History of Ds Hibreio Linguageee

EDUARD YECHEZKEL KUTSCHER
A HISTORY OF THE HEBREW

LANGUAGE
Edited by
R A P H A E L K U T SC H E R
1982
THE MAGNES PRESS, THE HEBREW UNIVERSITY, JERUSALEM
E.J. BRILL, L EID E N
Published with the assistan ce o f the

Louis and M inna Epstein Fund o f the
A m erican A cad em y for Jew ish R esearch
D istributed by
N .V . B oekhandel en Drukkerij V /H
E.J. Brill, O udc Rijn 33a, Leiden
H olland
T h e M a g n e s P ress, The H e b re w U n iversity
Jerusalem 1982
ISBN 9 6 5 -2 2 3 -3 9 7 -8
Printed in Israel
at A h v a C o. Press, Jerusalem
TABLE OF C O N T EN T S
LIST O F A BB R EV IA TIO N S
xxv
E D IT O R S FO R E W O R D
xxix
C h a pter O n e : T H E B A C K G R O U N D . 1
C h a pter T w o : T H E SEM ITIC LA N G U A G E S. 2
C h a pter T h r e e : H EB R EW AS A SEM ITIC L A N G U A G E

A. W hat Is a Semitic Language? 3
5
I
a. Patterns o f the Sem itic Root. 6

B. G uttural (Laryngal and Pharyngal) and Em phatic
Consonants. 7
I. The Laryngals ,( /, hf). 8
II. The Pharyngals ,( /// 9
III. The E m phatics ,, ,( //, s, qf). 10
C. Vowels. 11
D. M orphology
5
5
I. C onsonant-Vow elRelationship. 4
II. Roots. 5
...
6
6
7
7
8
8
8
I. Pronouns and Particles. 12
II. The Verb. 13
III. The Noun. 14
10
\V .A ttributes o f the Noun. 15
10
E. Syntax. 16
C ha pter F o u r : BIBLICA L H EBREW
A. T ripartite Division of Biblical Hebrew. 17
10
12
12
B. M ethods of Presentation. 18
12
C. Phonology
12
I. Consonants. 19
a. Sibilants. 20
12
13
1.T h e M erger o f ( /sf) and ( /sf). 21
14
2. The Sibbolet-Sibbolet Incident. 22
14
3. The Pronunciation o f the Sibilants by

D iaspora Jews as a Reflection o f Their
Respective Languages. 23
15
b, G utturals. 24
1.
17
( /h / and ) //) in Greek Transliterations. 25
17
2. The M erger o f I x l with /h / and Ig l with /'/. 26
18
3. The W eak Pronunciation o f the Gutturals. 27
18
4. R efutation o f Kahle*s Theory o f Gutturals. 28
19
c. The , , , , ,( //>, g, d, k, p ,tf) . 29
21
1. R efutation o f Kahle*s Theory o f the /b, g, d, k,

p, t/. 30
II.
21
Vowels
22
a. The Proto-Sem itic L on g Vowels in B H . 31
22
1. P roto-Sem itic I a:/ in B H . 32
23
a. B auer's M ixed L a n g u a g e Theory. 33

. The /a : /> / 0 :/ S h ift in
Cuneiform
..
23
Trans-
literation. 34
24
b. The P roto-Sem itic Sh o rt Vowels in B H . 35
25
1. Stress as a Distinctive Feature. 36
26
2. Sound-C hange A ttested D uring Three Thousand

Years in Syria-Palestine. 37
26
3. Proto-Sem itic S h o rt //, u! in B H . 38
29
4. Vowel Length as a Distinctive Feature in BH . 39
29
D . M orphology
30
I. Indepdendent Pronouns
30
a. F irst Person Singular. 40
30
b. S econd Person F em inine Singular. 41
30
c. F irst Person Plural. 42
31
d.
Second and
T hird Persons P lural (M asc. and
F e m .). 43
31
II. Demonstrative Pronouns. 44
31
III. Relative Pronouns. 45

IV.
The
Possessive
Suffix
Masculine Singular. 46
V. The Verb
Nifal.
the
Second
Person
32
35
a . Stems. 47
1. Passive Qal. 48
2.
32
of
49
35
36
36
3. Ifte'al. 50
37
b. Tenses. 51
37
1. Suffixes o f the Perfect
37
a. Second Person S ingular M asculine. 52
..
. Second Person Sin g u la r Feminine. 53
...
37
P1. M ira g e Forms. 54
37
38
y. Third Person S ingular Feminine. 55
....
. Third Person P lural Feminine. 56
39
39
2. Prefixes and S uffixes o f the Im perfect. 57
....
40
a. Second Person S ingular Fem inine

and Second and T hird Persons Plural
M asculine. 58
40
. Third Person P lural Feminine. 59
41
c. A ctive and N eutral B ases in the Qal
42
1. Perfect. 60
42
2. Im perfect. 61
42
3. Participle. 62
42
d. The W eak Verbs

1.
0^ )
42
42
" ( Verbs. 63
2 . and Verbs. 64
IV.
43
The Noun. 65
43
E. Syntax
I. S y n ta x o f the Verb in S B H .
44
44
66
II. S y n ta x o f the Verb in L B H . 67
45
III. Infinitives and Participles.
45
68
F . V ocabulary
46
I. Foreign Loanw ords. 69
46
a. H ow Is a Foreign Loa n w o rd Recognized? 70

b. W anderw rter (Travelling Words). 71
....
47
c. A kka d ia n and Sum erian Loanw ords
48
1. A kka d ia n . 72
48
2. S um erian. 73
d. E gyptian Loanw ords. 74
46
50
.
51
e. Persian Loanw ords. 75
52
f Loanw ords fr o m O ther Languages. 76
52
g. A ram aic L oanw ords

\\. The N ative Vocabulary
.........................................................
.........................................................
a. The Vocabulary as a Reflection o f Jewish L ife . 77

b. Topographical Terms. 78 .................................... ..
1 . D ialectal D ifferences? 79
....................................
c. Thorns and Thistles. 80 ................................................
d. A ll the F ountains o f the Great Deep a nd the Flood
G ates o f the S k y . 81
e. The D esert. 82
53
53
53
54
54
55
...................................................
55
........................ .......................................
56
f Translation a n d Transculturation. 83
g. D iachronic Investigation. 84
........................
56
.......................................
57
h. The Evidence fr o m Place Names. 85
.........................
57
S o u n d C hanges in Places Names. 8 6 ..................

2. C anaanite D eities in Places N a m es. 87
............
59
59
3. Place N am es in W ord Plays.
...........................
60
......................................................
60
1.
/. P ersonal N am es. 89
1.
88
P ersonal N am es Preserving Old G ram m atical

Forms. 90
...................................................................
2. Special Vocabulary in Personal Nam es. 91

G. Inscriptions. 92
I. Spelling. 93
62
. .
63
............................................................................
64
...............................................................................
II. Phonology. 94
.........................................................................
65
66
III. M orphology. 95
..................................................................
66
IV. Vocabulary. 96
...................................................................
67
H. Hebrew W ords in A kkadian Transliteration. 97
..................
68
.....................
68
................................................
70
...................................................
71
I. H ebrew L oanw ords in Foreign Languages. 98

J. Dialects o f Biblical H ebrew. 99
K. The A ram aic Influence.
I . In Phonology. 101
100
...................................................................
73
.........................................................................
74
III. /2
104 .....................................................................
a. In the Verb. 102
............................................................
75
74
II. In M orphology
b. In the Noun. 103
............................................................
IV. In the Vocabulary. 105

a. A ram aic Caiques. 106
74
......................................................
75
...................................................
76
L. Stratification o f Biblical Hebrew (and El-Amarna). 107

I. The E l-A m a m a Glosses. 108
a. Phonology. 109
b. M orphology. 110
. .
77
.............................................
77
..........................................................
78
............................................................
78
II. A rchaic Biblical Hebrew. 111

a. Morphology. 112
..........................................
79
............................................................
79
1. The Verb. 113
.........................................................
79
2. The Noun. 114
.........................................................
79
.....................................................................
80
b. S yn ta x. 115
c. Vocabulary. 116
............................................................
III. L a te Biblical Hebrew. 117

a. Spelling. 118
80
.................................................
81
..................................................................
81
b. Pronouns. 119
...............................................................
81
c. The Verb. 120
..................................................................
81
d. The N oun. 121
...............................................................
e. S y n ta x o f the Verb and Noun. 122

f . Vocabulary. 123
82
.............................................................
82
g. L B H Features not Found in M ishnaic Hebrew. 124

1. A C anaanite Construction. 125
M. C onclusions. 126
81
...........................
84
...........................
85
........................................................................
85
C h a pt e r F7v e : T H E D EA D SEA SC R O L LS A N D
C O N T E M PO R A R Y SO U R C ES
A . T he Book of Ben Sira. 127
...........................
87
.......................................................
87
I. The Cairo Geniza Fragments. 128
....................................
88
...............................................................
88
........................................................................
88
a. G ram m ar. 129

b. Vocabulary
1. L B H M aterial
............................................................
88
.........................................................
88
. Nouns, 131 .........................................................

2. M H M aterial. 132 ...................................................
88
a. Verbs. 130
89
a. Verbs. 133
..........................................................
89
.Nouns. 134
.........................................................
89
......................................................
89
.........................................................
89
3. A ram aic M aterial

a. Verbs. 135
. N ouns. 136
..........................................................
y. A n A ram aic Calque. 137
..............................
4. A W ord fr o m an Unknown Source. 138

II. The M asada F ragm ents. 139
a. Spelling. 140
...............
90
.................................................
90
............................................................. ..
b. M orphology. 141
.............................................................
c. Vocabulary. 142
.............................................................
\. A B H M a te ria l. 143
90
91
91
.................................................
91
2. S B H M aterial. 144
.................................................
91
3. L B H M aterial. 145
.................................................
91
4. M H M aterial. 146
....................................................
5. A ra m a ic M aterial. 147
6.
d.
89
89
91
...........................................
91
...............
91
M a teria lfro m Unknown Sources. 148
B iblical and N on-B iblical Transm issions in the

.................................................
92
e. B en S ira an d the D ead S ea Scrolls. 150 ..................

B. The D ead Sea Scrolls. 151 ..........................................................
M asada F ragm ents. 149
92
93
I. The Isaiah Scroll. 152

II.
The
Language
Isaiah Scroll
..........................................................
o f the
D SS
as
R eflected in
............................................................................
a. Proper N am es. 153
..........................................................
b. T he L inguistic B ackground. 154
93
the
94
94
..................................
94
c. Spelling. 1 5 5 ......................................................................
d. Phonology. 156 ................................................................
95
96
e. M orphology .........................................................................
1. Pronouns. 157
..........................................................
96
96
2. The Verb. 158
..........................................................
3. The N oun. 159
..........................................................
98
.............................................................
99
4. Particles. 160
f S y n ta x . 161
g. Vocabulary
97
......................................................................
99
..........................................................................
100
1. On the Absence o f G reek a n d L a tin L o a n s in the

D S S . 162
...................................................................
a. A L o a n Translation fr o m L a tin? 163

2. A Persian L oanw ord. 164
....
.....................................
100
100
101
3. The Hebrew Vocabulary
............................................
a. Biblical H ebrew Vocabulary. 165

. M ishnaic Hebrew Vocabulary. 166
................
102
.............
103
. Vocabulary fr o m U nknown Sources. 167

h. The A ram aic Influence. 168
1. In Morphology
..
104
........................................
104
.............................................................
a. Pronouns. 169
....................................................
. Noun Form ation. 170

. The Verb. 171
.....................................
....................................................
2. In the Vocabulary. 172
...........................................
a. Aram aic Caiques. 1 7 3 ........................................

C. O ther Contem porary Sources
....................................................
I. The Transliterations o f the Septuagint. 174

a. Phonology. 175
104
105
105
105
106
...................
106
106
..............................................................
107
II. The Sam aritan Pentateuch. 177
........................................
108
....................................................................
108
................................................................
109
..........................................................................
109
b. Phonology. %179
c. Morphology
104
104
................................................................
b. Morphology. 176
a. Spelling. 178
102
1. Pronouns. 180
..........................................................
109
2. The Verb. 181
..........................................................
109
3. The Noun. 182
..........................................................
110
d. Vocabulary. 183
..............................................................
e. The A ramaic Influence. 184

III. Inscriptions. 185
110
........................................
Ill
................................................................
Ill
IV. Transliterations o f the Gospels and o f G reek and

L a tin Inscriptions. 186
.......................................................
V. Hebrew Loanw ords an d Caiques in O ther L anguages

a. Loanwords. 187
C h a pter
112
....................................................................
113
.............................................................................
114
Six: M ISH N A IC H EB R EW
..............................................
A. Spoken and Literary M ischnaic Hebrew

I.
112
112
.............................................................
b. Caiques. 188
D. Desiderata. 189
. .
..................................
The Beginning o f M ishnaic H ebrew as a L itera ry
115
115
Language. 190
.........................................................................
115
II. The E n d o f M ishnaic H ebrew as a Spoken

Language. 191
......................................................................
III. M ishnaic H ebrew as a L iterary L anguage. 192

B. The Problem o f M ishnaic Hebrew
115
....
116
..............................................
117
I. Geigers A rtificial L a n g u a g e" Theory and the

B a r Koseba Letters. 1 9 3 .......................................................
II. S egal's R efutation o f Geiger's Theory. 194
III. A Critique o f Segal's M ethods
118
...........................................
118
a. On the R eliability o f the P rinted E ditions. 195
...
118
..................................
119
..............................................
120
b. On the Im pact o f A ramaic. 196

C . G ram m atical and Lexical Survey
I . Phonology
...................................................................................
a. C onsonants
120
.........................................................................
120
1. G utturals. 197
..........................................................
2. The /b, g, d, k, p, t/. 198
........................................
120
121
3. Final [m]. 199
..........................................................
121
......................................................................
122
M orphology .............................................................
a. Pronouns
............................................................................
1. Independent Pronouns. 201 ..................................
2. Pronom inal Suffixes. 202
.....................................
123
123
123
123
3. D em onstrative Pronouns. 203 ...............................

4. Independent Possessive Pronoun. 204
...............
124
124
5. R eflexive Pronouns. 205
b. Vowels. 200
II.
117
..................
........................................
124
...........................................
125
............................................................................
125
6. Relative Pronoun. 206

b. The Verb
1. Perfect. 207
................................................................
125
..........................................................
125
2. Im perfect. 208
3. Participle. 209
4. Infinitive. 210
5. Stem s. 211
..........................................................
126
.............................................................
126
................................................................
6. The W eak Verbs. 212

c. The N oun
..............................................
.............................................................................
1. Noun Pattern. 213

2. The Plural. 214
127
127
128
....................................................
128
.......................................................
129
III. S yn ta x
.....................................................................................
a. S yn ta x o f the Pronoun. 215

b. S yn ta x o f the N oun
129
........................................
129
..........................................................
130
1. The Construct State. 216
........................................
130
2. Determination. 217
.................................................
130
c. S yn ta x o f the Verb. 218
.................................................
131
...................................................................
132
IV. Vocabulary. 219
a. Biblical Hebrew Vocabulary. 220

1. Numerals. 221
...............................
132
..........................................................
132
2. Parts o f the Body. 222

3. Kinship. 223
...........................................
133
.............................................................
133
4. N otions o f Time. 224

5. Clothing. 225
6. Foodstuff. 226
..............................................
133
.............................................................
133
..........................................................
133
7. Basic H um an Actions. 227

8. Other Sem antic Fields. 228
9. A B H Words in M H . 229
10. L B H Words in M H . 230
.....................................
133
..................................
134
........................................
134
.....................................
135
b. Non-Biblical Hebrew Vocabulary. 231

1. Sem antic innovations. 232
.....................
135
.....................................
135
2. M orphological Innovations. 233

3. New Hebrew Elements. 234
c. Foreign Loanw ords
.........................
135
..................................
135
..........................................................
136
1. A kkadian. 235
..........................................................
2. Persian. 236
.............................................................
136
137
................................................................
137
4. Latin. 238 ...................................................................

5. Greek and L atin L oanw ords in Everday
3. Greek. 237
138
Life. 239
......................................................................
6. Aram aic. 240
.............................................................
138
140
a. Verbs. 241
..........................................................
140
. Nouns. 242
..........................................................
140
............
140
y. Caiques and Inverted Caiques. 243

D. Dialects o f Mishnaic Hebrew. 244
...........................................
E. The Transliterations of the H exapla and Jerom e
...................
141
142
I. The Second Column o f the Hexapla. 245

a. Phonology
........................
142
...........................................................................
143
1. Vowels. 246
...............................................................
b. Morphology
143
.................................
144
........................................................................
144
2. Consonants: Gutturals. 247
....................................
144
2. The Verb. 249
1. Possessive Pronouns. 248
.........................................................
144
3. The Noun. 250
.........................................................
144
II. The Transliterations o f Jerome. 251
..............................
F. M ishnaic Hebrew in Palestinian A ram aic Dialects. 252
145
............
146
..............................
148
G. Critique o f Lexicographical Reference W orks. 253

C ha pter S ev e n : M ED IEV A L HEBREW . 254
A. Medieval Hebrew as a Spoken and Literary Language
B. Developments in Hebrew Linguistics. 257
...
149
..................
149
............
150
...........................
151
I. Occasional Use as a Spoken Language. 255
II. M edieval Hebrew as a Literary Language. 256

I. The Invention o f Vowel Signs (Vocalization)
a. The N eed f o r Vowel Signs. 258
145
. .
.....................
..................................
b. The Three Vocalization System s. 259
.....................
151
151
152
II. Pronunciation o f Hebrew in Christian and A rab

Countries. 260
a. C onsonants
......................................................................
152
........................................................................
153
1. Em phatics and Gutturals. 261
..............................
153
.........................................................
154
b. Vowels. 263 ......................................................................

1. Old Pronunciation Som etim es Preserved in
154
2. Sibilants. 262
. Yiddish. 264
C. The Piyyutim 265
............................................................
155
........................................................................
155
I. Linguistic Techniques o f the Paytanim. 266

II. Opposition to the Piyyutim . 267
..................
156
.......................................
157
D. Linguistics and Poetry in Spain and Elsewhere
.....................
158
...............
158
..................
159
.......................................................
160
I. The R ise o f Hebrew Linguistics in Spain. 268

II. The Hebrew Poetry o f Spain and Italy. 269
a. The Language. 270
1. M ishnaic H ebrew Elements. 271

2. A rabic (a n d Other) Influence. 272
111.
........................
161
.....................
161
The Language o f the M edieval Translations fro m

Arabic. 273
............................................................................
162
E. The Hebrew of the Literary W orks from the Middle Ages to

the Revival (End o f the Eighteenth C entury)
I. M aim onides. 274
...........................
165
..................................................................
165
II. Other M edieval Sources. 275

III. Rashi. 276
.............................................
166
............................................................................
167
IV . L a ter Sources. 277
............................................................
F. Specialized V ocabulary. 278

I. Chess. 279
168
...................................................
168
...............................................................................
168
II. W riting and Translating. 280

III. Music. 281
..........................................
169
............................................................................
169
IV. Printing. 282
.........................................................................
170
......................................................................
170
V. M ysticism . 283
VI. H om e, School, Synagogue and C om m unity

Government, Relationships with Gentiles. 284
I. Sabbath a n d H olidays. 285
II. In M edieval L a tin
............
171
..............................
172
................................................
172
G. Hebrew Loanw ords in Foreign Languages
..................................................................
173
...................................................................
173
b. Linguistics. 287
...............................................................
174
c. M ysticism . 288
................................................................
175
......................................................................
175
a. Medicine. 286
III. In Arabic. 289

IV. In German. 290
...................................................................
H. Hebrew in the Jewish Languages of the D iaspora. 291

I.Judeo-Arabic. 292
...
...................................................................
a. Phonetics and Orthography. 293

b. G ram m atical Structure. 294
176
177
177
..............................
177
.......................................
177
c. Vocabulary. 295
............................................................
178
II.Judeo-P ersian. 296
...............................................................
178
H ebrew in Rom ance Languages? 297 ....
179
III.
W .Ju d eo -F ren ch . 298
............................................................
179
V. Judeo-Italian. 299
................................................................
180
V I. Judeo-Spanish. 300
VII. Yiddish. 301
.............................................................
180
.........................................................................
181
a. Phonetics. 302
................................................................
181
b. Morphology. 303
.............................................................
182
V \\\. Judeo-Slavic. 304
.............................................................
182
hapter
E ig h t :
M O D E R N H EBREW A N D ISR A EL I
HEBREW
A. The Revival of Hebrew
...................................................................
183
........................................................................
183
I. The Strange Birth o f Modern Hebrew. 306
....................
a. Biblical Hebrew as a Vehicle o f the H askalah. 307

b.
A daptations
of
BH
a nd
New
183
184
C reations
of
the M askilim and Rabbis. 308 .....................................
186
c. M endele M okher Sefarim C reator o f M odern

Hebrew. 309
1.
The
.....................................................................
190
Elements o f H is Language: B H , M H ,
Aram aic, Medieval Hebrew and Yiddish. 310

2. M endeles Language
Literature. 311
Only a
..
.........................................................
II. Hebrew Revived in Palestine. 312

a. Eliezer Ben Yehuda. 313
190
Vehicle o f
192
......................................
193
...............................................
193
b. V aad Halashon Ha'ivrit (The Hebrew Language

Committee). 314
..............................................................
1. A Change o f Policy in V aad Halashon. 315

B. The Sources of Israeli Hebrew. 316
I. Biblical Hebrew
195
...............................................
196
........................................................... ..
a. S y n ta x Rejected. 317
194
...
196
....................................................
196
b. Morphology. 318
..............................................................
197
c. Vocabulary. 319
..............................................................
1. Clash between B H and M H Avoided. 320

2. W hy Was the Use o f B H Vocabulary
Opposed. 321
..........
............................................................
II. Biblical Hebrew inscriptions. 322
......................................
197
198
199
201
III. The D ead Sea Scrolls and the B a r Koseba Letters.

323
.........................................................................................
201
IV. The Septuagint. 324
...........................................................
201
V . M ishnaic Hebrew. 325
........................................................
202
a. Noun Patterns. 326
........................................................
202
.....................................................................
202
b. S yntax. 327
c. Vocabulary. 328
.............................................................
203
d. Secondary Sources as a Channel between M H and

IH .
329
...............................................................
203
VI. Medieval Hebrew
..................................................................
204
a. Piyyutim . 330
..................................................................
204
b. Kabbala. 331
..................................................................
205
c. The Scientific Translations. 332

d. A rabic via Medieval Hebrew. 333
1. Caiques. 334
................................
205
.............................................................
205
e. The Poetry o f Spain. 335
..............................................
f . O ther M edieval Hebrew Sources. 336

VU. Aram aic. 337
205
..............................
.........................
.....................................................................
a. N ew Creations fro m A ram aic Roots. 338

b. A ram aic as Elevated Style. 339
206
206
207
.................
208
..................................
208
c. A ram aic Variant Forms fo r Sem antic

D ifferentiation. 340
VIII. A rabic
........................................................
209
..................................................................................
209
a. introduced by Ben Yehuda. 341
..................................
209
b. Introduced by the Palmach. 342
................................
210
c. O ther Vocabulary Sources. 343
..................................
210
.......................................
211
1. Climate and Milieu. 344
2. Expressive and Onomatopoetic Words. 345

3. Borrowed N ouns Treated as Foreign. 346
\X . Yiddish. 341
211
....
212
.......................................................................
a. Phonology. 348
b. Morphology. 349
c. S yn ta x. 350
...
................................................................
212
213
.............................................................
214
.....................................................................
214
d. Prepositions. 351
...........................................................
e. Use o f the Stem s. 352

f . Vocabulary. 353
...................................................
.............................................................
1. W ords o f Yiddish Origin. 3 54
..............................
215
215
217
217
2. C lassical H ebrew Words A bsorbed in IH via

Yiddish. 355
..............................................................
217
.................
217
3. Hebrew W ords in Yiddish Form. 356

4. H ebrew -Yiddish Compounds. 357
......................
218
.................
218
5. Yiddish W ords o f Slavic Origin. 358

6.
Loan
Translations and
Replica
Formations.
359 .................................................................................
g.
218
Yiddish as a Channel fo r Classical Hebrew and

A ram aic Words. 360 ......................................................
X .Ju d eo -S p a n ish . 361

XI.
218
..............................................................
Other European Languages

a. Vocabulary. 362
....................
...........................................................
b. N oun an d Adjective Formations. 363
219
219
219
.........................
220
c. S yn ta x. 364
.....................................................................
221
d. English. 365
.....................................................................
223
e. German. 366
f . French. 367
.....................................................................
223
........................................................................
224
g. Russian. 368
.....................................................................
h. Onomatopoetic Words. 369

X II.A k k a d ila n . 370
C. T rends and M ethods
224
..........................................
224
...................................................................
225
.....................................................................
225
I. A cceptance and Rejection
......................................................
225
a. Secularization. 3 7 1 .........................................................
225
b. R ejection. 372
226
...................................................................
c. The Sephardic Pronunciation Adopted. 373

II. Forging the Israeli Hebrew Vocabulary. 374
............
226
.................
228
a. M idrashic Tale as a Source o f an IH Phrase. 375

b. From L oanw ord to Hebrew. 376
c. From C om pound to a Single Word. 377

d. N arrow ing o f M eaning. 378
e. W idening o f M eaning. 379
f D ifferentiation. 380
228
229
....................
229
.......................................
229
..........................................
230
.........................................................
230
g. A voidance o f H omonym s. 381

h. Transfer o f M eaning. 382
i. M istakes
................................
.....................................
231
............................................
231
...............................................................................
231
1. Accepted. 383
231
2. R ejected. 384
233
j . Change o f M eaning as a R esult o f Change in

Interpretation. 385
233
k. W ordsfrom P roper N am es. 386

I.
234
P opular E tym ology. 387
m. S p ellin g P ro n u n cia tio n
235
388 .
235
n. D ialectal D ifferences. 389

o.
H ebrew
and A ra m a ic
235
G ram m atical Differences.
390
236
p. W ords an d R o o ts C reated fr o m Abbreviations a nd

Blends. 391
q. Contagion. 392
236
237
r. New Term s C hanging the M eaning o f Old Ones.

393
237
s. A nalogy. 394
237
/. B ack Form ation. 395
238
u.
238
Elevated Words. 396
v. D egraded W ords (Pejorative Change o f

M eaning). 397
238
w. C hange o f M eaning C aused by Social Change. 398
239
x. E uphem ism s. 399
239
y. Struggle between N ew Terms. 400
239
z. Suppletion. 401
240
aa. N ew C reations T hat are Identical with B H or M H by

M ere Chance. 402
240
bb. N ew W ords in Vogue. 403
241
cc. N ew W ords
241
1. W ho C reated W hat? 404
241
2. H ow N ew T erm s A re Publicized. 405
242
111. The C hanging Face o f Israeli Hebrew. 406
243
. Israeli Hebrew as a New Entity. 407
243
An O utline o flsra e li H ebrew . 408
247
1. Phonology an d Phonetics. 409
247
a.
C onsonants: P honem ics, Phonetics and L o st
Phonemes. 410
b. Vowels. 411
...............................................................
248
.....................................................................
249
c. F urther Observations on IH Phonemes. 412

d. Stress. 413
.......................................................................
f N on-Assim ilation o f Nun. 415

II. M orpology
............
.....................................
250
251
251
..................................................................................
252
.............................................................................
252
a. Pronouns
1. Independent Pronouns. 416
...................................
252
2. Possessive Suffixes and the Independent

Possessive Pronoun. 417
........................................
252
a. Uses o f the Independent Possessive

Pronoun. 418
....................................................
7>.Demonstrative Prononouns. 419
...........................
252
253
......................................
254
b. The Verb
............................................................................
1. Prefixes and Suffixes. 421 .....................................
2. Participle o f the Feminine Singular. 422
..........
254
254
4. R elative Pronouns. 420
3. Infinitives. 423
.........................................................
4. The W eak Verbs. 424

5. Stem s. 425
254
254
............................................
254
................................................................
254
a. Qal. 426
..............................................................
255
.........................................................
255
. N i f ,al. 427
. PVel. 428
..............................................................
255
. PVlel 429
.........................................................
256
. Pu*al. 430
.........................................................
. H ifil and H o f al. 431
256
........................................
256
. H itp a fel. 432
......................................................
256
. Nitpa'el. 433
......................................................
III. The Verbal S ystem (Tenses, M oods and Aspects)

a. Tenses. 434
....
......................................................................
1. The Participle Plus Auxiliary. 435

2. The Active Participle. 436
3.The Im perfect. 437
A.Negation. 438
5.Im perative. 439
.....................
256
257
257
257
....................................
257
...................................................
257
............................................................
258
.........................................................
258
6. Infinitive. 440
259
7. The Passive Participle. 441
259
W . W ord Form ation
260
. The N o u n . 442
260
1. 77ze C onstruct S ta te and the

C onstruction. 443
260
2. A pposition. 444
261
. A djectival Forms. 445
261
c. Adverbs. 446
262
c/. Prepositions. 447
262
V. S pecial L anguages in Israeli Hebrew. 448
263
a. C hildren's Language. 449

b. Slang. 450
263
263
c. A rgot. 451
264
d. T he H ebrew o f the Synagogue. 452

F. Israeli Hebrew from the Revival to the Present
I. The E xpansion o f Spoken Israeli Hebrew. 453
264
265
265
II. C ontributions by Individuals a n d O rganizations

a. W riters. 454
267
267
b. Translators. 455
267
c. O ther Contributors. 456
267
d. Newspapers. 457
268
e. The A rm y. 458
268
III. The A cadem y o f the Hebrew Language. 459

a. The Problem o f I H Spelling. 460
268
269
G . H ebrew in C ontem porary Jewish and Non-Jewish

Languages. 461
270
I. H ebrew in Yiddish
270
a. D ialects o f Yiddish. 462
.
270
b. The R ole o f Hebrew: Whole H ebrew and

M erged H ebrew
463
c. G ram m atical and L exica l Survey

1. Phonology
271
272
272
a. C onsonants. 464
272
. Vowels. 465
272
. Stress. 466
2. M orphology
..........................................................
273
................................................................
273
a. The Verb. 467
....................................................
273
. The Noun. 468
....................................................
273
1. C onstruct State. 469

2. The P lu ra l 470
..............................
275
.......................................
275
3. Yiddish S y n ta x H as a H ebrew S o u l
Unproven. 471
..........................................................
4. Vocabulary. 472
...................................................
d. Hebrew in the Yiddish o f H olland. 473

1. Phonology. 474
2. Vocabulary. 475
278
...................................................
279
...........................................
279
............................................................................
280
1. Consonants. 477
2.
276
278
..........................................................
II. Hebrew in Judeo-Spanish. 476

a. Phonology
.....................
275
Ko we/s. 478
b. M orphology
....................................................
280
................................................................
280
.........................................................................
280
1. The Verb. 479

2. The Noun. 480
c. S yntax. 481
..................................................
..................................................
......................................................................
d. Vocabulary. 482
280
280
280
.............................................................
280
III. Hebrew in Judeo-Italian. 483 ...........................................

IV . Hebrew in Judeo-French. 484 ..........................................
281
282
V. Hebrew
in the
Lithuania. 485
a. Phonology
Turkic D ialect o f the K araites o f

.........................................................................
282
............................................................................
282
1. Consonants. 486
2. Vowels. 487
b. M orphology
....................................................
282
................................................................
283
.........................................................................
283
1. The Verb. 488
..................................................
283
2. The Noun. 489
..................................................
283
......................................................................
283
c. S yn ta x. 490
d. Vocabulary. 491
.............................................................
VI. H ebrew in the Judeo-Arabic o f Yemen. 492

a. Phonology. 493
284
..................
284
................................................................
285
b. M orphology
..........................................................................
..........................................................
285
2. The Noun. 495
..........................................................
286
a. Noun Patterns. 496

c. Vocabulary. 497
...........................................
286
..............................................................
286
VII. Hebrew in the Judeo-A rabic D ialect o f Fez, M orocco

a. Phonology
.............................................................................
1. Consonants. 498
.......................................................
287
287
287
2. Vowels. 499
................................................................
288
3. Stress. 500
.................................................................
288
.........................................................................
288
b. Morphology
1. The Verb. 501
..........................................................
288
2. The Noun. 502
..........................................................
288
..............................................................
288
c. Vocabulary. 503
VIII. Hebrew in the Judeo-Arabic Dialect o f Algiers
....
289
a. Phonology ....................................................! .....................

1. Consonants. 504 .......................................................
289
289
2. Vowels. 505 ................................................................

b. Morphology ..........................................................................
289
290
1. The Verb. 506
.................................................... .
2. The Noun. 507
..........................................................
290
..............................................................
290
c. Vocabulary. 508
IX. Hebrew in Son-Jew ish European L anguages
290
..............
291
a. German. 509
...................................................................
291
b. English. 510
......................................................................
291
..........................................................................
293
c. Dutch. 511
d. Hungarian. 512
H.
285
1. The Verb. 494
................................................................
293
Epilogue
Hebrew the only language revived and remodelled.
Is Israeli Hebrew still Hebrew? Parallel cases o f
language m odernization: the H ungarian example.
Hebrew as a uniting fo r c e in Israel an d in the
Diaspora. 513
..........................................................................
A P P E N D IX by Raphael K utscher
A.
A ddenda
293
.......................................................
301
..............................................................................
301
B. Tables
........................................................................................
Table 1. T he Hebrew consonants in relation to ProtoSemitic, A ram aic and A rabic
.....................................
303
303
Table 2. T he independent personal pronouns in Biblical

H ebrew, M ishnaic Hebrew (and the Dead
Sea S c r o lls ) ...................................................................
304
Table 3. T he im perfect in Biblical Hebrew and

M ishnaic Hebrew
C. Selective Indexes
..........................................................
............................................................................
I. H ebrew Form s, L exem es and R oots

II. G eneral In d e x an d Transliterations
304
305
.....................................
305
.................................
306
LIST OF A B B R E V I A T I O N S
Bibliographical
AHw
W.
von
S oden,
A k k a d is c h e s
H a n d w rterb u ch ,
W iesbaden 1 9 6 5 A rch ive
E.Y. K utscher, ed., A rc h iv e o f th e N e w D ic tio n a ry o f

R a b b in ic a l L ite r a tu r e , vol. I, R am at-G an 1972.
Baron, H isto ry V II
S.W . Baron, A S o c ia l a n d R eligiou s H is to r y o f th e J e w s 1,

vol. VII, Hebrew L an gu age and Letters (H ig h M iddle
A ges), N ew York 1958.
BASOR
B u lletin o f th e A m e rica n S ch o o ls o f O rien ta l R esea rch .
B au er-L eand er, H ist.

G ra m m .
H. B au er-P . Leander, H isto risc h e G ra m m a tik

d e r h ebrisch en S p ra c h e , H alle 1922.
Ben Y ehuda, D ictio n a ry
E. Ben Y ehuda, A C o m p lete D ic tio n a ry o f A n cie n t a n d

M odern H e b re w , 1 9 1 0 -1 9 5 9 .
Bergstrsser,
E inf h ru n g
G . Bergstrsser, E in f h ru n g in d ie sem itisch en S p ra c h e n ,
Bergstrsser, H G
G . Bergstrsser, H e b r isc h e G ra m m a tik , L eipzig 1918.
CAD
The A ssy ria n D ic tio n a ry o f th e O rien ta l I n s titu te o f th e
D iringer, In scrizio n i
D . Diringer, L e in scrizio n i an tic o -eb ra ice p a lestin esU
EJ
E n cyclopaedia J u d a ic a , Jerusalem 1971.
M nchen 1928.
U niversity o f C h ica g o , C h icago and G lckstad t, 1 9 5 6 -.

Firenze 1934.
Finkelstein, The J e w s
L. Finkelstein, ed., The J ew s: T h eir H isto ry , C u ltu re a n d

R elig ion 3y N ew York 1960.
Garbell,
F rem d sp ra ch lich e
E inflsse
I. C han och geb. Garbell, F rem d sp ra ch lich e E in fl sse im

m odern en H e b r isc h , Berlin 1930.
Harris, D evelo p m en t
Z .S. Harris, D evelo p m en t o f th e C a n a a n ite D ia le c ts , N ew
HUCA
H ebrew Union C o lleg e A n n u al.
Haven 1939.
IE J
Isra e l E x p lo ra tio n Jou rn al.
JA O S
Jou rn al o f th e A m e rica n O rien ta l S o cie ty.
JB L
J o u rn a l o f B ib lic a l L ite r a tu r e .
JN ES
Jou rn al o f N e a r E a stern S tu d ies.
XXV
JSS
K oeh ler-B a u m g a rtn er3
J o u rn a l o f S em itic S tu aies.
L.
K oehler
a ra m isch es
und W.
Baumgartner, H eoraisch es
L exikon
zum
alten
T estam en t,
u nd
dritte
A uflage neu bearbeitet von W. Baum gartner unter Mitarbeit von B. H artm ann und E.Y. Kutscher, Leiden 1 9 6 7 K utscher, Isa ia h
S c r o ll
E. Y.
K utscher,
The
L an gu age
and
L in g u istic
B a ck g ro u n d o f th e Isaiah S c r o ll ( I Q Isaa), Leiden 1974

(translation o f the Hebrew original, 1959).
Lw , F lora
I. L ow ,
D ie
F lora
d er Ju den , Wien
und
Leipzig
1 9 2 8 -1 9 3 4 .
R osn, C o h tem p o ra ry
H eb rew
H .B. R osn, C o n tem p o ra ry H ebrew , The H agu e and

Paris 1977.
Segal, M isn a ic
H eb rew
M .H . Segal, M isn a ic H ebrew a n d I ts R elation to B ib lica l

H ebrew a n d to A r a m a ic , Oxford 1909 (reprinted from
the Jew ish Q u a rte rly R eview 20 119081).
ZAW
Z e itsch rift f r d ie a lttesta m en tlich e W issenschaft.
ZDM G
Z e its c h r if t
der
D eu tsch en
M o rg e n l n d is c h e n
G esellschaft.
. 1946 , , .
. , , ..
, , .
.
. , , .
, , , , , .
.) , (= 280-246
. , , .
, , , .
. 1080-1070
. , , .
. , , .
xxvi
,
,
,
,
, ,
,
,
3 ,
Other
A
A ram aic
ABH
A rch aic Biblical Hebrew
BH
Biblical Hebrew
C hron.
C hronicles
D an.
D aniel
D eut.
D eu teron om y
D SS
D ead S ea Scrolls
E ccles.
E cclesiastes
Ex.
E xodus
Ez.
E zra
Ezek.
Ezekiel
Hebrew
IE
Indo-European
IH
Israeli Hebrew
Isa.
Isaiah
JA
Judeo-A rabic
JF
Jud eo-F rench
Josh.
Joshu a
JP
Judeo-Persian
JSp
Judeo-Spanish
Jud.
Judges
LBH
L ate Biblical Hebrew
Lev.
L eviticus
MD
M anual o f D iscipline
MH
M ishnaic Hebrew
M S, M SS
m anuscript, m anuscripts
MT
M asoretic Text
N eh.
N eh em iah
N u.
N um bers
PS
Proto-Sem itic
Sam .
Sam uel
SBH
Standard Biblical Hebrew
SL
Sem itic languages
SP
Sam aritan Pentateuch
Y iddish
xxvii
E D IT O R S F O R E W O R D
W hen my father, Professor Eduard Yechezkel K utscher passed away in
D ecem ber 1971, the m anuscript o f the present book was far from complete. It had been written between the years 1964 and 1968, and m any
notes, corrections, and bibliographical references were written later by
hand on the typescript. The manuscript concluded with the authors
handw ritten w ords . The missing end included a section titled
Israeli Hebrew as a M eans for Preserving Judaism .
M ost o f the cross references had not been supplied, and many of the
bibliographical references gave only the authors name and the page num br
(occasionally w ithout the latter), but no title; in one case, the H ungarian
book quoted in 513, both the authors name and the title were missing. I
filled in the cross references (and added many more), and provided the
bibliographical details whenever possible; in only a few cases was I unable
to identify the reference.
The Reference Literature
G enerally, the literature cited refers to the paragraph to which it is appended, but in some cases it refers to a whole topic. It must be stressed that
the author had no intention of supplying an exhaustive bibliography for
each subject.
Prof. G. Sarfatti changed all references to the Hebrew original of the
au th o r's Isaiah Scroll into the appropriate citations from the posthum ous
English translation (1974).
I did likewise with Studies in Galilean Aram aic (1976) and updated
references to the third edition of Rosns ,Ivrit Tovah (1977).
Division into Paragraphs
The author divided and titled most of the paragraphs. However, where
necessary I changed the division or location of several paragraphs, further
divided others into the smallest possible sections (thereby eliminating the
necessity for a detailed index), and added consecutive paragraph numbers
() to facilitate cross references.
xxix
Contributions by Other Scholars

At the suggestion o f Prof. H.B. Rosn, I asked several colleagues to read
individual chapters o f the book in order to update the reference literature.
Their additions and notes are placed in square brackets and m arked by
their initials; those which are not so m arked are mine. Except for C hapter
Four, which I m yself read, the following colleagues read these chapters:
Professor G ideon G oldenberg C hapters One, Two and Three,
Professor G ad Sarfatti and Dr. Elisha Q im ron C hapters Five and Six,
Mrs. E sther G oldenberg C hapter Seven,
Dr. O ra R. Schw arzw ald C hapter Eight.
Dr. Schw arzw ald also helped fill in the cross references in C hapter Eight
and m ade m any helpful suggestions. I am thoroughly indebted to these
colleagues.
The Tables
The m anuscript contained references to Tables 1-3 which were missing.
I provided them (pp. 3 0 2 -3 0 3 ) on the basis o f the views expressed by the
author in this book and in previous publications.
A cknowledgem ents
My w ork in this book benefited from the help of several people. First and
foremost is my wife D r. C arol Bosw orth K utscher, who copy-edited large
sections o f the m anuscript and was otherwise o f great help to me in m atters
of editorial policy. T he m istakes and inconsistencies left in the book are in
the sections which she did not read or else the result o f my tam pering with
it after she had finished her work.
To the following people my thanks are also due: Dr. Moshe Bar-Asher,
Miss Alisa Bloch, Prof. Avi Hurvitz, Miss H adassa Stein (secreterial help
and bibliography), and Dr. Baruch Y aron. Special thanks are due to Miss
Adle Z arm atti for her careful proof-reading and editorial help. The
Faculty of H um anities of the H ebrew University provided a grant which
helped pay for secreterial assistance and the A m erican A cadem y for
Jewish R esearch supported the publication o f this book. I am obliged to all.
D ep a rtm e n t o f A rc h a e o lo g y
a n d A n cien t N e a r E a s te r n S tu d ie s
Tel A viv U n iversity
A p ril 1981
XXX
R A PH A EL K U TSCH ER
1]
hapter
ne
THE B A C K G R O U N D
1. Some time during the second half o f the second millennium B .C .E.,
Israelite tribes conquered Palestine. As they settled down they integrated
themselves into the patchw ork o f peoples inhabiting the N ear East. The
C anaanites, who spoke a N orth-Sem itic language were the dom inant peopie in the conquered country. F rom both the C anaanite (Phoenician) inscriptions and from the glosses o f E l-A m arna (see below 108) we know
that this language was very close to H ebrew. We may assum e th at the
language o f the inhabitants was very close to th at o f the Israelite tribes
when they penetrated C anaan. The hypothesis th at Hebrew arose through
a mixture o f this language and the language spoken by the Israelites has
not been proven (see 33). This assum ption is the more plausible since, according to the tradition of the Israelites, which m ost Jewish scholars do not
doubt, their forefathers, A braham , Isaac and Jacob roam ed C anaan
already several hundred years previously.
During the time of the settlem ent and the centuries that followed, the
Israelites cam e in contact with the H ittites o f whom the Jebusites and
Hivites were apparently sub-groups who were peoples o f non-Semitic
origin speaking non-Semitic languages. The closely related neighbors o f the
Israelites, namely the A m onites, M oabites and Edomites, probably spoke
languages closely related to H ebrew, but next to nothing is known about
them except for M oabite, thanks to the stele erected by King M esha (ninth
century B .C .E.). We also know nothing about the language o f the
Philistines, a non-Semitic people w ho occupied mainly the southern part o f
the coastal plain, after whom the R om ans named the whole country
Palestine in the second century C.E.
The H urrians were another non-Sem itic people mentioned by the Bible
among other inhabitants o f C anaan , whose language became known during
the last decades. We may safely assum e th at the languages and dialects
spoken by these people had some effect upon Hebrew, but for the time being we lack the means for tracing this effect.
THE B A C K G R O U N D
[1
The A ssyrians and Babylonians spoke A kkadian, another Semitic

language which left its im print on Hebrew. Their language was the lingua
fra n c a of the N ear E ast during the E l-A m arna period (fifteenth-fourteenth
centuries B.C.E. and see below, 72, 108). Egypt ruled Palestine before
the Israelite conquest. Later, during the period o f the First Temple, the
Egyptian arm y conducted several raids into Palestine, clashed with the
A ssyrian arm y there or passed through Palestine on its way to Syria.
T hanks to these facts and because o f the special way in which the fate of
the Israelite tribes and the P atriarchs was bound up with that o f Egypt, interference with H ebrew on the part o f the A kkadian and Egyptian
languages was unavoidable.
Some time before 1100 B.C.E. the A ram eans, another Semitic people,
established them selves in Syria. D uring the centuries that followed, their
language, A ram aic, becam e dom inant throughout the N ear E ast as the
language o f diplom acy and com m erce, and was indeed the lingua fra n ca o f
the entire area. N o language in this region could escape its im pact, and
H ebrew s entire m ake-up was profoundly altered during the succeeding
millennium.
In 539 B.C.E., the Persian King C yrus defeated Babylonia and for two
centuries the N ear E ast was under Persian dom ination.
The situation in the N ear East took a totally new turn with the
trium phant m arch o f A lexander the G reat from Greece to India. W herever
his soldiers set foot, G reek culture and the G reek language inaugurated an
entirely new era. Persian and Greek loanw ords in Hebrew and in the other
languages of the area bear witness to the im print the Greeks left on the peopies with whom they cam e in contact throughout the N ear East.
21
h apter
wo
T H E SE M IT IC L A N G U A G E S
2. The term Semitic (see Gen. 10, 2 1 -3 1 ; 11, 10-26) is used to denote a
group of languages that share com m on features of phonology,
m orphology, syntax and vocabulary. The m ost reasonable assum ption is
that these languages are related to each other through descent from a
parent language, Proto-Semitic, (as for example, the Rom ance languages
are descended from Latin). However, unlike Latin, Proto-Semitic did not
survive, although certain of its characteristics can be reconstructed with the
aid o f the older Semitic languages.
Semitic languages were employed by people living in ancient times in
M esopotam ia (modern Iraq), Syria, Palestine and A rabia, as well as by the
Ethiopians. T hrough the conquests of the A rabs, a Semitic language
Arabic cam e to be spoken in N orth A frica, and tem porarily in Spain
and other parts of Southern Europe, while an A rabic dialect is today the
vernacular o f M alta.
The Semitic languages arc usually divided according to their
geographical distribution into (N orth-)E ast Semitic, N orth-W est Semitic,
and South-W est Semitic.
(N orth-)E ast Semitic i.e A kkadian com prises two dialects, A ssyrian and
Babylonian, and was employed in the past mainly in M esopotamia. N orthWest Semitic, was spoken in ancient times in Syria-Palestine. To this
branch belong A m orite (known mainly from proper nouns), Ugaritic which
was discovered in 1929, C anaan ite which is known from inscriptions,
M oabite (known alm ost exclusively from the M esha stele), Hebrew and
A ram aic. O ne branch o f C anaanite is Punic which C anaanite settlers
brought to N orth Africa while A ram aic dislodged C anaanite as the spoken
language of Syria and A kkadian as the spoken language o f M esopotam ia
(from around the middle o f the first millennium B.C.E. until the A rab conquest; and see below, 100). D ialects of A ram aic survived in three villages in
Syria as well as in the territory where Turkey, Persia and Iraq meet (Kurdistan). South-W est Semitic includes Classical Arabic (the language o f the
THE SEMITIC L A N G U A G E S
[2
Q ur'an), Southern A rabic which is known from inscriptions, as well as

Ethiopie (Geez). O f these languages a large num ber o f spoken dialects survive today.
The earliest Semitic language attested in writing is A kkadian from the
third millennium B.C.E.
The Semitic languages are related to three other groups: Egyptian,
Lybico-Berber, Cushitic (and also the C had group) generally referred to as
Hamitic.
Literature:
S. Moscati, A n Introduction to the Comparative G ram m ar o f the Sem itic
Languages, W iesbaden 1964, pp. 3-1 6 .
[The linguistic affiliation o f the Eblaite dialect, discovered in 1974-75
has not yet been determined.
A preliminary analysis led I.J. Gelb to conclude that the closest
languages are Am orite and Old A kkadian. In my opinion the syntax o f the
few texts published thus far (after G elbs article) and G elb's conclusions indicate close proximity to Old A kkadian. See I.J. Gelb, T houghts about
Ibla: A Preliminary Evaluation, M arch 1977, S yro -M eso p o ta m ian
Studies 1/1 (1977), 3-30.1
3 -4 ]
h apter
hree
H EBREW AS A SEM ITIC L A N G U A G E
A. W hat Is a Semitic Language?

3. In an article published in 1958 E. UllendorfT underlines the
difficulties in defining what a Semitic language is. H owever the older
Semitic languages (SL) do possess several characteristics more or less common to them all. In the following they will be set out as they are reflected in
Hebrew.
Literature:
E. Ullcndorff, W hat is a Semitic Language? , Orientalia NS 27 (1958),
pp. 6 6 -7 5.
I. C onsonant-V ow el Relationship
4. The most outstanding trait which the Semitic languages share with
the languages mentioned above is in the special relationship between consonants of the root and vowels. The consonants are carriers o f the prim ary
sem antic distinctions, at least in the verb and in nouns derived from the
verb. The vowels play the role of modifiers indicating gram m atical and
secondary sem antic meanings. Any verbal or nominal form o f the root
, no m atter how it is vocalized and regardless o f any consonantal
affixes, will always have its basic meaning guard, w atch; e. g. , guarde d \ ^w atch, 1 w atchm an, Î shall w atch, and so on.
This characteristic immediately sets the Semitic languages apart from the
Indo-European languages, for example. To be sure, in forms such as
English sing, sang, song, the vowels play the same role in Indo-European
as they do in the Semitic languages. But while in the Semitic languages this
role is the only function of the vowels, G erm an lieben, loben, laben, leben,
[4-6
HEBREW AS A SEMITIC L A N G U A G E
or English live, leave, love point up the fact that in Indo-European a change
of vowels can jffect a change of basic meaning, while in SL it cannot.
II. Roots
5. The second characteristic, closely related to the first is that the
Semitic root (except for pronouns and particles) generally consists o f three
(rarely of four or five) consonants. To be sure, there is reason to believe
that this stage developed from an earlier one in the Semitic languages where
the roots contained two consonants only. There are several reasons for this
assumption: a) the survival o f a num ber o f biradical nouns belonging to the
basic vocabulary of hum an life such as parts of the body, kinship, notions
of time, primitive utensils etc. such as * hand, \ blood,
breast, * nipple, n # buttocks, son, m aidservant, 2 > year,
* day (plural (!, wood, tree etc. The w ord m outh has only
one radical, b) C ertain categories of the verb (hollow, geminate and
possibly others) preserved forms that apparently go back to this earlier
stage, c) Traces of this earlier stage can som etim es be discerned in
triradical roots. C onsider several verbs whose first two radicals are e.g.,
divide*. change (m oney), , crum ble, tear (a garment)' divide in two, break (especially bread)', tear apart',
break through' and a few others. It seems obvious th at the underlying notion of *divide' is bound up with the consonants while the third radical
acts as a semantic modifier. A dm ittedly, it would not be easy to detect
many other such convincing series, and scholarly efforts in this direction
have generally been none too successful. But taking into account the factor
of time which we must allow for the completion o f this process (namely turning original biradicals into triradicals), this failure was only to be expected. Though triradicals are also met with in Indo-E uropean (IE), it cannot
be denied that in SL this type is truly pervasive. Even the biradicals that
.had not added a third radical to the root had to adapt them selves more or
less to the triradical pattern. The same applies to som e o f the biradical
nouns (above (a)), in several SL and dialects, as pointed out by Th.
Nldeke.
a. Patterns o f the Sem itic Root
6. A student o f mine, reflecting on the series
^ verbs (above) asked
6 - 8 ]
W hat is a Semitic Language?, C onsonants
how could mean to button in modern Hebrew, when it is obviously

diametrically opposed to the basic meaning divide. The answer was simpie: the root of the modern Hebrew verb comes from Greek via M ishnaic
Hebrew (MH).
This case brings us to another im portant point, namely the patterning of
the Semitic root (Greenberg). The root betrays its foreign origin by its
patterning ABA. Semitic roots patterned this way are extremely rare, e.g.,
give, and a few nouns, e.g., ^ro o t. The instances found in M H ,
e.g., encircle, twine around, are apparently secondary. It is also instructive that in the first two positions, not only are identical consonants
excluded (the patterning AAB being non-existent except in A kkadian) but
even hom organic consonants (produced by the same organ) do not occur
in this position. (There are exceptions however e.g., the noun one.) On
the other hand, while the patterning ABB (the geminate verb) is very much
in evidence, e.g., surround, homorganic consonants, e.g., the root ,
both 1b 1 and |p | being labials (produced by the lips) are excluded in positions two and three.
Literature:
Ullendorff, op. cit. (above 3);
G. Bergstrsser, Einfhrung in die semitischen Sprachetu M nchen 1928,
pp. 6 -7 ;
Bergstrsser, HG II, pp. 1-4;
Th. Nldeke, Neue Beitrge zu r semitischen Sprachw issenschaft,
Strassburg 1910, pp. 109-178 (especially p. 111);
J.H . Greenberg, W ord 6 (1950), pp. 162ff.
B. G uttural (Laryngal and Pharyngal) and Emphatic C onsonants

7. There are two consonantal series in Hebrew which have no counterpart in IE (except for /h/, sec 8): the gutturals (pharyngals and laryngals)
and emphatics.
I. The Laryngals ,( , h /)
8. While the phoneme /h / is to be found in several IE languages, they
7
HEB R EW AS A SEMITIC L A NG UA G E
[8 -1 2
lack the phoneme / /. To be sure, English, for example, does have this consonant, but employs it as a word marker only, c fr a n ice man as against a
nice man. In the Semitic languages this additional sound produced in the
first phrase after an in the English example counts as a full-fledged
phoneme, though it is very much liable to weakening.
II. The Pharyngals ,( /h, )
9. It is nearly impossible to describe these sounds to a European who
has never heard them pronounced by Oriental Jews or by Arabic-speakers.
III. The Em phatics p , ,( /(, s, q!)

10. The em phatics , s, q / are a variety o f A, s, k/ pronounced with a
special emphasis. Describing these sounds is difficult for the reasons mentioned above.
C. Vowels
11. Proto-Semitic apparently had three vocalic phonemes /a, i, u/ both
long and short. In Hebrew two new long phonemes arose through the contrad ing o f original diphthongs |a w |, lay I which turned into /o :/ and / e :/
respectively.
The proto-Semitic short vowels developed in Biblical Hebrew (BH)
various vocalic variants of quality as well as quantity.
Literature:
Bergstrsser, E infhrung, pp. 3 -5 ;
Idem, H G I, pp. 34-42.
D. Morphology
I. Pronouns and Particles

12. The triradicality of the root does not include the pronouns and partides, cf. H ebrew T , they, etc.
M orphology
13]
II. The Verb
13. H ebrew has two tenses, the perfect and the imperfect. The perfect is
built by the addition of suffixes to the base which consists of the root plus
the vowels. While the root is generally the same in all derivatives, the
choice o f vowels depends on the stem, tense, gender and num ber used, e.g.,
he learned', he taught'.
The im perfect adds prefixes (and in certain persons, suffixes) to the base.
The prefixes indicate the person, the suffixes indicate the gender and number, e.g., you (fem.) will learn, they (fem.) will learn.
Ethiopie has three tenses, while A kkadian has four. It is comm only
assum ed that, as in early Indo-European, these tenses were employed
prim arily to indicate notions o f aspect (completed and uncom pleted action), regardless of the time involved, and only secondarily cam e to express
notions o f time. Therefore may m ean he used to write, he is writing,
he will w rite. The imperative, which is employed only in positive sentences, together with the long imperfect (found only in the first person), and
the short im perfect (employed mainly in the third person) belongs to a
separate fram ew ork expressing modal notions (wish, com m and, etc). Its
form reveals that it is closely related to the imperfect since both are built on
the sam e pattern (the imperative lacks the prefix), e.g., would like
to w rite, write (imperative), let him go up. The participle indicating the present is not as conspicuous in BH as it is in M H. The absolute infinitive, used for stress and com m and, e.g. 41^ will indeed
w atch, and the construct infinitive e.g., to w atch, while
w atching', are very much in evidence.
All these form s are organized in three types of stems: active, passive,
and reflexive-reciprocal (which tends to replace the passive). There are
three active stems. The first one denotes simple action or happening, e.g.,
1 to b reak. The second one denotes intensive actions, e.g., 1 to
break but to shatter; to bury but to bury m any corpses.
It also denotes causative-factitive action, e.g., to learn but to
make som eone learn, i.e. to teach. Lastly, it serves as a denominative
stem, th at is, for verbs derived from nouns or adjectives, e.g., \to tithe
from ten. A third active conjugation, used mainly as a causative and
denom inative, is built by prefix and base patterning, e. g. , 1 to rem em ber,
but to rem ind. The intensive conjugation is built by the doubling o f
HEBREW AS A SEMITIC L A NG UA GE
[13-16
the second consonant and by prefixes respectively, plus changes in

vocalizations of the base. The passives arc distinguished from their respective active stems by the patternings I u 1 |a | of the base e.g., he shattered', it was shattered', the reflexive-reciprocal by prefixes and vowel
patterning, e.g., to boast (praise oneself)
III. The N oun

14. N ouns are created by means of different vowel patternings of the
root, e.g., boy, youth, and by prefixes mainly |m +vowel], e.g.,
wilderness, and suffixes, mainly [vow el+n|, e.g. sacrifice.
Possession is expressed by pronominal suffixes, as Biblical Hebrew has
no independent possessive suffix.
There are two gram m atical genders, masculine and feminine, the
masculine unm arked, the feminine noun mostly marked by the ending
[-(a)t|, which in Hebrew generally survives only in the construct state.
Feminine adjectives are always marked with the feminine ending. In the
numerals it is the masculine that is marked with the feminine ending.
There are three num bers: singular, plural and dual (the latter being o f
limited use). There are two types o f plural endings, one li:m| mainly serving the masculine, the other [-a:tl (in Hebrew | 0 :t|) mainly the feminine
noun. The ending [-i:m] is always employed for the masculine adjective and
|-a:t] (l-o:t|) always for the feminine.
IV. A ttributes o f the N oun

15. Adjectives follow the noun, e.g., 1 , the big house as does
the apposition, e.g. the prophet Isaiah. Two nouns can also
be combined in a construction where the first noun in the construct state is
the nucleus and the second delimits the range o f the first one and indicates
possession or another relationship, e.g., the house of the king,
a table o f w ood etc.
E. Syntax
16. It is generally asum ed th at at least in West-Semitic in the verbal
10
16]
Syntax
sentence the verb preceded the subject and that the object followed the
subject, e.g., ?] and Jacob sent messengers' (Gen. 32,4).
The nom inal sentence generally lacks the copula, e.g.,
there... was a well in the open (Gen. 29, 2).
T hose Semitic languages that do occasionally employ a pronoun as a
quasi-copula put it after the (indeterminate) predicate, e.g.,
the seven healthy cows are seven years (Gen. 41, 26).
The relative clause is contructed like a main clause except that in
Hebrew it is (generally) preceded by the relative pronoun
However, sentences are mainly coordinated rather than subordinated.
L itera tu re:
G. B ergstrsser, E infhrung, pp. 3-2 0 .
11
[17-19
h apter
our
B IB LIC A L H EB R EW
A. T ripartite Division o f Biblical Hebrew
17. It is scarcely possible to date the different books of BH on a

linguistic basis, but by and large, scholars have accepted the following
tripartite division:
1) A rchaic Biblical H ebrew (A B H ) is represented mainly by the poetry
o f the Pentateuch and the Early Prophets. This hardly seems surprising
because poetic language generally tends to be archaic (see 11 Iff.).
2) Standard Biblical H ebrew (SBH) representing Biblical prose.
3) Late Biblical H ebrew (LB H ) as it appears in the Chronicles and other
Books (see 118ff.).
B. M ethod of Presentation
18. The following survey is based on SBH; the facts are traced vertically
up to ABH and down to LBH and beyond, where deemed necessary. The
other periods will subsequently be summed up under separate headings
(108-125). W ith all its shortcom ings, o f which there are many, this
seems to be the best m ethod for tracing the history of Hebrew within our
framework.
C. Phonology
I. Consonants
19. A ccording to the generally accepted assum ption Proto-Semitic had

29 consonantal phonem es. In Hebrew the num ber was reduced to 23 after
12
19-20]
P honology
the merger of several phonemes (cf. T able 1). Since the Hebrew alphabet
has 22 signs, one of them, , must do service for tw o sounds the ( /sf) and
( /s/). The M asoretes, who invented the vowel signs during the second
half of the first millenium C .E., introduced the diacritical point to distinguish between these two. As pointed out above ( 8 -1 0 ), H ebrew
possesses two groups o f consonantal phonem es which set it ap art in this
respect from the IE languages: the gutturals (pharyngals and laryngals)
and the em phatics. The first group underw ent far-reaching transform ations
during the history o f the Hebrew language, and these we shall deal with in
detail. A nother group, the phonem es /b , g, d, k, p, t/ also.m erit special discussion as does a fourth group, the sibilants , ,( /s, s , s/). Let us start
with this group.
a. Sibilants
20. BH had at its inception three sibilants, /s /, to /s /, and D /s /. We
do not know for sure how the second phonem e w as originally pronounced
(today it is pronounced like = s). A few generations ago, scholars
believed that / s / was only a kind o f offshoot o f the / s / which had developed
within Hebrew (and A ram aic). This view has been discarded for three
reasons:
1) Hebrew /s / is always paralleled in A rabic by one consonant, while the
equivalent of Hebrew /s / is another con so n an t (see Table 1).
2) South A rabic, both th at of the inscriptions and o f the modern dialects,
has indeed preserved three different phonem es exactly paralleling the three
Hebrew phonemes dealt with here.
3) Hebrew III and Is/ are never interchanged except in foreign loans
- arm or. Therefore there is no reason to doubt th a t in
Hebrew as in South A rabic there existed three different phonem es /s, s, s/,
represented by , ,to. But if this be so, how are we to account for the fact
that for these three phonemes there are only tw o signs available? It is impossible to clear up this problem within the fram ew ork o f our study; we
can only hint at the solution. The alphabet was apparently invented by a
people whose language possessed only tw o o f these three phonemes. W hen
it was adopted by other peoples such as the Jew s and A ram eans, whose
language had all three phonem es, they simply em ployed one sign for two
phonemes instead o f adding a new sign. A p parently they chose the sign
because the pronunciation o f the /s / was close to th at o f the /s /.
13
BIBLICAL HE B R E W
[20-22
L iterature:
E.Y. K utscher, J S S 10 (1965), pp. 39-41.
1. The M erger o f ( /$'/) and 0 (/s/). 21. But the pronunciation of the Is/
did not remain stable even during Biblical times. In the course of several
centuries it cam e close to that o f the /s / and finally merged with it. We
know when this process cam e to an end because especially in the later
books o f the Bible there appear several roots containing an original Is /
spelled with a / s / e.g., they hire (E zra 4, 5; = ) . In M H most
o f the roots containing an original /s i are already spelled with sam ekh, e.g.,
the root =) 1 in BH). This tendency is especially marked in the
m anuscripts where even to p u t, tidings', etc. are spelled with
sam ekh. In the printed editions, the copyists and printers very often
corrected the spelling in accordance with Biblical Hebrew (cf. 195).
Literature:
Bergstrsser, H G I, p. 42.
2. The S ibbolet-Sibbolet Incident. 22. The Is / too, sems to have undergone a change during Biblical times, at least in one Hebrew dialect, but
the facts are by no m eans clear. It is alluded to in the fam ous incident in
Judges 12,Iff. The Ephraim ites who challenged Jephthah tried to escape
from T ransjordan to their own territory. However the Gileadites had occupied the fords o f the Jo rd an River and were able to trap the disguised
Ephraim ites who were trying to cross the river by dem anding from them,
Say and he said . A t first glance this story seems to provide a
clear-cut proof that the Ephraim ites pronounced /s / as [s] as in several
Semitic languages, e.g., A m haric. But this interpretation of the story is by
no means generally accepted. E.A. Speiser raised a very plausible objection
to it by pointing out that no N orth-W est Semitic language known to us
lacks the phonem e /s /. Therefore it is difficult to believe that the
Ephraim ites were unable to produce this sound. Speiser then put forward
the very ingenious theory that the / s / 0 f n^tf7 goes back to a proto-Semitic
/ t / (cf. Table 1). In the languague o f the Gileadites the original phonem e still
survived, whereas in that o f the Ephraim ites, as in Hebrew and C anaanite
in general, it had already turned into III. F or lack of a proper sign for this
/t / phoneme (pronounced som ething like the th of thing in English), the
Biblical narrator had to use the graphem e (sign) of the phoneme closest to
14
22-23]
Phonology
it, namely the /s /. Indeed, the early A ram aic inscriptions chose exactly the
same graphem e, that o f / s /, for the notation o f the phoneme /{/. Since this
phoneme did not exist in the language o f the Ephraim ites, they substituted
the /s / (sam ekh) for it, exactly as certain im m igrants to the U.S. som etimes
substitute /s / for English /th / which is alien to their native language, and
pronounce [sing] instead o f [thing].
This ingenious solution seems plausible, but as R. M arcus pointed out,
the assum ption that the /s / o f ^ goes back to a proto-Sem itic / t / rests
on a very shaky foundation. Indeed it was recently shown [by E.Y.
Kutscher] that this foundation did not exist at all since the alleged attestation o f the Proto-Sem itic root tbl turned o ut to be the product o f medieval
scribes. The riddle rem ains, therefore, unresolved,
L iterature:
J.J. Finkelstein and M. G reenberg, eds., O riental and B iblical S tu d ie s:
Collected W ritings o f .. Speiser, Philadelphia 1967, pp. 1 43-150
(= B A S O R 85 11942], pp. 10-13);
E.Y. K utscher in H ebrische W ortforschung: Festschrift zu m 80.
Geburtstag W alter B aum gartner, Leiden 1967, pp. 173-174.
3. The Pronunciation o f the Sibilants by D iaspora Jews A s a R efec tio n o f
Their Respective Languages. 23. The pronunciation o f /s / rem ained constant throughout the periods o f the Bible, D ead Sea Scrolls, M ishna and the
Talmud. As G um pertz has shown, except for p arts o f Spain which were under A rab dom ination, it was lost in W estern and C entral Europe, where it
was apparently pronounced like the /s /. The reason for this change is to be
found in a basic rule that applies to the pronunciation o f H ebrew outside
Palestine, and to some extent also to the H ebrew spoken within the boundaries of Palestine while it was under G reek and R om an rule. The pronunciation of H ebrew outside Palestine was conditioned to a very great extent
by the vernacular of the country in which the H ebrew speakers resided. M.
W einreich was right in pointing out that although in the past the speech o f
Jews contained sounds that were not shared with the co-territorial
language, the efforts o f the Jews to preserve them were doom ed to fail. The
very fact that none o f the Jew ish com m unities o f today except for the
Yemenite has succeeded in preserving them is eloquent proof o f this rule
(see 373, 492-3).
Proofs o f this rule abound. European Jew s can pronounce neither the
15
BIBLICAL H EBR EW
[23
gutturals nor the emphatics because these phonemes (or most o f them ) do
not exist in the European languages (cf. 261). On the other hand, some
Oriental Jews have difficulty in producing the [v] {bet without dagesh) since
this sound is alien to Arabic. A more recent case in point: the second
generation of Jewish immigrants in America are often unable to pronounce
a Hebrew /o :/ as in 1 $ peace and substitute the diphthong [oui:
[shalouml. This is obviously because there is no (long) [0:1 in English. One
more instance that will clinch the matter is that of the A m erican-born Jews
who are sometimes apt to mispronounce the Hebrew [x] ( k a f w ithout
dagesh). Instead o f [barxu] you will sometimes hear [barhul or [barku]. In
view of the absence of [x] in American English the reason for this substitution is obvious.
The very sam e rule applies to Jews who em igrated into countries inhabited by G reek-, Latin- (later Romance)-, or G erm an-speaking populations. The III phoneme was originally lacking in all these languages, arising
in the R om ance and G erm anic languages only about 1000 years ago. T hus
in the course o f time, the Jews living in these countries lost the ability to
pronounce the III and substituted the [si (or a similar sound) for it. Only
after the emergence of the phoneme III in the above languages was the III
re-introduced into Hebrew as well. Traces o f the [si pronunciation still survive, especially am ong Jews of European Sephardic origin. Sephardic Jews
in A m sterdam recite the [Kadis] (Kadish) and Jews originally from G reece
greet each other with [Sabat saloml (Shabat shalom).
It is possible that the confusion of the hushing series of phonemes /s, z,
c/ with the hissing phonemes / s, z, c l in one dialect o f Yiddish is a distant
offshoot o f the situation that prevailed in the countries mentioned above.
This dialect feature has come to be known as sabsdiker losn solemn
speech (literally Sabbath language), a phrase which in Yiddish is
sabsdiker losn with two [sis and an [s]. The m ispronunciation o f it immediately identifies those who are afflicted with the trait, to them the term
litvak is comm only applied. According to the explanation given by
W einreich, one of the main reasons for this confusion seems to have been
the fact that the early Jewish immigrants from G erm any to Poland arrived
with only a weak distinction between Is/ and III and even this weak distinction disappeared, perhaps under local influence in Poland (the so-called
mazurzenie). W hen these early immigrants later moved to Lithuania and
its vicinity, a new wave of immigrants arriving from G erm any where the
III phoneme had meanwhile fully developed m igrated into Poland and
16
23-25]
Phonology
were able to keep the distinction between /s / and /s / (Uriel W einreich; cf.
also below 262).
Literature:
;41-33 ' , , , ..
; 137 , , ) - ( ,
Uriel W einreich, Slavic W orld 8 (1952), pp. 360ff.
b. Gutturals
24. The pharyngals / , h/: Each of these pharyngals represents a merger
of two PS phonemes. The phonemes that disappeared are /x / (pronounced
as in Bach, Scottish loch or Yiddish ich) and /g / (pronounced like a
fricative [g]). W hen did these phonemes disappear? At first glance it would
seem that they disappeared before Hebrew was comm itted to writing, or
else we should have expected to find in the Hebrew alphabet a special
graphem e for their notation.
But in the light of our discussion o f the notation of /s / and / s / by the
sam e graphem e (see above 20), this conclusion would be hasty because
there is reason to believe that these phonemes did in fact exist during
Biblical times, and that, as in the case of /s /, it was only for lack o f a
graphem e of their own that the graphemes , respectively were used for
them. In other words, we can assume that was used during Biblical times
to indicate both the pharyngal /h / and the velar /x / while the sign did service for both the pharyngal /7 and the velar /g/. It should be mentioned
that A rabic, which possesses all four of these sounds does indeed use the
graphem es i , L for the two other sounds and distinguishes between the
two pairs by means of a diacritical point (com pare Hebrew , ) .
1. ( /h/) and ( /'/) in Greek Transliterations. 25. This assum ption is
borne out by the transliterations o f the Septuagint from the third-second
centuries B.C.E. (see 174). Here we find that while some hets do not seem
to appear in certain names, e.g., I s a a k - p n T , others are transliterated by
the Greek (chi, henceforth written ch) the pronunciation of which corresponds to the above mentioned G erm an, Yiddish and Scottish /x /, e.g.,
R achel= b , A c h i e z e r ^ w m . The same holds true for the *ayin. W hile
some ,ayins do not appear in the Greek transliteration, e.g., in the nam e
Iakob=2pVtl others do, e.g., G aza= n: , (the Greeks, for lack o f an adequate letter, use the Greek letter = /g / to denote the sound). A lthough
17
BIBLICAL HEBREW
[ 2 5 -2 7
more detailed research is required to clarify the picture, it can safely be

stated on the basis o f com parison with A rabic th at the [x] is employed
mainly where the parallel A rabic root has a /x /, while in w ords in which
Hebrew het parallels Arabic /h /, G reek, for lack of an adequate graphem e,
has no consonantal notation. The same applies to the ghayin as in the case
of the name o f the city o f which is transliterated in the Septuagint with
a [g] Gaza since the 'ayin in this word, exactly as in its m odern A rabic
form, was pronounced as a velar [g]. As is well known, the A rabic form,
transliterated by Europeans as G aza , is in use outside of Israel.
These instances go a long way tow ards proving th at during the third and
second centuries B.C.E. each of the two signs , was pronounced in
either of two ways in different words, and each pronunciation represented
the PS pronunciation o f the two different phonemes that survived in A rabic
until today.
2. The M erger o f / x / with /h / a nd Ig l with /'/. 26. However, during the
course of the next few centuries, one of the pronunciations o f the tw o signs
disappeared. This is proved by the fact that the transliterations o f the Hexapla from the second to third centuries C.E. never employ the letter chi for
the het and gam m a for the ,ayin (cf. 245, 247). The M asoretes who
vocalized the Hebrew text during the second half of the first millennium
C.E. no longer distinguished between two kinds o f het and two kinds o f
,ayin. This is not surprising since their vocalization o f the H ebrew text
aimed at transm itting the last stage o f spoken Hebrew which, as we said,
already lacked the above mentioned distinctions.
Literature:
Bcrgstrsscr, HG I, p. 36 d;
G. Lisowsky, Die Transkription der hebrischen Eigennam en des Pentateuch in der Septuaginta, Basel 1940, p. 123.
3. The W eak Pronunciation o f the Gutturals. 27. The vocalization of the
M asoretes indicates that the pronunciation of the alef, he, het and ,ayin
was weaker than that of the other consonants. This is readily deduced from
the facts that 1) they are not doubled, cf. but ( in this respect they
are joined by the /r/); 2) they cannot be vocalized with the semi-vowel, i.e.
shva mobile (or shva na*) and require an auxiliary vowel (the so-called
hataf) e.g., but .
18
27-28]
Phonology
Sometimes they are vocalized by a h a ta f even where there w as originally

no vowel at all i.e. shva quiescense (or shva nah), (cf. but ) . Here
we should point out that the consonantal (unvocalized) text o f the Bible
already bears witness to the fact that these consonants were weaker than
the others, and hence this weakening cannot be attributed to the M asoretic
pronunciation. The phoneme /n /, when not followed by a vowel in the middie of the word, is assimilated to the following consonant, e.g., 0 instead
of * , he will fall. But this assimilation very rarely takes place when the
following consonant is a guttural, e.g., he will inherit.
4. R efutation o f Kahle*s Theory o f Gutturals. 28. The problem o f the gutturals played a large part in the theory o f P.E. Kahle. In a lecture before the
C ongress o f Orientalists in Leipzig in 1921, he propounded the following
theory: The M asoretes who vocalized the Biblical text during the second
half o f the first millennium C.E. were, in effect, language reform ers. They
did not try to preserve BH as they inherited it from their predecessors. On
the contrary, they introduced changes that amounted, in fact, to a language
reform. Kahle adduced two proofs for this revolutionary theory. The first
was the pronunciation o f the gutturals, the second, that o f the /b , g, d, k, p,
t/ (cf. 30). Kahle maintained that in the Hebrew of the M asoretes the gutturals were not pronounced at all. How did he know? G oing back to the
transliterations of the Hexapla (cf. 244ff.) and other G reek and Latin
sources, he pointed out that these transliterations have no notation for the
gutturals, e.g., batathi = . Since the M asoretes lived several centuries
after the above mentioned sources, they could not have heard the pronunciation of the gutturals if they had not already existed several centuries
before. W hat prom pted the M asoretes to attem pt linguistic reform and
what pattern did they follow in order to re-introduce the earlier correct
pronunciation? W hen the Arabic language became dom inant in Palestine
after the A rab conquest (635 C.E.) the M asoretes, according to K ahle,
realized that the correct pronunciation o f the gutturals was preserved in
the A rabic language, and it was this realization that prom pted them to reintroduce the correct pronunciation into Hebrew.
This theory, namely that the M asoretes changed the traditional pronun*
ciation of the Holy Scriptures under the influence of a language which they
had only recently come to know, seemed utterly fantastic, as was immediately pointed out by the most im portant contem porary H ebraist, G.
Bergstrsser. He also stressed the fact that if the M asoretes did indeed
19
BIBLICAL HE BR EW
[28
bring about changes attributed to them by Kahle, they must have been
trained as m odern Semitic scholars! Today K ahles theories scarcely hold
water (cf. 30). As to the gutturals, on the one hand we can prove that the
G reek transliterations o f A rabic w ords proceed along the same lines i.e.
they do not indicate the gutturals. But after all, as even Kahle admits that
the gutturals did exist in A rabic, obviously they were omitted because the
Greek language, lacking these phonemes, also lacked graphemes denoting
them. The same, o f course, holds true for the transliterations of the Hebrew
gutturals.
On the other hand, K ahle was laboring under the impression that the
gutturals were not pronounced anywhere in Palestine. While this is apparently true for certain areas, mainly the big Hellenized cities, it is by no
means true for the whole territory. On the contrary, we are able to show
that in most places in Palestine the inhabitants did pronounce the gutturals.
Place names constitute the best proof of this contention. Biblical place
names that survived in the A rabic o f Palestine nearly always preserved the
original gutturals, e.g., A cre. This, o f course, was possible only if we
assume that the A rab conquerors heard these sounds.
But we can adduce the clear-cut evidence of the statem ent by the
Church Father Jerom e (fourth-fifth centuries C .E.; see below 251), who
says that the Jew s laughed at the C hristians for their inaccurate pronunciations, especially o f their aspirates and o f certain letters which should be
pronounced with a guttural roughness.( Sutcliffe). The situation seems to
be plain enough; the Jew s were able to pronounce the gutturals (the instances adduced are the place names 1 and ) , but the Greek or
Hellenized C hristians were unable to do so for the obvious reason that
G reek lacked these phonemes.
It goes without saying that Jews who emigrated to Europe (except as
mentioned, those living in A rabic Spain) also lost the ability to pronounce
,ayin and het. The pronunciation o f the ,ayin did not differ from that of a le f
(but the latter also was not pronounced like a Semitic a le f and was practically only a vowel carrier), while for the pharyngal het they substituted
the [x] pronunciation (com pare 25 above). In western G erm any this [x]
seems to have been affected by the same process which turned German [x]
in several dialects into an [h] which eventually disappeared entirely.
However, this [x] rem ained in eastern parts o f G erm an-speaking territories
so that the Jews living in this area were known as those who
knew how to pronounce the h e r (an allusion to Genesis 23, 3ff), while
20
2 8-30]
Phonology
those living in the western part were known during the Middle Ages as
meaning those who pronounced the het as he". Traces of the latter
pronunciation survived in the Yiddish of Poland, as, for example, in the two
proper nam es going back to and coming from , beside
( R chele) (M. YVeinreich; and see below 261).
Literature:
P.E. K ahle, The Cairo G eniza2, Oxford 1959, pp. 164-171;
E.Y. K utscher, J S S 10 (1965), pp. 4 1 -4 9 ;
F. Sutcliffe, Biblica 29 (1948), p. 120;
. 101- 85 , , ) ( , .
c. The , , , , ,( /b, g, d, k, p , t/)
29. These phonemes have, according to the M asoretic vocalization, a
two-fold pronunciation (realization): 1) as the parallel plosives in English,
m arked in the Hebrew text by a dot in the letter (dagesh 2) but after a
vowel or half-vowel they are pronounced (realized) as fricatives, e.g.,
Ib] 1v ] in ibayit], but [ b^vayitl. The same applies to the others,
e.g., Ip] turns into [f] after a vowel, etc. a trait Hebrew shares with
A ram aic. T o be sure, the Yemenite is the only Jewish com m unity today
which has preserved this distinction in all these phonemes nearly intact,
precisely according to the M asoretic vocalization (cf. 373). In other
Jewish com m unities several of these phonemes are always pronounced according to the first pronunciation as plosives, even if they come after the
vowel, despite the M asoretic indication that they should be pronounced as
fricatives.
It is impossible to establish the earliest date for this com m on characteristic o f H ebrew and A ram aic. A ccording to Speiser it should be quite
early, about 1000 B.C.E. While this is not easy to prove, it seems to be
more or less generally accepted th at at least during the second half of the
first millenium B.C.E. it must already have been in existence.
Literature:
F. R osenthal, A G ram m ar o f Biblical A ram aic, W iesbaden 1961, pp. 13,
15;
E.A. Speiser, B A S O R no. 74 (1939), p. 5 n. 10.
1. R efutation o f K a h les Theory o f the /b, g, d, k, p, t/. 30. P. K ahle cast
21
[30-31
BIBLICAL HEB RE W
doubt upon the very existence of the above-mentioned characteristic in H.

He believed that at least during the Mishnaic period these phonemes were
pronounced only as fricatives (that is, in all positions, even those not
following a vowel, they were pronounced as the M asoretes indicated they
were to be pronounced only after vowels). There was no lb], [p], |k), etc.,
but only Iv], [f], [x]. Again, K ahles m ainstay was the Greek translitrations. A ccording to him, the double realization described above was introduced by the M asoretes under the influence of Aramaic.
The erroneousness o f this theory can be dem onstrated in the same way
that K ahles theory about the gutturals was disproved (cf. 28). After all,
the method o f transcription of these A ram aic sounds does not differ in the
Greek sources from the one used for the transliteration of the parallel
Hebrew sounds. In spite of this, no one assumes that this trait was absent
from A ram aic. The only explanation can be, as above, that the Greek
alphabet was not adequate to reflect this trait. Thus, these sources prove
nothing.
On the other hand, K ahle did not notice that this hypothesis contradicts
his earlier one concerning the gutturals. If the M asoretes were eager to imitate A rabic, why did they not do it also in the case o f the /b , g, d, k, p, t/?
Literature:
P.E. Kahle, The Cairo G eniza2, Oxford 1959, p. 179;
E.Y. K utscher, J S S 10 (1965), pp. 24-35.
II. Vowels
a. The P roto-Sem itic Long Vowels in B H
31. While the PS long vowels /i:, u :/ did not change their quality in BH
(cf. right, wall), /a :/ appears in BH both as /a :/ (e.g., hunter) and as /o :/ (e.g., 1 ^ peace, well-being) (see in detail below 32).
These vowels apparently also retained their quantity as long vowels. There
also arose a long /e:/, as, e.g., in egg\ and a long /o :/, as, e.g., in 1
fast, from the contraction of PS diphthongs [ay] and [aw] respectively.
Thus BH apparently has five long vowel phonemes /a :, e:, i:, o:, u:/, all of
which are stable and generally do not change under the influence of the
stress (see below). Also, they do not undergo shortening (reduction) to a
semi-vowel (shva n a ) as is very often the case with the PS short vowels
22
3 1 -3 3 ]
Phonology
(see below 35). Therefore, /e :/, for example, remains unchanged

throughout the entire declension pattern, e.g., , , .
Q uite often, though not always, these long vowels when in medial position (except for /a :/) are written plene, i.e. they are spelled with a waw or
y o d respectively (see instances above). Vowels at the end of a word are
practically alw ays spelled plene, including he for [a]-an d [e]type vowels,
e.g., you, he will build, as well as a le f for la ]-a n d [e]-type
vowels (very rarely in the middle o f the word), e.g., he called,
ch air. However, in practically all the cases the a le f was originally one of
the radicals (i.e. the third consonant o f the root), and only at a later stage
becam e silent and turned into a vowel sign.
L iterature:
B ergstrsser, E infhrung, pp. 38f.;
Idem., H G I, 7.
1. P roto-Sem itic /a :/ in B H . 32. As stated above, the PS long vowels survive in Hebrew, but PS /a :/ appears mostly as /o :/ in Hebrew and
C anaanite, e.g., PS [*sala:m] (thus in A rabic) Hebrew 1 ^ peace. Two
problem s connected with this sound change require further clarification.
U nder what condition did this sound change take place? If the change was
unconditioned, how are we to account for the fact that there exist in
H ebrew several verbal and nominal patterns in which the PS /a : / does not
conform to this rule?
The participle Qal o f the hollow verbs, such as is a case in point. On
the basis of our knowledge of the Semitic languages we should have expected the form 1 , since the [a] is supposedly long, and indeed this form does
occur once 1( plural; II K ings 16, 7). O r consider the noun pattern
q a tta :l as in hunter. On the basis o f w hat we know from Hebrew and
other Semitic languages the second [a] is long. W hy, then, did it not turn
into / o :/? Here, too, we occasionally find the expected form, e.g., 1
(Josh. 24, 19) alongside im passioned.
a. B a u e rs M ixed L anguage Theory. 33. Now, to be sure, in the case of
some noun patterns with /a :/ instead o f /o :/ such as honor, for exampie, we do know why they did not change. Practically all the occurrences o f
this p attern appear in later BH upon which A ram aic influence was already
23
BIBLICAL HEBREW
[33-34
well under way (cf. 103). T hus there is reason to believe that the nouns
belonging to this pattern are loans from A ram aic. However, although this
explanation is quite plausible for som e noun patterns, it does not apply to
patterns such as and discussed above, which are p art and parcel of
the earliest strata o f BH.
It was mainly this problem which led the fam ous scholar H ans Bauer to
put forth the theory o f H ebrew as a mixed language. PS /a : / had turned
into 10:1 in the H ebrew spoken in C anaan. But the Israelite tribes invading C anaan spoke a dialect th at at least in this respect was identical
with Proto-Semitic (and for that m atter with A ram aic and Arabic). The
situation prevailing in BH, then, is the outcom e o f the mixture o f these two
languages, with som etim es the C anaanite stratum gaining the upper hand,
and at other times the dialect o f the invaders.
This theory got a very mixed reception. F or the time being the m eans at
our disposal do not perm it us to prove or disprove it. O ther scholars
proposed the theory that the change was conditioned by stress yet this
solution, too, can hardly be said to do justice to all the relevant material.
p. The /a :/ > 10:1 S h ift in C uneiform Transliterations. 34. As stated
above, the sound change /a : / > /o :/ is a characteristic which Hebrew
shares with C anaanite. In this case, thanks to the E l-A m arna letters (fourteenth-fifteenth centuries B .C.E.; see in detail 108) we are abie to establish at least the earliest date at which this change is attested. W ritten in
the A kkadian language and employing the cuneiform script, these letters
often explain A kkadian w ords by means o f their C anaanite counterparts.
For this reason the letters contain C anaanite-H ebrew forms like anki
T (Since A kkadian does not possess a special sign for Io I it had to use
Iu 1 for the C anaanite [01).
It should be pointed out that while in the C anaanite glosses PS long /a :/
is alw ays reflected by /o :/, there are indications that the change /a : / > / o :/
had not yet been accom plished over the whole territory o f Palestine and
Syria, as some place nam es prove. The name o f 1( A cre) is still spelled
A k k a and that o f 1( M egiddo) is spelled M agidda both with [a]! Apparently in A cre, at least, the /a : / was still pronounced as [al. But in the
Assyrian inscriptions from the late eighth and seventh centuries B.C.E. the
name o f A cre is spelled A k k u !
This is one o f the few cases in which cuneiform transliterations enable us
to put our finger on the process o f historical sound changes.
24
34-35]
Phonology
Literature:
Bergstrsser, HG 125 ;
Bauer-Leander, Hist. Gramm., pp. 15ff.;
H arris, Development, pp. 42f.;
H. Bauer, Z A W 59 (1930), p. 75;
. 99 , , ) ( , .
b. The Proto-Semitic Short Vowels in B H
35. The PS short vowel phonem es /a , i, u / survived as such in BH, e.g.,
ju g , dress', table', but four m ore vowels (in the Tiberian
vocalization, see 259) developed from them , differing from the first three
in quality and (see below) apparently som etimes also in quantity: [e] as in
tooth, [] as in king', [o] as in !m orning, [o ] as in w ord',
wisdom. There is no doubt that the qam es in these w ords in the
Tiberian vocalization is to be pronounced [ ] , according to the pronunciation of the A shkenazic and Yemenite Jews o f today rather than according
to the Sephardic pronunciation (see below 37, 373). While nearly all the
vowel signs are identical with those employed for the PS long vowels, we
can rather readily distinguish between them even w ithout resorting to comparative Semitic gram m ar, for two reasons: 1) While most o f the PS long
vowels (and original diphtongs) tend to be spelled plene (see above 31) this
is rarely true of the PS short vowels.
2)
More im portant is their behavior pattern. In contrast to the long
vowels (and diphthongs), the distribution o f PS short vowels is more limited
and they are liable to shortening.
The PS short vowels in Hebrew fall, by and large, into two categories.
The first category, reflected by m ost instances o f the qames gadol e.g.,
word; by the sere, e.g., tooth and by the holem e.g., m orning, is
characterised by the fact that its mem bers can n o t appear in a closed unstressed syllable, e.g., , but , # but , but . It seems
probable that these vowels becam e lengthened under the influence o f stress
(see below 37).
The second category that com prises the patah, segol, short hiriq, short
qam es, and qibbus, as e.g., in the words queen, heifer,
dress, sacrifice, table, generally appears only in closed unstressed syllables, except for the first tw o which can appear also in a
stressed syllable, open or closed.
Vowels of neither category appear in originally open unstressed
25
BIBLICAL HE B R E W
[35-37
syllables, except for / a / (and usually also /e /) o f the first category which
can stand in cases where the stress falls on the next syllable, e.g., rain
PS [m atar] (thus still in A rabic). In open unstressed syllables, except for the
case mentioned above, PS short vowels appear as semi-vowels (shva n a ) ,
e. g. , w ord, my w ord year, my year - king,
kings. W hen these short vowels follow a guttural they appear as the socalled h a ta f e.g., - friend, friends.
1. S tress A s a D istinctive Feature. 36. As we see from the abovementioned instances, stress plays quite an im portant part in shaping the
quality and apparently also the quantity of the PS short vowels in Hebrew.
But stress is also im portant because it is distinctive (com pare the English
convict (noun) to convict (verb), e.g., Rachel is com ing, but
Rachel cam e (G enesis 29, 6, 9 and see Rashi ad 10c.).
L iterature:
Bergstrsser, H G I, pp. 1 1 7 -1 1 9 ;
Sh. M orag, The Vocalization S ystem s o f Arabic, Hebrew a nd A ram aic,
s'-G ravenhage 1962, pp. 22ff.;
S. M oscati, A n Introduction to the Comparative G ram m ar o f the Sem itic
Languages, W iesbaden 1964, pp. 4 9 -5 1 .
2. A S o u n d Change A ttested D uring Three Thousand Years in SyriaPalestine. 37. The history o f one short PS vowel in Hebrew is worth
describing. As mentioned above (35), under the influence o f stress the
short PS / a / may appear in BH as [ 1 according to the Tiberian vocalization. In H ebrew, the stress m ay even affect the preceding syllable, and thus
PS [m atar] rain turned in H ebrew into . Obviously the stress effected
a certain lengthening o f the short vowels. The change in quantity (lengthening) also caused a change in quality (the color o f the vowel). Here we
should add that w hat we have said about quality applies to the PS long /a :/
that did not turn into 10:1 (see above 32). It is, incidentally, the same
developm ent that we observed in the PS long /a : / with the difference that
while the PS long /a : / turned into a clear-cut long [o:] the PS short / a / that
was apparently lengthened owing to stress, was stuck half way according
to the Tiberian vocalization, and w as pronounced [ ( ] something like the
English vowel in wall). As we pointed out, although the A shkenazic and
Yemenite com m unities do pronounce it more or less this way, the Sephar-
26
37]
Phonology
die (and Israeli) Hebrew-speaking Jews pronounce these cases of gam es as

[a] despite the unm istakable Tiberian vocalization.
To be sure, am ong the A shkenazic Jew s this might well have been a
secondary developm ent that took place in E urope only tow ards the end of
the Middle Ages. (There is reason to believe th at in the A shkenazic communities of Central Europe the Sephardic pronunciation of qames was also
prevalent prior to the sound change indicated above.) However, there is littie doubt that the Yemenite pronunciation o f the qames a s [ ] goes back to
the tradition of the Tiberian (and in this respect perhaps also Babylonian)
vocalization.
How are we to account for this change? G oing back to the translitrations in El-A m arna and other A kkadian sources, we find th at this vowel is
reflected by an [a]. The same applies to the G reek transliterations o f the
Septuagint (174) and the H exapla (245). Only in Jerom es writings
(fourth-fifth centuries C .E .; 251) do we find a few cases o f transliterations
with [0 ], e.g., bosor i.e. \, but these cases are very doubtful as are instances adduced from the D ead Sea Scrolls. Since the transliterations do
not yet reflect this change we might think th at it developed during the
second half of the first millennium C.E. as reflected by the vocalization of
the Tiberian M asoretes who lived during this time. However, a second solution based on geographical linguistics seems preferable. It can be shown
that in the C anaanite languages short PS / a / when stressed also turned into
[ ( ] or maybe even into a full [o]). A ssyrian transliterations of C anaanite
names in the eighth-seventh centuries B.C.E. render such an / a / by [u].
(Lacking a sign for (0 ], A kkadian 1= A ssyrian-B abylonian] uses the [u]
vowel instead.) For example, a nam e which would parallel Hebrew
Baal-Has-Reigned (or -Reigns) and vocalized in Hebrew pausal form
is rendered as Ba-'a-al-m a-lu-ku. W hat is more, there is reason to
believe that this change is already reflected in the Phoenician nam e o f the
letter iota = Hebrew T . Since the alphabet was transm itted to the G reeks
around the year 1000 B.C.E., this Phoenician name would attest to an
earlier date for this change. However, the m atter is not sufficiently decisive
since the form of iota can be interpreted differently. M oreover, G reek and
Latin transliterations of C anaanite and Punic (C anaanite of N orth Africa)
also reflect the change of short PS / a / into [0 ] (or [o]).
In that case the most logical assum ption would be the following: The
Galilee borders on former C anaanite territory. W e may assume, therefore,
27
BIBLICAL HEBREW
(37
that this sound change that originated in the Canaanite area (modern
Lebanon) spread in the course of time to the Galilee but did not continue
south into Samaria and Judea (including Jerusalem). This assumption is
supported by the fact that the Hebrew of the Samaritans (see below 177),
who lived south of the Galilee, namely in central Palestine around Shechem
(present day Nablus) does not show a trace of this change.
When did this sound change reach Galilee? This is hard to establish. The
fact that it is not reflected by the Greek transliterations mentioned above
cannot be adduced as a proof in dating it since the Septuagint obviously
reflects the Jerusalemite pronunciation, in which this change may never
have taken place. The Hexapla probably represents the pronunciation in
Caesarea which is also south of the territory in question. Jerome lived
mainly in Bethlehem in Judea so, again, his language could scarcely serve
as a testis linguae of Galilean Hebrew. Thus in this respect we are entirely
in the dark.
Still, the particulars of this sound change in Palestine and the Diaspora
have not yet been established with certainty. Nonetheless, this change survived for millennia until our own day and affected both the Syriac o f the
territory and its Aramaic (spoken even today near Damascus), as well as
spoken Arabic dialects in adjacent territories.
This fact is remarkable especially since it seems to be the only instance
of the attestation of a sound change operative in a certain territory for
more than 3000 years.
This hypothesis could only be tested with the help of transliterations of
Greek and Latin inscriptions from the Galilee which for the time being are
very scarce.
But if this hypotesis is true, we may assume that the Sephardic Jewish
pronunciation represents the pronunciation prevalent in Jerusalem and
Judea in general before the destruction of the Temple.
But what about the Ashkenazic Jews? Must we then assume that they
are descendants of Galilean Jews? By no means! H. Yalon has shown that
the so-called Sephardic pronunciation was that of medieval Jewry in
Western and Central Europe, as we can see from the fact that prayer books
that were vocalized in Germany, such as the famous Mahzor o f de
Magenza (thirteenth century C.E.) continually mix up the qames and the
patah just as Sephardic Jews do.
How then did the qames come to be pronounced in Europe in the
Ashkenazic way? Two solutions are possible:
28
3 7 -39]
Phonology
(1) When the [a] of the G erm an element in Yiddish underwent the same
change, it might have brought about the corresponding change in Hebrew.
(2) M. Weinreich believes that it was artificially reintroduced by Jews
coming from Babylonia. But it must be pointed out that it is by no means
sure that the Babylonian qames was indeed pronounced the Ashkenazic
way. The problem needs further clarification. The question of the pronunciation of the Babylonian qames (see 373) is bound up with the question
of the pronunciation of Hebrew by the Yemenites whose qames is of the
Ashkenazic type.
L itera ture:
Harris, D evelopm ent, pp. 61 (37), 79 (64c);
J. Friedrich-W. Rllig, Phnizisch-Punische G ram m atik, Rome 1970, 78;
A. Sperber, HUCA 12-13 (1938), p. 214 (offprint p. 112);
: 62 , . .
: 16 , , , , .
; 325 , 230 , , ) ( - , .
240 , 110-83 , ,) (, . ) .)with English sum m ary
/ P roto-Sem itic Short /i, 11/ in B H . 38. We mentioned that the PS /i, u .3
survived in BH, but during the time of the Second Temple it was apparently
lost in colloquial Hebrew (and Aramaic). This is proved by the fact that in
the Greek and Latin transliterations of the Septuagint, the Hexapla and
Jerome, the short /!/ and / u / are not transliterated by Greek [i] and [u], but
by IcI and I ) [ -and 25 1 respectively). Since Aramaic texts dis 246 ,175
covered several decades ago also employ the vowels 18] and [o] instead of
i] and lu], there is reason to believe that this was also the case with spoken [
M H and that the scribes changed it entirely (see below 195) but this issue
.requires further clarification
L itera tu re :
].***- , , , , .[
4. Vowel Length A s a Distinctive Feature in BH. 39. It is a moot question

whether or not, and to what extent, length is distinctive in BH, and how
many phonemes are represented by the vowels enumerated above. According to various scholars their number ranges from five to eleven.
29
[39-41
BIBLICAL H EBR EW
Literature:
230 , ,) ( , .
S. Morag, The Vocalization System s o f Arabic, H ebrew a nd A ra m a ic,
s-Gravenhage 1962, pp. 22ff.
D. Morphology
I. Independent Pronouns
a. First Person Singular
40. One of the most striking features of BH is the use o f two forms for
the first person s i ng. : and . They are not used side by side in all the
strata of BH. The early and poetical sections of BH prefer , while in
later BH has displaced almost entirely. The trend is especially conspicuous in Chronicles which includes a large amount of material that
parallels the Second Book of Samuel and both Books of Kings which were
apparently among its sources. Wherever the writer o f Chronicles finds
in these sources, he substitutes ; compare, for example, I Chron. 21, 10,
17 with II Sam. 24, 12, 17.
This is a clear indication that during that period, (about the fifth century
B.C.E.) was on the way out of colloquial Hebrew and being replaced
by . Indeed, not a trace of it survived in MH (see 201).
L iterature:
Bauer-Leander, H ist. G ramm., p. 248;
Segal, M isnaic H ebrew , p. 9.
b. Second Person Feminine Singular
41. Besides there are a few cases in the Books o f Judges and Kings
of ( ketib) which is doubtless the earlier form. Since this rare form occurs in stories coming from the Israelite dialect (as opposed to the dialect of
Judah, see 99), it may indicate that was used in that dialect. ( in
Jer. 4, 30 and Ezek. 36, 13 is to be attributed to Aramaic influence; see in
detail 53.)
The Samaritan Pentateuch, too, quite often employs instead of .
Now if we assume that the Samaritan Pentateuch is an Israelite variant of
the Pentateuch (the Samaritans living,within the confines of the former
30
4 1 -44]
M orphology
Israelite kingdom, see in detail 177), then the occurrence of in that

source would seem to support the above mentioned theory. On the other
hand, in view of the general character of the language of the Samaritan
Pentateuch, the appearance of this form might be due instead to Aramaic
influence (cf. 180).
Literature:
Kutscher, Isaiah Scroll, pp. 208f.;
Bauer-Leander, H ist. G ramm ., p. 248.
c. F irst Person Plural
42. The first person plural appears both as $ and , the latter being the later form which, incidentally, also occurs in the Lachish letters.
Both forms were to disappear in M H which substituted for them. This
latter form is heralded in BH in one place, but only as a ketib ( = spelled),
while the qere (= to be read') is ( Jeremiah 42, 6). This
may serve to indicate that the new form was already in existence in the
popular language of that time but was not yet considered standard, and
therefore the qere there is still the BH .
d. S econd and Third Persons Plural (M asc. and Fern.)
43. These pronouns underwent certain changes in the Dead Sea Scrolls
(see 157) and especially in Mishnaic Hebrew (see 201).
II. Demonstrative Pronouns
44. The form of the fem. sg. is noteworthy. It occurs without the
l- il once in Hosea 7, 16 spelled 1 and once in the cycle of (Northern)
Israelite stories in II Kings 6, 19, where it is spelled . The latter spelling
occurs several times in LBH, e.g., Ezek. 40, 45. Both of these spellings exhibit dialectal peculiarities (cf. above 41). In MH only this form, spelled 1
survives.
In view of these facts, it is probable that the form 1 \ existed from early
times as a dialectal form mainly in the Northern speech from which it
gradually spread to the South (Judah) and in the course of time supplanted
the longer form .
31
!44 -4 6
BIBLICAL HEBR EW
L iterature:
Bauer-Leander, H ist. Gramm, p. 261;
Segal, M isnaic H ebrew, pp. lOf.
III. Relative Pronouns

45. In BH the principal relative pronoun is . The form which is
apparently not related to it, occurs in the Song of Deborah, three times in
the story of Gideon, and once in Israelite (northern) section of the Book of
Kings. Therefore there is reason to believe that its use was common in the
vernacular of Northern Palestine. On the other hand, it occurs in those
books of the Bible that are supposed to reflect LBH, e.g., Ecclesiastes. In
MH has replaced altogether. Here too, as above (44) we seem to
find the same sequence: Israelite Hebrew, LBH, MH.
IV. The Possessive S u ffix o f the Second Person M asculine Singular

46. The vocalization of the second person sing. masc. played a large
part in Kahles theory (28, 30). This suffix appears in BH according to
the Masoretic vocalization, mainly as , e.,g., , your word'. Kahle
maintained that the proper form should have been ;: . Again, Kahle
rests his case on the transliterations of the Hexapla and Jerome with the addition of a new source: the vocalization of Piyyutim (religious hymns)
found in the Cairo Geniza (cf. below 127, 265). According to Kahle, the
Masoretes, as mentioned above, changed the proper Hebrew ending to
under the impact of Arabic.
The discovery of the DSS (see Chapter Five) sounded the death knell of
this theory. In the DSS this suffix is very often spelled plene with he, e.g.,
your heart, a clear indication that it was pronounced .
How, then, are we to account for the form that appears in the translitrations and in the Piyyutim? The solution was already outlined by
Bergstrsser who pointed out that whenever a language is employed as the
language of sacred scriptures, a colloquial variety is also likely to appear. It
is safe to assume, he said, that while BH survived in the synagogue as the
language o f the Holy Scriptures, there arose in the course of time a later
variety of Hebrew which served as the colloquial language. Bergstrssers
32
46]
M orphology
assumption is now the com m on property of scholars of BH and MH. We

now know that this colloquial is MH which did, indeed, differ from BH in
many aspects o f g ram m a r and vocabulary. One of the points of departure
from BH is the vocalization o f the suffixes o f the second person sing. masc.
and fem. (see 201). Therefore it is not surprising that the Piyyutim which
were not written in BH, were vocalized according to MH.
But what about the transliterations of the Hexapla and Jerome where the
material is BH and not M H ? The answer is that in this case and elsewhere
the transliterations reflect M H and not BH. As we noted above, during the
period under discussion, vocalization had not yet been invented and this
permitted o f a certain latitude in reading the consonantal text. In fact,
Jerome expressly states that in reading this consonantal text according to
the discretion o f readers and the different regions, the same words are
pronounced with different sounds and accents. (Sutcliffe). It therefore
comes as no surprise th at the readers of the text did not keep to the proper
pronunciation of BH but substituted the sounds of their own colloquial
Hebrew or A ram aic (Ben-Hayyim).
Nor is this the only instance o f this process. The situation in modern-day
Israel could serve as another illustration. Today everyone who knows
Hebrew is able to read BH with few mistakes. But place the unvocalized
scroll of the T orah used for reading in the synagogue before him, and have
him read the weekly portion for the Sabbath service without benefit of
proper preparation, and even a scholar will be unable to avoid mistakes.
The reason is obvious: The spoken Hebrew of today is different from BH
and the reader will nolens volens superimpose his spoken language on the
Biblical text. The proper reading of BH was apparently preserved mainly
among the families o f the Sopherim (and later Masoretes) who were taught
the proper reading o f the Biblical text from childhood as is the custom
among the priestly Samaritan families until this very day. It is doubtful
whether the average reader of BH was any more conversant with the
proper reading of the unvocalized BH text than, say, the cultured
Englishman is with the proper pronunciation of Chaucerian English in the
original spelling.
Scholars should bear this im portant fact in mind when employing the
transliterations to write the history o f the pronunciation of BH. For certain
traits of the transliterations which have been termed characteristic of preMasoretic Hebrew may well turn out to be alien to BH and to belong rather
33
BIBLICAL HEBR EW
[46
to the period in which these transliterations originated, in which case the

origin of the pronunciation would be in MH or Aramaic.
During the last two thousand years BH and M H have coexisted, as H.
Yalon has shown, although not always peacefully. In Eretz Israel it was
M H that was apt to encroach on the territory of BH, as explained above.
After the introduction of the Masoretic vocalization of the Bible in Europe,
the situation was completely reversed. From the very beginning MH was
restricted to the Rabbinic literature and the Prayer Book and BH, which
was originally confined to the Biblical domain, came to occupy a preeminent place in the linguistic consciousness of the Jews. It was vocalized,
and had Masorah (linguistic tradition) which specified all the minutiae of
the vocalized text. The reading of the weekly portion on the Sabbath in the
synagogue may illustrate this point. It is of central importance in the service, and when the reader makes a mistake he must repeat the word. Grammatical and lexical research in BH flourished during the Middle Ages, especially in Spain. Since linguistic efforts were concentrated almost exclusively on BH, it is no wonder that people began to regard MH with contempt, for it had neither Masorah nor an accepted vocalization. Lastly,
MH was no longer spoken. In short, MH was considered to be substandard
a kind of corrupted BH. Now BH began to invade the territory of MH.
So it happened that grammarians, scribes and printers took to correcting
the corrupt forms they found in the Prayer Book and in the Mishnaic
and other Rabbinic texts. The fate of the suffix is a good illustration of
this process. While the pupils of the grammarin Menachem Ben Saruk
(tenth century C.E.) still acknowledged the fact that ; was used in MH
and in the Prayer Book during the last thousand years, they corrected it
out of the Prayer Book and Mishnaic texts of the Ashkenazic community.
The Sephardic community did precisely the opposite by stiffly resisting
corrections . We know about disputes specifically over the correction
of the suffix for example in Italy in the eightenth century. The famous
Rabbi H. D. Azoulay felt compelled to issue a stern warning against making any changes in the Prayer Book. For this reason the form very often
managed to survive in the Prayer Books of the Sephardic ritual, as well as
in those of the Hassidim who use the Sephardic Prayer Book. For example,
in the Kedushah ^ as against ôf the Prayer
Book of the Ashkenazim. The Yemenite community, which is the most
linguistically reliable (cf. 373), preserved this form intact both in Mishnaic
texts and in its Prayer Book.
34
4 6 -47]
M orphology
It is also illuminating that in certain nooks and crannies o f the language

the original form managed to escape the correcting tendencies of the
gram marians even within the Ashkenazic community. Certain Piyyutim
(see 265), e.g., ( recited on H oshana R abba the seventh day
of the Festival o f Succoth) are still vocalized with , and it is this suffix
which is reflected in M H expressions used in Yiddish, as for instance
nolens volens instead of * and instead of *
^ whichever way you look at it (in which form it passed into IH). The
long arm of the grammarians was not able to interfere with everyday
speech.
L iterature:
P.E. Kahle, The Cairo G eniza2, Oxford 1959, pp. 95ff.;
F. Sutcliffe, B iblica 29 (1948), p. 200;
G. Bergstrsser, O L Z 27 (1924), cols. 5 82 -5 8 6 ;
Z. Ben-H ayyim, Studies in the Traditions o f the H ebrew L anguage,
Madrid-B arcelona 1954, pp. 13fT.;
Kutscher, Isaiah Scroll, pp. 4 5 -4 9 , 4 4 If.;
. 15-13 , , , .
V. The Verb
a. S tem s
47. Generally speaking, only seven stems of BH are known. They fall
into three groups. The first group consisting of two stems, denotes simple
action or happening, and comprises the Qal and NiPal, the former active,
the latter mainly passive (cf. below 49). The second group includes three
stems whose characteristic trait is the doubling o f the second consonant.
These are the so-called intensive stems, although their function is still a
matter of debate. These stems are the Piel, denoting active action, the
Pual, which is an internal passive, i.e., it differs from its active stem only in
its differing vowels without having recourse to affixes. The third intensive
stem, the H itpael, yields a reflexive meaning (also for the Qal) with the aid
of a prefix. The last group is formed with the prefix he (which is syncopated
in the imperfect and participle) and includes two stems, the HiPil and the
H o f al, an internal passive. It functions mainly as a causative-factitive and
also as a denominative.
35
BIBLICAL HEB R EW
[47-49
Literature:
Bergstrsser, E infhrung, pp. 41-43.
1. Passive Qal. 48. A comparison of these three groups raises the following questions: why should the first group, in contrast to the second group,
consist only of the active and passive stems? (For obvious reasons, this
question is hardly relevant to the third group). Why is the reflexive stem
lacking so that the Hitpael, which properly belongs to the second group on
the basis of the doubling of its second root consonant, must be pressed into
service of the first group? The second question is, why are the passives of
the second and third group internal passives? Why should the passive of
the Qal be built with the aid o f the prefix [ni( ]Nifal) and other
morphemes?
As a matter of fact, scholars have discovered that the first group, too,
originally consisted of three stems, the Qal, an internal passive of the Qal,
and a reflexive, the N ifal. How was this internal passive discovered? It was
pointed out that strangely enough, certain roots that were employed in the
active voice only in the Qal, but never in the Piel or HiPil, when used in
the passive voice in the perfect, appear in the Pual, and in the imperfect in
the HoPal. 1 to take, for example in the passive is =( Pual) in
the perfect, and = ( ?H o f al) in the imperfect. With the help o f Arabic it
was established that these quasi-Pual and H o f al forms are nothing more
than the perfect and imperfect of the original passive of the Qal.
The passive Qal, for reasons that cannot be dealt with here, was on its
way out during the time o f BH and being replaced by the N ifal. That is
why in the Book o f Esther (LBH) we find Esther was taken
(Esther 2, 8, 16) instead of ( Gen. 12, 15). That is, the original passive
Qal was displaced here by the N ifal. This is not to say that we do not find
the N ifal also in early books, but the tendency to replace it is much more
pronounced in LBH and also in DSS Isaiah and the Samaritan Pentateuch
(see 158, 181 respectively and cf. below 49).
Literature:
Bergstrsser, H G II, 15;
Kutscher, Isaiah Scroll, 344, 4); 364, 2).
2. N if *al. 49. First, it originally functioned as the reflexive of the Qal. This
is easily established by the fact that in some roots it still retains this mean-
36
49-531
M orphology
ing, e.g., * to guard oneself. Second, it has an imperative which is absent in the proper passives Pual and H o f al. Third, it is formed by means
of a prefix. Fourth, in all the SL the reflexive in general and the NiPal in
particular tend to turn into passives. In this way it came about that the
NiPal replaced the passive of the Qal so that in MH there is not a trace of it
(with one possible exception, see 211).
L iterature:
Bergstrsser, HG II, 16.
3. Ifte'al. 50. There are also a few traces of other stems, e.g., th at of the Ifteal with the infix It(a)| after the first radical. It is possible that the place
name meaning hearing place goes back to this stem, which also
occurs in Early Canaanite as well as in Moabite. In the latter it occurs in
the stele of King Mesha in the form I fought; the corresponding
Hebrew form would be ( cf. also below 85).
Literature:
Bergstrsser, H G II, 18.
b. Tenses
51. As mentioned above (13), BH has two tenses, the perfect and the
imperfect.
1. Suffixes o f the Perfect.
a. Second Person Singular M asculine. 52. O f this suffix, too, Kahle maintained that its vowel was non-existent in pre-Masoretic Hebrew, but was introduced by the Masoretes in imitation of Arabic (see 46). However, since
the DSS spell this suffix quite often with he, e.g., you said, Kahles
assumption is clearly without foundation.
. Second Person Singular Feminine. 53. Mainly in Jeremiah and Ezekiel
the ketib with appears, e. g. , you taught (Jer. 2, 33) but with the
qere .
A comparison with the SL indicates that the suffix o f the second person
feminine is indeed [ti] (the [-i] being long or short). The assumption which
immediately comes to mind is that the PS [ti] lost its vowel in Hebrew but
37
BIBLICAL H EBR EW
!53-54
survived as an archaism in the two books mentioned where the ketib

reflects the archaic form as it often does and the qere represents the
form that became prevalent in BH.
However, a very serious objection to this assumption could be raised: If
it is indeed correct, why did this supposedly archaic form with l-ti| not survive in the earlier books of the Bible, such as the Pentateuch, and the Fornier Prophets? Why did it turn up only in later books of the Bible where it
is nearly impossible to discover archaic forms?
On the basis of this objection Brockelmann and Bergstrsser are inclined
to believe that the spelling with |-ti| in these books is to be ascribed to the
influence of Aramaic in which it survived until the first centuries of the first
millennium C.E. We should also bear in mind that these late books were
written in a time when A ramaic influence permeated the Hebrew language
(see 100 and cf. above 41).
Literature:
Bergstrsser, H G II, 4a;
Kutscher, Isaiah Scroll, pp. 25, 188-190.
1. "M irage Forms. 54. Scholars believe that
( Ju. 5, 7) is to be translated until you arose, Deborah, you arose
as a mother in Israel' (and not until I arose, Deborah,...'). If they are right,
this would be a clear instance of the above form in ABH. Since the Song of
Deborah belongs to early Biblical poetry (cf. 111-116), and therefore
certainly reflects an archaic stage of Hebrew, Aramaic influence would
seem to be ruled out (but see 100). Are we then, to assume that when the
same form reappears in the later books of the Bible it is an Aramaism (i.e.
an Aramaic form)?
Indeed we may, for this is apparently the only solution to the problem.
Let us give a parallel from English. In Anglo-Saxon [ski became [sh], giving rise to such forms as ship, shirt etc. But after the Scandinavian invasion
in the 10th century C.E., quite a few Scandinavian parallels of the same
English words entered the English language. However, since in Scandinavian the above mentioned sound change had not taken place at that time,
these words entered English in a form that looked like Anglo-Saxon,
namely, skip , skirt and others such as s k y , etc. Had we not known that
these forms entered English at a relatively late date, we might have
assumed that they are archaic English forms that had somehow managed
38
54-561
M orphology
to defy the sound change [sk| > [sh| and to survive in their ancient form.
We shall assume that the same process was operative in Hebrew. The
suffix |-ti:| was still in existence in Archaic Hebrew but became lt| in SBH.
When Aramaic influence started transforming SBH, this was one o f the
forms which it brought back, which had survived in Standard Aramaic.
Thus it creates the mirage of the reappearance of an archaic form. It is
therefore not surprising that the form is also met with in the Dead Sea
Scrolls where Aramaic influence is especially conspicuous (see 171). This,
incidentally, is not the only instance of such a mirage form (cf. 59).
Literature:
O. Jespersen, Growth and Stru ctu re o f the English L anguage, Oxford
1943, 62;
E. Bjrkman, Scandinavian Loan W ords in M iddle E nglish, Halle 1900,
pp. 10, 119ff.
. Third Person Singular Feminine. 55. In the Semitic languages the
suffix is [atl, but it turned into [a:] in Hebrew for phonological reasons and
is spelled with a he as a m ater lectionis (vowel letter). In BH there are three
instances of the ending |-at|. The first, 1 is gone occurs in Deut. 32, 36
in a poetic passage. The survival o f this archaic form in the early poetry is,
of course, not surprising. The survival of ( Isaiah 23,15) could also
be explained in the same way. But instead of she returned in
Ezekiel 46, 17 could not be interpreted in this late book as an archaic survival for such survivals in the later books of the Bible are, as explained
above, extremely unlikely. So here again the only explanation seems to be
that the earlier form which managed to survive in the early text disappeared
from SBH to be reintroduced from Aramaic into LBH, albeit sporadically.
We should note, however, that this early suffix was reinstated in the verbs
in Mishnaic Hebrew (see 212).
6. Third Person Plural F em inine. 56. When we look at the paradigm of
the perfect we immediately notice a certain discrepancy. Except in the first
person (as in the imperfect) the paradigm contains no common form for the
masculine and the feminine, while the form for the third person plural is
shared by both genders. This sameness in form seems strange. Indeed, a
glance at the older Semitic languages confirms that all o f them, as far as
could be ascertained, employ a different form for each gender.
39
BIBLICAL HEBR EW
!56-58
But close scrutiny of BH does reveal a separate form for the third person
plural feminine. Sometimes it appears only as the ketib, e.g.,
O u r hands did not shed this blood (Deut. 21, 7), where
the qere is . The reason for the difference between the qere and the
ketib apparently lies in the fact that since was felt to be an archaic
form the SBH form was read instead. This is quite often the case with
the qere and ketib, when the ketib reflects the old form while the qere
follows modern usage. (The same is true in English where the spelling
represents the older form while the pronunciation follows the spoken
language, e.g., knight). Sometimes, though, the archaic form also appears
as the qere, e.g., and his eyes were set' (I Sam. 4, 15). The question then arises, why did this form disappear and thereby create a disturbance in the structure of Hebrew? The answer presents itself immediately.
Since this archaic form, which is paralleled by Aramaic and Akkadian,
became identical with the third person feminine singular (which in turn is
the product of a phonological process), there was, for obvious reasons, no
alternative but to use the masculine form for the feminine as well. It is
possible to prove that this change brought about the neutralization of the
masculine and feminine plural in the Hebrew imperfect (see 59). Incidentally, there is reason to believe that the original form returned sporadically
to BH via Aramaic.
Literature:
Bergstrsser, H G II, 4b.
2. Prefixes and Suffixes o f the Imperfect. 57. The imperfect is created by
means of prefixes and suffixes, the latter indicating mainly gender and number (see 13 and Table 3).
a. Second Person Singular Feminine and Second and T hird Persons
Plural M asculine. 58. The suffixes of these forms in SBH are [i:] and
[i:n] for the former and [u:] and [u:n] for the latter. In other Semitic
languages (Arabic, Aramaic) the presence and absence of the [-n] serve
two different functions while in BH their use seems to be facultative. It
should be noted that in Chronicles the [-u:] ending sometimes appears
where the parallel text in Kings has [u:n], e. g. , in I Kings 8, 38, but
in II Chr. 6, 29. This would seem to indicate that in LBH the longer
ending had already disappeared. Indeed, in MH only the shorter form sur
40
58-59]
M orphology
vives (see 208). It is noteworthy that in spite of the strong Aramaic influence upon LBH, in this case LBH and MH chose the form diametrically
opposed to the Aramaic in which the longer form became the normal one
in most of the later dialects.
Literature:
Bergstrsser, H G II, 5a, b.
. Third Person Plural Feminine. 59. The SBH form of this person is
identical with the form of the second person plural feminine. In this respect
Hebrew stands nearly isolated among the Semitic languages since they all
employ the same prefix [y+vowel] in this case. Again, there are three cases
in Hebrew in which this prefix does appear: their mating occurred
(Gen. 30, 38), ( the cows) went straight (I Sam. 6, 12) and ({
shall arise (D an 8, 22). The first two instances can be regarded as survivais of the archaic form, but this is, of course, ruled out in the case of the
late Book of Daniel. Here too, as in 54 we must assume that this is a
mirage form for which Aramaic influence was responsible. But while in
the forms discussed above the mirage form is more or less identical with
the Hebrew form, here, due to the Aramaic influence, a mixed form arose,
since the suffix [na:] is Hebrew. (In Aramaic the form should have been
)* . We find another type of mixed form in 1
)=) and let your widows trust in me (Jer. 49, 11). Here, while the
prefix remained that of the feminine, the suffix was taken over from the
parallel masculine form. This case itself could be taken as an indication of
the weakening of the feminine form. Eventually the masculine form was to
displace the feminine form altogether. It is no coincidence that in the late
Book of Esther we find and all women will give
honor to their husbands (1, 20). In M H the standard BH feminine form
has completely disappeared (as did that of the second person plural
feminine), and its function was taken over by the parallel masculine form.
With this particular form we have the rare opportunity to observe the
vicissitudes in BH of one specific case as represented by five different forms
e'asily placed within a time sequence. This is not to say that all representatives of all five forms do fit this picture. Nevertheless, the trend seems to
be clear: (1) the archaic form 2) )the BH standard form 3) ) a
pseudo-archaic mirage form (actually a mixed form) 4) )a new
41
BIBLICAL HEB RE W
[59-63
form representing a Hebrew mixed form, and finally (5) the

masculine taking over completely: ? .
Literature:
Bergstrsser, H G II, 5a.
c. Active and N eutral Bases in the Qal
1. Perfect. 60. The base of the perfect Qal in nearly all the SL can be
vocalized in three different ways which fall into two categories: with / a / in
the second syllable for the active verbs and with /i/ or / u / for the others. In
Hebrew the second category is losing ground; only five verbs have survived
from the / u / type (e.g., he could), and the /i/ type (e. g., he slept) is
not as strong as it is in Arabic, for example. Quite a few cases of the latter
type will, at times, switch over to the / a / type, e.g., he was guilty
(Lev. 5, 19) as against they were guilty (ibid. 4, 13; in pausa). In
MH is the only verb of the /u / type which survived.
2. Imperfect. 61. The above mentioned types of the perfect are paralleled
in Arabic by three different vocalizations of the second syllable of the imperfect. In Hebrew the /i/ imperfect disappeared almost entirely; only the
/ u / imperfect, e.g., ( perfect ) and the / a / imperfect, e.g., he
will sleep (perfect );are fully developed. The imperative follows the imperfect, e.g., , .
3. Participle. 62. The three types o f verbs in the Qal stem have their counterparts in the participle as well. The active verbs require the qo:tel type.
The two others are mainly the in forms identical with the third person
singular perfect, e.g.,
, .
Literature:
Bergstrsser, H G II, 14b, c, d, f, h, r.
d. The W eak Verbs
1.
and ( ( Verbs. 63. These two types, e.g., to be full and
to buy respectively are generally kept apart in BH. But some
forms already appear which are construed according to the ( ,, ( verbs,
42
M orphology
63-65]
pointing toward the situation in MH, where the verbs turned into
(see 212).
L iterature:
Bergstrsser, H G II, 29d, f, h.
2 . and Verbs. 64. One of the characteristics of these verbs, such as

to stand up' is that in the Piel, Pual and Hitpael stems they do not
double the second radical (waw or yod) but the third radical instead, e.g.,
I shall rebuild (Isa. 44, 26). There are also cases where the normal
pattern is adhered to but with the gemination of the second radical. Excepting those which are also ( e.g., ) these are to a great extent late
roots coming mainly from Aramaic, e.g., you would endanger'
(Dan. 1,10). This form becomes dominant in MH.
Literature:
Bergstrsser, H G II, 20d, 28r, u.
VI. The Noun
65. The different nominal types are built upon the root with different
vocalization patterns, gemination of the second or third radical, addition of
derivational prefixes (mainly [m + vowel]) or derivational suffixes (mainly
l-a:n, -0 :n] or [-u:t]). Scholars have not yet drawn a clear historical picture
of the development of the different nominal types, but the history of the
nominal type built with the derivational suffix [u:th e.g., kingdom,
seems to be clear enough. It is rare in ABH and SBH, but becomes more
common in LBH (Chronicles. Daniel etc.). Several nominal types of
Aramaic origin will be discussed later (see 103).
Literature:
Koehler-Baumgartner3, s.v. .
43
[66
BIBLICAL HE BR EW
E.
Syntax
I. S y n ta x o f the Verb in S B H
66. The dominating factor of BH syntax is the framework of the tenses.
A sentence may open with the verb in the imperfect, but the following verbs
will appear in the so-called consecutive perfect, e.g., ^
\?... ... ... If, then you obey... I will
grant thee rain for your land in season... you shall gather... I will provide...
you shall eat..., (Deut. 11, 13-15). The form of the consecutive perfect is,
except for the stress in certain cases, identical with that of the normal perfeet.
This consecutive tense must be prefixed by the waw conversive. On the
other hand, a sentence starting with the perfect is followed by verbs in the
imperfect and, wherever possible, in the short imperfect, e.g.,
; ... Jacob than gave Esau bread... and he ate,
drank, rose, and went his way (Gen. 25, 34). These too, must be prefixed
by waw conversive, but its vocalization is different from that o f the perfect.
With the help o f these four tense forms, BH has built a complex system
capable of subtle indications of both time and aspect. The past perfect, for
example, is indicated in the following way by the subject preceding the
predicate, e.g., and Rachel meanwhile had taken (Gen. 31, 34).
It is mainly the imperfect and the perfect conversive which serve to indicate
the imperfect aspect o f action, e.g., 1 thus Job did
continually (Job 1, 5). The imperfect is employed here despite the fact that
the action takes place in the past, in order to indicate the habitative aspect.
Scholars assume that the Semitic tenses, including those of Hebrew, were
originally aspectual expressions denoting perfective or imperfective action,
regardless of the time the action took place. The system of simple and conversive tenses which Hebrew developed, whose origin still remains unexplained, is peculiar only to BH and Moabite as it appears in the Mesha stele
(see above 2; Segert believes that it is written in the Israelite dialect of
Hebrew).
L iterature:
Bergstrsser, H G II, 6 -8 ; 9n;
S. Segert, A rchiv O rientlni 29 (1961), 197-267.
44
Syntax
67-68]
II. Syntax o f the Verb in LBH
67. This system began to disintegrate in LBH. For example, where the
Book of Chronicles parallels the Books of Samuel and Kings we find that
the conversive tense is replaced by a simple tense, and instead of the imperfeet indicating habitative action we find the perfect. Apparently the reason
is that the imperfect was becoming an indicator only of the temporal concept to the exclusion of notions of aspect. Later, in MH, the imperfect underwent another change in this respect (see 218). The following is a good
instance of the replacement o f the imperfect by the perfect plus ^ 0 ^:
, An d as often as the
King went into the house of the Lord, the guards bore them and brought
them back to the guard room 1 (I Kings 14, 28). The parallel text reads
...( ? II Chron. 12, 11).
It should be mentioned here that the system of the four tenses is built on
the fact that the verb precedes all other elements of the sentence except in
the past perfect. After some particles, e.g., the verb does not appear with
the \va H conversive.
For further discussion see below 122.
L iterature:
A. Kropat, D ie S y n ta x des A u to rs der C hronik, Giessen 1909, 6 III;
Bergstrsser, 10c. cit. (above 66).
III. Infinitives a n d Participles

68. Rounding up the picture are the two infinitives and one participle
which each stem possesses, except the Qal which has both an active and a
passive participle. The infinitive construct, to which the prepositions ( (
, ,, can be prefixed, functions with the mainly as the object of a finite
verb (like to + infinitive in English), e.g., he refuses to let the
people go' (Ex. 7, 14), and with other prepositions mainly as a gerund (like
the English 1-ing] construction), e.g.,
Upon reading the letter, the King of Israel rent his clothes' (II
Kings 5, 7).
The infinitive absolute, which is characteristic of Hebrew, is mainly used
as a kind of imperative, e.g. 1 1 1 Remember the sab-
45
! 68-70
BIBLICAL H E BR EW
bath day to keep it holy (Ex. 20, 8), as well as for emphasis, e.g., in 1
thou shalt surely die (Gen. 2, 17), and instead of a finite verb, e.g.,
1 ... they should gather all the young
virgins... and let their ointments be given them (Esther 2, 3). The participies remain nouns, the active employed mainly in the sphere of the presentfuture, the passive indicating mainly the outcome of past actions.
F. Vocabulary
I. Foreign Loanw ords
69. The horizon o f the average Jew during Biblical times was relatively
wide, extending to India in the East, to Southern Arabia in the south, to
Asia Minor in the north, and westward as far as the Greek Isles, probably
even farther. In the southeast it was bounded by Nubia, the southern
neighbor of Egypt. It was one world in which people, artifacts, food
products and even ideas were apt to travel widely. Through commerce, the
peoples of this area absorbed words of other languages especially the
names of institutions (mainly political and military), of artifacts and
products, as well as technical processes. BH has quite a few foreign loans
from nearly all the major languages dominant in this area.
a. How Is a Foreign Loanw ord Recognized?
70. Loans from non-Semitic languages are generally quite easy to
detect since their ro ot is alien to the Semitic languages (cf. above 5).
For this reason it is more difficult but nonetheless possible to identify words
borrowed from a Semitic language. There are ways by which we can
achieve quite satisfactory results in this respect.
1) The differences in sound changes in the various Semitic languages
enable us to identify as non-Hebrew those roots that exhibit sound changes
alien to Hebrew. 2) Very often the type of a certain noun is alien, or at least
uncommon to Hebrew. 3) The root is absent from Hebrew except for the
word in question. 4) The word turns up only in a certain layer of BH,
mainly in LBH which is a priori suspected o f having been exposed to the influence o f a foreign language namely, Aramaic. 5) The cultural background
46
70-711
Vocabulary
of the word in question indicates its foreign origin. (Instances will be given
below 73). O f course, there arc times when there is no clear-cut solution,
and quite often the origin o f a particular word remains in doubt.
Literature:
1080-1070 / ,( with extensive lists and literature).
b. W andenvrter (Travelling Words)

71. Not all the foreign words indicate direct contact between Hebrew
and their country of origin. There are words that travel from language to
language so that very often it is impossible to tell from which language a
word comes. A case in point is sack which is to be found in Egyptian
and in nearly all the Semitic languages. It is attested in Greek and was
widely diffused throughout the European languages. While it looks Semitic,
its Semitic origin cannot be taken for granted. Another'instance is
iron (with (p| instead of Ib 1 in some other Semitic languages). It cannot be
native to Hebrew for several reasons. 1) The quadriliteral root in itself
could not as yet be used as an argument against the assumption that it is of
Hebrew, or for that matter, of Semitic stock (cf. above 5). 2) More serious
is the fact that this noun pattern is rare in Hebrew. 3) The Bible indicates
that iron was found in Palestine (Dcut. 8, 9), but apparently our forefathers
preferred to import it from abroad. The following verse Now there was no
smith to be found throughout all the Land of Israel for the Philistines said:
Lest the Hebrews make themselves swords or spears" (I Sam. 13, 19)
seems to indicate that the Israelites were not well versed in blacksmithery
and were dependent on the work of foreigners. 4) There is little doubt that
the word is found also in Europe. Scholars assume that Latin ferru m
( <*fersom) is related to our word. It was recently pointed out that Fursil,
the name of an iron mine in northern Italy, is obviously identical with our
word. The country o f origin of the word has not yet been established.
Another noun whose parallels turn up in quite a few Indo-European
languages is concubine. One glance at the pattern of this noun
reveals that it cannot be Hebrew or even Semitic. It also seems to be a
travelling word in Greek, Latin (paelex), Old Persian, Armenian, etc. In
the Semitic languages parallel nouns are to be found in Aramaic and
perhaps Arabic. While there is no doubt that is not Semitic, IndoEuropean scholars cannot agFee as to its origin.
47
BIBLICAL HEBR EW
(71 - 7 2
:L iterature
Koehler-Baumgartner3, s.v . ,;
; 1 0 7 1 , ,
;9-8 , ,
F. Altheim, G eschichte der lateinischen Sprache, Frankfurt a/M 1951, pp.
52-53.
A. Walde-J.B. Hofmann, Lateinisches etym ologisches W rterbuch\
Heidelberg 1938-1940, s.v. ferru m , paelex;
[P. Artzi, J N E S 28 (1969), 268ff.]
c. A kkadian and Sum erian Loanw ords
1.
A kkadian. 72. This language of the Babylonians and Assyrians
looms large as one of the most important sources of foreign loans in
Hebrew. Mesopotamian (i.e. Sumerian-Babylonian-Assyrian) civilization
exercised tremendous cultural influence over the neighboring countries. By
the El-Amarna period (fifteenth-fourteenth centuries B.C.E.)Akkadian had
become the lingua fra n c a o f the entire Near East (see above 1 and below
108). In the first millennium B.C.E. contacts between the Babylonians and
Assyrians and Palestine were very intensive. Therefore it seems obvious
that technical terms should have been borrowed extensively not only in the
domains of government and warfare, but also in the fields o f handicrafts,
merchandise, utensils, law etc. This borrowing was done not only by the
Israelites, but also by the Canaanites, A rameans and others. During the
A rab domination of Spain, several o f these loans from Akkadian reached
European countries via Aramaic which transmitted them to Arabic (see
below).
Loans from Akkadian include words like 1 , originally port, today
district', letter today book, a high official, today vice, deputy.
The case of a man belonging to a certain social class, today poor is
especially interesting. From A kkadian the word also penetrated Aramaic,
which transmitted it to Arabic. Via Arabic it eventually reached French
(mesquin), Italian (m eschino) and other languages. Other Akkadian
loanwords include governor, eunuch, queen, concubine,
taxes, price. The word is another interesting case. While
elsewhere in BH it means taste, in Jonah 3,7 it is used to mean decree (of
the Assyrian king). Since this is the only place in BH where has this
meaning, there is reason to believe that the Akkadian tm u (= decree)
48
72]
Vocabulary
brought about this change (caique; see 106). There may be other hidden
traces of Akkadian influences of this type, but they are obviously difficult
to detect.
As is well known, both ch ief and c h e f entered the English language from
French. The difference in their pronunciation is accounted for by their
history; ch ie f was borrowed by the English language several hundred years
ago, while c h e f is a latecomer (the last century.) It exhibits a sound change
that had taken place meanwhile in the French language.
Sometimes Hebrew borrowed words from Akkadian which go back to
Semitic roots that do exist in Hebrew. A case in point are Akkadian
parallels of the Hebrew root to dwell', from which is derived e. g. ,
neighbor'. This root apparently entered Hebrew at quite an early date as
a high official'. It must have been quite common in Canaanite too and
therefore in the El-Amarna glosses (see 108) it already serves to explain
another Akkadian word! During the time o f the First Temple it again entered Hebrew in the form meaning a high official, Assyrian / k / quite
often being transliterated at that time by [g]. So it happened that a certain
PS root is represented in Hebrew by three different forms, as happened, for
example, to Latin caput in English, (cf. c h ie f-c h e f mentioned above).
The names of the months found in MH and still in use today ( ,
,, etc.), are of Sumerian-Akkadian origin. Indeed the Rabbis knew that
the names of the months came from Babylonia. A few of these names
already turn up in LBH, e.g., , , etc. In SBH the names are still in
Canaanite-Hebrew, e.g. ( Ex 13,4) for the later and ( I
Kings 6,1) for the later . While scholars sometimes tend to exaggerate
the importance of Akkadian influence on Hebrew by including in their list
of loans words whose Akkadian origin is by no means established, e.g.,
1 to sell', law the share of Akkadian remains substantial nonetheless.
Literature:
; 1074-1072 , ,
H. Zimmern, A kkadische Fremdwrter als Beweis f r babylonischen Kultureinuss, Leipzig 1917, passim (see Index);
O. Jespersen, Growth and Structure o f the English Language, Oxford
1943, 112.
.) ] (- , [= 18-5 , ,) (, .
49
BIBLICAL HEBR EW
f72-73
[Akkadian texts contemporary with the El-Amarna tablets were also

found in various places in Israel. Their time span, however, is more extensive that the El-Amarna period as they are dated between ca. the seventeenth and thirteen centuries B.C.E. See A.F. Rainey, Tel Aviv 2 (1975),
125-129, and 3 (1976), 137-140 (a Sumerian-A kkadian-Canaanite lexicon; both articles reprinted in M. Kochavi et al., Aphek-A ntipatris
1974-1977: The Inscriptions, Tel Aviv 1978) (from Aphek); A. Shaffer,
apud W.G. Dever et al. G ezer I (Jerusalem 1970), 11 Iff. (Gezer); W.W.
Hallo and H. Tadmor, IE J 27 (1977) Iff. with nn. 1-3 (Hazor); A. Goetze
and S. Levy, ,A tiqot vol. 2 (1959), 1 2Iff. (Megiddo); Encyclopaedia o f
Archaeological Excavations in the H oly L a n d vol. IV, 1147 (Taanach).l
2. Sum erian. 73. Akkadian was also the medium of transmission of
Sumerian loanwords, since Sumerian, a non-Semitic language, was employed by the Babylonians and Assyrians even after it had died out in
Mesopotamia as a spoken language. Instances o f Sumerian loanwords in
BH are: craftsman, farmer, chair, [ scribe', 1
shofar, rams horn(?)) and others. One o f the most important Sumerian
loanwords is temple. There is no root in Hebrew to explain this noun,
but Sumerian - gal big house seems to do so admirably. To be sure, the
origin of the he presents a problem. Since Sumerian presumably did not
have any gutturals, the same problem presents itself with regard to
*Eden (Sum. e d i n ) and Tigris River (Sum. I d i g n a ) .
Another Sumerian loanword, sailor, could serve as an excellent example of how a loan can be tracked down. At first sight it looks perfectly
Semitic. The root could be that of salt, and the noun pattern is the
Semitic pattern which serves to denote professions, e.g., hunter. Why,
then, should we resort to the assumption of a foreign origin? There are
several reasons. 1) The word appears only in LBH originating in Babylonia
(Ezek. 27, 9, 29) or reflecting an Assyrian milieu (Jonah 1, 5), which leads
us to suspect a foreign origin (see above 70 under 6). 2) Elsewhere in an
earlier source ^ seam an who were familiar with the sea
is used (I Kings 9, 27), and cf. also ^ those who go down to
the sea in ships (Psalms 107, 23). 3) In the kingdom o f Judah at least,
seamanship was apparently not highly developed. (Cf. I Kings 9, 27, where
Solomon was compelled to ask Phoenicians to lend him a hand in equipping and dispatching a naval expedition. Cf. also ibid. 22, 49.) This is understandable since the Kingdom of Judah had very few outlets to the sea,
50
73-74]
V ocabulary
the maritime coast in the west being occupied by the Philistines. The Judeans, therefore, might not have felt the need for a technical term for
sailor. 4) The word is found in Akkadian, and since the Akkadian influence is especially strong in Ezekiel, there is no difficulty in assuming that
this word should be added to the long list of Akkadian loans in this book.
5) To clinch the matter, the word is of Sumerian origin, where m a = ship
and l a h 4 = to drive, lead, move. Thus, there was no need after all, to an
etymology of salt. In Hebrew the noun pattern adapted itself to that
of .
The case of shows that even a word that looks completely Hebraic
may be proved to be of foreign origin. O f course, this is an exception; in
other instances we are not that fortunate. Take the following instance: The
English word cumin is assumed to be of Sumerian origin. It is to be found
in Akkadian, from which it penetrated into Hebrew ( 1 ) and apparently
also into Canaanite. From Canaanite it reached Greek/Latin (cum inum )
and nearly all of the European languages.
This word (and others) came to Europe also by another way. It wandered from Akkadian through Aramaic, via Arabic which transmitted it to
Spanish and Portugese. (Both countries were under Arab domination for
centuries.) These forms still indicate the route they travelled by keeping the
Arabic definite article, e.g., Spanish alcam onias (with a change in meaning). The word does not seem to be Sumerian, and is probably Semitic.
Literature:
; 1074-1071 ,
Zimmern, op. cit. (above 72);
; 59-58 , , ,
Low, Flora vol. Ill, p. 436;
A Hw, s.v. kam nu.
[C AD vol. K, s.v. kam nu A.]
d. Egyptian Loanw ords
74. There are also several loanwords from Egyptian in BH. They
belong mainly to the domain of material culture, e.g., brazier,
girdle, ( measure unit) and ship (today fleet). a kind of
linen is expressly attributed to Egypt in Proverbs 7, 16. 1 seal, signet
ring, gave rise to a verb 1 to sign, seal (e.g., Esther 8, 10). It goes
without saying that words like papyrus, reed, Nile that are
51
BIBLICAL HEBREW
[ 74-76
indicative of Egyptian background, are of Egyptian origin, as is, of course,

Pharaoh (the Big House).
L iterature:
; 1077-1076 / , ,
Th. O. Lambdin, J A O S 73 (1953), 145ff.
e. Persian Loanw ords

75. Since the Persian rule over Palestine was relatively short (from the
middle of the sixth until the middle of the fourth century B.C.E.) Persian
loanwords, which naturally occur only in LBH, are not too numerous.
They all belong to the field of government, e.g., treasurer,
governor, also park. The last word, which originally denoted the
parks of the Persian rulers where they hunted, was also borrowed by the
Greeks, and via the Septuagint translation of ( (in Gen. 2, 8 it eventually came to denote paradise in various European languages.
Literature:
Dictionaries;
; 1079 / , ,
. 23-21 , , ,
/ . Loanwords fro m Other Languages

76. A few words seem to have come into Hebrew from Asia Minor,
e.g., 2 wine. The origin of the Hebrew and English words is identical.
In Hebrew, /w / in initial position turned into / y / but the original form,
with /w/, survives both in Arabic and in Ethiopie (Geez). It also reached
Greek and Latin and from Latin it was borrowed by nearly all the European languages, since it was the Romans who taught viniculture to the inhabitants of Europe. The word 1 helmet is probably of Hittite origin.
The Hittite word is supposedly related to Latin caput head, from which
various English words like chapter, chief, c h ef capital, etc. are derived.
At least one word that Hebrew borrowed from Philistean is known also
from Greek, namely * which in Israeli Hebrew means captain (as a
military rank). In the Bible the princes of the Philistines are called
( I Sam. 6, 4 etc.). Scholars believe that the word is identical with the
Greek word tyrannos tyrant, originally ruler. The word apparently
52
7 6 -77]
Vocabulary
originated somewhere in Asia Minor and was brought to Palestine by the

non-Semitic Philistines.
While * is not originally Greek, some scholars believe that another
word litter is of Greek origin although others assume Persian
origin; mail is supposed to be Hurrian.
If J. Friedrich is right, 1 laver was borrowed from Urartean. He
pointed out that the word occurs in an Akkadian text that enumerates
booty taken from Urartu ( = , Armenia). Incidentally, it is listed there
together with another word, ka n n u , which occurs in Hebrew alongside ,
e.g., 1 1 and its laver and its stand (Ex 31, 9). Friedrichs
solution appears acceptable since he has found a parallel Urartean word
while no Hebrew or other probable etymology has as yet been proposed.
O f course, it is impossible to tell which language or languages played the
role of the transmitters.
Many more words are attributed to these four languages but most of the
cases are extremely doubtful, as are several nouns assumed to be of
Sanskrit origin. Perhaps names of precious stones such as and
did come from Sanskrit.
L iterature:
Dictionaries;
; 1078 / , ,
Lw, Flora I, 4 8 ff.;
S. Ernout and A. Meillet, Dictionnaire tymologique de la langue latine\
Paris 1951, s.v. vinum ;
Ch. Rabin, Orientalia NS 32 (1963), 124-5;
;72-71 , ,
. Boisacq, Dictionnaire tymologique de la langue grecque2, H eidelbergParis 1938, 5.1. tyrannosx
J. Friedrich, A rchiv O rientlni 4 (1932), 66ff.
g. A ram aic Loanw ords
Regarding Aramaic loanwords see 105.
II. The Native Vocabulary
a . The Vocabulary as a Reflection o f Jew ish L ife
77. The native vocabulary of BH is a true reflection of the life,
53
BIBLICAL HEBREW
[ 7 7 -7 9
geographical background, means of livelihood, manners and customs,

religion and beliefs of the Jewish people during Biblical times. One does not
need a thorough knowledge of the Bible to realize that the Jews o f Biblical
times were a nation of farmers and shepherds, rather than of merchants or
craftsmen. This can be easily ascertained from BH. Not only is the word
Canaanite employed for merchant (e.g., Prov, 31, 24), but the very
vocabulary of commerce (which is as yet not very rich) can be used as a
proof in this respect. Moreover, the few technical commercial terms both in
BH and MH are, to a large extent, loans from Akkadian or Aramaic (see
above 72; the word price is an instance of an Akkadian loan in this
field).
We find an entirely different picture in the above-mentioned fields.
Foreign loanwords are practically non-existent ( farmer, above 73, is
an exception), and the vocabulary is rich to the extent that very often we
have the impression of em barras de richesse. Of course, words that now
appear to us mere synonyms probably had each its own well defined meaning. As pointed out by Low in the case of the names of thorns and thistles
(below 80), it is only because we are unable to establish the exact meaning
of the different words employed in the same field, that we tend to consider
them synonyms.
b. Topographical Terms
78. BH knows more than ten expressions of hills and mountains
, , , , , , , , !, , , , , because
apparently Hebrew speakers could distinguish between different kinds of
mountains, hills, hillocks, crags, etc. On the other hand, we do not even
know whether, or in what respect, was different from . To be sure,
is commonly translated mountain' and hill( e.g., Isa. 40, 4), but
this seems to be a merely conventional translation resorted to by the embarrassed translators. For the fact that we find high hill e.g., in I
Kings 14, 23 obviously contradicts the assumption that means hill
(cf. a high mountain, Isa. 40, 9).
1. D ialectal differences? 79. However, it is also possible that the richness

of the vocabulary sometimes derives from dialectal differences. Take, for
instance, the words , ,. and do not occur in place
names in Transjordan (with one exception) while and do. Unless
54
7 9 -8 1 ]
Vocabulary
this is due to mere chance, the attestation of the place names indicates that
the use o f the root was restricted to central Palestine.
c. Thorns and Thistles
80. Since the Jews were mainly an agricultural people, it is not surprising that we find 117 names of plants in BH. The difficulties of the Jewish
farmer are also revealed, inter a lia , by the fact that there are eighteen different names of thorns and thistles. In identifying these plants we are on
much firmer ground than in other fields of BH lexicography, thanks to the
admirable works of E. Low and G. Dalman. Both were greatly assisted by
the fact that quite a few o f these words survived in the spoken Arabic of
Palestine.
L iterature:
Low, Flora IV, pp. 75, 8 5 -8 6 ;
G. Dalm an, Arbeit und S itte in Palstina II, Gtersloh 1932, pp. 242-323.
d. A ll the Fountains o f the Great Deep and the Flood-Gates o f the S k y
81. Agriculture was less dependent on irrigation than on seasonal rains.
It is therefore not surprising that there are about ten words for different
cloud formations: , *, , *, *, , , , and
several words for rain: , , , , , , , . The
cisterns which were used to preserve the water during the spring and summer when no rain fel in Palestine, were of prime importance. Several names
bear witness to this fact: (?) *, *, ,1 .
Springs and wells also played an important role in agriculture, as did
rivers, rivulets, etc. This can easily be established by the numerous names
which denote them: , , , , , ^,) (, , ,
* , , , , ,) , (.
Here, too, the possibility that several dialects contributed towards this
richness cannot be excluded. It is perhaps no mere chance that 1 can be
pinpointed only in the region of Jerusalem; we are told in II Chron. 32,
3 0 : ^
4This same Hezekiah also stopped the upper spring of the waters of Gihon,
and brought them straight down on the west side of the city o f David. It
could of course be assumed that in this verse 1 reflects the language of
the author, as in II Kings 2, 21, where is employed concerning a
spring in Jericho. But also occurs in the Siloam inscription which
55
BIBLICAL HE BR EW
!81-83
records the very feat which is mentioned in Chronicles. Finally 1 as a

place name is found only once in Palestine in the neighborhood of
Jerusalem (while , for example, is found over the whole area).
We may assume, therefore, that 1 was employed mainly in the dialect
of Jerusalem.
Literature:
. 180-177 , 177-176 , 167-165 , , , , .
e. The Desert
Probably the history of the Jewish people as well as the .82
geographical setting o f Palestine are reflected in the fact that more than ten
expressions turn up in BH to denote the deserts : , , , ,
. , , , , , , ,
Literature:
Dictionaries.
f . Translation an d Transculturation
83. The material mentioned above would in itself be sufficient to prove
the importance of the soil and agriculture in the life of our forefathers
during Biblical times.
Nevertheless, it is another aspect of Jewish life during Biblical times that
made the Jewish people what it is, and which is the raison d'etre of the Bible. No doubt poetical portions describing, for example, the beauty of the
Palestinian landscape deeply impress the reader. But the Bible came to occupy its unique position not because of its literary value but because of its
religious and social message. Thus, while we feel sure of the basic meanings
of such important terms as , , , , yet as J. Barr has pointed out, whenever we attempt to translate these terms into a European
language, we must contend with the problems of translation as well as
transculturation. He successfully demolished the very widely held belief
that the Semitic languages are as perfect expressions of Semitic thinking
as European languages are of European thinking . Others would replace
the word Semitic by Hebrew, but all would maintain that somehow the
Hebrew terms have revealed their contents by their very roots and forms.
While it can not be denied that there may be some truth to that contention,
56
83-85]
V ocabulary
Barr points out that the scholars who held this view based it on methods
that do not hold water linguistically. A proper investigation of this semantic
field conducted along the lines of up-to-date semantic research, especially
of the field theory, may yield more positive results.
L iterature:
J. Barr, The Sem antics o f B iblical L a n g u a g e, Oxford 1961, pp. 107fT.
g. D iachronic Investigation
84. Alongside this synchronic investigation, another investigation, conducted along diachronic lines, mainly comparing the state of affairs in M H
with that of BH could provide us with some fresh insights. For example, it
is interesting to note that the M H technical term it is forbidden,
it is permitted are not to be found in BH. Thus, it is forbidden to eat is
expressed by ( ( no leavened bread shall be eaten (Ex. 13, 3),
while the opposite, may be eaten is expressed by ( e.g., Lev. 17, 13).
Even without a thorough investigation, differences between the various
strata of BH (A BH, SBH, and LBH ) are easily discernible and will be discussed later (1 11 -1 25 ).
h. The Evidence fr o m Place N am es

85. An additional source of BH lexicography is the place names in the
Bible. While some of them are doubtless o f non-Semitic origin, e.g., ,
the overwhelming majority are C anaanite and Hebrew. Some place names
provide us with very welcome information concerning problems of Hebrew
vocabulary, while a few may help us to clear up some points in the history
of the language, especially in the field o f phonology. The noun soil,
ground goes back to ( * the resh turned into ,ayin through dissimilation). The original form has not survived in BH except perhaps in the
speech of Balaam (Nu. 24, 17), where the word may have this meaning. The original form is to be found in Arabic (and Akkadian). The place
name ( Ju. 8, 10) shows that it also existed in Transjordan.
The root of the word fox has an added / b / in Akkadian and
Arabic. The place name ( Ju. 1, 35 etc.) indicates that this form, too,
must have been known at least in certain regions of Palestine. If we remember that somewhere in the same region we find the Land of the
F o x (I Sam 13, 17), and that it was in this region that Samson went and
57
BIBLICAL H E B R E W
[85
caught three hundred foxes (Ju. 15, 4), it becomes quite clear that
should be considered an alloform of the SBH .
Incidentally, the ancient has survived in the Arabic of Palestine
as Selbit. This form intrigued me, since the disappearance o f the ayin
seemed strange. (The pronunciation change of I I I to [s] in Palestinian
Arabic poses no problem.) The riddle was solved when the ruins of a
Samaritan synagogue were discovered at this site. Since the Samaritans do
not pronounce ,ayin (see 179), it did not survive in the speech of the
Arabs who settled there after they took over the village from the
Samaritans (or after the Samaritans became Arabic-speaking Moslems).
In his work Flora der Juden E. Lw pointed out that it is mere chance
that certain nouns and verbs from the domain of agriculture which are
known to us from M H do not happen to occur in BH. The word for carob,
for example, is non-existent in BH although there is little doubt that it was
known in Biblical times. Another instance: The place name 1( II Chr. 28,
18) seems to indicate that the fruit o f the sycamore was known under this
name during BH times despite the fact that it does not occur except in MH
() . This place name is also known in M H thanks to 1 . According to a Midrashic explanation, he was called because he used
to say that no matter what happened to him 1 1 it is for the best.
This is one of the instances of Midrashic explanations of place names (and
proper nouns in general) on popular etymology.
The place name ( Josh. 19, 44 etc.) goes a long way towards proving that the Ifteal stem (see above 50) existed not only in Akkadian,
Arabic, Moabite, Ugaritic, and Early Phoenician, but also in Palestinian
Canaanite (= Hebrew). The name is commonly explained deriving from the
root * meet, which survives in Arabic; the place name would thus
mean meeting place. For another instance see above 50.
L iterature:
W. Bore, D ie alten O rtsnam en P alstinas, Leipzig 1930, p. 116.
] , ; [ = - , , , , .
H. Bauer, Z A W 48 (1930), pp. 77 -78;
Low, Flora II, p. 393; I, p. 277;
Talmudic dictionaries s.v. ;
H. Bauer, Z A W 48 (1930), pp. 77f.
[A.F. Rainey, The Toponymies of Eretz Israel, B A S O R no. 231 (1978),
58
8 5 -8 7 i
V ocabulary
pp. 1-17; D. Barag, Encyclopaedia o f A rchaeological Excavations in the

H oly L a n d IV, s.v. S h a a lb im .]
1. S o u n d C hanges in Place N am es. 86. Akkadian transliterations are
helpful in establishing the diffusion of a certain sound change. While in the
El-Amarna, glosses PS / a : / had already changed to /o :/, place names indicate that this sound change had not yet taken place throughout the whole
area (see in detail above 34).
But by the end of the eighth century B.C.E. the /a : / > 10:1 Canaanite
shift seems to have occurred throughout Palestine, as we see from place
names in the third campaign of the annals of Sennacherib, King of
Assyria, which took place in 701 B.C.E. N am es in that campaign include
Sidunnu, A k k , Yap, Isqalna ( 1 ,1 ;,1 ,1 ) etc. The only name
which does not show this shift is B it-D a g a n n a , apparently named after the
(Philistine-) Canaanite god D agn (B t-*D agna or the like would be expected). However this does not prove that the shift did not occur there, for
another possiblity is that the A ssyrian scribe, familiar with the worship of
this god in Assyria, simply replaced the Canaanite with the Assyrian form
of the name.
The place name 1 appears in LBH in the form 1( Zach. 12, 11).
This tendency o f adding [-n] to the final /-o :/ of place names seems to have
been prevalent in LBH, M H , and in the spoken Arabic of Palestine. The
place name 1 , , too, bears witness to this tendency. Already in the
Septuagint it appears as Sln and in the spoken Arabic o f Palestine as
Sln.
2. C anaanite Deities in Place N am es. 87. Place names are also interesting
for cultural reasons. Names like ( Josh. 11, 17) and other compound
names where is one o f the constituents indicate that these places may
have served as cultic centers for the Canaanite god Baal in one of his
manifestations. Other names like or 1 are indicative of the goddess . The same holds true for = ) the Sun-God) and
?1 = ) the goddess Astarte). Even of the place name
was explained by O. Schroeder as the name of a god.
L itera ture:
W. Bore, D ie alten O rstnam en P al stin a s, Leipzig 1930, pp. 105f.
59
BIBLICAL HEBREW
[ 8 7 -8 9
[A.F. Rainey, B A S O R no 231 (1978), p. 6.

Schroeders view on the name was decisively refuted by H. Tadmor and Z. Kallai, Eretz Israel 9 (1969), 138ff. (Hebrew).]
3. Place N am es in W ord Plays. 88. Sometimes the Prophets made plays

on the words of place n a me s , 1
which is translated (You) who rejoice in a thing o f naught who
say, Have we not by our strength taken horns for ourselves? (Amos 6,
13). H. Graetz remarked that and ) 1 ) were place
names, and indeed the RSV, too, adopted this interpretation (see e.g., II
Sam. 17, 27; Gen. 14, 5). Jeroboam II apparently conquered these two
Transjordanian cities, which must have caused much rejoicing in Israel.
Therefore the prophet sounded the note of warning, hinting that the rejoicing would come to naught.
Another instance of such a play on words is found in
( ^ Ps 8 3 , 11) which is translated which perished at Ein Dor, they
became as dung for the earth. The allusion here is to Gideons defeat of the
Midianites (see the preceding verse). The Midianites fleeing to Transjordan
obviously crossed the river Jordan at the ford o f A dam ah (today Damiyye)
where they suffered another crushing defeat (cf. Jud. 7, 24; 8, 1-3), and
this is what the writer hints at. (This place is mentioned in the Bible as
, e.g., Jos. 3, 16, I Kings 7, 46).
Literature:
, .
- [ = 42-40 , ,)] (:
;89-88 , , ,
Koehler-Baumgartner3, s.v. V , II , 1 .
i. P ersonal N am es
89. Personal names, too, are important sources of linguistic information. They can be helpful in dating Biblical books. Take the case of the
names built on the pattern lexeme (noun or verb) plus the apocopated
Tetragrammaton. In the earlier books of the Bible, e.g., Kings, we find
names like , , , while in LBH the tendency is to drop the
final waw ( êtc.). While for reasons that cannot be discussed here the
Book of Chronicles must be accorded a special position in this respect, the
60
89]
Vocabulary
books of Ezra and Nehemiah present a clear picture, for here the shorter
form predominates.
This historical picture is also confirmed by Hebrew and Aramaic inscriptions, as well as by Akkadian transliterations of proper names. In the
Lachish letters from the sixth century B.C.E. (see 92) only the earlier
forms with waw appear, while in the Aramaic documents o f Elephantine in
Egypt (fifth century B.C.E.) the reverse situation prevails. In these documents there appear quite a few Hebrew names of Jewish soldiers who were
on garrison duty on the southern border of Egypt. The names built according to the pattern discussed above nearly always lack the waw, e.g.,
, , . This fact played a role in dating the Isaiah Scroll
from Q umran Cave I, among the first DSS discovered, for in that Scroll
these names are always spelled without the final waw. Mainly for linguistic
reasons it is quite obvious that this Scroll was written sometime during the
last centuries of the first millennium B.C.E. and reflects'a popular version
of the Book of Isaiah known to us. These theophoric names contributed
greatly toward making this assumption plausible (see 153).
The transliteration of the name of King Hezekiah in the annals of Sennacherib (see above 86) indicates that while the longer form was dominant, the process of shortening had already started. As a rule, the name is
transliterated H azaqiau, but the form H azaqia occurs in one copy of the
annals. The process of shortening was apparently accelerated during the
exile after the destruction of the First Temple. Therefore, the longer form is
extinct in the sources from that period, as mentioned above, and also in the
Hebrew and Aramaic inscriptions from Jerusalem dated to the beginning of
the C omm on Era (see 185). It is interesting to note that the Septuagint
and other translations use the short form even when transliterating the
longer forms of the Hebrew text. This is why in the European languages
only the shorter forms are used, e.g., Isaiah, despite the fact that in the
Book of Isaiah the name of the prophet is always spelled with a waw. It
goes without saying that in MH the shorter form is employed.
One
shorter
answer
Hittite!
more point should be mentioned. How are we to account for the

form Uriah the Hittite, so conspicuous in the Book of Samuel? The
is simple: the name is not of Hebrew origin and its bearer was a
The resemblance to a Hebrew name is purely coincidental.
61
BIBLICAL HEBREW
[89-90
Literature:
Kutscher, Isaiah Scroll, pp. 4, 104ff.;
[The evidence of the form H azaqia should be regarded with caution. It
occurs only once, in one of the numerous copies o f the third campaign
from Sennacheribs annals, whereas in all the other copies the form is
H azaqiau. In a seal impression of a high official o f Hezekiah, the kings
name is spelled . However, two other seals, contem porary with or
slightly later than Hezekiah (who reigned from 727 to 698 B.C.E.) bear the
names and respectively, which support the authors view on
the dating of the appearance o f theophoric personal names without the final
waw. See R. Hestrin and M. Dayagi-Mendels, Inscribed S ea ls, Jerusalem
1978, pp. 42, 93 and 101 respectively.!
1. Personal N am es Preserving O ld G ram m atical Forms. 90. Personal
names sometimes preserve old grammatical forms or usages that were
abandoned in ordinary speech, e.g., . As F. Delitzsch pointed out,
the first constituent of this name is a verb in the third person masculine
perfect in the Qal stem (cf., e. g. , ) . This verb is no longer employed in
BH in the Qal but only in the HiPil stem. Indeed, the original name of
Joshua son of Nun, namely 1 and likewise the name o f the Israelite
King Hoshea (probably a shortened form of ) exhibit the root in the
HiPil stem, albeit in a strange form since we would have expected the form
1 . A u s i, the Assyrian transliteration o f the name of the Israelite King
in the annals of Tiglatpileser III King of Assyria (eighth century B.C.E.),
creates two problems. Although none of the consonants of this translitration is identical with that of BH, the differences are readily explained. Having no signs for Hebrew he and *ayin, the Assyrian scribe had no choice
but to render those sounds as he did. Since the Assyrians pronounced the
I I I as [s] there is no difficulty in explaining the consonantal form. What is
surprising is the fact that the Hebrew 10:1 is transliterated by [au]. To be
sure, there is no doubt that this Hebrew /o:/, like many others, goes back to
an original diphthong. But as will be shown (94), there is reason to believe
that in the Israelite Kingdom the diphthongs were always contracted (as in
Canaanite). The other puzzling question is: Does the [i] reflect the (long)
/i:/ that would appear in the standard Hebrew form o f this name, 1 , or
does it reflect the original (short) III from which the /i:/ o f the Hebrew
62
90-91]
V ocabulary
HiPil had developed? Since the Hebrew material in A kkadian translitrations is very meager, it is impossible for the time being to answer these
questions.
L iterature:
M. Noth, D ie israelitischen Personennamen im R ahm en der gemeinsemitischen Namengebung, Stuttgart 1928, p. 36.
2. Special Vocabulary in Personal Names. 91. Personal names also help
us prove that the vocabulary of BH must have been much richer than what
is reflected by the vocabulary of the Bible. There are quite a few names that
cannot be explained from the vocabulary of BH as it is known to us. In
such cases the other Semitic languages especially Arabic and Akkadian,
prove helpful. This is not surprising since every language contains proper
names built from roots that did not survive in everyday speech (cf. for example, English Herbert). Quite often we must go to the early sources of the
language in question or to a cognate language for the explanation. The
same applies to BH where, to be sure, a few of the proper names are of
foreign origin, e.g., which comes from Egyptian (the N egro). But in
most cases, the root is Hebrew although it does not appear in BH either
because there was no occasion to use it (cf. 85), or because it had already
died out during BH times but managed to survive in the other Semitic
languages. Among those names are ( the parallel Akkadian word
means cow, cf. ewe). The name has no root in Hebrew, but with
the aid of Arabic it could be explained to mean sharp of mind. The name
poses a problem. In I Sam. 25, 25 Abigail tries to appease David by
saying of her husband, ,For as his name is, so is he. is his name and
folly is with him. But this can hardly be more than a play on words, since
it is impossible to believe that parents would give their child such a name. It
seems that Arabic provides the answer, as was pointed out by
Montgomery. In Arabic the parallel root means to be clever, noble. (It is
purely coincidental that the word sounds like the English noble which
comes from Latin). Therefore we may assume that in southern Judea, the
dwelling place of , the root was employed with the meaning found in
Arabic (noble), while in other parts of the country the meaning was the
direct opposite. (There are a few other instances of roots having two
diametrically opposed meanings in two kindred languages, and sometimes,
as in Arabic, in the same language).
63
[91-92
BIBLICAL HE BR EW
Literature:
Noth, op. cit. (above 90) p. 229;
Montgomery, JQ R NS 25 (1934-35), p. 261.
G. Inscriptions
92. The few Hebrew inscriptions found in Palestine are generally very
short. Nevertheless, they provide us with very welcome information about
spelling, grammar, vocabulary, and the problem of early Hebrew dialects
(cf. 79, 101).
The most important inscriptions are the Gezer calendar (time of
Solomon, tenth century B.C.E.), the Samaria ostraca (time of Joash or
Jeroboam II, first half of the eighth century), the famous Siloam inscription
of Hezekiah (end o f the eighth century), a letter from Mesad Hashavyahu
(time of Josiah, end o f the seventh century), the Lachish letters and the
Arad ostraca (both groups from shortly before the end of the Kingdom of
Judah, beginning o f the sixth century).
The others are very short inscriptions on small potsherds, seals, weights,
various types o f vessels and other objects.
Literature:
H. D onn er-W . Rollig, Kanaanische und A ram ische Inschriften vols.
I-III, Wiesbaden [third edition, 1969-19731;
D. Diringer, L e Inscrizioni Antico-Ebraice Palestinesi, Firenze 1934;
[Y. Aharoni, A ra d Inscriptions, Jerusalem 1975 (Hebrew)].
[Many of the inscriptions mentioned above were translated into English
by W.F. Albright in J. Pritchard, ed., A ncient N ear Eastern Texts Relating
to the Old T estam ent\ Princeton 1969, pp. 320ff., 568f.
For a recent find of inscriptions dated to the ninth-eighth century B.C.E.
see provisionally Z. Meshel, K untillet \Ajrud: A Religious Centre fro m the
Tim e o f the Judaean M onarchy on the Border o f S in a i, Israel Museum
Catalogue no. 175, Jerusalem 1978.
For the earliest Hebrew inscription, an abecedary from the twelfth century B.C.E., see M. Kochavi, Tel Aviv 4 (1977), Iff. and A. Demsky, ibid.
14ff. Both articles are reprinted in Kochavi et al., A phek-A ntipatris etc. (see
72).
64
Inscriptions
9 2 -9 3 ]
F o r collections of inscriptions see Inscriptions Reveal, Israel Museum

Catalogue no. 100, Jerusalem 1973, and R. Hestrin-M . Dayagi-Mendels,
Inscribed Seals, Jerusalem 1978.]
I. Spelling
93. The spelling of the inscriptions is much more defective than that of
the Bible, e.g., the hewers (Siloam inscription) which is spelled
in the Bible. To be sure, several words do appear which are spelled
plene, as more source, but since the Hebrew / o :/ in these words
goes back to an original diphthong, scholars used to believe that these
diphthongs were still uncontracted in this period in Judea and therefore in
these words the waw was still pronounced as a consonant. On the basis of
this assumption, they maintained that in the inscriptions no cases of plene
writing are found.
This assumption was found to be faulty. On the one hand, in the Siloam
inscription we find the word day spelled defectively. Since the 10:1 in
the word goes back to an original diphthong, this seems to show that the
diphthongs were already contracted, and if they were contracted in , then
in all probability they were also contracted in , . Thus the uaw is to
be considered a plene spelling of 10:1. Incidentally, in the Bible too, the long
10:1 which goes back to an original diphthong is usually spelled with a
wa w.
But even if we admit to some doubt concerning , there is other
irrefutable evidence regarding plene spelling in the eighth century B.C.E.
The word cursed appears in a short Jerusalemite epitaph o f the same
period. There are also a few cases of plene writing in the Lachish letters
which would be difficult to explain, such as the personal name and
m an , ninth. But there is no doubt that the tendency in these
inscriptions towards defective spelling is dominant in the medial position
(i.e. in the middle of the word).
Literature:
Diringer, Inscrizioni, pp. 2 1-95;
F.M. C ro ss -D .N . Freedman, E arly Hebrew Orthography, New Haven
1952, pp. 4 5 -5 7 ;
65
[93-95
BIBLICAL HE BR EW
On the epitaph: N. Avigad, Israel Exploration Journal 3 (1953), pp. 14 Iff.

IFresh evidence from the Arad ostraca lends support to the authors
thesis on the contraction of diphthongs and on plene pelling. See A.F.
Rainey, Leshoncnu 36 (1972), 186-189 (Hebrew with English summary). I
II. Phonology
94. In the ostraca discovered in the excavations of Samaria there are
several occurrences of the word equalling SBH 2 wine. This is a clearcut proof that the original diphthong in this word was contracted even in the
absolute (and not only in the construct as in SBH ). Therefore, the
Hebrew of Samaria seems in this respect to have been identical with
Canaanite in which the original PS diphthongs were contracted in any position, e.g., = SBH house. (Concerning the transliteration of the
name of King Hosea see above 90). This is an important isogloss establishing the Israelite dialect as opposed to the Judean on which our
Biblical text is based (and see below 99). There is another word in these
ostraca which seems strange, ( ) ) in the) year o f which looks
suspiciously Aramaic.
III. Morphology
95. It should be noted that the possessive suffix of the third person
singular is spelled with he as sometimes in the Bible, e.g., his foal, ass
(Gen 49,11). As is well known, the standard spelling in the Bible is with
waw. While we know that PS had an /h / in this suffix, which also appears
in the early Phoenician inscriptions of Byblos, this /h / disappeared from
Canaanite dialects at a very early date and does not appear in the ElA m arna glosses or in the early Phoenician inscriptions outside Byblos. In
later inscriptions from Byblos this suffix is spelled as in the Bible, namely
with waw, e.g. his lady (tenth century B.C.E.). Therefore the occurrence of this suffix he in the Lachish letters (early sixth century B.C.E.)
is worthy of study, the more so because his fellow in the Siloam inscription does seem to have the spelling with waw (but this could be a different form, as some scholars assume).
66
9 5-96]
Inscriptions
An interesting case is that of the form equalling BH was

(fern.). This form occurs in the Bible once as a ketib, (II Kings 9, 37) and
represents the earlier form from which the SBH form later developed.
Therefore we are inclined to believe that of the Siloam inscription is
identical with the earlier form, discarded in SBH. But it could also be the
other way round, since in MH this form staged a comeback( see 212).
(This comeback affected all the verbs). Thus one could well argue
that this of the inscription heralds the re-mergence of the form rather
than its survival.
There is one inscription, the Gezer calendar, that has grammatical
peculiarities not found in BH. It is questionable whether it should even be
considered as belonging to Hebrew. (Gezer, situated in the Philistine plain,
did not always belong to the Judean kingdom).
L iterature:
F.M. Cross and D.N. Freedman, E arly H ebrew Orthography, New Haven
1952, pp. 4 6 -5 6 ;
Diringer, Inscrizioni, pp. 28 -95 ;
J. Friedrich-W. Rllig, Phnizisch-P unische G ram m atik2, Roma 1970,
234, 237.
IV. Vocabulary
96. The vocabulary of the inscriptions is practically identical with
that of BH, and only a few new roots turn up. While of the Siloam inscription is as yet unexplained, found on weights does not present a
problem. The parallel root in Arabic means half, therefore obviously denotes half of a certain weight. Another legend on weights,
was able to solve a riddle in I Sam. 13,21 1 etc.
which the King James version translates Yet they had a file for the matto ck s\ but the Revised Standard Version already renders and the charge
was pim for the ploughshares, thanks to the discovery of the weight.
L iterature:
Diringer, Inscrizioni, pp. 264ff. 273fT.
[The average weight of the is 9.84 grams, but two n s f s do not
67
BIBLICAL HE B R E W
!96-98
render a known weight unit. The average weight of the is 7.808

grams. See E. Stern, Measures and Weights , Enzyklopedia M iq ra it
vol. IV, cols. 869 -8 71 (Hebrew).]
H. Hebrew W ords in Akkadian Transliteration

97. We have pointed out several times the importance of translitra*
tions for the study o f the history o f the Hebrew language. We are here
concerned mainly with the A kkadian transliterations, and to a lesser
degree, with the Egyptian ones. As we have remarked (34, 86), they
are helpful, for example, in establishing the geographical diffusion of the
sound change / a : / > / 0 :/ (cf. 32). Let us adduce one more instance.
wine press is assumed to go back to a root \The taw does not appear in Hebrew in this form (compare sleep; root ) , while the
nun is assimilated to the taw exactly like the nun o f , feminine o f .
Akkadian transliterations indicate that in a certain dialect at least, the
nun was still unassimilated during the El-Amarna period as shown by
place names containing the element G inti. The spelling Gitti, also in ElAmarna, shows that the second form (which appears in BH), was also
current at that time. Incidentally, both forms exhibit the vowel [i] while
in BH, according to the vocalization, the vowel is [a]. As mentioned, the
form exactly parallels that o f . The [a] of goes back to an
original /i/ as can easily be established with the aid of the masculine and
of the parallel form in A rabic bint daughter. In SBH, according to the
Masoretic vocalization, this /i/ turned into la], because of the so-called
Law of Philippi which stipulates that PS short /i/ turns into [a] in
stressed closed syllables. The form G itti then shows that this law was not
operative in the C anaanite of El-Amarna (cf also 109).
L iterature:
Bauer-Leander, H ist. G ram m ., pp. 194f., 450.
I. Hebrew Loanwords in Foreign Languages

98. Hebrew loanwords in foreign languages are also important for our
purposes. To be sure, we can hardly assume that Canaanite loanwords
68
98]
H ebrew Loanw ords in Foreign Languages
found in Egyptian and Greek came from Hebrew proper, but they are relevant to Hebrew as well. Mainly Canaanite loans in Greek should concern
us here, of which we shall give two instances.
It is commonly assumed that the Greeks received their alphabet from the
Canaanites. With the alphabet they took over most of the Semitic names of
the different signs, among them iota. The name of this sign is apparently
derived from the word for h and T in Canaanite. (Incidentally, the next
sign in the alphabetic order is k appa, Hebrew palm [of the hand]).
However, if the Greeks took over the Canaanite name of this letter, why is
there an [o] instead of an [a] in io ta ? The reason is as follows: In
Canaanite the original short Semitic /a /, which was lengthened by stress (=
Hebrew qames gadol) was pronounced something like [ ( ] as it is
pronounced today by the Ashkenazic Jews). In other words, in early
Canaanite during El-Amarna times, long proto-Semitic /a : / changed into
/o :/ (above 32) while in later Canaanite the short Semitic / a / which
through stress became lengthened, turned into an [ ( ] see in detail 37).
The name of the iota must have been borrowed by Greek after the completion of this Canaanite process.
The other instance of a Canaanite loanword in Greek is the word chiton
that was borrowed by the Romans and turned into tunica (English tunic).
The origin is the Canaanite = Hebrew . While the problem of the
difference between the Hebrew and Greek consonants cannot be discussed
here, let us explain the difference between the vowels of the Hebrew and
Canaanite forms.
Hebrew and Canaanite dislike the sequence of two consecutive [u, 0 ]
type vowels. Therefore, wherever they would occur, the first of the two
vowels turns into |i] (dissimilation). T hat is why the derivatives of
head and outside, namely and 1 have an [i] vowel in the
first syllable. The same applies to the Hebrew bird which apparently
goes back to *suppur. It is this early form that turns up as the Canaanite
place name Supur in an Akkadian transliteration. While this last instance
proves that the earlier form could occasionally survive (as in Hebrew
) , the above mentioned dissimilation must have been operative at least
as early as El-Amarna times. This is proven by the place name (G itti)
R im nm a, a form which goes back to *[Rummo:ni:ma].
The form of the Greek loan chiton, then, shows that dissimilation also affected this word in Canaanite, while in Hebrew it did not. However,
there might have been at least one Hebrew dialect in which this word
69
[98-99
BIBLICAL HE B R E W
behaved as it did in Canaanite, since the Samaritan Pentateuch (177)

spells this word with a y o d . (To be sure, another explanation for the
form in the Samaritan Pentateuch may be proposed).
Literature:
Harris, D evelopm ent, pp. 6 If., 79.;
J. Friedrich-W . Rllig, Phnizisch-Punische G ram m atik, Rome 1970, 78;
Kutscher, Isaiah Scro ll, pp. 4 5 3f.
J. Dialects of Biblical Hebrew

99. In previous paragraphs the problem of dialects in Biblical times was
mentioned several times. It is mainly the possibility of the existence of an
Israelite (northern) dialect, as distinct from the Judean (southern) dialect
which intrigues scholars. The first indication of dialectal differences between
the tribes is the famous - story (above 22). The Samaria ostraca provide an additional trait, namely, the contraction of the diphthong
[ay] into le:] as represented in the word ) =) wine (above 94). We
also mentioned the possibility that in the earlier strata of BH the relative
pronoun represents northern usage as opposed to in the southern
dialect (45). The same holds true for the spelling of the second person
singular feminine (see 41).
However, the latter instance points up the problematic character of this
dialectal division, for it may simply reflect archaic features common to BH
which by pure chance happened to occur in sources that can be ascribed to
the northern sphere. More work is required before a clearer picture can be
established.
Scholars maintain that the language of the Book of Hosea, which is different from that o f the other prophets o f his time, possibly reflects a norther
idiom. Here too, some skepticism is in order.
Finally, as we remarked above it is possible that mountain' 1
spring' and noble' were regionally restricted (see 79, 81, 91
respectively).
L iterature:
W. Baumgartner, A nthropos 3 5 -3 6 (1940-41), p. 608 note 1 (=
Baumgartner, Z u m alten Testam ent und seiner U mwelt, Leiden 1959,
p. 226 n. 4).
70
The Aramaic Influence
100]
K. The A ramaic Influence
100. It is impossible to survey ABH and LBH before dealing with the
Aramaic influence. From the time Aramaic first entered the domain of
Hebrew until today it gradually acquired the status of a kind of second
sacred Jewish language. Because of the symbiosis of the two languages
during the nearly one thousand years before Hebrew died out as a spoken
language (end o f the second century C.E.), Aramaic became the main factor shaping Hebrew. Its influence persisted and even gained momentum
during the time Hebrew was employed only as a written language and right
down to the threshold of Israeli Hebrew. Even the latter did not close its
doors to a new influx of Aramaic vocabulary (cf. 337-340).
Aramaic entered Syria as the language o f the Aramean tribes some time
before 1100 B.C.E. and quickly spread throughout the Near East. In the
eighth century B.C.E. it was not yet understood by the ordinary Judean.
That is why King Hezekiahs envoys requested of General Rabshaqe o f the
Assyrian King Sennacherib, Speak, I pray thee, to thy servants in the
Aramean language, for we understand it; and speak not with us in the
Jews [Judean] language in the ears of the people that are on the wall. (II
Kings 18, 26; Isa. 35, 11).
Incidentally, the language of the Jerusalemites is here called by its
speakers (also Neh. 13, 24). This may indicate that it was felt to be an independent dialect which did not include the language of the other part of
Israelite (Northern) Palestine (which by that time had ceased to exist as a
national entity). The Book of Isaiah mentions kthe language of
C an aa n (19, 18), which apparently denotes all the Hebrew and Canaanite
dialects spoken in Palestine and Syria. The incident of the Assyrian
Rabshaqe also reflects the great importance of Aramaic which already in
the days of the Assyrian and (later) Babylonian empires had become a sort
of lingua fr a n c a , the language of diplomacy and international trade of the
Near East as is also proved by the A ramaic inscriptions found throughout
the area. This Official Aramaic was an official language of the vast Persian
empire which was heir to the Assyrian and Babylonian empires. It was employed from India to Ethiopia and from the Caucasus to Northern Arabia.
In view of its importance, it is not surprising that Hezekiahs envoys wanted to speak Aramaic, and not Assyrian, with the Assyrian general.
In Syria and Palestine, however, not only civil servants, merchants, and
scholars adopted Aramaic, but thanks to the large A ramean population of
71
BIBLICAL HEBREW
[ 1 0 0
Syria, the language also spread among the Canaanite- and Hebrewspeaking peoples living in these lands.
The Aramaic influence is discernible in every field of the language:
phonology, morphology, syntax, and vocabulary. But before dealing with it
we should establish what linguistic traits of BH often considered to be
Aramaic are not in fact Aramaic. In ABH, especially in the early poetry
and sometimes in SBH, there appear forms and roots that at first sight
seem Aramaic. Since the root is not SBH and occurs only in poetry
(where sometimes it might have been used, as in Isaiah 21, 12, to imitate
the language of a foreigner, see below), we might have been inclined to consider its occurrence as a sign of Aramaic influence, since it is standard
Aramaic. The same applies to the form ( Deut. 32, 36), third person
singular feminine perfect which is Standard Aramaic but not SBH. Yet this
interpretation would be incorrect,for these roots and forms belong to the
common stock of Hebrew and Aramaic as well as most of the Semitic
languages. They died out in SBH but survived in Aramaic, and sometimes
staged a comeback in Hebrew via Aramaic (cf. 54). Concerning the
ending [-til and the third person plural feminine, see above 53, 56 respectively.
We should also exclude those Biblical passages in which the speech of
foreigners appears, for in order to characterize them as such, the Bible puts
in their mouth roots and forms which were either rare or non-existent in
BH, but which were supposed to be identical or at least close to the roots
and forms employed in the language of the people alluded to. See, e.g., in II
Kings 6, 8-13 words and forms like , ,( where the speakers
are Arameans) or roots and forms like , , , in Isaiah 21,
11-14 (where the speakers are Edomite-Arabs). The same applies to the
Aramaisms of the Wisdom Literature, as, for example. Proverbs 31, 2
where the word =( Hebrew )occurs three times. It is hardly plausible
that Hebrew should have borrowed this extremely comm on word from
Aramaic, and indeed it does not appear elsewhere in Hebrew contexts. It is
much more plausible to assume that the Aramaic coloring was part and
parcel of the Wisdom Literature, and that the occurrence o f Aramaic elements in it should be attributed to this coloring, as N.H. Tur-Sinai pointed
out. This fact is not surprising since the Wisdom Literature was considered
to be of Eastern origin. This might, of course, also apply to the language of
other books akin to Proverbs, in which books the so-called Aramaic element might be much earlier than the date when real A ram aic influence
72
The A ram aic Influence
1 0 0 -1 0 1 ]
made itself felt. The fact that Jacob is called $ a fugitive A ram ean
(Deut 26, 5) probably indicates not only a consciousness of a common ancestry, but also the consciousness of a common linguistic stock with the
Arameans.
Real Aramaic influence is conspicuous especially in the late books and
those whose language is considered late, mainly Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles, some chapters in Psalms, Ezekiel, Ecclesiastes, Esther, etc.
O n the other hand, it might be possible to assume that from the very
beginning of Hebrew, Aramaic was used as a poetical element. The Song of
D eborah which is generally assumed to be very early, is a case in point. To
be sure, a form like 7? ?you (fem. sing.) arose' (Jud. 5, 7) could be explained as an archaic survival (see 54), but how are we to account for the
root to smite (ibid. 26) which, as Albright pointed out, appears here
in the (presumably) Old Aramaic form (= Hebrew ?) The same applies
to the root to tell, relate (= Hebrew , ibid. 11). This leads us to suppose that the learned embellished their Hebrew style with Aramaic.
It must, then, be admitted, that it is not easy to draw the line between
early Biblical Hebrew and quasi-Aramaic traits on the one hand, and genuine elements of late Aramaic influence on the other. Sometimes it is hard
to avoid the pitfalls that make this linguistic territory dangerous. We should
bear in mind the famous dictum of Th. Nldeke, the foremost Aramaist of
his time and one of the most outstanding Semitic scholars, You have to be
careful of the vicious circle: The passage is late because it contains one or
more A ram aism s and The word or words are Aramaic because the
passage is late . Still, I hope that in the following lines we will not tread on
too slippery ground.
Literature:
E.Y. Kutscher, Aramaic , Encyclopaedia Judaica 3, cols. 257 -2 87 ;
W. Baumgartner, Anthropos 35-36 (1940-41), p. 608 n. 9 (= Z u m altem
Testam ent und seiner Umwelt, Leiden 1959, p. 228 n. 3);
Th. Nldeke, Z D M G 57 (1903), pp. 4 1 2-4 2 0 ;
;] , , [ = 507 , ,) ( 47 , .
. 594-593 , , ..
I. In Phonology
101, The most outstanding trait in this field is that diachronically (i.e.
73
[101-103
BIBLICAL HEBREW
historically) some of the Aramaic phonemes differ from the Hebrew ones
(see Table 1). But synchronically (that is, limited to the recording of
Aramaic during a certain stage, in our case about the middle of the first
millennium B.C.E.), a most amazing fact is that Aramaic possesses exactly
the same phonemes that we find in Hebrew and Canaanite. This is the more
surprising since, thanks to the early Aramaic inscriptions, we know that
Aramaic had previously possessed more phonemes than Hebrew, while in
later Aramaic all the phonemes alien to Hebrew and Canaanite disappeared. We must stress the uniqueness of this phenomenon for there are no
other two languages, no matter how closely related, whose stock of
phonemes is identical (cf. English-Dutch-German, French-Italian). Even
two dialects of the same language nearly always differ by at least one
sound which does not exist in one of them, cf. Scotch [ch] as in loch. The
symbiosis of the two languages is not sufficient to cause this unique fact.
Hebrew and Aramaic also share, at least in Biblical A ramaic (BA), the
same vowels. To be sure, some of them are historically different; Aramaic
qames gadol is generally paralleled by Hebrew holem (see above 32). The
phenomenon of /b, g, d, k, p, t/ (above 29) is also comm on to both
languages.
II. In M orphology
a. In the Verb
102. We have already discussed several traits of LBH that betray
Aramaic influence: the second pers. sg. fem. perfect ending I-ti] (53), the
third pers. sg. fem. perfect ending [-at] (55) and the form of the
third pers. pi. fem. imperfect (59). At this point it should be remarked that
a few cases of the special form of the third pers. pi. fem. perfect may also
belong to this category (56), but none o f these traits survived in MH.
b. In the Noun
103 Several new noun patterns are undoubtedly of Aramaic origin.
First among them is the verbal noun of the H ifil, namely , but it is
remarkable that the first instance o f this noun pattern (which is very common in M H ) already turn up in the Book of Isaiah. They are ( (
partiality (lit. the recognition of their faces, 3, 9), where is used as a
verbal noun, and to sift (30, 28). The vocalization o f these forms
74
103-105]
The A ram aic Influence
betrays their Aramaic origin, as in Hebrew nTbn* and 1 * would be expected (see 32). These nouns are employed as infinitives and verbal nouns
in A ramaic dialects.
The same applies to the qeta:l noun pattern, e.g., writing, war
etc. Again, nearly all the instances turn up only in LBH and represent the
form which parallels Hebrew 1 etc. Yet, it is remarkable that one noun
of this pattern, namely remnant, figures prominently in Isaiah.
Perhaps despite the fact that the common Judean did not yet understand
Aramaic (above 100), we may posit that these two noun patterns reached
Hebrew via the Judean intelligentsia.
III. In S y n ta x
104. Aramaic may have had its most revolutionary effect in the area of
syntax, but this is by no means proven. The waw conversive started losing
ground in LBH until it disappeared entirely from MH (see 67). Since the
tense system of M H exactly parallels that of Aramaic, it would be easy to
assume that the latter had a hand in the transformation of Hebrew. But
although linguistic interference in the area of syntax is a very common
phenomenon, it is something quite difficult to prove. In this ease a parallel
development might have occurred in both languages. This possibility
which at first sight seems far-fetched seems reasonable in light of the
fact that in this respect Aramaic itself had undergone far-reaching changes
(cf. also 218). Mutual interferences between Canaanite, Hebrew and
Aramaic can not be excluded. After all, we do not know what other
linguistic forces were shaping the languages of this territory at the time.
IV. In The Vocabulary

105. It is in the field of vocabulary that we are on the firmest ground
when establishing Aramaic influence upon Hebrew. Certain A ramaic consonants are historically identical with other consonants in Hebrew (see
Table 1). Therefore, if we find, for example, the root to ro o f (Neh. 3,
15) we immediately recognize it as an Aramaic loan, since in Hebrew it
should have been .
O f course, the matter becomes more complicated when we encounter a
75
BIBLICAL HEBR EW
[105-106
root whose origin cannot be detected with the help of sound changes,
e.g., to flee (Job 30, 3). Still there is reason to believe that it is a loan
from Aramaic. First, because there is a very common Hebrew verb, 1
meaning to flee. Secondly, is very prominent in the Aramaic dialects.
Thirdly, and most decisively, the fact that it turns up only in Job (which
contains many Aramaic loans), clinches the matter. Therefore, very little
doubt remains as to its Aramaic origin. Other Aramaic loans in LBH are,
e.g., be strong; to lead astray; rock; 1 end;
1 / 1 to grow, be great. Instead of SBH 1 to appoint, etc.,
LBH, under Aramaic influence, employs the verb 2 ? e.g., he
assigned (Jonah 2, 1).
a. A ram aic Caiques
106. There are more subtle cases of influence in the field of both gramm ar and vocabulary than those discussed thus far. A word or phrase which
may look perfectly Hebrew may, under closer scrutiny, turn out to have
been modeled after Aramaic. These cases are referred to as caiques. An example of this is the English expression hobby-horse which served as the
model for the German Steckenpferd as well as for kindred expressions in
other languages.
As to Aramaic caiques in Hebrew: In the latter means to hold but
in Neh. 7, 3 it means to bar, lock. The only explanation for this semantic
extension seems to be the following: The parallel Aramaic root means
both to hold and to bar, lock. Bilingual speakers who readily identified
these two roots transferred the meaning to bar, lock from Aramaic to
Hebrew. Another instance is Hebrew meaning male; its Aramaic
counterpart is also used for ram . If, therefore, in the late Book of
Malachi (1, 14; and in M H ) is employed for ram instead of the standard Hebrew , it most probably is an Aramaic caique. There is reason
to believe that 1 to fear (Job 32, 6) is Aramaic in Hebrew guise. (As
to LBH 1 meaning both to stand and to get up but in SBH only to
stand see 123).
The problem of the Aramaic influence on Hebrew, and especially the
problem of caique requires a thoroughgoing investigation.
Literature:
E.Y. Kutscher, A ram aic , Encyclopaedia Judaica 3, cols. 266f., 282;
E. Kautzsch, D ie A ram aism en in A lten Testament I, Halle 1902;
76
1 0 6 -1 0 8 ]
Stratification
Review o f K autzsch by Th. Nldeke, Z D M G 57 (1903), pp. 4 1 2 -4 2 0 ;

F. Rosenthal, D ie aram aistische Forschung etc, Leiden 1939, pp. 4 1 -4 3 ;
,( Calque) , .
, , [= 125-118 , ] ( ) .
L. Stratification of Biblical Hebrew (and El-Amarna)

107. In the preceding paragraphs we have attempted to describe the
history o f BH on the basis of SBH with many references to the glosses of
El-Amarna, A BH , and LBH. Only now, especially after having reviewed
the A ramaic influence, can the characteristics of these three strata, each as
an entity, be summed up.
I. The E l-A m arna Glosses

108. The El-A marna period is named after the site in Egypt where the
international correspondence of the Egyptian kings Amenhotep III and
Amenhotep IV was found. It includes letters in Akkadian sent by their
vassal kings of various city-states in Palestine and Syria, and by kings of
other Near Eastern powers. The scribes who wrote these letters were apparently not too well versed in Akkadian and therefore sometimes provided
Akkadian words with a Canaanite gloss (explaining word), and even the
Akkadian they employed was mixed with Canaanite forms of speech. The
letters date from the fifteenth-fourteenth centuries B.C.E. and are,
therefore, the earliest source for the Canaanite of Palestine. This was apparently the language spoken on the eve of the invasion by the Israelite
tribes. Even if it is not assumed that the language of the invaders was identical with that of the inhabitants (and cf. Bauers mixed language theory,
above 33), nevertheless, these glosses provide us with very valuable information on the history of the Hebrew language.
Literature:
Text and translation of the letters: J.A. Knudtzon, D ie E l-A m arna-Tafeln
I-II, Leipzig 1915.
[A.F. Rainey, E l A m a rn a Tablets 3 5 9 -3 7 9 : Supplem ent to J.A. K n u d tzo n ,
D ie E l-A m a rn a -T a feln , Neukirchen-Vluyn 1978.
77
BIBLICAL HEB R E W
[108-110
For a general survey see W.L. Moran, Encyclopaedia Judaica 15, cols.
933-935.]
a. Phonology
109. We have already mentioned what these glosses can teach us about
the / a : / > / 0 :/ sound change (34).
Form s like m a-ah-su- (Hebrew ) they killed him and others, indicate that as in BH, a full short vowel might be shortened to a semi-vowel,
or even disappear entirely; otherwise we should have expected *ma-ha-su-
(although in BH the vocalization is according to another pattern, this fact
is irrelevant to the point dealt with here). The diphthongs appear contracted
as in Canaanite and the Hebrew of Samaria (see above 94), e.g., qi-e-zi
BH summer fruits. Philippis Law (cf. 97) is not operative.
b. Morphology
110. A n ki I parallels the BH form ( as against the Akkadian
form anku (for lack of cuneiform signs with an [o] vowel, the Canaanite
scribes used signs with a [u] vowel instead). The form hi-na-ya, BH
my eyes, exhibits the possessive suffix [-ya] which occurs in this form in
Akkadian, Arabic, etc, but not in BH. The third person feminine singular
perfect ends with [-at]: abadat ( - BH ) perished* as in ABH (cf.
55). Barths Law seems to be fully operative in these texts. This law
postulates that if the basis of the Qal imperfect is vocalized with [o], BH
originally had an / a / in the prefix, e.g., , he will weaken. But if it is
vocalized with an [a], the /i/ phoneme appears in the prefix, e.g., he
will be weak. This applies also to Ugaritic. There is some indication that
the first vowel of the H ifil perfect is identical with that of BH (contrary to
common Semitic). The so-called emphatic m em , seemingly otiose when it
occasionally occurs in BH, e. g. , ) =) loins of his foes
(Deut. 33, 11) is found in El-Amarna (and Ugaritic). It is very revealing
that the Samaritan Pentateuch which is a popular version of the Jewish
Pentateuch, omits this superfluous mem (see 182). The passive Qal stem
(cf. 48) is employed very frequently in the El-Amarna letters which contain more traits of seemingly Canaanite origin.
Literature:
Bauer-Leander, H ist. G ramm., pp. 22f.;
F.M. Th. Bhl, D ie Sprache der Am arnabriefe, Leipzig 1909, pp. 80 -8 9;
78
1 10 -11 4]
Stratification
E. Ebeling, D as Verbum der ElA m a rn a Briefe , Beitrge zu r

A ssyriologie VIII (1910), pp. 39 -79 ;
Bergstrsser, H G II, p. 78 (on Barths Law);
H. Hummel, Enclitic M em in Early Northwest Semitic, Especially
H ebrew , J B L 76 (1957), pp. 8 5 -1 0 7 (especially p. 93).
[A.F. Rainey, Reflections on the Suffix Conjugation in West Semitized
A m arn a Tablets , Ugarit-Forschungen 5 (1973), pp. 235-262, with
references to earlier linguistic discussions.]
II. A rchaic B iblical H ebrew

111. A BH is reflected mainly in early Biblical poetry. Its main features
are:
a. M orphology
112. Archaic suffixes abound, e.g., the spelling with he instead of SBH
waw, e.g., 4 hi s ass, 4 his garm ent (Gen. 49, 11); the suffix 1 - in
4 $(t he sea) covered them' (Ex. 15, 10), 1 their gods' (Dcut. 32,
37) etc. On the other hand the fem. suffix = SBH , e.g., your
wickedness (Jer. 11, 15) in most cases seems not an archaism but a
mirage form (see 54) since it occurs mainly in late poetry, and it is apparently an Aram aism .
1. The Verb. 113. Several archaic forms of the perfect tense, like the
endings [ti], [-at] and [a:] have already been discussed (see 53, 55, 56
respectively).
2. The N oun. 114. 'instead o f SBH is typical of the poetic
language. The same holds true for the ending [i:] in the construct state,
e. g. , his ass, foal (Gen 49, 11; SBH 5[ ) , and the ending waw
in the same case, e.g., wild beasts (ibid. 1, 24; SBH ) .
Again, it is interesting to observe that the Samaritan Pentateuch omits this
superfluous waw. Some scholars assume these endings to be survivals of
the old Semitic case endings employed in Akkadian, Ugaritic, and Arabic.
These forms (and others to be discussed later) probably became
stereotyped in poetry and appear in the late poetry as well. The employment o f the definite article [ha-] is rare in poetry, especially in the earlier
79
BIBLICAL HE B R E W
[114-116
poetry. The verb is often negated by ( as in Canaanite) e.g.,

lest they rise and possess the earth (Isa. 14, 21).
b. S y n ta x
115. The imperfect is used freely for all tenses even without the waw
conversive. Relative clauses often appear without the relative pronoun, especially when the antecedent is undetermined, e.g., new
ones, who came but lately (Deut. 32, 17).
The relative pronoun * has been discussed above (45). Sometimes
or appear as a relative pronoun, e.g., the people... whom You
have ransomed (Ex 15, 16). It enj- yed a revival in later poetry, perhaps as
an Aramaism.
c. Vocabulary
116. The difference between prose and poetry is especially marked in
this field. M any verbs and nouns are restricted to poetry, e.g., (SBH
equivalents in parentheses) ) 1( )to listen; )) wine;
))gold; ) 1 ) big; 1 ) ) smite; 1 ) ) shine; 1
))\do; ) 1 ) know (Deut. 32, 17) ; 1( only plural; ) prince.
An interesting case is his robe (Gen. 49, 11), a hapax legomenon,
or a word which does not occur anywhere else in BH. It is therefore not
surprising that the Samaritan Pentateuch, following its tendency, replaces it
with the more common which occurs several times in the Pentateuch
(see 183). There can be no doubt in the reading of 0 in the Hebrew
Pentateuch because the same word has also shown up in Phoenician inscriptions.
The fact that the verbs and nouns mentioned above no longer appear in
MH does indeed confirm the assumption that they were absent from everyday SBH speech.
BH poetry shares quite a few of these roots with Canaanite and Ugaritic,
e.g., , , 1 ,1 , a fact which M. Cassuto believed to be an indication that these languages share a common literary background, and
that Canaanite poetry influenced early Hebrew poetry.
Literature:
Dictionaries;
Bergstrsser, H G I, p. 12;
;212-197 , , ) ( , ..
. 10-1 , ,) (
80
117- 121 ]
Stratification
III. L a te B iblical H ebrew
117. LBH was shaped to a very great extent by Aramaic influence (see
100-106). But it is not easy to distinguish those characteristics that
might have been the product of inner Hebrew development rather than of
Aramaic influence. Therefore, on the one hand the reader should always
consult the paragraph concerning A ramaic influence, and on the other
hand bear in mind that we are by no means sure th at the traits discussed
below should not be attributed to Aramaic.
Literature:
[A. Hurvitz, The Transition Period in B iblical H ebrew , Jerusalem 1972 (in
Hebrew).]
a. Spelling
118. Spelling in the later books o f the Bible tends to be more plene than
in SBH. A case in point is the name of the city of Jerusalem and the name
of David. The former is spelled , without a yo d , (but is vocalized
)more than 600 times, but only five times with a yo d , three o f them
occurring in Chronicles, e.g., I 3, 5 and one in Esther 2, 6. The name of
King David, too, is always spelled defectively (without a yo d ) except in
Chronicles (and also in those Minor Prophets which were edited after the
exile), where it is spelled plene .
b. Pronouns
119. The prevalence of over has been discussed above (40).
c. The Verb
120. In Ezra and Nehemiah but not in Chronicles, the long imperfect is
often used instead of the simple imperfect, e.g., = I mourned (Neh. 1, 4).
d. The Noun
121. The archaic form , in Ps. 96, 12 appears in a parallel text in I
Chr. 16, 32 as . Instead of the SBH kingdom LBH books tend
to employ . The Books o f Chronicles replace three times o f
parallel texts with e.g., I 17, 11 ( = II Sam. 7, 12).
81
[122-123
BIBLICAL HEB RE W
e. S y n ta x o f the Verb an d N oun

122. The Books of Chronicles tend to employ the double plural, e.g.,
1 men o f renown (I 5, 24) instead of ( Gen. 6, 4).
Active constructions are preferred to passive ones; compare, e.g.,
1 1 and more sons and daughters were born to D avid
(II Sam. 5, 13) which Chronicles renders and
David begot more sons and daughters (I 14, 3). The passive Qal is replaced by the N ifal, for example in was born (I 20, 6) where the
parallel text has ( II Sam. 21, 20). The same kind of replacement is also
attested in the D ead Sea Scrolls and in the Samaritan Pentateuch (see
158 and 181 respectively).
Very interesting is the use of . In the earlier books of the Bible,
then (referring to the past) is followed by the short imperfect, e.g.,
then Solomon assembled (I Kings 8, 1) or more generally by
the normal imperfect, e.g., then Moses sang (Ex. 15, 1). Only
rarely is it followed by the perfect. But in Chronicles the perfect is always
employed, e.g., then David said (I 15, 2).
The use of the infinitive absolute as an imperative is avoided; cf.
go and say (II Sam. 24, 12) as against ( I Chron. 21,
10). Chronicles sometimes employ ' instead of to indicate the direct
object, e.g., ... ! David set apart... the sons of A s a f (I 25,
1). This is apparently another case o f Aramaic influence.
About the tenses and moods o f LBH see above 67.
Literature:
Kutscher, Isaiah Scroll, pp. 3ff., 99, 326ff., 384f.;
Bergstrsser, H G II, p. 23;
A. Sperber, Hebrew in Parallel Transm issions , HUCA 14 (1939), p. 247;
A. Kropat, D ie S y n ta x des
pp. 8f., 14f., 2 3-2 5, 72-75 .
A u to rs
der
C hronik, Giessen
1909,
f . Vocabulary
123. It is very interesting to see how Chronicles substitutes words that
are common in BH for words that had become antiquated or which had
meanwhile changed their meanings. We already have mentioned the case of
- The following verses are quite instructive in this case. I Sam 31,
12-13 tells how the inhabitants of Jabesh Gilead brought the body of Saul
for burial. The same story is also told in I Chr. 10, 12. The Chronicler
82
123]
Stratification
changes three words in this short account. Samuel reads

... They took the body of Saul and the
bodies of his sons... and buried them under the tamarisk tree, while
Chronicles reads
...
...
V: V

! 11
TT
They took away the body of Saul and the body o f his sons... and they
buried... under the oak. The reason for the change is the following: 1
tended to be used for to buy, while for to take, 1 was sometimes used.
(The latter verb appears with this meaning in M H , but there 1 is employed in most cases). Instead o f ( very rare in MH), a new word
appears (from body), apparently an A ram aic loan which is very frequent in MH. And instead of which appears only three times in SBH,
the more common is substituted.
Quite a few Hebrew roots which are very com m on in M H first appear in
LBH, e.g., the root of MH to need, in your need (II Chron. 2,
15). The root which plays such an im portant role in Jewish life appears
only in Esther and Ecclesiastes. But we must temper this observation with a
note of caution. In the past, scholars assumed th at these two roots and
were Aramaic. Today this seems much less probable since their form
in Aramaic should have been * and * . The first root appears as
in Ugaritic (and the second as )? . Therefore, these roots might
have belonged to a Hebrew or Canaanite dialect. (Concerning Ecclesiastes, see also below 1 2 4 ) . 5
Some SBH verbs underwent a change in meaning. In SBH means
to be content, while means to wish. In LBH 1 is already approaching the meaning of (*to wish. T hat is why in Esther 1, 8 we find
to do as every man desired. In M H 1 is practically the only verb which survives with this meaning. Another interesting
change occurs in the verb for to m arry: in SBH it is expressed by the
phrase , while in LBH this phrase is always replaced by 1
1^ e.g., Ezra 10, 44. How are we to account for this change? The only
explanation seems to be in the fact that, as mentioned above, 1 ^ in SBH
is mainly used with the meaning to take, but in M H it is used mainly with
the meaning to buy. This semantic change was well under way in LBH
(see above, and also Prov. 31, 16 where we find and she buys it).
Therefore, to avoid misunderstanding, the verb which means to
carry but also to take, was employed, as in the instance mentioned above
in Chronicles. There is another development that in all probability owes its
existence to the change in meaning o f 1 . In SBH to receive is 1 , e.g.,
83
BIBLICAL HEBREW
[123-124
$ Met me pay the price o f the land, accept it from m e

(Gen. 23, 13). In LBH the A ram aic loan is used instead, e.g.,
D avid received them (I Chron. 12, 19). Here, too, the reason for
the change is obvious. Because o f the semantic change o f 1 1 mentioned
above, ... 1 could have been interpreted to m ean to buy from . Indeed, this meaning is extremely com m on in M H , e.g., 1 If a
man bought... from the baker (Demai 5, 1, 3). A new verb was urgently
needed, so A ram aic was accepted by H ebrew and becam e very common in MH.
Instead of SBH or kingdom , LBH prefers which is
used about 30 times in Chronicles and also in E zra, N ehem iah, Esther and
Daniel. As mentioned above (121), the noun pattern with the derivational
suffix becam e more and m ore prevalent in the course o f the history o f
BH and MH. In SBH 1 m eans to stand and to get up. In LBH
1 extended its use by also coming to mean to get up, e.g.,
1 ! relief and deliverance will rise for the Jews from
another quarter (Esther 4, 14). In M H virtually only 1 is used. (Incidentally, this case might have been a so-called inverted caique from
A ram aic, where also has both meanings).
Literature:
Dictionaries;
S.R. Driver, A n Introduction to the Literature o f the O ld Testam ent, New
York 1956, pp. 535ff. (Chronicles).
;56-55 , ,
.] - , , [124 , ,) ( , .
g. L B H Features not F ound in M ishnaic Hebrew

124. All the cases mentioned in this paragraph indicate that, as might
have been expected, LBH represents the transitional stage between SBH
and M H. Therefore, most o f the new verbs and form s th at turn up in LBH
are comm on in M H. Besides those dealt with above, we should also mention 1 to cut (D an. 9, 24) or some o f , to appoint (instead
of SBH (, age, etc.
But this is by no means the case with all the new m aterial to be found in
LBH. One example is ( I C hr. 19, 4) posterior. W hile the verb 1
1 )) = to step is com m on in M H , this noun does not occur. So we m ust
84
124-126]
Conclusions
assume that during the centuries that passed between LBH and the rise o f
MH some new arrivals were eventually ejected from the language.
This assumption may also apply to syntax. Some o f the characteristics
of LBH in morphology and syntax discussed above are absent from M H .
1. A Canaanite Construction. 125. Here we should like to add one instance which is im portant for another reason. Scholars formerly believed
that all new characteristics of LBH were to be considered late, w hether or
not they were Aramaisms. But in recent years it has been pointed out th a t
Ecclesiastes, whose language is comm only considered to be late, shares*
some traits with Canaanite and even U garitic which are absent from
A ram aic and LBH in general. The most conspicuous instance is in 4, 2
. This form, namely the infinitive with the independent pronoun, is
impossible in Hebrew. Therefore, the text was emended by scholars to
I praised'. But in a C anaanite inscription o f A zitaw ada (9th century B.C.E.) this construction was found several times and was subsequently discovered in other C anaanite texts, making em endation unacceptable. Hence, this construction is now considered an indication o f
C anaanite influence on Ecclesiastes. Yet this construction did not survive
in MH. Incidentally, this case should serve to qualify the assum ption th at
everything in BH prose that differs from SBH should be considered late.
Literature:
, , . .
; 105- 104 , ) (
M. D ahood, Biblica 33 (1952), 2 2 Iff.
M. Conclusions
126. The study of various aspects of Biblical H ebrew is badly in need o f
new approaches.
G rammar. There is no up-to-date gram m ar o f BH at present. The w ork
of Bergstrsser is excellent, but it covers only phonology and the verb and,
especially in the domain of phonology, it is outdated. The work o f BauerLeander is also very good but it does not treat the syntax and it needs revision. Brockelm anns syntax does not do full justice to BH syntax. The new
languages discovered (Ugaritic!), new m aterial in m any fields, e.g., inscrip
85
BIBLICAL HEBREW
[126
tions, transliterations, and new linguistic approaches during the last two
generations make revisions an urgent requirem ent. N othing less than a new
descriptive and historical gram m ar o f iblical H ebrew m ust be written.
Special Fields. While the work of N oth on personal names and Bores
on place names arc still quite useful, the sam e cannot be said o f w orks in
other fields dealt with in this chapter. A new collection o f Hebrew inscriptions from Palestine is an urgent desideratum and the w orks of
Diringer and M oscati require at least a supplement. A work dealing with
the A kkadian transliterations o f Hebrew personal nam es and place nam es
would be o f the first im portance for writing the history o f Hebrew. The
situation is also very bad concerning the A ram aic influence on BH.
K autzschs book is entirely outdated by the wealth o f material in the field
o f early A ram aic inscriptions which would shed an entirely new light on the
problem, as we have seen. There is also no com prehensive treatm ent of
LBH or ABH except for the material to be found in the introductions to the
Bible and to its individual books.
Lexicography. The situation in this respect is also unsatisfactory. The
Biblical dictionaries of Brown-Driver-Briggs and o f Gesenius-Buhl while
very useful, have been outdated by the trem endous grow th o f the material
in the field of Semitics and the discovery o f a new Semitic language namely,
Ugaritic. M oreover, these dictionaries are mainly concerned with
etymology, but the history of the words in BH itself is nearly entirely
overlooked. The reasons to this are quite clear: Very few BH words have
really been investigated in this respect. Furtherm ore, as J. Barr has shown,
the subject of BH sem antics has labored too much under the influence of
etymology and theology. Synchronic and diachronic investigations o f different semantic fields in BH are needed before a clear picture o f the history
o f the vocabulary will emerge. The dictionaries mentioned above also fail to
fully exploit the material found in MH. In this respect the work has to be
done on the basis of the achievements of the last two generations in the field
o f MH lexicography (see below 253). The dictionary o f Ben-Yehudah,
edited by Ben-Yehudah-Segal-Tur Sinai (H ebrew ), is extremely useful in
this respect, but being a thesaurus o f the H ebrew o f all periods, it cannot do
full justice to BH. There is hope that the new edition o f the KoehlerB aum gartner Hebrew and A ram aic lexicon, now in the process o f publication, as well as other dictionaries planned by various scholars will improve
this picture.
86
127]
hapter
ive
TH E D E A D SEA S C R O L L S
A N D C O N T E M P O R A R Y SO U R C E S
A. The Book o f Ben Sira

127. Until recently there was a linguistic vacuum between the period o f
BH (assumed to have ended more or less in the fifth century B.C.E.), and
the period of MH (about 200 C.E.).
A t the end of the last century Hebrew fragm ents o f the Book o f Ben Sira
were found in the C airo Geniza. (A geniza is a room where w orn out
sacred books, or books and writings considered sacred, were deposited
prior to their interment). The discovery revolutionized Jewish scholarship,
since in this geniza books were found that had been completely lost, such
as earlier and better texts o f the Targum im , Talm udic and M idrashic
m anuscripts of MH, as well as Biblical texts vocalized with the B abylonian
and Palestinian vocalization. T hanks to the letters and docum ents found
there, an entirely new world o f medieval Jewish history has unfolded.
S. Schechter, their discoverer, realized the im portance o f the C airo G eniza
thanks to a leaf o f paper that came from there which he im m ediately
recognized to be the Hebrew text of Ben Sira.
This book, written in the second century B.C.E., had survived only in
G reek, Latin and Syriac translations; the H ebrew original was presum ed
lost. W hen the Hebrew fragments were found, the problem arose o f
whether they represent the original Hebrew, going back to the second century B.C.E., or a retranslation into H ebrew m ade during the M iddle Ages.
As long as this controversy rem ained unsettled, the language o f these frag*
m ents whose correct text was difficult to establish, owing to the differences between several copies could not be considered to represent the
language o f the period.
However, since Y. Yadin discovered in M asad a fragm ents dating, at the
very latest, from the first century C.E., whose text is quite close to that o f a
certain fragment found in the Geniza (see below 128), we m ay, with all
87
D SS A N D C O N TEM PO RA R Y SO U RC ES
[127-131
due reservation, present the linguistic picture that emerges from these texts.
However, it must be adm itted that only the M asada text is linguistically
reliable (see below 139).
(The partial vocalization in the following discussion is tentative as the
texts are not vocalized. For M asada fragments other than Ben Sira see
below 149.)
Literature:
P.E. Kahle, The Cairo G eniza2, Oxford 1959.
I. The Cairo Geniza Fragments

128. Scholars have pointed out that quite a high proportion of the
vocabulary reflects LBH, MH and A ram aic material. This in itself can be
considered proof that the text did not originate during the Middle Ages (as
some scholars assum ed), since in this case we might have expected SBH or
even ABH to play a much greater role, as is the case with Hebrew texts
originating in the Middle Ages.
a . G ramm ar
129. Along with the SBH relative pronoun the late is quite conspicuous. The perfect appears with how conjunctive. There are cases of
plural ending | i:n] instead o f | i:m |.
b. Vocabulary
1. L B H M aterial.
a. Verbs. 130. Here, too, is used with the meaning to get up, e.g.,
47, 1 (see 123). trem ble (48, 12) also belongs to this category (cf. E s
ther 5, 9).
. N ouns. 131. The Persian loanword w ord (5, 11) is not surprising.
M ore significant is the case o f 1 1 thanksgiving (47, 8), an infinitive employed as a noun only in LBH, e.g., Neh. 12, 46.
88
1 32 -13 7]
The Book o f Ben Sira
2. M H M aterial. 132. The material to be included in this paragraph (as in

the above paragraphs), will also com prise words that came into MH from
A ram aic.
a. Verbs. 133. 25 ,4 ) )to refuse is characteristic of this kind. 1 to
be in need o f (13, 6) is a clear-cut verb (to be found in M H only in MSS,
generally ... ( . ) in the M asada text) to be enough, to be
able to (42, 17) is also conspicuous in MH. The case of to praise
oneself is interesting. This root probably originated from the N ifal o f the
Biblical root ( cf. !?your cheeks are comely, Song of Songs 1,
10) and generally appears in M H already as ( in MSS still ) to be
pretty, nice. is also found in Ben Sira 51, 16. Instead of 4 ,43) )
we find in the margin to kindle. The verb to take, comm on especially in M H , also turns up here (42, 8).
. N ouns. 134. The academ y (51, 23) is characteristic of the
M H period. O ther nouns include: p artner (41, 18) which replaces
in the m argin, creatures (16, 16), and 1 world (3,18). Let us
m ention two more nouns: property (5, 8) and high
priesthood (45, 24). The noun pattern qc\i:la: (see 212) occurs e.g.,
in dying; the pattern qittu.'l (see ibid), in e.g., ? suffering (4,
29); the pattern haqtada (see 103) e.g., in thanks (51, 17).
3. A ram aic m aterial

a. Verbs. 135. The root to suffice is employed in the Qal, to be
enough (above 133). It is interesting to note that in I Kings 20, 10, where
it appears in the Qal (spelled ) , it is an A ram ean king who is speaking.
. N ouns. 136. The word e.g., 40, 18, in the margin for , (and
spelled in the M asada text 41, 14) is A ram aic (though from a root
th at is found also in Hebrew). The Verbal noun o f the H itpael e.g.,
the change (43, 8) is probably also A ram aic but there may be one case in
BH ( D an. 11, 23).
. A n A ram aic Caique. 137. to be clever (42, 8) is perhaps an
A ram aic caique.
89
D SS A N D C O N TEM PO RA R Y SOU RC ES
[138-140
4. A W ord fr o m an U nknown Source. 138. pool (50, 3) is interesting since it does not appear in this form either in Hebrew or in
A ram aic, but it does appear in the stele of M esha, King o f M oab (ninth
century B.C.E.) It has now emerged also in the form in the C opper
Scroll.
L iterature:
D. Strauss, Sprachliche Studien zu den hebrischen Sirachfragm enten,
Z urich 1900;
[The B ook o f B en Sira: T ext, Concordance and an Analysis o f the
Vocabulary, Jerusalem 1973 (Hebrew). G.S.]
II. The M asada Fragments

139. The above description o f the language o f Ben Sira, based on fragm ents discovered in the C airo Geniza dating back to the Middle Ages has
now to be qualified by the picture that emerges from the framents discovered by Y. Yadin in the excavation at M asada. These fragments date
from 125-100 B.C.E.
The M asada fragm ents prove beyond a doubt that the Geniza fragments
represent the H ebrew original (see above 127). On the other hand, the new
fragments prove decisively that the Geniza fragments have not preserved
the original text faithfully. Therefore, I believe, a short description o f this
text too, is in order here. [References are to the definitive edition o f the
Academ y o f the Hebrew Language, above 138.1
a. Spelling
140. Ben Sira apparently tried to imitate BH, so the spelling is practically identical with that o f BH (as against DSS; see below 155). But the
spelling of scales (42, 4) parallels that o f DSS (cf. below 150),
rather than BH .
F or the sam e reason, Ben Sira prefers the graphem e ) =) where DSS
[rarely E.Q.] and especially M H might use sam ekh, e.g.,
treasure (41, 14). The margin o f one Geniza fragment has already the
norm al spelling of M H , while the text itself substitutes the BH 1
for the M H w ord a good illustration of how the text was altered in the
Middle Ages.
90
141-148]
The Book o f Ben Sira
b. M orphology
141. The form 32 ,41 ;1 ,42) in Y adins edition) seems to have
been built on the pattern of the strong verb. The G eniza fragment corrects
it to the norm al form .
c. Vocabulary
142. F or the reason stated above (140), the language o f Ben Sira
draw s upon all strata o f BH. However, it could not escape the im pact of the
contem porary dialects, namely M H and A ram aic, as the following instances show.
1. A B H M aterial. 1 4 3 . w antonness (41, 16; preserved on the margin
o f one o f the fragm ents); act (42, 15).
2. S B H M aterial. 144. child (?) (41, 5); as (44, 9).
3. L B H M aterial. 145. to receive (41, 1).
4. M H M aterial. 146. banks (of a river) (40, 16); partner (41,
18); need (42, 23). Lieberman showed that 3 ,42) )has to be translated plenipotentiary on the basis o f MH. polishing (42, 4) is not
found in M H , but the verbal root does occur.
Literature:
;92-90 , ,) ( , .
- , , [ = 346-345 , ] . ,ibid , .
5.A ram aic M aterial. 147. treasure (41, 14; see above 140) ;
branch(?) (40, 16) seems to occur only in the A ram aic o f the Babylonian
Talm ud. to tell (42, 1; 44, 15) is apparently an A ramaic caique.
(Yadin translates to repeat.) The parallel A ram aic root which occurs
as an A ram aism in ABH (see above 100) also means to tell.
6.
M aterial fro m Unknown Sources. 148. Since we know very little ab
the language spoken at this period (the last centuries before the Comm on
E ra) it is not surprising that we come across roots unknown both in BH
and M H . One o f these roots appears in sparkles 43, 9. Incidentally
the fact that this root also survived in the G eniza fragments (7 ,50 ;
91
D SS A N D C O N TEM PO R A R Y SO U R C ES
[148-150
thus vocalized on the basis o f its A rabic cognate) is the best proof that
those fragm ents go back to the H ebrew original, for it would have been
otherwise impossible to account for its occurrence in the text. A nother unknown root, apparently close to the meaning of BH w ander is to be
found in ( ( prescribeth (seasons) 43, 6 which also can apparently only be explained with the help o f its A rabic cognate. This word
was changed in the G eniza texts.
d. B iblical a n d N on-B iblical Transm issions in the M asada Fragments
149. In the excavations at M asada Y. Yadin found a fragm ent o f
Psalm s. It is interesting to realize th at the text o f Ben Sira underwent many
changes resulting from the corrections o f medieval (and earlier) scribes.
Owing to these corrections not only the spelling was changed (e.g.,
, see above 140), but w ords unknow n to the scribes were
corrected out o f existence (e. g. , above 146). But Psalm s fared differently. Except for a few cases o f defective spellings, th at are also com m on
in our MSS o f the Bible, there is practically no difference between the text
discovered at M asada and our M asoretic text. How are we to account for
this difference, between the transm ission o f Psalm s and o f Ben Sira? The
answ er is simply that Psalm s represented a sacred text and therefore the
scribes made every effort to copy it faithfully, while Ben Sira was not
canonised, and so it was treated less carefully. This is a clear proof of how
particular the scribes were not to change anything when copying a Biblical
text.
L itera ture:
Y. Yadin, The B en-Sira Scro ll fr o m M a sa d a , Jerusalem 1965 (= EretzIsrael 8 (1967), pp. 1-45);
idem, 1EJ 15 (1965) pp. 103-104.
e. Ben Sira and the D ead S ea Scrolls

150. Is there any connections between the language o f the DSS and
th at of Ben Sira? The special gram m atical and lexical features characteristic of the DSS have yet to be studied. The following case is interesting.
The root is not found in Hebrew in H ifil, but it does occur in the
G eniza fragm ent with the m eaning to cause to flow (38, 16), and the
Isaiah Scroll reads instead o f in 48, 21. The word which hap
92
150-152]
The D ead Sea Scrolls
pens, im portant in the DSS, occurs in the G eniza fragments (42, 19;
plural). For the spelling see above 140.
Literature:
K utscher, Isaiah Scroll, p. 233;
P. W ernberg-M oller, The M anual o f D iscipline, Leiden 1957, p. 68 n. 48.
B. The D ead Sea Scrolls

151. The story o f the discovery o f the D ead Sea Scrolls has been told
many times. Therefore, we shall restrict ourselves to relating the essentials
needed for linguistic analysis. Since 1947, when the first discoveries were
made, scholars have been publishing scrolls and fragm ents of scrolls found
in caves around the D ead Sea. The bulk o f these findings originally
belonged to the library o f a Jewish sect (probably the Essenes) that dwelled
in what is today K hirbet Q um ran near the northern edge of the D ead Sea.
The material coming from this library consists mainly o f 1) portions and
even whole books o f the Jewish Bible and A pocrypha and Pseudographa
and 2) Secrarian writings, hymns, m anuals, com m entaries on Biblical
books etc.
I. The Isaiah Scroll

152. For our purposes not only the second kind is o f great im portance
but also some Biblical books and fragm ents, especially the Isaiah Scroll
found in cave 1 (IQ Isaa). The text of this Scroll is by and large identical
with the M asoretic Isaiah, but differs from it mainly in its language, e.g.,
the spelling, the phonetics underlying the spelling, morphology, and to a
certain extent, vocabulary, as well as syntax. T oday it can be stated that
linguistically the Scroll is generally considered to be a popular version of
Isaiah, reflecting the linguistic situation prevailing in Palestine during the
last centuries before the C om m on Era. As yet, no comprehensive, detailed
linguistic study has been made o f any o f this m aterial except for the Isaiah
Scroll. Therefore the following account is based mainly on the language o f
this Scroll.
93
D S S A N D C O N TEM PO R A R Y SO U R C ES
[152-154
Literature:
[E. Y. K utscher, The L anguage a n d Linguistic B ackground o f the Isdiah
Scroll ( I Q ls a a), Jerusalem 1959 (Hebrew), Leiden 1974 (English);
E. Qimron, A G ram m ar o f the H ebrew L anguage o f the D ead Sea Scrolls,
Ph.D . dissertation, The Hebrew University o f Jerusalem , 1976 (in
Hebrew).]
II. The Language o f the D S S as Reflected in the Isaiah Scroll

a. Proper N am es
153. The forms o f proper nam es constitute the best proof o f the late
provenience o f the Scroll. The name o f the city o f D am ascus is a case in
point. The M asoretic text o f Isaiah reads ^ , whereas the Scroll has
seven times. The early sources o f this nam e, viz. the Egyptian,
A kkadian, and A ram aic inscriptions show only a form w ithout [r] that
parallels the M asoretic form. This is true also o f BH where the form of
occurs only in the Book o f Chronicles. It then appears in MH and
Syriac.
The sam e picture emerges from the form o f the theophoric nam es in the
pattern o f , etc. In the Scroll these nam es are nearly always
found in the shorter form as , which, as pointed out above (89)
are the later ones. A lso the spelling o f the names ( mostly with jW )
as against the spelling without y o d in SBH (see above 118), and
(always plene) point tow ard a late origin. These proper names alone are a
convincing proof th at the Scroll reflects a m odernized version o f Isaiah.
W hat was the aim o f this nodernization o f the language? The linguistic
background provides the answer.
b. The Linguistic B ackground

154. D uring the last centuries before the C om m on Era, Classical
Biblical Hebrew ceased to exist as a spoken language. Hebrew, as far as it
was spoken, was no longer Biblical H ebrew but M ishnaic Hebrew which
differed greatly from it in m orphology, vocabulary and syntax. Generally,
A ram aic, which during the previous centuries had becom e the lingua fr a n ca o f the N ear E ast, served as the vernacular in Palestine, apparently in
several dialects. (F rom a later period we know o f three spoken dialects, viz.
94
154-155]
Galilean A ram aic, Sam aritan A ram aic and C hristian A ram aic of
Palestine.)
As a result o f this situation, the com m on peoples understanding of the
Bible was very limited. It m ay be safely assum ed that only those words,
forms and phrases had a chance to be understood which still survived in
Mishnaic Hebrew, or had cognates in A ram aic or occurred relatively frequently in the Bible. In other w ords, the com m on people knew only a kind
o f Basic Biblical Hebrew. H apa x legomena and even rare w ords and constructions from the H ebrew Bible were no longer understood.
Furtherm ore, the comm on people were not even able to read the ancient
text properly, as vocalization had not yet been invented. D oubtless there
was a strong tendency to substitute the A ram aic pronunciation for the
Hebrew in the cases o f hom ographie w ords in both languages, e.g., ,
, ) = in Hebrew, , in A ram aic).
In light of all these factors, I believe th at along with the official text o f the
Bible, a certain type o f vulgar text also em erged.
Therefore we may assume that m any o f those points in which the Scroll
differs linguistically from the M asoretic Isaiah represent characteristics o f
the literary Hebrew o f the last centuries o f the first millennium B.C.E.
Literature:
K utscher, Isaiah Scroll, pp. 3 -5 ; 9 6 -1 2 5 .
[The section in quotation m arks is a quote (with slight changes and
omissions) from the English sum m ary o f the Hebrew original of the
au th o rs Isaiah Scroll.]
c. Spelling.
155. The spelling tends to be plene not only for long vowels, but also
for originally PS short vowels (including those that remained short in
Hebrew), and also for hatafs, e.g., = , = , $ =
= , = ,\ In addition, the DSS developed a type o f spelling
very rarely met with in BH, e.g., = , = , = , = .
Literature:
Kutscher, Isaiah Scroll, pp. 5 -8 , 126-186.
[Unlike the other short PS vowels, short PS /i/ is spelled defectively,
namely, without a yod\ see Q im ron, G ram m ar (above 152), p. 53.
E.Q.]
95
D SS A N D C ONTEM PO RARY SOU RC ES
[156-157
d. Phonology
156. The pharyngals , and the laryngals , apparently weakened,
at least in the speech o f the members o f the sect. This caused them to be
very often confused in the Isaiah Scroll and sometimes in the other Scrolls.
Examples of this are: = , = , 3 = . Sometim es these
consonants are omitted altogether, as in =! . This is one o f the m any
characteristics which the Scrolls share with the Sam aritan Pentateuch (see
179). Cf. also the discussion above 28.
Literature:
K utscher, Isaiah Scroll, pp. 57, 505-51 1.
e. Morphology
1. Pronouns. 157. The most striking trait o f the language o f the DSS is
represented by the forms of some o f the personal pronouns as well as the
parallel pronominal suffixes (cf. Table 2). Instead of the form
sometimes occurs, which, as H.L. G insberg immediately rem arked, is identical with that of the Sam aritan oral tradition. It may be assum ed that both
and other pronominal forms characteristic o f the Scrolls do not
represent early forms but are the result o f the process of internal Hebrew
analogy, (paralleling a similar process in m odern A rabic dialects). On the
other hand, suffixes of the type of the perfect (second pers. sing, fem.)
of the noun (second pers. sing. fem. poss. pron.), which at first glance
seem to be archaism s, are mirage forms since they are actually A ramaisms (see above 54). There is still no clear-cut answ er to the problem of
the forms , . They, too, may be the product o f the analogical process mentioned above, but the possibility of the survival o f early
forms cannot be excluded.
It should be pointed out that the spelling of the type (poss. pron.
second pers. sing, masc.) instead o f the Biblical effectively demolishes
the contention of Kahle discussed above (46). This spelling clearly
dem onstrates that the ending was indeed and not ; as he maintained.
Literature:
Kutscher, Isaiah Scroll, pp. 4 5 -5 2 ; 4 3 3 -4 5 1 ;
H.L. Ginsberg, B A S O R no. 112 (1948), p. 20 n. 3.
96
158]
2. The Verb. 158. Many forms that look like BH pausal forms (i.e. forms
that, according to the Tiberian vocalization, occur at the end o f clauses and
sentences), occur in context in the DSS e. g. , you shall blush (Isa. 1,
29). There is reason to believe that these forms represent a pronunciation
which, at least in the verb, stressed not the ultima (the last syllable),
prevalent in BH according to the Tiberian M asoretic vocalization, but the
penultim a (the next to the last syllable). This trait in the Scrolls seems to
reflect the later pronunciation that became prevalent in substandard
Hebrew at this period, and which is therefore also prom inent in M H , the
spoken language of the period and even in an Aram aic dialect spoken in
Palestine (cf. below 252). A nother characterisitic o f the DSS is the use of
the long imperfect, e.g., I felled (trees) (Isa. 37, 24). The Scrolls
share this characteristic with some later books o f the Bible such as Ezra
and Nehem iah (but not Chronicles); cf. above 120. Archaic forms tend to
disappear; ( Isa. 21, 12), for example, becomes . (See
also our discussion above 100.)
Participles of the neutral verbs, such as ( cf. 62) sometimes appear
as in the regular (active) form, e. g. , dweller (Isa. 33, 24). Verbs that
are vocalized with [a] in the imperfect Qal in BH appear in the Scroll with a
WY7 U, e.g., ( = Isa. 19, 5). This tendency is also conspicuous in
M H as well as in later A ram aic dialects.
Sometim es verbs are used in a stem different from that in BH. In most
such cases it can be shown that this change goes back to the tendency to
adapt to later usage, e.g., ( the passive of the Qal is replaced six times in
the Isaiah Scroll by the later N ifal ;and cf. above 48). Instead of
kthey will sanctify My name (29, 23) the Isaiah Scroll reads
apparently because in MH it is the Piel which is employed in
this meaning.
Two instances are rem arkable: The word twisted is vocalized in
BH as a H o fal participle, e.g., Ex. 26, 1, while in the M ilham ah Scroll it
appears as , i.e. as a participle o f the Pual. This form m ay reflect a
tradition different from ours, as in the following case: In BH the root
stum ble is employed in the perfect and in the participle in the Qal, while in
the imperfect it is nearly always vocalized as N ifal. It is therefore
rem arkable that in DSS it is spelled as the imperfect Qal, e. g. , ( Isa.
40, 30). It has been pointed out that the M asoretic tendency is to vocalize
form s according to their usag in the latest layer o f spoken BH. In the root
this tendency is already clearly evident in a few cases in BH, e.g.,
97
D SS A N D C ONTEM PO RARY SO U RC ES
[ 1 5 8 -1 5 9
( I Sam. 2, 4) and the infinitive N ifal ( D an 11, 34). T herefore

it is possible that the writer o f the DSS clung to the earlier form which was
apparently the use of Qal in all the tenses. As this form is also em ployed in
the C hristian A ram aic of Palestine, it is therefore possible th a t it was the
A ram aic dialect o f the writers which prom pted them to prefer the Qal.
A nother instance is clearly the result o f the late developm ent o f the
merging of the and roots (see 63). In M H , for exam ple, instead o f
BH to read 1( the form) is used. T hus the w riters o f DSS
who tried to imitate BH, apparently sometimes erroneously used a genuine
verb as if it were a verb (hyper-correction). This is apparently why
they use ( often spelled with he instead o f a le f in the DSS) as if the root
were BH . The A ram aic forms in this field will be discussed later
(171).
L iterature:
Kutscher, Isaiah Scroll, pp. 3 9 -4 4 ; 3 15 -3 6 5
[On which occurs also in the S am aritan tradition see Q im ron,
G ramm ar, (above 152) p. 179. E.Q.]
3. The Noun. 159. Here, too, archaic form s tend to disappear from the
Scrolls, e.g., instead o f 1 beasts o f the forest (Isa. 56, 9
twice; cf. above 114). The sam e also applies to the archaic form ( see
ibid.) which appears in a m odernized form as . The spelling ten t
and hardness (M D IV 11) indicate th at the noun pattern qutl,
which in BH is vocalized as could occur in the D SS as ( also as
, as in Aramaic). In this respect, the DSS parallel the Septuagint e.g.,
M oloch=H ebrew ( cf. below 176) and C hristian A ram aic o f Palestine.
The form as aginst BH swine is identical with th at o f the
Babylonian vocalization and of Christian A ram aic o f Palestine. Therefore,
this form indicates, like many others, that the dialect spoken or written by
the members of the sect was not identical with the H ebrew preserved by the
M asoretes of Tiberias. F orm s like ( plural o f plague) which in
BH is , are paralleled by im age in BH, but they are much
more common in MH (cf. plural of dam age as in the nam e o f the Mishnaic tractate ) . Therefore, this tendency perhaps betrays the influence
o f the spoken Hebrew o f that period, i.e. M H .
A nother instance which clearly goes back to the influence o f LBH is the
98
1 5 9-161]
plural form o f the type . In SBH the plural is , while in LBH

emerges. The same form is to be met with in DSS, e.g., Isa. 11,4 .
L itera ture:
K utscher, Isaiah Scroll, pp. 55, 50 2 -5 0 4 ; 374; 511-515;
.9 , , , .
4. Particles. 160. The form ( also spelled , ) as against BH
very, e.g., Isa. 47, 6, may also reflect an earlier usage th at was later
abandoned. The picture is entirely different in the case of 1 . In the Isaiah
Scroll, instead o f 1 woe is me, we read 5 ,6) ) . This is not a scribal
error, because this form is found twice in Ecclesiastes. W hat is m ore, Mishnaic MSS established the fact that in MH only is used. H ence it was
the printers and copyists who corrected this form to under the influence o f BH (see 46, 195). Thus, this change in the Isaiah Scroll is due
to the influence o f the later usage.
L itera tu re:
K utscher, Isaiah Scroll, 390; 41 3 -4 1 4 ;
, , , .
.] , [267-266
/ . S y n ta x
161. The writers o f the sectarian scrolls tried to imitate SBH, but lapses
in the use o f the waw conversive (cf. 66) indicate that they were not completely at ease with this usage. Some characteristics indicate that their
language should be in some respect considered as an offshoot o f LBH, especially C hronicles (as alluded to above, see 159 ) . A case in
point is the employment of the infinitive construct plus for the
prohibitive, e.g., they must not w alk (M D I 13). This construction, which is practically absent from SBH, is all the more interesting since
it crops up in the languages spoken in Jerusalem at the time, as we see from
A ram aic and Greek inscriptions of Jerusalem (and also in Punic, i.e. late
C anaanite o f N orth Africa). We mentioned above (115) that BH
som etimes employs relative clauses without the relative pronoun. Since this
construction does not appear in LBH and M H, the writer o f the Isaiah
Scroll tries to rid the text o f it in different ways, e.g., instead o f in
the w ay you should go (48, 17), he simply adds the relative pronoun $:
99
D S S A N D C O NTEM PO RARY SO U RC ES
[161-163
. The same applies to the phrase the fast that I

choose' to which he adds both the article and the relative pronoun
, while in and I will lead the blind in a
way they know not (42, 16), the writer of the Scroll apparently misunderstood the construction and changed into .
g. Vocabulary
1. On the Absence o f Greek and L atin Loans in the D S S . 162. At first
sight it is astonishing that the DSS should contain so few new foreign loans
except for A ram aic and those th at are already part and parcel of BH. The
G reek loans especially are conspicuous by their absence, a most
astounding fact since the sectarian scrolls are generally dated from the first
century B.C.E. to the first century C.E., that is to say, about 2 0 0 -300
years after the conquest by Alexander (see above 152), and in MH Greek
loans abound. The lack of Latin loans is less surprizing because Rom an
rule had been extended over Palestine only shortly before this time. How,
then, are we to explain this strange paucity of foreign loans in the DSS?
As mentioned above (161), the goal o f the writers was to employ BH
and this may have led them to avoid newcomers from other languages, and
Greek and Latin loans are easily identifiable as such. Moreover, apparently
before the influx o f a foreign vocabulary becomes possible, a kind o f
language resistance must be overcom e and this takes time. The table draw n
up by Jespersen shows how rare French words were in English during the
first 150 years after the N orm an conquest in 1066. Only later was there a
massive invasion of French w ords into the English vocabulary. In our case,
when we consider this fact and bear in mind that these were religious
writings, this resistance was probably much stronger than in the case of
English.
Literature:
O. Jespersen, Growth and Structure o f the English Language, Oxford
1943, 94, 95.
a. A L oan Translation fr o m L a tin ? 163. While loans from Greek and
Latin seem to be practically nonexistent, the problem of loan translations
should be investigated. Y. Yadin, in The Scroll o f the War o f the Sons o f
L ig h t against the Sons o f D arkness deals extensively with terminology o f
100
1 6 3 -1 6 4 ]
w eapons, tactics and organization employed in that Scroll. He points out

th at some of these term s parallel Latin term s, and bear an astonishing
resem blance to the list of nam es of battle form ations employed by the
R om an arm y . Some of the term s appearing in both lists correspond
literally, especially alae wings, turres tow ers' which are and
in the Scroll.
W e therefore could assum e th at the writer, or those who coined these
term s, while eschewing direct loans from Latin, coined new Hebrew terms
as loan translations, modeled after the Latin terms. This is, for example, the
way in which Old English often proceeded when, after the English had embraced C histianity, instead o f taking over the Greek or Latin term s, they
translated them into their own language. The Greek euagglion was turned
into god-spell, hence gospel today. If the English chose this course, we are
certainly entitled to assum e that the Jews did likewise when they had to employ technical term s used by their enemy the Rom ans.
But here we are treading on dangerous ground, for the Latin turrls might
well be a loan translation of G reek piirgos which has the same meaning,
and already occurs in H om er. But can a Semitic origin be excluded? As to
alae BH which also seems to have both meanings, would caution us
against a hasty conclusion.
L iterature:
Y. Yadin, The Scroll o f the W ar o f the Sons o f L ight against the Sons o f
D a rkness, O xford 1962, p. 184;
O. Jespersen, op. cit. (above 162) 41.
2. A P ersian Loanw ord. 164. A new Persian loan, , makes its appearance in the Scrolls. As pointed out by Asm ussen, in Persian the w ord
probably m eans hunting for pleasure' (rather than for a livelihood).
T herefore it was eminently suited for the purposes of the sect for describing
the terrible punishm ent to be meted out to the evil-doers at the end o f days.
T he inhabitants o f Palestine were no doubt familiar with the battue,
organized by the Persian satrap s and the entourage in the wide hunting
grounds o f the where the anim als were slaughtered en m asse at will,
simply to satisfy the hunters lust for blood.
L itera tu re:
. 23-22 , ,
101
D SS A N D C O NTEM PO RARY SOURCES
[165
3. The H ebrew Vocabulary
a. Biblical Hebrew Vocabulary. 165. As mentioned, the D SS attem pt to

im itate BH is very conspicuous in their vocabulary. The H odayot Scroll
m akes especially indiscriminate use o f all the layers o f Hebrew i.e. SBH
e.g., boundary, ABH e.g., to appear, LBH e.g., time,
period.
But in these writings, there already appears a new BH element which
was destined to become an im portant feature to this very day. Quite often
(in the m anner o f IH , see 385) the DSS employ rare roots and words
whose proper meaning was no longer known. In such a case, the Scrolls
would assign them a meaning not based on living usage or oral tradition,
but upon the authors interpretations of the verse in the Bible where that
rare word occurs. Sometim es this interpretation would be correct, but other
times, of course, it could be wrong. Let us give a few instances. In Jonah 4,
8 in the expression ... east wind, the word , translated sultry, is unclear but this did not prevent the author of the H odayot
from using it in the phrase like a ship... where
should apparently be rendered as storm (
6
^ = ) . As re
nized by scholars, this use originated in a certain interpretation o f the
verse quoted above. (The word does not appear elsewhere). This also accounts for the feminine which goes well with ( feminine) in Jonah
but not with . A nother instance is in Pesher H abakkuk 6, 11 where we
read boys... old men, women, and children.
A ccording to the context, can only have the meaning o f old,
young, or in between. Indeed the word which seems to be very close
to our appears in Jo b several times with the meaning o f aged. But if
that be so, we should expect and not . W here, then, did the
writer get the form from? It apparently arose throught the interpretation of the verse ( Isa. 16, 7). Here the meaning of
is by no means clear. Some translate it raisin cakes, others prefer to
explain it as walls. The w riter of the H odayot apparently interpreted it under the influence of old m an in the way o f the Greek interpreter
Aquila (third century C.E.). This interpretation might have been facilitated
by the fact that in a parallel verse, Jer 48, 36, we find men o f
K ir-heres.
A nother interesting case is the word . In BH it occurs three times
and it seems to mean attesting, as in R uth 4, 7 where it is formed from the
102
1 6 5 -1 6 6 ]
ro o t to w itness. Somehow, though, the writer of the DSS seems to

have interpreted the word as if it were derived form the root and seems
to em ploy it with the meaning time.
T here are m any m ore such cases, but there is no doubt that the
overw helm ing m ajority o f the BH w ords are in accordance with BH usage.
Som etim es the DSS highlight overlooked meanings of BH. One o f these
cases is the word e.g., M D IV 16, 17. In the DSS, MH and Aramaic
dialects it m eans time. This led E.L. Sukenik to realize that the same
m eaning is extant also in BH, but was misinterpreted to mean end until
the discovery o f the DSS. The correct meaning is especially conspicuous in
L BH , e.g., ,( Ezek. 7, 6); the synonynous expression
(ibid. 7 and 12) proves that m eans time. It also replaces the earlier
in the Isaiah Scroll (2, 7 twice).
Y adin believes that BH 1( spelled in the M ilham a Scroll) does not
m ean lance but sw ord and does not mean shield but several types
o f w eapons. The use o f these w ords in the M ilhama Scroll led Yadin to
reexam ine these nouns in BH.
L ite ra tu re:
;22 , , 1948 , , ..
C h. R abin, The Z a d o kite D ocum ents, Oxford 1954, p. 2;
K utscher, Isaiah Scroll, p. 283;
Y adin, The S croll o f the W ar etc. (above 163), pp. 129-131; 133-134;
M. B urrow s, The D ead Sea Scrolls o f S t. M a r k s M onastary, vol. I, New
H aven 1950, (Pesher H abakkuk);
.) ( 121 , , , , .
. M ishnaic H ebrew Vocabulary. 166. There are already a few elements

in DSS that are otherwise found only in M H : ( M ilhamah V 13) = MH
, th u m b , =( BH = M H sm all (M D IV 16). An
interesting case is that o f young m an. The Mishnaic sources tell us
th at one m anuscript that was found in the Temple read instead of
in Ex. 24, 5. Until a few years ago the word was problem atic and
scholars even thought that it might be G reek. The word in the DSS
settled the problem once and for all. (Incidentally, the root has also turned
up in A rabic and A ram aic).
103
D SS A N D C O N TEM PO RA R Y SO U RC ES
[166-170
Literature:
Ch. Rabin, The H istorical Background o f Q um ran H ebrew , Scripta
H ierosolytnitana, IV, 1958 pp. 144ff., 148 (;)
K utscher, Isaiah Scroll, p. 81 n. 2.
. Vocabulary fr o m Unknown Sources. 167. We cannot determine
whether the new roots and w ords which have thus far been found only in
the Scrolls are survivals from BH which only by mere chance do not appear there or are loans from some language o r dialect unknow n to us, like
the w ords , , (M ilham ah V 6, 9; meaning unclear), and ( ibid.
V 8; also not entirely clear).
h. The A ram aic Influence
168. The A ram aic influence is all pervasive. The Isaiah Scroll especially
is perm eated by A ram aic elements, but they are to be found in the other
Scrolls as well.
1. In M orphology.
a Pronouns. 169. The fem. second pers. sing. in the Isaiah Scroll 51,
10, 12 does not represent the old form (cf. 53) but is a mirage form under the influence o f A ram aic (see 54; thus also in the Sam aritan Pentateuch, below 180). The same holds true for the possessive suffix of the
sing, and plural fem. e.g., ( ) =) Isa. 40, 9). It can be shown that the
A ram aic forms replace the Hebrew ones also in M H , as in the case o f the
A ram aic possessive suffix o f the third pers. sing, in =( H ) upon
him (Isa. 2, 2), =( H ) his feet (M D VI 13).
. N oun Form ation. 170. Several nouns appear in A ram aic form, e.g.,
; =) Isa. 18, 5). As mentioned above (159), the Semitic q utl nounpattern appears in Hebrew as , in A ram aic as , but in the DSS as
( and ) as these and other instances prove. (See also about the
Septuagint, below 176). Instead o f Hebrew ?darkness (Isa. 8, 22)
we find the A ram aic . It is w orth mentioning that instead o f BH
blade in M ilham ah we find , e.g., VI 2. A change from the qatl pattern
to the qutl pattern which in itself is possible also in Hebrew, but in
H odayoth II 26 we find , a clear-cut A ram aic form.
104
171-173]
. The Verb. 171. The second pers. sing. fem. perfect very often appears
with the ending e. g. , you have forgotten (Isa. 17, 10). As pointed out above (53) this is also probably due to the A ram aic influence. The
same applies to this form in the S am aritan P entateuch (see 181). The Qal
imperative has forms like seek ( = ; Isa. 1, 17) This may be
either the A ram aic form, or the BH pausal form em ployed in context. Instead o f is taking away (Isa. 3, 1) we find , a clear-cut A ram aic
form. The Isaiah scroll reading o f instead o f partiality, (3, 9) seems to be another result o f the influence o f A ram aic which
requires the ending in the construct in this infinitive pattern (which is
here employed as a verbal noun). As to the noun pattern itself, see above
103. nothing to be changed M D III 16, i.e. the H ifil instead
of the Piel 1 , is a change which is due to A ram aic, since in Biblical
A ram aic the root is employed in the H a fel (= H eb rew H ifil; and cf. below
173).
Literature:
K utscher, Isaiah Scroll, pp. 2 3 -2 9 ; 187-215.
2. In the Vocabulary. 172. Here we find quite a few A ram aic lor,.!s. The
prominence of the root in the DSS is apparently due to A ram aic. It
means order, and is very much like G reek tksis battle array, ordinance,
etc. The root , which occurs very frequently in M ilham ah e.g., VII 8
with the meaning battle order, is also apparently A ram aic. While these
two roots also occur in BH (with not exactly the sam e meanings) the root
knead e.g., H odayot III 24 is A ram aic and is also loaned to M H .
L iterature:
P. Wernberg-M011er, The M an u a l o f D iscipline, Leiden 1957, p. 46;
. 61 , , , , .
a. A ram aic Calques. 173. A good instance o f an A ram aic calque is the
expression M D II 9. As Wernberg-M011er has show n, this is a
caique from A ram aic where m eans to intercede. The caique was
made possible by the correct identification on the p art o f the bilingual
Hebrew A ram aic speakers o f A ram aic with H ebrew . The A ram aic
phrase, in turn, is a caique from A kkadian.
BH 013 glass is feminine, but in the Isaiah Scroll (51, 22f.) it appears as
105
D S S A N D C O N TEM PO RA R Y SO U R C ES
[173-175
masculine apparently because o f the A ram aic influence (as happened in

M H , see 243). F or a caique in verbal stem usage see above 171. Further
research will doubtless reveal m any m ore instances o f A ram aic caiques.
Literature:
W ernbergM011er, op. cit. (172) p. 53;
;[ , , , [ 128 , 125 , ) ( , .
K utscher, Isaiah S croll, pp. 43f., 394.
C. O ther C ontem porary Sources

I. The Transliterations o f the Septuagint
174. The transliterations o f the Septuagint are from the sam e period as
the Book of Ben Sira and the DSS (third-second centuries B.C.E.). The
m aterial is restricted to the proper names which appear in G reek transliterations. Nonetheless, they are quite instructive with regard to m any
linguistic points.
a. Phonology
175 The transliteration o f the consonants /h , / has been dealt with in
25 and we shall restrict our discussion here to the vowels. BH short [i] is
nearly always transliterated by Greek , e.g., . We have reason to
believe that in the spoken A ram aic o f the period short [il did not exist and
was replaced by [] as shown by vocalized text o f the Jerusalem Targum
edited by Kahle. The sam e apparently holds good for the short [uj, which
was replaced by [o]. T h at is why the name ( N u 13, 6) for example, appears in the Septuagint as Iephonn. It is possible that the sam e state o f affairs prevailed in M H (see 200).
The place nam e is transliterated in the Septuagint as O dollam , e.g.,
Josh 12, 15. The first [o] points up the tendency o f the Septuagint to color
the h alf vowel (shva or ha ta by the quality o f the following vowel. This
rule m ay also account for the first vowel to be found in the nam es Sodom a
and Gomorra, as against the M asoretic vocalization , 1 . In both
the first vowel is apparently a semi-vowel that was pronounced [o] because
o f the following full vowel.
A nother characteristic o f the transliterations is th at in a closed unaccent-
106
175-176]
C ontem porary Sources
ed syllable the Septuagint very often has the vowel [a] where the M asoretic
vocalization shows [i] e.g., B alaam ( N u. 22, 5) etc., M agdl = ,
(e.g., Ex. 14, 2).
Literature:
G. Lisowsky, D ie Transkription der hebrischen E igennam en des Pentateuch in der Septuaginta, Ph.D . dissertation, Basel 1940, pp. 124127;
Bergstrsser, H G I, pp. 61, 120;
K utscher, Isaiah Scroll, pp. 5 0 0 -5 0 1 .
] . , , [
b. M orphology
176. Since the transliterations consist only o f proper nouns, we can
learn very little about the m orphology. O ne o f the few examples is the
following: As is known, the so-called segolates, as, e.g., book were
originally monosyllabic and the second vowel is secondary. F o r this reason
these nouns are stressed penultim ately (on the original vowel). In the
M asoretic vocalization the second vowel is m ostly a segol (hence the nam e
segolates), and sometimes, under the influence o f he, het and *ayin, a p a tah
(e.g., youth), but never [o]. The S eptuagint does have an [o] as a
secondary vowel in certain cases of the q u tl pattern, e.g., H ebrew (
which is transliterated M oloch (e.g., II K ings 23, 10). The sam e apparently
applies to the DSS (see above 159).
It is interesting to note that a form peculiar to the Septuagint but absent
from the M asoretic text m anaged to survive within the Jewish com m unity
until today. The father of David is called, according to the M asoretic
vocal i zat i on, . The Septuagint transliterated it Iessai, th at is to say, with
the doubling o f the /s/. (There is no III in G reek.) It was pointed out by
Yalon that this form still exists in certain p ray er books o f the Sephardic
comm unity in the form .
Literature:
K utscher, Isaiah Scroll, pp. 5 0 2 -5 0 4 ;
. 99- 98 , ) ( , .
107
D S S A N D C ONTEM PO RARY SOURCES
[ 177-178
II. The Sam aritan Pentateuch
177. A fter the severance o f the Sam aritan com m unitys ties with the
Temple of Jerusalem and with the Jewish communities some time during the
fifth century B.C.E. (cf. Neh 3, 19-20), the Sam aritan com m unity was centered mainly around its temple in Shechem (Nablus). From the Jewish Bible
they possess only the Pentateuch, written in old Hebrew characters. W hen
this version became known in Europe during the seventeenth century, nonJewish scholars believed th at they now had what they considered a m ore
original text than the Jewish Pentateuch. But about 150 years ago, the
fam ous Semitist Wilhelm Gesenius established that the SP is merely a popular version o f the Jewish Pentateuch. This assumption was proved correct
by the discovery o f the DSS, since, as already pointed out above (156),
the Scrolls share quite a few characteristics with the SP which are absent
from the Jewish Bible. It may be said that the relationship between the
language o f the SP and the Hebrew Pentateuch parallels that o f Chronicles
and Samuel and Kings on the one hand, and especially the relationship between the D ead Sea Isaiah to the Masoretic Isaiah on the other. Incidentilly, am ong the DSS there were found fragments of MSS o f the SP type.
T h at is why in the SP the spelling is more plene, archaic forms tend to disappear, and rare words and roots are replaced by their com m on parallels.
Though a modern investigation o f the peculiarities o f the SP has yet to be
made, there seems to be sufficient evidence for bearing out this assum ption
as the following instances will prove.
Literature:
E. W iirthwein, The Texts o f the Old Testam ent, Oxford 1957, pp. 3 1 -3 2 ;
F.M . C ross, The A ncient Library o f Qumran and M odern Biblical S tu d ies,
G arden City 1961, pp. 192-193.
a. Spelling
178. The spelling of the SP tends to be more plene than that o f BH, e.g.,
lights (Gen. 1, 14, 16) = M T , signs (ibid 14)=M T
^ . To a certain extent it also parallels the type of spelling found in the
DSS, e. g. , first (ibid 25, 25) = M T 10 , dead (ibid 23, 3) =
M T . N aturally, the archaic spelling o f the possessive suffix o f the third
pers. sing. masc. (that is, he instead o f waw, cf. above 112) is eliminated;
108
178-181]
his tent (Gen. 9, 21; 12, 8; 13, 3) and his foal (ibid 49, 11)
are spelled , respectively in the SP.
Literature:
W iirthwein, (177), p. 31.
K utscher, Isaiah Scroll, pp. 21, 175.
b. Phonology
179. The m ost striking characteristic of the Sam aritan Pentateuch is
the confusion o f the gutturals (laryngals and pharyngals) which we find
also in the D SS, e. g. , ( Gen 2,12) instead 0 ^ 'in* several MSS,
instead of . Instead of ( Gen. 3, 13) some MSS read others
and still others . As for the vowels, it is worthwhile noting th at
according to the oral transm ission differing in many respects in the
pronunciation o f consonants and vowels from that of the Jews short [u]
has disappeared altogether from Sam aritan Hebrew e.g., ag= (law. The
/b , g, d, k, p, t/ survive with one pronunciation each, although according to
Sam aritan gram m arians of the Middle Ages four of them still had two
realiztions. is pronounced = . A bout ) =) see above 98.
Literature:
. 58- 55 , ( ) , .
, , , .]
. 37- 20 ,1977, G.S.]
c. M orphology
1. Pronouns. 180. Instead of the form ( second pers. sg. fem.) we mainly
find e.g., Gen 12, 11. Again this is scarcely a survival of an earlier
form, but rather a revival made via A ram aic, that is to say, a mirage
form (see above 54), as pointed out by Ben-Hayyim and others.
Literature:
; 115 ,) (, .
] but see now , .
. 168-167 , 75-74 , ,] .G.S., E. Q
The Verb. 181. Instead o f the secon pers. sg. fem. perfect .2 we find
109
D SS A N D CONTEM PO RARY SOU RC ES
[ 1 8 1 -1 8 3
e.g., you (f.) laughed = MT ( Gen 18, 15). Like

(180), this too, seems to be a mirage form. There seems to have been a
tendency to employ the norm al forms instead o f the short form s o f the imperfect, e.g., let... increase = M T ( Gen. 1, 22). It is not surprising
that the passive Qal also tends to disappear as in LBH and DSS (see above
122, 158 respectively) and instead o f ^ I was kidnapped (G en
40, 15), we find in SP , the norm al N ifal.
Literature:
: 125, 119 ,) (, .
K utscher, Isaiah Scroll, 188, 328.
]. 132-130 , 129 , 78 ' , , , .
G.S.1
3. The Noun. 182. Instead o f the archaic 1 !wild beasts (G en. 1, 25)
the SP employs the normal as do the DSS (above 159). A rchaic m em
o f ( above 110) disappears from the Sam aritan text, and instead
we find the norm al the loins of his foes (D eut. 33, 11). Hebrew
= one-fifth (Gen. 47, 26) is replaced by the A ram aic form . Instead o f the ABH 1 days (Deut. 32, 7), which survived in M H , is
employed.
Literature:
, , , , .
. 158 ,
d. Vocabulary.
183. In the vocabulary, too, the tendency o f replacing unknow n roots
and form s is clearly discernible, e .g ., oh th at (Gen. 17, 18) where the SP
reads which means the same in MH and A ram aic dialects. In other
places in the Pentateuch the SP reads this word either or corrects it to
no or to to me. A nother instance is to be found in Gen. 24, 20
emptying her ja r where the SP reads . A look into the
Bible C oncordance will immediatedly reveal the reason for this change.
The word is a hapax legomenon (a word mentioned only once) in the Pentateuch, although it is found more often in the rest o f Bible. F or this reason
the Sam aritans apparently did not know its meaning and replaced it, with
110
1 8 3-185]
the help o f the context, with the well-known root to go dow n, here in
the H iPil, meaning to lower.
A n interesting case is the replacement o f the hapax legomenon his
robe (Gen. 49, 11) by . The latter word occurs several times in the
Pentateuch (see above 116).
e. The A ram aic Influence
184. A ram aism s have been noted in the previous paragraphs
(1 80-181). One more instance is illuminating. $ and
( Ex. 25, 20; 26, 3, 5, 6, 17; 37, 9) e. g. , They
(the cherubim ) shall face each other (Ex. 25, 20) is replaced in the SP by
the phrases and respectively. The reason is obvious:
this phrase is A ram aic and it also penetrated LBH.
L iterature:
A braham Geiger's Nachgelassene Schriften, Herausgegeben von Ludwig
Geiger, vol. 4, Berlin 1876, p. 57;
.] , , [ = 124 ,) (, .
III. Inscriptions
185. The H ebrew and A ram aic inscriptions of Jerusalem are very short
and consist mostly o f names on ossuaries. Still, some interesting linguistic
inform ation can be gleaned from them.
There are indications in these inscriptions that the laryngals and
pharyngals were not strictly distinguished from one another and tended
som etimes to disappear as the name = proves. This tendency is
apparently the outcom e of the Greek influence in Jerusalem (cf. 156)
which also is discernible in some place nam es in and around Jerusalem ,
e.g., Hebrew 1 to the north o f the city, which survived in A rabic
without an / / (= elJib). For reasons unknown, the name appears in
the Septuagint as R ebekka. We would have expected R ebka (for [i] > [8] in
the Septuagint see 175). Indeed, this very form turns up in a Greek inscription from Jaffa. For the form see below 186.
L iterature:
, , ,) , . (, .
;] , , [ 357-356 4, ,
111
[185-187
K utscher, Isaiah Scroll, pp. 93.;

S. Klein, Jdisch-palstinisches Corpus Inscriptionum , Wien-Berlin 1920,
p. 50.
[J. N aveh, On S tone an d M osaic: The A ram aic a nd H ebrew Inscriptions
fro m A ncient Synagogues, Jerusalem 1978, (in Hebrew). G.S.
For a corpus o f H ebrew, A ram aic and other inscriptions see Inscriptions
Reveal: D ocum ents fr o m the Time o f the Bible, the M ishna a nd the
Talm ud, Israel M useum Catalogue no. 100, Jerusalem 1973.]
IV. Transliterations o f the Gospels and o f Greek and L atin Inscriptions

186. The Gospels are the earliest source for the vocalization o f the
word . There it is transliterated rabbi. While this form survived until
modern times, in various Jewish communities other forms were used such a
ribbi o f the Sepharadim , rebbi o f the Ashkenazim , and rubbi in Italy and
elsewhere. These forms are not later corruptions , but came into existence
quite early. The form rebbi and ribbi are attested to by Greek and Latin
transliterations from the third century C.E. and on, as well as by the
spelling and the vocalizations o f M ishnaic m anuscripts. A nother case
in point is the nam e L a za r, found in the gospels and in Greek and Hebrew
inscriptions in Palestine. This is the earliest source for a trend found in MH
and A ram aic o f Palestine, namely, the dropping o f the initial a le f plus
vowel. T hat is why this name, which in BH is , appears in MH
m anuscripts as , and has survived until our own day in Yiddish as
(Lozer) and ( Lezer). The same applies to .
Literature:
W. Bauer, Griechisch-deutsches Wrterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen
Testam ents4, Berlin 1952, s. vv. rabbi, L a za ro s:
K utscher, Isaiah Scroll, pp. 65f.;
.]- , , [256-255 , , ,
V. H ebrew Loanw ords and Calques in Other Languages

a. Loanw ords
187. The H ebrew o f this period is the first which can be shown to have
112
187- 188]
influenced other languages. If we find H ebrew loans in A ram aic e.g.,

m zn = H ebrew , provisions, we cannot be sure whether it is a loan
from H ebrew or from C anaanite. H owever, a few Hebrew (and A ram aic)
w ords which occur in the G ospels started on their way throughout Europe
at this time, e.g., rabbi, father (cf., e.g., English abbot), am en,
which is H ebrew etc. An interesting case is that o f the world jubilee
(although this particular case belongs to a later period). This is a blend o f
the H ebrew the fiftieth y ear and the Latin ju b ila re, to emit cries o f
jo y (cf. below 383).
L iterature:
K. L okotsch, Etym ologisches W rterbuch der europischen W rter orien
talischen U rsprungs, Heidelberg 1927, s.w . rabbi, amen;
S. E rn o u t-A . Meillet, D ictionnaire tym ologique de la langue latine\ Paris
1951, s.v. jubilo;
. 29 , 2-1 , , ,
b. Calques
188. Several nouns connected with the Christian ecclesiastical
hierarchy are apparently caiques (loan translations) from the H ebrew of
the DSS. T he bishop (G reek episkopos overseer) is, as has been established, a loan translation o f which occurs with the same meaning
in the D SS. T he sam e applies to klerus which is employed in several European languages to denote a clergym an, which equals the Greek kliro s, lot.
It w as shown th at it goes back to lot, with the meaning employed in
the DSS. T he fam ous Gospel phrase the poor in spirit (M att. 3, 5,) apparently also goes back to a H ebrew phrase in the MD.
M uch has been written about traces of Semitic syntax in the Septuagint
and the G ospels. H ebrew } ^to favor is translated exactly by the
parallel G reek w ords prspon lambnein. H ebrew and it happened is
m ostly translated by the Septuagint as ka i egeneto, to be found also in the
G ospels. These two instances are clear-cut cases o f H phrases in G reek
garb.
L iterature:
F. B lass-A . D ebrunner, G ram m atik des neutestam entlichen Griechisch8,
G ttingen 1949, p. 5, . 5;
113
[188-189
K. Beyer, Sem itische S y n ta x im Neuen Testam ent, 1/1 Gttingen 1962,

p. 31.
[On episcopos: 116 , , , . G.S.]
D. D esiderata
189. We need a thorough investigation o f the transliterations o f the
Septuagint. The w ork o f Lisowsky (above 175) is the only relatively
satisfactory treatm ent o f a small part of the material, while the work o f
Sperber (above 37) is disappointing. There is no comprehensive treatm ent,
as yet, of the G reek transcriptions from Palestine and Syria. The DSS (except for one) also aw ait a thorough linguistic analysis, as does the SP. A
new investigation o f G reek and Latin terms connected with the Early
C hurch in the light o f the new DSS material, as well as other Jewish
sources, might also yield interesting results.
Postscript. There is no doubt that thorough and comprehensive treatment of the sources which is so urgently needed might modify the picture
presented above, but is not likely to change it drastically.
114
C h a p t e r S ix
M ISH N A IC H EB R EW
A. Spoken and L iterary M ishnaic Hebrew
I. The B eginning o f M ishnaic H ebrew as a Literary L anguage

190. A t the end o f the first century B.C.E. the Rom an Empire conquered Judea. The two full-scale Jewish revolts failed. The first Revolt
(6 7 -7 3 C .E.) led to the destruction o f the Jewish state, its capital Jerusalem
and the Temple within, depriving the Jew s o f their political, social, and
religious center.
The destruction o f Jerusalem m ust have had far-reaching linguistic repereussions. It was apparently this destruction which at last ended the unbroken tradition o f Biblical H ebrew as a vehicle of literary expression,
whose last offshoot was the D ead Sea Scrolls. A fter the loss o f its literary
center and arbiter, the spoken language o f Judea, Mishnaic H ebrew, was
able to move into the vacuum th at had been created. (If Biblical Hebrew
was em ployed after this period, it was not another link in the unbroken
chain, but a chain that had to be forged anew by acquiring a thorough
knowledge o f Biblical H ebrew sources.)
II. The E n d o f M ishnaic H ebrew as a Spoken L anguage
191. T he above assum ption seems born out not only by the language of
the M ishna but also by the letters o f B ar-K oseba (= Bar-K okhba) and his
contem poraries which are written in M H (see below 193). The Second
R evolt, th at o f B ar-K oseba (13 2 -1 3 5 C.E.), had even more far reaching
consequences for the history of the H ebrew language. The R om ans seem to
have uprooted and slaughtered the m ajority o f the inhabitants o f Judea
115
M ISHN AIC H EBREW
[191-192
proper (the southern part o f Palestine). It stands to reason th at it was in

Judea, the heart o f the Jew ish state o f the H asm oneans, that M H had existed as the spoken language for centuries, side by side with A ram aic.
O ther parts o f the country, e.g., the Galilee which were brought under
Jewish dom ination only later, were probably monolingual, speaking only
Aram aic. Therefore, the H ebrew speaking stock having been killed off or
sold into slavery, there was little hope left for the survival o f MH.
III. M ishnaic H ebrew as a L iterary L anguage

192. Indeed, it is assum ed th at at the time when Rabbi (= R abbi
Y ehuda H annasi) and his students collected the oral traditions in the
M ishna, Tosefta and H alachic M idrashim (ca. 200 C.E.), their language
was already dead, or m oribund. This was all the m ore so since the process
of collecting and editing the old tradition was undertaken in the Galilee, the
refuge o f Jewish scholars after the surpression of the Bar-K oseba revolt,
and there in the m idst o f the A ram aic speaking population, Hebrew could
not hope to survive as a spoken language. T h at is why even the students of
Rabbi did not understand the meaning o f certain H ebrew words found in
the M ishna and had to consult R abbis m aidservant (perhaps herself an
aged refugee from Judea). R abbis exhortation as related in the Talm ud
Babli, Bava Q am m a 8 2 b -8 3 a ,) (=
. R abbi said: W hy do we need Syriac (i.e.
A ram aic) in Eretz Israel? (use) either the Sacred T ongue or Greek
came too late. The very fact th at he wanted A ram aic to be replaced by
Hebrew or by G reek, speaks volumes in this respect. M ishnaic Hebrew was
dead; in the Talm ud it was already employed by the rabbis as a dead
language, but was apparently no longer spoken by the people. It is essential
that scholars distinguish between these two layers o f M H as M H1, the
language o f the M ishna, T osefta and the B araytot in the Talm udim , which
represent a spoken language o f the T annaim , and the dead M H 2 o f the
A m oraim in the Talm udim . The following survey is based m ainly on the
living Mishnaic H ebrew (M H 1).
Literature:
[E.Y. K utscher, Some Problem s o f the Lexicography o f M ishnaic Hebrew
and its C om parison with Biblical H ebrew , in E.Y. K utscher, ed.,A rchive
116
192-193]
The Problem o f M ishnaic Hebrew
o f the N ew D ictionary o f R abbinical L itera tu re, vol. I, R am at-G an

1972, pp. 2 9 -8 2 (Hebrew with English sum m ary). In this article
K utscher offers a more detailed stratification o f M H . G.S.]
B. The Problem of M ishnaic Hebrew

I. Geiger's A rtificial L anguag e Theory a n d the Bar-K oseba Letters
193. A braham Geiger was the first to publish a scholarly gram m ar o f
Mishnaic Hebrew. In his work he sets forth the astounding theory th at MH
was an artificial language which was never spoken at all. The Jewish
historian H. G raetz fiercely attacked G eigers contention and was joined by
other scholars such as S.D. Luzatto. O ne gets the im pression th at this
theory is in accordance with G eigers Jewish attitude, for he was the chief
architect of the Jewish religious Reform m ovem ent then closely bound up
with assimilationist tendencies. The language and content o f the M ishna
and of the related literature should be considered artificial and unnatural.
On the other hand, scholars who fiercely attacked G eiger belonged
religiously and nationally to the non-R eform wing o f Judaism . However,
neither group could m arshal any im portant array o f facts to prove its point
decisively and in a scholarly m anner. The controversy continued until
1908. In that year M.H. Segal solved the problem . T oday, thanks to the lettors of Bar-K oseba and his contem poraries not the slightest doubt rem ains
that G raetz, Segal, Ben Yehuda, K lausner and others were right in assuming that MH was a living language, and that G eiger was wrong. These letters (first half o f the second century C.E.), which were found in caves near
the Dead Sea did not originate in scholarly circles but dealt with m undane
m atters that had to do with their military and adm inistrative background.
Therefore, if these letters employ MH (alongside A ram aic and Greek),
there can be only one explanation it was the spoken language, and not
an artificial language created by and for the scholars o f the ( the
academies). A s Milik was quick to point out, the letters establish beyond
any shred of doubt that M H was a spoken language.
L iterature:
T. J. Milik, L es grottes de M urabba't, Discoveries in the Judaean D esert
II, Oxford 1961, p. 70;
117
[193-195
M ISH N AIC H EBR EW
]On the Bar-Koseba letters : 23-7 , ( ) , .

. - , , G . S .[
II. Segal's R efutation o f Geiger's Theory

194. We should briefly describe how Segal was able to prove his thesis.
He was the first to assem ble all the facts pertaining to the problem, viz., all
the gram m atical points in which M H differs from BH. He isolated those
points that are, or m ay be, o f A ram aic origin. While he certainly tended to
minimize the effect o f the A ram aic influence (see below 196), nevertheless,
a certain residue o f traits characteristic o f M H in contrast to BH, rem ains
which can not be accounted for by A ram aic influence. A few in sta n c e s:
we, instead o f $ (See 201); to take (infinitive), instead o f ;
these, instead o f ( see 203); a new conjugation, N itpaal replacing
in part the perfect o f the H itp ael.
He also pointed out that M H is only the last stage o f a development that
started during BH times, as the language of the Book o f Chronicles proved
decisively. C onsider e. g. , ^ I. In BH both are used; in M H only
is left. C hronicles generally substitutes for ( see above 40). It is
no coincidence that there is no trace o f $ in M H. This is what we should
expect if M H is the natural offshoot o f LBH. But this lack would be more
difficult to explain if we assum ed that M H were an artificial product.
Therefore, Segal is certainly correct in stating: In this MH has merely
developed... a tendency already strong in B H . The result of Segals
research is that M ishnaic H ebrew is a legitimate offspring o f Biblical
H ebrew, albeit with great changes.
Literature:
Segal, M isnaic H ebrew , pp. 9ff.
III. A C ritique o f Segal's M ethods

a. On the R eliability o f the P rinted Editions.
195. Segal definitely proved his point; nonetheless, the whole field needs
an entirely new approach for tw o reasons: First, both in his article and in
his gram m ars o f M H published later, Segal based his research on the prin
118
195- 196]
The Problem o f M ishnaic Hebrew
ted versions o f M H. Meanwhile, during the last tw o generations, m ore and

more early m anuscripts and fragm ents o f m anuscripts of M H (including
vocalized texts) were discovered. W ith the help o f these new texts, scholars
established that the printed versions are utterly unreliable m aterial for
linguistic study. The medieval copyists and printers o f E urope displayed a
m arked tendency to correct the M ishnaic text, in order to bring it more
into line with BH (cf. above 46). T herefore, it is these recently discovered
m anuscripts that should serve as the basis for research, as pointed out
mainly by S. Lieberm an and the late J.N . Epstein, H . Y alon [and E.Y.
K utscher]. System atic studies based on this new m aterial established that
an entirely new picture o f M H is bound to emerge from these m anuscripts.
This new picture m ay also have far-reaching consequences for the
evaluation o f the Hebrew reflected in the G reek transliterations, in the DSS,
and for A ram aic dialects spoken in Palestine. G reek and Latin translitrations of the Bible do not alw ays reflect BH as it was preserved until the
days of the M asoretes by a strict oral tradition, but are often m ore in line
with the linguistic facts as reflected by M H . (See, e.g., above 175, concerning the vowels / 1/ and /u / in all the sources). Therefore, these sources
should not be termed as pre-M asoretic, but rath er extra-M asoretic, following A. M urtonen.
Literature:
A. M urtonen, M aterials fo r a N on-M asoretic H ebrew G ram m ar I,
Helsinki 1958.
[E.Y. K utscher, Encyclopaedia Judaica 16, cols. 1593f.]
b. On the Im pact o f A ram aic
196. Second, Segal tried to minimize the extent o f the A ram aic influence. N ow, on the strength o f this m ore recent picture, we m ight even be
tempted to say that M H was a mixed A ram aic-H ebrew language. O f
course, it is a known fact th at m any languages change under the im pact o f
a foreign language. In some cases these influences are far-reaching, b ut it is
a moot point what stage o f external influence m ust be reached before the
language can be considered mixed. This is because there are language areas
that seem to be more open to foreign influences than others, e.g., syntax
(word order, etc.). But there does seem to be general agreem ent concerning
the so-called systm e fe r m (Meillet), nam ely in declensions and conjugations. This area resists m ore strongly than others the onslaught o f a foreign
119
[196-197
M ISH N A IC H EBREW
language. If, therefore, we find that a foreign language has succeeded in

penetrating this dom ain, we might be justified in stating th a t the language
in question is well on its way tow ard becoming a langue m ixte. In M H
there are two outstanding forms which prove our point, namely, the suffixes of the second person singular masc. and fem. (see below 202) and the
verb. In some cases in Pirke A voth (The Sayings o f the F ath ers) we find the
form be you, (imp. sing, masc.) instead o f the form ( e.g., 1, 4). This
form is A ram aic. The sam e applies to the form 1 be ye (imp. pi. masc.),
instead of th at m anaged to survive even in the M ahzor (Prayer Book) o f
the Italian Rite, e.g., ibid. 1, 1. Therefore, the following survey will be based
mainly on the material of the MSS.
C . G ram m atical and Lexical Survey
I. Phonology
a. Consonants
1. G utturals. 197. We may state (pace Kahle) that these consonants
rem ained more or less stable during the period concerned. The T alm ud,
com m enting on the M ishna, mentions a few words containing gutturals,
whose pronunciation was in doubt. A B arayta expressly states (Talm ud
Bavli, Megilla 27b; Yerushalmi, Berakhot 4d) that only three cities, H aifa,
Beth-Shean and Tivon, were unreliable for the pronunciation o f the gutturals. C oncerning Beth-Shean we happen to know that the G reek influence
w as dom inant there, and this explains why they were unable to pronounce
the gutturals properly (and cf. above 156, 179). To be sure, we may
assum e that the B arayta had mainly Galilean cities in mind. It is possible
th at the same developm ent took place also in other cities th at were under
the sway of G reek culture. In the Talm udic sources ju st quoted it is also
noted that in the A cadem y o f the T an n a R. Eliezer ben Y aacov they did
not distinguish between a le f and ,ayin. These statem ents prove that this
state o f affairs was exceptional and not the rule.
M oreover, the C hurch F ather Jerom e (251) expressly states th a t the
Jew s mocked the C hristians because o f their inability to pronounce the gutturals. This then is a clear-cut statem ent to the effect th at even in the
120
197-199]
G ram m atical and Lexical Survey
fourth-fifth centuries Jews did pronounce the gutturals, while the non-Jews
(apparently Greek-speaking) were unable to do so. To be sure, a story in
the Babylonian Talmud is m eant to show th at the Galileans could not
pronounce the gutturals. But, since the contents o f the story exactly fit the
linguistic state o f Babylonia (where the gutturals were not pronounced), it
is clear that it has to be taken cum grano salis, and certainly does not apply
to the Galilee as a whole (and see above).
L iterature:
E.Y. K utscher, Studies in Galilean A ram aic, R am at-G an 1976, pp. 67ff.,
89f.;
idem, J S S 10 (1965), pp. 45ff.
2. The lb, g, d, k, p, //. 198. (See above 29.) The spirant bet (i.e. without
a dagesh) was apparently pronounced like waw, and therefore we find, for
example, that instead of the spelling ( ?Yavneh) the spelling is
sometimes used. (The double waw is employed where the waw is a consonant and not a m ater lectionis.) But it is impossible to say which o f these
two, i.e. the labial [w]= or the labio-dental [v] = changed its original
realization.
Literature:
. 1226-1223 , , ,
3. F inal Im]. 199. Thanks to the MSS it can be shown that in M H , under
certain conditions, final [m] turned into [n]. Instead of person we often find .
Incidentally, this word shows how antiquated our dictionaries o f M H
(and Talm udic Aram aic) are, for none of them lists this form. During the
last two generations hundreds of instances of this spelling have turned up in
the MSS o f MH. Why, then, was it unknown to the compilers o f the
dictionaries? Again, the tendency of the medieval copyists and printers
to correct the text of MH in accordance with BH (see above 46, 195)
was responsible for the disappearance of the form from the printed editions. Sometimes this word is found in the MSS spelled with that was
corrected to by a later hand (e.g., MS K aufm ann, Berakhot 1, 8).
This [-m ] > [-n] sound change appears already in the Bible in the Book
o f N ehem iah where the name is spelled 15 ,3) ) . Hebrew and
121
M ISHNAIC HEBREW
[ 1 9 9 -2 0 0
Greek inscriptions o f the first century from Jerusalem spell the nam e 1
with an [n]. This sound change must have been operative throughout the
whole territory of Palestine and Syria, as proved by a first century C.E. inscription from Palm yra, in the Syrian Desert. It also explains why the place
name 1 in the Galilee is spelled 1 in MH. Via A ram aic, several forms
managed to survive even in the spoken A rabic o f this territory. In the
Arabic of K far A bida in Lebanon, A ram aic loans display this sound
change, e.g., in the names Brhn ( A braham ) M arien ( M iriam, M ary).
On the other hand, the name of the Shiloah Spring near Jerusalem is transliterated Siloam in the Septuagint and in the Gospels. T oday, however, the
nearby A rab village which derives its name from this Greek form is called
Silwan.
This sound change probably also left its imprint on the transliterations of
the Septuagint. Quite a few Hebrew names th at have in Hebrew a final [n],
appear in the Septuagint with an [m], e.g., M ad/am !(= M idian).T he only
plausible explanation for this seems to be the following: The translators o f
the Septuagint, who knew that they pronounced a final [ml as an [n] were
prone to transliterate even a genuine In] in the final position as [ml (hypercorrection). It is instructive that wherever the [n] was not final, e.g., the
form M adianites the M idianite\ it was of course, spelled with an [nI.
Literature:
E.Y. Kutscher, Studies in Galilean A ram aic,
pp. 5 8-67, 101-103;
.] , [ = 258 , , ,
R am at-G an
1976,
b. Vowels.
200. Little can be said concerning the vowels o f M H , except that the
short /i/ was probably realized something like an [e] and short /u / like [o]
exactly as it is reflected in the transliterations o f the Septuagint and in
Galilean A ram aic (above 175).
Literature:
].* *, , ,[
122
2 0 1 -2 0 2 ]

II. M orphology
a. Pronouns
1. Independent Pronouns. 201. The changes in the pronouns are quite farreachi ng. ? which was on its way out in LBH disappeared entirely. F o r
, the A ram aic form is quite frequent in MSS. In the printed editions
ithas survived in the Passover H aggada, in the phrase 1 you shall
begin (speaking) to him. Instead o f $ and , is em ployed, a form
which apparently arose within Hebrew by analogy with forms like
he guarded us. For the second person plural we should expect according to the sound change of final [m] > In]. But the form was detected
only recently in the Bar-Koseba letters, and a (little later in MSS. (Biblical'
$ ,( m asc.) and ( fem.) merged into one form , for both. W ith
the loss o f the final unstressed vowel, the [m] was bound to turn into[n](see
above 199). Because of all these changes in the plural, masculine and
feminine forms were neutralized (i.e. their differences disappeared). This
tendency also applies to the pronominal suffixes (see 202) and to the perfeet and imperfect verb forms. The situation with regard to M H pronouns
is the following (see Table 2):
(1) disappearance of some BH elements (i.e., , ,;)
(2) survival of BH elements (all sg. forms except , and ;)
(3) survival of certain BH elements in modified form (second and third
pers. masc. and fem.);
(4) emergence of genuine Hebrew L B H -M H element (first pers. pl.);
(5) an A ram aic element ([ masc.]).
It is difficult to determine whether we should assume that the development went from BH - *DSS >MH, or from BH directly to M H, with: DSS
representing a purely literary development.
L iterature:
.] , [ 261-259 , ,
2. P ronom inal Suffixes. 202. As mentioned above, the pronom inal suffixes of the second person singular masculine and feminine were taken over
from A ram aic (cf. 196); cf. masc. your wife, fem. your husband. The few exceptions, such as , prove the rule since they concern w ords whose A ram aic form ( , ) is different from the H ebrew
123
M ISH N A IC H E BR EW
[202-204
one, and thus A ram aic did not affect Hebrew in such cases. O f course, in
the printed editions, this form was corrected according to BH, but it has
m anaged to survive in som e Sephardic prayer books in the Blessing o f the
N ew M oon e.g., 1 Blessed be your (fem.) C reato r.
A s indicated above, because o f the change o f final [-m ] > [n],
m asculine and feminine plurals were neutralized
L iterature:
A bove 201.
3. D em onstrative P ronouns. 203. T he masc. sing. is identical with
the BH form ; the fem. sing, is 1. In SBH the form is
fem. sing, but a few cases o f the M H form occur with the spellings
,1. 1 can not be explained as a shortened form o f because o f the
difficulty o f accounting for the dropping or the /t/. On the other hand, the
SBH is nothing m ore than [zo:] (spelled ,1 )plus / i l as shown by
parallels in other Semitic languages. H ow then did the old form m anage to
enjoy a revival? Should we attribute it to the influence o f a C anaanite
dialect? This would also account for the frequency o f the form in Ecclesiastes (A bout a C an aanite construction in th at book see above 125.)
There are also other cases where a linear developm ent from SBH seems to
be out of the question, and indeed dialect borrowing seems to hold promise
o f a solution (see below 206). BH these seems strange because
elsewhere no ending serves as plural morpheme. In M H it is replaced by
by analogy with the plural m orphem e of the verb in the perf. and
imp. T he dem onstrative and were shortened to . The accusative
particle with suffixes o f the 3rd pers. is employed as a dem onstrative adjective, e.g., th a t day ' and also the same day . It is not yet clear
under w hat circum stances the pronoun and the noun are prefixed by the
article.
4. Independent Possessive Pronoun. 204. M H developed this pronoun
with the base ( gem inated lam ed) plus the possessive suffix, e.g.,
, mine, yours (m asc.) etc. See in detail below 215.
5. Reflexive Pronoun. 205. M H m akes extensive use o f the noun
bone as a reflexive pronoun, e.g., I endangered myself
(B erakhot 1, 3). (In BH is som etim es used in this capacity). A nother
124
20 4-208]
reflexive pronoun is upon oneself, e .g ., 1

the builder w ho took it upon him self to tear down a wall (Bava Q am m a 9,
3).
6. R elative Pronoun. 206. The relative pronoun is as in LBH (see
above 45), while BH $ has disappeared. Since it is hard to believe that
is the short form o f the question of dialect mixture again arises. To
be sure, the C anaanite form is , but the Punic (late N orth African
C anaanite) is . Milik has already pointed out the possibility o f a HebrewC anaanite koin (com m on literary language). In this context, let us mention that appears in A BH as well, in the Song o f De b o r a h , you
(fem.) arose (Ju. 5, 7, twice, and see above 45). As to =) + ) see
below 215.
Literature:
Segal, M isnaic H ebrew , pp. 10-14;
J.T. Milik, Ten Years o f Discoveries in the Wilderness o f Judaea, London
1959, pp. 130-133.
b. The Verb
1. Perfect. 207. The A rchaic form s have disappeared, and only SBH ones
survived. One change occurs in the second person plural masculine because
of the sound change of final 1m] > In] () . As mentioned, masculine
and feminine plurals are neutralized, but forms with [m] also occur,
possibly only as antiquated spellings, or as products of scribal correction.
2. Imperfect. 208. Here, too, archaic forms have disappeared, while those
of SBH survived. In view o f the strong A ram aic influence on M H (above
196), it is all the m ore im portant to stress the fact that the forms ending in
[n ], viz., the second person singular feminine, second and third persons
plural masculine, such as ( above 58), did not survive, despite their
identity with the A ram aic forms. A nother change that goes counter to the
A ram aic tendency is the elimination o f special forms for second and third
persons plural feminine (see Table 3). This change, as pointed out above,
started already in LBH.
A linguist w ho lacked the benefit of knowing all the pertinent facts, when
com paring the affixes o f the perfect and the imperfect o f BH and M H ,
125
M ISHN AIC HEBREW
[208-210
might conclude that in M H the tendency was to neutralize the genders in

the plural, and therefore the plural forms for masculine and feminine are
identical. Such a conclusion would be misleading. In the perfect the third
person plural feminine ( ) was eliminated nearly entirely already in BH,
apparently because these two forms became identical through a sound
change in the third person singular feminine, namely, ( < see
above 56). But the second person plural masculine and feminine did not
change throughout the life of BH. On the other hand, the elimination o f the
special forms for the second and third persons plural feminine o f the imperfeet already began in BH. Therefore, we shall have to assume that while in
both the perfect and the imperfect the two genders were neutralized, (i.e.
only one form was used for both), the motive force behind this change was
o f a much more complex nature than is at first apparent.
On the other hand, the fact that the elimination o f the perfect third person plural feminine took place very early in BH might well have influenced
the parallel form o f the imperfect, which was identical with the second person plural feminine. The second person might then have followed suit. Thus
these parallel developments might have had, at least to some extent, a common cause.
3. Participle. 209. MH prefers the feminine participle ending [-et| (and not
[a:I), e.g., 1 w atches 3 $ sits, always thus except for the verbs
and, to a certain extent, the verbs. This form is preferred even in
the H ifil e.g., one who drops (i.e. is having a miscarriage) (Niddah
3, 3). The masculine plural very often employs the A ram aic plural
m orpheme instead o f the Hebrew e.g., 1 they read. (See also
the plural o f the noun, below 214.)
4. Infinitive. 210. The infinitive absolute has disappeared entirely; the construct survives only with the preposition . This form can not be further
analyzed in M H, and, therefore, if the verb requires the preposition it is
added to the infinitive plus , e.g., 1( MS K aufm ann) is forbidden to w ash (Berakhot 2, 6). Instead o f the infinitive plus and in BH,
e.g.,' , , relative clauses are employed, e.g., ^.
Literature:
Segal, M isnaic H ebrew , pp. 38 -4 0 , 42;
. 1264 , , ,
126
2 1 1 -2 1 2 ]
5. Stem s. 211. The Pual disappeared nearly entirely (except for the participle), and its function has been taken over by the H itpaelN itpaal which
was em ployed not only as a reflexive, but also as a passive, as is the case in
A ram aic, e.g., was converted. In the perfect the H itpael was
replaced by the N itpaal, a new form which is apparently a cross between
H itpael and N ifal. As H. Yalon pointed out, according to good
m anuscripts, the vocalization is N itpaal and not N itpacl; the latter is a
creation of the printers. T here are a few cases of 5 a fel, e.g., to
release. A N ifal or passive Qal which looks like a Pual occurs mainly in
the verbs. It survived also in the P rayer Book in the M usaf Prayer of
the Sabbath of the New M oon: 1 , and glory was taken
from the house of our life (instead of ) .
Literature:
Segal, M isnaic H ebrew , pp. 2 5 -3 3 ;
, 15 , , , ,
; 152 , 136
E.Y. K utscher, Encyclopaedia Judaica 16, cols. 1597f.
[For a different opinion on etc. see M. M oreshet, On the N U F A L
Stem in Post-Biblical H ebrew , in G. Sarfatti et al., eds., Studies in Hebrew
and Sem itic Languages D edicated to the M em ory o f Prof. E duard
Yechczkel K utschcr, R am at-G an 1980 (Hebrew with English sum mary),
pp. 126-139.]
6. The W eak Verbs. 212. A s mentioned above (211), there is a form in
the verbs which appears to be a Pual but is probably originally a N ifal
or a passive Qal (cf. 48). The Qal infinitive o f 1 to give is =( BH
) , on the analogy o f the imperfect.
The sam e applies to the Qal infinitives o f the verbs, e.g., to sit,
to descend (= BH ,) .
The verbs in the Piel, P ual and H itpael are employed in forms
paralleling the strong verbs, e.g., to have the intention (= BH 1).
In the N ifal perfect they oft,en changed from 1 was judged, disussed in
BH to 1 in M H , apparently under the influence o f the imperfect (e.g.,
1 ) and the perfect o f the strong verb (com pare ) .
The " verbs usually becam e . W e therefore find 1 to read (=
BH ;) MSS vocalize he shall read , e.g., B erakhot 3, 5 (MS
K aufm ann).
127
[ 212-213
T he and verbs share a very im portant trait, nam ely, the ending
o f the third person singular feminine perfect is [-at], and not [ta:] as in BH,
e.g.* she acquired (= BH , originally )* . T hus we witness once
again a case of the re-em ergence o f a n older form at the expense o f a new
form: ( < < *cf. 95, 100). Since in BH the earlier form is
extremely rare, it would be very difficult to explain it as a survival in M H . It
would also be difficult to assum e A ram aic influence here since we can not
explain why it should have affected only the verbs. P erhaps we shall
have to fall back again upon dialect m ixture as the explanation, and to
assum e th at in som e H ebrew dialect a form o f the type survived for
phonological reasons th at can not be set forth here, and from th at dialect it
was taken over by M H .
Literature:
Segal, M isnaic H ebrew , pp. 40, 5 4 -5 8 ;
E.Y. K utscher, Encyclopaedia Ju d a ica 16, cols. 1599f;
[G. H anem an, M orphology o f M ish n a ic H ebrew A ccording to the
Tradition o f the P arm a M anuscript (de R o ssi 138), Tel-Aviv 1980 (in
Hebrew). G.S.]
c. The N oun
1. N oun Pattern. 213. Qeti'.la: is em ployed as a verbal substantive for any
root o f the Q al, e.g., ^ eating; the form death usually replaces
BH . (In BH the pattern qeti:la: is very rare as a verbal substantive.)
The verbal substantive o f Piel is q ittu:ly e.g., honoring, acting
respectfully (rare in BH). Less conspicuous is the form qatta:la.\ e.g.,
devotion (from to direct), which is o f A ram aic origin. The A ram aic
noun pattern haqta:la: (cf. 103) is regularly em ployed as a verbal
substantive o f the H ifil, e.g., lighting (from to light). The
form heqtel also occurs, e. g. , burning (of sacrificial fat pieces), which
in BH is vocalized haqtel.
O ther im portant nom inal patterns in M H are qa:to:l as nomen agentis,
e.g., 1 purchaser, buyer (rare in B H ; o f A ram aic origin?), and nominal
patterns with the derivational suffix [a:n]. But M H o f Palestine differs here
from M H o f B abylonia. In the form er we find, e. g. , 1 m urderer, while
in the latter we find . The origin o f this noun p attern as well as its exact
form is not entirely clear.
128
2 1 3-215]
Literature:
Segal, M isnaic H ebrew, pp. 5 8 -6 3 ;
;1256-1255 , , ,
, , , .
, , [= 77-53 , , ] .
2. The Plural. 214. Instead o f the m asc. pi. m orphem e [i:m], the form
[-i:n] appears (cf. 209). This might again be a case o f direct A ram aic
influence, but cf. above 199 concerning , .
Peculiar to MH is the ending 1( ; or 1 ) m ainly in foreign loans, but
also with H ebrew nouns, e.g., ) ) baths, ) )
wells, possibly a reflection o f an A ram aic form. The former form (with
alef) is mainly Babylonian, the latter Palestinian.
The plural o f nouns ending in [-u:t] is l-uyyo:t] in BH, and there are only
two such examples: 1 kingdom s (D an. 8, 22) and 1 ^ shops (Jer.
37, 16). In M H there are quite a few plurals o f nouns o f this pattern, and
the ending is [-iyyo:t], e.g., 1 kingdom s, 1 palm branches etc. In
MS K aufm ann the only noun which kept the BH ending is 1
apparently as a result of the corrections o f earlier copyists, but the
correct M H form 1 occurs in another MS. A lthough 1 occurs in
BH (see above), the correct M H plural form 1 did survive the
corrections o f the copyists, apparently because it figures prom inently in
good editions of the Rosh H ashana Prayer Book in connection with the
blowing o f the shofar (ram s horn) 1 1 , 1 1 , 1 .
The double plural which already appears in LBH (see 122) is com m on
in M H , e.g., ( for ) ^N ew Y ears, ( for
) academ ies.
Literature:
Segal, M isnaic Hebrew, pp. 67-69.
, , .
. ] , , [= 53-51 , ,
III. S yn ta x
a. S y n ta x o f the Pronoun
215. A s mentioned above (204) M H has created an independent
129
MISHNAIC HEBREW
[215-217
possessive pronoun with the base . Its attributive use is still quite
restricted, e.g., her m ountain (Seviit 9, 2). It is often employed
with loanw ords that are not yet adapted to H ebrew, e.g., ^her
device (Kelim 18, 2), a loan from Greek (= English machine).
It is not yet clear under which conditions the noun is determ ined (i.e.
prefixed by the article). O f course, to a certain extent parallels BH ...
and 45) $) , e. g. , 1 $ the cave of M achpela which he
ow ns (Gen. 23, 9). In BH this phrase is still a relative clause (lit. which is
to him), while in M H is already a possessive pronoun, and therefore
can also be employed predicatively, e.g., 1 one
third of w hat you shall reap will be yours (Peah 5, 5).
b. The Noun
1. The Construct State. 216. Instead of the construct state like
the kings house, very often there appears ( thus correctly in
the MSS). A nother construction with a proleptic suffix is frequent in M H ,
viz. . This construction, found once in BH ( (1
Solom ons bed, Song of Songs 3, 7) is apparently also a product of
A ram aic influence. In the printed editions of the M ishna appears as an
independent morpheme, with the following noun undeterm ined:
.
It was H. Yalon who first pointed out th at in m anuscripts we find the
proper vocalization > . W hen becam e separated during
the Middle Ages for unknow n reasons, the definite article was lost:
. The Yemenite com m unity, though, still reads it the original w ay, in
spite of the fact that in the printed editions the is separated from the
noun.
Strangely enough, however, in the B ar-K oseba letters there is one case in
which occurs with, but separated from, a determ ined n o u n : of
(or belonging to) the G entiles.
Literature:
Segal, M isnaic H ebrew , pp. 70ff., 75ff., 8 0 -8 2 ;
.] , [11-10 ,) ( , .
2. D etermination. 217. It is difficult to establish clear-cut rules, but is
seems that when an adjective follows, the noun is generally undeterm ined,
130
217-218]
e.g. , ,/ ^ : Pi r ke Avoth 1,1 (instead of ! ) The

Men of the G reat Synagogue.
L iterature:
Segal, M isnaic H ebrew, p. 21.
c. S y n ta x o f the Verb.
218. The m ost revolutionary change between BH and M H occurred in
the area of the tenses and moods (cf. LBH, above 67). H ere the verb was
entirely reorganized. The short imperfect, the long imperfect, and
consecutive tenses are gone. W hat is more, the im perfect lost its aspectual
function, now denoting future action (but see below). The perfect now
denotes only past action; the participle is em ployed to denote present or
future action, e. g. , $ 1 , I order. (BH could have used the perfect [e.g.,
I sw ear (Jer. 44, 26)].) A nother innovation is the use o f the passive
participle to denote the situation in the present th at is the outcom e o f a past
action (English present perfect), e. g. , ? Î have received (P eah 2, 6),
(literally, I am received); , I rem em ber (K etubot 2, 10); cf.
all girt with sw ords (Song o f Songs 3, 8). P robably bound up
with this change is the encroachm ent o f the participle on the dom ain o f the
future, e.g., 1 ; and the resurrection o f the
dead shall come through Elijah o f blessed m em ory (Sotah 9, 15). The
imperfect denoting the future tense is mainly restricted to the subordinate
clause; in the main clause it is chiefly used to indicate desire or com m and,
e.g., if my son returns safely from the w ar
(N azir 3, 6); if any m an know anything in his
favor, let him com e (Sanhdrin 6, 1). Sometim es, in order to indicate the
clear-cut future, an analytic form plus ... is em ployed, e.g.,
, what I shall have to set a p art (D em ai 7, 1).
A nother innovation is the emergence o f synthetic tenses and m oods with
the auxiliary verb to indicate repeated action, e.g., in
my fathers house they used to... (Peah 2, 4). Verbs that require another
verb as a direct object can take on the second verb not only in the infinitive
plus , but also in the participle, e.g., 1 ( all the people
began to burn (the ham etzy (Pesahim 1, 5). Only few cases o f this
construction already appear in BH.
All these changes in MH almost exactly parallel A ram aic. Therefore, the
simplest assum ption would be that this too should be ascribed to A ram aic
131
[218-221
M ISH N AIC H EBREW
influence. But since A ram aic itself underwent far-reaching changes in this
respect, as can be seen by comparing the language o f the A ram aic
inscriptions and o f Biblical A ram aic with late A ram aic, we had best refrain
from draw ing conclusions.
L iterature:
Segal, M isnaic H ebrew , pp. 3 4 -3 5 .
[Sh. Sharvit, The Tense System o f Mishnaic H ebrew , in G . Sarfatti et
al., eds., Studies in H ebrew a n d Sem itic Languages D edicated to the
M em ory o f P r o f E d u a rd Yechezkel K utscher, R am at-G a n 1980
(H ebrew with English sum m ary), pp. 110-125. G.S.]
IV. Vocabulary
219. The vocabulary o f M H also underwent extensive changes. Nonetheless, apparently up to fifty per cent o f the m aterial occurring in our
texts is identical in every respect with BH. The vocabulary is com posed o f
(1) BH m aterial; (2) Biblical material that underwent either sem antic or
m orphological changes (changes o f noun pattern, verbal stem, etc.); (3)
Hebrew m aterial that apparently goes back to the BH times, but for one
reason or another is absent from the vocabulary o f BH (A s mentioned
above 85, BH vocabulary represents only a part o f the H ebrew spoken in
Biblical times); (4) foreign loans, from A kkadian, Persian, G reek, Latin,
and o f course, A ram aic (abbreviated A in the following sections).
L iterature:
F or 220-243: , , passim (consult the Indexes).
a. B iblical H ebrew Vocabulary
220. It would be interesting to establish in w hat sem antic fields no (or
only a few) changes occurred and on the other hand w hat are the fields th at
are inundated by newcomers, either Hebrew or foreign. D ue to the lack o f
special investigations in this respect, the following survey, o f course, cannot
be considered final.
1. N um erals. 221. There w as no change whatsoever in the dom ain o f the
num erals (ordinal and cardinal) except for the replacem ent o f BH
132
2 2 1-227]
second1 (adj. fem. and adv.) by ; 3 . This is not surprising, since in general
linguistics num erals are well known for their resistance to the absorption o f
new com ers. This fact played quite a conspicuous part in establishing the
relationship am ong the Indo-European languages.
2. Parts o f the Body. 222. As was to be expected, the majority o f the
nam es survived, but nose gave way to 1( of unknown origin),
perhaps because had another dom inant meaning, anger (but this too,
disappeared in M H). A nother instance =( BH ) belly already appears once in BH (spelled with ) .
3. K inship. 223. M ost o f the term s survived, but for my father, m other
the A ram aic , were taken over. While 1 father-in-law (of the
husband) disappeared, father-in-law (o f the wife) extended its use. In
husband o f the sister-in-law we have an addition. There are some
doubts concerning the use o f 1 uncle, which may be on its way out, and
instead o f which $ , are used. Neither nor ( apparently
= offspring) survived.
4. N otions o f Time. 224. Basic notions like d ay , night, m onth, year
survived, but in the construct, instead of ,( possibly A) is used, e.g.,
1 1 1 the night of the first holiday. For morning and evening we have two nominal forms, , created from BH nouns, but
dusk and 1 d ay (adverb) disappeared. An im portant newcom er from A ram aic is hour.
5. Clothing. 225. C ontrary to those fields, so intimately bound up with
everyday life, another sem antic field of this type, namely, clothing has
preserved only one root coming from BH: footwear. Considering the
fast-changing styles, this is perhaps not surprising.
6. F oodstuff. 226. Here too, the basic elements, m eat, bread,
w ater, 2 wine etc. did not change, but many new elements did appear, e.g., different kinds o f wine, some o f them bearing Greek names e.g.,
( with various spellings) honey wine (cf. below 239).
7. B asic H um an A ctions. 227. Verbs denoting basic hum an actions,
reflexes etc. survived for the m ost part: 1 to hear, speak, 1
133
MISHNAIC HEBREW
[ 227-229
know, 1 go, 1 ? leave, see, 1 t ake, 1 give etc. But there

are a few significant changes in this field also. Biblical Hebrew 1 come,
enter was restricted to come only, while for enter the root appears
strangely enough in the N ifal; the verb is employed in the H ifil instead of BH 1 answer, while in the meaning to return, it was replaced
by a newcomer 1( see below 234). BH 1 to answer' is restricted to
the meaning to chant. The old 1 to be able survived, but for m ust,
which lacked a verb of its own in BH, there is the new root ( once in
BH) which appears mainly in the form ( ibid). 1 to wish is already
on its way out in BH, and 1 takes its place. The former practically disappeared from MH. 1 , already alluded to above (123), also underw ent
an im portant change. Very often it was employed with the meaning to buy
and was replaced by 1 for to take.
8. Other Sem antic Fields. 228. Both limited space and lack o f previous
research make it difficult to discuss other semantic fields. But it should be
stressed that the largest percentage of survivals seems to have been in the
domain of agriculture, and was the smallest in the domains of com m erce
and handicrafts.
The reason for this is clear. As pointed out above 77, the Jews were
mainly an agricultural people during and after BH times and this field was
a very conservative one in every respect.
Another interesting fact concerns the basic furniture of the Hebrew
room of BH times: bed, chair, table, 1 lam p (cf. II
Kings 4, 10). , which is in itself of Sumerian origin (see 73) was
replaced by the Greek ( which eventually appeared as chair in
English).
9. A B H Words in M H . 229. The BH element o f MH does not, of course,
reflect evenly the three layers of BH, namely, ABH, SBH, and LBH. As indicated above, ABH was restricted to poetry and thus stood very little
chance of survival in MH. One of the few cases is jum p, fall upon, leap
forth (Deut. 34, 22) but to squirt in MH.
Generally, when archaic roots and forms turn up in MH we have to look
for the reason. If 1 , the archaic plural of 1( e.g., Deut. 32, 7) is to be
found in MH, its survival (or comeback) is to be accounted for by its A
counterpart 1 . The same applies to the noun conjugal right (from
the root meaning time, Ex. 21, 10) = MH 1 time, season (it appears
134
2 29 -2 34]
also in the A ram aic of Palestine). For this reason, the case of 1 w orker
is strange, since in BH the verb is restricted to poetry. Is it possible that
here, too, we should look for its origins in C anaanite where it is employed
as a standard root (= BH 1( ) above 116)?
10. L B H W ords in M H . 230. Unlike the vocabulary o f ABH, that of
LBH was nearly fully preserved in M H, e.g., 1 to cut, to receive,
fast, belly, etc. (cf. 222).
b. N on-B iblical Hebrew Vocabulary
231. In this section we include not only foreign loans and Hebrew newcom ers, but also BH elements that exhibit either a change in form or
change of meaning.
1. S em an tic Innovations. 232. 1 eternity in BH, has an added meaning w orld which parallels that o f A. BH work, deed now m eans a
happening (again an A caique). BH grain = MH m oney. 1 to
see also cam e to denote insight, understanding.
2. M orphological Innovations. 233. fire signal in BH turns into
in M H. to deny (Piel) became to contradict (H ifil).
The verb 1^ , employed in BH in HiPil to mean to cause to stumble, appears in M H in the Piel according to MSS. From the BH verb 9 1 there
appears the noun 1 meal.
Literature:
[K utscher, A rchive o f the N ew D ictionary, p. 72 () .]
3. N ew H ebrew Elem ents. 234. Here belong those elements which most
probably existed in the original stock of H ebrew, but by chance do not appear in BH. U ndoubtedly, quite a few roots of this sort occur in M H , especially in the dom ain o f agriculture, e.g., 1 to harvest olives, 1 to
u p root etc. 1 spleen is a good example o f a new Hebrew element.
The A rabic cognate is tuhl and the Hebrew form shows the / a : / > / 0 :/
change (see 32), which did not occur in A ram aic. But some newcomers of
this type apparently present a problem. We can understand that the root
hinder is lacking in BH by mere chance. But it would be hard to explain in this way the verb 1 to return th at replaced BH . It can scar-
135
M ISH N A IC H E B R E W
[234-235
cely be A ram aic (despite the fact th at it is found in Palestinian A dialects),

since in som e A dialects the form is . Therefore, the root must be
H ebrew -C anaanite. The only plausible explanation is that the A ram eans
themselves borrow ed it som ewhere in a C anaanite speaking area, and subsequently diffused it throughout the entire territory, both via A ram aic and
in M H . T he sam e m ight apply to the very com m on root which already
appears in U garitic, a language very close to C anaanite. It appears only
once in LBH (II C hronicles 2, 15). Possibly 1 had the sam e fate, for it
appears only in LB H (but it is possible th at it is a loan from A kkadian; see
above 123).
A t first glance som e o f this material looks like BH, e.g. 1 to tarnish
= BH to hew . B ut these are apparently hom onym s, so we must postulate
two different PS roots.
C. Foreign L oanw ords
1. A kka d ia n . 235. The influx o f A kkadian into Hebrew continued mainly
via A ram aic even after the Persians conquered the Babylonian Empire, but
some o f the loans apparently found their way directly into Hebrew,
perhaps during the time o f the Exile. A m ong these loans (as in BH) are
w ords that A kkadian itself borrow ed from Sum erian, e.g., rooster.
O ther A kkadian loans are: tenant (which comes from a ro o t that
parallels H ebrew 1 to plow); . pliers, cord. A kkadian
loans are conspicuous in the field o f com m erce, e.g., ( Sum erian) (legal)
docum ent (for divorce etc.).
m erchant goes back to A kkadian tam kru. Some scholars assume
th at it is a native A kkadian w ord whose root is a cognate o f Hebrew 1
to sell. B. L andsberger took a different view. A ccording to him there are
P ro to-Indo-G erm anic roots in Sum erian, am ong them d a m - g r , from
which A kkadian ta m k ru was borrow ed. Therefore Landsberger assumed
th at this A kkadian w ord is a cognate o f Latin m erx , from which, among
others, the English m erchant derives.
O ther instances o f A kkadian w ords in M H are 1 , , evaluate,
appraise, 1 to open irrigation channels (which is identical to BH 1 1
and w hich, in tu rn m ight also be o f A kkadian origin), and translation. T he verb to m ove also comes from A kkadian, although
strangley enough, BH doorpost also derives from this root.
skeleton is A kkadian salam tu (and is not identical with the English
136
235-2371
skeleton which is o f Latin origin). T he w ord is employed as feminine, as in

A kkadian, in spite o f the fact th at the feminine ending is no longer
recognizable in H ebrew.
C aiques from A kkadian are also to be found in M H as e.g.,
I will have^neither right nor claim (K etubot 9, 1). This phrase is a
loan translation o f the A kkadian dint dabbi.
L itera tu re:
B. Landsberger, in H ebrische W ortforschung: Festschrift...
B aum gartner, Leiden 1967, 1 7 6 -178.
W alter
2. Persian. 236. It is not surprising th a t Persian loans entered M H , since

the Persians ruled over Palestine for two centuries (53 7 -3 3 3 B.C.E.). These
loans belong mainly to the dom ain o f adm inistration, e.g., title o f
(Temple) official. N either is it surprising to find the word rose (the
Persian and the English w ords are related), in view o f the fact th at the Persians were fam ous h o rtic u ltu ris ts . T he very fact th at the first consonant is
a waw is bound to betray its non-H ebrew origin, since there are very few
original H ebrew w ords whose first co nsonant is a waw. The word color
was also lent from Persian.
Literature:
[J.C. Greenfield, in M. Boyce and I G ershevitch, eds., W.B. H enning
M em orial Volum e, London 1970, pp. 18 0 -1 8 5 ;
K utscher, A rchive o f the N ew D ictionary, pp. 9 0 -9 4 (Hebrew with English
sum m ary p. X X IX );
Sh. Shaked, ibid., p. 112 (H ebrew with English sum m ary p. X X X IV ). AU
three references are to .]
3. Greek. 237. A lexander the G re a ts conquest and the reign o f Hellenism
that cam e in its wake, exposed the N ear E ast to Greek culture whose impact left indelible m arks upon the languages o f this area. M H bears witness
to this influence by the hundreds o f G reek loans and caiques it contains.
These loans encom pass every fields o f m aterial culture.
In the field o f adm inistration we have the city council. Even the
judicial-religious assem bly a m ajor institution of the Jewish
authorities derived its nam e from G reek. The element archi e.g., in the
hybrid H ebrew -G reek com pound ;1 # chief justice is very con
137
M ISH N AIC HEBREW
[237-239
spicuous in M H (= arch- in English as in archbishop, which goes back to

the same source).
O f course this element also turns up in pure Greek com pounds such as
chief robber. Close to these are words denoting administrative
entities and the like, for instance ?? metropolis. The word for port
occurs in Palestine in the Greek form ( thus MSS) limn, but in Mishnaic texts coming from Babylonia, the metathesised form is used.
The word for the fortified part of the city is ( The initial het, instead
o f an expected alef, presents a problem Icf. Greek akropolis\.
N O T E : In the following sections, vocalizations attested in manuscripts
are m arked by a small circle0. Most of the words adduced do not occur in
vocalized m anuscripts and the vocalization provided in such eases is
reconstructed on the basis of linguistic considerations. Normally only one
form is quoted in cases where the loanword appears in the sources in two
or more forms.
The shopkeepers notebook .(or writing board) comes from
G reek, as does his 0 one pound weight. He paid for his merchandise
with the Greek a coin. Greek names appear even for foods and
vegetables, e.g. cabbage. garm ent (cf. English stole) and
other items of clothing are Greek. W hat is more astonishing is that even
words like air and 1 pair were borrowed from Greek. From the
latter a verbal root to couple was formed. Another such verbal root is
to base; the Greek bdsis is the origin of both the Hebrew and the
English words.
Greek caiques (loan translations) also seem to occur, e.g.
beautiful(?) with the adverbial meaning well ( ; you have spoken
well) from kals. S. Lieberman believes that to die (lit. to complete) reflects Greek telentein, which has the same meaning.
Literature:
l Kutscher, Archive o f the N ew Dictionary, pp. 96f. (])
4. L atin. 238. Latin loans reached MH mostly via Greek and are derived
mainly from the domain of the military, e.g., 1 legion, duke (in
both cases the Latin and M H words are identical). Some administrative
term s are. 1( also 1 ) annual tax, and ^ scribe.
5. G reek and L atin Loanw ords in Everyday Life. 239. The following lines
will illustrate the abundance of Greek and Latin loanwords in everyday life
138
239]
in M H. To round out the picture, loanw ords th at occur in M H after it

ceased to be a spoken language also have to be taken into account. (These
were generally not included in the above examples.) The picture which we
give is certainly overdraw n, but it is nonetheless indicative o f the situation.
T he judge ( Latin) or the chief judge ( G reek-Latin, see
above 237), sitting on the podium ( G reek), questioned the defendant
who was standing on a sm all platform 1( Latin). Having heard the
prosecutor 1( G reek) and the defense attorney 0( G reek), they
either discharged the defendant by giving 1( Latin) or convicted him by
giving 1( G reek) and turned him over to the executioner 1 ^
(Latin).
stranger ( G reek) w ho travels the occan 1( G reek) in a
ship ( Latin) trusted th at his skipper would be able to avoid
the pirates ships and arrive safely in port (G reek, see above).
From there he travelled sitting in the 1 (Gaelic via Latin; = English car)
o f the highway ( L atin; = English street) which was guarded by the
w atchtow ers ]( G erm an? via L atin; = English borough, Edinburgh
etc., also purgos (Greek?)). W hen he arrived at the metropolis 1 1??
(G reek) he had to enter it through the city gates ( G reek). If the
stranger was an im portant personality, e.g., the C aesar ( Latin), the inhabitants would greet him with shouts of 1( G reek; cf. 237). He might
arrive at the city square ( G reek; = G erm an P latz) and enter a
building through the 1 1( G reek; correctly 1 ) and sit down in the
inner room 0( Latin) on a bench (Latin) or he might prefer the
chair (G reek; English chair). T hen he would w ash his hands
perhaps with some soap 1( G erm an? via Latin and G reek; = English
soap) and have a hearty meal |1( Greek). He would start out with a
hors doeuvre ( G reek) honey wine 1 (G reek; the parallel of
Hebrew is the first constituent, see above 226). This list could be continued ad infinitum, or m ore properly, until the w ayfarers death, since
eventually, his bones would be deposited in an ossuary 9 1( Greek).
The reader will have noticed th at only one verb from G reek was em ployed
in this desciption, and indeed verbs o f G reek or Latin origin are rare in
M H. Yet, despite the abundance o f the loans, they did not affect the structure o f the language at all.
[F or additional m aterial on G reek and Latin loanw ords see D. Sperber,
B ar-Ilan vol. X IV -X V (1977), pp. 9 -6 0 o f the English section. G.S.]
139
M ISH N A IC H EBR EW
[240-243
6. A ram aic. 240. The case is quite different with A ram aic. A s pointed out
several times, the effect o f A w as far reaching in m orphology and syntax.
The sam e might have been the case in phonology, but for the time being,
nothing concrete can be said in this respect (but see above 196). It is not
surprising that the im pact o f A is also felt, to a very large'extent, in the
basic vocabulary o f M H .
a. Verbs. 241. There are quite a few A verbal roots in M H , e.g., to
happen (in H ebrew the form should have been )* . O thers are to
help 1 to fear. The history o f the root to protest is rem arkable.
It com es from A and parallels H ebrew 1 to c ru sh . Its form in early A
, w as borrowed by BH, with the m eaning to clap han d s. Since in later
A as in M H the , verbs generally turned into ( ( " , it appears as
and entered M H with the meaning to p ro test (originally to hit on the
hands).
Here, then, we have an original Semitic ro o t in triplet form in Hebrew.
N or is this an isolated case.
. N ouns. 242. The influx o f nouns and particles was also quite extensive.
M H but, only is A. In H it should have been cf.
but you shall go into my fathers house (G en. 24, 38).
clover also betrays its A origin by its consonants for in H it should have
been * . The noun ^rule turns out to be A (its vocalization in
H should have been 6 1 5 * (.^ 1 wifes sisters husband has an A nam e . It
is interesting that the w ords for teacher and student, , come from
A, from roots that are also found in H.
. Calques and Inverted Caiques. 243. A n interesting case is the A ram aic
w ord for tree, namely, . This case brings us to the problem o f A calques in M H (cf. 106 on BH). In BH has a double m eaning, w ood and
tree. A, however, em ploys two different roots for the two m eanings and
M H followed suit by limiting the m eaning o f to w ood (its etymological
counterpart is em ployed with the same meaning in A), and borrowing the
A for tree. T hat is why the fifteenth day o f the m onth o f Shevat is
called 1( ^ ( ^ R osh H ashanah 1,1) and not ^ ... The very
need for tw o sem antem es in M H as against only one in BH is the outcom e
o f the A influence.
A caique also effected changes in gram m atical gender. 1 cup is
140
2 4 3 -2 4 4 ]
D ia le c ts o f M ish n a ic H eb rew
feminine in BH but becomes masculine in M H . F o r this reason in the

H aggadah o f Passover we drink 1 01 first,
second, third, fourth cup all in masculine (though one .certainly also hears
1 1 etc. as feminine, under BH influence). On the other hand,
field, masculine in BH becomes feminine in M H , e.g., his
field was laid w aste (K etubot 7, 8). Since there seems to be no reason
behind these changes in gender, we should apparently credit A 03 cup
masculine and field feminine for these changes.
In spite of the strong A influence described above, there seems to have
been a resistance to wholesale A ram aization. C onsider the following: In
BH there are two words for also and . In M H only survives. It
would be easy to assume that was dropped because it does not occur in
A while does. But how, then, are we to explain the opposite cases? F o r
rain two nouns are mainly employed in BH and (. In M H ^ disappears in spite o f the fact that it is to be found in all the A dialects, while
the typically H survives.
L ite ra tu re :
], , .
;
, , .
Ph.D . dissertation, Bar-Ilan University 1976 (in press). G.S.]
D. Dialects of M ishnaic Hebrew

244. There are clear-cut indications that there were several varieties (if
not dialects) of spoken MH (see above 192). In the M ishnaic literature itself, different Tannaim used different nouns for the sam e object, e.g.
pick (Sheqalim 8, 2) was called by A bba Shaul [Talmud Bavli,
Sheqalim 29b G.S.]. Sometimes the Talm ud points out that different
Tanniam use different expressions according to their respective places of
origin. While the gutturals were generally pronounced correctly, in some
cities and in the A cademy o f a certain T anna, their pronunciation was
weakened (see above 197). Still, it would be difficult to detect distinct
layers in the M ishna as can be done in BH. The only exception seems to be
141
MISHNAIC HEBREW
[ 2 4 4 -2 4 5
the tractate Sayings of the Fathers whose language is colored to a certain

extent by BH.
We have noted that the language of MH as transm itted in Babylonia differs to a certain extent from that transm itted in Palestine It also seems that
MH of the A m oraim , already a dead language, was not exactly identical
with the living M H, e.g., [ ! G.S.] stench (Terum ot 10, 1 in MSS) in
MH, but [ G.S.l in the Babylonian Talm ud. Since research in this
respect has not yet started, and the facts are largely unknown, nothing substantial can be said in this respect.
But clear-cut proofs of at least slight differences in M H are provided by
the letters and documents, written in M H, o f B ar-K oseba and his contemporaries. The most outstanding characteristic is the spelling o f the nota accusativi as instead of . This fact caused Milik to assume a HebrewC anaanite koin since this is also the case in Punic (C anaanite o f N orth
Africa of about the same period). A nother interesting case is that of the
genitive construction is written separately from the following noun while
the noun is determined, e. g. , o f the foreigners (this spelling, with
a le f is attested in the DSS). A very interesting note by Jerom e (251)
throws light on the situation during the fourth to fifth centuries C.E. He
refers to BH, but this also holds good for M H. He says, It is o f no consequence whether (the word Shalem) is pronounced Salem or Salim, as H
very rarely uses vowel letters in the course o f w ords, and according to the
discretion of readers and the different regions the same words is pronounced with different sounds and accents .
Literature:
[Milik, above 206;
K utscher, above 192, 216.]
E. The Transliterations of the H exapla and Jerom e
I. The Second Column o f the H exapla

245. The C hurch Father Origenes who lived in the city of C aesarea in
Palestine in the third century C.E. edited the H exapla, a six-column edition
of the Bible.
142
2 4 5 -2 4 6 ]
T h e H e x a p la an d J e r o m e
This edition contained the Hebrew text in its first colum n, four different
Greek translations in its third to sixth colum ns, and a transliteration o f the
Hebrew text in Greek characters in the second colum n. Only a few fragments and quotations of this transliteration survived. But even this m eager
material is highly instructive for the history o f H ebrew. This is the earliest
document which provides a full and continuous H ebrew text i.e., indicating
consonants as well as the quality and sometimes even the quantity o f all the
vowels. It must be kept in mind th at the vocalization signs had not yet been
invented.
Literature:
[E. Brnno, Studien ber hebrische M orphologie und S y n ta x , Leipzig
1943. G. S.]
a. Phonology
1. Vowels. 246. As in the Septuagint, the short /i/ and /u / o f the
M asoretic vocalization are transliterated by [e] and [o]. As pointed out
above (175, 200), this apparently also parallels the situation in M H .
Therefore, it seems highly probable that this pronunciation represents the
substandard, that is to say, the pronunciation th at prevailed in the spoken
H and A o f Palestine at that time. But the original /i / and /u /, as preserved
for us by the M asoretes, survived in the standard pronunciation, i.e. in the
reading of the Bible text in the synagogue. A lthough the vocalization o f the
M asoretes is known to us only from a period about 600 years later th an
that of the transliterations, it faithfully preserved older forms. This is
proved by the fact that nearly all the short [u]s and a large num ber o f the
[i]s in the M asoretic texts represent PS / u / s and / i / s. Therefore, o f course
they must reflect an earlier stage o f the language (see 38). A s show n
above 175, the Septuagint also sometimes reflects the su bstandard
pronunciation rather than the standard. There is a clear-cut distinction between PS long /u :/ and / i :/ which are transliterated by G reek ou (= [u]) and
/, and between PS short /u / and N which are transliterated by 0 and e. F o r
long / e :/ and /o :/ the parallel Greek long vowels eta and om ega are employed not only in the case where these vowels represent co n tracted
diphthongs but even when these sounds represent PS short vowels th a t
became long due to stress, including pretonic syllables, e.g., lau = ^, to
him, zr = 1 , helper iesmrou = n b tf^ they will gu ard .
143
[ 2 4 7 -2 5 0
2. C onsonants: G utturals. 247. There is no trace of the annotation of

,ayin by G reek g am m a and het by chi as in G aza and Rachel (see above
25). There is no sign at all to indicate th e p h a ry n g a ls /h /a n d //.S ince, as
show n above (ibid.), these sounds were pronounced by the Jews o f the
period, we can only conclude th at the two different prnunciations o f and
o f respectively have m erged and were pronounced like the [h] and [) o f
the Sepharadim o f today. A s G reek has no signs for these phonemes, there
w as no possibility o f notating them.
b . M orphology
1. Possessive P ronouns. 248. The possessive pronouns of the second person singular and plural masculine are the same as those employed in A
(and M H ) but are different from the older forms employed by the
M asoretes. A n added p ro o f that the language underlying these translitrations was perm eated by the substandard is the fact that clear-cut A ram aic
form s appear in them , e.g., a laui which is A ram aic 1 and not H ebrew
.
2. The Verb. 249. There are quite a few pausal forms in context e.g.
iephpholou = they will fall in the M asoretic vocalization. The same is
true in the DSS (w here substandard traits abound, see 158) and in M H.
3. The N oun. 250. The m ost intriguing aspect in the noun is the form o f the
segolates. As dem onstrated above, already in the Septuagint the segolates
alw ays have an anaptyctic vowel e.g., M oloch (= )(but in the H exapla
the second vowel never appears, and the first one keeps its original quality,
e.g., abd = . H ow are we to account for this strange fact? A fter all,
once these anaptyctic vowels have arisen it is very unlikely that they should
have been dropped. Should we assume, then, that with regard to this
phenom enon these transliterations reflect another dialect o f H that at least
in this respect was m ore archaic than the H of the M asoretes and that o f
the Septuagint? This solution seems preferable to the assum ption o f fluetuations between the Septuagint, the H exapla, Jerom e (see below), and the
M asoretes. As in the Septuagint, noun patterns with prefix [m-] tend to
keep the original vowel quality [a], e.g. m absar == ^ fortress. It is interesting to note th a t H ^ ankle appears as korsel which is the form
th a t we find in the MSS o f M H . This is further proof that the language o f
the H exapla tends to graft M H and A on BH texts.
144
2 5 0 -2 5 2 ]
M H in P alestinian A ra m a ic
O f course, this is not the case wherever this transliteration diverges from
the BH o f the M asoretes. The noun patterns mentioned above are apparently m ore archaic than the H transm itted by the M asoretes. There is
also reason to believe th at the so-called Law o f Philippi (cf. 97) was not
active in this text.
II. The Transliterations o f Jerom e

251. T he C hurch F ather Jerom e (H ieronym us) who lived in Palestine
at the end o f the fourth and beginning o f the fifth century C.E. is an important source for the history of Hebrew. Jerom e cam e to Palestine from
abroad and learned Hebrew from Jewish teachers in order to produce hi
Vulgate with the help o f the original text, and not only with the help of the
G reek versions. In his extensive Latin com m entaries to the Bible he quite
often discusses H words. T hanks to the several hundred H words that appear in his com m entaries, we are able to form an idea o f H as he knew it.
To be sure, w hat has been shown concerning the transliterations o f the Septuagint, and especially concerning the Hexapla, also applies to his transIterations, i.e. grafting o f M H and A forms on BH. The most obvious indication o f this is again the form o f the possessive pronoun o f the second
person singular, e.g., dodach = your uncle. The same applies to the
pausal form s in context (see above 158, 249) The segolates
exhibit the form s known from the Septuagint, i.e. with the anaptyctic
vowel, e.g., sedec = righteousness. But the ajiaptyctic vowel in the
qutl form s is no longer [o] but [e] e.g., codes = tflp . In other words, the
behavior o f this noun pattern is now practically identical with that of
M asoretic H. N ouns with prefix [m] are generally vocalized with [a] in the
first syllable as in the Septuagint and the Hexapla, e.g., m absar = .
A bout bosor == see above 37.
The writings o f Jerom e are still a gold mine of information and a more
thorough study o f his w orks might well yield many more items as surprising as these.
F. M ishnaic Hebrew in Palestinian A ram aic Dialects

252. Both BH and M H , influenced the A dialects spoken in Palestine,
145
MISHNAIC H EBREW
[ 2 5 2 -2 5 3
viz. Galilean A, Christian A of Palestine, and Samaritan A, with the

strongest influence upon the Christian A of Palestine (which was apparently spoken by converted Jews). N ot only words of H origin like
= H council, are found, but H grammatical forms, too, succeeded in
penetrating it, e.g., the pausal forms of the verb (see above 158). (Pausal
forms are entirely alien to A). It is regrettable that also in the field of H influence on A, proper research has not as yet begun.
[For MH influence on the Christian Aramaic of Palestine see M. BarAsher, Palestinian Syriac Studies, Ph.D dissertation, The Hebrew University o f Jerusalem 1976 (in Hebrew), references quoted in his index, p. 581
under IX.]
G. Critique of Lexicographical Reference W orks
253. The research into MH is very unsatisfactory. The situation concerning the gram m ar has been alluded to. Regarding lexicography, there is
no lexicon devoted exclusively to MH. MH material is included in dietionaries that cover the material o f the Rabbinic writings including all
the A dialects such as those o f Levy, Jastrow , and Kohut. These dietionaries have many shortcomings. They are badly organized and do not
distinguish between the two layers of M H, namely spoken MH (the
language o f the Tannaim ) and that of the Amoraim (see above 192).
Scientifically, they are out of date, both in etymology and semantics.
K rausss A dditam enta to K ohuts work only slightly changes the situation.
Ben Y ehudas Thesaurus includes the MH material and is in m any respects
more reliable than the dictionaries mentioned above, but it does not answer
the need for a special dictionary of MH. A new dictionary of MH is an
urgent desideratum.
In the field o f MH lexicography, it is especially the works of S. Lieberman and the late H. Yalon, J.N . Epstein [and E.Y. Kutscher] that will have
to be utilized. W hat was said about M H lexicography in general also applies to foreign loans in M H in particular. K rausss volume has gained in
im portance by the additions o f Low, but it is outdated. The works o f S.
Lieberman have improved the situation also in this field. While the Akkadian loans also need reviewing, the A ram aic influence has to be treated de
novo. To date, the only field treated satisfactorily is the flora, by Low.
146
253]
C ritique o f L ex ico g ra p h ica l W ork s
A m ong the transliterations only B rnnos treatm ent of the H exapla is more
or less up to date.
Literature:
[M ajor contributions to the study of M H dialects, gram m ar and especially vocabulary are to be found in four of the authors posthum ous articles, nam ely, The Present State of Research into Mishnaic Hebrew Especially Lexicography and Its T ask s , Some Problems o f the Lexicography of Mishnaic Hebrew and Its C om parison with Biblical Hebrew ,
A ddenda to the Lexicographical Section and T rivia all in E.Y.
K utscher, ed., Archive o f the New D ictionary o f Rabbinical L iterature vol.
I, R am at-G an 1972, pp. 3-1 0 5 , in Hebrew, with English summaries pp.
III-X X X II.
Bibliographical references to the works o f Jastrow , K ohut, K rauss, Levy
and Low can be found in the footnotes, ibid, pp. 4-8 .]
147
[ 2 5 4
C h a p t e r S ev en
M E D IE V A L H EBREW *
254. It is generally assum ed that M H died out as a spoken language at

the end o f the second century C.E. as was certainly the case in the Galilee,
though possibly it lived on for some time in Judea. However, there is little
doubt that around the fifth century C.E. H was not used anywhere as a
spoken language, although it was still extensively employed in writing until
it was revived three generations ago as a spoken language. Though
technically dead for centuries, H continued to change. The original Palestinian phonetics, even o f the sacred text o f BH, not to mention that of MH
could not be preserved throughout the various parts of the D iaspora in
which each region created its own system o f pronunciation.
Generally, H consonants and vowels were very much influenced by the
local language. Only the Yemenite com m unity was able to keep quite close
to H as known to the M asoretes (see 373).
W e are able to discuss some o f the well-defined linguistic characteristics
o f several quasi-dialects o f H which arose after the M ishnaic-Talmudic
period. All the H languages which arose have one feature in common.
While BH and M H were natural autonom ic languages, each representing a
stage of spoken H (with the possible exception o f the H o f the DSS, see
above), all o f the later strata o f H represent a mixture of BH, MH, and
other elements. Even the H o f the Spanish poetry which strove to base itself
linguistically on BH did not refrain entirely from using MH. Conversely,
even though M aim onides states explicitly that his Mishneh Torah was written in M H, it nonetheless contains biblical and other elements.
This process o f intermingling the two strata o f H apparently began immediately after M H died out in the Galilee. When the A m ora R. Y ochanan
*A ccord ing to I. A braham s, Jew ish L ife in th e M id d le A g e s , reprint N ew York 1969, p. 1,

the Jew ish M iddle A g es lasted until the clo se o f the eighteenth century.
148
S p o k en and L iterary L a n g u a g e
2 5 4 -2 5 5 ]
(third century C .E.) heard other A m oraim intentionally substitute a BH

form for M H ( ewes instead o f ; instead o f to mix wine
with w ater; T alm ud Bavli Hullin 137b, A voda Z ara 58b) he upbraided
them , declaring that these two languages were different (
])] ] [ . However, since M H was dead and BH
had greater authority, his opposition was futile.
L iterature:
.) (283-282 , , ,
A. M edieval Hebrew as Spoken and Literary Language
I. Occasional Use as a Spoken Language

255. To som e extent H was employed as a spoken language even during the long period o f the Exile. Jews traveling from East to West or
m igrating from country to country would converse with their fellow Jews in
H. As P arhon (twelfth century) puts it: W hen travellers arrive in the
C hristian lands they do not understand the native Jews. T hat is why the latter are forced to converse in the Holy T ongue. W hen a G erm an rabbi,
Isaiah H urw itz, journeyed to Palestine by way of Syria he tells us that in
A leppo, T heir speech is the Holy Tongue; and, whenever I lectured there,
I did so in the H oly Tongue likewise. There is reason to believe that at the
beginning o f the present millennium H was employed to a certain extent as
the language o f instruction in Jewish schools in the Moslem countries. We
hear about schools in A m sterdam in which certain classes were taught in H
(1680). In F ran k fu rt and in other cities in G erm any parents are adm onished to see to it that the children speak H (1711). In tenth-century
Palestine we h ear about H being spoken in Tiberias; in Jerusalem in the
fifteenth century, even non-Jewish travellers report this fact. The British
C onsul in Jerusalem , J. Finn mentions H as a vehicle o f everyday speech
(1854). M oses M ontefiore (nineteenth century) also alludes to this fact.
In Y emen until very recently the R abbis sermon was delivered in H.
T alm ud and M ishnah were taug h t in H and scholars sometimes conversed
with one another in H.
149
MEDIEVAL HEBREW
[ 2 5 5 -2 5 6
Literature:
C. Roth, Personalities and Events in Jewish H istory, Philadelphia 1953,
pp. 136T.;
, , , .
; , ,
, , ..
: , ,
. , 1963 , , .
II. M edieval Hebrew as a Literary Language
256. O f course these were exceptional cases.
During the Middle Ages Jews used as their vernacular the
language of the territory they lived in. But there was a significant
divergence between those Jews living under Islam and those in
Christian countries. In Christian lands where Latin was employed
as a literary medium, H was the only literary language which the
Jews could use. In the Arabic-speaking countries, on the other
hand, where the vernacular was quite close to the literary language,
Jews were inclined to write in Arabic. Even authors who spoke with
grief and chagrin of the neglect of their own tongue, did not as a
rule hesitate to resort to Arabic in their literary productions.
(Halkin).
Poetry, however, was generally composed in H even in these countries,
since as Halkin rightly points out: Poetry among the A rabs served the
purpose of displaying the beauties of their language... The finest example o f
style was believed by them... to exist in the Q ur'n.... Their (the Jew s'l
pride... impelled them to do for H as their neighbors did for their tongue.
But in Christian countries literary production was in H whether its topic
was connected with the Bible, Mishnah or Talmud, or with secular subjects. Even contracts with Gentiles were at times drawn up in H as were
the famous Starrs in England (eleventh-thirteenth centuries).
Literature:
A.S. Halkin, The Medieval Attitude toward Hebrew , in A. Altm an, ed.,
Biblical and Other S tudies, Cambridge, Mass. 1963.
F. A. Lincoln, The S ta rra , Oxford 1939, pp. 1-7.
150
2 5 7 -2 5 8 ]
D ev elo p m en ts in L in g u istics
B. Developments in Hebrew Linguistics

257. But before we proceed to describe the different H dialects o f the
Middle Ages, we should mention two very im portant developments which
played a part in the transm ission o f H: 1) the invention of the vowel signs
and 2) the rise and developm ent o f H linguistics.
I. The invention o f Vowel Signs (Vocalization)
a. The N eed fo r Vowel Signs

258. T he Phoenician alphabet, like nearly all the Semitic alphabets
derived from it, was originally devised to indicate consonants only. Symbols em ployed to indicate vowels (namely waw and yod) occur very rarely,
e.g., in Phoenician inscriptions, but are already widely used in the Bible.
Yet in them selves they could not solve the problem of how to indicate the
correct pronunciation for those who did not speak BH as a natural
language. Waw served not only as a consonant (e.g., death), but could
also indicate both long /o :/ and / u :/ e.g., 1 ox and wall, vs.
table' and m orning, while it was very rarely employed to indicate
short vowels. The same holds true for y o d , cf. ass' and city';
palace, but tooth. There is practically no m ater lectionis for [a]
vowels. The problem became acute during the Second Temple period when
on the one hand A ram aic was becoming dom inant, and on the other, MH
was replacing BH. To be sure, the writers o f the DSS tried to solve the
problem by extending the use o f the m atres lectionis to indicate short
vowels, by adding a le f (not extensively) in the middle of words, and by introducing new m atres lectionis, and the authors o f the M ishnah and the
T alm ud followed in their footsteps to a certain extent. Nonetheless, the existing sym bols could not indicate all of the timbres, e.g., the difference between / u / - / 0 /, /i /- /e / . There is reason to believe that only a small number
o f professional readers were able to recite the Bible in the synagogue
w ithout interference from the colloquial languages, i.e., MH and A ram aic.
A t the time o f the A rab conquest in the eighth century, the Jews had to
know three dead languages (BH, M H , and A ram aic) for religious purposes
so that the use of vowel signs to indicate the timbres became imperative,
and indeed this seems to be the reason for the invention of the vowel signs.
151
M E D IE V A L H E BR EW
[ 2 5 8 -2 6 0
Literature:
F or a similar account see S.W . Baron, A S ocial a n d Religious H istory o f
the Jew s1, vol. VII, H ebrew Language and Letters (High Middle Ages),
New Y ork, 1958, p. 4ff.
b. The Three Vocalization S ystem s
259. The invention o f the vocalization systems was apparently the
work o f the M asoretes o f the second half o f the first millennium C.E. Until
the last century only the T iberian or oui vocalization system was known,
but during the last hundred years two additional system s were discovered,
1) the Babylonian, both simple and complex (originating in M esopotam ia),
which was still in use in the Yemenite Jewish com m unity until a few generations ago; 2) the Palestinian system , differing from the Tiberian and apparently abandoned very early. These two system s differ in the symbols
used for the vowels, in the dagesh, etc. (the latter two system s employing
supralinear signs), and also reflect different linguistic traditions. F or exampie, the B abylonian system possesses only one sym bol for both p a ta h and
segol, as is reflected to this day in the Yemenite pronunciation.
T hanks to the invention o f the vowel signs, every Jew was able to read
the Biblical text whose reading w as thereby stabilized. A lthough M ishnaic
texts and Piyyutim (see below) were very often vocalized, their vocalization
was never standardized, and practically every m anuscript followed its own
rules.
L iterature:
B auer-Leander, H ist. G ram m ., p. 8 1 -1 1 4 ;
Sh. M orag, The Vocalization S yste m s o f Arabic, Hebrew a n d A ra m a ic,
s-G ravenhage 1962, pp. 17 -4 5 ;
, ) - ( / , .
.231-230, 147-142
[A. D otan, E J 16, cols. 1404-61, esp. 1447-49. E.G.]
II. Pronunciation o f H ebrew in C hristian a nd A rab Countries

260. A discussion o f the system o f vocalization should be approached
through a prelim inary treatm ent o f the pronunciation o f Hebrew in the
D iaspora from the beginning o f the M iddle Ages to the revival o f the
152
2 6 0 -2 6 1 ]
D e v e lo p m e n ts in L in g u istics
Hebrew language. The geographical and historical aspects of this difficult

subject still aw ait system atic treatm ent. Until now only Medieval Spain has
been studied, by the late I. G arbell. She concluded th at in M oorish Spain
the entire H ebrew sound system w as adapted to th at o f (M oorish) A rabic.
M utatis m utandis this also holds true in the C hristian countries where
those H consonants which had no co u n terp art in the vernacular generally
did not survive in H either. (C hristian Spain, though, might have been
something of an exception owing to its M oorish-A rabic neighbors, former
domination, etc.) To be sure, there was certainly a tendency, as M.
W einreich points out, to preserve consonants in one form or another at
least in the so-called whole-H ebrew (the reading in the synagogue, etc.),
but doubtless this picture is generally correct.
Literature:
I. Garbell, T he Pronunciation of Hebrew in M edieval Spain , H om enaje A .
M illas Vallicrosa, B arcelona 1954, p. 646;
M. Weinreich, op. cit. (259), p. 136.
a. Consonants
1. Em phatics and G utturals. 261. It follows therefore, that the pronunciation of the em phatics /q , t/ in C hristian countries merged with their nonemphatic counterparts /k , t/, while in the M oslem countries they survived
thanks to their existence in A rabic. The sam e aplies to / s / which in Christian countries turned into / ts/, a phonem e absent in the Semitic languages
except for Ethiopie. By the sam e token, the laryngals / \ h / survived in the
Moslem countries but disappeared in C hristian lands despite apparent efforts to preserve the / /. In Europe tow ards the end of the Middle Ages we
hear about the Ben X eth (an allusion to G en. 23, 3) who pronounced the
pharyngal /h / as a velar [x], and the Ben H eth who pronounced /h / as [h].
According to Max W einreich, the Ben X eth were Jew s living in Slavic
countries who, because o f the Babylonian R enascence (see below), tried to
reintroduce the original pronunciation as /h /. Instead, they succeeded in
introducing [x]. Ben H eth were Jew s who cam e from F rance and had to
replace the pharyngal / h / with the laryngal [h]. Survivals are found in Yiddish, e.g., the nam es Sime, Simhe and Simxe all o f which = ; the former reflecting the earlier W estern pronunciation (and cf. above 28).
153
M ED IEVA L HEBR EW
[ 2 6 1 -2 6 3
L iterature:
Garbell, op. cit. (260) passim;
M. W einreich, op. cit. (259), pp. 328T.;
; 101-85 , , ) ( , .
M. G iidem ann, Geschichte des Erziehungswesens und der Cultur der
Juden in D eutschland, Wien 1888, p. 75-77.
2. Sibilants. 262. But perhaps the most interesting development was that
of the shin. In Europe during the first millennium C.E., the /s / was lacking
in the G erm anic and R om ance languages and in Greek. Therefore in the H
pronunciation o f the Jew s who spoke these languages / s / was replaced by
[s] (cf. Sabbath = )^ . At the beginning o f the second millennium C.E.,
III arose in these languages thus enabling the Jews to revert to the original
pronunciation (apparently also with the help of Jews from regions which
had preserved the /s/).
Even later, French and G erm an Jews kept the [s] pronunciation in many
instances, and cf. the cases o f [kaddis], [sabbat salom] and [sabesdiker
losn] discussed above 23.
Literature:
See above 23.
b. Vowels
263. Here, too, there are differences among various regions. F o r exampie, the Sephardim do not distinguish between qames gadol and patah
(both = [a]), and between sere and segol (both = [e]). The 10:1 of the
Ashkenazic comm unities mostly turned into a diphthong: [oi, au, ei] e.g.,
guard [soimer], [saumer], [seimer]. The short /u / in certain regions
of Eastern E urope turned into [] ; cf. [ siike] or [i] [sikel in Yiddish.
The most im portant development concerns the fate o f the qames gadol.
As set forth above (37) there is no doubt that this vowel was pronounced
as a type of [o] by the M asoretes o f Tiberias, and until a generation ago it
was comm only thought that the parallel Ashkenazic pronunciation reflects
the M asoretic one. But H. Yalon has shown that in Europe at the beginning
of the second millennium C.E., the A shkenazic comm unities pronounced the
qames gadol like the p a ta h , and that the change to the so-called
A shkenazic pronunciation began in the thirteenth, and came to an end in
the fifteenth century. (Cf. also below 465, 474.)
154
2 6 4 -2 6 5 ]
P iy y u tim an d P o e tr y
1. Old Pronunciation Som etim es Preserved in Yiddish. 264. A few w ords

with the older pronunciation survived until today in Yiddish e.g., ^
[klal] rule , 1[ mi snayot ] , 117[ nefasot ] souls. H ow are we to
account for this change? H. Yalon believed that it w as the outcom e o f a
parallel process in the G erm an dialects so th at it was mere coincidence th at
the qamas gadol cam e to be identical with th at o f the M asoretes and
Yemenites. M. W einreich is inclined to believe th at it is the outcom e o f the
Babylonian R enascence during which scholars w ho cam e to E urope after the destruction o f the Babylonian academ ies brought with them the
Babylonian pronunciation o f the qames. H ow ever, it is n ot entirely clear
how the qam es was pronounced in Babylonia.
Literature:
M. W einreich, op. cit. (259), pp. 140, 2 3 7 -2 3 9 , 244;
, , , 1 .
;78-62 , , -
[Sh. M orag, Pronunciations o f H ebrew , E J 13, cols. 1120 -1 14 3;
, , .
,
, , . E.G.]
C. Piyyutim and Poetry

265. In Palestine around the middle o f the first millennium C.E. a new
genre of religious poetry arose the Piyyut (from the G reek poites). The
Piyyut is a hymn added to the older liturgy. This designation (Piyyut) was
not quite as descriptive o f the peculiar nature o f this poetry as its...
synonym, h a zza n u t; that is com positions o f synagogue readers (Baron).
The composition o f Piyyutim spread from Palestine to the diaspora,
reaching its peak during the end o f the first half o f the present millennium
and continuing sporadically for several centuries. A lthough the recitation
of Piyyutim played an im portant role in synagogue services, it also met
with opposition, and was one o f the targets o f the nineteenth century
reformers in G erm any.
Literature:
S. Spiegel, On H ebrew Medieval P oetry , in L. Finkeistein, ed., The Jew s1
155
M ED IEVA L H EBR EW
[ 2 6 5 -2 6 6
I, Philadelphia I960, pp. 169fT.;

Baron, H istory VII, pp. 89fT.;
L. Zunz, D ie R itus des synagogalen Gottesdienstes*, Berlin 1919,
pp. 169fif;
[Y. Y ahalom , The S y n ta x o f the A ncient Piyyut (including Yannai) as a
Basis f o r Its S ty le , Ph.D . dissertation, The H ebrew U niversity of
Jerusalem 1974 (Hebrew). E.G.]
I. Linguistic Techniques o f the Paytanim

266. The authors o f the Piyyutim adopted a revolutionary approach to
the H language. N ot even Israeli Hebrew has approached the language in
so daring a fashion. There are differences among the linguistic usages of the
various Paytanim , the m ost im portant o f whom were Yos ben Yos, Yannai, E lazar H a-K alir and R. Saadyah G aon. While the language o f the first
writer is easily understood, Saadyah G aon excelled in the use of rare and
difficult forms and roots o f BH by m eans of which according to Z ulay,
Saadyah intended to bring about a general renascence o f BH. H e w as thus
the forerunner o f the later Spanish poetic tendency to restore BH to its
proper place in poetry. All of the Paytanim made extensive use o f the
device of surprise by m eans of allusions to obscure Aggadic M idrashim .
The Paytanim brought about a revolution especially in the m orphology
o f H. They also m ade use o f BH, M H, and A ram aic, although the extent o f
the use o f different sources depends upon the particular Paytan. The main
characteristics of their language are embiematic use o f words, e. g. , 1=
the R om an Em pire (cf G en. 25, 25, identifying Edom Ro me ) ; ,
, verbs and geminates are employed as if they were verbs, e.g., Ufa
(= )^he approached; the prepositions , and are employed as conjunctions, e.g., ) =) when they went o u t; nouns were
created from verbal roots, e.g., talk , and verbs from nouns, e.g., 1
to talk (from BH talk); masculine nouns were changed to feminine,
and vice versa (only by Saadyah) e.g., ;) ) nouns o f " roots
may appear in shortened forms, doing, w ork (< ;) verbs are apt
to be employed in stems which do not occur in the sources, e.g., to
guard, fight (instead o f NiPal). The Paytanim were also fond o f w ord
plays. There is certainly some basis for M. Z ulays assum ption th at to a
certain extent these innovations represent a spoken dialect. F o r instance,
156
2 6 6 -2 6 7 ]
P iyyu tim and P o e tr y
Ibn E zra criticizes Kalir for rhym ing [m] with [n], e.g., with . But
as Yalon has shown [m] at the end of a word became [n] under certain circum stances. However, there is no doubt that the bulk o f the linguistic
changes are the innovations of the Paytanim themselves.
Sa4adyah G aon frequently used hapax legomena and irregular gram matical forms for certain reasons connected with his attitude tow ards BH
and MH and his fight against the K araites, a Jewish sect which rejected all
o f post-Biblical literature and tradition.
L iterature:
Baron, H istory VII, p. 89;
L. Zunz, Die synagogale Poesie des M ittelalters*, Frankfurt a/M 1920,
pp. 372, 477, 453, 380, 384, 388, 421, 387, 417, 427;
H. Yalon, M G J W 77 (1933), p. 430;
M. Zulay, Researches in YannaPs Liturgical Poems , Studies o f the
Research Institute fo r Hebrew Poetry in Jerusalem VI (1946) (in
Hebrew), pp. 161-249;
idem, The Language o f the Payyetanim , Melilah I (M anchester 1944)
(in Hebrew), pp. 69ff.;
, , , .
; , , , , ,
, , , ..
;
. _ ^
[E. G oldenberg, Lesonenu 37 (1972-73), pp. 117-163; 38 (1973-74),
pp. 8 5 -8 7 (Hebrew with English sum mary);
idem, E J 16, cols. 1609-1616. E.G.]
II. Opposition to the Piyyutim
267. The linguistic revolution created by the Paytanim did not go uncontested. R. A braham Ibn E zra (twelfth century) came out very strongly
against K alir (com m entary on Eccles. 5, 1). Ibn Ezra even finds fault with
the fact th at the Paytanim used BH and MH indiscriminately since it is
known that these are different languages (expressions) that are not o f the
Holy Tongue. A nd also they (the R abbis of the Talmud) said:
( BH and M H are different languages) (cf. above
157
M EDIEVAL HEBREW
[ 2 6 7 -2 6 8
254). Therefore it is not surprising that Ibn Ezra opposed Persian, Greek
and other loanwords in MH.
Rabbi David Qimhi (R adaq; end of the twelfth century) also criticized
the Paytanim. Although he conceeded that a certain freedom in the use o f
BH was permissible, he scored the Paytanim for going too far.
The opposition to the Piyyutim for linguistic reasons am ong others is
even to be found in the Prayer Book of R. Jacob Emden (Javetz, eighteenth
century) who calls their language a mixture o f languages .
Literature:
A. A. Wolff, , Stim m en der ltesten glaubwrdigsten
Rabinen ber die Piyutim , Leipzig 1857, pp. 9ff., 15, 24.
D. Linguistics and Poetry in Spain and Elsewhere
I. The Rise o f Hebrew Linguistics in Spain

268. The beginnings of H linguistics can be traced to the East, to the
work of the Masoretes. H and in hand with the deepened and diversified interest in the Bible went the newly awakened scientific curiosity about the
Hebrew language, its vocabulary and forms... (a) distinguished K araite
gram m arian and exegate... wrote... No one can arrive at this [true understanding of the Bible] whilst being ignorant of the language (Baron). The
fight against the K araites also played a part in this newly aw akened interest
in BH. M oreover, as Baron puts it: Perhaps in no period o f hum an history
did preoccupation with the correctness and purity o f the spoken and written language become such a deep concern of educated classes as during the
Islamic R enaissance. Already in the ninth-tenth century Saadyah G aon
composed several treatises on linguistics. Yehudah Ibn Qoreish, a native of
tenth-century N orth Africa, pointed out the kinship of H, A ram aic and
A rabic, while other scholars (including K araite authors) are to be considered among the founders of H linguistics. Yet it was the Jews of Spain
during the tenth-thirteenth centuries who really brought about the golden
age of H linguistics. The influence of the A rabic gram m arians which made
itself felt thanks to the Judeo-Arabic symbiosis in Spain, enabled H
linguistics to flourish.
158
2 6 8 -2 6 9 ]
L in gu istics an d P o e tr y
D uring this period the foundations of com parative Semitic linguistics

were laid thanks to scholarly knowledge of BH, M H, A ram aic and A rabic.
The main architects of this entirely new field in Jewish scholarship were
M enahem ben Saruq, D unash ben L abrat, Judah ben H ayyuj (who established the principle of the tri-radical root in H) and especially Y onah Ibn
Janah. Joseph Qimhi and his son David Qimhi (R adaq) already signify the
end o f this period (tenth-thirteenth centuries). These authors com posed
gram m atical treatises and dictionaries o f BH, mainly in A rabic. T heir attitude to M H varied. Since they had no conception of the developm ent o f
language, they did not know what to make o f MH which differs so substantially from BH. The Spanish poets had an analogous attitude to M H (see
below 269); therefore, we find e.g., that Moshe Ibn Ezra in his treatise The
Poetry o f Israel says: If we sometimes have recourse to M H this is quite
all right, in spite o f the fact that sometimes we find there expressions which
contradict linguistic laws. For the attitudes o f R. A braham Ibn E zra
tow ard M H , see above 267.
These statem ents show quite clearly that despite Saadyahs efforts, M H
was not considered to be on a par with BH, and so, even though m ost o f
the gram m arians mentioned above did make use of it, their attitude
tow ards it rem ained somewhat ambivalent. It is therefore not surprising
that neither the Talm udic dictionary o f R. N athan o f Rome (eleventh century), nor the dictionary of Tanhum of Jerusalem to the M ishneh Torah of
Maimonides was composed in Spain.
Literature:
Baron, H istory VII, pp. 3, 4ff.;
H. Hirschfeld, Literary H istory o f Hebrew Gramm arians a n d L exicographers, Oxford and London 1926;
[D. Ten, E J 16, cols. 1352-1390. E.G.]
II. The Hebrew Poetry o f Spain and Italy

269. Closely connected with Hebrew linguistics in Spain w as the
emergence of H poetry not devoted solely to religious themes, but also to
secular subjects. Here too, the influence o f A rabic is undeniable. A certain
meter imitating that o f the Arabic was introduced. In addition, in their
choice o f BH, the poets followed in the footsteps o f the A rabic poets who
159
M E D IE V A L H E BR EW
[ 2 6 9 -2 7 0
im itated the language o f the Q u ran. (But see above concerning Saadyah,
266). This whole treatm ent o f H w as diam etrically opposed to that of the
P aytanim whose goal w as to use BH only. T hus M oshe Ibn E zras admonition that the poets not change the stem o f a root im mediately reveals his
opposition to the P aytanim , and to the Spanish poets the most famous of
w hom , besides those m entioned above as gram m arians, are Shmuel HaN agid, Shlom o Ibn G abirol, Ju d ah Ha-Levi, and the two Ibn E zras mentioned above (tenth-tw elfth centnrv
a. The Language
270. As m entioned above, the Paytanim aspired to produce a poetic
language in pure BH in order to extol the beauty o f the Bible as the A rabs
did the Q uran. This aim w as quite fully realized. However, their language
was not genuine B H ; som etim es they would use a phrase or word from the
Bible and intentionally give it a meaning different from its Biblical context.
This device called sibbus was considered a great achievement. An example
is found in the line by Ibn Ga bi r ol : $ (
1 O h my friend thou hast greatly forsaken me, and therefore I have
called thee arch-forsaker. 1( I Chr. 4, 18) is a personal name employed here with the entirely different meaning o f arch-forsaker. O r again,
speaking of hypocrites w ho try to show a pure soul, he says:
^ . T he m eaning o f this phrase in the Bible (Lev. 13, 23) is
... the discoloration rem ains statio n ary , while here means (the discoloration stays) underneath. The poets, and before them the Paytanim
would sometimes attribute a meaning to a Biblical word different from the
meaning com m only attributed to it in the Biblical text. The gram m arian
Y onah Ibn Janah already rem arked on this point; for example, he mentions
that the Paytanim em ploy the w ord ( Job 4 1 , 4 a hapax legomenon) not
with the proper meaning prayer (according to Ibn Janah), but with the
meaning speech. In another case he castigates the poet who employs the
H root to lie in w ait as if its meaning were to capture. On the
other hand, he defends another poets use o f instead o f . Moshe
Ibn E zra uses the root in the m eaning to disappoint which, according
to our dictionaries, does not occur with this meaning in the Bible. But Ibn
Jan ah explains H os. 10, 1 1 ^ from the root meaning to disappoint, lie.
T he noun 1 light is som etim es employed with the meaning rain on
the basis of the interpretation o f certain Biblical passages (e.g., Job 36, 30).
160
2 7 0 -2 7 2 ]
L in gu istics and P o etry
A lthough the authors o f this poetry intended to keep their language

gram m atically close to BH (e.g., the poet was not supposed to change even
the stem o f a Biblical verb; see above 269), nevertheless we find even
denomintive verbs such as from jasp er (Ibn Gabirol).
Shmuel H aN agid (eleventh century) did not hesitate to create new nouns
such as w eakness and to employ new stems as the Paytanim did, for
example, ) =) to listen. In addition to this modified BH we shall
consider two m ore elements.
1. M ishnaic H ebrew Elem ents. 271. Shmuel H a Nagid drew upon MH
quite extensively, e.g., M H ! , reading o f instead o f , and such
words as question, m istake, 1( Greek loan) pair and others
occur in his poetry. Judah Al-Harizi (tw elfth-thirteenth century) in his
translation o f the m a q a m a h s { 2L picturesque genre in rhymed prose intersected by verse , Spiegel) also uses M H w ords, e.g., court,
argum ent, nolens volens, etc.
Yishak Ibn K halfun, a contem porary o f Shmuel H a-Nagid, also employed M H and even usages o f the Paytanim in his poems, e.g.,
)) = , or the preposition with the finilte verb e.g., ^ )
) when he put (see above 266). A ccording to Mirsky it was only the
later poets o f Spain (Judah Ha-Levy, M oses Ibn Ezra) who were more particular in the use o f BH in their works.
2. A rabic (a n d Other) Influence. 272. A rabic influence, though contested
by scholars and obviously very weak, does exist. To be sure, when Judah
Ha-Levi says, I sought you (Eretz Israel) even if
your king (G od) does not dwell in you , is not necessarily a reflex of the
A rabic in even if, since as M irsky has shown, occurs in the Bible with
the sam e m eaning, e.g., N um . 36, 4; cf. R ashi ad 10c. On the other hand,
this quite rare meaning o f in the Bible came to be commonly employed
only under the im pact o f A rabic. Even more striking is Judah Ha-Levis
1 1 to journey in ships, for BH 1 to ride is never employed in
connection with s hi ps . meaning before, in front o f is a reflex o f the
parallel A rabic phrase. Al-H arizi employs loan translations from A rabic
created by the T ranslators (see below 273) e.g., existence.
means food like the parallel A rabic word. He even takes over a clear-cut
A rabic root: dabb lizard.
In the poetry o f Im m anuel o f Rom e (thirteenth-fourteenth century) the
161
M EDIEVAL HEBREW
[ 2 7 2 -2 7 3
influence o f his native tongue is discernible in loan translations like

cordelier, Franciscan m onk.
Literature:
Sh. Spiegel, On Medieval Hebrew Poetry , in L. Finkelstein, ed., The
Jew s3 I, Philadelphia 1960, pp. 854ff. (Paytanim ); pp. 875ff.;
. 99-98 7 , ) ( , .
[E. G oldenberg, E J 16, cols. 1616-1622; bibliography col. 1660. E.G.]
III. The Languages o f the M edieval Translations fro m Arabic

273. While Europe was still immersed in the D ark Ages the Islamic
world developed its great intellectual system (eighth-thirteenth centuries)...
Greek writings and Greek ideas gradually found their way into Arabic...
philosophy, ... m athem atics, astronom y, astrology, geography and
medicine... [and] were rapidly diffused throughout the Muslim world... It
was the W andering Jew who bore westward the magic draught (Singer).
These new sciences were transm itted from East to West in the areas of
contact in southern Italy, Sicily and Spain. Here, translators who were
sometimes Jews or were aided by Jews, brought the old-new science from
the Moslems to the Christians, occasionally through the medium of
Hebrew.
This movement was preceeded by the translation into Hebrew of important works composed in A rabic by famous Jewish scholars (Saadyah
G aon, Maimonides, and others) for the benefit of Jews living in Christian
countries, especially in Provence. Still their activity can be considered a
reflex of the general movement to transm it knowledge from East to West
and from Antiquity to the emerging new world (Sarfatti).
But except for a few instances, neither BH nor MH possessed the
technical terms needed in the field o f science. In addition, the translators
had to overcome syntactical problems as described by Judah Ibn Tibbon
(twelfth century) whose family played an im portant role in the translation
movement.
M ost of the translators solved the problem by translating literally from
A rabic in conform ity with the ideal standard as defined by Ibn Tibbon. In
this way there arose a new H idiom, translation Hebrew (Baron).
Ch. Rabin has given a good description of how a translation language is
162
273]
L in gu istics and P o etry
used: A fter a certain length of translation contact, language B acquires a

stock of w ords with perfect translation fit, forming a semantic field of their
own, which henceforth considerably eases the task o f the translator. It
similarly acquires a stock o f gram m atical constructions which by experience are known to be convenient equivalents o f typical constructions of
language A . To be sure, the thirteenth-century poet and translator Judah
A l-H arizi fought for a purer H, but the Tibbonic system was to prevail, using the following m eans to solve the various problems inherent in the translations. 1) The translator could simply take over the technical term s which
he found in A rabic. Since the scholars were well aware of relationship between A rabic and H (see above 268), they did not hesitate to employ this
means. A ccording to B. K lar, only 2.5% o f the newly created words (about
80 in num ber) were A rabic. They included such words as horizon,
^center, pole, some of which are themselves loan words in
A rabic, e.g., region (today climate, from Greek), geom etry
(from Persian, found already in the Talmud). 2) But the translators resorted
mostly to loan translations (caiques) which at first sight appear to be
original H words, but on closer inspection turn out to be exact renderings
from a foreign language, e.g., English youth movement is an exact translation of Jugendbew egung, or modem H kindergarten reflects German Kindergarten. The translators made extensive use of the method o f
creating w ords with a H body and an A rabic soul . This method can be
subdivided into three categories: a) choosing a word independently o f any
similarity between the H and A rabic word, e.g., in BH = estim ate acquired the meaning m agnitude (= Ar. miqdr); b) borrowing as a result o f
similarity of meaning, e.g., BH step, now also degree, since Ar.
daraj m eans both step and degree; c) borrowing because of similarity o f
nam es e.g., fence, now also square root because of A r.jid r. Very often
the roots in H and Ar. were cognates as area and Ar. m isha (Sarfatti).
The num ber of words created by this process during the Middle Ages
runs to the thousands. A few more instances are existence, 0
relationship, root , negation (A r salb, which itself is a loantranslation from G reek strsis), 1 capital (which in turn is an
early loan-translation from G reek, which borrowed this meaning from HC anaanite , and this from A kkadian qaqqadu).
But the activity o f the translators did not stop with the coining o f
technical term s. Their idion similarly acquired a stock of gram m atical
163
M E D IE V A L H E B R E W
[ 2 7 3
constructions entirely alien to H, owing to the tendency to translate

literally. The syntax is perm eated by A rabism s in the dom ain o f the verb,
the noun, the particles, w ord-order, etc. N ew tenses were created, e.g. o f the
type he would d o (M H \1 , BH ;) existing verbal
forms acquired new meanings, e.g., they will kill each o ther. The
use o f prepositions is patterned after the use o f the parallel A rabic root,
e.g., he ordered etc.
These innovations are especially notable, (in order of im portance according to M. (G oshen-) G ottstein) in the fields of philosophy and science
but also in gram m ar, exegesis and H alach a (Jewish law), and thanks to the
influence o f the translations, are also to be found in works com posed in
Hebrew.
These innovations occasionally restored archaic BH constructions which
had been lost in H. F or example, the asyndetic relative clause *nainly after
an underterm ined noun (see 115) was reintroduced following the pattern
of A rabic e. g. , 1 0 w ithout ( (before it is a
work (that) needs experience. O n the other hand, as (G oshen-) G ottstein
has pointed out, certain images which arose in IH are also found in this
style, e.g., two nouns in the constru ct state before a third noun (the regens),
e.g., with the knowledge and assent o f the public
(= B H 1 59 ^ , or M H 7 ) ?or
= because o f.
The construction even found its way into the excellent native H
prose of A l-H arizi (thirteenth century) e.g., ( instead of correct
H ) .
The introduction into H o f new w ords or new meanings for older words,
and constructions alien to BH and M H had an influence which is still felt
today (see 332).
Literature:
Ch. and D .W . Singer, The Jew ish F a c to r in Medieval T hought , in G .R.
Bevan and Ch. Singer, eds., The L egacy o f Israel, O xford 1953,
pp. 180-183, 205 ff.;
G.B. Sarfatti, M athem atical Term inology in H ebrew Scientific L iterature
o f the M iddle A ges, Jerusalem 1968 (H ebrew ), pp. 63f., 169f., 198fT., and
English Sum m ary pp. X -X I, X III;
Baron, H istory V II, p. 7;
164
2 7 3 -2 7 4 ]
T h e H eb rew o f L iterary W o rk s
Ch. Rabin, The Linguistics of T ranslation in A .H . Smith, ed., A spects o f

Translation, London 1958, pp. 123ff., 137, 140, 144;
;40 , 33,31 , , , , .;
;) ( 103-102 , ,
, .
Ph.D. dissertation, The Hebrew U niversity o f Jerusalem 1951, pp. 1
(2), 6 (22), 30 (81), 92 (202 b), 117 (255);
A. Percikowitsch ( . (A l-H arizi als bersetzer der M akam en A lH ariris, Mnchen 1932, p. 32.
[E. G oldenberg, E J 16, cols. 1622-1633; bibliography col. 1661. E.G.]
E. The Hebrew o f Literary W orks from the Middle Ages

to the Revival (End of the Eighteenth C entury)
I. M aim onides
274. While the literary-linguistic categories dealt with above are clearly
defined, the same can not be said of other writings o f the period which certainly constitute 95 per cent o f the literary output.
The language of these writings has scarcely been studied except for the
Mishneh T orah of Maimonides and the com m entaries o f Rashi (see below
276). Maimonides expressly states that he wrote this work which
codifies all the Halachic material of the M ishna and the Talm ud in the
language of the Mishna. Indeed he .succeeded marvellously in this though
he did not avoid an admixture of some BH words, e.g, to ta rry (=
MH 1( , opposite (= MH ) . Arabic influence, too, is
noticeable in his writings. But apparently he never appropriated any A rabic
root which did not exist in Hebrew, so the A rabic influence is restricted to
the various types of loan translations (cf. above 272). He also succeeded
in avoiding the influence of A rabic in the domain o f syntax.
The Talm udic A ram aic element usually appears in Hebrew garb, e.g.,
bar, bolt, to shake off. Only very few A ram aic legal term s were
taken over without change, e.g., reliance; other words were translated into Hebrew, e.g., hilt and blade by and respectively (both BH). The BH is employed to mean to transm it (an
Arabism). M aimonides sometimes used words coined by the translators
165
[ 2 7 4 -2 7 5
M EDIEVAL HEBR EW
and others, e.g., m ineral and geom etry. M oreover, he did

not hesitate to expand or change the meanings of BH and M H words to
suit his purposes, e.g., 1 geom etry (Greek loan in M H where it is
employed with another meaning; he thus reverted to the principal meaning
of the Greek word), to pronounce distinctly from M H 1 to cu t.
Like the translators, he coined new verbs such as to be caused
from BH because, changed verbal stems, e.g., to take a walk
(H itpael) = M H ( Piel), created new nouns and adjectives, e.g., 1
golden, changed the forms of nouns, e.g., spinal colum n from MH
'. Sometimes his great antagonist R. A braham Ibn David does indeed
upbraid him on this score saying, 1 he corrupted the
l anguage' he changes the language of our Sages (= M H ).
But according to Twersky, what he really objected to was the confusion
and distortion which he believed was generated by this stylistic change...
Literature:
W. Bacher, Der sprachliche C harakter des Mischne T o ra , Jahresbericht
der Landesrabbinerschule in Budapest, Budapest 1903, pp. 117, 128
(13, ( (, 129 , 283 , 290 ) if., 144 () , l33f. (;)
Sarfatti, op. cit. (273), p. 146 n. 37 (164 ,( 1 f. (207 ,( n. 7 and
passim (see his Index, ;)
W. Bacher, Zum sprachlichen C harakter des M ischne T o ra in M oses
ben M aim on II, Leipzig 1914, pp. 281, 282 (;((, 286 )
( 40 ( ) , ..;)
I. Twersky, R abad o f Posquires, C am bridge, M ass. 1962, p. 171.
II. Other M edieval Sources

275. Influences in the sphere o f syntax are even more interesting. I
believe that the construction 1 as against the original construction the house is big is a reflection of the E uropean construction (G erm an, English, French, etc.) where the copula follows the subject.
A similar construction used by a thirteenth-century Judeo-French writer
is meaning it is written on the lintel, a clear reflection o f
the G erm an Es ist geschrieben, French II est crit etc.
There is no doubt that other writers were influenced by their native
166
2 7 5 -2 7 6 ]
T h e H e b r e w o f L iterary W o rk s
tongues, e.g., Ladino and Arabic, but no system atic research has yet been
carried out. We know that, e.g., in the responsa sm oking is called 1
0 ^ ) (drink tobacco, under the influence o f the A rabic shariba to
drink (tobacco). This use spread even to non-M oslem Europe.
(Incidentally, , the root employed today, also occurs.) In the A cts o f the
Jewish Parliam ent (1580- 1764 ,) , we find loans from
Polish, e.g., 1 =( Pol. pan landow ner); G erm an, e.g., ) )
Wechsel (Brief), (a type of prom issory note), while , a kind of
prom issory note, is from Latin m em brana. T he H w ord fugitive appears with the meaning bankrupt. One word which I used to hear in my
youth in Slovakia, , pi. meaning congregational officials,
literally enslaved, is apparently to be found in the sixteenth century.
The rabbinic responsa in H alachic m atters often had to find term s for
new inventions, e.g., w atch =( hour), etc.
Literature:
, .
; 175 , 173 7 ( ) ,
;) ( 81 , , - , , .
, , ..
.202 , ,) (
III. R a sh i
276. The language of Rashi (R. Shelomo Yitzhaqi) the great comm entator on the Bible and the Babylonian T alm ud was greatly praised for its
popular style which served as a model for generations. But it is only thanks
to the work of I. Avinery that we are able to establish certain surprising
linguistic facts. Firt, Rashi coined hundreds o f new w ords, am ong them
some which are very widely used today, e.g., ? Jew ishness,
im prisonm ent, happening, com m entator, etc. But R ashis
syntax, blending H and A ram aic elements, and the influence o f the French
language (if any) still await clarification.
Literature:
. , , , .
167
M EDIEVAL H EBR EW
[ 2 7 7 -2 7 9
IV .
Later Sources
277. The rest o f the literature has received only scant scholarly attention. Clearly writers who lived in G erm any could not escape the influence
of their own language (Middle Y iddish-G erm an), for G erm an w ords such
as K la r clear turn up in their H. If a certain w riter uses 1 $
^
to mean about 800' he is using a loan translation o f G erm an gegen which
means not only against (as ) , but also ab o u t. Loan translations
abound especially in the w orks of R. Judah the Pious (tw elfth-thirteenth
century). ( (1 is an exact translation o f present-day
G erm an Du hltst dich f r... in H means to get hold o f like halten,
which also m eans to consider'. It goes w ithout saying th at this influence
did not escape the notice o f the gram m arians. T he fam ous R. Elia Levita
(fifteenth century) rem arks that the A shkenazic Jew s call a gift since
they are misled by the G erm an word. In G erm an schenken = to give a present and einschenken = to pour out wine = H 1 and thus the two
words were wrongly identified.
Literature:
I. Halperin, A cta Congressus Generalis Judacorum R egni Poloniae,
Jerusalem 1945 (Hebrew), pp. 536, 541, 545;
/ , , .
; 195 , 193 , ,)(
, , ..
. 48 , ,)(
F. Specialized V ocabulary
278. We need adduce only a few illuminating examples to show how
readily Medieval Hebrew met challenges old and new.
I. Chess
279. D uring the Middle Ages the A rabs introduced chess into Europe
from Asia via Persia. H as well as the E uropean languages, had to find
technical terms for the chess pieces. It proceeded very m uch the way the
168
2 7 9 -2 8 1 ]
S p ecialized V o ca b u la ry
translators did. R ashis assum ption th at the game is mentioned in the

Talm ud does not seem to be borne out by the facts. But already in the
twelfth century, in w hat may be the earliest description of the game in
Europe, a poem ascribed to A braham Ibn Ezra supplies us with the
technical terms. The game is called . While it was common knowledge
that =( Shah) is the title o f the Persian king, was mistakenly identified with H ebrew (or A rabic) dead. As a matter o f fact, both constituents are Persian, and the second element = beat, lost, defeated. But
we also find the name ( from the R om ance languages); Q ueen is
,( BH) and also fe r z (Persian); Rook = ( Persian), but also
chariot (loan-translation) and castle.
Literature:
H .J.R . M urray, A H istory o f Chess, Oxford 1962, pp. 159, 4 4 6 -4 4 7 ;
M. Steinschneider, Schach bei den Juden (reprint from A.V.D. Linde,
G eschichte und Bibliographie, des Schachspiels Berlin 1873, p. 4 (1 5 6 )7 (159), 12 (164), 15 (168), 43 (195) 45 (197).
II. W riting and Translating

280. Strangely enough, we possess many words for the writing and
translation of books. BH 1 , 1 and 1 are employed for writing, but
later also 1 , 1 , and 1( all BH). But against all of these originally H
w ords, ( a loan translation from Arabic) gained the upper hand. The
same occurred in the case o f the term for translation. Besides the BH
we have , etc.; also , 1( mainly MH), and 1 , a loan translation from Latin vertere, French tourner, etc. Again a loan translation
from A rabic, became dominant.
L iterature:
Zunz, G esam m elte Schriften III, Berlin 1876, pp. 50 -6 7 ;
Ben Y ehuda, D ictionary III, s.v. , (p. 1431) note (a.
III. M usic
281. As with chess we find a few loans, but mostly loan translations or
169
[ 2 8 1 -2 8 3
MEDIEVAL HEBREW
original H terms. 4Melody appears as ( a loan from A rabic), ,^

(MH). consonant is a loan translation while =
dissonant. ( M H) is employed to mean tone.
Literature:
. 141 , ) - ( , .
IV. Printing
282. The first H book was printed in 1475, thirty-five years after the invention of the process. The book itself contained no word for the new art; it
was simply called 1 5 But only two years later 01 appears as the w ord
for printing (from M H, loan from G reek, also reflected in English
typography). 1 and 1 incise, continued to be used for a short time,
but in 1491 was verbalized into 0 and . T hanks to the new
art itself these same words are employed until this very day.
Literature:
A. Berliner, ber den Einfluss des ersten hebrischen B uchdrucks a u f den
Cultus und die Cultur der Juden, F rankfurt a/M 1896, p. 1-3.
V. M ysticism
283. Although its roots are of course m uch older, the Jewish m ysticism
which flourished during the last millennium also enriched the H
vocabulary. In part, additions from this field are still integrated into IH ,
though not with the original meaning. T hanks to G. M eyrinks novel The
Golem, even non-Jews may know about the 1 a magically created
robot, a man created (from clay) by magical a rt. 5{{, mystical intention
or concentration is also a creation of Jewish mysticism. The w ord 1?
from the H root lf to count is a term for which the approxim ate translation would be spheres or regions, although the H word sefirah has
nothing to do with the Greek sphaira (Scholem). 1 M easure o f
the Body (of God), a term which aroused bitterest antagonism in other
section of Jewry, because of its anthropom orphizing connotation, also survived until today with the changed meaning stature. But 3 adhesion,
170
2 8 3 -2 8 4 ]
S p ecia lized V o c a b u la r y
nuio m ysticis with G od = ecstasy is still used with much the sam e meaning as the original. , other side\ = evil pow ers, restoration of learning or meaning, as well as enthusiasm are all
known today even outside the H assidic circles where they originated.
Let us close with two very interesting cases. The ghost possessing
the body of a living person becam e fam ous throughout the world th an k s to
A nskys play of this name which has been performed hundreds o f tim es by
the H abim a Theater. The w ord first appeared in the eighteenth century. On
the other hand, the term transm igration of souls is not only early
(first appearing in the book ), but might even be a loan translation o f a
M anichean term known in L atin as revolutiones.
Literature:
G .G . Scholem, M ajor Trends in Jew ish M ysticism , Jerusalem 1941, pp. 33
( (, 75 , 203 )(, 62 )( , 121 ,1 7 5 , 28 , 337 ) ; etc.);
Idem, On the Kabbalah and its Sym bolism , New York 1965, p. 158, p. 174
. 1 (;(
, (41- 40 , ) ( , .;)
(51- 50 , ) ( , .):
R .J.Z. W erblowsky, Joseph Caro L aw yer and M ystic, Oxford 1962, p. 235
)(.
VI. H ome, School, Synagogue and Community Government,

Relationships with Gentiles
284. New w ords arose and the meaning of old ones were continuously modified in keeping with ever-changing Jewish life and custom .
The Barmitzvah rites, which accom panied the completion o f a boys
thirteenth year and the com pound {son of the m itzvah (with the
A ram aic instead of H )can be traced back to the fourteenth century.
The Jewish elementary school turns up only in the seventeenth century. The note-book, applied to R ashis C om m entary, w as taken
over from the Latin quaternus, quinternus. The title ^m atch-m aker
emerges during the twelfth century. The use o f the word ( M H) for canto r also belongs to the Middle Ages, as does the the wife o f the
171
M E D IE V A L H EBR EW
[ 2 8 4 -2 8 5
R abbi, with its Yiddish counterpart Rebbetzin. Both the =( Yiddish

K lezm er) and testify to the jo ie de vivre of the Jew s even during this
period. The euphemism house o f the living (= cem etery), also
belongs to the Middle Ages (fourteenth century). , an ungram m atical
noun was coined for priest. It literally means barber, shaver and
shaven should have been a more appropriate term. m onk is already
found in Spanish-Jewish poetry
It was characteristic o f the status o f the Jews in the Middle Ages that
they were obliged to coin a special term for the com m unity intercessor,
. Incidentally, this form shows, on the one hand, the lively use made
o f the ];suffix for creating nom ina actoris (cf. also ,) , while on the
other hand, the form instead o f ( from the participle o f the
H itpael) is strange indeed.
Literature:
I. A braham s, Jewish L ife in the M iddle Ages, New York 1969, pp. 32
(45 ,( . 2 (77 ,( .2 (170 ,( . 2 (;(
, , , .
, ,;
M. G dem ann, Geschichte des E rziehungsw esens und der C ultur der
Juden in Frankreich und D eutschland, Wien 1880, pp. 47 . 1 () ,
193, 297 (Index s.v. ;)
Ben Y ehuda, Dictionary I (s.v. ) , X III (s.v. ) XV (s.v. ) .
G. Hebrew Loanw ords in Foreign Languages
I. Sabbath a n d H olidays
285. We have already discussed w ords of Hebrew origin that reached
Europe via Greek and Latin (see above 98, 187-188).
H ere we should mention several w ords which also probably go back to
early Latin but which emerge in the European languages only during the
M iddle Ages, namely designations of the Jewish Sabbath and holidays.
D ies bonus, bonus dies, a caique o f H 1 1 holy day (lit. good d ay ) occurs in the Vetus Latina (the earliest Latin translation o f the Bible) and
survives only sporadically in the European languages. The sam e applies to
172
2 8 5 -2 8 6 ]
H eb rew L o a n w o rd s in F oreign L an gu ages
dies m agnus, a caique o f the Talmudic A ram aic the D ay of

A tonem ent (lit.big day) which in its Greek rendering was known to the
Jew s of Corfu.
The nam e Saturday penetrated into m any European languages where it
appears in a form which goes back to H , e.g. sam edi (< sambedi) in
French, Sam stag in G erm an (< sam baztag in Old High German), szom bat
in H ungarian which is itself a loan from Slavic,sobota in Slovak and other
Slavic languages. Incidentally, Persian, too, has a kindred form apparently
loaned from Hebrew via A ram aic. Early Greek words for Friday
prosdbbaton and paraskeu preparing also betray Jewish influence.
It is also possible that the Sardinian name of the month of September,
R ap u tanni = head o f the year, is a caique o f H New Year
(which falls in September).
L iterature:
D.S. Blondheim, Les parlers judo-rom ans et la Vtus L atina, Paris 1925,
pp. X L n.2, LIX , L X I-L X III;
E.Y. K utscher, J S S 10 (1965), p. 38;
A. Thum b, Z eitschrift f r deutsche W ortforschung 1 (1901), p. 166-7;
G. Bonfante, W ord 5 (1949), p. 17Iff, 174 n. 11.
II. in M edieval Latin

a. M edicine
286. Here we will deal with a specific channel which was essential for
the im pact of H on the Latin of the Middle Ages, viz. the medieval translation literature (see above 273). It is mainly in the field o f medicine that the
im pact of A rabic, but also H, made itself felt. This is not surprising in light
o f the fact that Jewish physicians played a very im portant role during the
Middle Ages. King Manuel o f Portugal (1497) even gave permission to
Jewish physicians and surgeons to study H medical books, saying that
such physicians and surgeons as have been and as shall be converted and
d o not know Latin m ay keep H books relating to their profession . In an
address delivered in Leipzig in 1518 the G erm an scholar Petrus Mosellanus
stressed the fact that there lies hidden in the libraries of the Jews a
treasure o f medical lore so great th at it seems incapable o f being surpassed
173
MEDIEVAL HEBREW
[ 2 8 6 -2 8 7
by the books of any other language. Therefore he urges our C hristian

youths to learn this language.
Indeed, S. M untner claims to have gathered about 90,000 occurrences of
medical terms from H MSS. In his works the sixteenth-century physician
Vesalius gives Hebrew names... for some o f the anatom ical structures.
W hat is even more surprising, though disputed, is the fact that the
Medical School of Montpellier (France) was partly a Jewish creation
(twelfth century), and it is said that the earliest teaching was in A rabic and
Hebrew.
Did any of this H medical terminology survive? J. Hyrtl probably
erroneously believes that pom um A dam i A dam s apple may be a survival
from this age, but more likely a translator misinterpreted H adam m an as
Adam . However, according to Singer-R abin two term s did survive, one
of them with a very long history... canna, the modern cane, for one o f the
long bones of forearm or leg from H .
Literature:
I. Munz, Die jdischen rzte im M ittelalter, Frankfurt a/M 1922;
H. Friedenwald, The Jew s and M edicine, Baltimore 1944, I 146ff. (use of
the Hebrew language in medical literature), 162 (Vesalius), 181 (King
Manuel of Portugal), 183f. (Mosellanus);
S. Muntner, Contribution to the History o f the Hebrew Language in
Medical Instruction (Hebrew), Jerusalem 1940, English foreword p. VI;
G. Sarton, Introduction to the History o f Science II, Baltimore 1934,
p. 352 (Montpellier);
J. Hyrtl, Das Arabische und Hebrische in des A natom ie, Wien 1879,
p. 164 (pomum Adami);
I. Lw, Flora III, p. 232 (A dam s apple);
Ch. Singer and Ch. Rabin, A Prelude to Modern Science, Cam bridge 1946,
p. LXXVII.
b. Linguistics
287. The impact of H was felt in other fields too. The revival o f H
studies which is so striking a feature of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries,
and the influence of which has remained as an im portant element in sacred
learning and, to a certain extent, in the humanities ever since, was one of
the results of... the Renaissance... a trilinguis homo was one who knew
Latin, Greek and Hebrew. Luther and Calvin studied Hebrew and one o f
174
2 8 7 -2 8 9 ]
H eb rew L o a n w o rd s in F oreign L a n g u a g es
the most outstanding humanists, J. Reuchlin, published the first (?) Hebrew
g ram m ar to be written by a Christian. T hanks to this revived interest in
H ebrew, the term
(itself a loan translation from A rabic which
received it from Sanskrit) was accepted by linguists as Latin radix, English
root, G erm ann W urzel etc. The term affixum , first employed by Reuchlin
also seems to go back to H 1 .
L iterature:
G .H . Box, in E.R. Bevan and Ch. Singer, eds., The Legacy o f Israel, Oxford 1927, pp. 315ff.;
B. D elbrck, Einleitung in das Studium der indogermanischen Sprachen,
Leipzig 1919, p. 2 6 -2 8 ;
W. Bacher, Die A nfnge der hebrischen G ram m atik, Leipzig 1845, p. 73;
;69-68 , , , , , .
L. Prys, D ie gram m atikalische Terminologie des A brahant ibn E sra , Basel
1950, pp. 105, 145.
c. In M ysticism
288. This was another field o f Jewish endeavor which became known
during the R enaissance. Pico della M irandola (fifteenth century), another
outstanding figure am ong the humanists, was the first Christian student o f
the K abbala in which he discovered in the C abala all the doctrines o f
C hristianity. Therefore, it is not surprising that the C abala exercised a
profound influence on Christian thinking during the fifteenth, sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries (Box), and the word itself was absorbed by several
European languages such as G erm an, French and English in different
forms (K abale, cabale, cabal), although strangely it took on the pejorative
meaning plot, etc.
Literature:
Box, op. cit. (287), pp. 319, 330, 324;
Etym ological dictionaries of G erm an, French and English.
III. In Arabic
289. Jew s had been living in the A rabian Peninsula since early times
and were prom inent in the pre-Islamic comm unity o f Medina. There is
175
[ 2 8 9 -2 9 0
M E D IE V A L H E B R E W
sufficient evidence o f the im portance o f Jew s as a religious body in the

com m unity to which M uham m ad addressed his message as the Jewish
elem ents o f the Q u ran testify. Therefore, it is to be expected that the
various H ebrew loan w ords in the Q uran are primarily A ram aic in form.
The word a hbr is the (A rabic) o f habr (or hibr = Jewish scholar, which is
the H ebrew friend etc., but scholar in M H). Both *Adn =
Paradise and Jahannam G ehenna are found in the Q uran, the
latter in M H (and A ram aic) form. T here are m any other H (A ram aic)
loans as well.
Literature:
H. Jeffery, The Foreign Vocabulary o f the Q u ra n , B aroda 1938, pp. 23,
24, 49, 2 1 2 -3 , 105-106.
IV. In German
290. W hile individual H ebrew w ords were sporadically absorbed by
various E uropean languages (e.g. starrs in English, see 255), it is in
Medieval G erm an th at we find the greatest num ber o f H elements. Jews
were very prom inent in long-distance trade in medieval G erm any. They
had only to interlard their G erm an with Hebrew words to make it at once
incom prehensible to Gentiles. The advantages o f such a jargon were not
lost on other w ayfaring elem ents and so the com pound o f H and Yiddish
becam e a main source o f Rotw elsch the cant o f peddlers, thieves, vagabonds and the like (Lockw ood), e.g., Schchellbosj (H beer 4
house via the Yiddish pronunciation o f Schocher-Bos) meaning inn. In
L uthers day it was know n that this argot contained H words.
L iterature:
W.B. L ockw ood, A n In fo rm a l H istory o f the German Language, Cambridge 1965, p. 2 6 2 -3 ;
M. G dem ann, G eschichte des Erziehungsw esens und der C ultur der
Juden in D eutschland etc., Wien 1888, p. 172-3.
176
2 9 1 -2 9 4 ]
H eb rew in Jew ish L a n g u a g e s
H. H ebrew in the Jew ish L anguages o f the D iaspora
291. The Jew s in the D iasp o ra created several new languages o f their
own, each o f them containing H ebrew elements.
I. Judeo-A rabic
292. Judeo-A rabic (JA ) seems to be the earliest Jewish language o f the
D iaspora preserved in writing (ninth century). It was employed throughout
Spain, and in the A frican and A sian territories where A rabic was the dominant literary and spoken language. In those places in C hristian Europe
where the local language did not prevail, A rabic was widely used in
literature connected with religious m atters. The reason for its vigor in dispossessing A ram aic (and H ebrew) in these fields is not entirely clear. Every
linguistic aspect o f Judeo-A rabic exhibits quite a few Hebrew traits.
a. Phonetics an d O rthography
293. T here is reason to believe th at the H elements of JA were
generally adapted to the phonetic system o f A rabic , but the loanword
to m ake a proselyte kept its hard g ( = A rabic dj). Incidentally, the double
yo d in this w ord and elsewhere instead of the consonantal yo d reflects M H
(A ram aic) orthography. The sam e holds true for the double waw.
b. G ram m atical Structure
294. It is quite rem arkable to w hat extent the Hebrew elements are
adapted to the syntactic patterns o f A rabic (Blau). (As we shall see later,
this is not alw ays the case with other Jew ish languages [see 301]). F o r example, in the clause 1 1 and he did not exempt her from
oath only is A rabic, but since it requires the imperfect in A rabic, the
Hebrew follows suit.
In JA m orphology, H ebrew loans are often adapted to the parallel
A rabic category. F or exam ple, = H to m ourn; 1 w rits
appears with the A rabic plural ending . Even more often H loans are
used in the so-called A rabic broken plural, e.g. prayer-book, plural
.
The opposite tendency, nam ely, the im pact o f H on A rabic is much less
in evidence. W e find the use o f 5 S atu rd ay as a feminine noun ap
177
M EDIEVAL HEBREW
[ 2 9 4 -2 9 6
parently due to H . Also, the fact that the Arabic definite article is
prefixed only once in constructions like the wise woman (H
) seems to indicate th at Hebrew elements might have been felt
as heterogeneous features in the Arabic sentence.
c. Vocabulary
295. In the sphere of JA, of course, Hebrew loans abound. The text
quoted by Blau (p. 145) shows clearly how in H alachic discussions, about
50% of the vocabulary is H (and Aram aic) but occur also in other literary
genres which were not exclusively destined for scholars.
N or were H loans restricted to the domain of religion as e.g. ,-
can to r, but also in comm erce (cf. above 290) as apparently profit,
distress etc. Generally, loan words are transferred to A rabic without
phonetic change, although Hebrew allophones may be rendered by the
phonetically parallel Arabic phonemes, e.g. Talm ud (pronounced in
H ebrew Talm ud) by ,, ( /d z /= 0 in A rabic is a separate phoneme from
/d/). Hebrew / sh/ is mostly transferred as / s/ since in the main this is its
etymological counterpart (cf. above ) . But, e.g. H the
weekly Scripture lesson is rendered both as and ( written
plene with , as in A rabic, and to indicate at the end of the word as in
Ar).
Literature:
J. Blau, The Emergence and Linguistic Background o f Judaeo-Arabic, Oxford 1965, pp. 2 If., 133ff.
II. Judeo-Persian
296 The oldest docum ent in Judeo-Persian (eighth century) does not
yet show any trace of H, although H elements are quite conspicuous in an
eleventh-century docum ent which contains a considerable number of H
words such as property. H elements make themselves felt, for exampie, in a com m entary on the Book of Saruud, and the specific form of HPersian word com bination, like that in Yiddish, e.g. to go into
exile occurs in it. There is also noticeable an influence of Persian syntax
on the H element... Bible translations... follow (mostly) the syntactic
178
2 9 6 -2 9 8
H eb rew in J ew ish L a n g u a g e s
structure o f the H original (Fischel), e.g. the rendering o f the H infinitive

absolute o f the type |1 he indeed will rem em ber.
Literature:
W. B acher J R A S 1903, 760
A sm ussen, A cta O rientalia 29 (1965), p. 58;
W. Fischel, The Universal Jew ish Encyclopedia VI, p. 256;
W. Bacher, Z D M G 51 (1887), pp. 397, 408.
III. H ebrew in R om ance L anguages?

297. D . Blondheim m aintained that the Jew s in R om ance countries
(F rance, Spain etc.) spoke a language o f their own which w ent back to a
peculiar Latin koine (com m on language) spoken by the Jew s in the first
centuries C.E. A m ong the material gathered by him, we find the dies bonus
discussed above.
H is conclusions are not accepted by scholars who now believe that, at
least during the first centuries o f the present millennium, the R om ance
Jewish languages were much less definite linguistic entities than Yiddish.
Literature:
D.S. Blondhcim, op. cit. (285), p. IX ;
M. Banit, Revue de linguistique rom ane X X V II (1963), 245ff.
IV. Judeo-French
298. A though his contention is now contested, Blondheim m aintained
that the Jews... used quite a considerable num ber o f H w ords. F o r exampie, they translated the H , south by another H w ord Dl Tj, and
west by . T here also seem to be French w ords which changed their
meaning under the im pact o f H , e.g. plain simple (com m entary on the
Bible) = ? .
L itera tu re:
M. W einreich, R om ance Philology IX (1956), p. 418.
179
M ED IEVA L H EBR EW
[ 2 9 9 -3 0 0
V. Judeo-Italian
299. In the earliest Judeo-Italian docum ents the H elem ents are scarce
or non-existent. In an elegy from the thirteenth century there are no traces
o f H at all. While C assuto believes th at the author avoided them intentionally, it must be pointed out th a t B erenblut-B anits study o f translations
o f Isaiah (sixteenth century and later) found few cases o f clear-cut
H ebraism s, e.g. hom ecidiaturi m urderers with the derivational suffix -tore
for the agent formed from noun-roots. In fewer than ten cases the translators use another H w ord for th at o f the text, e.g. G ehinam hell (the M H
form!) for . A few H w ords appear, e.g. in the preface to a hymn from
the sixteenth century.
L iterature:
U. C assuto, Archivo glottologio italiano X X II-X X III (1929), p. 382;
M. Berenblut, A C om parative S tu d y o f Judaeo-Italian Translations o f
Isaiah, Unpublished Ph.D . dissertation, C olum bia U niversity, New York
1949, pp. 235ff., 241, 145;
C. R oth, R E J 80 (1925), 182.
E.Y. K utscher, R o czn ik O rientalistyczy 27 (1964) p. 47 (G ehinam );
:) (67-66 , , , .
[E.Y. Kutscher, Archive o f the N ew D ictionary etc. (above 253), pp. 70f.
)(.[
VI. Judeo-Spanish
300. Judeo-Spanish, called D zudesm o (Ladino is the nam e used for the
Bible translations), is the language o f Jew s hailing from Spain and Portugal. At the end o f the fifteenth century they were forced to leave these
countries and build new lives in N orth Africa, France, the N etherlands,
Italy, and within the O ttom an Empire (the Balkans, A sia M inor and
Palestine). It is believed that JS , like parallel Jewish languages, represents
an archaic Spanish dialect.
A lready in Spain D zudesm o contained H elements as can be shown by
the use of special H phrases and form s both in N o rth A frica and the East,
e.g. more or less, a b o u t, and from docum ents written in Spain.
H nouns such as creditor, 1 debtor, the verb enherem en ( =
excom m unication) to excom m unicate and the sam aies 'ft' beadle.
180
300 - 302 ]
H eb rew in Jew ish L a n g u a g e s
C onstructions such as 1 1 we institute crop up where the auxiliary verb ser to be is employed (very much as in Yiddish) as do other
constructions with other H elements ( receive). In an early translation of the Bible, MH words repentence, and even, as well as
BH w ords are employed.
L iterature:
S. M arcus, Sefarad 22 (1962), pp. 129ff.;
. , , , , .
VII. Yiddish
301. Yiddish came into being around the year 1000 on the Middle
Rhine. It is a fusion language whose com ponents are Hebrew, (Old)
French (whose speakers apparently came from France), G erm an (and OldItalian?). After the Jews moved eastward, the Slavic com ponent was added
(though it appears sporadically in France even in very early times).
Hebrew elements, namely prayer book for the holidays and
synagogue, already appear in the earliest text o f Yiddish (a
verse discovered by M. Beit-Ari in a MS of a prayer-book for the holidays written in W orm s in 1272). The widespread use o f H in Yiddish is
shown by the fact that translations of the Bible into Yiddish sometimes use
as the equivalent of a certain H word not only the sam e word, e.g. 1
voice, but also a different H word, e.g. instrum ent o f song for
music. In the case of a seventeenth-century letter from Bohemia, it
is difficult to determine whether it is written in Y interspersed with H or
vice versa.
a. Phonetics
302. H phonetic elements became integrated into Y. As mentioned
above (37) there is reason to believe that during the earlier period o f Y it
was the so-called Sephardic pronunciation that prevailed in E uropean H.
M. Weinreich also stressed the fact that, as in the Y o f today, it is
sometimes not the whole H form which is used, but merged H : cf.
pronounced b a a l habayis in the prayer, but balebos in Y by the sam e
person. Therefore, we must also reckon with the possibility o f this
phenomenon in the past.
181
[ 3 0 3 -3 0 4
MEDIEVAL HEBREW
b. Morphology
303. The word rebbetzin the wife of-the rabbi (< rabbissa) which has
a H base and Rom ance suffix shows the fusion o f these two elements. The
periphrastic verb e.g. m xabed za yn , where the base is H and the auxiliary
verb Y is known already from the sixteenth century.
L iterature:
M. Weinreich, Rom ance Philology IX (1956) p. 403;
, , , .
50 ( ( 58 ,)) :
7 () :ff. ,(1963) X X III , , .
S. Birnbaum, in For M a x Weinreich on his Seventieth B irthday, The
Hague 1964 (in Yiddish), pp. 503 ((, 523 );)
S. Nobel, ibid. (in Yiddish), p. 406 (letter from Bohemia).
VIII. Judeo-Slavic
304. Slavic glosses are found even in the com m entaries of Rashi who
resided in Franco-G erm an territory, and especially in the works o f writers
from Bohemia. These glosses are attributed by the writers to the 1
language of C anaan (cf. Gen. 9, 25 and slave). But as yet we know next
to nothing about this special Slavic dialect and its H elements. From the
seventeenth century we have the sentence je r tebi... by I I have
hallowed thee (= you are my wife) which rem inds us of the parallel Yiddish
constructions (see above 303).
Literature:
M. Weinreich, in For R om an Jakobson, The H ague 1956, p. 622ff.;
R. Jakobson-M . Halle, in For M a x Weinreich etc. (above 303),
p. 147ff. (Canaan).
182
306]
C h a p t e r E ig h t
M O D E R N H EBREW A N D IS R A E L I H EB R EW
A. The Revival of H ebrew
I. The Strange B irth o f M odern H ebrew

306. The H askalah (Enlightenment) movem ent, originating in G erm any
at the close o f the eighteenth century, aimed at the secularization o f the
Jewish people and motivated the revival of Hebrew writing. T his new
Hebrew spread from G erm any to H ungary, Bohemia, and M oravia. In all
these places it throve for a short time, only to die once more. W hy? T he
truth seems to be that Hebrew was revived much less for its own sake than
to serve the purposes of the Maskilim (the adherents o f the H askalah) who
aspired to spread their ideas am ong their fellow Jews. But w hat language
were they to use to accomplish this? G erm an? Jews on the whole did not
know G erm an (even N .H. Wessely, one o f the forem ost M askilim did not
know G erm an well). Yiddish? This language was an aspect o f Jew ish life
that the Maskilim hated wholeheartedly. They had no choice b u t to use
Hebrew to which they had sentimental ties and which, after all, w as taught
even at G erm an universities, had served as a vehicle o f secular literature in
medieval Spain, and was, in short, fashionable. Incidentally, this fact is
clearly recognized by M ax W iener who says, By the way, [the H ebrew o f
the Enlighteners] was an expression o f their antipathy tow ards... Y iddish .
I find myself in full agreement with S. Spiegels opinion that
The fathers of the Berlin H aska la h... w anted to bring their people
closer to the nations o f Europe by m eans o f H ebrew ; ... to spread
through Hebrew, the gospel o f the rationalism that discarded
nationality... and finally to pave the way, through H ebrew , for
assimilation and absorption. Hebrew for them was not an end in it
183
M O DE R N H E B R EW A N D ISRAELI H EBR EW
[ 3 0 6 -3 0 7
self, but a m eans to an end, an implement that, when it had served

the purpose, could be throw n away. A t least, this was their mental
attitude, though the heart clung to the old language despite the objection o f the head. [They] had no other medium through which to
reach their people. Yiddish they despised. The Gentile languages
were not understood by the people. Therefore they used Hebrew to
decoy the Jew s into the foreign world and the foreign lan g u ag e s/
L iterature:
Sh. Spiegel, H ebrew R eborn, Cleveland, New York, Philadelphia 1962,
pp. 20 f.;
M. W iener, Jdische Religion im Z eita lter der E m anzipation, Berlin 1933,
p. 43.
a. Biblical H ebrew as a Vehicle o f the H askalah
307. The language which the Enlighteners employed was the language
of the Bible. They purposely avoided the use o f other sources such as M H ,
the Piyyut, and, of course, the Rabbinical language o f the Middle Ages.
This was the beginning o f the m elitzah, the stereotyped Biblical style. As
Spiegel puts it,
H ebrew used to be a series of quotations... Anger was expressed in
w rathful w ords from Amos. D istress in the terms o f the Psalms.
D oubt via Ecclesiastes... Hebrew... consisted of scattered fragments
from the Bible in varying mechanical combinations. Bible verses
were simply dism em bered and joined together again in new unions.
It goes w ithout saying that according to this tendency to revive BH only,
the creation o f new term s and phrases was out of the question. But o f
course, this proved to be impossible in practice. So while the Enlighteners
did not coin new term s, they did superimpose new meanings on old terms,
mainly as loan translations from G erm an, e.g., high schools are called
( G erm an M ittelschule). Instead o f ... dependent (on),
they use the active participle because G erm an employs the active participle
(abhngig). Even m ore astonishing is the use of meaning however.
This too is a loan translation o f the G erm an allein which m eans both
alone and how ever (the latter meaning being practically forgotten today).
Only very rarely w as no n BH employed.
184
307]
T h e R evival o f H eb rew
To be sure, there were exceptions. The gram m arian J.L. Ben Zeeb did
include postBH material in his dictionary for vulgar use, while M. Lefin
(Levin) employed MH in his writings. It is certainly no coincidence that,
like M endele M okher Sefarim (see below 309), Lefin wrote in Yiddish as
well. But the overwhelming m ajority did not want to have anything to do
with post-BH.
This language was used in G erm any in the circles of the Maskilim, in
Bohemia, M oravia, and in parts o f H ungary for about two generations. But
as soon as the second generation grew up knowing German, Hebrew was
cast into limbo. The situation cam e to such a pass that in the middle of the
century radical reform ers wanted to get rid o f Hebrew at least to a certain
extent, even as the sacred language of the synagogue.
M eanwhile, the H askalah movement, and Hebrew with it, had reached
E astern Europe where it was destined to play a much more significant role
than in C entral Europe. The chief reason was that the Jewish masses were
hostile to the H askalah and thus Hebrew long remained the instrument of
those forces which strove to bring enlightenm ent to the people. On the
other hand, the low cultural level of the non-Jewish environment, coupled
with its hostile attitude tow ards assimilation, kept the Jews very much to
themselves. Even under these circum stances, Hebrew did not cease to be
used as an instrum ent o f enlightenment, which is to say, assimilation. To
quote Speigel ...the same forces that made for national dissolution were
at work here also, which is obvious from the baptism of the sons of
prom inent M askilim.
P erhaps one of the most astounding instances o f a kind of unconscious
wish for self-destruction is Judah Leib G ordons poem $ ( Awake,
my People). Here he urges his fellow Jews to assimilate to the Russian
people. Unequivocally he tells them to speak the language of their native
country instead of Yiddish. I doubt whether there is an historical parallel to
this case o f a poet writing in one language (Hebrew) urging his readers to
adopt another one (Russian)!
This trend noted in G erm any also prevailed in Eastern Europe. Only the
first generation labored for Jewish enlightenment with the instrum ent of
revived Hebrew. The second generation not only ceased the work o f their
fathers, but also left their own people and adopted Polish, Russian, and
other languages and cultures, and some even embraced the Christian
religion. Q uite a large num ber of them later associated themselves with the
European Socialist movements. H ow then, did Hebrew live on? In place of
185
M O DER N HEBR EW A N D ISRAELI HEBREW
[ 3 0 7 -3 0 8
the second generation, new Maskilim arose, very often sons o f the very
men who themselves fought against the Maskilim. It would be fascinating
to follow this process in detail, but the outlines are already clear enough.
This aspect of the H askalah is somewhat embarrassing and hence, m ore
often than not, is conveniently overlooked by most students o f modern
Jewish history. K abak, a Hebrew writer of the last generation, emphasized
this in a striking incident in one of his works, . Here the hero
meets the author A vraham Mapu who wrote the novel ( The L ove
o f Z ion) that might well be called the crown of this kind of language and
literature a novel about Biblical times written in BH prose, a work that
has still not lost its charm . The hero of K abaks novel meets M apu and
asks a question which greatly upsets him: But your son Leon... w hat does
he know of our language? N early nothing. The tragedy of children being
unable to read the Hebrew writings o f their own father must have been all
too com m on at that time.
L iterature:
E.Y. K utscher, Conservative Judaism X /3 (1956) pp. 28ff.;
M. W iener, op. cit. (306);
Spiegel, Hebrew Reborn (306), pp. 12f., 96 (Lefin), 173;
; 317-311 ,) ( , , .
] , .
; 16-10 ,
J. Fellman, The Revival o f a Classical Tongue, The Hague and Paris 1973,
pp. 14f.;
A. Bar-Adon, A gnon and the Revival o f Hebrew, Jerusalem 1977 (in
Hebrew), pp. 2 3 -5 2 ;
Y. Karmiel, Lesonenu 34 (1969-70), pp. 306ff. (Hebrew with English summ ary; on Mapu). O.S.]
b.
A daptations o f B H and New Creations o f the M askilim a nd R abbis

308. Still, whatever might be said against the Maskilim, the fact remains that it was they who kept BH alive, as a vehicle for poems and short
articles. M apu himself described the limitations of BH as a modern
language o f literary composition. He said that while BH was entirely sufficient for his purposes in The Love o f Zion which is set in Biblical times, it
was not feasible to use BH in writing novels describing contem porary life.
A uthors would have to have recourse to MH as Mapu himself had already
186
309]
done. Still, M askilim after M apu continued to attem pt the impossible by

writing novels in BH. Even a Semitic scholar of the stature of J. Halevy
fought for the preservation o f BH as a literary idiom (e.g., the use o f the
waw conversive!), and opposed the use o f M H. But he did admit th at there
was room for limited change within the confines o f BH.
We encounter the same literary picture in the periodicals published during these times. The outcom e was, in the words of D. Patterson:
The attem pt to convey the concepts o f the modern world and the
problem s o f contem porary society while adhering almost exclusively
to biblical vocabulary and idiom, inevitably gave rise to violent
stresses and strains. The situation was further aggravated by the absence o f both a suitable literary tradition and the generally accepted
conventions necessary for the expressions of a wide range o f ideas in
clear, precise and economical terms. The introduction of concepts
previously alien to Hebrew moulds time and again compelled the
novelists to stretch and distort the language in the attempt to adapt it
to new purposes... The enforced resort to clumsy circumlocutions
and crude approxim ations even for the expression of common objects and ideas frequently resulted in cum bersome terminology which
sometimes borders on the grotesque.
N o less im portantly, for w ant of a spoken colloquial idiom, the
dialogue is largely composed of stiff and stilted phrases in place of
the terse, pithy, colourful idioms o f living speech. Here, again, the
novelists were forced to resort to all sorts o f circumlocutions and
halting approxim ations in the attem pt to create a sustained and comprehensible dialogue.
P attersons description holds good despite the lack of thorough investigation of that period.
As mentioned, new creations were out o f the question, but BH w ords
and phrases were given new meanings in order to fill the lack. B. K aru
gleaned a surprisingly large am ount o f material from a simple perusal of
sixteen issues of the weekly H atzfira from 1881. There we already find the
expressions store, public opinion, ^ electricity,
1 jubilee, 1 mine, crisis, DHj? prejudice, 1 agent,
1 w riter, 1 field gun, cannon (cf. below), culture. The word
for oranges was also created at this time: golden apples. This
187
M O D E R N H E B R E W A N D ISR A E L I H E B R E W
[ 3 0 9
term is a translation, via Yiddish pom erantsen, o f Latin p om a aurantia.

is pure BH (Prov. 25, 11) which in IH becam e ( see below
391). All these w ords are BH, but with new meanings.
Som e o f the M askilim were so particular that they would reject BH
w ords if their current m eanings were not exactly those o f BH. They would,
for exam ple reject the M H m eaning o f line for ( whose meaning in
BH is not securely established). T o be sure, K aru also found w ords from
M H and M edieval H ebrew . T hus we find M H : 1 ad (actually
A ram aic), front, volum e, and from the Middle Ages:
developm ent, suggestion, literature. On the basis o f K aru s
work, it seems likely th a t quite a few new creations like those now current
in Israeli H ebrew , m ight after all turn up in the m uch maligned language of
the M askilim.
T o be sure, quite a few w ords o f this type did not enter M odern Hebrew,
e.g., 1 railw ay statio n (today :( , 1 law yer
(today 1) . T he new term s are generally shorter than the old and
therefore the reason for rejecting the form er term s is clear, as in the case of
1 1 nightingale. Instead o f 1 w atch, the shorter
1 is used (see below).
In keeping with their principles, the M askilim were completely against
loan words, but som etim es they could not avoid them, e.g.,
telegram . They took m ore kindly to the translation o f foreign term s by
H ebrew w ords which were phonetically close to them and had some kind of
sem antic connection, how ever tenuous. T hus, e.g., telegraph was
( big leap), can n o n 1( pipe o f strength). (Incidentally, cannon and do go back to the sam e root). O ther such term s were 1
eau de cologne (literally mist o f C ologne); 1 cholera (bad illness);
, protocol (details o f everything; o f G reek origin). Such creations
disappear entirely except for the last tw o which have m anaged to survive,
as has 9 sofa, in spite o f the fact that in II Sam. 17, 28 it denotes a kind
o f vessel.
Even w orse are clum sy and unwieldy phrases for technical term s, e.g.,
! m useum (literally the storehouses for old things;
today 1) . Such m onstrosities, o f course, had no chance o f survival.
Some o f the term inology for new inventions fluctuated greatly, e.g.,
train s 1 ? , 1 , 1 . As D. Patterson puts it, Even elem entary tu rn s o f phrase as quite right or you are
right poduce such stilted and artificial form s as: ^/
188
308]
T h e R ev iv a l o f H eb rew

, 1 ,
, 1 . O n the other
I v :

I 11

hand, certain idioms kept occurring in the writings of m any o f the
Maskilim, apparently owing to the influence o f M apu, and a few of them
managed to survive until today, e. g. , I like it (it found grace
in my eyes); yearning, contem pt 1 his
destination.
M apu seems to have m astered BH completely (although, to be sure, no
research has been done on this subject). But his successors were not as
proficient and we find ( instead o f ) and other such
lapses. The definite article rem ains after the prepositions and , e.g.,
in the letters (instead of ) .
The H askala w riters were not the only ones to grapple with the problems
of finding equivalent expressions for the phenom ena o f modern life. The
rabbis who continued to employ the often ungram m atical H ebrew-Aram aic
mixture that was in use in the M iddle Ages faced the sme problem. But
because they were not interested in the language but rather in the religious
problems created by the new technological age, their solutions were
generally unsatisfactory. W e find ( teller o f the news) for
newspaper, ( arrow s) for rifle, and for w atch we find ( hour)
or 1( th a t which shows the hour, a translation from
Latin horologium).
L iterature:
D. Patterson, Some Linguistic A spects of the N ineteenth-C entury Hebrew
Novel , J S S 7 (1962), pp. 310, 314fT.;
E.M. Lipschtz, Vom lebendigen H ebrisch, Berlin 1920, p. 12 . 1;
;) (64-16 , , ) (, .
; 537 , , ) ( , , .
, , , .
; 220-219 , ,
;42 , 34-33 , , ) ( , .
;216-215 , , ) ( , , .
[. Yitzhaki, The Hebrew A uthors o f the H askalah etc., Lesonenu 34
(1969-70), pp. 2 8 7 -3 0 5 ; 35 (1 9 7 0 -7 1 ), pp. 3 9 -5 9 , 140-154 (Hebrew
with English sum m ary);
:) (222-221 ) ( :277 , , ) (, .
;) (136 , ( ) : 153-151 , ) (
.91-86 , , ) (13 , . - O .S .[
189
M O DERN H EBREW A N D ISR A ELI HEBREW
[ 3 0 9 -3 1 0
c. M endele M okher Sefarim Creator o f M odern Hebrew

309. The process o f assimilation that followed in the wake o f the
H askalah was halved to some extent tow ards the end o f the century when
the im portant new force o f Zionism appeared in the arena of Jewish
history. With its arrival, H literature abandoned the tendency to try to induce the Jews to assimilate. Now, on the contrary, Hebrew literature
became nationalistic. But this change in the literature was preceded by a
very im portant change in the H language itself, which served to create
m odem H.
Jews in C entral E urope had ample opportunity to learn the languages of
their neighbors and in this way to satisfy their cultural needs. But in
Eastern Europe, non-Jewish culture was not made available, and hence H
had to be the vehicle o f secular learning for the Jews. The Maskilim used
BH because o f their contem pt for the Jewish life of their generation. But for
many reasons, BH turned out to be rather ill suited to meeting these
cultural needs. T hus a new H had to come into being; it was created by
Mendele M okher Sefarim (the pen name o f A.S. Abram ow itz). Mendele is
also considered the father o f modern Yiddish literature and style. He is
apparently the only writer who created two literary languages Hebrew
and Yiddish. While other Hebrew writers, owing to the deficiency o f their
BH language, often wrote not what they intended to write but what they
were able to write, M endele did not fool himself. Once he decided to translate his Yiddish into Hebrew, he felt compelled to create a Hebrew
language of his own which would reficct his Yiddish precisely.
1. The Elem ents o f H is Language: B H , M H , Aram aic, M edieval Hebrew
and Yiddish. 310. In contrast to BH, the language Mendele created has
m any components. He and his followers made extensive use o f the BH
vocabulary, but M H plays a large part in it, too. A nd once and for all, they
alm ost entirely abandoned the BH tense system with its hazy notions of
time which made it so difficult to use. Instead, a clear-cut system o f three
tenses, past, present participle and future was adopted, apparently under
the (m istaken) notion th at this was M H usage (cf. above 218). The cohortative and the jussive were eliminated, and as to the infinitive, there is a sort
o f compromise so that its use is quite fluid. On the other hand, the Biblical
stems are used alm ost in their entirety, and the M H N itpaal (see 211) is
not neglected.
In Mendeles Hebrew there is a good deal of A ram aic, a source which he
190
dropped in his later writings. M endele also drew heavily upon the P rayer
Book, Medieval H ebrew and other popular literature. N aturally, the more
familiar a text was from the P rayer Book, such as the G race after M eals or
from the Passover H aggadah, the greater were the chances that its
vocabulary would be accepted. T h u s the Bible, the com m entary o f Rashi
(cf. 276), certain M idrashim and the like, were more readily accepted.
M oreover, there was a kind of oral Hebrew element that had developed in
the D iaspora which was not necessarily in literature (see below). Finally,
Yiddish, as spoken by Jew s in E astern E urope also influenced the new
language.
We have selected a passage from Mendel which we shall analyse below.
;
, , , , ,
.
: , .
? , ,
? , ,
...! .
, ,
... , ,
) from the beginning o f I The Travels o f Benjam in the
.)]Th ird
In the passage above, certain phrases im mediately remind us of Biblical
expressions; for cf. Jo b 28, 4, for .cf
Isa. 22, 16 and is a verbatim quote from E x . 1, 10 .
, , are M H and , are of A ram aic
origin . originated in R ashis phrase
) This (difficult) verse cries for a (homiletic
explanation . verse was turned here into case, a change not to
be found in the classical sources but originating in the everyday speech of
scholars . can not be anything but the (H ebrew (Yiddish
, since the prper meaning o f the Hebrew phrase would be
!an im portant poor m an, which Mendele certainly did not intend
The Hebrew style developed by Mendele and his school has rem ained
more or less unchanged until today, but we m ust not forget th at in Eastern
Europe H ebrew w as a written, not a spoken language Yiddish w as the
everyday tongue o f the people ,
191
M O DE R N HEBR EW A N D ISR A ELI H EBR EW
[ 3 1 0 -3 1 1
M oreover, even before M endele developed his new style (in his first
period), he revived and coined several nam es o f anim als while translating a
zoological composition, and also created several w ords, e.g., m atch.
L itera tu re:
Mendeles language has not been properly investigated except for
159 , ,) ( , , . which
deals with certain com ponents o f his language, e.g., the P ray er Book, pp.
162-166.
The essays on his style are disappointing, see for example
, , , ..
; , , ,
, , , , .
; VII ,
. 31-23 , ) 0 - 0 (- , . .
R aw nitzky denies the influence o f Yiddish on M endeles Hebrew. But cf.
, , .
) ( p. 111. Also see E.M. Lipschtz, op. cit. (308), p. 21.
F o r terms coined by Mendele see
. 348-336 , 219-205 , ,) ( , . .
2. M endele s Language Only a Vehicle o f Literature. 311. The

language created by Mendele w as intended to be a literary medium only.
Mendele neither believed in nor w as interested in the revival o f Hebrew. In
this respect he was a M askil; the language which he created w as to serve
only as a tool of the H askalah, in other w ords, to further assimilation. In
one o f his short stories, he m ocks at those who try to speak
Hebrew. It is said that H .N . Bialik wanted him to be elected an honorary
ments as the creator of a Hebrew literary idiom, but M. Ussishkin prevented it because the goal o f the association w as the revival o f H ebrew as a
spoken language.
L itera ture:
; - ,
. 15 , , 19.5.1967 , .
192
3 1 2 -3 1 3 ]
II.
Hebrew Revived in Palestine
312. Meanwhile, however, at the end of the nineteenth century,

societies for the revival of H ebrew as a spoken language sprang up in
Eastern Europe and Russia. L ater on, during the period between the W orld
W ars schools were established in Poland, Lithuania and elsewhere, in
which Hebrew was employed at least partly as the language o f instruction.
Nonetheless, Hebrew did not stand any real chance o f becoming a spoken
language in Europe.
It w as only in Palestine that this goal could be realized because o f the
special conditions that obtained there. Jerusalem and other cities were inhabited by Jews from all corners of the world. They spoke Yiddish, JudeoSpanish, A rabic and other languages. Hebrew was the only medium in
which all these Jew s could com m unicate with each other. In addition, the
im m igrants who began to come to Palestine at the end o f the nineteenth
century to live in the agricultural settlements had to determine the language
of instruction for their children. There was the tem ptation to use French,
and later G erm an or English because of the cultural activities of the French
Alliance Isralite and G erm an Ezra organizations. But Zionism decided in
favor o f Hebrew. In 1913-1914 Hebrew had to fight for dom inance in the
schools. It was mainly the Jewish teachers who opposed the G erm an
Jewish organization E zra which intended to use G erm an at the Technion
which was about to be built in Haifa. The ensuing struggle decided the fate
of the Hebrew language; since its victory, the status of Hebrew has never
again been in doubt in the Jewish State. Hebrew was established as the
language o f instruction in every official institution o f learning from kindergarten to the universities.
Literature:
[Bar-Adon, op. cit. (307), pp. 5 8 -9 2 , 128-164;
Fellman, The Revival (307), pp. 2 7 -5 5 , 94-111. O.S.]
a. E liezer Ben Yehuda
313. Yet all these achievements would not have been possible w ithout
the efforts o f E. Ben Yehuda and his circle consisting principally o f J.M .
Pines, Z. Yavetz, D. Yellin, and others. Ben Yehuda moved to Jerusalem
and m ade his own family the first whose children grew up without knowing
any other language but Hebrew. From here, the habit of speaking Hebrew
193
M ODERN HEBREW A N D ISRAELI H EBREW
[ 3 1 3 -3 1 4
spread to other families and by a cooperative effort with the kindergartens

and schools, a Hebrew-speaking com m unity gradually grew up in Jaffa
(later Tel Aviv), Haifa, and the agricultural settlements. The spread of
spoken Hebrew was given added im petus by im m igrants o f the so-called
Second Aliyah (1905), which numbered am ong its distinguished mem bers
David Ben Gurion and David Kimchi.
Literature:
]; 116-67 , , ) ( , .
; 127-83 , , ) (, .
Fellman, The Revival (above 307), pp. 2 7 -9 3 . O.S.
R. Sivan, Ben-Yehuda and the Revival of Hebrew Speech , A riel no. 25
(1969), pp. 35-39.1
b. Va ad Halashon Ha'ivrit (The Hebrew L anguage C om m ittee)

314. It was soon discovered that the revival o f a language created
solely by Mendele M okher Sefarim would not suffice, and so the Vaad
Halashon H aivrit, the Hebrew Language Com m ittee, was created in 1889.
When the State of Israel was established, the C om m ittee becam e the
Academy of the Hebrew Language (see below 459). The m em bers of
Vaad Halashon, the colleagues of Ben Yehuda, were mainly educators
who realized that the process of revival must be accom panied by the
enlargement of Hebrew by new creations. As mentioned above, even the
most basic words used in the kitchen, the school, and in public life, science
and the humanities were lacking. Therefore Vaad H alashon decided;
1) to search diligently among the Hebrew sources BH, M H , Piyyutim
and Medieval scientific and translation Hebrew;
2) to fill the void by creating new w ords;
3) to have recourse also to A ram aic and where necessary, to other
Semitic languages, especially Arabic.
Originally, the Vaad strongly opposed loanw ords from Indo-European
languages, even if they were internationally accepted.
A precursor of Vaad H alashon during the preceeding generation was
the gram m arian M. Schulbaum , a native o f G alicia (then p art o f the
A ustro-Hungarian Empire). Schulbaum had already begun to create new
words very much along the lines that were followed later by Ben Y ehuda.
Apparently Schulbaum did not find the response he had expected am ong
194
3 1 4 -3 1 5 ]
his contem poraries, but it would be interesting to know w hether he influenced Ben Yehuda.
H ow did Hebrew writers outside Palestine react to all these events?
Predictably, some were incredulous. Even two decades later, when the
revival was already an established fact, S. Bernfeld insisted that To m ake
Hebrew a spoken language... is entirely impossible. This (the revival o f a
dead language) never happened to any language.
O thers vehemently opposed the activities of Vaad H alashon which some
called a w ord-factory. Even Ahad H aam, who held progressive views
about language development and criticized those narrow -m inded gram m arians who looked for m istakes in the works of Hebrew w riters disliked
the m ass cration of words by linguists. He felt that new term s should be
coined by writers and only as the occasion and the need arose. J. K lausner,
on the other hand, went all out in defense of the new trend and w as him self
active in the creation of new words.
Literature:
; 110 ,27 , , 1967 , , .
;286 , ) (, .
K lausners answer, ibid. pp. 533ff.;
;(13 , , 1957 , , .)=
; 188 , , ,
; 13 , , ,
[ ; 174- 167 , , ) ( , . O.S.
. M edan, The A cadem y of the Hebrew Language, A riel no. 25 (1969),
pp. 4 0 -4 7 .]
I. A. Change o f Policy in Va'ad H alashon. 315. We have pointed out that

in the course of the revival, IH did not strictly follow the lines laid down
above. The use o f A rabic and other Semitic languages was now practically
out o f the question as sources for enriching IH. F or whereas the early
mem bers of the V aad H alashon, especially those o f Sephardic stock like
Yellin, knew A rabic perfectly, the intelligentsia coming from Europe
possessed a rich knowledge of classical Jewish writings and were disinclined to absorb Semitic roots unknown to them. Also loanw ords, especially those that were internationally accepted, and loan translations
from Yiddish, especially if they were found in medieval R abbinic literature,
195
M O D E R N H E BR EW A N D ISR A ELI H EBR EW
[3 1 4 -3 1 7
could no longer be excluded. These points have to be considered before we

deal with the sources o f Israeli Hebrew.
B. The Sources o f Israeli Hebrew
316. In the following chapters we shall be concerned with the material

that went into the m aking o f IH including material that was rejected or rejected after having first been accepted. The main stress will be on the components m aking IH a fusion language.
Literature:
Unless a special source is indicated, consult the dictionaries listed below for
the sources o f the material in the following pages. The sources o f those
discussions which are the product of my own observations are not, of
course, given. The dictionaries are:
,
(English title: Eliezer Ben Y ehuda o f Jerusalem , A Complete D ictionary o f
A ncient a n d M odern H ebrew , I-X V I [with Prolegomena in a separate
volume], 1910-1959);
; - , , .
; , , .
; , 5 , .
[6th edition, 1973;
.1969 , , . O.S.]
I. B iblical Hebrew
a. S y n ta x R ejected
317. BH is the m ost im portant constituent o f IH vocabulary,
phraseology (to some extent), and morphology o f the verb and noun (conjugation and declension). But except for the Hebrew in childrens books,
BH syntax was alm ost entirely rejected and with it all the m orphosyntactic
aspects o f the verb that are the main features o f BH. In this respect IH
closely follows the M H pattern. (See above 218).
196
3 1 8 -3 1 9 ]
T h e S o u rces o f Israeli H eb rew
b. M orphology
318. Therefore, not only were all the archaic forms o f BH rejected (see
above 207, 208), but also the consecutive tenses, the cohortative, the infinitive absolute m ore or less, and the infinitive construct (except for the
plus and plus infinitives forms, e.g., )On the other hand, those
elem ents o f the verb which were retained were generally in their BH and
not their M H form s. The rem aining perfect, im perfect, and infinitive construct m ostly conform to the BH pattern. This also applies to the weak
verbs and stem s. T o be sure, there are differences in these respects am ong
H ebrew w riters. T hose who are m ore inclined to use M H, among them
A gnon, prefer such form s as , , to their BH equivalents
, , (cf. above 212). But the differences here are minimal.
The declensions o f the noun are those of BH. (To be sure, MH forms were
practically unknow n since they were discovered only in the last generation,
see above 212). A few cases such as against your will exhibit
the M H form , since these forms are not directly derived from MH but cam e
into IH via Yiddish. Here we see th at the long arm o f the purists was not
able to reach into every nook and corner of the spoken idiom during the
period o f the D iaspora.
The personal pronouns are also more or less those o f BH (but see416),
but the BH conjunctions, e.g., , have practically disappeared. A
certain Jerusalem professor who continues to use since immediately
betrays his form er m em bership in the Jerusalem circle (Ben Yehuda, Yellin,
etc.) which followed BH in this area m ore strictly than did the writers who
cam e from E astern Europe (Bialik, etc.) (see in detail 453).
c. V ocabulary
319. Practically all the SBH vocabulary was taken over by IH.
Problem s arose only when this vocabulary clashed morphologically and
sem antically with th at o f M H (see later 320, 328). The same applies to
LBH. W herever the synonym of a certain root could not be found in SBH
or M H , IH did not hesitate to employ the archaic root; for example, 3 to
lead fo rth (D eut. 33, 22) is used both with this meaning and the M H sense
o f to sp u rt. B ut w hat about the A BH -SBH synonym s 1 1 do,
and 1 hear? Very often ABH roots provided IH with the raw
material so necessary for coining the m any verbs and nouns required by a
m odern language, m aterial unavailable in the early Hebrew sources. F or
example, ^w as assigned the specific m eaning listen to the radio, 1
197
M ODERN HEBREW A N D ISRAELI HEBREW
[319-320
to be active with the adjective active, derived from it and

activity.
1. Clash between B H and M H Avoided. 320. Occasionally SBH was discarded when it clashed with LBH and MH. A very good case in point is the
use o f 1 to w ant. It was discarded except by American Hebrewspeaking Jews, and was replaced by LBH and MH 1 . On the other
hand, MH 1 to take could not dislodge BH 1 . The use o f 1 to
buy (mainly M H) did not impinge on 1 in IH (as it did in MH). The MH
form and meaning prevail only in the noun 1 buyer, custom er obviously because in MH the verb 1 is very often employed with the meaning to take (see above 227). On the other hand, 1 was a welcome addition to the vocabulary since its MH form provided the lexeme for the
noun, whereas 1 is needed for the verbal expression in the present tense
1 meaning mainly he buys.
Still, it is quite difficult to ascertain why in certain cases the MH lexeme
was preferred or rejected. H. Rosn and A. Bendavid seem to be right in
assuming that one of the main reasons was the tendency to avoid
homonymie and polynymic clashes. IH prefers sun to ( mainly
MH), since the latter is also the feminine of the adjective hot. The same
applies to km oon\ rather than the mainly MH . Instead of MH
death, BH (is employed in IH since the former is homonym ous
with bed. MH now is preferred to BH because of
you. A nother reason advanced by Rosn is that of association. Freedom
is ( BH) or ( M H) but not 1( BH), since there are several other
common IH adjectives, nouns and verbs derived from these roots:
free, vacat i on, 1 free man, to liberate, free, but none
from 1 .
To be sure, in many of the cases which Rosn and Bendavid discuss,
other reasons could be advanced, for example, frequency in MH, but both
tendencies which these scholars refer to seem well established.
Bendavid, I think, rightly assumes that preference was very often given
to a Hebrew lexeme that was in use in Yiddish, e.g., 1( mainly M H ) to
err, rather than 1 , 1 mainly BH, see below.
A triradical normal root also seems to have been preferred. Thus M H
to begin is dom inant rather than BH .
Sometimes the clash was resolved by assigning the two terms to different
198
3 2 0 -3 2 1 ]
dom ains, e.g., BH 1 is judge, but the mainly M H ;is judge of a rabbinical co u rt.
In m any cases the problem of BH and M H synonym y is still unresolved,
e.g., between BH nb and here. O f course, certain writers such as
A gnon, prefer M H in these and other cases.
BH w ords which were not needed in IH because other w ords had
replaced them (and sometimes even such th at were needed) received new
m eanings, e.g., = BH beryl, IH revolver; 1 = BH snare, trap ,
IH m ine'; = BH electrum , IH electricity (and cf. below 321,
324).
Literature:
( 92 , , , , .
; ) , (98 ;) ,
; 3- 2 , , , 2 , .
. 200 , , ) ( , .
2. W hy W as the Use o f B H Vocabulary Opposed 321. The tendency to
avoid BH in coining new term s in IH still prevails to a certain extent. This
tendency is the result of two opposing attitudes. The first, while not opposed to BH as such, m aintains th at all the BH material that did not survive in M H is dead m atter and should, therefore be ignored for the purposes o f IH , a view maintained by the late J. K lausner. Therefore, instead
of, e.g., BH it is necessary, he employs M H ; instead o f
ship he uses . In the Encyclopaedia H ebraica, o f which he was an
editor, all the participles of the HiPil fem. sing, had to appear in the M H
form (with the ending -et) rather than the BH form, e.g., invites (and
not ) . This attitude was rejected. As Avineri points out, IH has
revived the m ajority o f the more than 800 w ords th at did not survive in
M H . Som e o f them are used with their original meaning, e.g., ;ship,
and som e were assigned new meanings, e.g., m onastery, m onk.
Even a w ord like ( from Gen. 15, 2 ) , as yet unexplained, is
em ployed (on the basis of the context in which it appears) with the meaning
of household m anagem ent, farm . W ith equal lack o f success, K lausner
opposed the use o f this and other hapax legomena (words that appear only
once in BH).
The second attitude was much more reasonable. It insisted th at the exploitation o f BH for coining IH w ords m ust be restricted lest the new m ean
199
M O DER N H E BR EW A N D ISRAELI H EBREW
[ 3 2 1
ing assigned to biblical roots eventually m ar our understanding o f the Bible.

Two instances may illustrate the correctness o f this view. The BH 1
snare, tra p m eans mine in IH , so that Israeli youngsters reading Deut. 7,
16, for example, might understand that when one stepped on a C anaanite,
he exploded under ones feet! O ther examples tested in classes from
elem entary schools to the university yielded the sam e picture. Young
Israelis were asked, W hat is the translation o f the verse
1 1( Gen. 49:6)? Almost no one was able to explain the
second part o f the verse because in IH 1 means wish. How can one
maim oxen w ithout wishing to? Some even attem pted to explain its m eaning as evil wish. But in SBH 1 does not mean wish but pleasure, and
therefore, the Jewish Publication Society translation correcdy renders the
verse, F o r when angry they slay man and when pleased they main oxen ,
meaning they are dangerous in w hatever wood they happen to be. As is well
known, this difficulty arises in translating early texts in any language. Since
words sometimes change their meaning only imperceptively, everyday
usage m ay lead the reader and even the scholar to m isunderstand the early
text. This danger is present also in translating Middle High G erm an into
M odern G erm an, as put by Saran and Nagel:
A translation from Middle High G erm an is seemingly very easy,

but as a m atter of fact very difficult... [becausel in nearly every word
we have to distinguish between the Sprachgefhl o f Middle High
G erm an and M odern G erm an... M any words appear in M odern German with quite different or entirely new m eanings.
So for this reason it may have been a blessing for the Jews th at H ebrew
died out 1800 years ago before it had the chance to develop too far from
BH and M H , as was the case, for example, with modern Syriac dialects
with relation to Old Syriac (see below 364, 513).
L iterature:
F. S aran -B . Nagel, D as bersetzen aus dem M ittelhochdeutschen3,
Tbingen 1957, pp. 1-3;
; 101 , ,) ( , .
[H.B. Rosn, Contem porary H ebrew , The Hague and Paris 1977, pp.
30 -3 7 . O.S.]
200
3 2 2 -3 2 4 ]
II. Biblical Hebrew Inscriptions

322. One word, found only in the Siloam inscription (cf. 92), namely
tunnel is utilized in IH , vocalized .
III. The D ead Sea Scrolls and the B a r Koseba Letters

323. Since the D ead Sea Scrolls were discovered only recently (1947),
they have, o f course, had no hand in shaping IH . But strangely enough, the
phrase to hold fast which seems to be a caique from G erm an,
was found there with the same (or similar) meaning.
I w as also surprised to discover in the Bar K oseba letters (see above
193) the verb with the exact meanings as in Israeli Hebrew, i.e. not
only to be troubled but also to care for, a use which at first sight seems to
be a caique from G erm an sorgen. To be sure, it does seem to be employed
in this sense in Ben Sira (cf. above 127). good bye in the Bar
K oseba letters is identical with IH usage, but so far, no other early source
for this expression has turned up.
These and m any other instances (see, e.g., 366, 368) indicate that IH
usage, even when seemingly prom pted by foreign influence, was sometimes
shaped unwittingly in the spirit of the classical sources.
L iterature:
, , .
; 10 , ( )
, [ = 9 , ; ( ) 124-123 , ( ) , .
]. , - ,
IV. The Septuagint

324. One BH word received its meaning in IH because o f its translation
in the Septuagint. J.L. G ordon employed the BH ( ^(with the meaning
electricity because the Septuagint translated it by the Greek elektron. Its
original m eaning is still uncertain.
201
MODERN HEBREW A N D ISRAELI HEBREW
[ 3 2 4 -3 2 7
Literature:
B. Landsberger, in Hebrische Wortforschung: Festschrift...
Baum gartner (above 22), pp. 190ff.;
W. von Soden, ibid. p. 298;
. 201-200 , , ) ( , .
W alter
V. M ishnaic Hebrew
325. M H had very little effect on IH morphology (see above 307). As
pointed out by A. Bendavid, the reason is obvious; until very recently
Hebrew gram m ar was BH and not MH whose morphology was scarcely
known (see above 212, 318).
a. Noun Patterns.
326. IH copied mainly from MH the noun patterns of the verbal substantive of the Qal, e.g. watching, Piel e.g., speech, and H ifil
e.g., invitation (see above 213).
The Babylonian form of the nomen agentis, e.g., is also very
widespread, while the Palestinian form 1 is not, and small wonder, since
the latter form was discovered in manuscripts only during the last few
decades, (ibid.). But both types are utilized with the root ; patient,
1 tolerant. The nominal type 1( ibid.) is not widespread in IH , apparently because it is identical with the infinitive absolute which was also
dropped.
However, it is in IH syntax that MH is all but dom inant. The tenses of
IH are identical with those which until very recently were supposed to have
been the tenses of MH (see above 218).
The same is more or less true of the infinitives: the infinitive absolute was
dropped altogether, while the construct is mainly employed with )
to guard), less often with ) 1 while leaving) where a relative clause
is more often employed ( ^when he left). As the relative pronoun MH
( and not BH ) is preferred.
b. S yn ta x
327. The genitive construction is very much alive, although the construction with is also widespread, both in the form and 1
the kings house. The MH independent possessive pronoun, e.g.
202
3 2 7 -3 2 9 ]
my house, plays an im portant role in IH (see below 443). As

m entioned above (216) originally was not separated from the following
noun.
Since the IH tense system is modelled after M H , the whole make-up of
the syntax, inasm uch as it is Hebrew, resembles M H and not BH (see also
434-441).
c. Vocabulary
328. M H is a rich source of IH vocabulary and continues to provide IH
with an uninterrupted flow o f new roots. As happened to BH itself (see
above 123), here, too, the synonym ic clash was sometimes resolved by
differentiation, i.e., assigning different meanings, consciously or subconsciously, to the B H -M H synonym s, e.g., to love is 1 in BH, in
M H. T oday has come to mean to like. 1 w agon (from Latin;
English car) is now used only with the meaning (railway) coach. 1 1
w ar (from G reek) is employed with the meaning o f polemics; counted, entered for a share in the sacrifice becam e a subscriber (to a
new spaper). attachm ent is now branch (of a bank, etc.). (See at
length above 319, 320).
Literature:
;7 ,)320 ( 2 , .
;202 , 59 , , ) ( , .
d. Secondary Sources as a Channel between M H and IH
329. There seems, however, to be one im portant difference between the
use o f BH and M H . The M askilim who revived Hebrew were thoroughly
acquainted with BH, and the average Jew was also quite familiar with certain parts of it (the Pentateuch, Psalm s, and other books). Therefore, both
parties could supply the revived language with BH vocabulary directly.
The situation with regard to M H was different, for the material from this
source often cam e indirectly, via various secondary sources such as
R ashis com m entaries on the Pentateuch, the P rayer Book, and the
M ahzor (prayer book) o f the High Holidays. W ords and expressions that
occur frequently in these sources or figure prom inently in certain im portant
prayers had a better chance o f entering IH even if they were rare in the M H
prim ary sources.
W e can safely assum e that the expression finished (of A ram aic
203
M O D E R N H E B R E W A N D ISR A E L I H EBR EW
[ 3 2 9 -3 3 0
origin) entered IH from the Passover H aggadah with the phrase

the order o f P assover is ended as did the expression {
(literally), w hat has changed with the phrase why is
this night different?. A good instance o f how the above-m entioned rule
might also apply to BH to a certain extent is the history o f the word ,
originally sigh, uttering. F o r reasons not entirely clear, this word which
appears in P salm s: 1 our years come to an end like a sigh
(90, 9) is explained as helm by the M idrash. It is scarcely credible that the
revivers should have noticed this passage in an obscure M idrash. But one
o f the P aytanim in the course of his diligent search for rare w ords in the
H ebrew and A ram aic R abbinic sources (cf. 266) did seize upon it and so
it cam e to appear in the fam ous Piyyut whose first line is ^ ?
which figures very prom inently in the prayer o f the Eve o f the D ay
o f A tonem ent, in the stanza which begins ^ ? like a rudder in the hand o f the sailor. F o r this reason the word was well known to
the average Jew and hence its way into IH was facilitated. It is employed to
mean both ru d d er and steering wheel.
Literature:
W. Bacher, M o n a tssch rift f r die Geschichte und W issenschaft des Judentu m s, 41 (1887), pp. 4 0 3 -4 0 4 .
VI. M edieval Hebrew

a. P iyyutim
330. Few o f the w ords and roots which the Paytanim created entered
IH . As pointed out above (267), the P aytanim s revolutionary m ethods of
creating new roots and form s met with stiff opposition in medieval Spain
during the H ebrew renascence there. As this renascence was a model for
the revivers, they shared its dislike o f the Paytanic language to such an extent th at they described this debased style by using the first w ords o f a certain Piyut 1 . O ne o f the few words which IH did accept,
however, is to w ish, and one o f the few nouns is energy,
although the m eaning energy is not identical with its meaning as employed
by the Paytanim . A nother noun, \ , an ungram m atical coinage of the
P aytanim (cf. above 266) figures prom inently in the P rayer Book and that
explains why it entered IH in elevated prose (= activity).
204
331- 334]
T h e S o u r c e s o f Israeli H eb rew
b. Kabbala
331. Several w ords and phrases o f IH can be traced back to the K abbalistic literature, e.g., n aked o r in the phrases
1 , 1 was corrected.
L iterature:
; 215 ' , 183 , 177 , ,) ( , ..
[M .Z. K addari, The M edieval H eritage o f M odern H ebrew Usage, Tel
Aviv 1970 (H ebrew with English sum m ary), pp. 9 1 -1 0 6 . O.S.]
c. The Scientific Translations

332. Since some o f this literature continued to be studied and read
throughout the ages, it is not surprising th at even today it is a source of
scientific and philosophical terminology.
The w ords clim ate and diam eter o f G reek origin, cam e
from A rabic via the medieval Hebrew translations. A nother new Hebrew
verb to concentrate, was added to IH from < ( A rabic m arkaz)
center. geom etry, engineering in IH was originally Persian and is
found as a loanw ord in the Talm ud. It cam e into H ebrew by translation
from A rabic (cf. above 273).
d. Arabic via M edieval Hebrew

333. A pparently in the early R abbinic literature the root ( BH and
M H) also acquired the A rabic m eaning to co p y . The nouns 0!) text and
prescription, form ula etc. are much in evidence mainly in the seientific language o f IH .
1. Caiques. 334. A rabic caiques abound, e.g., 1 to loot > to negate,

since the parallel A rabic root (sll) has both m eanings (which is itself a loan
translation from Greek strsis), and hence the IH adjective
negative; com position (book, etc.); reality. The. medical
translators also coined many adjectives from nouns simply by adding the
suffix l-i], e.g., artificial. In BH and M H this pattern is still
restricted alm ost entirely to gentilics, e.g., Jew . T hanks to the in
fluence of A rabic on Medieval H ebrew, IH now possesses a welcome
derivational suffix for the creation o f nouns as well as adjectives.
205
M O DER N H EBR EW A N D ISRAELI HEBREW
[ 3 3 4 -3 3 6
Literature:
[On the [i] ending:
; 301-297 , ) ( , .
. 244-233 ,ibid. , . O.S.]
e. The Poetry o f Spain

335. Since in principle the poets o f Spain were opposed to the influx of
new roots and forms, and though they did create several (see above 270),
very little material in IH seems to be derived from that sour ce. rhym e
may be one although the verb 1 a caique from A rabic, appears already
in earlier times. A nother one is 1 prisoner o f Zion denoting Jews
imprisoned behind the Iron Curtain because o f Zionist activities. This
phrase originated in a fam ous poem of Yehuda Halevi that begins with the
line 9 1 ^ 1 Zion, do you not ask about the welfare of
your prisoners?
Other M edieval Hebrew Sources

336. (Cf. 284.) IH contains a few words that were coined from
Hebrew roots during the Middle Ages or entered written Hebrew from the
vernacular. Am ong them are a Rabbis wife and booklet. On
the other hand, priest was rejected because of its pejorative overtones
(lit. shaven, tonsured), and today ^ is used.
Sometimes in the spoken language of the Jews, Hebrew words that underwent a change o f meaning came to possess diametrically opposed meanings. A good case in point is . In BH it means pious m an and was
used in this sense in the H asm onean period. During the second half o f the
eighteenth century, there arose in Eastern Europe a sect which called itself Hasidim meaning the pious ones. But since in the course o f time every
Hasid came to belong to the circle o f one rabbi or another, such as the
Rabbi o f G ur or Bobov, the expression ... the Hasid o f acquired
the connotation the adherent of... This meaning became so strong that the
word began to be used even in non-Hasidic circles with the meaning of
adherent. Even Zinberg, the literary historian o f Yiddish could, so I am
told, speak about the H asidim of the M itnagdim despite the fact that the
M itnagdim (O pponents) were the bitter opponents o f the Hasisim! Today
one is no longer surprised to encounter the phrase 0 ] the
adherents o f the C om m unists!
206
337]

V II.
Aramaic
337. A ram aic is the m ost im p o rtan t non-H ebrew source for IH
vocabulary. W e are not referring to the A ram aic loans in BH and M H , for
these were considered integral p arts o f H ebrew at all times. Such a w ord is
deserter which w as coined a generation ago from the verb 1 to
flee which appears only once in BH and did not survive in later H ebrew
sources. R ather, we m ean here those A ram aic elements (m ainly the
A ram aic parts o f the B abylonian T alm ud) th at were not absorbed into the
earlier strata of Hebrew.
A ram aic, which was som ething o f a sacred language to the Jew s for over
two millennia, was m uch better suited to the task o f enlarging IH than was
Arabic because the m ajority o f the im m igrants to Palestine during the
twenties, thirties, and forties hailed from non-A rabic-speaking countries
where they had received a good A ram aic background thanks to their
education in the heder (Jewish elem entary school) and yeshiva (Jewish
Talm udic college) in E astern Europe.
Quite a few A ram aic expressions were em ployed in Yiddish, the vernacular o f m ost o f the im m igrants during th at period, and A ram aic roots
and forms very often entered IH directly from Yiddish, am ong them
anyw ay, a dozen, co n trad icto ry . Some
sem i-Aram aic expressions are having no choice,
in fact.
At least one expression, in aw e, entered IH from a short
prayer in the P rayer Book which is recited by the Hasidim on m any occasions.
M oreover, a large portion o f IH vocabulary was taken from Talm udic
sources, am ong them such w ords as father, m other,
(pronounced ) grandfather, gran d m o th er.
Very com m on are $ I d o n t care as well as as follows,
below, on the other han d (often shortened to ) , and o f
course, m ortgage which plays such a large p art in the econom ic
life of Israel. These and other w ords were taken over in their A ram aic
form w ithout any change o f m eaning. Som etim es an effort w as m ade to
turn the A ram aic form s into H ebrew , but this rarely succeeded, as in
probably (M endele still uses the A ram aic form ; see above
310 in the Hebrew text), while for & $ pretext did n o t gain a
207
M O DER N H E BR EW A N D ISR A ELI H EBR EW
[ 3 3 7 -3 3 9
foothold. A colleague o f mine uses Hebrew 1 instead o f A ram aic

in phrases like ^ coincidence.
Literature:
[K addari, The M edieval H eritage (above 331), pp. 7 6 -7 9 (
.(
a. New C reations fr o m A ram aic Roots

338. Probably even more im portant is the role of A ram aic in providing
material for the creation o f words with new meanings n ot found in the
sources. meaning to localize was form ed from the aram aic noun
(which was itself revived in the meaning archeological site, and even with
the possessive suffix 1* in situ"). F rom the sam e ro o t the M ishna coined
the expression im m ediately which was turned in IH into the verb
to im provise. T o b roadcast is translated by the A ram aic , to
send which gave rise to the nouns broadcasting, tran sm itter.
In games o f sport a tie score is expressed by .
The root was adopted from the Palestinian T alm ud (the only instance o f its kind, as far as I know), thence to react and reaction. A ram aic also provided Hebrew with the prefix ( under, H =
) for creating prepositional com pounds like 1 subconsciousness, subm achine gun. This type o f com pound is still
quite rare in IH , but cf. the H ebrew com pound 1 !superhum an (and
cf. below 363).
The gram m atical influence o f A ram aic on IH is negligible. It can hardly
be possible, as Avineri m aintains, th a t form s like indifferent,
flexible, and breakable were patterned after A ram aic. O ther forms
which Avineri believes to be o f A ram aic origin are already found in BH
and M H and therefore can not belong to this category.
Literature:
. 75 72 , , ,
[Rosn, C ontem porary H ebrew, p. 148 (on ])
b. A ram aic as E levated Style
339. As Rosn has rightly stressed, A ram aic also affected IH
stylistically. In English one can say:
He cam e too soon,= H e arrived prem aturely.
208
339 - 341 ]
now
= at present
It's too bad. = It is regrettable.
The first column represents the colloquial forms, while the second colum n
contains the learned, elegant ones. The learned material is generally o f
non-English (French, Latin) origin. So too, Aramic words and form s in IH
are sometimes employed as learned, higher forms, e.g., H ebrew 1
p^1n=A ram aic nobody contests; Hebrew :^D =A ram aic
) O .K . Rosn therefore opposes K lausners proposal to drop the
A ram aic elements.
Literature:
. 88-84 , ,
c. A ram aic Variant Forms f o r Sem antic Differentiation

340. Rosn is certainly right in pointing out the differences between the
noun patterns o f haqta:la:-aqta:la: e.g., - . Both are o f
A ram aic origin the former being the earlier form (already found in BH,
see above 103); the latter, its younger variant, occurs in M H. IH put this
difference to good use, employing aqtaa: mostly as a verbal noun, e.g.,
is the verbal noun of ;to call up soldiers, while
= air raid w arning.
Literature:
. 85 , , ,
VIII. Arabic
a. Introduced by Ben Yehuda
341. Ben Yehuda believed that A rabic should provide all the roots missing in Hebrew. Though his efforts in this area did not produce m any concrete results, he did find several roots which were absorbed into IH . Some
of them are very widely used, e.g. rare, date, polite,
earnest. to migrate (today emigrate) was also borrowed from
Arabic, but Ben Yehuda considered the root to be Hebrew because o f the
personal name , A braham s maidservant. The same applies to
209
M O DERN HEBREW A N D ISRAELI HEBREW
[ 3 4 1 -3 4 3
sym pathy which he created from an A rabic root that he thought was identical with the root of the BH personal name .
Literature:
I. Chanoch-G arbell, Fremdsprachliche Einflsse im modernen H ebrisch,
Berlin 1930, pp. 32-34;
. ) (152 , , ) (, .
b. Introduced by the Palmach
342. A nother layer of Arabic loanw ords goes back to the forties and
originated mainly in the milieu of the Jewish underground movement. The
( acronym of 1 strike units), an arm o f the H agana held
frequent meetings with the Beduins. It became fashionable for the Palm ach
members to imitate the A rabs in some respects and thus several A rabic
words entered their language, e.g. tall tale and coffee p o t,
both o f which made the rounds during nightly meetings with Beduins.
A nother version maintains that these w ords gained currency in the
Palm ach units trained during World W ar II to operate disguised as Beduins
behind the German lines in N orth Africa.
Literature:
, ) ( , , .
. 12 11 ,
For the other version about the origin of these two w ords see S. Keshet,
H a a r e tz , Oct. 25, 1967, p. 3 (Hebrew).
c. Other Vocabulary Sources
343. postage stam p was taken over from A rabic, but is o f nonArabic origin. Some of the A rabic loans were adapted to their parallel
Hebrew roots, e.g. official, A rabic rasm, which is still sometimes
employed by the older generat i on. store house and ta riff were
absorbed easily since these two A rabic words had been borrowed by m any
European languages and were therefore known to the E uropean Jew s (cf.
English m agazine, from Arabic via French magazine). A pparently the
noun locomotive which appears to be perfect Hebrew (cf. incense, understood as smoke), was coined under the influence o f the
Arabic qitr train even though the origin of the two roots is probably different.
210
3 4 3 -3 4 5 ]
T h e S o u rces o f Israeli H eb r e w
It is obvious that A rabic did not affect the structure of IH , b ut in the

twenties we find new noun formations with the derivational suffix [iyya]
very much in vogue, e.g., city hall, carpenters w orkshop, etc.
This can be explained by Arabic where we find the same suffix, e.g.,
baladiyye city hall. This noun pattern with similar meanings w as so
strenuously opposed that only a few nouns survived, though the pattern
does exist in BH with a different meaning.
Through the daily contact between Jews and A rabs, various everyday
expressions found their way, mainly into substandard Hebrew, e.g.,
prickly fruit of a species of cactus (Hebrew ) , and apricot employed in the Hebrew plural . The plural of spicy fried balls
prepared from chick peas, is but the word itself kept its A rabic
form, as is immediately apparent from the fact that it begins with an [f],
which does not exist in Hebrew in initial position. The main ingredient o f
the falafel is chick peas' (also Arabic).
Practically all of these and the following A rabic loans are penultim ately
stressed (see below 346).
Literature:
;( ( 46 , , ,
Blanc, op. cit. (342), pp. 8 -9 ( etc.);
C hanoch-G arbell, 10c. cit. (341);
[.( , (29-27 , , , O.S.]
1. Climate and Milieu. 344. Even in standard Hebrew is used to
denote a period of hot, dry w eather. In the official w eather report,
however, is the word used. A rab village head superficially
sounds and looks like Hebrew crow ned (except for its spelling!), but
the plural betrays its Arabic origin. The word is stressed on the penultim a
while Hebrew is stressed on the ultima.
, plural , a loan from Italian grosso, is also very often used instead of standard Hebrew 1 $ (a small m onetary unit). [Now, in 1980.
has practically been phased out.]
L iterature:
Blanc, op. cit. (342), pp. 10, 11, 13.
2. E xpressive and Onomatopoetic Words. 345. Expressions like my
211
M O D E R N H E B R EW A N D ISR A ELI H EBR EW
[ 3 4 5 -3 4 7
friend also oh boy (which also betrays its A rabic origin by the [b] instead
o f [v]) is alm ost standard, while now then is still very much substandard as are lousy, idiot (of Turkish origin), happy,
satisfied and fun (with the derived verb to have a good time).
It had been assum ed th at the substandard a shapely girl reflects
Yiddish, but A. B ar-A don has shown th at A rabic is the more likely origin
(similar expressions occur elsewhere). T hrough back-form ation the
m asculine w as form ed, as well as the verb to behave or dress
up like a . /
$1 to hum com es from A rabic, but G erm an sum m en may have
played a p art in its acceptance. O n the other hand, S. Lieberman showed
th at this root occurs with a similar meaning (to m um ble) in MH.
L itera tu re:
31-30 , , - ,) ( , .
, (21-20 , , :) ,(
;) , ,
;264-250 , ,) ( , .
.99 ,) ( , .
3. B orrow ed N ouns Treated as Foreign. 346. S ubstandard A rabic loans
are recognizeable by their accent which rem ains on the original syllable
(see above 344), and by the phonem es /b , k, p / which retain their Arabic
pronunciation [b, k, f] and do not follow the rules o f Hebrew (cf. above
343, 345). T hus such nouns are treated as foreign and cannot be employed with possessive suffixes (e.g., their headm an but not
)* , as are Latin and G reek loans in M H (see above 204).
IX . Yiddish
347. A t first sight, it would seem th at Yiddish influence on Hebrew
m ust be ruled out, for as M ax W einreich puts it:
F rom the inception o f Yiddish and until the eighteenth century, the
influence o f spoken Yiddish upon the A shkenazic version o f written
rabbinical Hebrew was very strong. It was as a reaction against this
co rru p t language th at M odem H ebrew was born: its emphasis on
212
3 4 7 -3 4 8 ]
T h e S o u rces o f Israeli H ebrew
the return to the sources , notably the Bible, resulted in the diminution o f Yiddish influence. In spoken IH , the Yiddish substrate
m akes itself felt so definitely again, that even consistent purists have
to acquiesce in some of these influences on phonemics, morphology,
syntax and vocabulary.
Indeed an analysis o f the language o f Mendele M okher Sefarim (above
310) bears out this contention.
L iterature:
M. W einreich, in U. Weinreich, ed., The Field o f Yiddish, New York
1954, p. 81 n. 19.
a. Phonology
348. Besides the pronunciation of certain phonemes and initial clusters
(see 4 0 9 -4 1 2 , 439), the Ashkenazic influence is felt in the penultimate
stress o f proper nouns; in Sephardic Hebrew the stress is generally on the
ultim ate syllable. W hen most o f the Ashkenazic Jew s in Palestine adopted
the Sephardic pronunciation, the stress of course followed suit. But a few
words with em otional overtones did not submit, for example, , which is
nearly impossible to translate, but means approximately just for spite. It
came into H ebrew from A ram aic via Yiddish and is still stressed mostly on
the first syllable. But it was the personal names which most stoutly resisted
this change o f stress. Even today, one can hear the clear-cut Yiddish
pronunciation M oishe instead o f M osh, especially in informal speech. In
most cases, the realization of the consonants and vowels of the proper
nouns conform s with the Sephardic pronunciation, though the stress does
not, e.g., , 1 , ^ while nam es like ^1 conform entirely.
Place nam es in Israel confirm the hypothesis that Yiddish has influenced
the stress upon m any proper nouns, for the names o f sites known or established before the revival of Hebrew retain the penultimate stress: 1
, , , (for ( , ( ! for :) . C ontrast
, 01 , etc.; place names o f the pattern are a
special case ( *is Arabic). It can be said that this trend gained such
m om entum that it affected even personal names not used in Ashkenazic
Hebrew, e.g., , and the like. This process has made stress distinctive in IH , e.g., ( ^ ; Yaffa is beautiful). Jabotinsky suggested that
213
[ 3 4 8 -3 5 0
this situation be left as it was, but this met with heavy opposition in official
circles. Concerning the consonants, see below 409-412.
Literature:
E.Y. Kutscher, Modern Hebrew and Israeli Hebrew , Conservative
Judaism X /3 (1956), p. 38.
b. Morphology
349. The Slavic derivational suffix [-nik] as in 1 member o f a
moshav (a type o f agricultural settlement) entered IH via Yiddish, as did
the suffixes [-tshik], e.g. small and [ le], e.g. daddy
(childrens talk). These suffixes did not alter the original position o f the
stress.
c. S yn ta x
350. Unlike the caiques described below (359), Yiddish (and European) interference are most strongly felt in the domain of syntax. Even the
word order of outstanding writers came under its influence. Two instances
will illustrate this point.
Years ago, I showed several friends a com m entary on Isaiah written by a
Jewish scholar and asked them to tell me what was wrong with the title,
. None of them realized that this word order is nearly nonexistent in BH and M H , for in BH it is always ; the names of
the other prophets (with one exception) also occur in this order as do most
nouns in apposition with proper nouns. The exceptions are words like
m an or king which in IH always come before personal names as in
the instances quoted above. The reason is readily apparent from English
the Prophet Isaiah. The same is true of nouns like 1 doctor,
director, 1 author which come before the name, contrary to what we
would expect on the basis of BH and MH usage. To the best of my
knowledge, even purists have never taken exception to this usage.
If an Israeli is asked to translate the English sentence the house is big,
he will give 1 or use the copula 1 . Only rarely, if
pressed, might he ofTer a third construction 1 . Yet the second
construction, so widely used in IH , exists neither in BH nor in M H (except
for the identity clause as is 01 Joseph was the vizier, Gen.
42, 6 where both subject and predicate are determined). In BH and M H we
find either the first construction without the copula, or the third construc
214
3 5 0 -3 5 2 ]
tion with the copula after the predicate. (The copula also follows the
predicate in the 1 big is the house type o f construction, where
the sentence begins with the predicate). Incidentally, this is the case with all
Semitic languages possessing a copula. The second construction, o f course,
reflects the influence of Yiddish, French, G erm an, and English where the
copula com es between the subject and predicate.
The most astonishing fact is that not only did this replica form ation in
IH pass uncontested, but it was not even recognized as an intruder by
writers and em inent Hebrew scholars. Surely an outstanding sign o f the
depth o f the influence of the foreign substrata upon IH is the fact that it is
found even in the works of such classical Hebrew writers as Bialik. But
while writers o f the last generation scarcely use the classical word order, we
do find it occasionally in the works of authors who keep close to classical
Hebrew. Yet as far as I know, this is the case mainly in quotations or quasiquotations from the classical sources. Only future research will reveal
w hether this is merely an isolated case o f extreme deviation from the pattern of classical Hebrew syntax.
L iterature:
[On the influence o f E uropean languages in the use o f the copula in literary
A rabic and Hebrew see , , p. 85f. O.S.]
d. Prepositions
351. Hebrew writers were sometimes unconsciously influenced in their
use o f prepositions by their Yiddish or other substrata. A fam ous Hebrew
writer once told me: If I say it depends on him (instead of
1 ) ipso facto it proves that this is correct H ebrew . But as a m atter of
fact, he em ployed the preposition instead o f because of his Yiddish (or
G erm an) substratum . M oreover, since Yiddish m it with parallels Hebrew
, even authors like Bialik wrote 1 1( instead o f 1 ) the
m urderer with his axe, although he did change it in later editions.
to look a t instead o f ... is another instance o f Yiddish (or G erm an)
interference, and is very often employed with the meaning o f am ong,
e.g.,
poetry am ong the Jew s, because of
m an) bei (= F ren ch chez).
e. Use o f the S tem s
352. It is believed that + imperfect denoting the jussive, e. g. , let
him go is a Yiddish caique, but this requires clear-cut proof.
215
M O D E R N H EB R EW A N D ISR A E L I H E B R E W
( 3 5 2
One very im portant trait o f the IH verb originating in Yiddish has been
noted by H. Blanc. U nder Slavic influence, the Yiddish verb developed
aspectoid distinctions wherein plain action is contrasted with ilnstantaneous or abrupt variety o f the sam e action , e.g., ix srayb I write vs. ix
gib a srayb I am writing for a m om ent (gib from gebn to give). In cases
o f the plain verb vs. prefixated verb... the contrast is between a plain verb
with imperfective lexical m eaning and a prefixated verb with perfective lexical meaning , e.g., slofn to sleep vs. aynslofn to fall asleep where the
second verb denotes transition from some other state or action to the state
or action denoted by the first mem ber.
The first trait is to be found in IH in expressions construed o f a noun
plus the verb 1 give (= Yiddish gebn), e.g., 1=( gebn a sprung)
to ju m p , 1( gebn a klung) to ring, phone.
M ore im portant than these su b stan d ard phrases is the fact that there
are a num ber o f H ebrew verb pairs... qata l vs. niqtal o r qatal vs. h itq a tte r
which are functionally equivalent to some Yiddish pairs o f the second
type , e.g., 1( zicn) to be sitting, ( /a vekj zecn zex) to sit dow n;
1( lign) to be lying dow n, [( avekl leygn zix), to lie dow n; 1
steyn) to stand, [( avek! stein z ix , opsteln zix ) to stand up, to com e
to a halt; 1( gedenken) to rem em ber, ( derm anen zix ) to recall to
m ind.
B lancs basic assum ption is certainly correct, with several restrictions,
most o f which he him self pointed out. Som e o f the pairs listed in his article,
e.g., 1 to be afraid, to becom e frightened are attested already in
BH. The pairs qatal-niqtal, qatal-hitqattel already appear in BH but especially in M H with the sam e function. In BH, for example, 1 means
both to rem em ber and to recall to m ind, while M H em ployed
(see 218) I rem em ber, } $ it occurs to me, I recall. The very fact
that the N ifal is used rather than the Qal as in the last two cases, would indicate that Yiddish alone could not be the sole m otivating force behind this
development. IH has practically ceased to employ the N ifal as a reflexive,
whereas in the parallel Yiddish the reflexive form is used (see above).
Therefore, in my opinion, this trend is the product o f polygenesis, i.e., it
was brought about by several facto rs: Yiddish, elem ents from BH and MH
(e.g., 1) , and analogy. Since in BH 1 = to stan d , = to
come to a halt, there arose , and later , as well as other instances
listed by Blanc.
216
3 5 2 -3 5 6 ]
L iterature:
H. Blanc, Some Yiddish Influences in Israeli H ebrew , in U. W einreich,
ed., The Field o f Yiddish, Second Collection, The H ague 1965, pp.
185-201; esp. 190-196.
f
Vocabulary
353. IH vocabulary contains quite a few Yiddishisms, but except for
caiques, they are mostly substandard. They are o f the following types:
I. W ords o f Yiddish Origin. 354. 1\ to play a trick (= G erm an

K unst) is entirely substandard, while a campfire party (Yiddish
come, sit dow n!) is now practically standard. T he noun show ing-off
and the verb derived from it ^ to show o f, from G erm an schwitzen
to sw eat, are rather more substandard than standard.
2. Classical Hebrew Words A bsorbed in IH via Yiddish. 355.
bully, parvenue employed by Bialik(!), is a good instance o f this type.
A nother is excuse which was widely em ployed in the Middle Ages in
Talm udic discussions with the meaning answer, solution to a problem. In
this way it came to mean in Yiddish a feeble answ er, excuse and is used
with this meaning in IH (cf. also below 392).
Literature:
.(1958), 72' ( ) XVIII , .
3. Hebrew Words in Yiddish Form. 356. In the case o f the rabbi
employed even by Bialik, the addition o f the definite article to a noun
plus a possessive suffix is only possible because , as in Yiddish, is treated
as an uninflected noun (and cf. BH the equivalent, Lev. 27, 23).
But mostly, such words are not standard, e.g., rebbe, a form o f address
to an Eastern European rabbi; the gang, the boys (originally
society, group); berye (Hebrew ) creature; and bitxn (Hebrew
1) . A speaker at a Zionist C ongress once told his audience th at the
Jews need not only 1 safety, security but also bitilxn tru st (in G od).
One may say to a teacher $ you teach, but if he is told, you are a
m eldm ed (the Old W orld heder teacher pronounced with the
penultimate stress, as in Yiddish), he will be quite offended.
Only rarely does IH take over bodily a Yiddish com pound both of
217
M O DER N HEBREW A N D ISRAELI H ' f REW
[ 3 5 6 -3 6 0
whose members are Hebrew but which is formed according to a Yiddish

pattern. This does not apply to Yiddish yeshive boxer (student o f a rabbinical academ y), since in IH it appears correctly as . But
( ]the Purim festival o f Susa) was taken over exactly in this form,
whereas in Hebrew it should be .
The story behind the loanword 1 ra t is interesting. It goes back to
a Yiddish com pound whose mem bers are Hebrew 4( m ouse +
head), a pjorative nicknam e apparently meaning thief, derived from
G erm an M a u sk o p f th ie f which still appears in G rim m s dictionary. This
word cam e into IH in its Yiddish form with a changed meaning, closer to
the original.
L iterature:
;(1957), 55-52 ( ) XVI I , .
( 55-52 , ) (, .]). O.S.]
4. H ebrew -Yiddish Com pounds. 357. The most comm on example is
a regular guy, one of the boys, resourceful (lit. man of the ,
Yiddish xevre).
5. Yiddish Words o f Slavic Origin. 358. N ud n ik nuisance has even
yielded a quasi-H ebrew root to pester. Hebrew-speakers are no
longer aw are o f this origin and are convinced th at it is from Hebrew to
swing, especially since to pester is also employed.
6. Loan Translations and Replica Formations. 359. These are quite
num erous, e.g., 1 in the phrase 1 , Yiddish vu halten
m ir? where do we stand? (e.g., in readings in class). H alten originally
meant to stand, but because it also means to hold it was interpreted as
meaning to hold and is translated by 1 to stand. Further examples are
1 ,s gayt nisht it is not going well; 1' s klapt it w orks, 1
m axt e lebn he is having a good time; and ^ er hot m ir
g m a xt a lox in kop he pestered me. The H ebrew verb 1 is employed
in the H itpael meaning yearn to since in Yiddish the reflexive is
used es hot six im fa rg lu zt. (Cf. above 352.)
g. Yiddish as a C hannel fo r C lassical H ebrew a n d A ram aic Words
360. It is quite probable that m any Hebrew and A ram aic words, es-
218
T h e S o u r c e s o f Israeli H eb rew
3 6 0 -3 6 2 ]
pecially from M H, were absorbed into IH via Yiddish. As mentioned

above, some o f these words are im mediately identifiable owing to their
penultimate stress, e.g., or by the special form ation o f the possessive
pronoun, e.g., ,( ^ cf. 318, 348, 355, 356,463). Very
prom inent among these are particles with em otional overtones, e.g.,
(stressed pre-penultimately) on the co n trary ; $ (here the penultim ate
stress is legitimate) even; in short; m ainly; simply;
if only; , to spite. Since BH lacked counterparts of
these words, IH had to accept them nolens volens. But ^ m aybe, also
of MH origin, meaning possible, was replaced by BH . M ost likely
there are many more Hebrew w ords which Yiddish served to channel into
IH, although this would be hard to prove beyond a doubt. But it is certainly
no coincidence that of the approxim ately one hundred adverbs, adverbial
phrases, and conjunctions in Yiddish, about ninety percent are also employed in IH .
L iterature:
.42 ,(i960) X X , .
X. Judeo-Spanish
361. Judeo-Spanish is the vernacular o f the non-A shkenazic inhabitants of Israel who came originally from Spain. As yet, only a few interferences o f this language with IH have been established. The Hebrew title
for a Sephardic rabbi is which apparently cam e to IH via JudeoSpanish (although the word is also employed by the non-Judeo-Spanish
speaking Oriental Jews). A few substandard expressions are often employed even by Hebrew-speaking housewives, e.g., ' 1 9 1 to mop
the floor. The rag is a spondzador, while the lau n d ry is washed in th e payla
(but in Judeo-Spanish cooking p o t). Pupites sunflower seeds is also in
comm on usage in A shkenazic houses.
X I. O ther E uropean L anguages

a. Vocabulary
362. It is often impossible to determine w hether a certain trait in IH is
219
M O DER N H EBR EW A N D ISRAELI HEBR EW
[ 3 6 2 -3 6 3
due to the interference of Yiddish o r other E uropean languages (as e.g., the
place o f the copula, above 350). It is equally im possible to establish the
relationship between the different E uropean languages. Owing to the contact between these languages, they often contain the sam e phrase, m aking it
impossible to identify the language o f origin. F o r example, o rder o f the
day is ordre du jo u r in French, Tagesordnung in G erm an and
in H ebrew; middle ages is m edium aevum in Latin, moyen ge in
French M ittelalter in G erm an and in H ebrew.
In IH , besides the instances ju st adduced, we have 01 1 polem ics (but
M H w ar), G erm an P olem ik (a G reek loan in all three languages);
(ideological) m ovem ent, G erm an B ew egung; m ap (also tablecloth,
M H napkin), G erm an M appe, Polish m apka (a loan from Latin in these
and other languages); m ask (BH molten im age, from the root ) ,
G erm an M aske ( was adopted with the new m eaning in IH because o f
its phonetic and sem antic similarity to the E uropean words, which are a
loan from A rabic m asxara)\ 1 point o f view, G erm an Gesichtspunkt; 1 the first step, G erm an der erste S c h ritt; 1
devours books verschlingt B cher m G erm an. The hybrid ^1 1
A ssyriology is G erm an Assyriologie. The infinitive + used as an imperative write could be either G erm an or R ussian. The
prepositions 1 1 thanks to G erm an d a n k and 1 in spite o f , G erm an trotz also fall into this category. There are m any m ore instances o f
this kind. To be sure, we m ay safely assume th at G erm an (which w as apparently known by all the Jewish writers o f E astern Europe) w as the prim e
factor behind these creations.
Literature:
A. Bach, Geschichte der deutschen Sprache9, Heidelberg 1970, 163;
Garbell, Frem dsprachliche Einflsse, passim, e.g., pp. 40, 41, 50, 69.
b. N oun and Adjective F orm ations
363. A very im portant phenom enon, betraying E uropean influence, has
been pointed out by H. Blanc:
...the necessity o f translating term s from S tandard A verage European (SAE), have resulted in the introduction o f prefixes, a type of
morpheme virtually unknown to Semitic languages and for which
220
3 6 3 -3 6 4 ]
T h e S ou rces o f Israeli H eb rew
there is but the barest precedent in earlier Hebrew; these have been
adapted from, or invented on the base of, existing Hebrew and
A ram aic particles or words, or lifted bodily from SAE, and today
form an extremely im portant and productive part o f the language.
M ost prefixes are so productive th at they can be added, as the need
arises, to alm ost any noun or adjective. Thus we have-'W un-or dis
for nouns, for adjectives ( , disorder, , disorderly); , bi-, di-, as in , dialogue; ^, tri-, as in
tripod; , sub-, under-, as in , underw ater; ? ,
inter as in , international etc. O f those borrowed outright
from SAE we may list pro-and anti-: 1 , pro-A rab,
anti -Egypti an. One of the reasons of the wholesale introduction of prefixes was structurally feasible and easy, even though quite
novel, is the partial resemblance such constructions bear to the way
Hebrew, as other Semitis languages, uses phrase's o f closely bound
w ords (the so-called construct phrases ) to form complexes of
noun-plus-noun or adjective-plus-noun: , m any-sided,
literally m any o f sides, is such a consruct phrase, but ( same
meaning) is formed with a prefix meaning multi- or p o ly .
L iterature:
H. Blanc, Hebrew in Israel: T rends and Problem s , The M iddle E a st
Journal X I (1957), pp. 401 f.;
; 250 , , ) ( , , .
.217 ,) ( , .
c. S y n ta x
364. H. Rosn has noted a far m ore im portant phenomenon which has
changed the whole make-up of IH its syntax.
The developm ent of the period with its many subordinate clauses has
made IH flexible enough to be employed like any other modern language.
To be sure, while BH is to a large extent paratactic, i.e. it prefers to coordinate sentences, M H is much m ore syntactic, making use o f the subordinating in all kinds of subjunctions. M H has by far still not achieved
the flexibility o f m odern languages in this respect.
221
[ 3 6 4
Rosn is also right in pointing out the fact that this developm ent went
practically unnoticed by the purists.
As a matter of fact it already was alluded to by M. Plessner and formulated by the famous Semitic scholar G. Bergstrsser in the following
sentence: (IH) in fact (is) a European language in a translucent Hebrew
garm ent with common European characteristics... being Hebrew but on the
surface. There is more than a grain of truth in this statem ent, though it is
greatly exaggerated. Let us only remember that the m orphology, the very
core of the language (as pointed out by A. Meillet), the conjugations, the
declension, the stems, and the noun patterns have scarcely changed. Also,
as far as changes have occurred they are well within the confines o f Semitic
(see Blancs remarks above). In this respect IH is very much like A kkadian,
whose syntax became un-Semitic owing to the influence of Sum erian.
Even more revealing is the state o f affairs in A m haric (the official
language of Ethiopia) which (in the words of H .J. Polotsky) is Semitic
language in respect to morphology, but an A frican one in its syntax. Both
Amharic and, for example, Neo-Syriac, have become much more unSemitic in this respect than IH.
U. Weinreich has pointed out that the transfer o f m orphemes which are
as strongly bound as inflectional endings... seem to be extremely rare but
interference in the domain of grammatical relation is extremely com m on
in the speech of bilinguals. To the best of my knowledge, there is no living
Semitic language whose word order has not changed from that o f its parent
language. I also doubt whether there is a Semitic language, except for
classical Arabic, where these changes cannot be traced even in earlier
times. Therefore, syntactic change as a yardstick to measure w hether and
how far a language has kept (or lost) its Semitic (or E uropean) structure
plays a very modest role. Indeed it is possible to establish the relationship
between, say, a modern Arabic dialect and an Ethiopie dialect by com paring their morphology. Incidentally, in Neo-Syriac nearly the whole tense
system was changed under Persian (and Turkish) influence (cf. below
513).
Literature:
M. Plessner, Orientalistische L iteraturzeitung 28 (1925), p. 684; 34
(1931), p. 803;
; 132-125 , , , .
G. Bergstrsser, E infhrung, p. 47;
222
3 6 4 -3 6 6 ]
A. Meillet, L inguistique historique et linguistique gnrale I, Paris 1948,

p. 82;
F o r A kkadian and A m haric see for example, Bergstrsser E in f h ru n g ;
U. W einreich, Languages in C ontact4, The H ague 1966, pp. 31, 37;
[Rosn, C ontem porary H ebrew, pp. 2 7 -2 9 ;
.91-87 , , O.S.]
d. English
365. W ords like boss and jo b are widly employed colloquialy.
English tram p in the phrase 1 means to hitchhike; from
English flir t, IH created a quintiliteral verb , a vfcry unusual case.
English puncture has extended its meaning, and today m eans
anything that goes wrong. O f course, caiques abound, e.,g., advanced age. The superfluous ??in the phrase ,*1 Mr.
G olan who was am bassador goes back to translation of the English w ho
by the interrogative pronoun, and at the same time it is also translated as a
relative pronoun by .
In addition, certain syntactical features which appear mainly in the news
papers, apparently go back to English, e.g., putting therefore after the first
word of the sentence (when it should properly be in the first position). O r
consider the following phr as e: the chief o f the
office in Paris o f the weekly. Properly the attribute should come after
.
Literature:
; 173 , ,) ( , .
; 15 ,) ( , .
.233-231 , ,) ( , .
e. German
366. From G erm an B rste Ben Yehuda created ?? brush, and he
was apparently influenced by G erm an Puppe in creating doll,
although he m aintained that it was (spoken) A rabic that served as the basis
for these creations. The special use o f 1? private is apparently influenced by the G erm an privat ( m eans individual), while cable goes
back to G erm an K abel (which may or may not be of A rabic origin; BH
= fetters). 1 new spaper (from time) reflects G erm an
Z eitung; ^
I take the liberty = ich erlaube mir; ^1}
223
M O D ER N H EB R EW A N D ISR A ELI H EBR EW
[ 3 6 6 -3 6 9
to answ er = A ntw ort geben; 1 he is perfect in English =

er beherrsche Englisch and apparently $ I d ont give a damn
about him = ich pfeife a u f ihm, which also entered Polish, H ungarian and
Italian.
Prepositions. ... 1 ^ they have no idea o f = Sie haben keine
A h n u n g von. Incidentally, the use o f to introduce the agens in passive
sentences ??quoted by Dilinger zitiert von D ilinger, which is
not used any m ore in IH , is the original BH and M H use.
L iterature:
; 70 , , ,
,) ( , .
;41-40 , , -
I. Biro, M agyar N yelv 56 (1960), pp. 327, 332.
f
French
367. French influence is negligible. 1 $ airplane is appaently patterned after avoin; fashion w as created from m ode according to
the French relationship la m ode le mode.
L iterature:
G arbell, Frem dsprachliche Einflsse, p. 43;
g. R ussian
3 6 8 . confusion, disorganization com es from Russian (a loan word
from Persian); how w onderful seems to be a replica formation from
R ussian. But it is interesting to note th at it also occurs in M H with a very
sim ilar meaning. Perhaps , an em phatic how com e also goes back
to Russian. O ther caiques occur, e.g., 1 to subscribe podpisatsa
(which exactly parallels the English verb!) and to devote.
L iterature:
G arbell, Frem dsprachliche E inflsse, p. 36;
. 151 , ,
h. O nom atopoetic W ords
369. Bialik created the verb to rustle simply by imitating the
sound. O ne is rem inded o f the G erm an rascheln with the same meaning.
224
T r en d s and M eth o d s
3 7 0 -3 7 1 ]
X I I.
Akkadian
370. bronze, borrow ed by Ben Y ehuda from A kkadian urud

seems to be the only direct loan from this language in IH . [Ben Yehuda,
however, w as misled by M uss-A rnolts A ssyrian dictionary (published in
1905), as this A kkadian w ord w as artificially coined by Sennacheribs
scribes (and used only by them ) from Sum erian u r u d u (= A kkadian
weru) copper, not bronze. The A kkadian w ord for bronze is siparru.]
Literature:
; 8 7 , ,
[AH w, s.v. siparru (Lieferung 11, 1972), urud (Lieferung 14, 1979); C AD
vol. E, s.v. er A.]
C. T rends and M ethods
I. Acceptance a n d rejection
a. Secularization
371. We m entioned above the objection to the full use o f BH for the
purposes o f IH (see 321). It should be added here, th at certain ultrareligious circles do not em ploy, e.g., the word electricity since according
to R abbinical exegesis, this w ord which occurs in the Book o f Ezekiel is the
name o f an angel. Indeed the problem of secularization o f traditional
H ebrew in IH loom s large.
The revivers, w riters and journalists very often did not mind using words
from the dom ain o f religion and related areas with a new secularized meaning; e.g., afternoon p ray er is now used in the expression
five o clock tea; additional pray er (e.g., on the Sabbath)
is now em ployed as (weekly) new spaper supplem ent. 1 prayerbook
for the holidays now cycle, series (o f lectures, etc.). The instances are
quite num erous. This tendency which is not without significance for the
cultural background o f IH is som etimes the source of m isunderstanding.
W hile teaching H ebrew in the U.S., I read an article with my students in
which occurred the phrase the mitzvah o f service to the
people. A student asked W hat kind o f m itzvah (religious comm and) is
225
[ 3 7 1 -3 7 3
this? I have never heard of it. This instance shows what may happen if an
expression used until recently only in the domain o f religion, suddenly
emerges in another area. In IH is the word for legend, fairy tale, but
originally it m eant non-Halachic portions o f the Rabbinic literature. A
child who studies the Aggadic portions of the Talm ud may ask, Is this ju st
a legend?
Literature:
.25-22 , , ,
[In recent years the words ( BH the T abernacle) and ( BH the
Temple) have been used for naming public buildings, e.g., ^the
Knesset building, 1 a stadium in Tel Aviv.)
b. Rejection
372. On the other hand, Hebrew words that were employed in the
D iaspora and acquired connotations reflecting Jewish life there, were
sometimes rejected. head of community who apparently was not
very much liked, disappeared. The who was sent by yeshivot
(Talmudic academies) to raise funds, is not used in IH. The an officer
(of various institutions) lives on in the synagogue only. It goes without saying that a person trying to influence the non-Jewish authorities on
behalf o f his Jewish brethren (cf. 284) is far from the mentality of IH
speakers and thus the world does not exist in IH. The , Yiddish
sham es, janitor (of the synagogue, school etc.) was recently replaced by
( cf. 398). On the other hand another word o f the same root ^
servant, m aidservant never stood a chance o f acceptance by IH.
However the verb to serve, unencumbered by pejorative connotations, is widely used. The participle used verbally also exists.
c. The Sephardic Pronounciation Adopted
373. Closely akin to this type of rejection is the rejection of the
Ashkenazic pronunciation. As Sh. Morag puts it:
F or a period o f nearly 1700 years, Hebrew existed orally not as a
spoken language but as a liturgical language, the language in which
prayer was conducted and sacred texts read and studied. A t the time
when the revival o f spoken Hebrew began, the various Jewish communities differed, as they still do today, with regard to their
traditional Hebrew pronunciations, that is the pronunciations which
226
373]
T ren d s and M eth o d s
were preserved in the reading o f sacred texts. Roughly speaking,

these pronunciations may be divided into three m ajor groups: the
A shkenazi [main features: distinction between qm s a n d p a th a h , as
well as between sr and seg h l; realization o f the qm s as [o] or
[u ] ; no regular realization o f the sPw m obile; realization o f the hard
t as [t] and o f the soft t as [s] ; no pharyngeals and no em phatics; no
gem ination; stress usually non-ultim ate], the Sephardi [main
features; pronunciation of qms as p a th a h , i.e., as an [a], and o f sr
as seghl, i.e., as an [e]; realization o f the se w mobile as a short [e]
realization of the hard t as [t], and the soft t either as [] o r as [t]
preservation o f the pharyngeals and o f some em phatics; gemination
stress either ultim ate or penultim ate], and the Yemenite [main
features: distinction between qm s [ ]>and pathah as well as between sr and seghl\ no distinction between pathah and seghl,
which are both pronounced []; realization o f the hlam as [], or,
in som e regions o f Yemen, as the s r ([e]); realization o f the se w
m obile as a short [a]; differentiation between hard and soft bgd k p t,
as well as between pharyngeals and non-pharyngeals, em phatics and
non-em phatics; gem ination; stress usually non-ultim ate]. It should be
noted th at each o f these pronunciations, and particularly the
A shkenazi and Sephardi, exists in several varieties.
T he problem that the leaders o f the linguistic revival faced at the
first stages o f the transform ation w as: W hat pronunciation should be
made the standard pronunciation o f H ebrew? The Yemenite pronunciation, being em ployed by only one com m unity (and, besides,
hardly know n in Palestine and E urope at th at time), could not have
been taken into account; the decision, therefore, had to be m ade between the A shkenazi and Sephardi pronunciations.
T he decision was made in favor o f the Sephardi pronunciation, on
which M odern Spoken Hebrew is fundam entally based. The reasons
for this decision, which was strongly backed by the vehement activity o f Eliezer Ben-Yehuda (1 8 5 8 -1 9 2 2 ), the Reviver o f the
H ebrew L anguage , were manifold... Some circles considered the
Sephardi pronunciation to be m ore aesthetic or m ore correct from
a historical point o f view than the A shkenazi.
One reason certainly was that put forw ard by Lipschiitz: There had exsted for a long time in Palestine a colloquial H ebrew am ong certain circles
227
M O D E R N HEBR EW A N D IS T AELI H EBR EW
[ 3 7 3 -3 7 5
between the different com m unities in the discussion between the Sephardic
H acham and the A shkenazic Rabbi... Som etim es H ebrew was even employed when a Sephardi studied T alm ud together with an Ashkenazi...
C haracteristic o f this colloquial w as the Sephardic pronunciation... The
new movem ent chose this existing colloquial... It seems that this colloquial
was especially instrum ental in the selection o f the pronunciation... also the
already existing schools tht taught in Hebrew had apparently played a part
in the decision... These were mainly attended by children o f Oriental jews
(who employed the Sephardic pronunciation). (translation mine
E.Y.K.) But the main reason apparently was th at The Sephardi pronunciation symbolized to its adherents, the spirit o f cultural renaissance,
w hereas the A shkenazi highly rem iniscent o f Yiddish, represented the
D iaspora, the direct continuation o f the im m ediate p ast which they rejected (M orag). T o be sure, w hat Ben Y ehuda intended (according to one of
his sons) was the introduction o f the Sephardic pronunciation in its entirety, including the pronunciation o f as [h], as [], , , as emphatics,
and also the gemination (see below). W hat w as accepted was the pronunciation of qms as la I and the ( w ithout dagesh) as 1t|.
L iterature:
Sh. M orag, Planned and U nplanned D evelopm ent in M odern H ebrew ,
L ingua VIII (1959), pp. 249f.;
E.M. Lipschiitz, Vom lebendingen H ebrisch, Berlin 1920 pp. 2 3 -2 6 ;
. 146-143 , 15 , ,) ( 37 , .
[Fellman, The Revival (above 307), pp. 8 4 -8 7 . O.S.]
II. Forging the Israeli H ebrew Vocabulary

374. In creating new form s, assigning new meanings to old forms and
roots, taking over forms and roots from foreign languages, and in general
all the well-known w ays em ployed in any m odern language were brought
into play. A few instances may be adduced here:
a. M idrashic Tale as a Source o f an I H P hrase
375. A story told in the M idrash (B am m idbar R ab b ah 13, 4) gave rise
to a phrase containing a proper name. It is told, th at when the prince o f the
tribe o f Judah saw the hesitation o f the Israelites to enter the Red Sea, he
228
375-3781
T rends and M ethods
was the first to rush forward and leap into it. The others then followed suit.
His name was ; hence a feat o f this type is called 1 a leap
o f N ahshon.
F or other words derived from proper nam es see below 386.
b. From Loanw ord to Hebrew
376. During the course of the last generation the tendency to eliminate
foreign words, even international ones, has gained m om entum , as shown
by the lists of Avineri and Sivan, e.g., instead o f colony and
many more. But could not push out university. T oday
is occasionally used in Israel for college. Even the A cadem y
( ) of the Hebrew Language was unable to find a H ebrew nam e for
itself. But no word can illustrate this process better than the 1 from
which the verb was coined.
Literature:
;61-55 ; , ,
.220-216 , ,) ( , .
c. From Compound to a Single W ord
377. One of the chief aims of the revivers was to create single-word
terms instead of com pounds that encum bered the language o f the Maskilim
(see above 308). J.M . Pines (and J. K lausner) explained the problem by
using the question: How do you say my w atch or my golden w atch?
The w atchm aker of my golden w atch would be som ething like:
. By creating w atch and
, w atchm aker we can manage better with .
L iterature:
;280 , ,) ( , .
.232 ,) ( , .
d. Narrow ing o f M eaning
378. ABH to listen was narrow ed in IH to m ean to listen to the
radio, and the participle of the verb is used with the m eaning (radio)
listener (cf. above 319). honoring turned into refreshm ents (offered
to guests).
drink becomes alcoholic drink when accented ; the
229
! 3 7 8 -3 8 0
penultimate stress immediately betrays the Yiddish origin (see 348, 356).
This is also well illustrated by a story told about the first meeting between
Y. Sadeh, the founder of the Palm ach (see 342) and Y. Allon, one o f his
comm anders. Sadeh asked for a to celebrate the successful completion of some military excercises. Allon, being a sabra (see 341), ran to the
barn and brought milk fresh from the cow. Sadeh, coming from Poland,
burst out laughing as he, o f course, meant to celebrate with an alcoholic
drink!
Literature:
S. Keshet, H a a re tz O ctober 25, 1967, p. 3, col. 8.
e. Widening o f M eaning
379. The instances o f secularization mentioned above (371) also
represent a widening of meaning, e.g., the additional prayer now also
(weekly) supplement (of a new spaper); [ service now also taxis running along regular bus-lines, but in pi. bathroom ; library
now (substandard) also book-case.]
D ifferentiation
380. We mentioned the clash between BH and MH as well as between
the different layers of BH (see 319-320). Here we can go more
thoroughly into the m atter, following H. Rosn, who shows how IH was often able to exploit the gram m atical and lexical differences between BH and
MH, SBH and LBH. The BH passive participle Qal form \means
predicate, whereas the parallel M H form means married. The SBH
and (mainly) MH forms of the verbal noun of the Piel yield two different
meanings for a single root; com pare visit vs. control,
capacity vs. receipt; reception (cf. above 213). Similarly, the use
of certain constituents in the construct state may mean something quite different when the same constituents are used in the quasi-M H
-construction (cf. 216); com pare synagogue, the
House (= D ynasty) o f D avid, membership card vs.
the K nesset (= Israeli Parliam ent) building, D avids
house, a friends ticket.
The synonym s field (the latter mainly ABH) are exploited
in a different way, being employed only in poetry. The same division
230
3 8 0 -3 8 3 ]
T r en d s an d M eth o d s
between prose and poetry applies to M H ( in BH retu rn ) and BH

answ er, and ( both BH).
The BH w agon and its M H synonym 1( cf. 238) are now differcntiated as the latter was given the meaning railroad c a r. Sometim es, as
Rosn has shown, we can account for the reasons which caused the differentiation but there is no overall explanation as yet. It is very possible
that several factors were at work and thus each case has to be examined
separately (cf. also 340).
L iterature:
.97 , 93-88 , , ,
g. Avoidance o f H om onym s
381. For the perfect IH uses 1 ; ;he could (instead o f ( ,; ;
he slept (instead o f ); to differentiate it from the participle o f these two
verbs, which in BH and M H are identical (see above 60, 62). Some
verbs e.g., 1 to bite, 1 to ab andon are used in the active voice in
the Qal, but in the passive voice (at least in the perfect) in the P ual (and not
in the NiPal): he was bitten, he was ab an d o n ed . The reason is
clear: The N iPal forms are nearly identical with the Piel and are therefore
avoided (see also below 402).
Literature:
[Another way of distinguishing between the perfect and the participle of
verbs like ;, ; is the use o f ;, ; for the perfect. O.S.]
h. Transfer o f M eaning
382. means to send in A ram aic but to b ro ad cast in IH (cf. above
338).
/'. M istakes
1. Accepted. 383. Some form s and meanings go back to m isreadings of
the Biblical text, scribal m istakes in M H o r m isinterpretations, but they are
accepted nonetheless. T ( their) might is gone (D eut. 32, 36) is an
archaic form (see above 55). The IH speaker understood the qam es gadol
as qames qatan, which is pronounced [o] in the Sephardic pronunciation
too, and therefore interpreted as a noun (on the p attern o f ) in the
construct state and so a new com pound ;cam e into being. There is
231
M O DER N H EB R EW A N D ISRAELI HEBREW
[ 3 8 3
no need to co rrect this com pound, since it could have been created consciously and therefore it is perfectly acceptable. The phrase 1
1 is em ployed with the meaning a voice crying in the wilderness.
It goes back to 1 1 a voice cries: In the wilderness
prepare a w ay (Isa. 40, 3). At first sight, the IH usage seems to be a simple
caique from the European languages. However in these languages it goes
back to the G ospels, where this meaning rests on a m isinterpretation o f the
verse in Isaiah. Just as no one would discard the above mentioned English
expression because o f its dubious ancestry, no one would attem pt this in
IH.
A similar case is the BH word 1 the fiftieth year (cf. Lev. 25, 10). It
changed its m eaning through a non-Hebrew source and returned to IH with
its secondary meaning. Via the Vulgate (the Latin translation o f the Bible),
and through the interference o f a Latin verb,jubilcire, it acquired the connotation o f jo y and thus becam e jubilee, which is no longer connected
with the concept of the fiftieth year. W ith this meaning, 1
^the twenty-fifth anniversay, should be, on the basis o f B H , a contradiction in terms.
W ords that cam e into being in the texts of MH due to scribal errors (by
confusing and , and final ) were accepted uncorrected in IH , e.g.,
1 1 instead o f corridor (Greek), 1 instead o f knife
(Latin), instead o f robber (Greek).
Instead o f M H pit, IH employs . Here, however, the process of
corruption was a different one. The original form is . The M ishna was
studied in Europe mainly in conjunction with the Babylonian Talm ud. In
Babylonia, was pronounced which the scribes interpreted as the of
the definite article. Thus, the form came into being.
Since these types o f m istakes are com m on when taking over a foreign
word, no one expects them to be corrected. English venture should serve as
an interesting example. It arose through m etanalysis o f (French) aventure,
where the a was interpreted as the indefinite article. It therefore nearly exactly parallels the case o f . N aturally, there is even less inclination to
reintroduce the correct form in foreign loanw ords once the corrupted
form has adapted itself to a correct Hebrew pattern, e.g., p o rt instead
o f the correct ( or ; see above 237), or scribe instead of
( Latin libellarius).
232
3 8 3 -3 8 5 ]
T rends and M eth o d s
Literature
;) (45 , ) , (31-29 , , ,
0 . Jespersen, G rowth and Structure o f the English Language, Oxford
1943, 116.
2. R ejected 384. Sometimes though, such mistakes are rejected. Several
decades ago IH employed 1 the best, the w orst, based on
only one instance in BH (II Sam. 23, 19). The reason for the rejection is
clear. The expression that replaced it, 1 is very much in evidence in M H
and therefore 1 1 and 1 are in common IH usage.
( while) sitting, ( while) standing go back to the text o f a certain prayer (com posed in M H ) as read by the Ashkenazim. The Yemenites
read 1 , 1 , which, as H. Yalon has shown, is the correct reading.
Here too, no change in IH is demanded, since the syntactic construction rejected by the Yemenite reading is not known in IH.
[ is now restricted to colloquial speech. O.S.]
L iterature:
. 80-79 ',) - ( , .
j. Change o f M eaning as R esult o f Change in Interpretation
385. M ost o f the material from prim ary sources such as BH and M H
was absorbed with its prim ary meaning. There was no need to change the
meaning o f house, table, or chair. However, this does not
mean that w hat IH considered to be the original meaning was identical with
the meaning intended in the sources. O ur house or table or chair do not
look exactly like the objects denoted by the words in BH and M H. F o r this
reason, the meaning attributed to certain BH and MH words are sometimes
based on a certain interpretation o f a text rather than on the living oral
tradition, as in other languages. This of course, applies mainly to rare
words, whose meaning did not survive in the oral and written tradition.
Early medieval scholars sometimes interpreted a certain word according
to their understanding and on the basis o f that interpretation writers o f
Hebrew during later medieval and modern times might have used the w ord
with that sam e meaning. However, m odern scholarship has sometimes dissociated itself from that interpretation thanks to comparative Semitics, new
linguistic interpretations, archaeological finds, e In these cases it is
233
[ 3 8 5 -3 8 6
generally the earlier meaning that prevails in IH. The following is a case in
point: As has been recently established, the word 1 occuring in BH (Ps.
107, 30) had the meaning haven, port. But during the Middle Ages a new
interpretation arose, namely, district. It is with this meaning that the w ord
is currently being employed in IH. Once a meaning has gained currency
over several centuries, it acquires eo ipso legitimacy o f its own and will not
be abandoned for reasons of scholarly accuracy. The same process gave
rise to the noun steering wheel (cf. 330).
Literature:
18-5 ) ,, ; (145-136 , ,) (, .
- , ,] .=] (with English sum mary)
k. Words From Proper Names
386. IH is also inclined to employ verbs and nouns whose meaning was
not established by the normal procedure of Biblical exegesis, but were the
products of M idrashic exegesis, which did not aim at discovering the simple
Scriptural meaning, but tried to discover hints for a hidden meaning. The
following is a good illustration: Pharoah called Joseph which is,
of course, an Egyptian name. The Midrash, however, attem pted to discover
the Hebrew meaning of this Egyptian name, and explained it as The
Revealer of Hidden Things. Because in Hebrew means indeed to
hide, must mean to reveal. Thus the Paytanim (see above
265-267) began using with the meaning to reveal, and in IH it
means to decipher.
In Ezra 2, 2 we find the name which is the A kkadian nam e
M arduk-belsunu (M arduk-Is-Their-Lord). M idrashic exegesis identified
the first com ponent with the famous of the Book o f Esther and
explained as he knew (seventy) languages ( 1 = tongue,
language). IH therefore uses the word ( with the vocalization adapted
to the noun-pattern qatla:n, as e. g. , robber) with the meaning linguist
(already in Yiddish).
F or another case see above 375.
Literature:
; 107 , ,) (, ..
N .H. Tur-Sinai, The Revival o f the Hebrew L anguage, Jerusalem 1960,
pp. 8, 18;
[.298-297 , ,) ( , . O.S.]
234
3 8 7 -3 8 9 ]
T ren ds and M e th o d s
/. Popular E tym ology

387. Popular etymology resembles M idrashic exegesis. In IH m eans
pillow and blanket. But in both BH and M H the meanings o f the two
words are very close. The change in meaning came about because o f the
association o f with the root to cover.
L itera ture:
E.M. Lipschiitz, Vom lebendigen H ebrisch, Berlin 1920, p. 36
note 1.
[G. Sarfatti, Lesonenu 39 (1974-75), pp. 2 3 6 -2 6 2 ; 40 (1975-76), pp.
pp. 117-141. O.S.]
m. Spelling P ronunciation
388. Since is used mainly for [s] and only occasionally for [s]
which is generally spelled with ' boul evar d is usually pronounc
ed with [s] [sdera:]. While this could only occur because new spapers
and books are generally unvocalized, spelling pronunciations may also occur in vocalized texts. The ; (qames) sign when long is [a] but when
short (in closed unaccented syllables) is a kind o f [o]. As a result
F ran ce is often pronounced [corfat] instead of [carefatj. (Cf. also T ,
above 383).
Literature:
. 5 , , ,) (.
n. D ialectical Differences
389. It has been pointed out several times that IH uses synonym s occuring in different sources, by assigning them different meanings e.g., ^
1( above 319, 378, 380). IH also exploited gram m atical synonyms representing different dialectical transmissions. In Palestinian M H
we find the noun type qo:tla:n, e.g., 1 robber, while the Babylonian
transm ission has | . IH takes advantage of this situation by using both
types with different meanings. Alongside the adjective
patient
(created during the Middle Ages) the form 1 tolerant came into being.
But it is possible that the latter form was created directly from the participie o f the Qal. The same applies to Palestinian M H 1 whose Babylonian counterpart is 1 . The first is used for thanksgiving, while the
235
M O D E R N H E B R EW A N D ISR A EL I H EBR EW
[ 3 8 9 -3 9 1
second for adm ission. But in the tw o traditions both forms could have
both m eanings.
o. H ebrew a n d A ram aic G ram m atical D ifferences
390. G ram m atical differences between Hebrew and A ram aic were
som etim es exploited for the creation o f w ords with different meanings (cf.
above 340). The A ram aic determ ined form o f the word air (Greek
ar) is $. In the T alm udic saying The air o f
E retz Israel m akes one wise (Bava B atra 158b), the word was interpreted
as m eaning milieu, and so a new w ord w as coined which adapted itself to
H ebrew by the spelling with final as a feminine o f .
An A ram aic gram m atical form whose H ebrew sem antic parallel is
m orphologically different was reinterpreted in IH as representing its
H ebrew parallel in the following case: in A ram aic is the noun plus
the definite article H- (which, to be sure, lost its determ inative force in certain A ram aic dialects). The word m eans both T alm ud as well as the tom e
o f the T alm ud. Since in Hebrew w ords ending in [a] are generally feminine,
the plural is 1( as if the singular were spelled ) and is employed as
feminine, e.g., by Bialik 1$ 1 long G em aras.
p . W ords an d R oots C reated fr o m A bbreviations and B lends
391. The word in BH and M H means apple. In the nineteenth
century the com pound p o tato was coined as a caique from
G erm an (Yiddish?). W hen a Hebrew expression was needed for orange,
the com pound , pi. was first used (see above 308). This
was later turned by A vineri into the blend , which was accepted also in
the standard language (and cf. below 393).
But standard language does not easily accept roots created from abbreviations. F o r exam ple, from the com pound 1 report the
abbreviation was created. This abbreviation as well as others
was sanctioned by the A cadem y as a noun ( the ungram m atical dox is
still widely used). A fterw ards, when this new noun was turned into a verbal
root to give a rep o rt, the A cadem y refused to recognize it. The
sanctioning o f abbreviations as independent w ords was not considered to
be too revolutionary a step, since this has been the accepted procedure for
hundreds o f years, especially regarding proper na me s . 1
(M aim onides), for example, is never mentioned by his full nam e, but only
as , from the initials o f his full nam e (cf. above 274). [The same ap
236
3 9 1 -3 9 4 ]
plies to ( R ashi, above 276) and to other medieval Jewish scholars.

O.S.]
Literature:
.( ( 130-129 , , ,
[M any more abbreviations are considered standard today, e.g.,
? " ^chief o f staff o f the Israeli (or foreign) arm y,
? " director general etc.]
q. Contagion
392. Latin persona has become a negative particle in French... the
contiguity with the negative particle ne has infected this w ord (also p a s,
rien, point in French; Ullman). The sam e applies to the IH ? which in
certain circum stances can be used w ithout a negative particle to mean
nothing. From ) ) , apparently ready m oney, came to
mean cash already in the M iddle Ages, but entered IH via Yiddish (and cf.
also 355).
Literature:
S. Ullm an, The Principles o f Sem a n tics, Glasgow-Oxford 1959, pp. 184f.
r. N ew Term s Change the M eaning o f Old Ones
393. The case o f apple is interesting. Until recently they were
very rare in Israel, whereas potatoes and ( or )
oranges were com m on. Therefore, when at last the original apple
appeared, it was not simply called , but rather tree apple, to
con trast it with the other ( and cf. above 308, 391).
Literature:
[On the identification of with the apple see J. Feliks, Plant W orld o f
the B ible, R am at-G an 1968, pp. 6 0 -6 3 (Hebrew).]
s. A nalogy
394. A nalogy is a very strong factor in the creation of new forms in IH.
Instead o f the BH declined infinitive forms o f the roots such as ,
e.g., while I am sitting, even scholars sometimes use a new form
237
[ 3 9 4 -3 9 7
, and others like ^while knowing, while going dow n,

while walking, created by analogy with the strong verb.
Since shoes are feminine, socks, pants and
eyeglasses are employed in the substandard as feminine nouns in
IH.
t. B ack Formation
395. From the form ( Qal passive participle o f ) enclosed, a
masculine was formed by analogy to the verbs. From the plural
honest people (root )the singular was formed by analogy to
nouns like , pi. proud. Here the need for differentiation was felt
since the correct form is the word for yes (also meaning so).
u. Elevated Words
396. The word ( from Akkadian) originally constellation, planet
came to mean fate; thus 1 means good luck (still employed as a
wish) while m eans bad luck. Today alone means good luck
(as in Yiddish) while, e.g., is unlucky. This type of elevation occured also in other languages, e.g., H ungarian szerencse = luck.
Literature:
Klaniczay, M agyar Nyelv 43 (1947), pp. 38fT.;
F o r other cases of elevation see 2 1 -1 8 , , ,
[G. Sarfatti, Hebrew Sem antics, Jerusalem 1978, p. 163 (Hebrew).]
v. D egraded Words (Pejorative Change o f M eaning)
397. girl is sometimes employed to mean not only girlfriend but
som ewhat euphemistically also for young street-walker. The word 1
Zionism is occasionally employed by writers of the younger generation
with the meaning idle sm ooth talk about Zionistic ideals not backed up by
deeds. Sometimes this meaning is indicated by quotation marks. I still
rem ember research, but today 3? is used, perhaps because the
former was associated with the activity of the , the quasi-scholar of
the ghetto as portrayed in the H askalah literature. is used now for
investigation.
L iterature:
, , - , , .
.) (1457
238
3 9 8 -4 0 0 ]
w. Change o f M eaning C aused by Social Change

398. The social changes that took place during recent generations m ade
themselves felt in the vocabulary o f IH . Because the status o f women has
changed it w as felt that both BH 1 and L B H -M H 1 to m arry
(m an subject, w om an object) (cf. 123, 227) was no longer adequate
the reflexive-reciprocal was introduced. Purists were not pleased
with this since in BH m eans 4to m arry into a fam ily. Obviously a
verb was needed that would express the reciprocal relationship o f the two
parties which were now supposed to be equal. The appropriate conjunction
seemed to be H itpael, but neither which means to flare up nor
1 which m eans to exalt oneself, to be overbearing could be employed. F or w ant o f anything better, the reciprocal N iFal (as in BH) was
resorted to and today is used.
The same applies to divorce. The verb is no longer the active ( *subje c t male, object female) literally to drive o u t but the reciprocal
(literally to drive each other ou t) is used. To be sure, the divorce is the
participle passive , but since already in M H the divorcer was
by analogy, this injustice is redressed.
used to denote both sch o o lja n ito r and beadle (of the synagogue).
Now the form er is called whereas the beadle is still a ( cf. above
372).
[ *the M inistry o f Post in Israel (which also includes the
telephone system and the technical operation o f the radio and television
stations), was renam ed a few years ago M inistry o f Com m unications, to give it a more m odem image.]
x. E uphem ism s
399. N eedless to say, euphem ism s are as much in evidence in IH as in
other languages where w ords m ust be found to apply to indelicate entities.
W hat started out as toilet (M H ) was changed to and
finally becam e (for the time being) ( cf. 379) or 1 . (The same
happened to the English equivalent.)
y. Struggle between N ew Terms
400. As in the H askalah period (above 306), the age o f the revival saw
new term s in conflict over superm acy. Seven w ords struggled for pencil
until K lausners 1 ( f r o m ^ D lead) won out. Amusingly, Rawnitzky,
who apparently m isread K lausners suggestion as 1 , mocked at his
239
M O DERN H E BR EW A N D ISR A ELI H EBR EW
[ 4 0 0 -4 0 2
proposal by saying, A broken pencil, then, will be 1 Ephron

the Hittite (Gen. 23, 10; in BH = to b reak ). M ore than tw enty w ords
vied with each other for the meaning m atch until M endeles
prevailed.
Literature:
252 , ,) ( - , .
; 340 ,
;211 ( ) , .
.211 , , ,
z. Suppletion
401. An interesting case o f suppletion (supplem entary distribution) is
mentioned by H. Blanc, ... one says 1 $ Ill tell him , using the verb
( root ) for the future, but 1 1 $ Im telling him and 1 I
told him , using the verb for the present and the p ast. I know o f no
reason why and how this usage cam e about.
Literature:
H. Blanc, The G row th o f Israeli H ebrew , M iddle E astern A ffa irs 5
(1954), p. 389.
aa. N ew Creations T hat A re Identical with B H or M H by M ere Chance
402. Sometimes new form ations that no doubt arose spontaneously in
IH (including caiques), are by pure chance identical with the original forms
that occur in BH or M H . T he expression 1 how nice is supposed to be a
caique from Russian, but occurs in M H (see above 368). C ertain purists
tried to eliminate expressions like 1 th rough the w indow and at
first sight, with good reason. This was thought to reflect G erm an (and
Yiddish) durch. But then it w as pointed out th a t it is M H (and perhaps even
BH, cf. Ex. 13, 17). F or anoth er im portant case see above 323.
The ,, verbs 1 to bite and 1 to a b an d o n are em ployed in the
active voice in the Qal stem , but in the passive perfect in the P u al, and not
in the N ifal, nam ely, $ , ^ . The cause seems to be the tendency to
avoid hom onym s (see above 381). There is no reason to oppose this new
created usage, for in BH, too, form s th at are identical with the perfect of
the Pual may serve as passive o f the Qal (see above 48). Therefore,
strangely enough, IH seems to have recreated on its own a linguistic usage
240
402 - 404 ]
T ren d s and M e th o d s
that was already on its way out in BH, w ithout having been influenced
directly or indirectly by that usage.
This brings to mind another problem. In M H parallel forms are found
which could have been interpreted as survivals o f the passive Qal from BH
(cf. above 211). But since, as in IH , most o f these cases involve verbs
it could be m aintained that, exactly as in IH , these are not survivals but
recreations that arose because o f the tendency o f differentiation.
bb. N ew W ords in Vogue
403. O nce a new word gains acceptance, it is apt to dislodge words
with meanings close to itself, thus sometimes defeating its own purpose. To
the best o f my knowledge know-how was created during the last
years; now it has nearly ousted knowledge.
A very amusing article by H. Zem er (originally published in the daily
Davar) listed quite a num ber of such words very m uch in vogue in Israel,
am ong them age (e.g., 1 Atomic age), pattern,
subconscious, 1 consciousness, 1 repercussion, maxim um , polarization and many more.
Literature:
;247-244 , ,) ( , .
]. 112-105 ) ( :89-84 ) ( , .
F o r another hum orous approach to new w ords in vogue see
. 54-52 7 , , , ..[
ce. N ew W ords
1. Who C reated W hat? 404. It is very difficult to establish who created
the various new words. Very few articles dealing with this problem am ong them R. Sivan, R. Weiss, N. Shapira and also A vineris
dilctionary o f Bialiks new creations give exact references. The w ork of
the A cadem y is anonym ous and only the origin o f words discussed by the
plenum can be traced with the help o f minutes.
It is som etimes quite interesting to follow the controversy about the
creators o f certain terms. One writer tried to add some words to A vineris
dictionary. Avineri replied that some of the w ords mentioned preceded
Bialik while others were already listed.
Even m ore amusing is the story of the verb to photograph. Sivan
241
M O DERN HEBREW A N D ISRAELI H EBREW
[ 4 0 4 -4 0 5
mentioned that it was created by D. Yellin. A nother young scholar pointed

to Pines (Yellins father-in-law), but later retracted. Sivan then retold the
whole story that he heard from Yellin him self (below 405). A nother note
by a third writer mentioned a still earlier origin. Sivan then answered by
quoting Yellin where he asserts in writing th at he created this technical
term. Therefore we have to assume th at two (or perhaps three) people
created it independently.
I was firmly convinced that M. Sharett, the first Foreign M inister of
Israel, invented 1 passport and visa. Since the A rabic
equivalent of the latter is ,isr (a different ro o t from that o f , and o f a
quite complicated origin), and Sharett knew A rabic well, I thought that he
might have been influenced by the A rabic word. But Sharett told me that he
ordered both w ords from someone else (and cf. also below 456).
Literature:
The articles of Sivan, Weiss and Shapira were mentioned in the preceding
paragraphs, above 377, 400;
: , .. , .
( , . ])and subsequent volumes. O.S.!
2. How New Term s A re Publicized. 405. The Hebrew Language Comm ittee and the A cadem y of the Hebrew Language have published over the
years lists o f term s as well as technical dictionaries. Schulbaum included
them in his G erm an-Hebrew dictionary. The same was done by
(L asar-) Torczyner (Tur-Sinai). W hen G erm an Jews began to arrive in
Palestine ( 1933-1939) it sometimes played havoc with their Hebrew, since
most of T orczyners new creations were not known there. The H askalah
writers sometimes translated words on the spot or added word lists to their
writings. But most o f the writers and journalists simply included them in
their writings, and Bialik stated expressly th at he prefered to slip his new
creations into writings o f other writers which he edited, e.g., ( above
369).
This procedure was generally successful, but sometimes mishaps were
unavoidable. D. Yellin wanted to popularize in this way the verb to
photograph (see above 404). Describing in an article a Christian religious
he wrote and the photographer takes pictures. He sent his artide from Palestine to a Hebrew weekly in Europe. The editor who failed to
recognize the meaning intended by Yellin, changed it because o f the context
242
4 0 6 -4 0 7 ]
Israeli H eb rew a s a N e w E n tity
into the cross crosses, in spite o f the fact th at this does not
make any sense.
Literature:
D. Patterson, J S S 7 (1962), pp. 313iT.;
; 77-76 ,) (, , . .
.) (19 , ,) ( , .
III. The Changing Face o f I
406. H. Rosn has pointed out that we can follow changes taking place
in the Hebrew com ponent o f IH thanks to the daily H a aretz. It used to
have a column entitled Fifty Years Ago and one entitled T hirty Y ears Ago,
where news of those times would be reprinted w ithout change. H ere, says
Rosn, we have an ideal opportunity to see linguistic processes th at take
m any generations to occur in other languages, taking place before o u r eyes,
com pressed in a few decades. R. Sivan supplies a list o f changes e. g. , 1
> passport; 24 > ; ho u rs. Incidentally, in this
case the (A ram aic) ; is employed contrary to its original meaning d ay
(as opposed to night)!
L iter tu re:
; 109 108 , ,
.223-220 , ( ) , .
D. Israeli Hebrew as a New Entity
407. In the previous paragraphs we have tried to point out the sources
that went into the making of IH . The revivers, o f course, were convinced
that they were reviving a kind o f com bination o f BH and M H , with a few
additions that did not affect the structure o f Hebrew. As m entioned by
E.M. Lipschiitz, while employing the new language, they were alw ays conscious or at least believed they were o f the origin o f each word and
phrase. It should be pointed out that linguistically too, they had a point;
linguistic research at that time meant the history o f the language. O nce
they could marshall all the linguistic facts from the sources with the help o f
243
M O DER N H EBREW A N D ISRAELI HEBREW
[407
historical research of the language, they believed th at by simply com bining

all these facts they would create (or re-create) Israeli Hebrew.
D uring the last generation the picture has changed entirely. A new
generation of Hebrew speakers has arisen. They em ployed Hebrew
naturally as their native language ju st as English, French and G erm an
speakers do. They did not care about the sources o f the language, exactly
as the average Am erican is not interested in finding out the sources o f his
native speech.
Something else also happened. Linguistics during the nineteenth century
was historical and com parative; however, scholarship has taken a new turn
during the last decades. A new school o f thought cam e into being th at
stressed the synchronic aspect o f linguistic research. This school is mainly
interested in discovering how a certain language functions as an entity at a
given time. In this context it disregards the history o f the different parts of
the language. It stresses the inter-relationship of the different elem ents that
make up the language. This new linguistic viewpoint reached Israel in the
late forties. A new generation o f general linguists arose who m aintained
that all the different sources o f IH had fused into a new identity, which did
not consist simply of its com ponents. Rather, functioning as an identity it
willy-nilly created a new entity through the interplay o f the various old elements. This new entity, namely, Israeli Hebrew, contains some new traits
unknown in its sources. These new traits are not to be regarded as m istakes
according to this new school o f thought after all, every new trait in
every language starts out as a m istake but rather as a legitimate and
necessary offspring of the old elements that went into the creation o f the
new language. A ccording to the maxim that at any given m om ent in every
language chaque se tient (A. Meillet), these new traits cannot be eliminated
from IH w ithout endangering its whole structure.
This new language was nam ed Israeli Hebrew by its discoverer, H aiim
B. Rosn. In a series of radio talks and in articles and books, he tried to
prove that in IH there are innovations which can by no means be attributed
(as was maintained by others) to the interference of foreign languages, and
therefore should not be considered as mistakes. A few clear-cut cases for
this contention follow.
In certain verbal forms the masc. sing, participle is identical with the
third person sing, perfect, e.g., ^ is/was able, dwells/dwelled and especially in the N iPal (according to the Sephardic pronunciation), e.g.,
/( both pronounced [nikar]) is/w as recognizable. In such cases IH
244
407]
Israeli H eb rew as a N e w E n tity
tends to employ the auxiliary verb to indicate past tense. A certain

w riter wrote I
he could not and he still cannot;7
TT
correctly it would be . As a matter o f fact, he
could have written i t ,7 but since in IH has
eliminated before the participle (thus already in MH), this alternative
does not m ake sense to the IH speaker. In the N ifal this usage tends to involve even other roots, e. g. , instead o f it seemed to me.
H ere, the reason is apparently a different one (see below 435).
Since ( according to the Tiberian vocalization) means both from us
and from him, even writers who are particular about their language prefer
for from us. A nother possibility is to pronounce from him as 1 .
H ere the speaker has unwittingly created the form used during the Middle
Ages . literally means from with us but is not employed at all, except in nam es o f firms, such as . In this case it reflects the impact o f the A ustro-G erm an et which is the French et and pronounced [et]
(spelling pronunciation).
New com pounds were created, such as 1 lighthouse, 1 ?traffic
light where the morpheme of the plural is added to the second constituent,
1 ,( and not 1 etc., as required by grammar). This
occurs already in M H : in M idrash Bereshit R abbah the form 1( pi. of
) occurs! Interesting, also, is the case of 3 1 denoting a male cousin
(even on the m other's side), but a female cousin' is generally even if
she is a daughter of an uncle.
This very phenom enon also occurs in Yiddish. While prince is ,
princess is . This is why these two forms are found in Mendeles
The Travels o f Benjam in the Third (cf. 309). We might well assume that it
goes back to the Hebrew com ponent o f Yiddish (cf. 462-472).
I.
Blanc points out that In recent y e a rs[IH jh a s been producing dozens
o f adjectives indicating something like English adjectives -able:
breakable, readable etc... He adds that no one knows precisely on
w hat basis the pattern was launched. (Could it be flexible which is
M H ? and cf. above 338).
Even if we do not take into account several other instances adduced as
internal innovations (some are very much substandard, and others occur in
M H ), the instances m entioned above establish, to my mind, beyond doubt
the identity o f IH as a special entity, functioning more or less as any normal m odern language.
Adm ittedly, there used to be a trend th at maintained that everything new
245
[ 4 0 7
in Modern Hebrew which is not found in the sources should be considered

incorrect. There was also a second schoolof thought not so narrow-m inded
which allowed mistakes if they were the outgrowth of linguistic forces
working in the older sources as well. Thus ;unbelievable!
(lit. not believed if told, cf. H abakkuk 1, 5) (also Yiddish) instead o f
would be considered correct. The same holds true for ; sto ry as a
back formation of 1 which is properly the plural of . But the
new approach was different for two reasons: 1. While formerly linguistics
were inclined to see the trees rather than the forest, they now saw only the
forest. 2. In its consequent application, their approach am ounted to a
severance of Hebrew from the sources. These, in their opinion, should
cease to play a part in deciding which way the language should develop.
This approach has not gone uncontested. Z. Ben H ayyim has pointed
out that it may still be too early to investigate IH as an independent entity.
Still, the identity of IH having been established, all the other traits, ineluding those that go back to the interference of foreign languages will have
to be taken into account as normal in any descriptive gram m ar. O f course,
this does not commit anyone as regards the normative gram m ar o f IH.
H.
Blanc has succinctly described the exact com ponents th at went into
the making of IH:
The essential components of the Hebrew spoken in Israel today...
(are) three... The first is the basic gram m ar and vocabulary o f the
Hebrew classics (the Old Testam ent and post-Biblical literature)...
the second is the largely unconscious linguistic activity o f the
speakers, and the creation of new forms without reference to the
classics or to the guidance of official bodies; the third is the allpervasive non-Hebrew influence stemming from the linguistic
background o f veteran settlers and new im migrants alike.
(We may add: and of the Hebrew writers beginning with the H askalah!)
I cannot refrain from quoting the excellent illustration given by Blanc:
A native Israeli is commonly referred to as a sabre, a word meaning
prickly pear, supposedly because of the natives rough exterior and
manners. The word is a borrowing from Palestinian A rabic sabra,
but its present final vowel and its plural form, sabres, show that it
came into Hebrew through Yiddish, the language of the very first
246
4 0 7 -4 0 9 ]
An Outline of Israeli Hebrew
E ast E uropean settlers, who learned the term from the local A rabs.
Further, while the Israelis pronounce the word very much as Yiddish
speakers would, the tutored ear can easily distinguish a clearly nonYiddish tinge in their pronunciation, which is thus specifically Israeli.
To com plicate m atters, this word is today in process o f being
replaced by a neo-Hebrew word obtained by Hebraizing the A rabic
term ; the word thus officially introduced was to be pronounced
tsavar, in the plural tsavarim , both with stress on the last syllable,
but for reasons which need not detain us here, the form now in use
and in com petition with sabre is tsabar, in the plural tsabarim , both
stressed on the first syllable; tsavar is relegated to the dictionary.
T hus we have an A rabic word with a Yiddish form and an Israeli
pronunciation being replaced by a sem i-Hebraized word spoken in a
m anner peculiar to the natives and entirely out of joint with the dem ands o f classical gram m ar.
L iterature:
H. Blanc, The G row th o f Israeli H ebrew , M iddle Eastern A ffa irs 5
(1954), pp. 385f.
. 85-3 , ,) ( , , .
[Rosn, C ontem porary H ebrew , pp. 4 0 -5 4 (includes recent bibliography).
O.S.]
E. An Outline o f Israeli Hebrew
408. As mentioned above (407), IH became the object o f linguistic

research only during the last years, and there is still no agreem ent am ong
scholars on many points, including the basic facts. Therefore the following
outline should be considered as tentative only. We shall try to describe
standard IH , roughly that of high school and university graduates who try
to speak correct Hebrew as they know it and to avoid slang mainly in formal speech, and to a certain extent in informal speech as well. This is not to
say that every aspect of the language thus described is considered acceptable by scholars o f puristic tendencies.
I. Phonology and Phonetics
409. The speakers o f H ebrew whose native or only language is IH can

247
M O DER N H E B R EW A N D ISR A ELI HEBR EW
[ 4 0 9 -4 1 0
be divided into tw o groups. One is com posed o f those who came from
Europe and the W estern H em isphere and their offspring (the so-called
A shkenazim ) as well as those who becam e assimilated to them. The other
group consists o f persons who hail from A rabic-speaking (and other N ear
Eastern) countries (the so-called Sephardim). The difference between the
language o f the tw o groups is mainly in their stock of consonantal
phonem es and their realization. While our description will be concerned
with the language o f the W estern group, we shall occasionally point out the
divergencies between it and the Eastern group. This procedure is preferable
since the W estern group is considered the prestigious group, despite the efforts o f a few linguists and the Israeli radio to introduce the pronunciation
of the E asterners which is closer to the original.
L iterature:
[M. C hayen, The P honetics o f M odern H ebrew , The Hague and Paris
1973;
idem, The Pronunciation o f Israeli H ebrew , Lesonenu 36 (1971-72),
pp. 2 1 2 -2 1 9 , 2 8 7 -3 0 0 (H ebrew with English sum m ary);
Rosn, C ontem porary H ebrew , pp. 5 5 -8 1 ;
O. Schw arzw ald, C oncrete and A bstract Theoretical M ethods and the
A nalysis o f B G D K P T -B K P in H ebrew , Lesonenu 40 (1975-76),
pp. 21 1-232 (in H ebrew). O.S.]
a. C onsonants: Phonem ics, Phonetics and L o st Phoneme
410. Phonem ics. IH , like BH, has twenty-three phonem es but only a
few survive unchanged, while the m ajority consist o f
1) phonem es which represent two original phonemes merged into one;
2) form er allophones which turned into phonem es;
3) phonem es of foreign origin. Except for the last category, the spelling
rem ained unchanged.
1) As in Yiddish (see 373): ,ayin = a le f / /: he w orked = (is
realized) he perished; k a f (without dagesh) = het /x /: he
acquired = he felt; q o f = k a f (with dagesh) / k / : he visited =
he preferred; tet = taw (with o r w ithout dagesh) /t/: he drow ned
= he dem anded (taw w ithout dagesh is the only consonant which did
not keep its Y iddish pronunciation but rather the Sephardic one, see 373).
2) The fricative allophones (i.e. those w ithout dagesh) o f the phonemes
/b , k, p / are phonem icized: bet = /v /, (and this /v / = waw /v /, see below).
248
4 1 0 -4 1 1 ]
A n O u tlin e o f Israeli H eb rew
Therefore, since there is no gemination in IH , hitxaver (a substandard

form, derived from friend) to becom e a friend 0 is opposed to hitxaber to associate w ith; (and k a f w ithout d a g esh = /x/), lubrication
is opposed to pin; p e = /f/, and lip is opposed to sofa.
3)
The phonem es / z / (spelled ,T), /c / (spelled ,) , /g / (spelled ' )occur as
such only in foreign loans, e.g., ja ck e t, puncture, flat tire,
gentlem an.
Phonetics. S a d e is pronounced [c] (see above 373), waw = [v] (= bet
without d a g e sh \ resh mainly as [R] = uvular trill (French /r /). Gimel, dalet
and taw , both with and w ithout dagesh, are realized [g, d, t]. / h / is lost in
several positions, e.g., at word final; therefore [ kalba:] her dog =
[ kalba:] bitch. The sam e applies to / / in some positions, e.g.,
[ loxpat li] I could not care less. Some IH phonemes have
positional variants, e. g. , 1[ xezbon] calculation; invoice, where the unvoiced [s] becam e voiced [z] because o f the voiced [b] ; [ eskor] I shall
rm em ber, w here the voiced [z] becam e unvoiced [s] because o f the unvoiced [k].
L o st Phonemes. IH lost the typically Semitic consonantal laryngals / , h /
and em phatics /t, s, q / (cf. 9, 10, 24) as well as /w /. These phonem es are
realized [, x, t, c, k, v] respectively (and cf. above 410). [Oriental native
speakers (of A rabicized Hebrew, in B lancs term inology) do preserve the / /
and /h /. O.S.]
b. Vowels
411. IH is supposed to have six vowel phonem es o f which five, /a , e, i,
o, u / are attested in every position, but the sixth, /9 / (representing an
original shva n a ) only after certain initial consonants. Its phonemic
character is established, for example, by the minimal pair [ baros] at
the head o f (construct state) as against 1[ bros] cypress.
The latter instance indicates th at initial clusters do occur in IH , in varying com binations con trary to the case in BH and in other classical Semitic
languages.
Vowel length is not supposed to be distinctive. A case like [ nata.ti]
I planted (as against [ natati] I gave), is more properly analyzed as
[nataati].
Cases o f [ey] which have variants o f [e:] are analyzed as representing
the diphthong /e y /. O ther diphthongs are said to be /ia, ua, ea, o a/, e.g., n
249
M O DERN H EBR EW A N D ISRAELI HEBREW
[ 4 1 1 -4 1 2
[koax] force. They occur only before /x / (< het) / / (< ,ayin) [and [0 ] <
he, e.g., [ gavoa] tali. O.S.]
Vowels in accented syllables are longer than in unaccented ones. The
vowels sere, segol, h a ta f segol and sometimes hiriq (when representing an
original shva na*) merged into /e/, and qames gadol, patah and h a ta f patah
merged into /a /.
In contradistinction to the consonants, where the Yiddish substrate is
dom inant, here it is the Sephardic pronunciation which prevails.
c. F urther Observations on IH 'Phonemes

412. This picture o f the phonemes of IH , especially the consonantal
phonemes, is not entirely satisfactory. In the case of the consonantal
phonemes in categories 1) and 2) (above 410) it does not reveal in
phonemic term s that the classical Hebrew system, which has partially
broken down in IH , does nonetheless exist to a large extent in IH . F o r example, while [x] < k a f without dagesh may have a phonemic character, it
may also function as an allophone of k a f with dagesh as in BH, e.g.,
[ktav] writing but [ bixtav] in writing. This is not the case, however,
with [x] < h et! The same applies to [k] < k a f with dagesh, which, as mentioned, has an allophone [x], but not to [k] < q o f which always remains [k],
e.g., [ krav] battle but [ bikrav] in battle.
C om pare also the problem of the perfect [ raxav] it was wide =
[raxav] he rode as against the imperfect [ yirxav] it will be wide but
[ yirkav] he will ride. Also, in my opinion, it remains unexplained that
the same phenom enon exists in the perfect [ kara] he read =
[kara] he tore as against the passive participle [ karu] read but
[karua] torn, and in similar cases.
It should also be pointed out that the phonemic load o f some new
phonemes, e.g., /f / seems to be extremely light, and it would be very
difficult to find even a small num ber of minimal pairs /p /:/f/. In other
words, /f / nearly always functions as an allophone and not as a phoneme.
To be sure, while the average IH speaker may pronounce [ ktav],
[bixtav], he would say [ kita] classroom , [ bskita] in a
classroom (instead o f [baxita]). But even purists would not apply the /b , g,
d, k, p, t / rule to foreign lexemes like 1 Poland; they would pronounce
[bapolin] and not [bafolin].
This very com plicated state o f affairs has not yet been stated clearly in
250
4 1 2 -4 1 5 ]
phonem ic term s. N o doubt the phonological description o f IH needs

further refinement.
[See now the literature quoted for 409.]
d. S tress
413. As in BH, stress falls on the ultim ate, penultim ate, o r som etim es
even on the ante-penultim ate syllable, e.g., 1 ; &Jerusalem ites (fem.).
In one case, i.e. forms like 1 5 , w om en o f the kibbutz the stress falls
even farther aw ay (?). There are cases where the stress is penultim ate
where in BH it is ultim ate, e.g., ; Jerusalem ite. This holds true especially in personal and place nam es (see above 348).
e. Gemination.
414. G em ination (doubling o f a consonant) has been lost in IH .
f . A ssim ilation o f Nun
415. BH and MH assimilate [n] to the following consonant, e.g., ;
they will fall (root ) . Since this rule has lost its force, the assim ilation
that occurs is retained in paradigm s th at go back to BH and M H , but is
disregarded in new creations, e.g., to perpetuate, to issue instead of the correct forms # ,* . Even purists do not seem to object
anymore. (Incidentally, this may already appear in M H where we find
to lower). Som etim es the rule o f assim ilation is disregarded even in form s
that do appear in BH and M H , but are relatively rare, e.g., ^ he will
bite', as against BH ( e.g., Eccl. 10, 11).
Literature:
D. Ten, L'hbreu Contem porain (unpublished);
R.W . VVeiman, Native and Foreign E lem ents in a Language: A S tu d y in
General L inguistics A pplied to M odern H ebrew , Philadelphia 1950;
H. Blanc, W ord 9 (1953), pp. 8 7 -9 0 (review o f W eim an);
; 186-138 , ,
H. Blanc, L anguage 32 (1956), pp. 7 9 5 -8 0 2 (review o f Rosn);
H.B. Rosn, A Textbook o f Israeli H eb rew 2, C hicago & London 1966;
G. Fraenkel, A Structural A pproach to Israeli H ebrew , J A O S 86 (1966),
pp. 3 2 -3 8 .
251
M O D E R N H E B R EW A N D ISRAELI H EBR EW
[ 4 1 6 -4 1 8
II. M orphology
a. Pronouns
1. Independent Pronouns. 416. N early all the personal pronouns are SBH.
Only we com es from M H . th e y (fem.) is M H but there it serves for
both m asc. and fem. It apparently owes its existence in IH to the (m istaken)
assum ption th a t BH ,( properly the prepositions +suffix) are to
be analyzed , + , + in which is an independent pronoun.
$ and 3$ are widely used w hereas and are used mainly in
elevated language. The BH form s with a final / a / nam ely, , ,
are lost, as is . The vocalization o f is som ew hat problem atic.
2. Possessive Suffixes an d the Independent Possessive Prfonoun. 417. IH
uses the BH possessive suffixes, but the M H independent possessive pronoun is equally com m on ( , etc.; see above 204).
In IH , substandard forms o f the possessive suffixes are som etimes used
with prepositions, e.g., ( for ) with y o u (fem.) under the influence
o f the parallel noun suffix, or the sing, suffix in w ithout m e instead
of the plural ( the underlying preposition is )* under the influence o f form s like with m e.
a. Uses o f the Independent Possessive Pronoun. 418. As in M H , there are
no hard and fast rules that determ ine w hether the independent possessive
pronouns or the possessive suffixes are to be used (cf. 216). The following
picture seems to be m ore or less accurate.
1) Foreign loans are seldom used with the suffix, e. g. , our
courses (and cf. 346).
2) It seems to me that often, at least in spoken IH , the suffixes would not
be used even with Hebrew nouns if they would perceptibly change the basic
form o f the noun, e.g., 1( for 1 ) his curse.
3) The independent possessive pronoun often replaces the possessive
suffix in inform al speech, e.g., ( instead o f ) my father.
4) In m any cases, as pointed out by R osn, the use o f the suffix seems to
be conditioned at the same level o f speech but the exact nature o f the conditioning has not yet been established, e.g., my flesh, but
my m eat; 1 my daughters, but 1 my girls (used by their
teacher), the first denoting inalienable p ro p erty , while the second
alienable property. U. O m an m aintains th at the difference in usage goes
back to the difference between prim ary and secondary meaning.
252
4 1 8 -4 1 9 ]
5)
The reason for the replacement of the possessive suffix is obvious, as
pointed out by Rosn, in such cases as my mem bership
c ard as against the docum ent of my friend. In the first case
the immediate constituents are + possessive pronoun (cf.
English translation), and here the possessive pronoun refers to the compound in its entirety, whereas in the immediate constituents are
4 , and the possessive suffix only refers to . Incidentally,
already in BH we find such cases, e. g. , 1( ^ Gen. 41, 43)
where the translation o f the Revised S tandard Version in his second
chariot is preferable to that of the Jewish Publication Society chariot o f
his second-in-com m and (cf. also above 380).
Literature:
U. O m an, The Use o f A ttached and Independent Possessive P ronouns in
M odern Hebrew , Fourth World Congress o f Jewish Studies, Jerusalem
1968, pp. 117-122 (Hebrew with English sum m ary p. 188);
; 188-177 , 160-149 , ,3 ,
[Rosn, Contem porary Hebrew, pp. 144-152. O.S.]
3. D em onstrative Pronouns. 419. BH and M H forms are used

indiscriminately: ,1 this (fem.), , these; they always follow
the noun. It is still a problem whether the M H forms require the article, e.g.,
1 or this w om an. Also widely used is the M H + third
persons suffixes, which precedes the noun, yet here too, the question o f the
determ ination o f the noun remains unsolved: 1 1 1( as in M H ) or
1 1 1 th at day (cf. above 203). It is also employed with the m eaning
the sam e, as in M H, e.g., ( ) 1 1 we still live in that
(or the same) house.
functions in substandard IH quite often like English it, G erm an es, i.e.
as an em pty subject, e.g., it is difficult to learn
Hebrew ; standard IH omits .
As Rosn has shown, with the preposition these dem onstratives agree
in gender and num ber with the noun they follow and not with the noun they
refer to, e.g., ; I have
already got ten bad w orkers, one m ore like this (instead o f these) I
do not w ant.
253
[ 4 1 9 -4 2 5
Literature:
.53-51 , , 3 ,
[For as a copula in nominal sentences see ibid. pp. 2 4 5 -247. O.S.]
4. Relative Pronouns. 420. The (mainly) M H is more often used than
BH $.
b. The Verb
1. Prefixes and Suffixes. 421. Prefixes and suffixes o f the perfect and imperfect are SBH, except the second and third pers. pi. fem. o f the imperfect,
where the (mainly) M H forms ?, can also be employed.
2. Participle o f the Feminine Singular. 422. This form is created by the
ending [-et] in all stems including the H o fal, e.g., is operated, but
excluding the H if il, where the ending is [-a:], e.g., operates. [In the
weak verbs the forms are identical with those of BH.]
3. Infinitives. 423. It is mainly the infinitive construct + which survives,
but it also occurs with or with the ( as in M H , see 210) or, rarely,
without it. The infinitive absolute may be used in elevated speech.
4. The Weak Verbs. 424. Verbs are generally used in their BH forms;
therefore, for example, verbs are used as such (and do not turn into
verbs, as in MH). To be sure, forms do occasionally turn up, e.g.,
m arried (instead o f ) . In the N ifal perfect o f verbs BH and
MH forms may be employed side by side with specialized meanings; MH
form 1 = was discussed while BH form 1 = was sentenced. In the
infinitive construct of verbs mainly BH forms are used: to sit
(some writers, like Agnon, prefer M H ) . W ith the preposition , IH
created, by analogy, forms like ^while I was sitting (instead o f BH
, see above 326).
L iterature:
[O. Schwarzwald, Studies... K utscher (above 211), pp. 181-188 (Hebrew
with English summary). O.S.]
5. Stem s. 425. The stems are also those of SBH, in addition to the Nit-
254
4 2 5 -4 2 8 ]
A n O u tlin e o f Isreali H eb rew
pael o f M H (which should actually have been N itp aal as pointed o u t by

Yalon, see 211) but the use differs som ewhat from th at o f SBH.
IH has a tremendous number of verbs that appear not only in their
original stems but also in stems other than those in which they occur in the
classical sources. Also there is a large am ount of denom inative verbs (verbs
created from nouns).
a. Qal. 426. A round a hundred years ago, the Qal w as widely used (according to Sivan, more than 30% o f all verbs), but it has acquired only a
small number o f newcomers, e.g., 1 to outflank (d&nominative from
flank).
Some substandard forms are common in the Qal. Instead o f he
is asleep, children say 1 , on the pattern of 1 , etc. The second person
plural perfect is pronounced instead o f ( the first vowel remains and is not shortened), because o f the other form s o f the paradigm .
. N if'a l. 427. This stem is employed to indicate perfective action (here

IH has unwittingly reproduced the usage found in M H). e.g., he w as
lying, he lay down (see above 352). Besides, the N ifal serves
mainly as the passive of the Qal.
. Pi'el. 428. The Piel has made trem endous headw ay, and in its wake
also the Pual and H itpael. This stem has attracted the highest percentage
of new material (according to Sivan more than 30%). The reason is th at the
Piel (and also the Pual and H itpael) can easily be formed not only from
tri-literal, but also from quadri- and exceptionally from quinque-literal
roots. Therefore, we find, e.g., to stam p (from stam p) and even
to mine (from 1 mine; root ) where the original derivational
prefix is treated as if it were part and parcel of the root. This occasionally
happens also in M H , e.g., 1 to separate the priestly gift (today to contribute) from the priestly gift, from the H ifil o f to lift. Exampies o f quadri-literal roots are: to organize from ( a loan from
English organization); to brief from briefing (< to instruct), where the taw became part of the root. A derivational suffix is
treated as a root consonant in cases like to present (as by a model)
from ( girl) model (< the MH Greek loan ) . The quinqueliteral verb ( from telegraph) is a special case.
255
M O D ER N H EB R EW A N D ISR A ELI HEBR EW
[ 4 2 9 -4 3 3
. PVleL 429. (with the reduplication o f the third root consonant) deserves
special attention. It is em ployed in cases where the simple Piel would be
aw kw ard, e.g., to air as * would be hom ophonous with to
blind. Som etim es it is em ployed in order to modify the meaning o f the simpie root, e.g., to giggle ( = to laugh, je st etc.). to flirt a
quinque-literal root (from English flirt!) is, like , a special case (cf.
above 365, 428).
8. Pu'al. 430. This stem serves mainly as the passive of the Piel but in the
verbs it is occasionally em ployed as the passive o f the Qal, e. g. , he
was aband on ed (see at length above 381, 402).
. H if'il an d H o f *ai. 431. H iFil and its passive H o fal have also attracted
a host o f new roots. As m entioned above (415) in verbs whose first root
consonant is [n], the [n] is not assimilated in new form ations or new meanings. Therefore from the root , for example, we find both the old form
( from BH) to say and the new form ation to co ntrast, from
opposite.
Here, too as in the Piel, the root employed might contain a consonant
which w as originally a derivational prefix, although this is possible only in
cases where the root so created is tri-literal, e.g., to start (a car) from
m ovem ent (root ) .
. H itpa'el. 432. This stem, too, has attracted quite a few newcomers.
Besides indicating reflexive and sometimes passive action, it is employed,
like the N ifal, to indicate perfective action, e.g., 1 ; to be sitting but
to sit dow n (cf. above 352) although it is sometimes difficult to
pinpoint the difference between the H itpael and the active stems; cf. !
1 , to crawl, to go very slowly.
. N itpa'el. 433. The N itp ael has a passive meaning, and it occurs in the
perfect only (the im perfect being created from the H itpa'e), e.g.,
was asked.
In IH m uch m ore than in BH and M H , it would be difficult to discover
the original m eanings ascribed to the stems in BH, for the usage is already
lexicalized to a large extent.
256
4 3 4 -4 3 7 ]
III. The Verbal System s ( Tenses, M oods, and Aspects)

a. Tenses
434. IH has four tenses, three simple tenses and one compound tense.
They are the perfect, the imperfect, the participle, and the active participle
+ the auxiliary verb 1. The perfect is used to denote the past, paralleling
the English past (preterit), perfect, and past perfect, and (as in English)
after as if, , if , if not (contrary to the facts), I
w ish.
L iterature:
[F or 4 3 4 -4 4 1 : Rosn, Contem porary H ebrew , pp. 179-205. O.S.]
1. The Participle Plus A uxiliary. 435. The participle + auxiliary is
used as an indication of time referring to the past, to indicate habitualness,
e.g., ^ last year he used to come occasionally. Often to stress habitualness, the verb 1 in the participle is added, the main
verb appearing as infinitive + : 1 11 . C ertain imperfect verbs
whose masc. sing, active participle o f the Qal is identical with the perfect,
em ploy this tense instead o f the perfect, e.g., he lived, ^he
could (cf. 381). The same applies to certain imperfect verbs in the N ifal
for the sam e reason, e.g., was considered (instead of ) , but
cf. it seemed vs. was seen (see also above 407). It is also
em ployed to indicate an imagined event whose occurrence is precluded,
e.g., in your place, I would not say so. It is also
used in sentences starting with , to express non-actuality in the last
p a rt of the sentence: ? if I came to you, what
would you have done?.
2. The A ctive Participle. 436. The active participle is employed to indicate
the present. It parallels the English simple present (the sun shines), present
progressive (the sun is shining), present perfect progressive: (
\ I have been living in Jerusalem for ten tears, and
also as a future tense when it is indicated: $ I am coming
tom orrow . The active participle is also used as a noun.
3. The Im perfect. 437. The imperfect is employed to describe events, as
well as in conditional sentences after if (but not after , which
257
[ 4 3 7 -4 3 9
take the perfect), after ( indicating hesitation) = English m ay, and in

relative clauses after
and . It is also used to express desire, com m and
etc. (= cohortative, imperative and jussive o f BH), e.g., let us wait,
see and in the third pers. sing. ma s c . he shall go, (but instead o f
it also he shall go, let
him go). Note: ? $ $ should
Occasionally the imperfect is used to indicate habitual action as in BH,
e.g., ... ... ? a taxi would come at
eight... (he) would arrive at the place... (he) would enter the hall... (S.
Keshet, H a a re tz Supplement, M ay 26, 1967, p. 10). It seems to me that
this usage does not go back to BH but has invaded journalese from English
(e.g., he would sit fo r hours without saying a word).
4. Negation. 438. Negation is indicated by except

1) when the participle with is used, e.g.,
1^
dont w ant;
2) with the first pers. pi. of the imperfect used to express desire, e.g.,
let us not wait (while = we shall not wait; is ambiguous!);
3) with the negated imperative and jussive (second and third pers. imperfeet), where is also used: dont go, let him not go.
This tense system, especially the use of the imperfect, does not seem to
correspond to anything found in BH and MH (see 66, 67, 218). Those
who introduced it seem to have acted under the (mistaken) impression that
it is M H. Is it possible that its foundations were laid during the Middle
Ages?
The tense system o f BH, especially the waw conversive, is used in
childrens literature.
5.
The Imperative. 439. It is not clear when the imperative is employed
to express positive com m and and when the imperfect. According to Rosn,
the imperfect is used if the imperative contains an inadmissible initial
cluster, e.g., write dow n! instead of ^] 01], but [ sgor] (admissible initial cluster) shut!.
L iterature:
;219- 216 , 112-111 , , ,
[Rosn, Contemporary H ebrew, pp. 198-200.]
258
440-441]
6. The Infinitive. 440 The infinitive + is employed as the complement

o f a finite verb, e.g., 1 $ I want to leave; after ( } in writing) or
( in speech), e. g. , 1 Please ring the bell,
please pay; after certain adjectives, e.g., it is easy to hear; and
after , e.g., you have to w ork. In all these cases the object can be expressed by adding a pronom inal suffix or a preposition +
suffix, e.g., / you have to watch him . The
infinitive 4 is also used as a com m and, generally one addressed to more
than one person (e.g., by the teacher to the class): keep quiet. This is
scarcely standard.
The infinitive is negated by ; in general prohibition it is negated also
by or , e.g., 1 1 P ost no bills.
T he infinitive + is employed as a gerund (= English -in g \ always with
(subject) suffix, e.g., 1 when leaving. Occasionally it is used with
other prepositions (and a noun instead o f suffix), e.g., 1 0
we shall sell merchandise from the stores opening
until its closing.
7. The Passive Participles. 441. The passive participles o f the Qal, Pual
and H o fal are employed mainly as stative passives, while the participles of
the N iP al and H itpael denote action passive, e.g., the house is
closed, 0 the house is being closed, the m atter is
fixed, the m atter is being fixed. F or lack of a special form, the
H o fal participle seems to be used also as an action passive, generally with
1 : ) 1 (the men are being transferred.
Like any adjective, the stative passive can be related to past and future
with the help o f . The Pual participle is employed with the meaning
provided with, heaving etc., e.g., illustrated with photographs and
even where there is no active, e.g., bespectacled ^from
spectacles.
The passive participle is sometimes used to indicate the state of the subject, which is the result of a past action: loser,
gainer. This is
the case with M H (and L B H) $ I have received etc., above 218.
259
M O DER N H E B R E W A N D ISR A E L I H EBR EW
[ 4 4 2 -4 4 3
IV. W ord Form ation

a. The N oun
442. IH needed a large num ber o f new nouns and all BH and M H noun
types were utilized in this respect. Sivan may be right th at there is a tendency to avoid noun patterns w ithout a derivational prefix or suffix, since
the spelling does not clearly indicate which pattern is intended (cf. above
388 ). This difficulty som etim es created double form s, e.g., the noun
m odel which is som etim es pronounced and som etimes . O f course,
this occasionally obtains in p attern s with prefixes and suffixes as shown by
nouns like / barb e rsh o p , / sidewalk. IH is not
adverse to using the sam e pattern in two dialectical form s, e.g.,
patient (adj . ), 1 to leran t (see above 213, 326) or 1 confession
and ;1 thanksgiving (cf. 389).
There are about seventy noun p atterns in BH and M H which are employed by IH . In addition there are a few new ones o f foreign origin. A few
other w ords o f cognate m eaning were patterned after 1 theater,
1 puppet theater etc., while the derivational suffix o f mem ber
o f a kibbutz is, as in A m erican English beatnik, o f Slavic origin (cf. above
349). The derivational suffix ~ is widely used to create dim inutives, e.g.,
spoon, teasp o o n .
1. The C onstruct S ta te an d the - C onstruction. 443. As in M H , both
the construct state and the ^ 0 ^ 1 ^ ^ are employed. Therefore, there
are three w ays to translate the phrase the (a) house of the teacher:
1)
1 ()
2)
1 ) ) ()and
3)
1 1 .
It w as again R osn w ho pointed out th at these three constructions are
not exactly identical (cf. above 418). T o be sure, the construct still
dom inates and occurs ten tim es m ore often than the forms.
In com pounds like school , 1 cem etery the construct is
obligatory and cannot be replaced by the 10 ^ ^ ^ 0 ^ ^ The sam e applies to com pounds with , when it means one who has, (one) with,
(one) o f (see above 355), e.g., 1 this advice is of
great w eight. It also holds good concerning com pounds with less,
generally the opposite o f the 10 ^ 1 0 1 ^ 0 0 - ^ e.g., 0 hopeless.
In the following tw o exam ples the choice o f either construction is used
260
4 4 3 -4 4 5 )
for differentiation: = a bottle o f wine' while a wine

bo ttle\ the m ans house i.e. which he built, while 1
the house that belongs to the m an. Especially interesting is R osns discovery that IH makes use o f both constructions to avoid inherent ambiguity o f the construct in cases like i.e. where the first noun is a
verbal substantive. This phrase could mean m others love (the m other being the lover) or love o f (m other being the beloved). Therefore it seems to
me that in the construct (at least in many cases), the following way was
found to circum vent the ambiguity, e.g., means the election of
the K nesset (Israeli Parliam ent), the K nesset being the elected, while
- ^ election (say, o f a chairm an) by the K nesset. As in
M H , foreign loans are generally used with the 10 ^ ^ 0 ^ ^ ^ e. g. , [
1 ,t he teachers course.
The 0 ^ ^ ^ 0 ^ ^ are also preferred when an adjective follows. This
is especially so in cases where both nouns agree in gender and number, e.g.
1 where it is im possible to establish w hat the immediate constituents are, i.e. whether 1 good refers to son or to neighbor.
The constructions 1 / and 1 /
solve this problem.
L iterature:
.193-125 , ,3 ,
2. Apposition. 444. The apposition precedes the proper noun, e.g., 1
his wife Bath-sheva as against 1 in B H;
the Prophet Isaiah as against in BH, see above 350.
b. Adjectival Forms
445. qati:l pattern is widely employed to create adjectives that parallel
English adjectives with the ending -able, e.g., breakable (cf. above
338).
IH very widely employs adjectives with the derivational suffix not only
from nouns, e.g., partial ( = p a rt) but also from adverbs and
adverbial phrases, e.g., tangible, factual ( = really, reality)
up to date ( = up until now). M ost o f the adjectives can be
negated by the prefix ( see above 363) which can take the article
( ) ) the) impossible, ( ) ) the) unsuitable.
A true creation o f IH is adjectives derived from com pound expressions.
261
[ 4 4 5 -4 4 7
The first member o f the com pound is mainly of non-H ebrew origin
(A ram aic, Greek or Latin), while the second mem ber is an adjective with
the suffix (see above 334). They are mainly of three types:
1) The first mem ber is a quantative expression: one (A), e. g. ,
one-sided; bi- (a Greek loan in MH), e. g. , 1 bilingual; tri-
(A), e.g., triennial; pan. (A > M H ), e.g. 1 PanEuropean; m ulti( H), e.g., m anyfold.
2) The first m em ber is a preposition: 1 pro (Latin), e.g., 1
pro- Engl i sh; anti- (Latin), e. g. , anti semit e; super- (H),
e.g., supernatural; sub- (A), e.g., subconscious;
inter- (H), e.g., international; 1 pre- (H, new creation),
e.g., 1 prew ar, pre- (A) = 1 ; post- (A) e.g.,
post-BiblicaP.
3) The first m em ber is the name o f a cardinal point, as ^center, 1
south, e.g., 1 South A m erican. (Cf. also 363).
c. Adverbs
446. Since both BH and M H lack adverbs which in English are easily
created from adjectives (e.g., easy easily), IH resorted to various means
to fill the void. Very often nouns with prepositions are used, e.g.,
easily (= with ease) as in BH and MH. Sometimes, strangely enough,
this is done even in cases where Hebrew does have an adverb; instead of
suddenly, might be employed (by suffixing which turns
it into an adjective and adding to it which turns it into a noun, and
again, by prefixing ), e.g., he died suddenly. The feminine
adjective with the ending ;often functions as an adverb, e.g.,
officially as does the feminine plural adjective e.g., 1 at length.
The employment o f m anner + before an adjective in adverbial
usage is very com m on; instead o f freely one may say .
d. Prepositions
447. Prepositions are both BH and MH. A ccording to Rosn, when
is not a governed case prefix, it is replaced... by the corresponding form of
" e.g., 1 / 1 I telephoned the uncle but Î
telephoned him , as against 1 / I tell the child/him
the story. A bout replacing see above 407.
Literature:
. 119-116 , ,3 ,
262
4 4 8 -4 5 0 ]
V. Special Languages in Israeli Hebrew

448. There are no geographical dialects in IH but there exist special
languages such as childrens languages, slang and argot.
Literature:
[For dialectal form s of the Galilee at the beginning o f the century see
A .B ar-A don, The R ise and Decline o f a D ialect, The Hague and Paris
1975. O.S.]
a . C hildrens Language
449. [ fil], a back form ation from English film which was interpreted
by children as a noun with a plural ending -belongs to this category.
Concert was pronounced = 1 , in accordance with the pattern o f
the fem. participle (e.g., 1 graduate) and so the plural 1 1 cam e
into being.
Literature:
(A. Bar-Adon, Children's H ebrew in Israel, Ph.D . dissertation, The
Hebrew University o f Jerusalem , 1959 (H ebrew );
. 96 , 63-35 , ,) ; ( 28-21 , ,) ( , .
O.S.]
b. Slang
450. The reasons for the developm ent o f slang in IH are the sam e as in
other languages: the simple pleasure o f new creations. These are the results
o f various processes, such as abbreviations: ( leopard) which stands
for 1 a nuisance o f the first class, which stands for
1 ; 1 th a ts his problem (which occurs also with the possessive
suffix, e.g., th a ts yo u r problem ); em phasis: ,*1 , and
the G erman-Yiddish ( Eisen = iron), all expressing enthusiastic approval, excellent etc.; euphem ism s: he w ent = he died,
third aid' = toilet paper; loan translations: 1 1 kI fixed him,
true form (= G erm an a u f der Hohe).
M any slang w ords and expressions are o f foreign origin, such as A rabic
(see 345, where all words adduced, except are slang), Yiddish (}
, , , / , ^ 1 1 , 1 , see 352, 354,
358, 359), English ( etc., 365), R ussian (368 ) and others.
263
M ODERN H EBREW A N D ISRAELI H EBREW
[ 4 5 0 -4 5 2
L iterature :
]; 16-15 , , 1963 , ,p o .
;79-61 , , ) (, . .O. S
D. Ben-A m otz and N. Ben-Yehuda, The W orld D ictionary o f Hebrew
S la n g , Jerusalem 1972 (H ebrew (;
. 1965 , , .(
c. Argot
451. Little research has been done in the field o f professional languages.
The language o f fisherman and sailors has been found to contain words
from all the languages employed in the M editerranean. Besides H ebrew (incidentally, this is the case concerning all the languages o f this territory)
standard and substandard, there are w ords from A rabic, T urkish, Italian,
French, G erm an, G reek, English and even o f M altese origin.
Literature:
]. 325-308 , , ) ; ( 298- 289 , , ) ( , . , .
].O. S
d . The Hebrew o f the Synagogue
452. IH serves all H ebrew speaking Jew s (and A rabs) o f Israel both as
their spoken and written language. But this does not apply to the language
o f the synagogue. Especially in the case o f the older generation all the different pronunciations from countries o f Europe, A sia and A frica are still
heard. A shkenazic Jews, especially those w ho are close to the old yishuv,
but also others of the older generation still pray with A shkenazic pronunciation. The A shkenazic pronunciation itself is not uniform , the main difference being in the Hebrew of the Jew s o f G erm an, H ungarian, Polish and
Lithuanian origin. As a comm on denom inator we could mention the
pronunciation o f the , as [] and [x], o f the w ithout dagesh as [s] and
the qames as [o] or [u].(see 373). But as for the other vowels, 10:1 is
pronounced as a dipthong of various kinds, e.g., [oi, au, ei] (cf. 263).
There is also the so-called Sephardic pronunciation. But here again, that
of the Sephardim coming from Europe (e.g., N etherlands, the Balkans) differs from that o f the Sephardim coming from A rabic speaking countries.
Among the Europeans, the Italians lost their / h / ; the pharyngals are not
pronounced (or at least not according to the original pronunciation). I l l
might be pronounced [s], e.g., [kadis] = K adish m ourners p rayer
264
4 5 2 -4 5 3 ]
From the R evival to the P resen t
(see above 23, 263). Jews coming from A rabic speaking countries have
preserved the pharyngals but often have difficulties in pronouncing /p /
since this phonem e is lacking in Arabic. Only the Yemenites have kept the
pronunciation o f BH phonem es distinct and they are the only ones who
preserved the double pronunciation of /b, g, d, k, p, t/. (O ther Jewish communities have preserved only some of these phonemes, for example the
Sephardic pronunciation of /b, k, p/.)
This does not mean, however, that the Yemenites preserved the old
pronunciation in every respect; for example, ( gim el with dagesh) is
pronounced [g]. But the Yemenites have preserved the original M H m uch
better than other communities. One interesting instance is, that contrary to
other com m unities, they did not separate from the following noun as in
M H (see above 216).
Persian Jew s have a pronunciation o f their own which consists o f four
different types. Except for the Hebrew of the Yemenites, much research rem ains to be done in this field.
Literature:
; , , .
[Sh. M orag, Pronunciations o f Hebrew , E J 13, cols. 1120-1145.
O.S.]
F. Israeli Hebrew from the Revival to the Present
I. The E xpansion o f Spoken Israeli Hebrew

453. While Hebrew was already widely used in writing, no real attem pt
was m ade to turn it into a spoken language in Europe. This possibility was
ruled out expressly even by some Hebrew writers (cf. 307, 311). The
turning point came with the im migration of Eliezer Ben Yehuda to
Palestine in 1881. Prom pted by nationalistic impulses, he demanded th at
H ebrew be introduced as a spoken language. His children were brought up
speaking H ebrew, and little by little he and his circle of friends, J.M . Pines,
D avid Yellin and others, were able to enlarge the number of families th at
followed Ben Yehuda, both in Jerusalem and the Jewish agricultural
colonies th at had existed then for several years. In Jerusalem itself, the
265
[ 4 5 3
inhabitants of the old communities (Old Yishuv) consisting o f religious

Jews, especially those of Ashkenazic origin who were opposed to all
change in the field o f education, continued to employ Yiddish in their
heders (elementary schools of the old type) and yeshivot (Talm udical
academies), and were strongly opposed to Ben Yehuda who was nonobservant.
Spoken Hebrew gained a new lease on life thanks to the so-called Second
Aliy ah (1905) that brought young halutzim (pioneers) from R ussia eager
for social, nationalistic, and linguistic reform.
Ben Yehuda founded the Hebrew Language Com m ittee whose chief aim
was to supply the budding language with badly needed term s in all areas of
modern life. The members of the committee were writers living in Palestine.
The new terms created by this committee were employed in teaching in the
kindergartens, elementary schools, high schools and teachers seminaries
that had been established over the years, sometimes in the face o f strong
opposition on the part of the European Jewish organizations which supported these schools. In 1914, a strike against the schools o f Ezra, a G erm an
organization, marked the turning point at which spoken Hebrew gained a
much surer foothold in education.
According to a writer now living in Israel, in 1914 at the outbreak of
W orld W ar I, there were three to four hundred Jewish families who spoke
Hebrew. But statistics show a different story. As Bacchi has shown, am ong
the 85,000 Jews living in Palestine at that time, 25,000 spoke Hebrew. It is
significant that in the agricultural settlements and towns, where the new immigrant element was strong, 75% were Hebrew speaking. In the cities of
Jerusalem, Hebron, etc. with predominately Old Yishuv inhabitants, only
5% were Hebrew speaking. It is also interesting to note that 60% o f the inhabitants of Ashkenazic origin, and more than 60% of the Yemenites spoke
Hebrew, but the percentage was much lower in other Sephardic communities speaking Ladino and Arabic. Herbert Samuel, the then (Jewish)
High Commissioner o f Palestine under the British M andate, put H ebrew on
an equal footing with English and Arabic as the official languages o f the
country. It took several years nearly until the very end of the M andate
in 1948 to put this law into practice through the governm ent
bureaucracy, but the outcom e was never in doubt. New tides of immigration during the twenties and thirties, and since the establishm ent o f the
State of Israel in 1948, brought masses of non-Hebrew-speaking Jews.
While the older generation very often persisted in employing the native
266
4 5 3 -4 5 6 ]
F rom the R evival to th e P resen t
language, the younger generation was brought up on Hebrew, and it has

become the language o f the Jews o f Israel as much as English is the
language o f A m ericans. As in A m erica, the pockets of the older generation
still employing other languages as colloquial are shrinking.
L iterature:
[R.A. Bachi, A Statistical A nalysis o f the Revival of Hebrew in Israel ,
Scripta H ierosolym itana 3 (1955), pp. 179-247;
U.O. Schmelz and R. Bachi, Lesonenu 37 (1972-73), pp. 5 0 -6 8 , 187-201
(Hebrew with English sum mary). O.S.]
II. Contributions by Individuals and Organizations

a. W riters
454. H ebrew writers contributed heavily to the process of reviving and
enlarging the vocabulary of IH. H .N . Bialik was perhaps the m ost outstanding example am ong them. It is still too early to assess the contribution
o f the younger generation of writers
b. Translators
455. T ranslators were often in the forefront of revivers, since they could
not afford to evade the problems of vocabulary. The translations o f
A braham Shlonsky (Shakespeares H am let, de C osters Tyl Ulenspiegl
etc.) are a model of ingenious solutions.
But it is the journalist who bears the brunt of the onslaught o f new
foreign terms. W hen translating telegram s for the morning edition, there is
little time for consulting either the Academ y of the Hebrew Language
(below 459) or a scholar. The num ber o f new words and terms coined this
way, on the spur of the moment, is considerable and of course, this channel
o f enlarging Hebrew is still very active. To mention a few, the verbs 1 to
land and 1 to invade came into use with these meanings a few decades
ago, with D. Pines.
c. O ther Contributors
456. Some political personalities showed a great interest in creating
new terms. A gainst the background of occasional border clashes, M.
Sharett, the first Foreign Minister o f Israel, coined the term ( (
267
M O D E R N H EB R EW A N D ISRAELI HEBREW
! 4 5 6 -4 5 9
(border) incident. D. Rem ez, the first M inister o f T ransportation, coined

the w ord 1 taxi (cf. also above 404).
In various departm ents o f the Israeli G overnm ent, and in other organizations which produce a great am ount o f publications, quite a few people find
the creation of new w ords and phrases an exciting pastime.
d. N ew spapers
457. Som e new spapers run a regular colum n devoted to the Hebrew
language. T he editors o f these colum ns deal mainly with the normative
aspect o f the language. T h at is, they try to eliminate w hat they consider to
be m istakes. But, since the various editors represent different schools of
thought, their decisions som etimes clash, and may also be opposed to the
decisions o f the V aad H alashon (above 314) or, later, of the A cademy of
the H ebrew Language (below 459).
c. The A rm y
458. The H agana (and to a lesser degree, the other two underground
organizations, Etzel and Lehi), and since 1948 the Israel Defense Forces,
have been very active in creating technical term s in the military sphere.
T hey, too, could not w ait for the sometimes longwinded deliberations o f the
V aad H alashon (and later the Academ y). T hus, military terms were coined
th at som etimes look a bit strange. O ne such term is noncom m issioned officer, an acronym o f which is a replica (in
bad H ebrew ) o f the English expression.
L itera tu re:
. 116 , 72 , ,
III. The A cadem y o f the H ebrew L anguage
459. The Vaad H alashon, founded by Ben Y ehuda in 1890 (above

314), becam e under Israeli law the A cadem y of the Hebrew Language in
1953. Its purpose, as laid down by the A ct which created it, is to guide the
developm ent o f the Hebrew language, on the basis of research into its different periods and branches. The A ct also provides that decisions of the
A cadem y in m atters o f gram m ar, spelling, terminology and transliteration,
duly published in R eshum ot [the official Israel G overnm ent gazette], shall
268
4 5 9 -4 6 0 ]
F ro m th e R ev iv a l to the P resen t
be binding on educational and scientific bodies, on the G overnm ent, its

departm ents and institutions and on local authorities. This provision,
however, is not strictly applied. This is w hy the editors of Language
colum ns in daily new spapers (above 457) som etimes disregard the decisions o f the A cadem y.
T here are a m axim um o f tw enty-three full m em bers and twenty-three
associate m em bers. The A cadem ys main function is the creation of
technical term s. T w o to three m em bers of the different subcom mittees sit
down together with specialists in such fields as geography, m athem atics,
econom ics etc., and create new w ords or decide to accept term s th at were
already in use. The w ork o f the C om m ittee for G ram m r, composed only
or mainly o f m em bers o f the A cadem y, is closer to the aims o f the
A cadem y as set forth above. This com m ittee is divided into two subcommittees, one o f which deals system atically with fundam ental problems of
Hebrew gram m ar, while the other subcom m ittee answers questions directed to it by individuals in governm ent offices, the radio, etc. A nother committee is trying to solve the problem o f the orthography.
L itera ture:
[The A ct o f the A cadem y o f the Hebrew Language was published
in Lesonenu 19 (1 9 5 4 -5 5 ), pp. to . O.S.
F o r a brief history o f the A cadem y, its activities and publications see M.
M edan, The A cadem y o f the Hebrew L anguage , A riel no. 25, pp.
4 0 -4 7 .]
a. The Problem o f I H Spelling. 460. While BH spelling is plene mostly for
long vowels, M H spelling tends to be plene even for short vowels. IH is
close in this respect to M H , but even this plene spelling is very far from a
complete solution to the spelling problem. The same sign must be employed
for several vowels, waw for /u / and /o /, and y o d for /i/, /e / and //. In addition, these two signs have to do service as consonants. There is no special
sign to indicate the vowel /a /.
Some time ago one o f the com m ittees o f the A cadem y suggested the
revolutionary solution o f introducing new signs for various vowels. The
proposal was overw helm ingly rejected in accordance with the A cadem ys
belief that no new rules can be set which are opposed to those employed by
the prim ary sources, BH and M H . Since any change o f spelling in these
sources is out o f the question, and since these sam e sources represent a
269
[ 4 6 0 - 4 6 2
vital part of the syllabus of the primary and secondary schools and the universities, any revolutionary change in IH would only complicate m atters
by adding a new system of spelling to the old one that cannot be abolished.
The A cademy has yet to approach the problem of IH as such (see above
407), for the A cademy is composed mainly o f conservative purists who
are decidedly unenthusiastic about the new entity of IH. The m oderates of
the Academ y are willing to acknowlege as genuine those traits o f IH that
can somehow be traced back to the original layers of IH, but they are intolerant of innovations of IH th at go back to foreign influences which are
bound to strengthen the non-Semitic character of IH.
G. Hebrew in C ontem porary Jewish and

Non-Jewish Languages
[In contrast with section G of C hapter Seven (285-304), the subject
o f section G o f C hapter Eight (462-508) is the Hebrew material
documented in post-medieval sources, up to the present, and as the reader
will see, parts of the discussion are based on the analysis o f live Jewish
dialects. It is possible, of course, that the origin of some of this material is
medieval. R.K.]
461. Although the most im portant Jewish language is Yiddish, there are
scarcely any Jewish languages that do not contain Hebrew elements. Yiddish also served as a channel through which Hebrew words entered nonJewish European languages.
I. Hebrew in Yiddish
a. D ialects o f Yiddish
462. Spoken Yiddish can be roughly divided into two main dialects
W estern Yiddish, prevailing west of the German-Polish frontier o f 1939,
and Eastern Yiddish, east o f that line. The latter comprises three subdialects Lithuanian (northeastern), Ukrainian (southeastern) and Polish
(central) Yiddish. These dialects differ from each other mainly in the
realization o f the vowels and to a certain extent in morphology and
vocabulary.
270
4 6 2 -4 6 3 ]
H eb rew in C o n te m p o r a r y L a n g u a g e s
The H ebrew com ponent in Yiddish differs between these dialects in all
three linguistic fields mentioned. A w ord may appear in different form s,
e.g., nddn, ndn, ndn> nadinya, all from the Hebrew (A ram aic) }
dow ry. D ifferent Hebrew w ords m ay be em ployed for the same thing, e.g.,
or a p rayer book.
L iterature:
Uriel W einreich, College Yiddish4, N ew Y ork 1965, p. 43;
.63 ,58 , , ) ( ,
b. The R ole o f H ebrew ; Whole H ebrew and M erged H ebrew
463. H ebrew plays a very im portant role in Yiddish, especially in
phonology, m orphology and vocabulary.
Yiddish has draw n its H ebrew elem ents from practically all strata o f
H ebrew BH, M H , Medieval H ebrew , and from A ram aic. Especially
rem arkable is the fact that H ebrew elem ents in Yiddish lead a life o f their
own and so have given rise to quite a few new Hebrew w ords and phrases,
some o f which even found their way back into IH although they do not occur in any w ritten H ebrew docum ents. Even those elements which Yiddish
took over from H ebrew directly were not accepted in their proper
H ebrew form (or whole Hebrew, as M. W einreich term s it), but in a more
popular form which W einreich calls m erged Hebrew. F o r example: A
person reciting the G race after M eals will say M ay the Allmerciful bless
bal ha-bayis ( ) the head o f the household, but he will say
something like balbus in his spoken Yiddish. It som etimes happens th at certain sound changes th at took place in Yiddish and Hebrew elements did not
effect the whole H ebrew , e.g., in B essarabia is pronounced sobds,
but in the prayer the old sabds survived. A nd lastly, there is a reason to
believe th at form s which disappeared from M H during the last thousand
years, survived in Yiddish, e.g., either w ay (cf. above 360).
The H ebrew com ponent of Yiddish started losing ground in Soviet
R ussia, where the spelling o f Hebrew elem ents was deH ebraized, e.g., $
tru th > . T he Yiddish scholar N. Shtif considered this a positive
developm ent. A fter breaking down the Hebrew com ponent in Yiddish into
3820 w ords from 930 roots, Shtif classified them according to sem antic
fields (religion, w ork, etc.) and concluded th at fully one third of the Hebrew
words belong to the religio-social dom ain. (A similar study was m ade by
C.S. K azdan.) S htif claimed that because the H ebrew words in this
271
M O DER N H E B R EW A N D ISR A ELI H EBR EW
[ 4 6 3 -4 6 5
category had been originated by the socio-econom ically dom inant classes,
these w ords were being rejected by the w orking class. O f course, this inimical attitude to the H ebrew com ponent o f Yiddish did not go uncontested
even in R ussia, as shown by Spivaks article. The opposing view is that,
as M. W einreich points out, w ithout the H ebrew -A ram aic element Yiddish
would not have existed.
Literature:
,(1929) 3 ( ( , , .
1 ;
( , , . .)
1960), 33 , ) ; X X
; 3 ,) 1935 ( 2 () , .
;(1931) X X X V I , .
.11 1932, (; co n tra W einreich) 33 , , 1931 , .
c. G ram m atical an d L exica l Survey
1. Phonology
a. C onsonants. 464 It can be stated, in general, that only those consonantal phonem es th at exist in the non-H ebrew com ponent of Yiddish exist in
Yiddish itself. Therefore, all others have disappeared (cf. above 261): ,
= zero; ( = w ithout dagesh); = ; = 1; ( = w ithout dagesh); 0 \= ( ] a
consonant close to [ts]); ( w ithout dagesh) = 0 [s]. Locally a few other differences occur, such as the hesitation in pronunciation o f and of
Lithuanian Jew s as in sabesdiker losn = sabdsdiker losn (cf. above 23,
262).
. Vowels. 465. The dialects differ from each other m ainly in the vowels.
Qames (gadol) is pronounced [o] o r [u] in different dialects. H olem (1) is
pronounced as a diphthong [au] in W estern Yiddish (saum er = 1) , as
[ei] in N ortheastern Yiddish (seim er), and as [oy] in Southeastern Yiddish
(soymer). In the latter dialect short / u / is pronounced [i] (cf. 474). Sere
and segol are kept ap art (closed [e] and open [8] respectively) and in some
places in Poland sere was pronounced as a diphthong [ay], e.g., sayfar =
book.
It should be noted that under certain conditions holem rem ained [o] as in
272
465-468]
H e b r e w in C o n tem p o rry L a n g u a g e s
os = 1 letter (of the alphabet), or becam e [u] as in zu = >) 1 )this

(fern.)'. A pparently quite a few cases o f qam es survived with the pronunciation [a], as in yam = DJ sea, kla l = rule (see above 264). O n the
other hand, sometimes even an original p a ta h or h a ta f p a tah turned into
[o] or [u] as if it were a qames, e.g., xuldm = 1 dream . P atah and h a ta f
patah (with a le f or *ayin) were sometimes nasalized, as in Yankev =
Jaco b .
Literature:
[Sh. M orag, E J 13, cols. 1126-1130. O.S.]
. Stress. 466. The stress falls on the penultim a (cf. above 348). It is
possible th at this goes back to M H , but this requires further clarification.
Sometimes it falls even on the ante-penultim a, e.g., miimdnds = 1 1
finances. The unstressed syllables are slurred over and may disappear in
com pounds, e.g., skoydx = nb , an A ram aic expression meaning be
strong, today thanks, and salsudas = 1 171 lit. three m eals
referring to the third meal of the Sabbath.
2. Morphology
a. The Verb. 467. Sometimes a Yiddish verb is created from a H ebrew
base with a G erm an derivational suffix, e.g.,patern from to get rid o f .
But the Hebrew element is also employed by creating periphrastic verbs:
1) In active and transitive meanings with the help o f the G erm anic auxiliary verbs hobn and zayn plus the Hebrew participle: m xabed zayn (from
) to honor. In the past: er hot m xa b ed geven he has honored.
2) In a medio-passive meaning, plus G erm anic vern and participle: nical
vern to be saved (Hebrew ) . The two main dialects of Yiddish
sometimes differ in this respect. F or example, in W estern Yiddish xa m ec
batln search for the hmes (leavened bread) on the eve of Passover, is in
Eastern Yiddish bodek xam ec zayn. Besides the difference in verbs
4to nullify vs. 1 to search two different w ays are employed to verbalize them in Yiddish.
. The Noun. 468. It is in the dom ain o f the noun th at Yiddish has show n
its creativity within the Hebrew com ponent. A good example are creations
with the noun owner which in Yiddish has turned into a derivational
273
[468
prefix indicating any connection with the following noun. To be sure, in

BH and M H already indicates not only ow ner but someone connected
with the idea expressed by the following noun; the brothers of Joseph call
him 1 1 the dream er (Gen. 37, 18). But in Yiddish a host o f nouns
of the same pattern were created, e. g. , 1( pronounced ba lb ituxn ) a
man of faith, haughty m an, the man who leads the
M usaf prayer; is not the owner of the w agon but the team ster.
These creations sometimes managed to gain acceptance in IH , e.g.,
o f Bialik (see above 355). Some creations of this type were not acceptable
because seems practically superfluous, e.g., author,
1 reader (of the weekly portion o f the T orah), and therefore IH
prefers ( also from Yiddish). Incidentally, sometimes 1 and
merge to produce a new form bal koreya.
Similar to the case ju st discussed but much less developed are compounds with story, occurence where it parallels the English
derivational suffix -like, e.g., rabbi-like (as the behavior of a
rabbi), 10 7 m erchant-like. This reminds one of the IH
devils work, as (bad) luck would have it.
A second noun pattern that was extensively used in new creations is that
of n r (pronounced [-esl), some of which were accepted by IH, e.g., 1
arbitration from 1 arbitrato r or simplicity.
A thilrd, very active pattern is that with the ending (pronounced | |,
e. g. , knowledgeble, l earned, jester. N ouns were also created by
adding the ending to this pattern, e.g., jesting. Both patterns
were accepted by IH.
A fourth pattern, the Hebrew fem. ending ( pronounced [-|) made
headway into Yiddish: from pious m an, pious w om an (=
stork in BH), and from Polish noblem an noblewoman were
formed. There are a few cases where the A ram aic fem. ending
(pronounced [-t6J) is used, as in kla ftz bitch (derogatory), the fem. of
Aramaic dog.
Very interesting are back form ations: from 1( pi. of ) nam es, but
in Yiddish worn out pages (of sacred books), a new singular ( seym z)
was created. M oreover, even from quarrel which was understood
by speakers as a plural (since the unstressed syllable was slurred over) a
new singular was created 1 . O ther noun patterns comprising a
Hebrew base and a non-H ebrew derivational suffix are, e.g., siddrl prayer
book (= + -/) yisdig ( despair + G erm anic -dig) desperate,
274
4 6 8 -4 7 1 ]
balbatis (from householder) an adjective m eaning p atrician o r

the like.
There are com pounds composed of an Hebrew and non-H ebrew element, e.g., diregelt rent from Hebrew plus G erm anic gelt money! In
others both elements are Hebrew, but the com pound itself is Yiddish, e.g.,
Ester toni: fast of E sther (Hebrew ;) cf. also above 356.
l. Construct State. 469. The Hebrew co n stru ct rem ains only in com pounds e.g., court o f justice. B ut elsewhere instead o f the construct, the absolute form is employed, e.g., 1( instead o f 1)
place of rest, 1( instead of ) th e holy language.
2. The Plural. 470. As in Hebrew, the plural suffixes are generally
and \ The form er suffix has even penetrated non-H ebrew com ponents,
e.g., poyerim (= G erm an B auer) farm ers and even narundm (G erm an
plural N arrenl) stupid, where the Hebrew pi. suffix was added to the G ermanic plural suffix. Hassidic rabbi has as its plural rabonim, rabeyim
(Hebrew) and rzbzs (Yiddish). The mainly feminine plural ending 1
(pronounced [as] apparently merged with the E uropean ending 5.
Sometimes the ending is employed instead o f 1 as in sabusim Sabbaths (Hebrew 1) , and even in td'usim m istakes, which preserved the
Hebrew fem. ending o f the singular () , although this ending is
eliminated in the Hebrew plural 1 , 1( and cf. above 214).
3. Yiddish S y n ta x H as a Hebrew S o u l Unproven. 471. Did H ebrew
have any influence on Yiddish syntax? Could a dead language exercise influence on a living one? Y. Mark who devoted a special study to this
problem believes it did. It may be rem arked th at the situation in the T urkic
dialect o f K araite Jews would lend support to this theory (see below 490).
Still, the points discussed by M ark seem to require further study, as he himself admits.
He believes that the inclination o f Yiddish to coordinate sentences
(unlike IH , which tends to subordinate them , as shown by Rosn)
betrays classical Hebrew influence. This is also true o f the w ord o rd er di
kale daynd your bride (lit. the bride y o u rs, instead o f daynd kale) =
Hebrew . But, as M ark himself points out, this phenom enon is
also found in Slavic. As to the fact that L ithuanian Yiddish possesses only
masculine and feminine genders (but not the neutral), M ark later assum es
275
M O DER N H EB R EW A N D ISR A ELI HEBREW
[ 4 7 1 -4 7 2
th at H ebrew might have been only a minor factor in bringing about this
situation, since it is found in neighboring languages (L ithuanian and W hite
R ussian).
The best illustration for Hebrew influence, according to M ark, is the
relative clause o f the type der mans vos ix hob im gdtrofn, the man I m et =
Hebrew (1 1 ( . This is indeed a rem arkable case.
But I am very m uch in doubt w hether he is right concerning the construction fcrndn lern ix n ix t, as to learning I do not which he (and others!)
trace back to the Hebrew construction o f the type 1 I shall indeed guard. F o r one, in the Yiddish construction the infinitive is the logical
subject, but not in H ebrew, where the infinitive is employed as an adverb.
Secondly, this construction crops up very often in the sam e conditions in
other languages, e.g G erm an, Italian and in the A ram aic o f the Babylonian
Talm ud! Therefore his statem ent that Yiddish syntax has a Hebrew soul
needs further proof.
Literature:
; 132-128 , , ,
[G. G oldenberg, T autological Infinitive , Israel Oriental S tu d ies I (1971),
pp. 3 6 -8 5 , O.S.]
4. Vocabulary. 472. T here are thousands of Hebrew w ords in Yiddish (see
above 463). Y. M ark believes th a t the total num ber of H ebraism s in Yiddish m ust be at least ten thousand and perhaps even twelve thousand. According to him the frequency o f the Hebrew element in the Yiddish press
ranges between 5.28% (Poland 1939) and 2.96% (R ussia 1937-39). He
also lists the 100 m ost frequent words, the first being even which apparently crops up in other Jewish languages (see below 482, 503).
While there is no doubt that the Hebrew element is mainly to be found in
the dom ain o f religion and culture in general, as well as o f occupations that
often called for interference o f the Jewish legal authorities, there is practically no sphere o f life free from it (see above Shtif and K azdan, 463).
W hy did certain H ebrew elements gain entrance into Yiddish while
others did not? Som etim es the reasons are clear: m oon was accepted
because the m onthly Blessing of the New M oon is connected
with it, but not with o r sun. 1 is the Holy A rk o r coffin but
not a simple cupboar d; P aradise but not garden. The root
in different form s w as used very much in legal contexts, but how did the
nearly synonym ous verb gain acceptance? The sam e question can be
276
472]
H eb rew in C on tem p orary L a n g u a g es
asked about m any other verbs, nouns, adverbs and conjunctions. No doubt
the widespread learning am ong A shkenazic Jewry played an im portant role
in easing in the Hebrew element.
It is beyond the scope o f the present work to give a detailed evaluation o f
this extensive material according to semantic categories. A few instances
which aim mainly at the Hebrew material that came into being in Yiddish
itself (see above 468) or changed its meaning, will suffice.
Euphem ism : 1 cem etery (lit. house of the living) (also in
Sephardic); widening o f meaning: eve, originally only of Sabbath and
H olidays > eve in general; narrowing o f meaning: , see above
378, originally opponent, later the opponents of Hassidism;
specification: finished > bankrupt; contagion: , ready
(m oney) > cash (cf. above 392);fro m abstract to concrete: not
only kingdom but also king.
The following case of popular etymology is interesting: Was it the name
o f H am ans son (Esther 9, 7) which made 1 poor popular? It is explained as a H ebrew -G erm an com pound, namely, poor 4 von added to
aristocratic nam es such as von Humboldt. In German we find Baron von
H abenichts (Baron o f I-H ave-N othing) of which 1 could be a Yiddish
rendering.
H ow difficult it is to disentangle the various Hebrew-Yiddish skeins that
have turned into a perfect blend is shown by Sadan in the phrase alter
Terakh = IH old fool. Is A braham s father (Gen. 11, 26)? O r
should the word be spelled with a tet as though coming from Hebrew
burden? H aving shown that both explanations must have been at the back
o f the mind o f those who used this Yiddish phrase, Sadan came to the conelusion that it goes back to the G erm an com ponent of Yiddish tricht
foolish o f M odern G erm an, and is an allusion to Ecclesiastes 4,13 Better
is a poor and a wise child than an old and foolish king.
A m ore interesting case is that o f the name of the rabbis wife rebecen.
Beranek has collected other forms found in western West-Yiddish, e.g. rebbin, rebbeten, rebbecinte, rebecten, rabbucinderin and even rebbenen, and a
few more. N early all o f these forms contain a Hebrew element (rebbe) a
G erm anic elem ent -in, -en (which is the feminine morpheme, as in Lehrerin
w om an-teacher), some an A ram aic element -te (cf. above 468). But what
kind o f element is that containing [c]? J. Joffe thinks it is Slavic; M.
W einreich, R om ance (also Y. M ark), while Beranek believes it to be a
H ebrew feminine form *rebbit, though he has no source for this form. In
277
[ 4 7 2 -4 7 4
terestingly enough, as David Cohen told me, in the Neo-Aram aic-speaking

com m unity of Kurdish Jews the Aramaic form rubbisa exists. The [ s l >[ c ]
change is attested in Romance Jewish. So we have a choice between four
possibilities. To this feminine ending was added the Germ anic feminine
ending, and sometimes the same Aramaic ending in a different form (-te). It
is believed that this ending influenced Zamenhof, the creator o f Esperanto,
to choose the suffix edzin to denote a married woman.
Literature:
; 16-12 , ,) (, , .
];X V III )1958 (, 82-80 ,] [.
. 51-50 , , , .[
d. Hebrew in the Yiddish o f Holland
473. The Hebrew com ponent of the Yiddish of Holland deserves our
special attention for several reasons. This dialect occupied a position of
unique importance... for in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries...
(Holland)... functioned as the publishing center of translations into Yiddish... (and its)... vestiges are a goldmine o f words and phrases which...
have retained archaic form s. (Beem). This fact is apparently also traceable
in Its Hebrew com ponent. Besides, its Hebrew component seems to be the
best known among the Western Yiddish dialects, to which it belongs.
1. Phonology. 474. In this dialect, too, M. Weinreichs theory concerning
whole H ebrew and merged Hebrew (see above 463) is confirmed. As
De Vries notes, the pronunciation of the Italian ,ayin as a kind of velar
[n], (cf. Yankev, above 465) which became dominant in the Sephardic
comm unity and in the nineteenth century also in the A shkenazic comm unity (of Holland) did not exert any influence on the 4ayin in the Hebrew
com ponent of Yiddish.
On the other hand one peculiarity might strike us at first sight as being
archaic. In MH qibbus in a closed unaccented syllable was apparently
pronounced as a variety of [01, e.g., 1 cheekiness (see above 175,
200; [this example is adduced in the authors p. )] . The same
form is found in this dialect, e.g., xocpe, but it is expressly stated that this
[u] > [o] (only short?) is the outcom e of D utch influence. Therefore this
trait, like the pronunciation o f the Ashkenazic qames gadol (see above
37, 263) should not be considered as a survival, but as an innovation.
278
4 7 4 -4 7 6 ]
H eb rew in C o n tem p o ra ry L a n g u a g es
Am ong other rem arkable traits of this dialect should be mentioned the
[u] > [i] shift (e.g., in 1 ) as in the W estern Yiddish dialect of Endingen
and Lengnau (Switzerland). This trait is at home in Southeastern Yiddish
(cf. above 465), and possibly was brought to the W est as were some other
traits, by rabbis and teachers who very often came from the East.
2. Vocabulary. 475. W orthy o f mentioning are the following: berye <
a man who considers himself to be a hero, while the other form o f the
same noun, briyye means creature. (This doublet is also found elsewhere
in Yiddish). Saskdnan (which I happen to know from Slovakian Yiddish)
to drink copiously seems to be a blend of drink to give to
drink. Notice also !instead o f 1 in the phrase 1 the
Holy One, be He praised. The same form occurs in the dialect of Algiers
(below 508).
Literature (for 473-475):
H. Beem, Yiddish in H olland , in U. Weinreich, ed., The Field o f Yiddish,
New York 1954^p. 122;
H. Beem, Jerosche, Assen 1959, pp. 18 (no. 12), 12If. (nos. 4 7 2 -4 7 4 );
F. G uggenheim -G rnberg, Die Sprache der schweizer Juden von Endingen
und Lengnau , Zrich 1950, p. 8; concerning this dialect, see her article
in The Field o f Yiddish, pp. 4 8 ff.;
Jac. van G inneken, H andboek der N ederlandsche Taal II, Nijmegen 1914,
deals there with the Yiddish o f H olland including a glossary o f Yiddish
(pp. 6 7 -9 9 ) which contains w ords of Hebrew origin; but see Beem in The
Field o f Yiddish, p. 122;
, , .
;52 , 50 , ,)(
.) ] (, [ = 272 , , ,
II. Hebrew in Judeo-Spanish

476. It goes w ithout saying that like Yiddish, Judeo-Spanish
(D zudezm o) was colored by the respective languages of the countries o f its
speakers (today termed Sephardim) namely A rabic, Greek, Turkish, etc.
On the background and distribution of Judeo-Spanish (JSp) see above
300.
Hebrew influence in JSp is said to be much less than in Yiddish.
279
M O D E R N H E B R E W A N D ISR A ELI H EBR EW
[ 4 7 7 -4 8 2
a. P honology
1. C onsonants. 477. G enerally the sam e situations are obtained as in Yiddish, i.e. phonem es unknow n in non-H ebrew com ponents disappeared.
T herefore e.g., he and ayin are generally absent, e.g., in Bulgaria am ares =
ignorant person. In Salonica *ayin m ay be pronounced [x ]:
sem a x = apparently attem pting to preserve the original pronunciation.
S a d e = [s], e.g., assafon = |1 th e no rth . A s mentioned above (23,
262), sin m ay be pronounced [s ]: rosasana = New Y ear. Taw
= [t] and in the B alkans [d ]: avod = 1 forefathers. In some places the
final co n so n an t is som etim es dropped, e.g., in Salonica Ia ko = 7 Jac o b
(also in the Spanish com ponent).
2. Vowels. 478. It is know n th at holem rem ained [o]; qames gadol is
pronounced [a], like the patah. In all the dialects (?) sere and segol seemed
to have m erged, realized [].
b. M orphology.
1. The Verb. 479. A s in Yiddish (cf. 467), verbs can be created from a
H ebrew base with R om ance derivational suffix, e.g., lam dar from 1 to
learn .
2. The N oun. 480. R om ance derivational suffixes can be grafted on
H ebrew bases, e.g., -zo in henozo (from grace) gracious; -// in sekanali
(from danger) dangerous; -ado in m azalado (from luck)
lucky.
The H ebrew plural suffix can be attached to R om ance bases, e.g.,
ladronim thieves (cf. Yiddish p oyerim , above 470) and we find even rebb isim , plural o f rebbi, apparently + isa, a R om ance element (cf. below
483).
c. S y n ta x
481. It is m aintained that the syntax was also influenced by Hebrew.
d. Vocabulary
482. T here are quite a few H ebrew w ords in JS p e.g., $ even (see
above 300), disgrace, $ lie and also ( a new creation as in
Yiddish) glutton. Som e o f the H ebrew elem ents change their meaning,
280
4 8 2 -4 8 3 ]
e.g., T I T m em ber o f the com m unity (Hebrew individual1). Also the nonHebrew phraseology is said to be influenced by Hebrew, e.g., elpatron del
m undo - 1 1 1 Lord o f the W orld. As in Yiddish, JSp w ords
sometimes appear in changed form, e.g., bala baya = head o f a
household (Yiddish balbus, above 463); salisudo = 1 0 third
meal (of the Sabbath) (lit. three m eals; Yiddish salsudds. above 466).
It is interesting to note that here too, some w ords seem to have survived
in the original uncorrected M H form , e.g., geinan purgatory (final [m]
occasionally > [n] in JSp) which reflects the form used in the M H
m anuscripts and still used by Sephardic and Yemenite Jews instead o f the
corrected form (i.e. BH ) .
L iterature (for 4 7 6 -4 8 2 ):
- , , , , , .
with extensive bibliography;
on see E.Y. K utscher, literature quoted in 299;
[J. N eham a (avec la collaboration de J. C antera), Dictionnaire du judoespagnol, M adrid 1977.]
III. H ebrew in Judeo-Italian

483. W ithout going here into the m atter of phonology (pronunciation of
consonants and vowels) which would mainly repeat the above mentioned
statem ent about the consonants in general (261) few w ords about
vocabulary m ay be in order. glutton rem inds one of in Yiddish
and ( with A ram aic feminine ending, but meaning maid servant;
also used in Yiddish) rem inds us o f of Yiddish (see above 468). The
same applies to , 1 feminine o f pig, 1 ass. There are
some w ords that are entirely absent from Yiddish. I do not have in mind
w ords like 1 toilet which is a loan translation from Italian loco place,
toilet in R om e, but especially two o ther nam es: the teacher is found
also elsewhere in Sephardic comm unities. The plural is rubbisim and
C assuto rem inds us o f the form rebbites found in an early Jewish-Latin inscription; cf. also JS p ribbissim. T his m ight be an early form coming from
Palestine. Instead o f eve the (Palestinian) A ram aic (?) $] e.g.,
Sabbath eve is used. In view of special relations between
early Italy and Palestine, this is not surprising.
281
M O DER N HEBREW A N D ISRAELI HEBREW
[ 4 8 3 -4 8 6
L iterature:
!265-261 ,) (, .
, , ..
!190-188 , ) (
;) (15 ,) (, .
K utscher, Isaiah Scroll, pp . 6 5 -6 7 )(.
IV. Hebrew in Judeo-French

484. C huadit may have been the name o f a new Jewish language
(that) had been in the process o f developm ent in the four Jewish communities in C om tat Venaissin (Provence, Southern France) during the
eighteenth and the beginning o f the nineteenth century. Its com ponents
were French, Provenal and Hebrew.
The phonology of this language shows some peculiar traits, especially
that o f [s] > [f] e.g. , f u f = horse. This trait is the more interesting since
it only occurs in the Hebrew component, and it seems to be nearly entirely
lacking in Provenal (and French). A nother change is [y ] > [si e.g., chuadit
= - Jew ish. Hebrew elements here can take a Provenal suffix, e.g.,
ensicorege (< 1 drunkard) to get drunk.
Literature:
Z. Szajkowski, The Language o f the Jews in the Four Communities o f
C om tat Venaissin (Yiddish with English sum m ary, and with a preface by
M. Weinreich), New York 1948, pp. V, 4, 17ff., 49ff.
V. H ebrew in the Turkic D ialect o f the K araites o f Lithuania

485. Tatar-speaking K araites from the Crim ea were brought to
Lithuania as prisoners at the end of the fourteenth century. They continued
to use their original language, T atar, which is a Turkic dialect.
a. Phonology
1. Consonants. 486. W ithout going into details it may be stated that the
consonantal phonemes correspond to those found among European Jews;
282
486-490]
note especially the disappearance o f the pharyngals. Instead of he a v ariant

of ,ayin (a kind o f soft [g]) appears, but this applies only to the m erged
Hebrew com ponent (see above 463) while in whole H ebrew he does
appear. Before and after the so-called front vowels, e.g., [e], consonants appear in a kind o f soft pronunciation, as in the Slavonic languages.
There are two pronunciations o f [1]; instead of [11] (geminated [1]) we find
[nil, e.g., kaN la = bride.
2. Vowels. 487 The vowels reflects the Sephardic pronunciation i.e. qam es
gadol is pronounced [a], holem [o], and shva n a [e].
b. M orphology
1. The Verb. 488. As in Yiddish, verbs are periphrastic, e.g., m a zza l
iz la m a to guess (< H ebrew ) .
2. The N oun 489. H ebrew bases can be com bined with T urkic
derivational suffixes, e.g., noeflik adultery ( < 1 = adulterer), with the
abstract suffix -lik. They can receive the plural suffix -lar, e.g., otiiotlar letters ( 1 1 + lar) and also case endings, e.g., suralarda in the lines (
+ lar + locative da). In M ose r ib b im iz' = our teacher M oses
we have the Hebrew ( my teacher M oses) + the T urkic first pers.
pi. possessive suffix -miz. (On ribbi see above 483, especially the
references in Isaiah Scroll).
c. S y n ta x
490. A ccording to scholars, the interference of Hebrew with the spoken
dialect seems to be greater than in any o f the other languages spoken by
Jews. Because o f this influence, owing to the literal word-for-word translation o f the Bible, the w ord order has taken on a Hebrew color, e.g.,
" hair o f his head is cacy basynyn, lit. his hair o f his head contrary to T urkic usage (which would be o f his head, his hair). As in
Hebrew, the Turkic conjunction da is placed before and not after the w ord
as in T urkic. T urkic languages use postpositions (and not prepositions), but
in this elem ent they are apt to turn into prepositions as in Hebrew. [F o r example, before the L ord is alnyndan adonainyn in the Turkic dialect o f the
K araites, but R abbin nnden in Turkish.] I m ust adm it th at I am not fully
convinced th at all these changes took place ju s t in the spoken language and
283
M O D E R N H EBR EW A N D ISR A ELI H E B R E W
[ 4 9 0 -4 9 2
not only in the literature where it is m ore understandable. But even with
this reservation the influence o f H ebrew is indeed rem arkable. O ther typical
H ebrew term s or phrases are reflected literally in the dialects e.g., the construction like 1 I indeed w atch ed etc.
d. Vocabulary
491. The K araites broke aw ay from the m ainstream o f Judaism in the
eighth century C .E. T hey acknow ledge the auth o rity o f the Bible only, but
not o f the M ishna or T alm ud. T herefore, we would expect only BH
m aterial in their speech. Indeed, this is m ostly the case. But we m ust stress
th at some non-Biblical H ebrew w ords survived in their speech from the
period before the eighth century.
It is not surprising to find BH w ords like young m an ,
bridegroom , 1 n o rth , 1 so u th ; but it is much more interesting to
point out that they have preserved w ords such as ( H plain m eaning)
with the meaning tran slation, beadle, p rayer book and other
words not found in BH. W hat is especially interesting is the word defus
printing (stressed on the penultim a). Since the w ord was introduced
by Jew s only about half a millenium ago, after the invention o f the printing
press (see 282), the only explanation, in my opinion, is th at the K araites
received it from the Jew s. Some H ebrew w ords changed their meanings,
e.g.,
defeat > old w itch. C aiques apparently also occur; thus th
word kiplik strength, in a wish paralleling H ebrew = ) !strength)
thank you (lit. m ay your strength be stro n g , cf. 466). Especially interesting is the fact th at k o k heaven also appears with the plural suffix
lar (k'oklar; and cf. also above 489), because of Hebrew .
Literature (for 4 8 5 -4 9 1 ):
, , .
. 265-258 , ,) ( , 126-116 , ,) (
VI. H ebrew in the Judeo-A rabic o f Yem en

492. Besides the A shkenazic and Sephardic, the m ost im portant comm unity in every respect is the Yemenite. This also applies to its Hebrew
heritage, including the pronunciation, which cam e to the attention of
scholars about a hundred years ago, at the time o f the discovery o f this
comm unity.
284
4 9 2 -4 9 4 ]
H eb rew in C o n tem p o ra ry L a n g u a g e s
This com m unity, living until very recently in southern A rabia and cut off
from the rest of Jewry, had in the past strong ties with Babylonia, and until
several hundred years ago had employed the Babylonian (not the Tiberian)
vocalization (cf. 259). It is not surprising, therefore, th at their pronunciation should preserve, until this very day, the imprint o f this vocalization. It
is worth pointing out that unlike the A shkenazic and Sephardic communities (cf. 23, 260-263), the Yemenites were able to preserve the
Hebrew sounds which do not exist in the vernacular o f their A rab
neighbors, e.g., [v] and [p]. (See also below 498.)
a. Phonology
493. Before dealing with the Hebrew elements in the A rabic of the
Yemenites, it is imperative that we give an account of their pronunciation.
The main features of this pronunciation are:
distinction between qms [01 and pathah as well a5 between sr and
seghl; no distinction between pathah and seghl which are both pronounced [ae]; realization of the hlam as [], or, in some regions o f Yemen, as
the serf (le]); realization of the s?w mobile as a short [a]; differentiation
between hard and soft bgd kpt, as well as between pharyngeals and nonpharyngeals, em phatics and non-em phatics; gemination; stress usually
non-ultim ate. (M orag)
Let us add a few points. In one district (H abban) qam es (gadol) is practically [a]. As to the /b , g, d, k, p, t/ phonemes, it should be stressed th at
the Yemenites are the only comm unity that, has preserved the two-fold
pronunciation (i.e. with and without dagesh; cf. above 29). Details: G im el
with dagesh is pronounced [dz], but without it [] (a kind o f soft [g]); dalet
without dagesh is pronounced like English th in the, and w ithout it as in
think. Q o f is generally pronounced as a kind o f [g].
It should be pointed out that the rules governing the /b , g, d, k, p, t/
phonemes are not always operative in the Hebrew w ords employed in
A rabic vernacular; example: ( for ) bridegroom . M. W einreichs
thesis concerning whole H ebrew and merged H ebrew (above 302,
463, below 507) again stands confirmed.
b. M orphology.
1. The Verb. 494. Sometimes the root appears in Hebrew form in an
285
[ 4 9 4 -4 9 7
Arabic sentence, but mostly it is employed with A rabic prefixes and suffixes, e.g., sobatne = Hebrew we spent the S abbath. A verb
may appear in the Q al, even if it occurs in another stem in Hebrew. In all
these cases the root of the verb rem ains H ebrew. Sometimes the Hebrew
verb is conjugated entirely in A rabic, especially by women.
There are A rabic verbs created from H ebrew nouns, mostly along the
pattern qauial: ydsauhadu (from ) they will bribe. In contrast
with Yiddish (cf. 352), there are very few periphrastic verbal creations;
example: they killed her (lit. they prepared her killing).
2. The N oun. 495. Feminine endings are those o f Hebrew, but
sometimes they are added without changing the base, e.g., 1 fool, fem.
so tia. The plural endings are Hebrew, but A rabic plural forms are oc
casionally employed, e.g., prayer boo k , plural sadadlr. The definite
article is the A rabic al (cf. Yiddish) and therefore widow became
( {taking as the definite article).
a. Noun Patterns. 496. As in Yiddish (cf. 468), the noun pattern with the
-a.72 ending is very much in evidence, e .g ., unbeliever, one who
likes to talk (unknown in the literature); also know n are q eta:l forms such
as w itchcraft. As in Yiddish (ibid.), a new noun can be created from a
Hebrew base according to an Arabic pattern, e.g., m arw aye the position of
the ( see below 497).
Adjectives are com pared as in A rabic, e.g., ^ rich, but
richer.
c. Vocabulary
497. In contrast with Yiddish, a greater num ber o f A rabic words are
employed in the sphere o f religion even for the P ray er Book (tikll) and for
Jewish holidays.
There are also H ebrew-Aram aic elements, e.g., ( pronounced close
to 1 ) rabbi-teacher, ( sic!) bridegroom (see above 493). is
Arabic, but used only by the Jews for Hebrew with the specific meaning eve of a holiday, i.e. the day before the holiday (M H 1 1) .
Some nouns appear in a form different from IH , e.g., 0 1 meal (thus
in MH manuscripts).
W orth mentioning are hot food (cf. Yiddish tshulent, from Latin
calidus hot; IH (. 1( guest) = beggars as in Yiddish, while
286
4 9 7 -4 9 8 ]
(signs) are the sideburns (Yiddish pejes = 1(. grave (lit. cave)
is a survival from M ishnaic Hebrew, as is sepulchral ch am b e r.
Some w ords changed their meanings: ( outside) = shoes; $
(lion) = hero is a caique from A rabic qahm . C onjunctions and adverbs
are rare, but even is employed (cf. above 472) in w hat appears to be
a H ebrew -A rabic form.
In com parison with Yiddish the Hebrew com ponent in this (and other)
A rabic dialects is not very significant. Goitein may be right when he explains that A rabic as a Semitic language w as better adapted to express the
special needs of the Jews than G erm an. Besides, S&adyas venerated
Arabic translation o f the Bible, used in the synagogue, as well as the
religious and philosophical literature o f the Middle Ages written in A rabic,
gave it a kind of quasi-religious halo.
Sh. M orag, Lingua VIII (1959), p. 250;
: , , .
. , ..
; 380-356 , ,) (
E.Y. K utscher, Yemenite Hebrew and A ncicnt P ronunciation , J S S 11
(1966), pp. 217-225 (review of M orag);
see also the word list of Jewish-Arabic w ords in
, 305 , , , , .
];265-252 ,232-227 , ,) (, .
.46-43 , ,) (O.S .[
VII. Hebrew in the Judeo-Arabic D ialect o f Fez, M orocco

a. Phonology
1. Consonants. 498. Like the Yemenite (cf. 492), this dialect too, preserved Hebrew phonemes which are absent from A rabic, i.e. pe and gim el with
dagesh = [p], [g|; uw = [v] (and [f]). Q o f turned into [] and taw with and
w ithout dagesh turned into an affricate [ts](?), since the original phones are
missing in A rabic. Shin = [s], and bet and dalet without dagesh are
pronounced like those with dagesh.
G o d is pronounced yabbwi ( is a velar) probably to differentiate it
287
M O D E R N H EBR EW A N D ISR A ELI H EBR EW
[ 4 9 8 -5 0 3
from rebbi teacher (cf. ribbi of the K araites, above 483, and note especially the reference to 483).
2. Vowels. 499. The qam es gadol is o f the [a] type, i.e. Sephardic (cf.
373); its quality depends on w hether the syllable is stressed or unstressed.
Patah and hiriq are not pronounced (or pronounced ultra short) in a closed
unstressed syllable, e.g., skkd n a = danger, msna = M ishna.
The suruq and qibbus are o f the [o] type, e.g., borox = blessed, m ixobbadim = honored.
3. Stress. 500. The place o f the stress in some cases is different from that
o f standard H ebrew: ndba = alm s penultimate, under A rabic
influence, pisah = ultim ate.
b. M orphology
1. The Verb. 501. Some denom inative verbs occur in A rabic form, e.g.,
tgiyir to be converted to Judaism , from proselyte (for the same
phenom enon see Yemenite dialect, above 494, Algiers, below 506). The
conjugation of the verb can be Hebrew or A rabic (cf. 494), while participies seem to preserve the H ebrew form, e.g., garnor = perfect.
2. The Noun. 502. Some nouns form a diminutive (according to the
A rabic pattern), e.g., skika a small ( ^tabernacle). Sometimes the
A rabic plural ending -in is employed (instead of ), e.g., rebbiyin
teachers (cf. Yiddish rebbes, above 470), or -at as in m enort candles.
has an A rabic broken plural: Iwalb (cf. broken plural in Yemenite,
above 495). G enerally the A rabic article is used: la (sirim = / 4
the rich; the Hebrew article is rare. In the w ords chapter from the
Prophets read in the synagogue, cerem ony at the conclusion of the
S ab b ath, the he was taken to be the Hebrew article and so ( ftra),
( bdla) cam e into being.
c. Vocabulary
503. A ccording to Leslau there are innum erable Hebrew w ords in
this dialect, but there is no indication as to the actual num ber (cf. Yiddish
463). The m ajority o f the Hebrew w ords belong to the religious dom ain,
and they seem to be very much identical with those to be found in Yiddish,
288
5 0 3 -5 0 5 ]
e.g., com m unity book, 1 ?lam p, cantor; others are unlike Yiddish e.g., ( cave) cem etery (cf. Yemenite, above 497). The
nam es o f the holidays are H ebrew (in contrast to the Yemenites, see ibid.).
Religious form ulas include 1 Sabbath of Peace (greeting used on
the S abbath; thus also IH). Social life knows some Hebrew expressions absent from Yiddish e.g., assistance. Fam ily life: ktebba m arriage contra c t = M H and Yiddish , bu t is found in an A ram aic text.
Some insults, e.g., b astard are to be found in Yiddish as well, but not
1 may your life be shortened. ^ approxim ately also occurs elsewhere in Sephardic comm unities. force also turns up in
A rabicized form: m kowoh strong.
$ even and on the co n trary are also at home here, as in Yiddish (above 472; the form er also in JSp, 482). Some words changed their
form or m eaning: piyat is not only to sing a religious song (cf. p iy y u t,
above 265), but to sing in general, xalab dog is supposed to be Hebrew
;)?( sxolbrxa is (abbreviated) 1 1 of blessed m em ory.
L iterature (for 4 9 8 -5 0 3 ):
W. Leslau, H ebrew Elements in the Judeo-A rabic Dialect of F ez , 77ze
Jew ish Q uarterly Review , N.S. 36 (1945-46), pp. 6 Iff.;
.) (172 , , , , , ..
V III. Hebrew in the Judeo-Arabic Dialect o f Algiers

a. Phonology
1. Consonants. 504. As in the dialect o f Fez, gim el and pe with dagesh are
[g], [p], and q o f turned into [] (see 498). He disappeared and waw is
pronounced [b].
2. Vowels. 505. The distinction between the different vowels is usually
clear-cut, but sometimes it is difficult to recognize whether a certain
Hebrew w ord contains [u] or [o]. S u ru q and hiriq (w ithyod) are preserved,
and, as in the Sephardic pronunciation in general, the distinction between
sere and segol is lost. Qames gadol and patah are not entirely identical, the
form er being sometimes pronounced as a variety of open [0 ] (com pare the
A shkenazic pronunciations, above 37, 373).
The stress, in contrast with A rabic, is always on the final syllable.
289
[ 5 0 6 -5 0 8
b. M orphology
1. The Verb. 506. The Hebrew verbs are inflected as in A rabic (cf.
Yemenite, 494, Fez, 501), e.g., tmdlsdn (< inform er) to inform ,
but from apostate itmum ar.
2. The Noun. 507. Here, too, we have to differentiate between whole
H ebrew and merged Hebrew (above 302, 463, 493). F o r example,
only words that are exclusively Jewish use the Hebrew -i:m and -0 :t plural
endings (cf. Yiddish, 470), but occasionally A rabic words occur with the
Hebrew plural ending, e.g., glalim the poor, on the analogy of the
rich' (cf. Yiddish, ibid.). fin the other hand, Hebrew words used by A rabs
as well may receive the Arabic plural ending, e.g., rebiin rabbis, while
rabbinic school has acquired an A rabic broken plural form m ddres.
In ns'amti my soul only the root remains Hebrew, while the pattern becomes Arabic.
The Arabic article is occasionally used instead of the H ebrew one.
c. Vocabulary
508. Here, too, Hebrew words are to be found in many fields. ^
beadle is pronounced sdmmas (Yiddish sam9s\). The foreign rabbi
was originally pronounced xaxam (instead of haxam ) which seems to indicate that it was borrowed from another dialect. is rossana (the
same as in M H manuscripts?). Very interesting is the fact that
the Holy one, be He praised appears here as a form
recently discovered in MSS of MH, and is used also in D utch Yiddish
(475).
We also find caiques: menstruation is called the way of
women (cf. Gen. 31, 35) but also treq, the Arabic translation o f .
It is interesting that in a word that is known in the A rabic o f Algiers,
thaspila (< ) to degrade, the [h] survives! (see above 504). This is
one of the rare Hebrew words borrowed by the Arabs.
There is also a kind of secret language (argot) which the m erchants used
among themselves in order not to be understood (cf. 451), e.g. bla dabar
= A rabic bla without + Hebrew speaking, i.e. silence (and cf.
in Slovakian Yiddish).
M. Cohen, L e parler arabe des ju ifs d A lger, Paris 1912, pp. 38 6 -4 0 8 .
290
5 0 9 -5 1 0 ]
IX. H ebrew in Non-Jewish European Languages

a . German
509. Hebrew w ords that entered G erm an via Yiddish persisted even under the N azi regime. N ot only did one top official, Gbbels, have a
H ebrew nam e (Joseph), but he would ran t about the M iessm acher a m an
who tries to present everything in a negative light. This com pound contains a H ebrew elem ent repulsive (or ) + mcher m aker. All
those within G erm any who criticized the N azis fell under this category.
A friend of mine when taken into protective custody in G erm any in
1938 tried to explain something to his captors. The answ er he received was
Jude genug gedibbert Jew, stop talking (lit. enough said); gedibbert
comes from to talk.
S chm user idle talker, Schm uss idle talk come from 17 1 hear-say.
Very interesting is the Pleitegeier, person who went bankrupt, from a
Yiddish com pound meaning fugitive. Pleite = Hebrew escape (according to the pronunciation mentioned above 465), geier he who goes
(Yiddish gayn to go). The G erm ans reinterpreted geier as Geier vulture
so the Pleitegeier became those who gather when there is a bankruptcy, as
vultures swarm over a carcass. This, incidentally, is not the only case o f
such a reinterpretation.
Literature:
E. L ittm ann, M orgenlndische W rter im D eutschen2, Tbingen 1924,
pp. 2 6 -5 2 .
[For H ebrew w ords in the secret language o f Schopfloch, G erm any,
see K. Philipp, Lachoudisch, G eheimsprache Schopflochs, Dinkelsbhl
1969 (reference courtesy A. Raviv). Exam ples: acheln = to eat, Bajes
= house, B a n ker = m orning, Behem es = cattle. F o r the
vocalic and m orphological patterns cf. above 467, 464, 465 and 470,
respectively.]
b. English
510. All the E uropean languages are perm eated in the field o f
vocabulary by H ebrew words in E uropean garb. C onsider the word angel:
originally m essenger in G reek, it cam e to m ean angel because it reflected
BH which also originally m eant messenger (and also turned into
291
M O D E R N H E B R E W A N D ISR A ELI H EBR EW
[ 5 1 0
angel). This is only one example o f Hebrew influence on English via the
Bible translations. T h an k s to the role which Jew ish life has been playing on
the A m erican scene especially during the last decades, H ebrew words came
to be know n also via Yiddish. As the Tim es L itera ry Supplem ent put it
(N ov. 6, 1959) A lso to have Jewish friends... to read M arjorie M orn in g star o r the M agic B a rrel o r L a n d Thou, are currently signs o f urbanity
at the different cultural levels rather than o f oddity, m uch like having a Yiddish p hrase or tw o to season ones speech. O f course, Israel has also had its
contribution to m ake. O ne can hardly open an issue o f the Times Literary
S u p p lem en t w ithout com ing across a book title or a book review with an
allusion to a Biblical phrase. W. C hom sky lists m odern novels whose titles
go back to the Bible e.g., The Good E arth (D eut. 6, 18), The W ay o f all
Flesh (G en. 6, 12) and quite a few others. H e could also have mentioned
The S k in o f O ur Teeth (Job 19, 20). Incidentally, describing the strange
ch aracter o f this play, the London correspondent o f the daily H a a re tz in
the late forties said th at even its nam e is hardly translatable into Hebrew!
A nd indeed, it som etim es happens th at H ebrew speakers do not know that
a certain English phrase com es from H ebrew, and try to translate it back
into H ebrew!
H ow far the Yiddish seasoning goes can be ascertained from Time
M agazine, Septem ber 1, 1967, p. 60 col. ii A rnold even has the chutzpah
which does not even b other to explain this H ebrew word (which to be sure
is certainly loaned from Yiddish). A nother, m ore interesting, instance
reads: H er father, a pious (Jewish) jeweler... Sat shiva for her {Sunday
T im es W eekly R eview , June 1 1, 1967 p. 45, col. iii). Shiva is Hebrew for
the period o f m ourning ( seven (days)); the paper found it
superfluous to explain the w ord. It goes w ithout saying th at words dealing
with Israel passed directly from IH into English, such as k ib b u tz, Haggana
and several others.
A m ore interesting question is w hether the influence o f the English Bible,
m entioned above, w as restricted to w ords o r Biblical allusions or whether it
also succeeded in invading the structure o f English. A ccording to Jespersen, The scriptural holy o f holies which contains a Hebrew m anner o f expressing the superlative, has given rise to a great m any similar phrases in
English, such as in m y h eart o f h earts (Shakespeare, H am let III, 2, 78;
m ystery o f m ysteries... (or) I am sorrowful to m y tails tail (Kipling,
S eco n d Jungle B o o k , 160).
292
E p ilo g u e
5 1 0 -5 1 3 ]
L iterature:
O. Jespersen, Growth and Structure o f the E nglish Language, O xford
1943, 252;
[W. C hom sky, H ebrew the E tern a l L a n g u a g e, Philadelphia 1957,
pp. 2 4 5 -2 6 9 . O.S.]
c. Dutch
511. H ebrew elements entered D utch via Yiddish (cf. 473-475).
Some examples are choochem ( = ) wise, clever m an, dalles ( =)
poverty, kapres ( = atonem ent) finished (cf. Yiddish toygt o y f
kapores good-for-nothing), gannew ( = ) th ie f, kalle ( = ) bride,
m asel ( = ) luck, stiekum ( = silence) secret.
L iterature:
H. Beem, Jersche, A ssen 1959, pasim (see the Register, pp. 235ff.);
.50 , ( ) , .
d. H ungarian
512. T here are a few Hebrew w ords in H ungarian, mainly in the substandard speech o f B udapest, e.g., ponem ( = face) ch aracter
(derogatory), hohem ( = wise) wise guy, y a tt ( = T hand) handshake
(over an agreem ent etc.), z o f ( = gold) valuable.
H. Epilogue
H ebrew the only language revived a nd remodelled. Is Israeli
H ebrew still H ebrew? P arallel cases o f language m odernization: the
H ungarian exam ple. H ebrew as a uniting fo rc e in Israel and in the
D iaspora.
513. It is im possible to finish the history o f the Hebrew language
w ithout asking several questions.
The first question is: H ow does the achievem ent o f the revival of Hebrew
com pare with the achievem ents o f other nations in this respect? T o quote
C. R abin:
293
( 5 1 3
Language revivals were an integral feature o f the national movements of the nineteenth and twntieth centuries. They consisted
either in achieving literary and administrative status for a purely
spoken vernacular or in extending the spoken and written use of a
former national language which had been abandoned by a part of the
nation, but was in every instance still used by some of the people.
Hebrew is the only case o f a language which had completely ceased
to be spoken and had no administrative status, and yet was suecessfully revived.
He is certainly right. M ore or less, each language passed through this stage,
but it is especially true for the Eastern European languages. In H ungarian,
modernization of the language began mainly at the end of the eighteenth
century and, exactly as in Hebrew, it was due to the influence of the
Enlightenment. But there is one essential difference, namely, that
H ungarian never ceased to be spoken. To be sure, the H ungarians had to
coin new terms, but they did not have to revive their language. (Incidentally, their way o f solving their problems was close to that of the Hebrew
Language Comm ittee). They, of course, could also draw heavily on the
spoken dialects. Like Hebrew, H ungarian and other languages which had
to be modernized contain a great many loan translations, much more than
they care to acknowledge. The same holds true for other languages, such as
Slavic and G erm anic (D anish is said to be full o f G erman loan translations). Turkish could also serve as a parallel for language rejuvenation, but
again not for revival, since it never ceased to be spoken.
In this respect, then, IH stands alone in the world. Indeed the words of
the famous Semitic scholar Theodor Nldeke, written at the end o f the last
century, put this achievement in its proper relief:
The dream o f some Zionists, that H ebrew a would-be Hebrew,
that is to say will again become a living, popular language in
Palestine, has still less prospect of realization than their vision of a
restored Jewish empire in the Holy L and.
Nldeke was entitled to his doubts. Stranger is the utterance o f the Germ an scholar W. Porzig, who in 1950 (!) said, There will be people in the
foreseeable future who will actually have Hebrew as their m other tongue.
Porzigs statem ent is characteristic of modern linguists who very often, still
294
513]
E p ilo g u e
do not take notice o f IH and its strange and unparalleled birth. The reason
seems to be clear. It is as difficult for som e people to digest the fact o f a
revived and recreated language as it is to accept the fact of the Jew ish
State. But the facts cannot be overlooked.
The second question which we m ust ask ourselves is w hether the strange
story o f the revival (above 30 6 -3 1 1) is as unparalleled as the fact o f the
revival o f Hebrew?
There are two instances which can be com pared only to a certain extent
since the languages concerned had not been revived like H ebrew , b u t had
only to be stream lined to serve as the vehicle o f a literary language.
F irst is Yiddish. It seems th a t Yiddish, too, was revived as a literary
language only as a tool for spreading the H askalah (above 306) i.e.
assimiltion. Let us quote H. Szm eruk abo u t M. Lefin (Levin), one o f the
founders o f Yiddish L iterature w ho also w rote in Hebrew (above 307):
It is pretty sure that M. Lefin, like the o ther Maskilim o f his generation,
thought that Jews should adopt the language o f the country they were living in and give up Yiddish! H ere, too, as in M odern H ebrew, the will for
survival cam e only much later. A las, the prospects o f this survival seem
very slight. The process noted concerning M odern H ebrew, until the
cmergcncc o f Zionism, was the sam e in Yiddish. As pointed out in an article in the Jew ish Forw ard:
The Jew who was influenced by Yiddish literature and Yiddish
new spapers to send his children to non-Jewish schools did not sueceed anym ore in having his children speak Yiddish... 99% o f the Yiddish w riters are children o f religious Jew s who did not know anything
about ism s\.. it was very rarely th a t a Yiddish writer had a son who
followed in his footsteps.
Therefore, the future o f Yiddish tod ay is indeed very bleak, for, as the
writer adds, It is no coincidence th a t the children o f Mendele [who was a
Yiddish writer] and Peretz left Judaism altogether. Here it is indeed expressly stated that there was no physical continuation o f Yiddish speakers
but only o f Yiddish.
A nother exam ple is Slovak. T he m an w ho created w hat w as to becom e
literary Slovak was also influenced by the general enlightened m ovem ent
em anating from France and later from G erm any. He stated explicitly th at
he intended this language to be used only until Slovaks should m aster
H ungarian. Needless to say, this statem ent caused consternation ever since
295
M O D E R N H EBR EW A N D ISR A ELI H EBR EW
[ 5 1 3
Slovaks becam e conscious o f their own nationality in the middle o f the last
century. There seems to have been som ething about the era o f the
enlightenm ent before the birth o f the nationalistic m ovem ents that was
favorable to this process o f the revival o f a spoken dialect into a literary
one, only to com m it suicide later.
R eturning to the subject o f reviving and enlarging the H ebrew language,
the reader might well pose the third question: Is this still H ebrew ? A re the
w ays and m eans em ployed to revive and enlarge it appropriate to a natural
language, or should M odern Hebrew be considered entirely unnatural and
artificial, like E speranto?
H ow ever, before attem pting a detailed answ er, I would like to point out
th a t some scholars pose a similar question with regard to English, viz.
w hether English can still be considered an Indo-E uropean language, since it
has becom e so far removed from that language group. O r consider the
m uch closer case o f M odern Syriac which stem s from the Syriac dialect
spoken in the first millennium C.E. M odern Syriac has gotten so far aw ay
from its parent that a scholar conversant only with Syriac w hould not be
able to understand one sentence. The entire verbal system has been completely transform ed under the im pact o f Persian and T urkish, and very little
is left from the Syriac tenses.
N ow, IH is much closer to M H and BH than M odern Syriac is to Syriac.
In this respect it was, as we said (321), a blessing for H ebrew that it was
dead for eighteen hundred years.
It would be going too far to adduce parallels to prove that these sam e
w ays and m eans were also employed in such languages as English and
G erm an. Instead, I would prefer to com pare a language where these
m ethods were employed, apparently very much in the sam e proportion as
in Hebrew.
Let me quote from G za Brczis A B iography o f the H ungarian
L anguage. In the chapter describing the renewal o f the H ungarian
language, which began at the sam e time as the revival o f H ebrew , at the
.en d o f the eighteenth century, Brczi says (pp. 2 9 1 -2 9 3 ):
As we saw, the conscious enriching o f the vocabulary by creating
new w ords w as not new. Every civilized language passed more or
less through this stage... There was need for new w ords so that our
writers could express exactly the ideas o f m odern life and o f the
developing scholarship... They [the H ungarians] studied the French
296
513
E p ilogu e
and G erm an examples... It is hard to believe that in the H ungarian

vocabulary it was possible to incorporate thousands o f new words...
Several cam ps fought with each other extreme renewers, who inundated the language with terrible, incomprehensible new w ords, and
the old guard who opposed each new creation. Little by little the
necessity and possibility of creating new w ords was accepted by the
main part o f the opponents.
This picture parallels nearly exactly what happened in this respect in
M odern Hebrew, especially since the end of the last century. The methods
used in renewing H ungarian were alm ost completely identical with those
used in reviving Hebrew. Brczi continues (pp. 296-300):
A fortunate means was the revival of antiquated w ords [cf. above
321]... Sometimes their revival was accom panied by m isinterpretation [cf. 385], by mistakes [cf. 383] or simply by changing the
meaning [cf., e.g., 385, 393]... Sometimes it happens th at a new
word is born through a misreading o f an old one [cf. 239, 383]
and this is coupled by misinterpretation... [The renewers used words]
which were until then only dialectic... and not only ones with a new
and different meaning [cf. A ram aic, above 337-340]... Rarely it
happened that a foreign word was accepted as it looked like
H ungarian... It is interesting that they did not take many new w ords
from the kindred languages as was often done by language reformers
of other languages (for example in this way many Italian and French
w ords cam e into R um anian, and words from other Slavic languages
into Bulgarian etc.) [cf. Arabic and A ram aic, above 314,
3 37-346]... But the bulk of the new words was created by the use o f
derivational suffixes [cf., e.g., 334, 343, 442, 445, 446]. [Translation by E.Y.K.]
M any expressions were created as loan translations from G erm an which
cannot be understood from H ungarian (cf. 359). Concerning compounds, I would like to point out the com pound which is created by fusing
two maimed w ords (p. 306; cf. 391). The writer again notes the G erm an
influence which besides the loan translations mentioned above, added quite
a few G erm an elements to H ungarian (pp. 316-318). On p. 355 he
describes the fight against the G erm an spirit in the H ungarian language.
297
[ 513
I think that Hungarian may serve as a fairly close parallel to w hat was
done in Modern Hebrew and proves, by the way, that M odem Hebrew
chose a reasonable course of development. There is no reason to be
ashamed of our new creations.
The fourth question is: Did IH conquer its former opponents? The
answer is yes, nearly one hundred per cent. In the nineteen twenties it was
still strongly opposed on the one hand by the extreme religious element in
Jerusalem which is today represented by the Neturei K arta, and on the
other hand by the communists. The com m unists have given in completely
and no longer regard Modern Hebrew as the language o f the reactionary
bourgeoisie. The reasons are clear; they had no choice but to use IH if they
wanted to recruit new members among the younger generation o f Israel.
The Neturei K arta still oppose Modern Hebrew for religious reasons, but
new words keep slipping into their style, even though in their school system
they do no teach in Modern Hebrew but in Yiddish.
The fifth question is: W hat is the role o f Modern Hebrew in shaping the
destiny of Israel and the Jews?
We can safely say that there would have been no Israel and no consciousness o f Jewish-Israeli nationality w ithout Modern Hebrew. F o r the
Israeli, Hebrew is the language of the Bible, o f the M ishna and other
classical sources. It is this consciousness that creates the feeling of continuity between our generation and the previous generations, especially
those who had lived in Eretz Israel and spoke Hebrew.
The Bible is a fundamental element o f the consciousness o f all Israeli
Jews, believers and non-believers alike. The exceptions are the com m unists
and others on the extreme left, and a small secularist group, who deny the
continuity of the Jewish people, rejecting all ties with the Jews outside
Israel, and believing instead in the existence o f an Israeli people, a fusion o f
Jews and Arabs.
The very fact that an Israeli can go back to the Bible w ithout having
recourse to a translation creates a feeling of im mediacy. Every reader can
be his own interpreter and believe th at his !Interpretation o f the Bible is the
right one. This is possible only if we ensure that the linguistic chasm between BH and IH does not become unabridgeable. The day the Bible will
have to be translated into IH will m ark the end of the special attitude o f the
Israeli toward the Bible.
To be sure, modern linguistics has adopted a laissez fa ire policy
regarding language (Leave Your Language Alone which is also a title o f a
298
513 ]
E p ilo g u e
book by R.A. Hall). But while we agree that in every language there are
forces at work which keep it changing, IH is very different from other
languages in this respect. A native speaker of IH has practically no
difficulty in reading the Bible, the M ishna and other creations th o u san d s o f
years old, which is impossible in any other language. A nd it is this
capability which creates the vital historical consciousness in the Israeli. The
vast m ajority o f Israeli Jews feels that it is essentially a m em ber o f the peopie which created this language, both within Israel as outside it, and which
employed it as a sacred language especially during the p ast two thousand
years.
Therefore, the aim o f the A cademy of the Hebrew L anguage should be
to guard Israeli Hebrew and to ensure that its developm ent continue to
foster this historical-linguistic bond of the Israeli with his long Jew ish past.
The Leave Y our Language Alone policy should no t apply to Israeli
Hebrew. H ad we followed it, Israeli Hebrew would not have existed at all
and Jews would have continued to speak their form er languages.
Literature:
Th. Nldeke, Semitic Languages, Encyclopaedia B rita n n ica 11 vol. 24, p.
622b;
W. Porzig, D as W under der Sprache2, Bern 1950, p. 258;
;34 1964), ) X X IV , .
G. Brczi, A m agyar nyelv letrajza, Budapest 1963, pp. 2 9 1 -3 5 5 .
299
A P P E N D IX
by R aphael K utscher
A. A ddenda
33. A dd: H. Bauer, Z u r Frage der Sprachm ischung im H ebrischen,
H alle 1924;
J. Blau, Problem s in the H istory o f the H ebrew Language , in M. D orm an
et al., eds., In M em ory o f Gedaliahu A lo n , [Tel Aviv] 1970, pp. 9 -1 4
(Hebrew).
73. It is possible th at some gutturals existed in early Sumerian; see R.
K utscher, Q adm oniot X III (1980), p. 127 (Hebrew).
100. A dd: A. H urvitz, The Chronological Significance o f A ram aism s in
Biblical H ebrew , IE J 18 (1968), pp. 2 3 4 -240.
138. T he author referred to Segals edition of Ben Sira, , ..
, ; I changed the references according to the
definitive edition o f the A cadem y of the Hebrew Language (1973).
195. On M ishnaic m anuscripts see now , .
,] [,) , . (, ,,
;185-166 , ,
,) , . (, , .
99.-84 , , ,
197. In 1970 an A ram aic inscription was excavated in a synagogue from
the R om an or Byzantine period in Beth-Shean. In this inscription the
w ords for this w ork are spelled ( instead o f ) ,
which the au th o r considered a welcome illustration to the confusion of
the gutturals in Beth-Shean, H aifa and Tivon, mentioned in the B arayta
(but he did not have a chance to include it in the m anuscript o f this
book); see J. N aveh, On Stone and M osaic (above 185), pp. 78f.
199. C oncerning the name M arien it is interesting to note that an amulet
bearing the nam e ?) or) w as recently found in K hirbet
K a n ef in the G olan (reported in H a 'a retz, Septem ber 30, 1980, p. 4). The
301
A d d en d a
date o f the amulet is not given, but it may be associated with the late
R om an or Byzantine synagogue in the site.
253. N um erous studies in Mishnaic Hebrew were published in the two
collections mentioned in the addendum to 195 and in M.Z K addari, ed.,
Archive o f the N ew Dictionary o f Rabbinic Literature II, R am at-G an
1974 (Hebrew with English summaries). (References courtesy M. BarAsher.)
415. Complete: D. Ten, L'hbreu contem porain, Ph. D. dissertation,
Universit de Paris, 1961.
302
B. Tables
Table 1
The H ebrew consonants in relation to Proto-Sem itic, A ram aic a n d A rabic
P roto
Semitic
b
g
d
h
w
z
d
h
X
t
y
k
1
m
n
s
g
P
s
t
d
q
r
s
s
i
t
Hebrew
'
a le f
bet
gim el
dalet
he
waw
zayin
zayin
het
het
tet
yo d
kaf
lam ed
mem
nun
sam ekh
,ayin
4ayin
pe
sade
sade
sade
qof
resh
sin
sin
sin
taw
A ram aic
A rabic
g
d
h
w
z
d
h
h
t
g
d
h
w
z
k
I
m
n
s
<
(
k
1
m
n
s
&
P
s
t
q/
q
r
s
s
t
t
4
h
X
1
g
f
s
q
r
s
s
t
t
F o r a different view on the origins o f the sade see J. Blau, A G ram m ar o f

B iblical H ebrew , W iesbaden 1976, p. 6 with note a.
303
T ab le 2
T he independent personal pronouns
$ ,
( D S S )
,
( D S S).
, ( D S S )
,
,

$ , ,
1( ?) ,

M ishnaic Hebrew
)(and D ead Sea Scrolls
, 1
Biblical H ebrew
The unvocalized form s occur

as ketib only
T able 3
T he im perfect
^ , ^

:
1

M ishnaic H ebrew
,
,

I
I
, ^
,
Biblical H ebrew
304
Selective Indexes
C.
References are to paragraphs
1 199 ,9
2 34 ,123 ,
(Deut. 33, 11), 110, 182 3
I. Hebrew Forms, Lexemes and Roots
(Deut. 32, 36), 55, 100, 110, 38 3 ((
398 ,2 2 7 ,123 ,
72 ,
72 ,
( (cf. also
?,
3 6 0 ,3 5 6 ,3 5 5 ,3 4 8 ,3 1 8 ,4 6
71 ,
, see
97 ,
130 ,123 ,
99 ,7 9 ,
verbs, passive perfect, 21 1 , 381, 4 0 2
(cf. also G ehinam , G einan, 2 89 ,
verbs, 5
) Jahannam
(various forms), 34 3, 40 7
, 153 ,
98 ,
$ 389 ,3 8 0 ,3 7 8 ,3 1 9 ,116
(q u it), 159, 170
1 , 1 4 4 2 ,3 8 9 ,134
14 4 2 ,3 8 9 ,3 2 6 ,2 1 3 ,
* 90
King s 16, 7), 32 1 )11
as auxiliary verb, 218 , 273 , 3 81 , 4 0 7 ,
(qu tlX 159, 182
43 5
32 6 ,2 1 3 ,134 ,
3 4 0 ,3 2 6 ,2 1 3 ,134 ,103 ,
445 ,4 0 7 ,3 3 8 ,
ending, 65, 121, 123, 171, 2 1 4, 4 4 6 ,
3 26 ,2 1 3 ,13 4 ,
159 ,
46 8
, 2 2 7 , 234
103 ,
, 14 , 159 , 182 ( : ,)
, K76, 251' 9159 ,
, 72
73 ,3 3 ,3 2 ,3 1 ,
V, (adjectival suffix) 334 , 44 5
213 ,
97 ,
(fem. pl.), 56, 102, 113, 208
, in personal names, 89, 90 , 153 ,
1 , 214 ,
(Yavneh*), 198
4 9 6 ,4 6 8 ,4 4 2 ,3 8 9 ,3 2 6 ,2 8 4 ,2 1 3 ,
: 59 ,
(third pers. fem. sing.), 102, 110,
100 ,5 9 ,:
( ) ( T
113, 20 8, 2 12 (cf. also
(se con d pers. fem. sing.), 53, 102,

( 113, 171, 181 (cf. also
(I Sam. 4, 15), 56
: (Esther 1, 20), 59
98 ,
234 ,123 ,
? 98 ,
, 85 ,
398 ,3 2 0 ,2 2 7 ,123 ,
4 9 8 48 9 ,4 8 3 ,186 ,
85 ,
(Ge n. 49, 6), 321 1
+ participle, 38 4
), (Eccles. 4, 2), 125 )
99 ,9 3 ,8 1 ,
, 72
, (2 4 ,
+ noun, 216, 2 4 4 , 327 , 3 8 0
241 ,100 ,
+ p ossess ive suffix, 204, 215, 216,
100 ,
327, 4 1 7 , 418 , 44 3
, 85
73 ,
, 3 6 0 ,3 5 6 ,3 5 5 ,3 4 8 ,3 1 8 ,4 6 ,
4 63 T
305
( ^?Judges 5, 7), 54, 100, 2 0 6 (cf. also
iota, 37
J ah an n am ( ;Ârabic), 2 89
( ^Deut. 21, 7), 56
k etib , see q ere and k etib
( ^ Jer. 49, 11), 59
merged Hebrew, see wh ol e Hebrew
( ) ) ^ Esther 2, 8, 16) 4 8
and merged Hebrew
100 ,
M oloch ( ;(Greek), 159, 176, 2 5 0
( ))?Gen. 12, 15), 48
pausal forms in the verb, 37, 60, 158, 171,
(391 ,3 0 8 , (
249 , 25 1, 25 2
personal names, 8 9 - 9 1 , 153, 34 8
4 7 2 ,
Philippi's law, 97, 109, 2 5 0

II. G en era l I n d e x a n d T r a n slite ra tio n s
place names, 28, 50, 52, 79, 8 5 - 8 8 , 97,

98, 3 48
A u s i ' ( ; Assyrian), 9 0
Barth's law, 110
b o so r
Greek) 37, 251
chiton (Greek), 98
dialect mixture in B H and M H , 20 3, 206,
212, 24 4
dialectal differences in BH, 44 , 79, 81, 90,
91, 94, 99, 100, 109
El-Amarna, 1, 34, 37, 71, 86, 95, 97, 98,
108-110
G ehinam ( ;^Judeo-Italian), 2 99
G einan ( ;^JSp), 4 8 2
pronouns, third person used as copula,

16, 3 5 0
q ere and k e tib , 41 , 42, 52, 53, 56, 95
rebbecin, reb b etzin , etc., 284 , 30 3, 4 72 ,
480
Samaritans
and Samaritan Pentateuch,
4 1 , 4 6 , 48, 85, 98, 1 10, 114, 116, 122,

154, 156, 157, 158, 171, 1 7 7 - 1 8 4
Septuagint,
25,
37,
38,
75,
89,
159,
1 7 4 - 1 7 6 , 32 4
whole" Hebrew and merged Hebrew,
260, 302 , 360 , 4 6 3 , 4 7 4 , 4 8 6 , 49 3 , 507

History of Ds Hibreio Linguageee

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

History of Ds Hibreio Linguageee

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EDUARD YECHEZKEL KUTSCHER

A HISTORY OF THE HEBREW

Published with the assistan ce o f the

T h e M a g n e s P ress, The H e b re w U n iversity

C h a pter T w o : T H E SEM ITIC LA N G U A G E S. 2

C h a pter T h r e e : H EB R EW AS A SEM ITIC L A N G U A G E

a. Patterns o f the Sem itic Root. 6

I. Pronouns and Particles. 12

II. The Verb. 13

III. The Noun. 14

\V .A ttributes o f the Noun. 15

1.T h e M erger o f ( /sf) and ( /sf). 21

2. The Sibbolet-Sibbolet Incident. 22

3. The Pronunciation o f the Sibilants by

( /h / and ) //) in Greek Transliterations. 25

2. The M erger o f I x l with /h / and Ig l with /'/. 26

3. The W eak Pronunciation o f the Gutturals. 27

4. R efutation o f Kahle*s Theory o f Gutturals. 28

c. The , , , , ,( //>, g, d, k, p ,tf) . 29

1. R efutation o f Kahle*s Theory o f the /b, g, d, k,

a. The Proto-Sem itic L on g Vowels in B H . 31

1. P roto-Sem itic I a:/ in B H . 32

a. B auer's M ixed L a n g u a g e Theory. 33

b. The P roto-Sem itic Sh o rt Vowels in B H . 35

1. Stress as a Distinctive Feature. 36

2. Sound-C hange A ttested D uring Three Thousand

3. Proto-Sem itic S h o rt //, u! in B H . 38

4. Vowel Length as a Distinctive Feature in BH . 39

a. F irst Person Singular. 40

b. S econd Person F em inine Singular. 41

c. F irst Person Plural. 42

T hird Persons P lural (M asc. and

II. Demonstrative Pronouns. 44

III. Relative Pronouns. 45

1. Suffixes o f the Perfect

a. Second Person S ingular M asculine. 52

. Second Person Sin g u la r Feminine. 53

P1. M ira g e Forms. 54

y. Third Person S ingular Feminine. 55

. Third Person P lural Feminine. 56

2. Prefixes and S uffixes o f the Im perfect. 57

a. Second Person S ingular Fem inine

. Third Person P lural Feminine. 59

c. A ctive and N eutral B ases in the Qal

d. The W eak Verbs

II. S y n ta x o f the Verb in L B H . 67

III. Infinitives and Participles.

I. Foreign Loanw ords. 69

a. H ow Is a Foreign Loa n w o rd Recognized? 70

c. A kka d ia n and Sum erian Loanw ords

e. Persian Loanw ords. 75

f Loanw ords fr o m O ther Languages. 76

g. A ram aic L oanw ords

a. The Vocabulary as a Reflection o f Jewish L ife . 77

h. The Evidence fr o m Place Names. 85

S o u n d C hanges in Places Names. 8 6 ..................

3. Place N am es in W ord Plays.

P ersonal N am es Preserving Old G ram m atical

2. Special Vocabulary in Personal Nam es. 91

H. Hebrew W ords in A kkadian Transliteration. 97

I. H ebrew L oanw ords in Foreign Languages. 98

b. In the Noun. 103

IV. In the Vocabulary. 105

L. Stratification o f Biblical Hebrew (and El-Amarna). 107