On the Morphology of the guttural Verbs in Sephardic Traditions in the Early Modern Period
p. 97-115
Résumé
This paper deals with the morphology of guttural verbs in the Sephardic reading tradition for Mishnaic Hebrew. It is based on findings common to the world’s first two Mishna editions printed with full vocalisation: the Constantinople edition and the Amsterdam edition. Both of these seventeenth-century editions, although vocalised by grammar experts, reveal vocalisation that contradicts not only biblical grammar, but also rabbinic grammar, as represented in the medieval vocalised manuscripts, first and foremost MS Kaufmann. The paper presents three phenomena that emerge from the two editions. The first is feminine participle forms with segol instead of pataḥ, such as נִפְֶרעֶת ‘collect (a debt) (fs)’, מְגַלֶחֶת ‘shave (fs)’. The second is the lack of compensatory lengthening in piʿʿel and puʿʿal, such as מִאֲנָה ‘she refused’, מְבּועָר ‘removed’. The third issue is shewa mobile with guttural consonants in quadriliteral verbs, examples including מְעְַרעְִרין ‘ (they) compel (her)’, מְהַבְהְבִים ‘parch (mpl)’. This vocalic realisation, which apparently reflects analogy to non-guttural verbs, is well documented in Sephardic reading traditions of recent generations.
Texte intégral
1.0. Introduction
1This article deals with the morphology of the guttural verbs in the Sephardic reading tradition for the Mishna. It is based on findings common to the world’s first two Mishna editions printed with full vocalisation: the Constantinople Mishna edition (1643– 1645, hence CM)1 and the Amsterdam Mishna edition (1646–, hence AM),2 both of which probably represent the living reading tradition for Mishnaic Hebrew among Sephardic Jews in the 17th century. The findings presented below contradict not only the grammar of the Bible, but also the grammar of the Mishna, as represented in the medieval vocalised manuscripts, first and foremost MS Kaufmann.
2It is commonly assumed that Mishnaic Hebrew, especially as represented in the printed editions of the Mishna, has been deeply influenced by Biblical Hebrew. Printers and grammarians, who idolised the biblical language, aspired to bring Mishnaic Hebrew closer to the Tiberian biblical standard (Kutscher 1963, 247–48; Yalon 1964, 12; Mishor 1989, 90; Bar-Asher 2009a, 318; 2009b, 50–51). As a result, one might expect that the grammar reflected in a printed Mishna is in fact identical to biblical grammar. Thus, for example, in the matter of the widespread verb השענ ‘to become, to be done’ G. Birnbaum determined that “In the printed editions the vocalisation is, of course, according to the Tiberian Bible (that is ”.) נ ַ ע ֲ ש ּ ו , נ ַ ע ֲ ש ָׂ ה3 However, this study presents a different picture: both CM and AM, though vocalised by grammar experts,4 stray from BH grammatical standards. They not only contain dozens of forms with segol instead of pataḥ— e.g., נ ֶ ע ֱ ש ֹ תו , נ ֶ ע ֱ ש ִׂ ןי , נ ֶ ע ֱ ש ּ ו , נ ֶ ע ֱ ש ָׂ ה —but they also reveal fundamental deviations from the biblical norm in quite a few grammatical categories. As mentioned above, I shall limit the discussion to anomalies relating to the morphology of the guttural verbs.5
2.0. Findings
3Below are the categories in which the tradition reflected in AM and CM fits neither biblical grammar nor the medieval vocalised manuscripts of the Mishna.
2.1. Feminine Participle with Third Radical Guttural
4The first matter is feminine participle forms whose third radical is guttural. As is well known, in Biblical Hebrew these forms appear with modification of segol to pataḥ (e.g., ּ פ ֹ ו ַ חר ַ ת , מ ְ צ ַֹ ער ַ ת ). This is also the case in the Mishna manuscripts, except for one unusual and rare form: מ ַ ג ְ ב ֶּ ה ֶּ ת ‘lifts up (fs)’ (Ḥalla 3.1), found in some of the manuscripts (Zurawel 2004, 107). CM and AM also vocalise pataḥ (or qameṣ6) in most cases. Yet, we find eight verbs with segol: נ ִ פ ְֶּ ער ֶּ ת ‘collects (a debt) (fs)’ (CM, Ketubbot 10.5; Shevuʿot 7.7, compared to נ ִׂ פ ְַ ער ַ ת / נ ִׂ פ ְ ר ָׂ ע ַ ת in Ketubbot 9.8; Giṭṭin 4.3), מ ְ ק ּ פו ֶּ ח ֶּ ת ‘ruined (fs)’ (CM, Ohalot 16.1), מ ּ נו ֶּ ח ֶּ ת ‘set, lying (fs)’ (CM, Terumot 8.8 [2x], compared to מ ּ נו ַ ח ַ ת in Ketubbot 8.8 [2x]), מ ְ ג ַ ל ֶּ ח ֶּ ת ‘shave (fs)’ (AM, Soṭa 3.8; Nazir 4.7), מ ַ ש ְ ב ֶּ ח ֶּ ת ‘increases in value (fs)’ (AM, ʿArachin 6.5 [2x], compared to מ ַ ש ְ ב ַ ח ַ ת in Soṭa 3.5), ה ַ מ ִ ש ְ ת ַ ל ֶּ ח ֶּ ת ‘the one sent forth (fs)’ (AM, Negaʿim 14.5 [2x], lamed without dagesh), מ ַ ג ְ ב ֶּ ה ֶּ ת ‘lifts up (fs)’ (AM, Ḥalla 3.1), and two pausal forms: מ ַ ש ְ ב ַ ח ֶּ ת ‘increases in value (fs)’ (AM, Baba Qama 5.4 מ ַ צ ָ ע ֶּ ת ,) ‘make the bed (fs)’ (CM, Ketubbot 5.5 [2x], ṣade without dagesh). It should also be noted that the feminine form of ּ פ ִֵּׂ ק ַ ח ‘a person who is not deaf’ in both editions is always פ ִֵּ חק ֶּ ת / פ ִ ק ֶּ ח ֶּ ת . It should be emphasised that the interchange of pataḥ and segol does not reflect a Yemenite pronunciation. The accent of the two vocalisers was Sephardic, as evidenced by many interchanges between pataḥ and qameṣ on the one hand and segol and ṣere on the other hand. In contrast, pataḥ and segol are not parallel: segol may appear instead of pataḥ only in some of the third-guttural feminine forms, but pataḥ never appears instead of segol.
5Reading such guttural feminine forms with segol instead of pataḥ, known from various Sephardic oral traditions of recent generations, is interpreted as an analogy to the non-guttural forms (Morag 2003, 47). This study, however, first reveals these forms in vocalised editions of the Mishna from the 17th century. It turns out that the picture reflected in CM and AM is quite similar to that of the reading traditions of Baghdad and Aleppo, but different from that of Djerba. As in the Baghdad and Aleppo traditions, this phenomenon is relatively limited: the forms with segol are a minority compared to the forms with pataḥ/qameṣ and are not found in the qal stem7 nor in biblical words, whereas in the tradition of Djerba the forms with segol are the vast majority and appear in all circumstances (Katz 1977, 195–96).
2.2. Lack of Compensatory Lengthening in Piʿʿel and Puʿʿal
6The second issue relates to the vowel of the first radical before a middle guttural in the piʿʿel and puʿʿal stems. While in the Tiberian system we usually find the vowel modifications i > e (often before א and always before ר , such as ש ֵֵּּ תר ‘to serve’, מ ֵּ א ֵּ ן ‘to refuse’8) and u > o (before ר , ע , ה , א , such as מ ְ ג ֹ א ָׂ ל ‘detestable’, מ ְ ט ֹ ה ָׂ ר ָׂ ה ‘purified [fs]’, מ ְ ב ֹ ע ֶָׂ תר ‘removed [fs]’, ג ְֹ שר ּ ו ‘they were expelled’), in both Mishna editions, in most cases, there is no vowel change. This feature is revealed not only before ר (examples include מ ְ ג ּ ו ֶ שר ֶ ת ‘divorcée’, ע ִֵּׂ בר ‘to mix’, ב ִֵּׂ רר ‘to choose’, which are well known from various sources of Mishnaic Hebrew9), but also before other guttural consonants. The number of relevant examples from the entire Mishna is not large, yet almost all of them are vocalised as opposed to biblical grammar: מ ִ אי ֲ נ ָ ה / מ ִ א ֲ נ ָ ה ‘she refused’ (CM, AM, Yevamot 1.2; 2.10; 13.4 [2x]; 13.5 [2x], 7 [2x]), מ ִ אי ֲ נ ּ ו ‘they refused’ (AM, Yevamot 1.1 [2x], but in CM מ ֵּ א ֲ נ ּ ו ), ה ַ מ ְ ש ּ או ָ ר ‘leftover’ (CM, AM, Peʾa 3.3 [2x]; Zevaḥim 8.12 [2x]), מ ְ ס ּ או ָ ב ֹ תו ‘unclean (fpl)’ (CM, AM, Ḥalla 2.2; Ḥagiga 3.3, compared to מ ְ ס ֹ או ָׂ ב ֹ תו , only in CM in Ḥullin 2.5; Toharot 2.1; Tevul Yom 4.1; while in AM shureq appears in all cases), מ ְ ז ּ הו ָ ם ‘stinking’ (CM, AM, Bekhorot 6.12), כ ִ מ ְ ב ּ עו ָ ר ‘removed’ (CM, AM, Maʿaser Sheni 5.6; Pesaḥim 2.3), מ ְ מ ּ עו ֶּ ט ֶּ ת ‘small (fs)’ (CM, AM, Qinnim 1.2 [2x]). In both editions, the form מ ְ ב ֹ או ָׂ ר ‘made clear’ comes with ḥolam (Yadayim 3.1). In the manuscripts of the Mishna, the past forms of ןאמ ‘to refuse’ are vocalised with ṣere in the first radical,10 and the guttural puʿʿal forms appear with ḥolam in most cases.11
7It should be noted that CM and AM reflect a completely different picture in the nifʿal category. The prefix of the future forms of nifʿal appears as in the Bible and in the Mishna as represented in the manuscripts, depending on the nature of the next consonant. That is to say, before a non-guttural consonant the prefix is vocalised with ḥireq (such as י ִׂ מ ָׂ כ ְ ר ּ ו ‘they will be sold’, ת ִּׂ פ ָׂ ס ֵּ ל ‘it will be disqualified’, י ִׂ כ ָׂ נ ֵּ ס ‘he will enter’), but before a guttural consonant it is constantly vocalised with ṣere: י ֵּ א ָׂ כ ֵּ ל ‘it will be eaten’ (Pesaḥim 7.11), ש ֶ ת ֵּ א ָׂ מ ֵּ ר ‘that it will be said’ (Berakhot 1.5 ת ֵּ ה ָׂ פ ְֵּ ך ,) ‘it will become’ (Soṭa 9.15), י ֵּ ה ְָׂ גר ּ ו ‘they are put to death’ (Makkot 1.5), ש ֶ י ֵּ ח ָׂ ל ֵּ ק ‘it will be divided’ (Bava Batra 1.6), ש ֶ ת ֵּ ע ָׂ ב ֵּ ד ‘ [after] it has been worshipped’ (ʿAvoda Zara 4.4), י ֵּ ע ָׂ ש ֶ ה ‘let this one be declared’ (Makkot 1.1), י ֵּ ר ָׂ ק ְ ב ּ ו ‘let them rot’ (CM, Terumot 5.1, but AM indicates a qal form: ת ֵּ ר ָׂ א ֶ ה ,) י ְִׂ קר ָׂ ב ּ ו ‘it will appear’ (Negaʿim 4.7), י ֵּ ר ָׂ א ּ ו ‘let them be seen’ (Negaʿim 11.1).12
2.3. Shewa Mobile with Guttural Consonants in Quadriliteral Verbs
8The third issue is shewa mobile (vocal shewa, אווש ענ ) with guttural consonants. The rule in Tiberian Biblical Hebrew is that when the guttural stands at the beginning of a syllable with shewa, it necessarily takes a ḥataf, and almost always ḥataf-pataḥ.13 Accordingly, in CM and AM ḥataf-pataḥ is the permanent replacement of shewa mobile, and appears in all forms, such as: י ִׂ ח ֲ ד ּ ו ‘to specify (3mpl)’ (Baba Metzia 3.9), ט ִׂ הי ֲ ר ֹ ו ‘one purifies it’ (Negaʿim 13.1), מ ְ מ ַ ע ֲ ט ֹ ו ‘ (it) diminishes it’ (Kelim 5.7; 28.1), ש ֶ י ִׂ מ ְ ע ֲ ל ּ ו ‘that commit sacrilege’ (Zevaḥim 7.4 [2x]), and י ְִׂ חר ֲ צ ּ ו ‘wash (3mpl)’ (Yoma 8.1). However, this is not the case for quadriliteral verbs whose third radical is a guttural consonant, which is expected to appear with ḥataf-pataḥ. These verbs are regularly vocalised with shewa mobile or with another diacritic that may be parallel to shewa mobile in the Sephardic accent: ש ֶּ ע ִ ל ְ ע ְ ל ָ ה ‘ (a wind) that hurled’ (CM, AM, Kilʾaim 7.7), מ ְ ע ְַ ער ְִ ןיר ‘ (they) compel (her)’ (CM, Soṭa 3.3, in AM: מ ְ ע ְַ רר ִׂ םי14 ה ִ ב ְ ה ְ ב ָּ ה ,) ‘it (ms) singed it (fs)’ (CM, Shabbat 2.3, but in AM: מ ְ ה ַ ב ְ ה ֵּ ב ִ ןי ,) ה ִׂ ב ְ ה ָׂ ב ָּׂ ה ‘ (they) parch’ (AM, Menaḥot 10.4, in CM: מ ִ ת ְ ח ַ ל ְ ח ֵּ ל ֹ תו ,) מ ְ ה ַ ב ְ ה ְ ב ִ םי ‘rolling about’ (CM, Mikvaʾot 4.3, in AM: .) מ ִ ת ְ ח ַ ל ְ ח ֵּ ל ִ ןי
9In this category, the fundamental difference from biblical grammar is prominent, especially as manifest in CM. The number of relevant examples from the entire Mishna is only five, and in all of them, without exception, CM has shewa mobile or ṣere, expressing the vowel e, rather than ḥataf-pataḥ, indicating the vowel a.15 It should be emphasised that in this category as well, the vocalised manuscripts of the Mishna reflect a reading tradition that is clearly similar to that of Biblical Hebrew, which prefers the semivowel a: all these quadriliteral verbs appear in the Mishna manuscripts with an a vowel beneath the third radical.16
3.0. Discussion
10We have seen above that the vocalisation of the two editions does not match biblical grammar rules. How can this fact be explained? It cannot be argued that the vocalisers were unfamiliar with biblical grammar. The introductions of the books reveal that the vocalisers were learned scholars who were well acquainted with biblical grammar and that it was for this reason they were chosen for their task.17 It is therefore logical to assume that these findings reflect an authentic Sephardic reading tradition for Mishnaic Hebrew different from Biblical Hebrew in some basic matters. An instructive example is the vocalisation of the verb ןאמ ‘to refuse’, whose past forms are prevalent in the Bible, always with ṣere in the first radical: מ ֵּ א ֲ נ ּ ו , מ ֵּ א ַ נ ְ ת ְ , מ ֵּ א ַ נ ְ ת ָׂ , מ ֵּ א ֲ נ ָׂ ה , מ ֵּ א ֵּ ן , מ ֵּ א ַ נ ְ ת ֶ ם . When this verb appears in the two Mishna editions as a direct quotation from the Bible, it appears in accordance with the Biblical vocalisation: ... מ ֵּ א ֵּ ן י ְ ב ָׂ מ ִׂ י ל ְ ה ָׂ ק ִׂ םי ‘my husband’s brother refuses to perpetuate’ (Deut. 25.7 in Yevamot 12.6). Yet, in the regular halachic language of the Mishna, the first radical comes in most cases with ḥireq: מ ִ אי ֲ נ ּ ו , מ ִ אי ֲ נ ָ ה (see above). These forms are of great significance: they prove that the vocalisers knew the Tiberian vocalisation for this verb, and yet chose another vocalisation. It is important to note that the verb ןאמ is the only verb in the Mishna in the piʿʿel category with a middle radical ʾalef. It may therefore represent a broader rule in CM and AM’s tradition for post-biblical Hebrew: the first radical of past piʿʿel forms was pronounced with ḥireq regardless of the identity of the next radical. Similarly, the first radical of the puʿʿal forms was pronounced with shureq regardless of the identity of the next radical. The reason for this was presumably the desire to simplify the language and avoid grammatical complexity.18
11It seems that many of the deviations from biblical grammar are the result of simplification and harmonisation of verbal paradigms. In this way we are able to explain the findings in the other two categories as well: נ ִׂ פ ְֶ ער ֶ ת according to the vocalic pattern of נ ִׂ כ ְ נ ֶ ס ֶ ת and מ ְ ע ְַ ער ְ ר ִׂ ןי according to the pattern of מ ְ ג ַ ל ְ ג ְ ל ִׂ ןי .
12Yet, it is clear that the tendency to unify paradigms was not unlimited. We have seen categories in which the vocalisation of guttural verbs is quite similar to that in the Bible and in Mishna manuscripts. Thus, for example, in future nifʿal forms the prefix before a guttural consonant is consistently vocalised with ṣere rather than ḥireq. What made this category different? It is reasonable to assume that since in Biblical Hebrew there is a clear and stable rule, and the vowel preceding each one of the guttural consonants is always ṣere,19 this rule also continued to exist in post-biblical Hebrew traditions. In contrast, in the intensive conjugations, there is no absolute rule in Biblical Hebrew. In fact, lengthening of the preceding vowel occurs consistently only before resh, whereas with other gutturals the preceding vowel may be similar to that of the non-guttural verbs (GKC 1910, §64d–e). This complexity may have led in late traditions of Mishnaic Hebrew to unification of the vowels of the first radical in all piʿʿel and puʿʿal verbs, including those with gutturals.
13The same is true for the nifʿal forms נ ֶ ע ֱ ש ּ ו , נ ֶ ע ֱ ש ָׂ ה . The Tiberian vocalisation offers two alternatives for reading the prefix - נ before an initial guttural, with either segol or pataḥ, e.g., נ ֶ ע ֶ ש ְ ת ָׂ ה ‘was done (3fs)’ as compared to נ ַ ע ֲ ש ָׂ ה ‘was done (3ms)’, נ ֶ ע ְ ל ַ ם ‘was hidden (3ms)’ as compared to נ ַ ע ֲ ר ָׂ ץ ‘is feared (ms)’, נ ֶ ח ְ ש ַ ב ְ ת ִׂ י ‘I was regarded’ as compared to ָׂ נ ַ ח ְ ב ֵּ תא ‘you hid (ms)’.20 Since the Tiberian tradition here is not homogeneous, a simpler inflection evolved. Thus, in CM and AM the prefix of all guttural verbs regularly has segol,21 including forms in which the Tiberian vocalisation indicates pataḥ.22
14It turns out that small categories with few examples were also subject to the effect of unification, for example, the category of quadriliteral verbs with guttural third radical. It is interesting that, while these verbs are read similarly to non-guttural quadriliteral verbs ( מ ְ ע ְַ ער ְ ר ִׂ ןי like מ ְ ג ַ ל ְ ג ְ ל ִׂ ןי (, triliteral verbs with a guttural middle radical are consistently distinguished from their non-guttural counterparts, as ḥataf-pataḥ regularly replaces shewa mobile in the guttural forms.23 Why were the quadriliteral gutturals, and not the triliteral gutturals, influenced by non-guttural forms? Presumably, this is because Biblical Hebrew has plenty of triliteral middle guttural verbs with ḥataf-pataḥ. The prominent presence of these forms in the Bible helped them to be preserved in post-biblical Hebrew traditions. By contrast, the number of biblical cases of quadriliterals with guttural third radical is extremely small.24 Therefore, the forms of these verbs were more likely to resemble those of non-guttural verbs.
15In short, analogy to non-guttural forms is to be expected in categories where Biblical Hebrew reveals complex inflection, as well as in small categories with few examples. However, this does not mean that in other categories analogy is not possible. In reality, some of the guttural feminine participle forms in CM and AM were found to have vocalisations that correspond to those of non-guttural forms, e.g., מ ְ ג ַ ל ֶ ח ֶ ת , נ ִׂ פ ְֶ ער ֶ ת , even though the Tiberian Bible reveals a clear paradigm with numerous examples in which the gutturals always appear with pataḥ rather than segol. And yet, it should not be forgotten that in the two Mishna editions studied, the forms that deviate from the norms of Tiberian vocalisation are a minority compared to other forms in the category. In addition, all the anomalous forms are found in the derived stems only, with none appearing in the Bible.
4.0. The Historical Development of this Reading Tradition
16The reading tradition presented above arises from two distant places and different witnesses, which certainly did not exert mutual influence.25 Therefore, we can assume that this reading tradition is ancient, although we cannot determine for certain how ancient it is. It may have developed in the Middle Ages, but later than the vocalised manuscripts of the 12th and 13th centuries. However, it is possible that this reading tradition evolved in an even earlier period and reflects another type of Mishnaic Hebrew, though we do not have its ancient documentation.26 What is certain is that the vocalic realisation emerging from CM and AM continued to exist in various Sephardic communities until our time. Forms like מ ְ ג ּ ו ֶ שר ֶ ת , מ ְ ב ּ עו ָׂ ר , נ ִׂ ז ְֶ ער ֶ ת , and ע ִׂ ל ְ ע ְ ל ָׂ ה are documented in the Sephardic reading traditions of recent generations.27 It is interesting to note one verse from the Seliḥot, the prayers delivered in the period leading up to the High Holidays. In the 12th century Piyyuṭ םא ספא עבור ןקה , the vocalisation that appears in almost all contemporary Sephardic prayer books is as follows:
ךתווצמב םהינש נזהָ םיר ךירחאו אל מהרהֵּ םיר ושח וכלהו נמהָ םיר לע דחא
ההָ םיר
‘At your command the two of them take care / and after you they do not criticise / they hurried and went hastily / up one of the mountains.’
17The form הרהמ ֵּ םיר ‘criticise (mpl)’ is not only opposed to biblical grammar, but is also unsuitable for the rhyme. Apparently, such a pronunciation of quadriliteral verbs has been accepted for centuries, since at least the 17th century.28
5.0. Conclusions
18CM and AM reflect an authentic Sephardic reading tradition of Mishnaic Hebrew that systematically differs from Biblical Hebrew. For this reason, one should disagree with the common opinion that Biblical Hebrew dominates the language of printed editions of the Mishna.
19It seems that one of the most important features of Mishnaic Hebrew, as represented in the two editions examined, is the effect of the tendency to simplify the halachic language and avoid grammatical duplications.
Bibliographie
References
Bar-Asher, Moshe. 2009a. ‘How is the Language in the Printed Editions of the Mishna different from the Language in Old Manuscripts’. Studies in Mishnaic Hebrew (by Moshe Bar-Asher), 313–18. Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute. [Hebrew]
— ——. 2009b. ‘The Study of Mishnaic Hebrew Grammar: Achievements, Problems and Goals’. Studies in Mishnaic Hebrew (by Moshe Bar-Asher), 31–57. Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute. [Hebrew]
Birnbaum, Gabriel. 2008. The Language of the Mishna in the Cairo Geniza. Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language. [Hebrew]
Gabbay, Ariel. 2017. ‘The Mishnaic Hebrew Tradition According to the 1643–1645 Constantinople Edition of the Mishna’. PhD dissertation, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. [Hebrew]
— ——. 2019. ‘Unique Morphology in the Feminine Forms of III-ˀ Verbs in the 1643–1645 Constantinople Edition of the Mishnah’. Lešonenu 82 (1): 48–59. [Hebrew]
GKC = Kautzsch, Emil (ed.). 1910. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, translated by A. E. Cowley. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Haneman, Gideon. 1980. The Morphology of Mishnaic Hebrew According to the Tradition of MS Parma (De Rossi 138). Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University. [Hebrew]
Katz, Ktzia. 1977. The Hebrew Language Tradition of the Community of Djerba: The Phonology and the Morphology of the Verb. Edah ve-Lashon 2. Jerusalem: Hebrew University Institute of Jewish Studies. [Hebrew]
— ——. 1981. The Hebrew Language Tradition of the Aleppo Community: The Phonology. Edah ve-Lashon 7. Jerusalem: Magnes. [Hebrew]
Kutscher, Yechezkel. 1963. ‘Mishnaic Hebrew’. In Hanoch Yalon Jubilee Volume, 246–80. Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer. [Hebrew]
Mishor, Mordechai. 1989. ‘Ashkenazi Tradition: Toward a Method of Research’. Massorot 3–4: 87–127. [Hebrew]
Morag, Shelomo. 1977. The Hebrew Language Tradition of the Baghdadi Community: The Phonology. Edah ve-Lashon 1. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. [Hebrew]
Morag, Shelomo. 1998. ‘The Study of Mishnaic Hebrew: The Oral Evidence—Nature and Appraisal’. Studies in Mishnaic Hebrew, edited by Moshe Bar-Asher and Steven Fassberg, 43– 57. Scripta Hierosolymitana 37. Jerusalem: Magnes.
— ——. 2003. Studies in Hebrew, edited by Moshe Bar-Asher, Yochanan Breuer, and Aharon Maman. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. [Hebrew]
Yalon, Hanoch. 1964. Introduction to the Vocalization of the Mishna. Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute. [Hebrew]
Yeivin, Israel. 1985. The Hebrew Language Tradition as Reflected in the Babylonian Vocalization. 2 vols. Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language. [Hebrew]
Zurawel, Talma. 2004. Maimonides’ Tradition of Mishnaic Hebrew as Reflected in His Autograph Commentary to the Mishnah. Edah ve-Lashon 25. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. [Hebrew]
Annexe
Appendix 1: CM title page
Appendix 2: AM title page
Notes de bas de page
1 See CM’s title page in Appendix 1.
2 See AM’s title page in Appendix 2.
3 See Birnbaum (2008, 129).
4 In the introduction of CM, the publishers praise the vocaliser’s work, performed “according to grammar by an expert in grammar.” Similar things are said in the introduction of AM.
5 For an overall examination of the deviations from Biblical Hebrew in CM, see Gabbay (2017). For another side of the question discussed in this paper, see also Gabbay (2019).
6 In both editions, pataḥ and qameṣ may be interchangeable due to the Sephardic accent of the vocalisers, which does not distinguish between the two signs.
7 Except for one form, actually a noun: פֹותֶּחֶּת ‘key’ (AM, Kelim 13.6; Baba Batra 6.5, compared to פֹותַחַת in Beṣa 4.2).
8 In the Babylonian biblical vocalisation tradition ṣere may appear before any of the gutturals, even in cases where the Tiberian vocalisation indicates ḥireq. See Yeivin (1985, 516–18).
9 In Yemenite and Sephardic oral traditions, middle-radical ר forms may be similar to those of ordinary verbs, with gemination of ר (see Morag 1998, 46–47). However, in CM and AM there is no dagesh. In AM dagesh is indicated in neither ר nor ע ,ח ,ה ,א, and in CM it is not indicated in any consonant. And yet, the vocalisation of the first radical is clear and different from that in Biblical Hebrew.
10 In MS Kaufmann this is always the case, and the same is true of MS Parma, except for one appearance with ḥireq (Haneman 1980, 159).
11 However, the verb ממּועטת is vocalised with shureq (Haneman 1980, 191).
12 Two exceptions with ḥireq were found in CM, both with the third-person prefix -יִהֵָּרג :י ‘is put to death (3ms)’ (Soṭa 9.7), וְיִאָכְלּו ‘they are eaten (m)’ (Bekhorot 2.9). It is possible that the realisation of ṣere approached that of ḥireq under the influence of yod.
13 There are, however, some exceptions (see GKC 1910, §64h).
14 AM’s version is different from the conventional one. It is possible that the vocaliser of AM was used to reading this verb in the same way the vocaliser of CM had read, but could not express his reading in the version that he found. Perhaps for this reason he indicated מְעְַרִרים to express מְעְַרעִֵּרים( מְעְַרעְִרים) ‘ (they) compel (her)’. At the same time, it is possible that he interpreted this form as a regular triliteral verb and vocalised accordingly.
15 Obviously, AM also confirms the reading tradition that emerges from CM. Most examples clearly indicate the vowel e. Only one form appears with the vowel a in the third radical) הִבְהָבָּה (, but one cannot ignore the special place in which it occurs: in the second chapter of tractate Shabbat, which is usually read in synagogues on Friday night and is actually part of the prayer. It is quite possible that this chapter was subject to greater influence of Biblical Hebrew.
16 In MS Kaufmann ḥataf-pataḥ is found in three of the five forms: מתחלחֲלין ,מערעֲרים ,מהבהֲבין. In another form, qameṣ comes: הִבְהָבָּה (probably equivalent to הִבְהֲבָּה). The latter form appears with ḥireq: שיעִלְעִילָה. Presumably, the spelling of the third syllable with yod (שיעלעילה) indicates that the scribe of MS Kaufmann read this verb just as the vocalisers of CM and AM read it, but the vocaliser of MS Kaufmann, who was not used to such reading, assumed that the spelling requires ḥireq. In MS Parma (De Rossi 138) we find: היבהֲבּה ,שעילעֲלה. The other forms appear in the non-vocalised part of the manuscript. MS Parma Order Ṭoharot (De Rossi 497) includes only one of the five forms, and it comes with ḥataf-pataḥ: מתחלחֲלין. And finally, the Maimonides autograph commentary to the Mishna also reveals a vocalisation in these circumstances (Zurawel 2004, 123).
17 See above, fn. 4.
18 It cannot be argued that the lack of compensatory lengthening in piʿʿel and puʿʿal was the result of the fact that the reading traditions of Constantinople and Amsterdam lacked gemination (dagesh forte). If that were the reason, we would expect a lack of compensatory lengthening in nifʿal as well. However, this is clearly not the case (see §2.2 above).
19 GKC (1910, §51b).
20 And there is also a third option, if we consider that the prefix of the verb נִהְיָה ‘to become’ appears with ḥireq.
21 The only exception is the verb נִהְיָה.
22 It is worth noting that, as opposed to the biblical form נַעֲלָמִים ‘hypocrites’ (Ps. 26.4), we find in CM נֶּעֱלָמִים (Shevuʿot 2.1). However, the version in AM is נֶּעֱלָמּו.
23 As mentioned in §2.3, there is a clear difference in the vocalisation of the middle radical between triliteral guttural and non-guttural forms: יִכְתְבּו ‘they will write’, נֹותְנִין ‘give (mpl)’, מְלַמְדֹו ‘teaches (ms) him’ vs. יְִרחֲצּו ‘they will wash’, נֹוהֲגִין ‘be accustomed (mpl)’, מְמַעֲטֹו ‘diminishes (ms) it’.
24 And they also do not appear in a position in which ḥataf-pataḥ is expected, such as עְַרֵּעֵ֣ר תִתְעְַרעָר ‘will be utterly broken (fs)’ (Jer. 51.58), וַתִתְחַלְַחַ֥ל ‘and (the queen) was grieved’ (Est. 4.4).
25 Even if we assume that CM, the earlier edition, arrived in Amsterdam and the publishers of AM saw it, it is certain that the vocalisation in AM was not copied from CM. First, the vocaliser of AM writes in his introduction that he had to rely on his understanding of grammar. Second, if the vocalisation was copied from CM, it should have been the same. As a matter of fact, there are many differences in vocalisation between the two editions (most of the differences are related to the marking of pataḥ and qameṣ, on the one hand, and of segol and ṣere, on the other), and in this article, too, some of the findings (see §2) are not the same.
26 It is possible, however, that in the work of the MS Kaufmann’s scribe we find a hint of gutturals with shewa mobile instead of ḥataf-pataḥ (see above, fn. 16). But it is difficult to determine this with certainty based on a single example.
27 On guttural feminine participle forms with segol (instead of pataḥ), see above, §2.1. On guttural quadriliterals with shewa mobile (instead of ḥataf-pataḥ), see Morag (1977, 83); Katz (1981, 68). On the vowel preceding a middle radical ר in piʿʿel and puʿʿal, see above, fn. 9. The form מְבּועָר (with shureq instead of ḥolam, as expected according to the biblical form מְבֹעֶָּרת ‘was burning [fs]’ [Jer. 36.22]) is documented in the reading tradition of the Baghdadi community (Morag 1977, 120).
28 It is worth noting, by the way, that this is the accepted pronunciation for quadriliteral verbs in Israel today. Forms such as הִבְהֵּבָה ‘it flashed, blinked (fs)’, יְהְַדהֵּדּו ‘they will echo’, מְעְַרעִֵּרים ‘appeal, object; undermine (mpl)’, and הִתְחַלְחֵּלָה ‘was shocked, went pale (3fs)’—with gutturals realised with an e vowel—are common pronunciations, even among educated people.
Auteur
Ariel Gabbay (PhD, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2017) is a senior faculty member at Orot Yisrael College of Education, where he teaches modern and ancient Hebrew and oversees the linguistic training programme of students who are to serve as Hebrew teachers. His research focuses on reading traditions of Mishnaic Hebrew, especially Sephardic traditions. His articles have been published in Language Studies (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem) and Lešonenu (The Academy of the Hebrew Language).
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Creative Commons - Attribution 4.0 International - CC BY 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
Studies in Semitic Vocalisation and Reading Traditions
Aaron D. Hornkohl et Geoffrey Khan (dir.)
2020
Diversity and Rabbinization
Jewish Texts and Societies between 400 and 1,000 CE
Gavin McDowell, Ron Naiweld et Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra (dir.)
2021