'.£. iVV . '¦. 'Ji. s VViVVt
Eodkinson, M.Li
Tiie Pentateuch . . .
Chicago, 1894.

,%.-

T^7 1

V MEMORIAL^—
COLLECTION

Yale University Library

THE PENTATEUCH
Its Languages and

A TREATISE UPON THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE
AND TH.E EARLY TRANSLATIONS OF
THE PENTATEUCH INTO GREEK
AND ARAMAIC.

*

-By-

MICHAEL L RODKINSON,
"WW'McjR Ot 'tllSlukV OF AWULlLUjiVETC.

•mum.

;r3wiifcFTH" "STKKErr'UFr^AQQ

'"&&$.

CHICAGO:
BLOGH &-CO.

THE PENTATEUCH
Its Languages and
Its (shai^agtei^s.

A TREATISE UPON THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE
AND THE EARLY TRANSLATIONS OF
THE PENTATEUCH INTO GREEK
AND ARAMAIC.

-BY-

MICHAEL L. RODKINSON,

Author of "History of Amulets," Etc.

CHICAGO:
BLOCH & CO.
1894.

TO THE
FOUNDER OF THE REFORMED CONGREGATION IN
LONDON, ENGLAND,
The Rev. Prof. David W. Marks,
RABBI OF THE REFORMED CONGREGATION OF ENGLAND,
TN token of gratitude for the many valuable services rendered by
•*¦ him to the cause of true fudaism, science in general, and Hebrew
learning in particular, as well as for the great kindness shown by
him to his person in London in the years 1881 and 1882,
Most respectfully, DEDICATED BY

THE AUTHOR.

Chicago, III., February 13, 1894.

4

9:

*)<V-

PREFACE.

Two Hebrew scholars, both Germans, both professors
in a Eabbinical seminary, both doctors and phil
ologists, are in opposition to each other in regard to the
Aramaic (called after "Onkelos") translation of the
Pentateuch, and in regard to the question, who accom
plished same? One of them, a professor at the Hebrew
Union College in Cincinnati, recently published in the
Deborah (1893, No. 21) a criticism of the pamphlet,
"History of Amulets," and therein the learned gentle
man asserts the following:
"We should expect of the Russian-Jewish scholars,
who are so well versed in the 'sea of the Talmud,'
grand efforts for the stimulation of Jewish theology,
providing the lack of philologic-historical education
proved no serious obstacle.
"Mr. Eodkinson s makes, for example, Onkelos the
proselyte and pupil of E. Eliezer and E Joshua, the
composer of the Aramaic Targum, an opinion, the in
competency of which Azariah di Eossi proved more
than 300 years ago, without, however, drawing the full
consequences therefrom. That certain note in the
Babylonic Talmud (Megillah 3 a.) is based upon a con
founding of the same with the Greek Bible translator

IV.

Akylas. The fact also, that Hillel was a Babylonian,
seems to me, in spite of the fact that such is the uni
versal belief, rather doubtful ( ?). Both facts, however,
are of the utmost importance for E's. hypothesis. Con
sidering that Onkelos could not have written the Tar-
gum in Palestine during the second century, same
having come into existence only in the third century,
in Babylon, his translation of the word "Totaphoth," by
"Tephillin," does not prove that same were known in
Palestine during the second century. However, this ob
servation does not destroy the fact that the Tephillin
were of Babylonian origin and originally only magic
amulets.*)" Therefore, Prof. Dr. Deutsch says, that any one, who
asserts that the Targum Onkelos was written in the sec
ond century, lacks all philologic-historical education.
In opposition to him, another scholar, Dr. Berliner, Pro
fessor at the Hildesheimer Eabbinical Seminary in Ber
lin, says, that the Targum in question was composed,
not in the third, nor even in the second century, but al-
*By above assertions the critic shows, that he has no
interest in the actual contents of my publication but
simply wishes to criticise and find fault— nothing more
for in my work, entitled "Ursprung und Entwickelung
des Phylacterien Eitus bei den Juden," page 52, remark
IV, I say as follows: "I fix the date of the several Tar-
gums according to the inferences of the Talmud, as this
work is written expressly for students and followers of
the Talmud, and not according to the opinions of the
modern critics, who fix the dates of all the Targums at
a later period," and this Dr. Deutsch read, as he is in
possession of my mentioned work.

v.
ready in the latter part of the first century. (Berliner's
Targum Onkelos, p. 107).
Which of them is right ?
Were it to enter my mind, to decide between the two
learned professors, I would certainly draw upon myself
the ill will of Dr. Deutsch, and he would say, that not
only am I in lack of all philologic education, but that I
.am not even in possession of common decency, for how
can one, who calls darkest Eussia his native land, have
the audacity to decide between two Germans, who are
both of them, doctors, professors and philologists.
I am, therefore, somewhat timid about casting my ver
dict between the two, but nevertheless will tell the plain
truth, when stating, that Dr. Deutsch, in spite of his
erudition, does not even possess the fundamental prin
ciples of a critical method.
In order to be able to criticize the work of a person,
and even if that person be a Eussian, one must in the
first place make himself familiar with the contents, ten
dencies and arguments of the subject, and besides one
must understand something of that itself, that the cen
sor judges of. Truly, Dr. Deutsch has referred to "Aza-
riah di Eossi," whom I have cited often enough in my
work, "Tephillah Le MoscheMicoucy,"andtohis "Meor
Enayim," published some 300 years ago, but maintains
a stolid silence about the numerous learned researchers
of the present century, who have written whole works
and smaller and larger treatises in large numbers upon
the Targum Onkelos, thereby proving clearly that he has

Yl.

either forgotten all about what has been written since
di Eossi upon that subject, or that he has never heard
of same. It can, therefore, be of but very little conse
quence to both Dr. Berliner and my humble self, to
argue about Dr. Deutsch's theory. For where such pre
judice is found, or where such errors have taken root, as
with Dr. Deutsch, there no disputing object presents it
self. Dr. Deutsch has really said nothing of impor
tance, and still I am truly grateful to him for his criti
cism, as he furnished me an incentive to investigate the
subject and publish this pamphlet as the result of my
investigations. I also publish in this pamphlet a chapter of my new
work, "What is the Talmud?" in the hope, that its per
usal will elicit from my readers the desire for its com
pletion and material encouragement, as I flatter myself
that it will throw a new light upon the contents of the
Talmud, for neither the followers, nor the antagonists
of the Talmud, have given it the attention necessary to
determine what it really is.
THE AUTHOE.
Chicago, February, 1894.

THE PENTATEUCH,
ITS LANGUAGES AND
ITS CHARACTERS.

The Pentateuch, with its " Tar- gums" or translations,
furnishes a wide field for discussion and argument.
While it is well known, that the Septuagenta were the
first to translate the Pentateuch, and it is generally as
sumed that they translated it from the Hebrew
language, in which all the modern Bibles are written;
I have reason to doubt this, however, as the reader will
find further on. The principal translations immediately
following that of the Septuagenta were those of Akylas
in Greek, and Onkelos in Aramaic, better known as the
" Tar gum Onkelos." The latter, of all translations, is
considered the most authentic among the Jews, and the
Jewish code ordains its reading every week, the same as
the Hebrew Bible, with the exception, that only one
verse of the Targum Onkelos be read to two of the
Bible.

10 THE PENTATEUCH.
I can hardly think of any theme, that has occupied
the minds of researchers to so large an extent, and the
opinions of which have been so diversified as the ques
tion concerning the "Targum Onkelos." I can name four
separate learned works upon it, viz.: — "Nethinah La-
Ger," by Eabbi Nathan Adler; "Oheb Ger," by S.
D. Luzzato; "Sichron La Acharonim," by S. J. Eappa-
port, and "Targum Onkelos," by A. Berliner. Thereto
I may add many larger treatises, for example: Zunz
"Gottesdienstliche Vortrage," page 42 of the new edi
tion, Frankel "Darke" ha Mishnah," p. 101, and "Ueber
den Einfluss " etc , by the same author. Herzfeld, Part
II, p. 64; Gr?etz (V., 510), who also touches the subject
in his previous works. Luzzato in Geiger's "Zeitschrift''
(V., 126), the same in his letters to Eappaport (Part II,
194-213). Moses Landau in his edition of the"Aruch."
I. H. Weis in his "Dor Dor We-Dorshow," (Vol. II, 136
as also in Vol. I he speaks of the Targum Onkelos).
See also the Encyclopedias, among which the Eeal En
cyclopedia by Dr. Hamburger; also in many other trea
tises the Targum question is touched upon. Still no de
cision has been reached, and still the question awaits a
satisfactory solution.
It must be admitted that Dr. Berliner has furnished a
thorough treatise in his work. He thoroughly probes
in his mentioned work all previous opinions; and even
his own views and conclusions are not altogether
groundless. Still his conclusion that E. Akiba com
posed the larger portion of the Targum, if not entirely,

THE PENTATEUCH, 11
largely lacks proof. First of all, E Akiba was a states
man, who was active all his life in political affairs,
which were of more importance and more closely allied
to him than the composition of an Aramaic translation
of the Pentateuch, for which he also must have barely
had time. Secondly (and that is the main thing), any
one knowing the method of E. Akiba, knows also that the
method of the "Targum Onkelos" is totally and funda
mentally opposed to that of E. Akiba. In the hands of
E. Akiba the text of the Pentateuch was as the clay in
the hands of the potter, whicli he moulds and forms at
will. He expounded and explained the Scriptures in a
tendentic form and according to the demands of his age,
without considering the mere implied meaning of the
words- It is unnecessary to bring proof for the above, for E.
Akiba's method is well known, and many places referring
thereto have been cited by I. H. Weis in his above men
tioned work. I shall however cite two extracts which
will confirm my words, and which I. H. Weis omitted.
1). Simon of Emaus explained all passages contain
ing the word fiN meaning — with — by adding some similar
object. In coming across the passage NT»n "pn^K'n J"iK
"thou shalt fear the Lord thy God," he hesitated,
until E. Akiba came and said 'n nK etc., "with the Lord,
etc.", includes the Talmudi Chachamim (scholars) (Pe-
sachim XXII, b.). We see here, that E. Akiba did not
hesitate to equalize the reverence due a "Talmud Cha-
cham" with that due God, a theory not based upon tra-

12 THE PENTATEUCH.
dition and which he endeavored to base upon a passage
of the scriptures 
2). A remarkable legend can be found inMenachoth
29 a, viz.: "When God pointed out E. Akiba to Moses,
while the former was in the act of expounding the Tho-
rah, Moses listened, but could understand nothing, and
was in consequence very much depressed in spirits, un
til he heard his name cited as authority in the matter
under discussion." This satyric legend proves clearly,
that the scriptures contain none of E. Akiba's explana
tions, for he formed the words perforce until they coin
cided with his views.
Hence the sages say justly (Sotah, 49 b,): "When E.
Akiba died, the arms of the Thorah ceased to exist,"
which Raschi comments upon by saying: "The reign of
individual opinion was terminated as well as the attempt
to base the traditional explanation of the scriptures upon
superfluous or missing letters, etc."
This being so, how can we come to the conclusion,
that E. Akiba composed the Targum entirely or even
partly, when it is entirely opposed to his method.
Aside from this, however, much more can be said.
The principal incentive to researchers of the Onkelos-
question was furnished by a remark (in Megilla 3 a),
wherein it says that Eabbi Ika held the word tynSB in
Nehemiah, viii, 8, to mean "translation," thus bringing
about the research of the meaning of the word tyn-SO;
and if the meaning of that word is translation, which
and whose translation? It was, therefore, the object of

THE PENTATEUCH. 13
many to determine whether there was any truth in this
explanation of Eabbi Ika. So many opinions and doc
trines being found in the Targum of Onkelos, which are
of a later age, and the said Targum containing many
Aramaic words, which were not in use at the time of On
kelos' alleged existence, many views were advanced to
explain these apparent facts, which views, while they
widely differ, can be grouped into three classes.
Class I teaches, that Onkelos is identical with the pro
selyte Akylas, who at the time of E. Eliezer and E. Jo
shua translated the Thorah into Greek. This class em
braces the explanations given by Nathan Adler, Luzzato
and others.
Class II teaches, that there is no connection between
the Aramaic and the Greek translation of the Thorah,
and also that the former has been unjustly attributed to
Onkelos. (Frankel, Herzfeld and others).
Class III teaches, that even if Onkelos were not the
Targumist, still the Targum named after him was formed*
according to the translation of Akylas and therefore has
been endowed with the similar name of Onkelos. (Grsetz,
Weis and others).
All these explanations are based upon the teachings
of Eabbi Ika, but entirely ignore another talmudic pas
sage, which I shall cite further on, which throws light
on the mentioned teachings and whicli only subsequently
aims to justify the already existing, as is generally the
case with talmudic definitions.
Now, then, to the mentioned passage: "Said Mar

14 THE PENTATEUCH.
Sutra, according to others Mar Ukba: 'Originally
the Thorah was given to Israel in Hebrew charac
ters and in the Hebrew language; the second time
it was given to Israel in Ezra's time, but in Assyrian
characters and in the Aramaic language; finally the
Assyrian characters and the Hebrew language were
selected for Israel and the Hebrew characters and the
Aramaic language were left to the Hediotim (Idiots).
What do we mean by Hebrew characters ? The Libu-
nah characters.' " So far goes the Talmud (Sanhedrin
XXI, b.). Also in the Talmud of Jerusalem this pas
sage may be found.
This above report eminates from one of the Babylon
ian exilarchs, for both Mar Sutra and Mar Ukba were
exilarchs.* Nowhere can a contradiction be found, as
the traditions of the exile princes, who reigned continu
ously for about 450 years are not doubted.
The passage also tells us that already in Ezra's time
the Israelites had the Thorah in the Aramaic language

*See, JTnKm m&D by Abraham Krochmal, in the
treatise wfoi tt-"H "O"! KJ?^p, see also in my periodical
Ttf'OD the treatise entitled bzHV? TW<bi ^Kl. In my
opinion Mar Sutra was a judge called Sut (Sutra), the
first of the exiled princes, who reigned during the time
of Eabban Gamliel Hazakan, about the year 45 after
Christ, or it was Ukban, who lived 4 "generations later.
The first Mar Ukba lived about the year 215 and Mar
Sutra more than 100 years later or about 332. Mar Su
tra being mentioned here before Mar Ukba, I may say
that Sut, the contemporary of Eabban Gamliel Hazakan,
is the one referred to, the latter, as is well known, being
the one who ordered the Targum buried beneath a wall.

THE PENTATEUCH. 15
and in that language only. The Tosephta ( Sanhedrin
c 4) teaches us, that Ezra himself, like Moses, gave Is
rael a language and characters for a Thorah. If we
look further into the subject, we find that in his day the
selection of the Aramaic language and Assyrian charac
ters was for the mass of the people a necessity, for said
language and characters were then predominant and the
people had long since forgotten their original language,
a fact much deplored by Ezra and Nehemiah. We also
know (by Kings II, xxviii, 26) that the more prominent
Judaers were already in Hiskia's time familiar with the
Aramaic language, bringing same in use when communi
cating with the Assyrians and Babylonians. Even, if at
that time the majority did not understand said language,
we find, however, that the Hebrew language, or as it
was then called, the Judaic language, was on the de
cline, so that at the time of King Josiah, the prophet Jer
emiah, at one time speaking against idolatry and pa
ganism, selected the Aramaic idioms (Jer. x 11) There
from we may conclude, that he thought and spoke in the
Aramaic language and subsequently wrote his prophe
cies in the Hebrew language. Thus had the people in
the period between the reign of Hiskia and Josiah be
come accustomed to the Aramaic language, and after
wandering into the Babylonian exile had forgotten the
Hebrew letters and characters rapidly and then totally.
So nothing remained for Ezra and the other leaders of
the people to do, but to give the Israelites their Thorah
in the familiar Assyrian characters and Aramaic lan-

16 THE PENTATEUCH.
guage. Such was the state cf affairs in Ezra's day; but
when did Israel receive the Thorah a second time in As
syrian characters and in the Hebrew language?
"The Assyrian characters and the Hebrew language
was selected for Israel," says the Exilarch, but gives no
account of who the selectors were and when the selec
tion took place. If we wish to solve this question, we
must dive deep into the "sea of the Talmud" and bring
forth its pearls. We find the following:
"I recollect your grandfather, Eabban Gamliel Haza
kan sitting on a step of the Temple Hill, and when
a book, "The Targum of Job," was brought before him,
he commanded the mason and the latter immured the
book in the threshold (Sabbath, 15a).
When the scriptures are translated by "Targum," or by
a name in any other language, they may be saved from
fire on Sabbath, but they must be buried (Tosephta ibid).
Eabbi Simon, Bon of Gamliel, says: "Even the scrip
tures were not allowed to be written in other languages,
except in Greek (Megillah I, 8)." In the Talmud of
Jerusalem is said, "It has been tried and found that the
scriptures cannot be correctly translated into any lan
guage but the Greek (Ibid)."
Having therefore cited all passages bearing upon the
subject, we again turn to the closing remark of the Exi
larch as previously cited: "The Hebrew characters and
Aramaic language were left to the Hediotim (Idiots),
and to the question, what constitutes the Hebrew char
acters? the answer given was the Libunah characters,
that is — the Samaritan.

THE PENTATEUCH. 17
Thus, the foundation of all research as to the origin
of the Targum, is the above mentioned remark of the
Exilarch, although so little attention has been devoted
to it by all previous researchers, and in my opinion it
not only throws a light upon the origin of the Targum,
but also upon all other translations of the scriptures in
the time of our sages. Every studious reader will see
between the lines of the above "maimar," that the Thorah
which Ezra wrote, or which was written in his day in
Aramaic, is still in the possession of the Samaritans. It is
possible that the Samaritans have falsified the Thorah
in some instances, as we find frequently in the Talmud,
where the Pharisees say to the Sadducees: You have fal
sified your Thorah; but there is no doubt that this, and
this only, was the cause of the concealment of the Ara
maic Thorah, for when the Samaritans and Saducees be
gan to use the literal sense of the Thorah, without any
tradition and regardless of time and place, the Pharisees
had no other recourse but to conceal the Thorah and
hide it from view. They also said therefore, "He who
translates the verse literally, is a liar (Badai) and he
who dares to add to it (without tradition), is a blasphe
mer (Keduschin, 49 a)." It is certain that they said this
against the Samaritans, whom they even previously call
IDIOTS. Being forced to discard the Aramaic Thorah, they had
to substitute another, as the people demanded their
Thorah. They then decided upon the Assyrian charac
ters, which were familiar to all, the Hebrew characters

18 THE PENTATEUCH.
having been forgotten, and the Hebrew language, as be
ing an original language and not affected by the then
existing circumstances of Palestine, which was con
stantly between two fires, falling first into the hands of
the Greeks, then of the Eomans, Egyptians or Syrians'
and while under the rule of one or the other nation con
stantly subjected to changes in language, each nation
desiring to make its own language predominant. The
Greek translation then existing was therefore of no
avail, as they knew full well that the other nations would
destroy it.
I cannot quite agree with I. H. Weis's opinion that
the Aramaic Targum was discarded in Eabban Gamliel
Hazakan's day, this having in my opinion taken place
several generations before, when the strife between the
Pharisees and the Saducees was in full blast. Certain
it is, however, that during the period between Ezra's
time and the latter half of the Priest regime, the Thorah
existed only in Aramaic, for, as we have heard from the
Exilarch, in the Holy language and in Assyrian charac
ters, it had never previously been written. Such being
the case, Septuagenta translated the Pentateuch from
the Aramaic, and not from the Hebrew and Philo of
Alexandria, the most famous philosopher of his day,
when stating this fact in his book, "the Life of Moses"
was perfectly correct, but he errs in asserting that the
Thorah was originally given to Israel in Aramaic, and
does so for the simple reason, that he knew nothing of
the existence of the Thorah in Hebrew characters and

THE PENTATEUCH.

19

in the Holy Langnage, as same was concealed immedi
ately after the issue of the Aramaic Thorah, as we will
prove later on,*
Therefore the Holy language was selected, it being
certain, that the originality of the Hebrew language
would preclude its being forgotten by their descen
dants, even if they should be under foreign dominion, for
an original language will always have its researchers,
even if only one in a community.
We do not know whether they possessed some of the
Thorah that Ezra concealed, or whether they translated
from the Aramaic, but we do know, that as long as the
Aramaic Thorah existed, there was no Hebrew Thorah,
the latter coming into existense, when the former be
came extinct.
The Hebrew language, however, not being sufficient
for the masses, who really did not understand Hebrew,
and the Greek translation existing at that time, being
the one devised by the Septuagenta and of no account,
the later generation had to procure a translation of the
Bible in the current language, or in one familiar to the
masses. There opportunity favored them; for Akylas, the pro
selyte, who was a nati#e Greek and knew his native lan
guage thoroughly, besides being a pupil of E, Eliezer
and E. 'Joshua, who were in turn the most prominent

*I am grateful to Mr. M. Shinedling for the article he
sent me for publication in the "Hakol" whereby he re
minded me of this statement of Philo.

20 THE PENTATEUCH.
pupils of E. Johanan ben Zakai, was entrusted with the
translation of the Thorah into Greek, under the gui
dance of his masters. His translation was approved
of, and the mentioned "Maimar:" "It was tried and
proven that the Gieek language alone is adaptable for a
translation of the Thorah," then came into existence as
well as the remark of Simon ben Gamliel, which we
have previously cited.
All this was, however, sufficient only for the Palestin
ian Jews, who were then familiar with the Greek lan
guage ; but for the Babylonian Jews, who were then in
the majority and who had even established at that time
colleges for the study of the Bible, and its commentar
ies, and for whom neither the original, nor the transla
tion was of any avail, their language being Aramaic, an
Aramaic translation was absolutely necessary. The old
Aramaic Thorah, even had it been found, was practi
cally useless, firstly, because the language had under
gone great changes and had been vastly improved in
the 600 years or so, elapsing between Ezra's time and
the Exilarchy of Babylon,* and secondly because it had
been discarded for reasons already mentioned. Thereto
we may add that the Palestinians did not care to entrust
the Babylonians with the translation of the Thorah in
Aramaic; by reason of their fear that it would do them
great harm, not being in accordance with theft tradi-

*Comparison of the Samaritan Thorah, edition of A,
Brull, with the language of the Aramaic Targum, will
clearly prove that fact.

THE PENTATEUCH. 21
tions and aim, in like manner as it is known, that they
did not entrust the Babylonians with their festivals.
For this reason the Palestinians were compelled to se
lect a man versed in both the Hebrew and Aramaic lan
guages, and besides a disciple of their theories. They
then found Onkelos. It may be, that Onkelos was a
Persian proselyte and may be he was not, but one thing
is certain, that he was a man well versed in his native
language and in Hebrew, and a disciple of Palestinian
doctrines. In consequence he was entrusted with the
translation of the Thorah in Aramaic, under the control
of Palestinian scholars. Naturally, the later Targum
embraced the later doctrines and rites for the Babylon
ian Jews, and for that reason the Targum differed from
the Targum of Akylas.
This Targum was written and transmitted to the Ba
bylonian colleges. The copying and selling of books
was then of very rare occurence, and only a century la
ter, we find that scribes came into existence, who gained
a livelihood by copying. These scribes, however, being
not of the common populace, but of the learned class,
and in the intervening century, the language being fur
ther developed and new rites added, they added to and
changed some passages. For this reason Di Eossi and
the later critics found words, ordinances and laws,which
at the time of the pupils of E. Johannan ben Zakai, had
not yet existed. This brought forth their assertion that
the Targum was entirely created in the third century,
and that the name Onkelos was incorrect. Now all this

22 THE PENTATEUCH.
is unnecessary, because the scribes of that age were all
noted scholars, one of them being E. Hananel, the pu
pil of the famous Eab, who was allowed to write the
entire Thoras, Sephorim and Mezuzas,etc, by heart and
who was an excellent Aramaic scholar, by reason of his
Babylonian nativity. When such men as he copied and
sold the Torah, it is but natural to assume, that they ad
ded whatever new rites arose during their period.
So we see, that originally the Targum was written in
Palestine, and subsequently copied and sold in Babylon
a century later. I do not assert that the name of the
writer in Palestine was Onkelos, or that he was called
Onkelos, by reason of the first Targum being written by
Akylas. I will not agree with Luzzato, who says that
the Targum was compiled in the second century, but
was not written until the third century by reason of the
prohibitory ordinance in the Talmud. "Words of Law
spoken by word of mouth, thou shalt not write down,"*
because the Mishnah had already been written, but I do

*There is a chapter in the Jerusalem Talmud (Megil
lah vii) as follows: "E. Samuel, son of Isaac, seeing a
teacher instructing children out of a written Targum
said to him: "It is not allowed to teach traditional lore
out of a written book." This chapter probably was the
source of Luzzato's opinion, which, however, is not cor
rect, as E, Samuel was of the later Amoraim, in whose
time the Targum Onkelos was already accepted and cir
culated, and he did not want to have the children taught
the inferences of the Targum, but simply the literal
meaning of the verses, for he did not say anything de
rogatory to the Targum, but simply mentioned a writ
ten book.

THE PENTATEUCH. 23
agree with him, that it was not circulated among the
people until the third century, for reasons already stated
previously and mentioned by me in the "History of Am
ulets," viz.: that until that time the copying by scribes
was a very rare occurrence.
A controversy now arose between such of the Baby
lonians, as could compare the Targum of Onkelos with
that of Akylas, and found disparagements, and in order
to settle all such controversies, and make the Targum of
Onkelos paramount and popular authority, it was an
nounced to have been the original translation of the
Thorah, which Moses gave on the Mount Sinai and was
backed by the statement of Eabbi Ika, who pronounced
the word tSHlBC to be synonymous with Targum, in ac
cordance with the rule of E. Johanan, stating: If it is
but possible to ascribe any Halakha to Moses, do so!
This subsequent ruling was imperatively necessary, and
we can see the justice of the claim, that all doctrines
were ordained after the deeds they referred to had al
ready been accomplished, and which we shall con
clusively prove later on.
Thus, all our critics that layed such great stress upon
the word ttHlSQ, whether it means Targum or not, en
gaged in a vain and useless task.
I have previously stated in some of my publications,
that most of the Mishnahs referred to ordinances and
customs already in vogue, and did not contain new be
hests. I proved my assertion by one indisputable ordi
nance in the Mishnah: "If a Lulav is stolen, or is

24 THE PENTATEUCH.
withered, it must not be used." We find in Leviticus
XXIII, 40, the commandment: "And ye shall take unto
you on the first day. boughs of goodly trees, branches of
palm trees, etc."
If the Thana of the Mishnah had intended to estab
lish a new ordinance or to only complete the above com
mandment, he must necessarily have first held, that the
branches of palm trees meant the "Lulav," This would
have been an original ordinance, or a completion of the
above commandment. But he does no such thing. He
takes it for granted that the Lulav had been in use for
many years, and so indeed it had, and only remarks, that
if the "Lulav is stolen, etc." In no part of the Bible
and nowhere else is mention made of Lulav, and only in
the Mishnah do we find the word "Lulav" signifying a
branch, but not a particular kind of a branch, for where
the Mishnah wishes to specify the kind of branch, we
find for example, "Lulav of a grapevine." Lulav is really
the Syrian word for branch. This ' proves, therefore,
that the ordinance of the Mishnah refers to an already
existing custom, and does not refer to or stand as a com
pletion to the commandment of the Bible, although the
Amoraim stated in the Tract Brachoth, where the Mish
nah commences: "At what time of the night must
Krishma be said," that the Mishnah must first ordain
that Krishma be said and then state at what time, and
that still it refers to the verse of Deut. VI, 7: "Thou
shalt talk of them when thou liest down, etc." But this
is not so, and Eabbi Ezekiel Landau errs in saying

THE PENTATEUCH. lb
that because the Amoraim stated the above, all the
Mishnahs refer to verses of the Bible direct; for we find
that this Krishma was also a very old custom, as it is
said in Tract Yuma, that at the offering of sacrifices
Krishma was said.
The mentioned Mishnah of the Lulav is therefore con
clusive proof that all the Mishnahs have the same ten
dency. So have I also explained the first Mishnah of Pe-
sachim, wherein are devoted the first 8 pages for the de
termination of the meaning of the word Or (11K), whether
it be day or night. My explanation is that Or referred
to morning twilight of the day preceding Passover, when
the eating of leavened bread is prohibited after the fourth
hour of day. The women, therefore, had to arise before
daybreak and bake their bread for breakfast by candle
light, immediately after which they gathered the crumbs
of the leavened bread, so as to prevent their being scat •
tered around on Passover. The Mishnah, therefore, only
refers to this custom without ordaining that the
Chometz must be gathered on the eve of Passover.
(SeeBarkay, Vol. I).
Thus we see that in all instances the Mishnah only re
ferred to old customs and brought no original ordinances
whatever. Also the Mishnah in Tract Chulin, which decides the
question of a drop of milk falling into a pot of meat, was
inserted after the Thana Eab had, while in the City of
Talalpush, prohibited the boiling of meat in milk, which
the Jews then and there practiced (Ibid, 110).

26 THE PENTATEUCH.
In like manner as all these Mishnahs and ordinances
referred to existing customs, so Eabbi Ika explained the
word tsmSD to mean Targum, after the latter had already
been introduced.*
We see, therefore, that our sages were determined and
made it their highest aim to maintain the unity of the
Bible, and prevent disputes arising from any differen
ces that may occur, when two or more Bibles are in ex
istence. Just immediately before the destruction of the
first temple, when the prophets foresaw that the temple
would be purloined of all its contents, the original tab
lets containing the ten commandments, and even the re-
ceptacle of same, disappeared (see Yuma, 52b).
After Ezra saw the necessity of giving the Jews their
Thorah in the Aramaic language, the original Hebrew
Thorah disappeared, and I have seen it written that the
modern Samaritans whenever they use the Thorah dur
ing worship, curse Ezra, and do so not because they
have any reason, but because it is a tradition with them,
and it seems clear to me that they do so because when
they were accused of having falsified their Thorah, they
could not produce the original and attributed its loss to
Ezra.

*Eeally the Targum became so popular that we find
an ordinance in the Talmud requiring the individual
reading of the Targum as follows: "Bead the Hebrew
verse twice and the Targum verse once." The reason of
this was, in my opinion, only to teach the Hebrew lan
guage from the Targum, as the latter was well known,
while the former was in its infancy.

THE PENTATEUCH. 27
When the Aramaic translation had to be changed
into Greek, we see, as I have already stated, the citation
when Gamliel ordered the Aramaic Targum which was
found to be dstroyed.
Even the prophets and the Hagiographa, where the
least disparagement of the original Thorah was found,
the sages wanted to destroy (Sabbath 13, and many
other places), and it was with the greatest difficulty and
after a number of discussions, that Proverbia, Ecclesi
astes and Ezekiel were handed down to posterity. One
book, however, the Book containing the Genealogy of
both the prominent and notorious men, was sacrificed,
although reluctantly (Pesachim, 62 a) in order not to
create any disputes, for the sages foresaw with their in
genuity and sagacity, that if this were not done, it
would be the greatest misfortune for Israel, causing
internal strife and subsequent division into sects and
different denominations.
The Christians, however, did not take this matter into
consideration, and hence there are four separate and
distinct Gospels, "Matthew, Mark, Luke and John," and
there is a legend bearing upon this, which I wish to
quote to my readers as follows: "When the church fa
thers saw how many Gospels were written, they were at
a loss which to accept, so they decided to build a barn
in an open field, with apertures on all sides, and lay the
Gospels on stands in the barn, and those which the
wind would not blow off, they would accept." All with
the exception of the four existing Gospels were blown

28 THE PENTATEUCH.
off and so these four were accepted. It is therefore no
wonder that where several Gospels exist, many creeds
should be formed and so I also answer the question, I
personally asked of the late Prof. Dr. Franz Delitzsch,
of Leipzig in 1884, "Why have we Jews retained what
you believe to be the original Bible given us by Moses
some 4000 years ago, in spite of the many persecutions
and driftings from place to place that we have experi
enced, whereas you Christians, who since the fourth
century have held the upper hand, have not a single or
iginal Gospel, written by the apostles, as you told me
yourself you have only translations from the Greek,
while Matthew and other apostles did not know one
word of Greek and wrote the Gospels in Syriac." This
question Prof. D. could not answer, except by saying
that such was God's will. This proves that our sages
had far more foresight and knew that we must at all
events preserve the unity and originality of the Bible,
and hence arose their saying in Zohar, "God, the Thorah
and Israel are one." By which is meant, that as God is
one so shall the Thorah be one and Israel be one and
not divided into sects. This is the Trinity of Judaism
in opposition to the Trinity of Christianity.
I think I have, by this article, convinced Dr. Deutsch
that my lack of philologic education did not prevent my
reading di Eossi and the other critics of the age, that I
have cited, but while I am speaking about languages, I
wish to add a few remarks concerning our own, the He
brew language.

THE PENTATEUCH. 29
We see in our modern history, nations who at one
time were self-governing, now oppressed and subjugated
by foreign powers, nay, even absorbed by foreign coun
tries, but withal they have maintained and upheld their
own language, have jealously guarded and treasured it
as something sacred. I refer to the Poles, Hungarians,
Bulgarians, etc. Not so, however, with the Jews. Al
ready in the time of the first temple, the Jews had
sought to acquire not only the customs, but also the
language of their neighbors, to the utter neglect of their
own, the Hebrew, as I have proven previously, that dur
ing the time of the later kings, Aramaic was spoken in
preference to Hebrew, and after having been in Babylon
barely a century, they lost their language and even their
written characters, which have not been revived to this
day. I leave it for the researchers of Hebrew lore to
decide whether with the loss of their language the Jews
lost their independence, and I also leave it for the re
searchers to determine whether the loss of their lan
guage caused the loss of their independence, or vice
versa, for it is my opinion that the former was the case.
During the existence of the first temple, while the
Jews were under foreign dominion, their internal
Government was left to themselves. Their conquerors
robbed them of several cities, but did in no way
interfere with their internal affairs, as they did during
the existence of the second temple, and still we see that
gradually, instead of developing their language, they ut
terly neglected it, for even Jeremiah, to say nothing of

30 THE PENTATEUCH.
the later prophets, Haggai, Zacharias and Malachai,
spoke very poor Hebrew. This shows that they lost
their self-esteem by striving to acquire foreign customs,
manners and languages. Loss of self esteem must nec
essarily entail loss of independence.
Some critics may attempt to contradict me by produc
ing Isaiah II, who existed at the time of the Exodus of
Israel from Babylon, and proving that he spoke excel
lent Hebrew, even better than Isaiah I. To this I can
but say, that this is no proof, for we see that while He
brew to-day is a dead language, the writers of it even
not speaking it, still I am positive that in the 21st or
22nd century, when people will see the famous Hebrew
poems of Gordon and Lebensohn, the novels of Mappu
and all the Hebrew daily and periodical publications,
they will undoubtedly say that in the 19th century the
Hebrew language was commonly used by some nation,
like any other language. We know, however, that it is
dead beyond revival and the same was the case in Isaiah
IPs time. He was probably the only one who had such
command of the language, and he himself proclaims it
in Chap. 49, v. 2, "And he hath made my mouth like a
sharp sword," and in Chap. 50, v. 4, "The Lord hath
given me the tongue of the learned, that I should know
how to speak," etc.
Thus my conviction is, that the endeavor of the Jews
to affiliate themselves with their neighbors, to adopt
their customs, learn their manners and language, caused
the loss of their self-esteem even at the time of the first
temple and brought about the utter neglect of their lan
guage. Well, now, is a nation without a language capa
ble of self-government?

A CHAPTER OF MY FORTHCOMING BOOK:
WHAT IS THE TALMUD?

After dwelling in the introduction of the above work
upon the development of all the different creeds in gen
eral, and the creed of the Israelites from the time of the
Patriarch Abraham, until the time of the Doctors of the
"Mishnah" in particular, the chapter commences as fol
lows: The only religion in the world, that has not been di
vided into a number of denominations and did not form
separate sects, is the Jewish, for the small sect of Karai
tes existing in Eussia and Austria and the still smaller
sect of the Samaritans in Asia Minor, number so few
and are so steadily on the decrease, that they cannot
really be termed separate sects. Although the total
number of Jews in the world exceed seven millions, they
all form virtually one sect, possess but one creed and
may fully be designated as Talmud Jews; for even the
Eeform Jews tacitly accept in many of their essential
beliefs and customs the teachings of the Talmud. Thus
they pronounce (Jehovah) miT1 as (Adonai) ''J'tN in ac
cordance with the prescription of the Talmud; celebrate
31

32 WHAT IS THE TALMUD,
the festivals of the year on dates established by the Tal
mud; believe with the Talmud in the immortality of the
soul; their laws of marriage are Talmudic and the prayer
for the deceased (the Kaddisch prayer) owes its origin to
the Haggada of the Talmud.
There are many uncritical minds who would fain per
suade us that the Talmud is primarily a commentary
upon the Bible or Pentateuch. It is nothing of the
kind, He is indeed a queer exegete who establishes
maxims which are just the reverse of the text he has be
fore him. Thus the saying of E. Jose, one of the re
nowned doctors of the Mishnah, whose authority was
unquestioned e. g,, to the compiler of that code (cf. Ye-
bamoth 105). "Neither did the Shekhina descend to
the earth, nor did Moses and Elijah ascend to Heaven"
(Sukkah 5) contradicts explicit statements in the Bible
(Ex. xix, 20: "And the Lord came down upon Mount
Sinai;" ib. 3: "And Moses went unto God;" 2 Kings ii,
11: "And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into Heaven").
No one ever accused the author of this remarkable say
ing, of heresy, nor even of false exegesis; only weak
attempts were made by the later students of the Tal
mud at mitigating the import of the saying by a forced
explanation, viz. : That the Shekhina, when descending
to the earth, never comes below 10 (CTlDtD) hands in
height, where the dominion of the earth begins*.
*These later students explained the contradiction of
Eabbi Jose in the following manner: "The dominion of
heaven ends at the height of 10 hands measure from
the earth and the Shekhina reaches only to that height

WHAT IS THE TALMUD. 33
The preceding is an example of a saying found -in the
Haggadic portions of the Talmud. Cases are not want
ing in the Halakha, when the Pentateuchal:- Eye for
eye, tooth for tooth (Ex. xxi, 24; Lev. xxiv, 20; cf. ib.
19: "As he hath done, so shall it be done to him," and
v. 10: "As he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall
it be done to him again") is explained by the Talmud
(Baba Kamma 84) as referring to a pecuniary indem
nity, and no one can make us believe that the Talmud-
ists were not convinced of their forced exegesis, which
they employed, because they would not accede to the
principle of abrogating the Law (as the Christian
Jews did in the name of Jesus Christ), and onthe other
hand were too advanced in their views not to recognize
the injustice and cruelty of the literal Biblical Law,
Similarly the "forty stripes" which are to be given
for certain crimes (Deut. xxv, 3), is reduced in the Tal
mud to thirty-nine. Now, there is no ingenuous exe
gete on earth who would make us believe that if one
says forty, he means thirty-nine. We have here, there
fore again a case of modified legislation, though under
the guise of a peculiar exegesis. The reason for the mod
ification is obvious. As the law (ib.) expressly pro
hibits any excession in the number of stripes "less thy
brother seem vile unto thee," the limit was shifted so as

in order not to intrude upon the dominion of the earth "
This explanation was made so as to pacify the minds
of the masses, whose faith might suffer, were the men
tioned contradiction of E. Jose allowed to stand unex
plained.

34 WHAT IS THE TALMUD.
positively not to exceed the established limits by any
mistake. When the command to remove the leaven from the
house on the first day of Passover (Ex. xii, 15) is so
explained as to refer to the eve of Passover, we have
again before us an example of genuine exegesis, but
really of abrogation of a Biblical law; for when the Bi
ble says, "Seven days shalt ye eat Matzoth" and dis
tinctly says, "but on the first day ye shalt remove the
leaven from the house," it cannot mean on the day be
fore. The famous E. Johannan, the supposed author of the
Palestinian Talmud, a scholar who upheld the principle
that one should endeavor by all means to trace every
Halakha to Mosaic times (Pal. Tal. Sabbath ch. i), to
whom we owe a number of Halakhoth supposed to have
been communicated by God to Moses, of which no one
else knew (Hehaluz vol. Ill), and who maintained that
an halakhic statement may be based on an unrectitude of
scriptural passage (Pal. Tal. Berakhoth ch. ii), was not
scrupulous about making a statement which positively
contradicts the Bible. According to him, the deluge,
which, as we are told, in Genesis vii, 21-24, extended
over the entire earth and destroyed every being on earth
beneath the skies, did not extend over Palestine (Seb-
hochim 113).
From such and many more examples of Biblical laws
modified in the Talmud and often reduced to such a
state as not to be recognized in their original form, we

WHAT IS THE TALMUD. 35
may safely learn that the Talmud is not a commentary
upon the Bible.
If the Talmud is not a commentary, let us see if it is
a legal code. We cannot say it is, for the Talmud itself
is explicit in stating that one must not derive a law for
practical application from any halakhic statement, nor
even from a precedent, unless in either case it be ex
pressly said that the law or statement is intended as a
practical rule (Baba Bathra 130 b). Further: E. Issi
asked of E. Johannan, "What shall we do if you pro
nounce a law to be a Halakha?" to which E. Johannan
replied: "Do not act in accordance with it until you
have heard from me that it is an Halakha of practice."
How should we practice all these Halakhas which are
not intended for practical application? We should then
be doing the very thing we ought not to do and thus
wilfully pervert the intention of the rabbis of the Tal
mud. It is prohibited to apply statements in the Mishnah
to practical cases. Such as do it are called "destroyers
of the earth" (Sotah 22a).
Only a few, if any, Halakhas are found in the Talmud
which are accompanied by the remark which stamps
them as rules for practical life. Many customs are re
corded in the Talmud which contradict explicit halak
hic statements. Thus E. Hayya is said to have sewed
his phylacteries with thread, while an Halakha, which is
supposed to be Mosaic, says that veins of animals should
be used for that purpose (Makkothxi).

36 WHAT IS THE TALMUD,
Halakhoth, which was said by E. Johannan to be Mo
saic, were disregarded by his successors (Megilla 19).
"We do not heed the voice of Heaven in halakhic
matters," a very peculiar statement indeed from the,
mouth of E. Joshua, a celebrated authority of pre-Mish-
nic times, who would rather excommunicate the dissent
ing E. Eliezer, because he would not submit to the ver
dict of the majority, than pay attention to a voice sup
posed to have been heard in favor of the recalcitrant
scholar. The prophet Elijah himself, who, when he
monies to this earth again, is supposed to solve many
questions not answered and clarify doubts and riddles,
is deprived of his authority in legal disputes. The cus
tom is that sandals and not shoes are used in the act de
scribed in Deut. xxv, 7-10, even though Elijah may
come and maintain the contrary (Yebamoth 102). If
the Talmud is neither a commentary nor a code, what
then is it?
In my subsequent chapters I shall endeavor to prove
that the Talmud is an independent critic, adapting it
self to the spirit of the times and accomplishing for its
followers, the Jews, the alteration and abrogation of
Biblical laws and prescriptions. This was also the aim
of the Christian abrogation of the Bible, but how differ
ently they accomplished their purpose ! Whereas Chris
tianity was compelled to bring Divinity downiipon this
earth in human form and place it on a level with man,
giving it life and letting it die for the sins of mankind,
Judaism, on the contrary, elevated the human spirit by

WHAT IS THE TALMUD. 37
the power of God to Divinity itself, without carrying
the spirit within the regions of heaven, This latter state
ment is carried out by the Talmud in Eosch Hashono
25a, as follows: Speaking about the verse in the Bible
(Leviticus xxiii, 4), "These are the festivals of the
Lord, called holy, that ye shalt celebrate them in their
time." The Talmud says: "Thou shalt not read nrviN to
mean "them" (the Festivals) but D-TlN to mean "ye," so
that whenever you celebrate the Festivals, they shall be
holy, whether in time or not." Thereto is added the le
gend: "When the angels asked God when the festivals
take place, He answered them: We shall all go below
and ask the court of the sages, as they determine the
time of the festivals.
Another instance bearing upon the subject can be
found in Moed Katan 16a: God says: I govern the world,
but who governs me? The righteous; for when I or
dain anything, the righteous can thwart it (by prayer).
These two citations, one being an halakhic and the
other hagaddic, are but part of many which I bring in
support of my above statement.
The subsequent chapters also prove that the spirit of
the Talmud is unfortunately lost to us, by reason of the
Schulchan Aruch (Jewish legal code) having been
given us in dead letters, wliich we must not change,
without providing us with a body, to whom we can re
fer all questions and disputes arising from the cita
tions of said code for decision. Catholicism has its
Pope, Protestantism its Synods, Mohammedanism its

38 WHAT IS THE TALMUD.
Sheikh al Islam, who are all empowered to change and
determine the laws according to the spirit of their relig
ions, as time and place may require, but the Jews have
nobody to whom they can refer their disputes for final
decision.

NOTE TO PAGE 26, LINE 13.

Eabbi David ben Zakkai in his decision known as:
"Shaloth-UWshuboth 'Bodbaz,'? states in his 442nd
decision, that according to conclusions drawn from the
Talmud, "the Jews have never seen the tables and their
miraculous scripture " In the time of the king Josiah,
when the art of writing found more propagation, and
some people were anxious to examine the scripture of
the tables, the. ark of covenant disappeared (Hamaor),
In Shekolim (chap vi, Mishnah i) the following is sta
ted: "There was a tradition among the Jews where the
ark is hidden, Once a priest noticed during his service
one pave-stone of the temple different from the others,
and he came to tell this to his comrades, but before he
finished the tale of his discovery, he died, arid they knew
that there was the hiding place of the ark."
There we see that for the sake of secrecy, which was
considered a necessity, even human life was not spared.
This undoubtedly, our sages have learned from our
law-giver Moses, who ordered to keep his grave secret,
to prevent his earthly remains from serving as an ob
ject of worship to the idolatrously inclined people.
A critical eye will detect here something to the credit
of the Mosaic religion in preference to some others.

The author begs leave to announce to his
friends and his readers, that the second editi^;1
of his work "History of Amulets, Charms and.
Talismans,'' will soon appear, revised "[¦ and
amended with additional new mattel'; on subjects;
3of interest, and will contain about 20.0 pages of
like size with this pamphlet.