The Targum on Yevarechecha

In Naso, in my Mikraos Gedolos, I noticed the following discrepancy between the Targum Onkelos and the Targum (Pseudo-) Yonatan on three famous pesukim in Naso. The Targum Onkelos reads:

That is, it is a translation into Aramaic. Meanwhile, the Targum Yonatan reads:

having first the Biblical Hebrew and only afterwards an expansive Targum into Aramaic.

Looking to Shadal in Ohev Ger, we get a clue as to what is going on:

247. יְבָרֶכְךָ, יָאֵר, יִשָּׂא, these three pesukim do not have Targum (מא”ד, and Savyonita). And so is correct according to the halacha, that Birkat Kohanim is read and not translated. Also, the author of the sefer יא”ר, even though he writes at length about the Targum of אָמוֹר לָהֶם [which are the words immediately preceding יְבָרֶכְךָ], writes not a matter or half a matter regarding Birkat Kohanim. It appears from his silence that his girsa was without a Targum on it.

So while my Mikraos Gedolos had a Targum Onkelos on these pesukim, dfus Savyonita does not. This Chumash with Onkelos, which Shadal often refers to, has the nice feature of trup on the Targum Onkelos. Here is what appears there. The Chumash:

and the Targum, on the facing page:

At Mechon Mamre as well, they note that in the early Yemenite manuscripts, there is no Targum on these three pesukim, even as they give one:

ו,כג דַּבֵּר אֶל-אַהֲרֹן וְאֶל-בָּנָיו לֵאמֹר, כֹּה תְבָרְכוּ אֶת-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל:  אָמוֹר, לָהֶם.  {ס}	מַלֵּיל עִם אַהֲרוֹן וְעִם בְּנוֹהִי לְמֵימַר, כְּדֵין תְּבָרְכוּן יָת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל:  כַּד תֵּימְרוּן, לְהוֹן.  {ס}  (בכתבי יד תימן עתיקים אין ברכת כוהנים בתרגום אונקלוס:
ו,כד יְבָרֶכְךָ יְהוָה, וְיִשְׁמְרֶךָ.  {ס}	יְבָרְכִנָּךְ יְיָ, וְיִטְּרִנָּךְ.  {ס}
ו,כה יָאֵר יְהוָה פָּנָיו אֵלֶיךָ, וִיחֻנֶּךָּ.  {ס}	יַנְהַר יְיָ שְׁכִינְתֵיהּ לְוָתָךְ, וִירַחֵים יָתָךְ.  {ס}
ו,כו יִשָּׂא יְהוָה פָּנָיו אֵלֶיךָ, וְיָשֵׂם לְךָ שָׁלוֹם.  {ס}	יִסַּב יְיָ אַפּוֹהִי לְוָתָךְ, וִישַׁוֵּי לָךְ שְׁלָם.  {ס}  )

Interesting that Targum Yonatan has both the Hebrew and the Aramaic, thus also fulfilling having and not having a Targum. If Targum Yonatan was ever read aloud in shul as the Targum, this would make sense.

What does Shadal mean that Bikrat Kohanim is read but not translated? This is a reference to Megillah 25b:

ברכת כהנים נקרין ולא מתרגמין מ"ט משום דכתיב (במדבר ו, כו) ישא:

There is an interesting contrast to what seems to be the text of the Mishna (on the previous amud) there, that it isn’t read either:

מתני' מעשה ראובן נקרא ולא מתרגם מעשה תמר נקרא ומתרגם מעשה עגל הראשון נקרא ומתרגם והשני נקרא ולא מתרגם ברכת כהנים מעשה דוד ואמנון נקראין ולא מתרגמין אין מפטירין במרכבה ורבי יהודה מתיר ר' אליעזר אומר אין מפטירין (יחזקאל טז, ב) בהודע את ירושלם:

See Dikdukei Soferim on this:

As well as this interesting discussion in Hebrew Wikipedia:

במשנה במסכת מגילה נאמר שברכת כהנים אינה נקראת בקריאת התורה. אמירה זאת נחשבה תמוהה והביאה לפירושים רבים. על פי התלמוד, הכוונה היא שלא מתרגמים את פסוקי ברכת כהנים לארמית בעת הקריאה בציבור. על פי פירושו של חנוך אלבק, בעת קריאת התורה, היה הקורא מפסיק לקרוא והכהנים היו עומדים ומברכים את העם במקומו. יוסף היינמן כתב שאמירה זאת לא כוונה לקריאה בתורה אלא לכך שבעת קיום נשיאת כפיים הכהנים הורשו לומר את הפסוקים בעל פה. רחמים שר שלום[9] טוען שהאיסור על קריאת ברכת כהנים התקיים בעת שהקריאה בתורה לא נעשתה על הסדר, ונועדה למנוע מצב בו כולם קוראים את ברכת כהנים בגלל הפופולריות של הפסוקים.

Onkelos and the peshat of לֹא-יוּמְתוּ אָבוֹת עַל-בָּנִים

In a recent shiur on masechet Sanhedrin (either Introduction to Masechet Sanhedrin or Sanhedrin #1 - Beit Din and Dinei Mamonot), Rav Schachter pointed out an oddity in Onkelos on parashat Ki Teitzei:

כד,טז לֹא-יוּמְתוּ אָבוֹת עַל-בָּנִים, וּבָנִים לֹא-יוּמְתוּ עַל-אָבוֹת:  אִישׁ בְּחֶטְאוֹ, יוּמָתוּ.  {ס}

לָא יְמוּתוּן אֲבָהָן עַל פֹּם בְּנִין, וּבְנִין לָא יְמוּתוּן עַל פֹּם אֲבָהָן:  אֲנָשׁ בְּחוֹבֵיהּ, יְמוּתוּן.  {ס}

Onkelos' general style and purpose is to give the peshat translation of the pasuk. Yet here, in translating לֹא-יוּמְתוּ אָבוֹת עַל-בָּנִים, he renders the phrase as לָא יְמוּתוּן אֲבָהָן עַל פֹּם בְּנִין.

The peshat would be that one does not punish the fathers for the sins of the sons. The derashat Chazal is that the testimony of the sons cannot be used against the father (in a capital case). And עַל פֹּם means "on the mouth of", which is "on the word of".

So, Rav Schachter remarks, it is very strange that Onkelos here deviates and translates based on the derasha instead of the peshat.

It is a good question. However, I think the answer is that, indeed, Rav Schachter is right, that Onkelos regularly gives the peshat translation. If so, we should consider whether עַל פֹּם can convey the peshat meaning.

Looking to Jastrow, we see that sometimes, פם together with a preposition can mean "because of". On page 1142:

In the phrase עַל פֹּם, the word עַל is there because it is there in the pasuk, in the Biblical Hebrew. But maybe one might think עַל means "at the same time as," just as not taking the mother bird עַל the baby birds from a kan tzipor. And so, it is a little clearer to render the ambiguous עַל as עַל פֹּם. Father are not killed because of [the sins of] the sons, and sons are not killed because of [the sins of] their father.

Indeed, if עַל פֹּם meant "the testimony of" in Aramaic, then we would expect that phrase to appear in Onkelos when the pasuk itself uses עַל-פִּי to mean "the testimony of". Compare what happens in Ki Tzeitzei with the pasuk and Targum Onkelos in parashat Shofetim:

יז,ו עַל-פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים, אוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה עֵדִים--יוּמַת הַמֵּת:  לֹא יוּמַת, עַל-פִּי עֵד אֶחָד.

עַל מֵימַר תְּרֵין סָהֲדִין, אוֹ תְּלָתָא סָהֲדִין--יִתְקְטִיל דְּחַיָּב קְטוֹל:  לָא יִתְקְטִיל, עַל מֵימַר סָהִיד חַד.

Rather than writing עַל פֹּם, Onkelos writes there עַל מֵימַר. We might have even thought in parashat Shofetim that this עַל-פִּי to mean "because of" rather than "upon the mouth of", but Onkelos there emphasizes that פי is to be taken literally as "mouth", and thus the "statement".

And so, I would suggest the since Onkelos does not say עַל מֵימַר in Ki Teitzei, and because this would accord with the peshat meaning of the pasuk, he means עַל פֹּם as "because".

How to understand כַיּוֹם in Yaakov's request to purchase the birthright

Summary: Shadal notes a girsological variation in Onkelos, and then points us to sefer Yud Aleph Resh, Savyonita, and Rashi and Ramban. Ramban discusses the meaning of the strange phrasing in Onkelos, זַבֵּין כְּיוֹם דִּלְהֵין.  I present and translate these sources.

Post: In parashat Toledot, consider this pasuk and Onkelos:

כה,לא וַיֹּאמֶר, יַעֲקֹב:  מִכְרָה כַיּוֹם אֶת-בְּכֹרָתְךָ, לִי.

וַאֲמַר, יַעֲקוֹב:  זַבֵּין כְּיוֹם דִּלְהֵין יָת בְּכֵירוּתָךְ, לִי.

Shadal, in Ohev Ger, notes as follows:

That in sefer Ya'ar, as well as in dfus Savyonita, it is translated as דִּלְהֵי, and so to in Kuf-Ayin-Alef, it is דִּילְהֵי. And so writes the Ramban, that it is so in the inspected and precise manuscripts. And the girsa of Rashi is like the majority of sefarim, namely דִּלְהֵין. And both this and that are closed to comprehension.

Thus far Shadal. Follow the hyperlinks I provided to see these manuscripts and texts inside.

Here is what Rashi had to say:

31. And Jacob said, "Sell me as of this day your birthright."		לא. וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב מִכְרָה כַיּוֹם אֶת בְּכֹרָתְךָ לִי:
Sell me as of this day: As the Targum renders: כְּיוֹם דִילְהֵן, “like this day” ; just as this day is clear, so sell it to me with a clear sale.		מכרה כיום: כתרגומו כיום דילהן, כיום שהוא ברור, כך מכור לי מכירה ברורה:

Here is what Ramban had to say:

(לא): מכרה כיום את בכורתך לי - 

כיום דילהן, כיום שהוא ברור כן מכור לי מכירה גמורה, לשון רש"י 

ופשוטו, כעת הזאת, וכן ואתה עמוד כיום ואשמיעך את דבר אלוהים (ש"א ט כז), אותו כהיום תמצאון אותו (שם יג), קטר יקטירון כיום את החלב (שם ב טז), ולנו בשת הפנים כהיום הזה (דניאל ט ז):

והנראה מדעת אונקלוס, כי בעבור היות מכירת הבכורה לאחר מיתת אביהם, אמר, מכרה לי הבכורה לאיזה יום שתפול בו, וזה שמוש "להן" בלשון ארמית, להן את אזיל, לאיזה מקום, מן הן את מודע לי, וכן בפרשת וישלח (ב"ר עח א): ולהן אינון אזלין, מן הן דאתברון. והוא לשון מורגל להם במקומות הרבה. ובדניאל (ב יא): בפתחות הלמד כטעם אלהן, להן אלהין די מדרהון עם בשרא לא איתוהי, וכן להן מלכא מלכי ישפר עלך (שם ד כד). ואונקלוס תרגם זולתי "אלהין", אלא הן. ובנוסחאות בדוקות ומדוקדקות מן התרגום כיום דלהי, והוא כמו שפירשתי, כי הי בלשונם איזה, כמו שאומר בתלמוד (ב"ק צט ב): הי רבי מאיר, הי רבי יהודה (ב"ב קמא א), וזולתן:

ואפשר שעשה אונקלוס "כיום" כאלו הוא "ביום", מכרה ביום שתבא בו הבכורה, כי כן מצאנו השמוש הזה לכ"ף, כאשר ילכו אפרוש עליהם רשתי (הושע ז יב), משפטו באשר, וכדמי בניך אשר נתתה להם (יחזקאל טז לו), כי כארבע רוחות השמים פרשתי אתכם (זכריה ב י):

ויש אומרים (הרד"ק בשם אביו): כי אין מחיר הבכורה הנזיד רק הכתוב יספר כי בבקשו לאכול והוא עיף אמר לו יעקב מכור לי בכורתך בכסף, ואחר כך אכול, וענה לו בפחזותו על האכילה למה זה לי בכורה, הרי היא מכורה לך, ונשבע עליה וישבו לאכול ולשתות, והכתוב לא פירש המחיר. ואין זו דעתי:

First he cites Rashi. Then he writes:
"And its simple meaning is 'at this time' and so too [I Shmuel 9:27]:

כז  הֵמָּה, יוֹרְדִים בִּקְצֵה הָעִיר, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר אֶל-שָׁאוּל אֱמֹר לַנַּעַר וְיַעֲבֹר לְפָנֵינוּ, וַיַּעֲבֹר; וְאַתָּה עֲמֹד כַּיּוֹם, וְאַשְׁמִיעֲךָ אֶת-דְּבַר אֱלֹהִים.  {פ}

27 As they were going down at the end of the city, Samuel said to Saul: 'Bid the servant pass on before us--and he passed on--but stand thou still at this time, that I may cause thee to hear the word of God.' {P}

and [same perek]:

יג  כְּבֹאֲכֶם הָעִיר כֵּן תִּמְצְאוּן אֹתוֹ בְּטֶרֶם יַעֲלֶה הַבָּמָתָה לֶאֱכֹל, כִּי לֹא-יֹאכַל הָעָם עַד-בֹּאוֹ--כִּי-הוּא יְבָרֵךְ הַזֶּבַח, אַחֲרֵי-כֵן יֹאכְלוּ הַקְּרֻאִים; וְעַתָּה עֲלוּ, כִּי-אֹתוֹ כְהַיּוֹם תִּמְצְאוּן אֹתוֹ.

13 As soon as ye are come into the city, ye shall straightway find him, before he go up to the high place to eat; for the people will not eat until he come, because he doth bless the sacrifice; and afterwards they eat that are bidden. Now therefore get you up; for at this time ye shall find him.'

and [I Shmuel 2:16]

טז  וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו הָאִישׁ, קַטֵּר יַקְטִירוּן כַּיּוֹם הַחֵלֶב, וְקַח-לְךָ, כַּאֲשֶׁר תְּאַוֶּה נַפְשֶׁךָ; וְאָמַר לו (לֹא), כִּי עַתָּה תִתֵּן--וְאִם-לֹא, לָקַחְתִּי בְחָזְקָה.

16 And if the man said unto him: 'Let the fat be made to smoke first of all, and then take as much as thy soul desireth'; then he would say: 'Nay, but thou shalt give it me now; and if not, I will take it by force.'

and [Daniel 9:7]:

ז  לְךָ אֲדֹנָי הַצְּדָקָה, וְלָנוּ בֹּשֶׁת הַפָּנִים כַּיּוֹם הַזֶּה; לְאִישׁ יְהוּדָה, וּלְיֹשְׁבֵי יְרוּשָׁלִַם, וּלְכָל-יִשְׂרָאֵל הַקְּרֹבִים וְהָרְחֹקִים בְּכָל-הָאֲרָצוֹת אֲשֶׁר הִדַּחְתָּם שָׁם, בְּמַעֲלָם אֲשֶׁר מָעֲלוּ-בָךְ.

7 Unto Thee, O Lord, belongeth righteousness, but unto us confusion of face, as at this day; to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and unto all Israel, that are near, and that are far off, through all the countries whither Thou hast driven them, because they dealt treacherously with Thee.

And that which appears from Onkelos' position is that since the sale of the birthright was [to take effect only] after their father's death, he said 'sell to me the birthright for whatever day it falls upon', and this is the function of להן in Aramaic, as in lehein at azeil, 'to what place'? [Josh: thus, like le'an.] And מן הן את מודע לי. And so too in parshat Vayishlach (Bereishit Rabba 78:1), להן אינון אזלין, [to where are they going], מן הן דאתברון. And it is a regular language for them in many places. And in Daniel 2:11, with a patach [Josh: kamatz?] on the lamed:

א  וּמִלְּתָא דִי-מַלְכָּה שָׁאֵל, יַקִּירָה, וְאָחֳרָן לָא אִיתַי, דִּי יְחַוִּנַּהּ קֳדָם מַלְכָּא; לָהֵן אֱלָהִין--דִּי מְדָרְהוֹן, עִם-בִּשְׂרָא לָא אִיתוֹהִי.

11 And it is a hard thing that the king asketh, and there is none other that can declare it before the king, except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh.'

and so too [Daniel 4:24]:

כד  לָהֵן מַלְכָּא, מִלְכִּי יִשְׁפַּר עליך (עֲלָךְ), וחטיך (וַחֲטָאָךְ) בְּצִדְקָה פְרֻק, וַעֲוָיָתָךְ בְּמִחַן עֲנָיִן; הֵן תֶּהֱוֵה אַרְכָה, לִשְׁלֵוְתָךְ.

24 Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee, and break off thy sins by almsgiving, and thine iniquities by showing mercy to the poor; if there may be a lengthening of thy prosperity.'

And Onkelos translates besides this the word אלהין as ela hein.

And in precise and investigated nuschaot of the Targum, it is כְּיוֹם דִּלְהֵי. And this is as I explained, for hei in their language means איזה, which, just as is stated in the Talmud (Bava Kamma 99b) "hei Rabbi Meir, hei Rabbi Yehuda" {which position of Rabbi Meir...}, and the like.

And it is possible that Onkelos made kayom as if it was bayom. 'Sell to me on the day on which the birthright comes', for we see this functionality for the kaf, such as in [Hoshea 7:12]

יב  כַּאֲשֶׁר יֵלֵכוּ, אֶפְרוֹשׂ עֲלֵיהֶם רִשְׁתִּי--כְּעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם, אוֹרִידֵם; אַיְסִירֵם, כְּשֵׁמַע לַעֲדָתָם.  {ס}

12 Even as they go, I will spread My net upon them; I will bring them down as the fowls of the heaven; I will chastise them, as their congregation hath been made to hear. {S}

and [Yechezkel 16:36]:

לו  כֹּה-אָמַר אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה, יַעַן הִשָּׁפֵךְ נְחֻשְׁתֵּךְ וַתִּגָּלֶה עֶרְוָתֵךְ, בְּתַזְנוּתַיִךְ, עַל-מְאַהֲבָיִךְ; וְעַל, כָּל-גִּלּוּלֵי תוֹעֲבוֹתַיִךְ, וְכִדְמֵי בָנַיִךְ, אֲשֶׁר נָתַתְּ לָהֶם.

36 Thus saith the Lord GOD: Because thy filthiness was poured out, and thy nakedness uncovered through thy harlotries with thy lovers; and because of all the idols of thy abominations, and for the blood of thy children, that thou didst give unto them;

and Zecharia 2:10:

י  הוֹי הוֹי, וְנֻסוּ מֵאֶרֶץ צָפוֹן--נְאֻם-יְהוָה:  כִּי כְּאַרְבַּע רוּחוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם, פֵּרַשְׂתִּי אֶתְכֶם--נְאֻם-ה.

10 Ho, ho, flee then from the land of the north, saith the LORD; for I have spread you abroad as the four winds of the heaven, saith the LORD.

And some say (the Radak in the name of his father) that the price of the firstborn rights was not the lentil stew, but rather the Scriptures relates that when he desired to eat, and he was tires, Yaakov said to him 'sell me you firstborn rights for money', and afterwards he ate, and answered him in rashness upon the food, 'what need do I have for the firstborn rights, behold it is sold to you', and he swore to him upon it, and they sat to eat and drink, and the verse does not specify the price. And this is not my position.

End quote of the Ramban.

Did Chazal know the meaning of Hebrew words?

Summary: Given a Tannaitic dispute about the respective meaning of chartzan and zag, some Protestant scholar says no. Shadal says yes, and explains how something so basic can be a matter of dispute. Also, that Targum Onkelos is merely attributed to Onkelos.

Post: Consider the following pasuk, and Rashi, from parashat Naso:

4. For the entire duration of his abstinence, he shall not eat any product of the grape vine, from seeds to skins.		ד. כֹּל יְמֵי נִזְרוֹ מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר יֵעָשֶׂה מִגֶּפֶן הַיַּיִן מֵחַרְצַנִּים וְעַד זָג לֹא יֹאכֵל:
seeds: Heb. חַרְצַנִּים. They are the kernels. - [Sifrei Naso 1:93]		חרצנים: הם הגרעינין:
skins: Heb. זָג, the outer shells, for the seeds are inside, like the clapper in a bell (זוּג).		זג: הם קליפות שמבחוץ, שהחרצנים בתוכן כענבל בזוג:

Shadal writes (here and here):

"That which is made (yei'aseh) from the grape vine" -- the language of asiya is found to also connote gathering and acquisition, such as in {Bereishis 31:1}

1. And he heard the words of Laban's sons, saying, "Jacob has taken all that belonged to our father, and from what belonged to our father, he has amassed this entire fortune."

א. וַיִּשְׁמַע אֶת דִּבְרֵי בְנֵי לָבָן לֵאמֹר לָקַח יַעֲקֹב אֵת כָּל אֲשֶׁר לְאָבִינוּ וּמֵאֲשֶׁר לְאָבִינוּ עָשָׂה אֵת כָּל הַכָּבֹד הַזֶּה:

and {Devarim 8:17}:

17. and you will say to yourself, "My strength and the might of my hand that has accumulated this wealth for me."

יז. וְאָמַרְתָּ בִּלְבָבֶךָ כֹּחִי וְעֹצֶם יָדִי עָשָׂה לִי אֶת הַחַיִל הַזֶּה:

and so too here, מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר יֵעָשֶׂה מִגֶּפֶן הַיַּיִן, the import is anything collected from the vine, and its explanation is at its side, [in the continuation of the pasuk], evem the chartzanim and even the zag.


'Chartzanim', in my opinion, are the name for grapes that have already been trodden and wine was made from them, and this encompasses the grapeskin and the seeds within it, and this is as they said in the Yerushalmi {Demai, perel 1 halacha 1}:

At first, the grapes were plentiful and the chartzanim were not considered chashuv, and now that the grapes are not plentiful, the chartanim are considered chashuv.

And the intent is at the time of plentiful grapes, then, the grapes which had already been trodden were not considered to be anything, for no one would purchase them to produce temed from them {water poured on the crushed grapes}, for the good wine was at a very cheap price. And the opposite when the grapes were not plentiful, then the chartzanim were sold in order to produce temed from them.


And so too when they say {Berachot 22a}

'R. Josiah in the matter of mixed kinds', as it is written, Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with two kinds of seeds.¹⁴  R. Josiah says: The law has not been broken until one sows wheat, barley and grape kernels with one throw.¹⁵ 

The intent is the outer skin with the seeds within it.


While it is true that the seeds in and of themselves have in them the force of germination, still, one who comes to plant a vine will not trouble himself to extract the seeds from within the grape skin, but will rather take the grapes which have already been trodden upon and plant them just as they are.


Howbeit, zag is in my opinion the name of the seeds within the grape skin, and the verse is saying that the Nazir shall not eat even chartzanim from which the wine has already gone out, and even a single zag {seed}, even though it is not human food.


My explanation is in accordance with the position of Rabbi Yehuda {in Nazir 34b}:

BY HARZANIM AND ZAGIM ARE MEANT THE FOLLOWING. ACCORDING TO R. JUDAH, HARZANIM MEANS THE OUTER PORTION [OF THE GRAPE].⁶  ZAG THE INNER PORTION,⁷  BUT R. JOSE SAID: THAT YOU MAY NOT ERR, [THINK OF] THE ZOG [BELL] OF AN ANIMAL,⁸  OF WHICH THE OUTER PART IS TERMED THE ZOG [HOOD].⁹  AND THE INNER PART THE INBAL [CLAPPER].

And the Targum of Onkelos,

ו,ד כֹּל, יְמֵי נִזְרוֹ:  מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר יֵעָשֶׂה מִגֶּפֶן הַיַּיִן, מֵחַרְצַנִּים וְעַד-זָג--לֹא יֹאכֵל.

כֹּל, יוֹמֵי נִזְרֵיהּ:  מִכֹּל דְּיִתְעֲבֵיד מִגֻּפְנָא דְּחַמְרָא, מִפֻּרְצְנִין וְעַד עִצּוּרִין--לָא יֵיכוֹל.

is in accordance with the position of Rabbi Yossi (see there, daf 39a).

(Thus:

R. ELEAZAR B. AZARIAH SAID etc.: R. Joseph said: In agreement with whom is the rendering in the Targum²  as 'from the kernels even unto the skins'?³  — In agreement with the opinion of R. Jose.⁴

)

And after him [Onkelos] followed most of the meforshim and the authors of books of shorashim [roots]; also Gesenius. Only the Targum Yerushalmi which was created in Eretz Yisrael preserves the import of these words truthfully, just as was well-known in Eretz Yisrael as well in the language of the common folk. Not so was Targum Onkelos, which was produced in Bavel, and the Kadmonim called it by the name of Targum Bavli (see Kerem Chedem 5, page 223). 


And this that we find the Tannaim, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yossi, arguing about the meaning of these words, I think that this is the substance of the matter: Rabbi Yehuda explained the words according to their import even in his days, but Rabbi Yossi, who was from Tzippori which was in the Galil, accustomed himself to not rely upon the custom of the hamon, and he sought the import of the words based upon the roots from which they were hewn. And since he found that the word zog that is can mean a bell, he thought that the zag as well meant the outside and not the inside. 


And with this is removed the complaint of the scholar Gussetius {a French Protestant theologian and philologist, 1635-1702)}, who opened his {big} mouth wide in his Lexicon (in the word zag) and said that one should not rely at all upon the words of Chazal in terms of the meaning of the words, for the understanding of the language had already been forgotten from them, to the extent that they did not know what was a chartzan and what was a zag. 


And this is a blatant falsehood, for from the Yerushalmi in Demai we see that in their language, they were in no doubt as to the import of the words, and that the Jerusalemite Targumim translated in accordance with the implication of the words in the common speech. And only Rabbi Yossi, who was born in the medina, where they did not preserve their language well, did not wish to rely on the language of the hamon am, and decided to be wise, to explain from his own thought, and the people of Bavel followed after him in the Targum which is attributed to Onkelos."

I, Josh, would simply add that Rabbi Yossi born in Tzippori but whose family was of Babylonian-Jewish origin -- see Yoma 66b. Perhaps we could thus construct this as a Babylonian / Eretz Yisrael divergence even from that early stage.

What sevara would account for these divergent opinions of Rabbi Yossi and Rabbi Yehuda? Besides zag as a bell, perhaps the plural in the pasuk itself. That pasuk, again, was:

4. For the entire duration of his abstinence, he shall not eat any product of the grape vine, from seeds to skins.

ד. כֹּל יְמֵי נִזְרוֹ מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר יֵעָשֶׂה מִגֶּפֶן הַיַּיִן מֵחַרְצַנִּים וְעַד זָג לֹא יֹאכֵל:

Chartzanim are plural and zag is singular. But a grape only has one husk, and many seeds. I could also point to the following, for the word chartzan, though. Yerushalmi Maasarot, I, 48d, "their kernels {chartzan} must be seen through their berries." Chartzanita, in Tanchuma, Vaera 14: like the berry of a pomegranate whose stones {chartzanita} are seen from within." Also, words of similar meaning might shift slightly semantically between Biblical and Mishnaic times.

The trup on יִלְבָּשָׁם הַכֹּהֵן תַּחְתָּיו

Summary: How shall we make sense of Rashi's comment on the tevir? Shadal makes up new trup and makes it simpler.

Post: Consider the following pasuk and Rashi in Tetzaveh (Shemot 29:30):

30. Seven days shall the one of his sons [who will be] the kohen in his place wear them, the one who is to enter the Tent of Meeting to serve in the Holy.		ל. שִׁבְעַת יָמִים יִלְבָּשָׁם הַכֹּהֵן תַּחְתָּיו מִבָּנָיו אֲשֶׁר יָבֹא אֶל אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לְשָׁרֵת בַּקֹּדֶשׁ:
Seven days: [I.e., seven] consecutive [days].		שבעת ימים: רצופין:
shall… [who will be] the kohen in his place wear them: [The son] who will arise from his [Aaron’s] sons in his place to the Kehunah Gedolah, whom they will appoint to be Kohen Gadol.		ילבשם הכהן: אשר יקום מבניו תחתיו לכהונה גדולה, כשימנוהו להיות כהן גדול:
the one who is to enter the Tent of Meeting: [I.e.,] that kohen who is prepared to enter the inner sanctum on Yom Kippur, and that is the Kohen Gadol, for the service of Yom Kippur is acceptable only through him. -[from Yoma 73a]		אשר יבא אל אהל מועד: אותו כהן המוכן ליכנס לפני ולפנים ביום הכפורים, וזהו כהן גדול, שאין עבודת יום הכפורים כשרה אלא בו:
one of his sons… in his place: [This] teaches [us] that if the Kohen Gadol has a son who equals him, they must appoint him Kohen Gadol in his place [i.e., after him]. -[from Sifra on Lev. 6:15]		תחתיו מבניו: מלמד שאם יש לו לכהן גדול בן ממלא את מקומו, ימנוהו כהן גדול תחתיו:
[who will be] the kohen in his place: From here there is proof that every expression of כֹּהֵן is an expression of doing, of actually serving. Therefore, the cantillation of the “tevir” extends before it [indicating a connection to the following word].		הכהן תחתיו מבניו: מכאן ראיה כל לשון כהן לשון פועל עובד ממש, לפיכך ניגון תביר נמשך לפניו:

Specifically the last Rashi on this pasuk. I cite all of Rashi's commentary on this pasuk for reasons which will become clear later.


Rashi brings proof that kohen is a verb. Thus, hakohen tachtav is the one who ministers in his place. The proof is the tevir extending before it. What does this mean? Well, the trup on the pasuk seems to be:

with darga on יִלְבָּשָׁם, tevir on הַכֹּהֵן, and tipcha on הַכֹּהֵן. But before providing an analysis of how this fits Rashi in word and theory, we should consider the following statement from Shadal:

"Rashi is gores יִלְבָּשָׁם with a tevir and הַכֹּהֵן with a mercha {and תַּחְתָּיו still with the tipcha}, and so is primary. But in the manuscript in my hand, and in the two manuscripts of the Rambamn {=Mendelsohnn} it is not. And really, it does not seem that הַכֹּהֵן should be like המכהן. Rather, it is a verse written in shorthand, 'the kohen who arises in his place', just as is rendered in the Targum Yerushalmi."

What is Shadal saying? That in יִלְבָּשָׁם הַכֹּהֵן תַּחְתָּיו, we want to place הַכֹּהֵן תַּחְתָּיו as a single unit, joined by mercha tipcha. And that יִלְבָּשָׁם stands separate from that. Thus, there is a tevir on the verb יִלְבָּשָׁם (shall wear them), and the actor is הַכֹּהֵן תַּחְתָּיו ("he who kohens in his place"). Of course, this trup is at odds with what appears in our Mikraos Gedolos.

By 'manuscripts', Shadal is not referring to manuscripts of Torah, but to manuscripts of Rashi's commentary. In terms of the texts of Chumash, I don't see that the Teimanim have it any different from what is pictured above. So too the Leningrad Codex.

In what manuscript is this Rashi missing? See for instance this manuscript from Rome, 1470:

The first orange box designates the beginning of pasuk 30. The second designates the beginning of pasuk 31. The Rashi in question should be the last one on pasuk 30, but it is not present.

(Indeed, it looks like there are a few runs through the pasuk, which might indicate a secondary authorship.)

It is also missing in the Rashi pictured to the right, Munich, 1233, which often is more expansive and includes other Rishonim as well.

And so too in this one, Cod Hebr 3, this Rashi is missing:

So maybe Rashi never said it. On to a bit of analysis. Let us turn to Mendelsohnn's Bei'ur:

First, he cites Rashi, as in the printed text, and notes that it does not exist in the two manuscripts in his possession. Then he writes:

 "And the intent is that the word kohen is a present-tense verb, referring to the actual action of serving (ein dienmender?), and not as a name to the owner of that occurrence (ein diener?). 

[And the explanation of this Rashi is as follows, in my humble opinion: That without a doubt this verse is written out of order, and its meaning is really: ילבשם הכהן מבניו תחתיו, for the custom of the Scriptures is to connect the verb with the noun, and to establish the word תחתיו {the adverb?} at the end, such as in (Bereshit 2:21) ויסגר בשר תחתנה {with mercha tipcha silluk} , and (Mishlei 11:8) ויבא רשע תחתיו  {with mercha tipcha silluk}, and others like them. And the verb with the noun are joined as well by the trup, as it is in the aforementioned verses and the ones like them. For the noun is what carries the occurrence of the action and is connected to it, which is not so for תחתיו {the adverb} which is another matter and a different informing {perhaps a prepositional phrase by itself?}. And so too if the noun and the adjective come combined with the word תחתיו, the noun and adjective come together and are also joined by the trup, and the word תחתיו is at the end and separated from them, such as (II Shmuel 10:11) וימלוך | חנון בנו | תחתיו {with tevir under  וימלוך, mercha tipcha on  חנון בנו , and silluk on תחתיו}, with  חנון בנו connected via mercha tipcha, and the word וימלוך 'fitting' as well to be joined with them, except that one cannot have three connected words in trup, so that it is separated a bit with the tevir which separates a bit less than the tipcha.

{Josh: Wickes would not necessarily agree. Rather, syntactically, where a verb leads, in your continuous dichotomy, you repeatedly chop off parts of speech from the end. Maybe the motivator for this is as described, or maybe it has to do with the weight of the verse. But the VERB part-of-speech status of  וימלוך  would lead to chopping off first תחתיו and next חנון בנו.}

And the proof regarding the twisting of the verse which stands before us, is that in the verse (Vayikra 6:15)

15. And the kohen who is anointed instead of him from among his sons, shall prepare it; [this is] an eternal statute; it shall be completely burnt to the Lord.

טו. וְהַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ תַּחְתָּיו מִבָּנָיו יַעֲשֶׂה אֹתָהּ חָק עוֹלָם לַי־הֹוָ־ה כָּלִיל תָּקְטָר:

Rashi writes explicitly:

who is anointed instead of him from among his sons: [This is to be understood as if transposed: The kohen] who is anointed from among his sons instead of him.

המשיח תחתיו מבניו: המשיח מבניו תחתיו:

And he intends by this to connect the adjective הַמָּשִׁיחַ, 'who is anointed', to the noun מִבָּנָיו, in the way of language. 

And it appears to me that the cause of this twisting is so as not to explain תַּחְתָּיו as referring to יִלְבָּשָׁם, as it occurs in the verse וימלוך חנון בנו תחתיו, where תחתיו goes back on וימלוך. Therefore it is established between הכהן and מבניו which relate to one another. And since the word הכהן is more closely related to מבניו than to תחתיו, it is therefore not with a mercha, but rather with a tevir which separates a bit less than the tipcha.

And behold, יִלְבָּשָׁם הַכֹּהֵן are connected with trup of darga tevir {with darga as a conjunctive servus of the disjunctive tevir}, as is the fashion of the verb with the noun, or the participle {?}. And now, know that if the word הַכֹּהֵן is a participle, then the trup works out correctly, with יִלְבָּשָׁם הַכֹּהֵן joined, and הַכֹּהֵן with a tevir to inform on the twisting of הַכֹּהֵן מִבָּנָיו תַּחְתָּיו {into הַכֹּהֵן תַּחְתָּיו מִבָּנָיו}. And then the word הַכֹּהֵן  would be a present-tense participle in place of the future tense, in its normal manner, and its meaning is 'who will be yekhahen of his children'. But if it is a שם תאר {noun}, perforce we would need to add a verb which connect the two nouns, in this manner: hakohen (asher yekhahen [or: asher yakum]) mibanav. And then we would need to have the word הַכֹּהֵן with a trup sybol which divided more than a tipcha, which would be a zakef katon, and יִלְבָּשָׁם with a pashta {???} (since there are two vowels in the word הַכֹּהֵן before the melody). And therefore, Targum Yonasan ben Uziel, who explains הכהן as כהנא {and thus a noun, the kohen}, and not דיכהן {as a verb}, and thus renders it a noun, needs to add the word דיקום {who arises}.

And now you can understand Rashi correctly. And the Raza {R' Shlomo Zalman Hanau (Katz), in sefer Shaarei Zimra ש"ה {?} chapter 2, touches a bit of this in his explanation of this. However, some of it he saw, and some of it he did not see.

And the author of Mirkeves HaMishna, in his gloss {/critique} of the aforementioned sefer (which I possess in manuscript) wants to flip the intent of Rashi, and it does not seem so from his [=Rashi's] language."

Thus, Mendelsohnn explains Rashi as being in accord with our trup. Shadal, meanwhile, differed and has Rashi (or whoever authored this comment we find in our printed Rashi) have a different trup. I think Shadal's explanation is the simpler of the two. But then, he makes up trup to render the explanation simple. Also, I am not sure what nimshach should mean in לפיכך ניגון תביר נמשך לפניו.

Aside from any of this, we have to be careful about different theories of explaining trup. It is possible that whoever wrote the comment, if from the time of the Rishonim, had a different theory of the function of trup than Shadal or Mendelsohnn, in which case they are working to explain it within the wrong theory.

There is further to explore in this, in the seforim mentioned, such in Shaarei Zimra.