ויגש תשע"ג

AND HE OFFERED SACRIFICES UNTO THE G-D OF HIS FATHER ISAAC. The duty of honoring one’s father is more imperative than that of honoring one’s grandfather. Therefore the sacrifices are associated with the name of Isaac, and not with that of Abraham. Thus the language of Rashi. But this is not sufficient, for it would have been proper for Scripture to say, “and he offered sacrifices unto the G-d of his fathers,” without singling out any one person, just as Jacob said, The G-d before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk; and in his prayer he said, O G-d of my father Abraham, and G-d of my father Isaac. Or Scripture should have said, “and he offered sacrifices to the Eternal,” just as it says in the case of Abraham, And he built there an altar unto the Eternal. And what need was there to explain it further?
However, this verse contains a secret, which the Rabbis revealed to us there in Bereshith Rabbah: When Jacob was about to go down to Egypt he saw that the exile was beginning for him and his children, and he feared it, and so he offered many sacrifices to the Fear of his father Isaac in order that Divine judgment should not be aimed against him. This he did in Beer-sheba which was a place of prayer for his father, and from there he had taken permission when he went to Haran.
Now Scripture uses the word z’vachim, [a term connoting peace-offerings], to inform us that they were not burnt-offerings as were his fathers’, as Abraham offered burnt-offerings. Our Rabbis have said that Noachides did not offer peace-offerings; they offered burnt-offerings. And concerning Noah it is clearly written, And he offered burnt-offerings on the altar. But on account of his fear of the Eternal, Jacob offered peace-offerings in order to bring all Divine attributes into accord towards him, even as the Rabbis have expounded: “They are called sh’lamim (peace-offerings) because they bring shalom (peace) into the world.” Now his original intent was directed at the Divine attribute of power, this being nearest to Isaac. This is the explanation of that which the Rabbis mentioned in Bereshith Rabbah, i.e., that the duty of honoring one’s father is more imperative than that of honoring one’s grandfather. This explanation applies to that which the Rabbis have said there in yet another form: “First you greet the pupil and afterward you greet the Rabbi.”
I have seen this text in the Midrash of Rabbi Nechunya ben Hakanah: “And Jacob swore by the Fear of his father Isaac. Is there any one who swears by the belief of the Fear of his father? However, it was because Jacob was not yet given strength, and so he swore by the power given to his father, as it is said, And Jacob swore by the Fear of his father Isaac. And what is this? It is this concerning which Scripture writes, Then the fire of the Eternal fell, and consumed the burnt-offering, and it is further written, For the Eternal thy G-d is a devouring fire, etc.” Thus far the Midrash. From the words of the Rabbis of this Midrash, we learn that it was for this reason that it does not say here, “and he offered sacrifices to the Eternal,” [but instead it says, “to the G-d of his father Isaac],” because now in Beer-sheba Jacob had already become privileged to possess his own portion [and needed only to bring all Divine attributes into accord towards him], as it is said, Thou wilt give truth to Jacob, mercy to Abraham, as Thou hast sworn unto our fathers from the days of old. It was therefore necessary to explain it now. Thus by the merit of the sacrifices, the G-d of his father Isaac appeared to him in the visions of the night with an ameliorated Divine attribute of justice. It is this which Scripture says concerning them, in the visions of the night, complementing that which He said, I am G-d, the G-d of thy father, for He is the G-d of Beth-el Who said to him in Haran, I am the G-d of Beth-el, where thou didst anoint a pillar; it is He Who is the G-d of thy father. This is the Name and this is the attribute. And He assured him that he should have no fear in Egypt for he will be found righteous in Divine judgment, and he will be redeemed after the affliction. This is the meaning of the Divine promise, And I will also surely bring thee up again.
Now the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] has written in the twenty-seventh chapter of the first part of the Moreh Nebuchim (Guide of the Perplexed) concerning Onkelos’ translation of the verse, I will go down with thee into Egypt, and I will also surely bring thee up again, [which Onkelos rendered here literally]: “I will go down with thee…and I will bring thee up.” And the Rabbi was amazed at the opinion of Onkelos, [namely, that the literal translation should be used], saying that Onkelos had exerted all his effort to remove any implication of G-d’s corporeality from all narratives in the Torah. Accordingly, in the case of any expression found in the Torah implying any mode of motion that refers to G-d, Onkelos ascribed the action to a certain glory that had been created for the occasion, or a manifestation of Divine Providence. Thus he translated And G-d came down as “and G-d manifested Himself;” I will go down now and see as “I will manifest Myself now and see.” And if so, why did Onkelos here translate literally, “I will go down”? And so the Rabbi explained that since Scripture said at the outset of the matter, And G-d spoke unto Israel in the visions of the night, thus indicating that it is an account of what Jacob was told and not what actually took place, Onkelos therefore did not hesitate to literally translate the words as they were addressed to Jacob in the visions of the night, for the words in question represent an account of what Jacob was told, not what actually took place. There is thus a great difference between a communication transmitted in a dream or a vision of the night, or a communication designated as having been made in a vision or manifestation, and a communication given clearly, [not in a dream, such as communications introduced by phrases like these]: “And the word of the Eternal came unto me, saying,” or “And the Eternal spoke unto me, saying.” These are the words of Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon.
Similarly he said that Onkelos never translated expressions of “hearing” literally [when the Scriptural references were to G-d], but instead explained them as expressing that a certain matter reached the Creator, or that He accepted a prayer. Thus Onkelos translated the Eternal heard as “it was heard before the Eternal;” he translated the verse, I will surely hear his crying as “I will surely accept his complaint.”
But if the matter is as the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] said, why does Onkelos shun literal translations of expressions of movement, and also avoid literal expressions of hearing due to his fear that they might indicate corporeality, but he does not in any place shy away from literally expressing “saying,” “speaking” or “calling,” whether the communication was in a dream or manifestation or overt speech, for in every case he translates: “and G-d said,” “G-d spoke,” “and G-d called unto Moses”? These expressions likewise signify corporeality, and Onkelos should have translated, “and it was said from before G-d,” or “and the glory of G-d said,” or “and G-d willed,” as is appropriate in each case, just as the Rabbi has explained with reference to the terms “speaking” and “saying” when they refer to G-d. And why did Onkelos avoid literal translation in the case of “hearing” and did not do so with respect to “seeing,” which he translated as: “and the Eternal saw”? And that which the Rabbi has said that “seeing” indicates mental perception as well as the sensation of sight, this applies all the more to “hearing” for it is employed in many places to indicate mental perception and will, such as: And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai; Hear the voice of my supplications; Yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear; And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the Eternal thy G-d. And so also, leiv shomei’ah (literally: a hearing heart, an understanding heart), and so also in the case of most of [the verses cited by Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon]. So Onkelos should not have been apprehensive of expressions of “hearing” as they only indicate acceptance of a matter by G-d and His being pleased with it, for he does not avoid literal translations of expressions of sight any place, but translates it literally in all cases even when seeing alone is involved. However, where a matter is not conceived by sight alone, but requires attention and discernment, Onkelos renders it as befits the subject. For example, when Scripture says, Because the Eternal hath looked upon my affliction, [Onkelos rendered it as, “because my affliction is manifested before the Eternal”]. The verse, I have surely seen the affliction of My people, [was rendered by Onkelos as, “the enslavement of my people is manifest before me,” and the verse], And G-d saw the children of Israel, [he rendered as, “and the enslavement of the children of Israel was manifest before G-d],” since His seeing them was not just as a matter of perceiving their bodies but of His attention to their situation and His knowledge thereof. This is Onkelos’ method throughout the Torah, and not as the Rabbi’s opinion would have it, as a consquence of which opinion he had to declare [our version of Targum Onkelos] erroneous in [the following three places: the verse mentioned above, namely, And the Eternal saw], and two other verses, which Onkelos translated as, “and He saw,” since these translations do not fit his theory.
With reference to expressions of “passing” Onkelos paraphrased and thus translated the expression, And the Eternal passed by before him, as, “and He caused His Presence to pass before his [Moses’] face.” He did this so that the passing object would be, in accordance with Onkelos’ opinion, something created, as he would not ascribe any expression of motion to the Creator in accordance with what the Rabbi has mentioned. But if this is so, why did Onkelos literally translate the verse, The Eternal thy G-d, He will go over before thee? This is a form of motion occurring in a narrative and yet Onkelos was not apprehensive about it! Similarly, Onkelos translated the verse, And Israel saw the great hand, as, “and Israel saw the power of the great hand.” He added the term “power” due to the subsequent expression, that the Eternal did, yet he left intact the expression, “the great hand” and was not apprehensive and fearful of the term “hand” being ascribed to G-d and did not paraphrase it at all! He did the same in literally translating, written with the finger of G-d. The Rabbi’s answer that Onkelos thought that “the finger” was a created instrument which, by the will of the Creator, engraved the writing on the tablets, is not the truth. There is the verse, At His right hand was a fiery law unto them, in translation of which Onkelos wrote, “His right hand,” and he was not apprehensive of “the right hand writing,” that is lest it indicate corporeality, and such is the case also with “the finger” as mentioned above. He furthermore literally translated: Thou stretchest forth Thy right hand as, “Thou raisest Thy right hand.” So also the verses: Thy right hand, O Eternal, dasheth in pieces the enemy; Thy strong hand; By a mighty hand, and by an outstretched arm; And My hand take hold on judgment; The eyes of the Eternal thy G-d are always upon it. [Onkelos literally translated all of these verses without fear that the terms “hand” and “eyes” might indicate corporeality.] Now in the case of Jacob, the Scriptural narrative begins, And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, etc., and yet Onkelos, fearing corporeality, translated [the verse, And, behold, the Eternal stood beside him], as “and, behold, the Glory of G-d stood beside him,” and he did not translate literally, “and, behold, the Eternal” although it was in a dream. He further translated the expression, And, behold, I am with thee, as “and, behold, My word will be in thy help,” and did not say literally, “and, behold, I am with thee,” just as he literally translated, “I will go down with thee,” even though the story of the ladder is a statement of what Jacob was told, [not a narrative of what took place], and is completely analogous to the narrative of the dream here. Again, Onkelos literally translated the expression, And I will be with thy mouth, [even though the story there is not introduced as a vision of the night or a dream], and on the other hand he translated the verse, And He said, Certainly I will be with thee, and this shall be the token unto thee, as “behold, My word will be with thee.” Furthermore, Onkelos does not always translate literally in the case of dreams. Thus he rendered the verses, And G-d came to Abimelech in a dream of the night, And G-d came to Laban in a dream, as “and the word came from before G-d.” Should you say that Onkelos paraphrased it there because he was concerned lest one think that G-d came to them before the dream, and one might thus think that G-d’s appearance actually took place, [this would still not justify his using the expression, “and the word came,”] for in the case of Solomon it is written, In Gibeon the Eternal appeared to Solomon in a dream, and yet Jonathan ben Uziel translated it as, “G-d revealed Himself to Solomon,” even though, according to Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, a narrative introduced as a dream is rendered by Onkelos and Jonathan as it was actually said. They find no difficulty in translating such a statement literally, even though the expression connotes corporeality, because since it occurs in a dream, they understand that it is inexact. Thus in the case of Solomon, since the Eternal appeared to him in a dream, it was proper for Jonathan to give a literal account of the occurrence, for since Scripture relates that it was in a dream by night, one would himself infer that it was not real but only a dream in which the person dreaming imagined it to be so. [Now since Jonathan did not paraphrase the account of Solomon’s dream, although Onkelos did so in the case of the dreams of Abimelech and Laban, it thus helps to disprove the thesis of Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon that accounts of what occurred in man’s imagination are not paraphrased by the Targum.] Now do not think that Jonathan ben Uziel did this because the term “seeing” in reference to dreams is not found in Aramaic — for the verse, And I saw in my dream, is indeed translated [in Targum Onkelos] as “I saw,” and in the case of the dream of Nebuchadnezzar, it likewise says in Aramaic, Thou O King, sawest.
And so did Onkelos translate the verse, Your murmurings are not against us, but against the Eternal, as “but against the word of G-d.” Onkelos thus paraphrased here even though there is no fear or apprehension of corporeality connoted by literal translation. Likewise, he translated And the people spoke against G-d, and against Moses as, “and the people murmured against the word of G-d.” So also the verses, Between Me and you, and Between G-d and every living creature, were translated by Onkelos as: “between My word and you,” “between the word of G-d and every living creature.” There are many similar examples [of verses which he paraphrased in spite of the fact that there would have been no apprehension of intimating corporeality had he translated literally]. And so also he translated The Eternal watch as “the word of G-d watch;” G-d is witness as “the word of G-d is witness.” Yet there would be no apprehension of corporeality had those expressions been literally translated. Besides, what sense is conveyed here by the expression, “the word of G-d’ watch or witness”? Similarly the verse, Swear unto me here by G-d, is rendered by Onkelos as “swear unto me by the word of G-d,” although people who swear do not mention, “I swear by the word of G-d.” There are many other such cases in Onkelos, and their secret meaning is known to the learned students [of the mystic lore of the Torah].
Likewise, with respect to the term “standing” when applied to G-d, the Rabbi said that Jonathan ben Uziel’s intent was to explain it as meaning “to endure permanently,” and therefore he translated the expression, And His feet shall stand, as “and He will appear in His might.” So also all expressions denoting contact and motion were rendered by him as “the might of G-d.” Yet Onkelos had no apprehension of the term “standing.” and he translated it literally: Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock.
And concerning that which the Rabbi has said that all expressions denoting any mode of motion are rendered by Onkelos as the revelation of the Divine Presence, or the manifestation of a certain Glory that had been created for the occasion, now Onkelos avoids even literal translation of verses which mention “seeing” the Glory [of G-d, and would certainly oppose using it to denote expressions of motion]. Thus he translates the verse, And the glory of the Eternal appeared unto all the congregation, as “and the glory of G-d was manifested,” just as he said in translation of the verse, And the Eternal came down, “and the Eternal manifested Himself,” and did not translate it literally as “and the glory of the Eternal appeared.” He also likewise translates “seeing,” when referring to angels, as “and he manifested himself.” Now if it is as the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] said that in the case of angels, or manifestation of a certain glory that had been created for the occasion, Onkelos does not hesitate to literally translate expressions denoting corporeality, it would have been proper for him not to avoid expressions of literal “seeing” of angels by man, and should there translate it as “and he appeared,” just as he has literally rendered the verse, For I have seen ‘Elokim’ face to face, as “for I have seen an angel of G-d.” Heaven forbid that the Divine Presence or the Glory created for the occasion be anything except the glorious Divine Name, blessed be He, as the Rabbi has expressed himself here and in many chapters of his book. Thus Onkelos translated the expression, If Thy face go not, as “if Thy Divine Presence go not among us.” Now, other than the glorious Divine Name, blessed be He, Moses did not want a special Glory created to go with him, since the Holy One, blessed be He, had already told him, Behold Mine angel shall go before thee, and Moses was not pleased with it. He instead wanted that G-d in His own glory should go with him. Also, after G-d heard his plea and told him, I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken, Moses said, Let the Lord, I pray thee, go in the midst of us, and this Onkelos rendered as “let now G-d’s Divine Presence go among us.” He similarly translated the expression, Thou canst not see My face, “thou cannot see the face of My Divine Presence, for man shall not see Me.” [In translating the verse in the book of Ezekiel, Blessed be the glory of the Eternal from His place,] Jonathan ben Uziel said, “Blessed be the glory of the Eternal from the region of His Divine abode.” Now if by this “Glory,” [which is mentioned in the book of Ezekiel] Scripture refers to the Creator in His true essence, analogous to the verse, Show me, I pray Thee, Thy glory, which the Rabbi has indeed so interpreted, then how did [Jonathan ben Uziel] in translating the verse mention “the region of His Divine abode” [when the terms “region,” “abode,” etc., indicate corporeality]? And if one would say that the verse in Ezekiel refers to a certain glory that had been created for the occasion, as is the opinion of the Rabbi with respect to the verse, And the glory of the Eternal filled the tabernacle, and other similar verses, then how did the angels direct their words, “Blessed, etc.,” towards it when he who blesses and prays to a glory created for an occasion is as he who worshipped idols? The teachings of our Rabbis also contain many texts which indicate that the name Shechinah (Divine Presence) is identical with G-d, blessed be He. But all these subjects, [some of which are rendered literally and some of which are paraphrased, are not influenced by a fear of using terms denoting corporeality but rather by secrets] of the Cabala known to Onkelos and Jonathan ben Uziel, and the secrets thereof are revealed to those who know the mystic lore of the Torah. Thus in the Revelation on Mount Sinai, wherever Elokim is mentioned in that section, Onkelos renders it as “the Glory” or “the Word of G-d,” but when Scripture mentions the Tetragrammaton he does not so render it. All this is done by Onkelos with extraordinary care and wisdom, and I will yet mention this with the help of G-d, blessed be He. Now the reason that Onkelos literally translated the verse, And ‘Elokim’ spoke all these words, saying, [rather than render it, “and the Glory of G-d spoke,” as he usually does wherever Elokim is mentioned], is that it is said, Face to face the Eternal spoke unto your whole assembly. The student learned [in the mystic lore of the Cabala] will understand.
However, the reason why Onkelos here literally translated, I will go down with thee to Egypt, [and did not paraphrase it as “My Glory will go down with thee],” is that he wanted to allude to that which the Rabbis have said: “When they were exiled to Egypt, the Divine Presence went with them, as it is said, I will go down with thee to Egypt. When they were exiled to Elam, the Divine Presence went down with them, as it is said, And I will set My throne in Elam.” Thus both the verse which speaks of G-d “saying” [namely, And He said, I am G-d, the G-d of thy father, etc.], and [the verse which speaks of G-d] “going down,” [namely, I will go down with thee], are alike [for they both refer to the Creator in His true essence], as I have explained above, and therefore he could not, under any circumstances, have translated in any other way, as I have hinted. But there in the case of Jacob’s dream, Onkelos could not have literally translated, “and behold I am with thee,” [and was forced to paraphrase it as, “and My word will be in thy help],” because it is written there, And, behold, the Eternal stood beside him. The student learned [in the mystic lore of the Cabala] will understand. And due to the fact that Onkelos found the meaning of this verse not to be in line with its plain meaning, he therefore spurned [literally translating the rest of the verse, and rendered it as referring to assistance], and thus he said, “My word will be in thy help,” instead of saying “My word will be with you,” as he said in the case of Moses. And may G-d show us wonders in His Torah.

ONKELOS the Proselyte, who was thoroughly acquainted with the Hebrew and Chaldaic languages, made it his task to oppose the belief in God’s corporeality. Accordingly, any expression employed in the Pentateuch in reference to God, and in any way implying corporeality, he paraphrases in consonance with the context. All expressions denoting any mode of motion, are explained by Him to mean the appearance or manifestation of a certain light that had been created [for the occasion], i.e., the Shekhinah (Divine Presence), or Providence. Thus he paraphrases “the Lord will come down” (Exod. 19:11), “The Lord will manifest Himself”; “And God came down” (xvi. 20), “And God manifested Himself”; and does not say “And God came down”; “I will go down now and see” (Gen. 18:21), he paraphrases, “I will manifest myself now and see.”

Hence you may infer that there is a great difference between a communication, designated as having been made in a dream, or a vision of the night, and a vision or a manifestation simply introduced with phrases like “And the word of the Lord came unto me, saying”; “And the Lord spake unto me, saying.”

David gained fame when he returned from defeating^-g Edom in the Valley of Salt, 18,000 in all.