Discussion on Aramaic in Psalms Round 2!

This is a comprehensive work up of more discussions I have had personally with Uri Yosef and Others concerning whether there is Aramaic in the book of Psalms.

You all may note that I have officially given up on these discussion for the time being. It was not for the lack of a better argument but rather the incapability of some to listen and formulate arguments that show an understanding of Aramaic and its peculiar rules of Grammar that are not shared with Hebrew. Many can consider this discussion, in Email, my official response to the claim by Uri Yosef and others that there is no Aramaic in the book of Psalms. I am posting these emails unedited with every error and lie in tact. the only thing I will be doing is removing email addresses for the privacy of those involved. These reflect more recent discussion that I took a head on approach toward after baiting them into this discussion.

This is the discussion as it starts when I responded to an error.. Originally Uri's response did not include a comment about the  Beyor HaMilot which you will see makes a revealing statement below. But first, the preliminary claims:

My Claim: I am claiming that there is Aramaic in the Psalms and that in Psalm 139:8 the word אסק is in fact an Aramaic word attested only once in the Hebrew portion of the Bible in Psalm 139:8 but is otherwise attested in the Aramaic portions of the Bible in it various grammatical forms.

	Oct 19 (12 days ago)

URI YOSEF RESONDS:

Wrong again!

All Ibn-Ezra says is כמו תרגום (like Targum), i.e., "it has the same meaning as the word in the Targum", not "this is an Aramaic word like the Targum has", because the Hebrew word in Psalms 139:8 is אֶסַּק (note the daGESH [accentuation mark] in the letter ס], transliterated as "eSSAQ"), whereas the Aramaic word in the Targum is אֶסַק (note the absence of the daGESH in the letter ס], transliterated as eSAQ).

Moreover, on p. 765, the Even-Shoshan Hebrew concordance lists אֶסַּק under the Hebrew root verb נסק, not under the Aramaic same root verb! In other words, both Hebrew and Aramaic share this verb. If he wants more proof, then tell him to look it up in the Reuben Alcalay Complete Hebrew-English dictionary, where various forms of the Hebrew root verb נסק are listed under the root verb in various forms, in different stems.

In a message dated 10/18/2012 11:34:55 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, .com writes:

(11:33 PM) Yosef Menachem2: So Stan was Ibn Ezra Wrong on PSalm 139:8?
(11:34 PM) Yosef Menachem2: calling אסק an aramaic word
NEVERAGAIN1: what did ibn ezra say about psalm 139:8?? please type it

My response was to this particular claim specifically. I had others but this is the one I wanted them to bite on because the case was much stronger here. here was my reponse:

Yosef Menachem menachem.yosef@gmail.com	Oct 21 (10 days ago)

Seriously Uri? This has to be the most dishonest, Pilpul, arguments I have ever seen. You are 100% wrong on all accounts and here is why.

You reference the Even Shoshan but fail to follow it even further. The root of this verb is not נסק it is actually סלק and this verb is used only once in the Hebrew portion of the Bible. In Psalm 139:8. This verb is very well attested in Aramaic, including the Targumim, and its even in the Bible as you will see below. This is where your amateur rating is strongest because you don't even realize that this verb לנסוק doesn't appear as a true Hebrew word till Mishnaic times, in Mishnaic Hebrew, after Aramaic has already had its affect on the language.

Now, You conveniently leave out what the Ibn Ezra says by only quoting him partially. Here is what he really says:

ומלת אסק – כמו תרגוםו כמוהו: אש נשקה ביעקב, כמו עלתה אע"פ שהוא כתוב בשי"ן

And the word :אסק [Just] like the [Aramaic] Targum. It is like this "A fire burst out against Jacob" "just like it (fire) rose up although it is written with a Shin ש

So to tell me that he does not say that it refers to the Aramaic while quoting a Hebrew equivalent is flat out wrong. In fact, the Ibn Ezra describes how it raises and tries to relate it to two words נשק and its translation as the verb לעלות.

Now, you have more to contend with than you think. The Metzudat Tzion and Beiyor HaMilot both refer to this and link it to Aramaic. the Beiyor HaMilot is a bit more specific but here is the Metzudat Tzion.

Metzudat Tzion:

מצודת ציון

"אסק" - אעלה כמו והוסק דנייאל מן גובא (דנייאלו)

Here Metzudat Tzion refers you tothe Aramaic of Daniel 6:24 where the verb is used. First he translates this verb into Hebrew אעלה then he refers you to its biblical use. THANK YOU METZUDAT TZION!

Next we have the Beiyor HaMilot:

ביאור המילות

"אסק". אעלה ובארמית והוסק דניאל מן גובא:

This is amusing by now. Here we see a direct translation into Hebrew אעלהand then saying ובארמית "And [its] in Aramaic!"referring you to the same Daniel 6:24.

Your reference to the dagesh is the biggest pilpul argument of everything in your comments. This word is well attested as being both with a Dagesh and without. We can find it without in Targum Yontan to 2 Samuel 6:2 לְאַסָקָא and with a Dagesh in Targum Onkelos Leviticus 11:3 מַסְּקָא. So your PIlpul argument of "since the word in the Targum doesnt have a Dagesh" is moot, amateurish and tries to split the proverbial hair.

Hebrew and Aramaic do not share this root until much later since  סלק is a loan word from Aramaic that produces theverb  נסק. Of course Reuven Alcalay's dictionary would record it. It's a MODERN Hebrew dictionary with all sorts of Loan words from Aramaic, Arabic, English, Greek, Latin, and so on. This loan word is used as a True Hebrew word in the Mishnah and subsequently in Modern Hebrew. So i'm not surprised at all that later Hebrew adopted this word. However, this does not negate my point. Theword אסק in Hebrew bible is 100% Aramaic and the Commentators above knew it and referred to it.

Shalom,

Yosef Menachem

The Debate doesn't stop there It continues with Uri making a response to something I challenged him on. The lack of a Response for the Beyor HaMilot among others. His response was primarily a repeat of everything he previously said with a non answer to the Beyor HaMilot:

Yosef, is this the missing response? When you send mail you have to include all our addresses including Uri Yosef's. When he responds he will forward it to those names appearing... I did send this to you...if we are missing something let me know..Trust me Yosef, it is not us who are delaying anything its you. Like I said to you in PM, it has been about 6 months now and you still have not given your formal response on your blog and in email refuting Uri Yosef's teaching on Psalms 2:12..WE ALL KNOW THIS.

From Uri Yosef:

In the first place, the root verb for אֶסַּק is נסק not סלק as he claims. He should check out Jastrow's Aramaic/English dictionary. Jastrow has two listings for נסק only as "to go upward, ascend", with many examples of conjugations in which the letter נ is missing (p. 918), and two relevant listings for סלק "to go up, go away, pile up", with many examples of conjugations, none of which have the letter ל missing. Additionally, YM should check נסק in Mattityahu Clark's Etymological Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew (p. 158) - no reference to Aramaic there whatsoever.

Both in Hebrew and Aramaic grammar there are root verbs that start with the letter נ, which "disappears" under various conjugations of the verb - these verbs belong to the category (גִּזְרָה) of defective verbs called פ״נ. If what YM is claiming were true, the root verb סלק would belong the a defective verb category called ע״ל, i.e., that the middle letter ל of the root verb disappears under various conjugations of the verb, but such a category exists neither in Hebrew nor in Aramaic grammar!

Secondly, his translations of the Hebrew commentaries are stretched to suit his claims, not only with the inserted parenthetical comments, but also in terms of their actual translation. None of these commentaries say explicitly something like "אֶסַּק is an Aramaic word". YM's reference to

Next we have the Beiyor HaMilot:

ביאור המילות

"אסק". אעלה ובארמית והוסק דניאל מן גובא:

This is amusing by now. Here we see a direct translation into Hebrew אעלה and then saying ובארמית "And [its] in Aramaic!" referring you to the same Daniel 6:24.

is also misleading. The Aramaic word that appears in Daniel 6:24 is וְהֻסַּק, spelled in the commentary as והוסק, which isn't the problem. The problem here is with YM's translation of the Hebrew. Specifically, he adds context to his translation of the Hebrew that favors his claim. The proper translation of the Hebrew is:

"אעלה". "אסק - I shall rise", and in Aramaic "והוסק דניאל מן גובא - and Daniel was lifted [up] from the pit".

In other words, the commentator points out that the verb "אסק" means "אעלה", in the same sense as the Aramaic verb "הוסק" means at Daniel 6:24. It is a stretch to say that the commentator means to say that "אסק" is an Aramaic word. The same applies to YM's loose translations of Metzudat Zion and Ibn Ezra.

Honestly Don and all, I'm getting a bit tired of dealing with YM and the others who know just enough to think they know it all.

Uri

Here is the final part and my response to Uri's above response. My comments are in red and this is the final email on the matter.

Yosef Menachem menachem.yosef@gmail.com	Oct 28 (3 days ago)
to

.

Thank you for giving this to me Stan. This will just go to show how Uri likes to treat Aramaic in any time period as if it were modern Hebrew. He is correct on one note that Jastrow's dictionary does not connect the two סלק and נסק but this will soon be taken care of. I am glad he did take the bait on this so let me first be the one to congratulate you Uri on this amateur mistake. Mazal Tov! I will respond to you in Red below so that you can see why I say that you are wrong.

.

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 9:24 PM, <> wrote:

From Uri Yosef:

In the first place,the root verb for אֶסַּק is נסק not סלק as he claims. He should check out Jastrow's Aramaic/Englishdictionary. Jastrow has two listings for נסק only as "to goupward, ascend", with many examples of conjugations in which the letter נ is missing (p. 918), and two relevant listingsfor סלק "to go up, go away,pile up", with many examples of conjugations, none of which have theletter ל missing. Additionally, YM should check נסק in Mattityahu Clark's Etymological Dictionaryof Biblical Hebrew (p. 158) - no reference to Aramaic there whatsoever.

Both in Hebrew andAramaic grammar there are root verbs that start with the letter נ, which"disappears" under various conjugations of the verb - these verbsbelong to the category (גִּזְרָה) of defective verbs called פ״נ.If what YM is claiming were true, the root verb סלק would belong the a defective verb category called ע״ל,i.e., that the middle letter ל of the root verbdisappears under various conjugations of the verb, but such a category exists neitherin Hebrew nor in Aramaic grammar!

Secondly, histranslations of the Hebrew commentaries are stretched to suit his claims, notonly with the inserted parenthetical comments, but also in terms of theiractual translation. None of these commentaries say explicitly something like"אֶסַּק is an Aramaic word".

Actually it is the root word. You are posing your modern Hebrew learning on an Aramaic word without even coming close to understanding Aramaic Grammar.

This in Aramaic is what we call a "Pseudo Geminate." It is one of the few verbs that are designated as a "weak Lamed" verbs in Aramaic. Keep in mind that Aramaic and Hebrew are closely related languages but they are not the same. There are three main verbs that fit this category they are ,הלךְ ,סלק andסבל . Each of these words exhibits a Lamed as the second or third consonant in which the Lamed either disappears or is assimilated in the previous consonant. We are going to focus strictly on סלק.

The Verb סלק exhibits forms that are analogous to the geminate class in its derived conjugations but not in the Pe'al Stem. It has perfectly normal attestations

Perfect: (Sing.) סלקת;(Plural) סלקו

However, in the derived conjugations of the verb סלק it does have performatives, but these are analogous to the geminate class. The ל is completely elided and in compensation the initial consonant is doubled סּ,or this doubling is resolved by a נ. To put this another way, the ל is assimilated to the previous consonant. the attested forms in the Tanakh are as follows:

Haf'el perfect: הֵסִּקוּ

Haf'el infinitive: הֵנְסָקָה

Hof'al perfect: הֻסּק

Breaking it down toyou Uri: You know a lot about Modern Hebrew grammar, but as far as conjugating an Aramaic verb and understanding that some rules in Aramaic are not in Hebrew Grammar shows how much you are missing. If you want to know where this message is brought to you from you can find this in the first grammar book I used in my first class in Aramaic, specifically for Biblical Aramaic. It is called "A Short Grammar of Biblical Aramaic" by Alger F. Johns. On Pg. 71 and 72.

I have also attached for your viewing pleasure, a scan of Rabbi Ezra Zion Melamed's dictionary inwhich he concurs that this word is in fact from the root סלק. The funny thingis when he translates it into Hebrew he translates it as the verb עלה. Which is why below I am going to call you out on your misrepresentation of Beyor HaMilot and your, lack of, representation of Ibn Ezra.

YM's reference to

Next we have the BeiyorHaMilot:

ביאור המילות

"אסק".אעלה ובארמית והוסק דניאל מן גובא:

This is amusing by now.Here we see a direct translation into Hebrew אעלה andthen saying ובארמית "And [its] in Aramaic!" referring you to the sameDaniel 6:24.

is also misleading.

Umm.....No its not!  The only reason you are trying to say it is misleading is because it is inconvenient and it shows you are ignoring the rules governing Rabbinic Hermeneutics and the interpretation of the Tanakh. The other problem, Uri, is that you have no other attestations of אסק or נסק in the Hebrew portions of the Tanakh. It appears only in the Aramaic portions as described above and below. So you are not telling the whole truth on this one Uri.

 The Aramaic word that appears in Daniel 6:24is וְהֻסַּק,spelled in the commentary as והוסק, which isn't the problem. The problem hereis with YM's translation of the Hebrew. Specifically, he adds context to histranslation of the Hebrew that favors his claim. The proper translation of theHebrew is:

"אעלה"."אסק - I shall rise", andin Aramaic "והוסק דניאל מן גובא - and Daniel was lifted [up] from thepit".

In other words, thecommentator points out that the verb "אסק" means "אעלה",in the same sense as the Aramaic verb "הוסק" means at Daniel6:24. It is a stretch to say that the commentator means to say that "אסק"is an Aramaic word.

Ok, either you don't understand fully Rabbinic Hermeneutics or you completely missed the point that Beyor Hamilot was getting at. When the Beyor HaMilot says אסק: אעלה he is doing the exact same thing as Rabbi Ezra Zion Melamed did in his dictionary. He is translating the word from what it is in the Text to what its Hebrew counterpart is. By translating this word he is also interpreting its meaning. Then when he says ובארמית והוסק דניאל מן גובא we know that he is indicating a proof that this definition of אעלה is true and accurate by association. If you notice that this occurance is one of the instances in the Grammar book I cited as being from the Root סלק with an assimilated ל .  You are trying to take away from the Beyor HaMilot, Metzudat Zion, and the Ibn Ezra what you cannot and should not take away.  

The same applies toYM's loose translations of Metzudat Zion and Ibn Ezra.

I guess if you can't beat them you have to demonize them somewhere. Please due tell me where I am wrong on both of them.

Honestly Don and all,I'm getting a bit tired of dealing with YM and the others who know just enoughto think they know it all.

Uri

Uri, I'm just getting started!

The above is only edited to remove email addresses, names, and redundancies. this is exactly what I wanted to debate Uri Yosef on and I got my wish.I made other claims in order to bait the argument onto my playing field where I can control the flow. Look at the arguments and judge for yourselves on who had the best content, argument, evidence, and coherency. You the audience can decide!

Shalom,

Yosef Menachem

Commentaries on the Tanakh

This is a wonderful website to keep if you are interested in the what Commentators such as Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and Ramban say on the Tanakh. For those who can read Hebrew and dont like how some distort the comments of the Rabbis, this is an invaluable resource.

http://www.daat.co.il/daat/tanach/parshanut.htm

The Apocrypha in Hebrew

I know there are some out there that take an active interest in what the Apocrypha says and what it means toward Judaism and Christianity. I find these books to be very interesting as a read into first century Judaism and into certain doctrines and theological beliefs that are common in Christianity. For those who are interested in comparative religions and Textual comparison the apocryphal book in Hebrew can be found at http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/hasfarim/hasfarim.htm

Enjoy the read!

What did Rabbi Yosef Karo really say about those who wish to follow the Rambam regardless whether their fathers or Forefathers did?

The question is a very interesting one! This is especially interesting for those of us who are Talmidei HaRambam or as many call us "Rambamists." I find it amusing that some would seek to twist Jewish Law so much to fit their narrow minded view of who can follow what in Judaism and why. Recently, I had a very short discussion in PalTalk regarding whether or not a person can actually change the minhag that they are currently following to move to a different minhag. I was informed by others that making this change is questionable as it pertains to Halacha and a person should follow the Minhag of their community and of their Family. I was pondering this issue last night and thought that I would write this blog as a response.

The problem with changing a Minhag is that it is a very difficult process and is usually frowned upon. This is not a questionable item nor does it violate a Jewish Law. I informed these persons that a person my obsolve themselves of certain Minhagim by doing Hatarat Nedarim for a majority but some Minhagim, for example the waiting period between eating Meat and Milk, do not require hatarat nedarim to do this in all cases. This especially if the each spose comes from a different minhag. It is the superficial items like that are changed more often than not. But, what about a change in the Code of Jewish Law that a Jew follows? Can this be done Halachicly and without an issue with Chazal? The answer is.....Of Course! In Fact, Rabbi Yosef Karo even said specifically that it can be done regardless of whether the person has it from the community or from his/her ancestors. In Ovkat Rochel, blatantly misrepresented by this person,  says in translation:

"Who is he whose heart conspires to approach forcing congregations who practice according to the Rambam of blessed memory, to go by any one of the early or latter-day Torah authorities?! ...

Is it not a case of a fortiori, that regarding the School of Shammai that the halachah does not go according to them they [the Talmudic Sages] said if [one practices] like the School of Shammai [he may do so, but] according to their leniencies and their stringencies:

The Rambam, is the greatest of all the Torah authorities, and all the communities of the Land of Israel and the Arab-controlled lands and the West [North Africa] practice according to his word, and accepted him upon themselves as their Chief Rabbi.

Whoever practices according to him [the Rambam] with his leniencies and his stringencies, why coerce them to budge from him?  And all the more so if also their fathers and their fathers fathers practiced accordingly: for their children are not to turn right or left from the RaMBaM of blessed memory. And even if communities that practice according to the Rosh or other authorities like him became the majority, they cannot coerce the minority of congregations practicing according to the Rambam of blessed memory, to practice like they do.  And there is no issue here concerning the prohibition against having two courts in the same city [lo tithgodedu], since every congregation should practice according to its original custom.

(Avkat Rochel, She’elot U’Tshuvot  Siman 32.)

The full text can be found at http://www.hebrewbooks.org/636 I will transcribe the relevant portions when I am able at my home computer but the section is סימן לב 

Clearly from the writer of the Shulchan Aruch in Avkat Rochel, Rabbi Yosef Karo says plainly that "WHOEVER PRACTICES, NOT whoever has a family minhag or community minhag, according to the Rambam, may do so and they should not be coerced to do otherwise." He blosters this argument with a  valid Qal VaKomer argument by saying "All the Moreso if their fathers and their fathers fathers practiced accordingly:for their children should nto turn to the right or left of the Rambam of blessed memory."

So to say that I dont understand this or the context of what is being said, when the writing on the wall couldn't be any bigger, is just amazing and dumb! I would love to entertain this debate further and will at a later time discuss this matter in detail. There is basis in Jewish Law to allow this and to essentially misrepresent Rabbi Yosef Karo and basically call him a "liar" is unprecendented and not becoming of anyone who practices Orthodox Judaism.

Dead Sea Scrolls Online

As many know, Google has put out a website that lets you examine various Dead Sea Scrolls in a High resolution Digitized format. Only a select few of the DSS have been done to date but i think this would be a valuable resource for those who are curious and want to know what the DSS look like and say. The link is provided below. Enjoy!

http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/

Pesikta Rabbati link to the Hebrew Text for reference

There have been a few conversations in the PalTalk rooms regarding The Pesikta. Well I took it upon myself to find the Pesikta online for everyone viewing pleasure. the downside is that if you dont know Hebrew and Aramaic this probably wont help you much. But, for those who are looking for this important text and know what you are looking for....Here You Go! Enjoy!!

http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/vl/tohen.asp?id=374

Online Text of Milchmot HaShem by Rabbi Yichyah Qafich

This Text is almost a necessity to read for any Talmidei HaRambam (Student of Maimonides/Follower of Maimonides) who has strong feelings against Kabbalah and its teachings. This text written by Rabbi Yichyah Qafich (Teimani Rabbi) really rails hard against Kabbalah and its followers explaining how they are Idolaters for following Kabbalah, its associated texts, and that their Rabbis are not to be considered anyone of authority because this Mysticism as corrupted their judgment in matters of Halacha. I have a strong opinion about Kabbalah, The Zohar, and Sefer HaBahir. This text will explain, to a degree, why I am a Talmidei HaRambam.

The Hebrew text is linked below. Read and Enjoy!

http://www.chayas.com/milhamoth.htm

Moshe Shulman's claim that George Howard Retracted his claims on the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew

***Disclaimer: I am not a messianic or a christian! I do not hold this work as inspired of any sorts. I simply did a linguistic study on this work in College so this is purely professional in nature******


Not to long ago Moshe Shulman, Famous counter-missionary, made the claim that Professor George Howard, author of "The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew" had retracted many of his claims about the Shem Tov Hebrew Matthew because of an article by William L. Petersen that criticised Professor Howards claims on the Hebrew gospel of Matthew. I have read both articles and it is not hard to conclude that George Howard, in his response, conceded very few points made by Petersen. Howard criticises Petersen, and rightly so, for having remedial knowledge of Medieval Hebrew and his archaic renderings showing such knowledge. I find it amusing that such bold claims can be made by Moshe Shulman about George Howard and the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew when there is clear evidence in Howards response that he did not concede as many points as was alleged.

Petersens Critique: http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol03/Petersen1998a.html

Howards Response: http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/v04/Howard1999.html

Read and see for yourself if Howard really conceded anything. As far as I can tell he kept to his claims.

Shalom,

Yosef Menachem

Is Kitniyot permitted on Pesach?

Is Kitniyot permitted on Pesach?

This has been a very big debate in the Jewish community for many centuries. The Ashkenazim tend to say no and follow the Shulchan Arcuh HaRav which prohibits the consumption of Kitniyot. For the Sefardim and the Mizrachi Jews they follow the Shulchan Aruch, OC 453:1 and thus allow the consumption of kitniyot. There are those of us who do not follow either compositions of Jewish Law. Some of us follow the Mishneh Torah as laid out by the Rambam. Below is what The Rambam wrote in Sefer Chametz U’Matzah regarding the permission of Kitniyot.

Sefer Chametz U’Matzah 5:1

The prohibition against chametz applies only to the five species of grain. They include two species of wheat: wheat and rye; and three species of barley: barley, oats, and spelt. However, kitniyot - e.g., rice, millet, beans, lentils and the like - do not become leavened. Even if one kneads rice flour or the like with boiling water and covers it with fabric until it rises like dough that has become leavened, it is permitted to be eaten. This is not leavening, but rather the decay [of the flour].

א. אין אסור משום חמץ בפסח אלא חמשת מיני דגן בלבד. והם שני מיני חטים שהן החטה והכוסמת. ושלשה מיני השעורים שהן השעורה ושבולת שועל והשיפון. אבל הקטניות כגון אורז ודוחן ופולים ועדשים וכיוצא בהן אין בהן משום חמץ אלא אפילו לש קמח אורז וכיוצא בו ברותחין וכסהו בבגדים עד שנתפח כמו בצק שהחמיץ הרי זה מותר באכילה שאין זה חמוץ אלא סרחון:

The next issue that comes into play from the opposing side is that “you are obligated to follow the minhag of the community in which you reside!” For those of us who chose to become Talmidei HaRambam this becomes a problem to those who do not understand why we have chosen this path. You want to remind them that even the writer of the Shulchan Aruch said in Aovkat Rochel “that those who wish to follow the rulings of the Rambam, should continue following them, even if they are the minority in the congregation (i.e. the community) [text in Hebrew and citation to follow later].”

Conclusion:

Pay attention to the words of the Acharonim, but read carefully the words of the Rishonim! The words of an Acharon can not cancel or negate the words of a Rishon! So, my advice is to be very careful when disagreeing with your Rabbi on this point. You have to handle things very carefully if you take the route of a Rationalistic Talmidei HaRambam and still be an active member of the Kabalistic Jewish community.

Hold your Kitniyot up high, and chow down on Pesach!

Shalom,

Yosef Menachem

Uri's response to my blog post on the Aramaic Targumim and the word בר with my response to Uri!

Below is the response I received from UriYosef in regards to my blog post on the Aramaic Targumim and the meaning of the word בר in Aramaic. The below response tells me several things about where he is going with his line of reasoning.

1. That he is unwilling to take a serious look at the Aramaic Language as we have it. He is only willing to take a narrowed scope of the language and claim "This is it!" and no other views in the Aramaic are valid regardless of the implications contrary to his claims.

2. While I admit that he did not use "midrashic" in association with the Targumim in his article, this was claimed about Uri by the person conveying this blog to Uri. That is where I received the idea that Uri said that the Targumim conveyed midrashic interpretations.

3. That Uri does not want to discuss the natural progression of language as it is associated with word meaning over time. This is in spite of the fact that Uri, fluent in Modern Hebrew, assumes that this natural progression of the Hebrew language maintained the original meaning of Ancient Hebrew words and that he can read the Hebrew Bible based on this assumption. Double Standards are amazing!

4. The unmade claim on Uri's part is that only biblical Aramaic gets the term בר correct in its intent in meaning and others need not apply. The problem is that the textual vocabulary of the Aramaic portions of the hebrew bible are extremely limited and only literary. Uri builds a case from lack of contrary evidence to deduce that "Since the Bible doesnt use בר in the way of meaning "a son" then it must not mean that at all. This is a Fallacy of Silence and of Narrowing the field.

5. He did not address anything I said about the term בר in its usage in the Aramaic Language which shows contrary usage. Uri's only response was to return to his narrow playing field of limited Aramaic vocabulary in the Hebrew bible.

6. The best thing for Uri to do is save his ridicule for when honesty can come before pride. Uri must assume I spent "a lot" of time on my blog post.


Here is my message to Uri:

I did that post in 20 Minutes at 2:30AM. I got the exact response I expected from you! I dispelled the idea that בר is not a stand alone noun meaning "a son" by looking at the Aramaic language, for which you had no answer. I called out your narrowing of the field and argument from silence! Real, earnest, scholarship has to take into account all evidence for and against an argument.   I did this in 20 minutes at 2:30AM having to work the next day at 6:00AM. Imagine what a serious blog post would look like with time and devotion put into it.

You cited in your article all of these instances of the usage of בר in the text but can you show me a place in the Hebrew bible where your claimed root "בְּרָא" is used as simply "a son" in the Aramaic portions of the Hebrew bible? You neglected to cite that in your article and I am curious. Also, did it ever occur to you, Uri, that this term,בְּרָא , can be and usually is, the definite form of the word? In Aramaic the definite form takes an א suffix to denote the definite. Take Ezekiel 18:19 and look at the Targum Yonatan and its usage.

Ezekiel 18:19 (Targum Yonatan)

וַאֲמַרתֻון ותימרון מָדֵין לָא לָקֵי בְרָא בְחוֹבֵי אַבָא וֻברָא דִין דִקשוֹט וְזָכֻו עֲבַד יָת כָל קְיָמַי נְטַר וַעֲבַד יָתְהוֹן מֵיחָא יֵיחֵי׃

Both of these are used for corresponding nouns in the Hebrew. Both words have the definite article in the Hebrew text of Ezekiel 18:19 being הַבֵּן.

At this stage, I do not see even a remote response to these claims perhaps Uri would like to elaborate on some other issues I am taking with him.


At this stage of his article I see two issues with what he wrote:

1.  I never referred to the Targum as Midrashic in my article.  At the bottom of Page 8 I have the following:

The Targum Yonatan, an ancient interpretive translation into the Aramaic vernacular of the
Hebrew Bible, has קָ בִּ ילוּ אוּלְפָנָא (qaBIlu ulfaNA), accept the Law.

2.  The Aramaic of the Targumim came long after the Hebrew Bible was written, so it is a rather weak argument to support his claim by comparing the older Aramaic used in the Hebrew Bible with the more "modern" Aramaic employed in the Targumim.

If this is his idea of scholarship, then he is deluding himself.  We'll see what other sort of misrepresentations he uses when he finishes it.

Uri

The Aramaic Targums: Translation, Interpretation, and Paraphrase.

The Aramaic Targums: Translation, Interpretation, and Paraphrase.

There are some out there who simply do not quite understand what the Aramaic Targumim are and what is included in their text. The Verb לתרגם  means "to translate" in Hebrew. In some cases it can actually mean "To paraphrase" for the purpose of interpretation. From this verb comes the noun תרגום "translation" and מתרגם "Translator." This seems simple enough when looking simply at what the word means, but when we get to the actual Aramaic Targum we can see that this word can encompass more than we originally thought.

Certain people out in the counter-missionary world state that Aramaic Targumim are simply Midrashic interpretations of the actual biblical text. In a recent argument concerning the translation of the Aramaic word  בר "son/son of" I came across a rather sad line of argumentation. I will cite and reference an article by counter-missionary author UriYosef and discuss why I disagree with his analysis that only ברא means "a son" and  בר does not have that meaning.

Uri's Claim:

http://thejewishhome.org/counter/Psa2.pdf

VI. AN EXCURSION INTO THE ARAMAIC DOMAIN

As was noted in Section IV, the common Aramaic noun for son is בְּרָא , not .בָּר

Several applications of the Aramaic term בַּר are present throughout the Aramaic

portions of the Hebrew Bible, and these are shown in Table VI-1.

 

As is evident from Table VI-1, all (undisputed) applications of the Aramaic noun בַּר

in the Hebrew Bible show that the term is used in the possessive construct, son

of…, not as a free standing noun combined with the definite article, the son.

**(Note: I was unable to get the table fully imported due to formatting. I will fix this in the future, but for the time being, go to the link above and scroll down to the section noted for the table. please feel free to read Uri's article to see if I accurately represented his position.)**

Uri's Problem:

The first and foremost problem is that Uri limits his own playing field by claiming that "In the Hebrew Bible" not "in the Aramaic Language." This is a serious fallacious problem in that it takes only a narrow selection of the Aramaic language and does not fully encompass works written in Aramaic. I'm going to give at least two examples from the Aramaic Targumim that shows that בר can and does in fact mean "a son."  Going into great detail about grammar is not necessary since this is not a linguistic analysis but simply a assertion of meaning in the Aramaic language.

Genesis 30:5 (Targum Onkelos)

וְעַדִּיאַת בִּלְהָה וִילִידַת לְיַעֲקֹב בָּר: 

Translation:

"And Bilhah conceived and bore Jacob a son."

Isaiah 9:5 (Targum Yonatan)

אַמַר נְבִיָא לְבֵית דָוִד אֲרֵי רָבֵי אִיתְיְלִיד לָנָא בַּר אִתְיְהַב לָנָא וְקַבֵּל אוֹרַיְתָא עֲלוֹהִי לְמַטְרָהּ וְאִתְקְרֵי שְמֵיהּ מִן קַדָם מַפְלִיא עֵצָה אֳלָהָא גִבָּרָא קַיָם לְעַלְמַיָא מְשִיחָא דִשְלָמָא יַסְגֵי עֲלָנָא בְּיוֹמוֹהִי

Translation:

"The Prophet said to the House of David, For a Child was born to us, to us a son was given; and he will accept the Torah upon himself to observe it, and his name shall be called before the Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty G-d, who exists forever, "The anointed one in who's days peace will increase upon us."

I am by no means a rocket scientist but I think we can see plainly how בר is being used in each of these passages and what it clearly means.

The Claim of the targums being midrashic:

Uri has made the claim that these targumim are making midrashic interpretations of the text and that they are not actually translating anything in the text. Let's look at both the Hebrew and Aramaic text of each and let's see if we can determine what is in fact translation, paraphrase, and interpretation.

Isaiah 9:5:

The Hebrew reads:

 כִּי-יֶלֶד יֻלַּד-לָנוּ בֵּן נִתַּן-לָנוּ וַתְּהִי הַמִּשְׂרָה עַל-שִׁכְמוֹ וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ פֶּלֶא יוֹעֵץ אֵל גִּבּוֹר אֲבִי-עַד שַׂר-שָׁלוֹם: 

Translation:

For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us; and the government is upon his shoulders and his name was called wonderful counselor, mighty G-d, eternal father, a peaceful ruler. Targum Yonatan:

אַמַר נְבִיָא לְבֵית דָוִד אֲרֵי רָבֵי אִיתְיְלִיד לָנָא בַּר אִתְיְהַב לָנָא וְקַבֵּל אוֹרַיְתָא עֲלוֹהִי לְמַטְרָהּ וְאִתְקְרֵי שְמֵיהּ מִן קַדָם מַפְלִיא עֵצָה אֳלָהָא גִבָּרָא קַיָם לְעַלְמַיָא מְשִיחָא דִשְלָמָא יַסְגֵי עֲלָנָא בְּיוֹמוֹהִי

Translation:
 

"The Prophet said to the House of David, For a Child was born to us, to us a son was given; and he will accept the Torah upon himself to observe it, and his name shall be called before the Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty G-d, who exists forever, "The anointed one in who's days peace will increase upon us."

Highlighted red are what we can consider to be paraphrasic and or interpretations within the text of Targum Yonatan to Isaiah 9:5 due to the fact that there is no correspondence with the Hebrew text. The remaining which remained black are what can be considered a translation in the real sense of the word in that it contains no exegetical glosses or paraphrasing of the text. To translate the remaining part of the Targum that is not paraphrasic or exegetical we have: "For a Child has been born to us, a son is given to us......His name shall be called.....wonderful counselor, the mighty G-d....."

Genesis 30:5 (Hebrew):

וַתַּהַר בִּלְהָה וַתֵּלֶד לְיַעֲקֹב בֵּן: 

Translation:

"And Bilhah conceived and bore Jacob a son"

Genesis 30:5 (Targum Onkelos):

וְעַדִּיאַת בִּלְהָה וִילִידַת לְיַעֲקֹב בָּר: 

Translation:

"And Bilhah conceived and bore Jacob a son"

The Targum Onkelos seems to exhibit zero paraphrase or interpretation of the verse in question. So there is no need to go into specifics here. 

Conclusion:

Based on the evidence above we can see two things very clearly. One, that בר does indeed mean "a son" in the Aramaic Language as opposed to the claim made by UriYosef that it does not. Second, We can see that the Aramaic Targumim, while it can and does contain paraphrasic and exegetical readings, it does contain actual translation of the text which is also evidenced above. Now, it is up to you to decide on what is truth!

Shalom,

Yosef Menachem