Tell me more ×
Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 7 down vote favorite

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 31:26)
  • 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?

share|improve this question
2  
You may want to get this English translation which is available @ israelbooks.com/bookDetails.asp?book=483 – Gershon Gold Nov 30 '11 at 21:32
4  
Thanks. Although $35 for a few "fon calls" is pretty steep. I'll see what the J-SE crowd has to say. – YDK Nov 30 '11 at 21:57

2 Answers

up vote 8 down vote accepted

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?)".
share|improve this answer
So, is this something where the difference is more pronounced in Aramaic to the extent that it is a required word to understand the phrase? Because the English differences aren't too striking. – YDK Nov 30 '11 at 22:09
@YDK, in Gen. 26:10 in English the difference is not striking (to me, as expressed in the hard time I had translating the Aramaic: see the revision history of the answer). But in the other three, I see a clear difference the pon makes. 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). – msh210♦ Nov 30 '11 at 22:13
1  
@YDK, okay, here goes: 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. – msh210♦ Nov 30 '11 at 22:34
1  
That makes sense. I would give you extra credit (pon) if I could for Avimelech. The Hebrew v'shachav achad ha'am would have sufficed to imply it almost happened. The addition of kimat- it almost almost happened. That's good. – YDK Nov 30 '11 at 23:23
up vote -1 down vote

I think the word Pon means immediately.

Avimelech tells Yitzchok "Almost immediately...."

Lavan tells Yaakov "I would of sent you immediately...."

Bilam tells the donkey "Had I had a sword immediately...."

Malach tells Bilam "The donkey turned away immediately...."

I stand open to correction if someone thinks it means something else.

share|improve this answer
I would appreciate if you could elaborate on how the "immediately" works in. It seems like a universal Targum thing as YbU uses it, too. What prompts the Targum to use it? – YDK Nov 30 '11 at 21:51
What is YbU? Looking at these Pesukim I think the word immediately fits in each case. Targum is not always an exact literal translation of the Posuk. Often Targum tells us things we would not know without it. – Gershon Gold Nov 30 '11 at 21:55
YbU= Yonasan ben Uziel (sorry, I figured the context...) Onkelos usually sticks to the literal if he can. What purpose does he have to stick this word in? – YDK Nov 30 '11 at 22:00

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.