New Perspectives in Biblical and Rabbinic Hebrew
| ,Attitudes Towards Rabbinic Hebrew as Reflected in Hebrew Grammars during the Jewish Enlightenment1
Résumé
This paper examines some attitudes towards the nature, merit, and use of Rabbinic Hebrew that prevailed among Jewish intelligentsia during the Jewish Enlightenment, as reflected in three Biblical Hebrew grammars: Chayim Keslin’s (1749–1832) Maslul be-Diqduq Leshon ha-Qodesh (Berlin, 1788), Judah Leib Ben-Zeʾev’s (1764–1811) Talmud Lashon ʿIvri (Breslau, 1796), and Chayim Zvi Lerner’s (1815–1889) Moreh ha-Lashon (Leipzig, 1859). These works differ from one another in terms of frequency and nature of data from Rabbinic Hebrew included in their grammatical discussions. It is argued that the status of Rabbinic Hebrew in each work reflects the author’s attitude towards the desirable status of Rabbinic Hebrew in Hebrew usage of contemporary Jewish society.
Texte intégral
1.0. Introduction
- 1 This research was conducted with the support of the Russian Science Foundation (project no. 17-18-0 (...)
- 2 One famous expression of this attitude is found in Judah ibn Tibbon’s (Spain and Provence, late 12t (...)
- 3 See Netzer (1983, 334–35); Téné (1995, 26–27); Charlap (2010, 318) and the references cited therein (...)
1Ever since ancient times, Biblical Hebrew (BH) has been considered the ideal form of Hebrew and the exemplary style for Hebrew writing. Rabbinic Hebrew (RH), on the other hand, has usually been viewed as a secondary, epigonic dialect, less suitable as a source of vocabulary and style for later Hebrew.2 As is well-known, this approach was clearly reflected in the field of traditional Hebrew linguistics, in which only BH enjoyed systematic investigation and description.3
- 4 Barzilay (1979, 14); Kutscher (1982, 184–85); Sáenz-Badillos (1993, 267–68); Eldar (2014, 121; 2018 (...)
- 5 Zemerion (1981, 438); Shavit (1993, 118–19); Kahn (2008, 126; 2009, 3; 2013); Eldar (2014, 120, 125 (...)
- 6 Zemerion (1981,434–37); Sáenz-Badillos (1993, 268); Pelli (2001, 188); Schatz (2009, 18).
2This basic attitude was essentially still prevalent during the Haskalah period.4 Indeed, the hierarchy was strengthened by the Maskilic aspiration to restore the Jewish people to its so-called ‘natural’ situation, in which it is involved and active in all fields of productive life and culture. The situation of the Jewish people during the era of the Bible had been perceived as such, while rabbinic literature was widely perceived as representing the limited, faulty situation of the Jewish people in exile.5 Yet, scholars in this period differ from one another in their specific attitude towards RH and its use for writing in various fields.6
- 7 See references in the last three footnotes.
3The Maskilic attitudes towards this matter have already been treated by many scholars.7 In this paper, I would like to examine an aspect which has not been discussed yet: if and how the attitudes towards RH are reflected in grammatical descriptions of Hebrew in this period. I will focus on three Hebrew grammars of the time, each of them representative of a different attitude. Though these three works, like the vast majority of Jewish grammatical works of the time, are devoted to BH, the frequency and nature of incidental references to RH in these works, or their absence, will serve as an indicator for our purpose.
2.0. Chayim Keslin
- 8 It was prefaced with a few short articles, entitled Qeriʾat ha-Torah.
- 9 Cf. Yizhaki (1970, 43–54); Barzilay (1979, 6–9).
- 10 Pelli (2001, 188).
- 11 See especially Keslin (1814, 34–40); see also Yizhaki (1970, 45–47); Barzilay (1979, 7); Zemerion ( (...)
- 12 See Keslin (1814a, 35–36).
4Let us begin with our first author, Chayim Keslin (1749–1832). Before taking a look into his grammar—Maslul be-Diqduq Leshon ha-Qodesh (Berlin, 1788; I used the Vilnius, 1892 edition), which was widely used among the Maskilim as a Hebrew grammar manual, another work of Keslin’s should be mentioned—Beʾer Reḥovot. This influential work, initially published in the well-known Maskilic journal Ha-Meʾasef (3 [1786]: 51–60) and later as an independent pamphlet (Berlin, 1814),8 was a contribution to contemporary discussions on the appropriate sources and avenues for expanding the Hebrew language.9 Here Keslin eagerly espouses the free use of RH vocabulary for this purpose,10 claiming that rabbinic sources represent an indigenous Hebrew, which maintains the original Hebrew traits as reliably as BH.11 Essentially, Keslin viewed the two linguistic layers as a single uniform language, which shared most of their respective vocabulary, the differences between them being considered exceptions.12
- 13 He also repeats the main argument of Beʾer Reḥovot in a few places in Maslul; cf. Maslul (42a–b, 70 (...)
5Considering this stance, it is hardly surprising that his grammatical work, although devoted to BH, contains a large number of references to RH and many comments regarding similarities or, in a few cases, differences between biblical grammar and rabbinic grammar. As will be demonstrated bellow, for Keslin, such comments are not taken as comparisons between two dialects or layers, but rather as complementary notes, which draw the picture of the Hebrew language as a whole.13
- 14 Maslul (77a, 88b). For other comments of this kind, see Maslul (71a, 79a–80a, 88a, 89b). For commen (...)
- 15 This form was reconstructed by Keslin on the basis of the form חמִישִיתָּיו ‘fifths of it’ (Lev. 5. (...)
- 16 Maslul (80a).
6This attitude is reflected in many comments dealing with nouns that occur in the Bible only in singular, with their plural form attested in RH, like ס ָֻּ ל ָָּּ מ ֹ תו – ס ֻ ל ָּ ם ‘ladder’, ָּ פ ֵּ ר ֹ תו ָּ – פ ְִּ יר ‘fruit’.14 For Keslin, this additional data enables a better acquaintance with ancient Hebrew, as RH completes the information missing in BH with the highest level of reliability. Even when, in one case, he points to a rabbinic plural form, ח ָּ מ ִָּ שי ִָּ י ֹ תו ‘fifths’, that differs from its biblical counterpart, i.e., , מח ִ שי ִ תי ִ םי15 it seems that he regards both as equal alternatives.16
- 17 Maslul (45a).
- 18 Cf., for example, Mikhlol (25a).
7Another striking example that clearly reveals his attitude appears in the chapter on םילעפ ָּ םיבכרומ ‘compound verbs’, where he discusses peculiar feminine participle forms, like ְָּּ י ֹ לו ְַּ תד ‘giving birth’ (Gen. 16.11) and ְָּּ ש ֹׁ כ ַ נ ְּ ת ‘dwelling’ (Jer. 51.13).17 He mentions a former proposal to interpret these forms as a compound of past form and participle,18 but he prefers another analysis. He suggests that this is a compound of a participle form and a feminine singular personal pronoun: ְָּּ ש ֹ כו ֵּ ן ָּ+ א ַ ת ְָּּ , י ֹ לו ֵּ ד ָּ+ א ַ ת . Indeed, he admits that such compounds are not customary in BH, but, he maintains that this is a possible analysis on the basis of its prevalence in RH, such as the oath formulas מ ָָֻּּ ד ָּ ר ָּ+ א ָּ נ ִָּ י <( מ ְֻּ ד ַ נר ִָּ י ), which means ‘I am forbidden by vow (from your property)’, ָּ מ ְֻּ קחר ַ נ ִ י (< מ ְֻּ ר ָּ ח ָָּּ ק ָָּּ+ָָּּ א ָָּּ נ ִ י ) ‘I swear to keep distance (from you/your property)’ָָּּ (M. Nedarim 1.1). For Keslin, this comparison provides him with sufficient grounds to assume a similar construction in BH. According to his belief that BH and RH represent the same language, one may analyse BH phenomena in light of RH grammar.
- 19 Sefer ha-Shorashim (819).
- 20 See Maslul (49b). One may find further references to RH in Maslul (18a, 39b, 41b, 72a, 78a, 90b).
8Similarly, in another case he suggests a new analysis of the peculiar form ה ֵּ ת ַַָּֽ ז ‘spring forth’ (Isa. 18.5), which R. David Kimḥi, the authoritative medieval scholar, perceived as derived from the root . זת ָּ" ז19 On the basis of comparison to similar rabbinic forms, like ה ִ ת ִ י ָּ ז ‘chop off’ (M. Ḥullin 2.3) and ָּ מ ְּ נ ַ ת ְּ ז ִ ןי ‘scattering’ (M. Bava Kamma 2.1), Keslin claims that the rabbinic rootָּ תנ " ז is the root of biblical ה ֵּ ת ַ ז as well—this despite his awareness of the morphological difficulties raised by the suggestion.20
9Keslin’s stance, as we shall see, differs significantly from those reflected by later Maskilic authors.
3.0. Judah Leib Ben-Zeʾev
10Our next author is Judah Leib Ben-Zeʾev (1764–1811), who should be considered the greatest Jewish linguist of the Maskilic movement. His work, Talmud Lashon ʿIvri (TLI; first publication: Breslau, 1796), is the most comprehensive and updated Hebrew grammar that was written in Hebrew of his time. The same could be said of another monumental work by Ben-Zeʾev in this field— ʾOzer ha-Shorashim (OhS; first publication: Vienna 1816). Since our focus here is on comparison of grammar books, the following discussion concentrates on TLI, but it appears that the same approach is reflected in OhS as well, as is demonstrated bellow.
- 21 TLI (§136). For more examples of this kind, cf. TLI (§§110, 115, 359).
- 22 Netzer (1983, 51–52, 171–72, 325); Téné (1995, 27). See also Ben-Ḥayyim (1981, 4–5). Ben-Ḥayyim poi (...)
11Despite its very comprehensive and detailed nature, TLI includes only sporadic comments comparing biblical to rabbinic phenomena. These comments are very simple comparisons, mostly of lexical rather than grammatical character. For example, in a comment on fractional numerals, Ben-Zeʾev notes that their BH absolute state form is feminine, e.g., ש ְּ ל ִ שי ִ תי ‘third’ and ְָּּ בר ִ עי ִ תי ‘forth part’, while in RH it is masculine, like ל ִ ש ְּ ל ִ שי and ָּ. ל ְָּּ בר ִ י ַ ע21 It should be stressed here that lexical comparisons of BH to RH have traditionally been perceived of as more acceptable or natural than grammatical comparisons. Thus, in medieval linguistic writings one finds many more lexical comparisons than grammatical comparisons.22 Ben-Zeʾev also adheres to this principle, but the perception behind it, discussed here below, is typical of his era.
- 23 On some reflections of the priority of biblical grammar over other Hebrew strata in TLI, see Cohen (...)
- 24 Cf. Barzilay (1979, 10).
- 25 (...)
- 26 (...)
- 27 Another question is, to what extent Ben-Ze’ev succeeded in fulfilling his principles of pure Hebrew (...)
12Ben-Zeʾev’s attitude on this matter23 is more than once explicitly expressed in the introductions to his OhS. The first time comes in his general introduction to the first two volumes of the dictionary, where he enumerates the principles on which his lexical entries are based. The fifth paragraph in this section presents what, on the first glance, seems to be an attitude similar to Keslin’s.24 He states that he had made an effort to find words and expressions from the Talmud, which he considered “remnants of the Hebrew language, that accidently did not occur in the Bible, but were orally preserved in national traditions.”25 But the reservation that immediately follows this statement reveals a completely different point of view. With regard to all these words, Ben-Zeʾev explains, he presents only the root, not the form, since the language of the Talmud does not preserve the grammatical form of the words.26 Essentially, Ben-Zeʾev claims here that RH has some significance, but only as a preserver of ‘remnants’ of BH. RH is important for its lexical material, but from the perspective of grammar, it is full of faults and thus should not be considered a source of pure Hebrew.27
13Accordingly, Ben-Zeʾev writes that all entries taken from RH are marked with asterisk, in order to distinguish between the ‘certain’ biblical words and rabbinic words, which are always ‘uncertain’ in terms of faithfulness in representing ‘real’ Hebrew.
- 28 It is probably the first lexicon of this kind that was ever published.
- 29 See Barzilay (1979, 10).
- 30
- 31 Ben-Zeʾev’s approach on this point was noted by Kutscher (1982, 185).
- 32 One may find a full translation of this paragraph in Barzilay (1979, 10–11).
14Another statement of this kind is found in the introduction to the third volume of OhS, which is a German-Hebrew lexicon.28 Here he makes a distinction between תוחצ ָּ ןושל ָּ תירבע literally ‘pure Hebrew’, on the one hand, which appears to denote BH,29 and the language of the Talmud and later authors, on the other hand. According to Ben-Zeʾev, only the first type fully represents authentic Hebrew, while the later compilations contain words and expressions that are only “similar” or “close” to Hebrew, as well as foreign words.30 He stresses that the latter type was included only for the sake of ןומה ָּ םע ‘the masses’, who are open to using any word that has occurred in a Hebrew book, but do not pay much heed to the purity of their language.31 But for poets, or people who aspire simply to use pure Hebrew, only ָּ תוחצ ָּ תירבע ןושל , i.e., BH, or its ‘remnants’ in rabbinic literature, is appropriate.32
- 33 TLI (§§356–59).
15Considering these statements, it is hardly surprising that when Ben-Zeʾev compares elements of BH to those found in RH, most of them are lexical, while grammatical comparisons are very few in TLI. Still, there are a few comments regarding grammatical phenomena, such as, for example, his comment on sequences of prepositions, like the common rabbinic compound לוכיבכ ‘seemingly’, which is built of two prepositions and a participle form: .ָּ כ ְָּּ+ ב ְָָּּּ+ י ָָּּ כ ֹ לו33
16Obviously, the difference between Ben-Zeʾev and Keslin in this respect is not just quantitative: while Keslin, as we have seen, is ready to propose innovative insights regarding biblical phenomena on the basis of RH, Ben-Zeʾev’s comments are of a technical nature only, with no substantial contribution to the understanding of BH.
17Ben-Zeʾev, therefore, draws a clear hierarchy between BH and RH: only BH’s vocabulary and grammar are considered pure and ‘real’ Hebrew, appropriate for literary use and poetry. RH, on the other hand, is made up of eclectic vocabulary, of which large parts are not original Hebrew, its morphology is faulty, and it may be used only in vulgar texts. It appears that this is the background of the marginal role of comparisons of BH to RH in TLI and of the superficial nature of the comparisons that are included.
4.0. Chayim Zvi Lerner
- 34 Eldar (2014, 120, 125).
- 35 On this work see Chomsky (1967, 188).
18This basic attitude, which was espoused by Ben-Zeʾev and other early Maskilim,34 became more prominent—perhaps even exaggerated—in later generations of the Haskalah movement. An extreme expression of it is found in Chayim Zvi Lerner’s grammatical work. Living in Southern Europe, Lerner (1815–1889) was a Maskil and earned his living as a Hebrew teacher in several institutions. His main work is Moreh ha-Lashon, a popular Hebrew grammar, which appeared in Leipzig in 1859 and in many later editions.35 The striking fact about this grammar is that RH is not mentioned there at all. It was probably the first Hebrew grammar written by a Jewish author since early Middle Ages that completely ignores RH.
- 36 Lerner (1898, §37).
- 37 Lerner (1898, §40).
19RH is not mentioned even when one might expect it to be, such as, for example, in the discussion of the second-person singular independent subject pronoun ְָּּ א ַ ת ‘you’ used for masculine, rather than standard feminine reference. Lerner’s discussion is based on its use in BH, in which it occurs only a few times, while its much more common usage in RH is not mentioned.36 Similarly, he presents the relative pronoun ָּ-ָּ ש , which in Late Biblical Hebrew is employed alongside its more common counterpart , רשא37 but, of course, is more characteristic to RH—an obvious fact that Lerner ignores. At first glance, this might seem the result of a purely professional decision to concentrate solely on BH. But, if one takes into account Lerner’s cultural environment, it seems more likely to stem from intentional omission of RH, reflecting ideological and cultural motives.
- 38 Kutscher (1982, 186–89); Eldar (2014, 120–24); Kahn (2013; 2018, 159–60). However, these endeavours (...)
- 39 See references above in n. 4.
20The clearest manifestation of the Maskilic ideology of the time is shown in contemporary Maskilic Hebrew literary style. As is well known, the main development of Maskilic Hebrew prose took place in southern Europe in the middle of the nineteenth century. Authors of the time, such as Abraham Mapu, Peretz Smolenskin, and others, ultimately adopted BH, creating a pseudo-biblical style, which they took great pains to cleanse of rabbinic elements.38 These endeavours were an expression of the Maskilic preference for BH over other Hebrew layers, which served as an important component of Maskilic ideology.39
- 40 Yet, it should be stressed that this is not the situation in all Maskilic grammatical works of the (...)
21Even though we lack explicit evidence, it is logical to conclude that Lerner also endorsed this ideology to some extent, or at least was influenced by the cultural atmosphere in which it prevailed. This plausibly accounts for the fact that RH is completely absent from his grammar.40
5.0. Conclusion
22To sum up, we have seen three different ways in which RH is used in Haskalah-period BH grammars: a large number of comparisons and frequent drawing of evidence from RH in Keslin’s Maslul; a few comparisons of technical nature in Ben-Zeʾev’s Talmud Lashon ʿIvri; and total disregard of RH in Lerner’s Moreh ha-Lashon. According to the analysis proposed above, the status of RH in each work reflects the author’s attitude towards cultural and sociolinguistic questions: Keslin’s endorsement of wide use of RH as a main source for expanding the Hebrew language; Ben-Zeʾev’s view of RH as a grammatically faulty language and, accordingly, as a less-preferable source for useful Hebrew vocabulary; and Lerner’s attitude, which reflects—or at least was affected by—the Maskilic endeavours to introduce a purified biblical Hebrew style.
23Our analysis suggests that, although the works in question are scientific books that appear to present an objective linguistic picture, as a matter of fact, they mirror their respective author’s personal cultural viewpoint, and might, to some extent, even serve as a vehicle to promote his ideology.
Bibliographie
References
Primary Sources
Keslin, Chayim. 1814. Keriʾat ha-Torah and Beʾer Reḥovot. Berlin.
Lerner, Chayim Zvi. (1859) 1898. Moreh ha-Lashon. 10th edition. Vilnius (first publication: Leipzig).
Maslul = Keslin, Chayim. (1788) 1892. Maslul be-Diqduq Leshon ha-Qodesh. Vilnius. First publication: Berlin.
Mikhlol = Kimḥi, David. 1862. Sefer Mikhlol, edited by Isaac Rittenberg. Lik.
OhS = Ben-Zeʾev, Judah Leib. 1816. ʾOzer ha-Shorashim. Vienna.
Reichersohn, Moshe Hacohen. 1864. Ḥelqat ha-Niqud. Vilnuis.
Sefer ha-Shorashim = Kimḥi, David. 1847. Rabbi Davidis Kimchi Radicum Liber sive Hebraeum Bibiorum Lexicon, edited by J. H. R. Biesenthal and F. Lebrecht. Berlin.
Steinberg, Joshua. 1891. Maʿarkhe Leshon ʿEver. Vilnius.
TLI = Ben-Zeʾev, Judah Leib. 1796. Talmud Lashon ʿIvri. Breslau.
Secondary Sources
Barzilay, Isaac. 1979. ‘From Purism to Expansionism: A Chapter in the History of Modern Hebrew’. Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 11: 3–15.
Ben-Ḥayyim, Ze’ev. 1981. ‘The Problems of the Unity of the Hebrew Language Throughout Its History and Its Periodization’. In Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies, vol. 8: Panel Sessions: Bible Studies and Hebrew Language, 1– 18. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies. [Hebrew]
Charlap, Luba R. 2010. ‘Abraham ibn Ezra’s Attitude toward Rabbinic Language: An Investigation from Three Points of View’. In Mishnaic Hebrew and Related Fields: Studies in Honor of Shimon Sharvit, edited by Ephraim Hazan and Zohar Livnat, 317–34. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press. [Hebrew]
Chomsky, William. 1967. Hebrew: The Eternal Language. Jerusalem: Rubin Mass. [Hebrew]
Cohen, Ohad, and Aure Ben-Zvi Goldblum. 2018. ‘Ashkenazic Hebrew: A Methodological Perspective on Language Varieties’. Journal of Jewish Studies 69: 374–97.
Eldar, Ilan. 2014. From Mendelssohn to Mendele: The Emergence of Modern Literary Hebrew. Jerusalem: Carmel. [Hebrew]
— ——. 2018. The History of the Hebrew Language from a Linguistic & Sociolinguistic Perspective. Vol. II: From 1500 to the Present. Jerusalem: Carmel. [Hebrew]
Halkin, A. S. 1963. ‘The Medieval Jewish Attitude toward Hebrew’. In Biblical and Other Studies, edited by Alexander Altmann, 233–48. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kahn, Lily. 2008. ‘Rabbinic Elements in the Verbal System of Maskilic Hebrew Fiction 1857–1881’. Hebrew Studies 49: 125–42.
— ——. 2009. The Verbal System in Late Enlightenment Hebrew. Leiden: Brill.
— ——. 2013. ‘Maskilic Hebrew’. In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, edited by Geoffrey Khan et al. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2212-4241_ehll_EHLL_COM_00000422(consulted 24 December 2019).
— ——. 2018. ‘The Kitsur shulḥan ʿArukh, Hasidic Tale, and Maskilic Literature as Exemplars of Ashkenazic Hebrew’. The Jewish Quarterly Review 108: 159–93.
Kutscher, Eduard Yechezkel. 1982. A History of the Hebrew Language. Edited by Raphael Kutscher. Jerusalem: Magnes and Leiden: Brill.
Maman, Aharon. 2017. ‘Rabbinic Hebrew in the Eyes of Medieval Hebrew Philologists’. In Studies in Mishnaic Hebrew and Related Fields: Proceedings of the Yale Symposium on Mishnaic Hebrew, May 2014, edited by Aaron J. Koller and Elitzur Bar-Asher Siegal, 175–88. New Haven, CT: The Program in Judaic Studies, Yale University and Jerusalem: The Ben Yehuda Center for the History of the Hebrew Language.
Netzer, Nissan. 1983. ‘Mishnaic Hebrew in the Works of Medieval Hebrew Grammarians’. PhD dissertation, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. [Hebrew]
Pelli, Moshe. 2001. The Circle of Ha’measef Writers at the Dawn of Haskalah. Bnei-Brak: Hakibbutz Hameuchad. [Hebrew]
Rabin, Chaim. 1986. ‘Mevaser ha-ʿIvrit ha-Sinṭeṭit’. In Brit ʿIvrit ʿOlamit, Kenes Venetsia, 23–29. [Hebrew]
Sáenz-Badillos, Angel. 1993. A History of the Hebrew Language. Translated by John Elwolde. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sarfatti, Gad Ben-Ammi. 2003. History of the Hebrew Language: The Medieval Division. Unit 5: The Language of the Translators from Arabic. Tel-Aviv: The Open University. [Hebrew]
Schatz, Andrea. 2009. Sprache in der Zerstreuung: Die Säkularisierung des Hebräischen im 18. Jahrhundert. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht.
Shavit, Yaacov. 1993. ‘A Duty Too Heavy to Bear: Hebrew in Berlin Haskalah, 1783–1819: Between Classic, Modern and Romantic’. In Hebrew in Ashkenaz: A Language in Exile, edited by Lewis Glinert, 111–28. New York: Oxford University Press.
Téné, David. 1995. ‘Hebrew Linguistic Tradition’. In Concise History of the Language Sciences: From the Sumerians to the Cognitivists, edited by E. F. K. Koerner and R. E. Asher, 21–28. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yizhaki, Yosef. 1970. ‘The Hebrew Authors of the Haskalah: Their Views on the Hebrew Language and Their Ways and Means of Perfecting It’. Lešonenu 34: 287–305; 35: 39–59, 141–54. [Hebrew]
Zemerion, Zemaḥ. 1981. ‘Tipuaḥ ha-ʿIvrit be- “ha-Meʾasef”’. Sefer Dr. Baruch Ben Yehudah, edited by Ben-Ziyon Lurya, 426– 59. Tel-Aviv: Ha-Ḥevra le-Ḥeqer ha-Miqra be-Yisraʾel.
Notes
1 This research was conducted with the support of the Russian Science Foundation (project no. 17-18-01295), Saint Petersburg State University.
2 One famous expression of this attitude is found in Judah ibn Tibbon’s (Spain and Provence, late 12th–13th centuries) introduction to his translation of Ḥovot ha-Levavot, the well-known Rabbi Baḥye ibn Pakuda’s (Spain, 11th century) philosophical work. He finds it necessary to apologise for the use of rabbinic words in his translation even when it might have been possible to find a biblical equivalent; see Halkin (1963, 246); Sarfatti (2003, 31–32).
3 See Netzer (1983, 334–35); Téné (1995, 26–27); Charlap (2010, 318) and the references cited therein; Maman (2018, 175–84).
4 Barzilay (1979, 14); Kutscher (1982, 184–85); Sáenz-Badillos (1993, 267–68); Eldar (2014, 121; 2018, 148–68); Cohen and Goldblum (2018, 391–92).
5 Zemerion (1981, 438); Shavit (1993, 118–19); Kahn (2008, 126; 2009, 3; 2013); Eldar (2014, 120, 125; 2018, 157). On other possible motives for this attitude see Zemerion (1981, 431); Eldar (2014, 121–22; 2018, 158–59).
6 Zemerion (1981,434–37); Sáenz-Badillos (1993, 268); Pelli (2001, 188); Schatz (2009, 18).
7 See references in the last three footnotes.
8 It was prefaced with a few short articles, entitled Qeriʾat ha-Torah.
9 Cf. Yizhaki (1970, 43–54); Barzilay (1979, 6–9).
10 Pelli (2001, 188).
11 See especially Keslin (1814, 34–40); see also Yizhaki (1970, 45–47); Barzilay (1979, 7); Zemerion (1981, 433–34); Rabin (1986, 23).
12 See Keslin (1814a, 35–36).
13 He also repeats the main argument of Beʾer Reḥovot in a few places in Maslul; cf. Maslul (42a–b, 70a).
14 Maslul (77a, 88b). For other comments of this kind, see Maslul (71a, 79a–80a, 88a, 89b). For comments in which Keslin learns from RH the singular forms of nouns documented in BH only in the plural, see Maslul (85b–86b, 87b).
15 This form was reconstructed by Keslin on the basis of the form חמִישִיתָּיו ‘fifths of it’ (Lev. 5.24).
16 Maslul (80a).
17 Maslul (45a).
18 Cf., for example, Mikhlol (25a).
19 Sefer ha-Shorashim (819).
20 See Maslul (49b). One may find further references to RH in Maslul (18a, 39b, 41b, 72a, 78a, 90b).
21 TLI (§136). For more examples of this kind, cf. TLI (§§110, 115, 359).
22 Netzer (1983, 51–52, 171–72, 325); Téné (1995, 27). See also Ben-Ḥayyim (1981, 4–5). Ben-Ḥayyim points out the aforementioned distinction between lexical and grammatical comparisons, but his conclusion, namely, that medieval scholars regarded biblical and rabbinic grammar as homogenous, requires re-examination.
23 On some reflections of the priority of biblical grammar over other Hebrew strata in TLI, see Cohen and Goldblum (2018, 390–91).
24 Cf. Barzilay (1979, 10).
25 . Page numbers are not given for references to the introductions of OhS, since these chapters are unpaginated.
26 "
.
27 Another question is, to what extent Ben-Ze’ev succeeded in fulfilling his principles of pure Hebrew in his own writings. One may note, for example, the verb נזדמן ‘occur’ quoted in n. 25 above, which has the characteristically rabbinic nitpaʿal pattern.
28 It is probably the first lexicon of this kind that was ever published.
29 See Barzilay (1979, 10).
31 Ben-Zeʾev’s approach on this point was noted by Kutscher (1982, 185).
32 One may find a full translation of this paragraph in Barzilay (1979, 10–11).
33 TLI (§§356–59).
34 Eldar (2014, 120, 125).
35 On this work see Chomsky (1967, 188).
36 Lerner (1898, §37).
37 Lerner (1898, §40).
38 Kutscher (1982, 186–89); Eldar (2014, 120–24); Kahn (2013; 2018, 159–60). However, these endeavours met with only limited success; see Kahn (2008; 2009, 281–88; 2013; 2018, especially 181–82).
39 See references above in n. 4.
40 Yet, it should be stressed that this is not the situation in all Maskilic grammatical works of the time, as other contemporary authors introduced comparisons to RH in their biblical grammars. Cf., for example, Joshua Steinberg’s Maʿarkhe Leshon ʿEver (1891, §§136, 140–41, 152); Moses Reichersohn’s Ḥelqat ha-Niqud (1864, 3, 32, 72).
© Open Book Publishers, 2021
Creative Commons - Attribution 4.0 International - CC BY 4.0