The Targum of Lamentations

The Aramaic Bible

•  THE TARGUMS  •

PROJECT DIRECTOR
Martin McNamara, M.S.C.
editors
Kevin Cathcart  •  Michael Maher, M.S.C.
Martin McNamara, M.S.C.
editorial consultants
Daniel J. Harringson, S.J.  •  Bernard Grossfeld
 The Aramaic Bible

Volume 17B

The Targum of Lamentations

Translated, with a Critical Introduction,
Apparatus, and Notes

BY

Philip S. Alexander

A Michael Glazier Book

LITURGICAL PRESS
Collegeville, Minnesota
www.litpress.org
About the Translator
Philip Alexander is Professor of Post-Biblical Jewish Studies in the University of Manchester,
England, Co-Director of the University’s Centre for Jewish Studies, and a Fellow of the British
Academy. He is a former President of the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies.

A Michael Glazier Book published by Liturgical Press.

Logo design by Florence Bern.

© 2007 by Order of Saint Benedict, Collegeville, Minnesota. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be
reproduced in any form, by print, microfilm, microfiche, mechanical recording, photocopying, translation, or by
any other means, known or yet unknown, for any purpose except brief quotations in reviews, without the previous
written permission of Liturgical Press, Saint John’s Abbey, P.O. Box 7500, Collegeville, Minnesota 56321-7500.
Printed in the United States of America.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Bible. O.T. Lamentations. English. Alexander. 2007.

   The Targum of Lamentations / translated, with a critical introduction,
  apparatus, and notes by Philip S. Alexander.
    p. cm. — (The Aramaic Bible ; v. 17B)
   “A Michael Glazier Book.”
   Includes bibliographical references (p.    ) and indexes.
   ISBN-13: 978-0-8146-5864-2
   ISBN-10: 0-8146-5864-4
   1. Bible. O.T. Lamentations. Aramaic—Translations into English.  2. Bible. O.T. Lamentations.
  Aramaic—Criticism, Textual.  I. Alexander, Philip S.  II. Title.
  BS1533.A44 2007
  224'.3042—dc22 2007017616
 Contents

Editors’ Foreword. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Preface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
List of Abbreviations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1. The Text of Targum Lamentations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. The Language of Targum Lamentations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3. The Unity and Integrity of Targum Lamentations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4. The Theology of Targum Lamentations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5. Targum Lamentations and the Masoretic Text. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
6. Targum Lamentations in the History of Exegesis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
7. Targum Lamentations and Jewish Liturgy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
8. The Provenance and Date of Targum Lamentations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
9. Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Appendix
Targum Lamentations in the Yemenite Recension:
Translation and Apparatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
INDEX OF SCRIPTURAL AND OTHER ANCIENT REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . 208
INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
GENERAL INDEX. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
 Editors’ Foreword

While any translation of the Scriptures may in Hebrew be called a Targum, the word is used
especially for a translation of a book of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic. Before the Christian
era Aramaic had in good part replaced Hebrew in Palestine as the vernacular of the Jews. It
continued as their vernacular for centuries later and remained in part as the language of the
schools after Aramaic itself had been replaced as the vernacular.
Rabbinic Judaism has transmitted Targums of all books of the Hebrew canon, with the
exception of Daniel and Ezra-Nehemiah, which are themselves partly in Aramaic. We also
have a translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch into the dialect of Samaritan Aramaic. From
the Qumran library we have sections of a Targum of Job and fragments of a Targum of Le-
viticus, chapter 16, facts which indicate that the Bible was being translated into Aramaic in
pre-Christian times.
Translations of books of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic for liturgical purposes must
have begun before the Christian era, even though none of the Targums transmitted to us by
Rabbinic Judaism can be shown to be that old and though some of them are demonstrably
compositions from later centuries.
In recent decades there has been increasing interest among scholars and a larger public
in these Targums. A noticeable lacuna, however, has been the absence of a modern English
translation of this body of writing. It is in marked contrast with most other bodies of Jewish
literature, for which there are good modern English translations, for instance the Apocrypha
and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, Josephus, Philo, the Mishnah, the Babylonian
Talmud and Midrashic literature, and more recently the Tosefta and Palestinian Talmud.
It is hoped that this present series will provide some remedy for this state of affairs.
The aim of the series is to translate all the traditionally-known Targums, that is those
transmitted by Rabbinic Judaism, into modern English idiom, while at the same time respecting
the particular and peculiar nature of what these Aramaic translations were originally intended
to be. A translator’s task is never an easy one. It is rendered doubly difficult when the text to
be rendered is itself a translation which is at times governed by an entire set of principles.
All the translations in this series have been specially commissioned. The translators have
made use of what they reckon as the best printed editions of the Aramaic Targum in question
or have themselves directly consulted the manuscripts.
The translation aims at giving a faithful rendering of the Aramaic. The introduction
to each Targum contains the necessary background information on the particular work. In
general, each Targum translation is accompanied by an apparatus and notes. The former is

vii
viii   Editors’ Foreword

concerned mainly with such items as the variant readings in the Aramaic texts, the relation
of the English translation to the original, etc. The notes give what explanations the translator
thinks necessary or useful for this series.
Not all the Targums here translated are of the same kind. Targums were translated at dif-
ferent times, and most probably for varying purposes, and have more than one interpretative
approach to the Hebrew Bible. This diversity between the Targums themselves is reflected in
the translation and in the manner in which the accompanying explanatory material is presented.
However, a basic unity of presentation has been maintained. Targumic deviations from the
Hebrew text, whether by interpretation or paraphrase, are indicated by italics.
A point that needs to be stressed with regard to this translation of the Targums is that
by reason of the state of current targumic research, to a certain extent it must be regarded as
a provisional one. Despite the progress made, especially in recent decades, much work still
remains to be done in the field of targumic study. Not all the Targums are as yet available
in critical editions. And with regard to those that have been critically edited from known
manuscripts, in the case of the Targums of some books the variants between the manuscripts
themselves are such as to give rise to the question whether they have all descended from a
single common original.
Details regarding these points will be found in the various introductions and critical
notes.
It is recognized that a series such as this will have a broad readership. The Targums con-
stitute a valuable source of information for students of Jewish literature, particularly those
concerned with the history of interpretation, and also for students of the New Testament,
especially for those interested in its relationship to its Jewish origins. The Targums also con-
cern members of the general public who have an interest in the Jewish interpretation of the
Scriptures or in the Jewish background to the New Testament. For them the Targums should
be both interesting and enlightening.
By their translations, introductions, and critical notes, the contributors to this series have
rendered an immense service to the progress of targumic studies. It is hoped that the series,
provisional though it may be, will bring significantly nearer the day when the definitive trans-
lation of the Targums can be made.

Kevin Cathcart            Martin McNamara, m.s.c.            Michael Maher, m.s.c.

 Preface

It is with an immense sense of relief that I conclude this study of the Targum of Lamentations,
which has occupied my attention on and off for over twenty years—ever since I published
my first thoughts on the subject in 1986. Though I have had plenty of time for my ideas to
mature and, given the brevity of the biblical book on which it is based, the present volume
might be considered full, I am still conscious of having at a number of points only scratched
the surface. A complete edition of the Targumic text that adequately presents both the West-
ern and the Yemenite recensions remains a desideratum, though we have competent editions
of the individual traditions. A comprehensive analysis of the Targum’s Aramaic dialect is
lacking, and the basic tools for such an analysis (concordances and a grammar based on the
manuscripts) do not exist. Lexically we are still not well off for this Targum. Time and again
we have to fall back on Jastrow, who at least had the courage to tackle all the vocabulary
in the text, even if his judgments are sometimes questionable. The Targum’s relationship to
Lamentations Rabba, and the place it held in the commemoration of the destruction of Jeru-
salem in late antiquity, would repay further investigation even after the present study. There
are, surely, several potential doctoral dissertations here!
Over the years I have come to the settled conviction that a text like this can be understood
only by putting it in the widest possible setting, and this is what I have tried to do. No aspect of
Judaism in late antiquity can be understood unless it is triangulated with what was happening
not only in the contemporary Jewish world but in the Christian and pagan worlds as well. I
refer not so much to political events as to developments in the intellectual, religious, literary,
and social spheres. The study of the Targum is hampered by too narrow a focus.
When I first began my work in the 1980s, Lamentations seemed to be languishing in a
backwater of biblical studies. In the past two decades it has moved sharply toward the center
of discussion and debate, its representation of the voice of suffering humanity uncannily
resonant in a world that sees daily on television and in the newspapers searing images of the
pitiless destruction of cities, the anguish of the wounded, the bereaved, the dispossessed, the
barbarism of “ethnic cleansing.” There has been a flood of recent studies on the book, of which
I would single out for special mention Todd Linafelt’s monograph Surviving Lamentations,
F.W. Dobbs-Allsopp’s commentary in the Interpretation series, and Nancy C. Lee’s Singers
of Lamentations. All this has enriched and complicated my own analysis of the Targum,
since the interpretation of the Targum is inextricably bound up with the interpretation of the
biblical book.

ix
   Preface

I have kept my translations as literal as is compatible with intelligible English. The West-
ern and the Yemenite recensions are presented separately, the former (as the older version) in
the body of the work, the latter in an appendix. The Apparatus cites all the substantial variants,
at least those that will show up in translation, and clarifies systematically the relationship
between the Western and Yemenite forms of the text. The Notes serve three main purposes:
(1) they address the numerous and often complex philological problems of the Aramaic, (2)
they analyze the relationship between the translation and the original Hebrew, and (3) they
compare the Targum’s interpretation with that found in other early Jewish sources, notably
Lamentations Rabba, the immensely rich rabbinic midrash on this biblical book. The Introduc-
tion attempts to set the Targum in its broad historical context, to expound its overall message,
and to determine its provenance and date.
I am immensely grateful for the help received from many colleagues over the years,
often in ways of which they were unaware. Supervising the Oxford doctoral dissertation of
my former student Chris Brady (subsequently published as a fine monograph) gave me the
opportunity to analyze a number of problems. Papers on various aspects of my project pre-
sented in Manchester, Oxford, Princeton, and elsewhere elicited valuable comments. Ongoing
discussion on matters Targumic and Rabbinic with my Manchester colleagues Alex Samely
and Bernard Jackson has proved a constant source of illumination and delight. I am grateful
to Ada Rapoport-Albert for her invitation to participate in her Zohar Workshop at University
College, London. This gave me the opportunity to think through yet again in the company
of some highly erudite Aramaists (including Willem Smelik, Tuvia Kwasman, and Geoffrey
Khan) the problem of the development of the Aramaic dialects. Paul Mandel generously pro-
vided me with a copy of his fundamental Hebrew University doctorate on <Eikhah Rabbati
(Esther Chazon kindly put us in touch). My Ph.D. student Peter Barker, who did his M.A.
dissertation on Pierre Auriol’s commentary on Lamentations in his Compendium, drew my
attention to some important studies of mediaeval Christian exegesis of Lamentations. Father
George Guiver, c.r. came to my aid when I was floundering with some problems of Christian
liturgy. My wife, Loveday, dispensed an endless flow of support, advice, and comment. The
mistakes that remain are my own.
But finally my heartfelt thanks go once again to Father Martin McNamara for his patience,
as perfectionism and the pressure of other commitments delayed the completion of this work
again and again. I hope it was worth waiting for!
Philip S. Alexander
Centre for Jewish Studies
University of Manchester
 Abbreviations

ADPB Simeon Singer, The Authorized Daily Prayerbook, Enlarged Cente-

nary Edition (London: Singer’s Prayerbook Publication Commmittee,
1992)
AJV American Jewish Version = The Holy Scriptures according to the
Masoretic Text: A New Translation (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication
Society of America, 1955)
AnBib Analecta Biblica
Aram. Aramaic
ARN <Abot de Rabbi Nathan
ARN.A = the A Recension
ARN.B = the B Recension
>
Arukh Alexander Kohut, ed., Aruch Completum sive lexicon vocabula et res,
quae in libris Targumicis, Talmudicis et Midraschicis continentur,
explicans auctore Nathane filio Jechielis. 8 vols. (Vienna: Georg
Brög, 1878–92)
AV Authorized Version of the Bible (1611)
BDAG Frederick W. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament
and Other Early Christian Literature (3rd ed. Chicago and London:
University of Chicago Press, 2000)
BDB Francis Brown, Samuel R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew
and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1966)
BH Biblical Hebrew
BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft,
1990)
Biberstein- Albert de Biberstein-Kazimirski, Dictionnaire Arab-Français. 2 vols.
  Kazimirski Paris: Maison-neuve, 1860)

xi
xii   Abbreviations

BJA Babylonian Jewish Aramaic

Brockelmann Carl Brockelmann, Lexicon Syriacum (2nd ed. Halle: Niemeyer,
1928)
CCSL Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina (Turnhout: Brepols, 1967– )
CG Cairo Genizah fragments of the Palestinian Targum
Charlesworth, OTP James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2
vols. (New York and London: Doubleday, 1983)
ConBNTS Coniectanea Biblica, New Testament Series
Cowley Arthur E. Cowley, A Concise Catalogue of the Hebrew Printed Books
in the Bodleian Library (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1929)
CRINT Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum
CSCO Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium (Leuven: Peeters,
1903– )
DDD Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst,
eds., Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (Leiden: Brill,
1995)
DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1955– )
EDSS Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam, eds., Encyclopedia
of the Dead Sea Scrolls. 2 vols. (New York: Oxford University Press,
2000)
EI2 Encyclopedia of Islam. 9 vols. (new ed. Leiden: Brill, 1960–2000;
continuing)
Eisenstein, OM Judah David Eisenstein, Otsar Midrashim. 2 vols. (New York: J. D.
Eisenstein, 1915)
EJ Encyclopaedia Judaica. 16 vols. (Jerusalem: Keter, 1972)
Even-Shmuel, MG Yehuda Even-Shmuel, Midre¡ei Ge<ullah (2nd ed. Jerusalem/Tel
Aviv: Mosad Bialik, 1953)
Field Frederick Field, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt. 2 vols. (Ox-
ford: Clarendon Press, 1867–75)
FT Fragment Targum
GCS Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahr-
hunderte (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1897–1941; Berlin and Leipzig:
Akademie-Verlag, 1953; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1954– )
Ginzberg, Legends Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews. 7 vols. (Philadelphia: Jew-
ish Publication Society of America, 1909–38)
GK F. H. W. Gesenius, Hebrew Grammar, as edited and enlarged by
the late E. Kautzsch, second English edition .  .  . by A.E. Cowley
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910)
 Abbreviations   xiii

HAL Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Ara-
maic Lexicon of the Old Testament, rev. Walter Baumgartner and
Johann Jakob Stamm; trans. and ed. Mervyn E. J. Richardson. 2 vols.
(Leiden: Brill, 2001)
Heb. Hebrew
HTR Harvard Theological Review
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual
JA Jewish Aramaic
JAB Journal for the Aramaic Bible
Jast. Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and
Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. 2 vols. (London: Luzac,
1903)
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JE Jewish Encyclopedia. 12 vols. (New York and London: Funk and
Wagnalls, 1901–06)
Jellinek, BHM Adolf Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch. 6 vols. (Leipzig: F. Nies, 1878; 3rd
ed. repr. Jerusalem: Wahrmann Books, 1967)
JJS Journal of Jewish Studies
Jon. Targum Jonathan to the Prophets
Joüon-Muraoka Paul Joüon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, trans. and rev. by T.
Muraoka. 2 vols. (Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1991)
JQR Jewish Quarterly Review
JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism
JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
JSP Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha
JSS Journal of Semitic Studies
JSSM Journal of Semitic Studies Monographs
JSSSup Journal of Semitic Studies Supplements
JTS Journal of Theological Studies
KAT Kommentar zum Alten Testament
KB Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testa-
menti Libros + Supplement (Leiden: Brill, 1958)
Krauss Samuel Krauss, Griechische und lateinische Lehnwörter im Talmud,
Midrash und Targum. 2 vols. (Berlin: S. Calvary, 1899)
LAB Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum
xiv   Abbreviations

Lag. Paul de Lagarde, Hagiographa Chaldaice (Leipzig: Teubner, 1873;

repr. Osnabrück: O. Zeller, 1967)
Lampe G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 1961)
Lan. Samuel Landauer, “Zum Targum der Klagelieder,” in Carl Bezold, ed.,
Orientalische Studien Theodor Nöldeke zum siebzigsten geburtstag
gewidmet (Gieszen: Töpelmann, 1906) 1:505–12
Lane, Lexicon Edward W. Lane, An Arabic-English Lexicon (London and Edinburgh:
Williams and Norgate, 1863–93; repr. Beirut: Librairie du Liban,
1968)
LCL Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press;
London: Heinemann, 1912– )
Levey, Messiah Samson H. Levey, The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation (Cin-
cinnati et al.: Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion,
1974)
Levy, Wörterbuch Jacob Levy, Wörterbuch über die Talmudim und Midraschim. 4 vols.
(3rd ed. Berlin: Benjamin Harz, 1924)
Löw, Die Flora der Immanuel Löw, Die Flora der Juden. 4 vols. (Leipzig and Vienna:
  Juden R. Löwit/Kohut Memorial Foundation, 1924–34)
LSJ Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon (9th
ed. rev. by Henry Stuart-Jones; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961)
Lust, Lexicon Johan Lust, Erik Eynikel, and Katrin Hauspie, eds., A Greek-English
Lexicon of the Septuagint. 2 vols. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesell-
schaft, 1996)
LXX The Septuagint
MGWJ Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums
MH Mishnaic Hebrew
Miq. Ged. Miqra<ot Gedolot
MT Masoretic Text
Nadich, Jewish Judah Nadich, Jewish Legends of the Second Commonwealth (Phila-
  Legends delphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1983)
NCBC New Century Bible Commentary
Neof. Codex Neofiti 1
Neubauer Adolf Neubauer, Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts in the Bodleian
Library and in the College Libraries of Oxford (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1886) + Malachi Beit-Arié, Catalogue of the Hebrew Manu-
scripts in the Bodleian Library: Supplement of Addenda and Corri-
 Abbreviations   xv

genda (A. Neubauer’s Catalogue), ed. R. A. May (Oxford: Clarendon

Press, 1994)
NovTSup Supplements to Novum Testamentum
NRSV New Revised Standard Version (1989) = The Holy Bible containing
the Old and New Testaments with the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical
Books (London: HarperCollins, 1998)
OBO Orbis biblicus et orientalis
Onq. Targum Onqelos
Pape-Benseler, Wilhelm Pape and Gustav E. Benseler, Wörterbuch der griechischen
  Eigennamen Eigennamen (3rd ed. Braunschweig: F. Vieweg, 1864)
Payne Smith J. Payne Smith, Thesaurus Syriacus (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1879–1901)
Pesh. The Peshitta
PG J.-P. Migne, ed., Patrologia Graeca. 162 vols. (Paris: J.-P. Migne,
1857–66)
PJA Palestinian Jewish Aramaic
PL J.-P. Migne, ed., Patrologia Latina. 221 vols. (Paris: J.-P. Migne,
1844–64)
PR Pesiqta Rabbati
PRE Pirqei deRabbi Eli>ezer
PRK Pesiqta deRab Kahana
Ps-J Targum Pseudo-Jonathan
REJ Revue des Études Juives
RH Rabbinic Hebrew
RSR Recherches de science religieuse
SANT Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament
SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature, Dissertation Series
SC Sources Chrétiennes (Paris: Cerf, 1942– )
Schäfer, Synopse Peter Schäfer, Synopse zur Hekhalot Literatur (Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 1981)
Sokoloff, JBA Michael Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic
(Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 2002)
Sokoloff, JPA Michael Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish-Palestinian Aramaic
(Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 1992
xvi   Abbreviations

Sophocles Evangelinus Apostolides Sophocles, Greek Lexicon of the Roman and

Byzantine Periods (From BC 146 to AD 1100). 2 vols. (New York:
Scribner, 1887)
Strack-Billerbeck Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testa-
ment aus Talmud und Midrasch. Vols 1–4. (Munich: Beck, 1926–28).
Vols 5–6, ed. Joachim Jeremias and Kurt Adolph (Munich: Beck,
1956–61)
TA Targumic Aramaic
TDNT Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, eds., Theological Dictionary
of the New Testament, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols.
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964)
TDOT G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry,
eds., Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. 13 vols. (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977–2004)
Tg. Targum or Targumist
Tg. Tos. Targumic Tosefta
TSAJ Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum
VT Vetus Testamentum
VTSuppl Supplements to Vetus Testamentum
Vulg. Vulgate
Wertheimer, BM Solomon A. Wertheimer, Batei Midrashot. 2 vols. (new ed. by A. Y.
Wertheimer; Jerusalem: Mosad Ha-Rav Kook, 1951–54)
West. The Western Recension of Targum Lamentations =
Mss ABCDEFGHI + Bomb
Yem. The Yemenite Recension of Targum Lamentations =
Mss JKLMNOPQ
ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
 Introduction

1. The Text of Targum Lamentations

1.1  Text-witnesses for Targum Lamentations

The translation of the Western recension (= West.) of Targum Lamentations (= Tg. Lam.)
presented here is based on Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Héb. 110 (= siglum A), which is
generally regarded as one of the best exemplars of West. It is, however, by no means perfect,
and better readings can be found in other manuscripts. These have been adopted, since the
aim is to present the earliest and most uncorrupted form of the text that can be recovered, free
as far as possible from transcriptional errors and secondary changes.1 Where (very occasion-
ally) none of the manuscripts consulted offers a satisfactory reading, conjectural emendations
have been proposed.
The textus receptus of Tg. Lam. goes back to the first Bomberg Rabbinic Bible (Venice,
1517), prepared for the press by Felix Pratensis (= Bomb). Taken over unchanged into the
second Bomberg Rabbinic Bible (Venice, 1525; reissued in facsimile by Makor, Jerusalem,
1972), and reprinted in the great Rabbinic and Polyglot Bibles and in the standard Miqra<ot
Gedolot, this also offers a good West. text of our Targum, though it is prone to Hebraisms,
and could equally have served as the basis for our translation but for one major drawback: it is
uncertain what manuscript or manuscripts Felix Pratensis used, and hence we cannot be sure
which of its readings have manuscript authority and which are simply his conjectural emen-
dations. In fact, in Tg. Lam., as in a number of other Targumim, Bomb shows close affinities
to the Nuremberg ms (= siglum D). There are some differences, but they are relatively minor,
and many could plausibly be explained as corrections introduced by Felix. Interestingly, Bomb
does not always agree with the first writing in D: in a number of cases it follows variants and
corrections introduced by a second, cursive hand into the margins and between the lines of
the manuscript. One wonders if these annotations were actually made by Felix himself as he
1
I am aware of the theoretical issues involved in postulating an Urtext for a work such as Tg. Lam., but from the perspec-
tive of the present study they remain largely theoretical. When faced with the practical problem of sorting through a mass of
variants on a given verse, I have usually felt able to decide which of these represents the earliest recoverable form of that verse.
The Urtext of Tg. Lam. offered here is the cumulative result of these myriad individual decisions. On the theoretical issues see
my essay, “Textual Criticism and Rabbinic Literature: The Case of the Targum of the Song of Songs,” in Philip S. Alexander
and Alexander Samely, eds., Artefact and Text: The Recreation of Jewish Literature in Mediaeval Hebrew Manuscripts = Bul-
letin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 75/3 (1993) 159–73. See further Alexander, “The Textual Tradition
of Targum Lamentations,” Abr-Nahrain 24 (1986) 1–26; Chaim Milikowsky, “On Editing Rabbinic Texts,” JQR 86 (1996)
409–17; Lieve M. Teugels and Rivka Ulmer, eds., Recent Developments in Midrash Research (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press,
2005, especially Burton Visotzky’s essay, “On Critical Editions of Midrash” (155–62). The broader problem of the redactional
identity of Rabbinic documents was debated by Schäfer and Milikowsky: Peter Schäfer, “Research into Rabbinic Literature:
An Attempt to Define the Status Quaestionis,” JJS 37 (1986) 139–52; Chaim Milikowsky, “The Status Quaestionis of Research
in Rabbinic Literature,” JJS 39 (1988) 201–11.

1
   Introduction

marked up the manuscript for the printer. However, there are problems with assuming that
D was the only ms Felix consulted. D now lacks 1:1-8, though this may not, of course, have
been true when he used it. More importantly, 3:25 is totally missing and has been added at
the foot of the page in another hand. If this addition is indeed in Felix’s hand (it looks very
similar to that of the other glosses), then he must have taken the text from another ms.
As elsewhere in the Writings, Tg. Lam. is extant in both a Western (= West.) and a Ye-
menite (= Yem.) recension, and, as elsewhere, West. generally preserves the older form of
the text (see 1.3 below), and for this reason has been made the basis of the main translation
below. It proved impossible to present Yem. satisfactorily in the form of variants in an ap-
paratus to West. The differences were simply too great, and the intrinsic coherence of Yem.
would have been obscured. A separate, complete version of Yem. is, therefore, given in an
Appendix, based on Or. 1476 of the British Library (= siglum J), with variants from other
Yem. manuscripts, and from West., recorded in an apparatus. Occasionally Yem. mss are cited
in the West. Apparatus when they throw light on the text in hand and help to recover a more
original form of it, and vice versa, but for the most part the two recensions have been kept
separate. Hence, to discover the full picture of the state of the textual tradition in any given
verse it will be necessary to consult both the main translation and the Appendix, together
with their attendant apparatuses, bearing in mind that the full range of differences between
the recensions cannot be conveyed in translation: many are orthographic, or of a character
that will not show up in translation. As in the case of West., the base text for Yem., ms J, has
been emended in the light of the other Yem. (and occasionally West.) mss, in an attempt to
recover the earliest form of the Yem. recension.
There are a number of printed editions of Tg. Lam. As noted above, the editio princeps
appeared in the first Rabbinic Bible of Daniel Bomberg (Venice, 1517), and was reprinted
without change in the second Bomberg Rabbinic Bible (Venice, 1525). Other notable early
editions are to be found in the Biblia Regia (Antwerp, 1568–73), and in the Biblia Rabbinica
of Johannes Buxtorf (Basle, 1618), but these differ little from Bomb. The textus receptus is
reproduced, with only very minor changes, in the traditional Miqra<ot Gedolot.
Of the more recent published texts and collations of Tg. Lam. the following are
noteworthy:
(1) Paul de Lagarde, Hagiographa Chaldaice (Leipzig: Teubner, 1873) 170,3–179,11.
This opened the modern phase in the editing of Tg. Lam. Lagarde reprints the text of the first
Bomberg Rabbinic Bible minus its pointing, with a small number of not always felicitous
changes, which he lists on pp. xv–xvi of his introduction.
(2) Jakob Reiss, “Das Targum zu dem Buche Echah: Verhältnis des edirten Textes des-
selben zu dem eines handschriftlichen Codex auf der Breslauer Stadtbibliotek, stammend aus
dem 13. Jahrhundert (Codex No. 11),” Das jüdische Literaturblatt 18 (1889) 127, 130–31.
(3) Samuel Landauer, “Zum Targum der Klagelieder,” in Carl Bezold, ed., Orientalische
Studien Theodor Nöldeke zum siebzigsten Geburtstag gewidmet (Gieszen: Töpelmann, 1906)
1:505–12. This offers a collation of the Parma Codices 3218, 3231, 2867, 3235, 3198 (= our
sigla E–I) against the text of Lagarde. Also included are some variants from Nuremberg 1 (=
our siglum D), from citations in the >Arukh, as well the “Complutensis (= C).” What these C
readings represent is a puzzle, since there is no Tg. Lam. in the Complutensian Polyglot.
(4) Miqra<ot Gedolot, Jerusalem 5721/1961, a photostatic reprint of the Y. Lebensohn
edition.
 Introduction  

(5) Alexander Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, 4A: The Hagiographa (Leiden: Brill, 1968)
142–49, gives a transcription of the Yem. ms British Library Or 2375 (= our siglum K), includ-
ing its supralinear vocalization, into which has been inserted, without pointing, text lacking
in the Yem. ms but found in the second Bomberg Rabbinic Bible. The result is a disastrous
hybrid that should be used with great caution. For errors in Sperber’s transcription of BL Or
2375 see van der Heide, The Yemenite Tradition, 52*–55*.
(6) Shim>on Najar, Hame¡ Megillot: ⁄ir ha-⁄irim, Rut, Qohelet, Ester, <Eikhah. Miqra<
Targum, Tafsir (>Arabi) (Published by the editor: n.p., 1970) 397–422. Unfortunately Tg. Lam.
and Tg. Esther in this edition are taken from a standard western Miqra<ot Gedolot, whereas
its Tg. Cant., Tg. Ruth, and Tg. Ecclesiastes present a more interesting Yem. text.
(7) Étan Levine, The Aramaic Version of Lamentations (New York: Hermon Press, 1976;
repr. 1981), contains the Aramaic text, with apparatus, a translation, and verse-by-verse notes.
Levine prints Codex Urbinas 1 as his base text, but his apparatus is unusable. On pp. 20–21 he
gives a list of the mss and editions he consulted “for control purposes,” which include mss that
do not contain Tg. Lam.! Most of these text-witnesses reappear in the table of abbreviations
on p. 10, with sigla attached. However, the apparatus actually contains only four sigla, S, L,
W, and H. The numerous other text-witnesses mentioned in the introduction apparently lurk
beneath such cryptic Latin terms as “nonn[ulli],” “m[u]lt[i],” “permult[i],” and “omnes.” Sigla
L and H are not explained anywhere. W is “London, Walton Polyglott (1556 c.e.),” which
is mentioned separately from “London Polyglott (1556 c.e.)” on p. 21! S is supposed to be
“Salonika, University 1 (1294 c.e.),” and to contain “supralineal Yemenite punctuation” (p.
22), but Salonika 1 does not contain Tg. Lam. Levine’s S, in fact, coincides with Sperber’s
transcription of British Library Or 2375, mistakes and all!
(8) Étan Levine, The Targum of the Five Megillot: Ruth, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Lam-
entations, Esther. Codex Vatican Urbinati I (Jerusalem: Makor, 1977), offers a facsimile of
Codex Urbinas 1 to the Megillot, together with brief introductions and English translations
of the Targums.
(9) Albert van der Heide, The Yemenite Tradition of the Targum of Lamentations: Critical
Text and Analysis of the Variant Readings (Leiden: Brill, 1981), transcribes British Library
Or 1476 as its base text (= our siglum J), and cites the variants from the other Yem. mss (=
our sigla K–Q). This is a well-executed, thorough, and reliable edition.
(10) Juan José Alarcón Sainz, Edición Crítica del Targum de Lamentaciones segun la
Tradición Textual Occidental, Doctoral Thesis, Departmento de Estudios Hebreos y Arameos,
Facultad de Filologia, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 1991 (Colección Tesis Doctorales
No. 89/91; Madrid: Editorial de la Universidad Compluense de Madrid, 1991). This careful
edition uses Paris 110 as its base text (= our siglum A), and cites variants from other West.
mss (= our sigla B–I). It also contains a Spanish translation of the Targum.
(11) Christian M. M. Brady, The Rabbinic Targum of Lamentations: Vindicating God
(Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2003), gives, in Appendix 2, a transcription of Codex Urbinas 1
(= our siglum B), with an English translation in Appendix 3.
   Introduction

1.2  Sigla

Western Recension (= West.)

A Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Héb. 110 (= Alarcón Sainz P110: transcription).
The base text for the translation of West. below.
B Vatican, Biblioteca Vaticana, Urb. Ebr. 1 (= Alarcón Sainz V; facsimile: Levine;
transcriptions: Levine and Brady).
C Madrid, Biblioteca de la Universidad Complutense. 116-Z-39 (= Alarcón Sainz
A).
D Nuremberg, Stadtbibliothek, Solger 1-7, 2o (= Alarcón Sainz S). Incomplete:
begins at Lam 1:9.
E Parma, Biblioteca Palatina, 2867 (= Alarcón Sainz W; Landauer 3).
F Parma, Biblioteca Palatina, 3189 (= Alarcón Sainz X; Landauer 5).
G Parma, Biblioteca Palatina, 3218 (= Alarcón Sainz Q; Landauer 1).
H Parma, Biblioteca Palatina, 3231 (= Alarcón Sainz P; Landauer 2).
I Parma, Biblioteca Palatina, 3235 (= Alarcón Sainz T; Landauer 4).
>Arukh >Arukh, cited from Kohut’s edition.
Bomb Bomberg’s Second Rabbinic Bible, cited from the Maqor facsimile (= Alarcón
Sainz R).
Lag. An emendation of Bomb incorporated by Lagarde into his edition.
Lan. An emendation or note by Landauer.
Miq. Ged. Miqra<ot Gedolot, ed. Y. Lebensohn.

Yemenite Recension (= Yem.)

J London, British Library, Or 1476 (= van der Heide A/ a: transcription). The base
text for the translation of the Yemenite Recension of Tg. Lam. in the appendix
below.
K London, British Library, Or 2375 (= van der Heide G/ g; transcription: Sperber).
L London, British Library, Or 2374 (= van der Heide C/ j). Only Lam. 5:14-22.
M London, British Library, Or 2377 (= van der Heide B/ b). Lacks Lam. 1:1.
N Oxford, Bodleian Library, Opp. add. 4to 139 (= van der Heide D/ d).
O Ms Qafi˙, no. 8 (= van der Heide H/ h). Only Lam. 2:15-4:3.
P Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin—Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Or quart. 958 (=
van der Heide W/ w).
Q New York, Jewish Theological Seminary of America, L472b (= van der Heide
Z/ z). Only 1:6–3:4 and 3:37-65.

A1, A2 designate respectively the first and second writings in the ms, which may or may not
be in the same hand as the main text.
I have used the transcriptions of Alarcón Sainz and van der Heide respectively for the
West. and Yem. readings, after checking them extensively against the original mss and es-
tablishing that they are generally reliable. Where the occasional error was found, it has been
corrected silently in the Apparatuses below.
 Introduction  

The list of Yem. mss above seems to be exhaustive, or nearly so (van der Heide, The
Yemenite Tradition, 57–59). However, other mss of West. are known, e.g., Oxford Bodleian,
Hunt 399 (Neubauer, 174), fols. 189b–197b, and Digby Or 34 (Neubauer, 129), fols. 53a–68b.
These seem to add little or nothing to the picture presented here of the text of Tg. Lam., so it
was decided not to unduly clutter the apparatus by systematically recording them.
For full descriptions of the West. mss cited see Alarcón Sainz, Edición Crítica, 11–45,
and for the Yem. mss see van der Heide, The Yemenite Tradition, 57–72.

1.3  The Relationship between the Western and Yemenite Recensions

The relationship between West. and Yem. in Tg. Lam. has been thoroughly investigated
by van der Heide (The Yemenite Tradition, 21–36). For West. he relied not directly on the
mss, but mainly on Lag. supplemented by the selected variants cited by Lan., with an occa-
sional, reluctant, reference to the problematic edition of Levine. This absence of systematic
use of West. mss did not seriously impair his analysis, because Lag. happens to be a very
good representative of the Western tradition. He concluded that West. contains the older and
better form of the text, and that Yem. is “a somewhat simplified version” of it. I reviewed the
question briefly in “Textual Tradition,” and concluded that van der Heide’s broad conclu-
sions were sound, but he had stated them somewhat over-cautiously and there were points
at which his understanding of the development of the tradition could be challenged or was
unclear. My moderate revision of van der Heide’s conclusions was accepted by Alarcón Sainz
(Edición Crítica, 67–73). For the purposes of the present study I have undertaken an exhaus-
tive re-examination of the evidence based on the mss, the fruits of which are presented in the
Appendix. This re-examination confirms my original hypotheses and supports the following
characterization of the relationship between West. and Yem.
(1) The differences between the West. and Yem. mss are numerous and substantial, rang-
ing from variations in orthography or grammatical forms at one end of the spectrum to the
presence or absence of substantial aggadic expansions at the other. A large number of these
variants cannot be explained by transcriptional corruption, that is to say by unintentional
miscopying by scribes, though mechanical errors, such as haplography, dittography, and
re¡/dalet, kaf/beit confusion, are to be found (see, e.g., 1:1, Yem. Apparatus f; 1:3, West.
Apparatus s; 2:13, Yem. Apparatus ss; 3:22, Yem. Apparatus aa; 3:36, West. Apparatus ss;
4:2, West. Apparatus c; 5:3, West. Apparatus c; 5:5, West. Apparatus k). They are due to
deliberate intervention by scribes, and are therefore recensional.2 At the same time there are
very substantial agreements between the two families of mss that pertain both to their base
texts and to their aggadic pluses.3 It would, therefore, be wrong to see these two forms of the
Targum as two independent translations of Lamentations: the common elements cannot all be
explained by the fact that both had the same Hebrew Vorlage. The Hebrew of Lamentations

2
By recensions I mean forms of the same text that differ systematically and substantially from each other in such a way
that the differences cannot plausibly be explained as purely mechanical, transcriptional errors, but must be deliberate changes.
The implication is that the changes were not made by the original author or authors (if they had been, the appropriate term
would have been “editions” or “versions”), but by later transmitters. Van der Heide, like many textual critics, is somewhat vague
in his use of terminology.
3
For the distinction between “base text” and aggadic “pluses” in the Targums see Philip S. Alexander, “Jewish Aramaic
Translations of Hebrew Scriptures,” in: Martin Jan Mulder, ed., Mikra. CRINT II.1 (Assen/Amsterdam: Van Gorcum, 1988)
217–53. See further below, Introduction 3 and 5.1, where a variant of this classification is proposed.
   Introduction

is full of acute linguistic problems. That two translators should have come up independently
time and time again with the same solutions to these problems is highly unlikely and is not
borne out by the other ancient versions, such as the LXX and Peshitta, which often find very
different ways of rendering basically the same Hebrew text (see below, 5.4). Moreover, this
explanation cannot account for the overlaps in the aggadic pluses. The two recensions are
unquestionably related and descend from a common archetype.
(2) By contrast, the variants within the recensional families are overwhelmingly transcrip-
tional in character. This means that one can hypothesize and, in fact, to a large degree success-
fully reconstruct an Urtext for each recension and account for the divergences from this within
each recension mainly by mechanical corruption. There is little evidence of contamination
between the two recensions. Van der Heide claims to have found some. He argues that “the
simplified version of the Targum text of the Megillot called Yem .  .  . (wherever it originated)
became at some time the standard text in Yemen. But, due to the Yemenite tendency to succumb
to influences from abroad, it was gradually assimilated again to WT [= West.]” (The Yemenite
Tradition, 36). He finds evidence for this particularly in ms N (his siglum D). Though such
contamination is well documented in the Targums of some other Megillot (e.g., Tg. Cant.),
it is questionable in the case of Tg. Lam. The problem is that the NWest. v. Yem. agreements
are meagre and random. If the creator of the N-text did have a copy of West. in front of him it
is puzzling that he corrected Yem. so little, given that West. obviously has superior readings
in many instances. This phenomenon should probably be explained in some other way. If it
is not due to contamination, then there appear to be basically only two possibilities. The first
is that these NWest. v. Yem. agreements are very old readings within Yem., deriving from the
common archetype of the West. and Yem. traditions. This would have stemmatic implications
and suggest than N lies on a branch that diverged before the main Yem. tradition crystallized.
The alternative explanation is that they are secondary revisions, sometimes in the light of the
Hebrew, that just happen to coincide with West.4 There are general signs that N represents a
carefully revised text. As van der Heide notes, it “often betrays a tendency to provide correct
readings and correct grammatical forms” (The Yemenite Tradition, 66; cf. 35). Western textual
influence in the Yemen is generally late, but our Yem. mss of Tg. Lam., with the exception of
P, are “reasonably old by Yemenite standards” (van der Heide, The Yemenite Tradition, 22).
This reduces the chances of West. contamination, as does the fact that Tg. Lam. seems to have
fallen out of liturgical use in the Yemen (see below, 7), so there was less pressure to revise
the traditional text in the light of texts arriving from the West.
(3) West. is much longer and fuller than Yem. Time and again where West. has an aggadic
plus, Yem. either lacks it or has it in a shorter form. This is particularly evident in the opening
verses of the Targum. Having more or less matched West. in the long addition in v. 1, Yem.
becomes increasingly shorter in the following three verses. It also lacks the substantial pluses
in West. at 4:21-22. The extent to which West. exceeds Yem. can be readily gauged from
the list of differences between West. and Yem. provided by van der Heide in The Yemenite
Tradition, 41*–51*, or by noting the unvocalized sections in the edition of Sperber. Synoptic
comparison of the two recensions points to the priority of West. Yem. has abbreviated a text
close to West., probably for two main reasons: (i) to bring it into closer conformity with MT
(note the numerous cases of “Yem. = MT” in the Yem. Apparatus), and (ii) to simplify its
rather wordy and learned style (see, e.g., 4:2, Yem. Apparatus d). Sometimes the abbreviation
4
It is the latter possibility that is reflected in the stemma codicum below.
 Introduction  

has led to incoherence or obscurity in Yem. (see, e.g., 2:20, Yem. Apparatus *m; 4:9, Yem.
Apparatus z), which is only resolved when the fuller West. text is inspected, or even to the
loss of an element in the Hebrew Vorlage (see 1:1, Yem. Apparatus i; 1:2, Yem. Apparatus x;
3:39, Yem. Apparatus aaa). The latter is highly significant since it is a “cardinal sin” on the
part of a Targumist such as ours not to represent everything in the Hebrew text. What prob-
ably happened in these instances is that Yem., in the process of shortening the West.-type text,
lost part of the base translation without noticing it. The urge to bring the Targum into closer
conformity to the MT is seen elsewhere in Yem. Wherever it can, Yem. regularly chooses an
Aramaic word cognate to the Hebrew, but West. does not, and, indeed, seems almost delib-
erately to avoid the cognate (see section [6] below).
(4) There are some cases, however, where Yem. has a longer text than West.: e.g., 1:2, MP
+ “from the Land” (Yem. Apparatus n); 2:9, NP + “like a people who have no Torah” (Yem.
Apparatus ii); 5:3, all Yem. mss + “in exile” (Yem. Apparatus f). These exclusive Yem. pluses
are few and far between, are relatively short, and tend to be found at any given point only in
some mss. They are best explained as secondary expansion. The scribe sensed that there was
something unclear or missing in the text and secondarily expanded it. In some cases West.
has an expansion at the relevant point, but the Yem. expansion does not correspond to it. The
process here was probably: expansion > abbreviation > a re-expansion that did not pick up
the wording of the original longer text.
(5) In general Yem. is less coherent and smooth than West. As van der Heide judiciously
puts it, in those instances where priority of one recension over the other can be argued, “nearly
always the scale inclines in favour of WT” (The Yemenite Recension, 30). There are a number
of clear cases where the Yem. mss present an inferior text. E.g.:
(a) All Yem. mss lack 4:17, striking evidence that all descend from a common defective
exemplar. West. has the verse.
(b) Yem. is clearly inferior at 1:1. The absence of a main verb in the opening sentence
points to primitive corruption. The end of the verse in the majority of Yem. mss is incoherent
(“who grew great in the world(s)” ?) and fails to translate part of the Hebrew Vorlage. West.
has a perfectly satisfactory text: “and she who grew great among the nations, and ruled over
provinces, and they were paying taxes to her, has been brought low in turn, and gives tribute
to them.” One Yem. ms (N) has “and she who grew great among the nations and states now
pays taxes to them,” but this is probably a secondary attempt to correct the corrupt Yem. text
in the light of the Hebrew, and lacks the forcefulness of West. See 1:1, Yem. Apparatus b and
i, and further Alexander, “Textual Tradition.”
(c) At 3:51 Yem. is garbled: “The weeping of my eye has not caused my soul to know
about the destruction of all the districts of my people, and the flowing (?) of the daughters of
Jerusalem my city.” Some Yem. mss unsuccessfully attempt to improve the text, but to little
purpose. West., though a little awkward, makes sense: “The weeping of my eye has caused my
soul to break, on account of the destruction of the districts of my people, and the disfigurement
of the daughters of Jerusalem, my city.” See 3:51, Yem. Apparatus vvv.
(d) The Hebrew of 5:6 is difficult. West. renders, “To Egypt we gave sustenance, so
that there might be provisions there, and to Assyria, so that they might have enough bread,”
which is intelligible. Yem. does not appear to make sense, and can be derived by a series of
corruptions from a West.-type text: “[To] Egypt we gave a bond (?) to be published, and [to]
Assyria, so that they might have enough bread.” See 5:6, Yem. Apparatus m and o.
   Introduction

However, there are a few occasions where Yem. clearly has the superior text. A case in
point is 4:3. Here there is primitive corruption in West., all mss of which have apparently
lost the verb <ynyqw, corresponding to Heb. heniqu, and as a result their text was reshaped in
a variety of ways to try and make sense of it. Yem., by way of contrast, has a coherent and
plausible translation: “Moreover, the fastidious daughters of Israel unbind the bosom for the
sons of the nations, who are like the serpent; they suckle their young. The Congregation of
my people is given over to cruel men, and mourns for her [own] sons like the female ostrich
in the wilderness.” See 4:3, West. Apparatus f–h, and Yem. Apparatus m. Cases such as this
show that Yem. is not descended from West. precisely as we have it, but from the archetype
of West. This increases the value of Yem. as a text-witness for West., and suggests that any
variant within West. that is also read by Yem. should be seen as a strong reading, provided
it cannot be plausibly explained on other grounds, e.g., as a correction that could have been
made independently within the two recensions in the light of the Hebrew.
(6) One of the most striking features of the two recensions is synonymous variation.5
That is to say, both texts convey the same meaning but have chosen a different word or words
in which to express it. This phenomenon is found in both the base-translation and the pluses.
Examples from the base-translation:

Yem. West. MT
(1) 1:1 mdynt< <prky< medinot
(2) 1:3 mßrny< t˙wmy< meßarim
(3) 1:4 <wr˙t ¡byly darkhei
(4) 1:4 mt<bln spdn nugot
(5) 1:10 kn¡t< qhl< qahal
(6) 2:1 rm< †lq hi¡likh
(7) 2:3 <tyb <rt> he¡ib
(8) 2:6 mw>d< ywm< †b< mo>ed
(9) 2:7 (cf. 3:31) ¡bq <¡ly zanah
(10) 4:3 tnyn< ˙wrmn< tannin
(11) 4:18 ptyn< pl†yytn< re˙oboteinu
(12) 4:18 <t< mt< ba<
(13) 4:20 <tps <yt(<)hd nilkad
(14) 5:12 <thdrw sbrw nehdaru
(15) 5:18 <zlw hlykw hillekhu

5
This occurs in the mss of other early Bible versions. See, e.g., Joseph Ziegler, Ieremias: Baruch, Threni, Epistula Iere-
miae. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum XV (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1957) 44–46.
 Introduction  

Examples from the pluses:

Yem. West.

(1) 1:2 m<llyn <(y)zgdyn

(2) 1:2 <rymw n†lw
(3) 1:2 <t< ><l
(4) 1:18 ˙rb< syyp<
(5) 2:4 zrq rgm
(6) 2:5,7 pl†wrh< brnyyth<
(7) 3:7 <yswry †ryq<
(8) 3:38 mtkrz< rmyz<
(9) 5:3 dmy(y)n mtyl(y)n
(10) 5:8 <tmsrw <ytyhybw

In some cases the variation appears to be systematic, suggesting a rather thorough and careful
reworking of the antecedent text. This can be illustrated by the distribution in the two recen-
sions of the words for “youth, child.” In only one case do West. and Yem. have the same word
at the same point:

Yem. West.

(1) 1:5 †pl< rby< MT >olal

(2) 1:18 >wlym< rby< MT ba˙ur
(3) 5:13 >wlym< rby< MT ba˙ur
(4) 5:14 >wlym< rby< MT ba˙ur
(5) 4:10 br< >wlym< MT yeled
(6) 5:13 rby< †ly< MT na>ar
(7) 3:27 >wlym< tlywt< MT ne>urim
(8) 4:4 >wlym< >wlym< MT yoneq
(9) 4:4 †pl< †ly< MT >olal

There appears to be systematic variation also in the use of certain particles. So where Yem.
has bdyl (d-), West. has bgyn (d-) (e.g., 3:7, 28), but where Yem. has bgyn (d-), West. has mn
bgll (d-) (e.g., 1:20; 3:33, 44). Yem. prefers simple k- in comparisons, whereas West. tends to
have hyk (k-) (e.g., 3:52; 5:10). Yem. strongly favors the verb ˙zy (“see”) and the conjunction
<ry (“because, that”) as against West.’s preference for ˙my and <rwm, though this variation is
also internal to the two recensions (see further below at 2.1). West. is generally more florid
and wordy in style: thus it sometimes uses the verb “to be” + participle rather than the simple
verb, for no obvious reason other than, perhaps, greater sonority (cf., e.g., West. hww ˙¡ykn
v. Yem. <˙¡ykw in 5:17 [MT ˙a¡ekhu]), and it has a penchant for circumlocutions like <zlw
bglwt<, as against Yem. glw (5:17; cf. 1:3).
10   Introduction

No single explanation seems to account for all these diverse features. Van der Heide (The
Yemenite Tradition, 28) suggests that in some cases Yem. has chosen the more common word
(e.g., <yswr< as against West.’s †ryq< in 3:7), though he recognizes that the concept of “the
more common word” is problematic. Certainly the vocabulary of West. is more learned and
recherché than Yem. Indeed West. appears to delight in rather rare words. In other cases, as we
have already noted, Yem. seems to have gone for the Aramaic cognate of the original Hebrew,
sometimes arguably introducing Hebraisms into the Targum, whereas West. has avoided the
cognate even where it might seem the obvious translation, though there are a few instances
where it is West. and not Yem. that uses the cognate. The variation may occasionally be due
to style: note West.’s care not to repeat the same word for “sword” in 1:18 (˙rb<.  .  . syyp<), as
against Yem.’s ˙rb< .  .  . ˙rb<. Other differences may be dialectal. As I shall argue below (2.1),
the dialect of Yem. is somewhat different from that of West. West. originated in Palestine and
is closer to the original form and language of Tg. Lam., whereas Yem. represents a rework-
ing in Babylonia (both in terms of content and language) of the original western Targum. It
is also possible that orality has played a part in the variation. Though there were probably
written texts of Tg. Lam., orality could still have had a significant impact on its transmis-
sion, as in the case of other rabbinic texts. The result of this might have been that Targumists
remembered the sense of the text, but not the exact wording, and so expressed the meaning
in somewhat different language.6
(7) In addition to the textual variation between mss, occasional variants are found within
mss, written between the lines or in the margins, sometimes introduced by nusa˙ <a˙er or
targum <a˙er, and a few of these variants are unique (see 2:5, 7, West. Apparatus o and w;
2:15, West. Apparatus pp; 3:7, West. Apparatus k; 3:34, West. Apparatus oo-qq). In some
cases doublets within the text may have arisen from the incorporation of marginal variants
(see 2:2, West. Apparatus g; 2:15, Yem. Apparatus bbb and ddd; 3:32, Yem. Apparatus oo;
3:35, Yem. Apparatus ww). Two striking cases of such inner-textual variation are the alter-
native Targums attested at 4:18 only in A, and at 5:4 only in A and C. 4:18, ms A, “Another
Targum: The counselors of Jerusalem beset our ways, so that we could not go up to Jerusalem,
for they were oppressing those going up three times a year to Jerusalem. But their arrogance
came up before the Lord, and the time for our House to become desolate drew near; the days
of retribution were accomplished, the time for us to drink the cup of cursing arrived, the time
arrived for both these and those to go into exile.” This Targum, which clearly refers to the state
of affairs that pertained in the period before the destruction of the Temple in 70 c.e., fits well
with the Targumic paraphrase of the adjacent verses. It may, therefore, be original and, given
the fact that the standard West. Targum of this verse is literal, its absence from all the other
West. mss may point to a very early move even in the West. tradition toward conforming the
Targum more closely to the Hebrew (see 4:18, West. Apparatus mm).
At 5:4, mss AC, we find “Another Targum: The Torah which was given to us freely we
pay money to study, and, indeed, our counsels from a distant place are purchased to come [to
us].” Again the standard West. Targum of this verse is literal. In terms of content, however, this
alternative Targum looks later than the additional Targum to 4:18 (see 5:4, West. Apparatus
g). Here, by contrast, we may have a late attempt to expand the Targum. It is impossible to

6
See Introduction 6.5.1 below, and further Paul D. Mandel, Midrash Lamentations Rabbati: Prolegomenon, and Critical
Edition to the Third Parashah. 2 vols. (Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1997) 1:160–79, for a discussion of
the role of orality in the transmission of rabbinic literature and its impact on the texts.
 Introduction   11

be certain.7 What these inner-textual variants clearly show is that the textual tradition may
originally have been even richer than the mss we have examined suggest, and that, although
the two recensions of Tg. Lam. achieved a high degree of stability, they never became abso-
lutely fixed. So long as Tg. Lam. continued to be copied, it continued to be reworked around
the edges.8
To sum up: (1) West. and Yem. both descend from a common archetype. (2) West. is much
closer to that archetype than Yem. (3) Yem. is an independent recension of the archetype aimed
at linguistically simplifying the translation and shortening it into closer conformity to the MT.
(4) There is no clear evidence that West. as we now have it has secondarily contaminated
Yem. (5) The West. and Yem. recensions are internally highly stable, but there are sporadic
examples of secondary recensional reworking in mss of both traditions.9 This understanding
of the textual tradition of Tg. Lam. can be displayed stemmatically as follows:10

Targum Lamentations

West. Yem.

a b
c d

A C B E F GH I
D f
e ? ?

Bomb N P M O L* Q J K

*NB ms L is too small a fragment to be sure of its textual affinities within Yem.

7
Other explanations are possible. Both these additional Targums arguably reflect an anti-establishment bias, and could
have been the victims of communal censorship. See further Intro. 4.3.
8
Note also the unique variant at 3:65 cited in the >Arukh (West. Apparatus vvv).
9
The textual situation in Tg. Lam. is highly reminiscent of that in Tg. Cant. See Philip S. Alexander, The Targum of Can-
ticles. The Aramaic Bible 17A (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 2002) 1–7; further Raphael Hai Melamed, The Targum of
Canticles according to six Yemen MSS, compared with the “Textus Receptus”(Ed. de Lagarde) (Philadelphia: Dropsie College,
1921) 393–410, and Carlos Alonso Fontela, El Targum al Cantar de los Cantares (Edición Critica). Collección Tesis Doctora-
les 92/87 (Madrid: Editorial de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 1987) 134–51.
10
For the problematic position of N in the stemma see above, 1.3 (3).
12   Introduction

2. The Language of Targum Lamentations

2.1  The Aramaic Dialect of Targum Lamentations

A full analysis of the Aramaic dialect of Tg. Lam. cannot be attempted in the present
study, and the notes that follow should be regarded as tentative and provisional. The problems
we face are broadly similar to those encountered in Tg. Cant., though our conclusions will
be somewhat different as to the dialect and linguistic date of Tg. Lam.1 As with Tg. Cant.
there are, for all practical purposes, three large corpora of Jewish Aramaic texts that define
the broad map of Jewish Aramaic in late antiquity with which the Aramaic of Tg. Lam. can
be compared:2
(1) The Palestinian Talmud, the Palestinian Targumim, and the Aramaic portions of certain
Palestinian Midrashim. These represent a western dialect of Jewish Aramaic that flourished
in the Galilee from at least 200 c.e. to some time after the Islamic conquest (7th century),
when it was replaced as a spoken language among Jews by Arabic. Pockets of Aramaic speak-
ers survived in Syria and eastern Turkey down to modern times (in Ma>lula, Tur >Abdin, and
Mardin), but they were made up of Muslims and Christians, not Jews.
(2) The Babylonian Talmud. This is in an eastern dialect of Aramaic, which flourished
among Jews in Babylonia from ca. 200 c.e. till some time after the Islamic conquest, when,
like its western cousin, it was supplanted as the vernacular of most Jews by Arabic, although,
unlike in the west, a significant number of Jews (e.g., in Kurdistan) continued to speak Ara-
maic down till modern times.
(3) Targums Onqelos and Jonathan. These are basically in an older dialect of Aramaic, a
late form of the Imperial Aramaic of the Persian period, sometimes called Middle Aramaic,
which essentially predates the emergence into writing of the east-west dialectal split (ca. 200
c.e.) that distinguishes the other two corpora. Theoretically speaking, this should mean that
Onqelos and Jonathan could have been composed anywhere in the Aramaic-speaking world,
but certain western features in their language suggested to Dalman and Kutscher3 that actu-
ally they emerged in the west, possibly in Judaea. Klaus Beyer, highlighting eastern features
in the manuscripts, argued that they were composed in the east.4 Their linguistic affinities
with the Jewish Aramaic magical bowls from Mesopotamia (which date, it should be noted,
at least in our extant examples, from well after 200 c.e.) show that the Onqelos-Jonathan
dialect was not only known in Babylonia but was used there for creative purposes, and this
increases the possibility, as Christa Müller-Kessler rightly insists, that Onqelos and Jonathan

1
See Alexander, Targum Canticles, 8–12.
2
The map must, of course, have been more complex. It is important to realize that the dialects of all three of our corpora
are literary, i.e., they are all, to greater or lesser degree, standardized literary forms of their respective dialects, though the
differences between them presumably go back essentially to vernacular variations. The actual spoken forms of Aramaic in late
antiquity were almost certainly vastly more varied. This is suggested by the study of the spoken Neo-Aramaic dialects being
undertaken by Geoffrey Khan and others. These show the most astonishing diversity within very small geographical areas. The
dialectal map of Neo-Aramaic, if it can be extrapolated to the distant past, has the potential not merely to problematize the
standard Aramaic dialectal map of late antiquity, but possibly even to subvert it.
3
Gustav Dalman, Grammatik des jüdisch-palästinischen Aramäisch (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1905); Edward Y. Kutscher,
“The Language of the Genesis Apocryphon: A Preliminary Study,” Scripta Hierosolymitana 4 (1958) 1–35. See further Abra-
ham Tal, The Language of the Targum of the Former Prophets and its Position within the Aramaic Dialects (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv
University Press, 1975) [Hebrew].
4
Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984) 45–48, 59–62, 70–71.
 Introduction 13

were actually composed in Babylonia.5 But other considerations make this scenario implau-
sible. Müller-Kessler agrees that the language of Onqelos-Jonathan originated in the west,
not in Babylonia. But if this is the case how was it taken to Babylonia? The most economical
hypothesis is that it was these very Targumim that introduced this essentially western form
of Middle Aramaic to the Babylonian Jewish communities. It was then later mimicked by
the writers of the magical bowls, who unquestionably knew these Targums.6 The western
origins of the aggadic and exegetical content of Onqelos and Jonathan strengthens this view.
Though Onqelos and Jonathan probably originated in the west, they were supplanted there
by the Palestinian Targumim. They survived, however, and continued to be used in the east
by the Jews of Babylonia, who transmitted them to posterity, and for this reason they have
traditionally been known as Babylonian Targumim.
To which of these corpora is Tg. Lam. linguistically closest? There is no straightforward
answer to this question, since it depends on which manuscript or recension is consulted. 7
Taking the tradition as a whole, we find dialectal features that align the Targum with Galilean
Aramaic as well as features that align it with Targums Onqelos and Jonathan. Correspondences
with the distinctive features of Babylonian Jewish Aramaic are rare. Such correspondences
with BJA as do exist are overwhelmingly correspondences also with Onqelos-Jonathan. This
confusing mix of dialects on closer inspection turns out to display a pattern, and can be ex-
plained diachronically: the correspondences with Galilean Aramaic tend to be found in the
western mss, whereas the correspondences with Onqelos-Jonathan, by and large, occur in the
Yemenite mss. There are, indeed, Onqelos-Jonathan features also in the western mss, but they
can be explained by mediaeval copyists changing the Galilean forms because they were more
familiar with the dialect of Onqelos-Jonathan, the “official” Targums of the Middle Ages. The
alternative scenario—that original Onqelos-Jonathan forms were replaced by Galilean—is
much less plausible. Though from a linguistic perspective alone it would be theoretically
possible to argue that Tg. Lam. began life as an old Targum in the Onqelos-Jonathan dialect
but was later inconsistently “modernized” into the Galilean dialect, this is improbable on
more general grounds.
All things considered, the most plausible account of the linguistic evolution of the Tg.
Lam. tradition is as follows:
(a) The Targum was originally composed in the Galilean dialect of Aramaic (= Palestinian
Jewish Aramaic, PJA). The closest manuscript linguistically to this original dialect appears to
be our ms A (Paris 110), which also, significantly, happens to be an excellent manuscript from
the point of view of content. Some examples of Galilean Aramaic in A are: (1) The use of the
verb ˙my for “see,” where Onq.-Jon. and BJA, following older Aramaic, have ˙zy: 1:8, 9, 10,

5
“The Earliest Evidence for Targum Onqelos from Babylonia and the Question of its Dialect and Origin,” JAB 3 (2001)
181–98. Müller-Kessler boldly asserts that “90 per cent of the bowls inscribed in Aramaic square script show a pure language
type that coincides with the Aramaic dialect of Targum Onkelos and Jonathan, and can be described as a supralocal Standard
Literary Aramaic type” (p. 188).
6
See Müller-Kessler, “Earliest Evidence,” 193–97, for a partial list of Targumic quotations in the bowls. As Müller-Kessler
notes, the dialect of Onq.-Jon. is, indeed, largely “supralocal,” and was probably already in use in Babylonia before 200. So in
one sense it was hardly an import. The point is, however, that some of the western features of Onq.-Jon. Aramaic seem to be
present in bowls Aramaic. Moreover, an explanation is needed for the fact that this older form of Aramaic continued in literary
use among Jews in the east so long after 200. The most obvious explanation lies in the ubiquity and sanctity of Onqelos and
Jonathan in the east. By way of contrast, the Mandean bowls seem to be in the current local dialect.
7
A full analysis of the dialect of Tg. Lam. would have to begin with an analysis of the dialect of each manuscript—a task
well beyond the scope of the present inquiry.
14   Introduction

12; 3:1. This is the single most indicative feature of PJA. Yem. regularly replaces ˙my by ˙zy,
though ˙my has survived sometimes even in the Yem. tradition (van der Heide, The Yemenite
Tradition, 4.1.3.4). The change is also common in West. manuscripts, but it is not nearly as
systematic as in Yem.: most, if not all, West. mss are inconsistent. (2) <rwm, “because” rather
than <ry (Onq.-Jon.): 1:5, 8, 9, 18, 19; 2:13; 3:8, 22; 4:12, etc. Again Yem. mss systematically
and West. mss sporadically change <rwm to <ry. (3) Inf. pe. in miq†ol as well as in miq†al: e.g.,
lmyswq (1:4), lm>rwq (1:6); but lmspd (1:1), lmq†l (2:20), lm¡kb (2:21), lmzgr (3:38). In Yem.
only miq†al seems to occur = Onq.-Jon. (van der Heide, The Yemenite Tradition, 4.4.2.4). (4)
Third masc. sg. suff. on masc. plur. nouns in -wy rather than -why (Onq.-Jon.): e.g., ydwy
(1:2); ˙wbwy (3:39); bnwy (5:8). Yem. on the whole seems to retain this feature, but occasion-
ally changes it to -why (van der Heide, The Yemenite Tradition, 4.4.2.7). (5) Qwm(y) = qdm,
“before, in front of” (Sokoloff, JPA 481b): e.g., qwmk (1:22; 3:60); but qdm also occurs: e.g.,
qdmk (3:61); qdm (5:9,10). Yem. seems always to have qdm. (6) p(y)m, “mouth”: e.g., 2:15,
16, 17; 3:38 v. pwm in BA, BJA, and Onq.-Jon. Yem. always seems to have pwm. (7) The
particles <n, “where” (2:12; Sokoloff, JPA 166a) and bgyn (d-); “because, since” (3:7,30; 4:2;
Sokoloff, JPA 84b). Yem. seems to retain these words.
(b) The original Tg. Lam. in Galilean Aramaic was transmitted to Babylonia, where it un-
derwent a twofold revision. (1) Its content was revised to shorten it into closer conformity with
the biblical text, while at the same time not sacrificing its distinctive reading of Lamentations,
which was heavily carried by the aggadic pluses. (2) It was extensively recast linguistically to
simplify its rather florid, learned style and to conform it to the Onq.-Jon. dialect, which was
the Targumic dialect already known in Babylonia. Though the revision of language and con-
tent could have happened separately, the most economical hypothesis is to suppose that they
occurred at the same time and were two sides of a thorough recasting of the original Targum.
The rewriting of the aggadic pluses would have necessitated a change of dialect, which could
have triggered a comprehensive revision of the language of the rest of the Targum. It would
make sense to locate this revision in Babylonia. It is unlikely to have occurred in Palestine:
there was no need in Palestine linguistically to reshape the Targum, since it was already in a
local dialect. It is also less likely, though not impossible, that the revision took place in the
Yemen. The Yem. mss, as we saw (1.3 above), all seem to descend from a common, old ex-
emplar that already displayed the revision. This is most easily explained by assuming that the
text that exemplar contained was imported to the Yemen from elsewhere. There is evidence
to suggest that early rabbinic culture in the Yemen was derived from Babylonia.
(c) The “Babylonian” recension of Tg. Lam. was, then, taken to the Yemen, where it
was faithfully copied. In the process of transmission there it underwent minor modification,
in addition to the usual hazards of miscopying, and in some mss the text was augmented by
secondary expansions. The three markers of these expansions are that they are not found in
West., they are short, and they occur only in some Yem. mss (see above, 1.3 [4]). This sug-
gests that they are developments internal to the Yemenite tradition. It is also possible that the
Yemenite tradition was later contaminated by West. readings, as the Western tradition became
known in the Yemen. As we saw (above, 1.3 [4]), this was advocated by van der Heide, and
it is certainly a feature of the Yemenite Targum tradition of some of the Writings. However,
this supposed West. contamination in Tg. Lam. is so sporadic, and so insubstantial, that it
should probably be discounted.
 Introduction   15

(d) The original Tg. Lam. was also transmitted from Palestine westwards to North Africa
and Europe, where it was rather faithfully copied. Here too, however, it underwent linguistic
recasting, though this was minor compared to what occurred in Babylonia. Galilean Aramaic
forms were sometimes replaced by those of Onq.-Jon., because this was the Targumic dialect
best known by this time to the medieval western scribes and their clients, Onqelos and Jonathan
having become by this time effectively the “official” Targums of the Torah and the Prophets
in the west. This linguistic rewriting can be seen in the West. mss, for example, in the replace-
ment of ˙my by ˙zy, and <rwm by <ry. It differs from the linguistic rewriting represented by
Yem. in that it is far less systematic, and it is not associated with an extensive recasting of the
aggadic content: all the West. mss preserve original Galilean forms, some more than others,
and the underlying Galilean dialect shows through more strongly. It is this lack of systematic
and comprehensive linguistic recasting that suggests we are dealing here with a rather different
process from that encountered in the Babylonian-Yemenite recension. There is some evidence
of minor reworking of the content also in the West. tradition: there, as in Yem., the Targum text
never achieved absolute fixity. West. mss occasionally show readings that could be explained
as revisions in light of the Hebrew. There may have been some attempt to expand the West.
tradition even further. We noted the interesting additional Targums to 4:18 and 5:4 attested only
in A and C. On balance it seems plausible that these are secondary reworkings in the expansive
spirit of the West. tradition, though the additional Targum to 4:18 fits its context very well, and
could be original. That to 5:4 looks more like a secondary, rather maverick paraphrase con-
taining a barely concealed attack, possibly originating in North Africa or Europe, on the cost
of obtaining responsa. It may date from the early Middle Ages when the Jewish communities
in the Maghreb, Spain, and parts of Europe were reliant on the halakhic direction of the great
Academies of Babylonia, before they had achieved, so to speak, halakhic independence (see
above, 1.3 [7] and below, 4.3, as well as Notes to the verse).
This account of the development of Tg. Lam., though speculative, explains rather well its
highly complex and diverse linguistic features and is probably the best story that can be told.
It has immediate implications for dating. Though the mss show mixed eastern and western
dialectal features, the original of the Targum was exclusively in a western dialect. In other
words its was not, like Tg. Cant., composed in the mixed dialect commonly known as Late
Literary Jewish Aramaic. The dialect of Tg. Cant. is irreducibly mixed: however far back
we go in the textual tradition we find both eastern and western features, as for example the
use of ˙my and ˙zy simply for stylistic variation in the same verse (see Tg. Cant. 2:9). Late
Literary Jewish Aramaic is best explained as a form of Jewish Aramaic that arose after the
Islamic conquest, when Jews had effectively gone over to Arabic as their vernacular. It was
a purely literary language composed of elements derived from a knowledge of literature in
both eastern and western Aramaic. Tg. Lam. does have a genuine vernacular base in Galilean
Aramaic: deviations from this can all be plausibly explained by later redaction and copying.
This suggests that it is earlier linguistically than Tg. Cant. and dates from before the Arab
conquest (see below, 8.2).

2.2  The Vocabulary of Tg. Lam.

The Aramaic vocabulary of Tg. Lam. is rich—richer, for example, than that displayed in
the Peshitta (see 5.4.2 below), and, as we noted above (1.3 [6]), West., which is closer to the
original form of the Targum, shows a penchant for learned and recherché words. This increases
16   Introduction

the probability that the very rare quadriliteral verb brbq (“spray, splash with water”) is the
original West. reading in 2:15, 16, though it is now attested only in A (see West. Apparatus
pp ad loc.). Whoever was responsible for Tg. Lam. was a competent Aramaist with a good
command of the Aramaic lexicon, fully up to the task of translating a demanding and often
problematic Hebrew text (see 5.3 below). One of the characteristics of the later Yem. recen-
sion is that it substitutes some of these rarer words with more common synonyms (see 1.3
[6] above), which suggests that some early Aramaic-speaking readers of the original Targum
felt that its vocabulary was unnecessarily difficult and obscure.
Tg. Lam.’s vocabulary is enriched by loanwords, most of which come from Greek and
Latin, the Latin borrowings probably having been mediated through Greek (note, e.g., rwmy =
Rome). None of these is peculiar to Tg. Lam., though some are given a rather unusual sense:
all are found elsewhere in Jewish Aramaic (JA) (which, in the west, was in intense contact with
Greek for centuries), and often in Rabbinic Hebrew (RH) as well. In keeping with the broad
pattern of such loanwords in JA and RH, they clearly show that the contact was at the cultural
level of the street and the marketplace: they denote everyday objects, political institutions,
titles of officials, proper names, and the like. There are no abstract or philosophical terms
(contrast Syriac), and, probably no verbal forms.8 In some cases a Greek term is chosen where
a perfectly serviceable Aramaic expression was available (eikøn, prosøpon, ochlos). A similar
phenomenon is observable in Tg. Cant., where, for example, the translator regularly prefers
the Greek nymph∑ (“bride”) to the Aramaic kalleta< (Alexander, Targum Canticles, 12). The
intention may be to add richness and variety to the language. The prevalence of the Greek and
Latin loanwords confirms the western origins of the Aramaic dialect of Tg. Lam. Some of the
loanwords are not attested in eastern Aramaic Jewish texts. Significantly, a number of them
are missing in the Yem. recension of Tg. Lam., which, we argued, originated in Babylonia.

(a)  Greek:
(1) <wklws (1:1; 4:21 [West. only]) < ochlos, “crowd.” Attested elsewhere in JA and RH.
Krauss 18b suggests that in some contexts it can mean “Soldaten” (soldiers), but this would
not fit either context in Tg. Lam. In 1:1 it is coupled with the synonymous Aramaic expres-
sion “numerous peoples.”
(2) <ykwn (4:2 [West. only]) < eikøn, “image, likeness,” but in Tg. Lam. apparently of the
actual physical body rather than a representation of it, e.g., in the form of a statue or paint-
ing. Closer reading of the passage, however, suggests that the word is, in fact, very precisely
used for the beautiful form of the young Jewish boys’ bodies: it was this that the nations tried
to steal (see 4:2, Notes 3 and 4). It is attested elsewhere in JA and RH, also in the spelling
<yk(w)nyn = eikonion, the diminutive of eikøn (Krauss 40b).
(3) <prky< (1:1) < eparchia, “the district governed by an eparchos = Lat. provincia”
(LSJ 611a). Attested in RH and only in JPA, not JBA (Jast. 59a; Sokoloff, JPA 53b; Krauss
116a).

8
One possible exception may be the quadriliteral root prsm (2:14; 4:22), “publicize, disclose.” Sokoloff, JBA 936a ex-
plains this as a denominative from prhsy<, “public matter” (Sokoloff, JBA 929a) < Greek parrh∑sia, “freedom of speech,”
though even here, if the derivation is correct, we do not have the direct loan of a Greek verb but the creation of a verb from a
Greek noun. The verb is very common in JA and RH (Krauss 492a; Jast. 1234b; Sokoloff, JPA 449b).
 Introduction   17

(4) <rmwny< (4:21) < Romania, the eastern Roman empire (Sophocles 974a; Lampe 1219a;
the Suda, ed. Adler, 4:60, sub paroplisas). For the form cf. <rmylws < Romulus (Krauss 132a).
Attested elsewhere in JA (Krauss 132a). See 4:21, Note 53.
(5) bwlyw†y (4:18, additional Tg. only in ms A; Apparatus mm, ad loc) < bouleut∑s,
“councillor, member of the boul∑.” Well attested in JA and RH (Krauss 140b). In Tg. Lam.
with clear reference to Jerusalem in the pre-70 period. The boul∑ in question would be the
Sanhedrin/Sunedrion (Josephus, War 2.331, 336, 405; Mark 15:43 = Luke 23:20), also known
as the gerousia (Schürer 2: 206­–208). The precision of the language is striking and may point
to an old exegetical tradition.
(6) krkwm/krqwm (1:19 [West. only]; 3:5) < charakøma, “entrenched camp, palisade,
vallum.” In Tg. Lam. of the Roman siege-works against Jerusalem. Attested elsewhere in JA
(Krauss 299a). See 1:19, Note 75; 3:5, Note 9.
(7) lgyn (4:2 [West. only; Yem. nbl = Heb. nebel]) < lagunos/lag∑nos (cf. Latin lagena),
“flask, flagon, bottle.” Attested elsewhere in JA and RH (Krauss 305b; Sokoloff, JBA 618a).
(8) mylt (2:20 [West. only]; 2:21) < m∑løt∑, “sheepskin, any rough woolly skin” (LSJ
1127b), used, e.g., as a warm cloak (LXX 1 Kgs 19:13, 19; 2 Kgs 2:8, 13-14; Heb 11:37).
This would suit the context in 2:21, where mylt could denote a sheepskin used as a mattress,
but not 2:20 where it denotes the wool out of which (luxurious) swaddling clothes are made.
Jast. 775a and Sokoloff, JBA 669b give the standard JA meaning as “fine wool,” which would
fit 2:20. Attested elsewhere in JA and RH (Krauss 335b).
(9) mrglyt< (4:1) < margarit∑s, “pearl.” Well attested in JA (Jast. 836a; Krauss 350b;
Sokoloff, JPA 327b), but the JBA form appears to be mrgnyt< (Sokoloff, JBA 704a).
(10) mrmr (3:9 [West. only]) < marmaros, “marble.” Attested elsewhere in JA (Krauss
353a). See 3:9, Note 16.
(11) sdyn (2:20, 22): Jast. 957a compares the Greek sindøn, “sheet,” but both ultimately
are derived from Akkadian ¡/saddinu (HAL 743b). Sadin is well attested in BH, RH, and JA,
and is probably a very old borrowing into Aramaic (Jast. 957a; Sokoloff, JBA 788a).
(12) snhdryn (5:14) < sunedrion, “council.” Old and widespread in JA and RH, especially
in the sense of the Jewish supreme religious council, the Sanhedrin (Krauss 401b).
(13) py†lwn (4:1) < petalon, “leaf, leaf of metal.” In Tg. Lam. specifically in the sense
of “gold leaf” (= Heb. ketem). Attested elsewhere in JA and RH (Jast. 1161a; Krauss 441b).
See 4:1, Note 1.
(14) pl†y< (4:18 [West. only; Yem. pt<h: Heb. re˙ob]) < plateia, “street” (cf. Latin platea).
Well attested elsewhere in JA and RH (Krauss 456b). See 4:18, Note 46.
(15) prswp (4:7) < prosøpon, “face, countenance.” Attested elsewhere in JA and MH
(Krauss 495a).
(16) tyq (3:13 = Heb. <a¡pah) < th∑k∑, “case, chest, sheath.” Attested elsewhere in JA and
RH, e.g., tiq sefarim, “book chest” (m. Shabb. 16:1; t. Yad. 2:12) = biblioth∑k∑ (Krauss 588a),
but Tg. Lam.’s precise sense of “quiver” is hard to parallel. Etymologicum Magnum 333.41
toxou th∑k∑ is a case for protecting the bow, not a quiver.

(b)  Latin:
(1) <y†ly< (4:22 [West. only]) < Italia (cf. Greek Italia), “Italy.” Attested elsewhere in JA
and RH. Krauss 32a suggests that sometimes in RH Italia denotes “das oströmische Reich,
jedoch mit Rom confundirt,” citing Italia ¡el Yavan, “Greek Italy,” in b. Shabb. 56b and b. Meg.
18   Introduction

6b. This might help to clarify the confused geography of Tg. Lam. 4:21-22 (see below, 8.3),
but Italia ¡el Yavan can be otherwise explained, e.g., as referring to Magna Graecia in southern
Italy, or the part of Italy that remained under Byzantine control after the barbarian invasions.
See under <rmwny< (above) and rwmy (below).
(2) <spsy<nws (1:19 [West. only]) < Vespasianus (cf. Greek Ouespasianos), the Roman
general (later emperor) who beseiged Jerusalem. Attested elsewhere in JA and RH (Krauss
92a).
(3) glwgdq (2:1) < lectica, “litter, sedan”; cf. Greek lektis (Symmachus Isa. 66:20 = Heb.
sab: Field 2:565b) and its diminutive lektikion. Attested elsewhere in JA and RH (Krauss
174b), but used in Tg. Lam. apparently in the sense of “footstool” (= Heb. hadom)! See 2:1,
Note 4.
(4) †y†ws (1:19 [West. only]) < Titus (cf. Greek Titos), the Roman general (later emperor)
who captured Jerusalem. Attested elsewhere in JA and RH (Krauss 262a).
(5) pl†wr (2:5 [Yem. and some West.]) < praetorium, “official residence of the governor
of a province, a magnificent building, splendid country seat” (cf. Greek praitørion). “Large,
official building” would fit the context in 2:5. Well attested in RH and JA (Jast. 1180b; So-
koloff, PJA 435b), and in many contexts virtually synonymous with pl†yn < palatium (cf.
Greek palation), “palace” (Jast. 1180a; Sokoloff, PJA 435b), which often occurs as a varia
lectio. See 2:5, Apparatus o.
(6) qw¡†n†yn< (4:21 [West. only]) < Greek Konstantin∑ < Latin Constantinus = Konstan-
tin∑ (polis), Constantinople. The form, which is widespread in JA and RH (Krauss 522b),
is interesting: though two cities Konstantin∑ are recorded in Greek sources (Pape-Benseler,
Eigennamen 752a), the name does not seem to have been used for Constantinople, which
always seems to have been given its full title, Konstantinopolis, in the Greek-speaking world.
That this was regularly shortened by Semitic speakers is suggested not only by the JA and
RH Qu¡†an†ina, but by the Syriac and Arabic Qustantiniyya (Payne Smith 3550b; Biberstein-
Kazimirski 2:737a).
(7) rwmy (4:22) < Roma, but via the Greek form Røm∑: cf. rwm<y, “Romans” in 1:19;
4:17; 5:11. Greek Røm∑ can be used in Byzantine sources for Constantinople, “New Rome”
(Pape-Benseler, Eigennamen 1319a; the Suda, ed. Adler, 3:177, sub Konstantinopolis), but
in Tg. Lam. to 4:22 Rome in Italy is clearly in view. Very common in JA and RH (Krauss
576a).

(c)  Persian:
(1) The most notable case is gw<lq (5:5 [West. only]), for which a Middle Iranian *juwalak,
“sack,” has plausibly been postulated (cf. New Persian guwal, and Arabic juwal, juwalik)
(Levy, Wörterbuch 1:308a; Sokoloff, JBA 264b). Though well attested in BJA (Jast. 216b),
this appears to be the only occurrence of the word in a PJA text.
(2) Note also <yzgdy (1:2) < Old Persian asgaœnd∑s, “messenger, runner,” used of the
scouts sent by Moses to spy out the land of Canaan: attested in both PJA and BJA (Jast. 46a;
Sokoloff, PJA 43a, and BJA 112a), and common in Syriac (Payne Smith 104a).
 Introduction   19

(d)  Uncertain derivation:

(1) plg(l)ys< (3:12 = Heb. ma††ara<), “target” at which one shoots arrows. Levy, Wörter-
buch 4:47b suggests a possible derivation from Greek phylaxis or phylak∑, but this is highly
unlikely: the sound is not close, and neither phylaxis nor phylak∑ has an appropriate mean-
ing. Aquila’s rendering of ma††ara< by phylak∑ in Lam 3:12 and 1 Sam 20:5 (Field 1:523b;
2:754b) is a typical case of an Aquilan etymologizing translation, based on deriving ma††ara<
from the root n†r, “keep, guard.” Attested elsewhere in JA (Krauss 454a; >Arukh, ed. Kohut
6:338a). See 3:12, Note 21.
(2) ¡bzyz< (4:7 = Heb. sappir), a precious stone. Common in JA, especially as an equiva-
lent for Heb. sappir (Krauss 579a). See 4:7, Note 15.
20   Introduction

3. The Unity and Integrity of Targum Lamentations

By text-critical and redaction-critical methods it is possible to work our way back to an
archetype of the Tg. Lam. tradition, an “original” Targum of the whole of Lamentations, that
was, in fact, very close to the Western recension. What evidence is there that this archetype
was the work of a single author? Could it have grown up piecemeal and be the end-product
of a process of accretion and evolution? In other words, what grounds have we for accepting
its unity and integrity? This question is important because it affects not only our dating of the
Targum, but also our understanding of its theology.
The most economical hypothesis is that Tg. Lam. began life as the work of a single author
who produced a complete translation, and that any subsequent changes were made to this text.
Lamentations is a very short book, and it is hard to see why anyone would translate only bits
of it. Once the decision was reached to make a translation, say, for use in connection with the
9th of Ab, there seems to be no good reason not to translate the whole. Unity of authorship is
borne out by internal considerations. The style of the translation, the language, and the general
theological viewpoint are uniform. Note, for example, how the wording of 1:1 is carefully
picked up at 4:22. Lamentations 1:1 laments that Jerusalem, a “city that was full of crowds
(<wklwsyn) and numerous peoples, has become a widow; and she who grew great among the
nations and ruled over provinces, and they were paying taxes to her, has been brought low
in turn, and gives tribute to them after [all] this”; 4:22 looks forward to the repopulation of
the city by the return of her exiles, but at the same time to the depopulation of her oppressor,
“wicked Rome, that is built in Italy, and is full of crowds (<wklwsyn) of the sons of Edom.
The Persians shall come and oppress you, and devastate you, because it has been disclosed
before the Lord concerning your sins.” The rather striking use of the Greek loanword ochlos
in both places serves to strengthen the link and to underscore the idea of “measure for mea-
sure.” Jerusalem and Rome stand as two cities whose destinies are intertwined: the rise of the
one is only possible with the fall of the other.1
One feature of Tg. Lam., obvious even to the casual reader, raises acutely the question
of its unity and integrity, viz., its uneven expansion of the Hebrew original. Might this point
to piecemeal insertion of exegetical material into an originally basically literal translation?
Inconsistent expansion is a feature of the Targums in general, and it has many possible causes,2
but Tg. Lam. is a particularly striking example. The expansions follow a broad pattern: they
come mostly in the first chapter, and especially in the first four verses, though there is an obvi-
ously large expansion at 4:21-22. The most substantial expansions are in 1:1-4, 18-19; 2:20;
3:28; 4:2, 21-22; and 5:5. Christian Brady has analyzed the number of words in the Targum
as against the MT, chapter by chapter, with the following results:3

1
This thought is elegantly expressed at Genesis Rabba 6.3, where a series of midrashim compare Esau [= Rome] to the
“greater light,” the sun, and Jacob [= Israel] to the “lesser light,” the moon. “Rabbi Nahman said: So long as the light of the
greater luminary shines, the light of the lesser cannot be seen, but when the light of the greater sets, the light of the lesser will
become visible. Even so, so long as the light of Esau prevails, the light of Jacob cannot be distinguished, but when the light
of Esau sets, that of Jacob shall be distinguished, as it is written, Arise, shine .  .  . For behold, darkness shall cover the earth,
and deep darkness the peoples, but upon you the Lord shall arise, and his glory shall be seen upon you (Isa 60:1).” See Judah
Nadich, Jewish Legends of the Second Commonwealth (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1983) 309–23;
Ginzberg, Legends 7:409, sub “Rome”; Tg. Lam. 4:21-22 with Notes ad loc.
2
See Willem Smelik, The Targum of Judges (Leiden: Brill, 1995) 176–88.
3
Christian M. M. Brady, “Targum Lamentations 1:1-4: A Theological Prologue,” in Paul V. M. Flesher, ed., Targum and
Scripture: Studies in Aramaic Translations and Interpretation in Memory of Ernest G. Clarke (Leiden: Brill, 2002) 175–83.
 Introduction   21

Chapter MT Tg. Lam. Difference Ratio Tg. Lam.:

MT
1 376 932 556 2.5
2 381 648 267 1.7
3 381 607 226 1.6
4 257 438 181 1.7
5 144 250 106 1.7

Chapter 1 is clearly well out of line with the other chapters, but, as Brady points out, this is
disproportionately due to the first four verses, which are around five times longer than the
original. If we exclude these, the remaining verses of chapter 1 conform much more closely
to the norm for the rest of the book.
Why this pattern of expansion? It is unlikely to be due to secondary intrusion of aggadic
material into a more or less literal base-text because it is extremely difficult, if not impossible,
to extract from the crucial opening four verses a literal base-text into which the additional
material could have been inserted. Expansive Targums are of two broad types: type A, in which
the expansions can be bracketed out, leaving behind a more or less one-to-one translation of
the Hebrew, and type B, in which, though all the words of the Hebrew are represented, usu-
ally in the same order, they are “dissolved” in a flowing paraphrase and cannot be extracted
to form a free-standing, viable translation.4 Tg. Lam. of 1:1-4 belongs to type B, and this
makes it much less easy to see its expansions as fundamentally secondary: secondary expan-
sion is more likely in the case of a type A Targum, though it should not be assumed that all
type A Targums have arisen in this way. Some of the pluses of Tg. Lam. are of the type A
variety, and in some cases, as we noted above, they have been removed in Yem., though Yem.
has some expansions peculiar to itself (see above, 1.3 [3]-[4]). Some pluses can be seen as
secondary. This is clearly the case with those found only in Yem., but it has been proposed in
other instances as well. Churgin, for example, suggested that the messianic midrash in 2:22
is a later addition,5 and the words “these are the Romans who went up with Titus and wicked
Vespasian, and built siege-works against Jerusalem” in 1:19 look suspiciously intrusive, though
the intrusion here would be into a plus and not into the base-text. Some secondary expansion
is likely, but there are no good grounds for questioning the majority of the pluses: they appear
to belong to the original Targum.
If the expansions are not the result of a somewhat random secondary process, how is
their distribution to be explained? Brady argues that those at the beginning are intended to
form a theological prologue to the book, to set it in a certain light. Once the perspective is
established, there is less need for commentary: the rest of the book will automatically be read
in a particular way. The opening additions establish the key in which the book is to be heard.
A similar phenomenon can be detected in Tg. Cant., where the large midrashic expansion of
the first verse clearly establishes the hermeneutical framework for the rest of the work. And
in general the Midrashim are noticeably fuller and richer toward the beginning than toward
the end (Lamentations Rabba is a case in point). This is not simply because the darshanim

4
See further above at 1.3 (1) and especially below at 5.1, where a variation of this classification is proposed.
5
Pinkhos Churgin, The Targum on the Hagiographa (New York: Horeb [1945]), 155.
22   Introduction

tended to “run out of steam” toward the end of biblical books. It has more to do with the fact
that once a particular reading has been imposed, the need for commentary decreases.
Though Linafelt has criticized Brady’s view,6 it remains the most plausible explanation
for the large expansion of the first four verses of Tg. Lam., but it does not explain the oc-
casional expansiveness elsewhere. For this another principle has to be invoked, viz., that the
expansiveness of a Targum, or indeed of a Midrash, is generally proportionate to the difficulty
perceived in the biblical text. In other words, the more difficult the text, the more resistant it
is to acceptable explanation, the more commentary it will tend to generate. The expansions
in a Targum are, then, a fair indicator of the passages the Targumist found difficult, and in
general, the bigger the expansion the more difficult he felt the text to be. Various kinds of
difficulty can trigger expansion. The problem may be narratological (e.g., an apparent gap
or contradiction in the story), or linguistic, or theological (the text sits uneasily with the
Targumist’s worldview). The second and third of these (language and theology, particularly
theology) seem to be the major drivers of expansion in our Targum. On this analysis it is no
accident that chapter 3, which offers the most theologically orthodox understanding of the
destruction of Jerusalem (in terms of sin, punishment, and repentance), the view closest to
that of the Targumist himself, is the most literal in the whole Targum, because it caused him
the fewest problems, whereas chapters 1, 2, and, to a lesser extent, 4 and 5, which are theo-
logically more challenging, receive the bulk of the expansion. The broad purpose of these
expansions can be seen as being to read the theology of chapter 3 into the rest of the book
(see section 4 below).

6
Tod Linafelt, Surviving Lamentations: Catastrophe, Lament, and Protest in the Afterlife of a Biblical Book (Chicago and
London: University of Chicago Press, 2000) 88–89.
 Introduction   23

4. The Theology of Targum Lamentations

4.1  Reading a Targum Theologically

It is not easy to discover the theology of a Targum.1 Targum by definition is a kind of
translation, and that means it is obliged to incorporate into itself the whole of the biblical text.
Into this translation it will insert from time to time additions that, though intended to draw
out the meaning of the original, are clearly in the Targumist’s own voice. When we talk of the
theology of a Targum, should we confine ourselves to these pluses, or should we include also
the theological ideas of the biblical text? The latter surely cannot be ignored, and to neglect
them would grossly distort the picture. If a Targumist translates a section of Bible more or less
literally, it is arguable that he does so because he accepts at face value the ideas it presents: he
has found no difficulty and hence no need to paraphrase (see section 3 above). By rendering
them more or less as they stand he is appropriating them as his own. His voice and the voice
of the biblical author blend together. But this still leaves open the question of how he actually
understood these passages, what he was hearing in them. We cannot assume that any text of
Scripture has an obvious, objective meaning that will be perceived and shared both by the
Targumist and by us, that we will necessarily hear exactly what he heard.
These problems are particularly acute in Lamentations, which has proved singularly
difficult for modern scholars to read theologically.2 What is it saying? One thing is clear: it
is not intended as a theological treatise on suffering and disaster. It is a collection of poems
whose primary aim is to give timely utterance, and hence relief, to suffering. Though these

1
Moshe Bernstein is one of the few to have reflected on the methodological problem of how to extract a theology from a
Targum. He argues that “in order to make sure that we are investigating the theology of the Targum and not that of the biblical
text, we must first put aside any theological statements or concepts in the Targum which are generated primarily by the under-
lying Hebrew text. Once we have done that, we must also initially discount features or phenomena of the Targum which are
products of the way in which the Targum always operates upon the biblical text, i.e., products of its translation technique and
exegetical methodology which are not unique to the particular passage under consideration.  .  .  . After temporarily eliminating
from consideration data which derive from either translation technique or exegetical method, with what are we left? In many
cases, what remains to us are the ‘pluses’ in the Targum, material without equivalent in the Hebrew text with which the Targum
has supplemented its translation” (“The Aramaic Versions of Deuteronomy 32: A Study in Comparative Targumic Theology,”
in Paul V. M. Flesher, ed., Targum and Scripture: Studies in Aramaic Translation and Interpretation in Memory of Ernest
G. Clarke [Leiden: Brill, 2002] 29). It will become clear that I do not entirely agree with this view. We must surely base our
analysis on the final form of the text before us. The fact is that the Targum was heard as a whole, the literal passages together
with the paraphrastic, and the Targumist must surely have been conscious of this. If he translated a passage “literally,” I would
argue, it is presumably because he accepts the voice of the biblical author as his own (though we must still be cautious about
what we assume he heard in that passage). In fact, Bernstein does admit the evidence of the “literal” passages if it coincides
with the theology of the pluses, so our positions are not as far apart as they might at first sight seem. The fullest discussion of
the theology of Tg. Lam. is Brady, The Rabbinic Targum of Lamentations. See also the perceptive remarks by Linafelt, Surviv-
ing Lamentations, 80–99.
2
On the theology of Lamentations see: Norman K. Gottwald, Studies in the Book of Lamentations (London: SCM, 1954);
Bertil Albrektson, Studies in the Text and Theology of the Book of Lamentations (Lund: Gleerup, 1963); Delbert R. Hillers,
Lamentations. AB 7A (New York: Doubleday, 1972; rev. ed. 1992); Ian W. Provan, Lamentations. New Century Bible Com-
mentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991); Claus Westermann, Lamentations: Issues in Interpretation (Edinburgh: T & T Clark,
1994); Alan Mintz, Hurban: Responses to Catastrophe in Hebrew Literature (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1996),
17–48; Johan Renkema, Lamentations. Historical Commenatry on the Old Testament (Leuven: Peeters, 1998); Linafelt, Surviv-
ing Lamentations, 1–61; F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp, Lamentations. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching
(Louisville: Wesminster John Knox, 2002); see also his “Tragedy, Tradition, and Theology in the Book of Lamentations,” JSOT
74 (1997) 29–60; Adele Berlin, Lamentations: A Commentary. Old Testament Library (Louisville and London: Westminster
John Knox, 2002).
24   Introduction

poems draw on an ancient tradition of dirge and lament (notably the city-lament), they are shot
through with real experience. They are not literary conceits: their poets were almost certainly
survivors and witnesses of the tragedy of 587, or close to it in time, and they used the conven-
tions of literature to give voice to real grief that they found almost too deep for words. One
should not expect theological objectivity, clarity, or consistency in poetry of such passion and
suffering. Our Targumist heard the pain in Lamentations and responded to it, deepening the
anguish and horror in many cases (see 4.3 below). But at the same time he heard its inchoate
theology and responded to that as well.
Two axioms would have dominated his approach to the text. The first would have been
that the text was saying the same thing in all its various parts. His profoundest instinct would
have been to harmonize, to find a consistent message running through the whole that chimed
with his own deeply held worldview. This urge to harmonize would have been driven not
only by his doctrine of Scripture but also by his belief that Lamentations was the work of a
single author, Jeremiah (see Tg. to 1:1). Lamentations consists of five separate poems, and
to the modern reader it seems obvious that these come from different hands. The third poem
stands out from the rest. It seems to be a personal lament of a type found in the Psalms and
Job,3 complaining about an individual’s suffering at the hands of God, that has been adapted
to communal mourning for the fall of the Jerusalem, which comes into view, somewhat
awkwardly, only in verses 43-51. The third poem feels more distant than the others from the
cataclysmic events, its tone less bleak, more full of hope: “The Lord will not reject for ever.
Though he causes grief, he will have compassion according to the abundance of his steadfast
love; for he does not willingly afflict or grieve anyone” (3:31). Some modern interpreters,
notably Linafelt,4 want to read Lamentations rather atomistically, and to play up the tension
between the third poem and particularly the first two. That strategy was not open to our Tar-
gumist. For him it was axiomatic that Lamentations was by a single author who spoke under
the influence of the holy spirit the words of the living God.
There is a second axiom that would have influenced how our Targumist read the bibli-
cal text: this was the need to universalize it and apply it to the present. He would have seen,
and indeed clearly did see it as his duty, as a comforter of his people, to offer a theological
explanation not only for the catastrophe of 587 but for the other disasters that have befallen
the Jewish people. For him Lamentations is as much about the present as the past: he hears
it speaking to the “Congregation of Zion” (Keni¡ta< de-Íiyyon), his standard translation for
“Daughter of Zion” (see 1:6; 2:1, 4, 8, 10, 13; 4:22; but not 2:18), that is to say to the Jews of
his own day gathered in synagogue on the 9th of Ab to hear the Book of Lamentations read
and translated. Lamentations for him has to offer the elements of a universal Jewish theology
of catastrophe, a paradigmatic response to disaster and suffering, that will address as much
the destruction of the second Temple and the “exile of Edom” as the destruction of the first
Temple and the Babylonian exile. It would have seemed totally natural to him to find allu-
sions in the text of Lamentations to the destruction of the second Temple as well as the first
(after all, Jeremiah, its author, was a prophet): “These are the Romans who came up with
Titus and Vespasian, and built siege-works against Jerusalem” (1:19); “Our eyes continue to
be worn out with looking for our help, which we expect from the Romans, [but] which has

3
Christiane de Vos, Klage als Gotteslobe aus der Tiefe: Der Mensch vor Gott in den individuellen Klagepsalmen (Tübin-
gen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005).
4
Linafelt, Surviving Lamentations, 35–63.
 Introduction   25

proved vain for us, with our watching wherewith we watch for the Edomites—a nation that
does not save” (4:17); “The women who were married to husbands in Zion were raped by
the Romans, and the virgins in the towns of Judah by the Chaldeans” (5:11). Note also the
references to Rome and Constantinople in 4:21-22, though these are eschatological (see Notes
ad loc., and below, 8.2). Our Targumist’s interest in Scripture is not antiquarian: Scripture
has to be made to speak to his own and his community’s present, and that was not difficult
in the case of Lamentations.

4.2  The Message of Lamentations

My analysis of the theology of Tg. Lam. will proceed in two stages. First I will try to
summarize the message of the biblical book itself in as neutral and objective a way as is
possible, in order to determine a baseline from which to measure the Targumist’s interpreta-
tion, to identify those aspects he found difficult and so paraphrased, and those he translated
literally and so blended into his own voice. What ideas are lying, so to speak, on the surface
of the biblical text?
Poem 1 (chapter 1) personifies Jerusalem as a woman, “daughter Zion,”5 and its overrid-
ing theme is her tragic reversal of fortune, her present abject condition in contrast with her
former prosperity and glory. Two voices play in counterpoint, the first the voice of a narrator
who, as a horrified onlooker, describes the pitiable state of this former “princess among the
provinces” (vv. 1-11), the second the voice of Zion herself complaining about her present
suffering and appealing to God and passersby for pity. Again and again both voices dwell on
the fate of the “children” (vv. 4, 5, 6, 15, 18)—a motif that echoes loudly through the whole
book. Daughter Zion’s voice, which first breaks into the narrative in verse 9 (“O Lord, look
at my affliction, for the enemy has triumphed!”), becomes dominant in the second half of the
poem (from v. 12, “Is it nothing to you, all you who pass by?”), though it is punctuated once
by the narrator vividly confirming to the onlooker Zion’s misery (v. 17, “Zion stretches out
her hands, but there is none to comfort her!”). Both the narrator and Zion offer a reason for
her plight: it has been inflicted on her by God as punishment for her sins (vv. 5, 8, 14, 18,
20), though the sins that provoked such an overwhelming divine response remain strikingly
unspecific. In other words, the disaster is explicable in terms of the covenant between God
and Israel. God, far from being bested by the gods of Babylon, is still in control, but he is
“angry” (v. 12) at Jerusalem’s “rebellion” (v. 18).
Poem 2 (chapter 2) also exploits the trope of personification. In the first twelve verses a
narrator describes the destruction of daughter Zion, her fortifications, her palaces, and above
all her Temple (priesthood and temple are stressed). The Babylonians acted as God’s agents
(v. 7), so directly that what they did can be attributed to him: “He has set his bow like an
enemy, with his right hand set like a foe; he has killed all in whom he took pride in the tent
of the daughter of Zion” (v. 4). God acted without “mercy” (v. 2), in “anger” and “fury” (vv.
1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7). The narrator, having reported “objectively” the fate of the city in the first ten
stanzas, finally in verse 11 breaks down in tears, identifying with the victim, and acknowledg-
ing that what he has described is the suffering of his own people. As in the first poem, what
moves him most is the fate of the children: “My eyes are spent with weeping; my stomach

5
The genitive “Zion” is in apposition to the noun in construct. In other words, “daughter” and “Zion” are not two different
entities but one and the same.
26   Introduction

churns; my bile is poured out on the ground because of the destruction of my people, because
infants and babes faint in the streets of the city. They cry to their mothers, ‘Where is bread
and wine?’ as they faint like the wounded in the streets of the city, as their life is poured out
on their mothers’ bosom.”
The narrator then turns to address “daughter Jerusalem” directly and to commiserate
with her (vv. 13-19). He blames the prophets for her plight, for seeing “false and deceptive
visions,” for failing to expose her iniquity (v. 14). Sin is once more identified as the cause of
the disaster, but again in muted, unspecific, almost perfunctory terms. However, despite the
prophets’ failings, Jerusalem had been forewarned; she should have known what to expect:
“The Lord has done what he purposed, he has carried out his threat; as he ordained long ago,
he has demolished without pity” (v. 17)—a possible allusion to the punishments threatened
if Israel broke the covenant.6 The narrator ends his apostrophe to Zion by calling on her to
“cry aloud to the Lord”: “Pour out your heart like water before the presence of the Lord! Lift
up your hands to him for the lives of your children, who faint for hunger at the head of every
street” (v. 19). The implicit aim, paradoxically, would seem to be to move with her suffering
a God who has just been described as destroying “without pity.”
Zion vigorously responds, and the poem ends with her supplicating God (vv. 20-22). Her
tone is sharp and importunate, almost accusatory. There is no confession of sin, but rather a
sense of outrage, a feeling that whatever she has done, it cannot justify what has happened to
her innocent children: “Look, O Lord, and consider! To whom have you done this? Should
women eat their offspring, the children whom they have borne? Should priest and prophet be
killed in the sanctuary of the Lord?” (v. 20).
In poem 3 (chapter 3) the tone changes. The speaker is a male figure who introduces
himself as “the man (geber) who has seen affliction under the rod of God’s wrath.” The iden-
tity of this individual is far from clear: as we noted earlier, the poem reads like an individual
lament that has been adapted to the context of national disaster. In its present setting the geber
becomes a representative victim whose intensely personal description of his sufferings brings
home the scale of the catastrophe more effectively than any general expressions of grief. The
geber sees his present misery as inflicted by God (thus picking up a prominent theme of the
second poem). He depicts God as a determined and implacable foe who ignores his prayers
and cries for help (v. 8). At verse 21, however, his mood abruptly swings from despair to hope.
This hope is based on his belief that “the steadfast love of the Lord never ceases, his mercies
never come to an end” (v. 22); “the Lord will not reject forever. Although he causes grief,
he will have compassion according to his steadfast love; for he does not willingly afflict or
grieve anyone” (v. 32). The suffering is a punishment for sin, though the sin again remains
unspecified (v. 39), and if it is patiently borne (vv. 27-30) it will come to an end, and the suf-
ferer will be reconciled to God; the “salvation of the Lord” (v. 26) will duly come. Suffering
brings atonement.
Verses 34-36 hint at a further reason why the punishment will cease: the appointed agents
of divine punishment will overreach themselves and deflect God’s anger from the victims

6
The meaning of this verse has divided commentators. Does it allude to some mysterious, ineluctable fate ordained for
Zion in the distant past (cf. the Lament for Ur: Mintz, Hurban, 17–18), or to some divine revelation warning Zion of the inevi-
table outcome of her unfaithfulness to the Covenant, in the form either of a prophetic oracle of doom or of the legal stipulations
of the covenant itself (cf. Lev 26:14-39 and Deut 28:15-68)? Jewish commentators had no hesitation in taking the latter view.
Rashi held that the fall of Jerusalem could have been inferred from Leviticus 26 (see his notes to Lev 26:27). See further Tg.
Lam. 2:17, with Note 60 ad loc.
 Introduction   27

to their oppressors. The idea is only obliquely expressed in the menacing question, “Does
the Lord not see it?” (v. 36), but it echoes elsewhere in Lamentations. The poet proclaims
unequivocally that what has befallen Israel comes ultimately from God (v. 37: “Who can
command and have it done, if the Lord has not ordained it? Is it not from the mouth of the
Most High that good and bad come?”). This is the lynchpin of his theological reaction to the
catastrophe: God is still in control, still Lord of history, and has not yet abandoned his cove-
nant with Israel. But this leads the poet onto theologically dangerous ground. If the enemy
acted as God’s agent, does this mean that the atrocities committed (described in such har-
rowing detail) can be laid at God’s door? The implicit answer is “no.” The oppressors have
overreached themselves: they have enjoyed too much their license to inflict suffering. They
have overstepped the boundaries of morality and God will punish them for it. Thus the moral
order is maintained, and at the same time the victims’ desire for revenge on their tormentors
is satisfied.
In verses 40-51 the geber turns to address his fellow victims, and only here does it become
clear that his sufferings are part of a wider picture of national disaster. He exhorts his people
to “test and examine” their ways, to “return to the Lord,” to acknowledge their transgression
and rebellion (vv. 40-42). Again, however, the confession of sin is perfunctory, almost a re-
flex of traditional piety, effectively drowned out by outrage at the devastation and destruction
that have befallen the people, once again focused on the fate of the young (v. 51). The theme
of God ignoring prayer is picked up from verse 8 in even more striking terms: “You have
wrapped yourself with a cloud so that no prayer can pass through,” though it is subverted by
being placed in a direct apostrophe to God, within an exhortation to the people to “lift up our
hearts as well as our hands to God in heaven.”
In the concluding section of the poem (vv. 52-62) the geber reprises some of the leading
themes of the earlier part as he becomes absorbed once more in his own suffering. Again his
mood swings from despair to hope, but finally hope predominates. He records the one verse in
the whole of Lamentations in which God’s voice breaks into the dismal scene, and it is with an
oracle of comfort: “You came near when I called on you; you said ‘Do not fear!’” (v. 57). He
calls for vengeance on his oppressors, but his language is carefully phrased in forensic terms.
What his enemies have done offends justice (it is based on “malice” and “plotting” [v. 60]);
he feels confident, therefore, in drawing a righteous God’s attention to the “wrong” he has
suffered and in appealing to God to take up and judge “his cause” and to put things right.
Poem 4 (chapter 4), like poem 1, is dominated by the theme of tragic reversal of fortune.
The tone is set in the opening stanza with the reference to the fate of precious, sacred objects
(“How has the gold become dim, how the pure gold is changed! The sacred stones lie scat-
tered at the head of every street”), but this is developed at once into a metaphor for the fate
of people: the princes (vv. 5-8) and the priests (vv. 14-15), whose fall from grace has been
farthest, and above all “the precious children of Zion, worth their weight in fine gold” (v. 2).
Zion’s “chastisement” has been “greater than the punishment of Sodom” (v. 6). The terrible
fate of the children once more serves to symbolize the frightening abnormality of the situation:
parents, against the deepest instincts of nature, which even jackals display, do not feed their
young (vv. 3-4); indeed, “compassionate women” practice cannibalism (v. 10)! The disaster
is once more traced back to God’s “wrath” and “hot anger” (v. 11), provoked by sin, “the
sins of the prophets and the iniquities of her priests, who shed the blood of the righteous in
the midst of her” (v. 13). The blame for the disaster is placed squarely on the shoulders of the
religious leaders, not the people in general, but still the charges remain vague: what precisely
28   Introduction

are the “sins” alluded to, and who are “the righteous” who were murdered? Verse 12 hints,
though very obliquely, at a possible “sin” the prophets committed: they lulled the people into
a false sense of security by proclaiming the inviolability of Jerusalem, though this doctrine
is, interestingly, expressed by “the kings of the earth.”7 The ultimate punishment God has
inflicted, beyond the immediate suffering of hunger, death, and destruction, was exile: “the
Lord himself has scattered them”; “they became fugitives and wanderers; it was said among
the nations, ‘They shall stay here no longer’” (vv. 15-16).
In the first sixteen stanzas the poet employs the voice of a narrator to describe the disaster
in the third person but, as in poems 2 and 3, he is finally drawn into identification with the
victims and acknowledges that they are his own people. The poem ends (vv. 17-22) with a
passage in the first person plural. Its theme is Zion’s political weakness and vulnerability,
poignantly symbolized by the loss of her king (Zedekiah or, possibly, Josiah), “the Lord’s
anointed, the breath of our life .  .  . the one of whom we said, ‘Under his shadow we shall
live among the nations’” (v. 20). The poet touches on Zion’s relationship to three nations
who were leading actors in the unfolding drama, and who ganged up against her: a nation
(Egypt: cf. Jer 34:21-22; 37:5-11; Lam 5:6) to whom she looked vainly for salvation (v. 17);
her implacable oppressors (the Babylonians), “who dogged our steps so that we could not
walk in our streets,” who “chased us on the mountains” and “lay in wait for us in the wilder-
ness” (vv. 18-19); and finally Edom, who, as the only nation charged by name, becomes the
major focus of attention. Edom’s crime is taken as read: it long rankled in Israel’s national
memory that Edom had stood by, encouraging the enemy and gloating over Zion’s downfall
(Ps 137:7; Obad 10-14). The poet invokes the doctrine of “measure for measure”: Edom’s
sins will be uncovered and she will be punished (v. 22), and the “cup” of suffering that Zion
drank will pass to her. Then a dramatic reversal of fortune will occur: Zion will have served
out her punishment; God will keep her no longer in exile (v. 22).
In poem 5 (chapter 5), in a direct plea to “remember .  .  . what has befallen us,” the poet
addresses God on behalf of his community. His purpose is to remind God of Zion’s pitiable
state and so mollify his “anger” (v. 22) and arouse his compassion. God’s sovereignty over
history is acknowledged (v. 19, “But you, O Lord, reign forever; your throne endures to all
generations”) and gives logic to the plea: God is the ultimate cause of the disaster and so can
reverse it, though no basis for reversal is urged other than the pathos of Zion’s fate and the
excessive cruelty of her oppressors. Yet again, direct personal responsibility for the disas-
ter is muted, and more or less drowned out by the overwhelming sense of unjust suffering,
which is described in terms of grinding poverty and famine (vv. 4-6, 9-10, 13), disrespect
for persons (vv. 11-12), disruption of normal society (vv. 3, 8, 14), and a general sense of
national mourning and depression (vv. 15-18). The blame is put on a previous generation:
“our ancestors sinned; they are no more, and we bear their iniquities” (v. 7)—a clear hint,
7
“The dismay expressed in 4:12 at the breaching of Jerusalem’s gates alludes to the complex of traditions about Zion that
crystallized during the Davidic-Solomonic era and exerted a special influence on certain biblical writings (e.g., Psalms and
Isaiah .  .  . ). The tradition, commonly referred to as the ‘Zion tradition,’ had its conceptual linchpin in the belief that God,
conceived as the great warrior-king who was enthroned and thus made present in the temple (Pss 46:5; 47:2; 48:2; Isa 6:1),
chose Jerusalem as a dwelling place (Pss 78:68; 132:13). One of the principal implications of this belief was the understanding
that Jerusalem and its temple and the hill on which both stood were all endowed with cosmic potencies befitting the permanent
residence of the High God (Ps 132:8, 13-14), and thus Zion, the entire city-temple complex, was thought to be impregnable,
inviolable (cf. Ps 48:3-6)” (Dobbs-Allsopp, Lamentations, 132–33). See further Hermann Lichtenberger, “Der Mythos von
der Unzerstörbarkeit des Tempels,” in: Joannes Hahn, ed., Zerstörungen des Jerusalemer Tempels (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2002) 92–107.
 Introduction   29

surely, that the poet did not belong to the generation of the destruction, but lived some time
after. His subsequent confession, “woe to us, for we have sinned” (v. 16), should probably be
read in the light of the earlier reference and not seen as an acknowledgment of personal guilt.
The poet offers his suffering people a communal voice for their grief, in which is implicit a
hope that God will be moved to compassion and mercy, though this is not openly mentioned,
and the poem (and the whole book of Lamentations) ends on a downbeat, faltering note with
the bleak possibility that God may have “utterly rejected us” and be “angry with us beyond
measure” (v. 22). In other words, the relationship between God and Zion may be irreparably
broken, and the “restoration” for which the poet prays (v. 21) may no longer be possible. A
note of desperation creeps in, related to the fact that the desolation of Zion has continued
so long, with no sign of reversal: “Why have you forgotten us completely? Why have you
forsaken us these many days?” (v. 20)—further evidence that the poet did not live in the im-
mediate aftermath of the destruction.

4.3  The Theology of Targum Lamentations

Theologically Lamentations proved a difficult book for our Targumist: the scale of the
sufferings it depicts raised questions of theodicy for him. The book seems so often to hurl its
pleas fruitlessly against a silent heaven, and it is haunted by the thought, with which it closes,
that God may have finally abandoned his people. Our Targumist’s reading of the biblical text
is, however, close and careful, and arguably goes with the grain of the original, seen as a
whole. He maximizes the biblical text’s overt theological ideas that are in keeping with his
own worldview and that allow him to derive from it a message of hope for his people, who
find themselves in the same sort of exile and oppression as Lamentations describes. He makes
it a book intensely relevant to their situation.
The Targumist reinforces the original’s claim that the disaster was brought by God. It
happened by his decree: “the nations entered by decree (gezerah) of the Word of the Lord”
(1:15; cf. 1:1). Far from being a sign of God’s weakness, this was a demonstration of his power.
Rather than marking a final rupture between God and Israel, it was, in a paradoxical way, a
testimony to God’s continued engagement with his people. As we saw above (4.2), one of the
most disturbing aspects of Lamentations is the lack of a divine response: God’s voice breaks
in only once, and fleetingly, though it is with an oracle of hope (3:57). Our Targumist hears
God’s voice at three other points in Lamentations: at 1:1, in answer to the question implicit in
the opening <Eikhah (“How has it come about that .  .  .  ?”), at 2:20, where the second ques-
tion in the verse is seen as a dramatically rhetorical response to the first, and at 4:13, which
is taken as a reply to the question implicit in the previous verse as to how the promises of
the inviolability of Jerusalem, which even the nations believed, could have proved so false.
God’s answer in all three instances is given by the Attribute of Justice (middat dina<). The
primary context of the Rabbinic concept of the Attribute of Justice is the heavenly law-court,
the background of which lies in the rib- or controversy-pattern in the Hebrew Bible, depicting
God in dispute with his people.8 The Targumist hears Lamentations as an accusation against
8
On the rib-pattern see Helmer Ringgren, “rªb,” in TDOT 13:473–79; further, Berend Gemser, “The Rªb- or Controversy
Pattern in Hebrew Mentality,” in David Winton Thomas and Martin Noth, eds., Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East:
Presented to Harold Henry Rowley by the Society for Old Testament Study in Association with the Editorial Board of Vetus
Testamentum, in Celebration of his Sixty-fifth Birthday, 24 March 1955. VTSuppl 3 (Leiden: Brill, 1969) 120–37. On the Mid-
dat ha-Din in Rabbinic theology see Brady, The Rabbinic Targum, 52–60, and further George Foote Moore, Judaism in the
30   Introduction

God, who is, so to speak, arraigned before his own tribunal and called upon to justify his ways.
That justification is put in the mouth of the Attribute of Justice, who, paradoxically, offers the
case for the defense rather than the prosecution. Normally in the scenario of the celestial law-
court it is the Attribute of Justice who presents the case for the prosecution and is answered
by the Attribute of Mercy with a plea for clemency. The Attribute of Mercy is not mentioned
in Tg. Lam. because its place is taken by the Congregation of Zion, who enters her own plea
for mitigation in the form of a poignant description of her sufferings, with such force as to put
the divine judge in the dock and force the Attribute of Justice to defend him. The Targumist
does not minimize the strain in God’s relationships with Israel, but he effectively dispels the
silence of heaven that hangs so oppressively over the original work. The parties are talking,
even if it is across a courtroom, and that offers some hope of a resolution.
The Attribute of Justice’s defense of God is that he acted in response to Israel’s sin. In
other words, the suffering was inflicted as a punishment for violations of the covenant. I noted
(4.2) that although there are numerous occasions in Lamentations where Zion’s sins are ac-
knowledged, these can be heard as somewhat formal expressions of traditional piety. The sins
in question remain strikingly unspecific. The Targumist heavily reinforces these references to
sin and attempts to make them much more concrete. That the disaster was a response to sin is
the primary message of his theological prologue (1:1-4). The sins he identifies are both generic
violations of the Torah and specific historical sins. The generic include oppression of orphans
and widows (1:3), failure to free Israelite slaves (1:3), non-observance of the Pilgrim Festivals
(1:3), robberies (3:38), and idolatry (4:13). The specific include Israel’s tearful response in the
wilderness to the report of the spies about the Land (1:2)—a sin possibly because it showed
a lack of faith in God’s promises (see Note 10 ad loc.), Josiah’s disobedience of God’s com-
mand not to oppose Pharaoh Necho (1:18; cf. 4:20), and the murder of Zechariah the son of
Iddo, the high priest and faithful prophet “in the House of the Sanctuary of the Lord on the
Day of Atonement” (2:20).9
Israel sinned against the light: the people ignored Jeremiah’s call to repentance (1:2) as
well as the call of the Bat Qol (3:38). They sinned “against the decree of the Word (Memra) of
the Lord,” a phrase repeated twice, at 1:17 and 1:20. The expression “the Memra of the Lord”
is peculiar to the Targums and its meaning is much disputed.10 At one end of the spectrum are
those who argue that it denotes a kind of intermediary between God and the world, a divine
agent or hypostasis through whom God communicates with humanity. At the other are those
who claim that it is little more than reverential language, which came to be regarded as typical
of Targumic style and could be used in a purely formal way. Targumic usage is not univocal
and embraces a wide range of meanings. How does Memra function in Tg. Lam.? Does “the
decree of the Memra of the Lord” say anything more than “the decree of the Lord”? Prob-
ably: the idea is that the decree took the form of a divine utterance communicated to Israel.
In other words, Israel sinned against a clear divine injunction. The Targumist here may have
specifically in mind those passages in the Torah that spelled out what would happen to Israel
if it violated the terms of the covenant (e.g., Lev 26:14-45). That Memra denotes a concrete

First Centuries of the Christian Era. 3 vols. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927–30) 1:386–400; Ephraim E.
Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs, trans. Israel Abrahams (4th ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1995) 448–61.
 9
See the Notes below on all these passages.
10
On Memra in the Targum see Brady, The Rabbinic Targum, 46–52, and especially Robert Hayward, Divine Name and
Presence: The Memra (Totoway, NJ: Allanheld, Osmun, 1981).
 Introduction   31

divine utterance is reinforced by the one other occurrence of the word in Tg. Lam. At 3:57
the Hebrew, “You drew near on the day I called you. You said, ‘Do not fear!” is rendered,
“You brought near an angel to save me on the day that I prayed to you. You said by your
Memra: ‘Do not fear!’” The Targumist probably saw here, as in 1:17 and 20, an allusion to
some specific prophetic oracle (possibly Jer 30:10, 46:27-28, or Isa 35:4; cf. Isa 41:13; 43:1;
44:2). This is the primary meaning, but it is hard to deny that the concept of God’s Memra
also serves in this context, and possibly elsewhere in Tg. Lam., to transcendentalize the idea
of God. The Targumist carefully avoids implying that God himself drew near to the prophet:
rather, he sent his angel; he approached through his agent. Similarly the Memra acts as a
“buffer” between God and the world. The prophet’s encounter was not with God himself but
with his Word. This would be in line with the Targumist’s use of two other divine agencies
or instruments to communicate with his world, the Attribute of Justice (1:1; 2:20; 4:20: see
above) and the Bat Qol (3:38).
Strengthening the notion of Israel’s sinfulness allows our Targumist to match the punish-
ment more easily to the crime and so to justify God’s ways. The punishment was certainly
heavy, but so were the sins that provoked it. He appeals to the doctrine of “measure for mea-
sure” to press home the point that the punishment was proportionate. The idea figures promi-
nently in the “theological prologue”: “The House of Judah has gone into exile, because they
oppressed orphans and widows, and because of the great servitude they imposed upon their
brothers, the Israelites, who sold themselves to them, and they did not proclaim freedom to
their male and female slaves who were of the seed of Israel. And therefore they in turn have
been given into the hand of the nations; and the Congregation of the House of Judah dwells
in the midst of the nations, and she has found no respite from the harsh servitude with which
they have enslaved her” (1:3; see also 5:8 and 1:1, and further below).
Though our Targumist reinforces Lamentations’ perfunctory and vague confessions of sin,
he is content to accept the verses where the blame is deflected from the people as a whole onto
their religious leaders, the priests and prophets. Particularly noteworthy are the accusations
against the prophets. Lamentations itself twice blames them for leading the people astray and
failing to turn them to repentance (2:14; 4:13). The Targum gives strong renderings of both
these verses (though the Targumist is careful to point out that the prophets were false prophets;
he does not attack prophecy as such), and he introduces the same theme into a third verse (4:6).
Similar criticisms echo in the additional Targum to 4:18, which may be original though now
attested only in ms A (see above, 1.3 [7]). There is a strong intertextuality between this and the
Targum to 1:4, which accuses Israel of not observing the Pilgrim Festivals. At 4:18, however,
Israel complains that it did not observe the festivals because “the counselors of Jerusalem beset
our ways, so that we could not go up to Jerusalem, for they were oppressing those going up three
times a year to Jerusalem. But their arrogance came up before the Lord, and the time for our
House to become desolate drew near; the days of our retribution were accomplished, the time
for us to drink the cup of cursing arrived, the time arrived for these and those to go into exile.”
In other words, this Targum agrees with 1:4 that failure to observe the Pilgrim Festivals was
a major factor in the destruction of the Temple, but it lays the blame for this non-observance
at the door of the leadership, not the people as a whole: the latter suffered for the sins of the
former. And the leadership in question here is not the religious (priests or prophets) but the lay
élite (the counselors of Jerusalem). This criticism of the leadership may reflect conditions in
the Targumist’s own community and his own position within it. The omission may have been
occurred because the leadership felt its force all too keenly.
32   Introduction

The punishment for Israel’s sins that the Targumist stresses is exile. The theme of exile
is, of course, already present in the biblical text (1:3; 2:9; 4:15-16, 22), but it is muted and,
unlike Second Isaiah, seen from the standpoint not of those who were carried off to Babylon
but of those who were left behind in war- and famine-ravaged Judah. It is the sufferings of
the latter that are overwhelmingly in view in the biblical book. The Targumist signals the
centrality of exile to his reading of Lamentations in the opening verse, where a draws a par-
allel between the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden and the expulsion of
Israel from its land. The basis of this comparison is overtly exegetical, the repetition of the
word <Eikhah in Genesis 3:9 and Lamentations 1:1 (see below Note 2 ad loc.), but it may
also resonate with the tradition that there was some sort of equivalence between the Temple
and the Garden of Eden.11 Comparing the destruction of the Temple and the ensuing exile
with the Fall and the expulsion from Eden is a striking way of stating its importance in his-
tory, and would have struck a chord with Diaspora communities that heard the Targum. But
our Targumist and the community for whom he first composed his Targum almost certainly
lived in the Land, not in the Diaspora (see above, 1.8). Why then does he encapsulate the
punishment Zion suffered for her sin in the word “exile”? The answer probably is that for him
“exile” is a complex idea that is not to be equated simply with physical expulsion from the
Land. Rather, it relates primarily to the loss of sovereignty and statehood. Thus it is possible
to live in the Land and still be in a kind of “internal exile,” and that exile cannot end till the
kingdom is restored to Israel and Zion receives back her scattered children. Seeing “exile” as
the supreme punishment for violations of the covenant fits well with the Targumist’s broadly
Deuteronomic theological stance.12
The Targumist builds up a rational explanation of the disaster. It was fully explicable in
terms of God’s punishment of his people for serious violations of the terms of the covenant.
This rational reading, however, receives something of a jolt at 2:9, where he states that Jeru-
salem fell only because of a trick: the gates were not breached until the enemy defiled them
with pigs’ blood. Where does this leave his carefully constructed theology? There is a long
history to this tradition, and he may simply have felt that he should work it in as an aggadic
embellishment. But he may also have been trying a make a more serious homiletic point.
The pigs’ blood is symbolic of the pollution caused by sin. The defense of Zion is ultimately
11
Temple = the Garden (of Eden) is an important motif in Tg. Cant. Thus Song 5:1, “I have come into my Garden, my
Sister, Bride .  .  .” is rendered “The Holy One, blessed be he, said to his people, the House of Israel: ‘I have come into my
Temple, which you have built for me, my Sister, assembly of Israel, who is likened to a chaste bride. I have caused my Shek-
hinah to reside among you.  .  .  .’” The idea may be that the Temple is Paradise restored, but there may also be an implication
that Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, the “navel of the earth,” where the “foundation stone of the world (the <eben ¡etiyyah) is
located, are the site of Paradise lost and Paradise restored. Note the strongly “Edenic” language used of them in 1 Enoch 24–26.
See further Alexander, Targum Canticles, 146, Note 1, and Tg. Lam. 1:1, Note 2.
12
On the “Deuteronomic stance” of Rabbinic theology see Philip S. Alexander, “Torah and Salvation in Tannaitic Litera-
ture,” in D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid, eds., Justification and Variegated Nomism I: The Complexities of
Second Temple Judaism (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001) 261–301, especially 288–97.
N. T. Wright is correct to argue that living in the Land does not of itself necessarily mean the end of exile, if the kingdom has
not been restored to Israel (The New Testament and the People of God [London: SPCK, 1992] 268–72). From this perspective
the return from Babylon did not fully negate the exile, even for those who returned. Lamentations and the Targum would prob-
ably have agreed that Jews living in the Land under foreign oppression remain “exiles.” On the complexities of the concept
of “exile” see: James M. Scott, ed., Exile: Old Testament, Jewish and Christian Perceptions (Leiden: Brill, 1997); Daniel L.
Smith-Christopher, A Biblical Theology of Exile (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002). The idea was important not only for Jews:
see Tim Whitmarsh, “‘Greece is the World’: Exile and Identity in the Second Sophistic,” in Simon Goldhill, ed., Being Greek
under Rome: Cultural Identity, the Second Sophistic and the Development of Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2001) 269–305.
 Introduction   33

spiritual, not military: she is impregnable only if she keeps the laws of kashrut and other such
mißvot (see Note 30 ad loc.).
The Targumist offers his congregation not only a rational explanation of catastrophe in
terms of sin and punishment, but also the elements of a theology of hope. Though he does not
try to mitigate the horrors of the disaster and, indeed, is inclined to heighten them dramati-
cally (e.g., 1:16-17; 4:9-10), his reading of Lamentations is shot through with hope. He can
claim a basis for this hope within the biblical book itself, particularly the end of chapter 3,
but he unquestionably gives it more prominence than Lamentations does. God is merciful,
and although he himself has brought the disaster on his people as punishment for their sins,
he will not remain forever unmoved by their plight (2:18). They have at hand the means of
atonement: repentance (2:19; 3:41, 42), bearing their chastisement without complaint till they
have exhausted it (3:28), study of the Mishnah (2:19), praying in synagogue and observing
the rituals of penitence and mourning (2:10). God’s anger will eventually be assuaged and he
will turn and punish the nations for the evil they have brought upon Israel. The principle of
“measure for measure” will operate here as well: “so you shall summon [one] against them,
and they shall be as desolate as I” (1:21). Israel will have its revenge and will rejoice over its
fallen oppressors as they now rejoice over Israel (cf. 1:22; 3:61-66). Our Targumist does not
formally explain why the nations should be punished for acting as God’s agents, but he hints
that it is because of their excessive cruelty. This is surely the point of the aggadah about the
sacks made out of Torah scrolls at 5:5. The desecration of the Torah scrolls is compounded
by the gratuitously cruel purpose to which they are put, viz., to inflict suffering and degrada-
tion on “the officers of the children of Israel.” Though Nebuchadnezzar acted as God’s agent
in punishing Israel he was certainly not authorized to behave in this way. The sexual sins the
“impure nations” inflicted on the Israelites, both male and female, when they had them in their
power (4:2, 3; 5:11) were also excessive and would be punished. Thus God’s anger would
turn from his people to their tormentors. A correlation is implied: the more Israel drains the
cup of punishment through suffering at the hands of its oppressors, the more, paradoxically,
she is filling the cup for them and hastening the day when it will be finally taken from Israel
and passed to them (see Tg. to 4:21).
The agent of God’s deliverance of Israel will be the Messiah, to whom our Targumist
finds allusion in 2:22 and 4:21-22. His messianic scenario is conventional and close to that
of the >Amidah.13 The Messiah is a political figure and the messianic redemption essentially
a political process. The King Messiah and Elijah the High Priest (who, in our Targumist’s
view, accompanies rather than precedes the Messiah and functions as a warrior priest) will,
like a second Moses and Aaron, initiate a new Exodus, gathering in the exiles who have been
scattered abroad. The eschatological foe from whom they will deliver Israel is identified, as
in classic Rabbinic eschatology, as Edom/Rome (unlike Targum Canticles, Ishmael/Islam
does not figure anywhere in our Targumist’s scenario of the endtime), whose two great cities,
Rome in Italy and Constantinople (New Rome) in “Romania,” will be devastated (see Tg. to
4:21-22). Both were evidently still functioning as twin capitals of the Roman empire when
our Targumist wrote, an indication of his date (see below, 8.2). The Tg. to 4:17 reads like a
13
On Messianism in the Talmudic period see Philip S. Alexander, “The King Messiah in Rabbinic Judaism,” in John Day,
ed., King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998) 456–73, and Alexander,
“The Rabbis and Messianism,” in Markus Bockmuehl and James Carleton-Paget, eds., Redemption and Resistance: The Mes-
sianic Hopes of Jews and Christians in Antiquity (London: T & T Clark, 2007) 227–244. Further Reuven Kimelman, ”The
Messiah of the Amidah: A Study in Comparative Messianism,” JBL 116 (1997) 313–24.
34   Introduction

bitter criticism of a pro-Roman party within the Jewish community: “Our eyes continue to be
worn out with looking for our help, which we expect from the Romans, [but] which has proved
vain for us, with our watching wherewith we watch for the Edomites—a nation that does not
save.” Tg. to 5:11 highlights the utter shamelessness of the Romans: they raped the married
women; the “Chaldeans” (= the Babylonians) raped only the virgins (see Note 19 ad loc.). The
divinely appointed agents of Rome’s destruction will be the Persians: they will devastate and
depopulate both Rome and Constantinople in precisely the same way as Edom/Rome devas-
tated and depopulated Zion. Once again the principle of “measure for measure” is invoked.
How in precise political terms Persia and the King Messiah will collaborate in defeating
Israel’s oppressors is not spelled out, but our Targumist seems to envisage the heavy military
operations against mighty Rome as being conducted by the Persians, who were presumably
a political force to be reckoned with when he wrote. Unlike the Qumran covenanters, he is a
political realist and does not see the King Messiah as himself overthrowing the great powers
of his day and taking on the world.14 Persia in his scenario thus reprises the role it played
under Cyrus in facilitating the redemption. The messianic redemption for our Targumist is
essentially a this-worldly, political process but, like the Targumist of Canticles, he is a pacifist.
He makes it abundantly clear to those with ears to hear that to engage in overt political or
military action to force the redemption would be wrong. The redemption is bound up with two
great measures of iniquity: the measure of Zion’s iniquity must be drained through expiatory
suffering, and the measure of Edom’s iniquity must be filled so full that her punishment can
no longer be delayed. But only God can judge when both these conditions have been met. The
redemption can, therefore, only come at the time of God’s choosing. All the Congregation
of Israel can do is repent and mourn for its sins, in the sure and certain hope that, though he
tarries, the Messiah will finally come.

4.4  Targum Lamentations and the Rabbinic Theology of Catastrophe

Rabbinic literature is rich in comment specifically on Lamentations, and in more general
reflection on the sufferings of the Jewish people. The fullest collection of these traditions is to
be found in Lamentations Rabba (Lam.R.). The Rabbinic origins of this work are in no doubt
and it can reasonably be taken as articulating the classic rabbinic theology of catastrophe.
The complex redactional history of Lam.R., and its literary relationship to Tg. Lam., which
is roughly contemporary to it and shares much of its material, will be discussed elsewhere
(see below, 6.1.6). Here we will focus only on one question: taking Lam.R. as a whole, how
does its theology of catastrophe compare with that of Tg. Lam.?15 The level of agreement is

14
On Qumran militarism see Philip S. Alexander, “The Evil Empire: The Qumran Eschatological War Cycle and the
Origins of Jewish opposition to Rome,” in Shalom M. Paul, Robert A. Kraft, Lawrence H. Schiffman, and Weston W. Fields,
eds., with the assistance of Eva Ben-David, Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of
Emanuel Tov (Leiden: Brill, 2003) 17–31, and for Tg .Cant.’s pacifism see Alexander, Targum Canticles, 25–26.
15
The most perceptive discussion of the theology of Lam.R. is Mintz, Hurban, 49–83. See also Chaim Raphael, The
Walls of Jerusalem: An Excursion into Jewish History (London: Chatto & Windus, 1968) 92–203; Jacob Neusner, The Midrash
Compilations of the Sixth and Seventh Centuries: An Introduction to the Rhetorical, Logical, and Topical Program, Volume
One: Lamentations Rabbah (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989); Shaye J. D. Cohen, “The Destruction: From Scripture to Midrash,”
Prooftexts 2 (1982) 18–39; David Stern, “Rhetoric and Midrash: The Case of the Mashal,” Prooftexts 1 (1981) 261–91; idem,
“Imitatio Hominis: Anthropomorphism and the Character(s) of God in Rabbinic Literature,” Prooftexts 12 (1992) 151–74;
David Kraemer, Responses to Suffering in Classical Rabbinic Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995) 140–46;
Linafelt, Surviving Lamentations, 100–16.
 Introduction   35

undoubtedly high. Lam.R., like Tg. Lam., takes a broadly Deuteronomistic view of destruc-
tion and exile: it is God’s punishment of Israel for abandoning the Torah and breaching the
terms of the covenant. A standard refrain that closes many of its Proems runs: “Since they
sinned, they were exiled; and since they were exiled, Jeremiah began to lament over them,
<Eikhah” (see Proems 13, 14, 23, 26, 30, 31, 32, 33). Lam.R. 1:1 §1 deduces by gematria
from <Eikhah that Israel committed all thirty-six sins for which karet is stipulated in the Torah.
Proem 2 argues that the true guardians of a city are “the instructors in Bible and Mishnah,
who meditate upon, teach and preserve the Torah day and night” (cf. Tg. Lam. 2:19). By
implication Jerusalem fell because her people neglected the study, and hence the implemen-
tation, of Torah, which is conceived of in its broad rabbinic sense as including the oral Torah
(the Mishnah). Like Tg. Lam., Lam.R. argues that Israel sinned against the light, against
specific prophetic warnings, particularly from Jeremiah (this is the burden of Proem 34: note
Jeremiah’s distraught apostrophe to the scattered body-parts of the massacred Israelites, “My
children, did I not warn and tell you, ‘Give glory to the Lord your God, before it grows dark,
and before your feet stumble on the mountains of twilight’ [Jer 13:16; cf. Proem 3]),” and it
identifies the concrete sins that led to its downfall as particularly idolatry (Proem 22, and 1:9
§36), sexual immorality (4:15 §18), and murder (Proem 23: “they killed a priest, a prophet,
and a judge; they shed innocent blood”), cardinal sins that, in the rabbinic worldview, a Jew
should accept martyrdom rather than commit. Martyrdom is an important theme in Lam.R.
because the martyrs are exemplars of the righteous Jew who rejected these sins (1:16 §50;
2:2 §4; cf. 1:16 §§45–46; 4:2 §4). Like Tg. Lam., it regards the murder of Zechariah the son
of Iddo as having been particularly heinous and a major cause of the disaster of 587 (Proem
23; 4:13 §16; cf. Tg. Lam. 2:20), and it, too, makes the link between the “frivolous weeping”
of the Israelites in the wilderness at the report of the spies and the weeping of Israel after the
Destruction (Proem 24; 1:2 §23: cf. Tg. Lam. 1:2).
But, like Tg. Lam., Lam.R. manages to wrest consolation from the stony ground of
Lamentations. In the cacophony of voices in the biblical book it hears God’s voice, loud and
clear—more frequently, in fact, than Tg. Lam., because, in an astonishing exegetical move
that our Targumist refuses to follow, it transfers the bitter lamenting of Zion wholesale to
God himself (see below). It claims that the nations have overreached themselves in acting
as God’s agents by breaching universal principles of morality, and thus putting themselves
under God’s judgment. Like Tg. Lam. (4:2), it recoils from their sexual abuse of their victims
(1:16 §§45–46; 4:2 §4). The appalling treatment meted out to Israel by the nations transforms
her status from that of sinner to that of victim, and as victim she becomes worthy of compas-
sion and deliverance (Proem 31). Lam.R. finds hope in the fact that God tempered justice with
mercy in his treatment of the exiles, carefully choosing the time of year at which to exile them
in order to mitigate their sufferings (1:14 §42; cf. 3:1 §1, where geber is interpreted as gibbor,
from which the point is derived that God strengthened the Israelites to withstand all the afflic-
tions he brought on them), and he poured out his anger “on wood and stones rather than on
Israel itself” (4:11 §14). It plays on the fact that 2:4 says he “bent his bow like an enemy” not
“as an enemy” to argue that he restrained his anger, and this restraint is extended to Israel’s
rebellion: “they did not go to the extreme of rebellion against the Attribute of Justice, and the
Attribute of Justice did not go to the extreme in punishing them” (Lam.R. 2:4 §8; cf. Lam.R
1:1 §3, where a similar strategy is employed to expound “like a widow”; Targum may hint
at a similar interpretation: see 1:1 Note 6). Lam.R. looks forward to the redemption and the
coming of the Messiah, whose name is “Comforter”—a direct challenge to Lamentations’
36   Introduction

claim that Zion has “no one to comfort her” (1:16 §51: see Lam. 1:2, 9, 16, 17, 21; cf. Proems
21, 23, and 24; 1:13 §41; 2:2 §4 [Bar Kokhba as the false Messiah]; 2:3 §6). It wrings hope
even from the fact that populous Rome is so prosperous, whereas foxes roam the deserted
and ruined Temple (5:18 §1; Aqiba paradoxically laughs at both). It responds to the faltering
ending of the biblical book with the affirmation: “If there is rejection there is no hope; but if
there is anger there is hope, because whoever is angry may in the end be appeased” (5:22 §1).
There can be no question of a final rejection of Israel: “God’s election of Israel still endures
.  .  . the covenant of priesthood still endures .  .  . the covenant of the Levites still endures
.  .  . the covenant with the Sanctuary still endures .  .  . the covenant with the kingship of the
House of David still endures .  .  . the covenant with Jerusalem still endures .  .  . so long as
the Lord your God (Deut 7:6) endures” (Proem 23; cf. 1:2 §23; 3:21 §7).
Lam.R., like Tg. Lam., globalizes the message of Lamentations and sees the biblical book
as speaking as much to the plight of Israel after the destruction of 70 (1:5 §31; 1:17 §42; 2:2
§4), the wars under Trajan (1:16 §45; 1:17 §42), and the debacle of Bar Kokhba (1:16 §45;
2:2 §4; 3:58 §9; 5:5 §1) as after the destruction of 587. Indeed, one of its abiding messages is
that the destroyers of the Temple and the oppressors of Israel act with depressing consistency,
so what can be said of Nebuchadnezzar and the captain of his bodyguard, Nebuzaradan, can
be applied equally to “accursed” Vespasian, Trajan, and Hadrian.
The correspondences between Tg. Lam. and Lam.R. are undoubtedly impressive and
indicate that both belong to the same milieu. They extend not only to their broad theology
and their detailed exegesis,16 but also to their rhetoric. Both heighten dramatically the plight
of the exiles and their tragic reversal of fortune (see, e.g., Lam.R. 1:16 §§48, 51). This offers
the survivors consolation by articulating and testifying to their suffering, and at the same
time highlights the pathos of their situation and evokes compassion. But it also demands a
matching rhetorical heightening of their sins in order to explain such an appalling downfall,
and of the intensity of the divine response to their plight in order to console them. But there
are also some subtle differences between the two texts. Lam.R. shows scant concern for
Temple and priestly matters. When it nostalgically idealizes the city of Jerusalem that was
destroyed, it tends to stress its secular side rather than its Temple and priesthood (see, e.g., 1:1
§2; 2:15 §19; 4:2 §§2 and 4). As Mintz notes: “The Rabbis in Lamentations Rabbah evince
no interest in sins against the regime of worship in the Temple, that vast cultic area to which
most of the Jews’ religious obligations were related.”17 Given that Lamentations itself puts
stress on the destruction of the Temple and the desecration of the priests (see 4.3 above),
this is unquestionably a significant shift of emphasis in the Midrash, which may reflect the
overwhelmingly non-priestly membership and ethos of the rabbinic movement in which it
originated. Tg. Lam. has, proportionately, more to say about priestly matters, but this may be
due largely to the fact that as Targum it could not have avoided such an important component
of the biblical text.18 Mintz also claims that Lam.R. “as a collection of rabbinic materials, is
conspicuously deficient in statements referring to the Messiah, resurrection, and the Age-to-

16
For a systematic listing of the detailed parallels see the Notes below.
17
Mintz, Hurban, 55.
18
There is a possibility that the Targums were preserved in late antiquity in priestly, as opposed to Rabbinic, circles, and
may have had a decidedly priestly orientation. See Philip S. Alexander, “What happened to the Jewish Priesthood after 70,” in:
Zuleika Rodgers, ed., Festschrift for Sean Freyne (forthcoming). However, Tg. Lam., like Tg. Cant., is almost certainly in origin
a rabbinic Targum (note its advocacy at 2:19 of the study of the Mishnah, the manifesto of the rabbinic movement).
 Introduction   37

Come.”19 This may underestimate the messianic references in Lam.R. (see above), but it can
hardly be denied that Messianism is subdued and allusive in Lam.R., and it seems to play a
lesser part in Lam.R.’s theology of catastrophe than in Tg. Lam.
A much more striking and significant difference is the absence from Tg. Lam. of any ref-
erence to the pathos of God, which figures so memorably in Lam.R.’s theology of catastrophe.
Lam.R. depicts God in daringly anthropomorphic language as overwhelmed by grief at the
suffering he himself has brought on his people, and as himself in need of consolation. The
classic statement of this in the astonishing Proem 24 may be a late addition to the text,20 but
the idea is implicit elsewhere in Lam.R. (see, e.g., Proems 2 and 25; 1:1 §1; 1:16 §51; 3:28
§9), and indeed is widespread in other classic Rabbinic texts.21 It would be hard to think of
a bolder way of shattering the silence of God in Lamentations than these passages on God’s
pathos, or of offering a stronger antidote to despair than such dramatic assurances of God’s
empathy with his people’s suffering.22 This extreme and paradoxical anthropomorphism, which
also pervades many of the elaborate me¡alim in Lam.R.,23 is totally absent from Tg. Lam.
This absence is nowhere more keenly felt than in the opening verse, where the Targum seems
deliberately to shy away from saying that God mourns over his people. It does indeed say that
he pronounced <Eikhah over the fall of Adam and Eve, but it could hardly have avoided say-
ing that, since it is explicit in the biblical text. But it pointedly does not claim, as do Lam.R.
Proem 4 and the Midrashic parallels (see Tg. Lam. 1:1, Note 2 below), that God pronounced
the <Eikhah of Lam 1:1 as well. Rather, the Targum circumspectly casts the sentence in the
passive: “How has it been decreed against Jerusalem and her people that they should be
condemned to banishment and that ‘<Eikhah’ should be pronounced over them in mourning,
just as Adam and Eve were condemned, when they were banished from the Garden of Eden,
and the Lord of the World pronounced ‘<Eikhah’ over them in mourning.” It might be urged
that the passives here are typical of reverential Targumic style, but that simply makes the
point. The whole structure of the Targum’s exposition of 1:1 turns on the assumption that it
is Jeremiah, not God, who pronounces <Eikhah here. God’s voice only comes in through the
answer of the Attribute of Justice in the second half of the verse (see 4.3 above). The Midrash
is happy to make God the subject; the Targum is not. Our Targumist’s more transcendent view
of God, which sees God as communicating with his people through mediators (the Attribute
of Justice, the Memra, the Bat Qol), would have made him uncomfortable with such extreme
anthropomorphism. He has to find other ways of comforting the Congregation of Israel than
with the idea of a suffering God.

19
Mintz, Hurban, 75.
20
On Proem 24 see Mintz, Hurban, 57–62; David Stern, Parables in Midrash: Narrative and Exegesis in Rabbinic Litera-
ture (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991) 124–27; David Stern and Mark J. Mirsky, Rabbinic Fantasies (Phila-
delphia: Jewish Publications Society of America, 1990) 47–57; Linafelt, Surviving Lamentations, 104–16.
21
See Peter Kuhn, Gottes Trauer und Klage in der rabbinische Überlieferung (Leiden: Brill, 1978).
22
It is hard to tell how seriously this is meant theologically. Is it purely homiletic, or is there a real belief in the passibility
of God? The doctrine of the passibility of God is found in later Qabbalah, which represents God, through the Shekhinah, as
bound up in the processes of creation and history, but it would be unwarranted to assume that such ideas were present at this
early date. The texts remain, however, extraordinarily suggestive, and are so reminiscent of aspects of Christian incarnational
theology that one wonders if there might not be some influence. Certainly it is interesting that, faced with human suffering and
catastrophe, the Rabbis should have felt any adequate response had to include God’s intimate involvement in the world.
23
Stern, Parables, 97–101 and passim.
38   Introduction

5. Targum Lamentations and the Masoretic Text

5.1  Targum Lamentations as Translation: General Characteristics

Targum as a genre is a kind of translation, and this imposes certain constraints on its
literary form and content, of which the Targumist was clearly aware. Even when he is para-
phrasing he feels he has to mirror the form of the original, and this involves translating every
word of it in basically the same sequence. He cannot skip words or verses or rearrange the
order, as can be done in Rewritten Bible.1 And even when he is applying midrashic prin-
ciples of interpretation he cannot introduce features typical of Midrash as a literary genre,
which would be incompatible with the basic form of the original. So it is impossible for him
to quote named authorities or use citation formulae (even when in effect he is quoting other
parts of Scripture), or to lay bare his exegetical reasoning in the way that would be standard
if he were compiling a Midrash. Interestingly, this mirroring of the original apparently does
not extend to its poetic structure. There are parts of Tg. Lam. where, because the translation
is literal, the poetic form is more or less preserved, but there are others where it is completely
lost in the paraphrase and turned into prose (e.g., 1:1-4). Nowhere, however, does our Tar-
gumist seem consciously to attempt to represent the poetic meter of the original. It is hard to
tell how aware he would have been of the poetry of Lamentations. One would need to have
a very poor ear indeed not to hear it. Any competent reader of the Hebrew, reciting it aloud,
could hardly avoid hearing its rhythms, which were obvious even to Jerome (see 5.4.3 below).
One copy of the Lamentations from Qumran may actually have set it out in poetic lines.2 A
metrical translation into Aramaic would, of course, have been difficult, but not impossible.
There are Aramaic poems, free compositions, found in some of the Pentateuchal Targumim,
so there was a tradition of Aramaic religious poetry on which to draw.3 One must, therefore,
conclude that our Targumist has sacrificed the poetic form not simply for convenience but for
homiletic or didactic reasons as well. He saw it as his primary aim to convey the meaning or
the religious message, not the poetic form.4 He has, however, faithfully preserved the verse

1
Philip S. Alexander, “Retelling the Old Testament,” in D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson, eds., It is Written: Scrip-
ture Citing Scripture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988) 99–121.
2
3Q3 (3QLam): see Maurice Baillet in Maurice Baillet, Josef T. Milik, and Roland de Vaux, Les “Petites Grottes” de
Qumrân. DJD III (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962) 95, pl. XVIII. Though the fragments of the ms are extremely tiny, Baillet’s
reconstruction convincingly shows that each strophe was presented on its own line. Whether this indicates a recognition of
the poetic form or was simply dictated by the acrostic is debatable. The other copies of Lamentations (4Q111 [4QLam]; 5Q6
[5QLama]; 5Q7 [5QLamb]) present the text continuously. All five chapters of Lamentations are attested in the Scrolls. Lamen-
tations 1:1 is quoted in 4Q179 (4QapocrLam A) 2 4-5, and in 4Q241 (4QFragments citing Lamentations). On the use of the
biblical Lamentations at Qumran see below, 7.1.1.
3
See Michael L. Klein, Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch. 2 vols. (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union
College Press, 1986) 1:xxviii–xxix.
4
Jan-Wim Wesselius, “Completeness and Closure in Targumic Literature: The Emulation of Biblical Hebrew Poetry in
Targum Jonathan to the Former Prophets,” JAB 3 (2001) 237–47, suggests that the Targumists occasionally attempted to rep-
resent some of the stylistic features of biblical poetry, e.g., assonance. See further idem, “Biblical Poetry through Targumic
Eyes: Onkelos’ Treatment of Genesis 49:8-12,” in Janet Dyk et al., eds., Give Ear to my Words: Psalms and other Poetry in and
around the Hebrew Bible. Essays in Honour of Professor N. A. van Uchelen (Amsterdam: Societas Hebraica Amstelodamensis,
1996) 131–45.
 Introduction   39

divisions: there is no running-on between the verses, so it is possible, even when it is at its
most paraphrastic, to read the Targum verse by verse against the Hebrew.5
Tg. Lam. is a curious mixture of a number of broad types of translation. Type A translates
the original very directly, word for word. If it does make additions they are very short and
intended simply to draw out the literal sense as understood by the Targumist. The bulk of Tg.
Lam. is of this type, good examples of which can be found in chapter 3: see especially 3:1-
3 and 61-66. Type B translation is paraphrastic and expansive and introduces considerable
quantities of material that is patently not in the original. Type B falls into two sub-types: B1
is in the form of a base-text + detachable glosses, in which the additions can be bracketed
out leaving a viable literal translation: an example of this can be found at 5:5; B2 is in the
form of a dissolved paraphrase in which all the original words can be found translated in the
correct sequence but the additions cannot be bracketed out to leave a viable base-translation.
The most obvious case of this is 1:1.
These two types of translation correspond very roughly in Tg. Lam. to the traditional
distinction in Jewish Bible interpretation between Peshat and Derash, type A corresponding
to the former, and type B to the latter. The historical evolution of these two styles of exegesis
within Jewish hermeneutics is much debated, and the meaning of the key terms has changed
over time, but the sense in which I am using them here is the sense in which they would have
been understood by Rashi.6 Peshat and Derash represent two quite different hermeneutical
approaches to Scripture. Peshat in effect treats Scripture as “speaking in the language of men”
(cf. b. Ber. 31b). Though it is Holy Writ, it has to be interpreted in a common-sense way, like
any other human discourse, by appealing to the usage of the language in which it was origi-
nally written. Peshat, therefore, more or less corresponds to the modern philological approach,
though it is less guided by scientific principles and accumulated scientific knowledge. Derash,
however, treats the words of the text as ciphers or symbols pointing to a deeper meaning. The
text is regarded as a unique divine speech in which all truth is somehow hidden, waiting to be
discovered by clever exegesis. The motto of Derash was supplied by Ben Bag Bag: “Turn it
[Torah] and turn it again, for everything is in it” (m. <Abot 5:22). The interpretative context of
Derash is not common speech but Scripture as a whole. Thus Derash senses that a word in
one verse is alluding to an occurrence of the same word in another verse and draws homiletic
meaning from this. Derash is a way of reading into any part of Scripture an overarching theo-
logical system that is seen as the primary context of meaning. Viewed from this perspective,
type B1 translation in Tg. Lam. is closer to type A than to type B2, and could be seen as a
rather special case of it. It is type B2 that really corresponds hermeneutically to Derash.7 It

5
He has, however, by default, observed the enjambement that characterizes much of the poetry of Lamentations. Enjambe-
ment, a mark surely of the sophisticated lyricism of the biblical poets, gives the text a more prosy feel. See Dobbs-Allsop,
Lamentations, 18–20, and further idem, “The Enjambing Line in Lamentations: A Taxonomy (Part I),” ZAW 113 (2001) 1–16;
“The Effects of Enjambement in Lamentations (Part 2),” ZAW 113 (2001) 219–39.
6
On Peshat and Derash see David Weiss Halivni, Peshat and Derash: Plain and Applied Meaning in Rabbinic Exegesis
(New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991). See further James Barr, The Typology of Literalism in Ancient Bible
Translations. Nachrichten von der kön. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaft zu Göttingen, Phil.-Hist. Klasse 11 (Göttingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 1979) 279–35; Raphael Loewe, “The ‘Plain’ Meaning of Scripture in Early Jewish Exegesis,” Papers of the
Institute of Jewish Studies 1 (London: Institute for Jewish Studies, 1964) 140–85.
7
See further 5.2 (3) below. This is a slightly different classification from the one I proposed in “Jewish Aramaic Transla-
tions of Hebrew Scriptures.” There my type A Targum equates with type A + type B1 here, and my type B Targum equates with
type B2 here. There the border was drawn basically along hermeneutical lines (Peshat v. Derash). Here the distinction is drawn
along formal lines (non-expansive v. expansive). Both classifications are valid, and serve different analytical purposes. I used
40   Introduction

is not easy to rigidly demarcate the two types, which I have defined in a rather ideal-typical
way. What, for example, are we to do with a translation that offers a double Peshat render-
ing of a single Hebrew word (as happens, e.g., with Heb. mi¡batteha in 1:7; see Note 32 ad
loc.)? In that the equivalents taken separately give a Peshat sense we would seem to have a
Peshat translation. However, if the implication is that both renderings are equally valid, then
this points to a concept of the polvalency of the text of Scripture that is more characteristic
of Derash.
Our Targumist has included both Peshat and Derash in his translation, but how did he
conceive of the relationship between them? Though we can only speculate, it is reasonably
clear that he saw the Peshat reading as the place to start. As we have already noted, the bulk
of his translation is Peshat, and a Peshat translation clearly underlies even a Derash rendering
such as we find at 1:1. However, it is Derash that determines the overall meaning of the text,
and it will certainly have priority in those cases where the Targumist perceives the Peshat as
standing in conflict or tension with his theological system. I argued that the massive expan-
sions of the opening four verses of our Targum were intended to establish the theological
perspective from which the text should be read (3 above): thereafter the translation can resort
basically to its default mode, Peshat. This implies a hierarchical relationship between the
two modes in which, though the Peshat is the starting-point of the exegetical process, if the
Peshat yields a theologically unsatisfactory sense, then Derash will take precedence over it
in establishing the meaning of the text.8
Both Peshat and Derash have to be closely bound to the words of Scripture. Throughout
Tg. Lam. the text presupposed is the standard Masoretic Text, with its consonants, vocaliza-
tion, and cantillation. There are very few cases where we have any reason to suspect our
Targumist may have had a different Vorlage, or knew a different tradition of vocalization.9
That there is a link between the translation and the original is obvious in the case of Peshat,
but it is true also in Derash. There must always be a “peg” in Scripture on which the Derash
is hung. The ways in which Targum translates Scripture have been much studied, and I will
explore those used by Tg. Lam. case by case in the Notes below, but I will resist the urge to
generalize. It can be deeply misleading to talk in terms of “translation techniques,” if by this
we envisage a set of pre-existing techniques, somewhat analogous to the Rabbinic herme-
neutical Middot,10 which our Targumist learned formally in advance and then applied. The
so-called translation techniques (such as Converse Translation, or Associative Translation,
or Complementary Translation)11 are descriptions of what is happening hermeneutically, of

the older classification above, 1.3 (1) and 3, because it suited the argument there. On the genre of Targum see further Alexander,
Targum of Canticles, 29–31; Alexander Samely, The Interpretation of Speech in the Pentateuch Targums: A Study of Method
and Presentation in Targumic Exegesis (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992); Smelik, Targum Joshua, 86–94, 647–49.
 8
This could be stated in the form of a rule: The Peshat sense stands unless it is theologically problematic, in which case
it requires supplementation by Derash. This analysis brings me rather close to Bernstein’s view that it is primarily from the
Targumic pluses that we learn the Targumist’s understanding of the biblical text. See above, 4.1, n. 1. According to the famous
tag, “no verse departs from its Peshat sense” (<ein miqra< yoße< midei pe¡u†o) (e.g., b. Sanh. 34a), but exactly what that is sup-
posed to mean is far from clear.
 9
However, in 1:9 Tg. may have had + wa-tippol in his text (Note 40 ad loc.), or in 1:14 Tg.’s text may have read niq¡ah
for MT’s hapax legomenon ni∞qad (Note 57 ad loc.).
10
Louis Jacobs, “Hermeneutics,” EJ 8:366–72. The Middot, of course, cannot be taken as a reliable, let alone exhaustive,
list of the “techniques” of Midrash: on this see Philip S. Alexander, “The Rabbinic Hermeneutic Rules and the Problem of the
Definition of Midrash,” Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association 8 (1984) 97–125.
11
For a list of these, culled from the scholarly literature, see Smelik, Targum Judges, 94–99. In addition to the three “tech-
niques” noted above, Smelik identifies the following: harmonization, simplification, double translation, paronomasia, etymo-
 Introduction   41

how the Targumist apparently got from the putative “literal” sense of the biblical text to his
translation, not “techniques” as such. An exhaustive, close, formal analysis of the relationship
between the Hebrew text and the translation, along the sophisticated lines demonstrated for
Midrash in the Mishnah by Alexander Samely, could and should be attempted for Targum, but
this would still only involve a description of the nature of the linkage, not the discovery of the
Targumist’s “translation techniques.”12 The fact is that translation, though widely practiced in
antiquity, was a totally under-theorized activity. There is no reason to see the Targum as any
different: Targumizing was essentially an instinctive process informed only by analogy and
tradition. One of the few people to attempt any sort of theory of translation in antiquity was
Jerome, himself an accomplished and practiced translator, but the best he can come up with
is a crude distinction between verbum e verbo and sensus de sensu translations.13 This is noth-
ing more than a common-sense observation of two types of existing translation rather than a
profound insight into how translation was or should be done. It is hard to see how Jerome’s
classification would apply to our Targum. In t. Meg. 4(3):41 Rabbi Judah ben Ilai famously
stipulates that “he who translates a verse according to its form (ke-ßurato) is a deceiver, and
he who adds (ha-mosif) is a blasphemer and a reviler,” but the meaning of this dictum is hotly
disputed, and it can hardly be said to give practical guidance to a Targumist.14

5.2  Derash in Targum Lamentations and its Relation to the MT

The means by which Tg. Lam. derives its Derash from Scripture or (depending on your
standpoint) reads it into Scripture are those of classic Midrash, and much of it can be found
presented in standard midrashic form in the Midrashim. Three cases will serve to illustrate
our Targum’s Derash and its relationship to the MT.
(1) In 1:1 the Targumist deduces from the consonants <ykh that Scripture is alluding to a
parallelism between the expulsion of the Jewish people from Jerusalem and the expulsion of
Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden. He takes the consonants as a cry of grief and places

logical association, metathesis, realistic substitution of metaphors, extended simile, actualization, diversification of parallelism,
gematria, reverential translation, halakhic adjustment, exculpation and inculpation, onomastics. Brady, The Rabbinic Targum,
adds dramatic heightening and prosaic expansion. The list is by no means exhaustive: one could add many of the “techniques”
of Midrash, but it is unclear how understanding is advanced by this kind of analysis.
12
See Alexander Samely, Rabbinic Interpretation of Scripture in the Mishnah (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002),
especially 401–18. Interestingly, Samely talks not of “techniques” but more subtly of “hermeneutical resources.”
13
See, e.g., Jerome, Letter 57 (To Pammachius); further Sebastian P. Brock, “Aspects of Translation Technique in Antiq-
uity,” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 20 (1979) 68–78.
14
Indeed, it is possible that it is meant to negate the whole enterprise of targumizing. The sense could be, as Judah
Goldin proposed: “Any way you translate you’re sunk,” the implication being, So don’t do it!, and not, as he suggests, “But
that’s the assignment, to get it done properly (to the best of your ability): you’re between the monster of lying and the female
of blasphemy: go, navigate” (“Reflections on Translation and Midrash,” in idem, Studies in Midrash and Related Literature
[Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1988] 245). A possible setting for such an injunction may lie in a conflict
of authority between priests and rabbis in late antiquity, the Targum essentially enshrining priestly exegesis, which sometimes
contradicted the Rabbinic consensus (see Alexander, “What Happened to the Jewish Priesthood after 70”). Interestingly this
understanding of the saying only works if Rabbi Judah is classifying translations into two and only two types: (1) “according
to its form,” that is to say a one-to-one rendering (the usual translation of this phrase, “literally,” is not quite right); and (2) “he
who adds,” which must denote a translation that paraphrases or makes additions to the basic “according to its form” render-
ing. In other words, Rabbi Judah’s classification seems to correspond to my type A (non-expansive) and type B (expansive)
Targum, and perhaps more loosely to Jerome’s verbum e verbo and sensus de sensu types. See further David Golomb, “A Liar,
A Blasphemer, A Reviler: The Role of Biblical Ambiguity in the Palestinian Pentateuchal Targumim,” in Paul V. M. Flesher,
ed., Targum Studies Volume One: Textual and Contextual Studies in the Pentateuchal Targums (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992)
135–46; Smelik, Targum Judges, 649–56.
42   Introduction

side by side these two events from history, because Scripture says that at both of them <ykh
was pronounced in mourning. It is the consonants that forge the link, because in Lam 1:1 and
Gen 3:9 the vowels placed into the consonantal skeleton are different. In Lam 1:1 we have
<Eikhah (“how”?), but in Gen 3:9 we have <Ayyekkah (“where are you?”). The Targumist’s
Derash involves four exegetical steps: (a) from <Eikhah, the simple interrogative “how?” >
(b) <Eikhah as an exclamation of grief (a move he would doubtless have seen as justified by
the context of mourning in which the word occurs in Lamentations) > (c) the revowelling of
<Ayyekkah in Genesis 3 as <Eikhah (a move known in Midrash as <al tiqrei) > (d) seeing the
word there also as an exclamation of grief. All four steps are necessary before the connection
between the two passages can be made. At the Peshat level they have nothing to do with each
other, and the Targumist was fully aware of this. He knows linguistically that <Eikhah is simply
an interrogative, and he translates it straightforwardly into Aramaic as <eikhden. He has no
intention of denying this Peshat sense, and doubtless he would not have seen his implicit <al
tiqrei in Gen 3:9 as negating the Peshat meaning of <Ayyekkah as “where are you?” It is not
a case of either-or, but both-and. Here he sets the Peshat and Derash readings side by side.
The Derash is a level of meta-meaning beyond the Peshat, but not negating it, a meaning that
exists uniquely in the case of Scripture because it was “spoken through the holy spirit” (cf.
b. Meg. 7a) and is divine speech.
The Rabbis were perfectly aware that Derash is not a universally appropriate way of
reading texts. It applies only to inspired texts, which have multiple layers of meaning. They
were reluctant to apply it to the legal portions even of divine speech because of the confusion
it might engender, which might lead to the violation of the literal commandments. Peshat,
however, is a universal way of reading texts, and it does not always entail Derash. In terms
of Scripture it belongs to the vocalized level of the text. Derash applies only to Scripture,
and it presupposes Peshat, but it belongs essentially to the consonantal level of the text and it
exploits fully the added potential that focusing purely on the consonants opens up. It still sees
the consonantal level as speech and words, but there is potentially a further level of meaning
contained within the text—the letters and their shapes, the text’s purely graphic form. In clas-
sic Midrash this level is beginning to be explored (Gen.R. 1.10), but its full potential was not
exploited till the Middle Ages. From this analysis the basis for my earlier claim that Derash
and Peshat operate on two quite different views of the text should be clear. Derash appears
anarchic, but, in fact at its most persuasive it is a closely argued and, in its own terms, rational
procedure, every move in which has to be justified. For example, an obvious weakness in the
Derash of <Eikhah in Lam 1:1 as we have presented it so far is: how does the Targumist justify
a close link specifically between Gen 3:9 and Lam 1:1? To put this question another way:
why should we think there is more than meets the eye in <Ayyekkah in Gen 3:9? The answer
is quite simple: the plene spelling of the suffix is unusual: -kah rather than -ka. There is no
redundancy in Scripture. The word was deliberately spelled this way here by the holy spirit
to hint at a higher meaning, the use of <Eikhah in Lam 1:1, where the word is also spelled in
its augmented form (<Eikhah rather than simple <Eikh!). There is an important sense in which
these links are discovered: they are not forced. It was not that the darshan started out by de-
ciding that he wanted for some predetermined theological reason to make a link between the
expulsion from Eden and the expulsion from Zion. Rather he notices the link, establishes it,
and leaves others to reflect on its meaning. See further 1:1, Note 2.
 Introduction   43

(2) A second interesting example of Derash is found in 1:2. It turns on the construction
bakho tibkeh, the infinitive absolute followed by the finite verb in the imperfect from the same
root. This construction is, of course, very common in BH and at the Peshat level denotes in-
tensity. The Targumist is perfectly aware of this and gives a straightforward Peshat rendering
of it as “wept bitterly,” but he feels there is more to it than meets the eye, and so juxtaposes
the Peshat with a Derash. He clearly feels that the double repetition of the same root points
to a double weeping, a weeping in the past that is somehow connected with the weeping in
the future. This may be based on the fact that the infinitive absolute is spelled bakho and not
bakhoh, and so can easily be revowelled as the perfect tense bakhu (tibkeh): “they wept, (so
she weeps).” When was this other weeping? He identifies it with the weeping of the Israelites
in the wilderness when they heard the report of the returning spies, an event that also took
place “at night” (Num 14:1). It is possible this identification was further strengthened by the
fact that the internal chronology of Numbers suggests that the night then was also the Ninth
of Ab. Again the darshan discovers the link and states it, but leaves it to others to ponder why
the reaction of the Israelites in the wilderness should have led all those centuries later to the
first destruction of Jerusalem. See further 1:2, Note 10.
(3) These two examples involve dissolved paraphrase, our type B2 translation. Our final
example involves type B1, base-text + detatchable glosses. It is found in 5:5: “Upon the joint
of our necks we were laden. When we were going into captivity wicked Nebuchadnezzar saw
that the officers of the children of Israel were going unburdened, [and] he ordered [them] to
sew together Torah scrolls and to make sacks from them; and they filled them with gravel, that
is on the shore of the Euphrates, and he loaded them upon their necks. At that time we were
exhausted, and we had no respite.” Here the italicized words can be bracketed out, leaving
behind a straightforward one-to-one translation. The link between the aggadic plus and the
base-text is very simple. The base-text speaks of a burden that was placed on the shoulders
of the Israelites as they were going into exile, and so the plus tells a story to satisfy the ques-
tion, “What was that burden?” In other words, the “peg” on which the addition is hung, as
in many similar Midrashim, is a perceived lacuna in the biblical narrative. It is possible to
see the aggadic plus as a co-text generated by the text. Ordinary people are used to carrying
burdens, so in itself it would not be shocking for them to carry sacks. So it must have been
that part of the people, the “officers,” unused to menial tasks, who were humiliated by the
burdens. And carrying in itself can be a useful activity, whoever performs it, if it serves a
necessary purpose. Hence the load had to be pointless and involve a sacrilege. This may be
pushing the analysis too far. It is also possible that the story of the Torah sacks was part of
popular folklore associated with the Ninth of Ab (see below, 6.1.2), and our Targumist, who
may well have believed it was a genuine tradition going back to the time of the first exile,
used it to plug what he perceived to be a narrative gap in the biblical story. Although, on the
face of it, we have here a case of an expansive type B Targum, the hermeneutical situation is
very different from the other two cases we discussed. The addition is generated essentially
as a co-text out of the verse before us. It does not involve establishing links with other parts
of Scripture or move the text onto a higher level of meaning by keying it into an overarching
theology. Rather, it reinforces the Peshat understanding of the problematic verb nirdapnu.
This is why I suggested earlier that type B1 translation, hermeneutically speaking, is usually
closer to Peshat than to Derash. See further 5:5 Note 8.
44   Introduction

5.3  Peshat in Targum Lamentations and its Relation to MT

The Peshat in Tg. Lam. is, in many ways, more interesting and original than the Derash,
most of which can be paralleled more fully in Lam.R. and other rabbinic sources. Peshat,
as we have already noted, predominates in our Targum, and almost every verse attests to the
Targumist’s care and philological acumen, which has been strangely ignored by the mediaeval
Jewish commentators (see below at 6.2) and by modern critical scholarship. The following
examples, taken more or less at random from the second half of chapter 2, illustrate this
point.
(1) 2:11. Tg.: “Now that youth and infant go thirsty” = MT be>a†ef >olel weyoneq. The
Targumist’s translation is philologically interesting in a number of ways. (a) First, he treats the
preposition + infinitive construction here as describing the attendant circumstance that consti-
tutes the ground or reason for the antecedent event or action. In other words, the weeping and
grief are occasioned by the suffering of the youths and infants. This construction is normally
equivalent to a temporal clause, but the Targumist has acutely observed that here this sense
does not work all that well. Tg.’s rendering shows good attention to context, a principle other
early translators (notably LXX Lam.) do not always observe (see 5.4.1 below). (b) Context
has also played a part in his translation of >olel weyoneq by “youth and infant.” “Youth” for
>olel is far from obvious, but note the next verse where the >olel weyoneq say to their moth-
ers, “Where is bread and wine?” We have a problem if we render >olel weyoneq “babe and
suckling,” because babes and sucklings do not speak, and even if they do, they are unlikely to
ask for grain and wine. Tg.’s reasonable solution is to assume that <olel here must, unusually,
denote a full-grown boy, and that it is the full-grown boys who demand of their mothers “grain
and wine.” (c) Third, Tg.’s rendering of the verb >†p by “thirst” is startling. He does the same
again in verse 12, where he translates “when they were parched with thirst” (see also v. 19).
But the verb >†p means “faint, grow weary” and it is well enough attested in this sense in BH.
In verse 12 “parched with thirst like one slain by the sword” seems particularly incongruous,
unless our Targumist knew, as well he might, that severe blood-loss causes raging thirst. It
is hard to be sure what is happening here, but we should not jump to the conclusion that our
Targumist has simply made a mistake. I suspect he knew a root >†p, or something like it, that
meant “to thirst,” and for some reason found it here. See further 2:11 Note 39.
(2) 2:14. MT: nebi<ayikh ˙azu lakh ¡aw< wetafel. Tafel here poses a well-known problem.
Hillers (Lamentations, 95, 100) translates: “Your prophets saw visions for you that were so
much whitewash,” and glosses, “literally, ‘emptiness and whitewash.’” The Targumist seems
to take tafel as meaning “without substance.” How did he reach this conclusion? The key lies
in Ezek 13:10, where the Targum translates the Hebrew wehinnam ta˙im <oto tafel by “and
they plaster it [the wall] with pure mud without straw.” This is a reasonable interpretation.
Ezekiel 13 is an attack on false prophecy: the prophecies of the false prophets are like a jerry-
built wall that collapses under the “rain” of events. Tafel occurs again in a suggestive context
in Ezek 22:28, nebi<eyha ta˙u lahem tafel ˙ozim ¡aw< weqosemim lahem kazab. Tg. there,
cross-referencing to 13:10, renders: “The false prophets who are in her midst, like someone
building a wall and plastering it with mud without straw, prophesy falsehood and teach lies.”
The Targum, I would suggest, seems to know tafel in the sense of plaster without a binding
agent, which crumbles away. This is a more plausible explanation of the literal meaning of the
word than the modern dictionaries’ proposal (followed by Hillers) that it means “whitewash,”
for which there seems to be no solid etymological basis (BDB 1074a and HAL 1775–76).
 Introduction   45

From the literal meaning of weak mortar or plaster is easily derived a figurative sense of
“something without substance.” See further 2:14 Note 48.
Another nuance of Tg.’s rendering of this verse is also worth pondering. He does not
translate ˙azu literally “they saw,” but “they prophesied.” Why? I would suggest it is because
he noticed later in the verse the phrase waye˙ezu lakh ma∞<ot ¡aw<. Pace Hillers (Lamenta-
tions, 95), this cannot be translated “but they saw for you oracles.” “Oracles” are verbal com-
munications, which are heard, not seen. Modern commentators tend to solve the problem by
supposing that ma∞∞a< here has broadened to the sense of “revelation.” Our Targumist has
taken a different and, arguably, better view: he has supposed that it is the verb ˙azah that
has broadened, from meaning strictly “see a vision” to meaning “prophesy in general.” This
makes excellent philological sense: what this verse is complaining about is surely not false
visions, but false prophecies, whatever the mode of their reception. Interestingly, elsewhere
our Targumist translates ˙azon not by “vision,” but by “prophecy,” probably correctly. See
further 2:14 Note 48.
(3) 2:18. MT: <al tiddom bat >einekh, lit. “let not the daughter of your eye be silent.” Tg.
translates “let not the pupil of your eye (babat >einikh) be silent.” Both JA and Syriac preserve
the noun babah in the sense of the “pupil (of the eye).” This occurs only once in the MT, in
Zech. 2:12 (English 2:8), but the phrase “daughter of the eye” is found both here and in Ps
17:8. Interestingly, the Tg. in neither instance renders literally nor uses “daughter of the eye”
to translate the synonymous phrase <i¡on >ayin, lit. “little man of the eye.” This raises the dis-
tinct possibility that the two occurrences of bat >ayin in MT are corruptions of babat >ayin.
It is unlikely that our Tg. had a different Hebrew text before him, but he saw that it must be
equivalent to babat >ayin. See further 2:18 Note 66.
(4) 2:19. MT: ¡ifkhi khammayim libbekh. The literal translation of this is “pour out like
water your heart.” Hillers (Lamentations, 101) comments: “The meaning .  .  . is apparently
very much like that of the common English expression, hence the sense is ‘give expression
to your innermost thoughts and feelings.’” Had he looked at the Targum, however, he would
have found that to the Targumist this sense is far from obvious, and this might have given
him pause for thought. For the Targumist the phrase means to abandon a haughty or proud
attitude. The Aramaic is at first sight awkward and needs unpacking: it runs ¡edai heikh maya
>aqmumit libbikh. The noun >aqmumit is from the root >qm, which means “be curved, twisted,
not straight.” The noun >aqmumit could be, and indeed in MH sometimes is, used metaphori-
cally in the sense of “crookedness, perversity, deceitfulness,” which would make reasonable
sense here. However, Jast. 1107b is probably correct to take its metaphorical sense here as
being “pride, haughtiness.” The semantic development is: curved > protruding > proud. This
is certainly how the word is actually used in the Talmud and elsewhere. The final proof is
that the Tg. renders Ps 62:9, “pour out before him your heart,” the one other occurrence of
the phrase in BH, by “pour out before him the pride of your heart (z˙w˙y lbkwn).” What is
significant here is that, although the wording is different, the understanding of the phrase is
the same. In light of this we should seriously consider the possibility that the biblical idiom
“pour forth the heart” actually does not mean the same as the English phrase, but rather in-
dicates the abandonment of pride and haughtiness. The heart is, of course, often seen as the
seat of pride in biblical anthropology. See further 2:19 Note 69.
(5) 2:20. The Heb. >olelei †ippu˙im is a well-known crux. The root †p˙ is found only
here in the nominal derivate †ippua˙, and in the verbal form †ippa˙ta in verse 22. Tg. on both
46   Introduction

occasions confidently translates with the Aramaic root lpp, “wrap, swaddle.” It is possible he
is guessing from the context, but as with his rendering of >†p, mentioned above, he may have
some lexical basis for this proposal. At the very least “wrapping or swaddling” is a reasonable
guess from the context. See further 2:20 Note 72.

5.4  Targum Lamentations and the Other Ancient Versions

As a translation of the Hebrew, how does Tg. Lam. compare with the other ancient ver-
sions of Lamentations? What relationship, if any, does it have to them?

5.4.1  The Greek Versions

The LXX of Lamentations15 belongs to the so-called kai-ge Recension (note the telltale
kai ge at 1:8; 2:9; 3:8; 4:3). As a translation its character and relationship to the MT are very
different from those of the book of Jeremiah: Lamentations is literal and close to the MT. This
suggests that although in some early canonical lists it was included in Jeremiah, and possibly
written on the same scroll, the translations of the main prophecies and of the Qinot were done
at different times by different people. Barthélemy argued that in the case of Lamentations,
Song of Songs, and several other books, the kai-ge Recension does not represent a revision
of an earlier text, but the original translation, and he suggested that Lamentations dates to
the first century c.e.16 It would make sense to locate it post-70, to the period in the aftermath
of the disaster when Jewish interest in the destruction of the first Temple was high. Possibly
Lamentations was rendered into Greek to provide Greek-speaking Jews with liturgical texts
with which they could commemorate the destruction (see below, 7.1.1). It may be significant
that there are no quotations from or clear allusions to Lamentations in the New Testament.17
In fact, the earliest direct quotation from Lamentations by a Christian writer appears to be
by Justin Martyr. This would lend some support to the view that a Greek version of the work
did not become available till the early second century. The translation is very literal (verbum
e verbo), at places to the point of obscurity. The translator was clearly taxed by some of the
linguistic difficulties of the Hebrew. He has a tendency to assign to words meanings that
are inappropriate in context. His grasp of Hebrew was not as secure or as profound as our
Targumist’s.
Origen, Selecta in Threnos (ed. Klostermann 3:236, GCS) states that “an edition of Aquila
and Theodotion of Lamentations is not in circulation (? pheretai: see LSJ 1924a[VIII]), only
of Symmachus and the Seventy.” This is puzzling, since later in his commentary (to 4:20)
Origen himself quotes from Aquila as well as Symmachus. It is possible that what Origen
means is that Aquila and Theodotion were not included in the Hexapla (Field 2:744), though
why this should be so, if he had a version of at least Aquila, remains a puzzle. There seems to
be no doubt whatsoever that Aquila and Symmachus both produced translations of Lamenta-
tions. Theodotion is more problematic. The identity of this version is disputed, and whether
there was, as patristic evidence would lead us to believe, a second-century c.e. translation by

15
See Joseph Ziegler, Ieremias, Baruch, Threni, Epistula Ieremiae. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum auctoritate
Societas Litterarum Gottingensis editum XV (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1957).
16
Dominique Barthélemy, Les devanciers d’Aquila. VTSuppl. 10 (Leiden: Brill, 1963).
17
Note, however, a possible echo in Jesus’ lament over Jerusalem in Matt 23:37-39; Luke 13:31-35. See below at 6.3.
 Introduction   47

a converted Jew, Theodotion, is far from certain.18 In any case there seem to be no significant
or securely documented Theodotionic readings for Lamentations. The remnants of Aquila and
Symmachus are sparse, but they seem to conform to the characteristics of these translations
elsewhere. Both versions were produced under the auspices of the Rabbinate in Palestine, and
demonstrate their interest already in the second and third centuries in sponsoring translations
of Lamentations.19 Although Tg. Lam. emerged (probably much later) from the same milieu
(see 8 below), and although Aquila and Symmachus can be seen as Greek Targums, at least
in the sense that both may have been intended, like the Aramaic Targums, to be read against
the Hebrew, there are no striking correlations between either version and Tg. Lam.

5.4.2  The Peshitta

Bertil Albrektson, Studies in the Text and Theology of the Book of Lamentations, offers
a detailed analysis of the Peshitta of Lamentations (Pesh. Lam.), together with an edition of
the text. He notes that the translator aimed above all at clarity and intelligibility (his render-
ing conforms to the sensus de sensu typology). His knowledge of Hebrew was barely ade-
quate for the task he undertook (it was certainly poorer than our Targumist’s), and he was not
infrequently puzzled by rare and difficult words, but on the whole he handled the problems
sensibly and usually produced an intelligent (if sometimes erroneous) guess on the basis of
the context. Albrektson also notes that his Syriac vocabulary is surprisingly poor and lacks
synonyms. Two different but synonymous Hebrew words are sometimes translated by the same
Syriac word, even when they occur in the same verse. As a result, although intelligibilty is not
affected, the translation is “marked by a certain monotony and lack of nuances” (ibid. 211).20
It should be noted that this stylistic impoverishment would diminish the liturgical effective-
ness of the version (contrast the Vulgate, 5.4.3 below). Pesh. Lam. is strikingly independent
of LXX Lam., not only as to its general style but in the solutions it offers for the linguistic
cruces in the MT. “It happens, for example, that LXX renders a Hebrew hapax legomenon
correctly and to the point, where P offers a vague or even misleading rendering. This shows
that the Syriac translator has not consulted LXX even in such difficult passages” (ibid. 212).21
This lack of knowledge of the LXX may be a result of the fact that LXX Lam. is late and,
perhaps, did not circulate widely.
On Tg. Lam.’s relationship to Pesh. Lam., Albrektson (Studies, 212) observes:
The question of P’s relation to T[argum Lamentations] cannot be put so simply or in the same
manner as the question of P’s possible dependence on LXX, as T is later than P. The problem
must rather be whether P could have been influenced by an earlier stage of a targumic tradition,
which later reached its full development in T. Certain peculiarities in P might possibly indicate

18
For a summary of the debate see Jennifer M. Dines, The Septuagint (London and New York: T & T Clark, 2004)
84–87.
19
Alison Salvesen, Symmachus in the Pentateuch. JSSM 15 (Manchester: University of Manchester Press, 1991), and
further eadem, ed., Origen’s Hexapla and Fragments (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998).
20
Michael Weitzman, however, detects a significant stylistic variation in the rendering of the Hebrew >ir: “The renderings
of >ir [in the Peshitta] may likewise be distorted by variations of nuance. Even though most translators had a definite prefer-
ence between qryt< and mdynt<, they were aware that the latter denoted a greater or mightier settlement that the former. Thus in
Lamentations, the mighty Jerusalem of the past is called mdynt< (Lam 1:1), but in its ruined state it is called qryt< (Lam 2:12, 15;
5:11). Likewise in Joshua, mdynt< is used of Canaanite cities and qryt< of cities founded by the Israelites” (Michael P. Weitzman,
The Syriac Version of the Old Testament: An Introduction [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999] 181–82).
21
See also Weitzman, Syriac Version, 68, 181.
48   Introduction

this. Its clearly marked effort to explain and elucidate and its tendency to establish the interpre-
tation through the addition of particles could point towards a targum as the background of the
translation. No definite conclusions can however be drawn from the material in Lam. There are
no striking agreements between P and T, which usually reflects MT and indeed often contains
a literal translation of it.

The simple fact is that there is not a shred of evidence that Pesh. Lam. points to the existence
of an Ur-Tg. Lam., or, conversely, that Tg. Lam. knew Pesh. Lam. But this, in a way, is puz-
zling. Does Pesh. Lam., then, represent a pioneering effort by a Christian Syriac scholar to
render Lamentations into Aramaic several centuries before Jews undertook the same task?
Might Pesh. Lam. represent basically not an Ur-Tg. Lam., but a different, earlier Jewish
Targum of Lamentations, perhaps produced in north Syria (hence its lack of correspondence
with our Palestinian Tg. Lam., and its independence of the LXX), which the Christians took
over and adapted for their own purposes, in the way in which they may have adapted other
Jewish Targums? That remains a theoretical possibility, but it is hard to see how it could be
proved.22

5.4.3  The Vulgate

As part of his great revision of the Latin Old Testament, completed in Bethlehem between
about 393 and 406, Jerome produced the version of Lamentations now found in the Vulgate.
His translation is readable and rather stylish (more so than either the LXX or the Pesh.): Je-
rome himself draws attention in his Prologue to Jeremiah to the literary care he took over it
(“et civitatis suae ruinas quadruplici planxit [Jeremias] alphabeto, quod nos mensurae metri
versibusque reddidimus” [PL 28:904]), perhaps with its potential liturgical use in mind. It is
not, however, particularly accurate. The liberties Jerome was prepared to take with the text
are illustrated at 4:20, where it has been altered to give a christological meaning: Spiritus
oris nostri, Christus Dominus, captus est in peccatis nostris, cui diximus: In umbra tua vive-
mus in gentibus—a blatant example of “the orthodox corruption of Scripture.”23 It is simply
inconceivable that Jerome could have found this in any of his Hebrew exemplars, and even if
he inherited it as a traditional translation, a quick check would have established that it did not
correspond to the Hebraica veritas (see below, 6.3). One wonders if a christological allusion
has been smuggled also into 1:5, quia Dominus locutus est super eam propter multitudinem
iniquitatum eius; parvuli eius ducti sunt in captivitatem ante faciem tribulantis. Locutus est
super eam is unusual for the MT hogahh. LXX has (correctly) etapeinøsen aut∑n, and the
Targum tbr yth (“has broken her”), though it is curiously unsure about the verb (see Note 23
ad loc.). Jerome may have been thinking of hgh I in the sense of “moan, utter, speak” (BDB
211b), so his rendering is defensible, but Christians reading this would surely think of Jesus

22
Unless one accepts Michael Weitzman’s intriguing thesis that the Peshitta goes back to an Aramaic version created
around 200 by a small non-Rabbinic Jewish community, possibly in Edessa, that finally converted to Christianity, bringing their
translation with them into the Syriac-speaking church (Weitzman, The Syriac Version, 206–62). It would make excellent sense
to see the effort needed specifically to render Lamentations as being expended by a Jewish community that wished to enrich
its liturgy of mourning for the fall of Jerusalem, but Weitzman’s insistence that this community was anti-ritual sits somewhat
uneasily with mourning for the loss of the Temple. See further Weitzman, From Judaism to Christianity: Studies in the Hebrew
and Syriac Bibles, ed. Ada Rapoport-Albert and Gillian Greenberg. JSSSup 8 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999) 3–30
and passim.
23
Bart Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993).
 Introduction   49

weeping over Jerusalem (Matt 23:37-39; Luke 13:31-35; further below, 6.3), and may have
been intended to do so.
Although the translation was supposed to be according to the Hebrew, and the Hebrew
was undoubtedly consulted, as the case just discussed shows, it is possible still to discern in
it the influence of the LXX (some Vulgate mss even include a Latin version of the LXX pref-
ace to the book). It is doubtful whether Jerome’s grasp of Hebrew was good enough for him
to solve the linguistic problems of Lamentations on his own. He claims to have had Jewish
teachers, and it may have been one of these who suggested to him the vividly contemporizing
rendering at 1:7, viderunt eam hostes et deriserunt sabbata eius. Sabbata for MT mi¡batteha
involves an <al tiqrei attested also in the Midrash (Lam.R. 1:7 §34). LXX has epi oikesia(i)
aut∑s, and Targum a double translation, “her oppressors saw her going into captivity. They
mocked at her prosperity, which had departed from her” (see Note 32 ad loc.). His rendering
of the problematic ya>ib in 2:1 by obtexit caligine suggests he understood the verb here as a
denominative from >ab, “a cloud,” an interpretation to be found also in the Midrash. LXX’s
egnophøsen (a neologism?) probably reflects a similar analysis, though, even more than
Jerome, it obscures the link with “cloud,” and it is hard to be sure whether or not the LXX
was Jerome’s inspiration. The Targum is very different and takes the verb to mean “loathe,
abominate, abhor,” the basis of which is uncertain (see 2:1, Note 1, for a full analysis). On
matters to do with the basic translation of the Hebrew one of the Jewish sources most ac-
cessible to Jerome’s Jewish teachers would unquestionably have been the Targum, assuming
a Targum was available for the biblical book to hand. Even if they had studied Scripture in
the Beit Midrash, where teaching seems to have taken the form of glossing in Hebrew, they
would probably have learned it earlier through a Targum.24 This suggests that the lack of clear
correlation between the Vulgate and the Targum in Lamentations may be significant. It would
be consonant with the view that our Targum is later, and so would not have been available
either directly or indirectly to Jerome.

5.4.4  Sa>adia
Sa>adia (882­–942) included Lamentations in his Tafsir. For comparative purposes I have
used the text conveniently printed by Yosef Qafi˙ in his Óame¡ Megillot.25 This seems to cor-
respond, with minor variants, to the text in British Library Or. 2375 (= our siglum K), British
Library Or. 1476 (= our siglum J), and Bodleian 2333 (Opp. Add. 4to, 139 = our siglum N),
and to represent the standard Yemenite recension of this version. Sa>adia generally keeps close
to the MT, and lacks the aggadic expansions of our Targum. In the Peshat, however, he cor-
responds significantly with the Targum: e.g., he consistently renders the Hebrew “Daughter
of Zion” by “Congregation of Zion,” as in the Targum, though, as one would expect from a
scholar of his stature and learning, he was his own man, and there are also differences. The
correspondences are, on balance, significant enough to suggest that Sa>adia knew Tg. Lam.,

24
See Philip S. Alexander, “How did the Rabbis learn Hebrew?” in: William Horbury, ed., Hebrew Study from Ezra to Ben
Yehuda (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1999) 71–89. The Targum has been sadly neglected as a potential source for Jerome. See,
however, C. T. R. Hayward, Jerome’s Hebrew Questions on Genesis (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995),
Index s.v. It is curious that Jerome himself never mentions the Targum. A copy of it would surely have been of enormous interest
to him. This might suggest that he did not know it directly. However, it could have been known to his Jewish informants.
25
Yosef Qaifi˙, Hame¡ Megillot: ⁄ir ha-⁄irim, Rut, Qohelet, Ester, Eikhah, >im peiru¡im >attiqim (Jerusalem: Hoßa<at ha-
<Aguddah le-Haßalat Ginzei Teiman, 1962) 331–53.
50   Introduction

and that this Targum was already circulating in Babylonia in his day. We can deduce from its
textual history that Tg. Lam. was subjected to an extensive revision in Babylonia (see above,
1.3). It would stand to reason that this would have happened before Sa>adia’s time. The fact
that Sa>adia saw the need to produce an Arabic version suggests that the Jews of Babylonia
by his time had largely gone over to Arabic as their vernacular and were no longer speaking
Aramaic. The effort expended in recasting the original western form of Tg. Lam. makes little
sense if Aramaic was essentially for Jews in Babylonia a dead, scholarly language. Sa>adia,
consequently, provides not only important evidence for the influence of our Targum, but helps
to date its Babylonian recension to before the ninth century.
 Introduction   51

6. Targum Lamentations in the History of Exegesis

6.1  Lamentations in Early Jewish Tradition

6.1.1  Lamentations Rabba1

The largest collection of rabbinic commentaries on Lamentations is to be found in Lam-
entations Rabbah (Lam.R.), a rich and complex work that is crucial for our understanding
of Tg. Lam. and its place on the map of early Jewish biblical exegesis. From a thorough
analysis of its extant text-witnesses,2 Paul Mandel has confirmed the view of Salomon Buber
and Alexander Marx that two major and very different recensions of the work are extant:
Recension A, an exemplar of which can be found in Cambridge Add. 495, and Recension
B, an exemplar of which can be found in Parma 2559. The editio princeps, which appeared
in Constantinople around 1514 and formed the basis of the Pesaro edition of 1519 (which
in turn became the basis of the textus receptus), belongs to Recension A. Salomon Buber’s
1899 edition3 contains an eclectic, rather heavily emended text. The commentary proper is
basically copied from Casanatense H 3112, which belongs to Recension B, but since this ms
lacked the Petihot, Buber added these from elsewhere. Petihot 5-36 were taken from British
Library 27089, which also belongs to Recension B, but this lacks Petihot 1-4, the scribe sim-
ply referring the reader to the parallels “in the Pesiqta [deRab Kahana].” Buber took his text
for these from the textus receptus, which belongs to Recension A.4 From the provenance of
the mss and from citations in later authorities it is clear that, in the Middle Ages, Recension
A circulated mainly in North Africa, Spain, and the Yemen, though in the case of the Yemen
Lam.R. seems to have been known only in the abbreviated form found in the Pirqei Ti¡>ah
be-<Ab, the affinities of which to the A recension are clear.5 Recension B circulated mainly
in Italy, Provence, northern France, and Germany. Mandel argues that Recension B is the
older form of the text: It goes back to the Byzantine era and represents rather faithfully the
original work that was compiled in Palestine in late antiquity. Recension B is a version that
arose in Babylonia sometime after the Arab conquest. Mandel sees the differences between
the two recensions as largely attributable to the differing cultures of text-transmission in the
Byzantine and Islamic worlds. In Byzantium, written transmission played a major role, and
this led to the better preservation of the original. In Babylonia, which was part of the Islamic
world, oral transmission predominated, and this led to the extensive recasting of the text and
its contamination from other Rabbinic sources.

1
On the theology of Lam.R. see above, 4.3.
2
Paul D. Mandel, Midrash Lamentations Rabbati: Prolegomenon, and a Critical Edition to the Third Parasha. 2 vols.
Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew University Jerusalem, 1997 [Hebrew]. See the summary of this in idem, “Between Byzantium and
Islam: the Transmission of a Jewish Book in the Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods,” in Yaakov Elman and Israel Gershoni,
eds., Transmitting Jewish Traditions: Orality, Textuality, and Cultural Diffusion (New Haven and London: Yale University
Press, 2000) 74–106. Mandel is working on a complete new edition of Lam.R.
3
Salomon Buber, Midrasch Echa Rabbati: Sammlung agadischer Auslegungen der Klagelieder (Vilna: Romm, 1899; repr.
Hildesheim: Olms, 1967). The textus receptus can be found in the Vilna 1878 ed. of Midrash Rabbah (often reprinted). Transla-
tions: August Wünsche, Der Midrasch Echa Rabbati (Leipzig: Otto Schulze, 1881); Abraham Cohen, “Lamentations,” in Harry
Freedman and Maurice Simon, eds., Midrash Rabbah. 10 vols. (London: Soncino Press, 1939), vol. 7 (translations below follow
Cohen with modifications); Jacob Neusner, Lamentations Rabbah: An Analytical Translation (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989).
4
Buber, Midrasch Echa Rabbati, Intro. 1, 73.
5
On Pirqei Ti¡<ah be-<Ab see Mandel, Lamentations Rabbati 1:58–64.
52   Introduction

The Palestinian, indeed Galilean, origin of Lam.R. is clear. The authorities cited are
Palestinian and the presence in it of Galilean Aramaic and of notable Greek loanwords and
phrases, as well as its strong affinities with Palestinian <aggadah, leave little doubt on this
score. Its date, however, is more problematic. The dating is complicated by the fact that
Lam.R. is so obviously composed of two quite distinct elements: (a) an anthology of thirty-six
Peti˙ot or Proems that constitute more than a quarter of the work,6 and (b) a verse-by-verse
commentary on the biblical book. There are grounds for regarding both elements as integral
to the work right from the start. Though Casanatense H 3112, as we saw, lacks the Peti˙ot, the
omission is secondary. Both recensions originally had Proems and Commentary. Both parts
share numerous traditions in common, and their thematic linkage is so strong that M. D. Herr
could confidently assert (following Buber)7 that “except for some later additions, the entire
Midrash, including the proems, is a compilation redacted by a single redactor” (EJ 10:1378).
But whether the Proems came first and the verse-by-verse commentary was added later, or
vice versa, remains open to dispute.
There are arguments for postulating the priority of the Peti˙ot, at least in the sense that
a tradition of Peti˙ot preceded the creation of the exegetical Midrash and served as one of its
major sources—a pattern of Midrash-formation attested in the case of the Pentateuchal Mid-
rashim (e.g., Leviticus Rabba). The two elements have fundamentally different life-settings.
The original setting of the Peti˙ah is the synagogue (though not all the Peti˙ot of Lam.R.
were necessarily used there);8 the setting of the commentary is the Beit Midrash. The Peti˙ot
attest the public reading of Lamentations and the custom of introducing that reading by a
sermon (see 7.1 below). The link to the public reading of Lamentations is particularly obvious
in the standard ending of the Proems in the Genizah mss: “When they were exiled, Jeremiah
began to mourn for them and say, ‘How lonely she sits’ (Lam. 1:1).” It is also noticeable that
whereas the Proems contain much, though by no means all, of the narrative material, which
is of a folkloristic character (showing popular interest in the fall of the Temple and the fast
of the Ninth of Ab),9 and includes significant passages in Galilean Aramaic (e.g., Proem 24,
ed. Buber 14a.36-14b.11), the commentary is in Mishnaic Hebrew and shows all the marks
of close, technical rabbinic exegesis. This suggests that, contrary to the common view, there
are reasons for seeing the Peti˙ot as coming first and the Midrash as representing a rabbinic
response to popular interest in the Book of Lamentations and in the Ninth of Ab.
The complex redaction history of Lam.R. makes dating hazardous. It names many au-
thorities, but none is later than the late fourth century c.e. This would suggest that the basic

6
The standard editions number only thirty-four, but Proems 2 and 31 are composite. Thirty-six is a gematria of <Eikhah.
7
Buber, Midrasch Echah Rabbati, Intro. 3–9.
8
I accept Heinemann’s view that the Petihah form originates in synagogue preaching (Joseph Heinemann, “The Proem in
Aggadic Midrashim: A Form-Critical Study,” Scripta Hierosolymitana 22 [1971] 100–22). This is not to deny, however, that,
once established, the form was then sometimes used in more literary contexts, as Sarason and Jaffee have argued (Richard
S. Sarason, “The Peti˙ot in Leviticus Rabba: ‘Oral Homilies’ or Redactional Construction,” JJS 33 (1982) 557–65; Martin
S. Jaffee, “The ‘Midrashic’ Proem: Towards the Description of Rabbinic Exegesis,” in: Willim Scott Green, ed., Approaches
to Ancient Judaism IV (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983) 95–112. See further Doris Lenhard, Die rabbinische Homilie: Ein
formanalytischer Index. Frankfurter Judaistische Studien 10 (Frankfurt: Der Gesellschaft zur Förderung Judaistischer Studien
in Frankfurt am Main, 1998).
9
See Galit Hasan-Rokem, “’Echa? .  .  . Ayekah?’—On Riddles in the Stories of Midrash Echah Rabbah,” Jerusalem Stud-
ies in Hebrew Literature 10-11 (1987–88) (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1988) 2:531–47 [Hebrew]; eadem, “Perspectives
of Comparative Research of Folk Narratives in Aggadic Midrashim—Enigmatic Tales in Lamentations Rabba, I,” Tarbiß 59
(1989–90) 109–31 [Hebrew]. See further n. 37 below.
 Introduction   53

compilation was made in the early fifth century. If we place it any later, we face the problem
of why later authorities’ views do not creep in (reflection on Lamentations, as we shall see,
certainly did not stand still). What precisely this “basic compilation” contained, however,
is hard to say. It probably comprised a collection of proems followed by a verse-by-verse
midrash. The antiquity of some of the proems is demonstrated by their affinities to piyyutim
from the Byzantine era (6.1.4 below). But like many other rabbinic works, the text never seems
to have become absolutely fixed, and it continued to be modified, for a variety of reasons,
right down to the Middle Ages. This dating of the original Lam.R. makes it one of the earliest
known midrashim of a non-Pentateuchal book. The choice of Lamentations for such a large
and impressive commentary attests strong interest in this biblical book, and also, incidentally,
in the Ninth of Ab, with which it is inextricably linked.
Lam.R. is vitally important for the study of Tg. Lam. in a number of ways. There are,
to begin with, the exegetical and aggadic overlaps between the two works. These will be
explored in detail in the Notes below. The general outcome of this analysis is similar to my
analysis of the relationship of Tg. Cant. to Cant.R.: although Tg. Lam. arose at roughly the
same time as Lam.R. and in the same rabbinic milieu, it would be simplistic to say that the
Targum is dependent on the Midrash or vice versa (see 6.1.6 below). Lam.R., however, re-
mains central to the understanding of the content of the Targum. Lam.R. is also important
for our understanding of Tg. Lam.’s setting and transmission history. Lam.R. attests to the
growing rabbinic interest in the book of Lamentations and in the Ninth of Ab during the late
Amoraic period, and its transmission, as uncovered by Mandel, significantly parallels the
transmission of Tg. Lam. for which I have argued in the present study. In both cases a Galilean
work, originating in a rabbinic milieu in the fifth century and exegeting the biblical book of
Lamentations, was taken to Babylonia where it underwent a thorough recasting in the early
Islamic period, and this Babylonian recasting influenced the form in which each work was
known and used in the Yemen. There are some differences. The Babylonian recension of Lam.
R. was known not only in the Yemen but in North Africa and Spain, whereas the Babylonian
recension of Tg. Lam. was preserved only in the Yemen. All points west of Palestine, both
in Europe and North Africa, received the original Galilean version of Tg. Lam. And I have
some doubts whether Mandel’s appeal to the orality of Islamic textual culture in Babylonia
would be sufficient to explain the origins of the Babylonian recension of Tg. Lam. as well.10
But that these two works are so intertwined in content, recensional history, and transmission
can hardly be accidental.

6.1.2  Other Early Rabbinic Traditions Relating to Lamentations

Numerous stories about the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple in both
587 b.c.e. and 70 c.e., as well as exegeses of specific verses of Lamentations, are scattered
throughout rabbinic literature—Mishnah, Tosefta, the Midrashim both early and late, and
the two Talmuds. For example, b. Sanh. 104a-104b offers a series of midrashic notes on
selected verses from Lamentations, while b. Gitt. 55b-58a contains an anthology of anecdotes
10
On orality in the transmission of Tg. Lam. see above at 1.3 (6). Mandel underestimates the extent of orality in Greek
culture in late antiquity, and he is in danger of falling into a mildly circular argument. He relies quite heavily on the views of
Gregor Schoeler about the orality of early Islamic culture (see Schoeler’s The Oral and the Written in Early Islam [London:
Routledge, 2006]), but Schoeler used rather simplistic analogies with rabbinic Judaism to help establish his case. Mandel may
be importing back into rabbinic Judaism elements Schoeler essentially took from there!
54   Introduction

mainly about the fall of the Second Temple (though the fall of the first and the fall of Bethar
are also mentioned) of the kind found in Lam.R. and other commentaries on Lamentations.11
This material can be gleaned from standard reference works such as Ginzberg, Legends of the
Jews 1:291–323; 6:382–413 (for <aggadot about the fall of the First Temple), Nadich, Jewish
Legends of the Second Commonwealth, 339–73, 387–403 (for <aggadot about the fall of the
Second Temple), and Hyman, Torah Ketubah u-Mesurah, 189–97 (for exegeses of individ-
ual verses in Lamentations).12 The tradition is bewilderingly rich, but two general comments
can be made. First, the fact that it is so substantial indicates a lively interest in the subject of
the fall of the Temple, and in the Book of Lamentations, over a long period of time. Second,
though it is hard to prove the point, the impression one gets is that this interest grew rather
than waned. It is noticeably stronger and more developed in the later Midrashim such as Pe-
siqta deRab Kahana, Pesiqta Rabbati, and Midrash Tehillim. For an attempt to explain why
this may have been so, see below at 7.2.3.

6.1.3  <Eikhah Zu†a

In 1894 Salomon Buber published a series of commentaries on Canticles, Ruth, Lamenta-
tions, and Qohelet from the De Rossi ms. 541 in Parma, to which he gave the name Midrash
Zuta.13 Lamentations Zuta (Lam.Z.) contains a rather random collection of material. It opens
with a midrashic section on the first three verses of Lamentations, but tails off into a series
of homilies and Peti˙ot on Isa 40:1, Jer 8:13, and other verses from the Prophets and the
Writings, all broadly about the destruction of Jerusalem but only some of which intersect
specifically with any verse in Lamentations. Like Lam.R., Lam.Z. is rich in stories (ma>a∞im)
and parables (me¡alim). Buber published in the same volume, from Parma ms 261, what he
claimed was another, shorter recension of the same text,14 as well as the section of Yalqut
Shim>oni on Lamentations in which substantial portions of Lam.Z. (recension A) are quoted
along with material on Lamentations derived from other Midrashim.15 It is hard to say much
about the date, provenance, or literary affinities of Lam.Z. M. D. Herr states: “Probably com-
prising excerpts from a complete Midrash on the Book of Lamentations in a manuscript as
yet unexamined or no longer extant, the two versions [of Lam.Z.] were redacted not earlier

11
See Jeffrey L. Rubenstein, Talmudic Stories: Narrative Art, Composition and Culture (Baltimore and London: Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1999) 159–75.
12
See also the anthology of legends about the fall of Jerusalem in Hayim Nahman Bialik and Yehoshua Hana Ravnitzky,
The Book of Legends. Sefer Ha-Aggadah: Legends from the Talmud and Midrash, trans. William G. Braude (New York: Schock-
en, 1992) 189–200; Eli Yassif, ed., The Book of Memory, that is The Chronicles of Yerahme<el (Tel Aviv: The Chaim Rosenberg
School of Jewish Studies, Tel Aviv University, 2001) 335–64 [Hebrew], with Yassif’s notes. Surveys: Shaye J. D. Cohen, “The
Destruction: From Scripture to Midrash,” Prooftexts 2 (1982) 18–39; Robert Goldenberg, “Early Rabbinic Explanations of the
Destruction of Jerusalem,” JJS 33 (1982) 517–25; M. J. Kister, “Legends of the Destruction of the Second Temple in Avot De-
Rabbi Nathan,” Tarbiß 67 (1997–98) 483–529 [Hebrew]; Alberdina Houtman, “‘They direct their heart to Jerusalem’: Refer-
ences to Jerusalem and Temple in Mishnah and Tosefta Berakhot,” in Alberdina Houtman, Marcel J. H. M. Porthuis, and Joshua
Schwartz, eds., Sanctity of Time and Space in Tradition and Modernity (Leiden: Brill, 1998) 153–66; Günter Stemberger,
“Reaktionen auf die Tempelzerstörung in der rabbinischen Literatur,” in Johannes Hahn, ed., Zerstörungen des Jerusalemer
Tempels (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002) 207–36. See further the Notes below, passim.
13
Salomon Buber, Midrasch Suta: Hagadische Abhandlungen über Schir ha-Schirim, Ruth, Echah and Koheleth nebst
Jalkut zum Buche Echah (Berlin: H. Itzkowski, 1894) 59–80.
14
Ibid., 133–44.
15
Ibid., 147–71.
 Introduction   55

than the tenth century.”16 It is hard to see how either assertion here can be justified. Lam.Z.
may have originated as nothing more than a scholar’s private anthology of material suitable
for edifying private reading or for preaching on the Ninth of Ab and adjacent Sabbaths, drawn
mainly from Lam.R. and the Babli, but possibly other sources as well, and reworked to some
extent.17 There is no evidence that it testifies to a lost complete Midrash on Lamentations.
The basic material is early, but such private compilations are common, and this one could
have been made at any time down to the thirteenth century, when it was used by the Yalqut
Shim>oni. The provenance is equally uncertain. The Levant or somewhere in Europe (e.g.,
Italy) are equally possible.

6.1.4  The Piyyutim

Our historical survey should not ignore the numerous Qinot composed for the Ninth
of Ab and the adjacent Sabbaths.18 Though many of those still in use were composed in the
Middle Ages (the most famous are the Zionides of Judah Halevi), a number survive from the
classical period of piyyut in late antiquity and are roughly contemporary with the Rabbinic
Midrashim we have been considering and with Tg. Lam. Qallir (6th/7th century) seems to
have been particularly productive of this kind of elegy. Weinberger states that it is certain that
Qallir “composed at least five and perhaps as many as forty elegies marking the destruction
of the first and second Temples.” Qallir, he notes, covers a wide range of themes: “He laments
the abolition of the Temple cult and the twenty-four priestly divisions who administered it. He
mourns that the shekhinah has been reluctantly removed from Jerusalem and lovingly describes
its withdrawal in stages. He cries for the loss of Betar, Bar Kokhba’s last stronghold in the
war against Rome, and elegizes the death of Judea’s King Josiah. His most moving laments
are presented as dialogues between the vanquished nations, Judea and Samaria, mourning
their fate, and between Jeremiah and the exiled widow Israel, dressed in rags. He relies heav-
ily upon rabbinic legends even as he characteristically embellishes the sources from his own
imagination, or from contemporary folklore.”19
These piyyutim are important for the history of the exegesis of Lamentations in a number
of ways. Elegiac poetry is not, of course, in itself commentary in the traditional sense of that
term, and there are few specific exegeses of Lamentations in the piyyutim.20 However, it would
have been impossible for a synagogue poet of Qallir’s time, bent on composing a dirge suitable
for the Ninth of Ab, not to be deeply conscious of his great predecessor Jeremiah, whose Sefer
Qinot was publicly read on that fast. Indeed, it must have taken poetic courage to have offered

16
EJ 16:1515. See also his “Table of the Midreshei Aggadah according to types and periods” in EJ 11:1511. Buber (Mid-
rasch Suta, Introduction xiv–xv) claims the Ruth Zuta is quoted by the Leqa˙ ˇob, which would suggest a date no later than the
eleventh century (see 6.2.1.1 below). But even if correct, this would apply only to Ruth Zu†a. That Ruth Zu†a and Lamentations
Zu†a form part of the same work is far from certain. For a recent discussion see Mandel, Lamentations Rabbati 1:179–82.
17
Cf. the Leqet published by Qafi˙ in his Óame¡ Megillot, 356–58. There are also abbreviations and anthologies of Lam.
R., such as the Pirqei Ti¡>ah be-<Ab (Mandel, Lamentations Rabbati 1:58–67). Scholars were forever making such collections
of material for their own use. They were never intended as finished products.
18
A useful collection of these can be found in Daniel Goldschmidt, ed., Seder ha-Qinot le-Ti¡>ah be-<Ab (Jerusalem: Mos-
sad Harav Kook, 1965).
19
Leon J. Weinberger, Jewish Hymnography: A Literary History. Littman Library of Jewish Civilization (London and
Portland, OR: Vallentine Mitchell, 1998) 61.
20
It should be noted, however, that the piyyutim of Yannai are particularly exegetical. See Menahem Zulay, Piyyutei Yannai
(Berlin: Schocken, 1938). Piyyut from its inception has had a close relationship to Midrash.
56   Introduction

something to stand beside the holy text that invited comparison with it. It is a testimony to
the poetic strength of the payyetanim that they so often achieved an independent voice and
were not overcome by “the anxiety of influence.”21 Many synagogue Qinot are clearly aware
of the biblical Lamentations and reacted to it, consciously and perhaps even unconsciously,
in a variety of ways. They can be seen, therefore, as a sort of reading of the biblical book.
This can be illustrated from Qallir’s elegy, <Im to<khalnah na¡im piryam >olelei †ippu˙im.22
This Qinah consists of a long series of protases detailing the appalling sufferings of the gen-
eration of the destruction:
If women devour their own fruit,
  the infants they dandled,
If compassionate women boil their children,
  whom they so fondly dandled .  .  .

The catalogue of disasters comes basically from the biblical Lamentations, but it is significantly
augmented by traditional <aggadot. We find the same literary device of dramatic heighten-
ing that characterizes both the Targum and the Midrash, a baroque style that strives to outdo
the biblical text in explicitness and horror. The long catalogue of protases never reaches an
apodosis (the unspoken apodosis would surely have been a bitter complaint against God). It
is abruptly terminated by a passage in prose: “The holy spirit confronts the wrongdoers: Woe
to all my evil neighbors (cf. Jer 12:14)! What has befallen them they proclaim, but what they
themselves have done they do not proclaim. ‘If women devour their own fruit?’ they announce,
but ‘If a priest is slain in the Temple of the Lord?’ they do not announce.” The riposte is sav-
age, all the more savage and dismissive for being in prose. Like the Targum, it injects God’s
voice into Lamentations, here represented by “the holy spirit,” in the Targum by the Attribute
of Justice, and it hears that voice at precisely the same point, at Lam 2:20, where, like the
Targumist, the payyetan takes the second question in the verse (“Shall priest and prophet be
slain in the sanctuary of the Lord?”) as a divine reply to the accusing question posed in the
first (“Shall women devour their own fruit, the children they have dandled in their hands?”).
The two questions form an inclusio framing the whole piyyut, which can, consequently, be
seen as an extended poetic meditation on this verse. It becomes clear from the ending that it
is the congregation of Israel that speaks the opening series of questions. The poet cunningly
leads them to wallow in self-pity and then slaps them in the face. The descent into prose chal-
lenges the congregation gathered on the Ninth of Ab to bewail its fate and, indeed, implicitly
subverts the book of Lamentations and, ironically, the poet’s own poetic efforts: “This is no
time for poetry, for composing elaborate dirges of self-pity! You should acknowledge that
you have brought disaster on yourselves and repent of your sins!”
The classical synagogue Qinot are important for the history of the exegesis of Lamenta-
tions not only because of their implicit readings of the biblical book but also because they
clearly draw on many of the same <aggadot as embellish the classic Midrashim and the Targum.
This can be illustrated from Qallir’s elegy <Az be-halokh Yirmiyahu <el qibrei <abot (“Then

21
Harold Bloom, The Anxiety of Influence: A Theory of Poetry (New York: Oxford University Press, 1973).
22
A text and translation are conveniently presented in Linafelt, Surviving Lamentations, 146–48. For other readily acces-
sible Qinot see Jakob Josef Petuchowski, Theology and Poetry: Studies in Medieval Piyyut. Littman Library of Jewish Civiliza-
tion (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1978); T. Carmi, ed., The Penguin Book of Hebrew Verse (Harmondsworth: Penguin,
1981) 204–206. See further Pierre Bogaert, Apocalypse de Baruch. 2 vols. SC (Paris: Cerf, 1969) 1:150–57.
 Introduction   57

Jeremiah went to the graves of the patriarchs”),23 which is clearly based on a version of the
legend, found also in Lam.R. Proem 24, about Jeremiah’s visit to the tombs of the founding
fathers of the nation to acquaint them with their descendants’ plight and to call on them to
intercede on their behalf. The parallels with the rabbinic material are striking, but the differ-
ences are no less important, perhaps even more important—such as the stress Qallir puts on the
pleas of the “founding mothers” (Leah, Rachel, Bilhah, and Zilpah), as well as the founding
fathers. These Qinot, as Menachem Zulay correctly argues, offer important testimony to the
antiquity and the Sitz im Leben of many of the <aggadot of destruction found in the Proems
of Lam.R. and in other early Midrashim.24

6.1.5  2 Baruch
Qinot for the fall of the Temple are found much earlier in a number of apocalypses
composed in the aftermath of the destruction of 70 c.e.25 For our present purposes the most
important of these is 2 Baruch, a legendary account of the Babylonians’ capture and destruc-
tion of Jerusalem attributed to Jeremiah’s scribe Baruch, who became a popular mouthpiece
for the writers of pseudepigrapha. This work survives now only in Syriac, but the Syriac was
a translation from the Greek, fragments of which have been recovered from P.Oxy. 403 (=
12:1–13:2; 13:11–14:3). Robert Henry Charles argued that the Greek was in turn a translation
from a Hebrew original, on the basis of what he claimed were mistranslations, a view subse-
quently supported by Frank Zimmermann.26 Though preserved by the church, the apocalypse is
Jewish, and probably dates from the late first or early second century c.e.27 A Hebrew original
would point strongly to a Palestinian provenance, as would the aggadic overlaps with rabbinic
sources. The most impressive of the Qinot occurs at 2 Bar 10:6–12:4, but other noteworthy
elegies can be found at 5:1-3, 13:8-11, 31:3-5, and 35:2-5.28
A number of points can be made about 2 Baruch in the present context. Although there
are parallels between 2 Baruch and rabbinic sources, most strikingly between the narratives

23
Goldschmidt, Seder ha-Qinot, 98–100.
24
Menachem Zulay, “An Ancient Poem and the Petichoth of Echa Rabbati,” Tarbiß 16 (1944–45) 190–95 [Hebrew].
25
Apart from 2 Baruch see Josephus, War 5.19; Apocalypse of Abraham 27; 4 Ezra 10:21-23; Paralipomena Jeremiae
4:6-9; 3 Baruch 1:2-6; Sybilline Oracles 5:397-410. See further Bogaert, Apocalypse de Baruch 1:144–50. In general on Jew-
ish responses to the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple see Hans Joachim Schoeps, Die Tempelzerstörung des
Jahres 70 in der jüdischen Religionsgeschichte. ConBNTS 6 (Uppsala: Seminarium Neotestamenticum Upsaliense, 1942);
Clemens Thoma, Die Zerstörung des jerusalemischen Tempels im Jahre 70 n. Chr. Geistig-religiöse Bedeutung für Judentum
und Christentum nach den Aussagen jüdischer und christlicher Primärliteratur (Diss. Phil., Wien 1966); Jacob Neusner, “Juda-
ism in a Time of Crisis: Four Responses to the Destruction of the Second Temple,” Judaism 21 (1972) 313–27; Michael E.
Stone, “Reactions to Destructions of the Second Temple,” JSJ 12 (1981) 195–204; Martin Goodman, “Diaspora Reactions to
the Destruction of the Temple,” in James D. G. Dunn, ed., The Parting of the Ways A.D. 70 to 135 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
1992) 27–38; Konrad Schmid, “Die Zerstörung Jerusalems und seines Tempels as Heilsparadox. Zur Zusammenführung von
Geschichtstheologie und Anthropologie im Vierten Esrabuch,” in Hahn, Zerstörungen des Jerusalemer Tempels, 183–206. On
Rabbinic responses see n. 11 above, and on Christian responses see 6.3 below and n. 58.
26
R. H. Charles, The Apocalypse of Baruch translated from the Syriac (London: A. C. Black, 1896) xliv–liii; Frank Zim-
mermann, “Textual Observations on the Apocalypse of Baruch,” JTS 40 (1939) 151–56; idem, “Translation and Mistranslation
in the Apocalypse of Baruch,” in Meir Ben-Horin, et al., eds., Studies and Essays in Honour of Abraham A. Neuman (Leiden:
Brill, 1962) 580–87.
27
Rivka Nir’s attempt to argue that 2 Baruch is Christian fails to persuade (The Destruction of Jerusalem and the Idea of
Redemption in the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch [Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003]). See the review by Liv Ingeborg
Lied in JSS 50 (2005) 403–405.
28
Bogaert, Apocalypse de Baruch, 128–44. See further Alexander, “What Happened to the Jewish Priesthood after 70?”
58   Introduction

in chapters 1–12 and 77 and Pesiqta Rabbati 26,29 it is probably a mistake to see 2 Baruch as
having any connection specifically with the rabbinic movement. The parallels with Pesiqta
Rabbati prove nothing. It is true that we now classify Pesiqta Rabbati as a rabbinic text, and
it was certainly transmitted within the broad rabbinic tradition, but it contains material that is,
to say the least, odd from a rabbinic perspective, and this is particularly the case with Pisqa
26. I will propose below (7.2) a possible historical link between the early 2 Baruch and the
much later Pesiqta Rabbati through the shadowy movement known as the Mourners for Zion,
which, having formed in the dark days after the destruction of the Second Temple, seems to
have persisted in some form down to the early Middle Ages. Even if this proposal is deemed
too speculative, the substantive parallels between 2 Baruch and Pesiqta Rabbati are all of an
aggadic, folkloric kind and can easily be seen as representing popular tales about the fall of
the Temple on which both sources could independently have drawn. There is nothing distinc-
tively rabbinic about them.
If the Qinot of 2 Baruch and related texts30 did have a public, liturgical setting and were
not confined to the private liturgies of the Mourners for Zion, we might possibly find it in
the observance of the fast of the Ninth of Ab in the Greek-speaking synagogues, not in the
Aramaic or Hebrew-speaking synagogues with which the early rabbinic movement was more
closely associated.31 The Apostolic Constitutions V, 20 actually attests the public reading of
a book of Baruch along with the canonical Lamentations on the Ninth of Ab,32 though this
report should not be pressed too hard (see below). A number of these Qinot, notably 2 Bar
10:6-19, have a very different feel from the later Qinot of the synagogue payyetanim such as
Qallir.33 The 2 Bar 10:6-19 elegy opens: “Happy the man who was never born, /Or the child
who died at birth./ But as for us who are alive, woe to us, /Because we see the afflictions of
Zion, /And what has happened to Jerusalem.” The poet then calls on the “sirens from the sea,”
the “night-demons from the desert,” and the “demons and jackals from the forests” to lament
with him. The core of the lament is a summons to animate and inanimate nature to cease
functioning: now that the Temple is destroyed, the world no longer has any meaning. The la-
ment ends by invoking divine vengeance on Babylon for what it has done to Zion. Apart from
a fleeting reference to the false stewardship of the priests (10:18), the Deuteronomistic view
that the disaster is a result of sin, which so dominates later rabbinic Midrash, the Targum, and
the piyyut, is totally absent.34 Also lacking are the dramatically heightened descriptions of the
survivors’ sufferings so typical of the later sources. A further difference is the relationship to
the biblical book of Lamentations. There are few echoes or allusions (linguistic or literary)

29
See the running commentary in Bogaert, Apocalypse de Baruch, and especially 1:222–41.
30
See n. 24 above.
31
Though if it did have a Hebrew original (see above), the latter possibility cannot be ruled out. The motivation for translat-
ing the Hebrew into Greek might have been to cater to the needs of Greek-speaking Jews to memorialize the destruction of the
Temple. The translation may have been made at roughly the same time as the canonical Lamentations was rendered into Greek,
possibly to serve a similar purpose (see above, 5.4.1).
32
Bogaert, Apocalypse de Baruch 1:157–62. However, it is very unclear which book of Baruch is referred to. The text
actually quotes from apocryphal Bar 3:35-37.
33
Note, however, the possible echoes of 2 Bar 10:6-19 in t. Sot. 15:10-15 (see 7.2.2 below), on which see Alexander,
“What happened to the Jewish Priesthood after 70?”
34
Again, by way of contrast, the Deuteronomistic viewpoint is all over the Paraleipomena Jeremiae (4 Baruch), a work
composed in Greek shortly after the Bar Kokhba revolt. Note the short Qinah at 4:6-9, with its distinct echoes of Lamentations.
See Jens Herzer, 4 Baruch (Paraleipomena Jeremiou), Translated with an Introduction and Notes (Atlanta: Society of Biblical
Literature, 2005).
 Introduction   59

in the 2 Baruch Qinot, and indeed in the book as a whole, to the biblical Lamentations. This
independence of its biblical forerunner is nothing short of astonishing and contrasts strikingly
with the close intertextual relationship with Scripture in the later piyyut. Though the lack of
reference to Lamentations in 2 Baruch makes it less directly relevant to the history of the
exegesis of the biblical book, it is nevertheless useful for our present purposes in a number
of ways. It opens a window onto mourning for Zion in the immediate post-70 period, and it
points to a tradition of mourning, perhaps centered on the Greek-speaking, as opposed to the
Aramaic/Hebrew-speaking, synagogues, somewhat different from that associated with the
later rabbinic tradition.

6.1.6  Targum Lamentations and Jewish Exegesis of

    Lamentations in Late Antiquity
<Eikhah Rabbati, <Eikhah Zuta (in its various recensions), the <aggadot of destruction,
and the comments on specific verses in Lamentations liberally scattered through the classic
Midrashim and the two Talmuds, the early midrashic traditions preserved in Yalqut Shim>oni,
the Qinot of Qallir and other early synagogue poets, as well as the non-rabbinic reflections
on the fall of the Temple found in 2 Baruch and related texts give us insight into Jewish ex-
egesis of the book of Lamentations in late antiquity. The remains are impressive. But where
does Tg. Lam. fit into the picture? Its numerous and detailed overlaps specifically with the
rabbinic sources, recorded in the Notes below, suggest that our Targum originated in a rab-
binic milieu (a conclusion confirmed by the explicit reference to the efficacy of the study of
Mishnah to negate the exile at 2:19; see below, 8.1). But we must be careful. As I noted in
Targum Canticles,35 there has been a pervasive assumption in some scholarship that Targum
is a derivative genre. Where parallels can be discovered between Targum on the one hand
and Midrash or Talmud on the other it is simply assumed that the former has borrowed from
the latter. Midrash and Talmud are given unchallenged primacy over Targum. This attitude
extends also to piyyut: again in the case of shared traditions, it is piyyut that depends on the
classic rabbinic texts, not vice versa. Note, for example, the detailed and valuable study by
Zvi M. Rabinowitz of the “sources” of the liturgical poetry of Yannai.36
This view has to be questioned on a number of counts. First, it rests on an inappropriate
literary view of the tradition, which it envisages as made up essentially of a collection of dis-
crete written texts, each with its “author,” some of whom used the others as sources. We can
see this assumption at work in Joseph Abrahams’ study The Sources of the Midrash Echah
Rabbah (Berlin: J. Gorzelanczyk, 1883), in Buber’s introduction to his edition of <Eikhah
Rabbati, and much more recently in Günter Stemberger’s claim that Lam.R. “uses” Mishnah
and Tosefta, as well as Mekhilta, Sifra, and Sifrei, but is in turn itself “used” by Leviticus
Rabba and Ruth Rabba (Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, 285–86). But this ignores
the textual fluidity of the different documents and the fact that, as the history of redaction
criticism shows, though parallelism is self-evident, the priority of one version over the other
or the direct literary dependency of one on the other can seldom be proved. The arguments
are usually reversible. There may be obvious grounds for assuming that where a tradition is

35
Alexander, Targum Canticles, 39–45.
36
Zvi Meir Rabinowitz, Halakha and Aggada in the Liturgical Poetry of Yannai: The Sources, Language and Period of the
Payyetan (New York: Kohut Foundation, 1965) [Hebrew].
60   Introduction

shared between Lam.R. and the Mishnah the Mishnaic version takes precedence, but this can
seldom be satisfactorily proved on purely literary grounds.
Second, assuming the priority of Talmud and Midrash over Targum imposes on the tradi-
tion a late rabbinic hierarchy of literary values:37 Talmud outranks Midrash, and Midrash in
turn outranks Targum. But it is perfectly clear in the case of a text like Lam.R. (and, indeed,
many other Midrashim) that the Midrash borrowed heavily from traditions that originated
outside the rabbinic schools—in synagogue preaching on Lamentations and in folk-legends
about the fall of the Temple. That there was such a non-rabbinic tradition, going all the way
back to the immediate post-70 period, is conclusively proved by 2 Baruch (see 6.1.5 above).
It is also evident from the folkloric character of many of the <aggadot in Lam.R. The Rabbis
patently borrowed from popular storytelling that grew up around the fast of the Ninth of Ab.
Their debt to this popular tradition in both Midrash and Talmud has been seriously underes-
timated.38 Thus if we find an aggadic parallel between two Midrashim or between a Targum
and a Midrash it is premature to suppose that one must be directly dependent on the other or
that the midrashic version automatically takes precedence over the targumic. Both Targum
and Midrash could be independently reflecting a common (popular) source. This possibility
will usually be reinforced by a close synoptic comparison of the parallels, which will almost
invariably demonstrate that the parallelism is not exact. There will be significant differences
of detail in the Targum, which will at the very least show that, even if our Targumist did have
the Midrash in front of him, he chose to give his own particular slant to the tradition: he was
determined, exegetically, to be his own man.
The relationship between Tg. Lam. and Lam.R. is particularly pertinent to our study.
The numerous parallels between the two texts suggest that they come from roughly the same
time and the same milieu. But we should not ignore the differences. Where parallels exist our
Targumist presents his own distinctive version that chimes in with his overall message. There
is no clear evidence that he knew our Midrash in any of the forms in which we now have
it. There are cases where the Midrash presents interpretations and <aggadot that could have
been introduced into the Targum and were not. Conversely, and perhaps more surprisingly,
given its comprehensiveness, there are interpretations and <aggadot in the Targum that could
have been included in the Midrash and are not. We have already noted one major theological
difference between the two texts: the striking absence from the Targum of a theology of the
pathos of God (above, 4.4). The portions of Lam.R. in Galilean Aramaic, noted earlier, are
broadly in the same dialect as the Targum and testify to the existence of popular vernacular
preaching on Lamentations addressed to precisely the same audience, surely, as Tg. Lam.
The author of Lam.R. knows Targum and occasionally quotes it (Lam.R. 3:1 §1 and 3:10
§4, both = Onq. Deut. 29:9), but, oddly, when occasionally he offers an Aramaic rendering
specifically of Lamentations it does not correspond to our Tg. Lam. (e.g., Lam.R. 1:12 §40:
cf. Tg. Lam. 1:12, Note 50; Lam.R. 1:9 §36: cf. Tg. Lam. 1:9, Note 38). The most judicious

37
Abraham Joshua Heschel, Heavenly Torah as Refracted through the Generations, ed. and trans. by Gordon Tucker (New
York and London: Continuum, 2005), mounts a sustained attack on this hierarchy, at least on the prioritizing of Halakhah over
Aggadah (see especially 1–45).
38
On folklore in Talmud and Midrash see Eli Yassif, The Hebrew Folktale: History, Genre, Meaning (Bloomington and
Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1999); Galit Hasan-Rokem, Web of Life: Folklore and Midrash in Rabbinic Literature,
trans. Batya Stein (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2000). The folklore approach to early Rabbinic literature is poten-
tially of enormous significance if it can establish a Sitz im Leben, a context of creativity, essentially independent of both priestly
and rabbinic tradition, on which priestly and rabbinic texts may have drawn. See above, n. 8.
 Introduction   61

conclusion from all this appears to be that Tg. Lam. and Lam.R. are mutually independent,
but draw on the same rich tradition.

6.2  Lamentations in Later Jewish Exegesis

The existence of numerous manuscripts of Tg. Lam. from Europe, North Africa, and the
Middle East, together with the fact that textually this Targum continued to be reworked down
to the early Middle Ages, suggests that it was well known. This raises the question whether its
influence on later Jewish exegesis of Lamentations can be traced. The question is interesting
not only in its own right but also for another reason. How later commentators used the Targum
can illuminate the Targum, the meaning of which is not infrequently problematic. A classic
example of this is afforded by Tg. Cant., which formed the basis of Rashi’s commentary on
the Song of Songs. In re-presenting the Targumic reading of the biblical book Rashi in effect
gives a valuable reading of the Targum as well, and throws light on it.39 Rashi and the other
great medieval rabbinic commentators were not only close readers of the Bible; they were
close and learned readers of earlier Rabbinic tradition as well, and it is always worth keeping
an eye on how they understood the classic Rabbinic sources. Later Jewish commentary on
Lamentations is vast, and I cannot offer a comprehensive survey of it here. What follows is
simply a series of observations on the commentaries I consulted in preparing my Notes on
Tg. Lam.

6.2.1  Lamentations in Medieval Jewish Exegesis

6.2.1.1  The Leqa˙ ˇob

One of the earliest and most influential of the medieval rabbinic expositions of Lam-
entations is found in the Leqa˙ ˇob, a commentary on the Pentateuch and the Five Megillot
composed by Tobiah ben Eliezer in the Balkans in the late eleventh century. The part relating
specifically to Lamentations was published from mss in Cambridge, Oxford, and Munich, by
Albert W. Greenup (2nd. ed. London, 1908). Tobiah offers essentially an anthology of earlier
<aggadot, drawn largely from Lam.R. and the Babli, interspersed with shrewd comments on
the basic meaning of the Hebrew. In other words, he presents a blend of Peshat and Derash,
somewhat reminiscent of the approach of Rashi and, like Rashi, his <aggadah tends to be
judiciously chosen to illuminate the plain sense. His explanations coincide from time to time
with those of the Targum, which he undoubtedly knew and used in Song of Songs.40 However,
it is difficult to prove his indebtedness to the Targum specifically in Lamentations since he
tends not to identify his sources (see, however, the Notes below, passim).41

39
Alexander, Targum Canticles, 45-47.
40
See Leon J. Liebreich, “Midrash Leqa˙ Tob’s dependence upon the Targum of the Song of Songs 8:11-12,” JQR n.s. 38
(1947–48) 63–66; further Alexander, Targum Canticles, 202.
41
For a discussion of the sources for the Pentateuchal section of his commentary see S. Buber, ed., Lekach-Tob (Pesikta
Sutarta): Ein agadischer Commentar zum ersten und zweiten Buche Mosis von Rabbi Tobia ben Elieser (Vilna: Romm, 1884),
Introduction, 36–42 [Hebrew]. See further Stemberger, Introduction to Talmud and Midrash, 356–57.
62   Introduction

6.2.1.2  Rashi
The commentary of Rashi (1040–1105) on Lamentations can be found in the standard
Miqra<ot Gedolot and has often reprinted from there. Comparison of this textus receptus with
the mss reveals in Lamentations, as in the other books of the Bible, significant textual variants,
and raises the possibility that Rashi may have issued a number of versions of his commentary
during his own lifetime or that his notes continued to be reworked after his death within his
school. His comments on Lamentations are typical of his comments elsewhere. He tells us at
Lam 1:1 that “although there are many aggadic midrashim I intend to explain the language of
Scripture according to its plain sense,” but this does not stop him from regularly enlivening
his exposition with aggadic glosses, though he always chooses “sober” <aggadot that are not
too fanciful or too far from the plain sense. Lam.R. seems to have been a major source for
these <aggadot, though some have probably been derived from the Babli. At 4:1 he quotes the
Targum by name and at several other points may be reliant on it (e.g., 1:2 and 2:5, where his
“Congregation of Judah” = MT “Daughter of Judah” may recall Tg. ad loc.).

6.2.1.3  Joseph Qara

Rashi’s pupil and associate Joseph Qara (1050–1125) also wrote a commentary on Lam-
entations that Solomon Buber published in 1900 on the basis of Breslau ms 1041 (now lost)
and Munich ms 5, which differ considerably from each other.42 This is typical of the textual
confusion in the mss of Qara’s exegetical works, which Avraham Grossman claims “have
suffered considerably from accretions, omissions and redaction, more than the writings of
any other North-French commentator on the Bible.” “We do not possess,” he asserts, “one
complete, authentic manuscript of Kara’s commentary on the Latter Prophets and Hagiogra-
pha.”43 There is, however, much in the commentaries on Lamentations attributed to Qara that
is undoubtedly genuine, conforms to his general style, and exemplifies his exegetical program.
Qara carried forward the trend of the northern French school toward an ever-increasing stress
on peshat. He clearly knew and used Rashi’s commentary (see the note to 1:14 in Munich
5), sometimes tacitly disagreeing with his master and teacher, but he has rigorously ignored
all Rashi’s aggadic embellishments (though see the notes to 1:21, 3:42, and 4:5-6 in Breslau
1041, and to 2:10 in Munich 5). At 3:45 he appeals to Tg. Lam. on a philological point (the
meaning of the obscure se˙i), and the philological acumen of our Targumist should have been
congenial to him and may have been drawn upon elsewhere in his commentary: note, e.g., the
discussion of the word tafel at 2:14 in Breslau 1041 and the reference to Targum Jonathan to
Isa 66:1 at 2:3 in the same ms. Appeals to the Targum, including the Palestinian Targumim,
are not uncommon in Qara’s commentaries. Qara’s expertise in piyyut comes out in his gloss
to 3:20, where he cites Qallir to make a point, though interestingly the same quote is found
also in Rashi ad loc., attributed to an unnamed payyetan. This may well be a case where Rashi
has incorporated into his own commentary a note by one of his pupils.
42
See Solomon Buber, Peiru¡ Rabbi Yosef Qara >al Megillat <Eikhah (Breslau: Schlesische Buchdruckerei, 1901; repr.
from Marcus Brann and Franz Rosenthal, eds., Gedenkbuch zur Erinnerung an David Kaufmann [Breslau: S. Schottländer,
1900], Hebrew section, 1–26). The text of the Munich 5 version had earlier been published with a German translation by Joseph
M. Schönfelder, Die Klagelieder des Jeremias nach rabbinischer Auslegung (Munich: Ernst Stahl, 1887) 36–105.
43
Avraham Grossmann, “The School of Literal Jewish Exegesis in Northern France,” in Magne Sæbø, ed., Hebrew Bible/
Old Testament: The History of its Interpretation. Vol. 1/2 : The Middle Ages (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000) 347
and 349.
 Introduction   63

6.2.1.4  Abraham ibn Ezra

The standard Miqra<ot Gedolot print a commentary by Abraham ibn Ezra (1089–1164)
on Lamentations.44 The notes are short and, like Ibn Ezra’s other biblical glosses, mainly con-
cerned with “expounding the scroll in accordance with the grammar (<a˙arei ha-diqduqim)”
(Introduction). He shows no interest in recording traditional aggadic or homiletical explana-
tions, though he clearly knew them (note the allusion to Lam.R. 1:3 §29 at 1:3). The tone is
rational and scientific in accordance with the approach of the Spanish school of Bible exegesis.
In his note to 3:1 he questions, in typically guarded language, Jeremiah’s authorship of Lamen-
tations, and hence his identity with the geber there, and he rejects the view that Lamentations
was the scroll burned by Jehoiakim (Introduction; see Jer 36:1-32). He appears to have known
the Targum: see his notes to 3:45 (se˙i = †il†ul: cf. Qara ad loc.), 3:56, and 4:1. His comment
on the last verse is highly compressed and the actual Targum he quotes is Onq. to Lev 13:6, to
establish that yu>am in MT Lam 4:1 means “grow dim,” but this also happens to be Tg. Lam.’s
understanding of the word. Cf. Rashi ad loc. There is a second commentary on Lamenta-
tions traditionally attributed to Ibn Ezra, sometimes referred to as the Peiru¡ ha-Te>amim.45
Ibn Ezra is well known for having written, for various reasons, different versions of the same
work, or different works on the same topic, at different points in his checkered life, but it is
hard to be sure that these short notes, which basically paraphrase various words and phrases
in Lamentations, are really his. There is little or no overlap with the genuine commentary on
Lamentations, and none of the philological interest characteristic of his other works.

6.2.1.5  Salmon b. Yero˙am

The Qaraites produced a considerable body of exegesis on Lamentations, which played
a major role in their liturgy. Representative of this is the Arabic commentary of Salmon b.
Yero˙am, famous for his Hebrew polemic The Wars of the Lord against Sa>adia, and one of
the circle of Mourners for Zion, who made Jerusalem a centre of Qaraite scholarship and spir-
ituality in the second half of the tenth century. The text was published by Salomon Feuerstein
in 1898.46 Salmon as a commentator tends to be more of a compiler than an original exegete,
though he can be dismissive of his predecessors, but his commentary is important because it
appears to include substantial elements of the Qaraite liturgies of mourning for Zion, and its
relationship to antecedent rabbinic tradition is more complex than one might suppose given
its Qaraite origins. See further below, 7.2.

44
German translation: Schönfelder, Die Klagelieder, 1–35, including also the Sefer ha-Te>amim (see next note).
45
See both the first and second editions of Bomberg Biblia Rabbinica. The work was used by Peter Martyr Vermigli in
his Commentary on the Lamentations of the Prophet Jeremiah, trans. and ed. with introduction and notes by Daniel Shute.
The Peter Martyr Library 6 (Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 2002). German translation in Schönfelder, Die
Klagelieder, 1–35 (see previous note).
46
Salomon Feuerstein, Der Commentar des Karäers Salmon b. Jerucham zu d. Klageliedern. Zum ersten Male nach der
Pariser Handscrhrift edirt, mit einer Einleitung und Anmerkungen versehen. Inaugural-Dissertation, University of Bern (Cra-
cow: J. Fischer, 1898). See Lawrence Marwick, “Studies in Salmon b. Yeru˙am,” JQR n.s. 34 (1943/44) 313–20l, 475–80;
further Haggai Ben-Shammai, “Poetic Works and Lamentations of Qaraite ‘Mourners for Zion’: Structure and Contents,” in:
Shulamit Elizur, et al., eds., Kenesset-Ezra: Literature and Life in the Synagogue: Studies presented to Ezra Fleischer (Jerusalem:
Yad Yishaq Ben-Sevi, 1994) 191–234 [Hebrew]; Meira Polliack, The Karaite Tradition of Arabic Bible Translation (Leiden:
Brill, 1997); Daniel Frank, Search Scripture Well: Karaite Exegetes and the Origins of the Jewish Bible Commentary in the
Islamic East (Leiden: Brill, 2004).
64   Introduction

6.2.2  Lamentations in Post-Medieval Jewish Exegesis

The following is a selection of the more influential Jewish commentaries on Lamenta-
tions that have appeared in Hebrew since the end of the Middle Ages: (1) Isaac ben Moses
Arama (ca. 1420–1494: EJ 3:256–59), in his commentary on the Megillot (Riva di Trento
1561, and repr., with the >Aqedat Yiß˙aq, Venice 1573; Cowley, p. 261); (2) Joel ibn Shuaib
(15th c.: EJ 8:1201), printed alongside the commentary on Lamentations of Abraham Galante
in Qol Bokhim (Venice 1589; Cowley, p. 320); (3) Josef ben David ibn Ya˙ya (1494–1534:
EJ 8:1210 ), in Peiru¡ Óame¡ Megillot (Bologna 1538; Cowley, p. 351); (4) Moses Almon-
sino (ca. 1515–ca. 1580: EJ 2:669–72), in Yedei Mo¡eh on the Megillot (Salonica 1572 and
Venice 1597; Cowley, pp. 81, 461); (5) Abraham ben Mordecai Galante (second half of 16th
c.: EJ 7:258), Qinat Setarim, published in Qol Bokhim alongside the commentary of Joel ibn
Shu>aib (Venice 1589; Cowley, pp. 19, 83); (6) Samuel b. Isaac Uçeda (b. 1540: EJ 15:1497),
Le˙em Dim>ah (Venice 1600, and often reprinted in Miqra<ot Gedolot; Cowley, pp. 85, 87,
615), one of the largest and most influential of the post-medieval Jewish commentaries on
Lamentations; (7) Isaac b. Solomon Jabez (late 16th c.: EJ 9:1172), in Torat Óesed, his com-
mentary on the Writings (Belvedere [Constantinople], after 1593; reprinted in Rabbinic Bible,
Amsterdam, 1724–27; Cowley, p. 267); (8) Moses Alshekh (d. after 1593: EJ 2:758–59),
Debarim Ne˙umim, published after his death, along with his exposition of the rest of the
Megillot, by his son Óayyim Alshekh (Venice 1601, and often reprinted; abridged Amsterdam
1698; Cowley pp. 85, 461); (9) Shabbetai ben Joseph Bass (1641–1718: EJ 4:313), in his fiiftei
Óa˙amim, a super-commentary on Rashi to the Pentateuch and Megillot (Amsterdam 1680,
and often reprinted, sometimes abridged as >Iqqar fiiftei Óa˙amim; reprinted with additions,
Frankfurt am Main; Cowley, pp. 92, 99, 629); (10) Je˙iel Hillel ben David Altschuler (18th c.:
EJ 2:783–84), in the Meßudat Íiyyon and Meßudat David (Leghorn 1780–82; often reprinted,
e.g., 1808, 1820; Cowley, p. 313); (11) Óayyim Josef David Azulai (the Óida: 1724–1806: EJ
3:1019), in Na˙al <E¡kol on the Megillot (1792; Cowley, p. 50); (12) Jacob ben Jacob Moses
of Lissa Lorbeerbaum (ca. 1760–1832: EJ 11:492), Palgei Mayim in his commentary <Imrei
Yo¡er on the Megillot (1804, and often reprinted; Cowley, p. 301); (13) Aaron Wolfsohn-Halle
(1754–1835: EJ 16:617), in the Megillot of the Mendelssohn, Biur (Berlin 1788; reprinted
1833–37; Cowley, pp. 103, 710); (14) Some idea of traditional Yemenite commentary on
Lamentations can be gleaned from the various very traditional commentaries published in
Yosef Qafi˙’s and Shim>on Najar’s editions of the Hame¡ Megillot.47

6.2.3  The Influence of Targum Lamentations on Later Jewish Exegesis

Our brief survey of the medieval and post-medieval tradition of Jewish commentary on
Lamentations reveals that Tg. Lam. seems to have exercised little documentable influence.
This is somewhat puzzling, since ms copies of the Targum circulated widely during the Middle
Ages and it was readily available in print in the Miqra<ot Gedolot and the Polyglots, ever
since Bomberg included it in his First Rabbinic Bible. Even those medieval commentators
who do make use of it (Rashi, Qara, and Ibn Ezra) seem to confine themselves to the same
few verses, which raises the question of whether they bothered to study Tg. Lam. as a whole

47
Qafi˙, Óame¡ Megillot, 354­–58, and Najar, Óame¡ Megillot.
 Introduction   65

or simply relied on a few points picked up by earlier commentators.48 This lack of interest is
probably related to the fact that the originality of Tg. Lam. lies in its philology, that is to say
in the solutions it offers to the linguistic problems of the Hebrew. It does, of course, contain
quantities of <aggadah, but it cannot compete on this front with the much richer Lam.R.,
which within the Jewish exegetical tradition, taken as a whole, was by far the most influential
single commentary on Lamentations, and totally overshadowed the Targum (its continuing
centrality is borne out by the number of impressive super-commentaries on it produced in
modern times).49 Most traditional commentary on Lamentations was essentially anthologi-
cal, its aims to exhort and to edify. Where its interpretations were more innovative they were
usually either mystical or philosophical, not philological. Interest in philology, together with
a more critical, historical approach was promoted within the tradition of Hebrew biblical
scholarship by Azariah de’ Rossi in the sixteenth century and by Samuel David Luzzato and
Elijah Benamozegh and others in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, but it would be a
travesty to suggest that it was totally absent till then. There was a strong tradition of philology
in the Middle Ages, and any commentator concerned with peshat, as most commentators are
to some extent compelled to be, should have found much of value in Tg. Lam., the vocabulary
of which was well covered in the >Arukh of the great medieval lexicographer Nathan b. Je˙iel
of Rome (1035–ca. 1110).50 The problem is that the philology of Tg. Lam. does not lie on
the surface: it has to be dug for, and Jewish scholars saw no need to dig. It was probably not
until Ephraim Silber’s Sedeh Yeru¡alayim (1883)51 that Hebrew biblical scholarship began to
take an interest in Tg. Lam. for its own sake.52

6.3  Christian Exegesis of Lamentations

Before closing this brief history of exegesis we should say a word about Christian use
of Lamentations, which is potentially of considerable relevance to the contextualization of
Tg. Lam. There is a growing awareness among scholars that from antiquity onward
Christian and rabbinic interpretations of Scripture interacted more vigorously and continu-
ously than was previously supposed.53 I found clear evidence for this interaction in the case of

48
There is rather more evidence for interest among Christians. Note Joannes Quinquarboreus, Targum seu paraphrasis
Caldaica, nunc primum latinitate donata .  .  . Additae sunt eiusdem Qinquarborei annotationes (Paris, 1549).
49
These can be conveniently found printed in the Warsaw 1876 (Cowley, p. 437) and Vilna 1878 (Cowley, p. 437) editions
of Midrash Rabbah. They include: (1) the Yefeh >Anaf of Samuel Jaffe ben Isaac Ashkenazi (16th c.: EJ 3:731); (2) the Mattenot
Kehunah of Issachar Berman b. Naphtali Ha-Kohen (Berman Ashkenazi) (16th c.: EJ 9:1078); (3) the Óiddu¡ei Radal by David b.
Judah Luria (1798–1855: EJ 11:571); (4) the Peiru¡ Maharzu by Ze<eb Wolf b. Israel Einhorn (late 19th c.); (5) the Óiddu¡ei Ra¡a¡
by Samuel b. Joseph Strashun (1794–1872: EJ 15:428); and (6) the Nib˙ar mi-peninim by Enoch Zondel b. Joseph (19th c.).
50
Aruch Completum, ed. Alexander Kohut. 8 vols. (Vienna: G. Brög, 1878–92). It is not always easy to work out from the
great Kohut edition what is from Nathan and what belongs to his later editors.
51
Ephraim Silber, Sedeh Jerusalem: Ein Kommentar zu Targum Chamesh Megiloth (Czernowitz: E. Heilpern, 1883)
16b-21b [Hebrew]. Silber anticipates the much later glosses by Pinkhos Churgin, The Targum of the Hagiographa (New York:
Horeb, 1945).
52
The contrast with Tg. Cant., which exercised a profound influence on later Jewish and indeed Christian exegesis, is strik-
ing. See Alexander, Targum Canticles, 45–54.
53
Philip S. Alexander, “‘The Parting of the Ways’ from the Perspective of Rabbinic Judaism,” in: James D. G. Dunn, ed.,
Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways A.D. 70 to 135 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992) 1–26; Daniel Boyarin, Dying
for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1999); idem, Bor-
derlines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004); Adam H. Becker and
Annette Yoshiko Reed, eds., The Ways that Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages
(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003).
66   Introduction

Canticles.54 That it might also have applied in Lamentations is suggested by an unmistakable

edginess and defensiveness that pervades rabbinic commentaries on that book. It is particularly
noticeable in Lam.R., one of the major themes of which seems to be that the covenant with
Israel is not irrevocably ruptured and that it is a false deduction from the destruction of the
Temple to argue that it is.55 And one might also wonder, though this is speculative, whether
the extraordinary emphasis in Lam.R. on the pathos of God is some sort of response to the
Christian doctrine of the incarnation and the atoning sufferings of Christ.56
Marcel Simon argues that the fall of Jerusalem, and to a lesser extent the debacle of Bar
Kokhba, were defining moments in Christianity’s relationship with Judaism, and he takes
them as the starting point for his analysis of the relations between Christians and Jews in the
opening centuries of the Christian era.57 That Christians saw the destruction of the Temple as
punishment for Jewish rejection of Christ and involvement in his crucifixion is clear even in
the earliest Christian documents. Particularly suggestive is Jesus’ lament over Jerusalem in
Matt 23:37-39 and Luke 13:31-35. This pericope was surely composed after the destruction
of the Temple (which Matthew alludes to in the following verses, 24:1-2), and involves an
implicit Christian understanding of that event. It happened because the Jews killed Jesus. This
is expressed in terms of “killing the prophets,” a major cause of the destruction of the first
Temple in Jewish tradition, which focused particularly on the murder of Zechariah the son of
Iddo, who is actually mentioned in Matt 23:35 as Zechariah the son of Barachiah (the same
person is meant: see Tg. Lam. 2:20, with Note 73). Christian tradition, naturally, focused on
Jesus. The implication seems to be: just as the first Temple fell because Jerusalem rejected
and killed the prophets who were sent to it, so also would the second Temple. The stress on
gathering the children echoes mother Zion’s anguish in Lamentations for the suffering and
scattering of her children. The tone of the pericope is one of deep sorrow, and it has usually
been taken as a lament rather than simply as a prophetic denunciation. It certainly gains in
force when read against the Jewish tradition of mourning for Zion. But it ends on a note of
hope: “For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is the one who comes
in the name of the Lord.’” Jerusalem would finally come to accept the prophet it had rejected.58

54
Alexander, Targum Canticles, 47–51.
55
This was, arguably, a major theme of Rabbinic Midrash in general. See Eugene Mihaly, “A Rabbinic Defence of the
Election of Israel,” HUCA 25 (1964) 103–35; Alexander, “Torah and Salvation in Tannaitic Literature,” in: D. A. Carson, Peter
T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid, eds., Justification and Variegated Nomism. Vol. 1 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001) 261–302.
56
See above, 4.4, and cf. the rabbinic “christological” interpretations of the Binding of Isaac: Shalom Spiegel, The Last
Trial. On the Legends and Lore of the Command to Abraham to offer Isaac as a Sacrifice: The Akedah (New York: Behrman
House, 1979); Edward Kessler, Bound by the Bible: Jews, Christians and the Sacrifice of Isaac (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 2004).
57
Marcel Simon, Verus Israel: A Study of the Relations between Christians and Jews in the Roman Empire (AD 135–425),
trans. H. McKeating. Littman Library of Jewish Civilization (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press for the Littman
Library, 1986).
58
Note also the possible echoes of Lamentations in Jesus’ address to the weeping “Daughters of Jerusalem” in Luke
23:27-31. On early Christian reactions to the destruction of the Temple see S. G. F. Brandon, The Fall of Jerusalem and the
Christian Church: A Study of the Effects of the Jewish Overthrow on Christianity (2nd ed. London: SPCK, 1968), who starts
from the premise that “When we reflect on the magnitude of the disaster which the Jewish nation experienced through the war
with Rome, which started in A.D. 66 and virtually ended with the destruction of the Jewish metropolis four years later, and of
which Josephus has left us so graphic and circumstantial an account, the failure of the Christian writers to show any interest
in these mighty and pregnant events is truly amazing” (p. 10). See further Lloyd Gaston, No Stone on Another: Studies in the
Significance of the Fall of Jerusalem in the Synoptic Gospels (Leiden: Brill, 1970); Stefan Lücking, “Die Zerstörung des Tem-
pels 70 n. Chr. als Krisenerfahrung der frühen Christen,” in Hahn, ed., Zerstörungen des Jerusalemer Tempels, 140–65. I find
totally implausible the suggestion that Hebrews is an ancient synagogue homily for the Ninth of Ab: see Gabriella Gelardini,
 Introduction   67

This probably reflects the Jewish-Christian view. As Marcel Simon notes: “Faced with the
dramatic events of a.d. 70, their reactions were not fundamentally different from those of
their countrymen. Like the rabbis and the apocalyptists, they saw these events as something
brought about by God as a just punishment. Thinking about the reasons for the punishment,
they doubtless ascribed it to the sin of Israel, and above all to Israel’s sinful rejection of Jesus
the Messiah. But they did not therefore concur in the wholesale condemnation of the people.
On the contrary, they felt all the more keenly their obligation to deliver the Christian message
to their brethren and convert them to the Christian hope. In estimating the significance of the
disaster, the Jewish Christians saw it not as a sign that God had abandoned his people, but
rather as a sign that the final cataclysm was near, and with it an imminent change of fortune.
The destruction of the sanctuary and the city was one of the disasters that would lead to the
establishment of the kingdom.”59
That the fall of Jerusalem and the appalling sufferings the Jews endured at the hands of the
Romans in 70 c.e. were, as Eusebius put it, “the reward of [their] iniquity and of their impiety
against the Christ of God” (EH III 7.1) became a widespread opinion in early Christianity.
Eusebius, who made this one of the major themes of his Ecclesiastical History, saw it as no
accident that the Romans trapped in Jerusalem as in a prison the Jewish pilgrims who had
come up for Passover. “It was indeed right,” he says, “that on the same day on which they had
perpetrated the passion of the Saviour and benefactor of all men and the Christ of God, they
should be, as it were, shut up in prison and receive the destruction which pursued them from
the sentence of God.” “Omitting then,” he goes on, “the details of their misfortunes from the
sword and otherwise, I think it necessary to adduce only their sufferings from famine, in order
that those who study this work may have some partial knowledge of how the punishment of
God followed close after them for their crime against the Christ of God” (EH III 5.6–7, trans.
Lake, LCL; cf. I 1.2; II 6.8; 23.20; III 5.3).
In Gentile Christianity this idea was strongly developed along rejectionist, supersessionist
lines: Zion’s sin in murdering the Christ was so heinous that restoration was impossible. This
time there could be no national renewal.60 The destruction of the Temple meant that the Old
Law could no longer be fully implemented, and this proved that the old covenant had been
abrogated. Origen puts the classic case: “I challenge anyone to prove my statement untrue,”
he writes, “if I say that the entire Jewish nation was destroyed less than one whole generation
later on account of the sufferings which they inflicted upon Jesus. For it was, I believe, forty-
two years from the time when they crucified Jesus to the destruction of Jerusalem. Indeed,
ever since the Jews existed, it has not been recorded in history that they were rejected for
so long a time from their sacred ritual and worship, after they had been conquered by some
more powerful people. Even if sometimes they did seem to be deserted on account of their
sins, nevertheless they were under God’s care and returned to resume their own property and
to perform the customary ritual without hindrance. Accordingly, one of the facts which show
that Jesus was some divine and sacred person is just that on his account such great and fearful
calamities have now for a long time befallen the Jews. We will go so far as to say that they will

“Hebrews, An Ancient Synagogue Homily for Tisha Be-Av: Its Function, its Basis, its Theological Interpretation,” in eadem,
ed., Hebrews, Contemporary Methods—New Insights, Biblical Intepretation Series 75 (Leiden: Brill, 2005) 122ff.
59
Simon, Verus Israel, 67.
60
On the theme of restoration in early Judaism and early Christianity see James M. Scott, ed., Restoration: Old Testament,
Jewish and Christian Perspectives (Leiden: Brill, 2001).
68   Introduction

not be restored again. For they committed the most impious crime of all, when they conspired
against the Saviour of mankind, in the city where they performed to God the customary rites
which were symbols of profound mysteries. Therefore the city where Jesus suffered these
indignities had to be utterly destroyed. The Jewish nation had to be overthrown, and God’s
invitation to blessedness transferred to others, I mean the Christians, to whom came the teach-
ing about the simple and pure worship of God. And they received new laws which fit in with
the order established everywhere. Those which had previously been given were intended for
a single nation ruled by men of the same nationality and customs, so that it would be impos-
sible for everyone to keep them now” (Contra Celsum 4.22, trans. Chadwick).
To what extent were these ideas specifically linked with the book of Lamentations? An
association was certainly, in due course, forged liturgically, when Lamentations came to be
designated as the reading for Tenebrae on the last three days of Holy Week (it was actually
observed by anticipation on the preceding evenings—i.e., Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday
evening), each lesson from the book ending with the response, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, con-
vertere ad Dominum Deum tuum.”61 The implication is surely obvious: the destruction of
Jerusalem, and the plight of the Jews it symbolized, were a punishment for the crucifixion.62
Though there are old features in the Tenebrae service, it seems impossible to say for certain
how far back before the Middle Ages the practice of reading Lamentations in Holy Week
goes.63 However, an exegetical link between the biblical book and the Passion had already
been made in the second century. Early Christian commentators saw the possibility of reading
the crucifixion into Lamentations, not through 1:12 (“Is it nothing to you, all you who pass
by . . .”), or through identifying Jesus with the suffering geber of chapter 3 (christological
interpretations of both these passages were to come later), but through 4:20, which, in the MT,
literally translated runs: “The breath (rua˙) of our nostrils, the anointed of the Lord (me¡ia˙
YHWH), was caught in their pits/destructions (¡e˙itotam),64 of whom we said: ‘In his shade
(beßilo) we will live among the nations.’” The standard LXX translation of this verse was
highly suggestive: “The spirit of our face, Christ the Lord, was caught in their destructions/
corruptions, of whom we said, ‘In his shade we will live among the nations.’” A Christian
would have found the urge to see here a prophetic foreshadowing of the death of Jesus well
nigh irresistible, and for that reason it is highly probable that the verse was included in the

61
The readings were Lam 1:1-14 for Maundy Thursday, Lam 2:18-15 and 3:1-9 for Good Friday, and Lam 3:22-30, 4:1-6
and 5:1-11 for Holy Saturday. See E. Ann Matter, “The Lamentations Commentaries of Hrabanus Maurus and Paschasius Rad-
bertus,” Traditio 38 (1982) 138–39, n. 7. See further Denis Stevens, “Tenebrae,” New Catholic Encyclopedia 13:1007–1009.
62
According to Denis Stevens (New Catholic Encyclopedia 13:1008), one of the medieval church chants used for Lam-
entations bears “a strong resemblance to the cantillation of Yemenite Jews.” If the chant was Jewish, or inspired by Jewish
cantillation, the attack on the Jews would become even more pointed. The parallelism precisely with Yemenite chant is, how-
ever, puzzling on the face of it. Geographically it seems wrong, unless the chant was not Yemenite in origin but originated in
Palestine, and was possibly disseminated by Mourners for Zion. It should be noted that from late antiquity Lamentations 5 (the
Oratio Jeremiae) was widely used liturgically in the churches both in the east and the west (Edouard Cothenet, Dictionnaire
de Spiritualité 9:164). Note also the Reproaches (Improperia) of Good Friday, which in their traditional form are clearly aimed
at the Jews.
63
E. Ann Matter inclines to the view that Tenebrae was an invention of the Gallican liturgy and “was probably fully de-
veloped by the seventh century.” From the Gallican it passed into the Roman rite. See “The Lamentations Commentaries of
Hrabanus Maurus and Paschasius Radbertus,” 138–39. But the link between Lamentations and the Passion is much older, and it
is probably a mistake to tie the reading of Lamentations in Holy Week too closely to the ritual of Tenebrae.
64
See Tg. Lam. 4:20 Note 50 for the meaning of this word.
 Introduction   69

early testimonia collections.65 The Vulgate has completely, and shamelessly, christianized it:
“Spiritus oris nostri Christus Dominus captus est in peccatis nostris, cui diximus: In umbra
tua vivemus in gentibus.”
As a testimonium Lam 4:20 probably circulated originally without commentary: it was
up to each preacher to make of it what he would. Justin, oddly, cites it as proof that the sign
of the cross is ubiquitous in nature and society: “The human form,” he argues, “differs from
that of the irrational animals only because man stands erect, and can stretch out his arms [to
form a cross], and because he has on his face, projecting from his forehead, what is called
the nose, through which he breathes the breath of life; and this is in the form of a cross, as
the prophet said, The spirit before our face is Christ the Lord (Lam 4:20)” (1 Apol. 55.5).
Tertullian uses the same verse to identify Christ with the Spirit who spoke through the Old
Testament prophets: “We for our part,” he says, “[are] certain that Christ has always spoken
by the prophets, being the Spirit of the Creator, as the prophet testifies, The person of our
spirit, Christ the Lord (persona spiritus nostri Christus Dominus), who since the beginning,
as the Father’s representative, has been both heard and seen, under the name of God” (Adv.
Marc. III 6.7; cf. V 11.12; Adv. Prax. XIV end). Irenaeus offers a similar interpretation but
also attempts to explain the rest of the verse: “In another place Jeremiah says: The Spirit of
our face [is] Christ the Lord. How was he taken in their snares, of whom we said, ‘Under his
shadow we shall live among the Gentiles’? In the sense that Scripture proclaims that Christ,
although he was the Spirit of God, had to become a suffering man, and it is, as it were, amazed
and astounded at his Passion. Thus he had to suffer, he under whose shadow we said that we
would live. Scripture calls his body a shadow. For just as a shadow is made by a body, so also
Christ’s body was made by his Spirit. But further, it indicates the humiliation and contempt-
ibility of his body by the word shadow. For as the shadow of a body standing upright falls
upon the ground and is trodden underfoot, so also the body of Christ fell upon the ground and
was trampled during his Passion. Perhaps, again, Scripture calls the body of Christ a shadow,
because his body constituted a veil for the glory of the Spirit, and hid it. Besides often when
the Lord passed by, they placed those afflicted by diverse diseases, and those on whom his
shadow fell were healed” (Dem. 71).
Starting from such a christological understanding of this verse, it would have been pos-
sible to develop a reading of Lamentations as a whole that would have stressed the culpability
of the Jews for the crucifixion, the destruction of Jerusalem as divine punishment for their
complicity in that event, and their final rejection by God. But such a reading never seems to
have materialized. Lamentations 4:20, like so many other testimonia, was read atomistically.
No attempt was made to use it as a hermeneutical key to unlock the rest of the book in which
it was found. The early Christian commentaries on Lamentations draw from the book the
usual kinds of homiletic and moral lessons and do not go out of their way to use it to score
polemical points against the Jews.66 Jewish commentaries are emphatic that the “anointed of

65
This is suggested by the fact that it is quoted so widely in the early Fathers but given very different interpretations. Note
its inclusion twice in the list of testimonia in the Apostolic Constitutions V 20 (cf. V 16). See Jean Daniélou, “Christos Kurios,
Une texte des Lamentations dans le recueil des Testimonia,” RSR 39 (1951) 338–52; idem, Études d’exégèse judéo-chrétienne
(Paris: Beauchesne, 1966) 76–95; Oskar Skarsaune, The Proof from Prophecy. A Study in Justin Martyr’s Proof-Text Tradition:
Text-Type, Provenance, Theological Profile (Leiden: Brill, 1987) 162, 451.
66
Early Christian commentaries on Lamentations are: Origen, Selecta in Threnos (PG 13:605–62; GCS, ed. Klostermann,
3:233–79); Theodoret of Cyrrhus, In Threnos Jeremiae (PG 81:779–806); Ephraem Syrus, Scholia in Lamentationes (ed. T. J.
Lamy, Sancti Ephraem Syri Hymni et Sermones [Malines: H. Dessain, 1886] 2:215–28); Olympiodorus of Alexandria, Fragmenta
70   Introduction

the Lord” in Lam 4:20 is Josiah, or perhaps Zedekiah, but it is hard to see this as a pointed
refutation of the Christian identification with Jesus. Christian exegetes such as Origen and
Ephraem are prepared to concede that 4:20 should not be taken as a simple predictive proph-
ecy: a historical figure such as Josiah or Zedekiah was indeed in view, though they then go
on to argue that this historical figure must to be taken as a type of Christ.67 Nevertheless, the
edginess and defensiveness of the Rabbinic tradition remains. It should probably be seen not
as a response specifically to detailed Christian exegesis of Lamentations but to the general
Christian doctrine of supersession.

in Jeremiae Lamentationes (PG 93:725–61). From the Latin West in the Middle Ages we have: Hrabanus Maurus, Expositio super
Jeremiam (PL 111:1181–1272); Paschasius Radbertus, Expositio in Lamentationis Jeremiae (PL 120:1059–1256; also ed. Paulus
Bedae [Turnhout: Brepols, 1988]); Guibert of Nogent, Tropologiae in Lamentationes Jeremiae (PL 167:1378–1420); Rupert of
Deutz, In Jeremiam (PL 167:1378–1420); Hugh of St. Victor, In Threnos Jeremiae (PL 175:255–322); Pierre Auriol, Compendium
Litteralis Sensus Totius Divinae Scripturae (ed. Philiberto Seeboeck [Quarrachi: College of St. Bonaventure, 1896]), the Lamenta-
tions section of which is unusually full for this brief work. On Hrabanus Maurus and Pschasius Radbertus see E. Ann Matter, “The
Lamentations Commentaries of Hrabanus Maurus and Paschasius Radbertus,” Traditio 38 (1982) 137–63. Note also the commen-
taries by Albertus Magnus (Opera Omnia [Paris 1893] 18:243–338) and Bonaventure (Opera Omnia [Paris 1867] 10:138–206),
as well as the Glossa Ordinaria (Biblia Latina cum Glossa Ordinaria. Facsimile reprint of the Editio Princeps .  .  . Adolph Rusch
of Strasbourg 1480/81, ed. Karlfried Froehlich and Margaret Gibson. 4 vols. [Turnhout: Brepols, 1992]). See further Ari Geiger,
“Anti-Jewish Polemics in Nicholas of Lyra’s Literal Postilla on Lamentations,” Íiyyon 69 (2004) 407–29 [Hebrew]. Interesting
is John Lathbury’s extensive commentary on the first three chapters of Lamentations, written in Oxford in 1382 (Beryl Smalley,
English Friars and Antiquity in the Early Fourteenth Century [Oxford: Blackwell, 1960] 339–44).
67
Origen, Selecta, PG 13:657–90; Ephraem, Scholia, ed. Lamy, 2:225. Cf. Theodoret, In Threnos, PG 81:804 (who spe-
cifically rejects Jewish interpretations of the verse), and Hrabanus Maurus, Expositio, PL 111:1259–61 (who offers an interest-
ing survey of earlier interpretations of the verse, including the view that the christus is one of the kings of Judah, qui christi,
hoc est uncti, dicebantur .  .  . ut Josias qui justus esse legitur).
 Introduction   71

7. Targum Lamentations and Jewish Liturgy

7.1  Targum Lamentations and the Ninth of Ab

7.1.1  Targum Lamentations as a Public Targum for the Ninth of Ab

The biblical book of Lamentations, though short, is full of linguistic problems (see 5.3
above), and to produce an Aramaic version of it, especially one done with the care and learn-
ing of Tg. Lam., requires a substantial investment of time and effort. Why do it? The fact that
Lamentations was Holy Scripture might be motive enough: if the other books of the Bible had
Targums, then surely Lamentations deserved one as well. But there was an added incentive.
Lamentations was an important liturgical text, read publicly on the Fast of the Ninth of Ab.
There was a long-established custom that the public reading of the Torah and the Haftarah
was accompanied by a simultaneous oral translation into Aramaic, and this had led to the
creation of a number of impressive Targums for the first two divisions of the Hebrew canon,
of which Onqelos and Jonathan became the “official” versions.1 It is likely that our Targumist
produced his Targum with the public reading of Lamentations in mind: in other words, he
intended it to be the Targum that would accompany the biblical book; this was the raison
d’être of a Targum.
That this was indeed the case is supported by Soferim 18:4: “Some [congregations] read
the Book of Lamentations (Sefer Qinot) in the evening [of the Ninth of Ab], while others
postpone it to the [following] morning after the reading of the Torah, when the reader stands
up, his head covered with ashes, his clothes torn, and reads it with weeping and lamentation.
If he knows how to translate it (<im yodea> hu< letargemo), well and good; but if not he entrusts
it to one who knows how to translate properly, and he translates, so that the rest of people, the
women and the children may understand it. In that women are obliged to listen to the reading
of the book, how much more so does it apply to men.”2 Uniquely here Soferim prescribes that
the public reading of one of the Megillot should be accompanied by a Targum. The wording
at first sight suggests that spontaneous translation is in view, but this was probably not what
happened. The Targum was never, as far as we can tell, done “off the cuff”: it always involved
the oral presentation of a pre-existing Targum that had been memorized.3 It would actually
be very demanding to produce a smooth rendering of Hebrew Lamentations at sight. It is
probably less misleading to translate letargemo as “to deliver the Targum of it.”4 This passage
of Soferim is, then, probably alluding to a known Targum of Lamentations. Since Targum
etymologically means “translation,” the translation could, in principle, be into any language:
the stipulation would be to render into the language of the congregation, whatever that might

1
See especially m. Meg. 4:4, 6, and see further Philip S. Alexander, “The Targumim and the Rabbinic Rules for the Deliv-
ery of the Targum,” in International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Congress Volume, Salamanca, 1983, ed.
John A. Emerton. VTSuppl 36 (Leiden: Brill, 1985) 14–28.
2
The argument is interesting. The Targum’s purpose is to enable women to understand Scripture. The fact that Lamenta-
tions should be read with a Targum shows that it is important for women to understand its message. If it is important for women
to understand, qal wahomer it is important for men. One wonders if there is a recognition here of Lamentations’ appeal to
specifically women’s concerns—Daughter Zion mourning for her children.
3
Roger Le Déaut’s article, “Un phénomène spontané de l’herméneutique juive ancienne: le ‘targumisme,’” Biblica 52
(1971) 505–25, is misleading on this point.
4
Oddly, Soferim seems to allow the reader to act also as translator, which is against the normal rules, at least for a Torah
or Haftarah reading. See m. Meg. 4:4, and n. 1 above.
72   Introduction

be. Certainly at the time Soferim was compiled, several Greek versions of Lamentations,
some produced under rabbinic auspices, were extant (see above, 5.4.1). However, in actual
rabbinic usage, and certainly by this date, Targum meant precisely an Aramaic version of
Scripture.5 Whether or not the Targum alluded to here was our Targum or a form of it cannot
now be determined, but the fact that we have no other Targum of Lamentations surviving
from antiquity increases the possibility that it is.
Two other passages in Soferim (14:3 and 18:7-9) legislate for the public reading of
Lamentations on the Ninth of Ab and suggest that this was a well-established practice in its
day. But Soferim in its present form probably dates to no earlier than the middle of the eighth
century. How far back can this custom be traced? It is a reasonable assumption that the indi-
vidual laments in Lamentations, and the book as a whole, were created to memorialize the
destruction of the first Temple. From the very beginning, therefore, they were probably recited
whenever this was commemorated (whether on the 7th or 10th of Ab: see Jer 3:12 and 2 Kgs
25:8-9). How long this practice persisted after the return and rebuilding of the Temple is hard
to say. Zechariah 8:18-19 seems to call for the abolition of the four fasts commemorating
the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians. There would still have been some point in observ-
ing a fast even after the Temple was restored: the fall of Jerusalem in 587 carried sombre
and permanent lessons about fidelity to the covenant. Rabbinic literature preserves at least
one tradition that suggests that some observed fasting on the Ninth of Ab during the Second
Temple period, though the evidence is somewhat oblique (t. Ta>an. 4(3):6; y. Ta>an. IV, 68b;
b. Ta>an. 12a). Continued observance of the fast may have gained piquancy for groups such
as the Dead Sea sect, who were in dispute with the Jerusalem Temple authorities and felt
strongly that the exile had still not ended. Several copies of Lamentations have been recovered
from Qumran (3Q3 [3QLam], 4Q111 [4QLam], 5Q6 [5QLama], and 5Q7 [5QQLamb]), which
together preserve almost the whole of the canonical book. 4Q179 (4QapocrLam A) contains
an interesting Qinah, or series of Qinot, for the fall of Jerusalem, which draws on the bibli-
cal Lamentations and was probably composed for the commemoration of that event. Also
interesting is the Qinah in 4Q501 (4QapocrLam B), which may have been composed for the
same occasion (though it contains no strong echoes of the biblical Lamentations), and could
indicate a realignment of the fast toward complaining about the behavior of the Jerusalem
priesthood, who, rather than the Babylonians, are now seen as the destroyers of the Temple.
4Q241 (4QFragments citing Lamentations) might also be relevant. That it quoted Lamentations
is clear, but the fragments are too tiny to say anything about the genre or general contents of
the original work.6 The Qumran community possibly applied to themselves the designation
<Abelei Íiyyon (“Mourners of/for Zion,” from Isa 61:3): Paul Kobelski plausibly restores this
phrase in two places in 11QMelch (II 17 and 20).7 There is, then, evidence to suggest that some
people continued to remember the fall of Jerusalem in 587 throughout the Second Temple

5
See Jast. 1695a and Sokoloff, PJA 590a and JBA 1231a. In Palestine, Targum meant a translation of the Bible into any
language, though predominantly it denoted an Aramaic translation, and this seems to have been its default sense unless the
context clearly indicated otherwise. In Babylonia, however, it was used exclusively for an Aramaic translation. From this usage
developed Targum in the sense of the Aramaic language (i.e., the language of the Targum).
6
Maurya P. Horgan, “A Lament over Jerusalem (4Q179),” JSS 18 (1973) 222–34; Hartmut Pabst, “Eine Sammlung von
Klagen in den Qumranfunden (4Q179),” in Mathias Delcor, ed., Qumrân: Sa pieté, sa théologie et son milieu. BETL 46 (Paris:
Duculot, 1978; Louvain: Louvain University Press, 1978) 137–49.
7
See Paul J. Kobelski, Melchizedek and Melchiresha>. CBQMS 10 (Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of
America, 1981) 6, 8–9, 20, 22. On the later “Mourners for Zion” and their possible links with Qumran see 7.2.1 below.
 Introduction   73

period and so, probably, to read the book of Lamentations publicly on the anniversary, but
such commemoration must surely have been relatively subdued and confined to particular
groups, possibly priests or ultra-pious Jews, or sectarians like the Qumran community, who
were ambivalent toward the current Temple. For ordinary folk it would surely have made little
sense to beat their breasts about the loss of their Temple in the dim and distant past when that
Temple was flourishing before their eyes and had become, since Herod’s refurbishment, one
of the architectural wonders of the world.
The fall of this magnificent Second Temple unquestionably revived interest in the de-
struction of the first. The second destruction would have come as a devastating blow to Jews
throughout the world, and the urge and the need to mourn and commemorate the event would
have been overwhelming. In the spontaneous outburst of grief confusion reigned as to when
precisely to do this. The settled date came to be the Ninth of Ab: this rammed home the paral-
lelism between the two destructions, since both were supposed to have occurred on the same
day, and later the calamitous end of the Bar Kokhba revolt was factored in as well. As m.
Ta>an. 4:6 notes: “On the Ninth of Ab it was decreed against our fathers that they should not
enter the Land [see Tg. Lam. 1:2, Note 10], and the Temple was destroyed for the first and
second time, and Bethar was captured, and the City plowed up.” But 2 Baruch presupposes a
commemoration about a month later (in Elul), corresponding to the Greek date, the 8th Gor-
piaeus, when Josephus says the conquest of Jerusalem was complete: “Thus was Jerusalem
taken in the second year of the reign of Vespasian on the 8th of the month Gorpiaeus” (War
6.435; cf. 6.407).8 This divergence in date from mainstream Judaism underscores the point
made earlier that 2 Baruch should not be aligned too closely with the Rabbinic movement
in Palestine (above, 6.1.5). Though 2 Baruch breaks the neat nexus between the dates of the
first and second destruction, it still envisions them together: its fictional setting is the first
destruction but in fact it is, of course, addressing the second.
I argued earlier (above at 5.4.1) that the Greek version of Lamentations was produced
after 70 to provide Greek-speaking Jews of the Diaspora with appropriate liturgy with which
to commemorate the fall of the Temple. This would suggest that the Hebrew Lamentations
was already being used for the same purpose in Hebrew/Aramaic-speaking synagogues of
Palestine. It does not, however, necessarily imply (pace Le Déaut and Barthélemy)9 that an
Aramaic Targum of Lamentations already accompanied the biblical reading in those syna-
gogues. That does not follow at all, and even if it did, our Tg. Lam. cannot be dated anything
like as early as the late first or early second centuries c.e. (see below, 8.3). Greek-speaking
synagogues at this time read the Scriptures publicly only in Greek: the Hebrew was intro-
duced much later. So the picture we should have in mind is not of a reading in Hebrew of
Lamentations accompanied by a Greek “Targum.” If the Greek synagogues did not have the
translation, they had nothing at all. In the Aramaic/Hebrew speaking synagogues of Palestine,
however, they would always have had the Hebrew. The Aramaic Targum would have been
an optional extra.
If the Greek Lamentations was produced in the aftermath of the destruction to meet the
liturgical needs of the Greek synagogues, this raises intriguing questions about its relationship
to 2 Baruch, which may have been rendered into Greek at around the same time and for the
8
See Bogaert, Apocalypse de Baruch 1:163–76.
9
Barthélemy, Les devanciers d’Aquila, 159, apparently accepted by Roger Le Déaut, Introduction à la literature targu-
mique, Première partie (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1966) 143.
74   Introduction

same purpose. I argued earlier (see above at 6.1.5) that 2 Baruch was composed in Hebrew
in Palestine in the late first or early second century c.e. with a view to helping Palestinian
Jews come to terms theologically with the loss of their Temple, and its Greek translation
was probably intended to remedy the paucity of materials in Greek to aid reflection on, and
commemoration of, the disaster. It would make sense if this version was made prior to the
appearance of the Greek Lamentations. Indeed, one wonders if the Greek Lamentations might
have been sponsored by those—possibly the Palestinian Rabbinate10—who were uneasy with
the theology of the catastrophe promoted by 2 Baruch and cognate apocalyptic works such
as 4 Ezra: their aim was to counterbalance or even displace these “dubious” apocalypses. We
noted earlier how startlingly independent 2 Baruch’s hymnody, and indeed its whole theology,
is of the biblical Lamentations (see above, 6.1.5). This would cause little surprise if 2 Baruch
had been composed in Greek before Greek Lamentations became available, but, as we saw,
the arguments are compelling, both in terms of the language and the parallelism with Pales-
tinian Jewish sources, for postulating a Hebrew original for 2 Baruch composed in Palestine.
That a Hebrew author living in Palestine at the turn of the first century c.e. did not know the
biblical Lamentations strains credulity. It is more likely he did know it but felt it failed to
address adequately the theological issues raised by the destruction of the Temple: stronger
meat was required. It is possible, therefore, that from the very outset 2 Baruch stood in tension
with Lamentations and offered a rather different theological explanation of the disaster. The
translation of the former into Greek was countered by a translation of the latter.
An intriguing little fact may point to this liturgical competition between Lamentations
and 2 Baruch. Noting that Codex Ambrosianus B. 21 Inf., in addition to the Syriac text of the
Old Testament, preserves Syriac versions of three works, all of which are concerned with the
fall of the Second Temple—2 Baruch, 4 Ezra, and Josephus, War 6, Bogaert suggests that this
collection may have been inherited by the Syriac Church from a Judaeo-Christian community
that used it in connection with the commemoration of the events of 70.11 The evidence is slen-
der and speculative, but the proposal reinforces two intrinsically plausible points. First, there
was a need for material with which to memorialize the destruction, a need particularly acute
in Greek-speaking Jewry before Lamentations was translated. Bogaert thinks the collection
may have been made by Judaeo-Christians, but it is equally possible that it reflects the usage
of some Greek-speaking synagogues. Second, if Judaeo-Christians were indeed responsible
for it, this supports the view that they joined their fellow Jews in mourning the destruction
of the Temple. The choice of two apocalypses as the centerpiece of their meditations would
fit in well with their eschatological orientation, which saw the catastrophe as a sign that the
end was near (see above, 6.3).
The public reading of Lamentations on the Ninth of Ab was well entrenched by the first
half of the third century, as the Didascalia Apostolorum, a work composed by a converted
Jew in Greek (but fully extant now only in Syriac), testifies: “Likewise, after the death of the

10
Certainly two Greek versions of Lamentations (Aquila and Symmachus) were produced shortly afterward under Rab-
binic auspices (see above, 5.4.1). The literalness of the kai-ge recension was evidently congenial to the Rabbinate: it was
developed to an extreme in Aquila.
11
Bogaert, Apocalypse de Baruch 1:161–62. The western church introduced liturgies to commemorate the fall of Jerusa-
lem to the Saracens: see Amnon Lindner, “The Loss of Christian Jerusalem in Late Medieval Liturgy,” in: Lee I. Levine, ed.,
Jerusalem: Its Sanctity and Centrality to Judaism, Christianity and Islam (New York: Continuum, 1999) 393–407. The possible
relationship of these to Christian commemoration of the fall in 70 cannot be explored here.
 Introduction   75

Messiah and till today, on the ninth day of the month of Abi, they gather together to read the
prophecies [emend to: Lamentations] of Jeremiah, lament and weep. The ninth is thus called
theta, and the theta indicates God (theos). They weep, then, for God, for the Messiah who
has suffered, and, on account of God our Savior, for themselves and their perdition.”12 The
parallel passage in the Apostolic Constitutions, dating from ca. 350–80, is curiously different:
“For even now, on the tenth day of the month Gorpiaeus, when they assemble together, they
read the Lamentations of Jeremiah, in which it is said, The spirit before our face, Christ the
Lord, was taken in their destructions (Lam 4:20); and Baruch, where it is written, This is our
God; none can be compared to him. He found out every way of knowledge, and showed it to
Jacob his son, and Israel his beloved. Afterwards he13 appeared on earth and conversed with
men (Bar 3:35-37). And when they read them, they lament, as they themselves suppose, that
desolation which happened at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar; but as the truth shows, they will-
ingly make a prelude to that lamentation which will overtake them” (Apostolic Constitutions V
20). The Apostolic Constitutions’ independence of the Didascalia at this point, at least in the
form in which we now have it, is shown by its different dating of the anniversary of the fall of
Jerusalem and by its inclusion of Baruch (here apparently the standard, apocryphal Baruch)14
as a proper reading for the day. In view of the arguments we advanced earlier for the possible
liturgical use of non-canonical texts such as 2 Baruch to commemorate the destruction of the
Temple, we should not lightly dismiss this tradition as mistaken.

7.1.2  Targum Lamentations as Private, Edifying Reading for the Ninth of Ab

There are good grounds, then, for supposing that the sine qua non for a Targum of
Lamentations, viz., the public reading of Lamentations on the Ninth of Ab, goes back to the
early days after the destruction of the Second Temple and possibly even earlier. However, as
we have already noted, our extant Targum cannot be dated that early (and see below, 8.3).
And the curious fact is that, even if our Tg. Lam. was intended for public use, and that role
was sanctioned by Soferim, there is scant evidence that it was ever so used, save perhaps in
the eighth century when Soferim was compiled, though strictly speaking Soferim only talks
about what should happen, not what actually did happen. In other words, the public reading
of Lamentations was the necessary but not the sufficient condition for the existence of the
Targum. Despite this, Tg. Lam. survived, and was copied and recopied. Why? What role did
it play?
This brings us back to the need for texts to help observe the fast. Commemoration can-
not be conjured out of thin air. Once Lamentations established itself as the key text for the
fast, a clear and acceptable interpretation of it was required, and this is what Tg. Lam. set out
to provide. The Targum of Canticles was probably also meant by its author to accompany
the public reading of that book on Passover, but there, too, this never seems to have become

12
Is it possible that the extraordinary statement that the Jews weep for God on the Ninth of Ab betrays some knowledge of
the doctrine of the pathos of God as expounded in Lam.R. Proem 24.
13
The standard text reads: “after she (Wisdom) appeared on earth .  .  .  . ” This is probably another example of “the ortho-
dox corruption of Scripture” and of smuggling christological references into another text linked to the commemoration of the
destruction of the Temple. On the christological interpretation of Lam 4:20 see above at 6.3.
14
The possibility should not be ruled out that the author of the Apostolic Constitutions has got the wrong Baruch. His
informant told him that Baruch was read. He assumed that the apocryphal Baruch was meant, and elaborated accordingly,
whereas in fact it was 2 Baruch.
76   Introduction

the norm. Instead the Targum was read in certain communities privately in advance of the
public reading of Canticles in synagogue, “once in the Hebrew and twice in the Targum.”15
Tg. Lam. could have functioned in the same way. Johannes Buxtorf in his Synagoga Judaica
records the practice in his day of privately reading appropriate texts on the Ninth of Ab: “It is
not permissible,” he writes, “on this day to study the Law, the Prophets and the Hagiographa,
nor the Talmud, Midrashim, Aggadot, Prayers etc., because these delight the heart, as David
says, The precepts of the Lord are true, delighting the heart (Ps 19:9). Rather one must ab-
stain from all joy on this day. So only sad tales may be read, such as Job, and especially the
Lamentations of Jeremiah, and the like, which induce contriteness of heart, and if anything
occurs in these which is joyful or consoling, it must be skipped over. It is permissible also to
read in the Midrash of Lamentations those things reported there concerning the destruction
of the city and the Temple: only certain Aggadot, as well as certain chapters from Joseph
Gorionides, on the destruction of Jerusalem.”16 In this context of private meditation, Tg. Lam.
offered highly suitable reading for the fast.
There is a hint that our Targumist regarded study as an important element in the obser-
vance of the Ninth of Ab. He exhorts: “Arise, Congregation of Zion, that dwells in exile, and
engage in [the study of] the Mishnah in the night, for the Shekhinah of the Lord dwells before
you, and the words of the Torah at the beginning of the morning watch. Shed like water the
pride of your heart, and turn in repentance, and pray in the synagogue before the face of the
Lord. Raise your hands in prayer, for the life of your young men who are parched by hunger
at the head of every marketplace” (2:19). It is possible that our Targumist sees this as a daily
ritual, linked to the Torah-commandment to study Torah “day and night” (Josh 1:18). He may
be advocating daily mourning for the fall of the Temple. Midrash Psalms 17:4 claims that
“All the thousands who perished in the fighting in David’s days, perished only because they
did not demand that the Temple should be built.” It continues: “Now may it not be argued
a fortiori that if death befell men in whose midst the Temple did not exist, and so was not
destroyed in their days—if death befell them and they were punished merely because they
did not demand that the Temple be built, how much more severely shall we be punished, we
who neither mourn for the Temple, nor seek mercy for it, even though it was destroyed in
our days” (trans. Braude). But the Midrash sees this requirement for mourning as fulfilled
in the daily recitation of benedictions fourteen and seventeen of the >Amidah and the Boneh
Yeru¡alayim benediction of the Grace After Meals. Perhaps our Targum has little more than
this in mind. Its context here, however, is surely rather more specific: it is mourning for the

15
This was, apparently, the practice of the Jewish community in Yezd in Iran in the late nineteenth/early twentieth centu-
ries: see Alexander, Targum Canticles, 54. The formula “once in the Hebrew and twice in the Targum” echoes but oddly revers-
es the injunction in b. Ber. 8a to prepare in private the public hearing of the weekly Torah Para¡ah by going over it in advance
“twice in the Hebrew and once in the Targum.” This latter dictum also attests the use of the Targum for private edification.
16
“Non licet hac die studere in Lege, Prophetis, & Hagiographa: non in Talmude, Medraschim, Aggados, Ritibus &c,
quia hæc exhilarant cor, sicut David dicit; Praecepta Domini sunt recta, lætificantia cor: ab omni autem lætitia hoc die ab-
stinendum. Itaque tristes tantum legendæ sunt historiæ veluti Jobus, & præcipue Threni Jeremiæ, & similes, quæ cor contritum
reddunt: & si quid in his lætum & consolatorium occurrit, id transiliendum. Licet etiam legere in Medrasch Threnorum ea quæ
illic de vastatione Urbis & Templi habentur: sic quasdam Aggados, quædam etiam Capita ex Josepho Gorionide de vastatione
Hierosolymæ” (Synagoga Judaica [4th ed. Basel, 1680; repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1989] 570). The substance of this is found in
Maimonides’ Yad: Ta>aniyyot 5 and Shulhan >Arukh, <Ora˙ Óayyim 549–61, but there are interesting details not present in these
great codes, which Buxtorf may have got from a Minhagbuch or from contact, direct or indirect, with the Jewish community in
his day. The use of the relevant sections of Josippon is intriguing in light of the suggestion that some early Christians may have
used Josephus, War 6, in the same way.
 Introduction   77

fallen victims of the destruction, and this surely points specifically to the Ninth of Ab. We have
here, then, a hint as to how our Targumist believes the Ninth of Ab should be observed, and
it involves study. The key service for him is the morning service, but this is prepared for by
study of Mishnah the previous night.17 This enshrines the deeply rabbinic concept of redemp-
tion through study of the Torah, which is a theme also of Tg. Cant. (see below). The reference
may be pointed, and possibly directed against the Mourners for Zion (see 7.2.2 below). The
implication is that study of the Mishnah, not elaborate penances and self-affliction, will make
atonement and undo the destruction (see 7.2.3 below).
If our Targumist had such a precise public liturgical setting in mind for his Targum, this
could have constrained him in a number of ways. For example, it could have led him to play
down in his Targum the element of consolation. This might also go some way toward explain-
ing why he seems so deliberately to avoid the traditions on the pathos of God. He may have
felt that such daring anthropomorphism was liable to be misunderstood, and so was unsuitable
for public consumption (though in the Midrash it occurs in popular, sermonic material),18 or
he may have sensed that it was an integral part of the consolation. On the Ninth of Ab little
by way of consolation is afforded the congregation. This is because the day itself is supported
by an elaborate liturgical structure that extends both before and after it. The fast begins to
be anticipated from 17th Tammuz, and the three sabbaths that precede it are marked by the
Haftarot of Affliction, (1) Jer 1:1–2:3, (2) Jer 2:4-28; 3:4, (3) Isa 1:1-27, which contain solemn
warnings about the fall of Jerusalem. The fast itself focuses almost exclusively on grief and
contrition. The following sabbaths are marked by readings of consolation taken from Sec-
ond Isaiah, starting with “Comfort, comfort my people, says the Lord” (Isa 40:1). A strong
intertextuality is developed in this series of Haftarot between Isa 40–66 and Lamentations,
an intertextuality noted long ago by the Midrash (Lam.R. 1:2 §23, “All the severe prophecies
which Jeremiah prophesied against Israel, Isaiah anticipated and healed”), and rediscovered by
modern scholarship.19 This elaborate liturgical structure turns on the annual lectionary cycle,
and we have no idea whether or not it would have functioned in our Targumist’s synagogue
in precisely the way it does now, but that something like it was in place is highly probable.
It is certainly important to realize in reading our Targum that it was never envisaged as a
freestanding text. At the very least it was expected that it would always be read against the
Hebrew, but it may also have been intended to fit at a precise point into a liturgical sequence,
and this constrained our Targumist as to what he could or could not say.

17
The Shulhan >Arukh (<Ora˙ Óayyim 553) actually forbids study of the Mishnah on the Ninth of Ab, but I see no problem
in supposing that our Targumist would have taken a different view. For him the overriding consideration may have been theo-
logical: negating the destruction of the Temple through Torah-study, which restores the Shekhinah to Israel. See 7.2.3 below.
18
The lists of Forbidden Targumim (m. Mag. 4:4, 6) show sensitivity toward how a general audience might receive certain
ideas. See Alexander, “The Rabbinic Lists of Forbidden Targumin,” JJS 27 (1976) 177–91; Michael L. Klein, “Not to be Trans-
lated in Public—l< mtrgm bsybwr<,” JJS 39 (1988) 80–91. Note also Klein’s article, “The Translation of Anthropomorphisms
and Anthropopathisms in the Targumim,” in International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Congress Volume,
Vienna, 1980, ed. John A. Emerton. VTSuppl 32 (Leiden: Brill, 1981) 162–77.
19
See especially Patricia T. Willey, Remember the Former Things: The Recollection of Previous Texts in Second Isaiah
(Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997); Linafelt, Surviving Lamentations, 63–65.
78   Introduction

7.2  Targum Lamentations and the “Mourners for Zion”

7.2.1  The “Mourners for Zion”

There is evidence that, in addition to the annual public fast on the Ninth of Ab, some
Jews consecrated themselves as an act of private devotion to an intensely penitential way of
life centered on continuous mourning for the loss of the Temple and of Jerusalem. We hear
of these “Mourners for Zion” (<Abelei Íiyyon) from a variety of sources spread over a long
period of time, but their activities remain shrouded in obscurity and it is hard to tell just how
internally cohesive the various groups were, or how interconnected. Their enduring charac-
teristics appear to have been: (1) they spent their time mourning for Zion and praying for the
restoration of the Temple; (2) they lived an ascetic way of life that involved abstaining from
certain foods; (3) they did not engage in trade or commerce, but relied on the charity of their
brethren.
In reconstructing the history of this movement we begin, rather late in the day but where
the evidence is fullest and clearest, with the Qaraites in Jerusalem from the time of Daniel
al-Qumisi (ca. 840–900) onward, but more particularly from the 950s to around 1000. They
called themselves, among other things, “the Mourners for Zion.”20 Besides Daniel al-Qumisi
the leading lights of this group were Salmon b. Yero˙am, Yefet b. >Eli, David b. Abraham
al-Fasi, Sahl b. Maslia˙, and David b. Boaz. From their extensive writings a picture emerges
of an intensely eschatological community living a life of prayer and self-denial, awaiting the
coming of the Messiah and the restoration of Zion. As we noted from Salmon b.Yero˙am’s
commentary on Lamentations, this biblical book played an important role in their liturgy
(see above, 6.2.1.5). These Qaraite Mourners for Zion were part of a much wider and earlier
phenomenon that could be found also in Rabbanite milieux, and it is reasonable to postulate,
with Mann, Goitein, Nemoy, Erder, and Grossman, that the Qaraites had some relationship
with the earlier groups. Zucker’s denial of this claim makes little sense.21 We hear of Mourn-
ers for Zion in other parts of the Jewish world, and it is highly unlikely that in all these cases

20
For an introduction see Moshe Gil, A History of Palestine 634–1099 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992)
617–22; Daniel Frank, “The Mourners for Zion ca. 950–1000,” in Magne Sæbø, ed., History of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testa-
ment: The History of Its Interpretation. I.2, The Middle Ages (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2000) 119–23; Frank,
Search the Scripture Well: Karaite Exegetes and the Origins of Jewish Bible Commentary in the Islamic East (Leiden: Brill,
2004); Yoram Erder, “The Negation of the Exile in the Messianic Doctrine of the Karaite Mourners for Zion,” HUCA 68 (1997)
109–40; idem, “The Mourners of Zion: The Karaites in Jerusalem in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries,” in Meira Polliack, ed.,
Karaite Judaism: A Guide to its History and Literary Sources (Leiden: Brill, 2003) 213–35; idem, The Karaite Mourners of
Zion and the Qumran Scrolls (Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 2004) [Hebrew]. The phrase <Abelei Íiyyon is ambiguous: it
can mean both “Mourners for Zion” and “Mourners in Zion.” Even if the Qaraites in Jerusalem used it in the latter sense, it is
clear that their mourning was for the fall of the Temple.
21
See Shelomo Dov Goitein, “A Caliph’s Decree in Favour of the Rabbanite Jews of Palestine,” JJS 5 (1954) 119: “The
Karaite sect seems to have sprung in part from the ancient ‘mourners for Zion,’ of whom unfortunately we still know very
little.” See also Jacob Mann, The Jews in Egypt and Palestine under the Fatimid Caliphs (London and New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 1970) 1: 47–50; Leon Nemoy, “Early Karaism,” JQR n.s. 40 (1950) 307–15; Avraham Grossman, “Migration and
Pilgrimage to the Land of Israel in the Early Arab Period (634–1099),” Cathedra 8 (1978) 143 [Hebrew]; Yoram Erder, “The
Negation of Exile,” 110. For the denial of any link see M. Zucker, “Reactions to the Karaite Mourners for Zion in the Rabbinic
Literature,” Sefer ha-Yobel le-Rabbi Hanokh Albeck (Jerusalem: Mosad HaRav Kook, 1963) 379–80. The Qaraites may have
been influenced by the Qumranites, who may have designated themselves “Mourners for Zion.” See above and Yoram Erder,
“The Karaites’ Sadducee Dilemma,” Israel Oriental Studies 14 (1994) 206–207; idem, The Karaite Mourners of Zion and the
Qumran Scrolls; Naphtali Wieder, The Judaean Scrolls and Karaism (London: East and West Library, 1952) 104–12; idem,
“The Doctrine of the Two Messiahs among the Karaites,” JJS 6 (1955) 14–23.
 Introduction   79

they were Qaraites. An interesting passage in Benjamin of Tudela’s Itinerary (second half
of the 12th c.) records their presence in the Yemen. The land of Yemen, he writes, “is very
extensive, and among them are scholars. They give a tithe of all they possess to scholars
who reside in the academy, and to poor Israelites, as well as to present-day ascetics, who are
[known as] ‘Mourners for Zion’ and ‘Mourners for Jerusalem,’ who eat no meat and drink
no wine, who wear black clothing and dwell in caves or in hidden houses .  .  . and who seek
mercy before the Lord concerning the exile of Israel .  .  . and concerning all the Jews who
reside in Teima.”22 Benjamin’s account of the Yemen is somewhat suspect, but his description
of the Mourners for Zion rings true and is supported by other sources. Moreover, the exis-
tence of Mourners for Zion in the Yemen is consistent with the well-documented messianic
orientation of that community.23
The Mourners for Zion feature prominently also in Pesiqta Rabbati in Pisqas 34–35 and
37, which surely predate by some margin the rise of Qaraism.24 These play a pivotal role in
our argument.25 Pisqa 34 in particular reads like a manifesto of the movement, and no great
leap of faith is needed to assume that its author was himself an <Abel Íiyyon. A few quotations
will suffice to convey the flavor of this important text:
  (a) “The phrase every morning (in Isa 33:2) alludes to those who rise up every morning to
beseech mercy, alludes particularly to the Mourners for Zion who yearn for deliverance morn-
ing, evening, and noon. Now the Mourners for Zion suffered great distress because it was the
children of Israel who both mocked and scorned them. But when these children of Israel see the
afflictions decreed by God for the years immediately preceding that extraordinary year in which
the Messiah is to appear amidst Israel, and when they see that the afflictions follow one upon
the other without ceasing, then at last they will understand that it was because of the unending
prayers of the Mourners for Zion that the Messiah will appear. And the children of Israel will
say: In our lifetime there were no such afflictions—is it possible, after all, that the Messiah is
about to arrive?”
  (b) “All that see them shall acknowledge them (Isa 61:9)—all will acknowledge the Mourners
for Zion with whom the Holy One, blessed be he, will specifically concern himself. For during
the time immediately preceding the appearance of the Messiah, the Holy One, blessed be he,
will increase the number of the angels of destruction hovering over his world, and these will
take their toll of those children of Israel who scorned the possibility of redemption. In that time
the Mourners for Zion will walk among and beside the angels of destruction like a man visiting
with his fellow man, for the angels of destruction will do no harm to the Mourners for Zion.
And the children of Israel, dumbfounded, will say: ‘Without justification we made sport of the
Mourners for Zion. Without justification we mocked their words.’ They will go on to say, ac-
cording to R. Jose the son of R. Hanina: ‘And yet the merit of these Mourners nurtured in them
the power to withstand the angels of destruction. What temerity we had to belittle them in our
hearts!’”

22
The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela, ed. Marcus N. Adler (London: Oxford University Press, 1907), Hebrew text,
46–47.
23
Tudor V. Parfitt, The Road to Redemption: The Jews of Yemen 1900–1950 (Leiden: Brill, 1996).
24
Pisqas 30–37 of Pesiqta Rabbati form a unity: they are sermons for the seven Sabbaths of Consolation that follow the
Ninth of Ab, just as Pisqas 27–30 cover the three Sabbaths of Affliction that precede.
25
On these see Arnold Goldberg, Erlösung durch Leiden: Drei rabbinische Homilien über die Trauernden Zions und
den leidenden Messias Efraim (PesR 34.36.37). Frankfurter Judaistische Studien 4 (Frankfurt: Gesellschaft zur Förderung
Judaistischer Studien in Frankfurt am Main, 1978); Michael A. Fishbane, The Exegetical Imagination: On Jewish Thought and
Theology (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998).
80   Introduction

  (c) “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion .  .  . Behold, your king comes (Zech 9:9). He who is
called ‘king’ is the one who is meant to rule over the generations that are to be. And the Holy
One, blessed be he, will have it proclaimed and said to all the righteous men of generation after
generation: O righteous men of the world, even though your obedience to words of Torah is
pleasing to me, yet you wait only upon my Torah—you do not wait upon my kingship. Hence I
have declared on oath that for him who waits for my kingship I myself shall bear witness on his
behalf, as it is said Therefore wait for me, says the Lord, until the day that I rise up to witness
(Zeph 3:8). Those who have waited for me are the Mourners for Zion who grieved with me be-
cause of my House which is destroyed and because of my Temple which is desolate. Now I bear
witness for them, each of whom Scripture describes in the verse With one that is of a contrite
and humble spirit (Isa 57:15). Do not read with one that is of a contrite .  .  . spirit: read rather
he that is of contrite .  .  . spirit grieves with Me. Such are the Mourners for Zion who humbled
their spirits, listened meekly to abuse of their persons, keeping silent the while, and yet did not
consider themselves particularly virtuous therefore.”26

A number of points can be made about these passages. First, their sectarian mentality is
striking: the Mourners for Zion clearly regarded themselves as a small, maginalized, perse-
cuted group, misunderstood and mocked by the majority of their coreligionists, who would
one day, however, come to see the Mourners in a very different light. Second, the emphasis on
the intercessory, mediating, priestly role of the Mourners within the community is noteworthy:
it is they who by their devotion and self-affliction atone for Israel and ultimately secure the
redemption. Third, the ideology of the Mourners is not just concerned with the destruction
of the Temple, but also with its restoration. The group is, therefore, intensely eschatological
and messianic in its orientation. Fourth, the emphasis on prayer and the hint of the existence
of liturgical texts the Mourners for Zion use three times every day to lament the fall of Jeru-
salem is noteworthy. The correspondence of this liturgical pattern with the statutory times of
public prayer is surely significant, and raises the question of the relationship of the Mourners’
liturgies to those of the synagogue. Were they meant to supplement or replace them? At the
very least, surely, we can say the times for daily mourning were chosen to coincide with the
times of the daily sacrifices in the ancient Temple. But this raises the intriguing possibility
that the Mourners were offering themselves, their lives of extreme self-denial and penitence,
as atonement for the sins of Israel, as a substitute for the Temple sacrifices. If this was the
case it would arguably create a tension between their activities and public prayer, which also
occurred at the times of the ancient sacrifices and was seen as a substitute for them. Finally,
we should note the very subtle denigration of Torah study as against Mourning for Zion: “O
righteous men of the world, even though your obedience to words of Torah is pleasing to me,
yet you wait only upon my Torah—you do not wait upon my kingship.” It is the Mourners
for Zion, not the Torah scholars, who truly proclaim the kingship of God. This raises some
interesting questions about the relationship between the Mourners for Zion and the rabbinic
establishment—a point to which we shall return later when we attempt to place the Mourners
on the landscape of Judaism in late antiquity. It is very hard to date and locate Pesiqta Rabbati
34–35 and 37 but, despite criticisms, Bamberger’s arguments, which can be strengthened, for
assigning this section to the 7th century c.e. remain reasonably persuasive.27 There are no com-
pelling reasons to suppose that these Pisqas were composed anywhere other than Palestine.

26
Pesikta Rabbati, trans. William G. Braude. Yale Judaica Series 18 (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1968).
27
Bernard J. Bamberger, “A Messianic Document of the Seventh Century,” HUCA 15 (1940) 425–31.
 Introduction   81

How far back can we trace such mourning for Zion? There are some grounds for placing it
in the immediate post-70 period. This is suggested by an important passage in t. Sot. 15:10-15
(quoted in full below), which states: “After the Temple was destroyed, abstainers (peru¡im)
became many in Israel, who would not eat meat or drink wine” (15:11). This is corroborated
to some extent by the evidence of 2 Baruch and Paraleipomena Jeremiae, both composed
within seventy years of the second destruction, which evince a strong interest in memorializing
this event and may have served some sort of liturgical purpose. We have already noted the
impressive Qinot of 2 Baruch. Paraleipomena Jeremiae also has an interesting Qinah (4:6-9).
Paraleipomena Jeremiae is a puzzling work, closely related to and dependent on 2 Baruch.
The text is Christian in the form in which we now have it, but it is not hard to detect behind
its Christian veneer a thoroughly Jewish composition. It is highly unlikely that Christians in
the first half of the second century c.e. would have produced “from scratch” such a work on
the fall of Jerusalem. The original memorializing function of Paraleipomena Jeremiae may
be recorded in the fact that abbreviated forms of it are preserved in the Menaia of the Eastern
Church for 4 November, when the fall of Jerusalem seems to have been remembered.28 Jewish
Christians may have taken over this text from fellow Jews as part of their own commemora-
tion of the fall of Zion, and from them it may have passed into the liturgies of the Eastern
churches. The possibility cannot be discounted that works such as 2 Baruch and Paraleipomena
Jeremiae (in its original form) actually originated in the circles of the post-70 Mourners for
Zion, though the theological tone of the latter is different from that of the former (see above,
6.1.5). We have already noted some startling aggadic links between 2 Baruch and the much
later Pesiqta Rabbati (above at 6.1.5), a work influenced by the ideas of the Mourners for
Zion. One simple explanation for this could be that circles of Mourners for Zion remained
in continuous existence from the time of 2 Baruch down to the time of Pesiqta Rabbati, and
they passed down through the generations this and related material.

7.2.2  The Mourners for Zion and the Rabbinic Movement

All this is rather circumstantial and speculative and it raises an obvious question. If these
penitential groups had a continuous existence from the late first to the sixth century and even
beyond, why do we not hear more about them in rabbinic literature? The answer, I would
suggest, is relatively straightforward. Though some Rabbis may have been sympathetic to
the ideals of the Mourners for Zion, they were not a rabbinically oriented movement and may
have had an uneasy relationship with the rabbinic establishment. It is not hard to think of
reasons why the Rabbis might have viewed them with suspicion and attempted to marginal-
ize them.
(1) First, they would have been troubled by the extreme asceticism of the Mourners for
Zion. Though there is a powerful tradition of asceticism running through Rabbinic Judaism
from late antiquity down to the present time, the classic authorities are highly ambivalent
about it. This brings us back to t. Sot. 15:10-15, a passage that surely contains an attack on
the <Abelei Íiyyon:
  “(15:10) R. Ishmael said: From the day on which the Temple was destroyed, it would have
been reasonable not to eat meat or to drink wine. But a court does not make a decree for the
community concerning things the community simply cannot bear.
28
Bogaert, Apocalypse de Baruch 1:178.
82   Introduction

  He said: ‘Since you are uprooting the Torah from our midst, let us make a decree against the
world, that it be left desolate—that no one should marry a wife and produce children, or have a
week of celebration for his son, until the seed of Abraham will die out of its own accord!’ They
said to him: ‘It is better for the community to behave in error and not to do so deliberately.’”
  “(15:11) After the Temple was destroyed, abstainers (peru¡im) became many in Israel, who
would not eat meat or drink wine. R. Joshua engaged them in discourse, saying: ‘On what ac-
count do you not eat meat?’ They said to him: ‘Shall we eat meat, for every day a continual burnt
offering [of meat] was offered on the altar, and now it is no more?’ He said to them: ‘Then let us
not eat it. And then why are you not drinking wine?’ They said to him: ‘Shall we drink wine, for
every day wine was poured out as a drink offering on the altar, and now it is no more.’ He said
to them: ‘Then let us not drink it.’ He said to them: ‘But if so, we should also not eat bread, for
from it they brought the Two Loaves and the Show-Bread. We should also not drink water, for
they poured out a water-offering on the Festival. We should also not eat figs and grapes, for they
brought them as first-fruits on the festival of Shavu>ot.’ They fell silent.”
  “(15:12) He said to them: ‘My children, to mourn too much is not possible (¡e-lo< lehitabbel
kol >iqqar <i <ef¡ar). But thus have the Sages said: A man puts plaster on his house but leaves
open a small area, as a memorial to Jerusalem.”
  “(15:13) A man prepares what is needed for a meal but leaves out some small thing, as a
memorial to Jerusalem.”
  “(15:14) A woman prepares her ornaments, but leaves out some small thing, as a memorial
to Jerusalem, as it is said, If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand wither! Let my tongue
cleave to the roof of my mouth, if I do not remember you, if I do not set Jerusalem above my
highest joy! (Ps 137:5-6).”
  “(15:15) And whoever mourns for her in this world will rejoice with her in the world to come,
as it is said: Rejoice with Jerusalem and be glad for her, all who love her; rejoice with her in joy,
all you who mourn over her (kol ha-mit<abbelim >aleyha: Isa 66:10).”

Though the traditions the Tosefta reports here ostensibly relate to the immediate post-70
period (Rabbis Joshua and Ishmael are second generation Tannaim)—and therefore precisely
to the time when 2 Baruch and Paraleipomena Jeremiae were being composed—they pre-
sumably retained a relevance to the Tosefta’s own day (mid-third century: note the parallel
in b. BB 60b), otherwise why would it have bothered to report them?29 What the Rabbis are
opposed to is not mourning per se, but excessive mourning accompanied by extreme ascetic
practices. The description of the people who indulge in such practices as peru¡im is sugges-
tive. The problematizing of this term is a noteworthy linguistic development within Rabbinic
discourse: it moves from being a positive designation of the pre-70 Pharisees, whom the
Rabbis recognized as their spiritual forebears, to a very negative usage, as here. It may be
employed in the present context in a minimal sense simply to denote people who abstain
specifically from meat and wine, but more probably it is used quasi-technically to denote
ascetics who withdraw from the community. This is probably its meaning in Hillel’s famous
dictum, “Do not secede (<al tifro¡) from the community” (m. <Abot 2:5). Note also its asso-
ciation with extreme ascetic practices in y. Ber. IX, 14b, bot., perhaps an allusion specifically
to the Mourners for Zion.
29
Christian writers such as Jerome and the Bordeaux Pilgrim (333) attest stronger interest among Jews in lamenting the
destruction of the Temple than one might infer from rabbinic sources (Bogaert, Apoclaypse de Baruch 1:142–44). Christians
may have assumed that when they saw Jews making pilgrimage to the Kotel, despite all the difficulties and dangers this entailed,
this was something Jews in general did, when in actual fact they may have been witnessing specifically groups of Mourners
for Zion.
 Introduction   83

(2) Second, the Rabbinic authorities would also have been troubled by the implicit mes-
sianism of the Mourners for Zion. As we have already seen, Mourning for Zion had an es-
chatological, messianic dimension. By definition it looked forward with keen anticipation to
the restoration of Zion. But the Rabbis of the Tannaitic and early Amoraic periods were wary
of messianism and did their best to play it down.30
(3) A third reason why the Rabbis may have had reservations about the Mourners for
Zion is that they may have been a priestly group and hence a potential locus of authority that
could challenge the religious hegemony of the Torah-scholars. There is circumstantial evidence
pointing in this direction. It would stand to reason that at least at the early period the Mourners
for Zion would have had a strong following among the priests. It was the priests who suffered
most from the destruction of the Temple. Moreover Baruch is arguably a priestly text, full of
priestly concerns. Recall also the subtle denigration of Torah-study in Pesiqta Rabbati 34 that
we noted earlier. And the Qaraite Mourners for Zion had an intensely priestly orientation: they
called for the restoration of priestly authority in Israel and for the rejection of the rabbinic
Torah-scholars’ dominance as contrary to the law of God. If the Mourners spent their time in
perpetual mourning and did not work they must have been supported by contributions, and
this would make sense particularly in the case of priests, who were traditonally supported by
tithes. One could see how priests who could no longer fulfill their sacerdotium by offering
sacrifices to atone for Israel’s sin might have been drawn to a role in which they offered them-
selves, their prayers, and their sufferings as a substitute. There is a growing body of scholarly
opinion that sees the priesthood as having retained some sort of cohesion and authority within
Judaism in the post-70 period. Priests had an ancient and inherent claim to exercise religious
leadership, and local communities may well have looked instinctively for spiritual guidance
to any priest who lived in their midst. Priestly families may have continued to study and to
transmit priestly lore and tradition. The role, standing, and organization of the priesthood after
70 is at present a matter of lively debate,31 but it would make sense if priests did recite special
liturgies and perform particular rituals in mourning for the loss of their ancient Temple, and
that they dominated, or strongly influenced, the Mourners for Zion.
A useful parallel can be drawn with Heikhalot circles. It has long been recognized that
behind the Heikhalot literature stand groups of Heikhalot mystics who were practicing and
studying this esoteric doctrine As the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice from Qumran show, this
doctrine goes back to priestly theology of the Second Temple period. And it makes sense to
suppose that it was above all priests in the post-70 period who preserved and transmitted it,
because it offered them a means of compensating for the loss of the earthly Temple by making
mystical ascents to heaven to join in the angelic liturgy.32 The Heikhalot circles survived down
to the Middle Ages, but attempts were made to marginalize them within Rabbinic society and
their teachings were treated with suspicion, as the Mishnah and the two Talmuds show (m.
Hag. 2:1; t. Hag. 2:1-7; y. Hag. II, 77a-c; b. Hag. 11b-15a). I would suggest, then, that in the
Mourners for Zion and the Yoredei Merkabah we have two essentially priestly movements,
30
Philip S. Alexander, “The Rabbis and Messianism.” See further Reuven Kimelman, “The Messiah of the Amidah: A
Study in Comparative Messianism,” JBL 116 (1997) 313–24, and n. 34 below.
31
For a survey see Steven Fine, “Between Liturgy and Social History: Priestly Power in Late Antique Palestinian Syna-
gogues,” JJS 56 (2005) 1–9, who is skeptical about priestly continuity. For counterarguments see Alexander, “What happened
to the Jewish Priesthood after 70?”
32
See Philip S. Alexander, The Mystical Texts: Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and Related Manuscripts. Companions to
the Qumran Scrolls 7 (London and New York: T & T Clark International, 2006).
84   Introduction

fostering in the post-70 period distinctively priestly spiritualities, that existed on the margins
of rabbinic society and that the Rabbis opposed because they had the potential to undermine
rabbinic authority.
The analogy we have postulated between the Yoredei Merkabah and the Mourners for
Zion is suggestive in another way. There was ultimately some sort of rapprochement between
the Yoredei Merkabah and the rabbinic movement. The Yoredei Merkabah, like the Mourners
for Zion, produced significant liurgies but, like those of the Mourners, these were probably
originally private in character, performed only within their own circles. In the Gaonic period,
however, elements of these liturgies, along with the doctrines on which they were based, were
absorbed into the public liturgy of the synagogue with, it seems, rabbinic approval.33 The
private liturgies and rituals of the Mourners for Zion may have undergone a similar evolution.
The rabbinic attitude toward the Ninth of Ab is intriguing. The fast is certainly recognized in
Mishnah and Tosefta (m. Ta>an. 2:10; 4:6-7; t. Ta>an. 4(3):6, 9-11), but there is little sense in
these early documents that it was a major event. In the late Amoraic period, however, rabbinic
interest in it increased enormously, as may be seen, for example, in the compilation of Lam.
R., which draws on popular legends about the Fall of Jerusalem, and possibly also even on
the traditions of the Mourners for Zion. In Amoraic times, as the Ninth of Ab became a more
elaborate and important festival in the Jewish liturgical calendar, Qinot may have been taken
over from the Mourners for Zion into the synagogue liturgy, as well as some of their more
extravagant gestures of mourning.
This raises the obvious question as to why Mourning for Zion should have entered
mainstream rabbinic tradition in the late Talmudic period. Why did the Ninth of Ab become
a more substantial, more significant festival at this time for rabbinical Jews? There is no cer-
tain answer to this question, but this development does seem to fit a broader pattern. This is
the period of the apocalyptic revival in Judaism—a time when there was a renewed interest
in Judaism in the end of the world and the coming of the Messiah. New apocalyptic texts
began to be composed and traditions of Second Temple apocalyptic rediscovered. Messian-
ism was moving once again toward the center of Jewish, and indeed specifically of rabbinic,
theology, after a long period of marginalization and neglect.34 The apocalyptic revival seems
to have begun in the late sixth century in Palestine, but it continued into the seventh, eighth,
and ninth. It received a huge boost with the emergence of Islam: the fact that after the Muslim
conquest of Jerusalem Jews were allowed once again freely to enter and live in the Holy City
may well have sparked renewed fervor over mourning the destruction of the Temple. This
apocalypticism affected not only Jews, but Christians and Zoroastrians as well. Ultimately it
had a profound impact also on Islam. These were centuries of intense end-time speculation,
and a re-evaluation of the Ninth of Ab with its implicit theme of eschatological restoration

33
This was classically argued by Philipp Bloch, “Die Yoredei Merkabah, die Mystiker der Gaonenzeit und ihr Einfluss
auf die Liturgie,” MGWJ 37 (1883) 18–25, 67–74, 257–66, 305–11. However, Bloch seems to have dated the influence to the
Gaonic era simply because he accepted Graetz’s erroneous view that Heikhalot mysticism was a purely Gaonic phenomenon.
The possibility that the influence came in much earlier should not be discounted: see Alexander, “What happened to the Jewish
Priesthood after 70?”
34
See Philip S. Alexander, ”The Rabbis and Messianism.” This reworks Alexander, “The King Messiah in Rabbinic Juda-
ism,” in John Day, ed., King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East. JSOTSup 270 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1998) 456–73. See further Alexander, “Late Hebrew Apocalyptic: A Preliminary Survey,” in Pierre Geoltrain, Jean-Claude
Picard, and Alain Desreumaux, eds., La Fable Apocryphe I (Turnhout: Brepols, 1990) 197–217; John C. Reeves, Trajectories in
Near Eastern Apocalyptic: A Postrabbinic Jewish Apocalyptic Reader (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005).
 Introduction   85

fits well with the temper of the times. The Rabbis may have found themselves under popular
pressure, and they responded to it in a time-honored way by trying to “ride the wave” and turn
it in a rabbinically acceptable direction. Lam.R. and the other late Rabbinic interpretations
of the destruction of the Temple are, in part, rabbinic attempts to impose rabbinic values on
burgeoning popular interest in that distant event. Stressing the Ninth of Ab may itself have
been part of the strategy. The Mourners for Zion seemed to have mourned daily for the loss
of the Temple, and to have observed ascetic rituals of fasting all year round. That, inevitably,
would have reduced somewhat the importance of the actual anniversary of the destruction,
though doubtless the Mourners would have made especially strenuous efforts on that day.
Emphasizing the Ninth of Ab and the immediately adjacent period could have been a way of
containing the mourning and restricting it to a particular period of the year.

7.2.3  Targum Lamentations and Mourning for Zion

Where, finally, does Tg. Lam. fit into this picture? In particular, how does it relate to
the traditions of the Mourners for Zion? Targum is fundamentally a genre belonging to the
synagogue, and if priests had particular standing in the synagogues in late antiquity, and if the
Mourners for Zion were a priestly movement, might our Targum have actually been composed
by a Mourner for Zion? (Other Targums may have a priestly origin.)35 I think not. If I have
accurately sketched the profile of the Mourners for Zion, then our Targum is too rabbinic in
tone to have emanated from their circles. Again 2:19 is crucial to the argument. As I suggested
earlier (7.1.2) we have in this verse an outline liturgy for the Ninth of Ab, but it is notable for
its rabbinic values. It is study of the Mishnah that will bring about the redemption, not private
penitentials or personal suffering and mortification of the flesh. There is here, surely, a direct
rejection of the Mourners’ repudiation of the centrality of Torah study (Pesiqta Rabbati 34:
see 7.2.1 above). Indeed, we may possibly go further. The statement that study of the Mishnah
brings down the Shekhinah is, in context, striking. The Shekhinah resided specifically in the
Temple, and withdrew when the Temple was destroyed. From this the conclusion could rea-
sonably be drawn that it would return only when the Temple and its cult were restored at the
end of days. But our Targumist asserts that, on the contrary, it can be experienced here and
now—through the study of a key Rabbinic text! This realized eschatology introduces, at the
very least, a note of consolation, but also arguably subtly subverts the Mourners for Zion’s
exclusive focus on the physical restoration of the Temple (see further 7.1.2 above). A similar
stress on the study of Mishnah by night can be found in Tg. Cant.,36 the Rabbinic pedigree
of which, as a paean of praise for the Tiberias Yeshivah, can be in no doubt. Though priestly
motifs are found in our Targum, e.g., in the elaborate opening paraphrase that implicitly
compares the Temple to the Garden of Eden, it is rabbinic themes that predominate. Indeed,
like Tg. Cant., Tg. Lam. may be seen as in part motivated by an irenic move on the part of

35
See Alexander, “What happened to the Jewish Priesthood after 70?”
36
There it receives the ultimate validation of an imitatio dei: “Then Israel began to speak in praise of the Sovereign of
the World, and thus she said: ‘My pleasure is to worship that God who, wrapped by day in a robe white as snow, engages in
[the study of] the Twenty Four Books [comprising] the Torah, the words of the Prophets, and the Writings, and [who] by night
engages in [the study of] the Six Orders of the Mishnah, and the radiance of the glory of whose face shines like fire on account
of the greatness of the wisdom and reasoning with which he discloses new meanings all day long, and he will publish them to
his people on the great day” (5:10). The study of Mishnah by night and Torah by day is something of a trope: see 2:19 Note 68,
and further Alexander, Targum Canticles, 155–56.
86   Introduction

the Rabbinate to reconcile priestly and scribal concerns but, of course, with the scribal val-
ues in “pole position.” Though there are, as we saw, some important differences of emphasis
between Tg. Lam. and Lam.R. (see above, 6.1.6), both works originate in the same rabbinic
milieu. Indeed, Tg. Lam. should be classified as a rabbinic Targum. Like the Greek versions
of Aquila and Symmachus, both produced under rabbinic auspices at a much earlier date with
a view to promoting rabbinic values in Greek-speaking synagogues (see above, 5.4.1), Tg.
Lam. should be seen as a rabbinic translation aimed at imposing a rabbinic understanding
of the destruction of the Temple on the Aramaic-speaking synagogues in the Land of Israel,
and possibly beyond.
 Introduction   87

8. The Provenance and Date of Targum Lamentations

I have argued that Tg. Lam. is a literary unity with a single author (Intro. 3). Though that
author’s text was reworked later in one major recension, done in Babylonia but now found in
the Yemenite mss, it is not difficult to recover the original Targum, which is well preserved
in the Western mss (see above, 1.3 and 2.1). When and where was this composed?

8.1  The Provenance of Targum Lamentations

The provenance of Tg. Lam. is rather easier to determine than its date. Its original lan-
guage, Galilean Aramaic, locates it firmly in the west, probably geographically in the Galilee
itself. Its content, which shows strong affinities to Lam.R., though the two works by no means
see eye to eye on every point, suggests that it originated in a rabbinic milieu (rather than, say,
in the circles of the Mourners for Zion), a view confirmed by the Targum’s own unequivo-
cal advocacy of rabbinic values (see above, 7.2.3). It is a learned work, done by someone
with a good command of both biblical Hebrew and Aramaic, and blessed with considerable
philological acumen (see above, 5.3). Its primary audience, however, was not scholars but
the people at large, for whom it offered a translation and interpretation of Lamentations to
help them observe appropriately the fast of the Ninth of Ab. Its author, like the author of the
later Tg. Cant., may have been associated with the Academy at Tiberias, and Tg. Lam. may
even, like Tg. Cant. later, and the Greek versions of Aquila and Symmachus earlier, have been
issued under rabbinic auspices. Whatever its origin, it was certainly transmitted and valued
as part of rabbinic tradition.

8.2  The Date of Targum Lamentations

The most obvious time note within the Targum itself is found at 4:21-22:
(4:21) Rejoice and be glad Constantinople, city of wicked Edom, that is built in the land of
Romania, with great crowds from the people of Edom. Upon you too retribution is about to
come, and the Persians shall devastate you. A cup of cursing shall pass on to you, and you shall
become drunken and depopulated.
(4:22) And after this your iniquity shall be expiated, Congregation of Zion, and you shall be de-
livered at the hands of the King Messiah, and Elijah the High Priest, and the Lord shall no lon-
ger keep you in exile. And at that time he shall visit upon you your iniquities, wicked Rome, that
is built in Italy, and is full of crowds of the sons of Edom. The Persians shall come and oppress
you, and devastate you, because it has been disclosed before the Lord concerning your sins.

The difficulties we face in deciphering this text are exacerbated by a number of textual
problems. In 4:21 the Targum actually seems to say that Constantinople is built “in the land of
Armenia” (<rmyny<), a spectacular mislocation even by the vague standards of ancient geogra-
phy, and it is not the Persians who will devastate it, but “the people of Parkhewi” (prkw[w]<y),
a strange nomen gentilicium found elsewhere in rabbinic texts and possibly designating the
Parthians. If this is correct it changes the time reference of verse 21 and brings it into conflict
with verse 22, where the Persians (= the Sasanians) are unquestionably in view, though how
the Parthians, who were overthrown by the Sasanians in 224, could attack Constantinople,
which was not founded until 324, would remain a mystery. Order can be restored by the
simple expedient of emending “Armenia” to “Romania” (= the eastern Roman empire), and
88   Introduction

by accepting, as I have done in the translation above, the minority reading “Persians” (prs<y)
for “people of Parkhewi” (see 4:21, Notes 53 and 55).
Once these changes are made a reasonably clear political picture emerges that can, ap-
parently, be dated with some precision. The Targumist looks out on a world dominated by
two superpowers, Rome and Persia. Unlike Tg. Cant. there is no mention anywhere of “Ish-
mael,” so we are clearly at a time before the Arab conquest. The Roman Empire is ruled from
two capitals, “Constantinople .  .  . that is built in the land of Romania,” and “Rome that is
built in Italy.” The clear reference to Italy in the second case seems to preclude what would
otherwise have been an attractive option, namely that “Rome” here, in fact, is New Rome,
i.e., Constantinople, and that verse 22 is simply reiterating in slightly different words what
was already said in verse 21. The text seems clearly to intend the western capital, though the
possibility of an attack on that by the Persians might seem somewhat unreal. This points to
a rather narrow timeframe. The terminus a quo is 324, when Constantinople was founded.
The terminus ad quem is sometime toward the end of the fifth century, when Rome effec-
tively ceased to be the western capital of the Roman Empire. In the fifth century the city of
Rome came under increasing attack from Vandals, Goths, and Germans. It was sacked by
the Visigoth Alaric in 410. It was plundered by the Vandal Gaeseric in 455, and in 476 the
German Odoacer captured it yet again and deposed Romulus Augustulus, the so-called last
Roman Emperor of the West. It is very hard to put a precise date on the final fall of Rome (its
“decline and fall,” as Edward Gibbon realized, took a very long time!): even Odoacer and his
successor Theodoric, who established the Ostrogothic kingdom of Italy, both still nominally
acknowledged the hegemony of the eastern Roman emperors. But as the fifth century wore
on it would surely have become more and more difficult, even for a Jew living far away in
the Middle East, to have described Rome as populous and flourishing or to have envisaged
the military threat to the Italian metropolis as likely to come from the east, and not from the
north or the west. There is, then, a relatively narrow “window” within which this tradition
makes political sense: it is between 324 and about 500 c.e. If the tradition is integral to our
Targum, then it effectively dates the work as a whole to this period.
However, legitimate doubts remain. The problem is not so much that the references to
Rome and Constantinople could be later intrusions into our Targum, but that our Targumist,
though possibly living after 500, may have incorporated earlier, pre-500 apocalyptic traditions
without worrying too much about their appropriateness to the political realities of his time. A
dual mention of “wicked Rome” and “Constantinople of Edom” is found again in the Targum
to Ps 108:11.1 The names are probably original there, and their absence from certain text-
witnesses of Tg. Psalms probably goes back to some form of censorship, either self-imposed or
external. Again there has been debate over the dating implications of this reference. Wilhelm
Bacher argued that it demonstrates that Tg. Psalms was composed before the fall of Rome
in 476.2 Gustav Dalman demurred on that grounds that “Rom und Konstantinopel konnten
auch später als die Vertreter der ‘edomitischen’ Macht ausgeführt werden” (Grammatik des
1
Note also Midrash Psalms 60.3: “The words Who will bring me into the fortified city? (Ps 60:11) allude to the war against
Rome. The words Who will lead me into Edom (Ps 60:11) allude to the war against Constantinople; at that time the children of
Israel will find themselves in great trouble, and will pray, Will you not, O God, who has cast us off, and you, O God, who did not
go out with our armies, give us help from trouble? (Ps 60:12-13). And when they see Nehemiah the son of Hushiel [cf. Sefer
Zerubbabel], dead before the gates of Jerusalem, they will say, For vain is the help of man. Through God we shall do valiantly;
for he is the one who shall tread down our adversaries (Ps 60:13-14).”
2
Wilhelm Bacher, JE 12:62; further idem, “Das Targum zu den Psalmen,” MGWJ 21 (1872) 408–73.
 Introduction   89

jüdisch-palästinischen Aramäisch, 34). There is some force in this argument. Jews continued
to cast “wicked Rome” as their eschatological foe long after the fifth century. Ps-J, which in
its current form is unquestionably post-Islamic, still speaks of the joint armies of the cities
of Rome and Constantinople being crushed by the King Messiah in the last days (see Ps-J
to Num 24:19, 24, and further the Midre¡ei Ge<ullah). Ps-J is here clearly reworking earlier
traditions (which we have in Neof. and FT ad loc.), with no sense that they are politically
incongruous in his time. Tg. Lam. may be doing the same. However, the case of Tg. Lam. 4:21-
22 is arguably somewhat different. “Wicked Rome” in late Jewish apocalyptic is ambiguous:
it does not necessarily mean the wicked city of Rome, but the wicked Roman Empire, and in
any case it is easy to transfer the designation to Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire.
Moreover, the apocalyptists may have envisaged a revival of the old Italian city of Rome in
the last days (this could explain Ps-J to Num 24:19 and 24). Our Targumist, however, on the
face of it speaks of the city of Rome as actually prosperous and populous in his day, and,
along with Constantinople, as currently one of the two capitals of the Roman Empire, and
those claims become increasingly unreal after 500.
There are other indications that our Targum should be located in the fifth century, and
probably toward its end.
(1) A close relationship exists between Tg. Lam. and Lam.R., which, in its original form,
can be dated no earlier than the fifth century (see above at 6.1.1). As we saw, the dependence
of the Targum on the Midrash or vice versa cannot be conclusively proved (above, 6.1.6),
and the two texts differ significantly in content and theological perspective (above, 4.4), but
that both belong to the same milieu and roughly the same period of time is in little doubt. Tg.
Lam. certainly draws from an already highly developed midrashic tradition on Lamentations
as well as from a rich folklore about the fall of the first and second Temples, which had gath-
ered around the commemoration of these events on the Ninth of Ab. It is possibly somewhat
later in date than Lam.R.
(2) The apocalyptic outlook of Tg. Lam. is reminiscent of the texts of the apocalyptic
revival, the earliest of which can probably be dated no earlier than the late fifth century c.e.
Renewed interest in messianism in rabbinic circles only begins to emerge in the later Amoraic
layers of the Talmuds and related literature, and it seems to show the Rabbis responding to
an upsurge of popular messianic fervor and trying to gain some control of it. This renewed
messianic interest inevitably impinged on observance of the Ninth of Ab, implicit in which
were always eschatological longings for the restoration of the Temple. In the Tannaitic and
early Amoraic periods the Rabbis acknowledged the Ninth of Ab, but it does not seem to
have held any deep significance for them. It was simply one of a series of traditional fasts.
In later Amoraic times, however, that comparative indifference was swept aside and, as Lam.
R. shows, we find the Rabbis expending considerable effort on collecting traditions about
this fast and in interpreting the book of Lamentations. As we argued, Tg. Lam. should be
seen as part of this movement in rabbinic thought, which, starting in the fifth century, tried
to re-evaluate the Ninth of Ab and to impose rabbinic meaning on an increasingly popular
fast (see above, 7.2.2).
(3) The language of Tg. Lam. also carries broad chronological implications. As we noted,
the Targum was originally in Galilean Aramaic, though this dialect was extensively contami-
nated in transmission, both in its eastern and western recensions, by Onqelos-Jonathan and
Eastern Aramaic forms. Galilean Aramaic is first documented from the third century onward
90   Introduction

(in the earlier layers of the Yerushalmi Talmud). It effectively disappears from view some time
after the Islamic conquest of the early seventh century, which resulted in Jews in Palestine
gradually moving away from speaking Aramaic to speaking Arabic. For literary purposes
Galilean Aramaic was replaced by Late Literary Jewish Aramaic, which is an unstable liter-
ary fusion of linguistic elements drawn from both eastern and western Jewish Aramaic texts
and had no vernacular substratum. Late Literary Jewish Aramaic is the dialect of Tg. Cant.,
which dates from the seventh/eighth century. Linguistically Tg. Lam. is much earlier.
(4) Finally, we should note some possible dating implications of our analysis of Tg. Lam.’s
relationship to the other early versions. We noted that there is a lack of correlation between the
Targum and Jerome’s rendering of Lamentations, done from the Hebrew in Bethlehem around
400, despite the fact that the Targum would have been an obvious source of Jewish tradition
on this biblical book, if not for Jerome himself, then for his Jewish informants (see above,
5.4.3). One obvious explanation of this would be that the Targum of Lamentations was not
yet extant. By way of contrast we noted evidence from his Tafsir that Sa>adia knew Tg. Lam.,
and this suggested that the Babylonian recension of the Targum was already in existence by
the ninth century, which would put its composition in Palestine some time earlier (see above,
5.4.4). These arguments are admittedly rather speculative, and in the case of the Vulgate e
silentio, but they converge with the other evidence we have adduced and support it.
All things considered, then, Tg. Lam. probably dates from the late fifth or possibly the
early sixth century c.e., though the later we put it the more politically unreal its one specific
time note in 4:21-22 becomes.
 Introduction   91

9. Bibliography

NB: For standard editions of Talmudic and Midrashic Texts see Stemberger, Introduction to Talmud
and Midrash.

Abelesz, Armin. Die syrische Übersetzung der Klagelieder und ihr Verhältnis zu Targum und LXX.
Inaugural-Dissertation, Giessen. Privigye: Verlag des Verfassers, 1895.
Abelson, Joshua. The Immanence of God in Rabbinical Literature. London: Macmillan, 1912; reprint
New York: Hermon, 1969.
Aberbach, Moses, et al. “Elijah,” EJ 6:632–45.
Abrahams, Joseph. The Sources of the Midrash Echah Rabbah: A Critical Investigation. Berlin: J.
Gorzelanczyk, 1883.
Adler, Ada, ed. Suidae Lexicon. Leipzig: Teubner, 1928–38.
Adler, Marcus N., ed. The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela. London: Oxford University Press, 1907.
Agus, Ronald E. The Binding of Isaac and Messiah: Law, Martyrdom and Deliverance in Early Rab-
binic Religiosity. Albany: SUNY Press, 1988.
Alarcón Sainz, Juan José. Edición Crítica del Targum de Lamentaciones segun la Tradución Textual
Occidental. Doctoral Thesis, Departmento de Estudios Hebreos y Arameos, Facultad de Filologia,
Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 1991. Colección Tesis Doctorales 89/91. Madrid: Editorial
de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 1991.
Albrektson, Bertil. Studies in the Text and Theology of the Book of Lamentations. Lund: Gleerup,
1963.
Alexander, Philip S. The Toponymy of the Targumim, with special reference to the Table of the Nations
and the Boundaries of the Land of Israel. DPhil, University of Oxford, 1974.
———. “The Rabbinic Lists of Forbidden Targumin,” JJS 27 (1976) 177–91.
———. “3 Enoch,” in James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. New
York and London: Doubleday, 1983, 1:223–315.
———. Textual Sources for the Study of Judaism. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1984.
———. “The Rabbinic Hermeneutic Rules and the Problem of the Definition of Midrash,” Proceedings
of the Irish Biblical Association 8 (1984) 97–125.
———. “The Targumim and the Rabbinic Rules for the Delivery of the Targum,” in International
Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Congress Volume, Salamanca, 1983, ed. John A.
Emerton. VTSup 36 (1985) 14–28.
———. “The Textual Tradition of Targum Lamentations,” Abr-Nahrain 24 (1986) 1–26.
———. “Jewish Aramaic Translations of Hebrew Scriptures,” in Martin J. Mulder, ed., Mikra: Text,
Translation, Reading, and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Chris-
tianity. CRINT II.1. Assen and Amsterdam: Van Gorcum, 1988; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990,
217–53.
———. “Retelling the Old Testament,” in D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson, eds., It is Written:
Scripture Citing Scripture: Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, SSF. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1988, 99–121.
———. “Late Hebrew Apocalyptic: A Preliminary Survey,” in Pierre Geoltrain, Jean-Claude Picard,
and Alain Desreumaux, eds., La Fable Apocryphe I. Turnhout: Brepols, 1990, 197–217.
———. “Shekhinah,” in: R. J. Coggins and J. L. Houlden, eds., A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation
London: SCM Press, 1990; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1990, 631–33.
———. “‘The Parting of the Ways’ from the Perspective of Rabbinic Judaism,” in James D. G. Dunn,
ed., Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways A.D. 70 to 135 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992,
1–26.
92   Introduction

———. “Textual Criticism and Rabbinic Literature: The Case of the Targum of the Song of Songs,”
in Philip S. Alexander and Alexander Samely, eds., Artefact and Text: The Recreation of Jewish
Literature in Medieval Hebrew Manuscripts = Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of
Manchester 75.3 (1993) 159–73.
———. “Tradition and Originality in the Targum of the Song of Songs,” in Derek R. G. Beattie and
Martin McNamara, eds., The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context. JSOT.S 166.
Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994, 318–39.
———. “The King Messiah in Rabbinic Judaism,” in John Day, ed., King and Messiah in Israel and
the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1998, 456–73.
———. “How did the Rabbis learn Hebrew?” in William Horbury, ed., Hebrew Study from Ezra to
Ben Yehuda. Ediinburgh: T & T Clark, 1999, 71–89.
———. “Tora and Salvation in Tannaitic Literature,” in D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A.
Seifrid, eds., Justification and Variegated Nomism. Vol. 1. WUNT 2nd ser. 140. Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2001, 261–302.
———. The Targum of Canticles. The Aramaic Bible 17A. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2002.
———. “The Evil Empire: The Qumran Eschatological War Cycle and the Origins of Jewish Opposi-
tion to Rome,” in Shalom M. Paul, Robert A. Kraft, Lawrence H. Schiffman, and Weston W. Fields,
eds., with the assistance of Eva Ben-David. Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead
Sea Scrolls in Honour of Emanuel Tov. VTSup 94. Leiden: Brill, 2003, 17–32.
———. “Cain and Abel,” in Edward Kessler and Neil Wenborn, eds., A Dictionary of Jewish-Christian
Relations. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005, 70–71.
———. The Mystical Texts: Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and Related Manuscripts. Companion to
the Qumran Scrolls 7. London: T & T Clark International, 2006.
———. “The Rabbis and Messianism,” in Markus Bockmuehl and J. N. B. Carleton Paget, Redemp-
tion and Resistance: The Messianic Hopes of Jews and Christians in Antiquity. London: T & T
Clark, 2007.
———. “What happened to the Jewish Priesthood after 70?” in Zuleika Rodgers, ed., Festschrift for
Sean Freyne (forthcoming).
Astor, Carl N. The Petichta<ot of Echah Rabba. Dissertation, Jewish Theological Seminary of America,
New York, 1995.
Avemarie, Friedrich. Tora und Leben: Untersuchungen zur Heilsbedeutung der Tora in frühen rab-
binischen Literatur. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996.
Avi-Yonah, Michael. The Jews of Palestine: A Political History from the Bar Kokhba War to the Arab
Conquest. Oxford: Blackwell, 1976; New York: Schocken, 1976.
Bacher, Wilhelm. “Das Targum zu den Psalmen,” MGWJ 21 (1872) 408–73.
———. “Targum,” JE 12:57–68.
Baillet, Maurice, Josef T. Milik, and Roland de Vaux. Les Petites Grottes de Qumrân. DJD III. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1962.
Bamberger, Bernard J. “A Messianic Document of the Seventh Century,” HUCA 15 (1940) 425–31.
Barr, James. The Typology of Literalism in Ancient Bible Translations. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1979.
Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World, ed. Richard J. A. Talbert. Princeton and Oxford:
Princeton University Press, 2000.
Barthélemy, Dominique. Les devanciers d’Aquila. VT Suppl 10. Leiden: Brill, 1963.
Beattie, Derek R. G., and Martin J. McNamara, eds. The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical
Context. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994.
Beattie, Derek R. G. “The Textual Tradition of Targum Ruth,” in idem and Martin J. McNamara, eds.,
The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context, 340–48.
 Introduction   93

Becker, Adam H., and Annette Y. Reed, eds. The Ways that Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late
Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003.
Beer, Moshe. “Were the Babylonian Amoraim Exempt from Taxes and Customs?” Tarbiß 33 (1963–64)
247–58 [Hebrew].
Ben-Shammai, Haggai. “Poetic Works and Lamentations of Qaraite ‘Mourners for Zion’: Structure
and Contents,” in Shulamit Elizur, et al., eds., Kenesset-Ezra: Literature and Life in the Synagogue:
Studies Presented to Ezra Fleischer. Jerusalem: Yad Yiß˙aq Ben-Íevi, 1994, 191–234 [Hebrew].
Ben-Yehudah, Eliezer. Thesaurus Totius Hebraitatis, et Veteris et Recentioris. 16 vols. New York and
London: Thomas Yoseloff, 1959; reprint Jerusalem: Makor, 1980.
Berlin, Adele. Lamentations: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Louisville and London: West-
minster John Knox, 2002.
Bernstein, Moshe J. “The Aramaic Versions of Deuteronomy 32: A Study in Comparative Targumic
Theology,” in Paul V. M. Flesher, ed., Targum and Scripture. Studies in Aramaic Translations and
Interpretation in Memory of Ernest G. Clarke. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2002, 29–52.
Beyer, Klaus. Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer. Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984.
Bialik, Hayim N., and Yehoshua H. Ravnitzky. The Book of Legends. Sefer Ha-Aggadah: Legends from
the Talmud and Midrash, trans. William G. Braude. New York: Schocken, 1992.
Biberstein-Kazimirski, Albert de. Dictionnaire Arabe-Français. 2 vols. Paris: Maisonneuve, 1860.
Bin Gorion, Emanuel, ed. Mimekor Yisrael: Selected Classical Jewish Folktales, collected by Micha
Joseph Bin Gorion, translated by Israel M. Lask; prepared, with an introduction and headnotes, by
Dan Ben Amos. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1990.
Blau, Ludwig. “Bat Kol,” JE 2:588–92.
Bloch, Philipp. “Die Yoredei Merkavah, die Mystiker der Gaonenzeit und ihr Einfluss auf die Liturgie,”
MGWJ 37 (1883) 18–25, 67–74, 257–66, 305–11.
Bloom, Harold. The Anxiety of Influence: A Theory of Poetry. New York and Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1973.
Bogaert, Pierre. Apocalypse de Baruch. 2 vols. SC 144, 145. Paris: Cerf, 1969.
———. “La tradition des oracles et du livre de Jérémie, des origins au moyen âge,” Revue théologique
de Louvain 3 (1977) 305–38.
Botterweck, G. Johannes, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, eds. Theological Dictionary of
the Old Testament. 13 vols. to date. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974– .
Boyarin, Daniel. Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press, 1999.
———. Borderlines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press, 2004.
Brady, Christian M. M. “Targum Lamentations 1:1-4: A Theological Prologue,” in Flesher, ed., Targum
and Scripture, 175–83.
———. The Rabbinic Targum of Lamentations: Vindicating God. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
Brandon, Samuel G. F. The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church: A Study of the Effects of the
Jewish Overthrow on Christianity. 2nd ed. London: SPCK, 1968.
Braude, William G. Pesikta Rabbati. Yale Judaica Series 18. New Haven and London: Yale University
Press, 1968.
Brock, Sebastian P. “Aspects of Translation Techniques in Antiquity,” in Greek, Roman and Byzantine
Studies 20 (1979) 68–78.
Brockelmann, Carl. Lexicon Syriacum. 2nd ed. Halle: Niemeyer, 1928.
Brown, Francis, Samuel R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old
Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966.
Buber, Salomon, ed. Lekach-Tob (Pesikta Sutarta): Ein agadischer Commentar zum ersten und zweiten
Buche Mosis von Rabbi Tobia ben Elieser. Vilna: Romm, 1884.
94   Introduction

———. Midrasch Suta: Hagadische Abhandlungen über Schir ha-Schirim, Ruth, Echah und Koheleth.
Berlin: H. Itzkowski, 1894.
———. Midrasch Echa Rabbati: Sammlung agadischer Auslegungen der Klagelieder. Vilna: Romm,
1899; reprint Hildesheim: Olms, 1967.
———. Peiru¡ Rabbi Yosef Qara >al Megillat <Eikhah. Breslau: Schlesische Buchdruckerei, 1901;
reprinted from Marcus Bran and Franz Rosenthal, eds., Gedenkbuch zur Erinnerung an David
Kaufmann. Breslau: S. Schottländer, 1900, Hebrew section, 1–26.
Büchler, Adolf. Studies in Sin and Atonement in the Rabbinic Literature of the First Century. London:
Oxford University Press, 1928.
Buxtorf, Johann. Synagoga Judaica. 4th ed. Basel: Impensis Emanuelis König & Filiorum, 1680;
reprint Hildesheim: Olms, 1989.
Carmi, T., ed. The Penguin Book of Hebrew Verse. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1981.
Caro, Hermann I. Beiträge zur ältesten Exegese des Buches Threni mit besonderer Berücksichtigung
des Midrasch und Targum. Inaugural-Dissertation, Giessen. Berlin: H. Itzkowski, 1893.
Charles, Robert Henry. The Apocalypse of Baruch translated from the Syriac. London: A. C. Black,
1896.
Charlesworth, James H., ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. New York and London:
Doubleday, 1983.
Chepey, Stuart D. Nazirites in Late Second Temple Judaism: A Survey of Ancient Jewish Writings, the
New Testament, Archaeological Evidence, and Other Writings from Late Antiquity. Leiden: Brill,
2005.
Chill, Abraham. The Minhagim: The Customs and Ceremonies of Judaism, their Origin and Rationale.
New York: Sepher-Hermon Press, 1979.
Churgin, Pinkhos. The Targum to the Hagiographa. New York: Horeb, 1945 [Hebrew].
Cohen, Abraham. “Lamentations,” in Harry Freedman and Maurice Simon, Midrash Rabbah. 10 vols.
London: Soncino Press, 1939, Vol. 7.
Cohen, Shaye J. D. “The Destruction: From Scripture to Midrash,” Prooftexts 2 (1982) 18–39.
Cook, Edward M. “A New Perspective on the Language of Onqelos and Jonathan,” in Beattie and
McNamara, The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context, 142–56.
Cothenet, Edouard. “Lamentations,” Dictionnaire de Spiritualité, ed. Marcel Viller. 17 vols. Paris: G.
Beauchesne et ses fils, vol. 9:160–65.
Cowley, Arthur E. A Concise Catalogue of the Hebrew Printed Books in the Bodleian Library. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1929.
Dalman, Gustaf. Grammatik des jüdisch-palästinischen Aramäisch. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrich’sche Buch-
handlung, 1905.
Daniélou, Jean. “Christos Kurios, Une texte des Lamentations dans le recueil des Testimonia,” Revue
des Sciences Religieuses 39 (1951) 338–52.
———. Études d’exégèse judéo-chrétienne. Paris: Beauchesne, 1966.
Danker, Frederick W. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Litera-
ture. 3rd ed. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
Dictionnaire de Spiritualité, ed. Marcel Viller et al. 16 vols. Paris: Beauchesne, 1937–95.
Diels, Hermann. Doxographi Graeci. Berlin and Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter, 1929.
Dines, Jennifer M. The Septuagint. London and New York: T & T Clark, 2004.
Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W. “Tragedy, Tradition, and Theology in the Book of Lamentations,” JSOT 74
(1997) 29–60.
———. “The Enjambing Line in Lamentations: A Taxonomy (Part I),” ZAW 113 (2001) 1–16.
———. “The Effects of Enjambement in Lamentations (Part 2),” ZAW 113 (2001) 219–39.
———. Lamentations. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Louisville:
Westminster John Knox, 2002.
 Introduction   95

Doniger, Wendy, and Gregory Spinner. “Misconceptions: Female Imaginations and male Fantasies in
Parental Imprinting,” Daedalus 127/1 (1998) 97–129.
Driver, Godfrey R. “Notes on the Text of Lamentations,” ZAW 52 (1934) 308–09.
Dunsky, Shimshen. Midrash Rabbah: Echah (Lamentations), with Yiddish Translation, Explanatory
Notes, and Introduction. Montreal: Northern Printing and Lithographing Co., 1956.
Ego, Beate. Im Himmel wie auf Erden: Studien zum Verhältnis von himmlischer und irdischer Welt im
rabbinischen Judentum. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989.
———. Targum Scheni zu Ester. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996.
Ehrlich, Arnold B. Randglossen zur Hebräischen Bibel: Textkritisches, Sprachliches und Sachliches.
7 vols. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1908–14; reprint Hildesheim: Olms, 1968.
Ehrman, Bart D. The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. The Effect of Early Christological Controversies
on the Text of the New Testament. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Eisenstein, Jacob D. Ozar Midrashim. 2 vols. New York: J. D. Eisenstein, 1915.
Elbogen, Ismar. Jewish Liturgy: A Comprehensive History. Translated by Raymond P. Scheindlin.
Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1993.
Elon, Menachem. Jewish Law: History, Sources, Principles. 4 vols. Philadelphia and Jerusalem: Jewish
Publication Society, 1994.
Encyclopedia of Islam, new edition. 9 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1960– .
Encyclopaedia Judaica. 16 vols. Jerusalem: Keter, 1972.
Erder, Yoram. “The Karaites’ Sadducee Dilemma,” Israel Oriental Studies 14 (1994) 208–15.
———. “The Negation of the Exile in the Messianic Doctrine of the Karaite Mourners for Zion,”
HUCA 68 (1997) 109–40.
———. “The Mourners of Zion: The Karaites in Jerusalem in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries,” in
Meira Polliack, ed., Karaite Judaism: A Guide to its History and Literary Sources. Leiden: Brill,
2003, 213–35.
———. The Karaite Mourners of Zion and the Qumran Scrolls. Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad,
2004 [Hebrew].
Etymologicum Magnum, ed. Thomas Gaisford. Oxford: Typographicus Academicus, 1848.
Even-Shmuel, Yehuda. Midre¡ei Ge<ullah. 2nd ed. Jerusalem and Tel Aviv: Mosad Bialik, 1953.
Even-Shoshan, Avraham. Millon <Even-Shoshan. 6 vols. New ed. [Jerusalem]: Ha-Millon he-Óadash,
2003.
Fabricius, Johann Albert. Codex Pseudepigraphus Veteris Testamenti. 2 vols. Hamburg and Leipzig:
C. Liebezeit, 1713–23.
Feuerstein, Salomon. Der Commentar des Karäers Salmon b. Jerucham zu d. Klageliedern. Zum er-
sten Male nach der Pariser Handscrhrift edirt, mit einer Einleitung und Anmerkungen versehen.
Inaugural-Dissertation, University of Bern. Cracow: J. Fischer, 1898.
Field, Frederick. Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1867–75.
Fine, Lawrence. Safed Spirituality. The Classics of Western Spirituality. New York: Paulist Press, 1984.
Fine, Steven. “Between Liturgy and Social History: Priestly Power in Late Antique Palestinian Syna-
gogues,” JJS 56 (2005) 1–9.
Fishbane, Michael A. The Exegetical Imagination: On Jewish Thought and Theology. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1998.
Flesher, Paul V. M. Targum and Scripture: Studies in Aramaic Translation and Interpretation in Memory
of Ernest G. Clarke. Leiden: Brill, 2002.
Fontela, Carlos Alonso. El Targum al Cantar de los Cantares (Edición Crítica). Colección Tesis Doc-
torales, no. 92/87. Madrid: Editorial de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 1987.
Frank, Daniel. “The Mourners for Zion ca. 950–1000,” in Magne Sæbø, ed., History of the Hebrew
Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation I.2, The Middle Ages. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
and Ruprecht, 2000, 119–23.
96   Introduction

———. Search Scripture Well: Karaite Exegetes and the Origins of the Jewish Bible Commentary in
the Islamic East. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2004.
Froehlich, Karlfried, and Margaret T. Gibson, eds. Glossa Ordinaria (Biblia Latina cum Glossa Ordi-
naria. Facsimile reprint of the Editio Princeps .  .  . Adolph Rusch of Strasbourg 1480/81. 4 vols.
Turnhout: Brepols, 1992.
Gager, John G. The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes towards Judaism in Pagan and Christian An-
tiquity. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985.
Gaston, Lloyd. No Stone on Another: Studies in the Significance of the Fall of Jerusalem in the Synoptic
Gospels. NovTSup 23. Leiden: Brill, 1970.
Gaster, Moses. The Exempla of the Rabbis. London and Leipzig: Asia Publishing Co., 1924; reprint
New York: KTAV, 1968 = Sefer Ma>a∞iyyot.
Geiger, Ari. “Anti-Jewish Polemics in Nicholas of Lyra’s Literal Postilla on Lamentations,” Íiyyon 69
(2004) 407–29 [Hebrew].
Gelardini, Gabriella. “Hebrews, An Ancient Synagogue Homily for Tisha Be-Av: Its Function, its Basis,
its Theological Interpretation,” in eadem, ed., Hebrews: Contemporary Methods—New Insights.
Biblical Intepretation Series 75. Leiden: Brill, 2005, 122–35.
Gemser, Berend. “The Rªb- or Controversy-Pattern in Hebrew Mentality,” in Martin Noth and D. Winton
Thomas, eds., Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East: Presented to Harold Henry Rowley by
the Society for Old Testament Study in Association with the Editorial Board of Vetus Testamentum,
in celebration of his sixty-fifth birthday, 24 March 1955. VTSupp 3, Leiden: Brill, 1969, 120–37.
Gesenius, Wilhelm. Hebrew Grammar, as edited and enlarged by the late E[mil] Kautzsch, second
English edition .  .  . by Arthur E. Cowley. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910.
Gil, Moshe. A History of Palestine 634–1099. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Ginsburg, Christian D. Introduction to the Masoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible. London:
Trinitarian Bible Society, 1897.
Ginzberg, Louis. The Legends of the Jews. 7 vols. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society,
1909–38.
Goitein, Shelomo Dov. “A Caliph’s Decree in Favour of the Rabbanite Jews of Palestine,” JJS 5 (1954)
118–25.
Goldberg, Arnold M. Untersuchungen über die Vorstellung von der Schechinah in der frühen rabbi-
nischen Literatur—Talmud und Midrasch. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1969.
———. Erlösung durch Leiden: Drei rabbinische Homilien über die Trauernden Zions und den lei-
denden Messias Efraim (PesR 34.36.37). Frankfurter Judaistische Studien 4. Frankfurt: Gesellschaft
zur Förderung Judaistischer Studien in Frankfurt am Main, 1978.
Goldenberg, Robert. “Early Rabbinic Explanations of the Destruction of Jerusalem,” JJS 33 (1982)
517–25.
Goldin, Judah. The Fathers according to Rabbi Nathan. Yale Judaica Series 10. New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1955.
———. The Song at the Sea. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971.
———. “Reflections on Translation and Midrash,” in idem, Studies in Midrash and Related Literature.
Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1988, 239–52.
Goldschmidt, Daniel, ed., Seder ha-Qinot le-Ti¡>ah be-<Ab. Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1965.
Goldstein, Jonathan A. 1 Maccabees. AB 41. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976.
Golomb, David. “A Liar, A Blasphemer, A Reviler: The Role of Biblical Ambiguity in the Palestin-
ian Pentateuchal Targumim,” in Paul V. M. Flesher, ed., Targum Studies Volume One: Textual and
Contextual Studies in the Pentateuchal Targums. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992, 135–46.
Goodblatt, David M. The Monarchic Principle: Studies in Jewish Self-Government in Antiquity.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994.
 Introduction   97

Goodman, Martin. “Diaspora Reactions to the Destruction of the Temple,” in James D. G. Dunn, ed.,
The Parting of the Ways A.D. 70 to 135. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992, 27–38.
Gordis, Robert. The Song of Songs and Lamentations. New York: Ktav, 1974.
Gottwald, Norman K. Studies in the Book of Lamentations. London: SCM, 1954.
Greenfield, Jonas C. “Aramaic and its Dialects. Jewish Languages: Theme and Variations,” in Herbert
Paper, ed., Proceedings of Regional Conferences of the Association for Jewish Studies. Cambridge,
MA: Association for Jewish Studies, 1978, 29–43.
Greenup, Albert W. The Targum on the Book of Lamentations. Sheffield: W. J. Greenup, 1893.
———. The Commentary of Rabbi Tobia ben Elieser on Echah: Edited for the first time from the Mss
at Cambridge, Oxford, and Munich. 2nd ed. London: no publisher, 1908.
Grossfeld, Bernard. Bibliography of Targum Literature. 2 vols. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College
Press, 1972–77; Vol. 3, New York: Sepher-Hermon Press, 1990.
———. The Targum of the Five Megilloth: Edited with an Introduction. New York: Hermon Press,
1973.
———. “The Targum to Lamentations 2:10,” JJS 28 (1977) 60–64.
———. The Two Targums of Esther. The Aramaic Bible 18. Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1991.
Grossmann, Avraham. “Migration and Pilgrimage to the Land of Israel in the Early Arab Period
(634–1099),” Cathedra 8 (1977/78), 136–43 [Hebrew].
———. “The School of Literal Jewish Exegesis in Northern France,” in Magne Sæbø, ed., Hebrew
Bible/Old Testament: The History of its Interpretation, Vol. 1/2 : The Middle Ages. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000, 321–71.
Hahn, Johannes, ed. Zerstörungen des Jerusalemer Tempels. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002,
92–107.
Halivni, David W. Peshat and Derash: Plain and Applied Meaning in Rabbinic Exegesis. New York
and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.
Hayward, Robert. “Phinehas—the same is Elijah: the Origins of a Rabbinic Tradition,” JJS 29 (1978)
22–34.
———. Divine Name and Presence: The Memra. Totowa, NJ: Allanheld, Osmun, 1981.
———. The Targum of Jeremiah: Translated, with a Critical Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes. The
Aramaic Bible 12. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1987.
———. Jerome’s Hebrew Questions on Genesis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Hasan-Rokem, Galit. “’Echa? . . . Ayekah?’—On Riddles in the Stories of Midrash Echah Rabbah,”
Jerusalem Studies in Hebrew Literature 10–11 (1987–88; Jerusalem 1988), 2:531–47 [Hebrew].
———. “Perspectives of Comparative Research of Folk Narratives in Aggadic Midrashim—Enigmatic
Tales in Lamentations Rabba, I,” Tarbiß 59 (1989–90) 109–31 [Hebrew].
———. Web of Life: Folklore and Midrash in Rabbinic Literature. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press, 2000.
Heide, Albert van der. The Yemenite Tradition of the Targum of Lamentations: Critical Text and Analysis
of the Variant Readings. Studia Post-Biblica 32. Leiden: Brill, 1981.
Heinemann, Joseph. “The Proem in Aggadic Midrashim: A Form-Critical Study,” Scripta Hierosol-
ymitana 22 (1971) 100–22.
Hengel, Martin. The Zealots: Investigations into the Jewish Freedom Movement in the Period from
Herod I until 70 A.D. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1989.
Hengel, Martin, Siegfried Mittmann, and Anna Maria Schwemer, eds. La Cité de Dieu, Die Stadt
Gottes. WUNT 129. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000.
Herr, M. D. “Lamentations Rabbah,” EJ 10:1376–78.
———. “Midrash,” EJ 11:1507–14.
———. “Midrashim, Smaller,” EJ 16:1515–18.
98   Introduction

Herzer, Jens. 4 Baruch (Paraleipomena Jeremiou), Translated with an Introduction and Notes. Atlanta:
Society of Biblical Literature, 2005.
Heschel, Abraham Joshua. Heavenly Torah as Refracted through the Generations, edited and translated
by Gordon Tucker, with Leonard Levin. New York and London: Continuum, 2005.
Hillers, Delbert R. Lamentations. AB 7A. New York: Doubleday, 1972; rev. ed. 1992.
Himmelfarb, Martha. Tours of Hell: An Apocalyptic Form in Jewish and Christian Literature. Phila-
delphia: University of Pennsylvannia Press, 1983.
Horgan, Maurya P. “4Q179 A Lament over Jerusalem,” JSS 18 (1973) 222–34.
Houtman, Alberdina. “‘They direct their heart to Jerusalem’: References to Jerusalem and Temple in
Mishnah and Tosefta Berakhot,” in eadem, Marcel J. H. M. Porthuis, and Joshua Schwartz, eds.,
Sanctity of Time and Space in Tradition and Modernity. Leiden: Brill, 1998, 153–66.
Hyman, Aaron. Sefer Torah ha-Ketubah ve-ha-Mesurah >al Torah, Nebi<im u-Khetubim, rev. ed. by
Aaron B. Hyman. Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1979.
Jacobs, Louis. “Hermeneutics,” EJ 8:366–72.
Jaffee, Martin S. “The ‘Midrashic’ Proem: Towards the Description of Rabbinic Exegesis,” in William
Scott Green, ed., Approaches to Ancient Judaism IV. Chico: Scholars Press, 1983, 95–112.
Jastrow, Marcus. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic
Literature. 2 vols. London: Luzac, 1903.
Jellinek, Adolph. Bet ha-Midrasch. 6 vols. Leipzig: F. Nies, 1853–77; 3rd ed. Jerusalem: Wahrmann
Books, 1967.
Jeremias, Joachim. “Elias,” TDNT 2:928–41.
Jewish Encyclopaedia. 12 vols. New York and London: Funk and Wagnalls, 1901–1906.
Joüon, Paul. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Translated and revised by Takamitsu Muraoka. 2 vols.
Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1991.
Juusola, Hannu. Linguistic Peculiarities in the Aramaic Magic Bowls. Studia Orientalia 86. Helsinki:
Finnish Oriental Society, 1999.
Kadushin, Max. The Rabbinic Mind. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1952.
Kahle, Paul E. Masoreten des Westens II. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1930.
———. The Cairo Geniza. 2nd ed., Oxford: Blackwell, 1959.
Kasher, Menahem M. Torah Shelemah. 42 vols. to date. Jerusalem: Bet Torah Shelemah, 1927– .
Kasher, Rimon. Targumic Toseftot to the Prophets. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1996.
Kaufman, Stephen A. “Aramaic,” in Robert Hetzron, ed., The Semitic Languages. London: Routledge,
1997, 114–30.
Kelso, James A. Die Klagelieder: der Masoretische Text und die Versionen. Inaugural-Dissertation,
University of Leipzig. Leipzig: W. Drugulin, 1901.
Kessler, Edward. Bound by the Bible: Jews, Christians and the Sacrifice of Isaac. Cambridge and New
York: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Kimelman, Reuven. “The Messiah of the Amidah: A Study in Comparative Messianism,” JBL 116
(1997) 313–24.
Kister, Menahem. “Legends of the Destruction of the Second Temple in Avot De-Rabbi Nathan,” Tarbiß
67 (1997–78) 483–529 [Hebrew].
Kittel, Gerhard, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Translated
and edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964.
Klein, Michael L. “The Preposition qdm (‘before’): A Pseudo-Anti-Anthropomorphism in the Targums,”
JTS 30 (1979) 502–507.
———. The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch according to their Extant Sources. 2 vols. Rome:
Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1980.
———. “The Translation of Anthropomorphisms and Anthropopathisms in the Targumim,” in Inter-
national Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Congress Volume, Vienna, 1980, ed. John
A. Emerton. VTSuppl 32 (1981) 162–77.
 Introduction   99

———. Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch. 2 vols. Cincinnati: Hebrew
Union College Press, 1986.
———. “Not to be translated in Public—l< mtrgm bßybwr<,” JJS 39 (1988) 80–91.
———. Targumic Manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah Collections. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 1992.
Knohl, Israel. The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School. Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1995.
Kobelski, Paul J. Melchizedek and Melchiresha>. CBQMS 10. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical As-
sociation of America, 1981.
Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner. Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros + Supplement. Leiden:
Brill, 1958.
Koehler, Ludwig. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, revised by Walter Baum-
gartner and Johann Jakob Stamm; translated and edited under the supervision of Mervyn E. J.
Richardson. 2 vols. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2001.
Kohut, Alexander, ed. Aruch Completum sive lexicon vocabula et res, quae in libris Targumicis,
Talmudicis et Midraschicis continentur, explicans auctore Nathane filio Jechielis. 8 vols. Vienna:
Georg Brög, 1878–92.
Komlosh, Yehuda. The Bible in the Light of the Aramaic Translations. Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University,
1973; Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1973 [Hebrew].
Kraemer, David C. Responses to Suffering in Classical Rabbinic Literature. New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 1995.
Krauss, Samuel. Griechische und lateinische Lehnwörter im Talmud, Midrasch und Targum. 2 vols.
Berlin: S. Calvary, 1898–99.
Kuhn, Peter. Gottes Trauer und Klage in der rabbinische Überlieferung. Leiden: Brill, 1978.
Kutscher, Edward Y. “The Language of the Genesis Apocryphon: A Preliminary Study,” in Chaim
Rabin and Yigael Yadin, eds., Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Scripta Hierosolymitana 4. Jerusa-
lem: Magnes, 1957, 1­–35.
Lagarde, Paul de. Hagiographa Chaldaice. Leipzig: Teubner, 1873; reprint Osnabrück: O. Zeller,
1967.
Lampe, Geoffrey W. H. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961.
Lamy, Thomas J. Sancti Ephraem Syri Hymni et Sermones. Malines: H. Dessain, 1886.
Landauer, Samuel. “Zum Targum der Klagelieder,” in Carl Bezold, ed., Orientalische Studien Theodor
Nöldeke zum siebzigsten geburtstag gewidmet. Gieszen: Töpelmann, 1906, 1:505–12.
Lane, Edward W. An Arabic-English Lexicon. London and Edinburgh: Williams & Norgate, 1863–93;
reprint Beirut: Librairie du Liban, 1968.
Le Déaut, Roger. La Nuit Pascale: Essai sur la signification de la Pâque juive à partir du targum
d’Exode XII:42. AnBib 22. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963.
———. Introduction à la literature targumique. Première partie. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute,
1966.
———. “Un phénomène spontané de l’herméneutique juive ancienne: le ‘targumisme.’” Biblica 52
(1971) 505–25.
———. Targum du Pentateuque: Traduction des deux recensions palestiniennes complètes avec intro-
ductions, parallèles, notes et iudex. 5 vols. SC 245, 256, 261, 271, 282. Paris: Cerf, 1978–81.
Lee, Nancy C. The Singers of Lamentations: Cities under Siege, from Ur to Jerusalem to Sarajevo.
Biblical Interpretation Series 60. Leiden: Brill, 2002.
Lenhard, Doris. Die rabbinische Homilie: Ein formanalytischer Index. Frankfurter Judaistische Studien
10. Frankfurt: Gesellschaft zur Förderung Judaistischer Studien in Frankfurt am Main, 1998.
Levey, Samson H. The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College/Jewish
Institute of Religion, 1974.
Levine, Étan. The Aramaic Version of Lamentations. New York: Hermon, 1976; reprint 1981.
100   Introduction

———. The Targum of the Five Megillot: Ruth, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Lamentations, Esther: Codex
Urbinati 1. Jerusalem: Makor, 1977.
Levy, Jacob. Wörterbuch über die Talmudim und Midraschim. 4 vols. 3rd ed. Berlin and Vienna: Ben-
jamin Harz, 1924.
Lichtenberger, Hermann. “Der Mythos von der Unzerstörbarkeit des Tempels,” in Hahn, ed., Zerstörun-
gen des Jerusalemer Tempels, 92–107.
Lichtenstein, Hans. “Die Fastenrolle: Eine Untersuchung zur jüdisch-hellenistischen Geschichte,”
HUCA 8-9 (1931–32) 257–51.
Liddell, Henry G., and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. revised by Henry Stuart Jones.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961.
Lieberman, Saul. Hellenism in Jewish Palestine. 2nd ed. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary,
1962.
Liebreich, Leon J. “Midrash Leqa˙ Tob’s dependence upon the Targum to the Songs of Songs 8:11-
12,” JQR n.s. 38 (1947/8) 63–66.
Lied, Liv Ingeborg. Review of Nir, “The Destruction of Jerusalem and the Idea of Redemption in the
Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch,” in JSS 50 (2005) 403–405.
Linafelt, Tod. Surviving Lamentations: Catastrophe, Lament, and Protest in the Afterlife of a Biblical
Book. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
Linder, Amnon. The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation. Detroit: Wayne State University Press,
1987.
———. “The Loss of Christian Jerusalem in Late Medieval Liturgy,” in Lee I. Levine, ed., Jerusalem: Its
Sanctity and Centrality to Judaism, Christianity and Islam. New York: Continuum, 1999, 393–407.
Loewe, Raphael. “The ‘Plain’ Meaning of Scripture in Early Jewish Exegesis,” Papers of the Institute
of Jewish Studies 1, London: Institute of Jewish Studies, 1964, 140–85.
Löw, Immanuel. Die Flora der Juden. 4 vols. Vienna and Leipzig: R. Löwit, 1924–34.
Lücking, Stefan. “Die Zerstörung des Tempels 70 n. Chr. als Krisenerfahrung der frühen Christen,” in
Hahn, Zerstörungen des Jerusalemer Tempels, 140–65.
Lust, Johan, Erik Eynikel, and Katrin Hauspie, eds. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. 2 vols.
Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1996.
MacMahon, John H. Translation of the writings of Hippolytus in Alexander Roberts and James Don-
aldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1995; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1995, 5:9–259.
McCarthy, Carmel. The Tiqqune Sopherim and other Theological Corrections in the Masoretic Text
of the Old Testament. OBO 36. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1981.
McNamara, Martin. The New Testament and the Palestinian Targums to the Pentateuch. AnBib 27a.
Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1978.
Mandel, Paul D. Midrash Lamentations Rabbati: Prolegomenon, and A Critical Edition to the Third
Parasha. 2 vols. Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew University Jerusalem, 1997.
———. “Between Byzantium and Islam: The Transmission of the Jewish Book in the Byzantine and Early
Islamic Periods,” in Yaakov Elman and Israel Gershoni, eds., Transmitting Jewish Traditions: Orality,
Textuality, and Cultural Diffusion. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2000, 74–105.
Mann, Jacob. The Jews in Egypt and in Palestine under the Fatimid Caliphs. 2 vols. London: Oxford
University Press, 1920–22.
Margalioth, Mordecai. Sepher Ha-Razim: A Newly Discovered Book of Magic from the Talmudic Period.
Jerusalem: American Academy of Jewish Research, 1966.
Marwick, Lawrence. “Studies in Salmon b. Yeru˙am,” JQR n.s. 34 (1943/44) 313–20, 475–80.
Marx, Alexander. Review of Buber, Midrasch Echah Rabbati, in Orientalische Literaturzeitung 5/7,
1902, 293–96.
 Introduction   101

Matter, E. Ann. “The Lamentations Commentaries of Hrabanus Maurus and Paschasius Radbertus,”
Traditio 38 (1982) 137–63.
Melamed, Ezra Z. Bible Commentators. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1978 [Hebrew].
Melamed, Raphael H. The Targum to Canticles according to six Yemen MSS, compared with the ‘Tex-
tus Receptus’ (Ed. de Lagarde). Philadelphia: Dropsie College, 1921. Reprinted from JQR n.s. 10
(1919–20) 377–410; 11 (1920–21) 1–20; 12 (1921–22) 57–117.
Mihaly, Eugene. “A Rabbinic Defence of the Election of Israel,” HUCA 25 (1964) 103–35.
Milikowsky, Chaim. “The Status Quaestionis of Research in Rabbinic Literature.” JJS 39 (1988)
201–11.
Mintz, Alan L. Óurban: Responses to Catastrophe in Hebrew Literature, Syracuse, NY: Syracuse
University Press, 1996.
Miqra<ot Gedolot. Jerusalem: <Am <oved, 5721/1961, a photostatic reprint of the M. Yosef Lebensohn
edition.
Montefiore, Claude G., and Herbert M. J. Loewe. A Rabbinic Anthology. London: Macmillan, 1938.
Moore, George Foote. Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era. 3 vols. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1927–30.
Morray-Jones, Christopher R. A. A Transparent Illusion. The Dangerous Vision of Water in Hekhalot
Mysticism: A Source-Critical and Tradition-Historical Inquiry. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
Müller-Kessler, Christa. “The Earliest Evidence for Targum Onqelos from Babylonia and the Question
of its Dialect and Origin,” JAB 3 (2001) 181–98.
Nadich, Judah. Jewish Legends of the Second Commonwealth. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication So-
ciety, 1983.
Najar, Shalom S. Óame¡ Megillot: ⁄ir ha-⁄irim, Rut, Qohelet, Ester, <Eikhah. Miqra, Targum, Tafsir
(>Arabi) >im peiru¡im. N. p.: Published by the editor, 1970.
Nemoy, Leon. “Early Karaism,” JQR n.s. 40 (1950) 307­–15.
Neubauer, Adolf. La géographie du Talmud. Paris: Michel Lévy frères, 1868.
———. “Megillat Ta>anit,” in idem, ed., Mediaeval Jewish Chronicles II. Anecdota Oxoniensia. Ox-
ford: Clarendon Press, 1895, 3–25.
———. Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library and in the College Libraries of
Oxford. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1886; + Malachi Beit-Arié, Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts
in the Bodleian Library: Supplement of Addenda and Corrigenda (A. Neubauer’s Catalogue), ed.
R. A. May. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994.
Neusner, Jacob. History of the Jews in Babylonia. 5 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1965–70.
———. “Judaism in a Time of Crisis: Four Responses to the Destruction of the Second Temple,”
Judaism 21 (1972) 313–27.
———. Lamentations Rabbah: An Analytical Translation. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989.
———. The Midrash Compilations of the Sixth and Seeventh Centuries. Volume One: Lamentations
Rabbah. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989.
New Catholic Encyclopedia. 18 vols. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1874–89.
Nir, Rivkah. The Destruction of Jerusalem and the Idea of Redemption in the Syriac Apocalypse of
Baruch. Early Judaism and its Literature 20. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003.
Noam, Vered. Megillat Ta>anit: Versions, Interpretation, History, With a Critical Edition. Jerusalem:
Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2003 [Hebrew].
Oepke, Albrecht. nefevlh, nevfo~, TDNT 4:902–10.
Olyan, Saul M. Biblical Mourning: Ritual and Social Dimensions. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2004.
Pabst, Hartmut. “Eine Sammlung von Klagen in den Qumranfunden (4Q179),” in Mathias Delcor, ed.,
Qumrân: Sa pieté, sa théologie et son milieu. BETL 46. Paris: Duculot, 1978, 137–49.
Pape, Wilhelm, and Gustav Eduard Benseler. Wörterbuch der griechischen Eigennamen. Handwörter-
buch der Griechischen Sprache 3. 2 vols. Braunschweig: F. Vieweg und Sohn, 1863–70.
102   Introduction

Parfitt, Tudor. The Road to Redemption: The Jews of the Yemen 1900–1950. Brill’s Series in Jewish
Studies 17. Leiden: Brill, 1996.
Patai, Raphael. The Messiah Texts. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1988.
Payne Smith, Robert. Thesaurus Syriacus. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1879–1901.
Petuchowski, Jakob Josef. Theology and Poetry: Studies in Medieval Piyyut. Littman Library of Jewish
Civilization. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1978.
Polliack, Meira. The Karaite Tradition of Arabic Bible Translation: A Linguistic and Exegetical Study
of Karaite Translations of the Pentateuch from the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries c.e. Études sur le
judaïsme médiéval 17. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
Pool, David de Sola. The Old Jewish-Aramaic Prayer: The Kaddish. Leipzig: Rudolf Haupt, 1909.
Pope, Marvin H. Job. AB 15. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1973.
Provan, Iain W. Lamentations. NCBC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.
Qafi˙, Yosef. Óame¡ Megillot: ⁄ir ha-⁄irim, Rut, Qohelet, Ester, <Eikhah, >im peiru¡im >attiqim. Jeru-
salem: Hoßa<at ha-<Agudah le-Haßßalat Ginzei Teiman, 1962.
Quinquarboreus, Joannes. Targum seu paraphrasis Caldaica, nunc primum latinitate donata .  .  . Ad-
ditae sunt eiusdem Qinquarborei annotationes. Paris: Apud Martinum Iuuenem, 1549.
Rabinowitz, Zvi M. Halakha and Aggada in the Liturgical Poetry of Yannai: The Sources, Language
and Period of the Payyetan. New York: Kohut Foundation, 1965 [Hebrew].
———. Ginzé Midrash: The Oldest Forms of Rabbinic Midrashim according to Genizah Manuscripts.
Tel Aviv: Chaim Rosenberg School of Jewish Studies, 1976.
Raphael, Chaim. The Walls of Jerusalem. London: Chatto & Windus, 1968.
Rahlfs, Alfred. Septuaginta. 2 vols. 6th ed. Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, [1959?].
Reeves, John C. Trajectories in Near Eastern Apocalyptic: A Postrabbinic Jewish Apocalyptic Reader.
Resources for Biblical Study 45. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005.
Reiss, J. “Das Targum zu dem Buche Echah: Verhältnis des edirten Textes desselben zu dem eines
handschriftlichen Codex auf der Breslauer Stadtbibliotek, stammend aus dem 13. Jahrhundert (Codex
No. 11),” Das jüdische Literaturblatt 18 (1889) 127, 130–31.
Renkema, Johan. Lamentations. Historical Commentary on the Old Testament. Leuven: Peeters, 1998.
Ribera Florit, Josep. “Un Estudio sobre la version targúmica del libro de las Lamentaciones,” Annuario
de Filologia (Barcelona) 3 (1977) 273–76.
Rosenmüller, Ern. Frid. Car. Scholia in Vetus Testamentum. 23 vols. 2nd. rev. ed. Leipzig: J. A. Barth,
1795–1835.
Rothkoff, Aaron. “Bat Kol,” EJ 4:324–25.
Rubenstein, Jeffrey L. Talmudic Stories: Narrative Art, Composition and Culture. Baltimore and Lon-
don: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999.
Rudolph, Wilhelm. “Der Text der Klagelieder,” ZAW 56 (1938) 101–22.
———. Die Klagelieder. KAT 16/3. Leipzig: A. Diecherts, 1939.
Salvesen, Alison. Symmachus in the Pentateuch. Journal of Semitic Studies Monograph 15. Manchester:
University of Manchester, 1991.
———, ed. Origen’s Hexapla and Fragments. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998.
Samely, Alexander. The Interpretation of Speech in the Pentateuch Targums: A Study of Method and
Presentation in Targumic Exegesis. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992.
———. Rabbinic Interpretation of Scripture in the Mishnah. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Sarason, Richard S. “The Petihot in Leviticus Rabba: ‘Oral Homilies’ or Redactional Construction,”
JJS 33 (1982) 557–65.
Schäfer, Peter. “Die Termini ‘Heiliger Geist’ und ‘Geist der Prophetie’ in den Targumim,” VT 20
(1970) 304–14.
———. Die Vorstellung vom Heiligen Geist in der rabbinischen Literatur. SANT 28. Munich: Kösel,
1972.
 Introduction   103

———. Rivalität zwischen Engeln und Menschen: Untersuchungen zur rabbinischen Engelvorstellung.
Studia Judaica 8. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1975.
———. Synopse zur Hekhalot Literatur. TSAJ 2. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1981.
———. “Research into Rabbinic Literature: An Attempt to Define the Status Quaestionis,” JJS 37
(1986) 139–52.
———. Konkordanz zur Hekhalot Literature. 2 vols. TSAJ 12-13. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988.
———. Judeophobia: Attitudes towards the Jews in the Ancient World. Cambridge, MA, and London:
Harvard University Press, 1997.
Schechter, Solomon. Aspects of Rabbinic Theology: Major Concepts of the Talmud. New York: Mac-
millan, 1909; reprint New York: Schocken, 1965.
Schiffman, Lawrence H., and James VanderKam, eds. Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. 2 vols.
Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Schmid, Konrad. “Die Zerstörung Jerusalems und seines Tempels als Heilsparadox. Zur Zusammen-
führung von Geschichtstheologie und Anthropologie im Vierten Esrabuch,” in Hahn, Zerstörungen
des Jerusalemer Tempels, 183–206.
Schoeler, Gregor. The Oral and the Written in Early Islam. Translated by Uwe Vagelpohl; edited
by James E. Montgomery. Routledge Studies in Middle Eastern Literatures. London: Routledge,
2006.
Schoeps, Hans Joachim. Die Tempelzerstörung des Jahres 70 in der jüdischen Religionsgeschichte.
ConBNTS 6. Uppsala: Seminarium Neotestamenticum Upsaliense, 1942.
Schönfelder, Joseph M. Die Klagelieder des Jeremias nach rabbinischer Auslegung. Munich: Ernst
Stahl, 1887.
Schürer, Emil. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, (175 B.C.–A.D. 135). Trans-
lated by T. A. Burkill et al. Revised by Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, Matthew Black, and Martin
Goodman. 3 vols. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1973–86.
Schwemer, Anna Maria. Studien zu den frühjüdischen Prophetenlegenden Vitae Prophetarum. 3 vols.
TSAJ 49–50. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1995–96.
Scott, James M., ed. Exile: Old Testament, Jewish and Christian Perceptions. Supplements to the
Journal for the Study of Judaism 56. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
_____, ed. Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish and Christian Perspectives. Supplements to the Journal
for the Study of Judaism 72. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
Seeboeck, Philibert, ed. Petrus Aureolus: Compendium Litteralis Sensus Totius Divinae Scripturae.
Quarrachi: College of St. Bonaventure, 1896.
Silber, Ephraim. Sedeh Jerusalem: Ein Kommentar zu Targum Chamesh Megiloth. Czernowitz: E.
Heilpern, 1888 [Hebrew].
Simon, Marcel. Verus Israel: A Study of the Relations between Christians and Jews in the Roman Empire
(AD 135–425). Translated by Henry McKeating. Littman Library of Jewish Civilization. Oxford
and New York: Published for the Littman Library by Oxford University Press, 1996.
Singer, Simeon. The Authorized Daily Prayer Book. Enlarged Centenary Edition. London: Singer’s
Prayer Book Publication Committee, 1992.
Skarsaune, Oskar. The Proof from Prophecy. A Study in Justin Martyr’s Proof-Text Tradition: Text-Type,
Provenance, Theological Profile. NovTSup 56. Leiden: Brill, 1987.
Smalley, Beryl. English Friars and Antiquity in the Early Fourteenth Century. Oxford: Blackwell,
1960.
Smelik, Willem F. The Targum of Judges. Oudtestamentische Studiën 36. Leiden: Brill, 1995.
Smith-Christopher, Daniel L. A Biblical Theology of Exile. Overtures to Biblical Theology. Minne-
apolis: Fortress Press, 2002.
Sokoloff, Michael. A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period. Ramat-Gan:
Bar Ilan University Press, 1992.
104   Introduction

———. A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods. Ramat Gan:
Bar Ilan University Press, 2002; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002.
Sophocles, Evangelinus Apostolides. Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods (From BC
146 to AD 1100). 2 vols. New York: Scribner, 1887.
Sperber, Alexander. The Bible in Aramaic: Based on Old Manuscripts and Printed Texts. IV A, The
Hagiographa. Leiden: Brill, 1968.
Spiegel, Shalom. The Last Trial. On the Legends and Lore of the Command to Abraham to offer Isaac
as a Sacrifice: The Akedah. Translated from the Hebrew, with an introduction, by Judah Goldin.
New York: Behrman House, 1979.
Stec, David M. The Text of the Targum of Job: An Introduction and Critical Edition. Arbeiten zur
Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 20. Leiden: Brill, 1994.
Stemberger, Günter. Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. Translated and edited by Markus Bock-
muehl. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1996.
———. “Reaktionen auf die Tempelzerstörung in der rabbinischen Literatur,” in Hahn, Zerstörungen
des Jerusalemer Tempels, 207–36.
Stern, David. “Rhetoric and Midrash: The Case of the Mashal,” Prooftexts 1 (1981) 261–91.
———. Parables in Midrash: Narrative and Exegesis in Rabbinic Literature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Univesrity Press, 1991.
———. “Imitatio Hominis: Anthropomorphism and the Character(s) of God in Rabbinic Literature,”
Prooftexts 12 (1992) 151–74.
———, and Mark Jay Mirsky. Rabbinic Fantasies. Philadelphia: Jewish Publications Society, 1990.
Stevens, Denis. “Tenebrae,” New Catholic Encyclopedia 13:1007–09.
Stone, Michael E. “Reactions to the Destruction of the Second Temple,” JSJ 12 (1981) 195–204.
———, and John Strugnell. The Books of Elijah. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979.
Strack, Hermann L., and Paul Billerbeck. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch.
4 vols. Munich: Beck, 1926–28; Vols. 5–6 edited by Joachim Jeremias and Kurt Adolph. Munich:
Beck, 1956–61.
Sysling, Harry. Te˙iyyat ha-Metim: The Resurrection of the Dead in the Palestinian Targums of the
Pentateuch and Parallel Traditions in Classical Rabbinic Literature, TSAJ 57. Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 1996.
Tal, Abraham. The Language of the Targum of the Former Prophets and its Position within the Aramaic
Dialects. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 1975 [Hebrew].
Teugels, Lieve M., and Rivka Ulmer, eds. Recent Developments in Midrash Research. Judaism in
Context 2. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2005.
Theodor, Julius. “Ekah (Lamentations) Rabbati,” JE 5:85–87.
Thoma, Clemens. Die Zerstörung des jerusalemischen Tempels im Jahre 70 n. Chr. Geistig-religiöse
Bedeutung für Judentum und Christentum nach den Aussagen jüdischer und christlicher Primär-
literatur. Diss. Phil., Vienna, 1966.
Toorn, Karel van der, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst, eds. Dictionary of Deities and Demons
in the Bible. Leiden: Brill, 1995.
Urbach, Ephraim E. The Sages, Their Concepts and Beliefs. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem:
Magnes, 1975; 4th ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995.
Vermigli, Peter Martyr. Commentary on the Lamentations of the Prophet Jeremiah. Translated and
edited with introduction and notes by Daniel Shute. The Peter Martyr Library 6. Kirksville, MO:
Truman State University Press, 2002.
Visotzky, Burton. “On Critical Editions of Midrash,” in Teugels and Ulmer, eds., Recent Developments
in Midrash Research, 155–62.
Vos, Christiane de. Klage als Gotteslob aus der Tiefe: Der Mensch vor Gott in den individuellen
Klagepsalmen. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005.
 Introduction   105

Weinberger, Leon J. Jewish Hymnography: A Literary History. Littman Library of Jewish Civilization.
London and Portland, OR: Vallentine Mitchell, 1998.
Weitzman, Michael. The Syriac Version of the Old Testament: An Introduction. University of Cambridge
Oriental Publications 56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
———. From Judaism to Christianity: Studies in the Hebrew and Syriac Bibles. Edited by Ada Ra-
poport-Albert and Gillian Greenberg. Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 8. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1999.
Wertheimer, Solomon A. Batei Midrashot. 2 vols. New edition by Abraham Y. Wertheimer. Jerusalem:
Mosad Ha-Rav Kook, 1951–54.
Wesselius, Jan-Wim. “Biblical Poetry through Targumic Eyes: Onkelos’ Treatment of Genesis 49:8-
12,” in Janet W. Dyk, et al., eds. Give Ear to my Words: Psalms and other Poetry in and around the
Hebrew Bible. Essays in Honour of Professor N. A. van Uchelen. Amsterdam: Societas Hebraica
Amstelodamensis, 1996, 131–45.
———. “Completeness and Closure in Targumic Literature: The Emulation of Biblical Hebrew Poetry
in Targum Jonathan to the Former Prophets,” JAB 3 (2001) 237–47.
Westermann, Claus. Lamentations: Issues and Interpretation. Translated by Charles Muenchow. Ed-
inburgh: T & T Clark, 1994; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994.
———. Genesis. 2 vols. Translated by John J. Scullion. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1984–85.
Whitmarsh, Tim. “‘Greece is the World’: Exile and Identity in the Second Sophistic,” in Simon Goldhill,
ed. Being Greek under Rome: Cultural Identity, the Second Sophistic and the Development of Em-
pire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001, 269–305.
Wieder, Naphtali. The Judean Scrolls and Karaism. London: East and West Library, 1962.
———. “The Doctrine of the Two Messiahs among the Karaites,” JJS 6 (1955) 14–23.
Willey, Patricia Tull. Remember the Former Things: The Recollection of Previous Texts in Second
Isaiah. SBLDS 161. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997.
Wright, N. T. The New Testament and the People of God. London: SPCK, 1992.
Wünsche, August. Der Midrasch Echa Rabbati. Leipzig: Otto Schulze, 1881.
Yassif, Eli, ed. The Book of Memory, that is The Chronicles of Yerahme<el. Tel Aviv: The Chaim Rosen-
berg School of Jewish Studies, Tel Aviv University, 2001 [Hebrew].
———. The Hebrew Folktale: History, Genre, Meaning. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana
University Press, 1999.
Ziegler, Joseph. Ieremias: Baruch, Threni, Epistula Ieremiae. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum
xv. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1957.
Zimmermann, Frank. “Textual Observations on the Apocalypse of Baruch,” JTS 40 (1939) 151–56.
———. “Translation and Mistranslation in the Apocalypse of Baruch,” in Meir Ben-Horin, et al., eds.
Studies and Essays in Honor of Abraham A. Neuman. Leiden: Brill, 1962, 580–87.
Zucker, M. “Reactions to the Karaite Mourners for Zion in the Rabbinic Literature,” Sefer ha-Yobel
le-Rabbi Hanokh Albeck. Jerusalem: Mosad HaRav Kook, 1963, 379–90 [Hebrew].
Zulay, Menahem. Piyyu†ei Yannai. Berlin: Schocken, 1938.
———. “An Ancient Poem and the Petichoth of Echa Rabbati,” Tarbiß 16 (1944–45) 190–95
[Hebrew].
The Targum of Lamentations
Translation
 Translation   109

Chapter 1
1. Jeremiah the prophet and high priest1 said:
How has it been decreed against Jerusalem and her people that they should be condemned
to banishment, and that “<Eikhah”a2 should be pronounced over them in mourning, just as
Adam and Eve were condemned, when they were banished from the Garden of Eden, and the
Lord of the World pronounced “<Eikhah”a2 over them in mourning?

Apparatus, Chapter 1
a I omits “<Eikhah” on both occasions, as does Lag., be-
cause he mistakenly supposed it was part of the lemma.

Notes Chapter 1
1
Ancient tradition, both Jewish and Christian, regards Jeremiah as the author of the anonymous biblical book of Lamenta-
tions. See the opening of the LXX: “When Israel was taken captive, and Jerusalem made desolate, Jeremiah sat weeping, and
lamented with this lamentation over Jerusalem, and said .  .  . ”; Vulg. (some mss): “After Israel was led into captivity and Je-
rusalem laid waste, Jeremiah the prophet sat weeping, and lamented with this lamentation over Jerusalem. And with sorrowful
mind, sighing and moaning, he said .  .  . ”; b. BB 15a, “Jeremiah wrote the book that bears his name, and Kings and Lamenta-
tions.” The tradition is ultimately derived from 2 Chr 35:25, “And Jeremiah lamented for Josiah, and all the singing men and
singing women spoke of Josiah in their laments, unto this day; and they made them an ordinance in Israel; and, behold, they are
written in the Lamentations (ha-qinot).” Note the reference to King Josiah in Tg. Lam. 4:20. See further Note 74 below.
However, the claim, repeated in Tg. to v. 2, that Jeremiah was high priest, is less common. High priest here is meant liter-
ally and not just as a term of respect (as Churgin suggests). It is based on identifying Jeremiah’s father Hilkiah (Jer 1.1) with
Hilkiah the high priest in the time of Josiah (2 Kgs 22:4). The implication is that Jeremiah (whom the Bible explicitly states
was of priestly descent) succeeded his father in office. The tradition of identifying the two Hilkiahs was known to Clement
of Alexandria and to Hippolytus: see Clement, Stromata I 20 (120, 2) (ed. Stählin, 2:76, GCS), and Hippolytus’ comment on
Susanna 1:1-2 (ed. Bonwetsch, 1:20, GCS). The latter makes Susanna the “daughter of Helkias” and sister of Jeremiah (Mac-
Mahon, Hippolytus 1:477, basing himself on the the inferior text in PG 10:689, makes Jeremiah the brother of Hilkiah!). But
Ginzberg, Legends 5:384 n. 10, appears to be correct in asserting that, apart from our Tg., Jeremiah’s high priestly descent is not
mentioned in Jewish tradition before the time of Qimhi. See Qimhi to Jer 1:1, “The words of Jeremiah. My late revered father
wrote that this Hilkiah is the same as Hilkiah son of Shaphan the high priest who found the Book of the Law in the House of
the Lord in the days of Josiah, and that Jeremiah was his son.” The earlier Rabbinic references to Jeremiah as high priest cited
by Levine prove nothing.
2
<Eikhah = “How,” the word used in the Heb. text. Tg.’s comparison of the expulsion of the Jews from their land to the
expulsion of Adam and Eve from Paradise is based on the occurrence here and in Gen 3:9 of the significant consonantal cluster
<ykh. In Gen 3:9 the consonants are normally vowelled <ayyekkah, “Where are you?” (“The Lord God called to the man, and
said to him: ‘Where are you [<ayyekah]?’”), but by an easy <al tiqrei they can be repointed <eikhah, which in the light of the
usage of this word in Lam 1:1 can readily be seen as an expression of dismay and regret for Adam’s sin (“The Lord God called
to the man and said to him, <Eikhah—alas!”). Lam.R., Proem 4, makes the same comparison at greater length: “Rabbi Abbahu
opened with the verse, But they like Adam (ke-<adam) have transgressed the covenant (Hos 6:7). This alludes to the first man of
whom the Holy One, blessed be he, said: I brought him into the Garden of Eden and imposed a commandment on him, but he
transgressed it, so I punished him by banishing him and sending him forth, and I lamented over him <Eikhah .  .  . Similarly with
his descendents, I brought them into the Land of Israel .  .  . I gave them commandments .  .  . they transgressed my command-
ments .  .  . So I punished them by banishing them and by sending them forth .  .  . and I lamented over them <Eikhah—How
(<Eikhah) does she sit solitary (Lam 1:1).” Cf. Gen.R. 19.9; PRK 15.1; Midrash ha-Gadol, Bere<¡it 3:9; Midrash Zuta, <Eikhah,
Recension A, 39 (ed. Buber 35a). The words for “banishment” here in the midrash (Heb. geiru¡in: Jast. 267a), and in the Tg.
(Aram. tirukhin: Jast. 1666b), are used in the context of divorcing an errant wife. This chimes well with the image in Lam 1:1
of Jerusalem as the abandoned wife (“widow”: see below). The comparison of the Temple with Paradise, a prominent motif in
Tg. Cant., can be traced back to Second Temple times (Tg. Cant. 4:6, 6:11, 7:3, with Alexander’s Notes ad loc.). In general for
the interest of the darshanim in other occurrences of the word <eikhah see Lam.R. 1:1 §1: “Three spoke prophecies using the
word <eikhah, viz., Moses, Isaiah, and Jeremiah. Moses said, How can I myself alone bear the weight and burden of you and
your strife! (Deut 1:12). Isaiah said, How is the faithful city become a harlot! (Isa 1:21). Jeremiah said: How does the city sit
solitary!” See further Intro. 5.2.
110   Translation

The Attribute of Justice answered, and thus said:3

It is on account of the extent of  b her sins, and the sedition and rebellion c that are in her
midst.4 Therefore she dwells alone, as a man in whose flesh is the plague of leprosy dwells
alone.5 And the city that was full of crowds and numerous b peoples has been emptied of
them, and has become like a widow;6 and she who grew great d among the nations and ruled
over provinces,e and they were paying taxes to her, has been brought low f in turn, and gives
tribute to them after [all] this.7
2. When Moses the prophet g sent scouts 8 to spy out the Land, the scouts came back and

Apparatus, Chapter 1
b Emending the phonetic spellings sgy>wt .  .  . sgy>yn to for A ”who grew great.”
sgy<wt .  .  . sgy<yn (BCEFGHIBomb) here and elsewhere e <prky< < Gk eparchia (Intro. 2.2).
in A. These spellings are a feature of A’s orthography. f skyk< (“brought low”): C “embittered” (mryr<). See bb
c Bomb omits “and rebellion.” below.
d Reading “and she who grew great” with BEFGHIBomb g EH and N omit “the prophet.”

Notes Chapter 1
3
Tg takes “how” as meaning “how has it come about that.” The answer is given by the Attribute of Justice (middat dina<),
appropriately since the desolation is a punishment for sin. Rabbinic theology often hypostasizes God’s attributes of justice and
mercy and has them argue for condemnation and acquittal in the celestial law court. Here justice has prevailed over mercy. See
Tg. to 2:20 and 4:13 (Note 33), and further Intro. 4:3.
4
That Israel’s sin was the cause of its exile is a commonplace in the Midrash: note the refrain in the Proems of Lam.R.
(e.g., 12 and 13), “Since they sinned, they were exiled; and since they were exiled, Jeremiah began to lament over them,
<Eikhah.” The darshanim, however, tried to identify which particular sins were the cause of Israel’s downfall. Here it is “sedi-
tion and rebellion” (<e¡taddur u-merad: see Apparatus c). The wording recalls Ezra 4:19, “Search has been made, and it has
been found that this city of old has made insurrection against kings, and that rebellion and sedition (merad we-<e¡taddur) have
been made therein.” There the rebellion is against earthly authority; here it is presumably against God.
5
Heb ya¡ebah badad recalled to Tg. badad ye¡eb in Lev 13:46, “He [the leper] shall remain unclean as long as he has the
disease. He is unclean. He shall dwell alone [badad ye¡eb] in a habitation outside the camp.” The same comparison is found
in Lam.R., Proem 21, and Lam.R. 1:1 §1. The latter reads: “How does she dwell alone! R. Joshua b. Levi said, The Holy One,
blessed be he, said to Israel: ‘When you did my will, I caused you to dwell in safety alone, as it is written, And all Israel dwelt
in safety alone (wayyi¡kon yisœra<el beta˙ badad) (Deut 33:28). But when you transgressed against my will, I sent you into exile
to a place for the unclean, as it is written, He shall dwell alone (Lev 13:46).’” Lam.R. 1:1 §1 correctly recognizes that “to dwell
alone” in BH does not necessarily denote abandonment. Sometimes, as in Deut 33:28 (cf. Jer 49:31), it can suggest security.
6
Tg’s exact wording (whwt dmy< k<rml<) may carry the nuance: “Jerusalem resembles a widow, but she has not finally been
deserted by God.” See b. Ta>an. 20a (// b. Sanh. 104a): “She has become like a widow. Rab Judah said: [The verse implies]
blessing—like a widow, not a real widow, but a woman whose husband has gone to a country beyond the sea [fully] intending
to return to her.” The same point is picked up in Lam.R. 1:1 §2, which quotes as parallels Lam 2:4, He has bent his bow like an
enemy, and Lam 2:5, The Lord has become like an enemy, commenting, “An enemy is not written here, but like an enemy.” See
also Rashi ad loc. The underlying thrust is polemical—a denial of the Christian claim that God has irrevocably rejected Israel.
Note also the echo of this verse in Tg. Lam. 4:21, where it is predicted that Israel’s enemy (Constantinople/Rome) will suffer
the same fate (Note 59 ad loc.).
7
Tg. takes mas in the phrase hayetah lamas (Hillers: “is set to forced labor”) in its late Hebrew sense of “tax” (so Esth
10:1, and regularly in MH: Jast. 803a). In hwwn msqyn lh msyn and wlmtn lhwn krg< it offers, in effect, two renderings of the
phrase. The variation is basically stylistic. The former corresponds to the normal Tg. translation (Onq. and Jon.) of hayah la-
mas (see Deut 20:11; Josh 17:13; Jdg 1:28, 30, 33, 35). The latter is more pointed. Missin are taxes in general; karga<, related
to the Arabic kharaj (Lane, Lexicon 719b; Cahen, EI 2 4:1030; Ashtor, EJ 10:937–39), is specifically poll-tax, as opposed to
tasqa< = ground rent (see b. BB 55a; b. BM 73b; further Beer, Tarbiß 33 [1963–64] 247–58; Neusner, History of the Jews in
Babylonia 3:24–29; 4:39–44, 85–91). The word does not seem to be attested, apart from here, in western Jewish sources. Tg.
stresses Israel’s reversal of fortune (“after all this”). He probably detected in the use of hayetah lamas here an ironic echo of
the use of the same phrase in Joshua and Judges of the subjugation of the Canaanites (see references above). The “nations” and
“provinces” here, consequently, are the nations and regions of the Land.
 8
“Scouts” = <zgdy<, a Persian loanword (Intro. 2.2), common in JA (e.g., Neof. to Gen 49:21; Tg. Isa 18:2), but m<llyn/<lylyn
seem to be the standard translations of Heb. meraggelim (see Onq. Gen. 42:9, and Tg. Josh. 2:1; 1 Sam 26:4; 2 Sam 15:10).
 Translation   111

put out h a bad report of the Land of Israel.9 And that night was the ninth day of Ab, and when
the people of the House of Israel heard this bad news that they received about the Land of
Israel, the people lifted up their voices, and the people i wept j on that night. Immediately the
anger of the Lord was kindled against them, and he decreed that they should weep on that
night throughout [all] their generations for the destruction of the Temple.10
And when it was told by prophecy to Jeremiah the high priest that Jerusalem would be
destroyed by wicked Nebuchadnezzar, if k they did not return in repentance, immediately he went
up l and reproved the people of the House of Israel, but they refused to receive his word. m So
wicked Nebuchadnezzar went up and devastated Jerusalem, and burned the Temple with fire
on the ninth day of the month of Ab. And on this same night the Congregation of Israel wept
Apparatus, Chapter 1
h <pyqw: so also Yem., but BFI <syqw (“they raised”: l ><l: C “went” (<zl); cf. Yem. Apparatus u.
Sokoloff, JPA 380a). m bmymryh: the antecedent of the pronom. suffix is un-
i BFGHI “the people of the House of Israel.” clear. Is it God or Jeremiah? Cf. Yem. Apparatus t. BEFI
j “This bad news .  .  . the people wept”: E omits. omit the phrase. On Memra in Tg. Lam. see Intro. 4.3.
k Reading <yn l< with BEFGHIBomb for A w<yn l<.

Notes Chapter 1
 9
Cf. Num 13:32, “And they [the spies] brought a bad report of the land which they had spied out to the children of Israel.”
10
Tg. offers the first of two interpretations of MT bakho tibkeh ba-laylah (for the second see Note 11). The repetition of
the root bkh was regarded as significant by the darshanim: see b. Sanh. 104b and PR 30.3 for various attempts to explain it. To
Tg. it suggests a double weeping—a weeping in the past (perhaps by <al tiqrei reading bakhu, “they [the Israelites] wept,” for
MT bakho), and a weeping in the future (tibkeh, “she [the Congregation of Israel] will weep”). The identification of the past
weeping with the Israelites’ reaction to the report of the spies sent to Canaan rests on the verbal similarity between Lam 1:2 and
Num 14:1, “And all the Congregation lifted up their voice, and cried; and the people wept in that night (wayyibku ha->am ba-
layelah).” The weeping for the future is the people’s weeping “throughout [all] their generations” (perhaps secondary exegesis
of inf. abs. + finite verb as expressing continuous action) for the destruction of the Temple (Intro. 5.2).
The dating of the destruction of the first, and indeed second Temples to 9th Ab is traditional (Intro. 7.1.1). The “night”
mentioned in Lam 1:2 is, therefore, naturally identified as the night of 9th Ab. The “night” in Num 14:1 was also dated to 9th
Ab. b. Ta>an. 29a tries to prove this by an elaborate analysis of the internal chronology of Numbers 13–14, but this is second-
ary: it was the intertextuality between Num 14:1 and Lam 1:2 that originally would have produced the date. Note y. Ta>an. IV,
68d.11-17: “So too [Scripture speaks] of the forty days of the spies: And they returned from spying out the Land at the end of
forty days. And they went and came to Moses and Aaron [and all the Congregation of Israel] (Num 13:25). They came and
found them busy studying the laws of ˙allah and >orlah. They said to them: You are not going to enter the Land, and yet you
busy yourselves with the laws of ˙allah and >orlah! At once all the Congregation lifted up their voice and cried; and the people
wept in that night (Num 14:1). God said to them: You have wept before me with a frivolous weeping; be prepared to weep with
a real weeping—She weeps bitterly in the night (Lam 1:2).” Cf. Lam.R. Proem 24 and 1:2 §23. See also Ps-J. Num 14:1.
The dating of Num 14:1 to 9th Ab is as old as m. Ta>an. 4:6, which assigns other national disasters to the same date:
“Five things befell our fathers on 17th Tammuz, and five on 9th Ab .  .  . On 9th Ab it was decreed against our fathers that
they should not enter the Land, and the Temple was destroyed the first and second time, and Beit Tor was captured, and
the City was plowed up.” Cf. the remarkable parallel to this in Jerome, In Zachariam 8:18-19 (CCSL LXXVIA, p. 820):
In quinto mense, qui apud Latinos appellatur augustus, cum propter exploratores terrae sanctae seditio orta esset in po-
pulo, iussi sunt montem non ascendere, sed per quadraginta annos longis ad terram sanctam circuire dispendiis, ut excep-
tis duobus, Caleb et Iosue, omnes in solitudine caderent. In hoc mense, et a Nebuchodonosor, et multa post saecula a Tito
et Vespasiano, templum Ierosolymis incensum est atque destructum, capta urbs Bether, ad quam multa milia confugerant
Iudaeorum, aratum templum in ignominiam gentis oppressae, a Turannio Rufo. The table of Jewish fasts Jerome gives in
this section of his commentary on Zechariah probably goes back to a Jewish source that had the same basic form as Me-
gillat Ta>anit and its early glosses (Noam, Megillat Ta>anit), i.e., it gave a list of the dates of the fasts and under each fast
told stories explaining why the fast was observed and what events it commemorated. This same source presumably lies be-
hind m. Ta>an. 4:6. For other references to the return of the spies on 9th Ab see b. Sot. 35a; Num.R. 16.20; Seder <Eli-
yahu Rabbah 27 (ed. Friedmann, 145); Tan˙uma, ⁄ela˙ 21 (ed. Buber, IV 35a); Tan˙uma, ⁄ela˙ 12 (ed. Zondel, II 79a).
Numbers 14:1 and Lamentations 1:2 both happened on the same night, but Tg. and other midrashic sources go further:
Lam 1:2 happened because of Num 14:1. The theological point being made is not entirely clear. See further Intro. 4.3.
112   Translation

bitterly,11 and tears ran down her cheeks. There was none to speak comfort to her heart out
of all the idols after whom she loved to go.12 And on account of this all her friends ill-treated
her; they turnedn into her enemies.
3. The House of Judaho has gone into exile, because they oppressed orphans and widows,
and because of the great servitude which they imposed upon their brothers, the Israelites,
who sold themselves to them;p and they did not proclaim freedom to their male and female
slaves who were q of the seed of Israel.13 And, therefore, they in turn r 14 have been given into the
hand of the nations; and the Congregation of the House of Judah dwells in the midst of the
Apparatus, Chapter 1
n Reading <(y)thp(y)kw with BCEFGHIBomb for A p Reading <(y)zdbnw lhwn with BCEFGHIBomb for A
<ythpkt. <yzdmnw lhwn (“were appointed to them” [?]).
o E “Children of Israel,” but MT has “Judah.” q E omits “who were.”
r <wp <ynwn: C omits.
Notes Chapter 1
11
Tg.’s second interpretation of MT bakho tibkeh ba-laylah (for the first see Note 10). The inf. abs. + finite verb is given its
standard Targumic rendering of verb + cognate acc. noun and taken as expressing the intensity of the action (“wept bitterly”).
See Intro. 5.2.
12
Tg. “out of all the idols (t>wwt<) after whom she loved to go” = Heb. “out of all her lovers.” In v. 19 “lovers” = the nations
(see Note 76 below).
13
Tg. takes the prep. min in the phrase me->oni ume->abodah as causal, and understands the >oni and the >abodah not as the
“oppression” and “servitude” Israel itself suffered, but as that which it imposed on its own people. Its victims were widows,
orphans, and the poor (debt slaves).
The fair treatment of widows and orphans is seen in the Torah, the Prophets, and, indeed, in Ancient Near Eastern law in
general as a test of justice and of civil society. Tg. is probably thinking particularly of Exod 22:22-24, “You shall not abuse any
widow or orphan. If you abuse them, when they cry out to me, I will surely hear their cry; my wrath will burn, and I will kill
you with the sword, and your wives shall become widows, and your children orphans.” Note also Jeremiah’s threat that if Israel
oppresses “the alien, the orphan, and the widow” their children would starve and their wives become childless and widowed
(Jer 7:6; 18:21; further 22:3; Isa 1:17, 23; Ezek 7:10; 22:7; Mal 3:5).
The oppression of the poor was twofold: they were made to work cruelly hard and, when forced into debt-slavery, they
were not released in the sabbatical year in accordance with the Law (Exod 21:2; Deut 15:12). Again there is an echo of a proph-
ecy of Jeremiah: “Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel: I made a covenant with your fathers in the day that I brought them forth
out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage, saying, At the end of seven years you shall let go every man his brother
that is a Hebrew, who has sold himself to you, and has served six years, you shall let them go free from you. But your fathers
did not listen to me, nor incline their ear. But you turned, and did what is right in my eyes in proclaiming liberty every man to
his neighbor; and you made a covenant before me in the house that is called by my name. But you went back, and profaned my
name, and caused every man his male servant, and every man his female servant, whom you had let go free at their pleasure, to
return; and you brought them into subjection, to be unto you for male and female servants. Therefore, thus says the Lord: You
have not hearkened to me, to proclaim liberty every man to his brother, and every man to his neighbor. Behold, I proclaim unto
you a liberty, says the Lord—to the sword, to pestilence, and to famine; and I will make you to be tossed to and fro among all
the kingdoms of the earth” (Jer 34:8-17, especially 13-17; words echoed in Tg. Lam. are in italics).
The Midrash also speculates on the reasons for the exile. Lam.R. 1:3 §28, like Tg., takes the min as causative and links
the >oni to various forms of oppression of the poor (seizing the pledge of the poor within their houses [Deut 24:12], dealing
oppressively in the matter of wages [Deut 24:14], robbing the poor of their due [Lev 19:10], eating the poor man’s tithe), but
not specifically to ill-treating widows and orphans. It links the “servitude” with failure to release the debt-slave in the sabbatical
year: “And because of great servitude. R. Aha said: Because they kept the Hebrew slave in servitude, against what is stated, At
the end of seven years you shall let go every man his brother who is a Hebrew (Jer 34:14).”
Tg. holds the ruling class primarily responsible for the exile, because of their ill-treatment of the poor and vulnerable in
society. Though there are biblical antecedents for this (note, e.g., Isa 1:17, 23), the interpretation is not inevitable. Contrast
the tradition that sees the destruction of the Second Temple as caused by “groundless enmity” (∞in<at ˙innam) within the Jew-
ish community (b. Yom. 9b). The question arises whether these causes of exile had particular resonance in Tg.’s own day. He
stresses the same point in his translation at 1:1, 2:4, and 5:3. See Intro. 4.3.
14
Tg. stresses the principle of “measure for measure” (middah ke-neged middah): the punishment fits the crime, a prin-
ciple important for his thinking, and, indeed, more generally for rabbinic ethics (see m. Sot. 1:7; b. Sot. 8b; b. Sanh. 100a-b;
Gen.R. 9.11; Urbach, Sages, 371–73, 438–39; further Intro. 4.3).
 Translation   113

nations, and she has found no respite from the harsh servitude with which they have enslaved
her.15 And everyone who pursued her overtook her s as she was hiding among the borders,
and they oppressed her.t 16
4. All the time that Jerusalem was still standing the Children of Israel u refused v to go up
to Jerusalemw to appear before the Lord three times in the year.17 And for the sins of Israel x
Jerusalem is devastated,18 and the ways of Zion are made to mourn, because no-one enters
her y at the time of the festivals. All her gates z are desolate; her priestsaa groan because the
sacrifices have ceased.19 Her virgins lament because they have ceased to go out on the fifteenth
day of Ab and on the Day of Atonement (which is on the tenth day of Tishri) to dance in the
dances.20 Moreover she herself is very bitter of heart.bb
Apparatus, Chapter 1
s BEFGHI omit “and everyone who pursued her over- aa CFGBomb “and her priests,” but MT lacks the con-
took her” by parablepsis (yth > yth). junction.
t Adding “and they oppressed her” with BEFGHBomb. bb <wp <yhy< mryr lbh l˙d<: the syntax is awkward. The
u “The Children of Israel”: Bomb “Israel.” adv. l˙d< suggests that mryr must be construed as an
v srybw: EI “drew near” (qrybw). adj. rather than a noun, but it is masc. and the subj.
w BCEFGHI omit “to Jerusalem.” fem. (<yhy<). This may be a case of overliteral render-
x I “and for their sins.” ing of Heb. (wehi< mar lah), or perhaps simply emend
y C omits “her.” to mryr<; cf. Yem. mryr< (though see Yem. Apparatus
z Reading “all her gates” with BCEFGIBomb and Yem. jj), and f above: “moreover she herself (is) bitter with
= MT, for A “her gates.” respect to her heart (lbh) exceedingly.” For lbh BCFI-
Bomb have l(y)b< (“the heart”).

Notes Chapter 1
15
Tg. interprets the lack of respite (manoa˙) for Israel in exile as meaning she was subjected to continuous hard labor,
just as she had cruelly overworked the poor in the land of Israel. Lam.R. 1:3 §29, perhaps more naturally, takes it as indicating
the lack of settled abode in exile, Israel’s perpetual wandering: “If she had found rest (manoa˙) she would not have returned
[to the Land of Israel]. So we read, But the dove found no rest [manoa˙] for the sole of her foot, and she returned to him in the
ark (Gen 8:9); and similarly, And among the nations you shall have no repose, and there shall be no rest (manoa˙) for the sole
of your foot (Deut 28:65).”
16
Tg. (at least in West: see Yem Apparatus dd) offers a double interpretation of bein ha-meßarim: (1) As a constricted
space: hence “among the borders.” This corresponds to a common use of meßar, meßarim in MH for a “boundary” (m. BB 7:3;
b. BB 105a and 106a; Jast. 828a). Cf. Lam.R. 1:3 §29: “All who pursued her overtook her bein ha-meßarim. As we have learnt
in the Mishnah: ‘.  .  . These are the words of Ben Nannos. [But if he said, I will sell you a kor’s space of soil as measured]
by its marks and its boundaries (be-simanayw ubi-meßaryw)’” (see Buber’s note ad loc.). The rendering could be more or less
mechanical, but Tg. may be thinking specifically of the borders of the Land of Israel. (2) As a constricted, distressful condition:
hence “and they oppressed her” (cf. root ßrr hif. = “cause distress to” [BDB 864b]). Lam.R. 1:3 §29 offers a third possibility, a
period of distress, specifically the period from 17th Tammuz, when the walls of Jerusalem were first breached by the Babylo-
nians, to 9th Ab, when the Temple was destroyed. (The phrase is still in use in this sense: see Chill, The Minhagim, 171.) This is
a period of hot weather (which the darshan calls in Aramaic yomin de->aqa<, “days of distress”) during which Lam.R. believes
the demon of pestilence is especially active.
17
The reference is to the three pilgrim festivals, Pesa˙, Shabu>ot, and Sukkot. Cf. Deut 16:16, “Three times in the year
shall all your males appear before the Lord your God in the place which he shall choose: at the Feast of Unleavened Bread, at
the Feast of Weeks, and at the Feast of Tabernacles.” Parallels: Exod 23:14-17; 34:23.
18
Tg. identifies a further sin that caused Jerusalem’s downfall: neglect of the cult, particularly of attendance at the pilgrim
festivals. Again there is an element of measure for measure and of reversal: Israel was indifferent to the cult while it was still
functioning. As a punishment God took it away and now Israel mourns. An additional Tg. to 4:18 lays the blame for non-
attendance at the Pilgrim festivals at the door of the lay leadership of the community (see Apparatus mm ad loc.).
19
The distress of the priests is presumably for the loss of their sacerdotal functions. According to Lam.R. 1:4 §30, how-
ever, it was because of their loss of the priestly portions of the offerings: “R. Isaac b. R. Simon said: Because there was no-one
to give them the priestly dues, as it is written, And they shall give to the priest the shoulder, and the two cheeks and the maw
(Deut 18:3).”
20
Tg. appears to interpret the virgin’s mourning in light of m. Ta>an. 4:8: “Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said: There were no
happier days for Israel than 15th Ab and the Day of Atonement, for on them the daughters of Jerusalem used to go forth in white
114   Translation

5. Her oppressors were appointed21 as heads cc over her, and her enemies were dwelling
at ease,22 because the Lord had broken her23 on account of the multitudedd of her rebellions.ee
Her young men have gone into captivity before an oppressor.ff 24
6. And all her glory25 departed from the Congregation of Zion. Her nobles were wander-
ing around [looking] for food, like harts gg who wander around in the wilderness,26 and they

Apparatus, Chapter 1
cc FH “as head” (lry¡); cf. MT le-ro<¡. ee mrwdh<: Bomb mrwrh< (= ? “her sins”: see Yem. Appara-
dd sgy: so most West. mss, and Yem. Sgy here is a noun tus e), but this is probably simply a graphical corruption.
(“multitude, greatness”) = Heb. rob (Jast. 954a). There ff “An oppressor” (m>yq): BEFGHI and Yem. “the op-
is no need with Lag. to emend to sgy<wt on the basis of pressor” (m>yq<), but MT has simply ßar; Bomb “her
Bomb sgy<t (though sgy<wt is actually read by C here, oppressors.”
and translates rob in v. 3). gg BEFGHI “like the hart.” So also many Yem. mss, but
the verb in West. is plur., and MT has ke-<ayyalim.

Notes Chapter 1
garments.  .  .  . And the daughters went forth to dance in the vineyards. And what did they say? ‘Young men, lift up your eyes
and see what you would choose for yourself: set not your eyes on beauty, but set your eyes on family .  .  .  . ’” The relevance of
this to the context in Lam 1:4 becomes clear from the Babli Gemara, which claims that 15th Ab was the day on which “Hosea
son of Elah removed the guards which Jeroboam son of Nebat had placed on the roads to prevent Israel from going up [to Je-
rusalem] on pilgrimage” (cf. 4:18, Apparatus mm). The virgins celebrated the return of the pilgrims to Jerusalem with dances.
Now there is no longer any point in doing this, because the Temple has been destroyed. This Talmudic background suggests the
possibility that “Israel” in the Tg. is used in a narrow historical sense, of the northern tribes, in contrast to Judah, the southern
tribes, in the previous verse. One of the reasons for Jerusalem’s destruction was the defection of the northern tribes from the
Jerusalem Temple and their attendance at the idolatrous altars of Bethel and Dan: cf. 1 Kgs 12:30, “This thing became a sin, for
the people went to worship before the one at Bethel and before the other as far as Dan.”
21
Tg. adds “appointed.” It would probably be reading too much into this to see a reference to divine ordination. The verb
mny is normally used for human appointment.
22
Tg. correctly identifies Heb. ¡alu as a verb rather than a noun (cf. Jer 12:1) and paraphrases “were dwelling at ease” (so
Rashi here). For the phrase “dwelling at ease” see Gen.R. 84.3: “When the righteous dwell at ease (yo¡ebin be-¡alwah) in this
world, Satan comes and accuses them.”
23
Tg. tbr yth, a free rendering of Heb. Hogahh, which would naturally be derived from ygh hif. = “cause to suffer, or
grieve” (see BDB 387a, and Rashi and Ibn Ezra ad loc.). Tg. renders the nif. of the same root (nugot) by “lament” (√spd) in
v. 2. Note also the rendering of hogah by tbr in v. 12. Vulg. locutus est detects here the verb hgh, “moan, utter, speak” (BDB
211b): see Intro. 5.4.3.
24
Tg. does not identify “the oppressor” here, but in vv. 7 and 10, and at 4:12, it finds in ßar an allusion to Nebukhadneßar.
Lam.R. 1:5 §31 also detects a reference to Nebuchadnezzar, but spends more time talking about the destruction of the Second
Temple, and about Vespasian and Titus as the “oppressors.”
25
Tg. interestingly makes nothing of the word “glory” (hadar) in the Heb. here. Lam.R. 1:6 §33, linking it with various
occurrences of the root hdr in the Bible, finds an allusion to the Holy One (Ps 104:1), the Sanhedrin (Prov 31:25), the Disciples
of the Sages (Lev 19:32: “old man” = Sage), and the priestly watches (2 Chr 20:21). Its climactic interpretation links it with
the Shekhinah: “All her glory. This is connected to ‘the young men’ [of the previous verse]. R. Judah said: Come and see how
beloved are the young men by the Holy One. The Sanhedrin was exiled, but the Shekhinah did not go into exile with them.
The priestly watches were exiled, but the Shekhinah did not go into exile with them. But when the young men were exiled, the
Shekhinah went into exile with them. For is it not written, Her young men have gone into captivity before the oppressor (v. 5),
which is immediately followed by All her glory has departed from the Daughter of Zion?” Note the unusual connecting waw at
the beginning of v. 6. This is needed for the acrostic (Hillers), but the darshan has interpreted it midrashically. Tg.’s rendering
of hadar by ziw seems positively to invite the reader to detect a reference to the Shekhinah: cf. the common phrase ziw ha-¡ekhi-
nah in rabbinic texts, and especially in the mystical literature (3 Enoch 5:3-6, with Alexander, OTP 1:259, note c). However, to
have identified the “glory” here as the glory of the Shekhinah would have required a thorough reshaping of the opening of the
verse. Tg. would probably have found it theologically acceptable to say that the Shekhinah had departed from Zion (the place),
but not from “the Daughter of Zion” = the Congregation of Israel (see next Note). He would surely have wanted to say (with
Lam.R.) that the Shekhinah was still in some sense present with the Congregation of Israel even in exile.
26
The introduction of the wilderness (madbera<) may be intended to suggest that exile is like a return to the wilderness
wanderings imposed by God for Israel’s sins before ever they entered the Land.
 Translation   115

did not find a place fit for their pasture. And they went in great feebleness,hh and they had not
the vigor27 to flee to save themselves before a pursuer.28
7. Jerusalem remembered the former days when her dwelling was in walled cities and
strong unwalled towns, and her dominion and her ruleii [were] over all the world; jj 29 [she
remembered] allkk her precious things,30 which had been hers in former days. But because of
her sins her people fell into the handsll of wicked Nebuchadnezzar,31 and he oppressed them,
and there was no-one to help her.mm Her oppressors sawnn her going into captivity. They mocked
at her prosperity, which had departed from her.32

Apparatus, Chapter 1
hh Lit. “in feebleness of strength” (bt¡wt k˙<), a rare expres- jj EG “all the peoples.”
sion. Yem. has simply “in feebleness.” kk BEFGHIBomb and Yem. “and all,” but MT lacks the
ii The logic of Tg’s exegesis is clear (see Note 29), but its conjunction.
text is uncertain. Read mdwrh (with A and most mss) .  .  . ll H and Yem. “hand” = MT.
wmrdh (with EIBomb) w¡l†h (with IBomb), “her dwell- mm Reading dy ysyy> lh with BEFGI (cf. Yem.) for A dy
ing .  .  . her dominion and her rule.” A: mdwrh .  .  . syy> lh (“who helped her”).
wmrd< w¡ly†<. nn ˙zwh<: see Intro. 2.1.

Notes Chapter 1
27
Levine suggests that the third stich in the Heb., and its translation in the Tg., describe the condition of the hungry harts
unable through weakness to escape the hunter. This is not impossible. It matters little, since the nobles are compared to the harts
and so the words apply to them also indirectly, if not directly.
28
Tg. does not attempt to identify the “pursuer” with any historical person. Lam.R. 1:7 §33 makes a homiletical point
out of the unusual plene spelling of “pursuer” (rwdp): “R. Aha said: Just as Israel was sent into exile by a ‘pursuer’ (rodef)
written plene, so they will be saved by a ‘redeemer’ (go<el) written plene, as it says, And a redeemer (go<el) will come to Zion
(Isa 59:20), where the word is written plene” (see also Rashi ad loc.). This note of messianic hope would, however, have been
inappropriate in Tg.’s reading at this point.
29
Tg. has interpreted the first stich of the Heb. in light of the second and, contrary to the obvious sense, has taken it
as describing Jerusalem remembering her former glory rather than her “affliction” (>onyahh: BDB 777a) and “wanderings”
(merudim: BDB 924a). He has effectively ignored >onyahh in the phrase yemei >onyahh and treated it as if it were equivalent to
yemei qedem in the second stich. He offers a double rendering of Heb. merudeyha. (1) The more obvious translation derives it
from √rdh, “to have dominion, rule, dominate” (BDB 921b): she remembered “her dominions” becomes “she remembered her
dominion and her rule,” the two nouns meticulously reflecting the plural noun in the original. See Apparatus ii. Cf. the BH noun
*mirdah, “dominion” (Isa. 14:6), and MH mered/JA meirad, “subjugation” (Jast. 836b-837a). (2) The less obvious translation
involves, by ’al tiqrei, reading merudeyha as medoreyha, “her dwellings” (Jast. 733a). The plural suggests at least two types of
dwelling, hence “when her dwelling was in walled cities and unwalled towns” (kerakkayya< u-peßi˙in: Jast. 1205b). The need
for exegesis here is engendered first and foremost by the fact that the noun marud in the Heb. is rare and its meaning uncertain.
It occurs again in the phrase >onyi u-merudi in Lam 3:19 (Tg. treats differently there: see Note 34 ad loc.), and in the phrase
>aniyyim merudim in Isa 58:7 [Jon. h¡ykyn m†l†lyn, “homeless poor”]). Lam.R. 1:7 §34 derives marud from √mrd, “rebel”: “In
the days of her affliction she remembered the rebellions (meradin) with which she rebelled against the Holy One.”
30
Tg. does not identify “her desirable things.” Lam.R. 1:7 §34 links with Ps 19:11 and finds a reference to the “words of
Torah.” See further Note 47 below.
31
The “oppressor” (ßar) is identified as “wicked Nebuchadnezzar”: for the basis see Note 24 above. It seems likely, in view
of the addition “and he oppressed them,” that Tg. took Heb. be-yad ßar in the sense of “(fell) into the hand of an oppressor”
rather than “(fell) by the hand of an oppressor” (see Hillers ad loc.).
32
Heb. mi¡batteha is a hapax legomenon. 4Q111 reads m¡bryh, “her ruins” (so also Pesh.). LXX epi katoikesia(i) aut∑s =
>al ¡ibtahh. As with merudeyha earlier in the verse, Tg. seems to offer a double interpretation: (1) First he relates the word to the
root ¡bh, “take captive”: “her oppressors saw her captivities” = “her oppressors saw her going into captivity.” The Aram. should
probably be pointed ¡ibyata<, “captivities” (Jast. 1513b), to reflect the plural in the MT vocalization, though the plural form in
the Heb. is defectively spelled, without the yod, and could be vocalized as singular. Marti suggested emending mi¡batteha to
¡ebitahh, “her captivity” (see BDB 992b). Tg. gives some support to this, but it is unlikely that he actually had this text. His
¡byth exegetes the MT. (2) Second Tg relates mi¡batteha to the root ¡bt, “to cease”: “her oppressors mocked at her cessations”
= “her oppressors mocked at her prosperity (lit. her good) which had departed (lit. ceased: singular verb!) from her.” Lam.R. 1:7
116   Translation

8. Jerusalem has sinned a great sin; therefore she has become a wanderer.33 All the peoples,
who honored her formerly, treat her with contempt, because they sawoo her breach.34 But35
she groans and shrinks back.
9. The uncleanness of her menstrual blood36 was in her skirts;37 she was not cleansed of
it. pp 38
Sheqq did not repent of her sins; she did not remember what would come upon her at
Apparatus, Chapter 1
oo <rwm ˙mwn: BCEFGHIBomb and Yem. <rwm ˙zw(n). pp mynyh: masc. suff. > dm (“blood”); DFBomb mynh:
See Intro. 2.1. fem. suff. > sw<bwt (“uncleanness”).
qq BDFGHBomb wl< (“and she did not”).

Notes Chapter 1
§34 sees in mi¡batteha a reference to sabbaths and sabbatical years (cf. Vulgate sabbata eius, and Rashi here), and to Yo˙anan
b. Zakkai’s ceasing to be in Jerusalem. Further Intro. 5.4.3.
33
Tg.’s l†l†wl hwt reflects exactly the grammatical structure of MT le-nidah hayetah. Tg. derived the hapax legomenon
nidah from √nwd, in the sense of “to wander” (4Q111 actually reads lnwd here). So Lam.R. 1:8 §35 (le-†il†ul hayetah, which
does not, pace Cohen, Lamentations Rabbah, 109 n. 4, followed by Levine, imply a play on niddah [“unclean”] and nadah
[“wanderer”]: there is simply no evidence that the darshan saw niddah here), and Symmachus anastaton (“driven from house
and home”). Cf. Rashi, who explains nidah by golah, “exile.” LXX eis salon also derives from the root nwd, but in its sense
of “move to and fro”: Zion staggers around drunkenly (Lust 421a translates salos here by “tribulation,” but this misses the
point); cf. Vulg. instabilis facta est. Ibn Ezra, and some modern commentators (see Hillers), appeal to the same root, but now
in its meaning of “nod, wag,” hif. of nodding or wagging the head (Jer 18:16; Ps 44:15 [English 44:14]): “she has become an
object of head-nodding,” i.e., an object of scorn and derision. The alternative is to see nidah as simply a variant spelling of
niddah (BDB 622b), either in the abstract sense of “impurity” or concretely (as in MH: Jast. 878a) of “an impure, menstruant
woman.” So Aquila (eis kechørismen∑n: see Note 36 below) and Pesh. (niddeta<). This fits so well with the sexual connotations
of >erwah later in the verse, the reference to “her uncleanness” in v. 9 (Tg. “the uncleanness of the blood of her abomination”),
and the parallel phrase in v. 17, hayetah Yeru¡alayim le-niddah (Tg.: “Jerusalem has become like a menstruous woman”), that it
is curious Tg. did not adopt it here. He presumably took seriously the precise spelling: to a careful philologian nidah is simply
not the same as niddah.
34
Tg. bidqa< = Heb. >erwah. So Onq. to Gen 42:9, where the context is metaphorical (“nakedness of the land”), but Onq.
has >erya in Lev 18:6ff., where the context is literal (“nakedness” of the female body = genitalia). Jon. significantly translates
>erwah differently in the parallel passage in Ezek 16:36-37, rendering bht< and qlwn (“shame”). Bidqa<, from the root bdq, “to
split,” involves an explicit physical reference to the female genitalia, but it also works well metaphorically with reference to
the breached walls of a defeated city. Jast. 141b suggests that bidqaha< here means “her shortcomings,” but on what basis is
unclear.
35
Tg. beram = Heb. gam—not an obvious rendering but, as Hillers rightly observes, the normal sense of gam does not fit
here (“she also,” in addition to whom?). For gam with adversative force see BDB 169b, 5. Westermann, who also translates
“but,” compares Ps 52:7 [English 52:5].
36
Lit. “of the blood of her separation/isolation.” Tg. takes the “uncleanness” (†um<ah) in the Heb. as referring to the ritual
impurity into which a woman enters when she has a flow of blood, either at childbirth (Lev 12:1-8) or during menstruation
(Lev 15:19-24). Aram. “blood of her separation” (dm ry˙wqh<) echoes the language of the Torah: note Lev 12:2, “If a woman
conceive seed, and bear a male child, then she shall be unclean (we-†ame<ah) seven days; as in the days of the separation of
her sickness (Heb. niddat dewotahh: Onq. r˙wq s<wbth) she shall be unclean” (cf. Lev 12:5); and Lev 15:19, “And if a woman
have an issue, and her issue in her flesh is blood, she shall be in her separation (be-niddatahh; Onq. bry˙wqh) seven days; and
whoever touches her shall be unclean (yi†ma<) till the evening.” It is clear from these passages that the primary context of BH
niddah is menstruation: hence MH niddah = (1) period of menstruation; (2) a menstruant woman (Jast. 878a). Aram. ri˙oq
(√r˙q, “to be distant, removed”) attempts to reflect the root sense of Heb. niddah (from ndd, “to retreat, depart”: BDB 622a).
Note, however, that Tg. strictly speaking has the word in the plural, “blood of her separations,” perhaps to include both the nid-
dah of menstruation and the niddah of childbirth. See further Note 56 below.
37
Aram. ¡ypwlh<, lit. “her lower parts” = Heb. ¡uleiha. Onq. uses the same Aram. word for the skirts of the high priest in
Exod 28:34. The geographical overtones of ¡ippulayya<, “low-lying areas, outskirts of a city,” appropriate here since the subject
is personified Jerusalem, were probably not lost on Tg. (see next Note). In MH, however, ¡ippulim can denote the lower female
abdomen (see m. Nidd. 9:8), and Jon. takes ¡ulim in Jer 13:22, 26 and Nah 3:5 as a euphemism for the female genitalia, so the
possibility that Tg. saw a sexual reference here cannot be ruled out.
38
Tg. on its own might be translated “the uncleanness of her menstrual blood in her skirts was not cleansed from her,”
but if this had been the sense we would have expected db¡ypwlh<. Tg. probably followed the Masoretic accents and construed
 Translation   117

the end of days.39 And she sank down and fell,40 and became a thing of wonder,41 and there
was no-one to speak consolation to her. See,rr O Lord, and behold42 my affliction,ss because
the enemy has magnified himself against me.
10. Wicked tt Nebuchadnezzar43 stretched out his hand, and drew the sword, and cut off all
her precious things.44 Moreover, the Congregation of Israel began to wail, because she saw
[that]uu foreign peoples had entered her Temple, about whom you commanded at the hand of
Moses the prophet45 (concerning Ammon and Moab) that they are not worthyvv to enter your
Assembly.46

Apparatus, Chapter 1
rr ˙my: BCDEFGHIBomb and Yem. ˙zy. See Intro. 2.1. uu One expects the particle d- but only H reads it (d>lw),
ss BDEFGIBomb omit “my affliction,” but MT has <et and it is probably secondary. Tg. reflects very precise-
>onyi; cf. Yem. P “my enslavement” is probably a sec- ly the syntax of MT ki ra<atah goyim ba<u miqda¡ahh.
ondary expansion. vv Reading ydkwn with BCDEFGHIBomb and Yem. for
tt Adding “wicked” with BDEFGHIBomb and Yem. A <ydkwn (“were not worthy”).

Notes Chapter 1
be-¡uleiha as predicative. Taken at face value, Tg. seems to see the failure to observe the laws of sexual purity as a further sin
of Jerusalem that caused her downfall. As the Mishnah shows, these laws, and the use of the miqweh to remove ritual impurity,
were regarded as of fundamental importance in Rabbinic Judaism. Lam.R. 1:9 §36 takes “the skirts” of Jerusalem as an allu-
sion to Topheth, below Jerusalem in the Valley of Hinnom, where child sacrifice was offered. (It quotes a Tg. to establish the
location of Topheth in the Valley of Hinnom.) The “uncleanness,” then, of Lam 1:8 becomes the uncleanness of Jerusalem’s
idolatry. Levine suggests that Tg. here is alluding to this midrash, but if this had been the case why would it have identified the
uncleanness so explicitly with menstruation?
39
Tg. takes Heb. <a˙aritahh, “her latter end,” eschatologically in the sense of what would happen to Israel at the end of
days (be-<a˙arit ha-yamim: Dan 2:28; 10:14; though Tg.’s precise words are be-sof yomayya<), and thus implicitly links the
phrase with punishment and judgment. Rashi offers a vaguer moralizing interpretation (“When they were sinning they took
no thought for what their end might be because of it”), perhaps thinking of <a˙arit as the moral consequences of an action (its
nolad: m. <Abot 2:9). “The identical words are used of Babylon, also in a poem in which she is personified as a humiliated
woman, Isa 47:7” (Hillers). Jon. ad loc. translates sofa<, presumably in the sense of sof yomayya<.
40
MT seems to be short in the first part of the second stich, and modern commentators have conjectured that a verb has
been accidentally omitted: Hillers suggests the text may originally have been “she has come down (wa-tered) and has fallen.”
This is precisely what Tg. reads: wnht wnplt. It is hard to say whether this is simply a double translation of wa-tered, to bring
out its full meaning, or whether Tg. had a Heb. text that actually read wa-tered wa-tippol. The latter possibility should not be too
quickly dismissed, since wa-tippol is not such an obvious addition. The other versions, however, support MT. See Intro. 5.1.
41
Heb. pela<im is problematic and in this plural form occurs only here. Tg. translates literally pry¡n, “wonders” (Jast.
1228a), but clearly construes the noun as predicative (“and has become wonders,” whwt pry¡n), and not as an adverbial acc.
(“has come down astonishingly”: Hillers; cf. BDB 810b, and Rashi: “Her descent was astonishing, and involved so many
wonders that everyone was astonished, because what happened to her had happened to no other city”). Sa>adia, distinctively,
renders: “she descended among people who were different to her,” taking pela<im as an accusative after a verb of motion.
42
Tg. adds “and behold” through association with Heb. of v. 11: “See, O Lord, and behold” (cf. v. 12, “Behold and see”).
It is unlikely that Tg. had a Heb. text that read re<eh Yhwh we-habbi†ah here in v. 9, since the line would be overburdened. MT
is supported by the other versions.
43
For Heb. ßar = Nebuchadnezzar see Note 24 above.
44
Heb. “An oppressor stretched out his hand against all her precious things.” It would be natural to take this as a reference
to the plundering of the Temple treasures (2 Kgs 25:13-17). So Lam.R. 1:10 §38 (quoted below). But Tg.’s paraphrase raises
the possibility that he did not understand the text in this way: the phrase “drew the sword and cut off” suggests that he regards
“the precious things” as animate, possibly children. He could have been thinking of Hos 9:16, “Even though they give birth, I
will slay the precious things of their wombs (ma˙amaddei bi†nam).” He may have intended this sense to carry across to “pre-
cious things” in v. 11.
45
Moses is called a prophet already in Scripture (Deut 18:15, 18; 34:10), but the title is foregrounded in rabbinic texts.
46
Tg. picks up the clear echo in the Heb. of Deut 23:4 [English 23:3]: “No Ammonite or Moabite shall enter the Assembly
of the Lord. Even to the tenth generation none belonging to them shall enter into the Assembly of the Lord forever.” But it is
puzzling that this text should be alluded to here, given that it was the Babylonians who plundered the Temple, not the Ammonites
118   Translation

11. All the people of Jerusalem groanww from hunger, and seek bread to eat. They have
given their precious things47 for the sustenance of  bread, in order to stay alive.48 See,xx O Lord,
and behold, that I have become a glutton.49

Apparatus, Chapter 1
ww <ny˙yn = MT ne<ena˙im; BDFIBomb <ny˙w xx ˙my: BCDEFGHIBomb and Yem. ˙zy. See Intro.
(“groaned”): cf. Yem. Apparatus mmm. 2.1.

Notes Chapter 1
and Moabites. Lam.R. 1:10 §38 offers a rational explanation, viz., that Ammonites and Moabites joined the Babylonians
in sacking the Temple: “An oppressor stretched out his hand against her precious things. You find that when the enemies en-
tered the Temple, Ammonites and Moabites entered among them. And while all the others ran to plunder the silver and gold,
the Ammonites and the Moabites ran to plunder the Torah, so as to erase the words, An Ammonite and a Moabite shall not enter
the Assembly of the Lord (Deut 23:4).”
Lam.R., Proem 9 offers a different version of this explanation: “R. Isaac opened his discourse thus: We are ashamed, be-
cause we have heard reproach; confusion has covered our faces, for strangers have entered into the sanctuaries of the Lord’s
House (Jer 51:51). You find that when the enemy entered Jerusalem, Ammonites and Moabites entered with them, as it is writ-
ten: An oppressor has stretched out his hand against all her precious things; for she has seen that gentiles have entered into
her Temple, about whom you commanded that they should not enter your Assembly (Lam 1:10). They penetrated into the Holy
of Holies and found there the two cherubim, which they seized, placed in a chest, and carried round the streets of Jerusalem,
exclaiming, ‘Did we not tell you that this people were idolators? See what we found belonging to them, and what they were
worshiping. See, all faces are alike!’ Hence it is written, Because Moab and Seir say, See, the House of Jacob is like all the
nations (Ezek 25:8). At that time the Holy One, blessed be he, swore that he would utterly exterminate them, as it is written,
Therefore, as I live, says the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel, surely Moab shall be as Sodom, and the Children of Ammon as
Gomorrah (Zeph 2:9).”
But the author of Lamentations seems to imply a broadening of the commandment in Deut 23:4 to cover all the gentiles:
this may be a reasonable, if somewhat extreme extension of the Law (cf. Neh 13:1-3, where this law is invoked to prohibit inter-
marriage with any non-Israelite), but what he and, indeed, the darshanim seem to ignore is the fact that Deuteronomy refers not
to physical entry into the Temple but to being accepted as a proselyte into the Community of Israel. Hillers suggests a possible
interpretation of his thinking: “Since the Babylonians (Chaldeans) were the ones who entered the temple, and since there is no
evidence that Moabites and Ammonites figured in the destruction of Jerusalem at this time, it is evident that the Deuteronomic
command has been broadened, if only by poetic license, to cover the ‘heathen,’ goyim, in general.  .  .  . Here in Lamentations,
the reference to the commandment is made with ironic intention: no heathen was to enter, even piously and peaceably, but now
they break in violently and rob the holy place.”
47
Tg.’s suffix agrees with the usual MT text, against 4Q111 m˙mdyh, “her [i.e., Jerusalem’s] precious things” (as in v.
10). So also 1 Kennicott ms (BHS “mlt Mss”!), LXX and Pesh. MT records here the Ketib as m˙mwdyhm and the Qerei as
m˙mdyhm. The latter it vocalizes ma˙amaddeihem, as in ma˙amaddeyha, v. 10. The former is presumably to be vocalized
ma˙amuddeihem, as in ma˙amuddeyha in v. 7 (though there without waw!). The Ketib could also be vocalized me˙amudeihem,
with partitive min, “of their precious things” (cf. ˙amudeihem in Isa 44:9), but the sense would be weak: giving only some of
one’s precious things hardly smacks of desperation. Tg. ignores the variations in spelling and translates with riggugin here and
in vv. 7 and 10.
It is not clear what Tg. understood here by “precious things.” Lam.R. 1:11 §39 interprets with reference to gold, which
the beseiged exchanged with the enemy for food (it tells a long story about the Jerusalemites during the Roman siege of the
Second Temple lowering baskets of gold over the wall in exchange for food, which got progressively worse in quality till in the
end they received nothing at all). In v. 10, however, the wording might suggest that “precious things” were children (see Note
44). “Giving” then might mean “giving in to slavery,” with beit as beit pretii (“for the price of food”: BDB 90a [3]). A more
gruesome reading would be to take beit as beit essentiae (“as food”: BDB 88b [7]), and see a reference to cannibalism (cf.
Lam 4:10). This might account for Tg.’s exact wording “sustenance of food,” and would make extremely sharp its translation
of zolelah as “glutton” (Note 49).
48
Aram. le-qayyama< nefa¡ = Heb le-ha¡ib nefe¡. Cf. y. Shabb. VI, 8d.7-8: “May your life be restored (ttqyym lkwn
np¡ykwn) on that day of yours (when your time comes), as you have restored my life on this day.”
49
Tg. gargeranita< (“gluttonous, greedy”) = MT zolelah (usually translated “worthless, abject”: so LXX ∑timømen∑; Vulg.
vilis). Tg.’s rendering is based on Prov 23:20-21, “Do not be among wine-bibbers, among gluttonous eaters of flesh (zolelei
basœar: Tg. <ylyn d<sy†wn bbsœr<; cf. Pesh. <aso† bbesra<): for the drunkard and glutton shall come to poverty” (cf. Prov 28:7; Deut
21:20). Tg. Prov.’s <sy†wn is a denom. from <sy† < Greek asøtos, “spendthrift, profligate” (LSJ 267b; Payne Smith 293a). Pesh’s
translation zalitha< here in Lam. is ambiguous and could mean either “worthless” or “profligate.”
 Translation   119

12. I adjure you,50 all you who pass by on the way, turn aside hither;51 behold and see yy
if there is any pain like my pain, which has been inflicted upon me, wherewithzz the Lord has
broken me in the day of the fierceness of his anger.
13. From heaven52 he sent fire into my fortifiedaaa cities,53 and subdued them.54 He spread
a net for my feet. He caused me to shrink back beforebbb my enemies.55 He made me desolate
all the day, unclean and weak.56

Apparatus, Chapter 1
yy ˙mwn: BCDEFGHIBomb and Yem. ˙zw. See Intro. aaa C omits “fortified.”
2.1. bbb DBomb omit “before” (qdm) by partial hapologra-
zz Reading dtbr with CDEFGIBomb and Yem. (cf. B phy after qdl.
dy tbr) = MT <a¡er hogah, for A wtbr. For tbr = Heb
hogah see Note 23.

Notes Chapter 1
50
MT lo< <aleikhem (“not unto you”) is a well known crux. The problem is old and deep-seated. 4Q111 (though it is hard to
read) seems to attest the same text as MT (though see Cross, DJD 16:235), which is supported also by LXX and Pesh. Vulgate
(O vos omnes) probably read lu< for lo<. Lam.R. 1:12 §40 paraphrases (in Aramaic!), “The Community of Israel says to the na-
tions of the world: May what has come upon me not come upon you.” So Ibn Ezra. b. Sanh. 104b cites this passage as biblical
justification for using the apotropaic formula qublana< (“May it never happen to you”). So Rashi here. The basis of Tg. <¡b>yt
lkwn (“I adjure you”) is unclear. It is possible that it is exegetical, intended to contextualize the direct speech, and that zwrw hk<
(“turn aside hither”) represents Tg.’s rendering of lo< <aleikhem, but the word order is against this. See Note 51.
51
Tg. seems to feel the need for a verb here: zwr (= Heb. swr: Onq. Num. 16:26 and eslewhere) is appropriate in context.
It may represent an interpretation of lo< <aleikhem, but if so it is hard to see how it can be derived from MT.
52
Tg. “from heaven” (min ¡emayya<) = Heb. “from on high” (mimmarom). A natural interpretation: cf. the liturgical phrase
¡emei marom = “heaven.” See 3:66, Note 95.
53
Tg. krkyy tqypyn = Heb. >aßmotai, “my bones.” The “bones” of Jerusalem have been interpreted, not unreasonably, as a
metaphor for her fortified cities, on which her defense depended. Tg. seems to allude to the reality of the destruction of Jeru-
salem (both in 587 b.c.e. and in 70 c.e.), when the besiegers slowly destroyed one line of defense after another (2 Kgs 25 and
Josephus, War 5, especially chs. 7 and 8). It is unlikely that Tg. thought that >aßamot on its own could mean “fortresses”: though
√>ßm has the meaning “strong” it never seems to be used of strong places. Moreover, he would surely have recalled Jer 20:9,
where Jeremiah describes his mental anguish as “a burning fire shut up in my bones.”
54
Consistently with “fortified cites” (see Note 53), Tg. derives the problematic wayyirdennah from √rdh I, “subdue, con-
quer” (BDB 921b). But this forces him to take >aßmotai as the antecedent of the sg. fem. obj. suffix, when the more obvious
antecedent would be <e¡, “fire.” This is not impossible: see 2 Kgs 3:3, where mimennah refers back to ˙a††o<t (Joüon-Muraoka
§149a). Lam.R. 1:13 §41 supports a derivation from rdh I, “subdue, conquer,” citing Ps 72:8 and 1 Kgs 5:4, but it also considers
derivations (a) from rdh II, “scrape out,” citing Judg 14:9 (BDB 922a): here “he scraped them out” = “he removed, banished
them”; (b) from Aram. rd<, “plow” (Jast. 1452a: citing y. Ta>an. IV, 69a, “Tineius Rufus plowed the Temple”); and (c) from
ra<ah + din: “he saw the Attribute of Justice overtake her.” There is no need to suppose, with Levine, that the verb Tg. uses
here, kb¡, indicates that it derived wayyirdennah from the hif. of rdd, “beat out” (BDB 921b). Kb¡ is a natural rendering of rdh
I, and this derivation is well established in rabbinic tradition. LXX and Pesh. both derive from yrd hif., “cause to descend,”
a proposal that has found favor with some modern commentators (see Hillers: “from on high he sent fire and sank it into my
bones,” emending to yoridennah).
55
Tg. uses the context to clarify the sense of the Heb. he¡ibani <a˙or (lit. “he caused me to turn back”). Elsewhere Tg.
identifies the enemies as Nebuchadnezzar (1:7, 10; 4:12), Nebuzaradan (4:12), the Ammonites and the Moabites (1:10), Titus
and Vespasian (1:19), and the Romans and Chaldeans (5:11). Contrast Lam.R. 1:13 §41: “He caused me to turn back—back
from the priesthood and from kingship.”
56
“Unclean and weak” (mr˙q< w˙ly¡<) represents a double translation of Heb dawah. This adj., which basically means
“weak, faint” (see Lam 5:17, Note 27), is used in Lev 15:33; 20:18, and Isa 30:22 specifically to describe a woman during
menstruation, which is seen as a form of illness. Hence dawah in this sense more or less equates to niddah (ill > menstruous >
unclean woman). Note how Tg. translates niddah in 1:17 by <tt< mr˙q< (“unclean woman”); cf. also the use of dam ri˙oq in Tg.
to 1:9 in the sense of “menstrual blood” (Note 36).
120   Translation

14. The yoke of my rebellionsccc was heavy.ddd 57 By his hand they were twined together,
likeeee tendrils of the vine.58 They were placed upon my neck.59 He caused my strength to fail.fff
The Lord gave me over into the hands of him whom I was unable to withstand.60
15. The Lord subduedggg 61 all my mighty oneshhh in the midst of me. He proclaimediii a time
against me,62 to break the strength of jjj my young men. And the nations entered by decree of

Apparatus, Chapter 1
ccc mrwdyy: clearly intended as a plur. = MT vocali- ggg kb¡: Bomb and one Yem ms (N) kn¡ (“gathered, col-
zation pe¡a>ai. BCEFGHBomb mrwdy (“my rebel- lected together”). The occurrence of this reading in
lion”), perhaps indicating a vocalization pi¡>i. See both West. and Yem. suggests the variant is old. The
Yem. Apparatus www. meaning of the Heb. verb (sillah) in context here is
ddd <ytyqr: E <tyyqd (“was burned”?). Cf. Yem. Appara- unclear: see Note 61.
tus xxx. hhh Reading tqypyy with BFGH for A tqypy (sing.). MT
eee BG “with.” vocalizes as plur. <abbirai.
fff Reading <tql with BDGHBomb and pointing as <af. = iii >r>: Bomb <r>, and so Jast. 124b spells the verb (= MT
MT hikh¡il. See Yem. Apparatus zzz. qara<). But Yem also spells with initial >ayin.
jjj H omits “the strength of” = MT; cf. Yem.

Notes Chapter 1
57
MT’s nisœqad is a hapax legomenon. Tg.’s <tyqr (“was heavy”) may indicate that his text read niq¡ah, or he may simply
have interpreted the problematic phrase ni¡qad >ol in the light of 1 Kgs 12:4 (// 2 Chr 10:4), “your father made harsh our yoke”
(hiq¡ah >ullenu), or 1 Kgs 12:10 (// 2 Chr 10:10), “your father made heavy our yoke” (hikhbid >ullenu). 4Q111 nq¡rh, “was
bound.” Lam.R. 1:13 §42 offers a number of interpretations of nisœqad, which assume that it is equivalent to ni¡qad (“the Holy
One, blessed be he, considered carefully [¡aqad] how to bring calamity upon me”). LXX, Pesh. and Vulg. also presuppose
√¡qd (which is actually found in some Masoretic mss), but translate in different ways. LXX: “he has been wakeful to (epi) my
transgressions”; Pesh.: “my sins awakened against me (>ly)”; Vulg.: vigilavit iugum iniquitatum mearum. Both LXX and Pesh.
read the prep. >al rather than the noun >ol. In 3:27 Tg. takes “yoke” as “the yoke of the commandments” (see Note 42 ad loc.).
58
Tg. related MT’s rare yisœtaregu to the noun sœarig, “tendril” of a vine (Gen 40:10, 12); hence his addition, which serves
solely a linguistic function, to clarify for the reader his understanding of the Heb. root (BDB 974b). It is uncertain whether he
would have construed MT beyado with the preceding or the following verb. MT accentuation is unclear.
59
Lit. “they have gone up upon my neck” (slqw >l ßwry), a word-for-word translation of the MT >alu >al ßawwa<ri. For the
idiom >alah >ol used of a yoke being placed on an animal see Num 19:2 and 1 Sam 6:7. Lam.R. 1:13 §43, reading >ullo for >alu
(“his yoke was upon my neck”), finds an allusion to the twice daily recitation of the Shema>. It is unclear whether this is an <al tiqrei,
or if Lam.R.’s text actually had >ullo. The latter possibility is supported by 4Q111 (>wlw) and Symmachus (ho zugos autou).
60
MT netanani <adonai bidei lo -<ukhal qum. Tg. has construed lo -<ukhal qum as an asyndetic relative clause, here used as
the genitive of a construct noun (Joüon-Muraoka §158 d), but otherwise he has translated word for word. The precise sense of
the Aram. is no clearer than the Heb. It is easiest to assume the ellipse of a preposition (lefanayw: “before whom I am unable
to stand”: see Ibn Ezra ad loc.).
61
Tg. kb¡ (v.l. kn¡: see Apparatus ggg) = MT sillah. The meaning of the Heb. verb is disputed. Some derive from √slh I,
“make light of, despise” (BDB 699a). Hillers proposes a √slh parallel to sll I, “heap up” (BDB 699b) (“the Lord heaped up in
my midst all my strong men”), comparing Jer 50:26 where the verb is used for heaping up sheaves of grain (though a minor
emendation of the text is involved). Tg. probably derived from sll, but seems to have been influenced by the use of this verb
in the phrases salal mesillah and salal derekh. Here he took salal not in the sense of “cast up, raise,” but in the sense of “beat,
trample down, tread” (cf. the English idiom “to beat a path”). Indeed, he may have distinguished two roots sll, one meaning
“raise, cast up,” the other “tread, beat (a path)” (possibly as a denom. from mesillah). Note Job 19:12, Heb. wayyasollu >alai
darkam = Tg. wkbw >ly <r˙thwn; Job 30:12, Heb. wayyasollu >alai <or˙ot <edom = Tg. wkbw >ly <s[†]r†y tbrhwn (?); Jer 18:15,
Heb. netibot derekh lo< selulah = Tg. b¡bylyn dl< mkb¡yn; Isa 40:3, Heb. ya¡¡eru ba->arabah mesillah = Tg kby¡w bmy¡r< kb¡yn.
See further Rashi and Ibn Ezra’s comments here, and Rashi’s to Isa 62:10. Here Tg. must have assumed that sillah had more
or less the same sense as darakh later in the verse. Pesh. also translates sillah here by kba¡, but LXX ex∑re (“he removed”) and
Vulg. abstulit. Lam.R. 1:14 §44 offers two different derivations for sillah: (1) from salluta = “refuse”: hence “he has treated all
my mighty men as refuse”; (2) from mesalselah = “a comb” (a word used “in Arabia”): hence “he has combed all my mighty
men,” presumably in the sense of tortured. Cf. the reference to the Romans torturing Aqiba by combing his flesh with a comb
of iron (b. Ber. 61b; 3 Enoch 45:2, with Alexander, OTP 1:297, note h).
62
Tg. “he proclaimed a time against me” = Heb. qara< >alai mo>ed. An alternative rendering would be: “he summoned an
assembly against me” (so Hillers). See further Note 83.
 Translation   121

the Word kkk of the Lord, and defiled the virginslll of the House of Judah, untilmmm the blood of
their virginity poured forth like wine from the wine-press, when a man treads grapes, and nnn
the wine of his grapes flows.ooo 63
16. Because of the infants who were dashed to pieces, and the pregnant ppp women whose
bellies were ripped open,64 the Congregation of Israel said: “I weep, and my two eyesqqq 65
flow with tearsrrr like a fountain of water, because far from me is any comforter to revivesss
and to speak words of consolation to my soul. My sonsttt are desolate, because the enemyuuu
has prevailedvvv over them.”
17. Zion has spread out her hands in anguish, as a woman spreads [her hands] upon the
birth-stool.66 She cries out, and there is no-one to speakwww words of consolation to her heart.

Apparatus, Chapter 1
kkk mymr<: on Memra in Tg. Lam. see Intro. 4.3. qqq “And my two eyes”: BEFG2I “and upon my eyes
lll btwlt< on its own could be vocalized as either sing. (tears flow .  .  . ).”
(= MT betulat) or plur. From the following pronom. rrr DBomb “her tears” (?).
suffixes it is clear Tg. intended plur. sss mqyym (ptcp.): the syntax reflects exactly the MT
mmm >d dy: cf. Yem. >d d-; DBomb dy (“the blood of (mena˙em me¡ib), though it is awkward in the
whose virginity .  .  . ); FI >l dy (“because”). Aram. DBomb dmqy(y)m (“who revives”) is prob-
nnn Adding “and” with Yem. ably secondary.
ooo ¡dyyn: DHBomb ¡ryyn (“begin, are released” ?). ttt Bomb “his sons,” but MT banai.
ppp m>dy<t< (Jast. 1043b; Sokoloff, JPA 396b): BF have uuu I “the enemies”: see Yem Apparatus *h.
the synonym m>bry<t< (Jast. 1039b; Sokoloff, JPA vvv BCFI “will prevail,” but MT has perf. (gabar).
394b). www dymlyl: DHBomb dmlyl (“who speaks”); cf. MT
mena˙em, and see Yem.

Notes Chapter 1
63
Heb. literally: “the Lord trod the wine-press of the virgin of the daughter of Judah.” The translation is clear, but the literal
sense was theologically problematic to the Tg. He was reluctant to see the action here as performed directly by God. Instead,
he transferred it to the nations acting under the decree of God’s Word (Memra: Intro. 4.3). He probably identified the “daughter
of Judah” as Jerusalem and the “virgin” of the daughter of Jerusalem as a reference literally to the virgins of the city (constru-
ing betulah as a collective sing.). In other words he does not, as do most modern commentators, take “daughter of Judah” as
a genitive of apposition (Hillers: “the young lady Judah”: Joüon-Muraoka §129 f[7]). Contrast also Ibn Ezra, who takes “the
daughter of Judah” as the tribe and “the virgin” as Jerusalem. The reference to virgins suggested to him rape, and the treading
of the winepress the flow of hymenal blood. The image is gruesome and dramatic. For such dramatic heightening in the Tg.
see Intro. 4.3 and 5.1.
64
Tg. specifies the vague “because of these” in the Heb. (which presumably refers back to the young men and virgins of
v. 15), by introducing further atrocities Jerusalem endured. The dashing of infants to the ground and the disembowelling of
pregnant women were standard elements in the catalogue of the horrors of war both in the Bible and in Ancient Near Eastern
literature. See particularly Hos 14:1 (English 13:16): “Their infants shall be dashed in pieces (yeru††a¡u), and their pregnant
women ripped open (yebuqqa>u).” Further: Isa 13:16; Nah 3:10; 2 Kgs 8:12; 15:16; Amos 1:13. Once again Tg. employs dra-
matic heightening to evoke pity. Lam.R. 1:16 §§45-51 also detects in “because of these” an allusion to the horrors of war and
expatiates on atrocities committed against the Jews by Vespasian, Trajan, and Hadrian, including a version of the story of the
mother and her seven sons (she is here called Miriam and the story is located in the Roman period; in the parallel in b. Gitt. 57b
her name is again Miriam but the story is linked to the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes). It also quotes alternative views that
the weeping was for the departure of the Shekhinah, the cessation of the priesthood and kingship, the cessation of the Torah,
the sacrifices, and the levitical watches.
65
Tg.’s “two eyes” confirms MT’s curious >eini >eini, which is commonly regarded as a dittography (see Hillers). 4Q111,
LXX, Pesh. and Vulg. read simply >eini. Rashi suggests that the duplication indicates the constancy of the weeping (“My eye, my
eye: that is, my eye constantly sheds water. The doubling indicates that it is without cessation”). It is possible that the following
“fountain of water” represents a secondary interpretation of >ayin as “a spring (of water).” Note Jer 8:23, “O that my head were
water and my eyes a fountain of tears.” See further Apparatus qqq.
66
Tg.’s rendering of MT peresœah Íiyyon be-yadeyha is unexpected. It would be natural to interpret spreading the hands as a
gesture of supplication, as in Ps 143:6 and Isa 65:2 (cf. Isa 1:15; Jer 4:31, where the more precise phrase “to spread the palms,”
122   Translation

The Lord enjoined upon the House of Jacobxxx the commandments and the law to keep, but
they transgressed against the decree of Word of the Lord.yyy Therefore the oppressors of Jacobzzz
encircle him round about.67 Jerusalem has become like an unclean woman68 among them.
18. The Lord said by his Word *a 69 to the people of the House of Israel, that those who
slay with the sword should not pass through*b their land.70 King Josiah went, [and]*c drew
the sword against Pharaoh the Lame71 in the Valley of Megiddo—something he had not been
commanded [to do], nor had he sought instruction from before the Lord. Therefore the archers
shot arrows at king Josiah, and he died there.72 And*d before his soul departed he moved his

Apparatus, Chapter 1
xxx “House of Jacob”: H “Jacob” = MT. strength of the tradition for reading some form of a
yyy BDEFGHIBomb and Yem. “of his Word.” sing. is impressive, and Tg. may originally have had
zzz Reading “Jacob” with BDEFGHIBomb; cf. MT. A an <af. y>byr = “he (God) would not let (those who slay
has ld byt y>qwb = (?) ldbyt y>qwb = (?) “those of the with the sword) pass through.”
House of Jacob.” *c Neither West. nor Yem. has the conjunction!
*a BEFI omit “by his Word.” *d DBomb omit the conjunction.
*b Reading y>brwn with H and one Yem. ms (N) for A
y>ybr. The subj. appears to be plur. However, the

Notes Chapter 1
peresœ <et ha-kappayim, is used). As Ibn Ezra notes, the prep. be- is effectively redundant. Clenching, not spreading the hands
is the normal reaction to extreme pain. However, Tg. has probably been influenced by the frequent prophetic use of a woman
in childbirth to symbolize pain and helplessness: see especially Jer 6:24, where it says of Jerusalem, “We have heard news of
them, our hands fall helpless; anguish has taken hold of us, pain as of a woman in labor” (cf. Jer 48:41; 49:21; 50:43). It is not
clear exactly why the phrase peresœah be-yadeyha suggested to him the image of childbirth. It is possible he saw it as chiming
in with the end of the verse, “Jerusalem has become like an unclean woman”—unclean through childbirth (see Note 36). In the
translation above an ellipse of yedaha after meparesœa< is assumed. An alternative would be to construe mprsœ< as pass. ptcp. pa.
or <itp. (mipparesœa<): “she spreads her hands as a woman is spread upon the birth-stool.”
67
The syntax of Heb. is compressed. Many other commentators construe sebibayw ßarayw as an object clause governed
by the verb ßiwwah. So Rashi: “The Lord commanded concerning Jacob that his oppressors should surround him round about.
Even when they went into exile to Babylon and Assyria, Sennacherib exiled their enemies Ammon and Moab and settled them
beside them, and they were annoying them.” Tg., however, perhaps inevitably, heard in ßiwwah <Adonai le-Ya>aqob an allusion
to the giving of the Torah to Israel, which Israel then broke, resulting in the oppression of her enemies (cf. Deut 30:15-18). Tg.
supports MT against 4Q111 ßph (? “kept watch”: Cross, DJD 16:237).
68
Tg. supports MT against 4QLam lndwh bnyhmh (“[Zion] has been banished among them”?). See Notes 56 and 33
above.
69
“Word” on both occasions = Memra. However, in the second instance memreih = Heb. pihu. Memra< = peh is common
in the Tg.: see Onq. Deut 1:26; Num 14:41. Further Intro. 4.3.
70
Lev 26:6, “Neither shall the sword go through your land” (cf. Ezek 14:17) = Onq. “Neither shall those who slay with the
sword pass through your land.” See also Neof. and Ps-J. ad loc.
71
The etymologizing of the name Pharaoh Necho as Pharaoh the Lame (Nekho = nekheh raglayim, “smitten of feet,
crippled, lame” [2 Sam 4:4; 9:3]) is common in Jewish and Christian tradition: see Tg. 2 Kgs 23:29, 33, 34, 35; Tg. Zech. 12:11;
Tg. 2 Chr. 35:20, 22; 36:4; b. Meg. 3a; b. MQ 28b; Pesh. 2 Kgs 23:29; Jerome, Liber de nom. hebraicis, PL 23:870. An ag-
gadah claims that he was lamed when one of the lions struck him as he attempted to ascend the steps of Solomon’s wonderful,
mechanical throne (Lev.R. 20.1; Eccl.R. 9:2 §1; PRK 26.1: Ginzberg, Legends 6:378 n. 123); for Solomon’s fabulous throne
see Ginzberg, Legends 4:157–60 and the accompanying notes.
72
Cf. 2 Chr 35:20-27, “After all this, when Josiah had set the temple in order, Necho king of Egypt went up to fight against
Carchemish by the Euphrates: and Josiah went out against him. But he sent ambassadors to him, saying, ‘What have I to do with
you, king of Judah? I come not against you this day, but against the house with which I am at war; and God has commanded me
to make haste: forbear from meddling with God, who is with me, lest he destroy you.’ Nevertheless Josiah would not turn his
face from him, and did not listen to the words of Necho, from the mouth of God, and came to fight in the valley of Megiddo. And
the archers shot at king Josiah; and the king said to his servants, ‘Take me away, for I am badly wounded.’ So his servants took
him out of the chariot and put him in the second chariot that he had, and brought him to Jerusalem; and he died, and was buried
in the tombs of his fathers.” The parallel in 2 Kgs 23:29-30 is briefer and less relevant to the Tg. here. See further Note 73.
 Translation   123

lips, and thus said:73 “The Lord is righteous, for I have transgressed against his Word.”69 Hear
now all peoples the lament*e which Jeremiah pronounced over Josiah,74 and see my pain that
has befallen me after his death:*f my virgins and my young men have gone into captivity.
19. Jerusalem*g said, when she was delivered into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar:*h “I called
to my lovers, the sons of *i the nations, with whom I had made*j a covenant that they should

Apparatus, Chapter 1
*e BEFGHI “laments.” Yem’s reading is uncertain (see *g EG1 “the Congregation of Israel”; G2 “Jerusalem.”
Yem. Apparatus *u). The plur. would conform better *h G “wicked Nebuchadnezzar.”
with 2 Chr 35:25 (see Note 74). *i DBomb “among” (byny for bny).
*f It is uncertain whether “after his death” goes with what *j gzryt .  .  . qyym: lit. “I cut a covenant”; so Yem. Cf.
precedes or what follows (“after his death my virgins the BH idiom karat berit. BDEFGHIBomb qyymyt
.  .  .  “). Yem clearly construes with what follows. .  .  . qy(y)m (“I established a covenant”).

Notes Chapter 1
73
Tg. takes “The Lord is righteous, for I have rebelled against his Word” as the whispered, dying words of king Josiah
after the battle of Megiddo (Note 72). The reason for this dramatic contextualization is not entirely clear. He may have detected
in the Heb. here, ki pihu mariti (“for I have rebelled against his word”), an echo of 2 Chr 35:22, we-lo< ¡ama> <el dibrei Nekho
mippi <elohim (“and he did not listen to the words of Necho, from the mouth of God”). His view that Jeremiah wrote Lamenta-
tions, and that this book in some sense mourns the death of Josiah (Note 74), would also have played a part. The tradition that
Lam 1:18 was spoken by the dying Josiah is found also in Lam.R. 1:18 §53: “The Lord is righteous; for I have rebelled against
his word. Who spoke this? It was said by Josiah; as it is stated, After all this, when Josiah had set the temple in order, Necho
king of Egypt went up to fight against Carchemish by the Euphrates (that is Circesium, which is by the Euphrates) . . . But he
sent ambassadors to him, saying, What have I to do with you, king of Judah? I come not against you this day, but against the
house with which I am at war; and God has commanded me to make haste (2 Chr 35:20-21). [Necho said], ‘By command of the
Holy One, blessed be he, I come up. Forbear from meddling with the god, who is with me (2 Chr 35:21)’—this is the language
of idolatry. Nevertheless Josiah would not turn his face from him, and did not listen to the words of Necho, from the mouth of
God (2 Chr 35:22)—this alludes to Jeremiah, who said to Josiah, ‘I have this tradition from my teacher, Isaiah, And I will spur
Egypt against Egypt (Isa 19:2).’ But he would not listen to him. Josiah replied to him, ‘Has not your teacher’s teacher, Moses,
declared, Neither shall the sword go through your land (Lev 26:6)? Then shall the sword of this wicked person pass through my
land and my borders!’ He was, however, unaware that all the people of his generation were idolaters. Josiah sent two disciples
[of the Sages] to eradicate idolatry from the people’s houses. When they entered the houses they found nothing. As they went
out they told them to shut the doors; and when they shut the doors the people inside could see the idol. They said concerning
these disciples, ‘What they rectified on entering, they spoilt on departing.’ [Cf. Lam.R., Proem 22, which makes it clear that
the idea here is that idols were on the backs of the doors. When the two leaves of the door were opened the idol was split and
hidden. When they were closed, the idol was reconstituted and came back into view to those in the house.] On that account,
The archers shot at King Josiah (2 Chr 35:23). R. Manni said: They shot three hundred arrows into him until his body became
like a sieve, and Jeremiah placed his ear behind [the dying king] to know what he was saying. And what did he say? The Lord
is righteous; for I have rebelled against his word—against his word and the word of his agent.”
This lays the guilt for the death of the righteous Josiah squarely at the door of the people. Josiah thought he was applying a
Torah principle when he went out to confront the Pharaoh, but he did not know that the secret idolatry of the people had nullified
the promise of Lev 26:6 (see 4:20, Note 50). He was not, however, entirely blameless in that he failed to listen to the advice of
Jeremiah (cf. Tg.’s claim that he should only have acted as he did on the direct commend of God, and after seeking “instruction
from before the Lord”). For similar traditions see t. Ta>an. 2:10; b. Ta>an 22a-22b; y. Qidd. I, 61a; PRK 26.1 (Ginzberg, Legends
4:282–83; 6:378 n. 119).
74
An allusion to 2 Chr 35:25, “And Jeremiah lamented for Josiah, and all the singing men and singing women spoke of
Josiah in their laments, unto this day; and they made them an ordinance in Israel; and behold, they are written in the Lamenta-
tions (ha-qinot).” The tradition that “the lamentations” here refer to the Book of Lamentations that Jeremiah wrote is as old as
Josephus, Ant. 10:78, “The prophet Jeremiah composed a song of lament for his [Josiah’s] funeral, which remains to this day”;
cf. Seder >Olam 24; b. Ta>an. 22b; y. Qidd. I, 61a; Tg. 2 Chr. 35:25 (Ginzberg, Legends 4:378 n. 122). Tg., however, clearly
does not regard the whole of Lamentations as being about the death of Josiah. He interprets much of the text as referring to the
destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, but he certainly identifies the “anointed of the Lord” in 4:20 as Josiah (see his
trans. ad loc. with Notes 48-50 ad loc.). Further Note 1 above.
124   Translation

help me, but they deceived me,*k and turned round to destroy me. (These are the Romans who
went up with Titus and wicked Vespasian, and built*l siege-works75 against Jerusalem.)76 And
my priests and my elders fainted from hunger*m in the midst of the city, because they sought
the sustenance of food for themselves to eat, so that they might preserve their souls.”77
20. See,*n O Lord, that I am in distress.*o Therefore my innards are heaped up;*p 78 my

Apparatus, Chapter 1
*k w<ynwn ˙kymw myny: lit. “but they were wiser than
*l Reading bnw with BCDEFGIBomb for A bnn.
I,” clearly in an unusual negative sense = “but they
*m DBomb omit “from hunger” = MT.
outwitted, deceived me.” Yem. has a similar render-
*n ˙my: BCDEFGHBomb and Yem ˙zy. See Intro. 2.1.
ing. MT rimmuni. Why does Tg. not use Aram. rmy,
*o ><yq ly = MT ßar li: see Jast. 1056a.
“deceive” (Jast. 1482b; Sokoloff, JPA 526a), which
*p Reading <(y)dgrw with A2BEFGHI and Yem for A1
translates MT rmh at Tg. Prov. 26:19? Elsewhere Tg.
<yt˙rkwn (“are burned”). Bomb has the meaningless
renders rmh by ¡qr (Gen 29:25, Onq.; Josh. 9:22; 1
<rgrw, which Miq. Ged. emends to <ytgrw, from gry/
Sam 19:17; 28:12; 2 Sam 19:27). Jast. 463a quotes
grh, which can be used of the strong stirring of emo-
˙kym pa. in the sense of “outwit” from Onq. Gen.
tions, particularly jealousy or sexual passion (Jast.
27:36 (= MT >qb), but some text witnesses there have
268a; Sokoloff, JPA 134a and JBA 300a).
the root kmn <af. (see Sperber’s apparatus ad loc.).

Notes Chapter 1
75
“Siege-works”: Aram. karkomin = Gk charakøma, which can be used of a Roman siege-camp, or a vallum (see LSJ
1977b). For karkomin/karqomin = Latin castra see t. AZ 2:6-7. Further 3:5 Note 9, and Intro. 2.2.
76
Tg. identifies the “lovers” of the biblical text with the nations with whom Jerusalem made treaties. He is probably think-
ing about passages such as Jer 2:17-19, 36, where the prophet chides Judah for making alliances with the nations rather than
relying on God (cf. Isa 30:1-5; 31:1). There the nations are Egypt and Assyria. Here they are the Romans. The chronology is
awry since, of course, the Romans were not contemporary with Nebuchadnezzar. Yem. does not have the bracketed text, which
looks suspiciously like a secondary intrusion, perhaps a marginal gloss that has been erroneously incorporated (see Yem. Ap-
paratus 1:19 *cc). However, the Romans may have been chosen simply as an example of a nation on whom the Jews relied but
who turned against them. Tg. regards Lam. as applying as much to the destruction of the second as to the destruction of the
first Temple, both of which are commemorated on 9th Ab (see Intro. 4.4 and 7.1). It should also be remembered that in Jewish
tradition not only was “Babylon” a symbolic name of Rome (cf. Rev 14:8; 17:18), but Rome was founded as a sort of western
colony of Babylon (Ginzberg, Legends 6:280, 419, 426). The reference here seems, on the face of it, to imply a knowledge
of the early treaty between Rome and the Jews (see Sefer Yosippon 21, and in general on Rome and the Jews, Nadich, Jewish
Legends, 309–23). Lam.R. 1:19 §54 interprets the “lovers” as an allusion to “the false prophets who made me to love their
idol-worship,” but Tg.’s interpretation has good prophetic backing: note Hillers (commenting on v. 2 above, see Note 12): “The
lovers and friends in the present case may be figurative .  .  . for the faithless allies of Israel. In the metaphorical language
familiar especially from Hosea, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, Israel, the wife of Yahweh, has been unfaithful to him by entering into
alliance with other nations and gods (e.g., Hos 8:9-10; Ezek 16:28-29; 23:5-21). These paramours in the end forsake her (Hos
2:9 [= 7E]; Jer 22:20-22; 30:14), or turn against her (Ezek 16:37-41; 23:22-29; cf. also v. 19 below). Because only Yahweh
was supposed to be Israel’s overlord, and the one who protected her and fought her battles, the prophets regarded it as the most
serious kind of apostasy when Israel put herself under the rule of some earthly kingdom. This point is shared by the writer of
Lamentations: compare 5:6-7.”
77
Tg. translates literally the Heb. we-ya¡ibu <et naf¡am. Here simple waw + imperf./jussive after a perf. expresses purpose
(GK §165a: cf. 2 Kgs 19:25; Isa 25:9). The Aram. is also presumably intended as a final clause, but the construction is not
idiomatic. Tg. does not support LXX and Pesh., which add at the end of the verse “and did not find any.”
78
The Heb. phrase me>ai ˙omarmeru occurs only here and in 2:11. Tg. in both cases translates with the itpe. of √dgr,
which Jast. 280b takes as meaning “to heap.” He compares the noun degora< = “heap, pile, mound,” which in Onq. Gen. 31:46
translates Heb. gal. Cf. also Hab 3:15, where Tg. renders Heb. ˙omer mayim rabbim by degor mayyin sagi<in, “a heap of
many waters.” BDB 186b (cf. HAL 214a) recognizes a verb dgr, “gather together,” cognate with Aram. degar, Syr. dgar, “heap
together” (Payne Smith 823a). Tg. clearly derived ˙omarmeru from √hmr III, “amass, heap up” (BDB 330b; cf. MH ˙amar:
Jast. 479b), and not, as many modern commentators, from √hmr I, “ferment, boil, foam up” (BDB 330a): “my innards were
massed together, heaped up,” i.e., contracted or knotted in pain, whether physical (from hunger) or psychological (from grief).
Note Lam.R. 1:20 §55: “Óomarmaru R. Óiyya b. Óanina said: He made them like heaps upon heaps (˙amorot ˙amorot: BDB
331a). R. Samuel b. Na˙mani said: He made them like clods upon clods (gu¡in gu¡in: gu¡ = homer, “clay,” BDB 330b).” The
sense is satisfactory, but see Apparatus *p.
 Translation   125

heart is overturned within me, because I have grievously transgressed79 against the decree of
the Word of the Lord,80 and on this account, outside the sword bereaves, while inside famine
slays,*q like the destroying angel*r who is appointed over death.81
21. The nations have heard82 that I groan, and there is no-one*s to comfort me.*t All my
enemies have heard of the evil that has come upon me. They were glad that you are the Lord
who has done [this]. You brought upon me the day of retribution. You summoned against me
a convocation to make me desolate. Likewise you will summon [one] against them, and they
shall be as desolate as I.83

Apparatus, Chapter 1
*q hrgt: DGHI ˙rgt. The same variation of spelling is *r ml<k< m˙bl<: Bomb ml<k< ˙bl<.
found in Yem. (see Yem. Apparatus *ii). In context one *s A writes wlyt wlyt by dittography.
expects a verb parallel to tklt (“bereaves”), but the fem. *t “To comfort” (dy yn˙m): DBomb “who comforts”
form is problematic, since kpn<, the apparent subj., is (dy mn˙m/dmn˙m); cf. MT mena˙em.
masc. See Note 81.

Notes Chapter 1
79
Tg. m>br >bryt mirrors exactly the inf. abs. + finite verb in the Heb. maro mariti. This construction, which is not idiomatic
for Aram., is more commonly rendered by a verb + cognate acc. Tg. clearly derived the Heb. verb from mrh, “be contentious,
refractory, rebellious” (BDB 598a), rather than from mrr, “be bitter” (BDB 600a).
80
For the phrase “decree of the Word (Memra) of the Lord” see 1:15 and 1:17, and further Intro. 4.3.
81
MT’s problematic ba-bayit ka-mawet is confirmed by LXX and Pesh., and was probably the Heb. text Tg. had before
him, but he has interpreted in light of parallels such as Jer 14:18, “If I go out to the field, there are those slain by the sword, and
if I go into the city, there are the diseases of famine,” and Ezek 7:15, “The sword outside, and pestilence and famine inside; he
who is in the field shall die by the sword, and he who is in the city—famine and pestilence shall devour him.” Tg. detects in ka-
mawet an allusion to the Angel of Death, or Destroying Angel—an agent appointed by God to bring death to people when their
allotted span of life has been completed (cf. the “Grim Reaper”). Note Exod 4:25-26, where Neof. “Angel of Death (mal<akh
mota<)” = FT “Angel of Destruction (mal<akh ˙abbala<)” = Neof. gloss and Ps-J. “Destroying Angel (mal<akha me˙abbela<).”
The phrase must ultimately derive from the Heb. ha-mal<akh ha-ma¡hit in 2 Sam 24:16 and 1 Chr 21:15-16, where Tg. trans-
lates mal<akha< dime˙abbel. The plural “angels of destruction (mala<khei ˙abbala<)” is also found (e.g., b. Ber. 51a; b. Shabb.
55a; PR 10.9), though this originally seems to have denoted a category of demons rather than angels. The terminology is as old
as Qumran: see 1QS IV 12; 1QM XIII 12; 4Q510 1 1.5. Further, Tg. Cant. 2:9 (with Alexander, Note 63 ad loc.); Tg. Cant. 4:6
(˙abbalayya< = demons!); Meier, “Destroyer,” DDD, 456–63; Urbach, Sages, 752 n. 73; Schäfer, Rivalität zwischen Engeln
und Menschen, 65–67.
The text and translation of the Tg. are not totally clear. “Famine slays” is a guess at the sense of A’s hrgt kpn<. The first
word here could be a noun in constr. before kapna<, but what is its meaning? The same noun is apparently attested again in the
parallel passage in Deut 32:25 (a parallel noted by Lam.R. 1:2 §54), where Onq. renders Heb. <eimah by ˙argat mota<. On the
basis of Syriac ˙rag, “rub, polish” (Payne Smith 1366b), Jast. 498b posits a noun ˙arga<, “rough sound, sawing“ > “agony” (?
death-rattle): hence “agony of death” in Deut 32:25 and “agony of famine/starvation” here. But this is highly speculative. Some
text witnesses suggest reading a noun or verb from √˙rg, “to slay” (see Apparatus *q). This would be a Hebraism, since this root
is not attested in JA. Perhaps emend the text to ˙arag kapna<. A verb seems needed to balance the preceding “bereaves.”
82
Tg. reads the pf. of the verb here, with MT, rather than an impv. with LXX. Pesh. also has an impv., but in the sg., with
God as the addressee.
83
The Heb. is somewhat awkward, but makes good sense if hebe<ta is taken as a precative perf. (Joüon-Muraoka §112k):
“O that you would bring the day that you proclaimed, so that they should be as I am.” Cf. Rashi: “Would that you had brought
on them the day of assembly that you summoned against me.” The “day” here would then be a day of judgment on Israel’s
enemies. “The assumption made is that Yahweh’s sway is universal, and what he has already brought on Israel, ‘the day of his
anger’ (v. 12), should also come on those who laughed at her fall. Compare 3:58-66 and 4:21-22” (Hillers). Tg. analyses the
syntax rather differently but in the end extracts the same general meaning. Against the Masoretic accents he has construed yom
with hebe<ta and taken it as referring to a day of judgment (cf. his reference to “the great day of judgment” in the next verse).
He has then taken qara<ta on its own in the sense of “summon an assembly”: qara< miqra< (Isa 1:13) or qara< mo>ed (Lam 1:15).
The miqra< or mo>ed, however, is normally a solemn assembly for religious purposes rather than judicial, as here. In Lam 1:15,
126   Translation

22. Let all their evil*u wherewith they have ill-treated me come up before you*v on the
great day of judgement,84 and deal with them,85 as you have dealt with me on account of *w the
multitude of my rebellions,*x because my groans are many, and my heart is faint.

Apparatus, Chapter 1
*u “All their evil”: by¡thwn could be vocalized as sing. or *v E qwmk: cf. Tg. Ps. 50:21 (Jast. 1332b; Sokoloff, JPA
plur. Most mss adopt the plur., but MT has sing. (kol 481b). BCDEGHIBomb qdmk.
ra>atam). *w DBomb add “all” = MT.
*x mrwdyy: plur. agreeing with the MT pointing pe¡a>ai.

Notes Chapter 1
where a judicial sense seems to be implied, Tg. translates differently (“He proclaimed a time against me, to break the strength
of my young men”: see Note 62 above). It is not obvious precisely what “convocation” (if any) Tg. has in mind: perhaps it is the
Celestial Beit Din where the judgment of the nations takes place (Alexander, “3 Enoch,” OTP 1:244–45).
84
Tg. envisages “the great day of judgment” as involving God’s judgment and punishment of the nations for their harsh
treatment of Israel. He presumably fixed this judgment at the beginning of the messianic era (see Intro. 4.3). Daniel 7:9-14 is
probably at the back of his mind. Whether this day of judgment also involved judgment of individuals is not clear. Rabbinic
eschatology does not, on the whole, susbcribe to the idea of an eschatological judgment of the individual. Individuals are judged
post mortem in the judgment of the grave (din ha-qeber: see Eisenstein, OM, 93–95). If wicked, they are punished for a limited
period and then annihilated. If righteous, they are admitted into the celestial storehouse of the blessed (Gan >Eden). If “interme-
diate” they go through a period of purgatory and then join the righteous in Gan >Eden. It is the souls in Gan >Eden who enjoy
the resurrection and the messianic kingdom, which does not seem to have any fixed duration culminating in a “last judgment.”
However, it can hardly be claimed that the eschatology of the classic rabbinic texts is full, clear, and consistent. The earliest
attempt to rationalize and systematize it is Sa>adia, Beliefs and Opinions, chapter 8. See further: Moore, Judaism 2:279–395;
Schürer, History 2:488–554; Sysling, Te˙iyyat Ha-Metim, 187–251.
85
The sequence of verbs in Heb is impf./jussive (tabo<) + impv. (>olel). Tg. translates with impfs. in both cases (ty>wl
.  .  . tystqp), presumably in context to be taken as jussives. The author of Lam. is fond of the verb >ll: in addition to the two
occurrences in this verse see 1:12; 2:20; 3:51. On each occasion Tg. translates with sqp in the itpe./itpa. The precise force of
this use of sqp is unclear (see Jast. 1021a). The phrase le-<istaqqapa< >alana< occurs in Onq. Gen. 43:18 as a trans. of the Heb.
le-hitnappel >aleinu.
 Translation   127

Chap t e r 2
1. Howa does the Lord loathe1 the Congregation of Zion in the fierceness of his anger.2
He has cast down from heaven to earthb the boasting of Israel,3 and has not remembered the
House of his Sanctuary,c which was the footstool of his feet,4 nor has he spared it in the day
of the fierceness of his anger.2

Apparatus, Chapter 2
a <ykdyn: H <ykh = Heb. <eikhah. b G omits “to earth,” but “earth” is in the MT.
c DHBomb “the Sanctuary.”

Notes Chapter 2
1
Tg. yqwß = MT ya>ib, a hapax legomenon, which is commonly explained as a denominative from >ab, “cloud,” hence “be-
cloud, overshadow” (BDB 728a), perhaps “in conscious contrast to the idea of the cloud as the sign of Yhwh<s merciful presence”
(Albrektson, 86, who suggests an allusion to passages such as Exod 19:9 and 1 Kgs 8:10). This derivation is supported by LXX
(egnophøsen), Pesh. (<>yb), and Vulg. (obtexit caligine). It is found in Lam.R. 2:1 §1, which draws parallels with “cloud” in Job
30:15 and “clouds” in Jer 4:29, though it also proposes (§2) three alternative interpretations: (1) “How has the Lord condemned
(˙ayyeb) the daughter of Zion in his anger,” because there are places where le-˙ayyaba< (to condemn) is pronounced le >ayyaba<.
(2) “How has the Lord caused pain (kayyeb) to the daughter of Zion in his anger,” because there are places where le-kayyaba< (to
cause pain) is pronounced le->ayyaba<. (3) “How has the Lord penalized (¡ayyem: Jast. 1535b) the daughter of Zion in his anger.”
Rashi and Ibn Ezra also derive ya>ib from >ab = “cloud,” as do many moderns (see especially Renkema, 216–17). Tg.’s rendering
is, therefore, most unusual. The root qwß, “loathe, abominate, abhor” (Jast. 1339b; cf. BDB 880b), is used in Tg. Judg. 9:38 and
Tg. Hos. 4:6 to render Heb. m<s. The basis for the translation here is unclear. Tg. may have simply deduced the meaning from the
context, or linked ya>ib with the root t>b, pi., “regard as an abomination, abhor” (BDB 1073a), or even recognized the existence
of a Heb. root >wb, cognate with the Arabic >aba, “blame, revile” (Ehrlich, Randglossen, 35). See 3:17, Note 31.
2
Tg. teqof rugzeh should strictly speaking represent the Heb. ˙aron <appo, as in 1:12, but the phrase has become so stylized
in Tg. Aram. that it can be used to represent <appo on its own, as here. See further Yem. Apparatus x. Cf. LXX (en h∑mera[i]
org∑s autou; v. l. en h∑mera(i) org∑s thumou autou) and Pesh. (bywm< d˙mt< drwgzh).
3
Tg. tw¡b˙t< dysœr<l (lit. “praise of Israel”) = MT tif<eret Yisœra<el. The rendering is somewhat surprising, but cf. Pesh.
t¡bw˙t< d<ysryl, LXX doxasma Isra∑l, and Vulg. inclytam Israel. Tg. and other versions seem to have taken tif<eret in the sense
of “glorying boasting,” whether of an individual or nations (BDB 802b). This is as reasonable a explanation of its meaning as
the suggestions that the tif<eret Yi∞ra<el here refers to the beauty of the city of Jerusalem, or its tall ramparts, or the Temple, or
even the divine mountain that reaches up to heaven (see Renkema, 217–19).
4
Tg. identifies the “footstool” (hadom) of God’s feet as the Temple. So Lam.R. 2:1 §3: “Footstool denotes nothing other
than the Sanctuary, as it is said, Exalt the Lord our God, and prostrate yourself at his footstool; holy is it (Ps 99:5).” Cf. also
Tg. Ps. 99:5. The Aram. for “footstool” here is glwgdq<. Elsewhere (Isa 66:1; Pss 110:1; 132:7; 1 Chr 28:2) Tg. translates Heb.
hadom more obviously by keba¡/kib¡a<; cf. Pesh. kub¡a< here. Glwgdq< is a corruption of the Latin lectica, which designates a
“litter” or “sedan chair” and is clearly used in this sense a number of times in rabbinic texts (e.g., Cant.R. 5:5 §1, “Baruch was a
heavy man and very old and unable to travel even in a litter”; Cant.R. 4:8 §2: Jast. 246a; 718a; Intro. 2.2). Its use for “footstool”
is unusual. Jast. 246a cites one other case where he claims the word has this sense. It is a remarkable passage in Ps-J. Exod.
24:10: “Nadab and Abihu lifted up their eyes and saw the Glory of the God of Israel. There was beneath the footstool (hypopo-
dion) of his feet which was placed beneath the throne, something like the making of a brick of sapphire, recalling the bondage
wherewith the Egyptians enslaved the Children of Israel by means of clay and bricks. While the women were treading the clay
together with their husbands, there was there also a delicate young woman who was pregnant. She aborted her infant and it was
trodden into the clay. Gabriel descended and made a brick out of it, which he carried up to the height of heaven, and he placed
it as a glugdaq beneath the footstool (hypopodion) of the Master of the Universe. Its luster was like that of a work of precious
stone and like the fullness of the beauty of the heavens when they are clear and without clouds.”
The Tg. here detects in the Heb. ke-ma>asœeh libnat ha-sappir of Exod 24:10 an allusion to the “bricks” (lebenim: sg. leb-
enah) the Israelites “made” (>asœu) in Egypt (Exod 1:14; 5:7, 8, 16, 18, 19). The tradition recorded here by Ps-J. is found with
variations elsewhere (y. Sukk. IV, 54c; PRE 48; 3 Bar 3:5; Ginzberg, Legends 2:372; 5:437; McNamara, New Testament and
Palestinian Targum, 53), but only in Ps-J. does the crucial word glugdaq appear. The more obvious way of understanding the
passage is to suppose that the libnat sappir/glugdaq is the pavement beneath God’s footstool (hypopodion), as translated above.
The allusion would then be to the glittering pavement of heaven—a common theme in Midrashic and above all mystical literature
128   Translation

2. The Lord has destroyed without mercyd all the best land of the House of Jacob.e 5 He
has smashed in his anger the fortified towns of f the Congregation of the House g of Judah. He
has leveled [them] down to the ground.6 He has desecrated the kingdom; he has trampled h7
its princes.8
3. He has cut off in fierce anger all the glory of Israel.i 9 He has drawn back j his right
Apparatus, Chapter 2
d wl< ˙s = Qerei; Bomb l< ˙s = Ketib. “Congregation of Zion” for “daughter of Zion” (e.g., v.
e “Of the House of Jacob”: DBomb “of Jacob” = MT. 1), and (2) “House of Judah.” Yem. has simply “House
f BEGI omit “the fortified towns of,” but note MT of Judah.”
mibßerei. h The reading is uncertain. A has dhs, D d˙m and Bomb
g Reading dbyt with BCEGIBomb for A byt. But “Con- d˙m. These are usually emended to d˙s (see Lag.), a
gregation of the House of Judah” looks like a conflation verb Jast. 293a claims means “to press on with the foot,
of two different renderings of the Heb. “daughter of stamp on.” Cf. Yem. drs. But the root is uncertain. CH,
Judah,” and A’s syntactic awkwardness may be a sign in line with MT, omit the verb (“he has desecrated the
of this: (1) “Congregation of Judah”; cf. the standard kingdom and its princes”).
i “Of Israel” = MT; BEGI “of Jacob.”
j Reading <rt> (<af.) with BBomb for A rt> (pe.). In A yad
Notes Chapter 2
(Morray-Jones, Transparent Illusion). However, this gives glugdaq an even stranger sense, and Jast.<s suggestion that Ps-J.
means to say that the libnat sappir/glugdaq took the place of a hypopodion, i.e., it functioned as a footstool, has merit (hence
translate: “Instead of a hypopodion for his feet beneath the throne there was something like the making of a brick of sapphire
.  .  . and he placed it as a glugdaq instead of a hypopodion”). It remains unclear why our Tg. would have chosen this striking
word here. Chronologically speaking it is more likely that Ps-J. borrowed the term from Tg. Lam. than vice versa.
Alternatively we could take glugdaq here in its normal sense and see an allusion to Cant 3:7-9, where Solomon’s “litter”
(<appiryon/mi††ah) is identified in the Tg. as the Temple (see Alexander, Targum Canticles, Notes ad loc.), but the reference to
“feet” here surely rules this out. Tg. simply seems to have thought that a glugdaq was a “(foot)stool”!
5
Tg. >ydyt byt Y>qb = MT ne<ot Ya>aqob. Cf. Ps 83:13, Tg. >ydyt <lwhym (sic! v. l. dyrwwt <lwhym) = MT ne<ot <Elohim. >Iddit
(root uncertain) appears to be a technical legal term, a collective noun denoting the best land belonging to an estate, in contrast
to the beinonit (average land) and the zibburit (worst land). Note the legal maxim enunciated in t. Ket. 12:2, “In assessing
damages they base the estimate on the >iddit,” which is later defined as “the best portion of his field and the best portion of his
vineyard” (Exod 22:4). Cf. t. BQ 1:1; y. Gitt. V, 46c; b. Gitt. 49a; b. BQ 7b, and for the legal background see Elon, Jewish Law,
646–48. Thus Tg. interprets Heb. ne<ot here as referring to land, rather than dwellings—a meaning advocated by Rashi (“Ne<ot
Ya>aqob are the houses of Jacob”) and some modern commentators (Hillers: “Heb ne<ot is used of pastures, and also of the
dwellings of men. The latter sense has been preferred here because the verb billa> ’he consumed’ is used elsewhere in this chap-
ter with buildings as its object (vv. 5, 8), and because a reference to buildings seems to fit better in the context of the verse.”).
Note also Pesh. here (direh dYa>aqob), and the variant in Tg. Ps. 83:13 (quoted above). One interpretation advanced in Lam.R.
2:1 §4 proposes a reference specifically to the 480 synagogues that were in Jerusalem before the destruction of 70 c.e.
BDB 627b (cf. HAL 678b–679a) distinguishes betweeb naweh = “abode of shepherd,” poet. “habitation,” and nawah =
“pasture, meadow,” but it is doubtful if this distinction can be rigorously maintained. LXX (followed by Vulg. speciosa Iacob)
has here ta høraia Iakøb, through deriving from na<eh, “comely, fair” (Jast. 865b; the BH form is na<weh: BDB 610a). A similar
proposal is found in Lam.R. 2:1 §4, where ne<ot is construed as the cstr. fem. plur. of the adj. na<eh: hence “beauties of Jacob,”
which are then identified with the ten martyrs in the time of Hadrian. It is not certain how Tg. derived the word: his rendering
is compatible either with nawah/naweh or na<eh. Possibly he combined both: hence “the best land”!
6
Tg. seems to follow Masoretic accents in taking the clause higgia> la-<areß (lit. “he has caused to touch the ground”)
with what precedes (note the <atna˙). In the interests of better balance some modern commentators take it with what follows
(so Renkema, 224–25).
7
It is not clear why Tg. felt it necessary to add this verb. It might be derived from a double interpretation of the Heb. ˙illel,
which can mean both “profane, desecrate” and “pierce, wound” (BDB 319a, 320a). However, there is no obvious semantic link
between “piercing/wounding” and “trampling.” The Tg. text is uncertain and the verb missing in some mss. See Apparatus h.
8
Lam.R. 2:1 §5 takes “kingdom” as a reference to Israel, who are called a “kingdom of priests” in Exod 19:6, and “princ-
es” as a reference to the celestial princes. See also Rashi. In general Lam.R. interprets this verse as alluding to the destruction
of the Second Temple and the events of the Bar Kokhba War.
9
Tg. yqryh dysœr<l = MT qeren Yisœra<el. Cf. v. 17 below: Heb. “horn of your oppressors” = Tg. “glory of your oppressors”
(Note 68), but contrast Jer 48:25, “the horn of Moab has been cut off (nigde>ah)”; Tg. “the kingdom of Moab has been broken
off (<tq†pt)”; Ps 75:11, “all the horns of the wicked I shall cut off (<agaddea>)”; Tg. “all the haughty pride (tqwp rwm) of the
wicked I shall humble (<m<yk).” It is not immediately obvious what Tg. means by “the glory of Israel.” Lam.R. 2:3 §6 identifies
 Translation   129

hand,k and has not helped his people10 before the enemy, and he has kindled11 in the House
of Jacob as it were a blazingl fire [that] devours round about.
4. He bent12 his bow, and shot at me arrows like an enemy. He took his stand at the right
handm of Nebuchadnezzar, and assisted him as if he [himself] was oppressing his people, the
House of Israel,13 and he killed every young man, and all who were pleasing for the eye to see.n 14
In the tent of the Congregation of Zion15 he poured out his anger like burning fire.

Apparatus, Chapter 2
(though normally fem.) could be construed as the subj. k yd ymynyh: BEGHI ymynyh = MT (yemino).
of the verb: “his right hand shrank back,” but Heb. has l dm¡lhb< < ¡lhb (Jast. 1282b; Sokoloff, JPA 464b);
a causative verb (he¡ib). GI rtt = (?) “(his hand) trem- EGBomb dm¡lhb<; B dmlhb<; CI dmtlhb<; Yem. dm¡tlb< <
bled,” which E has secondarily corrected to rtt< (fem. ¡lhb/lhb (Jast. 693a, 1578a; Sokoloff, JPA 277b, 551a).
ptcp. pe.) to make clearer the concord with yad. H <tyb m yd ymynyh: BEGHI ymynyh = MT (yemino); cf. note k
= MT; cf. Yem. above.
n l˙yzw >yn<.

Notes Chapter 2
the “horn” here with ten “horns” that brought honor and glory to Israel (Abraham, the Torah, the priesthood, prophecy, and the
Temple, etc.), all of which “were placed on the head of Israel, but when they sinned they were taken from them and given to the
nations of the world.” A similar idea may lie behind Tg. LXX, Pesh., and Vulg. translate literally.
10
The addition of “and has not helped his people” makes it clear that Tg. takes the right hand as belonging to God. So do
most commentators. Hillers, however, suggests that “the pronoun probably refers to Israel, not God. God destroys the ‘horn’ of
Israel in 3a, and here turns back Israel<s right hand—both parts of the body, symbolic of strength, belong to Israel.” Lam.R. 2:3
§6 typically manages to embrace both possibilities: When Israel sinned and the enemy entered Jerusalem they bound the hands
of the mighty men of Israel behind their backs. In solidarity God drew his hand behind his back and suffered with his people,
but in due course he will draw it out again and redeem them.
11
Tg. <dlyq (<af.) involves a rather unsatisfactory analysis of the Heb. The prep. b- introduces the obj. of the verb wayyib>ar,
and the sense is: “He [God] burned Jacob like a blazing fire” (cf. Num 11:1, 3; Job 1:16). Tg., having construed the prep. as
locative, then took <e¡ as the object, governed by wayyib>ar: “He kindled in Jacob the like of a blazing fire.” But in this case one
would have expected the pi. form wayyeba>er (cf. Exod 35:2; Jer 7:18; Ezek 39:9), rather than the qal. LXX, Pesh., and Vulg.
also had problems with the Heb.
12
Heb. darakh (lit. “tread”) strictly speaking denotes the stringing of the bow (see Rashi and BDB 202a), but Aram. meta˙,
the drawing of the strung bow—the action that immediately precedes the discharge of the arrows (note Tg.’s addition).
13
Heb. nißßab yemino keßar is difficult. What is the subject of nißßab and the syntax of yemino? Following through the sense
from the first clause, Tg. makes God the subj. of the verb, but then takes yemino as the right hand of Nebuchadnezzar, in strik-
ing contrast to the previous verse where it denotes God’s right hand that delivers Israel. Nebuchadnezzar becomes God’s agent,
God’s right hand! It is as if, shockingly, God himself were attacking his people. Tg. thus uses keßar to intensify the meaning,
whereas Lam.R. 2:4 §8 uses it to soften it: “R. Aibu said: They (the Israelites) did not go to the extreme of rebellion against the
Attribute of Justice, and the Attribute of Justice did not go to the extreme in punishing them. They did not go to the extreme of
rebellion against the Attribute of Justice, as it is said, And the people were as murmurers (Num 11:1)—‘murmurers’ is not written
here but ‘as murmurers.’ The princes of Judah are like those who remove the landmark (Hos 5:10)’—‘those who remove’ is not
written here but but ‘like those who remove.’ For Israel is like a stubborn heifer (Hos 4:16)—‘a stubborn heifer’ is not written
here, but ‘like a stubborn heifer.’ The Attribute of Justice did not go to the extreme in punishing them. ‘He, an enemy, has bent
his bow’ is not written here, but ‘he like an enemy’” (see also Leqa˙ ˇob ad loc.). As elsewhere, Tg. takes ßar as an allusion to
Nebuchadnezzar (1:5, 10). Lam.R. 2:4 §8 identifies it as Pharaoh and as Haman. In fact, Tg. offers a double identification of ßar,
as Nebuchadnezzar and as God (“as if he [God] were oppressing his people”). In keeping with the legal maxim that “the action
of an agent is equivalent to the action of the principal” (b. Qidd. 41b; y. Qidd. II, 23a; Mekh. deR. Ishmael, Pis˙a 5), God and
Nebuchadnezzar are effectively one and the same (cf. Jer 25:9, “Nebuchadnezzar my servant”)! See further Note 19.
14
The Heb. verb yaharog indicates that the obj. ma˙amaddei >ayin should be interpreted as personal. So Tg. adds kl >wlym
to signal that he intends his kl dmrggyn l˙zw >yn< to be taken personally. Lam.R. 2:4 §8 identifies as “children who were as dear
to their parents as the apple of their eye,” or “the members of the Sanhedrin who were as dear to Israel as the apple of their eye.”
LXX, Pesh., and Vulg. translate abstractly and so leave the sense vague.
15
Tg.<s “in the tent of the Congregation of Zion” could be taken either with what precedes or with what follows. Masoretic
accentuation construes it with what follows, and I have assumed that Tg. followed the same tradition.
130   Translation

5. The Lord has become like an enemy.16 He has made an end of Israel;17 he has made
an end of all her castles.o He has destroyed all her unwalled towns,18 and he has increased in
the Congregation of the House of Judah p moaning and mourning.
6. And he has uprooted like a garden the House of his Sanctuary.q 19 He has destroyed
the place appointed to atone for his people.r 20 The Lord has caused to be forgotten in Zions

Apparatus, Chapter 2
o Reading byrnyyth< with A2 (nusa˙ <a˙er) for A1 pl†wrh< p “Of the House of Judah”: B “of Israel, of the House of
(“her palaces”). There is considerable uncertainty about Judah,” and EGI “of Israel and of the House of Judah,”
the original reading of Tg. here. Byrnyyth< is support- are conflate readings. C “of Judah” = MT; cf. Yem.
ed (with a variety of spellings) by BCDEGHIBomb. q C “the Sanctuary,” but MT has the suffix (sukko).
Pl†wr< ( = Lat. praetorium) is supported by Yem. (see r “For his people”: C “for himself” (>l np¡yh)!
Yem. Apparatus p). BHI have unintelligible alternative s H omits “in Zion,” but the words are in MT.
Targums. Cf. below, v. 7, note w.

Notes Chapter 2
16
Tg.<s elaborate rendering of the simple Heb. ke-<oyeb may, as Levine suggests, be intended to express the idea that God only
resembles an enemy (cf. Lam.R. 2:4 §8). In that case Tg. may be modifying his strong interpretation of the previous verse (Note
16). However, this may be reading too much into his translation, which is perfectly compatible with a stong interpretation of v. 4.
17
Tg. ¡yßy = Heb. billa>. Tg. renders the verb in the same prosaic way in vv. 2, 8, and 16, and resists playing on the literal
sense of billa>, “swallow up.” Contrast Lam.R. 2:5 §9 (cf. y. Sanh. X, 29c; Num.R. 16.25), which finds an allusion to the disap-
pearance of the exiles beyond the River Sambation, upon whom “a cloud descended and covered them up.”
18
Unlike some modern commentators (see Albrektson), Tg. is untroubled by the change of suffix in the Heb., <arme-
noteyha .  .  . mibßarayw, and renders in both cases as fem., either referring back to Israel (which can be fem. when a nomen
gent.: 1 Sam 17:21; 2 Sam 24:9), or to the Daughter/Congregation of Zion (v. 4). LXX (tas bareis aut∑s .  .  . ta ochurømata
autou) and Pesh. (s˙rth .  .  . krkwhy) support the inconsistency of MT.
Tg.’s qyrwy pßy˙h<, “her unwalled towns” for Heb. mibßaryw is unexpected. Mibßar is used uniformly in BH for a fortified,
walled settlement (BDB 131a), and is rendered kerakh by Tg. in v. 2—a term denoting a town surrounded by a wall (see m. Meg.
1:1; Jast. 669a). Tg. may have felt fortified places were already covered by <armenoteyha, which he translates straightforwardly
by byrnyyth< (but see Apparatus o). A contrasting sense was required here.
19
Heb. wayya˙mos kaggan sœukko caused problems for ancient versions and modern commentators alike. Albrektson (p.
95) offers the most plausible reading of the text as it stands, arguing that it should be rendered “he has broken down his booth
as in a garden”—“a concise way, typical of Hebrew poetry, of saying, ‘he has broken down his booth [= the Temple] as easily
as one shatters a booth in a garden.’” Tg.’s ¡r¡ (“uproot”) is a dynamic equivalent of Heb. wayya˙mos (lit. “has done violence
to”), which picks up the image of the garden. Pesh.’s >qar is semantically identical. SŒukko = Temple is based on Ps 76:3, where
the same word occurs in clear reference to the Temple and is rendered by Tg., as here, beit maqde¡eih. Tg.<s assumption that
it is the Temple that is compared to a garden, rather than to a booth in a garden (in others words he does not recognize kaggan
as a brachylogy for kebaggan), is probably based on his knowledge of the aggadic tradition comparing the Temple to a garden,
and specifically to the Garden of Eden (see Tg. Cant. 4:6 and 5:1, with Alexander<s Notes ad loc.; further 1:1, Note 2, above,
and Intro. 4.3). Rashi thinks that ˙ms can sometimes mean “cut, or crop”: “Wayya˙mos means cutting, as in Job 15:33, ya˙mos
kaggefen bisro (’he shall cut off his unripe grapes like a vine’), and Jer 13:22, ne˙mesu >aqebayikh (‘your ways have been cut
off’). Like a garden: like someone cutting greens in a vegetable patch.”
20
Tg. intelligently interprets Heb. mo>ed here as = “appointed place” (the Temple), but later in the verse as = “appointed
time” (festival) (BDB 417a). The paraphrase “the place appointed to atone for his people” spells out starkly the seriousness
of the situation. Now that the Temple has been destroyed, how will Israel’s sins be atoned for? The classic answer was that
prayer, study, good works, and the merits of the patriarchs (zekhut <abot) could take the place of the Temple service, though
Tg. characteristically does not hint at this here. The Tg.’s wording possibly echoes the famous aggadah in ARN A.4: “Once
when Rabban Yo˙anan ben Zakkai was leaving Jerusalem, Rabbi Joshua followed after him and saw the Temple in ruins. ’Woe
to us!’ Rabbi Joshua cried, ‘that this, the place where the iniquities of Israel were atoned for, is laid waste!’ ‘My son,’ Rabban
Yo˙anan replied, ‘don’t be grieved; we have another atonement as effective as this. And what is it? It is acts of loving-kindness,
as it is written, For I desire mercy and not sacrifice (Hos 6:6).’” (cf. b. Ber. 55a; b. Yeb. 105a; further, Schechter, Aspects of Rab-
binic Theology, 312; Montefiore and Loewe, Anthology, index sub Atonement; Büchler, Studies in Sin and Atonement, passim;
Alexander, “Torah and Salvation”).
 Translation   131

the joy of festival and Sabbath,21 and he abominatest in the fierceness of his anger the king
and the high priest.u 22
7. The Lord has abandoned23 his altar;v he has rejected24 his sanctuary; he has given over
into the hand of the enemy the walls of her castles.w They made a noise in the House of the
Sanctuary of the Lord, like the noise of the people of the House of Israel, when they used to
pray in the midst of it on the day of Passover.25

Apparatus, Chapter 2
t r˙yq (Jast. 1469b): BDEGHIBomb and Yem. (cf. H) sœn< v “His altar” = MT; BGH “the house of his altar.”
(“hates”). w byrnyyth<: A2 (nusa˙ <a˙er) pl†wr< (“her palaces”) =
u DBomb “priests,” but in breach of concord with the adj. Yem. (see Yem. Apparatus bb). MT <armenoteyha. Cf.
(rb<), and MT has sg. (kohen). above, v. 5, note o.

Notes Chapter 2
21
Levine may be correct in arguing that Tg.’s addition of “the joy of” is intended to prevent any polemical attempt to
deduce from this verse that God actually abolished the festivals or the Sabbath. Note Lam.R. 2:6 §10’s sensitivity to the text:
“Is it possible that the Holy One, blessed be he, made the festivals and the sabbaths to be forgotten?” The solution offered there
differs from the Tg.: the festivals and sabbaths mentioned were invented by Jeroboam the son of Nebat, and so were unauthor-
ized—an idea derived by an <al tiqrei from 1 Kgs 12:33.
22
In a pairing with “king” it is natural that Tg. took “priest” as denoting the high priest. For kohen = kohen gadol see BDB
464a. Lam.R. 2:6 §10 typically detects a reference to specific historical persons: “King refers to Zedekiah, and the priest to
Seraiah” (cf. Jer 52:24, “Seraiah the chief priest” [kohen ha-ro<¡]).”
23
Tg. <¡ly, “abandon, neglect, disregard” (Jast. 1582a; Sokoloff, JPA 553a) is a weak rendering of Heb. zana˙, “reject,
spurn” (BDB 276a), and we should probably emend to <sly, “reject, despise, throw away” (Jast. 994b); cf. Pesh. <asli (Payne
Smith 2637a). Pesh.’s text, t>< mry< mqd¡h w<sly mdb˙h, probably involves not only the transposition of the nouns but of the
verbs as well. In other words, <sly mdb˙h represents Heb. zana˙ mizbe˙o, not ni<er mizbe˙o. The violence of the verb zana˙ is
well caught by Lam.R. 2:7 §11: “The Lord has cast off his altar. R. Haggai said in the name of R. Isaac: It may be compared to
the inhabitants of a province who laid out tables for the king. They provoked him to anger, but he was patient with them. [Fi-
nally] he said to them: ‘Do you not provoke me because you rely on the tables which you have laid out before me? Here, you
can have them! Throw (them) in their faces!’” (emending to †eron be-<appeihon for <appeikhon: the impv. is addressed to the
servants; the translations of Jast. 551a and Sokoloff, JPA 231a are problematic). “Similarly the Holy One, blessed be he, said
[to Israel]: ‘Do you not provoke me because you rely on the sacrifices which you offer me? Here, you can have them! Throw
(them) in their faces!’ And this is why it is written, The Lord has cast off his altar.” See further 3:17, Note 30.
24
Tg. b>t = Heb. ni<er. The Aram. verb means literally ”kick” and then metaphorically “reject” (Sokoloff, JPA 107a). The
Heb. verb occurs elsewhere only in Ps 89:40, where Tg. translates with the <af. of ¡ny. Here LXX has apetinaxen (“cast off”);
Pesh. t>a< (“has forgotten”: see previous Note); Vulg. maledixit.
25
Heb. keyom mo>ed. The choice of Passover as the mo>ed alluded to (cf. 2:22 Note 88) is full of bitter irony: the sound
of the enemy rejoicing in the Temple replaces and cancels the sound of Israel celebrating on Passover its deliverance from
bondage. Lam.R. 2:7 §11 typically manages to strike a more positive note, looking forward to the time when Israel’s enemies
(identified as both Babylon and Rome) will be destroyed because they rejoiced in the Temple courts over the fall of Jerusalem:
“Because of the might of that noise [of impious rejoicing] Babylon fell .  .  . This kingdom [= Rome] has acted similarly .  .  .
It is not necessary for it too to fall, save as a consequence of the might of that noise.”
Tg. implies that the noise made in the Temple on Passover was the noise of the people “praying.” This raises a problem,
since it is uncertain that public prayer formed part of the Passover service in the Temple. The vivid description in m. Pes. 5:5-7
of the thronging Israelites offering their paschal offerings in the Temple mentions two sounds: (a) the blowing of the Shofar
to mark the beginning of the service, when the Temple gates were closed behind the congregation, and (b) the singing of the
Hallel. The text is, on the face of it, ambiguous as to who recited the Hallel: qare<u <et ha-hallel. It is probable from the context,
as Danby rightly translates, that the implied subject is the Levites, the Temple singers. Some, however, envisage the people as
reciting the Hallel (see Bertinoro’s note ad loc., and further the Gemara).
There are three possible explanations of the Tg.’s language: (1) He accepted that the public sang the Hallel in the Temple,
and he has this in mind when he describes the people as praying in the Temple on Passover. Note how ordinary Jews recite the
Hallel as part of the Seder, as well as at other major festivals in synagogue. (2) He is not using “pray” here in any strict sense,
but more generally in the sense of “worship.” There is a long tradition, going back to Isa 56:7, of describing the Temple as a “House
132   Translation

8. The Lord resolved26 to wreck the wall of the Congregation of Zion. He swung the
plummet;x 27 he did noty turn back his hand from destroying, and the rampart and the wall
mourned;28 together they were broken down.29
9. Her gates sankz into the ground, because they slaughtered a pig and spattered some of aa
its blood upon them.30 He destroyed and smashed her doorposts;31 her kingbb and her nobles

Apparatus, Chapter 2
x BI “his plummet,” but MT has simply qaw. Cf. Yem. z †m>w: C and Yem. †b>w = MT.
Apparatus dd. aa BEGI omit “some of” (mn).
y DBomb “and he did not,” but the conjunction is miss- bb CDBomb “her kings,” but MT has the sing.; EH “the
ing in MT. king,” but MT has the possessive pronoun.

Notes Chapter 2
of Prayer” (Beit Tefillah) (cf. Matt 21:13; Mark 11:7; Luke 19:46; Strack-Billerbeck ad loca.). But since public, communal
prayer does not seem to have featured prominently in Temple worship (Knoll, Sanctuary of Silence, 148–52), tefillah may have
denoted in a general way the sacrificial cult (note the context in Isa 56:7, which is all about sacrifice), and meant something
more like “worship.” (3) Tg. assimilated Temple worship to the service of the synagogue and simply assumed that it, too, must
have involved public, communal prayer. This would certainly have been the assumption of his audience. Note the rabbinic
tradition that there was a synagogue on the Temple Mount in second Temple times (t. Sukk. 4:5, but contrast y. Sukk. V, 55b;
b. Sukk. 53a; Levine, Ancient Synagogue, 57–58), and the general assimilation of the Temple to a synagogue in Tg. Cant. (1:8;
2:14; 7:13: Alexander, Targum Canticles, 22–23). The third is, perhaps, the most likely explanation.
26
Tg. ˙¡b = Heb. ˙a¡ab. Lam.R. 2:8 §12 notes that the verb indicates long-established intention, quoting Jer 32:31 in proof
(the text of the midrash is problematic, but see how Rashi understands it).
27
Tg. s<† m¡qwlt< = Heb. na†ah qaw. For m¡qwlta< = “plummet, plumbline” cf. Tg.’s translation of ha<eben habbadil in Zech
4:10 by <bn m¡qwlt<; further Jast. 858a. How na†ah qaw (“he stretched out the line”) relates to the action in hand has puzzled
commentators (see Hillers and Renkema). Tg.’s s<† suggests that he thinks of God using the plummet weight like a wrecking
ball, to destroy the wall. Pesh.’s <rmy hwt< may be thinking along the same lines (though hwt< is weak, if he is). LXX: exeteine
metron; Vulg. tetendit funiculum suum. Lam.R. 2:8 §12 simply notes that qaw can have a favorable sense, as in Zech 1:16, and
an unfavorable sense, as here.
28
MT’s wayya<abel is pointed as hif.: “he caused to mourn”; cf. Pesh. <wtb b<bl<. But Tg. seems to have vocalized as qal,
unless his <byl is a causative pi. Cf. LXX epenth∑se and Vulg. luxit. This results in a breach of concord, in that the subject is
plural (“rampart and wall”), whereas the verb is singular. But it is not acute: a prepositive verb with a compound subject, as
here, may be left in the singular (Joüon-Muraoka §150q), and Tg. reasonably ignores the problem. However, it troubled the
LXX translator: he construed ˙omah with the following verb, which he was then obliged to change to the singular; cf. also
Vulg. The qal gives a rather better balance: with wy<bl the poet passes over to the results of the violent divine action of the first
half of the verse. Lam.R. 2:8 §12 suggests that ˙el is the main wall and ˙omah the outer wall (¡ura< ubar ¡ura<: Aramaic!). Cf.
LXX proteichisma .  .  . teichos, and Vulg. antemurale .  .  . murus, which seem to reverse the identification. Tg.’s mqpn< .  .  .
¡wr< does not appear to have the same military precision.
29
Tg. construed Heb. ya˙daw with the following <umlalu, as the Masoretic accents suggest. Heb. <umlalu, from <ml, “be
weak, languish,” continues the personification of the walls (BDB 51a); cf. LXX ∑sthen∑sen; Vulg. dissipatus est. Pesh. has ßdw,
“are deserted, desolate.” Tg.’s <tpgrw, “were broken down, destroyed” (Jast. 1135b; Sokoloff, JPA 424b), is a strong, dynamic
equivalent.
30
Tg. alludes to a trick used by the enemy to gain access to the city. Unable to force the gates by normal military means,
they slaughtered a pig and sprinkled its blood on them. The gates sank into the ground in horror at this defilement, and the
enemy were able to enter. The implied subject of the verbs is “the enemy,” and “upon them” means “upon the gates.” The sense
is not that the Jews themselves sacrificed the pig and in the process got spattered with its blood, though linguistically this inter-
pretation is not impossible. “Spattered” is literally “brought”: <wbylw mn dmyh >lwyhwn. The language is compressed, with the
ellipse of a second verb, indicating that Tg. expected his audience to be able to fill out the sense: “they [the enemy] brought of
its [the pig’s] blood [and sprinkled it] upon them [the gates].”
Variants of this tradition are found elsewhere in rabbinic literature, though in some other versions the gates are the gates
of the Temple and not, as apparently here, the gates of Jerusalem (Ginzberg, Legends 6:393–94). This would aggravate the out-
rage. However, Tg., in keeping with rabbinic theology, would have regarded the sanctity of the Temple as, in effect, extending
to the whole city. The parallels describe the Babylonians as playing this trick, and so credit the fall of the first Temple to it. Tg.
is also, probably, thinking primarily of the first Temple. However, like the Midrash in general, he regards Lam. as alluding to
 Translation   133

have gone into exile among the nations, because they did not keep the words of the Torah, as
if they had not received it on Mount Sinai.32 Moreover, as for her prophets,cc the spirit of holy
prophecy has been withheld from them, and no word of prophecy has been spoken to them
from before the Lord.33

Apparatus, Chapter 2
cc C omits “as for her prophets,” but the words are in MT
(nebi<eyha).

Notes Chapter 2
later events as well (see 1:19, and Intro. 4.1). Note how Lam.R. Proem 7 takes “her gates” in Isa 3:26 (but the same expression
occurs here) as alluding to the destruction of both the First and Second Temples. Tg. would almost certainly have been aware
that a similar strategem, involving defilement by a pig, was said to have led to the fall of the Second Temple. Cf. ARN A.4: “A
catapult was brought to him [Vespasian], drawn up against the wall of Jerusalem. Boards of cedar were brought to him which
he set into the catapult, and with these he struck against the wall until he made a breach in it. A swine’s head was brought and
set into the catapult, and this he hurled towards the (sacrificial) limbs which were on the altar. It was then that Jerusalem was
captured” (trans. Goldin; cf. ARN B.7: Nadich, Legends, 351–52). Stories of defilement of the Temple/Jerusalem with a pig
were also told about the Hasmonean period. According to 1 Macc 1:47, Antiochus wrote to the Jews instructing them “to sacri-
fice pig’s flesh and unclean beasts” (see Goldstein’s note ad loc.; cf. 2 Macc 6:5, which does not, however, specify a pig). Note
also the Talmudic tradition that once, when Hyrcanus was besieging Aristobulus in Jerusalem, the besiegers sent up a pig in a
basket to serve as the daily offering in the Temple, presumably reasoning that if this stratagem worked for Nebuchadnezzar it
would work for them as well (see b. Sot. 49b; b. BQ 82b; b. Men. 64b). In y. Ber. I, 7b and y. Ta>an. IV, 68c basically the same
story is told but placed ‘in the days of the Greek kingdom,’ without any mention of the Hasmoneans. Note also 2 Tg. Esther
1:2, with Grossfeld’s and Ego’s notes ad loc.
The tradition about the sprinkling of pig’s blood on the gates of Jerusalem is part of a rich vein of speculation as to why
Jerusalem fell. In highlighting this particular explanation Tg. is making a homiletic point his audience would have been quick
to appreciate: the true defense of the Daughter of Zion (the Congregation of Israel) is spiritual, not military. It lies in observing
the laws of kashrut, and other such mißwot. It is only when these are compromised that Israel will be defeated.
31
Tg. mzwzth< = Heb. beri˙eyha. The translation is unexpected. Heb. beria˙ means “bar or bolt,” and one would have
anticipated that it would have been rendered >abbera</>ibbera<, or some such word (cf. Onq. Deut. 3:5; Tg. Jer. 49:31 and
51:30). The significance of the translation “doorposts” is unclear. It was the doorpost on which the words of the Torah had to
be inscribed (Deut 6:4-9), and the blood of the Pascal lamb sprinkled (Exod 12:7; Neof. mzwzyyt<; Onq. spy<). Both were seen
as protecting Israel from harm (the mezuzah functioned effectively as an amulet). Perhaps the brutal smashing of the doorposts
is meant to highlight Israel’s defenselessness before the divine anger.
32
Heb. malkahh wesœareyha baggoyim <ein torah. The Masoretic accents link <ein torah closely with baggoyim, which sug-
gests that the Masoretes took the phrase as describing the condition of the nations without revelation: “who have no Torah.” This
interpretation provides a good anticipation of the following gam nebi<eyha: “even her own prophets are bereft of revelation.”
In other words, Israel has reduced itself to the level of the nations, who live without divine guidance. Tg. construes <ein torah
with malkahh wesœareyha, and sees a reference to the king’s and the princes’ disobedience of the Torah. However, the addition
“as if they had not received it on Mount Sinai” hints at the other interpretation. According to the Midrash the Torah was offered
to all the nations in turn, but only Israel accepted it (Ginzberg, Legends 3:80–82). In disregarding the Torah, the king and the
princes put Israel on a par with all the other nations. Tg.’s “as if,” however, is important: Israel had, of course, been given the
Torah, and had agreed to obey it. Any rabbinic commentator would feel obliged to handle <ein torah here carefully. He would
not have wanted to give the impression that objectively speaking Israel, even in exile, was ever “without Torah.” Rashi’s gloss,
“There was no Torah: there was nobody among them to give instruction (<ein bahem moreh hora<ah),” is probably motivated
by similar concerns.
33
Heb. literally, “even her prophets have not found a vision from the Lord.” Tg. in effect renders, rather freely, twice: (1)
“the spirit of holy prophecy has been withheld from them,” and (2) “no word of prophecy has been spoken to them from before
the Lord.” The avoidance of the literal sense of ˙azon is noteworthy: the Tg.’s equivalents are “spirit of holy prophecy” and
“word of prophecy.” He has taken ˙azon as standing for divine revelation (= prophecy) in all its forms, of which “vision” is only
one (see Note 51). In Rabbinic theology the prophets were inspired by the “holy spirit” (rua˙ haqqode¡) or “spirit of prophecy”
(rua˙ hannebu<ah) (Schäfer, “Heiliger Geist und Geist der Prophetie”; idem, Die Vorstellung vom Heiligen Geist). The phrase
“spirit of holy prophecy” is somewhat unusual: it is a conflation of the synonymous terms rua˙ qud¡a< (“spirit of holiness” =
“holy spirit,” which Yem. actually reads here) and rua˙ nebu<ata< (“spirit of prophecy”).
134   Translation

10. The elders of the Congregation of Zion sit on the grounddd in silence.ee 34 They have
brought up the ash of a cooking-fire35 onto their heads. They have girded sackcloth on their
flesh. The virgins who are in Jerusalemff have brought down their heads to the dust of the
ground.36
11. My eyes are worn outgg 37 by tears, my innards are heaped up,hh my liver is poured
on the ground, on account of the breaking38 of the Congregation of my people, now thatii the

Apparatus, Chapter 2
dd >l <r><: BEGHI l<r>< = MT la-<areß. but suggests emending to psqw, “(my eyes) have
ee Lit. “and are silent” (w¡tqyn): cf. MT yiddemu. DBomb ceased (shedding tears).” See Note 37.
¡tqyn, without the conjunction, as in the Heb. hh <ydg<rw m>yy = Heb. ˙omarmeru me>ai. See above
ff “The virgins who are in Jerusalem”: so also Yem., but 1:20, Note 84.
BDEIBomb “the virgins of Jerusalem” = MT. ii Reading kdw d- with DBomb for A kdw. BEGH and
gg spw: so also Yem.; EGHIBomb spqw, which Jast. Yem. have kd. See Note 39.
1016a renders “(my eyes) have done (shedding tears),”

Notes Chapter 2
34
Tg.’s yatebin suggests that he vocalized Heb. y¡bw as an impf., as in the MT (ye¡ebu). It would, of course, be easy to
vocalize as pf. (ya¡ebu: cf. LXX ekathisan; Pesh. ytbw; Vulg. sederunt), but this causes problems with the following yiddemu,
which LXX, Pesh., and Vulg. translate also as pf. The impf. is lectio difficilior: there would be a very strong temptation to
assimilate it to the preceding and following pfs., but while these describe what happened in the past, y¡bw describes what is
actually happening, so to speak, before the poet’s eyes (see Renkema). Tg. seems to have correctly understood the asyndetic
yiddemu as adverbial in force: “they sit in silence” (Joüon-Muraoka §177g; cf. Jer 4:5, qir<u mal<u, “cry loudly”).
35
Tg.’s <pr mqlh (effectively a Hebraism!) reflects m. Ta>an. 2:1, “What is the order [of service] for fast days? The ark is
taken out to the open space of the city, and they put [notenim] ash of a cooking-fire [<efer miqleh] on the ark, on the head of the
Nasi and on the head of the <Ab Beit Din. Everyone else puts ash on his own head.” This was doubtless the practice observed
in the Tg.’s own community on 9th Ab, so what we have here is a contemporizing of the text. It is unlikely that anything more
is implied (Note 36). See further Tg. Lam. 3:15 Note 29.
36
Sprinkling dust on the head and rolling in the dust were a common mourning rite (Josh 7:6; 1 Sam 4:12; 2 Sam 1:2;
15:32; Jer 6:26; Ezek 27:30; Mic 1:10: Olyan, Biblical Mourning). Thus the addition “dust” is here simply meant to clarify the
act of lowering the head to the ground as a sign of grief rather than, e.g., of submission. However, together with the preceding
<efer (see Note 35), it creates the well-known pair >afar we-<efer (“dust and ashes”), which occurs in Gen 18:27; Job 30:19; 42:6.
Lam.R. 2:10 §14 suggests a link between Gen 18:27 and Lam 2:10, “They have brought up dust onto their heads, that is to say,
they began to recount the merit of Abraham of whom it is written, I am but dust and ashes (Gen 18:27). They have girded them-
selves with sackcloth: that is to say, they began to recount the merit of Jacob of whom it is written, He put sackcloth upon his
loins (Gen 37:34).” Interestingly, the Gemara sees in the term <efer miqleh in m. Ta>an. 2:1 (Note 35) an allusion to the Binding
of Isaac: the choice specifically of <efer miqleh, it is argued, was “that God may remember for our sake the ashes of Isaac” (see
further Grossfeld, “Targum to Lamentations 2:10”; Spiegel, The Last Trial). The intention in both Lam.R. and the Gemara is to
mitigate the harshness of the grief by hinting at a means of turning God’s anger, viz., the merit of the Fathers. But Tg. shows
little inclination to soften the blow (see Intro. 7.1.2), and it is unlikely he is making such a subtle allusion here. Even Lam.R.
rather negates on this occasion the efficacy of appealing to the merits of the Fathers by continuing: “What was done to them
[despite their recititation of the merits of the Fathers]? Their hair was tied to the tails of their horses and they were made to run
from Jerusalem to Lod, and that is why it is written, The virgins of Jerusalem have brought down the heads to the ground.”
37
Heb. Kalu >einai: Tg. either spw >yny or spqw >yny (see Apparatus gg). There is no consistency in Tg.’s rendering of
this phrase in the Hebrew Bible (Jer 14:6; Job 11:20; 17:5; Ps 69:4; 119:82, 123), but spw >yny occurs also in Ps 119:82. Tg.
translates √klh again by sp in 4:11. Lam.R. 2:11 §15 has a remarkable medical note here on the eye’s limit to sustain weeping
(cf. b. Shabb. 152a).
38
Tg.’s tbr is literal for Heb. ¡eber. Lamentations (2:13; 3:37, 48; 4:10) and the Prophets in general (Amos 6:6; Jer 6:14;
8:11; Ps 60:4) commonly use the metaphor of “breaking” to describe overwhelming disaster befalling people. Tg. Lam. trans-
lates elsewhere as here, but in 2:13 implicitly equates ¡eber with mar>it, “affliction, sickness, suffering.”
 Translation   135

youth and the infantjj go thirsty39 in the open spaces of the city.
12. To their mothers the young men of Israel kk say,40 “Where is grain and wine?” when
they were parched with thirst, like one slain by the sword,41 in the open spaces of the city,
when their souls were poured out through hunger 42 into their mothers’ bosoms.

Apparatus, Chapter 2
jj CDBomb “the youths and the infants,” but MT has the kk Adding “the young men of Israel” with BDGHIBomb.
sing. See Note 39. For a possible reason for this addition see Note 40.

Notes Chapter 2
39
Tg. kdw dßhw (see Apparatus ii) = Heb. be>a†ef. Tg. takes the Heb. prep. + inf. as describing an attendant circumstance
that constitutes the ground or reason for an action or event. Aram. kedu d- has a slightly different nuance from simple kad.
The latter strictly means “when,” the former “now that,” hence effectively = “since, because” (Sokoloff, JPA 250b, 251a; Jast.
612a-b).
The Heb. √>†p, “be feeble, faint” (BDB 742b), occurs also in 2:12 and 2:19, and in all three cases Tg. translates oddly
with the root ß˙y/ßhy, “be thirsty” (Sokoloff, JPA 459a; Jast. 1273a). LXX (en tø[i] ekleipein), Pesh. (kd <†rpw), and Vulg. (cum
deficeret) are closer to the Heb. Gen.R. 24:4 translates ya>a†of in Isa 57:16 by m¡lhy lyh, “it (the wind) grew tired” [wind is the
subj., not God; leh is an ethic dative, not the obj.; Tg. ad loc. is different!]. In Tg. Psalms the root ¡lhy, “become tired, grow
weary” (Jast. 1578b; Sokoloff, JPA 551a), is used consistently to render Heb. >†p (Pss 61:3; 77:4; 102:1; 107:5; 142:4; 143:4).
See also Tg. Jon. 2:8. Onq. renders ha->a†ufim in Gen 30:42 by lq¡y<, “late, retarded, stunted”: hence, by implication, “feeble”
(Jast. 719b; Sokoloff, JPA 286b). The basis of Tg. Lam.’s rendering is unclear. See further Intro. 5.3.
It is probable that Tg. originally had >wlym< wynwq< (sg. rather than plur.) as in the Heb., but understood them as collective
sg. (see Apparatus jj). The verb, of course, would be plural in any case, because the subject is compound. In the Heb. phrase
>olel weyoneq the two terms could be seen as synonymous (“babes and sucklings”: so LXX, n∑pion kai th∑lazonta; Pesh. †ly<
wylwd<; Vulg. parvulus et lactens). Tg.’s rendering, however, implies a contrast: grown children vs. babes in arms. His reason
for this interpretation becomes clear in his translation of the following verse (Note 40).
40
In Heb. the subj. of the verb yo<meru would appear to be the “youth and infant” of v. 11, but this creates problems, since
the “infant” would hardly speak (ynwq< strictly denotes an unweaned child), still less ask for “grain and wine.” Tg. indicates
that the words are said only by the youths and chooses a word to designate them that stresses that they are grown up (rwby<:
Jast. 1455a; v. 11 has >wlymy<). Lam.R. 2:12 §16 also makes the same point, imagining the question “Where is grain and wine?”
being put by a husband and grown son (ben gadol) to the mother of the family, whose job it was to prepare the food.
41
Tg. again takes Heb. root >†p to mean “thirst” rather than “be feeble, faint, swoon” (Note 39): ß˙yyn .  .  . mn ßhwt<, lit.
“(were) thirsting from thirst” (for the reason for adding mn shwt< see Note 42). “Fainting like someone wounded” makes obvi-
ous sense, in a way that “thirsting like someone wounded” does not, but Tg. may well be aware of the medical fact that blood-
loss causes thirst, and this is why he introduces a weapon, the sword, that is precisely intended to cause death by bleeding.
He cannot, of course, mean “slain by the sword” (q†wl d˙rb<) to be taken absolutely literally, but rather as meaning “mortally
wounded by the sword.” The Heb. ˙alal, lit. “pierced,” can mean both “mortally wounded” and “killed” (BDB 319b). LXX høs
traumatias; Pesh. <yk q†yl<; Vulg. quasi vulnerati.
42
“Through hunger” (mn kpn<) balances “with thirst” (mn ßhwt<) in the previous clause. The former picks up “wine” in the
question, the latter “grain.” Tg. takes both clauses as referring to the youths of v. 11 (some died of thirst, some of hunger). Lam.
R. 2:12 §16, however, sees the first clause as referring to the youths, the second to the infants: “When their souls were poured
out into their mother’s bosoms refers to her young son who wished to suck but found no milk, and he had convulsions [mefarper
= death throes (see Jast. 1236b; Sokoloff, JPA 450a), but possibly also linking the Heb. ˙alal with root ˙wl, “writhe in agony”
(BDB 296a)] and died.” Both Tg. and Lam.R. probably sensed a contrast between dying in public (“in the open spaces of the
city”) and dying in private (at home in the mother’s arms).
136   Translation

13. How shall I admonish you,ll 43 and to what shall I liken you, Congregation of Jerusa-
lem? With what shall I associate you,44 that I may comfort you,45 Virgin Congregation of Zion?
Formm great is your breaking, like the greatness of the breaking of the waves of the Great Sea
at the time of its raging.46 And who is the physician who shall heal you of your sickness?
14. The false prophets among you prophesied to younn falsehood,47 and there was no
substance in their prophecies,48 nor did they disclose the retribution that was about to come

Apparatus, Chapter 2
ll <shd: Bomb <s>yd may be a purely phonetic variant of mm = <rwm in both West. and Yem. Heb. ki. See Intro.
<shyd; cf. Sam. Aram. s>d = JA shd (Jast. 959b). The 2.1.
root s>d does not yield good sense in context. See Note nn BEGH “saw (˙zw) for you” = MT; cf. Yem.
47.

Notes Chapter 2
43
MT raises problems, starting with the fact that there is a Ketib <>wdk (= <a>udekh) and a Qerei <a>idekh. Lam.R. 2:13 §17
proposes no fewer than four interpretations of the word, all but one based on folk etymology. Tg.’s <shyd bk (Apparatus ll) is a
calque of the BH and MH idiom he>id b- (+ person), “admonish, warn, solemnly exhort someone” (BDB 730a; Jast. 1048a). Cf.
the first interpretation in Lam.R. 2:13 §17, “Mah <a>idekh .  .  . How many prophets did I cause to testify against you (kamah
nebi<im he>adti bakhem)?”
44
Heb. mah <a¡weh lakh, “what shall I compare to you?” is not obviously problematic, and Tg. could have rendered it
literally ma< <a¡wei likh. ⁄wy hif./<af. is attested in MH and JA in the meaning “compare”: see, e.g., Isa 46:5, lemi tedammeyuni
weta¡wu = Tg. lmn tdmwn qdmy wt¡wwn (further: Jast. 1532a; Sokoloff, JPA 540a). Tg.’s rendering mh <˙byr lyk is, consequent-
ly, unexpected. Óbr = “combine, join” is common in JA in the pa. (Jast. 421b; Sokoloff, JPA 186a), but the sense is awkward,
and Tg. here may have intended a denom. <af. from ˙aber, “make an associate of.” Despite the impersonal interrogative “what,”
some modern exegetes (see Hillers and Renkema) have suggested that the poet is thinking it would be a comfort to Zion if he
could find others who had suffered as she has. Tg. may have had a similar view: “Who can I make the companion of your grief,
so that I may comfort you?” The tragedy is that the implied answer is no-one: Zion’s sufferings are unique, and so she is denied
even the crumb of comfort that others have suffered as she has.
45
The weak waw + impf. construction in the Heb. expresses purpose (Joüon-Muraoka §168b). Tg. translates literally, but
presumably with the same force.
46
Heb.: “for great as the sea is your breaking.” The comparison with the sea is intended primarily to suggest the immeasur-
able magnitude of the calamity (cf. Job 11:9; Ps 104:25), but Tg. also secondarily detects in ¡eber an allusion to the mi¡berei
yam, the “breakers” or “billows” of a stormy sea (Ps 93:4), which are used memorably in Pss 42:8 and 88:8 to symbolize over-
whelming divine disaster. He identifies “the Sea” as the Great Sea, i.e., the Mediterranean: for hayyam = the Mediterranean see
Num 13:29; Deut 1:7; Josh 5:1 (otherwise hayyam haggadol: Num 34:6, 7; Josh 15:12, 47).
“Its raging” = n˙¡wlyh. Na˙¡ol normally denotes the strong wind that whips up the sea: see, e.g., Lev.R. 22.3, “a na˙¡ol
smote the sea,” but sometimes, as here (note the suffix), it denotes the condition of the sea itself during the gale: see b. Gitt.
56b, “a na˙¡ol in the sea stood up against him to drown him” (cf. Num.R. 13.7, “Why was his name called Na˙shon because he
was the first to go down into the na˙¡ol of the [Red] Sea” = “waves of the sea” [gallei hayyam] in 13.4, end: further Jast. 897a;
Sokoloff, JPA 346b; Payne Smith 2072b).
47
Though it creates a tautology, the addition “false prophets” avoids condemning all the prophets of the time as liars,
which would have included Jeremiah, the supposed author of Lam. “Prophesied” = Heb. “saw” (˙azu). Tg. again takes “vision”
as standing for all forms of prophecy: cf. the end of this verse (Note 51), and verse 9 (Note 33) above.
48
At first sight it is unclear how Tg. derived the Heb. tafel. BDB 1074a distinguishes between tafel I adj. “tasteless, un-
seasoned,” used literally of food without salt in Job 6:6 (cf. basœar tafel, “unseasoned meat,” and dag tafel, “unseasoned fish”
in b. Shabb. 128a), and tafel II, “whitewash,” applied to a wall, in Ezek 13:10, 11, 14, 15 (cf. HAL 1775b-76a). “Whitewash,”
however, cannot be correct in context: rather, the reference must be to weak plaster or mortar, which heavy rain can wash
away, resulting in the collapse of the wall. Whitewash does not hold up a wall! Tg. probably knew tafel in the literal sense of
plaster without a binding agent, which crumbles away, and derived from this a figurative meaning, tafel = “something without
substance.” See Intro. 5.3 and cf. Qara ad loc.: “Tafel, i.e., clay (˙omer): because there is no lime (sid) mixed in it, it does not
stick to the wall, except on the day on which it is smeared and the day after. But then a great wind comes and causes it to fall.”
LXX aphrosun∑n, Pesh. m†>ynwt<, and Vulg. stulta are all probably guesses.
 Translation   137

on you on account of your sin,49 in order to turn you back in repentance,50 but they prophesied
to you baseless prophecies and words that lead astray.51
15. All those who pass52 along the way clapoo their hands at you; they hisspp with their
lips and shake their heads at the Congregation of Jerusalem.qq They say with their mouths:

Apparatus, Chapter 2
oo A ¡qpw < ¡qp, “beat, knock.” This is the correct JA Bomb there has ybrbq, and the Antwerp Polyglott
form of the verb according to the dictionaries (Jast. and the >Arukh (4:316) the graphic variant ykrbq.
1625a; Sokoloff, JBA 1176b); cf. Syriac ¡qp (Payne Sokoloff, JBA 241b, recognizes a root brbq, meaning
Smith 1294b). But mss are unsure of the spelling: “spray water, squirt,” citing two occurrences in this
DIBomb have sœpqw, with sœin (cf. MT yisœpoq) at Job sense from the Halakhot Pesuqot of Yehudai Gaon,
27:23), and CE + Yem. (cf. H) spqw, with samekh (= and comparing the Jewish Neo-Aramaic brbq, “to
MT sapequ here—the normal MT spelling of this splash.” This would make reasonable sense here and
verb: BDB 706b). designate the gesture of contempt as spitting rather
pp Reading ¡rqw with BCEGH (cf. DIBomb) (= MT than hissing. A’s brb<q is unquestionably lectio dif-
¡arequ) for a A1 brb<qw. A2 has ¡rqw in the mg. as ficilior. Is is possible that it is an ancient rendering
nusa˙ <a˙er. Brb<qw at first sight looks like a corrup- changed in all the other mss?
tion, but it occurs again in v. 16, and ybrbyq is offered qq C “Congregation of Israel.”
as a translation of Heb. yi¡roq in A mg. to Job 27:23.

Notes Chapter 2
49
Heb. welo< gillu >al >awonekh. The construction gillah >al is found only here and in Lam 4:22, gillah >al ha††o<tayikh.
There Tg. translates “it has been disclosed before the Lord concerning your sins” (Note 63 ad loc.), but a translation analogous
to the one found here seems equally apposite: “he [God] has disclosed the retribution that is about to come upon you [Rome]
on account of your sins.” The echo of 2:14 would have been pointed.
50
MT: leha¡ib ¡ebit [Ketib]/¡ebut [Qerei]. The phrase ¡ub/he¡ib ¡ebit/¡ebut is common in BH, and the normal meaning
seems to be “reverse, or restore the captivity of someone,” usually with God as subject, though sometimes the context suggests
a more general sense of “restore someone’s fortunes” (BDB 986a; HAL 1385b-87a). Tg. Jer. 29:14; 30:2, 18 etc. renders <ateb
galut. Cf. LXX here (and elsewhere): tou epistrepsai aichmaløsian sou. However, Tg. typically noted that the normal transla-
tion is inappropriate here, since the poet is referring to the time before the exile: hence his “in order to turn you back in repen-
tance,” which may involve deriving ¡ebut/¡ebit from ¡wb, “return, repent” (so also some moderns: BDB 986a), rather than ¡bh,
“take captive.” Cf. Vulg. ut te ad poenitentiam provocarent. Pesh. tries to get the best of both worlds: “that you might repent,
and that I might turn back your captivity.” Rashi derives ¡ebut/¡ebit here from ¡obab, “apostate, backslider”: “to make good
your apostasies (le-ya¡¡er me¡ubotayikh), in the sense of ¡obebah, ¡obebim, as in Isa 57:17, ‘and he went in apostasy (¡obab)
in the way of his heart.’”
51
Tg. probably construed Heb. masœ<ot as a plural of masœsœa<, “(prophetic) utterance or oracle,” which led him in turn to take
the verb wayyehezu as denoting the act of prophesying in general, and not the seeing of a prophetic vision (cf. his rendering
of ˙azon by “prophecy” in 2:9, Note 33 above). In Hab 1:1, hammasœsœa< <a¡er ˙azah Óabaqquq hannabi<, Tg. translates: “The
burden of the prophecy which Habakkuk the prophet prophesied.” BDB 672b suggests that ˙azah there retains its basic sense
“see,” but that masœsœa< has broadened into the sense of “revelation” (“the revelation which Habakkuk the prophet saw”). Tg.,
however, just as reasonably, assumes that masœsœa< retains its basic sense of “prophetic utterance,” and that it is ˙azah that has
broadened to mean “prophesy” (“the oracle which Habakkuk the prophet prophesied”).
MT’s maddu˙im is a hapax legomenon. The precise basis of Tg.’s rendering myly †>wt< (lit. “words of error”) is uncertain,
but he probably uses ta>uta< to denote not a simple mistake but “a going astray from the faith”; cf. Pesh. “false prophecies that
lead astray (mt>ynyt<) [i.e., from the faith].” Behind this lies the use of √nd˙ hif. in the sense of “thrust or turn aside from God to
idolatry” (BDB 623a; HAL 673a). Note Rashi: “Umaddu˙im: they thrust you (hiddi˙ukh) from me [God]” (cf. Deut 13:11), and
Ibn Ezra: “Umaddu˙im: which thrust you from the right path.” LXX’s exøsmata and Vulg.’s eiectiones draw on another mean-
ing of nd˙ in the hif., viz., “thrust out, banish [into exile].” Cf. Lam.R. 1:19, §54, “They did not cease prophesying falsehood
to me {Jerusalem] till they had exiled me from my place, as it is said, And they saw for you prophecies baseless and leading to
banishment (Lam 2:14).”
52
As in the Heb., the main verbs in the Tg. in this verse are in the pf., but context suggests they should be translated in the
present tense rather than the past.
138   Translation

“Is this the city about which our fathers and grandfathersrr of old used to say53 that it was the
perfection of beauty and loveliness,54 the joy of all the inhabitants ss of the earth?”55
16. 56All your enemies have opened their mouths against you; they have hissedtt with their
lips and gnashed their teeth;uu they said:vv “We have put an end to [them].57 Truly,58 this is the
day for which we were waiting.ww We have found, we have seen!”xx
17. The Lord has done asyy he intended. He has fulfilled59 the utterance of his mouth60
which he commanded to Moses the prophet in days of old, that if Israelzz do not keep the com-

Apparatus, Chapter 2
rr DBomb omit “and grandfathers”: see Yem. (Apparatus uu DBomb “with their teeth.”
bbb). vv Bomb “and they said,” but the conjunction is not in
ss Reading “all the inhabitants” with BDEGHIBomb MT.
for A “the inhabitants”: “all” is in MT. DBomb have ww C adds “for many days.”
“for all” (= MT); A and the remaining mss (including xx ˙myn: BCDEGHIBomb and Yem. ˙zyn. See Intro. 2.1.
Yem.) “of all” (construct). yy km<: BDGIBomb mh and E m< = MT <a¡er. See Yem.
tt Reading ¡rqw with BCDEGHBomb (cf. I) = MT, for Apparatus kkk.
A brb<qw. See note pp above. zz BDEGHIBomb “Children of Israel”; Yem. “House of
Israel.” These look like secondary expansions of an
original “Israel.”

Notes Chapter 2
53
Heb. ¡eyyo<meru = “about which men used to say,” taking the impf., with the Tg., as a past impf. The subject is indefinite
and could be either the Jews themselves (assuming that clapping the hands, hissing, and shaking the head are gestures of horror
and disbelief: see Renkema), or the Gentiles (assuming these gestures denote mockery, the more likely reading in view of v.
16). Tg. adopts the latter view and dramatically attributes the words to the ancestors of the Gentile passers-by, who had seen
Jerusalem in her heyday and spoken of her glories to their offspring. Cf. Lam.R. 2:15 §19, “The cities of the nations recount
their praises with their own mouths, as it is written, You, O Tyre, have said: I am the perfection of beauty (Ezek 27:3); but as for
Jerusalem, others recount her praise with their mouths, as it is written Is this the city about which men used to say that it was
the perfection of beauty, a joy to the whole earth?”
54
Tg. gmyrt nw<y w¡wpr< = MT kelilat yofi. Tg. correctly derives kelilat from the adj. kalil, “whole, entire” (BDB 483a; see
also Pesh., Aquila [Syro-Hex.], Vulg., Rashi, and Ibn Ezra here), and resists the temptation to link with Aram. kelil = “crown”
(Jast. 642b), as LXX (stephanos dox∑s). Tg. renders kelilat yofi in Ezek 27:3 by m¡kll< b¡wpry (“perfect in my beauty”). Nw<y
w¡wpr< is a double translation of yofi.
55
Cf. Tg. Ps. 48:3, “The joy of all the inhabitants of the earth” (Heb. mesœo∞ kol ha-<areß). Tg.’s prosaic mentality comes
out in his reluctance to contemplate the personification of the earth.
56
In the acrostics here, and in chapters 3 (vv. 46-51) and 4 (vv. 16-17), MT puts peh before >ayin, but in chapter 1 (vv.
16-17) >ayin comes before peh. Tg. follows MT in all cases, as do LXX and Vulg. Pesh., however, always has the normal order.
Lam.R. 2:16 §20 (cf. Lam.R. 3:46 §9, and Rashi) offers a midrashic explanation for the deviation here: “Why does peh precede
>ayin? Because they were saying with their mouths (pihem) what they had not seen with their eyes (>eineihem).” In other words,
the opening of the enemies’ lips was not to mock, but to tell lies against Israel.
57
Tg. ¡yßyn< = Heb. billa>nu. For this rendering see 2:2, 5 (Note 17), and 8. By translating in the same way here and in v.
2, Tg. preserves the resonance in the Heb.: there it is the Lord who “swallows” Israel; here it is Israel’s enemies who claim to
have “swallowed” her. The implication may be that they are acting as the Lord’s agents, a thought brought out more explicitly
in the following verse. Tg.’s failure to supply objects for this and the following verbs is striking. Pesh. and Vulg. also preserve
the exclamatory force of the original, which LXX weakens by supplying objects: “We have swallowed her [Jerusalem] up .  .  .
We have found it [the day] (katepiomen aut∑n .  .  . heuromen aut∑n).”
58
Tg. and Pesh. beram = Heb. <akh. For this asseverative use of beram see Jast. 196a. Sokoloff, JPA 114b and JBA 247a,
however, recognizes only the normal adversative meaning.
59
Tg.’s gmr correctly recognizes the figurative sense here of the Heb. bißßa> (lit. “he has cut off” > “he has finished, com-
pleted, accomplished”: BDB 130b). Cf. LXX sunetelese; Pesh. ¡mly; Vulg. complevit.
60
Tg. mymr pwmyh = Heb. <emrato. In 1:15, 17, 18, 20 and 3:57 meimra< is the Targumic meimra<, without equivalent in
the Heb. Here meimar has its basic sense of “utterance, saying”; cf. 1:18 (bis) where meimreih renders Heb. pihu (further Intro.
4.3). The “utterance” is identified with specific prophecies addressed to Moses. So also Lam.R. 2:17 §21, which hears echoes
specifically of Leviticus 26. Tg. may also have this passage in mind: his “if the Children of Israel do not keep the command-
 Translation   139

mandments of the Lord, he will exact punishment from them without pity; and he has caused61
the enemy to rejoice over you; he has exalted the glory62 of your oppressors.
18. The heart of Israel63 cried outaaa before the Lord that he should be merciful to
them.bbb O wall of the city of Zion,ccc 64 shed tears like a torrent day and night! Do not give
comfort to your grief, so as to slacken your prayer,65 and let not the pupil of your eyeddd 66 be
silenteee from weeping!

Apparatus, Chapter 2
aaa DBomb and Yem. “their heart cried out” = MT. ccc H and Yem. “of the city of the Congregation of Zion.”
bbb Reading dy yr˙m >lyhwn with BCEGHI for A dy r˙m ddd DBomb “let not your eye,” but MT has bat >einekh.
>lyhwn (“who had mercy on them”); cf. DBomb and eee ti¡twq: C t¡bwq (“cease”), but MT has tiddom; see
Yem. dr˙ym >lyhwn (“who [was] merciful to them”). Note 65.
H omits the whole phrase = MT.

Notes Chapter 2
ments of the Lord, he will exact punishment from them (>tyd l<tpr> mnhwn)” is a fair summary of Leviticus 26 (cf. especially
vv. 3, 14, and 18). For the wording of the latter part of the statement, however, cf. Tg. Jer. 2:9, “Therefore I will exact punish-
ment from you (<n< >tyd l<tpr>< mnkwn), says the Lord, and from the children of your children, for if they do according to your
deeds, I will exact punishment (<n< >tyd l<tpr><).” Heb.: “Therefore I will yet plead [<arib] with you, says the Lord, and with your
children’s children I will plead [<arib].” “The prophet” is a standard designation for Moses in rabbinic literature, though not so
common as “Moses our Teacher”: it is not only founded on Scripture but reflects the rabbinic idea that all Scripture is “proph-
ecy,” and it is apt in context here: God forewarned Israel through Moses of the consequences of its sin.
61
Tg. follows the MT’s pointing wayesœamma˙ (causative pi.: BDB 970b). Cf. LXX ∑uphranen; Pesh. <˙dy; Vulg. laetifica-
vit. Renkema, though also pointing pi., translates “the enemy rejoices over you,” but this would require wayyisœma˙ (qal).
62
Tg.’s translation of “horn” by “glory” maintains the resonance with v. 3 (cf. Note 9 ad loc.).
63
MT libbam, “their heart.” Modern commentators make too much of the lack of antecedent for the pronom. suffix (see
Albrektson 116–17 for a survey of proposed solutions). Tg. supplies the obviously implied referrent (but see Apparatus aaa).
64
Tg. unusually translates “Daughter of Zion” by “city of Zion” rather than “Congregation of Zion” (contrast, e.g., 1:6;
2:4, 8, 10, 13; 4:22; see further Apparatus eee, and Intro. 4.1), suggesting that, although he personifies it, he has the literal city
wall in mind. This, and the intrusion of the words “that he should be merciful to them,” shows that he does not take ˙omah here
as a title of God standing in apposition to <adonai, a view advocated by the Le˙em Dim>ah, who detects an allusion to the Shek-
hinah, the true defense and refuge of Israel in time of trouble, and (more recently) by Gottwald (p. 11), who compares Zech 2:9
(English 2:5) for the image of God as a “wall of fire” (˙omat <e¡) around Jerusalem. Tg. presumably sees “O wall of the city of
Zion, etc.” as addressed by Jeremiah to Israel, in an encouraging response to its cries of contrition and repentance mentioned in
the previous hemistich. The exhortation continues in the following verse, where Tg. strongly applies it to his own time and his
own audience (see Notes ad loc.). But why not simply “O daughter of Zion, shed tears like a torrent, etc.”? What does “wall”
add? Perhaps Tg. saw it as expressing the intensity of the grief: Zion’s cries should be so loud and heartfelt that it seems as if
the stones of the city wall are weeping. For the trope of stones crying out see Hab 2:11; Luke 19:40.
65
MT pugat is a hapax legomenon (BDB 806a; HAL 916b). Tg. in effect offers a double translation: (1) “comfort, consola-
tion” (tn˙wm<); and (2) “respite, relaxation” (lpyg<). LXX eknepsin; Pesh. pwyg<; Vulg. requiem. Cf. 3:49, Heb. >eini niggerah
velo< tidmeh me<ein hafugot (AJV: “mine eye is poured out, and ceaseth not, without any intermission”) = Tg. “my eye sheds
tears and is not silent (ty¡twq) from weeping, because there is no-one to assuage my distress (p<yg >qty) and speak comfort
(tn˙wm<) to me.” The rendering in both verses is strikingly similar (note especially Tg. ti¡toq = Heb. tiddom in 2:18 [√dmm] and
Heb. tidmeh [√dmh II] in 3:49), and points to a single Targumist. Tg. clearly recognized in Heb. pugat/hafugot the MH/JA root
pwg, “vanish, evaporate” > (fig.) (1) “slacken,” and (2) “soothe” (Jast. 1138b; Sokoloff, JPA 425b). See further 3:39 Note 68.
66
Tg. bbt >ynk = Heb. bat >einakh (lit. “daughter of your eye”) (see Apparatus ddd). JA and Syr. preserved the noun babah
= “pupil (of the eye),” which occurs only once in MT, in Zech 2:12 (English 2:8), but should probably be read instead of bat
here and in Ps 17:8 (Jast. 136b; Sokoloff, JPA 83b; Payne Smith 442b). Cf. Deut 32:10, ke<i¡on >eino; Onq. (and Neof.) kbbt
>ynyhwn; Prov 7:2, ke<i¡on >eineyka; Tg. hyk bbt< d>yn<; but contrast Ps 17:8, ke<i¡on bat >ayin; Tg. kglgwl dy bmßy>wt >yn<; and
Zech 2:12 (English 2:8), nogea> bebabat >eino; Tg. mw¡yt ydyh lmqrb bglgly >ynwhy. Further, Intro. 5.3.
140   Translation

19. Arise, Congregation of Israel, that dwells in exile,67 engage in [the study of] the
Mishnah in the night (for the Shekhinah of the Lord dwells before you), and the words of the
Torah at the beginning of the morning watch.fff 68 Shed like water the pride of your heart,69
and turn in repentance, and pray in the synagogue before the face of the Lord. Raise to him
your hands in prayer, for the life of your young men who are parchedggg by hungerhhh at the
head of every marketplace.70
20. See,iii O Lord, and consider from heaven against whom you have turnedjjj in this way.
Is it fitting for the daughters of Israel to eat from hungerkkk the fruit of their wombs, the lovely

Apparatus, Chapter 2
fff DBomb omit “watch,” but MT <a¡murot. iii ˙my: BCDEGHIBomb and Yem. ˙zy. See Intro. 2.1.
ggg ¡yyn: see Yem. Apparatus kkk. jjj <stqypt< = Heb. >olalta. For the same rendering of this
hhh D omits “by hunger,” but MT be-ra>ab. Heb. verb see Tg. to 1:22.
kkk DBomb omit “from hunger” = MT.

Notes Chapter 2
67
In this verse Tg. hears the voice of Jeremiah directly addressing his own community in exile. For the “diaspora” situation
reflected here see Intro. 7.1.2.
68
Lit. “at the beginning of the watch of the first light” (see Apparatus fff). Tg. contrasts ro<¡ <a¡murot and laylah, taking
the former as denoting the beginning of the period of daylight and the latter the period of darkness. In other words, he under-
stands the <a¡murot as belonging to the daylight rather than the nighttime! In the biblical period the watches were divisions of
the night, and there were three of them. In the Talmudic era, however, some authorities, possibly following Roman practice,
divided daylight as well as darkness into watches and recognized four for each period: see the elaborate discussion in Lam.R.
2:19 §22, “Rabbi said: There are four watches in the night and four in the day .  .  . Rabbi Nathan said: There are three watches
in the night” (cf. y. Ber. I, 2d; b. Ber. 3a). Tg.’s interpretation makes sense on Rabbi’s view.
In ronni (lit. “cry out”) Tg. detects an allusion to the raising of the voice in study: the practice of conning a passage by
reciting it aloud was universal in early education, and has been maintained in the Yeshivah down to the present day. But for Tg.
Torah is twofold, oral, designated here by Mishnah, and written, designated by the Óumash: the study of the oral Torah is proper
to the night, the written Torah to the day. This idea, which may ultimately go back to an interpretation of the injunction in Josh
1:18 to study Torah “day and night,” is found elsewhere in early rabbinic texts. PRE 46 has Moses write down the Torah by day
and learn the Mishnah by night during his sojourn on Sinai. Even more remarkably, Tg. Cant. 5:10 (cf. Midrash Ps. 19:7) claims
God himself obeys this rule, thus urging its observance on the scholars as an imitatio dei: “Then Israel began to speak in praise
of the Sovereign of the World, and thus said: ’My pleasure is to worship that God who, wrapped by day in a robe white as snow,
engages in [the study of] the Twenty Four Books [comprising] the Torah, the words of the Prophets and the Writings, and [who]
by night engages in [the study of] the Six Orders of the Mishnah.’” The practice became widespread among the later Qabbalists
and the Hasidim (see Fine, Safed Spirituality, 17–18, where Tg. Lam. 2:19 is cited to justify it, and Alexander, Textual Sources,
135–36). Significantly Tg. sees this study of the Torah as part of the penitentials for the destruction of the Temple. He may be
thinking specifically of the rituals of his own community for 9th Ab (see Intro. 7.1.2). The locus classicus for the idea that the
Shekhinah is present with those who study Torah is m. <Abot 3:2. In context the thought is deeply consoling. The Shekhinah is
not to be experienced only in the Temple in Jerusalem: Israel can experience it in exile through the study of the Torah. See Tg.
to 3:41 (Note 57), and further Intro. 7.2.3.
69
Tg. seems to have taken the Heb. idiom “to pour forth the heart” as denoting not the outpouring of grief but the abandon-
ment of pride. The Aram. >qmwmyt is at first sight ambiguous. From √>qm = “be curved, twisted, not straight” (Sokoloff, JBA
877a), it could be, and in later Heb. sometimes is, used metaphorically in the sense of “crookedness, perversity, deceitfulness”
(Ben Yehudah 9:4679a): hence “shed the perversity of your heart,” which would make reasonable sense here. However, Jast.
1107b is probably correct to take the metaphorical sense in MH and JA as being “pride, haughtiness” (curved → protruding →
proud). This is the meaning in b. Sanh. 91a; b. Ber. 59a, and possibly Ps-J. Exod. 40:7: (see Le Déaut, Targum du Pentateuque,
note ad loc.). Note especially how Tg. renders Ps 62:19, “pour out before him your heart,” the one other occurrence of the
phrase in BH, by “pour out before him the pride of your heart (z˙w˙y lbkwn).” Though the wording is different (for z˙w˙ see
Tg. Lam. 3:33), the sense intended here is probably the same. The heart is often seen as the seat of pride in the Bible (e.g., Prov
21:4; Jer 48:29: BDB 525a, 6c). See Intro. 5.3.
70
For Aram. m˙wzyn = Heb. ˙ußot, see Tg. Lam. 4:1, Note 2. The reference to “markets” is piquant in context: it is at the
entrance to the marketplaces, where one would normally expect to find food, that the young men are dying. How this relates to
the experience of the Tg.’s own community is unclear. Were they experiencing famine, or is Tg. simply applying the text to his
own times with little thought to its precise relevance?
 Translation   141

young men71 whom they used to swaddle in sheets of fine wool?72 The Attribute of Justice
answered, and thus said: Is it fitting to murder in the House of the Sanctuary of the Lord the
priest and the prophet, as you murdered Zechariah the son of Iddo, the high priest and faith-
ful prophet, in the House of the Sanctuary of the Lord on the Day of Atonement, because he
admonished youlll not to do that which was evil before the Lord?73

Apparatus, Chapter 2
lll DEGHBomb “them,” but with breach of concord though GH have the 3rd person there (“that they
with the following verb (“that you should not do”), should not do”). The 2nd person is more pointed.

Notes Chapter 2
71
Tg. >wlmy< is not the obvious translation of Heb. >olelim. BH >olal = small child, whereas Aram. >ulem denotes a young
man. In Lam. 1:5 Tg. translates >olal by rabei, “boy” (but see Yem. 1:5, Apparatus nn, and further Intro. 1.3).
72
Heb. †ippu˙im is a hapax legomenon, which has been variously explained (see BDB 381b; HAL 378b; further Intro. 5.3).
Lam.R. 2:20 §53 relates it to †efa˙ = “a handbreadth” (Jast. 546a), and devises a story about a pious woman who measured
her growing son each year in handbreadths and donated a corresponding sum in gold to the Temple (see Note 73). Tg. seems
to postulate √†ph, meaning “swathe, or swaddle” = Aram. lpp. Note also Heb. †ippa˙ta = Tg. lpypyt in v. 22. The basis for this
is not clear.
73
Tg. heard two distinct voices in this verse. In the first half Jeremiah challenges God to consider what he has done to his
people. In the second half God replies, through the Attribute of Justice (cf. Tg. Lam. 1:1 and Intro. 4.3), by challenging Israel
to consider what she has done to his messengers. The second question answers the criticism implicit in the first. Thus in Tg. the
murder of the priest and prophet is perpetrated not by the enemy, but by Israel! Tg. detects in “priest and prophet” an allusion
specifically to the incident described in 2 Chr 24:20-22: “And the spirit of God came upon Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the
priest; and he stood above the people, and said to them, ‘Thus says God, Why do you transgress the commandments of the Lord,
so that you cannot prosper? Because you have forsaken the Lord, he has also forsaken you.’ And they conspired against him,
and stoned him with stones at the command of the king in the court of the House of the Lord. Thus Joash the king remembered
not the kindness which Jehoiada his father had done him, but slew his son.”
Tg. Lam. diverges from the biblical narrative in a number of ways: (1) He calls Zechariah a prophet. This, however, is
implicit in the biblical statement that the spirit of God came upon him. Note also 2 Chr 24:19, “Yet he sent prophets to them.
.  .  . ” (2) He designates Zechariah as “high priest,” whereas Chronicles calls him simply “priest.” However, priest can be used
in BH for high priest (BDB 464a [8]), and the enormity of the outrage is increased if Zechariah was the supreme pontiff. (3)
Tg., without obvious biblical authority, places the murder on the Day of Atonement (cf. Tg. 2 Chron. 24:20, which does the
same; Lam.R. Proem 23 and Eccl.R. 3:16 §1 say it happened on “a Sabbath which was also the Day of Atonement”). Again this
magnifies the heinousness of the crime. (4) Tg. implicitly throws the blame for the deed more onto the people as a whole than
Chronicles might suggest. (5) Tg. gives the name of Zechariah’s father as Iddo, whereas Chronicles has Jehoiada. Zechariah the
son of Iddo is named in Ezra 5:1 and 6:14 as one of the post-exilic prophets: he is clearly meant to be the same as Zechariah the
son of Berechiah, the son of Iddo of Zech 1:1. Tg. has simply confused the post-exilic Zechariah with the pre-exilic Zechariah
of 2 Chronicles 24. The same confusion is attested in Matt 23:35 (but not, apparently, in Luke 11:51; Intro. 6.3). Chronology
was not a strong point of the darshanim!
The idea that the murder of Zechariah was a major cause of the destruction of the first Temple is an old and deeply em-
bedded element in the tradition. According to a widespread rabbinic aggadah, the murdered Zechariah’s blood never dried, but
continued to seethe until Nebuzaradan, Nebuchadnezzar’s general, slaughtered young priests to appease it: see Tg. to 4:13, Note
34; further PRK 15.7; b. Gitt. 57b; b. Sanh. 96b; y. Ta>an. IV, 69a/b; 2 Tg. Esth 1:2, 12 (with Ego’s notes ad loc.); Lam.R. Proem
5; Proem 23; 2:2 §4; 4:13 §16; Eccl.R. 3:16 §1; Vitae Prophetarum, Zechariah son of Jehoiada (ed. Schwemer 2:283–321);
Matt 23:35 (with Strack-Billerbeck’s note ad loc.); Luke 11:51; Ginzberg, Legends 4:258–59, 304; 6:396–97; McNamara, New
Testament and Palestinian Targum, 160–63.
For a generally similar reading of this verse (though note the differences in detail) see Lam.R. 2:20 §23 (cf. Lam.R. 1:16
§51; b. Yom. 38b): “It is related that Doeg ben Joseph died and left a young son to his mother, who used to measure him by
handbreadths and give his weight in gold to the Temple every year. When, however, the besieging army surrounded Jerusa-
lem, his mother slaughtered him with her own hand and ate him; and Jeremiah lamented before the Omnipresent, saying, See,
O Lord, and consider to whom you have done thus! Shall the women eat their own fruit, the children they have measured in
hand breadths? But the holy spirit retorted, Shall the priest and prophet be murdered in the sanctuary of the Lord? referring to
Zechariah the son of Jehoiada.”
142   Translation

21. The young men and the old,mmm who were accustomed to lie on woollen mattresses
and ivory couches,74 sleep75 on the ground in the marketplaces.nnn My virgins and my youths
have fallen, killedooo by the sword. You have killed [them] in the day of your anger; you have
slaughtered, and have not spared.ppp
22. You will proclaim freedom to your people, the House of Israel, by the hand of the
King Messiah,qqq as you did by the hand of Moses and Aaron on the day of Passover,rrr 76 andsss
my young men shall be gathered around, from every place whither they were dispersed77 in
the day of the fierceness of your anger, O Lord, and there was not among them survivor or
remnant.78 Those whom I swaddled in sheetsttt and reared with royal delicacies—my enemies
have destroyed them.

Apparatus, Chapter 2
mmm >wlymy< wsby<: BI and Yem. >wlym< wsb< (“the young ooo Reading q†ylyn with EGH and Yem. for A q†lyn.
man and the old”) = MT (na>ar we-zaqen). ppp ˙st<: E ˙mlt< (“and had no pity”) = MT.
nnn “In the marketplaces”; cf. Yem. DBomb “of the qqq DBomb “by the hand of the Messiah.”
marketplaces,” but this involves construing Heb. rrr On the day of Passover”: B “on the day when you
<ereß as construct before ˙ußot; cf. LXX eis g∑n ex- brought Israel out of Egypt”; EG “on the day when
odøn, contrary to the Masoretic voweling (la-<areß they came out of Egypt.” See Note 76.
˙ußot), which intends ˙ußot as an adverbial acc. of sss DBomb “when (d-) .  .  . ”
place, “in the streets”: so Pesh. (>al <ar>a b¡uqe<) ttt For this rendering of Heb. tippa˙ti see v. 20, Note
and Vulg. (in terra foris), as well as Tg. 72.

Notes Chapter 2
74
Tg.’s addition contrasts the former luxury of the people with their present plight. He echoes Amos 6:4-7, which threatens
exile on “those now lying on beds of ivory and lounging on their couches” (ha-¡okhebim >al mi††ot ¡en u-seru˙im >al >arsœotam:
cf. Tg. ad loc.). The implication is that Amos’ prophecy that the conspicuous luxury of the ruling class and their failure to do
justice to the poor would end in disaster was being fulfilled. “Ivory couches”: lit. “couches of the tusk of elephant.”
75
Aram dmkw = Heb. ¡akkebu. It is clear from his addition that Tg. does not take ¡akhebu here as meaning “lie dead” (Ibn
Ezra: “sleep with their fathers”), but as literally “sleep.” He thus introduces a contrast between the destitution of the “young and
old,” whose houses have been destroyed and who are compelled to sleep out of doors, and the “virgins and youths” of the latter
part of the verse, who have been killed. This offers a richer reading of the verse.
76
Tg. manages to introduce a note of messianic hope by stressing the future tense of the verb tiqra< and by interpreting
the “day of solemn assembly (yom mo>ed)” as alluding specifically to Pesa˙ (see Apparatus rrr, and note Tg.’s rendering of the
same phrase by “day of Passover” in 2:7, Note 25 above). The biblical text is thus seen as alluding to the future Exodus from
exile that will be effected by the Messiah, a theme prominent in Tg. Cant. (see Alexander, Targum Canticles, 13–18). On the
Messiah in Tg. Lam. see Intro. 4.3.
77
MT’s megurai missabib is problematic. Most commentators relate megurai to √gwr III, “dread, fear,” hence “fear, ter-
ror” (BDB 159a). So Vulg. qui terrerent me de circuitu, perhaps reading megorerai, and possibly also Pesh. (b>ldbby, “my
enemies”). LXX’s paroikias mou implies a derivation from √gwr I, “sojourn, dwell” (BDB 157b). The phrase magor missabib
occurs in Jer 6:25; 20:3, 10; 46:5; and 49:29, and again the standard modern rendering is “terror on every side.” However, Tg. in
all these passages seems to take magor in the sense of “gathering together.” Note also Tg.’s translation of megurei in Ezek 21:17
(English 21:12), and Symmachus to Jer 20:3, “ablatum sive congregatum et coactum” (Jerome). (Field 2:624 n. 7: “Cum Sym-
macho, ut videtur, concinit Jarchi [i.e., Rashi], qui notat: ‘Nomen magor hic significant congregationem [<asifah], ut Ezech.
xxi. 17, congregati [megurei] ad gladium.” Cf. Hayward, Targum Jeremiah, 105). Tg. here has taken the same view, which may
be based on deriving magor from BH and MH √<gr, “collect, gather” (BDB 8b; Jast. 13b). In the context of the eschatological
redemption “my gatherings [will be] from round about” could only have meant to Tg. the ingathering of the exiles.
78
Hardly to be taken literally, since Tg. believes there will ultimately be an ingathering of exiles.
 Translation   143

Chap t e r 3
1. I1 am the man2 who has seena 3 afflictionb by the rod of him who chastises4 in his anger.
2. He has led and brought me intoc darkness, and not into light.d 5
3. Assuredly against me he will turn; he will heap upon me his blows all the day.6
4. My flesh has grown old7 from wounds, and my skin from blows;8 he has broken my
bones.
5. He has built against me siege-workse 9 and surrounded the city, and uprooted the heads
of the people,f and wearied them.g 10
Apparatus, Chapter 3
a ˙m<: BDEGHIBomb ˙z<; cf. Yem. ˙zy. e krkwmyn: Yem. krqwmyn: see Note 9.
b Emending A >ynwwyh to >ynwy (Jast. 1072b; Sokoloff, f DBomb “the peoples,” but only the people of Israel are
JBA 857b). Cf. >ynwy in v. 19 and Yem. >(y)nwy<. West. in view.
mss are surprisingly unsure how to spell the word. MT g Reading ¡lhy <ynwn with CG (two words), or ¡lhy<ynwn
>oni. with DBomb (one word), for A ¡lhy<wnwn. ⁄lhy here
c DBomb omit “into.” The prep. could have fallen out by has an active sense “cause to be weary, wear out” (Jast.
haplography, but it is missing in MT. 1578b). See v. 65 below.
d lnhwr<: DBomb l<nhr< (<af. inf.!).

Notes Chapter 3
1
In chapter 3 the acrostic assigns three consecutive verses to each letter of the Hebrew alphabet. Tg. usually ignores the
acrostic, but note vv. 16-18 (waw), 25-27 (†et), and 37-39 (mem). See further Intro. 5.1.
2
Tg. resists the temptation to identify the “man” (geber) of the Hebrew text, perhaps taking him as self-evidently Jeremiah,
whom he regards as the author of Lamentations (Tg. to 1:1). He finds some direct allusions to Jeremiah’s life (see vv. 52-58,
Note 70; cf. also vv. 6 and 7), but for the most part he regards Jeremiah as speaking as a representative of the exiled people, and
in their name. Lam.R. 2:1 §1 suggests identifying the geber with Jeremiah, the Community of Israel and Job.
3
Tg. correctly construes Heb. ra<ah as an asyndetic relative clause (Joüon-Muraoka §158a).
4
Tg. is not happy to take “rod” as a symbol of “anger,” but rather, prosaically, assumes that the anger belongs to the one
wielding the rod, which symbolizes the physical punishment inflicted. Though he does not say so, the implication is that the
punisher is God. Cf. Rashi: “In his anger: [the anger] of him who chastises and strikes [rodeh umakkeh], namely the Holy One,
blessed be he.”
5
Tg., with LXX, Pesh., Vulg., and commentators, takes ˙o¡ek we-lo< <or as accusatives of place (Joüon-Muraoka §126h).
Lam.R. 3:2 §1 seems to detect a more benign sense in the verse: “He has led me in this world, which is called darkness and
not light” (cf. Note 6 below).
6
The addition of “upon me” suggests Tg. did not take ya¡ub as modal (“he will turn his hand against me again and again”
[see Renkema and Hillers]). “He will heap”: lit. “he will roll” (Aram. yglgl = Heb. yahafokh). “His blows” for Heb. “his hand”
brings out the hostility seemingly latent in the expression “to turn the hand against” (BDB 245a), but also avoids the anthro-
pomorphism. Cf Leqa˙ ˇob: “ .  .  . with blows differing one from another, one decree following rapidly another.” Lam.R. 3:3
§1 again (Note 5 above) manages to find a positive message, based on the future tenses of the verbs: “R. Simeon b. Laqish
said: This teaches that although the Holy One, blessed be he, abandons the righteous in this world, he relents and has mercy on
them [in the world to come]. Hence it is written, But to me he shall return; he shall turn back his hand all the day” (cf. Yalqu†
Shim>oni §1036).
7
MT reads billah besœari, “he has worn out my flesh” (cf. LXX epalaiøsen sarka mou; Vulg. vetustam fecit pellem meam),
but it is possible Tg. read balah besœari, “my flesh has worn out.” Tg. could be vocalized >atteq, but the (causative) pa. form is
less likely than the pe. (Jast. 1130b; Sokoloff, JPA 422b). Lam.R. 3:4 §2 sees in “flesh” an allusion to the Community, and in
“skin” an allusion to the Sanhedrin: “as the skin covers the flesh [and protects it], so the Sanhedrin covers Israel.”
8
The addition “from blows” picks up “his blows” in v. 3.
9
Aram. krkwmyn, but see Apparatus d. Jast. 669b derives from √krk, “to surround,” but the noun is better taken with
Krauss 299a, followed by Sokoloff, JPA 270a, as a loanword from Greek charakøma, “palisaded enclosure, entrenched camp”
(LSJ 1977b). It has nothing to do with the Latin circum (pace Levine). See 1:9 and Intro. 2.2.
10
Heb. is difficult. AJV translates: “He hath builded against me, and compassed me with gall and travail.” Tg. interprets
concretely of the siege of Jerusalem and the exiling of the leadership, implying God as subject. He does not recognize Heb.
144   Translation

6. In a prison-househ 11 of darknessi he has made me dwell, like the dead who have gone
to another world.j 12
7. He has locked me up,k so that I cannot go out from incarceration;13 he has made heavy
upon my feet l fetters of brass.14

Apparatus, Chapter 3
h Lit. “house of chains” (byt <swryn: Jast. 89a); EGI byt <ys- k Lit. “he has locked [sc. the door] behind me.” A1 has
wryn = DBomb byt yyswryn (“house of chastisements”); the verb †rq (see Note 13), but A2BCDEFGHIBomb and
Yem. (most mss) byt <syryn (“house of prisoners”). Yem. have sgr (“he has closed”). The same variant oc-
i EG “(house of chastisements) and darkness.” curs in v. 19 (see n below). In both cases MT has gadar.
j BFI “to another people,” but MT has >olam. l DEHBomb “his feet.”

Notes Chapter 3
ro<¡ here in the sense of “gall, poison, venom” (BDB 912b; cf. Rashi who cites as parallel Deut 29:17, ro<¡ we-la>anah). Contrast
v. 19 below, where he renders la>anah wa-ro<¡ by “wormwood and the venom of serpents.” Lam.R. 3:5 §2 also sees an allusion
to the siege of Jerusalem, but finds in ro<¡ a reference to Nebuchadnezzar (the “head” of gold in Dan 2:38), or to Vespasian, and
in tela<ah a reference to Nebuzaradan or to Trajan. Its implied translation then is: “‘Gall’ [= Nebuchadnezzar/Vespasian] built
against me, and ‘Weariness’ [= Nebuzaradan/Trajan] besieged [me].” See further Note 93 below.
11
Lit. “house of chastisements” (byt yswryn). The addition anticipates v. 7, which speaks of being walled in without es-
cape and fettered with heavy chains. Tg. here probably does not mean that the speaker refers to a literal prison (though Jeremiah
was imprisoned: see Note 70 below) or to literal death. Rather, he sees “the prison-house of darkness” and “the other world”
as metaphors of the exile. Note Leqa˙ ˇob: “ .  .  . as the dead, therefore not actually dead, hence teaching that hope remains.”
Lam.R. 3:6 §2 (cf. b. AZ 5a) takes “dwelling in darkness” here as a reference to blindness, and concludes that the blind are as
good as dead.
12
Heb. >olam in ke-metei >olam is normally taken in a temporal sense: AJV “those that have been long dead” (cf. LXX høs
nekrous aiønos; Vulg. quasi mortuos sempiternos; Pesh. <yk myt< [correct to plur.! Albrektson] l>lm). Tg. takes it in the sense
of “the next world.” Tg.’s >lm <w˙rn is not exactly synonymous with >alma< de<atei, “the world to come” (= Heb. >olam ha-ba<),
since the latter normally has positive connotations, whereas “the other world” here is implicitly a place of punishment and
correction. The “other world” must, therefore, be Gehinnom. There is an extensive early Jewish literature on the punishments
of the damned in hell: see 3 Enoch 44:2-3, “The souls of the wicked are brought down to Sheol by two angels of destruction,
Za>afi<el and Samki<el. Samki<el is in charge of the intermediate, to support and purify them from sin, through the abundant
mercies of the Omnipresent One. Za>afi<el is appointed to bring down the souls of the wicked from the presence of the Holy
One, blessed be he, from the judgment of the Shekhinah, to Sheol, to punish them with fire in Gehinnom, with rods of burning
coal” (see Alexander, OTP 1:294, note c ad loc.; further Himmelfarb, Tours of Hell, and more generally on the fate of souls after
death Sysling, Te˙iyyat ha-Metim, 192–208). The image of Sheol as a prison is old: note 1 Pet 3:19 with Strack-Billerbeck ad
loc. The phrase “other world” occurs in Neof. and Ps-J. to Gen. 4:8 in a context of judgment: “Cain answered and said to Abel,
‘There is no judgment and no judge and no other world; there is no rewarding of the righteous nor punishing of the wicked.’
Abel answered and said: ‘Certainly there is judgment and a judge and another world; there is a rewarding of the righteous and
a punishing of the wicked.’ And because of these words they fell into a dispute in the open field” (Ps-J.). Cf. m. Ber. 9:5, “At
the close of the Benediction in the Temple they used to say, Min ha->olam (from everlasting), but after the heretics (minim) had
taught corruptly that there is but one world (>olam <e˙ad) it was ordained that they should say, Min ha->olam we->ad ha->olam
(from everlasting to everlasting).”
Psalm 143:3 is identical in wording to Lam 3:6, but Tg. there translates rather differently: <wtbny b˙¡wky< hyk ¡kyby >lm<
hdyn.
13
Tg. treats the waw of we<lo< <eße< as expressing result or purpose (Joüon-Muraoka §116). “Incarceration” = Aram. †ryq<,
a rare word from √†rq, “bolt, fasten (a door)” (Jast. 557b). In Modern Hebrew †araq can be used of slamming a door. See Yem.
Apparatus k for a variant reading. Lam.R. 3:7 §3 finds allusion specifically to the “dungeons” of the Arabs (reading masger for
bsgr; cf. Isa 24:22 and Ps 42:8, with Tgs ad loca), the “forts” (qs†r< = Latin castra) of the Romans (text reads “Persians”—per-
haps a censorial change), and the “territory” (ma†lit) of the Samaritans = “the Samaritan enclave (between Galilee and Judaea)”
(Jast. 768a; cf. Scholion to Megillat Ta>anit 8, 25th Mar˙eshvan [ed. Noam, 96]). The passage is a notorious crux. Cohen in the
Soncino trans. (Lamentations, 191 n. 5) suggests “mines of the Samaritans,” following Levy, Wörterbuch 3:88b (“Bergwerk
oder Steinbruch”). The text in Yalqu† Shim>oni (§1037) is somewhat different, but equally problematic. The “incarceration”
here is figurative, but there may be a secondary allusion to Jeremiah’s own incarceration: see Note 70 below.
14
MT vowelling ne˙o¡ti is anomalous. When used of bronze fetters ne˙o¡et occurs elsewhere in the dual (ne˙u¡tayim):
see Judg 16:21; 2 Sam 3:24 (BDB 639a). It would be easy to repoint here ne˙u¡tai, but the sg. is old: note LXX chalkon mou
 Translation   145

8. Moreover, whenm I [would] cry out and pray, the house of my prayer is closed up.15
9. He has shut upn my ways with hewn marble stones;16 he has confoundedo 17 my paths.p
10. A lurking bear was he to me, a lion who hides on the track.q 18

Apparatus, Chapter 3
m <rwm, in an unusual temporal sense, here, as often else- o sr<k: so also Yem. (srk); BD2GIBomb sr<w (? “have
where, translates ki, which in BH can mean “when” gone astray”); Lag. srb (“interlaced, rejected”: see r
(BDB 473a [2a]). The translation is mechanical, but below). Further Note 17.
as a result the semantic range of <rwm is extended to p BEHI “his paths,” but MT derakhai.
match that of ki. q C “in the hiding-places” (b†wmry<: Jast. 524b), echoing
n trq: BCDEFGHIBomb sgr (“he has closed”). See k the verb: = MT be-mistarim.
above.

Notes Chapter 3
and Vulg. compedem meum. Tg.’s kblyn dn˙¡t< (cf. Ibn Ezra) leaves open how he vocalized the word, as does Pesh.’s <swr<. Lam.
R. 3:7 §3 identifies the fetters with three types of taxes: “taxes on produce of the land (<arnoniyyot = Latin annonae), state-taxes
(dimosya<ot = Greek d∑mosia), and poll-taxes (gulgola<ot).”
15
The general sense of Tg. seems to be that God does not hear the plaintiff’s prayer. Tg. has taken the Heb. hapax legome-
non sœatam, with sœin, as a variant spelling of satam, with samekh. Indeed, Tg.’s Heb. text may have had the spelling with samekh,
which is attested in a number of Masoretic mss. √stm (with samekh) in BH and MH = “to stop up, shut up” (BDB 711a; Jast.
1031b). Tg.’s recasting as a passive may be a mild case of anti-anthropomorphism.
The force of “house of my prayer” or “my house of prayer” is unclear. “House of prayer” could denote the synagogue
(Schürer 2:425–27, 439–40; Danker, Lexicon 878a; cf. Greek proseuch∑), or the (eschatological) Temple (Isa 56:7), but it is
hard to see how a reference to either the synagogue or the Temple would fit the context here. The sense might be that the poet
is unable under the constraints of exile to pray with a congregation, either in the synagogue or in the Temple, prayer with the
congregation being seen as the only effective form of prayer. Cf. PRK 24.2, which implies that effective prayer is limited to the
times of prayer with the congregation because it is only at that time that “the (heavenly) gates of prayer” are open: “Repentance
is like the sea. Just as the sea is always open to all, so the gates of repentance are always open to all. Prayer, however, is like
a ritual bath. As a ritual bath is open sometimes and closed at others, so the gates of prayer are open sometimes and barred at
others.” (However, an alternative view is then expressed, emphasizing the efficacy of private prayer and asserting that “the gates
of prayer are always open.”) Lam.R. 3:8 §3 also sees a reference here to praying with the congregation, and warns people not
to arrive late for the service. But this interpretation is forced. Tg. probably intended to express the same idea as Rashi: “He has
stopped up my prayer. He has stopped up the windows of heaven against it.” Tg.’s byt ßlwty is the place or opening in heaven
where the prayer would pass through to God. Cf. 3:44 and Note 62 below.
16
Heb. gazit = Tg. mrmyryn psyln. Designating the stones as “marble” (Greek marmaros: Intro. 2.2) serves little purpose,
since the function of the stones is to block the way, not to decorate it. Note Yem. variant <bnyn psyln. Neither gazit nor <abnei
gazit is translated elsewhere by mrmyryn psyln in the Tg.
17
MT netibotai >iwwah = Tg. ¡byly srk. The correct reading of the verb is srk (see Apparatus o and r, and Note 19 below).
Tg. uses srk to translate the po>lel of swr in 3:11 (Heb. derakhai sorer = Tg. <wr˙y srk) and the pi. of >wt in Lam 3:36 and Eccl
1:15 (Heb. me>uwwat = Tg. gbr dy srykn <wr˙tyh). Note also Lam 3:59, >awwatati = Tg. srwk dsrykw ly. Tg. may not have distin-
guished between the Hebrew roots >wh and >wt. In Eccl 10:3 Tg. glosses Heb. derekh, on the basis of the context, <wr˙< sryk<.
Aramaic srk (with samekh) is equivalent to BH sœrk (with sœin) and, like >wh/>wt pi., has the basic meaning of “twist”: cf. BH
sœerokh, “a sandal thong” (as something twisted, or criss-crossed over the foot) (BDB 976b). From this two metaphorical mean-
ings were derived: (1) “pervert”: Tg. Lam. 3:36, 59; Tg. Eccl. 1:15; 10:3; and (2) “confuse, confound”: so Tg. here and in v. 11,
as indicated by the context. In contrast to Tg. Eccl. 1:15 and 10:3, it is unlikely that the sense “pervert” applies here: “he [God]
has perverted my paths” = “caused me to sin”! For the idea of “confounding/confusing paths” cf. Jer 2:23. where the Heb. verb
sœrk is used of a young she-camel galloping aimlessly about (Heb. mesœarekhet derakheyha = Tg. mqlql< <wr˙th<). LXX, tribous
mou etaraxe (see Albrektson, 132–33); Pesh. ¡byly >qm; Vulg. semitas meas subvertit. This root srk is not related to the Qumran
Hebrew noun serekh, “order, rule” (on the derivation of which see Alexander, EDSS sub “Rules”). Lam.R. 3:9 §3 offers two
interpretations of Heb. >iwwah: (1) “confuse, confound,” and (2) “make desolate, destroy” (on the basis of Ezek 21:32).
18
Tg.’s bkby¡< is not an obvious rendering for MT be-mistarim. BH mistar means “secret place, hiding-place” (BDB
712b), kby¡<, “path, road, way” (cf. Tg. Ps. 78:50 = Heb. natib; Tg. 1 Sam. 6:12 = Heb. mesillah). Mistarim is used in Ps 10:8,
146   Translation

11. My ways he has confounded,r 19 and has torn me in pieces;20 he has made me
desolate.
12. He has bent his bow, and has set me as a targets 21 for the arrow.
13. He has caused to enter into my innards the arrows of his quiver.22

Apparatus, Chapter 3
r All West. mss have sr(<)b, but the root is problematic. dering here of MT >iwwah. Emend to srk: see o above,
Jast. 1022a proposes a meaning “interlace, confound,” rr below, and Notes 17 and 19. Some Yem. mss have
but in all the occurrences he cites, srk is attested as a sdr (“he has ordered”), others srr (? “he has turned
variant. There was probably no such verb srb: what we aside”): see Yem. Apparatus o.
have is an old textual corruption that has been widely s plgl(y)s< is the spelling attested in both West. and Yem.
disseminated (cf. >Arukh, sub srk). A verb srb in the (though some mss divide the word into two). Jast.
sense of “refuse” is well established, and occurs in v. 1176b lists under plgys<, following the >Arukh. The
42 below (see bbb below), but it would be a poor ren- derivation is uncertain: see Note 21.

Notes Chapter 3
9 and 17:12, as here, of a “hiding-place,” or “covert” where an enemy or a wild beast can lie in ambush. Tg. Ps. translates on
all three occasions †wmry<. Tg. Lam. has already caught the idea of concealment implict in mistarim by adding “who hides”
(dmytmr): hence Jast.’s suggestion (608a) that kby¡< here has the unusual meaning “recess, secret” is unnecessary. Kby¡< may
have been influenced by the parallel in Hos 13:7-8, “I am like a lion to them, like a leopard I watch beside the way (Heb. ke-
namer >al derekh <a¡ur = Tg. knmr< kmnr< >l ¡byl<); I fall upon them like a bear robbed of her cubs.”
Tg. resists historically contextualizing the verse. Contrast Lam.R. 3:10 §4, “A bear lying in wait is he to me: this refers
to Nebuchadnezzar; A lion in secret places: this refers to Nebuzaradan. Another interpretation: A bear lying in wait refers to
Vespasian; A lion in secret places to Trajan.” The parallel in b. Meg. 11a identifies the “lion” with Babylon and the “bear” with
Persia on the basis of Dan 7:5.
19
The correct reading in the Tg. is srk: see Apparatus r and Note 17 above. In v. 9 srk = Heb. >iwwah, but here = Heb.
sorer. The meaning of sorer has been much debated. BDB 694a takes it as the po>lel of swr, “turn aside”: hence “he turned aside
my ways” (my steps). Tg. may presuppose the same derivation, but took the sense to be not that God had caused the speaker
to stray from the path, but that he has made the paths themselves tortuous and difficult (as in v. 9). Rashi suggests sorer is a
denominative verb from sir, “thorn”: “he has spread thorns on my paths.” Ibn Ezra relates it to Hos 4:16, ki ke-farah sorerah
sarar Yisœra<el, where he takes sarar to mean that “Israel has turned aside from the way”: a parah sorerah is one that a farmer
cannot plow with, because it cannot keep a straight line (see his note to Hos 4:16). But it is unclear how he construes the Heb.
in Lam 3:11. Has he taken sorer as a po>el of the root srr, in a causative sense (GK §52c): “he has caused my paths to stray,” or
“turned aside my paths”? This is not far from the Tg.
20
P¡˙ is a hapax legomenon in BH, but it is preserved in MH (Lam.R. 3:11 §4 quotes m. Sheb. 4:6) and JA (e.g., Tg. 1 Sam.
15:33 = Heb. ¡issef) in the sense of “split, tear in two, tear off” (Jast. 1245b), and Tg. seems to have had no difficulty recognizing
it. He renders here, however, not with the cognate p¡˙, but with the synonym ¡s> (Jast. 1608a; BDB 1042b).
21
It is clear from the context here, and in 1 Sam 20:20 and Job 10:12, that Heb. ma††ara</ma††arah means a “target” or
“mark” (at which one shoots): cf. here LXX (skopos), Vulg. (signum), and Pesh. (ny¡<). Tg. renders plglys< (see Apparatus s) on
all occurrences, which presumably has the same meaning, but the derivation of this word is uncertain. See Intro. 2.2.
Tg. does not follow Lam.R. 3:12 §4 in deriving “hope” from yaßßibeni. The midrash takes the verb nßb as meaning “stand
firm,” citing Onq. to Deut 29:9 in support: Israel will stand firm and survive all the blows that befall her. Two images are used to
make the point: (1) Israel is like a target (qorat hißßim, lit. beam for arrows) that, though everyone fires at it, remains standing;
and (2) Israel is like a shield to a throwing javelin, reading ke-farma le-<asparusa< with the >Arukh (sub parma): the blows of the
enemy glance off Israel like a light throwing spear (Latin sparus) off a shield (Latin parma = Greek parm∑). Jast.’s suggestion
(adopted by the Soncino translation) that the words mean “like a wedge to a log” (“the wedge [Israel] is struck, but the log [the
hostile nations] is split” [96b; 150b]) is ingenious, but seems to lack any solid basis. If ke-farma le-<asparusa< is a translation
of the Heb. ka-ma††ara< la-˙eß, as seems to be the case, then ma††ara< = parma, and ˙eß = <asparusa<. Óeß normally denotes
an arrow, but the extension of the term to a light throwing spear is not improbable. Ma††ara< = shield is more puzzling, but cf.
English “target,” which can denote both a mark to shoot at and a small shield.
22
Heb. “sons of his quiver.” LXX and Vulg. translate literally (but see Albrektson on the LXX reading). Tg. and Pesh.
“cash” the metaphor.
 Translation   147

14. I have become a laughing-stock to all the dissolute of my people,t 23 and they sing
about me24 all day long.
15. He has sated me with the gall of serpents;25 he has made me drunk with wormwood.u 26
16. And27 he has ground down my teeth with gravel;v 28 he has humbled me in ashes.29
Apparatus, Chapter 3
t I “the people,” but MT “my people.” b- before the second object.
u <rwwny gyd<: Tg. represents exactly MT hirwani v Reading prydn with C for A pryrn: see Tg. to 5:5, with
la>anah with the double accusative. EGI insert the prep. Apparatus k and Note 11 there.

Notes Chapter 3
23
Tg. clearly reads >ammi, with the majority of MT mss, LXX, Symmachus, and Vulg., but was as puzzled as modern com-
mentators why the people of Israel should mock the poet, given that they shared his fate. Hence the qualification, “the dissolute of
my people (pryßy >my)”: it is only the parißei ha-dor (y. Ber. I, 4b bot.), those who have abandoned faith in God and broken through
the restraints of the Torah, who indulged in the mockery, not the people as a whole. Lam.R. 3:14 §5 (cf. Proem 17), interpreting
this verse in the light of Ps 69:13, sees a (disapproving) reference to those who read Lamentations on the 9th of Ab in a state of
drunkenness: “They that sit in the gate and talk of me (Ps 69:13) refers to the Israelites who sit in the Synagogues and Houses of
Study. And I am the song of the drunkards (neginot ¡otei ¡ekhar): after they sit eating and drinking and becoming intoxicated at the
meal before the 9th of Ab, they sit reading Lamentations (Qinot), and lament with Eikhah.” Ibn Ezra suggests “my people” here
may mean “all the people who are under my authority,” i.e., my household, comparing “Amalek and his people” (Exod 17:13).
However, more than 50 MT mss and Pesh. read >ammim. Lam.R. 3:14 §5 offers an alternative interpretation that seems to reflect
this reading (which is sebir in the masoretic tradition). It illustrates how the nations mock Israel by citing examples of satirical,
anti-Jewish sketches that they put on in their “theatres and circuses”: “They ask one another, ‘How long do you want to live?’ To
which they reply, ‘As long as the shirt of a Jew which is worn on the sabbath!’ They then take a camel into their theatres, with his
covers on him, and ask one another, ‘Why is he in mourning?’ To which they reply: ‘The Jews are observing the laws of the sab-
batical year and have no vegetables, so they are eating this camel’s thorns, and that’s why he is in mourning!’”
24
Heb. (hayiti) neginatam, “(I have become) their song.” For neginah in the sense of “a mocking song” see Ps 69:13 (Heb.
neginot = Tg. zmryn) and Job 30:9 (Heb. neginatam = Tg. zmrhwn). Further Note 89 below.
25
Heb. merorim = “bitter herbs.” Lam.R. 3:15 §5 (cf. Proem 18) naturally finds an allusion to Passover, and makes a con-
nection between Passover and 9th Ab: “He has sated me with bitter herbs refers to the first nights of Passover, of which it is
written, They shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs [merorim] (Num 9:11). He has made me drunk with worm-
wood. Just as he sated me on the first night of Passover, so he made me drunk with wormwood on the night of the 9th Ab. The
first night of Passover falls on the same day of the week as the night of the 9th of Ab.” LXX pikrias (Num 9:11, pikridøn); Vulg.
amaritudinibus (Num 9:11 lactucis agrestibus); Pesh. mrare< (Num 9:11, merara<, sg.!). Tg. seems deliberately to shy away
from the link with Passover. His “gall of serpents” (mryrt ˙ywn) is based on Job 20:14, merorat petanim, “gall of asps” (but Tg.
ad loc. <yrs< ˙wrmnyn). Cf. v. 19 below, where Job 20:16 seems to have influenced Tg.’s translation of ro<¡.
26
Tg. gyd< = Heb. la>anah, the standard Tg. rendering of the Heb. term. Both are usually taken to denote “wormwood” (see
Löw, Die Flora der Juden 1:386–90; HAL 533a).
27
Tg. manages to begin each stich with waw, as in the Hebrew, probably more by accident than design.
28
MT wayyagres be-haßaß ¡innai = Tg. wrßß bprydn ¡ny. Tg. pointedly avoids using the obvious cognates. Grs, “crush,
grind,” which occurs in BH only here (hif.) and Ps 119:20 (qal), is attested in MH (Jast. 270b), JA (Jast. 270b), and Syriac
(Payne Smith 785a). Tg. chose, however, to use the synonym rßß (Sokoloff, JPA 529a). So too haßaß, “gravel, coarse sand,” is
found in JA (Jast. 496a: note Prov 20:17, “his mouth shall be filled with gravel [Heb. haßaß; Tg. haßaßa<]),” and Syriac (Payne
Smith 1354b), but Tg. again chose the synonym prydn. Pesh. also avoids the obvious cognates: wtbr bk<p< ¡ny.
The midrash sees here a reference to coarse, poor bread with grit in it, which wears down, or breaks, the teeth. Cf. Rashi:
“Haßaß: small stones in the dust. Those who were going into exile were kneading their dough in pits which they dug in the
ground, and the grit was getting into it. The Holy One, blessed be he, had said to Ezekiel, Prepare for yourself utensils for exile
(Ezek 12:3), [something] to drink from, and [something] in which to knead a small cake of bread, so that the people should
learn [from you] and do likewise, as it is said: And Ezekiel will be a sign for you (Ezek 24:24). But they were making fun of
him and did not do as he did, so in the end their teeth were broken.” (Based on Eikhah Rabbati, ed. Buber, p. 128; the passage
is missing from the textus receptus of Lam.R.) Note also Lam.R. 3:16 §6: “Whenever Rab had a meal [before the 9th of Ab],
he took a small piece of bread, sprinkled some ashes upon it, and said [when eating it], ‘This is the meal before the 9th of Ab,
to fulfill what is said, And he has ground down my teeth with grit; he has humbled me in the dust.’” Tg. probably also saw a
reference to grit in bread, though he does not spell out this idea.
29
Tg. kn> yty bqy†m< = Heb. hikpi¡ani ba<efer. Kp¡ is a hapax legomenon in BH, and the meaning is uncertain. BDB
499a suggests the root sense is “bend,” hif. “make bent,” hence “he has made me cower in the ashes.” HAL 495b suggests
148   Translation

17. And my soul shrank from asking for peace;w 30 I forgot prosperity.
18. And I said: Destroyedx is my strength, and the goodness for which I was hoping31
from before the Lord.32
19. Remember the affliction of my soul, and how my enemiesy have caused me bitterness,z
and have made me drink wormwood and the venom of serpents.33

Apparatus, Chapter 3
w mlm¡<l ¡lm: BCEFGHI introduce the obj. with b- (b¡lm<). y A reads “how the sons of men, my enemies,” but omit
See Note 30. “sons of men,” with the remaining mss. The phrase is
x hwbd: Miq. Ged. <wbd. not in MT.
z Reading “caused me bitterness” (<mryrw) with BCDE-
FGHIBomb for A “caused me to rebel” (<mrydw): cf.
MT merudi (Note 33), and see Yem. Apparatus x.

Notes Chapter 3
“tread down.” LXX epsømise me, “he fed me,” possibly thinking of Ps 101(102):10, “for I have eaten ashes as bread” (see
Albrektson), but also influenced by the first half of the stich; Vulg. cibavit me; Pesh. plny, “he has sprinkled me.” Rashi: “He
has overturned me in the ashes like a pot overturned upon its mouth”; Ibn Ezra: “He has defiled me.” In later Hebrew the verb
is used in the sense of “press down, trample” (Even-Shoshan, Millon 3:796c). All the translations, including Tg., seem to be
guesses essentially based on the context.
Tg.’s qi†ma< indicates he takes Heb. <efer to mean “ash” rather than more generally “dust” (>afar). For qi†ma< = “ash” see
Onq. Num. 19:9, where it renders Heb. <efer, which there unquestionably means “ash.” In 3:29 Tg. has >pr< for Heb. >afar. In
2:10, however, Tg. strikingly renders Heb. >afar by <pr mqlh, “ashes of a cooking fire,” a Hebraism borrowed from the Mishnah.
Tg. may be thinking of that passage here: see Note 35 ad loc.
30
MT wattizna˙ mi-¡alom naf¡i = Tg. wqßt mlm¡<l (b)¡lm np¡y (see Apparatus w). Tg. seems to mean that the poet stopped
asking after the welfare of his neighbors because their answers were so distressing. The idiom ¡<l b- or ¡<l (b)¡lm, “inquire after
the welfare of someone,” is well attested in JA (Sokoloff, JPA 533a). Tg. qwß = Heb. zn˙; contrast 2:7, Heb. zana˙ = Tg. <¡ly
(Note 23 ad loc.), and 2:1, Heb. ya>ib = Tg. yqwß (!) (Note 1 ad loc.). LXX here has kai apøsato (ex eir∑n∑s psuch∑n mou), “and
he rejected (from peace my soul)”; Vulg. et repulsa est (a pace anima mea); Pesh. w<t†>yt (mn ¡lm< np¡y), “and forgotten (of
peace) was (my soul),” presumably reading wattizzana˙ (nif.).
31
The pair of Heb. abstract nouns niß˙i we-to˙alti should probably be taken as roughly synonymous: “my endurance and
my hope.” So, e.g., Rashi (commenting on niß˙i): “I said in my heart in the midst of my troubles, My world (>olami) and my
hope are gone.” Tg. translates both terms concretely: niß˙i = twqpy, “my strength,” is probably derived from neßa˙ in the sense
of “eminence, glory” (see HAL 716b and Renkema’s note here); “my hope” has been paraphrased as “the goodness for which
I was hoping,” which is probably intended in a messianic sense (see Note 35 below). LXX nikos (Rahlfs neikos!) mou kai h∑
elpis mou; Vulg. finis meus et spes mea; Pesh. nß˙ny (read sg.: see Albrektson) wsbry (“my victory and my hope”). LXX and
Pesh. reflect the MH, JA, and Syriac sense of the root nß˙, “be victorious, defeat” (Jast. 928a; Sokoloff, JPA 359a; Payne Smith
2437a). Vulg. probably involves taking niß˙i as “my eternity, my (latter) end.”
32
“From before the Lord (mn qdm YY)” for “from the Lord (meYHWH)” is characteristic of Tg. style and does not imply
in any strong sense of anti-anthropomorphism (Klein, “The Preposition qdm,” 506–507, and “Translation of Anthropomor-
phisms,” 164): cf. 2:18 <el <adonai = qdm YY; 3:40 >ad YHWH = qdm YY.
33
Tg. agrees with MT in reading zekhor (impv.), rather than the noun zekher as some modern commentators (NRSV “The
thought of my affliction and homelessness is wormwood and gall”), and so takes the verse as a direct address to God (cf. Lam.
R. quoted below). Pesh., Vulg., and Aquila also read the impv., but LXX has emn∑sth∑n = ? zakharti.
MT merudi, (“my homelessness,” from √rwd, “wander restlessly, roam”: BDB 924a), seems to have been read by Tg. as
merori or merorai, and then paraphrased as “the bitterness my enemies have caused me” (but see Apparatus y). This reading
was probably influenced by a perceived parallelism with v. 15: hisœbi>ani ba-merorim hirwani la>anah, which Tg. renders: “He
has sated me with the gall of serpents; he has made me drunk with wormwood.” Tg. has not exploited the parallelism with 1:7,
zakherah Yeru¡alayim yemei >onyah u-merudeyha. There he derives marud from √rdh, “have dominion, rule, dominate” (see
Note 29 ad loc.). Lam.R. 1:7 §34 and 3:19 §7 (see below) derive merud from √mrd, “rebel.” This derivation probably also lies
behind the Vulg. (recordare .  .  .) transgressionis meae, and Pesh. mrdwty (“my rebellion,” not “my chastisement” [Albrektson!
Payne Smith 2218b], though possibly some Syriac readers would have taken it that way).
“And have made me drink wormwood and venom of serpents”: see Notes 25 and 26 above.
 Translation   149

20. My soul vividly remembers, and prays within me on account of the misery.34
21. This consolation will I recall to mind; therefore I will hope.35
22. [It is through] the goodness of the Lord that his mercies have not failed, that they
have not ceased.36

Notes Chapter 3
Lam.R. 3:19 §7 offers a different interpreation from Tg.: >onyi u-merudi refers to the sins Israel committed; la>anah wero<¡
(in line with v. 15) to the punishment God inflicted in consequence. Israel pleads that the latter may atone for the former: “The
Community of Israel says before the Holy One, blessed be he: Lord of the World, remember the affliction wherewith I afflicted
[others} and the rebellions in which I rebelled against you, and [also] the chastisements wherewith you made me drink worm-
wood and venom, and let these expiate those.”
34
Tg. took naf¡i as the subject of the verbs. “Pray” (†sly) is derived from the Qerei ta¡oah, impf. qal of ¡˙˙, “bow down,”
sc. in prayer. Perhaps more obvious would have been to take the verb in the sense of “sink down,” sc. in despair (cf. the hitpo>lel
of the root in Pss 42:6, 7, 12; 43:5). The Ketib appears to be ta¡ia˙, which could be construed as the 3rd fem. sg. impf. qal of
¡y˙/¡w˙, “sink down” (BDB 1001a), with the same sense. Alternatively, it could be construed as a 2nd masc. sg. impf. hif. with
naf¡i as obj.: “you will assuredly remember and cause my soul to sink down within me.” But this does not yield satisfactory
sense in context.
Tg. shows no awareness of the tradition that naf¡i is a tiqqun soferim for naf¡ekha. Albrektson (142–43) offers the best
explanation of this. He assumes that the text originally read zakhor tizkor we-tasœia˙ >alai naf¡ekha = “You will surely remem-
ber, and your soul will give heed to me.” This makes tolerable sense, provided the √sœy˙ can, as he claims, bear the meaning
“be concerned with, ponder (something).” The Scribes may well have been sensitive about talking of God’s nefe¡. See further
Hillers 115–16; Ginsberg, Introduction, 361; McCarthy, Tiqqune Sopherim, 120–23.
35
Tg. shrewdly observes, as does Albrektson (143–45), that the Heb. >al ken presupposes that the poet has expressed some
grounds for hope in the preceding text. He draws this out by adding “consolation” (n˙mt<). This specifies the vague zo<t in a typi-
cally midrashic way. The “consolation” might be the consolation of prayer mentioned in the previous verse but is more likely
to be the consolation of the messianic redemption. This absolute use of ne˙amah, derived probably ultimately from Isa 40:1,
was widespread (Jast. 895b, citing b. Makk. 5b; Levine, quoting de Sola Pool, The Kaddish, 62ff.; b. BB 14b), and probably
old (note Luke 2:25, with Strack-Billerbeck ad loc.), and would have been quickly picked up by Tg.’s audience. The force of
the translation then is: “this, viz., the Consolation (of Israel), will I recall to mind (lit. will I return to my heart)”—a messianic
reference in the Tg. (see Intro. 4.3).
Lam.R. 3:21 §7, by way of contrast, identifies zo<t with the Torah, but nevertheless detects a messianic allusion: “In the
future, when the time of redemption comes, the Holy One, blessed be he, will say to Israel: ‘My sons, I wonder how you waited
for me all these years’; and they will say before him: ‘Lord of the Universe, had it not been for your Torah which you gave us,
the heathen would long ago have destroyed us.’ Therefore it is said, This will I recall to mind, this meaning nothing other than
Torah, as it is said, And this is the Torah (Deut 4:44). Similarly David declared, Unless your Torah had been my delight, I should
then have perished in my affliction (Ps 119:92).”
Tg. is careful to preserve here in <o˙il the echo of to˙alti in v. 18: †wb< dhwyty <wryk (v. 18) .  .  . <wryk (v. 21). He prob-
ably, therefore, intends the phrase †wb< dhwyty <wryk in a messianic sense. Note how Rashi also picks up the echo: “This I will
return to my heart. After my heart said to me, My hope has perished from the Lord (v. 18), I will return this to my heart, and I
will hope again.” Ibn Ezra: “This: the hope (ha-to˙elet).”
36
Hillers (115) takes the two ki<s as asseverative (“surely”), but it is unlikely that Tg. would have recognized this sense of
the particle here, or that his Aram. <arum could have this force.
Tg. †ybwt< dYY = MT ˙asdei YHWH: †ybwt< and †wb< are used elsewhere in Tg. to render God’s ˙esed/˙asadim (Pss 40:11;
32:10; 33:5; and especially Isa 63:7, ˙asdei YHWH; Tg. †ybwt< dYY); see further v. 32 below (Note 48). ˇybwt< here (which
neatly picks up †wb< in v. 18) must be sg., and so cannot be construed in the Aram. as the subj. of psqw: the subj. must be the
following r˙mwhi. Note the Masoretic accents.
Tg. psqw = MT tamenu might suggest Tg. read tammu. However, it is possible he had the MT text in front of him but took
it as equivalent to tammu. MT vocalization tamenu for tammonu is anomalous but is found again at Num 17:28; Ps 64:7; and
Jer 44:18. In Num 17:28 and Jer 44:18 the 1st plur. is clearly intended (cf. Tg. ad loca.), but in Ps 64:7 the 3rd plur. makes bet-
ter sense. Aquila and Symmachus both read the 1st plur. here; so also Vetus Latina defecimus; Vulg. sumus consumpti. LXX,
according to Rahlfs, lacks vv. 22-24 through parablepsis (note the similar endings of vv. 21 and 24), but see Ziegler’s apparatus
and Albrektson, 115. Pesh. has †lqyn (“are ended”), and there is a well-established Jewish tradition of parsing tamenu here as
= tammu, which Tg. may be following: see Sa>adia’s Tafsir (ed. Qafi˙); Leqa˙ ˇob: “Ki lo< tamenu: the nun is redundant, as
can be seen from the fact that he says later, ki lo< khalu ra˙amayw.”; Rashi: “Tamenu = tammu. But some explain ki lo< tamenu
in the light of Ha<im tamnu ligwoa> (‘Shall we totally perish?’) (Num 17:28), which gives the sense: ‘It is through the favors
150   Translation

23. [In] bringing forth wonders anew each morning, great is your faithfulness.37
24. “My portion is the Lord,” saysaa my soul; “therefore I will hope in him.”
25. The Lord is good to those who look for his redemption,38 to the soul that seeksbb his
instruction.cc 39
26. It is good to wait and be silent until the redemption of the Lord arrives.dd 40

Apparatus, Chapter 3
aa DEBomb <mryt (“I said [in my soul]), but MT <am- dd A twm†y should be emended to tym†y with EFI (cf.
erah. BGH tm†y), but it is still anomalous since the subj.
bb tb> involves a breach of concord with the subj. np¡<, pwrqn< is masc. DBomb have mty, which can be vo-
which is fem. Corruption can be explained by hap- calized as a masc. ptcp. and construed as an imminent
lography. Emend either to ttb> with Yem. (= MT future. This preserves the gender of pwrqn<, but is
tidre¡ennu), or to tb>< (fem. ptcp.) (tb>< <wlpnyh > tb> probably secondary, since Yem. also has a fem. verb
<wlpnyh). (see Yem. Apparatus cc). Possibly, as Lan. suggests,
cc D1 omits entirely v. 25. It has been added in a different the gender of pwrqn< here has been assimilated to the
hand at the foot of the page. gender of the underlying te¡u>ah.

Notes Chapter 3
of the Lord that we have not perished nor come to an end on account of our sins.’” Ibn Ezra: “Tamenu, in its obvious sense,
or else the nun compensates for the lack of doubling [of the mem].” As Rashi shows, Tg.’s rendering is all the more striking
because the 1st plur. makes perfectly good sense here: “It is [through] the goodness of the Lord that we have not perished, that
his mercies [toward us] have not ceased.”
37
The Heb. is highly compressed. Rashi and Ibn Ezra take ˙ada¡im as referring back to God’s ˙asadim in v. 22 (note, not
to his ra˙amim: God’s “deeds of kindness” can be renewed, but his “mercy” is constant, and needs no renewal!). Tg. inserts
the noun nysyn, “wonders, miracles” + the verb mr˙y¡, “brings forth” (cf. the use of this verb in Onq. Gen. 1:21). Within the
syntax of the Aram. the phrase mr˙y¡ nysyn has gerundial force: it is by bringing forth these wonders anew every morning (lit.
in the mornings) that God demonstrates his faithfulness. Pesh. may be attempting to express the same idea with its surprising
translation, “in renewing the morning, great is your faithfulness, O Lord.” So also possibly Symmachus kain∑ pas∑s prøias.
Vulg. novi (sc. miserationes) diluculo.
Levine (138) is probably correct to see an allusion to the daily renewal of the work of creation: cf. the Yoßer <Or benediction
preceding the morning recitation of the Shema>: “In mercy he gives light to the earth, and to those who live on it, and in his good-
ness continually renews the work of creation every day (hamme<ir la<ares. we-laddarim >aleiha bera˙amim ube†ubo me˙adde¡
bekhol yom tamid ma>asœeh bere<¡it: ADPB, 59).” Jewish liturgy never lost the primal wonder at how nature comes back to life at
every sunrise! But Tg. possibly also heard here, and in v. 22, a distant echo of the divine promise after the Flood: “While the earth
remains, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease” (Gen 8:22). It is
perhaps deliberate that Tg. grounds his hope in the order of nature rather than in the Covenant, which seems to have been broken.
Cf. in general R. Alexandri’s interpretation in Lam.R. 3:23 §8: “Because you renew us every morning, we know that great is your
faithfulness for the resurrection of the dead.” Behind this lies the idea that sleep is a kind of death (“a sixtieth part of death”: b.
Ber. 57b). The renewing to life each morning is, therefore, an earnest of the final resurrection of the dead. Lam.R. also quotes the
widespread mystical interpretation of ˙ada¡im la-beqarim as alluding to the new creation of the celestial angelic choirs every
morning from the celestial River of Fire (3 Enoch 40:4, with Alexander, OTP 1:292, notes i and j ad loc.).
38
Tg. reads plur. qowaw (= qowayw) with the Qerei: so also LXX and Vulg. Pesh. reads sing. qowo (! = qowehu) with the
Ketib. “Redemption” (purqan) has been added from the next verse, thus linking the two verses closely together.
39
Tg. correctly construes Heb. tidre¡ennu as an asyndetic relative clause. The addition of “his instruction” (<wlpnyh) has
probably been influenced by the MH and JA sense of √dr¡ = “expound, interpret (Scripture)” (Jast. 325b; Sokoloff, JPA 156b):
God is to be sought through his Word. Since Tg. sees vv. 25ff. as an exhortation to adhere to basic rabbinic values, <ulpan here
probably has its quasi-technical sense of “learning in the halakhic tradition” (Sokoloff, JPA 39b).
40
MT †ob we-ya˙il we-dumam li-te¡u>at YHWH is universally acknowledged as problematic. Tg. has two infintives, l<wrk<
wlm¡tq. This might reflect a text reading †ob ho˙il u-demom, which would be very close to the ductus litterarum of the MT:
for the construction, cf. Prov 25:24, †ob ¡ebet >al pinnat gag, “dwelling in the corner of a roof is good.” The Lucianic recen-
sion of the Greek has infinites (hupomenein kai elpizein), but this probably represents an attempt to improve upon the LXX
of this passage (Albrektson), for which see below. According to a mg. note in the Syrohex. Aquila may also have had infini-
tives (hupomenein kai hesuchazein, according to Field). Vulg. bonum est praestolari cum silentio salutare Dei. It is highly
 Translation   151

27. It is good for a man that he should teach his soul to bear the yoke of the command-
mentsee 41 in his youth.42
28. Let him sit alone and be silent, and bear the chastisements that come upon him,ff for the
sake of the unity of the Name of the Lord,gg that are sent from himhh to exact punishment from

Apparatus, Chapter 3
ee CH and Yem. “commandments of the Lord.” gg Reading “unity of the Name of the Lord” with
ff DBomb omit “upon him.” BCDEFGHIBomb and Yem. for A “unity of the Lord.”
hh BDEFGHIBomb omit “from him.”

Notes Chapter 3
unlikely, however, that Tg., Aquila, or Vulg. had before them anything other than the MT. They were simply making sense of it.
The MT text is old. It is basically confirmed by the LXX: agathon kai hupomenei kai hesuchasei eis to søt∑rion kuriou, save that
LXX may have read we-damam for MT we-dumam. The verbs are masc. sg., which yields an acceptable meaning if we read the
Ketib qowo in v. 25: “The Lord is good to him who looks for him, to the soul that seeks him. It is good that he should wait and
be silent for the salvation of the Lord.” The meaning can be further improved if we take we-ya˙il we-damam as a hendiadys =
“to wait silently”; but the construction †ob we- remains very odd. Note how Rashi, unquestionably starting from the MT, man-
ages to derive the same sort of sense from it as the Tg.: “The waw of we-ya˙il is superfluous, like the waw of we-<ayah we->anah
in Gen 36:24. [The meaning is:] it is good that a man should wait and be silent and look for the salvation of the Lord.” For the
Tg.’s concept of redemption (purqan) see Intro. 4.3.
41
It was almost inevitable that Tg. should identify the unspecified “yoke” (>ol) of the MT as “the yoke of the command-
ments” (>ol hammißwot). Lam.R. 3:27 §9 had a similar thought, but extends the range of obligations: “It is good for a man that
he should bear a yoke in his youth—the yoke of the Torah, the yoke of marriage, and the yoke of an occupation.” Pesh. has
“your [i.e., God’s] yoke.” LXX and Vulg. translate literally.
The image of the “yoke” is widely used in Heb. from the Bible onward to express the idea of servitude or submission;
breaking the yoke signifies rejection of authority, rebellion (see BDB 760b, and note Matt 11:29-30). Submission to God was
commonly described as accepting the “yoke of the kingdom of heaven” (>ol malkhut ha¡¡amayim: m. Ber. 2:2; Sifrei Deut.
§323), “the yoke of heaven” (>ol ha¡¡amayim: t. Sot. 14:4; Sifrei Deut. §117; cf. Sifrei Deut. §93; b. Sanh. 111b), “the yoke of
the commandments’ (>ol hammißwot: m. Ber. 2:2; cf. Sifrei Num. §111), and “the yoke of Torah” (>ol Torah: m. <Abot 3:5; Lam.
R. 3:27 §9; b. BB 8a). The phrases are roughly synonymous, but a distinction was made between them: “accepting the yoke of
the kingdom of heaven/heaven” involved acknowledging the unity and sovereignty of the one true God; accepting the yoke of
his commandments/his Torah was the natural outcome of this. This distinction is classically expressed in m. Ber. 2:2, which
asks why the paragraph Hear O Israel (Deut 6:4ff.) precedes And it shall come to pass if you will hearken (Deut 11:13ff.) in the
recitation of the Shema>. The answer is: “So that a man should first take upon himself the yoke of the kingdom of heaven, and
afterwards take upon himself the yoke of the commandments.” Mekh. de R. Ishmael, Ba˙ode¡ 6, elaborates: “You shall have
no other Gods before me (Exod 20:3). Why is this stated? Because it says, I am the Lord your God. To give a parable: a king of
flesh and blood entered a province. His servants said to him: ‘Impose decrees upon the people.’ He answered them: ‘No; when
they accept my sovereignty, I shall impose decrees upon them; for if they do not accept my sovereignty, how will they carry
out my decrees?’” Note also the folk-etymology of the word beliya>al as beli >ol, “without yoke”: benei beliya>al are “those
who have cast off the yoke of the Omnipresent” (Sifrei Deut. §93; cf. Sifrei Deut. §117). According to the Qedushah deYoßer
the angels “take upon themselves, one from another, the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven,” (ADPB, 61). Here the sense is that
through their daily celestial liturgies the angels express their continuing submission to God. See further Büchler, Studies in Sin
and Atonement, 63–118; Urbach, The Sages, 400–19. Cf. Tg.’s treatment of “yoke” in 1:14 (Note 59 ad loc.).
42
Some (perhaps oversensitive) commentators seem to have detected a problem in the phrase “in his youth.” Surely the text
does not mean to imply that he should bear the yoke only in his youth? The yoke (especially if it is identified with the mißwot)
should be borne all life long. The problem could be solved by giving the Heb. yisœsœa< an ingressive force, “should take up.” This
is possibly how LXX understood it (hotan ar∑[i] zugon en no∑teti autou.). Vulg., Sa>adia (ed. Qafi˙), and (according to Hillers)
some Masoretic mss, “from his youth,” are probably intending to address the same problem. Tg. eliminates any possible misun-
derstanding by his paraphrase “should teach his soul to bear the yoke”: it is the teaching that takes place in youth; the bearing
continues thereafter. Note how, in good rabbinic fashion, submission to the yoke of the commandments is said to involve study
and teaching: y<lp subtly picks up <wlpn in v. 25 (Note 39 above).
152   Translation

him for the minor sin which he has committed in this world, until he has pity upon him, and
removes them from him,ii and he shall receive a full recompensejj in the world to come.43
29. Let him put his mouth in the dust, and prostrate himself before his Master; perhaps
there is hope.44
30. Let him stretch out [his] cheek to him who smites him, for the sake of the fear of the
Lord; let him be satisfied with degradation.45
31. For the Lord will not cast off his servants for ever, by giving them over into the hand
of their enemies.

Apparatus, Chapter 3
ii A adds “to exact punishment from him for the minor man’s] face perfected (¡lym used predicatively) to/in
sin” by vertical dittography from the line above. the world to come.” Or, emending ¡lym to ¡lm, and
jj <gr: BDFBomb <py = (?) “and he [God] will receive construing the noun adverbially: “and he [God] will
the face of a perfect one to/in the world to come”; receive his [the man’s] face in peace”—i.e., will wel-
EG <pyh = (?) “and he [God] will receive his [the come him—“to/in the world to come.”

Notes Chapter 3
43
Tg. found this verse surprisingly difficult. The most obvious translation of the Hebrew is: “Let him sit alone and be silent,
for he has taken (the yoke) upon himself.” So Ibn Ezra. Cf. Pesh., “Let him sit alone and be silent, for he has taken upon himself
your yoke.” LXX and Vulg. are too literal to convey any very precise sense. Some commentators want to make God the subject
of na†al: “for he (God) has lifted (the yoke) (and placed it) upon him” (BDB 642a; cf. Leqa˙ ˇob). Hillers (116) suggests na†al
here means “be heavy,” as the cognate root in Syriac: “when it (the yoke) is heavy upon him.” Tg. seems to have read the verse
as meaning “Let him sit alone and be silent, (till) when (God) will remove (it) (from) upon him.” The sitting and being silent is
taken as indicating the geber’s patient acceptance of the chastisements he will inevitably suffer as a consequence of taking on
himself the “yoke of the commandments.” Here he expresses this in terms of professing “the unity of the Name of the Lord,” a
phrase that, in rabbinic parlance, is equivalent to professing Judaism in a pagan world, especially through the recitation of the
Shema>: cf., Esth.R. 6.3 where, by refusing to bow down to Haman because he was wearing an idolatrous image as a pectoral,
Mordechai is said to have “proclaimed the unity of God’s name” (yi˙ed ¡emo ¡el hqb"h); see further Lam.R. 3:24 §8; Gen.R.
20:7; Cant.R. 2:16 §1; 7:11 §1; Tg. Cant. 8:9. The phrase is, therefore, conceptually equivalent to “taking upon oneself the yoke
of the commandments” (cf. the use of the latter expression in the context of conversion to Judaism and rejection of paganism:
Tan˙uma, Lekh lekha 6, ed. Buber II 63), though Tg.’s precise language in this verse is closer to the related idea of “taking upon
oneself the yoke of the kingdom of heaven” (see Note 41). In typical midrashic fashion Tg. applies sitting and being silent in the
face of divine chastisement to this world, and God’s removal of the chastisements to the world to come. He implicitly accepts
the rabbinic doctrine that punishment (with repentance) atones for sin: if we sin and are punished in this world, then the slate
is wiped clean and we are fit to inherit the world to come (cf. m. Sanh. 6:2; Alexander, “Torah and Salvation,” 286–88). For the
general thought expressed here see Gen.R. 33.1 (//Lev.R. 27.1): “God deals strictly with the righteous, calling them to account
for the few wrongs they commit in this world, in order to lavish bliss upon them and give them a goodly reward in the world to
come. He grants ease to the wicked and rewards them for the few deeds they have performed in this world, in order to punish
them in the world to come.” Tg. stresses that the geber is fundamentally righteous: he only commits “minor sin (˙wb< qlyl<),”
i.e., presumably violations of minor commandments: note how the concept of major and minor transgressions (>aberot ˙amurot
/>aberot qallot: m. Yom. 8:8) matches the concept of major and minor commandments (mißwot ˙amurot/mißwot qallot: m. <Abot
2:1). It is not clear whether Tg. means here by “the world to come” the post mortem blessedness enjoyed by righteous souls in
the celestial Gan >Eden (Tg. Cant. 4:12 with Alexander’s Note 46 ad loc.; cf. Tg. Lam. “another world,” Note 12 above), or the
blessedness of the righteous on earth in the messianic age, after the resurrection of the dead (Moore, Judaism 2:377–95).
44
Tg. makes clear by the addition “and prostrate himself before his Master” that the theme of submission to the will of
God continues from the previous verse. Cf. Leqa˙ ˇob: “Therefore let Israel put his mouth in the dust, and fall in supplica-
tion before his Maker every day. Perhaps there is hope: Perhaps he will remember for them the merit of Abraham their father
who said, I am dust and ashes (Gen 18:27).” The verse is effectively a conditional sentence: “If he puts his mouth in the dust,
there may be hope.” Pesh. “because there is hope” is a dogmatic change motivated by unease over the tentativeness of the Heb.
(Albrektson).
45
Again an addition, “for the sake of the fear of the Lord,” sustains the theme of submission to God. The smiter is the hu-
man oppressor, but since he acts as the agent of God’s punishment his blows should be borne patiently.
 Translation   153

32. For if at first he breaks46 [them], yet afterwards he will return and have mercykk 47 on
the righteous, according to the abundance ofll his goodness.48
33. For because no one afflicted his soul, nor removed pride from his heart, therefore he
causedmm destruction to come upon the sons of men.nn 49
34. To humble andoo subdue beneathpp his feet all the prisoners of the earth;

Apparatus, Chapter 3
kk Reading “he will return and have mercy” with nn D has mg. note against this verse “the middle of the
DEFGHBomb for A “and have mercy.” The conjunc- book.”
tion betrays the omission of the first verb. C second- oo DBomb omit the conjunction before the second verb.
arily reads “he will have mercy.” It is possible that “to subdue” (lkb¡<) was originally a
ll “According to the abundance of” = MT kerob; mg. variant of the preceding “to humble” (lmkk<). MT
BCEGI “in the abundance of.” ledakke<. See pp below.
mm DBomb omit “he caused” (grm). pp D2Bomb add l<ks< (? < nks, “slaughter”), and D1
lmsky after the prep. Lan. suggests these originate in
a mg. variant of lmkk<, incorporated into the text in
the wrong place. See oo and qq.

Notes Chapter 3
46
The root ygh is a favorite in Lamentations. In four out of its five occurrences Tg. renders with Aram. √tbr (1:5, 12; 3:32,
33). In the fifth case (1:4, nugot) Tg. renders with √spd. For Tg. tbr = Heb. ¡br see 2:9, 11, 13; 3:4, 47, 48; 4:10.
47
“He will return and have mercy” probably means “he will again have mercy” rather than “he will repent and have
mercy.”
48
Ketib has ˙asdo; Qerei and some mss ˙asadayw; Tg.’s †ybwtyh does not necessarily show that it read the sg. (contra
BHS), since it uses sg. †ybwt< elsewhere to render ˙asadim. See v. 22 above, and Note 36. LXX (tou eleous autou) supports the
sg., Vulg. (misericordiarum suarum) the plur. Pesh.’s r˙mwhy is ambiguous, since r˙myn = “mercy, compassion” is normally
plural.
49
God is clearly the subject of the second half of the verse, but who is the subject of the first? Most moderns assume it is
God, and construe millibo with both halves: “God did not afflict or grieve the sons of men from the heart” (i.e., willingly). Cf.
Rashi, Sa>adia’s Tafsir (ed. Qafi˙), and Vulg.: non enim humiliavit ex corde suo et abiecit filios hominum. Leqa˙ ˇob construes
God as the subject of the first half, but takes millibo only with the first, and as a result sees a contrast in the second half (“God
did not afflict from the heart, yet he grieved the sons of men”): “For he did not afflict from his heart. That is to say, when the
Lord brings trouble on Isreal he does not do so willingly, in order to afflict them. Why then did he grieve the sons of men? Be-
cause he sees them acting arrogantly and exalting themselves over each other, he brings them down to the pit of deepest hell.”
Lam.R. 3:33 §9 (// Cant.R. 7:8 §1) has a complex midrash apparently based on a double interpretation of Heb. lo< >nh mil-
libo. The verb is first vocalized lo< >anah millibo, and Israel taken as the implied subject: “he [Israel] did not answer from the
heart.” This reading is old: note LXX (ouk apekrith∑) and Pesh. (l< >n<). “Not answering from the heart” is understood to mean
that what the lips say does not correspond to what is in the heart. Two occasions are identified when this occurred, at Sinai and
in Babylon, but they are contrasted: at Sinai Israel spoke true with their lips, but their hearts were false (proof: Ps 78:36; the
allusion is probably to the incident of the Golden Calf); in Babylon they were true at heart, but spoke falsely with their lips
(proof: the present verse; cf. Einhorn’s gloss: “Their hearts were towards the Holy One, blessed be he, but with their mouths
they praised Nebuchadnezzar, because they feared him”; and see the fuller version of the midrash in Cant.R. 7:8 §1, which
attempts to clarify the situation in Babylonia). This leads into the second vocalization of the verb, lo< >innah millibo, with God
construed as the implied subject: God was unwilling to afflict Israel because he was prepared to see one action as canceling
out the other. However, having taken this line, the darshan, like Leqa˙ ˇob, was left with little option but to take the second
half of the verse adversatively: “In two places Israel acted: in one they acted with their mouths but not with their hearts, in the
other they acted with their hearts but not with their mouths. These places were Sinai and Babylon. At Sinai they acted with their
mouths but not with their hearts, as it is written, But they deceived him with their mouths and lied to him with their tongues (Ps
78:36). In Babylon they acted with their hearts but not with their mouths, as it is written, For he [Israel] did not answer from
his heart (Lam 3:33). <But He did not afflict [them] from his heart (Lam 3:33).> The Holy One, blessed be he, said: Let the
mouth at Sinai come and atone for the mouth in Babylon, and let the heart in Babylon come and atone for the heart at Sinai.
Nevertheless, He grieved the sons of men. He brought upon them an adversary and an enemy (Esth 7:6), namely Haman, and
he plotted [hagah, a play on wayyaggeh] their massacre.”
Tg. takes an independent line. He sees the first half of the verse as picking up the thought of vv. 28-30: humility will in the
end turn away God’s anger. It is because the people were arrogant that God brought destruction upon them.
154   Translation

35. To deny and to pervertqq the justice of a poor man before the face of the Most High;
36. To confoundrr a poor man in his dispute—is it possible that none [of this] has been
revealedss before the Lord?50
37. Who is the man who has spoken, and evil has been done in the world, unless [it is]
because people have done that which they were not commanded51 from before the Lord?tt
38. From the mouth ofuu God Most Highvv evil does not go forth, without a Bat Qol in-
timatingww [that it is] because of the robberies with which the earth is filled.52 But when he
desires to decree good in the world, from the mouth of the Holy Onexx it goes forth.53

Apparatus, Chapter 3
qq lms†y: but pe. inf. is problematic in context. Better is tt “From before the Lord”: BDEFGHBomb “from the
Yem.’s <af. inf. l<s†<h (see Jast. 972b). BDEFGHI omit, mouth of the Lord,” but possibly influenced by the
reading simply “and to pervert” (note conjunction!). opening of the following verse.
MT leha††ot. Lms†y/l<s†<h is possibly originally a mg. uu DBomb mpy: a Hebraism. Such Hebraisms are com-
variant incorporated into the text. See oo and pp. mon in DBomb.
rr lsrk<: CDHBomb and Yem. (most mss) lsrb<; BEFGI vv DBomb omit “Most High,” but MT >elyon.
lssb< (? “to surround”). See r above. ww Or “hinting”: rmyz<. Yem. “announcing” (mitkrz<) is
ss CDBomb “will be revealed,” but MT ra<ah. Corrup- the more common verb in this context. West. suggests
tion by haplography: l< <ytgly > l< ytgly. Cf. Yem. Ap- the oblique, allusive mode of the communication.
paratus aa. xx Qwd¡< (lit. “holiness”), here a title of God (cf. Qud¡a<
berikh hu<), parallel to “God Most High” in the first
half of the verse (Jast. 1324b). BFGH “(from the
mouth of) his holiness” = “from his holy mouth.”

Notes Chapter 3
50
Tg.’s very literal translation carries over into the Aram. the problem of the syntax of the infinitives in the Heb. Rashi
construes them with >innah in the previous verse: “God does not afflict or grieve the sons of men from his heart, by crushing
beneath his feet all the prisoners of the earth, by perverting .  .  . by confounding.  .  .  . ” He then takes <Adonai lo< ra<ah as
a sort of exclamatory sentence, in apposition to the preceding statements: “None of these things did the Lord see: it neither
seemed good to him, nor entered into his thought to behave thus!” Leqa˙ ˇob takes a somewhat similar line, but works it out
less effectively. However, this interpretation only seems possible if God is made the subject of >innah, which is not Tg.’s view
(see Note 49). Tg. apparently construed the infinitives with the following lo< ra<ah: “Is it possible that the Lord has not seen the
oppression of the prisoners of the earth and the perversion of justice!?” In typical Targumic style he casts the active “the Lord
has seen” into the reverential passive, “it has been revealed before the Lord.” These verses continue the theme of hope that God
will ultimately vindicate Israel against her oppressors, if she remains submissive to God’s will. Tg.’s interpretation leaves the
pronom. suffix of raglayw without obvious referent. Lam.R. 3:34 §9 identifies it with Nebuchadnezzar: “To crush beneath his
feet all the prisoners of the earth. This refers to Nebuchadnezzar, of whom it is written, And wherever the children of men, the
beasts of the field, and the fowls of the heaven dwell, He has given them into your hand, and has made you to rule over them
all; you are the head of gold (Dan 2:38).”
51
Tg.’s >bdw and <tpqdw are generalizing plurals (“they” = people in general). Humans, such as Nebuchanezzar, who issue
evil decrees are acting as God’s agents to punish sin.
52
The Aram. syntax is awkward, and one feels the lack of d- before bgyn. The Bat Qol is the heavenly voice (lit. “daugh-
ter of a voice”) by which God communicates with humankind, especially after the end of prophecy, or outside the sphere of
prophecy. It often announces God’s judgment on humanity (see b. Sanh. 11a; t. Sot. 13:2; further Blau, JE 2:588; Rothkoff, EJ
4:324; Kadushin, The Rabbinic Mind, 261ff.; Strack-Billerbeck 1:125; Lieberman, Hellenism, 194–99; TDNT 9:288–90). Here
it seems to be introduced to suggest that when people sin, they sin against the light, and it roughly equates to a generalized
moral conscience: God always conveys to humankind the sense that it is their own actions that are to blame for their troubles.
The evils Tg. has in mind here are probably not evils caused by human agency (these are covered in the previous verse), but
rather natural disasters: see m. <Abot 5:8, which correlates certain types of human transgression with certain categories of natu-
ral disaster (drought, famine, pestilence, etc.). “Robberies” (˙†wpyn) are probably cited exempli gratia, and stand for all human
sins (cf. v. 41, Note 56 below). “Robbery” is, of course, one of the sins particularly singled out for condemnation in the Ten
Commandments (see Exod 20:13 and Deut 5:17, with Neof. and Ps-J. to Exod 20:15 and Deut 5:19).
53
The obvious sense of vv. 37-38 appears to be: “Who is it that has said anything and it has come to pass, unless the Lord
has commanded it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that evil and good go forth?” In other words, whatever happens
 Translation   155

39. What profit shall a person find who sins all the days of his life, a wicked man for his
sins?54
40. Let us search our ways and examine [them], and let us return in repentance before
the Lord.yy
41. Let us lift up our hearts55 in purity, and let us cast robbery and theft from our hands, and
let us repent before God,zz 56 the dwelling of aaa whose Shekhinah is in the heavens above.57

Apparatus, Chapter 3
yy Qdm YYY: MT >ad YHWH. aaa DBomb omit “the dwelling of.”
zz “God” = MT <el; DEGIBomb “our God.”

Notes Chapter 3
in the world, whether good or evil, is ordained by God. But Tg. seems to have seen potential theological problems here and
felt that careful phrasing was needed to avoid an amoral, fatalistic view of divine governance such as that expressed by Cain in
Neof. Gen. 4:8, “There is no judgment and no judge, no recompense for the just, nor punishment for the wicked” (cf. Ps-J. ad
loc.). He does not deny that God can command evil to take place (elsewhere he is willing to state categorically that the ills that
have befallen Jerusalem were ordained by God: see 1:1-4, 7, 8; 2:1, 3, 4; 3:6, 12), but God only does so in response to human
sin. It is sin that is the root cause of evil, not God. Evil ultimately does not issue from God: punishment is his opus alienum.
God, however, is the direct source of all good.
Tg. has treated v. 38 as a statement rather than a question, but this has created problems. To say that evil does not go forth
from the mouth of God may seem reasonable, but to say further that neither does good is clearly problematic. Tg. probably
understood the Heb. to mean that good and evil do not go forth from God’s mouth in the same way. That is to say, one (good)
issues from God directly, the other (evil) indirectly, in response to human sin. If people did not sin, God would not issue evil
decrees. In contrast, God’s good decrees do not (only) depend on the action of others, but arise out of his own good inner nature.
The emphasis is, therefore, subtly different from that in Lam.R. 3:37 §9 (cf. Deut.R. 4.3 and Leqa˙ ˇob), where the stress is
on good and evil as alike responses to human behavior: “Rabbi Eleazar said: From the time that the Holy One, blessed be he,
declared, See, I have set before you this day life and good, death and evil (Deut 30:15), good has not happened to the doer of
evil nor evil to the doer of good; but good has befallen the doer of good and evil the doer of evil; as it is said, The Lord rewards
the evildoer according to his wickedness (2 Sam 3:39).” This probably involves treating the verse as a question: “Do not evil
and good alike come from the mouth of God (in response to human action)?
54
Tg. sees the sinner as the subject of the verse, not humankind in general. He seems to have derived Heb. yit<onen not
from <nn, “complain, murmur” (BDB 59b), but from <on, “wealth” (BDB 20a; cf. Ibn Ezra); hence: “what profit can a man find.”
LXX, Vulg., Lam.R. 3:39 §9, b. Qidd. 80b, and Leqa˙ ˇob all presuppose the meaning “complain.” Tg. has taken <adam ˙ai to
mean “a man, while he is alive,” and then paraphrased the ˙ai into “all the days of his life.”
55
Tg.’s lbbn< could be either sg. (“our heart”) or plur. (“our hearts”). Some MT mss give the sg., others the plur. LXX,
Pesh., and Vulg. have the plur., but it not easy to be certain from this that the plur. was actually in their Heb. texts; it may be
purely translational.
56
The Heb. phrase <el kappayim is problematic. The most obvious interpretation is to take <el here as meaning “with,
along with” (BDB 40a, 5): see Gen 49:29, “Bury me with (Heb. <el; Onq. lewat) my fathers”; Lev 18:18, “A woman together
with (Heb. <el; Onq. >im) her sister you shall not take as wife.” This is how Rashi understood it: “When we lift up our hands to
heaven, let us lift up our hearts also with them, to break our hearts before the Omnipresent, blessed be he.” And Leqa˙ ˇob: “<el
kappayim: with the raising up of [our] hands, as it says, I have stretched out my hands to you (Ps 143:6).” Note also Vulg. cum
manibus, and Sa>adia’s Tafsir (ed. Qafi˙). LXX’s epi cheirøn and Pesh.’s >l <ydyn should probably be taken in the same way.
Tg. offers a homiletical interpretation that leaves his understanding of the underlying pesha† unclear, but he too may have
taken a similar view: “Let us raise up [pure] hearts, together with [clean] hands to God in heaven.” In other words, the verse is
about the need for congruence between inner attitude and outward act in approaching God (cf. Note 49 above): purity of heart,
abandonment of wrongdoing (robbery and theft here are presumably only indicative sins: see v. 38, Note 52), and repentance
are necessary for effective intercession before God. This is standard rabbinic theology (see Levine, and further Schechter, As-
pects of Rabbinic Theology, 264–343). A similar understanding of the verse seems to lie behind Lam.R. 3:40 §9 (cf. b. Ta>an.
16a): “The meaning is, Let us make our hearts and our hands alike [clean], and after that [let us turn] to God in heaven. If an
unclean insect is in a man’s hand, though he immerses himself in all the waters of creation, he can never become ritually clean;
but if he throws the defiling insect from his hand, then immersion in forty se<ahs will suffice for him.” See the summaries of
this midrash in Leqa˙ ˇob and Rashi.
57
Tg.’s rendering of the Heb. “to God in the heavens” by “before the Lord God, the dwelling of whose Shekhinah is in the
heavens above” is striking. Tg. seems to subscribe to the view that after the destruction of the Temple (the natural abode of the
156   Translation

42. We have rebelled, we have been disobedient,bbb 58 and because we did not return in
repentanceccc to you, you have not forgiven [us].59
43. You have overshadowed us60 in anger, and have pursued us in exile; you have killed
and had no pity.61
44. You have overshadowed the heavens with the clouds of your glory,62 so that our prayer
should not pass throughddd to you.
45. Wanderers and vagabonds63 you have madeeee us amongfff the nations.

Apparatus, Chapter 3
bbb srbn< = MT marinu (but see Note 58). Srb = “refuse, ddd Reading ty>br with I (cf. B and Yem. t>br) for A
rebel” (parallel to mrd): Jast. 1021b; Sokoloff, JPA t>ybr.
388a and JBA 829b. Here, unlike elsewhere, there is eee Reading ¡wyt< with BCEFBomb (cf. DI ¡wyth and
no need to emend: see r above. Yem. t¡wy) for A ¡˙yt< (? pa. of ¡˙y “be bent, curved”
ccc BCDEFGHIBomb omit “in repentance,” but A is = ? “(as) wanderers and vagabonds you have humili-
supported by Yem. ated us among the nations”).
fff byny: so also Yem., but BEGHI bgw (“in the midst
of”); cf. MT beqereb.

Notes Chapter 3
Shekhinah on earth) the Shekhinah withdrew to highest heaven: “Rabbi Jonathan said: For three and a half years [after the de-
struction of the Temple] the Shekhinah abode on the Mount of Olives hoping that Israel would repent, but they did not, though
a Bat Qol was announcing (makhrezet), Return, O backsliding children (Jer 3:14), Return unto me, and I will return unto you
(Mal 3:7). When they did not repent, it said, I will go and return to my place (Hos 5:15) [and ascended into heaven]” (Lam.R.,
Proem 25). It is unlikely, however, that Tg. means to suggest that it is no longer possible to experience the presence of God on
earth (though see v. 44 and Note 62 below). Rabbinic theology consistently offers the hope that repentance and the performance
of the mißwot can bring the Shekhinah back down to earth: “the wicked cause the Shekhinah to depart from the earth, but the
righteous cause the Shekhinah to dwell on the earth” (Num.R. 13.2; cf. Gen.R. 19.7; PRK 1:1; PR 5:7—all variations on the
midrash of the seven wicked men who drove the Shekhinah up to the seventh heaven and the seven righteous men who brought
it back again. See Montefiore and Loewe, Anthology, 84 for the use of this motif in piyyutim for the 9th of Ab. According to m.
<Abot 3:6, even the individual who studies Torah can experience the presence of God, a view echoed in Tg. to 2:19 (Note 68 ad
loc., and further Intro. 7.2.3). See Alexander, “Shekhinah”; Alexander, Targum Canticles, 19–20, and passim; further Urbach,
Sages, 37–65; Goldberg, Schekhinah, especially 176–96, 459–62, and 490–93.
For Heb. ¡amayim = Tg. ¡my mrwm< see v. 65, Note 95 below.
58
MT pa¡a>nu u-marinu; Tg. mrdn< srbn<; but mrdn< is the more obvious rendering of marinu, and srbn< of pa¡a>nu. How-
ever, it is not clear that the Tg.’s Heb. text actually had the verbs reversed (as Levine suggests). A similar problem arises in the
LXX (see Albrektson, 155). Note the absence of the copula in the Tg. and in the LXX. This gives the phrase a more liturgical,
confessional ring.
59
Since God’s nature is to be merciful and forgive, Tg. feels it necessary to make clear by an addition that it is humans’
lack of repentance that prevents their God from giving expression to his nature. Vulg. gets the same idea across more eco-
nomically: Nos inique egimus, et ad iracundiam provocavimus; idcirco tu inexorabilis es. Cf. Lam.R. 3:42 §9, “We have been
disobedient and have rebelled, which is in accord with our nature. You have not forgiven. Is that in accord with your nature?”
60
Many moderns interpret sakkotah, here and in v. 44, as reflexive (“you have covered yourself’), but this is contrary to the
usage of the qal of the verb. Tg. reasonably supplies an object derived from the following tirdepennu (see further Hillers).
61
MT lo< ˙amalta, but some Masoretic mss read welo< ˙amalta (Levine). Tg., Pesh., and Vulg. all have “and,” but it is hard
to be sure their Vorlage read welo<. Tg. finds no need here to justify or soften the strong statement that God kills without pity.
Contrast the previous verse.
62
The “clouds of glory” recall the tradition that Israel wandering in the wilderness was protected by four clouds. See, e.g.,
Tg. Cant. 2:6, 17 (with Alexander’s Notes, ad loca). But there is a paradox: the cloud or clouds of glory normally symbolize
God’s presence (the Shekhinah: see Note 57 above). Here they act to prevent communion with God and form a barrier to Israel’s
prayers. Cf. 3:8 and Note 15 above. For the symbolism of the cloud in post-biblical Judaism see Strack-Billerbeck to Matt 17:5,
and Oepke, TDNT 4:902–10.
63
Heb. se˙i uma<os; NRSV “filth and rubbish.” Se˙i is a hapax legomenon in BH. BDB 695a derives from a root s˙h =
“scrape clean, scour,” used once in pi. in Ezek 26:4 (Tg. ad loc. translates with the root >qr), and compares JA se˙ita<, se˙uta<,
 Translation   157

46. 64All our enemies have opened their mouths against us, to decree against us evil
decrees.65
47. Fear and trembling66 were ours because of them, terror and destruction67 have seized
us.ggg

48. Like streamshhh of water my eye will runiii with tears, because of the destruction of
the Congregation of my people.
49. My eye runsjjj with tears and will not be silent from weeping, because there is no one
to assuage my anguish, or speak comfort to me,68

Apparatus, Chapter 3
ggg DBomb omit “have seized us” = MT. iii Reading tzlg with Yem. = MT terad for A zlgt
hhh Reading hyk yblyn with HBomb for A h< kyblyn; cf. (“ran”). DEG zlgn (“run”) is probably a secondary
BDEG hyky(y)blyn. correction. It involves vocalizing the subj. as plur.
(“eyes”), against MT (>eini).
jjj zlgt: MT niggerah.

Notes Chapter 3
“sweepings, refuse” (Jast. 971a). Rashi suggests the word means “phlegm”: “Se˙i, that is phlegm—nia>, in its Mishnaic sense,
as in ki˙o we-ni>o, ‘mucus and phlegm’ [cf. b. BQ 3b]—because it is torn up (nissa˙) from the lungs and goes out through the
throat.” Ma<os is also a hapax legomenon but is easily derived from m<s, “reject”; hence “that which is rejected” > “refuse, rub-
bish.” Tg.’s “wanderers and vagabonds” (†l†wlyn wr†w¡yn), which picks up the theme of exile introduced into v. 43, is probably
not a direct translation of the Heb., but an interpretation of whatever Tg. thinks the Heb. literally means. Ra†u¡ in legal texts
denotes someone who has abandoned his estate (Jast. 1471a). The translation faintly recalls the description of Cain as a “fugitive
and a vagabond” (na> wanad) in Gen 4:12, 14, but it is unlikely, because of Christian anti-Jewish polemic (Alexander, “Cain and
Abel”), that Tg. would have wanted to invoke a comparison between the wandering Jew and Cain. Lam.R. 3:45 §9 glosses se˙i
uma<os, by m<syy< psyl<yy<, which Cohen translates “loathsome outcasts,” but the sense is far from certain. Cf. Pesh.: “uprooted
and rejected (>qyr< wmsly<) have you made us among the nations.” Yem. translates differently: see Yem. Apparatus iii.
64
Tg. supports the inversion of the >ayin and peh in the acrostic, as in 2:16 (Note 56) and 4:16-17. So also LXX and Vulg.,
but some Masoretic mss (according to Levine) have the normal order here, as has Pesh.
65
“To decree against us evil decrees” is not the only possible explanation of the “opening of the mouth.” In 2:16 the ex-
pression is linked to mocking. However, it is a topos that the condition of exile, the theme of this section (see vv. 43 and 45),
involves living under “harsh decrees” (b. RH 18b; b. Shabb. 145b), i.e., political repression and persecution. There is no reason
to suppose that Tg. is thinking here only of “the exile following the destruction of the second temple” (Levine), though that is
doubtless in his mind. Nebuchadnezzar also issued “harsh decrees” during the Babylonian exile (cf. the Book of Daniel).
66
Heb. pa˙ad wa-pa˙at, lit. “fear and pit”; Tg. <ymt< wzy><, which treats the words as synonymous. Cf. pa˙ad wa-pa˙at
wa-pa˙ in Isa 24:17 and Jer 48:43 (Tg. d˙l< wkwmß< wmßd<, “fear and pit and trap,” in both places). LXX phobos kai thumos
(but possibly emend to phobos kai bothunos, “fear and pit,” as in LXX Isa 24:17 and Jer 48:43); Vulg. formido et laqueus; Pesh.
d˙lt< wzw>t<, “fear and trembling” (but gwmß<, “pit,” for ha-¡e<t later in the verse!).
67
Heb. ha-¡e<t weha-¡eber; Tg. rtyt< wtbyr<. ⁄e<t is a hapax legomenon usually related to ¡o<ah, “devastation,” and ¡e<iyyah,
“ruin,” from *√¡<h/¡w< (BDB 981a; 996a; HAL 1381a; cf. Rashi and Ibn Ezra). Tg.’s rtyt< is impressionistic, based on context.
LXX and Aquila eparsis (= ∞e<et, so some Masoretic mss = lit. “lifting up” [√nsœ<: BDB 673a], perhaps here “arrogance” or
“removal,” not “devastation,” LSJ 611a; Lust, Lexicon, 165b); Pesh. gwms< (! Note 66); Vulg. vaticinatio (= masœsœa<, “utterance,
oracle”!).
68
Tg. has translated in the light of the parallel in 2:18 (see Note 65 ad loc.): he has taken tidmeh here as equivalent to tiddom
there, and as meaning “be silent” (√dmm), rather than “cease” (√dmh II: BDB 198b). Cf. LXX kai ou sig∑somai, “and I will not be
silent” (1st pers.! see Albrektson, 160); Vulg. nec tacuit. Contrast Pesh., “and is not quiet.” He has recognized behind the hapax
legomenon hapugot the root pwg, meaning “lessen, slacken, soothe” (common in MH and JA), but has given it a double render-
ing (“assuage” and “comfort”). Rashi and many moderns (e.g., Hillers and Renkema) take me<ein hapugot as meaning “without
respite, without ceasing,” but Tg., possibly thinking that this sense is already covered by the preceding lo< tidmeh, construes the
min as causal, introducing the reason for lo< tidmeh. Cf. Pesh., “because there is no respite (pwyg<)”; Vulg. eo quod non esset
requies. This probably involves taking me<ein in the sense of “for lack of” (cf. Isa 50:2, “their fish stink for lack of water [me<ein
mayim])”: “for lack of respite” > “because there is no respite” > “because there is no one to assuage my anguish and speak com-
fort to me.” For Tg.’s addition of the phrase “and there is none to speak comfort to me” see 1:9, 16; 2:18.
158   Translation

50. Until the Lord looks and seeskkk my humiliation from heaven.
51. The weeping of my eye has caused my soul to break, on account of the destruction of
the districts of my people,lll and the disfigurement of the daughters of Jerusalem, my city.69
52. My enemies carefully set a trap70 for me as for a bird, without a cause.

Apparatus, Chapter 3
kkk wy˙my: CDFGHIBomb and Yem. wy˙zy; BE lll Adding “of my people” with BCDEFGHIBomb
wy˙zw. See Intro. 2.1. and Yem.

Notes Chapter 3
69
Albreskton (161–62) rightly maintains that the MT is not as hopeless as many moderns have thought: “My eye deals
severely with my soul, because of all the daughters of my city.” He takes ‘“my eye” as meaning in context “what I see,” >olelah
le-nap¡i, in the sense of “grieves me” (cf. BDB 759b), and the preposition min as having causative force (GK §119z). Tg.
seems to have understood the pesha† here in much the same way, but interpreted “my eye” as referring to the poet’s weeping
mentioned in the two preceding verses, and offered a double paraphrase of “daughters of my city”: (1) as the literal daughters
of Jerusalem, whose disfigurement is the cause of his weeping, and (2) as the outlying districts of Jerusalem, whose destruction
he mourns. For the regions controlled by a “mother” city being referred to figuratively as its “daughters” see Num 21:25; Josh
17:11, and further BDB 123b. Cf. Tg. Cant. 2:2, “daughters” = “districts” (pilkhayya<); 3:10, “daughters of Jerusalem” = “cit-
ies of the Land of Israel”; 3:11, “daughters of Zion” = “inhabitants of the districts (pilkhayya<) of the Land of Israel”; 6:9, “the
daughters” = “the inhabitants of the districts (pilkhayya<),” with Alexander, Targum Canticles, Notes ad loca. See also Leqa˙
ˇob (possibly in dependence on Tg. Cant., which he knew well): “Than all the daughters of my city: than all the nations that are
round about Jerusalem, like daughters of Zion, which are the environs of Zion.” Tg.’s lmr> np¡y constitutes a sort of acc. + inf.
construction after the verb: lit. “the weeping of my eye has brought it about that my soul is impaired on account of.  .  .  . ”
Levine sees the weeping here as an allusion to the weeping of the Israelites in the Wilderness when they heard the report
of the spies, mentioned in Tg. Lam. 1:2 (see Note 10 ad loc.): that weeping, says the Midrash, ultimately caused the destruction
of Jerusalem. He seems to imply that the sense here is: “The weeping of my eyes [in the Wilderness] has brought evil upon me
in the form of the destruction of Jerusalem.” But this is forced.
70
Tg. kmn< kmnw. The Aram. √kmn means to “lie in ambush, lurk with intent,” and elsewhere translates the Heb. <rb (see
3:10; Neof. Deut. 19:11; Sokoloff, JPA 262a). It consequently does not catch the precise sense of ßod ßaduni here (“remorse-
lessly they have hunted me”). Tg. could have used the cognate Aram. ßwd, as in 4:18. Contrast LXX th∑reuontes eth∑rusan me;
Vulg. venatione ceperunt me; Pesh. mßd ßdwny.
Tg. seems to have read vv. 52-58 as Jeremiah, whom he regards as the author of Lamentations (Note 2 above), recalling,
after the destruction of the Temple and the city, his earlier incarceration for faithfully prophesying the impending doom, and I
have translated accordingly (cf. the references to the “prison house” and “incarceration” in vv. 6-7 above). God’s protection and
deliverance then give Jeremiah hope now that God will intervene once again and vindicate him and his suffering people. The
transition back to the present seems to occur in v. 59. Note particularly the comparison Tg. introduces in v. 56 between “that
time” and “now,” and how he translates the perfect verbs in vv. 55-56 as simple perfects and not as prophetic or precative (Note
76). Tg. would have detected clear echoes here of Jer 38:6-12, especially vv. 6-7, “Then they took Jeremiah, and cast him into
the pit (bor) of Malchiah the king’s son, that was in the court of the guard: and they let down Jeremiah with ropes. And in the
pit there was no water, but mire: and Jeremiah sank in the mire.” Note also Jer 33:3, where God comforts Jeremiah while he is
imprisoned in “the court of the guard (˙aßar ha-ma††arah)” with the words “Call upon me, and I will answer you.” The Midrash
elaborates on the story, and Tg. may have had some of the aggadic embellishments in mind. PR 26.6 claims, on the basis of a
rather forced reading of Jer 38:6, that actually the pit was full of water, “but the Holy One, blessed be he, performed miracles
for Jeremiah: first the water sank to the bottom, and the mud rose to the top so that Jeremiah stuck in the mud. And Jonathan the
scribe reviled and taunted Jeremiah, saying: ‘Put your head down in the mud—maybe you will have a good nap!’” (Ginzberg,
Legends 4:279–300; 6:389, n. 20, quoting also y. Sanh. XI, 30b and Midrash Tannaim 64).
 Translation   159

53. My life passedmmm into the pit,71 and they cast the stone upon me.nnn 72
54. The waters flowed73 over my head. I said in my word,74 “I have been cut off from the
world.”75
55. I prayed to your name, O Lord, from the nethermost pit.
56. My prayer you received at that time,76 so do not cover your ear77 now, in order not to
receive my prayer, to give me respite because of my plea.78

Apparatus, Chapter 3
mmm >brw: MT ßametu. See Yem. Apparatus yyy and nnn by = MT; E >ly.
Note 71.

Notes Chapter 3
71
Tg.’s >brw is most obviously vocalized as pe., in which case ˙yy has to be construed as the subject. But pa. is not impos-
sible: “they [my enemies] caused my life to pass into the pit.” Tg. does not seem to have recognized BH ßmt in the sense of “put
an end to, exterminate” (BDB 856; HAL 1035b): “they have cut off my life in the dungeon” (AJV). Perhaps Tg. interpreted in
the light of the JA root ßmt, “gather together” (Sokoloff, JPA 467a): “my life has been gathered into the pit.” LXX ethanatøsan
en lakkø(i) zo∑n mou; Vulg. lapsa est in lacum vita mea; Pesh. ¡tqw bgwb< ˙yy (lit. “they silenced my life in the pit,” i.e., they
brought it to an end). See Apparatus mmm.
72
The rare Heb. √ydh here (wayyaddu) is commonly taken to mean “throw, cast” (BDB 392a; HAL 389a). So also Tg.
(rgmw). In context Tg. may have taken “casting the stone” (the sg. noun exactly mirrors the Heb.) as a reference to the stone with
which Jeremiah’s enemies would have sealed the pit in which they incarcerated him. Cf. LXX and Vulg., “they have placed a
stone upon me.” Others, hearing here the voice of Israel in exile, have translated: “they have pelted me with stone(s)” (cf. Pesh.,
“they have cast at me stones”), and taken this as a figure of the enemy’s constant harassment (so Levine; Leqa˙ ˇob suggests that
the sg. <eben indicates one stone following relentlessly after another). Also possible is the translation “they have stoned me to
death.” For this use of the root rgm see Neof. Lev. 24:23 (Sokoloff, JPA 516b). But this does not easily fit the context.
73
Heb. ßapu (√ßwp) = Tg. ¡†w, from ¡w†, “go about, move to and fro, roam” (Jast. 1531a; Sokoloff, JPA 540b). Deut 11:4
offers a significant parallel: “he [God] made the waters of the Red Sea to flow (heßif) over them [the Egyptians],” but there Onq.
translates with †wp. Lam.R. 3:54 §9, followed by Rashi, suggests that the waters here symbolize “the nations of the world”
(citing Isa 17:12).
74
Aram. bmymry, a rare use of memra< in Tg. in connection with a human rather than a divine pronouncement (contrast
1:15, 18; 2:17; 3:57; 4:4). See further Intro. 4.3. The text, which is found in both West. and Yem. recensions, can hardly have
arisen by dittography from mymrk in v. 57 (Levine). However, the addition may function to link v. 54 to v. 57: “I said in my
word .  .  . You said in your word.” The poet’s word of despair is answered by God’s word of hope.
75
Tg.’s addition of “from the world” suggests he saw Jeremiah’s descent into the pit as like a descent into the netherworld:
see Tg. to v. 6 above: “In a prison-house of darkness he has made me dwell, like the dead who have gone to another world”
(Note 12). Cf. mibbor ta˙tiyyot in v. 55. Tg. renders Ps 88:7, ¡attani be-bor ta˙tiyyot, “You have placed me in exile which is
likened to the nethermost pit (gwb< <r>yt<).”
76
The pf. forms of the verbs in vv. 55-66 are problematic. Because of the context (note how they alternate with impvs. and
impfs./jussives), some moderns take these pfs as precative in force (so, e.g., Hillers, 118), But the existence of a precative perf.
in Heb., analogous to the precative pf. in Arabic, is disputed (GK §106nN). Leqa˙ ˇob is on safer ground in treating them as
prophetic perfects (Joüon-Muraoka §112h, where this phenomenon is regarded as a “rhetorical device” rather than as “a special
grammatical perfect”): “⁄ama>ta means ti¡ma>, as in Raßita YHWH <arßekha ¡abta ¡ebit Ya>aqob (Ps 85:2), and in all the rest
of this passage; the sense is future: You will be favorable to your land, you will turn the captivity of Jacob—to teach you that
whatever the Lord is going to do, it is as if it is already done. And likewise it says, <Elleh ha-debarim >asœitim welo< >azabtim (Isa
42:16), which we translate, I will do them and will not leave them undone [emending l< ¡bqynwn to l< <¡bqynwn—haplography!
Curiously Leqa˙ ˇob’s Aram. rendering here does not correspond to the standard Tg., which nevertheless translates with fu-
tures: <> bdynwn wl< <r˙yqynwn].” Rashi, however, takes the pfs. as past: note his gloss to qarabta in v. 57: “You were accustomed
in former days to draw near to us whenever we called upon you.” LXX, Vulg., and Pesh. also translate the pfs as past. Tg. adopts
the same view, save that he sees a precise reference to experiences in Jeremiah’s own life. Cf. Lam.R. 3:55 §9, which detects
allusions to Joseph, Jeremiah, and Daniel, all of whom were thrown into “the pit.”
77
Heb. <al ta>lem <oznekha; Tg. l< tksy <wdnk. This is the only occurrence in BH of the phrase “to hide the ear” in the sense
of “to turn a deaf ear.” LXX me krups∑(i)s ta øta sou; Vulg. ne avertas aurem tuam; Pesh. l< trkn <dnk (here presumably not in its
obvious sense of “do not incline your ear,” i.e., to hear, but “do not avert your ear” in order not to hear: see Albrektson, 165).
78
Tg. took the prep. in le-¡aw>ati in a causal sense (bgyn): see BDB 514b (5g).
160   Translation

57. You brought near an angel to save me on the day that I prayed to you. You said by
your Word: “Do not fear!”79
58. You contended, O Lord, with those who made cause against my soul.ooo 80 You deliv-
ered my life from their hands.
81

59. You have seen,ppp 82 O Lord, the wrong wherewith they have wronged me.83 Judge84
my cause.qqq

Apparatus, Chapter 3
ooo Reading lnp¡y with BCDEFGHIBomb and Yem. for ppp ˙myt<: BCDEFGHIBomb and Yem. ˙zyt(<).
A dnp¡y. MT (ribei) naf¡i. qqq dyny = MT mi¡pa†i: BEGI “my causes” (dynyy); cf.
Yem.

Notes Chapter 3
79
Tg. is notably reluctant to translate literally “you drew near,” but introduces an angel to act as God’s intermediary. The
addition of “by your Word (Memra)” later in the verse reinforces the idea of divine mediation, though Memra may carry no
strong theological sense for our Tg., but simply be typical of reverential Targumic style. See Intro. 4.3. “An angel”: Tg. literally
has “the angel,” but the status emphaticus is probably generic, and Tg. is unlikely to have any specific angel in mind. There is
no biblical or (apparently) aggadic basis for the claim that Jeremiah was delivered by an angel in the pit, but God sent an angel
to protect Daniel in the lion’s den (Dan 6:22; cf. 3:28), and Tg. may have assimilated the two stories.
80
The Hebrew probably means little more than rabta <adonai ribi = “You took my side” [in the dispute] (BDB 936b; Gem-
ser, “The Rªb- or Controversy-Pattern”). Naf¡i simply replaces the 1st pers. pronom. suffix: stylistically it adds weight to the
line and balances hayyai in the second half. Tg. clearly read the rare plur. ribei, as in MT (which is supported by LXX dikas),
but took it as equivalent to yeribei/rabei, “those who contend with, make cause against” (might his text actually have read yryby,
the initial yod having dropped out of MT by haplography?). There seems to be no consistent way of dealing with rib + cognate
acc. in Tg. In 1 Sam 24:16 and Mic 7:9 it has ydwn/ydyn dyny (cf. Pesh. here), but here its rendering suggests a possible nßy
mßwt<—an exact translation that preserves the forensic overtones of the Heb. phrase: for nßy of legal disputation see Jast. 928b.
Note also v. 36, where Heb. beribo is translated by Tg. bmßwtyh. Levine’s version of the Tg., “Thou hast fought against those
who wage battle against my soul,” is too strong and misses the forensic context, which becomes very clear in the following
verse. Tg. is probably thinking of Jeremiah’s vindication against his enemies at court and his deliverance from the pit (Note 70
above). Cf. Rashi, who continues to take the pfs. as genuine preterites: “You pleaded the causes of my soul in days of old.”
81
Heb. ga<alta; Tg. pryqt<. Aram. prq = Heb. g<l is standard in the Tg.: see Onq. Gen. 48:16; Onq. and CG (ed. Klein, 117)
Exod. 6:6; Onq. Exod. 15:13; Onq. and Neof. Lev. 25:30, 33, 49, 54; 27:13, 15, 19, 20, 27, 28, 31, 33; Tg. Jer. 31:10(11); cf.
Pesh. here. Levine’s suggestion that Tg.’s choice of prq to render Heb. ga<al “may reflect the eschatological sensitivity of the
word ga<al, and its centrality in Jewish-Christian polemics” has little to commend it. It seems to reflect more his own oversen-
sitivity to the word “redeem” in English. Prq is an obvious translation. The root g<l is very rare in JA apart from in the phrase
ga<el dema< = Heb. go<el ha-dam, where it may, in effect, be a loanword from the Heb. (Onq. Num. 35:19, 21, 24, 25, 27; Deut.
19:6, 12; Tg. Josh. 20:5, 9; Tg. 2 Sam. 14:11). Even if it was available to our Tg., he sometimes seems deliberately to avoid
using cognates. LXX has elutrøsø. Vulg.’s redemptor (vitae meae) may be an attempt to get a more christological color into
the passage (Intro. 5.4.3). Aquila has ∑gchisteusas from agchisteuø, “to exercise the rights and responsibilites of a kinsman, to
redeem” (Lust, Lexicon, 6a).
82
Tg. here assumes the poet is speaking once again about the time at which he was writing: see Note 70 above.
83
Heb. >awwatati is a hapax legomenon, from √>wt pi. “bend, make crooked, pervert” (BDB 736b). Tg., along with Rashi,
Ibn Ezra and many moderns, takes the suffix as objective (not the perversion I do, but the perversion I suffer), but the precise
force of his translation is open to dispute. Rosenmüller, Scholia ad loc., proposes “vidisti .  .  . perversitatem, qua pervertere
me conantur,” and Greenup “Thou hast seen .  .  . the frowardness by which they try to turn me aside.” LXX tas tarachas mou
(“my troubles”); Vulg. iniquitatem illorum adversum me; Pesh. mwkky (“my humiliation, affliction”). For Aram. srk = Heb.
>wh/>wt, see 3:9, Note 17 above.
84
Tg. reflects the imperative of the MT, as do Vulg., LXX, and Pesh.: “you have judged.”
 Translation   161

60. Revealed before you,85 O Lord, is all their vengefulness, all their plots86 against me.
61. Heard before you are their taunts,rrr 87 O Lord, all their plots against me,
62. The lips of those who rise up against me, and their mutteringsss against me all the
day.88
63. Their sitting downttt and their rising up, behold. I am their song.uuu 89

Apparatus, Chapter 3
rrr “Their taunts”: D and one Yem. ms “their taunt” = (see Jast. 693b and Lan.). Lag. and Miq. Ged. pro-
MT ˙erpatam. pose reading hgywnhwn here (cf. Jast. 331a). Yem.
sss lhgyhwn. West. mss are uncertain as to the spelling mlwlhwn (“their speaking”).
of this word: e.g., FBomb lhgywnhwn; B lhygywn- ttt Reading mwtb(n)hwn (sing.) with BDEFGHI = MT
hwm. It occurs only here in JA and seems to be a ¡ibtam for A mwtbyhwn (plur.).
transcription of the MT hegyonam. However, all uuu Emending A zmryhwn (“their songs”) to zmrhwn
West. mss have an initial lamed, which does not (“their song”) with Miq. Ged. in the light of MT
seem to be the prep., but an integral part of the noun manginatam (see Note 89).

Notes Chapter 3
85
Heb. “you have seen (v. 59) .  .  . you have seen (v. 60)”: Tg. “You have seen .  .  . revealed before you is.” Tg.’s inconsis-
tency is striking. Why does he not use the reverential passive construction, typical of Tg. style, on both occasions? According to
Levine, “Some mediaeval scholars attributed similar cases to a principle: translating the verb ‘to see’ in reference to God except
in those cases where God’s observing evil is involved. Thus God ‘sees’ in v. 59, where his people’s suffering is involved but it is
‘revealed before Him’ in v. 60f. where evil is being perpetrated.” However, inconsistency in the handling of anthropomorphism
is common in the Tg., and Levine’s “principle” is probably a post factum attempt to rationalize it (see Klein, “The Translation
of Anthropomorphisms”).
86
Aram. mzymthwn should be vocalized as plur. to correspond to the masoretic vocalization ma˙¡ebotam, even though
the spelling of the plur. is defective. The noun mezimmah is good BH, in the sense of “evil thoughts, devices” (BDB 273b), but
it does not seem to be good JA, though zymywnyn occurs in Tg. Job 21:27 as a translation of Heb. mezimmot (Tg. “revealed
before me are all your thoughts, and the plots [zymywnyn] that you devise against me”). In Ps 10:4 Tg. translates Heb. mezim-
motayw by m˙¡btwy (Tg. “he says in his heart that none of his thoughts [m˙¡btwy] is revealed before Him”), and in Ps 21:12
Heb. ˙a¡ebu mezimmah is rendered by Tg. ˙¡ybw m˙¡bn by¡yn. Tg. could have translated here with the cognate m˙¡bthwn. To
avoid this he seems to have borrowed the synonymous Heb. word mezimmah!
87
Heb. ˙erpatam = Tg. kswpyhwn. Some Tg. mss read the sg. (kswphwn) in agreement with MT (Apparatus rrr). LXX,
Vulg., and Pesh. all have sg. For ˙erpah = kissufa see Num.R. 14.10 (ed. Vilna 122a.22): “How do we know that kesef (silver)
represents shame? Because in the language of the Land of Israel (la¡on yeru¡almi) they say kissufa< for ˙erpah.” The precise
force of la¡on/le¡on yeru¡almi here is unclear. Jast. 634a suggests “in the Jerusalem dialect (of the Chaldaic),” and Slotki
(Soncino trans. p. 611) “in the language of the Jerusalem [Talmud]” (cf. Radal ad loc.). But both these translations are prob-
ably too precise. Yeru¡almi here simply means “of the Land of Israel,” and the reference is to PJA. For the same rendering of
˙erpah see 5:1 (Note 4).
88
Tg. is so literal that it is not easy to see how he construed the Heb. and the problem is compounded by textual variants
(see Apparatus sss). There is no reason (pace Levine) why he should not have regarded v. 62 as governed by ¡ama>ta in v. 61.
This is how LXX and Pesh. read it, and probably also Vulg. (labia insurgentium mihi, et meditationes eorum adversum me
tota die, though the case of labia and meditationes is ambiguous). If v. 62 is “an independent sentence,” it is hard to isolate a
satisfactory predicate. Levine’s translation “their mouthings are maintained against me, and their machinations all the day” is
questionable because (a) there is no pronom. suffix on sœypwwt, and (b) it involves a breach of concord between qymyn and its
subj. If v. 62 is governed by ¡ama>ta in v. 61, this may give a clue as to what Tg. understood by hgywnhwn: this must refer to
something that can be heard. Jast. 331a suggests “derision, boastful talk.” The verbal root can also mean in JA “think,” hence
“thought” is also a possibility (cf. Sokoloff, JPA 158b, and note Ps 19:15, where hegyon libbi is rendered r>ywny by Tg.), but
how can one hear a thought? I have related the noun to the use of the verb in the sense of “study, con a text under one’s breath”
(Jast. 331a; Sokoloff, JPA 158a), hence “murmuring, muttering.” However, the use of the cognate by the Tg. (the Heb. has
hegyonam) is somewhat unusual, and the textual variants should be noted.
89
There are Tg. variants supporting the plurals, “sittings down .  .  . risings up .  .  . songs” (see Apparatus ttt and uuu), but
there is no good reason not to preserve the singulars throughout, as in MT.
Tg.’s <stkl (“behold”) preserves the impv. habbi†ah. So also LXX (epiblepson) and Vulg. (vide). Pesh.’s <stklt should, in
context, be translated “you have perceived,” not “I have perceived,” pace Albrektson (168). Pesh. makes better sense than
162   Translation

64. You will requite them with an evil recompense,90 O Lord, according to the works91
of their hands.
65. You will give them brokenness of heart,vvv 92 and [with] your weariness wear them
out. www 93

Apparatus, Chapter 3
vvv tbyrwt lb<: >Arukh has the unique reading ˙pypwt lb< www Reading ¡lhy (impv.) lhwn with DBomb for A y¡ly
(= ? “humiliation, sorrow of heart”: Jast. 491b). MT lhwn (= ? “and your weariness will wear them out,”
meginnat leb (see Note 92). but with breach of concord between subj. and verb).
Cf. Yem. Apparatus i.

Notes Chapter 3
he seems to allow: “Their sitting down and their rising up you have perceived; I have become part of their song” (see further
below). Note how Sa>adia’s Tafsir (ed. Qafi˙) also translates “you have seen,” perhaps through overhasty reading of habbi†ah
as hibba†ta.
Tg.’s zmrhwn (“their song”) involves treating the Heb. hapax legomenon manginatam simply as a variant of neginatam:
See 3:14 (Note 24 above), and cf. Ibn Ezra: “Manginatam like neginatam; the mem is redundant [lit. “added” = not part of the
root].” Note also Vulg. ego sum psalmus eorum. Pesh. takes the mem as = prep. min, “I have become (part) of their (mocking)
song.” LXX is corrupt, but probably originally understood the Heb. in the same way, and read egø apo psalmou auton (v. l. egø
psalmos autøn). On both Pesh. and LXX see Albrektson, 168–69. Leqa˙ ˇob, learnedly but pointlessly, suggests manginatam
is equivalent to *marginatam from √rgn, “murmur, backbite, slander” (BDB 920b).
90
Heb. gemul covers both good and bad recompense (Jast. 252a), so Tg. specifies.
91
Heb. has the sg. (ma>asœeh). Tg.’s plur. does not necessarily mean that his Vorlage had ma>asœei. LXX (ta erga) and Vulg.
(opera) also have the plur.
92
Heb. meginnat leb. Meginnah is a hapax legomenon. BDB 171b derives from √gnn in the sense of “cover,” hence “cover-
ing”: “covering of heart,” i.e., a hard shell about the heart > “obstinacy,” but as Renkema observes (466), this would imply the
continuation of the enemy’s oppression, which the poet would hardly have desired. (Note, however, that the Mattenot Kehunah,
to Lam.R. 3:65 §9, quoted below, suggests the poet may be thinking of the hardening of Pharoah’s heart, which led in the end
to still greater punishment). A similar objection would apply, though not as strongly, to BDB’s alternative: “covering of the
heart” > “blindness of heart.” KB 494a derives from a √mgn, “be insolent,” hence “insolence,” but this meaning for the root is
questionable, and in any case, how can “insolence” be a punishment?
The versions also found the word difficult: LXX, huperaspismon kardias (lit. “shielding of the heart”: Lust, Lexicon,
488b), and Vulg., scutum cordis, both saw in it the Heb. magen, “shield”; Pesh., krywt< dlb< (“sadness, anxiety of heart”), and
Sa>adia, Tafsir (ed. Qafi˙), ˙asrat al-qalb (“grief of heart”), both possibly related it to Heb. yagon, “grief, sorrow” (see Rashi
below). The basis of Tg.’s “brokenness of heart” (tebirut libba<) is unclear, but it agrees with one of the opinions quoted in the
Midrash: “Two teachers [differ about meginnat leb]. One says that it means brokenness of heart (tebirut libba<), the other that
it signifies hardness of heart (>azizut libba<). The one who says that it means ‘brokenness of heart’ quoted the verse, Who has
delivered (miggen) your enemies into your hand (Gen 14:20); and the one who says that it means ‘hardness of heart’ quoted
the verse, The shield (magen) of your help (Deut 33:29)” (Lam.R. 3:65 §9, Aramaic!). A semantic link between “shield” and
“strength” is not too hard to make, but how the use of miggen in Gen 14:20 engenders the meaning “breaking/brokenness of
heart” is far from obvious.
Rashi also takes the view that meginnat leb means “heartbrokenness (¡ibron leb), and quotes Gen 14:20 in support, adding
Hos 11:8 (<amaggenkha) for good measure. From his notes to both these verses it is clear that he understands the basic sense
of the verb mgn to be “deliver up, hand over” (see further Ibn Ezra and the Tgs. ad loca), so he must be postulating a semantic
development from “giving up of heart” to “brokenness of heart.” Rashi further criticizes those who relate meginnah to yagon
(see Pesh. and Sa>adia above) on the ground that the nun of yagon is not a radical.
Leqa˙ ˇob suggests “madness”: “Meginnat leb: madness (teruf ha-da>at). It is a Greek word <mgynh.” Rudolf made a simi-
lar proposal on the basis of the Arabic verb janna, “to be insane, crazy”; cf. majanna, “madness, insanity” (Albrektson, 170; cf.
HAL 546a). Could le¡on Yavan in the Leqa˙ ˇob be a mistake for le¡on >Arab?
93
MT ta<alatkha lahem. Ta<alah is a hapax legomenon but is commonly derived from √<lh, “swear, curse” (BDB 46b; so
also Lam.R. 3:65 §9 and Leqa˙ ˇob, both quoting appositely Deut 30:7, and Ibn Ezra): “Give them anguish of heart, as your
curse on them!” (Hillers). Tg.’s ¡l<hwtk presupposes tela<atkha: cf. his rendering of tela<ah in v. 5: w¡lhy <nwn (“and he wearied
them”); see Note 10 above. It is not clear whether Tg. had the MT reading in front of him but took ta<alah simply as a variant
spelling of tela<ah, or if his Heb. text actually read tela<atkha. The latter is possible: note how LXX (mochthon sou) and Vulg.
 Translation   163

66. You will hotly pursue themxxx 94 in anger, and destroy them from under the high heav-
ens of the Lord.95

Apparatus, Chapter 3
xxx Reading tdlwq(y)nwn with BCDEGHIBomb for A
tdlwqwnwn. The form is pe., but F and Yem. have
the <af. tdlyqynwn. See Note 94.

Notes Chapter 3
(laborem tuum) may also point in this direction. Whether or not this was the case, Tg.’s translation sets up a resonance with v.
5: just as the enemy wore Israel out, so, measure for measure, God will wear them out! “Your weariness” = “the weariness that
you give them” (Greenup).
94
Heb. tirdof. Tg. tdlwq(y)nwn (pe.) or tdlyqynwn (<af.): see Apparatus xxx. Tdlwq(y)nwn involves using Aram. dlq (“burn,”
intrans.) in the pe. + direct object, in the sense of “hotly pursue”; cf. the parallel usage in BH of dalaq, in the qal + direct obj.:
Ps 10:2 and Lam 4:19 (with Note 47 ad loc.).
Tg. supplies the object from the following verb. Hillers (119) claims that “G. R. Driver was the first to point out that in
cases of parallel words only one needs an explicit pronominal suffix in Hebrew poetic style; he cited this passage as an example
(see “Hebrew Studies,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society [1948] 164–65).” But Tg. anticipated Driver by at least thirteen
hundred years!
95
Tg. supports MT against LXX and Vulg. “beneath the heaven(s), O Lord,” and against Pesh. “from beneath your heav-
ens, O Lord.” Tg. ¡my mrwm< has a liturgical feel to it. Note v. 41 above, where he again translates ¡amayim by ¡my mrwm<. For
the phrase ¡emei marom see, e.g., the >Amidah, Benediction 3, “We will sanctify your name in this world, as they sanctify it in
the high heavens (bi¡emei marom)” (ADPB, 77). Further 5:19, Note 32.
164   Translation

Chapt e r 4
1. How has the gold of the House of the Sanctuary dimmed, [how] has the splendor of the choice
gold-leaf a changed! Sacred jewels1 are poured out at the head of every bazaar.2
2. The precious sons of Zion, whose forms are likened to3 fine gold, howb were the im-
pure nations making them lie down facing their beds and staring at them, so that their wives
should bear sons beautiful with their beauty,c 4 and they were regarded as vessels of clay,

Apparatus, Chapter 4
a py†lwn = Greek petalon: see Note 1. The word is b ABCEGHI have literally “and how,” but the copula
variously spelled in the mss: p†lwn (H); pydlwn (BE); is waw-apodosis. DFHBomb read simply “how.” The
pdlwn (G); pdln (F). CDBomb read pl†yn (= palatium), spelling of the particle varies between h(y)kd(y)n and
“palace” (see Yem. Apparatus b). I has pyl<, “ivory.” <ykdyn.
c “With (b-) their beauty”: BCG “as (k-) their beauty.”

Notes Chapter 4
1
Taking his cue from the phrase <abnei qode¡, which he renders “sacred jewels” (mrgl<wwn qdy¡yn: cf. BH <eben yeqarah,
MH <eben †obah; Vulg. lapides sanctuarii), Tg. detects a reference here to Temple treasures; hence the “gold” becomes the gold
of the House of the Sanctuary (the Beit Miqda¡). He renders ketem, a late Heb. word for gold (BDB 508b), by py†lwn. So also
Tg. Job 28:16, 19; 31:24. Py†lwn is the Greek loanword petalon (Krauss 441b; Intro. 2.2), which denotes a “leaf,” and then “a
thin sheet” of metal (LSJ 1396b). In the latter sense in Greek it is normally qualified by a word for metal (“a leaf of gold, of
lead,” etc.). In Tg. Aram., however, it seems to be used absolutely, meaning “gold-leaf.” LXX Exod 28:36 and Lev 8:9 translates
the ßiß (“plate”) attached to the front of the high priest’s turban by petalon. The words ßiß and petalon seem to have become so
interchangeable in later Heb. that the curious hybrid expression ßiß psuchrophoron, “a sheet from a lead water-pipe” (= Greek
petalon psuchrophoron) occurs in Sefer ha-Razim 2.57-72 (ed. Margalioth, 3–4). Might petalon here refer to the high priest’s
ßiß? The Temple reference would fit the context. Tg.’s straightforward reading of the verse as describing the desecration of the
Temple treasures contrasts strikingly with Lam.R.’s attempt to find all sorts of symbolism in the gold and the precious stones,
including an allusion to the death of King Josiah, “because he was to his people like a golden ornament” (see also Rashi ad
loc.). Tg. applies 4:20 below to Josiah.
2
Aram. bry¡ kl m˙wzyn = Heb. be-ro<¡ kol ˙ußot, a phrase denoting conspicuous, public places. Tg. renders as here in
Lam 2:19, but bry¡ kl ¡wqy< in Isa 51:20 and Nah 3:10. Ma˙oz (like ¡uq) designates a trading place rather than simply a street.
Perhaps there is a hint that the Temple treasures are being traded in the market.
3
MT’s ha-mesulla<im has occasioned much debate (see Albrektson). √sl< is a hapax legomenon in BH. BDB 698b suggests
it means “to weigh”: “they who are weighed against gold,” i.e., reckoned of such value. It may be a variant spelling of √slh
II (BDB 699a), which occurs in a suggestive context in Job 28:16, lo< tesulleh be-khetem <ofir, “it cannot be weighed against
(estimated in) gold of Ophir” (note also Job 28:19: Rashi already makes the connection). HAL 756a relates to Arabic sala<a,
“to pay”: “paid for (with fine gold).” Tg.’s dmtylyn may simply be deduced from the context (clearly a comparison with gold is
being made), but possibly Tg. saw in the MT consonants the word semel, “image,” hence his rendering “whose forms.”
4
Tg. interprets the “fine gold” (Heb. paz) as symbolizing the sons of Zion’s physical beauty. This leads him to introduce a
midrash about how the Gentiles tried to reproduce this beauty in their own children by gazing at a young Jewish slave-boy while
having sexual intercourse with their wives. (“Sons of Zion” is taken narrowly and precisely to mean young Jewish men.) It was
widely believed in antiquity that what the parents were looking at, or what was strongly present in their imaginations at the
time of conception, could imprint itself on their offspring. One form of this theory stressed the role of the mother. Empedocles,
according to Aetius, regarded the mother as crucial: “How do offspring come to resemble others rather than their parents? He
[Empedocles] says that foetuses are shaped by the imagination of the woman around the time of conception. For often women
have fallen in love with statues of men and with images and have produced offspring which resembled them” (Diels, Doxographi
Graeci 5.12.2). The same idea is found in Gen.R. 73.10, where, in a commentary on the story in Gen 30:25-43 about how Jacob
craftily induced Laban’s sheep to have striped, speckled, and spotted lambs by having them mate in full view of striped rods, the
following story is told: “It once happened that an Ethiopian, married to an Ethiopian, begot a white-skinned son by her. There-
upon the father took the child and went to Rabbi, asking him, ‘Perhaps he is not my son.’ ‘Did you have any pictures [of men] in
your house?’ he asked. ‘Yes,’ he replied. ‘Black or white?’ ‘White,’ he answered. ‘This accounts for your white-skinned son,’ he
assured him.” Test. Reuben 5:16 cleverly invokes the same principle to solve the problem of how the sons of God and the daughters
 Translation   165

the workd of the potter’se hands.5

3. Moreover, the fastidious daughters of Israel f unbind their breasts for the sons of the
nations, who are like the serpent;6 they suckle their young.g The Congregation of my people is
given over to cruel men, and mourns for her [own] sonsh like ostriches7 in the wilderness.8

Apparatus, Chapter 4
d BCEFGHIBomb “works.” MT has ma>asœeh, but the ing noun, and the copula added (wrwby). The end of
strongly supported plur. may point to a textual variant the verse was also reshaped to make better sense of it:
ma>asœei; cf. LXX erga. However, the plural could be see next note. A’s text now reads: “and the young of
simply translational. the Congregation of my people are given over to cruel
e Reading “potter” with BCEFGHIBomb = MT yoßer. men, and their mothers mourn for them like ostriches
AD “potters.” in the wilderness.” This makes reasonable sense, but
f Reading “daughters of Israel” with BCDEGHIBomb the Yem. text is superior and almost certainly reflects
and Yem. for A’s “Congregation of Israel.” better the original Tg. of the verse. See Yem. Apparatus
g Reading <ynyqw rwbyhwn with Yem. = MT heniqu m.
gureihen. There is primitive corruption in the West. tra- h Reading wspd< >l bnh< (“and she mourns for her [own]
dition here: all West. mss descend from an exemplar, sons”) for A w<mhwn spdn >lyhwn (“and their mothers
which had lost the verb <ynyqw. As a result rwbyhwn mourn for them”), which is almost certainly secondary.
was changed to rwby to connect it with the follow- See preceding note.

Notes Chapter 4
of men in Genesis 6 could have produced giant offspring. Physical intercourse between heavenly and earthly beings was out of the
question. What happened was that the sons of God appeared as giant phantasms to the women when they were copulating with
their husbands, and these images were imprinted on the women’s children. See further Doniger and Spinner, “Misconceptions.”
In the Tg. here, however, though the idea is broadly the same, it is what the husbands see that affects the form of the child.
This is more in keeping with the general tenor of ancient embryology, which regarded the man as active and the woman as pas-
sive. The centrality of the father is asserted also in b. Gitt. 58a, in a passage that closely parallels our Tg.: “The precious sons of
Zion, comparable to fine gold (Lam 4:2). What is meant by ‘comparable to fine gold’? Shall I say that they were covered with
gold? [This can hardly be] seeing that in the school of R. Shila it was stated that two state weights of fine gold came down into
the world, one of which went to Rome and the other to the rest of the world! No: what it means is that they used to eclipse fine
gold with their beauty. Before that the notables of the Romans used to keep an amulet set in a ring in front of them when they
had sexual intercourse, but now they brought Israelites and tied them to the foot of the bed.” The Tg. is much clearer than the
Talmud as to the rationale of the Romans’ action. If Tg. is based on the Talmud, then it has interpreted that tradition. On its own
the Talmud can be read in another way: the Jewish boys functioned, like the amulets they replaced, as lucky charms to ensure
conception. It is not a question of appropriating their beauty.
The physical beauty of the Jews, both male and female, their wit and sagacity compared to other nations, is a frequent topic
of Midrash (see Lam.R. 1:1 §4-20; 1:16 §45-46; 4:2 §4), but the introduction of this extraordinary midrash here is gratuitous:
there is nothing in the biblical text on which to hang it. However, it fits in with a recurrent theme of the Tg., namely the sexual
dangers to which the exiles were exposed, particularly the young men. Here the husband clearly desires the boy, but he appro-
priates his beauty indirectly rather than by physical rape.
5
It is not clear how Tg. understands the second half of the line. Presumably in context it now becomes a censure of the
Gentiles. By putting the precious “golden” boys of Israel in such a degrading and morally dangerous position they were treat-
ing them like dirt.
6
Tg. ˙wrmn<, v. l. tnyn< (see Yem. Apparatus o), is clearly some sort of serpent or snake. For the same variant cf. Onq. tnyn<
with Neof. and FT hrmn</>wmn< = Heb. tannin at Exod 7:9. LXX has drakontes, deriving from tannin in the sense of “dragon,
sea-monster” (see BDB 1072a-b); Pesh. has yarure<, “jackals” (Payne Smith 1630b)—both plural.
7
Tg. n>mywt</n>myt</n>my< = MT (Qerei) ye>enim, “ostriches” (BDB 419a; HAL 421a), only here in BH, but cf. benot
ya>anah in Mic 1:8, “I will make a wailing like the jackals (Heb. tannim; Tg. yrwryn = “jackal” as in Syriac, Note 6 above, but
see Jast. 594b), and a mourning like ostriches (Heb. benot ya>anah; Tg. n>myn).” LXX strouthion; Pesh. na>amah (both sg.!).
8
The text of the Tg. is in considerable disorder: see Apparatus g. Following through the thought from the previous verse,
Tg. sees here a reference to the sexual perils that beset the daughters of Israel. The act of “drawing out the breast” (˙aleßu ¡ad)
must have a female subject, and he supplies “the fastidious daughters of Israel” to balance “the precious sons of Zion” in the
166   Translation

4. The tongue of the youth stuck to his palate through thirst; the children asked for bread,
[but] there was none to offer [it] to them.9
5. Those who were accustomed to eati dainties were desolate in the markets; those who
were reared in crimson clothing embraced dunghills.10
6. And the sin of the Congregation of my people j was greater than the sin of Sodom,
which was overthrown in an instant,k 11 and prophets did not dwell in her to prophesy, to turn
her backl in repentance.12

Apparatus, Chapter 4
i DBomb “those who were eating” = MT (ha-<okhelim). k b¡>t<: DBomb k¡>t<; H b¡>t< ˙d< (“in a single instant”).
j C “Congregation of Israel.” l Reading l<hdrwth< with C for A l<hdrwt<. An object is
needed; cf. Yem. Apparatus s.

Notes Chapter 4
previous verse. In context “fastidious” (mefanqata<) should not be taken as pejorative (“pampered”): rather, like “precious” in
v. 2, it highlights the degradation of the women. The captive daughters of Israel are forced to bear the children of the Gentile
captors (Heb. lit. “their whelps”). As a result the Congregation of Israel mourns “her own children” (in Tg. the contrast between
benaha< and robeihon is piquant), i.e., her own children who have been killed by the enemy, or the Jewish children she did not
have while bearing the offspring of the enemy. Tg. seems to have construed the opening sentence “as for a tanin they drew out
the breast.” Tanin was identified as a symbolic reference to the nations, emphasizing their cruel and repulsive nature (Note 6
above). Pesh. also takes tanin as involving a comparison, but its text is confused.
9
Tg. is generally close to the Heb., but at two points its rendering is slightly loose: (1) >wlym< (“youth”) is too old for Heb.
yoneq (“babe in arms”); (2) mw¡y†, “offer,” does not quite get the Heb. poresœ [sc. le˙em], “break (bread)” (BDB 828a). LXX
translates literally, ho diakløn ouk estin autois; Pesh. “there is none to break and give [it] to them.” Lam.R. 4:4. §7 extrapolates
a typically prosaic scenario from the first half of the line: “R. Abba b. Kahana said: An aqueduct ran from Etam, but the besieg-
ers destroyed it and poured its water away. When a man took his child to the aqueduct and found no water, his tongue stuck to
his palate for thirst.”
10
Tg. translates very literally, but as a result fails to clarify fully the meaning of “were desolate” and “embraced.” “Dain-
ties”: Aram. tpnwqyn = Heb. ma>adannim. The same trans. is found in Tg. in the two other occurrences of this word, Gen 49:20
(Onq.) and Prov 29:17. Lam.R. 4:5 §8 identifies the delicacies as “white bread and vintage wine” on the basis of 2:12 (see
Lam.R. 2:12 §16). “Markets”: Aram. m˙wzyn = Heb. ˙ußot: cf. Note 2 above. “Embraced”: Aram. gpypw, = Heb. ˙ibbequ: cf.
LXX periebalonto/periebalon (see Albrektson). Hillers suggests the meaning is that they scavenged for food (“pick through
garbage”). Lam.R. 4:5 §8, followed by Rashi, takes the sense to be that “they lay upon (dunghills)”: cf. Pesh. dmkyn.
11
See Gen 19:24-25. “In an instant” is the author of Lam.’s interpretation of the story. These words are not found in the
biblical text.
12
The final clause in MT is obscure: welo< ˙alu bah yadayim. If it is not corrupt, then the meaning probably is “and [hu-
man] hands were not laid on her [i.e., Sodom]” (see Hillers). The text is alluding to the fact that Sodom was overthrown not
by human agency: “And hands were not laid on her. That is, the hands of the enemy, for at the hands of the angels was she
overthrown” (Rashi). Destruction by angels is midrashic rather than biblical: see Ginzberg, Legends 1:253. The argument is
that, on the principle of the punishment fitting the crime, the sin of Israel must have been greater than the sin of Sodom. Sodom
was mercifully overwhelmed in an instant by divine retribution, whereas Israel’s cruel torture at the hands of its human enemies
was prolonged.
Tg. provides a different justification for the conclusion that Israel was the greater sinner: Israel, unlike Sodom, sinned
against the light, against prophetic calls to repentance. But how Tg. derived this sense from the Heb. text is obscure. It is pos-
sible he read welo< ˙alu in the light of Jer 5:3, where, in a passage censuring Jerusalem’s failure to respond to divine chastise-
ment, the phrase seems to mean “but they did not repent” (“You smote them, welo< ˙alu; Tg. wela< †abu). Perhaps he understood
the phrase ˙alu yadayim as denoting a gesture of grief and repentance (“and hands were not wrung in her”). But how could the
Sodomites have repented without the prophetic call to repentance? Like Nineveh, they needed a prophet to point out the error
of their ways? Alternatively, and more straightforwardly, Tg. may have taken yadayim as symbolizing the prophets (“proph-
ets did not frequent her,” i.e., to bring her back to the right path), but the basis of the equation “hands” = “prophets” is elusive.
Tg.’s implication that Sodom did not have a opportunity to repent because she did not have prophets dwelling in her midst
is unusual. The Midrash often stresses that Sodom was forewarned but ignored the warning. See, e.g., FT Gen. 19:24, “And the
Word of the Lord was bringing down upon the people of Sodom and Gomorrah showers of favor in order that they might repent
of their evil deeds, but they did not do so. But when they saw the showers they said, ‘Here is confirmation that evil works are not
 Translation   167

7. Her Nazirites13 were purerm thann snow; they were smoother than milk; they were red-
der in appearance14 than rubies,o 15 and like sapphire p 15 were their faces.16

Apparatus, Chapter 4
m bryrn: C b˙yrn (“choicer”). o ywhryn: BEGHI zhwryn (“crimson”); cf. Yem. and
n ytyr m-: BEFGHI omit ytyr. Note 15.
p BEFGI “and sapphire”; cf. MT sappir, without any
connective particle.

Notes Chapter 4
revealed before him.’ And he turned to bring down on them brimstone and fire from before the Lord out of heaven.” Ps-J.: “And
the Word of the Lord brought down showers of favor upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah in order that they might repent, but they
did not do so, but said: ‘Works of evil are not revealed before the Lord.’ Behold, therefore, brimstone and fire descended upon
them from before the Word of the Lord out of heaven.” Rashi ad loc. neatly summarizes this tradition: ‘The Lord rained .  .  .
brimstone and fire. To begin with it rained [water], but then it turned to brimstone and fire.” Gen.R. 49.6 interprets Gen 18:21 as
showing that God gave Sodom the opportunity to repent: “I will go down now (Gen 18:21) .  .  . R. Abba b. Kahana said: This
teaches that the Holy One, blessed be he, gave them the chance to repent.” (cf. Tan˙uma, Wayyera< 18 [ed. Buber, II 48a]; Neof.
and Ps-J. to Gen. 18:21: Ginzberg, Legends 5:239, n. 167). Similar concerns are expressed in the Midrash with regard to the
Flood, which is often compared to the destruction of the Cities of the Plain (see Rashi to Gen 7:12, “And the rain was upon the
earth; but it later says, And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth (Gen 7:17). In fact when he poured it forth [first] he
poured it forth in mercy, so that if they had returned in repentence it would have been a shower of blessing. But when they did not
turn, it became a flood.” Further, Mekh. deR. Ishmael, ⁄irah 5; Yalqu† Shim>oni, Genesis §83. In the light of all this Tg. should
probably not be read as denying absolutely that Sodom had the chance to repent (which would run counter to the deepest instincts
of rabbinic theology), but rather that comparatively it did not enjoy the benefit that Israel had of a clear, prophetic voice.
Once again Tg.’s interpretation is not found in Lam.R. 4:6 §9. There a different explanation of the troublesome welo< ˙alu
bah yadayim is offered, which is clarified by the parallel in Gen.R. 28.5 (cf. b. Sanh. 104b).
13
Heb. nezireyha could mean either: (a) “Nazirites” in the technical sense of those who have taken a vow to abstain
from intoxicants, from grape products, from contact with corpses, and from cutting their hair (Num 6:1-21; m. Nazir); or (b)
“princes” (Gen 49:26; Deut 33:16: BDB 634b). See Rashi. Tg. must have intended the former sense, since the root nzr does
not occur in JA save as a denom. of the noun nazir (Jast. 893a). LXX and Pesh. also take the word in this sense. Some form of
Nazirite vows were observed throughout the Talmudic era, but the institution seems to disappear in the Middle Ages (see EJ
12:907–10; further Chepey, Nazirites in Late Second Temple Judaism).
14
Tg.’s smyqw ˙yzw exactly parallels the syntax of the MT <ademu >eßem, with both ˙yzw and >eßem to be construed as
adverbial accusatives (“with respect to”). However, ˙yzw = >eßem is a free rendering, based probably on the context (Note 16),
though note Rashi’s comment: “>Eßem means ‘appearance’ (mar<eh), as in Exod 24:10, ‘Like the appearance (>eßem: Onq.
m˙zy) of the heavens for purity.’” The occurrence both here and in Exod 24:10 of the words sappir and >eßem (in an unusual
sense) may well have struck Tg. as significant. Many modern commentators take >eßem here in the sense of “body” on the basis
of Prov 16:24 (e.g., Albrektson).
15
The extravagant description of the physical appearance of the Nazirites is reminiscent of the depiction of the body of
the Beloved in Cant 5:10-14 and, as in the Tg. to that passage (see Alexander, Targum Canticles, Appendix B), so here the
rendering of the precious stones is problematic. (1) Heb. peninim is commonly taken to designate “pearl” or “coral” (BDB
819b; HAL 946a), but this does not fit easily here since redness is not normally associated with pearl or coral. The reading of
the Tg. here is uncertain (see Apparatus o). On offer are: (a) Zhwryn = “crimson”; this gets the redness, but the word seems to
denote crimson-dyed cloth rather than a precious stone (note zhwry[n] in v. 5). (b) Ywhryn is found as a name for a type of gem
in 2 Tg. Esth. 1:4 and Tg. Cant. 7:2. It is possible, however, that we should emend in both these cases to guhar, cognate with
the Arabic jauhar. This is normally used in Arabic generically for a “jewel” (EI 2, Supplement, 250–62, sub djawhar), whereas
Aram. guhar (assuming the reading is correct) appears to denote a specific type of gem. I have translated “rubies” here simply
for the sake of the context. (2) Heb. sappir = Tg. ¡bzyz<, a common Tg. equivalent (see Onq. Exod. 28:18; 29:11).
16
Tg. prswpyhwn = MT gizratam. Again Tg. has worked from the context (see Note 13). The meaning of gizrah here is
totally obscure. BDB 160b suggests a noun gizrah (√gzr, “to cut”) = “cutting, i.e., polishing”; hence “their polishing (or beauty
of form) was as sapphire,” but this is not convincing. Hillers conjectures “their beards,” on the basis of Ancient Near Eastern
parallels. Symmachus’ ta mel∑ autøn (“their limbs”), Pesh. gw¡mhwn (“their bodies”), and Vulg. sapphiro pulchriores (though
see BDB above) are like Tg. derived from the context. LXX translates to apospasma autøn (“that which is torn off from them”),
obviously with an eye on √gzr, “cut off,” but the sense is unclear. Lam.R. 4:7 §10 links gizrah with gezerah, “decree”: “Every
decree which befell Jerusalem was as hard as sapphire,” implying the reading “their [i.e., the enemies’] decrees were [as hard]
as sapphire.” This is a rather obvious midrashic interpretation, which Tg. interestingly does not adopt.
168   Translation

8. Darker than the blackness of the exile17 was their form;q they were not recognized in
the marketplaces.18 Their skin stuck to their bones;r it became as crackeds 19 as wood.
9. Better off were those slain by the sword thant those slain by famine, for those slain by
the sword, when they were ripped open inu their bellies,20 spewed out what they had eaten
of the produce of the field, but [as for] those bloated by famine—their bellies burstv from
[lack of] food.21

Apparatus, Chapter 4
q rywwyhwn: EG zywyhwn (“their brightness”); I r<whwn u H omits the prep. The noun then has to be construed as
(“their appearance”); C ˙yzwyhwn (“their looks”). an acc. of respect: “they were ripped up with respect to
r H “their joints” (prqyhwn). their bellies.”
s Reading pryk with BDEGHBomb for A pryyk. FI pryq v Reading pryq with BEFGIBomb for A sryq (“empty”);
(“split, divided”): see note v below. C sdyq (“split”). For pryq in the sense of “burst” see
t Reading ytyr m(n) with BDEFGHIBomb. note s above, and Tg. 1 Kgs. 19:11 (Jast. 1239a). Pryq
is in clear breach of concord with its subject, and
should probably be emended to pryqn.

Notes Chapter 4
17
MT ¡e˙or occurs only here in BH. BDB 1007a takes it as an abstract noun meaning “blackness,” but many have felt that
something concrete must be alluded to: hence Rashi, “coal” (followed by AV, AJV, and other English versions); Lam.R. 4:8
§11, ˙arta< = “shoe-blacking” (Jast. 508a), or n<g< = (?) “soot” (Jast. 865a, but see Radal’s note ad loc.); LXX “soot” (asbol∑n);
Pesh. “lamp-black” or “coals” (¡u˙are<: plur.!); Vulg. “coals” (carbones). Tg.’s <wkmt< takes ¡e˙or abstractly but sees an allu-
sion to the trials and tribulations of exile. The negative connotations of blackness are noteworthy, and the phrase “blackness of
exile” striking. Perhaps there is an allusion to the idea that in exile Israel is deprived of the light of the Shekhinah, which resided
in the Temple (Ginzberg, Legends 6:66). If so, then the implication may be that the Shekhinah cannot be enjoyed outside the
Land (see Tg. Lam. 3:41), a view Tg. Cant. would share (see Alexander, Targum Canticles, 19). Note <wkmt< in the sense of
“distress” (Jast. 25b).
18
For Tg. m˙wzyn = MT ˙ußot, see Notes 2 and 10 above.
19
Heb. has yabe¡, “dry.” Tg.’s pryk, from √prk, “split, crack” (Jast. 1228b), interprets: just as dry wood splits and cracks,
so the skin of the Nazirites was cracked and lined. Translating the Tg. “as brittle as a twig” (cf. Albrektson) would be tempting
if the phrase could be linked with the preceding “bones,” but this would involve a breach of concord in the Aram., which has
“bones” in the plur. (though it would be possible in the Heb.: “their skin clung to their bones, [which] became as dry/brittle as
a stick”). Yem. has ngyb, “dry” = MT. Tg. clearly took yabe¡ as an adj., in keeping with the probable intention of the Masoretic
accents. LXX, Pesh., and Vulg. took it as a verb. Note Vulg.: adhaesit cutis eorum ossibus, aruit, et facta est quasi lignum (so
also Pesh.). LXX probably means “Their skin clung to their bones. They [i.e., the Nazirites] were dried up; they became like
wood” (see Albrektson).
20
Aram. kd <nwn mbz>yn bkrysyhwn. Mbz>yn should be pointed as an itpa., mibbazze>in. Tg. saw in Heb. meduqqarim a
reference specifically to disembowelling, one of the horrors of war, which fitted well with how he understood the context here,
especially the verb yazubu.
21
The meaning of Tg. is unclear, reflecting the problems of the underlying Heb., which are acute in the second half of the
verse. The first half clearly distinguishes between two groups, those who were killed by the enemy and those who were killed
by hunger, and claims that the fate of the former was preferable to that of the latter. The Heb. ¡e-hem yazubu meduqqarim mit-
tenubot sœadai gives the grimly ironic reason for this. Tg. took these words as applying to both groups, but in contrasting senses:
“for both of them spewed out, when ripped open, from the produce of the field.” Applied to the former, he saw an allusion to
their bellies being ripped open by the enemies’ swords and their contents spewed out. But at least they had enjoyed a meal! The
bellies of the latter were also swollen and burst open, but from lack of food! Yazubu, from √zwb, “flow, gush,” is always else-
where used in a physical sense: there is no evidence that it can mean figuratively “expire” (BDB 264b). Tg. translates it literally
dyybyn. Mn m< d<klw m>ll ˙ql< is Tg.’s first translation of mittenubot sœadai, “they gushed .  .  . with the produce of the field.” Mn
mykl< is his second translation of the same phrase, taking the min of the Heb. privately: “from lack of food.” One group died
instantly after a hearty meal, the other slowly with an empty stomach full of wind. The gruesome realism is typical of Tg.’s
dramatic heightening of the narrative (see Intro. 4.3). The reference to the distended bellies of the famine victims (nefi˙ei kafna<
is vivid) suggests that he and his readers had firsthand experience of famine.
 Translation   169

10. The hands of the women, who had been accustomed to take pity on the poor, cooked
their own children.22 They became sustenance23 for them, on the day when famine broke out,w
when the Congregation of my people was broken.24
11. The Lord has fully accomplished his anger.25 He has poured out upon Jerusalem the fury
of his wrath.26 He has kindled a raging firex in Zion, and it has consumed her foundations.y 27

Apparatus, Chapter 4
w Bomb “on the day of breaking” = MT. y See Yem. Apparatus ee.
x Miq. Ged. has the unique reading b<wr lpyd <¡t< (“a
flame of a torch of fire”).

Notes Chapter 4
22
Tg. heightens the drama by contrasting the former pity of the women toward the poor (or unfortunate: miskenin) with
their present behavior toward their own children, and he seems to take the charge of cannibalism literally, in contrast to Lam.
R. 4:10 §13: “R. Huna said in the name of R. Yosei: The Holy One, blessed be he, declared: ‘[The women] did not allow me to
punish my world!’ How was that? If one of them had a loaf of bread sufficient for the needs of herself and her husband for one
day, and the son of her neighbor died, she would take it and comfort her with it. Scripture regards them as if they had cooked
their own children to fulfill a commandment. That is why it says, The hands of compassionate women have cooked their own
children. And why did they do this? So that they [the women] should provide sustenance for them [their neighbors].” The
wording is somewhat obscure, but the general sense is clear: in fulfilling the duty to break bread with the bereaved (cf. Jer 16:7;
Ezek 24:17, 22; Hos 9:4), the women took the food out of their own children’s mouths and thus caused them to die. It was as
if they had fed their own children to their neighbors. In other words, there was no literal cannibalism. See Einhorn’s note ad
loc. In detecting here an allusion to breaking bread with mourners the darshan may have observed that √brh always seems to
be used with reference to “food intended to build up the strength of a sick person or bring solace to someone who had endured
great sorrow” (Renkema, 520, who translates lebarot “food of solace”).
23
The Heb. form lebarot is a hapax legomenon, as the Masorah notes. Tg. lemis>ad sees an allusion to food. So also LXX,
Pesh., and Vulg. Rashi compares the use of the verb brh in 2 Sam 12:17 (“and he did not eat bread with them”) and 2 Sam
3:35 (“to cause David to eat bread”). See further BDB 136a. It is puzzling why MT points as pi. inf. and not as the noun barut,
“food,” as in Ps 69:22. Tg.’s lemis>ad supports reading an inf. here (contrast its use of se>udta< in Ps 69:22), but possibly a qal
(liberot) rather than the pi. (lebarot).
24
Heb.: “at the breaking (¡eber) of the daughter of my people.” Tg. in effect offers two renderings of ¡eber: (1) the break-
ing out of famine (but see Apparatus w), and (2) the consequent breaking of the people.
25
Hillers assumes that Heb. killah YHWH <et ˙amato cannot in context mean that God has exhausted his anger in the
sense of ceasing to be angry: hence he translates “The Lord gave full vent to his rage.” Tg.’s sp YY yt ˙wmtyh (lit. “the Lord has
finished his anger”) compounds the problem. Note also LXX sunetelese kurios thumon autou; Pesh. ¡lmy mry< ˙mth; and Vulg.
complevit Dominus furorem suum. This, however, is defensible if the following verbs are taken as indicating how God spent
his anger, “by pouring out his fury on Jerusalem and kindling fire in Zion.” For a possible subtle interpretation of this way of
reading the Heb., see Note 27.
26
Tg. tqwp rwgzyh = Heb. ˙aron <appo. The phrase is virtually formulaic in the Tg. (cf. Tg. to 2:1 and 2:3). Here it is par-
ticularly apt because there are two words in the Heb.
27
Tg.’s stress that the object of God’s anger was the bricks and mortar of the city (note the addition “upon Jerusalem,”
which is fully justified by the later references to “Zion” and “foundations”), may, as Levine argues, be pointed. It was the physi-
cal city that bore the brunt of his wrath rather than (mercifully) the people. Cf. Lam.R. 4:11 §14: “He has kindled a fire in Zion.
It is written, A Psalm of Asaph. O God, the heathen have come into your inheritance (Ps 79:1). The text should have said, ‘A
Weeping of Asaph,’ ‘A Lament of Asaph,’ ‘A Dirge of Asaph’; so why does it say, A Psalm of Asaph? It may be likened to a
king who made a bridal-chamber for his son, which he plastered, cemented and decorated, but his son adopted a wicked course
of life. At once the king went up to the chamber, tore the curtains and broke the rods. But his [the son’s] tutor (paidagøgos)
took a piece of rod, and used it as a flute, and played on it. People said to him, ‘The king has wrecked his son’s chamber, yet
you sit playing a tune!’ He answered them: ‘I play a tune because the king wrecked his son’s chamber, but did not pour out his
anger on his son.’ Similarly people said to Asaph, ‘The Holy One, blessed be he, has caused the Temple and the sanctuary to
be destroyed, yet you sit singing a Psalm!’ He answered them: ‘I sing a Psalm because the Holy One, blessed be he, poured
out his wrath on wood and stone, and not upon Israel.’ That is why it is written, And he has kindled a fire in Zion, and it has
consumed her foundations.” This interpretation may be based on a close reading of the Heb.: God’s anger was totally exhausted
by destroying the physical city. There was none left to vent on the people (see Note 25).
170   Translation

12. The kingdoms of the earth28 and all the inhabitants of the worldz did not believe that
wicked Nebuchadnezzar, and Nebuzaradan the enemy,29 would enter to slaughter the people
of the House of Israel30 through the gatesaa of Jerusalem.
13. The Attribute of Justice answered and thus said:bb None of thiscc would have happened
but for the sins of her prophets, who prophesied false prophecies to her, and the iniquities
31

of her priests, who offered up incense of spices to idols,32 and they are the ones who caused33
the blood of the righteous34 to be shed in her midst.
14. Blinded they wandered in the marketplaces. They were defiled by the blood of those
slain by the sword, and, becausedd they were unable to see, they touched their garments.35

Apparatus, Chapter 4
z CH “of the earth” (<r><), but MT has tebel. bb “And thus said” is absent from I.
aa EG “gate,” but MT has the plur. cc Reading kl d< with BCDEFGHIBomb for A kl.
dd Reading w>l dl< with BDEFHIBomb and Yem for A
dl<.

Notes Chapter 4
28
Heb. “kings of the earth”; Tg. “kingdoms of the earth.” The reason for the change (which is supported by all Tg. mss),
is unclear.
29
Heb. ßar we-<oyeb. The identification of ßar with Nebuchadnezzar is standard in Tg. Lam. See on 1:5, Note 24. Nebu-
chadnezzar is also regularly designated “wicked,” with one exception (2:4). Tg. distinguishes here the <oyeb from the ßar, and
identifies him with Nebuzaradan, the captain of the guard, who seems to have been the one who actually captured the city and
took away the captives (2 Kgs 25:8, 11-12). Lam.R. 4:12 §15 (cf. Proem 30) represents Nebuchadnezzar as staying at Daphne
the suburb of Antioch (= Riblah of 2 Kgs 25:6) and leaving Nebuzaradan, his general, to conduct the campaign in the field
(Ginzberg, Legends 6:396).
30
Tg. implies that the nations did not believe there could be wholesale slaughter within the precincts of the holy city. The
emphasis in the biblical text, however, is subtly different: the nations believed that Jerusalem was inviolable: no one would ever
be able to breach her gates. This is the view taken, in typical fashion, by Lam.R. 4:12 §15 (cf. Proem 30): having besieged Je-
rusalem fruitlessly for three and a half years, Nebuzaradan was about to give up when God put it into his mind to measure the
height of the walls. When he did so he discovered that they were slowly subsiding. He simply waited till they were level with
the ground and stormed into the city! See Ginzberg, Legends 6:395.
31
The syntax of this verse in the Heb., which consists of a prepositional phrase, is unclear. Hillers proposes linking it
with the following verse: “because of the sins of the prophets .  .  . they wandered blind in the streets.” “Otherwise,” he notes,
“one must supply a subject and predicate, ‘This happened’ or the like .  .  . but that solution seems inadmissible except as a last
resort.” However, this is precisely the line taken by the Tg., who detects here a change of voice—an interjection by the personi-
fied divine Justice, pronouncing the judicial reasons why such punishment had been meted out to Jerusalem: she was destroyed
because of false prophecy, idolatry, and the shedding of innocent blood. Cf. Tg. to 1:1 (Note 3) and 2:20.
32
Tg. is careful not to condemn all prophets and priests, but only false prophets and idolatrous priests.
33
Tg. w<nwn grmw. The pronoun is emphatic, but its antecedent is unclear. (1) It could refer back to “the people of the
House of Israel” at the end of the previous verse, in contradistinction to the priests and prophets (in which case trans. “and they
themselves caused the blood of the innocent .  .  .”). The principle of measure for measure (middah ke-neged middah) was in
operation: the people were slaughtered because they slaughtered the innocent. Tg. may have in mind the people’s stoning of
Zechariah: see Note 34. (2) Alternatively, as translated above, <nwn could refer back to the priests, as opposed to the prophets
(see Yem. Apparatus oo). This eases the transition to the following verse, where the priests seem to be in view (Note 35).
34
Lam.R. 4:13 §16 (cf. Proem 23 and 2:2 §4) detects an allusion specifically to the killing of Zechariah in the “court of
the House of the Lord” (2 Chr 24:20-21). Lam.R. 4:13 §16 speculates that the “court” was the Court of the Priests, making the
murder even more heinous. Cf. Matt 23:35 and Luke 11:51, which place the scene of the crime “between the sanctuary and the
altar.” Allusions to this story are common in early Jewish literature, and Zechariah’s unavenged death (symbolized by his blood
moistly seething in the Temple courtyard) was widely seen as a cause of the destruction of both the first and the second Temples
(Ginzberg, Legends 4:258–59, 304; 6:354, 396–97). The legend was known to Tg.: see 2:20, Note 73.
35
Though modern commentators (e.g., Hillers) see this as one of the most problematic verses in Lamentations, Tg. finds
few difficulties. His only departures from a literal rendering are to define the blood as belonging to “those slain by the sword,”
and to provide a complement for the verb yukhelu (“they were not able to see”—an obvious expansion in a context talking of
the blind). But these additions are enough to impose a clear meaning on the verse. In both the Heb. and the Aram. >iwrim/>iwrin
 Translation   171

15. “Turn away from the defiling one,”36 cried the nations concerning them,ee “Turn away,
turn away! Do not touch them!” Becauseff they quarreled,37 they also went into exile. Just
when they thought they were secure, they said that they could not continue to reside among
the nations.38
16. From before the face of the Lord they were scattered;39 he no longer regards them.

Apparatus, Chapter 4
ee Adding >lyhwn with H. This translates the Heb. lamo, to the Israelites (see Note 36), and so should be trans-
which would otherwise not be represented. C and lated “with respect to them” and not “to them.”
Yem. have lhwn, which in the Tg. context must refer ff <rwm is read by all West. and Yem. mss. See Intro.
2.1.

Notes Chapter 4
could be subject: “blind people wandered” (cf. Rashi) or predicate (“they wandered blind”: cf. Ibn Ezra). Tg. seems to have
taken the latter view, though, as the following “they were not able to see” shows, he differs from Ibn Ezra in understanding the
blindness as actual and not as metaphorical (“like blind men”). His reading becomes very pointed if the subject is the priests
mentioned in the previous verse. The priests who offered up incense of spices to idols and shed innocent blood (see Note 34)
were subjected to a terrible punishment. Blinded by the enemy (and thus disbarred forever from the sacerdotal office), they suf-
fered the ultimate indignity of corpse defilement as they stumbled unseeing around the streets, blundering into the bodies of the
slain. A priest was obliged to avoid contact with a corpse, the most potent of all the “fathers of uncleanness.” The priest, if not
blind, would have passed by on the other side (Luke 10:31-32). Note the echo of Num 19:16, “And whoever in the open field
touches one slain by the sword (˙alal ˙ereb: Onq. q†yl ˙rb<), or a dead body, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean
seven days.” Tg. would doubtless have observed that the Heb. verb g<l denoted cultic impurity, which would have been particu-
larly serious for priests and rendered them unfit to serve (note esp. Ezra 2:62; Neh 7:64; Mal 1:7, 12; further BDB 146a). With
the addition of “those slain by the sword,” there is now a halakhic precision in “they [the priests] touched their [those slain by
the sword] garments”: the bloodstained clothing transmitted the impurity of the corpse.
36
MT’s suru †ame< is problematic and can be construed in a number of ways. The translation “Turn away, unclean ones” is
ruled out by the lack of concord between the adj. and the verb. BHS, on the basis of the LXX akathartøn, emends to †eme<im:
5QLama has †m<w = “they have become unclean.” As the text stands †ame< should probably be read as an exclamatory sentence,
“Turn away! Unclean!” which can then be resolved as meaning either “Turn away, [for I am] unclean!” or “Turn away, [for he is]
unclean!” Tg. seems to have taken the latter view and identified the speaker as the nations referring to Israel in exile. Tg.’s ms<b<
(pa.) is a strong rendering of †ame<, stressing not just intrinsic uncleanness but the power to defile (as if Heb. had me†amme<).
37
MT naßu, from √nßh (BDB 663a) or nwß (HAL 682b), is a hapax legomenon. Tg.’s <ytqw††w (Jast. 1347a) derives the
word from √nßh II = “struggle, quarrel” (BDB 663b; Jast. 928b), perhaps repointing nißßu (nif.). Tg. probably refers to commu-
nal strife: cf. the tradition that “baseless enmity” was the cause of the destruction of the Second Temple (b. Shabb. 32b; Nadich,
Jewish Legends, 365). Lam.R. 4:15 §18, however, sees a reference to quarrelling with God: “R. Hanina said: The Israelites were
not exiled until they had insulted (ni<aßu) the Holy One, blessed be he. R. Simon said: The Israelites did not go into exile until
they had quarreled with the Holy One, blessed be he (>ad ¡e ne>esœu ba>alei maßßut le-HQB"H).”
38
This verse, like the preceding, is one of the most difficult in Lamentations. Tg. seems to envisage a change of topic: the
wicked priests and prophets are no longer in view. Instead, the nations treat Israel in exile as a pariah people, warning each other
to avoid contact with them as something loathsome and defiling. Just when the Jews thought they had settled down securely in
foreign lands, the host nations expressed their contempt and rejection of them. The Judeophobia depicted here rings true, and
suggests the Tg. had firsthand experience of the hostility to which some Diaspora communities were subjected by their non-
Jewish neighbors (see Schaefer, Judeophobia; Gager, Antisemitism). The idea of reversal may be implied: Israel, who treated
the Gentiles as “unclean,” is now, ironically, spurned by the Gentiles as “unclean.”
39
Tg. follows MT in putting the >ayin strophe before the peh. The opening is difficult in the Heb.: penei YHWH ˙illeqam.
The only possible translation of this seems to be “The face of the Lord divided them, or scattered them” (for the latter sense
cf. Gen 49:7, where ˙illeq stands in parallelism to hepiß; for other possibilities see HAL 322b–323a). But the lack of concord
between the plur. subj. and the sg. verb is troubling, though a defective spelling ˙illequm is not out of the question. Tg. prob-
ably construed in this way but softened the boldness of the original by recasting it reverentially in the passive. Tg.’s <tplygw
corresponds semantically to the Heb. ˙illeq, but like the Heb. its precise meaning is unclear. It could mean they were “divided”
in the sense of “banished” from the face of God, which would fit with the following clause. Alternatively it could mean that
they were “scattered or dispersed” from before the face of the Lord, which would fit with the allusions to exile in the latter part
of the verse and in v. 15. Cf. Rashi: “A face of anger from the Lord divided them and dispersed them among the nations.” Lam.
R. 4:16 §19 probably expresses the same sense, but rather obscurely (see commentaries ad loc.).
172   Translation

Therefore the wicked peoples did not respect the faces of the priests,gg 40 nor did they have
pity onhh the elders.ii 41
17. Our eyes continue42 to be worn out with looking for our help, which we expect from
the Romans, [but] which has proved vain for us, with our watching wherewith we watchjj for
the Edomiteskk 43—a nation that does not save.44
18. They beset our paths,45 so that we cannot walk safely in our squares.46 We said: “Our
end draws near; our days are accomplished, forll our end has arrived.”mm
19. Our pursuers were swifter than the eagles of heaven. On the mountains they hotly
pressed us;47 in the wilderness they lay in wait for us.

Apparatus, Chapter 4
gg EG “the priest,” but MT has the plur. (cf. BCDEFGI). A has simply “with our watching for
hh ˙sw: C ˙nw (“treat graciously”); cf. MT ˙ananu. the Edomites,” but the repetition of the root matches
ii I “the elder,” but MT has the plur. the Heb. (bßippiyyatenu ßippinu), and the omission is
jj Adding “wherewith we watch” (d<ystkyn<) with HBomb easily explained by parablepsis.
kk Bomb “the Romans.”

Notes Chapter 4
40
Tg. sees a causal connection between the first and second stichs of the verse: because they were banished from the pres-
ence of the Lord the priests and elders were treated with contempt by the nations. God was no longer there to champion them.
41
Or “old men,” but in parallelism to “priests,” sabayya< probably denotes an office. The Gentiles despised both the civil
and religious leaders of the exiles.
42
Tg. seems to have read >odeinah with the Ketib (cf. 5QLamb) rather than >odeinu with the Qerei (cf. LXX and Pesh.).
43
Tg.’s identification of the nameless goy in the Heb. with the Edomites parallels his addition of the Romans to the first
stich of the verse. Edom = Rome, particularly Christian Rome, is a standard equation in rabbinic literature (Ginzberg, Legends
5:272, and Note 52). For variant readings see Apparatus kk and Yem. Apparatus xx. Tg. sees the verse as reflecting the experi-
ence of exile (which does not necessarily mean that he himself was living outside the Land: see Intro. 4.3), and so feels justi-
fied in contextualizing it in his own times and his own community. Lam.R. 4:17 §20, by way of contrast, detects an historical
allusion to the Northern Kingdom attempting vainly to enlist the help of Pharaoh Necho against Assyria (though, as often,
the darshan’s sense of chronology is somewhat awry). Cf. Rashi, who, following Lam.R., takes a similar historical approach,
appositely quoting Isa 30:7 (“For Egypt helps in vain, and to no purpose: therefore have I called her Rahab who sits still”),
and Jer 37:7 (“Behold, Pharaoh’s army, which has come forth to help you, shall return to Egypt, to their own land”). For other
contemporary references to Edom/Rome in Tg. Lam. see 1:19; 4:21-22, and for its anti-Roman, pro-Persian stance see Note 62
below. The implications of these references for the date and provenance of the Tg. are discussed in the Intro. 8.2.
44
Tg. follows closely the grammar of the MT, and as a result carries over into its translation some of the problems of the
original. In context the Aram. sp<n >ynn< l<ystkl< should not be translated “our eyes stop looking.” Rather, the inf. must be gerun-
dial: “our eyes cease/are worn out by looking.” The following bskwtn< stands in parallel to l<ystkl<, and like it depends on sp<n
>ynn<: “our eyes are worn out with looking .  .  . and with watching in vain.” Tg., reasonably, construes the Heb. habel, ßippinu
<el goy, and lo< yo¡ia> as a series of asyndetic relative clauses: d<thpyk ln< lhblw, d<stkyn< .  .  . dl< yprwq.
45
The form of ptcp. in the Aram. (ßd<n, v. l. ßdyn: see Yem. Apparatus yy) suggests that Tg. derived the Heb. ßadu from
√ßdh rather than √ßwd. Both roots exist in Heb. and Aram. In BH ßdh I means “to lie in wait for” (BDB 841a), and ßwd I “to
hunt” (BDB 844a). A similar distinction applies in MH and JA (see Jast. 1261b and 1265b). Note also Rashi: “Íadu ße>adeinu:
Our enemies lay in wait for (<arebu) our steps, so that we could not walk in the streets, as in Exod 21:13, And if a man does not
lie in wait (ßadah); and 1 Sam 24:12, Though you lie in wait (we<attah ßodeh) for my soul to take it.”
46
Tg. uses the Greek loanword plateia to translate the Heb. re˙ob. The rendering is common in the Tgs. (see Jast. 1179b;
Sokoloff, JPA 435b), though in the two other occurrences of re˙ob in Lamentations (2:11, 12) Tg. translates peta<ah (Jast.
1250a). Cf. Yem. here (Yem. Apparatus aaa). On loanwords in Tg. Lam. see Intro. 2.2.
47
Tg. renders MT delaqunu literally by <dlyqw ytn<. BH dlq (lit. “burn”) is used in Gen 31:36, 1 Sam 17:53, and Ps 10:2
in the sense of “hotly pursue” (BDB 196a). The translation <dlyqw ytn< probably recognizes this metaphorical meaning. Note
the variant Tg. reading here rdpw ytn< (Yem. Apparatus ddd), and Tg.’s rendering of tirdof be<af in 3:66 by tdlwqynwn brwgz<
(Note 94 ad loc.). See further Onq. to Gen. 31:36 (rdpt< btry = MT dalaqta <a˙arai) and Jon. to 1 Sam. 17:53 (mlmrdp btr = MT
middeloq <a˙arei). However, Tg. Ps. 10:2 is, as here, literal (r¡y>< ydlq >ny< = MT ra¡a> yidlaq >ani). Pesh. has here rdpwn, and
Vulg. persecuti sunt nos. LXX ex∑phth∑san (“they were inflamed” = “they hotly pursued [us]”: see Lust, Lexicon 158a, and LSJ
586b, sub exaptø), but LXX to Gen 31:36 uses katadiøkø.
 Translation   173

20. King Josiah,48 who was as dear to us as the breath of the spirit of life which is in our
nostrils, and [who] was installed in office with the anointing oil of the Lord,49 was entrapped

Apparatus, Chapter 4
ll All West. and Yem. mss read <rwm. See Intro. 2.1. But Tg. is evident. It seems to allege as a reason for the
Tg.’s <arum (cf. Pesh. metul d-; LXX surprisingly omits) destruction of the Temple and the exile the oppres-
misses the asseverative force of the Heb. ki (BDB 472b sive behavior of the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem.
[1e]; Renkema: “Yes, our end has come!”). The “councilors” (for which Tg. uses the Greek word
mm A adds: “Another Targum: The councilors of Jeru- bouleut∑s: see Sokoloff, JPA 87b; Intro. 2.2), must
salem beset our ways, so that we could not go up be the Jewish councilors of the city, who oppressed
to Jerusalem, for they were oppressing those going the Jewish pilgrims coming up for the three pilgrim
up three times a year to Jerusalem. But their ar- festivals (Exod 23:14; Deut 16:16). The idea is prob-
rogance came up before the Lord, and the time for ably not that they actually physically prevented the
our House to become desolate drew near, the days pilgrims coming but that they imposed such financial
of retribution were accomplished, the time for us to burdens on them as to make it difficult for them to
drink the cup of cursing arrived, the time arrived for comply with the commandment. The “arrogance” of
both these and those to go into exile.” In terms of its their behavior finally provoked God to act, and he
content and language the Palestinian character of this destroyed the Temple and exiled both the councilors

Notes Chapter 4
That Tg. would have understood <dlyqw ytn< metaphorically is further supported by Lam.R. 4:20 §23. The text is prob-
lematic and was the despair of the traditional commentators (see especially the Mattenot Kehunah). However, following Jast.
311a (sub dlq) and 1038a (sub *>abit), the translation should probably be: “>Al he-harim delaqunu: R. Aibu said: Because they
[the Romans] were hurling fire at them from their tormenta [emending with Jast. to ¡e-hayu doleqin <a˙areihem me->abiyyot].
R. Jacob of Kefar Óanin said: This alludes to those who set fire to Jerusalem. But the Rabbis say: It alludes to Israel’s pursu-
ers (doleqeihem ¡el Yisœra<el), and this is why it says, On the mountains they hotly pursued us.” In other words, the Midrash
proposes two interpretations of dlq here: (1) a literal one, in which dlq refers specifically to the Romans burning Jerusalem by
hurling fire on the city from their catapults, and (2) a figurative one, in which dlq refers to Israel’s enemies hotly pursuing her
through the mountains.
That this is the correct reading of the Midrash is shown by the parallels. See Eccl.R. 5:2 §1: “It is written: He [God]
has also prepared for him instruments of death, yea, his arrows for the doleqim he will fashion (Ps 7:14). What does doleqim
mean? Rabbi said: It alludes to the wicked who hurled fire [deleq] on them. R. Jacob of Kefar Óanin said: It alludes to those
who kindled the fire when the Temple was destroyed. But the Rabbis say: It alludes to those who pursue Israel [rodefeihem ¡el
Yisœra<el], as it is written, They hotly pursued us (delaqunu) upon the mountains (Lam 4:19).” And Midrash Psalms 7.10: “He
[God] has also prepared for him instruments of death (Ps 7:14)—that is, has prepared for himself. What is the meaning of His
arrows for the doleqim he will fashion? R. Aibu says: These are the wicked whose heart burns [doleq] within them with lust all
their lives. R. Yosei said: These are they who kindled the fire in the Temple. But the Rabbis say: These are they who hate Israel
[sœone<eihen ¡el Yisœra<el], as it is written, They hotly pursued us (delaqunu) upon the mountains (Lam 4:19).” See further Rashi
to Ps 7:14 and Yalqu† Shim>oni §638.
48
Modern commentators are inclined to identify the “anointed of the Lord” here with Zedekiah, and to see a reference to
his flight from Jerusalem toward the Arabah, and his capture by the Babylonians, as narrated in 2 Kgs 25:3-7; Jer 39:1-5; and
Jer 52:6-9, though there are no verbal echoes of any of these passages in the present verse. So, e.g., Hillers (151): “It seems
that the writer stood fairly close to King Zedekiah, and was much grieved by his capture.” However, ancient Jewish opinion
seems unanimously to have detected an allusion to King Josiah. The basis for this lies in 2 Chr 35:25, “And Jeremiah lamented
for Josiah, and all the singing men and singing women spoke of Josiah in their laments, unto this day; and they made them an
ordinance in Israel; and, behold, they are written in the Lamentations (ha-qinot).” See Rashi here, and further Tg. Lam. 1:1
(Note 1) and 1:18 (Notes 72-74). The identification was probably reinforced by the feeling that, although there was a tradition
that Zedekiah was righteous (Ginzberg, Legends 4:294; 6:379 [n. 127]; 382 [n. 1]; 426 [n. 107]; 429 [n. 119]), the exalted lan-
guage used here would apply more appropriately to a king of extraordinary merit such as Josiah (see Note 51). Lam.R. 4:20 §23
identifies “the anointed of the Lord” with Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi, and Qara with Gedaliah: see Note 50 below.
49
Tg. mtrby bm¡˙ rbwt< dYYY = MT me¡ia˙ YHWH. LXX’s christos kyrios (picked up in Vulg. Christus Dominus: see
Note 50) is probably a Christian alteration of an original christos kyriou, though Rahlfs (note ad loc.) suggests that the altera-
tion originated in a false resolution of the abbreviation ku, which can represent both kurios and kuriou. Pesh. has m¡yhh dmry<,
which, though literal, does not rule out christological interpretation. Tg.’s prosaic paraphrase, as well as its firm reference to
174   Translation

in the snare of their corruptionsnn 50—he of whom we used to say: “In the shade of his merit51
we shall live among the nations.”
21. Rejoice and be glad Constantinople, city of wicked Edom,52 that is built in the land
of Romania,oo53 with great crowds from the people of Edom.pp 54 Upon you too retribution is

Apparatus, Chapter 4
and the hapless pilgrims (“both these and those”). The the pilgrim festivals as a major cause of the destruction
implicit criticism of the leadership of the community of the Temple but attributes the slackness to the willful
is striking. They behaved like the Greek kings, who, neglect of the people (see Note 18 ad loc.). Cf. also
according to t. Ta>an. 4(3):7-8, set up guards on the 2:6, where God abolishes the festivals. The additional
roads leading to Jerusalem (as Jeroboam had done Tg. here follows quite naturally from the allusion to the
before them) to prevent Jews going up to the Temple destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans in the
to fulfill their duties there (cf. Lam.R., Proem 33, and previous verse. The “cup of cursing” here seems to be
Scholion to Megillat Ta>anit 5, 15th <Ab [ed. Noam, picked up in the West. Tg. of v. 21 (see Note 56).
18–19, 217–22]; further Tg. to 1:4, Note 20). But the nn A and other West. mss add “of the Egyptians,” but this
view expressed here sits somewhat uneasily with the is probably a secondary expansion. Yem. omits. See
Tg. to 1:4, which equally sees the nonobservance of Note 50.

Notes Chapter 4
a historical figure, may seem designed to play down the messianic overtones of the phrase. However, it should be noted that
Josiah is depicted in the Midrash in messianic terms: e.g., he is said to have been the only king after Solomon to rule over both
Judah and Israel, for Jeremiah brought back to Palestine the ten exiled tribes of the north and made them subject to him—a
foreshadowing, surely, of the return of the exiles from beyond the River Sambation in the messianic age (Ginzberg, Legends
4:283, quoting b. Meg. 14b).
50
MT nilkad bi¡e˙itotam = Tg. <t˙d bmßd ˙ybwlyhwn. Tg. text is uncertain: West. adds dmßr<y (see West. Apparatus nn,
and Yem. Apparatus ggg), which has a considerable impact on the sense (see below). Heb. ¡e˙itot is found only here and Ps
107:20, wimalle† mi-¡e˙itotam (“and he [God] delivers [them] from their ¡e˙itot”). Its derivation and meaning are disputed.
Rashi (here) takes it as “pits” (ba-gumot ¡e-˙aferu), presumably deriving it from √¡˙˙ (so BDB 1005b) or √¡w˙ (BDB 101a).
Ibn Ezra probably understood it in the same way here, though his language is slightly ambiguous (be-¡a˙tam nitpas): cf. his
note to Ps 107:20, where he considers possible both the meaning “pit” (√¡˙˙/¡w˙) and “destruction” (√¡˙t). Note also Pesh.
here: bgwmßhwn (“in their pit”). A derivation from ¡˙t, “destroy” is supported by LXX both here (en tais diaphthorais autøn)
and in Ps 107:20 (ek tøn diaphthorøn autøn), by Pesh. Ps. 107:20 (mn ˙bl<), by Vulg. Ps. 107:20 (de interitionibus eorum),
and by Tg. Ps 107:20, wy¡yzyb ml˙blwthwn, “He delivered [them] without destroying them.” This is also Tg.’s view here: his
˙ybwlyhwn stands against Heb. ¡e˙itotam (the addition mßd simply draws out the underlying sense of the Heb. verb lkd, “to
be caught in a trap” [BDB 539b]), and the noun ˙ibbul most obviously comes from the root ˙bl, “destroy,” a close semantic
equivalent to Heb. ¡ht.
But what is the meaning of ˙ibbul? There are several possibilities: (1) “Wound.” In this case we should read dmßr<y: <t˙d
bmßd ˙ybwlyhwn dmßr<y< = “he was trapped in the snare of the wounds [inflicted] by the Egyptians.” Óibbul occurs in Onq. Lev.
19:28 and 21:5 to denote a mutilation of the body, corresponding to the Heb. √sœr†, “to incise, scratch [the body].” Note also the
root ˙bl in the sense of “wound, mutilate [a body]” (Jast. 420a). There would, then, be an allusion to the events recorded in 2
Kgs 23:29-30 and 2 Chr 35:20-24. On the basis of 2 Chr 35:23, “And the archers shot at king Josiah; and the king said to his
servants, Take me away, for I am sore wounded,” the Midrash claimed that “no less than three hundred darts struck the king”
(Ginzberg, Legends 4:283; 6:119). This interpretation, however, leaves the image of entrapment, ensnarement, which Tg. is at
pains to stress, rather redundant.
Hence (2) it is tempting to take ˙ibbul here in context as somehow synonymous with the Heb. ta˙bulah, either in its BH
sense of “(wicked) plans, counsels” (Prov 12:5), or in its later Heb. sense of “plots, devices, machinations.” But ˙ibbul in this
sense does not seem to be elsewhere attested.
(3) “Corruption, moral defect.” This sense of ˙ibbul seems to be attested in Tg. Job 11:15 (“Therefore you will lift up your
face without blemish, and you will be clear of corruption [Aram. senin me-˙ibbula< = Heb. mußaq], and not be afraid”), and Tg.
Job 31:7 (“After my eyes my heart walked, and to my hands cleaved some corruption [Aram. midda>am ˙ibbula< = Heb. m<um].”
See Jast. 451a. If this is the meaning, then we should probably drop the dmßr<y as an addition by a scribe who was puzzled by
the lack of antecedent for the pronom. suff. in ˙ybwlyhwn. The reference would be ad sensum to the Jewish people, and the allu-
sion to the Midrashic tradition that although, as the Bible says, Josiah eliminated the pagan cults in public he failed to eliminate
them in private: the people in the seclusion of their own homes continued to worship idols (Ginzberg, Legends 4:282; 6:378
 Translation   175

oo Reading rwmny<h = “Romania,” for A and other West. pp Miq. Ged. has a censured text: “Rejoice and be glad,
mss <rmyny< = “Armenia.” Yem. has <rwmnyh<, prob- daughter of Edom, who dwells in the land of Uz, with
ably also = “Romania.” See Yem. Apparatus jjj, Note great crowds of foreign peoples.”
53, and Intro. 8.2.

Notes Chapter 4
[n. 119]: see 1:18, Note 73). Thus the righteous Josiah was tragically betrayed by his people: he went into battle not knowing
that he had been fatally weakened by their sins. This interpretation gives a strong sense to the reference to entrapment and
chimes in well with the general theology of Tg. Lam. It is probably what the Tg. originally intended.
There are two interesting echoes of this reading: (1) Lam.R. 4:20 §23, where “the anointed of the Lord” is identified as
Judah ha-Nasi, who suffers harm because of the sins of his people. The interpretation seems at first sight trivializing (the harm
he suffers is a cut finger!), but the broad point is important: just as a people can suffer because of the wickedness of their rul-
ers, so a righteous ruler can suffer because of the wickedness of his people. The darshan was probably aware of the Josianic
interpretation of the verse (which is old), but substituted Judah for Josiah. The displacement makes all the more sense when we
recall that some claimed that the House of the Nasi was of Davidic descent and saw Judah as a messiah (Gen.R. 98.8; Good-
blatt, The Monarchic Principle). Or, alternatively, he could have taken the verse as stating a general principle that rulers can be
adversely affected by the wrongdoings of their subjects—a principle that could be illustrated by a range of concrete historical
figures, such as Judah or Josiah.
(2) Even more striking is the christological interpretation of the Vulg.: Spiritus oris nostri, Christus Dominus, captus est in
peccatis nostris, cui diximus: In umbra tua vivemus in gentibus. This rendering has been influenced not only by the potential of
the LXX reading christos kurios (see Note 49), but (probably) also by a knowledge of the Josianic interpretation. Jerome simply
could not resist the temptation to see a foreshadowing of Christ’s Passion in the Jewish understanding of this verse as alluding to
a righteous, messianic king (Josiah) who suffered death because of the sins of his people. In peccatis nostris the 3rd plur. pronom.
suffix of the original has been (reasonably) assimilated to the first pers. plur. of the following verb. See Intro. 5.4.3 and 6.3.
51
Josiah is depicted in biblical history as one of the most righteous of the kings of Judah (see 2 Kgs 22–23 and 2 Chr
34–36), and his piety is stressed in the Midrash (Ginzberg, Legends 4:281–83).
52
Tg. interprets the Heb. “Daughter of Edom” as a reference to the capital city of Edom, which it then identifies specifi-
cally as Constantinople, thus showing that Edom here is a cipher for Christian Rome. Edom, and the progenitor of the Edomites,
Esau, are standard designations for (Christian) Rome in Rabbinic texts (see, e.g., Gen.R. 9.13-14; 10.7; 63.9; Exod.R. 35.5:
Ginzberg, Legends 5:223, 272; 6:63, 259–60; further Note 43 above). Tg. evidently regards the prophet Jeremiah in Lamenta-
tions as having spoken not only of the past (as in v. 20), but also of the present (i.e., the Tg.’s own time: as here), and of the
future, the time of the Messiah (so v. 22). Rashi detects here an allusion to Second Temple times: “Jeremiah prophesies about
the destruction of the Second Temple, which the Romans would destroy.” Cf. Leqa˙ ˇob here. For Tg.’s contemporizing per-
spective see Intro. 4.1, and for the implications of this and the following verse for the dating of the Tg. see Intro. 8.2.
53
“That is built in the land of Romania”: a strong rendering of the Heb. yo¡ebet(y) be-<ereß >uß, “that dwells in the land of
Uz.” Most West. mss actually read “land of Armenia” for “land of Romania” (Apparatus oo). Armenia as a name for the country
in the southern Caucasus is well attested in JA and RH (Krauss 132a; Neubauer, Géographie du Talmud, 379; cf. Ps-J. quoted
below), but the statement that Constantinople lies in “Armenia” is odd even by the vague geography of the early Rabbinic writers.
Hence read “Romania” with one West. ms and, probably, Yem. (Yem. Apparatus jjj) = the eastern Roman empire, or even more
precisely the region of the southern Balkans where Constantinople stood (Krauss 132a; >Arukh sub <Aram; further Intro. 8.2).
The Heb. Uz is again rendered Armenia in some mss of Tg. Job 1:1. There Uz designates the homeland of Job, whom the
Midrash regards as a descendant of Esau and thus links with Edom (Ginzberg, Legends 2:231; 5:384). Some mss have <Aroma
for Uz in Tg. 1 Chr 1:17 (= [?] Roma, the Byzantine Empire; cf. Arabic Rum), but elsewhere Tg. seems to transliterate the name
(Gen 10:23; 22:21; Jer 25). Ps-J. renders Gen 8:4 (“And the ark rested in the seventh month on the seventeenth day of the month,
upon the mountains of Ararat”): “And the ark rested in the seventh month, that is the month of Nisan, on the seventeenth day of
the month, on the mountains of Qardun: the name of one of these mountains is Cordyene, and the name of the other Armenia,
and this is where the city of Armenia has been built, in the country of the east” (cf. Josephus, Ant. 1.93-95). Here the geographi-
cal link with Kurdistan shows that “Armenia” is in the southern Caucasus. In Lam.R. 1:14 §42 Armenia is seen as a populous
country where abundant food and drink are available. Lam.R. 4:21 §24 identifies the “Daughter of Edom” with Caesarea (cf. b.
Meg. 6a), presumably Caesarea Maritima, the seat of the local Roman administration, but then bizarrely identifies Uz as Persia.
The text may be corrupt.
54
Tg.’s addition “with great crowds (<wklwsyn = Greek ochlos) from the people of Edom” seems designed to recall its
trans. of 1:1, “The city that was full of crowds (<wklwsyn) and numerous people has been emptied (<trwqynt: see Note 57) of
them, and has become like a widow; and she that grew great among the nations and ruled over provinces, and they were paying
taxes to her, has been brought low and gives tribute to them after [all] this.” For our Tg. history is a tale of two cities: Jerusalem
and Babylon/Rome; the triumph of one means the defeat of the other. See further Intro. 4.3.
176   Translation

about to come, and the Persiansqq 55 shall devastate you. A cup of cursing shall pass on to
you,56 and you shall become drunken and depopulated.57
22. And after this, your iniquityrr 58 shall be expiated,59 Congregation of Zion, and you
shall be delivered at the hands of the King Messiah,ss and Elijah the High Priest,60 and the

Apparatus, Chapter 4
qq AG2 prs<y = “Persians”; BDFG1HIBomb prkw(w)<y = rr Reading “your iniquity” with DFGHBomb (= MT)
(?) “Parthians.” See Note 55. for A “your iniquities.”
ss A omits “King.”

Notes Chapter 4
55
“Persians” (Parsa<ei), but some mss have “people of Parkewi” (Parkewa<ei: Apparatus qq), as in Tg. to v. 22. Prkw<y
is lectio difficilior and the same place-name seems to be attested elsewhere: so Neof. Gen. 10:3, text Brbwy, but mg. (probably
correctly) Brkwy, and 1 Chr 1:6, Prkwy, in both cases standing against the Heb, Riphath/Diphath, though note that the Cam-
bridge ms Or. Ee. 5.9 reads Prswwy in 1 Chr 1:6. I suggested (Alexander, Toponymy, 110–12) that Parkewi could be derived
ultimately from the name of the area southeast of the Caspian Sea called in Old Persian Varkana, Pahlavi and New Persian
Gurgan, Greek Hurkania, and Latin Hyrcania (Barrington, Atlas, Maps 3, 96, and 97). Besides the Hurkanoi/Hurkanioi, Greek
writers speak of the Barkanioi and the Parkanioi as living in the same area. These are probably not, as they supposed, differ-
ent peoples, but different ways of representing the one non-Greek name for the same people. If this is the correct derivation
of the name, it probably originally denoted Parthia and the Parthians. Though the homelands of the Parthians were some 150
miles east of Hyrcania proper, the province of Parthava/Parthia in the Achaemenid period seems to have included Hyrcania.
(It is perhaps more than a coincidence that the letters of the Heb. name Riphath in Gen 10:3 can be rearranged to form Prty, a
passable equivalent of the Gk. Parthia!) But “people of Parkewi” = “Parthians” does not make sense in context here, because
Parthia disappeared as a political entity about one hundred years before the founding of Constantinople. However, it is possible
that “Parthians” could have been used loosely in rabbinic texts as synonymous with “Persians,” just as “Persian” could be used
for “Parthian” (b. Yom. 10a: Lam.R. 1:13 §41, assuming the attributions are reliable!). Alternatively Prkw<y could be a simple
graphical error for Prs<y (samekh to kaf waw is easy), though we would have to suppose that later writers then took the corrup-
tion at face value. See Intro. 8.2.
56
Tg. offers a double rendering of MT, “also to you shall pass on a cup”: (1) “A cup of curse (ks dlww†) shall pass on to
you.” This is literal, save that “cup” is explained as “a cup of curse”—an allusion to Jer 25:15-29: “For thus says the Lord, the
God of Israel, to me: Take the cup of the wine of this fury from my hand, and cause all the nations to whom I send you to drink
it. And they shall drink, and reel to and fro, and be mad because of the sword that I will send among them.  .  .  . Then I took the
cup from the Lord’s hand, and made all the nations to drink, to whom the Lord had sent me: namely, Jerusalem, and the cities
of Judah, and the kings thereof and the princes thereof, to make them a desolation, an astonishment, and a curse (Heb. qelalah
= Tg. lw†<), as it is this day.  .  .  . And all the kings of the land of Uz .  .  . ” (cf. Jer 49:12). And (2) “Upon you too retribution
is about to come.” Here “cup” has been interpreted as a symbol of divine judgment and divine retribution (see Renkema, 563;
Matt 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42). Tg.’s expansion, “and the Persians shall devastate you,” clarifies the nature of the retri-
bution: just as Constantinople has devastated others, so it in turn will be devastated. A principle of “measure for measure” is
deemed to apply.
57
Lit. “emptied” (ttrwqny): cf. the description of Jerusalem in Tg. Lam. 1:1 as “emptied” (<trwqynt) of her population
(Note 54 above). Tg. seems to have taken the Heb. tit>ari in the sense of “be poured out, emptied,” rather than “expose oneself,”
as Vulg. (nudaberis) and most modern commentators (BDB 788b). LXX agrees with Tg. (apocheeis, from apocheø, “pour
out”). Pesh. has t†rpyn, “reel, stagger drunkenly” (Albrektson, 195).
58
Heb. >awonekh .  .  . ˙a††o<tayikh: Tg. >wytkh .  .  . >wytyk. The repetition of the same noun in the Tg. is probably deliber-
ate and intended to highlight the principle of “measure for measure.” In view of MT’s paqad, Tg.’s <s>r should be construed as
3rd masc. sg. pf. <af. rather than as 1st com. sg. impf. <af. (“I will visit”). In context, however, it is clear that Tg. must have taken
paqad, and possibly the following gillah, as prophetic pfs. (Note 63). Note the preceding impf. yosif. Tg. is happy to translate
here in the active with God as subject, but casts the following gillah into the reverential passive. Pesh. has passives in both
places (“your iniquities have been visited .  .  . your sins have been revealed”: Note 63).
59
Aram. y¡lm (to be vocalized a pe., not pa., but note the lack of concord with the gender of its subject ) = Heb. tam. Ren-
kema (565) argues that the verb tmm “does not mean the expiation of something but rather its complete execution,” and so trans-
lates, “Your iniquity has amplified itself, daughter of Zion.” Tg., however, in agreement with most modern commentators, takes
the verb to mean here “completed” or “expiated,” and interprets the verse as a salvation oracle promising Jerusalem’s ultimate
deliverance. So also LXX (exelipen h∑ anomia sou), Pesh. (gmrw ˙†hyky: note plur.!), and Vulg. (completa est iniquitas tua).
60
Once Jerusalem has atoned for her sins through her suffering, the Messiah will come. It is probably reading too much
into the fact that Elijah is mentioned after the King Messiah to claim that our Tg. held that the Messiah would come first.
 Translation   177

Lord shall no longer keep you in exile.61 And at that time he shall requite your iniquity,tt
wicked Rome, that is built in Italy, and is full of crowds of the sons of Edom. The Persians

Apparatus, Chapter 4
tt Reading “your iniquity” (>wyytk) with G (cf.
A2BDFIBomb) (= MT) for A1 “your sins” (˙wbyk).

Notes Chapter 4
Though this possibility may be contemplated by some obscure, late traditions (see Silber and Levine here), perhaps based on
an over-literal reading of passages such as the present, the consensus of the sources, going back to Mal 3:23-24, is that Elijah is
the forerunner of the Messiah. This idea is deeply embedded in the liturgy (e.g., the Passover Seder and Habdalah), as well as
in aggadah and folklore (Fabricius, Codex, 1:1070–86; Ginzberg, Legends 4:195–235; 6:316–42; Strack-Billerbeck 4:764–98;
Jeremias, “Elias,” TDNT 3:928ff.; Schürer 2:515–16; Patai, Messiah Texts, 131–44; Lask and Ben-Amos, Mimekor Yisrael,
427–40; Aberbach et al., “Elijah,” EJ 6:632–45; Stone and Strugnell, Books of Elijah; Eisenstein, OM 1:24–27). The Messiah
is probably mentioned first here as the primary agent of the redemption. However, the way in which it is hinted that Elijah is
his active partner is noteworthy and agrees with the traditions that depict Elijah as more than a mere herald of the Messiah’s
coming, but effectively a warrior and co-redeemer. As early as Ben Sira 48:10 he is the one who “re-establishes (katast∑sai) the
tribes of Israel” (cf. Isa 49:6): note the allusion to the ingathering of the exiles that immediately follows here (Note 61 below).
Cant.R. 2:13 §4 lists him, along with the Messiah, Melchizedek, and “the anointed for war” (me¡ua˙ mil˙amah, possibly here
the Messiah ben Joseph: see below), as one of the four world conquerors. Gen.R. 71.9 attributes to him the eschatological
overthrow (le-gadded) of the “foundations of the heathen.” In some texts Elijah and the Messiah seem to arrive at exactly the
same time and act in concert (see Tefillat R. Shim>on bar Yo˙ai, BHM 2:125; Pereq Yoshiyahu, BHM 6:155). Yalqu† Shim>oni
§143, relying on older sources, has Elijah slay the prince of Rome, and applies to him Isa 63:1, “Who is this who comes from
Edom, with crimsoned garments from Bozrah?”
The impression that Elijah participates actively in the deliverance of Israel is strengthened by describing him not by his
standard epithet “the Prophet,” but as “the High Priest.” Elijah’s offering of sacrifice on Mount Carmel (1 Kgs 18:19-40) might
suggest that he was a priest, but the claim that he was High Priest probably rests ultimately on identifying him with Phineas (see
also Ps-Philo, LAB 48.1-2; PRE 44; Num.R. 21.3; Tan˙uma, Pin˙as 3 [ed. Buber V, 76a]; Ps-J. Exod. 6:18, 40:10, Num. 25:12,
and Deut. 30:4; and Tg. Eccl. 10:20; Vitae Prophetarum, sub “Elias” [Schwemer 2:230–32]; further Ginzberg, Legends 4:195;
6 316), the grandson of Aaron (Exod 6:25; 1 Chr 6:4, 50; Ezra 7:5), whose zeal for the Lord, like Elijah’s, is celebrated in Bible
and Midrash (Num 25:1-16; cf. Ps 106:30-31; Ben Sira 4:23-25; 1 Macc 2:26, 54: further Hengel, Zealots, 146–77; Hayward,
“Phinehas—the same is Elijah”). In Num 31:6 he is depicted as the leader of a holy war against Midian; Josephus, Ant. 4.159
describes him as Moses’ strat∑gos; t. Sot. 7:17 designates him as “anointed for war” (me¡ua˙ mil˙amah); see also y. Sanh. X,
29a.12; Sifrei Num. §131; Num.R. 22.3, and further below.
Since the high priesthood was, like the kingship, inaugurated by anointing (Exod 28:41; 29:7; Lev 7:36), Elijah’s high
priesthood effectively turns him into a second Messiah: Israel, then, will be delivered by two Messiahs, one royal, the other
priestly—an idea as old as the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QS IX 11; CD XII 23; XIX 11; further Schürer 2:550–54). Indeed, it is
possible that our Tg. envisages Elijah as the “anointed for war” (me¡ua˙ mil˙amah), the priest who plays a leading role in the
eschatological battle (see Deut 20:2-3; m. Sot. 8.1; and especially PR 8.4, “And two olive -trees by it [Zech 4:3]. This alludes to
the two men anointed with olive oil, the priest anointed for war, and the king anointed to rule over Israel”; cf. the description of
Phineas as “the anointed for war” above)—again an idea attested as early as Qumran, where the priests accompany the troops
into battle despite the problems this poses for preserving them from corpse-impurity (see, e.g., 4Q285 and other texts of the
Dead Sea Eschatological War Cycle). In this context it is perhaps significant that there is no mention of the other candidate for
the title of the eschatological “Anointed for War,” the Messiah ben Joseph, who, according to some traditions, would be slain
in battle before the arrival of the triumphant Davidic Messiah (Alexander, Targum Canticles, 135). The role of the Messiahs
here is clearly political: the implication is that they will be the divine agents responsible for carrying out God’s “visitation” on
“wicked Rome” mentioned later in the verse. However, in keeping with standard Jewish messianism there is a clear implication
that the deliverance ultimately comes from God and will be effected in God’s good time. The tradition is essentially pacifist:
only God can know when Israel has filled up the measure of her sufferings and the day of her redemption has dawned (Alex-
ander, Targum Canticles, 25–26).
61
This must be the force of the Aram. wl< ywsyp YYY †wb l<glwtk. The alternative translation “and I will not again exile you”
does not make as good sense in context: Israel is already in exile! The reference must be to the ingathering of the exiles (qibbuß
galuyyot)—a standard element in the eschatological scenario (Alexander, Targum Canticles, 23–24, 194–95).
178   Translation

shall come and oppress you, and devastate you,62 becauseuu it has been disclosed before the
Lord concerning your sins.63

Apparatus, Chapter 4
uu <rwm in all West. mss: Intro. 2.1.

Notes Chapter 4
62
The verbal parallelism with v. 21 is striking, but here “Rome” replaces “Constantinople” (cf. Tg. Ps. 108:11), and the
reading “Persians” is in no doubt. The addition of “that is built in Italy” to “Rome” precludes the possibility of taking “Rome”
as a designation of Constantinople (east Rome). The text as it stands clearly speaks of two cities. What seems to be envisaged
is a two-stage Persian attack on the Roman Empire. The Persians would devastate first Constantinople (v. 21), and then Rome
(v. 22). Note Tg.’s addition of “after this” to connect the two verses. If this is Tg.’s meaning, it suggests a dating for the Tg.
some time between the founding of Constantinople in 324 c.e. and the Vandal and Visigoth attacks on Rome in the fifth century.
From the sack of Rome by Alaric in 410 onward it would have become increasingly difficult, even for a relatively ill-informed,
provincial Jew in the eastern Mediterranean, to have supposed that Rome remained a flourishing city (“full of crowds of the
sons of Edom”), or that its downfall would come from the east rather than from the north and west. See further Intro. 8.2.
Persia plays a significant role in certain Jewish eschatological scenarios as the overthrower of “wicked Rome” (see Sefer
Zerubbabel and the other Midrashim of Redemption: Even-Shmu<el, Midreshei Ge<ullah, Reeves, Trajectories in Near Eastern
Apocalyptic). The prototype for this role was Cyrus, who overthrew Rome’s predecessor Babylon. The classic formulation of
this point of view was attached as a pun to Lam 1:13, “He has spread (parasœ) a net for my feet,” on which R. Shim>on bar Yo˙ai
is reported to have commented: “If you see a Persian horse (sus parsi) tethered in the Land of Israel look for the feet of the
Messiah. What is the reason? And this shall be peace: when the Assyrian shall come into our land (Mic 5:4)” (Lam.R. 1:13 §41;
Cant.R. 8:9 §3 has a slightly different version: “When you see a Persian horse tethered to the graves of the Land of Israel”).
Behind this lies the historical fact that for the whole of the Talmudic period the one power that seemed able to challenge Rome’s
hegemony was Persia, and Jews in Palestine were alive to this possibility through their contacts with the eastern Diaspora. It is
possible that Palestinian Jewry was divided into pro-Roman and pro-Persian factions. Our Tg. seems to have been pro-Persian:
note not only his trans. here, but his deriding at 4:17 of those who looked to Rome (Edom) for help (Note 43 above). Just as
Julian’s offer to rebuild the Temple would have strengthened the pro-Roman faction, so the Persian invasion of Palestine in the
early seventh century would have strengthened the pro-Persian. The hopes of both parties, however, were to be dashed.
63
Heb. gillah >al hatto<tayikh, “he (i.e., the Lord) has disclosed/laid bare (or will disclose/lay bare: Note 58) your sins.” Cf.
2:14, “For they (i.e., your prophets) did not disclose/lay bare your iniquity” (lo< gillu >al >awonekh: Tg. “They did not disclose
the retribution that will come upon you on account of your sin”: Note 49 ad loc.). Here, however, since God is the subject, the
reverential Targumic passive has been used, though the Aram. verb has retained its sg. number (<itparsem) through attraction
to Heb. gillah. Cf. Pesh. “Your sins have been revealed” (Note 58). LXX (apekalupsen epi ta aseb∑mata sou) and Vulg. (dis-
cooperuit peccata tua) render literally.
 Translation   179

Chap t e r 5
1. 1Remember, O Lord, what was decreed to befall us.2 Look from heaven,3 and seea our
shame.b 4
2. Our inheritance has been turned over to strangers,5 our houses to foreign peoples.
3. We are like orphans who have no father; our mothers are as widows whose husbands
have gone to the cities of the sea,c and they are in doubtd whethere they are [still] alive.6

Apparatus, Chapter 5
a A ˙my, but the other mss ˙zy. See Intro. 2.1. doubt to them” (masc. plur.). But it is the wives, not
b A and the majority of the mss have k(y)swpn<; C has the the husbands, who are in doubt, so perhaps emend to
synonym ˙yswdn< (Jast. 458b; Sokoloff, JPA 210a); and wmspq< lhyn. However, the masc. plur. of the pronom.
M sgwpn<, “our affliction” (Jast. 975b). See Note 4. suffix is often used for the fem. as well. Alternatively
c A repeats ym< by dittography. the dative may mean “with respect to them.”
d A and other mss read wmspq< lhwn, lit. “and there is e Emeding A’s <wp to <yn with BFGH, or to <m with CD.

Notes Chapter 5
1
Chapter 5 of Lam. is notably different in form from the preceding chapters: it is not an acrostic, though it has twenty-two
lines, nor is it in the 3:2 qinah meter, but mainly in 3:3. LXX and Vulg. acknowledge this difference by introducing it with a
separate title, “A Prayer,” “A Prayer of Jeremiah,” etc. Tg. shows no awareness of this tradition and, in keeping with Midrash in
general, is insensitive to the exegetical significance of variation in literary form. See further Intro. 5.1.
2
Tg. loses no opportunity, in keeping with the general emphasis of prophetic thinking, to stress that the disasters that came
upon Israel were decreed by God. See Intro. 4.3.
3
Tg. has assimilated to Ps 80:15, “Look from heaven and see” (habbe† mi-¡amayim u-re<eh). He may be reflecting the
discussion recorded in the Midrash on the difference between the verbs hibbi† and ra<ah: Lam.R. 5:1 §1: “Look, and see our
disgrace. R. Judan said: Look (habbi†ah) means from near, see (re<eh) means from afar. Look means from near, as it is said, And
he looked, and, lo (wa-yabbe† we-hinneh), at his head there was a cake baked on the hot stones (1 Kgs 19:6); and see means
from afar, as it is said, He saw the place from afar (Gen 22:4). R. Phinehas said: Look means from afar, as it is said: Look from
heaven, and see (Ps 80:15), and see means from near, as it is said, And when he saw that he did not prevail against him, he
touched the hollow of his thigh (Gen 32:26).”
4
Aram. kissuf = Heb. ˙erpah. See 3:61, where the same equivalent is found. There it denotes the scorn and contempt
heaped on Israel by its enemies (Note 87 ad loc.). b. BQ 86b distinguishes between kissufa< and ziluta< (cf. Tg. Lam. 1:8, nhgw
bh zylwt<, “they treated her disgracefully, with contempt” = Heb. hizziluha): the former denotes a feeling of shame, the latter
disgrace though not felt (Jast. 634a). Cf. Ps 89:50 in Heb. and Tg. See Apparatus b.
5
Tg. renders the Heb. zarim by ˙ilona<ei. Zar here, as elsewhere in the Prophets, means “foreigner, non-Israelite,” and it is
often rendered >ammayya<, “Gentiles” in the Tg. (so, e.g., Jer 5:19; 30:8). In the Pentateuch where zar means “non-priest,” Tg.
translates ˙ilona< (see Onq., Neof., and Ps-J. to Exod 29:33 and Lev 22:10, 12. Tg. here clearly means “foreigners” by ˙ilona<ei,
as the parallelism with “foreign peoples” shows, but his choice of this particular term to describe them (from √˙ll, “desecrate,
profane”) suggests the thought that the foreigners’ occupation violates the sanctity of the Land (Greenup attempts to convey this
sense by translating “the profane”). Lam.R. 5:2 §1 also detects here the notion of a violation of holiness: “Jeremiah calls [the
Temple] our inheritance. Isaiah calls it Our holy and beautiful house (64:10). Asaph came and said: It is not our inheritance,
it is not our beautiful house, but the enemy has entered into what was yours. This is that which is written, O God, the heathen
have come into your inheritance; they have defiled your holy Temple; they have made Jerusalem into heaps” (Ps 79:1—a Psalm
of Asaph). “Our inheritance” would naturally have brought to Tg.’s mind Deut 4:21, “the good land which the Lord your God
gave you as an inheritance.” It is clear that he is thinking here not of the loss of private property by individuals but of the loss
of the Land and political independence by the people of Israel.
6
The Heb., straightforward at first glance, turns out to be problematic, and it is typical of Tg.’s close reading that he has
sensed this. If the text had said “We have become orphans, without a father, and our mothers have become widows,” the mean-
ing would have been transparent. The reference would be to the killing or exiling of the men by the enemy: note the punishment
threatened in Exod 22:21-23, “You shall not afflict any widow or orphan (yatom). If you do afflict them in any way, and they cry
at all to me, I will surely hear their cry, and my anger shall grow hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be
widows, and your children orphans (yetomim).” Yatom here, then, means, as in Exod 22:21-23, “fatherless,” as the appositional
180   Translation

4. Our [own] water for money have we drunk, and f our [own] wood comes at a price.g 7
5. Upon the joint of our necks we were laden.8 When we were going into captivity, wicked
Nebuchadnezzar sawh that the officers9 of the children of Israel were going unburdened,i [and]

Apparatus, Chapter 5
f Bomb and Yem. omit “and” = MT. about the cost of studying Torah, and perhaps specifi-
g AC add: “Another Targum: The Torah which was given cally about the cost of obtaining Responsa. Cf. Leqa˙
to us freely we pay money to study, and, indeed, our ˇob: “Our own water for money have we drunk: they
counsels from a distant place at a price are purchased do not allow us to study Torah until we give them a
to come [to us].” The common use of water to symbol- bribe. Our [own] wood comes at a price: this refers to
ize Torah explains the first part of this Tg. The second the fruit of the trees, that is to say the reasons for the
part seems to be based on relating the Heb. >eßeinu, Torah, for we pay the Gentiles to convey us from city
from >eß (tree), to >eßah (counsel, advice): y>†n< should to city, to preserve us from ignorant people.”
be emended to >y†n<. Cf Tg. Eccl. 11:3 (Heb. ha->eß = h West. ˙m<; Yem. ˙z<. See Intro. 2.1.
Aram. >e†a<!). There appears to be a complaint here i Lit. “empty” (ryqnyn) = “empty-handed, without a
load.”

Notes Chapter 5
<ein <ab makes clear, rather than bereft of both parents (see BDB 450b). The complication arises because the Heb. says “have
become like widows.” How can they be like widows but not actual widows? Gordis saw the difficulty and argued that, in keeping
with the first half of the line, the preposition in ke-<almanot should be taken not as comparative but as asseverative, “our mothers
are indeed widows” (commentary ad loc.). Tg.’s answer is ingenious. The men have been carried off into captivity and there
is no news as to whether they are alive or dead. The women do not know whether they are widows or not: they are effectively
widows, since they have been deprived of their husbands’ support, but worse still, as agunot they cannot remedy their situation
by remarrying (Schereschewsky, “Agunah,” EJ 2:429–33). The phrase “cities of the sea” echoes the expression “beyond the
sea,” used in halakhic discussions of the agunah to designate any distant country with which communication is difficult (m.
Yeb. 15:1; 16:1; m. Gitt. 1:1; 2:1). The distance makes obtaining, or corroborating, evidence as to whether the husband is alive
or dead well nigh impossible. Tg., revealingly, sees the women’s plight not only in human but also in halakhic terms. But if the
mothers do not know for sure whether or not they are widows, then equally it cannot be unambiguously established that the
children are orphans: they resemble orphans, i.e., for all practical purposes they are orphans, but their actual status cannot be
proved. Tg.’s interpretation is somewhat pedantic, but it shows how closely he pondered the text.
7
Tg. translates literally and in exactly the same word order as MT. The text presumably means that in the famine condi-
tions after the conquest staples such as water and firewood cost dear. Hillers: “We have paid to drink our own water, given
money for our own wood.” Ibn Ezra takes it in the same broad sense but assumes that the words were uttered during the siege,
not after the fall of the city: “Our water. Even the water and the wood which belong to no-one we purchase at a great price,
because the city is invested by the enemy.” Cf. Lam.R. 5:4 §1: “On one occasion the besiegers went up and seized their bread,
wine, oil, and water. They then sold these to them, and the people cried, ‘Alas for us that the verse has been fulfilled in us, We
have drunk our [own] water for money, and our [own] wood comes at a price.’” For a figurative interpretation of “water” and
“wood” see Apparatus g.
8
MT says literally: “upon our neck we have been pursued.” The sense may be “we are closely pursued, persecuted or
harried.” Cf. the English idiom, “he was breathing down my neck,” used of someone in hot pursuit. But the sense is hardly
satisfactory, and there is some versional support for a different text. Symmachus read >ol (zugos) for >al, which has suggested
to some emending to <>alah >ol> >al ßawwa<renu, “a yoke has been set on our neck” (Hillers). Tg.’s rendering of nirdapnu by
<y†>nn< has probably been determined by the context: the neck is the place of burden; note also the allusions to labor and weari-
ness at the end of the verse.
Tg., with typical dramatic heightening, illustrates the burdening by the aggadah of the Torah sacks. This highlights the
wanton cruelty of the tyrant, since the implication is that the load serves no useful purpose, as well as his disregard and desecra-
tion of the law of God. This aggadah is found elsewhere, though significantly not in Lam.R. The sources are all late. See PR.
28.2; Midrash Psalms 137.3; 2 Tg. Esther 1:2 (see Note 11 below): Ginzberg, Legends 4:313–14; 6:404, n. 47.
9
“Officers” = sarekhayya<, a word used in Dan 6:3-5, 7-8 to denote a class of high official at the court of king Darius.
It is probably Persian in origin, and generated the denom. verb sarakh, “administer, organize,” and the noun serekh, “order,
organization” (see Alexander, EDSS, sub “Rules”; HAL 1940b). In the Tg. it is the standard rendering of Heb. ¡o†er (Onq. Deut.
1:15; 20:5; Prov 6:7).
 Translation   181

he ordered [them] j to sew together Torah scrolls, and to make sacks10 from them; and they
filled them with gravel,k 11 that is on the shore of the Euphrates, and he loaded them upon their
necks. At that time we were exhausted, and we had no respite.
6. Tol Egypt we gave sustenance,m so that there might be provisions there, and to Assyria,
so that they might have enough bread.12
7. Our fathers sinned, and they are not in the world; and we after them have borne their
iniquities.13

Apparatus, Chapter 5
j I: “for them” (i.e., for the officers). syria,” which all West. mss read, though the preposition
k Emending A’s pryry< to pryd(y)< with BCFGI. See Note is equally missing in MT.
11. m ACDEH s†r should be corrected to s>d (“sustenance,
l Reading “to Egypt” with C. A and remaining West. mss provisions”) with BFGI. Ítr, which should mean “side,”
omit the preposition = MT. Note the following “to As- makes no sense in context here, though note it stands

Notes Chapter 5
10
“Sack” = gw<lq<, from Middle Iranian *juwalak. Elsewhere apparently attested only in eastern Jewish texts: Intro. 2.2.
11
“Gravel” = pryd< (Apparatus k). The same word occurs in the plur. in Tg. Lam. 3:16, where it renders Heb. haßaß (“he
has broken my teeth with gravel”). Jast. 1225b also cites the word from Tg. Job 38:10 (but v.l. pryry<), and Tg. Isa 48:19. There
appears to be a semantic equivalence between prida< and haßaß, each being derived from a root meaning “divide, split.” Yem.
has “sand” (˙l<) instead of “gravel”; cf. 2 Tg. Esther 1:2, “Nebuchadnezzar took captive a great number of the people of Israel
bound in iron chains, and led them away naked, carrying sand on their necks.” See Note 8 above.
12
The Heb. raises three problems: (1) What is the syntax of the nouns Mißrayim and Asshur? (2) What is to be understood
by the gesture of “giving the hand”: making an alliance, or supplicating for help? And (3) who is the subject of the verb lisœboa>:
“so that we should have enough bread” or “so that Assyria should have enough bread”?
Tg. probably took the proper nouns Mißrayim and Asshur as second accusatives after natan, equivalent to datives, though
he has inserted the prep. le- only before Asshur (“we gave Egypt and Asshur a hand” = “we gave to Egypt and to Asshur a
hand”). The analysis is plausible, but natan with acc. rei + acc. pers. in this sense is actually hard to parallel. Though Tg.’s
rendering of lisœboa> le˙em is as ambiguous on its own as is the original Heb., it is probable he took it to mean “so that Assyria
should have enough bread.” Note how he balances this with l<tprns< tmn in the first half of the line, clearly an extrapolation of
lisœboa> le˙em and in effect an interpretation of it. The tamman here is significant. He does not say mi-tamman. The sense, then,
is more likely to be “so that they [i.e., the Egyptians] should be provisioned there” rather than “so that we should be provisioned
from there.” Following this reasoning through, yhbn< s>d should then be rendered concretely “we gave sustenance” (for s>d in
the sense of food see Tg. Ruth 2:14). Hence the translation proposed above. The meaning is that Israel vainly supported Egypt
and Assyria with food in the hope that they would come to her aid if she was attacked.
This is precisely how Lam.R. 5:6 §1 understands the verse: “To Egypt we gave a hand, and to Assyria, so that they might
have enough bread. What did the Ten Tribes do? They exported oil to Egypt and brought back foodstuffs which they sent to
Assyria, so that if the [Babylonian] enemy should advance against them, the others would come to their [military] assistance.
This is what is written, And they made a covenant with Assyria, and oil is carried into Egypt (Hos 12:2)” (cf. Lam.R. 4:17 §20).
Alternatively, Tg. may have intended Israel as the subject of the infinitives, in which case we should probably translate his yhbn<
s>d abstractly in the sense of “give [our] support to,” i.e., make an alliance with (cf. “giving the hand” as a gesture of sealing a pact
in 2 Kgs 10:15; Ezra 10:19; Ezek 17:18; 1 Chr 29:24; 2 Chr 30:8). The translation would then become: “[To] Egypt we gave [our]
support, so that we might find provisions there, and to Assyria, so that we might have enough bread.” Rashi takes the “giving of
the hand” as a plea for assistance: “To Egypt we have given a hand. It is a human custom that someone who falls and wants to get
up, stretches out a hand to anyone nearby to help him. So here: to Egypt we stretched out a hand, so that they should help us.”
13
It is not certain that Tg.’s Heb. text read we-<einam wa-<ana˙nu with the Qerei. Tg. might still have added the copulas in
his trans., even if they were not in his original. Tg. interprets <einam as meaning that they were no longer in the world: cf. Gen
5:24, “Enoch walked with God, and he was not (we-<einennu), for God took him” (BDB 34a (2b). Tg.’s addition of “after them”
underscores the idea that the children suffer for the sins of their fathers. Tg. shows no uneasiness about this idea, which can be
readily supported by Exod 20:5; Jer 31:29; Ezek 18:2, but Lam.R. 5:7 §1 seems to have problems with it, and has both God and
the fathers flatly contradict Israel’s claim: “Our fathers sinned and they are no more, and we have borne their iniquities. The
Holy One, blessed be he, said to them, ‘On your own you stand!’ Another interpretation: [The fathers] said to them, ‘You stand
for our sakes!’” (see Radal ad loc.).
182   Translation

8. The sons of Ham, who were given as slaves to the sons of Shem,14 rule over us; there
is no one to redeem us from their hand.
9. At the risk of our lives15 we bring in bread to sustain us,n because of the slaying of the
swordo that comes from the direction of the wilderness.16
10. Our skin has become black17 like an oven,p because of the exhaustion18 of hunger.

Apparatus, Chapter 5
against Heb. yad. Perhaps a scribe took se†ar in the n Adding prnswtn< (“to sustain us”: lit. “of our suste-
sense of ¡e†ar, “writ, document, esp. a note of financial nance”) with BDFGIBomb and Yem.; cf. H prnsn<. The
indebtedness, a bond” (Jast. 1555b), a word that could word is missing in AC (= MT).
have had strong resonance in a north European setting. o ABCDEFHI d˙rb<; G ˙rb< (= MT). See Yem. Appara-
See Yem. Apparatus o, and Note 12. tus s.
p AEFI ktnwr< (cf. MT); DHBomb hyk tnwr<; G hykt-
nwr<; B hy ktnwr<. C omits.
Notes Chapter 5
14
The identification of the “slaves” of the biblical text with “the sons of Ham” is, at first sight, unexpected, but it serves to
stress the reversal of fortune: the slaves who rule over the Jews (“the sons of Shem”) are precisely those slaves who had been
condemned by ancient curse to serve them. The subservient destiny of the sons of Ham was deduced from Gen 9:20-28, where
Canaan, the son of Ham, is condemned by Noah to perpetual servitude. The story is puzzling and has taxed the ingenuity of
ancient darshanim and modern commentators alike (see, e.g., Westermann on Gen 9:20-28). It is Ham who treats his father
with disrespect, but Canaan who gets cursed: the Midrash suggests various reasons for this and postulates various ways in
which Canaan was implicated in the sin (Gen.R. 36.7; Ginzberg, Legends 1:168–69; 5:191, n. 60). Rabbinic literature tends to
regard the “sons of Ham” as denoting the black-skinned, negroid peoples of the south, who would have regularly appeared in
the Mediterranean slavemarkets of late antiquity, but they do not fit here. Rather, Tg. is thinking of Gen 10:6-12, which states
that Babylon was founded by Nimrod, who was a son of Cush, the son of Ham. In other words, the Babylonians were Hamites!
He reasoned: why does Jeremiah here call the Babylonians “slaves”? Answer: because they are “sons of Ham” whom Noah had
condemned to eternal bondage. The allusion, therefore, is learned and historical. If Tg. had been reflecting his own times he
would have referred to “the sons of Japhet,” i.e., the Greeks or the Romans, who were the political masters of the Jews. “Sons of
Ham” would be equally inappropriate for the Arabs, though they came from the south, since in rabbinic ethnography the Arabs
are regarded as sons of Shem (Ishmael/Esau). “Sons of Ham” might suit the Mamelukes, but they would be much too late for
our Tg. (see Intro. 8.2). Genesis 9:26-27 actually states that Ham will serve both Shem and Japhet (see Onq., Neof., and Ps-J.
ad loc.). Tg. here mentions only the subservience to Shem, since this alone is relevant in the context.
15
Tg, takes the prep. in be-naf¡enu as bet pretii. His “at the risk of our lives” is a very reasonable translation: cf. Rashi
and Ibn Ezra.
16
Tg,’s additions do little to clarify the puzzling “from before/because of the sword of the wilderness.” The phrase has not
been convincingly explained (see Hillers et al.). Jewish tradition in general is remarkably unbothered about its meaning (note
the absence of comment in Lam.R., Rashi and Ibn Ezra). Tg. translates the Heb. mippenei mechanically by mn qdm, but he
presumably means this in a causal sense (“because of”). “Direction” is lit. “side” (se†ar).
17
Tg. <tqdrw = Heb. nikhmaru. Cf. LXX epeliøth∑, a neologism from peleios, “pale, livid” (not in LSJ! Lust, Lexicon, 364b:
“to become pale, blackened”). Pesh. <tqpdw (“is shriveled”); Vulg. exusta est. The agreement of the ancient versions is impres-
sive and suggests they knew of the existence of a Heb. √kmr in the sense of “blacken, darken,” or “be black, dark,” cognate with
the Syriac kmar, “be gloomy, dark, black” (Payne Smith 1756b: note kimrirei yom in Job 3:5 = “the deep gloom of the day,”
which may attest the root in BH). The darkening of the skin during famine is mentioned in Lam 4:8, and the blackness of an
oven or cooking pot is proverbial (“the pot calling the kettle black”). Significantly, Tg. has not linked Heb. here with the MH and
JA √kmr, “warm, heat,” especially food (Jast. 647a; Sokoloff, JPA 262b). This would also yield an acceptable sense: “our skin
has grown warm like an oven,” presumably an allusion to fever arising from starvation. And it would also fit the metaphorical
use of the verb in the phrase nikhmeru ra˙amayw <el <a˙iw, “his compassion grew warm toward his brother” (Gen 43:30; cf. 1
Kgs 3:26; Hos 11:8). This is the view taken by Lam.R. 5:10 §1: “Our skin has become warm like an oven. Two teachers com-
ment. One says: Like a heated mass of grapes (kemaryata<; Mattenot Kehunah: “Like a fermenting mass [komer: Jast. 621a] of
grapes, which is very warm. He explains nikhmeru from komer”). The other said: Like an oven insufficiently heated.” Both these
views correctly imply that if there is a √kmr, “to heat,” then it denotes a dull, low heat, i.e., “to warm.” Hence the translation “our
skin has become hot like a furnace” (BDB 485a) is not appropriate. For discussion see Hillers, Albrektson, and Driver, “Notes
on the Text of Lamentations,” 308; HAL 481b. Further Note 18.
18
The noun zal>afah occurs only three times in BH: here in the phrase zil>afot ra>ab, once in Ps 11:6 in the phrase rua˙
zil>afot (as an instrument of God’s judgment in association with fire and brimstone), and once in Ps 119:53 in the phrase zal>afah
 Translation   183

11. The women who were married to husbands in Zion were raped by the Romans,q and
the virgins in the towns of Judah by the Chaldeans.19
12. Princes were impaled20 by their hands; the facesr of the elders they did not res-
pect.s 21

Apparatus, Chapter 5
q Miq. Ged., “Aramaeans,” probably a conjectural emen- s <py sby< l< sbrw. Sebar <appin, “favor, respect,” is active
dation because “Romans” seemed inappropriate in the (Jast. 951b), but Heb. has the passive (penei zeqenim lo<
historical context. But all West. mss have “Romans,” nehdaru), matching the passive construction in the first
and the reading can be explained (see Note 19). Yem. half of the stich. Cf. Yem. Apparatus y. However, the
lacks either “Romans” or “Aramaeans.” third plur. active may be here functionally equivalent to
r H “and the faces.” Cf. vv. 11, 14, and 17, where West. the passive. The Heb. echoes Lev 19:32, we-hadarta pe-
also adds the copula between the two hemistichs. Yem. nei zaqen, which Onq. renders wthdr <py sb<.
is inconsistent.

Notes Chapter 5
<a˙azatni. Tg. renderings are inconsistent. In Ps 11:6 it has z>p< >lwl< (“raging storm”), in Ps 119:53 rtyt< (“trembling”), and
here mp˙ kpn<. LXX kataigidøn limou (“storms of hunger”); Pesh. †wrp< dkpn< (“exhaustion from hunger”); Vulg. tempestatum
famis. It seems plausible with BDB 273a (but not HAL 272b) to postulate a basic meaning such as “raging heat,” used literally
in Ps 11:6 (“scorching wind”) and here (“burning heat [i.e., fever] of hunger”), and metaphorically in Ps 119:53 (“burning pas-
sion/zeal has seized me”). Cf. Rashi here: zal>afah = sœerefah. This would strengthen taking the preceding nikhmeru in the sense
of “has grown warm.” Tg., however, did not adopt that solution for the verb (see Note 17), and so was not predisposed to see
a reference to heat here (though blackening through heat is hardly far-fetched). His rendering mp˙ kpn< is vague. He probably
intends mappa˙ in the sense of mappa˙ nefe¡ = “breathing out of life,” i.e., expiring, a phrase that occurs in the Heb. of Job
11:20 and was taken over into MH and JA (Jast. 820b: note its use in Tg. Isa. 17:11 and Onq. Deut. 28:65. In Tg. Job 11:20 the
phrase is simply copied from the Heb.).
19
Hillers (158) counsels against making too sharp a contrast between the two halves of this verse: “As is normal in Hebrew
poetry, the second part of this line repeats and completes what is said in the first, and one must not press the distinction between
the ‘women’ in Zion and the ‘young girls’ or ‘virgins’ in the cities of Judah.” But this is precisely what Tg. does. In keeping
with the deep reluctance of Midrash to allow redundancy in Scripture he makes the women in Zion married women, in contrast
to the virgins in the towns of Judah. He sharpens the contrast still further by detecting two different groups of violators belong-
ing to two different periods of time. The married women in Zion were raped by the Romans (v. l. Arameans: see Apparatus q)
and the virgins in the towns of Judah by Chaldeans = the Babylonians, the people ruled by Nebuchadnezzar (BDB 505a). Thus
Tg. sees in this verse, which he apparently regards as a prophecy and not as part of Jeremiah’s prayer, an allusion to both the first
and second destructions of the Temple. The rape of married women would have been regarded as more heinous than the rape
of virgins. Lam.R. 5:11 §1 claims that Nebuzzaradan told his troops not to touch married women, but only virgins. Tg. may be
hinting that while the Chaldeans showed some restraint in taking only virgins, the Romans were utterly shameless and did not
scruple to force matrons as well. One is surely meant to assume that the Romans raped virgins also. The contrast between the
Chaldeans and the Romans is asymmetrical: the sense is not that the Chaldeans raped only virgins and the Romans only married
women, but that the Chaldeans raped virgins, and the Romans virgins and married women.
20
“Impaled” = <߆lybw. Heb. has nitlu. Instead of the cognate Aram. √tly, Tg. uses the more dramatic verb ßlb. He is surely
thinking of crucifixion, encouraged, no doubt, by the reference to hanging by the hands. Note also his rendering of >eß in v. 13
(Note 23).
21
Lam.R. 5:12.§1 extrapolates from the verse a scenario that links its two halves together: “When a governor (epitropos)
was entering a town, he was taking the leading men (†abei de-qarta< = Heb. sœarim) of the town and hanging them. Elderly
people were coming and attempting to persuade him to desist, but he refused to listen to them. This is why it is said: Princes
were hanged by their hands; the faces of old men were not honored.” There is no evidence (pace Levine) that Tg. knew this
interpretation or is alluding to it.
184   Translation

13. Young men carried the millstone,t 22 and youths stumbled under the beam of wood.23
14. The elders have ceased from the gate of the Sanhedrin, andu the young men from the
house of their songs.24
15. The joy of our hearts has ceased; our dancing25 has turned into mourning.

Apparatus, Chapter 5
t AC have the plur. r(y)˙yy< (“millstones”), but read the u AI do not have the copula (= MT), but it should prob-
sing. r(y)˙y< with BDGHIBomb and Yem. (except M), ably be read with BDFGHBomb and Yem. See Appa-
in the light of MT te˙on. ratus r above.

Notes Chapter 5
22
Tg. ry˙y< = MT †e˙on. ˇe˙on occurs only here in BH, but the verb †˙n, “grind,” is well attested (BDB 377b). Tg. clearly
took it as a noun, “millstone.” Probably point re˙ya<, sg., in view of the sg. in the Heb., though re˙ayya< (“millstones” or “mill”)
is also possible. The cognate Heb. is always found in the dual. in BH, re˙ayim (from a putative *re˙eh, “millstone”), presum-
ably because it denotes a mill made up of two millstones (BDB 932b; HAL 1216a). In BH the sequence probably was: *re˙eh,
“millstone”; *re˙im, “millstones”; rehayim, “a mill” (a single implement). In Aram. it was probably *re˙i/re˙ya<, “millstone”;
*re˙ayin/re˙ayya<, both “millstones” and “mill” (Jast. 1466a; Sokoloff, JPA 520b): hence the difficulty in determining the exact
translation here.
Tg. pictures the young men “carrying” (ne†alu) the millstones, either by way of a punishment (cf. the sacks of gravel in
v. 5), or possibly because there were no mills in Babylon! The latter is the view taken by Lam.R. 5:13 §1: “You find that there
were no mills in Babylon [because of the absence of large stones]. So when Nebuchadnezzar came up [against the Land of
Israel] he made the inhabitants carry mills and bring them down [to Babylon]. This is what is written, For your sake I have sent
to Babylon, and I will bring down all of them as fugitives (Isa 43:14)—for fugitives (bari˙im) read be-re˙ayim, ‘with mills.’” An
alternative interpretation of the Heb. would be to construe †e˙on as a verbal noun, “grinding”: “the young men took up grind-
ing,” i.e., they were so degraded that they had to do what was customarily regarded as servile work, performed by women (see
especially Isa 47:2; BDB 377b). Lam.R. 5:13 §1, and b. Sot. 10a offer the striking opinion that †e˙on here is a euphemism for
sexual intercourse, quoting Judg 16:21, “And he [Samson] ground (†o˙en) in the prison-house,” as a parallel. The same meaning
has also been proposed for Job 31:10, “And let my wife grind for another” or, reading nif., ti††a˙en, “be ground by another” (see
Pope, Job, 202). (Cf. the obscene sense of the English “to screw.”) This hints at a translation “young men endured grinding,” or
“they [the enemy] took young men to grind [them].” Cf. Lam.R. 1:16 §45, “Vespasian filled three ships with eminent men of
Jerusalem to place them in Roman brothels.” Vulg.’s adolescentibus inpudice abusi sunt points to the same interpretation, which
Jerome presumably learned from his Jewish informants. He takes “grind” in the same sense in Judg 16:21 and Job 31:10 (see
his comments to all these places: Pope, Job, 202). LXX eklektoi klauthmon anelabon, “the chosen men took up weeping,” but
possibly emend klauthmon to alesmon, “grinding” (Albrektson, 203); Pesh. gdwd< †˙nw r˙y< (“youths grind [at] the mill”). See
Cohen, “The Destruction: From Scripture to Midrash,” 23.
23
“Beam of wood (ßlybt qys<)” in context surely contains another allusion to crucifixion (see v. 12 and Note 20). “Stum-
bling under the beam of wood” vividly conjures up the picture of carrying the cross to the place of execution (see the allusion to
this in Gen.R. 65.22). In parallelism to carrying millstones in the first half of the line, the second half might naturally be taken
as describing the young men stumbling under a load of wood. Tg., however, in a typical piece of dramatic heightening, inter-
prets >eß in the light of Deut 21:22 (Onq. “you shall hang him upon the beam,” wtßlwb ytyh >al ßlyb<; cf. FT ad loc.), and finds a
reference to the gallows. Lam.R. 5:13 §1 takes a similar view: “And children (ne>arim) stumbled under the wood. R. Joshua b.
Levi said: Three hundred children (tinoqot) were found strung up [by the enemy] on one branch.” Jewish law knows of a capital
punishment of hanging, but it was employed only after death (by stoning) to display the body of the malefactor (see m. Sanh.
6:4). Crucifixion offended the Jews because it involved hanging the person alive (see 4QpNah 3-4 I 7-8).
24
b. Sot. 48a (cf. Lam.R. 5:15 §1) also takes the “gate” here as an allusion to the Sanhedrin, and so “the elders” are not so
much the aged per se as the religious and political leaders of the people. For elders judging in the “the gate” see Deut 21:19;
22:15 (BDB 1045a [2a]). The addition of “house” balances “Sanhedrin” and eases the zeugma in the Heb. involved in ceasing
at one and the same time from a place and an activity. Tg. thus finds a double contrast in the verse between “elders” and “young
men” on the one hand and serious business and frivolity on the other: both the law courts and the music halls are deserted—an
image of total desolation.
25
“Dancing” = ˙ynwg: Heb. ma˙ol. Cf. l˙yng< b˙ynwgyn, “dance in the dances” in Tg. to 1:4. But the spelling of the noun
is somewhat doubtful. Yem. has ˙ngn<, which it vocalizes in a variety of ways. The form ˙yng< is better attested (Jast. 458a). Tg.
renders ma˙ol in the same way in Ps 149:3; 150:4; and Jer 31:13. Albreskton rightly notes how elegantly Tg. (zemara’—˙edwe-
ta<—˙inuga<) and LXX (psalmos—chara—choros) vary their renderings of the Heb. sequence neginah (v. 14)—mesœosœ—ma˙ol,
whereas Pesh. can only manage an impoverished ˙adutha for all three nouns.
 Translation   185

16. The crownv of our head has fallen.26 Woe to us, forw we have sinned!
17. Because of this, the House of the Sanctuaryx which is desolate, our heart is weak;
and because of these,y the peoplez of the House of Israel, who have gone into exile from there,
our eyes are dim27—
18. Because of the mountain of Zion, which is desolate: foxes28 have trodden29 on it!30
19. You31 are the Lord.aa Forever your dwelling-place [is] in the highest heavens; the
throne of your glory [will endure] throughout the generations of generations.32

Apparatus, Chapter 5
v BI have the plur. “crowns,” but leave the verb in the y AC do not have “these,” but the word should be added
sing.! MT >ateret. with BDFGHIBomb and Yem. Cf. MT.
w A <rwm; CG <ry. See Intro. 2.1. z C “our people.”
x F “House of our Sanctuary.” aa H “You are God.”

Notes Chapter 5
26
Tg. makes no attempt to clarify what is meant by “the crown of our head has fallen.” Lam.R. 5:16 §1 relates it to a bizarre
story about the decapitation of Rabbi Jeremiah “of the branch,” apparently divine retribution for his practice of wearing a crown
of olive branches at weddings. Ibn Ezra detects an allusion to the Temple, the place of the Shekhinah (note Tg. to next verse),
and the Le˙em Dim>ah to the Shekhinah.
27
Tg., not surprisingly, feels the need to specify the vague “this” and “these” of the Heb. He makes no attempt here to find
in Heb. daweh an allusion to the niddah (contrast his rendering of 1:13, Note 56). Note, however, how Lam.R. 5:17 §1 does pick
up this possibility, but works it round in the end to the same interpretation as Tg.: “R. Eleazar ben R. Yosei the Galilean said:
Because a woman separates herself from her husband for two or three days the Torah calls her dawah, as it is written, And of
her that is sick (dawah) with her impurity (Lev 15:33); how much more should we be called ‘sick’ who are separated from the
house of our life, namely the Temple, many days and many years!”
28
Aram. ta>alin = Heb. ¡u>alim: “foxes” or “jackals” (HAL 1445b). LXX aløpekes; Pesh. t>l<; Vulg. vulpes.
29
MT has the pi. (hillekhu), and Tg. should probably, therefore, be pointed as pa. (hallikhu). The precise difference be-
tween the simple and intensive forms of the root hlk in Heb. and Aram. is elusive.
30
Tg.’s literal translation betrays no concern for the somewhat awkward syntax of the Heb. The Heb. (pace Hillers) should
not be explained as casus pendens (on which see Joüon-Muraoka §156), nor are 1 Sam 9:20 and 2 Sam 6:23 strictly speaking
parallel: the Heb. here would have had to read >al har ßiyyon ¡e-¡amem ¡u>alim hillekhu >alayw (hardly a problematic Heb.
sentence!) for these references to be relevant. It would be anomalous to resume the prep. >al with the prep. be-. If the text is
left as it stands, then >al har ßiyyon should be taken as a third element in the series >al zeh .  .  . >al <elleh, and construed as a
supplementary predicate of the preceding “our eyes are dim,” with the appositional sentence “foxes have walked on it” be-
ing epexegetical of “desolate.” This makes reasonably good sense, and since Tg. apparently had no difficulty with the syntax
he probably understood the Heb. in this way. For such enjambement in Lam. see Intro. 5.1. The text is supported by all the
versions. However, it would be graphically fairly simple to emend to har ßiyyon ¡amem ¡u>alim hillekhu bo, “Mount Zion is
desolate; foxes have trodden on it.”
31
Tg. seems to have read <attah with the majority of MT mss; but some MT mss, LXX, and Pesh. read we-<attah.
32
It is not clear how Tg. segmented the Heb. The MT accents suggest the translation “You, O Lord, will endure (te¡eb:
BDB 442b [2.a]) for ever, your throne thoughout all generations.” Tg., however, construed Yhwh not as a vocative but as a
predicate. He then probably took le->olam with te¡eb, which he interpreted in its normal sense of “dwell” or “sit” (cf. Rashi
and Ibn Ezra). This led him naturally to specify the place of God’s dwelling, viz., heaven (cf. Ps 2:4), which he designates by
the liturgical phrase bi-¡emei marom, “in the highest heavens”(see Tg. to 3:41, Note 57, and 3:66, Note 95). This reading was
reinforced by the reference to God’s “throne,” which he identified with God’s celestial throne, the kisse< ha-kabod (cf. Jer 17:12;
Ps 11:4; 103:19). Kisse< ha-kabod (here kursei yeqara<) is the commonest designation of God’s throne in classic rabbinic texts
and in the Heikhalot literature. Alternatively, he might have divided: “You are the Lord forever; your dwelling-place [is] in the
highest heavens etc.,” but this way of punctuating the Heb. leaves te¡eb very isolated. LXX “But you, Lord, will dwell forever,
your throne for generation after generation”; Pesh. “And you, Lord, exist forever, and your throne for (all) generations”; Vulg.
tu autem, Domine, in aeternum permanebis, solium tuum in generatione et generatione.
186   Translation

20. Why33 should you neglect34 us forever, forsake us for so long?

21. Turn us back, O Lord, to yourself, and we shall return35 in perfect repentance.36 May
you renew37 our days for good, as in the time of the good days that were of old.38
22. But ratherbb 39 you will utterly abhor us.40 You have been angry with us exceedingly.41

Apparatus, Chapter 5
bb A <lhyn <m, but read <rwm <lhyn with Yem.; cf. BGI
<rwm <ylhn and DFHBomb <rwm <lhn. See Note 39.

Notes Chapter 5
33
Pesh. seems to have read the negative lo< rather than lammah, perhaps through a conscious or unconscious desire to strike
a more positive note. Tg. and LXX (hina ti) support the MT.
34
Aram. t¡lynn<, a nuanced rendering of the Heb. ti¡ka˙eni. One might have expected Tg. to have used some form of √n¡y
(cf. Tg. to Hos 4:6 and Isa 49:14: Jast. 939a; Sokoloff, JPA 361b). The root ¡ly here clearly means “neglect, abandon” (Jast.
1582a, though Sokoloff, JPA 553a, does not recognize this sense), and is synonymous with ¡bq (Heb. >zb) in the second half of
the line. Tg. may have had reservations about the idea that God could psychologically forget anything, or anyone. ⁄k˙ in MH
can come close to the meaning “abandon” in some contexts: see Jast. 1572a. LXX epil∑s∑(i); Pesh. t¡bqn; Vulg. oblivisceris.
35
The Heb. stresses the agency of God: we-na¡ubah expresses a purpose or result (“Turn us back . . . so that we may re-
turn”: Joüon-Muraoka §116b). Tg. does not pick up this grammatical nuance, nor do the other versions. However, Lam.R. 5:20
§1 clearly caught the sense: “Turn us back, O Lord, to yourself, so that we may return. The Community of Israel spoke before
the Holy One, blessed be he, ‘Lord of the Universe, it depends on you (¡elkha hu<), so Turn us back to yourself’. But he said to
them: ‘It depends on you (¡elkhem hu<), as it is said, Return to me, and I will return to you, says the Lord of Hosts (Mal 3:7).’
The Community of Israel spoke before him, ‘Lord of the Universe, it depends on you, as it is said, Restore us, O God of our
salvation (Ps 85:5), and therefore it is said, Turn us back, O Lord, to yourself, so that we may return.’”
36
The inadequacy of English “repentance” as a translation of Aram. teyubta</ Heb. te¡ubah has often been noted. Te¡ubah
is one of the fundamental theological concepts of rabbinic Judaism: see Moore, Judaism 1:504–34; Urbach, Sages, 462–71.
“Perfect repentance”: cf. “perfect healing” (refu<ah ¡elemah) (>Amidah, Benediction 8, ADPB 79); “perfect faith” (<emunah
¡elemah) (<Ani ma<amin, ADPB 153). The meaning here probably is something like “wholehearted, sincere repentance.”
37
Tg. has the impf. t˙dt, probably with jussive force, since the Heb. has the impv. (˙adde¡). The impf. eases the link be-
tween the end of v. 21 and the beginning of v. 22. See Notes 39 and 40 below.
38
Lam.R. 5.21 §1, by playing on other occurrences of the Heb. qedem (“of old”), particularly in the phrase yemei qedem,
identifies the former days as the days of Adam (cf. Gen 3:24), the days of Moses, the days of Solomon, the days of Noah, and
the days of Abel (cf. Mal 3:4). Compared with this, Tg.’s “as in the time of the good days that were of old” lacks precision. It
is possible, however, that the phrase yomayya< †abayya hints at the festivals that were celebrated before the destruction of the
Temple (cf. Lam 1:4). For yom †ob = festival see Jast. 569a.
39
Tg.’s <rwm <ylhn (see Apparatus bb) corresponds very closely to MT ki <im, and supports it against the MT variant ki,
which may be reflected in LXX hoti and Pesh. me†ul d-. The force of Heb. ki <im has been much disputed (see the discussions
of Albrektson and Hillers). <rwm <ylhn occurs elsewhere in Tg. Aram., both in the sense of “unless”: see Gen 32:27 [English v.
26], “And he said, I will not let you go unless [Heb. ki <im = FT <rwm <ylhn; but Onq. <lhn] you bless me” (cf. Neof. Gen. 43:3
and Deut 7:5); and in the sense of “but rather”: see Gen 24:4, “You shall not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the
Canaanites, among whom I dwell, but rather [Heb. ki = Neof. <rwm <lhn; but Onq. <lhn] you shall go to my country, and to my
kindred, and take a wife for my son Isaac.” <rwm <lhn is found in TA also as a prep., meaning “but” (FT Gen. 32:29, Heb. ki <im),
and “except for” (Neof. Gen. 39:6, 9: Sokoloff, JPA 73b). The adversative sense fits well here: the opening statement of v. 22
effectively negates the wish expressed at the close of v. 21. See Note 40.
40
Tg. faithfully represents the inf. abs. + finite verb construction of the Heb., but surprisingly casts the finite verb in the
impf., where MT has pf. Perhaps he took the pf. as prophetic (see 3:56, Note 76). The impf., however justified, makes the flow
of thought easier and answers the impf./jussive te˙addet (Heb. impv.! Note 37) in v. 21.
41
Tg. ends bleakly. When Lamentations is read liturgically it is customary to repeat v. 21 in order to conclude on a more
positive note. As Rashi observes: “Because it ends with words of rebuke one is obliged to repeat the preceding verse again,
and likewise in Isaiah, the Twelve, and Qohelet.” The custom is as old as Massekhet Soferim 14.2. Some Rabbinic Bibles and
some Tg. mss (e.g., B) actually repeat v. 21 again at the end of the text. Lam.R. 5:22 §1 even attempts to put a positive gloss
on v. 22. It seems to have understood the Heb. in much the same way as the AJV: “Thou canst not have utterly rejected us, and
 Translation   187

Notes Chapter 5
be exceedingly wroth against us.” “R. Simeon b. Laqish said: If there is rejection there is no hope, but if there is anger there is
hope, because whoever is angry may in the end be appeased.” See also Ibn Ezra ad loc. Rabbinic exegesis is extremely sensitive
to Christian supersessionism and goes out of its way to avoid any interpretation that might countenance the view that God has
finally rejected Israel. Observe how Lam.R. 1:2 §23 elaborately counters the negative statements of Lam. with verses of hope
and comfort from other parts of Scripture (see Intro. 4.4 and 6.3). Tg., unlike Lam.R., makes little effort to read Lam. against the
grain. It takes its despairing message very much at face value. For a possible explanation for this in terms of the Tg.’s intended
place in the liturgy for the 9th of Ab, see Intro. 7.1.2.
188   Appendix—Chapter 1

Appendix

Targum Lamentations in the Yemenite Recension

Chapter 1

1. aHow [has it been decreed]b against Jerusalem and her people that they should be
condemned to banishment,c and that “<Eikhah” should be pronounced over them in mourning,
just as Adam and Eve were condemned, when they were banished from the Garden of Eden,
and the Holy One, blessed be he,d pronounced “<Eikhah” over them in mourning?
The Attribute of Justice answered, and thus said:
It is on account of the extent of the sin, the rebellione that is in her midst.f And on this account g
she dwells alone, as a man with plagueh dwells alone. And the city that was full of crowds
and numerous peoples has been emptied of them, and has become like a widow; and she who
grew great among the nations and states now pays taxes to them.i
2. When Moses the prophet j sent spiesk to spy out the Land of Canaan,l theym came back
and put out a bad report of the Land of Israel, and that night was the ninth of Ab. When the
people of the House of Israel heard this bad news,n they raised o their voices, and the people
wept on that night. Immediately the anger of the Lord was kindled against them,p that they
should weep on that night throughout [all] their generations.q
And when it was told by prophecy tor the people of Israel, they refuseds to receive his
word.t So wicked Nebuchadnezzar cameu and exiled Israel,v and burned the Temple with fire.
On the ninth day of the month of Abw the Congregation of Israel weeps, and her tears run
Apparatus, Chapter 1
a West. begins: “Jeremiah the prophet and high priest j N omits “the prophet.”
said.” Yem. = MT. k m<llyn: West. “scouts” (<[y]zgdyn).
b Yem.’s lack of a verb points to primitive corruption. l “The Land of Canaan”: West. “the Land.”
The verb has been supplied from West. m M “the spies”; West. “the scouts.”
c K lacks “to banishment.” n MP add “from the Land,” probably a secondary expan-
d West. “the Lord of the World.” sion; West. adds “that they received about the Land of
e Reading mrd with N for J mrr (“bitterness”). Jast. 848a Israel.”
quotes RH merer in the sense of “sin” in a word-play o <rymw: West. n†lw >m< (“the people lifted up”).
on mor (Cant.R. 5:5 §1), but a graphic corruption is p West. adds “and he decreed that.”
more likely here. West. “her sins, and the sedition and q West. adds “for the destruction of the Temple.”
rebellion (mrd).” For the root mrr see jj below, and r West. “and when it was told by prophecy to Jeremiah
West. Apparatus ee. the high priest that Jerusalem would be destroyed by
f Omitting d>l with N as a partial dittography of the fol- wicked Nebuchadnezzar, if they did not return in re-
lowing w>l. pentance, immediately he went up and reproved.”
g w>l kn: West. bgyn kn. s West. “but (w-) they refused.” See previous note.
h kgbr mkt¡y: West. “like a man in whose flesh is the t mymryh: here the suffix must refer to God. See West.
plague (mkt¡) of leprosy.” Apparatus m.
i “And she that grew great .  .  . to them”: following N, u <t<: West. ><l (“went up”). Cf. West. Apparatus l.
though the reading may be a secondary correction (see v “And exiled Israel”: West. “and devastated Jerusalem.”
Intro. 1.3). J and the remaining Yem. mss are corrupt w Yem. connects the reference to the 9th of Ab with what
(“who grew great in the world[s]”). West. “and she that follows, West. with what precedes (“and burned the
grew great among the nations, and ruled over provinces Temple with fire on the ninth day of the month of Ab”).
(<prky<: Yem. “states” [mdynt<] = MT medinot), and See note y below.
they were paying taxes to her, has been brought low in
turn, and gives tribute to them.” See Intro. 1.3.
 Appendix—Chapter 1   189

down her cheeks, and there is none to speak comfort to her out of all her idols after whom
she loved to go. And therefore all her friendsx became her enemies.y
3. Judah has been exiledz on account of enslavement and great servitude.aa She dwells
among the nations;bb she has found no rest. All who pursued her cc overtook her among the
boundaries.dd
4. eeThe paths of Zion mourn,ff because there is no festival-goer.gg All her gates are desolate;
her priests groan.hh Her virgins mourn,ii and as for her—bitterness is hers.jj
5. Her oppressorskk were appointed as headsll over her, and her enemies were dwelling at
ease, because the Lord had broken her on account of the multitude of her rebellions.mm Her
childrennn have gone into captivity before the oppressor.
6. And all her glory departed from the Congregation of Zion. Her nobles were wandering
around,oo like the hartpp in the wilderness, and they did not find a placeqq for their pasture.

Apparatus, Chapter 1
x West. adds “ill-treated her,” corresponding to MT ee West. adds at the beginning: “All the time that Jerusa-
bagedu bah (see note y below). Yem. has omitted part lem was still standing, the Children of Israel refused
of the biblical text, a sure sign of corruption. to go up to Jerusalem to appear before the Lord three
y “On the ninth day .  .  . enemies”: Yem. contextualizes times in the year. And for the sins of Israel Jerusalem
the end of the verse to the present, West. to the past, is devastated, and .  .  .  . ” Yem. = MT.
“(and burned the Temple with fire) on the ninth day of ff “The paths (<wr˙t) of Zion mourn”: West. “the ways
the month of Ab. And on this same night the Congre- (¡byly) of Zion are made to mourn.” MT darkhei ßi-
gation of Israel wept bitterly, and tears ran down her yyon <abelot.
cheeks. There was none to speak comfort to her heart gg mdl< >lyl mw>d<, which represents very literally MT
out of all the idols after whom she loved to go. And ba<ei mo>ed (though not the plur.), is probably to
on account of this all her friends mistreated her; they be construed as a compound noun, “festival-goer.”
turned into her enemies.” West. “because no-one enters her at the time of the
z “Judah has been exiled (glt) = MT (galetah); West. festivals” (note sg. again!).
“the House of Judah has gone into exile” (<zlw byt yh- hh mt<n˙n: West. <ny˙n. West. adds “because the sacri-
wdh bglwt<). fices have ceased.”
aa “On account of enslavement and great servitude” = ii mt<bln: West. “lament” (spdn). West. adds “because
MT me>oni umerob >abodah; West. “because they op- they have ceased to go out on the fifteenth day of Ab
pressed orphans and widows, and because of the great and on the Day of Atonement (which is on the tenth
servitude which they imposed upon their brothers, the day of Tishri) to dance in the dances.”
Israelites, who sold themselves to them, and they did jj why< mryr< lh: the syntax awkward. The lh suggests
not proclaim freedom to their male and female slaves that mryr< is a noun and not an adj. agreeing with
who were of the seed of Israel. And, therefore, they in hy<, unless lh is an ethic dative: “she is bitter with
turn have been given into the hand of the nations.” herself.” West. <wp <yhy< mryr lbh l˙d<: see West. Ap-
bb “She dwells among the nations” = MT; West. “and paratus bb. MT wehi< mar lah (“and as for her—it is
the Congregation of the House of Judah dwells in the bitter to her”). On the root mrr see note e above.
midst of the nations.” kk P “the oppressor,” but MT ßareyha.
cc kl rdph< (plur.) = MT; West. wkl dhwh rdyp yth (sing.) ll KMQ omit “as heads,” but MT le-ro<¡.
(“everyone who pursued her”). mm The form of the noun is uncertain: J has mrwdth
dd “Overtook her among the boundaries”: reading (which should be vocalized as a plur. in the light of
mßrny< with MNP for J mßry<ny<; cf. MT meßarim. For MT pe¡a>eyha). NP and West. mrwdh<. See West.
mßrny< in the sense of “border, boundary (especially Apparatus ee.
of a field)” see Sokoloff, JBA 672a (cf. Jast. 828b). nn †plh<: West. “her young men” (rbyyh<).
Though borrowed from the Akk. mißru, “a border of oo NP and West. add >l mykl< (“[looking] for food”).
a field,” the word seems to have entered Aram. early, pp J and most Yem. mss, and some West. (BEFGHI) have
and is found in both eastern and western sources, the sg. “hart.” NP and some West. mss (ACBomb)
though in JA it is much more common in the former have the plur.: “like harts who wander around.” See
than the latter. West. has the semantic equivalent “bor- West. Apparatus gg. MT has the plur. ke-<ayyalim.
ders” (t˙wmy<). West. adds at the end “and they op- qq West. “a place fit (k¡r).” Ka¡er makes a strong point
pressed her.” See Note 16. here: it is not a question of an absolute lack of food,
but of kosher food, a constant problem of exile.
190   Appendix—Chapter 1

And they went in feebleness,rr and they had not the vigor to flee to save themselves before a
pursuer.
7. Jerusalem remembered the former days when her dwelling was in strong walled cities,ss
and [her] dominion and rulett [were] over all the world, and [she remembered] all her pre-
cious things,uu which had been hers in former days. But because of her sins her people fell
into the handvv of wicked Nebuchadnezzar, and he oppressed them, and there was no-one to
help her. Her oppressors saw her going into exile.ww They mocked because her prosperity had
departed from her.xx
8. Jerusalem has sinned a sin,yy therefore she has become a wanderer. All the peoples,
who honored her formerly, treat her with contempt, because they saw her breach. But she
groans; she turnszz back.
9. Her uncleannessaaa was in her skirts; she did not wantbbb to be cleansed from her sins.ccc
She did not remember what would come upon her at the end of days. And she sank down and
fell, and became a thing of wonder, and there was no-one to speak consolation to her. See, O
Lord,ddd my misery,eee because my enemyfff has magnified himselfggg against me.
10. Wicked Nebuchadnezzar stretched out his hand, and drew the sword,hhh and cut off
all her precious things, because she sawiii [that] the peoplesjjj had entered her Temple, about
whom you commandedkkk at the hand of Moses the prophet (concerning Ammon and Moab)
that they are not worthy to enter your congregation.lll
11. All the people of Jerusalem groanmmm from hunger, and seek bread to eat. They have
given their precious things for bread,nnn in order to stay alive. See,ooo O Lord, and considerppp
from heaven,qqq that I have become a glutton.
12. I adjure you, all you who pass byrrr on the way,sss turn aside hither; behold and see
if there is any pain like my pain, which has been inflicted upon me, with which the Lord has
broken me in the day of the fierceness of his anger.

Apparatus, Chapter 1
rr West. lit. “in feebleness of strength.” fff West. “the enemy”; cf. MT <oyeb.
ss “In strong walled cities”: West. “in walled cities and ggg <trrb = <trbrb; cf. Tg. Job 33:12 with Stec’s appara-
strong unwalled towns.” tus.
tt Most Yem. mss mdwrh .  .  . wmrd< w¡ly†<, but N w¡l†< hhh West. adds “moreover, the Congregation of Israel
for w¡ly†<. See West. Apparatus ii. began to wail.” Yem. = MT.
uu Reading rgwgh< with N (cf. West.) for J rgwgh. Note iii ˙zt: P ˙myt.
the following plur. verb, and MT ma˙amadeyha. jjj West. “foreign peoples.”
vv West. (most mss) “hands”; MT yad. kkk Reading “you commanded” (= MT) with MN and
ww West. “into captivity.” West. for J “I commanded.”
xx West. “they mocked at her prosperity that had depart- lll kn¡t<: West. “assembly” (qhl<) = MT (qahal).
ed from her.” mmm Reading <ny˙(y)n (ptcp.) with NP and some West.
yy NP and West. “has sinned a great sin.” (= MT ne<ena˙im) for J <ny˙w (“they groaned”).
zz <thpkt: West. “and she shrinks” (wrt>t). nnn West. “for the sustenance of bread.”
aaa West. “the uncleanness of her menstrual blood.” ooo ˙zy: P ˙my.
bbb Reading “she did not want” with NP for J “she ppp w<stkl: West. wthy mstkl.
wanted.” qqq West. lacks “from heaven” = MT. Cf. Tg. to 2:20.
ccc “She did not want .  .  . sins”: West. “she was not rrr Reading d>bryn with NP and West. (= MT >oberei)
cleansed of it” (the blood or the uncleanness): see for J d>brw (“who passed”).
West. Apparatus pp. sss M “ways,” but MT has sg.
ddd West. adds “and behold.”
eee >nyyi = MT (>onyi); West. (some mss) “my afflic-
tion” (sygwpy).
 Appendix—Chapter 1   191

13. From heaven he sent fire into my fortified cities,ttt and subdued them. He spread a net
for my feet. He caused me to turn back.uuu He made me desolate all the day, unclean.vvv
14. The yoke of my rebellionwww was heavy.xxx By his hand they were twined together, like
tendrils of the vine. They were placed upon my shoulders.yyy My strength failed.zzz The Lord
gave me over into the hands of him whom I was unable to withstand.
15. The Lord subdued all my mighty ones in the midst of me. He proclaimed a time
against me, to break my young men.*a And the nations entered*b and defiled the virgins*c of
the House of Judah, until the blood*d of their virginity poured forth, like a man who treads the
wine-press,*e and the wine of his grapes flows.
16. Because of the infants who were dashed to pieces, and the pregnant women whose
bellies were ripped open, the Congregation of Israel said: “I weep, and my two eyes flow
with water,*f because far from me is any comforter to revive*g my soul. My sons are desolate,
because the enemy*h has prevailed over them.
17. Zion has spread out her hands in her anguish,*i as a woman spreads [her hands] upon
the birth-stool. She cries out, and there is no-one who comforts her.*j The Lord enjoined upon
the House of Israel*k the commandments and the law, but they transgressed against his Word.
Therefore the oppressors of the House of Israel*l encircle him round about.*m Jerusalem is*n
like an unclean woman among them.
18. The Lord said by a Word*o to the people of the House of Israel that those who slay
with the sword*p should not pass*q through their land. King Josiah went, [and] drew the sword
against Pharaoh the Lame,*r which*s he had not been commanded [to do]*t from before the
Lord. Therefore the archers shot arrows at king Josiah, and he died.*u And before his soul

Apparatus, Chapter 1
ttt Reading tqypy< with N for J tqyp. West. krky(y) *e “Like a man .  .  . wine-press”: West. “like wine from
tqypyn. a wine-press, when a man treads grapes.”
uuu <wtbny l<˙wry = MT he¡ibani <a˙or; West. <rt>ny qdl *f West. “flow with tears like a fountain of water.” Yem.
(“he caused me to shrink back”). West. adds “before = MT (yoredah mayim).
my enemies,” which is not in MT. *g West. adds “and speak words of consolation to.” Yem.
vvv West. adds “and weak.” = MT.
www mrwdy: pointed as a sg., but MT has pe¡a>ai, vocal- *h Reading b>yl dbb< with West. for Yem. b>ly dbb< (“ene-
ized as a plur. See West. Apparatus ccc. mies”). The agreeing verb is sg., and MT has <oyeb.
xxx Reading <tyyqr with N and West. for J <ytqyd, prob- *i West. “in anguish.”
ably a corruption of <ytyqd as in E, which is itself a *j “Who comforts her” = MT; West. “to speak words of
corruption of <(y)ty(y)qr. See West. Apparatus ddd. consolation to her heart.”
yyy qdly (vocalized as plur. by J, but as sg. by NP). Qdl *k West. (most mss) “House of Jacob”; MT “Jacob.”
is the back part of the neck, the upper back, equiva- *l West. “(the House of) Jacob,” but see West. Apparatus
lent to Heb. >oref (Jast. 1316a; Sokoloff, JPA 474b). zzz.
West. ßw<ry (“my neck”) = MT. *m ˙zwr: West. ˙zwr ˙zwr.
zzz Reading <ytql with MNP for J <ytqly, and vocalizing *n West. “has become” = MT (hayetah).
as an <itpe. Yem. mss are uncertain as to the spell- *o mymr: MN and West. (most mss) “his Word”; P “the
ing, but all indicate a passive. However, MT has hif. Word.”
hikh¡il, and original Tg. probably had <af. <tq(y)l. *p ˙rb< .  .  . ˙rb<: West. ˙rb< .  .  . syyp<. Stylistic variation.
See West. Apparatus fff. *q Reading y>brwn with N and one West. ms (H) for J
*a West. (most mss) “the strength of my young men.” y>br. See West. Apparatus *b.
Yem. = MT. *r West. adds “in the Valley of Megiddo.”
*b West. adds “by decree of the Word of the Lord.” *s dl<: West. m< dl<.
*c Yem. vocalizes as plur., but MT has sg. (betulat). See *t West. adds “nor had he sought instruction.”
West. Apparatus lll. *u West. adds “there,” referring back to “the Valley of
*d West. “their blood.” Megiddo,” which is not mentioned in Yem. (see *r
above).
192   Appendix—Chapter 1

departed he moved his lips, and thus said: “The Lord is righteous, for I have transgressed
against his Word.” Hear now, all peoples, the lamenting*v which Jeremiah pronounced over
Josiah, and see*w my pain, that*x after his death my virgins and youths*y have gone into
captivity.
19. Jerusalem said, when she was delivered into the hand*z of Nebuchadnezzar: “I called
to my lovers, the sons of the nations, with whom I made a covenant,*aa but they [were] deceiv-
ing me,*bb and they turned round to destroy me.*cc My priests and my elders*dd fainted from
hunger in the midst of the city, because they sought the sustenance of food for them to eat,*ee
so that they might preserve their souls.
20. See, O Lord, that I am in distress. *ffMy innards are heaped up; my heart is overturned
in the midst of me,*gg because I have grievously transgressed against your Word;*hh therefore*ii
outside the sword bereaves, while inside famine slays,*jj like the angel*kk who is appointed
over death.
21. The nations have heard that I groan, and*ll there is no-one to comfort me. All my
enemies have heard of the evil that has come upon me. They rejoiced*mm that you are the Lord
who has done [this]. You brought upon me the day of retribution. You summoned against me
a convocation to make me desolate. So*nn you will summon [one] against them, and they shall
be as desolate as I.
22. Let all*oo their evil*pp come up before you on the day of judgment,*qq and deal with
them, as you have dealt with me on account of the multitude of my rebellions, because my
groans are many, and my heart is faint.

Apparatus, Chapter 1
*v hspydw: Yem. is uncertain how to spell this word. See *ee lmyklhwn: West. lhwn lmykl.
West. Apparatus *e. *ff West. adds “therefore” (bgyn kn).
*w ˙mw: see Intro. 2.1. *gg bqrby = MT; NP bgw(<)y: cf. West.
*x West. adds “has befallen me.” See West. Apparatus *hh West. “against the decree of the Word of the Lord.”
*f. *ii bgyn kn: West. wmn bgll hky (“and on account of
*y >wlymy: West. ry/wbyy. See Intro. 1.3. this”).
*z West. “hands.” *jj ˙rgt: MPQ hrgt. See West. Apparatus *q.
*aa dgzryt qym lhwn: West. (most mss) dgzryt >mhwn *kk West. “like the destroying angel.”
qy(y)m. West. adds “that they should help me.” *ll MNPQ lack “and.”
*bb Lit. “but they [were] wiser than I.” See West. Ap- *mm ˙dw: West. bd˙w (“they were glad”).
paratus *k. *nn kn: West. kdyn (“likewise”).
*cc West. adds “These are the Romans who went up *oo N lacks “all,” but the word is in the MT.
with Titus and wicked Vespasian, and built siege- *pp J vocalizes as plur. (“evils”), but MT has sing.
works against Jerusalem.” (ra>atam). West. adds “wherewith they have ill-
*dd Reading “my priests and my elders” with MNP and treated me.” Yem. = MT.
West. = MT, for J “the priests and the elders.” *qq West. “on the great day of judgment.”
 Appendix—Chapter 2   193

Chapter 2

1. How has the Lord ridiculeda the daughter of Zion in the fierceness of b his anger. He has
thrown downc from heaven to earth the boasting of Israel, and has not remembered the House
of his Sanctuary, the footstool of his feet,d in the day of the fierceness of his anger.
2. The Lord has destroyed without mercy all the best land of Israel.e He has smashed in
his anger the fortified towns of the House of Judah.f He has leveled [them] down to the ground.
He has profanedg the kingdom; he has trodden downh its princes.
3. He has cut off in his fierce angeri all the glory of Israel. He has turned backj his right
hand,k and has not helped his people before the enemy, and he has kindled in Jacobl a burningm
fire [that] devours round about.
4. He bent his bow, and firedn at me arrows like an enemy. His right hand took a stand as
an oppressor,o and he killed all that was pleasing to the eye.p In the tent of the Congregation
of Zion he poured out anger like burning fire.
5. The Lord has become like an enemy. He has made an end of Israel; he has made an
end of all her palaces.q He has destroyed all her fortified towns,r and he has increased in the
Congregation of Judahs moaning and mourning.
6. And he has uprooted like a gardent the boothu of the House of his sanctuary. He has
destroyed the place appointed to atone for his people. The Lord has caused to be forgottenv

Apparatus, Chapter 2
a qrß: the sense is unclear, and there may be here a primi- n zrq: West. rgm (“he shot”).
tive corruption in Yem. Perhaps = Syriac qrß pa., “ridi- o “His right hand .  .  . as an oppressor”: cf. MT nißab
cule, scorn,” but this meaning of the root is not other- yemino keßar. West. “he took his stand at the right hand
wise attested in Heb. or JA. West. yqwß (“loathe”). Heb. of Nebuchadnezzar and assisted him, as if he [himself]
ya>ib is a hapax legomenon: see Note 1. was oppressing his people.”
b Reading btqwp with NP for J tqwp. p “All that was pleasing to the eye”: cf. MT (kol
c rm<: West. †lq (“he has cast down”); MT hi¡likh. ma˙amaddei >ayin); West. “every young man, and all
d “The footstool of his feet” = MT; West. “which was who were pleasing for the eye to see.”
the footstool of his feet, nor has he spared it.” N reads q pl†wrh<: pl†wr< = Lat. praetorium; note P’s spelling
“which was” (dhwh) with West. pry†yr< (4:1 West. Apparatus a). West. “all her castles
e “Of Israel”: West. (most mss) “of the House of Jacob”; (byrnyyth<): “all” = MT. But West. reading is uncertain
MT “of Jacob.” (see West. Apparatus o). Cf. v. 7, note bb below.
f “Of the House of Judah”: West. “of the Congregation r krkh<: cf. MT mibßarayw. West. “her unwalled towns”
of the House of Judah.” MT “of the daughter of Ju- (see Note 18).
dah.” s “Congregation of Judah”: cf. MT “daughter of Judah.”
g <˙yl = MT (˙illel): West. <pys (“he has desecrated”). West. “Congregation of the House of Judah” (see West.
h drs: West. dhs (?) (“he has trampled”). See West. Ap- Apparatus p).
paratus h and Note 7. t Reading kgnt< for J bgnt< with KN(?)Q: cf. MT kaggan.
i West. “in fierce anger” = MT. Like Yem., LXX, Pesh., u †ll = Heb. sokh: cf. Ps 27:5 sukko (Qerei) = Tg. †llyh,
and Vulg. all add the possessive pronoun, probably but Ps 76:3 sukko = Tg. byt mqd¡y. Yem. here has a
through assimilation to 1:12 above. doublet: Heb. sukko = (1) †ll, and (2) byt mqd¡y. But
j <tyb = MT (he¡ib); West. <rt> (“he has drawn back”). See West. has only the non-literal rendering byt mwqd¡y
West. Apparatus j. (“House of his Sanctuary”).
k ymynyh = MT (yemino); MNP yd ymyn(y)h. v n¡y: pointed as pa. na¡¡y (cf. MT ¡ikkah), presumably in
l “In Jacob” = MT; West. “in the House of Jacob.” a causative sense. The pe. ne¡y (“has forgotten”) would
m dm¡tlhb<: see West. Apparatus l. not make good sense in context. West. has <af. <n¡y.
194   Appendix—Chapter 2

in Zion the appointed timew and the Sabbath, and he hates in his bitter angerx the king and
the high priest.
7. The Lord has forsakeny his altar; he has rejected his sanctuary; he has given overz into
the hand of the enemyaa the walls of her palaces.bb They made a noise in the House of the
Sanctuary of the Lord, like the noise of the people of the House of Israel, when they used to
pray in the midst of it on the daycc of Passover.
8. The Lord resolved to wreck the wall of the Congregation of Zion. He swung the
plummet;dd he did not turn back his hand from destroying, and the rampart and the wall
mourned; together they were broken down.
9. Her gates subsidedee into the ground, because they slaughtered a pig, and spattered
some of its blood on them. He destroyed and smashed her doorposts; her kingff and her nobles
[are] among the nations,gg because they transgressed againsthh the words of the Torah.ii More-
over, as for her prophets, the holy spiritjj has been withheld from them: they have not found
the word of the Lord.kk
10. The elders of the Congregation of Zion sit on the ground in silence. They have brought
up the ash of a cooking-fire onto their heads. They have tied onll sackcloth. The virgins who
are in Jerusalem have brought down their heads to the dust of the ground.mm
11. My eyes are worn out by tears, my innards are heaped up, my liver is poured on the
ground, on account of the breaking of the Congregation of my people, now that the youth and
the infant go thirsty in the open spaces of the city.nn
12. To their mothers they were saying,oo “Where is grain and wine?” when they were

Apparatus, Chapter 2
w mw>d< = MT (mo>ed); West. “the joy of the festival hh “Transgressed against”: West. ”did not keep.”
(ywm< †b<).” ii NP add “like a people who have no Torah,” probably
x brgz ˙mtyh: MT beza>am <appo. Here Yem. attempts to a secondary expansion. West. adds “as if they had not
preserve the distinctiveness of the Heb. phrase. West received it (Torah) on Sinai.”
has the standard trans. btqwp rwgzyh (“in the fierceness jj “The holy spirit”: West. “the spirit of holy prophecy.”
of his anger”), used indiscriminately by both West. and See Note 33.
Yem. to render ˙aron <appo (1:12), <ap (2:1), and hori kk “They have not found the word (mymr<) of the Lord”:
<ap (2:3). See further Note 2. West. “and no word (ptgm) of prophecy has been
y ¡bq: West. <¡ly (“has abandoned”). spoken to them from before the Lord”; MT “they
z NP “the Lord has given over,” but the divine name is have not found a vision from the Lord.”
not in MT. ll q†rw: West. q(<)mrw (“they have girded”) (Jast.
aa P “enemies,” but MT has sg. 1387a); MT ˙ageru. West. adds “on their flesh,”
bb “Her palaces” (pl†wrh<): West. “her castles” (by- which is missing from Yem.
rnyyth<); MT <armenoteyha. Cf. v. 5 q above and mm Reading “they have brought up .  .  . dust of the
West. Apparatus o. ground” with MNPQ (cf. West.) for J “the virgins
cc “On the day of Passover”: MN “like the day of Pass- who are in Jerusalem have brought up the ash of a
over”; cf. MT keyom. cooking-fire upon their heads.” J has lost part of its
dd Reading “the plummet” (m¡qwlt<) for J “her text through parablepsis (ry¡yhwn > ry¡yhwn).
plummet(s)” (m¡qwlyth<), with NP and West. nn qrt<: West. (most mss) q(y)ry(y)t<; cf. MT qiryah. Cf.
(m¡qwlt<); MT qaw. v. 12, where Heb. >ir = qiryeta< in West. and qarta< in
ee †b>w = MT; West. (most mss) †m>w (“sank”). Yem.
ff N “her kings,” but MT has sg. oo hww <mryn: West. (most mss) “the young men of Is-
gg “[Are] among the nations” = MT; West. “have gone rael were saying (<mryn)”; MT yo<meru. The tenses
into exile among the nations.” in the Heb. of Lam. are often unclear, and this is fre-
quently reflected in the Tg.
 Appendix—Chapter 2   195

thirsting,pp like one slainqq in the open spaces of the city, when their souls were poured outrr
into their mothers’ bosoms.
13. How shall I admonish you, and to what shall I liken you, Congregation of Jerusalem?
With what shall I associate you, that I may comfort you, Virgin Congregation of Zion?ss For
great is your breaking, like the greatness of the breaking of the waves of the Great Sea at the
time of its raging. And who is the physician who shall heal you of your sickness?
14. The false prophets among you sawtt for you falsehood, and there was no substance
[in it],uu nor did they disclose about your sin,vv in order to turn you back in repentance, andww
they prophesied to you false prophecies that lead astray.xx
15. All those who passyy along the way clap their hands at you; they hiss and shake their
headszz at the Congregation of Jerusalem. They say:aaa “Is this the city about which [our]
grandfathersbbb of old would sayccc that it was the excellence of loveliness,ddd the joy of all
the earth?eee
16. All your enemies have opened their mouths against you; they have hissed;fff they have
gnashedggg their teeth; they said: “We have finishedhhh [them]. Truly, this is the day for which
we hoped.iii We have found, we have seen!”jjj
17. The Lord has done askkk he intended. He has implemented his wordlll which he com-
manded to Moses his servantmmm in days of old, that if the House of Israelnnn will not do that
which is right in his eyes,ooo he will exact punishment from them without pity, and he caused
your enemyppp to rejoice over you; he has exalted the glory of your oppressors.

Apparatus, Chapter 2
pp West. “when they were parched (lit. thirsting) with ccc yymrwn = MT yo<meru; West. hww <mryn (“were
thirst”; Yem. = MT. saying”).
qq West. “like one slain by the sword”; Yem. = MT. ddd y<wt ¡prt<: West. “perfection of beauty and loveli-
rr West. “poured out through hunger”; Yem. = MT. ness” (gmyrt nwy w¡wpr<). Again West’s nwy w¡wpr<
ss “Congregation of Jerusalem . . . Congregation of looks like a conflate reading; MT kelilat yofi.
Zion”: P reads only “Congregation of Zion” by para- eee West. “all the inhabitants of the earth”; Yem. =
blepsis. MT.
tt ˙zw = MT; West. (most mss) “prophesied” (<ytnbyw). fff West. adds “with their lips”; Yem. = MT.
uu West. “and there was no substance in their prophe- ggg West. “and they have gnashed” = MT (wayya˙requ).
cies.” hhh ˙sln<, to be pointed pa. and not pe. as in J. MOQ
vv West. “nor did they disclose the retribution that was ˙bln< (“we have destroyed”); West. ¡yßyn< (“we
about to come on you on account of your sin”; Yem. have put an end to”).
= MT. iii dsbrnhy: cf. MT ¡e-qiwwinuhu; West. dhwyn<
ww West. “but (<ylhn) they prophesied”; MT “and they mtyn(<)n (“for which we were waiting”).
saw” (wayyehezu). jjj ˙zyn<: see West. Apparatus xx.
xx “False prophecies that lead astray” (nbw<t ¡qr< w†>wt<) kkkk m<: KMNOPQ m< (“what”) = MT (<a¡er); cf. West.
= (?) MT (see Note 51); West. “baseless prophecies Apparatus yy.
(nbw<t mgn) and words that lead astray.” lll ¡lym mlwlyh: West. “he has fulfilled the utterance of
yy Reading “all those who pass” (kl >bry) with NOP and his mouth” (gmr mymr pmyh).
West. (= MT) for J “everyone who passes” (kl d>br), mmm West. “Moses the prophet.”
with breach of concord with the main verb. nnn See West. Apparatus zz.
zz ry¡yhwn: West. bry¡yhwn. ooo “Will not .  .  . eyes”: West. “do not keep the com-
aaa West. “they say with their mouths.” mandments of the Lord.”
bbb West. (most mss) “our fathers and grandfathers.” ppp West. “the enemy” = MT.
This looks like a conflate reading.
196   Appendix—Chapter 2

18. Their heartqqq cried out before the Lord, who was merciful to them.rrr O wall of the citysss
of the Congregation of ttt Zion, shed tears like a torrent day and night! Do not give comfort to
yourself,uuu so as to slacken your prayer, and let not the pupil of your eye be silent.vvv
19. Arise,www engage in [the study of] the Mishnah in the night,xxx and the words of the
Torah at the beginning of the morning watch.yyy Shed like water your heartzzz in repentance in
the synagogue*a before the face of the Lord. Raise to him your hands in prayer for the life of
your young men who are devastated*b by hunger at the head of all your marketplaces.*c
20. See, O Lord, and consider from heaven*d against whom you have turned in this way.
Is it fitting for women*e to eat*f the fruit of their wombs, the young men*g whom they [used to]
swaddle in sheets?*h The Attribute of Justice*i answered, and thus said: Is it fitting to murder the
priest and the prophet in the House of the Sanctuary of the Lord,*j as you murdered Zechariah
the son of Iddo,*k the priest and the prophet*l—something that was evil before the Lord?*m
21. The young man and the old,*n who were accustomed to lie on woollen mattresses,*o
lie*p on the ground in their marketplaces.*q My virgins and my youths have fallen, killed by
the sword. You have killed [them] in the day of your anger; you have slaughtered, and have
not spared.
22. You will proclaim freedom to your people, the House of Israel, by the hand of the King
Messiah, as you did by the hand of Moses and Aaron on the day of Passover, and my young
men shall be gathered*r around*s from every place where they were dispersed*t on the day of

Apparatus, Chapter 2
qqq West. “the heart of Israel”; Yem. = MT. *h West. adds “of fine wool.”
rrr West. (most mss) “that he should be merciful to *i MOQ “the Attribute of Mercy”!
them.” See West. Apparatus bbb. *j “The priest . . . the Lord”: West. “in the House of the
sss ¡wr qrt<: West. ¡wr< dqrt<. Sanctuary of the Lord the priest and the prophet” =
ttt West. (most mss) omits “of the Congregation” = MT. MT word order. M omits “in the House of the Sanctu-
uuu “To yourself” = MT (lakh); West. “to your grief.” ary of the Lord.”
vvv West. adds “from weeping.” *k N “Zechariah the son of Jehoiada,” but with “Jehoia-
www West. “arise, Congregation of Israel, that dwells in da” canceled. See Note 73.
exile”; Yem. = MT. *l West. “faithful prophet.”
xxx West. adds “for the Shekhinah of the Lord dwells *m Yem. dyn dby¡ qYYY is very awkward and looks like
before you”; Yem. = MT. a clumsy attempt to shorten the longer West. text: “in
yyy Reading m†rt< d¡prpr< with KMNOPQ for J m†rt< the House of the Sanctuary of the Lord on the Day
b¡prpr< (“the watch in the morning”). of Atonement, because he admonished you not to do
zzz “Your heart”: West. “the pride of your heart”; Yem. that which was evil before the Lord.” N dbyrw¡[lm]<
= MT. for dyn dby¡ is probably a secondary attempt to im-
*a “In repentance in the synagogue”: West. “and turn in prove the Yem. text (“as you killed Zechariah the son
repentance, and pray in the synagogue.” of Iddo in Jerusalem before the Lord”).
*b ßdyyn: see Jast. 1262a; Sokoloff JPA 458a; MNO *n West. (most mss) “the young men and the old”; Yem.
ßhy(y)n and West. ß˙y(y)n (Jast. 1273a; Sokoloff, JPA = MT (na>ar we-zaqen).
459a and JBA 953a), but the phrase “thirsty with hun- *o West. adds “and ivory couches.”
ger” is awkward. Heb. >a†ufim (“faint, weak”). *p ¡kbw = MT; West. dmkw (“sleep”). See Note 75.
*c West. “every marketplace”; cf. MT kol ˙ußot. *q West. “in the marketplaces” = MT (˙ußot). See West.
*d NP “in heaven.” Apparatus nnn.
*e West. “the daughters of Israel” is more pointed, but *r ytkn¡wn: West. <ytkn¡wn, but in context this must be
Yem. = MT (na¡im). construed as a fut. pf.
*f West. (most mss) adds “from hunger”; Yem. = MT. *s Yem. ˙zwr ˙zwr >wlymy; West. >wlymyy ˙zwr ˙zwr.
*g West. “the lovely young men”; Yem. = MT. *t d<tbdrw: West. d<tbdrw tmn.
 Appendix—Chapter 2   197

the fierce anger of the Lord,*u and there was not among them survivor or remnant. My sons,
whom I swaddled*v in sheets, and reared*w—my enemies have destroyed them.

Apparatus, Chapter 2
*u West. “on the day of your fierce anger, O Lord.” *w West. adds “with royal delicacies”; Yem. = MT.
*v “My sons, whom I swaddled”: West. “those whom I
swaddled” = MT (<a¡er tippa˙ti).
198   Appendix—Chapter 3

Chapter 3

1. I am the man who has seen affliction by the rod of him who chastises in his anger,
2. Anda he has he led and brought meb into darkness, and not into light.
3. Assuredly against me he will turn; he will heap upon me his blows all the day.
4. My flesh had grown old,c and my skin;d he has broken my bones.
5. He has built against me siege-workse and surrounded the city, and uprooted the heads
of the people, and wearied them.f
6. In a prison-houseg of darknessh he has made me dwell, like the dead who have gone
to the other world.i
7. He has locked me up, so that j I cannot go out from my chains;k he has made heavy
upon my feet fetters of brass.
8. Moreover, when I [would] cry out and pray, the house of my prayer is closed up.
9. He has shut up my ways with hewn stones;l he has confounded my paths.
10. A lurking bear was he to me, a lion who makes himself readym on the track.n
11. My ways he has turned aside(?),o and has torn me in pieces; he has made me
desolate.
12. He has bentp his bow, and has set me as a target for the arrow.
13. He has caused to enter into my innards the arrows of his quiver.
14. I have become a laughing-stock to all the dissolute of my people, and they sing about
me all day long.q
15. He has sated me with the gallr of serpents; he has made me drunk with wormwood.s
16. And he has ground down my teeth with stones;t he has humbled meu in the dust.v
17. And my soul let go of peace;w I forgot prosperity.

Apparatus, Chapter 3
a NOPQ and West. omit “and” = MT. o Reading srr with NOP for J sdr purely on graphical
b <wbyl: OP2 “has caused (me) to come” (<yty). grounds (cf. MT sorer: see Note 19), but it is not clear
c West. adds “from wounds”; Yem. = MT. what srr would mean in JA. J may have intended sdr
d West. adds “from blows”; Yem. = MT. (lit. “order, arrange”) in the sense of “review” (Jast.
e krqwmyn: West. krkwmyn; see Note 9. 958b). West. sr(<)b. The original Tg. reading was prob-
f Emending J ¡l˙w <ßwn to ¡lhy <ynwn with some West. ably srk: see West. Apparatus r.
mss; cf. O ¡lhy<wnwn. See West. Apparatus g. p mt˙: N “he has drawn” (m¡k).
g Lit. “house of prisoners” (byt <syryn); M “house of the q kwl ywm<: P “all the days” (kwl ywmy<).
prisoner” (byt <syr<). r mryr: West. (A) mryrt. There is widespread uncertainty
h Reading d˙¡wk< with MNOP and West. (most mss) for in the mss on the spelling of this word.
J m˙¡wk<. J’s reading may have been influenced by MT s gydyn: MN gyryn (“arrows”!); West. gyd<. MT has the
ma˙a¡akkim. sg. (la>anah). The plur. gydyn occurs again in v. 19.
i West. (some mss) “another world.” MT >olam is with- t “With stones” (b<bnyn): West. “with gravel” (bprydn).
out the article. u kn>(y)nny = (?) kn>ny (3rd masc. sg. pf. + 1st pers. pro-
j bdyl d-: West. bgyn d-. nom. suff.): West. (most mss) kn> yty, which Lan. de-
k “From my chains” (<yswry): West. “from incarcera- clares, for no obvious reason, “verdächtig.”
tion” (†ryq<): see Note 13, and cf. West. Apparatus h. v <pr = MT; West. “ashes” (qy†m<).
l West. “marble stones.” w “Let go (¡bqt) of peace”: West. “shrank (qßt) from ask-
m “Who makes himself ready”: West. “who hides.” ing for peace.”
n Reading kby¡< with O and West. for J bby¡< (“with
wickedness”).
 Appendix—Chapter 3   199

18. And I said: Destroyed is my strength, and the goodness for which I was hoping from
before the Lord.
19. Remember the affliction of my soul, and how my enemies have embittered me,x and
have made me drink wormwood and the venom of serpents.y
20. My soul vividly remembers, and prays within me.z
21. This consolation will I recall to mind; therefore I will hope.
22. [It is through] the goodness of the Lord that his mercies have not failed, that they
have not ceased.aa
23. [In] bringing forth wonders anew morning by morning,bb great is your faithfulness.
24. “My portion is the Lord,” says my soul; “therefore I will hope in him.”
25. The Lord is good to those who look for his redemption, to the soul that seeks his
instruction.
26. It is good to wait and be silent until the redemption of the Lord comes.cc
27. It is good for a man that he should teach his soul to bear the yoke of the command-
ments of the Lorddd from his youth.ee
28. Let him sit alone,ff and bear chastisements,gg for the sake ofhh the unity of the Name
of the Lord, that are sent from him in his mercy,ii until he returnsjj and removes them from
upon him.kk
29. Let him put his mouth in the dust, and prostrate himself before his Master; perhaps
there is hope.ll
30. Let him stretch out [his] cheek to those who smite him;mm let him be satisfied with
degradation.

Apparatus, Chapter 3
x Emending J mrydw to mryrw, pa. of root mrr, = “make ff West. adds “and be silent”; Yem. = MT.
bitter” (Jast. 847b). West. (most mss) have the <af. gg West. adds “that come upon him.”
<mryrw, but this was corrupted to <mrydw in A. N sec- hh “For the sake of”: Yem. bdyl; West. bgyn.
ondarily emended mrydw to mrdw (mryrw > mrydw > ii “Which are sent from him in his mercy”—stressing
mrdw). MT merudi probably encouraged the corrup- the concept of the chastisements of love: West. “that
tion. See West. Apparatus z. are sent from him to exact punishment from him for
y Adding with MNOP and West. “and the venom of ser- the minor sin he has committed in this world.”
pents.” Cf. MT (la>anah) wa-ro<¡. jj “Until he returns”: West. “until he has pity upon
z West adds “on account of the misery.” him.”
aa Reading “have not ceased” (= MT) with N for J kk “From upon him” (m>lwy): West. “from him”
“will not cease.” Corruption through haplography: l< (mynyh). MT >alayw. West. adds “and he shall receive
<ytmn>w > l< ytmn>w. Cf. West. Apparatus ss. a full recompense in the world to come.”
bb lßpry< = MT la-beqarim, with distributive l-; West. ll Reading <yt sbr with NOP2 and West. for J <stbr.
bßpry< (lit. “in the mornings”). mm “To those who smite him”: West. “to him who smites
cc “Comes” (tyty): West. “arrives” (tym†y/m†y). For the him” = MT lemakkehu. West. add “for the sake of the
fem. verb with masc. subj. see West. Apparatus dd. fear of the Lord”; Yem. = MT.
dd West. (most mss) omits “of the Lord.”
ee mn >wl(y)mwy (reading mn with MNP for J dmn):
West. “in his youth” (b†lywtyh); MT bine>urayw.
200   Appendix—Chapter 3

31. For their Master the Lord will not abandon in distress his people forever.nn
32. For if at first he breaks [them], yet he will come backoo [and] return, and have pitypp
on them,qq inrr the abundance of his goodness.
33. For becausess no one afflicted his heart with fasting,tt thereforeuu he has caused the
destruction of the sons of men.
34. To crushvv and subdue beneath his feet all the prisoners of the earth;
35. To deny and to pervertww the justice of a poor man before the face of the Most
High;
36. To confoundxx a poor man in his dispute—is it possible that none [of this] has been
revealed before the Lord?
37. Who is the man who has spoken, and evil has been done in the world, unless [it is]
because people have done that which they were not commanded from before the Lord?
38. From the mouth of God Most High evil does not go forth, without a Bat Qol announc-
ing that evils happen on account of yy the robberies with which the earth is filled. But when he
desireszz to decree good in the world, from the mouth of the Holy One it goes forth.
39. What profit shall a person find while he is alive, for his sins that he commits?aaa
40. Let us search our ways and examine [them], and let us return in repentance before
the Lord.
41. Let us lift up our hearts in purity, and let us cleanse our hands from theft,bbb and let
us return to God,ccc whose dwelling is in the heavens.ddd
42. We have rebelled, andeee we have been disobedient, and becausefff we did not return
in repentance, you have not forgiven [us].
43. You have overshadowed us in anger, and have pursued us in exile; you have killed
and had no pity.

Apparatus, Chapter 3
nn “For their Master, the Lord .  .  . forever”: P omits vv “To crush” (lmdky) = MT ledakke<; West. “to humble”
“their Master, the Lord,” but MT has “the Lord” (lmkk<). See West. Apparatus oo.
(<Adonai); West. “for the Lord will not cast off his ww “To deny and to pervert”: probably a doublet; MT
servants forever, by giving them over into the hand of has simply le>awwet. See West. Apparatus qq.
their enemies.” Yem. “abandon” = y¡bwq; West. “cast xx Reading lsrk< with N (?) and West. for J lsrb<. See
off ” = y¡ly. West. Apparatus r.
oo whdr: either a doublet of the following ytwb, “return” yy “Announcing (mtkrz<) that evils happen on account
(note lack of conjunction!) or a corruption of wbtr of (>l)”: West. “intimating [that it is] because of
(kn), as in West. (“yet afterwards”). N secondarily (bgyn).”
corrects whdr to wkdw, “yet now (he will return).” zz “Desires”: Yem. yb>y; West. b>y.
pp “And have pity” (wyy˙ws): West. “and have mercy” aaa West. “what profit shall a person find, who sins all
(wyr˙m) = MT weri˙am. the days of his life, a wicked man for his sins?” Yem.
qq “On them”: West. “on the righteous.” fails to translate the MT geber.
rr “In the abundance of”: West. (some mss) “according bbb “And let us cleanse our hands from theft”: West. “and
to the abundance of” = MT. See West. Apparatus ll. let us cast robbery and theft from our hands.”
ss “Because”: Yem. bgyn d-; West. mn bgll d-. ccc “And let us return (ntwb) to God”: West. “and let us
tt “Afflicted his heart with fasting”: West. “afflicted his repent (ntwb) before God.”
soul, nor removed pride from his heart.” ddd “Whose dwelling is in the heavens”: West. (some
uu Reading bgyn kn (“therefore”) with West. for J <rwm mss) “the dwelling of whose Shekhinah is in the
(“because”). Yem. has a primitive corruption here: heavens above.” Yem. “heavens” = MT, as against
<rwm cannot introduce the apodosis and is probably West. “heavens above” (see Note 57).
an accidental duplication of <rwm earlier in the verse. eee NP omit the conjunction = MT.
NP brm (? “assuredly”) is little better and is probably fff “And because”: Yem. w>l d-; West. wmn bgll d-.
a secondary attempt to improve on the corrupt <rwm.
 Appendix—Chapter 3   201

44. You have overshadowed the heavens with the clouds of your glory, so thatggg our
prayerhhh should not pass through to you.
45. Oppressed and loathed you will make us on account of our sins among the nations.iii
46. All our enemies have opened their mouth against us, to decree against us decrees.jjj
47. Fear and trembling were upon us,kkk terror and destruction.lll
48. [With] streams of watermmm my eye will run,nnn because of the destruction of the
Congregation of my people.
49. My eye runsooo and will not be silentppp from weeping, because there is no one to as-
suage my anguish, or speak comfort to my heart,qqq
50. Untilrrr the Lord looks and sees my humiliationsss from heaven.
51. The weeping of my eye has not caused my soulttt to know about the destruction of alluuu
the districts of my people, and the flowing(?) of the daughters of Jerusalem, my city.vvv
52. My enemies carefully setwww a trap for me as for a bird,xxx without a cause.
53. My life passedyyy into the pit, and they cast the stone upon me.
54. The waters flowed and rosezzz over my head. I said in my word, “I have been cut off
from the world.”
55. I prayed to your name, O Lord, from the nethermost pit.
56. My prayer you received at that time, so do not cover your ear now, in order not to
receive my prayer, for my respite, at my plea.*a

Apparatus, Chapter 3
ggg Reading bgyn d- with N for J bgyn. “So that”: Yem. ttt Adding “my soul” with NOP and West.
bgyn d-; West. mn bgll d-. uuu West. lacks “all,” but MT has the word.
hhh Reading “our prayer” with MNOP and West for J vvv Yem. is garbled. West., though awkward, makes rea-
“prayer,” though MT has tefillah. sonable sense: “The weeping of my eye has caused
iii West. “wanderers and vagabonds you have made my soul to break, on account of the destruction of
us on account of our sins among the nations.” Yem. the districts of my people and the disfigurement
renders the problematic se˙i uma<os literally with of the daughters of Jerusalem, my city.” Yem. has
two abstract nouns that may be intended to have arisen through corruption of (1) lmr> (lit. “be im-
collective force: kny>wt< = “the oppressed”; m<yswt< paired”) to lmd> (“know”), and (2) nywwl (“disfig-
= “the loathed.” Yem. “you will make us” (t¡wy ytn<) urement”) to nyzwl (? “flowing” = ? “weeping/flow-
= MT tesœimenu. West. “you have made us” (¡wyt< ing out”). NQ attempt secondarily to emend nyzwl
ytn<) accommodates the text to the audience’s actual to gyzwl (“robbing”). The addition of the negative,
situation. Yem. “on account of our sins”: lit. “in our in a desperate attempt to make sense, completes the
sins” (b˙wbn<), a kind of beit pretii, “in recompense confusion.
for our sins.” See further Note 63. www “Carefully set”: Yem. mkmn kmnw; West. km(<)n<
jjj West. “evil decrees.” kmnw.
kkk “Were upon us”: West. “were ours because of xxx “As for a bird”: Yem. kß(y)pr<: West. (most mss) hyk
them.” kßypr<.
lll West. (most mss) adds “have seized us”; Yem. = yyy >brw (pe.): N <>brw (<af.) = “they caused (my life)
MT. to pass”; M ßbrw = “(my life) was gathered.” Lan.
mmm West. “like (hyk) streams of water”; Yem. = MT conjectures gmrw = “(my life) ended (in the pit).”
(palgei mayim). zzz “Rose” (<†ypw: lit. “flowed”) is missing in West.,
nnn West. adds “with tears”; Yem. = MT. and is probably originally a mg. variant of ¡†w. See
ooo West. adds “with tears”; Yem. = MT. Note 73.
ppp t¡twq: M t¡bwq (“leave off, give over”). *a “For my respite, at my plea” (lrw˙ty lb>wty) = MT
qqq “To my heart”: West. “to me.” leraw˙ati le¡aw>ati: West. “to give me respite because
rrr “Until”: Yem. >d d-: West. >d kdw d-. of my plea” (l<rww˙wtny bgyn b>wty).
sss M omits “my humiliation” = MT.
202   Appendix—Chapter 3

57. You sent*b an angel to save me on the day that I prayed to you. You said by your
Word: “Do not fear!”
58. You contended, O Lord, with those who made cause against my soul. You delivered
my life.*c
59. You have seen, O Lord, the wrong wherewith they have wronged me. Judge my
cause.*d
60. Revealed before you, O Lord, is all their vengefulness, all their plots against me.
61. Heard before you is their taunt,*e O Lord, all their plots against me,
62. The lips of those who rise up against me, and their speaking*f against me all the
day.
63. Their sitting down*g and their rising up, behold. I am their song.*h
64. You will requite them with an evil recompense, O Lord, according to the works of
their hands.
65. You will give them brokenness of heart, and your weariness will wear them out.*i
66. You will hotly pursue them*j in anger, and destroy them from under the heavens of
the Lord.*k

Apparatus, Chapter 3
*b “You sent”: K1MQ “send” (impv.); West. “you brought *h Emending J “their songs” (zmryhwn) to “their song”
near” (cf. MT qarabta). (zmrhwn) = MT manginatam. See West. Apparatus
*c West. “you delivered my life from their hands”; Yem. uuu.
= MT. *i “And your weariness shall wear them out” (y¡lhy
*d Reading “my cause” with MNO and some West. mss lhwn), but with breach of concord between the subj.
= MT mi¡pa†i, for J “my causes.” and the verb. KMOQ have y¡l˙ for y¡lhy = “(and) let
*e “Their taunt” = MT ˙erpatam; KNOQ and West. it (?) send (your weariness to them).” West. (some
(most mss) “their taunts.” mss) “and [with] your weariness wear them out” (¡lhy
*f “Their speaking”: West. “their muttering.” See West. lhwn). See West. Apparatus www.
Apparatus sss. *j “You will hotly pursue them”: Yem. tdlyqynwn (<af.);
*g Reading “their sitting down” = MT ¡ibtam with K, for West. tdlwq(y)nwn (pe.). See West. Apparatus xxx.
J “their sittings down.” *k “The heavens of the Lord”: West. “the high heavens of
the Lord.”
 Appendix—Chapter 4   203

Chapter 4

1. How has the gold of the Housea of the Sanctuary dimmed, [how] has the splendor of
the choice gold-leaf b changed! Sacred jewels are poured outc at the head of every bazaar.
2. dThe precious sons of Zion, who were exchanged for fine gold,e and were fair as jewels,f
how were the impure nations making them sith facing their beds, and staring at their faces,i
g

so that their wives should bear sons as beautiful as they,j and they were regarded as pots of
clay,k the work of the potter’sl hands.
3. mMoreover, the fastidious daughters of Israel unbind the bosomn for the sons of the
nations, who are like the serpent;o they suckle their young. The Congregation of my people
is given over to cruel men, and mourns for her [own] sons like the female ostrichp in the
wilderness.
4. The tongue of the youthq stuck to his palate through thirst; the youngstersq asked for
bread, [but] there was none to offer it to them.
5. Those who were accustomed to eat dainties were desolate in the markets; those who
were reared in crimson clothing embraced dunghills.
6. And the sin of the Congregation of my people was greater than the sin of Sodom,
which was overthrown in an instant, and prophets did not dwell in her to prophesy,r to turn
her backs in repentance.
7. Her Nazirites were purer than snow; they were smoother than milk;t they were redder
in appearance than crimson;u and like sapphirev were their faces.

Apparatus, Chapter 4
a dbyt: P mbyt (“from the House”). j “As beautiful as them”: West. “beautiful with their beau-
b Reading dp†lwn with M. J has pl†wryn (= praetorium), ty.” West. stresses more strongly the theft of the beauty.
“palace” (Jast. 1180b); cf. several West. mss pl†yn (= k nbly ˙sp: West. lgynyn d˙sp.
palatium), “palace” (Jast. 1180a), which may lie be- l MNOP “potters’,” but MT has sg. (yoßer).
hind the corrupt pl†wn in two Yem. mss (OP), though m Unusually Yem. in this verse preserves a much superior
simple metathesis is also possible. “The splendor of text to the West. mss, which manifest deep-seated and
the choice palace” makes some sense, but there can primitive corruption (see West. Apparatus f–h).
be little doubt that p(y)†lwn, “gold-leaf” is the original n bwz<; MNP byz< (Jast. 159b): West. “their breasts”
reading, which got corrupted because scribes did not (tdy[y]hwn); cf. O tdy<. MT ¡ad. West. preserves the
recognize the loan-word petalon. See Note 1. root of MT, and Yem. the number.
c Reading m¡tdyyn with West. for J’s m¡ryyn. There is o tnyn< = MT tannin; West. ˙wrmn<. See Note 6.
primitive corruption here in Yem., most mss of which p kn>mywt<; NOP kn>myt<. West. has the masc. plur.
read some form of √¡ry, which does not make good (kn>my<) = MT kaye>enim (Qerei). See Note 8.
sense in context. N mw¡dyn and O m¡dyn have the right q Heb. yoneq .  .  . >olalim: Yem. >wlym< .  .  . †ply<; West.
root, but the forms are problematic. >wlym< .  .  . †lyy<. See Intro. 1.3.
d Yem. has the same interpretation and the same striking r J and the majority of Yem. mss read l<tnb<h nby<y, but the
aggadic expansions as West., but generally expressed order of the words should be reversed with N and West.
in rather simpler language. s lmhdr yth: but the pe. form of the verb is odd in a tran-
e “Who were exchanged (mt˙lpyn) for fine gold”: i.e., sitive sense. West. l<hdrwth<.
they are sold as slaves at a high price. West. “whose t Reading ˙lb< with NP and West. for JKM hykl< (“the
forms are likened (mtylyn) to fine gold.” Temple” ?); cf. MT ˙alab.
f “And were fair as jewels” is absent from West. u zhryn, presumably = zhwryn < zhwr, “crimson”: hence
g Lit. “and how,” but the copula is redundant. See West. “crimson (things).” Zhwryn is read by several West.
Apparatus b. mss: see West. Apparatus m and Note 16.
h “Making them sit” (mwtbyn): West. “making them lie v Emending JKMP wb¡bzyz to wk¡bzyz. Cf. West.
down” (m˙tyn). West. is more suggestive. wk¡bzyz<. The prep. b- makes no sense and must be a
i West. “at them.” simple graphic corruption of k-. N reads k¡bzyz but, in
agreement with MT, does not have the copula.
204   Appendix—Chapter 4

8. On account of the deep blackness of exile their form was not recognized in the mar-
ketplaces.w Their skin stuck to their bones; it became dryx as wood.
9. Better off were those slain by the sword than those slain by famine, for those slain by
the sword, when they were ripped open,y spewed out what they had eaten of the produce of
the fields.z
10. The hands of the women, who were accustomed to take pity on the poor,aa cooked
their own sons.bb They became sustenancecc for them, on the day when famine broke out, when
the Congregation of my people was broken.
11. The Lord has fully accomplished his anger. He has poured outdd the fury of his wrath.
He has kindled a raging fire in Zion, and it has consumed her foundations.ee
12. The kingdoms of the earth and all the dwellersff of the world did not believe, when
Jerusalem was at ease,gg thathh an oppressor and an enemyii would enter jj through the gates
of Jerusalem.
13. kkFor the sins of the false prophetsll in her midst,mm and the iniquities of her priests,nn
who caused the blood of the righteous to be shed at their hands.oo
14. Blinded they wandered in the marketplaces. They were defiled by the blood of the
slain,pp and, because they were unable to see,qq they touched their garments.
15. “Turn away from the defiling one,” cried the nations with respect to them,rr “Turn
away, turn away! Do not touch [them]!”ss Because they wrangled,tt they also went into exile.

Apparatus, Chapter 4
w “On account of the deep blackness (msgy<wt <kmwt) hh <ry: KMNP and West. <rwm. See Intro. 2.1.
.  .  . marketplaces”: West. “darker than the blackness ii “An oppressor and an enemy” = MT: West. “wicked
(h¡k mn <wkmt<) of exile was their form; they were not Nebuchadnezzar and Nebuzaradan the enemy.”
recognized in the marketplaces.” Yem. goes against jj West. adds “to slaughter the people of the House of
the Masoretic accentuation, which clearly segments the Israel”; Yem. = MT.
verse correctly, and it also ignores the plur. form of the kk West. adds at the beginning: “The Attribute of Jus-
verb nikkeru. Its text is inferior to West. A primitive tice answered and said: None of this would have hap-
corruption in the Yem. tradition at the beginning of the pened but (on account of .  .  . )”; Yem. = MT.
verse led to the need to reshape it out of line with the ll “False prophets”: West. “her prophets who prophe-
Heb. sied false prophesies to her.”
x ngyb: West. pryk (“cracked”). See Note 20. mm Yem. has wrongly inserted “in her midst” here, rather
y West. adds “in their bellies”; Yem. = MT. than at the end of the verse.
z West. adds “but [as for] those bloated by famine—their nn West. adds “who offered incense of spices to idols”;
bellies burst from [lack of] food.” This seems neces- Yem. = MT.
sary to complete the sense of the Tg. Yem. has omitted oo “Who caused the blood of the righteous to be shed
because the sense is difficult (see Note 21), and there at their hands”: West. “And they are the ones who
is no equivalent in MT. caused the blood of the righteous to be shed in her
aa Reading mskynyn with KMNP for J myskynw (?). midst.” Yem. lays the charge of bloodletting squarely
bb Heb. yaldeihen: Yem. bnyhwn; West. >wlymyhwn at the priests’ door. West. is more ambiguous (priests,
(“their own children”). prophets, or people?). See Note 33. Yem.’s addition
cc s>wdt<: West. lms>d. “at their hands” suggests direct involvement in the act
dd West. adds “upon Jerusalem.” of murder, rather than the use of proxies.
ee <w¡h< < <w¡< (Jast. 35b); West. <(w)¡wwth< < <(w)¡yt< pp West. “of those slain by the sword.”
(Jast. 128a). Jast. gives the meaning of <(w)¡yt< as qq lm˙zy: West. lm˙my. See Intro. 2.1.
“frame-wall” and says it should not be confused with rr See West. Apparatus ee.
<w¡<, “foundation.” But here, as elsewhere in Tg. ss The pronoun is implied. West. actually inserts it
Aram, it can be simply a variant of <w¡<. Heb. here has (bhwn).
yesodeyha. tt nßw (Jast. 928b) = MT naßu: West. <ytqw††w (“they
ff ytby: West. dyyry (“inhabitants”). quarreled”).
gg West. lacks “when Jerusalem was at ease.” This is
probably a secondary expansion.
 Appendix—Chapter 4   205

Just when they thought they were secure, they said, “You cannot continueuu to dwellvv among
the nations.”
16. From before the Lordww they were scattered; he no longer regarded them. Therefore the
wicked peoples did not respect the faces of the priests, nor did they have pity on the elders.
17. [ . . . ]xx
18. They besetyy our paths, so that we could not walkzz in our open spaces.aaa Our end has
drawn near; our days are accomplished in death,bbb for our end has come.ccc
19. Our pursuers were swifter than the eagles of heaven. On the mountains they pursuedddd
us; in the wilderness they lay in wait for us.
20. King Josiah, who was as dear to us as the breath of the spirit of life which is in our nos-
trils, who was the anointed of the Lord,eee was caughtfff in the snare of their corruptionsggg—he
of whom we used to say: “In the shade of his merit we shall live among the nations.”
21. Rejoice and shout for joy,hhh city of Edom,iii and [you], people of Bisrin (?), who
dwell in the land of Romania.jjj To you too the cup of retribution is about to pass;kkk you shall
become drunken and depopulated.
22. lllAnd after this, your iniquitymmm shall be expiated, Congregation of Zion. He shall
not keep you in exile. He shall requite your iniquities, City of Rome: it has been disclosed
before the Lord concerning your sins.nnn

Apparatus, Chapter 4
uu Reading twspwn with KMP for J tyspwn. West. ywsp- the Egyptians” is probably a secondary expansion.
wn, “(that) they could (not) continue” = MT yosifu. See Note 50.
The Yem. reading makes the nations the subj. of the hhh b>y: KM bw>y (Jast. 147b); West. “be glad” (bd˙y).
verb, but West. is more ambiguous, and either the na- So N here.
tions or Israel could be the subj. iii “City of Edom”: cf. MT bat <edom; West. “Constan-
vv l<twtb<: West. lmydr. tinople, city of wicked Edom.”
ww West. “from before the face of the Lord.” jjj “And [you], people of Bisrin (?), who dwell in the
xx Verse 17 is missing from Yem.—striking evidence land of Romania” (<rmwnyh<): dbysryn is obscure,
that all the Yem. mss descend from the same defec- but in context would appear to conceal a proper
tive exemplar. It is found in West. Since the verse is name (“of Bisrin”). N omits and P does not attempt
sharply critical of Rome, the possibility of censorship to vocalize. West. “that is built in the land of Arme-
cannot be ruled out, though one would have expected nia (<rmyny<), with great crowds from the people of
this in West. rather than Yem. See Note 43, and Intro. Edom.” See Note 53 and Intro. 8.2.
8.2. kkk “To you . . . about to pass”: West. “Upon you too
yy ßdw: perf. tense. Yem. seems to interpret the verse as retribution is about to come, and the Persians shall
referring to the past. West., however, has the present devastate you. A cup of cursing shall pass on to
tense (hynwn ßd<n), in keeping with its contemporane- you.” See Note 56. Apart from the addition “of Bis-
ous reading of the previous verse. See Note 45. rin” (which one ms omits), Yem. to this verse more
zz West. “walk safely”; Yem. = MT. or less corresponds to MT.
aaa ptyn< (various spellings in the mss): see Jast. 1250a lll Yem. almost exactly corresponds to MT, but West.
and 1253a; West. pl†yytn< (various spellings) = has a greatly expanded text: “And after this your
Greek plateia. Heb. re˙oboteinu. See Note 46, and iniquity shall be expiated, Congregation of Zion,
Intro. 2.2. and you shall be delivered at the hands of the King
bbb “In death” is absent from West. It is probably a sec- Messiah, and Elijah the High Priest, and the Lord
ondary expansion. West. = MT. shall no longer keep you in exile. And at that time
ccc <t<: cf. MT ba<; West. m†< (“has arrived”). he shall requite your iniquity, wicked Rome, that is
ddd rdpw: West. <dlqw = MT (delaqunu). See Note 47. built in Italy, and is full of the crowds of the sons
eee “Who was the anointed of the Lord” = MT (me¡ia˙ of Edom. The Persians shall come and oppress you,
YHWH): West. “and [who] was installed in office and devastate you, because it has been disclosed be-
with the anointing oil of the Lord.” fore the Lord concerning your sins.”
fff <tps: West. “was entrapped” (<yt˙d). mmm NP “iniquities,” but MT has the sg.
ggg West. “the corruptions of the Egyptians.” But “of nnn ˙wbyk: West. ˙wbwtyk.
206   Appendix—Chapter 5

Chapter 5

1. Remember, O Lord, what has befallen us.a Look,b and see our shame.c
2. Our inheritance has been turned over to strangers, our houses to foreigners.d
3. We resemblee in exilef orphans who have no father; our mothers are as widows.g
4. Our [own] water for money have we drunk, our [own] woodh comes at a price.
5. Upon the joint of our necks we were laden. When we were going into captivity, wicked
Nebuchadnezzar saw that the officers and teachersi of the people of Israel j were going unbur-
dened, [and] he gave orders to load them with sand,k that is on the shore of the Euphrates, so
that they should not go unburdened.l At that time we were exhausted, and we had no respite.
6. m[To] Egyptn we gave a bond (?) to be published,o and [to] Assyria, so that they might
have enough bread.
7. Our fathers sinned, and they are not;p and weq have borne their iniquities.
8. The sons of Ham, who were handed over r as slaves to the sons of Shem, rule over us;
there is no one to redeem us from their hand.
9. At the risk of our lives, we bring bread to sustain us, because of the slaying by the
swords that comes from the direction of the wilderness.
10. Our skin has become black like an oven,t because of the exhaustion of hunger.
11. The women who were married u to husbands in Zion were raped,v the virginsw in the
towns of Judah, by the people x of the Chaldeans.

Apparatus, Chapter 5
a West. “what was decreed to befall us”; Yem. = MT. seated problems, which probably go back to the Yem.
b West. “Look from heaven”; Yem. = MT. exemplar.
c JKLNP kswpn<; M sgwpn<. n West. “to Egypt .  .  . to Assyria,” adding the preposi-
d West. “to foreign peoples”; Yem. = MT. tions, which may be implied in the Heb.; Yem. = MT.
e Yem. dmy(y)n; West. mtyl(y)n. o “A bond (?) to be published”: “bond” here is s†r and
f West. does not have “in exile” (= MT). “In exile” is is an emendation of JK smd and MNP smr (neither of
probably a secondary expansion, perhaps an incorpo- which makes any sense), on the basis of the reading
rated mg. gloss aimed at addressing the underlying of some West. mss (ACDEH). For the possibility of
exegetical problems of the verse (see Note 6): being an s†r in this sense see West. Apparatus m. S†r, however,
exile is like being an orphan or a widow. is still not right and should be emended further to s>d
g West. adds “whose husbands have gone to the cities of (“sustenance, provisions”), on the basis of BFGI. The
the sea, and they are in doubt whether they are [still] chain of corruption probably was: s>d > s†r > smr >
alive”; Yem. = MT. smd. That Yem. originally had s†r may be hinted at by
h West. “and [our] own wood”; Yem. = MT. the following l<tprsm (“to be published”), a corruption
i rbny. The word is not found in West. The reference to of l<(y)tprns< (“to be provisioned”), read by West. and
the Torah scholars would have been piquant if Yem. one Yem. ms (N).
had mentioned the desecration of the Torah scrolls, but p West. “they are not in the world”; Yem. = MT.
it lacked this detail. See k below. q West. “we after them”; Yem. = MT.
j West. “of the children of Israel.” r <tmsrw; West. <ytyhybw (“were given”). Yem.’s tone is
k West. “[and] he ordered [them] to sew together Torah stronger and more punitive.
scrolls, and to make sacks from them; and they filled s JKMP b˙rb<; N ˙rb< (= MT); West. d˙rb<.
them with gravel.” t ktnwr: some West. mss have hyk tnwr. Comparative k-
l “So that .  .  . unburdened”: West. “and he loaded them in the Heb. tends to be rendered hyk by West. and k- by
upon their necks.” Yem. See West. Apparatus p.
m The Heb. is difficult (see Note 12). West.: “To Egypt u dmtnsbn; West. dhww nsybn.
we gave sustenance, so that there might be provisions v West. adds “by the Romans”; Yem. = MT.
there, and to Assyria, so that they might have enough w West. “and the virgins”; Yem. = MT.
bread.” Yem. is corrupt. I have attempted to reconstruct x <umma<. West. has simply “by the Chaldeans.”
the best possible Yem. text, but there are still deep-
 Appendix—Chapter 5   207

12. Princes were impaled by their hands; the faces of the elders were not honored.y
13. Youthsz carried the millstone,aa and the young menz stumbled under the beam of
wood.
14. The elders have ceased from the gate of the Sanhedrin, and the youthsbb from the
house of their songs.
15. The joy of our hearts has ceased; our dancing has turned into mourning.
16. The crown of our head has fallen. Woe to us, forcc we have sinned.
17. Because of this, the House of the Sanctuary which is desolate, our heart is weak;
becausedd of these, the peopleee who have gone into exileff from there, our eyes have grown
dimgg—
18. Because of the mountain of Zion, which is desolate; foxes have gonehh on it.
19. You are the Lord. Forever your dwelling-place [is] in the heavens;ii the throne of your
glory [will endure] throughout the generations of the generations.jj
20. Why should you neglect us forever, forsake us for so long?kk
21. Turn us back, O Lord, to yourself, and we shall return in perfect repentance. May
you renew our days for good, like days of old.ll
22. But rathermm you will utterly abhor us. You have been angry with us exceedingly.

Apparatus, Chapter 5
y <thdrw = MT nehdaru: West. sbrw. See West. Appara- ff dglw; West. d<zlw bglwt<.
tus s. gg <h¡ykw; West. hww h¡ykn.
z Heb. ba˙urim .  .  . ne>arim: Yem. >wl(y)my< .  .  . rbyn; hh Reading <zlw with LMNP for JK <zlyn; West. hlykw
West. rwbyn .  .  . †lyy<. See Intro. 1.3, and bb below. (cf. MT hillekhu).
aa M vocalizes as plur. (“millstones”), but MT has sg. ii West. “in the highest heavens” (b¡my mrwm<).
See West. Apparatus t. jj “Generation” (sg.): cf. MT; West. “generations.”
bb Heb. ba˙urim: Yem. >wl(y)my; West. rwbyn. Cf. z kk Lit. “for length of days”: Yem. l<(w)rkwt ywmyy<;
above. West. l<wrkwt ywmyn.
cc <ry: West. (except CG) <rwm. ll kywmyn qdm<yn: West. “as in the time of the good
dd West. “and because”; Yem. = MT (see West. Appara- days that were of old” (kzmn ywmyy< †by< dhww mlqd-
tus r). myn).
ee West. “the people of the House of Israel.” mm <rwm <lhyn: see West. Apparatus bb and Note 39.
 INDEX OF SCRIPTURAL AND OTHER ANCIENT REFERENCES

HEBREW BIBLE

Genesis 19:9 127 13:25 111 29:17 144

3:9 32, 42, 109 20:3 151 13:29 136 30:4 177
3:24 186 20:5 181 13:32 111 30:7 162
4:12 157 20:13 154 14:1 111 30:15-18 122, 155
4:14 157 21:2 112 14:41 122 32:25 125
5:24 181 21:13 172 17:28 149 33:16 167
7:12 167 22:4 128 19:16 171 33:28 110
7:17 167 22:21-24 112, 179 21:25 158 34:10 117
8:9 113 23:14-17 113, 173 25:1-16 177
8:22 150 24:10 127, 167 25:12 177 Joshua
9:20-28 182 28:34 116 34:6-7 136 1:18 76, 140
10:3 176 28:41 177 5:1 136
14:20 162 29:7 177 Deuteronomy 7:6 134
18:21 167 34:23 113 1:7 136 15:12 136
18:27 134, 152 35:2 129 1:12 109 15:47 136
19:24-25 166 4:21 179 17:11 158
22:4 179 Leviticus 4:44 149 17:13 110
24:4 186 7:36 177 5:17 154
6:4-9 133, 151 Judges
30:25-43 164 12:1-8 116
7:6 36 1:28 110
31:36 172 12:2 116
11:4 159 1:30 110
32:27 186 12:5 116
11:13-15 151 1:33 110
32:36 179 13:46 110
15:12 112 1:35 110
36:24 151 15:19-24 116
16:16 113, 173 14:9 119
37:34 134 15:33 119, 185
18:3 113 16:21 144, 184
40:10 120 18:18 155
40:12 120 19:10 112 18:15 117 1 Samuel
43:30 182 19:32 114, 183 18:18 117 4:12 134
49:7 171 20:18 119 19:6 160 6:7 120
49:26 167 26:1-46 138 19:12 160 9:20 185
49:29 155 26:3 139 20:2-3 177 17:21 130
26:14-45 26, 30, 20:11 110 17:53 172
Exodus 139 21:19 184 20:20 146
1:14 125 26:6 122, 123 21:20 118 24:12 172
4:25-26 125 26:27 26 21:22 184
5:7-8 125 22:15 184 2 Samuel
5:16 125 Numbers 23:4 117, 118 1:2 134
5:18-19 125 6:1-21 167 24:12 112 3:24 144
6:25 177 9:11 147 24:14 112 3:35 169
12:7 133 11:1 129 28:15-68 26 3:39 155
17:13 147 11:3 129 28:65 113 4:4 122

208
 Index of Scriptural and Other Ancient References   209

6:23 185 40:1 54, 77, 149 14:18 125 22:28 44

9:3 122 40:3 120 16:7 169 24:24 147
12:17 169 41:13 31 17:12 159, 185 23:5-21 124
15:32 134 43:1 31 18:15 120 23:22-29 124
24:9 130 43:14 184 18:16 116 24:17 169
24:16 125 44:2 31 18:21 112 24:22 169
44:9 118 20:3 142 27:3 138
1 Kings 46:5 136 20:10 142 27:30 134
3:26 182 47:2 184 20:9 119 39:9 129
5:4 119 47:7 117 22:3 112
8:10 127 49:6 177 22:20-22 124 Hosea
12:4 120 50:2 157 25:1-38 175, 176 2:9 124
12:10 120 56:7 131, 132, 145 25:9 129 4:16 129
12:30 114 57:15 80 30:10 31 5:15 156
12:33 130 57:16 135 30:14 124 6:6 130
18:19-40 177 57:17 137 31:13 184 6:7 109
19:6 179 58:7 115 31:29 181 8:9-10 124
59:20 115 32:31 132 9:4 169
2 Kings 60:1 20 33:3 158 9:16 117
2:8 17 61:3 72 34:2-22 27 11:8 162, 182
2:13-14 17 61:9 79 34:8-17 112 12:2 181
3:3 119 63:1 177 37:5-11 27 13:7-8 146
8:12 121 64:10 179 37:7 172 14:1 121
10:15 181 65:2 121 38:6-12 158
15:16 121 66:1 127 39:1-5 173 Amos
19:25 124 42:16 159 1:13 121
22-23 175 44:18 149 6:4-7 134, 142
22:4 109 Jeremiah
46:5 142
23:29-30 122, 174 1:1–2:3 77 Obadiah
46:27-28 31
25:1-30 119, 173, 170 2:4-28 77 10–14 27
48:25 128
25:8-9 72 2:17-19 124
48:29 140
25:13-17 117 2:23 145 Micah
48:41 122
2:36 124 1:8 165
49:12 176
Isaiah 3:4 77 1:10 134
49:21 122
1:1-27 77 3:12 72 5:14 178
49:29 142
1:13 125 3:14 156
49:31 110
1:15 121 4:5 134 Nahum
50:43 122
1:17 112 4:29 127 3:5 116
51:51 118
1:23 112 4:31 121 3:10 121, 164
52:6-9 173
1:21 109 5:3 166
52:24 131
3:26 133 6:14 134 Habakkuk
6:1 27 6:24 122 2:11 139
13:16 121 6:25 142 Ezekiel 3:15 124
14:6 115 6:26 134 7:10 112
19:2 123 7:6 112 7:15 125 Zephaniah
24:4 144 7:18 129 12:3 147 2:9 118
25:9 124 8:11 134 13:10-11 44, 136 3:8 80
30:1-5 124 8:1 54 13:14-15 136
30:7 172 8:23 121 14:17 122 Zechariah
30:22 119 12:1 114 16:28-29 124 2:9 139
31:1 124 12:14 56 16:37-41 124 2:12 45, 139
33:2 79 13:16 35 17:18 181 4:3 177
35:4 31 13:22 130 18:2 181 8:18-19 72
40–66 77 14:6 134 22:7 112 9:9 80
210   Index of Scriptural and Other Ancient References

Malachi 104:1 114 Lamentations Leviticus

1:7 171 104:25 136 See Targum 8:9 164
1:12 171 106:30-31 177 Lamentations
3:4 186 107:20 174 Numbers
3:5 112 108:11 88 Esther 9:11 147
3:7 156, 186 110:1 127 7:6 153
10:1 110 1 Kings
3:23-24 177 119:20 147
19:13 17
119:53 182 Daniel 19:19 17
119:82-83 134 2:28 117
Psalms
119:92 149 2:38 154 Isaiah
2:4 185
119:123 134 3:28 160 24:17 157
7:14 173
132:7 127 6:3-5 180
10:2 172
132:8 27 Jeremiah
10:4 161 6:7-8 180
132:13-14 27 48:43 157
10:8 145 6:22 160
137:7 27 7:9-14 126
11:4 185 Psalms
143:3 144 10:14 117
11:6 182 107:20 174
143:6 121, 155
17:8 45, 139
19:9 76 Ezra Lamentations
19:11 115 Proverbs 2:62 171 1:1 109
19:15 161 12:5 174 4:19 110 1:7 49, 115
21:12 161 16:24 167 5:1 141 1:8 46, 116
42:6-7 149 20:17 147 7:5 177 1:11 118
42:8 136, 144 21:4 140 10:19 181 1:12 119
42:12 149 23:20-21 118 1:13 119
25:24 150 Nehemiah
43:5 149 1:14 120
28:7 118 7:64 171
44:15 116 1:15 120
29:17 166 13:1-3 118
46:5 27 1:16 121
47:2 27 31:25 114 1 Chronicles 1:19 124
48:2-6 27 1:6 176 1:20 125
52:7 116 Job 6:4 177 1:21 125
60:4 134 1:16 129 21:15-16 125 2:1 49, 127
60:11-14 88 3:5 182 28:2 127 2:2 128
62:9 45 6:6 136 29:24 181 2:3 129, 193
64:7 149 10:12 146 2:4 129
69:4 134 11:9 136 2 Chronicles 2:5 130
69:13 147 11:20 134, 183 10:4 120 2:7 131
69:22 169 15:33 130 10:10 120 2:8 132
72:8 119 17:5 134 20:21 114 2:9 46
75:11 128 19:12 120 24:19-22 141, 170 2:10 134
76:3 130 20:14 147 30:8 181 2:11 135
78:36 153 20:16 147 34:36 175 2:12 135
78:68 27 28:16 164 35:20-27 122, 123, 2:14 136, 137
79:1 169, 179 28:19 164 174 2:16 138
80:15 179 30:9 147 35:25 123, 173 2:17 138, 139
83:13 128 30:12 120 35:22 123 2:18 139
85:2 159 30:15 127 35:25 109 2:21 142
85:5 186 30:19 134 2:22 142
88:8 136 31:10 184 SEPTUAGINT 3:2 143
89:40 131 42:6 134 3:6 144
Genesis
89:50 179 3:7 144
31:36 172
99:5 127 Canticles 3:8 46
101:10 148 3:7-9 128 Exodus 3:12 146
103:19 185 5:10-14 167 28:36 164 3:13 146
 Index of Scriptural and Other Ancient References   211

3:14 147 Lamentations 2:8 132 4:18 173

3:15 147 1:8 116 2:10 134 4:19 172
3:16 148 2:15 138 2:11 135 4:20 173
3:17 148 3:12 19 2:12 135 4:22 176, 178
3:18 148 3:19 148 2:14 136, 137 5:10 182, 183
3:22 149 3:22 149 2:15 138 5:13 184
3:25 150 3:26 150, 151 2:16 138 5:15 185
3:26 150, 151 3:47 157 2:17 138, 139 5:18 185
3:27 151 3:58 160 2:18 139 5:19 185
3:28 152 2:21 142 5:20 186
3:32 153 SYMMACHUS 3:2 143 5:22 186
3:33 153 3:4 143
3:39 159 Isaiah 3:6 144 VULGATE
3:41 155 66:20 18 3:7 145
3:46 157 3:9 145 Numbers
3:47 157 Jeremiah 9:11 147
3:12 146
3:49 157 20:3 142
3:13 146
3:52 158 Psalms
Lamentations 3:14 147
3:53 159 107:20 174
1:8 116 3:15 147
3:56 159 1:14 120 3:16 147, 148 Lamentations
3:58 156, 160 3:14 147 3:17 148 1:1 109
3:59 160 3:22 149 3:18 148 1:4 114
3:61 161 3:23 150 3:19 148 1:5 48
3:62 161 4:7 167 3:22 148 1:7 49, 116
3:63 161, 162 5:5 180 3:25 150 1:8 116
3:64 162 3:27 151 1:11 118
3:65 162 3:28 152
PESHITTA 1:12 119
3:66 163 3:29 152 1:14 120
4:3 46, 165 Numbers 3:32 153 1:15 120
4:4 166 9:11 147 3:33 153 1:16 121
4:5 166 3:41 155 2:1 49, 127
4:7 167 2 Kings 3:43 156 2:2 128
4:8 168 23:29 122 3:46 157 2:3 129, 193
4:10 169 3:47 157
Psalms 2:4 129
4:11 169 3:49 157
107:20 174 2:7 131
4:15 171 3:52 158 2:8 132
4:17 172 3:53 159
Lamentations 2:10 134
4:18 173 3:56 159
1:7 116 2:11 135
4:20 173, 174 3:58 160
1:11 118 2:12 135
4:21 176 3:59 160
1:12 119 2:14 136, 137
4:22 176, 178 3:61 161
1:13 119 2:15 138
5:1-22 179 3:62 161
1:14 120 2:16 138
5:10 182, 183 3:63 161, 162
1:15 120 2:17 138, 139
5:13 184 3:65 162
1:16 121 2:18 139
5:15 184 3:66 157
1:19 124 2:22 142
5:18 185 4:3 165, 166
1:20 125 3:2 143
5:19 185 4:4 166
1:21 125 3:4 143
5:20 186 4:5 166
2:1 127 3:6 144
5:22 186 4:7 167
2:2 128 3:12 146
AQUILA 2:3 129, 186 4:8 168 3:13 146
2:4 129 4:10 169 3:14 147
1 Samuel 2:5 130 4:11 169 3:15 147
20:5 19 2:7 131 4:17 172 3:16 148
212   Index of Scriptural and Other Ancient References

3:17 148 9:26-27 182 1:26 122 8:4 175

3:18 148 24:4 186 3:5 133 9:26-27 182
3:19 148 27:36 124 11:4 159 18:21 167
3:23 150 29:25 124 20:5 180 19:24 167
3:25 150 30:42 135 21:22 184
3:26 150, 151 31:36 172 28:65 183 Exodus
3:27 151 31:46 124 29:9 60, 146 6:18 177
3:28 152 32:27 186 32:10 139 20:15 154
3:32 153 42:9 110, 116 32:25 125 29:33 179
3:33 153 43:18 126 24:10 127
3:39 155 48:16 160 40:7 140
TARGUM NEOFITI
3:41 155 49:20 166 40:10 177
3:42 156 49:29 155 Genesis
3:43 156 Leviticus
4:8 144, 155
3:45 157 Exodus 22:10 179
9:26-27 182
3:46 157 6:6 160 26:6 122
10:3 176
3:47 157 7:9 165 18:21 167 Numbers
3:49 157 12:7 133 24:4 186 14:1 111
3:52 158 15:13 160 39:6 186 24:19 89
3:53 159 24:10 167 43:3 186 24:24 89
3:56 159 28:18 167 49:21 110
3:58 160 29:11 167 Deuteronomy
3:59 160 29:33 179 Exodus
5:19 154
3:61 161 4:25-26 125
3:62 161 Leviticus 7:9 165
3:63 161 13:6 63 12:7 133 FRAGMENT
3:64 162 18:6-8 116 20:15 154 TARGUM
3:65 162 18:18 155 29:33 179
19:28 174 Genesis
3:66 163
19:32 183 Leviticus 19:24 166
4:1 164
21:15 174 22:10 179 32:27 186
4:7 167
22:10 179 24:23 159 32:29 186
4:8 168
25:30 160 25:30 160
4:10 169 Exodus
25:33 160 25:33 160
4:11 169 4:25-26 125
25:49 160 25:49 160
4:19 172 7:9 165
26:6 122 25:54 160
4:20 48, 69, 173,
27:13 160 26:6 122
175 Deuteronomy
27:15 160 27:13 160
4:22 176, 178 21:22 184
27:19-20 160 27:15 160
5:1-22 179
27:27-28 160 27:19-20 160
5:10 182, 183
27:31 160 27:27-28 160 CAIRO GENIZAH
5:13 184
27:33 160 27:31 160 FRAGMENTS
5:15 184
27:33 160
5:18 185 Exodus
Numbers
5:19 185 Deuteronomy 6:6 160
16:26 119
5:20 186 5:19 154
19:16 171
19:19 148 7:5 186 TARGUM OF THE
VETUS LATINA
35:19 160 32:10 139 PROPHETS
Lamentations 35:21 160
3:22 149 35:24-25 160 Joshua
PSEUDO-
35:27 160 JONATHAN 2:1 110
TARGUM ONQELOS
9:22 124
Genesis Deuteronomy Genesis 20:5 160
1:21 150 1:15 180 4:8 144, 155 20:9 160
 Index of Scriptural and Other Ancient References   213

Judges 49:31 133 78:50 145 6:9 158

9:38 127 51:30 133 83:13 128 6:11 109
88:7 159 7:2 167
1 Samuel Ezekiel 89:50 179 7:3 109
6:2 145 16:36-37 116 89:40 131 7:13 132
15:33 146 21:17 142 99:5 127 8:9 152
17:53 172 26:4 156 102:1 135
19:17 124 27:3 138 107:5 135 Ruth
24:16 160 107:20 174 2:14 181
26:4 110 Hosea 108:11 178
28:12 124 4:6 127, 186 119:53 183 Lamentations
11:8 162 119:82 134
2 Samuel (main references in
13:7-8 146 142:4 135
14:11 160 bold)
143:4 135 1:1-4 20, 21, 30, 38,
15:10 110 Amos
149:3 184 155
19:27 124 6:4-7 142
150:4 184 1:1-11 25
1 Kings Jonah 1:1 5, 7, 8, 16,
19:11 168 2:8 135 Proverbs 20, 24, 29, 31,
6:7 180 32, 35, 37, 38,
2 Kings Micah 7:2 139 39, 40, 41, 42,
23:29 122 7:9 160 20:17 147 47, 109–10, 112,
23:33-35 122 26:19 124 130, 141, 143,
Habakkuk
Isaiah 1:1 137 170, 173, 175,
Job 176, 188
18:2 110
Zechariah 1:1 175 1:2 7, 9, 14, 18,
24:17 157
2:12 139 11:15 174 30, 35, 36, 43,
24:22 144
4:10 132 11:20 183 73, 110–12,
40:3 120
12:11 122 19:12 120 158, 188–89
47:7 117
20:14 147 1:3 5, 8, 9, 30, 32,
49:14 186
21:27 161 112–13, 189
51:20 164 TARGUM OF THE
28:16 164 1:4 8, 14, 25, 113,
57:16 135 WRITINGS
28:19 164 114, 153,
63:7 149
Psalms 30:9 147 174, 184, 186,
66:1 62
10:2 172 30:12 120 189
Jeremiah 10:4 161 31:7 174 1:5 9, 14, 25, 48,
2:9 139 10:9 146 31:24 164 114, 141, 153,
5:3 166 11:6 183 38:10 181 170, 189
5:19 179 17:8 139 1:6 14, 24, 25,
6:25 142 17:12 146 Canticles 114–15, 139,
13:22 116 19:15 161 1:8 132 189–90
13:26 116 21:12 161 2:2 158 1:7 40, 114, 115,
18:15 120 32:10 149 2:6 156 118, 119, 148,
20:3 142 33:5 149 2:9 15, 125 155, 190
20:10 142 40:11 149 2:14 132 1:8 13, 14, 25,
29:14 137 42:8 144 2:17 156 116, 117, 155,
30:2 137 48:3 138 2:19 36 179, 190
30:8 179 50:21 126 3:10 158 1:9 13, 14, 25, 36,
30:18 137 61:3 135 3:11 158 40, 59, 116–17,
31:10 160 62:19 140 4:6 109, 130 119, 143, 157,
46:5 142 69:13 147 4:11 152 190
48:25 128 75:11 128 5:1 32, 130 1:10 8, 13, 114,
48:43 157 76:3 130, 193 5:10-14 85, 140, 117, 118, 119,
49:29 142 77:4 135 167 190
214   Index of Scriptural and Other Ancient References

1:11 117, 118, 119, 2:10 24, 33, 134, 3:11 145, 146, 198 3:47 157, 153, 201
190 139, 194 3:12 19, 146, 155, 3:48 134, 157, 153,
1:12 14, 25, 59, 68, 2:11 44, 124, 134–35, 198 201
112, 117, 153, 172, 194 3:13 17, 146, 198 3:49 139, 157, 201
119, 126, 127, 2:12 47, 135, 166, 3:14 147, 162, 198 3:50 158, 201
153, 190, 194 172, 194–95 3:15 134, 147, 198 3:51 7, 126, 158, 201
1:13 119, 178, 185, 2:13-19 26 3:16 147, 181, 198 3:52-62 27
191 2:13 14, 24, 134, 3:17 127, 131, 148, 3:52 9, 158, 201
1:14 25, 40, 120, 136, 139, 153, 198 3:53 159, 201
151, 191 195 3:18 148, 149, 199 3:54 159, 201
1:15 25, 29, 120–21, 2:14 26, 31, 44, 45, 3:19 115, 148, 144, 3:55 159, 201
125, 138, 159, 191 136–37, 178, 147, 164, 199 3:56 159, 201
1:16 33, 36, 121, 195 3:20 149, 199 3:57 29, 31, 138,
157, 191 2:15 10, 14, 16, 47, 3:21 26, 149, 199 159, 160, 202
1:17 25, 30, 31, 33, 137–38, 195 3:22 14, 26, 149, 3:58-66 125
36, 116, 119, 2:16 14, 16, 138, 153, 199 3:58 160, 202
121–22, 125, 138, 130, 157, 195 3:23 150, 199 3:59 145, 160, 202
191 2:17 14, 26, 3:24 150, 199 3:60 14, 27, 161,
1:18-19 20 138–39, 128, 3:25 150, 199 202
1:18 9, 10, 14, 25, 159, 195 3:26 26, 150, 199 3:61-66 33, 39
30, 122–23, 138, 2:18 24, 45, 139, 3:27-30 26 3:61 14, 161, 179,
159, 173, 191–92 157, 196 3:27 9, 120, 151, 202
1:19 14, 17, 18, 21, 2:19 26, 33, 35, 44, 45, 199 3:62 161, 202
24, 119, 123–24, 76, 85, 140, 3:28 9, 20, 33, 151, 3:63 161, 202
172, 192 135, 156, 196 199 3:64 162, 202
1:20 9, 25, 30, 31, 2:20-22 26 3:29 152, 148, 199 3:65 162, 156, 202
124–25, 192 2:20 7, 14, 17, 20, 3:30 14, 152, 199 3:66 163, 172, 185,
1:21 33, 36, 125, 29, 30, 31, 35, 3:31 8, 24, 152, 200 202
192 45, 46, 56, 3:32 10, 26, 153, 200 4:1 17, 63, 140,
1:22 14, 33, 126, 66, 110, 126, 3:33 9, 140, 153, 164, 203
192 140–41, 170, 200 4:2 5, 14, 17, 20,
2:1 8, 18, 24, 25, 194, 196 3:34-36 26 27, 33, 35, 164,
127, 148, 155, 2:21 14, 17, 142, 3:34 10, 153, 200 165, 203
169, 193, 194 196 3:35 10, 154, 200 4:3 8, 16, 27, 33,
2:2 10, 25, 128, 2:22 17, 21, 33, 45, 3:36 27, 119, 145, 165, 203
130, 138, 193 142, 131, 141, 154, 200 4:4 9, 27, 166, 159,
2:3 8, 9, 25, 128–29, 196–97 3:37 27, 134, 154, 203
139, 155, 169, 3:1-3 39 200 4:5-8 27
193, 194 3:1 14, 143, 198 3:38 9, 14, 30, 30, 4:5 166, 203
2:4 24, 25, 110, 3:2 143, 198 31, 154, 200 4:6 27, 31, 166,
112, 129, 130, 3:3 143, 198 3:39 7, 14, 26, 155, 203
139, 155, 193 3:4 143, 153, 198 200 4:7 17, 19, 167, 203
2:5 9, 10, 18, 110, 3:5 17, 124, 143, 3:40-51 27 4:8 168, 204
130, 138, 193 198 3:40 155, 200 4:9 7, 33, 168, 204
2:6 8, 25, 130–31, 3:6 144, 144, 155, 3:41 33, 140, 155, 4:10 9, 27, 33, 118,
174, 193–94 159, 198 168, 185, 200 134, 153, 169,
2:7 8, 9, 10, 25, 3:7 9, 10, 14, 144, 3:42 33, 156, 200 204
131, 148, 194 198 3:43-51 24 4:11 27, 169, 204
2:8 24, 132, 130, 3:8 14, 26, 145, 3:43 156, 156, 157, 200 4:12 14, 28, 114,
138, 139, 148, 156, 198 3:44 9, 156, 145, 119, 170, 204
194 3:9 17, 145, 160, 201 4:13 27, 29, 30, 31,
2:9 7, 32, 132–33, 198 3:45 156, 157, 201 110, 141, 170,
137, 153, 194 3:10 145, 198 3:46 157, 201 204
 Index of Scriptural and Other Ancient References   215

4:14 27, 170, 204 5:18 8, 185, 207 12:1–13:2 57 QUMRAN TEXTS
4:15 27, 28, 31, 5:19 28, 163, 185, 13:8-11 57
171, 204–05 207 13:11–14:3 57 Community Rule
4:16 28, 31, 171–72, 5:20 186, 207 31:3-5 57 IV 12 125
157, 205 5:21 29, 186, 207 35:2-5 57 IX 11 177
4:17-22 28 5:22 28, 29, 186, 77 57
207 Damascus Document
4:17 7, 18, 25, 28,
3 Baruch XII 23 177
33, 157, 172,
Ecclesiastes 1:2-6 57 XIX 11 177
178, 205
4:18 8, 10, 15, 17, 1:15 145 3:4 127
10:3 145 Pesher Nahum
28, 31, 113, 114, 3-4 I 7-8 184
10:20 177 Ben Sira
172, 158, 205
11:3 180 4:23-25 177
4:19 28, 172, 173, War Scroll
48:10 177
205 XIII 12 125
4:20 8, 28, 30, 31, 2 Targum Esther
1 Enoch
1:2 133, 141, 180, 181 4Q285 (Sefer
68, 70, 75, 109, 24–26 32
1:4 167 ha-Mil˙amah)
123, 164, 173–74,
1:12 141 3 Enoch 177
205
4:21-22 5, 16, 17, 5:3-6 114
1 Chronicles 40:4 150 3Q3 (3QLam)
18, 20, 24, 25,
1:17 175 44:2-3 144 38, 72
28, 32, 33, 87, 21:15-16 125
88, 89, 90, 110, 45:2 120
4Q111 (4QLam)
125, 137, 139, 2 Chronicles 4 Ezra 38, 72, 115-16, 118,
174–78, 205 35:20 122 10:21-23 57 119, 120–22
5:1 179, 161, 206 35:22 122
5:2 179, 206 35:25 123 4Q179
Liber Antiquitatum
5:3 5, 7, 9, 28, 112, 36:4 122 Biblicarum (4QapocrLam A)
179, 206 (Pseudo-Philo) 38, 72
5:4-6 28 48.1-2 177
5:4 10, 15, 180, 206 SA>ADIA, TAFSIR
4Q241
5:5 5, 18, 20, 33, Lamentations 1 Maccabees (4QFragments citing
39, 43, 180–81, 1:9 117 1:47 133 Lamentations)
206 3:22 149 2:26 177 38
5:6 7, 28, 124, 181, 3:27 151 2:54 177
206 3:33 153 4Q501
5:7 28, 124, 181, 3:41 155 2 Maccabees (4QapocrLam B)
206 3:63 162 6:5 133 72
5:8 9, 14, 182, 206 3:65 162
Paraleipomena 5Q6 (5QLama)
5:9 14, 28, 182, 206
Jeremiae 38, 72, 171–72
5:10 9, 14, 28, 182,
206 APOCRYPHA AND 4:6-9 57, 58, 81
5Q7 (5QLamb)
5:11 18, 25, 28, 33, 34, PSEUDEPIGRAPHA
Sefer ha-Razim 38, 72
47, 119, 183, Apocalypse of 2.57-72 164
206 11QMelchizedek
Abraham
5:12 8, 28, 183, 207 Sybilline Oracles II 17 72
27 57
5:13 9, 28, 184, 207 5:397-410 57 II 20 72
5:14 9, 17, 28, 184, 1 Baruch
207 3:35-37 75 Testament of Reuben JOSEPHUS
5:15-18 28 5:16 164
5:15 184, 207 2 Baruch Antiquities
5:16 29, 185, 207 1–12 58 Vitae Prophetarum 1.93-95 175
5:17 9, 119, 185, 5:1-3 57 Elias 141 4.159 177
207 10:6–12:4 57, 58 Zechariah 141 10.78 123
216   Index of Scriptural and Other Ancient References

War Doxographi Graeci Selecta in Threnos Shebi>it

2.331 17 (ed. Diels) 4:20 46 4:6 146
2.336 17 5.12.2 164
2.405 17 Suda (ed. Adler) Sotah
Bk 5 119 Clement 4:60 17 1:7 112
Bk 6 74, 76 3:177 18 8:1 177
Stromata
5.19 57 I 20 109
6.407 73 Tertullian Ta>anit
6.435 73 Etymologicum Adversus Marcionem 2:1 134
Magnum III 6.7 69 2:10 84
(ed. Gaisford) V 11.12 69 4:6-7 84, 111
NEW TESTAMENT 333.41 17 4:8 113
Adversus Praxean
Matthew Eusebius XIV end 69 Yebamot
11:29-30 151 15:1 180
Ecclesiastical History
13:35 141 MISHNAH 16:1 189
I 1.2 67
17:5 156 II 6.8 67
21:13 132 <Abot Yoma
II 23.20 67
23:37-39 46, 49, 2:5 82 8:8 152
III 5.3 67
66, 170 III 5.6-7 67 2:9 117
24:1-2 66 III 7.1 67 3:5 151
TOSEFTA
26:39 176 3:6 156
Hippolytus 5:8 154
Mark >Abodah Zarah
5:22 39
11:7 132 Susanna 2:6-7 124
14:36 176 1:1-2 109 Berakhot
15:43 17 2:2 151 Baba Qamma
Irenaeus 9:5 144 1:1 128
Luke Demonstration
2:25 149 Baba Batra Ketubbot
71 69
10:31-32 171 7:3 113 12:2 128
11:51 141, 170 Jerome
13:31-35 46, 49, 66 Gittin Megillah
19:40 139 Prologue to Jeremiah 1:1 180 2:1-7 83
19:46 132 48 2:1 180 4(3):41 41
22:42 176
Liber de nominibus Óagigah Sotah
23:20 17
hebraicis 2:1 83 7:17 177
23:27-31 66
122 13:2 154
1 Peter Megillah 14:14 151
In Zachariam 1:1 130
3:19 144 8:18-19 111 15:10-15 58, 81–82
4:4 71, 77 15:11 81
Revelation 4:6 77
Letter 57 (to
14:8 124 Pammachius) Sukkah
17:18 124 Niddah
41 4:5 132
9:8 116

Justin Pesa˙im Ta>anit

PATRISTIC AND 5:5-7 131 2:10 123
1 Apology
CLASSICAL 4(3):6 72, 84
55.5 69
WRITERS Sanhedrin 4(3):7-8 174
6:4 184 4(3):9-11 84
Apostolic Constitutions Origen
V 16 69 Contra Celsum Shabbat Yadayim
V 20 58, 69, 75 4.22 67–68 16:1 17 2:12 17
 Index of Scriptural and Other Ancient References   217

JERUSALEM 82b 133 Shabbat SIFREI

TALMUD 86b 179 32b 171 DEUTERONOMY
55a 125 §93 151
Berakhot Berakhot 56b 17 §117 151
I, 2d 140 3a 140 128a 136 §323 151
I, 4b 147 8a 76 145b 157
I, 7b 133 31b 39 152a 134 MIDRASH RABBAH
IX, 14b 82 51a 125
55a 130 Sotah Genesis Rabbah
Gittin 57b 150 8b 112 1.10 42
V, 46c 128 59a 140 10a 184 6.3 20
61b 120 35a 111 9.11 112
Óagigah
48a 184 9.13-14 175
II, 77a-c 83 Gittin 49b 133 10.7 175
49a 128 19.7 156
Qiddushin Sukkah
55b–58a 53 19.9 109
I, 61a 123 53a 132
56b 136 20.7 152
II, 23a 129
57b 121, 141 24.4 135
Ta>anit
Sanhedrin 58a 165 28.5 167
12a 72
X, 29a 177 16a 155 33.1 152
X, 29c 130 Óagigah
11b–15a 83 20a 110 36.7 182
XI, 30b 158 29a 111 49.6 167
Makkot 22a-b 123 63.9 175
Shabbat
5b 149 65.22 184
VI, 8d 118 Yebamot 71.9 177
Megillah 105a 130 73.10 164
Sukkah
3a 122 84.3 114
IV, 54c 127 Yoma
6a 175 98.8 175
IV, 55b 132 9b 112
6b 17
38b 141
Ta>anit 7a 42 Exodus Rabbah
IV, 68b 72 11a 146 <Abot deRabbi Nathan 35.5 175
IV, 68c 133 14b 174 A.4 130, 133
Leviticus Rabbah
IV, 68d 111 B.7 133
Mena˙ot 20.1 122
IV, 69a-b 119,141
64b 133 Massekhet Soferim 22.3 136
14:2 186 27.1 152
Mo>ed Qatan 14:3 72
BABYLONIAN
28b 122 18:4 71 Numbers Rabbah
TALMUD 13.2 156
18:7-9 72
Qiddushin 13.4 136
>Abodah Zarah
41b 129 13.7 136
5a 144 MEKHILTA
80b 155 16.25 130
DeRABBI ISHMAEL
Baba Batra 14.10 161
Rosh ha-Shanah 16.20 111
8a 151 Ba˙odesh
15a 109 18b 157 21.3 177
6 151
55a 110 22.3 177
Sanhedrin Pis˙a
60b 82
11a 154 5 129 Deuteronomy Rabbah
105a 113
34a 40 4.3 155
106a 113 Shirah
91a 140
96b 141 5 167 Canticles Rabbah
Baba Meßi>a
73b 110 100a-b 112 2:13 §4 177
104a-b 53, 110, 111, SIFREI NUMBERS 2:16 §1 152
Baba Qamma 119, 167 §111 151 4:8 §2 127
7b 128 111b 151 §131 177 5:5 §1 127, 188
218   Index of Scriptural and Other Ancient References

7:8 §1 153 1:16 §§45-51 35, 36, 3:37 §9 155 LATER MIDRASHIM
7:11 §1 153 121, 3:40 §9 155
8:9 §3 178 165, 184 3:42 §9 156 Pesiqta Rabbati
1:16 §50 35 3:45 §9 156 5.7 156
Lamentations Rabbah 1:16 §51 37, 141 3:46 §9 138 8.4 177
1:17 §42 36 3:54 §9 159 10.9 125
Proems 26 58
2 35, 37, 52 1:18 §53 123 3:55 §9 159
3:58 §9 36 26.6 158
4 37, 109 1:19 §54 124, 137
3:65 §9 162 28.2 180
3 35 1:20 §55 124
4:2 §2 36 30.3 111
5 141 2:1 §1 127, 143
4:2 §4 35, 36, 165 27-30 79
9 118, 133 2:1 §2 127
4:4 §7 166 34-35 79, 80, 85
12 110 2:1 §3 127
4:5 §8 166 37 79, 80
13 35, 110 2:1 §4 128
14 35 2:1 §5 128 4:5 §18 171 Pesiqta deRab Kahana
17 147 2:2 §4 35, 36, 141, 4:6 §9 167 1.1 156
18 147 170 4:7 §10 167 15.1 109
21 36, 110 2:3 §6 36, 128 4:8 §11 168 15.7 141
22 35, 123 2:4 §8 35, 129, 130 4:10 §13 169 24.2 145
23 35, 36, 141, 170 2:5 §9 130 4:11 §14 35, 169 26.1 122, 123
24 35, 36, 37, 52, 2:6 §10 131 4:12 §15 170
2:7 §11 131 4:13 §16 35, 141, 170 Pirqei deRabbi Eli>ezer
57, 75, 111
2:8 §12 132 4:15 §18 35 44 177
25 37, 156
2:10 §14 134 4:16 §19 171 46 140
26 35
2:11 §15 134 4:17 §20 172, 181 48 127
30 35, 170
31 35, 52 2:12 §16 135, 166 4:20 §23 173, 175
Tan˙uma
32 35 2:13 §17 136 4:21 §24 175
(ed. Buber)
33 35, 174 2:15 §19 36, 138 5:1 §1 179
2:16 §20 138 5:2 §1 179 Lekh Lekha
34 35
2:17 §21 138 5:4 §1 180 6 152
1:1 §1 35, 37, 109,
110 2:19 §22 140 5:5 §1 36
5:6 §1 181 Pin˙as
1:1 §2 36, 110 2:20 §23 141 3 177
1:1 §3 35 2:20 §53 141 5:7 §1 181
1:1 §§4-20 165 3:1 §1 35, 60 5:10 §1 182 Shela˙
1:2 §23 35, 36, 77, 3:3 §1 143 5:11 §1 183 21 111
111, 186 3:4 §2 143 5:13 §1 184
1:2 §54 125 3:5 §2 144 5:15 §1 184 Wayyera<
1:3 §28 112 3:6 §2 144 5:16 §1 185 18 167
1:3 §29 63, 113 3:7 §3 144, 145 5:18 §1 36
5:20 §1 186 Midrash Psalms
1:4 §30 113 3:8 §3 145
5:21 §1 186 7.10 173
1:5 §31 36, 114 3:10 §4 60, 146
5:22 §1 36, 186 17.4 173
1:6 §33 114 3:11 §4 146
19.7 140
1:7 §33 115 3:12 §4 146
Eikhah Rabbati 60.3 88
1:7 §34 49, 115, 148 3:14 §5 147
(ed. Buber) 137.3 180
1:8 §35 116 3:15 §5 147
1:9 §36 35, 60 117 3:16 §6 147 p.128 147
Midrash Zuta,
1:10 §38 117 3:19 §7 148, 149 Lamentations
1:11 §39 118 3:21 §7 36, 149 Ecclesiastes Rabbah
(ed. Buber,
1:12 §40 60, 119 3:23 §8 150 3:16 §1 141
Recension A)
1:13 §41 36, 119, 178 3:24 §8 152 5:2 §1 173
35a 109
1:13 §42 120 3:27 §9 151 9:2 §1 122
1:13 §43 120 3:28 §9 37 Midrash Leqa˙ Tob
1:14 §42 35, 175 3:33 §9 153 Esther Rabbah Lamentations
1:14 §44 120 3:34 §9 154 6.3 152 2:4 129
 Index of Scriptural and Other Ancient References   219

3:3 143 MEDIAEVAL Joseph Qara 2:6 130

3:6 144 JEWISH WRITERS Commentary on 2:9 133
3:22 149 Lamentations 2:14 137
3:28 152 Abraham ibn Ezra 2:15 138
1:21 62
3:33 153 Commentary on Hosea 2:3 62 2:16 138
3:36 154 4:16 146 2:10 62 3:1 143
3:38 155 11:8 162 2:14 62, 136 3:5 144
3:39 155 3:20 62 3:8 145
3:41 155 Commentary on Psalms 3:11 146
107:20 174 3:42 62
3:51 158 3:45 62 3:16 147, 148
3:56 159 Commentary on 4:5-6 62 3:18 148
3:63 162 Lamentations 4:20 173 3:22 149, 150
3:65 162 1:3 63 3:23 150
4:21 175 1:4 114 3:26 151
Qim˙i
5:4 180 1:8 116 3:33 153
1:12 119 Commentary on 3:36 154
Yalqut Shim>oni Jeremiah 3:41 155
§83 167 1:15 120, 121
1:17 122 1:1 109 3:45 157
§143 177 3:47 157
§638 173 2:1 127
2:14 137 Rashi 3:49 157
§1036 143 3:54 159
§1037 144 2:15 138 Commentary on Genesis
2:21 142 3:56 159
7:12 167
Midrash ha-Gadol 3:1 63 3:58 160
19:24 167
3:7 145 3:65 162
Bere<shit 4:1 62, 164
3:9 109 3:11 146 Commentary on Isaiah
3:14 147 62:10 120 4:2 164
Megillat Ta>anit 3:21 149 4:5 166
(Scholia) 3:22 150 Commentary on 4:6 166
15th <Ab 174 3:23 150 Jeremiah 4:7 167
25th Mar˙eshvan 144 3:28 152 20:3 142 4:8 168
3:39 155 4:10 169
Seder >Olam Rabba 3:45 63 Commentary on Psalms 4:14 171
24 123 3:47 157 7:14 173 4:16 171
3:56 63 4:18 172
Seder <Eliyyahu Rabba Commentary on
3:65 162 4:20 173, 174
27 111 Lamentations
4:1 63 5:6 181
Sefer Yosippon 4:14 171 1:2 62 5:9 182
21 124 4:20 174 1:4 114 5:10 183
5:4 180 1:7 115, 116 5:19 185
5:9 182 1:8 116 5:22 186
MINOR MIDRASHIM 1:9 117
Prayer of Rashbi 177 5:19 185
5:22 186 1:12 119
Pereq Yoshiyahu 177 1:15 120 Sa>adia,
Benjamin of Tudela, 1:16 121 Beliefs and Opinions
QALLIR Itinerary (ed. Adler) 1:17 122 Bk 8126
<Im to<khalnah našim 46–47 79 1:21 125
56 2:1 127
Maimonides, 2:2 128 Shul˙an >Arukh,
<Az be-halokh Yirmiyahu Yad: Ta>aniyyot 2:4 129 <Ora˙ Óayyim
56 5 76 2:5 62, 110 549–61 76, 77
 INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS

Aberbach, M., 177 Carleton-Paget, J., 33

Abrahams, J., 59 Carmi, T., 56
Adler, M. N., 79 Carson, D. A., 32, 38, 66
Alarcón Sainz, J. J., 3, 4, 5 Charles, R. H., 57
Albrektson, B., 1, 6, 7, 11, 23, 127, 130, 139, 145f, Churgin, P., 21, 65
148f, 152, 156, 162, 164, 166–8, 176, 184, 186 Chepey, S. D., 167
Alexander, P. S., 12, 16, 32–34, 36, 38–40, 49, Cohen, A., 51, 116, 144
57–59, 61, 65f, 71, 76, 83–85, 120f, 125f, 130, Cohen, S.J.D., 34, 54, 184
132, 140, 142, 144f, 150, 152, 156–58, 167, 176f,
Dalman, G., 12, 88
180
Daniélou, J., 69
Bacher, W., 88 Day, J., 33
Baillet, M., 38 Delcor, M., 72
Bamberger, B.J., 80 De Lagarde, P., 2
Barr, J., 39 De Vaux, R., 38
Barthélemy, D., 46, 73 De Vos, C., 24
Becker, A. H., 65 Dines, J. M., 47
Ben-Horin, M., 57 Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W., 23, 28, 39
Ben Shammai, H., 63 Doniger, W., 165
Berlin, A., 23 Driver, G. R., 163, 182
Berman, Issachar, 162, 173, 182 Dunn, J.D.G., 57
Bernstein, M. J., 23, 40 Dyk, J., 38
Bertinoro, Obadiah, 131 Ego, B., 133
Beyer, K., 12 Ehrlich, A. B., 127
Bialik, H. N., 54 Ehrman, B. D., 48
Billerbeck, P., see H. L. Strack. Einhorn, Ze’eb Wolf ben Israel, 153, 169
Blau, L., 154 Eisenstein, J. D., 126
Bloch, P., 84 Elizur, S., 63
Bloom, H., 56 Elman, Y., 51
Bockmuehl, M., 33 Elon, M., 128
Bogaert, P., 56–58, 73f, 81f Erder, Y., 78
Bomberg, D., 2 Even-Shmuel, Y., 178
Boyarin, D., 65
Brady, C.M.M., 3, 20–22, 29f Fabricius, J. A., 177
Brandon, S.G.F., 66 Feuerstein, S., 63
Braude, W. G., 80 Field, F., 18f, 46, 142, 150
Brock, S. P., 41 Fields, W. W., 34
Buber, S., 51, 52, 54f, 61f Fine, L., 140
Büchler, A., 130, 151 Fine, S., 83
Buxtorf, J., 2, 76 Fishbane, M. A., 79

220
 Index of Modern Authors   221

Flesher, P.V.M., 20, 23, 41 Kister, M. J., 54

Fontela, C. A., 11 Klein, M. L., 38, 77, 161
Frank, D., 63, 78 Knohl, I., 132
Freedman, H., 51 Kobelski, P. J., 72
Froehlich, K., 70 Kohut, A., 65
Kraemer, D. C., 34
Gager, J. G., 171 Kraft, R. A., 34
Gaston, L., 66 Kuhn, P., 37
Gelardini, G., 66 Kutscher, E. Y., 12
Gershoni, I., 51
Gibson, M. T., 70 Landauer, S., 2, 4
Gil, M., 78 Lebensohn, Y., 2, 4
Ginsburg, C. D., 149 Le Déaut, R., 71, 140
Ginzberg, L., 20, 54, 109, 122, 124, 127, 132f, 141, Lenhard, D., 52
158, 166, 167f, 170, 173, 175, 177, 180, 182 Levine, E., 3, 130f, 149, 155–57, 159f, 161, 177, 183
Goitein, S. D., 78 Levine, L. I., 74, 132
Goldberg, A. M., 79, 156 Lichtenberger, H., 28
Goldhill, S., 32 Lieberman, S., 154
Goldenberg, R., 54 Liebreich, L. J., 61
Goldin, J., 41, 133 Linafelt, T., 22–24, 34, 37, 56, 77
Goldschmidt, D., 55, 57 Lindner, A., 74
Goldstein, J. A., 133 Loewe, H.M.J., see C. G., Montefiore
Golomb, D., 41 Loewe, R., 39
Goodblatt, D. M., 175 Lücking, S., 66
Goodman, M. D., 57 Luria, David ben Judah, 168, 181
Gottwald, N., 23, 139
Greenup, A. W., 159, 163, 179 McCarthy, C., 149
Grossfeld, B., 133f MacMahon, J. H., 109
Grossmann, A., 62, 78 McNamara, M., 127, 141
Mandel, P. D., 10, 51, 53, 55
Hahn, J., 28, 54, 57, 66 Mann, J., 78
Hasam-Rokem, G., 52 Marwick, L., 63
Hayward, C.T.R., 30, 49, 142, 177 Matter, E. A., 68
Heinemann, J., 52 Mihaly, E., 66
Hengel, M., 177 Milik, J. T., 38
Herr, M. D., 52, 54f Milikowsky, Ch., 1
Herzer, J., 58 Mintz, A., 23, 26, 34, 36f
Hillers, D. R., 23, 44f, 110, 115, 117, 119f, 124f, 128f, Mirsky, M. J., 37
132, 136, 149, 156f, 159, 162f, 166f, 169f, 173, Montefiore, C. G., 130, 156
180, 182f, 186 Moore, G. F., 29, 126, 152, 186
Himmelfarb, M., 144 Morray-Jones, C.R.A., 128
Horgan, M. P., 72 Mulder, M. J., 6
Houtman, A., 54 Müller-Kessler, C., 12, 13
Hyman, A., 54
Nadich, J., 20, 54, 133, 171
Ingeborg, L., 57
Najar, S. S., 3, 64
Jacobs, L., 40 Nemoy, L., 78
Jaffee, M. S., 52 Neubauer, A., 175
Jeremias, 177 Neusner, J., 34, 51, 57, 110
Nir, R., 57
Kadushin, M., 154 Noth, M., 29
Kessler, E., 66
Kimelman, R., 33, 83 O’Brien, P. T., 32, 66
Khan, G., 12 Oepke, A., 156
222   Index of Modern Authors

Olyan, S. M., 134 Silber, E., 65, 177

Simon, M., 51, 66f
Pabst, H., 72 Skarsaune, O., 69
Parfitt, T. V., 79 Smalley, B., 70
Patai, R., 177 Smelik, W. F., 20, 40f
Paul, S. M., 34 Sperber, A., 3, 6
Petuchowski, J. J., 56 Spiegel, S., 66, 134
Polliack, M., 63, 78 Spinner, G., see Doniger
Porthuis, M.J.H.M., 54 Stemberger, G., 54, 59, 61
Stern, D., 34, 37
Qafi˙, Y., 49, 55, 64 Stevens, D., 68
Quinquarboreus, J., 65 Stone, M. E., 57, 177
Strack, H. L., 132, 141, 149, 154, 156, 177
Rabinowitz, Z. M., 59
Strugnell, J., 177
Raphael, Ch., 34
Sysling, H., 126, 144
Ravnitzky, Y. H., 54
Reed, A. Y., 65
Tal, A., 12
Reeves, J. C., 84, 178
Thoma, C., 57
Reiss, J., 2
Thomas, D. W., 29
Renkema, J., 23, 127f, 132, 134, 136, 139, 148, 150,
157, 169, 176 Uçeda, Samuel ben Isaac, 139, 185
Ringgren, H., 29 Urbach, E. E., 30, 112, 125, 151, 156, 186
Rosenmüller, E.F.C., 159
Rothkoff, A., 154 Van der Heide, A., 3, 5, 6, 14
Rubenstein, J. L., 54 Vermigli, Peter Martyr, 63
Weinberger, L. J., 55
Sæbø, M., 62 Weiss Halivni, D., 39
Salvesen, A., 47 Weitzman, M., 47f
Samely, A., 1, 40, 41 Wesselius, J-W., 38
Sarason, R. S., 52 Westermann, C., 23, 116, 182
Schäfer, P., 1, 125, 133, 171 Whitmarsh, T., 32
Schechter, S., 130, 155 Willey, P. T., 77
Schiffman, L. H., 34 Williamson, H.G.M., 38
Schmid, K., 57 Wright, N. T., 32
Schoeps, H. J., 57 Wünsche, A., 51
Schoeler, G., 53
Schönfelder, J. M., 61, 63 Yassif, E., 54
Schürer, E., 17, 126, 145, 177
Schwarz, J., 54 Ziegler, J., 8, 46
Schwemer, A. M., 141 Zimmermann, F., 57
Scott, J. M., 32, 67 Zucker, M., 78
Siefrid, M. A., 32, 66 Zulay, M., 55, 57
 GENERAL INDEX

9th >Ab, 43, 55f, 58, 71, 78, 84f, 87, 109, 113, 124, 140, Days of Distress, 113
147, 156, 186 Dead Sea Scrolls, 38, 72f
15th >Ab, 113f Derash, 39, 40, 42f
Abraham ibn Ezra, 63f Destroying Angel, 125
Adam and Eve, 37, 41 Deuteronomy, 32
Agunah, 180 Didascalia Apostolorum, 74
>Amidah, 33, 76, 163, 186 Dramatic heightening, 121
Ammonites and Moabites, 117f
Angelic liturgies, 151 Editions of Targum Lamentations, 2–3
Anthropomorphism, 161 Edom, 24, 28, 33f, 87, 172, 174f
Antisemitism, 171 Elijah the High Priest, 33, 176f
Aqiba, 120 Enjambement, 39
Aquila, 19, 46f, 74, 87 Esau, 175
Arameans, 183 Exile, 24, 32f, 109, 112, 114, 142, 177
Aramaic, 12–15, 50, 52, 60, 72, 87, 89f Exodus, 33
Armenia, 175 4 Ezra, 74
Attribute of Justice, 29, 30f, 35, 37, 129, 141
Attribute of Mercy, see Attribute of Justice Fall of Jerusalem, 54, 57, 69, 118, 132f, 173, 175
Azariah de’ Rossi, 65 Felix Pratensis, 1–2
Forbidden Targumim, 77
Babylon, 146, 175
2 Baruch, 57–59, 74 Garden of Eden, 32, 41, 42f, 109, 126, 152
Bat Qol, 30f, 37, 154, 156 Gehinnom, 144
Bar Kokhba, 36, 73 Gematria, 35
Benamozegh, Elijah, 65 God’s pathos, 35, 37, 66, 77
Binding of Isaac, 134 God’s throne and footstool, 127–28, 185
Boneh Yerušalayim, 76 Gorpiaeus, month of, 73, 75
Breastplate of High Priest, 164
Hadrian, 36, 121
Celestial Beit Din, 126 Hallel, 131
Chaldeans, 183 Heikhalot Mysticism, 83f
Christian commentaries on Lamentations Holy Week, 68
(Patristic and Mediaeval), 69f
Christian interpretation of Lamentations, 65–70, 173 Ishmael, 33
Clouds of Glory, 156
Conception and birth, 164f Jeremiah, 109, 123, 136, 158f
Constantinople, 18, 33, 87–89, 174, 178 Jerome, 48, 90, 184
Crucifixion, 183f Jesus, 66f, 69
Jewish commentaries on Lamentations
Day of Atonement, 113, 141 (post-mediaeval), 64

223
224   General Index

Josiah, 28, 30, 70, 109, 123, 173 Qallir, 62

Judaeo-Christians, 74 Qara, Joseph, 62–64
Julian, the Emperor, 178 Qaraites, 63, 78, 79
Qedušah deYoser, 151
Kashrut, 33
Rabbinic Bibles, 1–2, 4, 64
Lamentations Rabbah, 51–53, 65, 116 Rashi, 61–64
Lamentations Zuta, 54f Recensions of Targum Lamentations, 2–11
Leqah Tob, see Tobiah ben Eliezer Responsa, 180
Loanwords, 16–18 Rewritten Bible, 38
Luzzato, S. D., 65 Rib-pattern, 29
Romania, 33, 87f, 175
Magical bowls, 12 Rome, Romans, 18, 24, 33, 34, 36, 87–89, 172, 173–
Mamelukes, 182 75, 177f, 183
Manuscripts of Targum Lamentations, 1
Martyrdom, 35, 121 Sa>adia, 49f, 63, 90
Masoretic Text, 40 Salomon ben Yeroham, 63
“Measure for Measure”, 31, 33, 166, 170, 176 Sambation, 130
Memra, 30f, 37, 109, 121, 159, 160 Sanhedrin, 114, 184
Merit of the Fathers, 134 Septuagint, 44, 46f, 74
Messiah, 33–37, 67, 75, 83, 89, 142, 149, 176–78 Shekhinah, 37, 85, 114, 121, 140, 155f, 185
Middot, 41 Shema>, 150
Midrash Psalms, 54 Sodom and Gomorrah, 166, 167
Mishnah, 33, 59, 77, 85, 140 Sons of Ham, 182
Mishnaic Hebrew, 52 Symmachus, 46, 47, 74, 87
Moses, 139
Targum Canticles, 75
Mourners for Zion, 58, 63, 72, 78–85
Temple, 32, 36, 67, 109, 114, 130, 132, 156, 164, 170,
Mourning, 134
183, 185
Nathan ben Jehiel of Rome, 65 Tenebrae, 68
Nazirites, 167 Theodotion, 46
Nebuchadnezzar, 33, 36, 75, 114f, 117, 129, 144, 146, Theology of Lamentations, 23–28
183 Theology of Targum Lamentations, 29, 33f, 35
Nebuzaradan, 36, 144, 146, 183 Titus, 18, 24, 114
Niddah, 116, 119, 185 Tobiah ben Eliezer, 55, 61
Torah, Torah Study, 35, 77, 140, 156, 180
Orality, 53 Torah Scrolls, 33, 180
Trajan, 36, 121, 144, 146
Passover, 75, 131, 147 Translation techniques, 40f
Peiruš ha-Te>amim, 63 Types of Targum, 39, 41, 43
Persia, Persians, 34, 87, 146, 176, 178
Peshat, 39, 40–44, 49, 65 Uneven expansion in Targum Lamentations, 20–22
Peshitta, 15, 47f Vespasian, 18, 24, 36, 114, 121, 144, 146, 184
Pesiqta deRab Kahana, 54 Vulgate, 48f
Petihah, 52
Pesiqta Rabbati, 54 Watches, 140
Pharaoh Necho, 30, 122f, 172
Yemen, 53, 79
Phineas, 177
Yeshivah of Tiberias, 85
Pilgrim Festivals, 30f, 113, 173
Yoke of the Commandments, 152
Piyyut, 53, 55–57, 62, 156
Yoßer <Or, 150
Pirqei Tiš>ah be->Ab, 52, 55
Polyglot Bibles, 2 Zechariah son of Iddo, 30, 35, 66, 141, 170
Priests, priesthood, 83 Zecharaih son of Barachiah, 66
Prophets, prophecy, 31, 45, 133, 136f Zedekiah, 28, 70, 173
Prayer of Jeremiah, 179 Zion, 28, 29, 139