LET’S STUDY ONKELOS

A Guide for Rabbis, Teachers and Torah Students to Study and Teach the Parashat
Hashavua through the Eyes of its Most Important Translator

By Stanley M. Wagner and Israel Drazin

Based on the five volume, Onkelos on the Torah (Genesis-Deuteronomy), Understanding the
Bible Text, by Israel Drazin and Stanley M. Wagner, published by Gefen Publishing House,
Jerusalem/New York, 2006–2010.

STUDY GUIDE

VAYISHLACH (CHAPTER 32:4–36:43)

SUMMARY OF THE TORAH PORTION

Jacob learns, on his way back to Canaan, that Esau is approaching with four hundred
men; Jacob prepares a strategy for the confrontation and prays to God; Jacob struggles
with a man (angel) and is wounded; the man (angel) announces that Jacob’s name will
be changed to Israel; Jacob and Esau meet and are reconciled; Dinah, Jacob’s daughter,
is raped and her brothers, Simeon and Levi, take revenge; God confers the name Israel
upon Jacob and renews His promises to him; Rachel bears Benjamin, dies, and is buried
near Bethlehem; Isaac dies and is buried in Hebron; the family of Esau expands.

MISSINTERPRETING THE TARGUM

The word “kosher” has become popular in both the Jewish and English lexicon. It is
used mostly to describe a food product that satisfies the Jewish legal dietary
requirements. However, the Torah does not use “kosher” to describe foods that may be
eaten. It calls prohibited foods, “unclean foods.” The word “kosher” appears only once in
the Bible where it means “proper” or “appropriate.” Esther 8:5 has vekasheir hadavar
b’einei hamelech, “and the matter is proper in the eyes of the king.”
Onkelos uses “kosher” nineteen times to mean “proper,” to describe an appropriate
place, act, or person. Thus, when people see “kosher” in Onkelos, they must not suppose
that it refers to food.

1
 The targumic use of “kosher” in 34:7 (pages 228 and 229 and commentary)1 is the
subject of an “Onkelos Highlight” (page 232). The “Highlight” also shows how
Nachmanides misinterpreted the word:
Onkelos frequently exchanges the somewhat vague biblical idiom “it may not be
done” for its intended meaning “it is not proper.” It is clear that the acts that are
being referred to in the Bible could be done, but should not be. The simple purpose of
clarifying the text by means of these targumic additions (see 24:23, 25, 31, and 34:7,
for example) can easily be validated by reviewing how the words “it is not proper” are
used in other verses. It is interesting to note that Nachmanides did not make such a
comparison with other verses when commenting on 34:7. He seems to have
overlooked the many other appearances of “proper” in the Targum and interpretively
construes the Aramaic of this particular verse to mean: (1) The heinous practice of
raping a girl was approved by Canaanite law; and (2) It is forbidden in Jacob’s family.

Nachmanides’ statement about Canaanite law is not suggested in the word “proper.”
In 34:7, Scripture describes Dinah’s brothers response to the behavior of Hamor the
son of Shechem who “afflicted” (raped) Dinah, Jacob’s daughter, as “it may not be
done,” which the targumist renders “it is not proper” (vechein la kashar le‘itavada).
All that the brothers were saying about the rape of their sister is that it is wrong.

The reference in the “Highlight” to 24:23 is Abraham’s servant’s statement to

Rachel, “is there room in your father’s house proper (Onkelos: kashar) for us to spend
the night?” which is repeated in verse 25 and in verse 31 for the camels. Other examples
of the targumist’s use of kashar with regard to human behavior are found in Genesis
20:9, Exodus 15:24, and Deuteronomy 6:18, 12:8 and 24, 13:19.

ADDITIONAL DISCUSSIONS

ON ONKELOS

In the case of Hamor’s behavior in “afflicting” Dinah, do you think that the targumist
is improperly softening the brother’s statement? The Torah states “it may not be done”
which Onkelos renders “it is not proper.” Should the targumist have used a stronger
statement, such as “this is outrageous” or “it is wrong” or “this is disgraceful?” Does
Onkelos’ wording only imply that Hamor’s behavior was “not nice”? Why did the
targumist use “proper?”

1
All page numbers refer to the Onkelos on the Torah volume.
2
GENERAL DISCUSSION

Our “Beyond the Text” (pages 232 and 233) raises some questions about the entire
episode described in chapter 34, which merit our attention:
1. The story of the assault on Dinah by Shechem and the reprisal of Simeon and Levi
on all of the male inhabitants of the community occupy the attention of many
commentators. Could Dinah have prevented the incident by not going out “to look at
the women of the land” (34:1)? Or, as is too often the case in rape crimes, are we
attempting, by raising the question, to unfairly lay the blame on the victim?
Apparently, Shechem’s act was not simply an act of violence motivated by lust since
he wished to marry Dinah. Does that vindicate him?

2. Why did Jacob’s sons conceal their plan of revenge from their father? Was it so
that Jacob could not be blamed for the action they took? Was that appropriate or
smart, since Jacob learned of the slaughter, at any rate, and remonstrated against it
in 34:30 and 49:5?

3. Do you feel that the punishment meted out by Simeon and Levi fit Shechem’s
crime? Weren’t innocent people killed? Some sages suggest that the community also
bore responsibility for Shechem’s crime since they did not punish him. Do you agree?
What about the deceitful manner in which Jacob’s sons conducted the negotiations—
was that something to be proud of? Or, are there no rules or boundaries in the
conduct of war?

FOR FURTHER STUDY

1. See 32:25-30 (pages 220 and 221) and commentary on verse 25. With whom did Jacob
wrestle?

2. See 35:22 (pages 238 and 239) and commentary, the action of Reuben with his father’s
concubine. What did Reuben do? Did he act improperly? The targumist is literal here.
Why doesn’t he explain the episode?

3. See 35:29 (pages 238 and 239) and commentary. Does it make sense that biblical
events are not always presented in chronological order? Does this occur in other
literature?