to Onqelos. In his work Die Massorah zum Targum Onkelos, A. Berliner lists the verses in Exod. 32 for which there are Masoretic notes X' 2-ln5 r1zlon"139 'bei offentlicher Vorlesung nicht zu iibersetzen'.'I These are Exod. 32:22, 30, 32, 35, which, obviously, do not coincide with the rabbinic lists, nor with the extant targumic manuscripts. Most enlightening, however, is the Masoretic note in a fragment from the Cairo Genizah, published by G. E. Weil." At Exod. 32:22 we find the note: rini 'D Y runn 'p'mDm, K 'for those verses which are not translated in public there is [nevertheless written] targum'. This will explain why, as we have seen throughout, the Onqelos manuscripts contain a full and literal Aramaic translation of the forbidden passages.'2 For whereas these offensive passages were not to be recited in translation during public synagogal worship, they were indeed written in the manuscripts. Likewise, they were studied in the schools, as indicated in the Tosefta (Meg. 4:38): rlrno i7z*t nwo'm%, 'But the scribe (or schoolmaster) teaches according to his usual practice' [tr. apud Alexander]. Pseudo-Jonathan. There are no indications regarding the public reading in the only extant manuscript of Pseudo-Jonathan (Br. Mus. Add. 27031), nor in the editio princeps of this targum (Venice, 1590). All that one finds in Pseudo-Jonathan is a characteristic midrashic expansion, which in several verses neutralizes the objectionable phrase. For example, verse 22, nrrv rnnr

!m -rr 0 r p pr1vuxr x'mri

e1mT -n: oim oni, 'you know that this people is bent on evil', is translated:
nn

NK nr7r ':, you know that they

0 Seen. 5, above. 1 See n. 9, above; and particularly p. 45 in Weil's article. 12 Cf. R. Le Deaut, Introduction a la litterature targumique (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1966), p. 39, n. 3; and P. S. Alexander (n. 1, above), p. 187.

NOT TO BE TRANSLATED IN PUBLIC

89

are the descendants of righteous men, but an evil impulse has led them astray'. Or, the theologically problematic phrase in verse 24, vtn vm* ntn 1I9; x3n, I cast it into the fire, and out came this calf.', is rendered in Pseudo-Jonathan: rmn xwrY ma-Trrm Dpml nim= XwO XY1, W33 prr,l, 'I cast it in the fire, and Satan entered into it, and out came this figure of a calf'. Yet some of the forbidden phrases survive in Pseudo-Jonathan, without any notation that they are not to be read in public. Neofiti. Unlike all the other extant targumim and as already pointed out by A. Diez Macho,13 Neofiti leaves certain offensive passages untranslated, in Hebrew, throughout both accounts of the golden calf. The verses affected are 1, 4, 8, 19, 20 (entire verse), 23, 24, 31, 35. This selection differs from that of all the rabbinic lists and of all the other targumic sources. On the one hand, it includes verses from the first account and verse 31; on the other hand, it excludes verses 21, 22 and 25 that are in most of the lists. There is, however, logic to the selection of verses in Neofiti. This targum has carefully refrained from translating the verb nsV, 'to make', in the context of the golden calf or a substitute god:
;1n

~IY Invy i

(4)

inDo IY cnn IVY (8) i 1IR iX lYn (20)

and In addition, it avoids translating the dangerous description of how the calf emerged in verse 24: nmn 1Ivn XrY iu In*xl, and the sight of its worship that confronted Moses: nrlnwi ',vn nx wrl (19). These hardly seem to be the haphazard vestiges of a broader prohibition, but rather an intentional and original application of the principle, 'the account of the golden calf is read but not translated'.14 The glosses in MS Neofiti contain additional notes and untranslated Hebrew phrases. Thus at verse I we find the marginal note 131izn XK1 Wtjp,; and at verse 4, an extension of the Hebrew description of how the calf was made: wnmn mix n3 l rn npi, 'and he took it from them and cast it in a mould'. In one instance the interlinear gloss provides the Aramaic translation for a phrase retained in Hebrew in the body of Neofiti: pn'l I t'm anr *ntx for Neofiti anT -*nx cnn 1I7' (verse 31). The fact that this is the only verse in the second account, among those not translated in Neofiti, that is not included in the rabbinic lists might explain why it is only in this instance that the gloss provides an Aramaic rendition. The Fragment-Targums. Verse 25 is the only verse contained in the
13 Neophyti 1, vol. II (Madrid and Barcelona, 1970), p. 209, critical apparatus to Exod. 32: 1, 'haec prohibitio non habetur in Misna, Megillah 4,10 pro Ex 32, 1-20'. 14 Contrast Alexander (n. 1, above), p. 188.

Dlnbx 1Us nY (23) :In 'tI,K ivry (31) .lIyn nx 1VY nIx (35)

90

JOURNAL OF JEWISH STUDIES

rabbinic lists that is preserved in any of the Fragment-Targums. However, both recensional families of the Fragment-Targums share in a common midrashic expansion with Pseudo-Jonathan and Neofiti, which tones down the offensive words. This is similar to the other expansions in PseudoJonathan cited above: MT Irrvpi mwntv 7InN ny0n 'n Hin Y-ID ' mm r m e1Moses saw that the people were out of control-since Aaron had let them out of control-so that they were derision to any who might oppose them. FT(P) mnrr xann-i X :Iin Dmrc pint rirY^ Dnri tt n nvn nrl m i v -r n nzmnn xYn b viDn mnv mnin [SYi] p,pn p-mr-n rl?1 prr

And Moses saw that the people were dishevelled, for they had removed the golden crowns that were on their heads, upon which the explicit name [of God] was incised. And because they did not heed the words of Moses, they acquired a bad reputation for generations. Exodus 32, with the accounts of the golden calf, is the pentateuchal passage most extensively discussed in rabbinic literature in the context of forbidden targumim. In spite of the variance of opinion in the identification of the particular forbidden verses, the general pattern observed in the extant targumic sources is not significantly different from that in the other passages that we have observed. Onqelos is literal in its basic text, but has restrictive notes in its margins. Pseudo-Jonathan circumvents the problem by midrashic expansion of the verses in question. And the Palestinian Targum (Neofiti and its glosses) applies the rule, 'not to be translated', to the body of its written text.
7. Num. 6:24-26-The Priestly Blessings As already indicated at the outset, this third and last passage of the rabbinic lists is probably the result of a very early recensional error. Nevertheless, having entered the Mishnah dealing with forbidden targumim, its prohibition became authoritative. And although the ruling remained inexplicable to the rabbis of the Talmud, it had a widespread effect on targumic tradition as reflected in surviving manuscripts. The manuscripts and early printed editions of Onqelos cited in Sperber's Bible in Aramaic are divided almost equally. Some translate the blessings, while others preserve them only in Hebrew. To this latter group, which is influenced by the Mishnah, we may add MS Vat 448, the most important among the numerous sources not cited in Sperber's work. Pseudo-Jonathan in the manuscript and in the first edition contains both the Hebrew and the Aramaic for each of the three verses. This is unusual on several counts. (1) The manuscript usually contains no Hebrew text at all. (2) The editio princeps contains a full Hebrew text (and Onqelos) on facing pages; the

NOT TO BE TRANSLATED IN PUBLIC

91

Hebrew in Pseudo-Jonathan is therefore duplicative and redundant. (3) The Aramaic translation in Pseudo-Jonathan is midrashic and expansive, a feature that is itself considered sufficient in the other cases of forbidden passages. The only manuscript of Palestinian Targum in which the Priestly Blessings appear is Neofiti, which conforms with the Mishnaic ruling and presents the three verses in Hebrew only.
Conclusion The rabbinic ruling prohibiting the public translation of a certain two particularly offensive passages (the story of Reuben and the second account of the golden calf) during the synagogal Torah-reading was in the course of time extended both in nature and scope. In the redactional stage of the Mishnah, the Priestly Blessings were mistakenly subsumed under this prohibition. The restrictive ruling was further extended in the various Palestinian targumim to additional passages deemed offensive or embarrassing, such as a reference to the story of Reuben, the temporary superiority of Amalek over Israel, the unseemly nakedness of priests on the altar, the first account of the golden calf, and the potentially dangerous statement, 'we shall all be dead', which it was perhaps popularly feared might indeed evoke such a curse. Likewise, the nature of the ruling was variously interpreted and applied. In the Onqelos manuscripts the Aramaic translation was usually written out in full. The prohibition was interpreted as applying to the public reading only. Marginal glosses and Masoretic notes were often appended, in order to alert the synagogal reader to a phrase or verse not to be translated in public: x-nnn: oinri t6. On the other hand, the Palestinian targumim for the most part applied the restrictive ruling to the written manuscripts as well. Thus, whatever verses are included in the prohibition appear in these texts in Hebrew, without Aramaic rendering at all.