METHODOLOGY OF TARGUM JONATHAN:

ANALISIS OF NON-LITERAL RENDERINGS IN ISAIAH 1

The following is an analysis of the major changes from the He-

brew ·text and the additions thereto by Jonathan. An attempt is
made to detect Jonathan's aims in making these changes. Needless
to say, the reassons given for the various changes and additions
in Isaiah 1 do not exhaust all the types of non-literal translations.
They are no more than a small sample that tells us something of
Jonathan's methodology. Many other types of rendition may be
found elsewhere in Jonathan.
Only the parts of a given verse that have non-literal renderings
will be cited, followed by the Aramaic renditions, both in translite-
ration. Literal translations are of no interest. The Hebrew text is
indicated by H. and Jonathan by J.
verse 2 H. Shim'ü shamayim V'haazírñ eres
J. Shma'ü shmayá d'za'ü kad y'havit orayti l'ami vaasítt 'ar'á'
d'itrgishat min qotuim. pitgamay
The above addítíons come to explain why the prophet calls upon
heaven and earth. It is because they witnessed awestricken the Sinai
epiphany and the giving or the Law to the Jewish people. Jonathan
employs here the principle of "oomparative hermeneutics". Since
Moses in his admonishment to Israel to keep the Torah called upon
heaven and earth as witnesses, as stated in Deut. 31: 28-30, so also
Isaíah in his rebuke calls upon them as witnesses to the giving of
the law, which Israel transgressed 1•
H. Baním (gidaltí v'rómamtí)
J. Ami bét Israel qriti l'hon bnín
This rendition reflects Deut. 14: 1 where Israel was expressly called
the children of God.
Verse 3 H. . .. Yísrá'él ló'yáda' ami ló'hitbónán
J. Yísrá'él la alif l'mida' d'halti, 'amá' lá'ístakél l'metav l'i5rayti.
The underlined words may be termed "sense-translation", they give
the meaning of the passage, not fully understood from the text.

1 Cf. Qim}:ii on this verse.

24
 370 PINCHAS DORON

Verse 4 H. Hoy goy l).ote, 'am keved 'ávón, zera' m'ré'ím, báním mashh'ltím
J. Vay d'itqri'ü 'am qadish vahato, Knisha b'tiira' v'asgí'ü hóvín,
'itkni'ü v'zar'á r'J:iim',a, v' 'av'íshü
The above is a commentary on the Hebrew text rather than a direct
translation. Jonathan divides each clause into two parts, the first
giving the original state, the second the resultant condition. "Such
and such became such and such". If we mark the transmition by
arrows the Hebrew text should be read according to Jonathan thus:
goy- hóté', 'am-» Keved 'ávón, zéra' - m'ré'ím,
báriím - mashhítím 2
H. ázvú et Y-H-V-H, níasü et q'dósh Yisrá'el
J. shvaqü yat puliuuui da Y-H-V-H, qásü b'iiatuüat qadísh' a
ct'Ys11a'el
Jonathan adds pulhan'á = "worship", and b'dahalat = "fear" to
make the text sound less anthropomorphic. To say: "They left God,
they loathed the Holy one of Israel", ímparts to Him human qual-
itíes of space and emotion.
The words: uvdíl 'óvdéhón bíshay'a = "on account of their evil
deeds" are J's addition to the text to explain the last clause názórü
al).or = they turned backward.
V
Verse 5 In this verse J. makes two additions to the text: 1) !Ja' mistaklin
l'mémár = "They do not ponder to say" (to themselves) , and {2)
v'lá' 'ámrín máh den = "and they do not say '(to themselves)" where-
fore". The reason for these additions is lJecause J. renders the
whole verse in 1st person plural as the words of the people, not of
the prophet to the people, as it appears from the text.
VE
Verse 6 This whole verse is interpreted allegorically by J. rather than trans-
lated. Juxtaposing each clause of the Hebrew text to íts Aramaic
counterpart will expose the ínherent allegory,
H. Mikaf regel v'ad ró'sh 'en bó m'tóm
J. Mish'ar 'ama' v'ad résha' lét bhón dishlím bídhaltí
(From the common people to the heads there is none perfect
among them in My worship)
H. Pesa' v'haburah ümakah tríyah
J. Kulhón sárvín ñmárdín ítga'alü v'hovín k'máha m'rassa VE
(They are all stubborn and rebellious, soiled by iniquity like a
crushed wound)
H. 16' zórü v'lo' hubáshü
J. lá'shávkín mízdónéhon v'Iá'mhamdín lityüvtah
{They do not abandon their willful sins and do not desire r~-
pentance)

2 Cf. R. Joseph Kara's commentary on this verse.

 M ETHODOLOGY OF TARGUM JONATH AN 371

H. v'l6' rukkhah bashámen

J. af la' zakhván lhón l'agána' 'aléhón
(Neither do they have merits to protect them) 3

verse 7 H. Ziirim 'ókhlim 'ótah üshmámah k'mahpékhat zdrim.

J. 'ammaya' matisniti yátah üv.!J,óvehón sdí'at minkhón itJ:,,aLiifat
vahavii, l'nükhrii'in
The underlined words are in the nature of a sense-translation as
can be seen from Rashi's commentary, which is essentially the same
as J's. The only words added by J. are "üvhovéhón" = and through
their sins, and "minkhón" = from you.
verses H. . .. k'sukáh v'khárem, kímlünáh v'miqsháh
J. . .. k'mítalaltá' b'kharmá.' biitar d'qatfúhi, k'arsal mabtütá"
v'miqshayá' bátar d'av'ayühi
The underlined, additíons of J. to Hebrew text, come to clarify
the meaning and ar-e a commentary to it, thus:
batiir d'qatfühi = a/ter it (the vineyard) was plucked
k'arsal = as a hammock {for night lodging)
oiitar d'av',ayühi = a/ter it was layed bare. Hence there is no more
need for a night watchman after the crops were destroyed.
verse 9 In this verse J. adds severa! words which stress the loving-kind-
ness and merey of the Lord toward His people, namely: mótiir
túoen (da Y-H-V-H) = the exceedíng goodness of (the Lord of hosts),
b'raturmohi = in His merey, 'it 'imiinii turoin = we have sins (for
which we deserve to be annihilated like the inhabitants of Sodom
and Gomarra)
Verse 10 H. ...q'~Iné sdóm .. .'am 'amóráh
J. . .. shíltónayá' d' 'óvadehón bishin. kshiltóne sdóm
... 'ama d' 'óviidehón diimy,iin l' 'am 'amórah
Here again J. adds a few words, those underlined, to clarify the
metaphor of the text. Taken literally the verse can be misinterpreted
to be a call to the officials of Sodom and Gomorra. Actually, of
course, the prophet speaks to Jerusalem and its leaders and likens
them to those of Sodom and Gomorra as J. points out.
Verse 13 H. ... mínhat shiiv'
ló"ükhal 'éoen ua'asar/ih:
J. ... mínhat 'anisá
Zii' shiivqin l},óvékhón lqabiii'
$Z.ótkhón b' 'idan kní-shat-khón
= "oppres-
The rendering of shiiv' (vanity, falsehood, etc. by 'anisa
sion, ill-gotten wealth" is probably based on the general tenor of
rebuke concerning social crimes in this chapter, as in Verses. 16-17,

3 Cf. Rashi here.

 372 PINCHAS DORON

21-23. The other underlined words merely explain in detail the

meaning already contained in the Hebrew text in capsulized form.
Verse 15 H. uv'fariskhem kapékhem
J. v'khad kahanayá' pársín y'dé hón l'slá'áh 'alékhón ve
(When the príests spread their hands to pray for you)
The above rendition is in accordance with Rabbinic interpre-
tation, not the plain sense of the text 4•
H. 'a' 'lím 'énay mikem
J. m'saléqná' 'apé sh'khíntí minkhón
(I shall remove the countenance of My presence from you)
The underlined words come to obviate an anthropomorphísm
(my eves) , as in the case of the rendition of ve
H. 'énén: ehémé'a by
J. la ra'asxi' qodomay l'qabiila s'lótkhón
{There is no will befare Me to receive your prayer) where "I
do not hear" is not only anthropomorphic, but felt be disres- Vi
pectfut to the Lord.
H. y'dékhem dámím málé'ü
J. midi yedkhón dam zakay malyán
The two additions underlined interpret the sense of the passage.
Verse 16 H. Rahasii hizakkü
J. Tüvü l'órayta: v' 'idakkü mél},óvékhón
The underlined words in J's rendition ínterpret the allegorícal
meaning of the two Hebrew words in the text; the cleansíng and VI
purification must be of a spiritual rather than a physical nature.
H. mineged 'énay
J. míqovél mémri {from before My Word)
Here again J. obviates an anthropomorphism.
Verse 17 H. . . . Shiftü yátóm, rioii 'almánáh
J. ... dünü din yatmá', 'avidü qabílü qvélat 'armaltá
Te above Hebrew clauses rendered literally would give: "Judge
a fatherless, contend {with) a widow). This is plainly not the
meaning of the passage. By the few additions J. arrives at the
intended meaníng of the text, whích is: "Judge the case of the
orphan, do receive the plaint of the widow" .
Verse 18a The first three words of the verse are rendered by J. allego-
rically
H. l'khüná' v'nivakhháh ...
J. b'khén kad t'tüvün l' 'óraytá' tiv'ñn min quodomay v'' a'bed
bá'ütkhón ...

4 Cf. Berakhot 3•2b and compare Qimhi on our verse.

 M ETHODOLOGY OF TARGUM JONATH AN 373

(Therefore when you return to the Torah you will resquest of

Me and I shall fulfill your resquest" ... ) .
verse 20 H. . . . herev t'uklü
J. ... b'herev san',iih titqat-liiti
By the two slight addítions J. clarifies the meaning of the pas-
sage 5 •
H. Ki pi, Y-H-W-H dibbér
J. 'are mérnrá da Y-H-W-H gzar kén.
(For the Word of the Lord has so decreed)
Here agaín J. obviates an anthropomorphic expressíon.
verse 21 H. háytáh l'zónáh
J. távü 'ovdáha l'mehevé ktá'itá'
("Her deeds became like the straying one")
The underlined additíons clarify the sense.
verse 23 H. . . . v'ródéf shalmóním
J. ... 'ámrín g'var l'havréh 'a ved lí tav b'díní va'ashalém lákh
b'dínákh
("They say one to another: Do me a good (turn) in my case
and I shall repay you in your case")
The above interpretation of the obscure Hebrew text envísages
a corrupt criminal justice to such a degree that the erstwhile
judges become culprits 6 •
verse 24 H. .. . hoy 'enáhém mísaráy ...
J. ... qartá y'rüshlém 'aná' 'atid l'nahamütáh. bram vay l'rashi'aya'
kad 'itgle l'mé'bad pur'anüt din m'san'é 'ami ...
("City of Jerusalem, I shall console her, but woe to the wicked
when I shall be revealed to meet out judgment to the enemies
of My people") .
The above rather lengthy free paraphrase is far from the
plain sense of the passage. It comes, firstly, to obviate the an-
thropopathic expressíon: enáhém = "I shall be consoled" which
is unbefitting regarding the Lord. Jonathan therefore renders
it as if written 'anahém = "I shall console" and adds the object
of consolation "the city of J erusalem".
Secondly, he reads "mísáray" as if written "l'~áray" and
combines: "hoy l'sáray" = "woe to my enemies". He further-
more identifies the enemies of God with the enemies of Hís
people 7• Thus he arrives at the rendition: "woe to the wicked

s Cf. Qimhi and Ibn Ezra here.

6 Interestingly most of the Medievals accept J's interpretation as
the "plaín sense" of the idiom. Cf. Rashi, Kara, QimJ;li.
. 7 Cf. Ps. 83•: 3-4 where those against Israel are considered the ene-
mies of the Lord.
 374 PINCHAS DORON

when I shall be revealed to meet out judgement to the ene-

mies of My people".
Verse 25 H. ... ya.di . . . sígáyíkh . . . b'díláyíkh
J. . . . m'hat g'vürtí ... rashí'ayá ... hóvákh
{ ... stroke of My might ... the wicked ... sinners/guilty ones) .
The ídíorn "the stroke of My might" obviates the anthro-
pomorphism ínherent in "yádí" - My hand. The other two
renderings explain the allegoríc metaphor of the Hebrew.
Verse 27 H. ... v'shávéhá bísdáqáh
J. ... v'dá 'avádü 'óraytá' y'tüvün láh b'zákhü
("and those who perform the Torah will return to her by, [their]
merit") The above interpretation is the sense of the passage 8•
Verse 28 H. ... v' 'ózvé Y-H-W-H
J. ... v'díshváqü 'óraytii' da Y-H-W:H
The Hebrew idiom: "Those who leave God" may be misinter-
preted to assing limitation in space to God, and is therefore
anthropomorphic. J. therefore changes it, thereby precluding
a possible misinterpretation .
Verse 30 H. ... nóvelet 'álehá (whose leaves are withering)
J. ... mnatar tarfóhi (whose leaves are falling)
Is it possible that J's Vorlage read "nótelet" = falling? or is
he just interpreting: Leaves that wither eventually fall?
Verse 31 H. ... üvá'arü shnéhem yahdáv v' 'en m'khabbeh
J. ... krrui' dimq,arvin den listar den v'dálqín tarvéhón kahadá',
kén. ysüfün rashi'ay.a' 'iniin. v'óvadehón bishayii' v'lá y'hé
'aléhón hayas
The underlined addítíons by J. provide the logícal links
that are missing in the Hebrew text and interpret the intended
parable. J. renders the word ( 1',pb~ ) "üfó'aló" (literally (its ma-
ker") by "their deeds", which 'Ieads one to belíeve that his
Vorlage may have read: üf,6'016 (1',l?E)~) 9 •
T: T

PINCHAS DORON

Of. Qimhi and Ibn Ezra to this verse.

8
It is noteworthy that Rashi takes exception to J's rendering on
9
the strength of MT reading. Cf. also J. Kara and Msudat David here.