January 9, 2013 5:19 pm at 5:19 pm #607753
Targum Yonasan ben Uziel teaches the amazing fact that Eldad and Meidad were half-brothers to Moshe Rabbeinu. How did that happen? We know based on the Gemara in Sotah that because of the decree of Pharaoh to throw the male children into the Nile River, Amram divorced his wife Yocheved. According to the Gemara, Amram was the leader of the generation and set an example that everyone else later emulated. Amram only remarried Yocheved after his daughter Miriam pointed out to her father that his decree was worse than Pharaoh’s decree because it precluded Jewish girls from being born as well, while Pharaoh’s decree only affected the males. Moshe was born from that remarriage.
According to the Tanna, Yonasan ben Uziel, during the period between her two marriages to Amram, Yocheved wanted to continue to have children and so she married Elzaphon ben Parnach and gave birth from him to two sons — Eldad and Meidad — during that brief marriage.
From Torah.orgJanuary 9, 2013 5:35 pm at 5:35 pm #920990
The Targum entitled “Targum Yonosan ben Uziel” in our chumashim wasn’t actually written by the Tanna Yonosan ben Uziel. Yonosan ben Uziel only wrote on Neveim.January 9, 2013 5:53 pm at 5:53 pm #920991
I have heard this. So who wrote it?January 9, 2013 6:06 pm at 6:06 pm #920992R.T.Participant
Which begs the question, how could Amram “re-marry” Yocheved if he may have had the din of a Cohen?January 9, 2013 6:13 pm at 6:13 pm #920994WolfishMusingsParticipant
Which begs the question, how could Amram “re-marry” Yocheved if he may have had the din of a Cohen?
You could also ask how he could marry his aunt or remarry a woman who married another man in the interim.
The answer to all such questions is that the mitzvos were not yet given — including the mitzvah against marrying an aunt, remarrying your divorcee or a Kohen marrying a divorcee.
The WolfJanuary 9, 2013 6:22 pm at 6:22 pm #920995AlanH923Participant
RT, as I understand it the answer to your question: ” how could Amram “re-marry” Yocheved if he may have had the din of a Cohen? ” is as follows: At that time in Egypt, before the Torah was given, our ancestors had the status of being Beni Noach and therefore this was permitted. The prohibition of a Kohen marrying a divorcee only applied to Jews.
In addition, you might also ask an even more fundamental question: How could Amam have married his aunt, Yocheved as this is a forbidden relationship for Jews? The answer, as I understand it, would be the same- The marriage of an aunt to a nephew is permitted for a Bnei noach and is only forbidden for Jews and pre-Torah our ancestors had the status of Beni Noach. The definite proof that this marriage (and remarriage) was absolutely permissible is the Gemara in Tractate Shabbos that states that only 4 people died as a result of the sin in Gan Eden, as they never sinned themselves. Amram is one of those 4 persons listed.January 9, 2013 7:00 pm at 7:00 pm #920997simcha613Participant
R.T. that question exists even without the targum. A Cohen can’t remarry his divorced wife even if she didn’t marry someone in between.January 9, 2013 11:29 pm at 11:29 pm #920998ChortkovParticipant
???? was most definitely not a ??? because ????? ???? was first ??? (and possibly ??? ????? for the ???? ??? ??????? or maybe even his whole life; ?????? in the ???? about it).
The Question about ????? ?????? IS a question, because the ???? did keep the ???? (And the ???? learns out ????? from some of the stories in ?????, like the fact that Goy who hits a Yid is ???? ???? because ??? killed the Goy last week) – [although the ???”? says it was only in ??? ????? that ????? ???? ????? kept the ????]January 9, 2013 11:37 pm at 11:37 pm #920999ChortkovParticipant
???? ????? ??????? ??? ???? ?? ???
????? ?? ???? ??????? ??? ???? ??? ??
?????? ??? ????? ????? ?? ?????? ?????
?? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ????? ??????
???????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ???? ??
???? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??? ????? ??
??? ?? ????? ????? ???? ??? ??? ?????
?? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ??? ??????
????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ????? ???
?????? ????? ??? ????? ??? ??? ???
?????? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ??????
???? ???? ????? ????? ?? ?????? ????
?? ??? ????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ????
??? ?? ????January 10, 2013 1:42 am at 1:42 am #921000
My question –
How could Amram re-marry his wife if she married someone ELSE in the interim?
As to remarrying your divorcee – Wolf, a Yisrael can re-marry his divorced wife if she was not married to someone else in the interim.I believe this holds true for leviim as well. Only Kohanim are prohibited from marrying their own gerushaJanuary 10, 2013 1:52 am at 1:52 am #921001WolfishMusingsParticipant
As to remarrying your divorcee – Wolf, a Yisrael can re-marry his divorced wife if she was not married to someone else in the interim.I believe this holds true for leviim as well. Only Kohanim are prohibited from marrying their own gerusha
You’re right, of course. But here we’re talking about a case of a man who remarried his divorcee after she married someone else in the interim.
The Question about ????? ?????? IS a question, because the ???? did keep the ????
Amram was not one of the Avos. In addition, Amram *clearly* did not keep the mitzvos as he married his aunt.
The WolfJanuary 10, 2013 4:29 am at 4:29 am #921003R.T.Participant
Wolf — The Meforshim speak about this issue concerning aunt-nephew marriages. While it is true that everyone has a din of Ben Noach prior to Matan Torah, there is a differentiation between mother’s side vs. father’s side.
Yekke2 — You are correct concerning Moshe and Aharon prior to the Mishkan. But if we look at Rashi in Bereishit 14, 20 when Avraham gave Maaser to MalkiTzedek, it’s mefurash that MalkiTzedek was a Cohen which suggests that the entire lineage from Shem (Shem=MalkiTzedek) onwards through to Levi (and Amram) were Cohanim.
WIY — Concerning Eldad and Meidad: The interpretation you listed is one of three explanations. Rabbenu BeChai brings down that they were 2 unrelatd individuals (not even brothers to themselves) from different Shvatim. And Da’at Zekenim MiBaalei Tosafot suggest that they were brothers to Aharon from Amram’s side, not Yocheved’s side.
All of the above, compels me to humbly suggest that Amram may have had 2 wives (as did Yaakov and Elkanah, etc…) and that Amram did not “divorce” Yocheved but merely separated from her.January 10, 2013 7:09 am at 7:09 am #921004
and that Amram did not “divorce” Yocheved but merely separated from her.
Whatever it was they did, it was something pretty open and obvious. Obvious enough that others followed their example.January 10, 2013 8:00 pm at 8:00 pm #921005
No one knows who wrote it. Some people think it was written during the times of the Rishonim, some people think it was written in the times of the Gaonim. Rashi never cites it which is some evidence that it either didn’t exist, was obscure, or Rashi didn’t hold of it. Sof Davar: be wary of quoting any information from it unless you have an additional source.January 10, 2013 8:04 pm at 8:04 pm #921006
Machzir Grushaso is a lo sassei. Even if Bnei Yisrael kept some for of Halacha in Mitrayim they did it as “einoi m’tzuveh v’oseh” a concept which doesn’t make much sense for a lo sassei.January 10, 2013 8:16 pm at 8:16 pm #921007
I don’t think there is any Mekor at all saying that the Yidden in Mitzraim kept the Mitzvos. Actually, they didn’t keep Bris Mila. In fact, it says Halalu Ovdei Avoda Zara about them.January 10, 2013 8:52 pm at 8:52 pm #921008zaidy78Participant
There is a gemara that says ???? ??? ????? ?? ???. Only four people in the history of world died without doing any aveiros whatsoever. The only reason they died was because of the g’zeira from Adom and Chava. One of them is Amram. (The others are: Binyomin, Yishai and Klav ben Dovid). How could Amram have married his own aunt? If you will say that it was before matan Torah, so then the whole gemara looses its punch.
A friend of mine quoted a Nefesh HaChaim (Rav Chaim Volozhin) who explains the fact the Avos kept the Torah was not the same way that we have the Torah. Yes, the Yidden kept Shabbos and mitzvos. They knew the Torah, but were allowed to make their own calculations. When Yaakov saw that he was given Leah, he married her sister as well because he knew that the world would need a Moshiach ben Yosef. Maybe you can say, that Amram knew that from him together with Yocheved the “goel” was to be born. So he was allowed to marry his aunt. As soon as Paroah made a decree that all boys must be thrown into the river, he knew that even if a “goel” was to be born from him, he would have to kill him, and hence had no reason to be married to his aunt. So he divorced her. Miriam came along and said that its your job to bring the “goel” onto earth, from there on Hashem will worry about it. Ofcourse, once we were formally given the Torah on Har Sinai, we can no longer make our own calculations.
To take this one step further. Eventhough, Yocheved remarried, (and even if Amram had a din kohen), he was allowed to be machzir grushoso, because we was allowed to make such a calculation.
(Please note: this is my own p’shat based on what I heard in the name of the Nefesh HaChaim, but for people who are more learned than me, it may be a long bubba mayss, but from what I was quoted, kein nire’e li)January 11, 2013 4:20 am at 4:20 am #921009
It would seem Rashi did see and use the Targum attributed to Yonasan ben Uziel on the Torah. In many places Rashi makes statements that have no source other than Targum Yonasan on the Torah. For example, Bereshis 4,15, Vayasem. Especially since Rashi changes from what Pirke R’ Eliezer writes there (21). -Lubavitcher RebbeJanuary 11, 2013 4:16 pm at 4:16 pm #921010AlanH923Participant
Zaidy78 I am very glad that you brought to light the Gemara in Tractate Shabbos regarding four people who dies without sinning.
As you most correctly stated: “Only four people in the history of world died without doing any aveiros whatsoever. The only reason they died was because of the g’zeira from Adom and Chava. One of them is Amram.”
Zaidy where I respectfully disagree with you in regarding your comment concerning Amram marrying his aunt: “How could Amram have married his own aunt? If you will say that it was before matan Torah, so then the whole gemara looses its punch. ” I do not think the Gemara loses it punch at all. Meaning that a person is required to observe Halochos that are in existence and in force in their lifetime. I believe that the challenges facing the children of Israel in Egypt to keep the Bnei Noach laws were no less difficult than the challenges that we have today to keep all the Mitzvos as Torah Jews. As it was stated by other respondents in this discussion, Idol worship as well as actions forbidden to Bnei Noach was rampant in Egypt. Thus, it appears to me, that Amran is listed in the Gemara as one of the four people who died without sinning on their own because he, in fact, kept all the laws that he was required to keep- i.e. the Laws of Beni Noach, a task at the time, that was much more difficult than meets the eye. Therefore, we do not need to ‘explain away’ through calculations the reason why Amram married his Aunt. It was completely permissible for a Beni Noach to do that and the Gemara inn Tractate Shabbos stating the he died without sin clearly validates this.January 13, 2013 2:47 am at 2:47 am #921011
The citation in Rashi is to Pirkei D’Rebbi Eliezer. I don’t have a copy of PDRE so I can’t look it up, but it is certainly possible that Rashi had a different girsa in PDRE or that he changed it slightly to fit his pirush better. There is no place that the citation in Rashi is to the Targum Yonason.January 13, 2013 4:42 am at 4:42 am #921012
Rashi doesn’t provide a citation. There is certainly no need to assume that Rashi had a different girsa or that he had no makor.January 13, 2013 5:38 pm at 5:38 pm #921013
It’s very hard for us to sayy that Rashi’s Mekor had to any specific place. There are many Midrashim that were around then that are not not around anymore. If Targum Yonasan was composed or compiled during the Rishonim period, the author drew from these same Medrashim. We can’t bring any proof.
The Ramban, however, does quote the Nusach Yerushalmi of this Targum. There are those who suggest that the Targum is Actually Targum Yerushalmi, abbriviated as TY, and mistaken for Targum Yonasan. Or perhaps, it was from some other, later Yonasan. There were many Targumin in earlier times. There’s Targum Reb Yosef, who some say might be out Targum Yonasan (TY), but I heard this was disproven by contrasting it with his Shittos ‐ although it is possible that he included other Shitos.
This Targum does have something in common with Targum Yonasan on Nach. They both veer from Pshat often enough to explain a Nimshal or some Medrash. Although, this Targum seems to do this more than the TY on Nach.
The fact that the Gemara says that Unkelos did the Targum on the Torah and Yonasan ben Uziel was Metargem the Nach doesn’t necessarily show that he didn’t author a parallel, alternative, non-essential Targum.
Tosafos writes that when the Gemara says we must say the Targum even for Ateres Vedivon, it means that although Targum Unkelos was not Metargem these words, we should be Metargem. If Unkelos wasn’t Metargem them but there is another Targum that is Metargem, then we should use that other Targum to be Metargem these words. It happens to be,January 13, 2013 7:46 pm at 7:46 pm #921014147Participant
Fascinating Torah trivia
1) vo’eiro is the hardest Parsha to lein, so am always glad when it is behind us.
2) Shevat is the absolute only month on the Hebrew calendar, which can be a “1 day” Rosh Chodesh falling on Shabbos and that we read the Haftoro of Rosh Chodesh on the “1 day” Rosh Chodesh.January 13, 2013 8:21 pm at 8:21 pm #921015
It happens to be,
Oh well, something got chopped off over there. Here’s the rest.
It happens to be that in our Targum, the words Ateres Vedivon are Meturgam. It may very well be that the early printers (or earlier copyists) put in those words from the Targum Yonason, in accordance with Tosafos’ Shita.
Regardless, we see that the Ramban had this Targum and Tosafos had this or other (or many other) legitimate Targumim.January 14, 2013 12:47 pm at 12:47 pm #921017
There are many Midrashim that were around then that are not not around anymore. If Targum Yonasan was composed or compiled during the Rishonim period, the author drew from these same Medrashim.
Until benignuman provides a reason to assume Targum Yonasan was not written by Yonasan ben Uziel don’t assume it.
There’s definitely nothing to be wary of.
It’s very hard for us to sayy that Rashi’s Mekor had to any specific place. There are many Midrashim that were around then that are not not around anymore… We can’t bring any proof.
I beg to differ. Rashi’s makkor doesn’t definitively have to be from somewhere specific but it can be said that it is likely to be from somewhere specific.January 14, 2013 4:48 pm at 4:48 pm #921018
Here is the reason to assume it is not written by Yonosan ben Uziel:
1. The Gemara says that Yonosan ben Uziel wrote a targum on Neviem but makes no mention of him writing a targum on Torah, which is strange considering how great Yonosan ben Uziel was.
2. There is no mention of Targum Yonosan on Torah anywhere in Shas Bavli & Yerushalmi, or any of the major midrashim.
3. There is no mention of a Targum Yonosan on Torah in the works of the Gaonim.
4. There is no mention of Targum Yonosan on Torah in any of the earlier Rishonim (the Ramban who appears to quote the Targum calls it Yirushalmi, not Yonosan).
5. If Yonosan ben Uziel, a senior contemporary of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakai, wrote a targum on Chumash, why did Onkelos (a student of Rebbi Eliezer who was a student of R’Yochanan ben Zakai) write one (remember this is before writing Torah shel bal peh become the norm)?
These bits of evidence are not iron-clad, but they are definitely sufficient to rid us of the presumption that it was written by Yonosan ben Uziel.January 14, 2013 5:17 pm at 5:17 pm #921019
i thought targum yerushalmi was something else.
an old mikraos gedolos has both “targum yonoson” and targum yerushalmi. if I remember correctly, the targum yerushalmi is not complete but is only shown where it differs from one of the others.January 14, 2013 5:26 pm at 5:26 pm #921020BaalHaboozeParticipant
Thank you WIY for this great thread!!
here’s another bit of Fascinating Torah Trivia:
How was Moshe and Basya related?
According to the Medrash Talpiyos, Basya and Tzippora (Moshe’s wife) were twin sisters! Pharoah adopted Basya, while Yisro adopted Tzippora.
This means Basya was Moshe’s sister-in-law!January 14, 2013 8:06 pm at 8:06 pm #921021
Fascinating Torah trivia
1) vo’eiro is the hardest Parsha to lein, so am always glad when it is behind us.
hardest in chumash shmos maybe.
hardest of all? I don’t agree.January 14, 2013 8:23 pm at 8:23 pm #921022
Nitpicker, it is actually Nusach Yerushalmi of the same Targum. That’s why there are only few differences. Many of the differences are merely linguistic.
The Ramban rarely mentions it. So, if other Rishonim refer to it one time less than the Ramban, they won’t mention it at all.
It makes a lot of sense that it was written after many other Midrashim. He brings many Midrashim and is not the source for Midrashim. Maybe a Gaon wrote it in his spirit, like the Raya Mehimna, which according to the Kamarna was written by a Gaon named Shalom. He wasn’t sure if this is the famous Mar Shalom Gaon.January 15, 2013 2:40 am at 2:40 am #921023
The word “trivia” is commonly used to refer to unimportant facts. I wish we could find a better word to describe interesting, relatively unknown Torah facts.January 15, 2013 2:07 pm at 2:07 pm #921024
I agree.January 16, 2013 5:25 pm at 5:25 pm #921025
another fantastic torah FACT (kudos to DY)
besides serach bas osher, who else lived from when Yaakov was still alive till the yidden entered e”y? i’ll let you guess till i answer…January 16, 2013 5:46 pm at 5:46 pm #921026Geordie613Participant
yocheved bas leviJanuary 16, 2013 6:18 pm at 6:18 pm #921027
Instead of trivia – fascinating Torah factoidsJanuary 16, 2013 6:39 pm at 6:39 pm #921028
AC – no, not Yocheved.January 16, 2013 6:45 pm at 6:45 pm #921029🐵 ⌨ GamanitParticipant
Serach bas AsherJanuary 16, 2013 7:25 pm at 7:25 pm #921030just my hapenceParticipant
The children of Machir Ben MenasheJanuary 16, 2013 7:44 pm at 7:44 pm #921031
jmh – Mochir ben Menashe is the correct answer.January 16, 2013 7:46 pm at 7:46 pm #921032popa_bar_abbaParticipant
How do you know machir was born while yaakov was alive?January 16, 2013 7:51 pm at 7:51 pm #921034
A factoid is a questionable or spurious (unverified, false, or fabricated) statement presented as a fact, but with no veracity. The word can also be used to describe a particularly insignificant or novel fact, in the absence of much relevant context.
The second definition makes it no better than “trivia”, and let’s hope that the first definition doesn’t apply to these posts. 🙂January 16, 2013 8:49 pm at 8:49 pm #921035gavra_at_workParticipant
How do you know machir was born while yaakov was alive?
Offen a Gemorah Bava Basra 121b. Yair as well.January 16, 2013 9:05 pm at 9:05 pm #921036
You are most welcome!January 16, 2013 10:01 pm at 10:01 pm #921037
A factoid is a questionable or spurious (unverified, false, or fabricated) statement presented as a fact, but with no veracity. The word can also be used to describe a particularly insignificant or novel fact, in the absence of much relevant context.”
Thank you — I stand corrected. I didn’t know the actual definition.
How about Torah Truisms…?January 16, 2013 10:31 pm at 10:31 pm #921038
Well then, what about, Torah Tidbits?January 16, 2013 10:58 pm at 10:58 pm #921039
Torah truisms… redundant, no? 🙂January 17, 2013 5:15 am at 5:15 am #921040
A There are many Midrashim that were around then that are not not around anymore. If Targum Yonasan was composed or compiled during the Rishonim period, the author drew from these same Medrashim.
B Until benignuman provides a reason to assume Targum Yonasan was not written by Yonasan ben Uziel don’t assume it.
C Here is the reason to assume it is not written by Yonosan ben Uziel…
Haleivi- Even if you would be able to speculate about the timetable of the origin of the Targum Yonasan, and were able to say that ‘Targum Yonasan’ ‘drew from Midrashim’, the fact that many of Rashi’s statements have no other known source than the Targum Yonasan, still allows for the possibility that Rashi used the ‘Targum Yonasan’ which itself would have ‘drawn from Midrashim’, and that Rashi didn’t himself draw from those Midrashim.
benignuman- This possibility would in turn invalidate your argument that Rashi never saw Targum Yonasan, which would in turn invalidate your inference from there.
And again, there is definitely nothing to be ‘wary’ of.January 17, 2013 6:10 am at 6:10 am #921041
there are only few differences. Many of the differences are merely linguistic.
The Ramban rarely mentions it. So, if other Rishonim refer to it one time less than the Ramban, they won’t mention it at all.
There are many differences, not just linguistic. Also, many linguistic differences are significant, since it is a ‘Targum’.
The Ramban does mention it, in your words. And other Rishonim do refer to it. Like the Rikanati, who lived in the Ramban’s times, refers to Targum Yonasan on the Torah. Often. Tosafos mentions Targum Yonasan on the Torah (a”z 59a). Not only do they mention it, they also brings there a machlokes between the Targum Yerushalmi and the Targum Yonasan on the Torah on what Har Seir is.January 17, 2013 4:01 pm at 4:01 pm #921042
I was unaware of the Rikanti’s usage of Targum Yonosan (a citation would be appreciated). However you are still missing the point. Why do we not find mention of a Targum Yonosan al HaTorah until the middle Rishonim? Why don’t we find it mentioned in the Bavli or the Yerushalmi or the early midrashim? Why are we using Onkelos and not Targum Yonosan?
(btw Even if Rashi is quoting from it, he never refers to it as Targum Yonosan)January 17, 2013 7:49 pm at 7:49 pm #921043
Benign, the Gemara barely quotes Targum Unkelos. Nor does it quote Reb Yosef’s Targum, even though it mentions the fact that he made one, and his preoccupation with Targum.
Targum Unkelos is what is Misinai, which is why it has that great status.
The Rikanti is after the Ramban, so you aren’t really adding much by saying that someone after the Ramban quotes it too.
The Ramban calls it Targum Yerushalmi (IIRC). He acually quoted the Nusach Yerushalmi.
There is nothing wrong with a Targum that came from Eretz Yisroel at some point during the Rishonim. It might be very ancient, or it might be from the Geonim, like many other Medrashim are. (Bamidbar Rabba mentions Islam’s claim to the Torah.)
There is no Mesora about having a Targum Yonasan. It is simply printed in the Chumash and when you read it you assume that to be the case. Being that it has many Drashos that show up in the Gemara or other Medrashim it gives the feeling of a compilation rather than something from before Rebbe Akiva Vachaveirav.
It would be interesting to trace the first time it showed up with that title. I’m sure somebody out there devoted months to this.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.