(טו) וַיֵּחָלֵ֨ק עֲלֵיהֶ֧ם ׀ לַ֛יְלָה ה֥וּא וַעֲבָדָ֖יו וַיַּכֵּ֑ם וַֽיִּרְדְּפֵם֙ עַד־חוֹבָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר מִשְּׂמֹ֖אל לְדַמָּֽשֶׂק׃
(15) And he and his servants split up against them and defeated them; and he pursued them as far as Hobah, which is north of Damascus.
(א) ויחלק עליהם. לְפִי פְשׁוּטוֹ סָרֵס הַמִּקְרָא "וַיֵּחָלֵק הוּא וַעֲבָדָיו עֲלֵיהֶם לַיְלָה" כְּדֶּרֶך הָרוֹדְפִים שֶׁמִּתְפַּלְּגִים אַחַר הַנִּרְדָּפִים, כְּשֶׁבּוֹרְחִין זֶה לְכָאן וְזֶה לְכָאן:
(ב) לילה. כְּלוֹמַר אַחַר שֶׁחָשְׁכָה לֹא נִמְנַע מִלְּרָדְפָם. וּמִדְרַשׁ אַגָּדָה שֶׁנֶּחֱלַק הַלַּיְלָה, וּבְחֶצְיוֹ הָרִאשׁוֹן נַעֲשָׂה לוֹ נֵס, וְחֶצְיוֹ הַשֵּׁנִי נִשְׁמַר וּבָא לוֹ לַחֲצוֹת לַיְלָה שֶׁל מִצְרַיִם:
(1) ויחלק עליהם AND HE DIVIDED HIMSELF AGAINST THEM — In accordance with its plain sense you must invert the order of the words of the verse: “And he divided himself, he and his servants, against them, at night”, as is the manner of those who pursue their enemies — they divide themselves up to follow after those of whom they are in pursuit when these flee in different directions.
(2) לילה BY NIGHT, meaning, even after it became dark they did not give up pursuing them. According to the Midrashic explanation, it was the night that was divided; during its first half a miracle was wrought for him, and the second half was kept in reserve for the miracle of the midnight in Egypt (Genesis Rabbah 43:3).
Gur Aryeh makes this point.
(א) ומדרש אגדה שנחלק הלילה. דאם לא כן הוי ליה למכתב 'ויחלק אברם ועבדיו עליהם לילה', ומדכתיב "ויחלק עליהם לילה" משמע כי חצי הלילה בא, ומלשון 'חלוקה' משמע שחלק אחד נתן לאחר. וכתב לך לשון זה מפני שחלק האחד הוא נשאר לעשות בו נס לבניו, ופירוש רז"ל (ב"ר מג, ג) הוא קרוב יותר לפי פשוטו:
Interesting point however, see Emes L'Yaakov who explains that the pashut reading of the passuk according to the trop of the passuk follows the simple interpretation brought by Rashi. Which comes out a very interesting thing: The Gur Aryeh is saying that the simple "reading" of the passuk follows the Midrashic interpretation, but R' Yaakov is saying that the "trop" follows the simple interpretation, which implies that trop and simple reading are not mutually exclusive. I think there is a proof from the Gemara in Megilla that peshuto shel mikra and trop are indeed not mutually exclusive.
אָמַר רַב אִיקָא בַּר אָבִין אָמַר רַב חֲנַנְאֵל אָמַר רַב: מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּקְרְאוּ בְּסֵפֶר תּוֹרַת הָאֱלֹהִים מְפוֹרָשׁ וְשׂוֹם שֶׂכֶל וַיָּבִינוּ בַּמִּקְרָא״. ״וַיִּקְרְאוּ בְּסֵפֶר תּוֹרַת הָאֱלֹהִים״ — זֶה מִקְרָא; ״מְפוֹרָשׁ״ — זֶה תַּרְגּוּם; ״וְשׂוֹם שֶׂכֶל״ — אֵלּוּ הַפְּסוּקִין; ״וַיָּבִינוּ בַּמִּקְרָא״ — אֵלּוּ פִּיסְקֵי טְעָמִים, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ — אֵלּוּ הַמָּסוֹרֹת!
Rav Ika bar Avin say that Rav Ḥananel said that Rav said: What is the meaning of that which is written with respect to the days of Ezra: “And they read in the book, the Torah of God, distinctly; and they gave the sense, and they caused them to understand the reading” (Nehemiah 8:8)? The verse should be understood as follows: “And they read in the book, the Torah of God,” this is the scriptural text; “distinctly,” this is the translation, indicating that they immediately translated the text into Aramaic, as was customary during public Torah readings. “And they gave the sense,” these are the divisions of the text into separate verses. “And they caused them to understand the reading,” these are the cantillation notes, through which the meaning of the text is further clarified. And some say that these are the Masoretic traditions with regard to the manner in which each word is to be written.
---
(טו) וְאִתְפְּלֵיג לְהוֹם לֵילְיָא, בְּאָרְחָא פַלְגוּתָא אַגְחָן עִם מַלְכַיָא וּפַלְגוּתָא אַצְטִינְיָיא לְמִימְחֵי בּוּכְרַיָא בְּמִצְרַיִם...
(15) And he divided the night for them; for one half He waged war with the kings, and the [second] half part was hidden to smite the firstborn of Egypt...
(טו) וְאִתְפְּלֵג עֲלֵיהוֹן לֵילְיָא הוּא וְעַבְדוֹהִי...
(15) He divided [his men] against them at night...
(א) ויחלק עליהם לילה בליליא (יא"ר, לסבונא, יוני, קוסטנטינא, אנוירשא וסביוניטה), וברוב הספרים ליליא, ולא יתכן על פשט הכתוב, אלא לפי מדרש אגדה.
Endnote:
It emerges that Targum Onkelos and Targum Yonasan share a similar interpretation of the passuk; the Midrashic one.
It's worth noting that Onkelos was a disciple of Rav Yehoshua and R' Eliezer, who, in turn, were students of Rav Yochanan ben Zakkai. Rav Yochanan ben Zakkai was the least great student of Hillel and Shammai. On the other hand, Yonasan ben Uziel was considered the greatest student of Hillel and Shammai.
This common lineage suggests that both Onkelos and Targum Yonasan drew from the same original source of knowledge, namely Hillel and Shammai.
Perhaps for this reason that is why Onkelos and Targum Yonasan are following similar approaches, because they were exposed to the Midrashic interpretation of the verses, which Hillel and Shamai considered to be the primary understanding of the text.
Regardless, it brings up an interesting parenthetic conversation between the two Targumim on the Torah, Targum Yonasan and Targum Onkelos)
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא: תַּרְגּוּם שֶׁל תּוֹרָה — אוּנְקְלוֹס הַגֵּר אֲמָרוֹ מִפִּי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. תַּרְגּוּם שֶׁל נְבִיאִים — יוֹנָתָן בֶּן עוּזִּיאֵל אֲמָרוֹ מִפִּי חַגַּי זְכַרְיָה וּמַלְאָכִי...
וְעוֹד בִּיקֵּשׁ לְגַלּוֹת תַּרְגּוּם שֶׁל כְּתוּבִים, יָצְתָה בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה לוֹ: דַּיֶּיךָּ! מַאי טַעְמָא — מִשּׁוּם דְּאִית בֵּיהּ קֵץ מָשִׁיחַ.
§ The Gemara cites another ruling of Rabbi Yirmeya or Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. Rabbi Yirmeya said, and some say that it was Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba who said: The Aramaic translation of the Torah used in the synagogues was composed by Onkelos the convert based on the teachings of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua. The Aramaic translation of the Prophets was composed by Yonatan ben Uzziel based on a tradition going back to the last prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi...
And Yonatan ben Uzziel also sought to reveal a translation of the Writings, but a Divine Voice emerged and said to him: It is enough for you that you translated the Prophets. The Gemara explains: What is the reason that he was denied permission to translate the Writings? Because it has in it a revelation of the end, when the Messiah will arrive. The end is foretold in a cryptic manner in the book of Daniel, and were the book of Daniel translated, the end would become manifestly revealed to all.
Now, the real head-scratcher here is that we've been holding onto the notion of a "Targum Yonasan" in our Chumashim for ages. But here's the kicker: It might not be from Targum Yonasan at all!
This revelation is akin to discovering that your all-time favorite book was penned by a completely different author than you'd believed all along. It's a real mind-bender that's making us reevaluate everything we thought we knew!
See the Yaavetz who writes:
