Once in a while, Onkelos will throw in the word pon (פּוֹן) that doesn't directly translate from the Hebrew.
- Avimelech to Yitzchak: k'z'eir pon shachiv d'm'yached b'ama (Toldos 26:10)
- Lavan to Yaakov: v'shalachitach pon b'chedva (Vayeitzei 31:27)
- Yaakov to Lavan: Lulei la fon Elokei d'abba b'saadi (Vayeitzei 31:42)
- Bilam to the donkey: Ilu fon (Ilufon) iss charba b'yadi (Balak 22:29)
- Malach to Bilam: Ilu fon (Ilufon) la s'tas min kadamai (Balak 22:33)
I haven't been able to figure a purpose for it. "If only" doesn't go with Avimelech. "Almost" doesn't go with Lavan. Any other suggestions?
Answer
Jastrow says it indicates the subjunctive mood. If so,
- in Gen. 26:10, כִּזְעֵיר פּוֹן שְׁכֵיב means "he almost had lain" as opposed to "he almost lay";
- in Gen. 31:27, וְשַׁלַּחְתָּךְ פּוֹן means "I'd have sent you" as opposed to "I sent you";
- in Num. 22:29, אִלּוּ פּוֹן אִית חַרְבָּא means "if there were a sword" as opposed to "if there is a sword"; and
- in Num. 22:33, אִלּוּ פּוֹן לָא סְטָת means "if it had not (turned?)" as opposed to "if it did not (turn?)".
In Gen. 26:10, then, Avimelech is not saying he almost lay with Rivka but, rather, merely saying that, had he not discovered she was married, he would have almost lain with her. This is, perhaps, a step removed from directly accusing himself of any possible wrongdoing (and not how I, for one, have always translated the pasuk). And in Gen. 31:27, Lavan is saying "I would have sent you with joy and songs" (which is conceivably true), not "I did send you with joy and songs" (a clear lie). Likewise the ones in Balak. Seemingly (from these examples), lashon hakodesh doesn't require an extra word for the subjunctive and Aramaic does (and English uses auxiliary verbs like would have).
No comments:
Post a Comment