[JAB 1 (1999) 249-272]

The Rabbinic Reception of Early Bible

Translations as Holy Writings and Oral
Torah∗

Willem F. Smelik

University College London

Rabbinic views on Bible translations vary according to provenance and

period. These differences can be related to the opposition to trans-
lations among some Palestinian Rabbis, the Rabbinic programme to
promulgate the Targums as Oral Torah and to the standardization
of Aramaic translations in Babylonia. In this article I will single out
the second issue—when, how and why the Rabbis were promoting the
cause of Targums as Oral Torah.
It has always been taken for granted that the Rabbis considered
the Aramaic translations to be part and parcel of the Oral Torah.
There is indeed a lot to say in favour of this opinion. For example,
Pes. R. 5.1 and Tanh.. aryw 6 explicitly apply the status of Oral Torah
to the Targum. Nonetheless, on closer investigation this position has
weak points. The traditional view has been attributed only to fourth-
century Amoraim, not to earlier ones,1 suggesting that earlier Rabbis
may have held different views on the status of Bible translations. If any
development in their stance on early Bible translations can be made
to look plausible, the reception history of targumic literature would
have to be revised. How to apply this history to our extant Targums,
interesting as this question is, will not concern us at this moment.
My present purpose is to disclose Rabbinic views on the status of the
∗
This article is based on a paper for a meeting of the Dutch Association for Jew-
ish Studies, held on January 21, 1999 in Utrecht, the Netherlands. I take pleasure
in thanking P.S. Alexander, R.P. Gordon and L. Teugels for their useful comments
on this paper.
1
Cf. H. Sysling, Teh.iyyat Ha-Metim: The Resurrection of the Dead in the Pales-
tinian Targums of the Pentateuch and Parallel Traditions in Classical Rabbinic
Literature (TSAJ, 57; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1996), pp. 21-23.
2 Journal for the Aramaic Bible 1 (1999)

Targums. First, I will briefly review the reasons for the common view,
discussing the status of early Bible translations as Oral Torah; then
I will turn to sources that reflect a different state of affairs, adducing
proof for the status of early Bible translations as Holy Writings.

1. Targum as Oral Torah

The issue of translation triggered the attention of the Rabbis, who

were involved in many translational activities. The revisions of the
Old Greek translation by Aquila and Symmachus, and the kernel of
the Babylonian Targums2 stem from the late Tannaitic period. For
them the stakes involved in translating could not have been higher, as
can be illustrated by a famous dictum of R. Judah ben Ilai: ‘R. Judah
says: “Whoever renders a verse literally is a liar; and whoever adds to it
is a blasphemer and a reviler”.’3 At first sight R. Judah’s saying leaves
little room to translate the Scriptures at all.4 Judah denounces both
literal translations and also more free renderings that do not faithfully
reflect the meaning of the Hebrew original and which are, for that
reason, tantamount to blasphemy.
Bible translations now and then tend to usurp the position of the
original text in the experience of their users. When the differences
between the Septuagint and the Hebrew text resulted in attempts at
revision of the Old Greek translation, Philo appealed to divine inspira-
tion in defence of the latter.5 That the danger of independent authority
2
For the wealth of literature on the controversial dating of the Targums, see
B. Grossfeld, A Bibliography of Targum Literature, I-III (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union
College Press, 1973, 1977, 1990). For an exemplary study, see R.P. Gordon, Studies
in the Targum to the Twelve Prophets: From Nahum to Malachi (VT.S, 51; Leiden:
E.J. Brill, 1994).
3
b. Qid. 49a. The same baraita is preserved in t. Meg. 3.41. For the Tosefta,
I quote M.S. Zuckermandel, Tosephta (repr.; Jerusalem: Wahrmann Books, 1963);
the translation is very loosely based on J. Neusner, The Tosefta (New York: KTAV,
1981). Translations of the Hebrew Bible are based on JPS ; for the Mishnah and
Bavli, I have extensively drawn on the Soncino edition; for the Yerushalmi, on the
series by J.C.B. Mohr (Tübingen).
4
So J. Goldin, ‘Reflections on Translation and Midrash’, in idem, Studies in
Midrash and Related Literature (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1988),
pp. 239-52 (242); D.M. Golomb, ‘ “A Liar, A Blasphemer, A Reviler”: The Role of
Biblical Ambiguity in the Palestinian Pentateuchal Targumim’, in P.V.M. Flesher
(ed.), Targum Studies. I. Textual and Contextual Studies in the Pentateuchal Tar-
gums (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), pp. 135-46.
5
S.P. Brock, ‘To Revise or Not to Revise: Attitudes to Jewish Biblical Transla-
tion’, in G.J. Brooke and B. Lindars (eds.), Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writ-
ings: Papers Presented to the International Symposium on the Septuagint and its
 Smelik Rabbinic Reception 3

for a Bible translation was far from hypothetical appears from the ‘dis-
cussion’ in Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho which was, in part,
informed by differences between the Septuagint and the Hebrew text.
Both Justin Martyr and Irenaeus disapproved of revisions of the Sep-
tuagint which undercut their arguments.6 According to the third cen-
tury ce Amora Abbahu, Rabbis in Caesarea focused more intensely
on Bible interpretation than their Babylonian colleagues as a result
of the pluriform society in which Christians, Samaritans, pagans and
Jews lived side by side.7 Concern for both the correct text and correct
interpretation self-evidently called attention to the extant translations
or, possibly, the wording of oral translation. This increased attention
to Bible translations forms the background to Judah’s saying.
Before discussing the actual references to Rabbinic attitudes to
Bible translations, it is useful first to map the Rabbis’ attitudes towards
the status and authoritative promulgation of both the Written and the
Oral Torah. There is no dispute about the unchallengeable status of
the Hebrew Bible in its bare, unpointed form, which was considered to
be a sacred, immutable, God-given text. To a great extent its text was
conceived of as a code to be interpreted by its receptors. The appropri-
ation, interpretation and application of this code had been entrusted
to the Sages, who enjoyed a relatively large degree of autonomy in their
interpretative efforts. According to well-known stories, even God was
listening to the Sages for illumination, not only of halakhic matters,
but even of historical issues.8
The Sages carefully subordinated the practice of Targum to the
recitation of the Hebrew Bible by promulgating the translation as Oral
Torah, to be distinguished from the Written Torah. This is evident
from b. Tem. 14b:

µyrbdh ta ˚l bwtk rmwa dja bwtk lòòrd hynmgrwtm ynmjn rb hdwhy òr çrd
ya hp l[ç µyrbd ˚l rmwl hlah µyrbdh yp l[ yk rmwa dja bwtkw hlah
hp l[ ˆrmwl yaçr hta ya btkbçw btkb ˆrmwal yaçr hta
R. Judah bar Nah.mani, the meturgeman [interpreter] of Resh Laqish,

Relations to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Writings (Manchester, 1990) (Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1992), pp. 301-38.
6
In particular the interpretation of Isa. 7.14. See Justin, Dial. 71.1; cf. 68.7-8;
Irenaeus, Haer. 3.21, 1-3.
7
b. ‘Abod. Zar. 4a; see L.I. Levine, The Rabbinic Class of Roman Palestine in
Late Antiquity (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi; New York: The Jewish Theological
Seminary of America, 1989), p. 87. See now also R. Kalmin, The Sage in Jewish
Society of Late Antiquity (London: Routledge, 1999), pp. 68-74.
8
b. Git.. 6b, as pointed out by M. Fish, Rational Rabbis: Science and Talmudic
Literature (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1997), p. 209 n. 12.
4 Journal for the Aramaic Bible 1 (1999)

expounded: ‘One verse says: “Write for yourself these words” and one
verse says “Orally9 these words” (Exod. 34.37); this tells you that words
which [have been transmitted] orally you are not allowed to read from
writing; and what is in writing you are not allowed to read orally [=by
heart].’10

The principle of distinction, attributed to a meturgeman, between Oral

and Written Torah has also been applied to the Targum.11 The set
of rules relating to the oral performance of the Targum, based on a
plethora of Rabbinic sources, can briefly be synthesized as follows.12
The Rabbinic study of the Torah consisted of Scripture, Targum,
Mishnah and Talmud, in that order.13 In education, the Targums be-
long to the curriculum of the Beth Sefer, to be followed by advanced
studies in the Oral Torah. In the synagogue, the Rabbis carefully de-
fined the rôle of the Targum as playing second fiddle to the Hebrew
scrolls, no matter how closely related to the Hebrew text. In the syn-
agogue, the Targum was not mandatory, but optional. To maintain
the distinction between original and translation, reading and translat-
ing were not to be performed by one and the same person, and specific
rules were formulated for the alternation of reading and translating, the
number of people involved, and even the permitted volume with which
they could speak. The translation had to be preceded by the Hebrew—
verse by verse in the Torah, three by three verses in the Prophets.14
9
Literally, ‘according to’ (yp l[ yk).
10
Par. b. Git.. 60b.
11
Tanh.. aryw 5; Tanh.. Buber aryw 6; Pes. R. 5.1.
12
For a well-balanced discussion, see P.S. Alexander, ‘The Targumim and the
Rabbinic Rules for the Delivery of the Targum’, in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress
Volume Salamanca 1983 (VT.S, 36; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1985), pp. 14-28; S.D.
Fraade, ‘Rabbinic Views on the Practice of Targum’, in L.I. Levine (ed.), The
Galilee in Late Antiquity (New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of Amer-
ica, 1992), pp. 253-86; Sysling, Teh.iyyat Ha-Metim, pp. 21-23.
13
Sifre Deut. 161.
14
A manuscript reflecting the alternation by three verses is ms hébreu 40 (Sor-
bonne 36), Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris (haft.aroth, with the Targum for the fes-
tivals). For each haft.arah, the Hebrew text of the first three verses precedes the
Targum, followed by the remainder of the text in which Hebrew and Aramaic al-
ternate by verse. See also ms no. 282 (Codex Kissingensis) of the former Sassoon
Library, London; but this manuscript alternates Onqelos by three verses with mt.
The manuscript was sold at an auction of Sotheby’s, November 21st, 1978, Zürich;
in 1994 it was in the possession of an antiquarian book dealer in London, Mr Jack
Lunzer (so B. Grossfeld, The Targum Sheni to the Book of Esther: A Critical Edi-
tion Based on MS. Sassoon 282 with Critical Apparatus [New York: Sepher-Hermon
Press, 1994], p. xiii). Many manuscripts preserve the first Hebrew lemma(ta) before
the Aramaic translation, pointing to the original and making the genre of Targum
 Smelik Rabbinic Reception 5

Dividing the Hebrew and Aramaic between two people, the Rabbis also
distinguished their mode of recitation. The reader of the Hebrew was
not allowed to look outside the scroll before him, whereas the transla-
tor had to recite the translation by heart.15 This ruling avoids giving
the impression that the Targum had been written in the Torah. A mi-
nor was not allowed to read the Hebrew, but a minor or a blind person
could translate.
What results is a bilingual text recited by two distinct voices, with
the second voice repeating the first in a different language, simulta-
neously providing a running commentary on the first voice.16 So the
Rabbis strove to bind the Targum to the Hebrew original in both study
and performance and at the same time to maintain their distinct char-
acter as Oral and Written Torah. Both these aims, shaping the Targum
as a running commentary on the Hebrew and maintaining a difference
of voice between the Hebrew and the Aramaic, effectively restrict the
status of the Targum. The Targum functions as the communicative
link between the academy and the synagogue, between the Oral and
the Written Torah.
The need to consider the Targum as Oral Torah is apparently il-
lustrated in a peculiar digression in b. Meg. 18a, attributed to R. Ah.a.
Within a sugya on the practice of translation in the synagogue, this
digression seemingly appears out of the blue. However, if it is con-
ceived as a critical illustration of the plurality of meanings hidden in
the Hebrew text, it becomes highly meaningful in its present co-text.17
In that case, it really supports the distinction between Oral and Writ-
ten Torah, in agreement with the larger discussion in which it is now
embedded. Ah.a offers an interpretation of Gen. 33.20 which describes
how Jacob sets up an altar for God and names this altar El elohe Yis-
rael, ‘God is the God of Israel’. For the Rabbis it was unacceptable to
relate God to an altar in this way, rendering a literal translation of this
verse problematic. Now, according to Ah.a, not the altar was named,
but Jacob himself:

yhla la wl arqyw rmanç la bq[yl hòòbqh warqç ˆynm rz[la ròòa aja ròòaw

a bilingual one (Alexander, ‘Rabbinic Rules’, pp. 14-28). These lemmata render the
Targum into a specific type of commentary.
15
Tanh.. aryw 5.
16
Fraade, ‘Rabbinic Views’, p. 257.
17
Following A. Samely, The Interpretation of Speech in the Pentateuch Targums:
A Study of Method and Presentation in Targumic Exegesis (TSAJ, 27; Tübingen:
J.C.B. Mohr, 1992), p. 4 n. 7, I distinguish the linguistic setting of a text (co-text)
from the non-linguistic setting of that text (context).
6 Journal for the Aramaic Bible 1 (1999)

hyl y[bym bq[y wl arqyw la bq[y hyl arq jbzml ˚t[d aqls yad larçy
larçy yhla la warq ymw la bq[yl wl arqyw ala
R. Ah.a also said: R. Eleazar said: How [do we know] that the Holy One
blessed be He called Jacob God? Because it says, ‘And the God of Israel
called him “God” ’ (Gen. 33.20). If you suppose that Jacob called the
altar ‘God’, then ‘and Jacob called it’ is required.18 But [it is written]:
‘And he called him’, that is Jacob, ‘God’. And who called him ‘God’ ?
‘The God of Israel’.

No extant translation reflects this interpretation. The Targums display

a sensitivity to the dilemma, that no altar may be termed ‘God’, but
each of them adopts a different solution. The only apparent function of
this digression is that the story neatly illustrates the multiple possibili-
ties of interpreting the Hebrew, which are lost in translation. No Greek
translation represents this way of reading, which seems to be the point
of the story at this juncture. The most obvious way to translate would
be: ‘And he called it [the altar]: “God is the God of Israel” ’. By the
same token, the oral tradition allows for a dynamic, pluriformity and
change unachievable by fixed, written traditions.19 To guarantee the vi-
tality of interpretation and appropriation of the Hebrew, no translation
should ever be considered perfect.
Relating the Targums to the Oral Torah on the basis of these and
similar Rabbinic statements has become commonplace, but there is
sufficient reason to reconsider this tendency.20 York has already demon-
strated that Targum occupies the border position between the elemen-
tary instruction in Scripture and the more advanced studies of the
oral tradition.21 The ambiguity of this position is the topic of the final
comment in Sifra Shemini, atçrp 1.9, on Lev. 10.10-11:

twamfh wla rwjfh ˆybw amfh ˆybw ≥µykr[h wla lwjd ˆybw çdwqh ˆyb lydbhlw
òh rça twçrdmh wla µyqwjh lk ta twarwhh wla larçy ynb ta twrwhlw
twrwhlw lòòt µwgrth πa lwky ≥arqm hz hçm dyb twklhh wla µhyla
‘These are the arrangements to distinguish between the holy and the
18
The subject Jacob is absent in the quoted text.
19
Cf. S. Safrai, ‘Oral Tora’, in S. Safrai (ed.), The Literature of the Sages
(CRINT, 2/3; Assen: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), pp. 35-119
(49).
20
The excellent account of Rabbinic practices by Fraade, ‘Rabbinic Views’, pp.
253-87 (256), also suffers from harmonization. In his opinion, Targums were con-
sidered ‘Holy Writings’ and therefore require genizah (m. Šab. 16.1 and parallels),
but they were of lesser status, because they do not defile the hands (m. Yad. 4.5).
I will advance a different interpretation in section 2 below.
21
A.D. York, ‘The Targum in the Synagogue and in the School’, JSJ 10 (1979),
pp. 74-86.
 Smelik Rabbinic Reception 7

profane. And between the unclean and the clean’, these are the unclean
and the clean things. ‘And to instruct the children of Israel’, these are
the decisions; ‘all the rules’, these are the interpretations; ‘that the Lord
gave to them’, these are the laws by Moses, that is Miqra. I may have
thought also the Targum, so Scripture says: ‘to instruct’.

The possibility of relating Targum to Miqra apparently was far from

hypothetical and had to be declined. In fact, the border position be-
tween Written and Oral Torah may well reveal a shift of paradigm,
namely, that the oral status of Targum represents a novelty introduced
and, in the long run, widely accepted after a process of discussion that
is still discernible in the Rabbinic sources. We know that actual prac-
tice often deviated from the Rabbinic ideal,22 but it has not sufficiently
been taken into account that the Rabbinic ideal itself was subject to
change. I will now turn to traces of this process in order to disclose
the position that the Aramaic translations occupied before this devel-
opment was setting in.

2. Targum as Holy Writings

A vital aspect of Rabbinic references to the Targums bears on the use

of Bible translations in the synagogue. Not surprisingly, the Rabbis
almost invariably advance the use of Hebrew, as they understood it
to represent the ‘holy language’ in which the unchangeable Torah had
been given to Israel.23 But Jewish society in the first centuries ce was
multilingual to such an extent that inevitably both Greek and Ara-
maic versions played a prominent, if controversial, part in the service.
Discussing this matter, the Rabbis clearly restricted their use as far as
possible.
In this study I will omit aggadic traditions that possibly reflect
actual practices in conflict with the Rabbinic ideal. Instead, I will fo-
cus on halakhic texts, for it is in them that we may discern the his-
tory of the Rabbinic ideal(s) pertaining to the Targums. In addition,
I will restrict myself to instances that focus on the status of ‘transla-
tion’.24 This status has been most acutely treated in connection with
22
See the previous note and W.F. Smelik, The Targum of Judges (OTS, 36;
Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995), p. 37.
23
Cf. M. Rubin, ‘The Language of Creation or the Primordial Language: A Case
of Cultural Polemics in Antiquity’, JJS 49 (1998), pp. 306-33.
24
The categorization of translation with Scripture, over against ‘laws and rules’,
in y. Ned. 4.3, 38c represents a trace of the earlier status of Bible translations,
without focusing on this categorization.
8 Journal for the Aramaic Bible 1 (1999)

two issues, namely, whether it is permitted to read translations in the

synagogue and whether translations are to be saved from a fire on
the Sabbath. These issues have the advantage of being preserved in
the Mishnah, Tosefta, Yerushalmi and Bavli, increasing the possibility
of tracing a development, if such there is, in Rabbinic reflection on
this topic. To facilitate reading and checking the sources, they will be
quoted at length.25
One of the primary sources for rules on the reciting of the Targums
is tractate Megillah. These discussions focus on the writing of the Bible
in any language other than Hebrew, and on the reciting of that version
in the synagogue service. m. Meg. 2.1 focuses on reading the scroll of
Esther, stating that this text may only be read from a scroll written in
Hebrew, but making a proviso for those who speak another language:

al ˆwçl lkb26 µwgrt harq hp l[ harq ≥axy al [rpml hlgmh ta arwqh

≥axy tyrwça [mçç z[wlhw ≥z[lb twz[wll htwa ˆyrwq lba ≥axy
A. He who reads the scroll [of Esther] backwards has not fulfilled his
obligation.
B. [If] he reads it by heart, [if] he reads it in a translation in any language,
he has not fulfilled his obligation.
C. But they read it in a foreign language to those who speak a foreign
language.
D. Still, he who speaks a foreign language but heard it in Assyrian [=
Hebrew], has fulfilled his obligation.

Reading this mishnah prompts the following question: is it allowed

to read Esther in a foreign language (C) or is it not (B)? Obviously,
(C) appears to modify (B) but only to a certain extent. It is granted
that non-Hebrew versions may be read, but this reading has no bear-
ing on the proper way of reading Esther (D); in other words, the use
of translations is optional but does not fulfil the obligation to read it
in Hebrew. Notwithstanding the practice, translating is nothing but a
gratuitous act on behalf of those who do not understand the Hebrew.
25
The following editions have been used: Ch. Albeck, hnçm yrds hçç, I-VI
(Jerusalem: Bialik, 1952–58); Zuckermandel, Tosephta; supplemented with A. Gold-
berg, tbç tksm hnçml çwryp (Jerusalem: The Jewish Theological Seminary of
America, 1976); ymlçwry dwmlt (Krotoshin: D.B. Monash, 1866); ylbb dwmlt (Wilna:
Romm, 1880–86).
26
Albeck, hnçm yrds hçç, II, p. 359 provides the interpretation: ˆwçl lkb wa,
which is based on the Tosefta and Babylonian Talmud (b. Šab. 115a). This read-
ing reflects the tendency to consider ‘Targum’ as the Aramaic version per se; cf.
W. Bacher, Die exegetische Terminologie der jüdischen Traditionsliteratur, I-II
(repr.; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1965), I, p. 205.
 Smelik Rabbinic Reception 9

A further restriction is introduced in m. Meg. 2.2 concerning the writ-

ten form of Esther: ‘. . . he has not fulfilled his obligations, unless it is
written in Assyrian [script], on a scroll and with ink’.27 Apparently,
the translation had to be performed orally, that is, by heart.28
It is not entirely clear whether the Mishnah precludes any scroll
of Esther that has not been written in Assyrian script. Because the
translation is optional, neither its language nor its script may have to
comply with the ruling. But if we are to understand that this applies
to translations in addition to the Hebrew, apparently we must take the
reference to foreign languages as (1) written in Assyrian script, a con-
dition fulfilled by the Aramaic translations, or (2) an oral translation
from the Hebrew, alongside the Hebrew reading, or (3) as a contradic-
tion that the Mishnah allows to stand as it is. The fact that the Aramaic
script is identical to the Assyrian receives no mention anywhere, and
may possibly be not unconnected with the issue of language: Assyrian
is Hebrew. Among these possibilities, the oral translation seems to be
the most likely one.
Notwithstanding this precarious balance between the Hebrew and
its translations, the Mishnah suggests that different practices were in
vogue earlier on. Apparently the Mishnah settles the optional function
of the translations in a challenge to earlier practices which allowed for a
more prominent place for translations. This interpretation is supported
by the parallel discussion in y. Meg. 2.1, 73a. In this discussion, the ac-
tual existence of written translations is an established fact.29 Without
going into detail, one minority opinion is worthy of note:

ˆwçl lkb ˆyrma ˆna ≥axy µgrtmh wmgrytw dja qwsp fymçhw h[f lawmç ynt
zw[lh òtklyhk hbwtk htyh rma lawmç òr ≥hyt[dk lawmç ≥ˆykh taw axy al
z[lb hb axwy
Samuel taught: ‘If one erred and one left out a verse, but the translator
translated, the listener has fulfilled his obligation’. We say that if one
read it in any language other than Hebrew, one has not carried out his
27
t. Meg. 2.6 reinforces this restriction by µlw[l , ‘still. . . ’.
28
The Tosefta points to the situation of live translation (t. Meg. 2.5): ‘[If] one
reads it, whether standing or sitting or lying, whether one sets up a translator
[alongside]. . . he has carried out his obligation [. . . ]’
29
ˆymyyq ˆna hm ≥z[lb hbwtk ahtç ayhw ≥rz[l òr µçb hrw[z òr aja òr µçb yswy òr,
‘R. José in the name of Rabba Ah.a, Rabbi Zeirah in the name of Rabbi Eleazar:
“[But they do read it in a foreign language to those who speak a foreign language],
that applies when the scroll itself is written in that foreign language.” How shall
we interpret the matter?’ Similarly, b. Meg. 18a presupposes written translations
in discussing the present mishnah: ‘It is only required when it is written in Targum
and he reads it in Targum’.
10 Journal for the Aramaic Bible 1 (1999)

obligation, and you say this? Samuel [taught] in accordance with his
view, for R. Samuel has said: ‘If it was written in accord with the law
in a foreign language, one may carry out his obligation by reading it in
that foreign language’.

Here R. Samuel not only allows translations to be written (‘in accord

with the law’), but even regards the reading of this translation as a
fulfilment of the obligation for non-Hebrew speakers. On this interpre-
tation, the Hebrew is not obligatory for non-Hebrew speakers. This
opinion is far more permissive than is the Mishnah. Presumably, the
Yerushalmi reveals that the Mishnah really comprises two conflicting
traditions, for R. Samuel’s opinion agrees with m. Meg. 2.1C. If any-
thing, this tradition presupposes that (1) translations could be written
in accordance with the law, and (2) they may be read, at least accord-
ing to a minority opinion. This opinion will not be sustained in the
Yerushalmi, since it stipulates that translating from a written copy
is prohibited, that translation is optional only for those who do not
speak Hebrew and that the reading of Hebrew is not invalidated by er-
roneous or improper translation.30 Nevertheless, it allows us to discern
a diversity of Rabbinic opinion that has been ignored in most accounts
of Rabbinic views on the Targums.
The minority opinion in the Yerushalmi, attributed to R. Samuel
bar Siseratai,31 may well reveal a geographical difference within the
reception history. In point of fact, the Bavli, discussing this mishnah in
b. Meg. 18a, has Rab and Samuel say that reading a Greek translation
is allowed, restricting the prohibition to other languages than Greek.
In contrast to the Yerushalmi, here the discussion tends to follow Rab
and Samuel, including the permission to use written Greek translations.
The Bavli explicitly includes the scroll of Esther. To be sure, the use of
Greek would be of no importance in the Babylonian situation, where
the vernacular was either Persian or Aramaic. Apparently the main
objective of the Bavli is to restrict the use of written copies to Greek
ones only, these having no practical use, though they were still held
in high esteem. The Yerushalmi does not imply this, sticking to the
Mishnaic rule that only reading the text, or hearing it read, in Hebrew
leads to fulfilling one’s obligation.
In these traditions we can perceive the controversial status of writ-
ten translations. In this respect, too, a diversity of opinion can be
30
y. Meg. 2.1, 73a; 4.1, 74d; 4.3(2), 75a.
31
Assuming that the text refers to him when only ‘Samuel’ appears in the text.
He cannot be identified with R. Samuel bar R. Isaac, who rejected any use of
written Targum (see the previous note).
 Smelik Rabbinic Reception 11

discerned. The Mishnah states that written Bible translations were

permitted, without regard to the language of the target text (m. Meg.
1.8):
twzwzmw ˆylptw ˆwçl lkb ˆybtkn µyrpshç ala twzwzmw ˆylptl µyrps ˆyb ˆya
wryth al µyrpsb πa .rmwa laylmg ˆb ˆw[mç ˆbr ≥tyrwça ala twbtkn ˆnya
≥tynwy ala wbtkyç
There is no difference between scrolls and tefillin and mezuzoth, except
that scrolls are written in any language, whereas tefillin and mezuzoth
may only be written in Assyrian. Rabban Shimeon ben Gamaliel says:
‘Even scrolls they did not allow to be written except in Greek’.

The first saying explicitly leaves room for written translations of the
Scriptures as scrolls. In the minority opinion of Rabban Shimeon ben
Gamaliel, this permission should rather be restricted to Greek transla-
tions. His objections against translations other than Greek ones are not
made explicit. It is relevant to recall here that Aramaic translations
had only been established as a regular part of the synagogue service in
his lifetime.32
His view would prove to be decisive for the Rabbinic reception of
this mishnah in the Talmudim. The rejection of Aramaic translations
in particular is more explicit in the discussion of this mishnah which
the Palestinian Talmud provides (y. Meg. 1.11(8),71c):

wqdb ≥tynwwy ala wbtkyç wryth al µyrpsb πa rmwa laylmg ˆb ˆw[mç ˆbr ynt
µhl adyb dja yngrwb ≥tynwwy ala hkrwx lk µgrtyhl hlwky hrwth ˆyaç waxmw
ynpl hrwth rgh slyq[ µgryt ab rb ayyj òr µçb hymry òr ≥tynwwy ˚wtm tymra
wtwa wslyqw ≥[çwhy òr ynplw rz[yla òr
It has been taught: Rabban Shimeon ben Gamaliel says: ‘Even scrolls
they did not allow to be written except in Greek’ (m. Meg. 1.8). They
investigated and found that the Torah can be properly translated only
into Greek.
A resident of a station house made up for them an Aramaic33 [version]
from the Greek.
32
We do not have any Aramaic manuscripts of this period, but they were un-
doubtedly written in the Assyrian script. In that case, Rabban Shimeon ben
Gamaliel’s opinion could be harmonized with a permission to write Aramaic trans-
lations! However, we may assume that the prescription to read the Targum by heart
was in force during the Usha-period. On this assumption, written copies of an Ara-
maic translation were not allowed. In this connection it is interesting to observe
that Greek translations written in Hebrew [= Assyrian] characters do exist.
33
In Est. R. 4.12, ymwr is written instead of tymra. This reflects the difficulty
in assuming that a Targum would have been based on a Greek version, rather
than on the Hebrew text, whereas (Christian) Latin versions were based on the
Greek (cf. G. Veltri, Eine Tora für den König Talmai: Untersuchungen zum
12 Journal for the Aramaic Bible 1 (1999)

R. Jeremiah in the name of R. H . iyya bar Ba: ‘Aquilas the proselyte

translated the Torah before R. Eliezer and R. Joshua, and they praised
him’.

Rabban Shimeon ben Gamaliel’s opinion, a minority view in the Mish-

nah, here represents the majority view. Investigating the matter, the
Rabbis found out that only a translation in Greek can ever be ap-
propriate. The easy dismissal of an Aramaic translation presumably
testifies to the status of the Greek.
The rejection of non-Greek translations does not only apply to their
liturgical use, but also to their written form. This point can be illus-
trated from m. Šab. 16.1 and its parallels in the Tosefta, Yerushalmi
and Bavli. This mishnah relates that Holy Writings should be saved
from a fire, irrespective of the Sabbath. However, as to Bible transla-
tions its wording is highly ambiguous (m. Šab. 16.1):

,ˆhb ˆyrwq ˆyaç ˆybw ˆhb ˆyrwqç ˆyb ,hqldh ynpm ˆtwa ˆylyxm çdqh ybtk lk
ynpm ?µhb ˆyrwq ˆya hm ynpmw .hzyng µynw[f?w¿ ,ˆwçl lkb µybwtkç yp l[ πa?w¿
.çrdmh tyb lwfb
All Holy Writings they save them from the fire, both when they read
them and when they do not read them. Even if they are written in any
language, they require storage. And why do they not read in them?
Because of the neglect of the study house.

It is not made clear which sources are read and which are not, or for
what reason. Those writings which are not read could have been those
not included as lections, such as most of the Prophets and Writings,
or those in bad shape, their physical state rendering them unfit for
reading (= reciting). It is also possible to identify them with the writ-
ten translations, since the translation should be performed by heart
according to rulings in the same tractate.
This mishnah is ambiguous because it is possible to read it in two
different ways. Are the requirements of genizah and of saving on a
Sabbath two sides of one coin, representing a single class of writings?
Or do they represent two distinct stipulations, related to two distinct

Übersetzungsverständnis in der jüdisch-hellenistischen und rabbinischen Literatur

[TSAJ, 41; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1994], p. 171). In my opinion the reference to
Aramaic, supported by BerZ 9.17, is intentional. The point of this story is that
translations other than Greek ones are not reliable. The main language of transla-
tion other than Greek was Aramaic, not Latin. For different opinions, see J. Levy,
Chaldäisches Wörterbuch über die Targumim und einen grossen Theil des rabbinis-
chen Schriftthums, I-II (repr.; Köln: Joseph Melzer Verlag, 1959), I, p. 81.
 Smelik Rabbinic Reception 13

classes of writings? Table 1 offers a schematic representation of these

two interpretations.

Table 1. m. Šab. 16.1

2 classes, 2 distinct stipulations

All Holy Writings both read and not read −→ require saving
translations −→ require genizah
1 class, 2 related clauses
All Holy Writings −→ require saving / genizah
read and not read (Hebrew) −→ require saving / genizah
even if in translation −→ require saving / genizah

In the first half of the table translations constitute a distinct category,

to which the obligation of genizah applies, but not the stipulation that
they should be saved from a fire, as with the Holy Writings. The con-
cept of the Targum as Oral Torah can clearly be discerned as the
background to this interpretation. In the bottom half of the table both
categories belong together. To save the writings from a fire and to
store them away are inseparable and both apply to translations, which
belong to the category of Holy Writings.
The Tosefta and Yerushalmi support this second view, whereas the
Bavli favours the first but eventually leaves the problem of conflicting
interpretations unresolved. It is my contention that the Mishnah’s am-
biguity results from a controversy concerning the status of the Aramaic
Bible translations.34 The Tosefta leaves no doubt about its interpreta-
tion along the lines of the second possibility (t. Šab. 13 [14].2-3):
34
Two variant readings influence the way the mishnah can be interpreted. Accord-
ing to a number of textual witnesses, the clause on texts ‘written in any language’
starts with yp l[ πaw instead of yp l[ πa. If this reading is genuine, apparently we
are dealing with a new stipulation for writings which should not be categorized to-
gether with the ‘Holy Writings’ to be saved from a fire. So A. Goldberg, hnçml çwryp
tbç tksm (Jerusalem: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1976), p. 285,
who presents the variant readings. A similar variant reading is hzyng ˆynw[fw for ˆynw[f
hzyng; here the requirement of genizah is an additional stipulation to all foregoing
writings, thus categorizing the translations together with the ‘Holy Writings’.
14 Journal for the Aramaic Bible 1 (1999)

ˆtwa ˆyznwgw ˆtwa ˆylyxm ˆwçl lkbw µwgrt ˆybwtk wyh

[if] they are written in ‘Targum’ [= Aramaic] or in whatever language,
they must be saved and stored away.

There is no distinction between scrolls that have to be saved and those

that only have to be stored away. However, the following legal prece-
dent narrated by Rabbi José and its subsequent discussion are far less
transparent. It is an important case, for Rabbi José will be quoted in
the discussion that the Bavli provides.
Rabban Gamaliel is found reading a Targum of Job. As soon as he is
told that his grandfather, Rabban Gamaliel the Elder, had a Targum
of Job walled in, he gives orders to store his Targum away. Then a
discussion of this case follows:

rbdb twbwçt ytç rmwa òr wyl[ hpk fyf lç hbyr[ rmwa hdwhy òrb yswy òr
µwqmb wtwa ˆyjynm ala dyb wta ˆydbam ykw rja rbd tybh rhb hyh al fyf
.ˆhylyam ˆybyqrm ˆhw hpwrth
R. José bar R. Judah says: ‘He inverted a tub of mortar on it.’
Rabbi says: ‘Two refutations: on the matter of mortar, there was none
at the Temple Mount. A different issue is, do they destroy it on purpose?
Instead, they dispose of it in a place of decomposition and they perish
on their own.’

Which translation is brought to Rabban Gamaliel and why has not

been explained. The similarity of his case and that of his grandchild
depends on the object, the Targum of Job.35 No mention is made of
the physical state of the translation rendering the scroll unfit for use
either by deterioration or by the number of mistakes contained in it.36
It is pure speculation to argue that the translation was not approved
because of either the provenance or the contents of this Targum;37 on
35
wnjlwç l[ bçwyç waxm ayrbfl laylmg ˆbr lxa atplj òr ˚lh tja µ[p yswy òr òa
ˆbrb ytyyh rwkz atplj òr wl rma wb arwq hyhw µwgrt bwya rps wdybw πwznh ˆb ˆnjwy lç
òaw µwgrt bwya rps wynpl aybhw tybh rhb hl[m ybg l[ bçwy hyhç ˚yba yba ˆqzh laylmg
wzngw laylmg ˆbr jlç h[ç htwab .˚bdnh tjt wanbw yanbl, ‘R. José told the case when R.
H. alafta went to Rabban Gamaliel in Tiberias and found him sitting at the table of
R. Joh.anan ben Nezif. And in his hand he had the Job Targum and he was reading
in it. R. H. alafta said to him, “I remember that Rabban Gamaliel the Elder, your
grandfather, was sitting on the ascent of the Temple Mount, when they brought a
scroll of the Targum of Job before him. Then he instructed the builders, ‘suppress
it (wanbw)under the layer of stones’.” At that moment Rabban Gamaliel sent and
suppressed it (wzngw).’
36
See y. Šab. 16.1, 15b-c.
37
On the basis of b. Meg. 3a, that the Targum of the Writings should not be
revealed ‘because the date of the Messiah is in it’, a specific objection to the Tar-
 Smelik Rabbinic Reception 15

the contrary, the grandchild at first has no objection to reading it.38

In the present text, no such speculation seems to be warranted. All we
can infer from the redactional level is that withdrawing this Targum
from circulation has been related to the identification of the scroll as
an Aramaic Bible translation as such.39
What is the function of the additional material? Undoubtedly, it
illustrates the obligation to store a translation, but that is not all.
Rabbi José simply infers the conclusion that translations may actively
be destroyed. This conclusion stands in stark contrast to the stipulation
with which the Tosefta opened, that the translations should be saved
even on a Sabbath! In this connection it is worth recalling that R. José
discouraged the use of Aramaic, even in the Babylonian context.40 The
story about Rabban Gamaliel and his grandfather does not illustrate
the sanctity of the translation, so that it requires genizah, but rather
its rejection and its withdrawal from circulation.
Rabbi does not object to R. José that translations should not be
destroyed by mortar because they should be saved; rather, he says,
there was no mortar at the time of Rabban Gamaliel, and then he
grants that translations should perish on their own. There is no word
on the obligation to save them. There is a silence to be noted here, and
it can hardly be accidental. It is tempting to relate Rabbi’s view to his
ambiguous formulation of this mishnah in his Mishnah,41 but that is
speculation.
In the Palestinian Talmud we find another discussion of this issue
(y. Šab. 16.1, 15b-c). This discussion focuses on the holiness of trans-
lations:

ˆyamf ˆya rmad ˆamw ≥hqyldh ynpm ˆtwa ˆylyxm µydyh ta ˆyamfm rmad ˆam
wnya yrh µwgrt wbtkç yrb[ yrh ˆwbyth ≥hqyldh ynpm ˆtwa ˆylyxm ˆya òydyh ta

gum of Job has often been postulated. As for the provenance, see R. le Déaut,
Introduction à la littérature targumique (Rome: Institut Biblique Pontifical, 1966),
pp. 68-70.
38
Fraade, ‘Rabbinic Views’, p. 256 n. 7, suggests that it may have caused people
to neglect the house of study by their private reading of it, apparently on the basis
of m. Šab. 16.1. However, we can hardly assume that scrolls of this Targum were
so widespread as to allow many individual readers this distraction.
39
Cf. E.E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1975), p. 410.
40
b. B. Qam. 83a, par. b. Sot.. 49b.
41
To be sure, it is not my intention to claim that the Tosefta represents a delib-
erate comment on the Mishnah. Whatever the textual and historical relationship
between m. Šab. and t. Šab., their accounts of this ruling differ and reveal a sensi-
tivity to the status of translations.
16 Journal for the Aramaic Bible 1 (1999)

hqyldh ynpm wtwa ˆylyxmw µydyh ta amfm

He who says that they defile the hands [also holds that] they may save
them from a fire, and he who says that they do not defile the hands
[holds the view that] they may not save them from a fire.

In the first opinion translations are sacred, hence should be saved from
a fire, whereas in the second they are not sacred and should not be
saved.42 After this observation an objection is raised, dissociating the
issue of holiness from that of saving in the case of Aramaic, but main-
taining the requirement to save translations from a fire:
ynpm wtwa ˆylyxmw µydyh ta amfm wnya yrh µwgrt wbtkç yrb[ yrh ˆwbyth
ˆylyxmç hrma adh ≥hzyng ˆynw[f ˆwçl lkb ˆybwtkç pòò[a ˆnyntd hm ˆm ≥hqyldh
twbç µwçm rbd ˆya rma ˆw[mç ybrd ˆw[mç ybrd atyntm ≥hqyldh ynpm ˆtwa
≥òdwqh ybtk ynpb dmw[ç
They refuted: ‘However, Hebrew which is written in Targum [= Aramaic]
does not defile the hands, yet it is saved from a fire’.43
On what account have we learned: ‘Even though they are written in any
language, they require storage’ ? This says that they must be saved from
a fire.
The mishnah is [according to] Rabbi Shimeon, for Rabbi Shimeon said:
[15c] ‘No matter on account of the Sabbath stands against the Holy
Writings’ (m. ’Erub. 10.3).

Here translations are explicitly categorized as ‘Holy Writings’, which

according to some Rabbis even defile the hands. Here and elsewhere
the notion of ‘defiling the hands’ is dissociated from translations on
the basis of m. Yad. 4.5.44 However, some Rabbis did make the con-
nection between these issues. Translations defiling the hands cannot
be harmonized with the classical opinion that the Targum was always
considered to belong to the Oral Torah. Apparently both the classifi-
cation as ‘Holy Writings’ found here and the opinion that translations
defile the hands are traces of a different status that had once been
ascribed to Bible translations.
42
For rendering the hands unclean, see G. Vermes et al. (eds.), E. Schürer: The
History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, I-III (Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1979–87), II, p. 320 n. 18.
43
m. Yad. 4.5: tyrb[w tyrb[ wbtkç µwgrt ≥µydyh ta amfm layndbçw arz[bç µwgrt
tyrwça wnbtkyç d[ amfm wnya µlw[l ≥µydyh ta amfm wnya — yrb[ btkw µwgrt wbtkç
≥wydbw rw[h l[, ‘The Targum [= Aramaic portions] in Ezra and Daniel defile the
hands. Targum [= Aramaic original] which is written in Hebrew, or Hebrew which is
written in Targum [= (Aramaic) translation], or written in Hebrew [script], do not
defile the hands. In fact, they only defile the hands if they are written in Assyrian
[characters], on leather, and with ink.’
44
See the previous note and cf. b. Meg. 8b/9a.
 Smelik Rabbinic Reception 17

A second development appears from the answer which the Yeru-

shalmi provides for a different question: if anyone agrees that transla-
tions are to be saved, why mention the mishnah of Rabbi Shimeon?

≥ˆqyldh ynpm wtwa ˆylyxmç yyrwm am[ lk akh µrb ˆnwyzb ynpm ˆmt ≥ˆygylp hm
πa òma laylmg ˆb ˆw[mç ˆbrd bg l[ πa ≥laylmg ˆb ˆw[mç ˆbrl ≥hkrxn yml
≥hqyldh ynpm ˆtwa ˆylyxmç akh awh ydwm tynwwy ala wbtkyç wryth al µyrpsb
What are the differences? There [according to Rabbi Shimeon] on ac-
count of disgrace, but here [as we have learned] all people teach that
they must save it from a fire. For whom is it necessary [to point this
out despite this unanimity]? For Rabban Shimeon ben Gamaliel. Even
though Rabban Shimeon ben Gamaliel said: ‘Even scrolls they did not
allow to be written except in Greek’ (m. Meg. 1.8), he admits here that
they must be saved from a fire.

Apparently translations in languages other than Greek were in circula-

tion, although the Yerushalmi leaves no room for them. Of course, the
central role of Targums is implicitly under discussion here. When the
Yerushalmi now relates the story of Rabban Gamaliel and the Targum
of Job, this case has a different focus from that in the Tosefta.

bwtk bwya rps wl waybhw tybh rhb ˆyynbh l[ dmw[ hyhç laylmg ˆbrd hç[m
≥˚bdnh tjt wzngw yanbl òmaw µwgrt
The case of Rabban Gamaliel who was standing over the builders on the
Temple mount. They brought him a scroll of Job written in ‘Targum’
[= Aramaic]. He told the builders that they should store it away under
a layer of bricks.

There is no discussion as in the Tosefta: the theme of ‘destruction’ ver-

sus ‘storing away’ is not involved. On the contrary, the story proves the
point that only Greek translations are tolerable whereas other transla-
tions should be withdrawn from circulation.
The Bavli contains the most extensive discussion of the topic of
this mishnah, revealing two long-standing opinions on the status of
translations. Starting out as an Amoraic dispute, the disagreement will
eventually be exposed as a Tannaitic one after a series of arguments
and counter-arguments. It opens with the following (b. Šab. 115a):

ynpm ˆtwa ˆylyxm ˆya rma anwh br ˆwçl lkb wa µwgrt µybwtk wyh rmtya
wntyn rmad ˆamd abyla hqyldh ynpm ˆtwa ˆylyxm rma adsj brw hqyldh
wntyn al rmad ˆamd abyla ygylp yk ˆylyxmd ygylp al aml[ ylwkd ˆhb twrql
ˆhb twrql
18 Journal for the Aramaic Bible 1 (1999)

It was stated: [Even if] they are written in a Targum or 45 in any lan-
guage; Rab Huna said: ‘They must not be saved from a fire’. R. H.isda
said: ‘They must be saved from a fire’. According to the view that they
are intended to be read [in the synagogue], the whole world agrees that
they must be saved. They only disagree on the view that they are not
intended to be read [in the synagogue].

The Amoraic difference of opinion can easily be related to the ambi-

guity of the Mishnah, which allows for two contrasting interpretations,
as we observed above. But it is not presented as such; rmtya intro-
duces an Amoraic dispute. In point of fact, the interesting comment
following upon the introduction stands in contrast with the Mishnah.
Whereas m. Šab. 16.1 does not contrast writings that are read with
those that are not read (‘both when they read them and when they do
not read them’), this comment indicates that the disagreement is based
on the distinction between writings that are read and those that are
not read.46 Clearly, this distinction points to the oral status of the Ara-
maic Bible translation, the bone of contention in the present dispute.
In the discussion itself, however, the Mishnah will be quoted.
The main thrust of Rab H.isda’s argument agrees with the Yeru-
shalmi, claiming that on account of disgrace even translations are to
be saved from a fire on a Sabbath. According to Rab Huna, saving from
a fire already implies the stipulation of genizah. On the premise that
the Mishnah contains no redundancy, the explicit reference to genizah
implies that the Mishnah categorizes translations as a distinct set of
writings. Later on he tries to relate the stipulation to save translations
to the view that they are read. Eventually, after a long exchange of
arguments forcing Rab Huna to adduce a different proof for his opinion,
he adduces the following argument:

anwh brd atbwyt hqyldh ynpm ˆtwa ˆylyxm ˆwçl lkw µwgrt µybwtk wyh ybytym
tydm tyfpyg ˆybwtk wyh çòòt ˆhb twrql wntyn rbs ant yah anwh br ˚l rma
hqyldh ynpm ˆtwa ˆylyxm ˆhb twrql wntyn alç pòò[a tynwwy tymly[ tyrby[
ˆwçl lkbw µwgrt ˆybwtk wyh ayntd ayh yant anwh br ˚l rma anwh brd atbwyt
hqyldh ynpm ˆtwa ˆylyxm ˆya rmwa yswy òr hqyldh ynpm ˆtwa ˆylyxm
They raised an objection: ‘[If] they are written in a Targum (or) in any
language, they must be saved from a fire’.47

45
Note the subtle difference (in italics) with m. Meg. 1.8, discussed in n. ?? above.
46
The final comment returns to this point, wondering whether the disagreement
on the issue of saving reverts to a disagreement whether translations are intended
to be read—a possibility that will be declined.
47
Note again the variant reading lkw for lk; see notes 45 and ?? above.
 Smelik Rabbinic Reception 19

Is this a refutation of Rab Huna? Rab Huna can say to you: ‘This Tanna
maintains: They are intended to be recited from. Come and hear: [If]
they are written in Egyptian, Median, Hebrew, Elamitic or Greek, even
though they are not intended to be recited from, they must be saved
from a fire.’
Is this a refutation of Rab Huna? Rab Huna can say to you: ‘It is Tan-
naim who taught: “[If] they are written in Targum or in any language,
they must be saved from a fire.” [However,] R. José says: “they must not
be saved from a fire”.’

At this juncture, Rab Huna explicitly acknowledges the traditional

validity of Rab H.isda’s interpretation. Now he can only refute Rab
H. isda by resorting to a conflicting Tannaitic tradition. Remarkably, he
finds such a tradition in the by now familiar case of Rabban Gamaliel
the Elder and the Targum of Job, related by R. José. From this case,
transmitted in the extensive version of the Tosefta, he extrapolates the
opposite view held by R. José.48 The aim of the case and its subse-
quent discussion in the Bavli appears to do credit to Rab Huna’s view
that translations should not be saved from a fire. Whereas R. H.isda’s
arguments clearly imply that translations are categorized under ‘Holy
Writings’, R. Huna obviously restricts the category of ‘Holy Writings’
to Hebrew.

3. Toward Oral Torah

From these texts and their lines of reasoning we may safely draw the
conclusion that the status of the Aramaic Bible translations was sub-
ject to change. Traditionally, they had been classified as ‘Holy Writings’
that should be saved from a fire on a Sabbath. By the late Tannaitic
era, this view became highly controversial, resulting in unstable or ir-
resolute discussions of the mishnah in m. Šab. 16.1 and parallels. Even
their very existence in writing was no longer tolerated. The objections
to Aramaic Bible translations were not restricted to their use in the
synagogue, but also applied to their circulation in written form. In the
background of this development looms the emerging concept of the Tar-
gums as Oral Torah, even though the terminology itself is presumably
of later origin.
m. Šab. 16.1 may privilege the interpretation that translations are
included among the scrolls to be saved from a fire, even on a Sabbath.
48
Whether or not R. José phrased his opinion like this, in Hebrew, is irrelevant
for my purpose here, but it does not seem unlikely to me that this extrapolation
of the story is coined by Rab Huna or by whoever attributed the saying to him.
20 Journal for the Aramaic Bible 1 (1999)

But there is an ambiguity in its wording, allowing for the opposite

interpretation. The Tosefta at first sight follows the first interpretation,
only to be undercut by the subsequent discussion. The Yerushalmi
adheres to the first opinion, while the Bavli plays off the two opinions
attributed to H.isda and Huna against each other, presumably favouring
the interpretation that translations are not to be saved.
Greek translations were less controversial, enjoying a traditional
status the Rabbis could not easily dispense with. Perhaps a very prac-
tical reason enhanced this status, for the majority of Greek-speaking
Jews may have experienced difficulties in understanding Hebrew. Still,
the sources indicate that the Rabbis did not endorse Greek translations
without some reservation. In their discussion of m. Meg. 2.1, both the
Bavli and Yerushalmi clearly state that the obligation to read the scroll
of Esther can only be fulfilled by reading from the Hebrew. All trans-
lations, therefore, are optional.49
Geographical differences seem to have influenced the degree of op-
position to written Greek translations of Esther, because the Bavli and
the Yerushalmi disagree on the issue whether written copies of Greek
translations were allowed. The Bavli allows their use, possibly in a pre-
emptive move, as if to deny the validity of the arguments in favour of
written Aramaic copies. The Yerushalmi on the other hand rejects any
written translation, with the exception of R. Samuel, although Greek
ones would have had more practical value in the Palestinian context.
The prohibition on writing the translation should be considered
in the context of the ban on writing halakhoth, prayers, and inter-
pretations in general.50 To some extent the prohibition on commiting
halakhic and aggadic traditions to writing appears to have been an
ideal, expressing the fluid status of oral tradition.51 In any case, writ-
ten compilations of halakhah and aggadah existed in the Tannaitic and
Amoraic periods. Many of the traditions expressing this view simulta-
neously attest to the practice of writing prayers and midrashim. The

49
In b. Meg. 21b there is a clear reference to the translation of the megillah,
without indicating its language: ‘Our Rabbis taught: In the Torah one reads and
one translates, provided that not one reads and two translate. And in the Prophets
one reads and two translate, provided that not two read and two translate. And
in the hallel and in the megillah even ten read and ten translate. What is the
reason? When it is beloved, they will give their attention and listen.’ Rashi omits
the reference to the translation of Esther, because, as he claims, there exists no
Aramaic version of Esther.
50
See t. Šab. 13.4; t. Yad. 2.12; Safrai, ‘Oral Torah’, p. 46.
51
P. Schäfer, Studien zur Geschichte und Theologie des rabbinischen Judentums
(Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1978), pp. 153-97.
 Smelik Rabbinic Reception 21

Bavli refers to midrash-compilations composed in the Tannaitic pe-

riod.52 As a corollary to this observation, written copies of the Targums
existed53 despite the fact that some of the Sages obviously disliked any
written translation.54 As York has suggested, the opposition to written
Targums may have been the practical inference of their categorization
as Oral Torah,55 although this is not, as he asserts, to claim the same
status for the Targum as for the Hebrew text. The primary motive
for this rejection of written traditions appears to be found in the de-
sire to preserve the flexibility of the Oral Torah.56 Contrariwise, the
translation of the Prophets was considered a means to limit the range
of different interpretations.57 The desire to maintain a difference for
people who used Greek Bible translations by keeping the Oral Torah
in secret, expressed by Amoraim, reveals a secondary explanation,58
and attests to the fact that Greek translations had become non-Jewish
documents in the view of the Rabbis. Greek translations were out of
fashion in Gaonic times. The making of the Septuagint would now be
compared to the making of the golden calf (Soferim 1.7).59 New Bible
translations into Arabic were not seen in a favourable light:

To translate a verse and rewrite it from one language into another is

an impossibility that we forbid. [. . . ] It is a lie, insult and blasphemy
to translate the Torah from one language to another (except for the
Targum heard from the Prophets) and to say that this is a version of
the Torah.60
52
b. M. Qat.. 28b; b. Qid. 49b; b. Sanh. 86a; b Šebu. 41b. See R. Kalmin, ‘Pat-
terns and Developments in Rabbinic Midrash of Late Antiquity’, in M. Sæbø (ed.),
Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation (Göttingen: Van-
denhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), p. 295; cf. A. Goldberg, ‘The Mishnah — A Study
Book of Halakha’, in Safrai (ed.), The Literature of the Sages, I, pp. 211-62 (242).
53
See nn. 21, 22, and ?? above and y. Meg. 4.1, 74d; m. Meg. 2.1.
54
Cf. Alexander, ‘The Targumim and the Rabbinic Rules’, p. 25; E. Levine, The
Aramaic Version of the Bible: Contents and Context (BZAW, 174; Berlin: Walter
de Gruyter, 1988), pp. 14-19.
55
York, ‘The Targum in the Synagogue’, p. 80.
56
Thus Safrai, ‘Oral Torah’, p. 49.
57
b. Meg. 3a: ‘A Bath Qol came forth and exclaimed, Who is this that has
revealed my secrets to mankind? Jonathan b. Uzziel thereupon arose and said, It
is I who have revealed your secrets to mankind. It is fully known to you that I have
not done this for my own honour or for the honour of my father’s house, but for
your honour I have done it, that dissension may not increase in Israel.’
58
So Safrai, ‘Oral Torah’, p. 47; see b. Meg. 3a; Tanh.. aryw 5; açt yk 34; Tanh..
Buber aryw 6; Pes. R. 5; cf. y. Pe’ah 2, 17a; y. H.ag. 1, 74d.
59
See Veltri, Eine Tora für den König Talmai, p. 216.
60
See B.M. Lewin, µynwagh rxwa, I-XIII (Haifa: n.p., 1928–Jerusalem: Central Press,
1944), IX, pp. 130-31, quoted in the translation of J. Olszowy-Schlanger, ‘Karaite
22 Journal for the Aramaic Bible 1 (1999)

By now the authorized Aramaic Targum, instead of the Greek, was

exempted from the prohibition.61
The ambiguity of the term ‘Oral Torah’ lends itself to different inter-
pretations, all according to context and scope. The term undoubtedly
grants a high status to the oral tradition, but wherever the Written
and Oral Torah are sharply distinguished from each other, it is the
distinction between these corpora that has been emphasized, not their
equality. The very existence of targumic manuscripts can thus be ex-
plained in two ways, diachronically and synchronically, namely (1) as
the result of earlier leniency to Bible translations which was replaced
by stricter application of the new concept and (2) as the reality under-
lying the idealization of the Rabbis, whose prescriptions should not be
mistaken for descriptions.
Why did Gamaliel the Elder hide the Targum of Job? If the con-
cept of Oral Torah was not yet in force as far as the Aramaic versions
were concerned, and written copies were deemed acceptable, a differ-
ent explanation for his behaviour must be suggested. The problem is,
that we know too little. We cannot rule out that he anticipated later
developments, but we cannot prove it either. As observed above, the
scroll was for some reason brought to him for inspection. There is no
mention made of any objection to its contents, or to its physical state
(it may have been so worn as to be withdrawn from circulation). But
the historical reasons may not have been important to the editor(s)
of the story. There is simply no indication of why he ordered the Tar-
gum of Job to be stored away.62 Whether the translation was written in
Greek or Aramaic, we do not know.63 At the redactional level, the only
conclusion we can infer from reading the story is that he objected to
the scroll’s very existence as a written translation. And it was this sim-
ilarity that reportedly led his grandchild to put it away too, although
he had been reading it at first.
These conclusions shed new light on the provenance of the Tar-
Linguistics: The “Renaissance” of the Hebrew Language among Early Karaite Jews,
and Contemporary Linguistic Theories’, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Sprachwis-
senschaft 7 (1997), pp. 81-100 (86).
61
The Torah heard from the prophets may refer to the Talmudic tradition in
b. Meg. 3a, although this text relates the prophets to the Targum of the Prophets
rather than to Onqelos.
62
The Tosefta does not utilize the term zng but anb for the story of Rabban
Gamaliel the Elder, in contrast to that of his grandchild, but both Talmuds use the
latter term.
63
In Gen. R. 46.3, Lev. R. 30.8; 33.1 µwlyq[ µwgrt refers to Aquila’s Greek trans-
lation, and in m. Meg. 2.1 ˆwçl lkb µwgrt clearly denotes ‘a translation in any
language’.
 Smelik Rabbinic Reception 23

gums. It has long been commonplace to refer to the dwindling use

and understanding of Hebrew as the people’s vernacular as the raison
d’être of the Targums. But for the Targum, the Hebrew was allegedly
not understood any longer.64 Thus it has long been assumed that the
oral Bible translation in Aramaic was a well established practice dur-
ing the first two centuries ce. In recent years this assumption has been
called into question.65 There was not yet a standardized lectionary sys-
tem for the liturgy. The Rabbis were still struggling to gain control of
the synagogue. The language map of Palestine in this period is highly
complicated, characterized by forms of multilingualism in which either
Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic took pride of place. In some synagogues
the Torah appears to have been read in Greek,66 elsewhere possibly
in Aramaic, or in Hebrew, or a combination of these languages. The
actual practice of oral translation in the Palestinian synagogues may
have varied by region, community and generation.
Advancing the use of Hebrew as the exclusive language for reading
the Torah would immediately have raised the question of the status of
the Aramaic and Greek translations. Because these translations were
being treated as Scripture in many synagogues, and had been in use for
many generations, they could not simply be rejected and taken out of
circulation. Nonetheless the Rabbis succeeded in insisting upon Hebrew
as the exclusive language of Scriptural readings. By the Byzantine era
the Torah was being read in Hebrew in Greek synagogues, while the
use of Greek translations had become controversial.67 This result seems
64
See Smelik, Targum of Judges, pp. 1-41.
65
R. Kasher, ‘The Aramaic Targumim and their Sitz im Leben’, in M.H.
Goshen-Gottstein (ed.), Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies
(Jerusalem 1985). Panel session: Bible Studies and Ancient Near East (Jerusalem:
Magnes Press, 1988), pp. 75-85 (78); Z. Safrai, ‘The Origins of Reading the Aramaic
Targum in Synagogue’, Immanuel 24/25 (1990), pp. 187-93; Samely, The Interpre-
tation of Speech; Smelik, Targum of Judges, pp. 24-41, 180-88, 634-38 and 656. Cf.
P.S. Alexander, ‘How Did the Rabbis Learn Hebrew?’, in W. Horbury (ed.), Hebrew
Study from Ezra to Ben-Yehuda (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1999), pp. 71-89.
66
N. de Lange, ‘Prier et étudier à Byzance’, REJ 158 (1999), pp. 51-59; idem,
A Thousand Years of Hebrew in Byzantium’, in Horbury (ed.), Hebrew Study,
pp. 147-61; See G. Vermes, F. Millar and M. Goodman (eds.), E. Schürer: The
History of The Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, III.1 (Edinburgh: T. &
T. Clark, 1986), pp. 142-44. See now also D.H. Aaron, ‘Judaism’s Holy Language’,
in J. Neusner (ed.), Approaches to Ancient Judaism: New Series, XVI (Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1999), pp. 49-107 (81-87).
67
As recorded in Justinian’s Novelle 146 (so De Lange, ‘A Thousand Years’, pp.
147-61). Contrast L. Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden historisch en-
twickelt (Frankfurt: J. Kaufmann, 2nd edn, 1892), p. 11, and G. Veltri, ‘Die Novelle
146 peri« JEbrai÷wn: Das Verbot des Targumsvortrags in Justinians Politik’, in
24 Journal for the Aramaic Bible 1 (1999)

to have been achieved by promulgating the Targum as part of the Oral

Torah, rendering all translations optional, and prohibiting the use of
written Greek copies in the case of the Yerushalmi. Simultaneously,
extant translations were being revised and brought under Rabbinic
control, resulting in the versions of Aquila, Symmachus and the ‘of-
ficial’, or ‘Babylonian’ Targums. These Targums now represented the
public face of Rabbinic discourse to the wider audience of synagogue
attendants, the gateway between synagogue and academy, thus spread-
ing the authorized reception of the Hebrew Bible. Taken together, the
requirement of reading the Torah in Hebrew and attributing the status
of Oral Torah to the Targum comprises the strategy of the Rabbis to
set their seal on the synagogue liturgy.
Bearing all these observations in mind, it seems more reasonable
to assume that a standardized version of the Targum, in combination
with precise regulations for its recitation, was only introduced into the
synagogue service in the second half of the second century ce. This
hypothesis coalesces with the change of status ascribed to the Bible
translations in this period.

M. Hengel and A.M. Schwemer (eds.), Die Septuaginta zwischen Judentum und
Christentum (WUNT, 72; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1994), pp. 116-30 (125). Veltri
claims that Justinian invented an internal Jewish disagreement about the suitable
language of Bible translation as a pretext for his missionary intervention. This seems
unlikely to me. The issue of translation does not represent a topos and no matter
how convenient for Justinian, if we accept that his knowledge of Jewish liturgical
practices was based on real information (including Veltri), we cannot readily deny
any reality to his claim of internal strife about the use of translations.