LET’S STUDY ONKELOS

A Guide for Rabbis, Teachers and Torah Students to Study and Teach the Parashat
Hashavua through the Eyes of its Most Important Translator

By Stanley M. Wagner and Israel Drazin

Based on the five volume, Onkelos on the Torah (Genesis-Deuteronomy), Understanding the
Bible Text, by Israel Drazin and Stanley M. Wagner, published by Gefen Publishing House,
Jerusalem/New York, 2006-2010.

STUDY GUIDE

VAYIGASH (CHAPTER 44:18–47:27)

SUMMARY OF THE TORAH PORTION

Judah begs Joseph not to enslave Benjamin and offers to substitute himself as his
servant; Joseph tearfully reveals his identity to his astonished brothers and states that
all that happened was part of God’s plan; Joseph sends his brothers back to Canaan
laden with gifts and urges them to bring Jacob and their families to Egypt to be under
his protection; God encourages Jacob to go to Egypt, promising that his family will
someday return to Canaan; Jacob’s family relocates to Egypt and Joseph and his father
are reunited; Pharaoh recommends that they settle in the Goshen region of Egypt;
Joseph acquires all Egyptian land for Pharaoh; the children of Israel multiply greatly.

RECLINING ON PASSOVER - A ROMAN CUSTOM?

In the “Onkelos Highlights” of our parashah (page 310) a statement is made about
the Targum’s style that we have discussed briefly before: “Our targumist introduces
anachronistic material into his translation when he attempts to help his readers relate
to and understand the biblical text.” (See Study Guide on Chayei Sarah.) Here, in 45:22
(pages 308-311),1 in describing the gifts Joseph presented to his brothers, Scripture
informs us that “to each and all of them he gave changes of clothes (chalifot semalot).”
The targumist translates this as “robes as clothes,” using the Aramaic itztelavan for

1
All page numbers refer to the Onkelos on the Torah volume.
1
“robes.” We point out in our commentary that some commentators consider itztelavan a
derivative from the Greek and Latin stola, which implies a gift of “expensive robes.”
This, certainly, would be keeping with the targumist’s translating style of describing
biblical objects by mentioning items known to the Targum’s audience even though
these items did not exist during the biblical period.
The “Highlight” describes other examples of the targumist’s anachronisms:
Onkelos speaks of a street in 9:22, although none existed in biblical times. The
description of the activity of Arabs is updated in 37:25. The Bible’s shekel is identified
as the post biblical sela in 20:16, 23:15, 16, and 24:22. In 22:2, “land of worship,”
possibly referring to the later location of the Temple on Mount Moriah, replaces
Scripture’s “land of Moriah.” Verse 31:39 is paraphrased to conform to post biblical
rabbinic law. The Hebrew term “sachar,” “move about,” in 34:10 and 21 is given its
modern meaning, “trade,” rather than the meaning it had during the biblical period.
The dining custom of the talmudic period is introduced in 27:19, 37:25, and 43:33.
The adjective “trustworthy” may have been inserted into Joseph’s advice that
Pharaoh appoint officials in 41:34 and 35 because of the notorious corruption of
provincial administrators in the Roman Empire. There are also twenty-three cases in
the Onkelos translation of Genesis where biblical nations and sites are replaced with
the names that were more familiar to the readers of the talmudic period.

We will focus in this Guide on the “dining custom of the Talmudic (Roman) period,”
for, besides being an example of an anachronism, it gives us an interesting insight to a
unique and widely observed Jewish custom.
Onkelos translates a biblical form of the Hebrew sheiv, “sit,” as “recline around the
table” three times in Genesis.
In 27:19 (pages 178 and 179), Jacob, posing as Esau, invites Isaac, his father, to sit
and eat food that he had brought so that Isaac would bless him. The commentary,
“RECLINE AROUND THE TABLE” (page 178) explains:
Bible: “sit.” The Aramaic word “istechar” is based on a root meaning “go around,”
and is used specifically for dining—as in the Targums of Exodus 32:6, I Samuel 20:5,
and Psalms 1:1. This change is also made in 37:25 and 43:33. It reflects the Roman
practice of sitting on cushions and eating at a round table. See also commentary on
43:33.

In 37:25, Joseph’s brothers were seated to eat bread after they tossed Joseph into a
pit and before they sold him to the Ishmaelites (Onkelos: “Arabs”). Our targumist
translates “sit” again as “they were reclining around the table.”
The third instance is in 43:33. After the reconciliation between Joseph and his
brothers, Joseph’s brothers were “seated before him.” Our Targum has “they were
reclining around (the table).”

2
 In these three passages, the targumist provides a description of people sitting while
reclining around a table to eat, a practice that existed during the Roman period, the time
when the translator lived. It is interesting to note that a ritual was introduced at the
Passover Seder to drink four cups of wine and eat matzah while reclining, as a reminder
of the way that free people ate during the Roman period.
Interestingly, in post-Roman times, there were rabbis who thought that since this
Roman custom was no longer practiced, reclining had lost its meaning as a symbol of
free people and it was no longer meaningful to continue it. But others felt that although
the custom of reclining at meals was no longer practiced, it was a good idea to continue
reclining at the Seder, just as other unusual customs were introduced, so that
participants could ask, “Why is this night different from all other nights?” This would
provoke people to talk about the exodus from Egypt and freedom.

ADDITIONAL DISCUSSIONS

ON ONKELOS

It should be obvious that translating a sacred text like the Bible is not quite the same
as translating any other document. Translators of Scripture must approach their task
with reverence, even trepidation, for the Bible is considered to be God’s word.
In the cases that we have cited above, we see the targumist making his readers feel
closer to the Torah by introducing contemporaneous words, customs, and names of
places and coins, that would resonate with them and help turn an ancient sacred
document into a “living Torah.” He felt that he was not violating and going beyond his
responsibility as a translator, but he was bringing his readers closer to God’s Torah. The
fact that Onkelos has withstood the ravages of time and a stormy Jewish history for
more than a millennium and a half is testimony to the success of his efforts. Do you
agree?

GENERAL DISCUSSION

This Torah portion reaches a climax. Joseph is reconciled with his brothers and
Jacob’s family migrates to Egypt to be spared from the ravages of the widespread
famine. But there are questions that should gnaw at us and require our attention:
Why did Joseph refrain from contacting his father during his twenty two year exile
from his home; he certainly could have done so when he became viceroy of Egypt, if not
sooner? He must have known that Jacob was mourning for him, for he was Jacob’s
beloved son. Was this an act of insensitivity and disrespect or did Joseph have a good
reason for his behavior?

3
 Why did Joseph name his firstborn son Manasseh, stating that he did so (based on
the Hebrew meaning of the name) “for the Lord has made me forget . . . all of my father’s
house” (41:51)? In the first place, was it proper to “codify”, in the naming his of his son,
the act of forgetting his father and family? Secondly, how could Joseph have possibly
attributed his own misdeed to God?
How can we reconcile his brothers’ heinous deed of kidnapping and selling Joseph
into slavery with the fact that these brothers were the children of patriarch Jacob and
the progenitors of the Israelite nation? Kidnapping and selling the victim was regarded
as such a vile act that the Torah later condemned a kidnapper to death.
Joseph, as we learn, was prepared to forgive his brothers for their behavior. If he
really forgave them, why did he torment them to such an extent before revealing his
identity to them? Did he have a reason for doing so, and is it possibly connected to the
very first question we raised?

FOR FURTHER STUDY

1. See 45:28 and the commentary, “MY JOY IS ENORMOUS” (page 311). The targumist
hypes Jacob’s reaction to the news that Joseph is alive.

2. See 46:28 and the commentary “CLEAR” (page 314). What was Judah’s mission in
Goshen? Targum Onkelos’ suggestion.

3. See 46:30 and the commentary, “IF I WERE TO DIE NOW I WOULD BE COMFORTED”
(page 317). Targum Onkelos clears up an ambiguity.