Let'S Study: Onkelos

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
MISHPATIM (CHAPTER 21:1–24:18)
SUMMARY OF THE TORAH PORTION
Many laws are given to the new nation, such as those pertaining to the Hebrew
servant, murder and manslaughter, damaging another person, damage caused by one’s
property, custodians of another’s property, the seduction of a virgin, a sorceress,
oppressing a stranger, widow, or orphan, returning a lost article, successful conquest of
the Holy Land; God seals a covenant with Israel; Moses remains on Mount Sinai for forty
days and forty nights.
TARGUMIC VIEW OF AN ESOTERIC EVENT
Exodus 24 has an unusual account of an encounter of Moses, Aaron, Nadav, Avihu,

and seventy Israelite elders with God on Mount Sinai. Commentators in Midrash
Mekhilta dispute when this event took place and whether it was before or after Moses
received the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai. Let us focus on the event itself,
described in verses 9-11 (pages 160 and 161),1 and how it is understood by the
targumist and others. The Torah read, literally, as follows:
9. Then Moses, and Aaron, Nadav, and Avihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went
up;
1
All page numbers refer to the Onkelos on the Torah volume.
1
10. and they saw the God of Israel, and under His feet was the like of a paved work of
sapphire stone, and like the essence of the heaven for purity.
11. And upon the leaders of the Israelites He did not send forth His hand; and they
saw God, and ate and drank.
In our appendix (page 364), we describe some of the difficulties encountered in

these verses:
Exodus 24:9–11 is said to have some of the most astonishing and inexplicable verses
in the Hebrew Bible. . . . Despite the difficulties involved in virtually every word–the
implied anthropomorphisms, poetic visions, similes, and metaphors–our targumist’s
deviations are consistent with those found throughout the translation. He does not
try to present theological lessons or interpretations, but simply renders Scripture’s
plain meaning.
Our commentary reveals how the targumist deals with the anthropomorphic
elements in these verses, some of the words that require clarification, and the nature of
this remarkable encounter with God. We also cite the treatment of these verses by some
of the classical commentators. We see another example of the contribution of Onkelos in
understanding a biblical text:
10. THEY SAW THE GLORY OF THE GOD OF ISRAEL. The targumist and Saadiah insert
“the glory of” into the biblical phrase “they saw the God of Israel” to avoid the
impossible notion that the people saw a physical God. He uses the Aramaic “yekar,”
“glory,” to describe the impact of God’s presence; in this case, upon the assemblage
of Israelites. Ibn Ezra and Nachmanides state that the Israelites actually “saw God,”
but though prophecy. Curiously, Rashi suggests that the Israelites saw God, and
thereby committed a sin punishable by death. More rationally, his grandson Rashbam
states that the people saw how God is manifested in this world (as in 33:23).
UNDER HIS THRONE OF GLORY. Rather than the biblical “under His feet,” to avoid the
anthropomorphism. The targumist renders the phrase as Isaiah 6:1 and Ezekiel 1:26.
THE LIKENESS OF A GOOD (PRECIOUS) STONE. The Targum and Saadiah render the
Hebrew “livnat,” “white,” as “good” or “precious,” giving us the sense of the passage.
They avoid the midrashic translation of the word as “brickwork” (from the Hebrew
“l’veinim,” “bricks”), which suggests that God was reminded of the Israelite
preparation of bricks during their Egyptian bondage (Leviticus Rabbah 23:8).
LIKE THE APPEARANCE. Onkelos translates the biblical “ukhe’etzem,” which is
unclear, as “appearance.”
FOR PURITY. Contrary to our translator, Rashi translates “latohar” as “for brightness
and clearness.”
11. THERE WAS NO DAMAGE TO. The Aramaic replaces the biblical anthropomorphic
“He did not send forth His hand (against).” The targumist renders the phrase
passively, interprets the metaphor, and speaks of the damage. Saadiah translates it
as “he did not send His plague.”
2
TO THE LEADERS. The Hebrew “atzeelei” probably stems from the root meaning
“firmly rooted.” Rashi, like Onkelos, translates it as “great men” or “leaders,” as in
Numbers 11:17, 25, Isaiah 41:9, and Ezekiel 41:8. Rashi, ibn Ezra, and Nachmanides
identify the leaders as Nadav, Avihu, and the elders. Ibn Ezra adds that the Bible did
not refer to them as “elders” in order to include Nadav and Avihu, who were not
elders.
THEY SAW THE GLORY OF THE LORD. See commentary on verse 10. The Targum
replaces the anthropomorphism, as do the Babylonian Talmud (Berakhot 17a) and
the Midrash Leviticus Rabbah 20.
THEY WERE PLEASED WITH THEIR OFFERINGS . . . AS IF. By adding phrases to the
verse such as “as if,” the Aramaic transforms the biblical “and they ate and drank,”
and negates the unseemly implication that the leaders indulged themselves with food
and drink during their experience of God. This would have been improper and impious
behavior. However, Rashi states that they ate and drank during the experience. Ibn
Ezra also accepts the view that the leaders ate and drank but explains that, being
human, they had to sustain themselves. The Babylonian Talmud (Yoma 70a) has the
notion that they piously rejoiced with eating and drinking “as did the high priest after
the Day of Atonement.” Ibn Ezra believes that the episode is mentioned to distinguish
these people from Moses, who miraculously did not eat for forty days and nights
while in God’s presence. Nachmanides emphasizes that the lesson contained in this
passage is that Jews should feast on holidays and when they conclude a unit of Torah
study.
ADDITIONAL DISCUSSIONS
ON ONKELOS
Here we have a biblical episode that can be understood in different ways. Midrash
Tanchuma and Rashi contend that everyone but Moses acted improperly when they
gazed at God and when they ate and drank, and that they were punished for their
impiety. Onkelos and Nachmanides maintain that no one did wrong, and that they had a
“God experience,” with Onkelos adding that they offered sacrifices to God that were
accepted, as if the participants consumed them. Ibn Ezra suggests that they ate, but it
was not an irreverent act, because they were human and had to sustain themselves.
Which interpretation do you favor, and why? What do you think “they saw the glory
of God” really means? Isn’t the image of God possessing a “throne of glory,” a metaphor
that Onkelos could have avoided? He could have translated the biblical “under His feet”
as “beneath Him,” which is not altogether, but much less anthropomorphic. Can you
suggest why the targumist might have used that imagery?
3
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Let us use this opportunity to discuss the “God experience.” It is interesting to

discern how people often feel a sense of discomfort when they are called upon to
discuss their view of God. Can we adequately describe, in the first place, the existence of
God, His unity, His incorporeality, His eternity? What do we experience when we pray
to God? How profound is our love of God? What is the nature of our reverence for God?
Do we fear God? Should we fear God?
Can you describe any experience you have had with God that has reinforced your
belief in Him, not only that He exists, but that it is possible to actually feel His presence?
What expectations have you of God? Did God simply create the world and the forces of
nature and then, like a watchmaker, disconnect from His creation, or is His providence
everywhere to be found? What is “providence?” Is it possible to “gaze” at God by feeling
His immanence in our lives?
Sometimes, we focus so markedly on the duties incumbent upon us, the
responsibilities we must bear, that we may miss that kind of joy experienced by the
leaders of Israel, according to Onkelos, in their encounter with God in chapter 24. Do
you feel that Judaism requires God to be at the very center of our lives, and that the
Torah is a guide enabling us to make that happen? Would focusing on the “God
experience” help us to achieve that goal?
FOR FURTHER STUDY
1. See 21:19 and commentary, “AND THE DOCTOR’S FEE” (page 137, continuing on page
136), for the targumist’s understanding of the biblical “and shall cause him to be
thoroughly healed.”
2. See 22:2 and commentary, “IF THE EYE OF WITNESSES FELL ON HIM” (page 143), and
Rashi’s and Nachmanides’ different interpretations of Onkelos.
3. See 23:1 and commentary, “YOU MUST NOT ACCEPT A REPORT OF FALSEHOOD” (page
151). The targumist translates a phrase that has multiple meanings: A judge must listen
to all parties in a lawsuit (Rashi); one must not slander (ibn Ezra); a judge must not
even listen to false evidence (Rashbam); do not co-sign a document with a wicked
person (Sforno).

Let'S Study: Onkelos

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Let'S Study: Onkelos

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Let'S Study: Onkelos

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LET’S STUDY ONKELOS

By Stanley M. Wagner and Israel Drazin

MISHPATIM (CHAPTER 21:1–24:18)

SUMMARY OF THE TORAH PORTION

TARGUMIC VIEW OF AN ESOTERIC EVENT

Exodus 24 has an unusual account of an encounter of Moses, Aaron, Nadav, Avihu,

In our appendix (page 364), we describe some of the difficulties encountered in

Let us use this opportunity to discuss the “God experience.” It is interesting to

FOR FURTHER STUDY

You might also like