Version classiqueVersion mobile

Studies in Rabbinic Hebrew

 | 
Shai Heijmans

1. Rabba and Rava, ʾAbba and ʾAva: spelling, pronunciation and meaning1

Yochanan Breuer

Texte intégral

1. Introduction

  • 1 This topic was the subject of a paper presented at a workshop on Mishnaic Hebrew which took place a (...)

In the Babylonian Talmud there frequently occur two similar proper names that differ in spelling as well as pronunciation:Image 100000000000003200000020324C5094F95EC386.jpgRabba andImage 10000000000000300000001C9351173E9ED48D1F.jpgRava; 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 difference between the names — it stems from a difference between the nouns from which they are derived:

Image 100000000000020A000000223D639151F4E83160.jpgImage 100000000000025600000026BC9D8D25404EEC3D.jpgImage 100000000000020A000000211ECC1297A978A3B2.jpgImage 10000000000001A500000022F96992B7D3CDA452.jpg

  • 2 Shraga Abramson, Tractate ʿAbodah Zarah of the Babylonian Talmud (New York: Jewish Theological Semi (...)

You should know that Rabba — his name isImage 100000000000002C0000001E5EDA17BAF7631E63.jpgʾAbba, and the resh which was added to it stands for Rav; and Rava — his name isImage 100000000000002A0000001DCE1424A05CE63EAF.jpgʾAva, and the resh which is added to it stands for Rav. And the meaning ofImage 100000000000002C0000001CE350DFDD244CC2F2.jpgʾAbba is as one says ‘my father’; and the meaning ofImage 100000000000002C0000001F9F96861886CDC5FE.jpgʾAva is as one says only ‘a father’. Because the translation ofImage 10000000000000250000001E3DA29E63887A9BEB.jpg‘my father’ isImage 100000000000002C0000001CF2B774EA7CB21E36.jpg, and the translation ofImage 10000000000000620000001E4A2304EECFEBDFEB.jpg‘and he has made me as a father’ (Gen. 45.8) isImage 10000000000000580000001A46B1C6CE6863FC5A.jpg.2

  • 3 For a discussion of this responsum see Shraga Abramson, “Qetaʿ geniza mi-Yerushalmi Shabbat pereq h (...)

At the outset Rav Hai explains that the nameImage 100000000000002E0000001B90E361109964ED4D.jpgRabba derives from the compoundImage 100000000000004D0000001AB3F9F5BA35CBBDCC.jpgRav ʾAbba, while the nameImage 10000000000000300000001C653C0A543350CD3F.jpgRava derives from the compoundImage 100000000000005000000019BA961CE381830445.jpgRav ʾAva. According to this explanation, the difference between the proper names results from a difference between the nouns ʾabba and ʾava. He goes on to explain the difference 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 HebrewImage 100000000000002B000000203575222640F2D630.jpg‘my father’ translated by the AramaicImage 100000000000002E0000001E9D6BAE14227A5E48.jpgʾabba, while the HebrewImage 100000000000002500000020E4031C9A9CC39753.jpg‘a father’ is translated by the AramaicImage 100000000000003200000022FDF99247AB674C4E.jpgʾava.3

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 whichImage 10000000000000320000001938CCE4C9FD5BC1CF.jpgʾabba means ‘my father’ whileImage 10000000000000330000001A9D44324420B2763B.jpgʾava means ‘a father’?

1I will first introduce the classical forms in Hebrew and Aramaic relevant to our discussion:

1: a father

2: the father

3: my father

Hebrew:

ʾav

ha-ʾav

ʾavi

1: a father

2: the father

3: my father

Aramaic:

ʾav

ʾava

ʾavi

2This system underwent certain changes in Late Hebrew as well as in Late Aramaic.

2. The dagesh

  • 4 Thus the transcription αββα in the New Testament: ϰαὶ ἔλεγεν, Αββα ὁ πατήρ ‘and he said, Abba, Fath (...)
  • 5 In Syriac the bet is not doubled; see Theodor Nöldeke, Compendious Syriac Grammar, transl. James A. (...)

3The 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 difference between Western and Eastern Aramaic evolved: in Eastern Aramaic ʾava, in Western Aramaic ʾabba.

3. Eastern Aramaic

  • 6 For Syriac see, e.g., Brockelmann, Syrische Grammatik, p. 58. For Mandaic see Nöldeke, Mandäische G (...)

4In Eastern Aramaic two general processes changed the original system: first, 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 suffix dropped, and the pronominal suffix 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:

5Meanings 1–2 — ʾava:

Syriac:Image 100000000000008000000026B6627F402FA6BB61.jpg‘we have an old father’ (Gen. 44.20) —Image 100000000000004400000022BE496D60E705E762.jpgImage 100000000000005E00000019BD303C8A5AF5499F.jpg(Peshitta).

  • 7 Nöldeke, Mandäische Grammatik, p. 431.

Mandaic:Image 10000000000000B00000002432ECEF3C4BF73155.jpg‘we have no father’.7

  • 8 The text of the quotations from Rabbinic Literature, unless otherwise specified, is according to th (...)

Babylonian Aramaic:Image 100000000000013B000000224C86DCB88A2F52A3.jpg‘a relative of R. Yochanan had a father’s wife’ (b. Ketuboth 52b);Image 1000000000000089000000242B081D2F484B9EA5.jpgImage 1000000000000178000000233A48792F76BA7356.jpg‘and what we said concern only the father’s brothers, but concerning the mother’s brothers this is not valid’ (b. Baba Metzia 39b).8

6Meaning 3 — ʾav:

  • 9 The final yod in Syriac is only an archaic spelling, and the pronunciation is ʾav.

Syriac:Image 100000000000019200000026E1207BF855713FB7.jpg‘Is that the only blessing you have, my father? Give a blessing also to me, even me, my father’ (Gen. 27.38) —Image 100000000000015100000024DCA0AB6D2F8BF734.jpgImage 10000000000000300000001CA191346FDCA0C1BF.jpg9

  • 10 Nöldeke, Mandäische Grammatik, p. 437.

Mandaic:Image 10000000000000D800000019BC75D472F817CB0D.jpg‘how will be the conversation of my father’.10

  • 11 This form survived only rarely in Babylonian Aramaic due to the penetration of ʾabba (see below, pa (...)

Babylonian Aramaic:Image 100000000000018000000022D7658085A2D7B75E.jpg‘who planted this carob tree, so he said, my father’s father’ (b. Taanith 23a according to He).11

7The following is the system in Eastern Aramaic:

1: a father

2: the father

3: my father

ʾava

ʾava

ʾav

4. Western Aramaic

  • 12 For Christian Palestinian Aramaic see Friedrich Schulthess, Lexicon Syropalaestinum (Berlin: Reimer (...)

8In Western Aramaic the distinction between the emphatic and non-emphatic forms was preserved, so the difference 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):

  • 13 Alejandro Díez Macho, Neophyti 1: Targum Palestinense, vol. 1 (Textos y Estudios, vol. 7; Madrid–Ba (...)
  • 14 Michael L. Klein, Genizah manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (Cincinnati: Hebrew U (...)

Galilean Aramaic:Image 10000000000000C000000022B90D38C2CF72D24F.jpg‘from my relations and my father’s house’ (Gen. 24.40) —Image 10000000000000E20000001EABF3D195DF805FC8.jpg(Targum Neophiti);13Image 100000000000022000000022A258BC551863C621.jpgImage 100000000000008E00000022EDD597FBD3D68CE8.jpg‘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 [4.1]);Image 10000000000000B800000028753FAF3C1B954A72.jpg‘but the God of my father has been with me’ (Gen. 31.5) —Image 10000000000000D800000021A5FDCBE958303A14.jpg14

  • 15 Abraham Tal, The Samaritan Targum of the Pentateuch: A Critical Edition, vol. 1 (Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv (...)

Samaritan Aramaic:Image 10000000000000BC000000226931E05483B74639.jpg‘from my relations and my father’s house’ (Gen. 24.40) —Image 10000000000000A400000018CF99097FCF158744.jpg15

  • 16 Christa Müller–Kessler and Michael Sokoloff, The Christian Palestinian Aramaic Old Testament and Ap (...)
  • 17 Ibid., p. 55.

Christian Palestinian Aramaic:Image 100000000000007800000025E24C65A30275F37E.jpg‘my father made me take an oath’ (Gen. 50.5) —Image 10000000000000810000001C996EC16DB44E6EDC.jpg;16Image 10000000000000D90000002737BEDC2FC965F26E.jpgImage 10000000000000290000002648E60B1F4433EE0C.jpg‘which you gave to your servant David, my father’ (1 Kgs 8.24) —Image 10000000000000FB00000022C8C1AA8AC2939A64.jpg17

9Accordingly, in contrast with Eastern Aramaic, where columns 1–2 merged, in Western Aramaic it was columns 2–3 that merged:

1: a father

2: the father

3: my father

ʾav

ʾabba

ʾabba

5. Mishnaic Hebrew

  • 18 See Abraham Geiger, Lehr- und Lesebuch zur Sprache der Mischnah (Breslau: Leuckart, 1845), p. 50; J (...)
  • 19 Geiger, Lehr- und Lesebuch, p. 50, brought the following mishnah as an example:(...)

10The 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 different forms:

1. ʾav ‘a father’:Image 100000000000010A0000001F142F0F92BCD1BE9C.jpg‘a father and his son who saw the new moon will go’ (m. Rosh ha-Shanah 1.7).

2. ha-ʾav ‘the father’:Image 100000000000018A0000001DDE7918FBA5B91A35.jpg‘the father has control over his daughter as regards her betrothal, whether it is effected by money, by writ, or by intercourse’ (m. Ketuboth 4.4).

  • 20 It appears only twice in Tannaitic literature and in seven places in Amoraic literature, e.g.,(...)

3. ʾabba ‘my father’:Image 100000000000018A00000026BA3C1479BECF3450.jpgImage 10000000000000CE0000001C2C76843F257CB999.jpg‘my father left 800 dinars and my brother took 400 and I took 400’ (m. Nedarim 9.5);Image 10000000000000330000001E01704170C601E044.jpgImage 100000000000015300000026DBC17B9AE10C7A55.jpg‘so that people should not say to each other: my father is bigger than your father’ (m. Sanhedrin 4.5). In contrast, the original form ʾavi almost entirely disappeared.20 It is important to note that it does not appear in the Mishna; it may have been reintroduced towards the end of the Tannaitic period.

11This is the system in Mishnaic Hebrew:

1: a father

2: the father

3: my father

ʾav

ha-ʾav

ʾabba

6. Babylonian Aramaic

  • 21 See Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, p. 72.
  • 22 So also Co M6 M95 V125 V109 V134.
  • 23 So also G LH M95 M140. See also(...)
  • 24 This is also the case in Targum Onkelos, to which the quotation cited from Rav Hai refers.

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:Image 10000000000000320000001C2558AEE6A3A3B709.jpgImage 10000000000001BB000000219B1D4F813FD496A1.jpg‘Mar son of Amemar said to Rav Ashe: my father did indeed drink it’ (b. Pesahim 74b);22Image 100000000000029E00000024FA70396A0C1D31E4.jpgImage 100000000000004A0000001BAFE03B3FE1FE439D.jpg‘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

  • 25 This possibility also depends on the question of the extent to which this phenomenon occurs in Syri (...)
  • 26 Even if this form did exist in Syriac, it is very marginal, while in Babylonian Aramaic this is the (...)
  • 27 To the best of my knowledge, there is no proof of direct influence of Galilean Aramaic on Babylonia (...)

12How 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 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 influence.27 I will reintroduce the two systems in the two languages used by Babylonian Jews, vocalised according to Rav Hai’s testimony:

1: a father

2: the father

3: my father

Mishnaic Hebrew

ʾav

ha-ʾav

ʾabba

Babylonian Aramaic

ʾava

ʾava

ʾabba

  • 28 Even if we assume that the use of this form developed independently and only the dagesh is influenc (...)

13The difference 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 affect Babylonian Aramaic, so the original Eastern Aramaic forms were maintained.28

  • 29 On the spelling with alef in Babylonian Aramaic see Shelomo Morag, The Book of Daniel: A Babylonian (...)

This explanation may also account for the difference in spelling. In the Babylonian Talmud a final a vowel is marked by alef in Aramaic words and by heh in Hebrew words, e.g.,Image 100000000000006A00000024D50096EADE62D063.jpgImage 100000000000009D00000022FD35ADECB072B64D.jpg‘it was taught, no one ever repeated it’ (b. Yoma 26a);Image 100000000000026200000024E2EB3C975C69484E.jpgImage 100000000000002A0000001D0ECCC82D9827C31D.jpg‘Abbaye said to him, [have we not learnt that] he should bring them into his house privately? He answered, the day is the [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.

14For 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, different from their Aramaic form ʾava.

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

  • 30 Aramaic influence is one of the most important factors in the shaping of Mishnaic Hebrew. For the i (...)

15According 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 — influence of Western Aramaic on Mishnaic Hebrew and influence of Mishnaic Hebrew on Babylonian Aramaic — are well attested.30 Accordingly, Mishnaic Hebrew, which was studied by Jews in Palestine and Babylon alike, became a bridge between Western and Eastern Aramaic.

  • 31 See, e.g., Harold L. Ginsberg, “Zu den Dialekten des Talmudisch-Hebräischen”, Monatsschrift für die (...)
  • 32 See, e.g.,(...)

I will adduce another example for this process. The wordImage 100000000000002C0000001F6DE2857245AA1C8D.jpgkan ‘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 final 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 AramaicImage 10000000000000300000001CE1704521B93883DF.jpghaḵa alongside the Western Aramaic loan kan.32

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

16In 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 to confirm 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.

  • 33 See Friedman, “Orthography”, p. 141 n. 10.

17It 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.

  • 34 The data is collected from Maagarim, where it is easy to survey numerous sources, so the reading in (...)

18In 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.

19Hebrew, meaning 3 (‘my father’; in Hebrew only this meaning is used):

Image 100000000000002C00000017735DF2B9C2BB1D84.jpg

Image 100000000000002B000000175F0B7022DA3103AB.jpg

Mishnah

29

2

Sifra

1

5

Sifre Be-midbar

2

2

Sifre Devarim

3

5

Tosefta

55

8

Mekhilta de-Rashbi

2

1

Palestinian Talmud

71

Bereshith Rabbah

33

6

b. Sukkah

2

1

b. Taanith

2

b. Ketuboth

12

6

b. Baba Kamma

6

2

b. Baba Metzia

9

b. Baba Bathra

10

b. Sanhedrin

9

7

Halachot Pesuqot

6

11

20Aramaic:

Image 10000000000002760000019DA3E8FBEE8707A169.jpg

  • 35 The examples are brought to demonstrate the various kinds, while the conclusion relies on the numbe (...)

21Here are some examples:35

22Hebrew:

23Mishnah:

Alef:Image 10000000000000540000001CC0980C8E326E5CB6.jpg‘my father’s house’ (m. Betzah 2.6).

Heh:Image 100000000000007900000021935203B3B09A545A.jpg‘that my father said to me’ (m. Menahoth 13.9).

24Babylonian Talmud, tractate Sukkah:

Alef:Image 10000000000000D200000022C5959527719C9BC9.jpg‘when I came to my father’s brother’ (20b).

Heh:Image 10000000000000700000001BE94E55D723529CAE.jpg‘so said my father’ (18a).

25Halachot Pesuqot:

Alef/heh:Image 10000000000001DA00000022F24EDBEF4AC547E6.jpgImage 100000000000010E000000218E25B92CC01CA90B.jpg‘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.Image 100000000000002C0000001E5C115885050EE69D.jpg, line 19).

26Aramaic (all the examples are from the Babylonian Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin):

27Meaning 1:

Alef:Image 10000000000000DC0000001C097306473303A0E4.jpg‘I will slaughter father with son’ (25b).

28Meaning 2:

Alef:Image 10000000000001460000002211F51BC183F68864.jpg‘the blows of the mother are better than the kisses of the father’ (106a).

29Meaning 3:

Alef:Image 10000000000000C100000020E68D6C1F523E933A.jpg‘my father, teach it not thus’ (80b).

Heh:Image 10000000000001BC00000022161F8CC71D42E126.jpg‘I am fraternally related to her on my father’s side but not on my mother’s side’ (58b).

30According to these findings, 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.

31Accordingly, in these texts the spelling with heh is typical only of Hebrew, and if so, the spelling is dependent on language, not meaning.

32This 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).

33However, 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.

Notes

1 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, Geoffrey 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.

2 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 Gảon (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.

3 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 find a text that preserved this distinction, but Rav Hai may have had a Targum version where this distinction did exist. I, too, have been unable to find any text that preserves this distinction; see the appendix below. Of course, the parallel distinction betweenImage 10000000000000220000001643C34E73DE22A165.jpgRabba andImage 1000000000000028000000188F493145870D2CDA.jpgRava does exist. In the case of proper names there is a recognisable tendency to use heh for a final 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 influence of Rav Hai’s response and the necessity to differentiate between personalities, combined to preserve this distinction specifically 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 theImage 10000000000000E90000001C6AF5A393CFED6E44.jpg” (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.

4 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 christlich-palästinensischen 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 influence of ʾimma (so also Kutscher, see ibid.). As Schulthess noted, the vowel of the first syllable was also changed into an e vowel, this also under the influence of ʾimma. However, it seems that this change is attested only in Aramaic.

5 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. 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 Sokoloff, 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.

7 Nöldeke, Mandäische Grammatik, p. 431.

8 The text of the quotations from Rabbinic Literature, unless otherwise specified, 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.

9 The final yod in Syriac is only an archaic spelling, and the pronunciation is ʾav.

10 Nöldeke, Mandäische Grammatik, p. 437.

11 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 isImage 100000000000005E00000019ECD79130CCD36E44.jpgin 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 Sokoloff, 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 editions)Image 100000000000016C0000001E5A77DFCEE2A92D51.jpg(the first occurrence) ‘What objection is this! Could he not reply, I succeed to the rights of the father of my father?’:Image 10000000000000270000001827D562E6C223F92B.jpg— E F Ha165 M95 Ps1337;Image 100000000000008E00000018F391CC8B135C2B97.jpgImage 100000000000009600000019C055D25E48C5384E.jpg‘in this case also he might plead, I come as successor to the rights of my father’s father’:Image 100000000000003200000016633607BA86C47ACA.jpg— Ha165;Image 10000000000000250000001533CD850BB1E7AB36.jpg— E F M95 Ps1337;Image 10000000000000D400000018193EB6087A981182.jpg‘if I come as successor to the rights of my father’s father’:Image 100000000000002800000018CF77D92B61C06D49.jpg— E Ha165 Ps1337;Image 100000000000003600000019078F416DFB9CBBEC.jpg— M95;Image 10000000000000CC0000001CD2B0B1A1373A1764.jpgImage 10000000000000B90000001CED0118CC9C418EF0.jpg(the second occurrence) ‘But what difficulty is this? Could he not reply, I succeed to the rights of my father’s father?’:Image 100000000000002900000017F855DC8879BACB32.jpg— E F Ps1337;Image 100000000000002800000018711F5ABCBE327176.jpg— M95; missing — Ha165;Image 10000000000000900000001B496727EBE3F9D93B.jpg‘but take also the place of my father’: so also E F Ha165 M95 Ps1337. In the last two cases the reading isImage 100000000000004500000017368A9D8E1D8D7BBA.jpgalso 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)Image 100000000000005E0000001A18C63A5688640A6C.jpgImage 100000000000013A0000001C1CE0F9A5ED2A348F.jpg‘my paternal, but not my maternal, 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 M141);Image 1000000000000048000000180C7D1519B25D08B6.jpg‘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 suffixes in his Hebrew rendering:Image 10000000000001560000001E7146D5D68FBF6259.jpgImage 10000000000000440000001D4F9D6BFECC97FB77.jpgbayya 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.

12 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 Sokoloff, 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 nounsImage 100000000000002A0000001C1C17157B288F0E5A.jpgʾabba,Image 100000000000002C0000001E4A543C55CABCD2C7.jpgʾimma,Image 10000000000000290000001EE529C6DD7197F4EB.jpgʾaḥa never take the 1 sg. pronominal suffix. 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 final a vowel in this function does not reflect the definite article but is a form of the 1 sg. pronominal suffix ay which was contracted into a. Even if this is correct, the result is a merge of columns 2–3.

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

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

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

16 Christa Müller–Kessler and Michael Sokoloff, 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.

17 Ibid., p. 55.

18 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.

19 Geiger, Lehr- und Lesebuch, p. 50, brought the following mishnah as an example:Image 10000000000000F60000001C34A7CA7D7C769402.jpg[…]Image 10000000000000E20000001DA200D37ADB5E1A71.jpgמקודשת ‘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 first person pronominal suffix): ‘[if he said: 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 influenced by) similar words in European languages, such as English dad, German Papa and Yiddish tate — showing a clear difference from ha-ʾav.

20 It appears only twice in Tannaitic literature and in seven places in Amoraic literature, e.g.,Image 10000000000001A60000001C7F1E81AD462D576C.jpg‘I recall my father read with me this verse in the synagogue’ (y. Sanhedrin 28c [10.2]).

21 See Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, p. 72.

22 So also Co M6 M95 V125 V109 V134.

23 So also G LH M95 M140. See alsoImage 100000000000014B0000001CFE7FE0CD58E41758.jpg‘I am fraternally related to her on my father’s side but not on my mother’s side’ (b. Sanhedrin 58b), which refers to the Biblical verseImage 100000000000008600000022B9E198401535DEE7.jpgImage 100000000000007000000021D592BD1CC6CC58A5.jpg‘she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother’ (Gen. 20.12).

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

25 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 Sokoloff, 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 reflect 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 Sokoloff, 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 difference between Western and Eastern Aramaic.

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 influence. It should be emphasised that in Western Aramaic ʾabba is the only form in all dialects, and the original ʾavi disappeared, while in Eastern Aramaic the original ʾav appears in all three dialects, so ʾabba seems to be foreign.

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

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

29 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 Isaa) (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.Image 10000000000000280000001A872BE9AC1BEAEB2D.jpgand 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.

30 Aramaic influence is one of the most important factors in the shaping of Mishnaic Hebrew. For the influence of Mishnaic Hebrew on Babylonian Aramaic see Yochanan Breuer, “The Hebrew Component in the Aramaic of the Babylonian Talmud” (in Hebrew), Leshonenu 62 (1999), pp. 23–80.

31 See, e.g., Harold L. Ginsberg, “Zu den Dialekten des Talmudisch-Hebräischen”, Monatsschrift für die Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums 77 (1933), pp. 413–429, at pp. 428–429.

32 See, e.g.,Image 10000000000001BE0000001EAA53E96D927C2F75.jpg‘R. Nathan states that it [sc. a congealed piece the size of an olive] requires a rebiʿith [of liquid] only here in the case of wine, which is thin’ (b. Shabbath 77a). It seems to me that in a similar way the co-existence in Babylonian Aramaic of mammasha and meshasha can be explained, e.g.,Image 10000000000000B80000001DFA1D474D17F5F15D.jpgמששא ‘the morning clouds have no significance’ (b. Taanith 6b) as againstImage 10000000000001040000001E0D56ABF72A7D8D23.jpg‘but here it is different, because there is nothing concrete at all’ (b. Shabbath 62b). Meshaha is the eastern form and is also found in Syriac, while mammash or mammasha is found in Western Aramaic and in Mishnaic Hebrew, so it was probably borrowed from Mishnaic Hebrew into Babylonian Aramaic; see Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, p. 312; idem, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, pp. 683, 717.

33 See Friedman, “Orthography”, p. 141 n. 10.

34 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.

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

Auteur

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.

Acheter

Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search