# **Studies in Rabbinic Hebrew**

### **EDITED BY SHAI HEIJMANS**

This volume presents a collec� on of ar� cles centring on the language of the Mishnah and the Talmud — the most important Jewish texts (a� er the Bible), which were compiled in Pales� ne and Babylonia in the la� er centuries of Late An� quity. Despite the fact that Rabbinic Hebrew has been the subject of growing academic interest across the past

Studies in Rabbinic Hebrew

Studies in Rabbinic Hebrew addresses this lacuna, with eight lucid but technically rigorous ar� cles wri� en in English by a range of experienced scholars, focusing on various aspects of Rabbinic Hebrew: its phonology, morphology, syntax, pragma� cs and lexicon. This volume is essen� al reading for students and scholars of Rabbinic studies alike, and appears in a new series, Studies in Semi� c Languages and Cultures, in collabora� on with the Faculty of

As with all Open Book publica� ons, this en� re book is available to read for free on the publisher's website. Printed and digital edi� ons, together with supplementary digital **Studies in Rabbinic Hebrew**

**Heijmans**

**OBP**

**2**

*Cover image: A fragment from the Cairo Genizah, containing Mishnah Shabbat 9:7-11:2 with Babylonian vocalisat on (Cambridge University Library, T-S E1.47). Courtesy of the Syndics of* 

> ebook and OA edi� ons also available

book

e

**OPEN ACCESS**

century, very li� le scholarship has been wri� en on it in English.

Shai Heijmans (ed.)

Asian and Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Cambridge.

material, can also be found here: www.openbookpublishers.com

*Cambridge University Library. Cover design: Luca Baff a*

### To access digital resources including: blog posts videos online appendices

and to purchase copies of this book in: hardback paperback ebook editions

Go to: **htps://www.openbookpublishers.com/product/952**

Open Book Publishers is a non-proft independent initiative. We rely on sales and donations to continue publishing high-quality academic works.

# STUDIES IN RABBINIC HEBREW

# Studies in Rabbinic Hebrew

*Edited by Shai Heijmans*

https://www.openbookpublishers.com

© 2020 Shai Heijmans. Copyright of individual chapters is maintained by the chapters' authors.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0). This license allows you to share, copy, distribute and transmit the text; to adapt the text and to make commercial use of the text providing attribution is made to the authors (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). Attribution should include the following information:

Shai Heijmans (ed.), *Studies in Rabbinic Hebrew.* Cambridge, UK: Open Book Publishers, 2020, https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0164

In order to access detailed and updated information on the license, please visit, https:// doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0164#copyright

Further details about CC BY licenses are available at, https://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/

All external links were active at the time of publication unless otherwise stated and have been archived via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine at https://archive.org/web

Updated digital material and resources associated with this volume are available at https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0164#resources

Every effort has been made to identify and contact copyright holders and any omission or error will be corrected if notification is made to the publisher.

Semitic Languages and Cultures 2.

ISSN (print): 2632-6906 ISSN (digital): 2632-6914

ISBN Paperback: 978-1-78374-680-4 ISBN Hardback: 978-1-78374-681-1 ISBN Digital (PDF): 978-1-78374-682-8 ISBN Digital ebook (epub): 978-1-78374-683-5 ISBN Digital ebook (mobi): 978-1-78374-684-2 ISBN XML: 978-1-78374-768-9 DOI: 10.11647/OBP.0164

Cover image: A fragment from the Cairo Genizah, containing Mishnah Shabbat 9:7-12:4 with Babylonian vocalisation (Cambridge University Library, T-S E1.47). Courtesy of the Syndics of Cambridge University Library. Cover design: Luca Baffa

### **CONTENTS**




### **INTRODUCTION**

The present volume contains eight articles on topics related to Rabbinic Hebrew. Seven out of the eight are revised versions of papers read at the Rabbinic Hebrew Workshop that was held at the University of Cambridge on the 5th and 6th of July, 2016. The eighth, my own article, is a translated and revised chapter from my doctoral dissertation.

Since the establishment of the Regius Chair of Hebrew by Henry VIII in 1540 the study of Hebrew has occupied a permanent place in the Cantabrigian curriculum.1 As might be expected, Rabbinics and Rabbinic Hebrew were of lesser interest to the academic community in Cambridge than Biblical Hebrew, at least during the frst fve centuries of the University's existence. But the second half of the 19th century saw important developments which secured Cambridge's place on the world map of Rabbinic studies: in 1875 Schiller-Szinessy was appointed Reader in Talmudic and Rabbinic literature; in 1877 Charles Taylor, the Master of St. John's College, published the Hebrew text of Tractate *Aboth* from Codex Cambridge of the Mishnah with an English translation; in 1883 Wlliam Henry Lowe published the entire text of the Cambridge Mishnah codex; and in 1890 Solomon Schechter was appointed as Schiller-Szinessy's successor, in which capacity, a few years

<sup>1</sup> The study of Hebrew in Cambridge had begun even before that. For example, the statutes of St. John's College from 1524 and 1530 made provision for a lecturer in Hebrew (at an annual salary of £4–£5) to tutor the senior students each day. In fact, in 1535 and again in 1537 the lectureship in mathematics had to be suspended to provide the salaries for the Hebrew and Greek lecturers; see Stefan C. Reif, *Hebrew Manuscripts at Cambridge University Library*, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997, p. 3. Whether the University would nowadays prioritise thus is unclear.

later, he examined the *genizah* of the Ben-Ezra synagogue in Cairo — a collection that after its transfer to Cambridge would have an unparalleled impact on the world of Rabbinic studies in general and Rabbinic Hebrew in particular. It is my hope that this volume will be an additional contribution to Cambridge's long and distinguished history of Hebrew research.

The modern academic study of Rabbinic Hebrew, which originated in the frst half of the 20th century with Moses Hirsch Segal's seminal article on Mishnaic Hebrew and his subsequent *Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew*, 2 shifted to the new-born state of Israel in the second half of that century. The ground-breaking works of Jacob Nahum Epstein, Hanoch Yalon and Eduard Yechezkel Kutscher, as well as the works that followed them, were and continue to be written almost exclusively in Modern Hebrew,3 making the feld quite inaccessible to those unfamiliar with the language. Fortunately, the situation seems to be changing, and works on Mishnaic Hebrew appear more often in English. Special mention should be made to the volume of collected articles in the 37th instalment of *Scripta Hierosolymitana*, edited by Bar-Asher and Fassberg, and to the proceedings volume of the Yale Symposium on Mishnaic Hebrew, edited by Bar-Asher Siegal and Koller.4

<sup>2</sup> Moses Hirsch Segal, "Mišnaic Hebrew and its Relation to Biblical Hebrew and to Aramaic", *Jewish Quarterly Review* (Old Series) 20 (1908), pp. 647–737; idem, *A grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew*, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1927.

<sup>3</sup> For an up-to-date description of research into Rabbinic Hebrew and its achievements, see Yehudit Henshke and Moshe Bar-Asher, "Mishnaic Hebrew" (in Hebrew), in: Menahem Kahana et al. (eds.), *The Classic Rabbinic Literature of Eretz Israel: Introductions and Studies*, Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2018, vol. 2, pp. 601–634.

<sup>4</sup> Moshe Bar-Asher and Steven E. Fassberg (eds.), *Studies in Mishnaic Hebrew* (Scripta Hierosolymitana, vol. 37), Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1998;

It is a pleasure to express my gratitude to Prof. Geofrey Khan, for wholeheartedly supporting the idea of holding a Rabbinic Hebrew Workshop, and for making it fnancially possible to organise it. It is largely due to his encouragement that both the Workshop and the present volume came into being. I would also like to thank all invited lecturers for their contributions and for meeting various deadlines, rendering the editing process smooth and efective.

I am especially grateful to the administrative staf of the Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern studies, as well as the staf of Gonville and Caius College, for their kind yet indispensable assistance, both before and during the Workshop. Special thanks go to Open Book Publishers, and especially to Alessandra Tosi, for her patience and guidance, and to Luca Bafa, for expertly typesetting this challenging volume. And fnally, I would like to express my special thanks to Aaron Hornkohl, for correcting the English language of the articles, for preparing the index, and for making numerous suggestions that improved the manuscript considerably.

> Shai Heijmans Cambridge, September 2019

Elitzur A. Bar-Asher Siegal and Aaron J. Koller, *Studies in Mishnaic Hebrew and Related Fields: Proceedings of the Yale Symposium on Mishaic Hebrew, May 2014*, Jerusalem: Magnes Press and the Academy of the Hebrew Language, 2017.

### **1. RABBA AND RAVA, ʾABBA AND ʾAVA:**

### SPELLING, PRONUNCIATION AND MEANING

*Yochanan Breuer1*

#### **1. Introduction**

In the Babylonian Talmud there frequently occur two similar proper names that difer in spelling as well as pronunciation: רבה *Rabba* and רבא *Rava*; the former ends with a *heh* and has a doubled *bet*, while the latter ends with an *alef* and has singleton *bet*. Since these similar names tended to be confused with each other, Rav Hai Gaon was sent a question in which he was asked to attribute each name to the proper Amora. In his response he divided all the bearers of one of these names into two lists according to the correct form. At the end he added an explanation for the diference between the names — it stems from a diference between the nouns from which they are derived:

<sup>1</sup> This topic was the subject of a paper presented at a workshop on Mishnaic Hebrew which took place at the University of Cambridge on 5–6 July, 2016. I thank the organisers, Geofrey Khan and Shai Heijmans, and all the participants for their enriching comments. I also thank Chanan Ariel for his important comments on a previous version of this article.

ודעו כי ראבה — אַ בָ ה שמו, וזה ריש שהוסיפו עליו במקום רב; ורַ אבָ א — אֲ בָ א שמו, וזה ריש המוסף עליו כמו רב. ופירוש אַ בָ ה — כמי שאומר אָ בִ י; ופירוש אֲ בָ א — כמי שאומר אבא סתם. כי תרגום אבי — אבה; ותרגום וישימני לאב — ושויני אבא.

You should know that Rabba — his name is ה ָב ַא *ʾAbba*, and the *resh* which was added to it stands for *Rav*; and Rava — his name is א ָב ֲא *ʾAva*, and the *resh* which is added to it stands for *Rav*. And the meaning of ה ָב ַא *ʾAbba* is as one says 'my father'; and the meaning of א ָב ֲא *ʾAva* is as one says only 'a father'. Because the translation of אבי 'my father' is אבה, and the translation of לאב וישימני' and he has made me as a father' (Gen. 45.8) is אבא ושויני. 2

At the outset Rav Hai explains that the name רבה *Rabba* derives from the compound אבה רב *Rav ʾAbba*, while the name רבא *Rava* derives from the compound אבא רב *Rav ʾAva*. According to this explanation, the diference between the proper names results from a diference between the nouns *ʾabba* and *ʾava*. He goes on to explain the diference between these nouns, which is one not only of spelling and pronunciation, but also of meaning: the meaning of *ʾabba* is 'my father', and that of *ʾava* is 'a father'. He concludes by bringing examples from the Aramaic Targum: the Hebrew י ִב ָא 'my father' translated by the Aramaic ה ָב ַא *ʾabba*, while the Hebrew ב ָא' a father' is translated by the Aramaic א ָב ֲא *ʾava*. 3

<sup>2</sup> Shraga Abramson, *Tractate ʿAbodah Zarah of the Babylonian Talmud* (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1957), p. 129. The vocalisation is copied from the source. Another version of this responsum was published by Benjamin M. Lewin, *ʾIggeret Rav Sherira Gaon* (in Hebrew; Haifa: Golda-Itskovski, 1921), appendices, pp. xiv–xv, according to MS Parma 327, but this version is missing and incomprehensible, and it is a wonder that Lewin did not comment on this.

<sup>3</sup> For a discussion of this responsum see Shraga Abramson, "Qetaʿ geniza mi-Yerushalmi Shabbat pereq ha-matsniaʿ" (in Hebrew), *Kobez Al Yad: Minora Manuscripta Hebraica* 8/18 (1976), pp. 1–13, at pp. 7–9. He notes that he could not fnd a text that preserved this distinction, but Rav Hai may have had a Targum version where this distinction did exist. I, too,

It is not clear whether this distinction existed in the living language or only in the copying and reading tradition of the Targum. The structure of the response seems to point to living language, since the distinction is introduced at the outset, while the Targum is only presented at the end in order to supply a proof or an example. In any case, we have here an important testimony of a distinction so far unknown from any other source. This distinction deserves an explanation: how did this threefold distinction evolved, according to which אבה *ʾabba* means 'my father' while אבא ʾava means 'a father'?

I will frst introduce the classical forms in Hebrew and Aramaic relevant to our discussion:


have been unable to fnd any text that preserves this distinction; see the appendix below. Of course, the parallel distinction between רבה *Rabba* and רבא *Rava* does exist. In the case of proper names there is a recognisable tendency to use *heh* for a fnal *a* vowel even in the Babylonian Talmud; see Yechiel Kara, "Babylonian Aramaic in the Yemenite Manuscripts of the Babylonian Talmud" (in Hebrew; PhD dissertation, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1982), p. 41; Shamma Yehuda Friedman, "Early Manuscripts of Tractate Bava Metzia" (in Hebrew), *Alei Sefer* 9 (1981), pp. 5–55, at pp. 14–16. It seems that this tendency, together with the infuence of Rav Hai's response and the necessity to diferentiate between personalities, combined to preserve this distinction specifcally in these proper names. However, even in these names it is not preserved in all sources, and this has led some scholars to conclude that the very distinction is not original; see Shamma Yehuda Friedman, "Orthography of the Names Rabbah and Rava in the Babylonian Talmud" (in Hebrew), *Sinai* 110 (1992), pp. 140–164; Eljakim Wajsberg, "The spelling of the Name of Rava bar Yosef in the שבת למסכת גאונים הלכות ספר) "in Hebrew), *Leshonenu* 57 (1993), pp. 157–173; idem, "The Orthography of the Names Rabba and Rava: Rav Hai's and Rivalling Rules" (in Hebrew), *Language Studies* 5–6 (1992; *Israel Yeivin Festschrift*), pp. 181–214; Kara, *Babylonian Aramaic*, p. 41.


This system underwent certain changes in Late Hebrew as well as in Late Aramaic.

#### **2. The** *dagesh*

The *bet* of this noun was originally singleton, as in Hebrew *ʾaviḵa* and Aramaic *ʾavuḵ*. At a certain point, only the *bet* of the Aramaic emphatic form was geminated: *ʾabba*. This happened only in Western Aramaic. 4 In Eastern Aramaic, as far as we know, the *bet* was not doubled.5 Accordingly, a diference between Western and

<sup>4</sup> Thus the transcription αββα in the New Testament: καὶ ἔλεγεν, Αββα ὁ πατήρ 'and he said, Abba, Father' (Mark 14.36); ἐν ᾧ κράζομεν, Αββα ὁ πατήρ 'whereby we cry, Abba, Father' (Rom. 8.15); κρᾶζον, Αββα ὁ πατήρ 'crying, Abba, Father' (Gal. 4.6). So also in the Palestinian Targumim, in Christian Palestinian Aramaic and in manuscripts of Rabbinic Literature; see Steven E. Fassberg, *A Grammar of the Palestinian Targum Fragments from the Cairo Genizah* (Harvard Semitic Studies, vol. 38, Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), pp. 66, 126, 137; Friedrich Schulthess, *Grammatik des christlichpalästinensischen Aramäisch* (Tübingen: Mohr–Siebeck, 1924), pp. 42–43; Eduard Y. Kutscher, *Words and Their History* (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Kiryat Sepher, 1961, p. 2. For examples see below, sections 4–5. According to Schulthess, the *dagesh* was added under the infuence of *ʾimma* (so also Kutscher, see ibid.). As Schulthess noted, the vowel of the frst syllable was also changed into an *e* vowel, this also under the infuence of *ʾimma*. However, it seems that this change is attested only in Aramaic.

<sup>5</sup> In Syriac the *bet* is not doubled; see Theodor Nöldeke, *Compendious Syriac Grammar*, transl. James A. Crichton (London: Williams and Norgate, 1904), p. 91; Carl Brockelmann, *Syrische Grammatik* (Leipzig: Verlag Enzyklopädie, 1960), pp. 58, 149\*. Kutscher, *Words*, p. 2, too, pointed out that in Syriac there is no *dagesh*, while in Palestine at the end of the Second Temple period and afterwards both forms lived side by side, which means that the *dagesh* is to be found only in Western Aramaic.

Eastern Aramaic evolved: in Eastern Aramaic *ʾava*, in Western Aramaic *ʾabba*.

#### **3. Eastern Aramaic**

In Eastern Aramaic two general processes changed the original system: frst, the (originally) emphatic form came to be used in all circumstances, so columns 1–2 integrated. Second, the vowel that stands for the 1 sg. pronominal sufx dropped, and the pronominal sufx came to be expressed by the absence of a vowel.6 Accordingly, the form of column 3 is *ʾav*; this is the form in Syriac and Mandaic and to some extent also in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic. Examples:

Meanings 1–2 — *ʾava*:

אית לן — (44.20 .Gen' (father old an have we 'יֶש־לָ֙נו֙ אָ ֣ ב זָ קֵ֔ ן :Syriac .(Peshitta (אבא סבא

Mandaic: אבא ליתלאן לדילאן' we have no father'.7

Rudolf Macuch, *Handbook of Classical and Modern Mandaic* (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1965), p. 33, also wrote that the *bet* has no *dagesh*, but since there is no vocalisation system, this pronunciation is only conjectured; see Theodor Nöldeke, *Mandäische Grammatik* (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1964), pp. 36–37.

6 For Syriac see, e.g., Brockelmann, *Syrische Grammatik*, p. 58. For Mandaic see Nöldeke, *Mandäische Grammatik*, pp. 88, 175; Macuch, *Handbook*, pp. 132, 169; Ethel S. Drower and Rudolf Macuch, *A Mandaic Dictionary* (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963), p. 1. For Babylonian Aramaic see Jacob N. Epstein, *A Grammar of Babylonian Aramaic* (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1960), p. 122; Michael Sokolof, *A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic* (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2002), p. 72; Yochanan Breuer, "Rabbi is Greater than Rav, Rabban is Greater than Rabbi, the Simple Name is Greater than Rabban" (in Hebrew), *Tarbiẓ* 66 (1997), pp. 41–59, at pp. 53–54.

<sup>7</sup> Nöldeke, *Mandäische Grammatik*, p. 431.

 of relative a 'קריביה דר׳ יוחנן הוה ליה איתת אבא :Aramaic Babylonian R. Yochanan had a father's wife' (*b.Ketuboth* 52b); אלא אמרן ולא concern said we what and 'באחי דאבא אבל באחי דאימא לית לן בה only the father's brothers, but concerning the mother's brothers this is not valid' (*b.Baba Metzia* 39b).8

Meaning 3 — *ʾav*:

 only the that Is 'הַ ֽ בְ רָ כָ֙ ה אַ חַ ֤ ת הִֽ וא־לְ ך֙ אָ בִ֔ י בָ רֲ כֵ ֥נִי גַ ם־אָ ֖ נִי אָ בִ ֑ י :Syriac blessing you have, my father? Give a blessing also to me, even בורכתא חדא הי לך אבי ברכיני אף לי — (27.38 .Gen' (father my ,me .אבי 9

Mandaic: דאב שותא תיהויא כמא' how will be the conversation of my father'.10

 who 'האיי חרובא מאן שתליה אמ׳ ליה אבוה דאב :Aramaic Babylonian planted this carob tree, so he said, my father's father' (*b.Taanith* 23a according to **He**).11

<sup>8</sup> The text of the quotations from Rabbinic Literature, unless otherwise specifed, is according to the text that is presented in the *Maagarim* database of the Historical Dictionary Project of the Academy of the Hebrew Language, accessible at http://maagarim.hebrew-academy.org.il.

<sup>9</sup> The fnal *yod* in Syriac is only an archaic spelling, and the pronunciation is *ʾav*.

<sup>10</sup> Nöldeke, *Mandäische Grammatik*, p. 437.

<sup>11</sup> This form survived only rarely in Babylonian Aramaic due to the penetration of *ʾabba* (see below, paragraph 6). For example, in this quotation the reading is דאבא אבוה in the following manuscripts: **GF22 LH M95 M140 O23 V134** (for these abbreviations see the end of this footnote). Beyond this case, I have found it only in two places (both are mentioned in Sokolof, *A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic*, p. 72): (1) in *b.Baba Bathra* 159a it appears in all the witnesses, including once in the printed editions (the full quotations are according to the printed (occurrence frst the (ומאי קושיא דלמא מצי אמר מכח אבוה דאבא קאתינא (editions 'What objection is this! Could he not reply, I succeed to the rights of the

#### The following is the system in Eastern Aramaic:


father of my father?': דאב — **E F Ha165 M95 Ps1337**; מכח אמר נמי הכא קאתינא דאבא אבוה' in this case also he might plead, I come as successor to the rights of my father's father': דאבא — **Ha165**; דאב — **E F M95 Ps1337**; אתיא קא דאבא אבוה מכח אי' if I come as successor to the rights of my father's ומאי קושיא דלמא מצי אמר ;**95M** — דאביך ;**1337Ps 165Ha E** — דאב :'father קאתינא דאבא אבוה מכח) the second occurrence) 'But what difculty is this? Could he not reply, I succeed to the rights of my father's father?': דאב — **E F Ps1337**; דאכ — **M95**; missing — **Ha165**; קאימנא אב ובמקום' but take also the place of my father': so also **E F Ha165 M95 Ps1337**. In the last two cases the reading is דאב, אב also in a Geonic responsum; see Simcha Asaf, *Geonic Responsa and Fragments of Halachic Literature from the Genizah and Other Sources* (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Darom, 1933), p. 28. (2) ולא מאב אח ,maternal my not but ,paternal my 'מאם והוא בעלה דאם ואנא ברתה דאנתתיה brother, and he is the husband of my mother, and I am the daughter of his wife' (*b.Yebamoth* 97b according to the printed editions, similarly בייא בייא מאח והוא אב והוא בעל והוא בר בעל והוא בעלה דאם ואנא ברתה ;(141M דאיתתיה' woe, woe, for my brother who is my father; he is my husband and the son of my husband; he is the husband of my mother and I am the daughter of his wife' (ibid., according to the printed editions, similarly **M141**); compare Rashi ad loc., who 'restored' the unseen pronominal בייא מאח — קובלת אני על אחי שהוא אבי ובעלי :rendering Hebrew his in sufxes בעלי ובן' *bayya meʾaḥ* — I complain about my brother who is my father and my husband and the son of my husband'. See also Eliezer Shimshon Rosenthal, "Rav ben-aḥi R. Ḥiyya gam ben-aḥoto?", in Saul Lieberman, Shraga Abramson, Eduard Y. Kutscher and Shaul Esh (eds.), *Henoch Yalon Jubilee Volume* (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sepher, 1963), pp. 281–337, at p. 287, n. 14, who mentioned the case in *b.Yebamoth*. The following are the abbreviations for the Manuscripts: **Co** = Columbia X893-T141; **E** = Escorial G-I-3; **F** = Florence II-I-7; **G** = Göttingen 3; **GF22** = Genizah fragment, Oxford Heb. e. 22/10; **Ha165** = Hamburg 165; **He** = Yad Harav Herzog; **LH** = London Harley 5508; **M140** = Munich 140; **M141** = Munich 141; **M6** = Munich 6; **M95** = Munich 95; **O23** = Oxford Opp. Add. Fol. 23; **Ps1337** = Paris 1337; **V109** = Vatican 109; **V125** = Vatican 125; **V134** = Vatican 134.

#### **4. Western Aramaic**

In Western Aramaic the distinction between the emphatic and non-emphatic forms was preserved, so the diference between columns 1–2 was maintained. On the other hand, the meaning of the emphatic form *ʾabba* was expanded to include meaning 3 'my father' and it supplanted the original form *ʾavi* altogether.12 The following examples demonstrate only meaning 3 (in meanings 1–2 the original forms were maintained):

 and relations my from 'מִ מִ שְ פַ חְ תִ ֖ י ומִ בֵ ֥ית אָ בִֽ י :Aramaic Galilean my father's house' (Gen. 24.40) — דאבא ביתיה ומן זרעיתי מן) Targum אמ׳ ליה את שמעת מאבוך הדא מילתא אמ׳ ליה אבא לא הוה אמר 13;(Neophiti טב בעין אלא כן' he said to him: did you hear this from your father? He said to him: my father said so only in *Ein Tav*' (*y.Berakhoth* 7c with been has father my of God the but 'וֵ ֽאלהֵ ֣י אָ בִ֔ י הָ יָ ֖ה עִ מָ דִֽ י ;([4.1] .ואלדה אבה הווה בסעדי — (31.5 .Gen' (me 14

14 Michael L. Klein, *Genizah manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch* (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1986), vol. 1, p. 53.

<sup>12</sup> For Christian Palestinian Aramaic see Friedrich Schulthess, *Lexicon Syropalaestinum* (Berlin: Reimer, 1903), p. 1. For Samaritan Aramaic see Abraham Tal, *A Dictionary of Samaritan Aramaic* (Leiden: Brill, 2000), p. 1. For Galilean Aramaic see Michael Sokolof, *A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine period* (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1990), p. 31; Caspar Levias, *A Grammar of Galilean Aramaic* (in Hebrew; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1986), p. 55, n. 1, where he notes that the nouns א ָב ַא *ʾabba*, א ָמ ִא *ʾimma*, א ָח ֲא *ʾaḥa* never take the 1 sg. pronominal sufx. Indeed, I have not found in Galilean Aramaic sources the form *ʾavi* in this function. According to Gustaf Dalman, *Grammatik des jüdisch-palästinischen Aramäisch* (2nd ed.; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1905), pp. 90–91, the fnal *a* vowel in this function does not refect the defnite article but is a form of the 1 sg. pronominal sufx *ay* which was contracted into *a*. Even if this is correct, the result is a merge of columns 2–3.

<sup>13</sup> Alejandro Díez Macho, *Neophyti 1: Targum Palestinense*, vol. 1 (Textos y Estudios, vol. 7; Madrid–Barcelona: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científcas, 1968), p. 143.

 and relations my from 'מִ מִ שְ פַ חְ תִ ֖ י ומִ בֵ ֥ית אָ בִֽ י :Aramaic Samaritan my father's house' (Gen. 24.40) — אבה ומבית מכרני. 15

 me made father my 'אָ בִ֞ י הִ שְ בִ יעַ ֣נִי :Aramaic Palestinian Christian take an oath' (Gen. 50.5) — יתי אומי אבא; אֲ שֶ ֣ ר שָ מַ֗ רְ תָ לְ עַ בְ דְ ך֙ דָ וִ ֣ד <sup>16</sup> י ִ֔ב ָא' which you gave to your servant David, my father' (1 Kgs .מא דנטרת לעבדך דויד אבא — (8.24 17

Accordingly, in contrast with Eastern Aramaic, where columns 1–2 merged, in Western Aramaic it was columns 2–3 that merged:


#### **5. Mishnaic Hebrew**

The Aramaic form *ʾabba* was borrowed into Mishnaic Hebrew and is very common in Rabbinic Literature. However, it is used only in the (new) meaning 'my father'.18 It is never used in the original Aramaic meaning 'the father', where the original Hebrew form *ha-ʾav* is maintained.19 Here are some examples of the diferent forms:

<sup>15</sup> Abraham Tal, *The Samaritan Targum of the Pentateuch: A Critical Edition*, vol. 1 (Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University, 1980), p. 86.

<sup>16</sup> Christa Müller–Kessler and Michael Sokolof, *The Christian Palestinian Aramaic Old Testament and Apocrypha Version from the Early Period* (Corpus of Christian Palestinian Aramaic, vol. 1; Groningen: Styx, 1997), p. 22.

<sup>17</sup> Ibid., p. 55.

<sup>18</sup> See Abraham Geiger, *Lehr- und Lesebuch zur Sprache der Mischnah* (Breslau: Leuckart, 1845), p. 50; Jacob Levy, *Wörterbuch über die Talmudim und Midraschim*, vol. 1 (Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1876), p. 3; Marcus Jastrow, *A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi and Midrashic Literature* (London: Luzac, 1903), p. 2. Levy and Jastrow combined Hebrew and Aramaic in the same entry.

<sup>19</sup> Geiger, *Lehr- und Lesebuch*, p. 50, brought the following mishnah as האומ׳ לאשה הרי את מקודשת לי ]...[ על מנת שירצה אבא רצה האב :example an


מקודשת' if a man said to a woman: be you betrothed to me […] on the condition that my father consents, and the father consented, her betrothal is valid' (*m.Kiddushin* 3.6). Similarly, in the following quotation there is a distinction between *ʾabba* 'my father' and *ha-ʾav* 'the father', and also between *ʾabba* 'my father' and *bni* 'my child' (with the normal frst person על מנת שתשמשי את אבא שתי שנים ועל מנת שתניקי את בני :(sufx pronominal :said he if '[שתי שנים מת הבן או שא׳ האב אי אפשי שתשמשיני שלא בהקפדא אינו גט here is your *get*] on condition that you wait on my father for two years, or suckle my child two years, and the child dies, or the father says: I do not want you to wait on me, without being angry with her, the *get* is not valid' (*m.Gittin* 7.6). In Modern Hebrew *ʾabba* has the meaning 'the father', but mainly within the family circle, making clear to which father is referred, as in 'the king' within that king's monarchy; see Shoshana Bahat and Mordechay Mishor, *Dictionary of Contemporary Hebrew* (Jerusalem: Maʿariv and Eitav, 1995), p. 9. Thus, it takes the function of (and may have been infuenced by) similar words in European languages, such as English *dad*, German *Papa* and Yiddish *tate* — showing a clear diference from *ha-ʾav*.

20 It appears only twice in Tannaitic literature and in seven places in Amoraic recall I 'זכור אני שהיה אבי מקרא אותי את הפסוק הזה בבית הכנסת .,g.e ,literature my father read with me this verse in the synagogue' (*y.Sanhedrin* 28c [10.2]).

that it does not appear in the Mishna; it may have been reintroduced towards the end of the Tannaitic period.

This is the system in Mishnaic Hebrew:


#### **6. Babylonian Aramaic**

In Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, which belongs to Eastern Aramaic, columns 1–2 are in accordance with Eastern Aramaic. However, in column 3, the expected form *ʾav* almost completely vanished and the form *ʾabba* took its place.21 Here are two examples: אמר Amemar of son Mar 'ליה מר בר אמימר לרב אשי אבא מגמע ליה גמועי said to Rav Ashe: my father did indeed drink it' (*b.Pesahim* 74b);22 הכי שלחא ליה בר אהוריאריה דאבא את אבא לקביל אלפא חמרא שתי ולא רוי הוה' She sent him back an answer: you, son of my father's steward. My father drank wine in the presence of a thousand and did not get drunk' (*b.Megillah* 12b).23 This means that two of the aforementioned processes operated in Babylonian Aramaic: columns 1–2 merged as in Eastern Aramaic, columns 2–3 merged as in Western Aramaic, and as a result the same form appears in all three columns.24

<sup>21</sup> See Sokolof, *A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic*, p. 72.

<sup>22</sup> So also **Co M6 M95 V125 V109 V134**.

קורבא דאחווה אית לי בהדה מאבה ולאו מאימא also See **140**.**M 95M LH G** also So 23 'I am fraternally related to her on my father's side but not on my mother's אֲ חֹתִ ֤ י בַ ת־אָ בִ י֙ הִ֔ וא verse Biblical the to refers which ,)b58 *Sanhedrin.b*' (side י ֑ ִמ ִת־א ַב א ֹ֣ ל ך ֖ ַא' she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother' (Gen. 20.12).

<sup>24</sup> This is also the case in Targum Onkelos , to which the quotation cited from Rav Hai refers.

How did the form *ʾabba* reach column 3 ('my father')? There are two possibilities: either it was an independent process, similar to what happened in Western Aramaic, 25 or it is a borrowing from Mishnaic Hebrew.26 Here we should point once again to

26 Even if this form did exist in Syriac, it is very marginal, while in Babylonian Aramaic this is the main form, so at least its wide distribution has to be attributed to Hebrew infuence. It should be emphasised that in Western Aramaic *ʾabba* is the only form in all dialects, and the original *ʾavi*

<sup>25</sup> This possibility also depends on the question of the extent to which this phenomenon occurs in Syriac. As noted above, the normal form for this meaning in Syriac is *ʾav*. I have checked the entire Pentateuch according to the version of the Leiden edition (accessible via the site of *The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon Project:* http://cal1.cn.huc.edu) and found that Hebrew *ʾavi* is always translated by *ʾav*, except for Gen. 22.7, where it is translated by *ʾava* . According to some readings, it appears several times in the New Testament: Matthew 10.32; 15.13; Luke 2.49; John 6.32; see Michael Sokolof, *A Syriac Lexicon: A Translation from the Latin, Correction, Expansion, and Update of C. Brockelmann's Lexicon Syriacum* (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2009), p. 1. However, in all these places the reading is *ʾav* according to the British Foreign Bible Society edition (presented on the site mentioned above). In *CAL ʾava* is listed in this meaning according to Matthew 6.15, but according to the abovementioned edition the reading is *ʾavuḵon*. It seems thus that the main form is *ʾav*, not *ʾava*. This is supported by the fact that where the Greek has αββα ὁ πατήρ (see above, note 3) it is translated *ʾava ʾav* (Mark 14.36) or *ʾava ʾavun* (Romans 8.15; Galatians 4.6), which shows that *ʾava* alone did not express this meaning (this translation is mentioned by Kutscher, *Words*, p. 1). However, it may also refect a desire to translate each word. It is interesting to note that in Mark 14.36 it is translated in the Peshitta *ʾava ʾav*, while in Christian Palestinian Aramaic it is translated *ʾabba ʾabba*; see Christa Müller–Kessler and Michael Sokolof, *The Christian Palestinian Aramaic New Testament Version from the Early Period: Gospels* (Corpus of Christian Palestinian Aramaic, vol. IIA, Groningen: Styx, 1998), p. 118. In Western Aramaic, where the only way to express 'my father' is *ʾabba*, there is no way but to repeat it, whereas in Syriac it is translated by *ʾav*. This is a clear manifestation of the diference between Western and Eastern Aramaic.

the testimony of Rav Hai, according to which the forms are not absolutely identical: in columns 1–2 it is *ʾava*, while in column 3 it is *ʾabba*. At least the *dagesh* (if not the very use) must have resulted from Mishnaic Hebrew infuence.27 I will reintroduce the two systems in the two languages used by Babylonian Jews, vocalised according to Rav Hai's testimony:


The diference between the columns is now explained: in Mishnaic Hebrew, *ʾabba* only exists in column 3 and has a *dagesh*. This form was borrowed by Babylonian Aramaic, and this is why the *dagesh* appears only in column 3. In columns 1–2 it does not exist in Mishnaic Hebrew and could not afect Babylonian Aramaic, so the original Eastern Aramaic forms were maintained.28

This explanation may also account for the diference in spelling. In the Babylonian Talmud a fnal *a* vowel is marked by *alef* in Aramaic words and by *heh* in Hebrew words, e.g., מעולם תנא בה אדם שנה לא' it was taught, no one ever repeated it' (*b.Yoma* אמ׳ ליה אביי ובלבד שיכניסם בצנעה לתוך ביתו אמ׳ ליה צנעא דהני יממא ;(a26 הוא' Abbaye said to him, [have we not learnt that] he should bring them into his house privately? He answered, the day is the

disappeared, while in Eastern Aramaic the original *ʾav* appears in all three dialects, so *ʾabba* seems to be foreign.

<sup>27</sup> To the best of my knowledge, there is no proof of direct infuence of Galilean Aramaic on Babylonian Aramaic, so the only language which can be considered is Mishnaic Hebrew.

<sup>28</sup> Even if we assume that the use of this form developed independently and only the *dagesh* is infuenced by Mishnaic Hebrew, in columns 1–2 it does not exist in Mishnaic Hebrew, so the original eastern form was preserved.

[time of] privacy for these' (*b.Moed Katan* 12b).29 According to my suggestion, the word in columns 1–2 is written with *alef* as an authentic Aramaic word, while in column 3 it is written with *heh* because it was borrowed from Hebrew.

For this explanation we need not assume a tradition of exceptional conservative power. In Babylonian Aramaic the form *ʾava* was the ordinary form. Speakers of Babylonian Aramaic were exposed to Tannaitic texts, where they found only *ʾabba* and only in the meaning 'my father', so the form and the meaning seemed to them connected. Since these two phenomena are typical of Hebrew texts, they viewed it as Hebrew, diferent from their Aramaic form *ʾava*.

#### **7. Mishnaic Hebrew — a bridge between Western and Eastern Aramaic**

According to this suggestion, the form *ʾabba* 'my father' was created in Western Aramaic, borrowed into Mishnaic Hebrew, and then made its way into Babylonian Aramaic. Both phenomena — infuence of Western Aramaic on Mishnaic Hebrew and infuence of Mishnaic Hebrew on Babylonian Aramaic — are well attested.30 Accordingly, Mishnaic Hebrew, which was studied

<sup>29</sup> On the spelling with *alef* in Babylonian Aramaic see Shelomo Morag, *The Book of Daniel: A Babylonian-Yemenite Manuscript* (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Kiryat Sepher, 1973), p. 15 and n. 6; Kara, *Babylonian Aramaic*, pp. 38–42; Eduard Y. Kutscher, *The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1 Q Isa*<sup>a</sup> *)* (Leiden: Brill, 1974), p. 164; idem, "Studies in Galilean Aramaic" (in Hebrew), in: Zeev Ben-Ḥayyim, Aharon Dotan, and Gad Sarfatti (eds.), *Hebrew and Aramaic Studies* (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1977), p. קעח and n. 8. On the spelling with *heh* in the Hebrew of the Babylonian Talmud see Yochanan Breuer, *The Hebrew in the Babylonian Talmud According to the Manuscripts of Tractate Pesaḥim* (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2002), pp. 27–37.

<sup>30</sup> Aramaic infuence is one of the most important factors in the shaping of Mishnaic Hebrew. For the infuence of Mishnaic Hebrew on Babylonian

by Jews in Palestine and Babylon alike, became a bridge between Western and Eastern Aramaic.

I will adduce another example for this process. The word כאן *kan* 'here' was created in Western Aramaic. Its Aramaic origin is proven by the lack of the Canaanite Shift (in contrast with its Hebrew cognate *ko*), and its Palestinian origin is proven by the addition of fnal *nun*. 31 This word was borrowed into Mishnaic Hebrew and then again into Babylonian Aramaic. As a result, we have in Babylonian Aramaic a doublet: the original Babylonian Aramaic הכא *haḵa* alongside the Western Aramaic loan *kan*. 32

#### **Appendix: did the distinction of spelling survive in the manuscripts?**

In the second footnote of this article I mentioned Shraga Abramson's conclusion, that the distinction of spelling according to meaning has not been preserved in the texts that have reached us. I have rechecked a list of manuscripts and have been unable

Aramaic see Yochanan Breuer, "The Hebrew Component in the Aramaic of the Babylonian Talmud" (in Hebrew), *Leshonenu* 62 (1999), pp. 23–80.


to confrm this distinction. I do not claim that such a distinction never existed. There is no reason to doubt Rav Hai's clear testimony that he was familiar with texts that exhibited this distinction, but so far we have not been able to trace them.

It is true that the spelling with *heh* is widespread in certain manuscripts, and one may conclude that this distinction does exist in them.33 Therefore I would like to present the considerations for my claim that this distinction has not yet been found.

In my view, the distinction is proven only if the two spellings are distributed according to meaning, not according to language; i.e., if one spelling is typical of Hebrew and one of Aramaic, then the spelling is governed by language, not by meaning. Since within Hebrew *ʾabba* is used in only meaning 3 ('my father'), this distinction cannot be found in Hebrew. Therefore, the question is only if this distinction is to be found in Aramaic. In order to check it, I chose a group of texts where a spelling with *heh* was preserved, and separated the data between Hebrew and Aramaic.34 I omitted proper names altogether, since according to the testimony of Rav Hai there are two distinct proper names, *ʾabba* and *ʾava*. In proper names it is impossible to know, whether by form or by context, the meaning of the name and, consequently, whether the spelling is dependent on the meaning. Spelling of names is thus useless for this investigation.

Hebrew, meaning 3 ('my father'; in Hebrew only this meaning is used):


<sup>33</sup> See Friedman, "Orthography", p. 141 n. 10.

<sup>34</sup> The data is collected from *Maagarim*, where it is easy to survey numerous sources, so the reading in each source is decided according to the manuscript selected for this source in *Maagarim*.


#### Aramaic:


Here are some examples:35

Hebrew:

Mishnah:

*Alef*: אבא בית' my father's house' (*m.Betzah* 2.6).

*Heh*: אבה לי שאמ׳' that my father said to me' (*m.Menahoth* 13.9).

Babylonian Talmud, tractate *Sukkah*:

*Alef*: אבא אחי אצל כשבאתי' when I came to my father's brother' (20b).

*Heh*: אבה אמ׳ כך' so said my father' (18a).

*Halachot Pesuqot*:

שלא פיקדנו אבה שלא אמר לנו אבה שלא מצינו בין :*heh*/*Alef* פרוע זה שטר שלאבא שטרותיו' that our father did not leave us any order, nor did our father tell us, nor have we found in the documents of our father that this note of indebtedness has been paid' (ed. Sassoon, p. קכד, line 19).

Aramaic (all the examples are from the Babylonian Talmud, tractate *Sanhedrin*):

Meaning 1:

*Alef*: ברא אפום אבא ונכיסנא' I will slaughter father with son' (25b).

Meaning 2:

 the of blows the 'טבא קולפי דאימא מן שוקיתא דאבא :*Alef* mother are better than the kisses of the father' (106a).

<sup>35</sup> The examples are brought to demonstrate the various kinds, while the conclusion relies on the numbers in the table.

Meaning 3:

*Alef*: הכי תתנינה לא אבא' my father, teach it not thus' (80b).

 am I 'קורבא דאחווה אית לי בהדה מאבה ולאו מאימא :*Heh* fraternally related to her on my father's side but not on my mother's side' (58b).

According to these fndings, the spelling with *heh* is widespread in Hebrew, but rare in Aramaic, as will be emphasised by two facts: (1) in Aramaic the spelling with *heh* occurs only four times, which is less than 4 percent of the occurrences of this word in Aramaic, and a little more than 6 percent of the occurrences of this word in meaning 3 in Aramaic. If we add to the total the Hebrew and the proper names, these four occurrences become such a small portion that no conclusion can be based on them. (2) In the book of *Halachot Pesuqot*, there are twice as many occurrences of the spelling with *heh* in Hebrew as with *alef*, while in Aramaic there is no spelling with *heh* whatsoever.

Accordingly, in these texts the spelling with *heh* is typical only of Hebrew, and if so, the spelling is dependent on language, not meaning.

This survey also explains the illusion that the distinction does exist in these texts: since the spelling with *heh* is widespread in Hebrew and is restricted to meaning 3 (which is the only meaning in Hebrew), while in Aramaic the normal spelling is with *alef* and is used in all meanings, it seems as if the spelling with *heh* is typical of meaning 3. However, separating the languages leads to the opposite conclusion: this distinction exists neither in Hebrew — where only meaning 3 exists, nor in Aramaic — where only the spelling with *alef* exists (with a few exceptions).

However, this very illusion seems to have created the distinction that probably existed in the texts mentioned by Rav Hai: since the spelling with *heh* is typical of Hebrew and only in meaning 3, it penetrated Aramaic only in this meaning, but not in the other meanings that do not exist in Hebrew.

## **2. THE VOCALISATION OF MS CAMBRIDGE OF THE MISHNAH:**

### AN ENCOUNTER BETWEEN TRADITIONS

#### *Yehudit Henshke*

MS Cambridge Add.470 is one of three excellent manuscripts of all six orders of the Mishnah that transmit the western tradition of the Palestinian branch of the Mishnah. 1 Two features distinguish MS Cambridge Add.470 from its fellow manuscripts of the Mishnah, MSS Kaufmann and Parma A: dating and provenance. According to the watermarks in MS Cambridge its writing dates to the mid-ffteenth century,2 whereas the other two date to circa the early second millennium, the eleventh–twelfth centuries.3

<sup>1</sup> Moshe Bar-Asher, *Studies in Mishnaic Hebrew*, vol. 1 (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2009), pp. 79–80; idem, "The Diferent Traditions of Mishnaic Hebrew", in: David M. Golomb (ed.), *Working with No Data: Semitic and Egyptian Studies Presented to Thomas O. Lambdin* (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1987), pp. 1–38, at pp. 2–6.

<sup>2</sup> Yehudit Henshke, "Gutturals in MS Cambridge of the Mishnah", *Hebrew Studies* 52 (2011), pp. 171–199, at p. 172, n. 3.

<sup>3</sup> Malachi Beit-Arié, "Ketav yad Kaufmann shel ha-mishnah: Motsao u-zmano" (in Hebrew), in: Moshe Bar-Asher (ed.), *Qovets maamarim bi-leshon ḥazal* (Jerusalem: Hebrew University — The Faculty of the Humanities and the Department of Hebrew, 1980), pp. 84–99, at pp. 91–92; Gideon Haneman, *A Morphology of Mishnaic Hebrew: According to the Tradition of the Parma Manuscript (De-Rossi 138)* (in Hebrew; Texts and Studies in the Hebrew Language and Related Subjects, vol. 3; Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University, 1980), pp. 6–7.

As to provenance, MSS Kaufmann and Parma A originated in Italy,4 whereas MS Cambridge is a Byzantine manuscript, as evidenced by its codicological and palaeographical features.5 Whereas Mishnaic Hebrew traditions in Italy are refected in many sources — manuscripts, incunabula, *maḥzorim*, among others — and have merited substantial research,6 the Byzantine tradition, in contrast, sufers from sparsity of sources and research. The study of Byzantine Jewry remained frozen for years until the turn of the twenty-frst century, which saw the publication of texts from the Genizah by Nicolas de Lange and seminal studies by Israel Ta-Shma.7 Although the precise nature of this community's tradition has yet to made clear, its ties to *Eretz-Israel* and its unique facets are beginning to emerge.8 As

<sup>4</sup> Beit-Arié, "Ketav yad Kaufmann", p. 88; Haneman, *Morphology of Mishnaic Hebrew*, pp. 6–7.

<sup>5</sup> I thank Edna Engel and Malachi Beit-Arié for the time they devoted to examining various paleographical and codicological aspects of the manuscript at my request. See also Yaakov Sussmann, "Manuscripts and Text Traditions of the Mishnah" (in Hebrew), in: *Proceedings of the Seventh World Congress of Jewish Studies: Studies in the Talmud, Halacha and Midrash* (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1981), pp. 215–250, at p. 220, n. 30.

<sup>6</sup> See, among others: Moshe Bar-Asher, *The Tradition of Mishnaic Hebrew in the Communities of Italy* (in Hebrew; Edah ve-Lashon, vol. 6; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1980); idem, *Studies in Mishnaic Hebrew*, 2 vols. (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2009); Yaakov Bentolila, *A French-Italian Tradition of Post-Biblical Hebrew* (in Hebrew; Edah ve-Lashon, vol. 14; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1989); Michael Ryzhik, *The Traditions of Mishnaic Hebrew in Italy* (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2008).

<sup>7</sup> Nicholas De Lange, *Greek Jewish Texts from the Cairo Genizah* (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism, vol. 51; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996); Israel Ta-Shma, *Studies in Medieval Rabbinic Literature*, vol. 3: *Italy and Byzantium* (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2005).

<sup>8</sup> For selected studies that have appeared in recent years, see James K. Aitken, and James Carleton Paget (eds.), *The Jewish-Greek Tradition in Antiquity and the Byzantine Empire* (Cambridge: Cambridge University

a Byzantine manuscript, the study of MS Cambridge has much to contribute to our knowledge of the mishnaic tradition in Byzantium. 9

A signifcant distinguishing characteristic of MS Cambridge relates to vocalisation, which is the focus of this article. Whereas MSS Kaufmann and Parma A are entirely or largely vocalised, MS Cambridge is for the most part unvocalised.

Nonetheless, the scribe-vocaliser of MS Cambridge has sporadically inserted partial vocalisation. 10 My use of the term 'scribe-vocaliser' here is deliberate: the manner of vocalisation, the ink, and its colour all attest that the text was penned and vocalised by the same person.11 Most of the more than two hundred vocalised words in this manuscript were documented by William Henry Lowe, the editor of the version of the text known as *The Mishnah of the Palestinian Talmud* (Cambridge, 1883); others, however, escaped his notice or were misunderstood.

Press, 2014); Robert Bonfl et al. (eds.), *Jews in Byzantium: Dialectics of Minority and Majority Cultures* (Leiden: Brill, 2012); Gershon Brin, *Reuel and His Friends: Jewish-Byzantine Exegetes from Around the Tenth Century C.E.* (in Hebrew; Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University Press, 2012); Dov Schwartz, *Jewish Thought in Byzantium in the Late Middle Ages* (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2016); John Tolan, Nicolas de Lange, Laurence Foschia, and Capucine Nemo-Pekelman, *Jews in Early Christian Law: Byzantium and the Latin West, 6th–11th Centuries* (Turnhout: Brepols, 2014).


This raises the question of what led the scribe-vocaliser to vocalise these words in particular. In general, we can say that the vocalisations found in MS Cambridge serve to underscore or elucidate a textual variant or particular reading from this ffteenth-century Byzantine vocaliser's tradition, similar to the partial vocalisation found in manuscripts of other rabbinic texts, such as MS Erfurt of the Tosefta. 12 The sporadic vocalisations in MS Cambridge mirror a process whereby the vocaliser considered the diferent reading traditions of the Mishnah with which he was familiar, and decided either in favour of his own tradition or one that seemed worthy or correct. Thus, not only were specifc, accurate, and unique reading traditions of the Mishnah preserved in ffteenth-century Byzantium, but it appears that its scribevocalisers were also familiar with alternative readings.

These partial vocalisations reveal both the uniqueness and the trustworthiness of the Byzantine tradition refected in MS Cambridge. On the one hand, this tradition shares some of the features of the punctilious Italian tradition; on the other hand, as shown below, in some instances the Byzantine tradition also preserves earlier, more precise features than those found in the Italian tradition.

Nonetheless, MS Cambridge also indirectly refects lateffteenth-century traditions. The vocalisations attest to the vocaliser's familiarity with these traditions, which were not necessarily of the highest accuracy. The purpose of his partial vocalisation of words was to highlight his ancient Palestinian tradition; in efect, through these partial vocalisations and superior textual traditions he preserved an early Byzantine tradition with parallels in MSS Kaufmann and Parma A, which predate Cambridge by several centuries.

<sup>12</sup> Mordechay Mishor, "On the Vocalization of MS Erfurt of the Tosefta" (in Hebrew), *Leshonenu* 64 (2002), pp. 364–392, at p. 233.

The partial vocalisations in MS Cambridge belong to a variety of spheres: textual variants (*nusaḥ*), phonology, morphology, and orthography. A particularly intriguing category is that of foreign words (mainly Greek). Select examples from the various categories are discussed in the body of the article. Some of these examples represent readings found only in MS Cambridge; others refect knowledge of, or a shared tradition with, other manuscripts of the Mishnah.

#### *Nusaḥ:* **textual variants**

As noted, the presence of a vocalised word in a largely unvocalised text cannot be dismissed as a slip of the pen, but rather refects particular interest on the vocaliser's part. Although unique textual variants are by no means rare in MS Cambridge, they are not systematically vocalised there. Evidently, the vocaliser generally thought one vocalised example per variant in the manuscript sufcient. It is the conjunction of a variant with additional factors that might interfere with the transmission of his tradition, which impelled the scribe-vocaliser to vocalise a word. The use of vocalisation confrms the vocaliser's familiarity with other reading traditions of the Mishnah that difer from the one he wished to transmit. Thus, vocalisation of the word can function to support a disputed reading.

הַ חֹדֶ ש הֶ חַ דַ ש

An especially striking example comes from *Erubin* 3.9, where MS Cambridge attests a unique variant not found in other manuscripts. Furthermore, this reading could be understood as a graphic mistake, namely dittography:

ר׳ דוסא בן הרכינס אומר העובר לפני התיבה ביום טוב של ראש השנה אומר החליצנו ה׳ אלהינו את יום ראש הַ חֹדֶ ש הֶ חַ דַ ש הזה אם היום ואם למחר<sup>13</sup>.

R. Dosa ben Harkinas says, He who stands before the Ark on the Festival Day of the New Year says, May the Eternal Our God strengthen us on this frst day of the [new] month whether it be today or tomorrow.

Against these two words in MS Cambridge, we fnd one word in other manuscripts, as follows: in MS Kaufmann14 we fnd ש ֶדֹח ַה, in MS Parma A15 ֿש ֵחוד ַה, and in MS Paris16 ש ֵדֹח ָה.

The additional word ש ַד ַח ֶה is not found in the other manuscripts of the Mishnah, although it is found in Genizah fragments, as Goldberg notes.17 Note that the orthography of MS Cambridge is usually defective. Thus, the word חודש is almost always spelled defectively there,18 and the unknown phrase composed of two identical words (החדש החדש (would certainly lend itself to correction or erasure. As a means of stressing the correctness of his version, the scribe vocalised both words to indicate that this is not mistaken dittography.


<sup>13</sup> *Erubin* 3.9. The Hebrew text of the Mishnah quoted here and below is according to MS Cambridge; the English translation follows, with some minor corrections, the translation of Philip Blackman, *Mishnayoth: Pointed Hebrew Text, English Translation, Introductions* (2nd ed.; New York: Judaica Press, 1963–1964).

<sup>14</sup> Budapest, MS Kaufmann A 50 (=Kaufmann).

#### **Phonology**

A noteworthy sphere in which we fnd the vocaliser of MS Cambridge operating is that of Mishnaic Hebrew phonology. Several examples follow:

לַ עְ זַ ר

אמר רבי לַ עְ זַ ר בן עזריה הרי אני כבן שבעים שנה לא :states 1.5 *Berakhoth* I ,said Azariah ben Eleazar .R 'זכיתי ]ש[תאמר יציאת מצרים בלילות. am like a man of seventy, yet I was unable to understand the reason why the departure from Egypt should be related at night' .(אֶ לְ עָ זָ ר :Paris; אֵ לְ עַ זַֿ ר :A Parma; אֶ לְ עָ זָ ר :Kaufmann :variants(

The orthography of the names לעזר-ליעזר has been treated at length in studies of Mishnaic Hebrew.19 Focused mainly on the omission of the initial *alef* and its implications for the provenance and dating of the texts, less attention has been paid to the infuence of the silent *alef* on the realisation of the names and the status of the *ayin*.

Did the name לעזר retain its biblical form ר ָז ָע ְל *lʿazar* even without the *alef*, or did additional changes take place when the *alef* was dropped, perhaps due to the weakness of the guttural *ayin* that followed it?

<sup>19</sup> See Shlomo Naeh, "Shtei sugiyot nedoshot bi-leshon ḥazal" (in Hebrew), in: Moshe Bar-Asher and David Rosenthal (eds.), *Meḥqerei Talmud: Talmudic Studies Dedicated to the Memory of Professor Eliezer Shimshon Rosenthal*, vol. 2 (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1993), pp. 364–392, at pp. 364–369, and the literature cited there. See also Bar-Asher, *Studies in Mishnaic Hebrew*, vol. 1, p. 148; Yochanan Breuer, "The Babylonian Branch of Mishnaic Hebrew and Its Relationship with the Epigraphic Material from Palestine" (in Hebrew), *Carmillim* 10 (2014), pp. 132–140, at p. 134; Gabriel Birnbaum, *The Language of the Mishna in the Cairo Geniza: Phonology and Morphology* (in Hebrew; Sources and Studies [New Series], vol. 10; Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language, 2008), pp. 327–329.

Two types of sources assist in clarifying how this abbreviated name was realised: transcriptions, on the one hand, and vocalisation traditions, on the other. The transcriptions into Greek in the Gospels and other literary sources attest to a pronunciation close to the biblical one, e.g., Ελαζάρον, Ελεαζάρον, λεαζάρος, 20 and to a new realisation, Λάζαρον, as the name of contemporary individuals.21 On the other hand, the vocalisation traditions refected in the various manuscripts of the Mishnah evidence only a pronunciation close to the biblical one: ר ָז ָע ְל [ֶא]. 22

The vocalisation ר ַז ְע ַל found in MS Cambridge, with a vowel under the frst consonant, is supported by some of the transcriptions, but diverges from the general picture derived from manuscripts of the Mishnah. Although this might suggest that this vocalisation refects the late Byzantine tradition of the scribe-vocaliser, this is not the case. Direct evidence for this vocalisation comes from a Genizah fragment of the Mishnah (T-S E1.57),23 and a twelfth-century Oriental manuscript of tractates *Aboth* and *Zebahim*. 24 Indirect

<sup>20</sup> See Hanna M. Cotton et al., *Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae/Palaestinae*, vol. 1 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012), pp. 124, 232, 369, 576; Michael Sokolof, "The Hebrew of *Bereshit Rabba* According to MS Vat. Ebr. 30" (in Hebrew), *Leshonenu* 33 (1969), pp. 25–52, 135–149, 270–279, at pp. 39–40 and the bibliography there.

<sup>21</sup> See Cotton, *Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae/Palaestinae*, vol. 2, p. 164 and vol. 3, p. 442; Sokolof, "The Hebrew of *Bereshit Rabba*", pp 39–40.

<sup>22</sup> In MS Kaufmann it is vocalised ר ָז ָע ְל. Its vocaliser adds *segol* before the shortened form of the name; see Eduard Y. Kutscher, *Hebrew and Aramaic Studies* (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1977), p. 11. The vocaliser of Parma B, on the other hand, does not vocalise the *alef* (Bar-Asher, *Studies in Mishnaic Hebrew*, vol. 1, p. 148). This is also true of short names in the Babylonian tradition; see Israel Yeivin, *The Hebrew Language Tradition as Refected in the Babylonian Vocalization* (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1985), p. 1079.

<sup>23</sup> Birnbaum, *Mishna in the Cairo Geniza*, p. 299.

<sup>24</sup> Shimon Sharvit, *Studies in Mishnaic Hebrew* (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2008), p. 350, line 15.

support for vocalisation of the *lamed* comes from the spelling לזר .ר׳ לז׳ בר׳ יוסי :*ayin* the without 25

Thus, on the margins of the literary transmission that remained close to the biblical realisation there were also vernacular pronunciations that attest to metathesis. Perhaps the movement of the vowel to the consonant *lamed* was supported by the weak *ayin*, 26 or even echoes its silencing, and what we have here is the realisation *lazar*, to which the vocaliser wished to direct attention.

שֶ לַ רופְ יִים

ויש שאמרו מידה גסה מלא תרווד :states 17.12 *Kelim* in Mishnah The the [where cases were there And 'רקב כמלוא תרווד גדול שֶ לַ רופְ יִים Sages] directed [the use of] a large measure, [as, for example] a spoonful of the mould from a corpse, equivalent to the large spoon of physicians' (variants: Kaufmann: ים ִא ְרופ ָל ֶש ;Parma A: שלרופאים ;Parma B: .(שֶ לַ רופְ אִ ים :Paris; שֶ לָ רופְ אִ ין <sup>27</sup>

The word יםִי ְרופ ַל ֶש is interesting both for its orthography and its vocalisation. Apart from several cases of combined words, throughout MS Cambridge the particle של is written separately from the following noun. Thus, for example: סלסלתים) *Kelim* 15.4),

<sup>25</sup> Louis Ginzberg, "Qitsur hagadot ha-yerushalmi", in: *Genizah Studies in Memory of Doctor Solomon Schechter*, vol. 1 (in Hebrew; Texts and Studies of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, vol. 7; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1928), pp. 387–429, at p. 397, line 16; note that the reference in Eduard Y. Kutscher, "Leshon ḥazal" (in Hebrew), in: Saul Lieberman et al. (eds.), *Henoch Yalon Jubilee Volume on the Occasion of his Seventy-ffth Birthday* (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sepher, 1963), pp. 246–280, at p. 280, is incorrect.

<sup>26</sup> See Henshke, "Gutturals", pp. 185–187.

<sup>27</sup> Parma, Biblioteca Palatina, de Rossi 497 (=Parma B).

;של סלתים .e.i 28 Hebrew/Aramaic words and phrases: שליפרומבייה (*Kelim* 11.5);29 שלמים) *Shekalim* 6.3, *Yoma* 2.5, *Sukkah* 2.5, 4.9, *Baba Bathra* 4.6, *Middoth* 2.6);30 and our current example, שלרופיים. The preservation of proximity in these instances is the result of a unique spelling that prevented subsequent separation.

Clearly, the preservation of של juxtaposed to רופיים shows that the spelling of שלרופיים, for which I have found no parallels, is not a corruption, but rather a form preserved because of its unusual spelling. The vocalisation of the entire word also witnesses the scribe-vocaliser's desire to indicate that this form is neither a mistake nor a corruption.

This word displays another unique feature, which is the *alef* > *yod* shift. Much has been written on this exchange.31 However, in his comprehensive treatment Breuer has shown that a distinction must be made between *yod* > *alef* and *alef* > *yod*shifts and that the *alef* > *yod* shift is the result not of a phonological process, but of a morphological exchange. He demonstrates that in MH the *alef* > *yod* exchange is not free, but takes place in the III-*alef* pattern, which became identical with the III-*yod* pattern.32

This explanation, however, does not ft יםִי ְרופ, the word under discussion here, because the expected result of such

<sup>28</sup> The spelling with *samekh* hid the של from the separators.

<sup>29</sup> The *plene* spelling apparently kept the של from being separated. There are additional examples of preservation of של in similar settings. On the other hand, in other instances such spellings were separated in a way that accurately refects the original version; for example, ישנצות של) *Kelim* 26.2).

<sup>30</sup> The homographic spelling hid the של. See Jacob N. Epstein, *Introduction to the Mishnaic Text*, vol. 2 (in Hebrew; 3rd ed. Jerusalem: Magnes Press and Tel-Aviv: Dvir, 2000), p. 1207.

<sup>31</sup> See the bibliographical survey in Yochanan Breuer, *The Hebrew in the Babylonian Talmud according to the Manuscripts of Tractate Pesaḥim* (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2002), p. 131, n. 383.

<sup>32</sup> Breuer, ibid., 130–132.

identifcation would be רופים, similar to קורים without realisation of the *yod*. This suggests that we must ignore the morphological pattern of the form and place it among the few examples attesting the phonological process of the dropping of *alef* and the creation of a glide consonant *yod*, as in the *qere* of biblical .גמלייל name proper the and דָ נִיֵאל 33 In any event, the vocaliser of MS Cambridge wanted to preserve this rare form and vocalised both the juxtaposed של and the weakened glottal stop and its assimilation to fnal *ḥireq*.

עַ רְ בובְ יָה

That *resh* with *shewa* can turn the following *bgd*/*kft* letter into a fricative is a known phenomenon. Already found in the Bible,34 in MH it has multiple attestations, such as: רבן ָד, מרפק, ערבית, רכו ָצ, among others.35 The tradition of MS Cambridge provides another example of the fricative realisation of a *hapax* in the Mishnah: .ערבוביה

כרם שחרב אם יש בו ללקט :states 5.4 *Kilaim* in Mishnah The עשר גפנים לבית סאה ונטועות כהלכתן הרי זה נקרא כרם דל שהוא נטוע הָי ְבוב ְר ַע'if a vineyard became waste, but it is possible to gather in it ten vines, planted according to the rule in a *seah*'s space, this is called a poor vineyard, which is planted in an irregular :Paris; עַ רְ בובְ יָא :A Parma; עַ רְ בוביָיה :Kaufmann :variants' (manner .(עַ רְ בובְ יָא

<sup>33</sup> Shimon Sharvit, "Two Phonological Phenomena in Mishnaic Hebrew" (in Hebrew), *Te'uda* 6 (1988), pp. 43–61, at p. 60.

<sup>34</sup> Eduard Y. Kutscher, *Hebrew and Aramaic Studies*, pp. 349–350.

<sup>35</sup> See Bar-Asher, *Studies in Mishnaic Hebrew*, vol. 1, pp. 140–141, and the references cited there.

With respect to the frst of the two *bet*s, this *hapax* has two vocalisation traditions in manuscripts of the Mishnah: 36 one (Parma A) has *dagesh lene*; the other Cambridge (and Paris) indicates a fricative after the *resh*. 37 In MS Kaufmann, we fnd signs of hesitation: the consonant *bet* has a faded *dagesh*, but closer examination of the word suggests that the *dagesh* was blotted close to its writing.38 On the other hand, MS Kaufmann does not mark *rafeh* over the *bet*. Perhaps the vocaliser of MS Kaufmann debated the matter and decided to take no steps, whereas the vocaliser of MS Cambridge used vocalisation to underscore the fricative *bet* in his tradition against the backdrop of another, opposing tradition that stresses the plosive *bet*, here represented by Parma A.

אֱ דַ יִין

רבי יהודה אומ׳ אף המשיא :states 11.10 *Nedarim* in Mishnah The את בתו קטנה אף על פי ניתאלמנה או ניתגרשה וחזרו אצלו אֱ דַ יִין היא נערה 'R. Judah says: also if one gave in marriage his daughter who was a minor, and she became a widow, or she was divorced and returned to him, and she was still a maiden' (variants: Kaufmann: .וְ עַ דַ יִין :Paris; עֲ דיִין :A Parma; עֲ דַ יִין

<sup>36</sup> For additional data, see Bar-Asher, *Morphology of Mishnaic Hebrew*: *Introductions and Noun Morphology*, vol. 2 (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2015), pp. 1498–1499. I also add a Genizah fragment (Birnbaum, *Mishna in the Cairo Geniza*, p. 166) which places a *dagesh* in the initial *bet*. In the Yemenite tradition the *ayin* is vocalised with *ḥireq*. See Yeivin, *Babylonian Vocalization*, p. 980, n. 10.

<sup>37</sup> MS Paris generally marks *dagesh lene* (Bar-Asher, *Mishnaic Hebrew in the Communities of Italy*, p. 45).

<sup>38</sup> I thank Emmanuel Mastéy for his assistance in reading the text.

Kutscher's analysis, that the adverb עדיין is composed of עד + another element — the plural pronominal sufx (ינו ֵד ָע (or אן/ןִי ַא — has been accepted in scholarship.39 As for the diferent forms, Kutscher proposed that the Hebrew word was borrowed from Akkadian *adīni* and that in Biblical Hebrew the initial *alef* became *ayin*, i.e., עדן, עדנה, due to mistaken afnity, renewed by biblical scribes and MH, to Hebrew עד. This suggested circular process, in which עדיין returns to its original source through a 'mistaken' folk etymology, seems somewhat convoluted. It is perhaps simpler to assume that what we have here is the known *alef*/*ayin* alternation in MH.40

The textual witnesses are divided as to the frst consonant of עדיין: *alef* or *ayin*. 41 The Genizah fragments analysed by Birnbaum attest exclusively to *alef*. 42 MS Kaufmann and the Babylonian tradition tend toward *alef*, although forms with *ayin* are found there,43 whereas MS Parma B has both forms in equal distribution.44

MSS Parma A and Cambridge of the Mishnah represent an opposite direction: the usual spelling there is עדיין/עדין, with a single exception that reads אדיין. 45 In other sources of MH the form with *ayin* is the dominant one, as shown by Yeivin, Sharvit, and Breuer.46 It appears that the uniqueness of the form with


<sup>39</sup> Kutscher, *Hebrew and Aramaic Studies*, pp. 450–451. See also Breuer, *Pesaḥim*, pp. 276–277 and the literature cited there.

<sup>40</sup> Henshke, "Gutturals", pp. 185–187; Sharvit, *Phonology of Mishaic Hebrew*, pp. 110–115.

<sup>41</sup> In the Bible, the parallel word is with *ayin*: עדן, עדנה. See Kutscher, *Hebrew and Aramaic Studies*, p. 450.

initial *alef* in MH sources in general, and in MS Cambridge in particular, led to its vocalisation as a means of its preservation.

#### **Morphology**

הֱ יו

The vocalisations in MS Cambridge are also found in verbal forms. Here I address only one instance. *Sanhedrin* 4.5 describes the process of questioning witnesses in capital cases:

כיצד מאיימין על עידי נפשות היו מכניסין אותן ומאיימין עליהם שמא תאמרו מעומד ומשמועה עד מפי עד מפי אדם נאמן שמענו או שמא שאין אתם יודעין שסופינו לבדוק אתכם בדרישה ובחקירה הֱ יו יודעים שלא כדיני ממונות דיני נפשות ]...[ שכן מצינו בקין שהרג את אחיו שנ׳ קול דמי אחיך צועקים אלי מן האדמה.

How did they exhort the witnesses in capital cases? They brought them in and admonished them: "Perhaps you will state what is supposition, or rumour, [or] evidence from other witnesses, or [you will say:] 'we heard it from (the mouth of) a trustworthy person', or perchance you were not aware that we would test you by enquiry and examination; you must [יו ֱה [know that capital cases are not like cases concerning property […] for thus have we found in the case of Cain who slew his brother, as it is said, thy brother's blood cries."

.הָ יו :Paris; היו :A Parma; הָ יו :Kaufmann :Variants

The verb in this mishnah belongs to a long declarative statement that quotes the threats uttered by judges to witnesses to ensure

always written with *ayin*. See Yeivin, *Babylonian Vocalization*, p. 1142; Sharvit, *Phonology of Mishnaic Hebrew*, pp. 78–79; and Breuer, *Pesaḥim*, pp. 276–277.

that the latter give truthful testimony. The quote begins with 'Perhaps *you* will state' and concludes with a prooftext from the Bible and a halakhic midrash on the verse cited. As is characteristic of direct speech, it addresses the audience in the second person plural — תאמרו, אתם, אתכם — and the speakers refer to themselves in frst person plural — שסופינו. This makes it certain that the verb היו, which is inserted in the direct speech, refers to the witnesses and functions as an imperative. 47

The root הי״ה is conjugated in two ways in MH: as II-*yod* form and as a II-*waw* form.48 For our mishnah all the manuscripts attest to the conjugation with *yod*, 49 but are divided as to vocalisation: MSS Kaufmann and Paris place *qameṣ* in the frst radical, as in the past tense,50 whereas MS Cambridge correctly vocalises it as the

<sup>47</sup> In the printed editions, this verb became הוו, and in the Yemenite tradition as well; see Yitschak Shivtiʾel, "Massorot ha-temanim be-diqduq leshon ha-mishna" (in Hebrew), in: Saul Lieberman et al. (eds.), *Henoch Yalon Jubilee Volume on the Occasion of his Seventy-ffth Birthday* (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sepher, 1963), pp. 338–359, at p. 348.

<sup>48</sup> On the sources of the two conjugations in Mishnaic Hebrew, see Zeʾev Ben-Ḥayyim, *A Grammar of Samaritan Hebrew: Based on the Recitation of the Law in Comparison with the Tiberian and Other Jewish Traditions* (Jerusalem: Magnes and Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2000), p. 163, n. 65; Haneman, *Morphology of Mishnaic Hebrew*, pp. 386–387; Bar- Asher, *Studies in Mishnaic Hebrew*, vol. 2, p. 183.

<sup>49</sup> Including Maimonides' version of the Mishnah; See Talma Zurawel, *Maimonides' Tradition of Mishnaic Hebrew as Refected in His Autograph Commentary to the Mishnah: Phonology and Verbal System* (in Hebrew; Edah ve-Lashon, vol. 25; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2004), p. 160.

<sup>50</sup> The imperative form of the root הי״י vocalised as a past tense form in MS Kaufmann occurs another time in this manuscript: ,שלשה עוד להביא ומנין And 'ממשמע שנאמר ״לא תהיה אחרי רבים לרעות״ שומע אני שאמר הָ יָה עמהן לטובה whence [do we conclude] that three others were still to be brought? By logical conclusion, as it is said: "thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil", I infer that I am to be with them to do good' (*Sanhedrin* 1.6). This is an isolated instance in which Parma A vocalises the *yod* with *ṣere* in an unvocalised section.

imperative. Given the consistent testimony of all the manuscript witnesses, I difer from Haneman, who contends that the original conjugation of the second person plural in the *qal* stem was only with *waw*, and that our example is an anomaly, perhaps even a graphic exchange of *waw* and *yod*. 51

Examination of the distribution of the roots הי״י/הו״י in this pattern in MSS Cambridge and Kaufmann elicits an opposite picture from that found in Parma A. היו appears three times with *yod* (in our mishnah, in *Aboth* 1.1, and in *Aboth* 1.3), and הוו only once (in *Aboth* 2.3). In MS Kaufmann it appears three times with *yod* (once in our mishnah and twice in *Aboth*).52 A similar picture also emerges from other sources.53 This contrasts with the second person singular that is usually found in the root הו״י.

In essence, not only did the vocaliser of MS Cambridge vocalise the word correctly, he was aware of both the problematic nature of this form and the alternative tradition יו ָה. This is another example of how he underscores his tradition.54

מְ לָ א הִ ין

In this example too, the vocaliser of MS Cambridge diverges from all the other manuscripts. The Mishnah states in *Eduyoth* 1.3:

<sup>51</sup> Haneman, *Morphology of Mishnaic Hebrew*, p. 387.

<sup>52</sup> In *Aboth* 2.3 there is an erasure (Bar-Asher, *Studies in Mishnaic Hebrew*, vol. 2, p. 183), which has been corrected to הוון.

<sup>53</sup> We fnd this in Maimonides' version of the Mishnah (Zurawel, *Maimonides' Tradition of Mishnaic Hebrew*, p. 160). In the Babylonian tradition of the Mishnah there are two occurrences with *yod* in *Aboth* (Yeivin, *Babylonian Vocalization*, p. 721); Shimon Sharvit, *Tractate Avoth Through the Ages: A Critical Edition, Prolegomena and Appendices* (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2004), pp. 63, 65, 83.

<sup>54</sup> Note that MS Kaufmann evidences some hesitation in the writing of the mishna: there is a space before the verb היו.

הלל אומ׳ מְ לָ א הִ ין מים שאובין פוסלין את המקוה, שאדם חייב לומר כלשון רבו 'Hillel says: a "full"*hin* of drawn water renders the ritual bath of purifcation unft. [The term "full"is used here] only because a man must employ the style of expression of his teacher' (variants: .(מַ לֶ א הין :Paris; מלא הין :A Parma; מְ ל ֹא הִ ין :Kaufmann

Hillel's statement and appended explanation that a person must employ his teacher's style of expression have sparked much debate and varied interpretations in the relevant scholarship.55 The phrase הין מלא presents the main difculty, and the diferent traditions diverge in their understanding and realisation of this phrase, as seen from the variant readings cited above. Nonetheless, additional sources support the tradition represented in MS Cambridge, which reads the vowel *a* in the second radical.56 Eliezer Shimshon Rosenthal treats this expression at length and has shown that we must follow the version found in Maimonides and an ancient interpretation from geonic responsa, which indicate that this is the active participle of an Aramaic form of the root מל״א: ין ִא ָמל meaning 'to fll', and is therefore connected neither to מלוא nor to הין. 57

The vocalisation הין א ָמל is found in other sources, as Rosenthal notes. However, among the manuscripts of the Mishnah, MS Cambridge is the sole manuscript that has retained this reading.

הסוכַ ה

In *Baba Kamma* 10.2 we fnd the following statement: הזיק ואם משלם מה שהזיק אבל לא יקוץ את הסוכַ ה על מנת ליתן דמים. ר׳ ישמעאל בנו

<sup>55</sup> See Sharvit, *Studies in Mishnaic Hebrew*, pp. 30–34.

<sup>56</sup> See Eliezer Shimshon Rosenthal, "Tradition and Innovation in the Halakha of the Sages" (in Hebrew), *Tarbiẓ* 63 (1994), pp. 321–324, at p. 359.

<sup>57</sup> See the comprehensive discussion of this mishnah, ibid., pp. 359–374.

 he ,damage any caused he If 'של ר׳ יוחנן בן ברוקה אומ׳ קוצץ ונותן דמים must pay for the damage which he has caused; but he may not cut of any branch of his, even on condition of paying therefor. R. Ishmael the son of R. Jochanan ben Baroka says: he may even cut if of and pay for it' (variants: Kaufmann: הסוכה ;Parma A: ה ָסוכ ַה ; .(הָ סוכָ ה :Paris

In its meaning of 'large branch' (as opposed to 'temporary shelter for shade') סוכה appears once in the Bible: ים ִ֔צ ֵע ת֣ ַשוכ) Judg. 9.48),58 and fve times in the Mishnah (*Makhshirin* 1.3; *Zabim* 3.1, 3.3, 4.3, and in our mishnah). In the mishnah in *Baba Kamma*, where the word appears for the frst time, MSS Cambridge and Parma A vocalise it ה ַסוכ. Note that in Parma A this word appears in a long continuous section of unvocalised text; nevertheless, the vocaliser of Parma A chose to vocalise this word alone, afrming its unique tradition.59

In MS Kaufmann, on the other hand, the entire line from מה שהיזיק to סוכה is unvocalised. In the facsimile edition there is a *dagesh* in the *kaf* of סוכה ;in the scanned MS, however, there is no *dagesh*. The *Arukh* (s.v. סך (also attests to the version without *dagesh* in *Baba Kamma* and connects it to biblical שוכה. As Bar-Asher notes, Parma B always reads סוכה and Paris סוכה ;סוכה is also attested by the vocaliser of MS Kaufmann (in *Makhshirin*) and K2 (i.e., the second vocaliser, 'Kaufmann 2', in *Zabim*).60

These are, in efect, two nouns that appear in MSS Cambridge, Parma A, and Parma B, where a distinction is made between ה ָסוכ 'branch' and ה ָסוכ' shelter',61 whereas MSS Kaufmann (once), K2 , and Paris unite the two nouns in the common ה ָע ֻפ pattern. What

<sup>58</sup> Alongside the masculine הֹשוכ) Judg. 9.49).

<sup>59</sup> There are additional examples of sporadic vocalisations that are shared by Parma A and Cambridge.

<sup>60</sup> Bar-Asher, *Morphology of Mishnaic Hebrew*, p. 1167. In Parma A the other occurrences are not vocalised.

<sup>61</sup> For additional attestation to the vocalisation ה ָסוכ, see ibid.

emerges from this consideration is that the sole witness to סוכה in this meaning of 'branch' is found once in the vocalised version in MS Kaufmann; all the other witnesses are from second-rate manuscripts.

Bar-Asher thinks that this is not an indication of a mistake on the part of the vocalisers, but rather root or pattern alternations (סכך-סוך ;pattern alternation: ה ָע ֻפ-פולה(.62 But given the quality and number of witnesses to ה ַסוכ, this suggests that the testimony of the manuscripts that distinguish between ה ַסוכ and סוכה represents an original, reliable tradition, whereas the unifers blurred (in a natural, early or late process) the distinction between two close but diferent meanings. In any event, MS Cambridge highlights the fricative version.

הסֵ ף

Another noun for which the traditions of Mishnaic Hebrew refect diferent patterns is הסף. 63 Its vocalisation twice in MS Cambridge witnesses its vocaliser's adherence to his task of elucidating his tradition.

One occurrence is in Mishnah *Kelim* 14.5: מקבל מאימתי ף ֵהס משישחיזנה והסכין משישופנו טומאה' When does a sword become susceptible to uncleanness? When it is burnished. And [when is] a knife [susceptible to uncleanness]? [Immediately] after it has ,הַ סֵ ףֿ :A Parma; הַ סַ יִיף/הַ סֵ ייף :Kaufmann :variants' (sharpened been .(הַ סַ יִיף :Paris; הַ סֵ יףֿ :B Parma; הַ סַ יִיףֿ :correction marginal

<sup>62</sup> Bar-Asher, *Studies in Mishnaic Hebrew*, vol. 2, pp. 285–286; idem, *Morphology of Mishnaic Hebrew*, p. 1167.

<sup>63</sup> Epstein, *Introduction to the Mishnaic Text*, p. 1241, cites this example in his linguistic description, linking it to other nouns whose historical pattern is not identical to סיף.

The second occurrence is in Mishnah *Kelim* 16.8: והסכין ף ֵהס תיק טמאים אלו הרי... והפגיון' The sheath of a sword, or of a knife, or of a dagger… [all] these are susceptive to uncleanness' (variants: .(הַ סָ יִף :Paris; הַ סֵ יףֿ :B Parma; הסיף :A Parma; הַ סַ יִיף :Kaufmann

This noun appears seven times in the Mishnah: in fve of these occurrences MS Cambridge's version is *plene* with a single *yod*; it is written defectively twice. The manuscripts of the Mishnah attest to two patterns for this noun: the segholate pattern with the extended diphthong לִי ַק, and its contracted diphthong ל ֵק, .חֵ יל–חַ יִל ,לֵ יל–לַ יִל nouns the to similar 64 Since the material has already been analysed by Bar-Asher, I restrict my discussion to mapping the distribution of the forms in the various manuscripts vis-à-vis MS Cambridge. 65

One tradition (the scribe of MS Kaufmann66 and MS Paris) attests only the pattern לִי ַק and is familiar mainly with the double*yod* spelling. 67 A second tradition (Parma B, and MS Kaufmann in *Kelim* 14.5, where, it seems, an original ייף ַס ַה was later corrected to ף ֵס ַה (attests the contracted form יף ֵס. The third (Parma A) knows both alternatives and the three spellings.

It is difcult to identify the tradition refected in MS Cambridge. On the one hand, it underscores the defective spellings by vocalising them with *ṣere*, and the *plene* always has one, not two, *yod*s. On the other hand, because of this manuscript's preference for defective spelling, a single *yod* could be understood as an extended diphthong. Perhaps the double vocalisation in this

<sup>64</sup> Kutscher, *Hebrew and Aramaic Studies*, p. 446; Bar-Asher, *Studies in Mishnaic Hebrew*, vol. 1, pp. 7–8, 121.

<sup>65</sup> Bar-Asher, *Morphology of Mishnaic Hebrew*, p. 653–654.

<sup>66</sup> The vocaliser of MS Kaufmann must be included in this tradition, with the exception of his reservations as revealed in *Kelim* 14.5. See below.

<sup>67</sup> The scribe of MS Kaufmann always writes two *yod*s; the scribe of Paris almost always. The קיל pattern is also found in the Babylonian tradition; see Yeivin, *Babylonian Vocalization*, p. 869.

manuscript attests only to the contracted diphthong, but this is not certain.

משִ לְ וַ ת

ר׳ ינאי אומר אין בידינו לא משִ לְ וַ ת :states 4.15 *Aboth* in Mishnah Theֹ הצדיקים מיסורי לא ואף הרשעים' R. Jannai said: it is not in our power to explain either the prosperity of the wicked or the tribulations of the righteous' (variants: Kaufmann: ות ַו ְל ַש ִמ ;Parma A: משלוות ; .(מִ שַ לְ וָ ת :Paris

This noun appears in late biblical literature (Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Psalms, and Proverbs) and only occasionally in Tannaitic literature. 68 Its sole appearance in the Mishnah is in tractate *Aboth*. It is conjugated in two close segholate patterns: *qatla* and *qitla*. 69 MS Cambridge vocalises it in the *qitla* pattern, similar to the Babylonian tradition of the Bible, which reads לוה ִש. 70 MSS Kaufmann and Paris, the remaining sources,71 attest *qatla*.

Although *qatla–qitla* alternations are known from diferent strata of Hebrew,72 the documentation of an eastern variant in the ostensibly western MS Cambridge is of interest.73

<sup>68</sup> See *Maagarim* (http://maagarim.hebrew-academy.org.il).

<sup>69</sup> On the alternation of these patterns, see Yeivin, *Babylonian Vocalization*, pp. 817, 863–864.

<sup>70</sup> Alongside לוה ַש. See ibid., p. 871.

<sup>71</sup> Sharvit, *Tractate Avoth*, p. 164.

<sup>72</sup> Elisha Qimron and Daniel Sivan, "Interchanges of *Pataḥ* and *Ḥiriq* and the Attenuation Law" (in Hebrew), *Leshonenu* 59 (1995), pp. 7–38, at pp. 30–31, and the literature cited there; Ilan Eldar, *The Hebrew Language Tradition in Medieval Ashkenaz (ca. 950–1350 C.E.)* (in Hebrew), vol. 2 (Edah ve-Lashon, vol. 5; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1978), pp. 137–138.

<sup>73</sup> Mention should be made of זיהמה, which is attested in the pre-Ashkenazic tradition (with no parallels); see Eldar, ibid.

#### **Orthography: Homographs**

Another sphere that invites vocalisation is that of orthography. As noted above, MS Cambridge is largely unvocalised. Moreover, it consistently adheres to defective spelling, not only in closed but also in open syllables.74 Defective spelling inevitably creates homographs; we therefore fnd the use of vocalisation to distinguish between them. Vocalisation can also serve to refne a discussion or a textual reading.75 A signifcant example comes from *Abodah Zarah*, in which three words in the same mishnah are vocalised.

דודיך

The Mishnah in *Abodah Zarah* 2.5 states: היאך אחי ישמעאל לו אמ׳ אתה קורא כי טובים דודֶ יךַ מיין או כי טובים דודָ יִך מיין אמ׳ לו כי טובים דודַ יִך to said He 'מיין אמ׳ לו אין הדבר כן שהרי חבירו מלמד עליו לריח שמניך טובים him: Ishmael, my brother, how dost thou read: "for thy (m) love is better than wine"or "for thy (f) love is better…"? He replied: "for thy (f) love"is better. [R. Joshua] said to him: this is not so, for, behold, its fellow [verse] teaches regarding it: "thine (m) ointments have a goodly fragrance"'.

Variants:


<sup>74</sup> Henshke, "Orthography".

<sup>75</sup> See above, the discussion on החדש החדש.

The vocalisation of the homographs serves to pinpoint the topic under discussion in this mishnah. Rabbi Joshua asks Rabbi Ishmael's opinion as to the correct reading of Song of Songs 1.2, focusing on the possessive sufx of the noun דודים: is it masculine or feminine?76 The discussion in the mishnah is somewhat charged with respect to the transmission of the biblical text, because Rabbi Ishmael's answer refects a tradition opposite that of the Masoretic Text, which has the masculine form.

MS Cambridge further focuses the debate by vocalising all three forms, including the one in Rabbi Ishmael's statement. MS Parma A uses *plene* for the feminine form דודייך as a means of distinguishing between the homographs, whereas the vocaliser of MS Paris vocalises Rabbi Ishmael's answer (the third occurrence) as masculine, like the Masoretic Text.

טלה וטַ לַ ה

מן הבהמה ואיני יודע מה פרשתי :states 13.7 *Menahoth* in Mishnah Theֹ he If '[יביא פר ופרה עגל ועגלה איל ורחל גדי וגדייה שעיר ושעירה טלה וטַ לַ ה say]: "I clearly stated [what kind] of cattle, but I do not recollect which I said expressly", he must bring a bullock and a heifer, a he-calf and a she-calf, a ram and a ewe [two years old], a male kid and a female kid [one year old], a he-goat and a she-goat [two years old], and a young ram and a ewe-lamb' (variants: .(טְ לֶ ה וטְ לָ ה :Paris; טלה וטלא :A Parma; טָ לֵ ה וְ טָ לָ ה :Kaufmann

<sup>76</sup> For the diferent proposals, see Shlomo Naeh, "'Tovim dodecha mi-yayin': Mabbat ḥadash ʿal mishnat ʿavoda zara 2, 5" (in Hebrew), in: Moshe Bar-Asher et al. (eds.), *Studies in Talmudic and Midrashic Literature: In Memory of Tirzah Lifshitz* (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2005), pp. 411–434; David Henshke, "'For Your Love is More Delightful than Wine:' Concerning Tannaitic Biblical Traditions" (in Hebrew), *Jewish Studies Internet Journal* 10 (2010), pp. 1–24.

The feminine form ה ָל ָט is a *hapax* in the Mishnah. In MSS Cambridge, Kaufmann, and Parma A it appears in the ה ָע ָפ pattern, like ה ָא ָנ. MS Paris has *shewa* in the frst radical, whereas the Yemenite tradition and the printed editions, both early and late, have a noun that difers consonantally: טליה. 77

Examination of the manuscripts of the Mishnah and of various traditions suggests we are dealing with two separate patterns, which resulted in suppletion: on one hand, ה ֶל ָט) ms), ה ָל ָט) fs), and ,)pl (יָפִ ים ,(fs (יָפֶ ה ,(ms (יָפֶ ה of pattern the on based ,)pl (טָ לִ ים on based ,)pl (טְ לָ יִים ,(fs (טליה ,(ms ,\*טְ לִ י <( \*טְ לֵ ה ,hand other the on .78(pl (גְדָ יִים ,(fs (גדיה ,(ms (גְדִ י of pattern the

The frst pattern is seen in the BH and MH masculine form ה ֶל ָט, and the feminine form ה ָטל is attested in reliable manuscripts of the Mishnah, as presented above. The plural form ים ִל ָט is found three times in MS Parma A (in *Tamid* 3.3), but is also attested by the scribe of MS Kaufmann. Although this scribe generally uses the *plene* form with consonantal *yod*, 79 in this case he almost uniformly writes טלים defectively (fve of six occurrences).80 The defective form טלים is also found at Qumran, in both biblical and non-biblical texts, and even in MS Leiden of the Palestinian Talmud and MS Munich of the Babylonian Talmud. 81

<sup>77</sup> For details, see Bar-Asher, *Morphology of Mishnaic Hebrew*, p. 831.

<sup>78</sup> Some dictionaries of Biblical Hebrew reconstruct the form י ִל ְט as the singular of biblical ים ִא ָל ְט. See Eduard König, *Hebräisches und Aramäisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament* (Leipzig: Weicher, 1910), p. 135; Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, *Lexicon in Veteris Testamentis libros* (Leiden: Brill, 1953), p. 352. Samuel Fuenn, *Ha-otsar: Otsar leshon ha-Miqra ve-ha-mishna*, vol. 2 (in Hebrew; Warsaw: Achiasaf, 1912), p. 188–189, follows in their wake, and cites the plural version found in *Middoth* 1.6: קרבן טלי לשכת.

<sup>79</sup> Michael Ryzhik, "Orthography: Rabbinic Hebrew", in: Geofrey Khan (ed.), *Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics*, vol. 2 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), pp. 955–956.

<sup>80</sup> For details see Bar-Asher, *Morphology of Mishnaic Hebrew*, p. 831.

<sup>81</sup> For the Qumran material, see Abegg et al., *The Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance* (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2003–2010), vol. 1/1, p. 284, vol. 3/1, p. 272;

Additional evidence for this pattern comes from the plural declension found once in the Mishnah. The phrase קרבן טלאי לשכת (*Middoth* 1.6), with the biblical plural, is found in the printed editions; in the manuscripts, however, it is declined according to the frst pattern: MS Parma A reads קרבן ה ֶל ְט, which can be interpreted as an orthographic alternation between the י- and הsufxes.82 Note that Parma A vocalises this word, even though it appears in an unvocalised section of the manuscript. This isolated instance of vocalisation highlights the rare form. In MSS Kaufmann and Paris a similar version was preserved, but with a *lamed/resh* alternation: קרבן טרי. 83

The second pattern is represented mainly by the biblical plural form טלאים and the Mishnaic Hebrew form טליים. The latter is the tradition adhered to consistently by the vocaliser of MS Kaufmann (see above). This form appears four times in MS Cambridge84 and in Parma A as well.85 Note that the scribes of MSS Cambridge and Kaufmann attest טלאים in the same tractate (*Bekhoroth* 5.3). Perhaps we can consider the singular form ה ֶל ְט from our mishnah as belonging to this pattern according to MS Paris, and interpret it as an authentic but rejected vestige of this pattern.86

for MSS Leiden and Munich, see *Maagarim*.

<sup>82</sup> Epstein, *Introduction to the Mishnaic Text*, pp. 1251–1252, treats the opposite alternation: *heh* > *yod*.

<sup>83</sup> MS Kaufmann emends to טדי. See Bar-Asher, *Morphology of Mishnaic Hebrew*, p. 831. This mishnah is cited in *b.Yoma* 15b and has variants there (cited according to the Sol and Evelyn Henkind Talmud Text Database): טלי) MS Munich, Munich 6, Oxford 366, and Vatican 134); טלה (MS London 400 and a segment of St. Peterburg RNL Yevr. IIA293.1); טלאי (Yemenite MS, NY, JTS Enelow 270).

<sup>84</sup> *Arakhin* 2.5; *Tamid* 3.3 (three times). טלים appears once (*Bekhoroth* 1.3) and the other occurrence is, as noted, טלאים) *Bekhoroth* 5.3).

<sup>85</sup> Vocalised three times (*Bekhoroth* 1.3, 1.5; *Arakhin* 2.5), and spelled once *plene* unvocalised: טליים) *Arakhin* 2.5).

<sup>86</sup> Even though the feminine ה ָל ְט remains anomalous.

We therefore have here two pattern systems that have already undergone suppletion in the Bible: טלאים-טלה. In the Mishnah, however, the conjugation of לה ָט expanded and is found in the feminine and in the plural forms. In Palestinian Aramaic we .טלי-טלייה-טליין fnd 87 This reveals the struggle between the two patterns. Although טלאים and טליים are supported by the Bible and by Aramaic, the forms טלים-טלה-טלה continued to exist. With respect to the forms הָי ְל ַט and הָי ִל ְט, found in the Yemenite tradition and the printed editions, respectively, it is difcult to determine if they were created by analogy to the second, dominant pattern or refect an early tradition.

#### *Ketiv* **and** *qere*

Another characteristic of MS Cambridge is the small number of corrections. The manuscript was penned by one or two scribes with an eye to penmanship and design; it appears, however, that, following its completion, the manuscript was set aside and not studied.88 The few corrections made during the writing process are attested here and there in delicate signs of erasure, 89 or superlinear dots that mark incorrect word order.90


<sup>87</sup> Meaning 'small child'; see Michael Sokolof, *A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period* (2nd ed.; Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2002), pp. 235–236; idem, *A Dictionary of Judean Aramaic* (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2003), p. 52. It is the same in Babylonian Aramaic; see idem, *A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods* (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2002), pp. 504–505.

Marginal notes mentioning variants91 and additions of words or letters above the line by the scribe92 are also found sporadically in the manuscript. For the most part, the scribe took care not to make corrections or erase textual variants. I argue that the scribe used vocalisation to resolve the confict between his desire to adhere closely to a particular *nusaḥ*, on the one hand, and the need to correct it, on the other hand. Indeed, there are instances of *ketiv* and *qere* in MS Cambridge.

בְ יכֵ רִ ים

The Mishnah in *Terumoth* 3.7 states:

```
ומנין שיקדמו הביכורים לתרומה זה קרוי תרומה וראשית וזה קרוי תרומה
וראשית אלא יקדמו הביכורים שהן בְ יכֵ רִ ים לכל ותרומה לראשון שהיא
                       ראשית ומעשר ראשון לשני שיש בו ראשית.
```
And whence that frst-fruits come before priest's-due? after all, the one is called priest's-due and the frst, and the other is called priest's-due and the frst. But frst-fruits come frst because they are the frst-fruits [ים ִר ֵיכ ְב [of all produce; and priest's-due precedes frst tithe since it is termed frst; and frst tithe before second because it includes the frst.

בְ כֵ ירִ ים :Paris; בְ כֵ רִֿ ים :A Parma; ב ִ כורִ ים :Kaufmann :Variants

The word בכרים in this mishnah indicates antecedence, in this case the frst of the frst-fruits. MSS Cambridge, Parma A, and Paris vocalise it as the plural active participle, which is in harmony with the syntactic context of the mishnah (it was also vocalised thus by Joseph Ashkenazi 'according to a manuscript'

<sup>.(5.3</sup> *Nazir* (שהוא הקדש ]נ״א מקודש[ .,g.E 91

<sup>.(12.6</sup> *Yebamoth* (גמר ]את[ כל הפרשה .,g.E 92

as cited in Melekhet Shlomo ad loc.). MS Kaufmann, on the other hand, presents the spelling and vocalisation ים ִכור ִב, ostensibly an expansion of its meaning of 'the result of an action'.

The version in MS Cambridge, with *yod* in the frst syllable, may represent a vocal *shewa* spelled *plene*, but this seems unlikely.93 It may also refect indecision as to the correct version: that of MS Kaufmann (vocalising the initial syllable with *yod*) or the versions that appear reasonable based on the context and other manuscripts (defective spelling in the second syllable). Here the vocaliser settled matters without intervening in the consonantal text.

הטְ ומֵ אָ ה

ֹThe Mishnah in *Tohoroth* 4.10 states:

ר׳ יוסי אומ׳ ספק משקים לאכלים ולכלים טהור כיצד שתי חביות אחת טמאה ואחת טהורה עשה עסה מאחת מהן ספק מן הטְ ומֵ אָ ה עשה ספק מן הטהורה עשה זה הוא ספק משקים לאכלים טמא ולכלים טהור.

Rabbi Jose says: if there be a doubt whether [unclean] liquid [touched clean] foodstufs, these become unclean, but in the case of [clean] utensils, these remain clean. Thus, if there were two casks, one unclean and the other clean, and one kneaded dough [with the water] from one of them, [and there is] a doubt [whether] he kneaded [it with the water] from the unclean [ה ָא ֵומ ְהט] [cask or whether it is in] doubt whether he kneaded [it with the water] from the clean one, this is [a case of] doubt whether [unclean] liquid [touched clean] foodstufs, these become unclean, but [in the case of clean] utensils, these remain clean.

 ;הַ טְ מֵ יאָ ה :B Parma; הטמאה :A Parma; הַ טְ ומֵ אָ ה :Kaufmann :Variants .הַ טְ מֶ אָ ה :Paris

<sup>93</sup> There are isolated examples of *plene* spelling for vocal *shewa*, but most are given to alternative explanations.

This mishnah deals with the purity or impurity of liquids, and sets the Halakhah — pure or impure — for various situations. In this instance, we have two casks, one of which is pure; the other is impure. The continuation 'kneaded dough from one of them' refers to the casks mentioned in the previous sentence. The second phrase concerning the doubt as to whether the water came from the pure cask also leads to this conclusion. The expected version טמאה does appear in MSS Parma A, Parma B, and Paris, but MSS Cambridge and Kaufmann have an identical example of *ketiv* and *qere*: the *ketiv* is הטומאה and the *qere* is הטמאה.

*Ketivim* of טמאה as טומאה appear in six other places in MS Kaufmann (*Kelim* 10.8; *Negaim* 6.2, 13.8; *Tohoroth* 4.10, 6.3, 6.4),94 and also in MS Vatican 60 of *Sifra* we fnd ה ָטהור ִל ה ָא ֵטמ ִמ .out crossed word last the in *waw* the with ,מִ טְ הורָ ה לִ טְ ומֵ אָ ה

The many occurrences in MS Kaufmann, whose version is supported by MSS Cambridge of the Mishnah and Vatican of Sifra, clearly testify to a stable tradition of טומאה in the sense of טמאה and negate the argument that this is a mistake or simply a copyist's error.

This is another example of a common phonological phenomenon in Mishnaic Hebrew: variation before a labial consonant and the realisation *ṭəmeʾa* as *ṭumeʾa*. This variation often takes place in Mishnaic Hebrew between vowels, usually in closed syllables.95 This word, however, provides evidence of the variation of an ultra-short vowel (vocal *shewa*) before a labial consonant. But additional sources from this period attest to vowel variation in this position: the Isaiah Scroll from Qumran, Palestinian Aramaic dialects, and Greek transcriptions,

<sup>94</sup> Bar-Asher, *Morphology of Mishnaic Hebrew*, p. 779, already noted three occurrences, to which I have supplied an additional three.

<sup>95</sup> See Bar-Asher, *Studies in Mishnaic Hebrew*, vol. 1, p. 225, n. 15; pp. 251– 252; vol. 2, pp. 6–8, 187–188 and the bibliography cited there.

as Kutscher has shown.96 Thus, in Mishnaic Hebrew the infuence of labial consonants extended to ultra-short vowels.97

#### **Foreign Words**

Any discussion of the vocalisation in MS Cambridge must address the scribe-vocaliser's treatment of foreign words. Some 10 percent of the vocalised words belong to this category and they are mainly Greek words. This phenomenon is important, as is the vocalisation of these words, because it may assist identifcation of the precise region in Byzantium where the scribe-vocaliser resided. To date, however, it has proven impossible to identify the specifc locale.

This difers from what we fnd in other manuscripts of the Mishnah: in MS Paris, for example, most of the unvocalised words are foreign, which suggests 'that he did not know how to read them'.98 In contrast, the vocaliser of MS Cambridge chose to vocalise these words specifcally; moreover, his vocalisation represents a tradition that can at times difer in terms of spelling and vocalisation from the tradition of other manuscripts of the Mishnah. Two examples follow.

בֵ ימַ ה

עושין לו בֵ ימַ ה של עץ בעזרה והוא יושב :states 7.8 *Sotah* in Mishnah The עליה' they prepared for him [sc. the king] in the Temple Court a

<sup>96</sup> Eduard Y. Kutscher, *The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1 Q Isa*<sup>a</sup> *)* (Leiden: Brill), pp. 497–498.

<sup>97</sup> I chanced on another example of the variation of *shewa* before labials in MS Kaufmann: יו ָר ָמ(ו )ְש in the meaning of שמרים' yeast' (*Baba Metzia* 4.11). MSS Cambridge and Parma A have the usual version שמריו.

<sup>98</sup> Bar-Asher, *Mishnaic Hebrew in Italy*, p. 9.

platform of wood and he sat thereon' (variants: Kaufmann: א ָימ ִב ; .99(בֶ ימָ ה 1.97:E S-T fragment Genizah; בִ ימָ ה :Paris

The origin of this noun is the Greek βῆμα. 100 Most of the rabbinic sources that vocalise this word attest to *ḥireq* in the frst syllable,101 with the exception of its rare vocalisation with an *e*-vowel in MS Cambridge and a Genizah fragment.

In his discussion of loanwords, Heijmans describes the realisation of the Greek vowel η over time and determines that it was pronounced [e] in the Hellenistic-Roman period, but that a shift from [e] to [i] took place in Byzantine times. He sees the pronunciation with *ḥireq* as refecting a late realisation of the Greek η. 102 Thus MS Cambridge refects an earlier form as compared to those found in other manuscripts.

וְ הַ מִ לְ פְ פְ ון

הַ קִ שות וְ הַ מִ לְ פְ פְ ון אינן כלאים זה בזה 1.2: *Kilaim* in states Mishnah The 'cucumber and cucumber-melon are not forbidden junction one ;וְ הָ מָ לְ פ ְ פון :A Parma; וְ הַ מַ לְ פ ְ פון :Kaufmann :variants' (other the with .(וְ הָ מֵ לָ פְ פון :Paris

The source of this noun is the Greek μηλοπέπων. 103 Here, as in the previous example, we also have the letter *eta*. MSS Kaufmann and Parma A vocalise the initial syllable with *a*, whereas MS

<sup>99</sup> For the Genizah fragment see also Birnbaum, *Mishna in the Cairo Geniza*, p. 300.

<sup>100</sup> Samuel Krauss, *Griechische und Lateinische Lehnwörter im Talmud, Midrasch und Targum*, vol. 2 (Berlin: Calvary, 1899), p. 150.

<sup>101</sup> Shai Heijmans, "Greek and Latin Loanwords in Mishnaic Hebrew: Lexicon and Phonology" (in Hebrew; PhD dissertation, Tel-Aviv University, 2013), p. 67.

<sup>102</sup> Ibid., pp. 264–265.

<sup>103</sup> Krauss, *Lehnwörter*, vol. 2, p. 336.

Cambridge has *i*. The realisation *a* for Greek *eta* is strange, and apparently represents a development later than the realisation with *i*. 104 Heijmans argues that the person who vocalised with *i* knew the Greek word as pronounced after the Greek [e]>[i] shift. In any event, the *ḥireq* found in MS Cambridge has a basis in a known process that took place in Greek and seems to refect knowledge of this form.

#### **Conclusion**

I have presented here only a fraction of the vocalised words scattered throughout MS Cambridge of the Mishnah. I have attempted to demonstrate that these select examples refect deliberate choices on the vocaliser's part. MS Cambridge shares some superior traditions — as refected in the words טומאה-טמאה ,others; manuscripts Italian with — ,טלה ,בכרים ,הסף ,הסוכה ,אדיין uniquely are ,מילפפון and בימה ,רופיים ,מלאין ,לעזר ,היו as such Byzantine. In addition, we have seen that, despite its relatively late date, MS Cambridge refects a superior, Byzantine tradition of MH, which is supported by the witnesses of the Italian tradition, MSS Kaufmann, and Parma A. On the other hand, we have also seen that the Byzantine tradition has unique features that are undoubtedly early and accurate. This enables us to add to our knowledge a hidden, ancient Palestinian tradition that circulated in Byzantium. This independent tradition evidences afnity to the other extant, superior sources of Mishnaic Hebrew.

<sup>104</sup> Heijmans, "Greek and Latin Loanwords", p. 266.

## **3. ADJACENCY PAIRS AND ARGUMENTATIVE STEPS IN THE HALAKHIC GIVE-AND-TAKE CONVERSATIONS IN THE MISHNAH**

*Rivka Shemesh-Raiskin*

### **1. The discourse unit of the halakhic giveand-take conversation and its features**

Two types of halakhic texts form the core of Tannaitic literature, in general, and of the Mishnah, in particular: the formulation of law and halakhic give-and-take. The formulation of law is an abstract presentation of the laws, whereas halakhic give-and-take is a presentation of the Sages' views on halakhic subjects in order to determine the laws.

For example, citation [1] presents a formulation of law concerning the onset of a fast undertaken because of a drought:

[1] *Taanith* 1.4:

הגיע שבעה עשר במרחשון ולא ירדו גשמים התחילו היחידים מתענים.

If the seventeenth of Marcheshvan had come and no rain had fallen, individuals begin to fast.1

<sup>1</sup> The citations from Tannaitic literature in this paper were collected from the *Maagarim*achiveof the Hebrew Language Historical Dictionary Project

And citation [2] contains a halakhic give-and-take presenting the opinions of two sages regarding the time when praying for rain as part of the *Amida* prayer should cease:

```
[2] Taanith 1.2:
```

```
עד אמתי שואלין? ר׳ יהודה אומ׳: עד שיעבור הפסח. ר׳ מאיר
                              ]אומ׳[: עד שיֵצא ניסן ]...[
```
Until what time should they pray for rain? R. Judah says: 'until Passover goes by'. R. Meir says: 'until Nisan is passed'.

The continuum of the diferent types of texts in Tannaitic literature,<sup>2</sup> as presented in Figure 1, includes seven types of texts — or types of discourse units. Law formulation and halakhic give-and-take are positioned on the halakhic pole of the continuum, and the fve other types of texts are positioned between the halakhic pole

2 This continuum has been presented and exemplifed in previous articles: Rivka Shemesh, "On the Narrative Discourse in Tannaitic Language: An Exploration of the Maʿaseh and Paʿam Ahat Discourse Units", *Hebrew Studies* 49 (2008), pp. 99–123, at pp. 102–106; eadem, "Towards a Description of the Narrative Discourse Units in Tannaitic Hebrew", *Folia Linguistica Historica* 29 (2008), pp. 57–64, and in the Hebrew version of this article: "Towards a Description of the Narrative Discourse Units in Tannaitic Hebrew" (in Hebrew), *Kaet* 1 (2013), pp. 215–219.

of the Academy of the Hebrew Language, located on the Academy's website. To facilitate the smooth reading of the quotations, punctuation marks have occasionally been added, and certain textual marks used by the Hebrew Historical Dictionary Project may have been omitted; as a result of this omission, necessary amendments to the text have been made. When the text in the citation is presented as a partial citation, the omitted section is noted by means of square brackets and three dots […]; in most cases, the omitted section is noted only in the middle of the citation and not at its end. The translation of the excerpts of the Mishnah into English is based mainly on Philip Blackman, *Mishnayoth: Pointed Hebrew Text, English Translation, Introductions* (2nd ed.; New York: Judaica Press, 1963), with some changes made forpurposes of clarity.

and the narrative pole: scripture exposition, wise saying, parable, ceremony description, and story.

Figure 1: The Continuum of Text Types in the Tannaitic literature

The context of halakhic give-and-take may include not only the presentation of the views of the debating parties in succession, but also the actual debate between them regarding their views. In such cases, a halakhic give-and-take conversation takes place.

For example, citation [3] begins with a presentation of the views of R. Eliezer and R. Joshua regarding when one should start praying for rain in the *Amida* prayer. This is followed by a halakhic give-and-take conversation between the two sages, including two exchanges between them:3

[3] *Taanith* 1.1:

מאמתי מזכירין גבורות גשמים ]בתחיית המתים[?

ר׳ ליעז׳ אומ׳: מיום טוב הראשון שלחג, ור׳ יהושע אומ׳: מיום טוב האחרון.

<sup>3</sup> In the presentation of citations containing halakhic give-and-take conversations, each introductory pattern presenting the opinion is underlined with a single line, e.g., יהושע ר׳ אמ׳, and the two additional patterns in citation [3]. If the conversation contains more than one exchange, each exchange will be marked at its start with a number in subscript, such as the number 1 before יהושע ר׳ אמ׳ in this citation. In citations that contain more than one halakhic give-and-take conversation each conversation will be marked at its start with a number square brackets (e.g., [1], [2], etc.).

<sup>1</sup>אמ׳ ר׳ יהושע: הואיל ואין גשמים סימן ברכה בחג למה הוא מזכיר? אמ׳ לו ר׳ ליעזר: אף הוא אינו אומ׳ אלא ׳משיב הרוח ומוריד הגשם׳ בעונתו.

<sup>2</sup>אמ׳ לו: אם כן לעולם יהא מזכיר.

From what time should they begin to mention the *Power of Rain*?

R. Eliezer says: From the frst holy day of the Feast of Tabernacles;

R. Joshua says: From the last holy day of the Feast of Tabernacles.

Said R. Joshua: Since rain during the holiday is but a sign of a curse, why should one make mention of it?

R. Eliezer said to him: He, too, does not ask [for rain], but only mentions 'who causes the wind to blow and the rain to fall' in its due season.

He said to him: if so, one should mention it at all times.

A halakhic give-and-take conversation must contain at least one exchange between the discussants, that is, an expression of the comments spoken by an addressor and an addressee or an expression of the comments spoken only by an addressor. The frst exchange in the conversation, which is often the only one, begins at the place where a real conversation between the debating parties begins. Occasionally, the exchange appears after the presentation of the views of one or both of the parties, but the presentation of the views is not included in the halakhic give-and-take conversation itself.4 In other words, the halakhic give-and-take conversation begins at the stage of the exchanges rather than at the stage of the

<sup>4</sup> Valler and Razabi explain that a conversation should include more than one statement, or two statements that counter one another; see Shulamit

presentation of views. The presentation of views and the give-andtake conversation are separate discourse units.

For example, citation [3] begins with a presentation of the views of R. Eliezer and R. Joshua regarding when one should start praying for rain in the *Amida* prayer. The halakhic give-andtake conversation after the presentation of these views begins with R. Joshua's question, because it is only from this point that the other party's response begins. This conversation contains two exchanges. The frst exchange is made up of two parts and includes R. Joshua's question and R. Eliezer's response. The second exchange contains R. Joshua's assertion, which raises an additional difculty regarding R. Eliezer's view; this is a partial exchange since it does not contain the other party's response.

Halakhic give-and-take conversation is a part of argumentative discourse. Muntigl and Turnbull employ the term 'conversational arguing' for this type of discourse, and present other terms for it that are used in the research, such as 'disputing', 'confict talk', and 'oppositional argument'.5 In their view, conversational arguing involves the conversational interactivity of making claims, disagreeing with claims, countering disagreements, along with the processes by which such disagreements arise, are dealt with, and are resolved. Arguing has been studied in numerous disciplines, including philosophy, rhetoric, anthropology, sociology, psychology, and linguistics.6

Halakhic give-and-take conversation functioning as argumentative discourse therefore has three prominent

Valler and Shalom Razabi, *Small Talks in the Babylonian Talmud* (in Hebrew; Tel-Aviv: Am Oved, 2007), pp. 9–11.

<sup>5</sup> Peter Muntigl and William Turnbull, "Conversational Structure and Facework in Arguing", *Journal of Pragmatics* 29 (1998), pp. 225–226.

<sup>6</sup> Santoi Leung, "Confict Talk: A Discourse Analytical Perspective", *Working Papers in TESOL and Applied Linguistics* 2 (2002), pp. 1–19, at p. 1.

characteristics: (a) it is dialogic in nature; (b) it represents a controversy between the discussants; (c) and it has a suasive goal.

a) *Dialogic nature:* This characteristic is refected in the fact that halakhic give-and-take conversation expresses an actual spoken dialogue held between discussants, whether conversation held in the Tannaitic and Amoraic literature is viewed as refecting an actual discussion between sages or as the product of redaction that presents these dialogues as conversations of this kind.

Various scholars have discussed these two approaches as they apply to the nature of conversations in Tannaitic literature. Albeck describes the discussions between Tannaim as generally being face to face, and occurring in the Sanhedrin, the seat of the president, in private study halls, as well as while the Tannaim were strolling along.7 Sharvit explains that some Talmud researchers and language scholars have interpreted the saying שאדם רבו כלשון לומר חייב' because a man must employ the style of expression of his teacher' (*Eduyoth* 1.3) to mean that R. Judah the Prince, the redactor of the Mishnah, did not edit the words of the Tannaitic rabbis, and instead quoted them verbatim, since, as he notes in this statement, the Tannaitic scholars themselves were careful to cite the laws in the actual words of their rabbis.8 De Vries believes that Albeck's claim that R. Judah the Prince only collated and arranged the actual wording of the Mishnah, without making any changes therein, arises from a literary-historic point of departure from within

<sup>7</sup> Chanoch Albeck, *Introduction to the Mishnah* (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute and Tel-Aviv: Dvir, 1967), pp. 94–95.

<sup>8</sup> Shimon Sharvit, *Studies in Mishnaic Hebrew* (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2008), p. 30.

the Mishnah, rather than a historic one; according to De Vries, R. Judah the Prince not only collated and redacted the Mishnah, but also formulated and adapted it.9 A similar view was expressed by Epstein.10 Bendavid describes the Oral Torah learning method and the way it was transmitted from one generation to the next,11 and maintains that the documentation of the discussions and arguments contained in the Talmud, the questions and answers and various kinds of give-and-take, is quite precise in its representation of what the speakers said — 'if not word for word, the actual style of what was said'12 — and refects contemporary spoken Hebrew, and is 'a true refection of how people living in the Hebrew language negotiated, how they asked and responded, laughed and vociferated, recounted events and joked, in the study hall and the marketplace, when discussing matters of Torah and holding mundane conversations'.13

In contrast to this approach, which views the conversations as a refection of the actual discussions held among the sages, is the one that considers these conversations to be the outcome of editing. Neusner believes that the language of the Mishnah is in fact a revision of the natural language of Middle Hebrew.14

<sup>9</sup> Benjamin de Vries, *Mavo Kelali la-Sifrut ha-Talmudit* (in Hebrew; Tel-Aviv: Sinai, 1966).

<sup>10</sup> Jacob N. Epstein, *Introduction to Tannaitic Literature: Mishnah, Tosephta and Halakhic Midrashim* (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Magnes Press and Tel-Aviv: Dvir, 1957), pp. 188–224.

<sup>11</sup> Abba Bendavid, *Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew* (in Hebrew; Tel-Aviv: Dvir, 1967), pp. 101–106.

<sup>12</sup> Ibid., p. 101.

<sup>13</sup> Ibid., p. 106 (both passages translated from the original Hebrew).

<sup>14</sup> Jacob Neusner, *The Mishnah: A New Translation* (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988), pp. xix–xxi.

According to Blondheim, Blum-Kulka, and Hacohen, the successive editors of the Talmud tried to make the conversations in the Talmudic text appear as transcripts of oral debates taking place in a study hall.15 This is also the basis of Blondheim and Blum-Kulka's analysis of a Talmudic text from the perspectives of conversation analysis and historical pragmatics.16 According to Raveh, direct speech might have refected one characteristic of the art of the oral story, the medium used by the narrator to imitate speech in the represented world.17 Kahana examines the construction of three controversies in the Mishnah, and claims that these controversies are not to be viewed as complete protocols of the discussions by the rabbis, or as a neutral and unbiased documentation of the main lines of disagreement.18 Simon-Shoshan in his book about the narrative discourse in the Mishnah, includes the dialogues within the type of texts that he terms 'speech acts'.19 In his view, the Mishnah occasionally presents dialogues between two rabbis in order to expound on the underlying logic of opposing halakhic positions. He relates to the dialogues as a feature of the narrative,


<sup>15</sup> Menahem Blondheim and Shoshana Blum-Kulka, "Literacy, Orality, Television: Mediation and Authenticity in Jewish Conversational Arguing, 1–2000 CE", *The Communication Review* 4 (2001), pp. 511–540; Shoshana Blum-Kulka, Menahem Blondheim, and Gonen Hacohen, "Traditions of Dispute: From Negotiations of Talmudic Texts to the Arena of Political Discourse in the Media", *Journal of Pragmatics* 34 (2002), pp. 1569–1594.

<sup>16</sup> Blondheim and Blum-Kulka, "Literacy, Orality, Television", pp. 516–523.

but views them at most as marginal stories because no signifcant change occurs as a result of the conversation, and each of the rabbis leaves the encounter holding the same opinion as before. He argues that the debates between the schools of Hillel and Shammai, which conclude with the narrator stating that in response to the House of Shammai's arguments the School of Hillel changed their view, can be considered stories.

b) *Representation of controversy between discussants:* This characteristic is refected in the fact that the main motivation behind halakhic give-and-take conversation is the existing controversy between the discussants.20

Blondheim and Blum-Kulka maintain that intensive interpersonal argument was indeed the trope of the study process engaged in by the Tannaim and Amoraim. 21

21 Blondheim and Blum-Kulka, "Literacy, Orality, Television", pp. 516–523. According to Belberg, the culture of the sages can be described 'as a "culture of controversy", in which discussion and argument were the building blocks of creativity'; see Mira Belberg, *Gateway to Rabbinic* 

<sup>20</sup> For a discussion of the word מחלוקת' controversy', see Shlomo Naeh, "'You Should Make Your Heart into Many Chambers': Additional Inquiry in the Writings of the Sages on Controversies" (in Hebrew), in: Avi Sagi and Zvi Zohar (eds.), *Renewing Jewish Commitment: The Work and Thought of David Hartman*, vol. 2 (Jerusalem: Hakibbuts Hameuchad, 2001), pp. 851–875. Sources sorted into diferent subjects on the topic of controversy in halakha can be found in: Haninah Ben-Menahem, Natan Hekht, and Shai Vozner (eds.), *Controversy and Dialogue in Halakhic Sources* (3 vols.; in Hebrew; Boston: The Institute of Jewish Law, Boston University School of Law, 1991–1993). And see also references to scholarly literature on the subject of controversy in the literature of the Oral Law in Ofra Meir, "Questions or Answers: On the Development of the Rhetoric of the *Mahaloket* (confict of opinions) in the Palestinian Rabbinic Literature (Part I)" (in Hebrew), *Dapim le-Mehqar be-Sifrut* 8 (1992), pp. 159–186, at pp. 159–160 and n. 1 on p. 183, as well as the scholarly literature discussing statements of the Sages relating to the phenomenon of controversy in research on the Oral Law, in Kahana, "On the Fashioning and Aims", p. 51 and n. 1 there.

The study by Schifrin,22 along with those of Blum-Kulka, Blondheim, and Hacohen, show that controversy in rabbinic literature also impacted the shaping of the tradition of controversy in Jewish and Israeli society.

c) *Suasive goal:* This characteristic is refected in the fact that the main intention of the addressor in expressing his halakhic position in give-and-take conversation is to persuade the addressee of the correctness of his assertion.

#### **2. A description of two aspects drawn from conversation analysis**

A study that I am conducting on halakhic give-and-take conversations in the Mishnah includes all halakhic give-and-take conversations found in the Mishnah — 190 conversations, which include 240 exchanges between addressor and addressee.23 The


*Literature* (in Hebrew; Raanana: The Open University of Israel, 2013) p. 65 (translated by the author). Melamed presents three factors typical of the disagreements in the Oral Law: the absence of an authority to decide on new issues, a large number of disciples who did not devote themselves sufciently to their studies, and a disagreement among the Tannaim over the interpretation and formulation of the Mishnah being studied; see Ezra Zion Melamed, *Introduction to Talmudic Literature* (in Hebrew; 3rd ed.; Jerusalem: Kiryat Sepher, 1961), pp. 21–23.

debating parties in halakhic give-and-take conversations can be divided into three types:24 In most of the conversations (117 conversations = 62 percent) one party is an individual and the other party is a group; in fewer than a third of the conversations in the corpus (56 conversations = 29 percent)25 both parties

contain two exchanges. A small proportion of the conversations in the corpus (seven conversations = 3.5 percent) contain a larger number of exchanges — with three, four, or fve exchanges. Similar to the fndings from the study of the corpus undertaken by Meir, "Questions or Answers", pp. 163–164, which includes 145 controversies, she found that the most frequent structure for controversies contained one stage; furthermore, 16 controversies (11 percent) contained a two-staged dialogue, and 11 had unique structures.


are individuals; and in a small number of the conversations (17 conversations = 9 percent) both parties are groups (in most of these conversations — 14 conversations — the parties are the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai).

In this study on halakhic give-and-take conversations in the Mishnah, the conversations are studied from aspects that belong to diferent linguistic areas: discourse analysis, pragmatics, conversation analysis, and rhetoric. This article will describe two aspects of conversation analysis that were investigated: adjacency pairs in conversations (in section 2.1) and argumentative steps in conversations (in section 2.2).

#### **2.1 Adjacency pairs in the halakhic give-and-take conversations in the Mishnah**

'Adjacency pair' is a term used in the theoretical approach known as conversation analysis.26 This term relates to a pair of turn types in a conversation that come together, i.e., a turn of one type on the part of the addressor leads to a turn of a diferent type on the part of the addressee, for example question and answer, complaint and apology, a greeting answered by another greeting.27

<sup>26</sup> The term 'adjacency pair' was proposed by the sociologists Sacks and Scheglof. The Hebrew term שיחתי צמד' conversational pair' can be found, for example, in Johnstone, *Discourse Analysis*, pp. 130–144. Zohar Livnat, *Introduction to the Theory of Meaning: Semantics and Pragmatics* (in Hebrew; Raanana: The Open University, 2014), vol. 2, pp. 198–206, uses the term עוקב זוג' consecutive pair', which is a literal translation of the term 'adjacency pair' in English, but is less transparent than שיחתי צמד.

<sup>27</sup> See Paul E. Jose, "Sequentiality of Speech Acts in Conversational Structure", *Journal of Psycholinguistic Research* 17 (1988), pp. 65–88, at p. 67; Crystal, *The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language*, p. 118; Brian Paltridge, *Discourse Analysis: An Introduction* (London and New York: Continuum, 2006), pp. 110–118; Dale Hample, *Arguing: Exchanging Reasons Face to Face* (London: Routledge, 2012), pp. 261–265; Johnstone, *Discourse Analysis*, pp. 130–144; Karen Tracy and Jessica S. Robles, *Everyday Talk: Building and Refecting* 

This investigation of halakhic give-and-take conversations in the Mishnah examined adjacency pairs that appear in both parts of the exchange. The examination included all the exchanges comprising two parts (151), excluding partial exchanges (88), which contain only the words of the addressor, thus making it impossible to examine the adjacency pairs in them.

Table 1 presents fve adjacency pairs in order of their frequency in conversations — based on the frst part of the pair: asking, asserting, telling a story, explaining, and reprimanding. The frst column of the table presents the pairs, and the second column shows the prevalent and rare options for each pair (alongside each, the number of its occurrences is noted, and for frequent options, their proportion as a percentage is shown in relation to the overall occurrence of the pair; the fnal column shows the overall number for each pair).28

*Identities.* (2nd ed.; New York: The Guilford Press, 2013), pp. 138–143; Livnat, *Introduction to the Theory of Meaning*, vol. 2, pp. 198–206. As can be seen in the table in Stephen Levinson, *Pragmatics* (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), p. 336 (reprinted in Paltridge, *Discourse Analysis: An Introduction*, p. 117), there are typical preferred second pair parts which are common in conversation, but occasionally a turn that appears with a non-typical dispreferred second part, for example (in the following pairs the preferred second part will be presented after the dash compared to the dispreferred part: request — acceptance versus refusal, ofer/invite — acceptance versus refusal, assessment — agreement versus disagreement, question expected answer versus unexpected answer or non-answer, blame — denial versus admission. And see a diferent approach in Amy Tsui, "Beyond the Adjacency Pair", *Language in Society* 8 (1989), pp. 545–564, according to which conversation is not arranged in adjacency pairs, but rather as a three-part exchange.

28 The prevalent options in each pair were determined in consideration of their proportion compared to the overall number of the occurrences of each adjacency pair. In the last two adjacency pairs — 4 and 5 — no prevalent options have been presented due to the overall sparse number of occurrences of each of them.


Table 1: The adjacency pairs in exchanges in conversations The table shows that there are two prevalent adjacency pairs in halakhic give-and-take conversations in the Mishnah — the pairs in which the frst part involves asking (including *qal va-chomer*, i.e., *a fortiori*, questions) or asserting (including *gezerah shavah*, i.e., analogy, and *a fortiori* assertions). These pairs were found in 85 percent of the exchanges that were examined (128 exchanges: 81 with asking and 47 with asserting). From this it follows that when the discussant presents his position, he prefers to do so by asking or asserting, whereas presenting by telling a story, explaining, or reprimanding is very rare in halakhic give-and-take conversations.29

In addition, we see the most common combinations in these two prevalent adjacency pairs. In pairs in which the frst part is asking, the prevalent combinations are with a second part that is answering, asserting, or asking;30 and in pairs in which the frst part is asserting, the only prevalent combination is with a second part that is asserting (in 74 percent of the occurrences of this pair = 35 exchanges).31 In more than half of the exchanges which are made up of two parts — in 58 percent of them (87 occurrences) — asking+answering pairs were found (52 occurrences) as were asking+asserting pairs (35 occurrences). In other words, the frst party chooses to express his position

<sup>29</sup> There are three adjacency pairs that are not prevalent in the corpus, and their frst parts involve telling a story, explaining, or reprimanding. When the frst part is telling a story, the prevalent combination is with a second part that is asserting. To these should be added four adjacency pairs represented by just one or two occurrences, which have not been presented in this table: requesting+giving permission or ordering; and one occurrence for each of these adjacency pairs: answering+answering, vowing+declaring, ordering+asserting.

<sup>30</sup> Rare combinations of asking are followed by a second part determining of law, praising, or reprimanding. In one exchange, the question is followed by a nonverbal response אחר לדבר והשיאו' and led him to another subject'.

<sup>31</sup> Rare combinations include asserting with ordering, asking, reprimanding, and declaring.

by asking and the other party chooses to respond by answering, or the frst party opens by asserting and the other party also responds by asserting.

An asking+answering pair can be found, for example, in citation [3] of R. Eliezer and R. Joshua, which discusses when one should begin to mention rain in the prayers. R. Joshua asks rain since 'הואיל ואין גשמים סימן ברכה בחג למה הוא מזכיר? :question a during the holiday is but a sign of a curse, why should one make mention of it?', and R. Eliezer responds: ״משיב אלא אומ׳ אינו הוא אף בעונתו הגשם״ ומוריד הרוח' he too does not ask [for rain] but only mentions "who causes the wind to blow and the rain to fall"in its due season'.

The asserting+asserting pair can be found, for example, in citation [4], in the conversation between R. Tarfon and R. Elazar ben Azariah about tithes taken from the fruits of the seventh year outside the land of Israel in the lands of Ammon and Moab:

[4] *Yadaim* 4.3:

<sup>1</sup>השיב ר׳ טרפון: מצרים חוץ לארץ ועמון ומואב חוץ לארץ, מה מצרים מעשר עני בשביעית אף עמון ומואב ]מעשר עני[ בשביעית. השיב ר׳ אלעזר בן עזריה: בבל חוץ לארץ עמון ומואב חוץ לארץ, מה בבל מעשר שיני בשביעית אף עמון ומואב מעשר שיני בשביעית ]...[

R. Tarfon replied: Egypt is outside the Land [of Israel]; Ammon and Moab are outside the Land [of Israel]; hence just as in Egypt a poor-man's tithe must be given in the Sabbatical year, so in Ammon and Moab a poor-man's tithe must be given in the Sabbatical year.

R. Elazar ben Azariah answered: Babylon is outside the Land [of Israel]; Ammon and Moab are outside the Land [of Israel]; hence just as in Babylon a second tithe must be given in the Sabbatical year, so in Ammon and Moab a second tithe must be given in the Sabbatical year […]

R. Tarfon argues, based on an analogy (*gezerah shavah*) that infers from the law regarding the giving of tithes in Egypt, that the obligation to give the poor-man's tithe applies in the lands of Ammon and Moab as well, and R. Elazar ben Azariah responds making a parallel claim, inferring from the law regarding the giving of a second tithe, that one is obligated to give a second tithe in Ammon and Moab as well.

The examination of adjacency pairs described here is aimed at examining the most prevalent adjacency pairs in conversations and the most prevalent combinations among them. The two adjacency pairs found most prevalent in this examination — the asking+answering pair and the asserting+asserting pair — are familiar pairs in the theoretical context of conversation analysis,32

<sup>32</sup> Jose, "Sequentiality of Speech Acts", examined speech acts sequentially in conversations between female adults and preschool children, employing a quantitative method of analysis. As opposed to the separate description of speech acts and of adjacency pairs in this research on halakhic give-andtake conversations in the Mishnah, in Jose's research there is a combination of the two, since he examined, as mentioned, speech act sequentiality in conversational discourse. Jose found in the conversations sequential patterns, whose initiating acts are questions, statements, and directives and whose responses are answers, agreements, interjections, and repetitions. The most common sequential patterns which Jose found in the conversations that he examined are question–answer and statement–acknowledgment, the most common speech acts being statements and directives (which also include questions). Although the examination of speech act sequentiality in Jose's research is diferent in many aspects from the examinations which were undertaken in this study on halakhic give-and-take conversations in the Mishnah — e.g., from such aspects as the nature of the conversations and research method — both studies arrive at similar conclusions as to the frequency of speech acts and adjacency pairs in the relevant conversations. And see in Jose, "Sequentiality of Speech Acts", pp. 67–69, a review of several sequential models of speech act production, one of them is the adjacency pairs. Jose maintains that some of those models lack empirical basis in real discourse, while those which had empirical basis examined a particular type of discourse or a limited discourse.

and are also suitable for the common speech acts found in halakhic give-and-take conversations in the Mishnah — asserting, asking, and answering — and these are described in this study in the context of the pragmatic description of speech acts.

#### **2.2 Argumentative steps in the halakhic give-andtake conversations in the Mishnah**

#### *2.2.1 Muntigl and Turnbull's Model*

Exchanges in halakhic give-and-take conversations in the Mishnah were analysed in this study based on a model presented by Muntigl and Turnbull (hereinafter: M&T),33 which is described in this section.

M&T examined arguments in naturally occurring conversations between university students and family members.34 They found four types of disagreement acts within the second and third turn of arguing exchanges (= T2 and T3, i.e., the turn of the second speaker and the turn of the frst speaker, respectively):<sup>35</sup>

<sup>33</sup> Peter Muntigl and William Turnbull, "Conversational Structure and Facework in Arguing", pp. 225–256. It should be noted, that there are other models for describing negotiation. For example, the research of Douglas P. Twitchell et al., "Negotiation Outcome Classifcation Using Language Features", *Group Decision and Negotiation* 22 (2013), pp. 135–151, classifes the negotiation outcomes in a corpus of 20 transcripts of actual face-to-face negotiations using two classifcation models. The frst model uses language features and speech acts to place negotiation utterance onto an integrative (i.e., seeking consensus) and distributive (i.e., divisive) scale. The second model classifes each negotiation as successful or unsuccessful.

<sup>34</sup> And see a representation of their research also in the review of Leung, "Confict Talk", and in the descriptions of William Turnbull, *Language in Action: Psychological Models of Conversation* (Hove: Psychology Press, 2003), pp. 184–188, and Hample, *Arguing: Exchanging Reasons Face to Face*, pp. 255–261.

<sup>35</sup> The other issue which was dealt with in their study is revealing regularities in second and third turn (T2–T3) sequences. M&T suggest that


Also found were frequent combinations of contradiction + counterclaim and other act combinations.

the orderliness of the T2–T3 sequence is a consequence of interactants' concerns about face/identity: the more speaker B's T2 act damages speaker A's face, the more likely A is to respond with a T3 act that directly supports A's T1 claim; T3 acts that support T1 refect A's attempt to repair damage to their own face occasioned by the face-aggravating T2 act.


M&T's study was done in the context of an approach that views argument as a face-threatening activity. In the wake of the examination of the distribution of these acts in argument,40 M&T rank the degree of aggressiveness of the acts, i.e., in terms of the extent to which they damage another's face, from most to least face aggravating: irrelevancy claim, challenge, contradiction, combination contradiction+counterclaim, and counterclaim. The most aggravating act is an irrelevancy claim, because it limits any further discussion and attacks the most fundamental social skill of a conversationalist; next in aggressiveness is the challenge, since it directly attacks the competency of the other to back up his or her claim; contradiction is less face-aggravating, since it does not directly attack the other speaker; the combination act contradiction+counterclaim is less aggravating, since it contains a contradiction that repudiates other's claim, which is somewhat mitigated by a counterclaim that ofers more information on the basis of which to negotiate the disagreement; and the counterclaim is the least face-aggravating, because it does not overtly mark opposition, but provides an alternative claim by opening up the topic for discussion.

In accordance with this ranking, M&T classifed the acts into three categories: the highly aggressive category — irrelevancy claim and challenge; the moderately aggressive category contradiction and contradiction+counterclaim; and the less aggressive category — counterclaim.

#### *2.2.2 Examining argumentative steps in halakhic give-andtake conversations in the Mishnah*

In this study on halakhic give-and-take conversations in the Mishnah, an efort has been made to describe exchanges in

<sup>40</sup> And see in Table 4 below the distribution of the acts found by M&T in the turns of the two speakers.

conversations according to M&T's model and to compare fndings with those of their study as well as of another study conducted according to this model, namely that of Blondheim and Blum-Kulka (hereafter B&BK),41 which will be described in section 2.2.3 below.

The examination undertaken in this study is called an examination of argumentative steps and comprises two parts. The frst part of the examination analysed the 116 two-part exchanges that contain the most prevalent speech acts: asserting, asking, and answering (i.e., 77 percent of the 151 two-part exchanges). Each of the exchanges was examined individually,42 even when the exchange was part of a conversation containing multiple exchanges. In each exchange, the second part of the exchange was examined in relation to the previous part, i.e., the second part spoken by the addressee that comes in response to the frst part spoken by the addressor. In this way, it was possible to assess the degree of the addressee's response in relation to the previous remarks by the addressor. The words of the addressor, i.e., the

<sup>41</sup> Menahem Blondheim and Shoshana Blum-Kulka, "Literacy, Orality, Television: Mediation and Authenticity in Jewish Conversational Arguing, 1–2000 CE", *The Communication Review* 4 (2001), pp. 511–540.

<sup>42</sup> The frst part of the examination included 151 two-part exchanges, i.e., the 88 partial exchanges were not included, because only in exchanges with two parts can the argumentative step that is held between the two parts of the exchange be examined. Of these 151 exchanges, only those that contained acts of asserting, asking, and answering were examined; these acts are the most prevalent speech acts in exchanges, on the one hand, and also have a clear argumentative feature, on the other hand. That is to say, from among the adjacency pairs described in section 2.1 above, seven pairs that contain combinations of the three abovementioned acts: asking+answering (52 pairs), asking+asserting (13), asking+asking (10); asserting+asserting (35), asserting+answering (3), asserting+asking (2); answering+answering (1). In the examination of the argumentative steps in these pairs, only the frst speech act in each part of the exchange was considered, even if an additional speech act or acts appears after it.

frst part of the exchange, cannot be similarly assessed, because they do not always relate to something said previously, and consequently, the speech acts in the frst part of the exchanges in the corpus were not included in this examination.

The second part of the examination included 40 two-part exchanges in conversations including multiple exchanges also contain the most prevalent speech acts of asserting, asking, and answering. In these conversational exchanges the second and (if appropriate) following exchanges were examined in order to fnd the argumentative step between the exchange that was examined and the exchange that preceded it in the conversation. In each exchange, the frst part of the exchange was examined in order to fnd its relation to the second part of the exchange that preceded.

It should be noted that in the classifcation of exchanges in the corpus of the conversations in this study, dilemmas of classifcation often arose regarding the attribution of a particular exchange to one of the four types of steps. For example, is a particular argument a contradiction, i.e., does it expresses direct opposition to the previous claim, or is it merely an alternative counterclaim that does not directly contradict the claim; is a particular argument a contradiction to the previous claim or does it also contain a challenge, i.e., does it also expresses disagreement and demands that the addressee provide evidence for his or her claim, while suggesting that he or she cannot do so. It appears that this type of dilemma is typical of many classifcatory studies, and M&T also report several cases that posed a challenge to them in their study.43 Further to this, it is possible that dilemmas are due to the fact that the classifcation categories are themselves somewhat ambiguous, which often makes it difcult to distinguish among them. M&T note in some of the categories the diferent defnitions that were provided for

<sup>43</sup> M&T, p. 240.

it by previous researchers, as well as terminological variety in the case of certain categories, which is especially relevant in the categories of challenge (M&T, p. 229–230) and contradiction (M&T, p. 231). It is also possible that dilemmas arose due to the diferent nature of the conversations under examination here — halakhic give-and-take conversations that appear in a text written during the classical period, as opposed to the nature of the naturally occurring oral conversations in modern English that formed the basis for M&T's classifcation. M&T explain at the beginning of their classifcation that former classifcation systems have been based on children's arguments, compared to their system of classifcation, which has been based on arguments between adults and adolescents. They comment that, because of this diference, there may be a need to modify the classifcation scheme in order to adapt it to these kinds of arguments. Despite these dilemmas in examining the corpus of halakhic give-and-take conversations in the Mishnah, each of the exchanges was classifed into one of four types of argumentative steps, without creating combinations between steps or removing cases that aroused doubt. The working assumption was that, despite the dilemmas, the fndings can be examined and compared in general terms to the fndings of the studies of M&T and of B&BK.

In this section, fndings regarding the four types of argumentative steps that emerged from the two parts of the examination of the exchanges in halakhic give-and-take conversations in the Mishnah will be presented frst, followed by a sampling of each of the steps in the conversations in the corpus.

Table 2 presents the fndings regarding the four types of argumentative steps found in the 116 two-part exchanges (the types of argumentative step are presented in the frst line; the second line notes the number of exchanges of each type of step, and alongside the number is its proportion in terms of a percentage of the overall number of exchanges examined in this part of the examination). Table 3, which follows, presents the fndings for the diferent types of argumentative steps that were found in the 40 exchanges that are part of conversations with multiple exchanges.

Table 2: Types of argumentative steps in the 116 two-part exchanges


Table 3: Types of argumentative steps in the 40 exchanges from conversations with multiple exchanges


Table 2 shows that the frequency of argumentative steps in ordinary two-part exchanges is — in descending order — counterclaim, contradiction, challenge, and irrelevancy claim.

Table 3 shows that in exchanges that are part of conversations with multiple exchanges no irrelevancy claims were found at all, and that from among the three remaining types of argumentative steps, challenge was the most frequent, followed by contradiction and then counterclaim.

A comparison between the fndings of the two types of exchanges from the two parts of the examination enables us to draw a number of conclusions. First, in both types of exchanges an irrelevancy claim is a rare step. Second, contradiction is in the mid-range in terms of frequency in both types of exchanges. Third, there is a marked diference between the two types of exchanges in terms of the argumentative step that is most prevalent in them: in exchanges of the frst part of the examination, the counterclaim is most prevalent — which for M&T is the act of the lowest grade of aggressiveness in the ranking; on the other hand, in the exchanges taken from the second part of the examination, the most prevalent is challenge, which is the act of the highest grade of aggressiveness according to this ranking. And fourth, there is a further diference between the two types of exchanges in terms of the degree of aggressiveness of the acts: in the ordinary exchanges, the common acts are of the intermediate and the low aggression levels — contradiction and counterclaim — which represent 77 percent of the argumentative steps in these exchanges, whereas the acts of the high aggression level — irrelevancy claim and challenge — can be found in only about a quarter of the exchanges (23 percent); on the other hand, in the exchanges from the second part, which are part of conversations having multiple exchanges, there is similarity between the proportion of the act of the highest aggression level — challenge (52.5 percent) — and the proportion of the acts of the intermediate and low aggressive levels (47.5 percent).

These conclusions are indicative of the more aggressive nature of the exchanges of the second type as compared to those of the frst type. It would appear that in ordinary twopart exchanges, the nature of the discussion in halakhic giveand-take conversations in the Mishnah is not aggressive — the discussant is much more likely to prefer the use of a counterclaim or contradiction than challenge or irrelevancy claim. The nature of the discussion emerges as more aggressive, on the other hand, when multiple exchanges appear in the conversation; in the situation of a conversation, in an exchange that comes in the wake of a previous exchange, the speaker chooses to relate more aggressively to the previous turn — he is much more likely to make use of challenge and contradiction, while keeping the use of counterclaim to a minimum. In both types of exchanges we fnd that steps with intermediate and low aggression levels are more common than steps at the high aggression level; however, whereas in exchanges of the frst type the disparity is more evident (intermediate and low aggression levels cover 77 percent of all the argumentative steps), in exchanges of the second type, which are part of conversation, the disparity between the high level and the intermediate and low levels is far smaller (52.5 percent compared to 47.5 percent).

The four types of argumentative steps that appear in halakhic give-and-take conversations in the Mishnah will be described and demonstrated with examples below:

#### *(a) Irrelevancy claim*

Irrelevancy claims are rare in ordinary exchanges (4 exchanges = 3 percent) and are completely absent from exchanges that are part of conversations. For example, in citation [5], R. Akiba presents his position that it is possible to purify a *zav* (one who is aficted with gonorrhoea) after an examination has shown that the *ziva* (the afiction) was caused by a type of food or drink. This is followed by a conversation between him and anonymous sages:

[5] *Zabim* 2.2:

בשבע דרכין בודקין את הזב עד שלא ניזקק לזיבה ]...[ ר׳ עקיבה אומ׳: אכל כל מאכל בין רע בין יפה ושתה כל משקה. אמרו לו: אין כן זבים מעתה! אמ׳ להם: אין אחריות זבים עליכם! According to seven considerations do they examine a *zav* [to determine the cause of his complaint] if he has not already been certifed as aficted with a *ziva* […]

R. Akiba says: even if he ate any food, whether bad or good, or drank a liquid, [a discharge does not render him a *zav*].

They said to him: [then] there would henceforth be no *zavim*! He said to them: the responsibility [for the existence] of *zavim* is no concern of yours!

The anonymous sages (לו אמרו (maintain that this position of R. Akiba could lead to a situation where there would be no more *zavim*, because they will able to attribute their condition to some food or drink, and R. Akiba admonishes them, arguing that they are not responsible for the existence of *zavim*.

The irrelevancy claim emphatically clashes with the previous claim presented in the frst part of the exchange, with an explanation of its implications, and it contains an explicit admonishment of another, placing him on the side that opposing that of which the speaker considers himself part.

#### *(b) Challenge*

Challenges are found in the two types of exchanges and are the most prevalent argumentative step in exchanges that are part of conversations (in the frst type 23 = 20 percent; in the second type 21 = 52.5 percent).

For example, citation [6] starts with a presentation of the views of the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel over the question of whether it is permitted to bring the priest's share of the dough and gifts set aside for him on a holiday — the *hallah* (חלה (is separated from the dough and the gifts are part of an animal sacrifce. This is followed by a conversation between the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel:

[6] *Betzah* 1.6:

בית שמי אומ׳: אין מוליכין חלה ומתנות לכהן ביום טוב, בין שהורמו מאמש ובין שהורמו מהיום. ובית הלל מתירין.

אמרו בית שמי לבית הלל גזירה שווה: חלה ומתנות מתנה לכהן ותרומה מתנה לכהן, כשם שאין מוליכים את התרומה כך לא יוליכו את המתנות.

אמרו להם בית הילל: לא, אם אמרתם בתרומה שאינו זכיי בהרמתה תאמרו במתנות שהוא זכיי בהרמתם?

The School of Shammai say: They may not take to the priest the priest's share of the dough or priests' dues to the priest on a holiday whether they were separated on the preceding day or were separated on the same day; but the School of Hillel permit it.

The School of Shammai replied to the School of Hillel with a logical analogy: a priest's share of the dough and priests' dues are a gift to the priest and the Heave-ofering is a gift to the priest; just as they may not bring Heave-ofering so they may not bring the priests' dues.

The School of Hillel replied to them: not so! Would you maintain the argument in the case of Heave-ofering which one may not separate and also the same argument in the case of priests' dues which one has the right to separate?

The School of Shammai presents a claim based on an analogy between this case and that of a Heave-ofering (donation), which is also a gift to the priest and is not given on a holiday, and the House of Hillel rejects that argument with an *a fortiori* question, which raises a difculty regarding inference from the law about a Heave-ofering regarding what may be done with *hallah* and gifts לא, אם אמרתם בתרומה שאינו זכיי בהרמתה תאמרו במתנות :holiday a on ?בהרמתם זכיי שהוא' Not so! Would you maintain the argument in the case of Heave-ofering which one may not separate and also the same argument in the case of priests' dues which one has the right to separate?' — They maintain that in Heave-ofering there is a reason that it is forbidden to bring it on a holiday, but that this reason does not apply to *hallah* and gifts.

This form of challenge is a prevalent one (in the frst type of the exchanges 16 occurrences = 70 percent; in the second type 8 occurrences = 38 percent). It is made up of two components: the frst component — rejection of a previous question or claim using the negation word לא' no', and the second element — an *a fortiori* question, the pattern of which is usually אמרתם/אמרת אם ?…ש... ב תאמרו/תאמר... ש... ב' if you said for… that…, would you say for… that…?'. In a challenge of this and other kinds that have not been demonstrated here,44 the speaker expresses both disagreement with the previous claim along with a demand to present evidence to strengthen the claim.

#### *(c) Contradiction*

Contradiction is an argumentative step of intermediate frequency in both types of exchanges (in 34 percent of the exchanges in the frst part of the examination and in 35 percent in the exchanges in the second part). Contradictions of various and sundry types were found in the corpus, and in all of them the discussant's argument presents direct opposition to the previous argument.45 Three types of contradictions found in the corpus will be instanced here.

<sup>44</sup> A further type of challenge is found in a third of the exchanges from the second kind of the examination, in which their frst part is a challenge to the second part of the previous exchange. It was found that in 38 percent of them (8 exchanges), the challenge posed a question to the previous view, which began with interrogatives such as היאך' how', והלא' surely' and .'why 'למה

<sup>45</sup> During the process of identifying a particular argumentative step as a contradiction in the exchanges in the corpus under examination, it was

Some contradictions come in response to an *a fortiori* question and present evidence from a diferent case. For example, citation [7] discusses the question of whether it is permitted on the Sabbath to carry out labours related to a Passover ofering to which apply a *rabbinical rest restriction* (שבות איסור(, i.e., which are forbidden by the rabbis:

[7] *Peshaim* 6.1–2:

אלו דברים בפסח דוחין את השבת: שחיטתו וזריקת דמו ומיחוי קרביו והקטר חלביו ]...[

<sup>1</sup>אמ׳ ר׳ אליעזר: מה אם שחיטה שהיא משם מלאכה דוחה ]1[ את השבת, אלו שהן משום שבות לא ידחו את השבת? אמ׳ לו ר׳ יהושע: יום טוב יוכיח, שהיתיר בו משום מלאכה אסר בו משום שבות.

<sup>2</sup>אמ׳ לו ר׳ אליעזר: מה זה, יהושע, ומה ראיה רשות למצוה? ]...[

These things regarding the Passover ofering override the Sabbath: its slaughtering, the sprinkling of its blood, the cleansing of its entrails and the ofering up of its fat […]

R. Eliezer said: is it not self-evident, seeing that slaughtering, which is an act of work, overrides the Sabbath, should not these, which are under only a rabbinical rest restriction override the Sabbath? R. Joshua replied to him: A festival-day will prove against this, for on it they permitted functions that come within the category of rabbinical rest restriction.

R. Eliezer answered him: how so, Joshua? What proof can you deduce from a voluntary act for an obligatory act? […]

not possible to base classifcation on negation words alone, as M&T found, but it was also necessary to understand the nature of the argumentative step in order to characterise what was said in it by the speaker as a contradiction of the previous speaker's words.

R. Eliezer is of the view that acts that are forbidden on the Sabbath because of rabbinical rest restriction are permitted for a Passover ofering on the Sabbath, and bases himself on an *a fortiori* inference from the act of slaughtering, which although a form of labour forbidden on Sabbath by the Torah, is permitted on the Sabbath for a Passover ofering by the Torah, which is much more authoritative than a rabbinical restriction: אם מה שחיטה שהיא משם מלאכה דוחה את השבת, אלו שהן משום שבות לא ידחו את ?השבת' is it not self-evident, seeing that slaughtering, which is an act of work, overrides the Sabbath, should not these, which are under only a rabbinical rest restriction override the Sabbath?', and R. Joshua contradicts the *a fortiori* argument with evidence from a festival, when it is permitted to carry out labour to prepare food, though rabbinical restrictions on labour still apply: טוב יום will day-festival a 'יוכיח, שהיתיר בו משום מלאכה ואסר בו משום שבות prove against this, for on it they permitted functions that come within the category of rabbinical rest restriction'.

Contradictions of another type come in response to a question and ofer an explanation. For example, citation [3] above presents the view of R. Eliezer that one should begin reciting הרוח משיב הגשם ומוריד' who causes the wind to blow and the rain to fall', in the silent prayer of *Shmoneh Esreh* from the frst day of *Sukkot*, in contrast to R. Joshua's view that the time to begin reciting it is on *Shemini Atzeret*, at the end of *Sukkot*. R. Joshua asks a question that challenges R. Eliezer's point of view: ברכה סימן גשמים ואין הואיל ?מזכיר הוא למה בחג' since rain during the holiday is but a sign of a curse, why should one make mention of it?', that is to say, why should one make mention of rain during *Sukkot* if rain could prevent people from sitting in the *Sukkah*. In response, R. Eliezer presents an explanation of his opinion, ofering a more precise אף הוא אינו אומ׳ אלא משיב הרוח ומוריד :hand at matter the of reading בעונתו ,הגשם' he too does not ask [for rain] but only mentions "*who causes the wind to blow and the rain to fall*"in its due season'. In his view, this statement does not represent a request for rain, but merely notes the might of the Lord, who brings down the rain when it is needed.

Contradictions of a further type are those in which the opposing claim has a parallel construction to the previous claim. For example, in citation [8], in the second conversation in the second exchange, Rabban Jochanan ben Zakkai makes an claim that contradicts the words of the Sadducees in the previous exchange and is formulated as a parallel construction:

```
[8] Yadaim 4.5–6:
```
תרגום שבעזרא ושבדניאל מטמא את הידים. תרגום שכתבו עברית, ועברי שכתבו תרגום וכתב עברי אינו מטמא את הידים. לעולם אינו מטמא עד שיכתבינו אשורית על העור בדיו.

]1[ אומרין צדוקין: קובלין אנו עליכן, פרושין, שאתם אומרין: כתבי הקודש מטמאין את הידים וסיפרי מירון אין מטמין את הידים.

<sup>1</sup>אמ׳ רבן יוחנן בן זכיי: וכי אין לנו על הפרושין אלא זו בלבד? ]2[ הרי הן אומ׳: עצמות חמור טהורין ועצמות יוחנן כהן גדול טמאין! אמרו לו: לפי חיבתן היא טומאתן, שלא יעשה אדם עצמות אביו <sup>2</sup>אמ׳ להן: אף כתבי הקודש לפי חיבתן היא ואמו תורוודות. טומאתן, וסיפרי מירון שאינן חביבין אינן מטמין את הידים.

The Aramaic passages in Ezra and Daniel render the hands unclean. If the Aramaic passages were written in Hebrew, or if Hebrew was written in the Aramaic version, or in Hebrew script, they would not render the hands unclean. [The Scriptures] do not render [the hands] unclean unless they are written in the Assyrian lettering on parchment and in ink.

The Sadducees say: we protest against you, O Pharisees, for you say: the Sacred Scriptures render the hands unclean and the books of the sectarians do not render the hands unclean.

Rabban Jochanan ben Zakkai said: have we not against the Pharisees save only this? Behold they say: the bones of an ass are clean and the bones of Jochanan the High Priest are unclean! They said to him: because of our love for human beings, we declare their bones unclean, so that man does not fashion the bones of his father or his mother into spoons. He said to them: even so the Sacred Scriptures, in proportion to the love for them so is their uncleanness, and the books of the Sectarians which are not beloved of us do not render the hands unclean.

In the frst exchange, Rabban Jochanan questions the fact that the bones of an animal carcass are pure, whereas the human bones make one unclean; and the Sadducees claim that human bones are unclean because of their importance: …טומאתן היא חיבתן לפי 'because of our love for human beings, we declare their bones unclean…'. In the second exchange, he responds with a claim אף כתבי הקודש לפי חיבתן היא טומאתן... :construction parallel a having 'even so the Sacred Scriptures, in proportion to the love for them so is their uncleanness…'.

#### *(d) Counterclaim*

Counterclaims are the most prevalent argumentative step in ordinary exchanges (43 percent), but are not prevalent in exchanges that are part of conversations (12.5 percent). A counterclaim presents a response to the previous claim, but does not pose a challenge or present a contradiction in regard to it. A prevalent type (80 percent of ordinary exchanges) is when a question appears and the counterclaim presents an explanation of that question. For example, citation [9] tells of R. Nechonia ben Hakkanah, who composed two prayers for those entering the study hall:

[9] *Berakhoth* 4.1–2:

תפילת השחר עד חצות; ר׳ יהודה אומ׳: עד ארבע שעות. תפילת המנחה עד הערב; ר׳ יהודה אומ׳: עד פלג המנחה. תפילת הערב אין לה קבע. ושלמוספים כל היום.

ר׳ נחונייא בן הקנה היה מתפלל בכניסתו לבית המדרש וביציאתו תפילה קצרה.

אמרו לו: מה מקום לתפילה זו?

אמ׳ להם: בכניסתי אני מתפלל שלא תארע תקלה על ידי, וביציאתי אני נותן הודייה על חלקי.

The Morning Service is up to mid-day; R. Judah says: up to the fourth hour. The Afternoon Service is till the evening; R. Judah says: up to the half of the *Minchah* period. The Evening Service has no fxed period, and the Additional Service all day.

R. Nechonia ben Hakkanah used to ofer up a short prayer on his entrance into the house of study and on his departure.

They said to him: what is the intention of this prayer?

He replied to them: on my entry I pray that no mishap occur through me, and on my exit I ofer up thanks for my lot.

The anonymous sages (לו אמרו (turn to R. Nechonia ben Hakkanah with a question in order to understand the reason for his action: ?זו לתפילה מקום מה' what is the intention of this prayer?', and he responds with an answer that contains an explanation for the act: בכניסתי אני מתפלל שלא תארע תקלה על ידי, וביציאתי אני נותן הודייה על חלקי 'on my entry I pray that no mishap occur through me, and on my exit I ofer up thanks for my lot'.

#### *2.2.3 Comparing the findings from this examination of argumentative steps to the findings of previous studies*

Following the examination of the argumentative steps in halakhic give-and-take conversations in the Mishnah based on the model of M&T described above in section 2.2.2, the fndings were compared to those of M&T's studies on naturally occurring conversations, as described in section 2.2.1 above, as well as to those of B&BK's study, which will be described in this section below. The frequency of the four steps found in the two studies is presented in Table 4 below.

B&BK examined a single talmudic text (*b.Baba Kamma* 56b– 57b) according to M&T's model. They found that, in contrast to the expectations of M&T, the Talmudic debate shows a pattern which is the opposite of the facework expected: throughout the Talmudic debate, the response to challenge is not a face-saving defence, but a counter attack, tit-for-tat style, and it would even appear that the more aggressive the challenge, the more animated the counter attack.46

According to B&BK's evaluation, the Talmudic debate is considered aggressive, since its highly aggressive turns outnumber its mildly aggressive turns. B&BK present several results about the frequency of the four type of arguments: the frequency of the most mild, mitigated form of disagreement was by far the lowest; there are almost two and a half of the most aggressive turns for every one of the least aggressive turns; and overall, the frequency of the high-aggression pair is only slightly lower than that of the

<sup>46</sup> B&BK, p. 516–523, found in the Talmudic text that they analysed a number of conversational features: an overwhelming and overt preference for disagreement, the grounded nature of the disagreement, and a very high level of dialogicity in disagreement.

low-aggression pair (47.3 percent and 52.8 percent, respectively). B&BK propose a possible explanation for the results, which is that in Talmudic debate, challenges are based on authoritative Tannaitic texts, and that the response to challenges of this kind is T2- rather than T1-oriented.

It should be noted that examination in this study of halakhic give-and-take conversations in the Mishnah difers from the two other previous studies in two respects. First, each exchange was examined on its own, even when it was part of a conversation that includes multiple exchanges. And second, the arguments in the analysed corpus are not necessarily made up of three turns, unlike the three-turn exchange for arguing in M&T's study.47 Consequently, only the frst and central subject in M&T's study — characterizing the acts of disagreement and their level of aggressiveness — was examined, and the second issue of regularities in the sequences, i.e., the infuence of the second turn on the third turn, was not, because the structure of the arguments in the corpus did not allow for examination of this in a similar way. Further, it should be noted that the number of exchanges that were examined in the corpus under examination, as described in section 2.2.2 above, is similar to the number of segments examined in M&T's study, which included 164 threeturn argument exchanges. It is, however, diferent in its scope from the corpus examined in the study by B&BK, which included one Talmudic text (*b. Baba Kamma* 56b–57b), and which, due to considerations of scope, treated only the frst eight turns of its 23 turn-sequences.48

<sup>47</sup> And on this subject, see the description of exchanges in halakhic give-andtake conversations in section 1 above.

<sup>48</sup> Appendix 1 in their article (p. 540) presents a categorisation of a glossary of Talmudic terminology for arguments according to M&T's four categories, and they mark the frequency of each term in one tractate

The fndings of the two previous studies and of the current one on halakhic give-and-take conversations in the Mishnah are presented in Table 4. The table notes for each step its proportion as a percentage of the overall number of exchanges or turns examined in each study, without noting the actual number of occurrences in each study. The data regarding the combination of contradiction+counterclaim were not noted in the fndings of the study by M&T, since this combination was not examined in the two other studies. The fndings in the frst row of this study on conversations in the Mishnah are divided into two internal rows according to the types of exchanges from both parts of the examination, and the fndings in the second row of M&T's study are divided into two internal rows according to the two types of turns examined in it — T2 (the turn of the second speaker) and T3 (the turn of the frst speaker).

As already indicated, in their study of naturally occurring conversations, M&T found the following frequency of the acts: counterclaim, contradiction, challenge, and irrelevancy claim; hence the acts of low and intermediate levels of aggressiveness — counterclaim and contradiction — are much more frequent than acts of high levels of aggressiveness — irrelevancy claim and challenge.

B&BK found in their study of a Talmudic text a diferent order of frequency of the acts: contradiction, challenge, irrelevancy

of the Talmud (*Berakhoth*), for example: irrelevancy claim — *midi*, *shani hatam*, *hacha bemai askinan*; challenge — *iy hachi*, *maytivey*, *matkif*; contradiction — *kashya*, *mibeʿey ley*; counterclaim — *ela mai*, *ela meʿata*. In fact, the numerical data that they present that appear above as well as in Table 4 below relate to the frequency of the formulae in the four categories in tractate *Berakhoth*, and not in the Talmudic text analysed in their article, from which only the frst 8 turns of its 23 turn-sequences were analysed.


Table 4: Findings from the three studies regarding types of argumentative steps

claim, and counterclaim. This order shows that the frequency of the high-aggression pair is only slightly lower than that of the low-aggression pair (47.3 percent and 52.8 percent, respectively). Therefore, they concluded that the examined Talmudic debate could be more aggressive than the conversations that were examined by M&T.

In the present study of halakhic give-and-take conversations in the Mishnah a distinct diference was found between the exchanges examined in the two parts of the study: in ordinary two-part exchanges, the fndings were similar to those of the study by M&T; the order of the frequency of the acts is identical to the order found in their study, and similarly, it was found that the acts of low and intermediate levels of aggressiveness are much more frequent than acts of high levels of aggressiveness. On the other hand, in the exchanges in the second part of the examination, which are part of conversations with multiple exchanges, the fndings were more similar to those of the study by B&BK: the order of the frequency of acts is similar to the order found in their study, and similarly, it was found that the frequency of acts with a high level of aggressiveness is similar to the frequency of acts with low and intermediate levels of aggressiveness. As noted, in ordinary exchanges, the nature of the argumentative steps is not aggressive, but in exchanges that are parts of conversations with multiple exchanges, when the exchange comes in response to a previous exchange, the nature of the steps is more aggressive.

### **4. TANNAITIC ARAMAIC:**

### METHODOLOGICAL REMARKS AND A TEST CASE

#### *Christian Stadel1*

In Israeli philological research on rabbinic literature, it is customary to distinguish א חכמים לשון, literally, 'the Language of the Sages A', i.e., Tannaitic Hebrew, from ב חכמים לשון' the Language of the Sages B', i.e., Amoraic Hebrew.2 These Hebrew terms are somewhat infelicitous, since both Tannaitic and Amoraic sages composed texts in at least two languages, Hebrew and Aramaic, which are each attested in at least two dialects, respectively. In this article, we shall ofer remarks on the most neglected of the languages of the sages: Tannaitic Aramaic, viz. the Aramaic dialect used in Tannaitic literature.3 Since space does not allow for a comprehensive treatment of the material,

<sup>1</sup> I thank Aaron Koller, who shared with me published and unpublished work on Tannaitic Aramaic, and I am indebted to Mor Shemesh, who collected for me the lion's share of the raw linguistic material from the manuscript sources.

<sup>2</sup> E.g., Moshé Bar-Asher, *L'hébreu mishnique: études linguistiques* (Orbis Supplementa, vol. 2; Leuven: Peeters, 1999), pp. 3, 17.

<sup>3</sup> The dialects of Aramaic in Amoraic literature from Palestine and Babylonia are commonly known as Jewish Palestinian Aramaic and Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, respectively. They have received ample grammatical treatment.

this sketch will be preliminary and restricted to three main points: 1) delineating the corpus in terms of time, place, and genres; 2) positioning Tannaitic Aramaic in the wider context of Aramaic dialects; 3) spelling out methodological difculties (and possibilities) inherent to the Tannaitic Aramaic manuscript evidence. In addition, we shall exemplify how some of these more theoretical considerations afect the interpretation of a test case.

While Tannaitic literature is generally written in Hebrew, the Mishna, Tosefta, Sifra, and Sifre do occasionally contain Aramaic phrases, sentences, or even short texts. They represent instances of code-switching in a Hebrew text or — in the case of longer pieces — may constitute self-contained Aramaic compositions, original-language quotations of sorts, that were integrated into the wider Hebrew context. There is, of course, much more Aramaic on every page of rabbinic literature, but it stands to reason that the countless instances of isolated Aramaic words in Tannaitic Hebrew texts were mainly loanwords that had been incorporated into Hebrew to varying degrees and become part of that language.4 They will therefore not be considered Tannaitic Aramaic in this sketch.

Thus defned, the corpus of Tannaitic Aramaic comprises some 350 words, with the biggest chunk (200+ words) coming not from the rabbinical works enumerated above, but from *Megillat Taanit*, which dates from the same period and is traditionally associated with rabbinic circles (*b.Shabbath* 13b).5

<sup>4</sup> The subject merits a detailed study; for now, see Isaac Gluska, *Hebrew and Aramaic in Contact During the Tannaitic Period: A Sociolinguistic Approach* (in Hebrew; Tel-Aviv: Papirus, 1999), which collects much material, but does not always ofer the best analyses and should be used with caution. Note that while it is theoretically possible — perhaps even likely — that some of the isolated Aramaic words represent instances of code-switching and were not integrated loanwords, this is impossible to prove.

<sup>5</sup> Vered Noam, *Megillat Taʿanit* (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2003), pp. 19–22; this book also contains the standard edition of the text.

Gustaf Dalman referenced most of the Tannaitic Aramaic pieces (including doubtful ones from the Babylonian Talmud), but a complete list remains a desideratum.6 The same holds for the grammar: no systematic description of Tannaitic Aramaic has ever been prepared.7 Klaus Beyer edited most of the texts and provided a classifcation of their dialects,<sup>8</sup> but he did not utilise reliable rabbinic manuscripts and his editions do not always provide the best accessible text. David Talshir, in a two-page abstract of a lecture, was the frst to point out the importance of the manuscript evidence and to call attention to some of the methodological problems associated with it.9 Michael Sokolof included most of the lexical material in his *Dictionary of Judean Aramaic*, 10 and Günter Stemberger commented on the Aramaic of the sayings of Hillel from tractate *Aboth*. 11


<sup>6</sup> Gustaf Dalman, *Grammatik des jüdisch-palästinischen Aramäisch* (2nd ed.; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1905), pp. 9–10. Dalman's list does not contain material from the halakhic midrashim. For Aramaic material in Sifre on Numbers (MS Vatican 32) see Menahem Kahana, "Prolegomena to a New Edition of the Sifre on Numbers" (in Hebrew; PhD dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1982), pp. 160–165. I thank Mor Shemesh for the reference.

<sup>7</sup> See, e.g., the succinct overview by Yohanan Breuer, "The Aramaic of the Talmudic Period", in Shmuel Safrai and Joshua Schwartz (eds.), *The Literature of the Sages*, vol. 2: *Midrash and Targum, Liturgy, Poetry, Mysticism, Contracts, Inscriptions, Ancient Science, and the Languages of Rabbinic Literature* (Assen: Van Gorcum, 2006), pp. 597–625, at pp. 606–607.

Any scholar wishing to provide a comprehensive description of Tannaitic Aramaic is faced with difculties on three levels. Firstly, one has to test the homogeneity of the language of the corpus at the time of composition: are there indications of diachronic changes, dialectal variation, and diferent registers? Secondly, one has to consider the possibility of editorial changes once the original sources were incorporated into the extant literary texts. And thirdly, one has to account for possible efects of the transmission process on the language, and adopt a corresponding assessment of the manuscripts' textual reliability.

What signs are there, then, for variation in Tannaitic Aramaic? Diachronic change is not traceable in the corpus, even though the diferent Aramaic pieces were probably not produced at a single point in time. The Tannaitic Aramaic material has, by defnition, a frm *terminus ante quem:* the fnal composition of the Tannaitic literary sources in the second century CE. However, these sources contain much older material, and the explicit attribution of some of the Aramaic texts to known rabbinic fgures suggests that the material spans three centuries: Yose ben Yoezer, quoted in *m.Eduyoth* 8.4, lived in the second half of the second century BCE, Hillel, quoted inter alia in *Aboth* 1.13, lived approximately one hundred years later, and Rabban Gamaliel I, whose missives are preserved in *t.Sanhedrin* 2.5, was a leading authority in the Sanhedrin in the frst half of the frst century CE. Be that as it may, since attributions are not usually unanimous,12 and thus

12 For example, Stemberger, "Sprüche Hillels", pp. 377, 383, discusses some problems concerning the attribution of *Aboth* 2.6 to Hillel. Similar

<sup>(</sup>Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism, vol. 138; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), pp. 374–388. The original Spanish version appeared as "Los dichos arameos de Hillel en el tratado Abot", *Miscelánea de Estudios Árabes y Hebraicos* 53 (2004), pp. 387–405. In an unpublished paper, Aaron Koller provides a much more detailed discussion and classifcation of these sayings. I thank Aaron Koller for readily sharing this draft with me.

cannot be taken at face value, the general hypothesis of the chronological variety of the material should be retained.

Geographical variance, i.e., possible dialectal diferences in the material, is also difcult to assess. Beyer and Sokolof assume a Judaean origin for Tannaitic Aramaic,13 and it is indeed plausible (in light of both the rabbinical fgures mentioned and the wider historical context) that the texts were produced in Jerusalem or its vicinity. However, Hillel the Elder, who was mentioned in the previous paragraph, is traditionally associated with Babylonia (e.g., *t.Negaim* 1.16), and if he was indeed born and brought up in the east, that could have afected his idiolect.<sup>14</sup>

Diferent textual genres often correspond to diferent linguistic registers and are thus another source of linguistic variation in Tannaitic Aramaic. Indeed, the extant texts attest to diverse genres that can be assumed to correspond to a range of


problems of identifcation of the rabbis in question and of divergent textual evidence in diferent rabbinic writings exist for other pieces as well. If at all, these can only be resolved by case studies that combine philology as well as textual and literary criticism.

registers, from the strictly formal to the more casual. One group of texts that stands out in the corpus are legal documents and formulas.15 Their language, form, and style are rooted in the Imperial Aramaic legal tradition, which continued into post-Achaemenid times throughout the Middle East.16 The scribal tradition had a conservative infuence on the language, which contains less innovative and dialectal features than other texts.17 The chronicle accounts of *Megillat Taanit* and the letters of Rabban Gamaliel I were written in an ofcial or semi-ofcial language, defnitely not in legalese. Their registers allow for more vernacular phenomena, in the latter source in particular. At the casual end of the spectrum stand the various sayings of rabbinical fgures, which could well be representations of a spoken Aramaic dialect. Proverbs are best diferentiated from other sayings (such as Yose ben Yoezer's halakhic rulings in *m.Eduyoth* 8.4), since they might represent older, commonly known linguistic material that is notoriously difcult to date or locate geographically.18 Thus, e.g., the famous אגרה צערה לפם 'according to the pain is the gain' (attributed to Ben He He in *Aboth* 5.22, but to Hillel in *Aboth de-Rabbi Nathan* A 12) is also known from Byzantine-period Samaritan sources as עבדתה די לפם

<sup>15</sup> Talshir, "Aramaic in Tannaitic Literature", p. 69.

<sup>16</sup> Andrew D. Gross, *Continuity and Innovation in the Aramaic Legal Tradition* (Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplement, vol. 138; Leiden: Brill, 2008); Gross does not include rabbinic material in his investigation, but the Jewish epigraphic material from the time of the revolts that he covers evinces clear links to the Tannaitic texts. For a general outline of post-Achaemenid Aramaic see Holger Gzella, *A Cultural History of Aramaic: From the Beginnings to the Advent of Islam* (Handbuch der Orientalistik, section 1, vol. 111; Leiden: Brill, 2015), pp. 212–280.

<sup>17</sup> This has lead Beyer, *Die aramäischen Texte*, vol. 1, p. 34, to classify the dialect of the legal texts as "Hasmonäisch", which contrasts with the more innovative 'Altjudäisch' of the other Tannaitic pieces (p. 50).

<sup>18</sup> Stemberger, "Sprüche Hillels", p. 388.

.הוא אגרה <sup>19</sup> Proverbs travel easily between diferent communities and places and might preserve language features not original to the context in which they have come down to us.

The discussion in the preceding paragraph has moved to the fore the dichotomy of spoken vs. written language. The two are never exactly the same, and in written texts of diferent registers one can expect literary language with various degrees of infuence from the vernacular. However, to determine, which feature of Tannaitic Aramaic represents literary Aramaic (and which kind of literary Aramaic), and which the vernacular, is a tricky task, not least so because of the very limited corpus. Essentially, it can only be achieved through comparison with other, roughly contemporaneous Aramaic dialects from the area. In other words, in order to determine the nature of Tannaitic Aramaic, one has to establish its place on the dialectal map of the Aramaic dialects from Palestine. Natural reference points and comparanda would be Biblical Aramaic, and the more innovative Aramaic of Daniel in particular,20 the Aramaic

<sup>19</sup> In a liturgical poem: Zeʾev Ben-Ḥayyim, *The Literary and Oral Tradition of Hebrew and Aramaic Amongst the Samaritans*, vol. 3/II: *The Recitation of Prayers and Hymns* (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1967), p. 367, line 11; similarly in a late midrash: Zeʾev Ben-Ḥayyim, *Tībåt Mårqe: A Collection of Samaritan Midrashim* (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1988), p. 249, lines 384–385. See Ben-Ḥayyim's comments ad loc. for other Samaritan versions of the proverb. Note that in *Tibåt Mårqe* the saying is quoted in the name of Ben Ben Eden, a practice not otherwise found in Samaritan sources. Textual fuidity is also discernible in the case of another proverb, שיחנא גמלא לפום' according to the camel is the load', which was categorised as Jewish Palestinian Aramaic by Michael Sokolof, *A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period* (2nd ed.; Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2002), pp. 131–132 (based on the occurrence in *Genesis Rabbah*), but is also attested in the earlier Tannaitic Sifre on Numbers (Kahana, *Prolegomena*, p. 160).

<sup>20</sup> E.g., Hans Bauer and Pontus Leander, *Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramäischen* (Halle: Niemeyer, 1927).

of the literary texts from the Qumran caves,21 i.e., the literary language of the Hasmonean period, and the language of the sparse contemporaneous epigraphic material from Judaea.22 The Aramaic of Targum Onqelos and Jonathan represents another possible candidate for a literary language from Roman Palestine, even though it is now usually assumed that in its present form the language also contains (secondary?) eastern features.23 The later Jewish Palestinian Aramaic is also important, since it represents a Jewish dialect that was promoted to a literary language in Byzantine times.24 Precursors of this dialect were certainly spoken (but not written) in Roman Palestine, and similarities with Jewish Palestinian Aramaic in the Tannaitic corpus could thus be interpreted as vernacular features.

<sup>21</sup> The standard reference work is Takamitsu Muraoka, *A Grammar of Qumran Aramaic* (Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement, vol. 38; Leuven: Peeters, 2011). However, Muraoka lumped together the literary material and other epigraphic fnds on papyrus and leather from the Judean desert, which rather belong to our next corpus, cp. my review of his book in *Bibliotheca Orientalis* 70 (2013), pp. 172–178.

<sup>22</sup> Sokolof, *Dictionary of Judean Aramaic*, covers the lexicon of this corpus together with Tannaitic Aramaic; see Beyer, *Die aramäischen Texte*, vol. 1, p. 50, for a very brief characterisation.

<sup>23</sup> Cp. Renaud J. Kuty, *Studies in the Syntax of Targum Jonathan to Samuel* (Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement, vol. 30; Leuven: Peeters, 2010), pp. 5–11 for a *status quaestionis* on the character of the dialect. For the grammar, see Amos Dodi, "The Grammar of Targum Onqelos According to Genizah Fragments" (in Hebrew; PhD dissertation, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, 1981). Talshir, "Aramaic in Tannaitic Literature", has pointed to similarities between the languages of Targum Onqelos and the Tannaitic corpus.

<sup>24</sup> There is no comprehensive grammatical treatment, but cp. Steven E. Fassberg, *A Grammar of the Palestinian Targum Fragments from the Cairo Genizah* (Harvard Semitic Studies, vol. 38; Atlanta: Scholars, 1990), and Shai Heijmans, "Morphology of the Aramaic Dialect in the Palestinian Talmud According to Geniza Manuscripts" (in Hebrew; MA dissertation, Tel-Aviv University, 2005).

In theory, the identifcation of lexical and morphological isoglosses with the aforementioned dialects should allow us to establish their relation to Tannaitic Aramaic. In practice, however, determining the nature of Tannaitic Aramaic is not that simple. The secondary processes of composing the Tannaitic texts and subsequently copying them several times over a period of 800 years or more surely afected the language that is preserved in the best manuscripts. The efects that composition and transmission may have had on the language in the medieval manuscripts are secondary, and thus difer in nature from the internal variation discussed above. In fact, these processes are possible sources of contamination that might mask to a certain extent the 'original' Tannaitic Aramaic, with its internal variation. It is not always feasible to tell original language features from later contamination, especially since many of the comparable dialects that could be used for establishing the nature of Tannaitic Aramaic are also possible sources of secondary contamination. In the following, we shall discuss (in roughly chronological order) these sources of contamination and point to the methodological problems associated with each one of them. For the most part, there is no reason to diferentiate between contamination at the time of composition or during transmission.

As said above, similarities between Tannaitic Aramaic, on the one hand, and Biblical Aramaic, Qumran Aramaic, or the Aramaic of Targum Onqelos, on the other hand, may be interpreted as features of two related (post-Achaemenid Aramaic) literary languages, respectively, and would then help to place Tannaitic Aramaic on the dialectal map. However, since the books of Daniel and Ezra became part of the Jewish canon, and since Targum Onqelos subsequently garnered quasicanonical status in Judaism as well, the languages of these works acquired prestige, and later Jewish authors and copyists imitated them.25 Any feature shared by these dialects might thus also be the result of imitation on the part of the copyists of the Tannaitic Aramaic texts.26 Thus, עבידתה בטילת' the cult ended/ was stopped' (*Megillat Taanit* 28 = *t.Sotah* 13.6) was probably infuenced by the similar wording in Ezra 4.24, 27 and the choice of lexemes in רגלוהי מעל סיניה ושרת' and she pulled his sandal from his feet' (*t.Yebamoth* 12.15, MS Erfurt) is clearly based on Targum Onqelos to Deuteronomy 25.9. However, such infuence is not necessarily restricted to specifc textual correspondences, but can also be of a more general nature. Perfect forms of the internal passive of the G-stem, such as אחידת' she was taken' (*Megillat Taanit* 9 and 20), are possible candidates for linguistic infuence,28 especially in light of common passive t-stem forms, e.g., אתנטילו' they were taken' (*Megillat Taanit* 11). Tannaitic orthography, too, was infuenced by Biblical Aramaic, e.g., in retaining the <h> in the C-stem participle אנחנא מהודעין' we

<sup>25</sup> For a discussion of the prestige and infuence of Targum Onqelos cf., e.g., Abraham Tal, "The Role of Targum Onqelos in Literary Activity During the Middle Ages", in: Holger Gzella and Margaretha L. Folmer (eds.), *Aramaic in Its Historical and Linguistic Setting* (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2008), pp. 159–171.

<sup>26</sup> Wherever Tannaitic Aramaic agrees with eastern features of the language of Targum Onqelos, imitation is indeed the most likely explanation for the correspondence (except for those sayings in Tannaitic Aramaic that might display a connection to Mesopotamia, see above). A case in point would be the loss of the determining force of the article in טבא יומא בו בשבעה' on the seventh day in it is a festival' (*Megillat Taanith* 23; the relevant words are missing in MS Parma) or in מטרא על עמא צמו' the people fasted for rain' (*Megillat Taanith* 36).

<sup>27</sup> See Bauer and Leander, *Grammatik*, p. 103 (§32x), on the question whether the biblical form was passive. In the Tannaitic context a passive meaning seems likely.

<sup>28</sup> Bauer and Leander, *Grammatik*, pp. 104–105 (§32b'–g'). Note, however, that the form אחידת as such is not attested in Biblical Aramaic (or in Targum Onqelos).

announce' (*t.Sanhedrin* 2.5, MS Vienna), or by Targum Onqelos, in the *plene* spelling of the above mentioned Gt-stem Perfect .אתנטילו 29 On the other hand, a lexeme like דעדק' small, young' (*t.Sanhedrin* 2.5), not prominently attested in the Targum,30 could well be an original Tannaitic language trait.31

Since Qumran Aramaic texts and contemporaneous epigraphic material did not become canonical, they can serve as a test case: a linguistic feature found in Qumran Aramaic, but not in Biblical Aramaic and Targum Onqelos, is in all likelihood ancient and does not result from secondary infuence. However, due to the similarity between the dialects and the restricted corpora, such features are very rare. A case in point might be the syntagm of the negated infnitive to express a prohibition, e.g., למספד דלא ... להתענאה דלא' one must not fast … one must not eulogise' (*Megillat Taanith* 1 = *m.Taanith* 2.8). It is well attested in epigraphic Aramaic from the late Second Temple period, e.g., למפתח ולא' and one must not open' on funerary inscriptions from Jerusalem.32 Even though this syntagm is also found in Biblical Aramaic, its prominence in the epigraphic corpus and the fact that a corresponding construction appears in contemporaneous Hebrew point to an authentic language feature.33

<sup>29</sup> Bauer and Leander, *Grammatik*, p. 115 (§36p); Dodi, *Grammar*, p. 189.

<sup>30</sup> Edward E. Cook, *A Glossary of Targum Onkelos According to Alexander Sperber's Edition* (Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture, vol. 8; Leiden: Brill, 2008), p. 64. There are additional attestations in Targum Jonathan.

<sup>31</sup> For other lexical correspondences with the language of Targum Onqelos see Talshir, "Aramaic in Tannaitic Literature", p. 70.

<sup>32</sup> For examples see, e.g., Hannah M. Cotton et al. (eds.), *Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae/Palaestinae*. Vol. 1: *Jerusalem*, pt. 1 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010), p. 379 #359, p. 397 #375.

<sup>33</sup> Uri Mor, "One More Look at the Negation of the Infnitive Construct in Second Temple Hebrew", *VT* 65 (2015), pp. 437–456, adduces examples of the construction in various Hebrew and Aramaic Second Temple period corpora.

The case of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic is even more complex. Predecessors of this literary language were probably spoken in Palestine in Tannaitic times, and linguistic characteristics of the dialect in Tannaitic texts could thus be traces of the vernacular of the time.34 On the other hand, once this dialect was promoted to a literary language in Amoraic times, it also acquired prestige and might have served as a model for changes in the transmission of the Tannaitic Aramaic corpus. Presumably, Tannaitic Aramaic attests to both original vernacular-like traits that resemble Jewish Palestinian Aramaic and secondary infuences. A possible example of the former would be the use of טליא' the youths' (*t.Sotah* 13.5) instead of עולימיא. 35 The lexeme טלי is not employed in the literary Aramaic dialects of Tannaitic times, even though it existed in the spoken idiom (Mark 5.41). On the other hand, the 3pl Perfect ending ון- in the same context (דאזלון טליא נצחון 'the youths who went were victorious', *t.Sotah* 13.5, MS Vienna) could be a secondary change introduced by a copyist. MS Erfurt has forms without *n*, and such 'regular' Perfect forms are also found elsewhere in the corpus (e.g., *m.Sotah* 9.15, *Megillat Taanit* 7, 36).36 And in contradistinction to the previous example, the ending ון- is not unequivocally attested in Aramaic texts from Tannaitic times.37

Once the Babylonian Talmud became authoritative, Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, too, served as a prestigious literary language and exerted infuence on Jewish copyists and scribes. Apart from possible authentic (but certainly very rare) traces in the idiolect of Tannaitic fgures from the east (discussed above), all

<sup>34</sup> Cp., e.g., the extraordinary Qumran Aramaic spelling וי- for the 3ms sufx pronoun, Muraoka, *Grammar*, p. 40 (§12f).

<sup>35</sup> Thus already Talshir, "Aramaic in Tannaitic Literature", p. 70.

<sup>36</sup> But note קרון' they called' (*m.Eduyoth* 8.4), in MSS Kaufmann and Parma A.

<sup>37</sup> Cp. Muraoka, *Grammar*, p. 99 (§24fa).

Jewish Babylonian Aramaic traits in the Tannaitic material can be dismissed as late corruptions. A number of such Babylonian forms are easily recognizable in the Tosefta MS Erfurt, e.g., the participle with clitic pronoun מהודענא' we declare' and the C-stem infnitive לאפוקי' to bring out' in *t.Sanhedrin* 2.5. 38

In the preceding paragraphs, we have pointed to numerous possible examples of linguistic forms in Tannaitic Aramaic texts that could be secondary: results of linguistic updating and alignment to the norms of prestigious literary languages that afected the text in the manuscripts up to the Middle Ages. However, apart from Jewish Babylonian Aramaic forms, which can confdently be assigned to the transmission process, the interpretation of other language traits remains equivocal, and we cannot tell original from secondary forms with certainty. But while the interpretation of the data might sometimes be contestable, the validity of the methodological assumption of linguistic interference during the copying of the manuscripts can be ascertained. For in the Aramaic Levi Document we possess one Aramaic text from late Second-Temple period Palestine for which we can compare the language in the contemporaneous Dead Sea Scrolls with a medieval copy from the Cairo Genizah. 39 There is not much overlap between the surviving fragments, but even

<sup>38</sup> In these particular cases, infuence from *b.Sanhedrin* 11a is possible, where the text from the Tosefta is reproduced. Admittedly, the Babylonian forms do not occur in the Vilna edition, but such forms are found in manuscripts (for example, the Yemenite MS Yad Harav Herzog 1 ad loc.). We would then be dealing with a two-step process: the Tannaitic Aramaic was 'babylonianised' in its new talmudic context, and this new text form then exerted infuence on the Tosefta in MS Erfurt, due to the prestige of the Babylonian Talmud.

<sup>39</sup> Jonas C. Greenfeld, Michael E. Stone, and Esther Eshel, *The Aramaic Levi Document: Edition, Translation, Commentary* (Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha, vol. 19; Leiden: Brill, 2004).

this very restricted corpus evinces linguistic updating of the kind we have assumed for the Tannaitic Aramaic texts, e.g., in the spelling of C-stem participles and infnitives with <h>.<sup>40</sup>

Thus far we have tried to disentangle the diferent layers of the consonantal texts in Tannaitic Aramaic that we encounter in the medieval manuscripts. When taking into account all possible uncertainties of the original language situation and every possible source of interference during the transmission process, even the consonantal skeleton sometimes remains elusive. Additionally, in some of the manuscripts some words of the Tannaitic Aramaic corpus are also pointed with vowel signs. This further increases the variability and variegation of the material. As with the Hebrew parts, the consonantal and vocalisation traditions of each manuscript are to be judged separately.41 Due to the sparsity of the material, it is doubtful whether one can reach defnite conclusions about the reliability and the independence of the vocalisation traditions. We shall only exemplify the divergence

<sup>40</sup> Stig Norin, "The Aramaic Levi: Comparing the Qumran Fragments with the Genizah Text", *Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament* 27 (2013), pp. 118–130, has compared the parallel passages. The C-stem forms are discussed on p. 126, a Jewish Palestinian Aramaic lexical trait on p. 121. Note that Norin's linguistic discussions are at times idiosyncratic and should not always be trusted, but the article is still a useful compilation of diferences in the parallel passages. For other secondary traits in the language of the Genizah copy (unparalleled in the Dead Sea Scrolls material) see Greenfeld et al., *Aramaic Levi*, p. 25 and my review of Muraoka, *Grammar*, in *Biblotheca Orientalis* 70 (2013), pp. 172–178, at p. 173.

<sup>41</sup> For the basic distinction cp., e.g., Moshe Bar-Asher, "Forgotten Linguistic Forms in *Tannaitic* Hebrew: A Comparative Study of the Consonantal and Vocalized Texts of MS Kaufmann" (in Hebrew), in: Moshe Bar-Asher et al*.* (eds.), *Hebrew Language Studies Presented to Zeev Ben-Ḥayyim*, (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1983), pp. 83–110, at pp. 99–103.

(even within one manuscript). The following noun phrase is vocalised in MSS Parma A and B, and twice in MS Kaufmann:


Thus far, we have systematically covered all methodological problems that scholars of Tannaitic Aramaic have to address. Of course, not all problems and caveats are relevant for the whole corpus. In the following, we shall apply the conclusions from the methodological part to one text: the halakhic rulings of R. Yose ben Yoezer from *m.Eduyoth* 8.4. We shall try to establish what can and what cannot be said about the language of this pericope. In MS Kaufmann, the text reads as follows:

העיד ר׳ יוסה בן יועזר איש צרידה עַ ל אַ יָיל קַ מְ יצָ ײָ ה דְ כֵ י וְ עַ ל מַ ש ְ קֶ ה בֵ ית מַ טְ ב ְ חָ ײָ ה דַ כְ ײָ ן וְ דִ י יִקְ רַ ב לְ מִ יתָ ה מְ סָ אָ ב וְ קָ רון לֵ יהּ יוסֵ ה שָ רְ ײָ א

R. Yose ben Yoezer, the man from Ṣredah, testifed: about the *Ayyal* locust: clean; and about the liquids from the slaughterhouse [of the Temple]: clean; and one who touches a dead: unclean. And they called him 'Yose the Permitter'.

We have given the Aramaic in its Hebrew context, since it contains the attribution of the rulings to R. Yose ben Yoezer, a member of the frst pair of the *zugot*. Thus, if this attribution is reliable, the Aramaic is to be dated to the second half of the second century BCE, in the early Maccabean period.42 And if Yose indeed hailed from Ṣredah, somewhere in the mountains

<sup>42</sup> And, strictly speaking, this would not be Tannaitic Aramaic. However, we retain this term and understand it to be a little fuzzy at the edges.

of Ephraim,43 his Aramaic could have been coloured by the local dialect. The Aramaic text of the Mishnah falls into two parts: The *verbatim* quotation of Yose's rulings, and the comment on his epithet. The latter is anonymous, and not datable.

The second halakhic ruling of the Mishnah has partial parallels elsewhere in the Tannaitic corpus. *Sifra Šeraṣim*, parasha 8, שהרי היעיד יוסה בן יועזר איש צרידה על משקה בת :reads 1 chapter דכיין דאינון מטבחייה) MS Vatican ebr. 66), and *m.Kelim* 15.6 has do How .)Kaufmann MS (כל המקשין טמאין ומשקה בית מטבחייה טהורין these texts relate to *m.Eduyoth* 8.4? The former case is obviously a quotation from the Mishnah,44 and the latter would seem to be a translation, given that the predication is in Hebrew.45 The version in *m.Eduyoth* 8.4 is thus primary, and it stands to reason that its Aramaic is the original language of these rulings.46 However, the very fact that the Aramaic material was reworked confrms our methodological caveat above that the texts might have been afected at the time of their composition: other texts, too, could be the result of partial translation, though this is impossible to prove.

Turning to the consonantal text in the manuscripts, one notes minor diferences in the Aramaic:<sup>47</sup>

47 See the critical edition in Wieder, "Mishnah Eduyot", pp. 575–576, for variants from more manuscripts.

<sup>43</sup> Either close to Bet-El or farther to the north-west (cp. 1 Kgs 11.26); the exact identifcation is uncertain.

<sup>44</sup> The exact wording from the Sifra is also attested in witnesses to the text of the Mishnah, see Kenneth Jeremy Wieder, "Mishnah Eduyot: A Literary History of a Unique Tractate" (PhD dissertation, New York University, 2005), p. 575 ad loc.

<sup>45</sup> The connection to *m.Eduyoth* 8.4 is clear from the unusual spelling of the plural construct משקה in both places in MS Kaufmann.

<sup>46</sup> Cp. the judgment of Wieder, "Mishnah Eduyot", pp. 230–231.

#### MS Kaufmann:

על אייל קמיצייה דכי ועל משקה בית מטבחייה דכיין ודי יקרב למיתה מסאב וקרון ליה יוסה שרייא

MS Parma A:

על אייל קמצייא דכי ועל משקי בית מטבחייא דכן ודי יקרב למיתא מסאב וקרון ליה יוסה שרייא

MS Cambridge:

על אייל קמצייא דכי ועל משקה בית מטבחיא דכאן ודי יקרב למיתה מסאב וקרון ליה יוסי שרייא

Some of these diferences are certainly mistakes, and the respective forms should be emended. The *mater lectionis* in MS Kaufmann קמיצייה is superfuous, as shown by comparative evidence from other dialects; the other manuscripts and the vocalisation tradition of MS Kaufmann represent the correct form. The form דכאן in MS Cambridge is also an error; either of the readings from the other manuscripts is preferable.48 If the spelling משקה (MSS Kaufmann and Cambridge) represents the construct plural, as suggested by the plural of the predicate (both here and in the Hebrew parallel *m.Kelim* 15.6),49 it should be emended to משקי, as in MS Parma A.

In addition to these erroneous forms, two Jewish Palestinian Aramaic orthographic conventions are also clearly secondary (for this dialect was not a written language when the rulings were produced): one is the spelling of the fnal *-ā* of the defnite article with <h>, not <ʾ>, in MSS Kaufmann and Cambridge, and with the noun מיתה also in MS Parma A. Interestingly, the

<sup>48</sup> The form could perhaps be interpreted as a *plene* spelling of דכן from MS Parma A. But <ʾ> for short *a* would be exceptional.

<sup>49</sup> But according to Sokolof, *Dictionary of Judean Aramaic*, p. 64 s.v., this is a singular construct. The incongruence would then remain unexplained.

epithet שרייא is consistently spelled with <ʾ>. The other one is the spelling <yy> for consonantal *y*, especially in the defnite plural ending *-ayyā*, in MSS Kaufmann and Parma A, and once in MS Cambridge. In addition, the *plene* spelling <yh> of the 3msg sufx, though common in Targum manuscripts, is also unattested until the end of the Second-Temple period, and therefore probably secondary in our piece.

The adjusted text of the Mishnah — with emendations and non-Jewish Palestinian Aramaic orthography — would thus על איל קמציא דכי ועל משקי בית מטבחיא דכין/דכן ודי\* :this like run some evinces text short This .יקרב למיתא מסאב וקרון לה יוסה שריא potentially diagnostic language traits that merit discussion. One orthographic-phonological trait is the spelling <dy> of the nominalizing particle. This spelling as a separate word is typical for older strata of Aramaic, including Biblical Aramaic. Qumran Aramaic has both this spelling and the proclitic <d->, as in later dialects,50 and prima facie a similar picture emerges for Tannaitic Aramaic. However, the orthography of the particle in the manuscripts oscillates, as in the parallel אמר די) *t.Sotah* 13.6, MS Vienna), דיאמר) MS Erfurt), and דאמיר) *Megillat Taanith* 28). The spelling <dy> is thus hardly diagnostic and could well be secondarily infuenced by Biblical Aramaic orthography.

Two morphological traits are also of interest. The mpl passive participle 'clean' is spelled דכיין in MS Kaufmann, and דכן in MS Parma A. The former spelling presumably represents *dakayin*, as in Biblical Aramaic (and later western dialects), the latter *dakan*, as in Targum Onqelos.51 Since the sound change underlying

<sup>50</sup> Muraoka, *Grammar*, p. 50 (§15).

<sup>51</sup> Bauer and Leander, *Grammatik*, p. 233 (§62g); Fassberg, *Grammar*, p. 189 (§143l); Dodi, *Grammar*, p. 353. I assume with Beyer, *Die aramäischen Texte*, vol. 1, pp. 128–136, that unstressed short vowels in open syllables were elided in the second or third century CE.

the Targumic form is typical for Babylonia, 52 one may assume that the Tannaitic form was *dakayin*, and that דכן in MS Parma A is secondary. The second morphological feature has already been mentioned in our methodological remarks: the Jewish Palestinian Aramaic 3pl Perfect ending ון-. The fact that all good manuscripts have the reading קרון, not קרו, could be marshalled in support of the authenticity of the form, which would then be a vernacular feature. But such forms with *-n* are not otherwise attested until well into the Common Era, which would make this an extreme outlier. However, the interpretation as an original language feature becomes a little more probable if one takes into account that the form is not part of Yose's rulings and could thus be later than these. A date sometime in the frst two centuries CE is more easily reconcilable with the vernacular interpretation, but it is hypothetical. Ultimately, we cannot decide which of the interpretations of the form is more probable: it could be an original vernacular feature or a secondary scribal imitation of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic.

Individual syntactical and lexical traits from Yose's third ruling are best discussed together. In the relative clause יקרב די למיתא' one who touches a corpse/dead body/the dead', the noun מיתא appears with the defnite article, even though the referent is indefnite. This usage is typical of eastern Aramaic, where the article had lost its function of marking defniteness, and the syntactic peculiarity is thus best interpreted as secondary infuence from Targumic Aramaic. Presumably, במיתא דיקרב ,הַ נֹגֵ עַ בְ מֵ ת Hebrew for (19.11 Numbers to Onqelos Targum in without the defnite article) is the source of the determined form, for Yose's halakhic ruling seemingly recapitulates the command

<sup>52</sup> W. Randall Garr, "\*ay > a in Targum Onqelos", *JAOS* 111 (1991), pp. 712–719.

from this verse.53 This rather surprising fact did not escape the rabbis, who — assuming that Yose was not simply reiterating the plain meaning of the biblical verse — ofered explanations on which specifc situations Yose could have been referring to (*b.Abodah Zarah* 37b). The reason behind the talmudic discussion also bears on the lexical peculiarity of the Tannaitic piece. The G-stem verb קרב with diferent verbal arguments conveys diferent meanings: with the prepositions על) of humans) or -ל it expresses the notion 'to come near someone/something', while the notion 'to touch someone/something' usually requires an argument with the preposition -ב. 54 Only in the later Jewish Palestinian Aramaic does this strict distinction unravel and the notion 'to touch something' also comes to be expressed by an argument .ל- with 55 This leaves us with two possible interpretations for the Tannaitic text: either Yose meant to say 'one who comes near a dead body', i.e., he wanted to convey a notion diferent from the biblical verse, or the unusual verbal argument with -ל is a Jewish Palestinian Aramaic vernacular feature.56 The former is difcult in terms of content. And the latter would be all the more noteworthy in light of the proposition -ב in Targum Onqelos, as well as in the Palestinian Targumim to Numbers 19.11, which were undoubtedly known to the copyists.

<sup>53</sup> But מיתא is also used elsewhere in the Targum with an indefnite referent, e.g., Exod. 12.30, Num. 6.9.

<sup>54</sup> Holger Gzella, 'קרב', in idem (ed.), *Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament*, vol. 9: *Aramäisches Wörterbuch* (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2016), pp. 671–675, at p. 672; Edward M. Cook, *Dictionary of Qumran Aramaic* (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015), p. 211 s.v.

<sup>55</sup> Michael Sokolof, *A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic* (2nd ed.; Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2002), p. 502 s.v.

<sup>56</sup> The preposition -ב remains exceptional even when other manuscripts are taken into account, see Wieder, "Mishnah Eduyot", p. 576 ad loc*.*

Although Tannaitic literature was composed mainly in Hebrew, it also incorporates a number of brief texts in Aramaic. The language of these short pieces (and of the related *Megillat Taanit*) can be called 'Tannaitic Aramaic'. Due to the very small corpus, and since it is preserved only in medieval manuscripts, this language is very difcult to characterise and describe with precision. In this sketch we have tried to list and discuss the methodological problems that face every student of Tannaitic Aramaic. We have then applied these to a test case. It turned out that it is indeed possible to go beyond the manuscript evidence and excavate a more original form of the Tannaitic Aramaic dialect, e.g., by identifying and eliminating secondary traits. However, other linguistic features remain ambiguous. We can tell why this is the case, and we can point to the possible interpretations of the data, but we cannot reach a defnite conclusion.

## **5. RABBINIC ENTRIES IN R. JUDAH IBN-TIBBON'S TRANSLATION OF** *DUTIES OF THE HEARTS*

*Barak Avirbach1*

#### **1. Introduction**

Rabbi Bahye Ibn-Paquda wrote his *Al*-*Hidāya ilā Farāʾiḍ al-Qulūb* ('Guide to the Duties of the Heart') in Judaeo-Arabic at the end of the eleventh century.2 For centuries, it was the most widely known work of Jewish ethics in the Jewish world.3 This

<sup>1</sup> This article is based on some of the fndings presented in my PhD dissertation, supervised by Matthew Morgenstern and Tamar Zewi: Barak Avirbach, "The Translation Method of R. Judah Ibn-Tibbon: Issues of Version and Lexicon in His Translation of 'The Duties of the Hearts' by R. Bahye Ibn-Paquda" (Haifa University, 2015). These fndings were also presented at the 2016 International Workshop on Rabbinic Hebrew, University of Cambridge.

<sup>2</sup> Israel Zinberg, *A History of Jewish Literature*, vol. 1: *The Arabic-Spanish Period* (transl. Bernard Levin; Cleveland: Press of Case Western Reserve University, 1972), p. 117; Yehuda Isenberg, "Reason and Emotion in 'Duties of the Heart'" (in Hebrew), *Daat* 7 (1981), pp. 5–35; Georges Vajda, "Baḥya (Bahye) Ben Joseph Ibn Paquda", in: Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik (eds.), *Encyclopaedia Judaica* (2nd ed.; Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007), vol. 3, pp. 66–67.

<sup>3</sup> Zinberg, *A History*. It is possible that this is the main reason for the fact that we know so little about Ibn-Paquda himself: the focus was on his writings, while the author was forgotten.

was due mainly to the early Hebrew translation of the book only seventy years after it had been written.4 Originally, there were two separate translations of the book. One was Judah Ibn-Tibbon's translation, under the title *Sefer Ḥovot ha-Levavot*, which was more widely known and consequently is available today in many manuscripts and printed editions. The other was by Joseph Qimḥi. His translation was not as popular as Ibn-Tibbon's, and perhaps that is why we have only a small remnant of it today.5

Judah Ibn-Tibbon was born in Granada, probably in 1120.6 He was a physician, a translator, a merchant, and a book collector.7 Around 1150 he moved to southern France and became a prominent fgure in the Jewish community of Lunel. Ibn-Tibbon was a fountain of knowledge; people consulted with him and he would lend books from his private library. Bahye Ibn-Paquda's *Ḥovot ha-Levavot* was the frst book Ibn-Tibbon translated. After that he translated Solomon Ibn-Gabirol's *Tikkun Middot ha-Nefesh* ('Improvement of Moral Qualities') and *Mivḥar Peninim* ('Choice of Pearls'), Yonah Ibn-Janaḥ's *Sefer ha-Shorashim* ('Book of Roots') and *Sefer ha-Riqmah* ('Book of the Multicoloured Flower Beds'),

<sup>4</sup> Yosef Qafḥ, *Torat Ḥovot ha-Levavot: The Origial Arabic Text with a New Hebrew Translation* (in Hebrew and Judaeo-Arabic; Jerusalem: Akiva Yosef, 1973), p. 8.

<sup>5</sup> Eliezer Schweid, *Our Great Philosophers* (in Hebrew; Tel-Aviv: Yediot Ahronot, 1999), p. 60. I am currently working on a new publication of this remnant, which has already been published in three diferent editions by Adolph Jellinek (Leipzig, 1846), David Sluzki (Moscow, 1871), and Avraham Tsifroni (Jerusalem, 1928). I am comparing these editions of the text with the original manuscript (Leipzig UBL B.H. 39), in order to focus on some major inaccuracies in the printed editions.

<sup>6</sup> Ira Robinson, "The Ibn Tibbon Family: A Dynasty of Translators in Medieval 'Provence'", in: Jay M. Harris (ed.), *Beʾerot Yitshak: Studies in Memory of Isadore Twersky* (Cambridge: Center for Jewish Studies, Harvard University, 2005), pp. 193–224, at p. 199.

<sup>7</sup> Ibid., p. 200.

Judah Halevi's *Ha-Kuzari* ('The Kuzari'), and Saadia Gaon's *Sefer Emunot ve-Deot* ('Book of Beliefs and Opinions'). 8

Like many medieval authors and translators,9 Ibn-Tibbon complained that Hebrew was inadequate in comparison with other languages (especially Arabic); some called this defciency קוצר הלשון' language insufciency'.10 It was clear to these authors and translators that the Hebrew of previous ages had been sufcient for all the needs of the people at the time. Since the ancient texts (the Bible, rabbinic literature, and early liturgy) dealt with limited subjects, the Hebrew refected in them was limited as well. As they knew Hebrew mostly from these sources, it was insufcient for composing original works and for translating works from diferent languages that dealt with diferent and wider issues that did not appear in earlier Hebrew writings.

None of the previous periods of Hebrew was sufcient on its own to be used as a source for structures and lexicon to create a whole translation. Therefore, Ibn-Tibbon decided to combine Biblical Hebrew, Rabbinic Hebrew, liturgy, and previous medieval Hebrew works — both syntactically and lexically.11 On diferent occasions, he derived new lexemes from roots and other lexical stems taken from classical literature, and occasionally he shifted the meanings of biblical and rabbinic lexemes. In the prefaces to two of his translations, Ibn-Tibbon reveals to the reader the changes he had to make in the lexicon, and he is apologetic for these actions.

<sup>8</sup> Ibid., p. 201.

<sup>9</sup> See, for example, the opinions of Saadia Gaon in *Ha-Egron* (ed. Allony, p. 151), of Ibn-Janaḥ in *Sefer ha-Riqmah* (ed. Vilenski, p. 11), and of Judah Halevi in *Ha-Kuzari*, for which see Yosef Qafḥ (ed.), *Sefer ha-kuzari* (Kiryat Ono: Makhon Mishnat ha-Rambam, 1977), pp. 80–82.

<sup>10</sup> Towards the end of the Translator's Preface to the *Ḥovot ha-Levavot*, p. 5, in the Moscow edition (*Torat Ḥovot ha-Levavot*, Moscow: Goldman, 1875).

<sup>11</sup> See his apologetic remark, ibid.

Considering the arguments and eforts of these authors and translators, one might expect that the lion's share of the lexicon in their writings would consist of neologisms of diferent kinds (both morphological and semantic neologisms). The analysis of the nominal lexicon used by Ibn-Tibbon in his translation of *Duties of the Hearts* serves as a useful source of confrmation or refutation. I believe that the analysis presented below indeed refutes this assumption, or at least suggests a diferent perspective on this impression.

#### **2. The nominal lexicon in Ibn-Tibbon's translation of** *Duties of the Hearts*

In Ibn-Tibbon's translation of *Duties of the Hearts*, I have found 2,102 nominal entries (1,878 lexemes and 224 phrases).12 As is shown in Table 1, almost 50 percent of the entries are taken from the Bible, approximately 26 percent from rabbinic literature, a small portion from the liturgy, and around 8 percent from medieval writings composed prior to the era during which Ibn-Tibbon engaged in his translation work. Just under 15 percent are neologisms coined by Ibn-Tibbon.

Table 1: Breakdown of Ibn-Tibbon's vocabulary


<sup>12</sup> For all entries see my PhD dissertation, Avirbach, "The Translation Method of R. Judah Ibn-Tibbon".


Although not all entries were taken 'as is' from classical Hebrew writings, these fndings shed a diferent light on the perception of medieval Hebrew as presented by authors and translators of that era. In other words, if Hebrew could not provide sufcient words and phrases to express deep ideas and nuances, neologisms should have constituted the main portion of the lexicon and classical Hebrew entries should have been in the minority. The fact that most of the vocabulary in Ibn-Tibbon's translation was taken from classical Hebrew suggests that reservations and complaints regarding the state of Medieval Hebrew might be due less to the actual state of Hebrew and more to a perceived need to defend against claims of medieval authors and philosophers (e.g., Abraham Ibn-Ezra) critical of the way other authors tried to make changes in the Hebrew language.

The following is a description of representative entries used by Ibn-Tibbon to translate *Duties of the Hearts*. 16 The aim of this description is to present and examine the nature of the Rabbinic Hebrew lexicon in the nominal lexicon of Ibn-Tibbon. It will hopefully shed light on the rich semantic and morphological variety of Medieval Hebrew, both from the perspective of Rabbinic

<sup>13</sup> New meanings for lexemes which occur in Classical Hebrew.

<sup>14</sup> New lexemes which were created by using existing morphological elements.

<sup>15</sup> Compound noun which did not occur in Classical Hebrew but were based on Classical Hebrew lexemes.

<sup>16</sup> In this paper I will not discuss phrases of any kind.

Hebrew and from the perspective of Hebrew morphological and semantic mechanisms.

In each example the Hebrew entry, as it appears in Ibn-Tibbon's translation, will be followed by the Arabic equivalents in Ibn-Paquda's original. For each equivalent I will cite one example, which will include the Arabic original,17 the Hebrew translation of Ibn-Tibbon, and the English translation of Hyamson.18 In a footnote I will present the treatise and the chapter the example is cited from. Overall, *Duties of the Hearts* consists of an introduction and ten treatises: (a) *The unity of God*; (b) *Examination of creation*; (c) *The service of God*; (d) *Trust in God*; (e) *Wholehearted devotion*; (f) *Humility*; (g) *Repentance*; (h) *Spiritual accounting*; (i) *Abstinence*; (j) *The love of God*.

#### **3. Rabbinic entries in Ibn-Tibbon's translation of** *Duties of the Hearts*

The rabbinic nominal entries can be divided into six categories:


<sup>17</sup> As it appears in Qafḥ, *Torat Ḥovot ha-Levavot*. Words in angle brackets refer to portions of the Arabic original which were not translated by Ibn-Tibbon.

<sup>18</sup> *Duties of the Heart*, with English translation by Moses Hyamson (5 vols., New York: Bloch Publishing 1925–1945; repr. Jerusalem: Kiryah Neʾemanah, 1965). Hereafter: Hyamson.

#### **3.1 Biblical lexemes with rabbinic meanings**

In total, 33 lexemes from this category were found in Ibn-Tibbon's translation. Although not all the examples presented here refect new or unknown meanings, they certainly comprise the largest part of Rabbinic Hebrew in Ibn-Tibbon's nominal lexicon.

אֵ בֶ ר (1)

The biblical meaning of this lexeme is 'pinion (i.e., wing)', while its rabbinic meaning is 'limb, organ'.19 These original and later meanings refect a simple metonymy, in which the original meaning represents a specifc example and the later meaning a more simplifed and general meaning that is based on the biblical meaning. This lexeme is used by Ibn-Tibbon to translate four diferent Arabic equivalents:


<sup>19</sup> For the biblical meaning see Francis Brown, Samuel R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, *A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament* (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1906), p. 7; for the rabbinic meaning see Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, *Milon ha-Lashon ha-Ivrit ha-Yeshana ve-ha-Ḥadasha* (Berlin: Langenscheidt, 1908–1959), pp. 7–8.

<sup>20</sup> *The unity of God*, chapter 10.

<sup>21</sup> *The service of God*, chapter 5.


As is clearly evident in these citations, equivalents (a) to (c) correspond to the rabbinic meanings. Apparently, equivalent (d) is the result of a mistake in the translation, probably made by Ibn-Tibbon himself, who mistakenly translated with this lexeme the word אצחאב which in Hebrew means ים ִר ֵב ֲח' friends'.24

חֲ נֻ פָ ה (2)

While the biblical meaning of this entry is 'profaneness, pollution', the rabbinic meaning is 'fawning and praising in order to please someone'.25 As in the previous example, the rabbinic meaning, which is employed in the Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, refects a metonymy in comparison with the original biblical meaning: the rabbinic meaning represents the method of realising the concept that appears in the biblical meaning. In Ibn-Tibbon's translation, there is one equivalent for this Hebrew entry:

<sup>22</sup> *Spiritual accounting*, chapter 3.

<sup>23</sup> *Introduction.*

<sup>24</sup> This is also the opinion expressed in Qafḥ, *Sefer ha-Kuzari*, and in Hyamson.

<sup>25</sup> Brown-Driver-Briggs, *Lexicon*, p. 338; Ben-Yehuda, *Milon ha-Lashon ha-Ivrit*, p. 1659.

וקד ימכן אן יכון קצדה פיהא אלריא ות̇ נא :Paquda-Ibn :(رياء( ריא ואפשר שתהיה :Tibbon-Ibn; אלנאס עליה וכראמתהם לה מן אג̇ לה ,may it ':Hyamson; כונתו לחנופה ולשבח בני אדם וכבודם בעבורה however, be hypocritical; the aim may be to obtain praise for it and honour among one's fellow-men'.26

#### כִ יס (3)

The biblical meaning of this word is 'bag, purse',27 and its rabbinic meaning is 'skin pocket in which glands are placed'.28 This entry has two Arabic equivalents in Ibn-Tibbon's translation:


The semantic shift from the original biblical meaning to the rabbinic meaning is expressed by a metaphor based on the resemblance of shape and designation between the two.

<sup>26</sup> *The service of God*, chapter 3.

<sup>27</sup> Brown-Driver-Briggs, *Lexicon*, p. 476

<sup>28</sup> Ben-Yehuda, *Milon ha-Lashon ha-Ivrit*, pp. 2346–2347.

<sup>29</sup> *Examination of creation*, chapter 5.

<sup>30</sup> Ibid.

שָ ב (4)

Biblical meaning: 'returning, coming back'; rabbinic meaning: 'penitent'.31 Mishnaic Hebrew refects a meaning that is more metaphorical in comparison with the biblical meaning. This metaphorical shift represents the movement of meaning from the physical feld to the spiritual-cognitive feld. In Ibn-Tibbon's translation, this entry has one Arabic equivalent:

לאן כל תאיב קד כאן צאלחא קבל אן יד̇ נב :Paquda-Ibn :(تائب( תאיב מפני שכל שב כבר היה צדיק קודם :Tibbon-Ibn; וליס כל צאלח תאיבא שב צדיק כל ואין שיחטא ;Hyamson: 'the reason being that every penitent, previously to sinning, has been righteous, while every righteous man has not necessarily been a penitent'.32

#### **3.2 Rabbinic lexemes with rabbinic meanings**

In total, there are approximately 450 entries in this category. I will present here two examples, each of which comprises two lexemes, and both of which refect characteristic phenomena of Rabbinic Hebrew. The frst example represents the double form of the verbal noun pattern of the *Hifl* stem:33

<sup>31</sup> Brown-Driver-Briggs, *Lexicon*, p. 996; Ben-Yehuda, *Milon ha-Lashon ha-Ivrit*, p. 6934.

<sup>32</sup> *Repentance*, opening.

<sup>33</sup> On whether this is a case of guttural weakening or of Aramaic infuence, see Shimon Sharvit, "The Verbal Noun Pattern הפעלה in Tannaitic Hebrew", in: Aharon Maman, Steven E. Fassberg, and Yochanan Breuer (eds.), *Shaʿarei Lashon: Studies in Hebrew, Aramaic and Jewish Languages Presented to Moshe Bar-Asher*, vol. 2: *Rabbinic Hebrew and Aramaic* (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2007), pp. 301–322, at p. 304; Uri Mor, *Judean Hebrew: The Language of the Hebrew Documents from Judea* 

#### אַ זְ הָ רָ ה (5)

This form of the verbal noun has three equivalents in Ibn-Tibbon's translation:


As opposed to ה ָר ָה ְז ַא, this form of verbal noun has only two Arabic equivalents in Ibn-Tibbon's translation, only one of which is shared with the previous verbal noun:

*Between the First and the Second Revolts* (Jerusalem: The Academy of Hebrew Language, 2015), p. 91 n. 53, and the references there.

<sup>34</sup> *The service of God*, chapter 4.

<sup>35</sup> *The love of God*, chapter 7.

<sup>36</sup> *Examination of creation*, chapter 6.


In the dictionaries of Even-Shoshan and Ben-Yehuda the lexeme ה ָר ָה ְז ַה is claimed to be a neologism of Medieval Hebrew. As revealed by the Historical Dictionary Project of the Academy of the Hebrew Language, it is found already in the Babylonian Talmud, *Shebuoth* 47b (MS Vatican 140). This lexeme also appears in the liturgy of Yannai and Ha-Kalir, in diferent manuscripts and in Genizah segments.39 However, it is doubtful whether Ibn-Tibbon was familiar with these specifc writings and witnesses, and it is possible, even probable, that he created this neologism on his own.

The following examples (7 and 8) refect another phenomenon that is characteristic of Rabbinic Hebrew; the assimilation of

<sup>37</sup> *Abstinence*, chapter 5.

<sup>38</sup> *Spiritual accounting*, chapter 3.

<sup>39</sup> For references see the *Maagarim* on-line database of the Academy of the Hebrew Language.

III-*alef* roots to III-*yod* roots. In Ibn-Tibbon's translation of *Duties of the Hearts*, both forms are found:

	- ואלמתוכל עלי אללה אד̇ א שהר :Paquda-Ibn :(خليقة( כ̇ ליקה (a( :Tibbon-Ibn; תוכלה ג̇ ל פי אעין אלכ̇ לאיק ואחתרמוה אלנאס והבוטח בה׳ כאשר יודע בטחונו יגדל בעיני הבריות ויכבדוהו בני אדם ;Hyamson: 'but he who trusts in the Lord will gain the esteem of his fellow-men, when his trust will become generally known'.40
	- וחסן תדביר אללה תעאלי :Paquda-Ibn :(مخلوق( מכ̇ לוק (b( ומחשבת :Tibbon-Ibn; וסיאסתה ונאפד̇ קדרתה פי מכ̇ לוקאתה of ':Hyamson; האלהים הטובה והנהגתו וקיום גזרתו בבריותיו God's good plan, of His government and the fulflment of His decrees for His creatures'.41

Equivalent (c) has a plural meaning, and is translated only by the Hebrew plural form יות ִר ְב:

אן אללה אראד ארשאד כ̇ לקה אלי מא :Paquda-Ibn :(خلق( כ̇ לק (c( שהאלהים רצה :Tibbon-Ibn; תנתט̇ ם בה אחואלהם פי אלדניא :Hyamson; להורות את בריותיו דרך שיתקן בו ענינם בעולם הזה 'that God only wished to point out to His creatures a way by which they would improve their condition in this world'.42

<sup>40</sup> *Trust in God*, opening.

<sup>41</sup> *Spiritual accounting*, chapter 6.

<sup>42</sup> *The service of God*, chapter 4.

	- והי זיאדה עלי מא פטרוא עליה :Paquda-Ibn :(خلقة( כ̇ לקה (a( :Tibbon-Ibn; פי אצל אלכ̇ לקה ואלג̇ בלה מן אלתנביה אלעקלי וזאת תוספת על מה שהוטבעו אליו בשרש הבריאה והיצירה מן השכלית ההערה ;Hyamson: 'the demonstration through the senses was an addition to the intellectual stimulus which human beings naturally possess'.43
	- פי אפעאלה וצנוף אלכ̇ לאיק אלתי :Paquda-Ibn :(خليقة( כ̇ ליקה (b( במעשהו ובמיני הבריאות :Tibbon-Ibn; כ̇ לקהא למצלחתהם לתקנתם בראם אשר ;Hyamson: 'concerning God's work and its various products which He created for their improvement'.44
	- ואלת̇ אני אלאעתבאר באלדהר :Paquda-Ibn :(مخلوق( מכ̇ לוק (c( והשנית :Tibbon-Ibn; במא ישאהד מן עג̇ איב אללה פי מכ̇ לוקאתה ;הבחינה בעולם במה שהוא רואה מפלאי הבורא ית׳ בבריאותיו Hyamson: 'the second is observation of the world wherein one sees some of the wonders of God exhibited in His creatures'.45

As in example (7), equivalent (d) has a plural meaning, and is translated only by the Hebrew plural form יאות ִר ְב:

אלאעתבאר בכל מא פי אלעאלם מן :Paquda-Ibn :(خلق( כ̇ לק (d( הבחינה בכל מה שיש בעולם :Tibbon-Ibn; דקיק אלכ̇ לק וג̇ לילה וגדוליהם הבריאות מקטני ;Hyamson: '[a person should] investigate everything in the universe from the smallest creatures to the largest'.46

<sup>43</sup> *The service of God*, chapter 3.

<sup>44</sup> *Examination of creation*, opening.

<sup>45</sup> *The love of God*, chapter 3.

<sup>46</sup> *Spiritual accounting*, chapter 3.

Regarding the Arabic equivalents of these two lexemes, it is interesting to note that as opposed to the case in Rabbinic Hebrew, in Ibn-Tibbon's translation they do not function as free variants.

#### **3.3 Rabbinic lexemes with both rabbinic and new meanings**

All the entries presented in my glossary are marked etymologically according to the earliest relevant meaning used by Ibn-Tibbon in his translation, and not necessarily according to the frst time the lexeme (or phrase) is documented in Hebrew literature. Therefore, I focus here only on the rabbinic entries whose usage and meaning Ibn-Tibbon widened.

גוף (9)


<sup>47</sup> *The unity of God*, chapter 7.

<sup>48</sup> *Examination of creation*, chapter 3.


Equivalents (a) to (c) refect the rabbinic meanings of the lexeme גוף. It appears that equivalent (d) was formed only due to a contextual translation (translation of an Arabic noun and an Arabic adjective into a Hebrew construct). Nevertheless, the general rabbinic meaning is appropriate here, too. Equivalent (e), which is a semantic neologism of Ibn-Tibbon's, was created by using a metaphor that is based on the resemblance to the original meaning of the lexeme. It is interesting to see in this quotation the attraction of the Hebrew feminine sufx of the adjective בורות ְצ in comparison with the form of the Hebrew lexeme גופות.

51 *The unity of God*, chapter 6.

<sup>49</sup> *The love of God*, chapter 1. For the words inside the angle brackets see note 16 above.

<sup>50</sup> *The service of God*, chapter 3.

#### הַ עֲ בָ רָ ה (10)


In the Talmud (i.e., in Rabbinic Hebrew), the lexeme ה ָר ָב ֲע ַה has two meanings:54 (1) moving, transferring someone or something to another place, and (2) removal, distancing. Metaphorically, in equivalent (b), Ibn-Tibbon is using this lexeme with the meaning of 'metaphor' or a shift — namely, a semantic change from one semantic feld to another.

תולָ דָ ה (11)

In Biblical Hebrew, the lexeme ה ָד ָתול occurs only in the plural, both in the construct state or with a possessive pronoun. In the absolute state, this lexeme occurs only in the Babylonian Talmud. Ibn-Tibbon used this word frequently, with its rabbinic meanings: see equivalents (a), (b), (d), (e), and (f), and with two new meanings, as in equivalents (c) 'nature' and (g) 'result':

<sup>52</sup> Spiritual accounting, chapter 3.

<sup>53</sup> *The unity of God*, chapter 8.


57 *The unity of God*, chapter 6.

<sup>55</sup> *Introduction.*

<sup>56</sup> *The service of God*, chapter 1.

<sup>58</sup> *Introduction.*


#### **3.4 Rabbinic lexemes with new meanings**

As is common in many developing languages, semantic shifts are an elementary method for enriching an existing vocabulary and for bringing back into use lexemes that were once part of the lexicon. Like many others before him, Ibn-Tibbon used metaphors and metonymies for this purpose. On rare occasions, he used ellipsis, folk etymology, and loan shifts. All these rare cases involve biblical lexemes or other medieval neologisms, and therefore I will not present them here.62 Here are some examples

<sup>59</sup> *The service of God*, chapter 4.

<sup>60</sup> *Abstinence*, chapter 2.

<sup>61</sup> *Spiritual accounting*, chapter 4.

<sup>62</sup> For further discussion and examples, see Avirbach, "The translation method of R. Judah Ibn-Tibbon", pp. 358–359.

of the metonymies and metaphors Ibn-Tibbon used in the case of rabbinic lexemes.

גִ נוי (12)

 to regard in ':Hyamson; וממחילת הדבור הרע והגנוי :Tibbon-Ibn; ופי תחליל אלגיבה ואלוקיעה :Paquda-Ibn :(وقيعة( וקיעה forgiveness of evil speech and depreciation'.63

The lexeme נוי ִג appears in the Palestinian Talmud with the meaning of 'shame, disgrace, defamation'.64 Ibn-Tibbon used here the meaning of the process instead of its result, and the metonymy 'to shame, to defame' was created.

מְ דַ בֵ ר (13)

ומן אשרף נעמה אנעם בהא עלי אלנאטקין :Paquda-Ibn :(ناطق( נאטק והגדולה שבטובות אשר הטיב בהם הבורא לעבדיו המדברים :Tibbon-Ibn; בעד איג̇ אדה להם עלי צפאת יתם בהא תמייזהם ויכמל פהמהם ;אחרי המציאו אותם על תכונת הכרתם בהן גמורה והבנתם שלמה Hyamson: 'the noblest of the gifts which God bestowed on His human creatures, next to having created them with mature faculties of perception and comprehension'.65

The root דב״ר occurs in *Piel* in Biblical Hebrew. 66 The participle ר ֵב ַד ְמ occurs as a noun in Rabbinic Hebrew. However, only in the translation of Ibn-Tibbon does this lexeme start to convey the meaning of a 'human being', as opposed to animals, which cannot talk. The metonymy here represents the main characteristic of the object, just as in the case of the biblical lexeme ל ֵזוח' crawl'

<sup>63</sup> *Humility*, chapter 6.

<sup>64</sup> Ben-Yehuda, *Milon ha-Lashon ha-Ivrit*, pp. 811.

<sup>65</sup> *Introduction.*

<sup>66</sup> E.g., Gen. 8.15.

 another ,'inanimate 'דומֵ ם of case the in and ,')snakes 'זֹחֲ לֵ י אֶ רֶ ץ .cf( neologism of Ibn-Tibbon.

בִ שּׁול (14)

ולא יתם הצ̇ ם אלטעאם פי מעדה̈ אחד מן :Paquda-Ibn :(هضم( הצ̇ ם ולא היה נגמר בשול המאכל בבטן :Tibbon-Ibn; אלחיואן עלי כמאלה כראוי חיים מבעלי אחד ;Hyamson: 'even food would not be perfectly digested by any living creature'.67

In the Mishnah, the verbal noun שּׁול ִב means 'preparing food for eating by heating with fre', and, in the Talmud, the meaning was expanded to 'ripening, becoming good for eating'.68 In Ibn-Tibbon's translation, another metaphor is used, and hence the meaning 'digestion' was added in order to refect the meaning of the Arabic equivalent ם ̇הצ. It is important to note that this lexeme with such a meaning was rare in Ibn-Tibbon's translation and that this meaning is omitted in various modern Hebrew diachronic dictionaries. 69

שִ תוף (15)

إشتر�ك( אשתראך (a( והו אתחאד בעצ̇ הא בבעץ̇ :Paquda-Ibn :�( והוא התאחד קצתם :Tibbon-Ibn; ואצל אלאשתראך אלוחדה parts its and ':Hyamson; עם קצתם ועיקר השיתוף האחדות unite. The basic principle of Synthesis in Unity'.70

<sup>67</sup> *Examination of creation*, chapter 5.

<sup>68</sup> Ben-Yehuda, *Milon ha-Lashon ha-Ivrit*, pp. 640.

<sup>69</sup> E.g., Avraham Even-Shoshan, *Milon Even-Shoshan* (6 vols.; Tel-Aviv: Hamilon Heḥadash, 2003), Yaakov Knaani, *Otsar ha-Lashon ha-Ivrit* (18 vols.; Jerusalem and Tel-Aviv: Masada, 1960–1989); Ben-Yehuda, *Milon ha-Lashon ha-Ivrit*.

<sup>70</sup> *The unity of God*, chapter 9.


The rabbinic meaning that Ibn-Tibbon relied on in order to achieve the metaphor that is refected in the equivalents (a) to (c) is 'to participate, joining someone to work together on something'.73 This meaning is used in Rabbinic Hebrew in the Palestinian Talmud. The metaphor created by Ibn-Tibbon is the result of the resemblance between 'shared work' and 'polytheism', as some idols were alleged to work together to fulfl all of the people's needs.

#### **3.5 Root and stem combination: Rabbinic roots**

The root and stem combination as applied to rabbinic roots is refected in several verbal nouns of three diferent verbal stems. Here I will present briefy the verbal nouns that were created by Ibn-Tibbon from rabbinic roots, divided according to their

<sup>71</sup> *The unity of God*, chapter 2.

<sup>72</sup> *Repentance*, chapter 9.

<sup>73</sup> Ben-Yehuda, *Milon ha-Lashon ha-Ivrit*, pp. 7493–7494.

verbal stems. It is obvious that Ibn-Tibbon created these lexemes under direct infuence of Arabic, either due to root resemblance (as in example 16) or due to the use of the Hebrew root as an equivalent of one or more Arabic roots.

*Hifl*: six separate verbal nouns of this stem were innovated by Ibn-Tibbon in his translation, using both the *haqṭala* and the *heqṭel* patterns (examples 16–21). Some of these lexemes are common in the translation and some are relatively rare.

הַ דְ רָ גָ ה (16)

ואחד̇ ר אלאפראט ואלסרף בגיר תדריג̇ :Paquda-Ibn :(تدريج( תדריג̇ והזהר מן הרבוי וההפלגה מבלי הדרגה פן :Tibbon-Ibn; פתהלך תאבד ;Hyamson: 'beware of excess and exaggeration, of aught that does not proceed gradually lest you perish'.74

	- إنتظام( אנתט̇ אם (a( ואלזהד אלעאם הו :Paquda-Ibn :�( והפרישות הכוללת הוא הנהוג בה לתקנת גופינו :Tibbon-Ibn; אלמתסעמל לצלאח אג̇ סאמנא ואנתט̇ אם אחואלנא ענינינו והסדרת ;Hyamson: 'general abstinence is that which is practiced to improve our physical condition and keep our secular afairs in order'.<sup>75</sup>
	- פליס תכ̇ פי פאידה̈ ד̇ לך לנא פי :Paquda-Ibn :(نظام( נט̇ אם (b( אין תועלתם :Tibbon-Ibn; תדביר אג̇ סאמנא ונט̇ אם חרכאתנא :Hyamson; לנו נעלמת ממנו בהנהגת גופנו והסדרת תנועותינו 'the value of these faculties in the care of our bodies and ordering of our activities is known to all'.76

<sup>74</sup> *The love of God*, chapter 7.

<sup>75</sup> *Abstinence*, chapter 1.

<sup>76</sup> *Examination of creation*, chapter 5.

הַ סְ פָ קָ ה (18)

פעלי חסב כפאיה̈ אלכ̇ אלק תעאלי מנה :Paquda-Ibn :(قيام( קיאם וכפי הגנת הבורא עליו והספקתו בכל :Tibbon-Ibn; וקיאמה באמורה עניניו ;Hyamson: 'so, too, in accordance with the Creator's protection of him and providing for him in all his afairs'.<sup>77</sup>

הַ פְ לָ גָ ה (19)

ואחד̇ אלאפראט ואלסרף בגיר תדריג̇ :Paquda-Ibn :(سرف( סרף והזהר מן הרבוי וההפלגה מבלי הדרגה פן :Tibbon-Ibn; פתהלך תאבד ;Hyamson: 'beware of excess and exaggeration, of aught that does not proceed gradually lest you perish'.78

הֶ סְ כֵ ם (20)

إصر�ر( אצראר ומן אעט̇ ם מפסדאתהא אלאצראר :Paquda-Ibn :�( וממפסידיה עוד :Tibbon-Ibn; עלי אלמעציה והו אלדואם עלי עמלהא these to ':Hyamson; ההסכם על העבירה והוא ההתמדה על עשותה should be added complaisance in sinning; this means continuance in transgression'.79

ואלדמאג מסכן אלקוי אלרוחאניה וינבוע :Paquda-Ibn :(حس( חס והמוח משכן הכחות הרוחניים :Tibbon-Ibn; אלחס ואצל אלעצב העצבים ושרש ההרגש ומבוע ;Hyamson: 'the brain is the seat of the spiritual faculties, the well-spring of sensation and the root from which the nerves begin'.80

The roots סד״ר, ספ״ק, סכ״ם, פל״ג and רג״ש are documented in Rabbinic Hebrew in the *Hifl* stem, but not as verbal nouns.

הֶ רְ גֵ ש (21)

<sup>77</sup> *Spiritual accounting*, chapter 3.

<sup>78</sup> *The love of God*, chapter 7.

<sup>79</sup> *Repentance*, chapter 7.

<sup>80</sup> *Examination of creation*, chapter 5.

Like these roots, דר״ג also occurs as a verb in Rabbinic Hebrew, but the meaning used by Ibn-Tibbon refects a semantic shift in comparison with its original rabbinic meaning.

*Piel*: only one verbal noun is created by Ibn-Tibbon in the *qiṭṭūl* pattern (example 22). As with the previous examples, the root אצ״ר exists in the *Piel* stem in Rabbinic Hebrew, but not as a verbal noun.

אִ צור (22)

إحتكار( אחתכאר ואלרפו ואלכתאבה >וכאלתאג̇ ר< :Paquda-Ibn :�( באחתכארה אלסלע וכרא אלמנאצפין ואלכ̇ ול ואלמתצרפין פי פלאחה̈ וכאחוי והספרות ואצור המסחרים ושכיר :Tibbon-Ibn; אלארץ̇ like ':Hyamson; האריסים והפועלים והשמשים בעבודת האדמה … weaving, writing, warehousing; hiring gardeners, workmen and agricultural labourers'.81

*Hitpael*: six verbal nouns in *hitqaṭṭǝlūt* pattern are neologisms of Ibn-Tibbon (examples 23–28):

הִ זְ דַ מְ נות (23)


<sup>81</sup> *Trust in God*, chapter 3.

<sup>82</sup> *Examination of creation*, chapter 5.

<sup>83</sup> *Repentance*, chapter 5.

הִ סְ תַ לְ קות (24)

ת̇ ם יפכר פי סקוט עט̇ ים כלפהם :Paquda-Ibn :(سقوط( סקוט ויחשוב אחר כך בהסתלקות :Tibbon-Ibn<; וחקוקהם< ולואזמהם ענה מעליו וחובותם משאם כובד ;Hyamson: 'he should also consider that … he is freed from the heavy burden of maintaining relatives and fulflling obligations to them'.<sup>84</sup>

הִ שְ תַ דָ לָ ה and הִ ש ְ תַ דְ לות (25)

These two forms occur in diferent manuscripts containing Ibn-Tibbon's translation of *Duties of the Hearts* as free variations.


<sup>84</sup> *Trust in God*, chapter 4.

<sup>85</sup> *Introduction*.

<sup>86</sup> *Trust in God*, chapter 5.

<sup>87</sup> *Examination of creation*, chapter 3.


إشتر�ك( אשתראך אלתי לא תצח מנה אלא :Paquda-Ibn :�( אשר לא :Tibbon-Ibn; באשתראך גירה מעה פי אלפעל ואלאנפעאל :Hyamson; יוכל לעשותם אלא בהשתתפות זולתו עמו בפעל ובהפעל 'that cannot be discharged, save with the cooperation of another person in mutual relationship, one of them active, the other passive'.91

<sup>88</sup> *The service of God*, chapter 5.

<sup>89</sup> *The service of God*, chapter 7.

<sup>90</sup> *Trust in God*, chapter 5.

<sup>91</sup> *Trust in God*, chapter 4.

הִ תְ גַ בְ רות (27)

ואליסיר מן מט̇ אפרתה לתסתדרג̇ :Paquda-Ibn :(مظافرة( מט̇ אפרה והמצער מהתגברותו כדי שיהיה לך :Tibbon-Ibn; בד̇ לך אלי מא פוקה of increase least the ':Hyamson; מדרגה אל מה שלמעלה ממנו your power over him regard as important, so that it may be to you a step to a greater victory'.92

הִ תְ נָ אות (28)

אמא מואד אלכ̇ לק אלת̇ אני פהו פצ̇ ול :Paquda-Ibn :(تزيين( תזיין אבל :Tibbon-Ibn; אלכלאם וכת̇ רה̈ אכ̇ תלאט אלנאס ואלתזיין להם ;כחות המדה השנית הם מותרי הדבור ורב חברת בני אדם והתנאות להם Hyamson: 'the forces that uphold the latter evil disposition are superfuity of speech, excessive social intercourse'.<sup>93</sup>

The roots גב״ר, נא״י, שד״ל and שת״פ all exist in the *Hitpael* stem in Rabbinic Hebrew, but do not occur as verbal nouns. The roots זמ״ן and סל״ק also exist in Rabbinic Hebrew, but the relevant meanings of these roots are semantic neologisms coined by Ibn-Tibbon.

#### **3.6 Linear word-formation: Rabbinic stems**

Five of Ibn-Tibbon's neologisms in this translation were created by deriving new lexemes from rabbinic stems. Four of them (examples 29–32) are adjectives that were derived with the sufx *-ī*, while one of them (example 33) is an abstract noun that was created with the sufx *-ūt*.

**The sufx** *-ī*: this sufx, *yāʾ an-nisba*, was originally used in Semitic languages for expressing relationships (mostly with

<sup>92</sup> *Wholehearted devotion*, chapter 5.

<sup>93</sup> *The service of God*, chapter 5.

regard to tribes, families, and places), and it appears in Hebrew already in Biblical Hebrew. In Medieval Hebrew, mostly due to the infuence of Arabic, and Ibn-Tibbon's contribution, the use of this sufx widened, creating a wide variety of semantic meanings.94

אֲ וִ ירִ י (29)

The lexeme יר ִו ֲא in rabbinic Hebrew means mainly 'air, space, gap, weather'. With the sufx *-ī*, Ibn-Tibbon created a lexeme that means 'a resemblance to air'. Judging from the Arabic original, it is reasonable to assume that Ibn-Paquda meant here 'a resemblance to fre' and this lexeme was in fact created due to a mistake on the part of Ibn-Tibbon. 95

ת̇ ם קרן בה ג̇ והרא רוחאניא נוראניא :Paquda-Ibn :(نور�ني( נוראני וחבר אליו :Tibbon-Ibn; משאכלא לרוחאניה̈ אלאשכ̇ אץ אלעאליה to ':Hyamson; עצם רוחני אוירי דומה לרוחניות האישים העליונים this human body God has joined a spiritual and ethereal entity akin to the spirituality of the higher beings'.96

Examples 30 and 31 represent two lexemes that were formed by using the same rabbinic stem (see example 9) and two diferent realisations of the sufx *-ī*. Apparently the realisation *-anī* in יִנ ָגופ was created under direct Arabic infuence of the lexeme جسماني. However, it is not clear why two separate and diferent forms were created by Ibn-Tibbon.

<sup>94</sup> See e.g., Noah Shapira, "The Development of the Terminology of Chemistry in Hebrew" (in Hebrew), *Leshonenu* 24 (1960), pp. 95–105.

<sup>95</sup> Qafḥ, *Torat Ḥovat ha-Levavot*, p. 108.

<sup>96</sup> *Examination of creation*, chapter 5.

גופִ י (30)


וקאל אכ̇ ר אלזהד מנע אלנפס :Paquda-Ibn :(جسماني( ג̇ סמאני ואמר אחר הפרישות :Tibbon-Ibn; מן כל ראחה ולד̇ ה ג̇ סמאניה said another ':Hyamson; מניעת הנפש מכל מנוחה ותענוג גופני that abstinence means denying oneself all relaxation and physical pleasure'.99

According to Ben-Yehuda,100 the noun ןָיְנ ִמ is the verbal noun of the verb ה ָנ ָמ' to count' in the *Qal* stem. The rabbinic meanings of ןָיְנ ִמ are 'number' (a synonym for the Hebrew word ר ָפ ְס ִמ (

<sup>97</sup> *Repentance*, chapter 10.

<sup>98</sup> *The service of God*, chapter 5.

<sup>99</sup> *Abstinence*, chapter 2.

<sup>100</sup> Ben-Yehuda, *Milon ha-Lashon ha-Ivrit*, pp. 3096–3097.

and 'counting' (a synonym to the Hebrew word הָיִנ ְמ(. Only in medieval Hebrew does the lexeme ןָיְנ ִמ acquire the meaning of a group of ten men. In his creation of the word יִנָיְנ ִמ, Ibn-Tibbon uses the original rabbinic meaning.

It is interesting to note that in Ibn-Tibbon's translation method, which is at times literal and at times contextual, the adjective יִנָיְנ ִמ in the following examples correlates alternatively with the Arabic *maṣdar* — equivalent (a) — and with an Arabic adjective — equivalent (b):

מִ נְיָנִי (32)


**The sufx** *-ūt*: this sufx, which expresses abstract ideas, has its origin in III-*waw* nouns to which the feminine sufx *-t* was

<sup>101</sup> For this meaning of the root عبر, cf. Joshua Blau, *A Dictionary of Mediaeval Judaeo-Arabic Texts* (Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language and The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities), p. 421.

<sup>102</sup> *Repentance*, chapter 9.

<sup>103</sup> *The unity of God*, chapter 7.

added, e.g., סות ְכ, מות ְד. Its use was later expanded to non-III*waw* roots, consequently forming part of new nominal patterns, e.g., *qǝṭilūt*, *qaṭlūt*, *hiqqaṭǝlūt*, and *hitqaṭṭǝlūt* — probably due to Aramaic infuence, where this sufx is used to form the verbal noun. 104

פְ חִ יתות (33)

This lexeme was created by the sufxation of ות- to the lexeme חות ָפ. All four equivalents below have the meanings 'unimportance' and 'vice':


<sup>104</sup> See, e.g., Hans Bauer and Pontus Leander, *Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache* (Halle: Niemeyer, 1922), pp. 505–506; Emil Kautzsch (ed.), *Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar* (2nd English edition, trans. by Arthur E. Cowley; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910), p. 241 (§86k); Raphael Nir, *Word-formation in modern Hebrew* (in Hebrew; Tel-Aviv: The Open University Press, 1993), pp. 75–76. Cf. also Zeʾev Ben-Ḥ*a*yyim's note at the end of Aharon Reuveni's "Letter to the Editor", *Leshonenu* 16 (1949), pp. 223–224.

<sup>105</sup> *Spiritual accounting*, chapter 3. 106 Ibid.


### **4. Conclusion**

From the examples presented above, it is obvious that rabbinic Hebrew was a signifcant part of the nominal lexicon used by Judah Ibn-Tibbon to translate *Duties of the Hearts*, whether he included rabbinic lexemes that were used with no morphological or semantic changes, biblical lexemes with semantic shifts that occurred in rabbinic Hebrew, rabbinic lexemes that were given new meanings by Ibn-Tibbon, or morphological neologisms that were created by Ibn-Tibbon himself.

As previously noted, this small demonstration serves to indicate the state of the lexicon in Ibn-Tibbon's translations. Aside from several semantic shifts, which are relatively rare in all periods of Hebrew (i.e., ellipsis and folk etymology), it seems that Ibn-Tibbon used a systematic method for expanding the lexicon according to his needs and the Arabic original. The demonstration

<sup>107</sup> Ibid.

<sup>108</sup> *Wholehearted devotion*, chapter 5.

here presents this method and its basic components. Nevertheless, we should take into consideration the fact that this method was not employed exclusively with Rabbinic Hebrew by Ibn-Tibbon, for he used the same approach and principles when enriching the lexicon with lexemes from all periods of Hebrew. It seems that methodologically, Ibn-Tibbon was familiar with semantic processes and with the grammatical characteristics of Hebrew and Arabic and that he unquestionably knew how to use them in order to enrich the Hebrew lexicon.

As can be seen in the above examples, the same Hebrew lexeme is frequently used to translate several Arabic equivalents. This obviously refects the condition of medieval Hebrew, and especially the richness of, and variety in, the Arabic lexicon, in comparison with the insufciency of Hebrew. Although this is the case with most of the Hebrew entries, one should take into consideration that, at times, the opposite occurred, when the same Arabic lexeme had several Hebrew equivalents. Frequently Ibn-Tibbon created neologisms by adding sufxes to an existing Hebrew lexeme (a lexeme from an earlier stage of Hebrew or a neologism of his own). This suggests a moderately automatic way for creating neologisms and enriching the Hebrew lexicon. Similarly, for Ibn-Tibbon the creation of verbal nouns and nouns from existing Hebrew roots has become a productive method for new lexemes.

Semantically, the lexicon of Rabbinic Hebrew in this translation is varied. An analysis of all the rabbinic entries suggests that the semantic felds from which they were taken were rich and broad, and they correlate with all the subjects Ibn-Paquda deals with in his book: *Halakhah* (Jewish law), nature, profciency, economics, time, the human body, faith, knowledge, society, and culture.

In light of all that has been stated above, I have some reservations regarding the declarations of Jewish authors and translators about the state of Hebrew in their era. Although classical Hebrew did not provide all the vocabulary needed in medieval times, it did provide the linguistic and lexical bases on which the lexicon could be evolved. Therefore, as I mentioned above, I believe that these statements regarding the 'insufciency of Hebrew' refect the approach of these authors and translators to the purity of Hebrew (הלשון צחות(, and not only to the state of the language: Classical Hebrew supplied all their lexical and morphological needs, and enabled them to create neologisms. Because they needed the neologisms to translate and compose diferent works, they had to 'violate' the principle of preserving Hebrew as an ancient and holy language.

## **6. THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN BRANCHES OF RABBINIC HEBREW IN LIGHT OF THE HEBREW OF THE LATE MIDRASH**

*Yehonatan Wormser1*

The distinction between the two branches of Rabbinic Hebrew — the Palestinian branch and the Babylonian branch — has been well accepted from the very beginning of the modern study of Rabbinic Hebrew. Zacharias Frankel was probably the frst to comment on this distinction, in 1859.2 More than ffty years later, in 1912, Jacob Nahum Epstein briefy mentioned this distinction as a known fact.3 In 1933, Harold Louis Ginsberg published a comprehensive study about it,4 and fve years later Epstein introduced a detailed description of this subject in his monumental introduction to the text

<sup>1</sup> This paper is based on a research performed in the Centre for Interdisciplinary Research of the Cairo Genizah of University of Haifa. I would like to express my deep thanks to Dr Moshe Lavee, head of the Centre, for his inspiring cooperation in this research. This research was also conducted with the support of the Russian Science Foundation (project no. 17-18-01295), Saint Petersburg State University.

<sup>2</sup> Zacharias Frankel, *Darkhe ha-Mishnah* (in Hebrew; Leipzig: Hunger, 1859), p. 222.

<sup>3</sup> Jacob N. Epstein, in his review article "Otsar Leshon ha-Mishnah" (in Hebrew), *Hatequfah* 13 (1912), pp. 503–516, at pp. 505–506.

<sup>4</sup> Harald L. Ginsberg, "Zu den Dialekten des Talmudisch-Hebräischen", *Monatsschrift für die Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums* 77 (1933), pp. 413–429.

of the Mishnah. 5 Later scholars, such as Kutscher,6 Bendavid,7 Rosenthal,8 Bar-Asher,9 and Breuer,10 continued in this course, expanding and detailing the basic distinction. However, the latest developments in this domain, in which numerous details of this distinction have been questioned or proven wrong (that is to say, linguistic features which were considered characteristic only of one branch were also found in texts of the other branch), have blurred this distinction. The two most important scholars who have dealt with such cases are Friedman11 and Breuer.12


<sup>5</sup> Jacob N. Epstein, *Introduction to the Text of the Mishnah* (in Hebrew; 3rd ed. Jerusalem: Magnes Press and Tel-Aviv: Dvir, 2000), pp. 1207–1269.

<sup>6</sup> Eduard Y. Kutscher, "Mibeʿayot ha-milonut shel leshon hazal" (in Hebrew), in: Eduard Y. Kutscher (ed.), *Archive of the New Dictionary of Rabbinical Literature*, vol. 1 (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1972), pp. 29–82, at p. 40.

<sup>7</sup> Abba Bendavid, *Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew*, vol. 1 (in Hebrew; Tel-Aviv: Dvir, 1967), pp. 171–222.

One of the features that has remained a fairly stable distinguishing feature up to present is the spelling of the conjunction אלא' but (rather)': in Babylonian texts it is frequently (but not always) written with *yod*, אילא, while in Palestinian texts it is written with the standard defective spelling. The diferent spelling methods refect diferent pronunciations: in the Land of Israel the vowel of the initial *alef* was probably the *segol*, but in Babylonia, according to the testimony of manuscripts with Babylonian vocalisation, 13 along with Yemeni oral traditions, 14 it was *ṣere* or *ḥireq*. The frst to indicate this diference in spelling was probably Sokolof, in a short comment in his doctoral dissertation.15 But the issue became widely known only a few years later, after Yeivin published a thorough study in which he examined the spelling of אלא and אילא in a wide range of diferent manuscripts.16 He introduced his conclusions very carefully,

<sup>13</sup> Efraim Porat, *Leshon hakhamim: Lef masorot bavliyot she-be-khitvei yad yeshanim* (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1938), p. 146; Israel Yeivin, *The Hebrew Language Tradition as Refected in the Babylonian Vocalization* (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1985), pp. 1117–1118.

<sup>14</sup> Henoch Yalon, "Nimmukim le-mishnayot menukkadot" (in Hebrew), *Leshonenu* 24 (1960), pp. 157–166, at p. 164; Yitschak Shivtiʾel, "Massorot ha-temanim be-diqduq leshon ha-mishna (masekhet sanhedrin)" (in Hebrew), in: Saul Lieberman et al. (eds.), *Henoch Yalon Jubilee Volume on the Occasion of his Seventy-ffth Birthday* (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sepher, 1963), pp. 338–359, at p. 324; Bendavid, *Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew*, p. 148; Eduard Y. Kutscher, "The Literary and Oral Tradition of Hebrew and Aramaic amongst the Samaritans" (review article, in Hebrew), *Tarbiẓ* 37 (1968), pp. 397–419, at p. 408; Shelomoh Morag, *The Traditions of Hebrew and Aramaic of the Jews of Yemen* (in Hebrew; ed. Yosef Tobi; Tel-Aviv: Afkim 2002), p. 233.

<sup>15</sup> Michael Sokolof, "The Genizah Fragments of Genesis Rabba and MS Vat. Ebr. 60 of Genesis Rabba" (in Hebrew; PhD dissertation, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1971), p. \*29.

<sup>16</sup> Israel Yeivin, "Ketivah shel tevat אלא", *Leshonenu* 40 (1976), pp. 254–258.

emphasising that they were liable to necessitate revision on the basis of future manuscript research. Nevertheless, this distinction has been well accepted, even though, as we shall see, it has not always enjoyed complete confrmation in further fndings. This acceptance was also strengthened by the parallel Aramaic dialects of the period: the form אילא is very common in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic texts,17 but in Palestinian Aramaic it occurs very rarely.18

In this paper I would like to examine what can be learnt about this matter from texts of the well-known and widespread genre of the late Midrash, the *Tanḥuma-Yelammedenu* (TY) genre. TY literature, according to most studies, was created in the Land of Israel after the Amoraic period. Initially it included written summaries of oral sermons (*derashot*), which were compiled into unifed collections.19 A few of those collections are known nowadays as the two editions of *Tanḥuma* (the 'standard' edition

<sup>17</sup> Michael Sokolof, *A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic* (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2002), p. 132. For another occurrence in epigraphic material cf. Shaul Shaked, James Nathan Ford, and Siam Bhayro, *Aramaic Bowl Spells* (Leiden: Brill, 2013), p. 81. Yechiel Bin-Nun, "Le-inyan ketivah shel tevat אלא", *Leshonenu* 41 (1976), p. 77, proposed an etymological explanation based upon Babylonian Aramaic forms.

<sup>18</sup> This matter requires a separate study. For partial fndings see Kutscher, "The Literary and Oral Tradition", p. 408; Michael Sokolof, *A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic* (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan, 1992), p. 58; Johannes de Moor (ed.), *A Bilingual Concordance to the Targum of the Prophets* (Leiden: Brill, 1995–2005), vol. 1, p. 18; vol. 2, p. 20; vol. 9, p. 35.

<sup>19</sup> Most of the material was created, according to common opinion, between the 6th and 8th centuries CE. For additional background on TY literature see Mark Bregman, *The Tanhuma-Yelammedenu Literature: Studies in the Evolutions of the Versions* (in Hebrew; Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2003), pp. 5–13, 176–186; Günter Stemberger, *Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash* (2nd ed.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), pp. 302–306; Anat Reizel, *Introduction to the Midrashic Literature* (in Hebrew; Alon Shevut: Tevunot — Mikhlelet Herzog, 2011), pp. 236–237.

and Buber edition), *Shemot Rabbah*, *Bemidbar Rabbah* and *Devarim Rabbah* (two diferent editions). But it is clear that there were more TY editions, from which we have only remnants preserved in Cairo and European Genizah fragments, and in short quotations in *yalkutim* (medieval collections of Midrashim), while their full texts have been lost. As to its linguistic character, the Hebrew of TY literature refects its Palestinian sources very clearly.20 Indeed, the Palestinian linguistic features were not equally preserved in all TY editions, and in at least a few of them, some of these features were considerably blurred.21

From the perspective of the Palestinian linguistic features we can single out a group of Cairo Genizah fragments of lost TY editions,22 the Palestinian linguistic character of which is very clear and consistent in a manner not common in other TY texts.23 The Hebrew of these fragments is very similar to the Hebrew of the well-known early manuscripts of Tannaitic and Amoraic literature, like MS Kaufmann of the Mishnah and MS Vatican 30 of *Bereshit Rabbah*. For example, the famous Palestinian spelling of the fnal diphthong *-ay* with double *yod*

<sup>20</sup> Yehonatan Wormser, "On Some Features of the Language of Tanhuma-Yelammedenu", *Leshonenu* 75 (2013), pp. 191–219, at pp. 198–210.

<sup>21</sup> Idem, pp. 209–210.

<sup>22</sup> At the current state of the research, this group is known to contain nine fragments, remnants of four diferent editions. Two of those fragments (Cambridge University Library, T-S Misc.36.198 and T-S C1.46) were already recognised as good textual representatives of early Palestinian Hebrew (Mordechay Mishor, "Talmudic Hebrew in the Light of Epigraphy" (in Hebrew), *Meḥqerei Lashon* 4 (1990), pp. 253–270, at p. 169; Bregman, *The Tanhuma-Yelammedenu Literature*, pp. 163–164). The other fragments are: Cambridge University Library T-S Misc.35–36.129; T-S C2.68; T-S C1.71; T-S C2.38; Or.1081 2.51; New York, Jewish Theological Seminary, ENA 3692.7 and ENA 691.18.

<sup>23</sup> A comprehensive linguistic description of these fragments and a thorough discussion of their importance will be published in a separate study currently in preparation.

is consistently employed in those texts (e.g., עליי' on me', בניי' my sons' etc.),24 fnal *nun* frequently substitutes radical fnal *mem* (e.g., אדן instead of אדם' man, person', כשן meaning כשם' like'),25 and consonantal *alef* is always omitted in certain words (e.g., in the name אלעזר, which is written לעזר, or in the construct כאילו 'as if', which appears as כילו(.26

From this group, our main interest here is in one TY edition, which is represented in four Genizah fragments.27 The Palestinian linguistic character of this edition is obvious: except for the abovementioned features, which all appear in those texts, we fnd here the extraordinary form כיויכול instead of כביכול' seemingly'. That is, a *waw* had substituted the *bet*, a well-known Palestinian spelling phenomenon.28 Other striking forms in these texts are the

25 See Shlomo Naeh, "Shtei sugiyot nedoshot bi-leshon ḥazal" (in Hebrew), in: Moshe Bar-Asher and David Rosenthal (eds.), *Meḥqerei Talmud: Talmudic Studies Dedicated to the Memory of Professor Eliezer Shimshon Rosenthal*, vol. 2 (1993), pp. 364–392, at pp. 382–383, and the references there.

<sup>24</sup> The most important discussion on this famous feature appears in Eduard Y. Kutscher, "Leshon ḥazal" (in Hebrew), in: Saul Lieberman et al. (eds.), *Henoch Yalon Jubilee Volume on the Occasion of his Seventy-ffth Birthday* (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sepher, 1963), pp. 246–280, at pp. 251–253.

<sup>26</sup> See Epstein, *Introduction to the Text of the Mishnah*, pp. 1236, 1266; Bendavid, *Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew*, pp. 171–222; Michael Sokolof, "The Hebrew of *Bereshit Rabba* According to MS Vat. Ebr. 30" (in Hebrew), *Leshonenu* 33 (1969), pp. 25–42, 135–149, 270–279, at pp. 34–42; Shimon Sharvit, "Two Phonological Phenomena in Mishnaic Hebrew", in: Aron Dotan (ed.), *Studies in Hebrew and Arabic: In Memory of Dov Eron* (Teuda, vol. 6; Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University, 1988), pp. 115–134, at pp. 44–45; Naeh, "Shtei sugiyot", pp. 364–368.

<sup>27</sup> New York, Jewish Theological Seminary ENA 3692.7; Cambridge University Library Or.1081 2.51; T-S C2.38; New York, JTS: ENA 691.18.

<sup>28</sup> Epstein, *Introduction to the Text of the Mishnah*, pp. 1123–1226; Bendavid, *Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew*, p. 218; Sokolof, "The Hebrew of *Bereshit Rabba*", p. 30; Kutscher, "Mi-beʿayot ha-milonut", pp. 36–37; Shimon Sharvit, *A Phonology of Mishnaic Hebrew: Analyzed Materials* (Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language, 2016), p. 309.

constructs שו and שי, meaning שההוא' that he', שההיא' that she'. The elision of *h* is witnessed also in the equivalent form in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine period דו, shortened form of דההוא, which frequently occurs in this dialect.29 Considering all these features, it seems beyond doubt that this text represents an original early Palestinian linguistic tradition.

There is only one feature in this text that seemingly contradicts this assumption — the spelling of אלא, which occurs twentysix times in the text, all of them in the 'Babylonian' form אילא. Given the frequency, it cannot be explained as a scribe's spelling mistake. It also cannot be assumed that *yod* was used as a vowel letter representing the vowel of *segol* in the initial *alef* — because *yod* is employed frequently in this text to represent *ṣere*, but it never comes with *segol*.

Rather we should raise the question, how did it come about that a typical Babylonian form appears in an otherwise Palestinian text? We are not able to provide a certain explanation, but there are three reasonable options: it could be an independent development in the Hebrew of the Land of Israel; it may be due to the infuence of a foreign linguistic tradition; or the explanation might involve a combination of the two aforementioned options. According to the frst alternative, it may be that the gemination of the *lamed* was simplifed for some reason. The loss of gemination might then have brought about the lengthening of the preceding vowel, the *segol*. This lengthening could then have been realised as substitution of the *segol* by a *ṣere*: א ָל ֶא > א ָֿל ֶא > \*א ָֿל ֵא\*, a common process in the Tiberian vocalization system.30 As for the second

<sup>29</sup> Sokolof, *Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic*, p. 159; Shai Heijmans, "Morphology of The Aramaic Dialect in The Palestinian Talmud According to Geniza Manuscripts" (in Hebrew; MA dissertation, Tel-Aviv University, 2005), p. 18.

<sup>30</sup> Compare, for example, the form ש ֵא' fre' when a sufx is added: ם ֶכ ְש ֶא 'your fre'. It seems probable that this is a natural phonetic shift, which

option, since TY literature is considered a relatively late stratum of Rabbinic Hebrew, i.e., from after the Amoraic period, it is possible that when this text was written, the Babylonian Talmud and even Geonic literature had already reached an exclusive and authoritative position in the Jewish literary canon. In such a situation, the Babylonian linguistic tradition could have had an impact even in regions where the Palestinian traditions were practiced.

Whatever the reason behind this form, if we consider a few fndings from Tannaitic Hebrew, its absolute attribution to the Babylonian branch seems quite dubious: Eldar31 and Yeivin32 have found a few occurrences of the form א ָל ֵא, vocalised with *ṣere* and without *dagesh* in Tiberian manuscripts; Eldar also commented on the occurrence of the spelling אילא in MS Cambridge, Add.470.1 (widely known due the edition published by Lowe);33 Birnbaum34 found the form with *ṣere* in two Genizah fragments of the Mishnah, in which, according to his examination, there are no other signs of Babylonian infuence on the language.<sup>35</sup>

took place in Palestinian Hebrew and which is refected in both the Tiberian vocalization and TY texts.

<sup>31</sup> Ilan Eldar, *The Hebrew Language Tradition in Medieval Ashkenaz (ca. 950–1350 C.E.)* (in Hebrew), vol. 2 (Edah ve-Lashon, vol. 5; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1978), p. 229.

<sup>32</sup> Israel Yeivin, *The Hebrew Language Tradition as Refected in the Babylonian Vocalization* (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1985), pp. 1117–1118.

<sup>33</sup> Prof. Yehudit Henshke notifed me that it is found in this manuscript only once.

<sup>34</sup> Gabriel Birnbaum, *The Language of the Mishna in the Cairo Geniza: Phonology and Morphology* (in Hebrew; Sources and Studies [New Series], vol. 10; Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language, 2008), p. 334.

<sup>35</sup> Yet, since we do not know exactly when those texts were written, we cannot conclude, at the current stage of research, that the form with *ṣere* or the spelling with *yod* have sources in the Palestinian Tannaitic Hebrew.

Furthermore, this spelling was found in other Genizah fragments of TY texts, side by side with Palestinian linguistic features (although the Palestinian linguistic character of those fragments is not as well-proven as it is in the case of the fragments discussed above). Hence, in Genizah fragment T-S Misc.36.12536 we encounter the Palestinian forms כולהן) i.e., כולם' (everybody',37 ונזדווג נעמוד) i.e., ואזדווג אעמוד' (I will attack him';38 in fragment T-S Misc.36.127 we fnd the aforementioned have already seen the forms אדן and כשן, and similarly in fragment JTS ENA.2365.69 we fnd the name לעזר and the fnal double *yod* spelling לפניי' in front of me'; this spelling is also employed in a fragment from Oxford, MS heb. C. 18/11, in the word גניי) i.e., גנאי' (disgrace', where we also witness the defective form כפת in the phrase לך כפת מה) i.e., ?לך אכפת מה' (what do you care?', which is known from Jewish Palestinian Aramaic as well.39 The form אילא appears in all these fragments. This form, therefore, may no longer be considered a feature exclusively distinctive of Babylonian Rabbinic Hebrew, especially when we consider the Hebrew of TY literature.

This conclusion about אילא leads us to sharpen a more valid fundamental approach to the distinction between the two

<sup>36</sup> Published by Louis Ginzberg, "Tanhuma qadmon al qetsat parashat va-yishlach" (in Hebrew), in: *Genizah Studies in Memory of Doctor Solomon Schechter*, vol. 1 (Texts and Studies of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, vol. 7; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1928), pp. 57–61.

<sup>37</sup> Eliezer Shimshon Rosenthal, "Leshonot sofrim" (in Hebrew), in: Baruch Kurzweil (ed.), *Yuval Shay: A Jubilee Volume Dedicated to S.Y. Agnon on Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday* (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 1958), pp. 293–324, at pp. 324–323; Naeh, "Shtei sugiyot", pp. 374–375.

<sup>38</sup> On this form see Sokolof, "The Hebrew of *Bereshit Rabba*", pp. 144–148; Wormser, "On Some Features", p. 201. I have left untranslated the verb נעמוד, because it is employed here not in its regular meaning 'stand', but as an auxiliary verb; compare, for example, the phrase מפניהם ונברח נעמוד 'we will run away from them' (*Midrash Tanḥuma*, ed. Buber, p. 67).

<sup>39</sup> Sokolof, *A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic*, p. 58.

branches. We actually fnd ourselves in line with the attitude advocated by Bendavid more than ffty years ago:<sup>40</sup>

Now, after detailing hundreds of tiny diferences between the Palestinian version and the Babylonian version, it is advisable to qualify our words and resist an overly schematic division. In reality, there is no clear Palestinian or Babylonian type. The literature of the sages of the Land of Israel abounded in Babylon for generations, and the formulation of their sayings was sometimes precisely and sometimes less precisely preserved. […] There is but a diference of proportions between the two types — Palestinian and Babylonian — (linguistic) features occurring frequently (in one branch), rarely (in the other branch).

It seems that this view has not gained sufcient attention among researchers of Rabbinic Hebrew, who, in many cases, have tended to attribute linguistic features only to one branch, ignoring or objecting to the possibility of their presence in the other branch.41

In my opinion, the distinction between Palestinian Hebrew and Babylonian Hebrew should most often be regarded as a relative rather than absolute distinction. Bendavid pointed to the infuence of the sages of the Land of Israel on Babylonian Jews, but, as a matter of fact, the infuence was mutual. There was continual interaction between the two communities during the Tannaitic and Amoraic periods and thereafter, with scholars travelling or migrating from one country to the other. By this

<sup>40</sup> Bendavid, *Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew*, p. 221; in Hebrew: ,עתה לאחר פירוט מאות החילופים הזעירים שבין נוסח ארץ ישראל לנוסח בבל, ראוי שניתן סייג לדברינו ולא ניתפס להפרדה סכימתית יותר מדיי. לאמיתו של הדבר אין בנמצא טיפוס ארץ ישראלי מובהק ולא בבלי מובהק. תורתם של חכמי ארץ ישראל הייתה שופעת לבבל דורי דורות, ונוסח דבריהם עתים נשתמרו בדיוקם ועתים שלא כדיוקם ]...[ ואין בין שני .הטיפוסים, הארץ-ישראלי והבבלי, אלא הפרשי פרופורציה, איזה יסוד מרובה ואיזה ממועט

<sup>41</sup> For examples and discussion on this approach, see Friedman, "An Ancient Scroll Fragment", pp. 12–16; idem, "The Manuscripts of the Babylonian Talmud", pp. 166–175, 178–182. The conclusion presented below correlates to a large extent with Friedman's approach.

way, customs and traditions incessantly moved from one place to the other.42 Accordingly, the linguistic traditions of both areas have a few common phenomena, in which the Palestinian and the Babylonian Amoraic layer developed a new character, diferent from the Tannaitic layer.43 It is likely that, in many cases, even the written texts moved from one place to another, and continued to be edited in their new location. The result of such cases is a kind of combination of the diferent traditions, as may have happened, according to Epstein's assumption,44 in a few manuscripts that were written in the Land of Israel, but vocalised in Babylon.45

Therefore, we should rarely if ever expect to fnd a criterion on the basis of which it is possible absolutely to distinguish between the branches. Whenever an apparently distinctive feature is


<sup>42</sup> Cf. Simcha Asaf, *Tekufat ha-geonim ve-sifrutah* (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1955), p. 102; Saul Lieberman, "That Is How It Was and That Is How It Shall Be: The Jews of Eretz Israel and World Jewry During Mishnah and Talmud Times" (in Hebrew), *Cathedra* 17 (1980), pp. 3–10; Joshua Schwartz, "Aliyah from Babylonia During the Amoraic Period", *Cathedra* 21 (1981), pp. 23–30; Moshe David Herr (ed.), *The Roman Byzantine Period: The Mishnah and Talmud Period and the Byzantine Rule (70–640)* (in Hebrew; *Ha-historia shel Erets Israel*, vol. 4; Jerusalem: Keter, 1985), pp. 133–135, 167, 338.

identifed, it should be remembered that any characteristic of the Hebrew of one branch may appear, to one degree or another, in the other branch.46 Recognition of this fact does not entail rejecting the fundamental concept of the linguistic distinction between the two branches. It just puts it in its right perspective.

If this view is accepted, we should abandon any attempt to fnd a single criterion to determine the type of a particular text, as Yeivin proposed regarding the form אילא: 47

A manuscript in which this word is written only in defective spelling is probably a Palestinian manuscript. Indeed, it is not absolute evidence, because there are also a few Babylonian manuscripts in which this word is written only defectively, and therefore, depsite this spelling, it is possible that this is a Babylonian manuscript. On the other hand, a manuscript in which the *plene* spelling is found, constantly or occasionally, is certainly a Babylonian manuscript.

In conclusion, we have pointed out the fact that the form אילא, which is considered a characteristic of the Babylonian branch of Rabbinic Hebrew, is also found in texts that belong to the Palestinian tradition. It seems that this tendency intensifed after the Amoraic period, in the Hebrew of TY. There are two possible reasons for this situation: it may be an independent development in Palestinian Hebrew or, alternatively, a result of Babylonian infuence on the Palestinian branch. Whatever the reason, the fact is that a characteristically Babylonian form has come to be found, however rarely, in the Palestinian tradition. But according to our

<sup>46</sup> Needless to say, those Babylonian features that originated in the Land of Israel (see Kutscher, "Mibeʿayot ha-milonut", p. 41; Bar-Asher, "The Diferent Traditions of Mishnaic Hebrew", pp. 205–218) are very likely to have left at least sporadic traces in Palestinian Hebrew.

כתב יד שבו התיבה כתובה בכתיב חסר 258: .p ,"אלא tevat shel Ketivah ",Yeivin 47 בלבד מסתבר שארץ-ישראלי הוא. אכן, לפי שמצויים גם כתבי-יד בבליים אחדים שבהם התיבה כתובה בכתיב חסר בלבד, אין בכך הוכחה גמורה, ואפשר שאף על פי כן כתב-יד זה .בבלי הוא; מצד אחר, כתב-יד שבו מצוי הכתיב המלא, תמיד או לפרקים — ודאי בבלי הוא

proposal — namely, that one should regard the fundamental distinction between the two branches always as a relative rather than absolute distinction — our fndings about אילא in no way stand in opposition to its Babylonian attribution: the form אילא is typical of Babylonian Rabbinic Hebrew and appears occasionally in the Palestinian Rabbinic Hebrew.

## **7. TWO TEXTUAL VERSIONS OF**  *PSIQATA OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS*

#### *Shlomi Efrati*

The *Psiqata of the Ten Commandments* (henceforth: *PsTC*) is a relatively unknown rabbinic composition.1 It has an unusual transmission history and relations between its textual witnesses are intriguing. In what follows I will briefy describe *PsTC* and

1 I am aware of only one publication that deals specifcally with *PsTC:* Norman J. Cohen, "Pesiqta Rabbati's *Midrash ʿAseret ha-Dibberot*: A Redactional Construction", in: Herman J. Blumberg et al. (eds.), *"Open Thou Mine Eyes…": Essays on Aggadah and Judaica Presented to Rabbi William G. Braude on His Eightieth Birthday and Dedicated to His Memory* (Hoboken: Ktav, 1992), pp. 41–59. Nevertheless, short references to *PsTC* are to be found in publications on *Psiqata Rabbati* (see below).

This name *Psiqata of the Ten Commandments* was coined by Yaakov Sussman, who studied this composition with his students for years and argued for its independence and relatively early date. Unfortunately, the results of his research have not (yet) been published.

*PsTC* must be sharply distinguished from a compilation of similar name, the *Midrash of Ten Commandments*. This latter work is a late collection of homilies and tales, which has very little in common, both in structure and content, with *PsTC*. See Joseph Dan, "Midrash Aseret Ha-Dibberot", in: Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik (eds.), *Encyclopaedia Judaica* (2nd ed.; Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007), vol. 14 pp. 185– 186; Anat Shapira, *Midrash Aseret Ha-Dibrot (A Midrash on the Ten Commandments): Text, Sources and Interpretation* (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2005).

the main branches of its textual transmission, demonstrate their importance for the study of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, and consider the implications of these fndings for our understanding of the early stages of the transmission of rabbinic literature.

*PsTC* does not exist today as an independent composition. It is extant as part of a much later composition, *Psiqata Rabbati* (henceforth: *PsR*).2 This larger composition is made up of groups of chapters, dedicated to the various festivals and special Sabbaths of the Jewish calendar. The contents and forms of the diferent chapters of *PsR* are uneven, and it is probable that the composition as a whole was achieved by combining chapters, or groups of chapters, from several sources. Chapters 20–24 of *PsR* contain various materials concerning the revelation at Sinai, the giving of the Torah, and interpretations of the Ten Commandments. These chapters were probably meant to serve as a homily (or homilies) for the festival of *Shavuot* (the Feast of Weeks), traditionally identifed as the date of the giving of the Torah. Of this group, chapters 21–24 form a distinct, self-standing composition,3 which

3 Note the heading of chapter 21 דברייא עשר' the ten words/sayings' (i.e., the Ten Commandments). As this chapter deals with only one 'word' (i.e., the frst Commandment), this heading is probably a title for the whole composition (i.e., chapters 21–24). In addition, the verses Exod. 20.14 and Deut. 5.18, which conclude the biblical Ten Commandments, were appended at the end of chapter 24, marking the original ending of *PsTC*.

<sup>2</sup> Additional literature on *PsR*: Hermann L. Strack and Günter Stemberger, *Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash* (trans. by Markus Bockmuehl; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), pp. 323–329; William G. Braude, *Pesikta Rabbati: Discourses for Feasts, Fasts, and Special Sabbaths* (New Haven, CT, and London: Yale University Press, 1968), pp. 1–33; Karl-Erich Grözinger and Hartmut Hahn, "Die Textzeugen der Pesikta Rabbati", *Frankfurter judaistische Beiträge* 1 (1973), pp 68–104; Rivka Ulmer, *Pesiqta Rabbati: A Synoptic Edition*, vol. 1 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997); Binyamin Elizur, "Pesiqta Rabbati: Introductory Chapters" (in Hebrew; PhD dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1999); Cohen, "Pesiqta Rabbati's *Midrash ʿAseret ha-Dibberot*". Braude, *Pesikta Rabbati*, provides a complete translation of *PsR* (including, of course, *PsTC*).

comments upon Exodus 20.1–13, more or less verse-by-verse.4 This composition, *PsTC*, difers considerably from the main bulk of *PsR* (including chapter 20). To give a few examples:


As a whole, whereas *PsR* shows clear afnities with the relatively late *Tanḥuma* literature, <sup>5</sup> *PsTC* is closely related to 'classic' rabbinic Palestinian compositions.6 The terminological, structural, and

<sup>4</sup> I use the phrase 'comments upon' in the most general way. *PsTC* is not a continuous, running commentary, though it does attempt to supply relevant materials to most of the verses of the Ten Commandments.

<sup>5</sup> For a general description of the *Tanḥuma* literature see Strack and Stemberger, *Introduction*, pp. 329–339; Marc Bregman, *The Tanhuma-Yelammedenu Literature: Studies in the Evolution of the Versions* (in Hebrew; Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2003).

<sup>6</sup> Especially the Palestinian Talmud and midrashic compilations such as *Bereshith Rabbah*, *Vayikra Rabbah*, and *Psiqata DeRav Kahanah*.

stylistic diferences make it clear that *PsTC* is an independent work, which at a certain point was incorporated into *PsR*.

Like most of rabbinic literature, *PsTC* is not a continuous, uniform composition, but rather a compilation of fragments. It incorporates various sayings, homilies, and stories, and shows little efort, if any, to integrate or harmonise these into a coherent and continuous text. In general, it seems that *PsTC* faithfully preserves sayings of Palestinian *Amoraim*, the rabbis of the third to ffth centuries CE.<sup>7</sup> Therefore, any attempt to study *PsTC* should take into account at least two levels of development: the traditions cited in *PsTC* (which themselves may have undergone a long process of development before they were integrated into *PsTC*), and the redaction and composition of *PsTC* itself. Of course, it is not always easy to distinguish the diferent components of *PsTC*. For instance, diferences in wording between *PsTC* and parallel composition(s) may, on the one hand, stem from alterations of the text made by the editor/redactor of *PsTC* (or its parallel(s)); or, on the other hand, represent earlier variations in the form of textual traditions that were faithfully preserved in each of the parallels.

The study of *PsTC*, or in fact any ancient composition, becomes even more complicated when we consider the textual transmission of such a composition and its implications for evaluating its text. It goes without saying that the text of *PsTC* as

<sup>7</sup> The date of *PsTC* itself is difcult to establish, due to the eclectic nature of the composition and the lack of internal or external datable evidence (as is so often the case with rabbinic literature in general; see the discussion and references in Strack and Stemberger, *Introduction*, pp. 50–61). Nonetheless, the proximity of *PsTC* to 'classic' rabbinic literature in language, terminology, prosopography, and structure, as well as the many close parallels between them; and the absence of any clear signs of lateness (for instance, infuence of the Babylonian Talmud), suggest that the redactional activity that created *PsTC* as a complete entity was carried out at a relatively early date, probably no later than the seventh century CE.

we have it, preserved mainly in late, medieval manuscripts and anthologies (see below), is somewhat removed from its original form, due to copyist errors or secondary interventions in the text. True, by collating textual witnesses and carefully examining the text it is possible to discern secondary readings and reconstruct a more reliable text. However, not every textual variant can be accounted for, and, more important, not every variation refects a corruption of an original text. Sometimes such variants represent a degree of fuidity in the 'original' text itself.

I would like to demonstrate such 'original' variants through the intriguing textual situation of *PsTC*. This composition is known through two main channels of transmission: medieval European manuscripts, on the one hand, and citations in eastern anthologies, on the other. Let us briefy examine these channels.

As mentioned above, the complete text of *PsTC* is preserved only as part of *Psiqata Rabbati*, and came down to us in the textual witnesses of this latter composition. These include only four independent (direct) witnesses:8 Three medieval manuscripts, the earliest of which dating to 1270,9 and the frst printed

<sup>8</sup> Citations from *PsR* (and *PsTC*) are also found in the monumental twelfthcentury anthology *Yalqut Shimʻoni*, mainly in the second part of the anthology; on the division of this work see Amos Geula, "The Riddle of the Index of Verses in MS Moscow-Ginzburg 1420/7: Preparation for the Creation of the *Yalkut Shimʿoni*" (in Hebrew), *Tarbiẓ* 70 (2001), p. 457, note 146.

<sup>9</sup> MS Parma, Palatina 3122 (de Rossi 1240). Other MSS are Rome, Casanatense 3324 (written in Narbonne at 1386/7; see Elizur, *Pesiqta Rabbati*, p. 27; cf. Norman J. Cohen, "The London Manuscript of Midrash Pesiqta Rabbati: A Key Text-witness Comes to Light", *Jewish Quarterly Review* 73 (1983), pp. 213–214) and Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek cod. 5390 [C 50] (fragment). MS Philadelphia, Dropsie College 22 (*olim* London-Cohen), was probably copied from MS Casanatense (Cohen, "The London Manuscript"; Chaim Milikowsky, "Further on Editing Rabbinic Texts [a Review of R. Ulmer, *A Synoptic Edition of Pesiqta Rabbati*]", *Jewish Quarterly Review* 90 (1999), pp. 148–149).

edition of *PsR*. 10 These direct witnesses represent one branch of transmission, which is made evident by many secondary readings shared by all of them. To give only two examples:

#### *1. PsTC* **2 (=** *PsR* **22, 111b)**<sup>11</sup>

כיון דאתא שרי חביש עלה. אמרה ליה. מה לך את חביש לי.

When he came, he began imprisoning her. She said to him: Why do you imprison me?12

This Aramaic passage segment describes a domestic quarrel. The notion of imprisonment does not make much sense in this context. The verb חביש' to imprison', is a corruption of the similar-looking verb חביט' to beat'.

#### *2. PsTC* **3 (=** *PsR* **23, 117b)**

]1[ אבון בר חסדאי אמ׳ צריך לשלשל.

]2[ }ר׳ אלעז׳ בר׳ יוסי{ ר׳ ירמיה ור׳ זעירא הוון מהלכין תרויהון... הדא אמרה צריך לשלשל.

My own research on the text of *PsTC* led me to conclude that MS Casanatense (and its descendant MS Philadelphia) represents a separate textual family, and preserves a relatively better text. In addition, it seems that MS Wien, the printed edition, and the citations in *Yalqut Shimʻoni* (note 8 above) all stem from a version of *PsR* that was reworked and emended to some extent (see note 34 below).


]3[ ר׳ אלעזר בר׳ יוסי...

[1] Abin b. Ḥisdai said: One must let [his cloak] hang free. 13 [2] {R. Eleazar b. Yose} R. Yeremiah and R. Zeʻera were both walking… it follows that one must let [his cloak] hang free.

[3] R. Eleazar b. Yose said…14

The mention of R. Eleazar b. Yose at the beginning of section 2 is awkward: the following sentence states clearly that two people were walking (תרויהון מהלכין הוון (and goes on to tell only of R. Yeremiah and R. Zeʻera. It seems that the name of R. Eleazar b. Yose was mistakenly copied from the beginning of section 3, due to the repetition of the phrase לשלשל צריך at the end of sections 1–2.

These examples exhibit simple and common copying mistakes. In both of them, however, the corrupted text appears consistently throughout all of the direct textual witnesses. As it is rather unlikely that several scribes made exactly the same mistakes independently, it is quite probable that all of the direct witnesses stem from a certain older copy of *PsR* that contained these — and many others — corrupt readings.

Besides the textual branch of the direct witnesses there is another line of transmission of *PsTC*, preserved mainly as citations in two medieval anthologies, or *Yalqutim*: *Midrash HaGadol* (= *MG*), a fourteenth-century Yemenite anthology,15 and *Sefer* 

<sup>13</sup> If one does not have a diferent cloak to put on for Sabbath, he should at least make a distinction in the way he wears his daily (and only) cloak in order to distinguish between Sabbath and weekdays.

<sup>14</sup> Braude, *Pesikta Rabbati*, p. 481.

<sup>15</sup> See Strack and Stemberger, *Introduction*, pp. 386–388; Joseph Tobi, "Midrash Ha-Gadol: The Sources and the Structure" (in Hebrew; PhD dissertation, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1993).

*HaMaʻasiot* (= *SM*), an anthology of tales whose date and provenance are not quite clear.16 In general, these two *Yalqutim* tend to agree almost verbatim (when they overlap). Obviously, there is some close relationship between them, though the exact nature of that relationship is not entirely clear.17 Each of these *Yalqutim* cites passages from *PsTC* that are absent in the other, and I will regard them as (independent) witnesses of a certain version of *PsTC*, a version clearly distinct from the one preserved in the direct witnesses.

One important feature of these *Yalqutim* is that they seem to be completely unfamiliar with other parts of *PsR*, apart from chapters 21–24 (= *PsTC*). This is a strong indication that *PsTC* was circulating independently of *PsR*. 18 Even more important than the evidence of independent circulation are the numerous variations between the version of *PsTC* preserved in the *Yalqutim* 

<sup>16</sup> Moses Gaster, *The Exempla of the Rabbis* (London and Leipzig: Asia Publishing Co., 1924). Gaster's early dating of the anthology (introduction, pp. 1–7, 43–49) is unacceptable; Joseph Dan, "Exempla of the Rabbis", in: Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik (eds.), *Encyclopaedia Judaica* (2nd ed.; Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007), vol. 6, pp. 598–599. See also the following note.

<sup>17</sup> There is a tendency to see *SM* as dependent on *MG* (see, e.g., Mordechay Margalioth (Margulies), *Midrash HaGGadol on the Pentateuch: Exodus* (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1956), introduction, pp. 11–12). However, closer examination shows that *SM* usually preserves a more reliable text, while *MG* slightly reshapes and edits its sources. See Reuven Kiperwasser, "Midrash haGadol, The Exempla of the Rabbis (Sefer Maʿasiyot), and Midrashic Works on Ecclesiastes: A Comparative Approach" (in Hebrew), *Tarbiẓ* 75 (2006), pp. 409–436 (whose conclusions are somewhat exaggerated, in my view); as well as the critical review of scholarship by Philip S. Alexander, "Gaster's *Exempla of the Rabbis*: a Reappraisal", in: Gabrielle Sed-Rajna (ed.), *Rashi (1040–1990): Hommage à Ephraïm E. Urbach* (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1993), pp. 793–805.

<sup>18</sup> As was already noted by Margalioth, *Midrash HaGGadol on the Pentateuch: Exodus*, introduction, p. 8.

and the version preserved in the direct textual witnesses (of *PsR*). Not infrequently the *Yalqutim* preserve better readings than the direct witnesses. Thus, whereas all the direct witnesses have the 1 example see (שרי חביש עלה... מה לך את חביש לי reading corrupt above), the *Yalqutim* preserve the correct reading עלה וחבט שרי' he began beating her'. There are also instances where the *Yalqutim* preserve original (or at least better) readings that would have been completely lost, had we only had the direct witnesses' version:

#### *3. PsTC* **3 (=** *PsR* **23, 116a)**

```
מלך בשר ודם כשהוא פוליסופוס19 אומ׳ לעבדיו עשו עמכם יום אחד ועמי 
                                                     ששה ימים.
```
A human king, when he is a *philosophos*, says to his servants: Work one day for yourselves and six days for me.20

The notion of a philosopher king may not be the most appropriate in this parable, which stresses the king's benevolence rather than his wisdom. Even if one assumes the reading פילוסופוס' *philosophos*, wise' to be secondary or corrupt, it would have been almost impossible to reconstruct the original reading by conjecture alone.21 However, in *MG* to Exodus 20.10, 22 in a long excerpt human a ',מלך בשר ודם שהיה לו אפילנטרפוס :read we ,*PsTC* from king who was23 a *philanthropos*'. Here the parable is accurate:

<sup>19</sup> פוליסופוס — thus in MS Casanatense. The other witnesses further corrupted this word: MS Parma has פוליפוס, the printed edition כילסופים.

<sup>20</sup> Braude, *Pesikta Rabbati*, p. 476.

<sup>21</sup> See Braude's somewhat free translation and cf. Freidmann's emendations (cited by Braude, note 12).

<sup>22</sup> Margalioth, *Midrash HaGGadol on the Pentateuch: Exodus*, p. 616.

<sup>23</sup> Reading שהיה' who was' instead of לו שהיה' who had', which does not make sense here.

a human king, if he is a *philanthropos*, benevolent and kind,24 would allow his servants one day (out of seven) to handle their private afairs; but God allows his people six days for their own work and demands only one day — the Sabbath — for himself. The loanword פילנתרפוס \*is not attested, as far as I am aware, anywhere else in rabbinic literature. It is probably due to its rarity that it was replaced with the similar looking and better-known word פילוסופוס. In this case the version preserved in *MG* not only enabled us to reconstruct the original form and meaning of the parable, but also enriched our knowledge of Rabbinic Hebrew.25

However, variant readings in the two versions do not always refect an error or secondary reading in one (and sometimes both) of the versions. Not infrequently the two versions exhibit what seem to be good, genuine, reliable, yet diferent texts. This is especially evident when examining the relatively long Aramaic tales that are included in *PsTC*. Many of these are presented in rather diferent forms in each of the versions of *PsTC*, yet both forms are in good Jewish Palestinian Aramaic. Now, the use of JPA declined and eventually ceased during the frst centuries after the Arab conquest. Medieval scribes and authors had little (if any) familiarity with this dialect, being much more familiar with Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, due to the immense infuence of the Babylonian Talmud. 26 Therefore, the use of JPA in both

<sup>24</sup> Henry Liddell and Robert Scott, *A Greek-English Lexicon* (9th ed.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940), s.v. φιλάνθρωπος.

<sup>25</sup> After reaching this interpretation of אפילנטרפוס independently I found that the same interpretation is suggested by D. Sperber, *Greek in Talmudic Palestine* (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 2012). p. 60 n. 64.

<sup>26</sup> See, e.g., Mordechai Akiva Friedman, *Jewish Marriage in Palestine: a Cairo Geniza Study. Vol. 1: The* Ketubba *Traditions of Eretz Israel* (Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University, 1980), pp. 48–51. For a description of JPA and the main problems of its research see especially Eduard Y. Kutscher, *Studies in Galilean Aramaic* (transl. by Michael Sokolof; Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 1976); idem, "Aramaic", in: Michael Berenbaum and

versions, in a seemingly free and lively manner, testifes to their antiquity and, presumably, authenticity.

In order to demonstrate the character and signifcance of such variant tales I would like to present and discuss one lengthy example.27 The following story exemplifes a problematic aspect of a common Jewish ritual item *tefllin* (phylacteries). *Tefllin* are considered a marker of piety and righteousness. However, not everyone who wears them is indeed pious and trustworthy, as can be seen from the following incident. A certain man reached his destination, presumably far away from home, just before Shabbat. When he saw someone wearing *tefllin*, standing in prayer, he decided to leave his money with him (carrying money during Shabbat is forbidden according to Jewish law). After Shabbat the man came back to ask for his money, at which point the other person denied having received any money from him. The frst man, angry yet helpless, cried out: 'It is not you that I believed, but that holy name that was on your head' — that is, the *tefllin*. But the story does not end here. Elijah the prophet appeared to the man and told him how to retrieve his money: he should go to the hypocrite's wife and tell her that her husband asks her to give him back the deposit. In order for the wife to believe him, he should tell her that she and her husband ate leaven on Passover and pork on the Day of Atonement (a day of fasting) — an incriminating secret that served as an agreed sign between them. The man did so, and the wife innocently gave him back his money. When her husband returned and found out, he began beating her. But when his wife told him all that had happened, and that their transgressions were

Fred Skolnik (eds.), *Encyclopaedia Judaica* (2nd ed.; Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007), vol. 1, pp. 342–359.

<sup>27</sup> *PsTC* 2 (= *PsR* 22, 111b), Braude, *Pesikta Rabbati*, pp. 459–460; *MG* Exod. 20.7, Margalioth, *Midrash HaGGadol on the Pentateuch: Exodus*, p. 410; *SM* 123, p. 83 [Heb. section]. Full text and translation of both versions of the story are given in the appendix to this paper.

exposed, they decided 'to return to how they used to be', implying that the couple, presumably proselytes, would now return to live as gentiles.28

This tale appears nowhere else in rabbinic literature, except in *PsTC*. However, the two versions of *PsTC* exhibit two rather diferent forms of the same story. Let us examine a few of the more interesting diferences between the two.


This section serves as an exposition, presenting the two main characters of the story. The direct witnesses describe them only in terms of their actions: the one carrying money, the other

say he was a proselyte.

<sup>28</sup> The exact meaning of the term לסורנו נשוב is not altogether clear; however, it is usually used to describe a former proselyte (ר ֵג (who now behaves (again) as a gentile.

wearing *tefllin* and praying. But the *Yalqutim* add, concerning the second man, that 'some say he was a proselyte' (דאמרין ואית הוה גיור(, thus anticipating what is revealed at the conclusion of the story. In view of literary considerations, this would seem a secondary addition. Note, however, that this added sentence is in good Palestinian Aramaic. 29 Moreover, the *Yalqutim* version uses the phrases זוי חדא' a certain place'30 and מצלי קאים' standing (and) praying', which are unique to JPA. To be sure, the direct witnesses also preserve fairly good Aramaic. Especially noteworthy is the usage of the verb טעין. The usual meaning of this Aramaic verb is 'to carry a load'. However, the man in our story was not carrying a heavy load of coins, but simply had some money at his disposal. In this context the verb טעין means 'to have, to possess, to carry around'. This meaning is well attested in JPA,31 but not in other dialects of Jewish Aramaic.

*5. Direct witnesses Yalqutim*

נתעטף טליתו ועמד ונתפלל באותו מקום. אמ׳ לפניו. רבונו של עולם. לא ליה הימנית אלא לשמך קדישא דהוה על רישיה.

מה עבד ההוא גברא. אזל וקם ליה קומי ארונא מצלי. אמ׳. רבוניה דעלמא. לא ליה הימינית אלא לשמך קדישא דחקיק על רישיה הימינית.

<sup>29</sup> Note the forms אמרין, גיור, as opposed to the forms אמרי, גיורא which are characteristic of JBA and are much more common in medieval Jewish writings.

<sup>30</sup> The noun וי(א)ז, זויתא, is common in Aramaic in the meaning 'corner'. Only in JPA does it have the meaning 'place, area'; see Michael Sokolof, *A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic*, (2nd ed. Ramat Gan: Bar-Iland University Press, 2002), s.v. וי ִו ָז.

<sup>31</sup> See e.g. *Bereshith Rabbah* 38.13 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, p. 362): חדא אתת דסולת פינך חד לה טעינה איתא' a certain woman came, carrying one dish of מנין את טעין?... מטכסין את טעין?... מרגלוון את :(384 .p (40.5 .ibid'; four fne ?טעין' do you carry clothes… do you carry silk… do you carry pearls?'.

He wrapped himself in his cloak and stood and prayed in that place, and said in front of Him: "Master of the world, It was not him that I believed, but Your holy name that was on his head."

What did that man do? He went and stood praying in front of the ark, and said: "Master of the world, It was not him that I believed, but Your holy name that was on his head I believed."

After the hypocrite denied he was given any money, the poor man who gave him the money, furious and helpless, rebuked him and then cried out to God. The *Yalqutim* report that the man 'went and stood praying in front of the ark (ארונא קומי(, 'that is the chest dedicated to holding the scroll(s) of the holy scripture(s), a physical and conceptual focal point of Jewish synagogues. This specifc use of the common Aramaic word ארונא is unique to JPA.32 The direct witnesses, on the other hand, present this episode in Hebrew rather than Aramaic, and in a more elaborate way: 'he wrapped himself in his cloak and stood and prayed in that place', etc. The Hebrew appears somewhat unexpectedly in the middle of an Aramaic passage, but it must be noted that such shifts of language are not uncommon in 'classic' rabbinic compositions.33 In fact, the conclusion of this very tale is in Hebrew, according to both versions. The change in language and content refects diferent literary choices made in each of the versions.

כל כלי בית הכנסת כבית הכנסת... כילה דעל ארונה :(3.1) d73 *Megillah.y* .,g.e ,See 32 כארונה' all the vessels of the synagogue are like the synagogue… the curtain covering the ark is like the ark'.

<sup>33</sup> The Hebrew sentence in the version of the direct witnesses has an exact parallel in *Psiqata DeRav Kahanah*, *HaʻOmer* 4 (ed. Mandelbaum, p. 144), describing Mordechai praying to God as he sees Haman approaching. There, just like in *PsTC*, it is a Hebrew sentence in the middle of an Aramaic tale.


The *Yalqutim* version simply relates how Elijah appeared to the man, as if there were nothing noteworthy about this miraculous appearance. The direct witnesses, however, add a minor detail: the man, having prayed, fell asleep, and then Elijah appeared to him, presumably in a dream. This addition may represent a degree of discomfort with the notion of Elijah's corporeal appearance, replacing it with a dream revelation. Nevertheless, even though the direct witnesses probably exhibit a secondary addition, it is in good Palestinian Aramaic. The phrase ליה ודמך נם' he dozed of and fell asleep' is unique to this dialect.35

<sup>34</sup> מצלי מכי' after praying' — odd construction, probably corrupt. We may plausibly suppose that the original was ממצלי, a normal JPA construction, and that the preposition כי was inserted under the infuence of JBA. MS Wien and the printed edition (see notes 9–10 above) read צלי ם(ו)מק. Though the phrase צלי קם is characteristic of JPA, the use of perfect forms with the preposition -מ is unusual. The reading צלי מקם, therefore, is probably a learned emendation.

<sup>35</sup> Sokolof, *A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic* (2nd ed. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2002), s.v. דמך c1.

*7. Direct witnesses Yalqutim* זיל אמור לאתתיה דההוא גברא ההוא סימן דהוה ליה עמה. אכלין בלילי פסחא חמיר ובלילי צומא רבא מן ההוא מינא. איזיל ואימור הדין סימונא לאנתתיה מן שמיה והיא יהיבא לך. אִ זֵ יל אמ׳ לה. אמר ליך בעליך סימן ביני לביניך דאיליך עמא אכלין חמירא בליליא דפסחא ומן ההוא מינא ביום צומא רבא. והיא יהבא לך. יַב ִ י לי מִ קְ מַ ת פלן. "Go and tell the wife of that (other) man the sign "Go and tell this sign to his wife in his name and she shall give you (the deposit). Go tell her: 'Your husband says to you: A sign between

that he had with her: (We) eat leaven on the night of Passover and of that thing36 on the night of the Great Fast.37 Give me this object (= the deposit)." These people (= we) eat leaven on the night of Passover and of that thing on the day of the Great Fast.' And (then) she shall give (it) to you."

me and you:

This passage relates the contents of Elijah's revelation, and reveals the hypocrite's and his wife's hidden sins. The *Yalqutim* version uses the relatively rare self-referential clause עמא דאיליך 'these people', which is unique to JPA.38 Note that these words,

<sup>36</sup> That is, pork.

<sup>37</sup> The Day of Atonement (Yom HaKippurim).

קפודקאי דציפורין שאלון לר׳ אימי. בגין דלית לאילין עמא רחם :(9.5) a39 *Shebiith.y* See 38 שלם שאל ולא' the Cappadocians [i.e., Jews or proselytes from Cappadocia] who reside in Sepphoris asked R. Ami: Since these people [i.e., we] have neither a friend nor someone who seeks their welfare'; *Bereshith Rabbah* tower the of builders the '(עתידין אילין עמה משתרפה מגו עלמא :(357 .p (38.8 of Babylon say concerning themselves:) these people will be burnt away';

עמא דאיליך, are graphically and phonetically similar to the clause הּ ַמ ִע ליה דהוה' that he had with her', which is found in the direct witnesses exactly at the same place.39 It seems that the *Yalqutim* preserve a genuine Aramaic phrase that was omitted or replaced in the version of the direct witnesses. But this is not to say that the version of the direct witnesses is secondary or less reliable. Just at the end of Elijah's words, the direct witnesses use the phrase פלן ת ַמ ְק ִמ' this object', a fne specimen of JPA.<sup>40</sup>

By now it should be clear that the diferences between the two versions of *PsTC*, at least as far as this tale is concerned, are much more than mere scribal errors. Each version presents, in general, a good text, from both a literary and a linguistic perspective. The fact that both versions use good, authentic Palestinian Aramaic is extremely important, as it shows that these versions are not

כל מה דאמ׳ על הלין עמא :(129–128 .pp (7 *VaYehi* ,*Kahanah DeRav Psiqata* he that all 'אתא עליהון. אתון נפיק אילן עיבריא מביניכון, ואי לא הלין עמא מייתין (i.e., Moses) has said concerning these people (i.e., us, the Egyptians) has happened to them (i.e., us). Come, let us expel these Hebrews from among you, or else these people (i.e., we, the frstborn) will die'. Note that in each of these instances the term עמא אילין refers to 'others', i.e., proselytes or gentiles.

Concerning the form איליך see Caspar Levias, *A Grammar of Galilean Aramaic* (in Hebrew; New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1986), p. 36; Abraham Tal, "Investigations in Palestinian Aramaic: the Demonstrative Pronouns" (in Hebrew), *Leshonenu* 44 (1979), pp. 61–63; Shai Heijmans, "Morphology of the Aramaic Dialect in the Palestinian Talmud according to Geniza Manuscripts" (in Hebrew; MA thesis, Tel Aviv University, 2005), p. 26 (§5.2) and the references there.


the product of medieval scribes or redactors, who were no longer able to use JPA to such an extent.41 Rather, both versions were given their fnal form in a historical and geographical context in which this dialect was, if not actually spoken, at least in common literary use. It would seem, therefore, that the diferences between these versions, rather than representing corruptions or reworking of an original fxed text, refect some fuidity in the text itself.

The nature and meaning of this fuidity can be explained in several ways. It is possible that they represent a kind of 'creative transmission', that is, the active and intentional interventions of later transmitters in an original text.42 Indeed, it is sometimes possible to discern a secondary reading in one version or the other.43 But in most instances both versions preserve equally reliable readings. Moreover, the scope and frequency of the textual variants examined here, which are by no means exceptional,44 may suggest that there was something in the text itself that made

42 Similar to the model suggested by Shamma Yehuda Friedman, "On the Origin of Textual Variants in the Babylonian Talmud" (in Hebrew), *Sidra* 7 (1991), pp. 67–102; idem, "Uncovering Literary Dependencies in the Talmudic Corpus", in Shaye J. D. Cohen (ed.), *The Synoptic Problem in Rabbinic Literature* (Providence: Brown Judaic Studies, 2000), pp. 35–57.

<sup>41</sup> An example of late, artifcial use of Aramaic by a medieval emendator is described in note 34 above.

<sup>43</sup> See examples 4, 6, and perhaps also 7.

<sup>44</sup> A few examples will sufce here: Midrash *Ekha Rabbati* exists in two distinct versions, brilliantly analysed by Paul Mandel, "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 Difusion* (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), pp. 74–106; some of the genizah fragments of *Vayikra Rabbah* preserve signifcantly diferent text of the midrash and are briefy discussed by Mordechai Margalioth (Margulies), *Midrash Wayyikra Rabbah* (Jerusalem: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1960), vol. 5, pp. 5–7; the relationship between *Qohelet Rabbah* and its citations in *MG* and *SM*, discussed by Kiperwasser, *Midrash haGadol*, is strikingly similar to the phenomena discussed here.

it especially susceptible to such alterations. In other words, it is the text itself that was — to a certain degree — changeable and fuid. According to this model, the diferences between the two versions refect a relatively early stage of transmission, when the redaction — that is, the process of choosing, arranging and ordering the segments of *PsTC* — was completed, and also the text of these segments was more or less fxed — but not entirely. A certain degree of freedom was allowed, or perhaps inevitable, during this early, possibly oral,45 stage of transmission.46

Whether the curious textual situation of *PsTC* represents the inherent fuidity and openness of the text itself or the creative reshaping of a (hypothetical) original text by its transmitters is not easy to decide. Perhaps more important, however, is the recognition that both versions are equally important for the study and understanding of this composition. This is especially true in regard to the subject of this volume, that is, the study of Rabbinic Hebrew and Aramaic. As has been demonstrated above, both versions of *PsTC* represent authentic and common use of Palestinian Aramaic, and ofer rich, invaluable materials for the study of this dialect. I hope that future researchers will make use of these treasuries, thus enriching our knowledge of this most important, yet somewhat neglected branch of Aramaic.

<sup>45</sup> On the question of oral vs. written transmission of rabbinic literature see the articles and references in Elman and Gershoni, *Transmitting Jewish Traditions*.

<sup>46</sup> A similar model was suggested, concerning textual variants in the Babylonian Talmud, by Eliezer Shimshon Rosenthal, "The History of the Text and Problems of Redaction in the Study of the Babylonian Talmud" (in Hebrew), *Tarbiẓ* 57 (1988), pp. 1–36 (especially pp. 30–31); Robert Brody, "Geonic Literature and the Talmudic Text" (in Hebrew), in: Yaacov Sussman and David Rosenthal (eds.), *Meḥqerei Talmud: Talmudic Studies*, vol. 1 (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1990), pp. 237–303; idem, "The Talmud in the Geonic Period", in: Sharon Liberman Mintz and Gabriel M. Goldstein (eds.), *Printing the Talmud: From Bomberg to Schottenstein* (New York: Yeshiva University Museum, 2005), p. 32.

#### **Appendix: Text and translation of** *PsTC* **2 (=** *PsR* **22, 111b)<sup>47</sup>**

]1[ עובדא הוה בחד גבר דעל לחדא זוי בערבותא באפתי רמשא והוה גביה פריטין למפקדא. על לבי כנשתא אשכח חד גבר קאים מצלי ותפלויי עלויי. ואית דאמרין גיור הוה. אמ׳. לית לי למיתן פריטי אלא גבי הדין גברא דהוא נטר כל מצואתא דברייה. יהב ליה פקדוניה.

]2[ באפוקי שבתא אזל בעא פקדוניה וכפר ביה.

מה עבד ההוא גברא. אזל וקם ליה קומי ארונא מצלי. אמ׳. רבוניה דעלמא. לא ליה הימינית אלא לשמך קדישא דחקיק על רישיה הימינית.

]3[ נגלה לו אליהו ז״ל. אמ׳ ליה. איזיל ואימור הדין סימונא לאנתתיה מן שמיה והיא יהיבא לך. אִ זֵ יל אמ׳ לה. אמר ליך בעליך סימן ביני לביניך דאיליך עמא אכלין חמירא בליליא דפסחא ומן ההוא מינא ביום צומא רבא. והיא יהבא לך. אמ׳ לה כן ויהבת ליה.

#### ילקוטים עדים ישירים

עובדא הוה בחד גברא דהוה טעין ממוניה בערובתא באנפי רומשא. על בי כנישתא אשכח חד גברא מצלי ותפלי על רישיה. ואמ׳. לית לי נפקיד הדין ממוניה אלא גבי הדין דהוא נטר מצותיה דבריין. נשא אפקדיה גביה.

בא לאפוקי שובתא כפר ביה. אמ׳ ליה. חייך. לא לך הימנית אלא לההוא שמא קדישא דהוה על רישך.

נתעטף טליתו ועמד ונתפלל באותו מקום. אמ׳ לפניו. רבונו של עולם. לא ליה הימנית אלא לשמך קדישא דהוה על רישיה.

מכי מצלי נם ודמך ליה. איתגלי אליהו זכו׳ לטו׳ על ההוא גברא. אמ׳ ליה. זיל אמור לאתתיה דההוא גברא ההוא סימן דהוה ליה עמה. אכלין בלילי פסחא חמיר ובלילי צומא רבא מן ההוא מינא. יַב ִ י לי מִ קְ מַ ת פלן. נשאתה ויהבת ליה.

<sup>47</sup> Translation based on Braude, *Pesikta Rabbati*, pp. 459–460, altered and corrected by the author. Hebrew sections are printed in italics.

]4[ כד סליק בעלה מן שוקא אמרה ליה. אף חד סימן דהוה ביני לבינך אזלת ופרסמתיה. אמ׳ לה. ומא עסקא. תניית ליה עובדא. שרי וחבט עלה.

]5[ אמרו. הואיל ונתפרסמנו נחזור לסורינו. עמדו וחזרו לסורם. מכאן אמרו. אל תאמֵ ן בגר עד עשרים וארבעה דורות.

כיון דאתא שרי חביש עלה. אמרה ליה. מה לך את חביש לי. סימנא דהוה ביני לבינך יַב ְ לי ויהביתה ליה.

אמ׳. הואיל ונתפרסמנו נחזור לסורנו. מכאן אמרו. אל תאמן בגר עד עשרים ושתים דורות.

#### **Direct Witnesses Yalqutim**

**[1]** It happened that a certain man was carrying money on a Friday toward sunset. He entered a synagogue and found a certain man praying with tefllin on his head. He said, I shouldn't deposit this money but with this one, who keeps the commandments of our Creator. He took (the money) and deposited it with him.

It happened that a certain man came to a certain place on a Friday toward sunset and had with him money (lit. coins) to deposit. He entered a synagogue and found a certain man standing and praying with his tefllin on him. Some say he was a proselyte. He said, I shouldn't give my money but to this man, who keeps all the commandments of his (or: the) Creator. He gave him his deposit.

**[2]** *He came* at the end of the Sabbath, and (the other) denied (the transaction). He said to him: "It was not you that I believed, but that holy name that was on your head."

*He wrapped himself in his cloak and stood and prayed in that place, and said in front of Him: "Master of the world*, It was not him that I believed, but Your holy name that was on his head."

**[3]** After praying he dozed of and fell asleep. Elijah, of blessed memory, appeared to that man and said to him: "Go and tell the wife of that (other) man the sign that he had with her: (We) eat leaven on the night of Passover and of that thing (= pork) on the night of the Great Fast (= Day of Atonement). Give me this object (= the deposit)." (So he did, and) she took it and gave it to him.

At the end of the Sabbath He went and asked for his deposit, (but the other) denied (the transaction).

What did that man do? He went and stood praying in front of the ark, and said: "Master of the world, It was not him that I believed, but Your holy name that was on his head I believed."

Elijah, of blessed memory, appeared to him and said to him: "Go and tell this sign to his wife in his name and she shall give you (the deposit). Go tell her: 'Your husband says to you: A sign between me and you: These people (= we) eat leaven on the night of Passover and of that thing on the day of the Great Fast.' And (then) she shall give (it) to you."He told her so and she gave (it) to him.

**[4]** When he (her husband) came, he began imprisoning (!) her. She said to him: "Why do you imprison (!) me? He gave me the sign that we had between me and you, and (then) I gave it to him."

**[5]** *He said: "Since we have been exposed, let us return to how we used to be."*

*This is why they said: "Do not trust a proselyte up to twentytwo generations."*

When her husband returned from outside, she said to him: "Even that one sign that we had between me and you, you went and exposed."He said to her: "What's the matter?"She told him what happened. He began beating her.

*They said: "Since we have been exposed, let us return to how we used to be."They stood up and returned to how they used to be.*

*This is why they said: "Do not trust a proselyte up to twentyfour generations."*

## **8. VOWEL REDUCTION IN GREEK LOANWORDS IN THE MISHNAH:**

### THE PHENOMENON AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE

*Shai Heijmans1*

#### **1. Introduction**

In this article I would like to discuss a phonological phenomenon relevant to Greek loanwords in the Mishnah that seems to have been largely overlooked by previous scholars. There are approximately 300 Greek loanwords in the Mishnah.2 A comparison between the form of these loanwords in the printed editions of the Mishnah and the form of their Greek etymons purportedly yields many phonological incongruities. And indeed,

<sup>1</sup> This article is a translated and revised subsection of my PhD dissertation: Shai Heijmans, "Greek and Latin Loanwords in the Mishnah: Lexicon and Phonology" (in Hebrew; PhD dissertation, Tel-Aviv University, 2013), pp. 281–284.

<sup>2</sup> In this number are also included loanwords from Latin, most of which made their way into Hebrew not directly from this language, but through Greek; for the purposes of this article they may, therefore, be considered Greek loanwords. A list of the loanwords with their Greek and Latin etymons can be found in Chanoch Albeck, *Introduction to the Mishnah* (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1959), pp. 203–215; see also Heijmans, "Greek and Latin Loanwords in the Mishnah: Lexicon and Phonology", pp. 291–295.

it cannot be denied that loanwords were especially vulnerable to scribal errors. But when a comparison is made between the form of loanwords in excellent manuscripts of the Mishnah, on the one hand, and the form of their etymons according to Greek pronunciation in the Roman and Byzantine periods, on the other hand, many incongruities vanish, and a more consistent picture emerges.

A case in point is the word קנוניא' conspiracy'. The word is documented 35 times in rabbinic literature, most notably in two well-known tractates of the Babylonian Talmud, *Baba Metziah* and *Baba Bathra*. 3 But in the three best manuscripts of the Mishnah — MSS Kaufmann, Parma, and Cambridge — the word appears in a slightly diferent form, with a *yod* after the *qof*: .4etc קינונייא ,קינוניה ,קינונייא This loanword is derived from Greek κοινωνία. 5 In Classical Greek the letter-combination οι represented the diphthong [oi], making the Hebrew form less than an exact equivalent. However, in the relevant era (i.e., at the end of the Hellenistic period and the beginning of the Byzantine period), the combination οι represented the rounded front vowel /y/;6 consequently we may assume that the pronunciation of the word

<sup>3</sup> For a complete list of occurrences in the Babylonian Talmud see Chayim Yehoshua Kosowsky, *Otsar leshon ha-talmud*, vol. 34 (Jerusalem: Ministry of Education, 1975), p. 517. Medieval scribes were more familiar with the Babylonian Talmud than with any other rabbinic compilation. The form of the word in Modern Hebrew is also derived from the Talmud in its printed edition.

<sup>4</sup> This is also the main form in MS Leiden of the Palestinian Talmud; it has even been retained in several occurrences in the printed editions of the Babylonian Talmud, in the more obscure tractate *Arakhin* (folio 23a).

<sup>5</sup> See, e.g., Samuel Krauss, *Griechische und Lateinische Lehnwörter im Talmud, Midrasch und Targum*, vol. 2: *Wörterbuch* (Berlin: Calvary, 1899), p. 532.

<sup>6</sup> See Eduard Schwyzer, *Griechische Grammatik*, vol. 1: *Allgemeiner Teil, Lautlehre, Wortbildung, Flexion* (2nd ed., Munich: Beck, 1953), p. 195; for additional references see Heijmans, "Greek and Latin Loanwords", p. 276.

in those times was /kynonia/, which is the pronunciation refected in the spelling קינוניא. We see therefore, that that an overlap exists between the form of the loanword in good manuscripts and its pronunciation in Koine Greek. Systematic research confrms that most incongruities between Hebrew forms and Greek forms can be explained in this way, and that both the vocalisation and the spelling of the loanwords in good manuscripts refect a reliable tradition of pronunciation of these words.7

#### **2. Vowel reduction**

A systematic comparison between the vowels in loanwords and their equivalents in Greek shows that in a considerable number of words we fnd a *shewa* in Hebrew against a vowel in Greek. In most cases this reduction is evidenced in an open pretonic syllable, i.e., the syllable before the fnal syllable.<sup>8</sup> Thus we fnd, for instance, that the Greek πάρδαλις was loaned as ס ֵל ְד ְר ַפ' leopard' (*Baba Kamma* 1.3), and ἀτελής was loaned as ס ֵל ְט ַא' market' (*Bekhoroth* 5.1). It ought to be emphasised, that the term 'pretonic syllable' refers here to the syllable structure of the word *after* it was loaned, because during their passage from Greek to Hebrew (and Aramaic), words often changed their syllable structure, especially due to loss of endings. For example, in the word χαράκωμα > קום ְר ַכ' palisade' (*Ketuboth* 2.9), the vowel reduction occurred in the pretonic syllable after it had been loaned into Hebrew. The material also shows that the vowel /a/ was more prone to reduction than other vowels. In the following

<sup>7</sup> That was the main conclusion in my dissertation (Heijmans, "Greek and Latin Loanwords").

<sup>8</sup> The stress in Greek loanwords is usually on the ultimate syllable, as we can deduce from cantillised occurrences. Notable exceptions are טופס 'mould, formula' and אורז' rice', which behave as segolate nouns, and therefore have penultimate stress.

subsections data from MS Kaufmann is presented, occasionally with examples from other manuscripts of the Mishnah. 9

#### **2.1 Reduction in open pretonic syllables**

#### *(1) Reduction of the vowel /a/*

 ,πιττάκιον < פִ יטְ קִ ים ,μαγίς < מְ גֵ ס ,σπάθη < אַ סְ פְ תֵ י ,στάδιον < אַ סְ טְ ד ִ ין etymology the if (φάρος < פְ רָ ן ,κάνναβις < קַ נְ בֵ סֿ ,πάρδαλις < פַ רְ דְ לֵ ס

<sup>9</sup> In order to save space, and to make the material more readable, I have omitted references and the glosses for each word. This information can readily be found in a rabbinic dictionary, such as Marcus Jastrow, *A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi and Midrashic Literature* (London: Luzac, 1903). The following abbreviations are used: **K** = MS Kaufmann (Library of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in Budapest, Kaufmann collection A50); **Pa** = MS Parma A (Biblioteca Palatina, Catalogue De Rossi 138); **C** = MS Cambridge (CUL Add.470.1); **Pb** = MS Parma B (Biblioteca Palatina, Catalogue De Rossi 497); **Ps** = MS Paris (Bibliothèque Nationale, hébreu 328–329); **M** = The autograph of Maimonides' commentary on the Mishnah (facsimile edition: *Maimonidis Commentarius in Mischnam*, 3 vols., Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1956–1966); **GF** = Genizah fragments of the Mishnah, cited from Gabriel Birnbaum, *The Language of the Mishna in the Cairo Geniza: Phonology and Morphology* (in Hebrew; Sources and Studies [New Series], vol. 10; Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language, 2008); **GFBab** = Genizah fragments of the Mishnah with Babylonian vocalisation, cited from Israel Yeivin, *The Hebrew Language Tradition as Refected in the Babylonian Vocalization* (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1985); **Ym** = Manuscript of the Mishnah, order *Moed*, vocalised according to the Yemenite tradition (facsimile edition: *Seder moed shel ha-mishna: ktav yad be-nusaḥ teman*; Ḥolon: Ḥasifat Ginze Teman, 1976); **Yj** = Manuscript of the Mishnah, orders *Nezikin*, *Qodashim*, and *Tohorot*, vocalised according to the Yemenite tradition (facsimile edition: Shlomo Morag [ed.], *Sidre ha-mishna nezikin*, *qodashim*, t*ohorot*, Jerusalem: Makor, 1970); **Ant** = Genizah fragment containing *Negaim* 2.1 to *Zabim* 5.9, MS Leningrad, Antonin collection 262. When no source is mentioned, MS Kaufmann should be assumed to be the source.

is correct). If the original word had two consecutive open syllables before the stressed syllable, the pretonic reduction results in a ,χαράκωμα < כַ רְ קום ,ἰσάτις < אֶ סְ טֵ ס :syllable antepenult closed > קִ ינְ רָ ס ,κάλαμος < קולְ מוסֿ ,παραγαῦδις < פַ רְ גוד ,μηχανή < מֶ כְ נֶ ה κινάρα (but K2 > אִ סְ פַ רְ גוס ,ῥυκάνη < רוקְ נָ ה ,καμάρα < קַ מְ רון )קִ ינַ רֵ ס : ἀσπάραγος. The form ס ֵר ְ פ ַט ְק > κατωφερής contains two reduced vowels: in the pretonic syllable and in the third-from-last syllable.

Outside K we fnd the following forms: י ִט ְב ְמ ַא > ἐμβατή. Thus Ps, and with *shewa* also in M, GF, Pb, GFBab, Yj; but K and Pa preserve the vowel. — לה ְכ ְֿס ָא > ἐσχάρα. Thus Pa (alongside ה ָל ָכ ְֿס ָא(, M, Ym; we fnd *shewa* also in the Sifra MS Vatican and in *Halaḵot Gedolot* MS Paris; but K and Ps preserve the vowel. — ית ִפ ְט < τάπης. Thus Ps, Yj; but K: ית ִ פ ָת, and so also Pa and Pb. — פוס ְנ < *napus*. Thus Pb, GFBab, and Yj; but K, Pa, C, Ps and M preserve the vowel. — ֿגוס ְס > σάγος. Thus Pa, Ps, Pb, Ant, Yj and Sifra MS קַ ינְקֵ ילָ ן :K but ,Ps Thus .καγκέλιον < סָ גוס. — קִ נְקְ לִ ין :K but; Vatican (frst *yod* erased), and similarly Pb. — יֵנ ְיס ִט > τισάνη. Thus Pb, and similarly Ant, GFBab, Yj; but K preserves the /a / vowel: יִנ ָיס ִט and similarly Ps.

#### *(2) Reduction of the vowel /e/*

 Pretonic .λέβης < לְ בֵ יס ,διφθέρα < דִ פ ְ תְ רָ א ,ἀσθενής < אַ סְ טְ נֵסֿ reduction in words containing two consecutive open syllables: > בְ פולְ מוס ,νούμερος < כִ ב ְ נו מְ רון ,ἡγεμών < הֶ יגְ מון ,ἀτελής < אַ טְ לֵ ס πόλεμος. Outside K: ה ָל ְס ַא > σέλα (thus Pb in margin, and Ym; but K, Pa, Ps, Pb have an /a/ vowel instead of *shewa*).

#### *(3) Reduction of the vowel /i/*

*cassida* < קַ סְ ד ָ ה ,λιμήν < לְ מֵ ן ,)דְ לָ פ ְ קִ י alongside (δελφική < דַ לְ פ ְ קִ י (alongside א ָ יד ִס ַק(. Pretonic reduction in words containing two ,βασιλική < בָ סִ ילְ קִ י ,βούλιμος < בולְ מוס :syllables open consecutive  .(Yj (ὀμφάκινον < אַ נפִ קנון :K Outside .κιλίκιον) < singular (קִ ילְ קִ ים Reduction of vowels represented by υ in the original Greek can be תְ רִ יס alongside (τύπος < טְ פַ ס ,κοτύλη < קוטְ לִ ת :words the in found .θυρεός < ,(טָ פוס טֹפֵ ים 10

#### *(4) Reduction of the vowel /o/*

,στολή < אֶ סְ טְ לֵ ת <sup>11</sup> י ִק ְדְפונ > πανδοκεῖον. Pretonic reduction in words containing two consecutive open syllables: א ָר ְ יפ ִד > δίφορος, .ἀναλογεῖον < אֲ נַ גְלִ ים ,φορειαφόροι < פְ ירִ יָאן פ ְ רִ ים ,μονοπώλης < הַ מַ נְ פול It seems that ס ֵב ָל ְקִנ > Νικόλαος also belongs here, if we assume that a consonant cluster existed in the ending, i.e., /lavs/, which eventually broke into /laves/.12 Outside K we fnd: ק ֵת ְפ ֶה > ἀποθήκη. Thus Ps, and cf. *Halaḵot Gedolot* MS Paris: יק ֵפת ֲה) but K with preservation of the vowel /o/: ק ֵפות ֲא, and so also C and M).

#### **2.2 Exceptions: vowel reduction in non-pretonic syllables**

In six words in K we fnd vowel reduction in non-pretonic syllables. In half of those the reduced vowel is /a/: א ָמ ְלוג ְמ >

<sup>10</sup> This is the etymology according to most scholars; but some derive the occurrence in *Betzah* 1.5 from θυρίς; see the discussion in Heijmans, "Greek and Latin Loanwords", pp. 231–232. In the framework of this article it does not matter which etymology is adopted.

<sup>11</sup> In the printed editions the form of this word is אצטלית, with the meaning 'an item of clothing, cloak'; the word should be distinguished from אסטלי in Amoraic Hebrew (e.g., *y.Sotah* 21d: משה להן שנתן ואסטליות(, meaning 'stele'.

<sup>12</sup> From the Hellenistic period onwards, and especially in the Byzantine period, the letter-combination αυ was pronounced as /av/; see Edwin Mayser, *Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit*, vol. 1: *Einleitung und Lautlehre* (2nd ed., Berlin: De Gruyter, 1970), pp. 92–94; Francis T. Gignac, *A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods*, vol. 1: *Phonology* (Milan: Istituto Editoriale Cisalpino, [1976]), pp. 226–229.

 ,*catella* < קְ טַ לָ ה )קָ לָ מָ רִ ין alongside (καλαμάριον < קַ לְ מָ רִ ין ,μάλαγμα two contains μηλοπέπων < מַ לְ פְ פון form The .γενέσια < גְ נֶיסְ יָה reductions: in the pretonic and in the pro-pretonic syllable. The word γλωσσόκομον is documented in K in several forms, all with their *samekh* vocalised with a *shewa*, i.e., pro-pretonic reduction: reduction K in fnd we Once .מִ קּ ְ לוסְ קָ מָ א and ב ִ גְלוסְ קֹמָ א ,ב ִ גְלוסְ קְ ומָ א in the fourth-from-last syllable: יון ָיק ִט ְמ ל ַד\* > Δαλματικαῖον (if we consider the ending יון ָ־ק to consist of two syllables).

Outside K we fnd four additional cases of pro-pretonic פְ רַ קְ לִ יט )קָ טֵ יגור :K but; Yj ,Ps thus (κατήγωρ < קְ טֶ יגור :reduction παράκλητος (thus Ps, M, Yj, and Sifra MS Vatican; but K: ה ָֿי ְֿול ֿמ ְק יט ִל ְק ַר ָפ),) thus Pa and Ps; other variants have their *qof* vocalised with *ḥireq*). In the form א ָמ ְיג ִר ְכ ְר ַפ > παραχάραγμα (thus Ps; but K: ה ָמ ְיג ִר ָכ ַר ָפ (we fnd two reduced vowels, in the fourth- and thirdfrom-last syllables.

#### **3. Discussion and conclusions**

The phenomenon of vowel reduction is well known in the Greek of the Roman and Byzantine periods, but it is mainly limited to vowels before and after the consonants /l, m, n, r/.13 Most notably, we see vowel reduction before /l/ in Latin loanwords. In Hebrew this phenomenon can be seen in the words לה ְטב > τάβλα < *tabula*, > (ιον(σκούτλ< אסקוטְ לה ,*specularium* < σπεκλάριον( < א(ספקְ לריא

<sup>13</sup> See Gignac, *Grammar*, pp. 306–310; Mayser, *Grammatik*, pp. 123–124; Karl Dieterich, *Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der griechischen Sprache von der hellenistischen Zeit bis zum 10. Jahrhundert n. Chr.* (Leipzig: Teubner, 1898), pp. 123–124; Leslie Threatte, *The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions*, vol. 1: *Phonology* (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1980), pp 395–407. The Greek papyri contain a sizeable number of interchanges between α and ε, some of which were seen by Gignac as representing vowel reduction. However, these α-ε interchanges appear both in stressed and in unstressed (pretonic and non-pretonic) syllables; it seems, therefore, that they bear no relation to the discussed phenomenon.

*scutella*. 14 Another phenomenon in Greek which may be relevant here is elision due to dissimilation, i.e., the elision of the second of two identical vowels, appearing before and after /l, m, n, r/, e.g., σκόροδον < σκόρδον 'garlic'. This type of elision, known as 'Kretchmer's Rule', can explain the reduced vowel in ין ִר ָמ ְל ַק > καλαμάριον and in the second syllable of א ָמ ְיג ִר ְכ ְר ַפ > παραχάραγμα. 15

However, the abovementioned Greek reduction phenomena are not sufcient to explain the frequent occurrence of pretonic reduction of Greek loanwords in Hebrew. Moreover, in some cases the reduced vowel occurs in a syllable which, in the original Greek form, bears the tone, e.g., ס ֵט ְס ֶא > ἰσάτις, קום ְר ַכ > χαράκωμα, .others and κοτύλη < קוטְ לִ ת ,μηλοπέπων < מַ לְ פְ פון ,ῥυκάνη < רוקְ נָ ה On the other hand, it is difcult to explain this reduction as an internal Hebrew phenomenon, as Hebrew /a/ vowels tend not only to be preserved, but also to lengthen in pretonic positions;16 certainly in Rabbinic Hebrew there is no evidence to suggest general pretonic vowel reduction.

In Aramaic, however, the phenomenon of pretonic vowel reduction in open syllables is well known. This process seems to have begun in Imperial Aramaic, between the seventh and third centuries BCE, and was completed by the third century CE.17 I would suggest, therefore, that the reduction in the above-

<sup>14</sup> On the reduction in τάβλα and σπεκλάριον cf. Gignac, *Grammar*, p. 309.

<sup>15</sup> See Gignac, ibid.; Schwyzer, *Grammatik*, p. 259.

<sup>16</sup> See, e.g., Gotthelf Bergstrasser, *Hebräische Grammatik*, vol. 1: *Einleitung, Schrift- und Lautlehre* (Leipzig: Vogel, 1918), p. 117 (§21k); Hans Bauer and Pontus Leander, *Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache des Alten Testamentes* (Halle: Niemeyer, 1922), p. 234 (§26o).

<sup>17</sup> See Stephen A. Kaufman, *Akkadian Infuences on Aramaic* (Assyriological Studies, vol. 19; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974), pp. 146– 151. Beyer proposed a later date, suggesting that in the third century BCE pretonic vowel in open syllables were not yet reduced. His view was rejected by both Kaufman and Muraoka; see Klaus Beyer, *Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer*, vol. 1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), pp. 128–136; Stephen A. Kaufman, "The History of Aramaic

mentioned loanwords is due to Aramaic. The contact between the languages in the Tannaitic period was close, and Aramaic infuence, especially on the lexicon, but also on other parts of the language, is well known.18

Pretonic reduction in Greek loanwords suggests, therefore, that Rabbinic Hebrew borrowed these words (at least in part) not directly from Greek, but from Aramaic, after the phonological rules of Aramaic had been applied to them.19

Vowel Reduction", in: Michael Sokolof (ed.), *Arameans, Aramaic and the Aramaic Literary Tradition* (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1983), pp. 47–55; Takamitsu Muraoka and Bezalel Porten, *A Grammar of Egyptian Aramaic* (2nd ed., Leiden: Brill 2003), pp. 38–40; Takamitsu Muraoka, *A Grammar of Qumran Aramaic* (Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement, vol. 38; Leuven: Peeters, 2011), pp. 31–33. As pointed out by Kaufman, the evidence presented by Beyer proves only that pretonic reduction had ceased by the third century CE; see Stephen A. Kaufman, "On Vowel Reduction in Aramaic", *Journal of the American Oriental Society* 104 (1984), pp. 87–95, at p. 90.


### **CONTRIBUTORS**

**Yochanan Breuer** is a professor in the Department of Hebrew Language at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He has been a Visiting Professor at Yeshiva University and at Yale University. Since 2002 he has been a member of the Academy of the Hebrew Language. His main research interests are Rabbinic Hebrew and Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, on which he has published extensively. His book *From Babylonian Aramaic to Palestinian Hebrew* is about to be published by the Academy of the Hebrew Language. He is a co-editor of the journal *Language Studies*.

**Yehudit Henshke** is a professor in the Department of Hebrew Language at the University of Haifa. Her felds of interest include Mishnaic Hebrew, Jewish languages, Judaeo-Arabic, and Modern Hebrew. She has published a book and various articles related to these felds. She has also served as editor of the journal *Carmillim: For the Study of Hebrew and Related Languages*. In the past decade she has been conducting a broad research project on Mizrahi Hebrew, which considers the infuence of Judaeo-Arabic and the traditional Hebrew of the Islamic Jewish communities on contemporary Hebrew. She is also the founder and director of a project of preservation and documentation of Jewish languages and cultures (Mother Tongue: http://www.lashon.org/en).

**Rivka Shemesh-Raiskin** is a senior lecturer in the department of Hebrew and Semitic languages at Bar-Ilan University. Her main research areas are syntax, discourse analysis, semantics, and pragmatics of classic Hebrew, and in particular Mishnaic Hebrew. Her book *Halachic Give-and-Take Conversations in the Mishnah* (in Hebrew) will be published this year by The Academy of the Hebrew Language Press.

**Christian Stadel** is a Senior Lecturer at the department of Hebrew Language at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva. His main research interests are Aramaic dialectology and the languages of the Samaritans. He has authored two books: *Hebraismen in den aramäischen Texten vom Toten Meer* (Heidelberg: Winter, 2008) and *The Morphosyntax of Samaritan Aramaic* (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 2013). Currently, he is working on the Samaritan Targum.

**Barak Avirbach** is a lecturer at the Department of Hebrew Language and at the MEd program, Oranim Academic College of Education, Tivon (Israel). His main research interest is Medieval Hebrew and Judaeo-Arabic, especially aspects of its lexicon, morphology, syntax, philology, translation studies and mutual infuence. In his doctoral dissertation he presented a philological survey of the witnesses to Ibn-Tibbon's translation of Ibn-Paquda's *Duties of the Hearts*, and composed a Hebrew–Arabic glossary of the entire nominal lexicon in this translation.

**Yehonatan Wormser** teaches Hebrew language and linguistics in Efrata College of Education in Jerusalem and serves as Ben-Yehudah fellow at the Department of Hebrew Language in The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. His research focuses on Rabbinic Hebrew, especially on the Hebrew of the Late Midrash, and the history of Hebrew linguistics in the Middle Ages and Early Modern eras.

**Shlomi Efrati** is a PhD student at the department of Talmud and Halakhah and the Mandel School for Advanced Studies in the Humanities, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Having accomplished his MA thesis on the text of Rashi's commentary to tractate *Bava Kamma*, he is now writing his dissertation on "*Psiqata of Ten Commandments* and *Psiqta of Matan Torah*: Text, Redaction and Tradition Analysis", under the supervision of Prof Menahem Kister. His research interests include rabbinic literature, pseudepigrapha and Qumran writings, textual criticism, and the development and evolution of exegetical traditions.

**Shai Heijmans** is a post-doctoral researcher at the Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies in the University of Cambridge. He has completed his MA thesis on the morphology of Palestinian Aramaic, and his PhD on Greek and Latin loanwords in Rabbinic Hebrew, both at Tel Aviv University. His research interests are Rabbinic Hebrew, Palestinian Aramaic, and pronunciation traditions of Biblical Hebrew. He is now working on a new edition of the Mishnah according to Codex Kaufmann.

### **ABOUT THE PUBLISHING TEAM**

Alessandra Tosi was the managing editor for this book and provided quality control.

Aaron Hornkohl performed the proofreading and compiled the index.

Anna Gatti designed the cover of this book using a fragment from the Cairo Genizah, containing Mishnah Shabbat 9:7-12:4 with Babylonian vocalisation from the Cambridge University Library (T-S E1.47). The cover was produced in InDesign using Fontin (titles) and Calibri (text body) fonts.

Luca Bafa typeset the book in InDesign. The heading and body text font is Charis SIL; the Hebrew text font is SBL Hebrew. Luca created all of the editions — paperback, hardback, EPUB, MOBI, PDF, HTML, and XML — the conversion is performed with open source software freely available on our GitHub page (https:// github.com/OpenBookPublishers).

### **INDEX**

145 (حزم) חזם

#### **Foreign Words / Phrases**

#### Akkadian adīni 37 Arabic 121, 124, 125, 127, 128, 129, 133, 134, 139, 141, 147, 149, 151, 152 144 (إجتهاد) אג֗ תהאד 143 (إحتكار) אחתכאר 125 (ألة) אלה 143 (إمكان) אמכאן 141 (إنتظام) אנתט֗ אם 135 (إستعمال) אסתעמאל 142 (إصرار) אצראר 145 139, (إشتراك) אשתראך 133 (بدن) בדן 125 (جارحة) ג֗ ארחה 144 (جد) ג֗ ד 145 (جهد) ג֗ הד 134 (جوهر) ג֗ והר 133 (جسد) ג֗ סד 148 134, (جسماني) ג֗ סמאני 148 (جسمي) ג֗ סמי 134 (جسم) ג֗ סם 136 (غريزة) גריזה 139 (هضم) הצ֗ ם 127 (وعاء) ועא 138 (وقيعة) וקיעה 142 (حس) חס 130 (حث) חת֗ 136 (طبيعة) טביעה 136 (طبعة) טבעה 127 (كيس) כיס 132 131, (خليقة) כ֗ ליקה 132 (خلقة) כ֗ לקה 132 131, (خلق) כ֗ לק 150 (خساسة) כ֗ סאסה 135 (مجاز) מג֗ אז 146 (مظافرة) מט֗ אפרה 132 (مخلوق) מכ֗ לוק 131 (مخلوق) לוק̇מכ 129 (منهي) מנהי 140 (مشاركة) משארכה 137 (متوالد) מתואלד 129 (ناهية) נאהיה 138 (ناطق) נאטק 130 129, (نهي) נהי 147 (نوراني) נוראני 141 (نظام) נט֗ אם 151 (نقصان) נקצאן 137 (نتيجة) נתיג֗ ה 145 (سعي) סעי 150 144, (سقوط) סקוט





53 טמאה 56 טומאה-טמאה 188 181, 180, טעין 198 טָ פוס 198 טֹפֵ ים 197 טְ פִ ית 198 טְ פַ ס 160 כאילו 19 כאן 197 מְ רון כִ ב ְ נו 163 כולם=כולהן 160 כביכול=כיויכול 160 כילו 177 כילסופים 127 כִ יס 101 כליל 163 כפת 200 197, 195, כַ רְ קום 160 כשם 163 160, כשן 197 לְ בֵ יס 33 לזר 44 לֵ יל 44 לַ יִל 31 ליעזר 197 לְ מֵ ן 163 160, 56, 31, לעזר 32 31, לְ עָ זָ ר 32 31, לַ עְ זַ ר 163 לפניי 196 מְ גֵ ס 138 מְ דַ בֵ ר 53 לִ טְ ומֵ אָ ה מִ טְ הורָ ה לִ טהורָ ה מִ טמֵ אָ ה 56 מילפפון 197 מֶ כְ נֶ ה 41 מל״א 41 הין מלא 41 הין מלָ א 40 הִ ין מְ לָ א 41 הִ ין מְ ל ֹא 41 הין מַ לֶ א 56 מלאין 41 מלָ אִ ין 41 מלוא 198 מְ לוגְ מָ א 55 מִ לְ פְ פְ ון 55 מֵ לָ פְ פון 200 199, 55, מַ לְ פ ְ פון 55 מָ לְ פ ְ פון 19 ממשא 148 מִ נְיָן 149 מִ נְיָנִי 198 מַ נְ פול 188 185, 184, פלן מקמת 35 מרפק 45 משלוות 45 מִ שַ לְ וַ ות 45 משִ לְ וַ ת 45 מִ שַ לְ וָ ת 113 112, משקה 19 מששא 188 183, ודמך נם




8.15 138 20.12 15 22.7 16 24.40 12, 13 27.38 10 31.5 12 44.20 9 45.8 6 50.5 13 Exodus 20.1–13 171 20.10 177 Judges 9.48 42 9.49 42 1 Kings 8.24 13 11.26 112 Song of Songs 1.2 47 Ezra 4.24 106 Jerusalem Talmud 21 Berakhoth 7c 12 Shebiith 39a (9.5) 184 Maaser Sheni 56b (5.6) 185 Megillah 73d (3.1) 182 Sotah 21d 198 Sanhedrin 28c 14 Megillat Taanith 98, 102, 106, 117 1 107 7 108 8 101 23 106 28 114 36 106, 108 Mishnah 20, 22, 25, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 62, 63, 66, 68, 69, 71, 73, 74, 76, 79, 81, 82, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 112, 114, 139, 155, 156, 159, 162, 165, 193, 194, 196 Berakhoth 1.5 31 4.1–2 90 Kilaim 1.2 55 5.4 35 Terumoth 3.7 51 Shabbath 17.4 50 Erubin 3.9 29, 30 Pesahim 4.1 50 6.1–2 86 Shekalim 6.3 34 Yoma 2.5 34 Sukkah 2.5 34 4.9 34 Betzah 1.5 198 1.6 84 2.6 22 Rosh ha-Shanah 1.7 14


Oholoth 18.5 50 Negaim 6.2 53 13.8 53 Tohoroth 4.10 52, 53 6.3 53 6.4 53 Makhshirin 1.3 42 Zabim 2.2 82 3.1 42 3.3 42 4.3 42 Yadaim 4.3 72 4.5–6 88 New Testament Matthew 6.15 16 10.32 16 15.13 16 Mark 5.41 108 14.36 8, 16 Luke 2.49 16 John 6.32 16 Romans 8.15 8, 16 Galatians 4.6 8, 16 Palestinian Targum 8 Numbers 19.11 116 Peshitta Genesis 22.7 16 27.38 10 44.20 9 Matthew 10.32 16 15.13 16 Mark 14.36 16 Luke 2.49 16 John 6.32 16 Romans 8.15 16 Galatians 4.6 16 Psiqata DeRav Kahanah 171 Mitsvat HaʻOmer 4 182 VaYehi baHatsi 7 185 PsTC 2 (= PsR 22, 111b) 174, 179, 188 3 (= PsR 23, 116a) 177 3 (= PsR 23, 117b) 174 Sifra Šeraṣim, parasha 8, chapter 1 112 Targum 6, 8, 106, 107, 116 Onqelos 15, 106 Exodus 12.30 116 Numbers 6.9 116 19.11 115 Deuteronomy 25.9 106

Neophiti Genesis 24.40 12 Samaritan Genesis 24.40 13 Tosefta 21 Yebamoth 12.15 106 Sotah 13.5 108 13.6 106, 114 Sanhedrin 2.5 100, 107, 109 Negaim 1.16 101

#### **Subject Index**

Aboth de-Rabbi Nathan A 12 102 Abraham Ibn-Ezra 123 adjacency pair 68, 69, 70, 71, 73 adverb 37 a fortiori 71, 84, 85, 86, 87 alef 5, 17, 18, 22, 23, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 157, 160, 161 omission of 31 Al-Hidāya ilā Farāʾiḍ al-Qulūb ('Guide to the Duties of the Heart') 119 alternation alef/ayin 37 heh > yod 49 lamed/resh 49 qatla–qitla 45 Amida prayer 58, 59, 61 Amoraic Hebrew 198 Amoraic literature 14, 62, 97, 159 Amoraic period 158, 162, 164, 166

Amoraim 65, 172 analogy 50, 71, 73, 84 Aramaic 18, 195, 201 Babylonian 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 Biblical 103, 105, 106, 107, 114 Christian Palestinian 8, 12, 13, 16 Eastern 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19 Galilean 12, 17 Jewish Babylonian 9, 15, 97, 108, 109, 158, 178 Jewish Palestinian 97, 103, 104, 108, 110, 113, 115, 116, 161, 163, 170, 171, 178 Mandaic 9, 10 Palestinian 50, 53, 114, 158, 181, 183, 185, 187 Qumran 105, 107, 114 Samaritan 12 Targum Onqelos 105 Western 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19 Aramaic Levi Document 109 argumentative discourse 61 argumentative step 77, 78, 79, 81, 83, 85, 89 Arukh 42 assimilation 35, 130 ayin 31, 33, 36, 37, 38 Babylonia 97, 101, 115 Babylonian Talmud manuscripts MS Vatican 140 130 Babylonian tradition 32, 37, 40, 44, 45, 165 Bemidbar Rabbah 159

Bereshit Rabba 21 bet 5, 8, 9, 36, 160 fricative 36 plosive 36 bgd/kft 35 Biblical Hebrew 37, 48, 121, 135, 138, 147 biblical literature, late 45 Byzantium 27, 28, 54, 56 Canaanite Shift 19 challenge 76, 78, 80, 81, 85, 89, 91, 93, 94 classical Hebrew 123, 153 contextual translation 134 contradiction 75, 76, 78, 80, 81, 85, 89, 93, 94 correction 30, 43, 50, 51 corruption 34, 109, 173, 174, 186 counterclaim 75, 76, 78, 80, 81, 89, 93, 94, 95 dagesh 8, 9, 17, 36, 42, 162 lene 36 Dead Sea Scrolls 109, 110 Devarim Rabbah 159 dictionaries 48, 130, 139 diphthong 44, 45 final -ay 159 Greek οι 194 oi 194 direct speech 39 discourse unit 57, 58, 61 dittography 29, 30 dream 183 dream revelation 183 Elijah 179, 183, 184, 185, 190 ellipsis 137, 151 equivalent 124, 125, 126, 128, 129, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 139, 140, 141, 149, 150, 152, 161, 194, 195 erasure 30, 40, 50 eta 55, 56 etymon 193 folk etymology 37, 137, 151 foreign word 29, 54 fricative 35, 36, 43 funerary inscription, Aramaic 107 gemination 8, 161 simplification of 161 Genizah Cairo 26, 30, 32, 36, 37, 55, 109, 110, 130, 159, 160, 162, 163, 186 European 159 gezerah shavah 71, 73 glide 35 glossary 92, 133 glottal stop 35 Gospels 32 Granada 120 Greek 29, 32, 54, 56, 193, 194, 195, 198, 200, 201 Classical 194 Koine 195 Ha-Egron 121

halakhah 53, 152 halakhic give-and-take 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 65, 66, 68, 69, 71, 73, 74, 76, 79, 81, 82, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95 halakhic give-and-take conversation 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 65 hapax 35, 36, 48 heh 5, 7, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24 Hillel the Elder 41, 65, 68, 83, 84, 99, 100, 101, 102 ḥireq 35, 36, 55, 56, 157, 199 homograph 46, 47 Ḥovot ha-Levavot 120 Ibn-Janaḥ 121 Ibn-Paquda 119, 120, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152 imperative 39, 40 interchange α-ε 199 irrelevancy claim 76, 80, 81, 82, 83, 93, 94, 95 Isaiah Scroll 53 Jerusalem Talmud manuscripts Leiden 194 Joseph Qimḥi 120 Judaeo-Arabic 119 Judah Halevi 121 Judah Ibn-Tibbon 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144,

Ha-Kuzari 121

145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152 K2, i.e., Kaufmann 2 42, 197 kaf 42 ketiv 50, 51, 53 Kretchmer's Rule 200 labial consonant 53, 54 lamed 33, 50, 161 language insufficiency 121 language shift 182 late midrash 103, 158 Latin 193, 199 lengthening 161 of vowel 161 lexicon 104, 121, 122, 123, 125, 137, 151, 152, 153, 201 linear word-formation 124, 146 literal translation 68 l, m, n, r consonants 199, 200 loan shift 137 loanword 55, 98, 178, 193, 194, 195, 199, 200, 201 Lunel 120 Maimonides' commentary on the Mishnah 196, 197, 199 Mandaic 9 maṣdar 149 Masoretic Text 47 mater lectionis 113 Medieval Hebrew 123, 130, 147 Mekhilta de-Rashbi 21

metaphor 127, 134, 135, 139, 140 metathesis 33 metonymy 125, 126, 138 midrash 39 Mishnah manuscripts Antonin Genizah Fragment 196, 197 Cambridge 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 113, 114, 162, 196, 197, 198 Genizah fragments 196, 197 Genizah fragments with Babylonian vocalisation 196, 197 Kaufmann 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 108, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 159, 194, 196, 197, 198, 199 Moed with Yemenite vocalisation 196, 197 Nezikin, Qodashim, and Tohorot with Yemenite vocalisation 196, 197, 198, 199 Paris 30, 36, 39, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 55, 197 Parma A 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 108, 111, 113, 114, 115, 196, 197, 199 Parma B 32, 33, 37, 42, 43, 44, 52, 53, 111, 196, 197 Mishnah traditions Byzantine 26, 28, 32 Italian 28 Palestinian 25, 28

Yemenite tradition 50 Mivḥar Peninim 120 morphology 29, 38 MS Vatican 30 of Bereshit Rabbah 159 MS Vatican 60 of Sifra 53 neologism 130, 134, 139, 152 nominal lexicon 123 nominal patterns 48 פָ עָ ה 42 פֻ עָ ה 44 קיל 44 קַ יִל 44 קֵ ל hiqqaṭǝlūt 150 hitqaṭṭǝlūt 143, 150 qatla 45 qaṭlūt 150 qǝṭilūt 150 qitla 45 qiṭṭūl 143 nun 19 substituting for final mem 160 oral traditions Yemeni 157 orthography 29, 33, 46 papyri, Greek 199 phonology 29, 31 phylacteries 179 printed editions 48, 50

#### proselyte 180, 181, 184, 185

Psiqata Rabbati 169, 170 qal va-chomer 71 qameṣ 39 qere 35, 50, 51, 53 qof 194, 199 Qohelet Rabbah 186 Qumran 48 Rabban Gamaliel I 100, 102 rabbinical rest restriction 86, 87 Rabbinic Hebrew Babylonian branch 155, 162, 166 Palestinian branch 155, 166 rafeh 36 Rav Hai Gaon 5, 6, 7, 15, 17, 20, 24 redaction 62, 172, 187 resh 35, 36 root III-alef 131 III-yod 131 root alternation 43 סכך-סוך root and stem combination 124, 140 Saadia Gaon 121 Samaritan sources 102, 103 samekh 34, 199 Sanhedrin 62 scribe 44 scribe-vocaliser 27, 28, 29, 34, 54 Sefer Emunot ve-Deot 121 Sefer ha-Riqmah 120, 121

Sefer ha-Shorashim 120 Sefer Ḥovot ha-Levavot 120 segholate 45 segol 32, 157, 161 semantic field 135 semantic shift 127, 143 ṣere 39, 44, 157, 161, 162 Shavuot 170 Shemini Atzeret 87 Shemot Rabbah 159 shewa 35, 48, 195, 197, 199 variation before labial 53, 54 vocal 53 shift 34 alef > yod 34 [e]>[i] (Greek) 56 yod > alef 34 shift, of language 182 Shmoneh Esreh 87 Sifre Be-midbar 21 Sifre Devarim 21 simplification of gemination 161 Solomon Ibn-Gabirol 120 speech act 73 spelling 5, 6, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 30, 33, 34, 37, 44, 52, 54, 98, 107, 108, 110, 112, 113, 114, 157, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 166, 195 archaic 10 defective 46, 52 plene 47, 48, 113


vocalisation 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 36, 38, 39, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49, 51, 52, 54, 55 Babylonian 157 vocalisation tradition 32, 36 vocaliser 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 40, 42, 43, 44, 47, 49, 52, 54, 56 vowel e 8 e 55 final a 7, 12 Greek η 55 short a 113 ultra-short 53 vowel lengthening 161 vowel reduction 195, 198, 199, 200 /a/ 196 /e/ 197 /i/ 197 /o/ 198 pretonic 197, 201 pro-pretonic 199 waw 40, 50, 53, 160 word-formation 124, 146 yalkutim 159 yāʾ an-nisba 146 yod 34, 35, 39, 40, 44, 48, 52, 157, 161, 162, 163, 194, 197 final 10 Yonah Ibn-Janaḥ 120 Yose ben Yoezer 100, 102, 111

# **Cambridge Semitic Languages and Cultures**

## **General Editor Geoffrey Khan**

### **About the series**

This series is published by Open Book Publishers in collaboration with the Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies of the University of Cambridge. The aim of the series is to publish in open-access form monographs in the feld of Semitic languages and the cultures associated with speakers of Semitic languages. It is hoped that this will help disseminate research in this feld to academic researchers around the world and also open up this research to the communities whose languages and cultures the volumes concern. This series includes philological and linguistic studies of Semitic languages and editions of Semitic texts. Titles in the series will cover all periods, traditions and methodological approaches to the feld. The editorial board comprises Geoffrey Khan, Aaron Hornkohl, and Esther-Miriam Wagner.

This is the frst Open Access book series in the feld; it combines the high peer-review and editorial standards with the fair Open Access model offered by OBP. Open Access (that is, making texts free to read and reuse) helps spread research results and other educational materials to everyone everywhere, not just to those who can afford it or have access to well-endowed university libraries.

Copyrights stay where they belong, with the authors. Authors are encouraged to secure funding to offset the publication costs and thereby sustain the publishing model, but if no institutional funding is available, authors are not charged for publication. Any grant secured covers the actual costs of publishing and is not taken as proft. In short: we support publishing that respects the authors and serves the public interest.

#### **Other titles in the series**

 *The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew, Volume 1* Geoffrey Khan

doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0163

 *The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew, Volume 2* doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0194

You can fnd more information about this serie at: **http://www.openbookpublishers.com/section/107/1**

# Shai Heijmans (ed.) Studies in Rabbinic Hebrew

Cambridge Semitic Languages and Cultures

**Studies in Rabbinic Hebrew**

**EDITED BY SHAI HEIJMANS**

This volume presents a collec� on of ar� cles centring on the language of the Mishnah and the Talmud — the most important Jewish texts (a� er the Bible), which were compiled in Pales� ne and Babylonia in the la� er centuries of Late An� quity. Despite the fact that Rabbinic Hebrew has been the subject of growing academic interest across the past century, very li� le scholarship has been wri� en on it in English.

Studies in Rabbinic Hebrew addresses this lacuna, with eight lucid but technically rigorous ar� cles wri� en in English by a range of experienced scholars, focusing on various aspects of Rabbinic Hebrew: its phonology, morphology, syntax, pragma� cs and lexicon. This volume is essen� al reading for students and scholars of Rabbinic studies alike, and appears in a new series, Cambridge Semi� c Languages and Cultures, in collabora� on with the Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Cambridge.

As with all Open Book publica� ons, this en� re book is available to read for free on the publisher's website. Printed and digital edi� ons, together with supplementary digital material, can also be found here: www.openbookpublishers.com

**Studies in Rabbinic Hebrew**

**Heijmans**

**OBP**

**2**

*Cover image: A fragment from the Cairo Genizah, containing Mishnah Shabbat 9:7-11:2 with Babylonian vocalisat on (Cambridge University Library, T-S E1.47). Courtesy of the Syndics of Cambridge University Library.*

*Cover design: Luca Baff a*