This book provides a comprehensive grammatical and lexicographical review of all types of late Samaritan Hebrew in all t
144 73 2MB
English Pages 393  Year 2005
This volume presents the research insights of twelve new studies by fourteen linguists examining a range of Biblical Heb
381 106 2MB Read more
Stylistic variation is the colourful manifestation of language. It is an intriguing linguistic phenomenon that can take
410 31 26MB Read more
London, Routledge, 2004. — 278 p.The Linguistic Analysis of Jokes. This book starts from three observations. First, the
329 101 4MB Read more
The dating of some Archaic Biblical Hebrew poems to the late second millennium - early first millennium BCE on the basis
102 81 1MB Read more
679 71 8MB Read more
The voice of long-dead native speakers is resurrected in this outstanding study on the Old Testament Book of Numbers. Ac
785 76 8MB Read more
174 108 26MB Read more
LATE SAMARITAN HEBREW
STUDIES IN SEMITIC LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS EDITED BY
T. MURAOKA AND C.H.M. VERSTEEGH
VOLUME XLIII LATE SAMARITAN HEBREW
LATE SAMARITAN HEBREW A Linguistic Analysis of its Different Types BY
BRILL LEIDEN • BOSTON 2005
This book was published with the generous financial assistance of The Memorial Foundation for Jewish Culture, and the following units of Tel Aviv University: The President’s Fund, The Rector’s Fund, The Lester and Sally Entin Faculty of Humanities through The Eirene Yang Endowment Fund for Scientific Publications, The Chaim Rosenberg School of Jewish Studies, and The Yaakov and Shoshana Schreiber Chair in the History of the Hebrew Language.
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Florentin, Moshe. Late Samaritan Hebrew : a linguistic analysis of its different types / by Moshe Florentin. p. cm. — (Studies in Semitic languages and linguistics, ISSN 0081-8461 ; 43) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 90-04-13841-2 1. Samaritan Hebrew language—Grammar. 2. Samaritan Hebrew language—Foreign elements. 3. Samaritan Hebrew language—Lexicography. 4. Samaritans—Languages— History. I. Title. II. Series. PJ4860.F56 2004 492’.29—dc22 2004058146
ISSN 0081-8461 ISBN 90 04 13841 2
© Copyright 2005 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill Academic Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910 Danvers , MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands
To Riki, Anat, Dan and Adee
List of Abbreviations .................................................................. xxi Acknowledgments ...................................................................... xxiii Preface ........................................................................................ xxv INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 1 0.1. Samaritan Hebrew and its demise .................................. 1 0.1.1. The Samaritan Version of the Pentateuch and the beginnings of its research ........................ 1 0.1.2. SH and Arabic ........................................................ 3 0.1.3. SH, MH and HDSS .............................................. 4 0.1.3.2. Diﬀerences between SH and MH .......... 5 0.1.3.2.1. The stress in MH .............................. 6 0.1.3.3. The progressive nature of SH relative to MH ........................................................ 7 0.1.3.3.5. Paradigmatic analogy in SH ............ 9 0.1.3.4. The nature of transmission of SH versus MH ................................................ 11 0.1.3.5. Isoglosses common to SH and MH ........ 12 0.1.3.6. More diﬀerences between SH and MH 13 0.1.3.7. SH and HDSS—the chronological factor .......................................................... 14 0.1.3.8. SH and MH—the chronological factor .... 15 0.1.3.9. Was SH still a spoken language after the demise of MH? ........................................ 16 0.1.3.9.2. The historical background of SH during the ﬁrst centuries CE ........................ 16 0.2. Samaritan Aramaic and its demise .................................. 18 0.2.1. The treatises written in Samaritan Aramaic ........ 18 0.2.1.1. The layers of SA and their reﬂection in the ST ........................................................ 18 0.2.1.2. The piyyutim written in SA .................... 20 0.2.1.2.1. The Samaritan piyyutim of the 4th century .......................................... 20 0.2.1.2.2. The late SA piyyutim ........................ 20 0.2.1.2.3. The HSH piyyutim ............................ 21
contents 0.2.1.3. Asatir .......................................................... 0.2.1.4. Tìbåt Mårqe .............................................. 0.2.2. The shift from SA to Arabic ................................ 0.2.3. The nature of SA at the end of its lifetime ........ 0.2.3.1. Asatir .......................................................... 0.2.3.2. The piyyutim of the 10th and 11th centuries .................................................... 0.2.3.3. Additional sources: the Samaritan Targum, Tìbåt Mårqe, inscriptions ........................ 0.2.3.3.1. The epigraphic ﬁndings .................... 0.2.3.4. The ﬁndings in colophons and deeds found in manuscripts of the Samaritan Pentateuch .................................................. 0.2.3.5. Summary and conclusions ........................
21 21 23 24 25 25 27 28
Chapter One PURE HEBREW: BETWEEN ARAMAIC AND HSH .............................................................................. 1.0.1. Aramaic and Arabic compositions of the 11th century .................................................................. 1.1. Between the decline of SA and the rise of HSH ...... 1.1.1. Hebrew compositions .......................................... 1.2. Conclusions: a norm of writing in pure Hebrew? ......
33 34 34 38
Chapter Two EXCEPTIONAL SAMARITAN WRITING—JEWISH INFLUENCES ................................ 2.0. Ab Isdå and his unique style ........................................ 2.3. The prayer of Ab Isdå .................................................. 2.3.1. The language of the prayer of Ab Isdå ............ 126.96.36.199. Ab Isdå and Rav Sa'adya Gaon ................ 2.4. The aﬃnity between Samaritan and Jewish sources .... 2.4.8. Summary ..............................................................
40 40 41 42 49 50 57
Chapter Three HYBRID SAMARITAN HEBREW .......... 3.1. The background to the formation of HSH ................ 3.1.0. Introduction ........................................................ 3.1.2. Initial manifestations of HSH—colophons ........ 3.1.3. The crystallization of HSH—A comparative study .................................................................... 3.2. The texts written in HSH ............................................ 3.2.0. Introduction ........................................................ 3.2.1. Piyyutim ..............................................................
59 59 59 63 69 72 72 73
contents 3.2.2. Chronicles ............................................................ 188.8.131.52. The Tùlìda .................................................... 3.2.3. Lists in manuscripts ............................................ 3.2.4. Marriage contracts and deeds of divorce ........ 3.2.5. Epistles and correspondence .............................. 3.2.6. Proverbs ................................................................ 184.108.40.206. Versions of proverbs from the Book of Proverbs .................................................... 220.127.116.11. Proverbs composed with an aﬃnity to Arabic ...................................................... 3.3. The components of HSH—Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic .............................................................................. 3.3.1. The Mingling of Hebrew with Aramaic and the title “HSH” .................................................. 18.104.22.168. The roots of the mingling .......................... 22.214.171.124. The aﬃnity to the Pentateuch .................... 126.96.36.199. The aﬃnity to SA and especially to the earlier piyyutim ............................................ (a) Citations from the Aramaic piyyutim ............ (b) Preference for linguistic forms characteristic of the Aramaic piyyutim ................................ 188.8.131.52. The obscuring of boundaries between Hebrew and Aramaic .................................. (a) The obscuring of boundaries as viewed by Aramaic grammarians ........................................ (b) The obscuring of boundaries between Hebrew and Aramaic in the use of the language ...... 1. Identiﬁcation due to phonetic shifts .......... 2. Convergence resulting from reciprocal inﬂuence ........................................................ (c) Summary .......................................................... 184.108.40.206. The rules of mingling of the languages .... (a) The role of the Nif 'al stem in the language ............................................................ (b) The vowel of the second radical in Hif 'il and Af 'el .......................................................... (c) The 3rd fem. sing. perfect aﬀormative .......... (d) The 2nd and the 3rd masc. pl. imperfect suﬃxes ................................................................ (e) The participle of Qal ...................................... (f ) The use of inﬁnitive forms ..............................
ix 75 75 77 77 87 89 90 90 91 91 94 94 96 96 99 101 101 104 104 105 108 108 109 110 110 111 111 111
x (g) (h) (i) ( j) (k) (l)
˚laçy/lwçy “he will ask” .................................. ˚yrb/˚wrb “blessed” .......................................... ˚rwy/˚yray “he will lengthen” .......................... hkh/hna “here” ................................................ rjbtm/rjbm “selected” ....................................
Summary—The use of diﬀerent patterns in SH and SA ...................................................... 220.127.116.11. The weight of Aramaic in HSH ................ (a) General .............................................................. (b) The numerical system ...................................... (c) The possessive suﬃxes ...................................... (d) The deﬁnite article .......................................... (e) The demonstrative pronouns .......................... (f ) The relative pronouns d and rça .................. (g) Proportional distribution of Hebrew and Aramaic words .................................................. 3.3.2. The share of Arabic in HSH ............................ 18.104.22.168. General .......................................................... 22.214.171.124. Vocabulary .................................................... (a) Borrowed words and locutions ........................ (b) Loan shifts—A word in HSH receives the meaning of a parallel word in Arabic ............ 1. Borrowing meaning according to semantics ...................................................... (1) ldgm “signs of the zodiac” ...................... (2) rbj “owner, master” .............................. (3) πff “money for charity” ...................... (4) μy denoting “abundance” ...................... (5) rpx “to become” .................................... 2. Borrowing on a morphological-etymological basis .............................................................. (1) za “when” (from Arabic ) .................... (2) rja “end” ................................................ (3) ggj “to undertake a pilgrimage” ............ (4) πsk “to be ashamed, eclipse” .............. (5) μjl “meat” .............................................. (6) hm “no” .................................................. (7) rwn “light” ................................................ (8) rws “to go, to be” ..................................
112 112 113 113 114 114 115 115 120 120 121 122 125 125 128 128 129 129 135 135 135 135 136 136 136 137 137 137 138 139 139 139 140 140
contents (9) rm[ “to build, repair” ............................ (10) drp “unique” ........................................ (11) qrp “to diﬀerentiate” .......................... (12) çmç “a superlative designation” .......... (c) Loan translations .............................................. 1. The new locution is built from another root ................................................................ (1) ˆwkyyjb/ˆwkymwyb ˚yrwy/˚yray òh - ˚ra (< ) .......................................... ) .................... (2) b ab “to bring” (< ) ...... (3) b [dwtm “known as” (< (4) l[ bsn / jql “to accuse, to condemn” (< ) ........................ (5) ˚mm fybm “to hope, expect” (< ) .............................................. 2. The new locution is built from the same root (with minor changes) .......................... ) .... (1) ydy ˆyb “in front of him” (< ) .......... (2) l[ πljy “to reward” (< ) .............................. (3) dy l[ “by” ( (4) hz lk μ[ “despite this” (< ) .................................... ) ........ (5) rd[ fçp “to forgive” (< (6) b μq “to undertake, perform” (< ) .................................................. ) .............. (7) ˆm bwrq “close to” (< (8) hwhy ˆwxr μhl “may God’s favor be with them” (a blessing to honorable men, (< ) .................................... ) ................ (9) l[ μlç “to bless” (< 126.96.36.199. The forms—nouns and verbs in Arabic patterns .......................................................... ) ........................................ (a) hbham “love” (< (b) μdq—μdqta “prior to, mentioned above” (< ) ................................................................ ) ................ (c) rxq—rxqta “to be short” (< ) .................................... (d) hmç “to name” (< 188.8.131.52. The Syntax .................................................. (a) Lack of agreement—A plural noun, which
xi 141 142 143 143 144 144 144 144 145 145 145 145 145 146 146 146 147 147 147
147 148 148 148 148 148 149 150
contents does not denote human beings, to which a feminine form (verb or other noun) is accorded ............................................................ (b) Profusion of asyndetic sentences........................ (c) Grammatical gender as inﬂuenced by Arabic (d) Number as inﬂuenced by Arabic ...................... 184.108.40.206. Summary: the share of Arabic in HSH .... (a) General .............................................................. (b) Arabic in the chronicles .................................. (c) Arabic in the later piyyutim ............................ 3.3.3. The non-Samaritan sources of the vocabulary ............................................................ 220.127.116.11. HSH and non-Samaritan sources .............. (a) Words found in the Prophets and Hagiographa ...................................................... 1. çwb “shamed” .............................................. 2. jrbm “escape, shelter, refuge” ...................... 3. çrg—Nif 'al stem .......................................... 4. dz “presumptuous, arrogant” ...................... 5. twrymz “song” ................................................ 6. çdj “restore” .............................................. 7. ˆnr “sing, praise” .......................................... 8. bgç “hide” .................................................... (b) Words found in Mishnaic literature ................ 1. twrg “sojourn” .............................................. 2. qdqd “scrutinize” ........................................ 3. (dz) μdyz/ˆdyz “presumptuous, arrogant” ...... 4. ywn “praise” .................................................... (c) Words that are common to HSH and Hebrew of the Middle Ages ............................................ 1. bha “love” .................................................... 2. twç[l jwkh ˆm “from potentially to actually” ........................................................ 3. llq “curse” .................................................. 4. jmç “joy, happiness” .................................. (d) The scope of the commonality ........................ 3.3.4. The aﬃnity between HSH and the other Samaritan texts ................................................ 18.104.22.168. Ms. A of the ST, TM and the piyyutim written in HSH ............................................
150 151 154 154 155 155 155 157 158 158 158 158 159 159 160 160 160 161 161 164 164 164 164 165 165 165 165 166 166 166 167 167
contents (a) General .............................................................. (b) Ms. A of the ST and HSH ............................ 22.214.171.124. The reﬂection of SH and SA in HSH ...... 3.4. The grammatical structure of HSH ............................ 3.4.1. Phonetics and phonology .................................... 126.96.36.199. General .......................................................... 188.8.131.52. The consonants ............................................ (a) General .............................................................. (b) The gutturals .................................................... (c) The r ................................................................ (d) The tpkdgb ........................................................ (e) The w .................................................................. (f ) The emphatics .................................................. (g) The sibilants ...................................................... 184.108.40.206. The vowels .................................................... (a) The inventory of vowels .................................. (b) The “6wa .......................................................... (c) Vowel lengths .................................................... 220.127.116.11. The stress ...................................................... 18.104.22.168. The HSH pronunciation—general assessment ...................................................... 3.4.2. Morphology .......................................................... 22.214.171.124. The verb ........................................................................ 126.96.36.199.1. The system of stems .............................. (a) The Hebrew stems ...................................... (b) The Aramaic stems ...................................... (c) Comments .................................................... 1. The lack of Pu'al and Huf 'al ................ 2. The quadriradicals .................................. 3. The lack of an Arabic stem .................. 4. Hebrew stems as opposed to Aramaic .. (1) Qal (P6'al and På 'al) .............................. (2) Hif 'il and Af 'el .................................... (3) Pi 'el and Pa'el ...................................... (4) Hitpa'el and Itpa'al ................................ (5) Nif 'al and Itp6'el .................................. (d) Summary—the stem system ........................ (e) The uses of the stems .................................. 1. Af 'el instead of Qal .................................. 2. Itp6'el instead of Qal ..............................
xiii 167 168 172 175 175 175 177 177 178 184 185 187 188 189 190 190 192 193 194 194 197 197 197 197 198 198 198 199 200 200 200 201 202 202 203 209 209 209 210
contents 188.8.131.52.2. The preformatives and the aﬀormatives (a) The aﬀormatives of the perfect .................. 1. 1st sing. .................................................... 2. 2nd masc. sing. ........................................ 3. 3rd fem. sing. .......................................... 4. 1st pl. ........................................................ 5. 2nd masc. pl. ............................................ 6. 3rd fem. pl. .............................................. (b) The preformatives of the imperfect ............ 184.108.40.206. The stems ...................................................... 220.127.116.11.1. The Qal stem ........................................ (a) The perfect .................................................... (b) The imperfect .............................................. (c) The imperative .............................................. (d) The active participle .................................. (e) The passive participle .................................. 18.104.22.168.2. Nif 'al and Itp6'el .................................. 22.214.171.124.3. Pi'el and Pa'el ...................................... 126.96.36.199.4. Itpa'al and Itp6'el .................................. (a) The second radical’s vowel of the geminated stem .............................................. (b) The second radical’s vowel of the ungeminated stem ........................................ (c) Assimilation of the t .................................... (d) t of the stem preceding a sibilant consonant ...................................................... 188.8.131.52.5. Ittaf 'al .................................................... 184.108.40.206.6. The weak verbs .................................... (a) I-Yod (yòòp) and I-Nun (nòòp) Verbs .............. 1. The dropping of the ﬁrst radical in the perfect ........................................................ 1. I-Yod Verbs (yòòp) .................................... 2. I-Nun Verbs (nòòp) .................................. 2. qwpml—An inﬁnitive of Af 'el .................. 3. Itpa'al of bòòxn .......................................... (b) II-Waw (wòò[) .................................................. 1. Regular and shortened imperfect .......... 2. The participle μym[q ................................ 3. Itpa'al of μòòwq .......................................... (c) III-Yod verbs (yòòl) ........................................ 1. ywh—wnwhy (yòòwh “to be”) ............................ 2. Itp6'el of yòòrq ..........................................
212 212 212 213 214 215 215 215 216 217 217 217 217 218 219 225 227 228 230 230 231 231 233 235 237 237 237 238 238 241 241 242 242 242 242 243 243 244
contents 3. yòòtç ............................................................ 220.127.116.11. Numerals ........................................................ (a) dj/dja .............................................................. (b) ˆyrt .................................................................... (c) htlt .................................................................. (d) htç, hnmt, h[ça ................................................ (e) yt[bra, ytçmj, yt[bç ........................................ (f ) hrç[, hrs[ ........................................................ (g) The numerals from 11 to 90 .......................... (h) Lack of gender agreement .............................. 18.104.22.168. Particles ........................................................ 22.214.171.124.1. Interjections ............................................ (a) ha .................................................................. (b) l[ ywa/l ywa .................................................. (c) lyw .................................................................. (d) yrça ................................................................ (e) ybwf ................................................................ 126.96.36.199.2. Adverbs .................................................. (a) tyl .................................................................. (b) ˚ya .................................................................. (c) hka ................................................................ (d) hna .................................................................. (e) ˆha .................................................................. (f ) lh .................................................................. (g) lza .................................................................. (h) ˆmt .................................................................. (i) ywal .................................................................. ( j) qr .................................................................. (k) ylwa ................................................................ 188.8.131.52.3. Prepositions ............................................ (a) la/dyl ............................................................ (b) b .................................................................... (c) ˆyb/ynyb .......................................................... (d) k/wmk .............................................................. (e) m/wmm .............................................................. (f ) d[/d[s .......................................................... (g) l[/ywl[ .......................................................... (h) ynp/ymq ............................................................ (i) lbq ................................................................ 184.108.40.206.4. The direct object articles ta, ty .......... 220.127.116.11.5. Conjunctions .......................................... (a) d/rça ............................................................
xv 244 244 245 245 246 247 247 247 248 249 250 250 250 250 250 251 251 252 252 254 255 256 257 257 258 259 260 262 262 262 262 263 263 264 264 265 265 266 267 267 268 268
(b) μlwaw .............................................................. (c) ˆa/ˆh .............................................................. (d) yk .................................................................... (e) tma ................................................................ (f ) dk .................................................................. (g) d hmd ............................................................ 3.5. The Lexicon .................................................................... 3.5.1. The innovations of HSH .................................... 18.104.22.168. New meaning or use .................................... (a) ˆma .................................................................... (b) ˆpa .................................................................... (c) db ...................................................................... (d) afb .................................................................... (e) dyg ...................................................................... (f ) glg ...................................................................... (g) wng ...................................................................... (h) qwd .................................................................... (i) rwd .................................................................... ( j) ynhd (< ynh) ........................................................ (k) dbz .................................................................... (l) ˆwmyz—wnmwz—ˆmwz ................................................ (m) blj .................................................................... (n) jrf .................................................................... (o) tpy .................................................................... (p) bty—ylbq btyta .............................................. (q) çwk, tyçk .......................................................... (r) μwam (μymwam) .................................................... (s) ˚bn .................................................................... (t) lmn .................................................................... (u) çqn .................................................................... (v) rds .................................................................... (w) wqt[ .................................................................. (x) [bxa .................................................................. (y) ywq ...................................................................... (z) πfq .................................................................... (aa) μyçrq ................................................................ (bb) rwfyr .................................................................. (cc) ˚dç, μynkdç ...................................................... (dd) ryç—ryçm ........................................................ (ee) fybrç ................................................................
269 269 272 272 273 273 273 273 273 273 275 276 277 277 277 278 279 280 281 282 286 286 287 288 288 289 291 292 293 294 295 297 298 299 299 300 301 303 305 306
3.5.2. Nouns functioning as adjectives ........................ (a) wlyla/lyla .............................................................. (b) db, ddb .................................................................. (c) çbd ........................................................................ (d) [md ........................................................................ (e) ˆrty ........................................................................ (f ) ˆrçk ........................................................................ 3.5.3. Words which are not documented in the ancient Samaritan literature ................................ (a) hra ........................................................................ (b) ˆwkra ...................................................................... (c) dgdg ........................................................................ (d) πdg .......................................................................... (e) htbj ...................................................................... (f ) wnk, wynk .................................................................. (g) ynk .......................................................................... (h) ˆbq[ ........................................................................ 3.5.4. The Lexical aﬃnity between HSH, Ms. A of the ST and TM ................................................ 22.214.171.124. New nouns and verbs derived from ancient roots ................................................................ (a) çra .................................................................... (b) çab .................................................................... (c) ˆrsb .................................................................... (d) [bg ...................................................................... (e) wbyga .................................................................... (f ) wklh .................................................................... (g) yhz ...................................................................... (h) rkz ...................................................................... (i) smlf .................................................................. ( j) ˆpgn ...................................................................... (k) rfq .................................................................... (l) fçq .................................................................... 126.96.36.199. Old words with new meanings or uses ...... (a) hrga .................................................................... (b) ˆpla .................................................................... (c) btkm .................................................................. (d) hnçm .................................................................... (e) ywnt ...................................................................... (f ) rwsa ....................................................................
307 307 308 309 309 311 312 312 312 313 314 315 316 318 319 320 322 322 322 323 324 324 325 325 325 327 328 328 329 330 332 332 333 334 335 335 335
contents (g) syra .................................................................. (h) ydb, ydw .............................................................. (i) ynh ...................................................................... ( j) πwn .................................................................... (k) frp .................................................................... (l) πqr .................................................................. (m) bçbç ................................................................ 188.8.131.52. Completely new words (not documented in ancient SA texts) .......................................... (a) slka .................................................................. (b) lb ...................................................................... (c) gòòwz .................................................................... (d) μrz .................................................................... (e) μlf, μwlf .......................................................... (f ) bçk .................................................................. (g) qymwn .................................................................. (h) ˆyn[ .................................................................... ( j) rwp .................................................................... (k) lbq, lpq .......................................................... (l) ≈lq .................................................................. (m) çrq .................................................................. (n) zr ...................................................................... (o) μylt ..................................................................
336 337 338 339 341 342 343
Chapter Four “JUDAIZED” SAMARITAN HEBREW ...... 4.1. The texts ........................................................................ 4.1.1. The Book of Joshua ............................................ 4.1.2. Sepher Ha-Yamim or “The Second Chronicle” ............................................................ 4.1.3. The Chronicle of Ab Sikkuwwa Addinﬁ (“The New Chronicle”) ...................................... 184.108.40.206. The author of the Chronicle of Ab Sikkuwwa Addinﬁ ........................................ 220.127.116.11. Aﬃnity to the Tùlìda .................................. 18.104.22.168. The language and style of CASD .............. (a) The converted imperfect .................................. (b) The passive forms ............................................ (c) Issues of pronunciation .................................... (d) Proper nouns ....................................................
357 357 357
344 344 345 346 348 349 350 350 351 352 352 353 354 354 356
358 361 361 362 363 365 366 366 368
contents 22.214.171.124. The Vocabulary ............................................ 126.96.36.199. The share of Arabic .................................... 188.8.131.52. The share of Aramaic .................................. 4.2. The background of composition of the late Samaritan Hebrew chronicles and their place in Samaritan literature ..........................................................................
xix 368 369 369
Bibliography ................................................................................ 375 Indices ........................................................................................ A. Index of grammatical and general issues .......................... B. Index of Hebrew and Aramaic words .............................. C. Index of Arabic words ........................................................ D. Index of biblical references ................................................ E. Index of Mishnaic and post biblical literature .................. F. Index of Jewish Paytanim .................................................. G. Index of Maimonides .......................................................... H. Index of Medieval Jewish Commentators ........................ I. Index of Rav Sa'adya Gaon .............................................. J. Index of the Siddur ............................................................ K. Index of Targum Onqelos .................................................. L. Index of the Palestinian Targumim .................................. M. Index of the Peshi†ta .......................................................... N. Index of the Samaritan Targum ........................................ O. Index of Tibat Mårqe ........................................................ P. Index of Asatir .................................................................... Q. Index of Samaritan Liturgy (LOT III/2) .......................... R. Index of the Tùlìda ............................................................ S. Index of the Meliß .............................................................. T. Index of Samaritan Arabic Translation ............................
379 379 381 384 385 388 389 389 389 389 389 389 390 390 390 391 392 392 393 393 393
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
b. BH CPA DSS fem. HDSS Heb. HSH JPA LSH m. masc. MH MV pl. SA SH sing. SP ST t. TM y.
Babylonian Talmud Biblical Hebrew Christian Palestinian Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls feminine Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls Hebrew Hybrid Samaritan Hebrew Jewish Palestinian Aramaic Late Samaritan Hebrew Mishna masculine Mishnaic Hebrew Masoretic Version (of the Pentateuch) plural Samaritan Aramaic Samaritan Hebrew singular Samaritan Pentateuch Samaritan Targum (see Tal, ST ) Tosefta Tìbåt Mårqe (see Ben-Óayyim, TM ) Palestinian (Yerushalmi) Talmud
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My ﬁrst encounter with Samaritan languages took place in the early eighties, when I was a student in the department of Hebrew Language at Tel-Aviv University. At that time I participated in one of Prof. Abraham Tal’s seminars dealing with the Palestinian dialects, and since that time I have never abandoned this most fascinating ﬁeld of Hebrew and Aramaic research. Since then, more then twenty ﬁve years ago, I have been and still am accompanied by Prof. Tal wherever my research into the Samaritan language leads me: ﬁrst as my advisor for my master’s degree, then for my doctoral thesis, on which a great deal of this book is based, and now, as a senior colleague on whose judgment and guidance I can constantly rely. For his contribution to the shaping of my scientiﬁc development and to his loyal friendship I reserve my deepest gratitude. Over the years I had the privilege of holding many conversations with Prof. Ze"ev Ben-Óayyim, the pioneer in modern research on Samaritan Hebrew and Aramaic. Anyone who is familiar with the scientiﬁc scope of his mind and temperament can appreciate the abundance he bestows on his interlocutors. This book would not have seen the light of day in its present form, were it not for the loyal support of my dear friends, the members of the Samaritan community. At the beginning of my career I was fortunate enough to hear speak the late Ratzon Ben Binyamim Tsedaka, one of the most praised savants of the literature and traditions of the Samaritan community. Conversations about Samaritan customs and language with Elazar, the present High Priest, along with the privilege of studying some of the ancient manuscripts kept in his extensive library, also enriched my studies immensely. A most signiﬁcant source of information concerning manuscripts and various publications which appeared in the Samaritan newspaper A.B—The Samaritan News and in other forums was Binyamin Tsedaka, the son of the late Ratson. I owe a great debt to my learned friend Yisrael Ben Gamliel Tsedaka from whom I heard the piyyutim and prayers in their reliable pronunciation. With his inestimable help I fulﬁlled the task of recording and transliterating the recorded corpus, and it was from him that I received the important manuscripts which I would otherwise
have been unable to obtain. What I learned from Yisrael Tsedaka and what I owe him cannot be expressed in words. Tel-Aviv University has supplied a warm and supportive home for me from the very beginning of my studies to this very day. No fewer than ﬁve institutions participated generously in ﬁnancing the book: The President’s Fund, The Rector’s Fund, The Lester and Sally Entin Faculty of Humanities through The Eirene Yang Endowment Fund for Scientiﬁc Publications, The Chaim Rosenberg School of Jewish Studies, and The Yaakov and Shoshana Schreiber Chair in the History of the Hebrew Language. I also enjoyed most generous support from The Memorial Foundation for Jewish Culture, which enabled me to devote my time to research. I deeply thank all these eminent institutions, supported and run by people for whom the research of Hebrew culture and language is close to their hearts. It is my pleasure to thank my students who assisted me in the production of this book: Mr. Shai Heijmans took the utmost care in his oversight of the design and layout of the book; thanks to his sharp eye the text was greatly improved. Mrs. Nilli Aaronson read the text through and her comments contributed greatly to the polishing of its style. Mr. Tal Kittenplon read the whole manuscript and shared with me his thoughtful and insightful comments. One may say that without his careful reading, the book would not have achieved its present status, both in form and content. The bulk of the translation was done by Mr. Ilan Dreyer and I thank him profusely for his cooperation and his excellent and loyal work. It is my pleasure to thank also Ms. Ruth Libbey from Boston who carefully read an essential part of the book. Her remarks and constant advice contributed a lot to its language style. I would like to thank Brill Academic Publishers for taking on the publication of this book. I thank Professor Takamitsu Muraoka and Professor Versteegh, the editors of the series Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics, within whose framework this book appears. My connections with Brill Academic Publishers were established through Mrs. Trudy Kamperveen. I would like to take this opportunity to thank her for her most eﬀective, devoted, and above all courteous and encouraging dealings on all issues concerned. Riki my wife and our three children Anat, Dan and Adee are the source of my energy and the joy of my life. It is to them that this book is dedicated with love and gratitude. Tel Aviv 2004
The aim of this book is to introduce a linguistic description of all the Hebrew types used in post-biblical Samaritan writings. The title “Late Samaritan Hebrew” thus refers not to a speciﬁc type or style of languge, but is rather a general term which includes, as is explained below, at least four types. The Samaritans used three Semitic languages during their long history: Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic. Of the three, Hebrew, the language of the Samaritan version of the Pentateuch, has been the object of the most extensive and profound research. This research reached its summit in 1977 with the publication of the “Grammar of the Pentateuch”, the ﬁfth volume of Ben-Óayyim’s monumental series, “The Literary and Oral Tradition of Hebrew and Aramaic amongst the Samaritans” (LOT ). This Grammar “is based on the language-type reﬂected in their Torah reading” (GSH, p. xvii). Since Ben-Óayyim’s publications, it is accepted that Samaritan Hebrew (SH) is very similar to the Hebrew spoken in Eretz Israel in the last generations of the Second Temple. Like the Hebrew of the Jews, SH was replaced by Aramaic as the vernacular and in subsequent generations served as the written language, alongside Arabic, which was the spoken language. The Hebrew of the Jews has been examined and studied over generations, especially in the modern era. These studies—reﬂected in many dictionaries, grammars and other works—exhaustively revealed the Hebrew strata and styles. Unfortunately, this is not the case with the Samaritan language strata, even though in the course of the intensive activity in Samaritan studies during the last two generations, Samaritan languages, especially the Hebrew of the Pentateuch and Samaritan Aramaic, have been studied in depth. Late Samaritan styles of writing have been deﬁned, mainly in terms of the Hybrid Samaritan Hebrew (HSH),1 which is the chief topic of this book. However, we have not yet reached the highest level to which the research of Samaritan Hebrew
For a discussion of the term HSH, see p. 92.
can be brought. We lack countless details hidden in many still-unpublished Samaritan manuscripts. We also lack a general presentation which describes historically all these heterogeneous styles of writing: how they are related to each other, what the background of their development looks like, and what the circumstances of their disappearance might have been. It was this considerable gap in the research that impelled me to write this book. I wish to trace the development of SH from the point at which it went out of use as a vernacular of the Samaritan congregation. When did it start to decline? When did Hebrew regain its position, and under which cultural circumstances? Why did one type of language replace another? And above all, what were the grammatical and lexical features of each type of this Hebrew? Such a discussion requires a survey of the other languages of the Samaritans at the time of the decline of Aramaic as a cultural language. This is why the reader will ﬁnd here a survey of the languages of Eretz Israel in that period of transition that took place in the 11th and 12th centuries. Of course, I saw myself as exempt from discussing the Hebrew of the Pentateuch, which was comprehensively described in Ben-Óayyim’s grammar (GSH ). However, I did ﬁnd it necessary to deal with the question of the life span of SH in its earliest manifestation, i.e. in the ﬁrst centuries CE, and this necessitates research into the structure of this language. This is why the reader will ﬁnd here a general discussion on some of the main features of this old Hebrew dialect. The ﬁrst part of the introduction deals therefore with the ﬁnal days of SH in its earliest form, which Ben-Óayyim dubs jswn tyrb[ ˆwrmwç, “Hebrew according to the Samaritan tradition”. In the second part of the introduction I present the heir to that Hebrew, that is to say, Samaritan Aramaic (SA), which served as the vernacular from the ﬁrst centuries CE until around the 12th century. To the best of our knowledge, no compilations were written in SH during this long period. But the development of SA in this period is of great importance to us, since this dialect has played a vital role in the formation of the literary language, especially the liturgical. This is why I found it necessary to present the reader with a survey of the compilations written in that Aramaic, some of which have had great inﬂuence on subsequent generations. The ﬁrst chapter of the book, following the introduction, deals with the ﬁrst layer of the late Samaritan Hebrew. This type of
Hebrew may be called “pure” Samaritan Hebrew. It served during the 11th and 12th centuries as the literary language of the Samaritans. This Hebrew drew all its strength from the Hebrew of the Pentateuch, which is why it can be called “thin”, in comparison with other literary forms of expression. This was probably also the reason for its very limited life span. The second chapter deals with a kind of late Hebrew known to us from a relatively small number of texts. The only complete composition written in this style is a long prayer of Ab Isdå of Tyre (yrwxh hdsj ba). This form of Hebrew tried to preserve its “purity” (i.e. freedom from Aramaic inﬂuences), but it is obvious that its writer was aware of the narrow borders drawn by the Hebrew of the Pentateuch. Since he sought to enrich his language in order to make a greater impression on the praying congregation, he turned to other literary sources besides the Pentateuch. A thorough investigation of the words and their combinations and of the forms of expression reveals that many of them, which are not found in the Pentateuch, are very frequent in Jewish compilations—the Prophets and Hagiographa and the Jewish prayer book. The frequency of the lexical items in Ab Isdå’s prayer, which are practically non-existant in other Samaritan compilations, leaves no doubt. The writer’s background only strengthens this assumption. It is a fact that despite the high status attributed to Ab Isdå, this special prayer of him does not constitute a part of the regular liturgical service. It is possible that the elders of the Samaritan congregation noticed the peculiarly Jewish nature of the prayer’s style and language, which is why they did not include it in their service. The third chapter is the main part of the book. It is based on my doctoral dissertation presented to the senate of Tel-Aviv University in 1989. What was done there on the basis of a representative selection of the material, has been ampliﬁed here by all the liturgical material available to us today. Several new conclusions regarding the dissertation have been reached, and new references have been added which reﬂect the scientiﬁc development in the ﬁeld since then, ﬁrst and foremost Tal’s Dictionary of Samaritan Aramaic. This chapter presents the fundamentals of HSH, a mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic which was crystallized toward the end of the 13th century. It is in this language that many compilations were written: prayers, marriage contracts, chronicles, lists of manuscripts etc., and it is in this language that the elders of the Samaritan congregation chose to express
themselves. Due to the richness of this language, resulting from the exploitation of both Hebrew and Aramaic lexicons, it survived through many generations, and serves as the liturgical language to this very day. The fourth chapter deals with a type of Samaritan Hebrew which has been used, less frequently, alongside HSH. It presents and describes the style of Hebrew that reached its peak at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th and was used in writings intended to serve European scholars who had diﬃculties in reading SH, SA or HSH. These scholars ordered special compilations, written in “simpler” language. The writers of these compilations made every eﬀort to avoid Aramaic and typical Samaritan forms, and instead employed a kind of Hebrew more familiar to the scholars, that of the Jewish Bible. This style had a relatively short life span: due to political, demographic and cultural changes in Palestine in the beginning of the 20th century, further compilations of this sort were not necessary, and this style of writing vanished entirely. Initially, it was my intention to compose two more chapters. The ﬁrst aimed to describe the Samaritan compilations which were written originally in Arabic and translated into Hebrew by the Samaritans. Naturally, one ﬁnds in this Hebrew an especially heavy inﬂuence of Arabic. In this regard there appears to be, at least superﬁcially, little diﬀerence from HSH, since in HSH one can also ﬁnd strong Arabic inﬂuences. Yet this Hebrew, which I propose calling “Translated Samaritan Hebrew”, is ﬁrmly yoked to Arabic linguistic features, and in this regard it reminds us of the translations of Jewish Arabic compilations made in the Middle Ages by the Tibonites. Even the less observant eye will easily notice the diﬀerence between this Hebrew and common HSH. The other chapter aimed to deal with modern HSH. This style, among all styles of SH, is the closest to HSH. Contemporary liturgy and benedictions are written in this style. Due to their proﬁciency in their classical literary sources (mainly ±bì“a ban Fì 'nàs and those who followed him), the members of the Samaritan congregation can imitate this style in an excellent manner. Yet a closer look will reveal that these writers are strongly inﬂuenced by modern Israeli Hebrew, which is their day-to-day language. Indeed, these inﬂuences make modern HSH a style in its own right. However, the already large volume of this book, and the fact that such a survey would require a longer period of observation, have made me reconsider my original plan and to drop the ﬁfth and sixth chapters.
The book presents the reader with the four main types of late Samaritan Hebrew. The major part of the book is devoted to a description of HSH, which has served, and still serves, as the primary literary language of the Samaritan congregation. The book is based on years of extensive examination of all Samaritan texts known to us, as well as some manuscripts which were found recently and have not yet been published. Many more manuscripts still await discovery, yet I hope that the reader will ﬁnd in this book a satisfactory description of the facts that we know today.
0.1. Samaritan Hebrew and its demise 0.1.1. The Samaritan Version of the Pentateuch and the beginnings of its research When the Samaritan version of the Pentateuch was revealed to the Western world, early in the 17th century,1 it made a very deep impression and inspired a series of debates on its place relative to other versions of the Bible, as well as to the “original” version of the Pentateuch. The discovery gave rise to an argument which aﬀected not only Jews and Samaritans, but also Catholics and Protestants. The discovery of the Samaritan text at the time of the Reformation proved an eﬀective weapon in the hands of the Catholics. They argued that since there was more than one version, it was impossible to substantiate the principles of faith merely on the written word, as the Protestants believed;2 rather, they held, it was necessary to rely on the deﬁnitive authority of the Catholic Pope. Moreover, the very language of that version—a variant of Hebrew, which in its skeleton of letters would prima facie appear not to be very diﬀerent from the Hebrew of the Masoretic text—was and still is a subject of great interest and vociferous debate. As is well known, the form of the Samaritan letters is very similar to the Canaanite script known from inscriptions which have been discovered in Eretz Israel and its vicinity, dating from periods as early as the 10th century BCE. This striking fact has tempted some scholars to think that the language itself—the language of the Samaritan Pentateuch—is also ancient, and supposedly exposes a stratum of language which predates the Hebrew language reﬂected in the vocalization of the Masoretic text. Further, the custom of the
1 In 1632 the Frenchman Jean Morin published the Samaritan Pentateuch in the Parisian Biblia Polyglotta, based on a manuscript that the traveler Pietro Della Valle had brought from Damascus sixteen years previously. 2 See Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. “Protestantism” (III A. The supremacy of the Bible); Encyclopaedia Hebraica, s.v. “Protestants”.
Samaritan scribes, who insert a dot between each word and the following word, as is commonly seen in ancient inscriptions, adds a measure of antiquity to the writing itself and the language behind it. At the beginning of the 19th century, Wilhelm Gesenius wrote his great treatise on the origin of the Samaritan version.3 He compared it with the Masoretic text, analyzed the diﬀerences between the two versions, and proved that the Samaritan version postdates the Masoretic version of the Jews. Nonetheless, the impression of an ancient language, which, to a great degree, has been supported by the viewpoint which holds that the Samaritans have succeeded in preserving customs of antiquity, has not declined. On the contrary: it was reinforced toward the end of the 19th century, when scholars ﬁrst had the chance to hear the words of the Pentateuch in the “odd” Hebrew pronunciation, which was and still is adopted by members of the Samaritan community in their synagogue. A strong impression was made on one of the most important scholars of that time, Julius Heinrich Petermann, by the pattern of penultimate stress, which is one of the distinguishing characteristics of Samaritan Hebrew (SH). Petermann was the ﬁrst to describe the grammar of SH according to its pronunciation.4 Words such as wbtk, which the Samaritans at prayer pronounced ka'tabu, taught him that Samaritan tradition does not recognize the “6wa 5—a phenomenon which he believed to have been preserved from ancient times. This, in any event, is reﬂected by his statement: “Übrigens halten die Samaritaner gleich den Arabern die Vocale in der Flexion fest und lassen sie nicht in Schwa übergehen”6 (“The Samaritans, like the Arabs, maintain the vowels in ﬂexion and do not transform them into “6wa”). At that time, research eﬀorts were aimed at discovering the undocumented linguistic strata which preceded the known forms of the language, and the study of comparative Semitic linguistics reached impressive heights. Even then, it was recognized that at some ancient time—a time which, while diﬃcult to determine with any degree of accuracy, was in any event much ear-
3 W. Gesenius, De Pentateuchi Samaritani Origine, Indole et Auctoritate: Commentatio Philologico-critica, Halle 1815. 4 J. H. Petermann, Brevis Linguae Samaritanae Grammitica, Leipzig 1893. 5 See p. 193. 6 J. H. Petermann, Versuch einer hebräischen Formenlehre nach der Aussprache der heutigen Samaritaner, Leipzig 1868, p. 10.
lier than the period during which the pattern of accent on the ultimate syllable developed among the Masoretic scholars in Tiberias— Hebrew was a language in which penultimate stress prevailed. Those scholars who are brave enough to attempt to reconstruct stages in the history of Hebrew stress have referred to this stage as “the stage of penultimate stress”.7 Even those who are too cautious for such precise reconstruction accept wholeheartedly the assumption that penultimate stress was practiced in antiquity. This background cannot but inﬂuence those who observed the Samaritans in their long robes and distinct headgear, reading prayers in their synagogue. No wonder, then, that the penultimate stress of the Samaritans and the penultimate stress presumed to have been used in ancient times appear, to those scholars, to be one and the same. We may thus state that the signs of antiquity are far from absent from the written and spoken language of the Samaritans. In-depth studies conducted in the last generation, especially by Ze"ev BenÓayyim, have shown additional traces of ancient times which remained in that language.8 Still, alongside those traces, it is hard not to notice the preponderant inﬂuence of modernity. 0.1.2. SH and Arabic Theodor Nöldeke, in his critique of Petermann’s grammar, observed the considerable impression left by Arabic on SH.9 The letter p, which is pronounced by the Samaritans as f (or b), is the most conspicuous characteristic invoked for the purpose of proving the inﬂuence
7 See J. Blau, “Hebrew Stress Shifts, Pretonic Lengthening, and Segolization: Possible Cases of Aramaic Interference in Hebrew Syllable Structure”, IOS 8 (1978), pp. 91–106 (reprinted in: J. Blau, Topics in Hebrew and Semitic Linguistics, Jerusalem 1998, pp. 104–119); J. Blau, “Some Remarks on the Prehistory of Stress in Biblical Hebrew”, IOS 9 (1979), pp. 49–54; J. Blau, Torat haHege vehaÍurot (Phonology and Morphology), Tel-Aviv 1972, p. 81. 8 The following are two indications reminiscent of ancient language forms: the ﬁrst is the preformative’s vowel in yòòp verbs, such as wt9låd versus dl,Tew." According to Ben-Óayyim (GSH, p. 173) the Samaritan a vowel is the original vowel of the imperfect form yaqtil, which was shifted to a yryx in Tiberian Hebrew. A second indication, according to Ben-Óayyim, can be seen in the internal passive form ˆT'yU yèt6n. He claims that the original root ˆòòty is maintained in this verb (ibid., p. 180). 9 Th. Nöldeke, “Über die Aussprache des Hebräischen bei den Samaritanern”, Nachrichten von der Königl. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften und der Georg-Augusts-Universität zu Göttingen 23 (1868), pp. 485–504.
of Arabic—which, as is well known, lacks the consonant p—on SH.10 Nöldeke has correctly argued that the lack of the “6wa in Samaritan tradition is a late phenomenon. He erred, however, in attributing the entirety of Samaritan linguistic tradition to Arabic, which has been the spoken language of the Samaritans for generations. It was Arabic—a language which is known to be devoid of reduction of vowels and to lack a “6wa—which, according to Nöldeke, exerted its inﬂuence on Samaritan linguistic tradition. As we have seen, the beginning of modern research into Semitic languages, including the study of the Samaritan linguistic tradition (a ﬁeld principally researched by linguists whose familiarity with Hebrew stemmed mainly from the Masoretic text) has been deeply divided with regard to the Samaritan language. On the one hand, some scholars have identiﬁed it with extremely ancient linguistic forms; on the other hand, others have viewed it as a language principally imbued with the medieval character of a relatively late language. 0.1.3. SH, MH and HDSS 0.1.3.1. A completely new approach, which prevails today, was presented by Ben-Óayyim, whose scientiﬁc activity was focused on the languages of the Samaritans—Hebrew and Aramaic. Years before the publication of his grammar, with its exhaustive description of SH, he indicated several linguistic phenomena common to SH, on the one hand, and Mishnaic Hebrew (MH) and the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (HDSS), on the other.11 He proved that the language heard today when the Torah is read by the Samaritans in their synagogue is not very diﬀerent from the Hebrew which once lived and ﬂourished among the Samaritans before, during and after the time of the destruction of the Second Temple. The isoglosses common to SH, MH and HDSS led him to establish that the Hebrew heard in the synagogue by modern-day Samaritans is not exclusively theirs, but rather this Hebrew, or something resembling it, was also the language of other residents of Eretz Israel before it was supplanted by Aramaic as a spoken language. 10
See p. 186. Ben-Óayyim, The Samaritan Tradition. He also showed that the general penultimate stress and the lack of “6wa in the Samaritan language tradition are late and secondary phenomena (see GSH, §1.3.2; §1.4.9). 11
Since the publication of Ben-Óayyim’s approach, which places Samaritan tradition squarely between the distant poles established by Petermann, on one hand, and Nöldeke, on the other, the study of the various traditions of MH has been substantiated by the clear linguistic facts set forth in Ben-Óayyim’s grammar. This reliance on Samaritan language tradition did not arise exclusively from BenÓayyim’s status in the ﬁeld of research on the Hebrew and Aramaic languages of Eretz Israel, but also—and, in fact, principally—from the fact that SH is the only ancient Hebrew which preserves a reliable tradition of pronunciation which is deeply rooted in the soil of the languages spoken in Eretz Israel. Unlike the Masoretic tradition of Tiberias and the Palestinian and Babylonian traditions of vocalization, which have come down to us in the form of marks whose meaning is still a matter for interpretation and hypothesis, the Samaritan tradition is a living entity, available for all to hear, and therefore we are exempted from having to decipher mute written symbols.12 If we accept the view that the present-day pronunciation of SH principally reﬂects the state of the ancient language, we ﬁnd that Samaritan tradition—with regard to both Hebrew and Aramaic—may conveniently serve as a criterion for the assessment of other traditions, which were not fortunate enough to survive with the same degree of clarity and reliability. 0.1.3.2. Diﬀerences between SH and MH Along with the great progress in the study of SH, there have also been developments in the study of post-Biblical, and especially Mishnaic, Hebrew, as well as in the study of HDSS. These studies, which have been based for about two generations on old manuscripts of the Mishnah and new discoveries of fragments of scrolls found in and around Qumran, have reinforced the principal thesis formulated in the last generation, mainly by Ben-Óayyim and Kutscher. At the same
12 Admittedly, the Samaritans had already invented vocalization signs by the Middle Ages, but as Ben-Óayyim points out: “their use, however, never departed from the limited scope of teaching children” (GSH, p. 6). In spite of the lack of consistency in the use of vowel signs, and even though comprehensive research on the Samaritan vowel sounds could be helpful in understanding aspects of their Hebrew language, this vocalization is not of the essence, but rather an accompaniment to the tradition of pronunciation that reveals the ancient language.
time, the new studies have exposed several linguistic phenomena, some of them obvious and others equivocal, which indicate diﬀerences between SH, on one hand, and MH and HDSS, on the other. 0.1.3.2.1. The stress in MH One of these linguistic phenomena is the location of the stress within the word. Both Ben-Óayyim and Kutscher attempted to view some of the spelling patterns which are to be found in the scrolls of the Judean Desert and the manuscripts of the Mishnah as indicative of a general pattern of penultimate stress in the language which prevailed at the time of those documents. Plene spellings, such as wbwtky, which appear in those texts in non-pausal positions, were viewed by both scholars as not only indications of penultimate stress in those words alone ( yik'tobu), but as true evidence attesting to the structure of the language in general, which they believed to have been characterized by an overall pattern of penultimate stress, just like that of SH, whose cadences and accents have been impeccably preserved within the walls of the Samaritan synagogue. In recent years, more and more Tannaic texts have been examined, revealing that those plene spellings are generally limited to deﬁned morphological categories. It has been found, for example, in the comprehensive study by M. Bar-Asher that, aside from the pausal forms of the Huf 'al—that is, wbt;kwh—not enough pausal forms in non-pausal positions are attested to permit determination that all the words were stressed on the penultimate syllable. His statement of this is as follows: The assumption that in Mishnaic Hebrew pausal forms were also used in the non-pausal position (an assumption conﬁrmed only by the forms hl[pwh / wl[pwh in most traditions) has not been conﬁrmed by the study of these three documents [the reference is to the two Parma manuscripts of the Mishnah and the Vatican 66 manuscript of the Sifra—M.F.].13
In other words, by contrast to the general pattern of penultimate stress, which is clearly documented in SH, we may assume that MH, as it has come down to us, is characterized by only limited penultimate stress. This being the case, those seeking to rank the traditions of 13 M. Bar-Asher, “Contextual Forms and Pausal Forms in Mishnaic Hebrew according to Ms. Parma B” (in Hebrew), Language Studies 4 (1990), p. 96.
Hebrew according to the extent of their penultimate stress would put them in the following order: Biblical Hebrew, which, according to the Masoretic text, is generally stressed on the ultimate syllable ([rlm); the Hebrew of the Mishnah and other Tannaic sources, whose general pattern of ultimate stress is interspersed with trends toward penultimate stress; and SH, in which penultimate stress is a general rule.14 0.1.3.3. The progressive nature of SH relative to MH This new ﬁnding does not change the accepted view of the considerable aﬃnity between MH and SH. At the same time, consideration of several other linguistic phenomena, which are common to the traditions of MH and SH, discloses that, notwithstanding their shared traits, the two languages also display a basic and systematic diﬀerence: linguistic phenomena which appear to only a limited extent in MH are much more frequently found in the Samaritan tradition. Before attempting to clarify the reasons for this, I would like to list—in addition to the question of stress—the following phenomena: a. b. c. d. e.
Weakening of the gutturals Transition from Nif 'al to Nitpa'el Suppression of the “internal” passive stems Subordination of the “6wa to the systemic vowel The Systemzwang in general
The ﬁrst four of the above phenomena are known to have expanded in scope over time. They and others—such as the suppression of the “converted” imperfect (lwfqyw) of the verb system—indicate that MH and SH are more recent than Tiberian Hebrew. It seems reasonable that the latter phenomenon also became more prevalent over the years. Since these phenomena are well-known, I shall summarize them here only brieﬂy: 0.1.3.3.1. Weakening of the gutturals: by contrast to the special, “weakened” status given to the guttural consonants in their Tiberian pronunciation, and by contrast to the alternate spellings in some
14 A full discussion of the issue of the stress in Mishnaic Hebrew is included in Florentin, Stress.
manuscripts of the Mishnah and the explicit evidence of the reinforcement of the trend toward weakening,15 the pronunciation of SH shows an almost complete weakening of the gutturals: j and h are not pronounced at all, and [ is only pronounced under strictly deﬁned conditions, e.g. rwmj “ass” > èmor, dm[y “he will stand” > y9mmåd.16 0.1.3.3.2. Transition from Nif 'al to Nitpa'el: compared to the few occurrences in the Bible, such as rPeK'nIw“ “let it be forgiven” (Dt 21:8), WrS]W"nIw“ “may they take warning” (Ezek 23:48), which are actually Nitpa'el forms in which the t of the stem was assimilated to the ﬁrst radical, MH often makes use of Nitpa'el verbs instead of Nif 'al ones: WkT]j't]ynI “were cut” (m. 'Orla 3:8) as against ËT'jn] < in the Bible (Da 9:24); WgL]Pt ' n] I “were divided” (Seder Olam Raba, 1) as against hg:l]p]nI (Gn 10:25)—as well as forms such as Ël;M'ynI “he bethought himself ” (m. Yadayim 2:3), the pattern of which is entirely the same as the two biblical forms cited above.17 The tendency to transition is stronger in SH, in which every Nif 'al actually becomes a Nitpa'el. Because the written text of the Pentateuch tolerates no variation, this phenomenon only appears in its second form—that is, Nif 'al in which the ﬁrst radical is doubled. In fact, niqq9tal18 is the pattern customarily used in SH, which has no past tense in the earlier form, niqtal.19 0.1.3.3.3. Suppression of the “internal” passive stems: as we know, the trend of suppression of passives began to manifest itself as early as Biblical Hebrew, with the transition from the passive Qal stem to the Nif 'al stem. This trend later increased in MH, with the elimination of the Pu'al stem.20 The phenomenon reached its completion in SH, in which the Huf 'al stem is also completely suppressed.21 It 15 See a summary of the issues in Sh. Sharvit, “Gutturals in Rabbinic Hebrew” (in Hebrew), in: M. Z. Kaddari & Sh. Sharvit (eds.), Studies in the Hebrew Language and the Talmudic Literature dedicated to the memory of Dr. M. Moreshet, Ramat-Gan 1989, pp. 225–243. 16 See details of these issues in GSH, p. 38ﬀ.; here, p. 179. 17 For a more extensive consideration of this issue, see my articles: Florentin, The Weakening; “Niph'al and Nitpa'el in the Samaritan Tradition and Mishnaic Hebrew”, New Samaritan Studies 3–4 (1995), pp. 493–498. 18 The length of the vowel (à) and its back pronunciation (å ) are a result of intraSamaritan processes, which actually bear no relationship to the structure of this word (see pp. 192, 195). 19 See GSH, p. 115. 20 See n. 17 above. 21 See Ben-Óayyim in GSH, §2.0.8: “It should be noted that no mention has
is easy to prove that the pronunciation uww9r6d which is used for dr– Wh is not derived from that word (in which case it would have been *ùrad ), but is, in fact, a metamorphosis of drwth*.22 0.1.3.3.4. Subordination of the “6wa to the systemic vowel: as against the limited instances appearing in the Bible, such as Úp,D’r“yI “he shall pursue you” (< yirdof ), WNb,Q’Ti “you shall pierce it” (< tiqqo∫), hf;q’ç]a, “I shall be silent” (< "e“qo†), /dq’d“q; “his pate” (< qå≈qo≈ ), the various manifestations of MH include not a few forms such as rwbx jylv; “emissary” rather than rwbx jylv]; hd:q;p]hu “it (fem.) was deposited” (sing. hufqa≈ ), rather than hdq]ph; wbwtky “they will write” (< yi§tov), rather than wbt]ky; /fj;v; “he slaughtered it” (< “å˙a†), rather than /fj;v;] /pj'd" “he pushed him” (< då˙af ) rather than /pj;D;“ /[r:z: “he sowed it” (< zåra') rather than /[r:z;} /lf;n: “he took it up” (< nå†al ) rather than /lf;n“. In all these forms, it is possible to identify the inﬂuence of the dominant vowel of the system on the quality of the “6wa. In the Samaritan tradition, this phenomenon is transformed into an invariable rule: the “6wa is always identical with what I call the “systemic vowel”—e.g. ˚;my] qiy“ yìqìmåk “he will raise you up” (under the inﬂuence of yìq6m μyqiy): , Wnyte/ba} 9bùtìnu “our fathers” (under the inﬂuence of ab ba;), and so forth.23 0.1.3.3.5. Paradigmatic analogy in SH The rule of the systemic “6wa reveals a central principle in SH and SA: total uniﬁcation of ﬂexion (along with a great deal of variety in derivation). The principle of uniﬁcation of ﬂexion can be seen in a series of phenomena such as: the original a vowel of the preformatives y, t and n in wòò[ verbs of Hif 'il (e.g. μyqiy: “he will raise”) became i (e.g. yìq6m) by analogy of the perfect form ìq6m (μyqihe “he raised”); new patterns of Qal imperfect, such as y9f9dåk (ÚD“p]y)I “he will redeem you”, were built by analogy of the ordinary perfect form, such as f9då (hd:P); “he redeemed”.
been made of either Pu'al or Hof 'al, Samaritan Hebrew having progressed a step beyond MH in this respect”. See also §2.10.2. 22 The t assimilated to the w (*hitwared > *hiwwared ); i > u due to assimilation to the double w (> *huwwared ); the h disappeared and the quantity of vowels stabilized according to the Samaritan syllable rules (see p. 236; > uww9r6d ). 23 For a more extensive consideration of this issue, see my article Florentin, The ”6wa.
0.1.3.3.6. This being the case, when we analyze these phenomena, and especially the ﬁrst four, we see that, along with factors which highlight the similarity of SH to MH, there are factors which emphasize the diﬀerence between them. As a general rule, we can state that the incipient trends which characterize MH become fully-formed patterns in Samaritan tradition.24 0.1.3.3.7. As stated above, all these processes occurred gradually and increased in scope over time. The weakening of the gutturals, for example, is addressed by Ben-Óayyim: The Samaritan tradition in Hebrew and in Aramaic teaches clearly that until the end of the spoken Aramaic period in Palestine the gutturals [òòjha had not merged into a single sound everywhere and under all circumstances. Just as the Samaritan bears faithful witness to the j > [ shift by virtue of their special behavior, contrasting with a and h, so it testiﬁes to the gradual [emphasis mine—M.F.] character of the [òòjha merger into a single consonant.25
The decline of the passive forms is also a protracted process. It began in Biblical Hebrew, continued in MH, and ﬂourished in SH. 0.1.3.3.8. With regard to stress: if we assume that the general pattern of penultimate stress (ly[lm) as seen in SH developed out of the pattern of ultimate stress which characterized the Tiberian tradition,26 we must state that this transition was by no means sudden. After all, it is inconceivable that a pattern of almost universal stress on the ultimate syllable would suddenly shift to one of universal stress on the penultimate syllable. Hence, we must assume that, between the Hebrew characterized by ultimate stress and that characterized by penultimate stress, there was an intermediate language type in which the prevalence of the penultimate stress gradually increased. I would not make use of reconstructed processes in order to sub-
This is the rule but it does not imply that SH always has a later appearance, while MH has an ancient appearance (see n. 8 at p. 3, as well as below). 25 GSH, §184.108.40.206. 26 This is the accepted assumption; E. Qimron, it should be stated, assumes that the stress of HDSS is similar to that of Biblical Aramaic, i.e. a multiplicity of penultimate-stressed syllables, and he also argues that the penultimate forms are intensiﬁed in Samaritan tradition, while the ultimate forms are intensiﬁed in Tiberian tradition; see E. Qimron, “Studies in the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls” (in Hebrew), Hebrew Linguistics 33–35 (1992), pp. 79–92.
stantiate a hypothesis which has not yet been proved; nonetheless, I would call attention to the way in which the ﬂuctuations in stress of ancient Hebrew are explained. Initially, the stress shifted from the antepenultimate to the penultimate syllable in forms such as *'kataba > *ka'taba (bt'K); , under the inﬂuence of the majority of words which were already stressed on the penultimate syllable (*ka'tabtu yTib]t'K); . This was followed by a shift from penultimate stress to ultimate stress in forms such as *ka'tabat > *kàt6'ba (hb;t]K); , under the inﬂuence of a great many words which were already accented on the ultimate syllable, such as bt'K; (*ka'taba > *kà'tab), rb;D: (*da'baru > *dà'bàr).27 And where is the pattern of stress which falls between the ultimate stress of Tiberias and the penultimate stress of SH? It is reasonable to assume that this is reﬂected in MH. 0.1.3.4. The nature of transmission of SH versus MH What is the meaning of these ﬁndings? An obvious question is whether these diﬀerences really reﬂect diﬀerences in the language itself. As far as SH is concerned, I support the conclusion reached by BenÓayyim: SH preserves one of the language types that were spoken among the last generations of Hebrew speakers before Hebrew was displaced by Aramaic.28
In other words, the pronunciation now used by the Samaritans in their synagogue is very close to that heard among Hebrew speakers in late Second Temple times. On the other hand, with regard to MH, as it has come down to us, the indications are insuﬃciently clear: the surviving manuscripts of Tannaic treatises are relatively late; the earliest of them were copied during the Middle Ages, and their vocalization, although it shows linguistic trends which are obviously rather ancient and reﬂect ancient traditions, does not exactly represent the Hebrew that was written and spoken as a living language of the distant past. Thus, for example, the question of stress is not expressly answered in those texts; rather, the answer must be deduced from allusions—and ambiguous allusions at that, which lend themselves
See n. 7 (p. 3). GSH, §8.7.
(in view of the lack of explicit marking in the text) to whatever interpretation the user desires to draw from them. Thus, we see that what has come down to us in the manuscripts of the Mishnah and related sources is only one facet of the ancient linguistic reality, a faint hint at the true state of aﬀairs, a remnant of a more complete reality. This is not the case with regard to Samaritan tradition, which is an oral tradition; even if our knowledge of it is based on what we hear today, it is nonetheless a reliable tradition, which presents the linguistic trends down to the last detail. Accordingly, it is quite possible that those who seek to compare the linguistic tradition of the Samaritans with the traditions of Tannaic treatises are not actually comparing one language with another; all they can do is to compare one language with the dim memory of another. Seemingly, then, one may state that all the above comparisons are based on an incomplete perception of the latter language. While our knowledge of SH is complete and integral, reﬂecting all of its characteristic linguistic processes, our knowledge of MH is partial and fragmented, and includes only vague allusions to those processes. But this is not the custom of present-day research. Notwithstanding the serious reservations expressed above, we do reconstruct a grammar of MH, and in so doing, we state that the good manuscripts of Tannaic literature convey a more or less accurate picture of the ancient language. Accordingly, it is easy for us to accept Ben-Óayyim’s statement, which compares the elimination of the “internal” passive in both traditions and states that “SH reﬂects a more advanced stage in the process of eliminating the ‘internal’ passives”.29 0.1.3.5. Isoglosses common to SH and MH This being the case, despite the deﬁciencies in the transmission of the Tannaic treatises, it appears that both traditions, the Samaritan and the Mishnaic, really do reveal two genuine dialects of Hebrew. This matter as well should be elucidated in light of the progress made by the study of both these traditions in the last few decades. When Ben-Óayyim ﬁrst called attention to the degree of aﬃnity between SH, on the one hand, and MH and HDSS on the other, his words made a great impression. In his famous article published
GSH, §2.10.2; see also here n. 21 (p. 8).
in 1958 about the aﬃnity between HDSS and MH,30 he presented unmistakable signs which indicate the extent of the aﬃnity between these three traditions: the general pattern of penultimate stress (and the resulting absence of the “6wa); the frequency of the l[eP; stem, which is characterized by a long vowel instead of doubling, e.g. bbeg:m] “mount, rack up” in MH, and tèk9f6r rpkt “you shall perform puriﬁcation” (Ex 29:37) in SH; the frequency of the nasal vowel at the end of the word, e.g. the spelling μwçl instead of ˆwçl “tongue” and ˆfml instead of hfml “down”, and the spelling μy- instead of ˆyin SA texts to denote the plural; the feminine gender of the word hd sdn may be explained as the result of contamination of and “impured”, “soiled”. 65 For further evidence of the Arabic inﬂuence on the writer of this treatise, see Ben-Óayyim, Asatir, pp. 109–111. Anyone referring to this source should bear in mind what Ben-Óayyim wrote later in LOT III/2, p. 17, n. 28. He states that he had discovered certain phenomena, especially syntactical, in ancient Aramaic texts, which he initially attributed to the inﬂuence of Arabic on the writer of Asatir. These texts, however, were compiled prior to the arrival of Arabic in Eretz Israel. I would add to what Ben-Óayyim wrote that even though the adverb ˆmt in Asatir serves to denote time, and not its usual meaning (“there”), its use should not necessarily be attributed to the Arabic “then”, and this is reinforced by the connection of meaning between rta “place” and rtb “after” and rtlal “immediately”. 64
Gillùgå and ˇåbya ban Dårtå,66 we will ﬁnd no diﬀerence between them and the earlier piyyutim by 'Åmråm D9re, Mårqe and Ninna. The piyyutim of Ab Isdå and his colleagues show neither Arabic inﬂuence nor Hebrew inﬁltration. Moreover, none of the signs given by Tal as a means of distinction between early and late SA,67 appear in the 10th or 11th-century piyyutim. In short, the Aramaic used in these works is not the same Aramaic as that of Asatir (which, as stated above, is inﬂuenced by Arabic), even though both the piyyutim and Asatir were written by people living in an environment where Aramaic was still common. It seems that it is the Aramaic of the 10th- and 11th-century piyyutim which must be called into question. Its similarity to the Aramaic of Mårqe, although separated by six or seven centuries (which were characterized by the Arabic invasion of material and spiritual life in Eretz Israel ), is, at the very least, puzzling. After all, the piyyutim by Mårqe, 'Åmråm and Ninna, as we hear them today, are certainly not an exact reproduction of what could be heard in Samaritan synagogues during the fourth century CE.68 Nor do the works by the 10th and 11th century poets represent the Aramaic used in Nablus during the same period.69 Nonetheless, they represent the extent to which the Aramaic language was known at the time and the norms of liturgical writing. For this reason, the nature of the language in which these piyyutim are phrased—diﬀerent though it may be from the language of Asatir —does not undermine Ben-Óayyim’s hypothesis to the eﬀect that Asatir was written more or less concurrently with those piyyutim. The diﬀerence between them, which one might be tempted to view as a diﬀerence brought about by time, should actually be ascribed to the diﬀerent character of these two types of literary work. More speciﬁcally, the piyyutim are compositions which were written to be used in community worship in the synagogue; their sole purpose was to add to the liturgy composed by earlier poets. It may be safely assumed that they were intended
They are presented in LOT III/2, pp. 274–303. These piyyutim were previously published by Cowley, without translation, transcription, or interpretation. 67 See the literature cited in n. 35 (p. 15) above. Other language elements, grammatical and lexical, can be added to these, which are discussed in detail by Tal, ST III, pp. 55–92. 68 This relates particularly to certain phonetic issues, the major one being the absence of the phoneme /p/ (see p. 186). 69 I base this claim on the essential (necessary) assumption that changes took place in SA between the 4th and the 11th centuries CE.
to be read in conjunction with earlier works of the same type. No wonder then that the newer writers sought to imitate and complement the existing works. They were certainly able to do so with great success, thanks to their ﬂuency in Aramaic.70 This is by no means the case with regard to Asatir. Admittedly, this is not a secular treatise in the true sense of the word, as it includes religious elements; moreover, the Samaritans even believe it to have been written by Moses, their sole prophet. Still, it is certainly quite diﬀerent in character from the piyyutim recited in the synagogue. Asatir is ﬁrst and foremost a chronicle, and as such, is not intended as liturgy. In any event, the language of the treatise in no way depends on the language of prayers used in the synagogue, nor is it subjugated to any concept of “higher” language. The author of Asatir, who wished to recount the history of the world for the beneﬁt of his community, made use of a language which, while not identical with the language spoken by the public, was certainly understood by them. In any event, that language, more than the language of the piyyutim, reﬂects the Aramaic which was in use at the time among the Samaritan community. This is an Aramaic in which the Arabic elements to be found in Asatir were already present. As I see it, this distinction is very important— not only in ascertaining the nature of SA at the time of its decline, and not only as an indication of what preceded HSH. If I may be allowed to jump ahead in the discussion for a moment, I shall state at this time that even in HSH itself it is important to observe this distinction: the language type characteristic of the piyyutim written in HSH does not resemble the type of the chronicles and notes which appear in manuscripts ostensibly written in the same language.71 0.2.3.3. Additional sources: the Samaritan Targum, Tìbåt Mårqe, inscriptions It is not only the later piyyutim and Asatir that reﬂect SA at the time of its decline. More information about that language may be gleaned See n. 61 (p. 24) above. They were not only ﬂuent in Aramaic. Ab Isdå, whose Aramaic was free of Hebrew constituents, writes poems in Hebrew, which are surprising in their lack of Aramaic components (e.g. C. 79; on this Hebrew, see below). His main activity was actually not in composing piyyutim—he compiled the Halachic book Kitàb a†-ˇabbà¢ as well as one of the versions of the Arabic translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch (see LOT III/2 and LOT I, p. 35; H. Shehadeh, The Arabic Tranlsation of the Samaritan Version of the Pentateuch (in Hebrew), Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew University 1977, pp. 13–117; Companion, p. 3; Wedel, pp. 6–11; here, p. 33). 71 See pp. 156–158. 70
from the few inscriptions which have been discovered in Eretz Israel and from the notes in manuscripts of the Samaritan Pentateuch. Certainly, one can learn a great deal about SA at the time of its decline from the most important Samaritan sources: the Samaritan Targum and Tìbåt Mårqe. The aﬃnity between these two works and late SA is very great, and any discussion of the hybrid language should certainly include them. Accordingly, I shall content myself at this point to mentioning their existence, and will discuss them more extensively later in this work. There is an additional reason for this deferment: in this introduction, my intention is to review the precedents of HSH, whereas the content of the later ST manuscripts and TM is—at least in part—contemporary with and inﬂuenced by the hybrid language. This being the case, I shall now review what we have learned of late SA from epigraphic ﬁndings and from the notes in manuscripts dating from the 11th–14th centuries. 0.2.3.3.1. The epigraphic ﬁndings 1. An 11th-century Samaritan inscription.72 This inscription originates in the city of Nablus, and the time of its writing is explicitly stated: [la][mç[y ynb twklml] mw t “440 [years of the Kingdom of the I]shma[elites]”—that is, 440 AH, which fell exactly in the middle of the 11th century.73 The inscription is written in Aramaic, with no Arabic or Hebrew elements. From this standpoint, it resembles the piyyutim of the 11th century more closely than the language of Asatir. The carver himself, unlike those of the generations which wrote in HSH, preserves the purity of his Aramaic. For example, he uses only the Aramaic deﬁnite article: hnaynb “the building” (l. 3), hbr hnhk “the High Priest” (l. 9); the relative pronoun d and not rça: [rta y]d “which place” (l. 1), dndnad “which shattered” (l. 4). His vocabulary is also pure Aramaic: rtb “after” (l. 4), and not yrja, bf “good” (l. 6), and not bwf, rykd “remembered” (l. 6) and not rwkz or rykz (as is often found in HSH), μl[l “for ever” (l. 7) and not μlw[l. Thus, we learn that in the mid-11th century not only the poets wrote in good Aramaic.
72 See Ben-Óayyim, “A Samaritan Inscription from the 11th Century”, Bulletin of the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society 12 (1946), pp. 74–82. 73 Ibid., p. 80. Ben-Óayyim comments that the m of òòmwòò might actually be k. If this is the case, the inscription would have been written twenty lunar years previously.
2. An inscription from hlwdgh hnynph tçnk “The Great Pearl Synagogue”.74 Yizhak Ben-Zvi established that this inscription came from the Great Pearl Synagogue in the En Sukkar Valley, at the foot of Mt. Ebal.75 He based this conclusion on a Samaritan tradition (he does not state which). For our purposes, what is important is that it contains a date: [ˆy]tltw ˆabm [[br]a, i.e. f[ou]r hundred and thir[ty]—that is, 430 AH, which corresponds to 1038/39 CE. In other words, this inscription is contemporary with the one discussed in the previous paragraph. Moreover, it is written in the same language type, as far as we can determine from those portions of the writing which are not fragmented or illegible. This carver as well used pure Aramaic: hdh “this” (l. 3), and not taz; hbr hnhk “the High Priest” (l. 6) and not lwdgh ˆhkh; [ˆy]tltw ˆabm76 “[four] hundred and thirty” (l. 10) and not μyçwlçw twam; hdw[s “the helper” (l. 12) and not dw[sh. These, then, are the latest Aramaic inscriptions which have come down to us. Admittedly, they are limited in scope; nonetheless, they are capable of indicating that good Aramaic was still being written in the mid-11th century. It may even be stated that Aramaic, at the time, was still in normal use. 0.2.3.4. The ﬁndings in colophons and deeds found in manuscripts of the Samaritan Pentateuch77 0.2.3.4.0. The conclusions set forth above are supported by corroborative evidence from colophons and deeds of purchase found in Samaritan manuscripts. Starting in the 14th century and thereafter,
Ben-Zvi published it in his Sefer Hashomronim, pp. 168–172. The place is referred to in the Tùlìda (7a49, n. 1). 76 Sometimes minutiae can reﬂect an overall reality. The spelling of ˆabm represents accurately the pronunciation m9'b9n that is attested, for example, in a piyyut by 'Åmråm D9re (LOT III/2, p. 83). It should be mentioned that the spelling in that piyyut is ˆawm, similar to the spellings ˆwm, ˆawm, htawm in Ms. J of the ST (87 times). In TM and in the piyyutim, only the w spelling is found. The spelling ˆabm in the inscription is therefore interesting, even though it does not contribute much toward supporting the above pronunciation, for every w is pronounced b (see here, p. 189). Variants of this kind are widespread in ST manuscripts (and the spelling ˆabm can possibly be found in other ST manuscripts). Tal brings examples of them, ST III, p. 128. 77 Most of the material can be found in the introduction to Von Gall’s edition. Other aspects have been dealt with by Ben-Zvi, Sefer Hashomronim, pp. 227–291. 75
these are generally written in HSH. Before then, however—in the 12th and even the 13th century—some colophons were still written in Aramaic. 0.2.3.4.1. A note dating from 1149: hyxptm hnbza htçydq htwhra hda tbxna, i.e. Itp6'el. bòòxn in SA is often used to mean “to plant”: bxnw sdrp μhrba (Heb. ˆg μhrba [fyw) “Abraham planted a garden” (Gn 21:33), μwy ˆm t[dd hnlya bxnad “from the day that the tree of knowledge was planted” (Asatir, p. 116), hbyxn ˚h “like a planted tree” (LOT III/2, p. 77). 332 On ryda meaning “to illuminate”, see p. 280.
hybrid samaritan hebrew
220.127.116.11. Summary: the share of Arabic in HSH (a) General The share of Arabic in HSH relative to Hebrew and Aramaic would appear to be very similar to the share of any foreign language that leaves a deep impression on its users. While the share of Aramaic in HSH is an integral part of the texture of the language, sometimes even exceeding that of Hebrew, the share of Arabic in the forms of the language is not on this scale, neither quantitatively nor qualitatively. The areas of inﬂuence of Arabic are most pronounced with regard to vocabulary: borrowed meanings, loan translations (calques), and sometimes even borrowed words. The Arabic substrate inﬂuences HSH writers mainly in terms of syntax: locutions are built in an Arabic form, and other characteristics of Arabic syntax have taken over part of the structure of the language: the lack of agreement between the noun and its verb or its adjective is very frequent, to the point at which it can be deﬁned as a rule. This also applies to asyndetic clauses. One area, morphology, has however remained almost totally protected from Arabic. It can be said that the morphological system of HSH is composed only of Hebrew and Aramaic elements, and not Arabic. As always happens when one language inﬂuences another: the morphemes are retained more than the other language constituents. (b) Arabic in the chronicles In considering the position occupied by Arabic, there is a fundamental diﬀerence between the language of the piyyutim and the language of the chronicles. Because of the character of the former, their aﬃnity to the language of the Pentateuch and the language of the ancient SA piyyutim is much stronger. Also their form and structure leave less room for the inﬂuence of Arabic in syntax. Certainly, too, there is a cultural-ideological motivation here. Even though prayers were written in Arabic to be said by the individual, this language did not attain the status of a liturgical language, one which all the members of the community use in the synagogue.333 And just as Arabic did not attain the prestige that would have encouraged 333
See p. 38.
the poets to compose piyyutim and prayers in that language for communal religious use, it was also not regarded as suitable for enriching the substrate of HSH. Thus, all the Arabic constituents that we have seen here, even though far from few, did not intentionally penetrate the structure of the language or function as a decorative element—as opposed to Aramaic, whose inclusion often served to diversify and enrich the language. This cultural barrier, if this is a suitable designation for one of the factors inhibiting the penetration of Arabic into HSH, did not exist when the Samaritan sages wrote compositions which were not infused with religious content. After all, treatises such as the chronicles were also written in Arabic, the ﬁrst being of Abù ’l-Fat˙. And if it is appropriate to write a chronicle in Arabic, then surely it is appropriate for Arabic to be part of a chronicle which is written in Hebrew. The writers of the chronicles did not have to deal with those Aramaic language patterns of ancient piyyutim that, to a considerable extent, dictated the style of the language. The chronicles are written in clearly prosaic language, and therefore Arabic inﬂuence is particularly evident in syntax. A clear example of this diﬀerence is CASD. Firstly, it will be recalled that the language of this composition is not really HSH, but rather a special kind of Hebrew which the Samaritans apparently used for the beneﬁt of European scholars.334 Even though the major diﬀerences between the language of this text and that of HSH are not principally related to Arabic, it should be noted that there are Arabic inﬂuences in this chronicle that we did not ﬁnd, certainly not with this distribution, in piyyutim written in HSH. This is apparent in the whole area of the use of tenses. A sentence such as arqt htyh hnpgw çmçh ta db[l μyçnah “and hnpg (i.e. [the people of] Jerusalem) used to call people to worship the sun”, in which lwfqy + hyh expresses a past action,335 is widespread in CASD (and is also found in the Tùlìda: hnç μyçymjh tnç wçdqy wnytwba wyh “our fathers used to hallow the ﬁftieth year” (3a7), but is not found at all in the piyyutim.
See details in chapter four, p. 370. See Wright, Grammar, II, p. 21: “To express the imperfect of the Greek and Latin languages, is frequently preﬁxed to the imperfect”; for futher analysis and examples from Palestinian Arabic, see M. Piamenta, The Use of Tenses, Aspects and Moods in the Arabic Dialect of Jerusalem (in Hebrew), Jerusalem 1964, pp. 57–79. 335
hybrid samaritan hebrew
(c) Arabic in the later piyyutim Juxtaposing the language of the ﬁrst HSH piyyutim of the 13th and the 14th centuries with that of the later piyyutim of the last two hundred years, we see that the inﬂuence of Arabic, especially with regard to the borrowing of words, has grown. Some of the material presented above, is only used by 18th and 19th century poets, albeit infrequently. It is thus clear that we need to consider the diﬀerence between an “Arabic” locution such as wydy ˆyb and the locution w[prt yl[ ˆm. The ﬁrst already appears in the 14th century (and is attested also in late SA texts inﬂuenced by Arabic).336 It is widespread and constitutes part of the texture of the language. The second is only found in the work of the 18th century poet ”almå ban ˇåbya. Nevertheless, the zenith of Arabic inﬂuence in the Samaritans’ writing occurs neither in the later piyyutim, nor in the chronicles written originally in Hebrew, but in a series of chronicles written originally in Arabic and subsequently translated into Hebrew and in other compositions, such as proverbs, translated from Arabic. An excellent representative of a non-poetic Samaritan composition written in this style is TAF (one of the Hebrew translations of ).337 As already stated by T. Kittenplon, “more than any other Samaritan composition, TAF bears resemblance to the texts written in Arabicised Jewish Hebrew in the middle ages, which are famous for being subjected to Arabic inﬂuence”.338 This composition abounds with “Hebrew” expressions, some of which are exact translations from the Arabic source of , and others, not translated directly from that composition, can be understood only if translated back to Arabic, e.g. μyqyt[h μyrpsh ˆm wtya hyh hm aybhw μyçdjhw “he brought the ancient and new books which he possessed” (Kittenplon, p. 18; ); ˆk l[ hd[h tlm tpsata zaw “when the congregation agreed upon it unanimously” (ibid., p. 20).339 The language style of these treatises is thus so pronounced, and their Arabic inﬂuence so marked, that I saw the need to consider it as a style in itself and to call it Translated Samaritan Hebrew.340 336
See DSA, s.v. dy. See p. 59 and n. 2 above. 338 Kittenplon, p. IV. The Arabic inﬂuences on TAF were comprehesively dealt with ibid., pp. 17–84. 339 za is the result of ; l[ πsata the result of . 340 Cf. p. 88. 337
3.3.3. The non-Samaritan sources of the vocabulary 18.104.22.168. Now, that we have dealt with some of the characteristics of HSH, we are in a position to ask from what sources this language was drawn. It has already been pointed out that the Samaritan treatises—the Pentateuch on the one hand, and the Aramaic treatises, the ST, the ancient piyyutim, TM, and Asatir on the other—were a source of inspiration for HSH writers. Furthermore, it should be reemphasized that everything contained in the Hebrew Torah and in any of the Samaritan Aramaic treatises was considered as being appropriate for use by HSH writers.341 22.214.171.124. HSH and non-Samaritan sources Another issue is the aﬃnity of HSH to other sources, both Jewish and non-Jewish. In other words, from where are the elements of HSH derived which neither appear in the Pentateuch nor in SA? Arabic, of course, is a major element, and has thus been discussed in a separate chapter.342 We need to ascertain whether the nonArabic contents have a foothold in other sources outside the Samaritan literary world, or whether they are possibly independently Samaritan. We also need to ask whether what is found in other sources is coincidental or that it possibly reﬂects borrowing by HSH from these sources. Furthermore: Is everything that is new in HSH an innovation of the later poets themselves and not a reﬂection of the reality of a living language, or, alternatively, does this innovation reﬂect ancient language phenomena that by chance we have no trace of in the limited sources at our disposal? We should, of course, remove from consideration the prayer of Ab Isdå, whose style, as we have already stated (§2.0 above), is characterized by a profusion of Jewish language constituents, and for this reason stands alone. (a) Words found in the Prophets and Hagiographa 1. çwb “shamed” As opposed to the Hebrew çwb, SA uses the Aramaic tòòhb, which was also handed down to HSH, as in the poem of ±bì“a: ybwj brm yna thb 341 342
On the aﬃnity of HSH to the Samaritan sources, see p. 96. See §3.3.2 (p. 129).
hybrid samaritan hebrew
“I am shamed by my many sins” (C. 485). And in the Hebrew poem of Yùs6f Arråbbån the same idea is expressed in these words: wnçb wnmçaw wnafj brm wnmlknw ˚ynp “we are shamed in front of You and disgraced because of our many sins and guilts (i.e. our guilt)” (C. 64). çwb does not appear in the Pentateuch, but does appear a number of times in the Books of the Prophets and Hagiographa in conjunction with μlkn,343 precisely in the way it is used here, e.g. ytçb yrw[n tprj ytaçn yk ytmlkn μgw “I am ashamed and humiliated, for I bear the disgrace of my youth” ( Jer 31:18). Admittedly, the verb is found frequently in MH,344 and it seems possible that its appearance here is an echo of its use in SH while the language was still alive. However, the juxtaposition of çwb and μlkn is not found in MH. It did, however, penetrate from the Bible into Jewish prayers,345 where in the Grace after the Meals it is said: μlw[l μlkn alw çwbn alç d[w, and it is impossible to determine deﬁnitively which of these were available to Yùs6f Arråbbån. 2. jrbm “escape, shelter, refuge”
˚mm jrbm wl tyld “that cannot escape from you” (C. 214),346 ˆm wjrbm h[rp (C. 523), yjrbmw yflqm “my shelter and refuge” (C. 553). The noun jrbm is not found in the Pentateuch, but is found in Ezek 17:21: wlpy brjb wypga lkb wyjrbm lk “and all the fugitives of all his battalions shall fall by the sword”. 3. çrg—Nif 'al stem
wçrgy ˚ynsw μdqt ˚rm jrt law yigg9r9“u “and you will reach your master’s gate and those that hate you will be banished” (C. 698). The Nif 'al of çòòrg is not found in the Pentateuch (rather, the Qal and the Pi'el stems are used), but does appear in the Prophets and Hagiographa, e.g: çrgn μyk μy[çrhw “but the wicked are like the tossing sea” (Isa 57:20). It should be noted, however, that the meaning of the verb and its context in this verse are so diﬀerent that it is diﬃcult to assume that the Samaritan use is based on it.
343 To the extent that it has created the ﬁxed locution μlknw çwb in contemporary Hebrew. 344 For example: μyrbj wçwb “the associates were put to shame” (m. Sotah, 9:15), and hntjm hçwb “she feels shame for her son-in-law” (m. Demay, 3:6). 345 On the connection between the Samaritans and the Jewish Siddur, see §126.96.36.199 (p. 44). 346 Cf. also Arabic .
4. dz “presumptuous, arrogant”
dz is not found in the Pentateuch, but rather in the Prophets and Hagiographa (mainly in Psalms, see below).347 In HSH it appears frequently: μydyzh μç hjma hjm yk azzìd6m “I will utterly blot out the name of the presumptuous” (C. 328); drfyw dwrm lk πdgty d[ hzb ytçrdw dz lk zad “I am asking that all rebel(s) will be reviled and all (the) presumptuous be cast out” (C. 554); alw dz hb tylw hqydx wtwybn lk rqç “all his prophecy is righteous; he is neither presumptuous nor does he lie” (C. 455). It is unnecessary to assume that the Samaritan poets took the word from the Jewish Bible, since the root dòòwz is well documented in SA, from which we have the noun wndyz: hwhy hllm ald hllmm awh hybn hllm wndyzb (Heb. aybnh wrbd ˆwdzb hwhy wrbd al rça rbdh awh) “that is a word which the Lord has not spoken, the prophet has spoken it presumptuously” (Dt 18:22). Still, the words of the poet on the prophecy (rqç alw dz hb tyl) are reminiscent of Ps 119:69: μydz rqç yl[ wlpf “the arrogant have accused me falsely”, although it may simply be a coincidence. 5. twrymz “song” The noun hrymz, which only appears in the plural twrymz, is not found in the Hebrew of the Pentateuch, even though in the ST rmz is the translation of r/NKi “lyre” in Gn 31:27. As opposed to this, hrymz is found in the Prophets and in Hagiographa, although only in the plural (e.g. Ps 95:2: wl [yrn twrmzb “let us raise a shout for Him in song”. It occurs once in a piyyut of lad[s: 348twllhtw twarqm wçdjyw twrymzw “they will renew the readings and praises and songs” (C. 383). 6. çdj “restore” In the Pi'el stem: ˚twjmç çdjyw [bgy ˚ld bbd lkw “and He will put all your enemies to death and restore your happiness” (C. 97); çdjyw jmçh ˚l (C. 141). In the Itp6'el stem: htwjr ymwy çdjta “the period of Divine Favor was restored” (C. 131); jsph ˆbrq πswm çdjty “the Passover’s oﬀering will be restored” (C. 131).
For ˆdyz, which is documented in HSH and Ben Sira, see p. 166 below. twllhtbw in the SP diﬀers from MV lly whtbw “in the howling waste” in Dt 32:10 (ST: ˆjbçtbw “in praises”). 348
hybrid samaritan hebrew
Pi'el and Hitpa'el stems of the root çòòdj are only found in the Prophets and Hagiographa, e.g. ybrqb çdj ˆwkn jwrw “and uphold me with a willing spirit” (Ps 51:12); ykyrw[n rçnk çdjtt “your youth is renewed like the eagle’s” (Ps 103:5). 7. ˆnr “sing, praise”
ˆnry hkrbb awhw “he will sing a blessing” (C. 421). The Pi'el stem of ˆòònr does not appear in the Pentateuch, while it is found frequently in the Prophets and Hagiographa, and especially in Psalms, e.g. wnnry ˚ydysjw qdx wçbly ˚ynhk “Your priests are clothed in righteousness and Your loyal ones sing for joy” (Ps 132:9). In view of the fact that the (rare) use of ˆòònr in HSH is dissimilar in context to the use found in the Bible, we need not necessarily assume the inﬂuence of Psalms or any other Jewish source here on the Samaritan poet, even though it is possible.349 8. bgç “hide”
˚ynpl [rh ywç[ μyndyzh ˆm ynbgç yrm “my Lord, guard me from the presumptuous who act evilly before You” (C. 215). Similar idioms can be found in the Book of Psalms: ynbgçt ymmwqtmm yhla ybyam ynlyxh “deliver me from my enemies, O my God, protect me from those who rise up against me” (59:2). The Samaritan use is very similar to that in Psalms. With regard to meaning, as I have already pointed out, bòògç in these instances can be taken to mean “power” and “majesty”, while in HSH it is closer to the meaning of “to hide”, which seems appropriate for its use here.350 In many other HSH writings, both piyyutim and TM, we come across verbal and nominal uses of bòògç with its meaning “to hide”. In TM, verbs are documented from bòògç in the Pa'el 351 stem, e.g. ˆwynyb bgçw yrpb hnn[ tjn “the cloud descended rapidly and hid them” (38a). We also ﬁnd Itp6'el: yny[ ˆm hçm bgçh dk 349
The same verb, though, used in the prayer of Ab Isdå (p. 47), is apparently derived from a Jewish source, even though the poet gave it his own personal imprint. 350 I have drawn attention to the use of bòògç in SA and HSH and the meaning of the radical in Hebrew in my article: “A Hidden Meaning of the Hebrew Root bòògç”, L^“onénu 65 (2003), pp. 105–115. 351 In the absence of a pronunciation tradition, this statement is only hypothetical. The verb hbgç s9g9ba in Dt 2:36 (wnmm hbgç rça hyrq htyh al, “not a city was too mighty for us”), was rendered in the Samaritan Arabic Translation by the word tbgtja, which means “hidden”. The Qal stem is thus used to express the intransitive meaning of this root. It can thus reasonably be assumed that the transitive meaning of bòògç is expressed by Pi'el.
hlhq (instead of bgçth*) “when Moses was hidden from the sight of the congregation” (261a). Itp6'el which preserves the wòòyt of the stem is found in Ms. A of the ST: bgçtm lzaw is the translation of ypç ˚lyw (Nu 23:3). The Samaritan translated it in this way because he understood ypç as being πwpç “bent”, and this assumption is reinforced by the Jerusalem Targum of aywyjk ˆyjg lyzaw “he walked stooped as a snake”. To this can be added the version ˆmkm “hidden” of another manuscript of the ST. All these are compatible with the Arabic translation aypjtm in the trilingual Ms. C of the Samaritan —are introduced Pentateuch, and all these versions—ˆmkm, ypç, in the Samaritan dictionary the Meliß. The motif of Moses being hidden at the standing on Mount Sinai is also expressed in later Samaritan piyyutim using the verb bgç: ytwbgç h[brab wbgçta “(the Israelites) were covered at the standing on Mount Sinai with four veils” (C. 354, see explanation below). This meaning of bòògç is not unique to HSH. It is also well documented in the Hebrew of the Jews from the period of Midrash literature. A ﬁrst hint of this meaning can be found in Hekhalot Rabbati (25:1): ≈ymaw qzj dbknw rqy ˆmanw rçy çyçyw dydy alpnw bgçn açnw μr ˚lm rwhfw çwdq tmaw qydx. This series of collocations with similar meanings shows that the writer saw bgçn as equivalent to alpn, which means “hidden”.352 In the same way, Rav Sa'adya Gaon wrote in the prayer òh awh hta “You are God”: alpnw bgçnw yj lk yny[m rttsm la μyrwxy lk twarm (bgçn being parallel to rttsm “hidden” and alpn). The verb bòògç with this meaning is found also in the Hebrew of the commentators of the Middle Ages, e.g. Rabbi David Qim˙i: rwça ˚lm ynpm wb bgçhl òh tyb ˚rd ala wb ˆysnkn wyh alw “people would enter (the king’s outer entrance) only through the House of the Lord to hide there from the king of Assyria” (commentary on 2 Kgs 16:18); Ramban: wç[ ynpm wb bgçhl z[ ldgm wbw lwdg tyb wl hnbç “he built a great house with a strong tower to hide there from Esau” (commentary on Gn 33:17). Unlike the Hebrew of the Jews, in which until now we have only come across the noun bgç as meaning “majesty, grandeur”, in HSH the noun bgç is frequently documented to mean “veil, cover”. Usually
For example, in SA: ylp al ˚nm zrd htaysk μwkj “the one who knows the secret things, that there is no secret which is hidden from You” (LOT III/2, p. 292; see the editor’s note).
hybrid samaritan hebrew
the word is used to describe the four coverings—ﬁre, darkness, cloud, and fog —that hid Mount Sinai at the giving of the Torah, and which the prophet Moses was able to tear. Thus, in TM: hçmk ˆha hybgç [rqd “where is someone like Moses who tore the veils” (242b). A similar description can be found in a piyyut of sjnyp ˆb rz[la: [rq μybgçld hçm yhla (C. 318). The same is found in a poem of Åb'r9m Aqqåbb9ßi: μybgçh [rqw rhh çar la hçm l[yw (C. 349). In a later piyyut of Åb'r9m Al'ayye (18th century): ˆwyl[ hybgç t[braw tw[qbm “the four veils are torn above them (above Israel)” (LOT III/2, p. 342). In another piyyut, Åb'r9m Aqqåbb9ßi makes instructive use of the noun bgç; he calls to the crowd to arouse it to do God’s work by these words: ˚br axmt ˚bl bgç [rqw (C. 335), that is to say, “tear apart the cover of your heart (and then) you will ﬁnd your God”. The phrase ˚bl bgç [rq is created in the form of the verse μkbbl tlr[ ta μtlmw “circumcise the foreskin of your heart” (Dt 10:16). The Samaritan poets are very fond of addressing the public in this way: wnybbl tlr[ lwmw (C. 11, 35); wlymn blh tlr[353 (C. 120); hbbl tlr[ ˆnm trkn “let us cut the foreskin of our hearts” (C. 121). The same use is found in their Aramaic: hbwtt dydjm ytylmaw ybl rzg “cut (the foreskin) of my heart and make me qualiﬁed to renew repentance” (LOT III/2, p. 288), and many more. These words had already been expressed, as we know, in Jer 4:4: twlr[ wrshw òhl wlmh μkbbl “circumcise yourselves to the Lord and remove the foreskin of your hearts”. It is appropriate to include here a quotation from the Jewish philosopher lòòrhm: It is known that the foreskin is so called because of its covering and closing oﬀ, and anything that is covered and diﬀerentiated is called hlr[, and in any place that it is written bl tlr[, it means that the thing (i.e. the right way) does not enter into his heart and remains separate.354
Thus, the words bgç ,hlr[ ,ywsyk are actually synonyms. The feminine noun hbgç is also found, meaning “veil”: μyçt alw ˚tjyls ˆybw ynyb hbgç ytwnw[, the poet’s intention being: “do not let my sins come between me and Your forgiveness” (C. 214). 353 The secondary root lòòmn had already been derived from lòòwm at the earliest stage of SH, i.e. in reading their Torah (see Ben-Óayyim’s concordance appended to LOT IV, p. 181, root lòòmn). 354 The Maharal of Prague (Yehuda Liva ben Bezalel), Sefer Tif "eret Yisrael, chapter 19.
(b) Words found in Mishnaic literature 1. twrg “sojourn”
twdb[w twrg “sojourn and slavery” (C. 185); twrg rtb μyklm wnayxwhd twdb[w twn[w “He brought us out (from Egypt) with possessions (lit.: possessing) after (a period of ) sojourn and aﬄiction and slavery” (C. 246); twbah twrg rkzyw “He will remember the ancestors’ sojourn” (C. 542). The word does not appear in ancient Samaritan sources, but can be found in the second of TM in a section whose language is relatively late: twn[w twdb[ hnç μy[braw hnç tamw twrg hnç μyççw μytam. The juxtaposition here of twrg with twdb[ is reminiscent of the words of Rabbi Yudan in Genesis Rabba: μhl al ≈rab ywny[ twdb[ twryg (TheodorAlbeck, p. 440). 2. qdqd “scrutinize” The earliest Samaritan treatises contain the ancient qòòqd, meaning “grinding” and “crushing” (DSA, s.v. qqd). In HSH, qòòdqd is used by the late Samaritan poet qjxy ˆb sjnyp with a diﬀerent meaning:
hla μp ˆm ayh ˆa hrma hywg lkb hqydx hdbk hrwt hwmk tyld hrwt tt[n hymwç ˆmw hqdqdm (C. 120). It seems that he meant to say here that the Torah, which everyone reads, came down from above, in God’s exact words. That is to say, the use of hqdqdm here is very close to the Hebrew qdqd “to scrutinize”, e.g. hytwytwab qdqd alw arq “he recited it without clearly pronouncing the letters” (m. Berakhot 2:3). Comment: Could qdqd here possibly mean “said”? Perhaps in the same way that frp, whose initial meaning is “to cut, to sever” etc., became “said”, so, too, did qdqd whose meaning is “to crush, to cut (thin)”. 3. (dz) μdyz/ˆdyz “presumptuous, arrogant”
μdyz lkm wlyxhw “He saved him from every presumptuous (i.e. his presumptuous behavior)” (C. 662); hmdyzh wm[w qlm[ lfqta “he killed Amaleq and his arrogant people” (C. 397); ˆdyzh h[rp (ibid., C. 785). ˆdyz also appears in Megillat Hahodayot of the DSS,355 as well as in Ben Sira 9:12: jylxm ˆwdzb anqt la “do not be jealous of a successful
355 In Ma"agarim, the database of the Academy of the Hebrew Language, it is recorded as: ˆd?yz? çya (Line 1).
hybrid samaritan hebrew
arrogant”. The Samaritan ﬁnding supports Segal’s tentative suggestion (Ben Sira, p. fn) to vocalize ˆwdz with a hryx356 (based on μymh μynwdyzh “the raging waters”, Ps 124:5) and not with a ≈mq as was done in his edition. 4. ywn “praise” Nif 'al: whç[m l[ hwnyw ydwty wyinn9bi “praised and exalted be He for His deeds” (C. 732). yòòwn in the Nif 'al stem does not appear in the Hebrew of the Pentateuch. In Ben Sira the Hitpa'el is found: hwnty awh hn[y ryç[ “the aﬄicting rich is praised,” (Ben Sira, 13:3). The HSH form could also easily be interpreted as Hitpa'el (with assimilation of the t), and perhaps it is preferable to see it as such.357 In the Pi'el stem: wnyyj ymy lk ˚yhwnn “we praise You all our lives” (C. 344).358 It is attested also in the Jerusalem Talmud: twwnl μdal wl rçpa ykw warwb ta “can a human being praise his creator” (Pe"ah 2b) (c) Words that are common to HSH and Hebrew of the Middle Ages 1. bha “love”
wrm bhab b9"6b “because of the love of his Lord” (C. 130). Yannai wrote: μmx[ wçdyq bhabw “they purify themselves in love” (Rabinovitz, I, p. 327). Hanagid wrote: bha ymb sl[thl (Divan, p. 165), ˆwrty hmw bha ˆyyb (ibid., p. 217). With regard to the morphology, see llq below. 2. twç[l jwkh ˆm “from potentially to actually”
twç[l jwkh ˆm taxwm ayh wmçbw (C. 496). This locution is parallel to the Hebrew locution l[wph la jwkh ˆm, which is found in medieval writings such as the Hebrew translation by Ibn Tibon of Moreh Nevukhim of Maimonides (p. wr). Of course, the Samaritan use could be inﬂuenced directly by Arabic ( “actually”, “potentially”) in the same way that the translation of Ibn Tibon is.
356 357 358
hryx is the assumed vocalization in Ma"agarim.
On the place of Nif 'al and Itp6'el in HSH, see p. 204. The same wording can be found in a piyyut of Yi“mà"6l Arr9m9"i, C. 231.
3. llq “curse”
μyllqh lk ˚mm rysy wlm[b (C. 301). In the words of Yannai: zwbb μydjw μhyllq (f 55). The word llq, besides being a lexical innovation, reﬂects a widespread phenomenon in Jewish piyyut: changing the pattern of the noun from feminine to masculine in order to introduce variation of the form.359 In HSH as well, there is no diﬀerence in meaning between llq and hllq. 4. jmç “joy, happiness”
hbhambw jmçb “in happiness and in love” (C. 209). The noun jmç is found frequently in HSH.360 jmç is used by early Jewish paytanim such as Yannai: μjmç ˆyy μytwç “they drink the wine of their festivity” (Zulay, p. w[r) and Haqqalir: μyrrwçm jmç çwçm tbç “stilled is the joy of poets” (Goldschmidt, p. [). In the entry jmç, Ben-Yehuda quoted (p. 7582) from CASD: br jmç μyrmçh larçy ynb td[ wjmçyw “the congregation of the Israelites rejoiced very much” (C. 98).361 (d) The scope of the commonality From the above ﬁndings, we learn that there is not much lexical commonality between HSH, at any rate the HSH of the piyyutim, and the literature of the Jews. It should also be mentioned that some of the words discussed above are sparsely distributed, e.g. we did not come across bha “love” and others more than once. In light of this, we have little diﬃculty in assuming that these words which we found in HSH reached the language from a study of Jewish sources. This assumption is more diﬃcult to sustain with regard to words whose new usage can easily be attributed to internal development—an external inﬂuence is more plausible in collocations such as wnmlknw wnçb, which appear in the Book of Psalms.362 Possibly, the source of collocations such as twç[l jwkh ˆm is also external. Needless to say, the more dependence we discover between 359
On Yannai’s style in this regard, see Rabinovitz, I, pp. 39–40. In the examined corpus, jmç appears 60 times, as opposed to hjmç, which appears 20 times. 361 Note the Arabic masculine noun . 362 A considerable number of quotations from Psalms can be found in the part of the “second chronicle” published by Jeﬀrey Cohen (see J. M. Cohen, A Samaritan Chronicle, Leiden 1981, p. 194, n. 6). However, this treatise is of a diﬀerent kind, as discussed in chapter four below. 360
hybrid samaritan hebrew
Samaritan texts and Jewish texts, the more Hebrew-Jewish features we will ﬁnd in HSH. We are familiar with Hebrew Jewish words that have only sporadically penetrated Samaritan texts, but we have not yet found deep penetration into the linguistic system. These conclusions are compatible with what has been said above about the aﬃnity of Samaritan writers to Jewish texts.363 Even though a number of manifestations of this aﬃnity are evident, they did not essentially aﬀect the structure of the language. 3.3.4. The aﬃnity between HSH and the other Samaritan texts 188.8.131.52. Ms. A of the ST, TM and the piyyutim written in HSH (a) General One of the most important questions at the heart of the lexical discussion in this research is the aﬃnity between HSH and the other Samaritan texts. This is especially pertinent with regard to the Aramaic texts, TM, the ST and the Book of Asatir. The precise date that these three treatises were written is unknown, and their editors and commentators have hypothesized the date based on assumptions and deliberation.364 They have determined the dates that these works were written by comparing them to what is considered as known. In the absence of explicit evidence as to when the treatise in question was written, this is indeed the best alternative. In general, scholars have accepted the conclusions regarding the dates of these treatises. However, without explicit evidence, we cannot ignore additional evidence that could provide further clariﬁcation of this issue. Evidence of this kind exists in the later Samaritan piyyutim written from the 14th century onward. We have complete knowledge about these piyyutim: we know who wrote them, where they worked and when. Admittedly, some piyyutim exist whose authors are unknown. However, they are relatively few, and in any event we do know when a large number of piyyutim were written. We can thus state with a large degree of certainty that the linguistic material contained in these many piyyutim, faithfully reﬂects the state of the language at that time. 363
See §2.4 (p. 50). On the dating of TM, see n. 49 (p. 21); ST—see p. 18; Asatir—see n. 48 (p. 21). 364
By “state of the language” I refer to knowledge of the language and not the living use of the language, for at that time the Samaritans only spoke Arabic. But the tools of cultural creativity were diﬀerent. Words used in HSH and which do not appear at all in the ancient Samaritan texts, can serve as criteria for determining the age of Asatir, TM and the later ST manuscripts.365 (b) Ms. A of the ST and HSH The status of Ms. A and other manuscripts of its type referred to in the introduction to Tal, ST, is compatible with the lexical ﬁndings of the piyyutim. We can add further evidence to that presented by the editor of the ST with regard to the late date of Ms. A,366 evidence that is not necessarily connected to Arabic, and which strengthens the validity of the date that Ms. A was compiled. A list of frequently found words in the late piyyutim attests to the fact that they are not the preserve of an isolated poet, nor was their use sporadic. They reﬂect the written language conventions of that time. They can also be found in Ms. A of the ST and they show, in addition to other evidence, that the language reﬂected in this manuscript was consolidated at the time that the other piyyutim we are dealing with were composed. In view of the fact that these had not been fully consolidated before the 14th century, it seems true to say that Ms. A also reached its ﬁnal fruition at this time. The public for whom the later piyyutim were composed, is the same public that exhibited interest in the Targum of the Torah. It would thus be natural that idioms and phrases that passed from the poets to the community of worshippers would also be considered appropriate to be used in some versions of the Torah Targums used by these worshippers.367 The later words did not, of course, replace or eliminate ancient poetic words, for we have already shown the aﬃnity of the later poets to their illustrious predecessors, Mårqe and 'Åmråm D9re.368 Thus, the new did not replace the old, but rather complemented it. This 365 Especially Ms. A. Evidence will also be presented from other ST manuscripts, which reﬂect a later stage of SA. 366 He was assisted by language phenomena from HSH; see Tal, ST III, pp. 89–92. 367 “Used” does not necessarily refer to reading in public, because we still are unsure when the Targum ceased to be read in the Samaritan synagogues (see p. 316). 368 See §184.108.40.206 (p. 96).
hybrid samaritan hebrew
approach of the Samaritan poets of fully exploiting familiar ancient literary material, greatly beneﬁted the later piyyutim. This is a welcome situation for scholars as well as allowing them, as I hope to show below, to use the later revealed material to expose the ancient hidden material. It can also be assumed that what the written HSH piyyutim, the later ST manuscripts, and later sections of TM have in common, is a result of borrowing by the later poets from these two works. In fact, this appears to be the source of part of their lexical commonality. However, a considerable part of this commonality should be viewed as a reﬂection of a shared linguistic reality. For if we assume that Ms. A of the ST was compiled prior to the 14th century, we would have to ask why such a large work as the adaptation of a full translation of the Torah to the liturgical needs of a complete community, was not accompanied by the writing of piyyutim incorporating the same linguistic characteristics. These, after all, would appear to be more appropriate for the synagogue than a Targum. If we were to say that the seeds of HSH emerged before the 14th century, the fact is that they still only reached full fruition at the time of the High Priest sjnyp, his son rmymh l[b [çyba and the poets of that period, namely the 14th century. The fact is that Ab Isdå, who lived in the 11th century, a few hundred years before these poets, while not writing in Aramaic, produced a poem written in “pure” Hebrew,369 and not in HSH at all. To sum up, as far as we can ascertain with our current research tools, Ms. A of the ST was not ﬁnally incorporated prior to the compilation of the treatises of the later poets, namely the 14th century. Possibly, there is something in the name of the copyist of the ancient part of the manuscript, ˆrha tç ˆb qjxy ˆb ˆrha tç ˆb μhrba qçmdb ywlh ˆhkh μhrba ˆb qjxy ˆb in 1518/1519 CE370 that postdates the ﬁnal consolidation of the version of Ms. A. For we know of the existence of a poet ˆrha tç (C. XXXI), even though only two of his poems have been published in Cowley’s edition. Despite the fact that there is some problem in identifying this ˆrha tç (see ibid.), it is not far-fetched to assume that the copyist of A (who also copied other manuscripts) was the poet’s son. It is also not diﬃcult
See chapter two. See the copy of the Ta“qìl in Tal, ST III, p. 23.
to assume that this familial closeness led him to impart to the text that he copied or designed, something of the written language, of HSH, that was close to him. Another issue is the aﬃnity of TM to HSH. Here the discussion is more complicated. As Ben-Óayyim mentioned in the introduction to his edition,371 this treatise is not homogenous. He showed that parts of it, the ﬁrst book and part of the second, are older, while other parts were written or edited far later than the period in which the ancient core of the book was written. The closeness between TM and the texts written in HSH has two roots. On the one hand, the authors of the piyyutim written in HSH drew from this classic work for their needs, in the same way that they enriched themselves by using the reservoir of language in the Torah, its Targumim, and the piyyutim composed by the ancient poets. On the other hand, many parts of the treatise, which were compiled in a later period, bear the linguistic signs of the time. This closeness is evident in all aspects—in grammar and in vocabulary. In order to demonstrate the above comments, I present below a late excerpt from the second book of TM, which deals with the events connected to the sea of the Exodus:372 [çrh ˚phw [çrw qydx ˆyb fpç qdx fpwç μqwh ayhh t[b μymh yryç[h hwhy ypb hz ˆybw hz ˆyb lydbhw wnmm qydxh qrpw twkmh ynymb wlfqw wynpl μyrxmw hwhy ydb[ wmm wax dk rç[ djah ;μyhlah lkm hwhy lwdg yk lwdgh rwsab μçar rçp d[ μhynp twmwj ˚ph wtbkrm ˆpa rsaw wtarql μy[sn rç[ μynçh ;μyhlah lkm hwhy lwdg yk w[dy μlk μç waxm alw jwrh wçrd jwrl bjr μhl tylw wary μyyj μlkw wydb[ lkw h[rp ynpl wntyal bç μyh wmk wllx hz yrjaw μyh tpç l[ μymwlç larçy ynb war d[ jwrb hwhy μaçnw ht[ç μytaph lkm wlwq [mçn rç[ çlçh ;μyhlah lkm hwhy lwdg yk ˆba rçy za txqb wtwybnb hçm hbr hybn [dwh hzbw μym[h w[mç d[ μymh wklhd l[ μymh rgsn rç[ y[ybrh + μyhlah lkm hwhy lwdg yk [dwm [mçy yml rbdh μydb[ wwh rtb μyklm wax larçy lkw dja d[ μhb raçn al wm[ lk l[w h[rp ˆwmayq μhl rkzd bq[yw qjxyw μhrbad hhla hml[d hrml ˆydwm ˆwydpb μydj wtymhw larçy wtrç rça μyçlçhw hçlçh hla wdb[ hçmbw hwhyb wnmaw 373 .μyrxmh lk
See n. 49 (p. 21). I have emphasized the few Aramaic words in the extract by putting them in a diﬀerent font. 373 TM, 63a. 372
hybrid samaritan hebrew
The tenth (time in which the water served Israel): the water at that time became a righteous judge. It judged between righteous and wicked, and they cast the wicked in front of him and killed him with all sorts of aﬄictions, and it saved the righteous from him and separated between the two of them at the command of the Lord the great—for the Lord is greater than all gods. The eleventh: when the servants of the Lord came out (of the sea) and the Egyptians marched toward it, “He bound the rulers of the chariots” (Ex 14:25) and turned the walls (of water into a jail) in front of them so that He sentenced their ruler (Pharaoh) to prison. They sought for rescue but did not ﬁnd. Then all of them realized that the Lord is greater than all gods. The twelfth: the sea returned to its strength in the presence of Pharaoh and all his servants, while all of them (still) live and look and they have no space for relief. And the Lord carried them with the wind, so that they saw the Israelites safe on the seashore. And after that they sank as a stone—for the Lord is greater than all gods. The thirteenth: His voice was heard from all sides while the water went so that (even) the nations heard (it), and by this the great prophet Moses informed the thing to whom heard it in his prophecy in the section rçy za—for the Lord is greater than all gods. The fourteenth: the water shut Pharaoh and all his people in. Not even one (of them) survived, while all Israel went forth like kings after being slaves, happy with (their) salvation, praising the Lord of the world, the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, who remembered their covenant, and they believed in the Lord and in Moses His servant. These are the thirty three (times) that (the four elements— ﬁre, wind, earth and water) served Israel and killed all the Egyptians.
This extract is unmistakably written in HSH. Moreover, among the piyyutim written in HSH, a greater likelihood exists of ﬁnding those with more Aramaic elements (see p. 117). The following extract from TM immediately follows the above extract, and is written in pure Aramaic. This is the language in which the extract cited above would have been written, had it been composed or ﬁnally compiled prior to the consolidation of HSH: πqtm awhw h[rp μ[ llmm hmy l[ μ[q hçm hbr hybn ym[m yhy hwh hmw hçrgw ˚tçyb qbç μçnaw ˚tw[çr πra h[rp ha hçm hl rma htçybl hbl ˆyq ˚ymq wz[gd hy[wrs ypx ˚drml ywzg wdb[tad htaywkm lk yzj ˚bl ˆm hbrd hdwrmnw ˆwb arç hmw yaldgmw hlwbm yrd ˆkw hl dyb[ hmw hrbw wytwzgw hndba ˚l ˆynaydzm hynyd ynym yqlj yqlm ˚b hwh ˆh ˆwtdyqyw μds yrbgw htwdx bbdw hta ˚çpn lwfq dyb[ ˚b dmb ˚nm ykz hlaw qpn awh ˚mdql ˚çylb [rh ydbw[l ˚l ˆyqnçm ˆwna ˚ydbw[ ˚l ˆydbam ˆwna ˚ylm tdb[ta ˚mrgl 374 ˆybwk rxq ˆaçyb [rz ˆm fçqb hlk ywzg bs htmx
chapter three How beautiful it was to see the great prophet Moses standing by the sea speaking with Pharaoh, while Pharaoh hardened his heart for (doing) harm. Moses said to him: O Pharaoh, give up your ﬁerce anger and be at rest. Abandon your badness and drive it from your heart. Look at all the punishments brought about as a result of your rebelliousness. Watch the sinners who preceded you: Cain and his requital, and his son and what happened to him, likewise the generations of the Flood and the tower builders and what happened to them, and Nimrod whose aﬄiction was great, and the people of Sodom and the burning of them. If you have to be aﬄicted, be aﬄicted with the sorts of punishments which are prepared for you. Destruction is looking for you, it goes out toward you, and God his innocent in front of you after what will be done with you. You slay yourself, and you became your own enemy. Your (own) words destroy you, your (own) deeds chastise you. Since you have amassed bad deeds—accept the payment for them all. Indeed, he who sows bad deeds will reap thorns.
In the course of the discussion, I will attempt, here and there, to separate what seems to be borrowed from TM,375 and what is common to both and was written more or less at the same time. This separation is not always possible, yet when it is, it can greatly assist in throwing light on the dating of the diﬀerent parts of the treatise. The interested reader will ﬁnd all these words in a separate chapter (220.127.116.11). These are the words common to the piyyutim written in HSH and Ms. A of the ST or TM. I have not contented myself with presenting the distribution of these words in the diﬀerent texts, even though this short form would be suﬃcient to express their lexical commonality. Rather, I have added a discussion of what seems to me to be necessary and beneﬁcial. Sometimes there is doubt about the precise meaning of the word in the place it appears, sometimes its etymology is doubtful, and sometimes it is doubtful whether it has penetrated the diﬀerent layers of Samaritan phrasing. I have chosen to mention these and other doubts in my discussion. 18.104.22.168. The reﬂection of SH and SA in HSH The question needs to be considered of whether the new words and new uses of language in HSH are creations of the later poets, or whether they have been drawn from Samaritan Aramaic sources that no longer exist. It currently seems unlikely that an answer to this
Such as gwz (Pa'el ), p. 345, rwp, p. 350.
hybrid samaritan hebrew
question could be anything but conjectural, yet we feel obliged to pursue this avenue. It is reasonable to assume that some of the language constituents that appear to be HSH innovations are not the poets’ creations, but rather reﬂect the form of SA in its latter days. This assumption does not seem far-fetched: if we accept the view that SA was still a living language in the 12th century,376 then HSH, in its ﬁnal formulation, is no more than two hundred years removed from it. Since only a few poems have come down to us from the declining period of SA, it is not diﬃcult in principle to assume that what we do not ﬁnd in them, but which can be found in later texts, reﬂects genuine Aramaic features. Furthermore, the distribution of some of the new words is so widespread (they are already used by all the 14th century poets), and their use so clearly deﬁned, that it would be diﬃcult to imagine that they are not strongly rooted in a time before the consolidation of HSH. For example, the words ˚dç and μynkdç:377 they are widespread, and a study of their contexts shows that μynkdç is not merely a stylistic extension of ˚dç, but rather that ˚dç means “tranquility” and μynkdç (the word ˆkdç is non-existent) means “happiness”. The word dbz, like μynkdç (even though less widespread), is also used to denote happiness, and dbz also expresses “light”, and dbdza means “come together”. d[s . . . ynd[s found in the ST as the rendering of dbz . . . yndbz (Gn 30:20), should lead us to the conclusion that at the time of the consolidation of this Targum, dbz already meant “coming together”.378 What prevents us from seeing dbdza, meaning “to come together”, as an inseparable part of SA? These are a few of the words that I have linked together in order to discuss the renewal of diﬀerent kinds of words. To widen and to clarify the picture, I would like to consider a grammatical aspect: the 2nd and 3rd masc. pl. imperfect suﬃxes. In the diﬀerent SA compositions we often ﬁnd wl[py instead of ˆwl[py.379 Ben-Óayyim suggested (introduction to TM, p. 20), that this suﬃx does not point to the inﬂuence of Hebrew on SA, but rather the result of internal developments unconnected to Hebrew: from an aﬃnity to imperative forms which retained their original form of the ybtk, wbtk 376 377 378 379
See See See See
p. 18. p. 302. details in the discussion of the word dbz, p. 282 below. details in Florentin, Characteristics, p. 24; TM, p. 20.
model,380 imperfect forms without nun were created, in his opinion, in Samaritan Aramaic. This explanation ﬁnds some support in HSH, where we also found that some clearly Aramaic verbs such as wtyy (< ˆwtyy, “they will come”) are conjugated in this way.381 In the hybrid language there is, ostensibly, no diﬃculty in assuming the inﬂuence of Hebrew on the Aramaic forms. It is as if wtyy was created from the inﬂuence of wawby “they will come” and its Hebrew synonyms. It should, however, be pointed out that Aramaic forms of the pattern ˆwtbtk are much more frequent in HSH than their parallel Hebrew forms μtbtk. It is unlikely that Aramaic inﬂuenced the perfect forms while Hebrew dominated the imperfect forms. The necessary conclusion is, thus, that the relatively frequent use of wl[pt (in Aramaic verbs) in HSH should not be attributed to Hebrew, but rather to the continuing state of SA.382 Something of the grammatical structure of SH can also be learned from what is found in HSH. Admittedly, hundreds of years have intervened between HSH and SH as a spoken language. However, some grammatical phenomena in HSH have attracted my attention, and were it not for the time span, it would have been possible to assume with certainty that their roots were in SH. I would like to relate to the status of the Nif 'al stem in HSH. As we found,383 Nif 'al is not used in HSH except in verbs inherited from the Pentateuch. What is expressed in Hebrew by Nif 'al is generally expressed in HSH by Itp6'el, even in clearly Hebrew verbs. Here, too, it can be said that HSH has chosen the Aramaic path. An overall view, however, points to a more complex reality: in SH as pronounced in the Pentateuch, a withdrawal of Nif 'al is already evident: the very conﬁguration of the Niqqattal pattern, which in fact is nothing more that Nitpa'al whose wòòyt was assimilated to the ﬁrst radical, points to the fusion of Nif 'al with Itp6'el.384 Forms of Nif 'al relinquish their position in favor of another stem whenever the skeleton of the letters in the text permits: the Tiberian Hebrew Nif 'al form μykib¨n ] “entangled”, astray, “perplexed” (Ex 14:3) is nèbìk6m (passive participle of Qal ) in SH; the participle of Nif 'al πG:nI “defeated” (Dt 28:25) is n9g6f (participle of Qal ), μyviG:nI (participle 380 As opposed to certain verbal categories such as 3rd fem. sing. perfect aﬀormative, which ended in ˆ (ybtk > ˆybtk); see Florentin, Characteristics, p. 22. 381 See p. 217. 382 See, too, my remarks at the end of the discussion on lmnh ,lmn, p. 293. 383 See p. 204. 384 See p. 204.
hybrid samaritan hebrew
of Nif 'al ) is pronounced in SH nègì“6m (participle of Qal ) and other nòòp and wòò[ verbs. In view of the fact that in the Samaritan tradition (as pronounced in the Pentateuch), not only the Pu'al stem (as in Mishnaic Hebrew) but also the Huf 'al stem385 were abolished, it can be assumed that Nif 'al, the passive of the Qal, shared the same fate.386 We can state, unequivocally, that this process was completed in HSH. What is presented above from the reading of the Torah hints that an ancient reality is being reﬂected in HSH—a contemporary of living Samaritan Hebrew.
3.4. The grammatical structure of HSH 3.4.1. Phonetics and phonology 22.214.171.124. General 387 A comparison of the customary Samaritan pronunciation for reading the piyyutim written in HSH with that used in reading their Hebrew Torah reveals no diﬀerences. This is true in general and in the details: an identical consonantal inventory, identical pronunciation and weakening of the gutturals, identical pronunciation of tpkdgb, w, the emphatics, and the c (in Hebrew words it is pronounced “ and in Aramaic words s). Also the vowel system, both phonetically and phonemically, and the stress system, are identical in both readings. As is known, some Semitic languages, such as that of the Phoenician inscriptions and Nabatean Aramaic, have come down to us in written form, but they only reﬂect the stratum of their consonants. In the absence of any means of representing the vowels we cannot know their precise pronunciation. Even the representation of the consonants is insuﬃciently clear, since the question unfailingly arises of how a particular consonant represented by a certain letter was pronounced at the time. And even issues that are held to be certain, are, in many cases, the result of comparative study of another language, and not a study of the language in question. 385
See GSH, p. 73, and my article, Florentin, The Weakening. On the parallel process in Mishnaic Hebrew, see ibid. 387 I have analyzed and arranged the phonolgy of HSH, which I found equivalent to that of SA and SH, according to Ben-Óayyim’s system in GSH. 386
Later Samaritan treatises such as chronicles, and other later writings such as colophons and marriage contracts in the Samaritan manuscripts of the Pentateuch, have also come down to us in an incomplete form of letters without any vocalization signs. There is, however, an extensive body of Samaritan literature, the collection of prayers and piyyutim the ﬁrst of which was compiled at the end of the 13th century, that we not only have in writing but also in faithful pronunciation, revealing the structure of HSH in its ﬁnest detail. The Samaritan community is meticulous about the pronunciation of their prayers, a pronunciation which is passed from father to son with the utmost precision, reﬂecting the same strictness they employ in reading the Torah. The discussion of the HSH system of sounds will thus draw its data from these patterns. Corroboration for the issues discussed will also be found in other Samaritan treatises that are only found in writing. An important question is how to describe the phonemic system of a hybrid language. Here we would ostensibly need to ask what is Aramaic and what is Hebrew, for the extent of the commonality of Hebrew and Aramaic in shaping the Samaritan hybrid language is one of the important issues underlying this research. It transpires, however, that this is not the central question with regard to the system of sounds of HSH, because there is no diﬀerence between the SH system of sounds as pronounced in the Torah and the SA system of sounds as pronounced in the piyyutim written in Aramaic by Mårqe, 'Åmråm and their successors. Both have the same inventory of consonants and vowels, the same syllabic structure, the same stress system.388 In other words, there is one Samaritan pronunciation—both for Hebrew and for Aramaic. From this point of view the Samaritan pronunciation has a counterpart in the form of the Tiberian tradition. For an analysis of the system of sounds of Aramaic passages in the Bible also does not reveal a picture that is essentially diﬀerent from the picture of Tiberian Hebrew pronunciation. Needless to say, this is only true synchronically and not historically.389 There is also not complete equivalence from the synchronic aspect, as one can see in cases such 388 On the equivalent behavior of the gutturals, see GSH, §1.1.8. On the vowels and their length, see ibid. 1.2.1. On the stress, see 1.4.6. Many examples from SA are therefore included in GSH. 389 By this I refer, for example, to some ancient consonants which are reﬂected in diﬀerent ways in the two languages, e.g. *Δ is reﬂected as “ in the Hebrew word çlç and as t in the Aramaic word tlt.
hybrid samaritan hebrew
as Hle (a hryx without pata˙ furtivum before h), rV'p'm] (active participle; the pata˙ under the v is due to the inﬂuence of the r, a phonetic phenomenon which is uncommon in Hebrew). Essentially, however, there are no diﬀerences between the two. This is also true, as I have said, of the Samaritan tradition. Here, however, the diﬀerences between Aramaic and Hebrew become even more blurred, mainly because of the general penultimate stress with which the Samaritans pronounce both languages. This inﬂuenced vowel quantity and led to phenomena such as abolishing the ancient diﬀerence between the Aramaic bt'K] and the Hebrew bt'K:; both are pronounced k9tåb. This has created an equivalence in the language patterns.390 Some diﬀerences can, however, be found between SH and SA, such as the u vowel in SA which developed from “6wa, as in the words hymwç (< hymç) “sky” and ˆwkwl (< ˆwkl) “to you”.391 The phenomenon itself also exists in SH, e.g. μy[rk kùrà"6m “legs”, but in SA it is far more widespread.392 These, and a few other instances of diﬀerences, do not, however, reveal an essential diﬀerence between the two languages. The question we thus have to ask after analyzing the piyyutim written in HSH is the extent of their closeness to the Samaritan pronunciation—both Hebrew and Aramaic. 126.96.36.199. The consonants (a) General An analysis of the pronunciation of HSH piyyutim shows that the inventory comprises twenty consonant phonemes. These are: Place of Articulation Labial Labiodental Dental Alveolar Alveolo-velar
Plosive Plosive voiced unvoiced b B d d
Fricative Semiunvoiced consonant
m m t T † f
w w l l
f s “ ß
p s ç x
Cf. p. 201. See p. 193. 392 Unrelated to this issue is the vowel u which grew out of “6wa preceding a guttural; see Florentin, The ”6wa. 391
178 Table (cont.) Place of Articulation Palatal Velar Uvular Laryngeal Glottal
Plosive Plosive voiced unvoiced
Fricative Semiunvoiced consonant y y
g G q q " a
k K ' [
From the twenty-nine consonants in Tiberian Hebrew—six of which, the fricative tpkdgb, are only allophones—HSH thus lacks the following consonants: h h, ˙ j, § k, ∫ b, 8 g, ≈ d, p P, Δ t, ≤ c. On their shifts, see below. (b) The gutturals 1. As mentioned, the consonants h and ˙ do not exist at all and they merge with the a (on its pronunciation and shifts, see below). Examples393 with h: rwhf †9"or “pure” (C. 106), ˚h "ik “how” (C. 250), hdh "9da “this” (ibid.), μyx[h "9"ìß6m “the trees” (ibid.), hlbq qabbèle “he received it” (ibid.), ytklh "9likti “I went” (C. 367), ˚çjh "9:“6k “the darkness” (C. 106), ybnh "annèbi “the prophet” (ibid.). With j: çdj "9d6“ “month” (C. 107), hmkj "ikma “wisdom” (C. 106), μkjw w9kåm “and he knew” (C. 241), ˆwtwnj "9nùton “their encamping” (C. 410), ˆbçj "i“bån “calculation” (C. 106), μjry yèrà"6m “he will pity” (C. 107). The pronunciation of the glottal stop: In reading the piyyutim as they sound today, it is rare to hear the consonant " clearly. That is to say, no glottal stop is heard in words that have an a followed by a vowel, as is the case in contemporary Hebrew, e.g. jtpa ifta “I shall open” (C. 106), hla èla “God” (C. 107), yta 9ti “come” (ibid.), ˚laçn nè“9"èlåk “we shall ask you” (ibid.), hrwam m9"ùra “the light” (C. 108), μynwçyar r9"ì“ùn6m “ﬁrst (pl.)” (ibid.). Both historically and synchronically, however, the a stands at a boundary of a syllable, and it is thus marked " at every point where from a purely phonetic point of view a syllable opens with a vowel. 393 Only here is a noted at the beginning of the word. In all other places it is only noted in the middle of the word.
hybrid samaritan hebrew
My transcription system thus follows Ben-Óayyim, including relinquishing the marking of " at the beginning of a word. The above words will thus be transcribed as follows: ifta, èla, 9ti, nè“9"èlåk, m9"ùra, r9"ì“ùn6m. 2. The ' ([) also generally merges with the " (a), but at the beginning of the word before the vowels a and å (both long and short), it is likely to be pronounced instead of historical [ or j. More precisely: except for deﬁned cases, always instead of [, and sometimes instead of historical j. Examples of a shift of [ to a: yny[ "ìni “my eyes” (C. 367), y[gp f9gà"i “my insistent request” (C. 106), wl[p fà"èlu “his deed” (C. 111). Examples of pronunciation of [ at the beginning of the word: a. Before å/a instead of historical [: rwb[ 'àbor “pass” (C. 106), d[ 'ad “till” (ibid.), hl[ '9lå “went up” (C. 103), μwx[ 'àßom “mighty” (C. 240), wndm[ '9mådnu “we stood” (C. 251). b. Before å/a instead of a historical j: wdj 'àdu “joy” (C. 107), yj 'ay “live” (C. 240), çdj '9då“ “new” (C. 107), ˚nwrj '9rùnåk “your fury” (C. 108), μwkj 'àkom “know” (C. 240). The formulation of the rule here clearly diﬀerentiates between [ and j. As I have already shown,394 in SH as pronounced in the Pentateuch, [ behaves according to the rule with only few exceptions and even these can be explained historically: the [ is not pronounced when followed by a/å only if that vowel was once diﬀerent, i.e. z[e az (< *'inz). As opposed to this, there are many cases in which a historical j is not pronounced as ' though followed by a/9, e.g. rb'j; 9bår “joined” (Ex 36:10), ˆ/Lj' 9lon “window” (Gn 8:6), hzj 9zi “chest” (Ex 29:27), qzj 9zåq “strong” (Ex 10:19), hlylj 9lìla “far be it from” (Gn 18:25), ≈wlj 9loß “vanguard” (Nu 32:21), qlj 9låq “smooth” (Gn 27:11). In HSH as well, this behavior is clearly recognizable, both in Hebrew and Aramaic words, e.g. ˆyrysj 9sìr6n “lack” (C. 14), ˚sj 9såk “withheld” (ibid.), hyqlj 9l9qayya “the parts” (C. 16), wbrj arrèbu “destroyed” (C. 34), hwj abba “Eve” (C. 41), tqzj azziqta “you hardened” (C. 81), μhyl[ qzj azzåq “was severe upon them” (C. 87), hzj 9za “saw” (C. 104), çdj add6“ “renew” (C. 112), hqçj 9“èqa “has desire” (C. 113), μyrxm ymfrj artammi “the magicians of Egypt” (C. 245), μtj 9tåm “ﬁnished” (C. 446), dysj 9s6d “kind” (C. 447), twrxxj 9ßìß9rot “trumpets” (C. 453), etc. 394
Florentin, Phonological Notation, pp. 114–115.
This behavior of the j, which is diﬀerent from the [, is possibly instructive concerning the extent of the shift of j to [ that took place in the Samaritan tradition; for on the one hand, the j was shifted to [, and on the other hand, it behaves the same way as the h and the a, i.e. it often also becomes silent at the beginning of the word preceding the vowels å, a. Possibly, we can explain this reality on the basis of relative chronology: only at the height of the shift of j to [, all the gutturals began to amalgamate with a, and thus many words starting with j and preceded by the vowel a shifted to a before managing to shift to [. The shift j > [ in the above condition, as opposed to it becoming silent in all other situations, is sometimes hinted at in the orthography. Spellings with h or a instead of j, such as μwkh or μwka (instead of μwkj “know”, participle Qal of μòòkj), are not found at all in Samaritan texts, while spellings with [ instead of j, such as μk[ “knew”, μk[n “we shall know”, [πswy] μwk[mb “when [ Joseph] made himself known”, are found frequently. Here, too, however, the historical spelling with j is widespread. In the piyyutim of [çyba I only found the j spelling: μkj ,μwkj (more than 30 times). It is not surprising that the noun hmkj “wisdom” is only spelled with j (more than 100 times in the various Aramaic texts, and more than 30 times in the analyzed corpus): in both the Pentateuch and in HSH, the noun is pronounced ikma. As opposed to this, within the word, j might be replaced by h. Thus in TM: ˆbz lkb hbhnw t[ lkb hl db[tçnw “we submit ourselves to Him at any time, and love Him at all times” (147b).395 Evidence of the diﬀerence between the [ on the one hand (and the j which sometimes is pronounced as [), and the a and the h on the other hand, can be found in the works of the Samaritan grammarians: grp ˆb μyhrba qjsa wba, who lived in the 12th century,396 explicitly diﬀerentiates between two groups: in his discussion on gòò[ (II-Guttural) verbs, he calls the a and the h “twlwl[h ˆwrgh twytwa” (the weak guttural letters) and the j and the [ “twmlçh ˆwrgh twytwa” (the strong).397 In another place398 this grammarian claims that the j is among the “weak” gutturals. Possibly, its being “weak” or “strong”
395 The editor noted that if hbhn is not the Hebrew verb from the root bòòha, then it is the Aramaic bòòbj (both mean “love”). 396 LOT I, p. l. 397 LOT I, p. 54. In the Arabic source: . This evidence is also reﬂected in his discussion of the participle Qal, ibid., p. 48. 398 LOT I, p. 50.
hybrid samaritan hebrew
depends on its place in the word—here he speaks about the ﬁrst radical and above he speaks about the second radical. This might hint at what we hear today, i.e. the j is not pronounced, but at the beginning of the word it is under some circumstances shifted to '. We ﬁnd evidence of the pronunciation of the [ in the reading rules of Ban Dårtå.399 This grammarian places the dage“ mark above the letter [, from which we learn that the laryngeal consonant was pronounced correctly at that time.400 Admittedly, the above evidence precedes the crystallization of HSH in time, but there is no reason to assume that the reality of the language then, in this respect as well, was any diﬀerent from what emerges from these writings. On the contrary: the writer of Mu¢taßar at-Taw†i"a, Èlà:zår the poet, son of the high priest sjnyp, who lived in the latter part of the 14th century, does not contradict qjsa wba with regard to the gutturals, despite the fact that he did not hesitate to oppose his predecessor, whose book he reedited, in other matters.401 The spelling qmç ([mç, “heard”) that is found in a number of ST manuscripts402 is only found once in TM (195a). Despite the similarity of q to [ in Samaritan orthography, Ben-Óayyim rejected the possibility (ibid., n. 1) that this is a writer’s error. His alternative explanation is instructive: the [ was initially pronounced as a fricative 8 (g) and thereafter shifted to q (q). In this respect, it parallels the Mandaic arpaqa along arpa (arp[) “dust”. We would only point out that we did not ﬁnd this phonetic shift in any other word in SH or SA, and I have also not heard [ pronounced by any of my informants in a way that approaches a fricative g.403 3. The a itself (< [òòjh) is only pronounced at the beginning of a syllable. Examples: la "al “not”, (C. 106), rja "9"6r “last” (ibid.), μyaxwy yùß9"6m “go out” (ibid.), ˆma "9m6n “amen” (C. 107). The conditions for its disappearance will be detailed below.
He lived in the 11th century. Details can be found in LOT I, p. fm. LOT I, p. 308. 401 For example, Èlà:zår opposed Abù Is˙àq’s view that agreement is impossible between the construct (nomen regens) and the absolute state (nomen rectum); see LOT I, pp. 194–195. 402 56 times according to Tal’s count; see Tal, ST III, p. 93. 403 This does not constitute evidence that this kind of pronunciation did not exist. I merely wish to point out that I did not ﬁnd support in HSH itself for the suggested phonetic explanation. 400
4. Between the vowels u or i and other vowels, the gutturals are always shifted to a geminated glide ww or yy, depending on the vowel (i or u). Examples: a. With w: μyd[wmlw walmuww9d6m (< *walmù"9d6m < *walmù'àd6m), “for the set times” (C. 106), wt[wrz zèruww9tu “his arms” (C. 240), ˆnyjwmw wmuwwìnån “He maintains our lives” (C. 241), ˆnyjwr ruwwìnån “our souls” (C. 241). b. With y: w[yqr arqiyyu (< *arqiyu < *arqi"u < *arqi'u), “his ﬁrmament” (C. 106), ˆ[ydwhd dùdiyyån “who informed us” (ibid.).404 5. Between two equal vowels, the gutturals disappear and the two vowels contract into one. Examples: a. Between two a vowels: rjb bàr “choose” (C. 107), t[d dàt “knowing” (C. 106), hl[m mà:la “up” (ibid.), r[çh a““àr “the gate” (C. 251), h[bgh agg9'bà: “the hill” (C. 323), hadwm mù'd9: “thank” (C. 212), hr[mh amm9:ra “the cave” (C. 89). b. Between two u vowels: wd (< awhd) dù (< *du"u < *duhu < *duhu < *d6hu) “that he” (C. 107). c. Between two i vowels: y[ybrh arrè 'bì: “the fourth” (C. 106), qy[z zìq “is named” (C. 107). The words wd and qy[z provide indirect, but quite clear, evidence of the “6wa pronunciation in the pre-Samaritan stage, close to the pronunciation tradition reﬂected in the Tiberian Masoretic version. They prove that the “6wa before the guttural was pronounced in the same way as the vowel following it.405 6. The guttural is silent at the end of the word, without residue. Examples: a. With a: açd dè“a “vegetation” (C. 107). b. With h: hb ba “in her” (C. 107), hrmçm ma“m9ra “its keeping” (ibid.). c. With j: jryw wy9rå “and the moon” (C. 106), jtpa ifta “I will begin” (ibid.). d. With [: [dt tidda “you will know” (C. 106), [yqr arqi “ﬁrmament” (ibid.), [mç “èma “listen” (C. 108).
We are somewhat familiar with this geminated glide instead of a from Biblical Hebrew: laeynID*: > laYEnID.: 405 See Florentin, The ”6wa, p. 260.
hybrid samaritan hebrew
7. The guttural assimilates to the following consonant when it is within the word: a. At the end of a syllable With j: wnjnaw w9n9nnu “and we” (C. 107), çdjn nàddè“ “we shall renew” (C. 108), πljyw wyàll6f “he will requite” (C. 252), ym[y yèmmi “he will see” (C. 106);406 μtjn nàtt6m “we will conclude” (C. 108), ˆymjr rèmm6n “compassion” (C. 252), tytjtb aftètt6t “in the earth (lit.: in the bottom)” (C. 106). With [: db[nw wnèbb6d “and we shall do” (C. 107), ryb[t alw tàbb6r “and do not overlook” (C. 241), dm[n n9mmåd “we shall stand” (ibid.), wl[t tàllu “you will go up” (C. 252), πr[y y9rråf “drop” (C. 107), μyç[mh ammà““6m “the deeds” (C. 106). b. At the beginning of a syllable following a closed syllable: wyd[lb b9làddo “except Him” (C. 240). Note the double compensation in place of the silent guttural: both the lengthening of the vowel preceding the guttural, and the gemination of the consonant following it. This rule is valid for both SH and SA, and thus for HSH. In the process of natural speech it is not diﬃcult to understand the assimilation of a consonant or a lengthening in the place of that assimilation. Our experience teaches us, however, that these two phenomena cannot occur together and are interchangeable. Another lengthening that is a result of the loss of a guttural, both in SH and in HSH, is the lengthening of monosyllabic nouns, such as lyj ìl “force” and ˆy[ ìn “eye”. This lengthening was not caused by the contraction of the diphthong, since nouns of this kind whose ﬁrst consonant is not a guttural, have short vowels, e.g. ˆyd den “law, judgment”, tyz zit “olive”. As Ben-Óayyim showed, the grammar books compiled by the Samaritan sages from the Middle Ages onward essentially validate contemporary pronunciation of the Pentateuch. These grammatical texts do not, however, attain the level of detail and precision that would point to shaping a language for reading the Torah based on grammarians’ directives. It is thus diﬃcult to explain the dual compensation for the loss of the guttural as an artiﬁcial act of grammarians who determined the lengthening of the vowel in certain 406 The root is yòòmj. However, in all the Samaritan texts, without exception, only the [ spelling is found.
phonetic conditions. Rather, it is preferable to assume that because the compensation for an elision of the guttural was expressed in lengthening the vowel (as demonstrated in section 2 above), such a lengthening happened analogously even in cases in which the assimilation of the guttural had already led to the gemination of the preceding consonant. 8. The guttural disappears after the conjunctive w, and the prepositions b and l. Examples: a. With a: twtwal lùtot “for signs” (C. 106). b. With h: ryshw wìs6r “take away” (C. 108), ˚ylçhw wa“l6k “he threw” (C. 107). c. With j: μydjw wàd6m “[we] rejoice” (C. 107), wçdjb çdj b9d9“u “in each month” (C. 107). d. With [: ˚lm hml[ld adl9l9ma “which rules the world” (C. 107). A reﬂection of this phenomenon in writing can be found indirectly in TM: ll[ l[l yht hthwxm lyj “if you strengthen the commandments, you will be above all” (227a). The copyist made a mistake and wrote ll[ instead of l[l because the pronunciation of l[l is lal.407 To demonstrate the phenomenon, I present below examples of the weakening of the gutturals in TM: dwlb instead of dwjlb “alone, only” (12a5); this is also found in the ST, Dt 1:36, 4:12; see also 273a1), ˆyl[p instead of ˆyjlp “work” (20a1), ˚twçr instead of ˚tw[çr “your evil” (33a3), htybr instead of ht[ybr “its dust” (19a4), hz[mb instead of hrzjmb “when he came back” (54b1), μyjsp instead of μy[sp “stride” (67a3; see also 279b1, 295b1), hjwr jyr instead of hw[r “odor of pleasing” (116a1), hm[ instead of hmj “saw” (193a1), wmyr[ instead of wmyrj “ban” (223a3), hbjr instead of hw[r “oﬀering” (225b4), hwnmbw instead of hjwnmbw “in rest” (229a3), twdytj instead of twdyt[ “destiny” (236b2; as Ben-Óayyim (ibid.) comments, this spelling is unknown in other sources), ˆab[m instead of ˆawjm “blows” (276b2), μyamf instead of ˆ[mf “sink (participle fem. pl.)” (304a5). (c) The r The r according to its pronunciation and behavior in the Samaritan tradition does not belong to the group of gutturals. It has no connection to any of the characteristics mentioned above. In the Samaritan 407 See Ben-Óayyim’s remarks, TM 227a, n. 3. Is it possible, however, that the meaning of the end of the sentence is: “you will enter heaven”?
hybrid samaritan hebrew
tradition it behaves in the same way as the other consonants, including the gemination. Examples: wkrb barrèku “bless” (C. 107), ˚rbm ambarråk “blessed” (C. 108), wnyyjw trrm marrèråt “it made our life bitter” (C. 252), πr[y y9rråf “will drop” (C. 107), ybwj brm mirråb “because of my many sins” (C. 485), y[ybrh arrè 'bi “the fourth” (C. 106), trçy yè“arr6t “he will serve” (C. 430). Earlier evidence of this characteristic of the r can be found in explicit statements made by the 12th century grammarian qjsa wba. In his discussion of the heavy stem in Kitàb at-Taw†i"a, he states: “an example of the perfect of the heavy stem whose second radical is not a guttural: çrg, rbd” (LOT I, p. 86, l. 19). (d) The tpkdgb Ostensibly there is no justiﬁcation for regarding tpkdgb letters as a distinct group in describing the consonant system of HSH as it sounds today. The reason is that, as opposed to the Tiberian tradition, these letters do not have a double pronunciation in the Samaritan tradition: the tkdgb, as I have also heard them in piyyutim written in HSH, only have a plosive realization, while the p is always fricative. Historically and comparatively, however, it is important to deal with this series of consonants. Firstly, the description demonstrates an essential diﬀerence between the Samaritan and the Jewish tradition. Secondly, with regard to the Samaritan pronunciation itself, evidence drawn from Samaritan grammarians and Samaritan transcriptions into Arabic letters shows that the letters tdpb once had a double realization: the letters tdb had a fricative allophone, and p had a plosive allophone.408 The following are some examples:
b: ˆwlfby yib†9lon “they will stop” (C. 241), bf †ab “good” (C. 240), byrq qarr6b “close” (ibid.). g: wtagylg g9lìg9tu “his praise” (C. 106), [rga igra “I shall detract” (ibid.). d: lwdgh agg9dol “the big” (C. 107), μydgsmh [md dèma ammasg9d6m “the choicest of the worship places” (ibid.). k: rwkz z9kor “remember” (C. 240), μwkj 'àkom “know” (ibid.).
See the discussion on this issue in GSH, p. 21.
t: ˆwçnty yitnè“on “they will forget” (C. 241), μyntm amtann6m “repeat” (ibid.). p: ylp f9il “concealed” (C. 240), drp fèr6d “distinguished” (ibid.). An original double p is sometimes substituted by a double b, and sometimes by a double f. An examination of all the recorded piyyutim of [çyba reveals that the choice between bb and ﬀ is according to roots and words. A word in which bb functions as a substitute for pp, is not found with ﬀ. The following are words that have a double bb instead of pp: μypa ˚ra abb6m “slow to anger” (C. 251), jpa abba “blow” (C. 241), twpk kabbot “palms” (ibid.), dwpa ibbod “ephod” (C. 242), çpny yènabb6“ “He will relieve” (C. 253), dypl labb6d “torch” (C. 377), hrbf ylwpç “ibbùli “the foot of the mountain” (ibid.), çwpn nibbo“ “relief ” (C. 380), qwps sibboq “supply” (C. 715), μyrwpk kibbùr6m “atonement” (C. 501), hpfh a††ibba “the drop” (C. 498), lyphw wabb6l “he cast” (C. 697). And the following are words that have a double ﬀ instead of pp: yrph aﬀìri “the fruit” (C. 107), μpm miﬀåm “from the mouth” (C. 252), dyqwph rmtya aﬀùq6d “the curator” (C. 446), ˚ynpm miﬀ9n6k “from you” (C. 242), ynph aﬀ9ni “the one who is available” (C. 243), jtpa iﬀ9ta “opened (passive)” (C. 377), jtpmw wmiﬀèta “from the doorway” (C. 430), πp[y y9ﬀ6f “ﬂy” (C. 494), twaph aﬀ9"ot “the corners” (C. 699). Sometimes the phenomenon is also reﬂected in writing, as in an anonymous poem (C. 92): ytwkyrx qbsw wsabb6q, instead of qpsw, “and provide my needs”. This spelling is also found in TM: l[ çbjm çyaw hnpla μwkjm (< çpjm) “if one seeks knowledge, teach him” (151b). f replaces v (< b), especially with the preposition b.409 Examples: tazb afzèot “in this” (C. 106), llgb afgèlål “because of ” (ibid.), txqb afqißßåt “in the pericope (constr.)” (C. 107); wldgb afgådlu “with His greatness” (C. 108), htmkj ˆwqtb aftiqqon “by the perfection of His wisdom” (C. 241).410 409 This shift takes place when the b precedes all the consonants except for r ,y and l, exactly according to the conditions in SH. Explicit evidence of this phenomenon can be found in the appendix to Mu¢taßar at-Taw†i"a compiled by hwks ba ypndh (who worked at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries). With regard to the preposition b he writes: “The rule is that (the b) should not have a vowel (after it), whether it becomes p (referring to the word lkb afkal ) or whether it retains its state (referring to the word μwyb abyom)”; see LOT I, p. 254. 410 This, too, points to the former allophon v. Pronunciation of f instead of the v that used to be pronounced is sometimes reﬂected in orthography as well. Thus, in a piyyut of Åb'r9m Aqqåbb9ßi we ﬁnd wrmaw wpyga “answer and say” (C. 190) instead of wbyga, which is currently pronounced 9gìbu. And in TM: πl instead of bl “heart” (53b). For other variants of p instead of b, see the index of TM.
hybrid samaritan hebrew
I have only once heard g instead of k: my informant pronounced the word ˚rd dèr6g “way” (and on second reading pronounced with the regular k). From this alone we obviously cannot learn about the former reality of the language,411 but clearly the infrequent variants reﬂect a linguistic reality in which interchanges of this kind took place. Some additional examples of these interchanges: In TM (53b), for example, we ﬁnd ˆgm instead of ˆkm “than this”.412 An interchange of this kind is also found in a colophon of one of the most ancient manuscripts of the Pentateuch:413 wdgnlw wnynl μrj “devoted (the Torah) to his oﬀspring and to his posterity”.414 An opposite interchange, i.e. k instead of g, can also be found in the later piyyutim: in a piyyut of lad[s: tyzk ˆhyta hnbt alw “do not build it of hewn stones” (C. 542). This instance is important because it refers to the Pentateuch (Ex 20:22), in which the spelling is tyzg and the pronunciation gizz6t. What is clear is that even if this is not the form in which it was written by the poet himself, but was rather the work of a later copyist, it still reﬂects a certain reality of language— especially if viewed in conjunction with the other evidence on this matter: wdknk rz[ wl hç[a “I will make him a helper ﬁt for him” (C. 625).415 yrzk lk çar jsph trzg, instead of yrzg, “the rule of Passover is the ﬁrst of all rules” (C. 539). We have now found the same spelling in a Samaritan manuscript containing elegies: ˚dkn μwqyd wnmw (instead of ˚dgn) “who will stand against You?”.416 (e) The w Usually the w is pronounced as b. Examples: hwh 9ba “was” (C. 380), ˆnywhw w9bìnån “we were” (C. 251), jwr rèba “comfort” (C. 252). Not infrequently, the phenomenon is also expressed
411 It should nevertheless be noted that in a piyyut of Mårqe (LOT III/2, p. 201), adjacent to the main version hkrad (darka, “spot to tread”), the version hgrd also appears. As Ben-Óayyim noted (ibid.), the two versions are due to interchange of pronunciation between g and k. 412 On further parallelism in SA, see ibid., n. 2, and also the grammatical index. 413 Marked in Tal’s edition as C. The colophon was written at the beginning of the 13th century; see Von Gall, p. XVI. 414 This interchange can already be found in the text of the Pentateuch itself: in Gn 21:23 ydgnl appears instead of ydknl “with my posterity”. On other instances of the phenomenon in the Pentateuch, see GSH, p. 23. 415 Quoted from Gn 2:18; the spelling wdgnk is only found in the Samaritan manuscripts of the Pentateuch. 416 Florentin, SE.
in writing. From the radical jòòwr, verbs are derived in the Af 'el stem and are spelled jwra “He relieved”. However, side by side with this spelling we also ﬁnd: hbrmh “the one who relieves” (C. 248), hbrml “to relieve” (C. 739), wjbra “relief ” (C. 325). Especially noteworthy is the radical jòòwx “cry, pray”: all its derivatives, verbs and nouns, are written with b, i.e. [bx “he cried”, h[bx “cry” etc., while spellings such as hjwx* ,jwx* are virtually not found at all. This is true of all the Aramaic texts, and from what I can see, all the piyyutim written in HSH as well.417 In two conditions, however, the w is pronounced as w: a. When it is the conjunctive w: [rzaw wizra “I shall sow” (C. 107), πsyw wy9s6f “he will add” (ibid.), alw wl9 “no” (ibid.). b. In the sequence uww, in which the ww is a glide (see p. 183): ˆnyjwr ruwwìnån “our souls” (C. 241). ( f ) The emphatics The letters q ,x ,f are pronounced emphatically: f: ˆylfbm amba††èl6n “cancel” (C. 378), ryfmt tam†6r “rain” (C. 252), μyfybm mabbì†6m “look” (C. 377). x: byxn nèß6b “stand” (C. 367), μyaxwy yuß9"6m “go out” (C. 106), πxqh aqqèß6f “the wrath” (C. 107). q: ˆwymqw wqammiyyon “in front of them” (C. 376), twlwqw wqùlot “thunders” (C. 377), arqyw wyiqra “he called” (C. 377). Comment: note rare spellings such as: qynsy al ˚ynpb wjrtw (instead of qynxy) “He will not shut His gate in front of you” (C. 761); wm[fw çbdb tyjpsk (instead of tyjpxk) “it tasted like wafers in honey”418 (C. 310); hçby ≈rah l[ lpn ala açnaw smq l[t hm, instead of ≈mq, “the chicken will only ﬂy up in order to fall to the ground” (Powels, Samaritan Proverbs, p. 80). The replacement of x with s is ostensibly also found in TM: ˆydb wr[fsy alw “they will not be aﬄicted in judgment” (243a). This, however, is not a replacement of the qynsy/qynxy type, for it is most diﬃcult to assume that the s spelling of wr[fsy points to the non-emphatic pronunciation of the ﬁrst radical419 in 417 Some spellings with w can be found in Ms. A of the ST (see DSA, s.v. jwx). No such spelling, however, is found in Cowley’s edition. 418 Among the SP manuscripts, including those presented by Von Gall in his edition, I did not ﬁnd a single instance of the s spelling. The pronunciation is in fact with a x: kaßßè'fìt. 419 Cf. ibid., n. 4: “the spelling with ˚ms is surprising and I did not come across it elsewhere”.
hybrid samaritan hebrew
total opposition to the nature of SH and SA, in which a non-emphatic consonant tends to shift to an emphatic consonant as a result of assimilation to the following sound (an emphatic consonant or the vowel å/a).420 On the other hand, the opposite phenomenon is clearly documented: substituting t and s with their emphatic pairs † and ß in contiguity with the vowel å.421 We thus ﬁnd in a piyyut of Åb'r9m Al'ayye: πxh ˚wtb hbth ta artw “she saw the basket among the reeds” (C. 626). None of the Samaritan manuscripts of the Pentateuch that I have seen have anything here but πsh (Ex 2:5). Proof that the spelling in the above piyyut of Al'ayye is not detached from the linguistic tradition is provided by the pronunciation in the Samaritan tradition: assåf, despite the fact that the above condition exists here. Following are further examples of interchanges of emphatic consonants: wpxtahb (< wpsathb) “when they were gathered” (C. 375, Dt 33:5), twmymh ˚l qyfmhw (instead of qytmhw) “He sweetened the water for you” (C. 389). (g) The sibilants There are only two sibilants in the Samaritan pronunciation, “ and s, as opposed to the three historical consonants “, ≤, and s (marked in the Tiberian tradition by v, c and s respectively). The historical ≤ (c) is pronounced in two ways: a. In Hebrew words as “ (it is written only with ç): ayçn an“i “prince” (C. 499), μyç[mh ammà““6m “the deeds” (C. 106), wmyçaw w9“ìmu “I will put it” (C. 106). b. In Aramaic words as s (it is written only with s): [bsd adsàba “he was sated” (C. 496). Interchanges between the voiced z and the unvoiced s are less frequent than the interchanges between g and k. In TM the form tq[dsa “was called” appears once instead of tq[dza (263b, Ms. ç).422
A clear example of this phenomenon in SA is the very frequent spelling rfxya,
rfxa alongside rfsya, rfsa “side”. 421
See GSH, p. 25, §1.1.7. On other (few) interchanges of this kind in TM, see the grammatical index in Ben-Óayyim’s edition. 422
188.8.131.52. The vowels (a) The inventory of vowels HSH has seven vowels: u, o, a, å, e, i, and 6, only ﬁve of which are phonemes: 1. The 6 is an allophone of /e/ and /i/ which appears in a closed syllable after the stress. This is a central vowel which sometimes sounds close to e and sometimes close to i. Examples: μdqh aqqèd6m “the ancient” (C. 106), blb abl6b “in heart” (ibid.), μyqyw wyìq6m “He will made” (C. 482), μydm[ 'àmèd6m “stand” (C. 480). 2. The vowel o is an allophone of u, i.e. they appear in a complementary distribution: o appears in a closed syllable and u appears in an open syllable. Examples: bwtk k9tob “write” (sing.; C. 501) / μybwtk k9tùb6m (pl.; C. 379), lwbs s9bol “carry” (C. 240)/ylwbs s9bùli (const.; C. 486), ˆwkç “9kon “dwell” (C. 496)/hynwkç “9kùnayya “the dwellers” (C. 480). But the vowel of the 3rd masc. sing. pronominal suﬃx attached to a plural noun is o even though the syllable is open. The vowel of the 3rd masc. sing. suﬃx is u when attached to a singular noun. Thus, in this category, and only in this category, a phonematic relationship exists between these two vowels. For example: wdy yèdu “his hand” (C. 241)/wydy yèdo “his hands” (C. 480). It should, however, be emphasized that the wish to diﬀerentiate between the singular and the plural pronoun is not the reason for the appearance of the o vowel in a place where it does not usually appear. For we have found that o actually appears in every open syllable following the stress if that syllable was closed at the preSamaritan language stage. Thus, in SA there are nouns of the pattern l/fq;, whose ﬁnal syllable is open due to an elision of a guttural or contraction of a diphthong, and the vowel of this open syllable, which originally was closed, is o, and not u. Of this type, for example, is wym[ 'àmo “see” (root yòòmj), and not *'àmu (< *'àmoy, LOT III/2, p. 101);423 wyjtp fàto “open”, and not *fàtu (< *fàto˙, ibid.); wy[mç “àmo “hear”, and not *“àmu (< *“àmo', ibid., p. 93, 104). 423 Spelled in this way, instead of ywm[. As Ben-Óayyim has noted, the origin of the spelling wy- to mark every ﬁnal o vowel in Samaritan tradition is the 3rd masc. sing. pronominal suﬃx attached to a plural noun whose pronunciation is o and whose historical spelling is wy- (TM, p. 17). He also claimed, correctly, that this type of spelling in SA texts is no more than the adoption of Hebrew spelling.
hybrid samaritan hebrew
The 3rd masc. sing. pronominal suﬃx attached to a plural noun ended originally with a closed syllable (wyd:y;: in SHy *yèdaw) and therefore its ﬁnal synchronic vowel is o and not u.424 The two vowels, a that is lower and front and å that is low and back, sometimes behave as two phonemes, as proved in the following pairs: ˆa an “that” (C. 480)/ˆj ån “grace” (ibid.), y[rh harh arr9"ì arrà"ì “the seer who leads” (C. 486). Sometimes, however, it is diﬃcult to distinguish between the two vowels and even Samaritan informants are divided in certain instances about the quality of the vowel whether it is a or å. Even the same reader will be hesitant in deciding between the two. This is especially true when the vowel appears in a closed syllable before the stress. From the hesitations of my informant Y.Tsedaka and his explicit words, I have learned that in this phonetic environment “some will read a and others å”. Ben-Óayyim drew attention in GSH 425 to the distribution of these two vowels in SH and their aﬃnity to parallel Hebrew dialects. Despite the interchange between these two vowels, it is reasonable to assume that the back å in SH came initially into being under certain syllabic conditions similar to the origin of the Tiberian Qameß. However, the Tiberian tradition largely retained the initial conditions, while in the Samaritan tradition the distribution of the back vowel expanded greatly. In my article Phonological Notation, I proposed that the possible reason for the phonemic status of å in SH is to be found in SH attempting to deal with the many homophones that came into existence as a result of a series of phonetic processes. What now seems to me to require increased emphasis is that the vast majority, if not all, of the minimal pairs rely not only on the diﬀerentiation between these two vowels, but also on the diﬀerence, which no longer exists, between the pharyngeal and other consonant. In fact I have not come across a front à in HSH with an open syllable that is not adjacent to an [ or a j, and it is appropriate to present Ben-Óayyim’s statement: “The truth is that front /a/ is very often found with [ (as well as j) at the beginning of a word” (LOT III/1, p. 23, n. 27). In other words, the appearance of a long front à is conditional upon a (previous) phonetic environment, and the vast majority of minimal pairs that determine the phonemic status of
I ﬁrst drew attention to these issues in Florentin, Phonological Notation, p. 114. GSH, §1.2.6; §184.108.40.206; §1.5.3.
these two vowels are pairs diﬀerentiated by an a vowel in an open syllable. From a purely synchronic viewpoint there is perhaps nothing in this fact to change the phonemic status of these vowels, but from the viewpoint of the historical development of the language, their phonemic status is secondary. (b) The “6wa We do not come across the “6wa mobile parallel to that in the Tiberian tradition (the sign 6, as stated above, represents the allophone of e and i in closed syllables following the stress). Instead of the “6wa, the Samaritan tradition has: 1. A vowel before the consonant that essentially had a “6wa. Examples: wtypxb afßèfìtu “while seeing it” (C. 739), μybyçyd adyè“ìb6m “who sit” (C. 380), hzb afze “in this” (C. 248). 2. A vowel following the consonant that essentially had a “6wa. Examples: μyaxwy yùß9"6m “go out” (C. 106), twrwamh amm9"ùrot “the lights” (C. 106), ylxn nèßalli “we shall pray” (C. 107), twmdk k9dèmot “like” (ibid.), hwhy “èmå ( yaqt6l ), which was also the fate of the second radical vowels i and e of the Aramaic Af 'e/il stem (aqtil > aqt6l ).446 In fact, the only diﬀerence remaining between the two stems is in open syllables: in the Hebrew Hif 'il it is i, such as wbyrqt taqrìbu “you shall bring your oﬀering” (Lv 1:2), and in the Aramaic Af 'el it is e, such as wntmy yamtènu “ﬁnd ease” (LOT III/2, p. 114), and in HSH: wmksy yaskèmu “they will ﬁnish” (C. 253). It is important to mention that we do not come across Aramaic verbs whose second radical is i in an open syllable, just as we do not come across Hebrew verbs whose second radical is e in an open syllable. Thus, on the one hand, we only ﬁnd: ˆqpaw wabbèqån “bring us out” (C. 485), ˆwçrpa afrè“on “spread them” (C. 486), and on the other hand, we only ﬁnd: ˚dyga aggìdåk “I will tell you” (C. 376), 443 444 445 446
See §220.127.116.11.2 (p. 212). These two forms are apparently freely interchangeable. See p. 105. According to the phonetic rule mentioned above (p. 191).
tlyçmaw wam“ìlåt “ruled” (C. 252), yngyçtd adta““ìg9ni “which will make me arrive” (C. 106; see p. 110). A brief glance such as this reveals how clear the rules of commonality between Hebrew and Aramaic were to Samaritan writers: they did not hesitate to attach an Aramaic relative pronoun (d) to a clearly Hebrew form (gyçt), but a mixed form like *adta““èg9ni is inconceivable in their language.447 If it were possible to discover consistency in the ways the clearly Aramaic forms and the clearly Hebrew forms were written, i.e. that the former are written with a (wlydba) and the latter with h (wlydbh), it would at least be possible to use orthography as a criterion. However, even clearly Hebrew forms such as wabdìlu (“and he singled him”) are written wlydbaw. (3) Pi'el and Pa'el Almost all conjugated forms of Pi'el in SH (in reality qatt6l ) are identical with those of Pa'el in SA.448 The question of whether the vowel a of the Hebrew stem in the perfect is a legacy from Proto-Semitic or inﬂuenced by Aramaic, is irrelevant to HSH, which received the Hebrew and the Aramaic patterns in ready-made form. Both these stems drew closer to each other than did Hif 'il and Af 'el due to the fact that the e vowel appears in an open syllable in the SH Pi'el stem (such as wçqbt la tèbaqqè“u “do not inquire”, Lv 19:31), as in the Aramaic Pa'el stem (such as wglg gallègu “praise”, LOT III/2, p. 183), while Hif 'il and Af 'el, as we have seen, can be distinguished in this case by their vowels: i as opposed to e. (4) Hitpa'el and Itpa'al In the Samaritan pronunciation, the Aramaic Itpa'al (whose second radical is geminated) and the Hebrew Hitpa'el (whose second radical’s vowel is frequently a!) lost the only diﬀerence that existed between them, due to the merger of h with ",449 and what has been said about the irregular spelling of l[pa/ly[ph is also true here. There is thus no diﬀerence in form between the Hebrew ˚lhthw wèt9llåk “walks” (Ex 21:19) and the Aramaic wlyjta ètàyy9lu “quivered” (LOT III/2, p. 218). 447
Cf. the non-existant hybrid form y[bn* mentioned at p. 210. Excluding the inﬁnitive of the Aramaic stem which is qittul (though this pattern is found in SH as well). 449 Cf. Hif 'il and Af 'el above. 448
hybrid samaritan hebrew
(5) Nif 'al and Itp6'el The imperfect form of Nif 'al (and what resembles it) is, in many cases, identiﬁed with the Aramaic Itp6'el. In the Aramaic stem, the t tends to be assimilated within the ﬁrst radical.450 Thus, for example, we ﬁnd in an Aramaic piyyut of 'Åmråm: wlgaw wigg9lu (< wlgtaw) “were revealed” (LOT III/2, p. 115). An HSH verb such as wwqy yiqqàbu “assemble” (C. 488) can be analyzed as Nif 'al or as Itp6'el.451 Of course, perfect forms in n, many of which can be found in HSH, are, undoubtedly, Nif 'al. Ostensibly, Nif 'al thus stands side by side with Itp6'el in the verbal system of this language. However, this superﬁcial view of the forms falls wide of the truth. A study of the distribution of these forms shows that all the certain Nif 'al forms (with a n) are quoted from the Pentateuch in the form in which they appear, and often, even in their ancient context in the Pentateuch—that is to say, there is no Nif 'al in HSH that is not from the Pentateuch.452 Because we are dealing here with one of the most important phenomena in the HSH verbal system, I would like to introduce the ﬁndings as a whole: A. Nif 'al forms in HSH453 πsa “gather”—only the participle is found: μypsan (C. 324), twpsan (C. 420), while the ﬁnite verbal forms are Itp6'el e.g. πsata (C. 377), πsaty (C. 109), wpsah (< wpsath, C. 391). [qb “divide”—w[qbn (C. 162). As opposed to this, the Itp6'el [qba is found (C. 230, 257). ˚rb “bless”—wkrbnw (C. 130, 265). ylg “reveal”—algn (C. 234, 492), tlgn (C. 185). The participle algn is used relatively often, e.g. C. 37, 184. As opposed to the few ﬁnite verbal forms hlgn/algn, there are many Itp6'el forms such as alga (C. 358), ylgty (C. 430). çrd “ask”—ytçrdn (C. 486). yyh “become”—tyhn (C. 255).
This phenomenon in HSH is introduced here on p. 109, 204. The only attested perfect form is ywqa (rather than ywqn*) and therefore it is preferable, in this case, to analyze wwqy as the Aramaic Itp6'el. 452 I base this conclusion on a complete study of all the HSH piyyutim. 453 As mentioned above, all the verbs dealt with in this section are inherited from the Pentateuch. The parallels in SH are not quoted here since they are all introduced in LOT IV. 451
˚ph “become”—˚phn (C. 185). dmj “pleasing”—dmjn (C. 427, 496). [dy “know”—[dwn (C. 437, 803). ary “fear”—The participle arwn is often found, e.g. C. 495, 801. The form is also very widespread in SA, both in the ST and piyyutim. çry “cast away”—hçrwn (C. 99). [çy “save”—μt[çwn (C. 437, 803), participle [çwn (C. 107, 426). rty “left”—Only the participle rtwn (e.g. C. 98, 242). dbk “honored”—The participle is widespread, mostly with the deﬁnite article, dbknh (e.g. C. 251, 382). The only ﬁnite verb which was found is derived from Itp6'el, dbkaw “he was gloriﬁed” (C. 100). An Itp6'el participle with a preﬁxed m, dbkm “honored”, is found several times (C. 100, 141, 180, 195 [μydbkm]). μlk “confounded”—wnmlknw (C. 64). trk “cut oﬀ ”—htrknw (C. 82). The participle, trkmh, is Itp6'el (C. 487). yal “weary”—walnw (C. 185), μyaln (C. 213). μjl “ﬁght”—Only the participle μjlnh (C. 329) is found. The only perfect form is that of Itp6'el, wmjlaw (C. 330). axm “found”—axmn is found only as participle (C. 511, 594, 696, 699), and many times with the deﬁnite article, axmnh (C. 132, 152 [μyaxmnh], 344, 415). The Itp6'el axmm is also found in the participle (C. 182, 772, 842). rts “hide”—Only the participle rtsn is found (e.g. C. 250, 613). rx[ “stop”—trx[n (C. 252). μr[ “pile up”—wmr[n (C. 244, 245), wmr[yn (the spelling follows the pronunciation niyy9r9mu, C. 232, 287). yç[ “make”—wç[n (C. 203) wç[yn (the spelling follows the pronunciation niyyà“u, C. 198, 430, 431). Even from this clearly Hebrew root454 the Itp6'el is frequently derived: hç[ta (C. 96, 99), yç[ta (C. 323), wç[ta (C. 226, 574). alp “wonderful”—The participle alpn is quite frequent: alpn (C. 492, 643), μyalpn (C. 197), twalpn (C. 229). yar “see”—perfect: harn (C. 282, 327, 638), warn (C. 347). participle: harn (C. 110, 511, 796), harnh (C. 172, 632, 694).
454 The only SA text in which yòòç[ is found is TM (twice only). On the nature of this heterogeneous composition see n. 49 (p. 21).
hybrid samaritan hebrew
raç “remain”—perfect: raçn (C. 233, 560, 582), hraçn (C. 800), wnraçn (C. 64, 563), participle: raçnh (C. 89), μyraçnh (C. 122, 137). [bç “swear”—yt[bçn (C. 168, 216), [bçn (C. 83, 144, 168), t[bçn (C. 140). [mç “hear”—Finite verbs are found almost only in Itp6'el: [mtça (C. 411, 647), [mtçt (C. 598, 609), [mtçy (C. 681). [mçn, perfect, is found only once (C. 760). The participle is attested in [mçnh (C. 583), alongside forms of Itp6'el: [mtçm (C. 701), [μ]y[mtçm (C. 679). Note the participle forms algn, dmjn, dbkn, dtsn, alpn. Their relatively widespread distribution can be explained not only by their content, but also by their nominal status. Their ﬁrst radical is, as in the Pentateuch, a simple consonant (e.g. nikbåd ) and are thus essentially diﬀerent from the verbal participles whose ﬁrst radical in SH is geminated, e.g. çrdn nidd9r6“.455 HSH tends to create these verbal participles by using a preﬁxed m as can be seen in the form trkm “cut” (passive) above, which is pronounced mikk9råt. The form as currently pronounced corroborates the participle form trkm mentioned by ˆhkh rz[la, the brother of [çyba in his Mu¢taßar Kitàb at-Taw†i"a.456 Other forms with m in the participle are: dbkm: μrh lah dbkmh “the elevated honored God” (C. 180), dbkm rwn hm[ “he saw a glorious light” (ibid.), dbkm ˆwçlb “in a glorious language” (ibid.), axmm: axmm ˚dyb hm “what do you hold in your hand?” (C. 182). B. Verbs that appear in Nif 'al in the Pentateuch, yet, despite this, they appear in HSH as Itp6'el and not Nif 'al. rma “say”—rmta (C. 310), rmty (C. 700). We thus ﬁnd that the parallel to the Hebrew rmanç is not rmand* but either: (a) the verb rmta (Itp6'el ), e.g. yb[b ˚yla ab ykna hnh wllgb rmtad hmwy “the day about which it was said: ‘lo, I am coming to you in a thick cloud’” (C. 347), hçml rmta t[ “when it was said to Moses” (C. 183); or: (b) the verb ryma, the Aramaic passive of Qal, e.g. hrwtb rymad hm ˚h “as it is written (lit.: said) in the Pentateuch” (C. 302). It should be noted that the passive participle lyfiq] is found in SH,457 and the passive form èm6r itself is attested: rma hçm la “and it was said to Moses” (Ex 24:1, MV: rm'a); . ynb “build”— hnbta (C. 250), μynbtm (C. 436). Note that all Itp6'el forms of yòònb in HSH retain the t, and thus diﬀer from what is 455 456 457
See GSH, §2.12.10. See GSH, §18.104.22.168. See GSH, §2.13.2–4, and here p. 225.
found in SA, where the t is always missing: hnba (Heb. hnbn) “was built” (Nu 13:22), ynbm “is built” (TM, 197a). arb “create”—arbta (C. 241, 410), warbtad (C. 266). qbd “cling”— wqbdh (C. 230, 376), qbdmh (C. 493), μyqbdm (C. 493). dly “born”—dlyta (c. 456). alm “be ﬁlled”—walma (C. 250), μyalmm (C. 183). ynm “be counted”—μynmtm (C. 106, 432). rsm “handed over, appointed”—wrsmta (C. 131), rsmtad (C. 229). jçm “anoint”—jçmad (C. 228, 250). qtm “become sweet”—wqtmh (C. 296, 376). μjn “regret”– μjnaw (C. 214), μjnty (C. 127), μjnta (C. 532). ˆtn “give”—Nif 'al is used in reading the Pentateuch only when necessitated by the spelling (e.g. ˆteN:yI Ex 5:18). Perfect forms that in Tiberian Hebrew are Nif 'al, such as ˆT;nI (Ex 5:16), are pronounced in SH as passive of Qal, i.e. nèt6n. HSH, however, prefers to mark the passive by using Itp6'el ˆtna (C. 239, 426).458 ˚ms “lean on”—˚mtsa (C. 336), ˚mtsy (C. 321), μykmsm (the t being assimilated; C. 421). bz[ “leave”—hbz[tm (C. 697). ydp “rescue”—hdptaw (C. 251), μydptm (C. 234). Note that in SA the Itp6'el of this Hebrew root is only found in TM (cf. yòòç[ above). jtp “open”—jtpaw (C. 230), tjtptaw (C. 413).459 ywq “assemble”—ywqa (C. 500), wwqa (C. 230). arq “call”—arqta (C. 384), μyrqtm (C. 324). rbç “break”—rbtça (C. 327, 503), trbtçad (C. 813), wrbtça (C. 642), hrbtçm (C. 526). rmç “keep guard”—rmtçtw (C. 311), μyrmtçm (C. 187). Note that the Itp6'el of ròòmç appears in SA only in Ms. J of the ST, where it has an interesting suppletion: ròòfn is found almost only in Qal (100 times), while ròòmç is found only in Itp6'el (18 times), ròòfn is found
458 These forms may possibly explain the verbs ˆtnh and ˆtnm mentioned by the grammarian Abù Is˙àq (LOT I, p. 60, l. 4). Admittedly, they have been introduced there in the context of the discussion of Hif 'il (rather than Hitpa'el ), and following Ben-Óayyim, it is quite reasonable to assume that Abù Is˙àq did not hesitate to give examples of nòòp by introducing verbs that do not actually exist. We can now add that he took the liberty of so doing since he was familiar with living verb forms such as ˆtna. 459 Nif 'al was found only once: wl tjtpn ˆd[ ˆg yjrt “the gates of the garden of Eden opened to him” (C. 524).
hybrid samaritan hebrew
only 3 times in Itp6'el, while Qal of ròòmç does not appear at all. The same applies to rmtsa in Onqelos: ròòfn is only found in Qal and ròòms is only found in Itp6'el. C. Roots that produce in the Pentateuch verbs (especially Qal but not Nif "al ) and other forms, create the passive in HSH with Itp6'el and not with Nif "al: 1. Verbs only appearing in the Pentateuch in Qal:460 rjb “chose”—wrjbta (C. 226), rjbtmh (C. 426), μyrjbtm (C. 368). Comment: As currently pronounced, the form rjbm in the locution rjbmh μwqmh “the choicest place” is the noun mè 'bàr that functions as an adjective, like the nouns [md “oﬀering”, dbz “gift”, πfq “select”, fçq “truth” etc. in HSH. It is quite possible, however, that the current pronunciation does not reﬂect the earlier situation: in TM (100b) rjbmh μwqmh is the tenth name given to Mt. Gerizim in the Samaritan tradition,461 and there the name is based on the verse hwhy rjb rça μwqmh hyhw “the place which the Lord your God has chosen” (Dt 12:11, MV: rjby “will choose”). The matter of choice is thus expressed in the word rjbm and not the issue of praise for excellence. What we ﬁnd in TM thus hints at an ancient pronunciation, something resembling *mibbà"6r, i.e. a participle of Itp6'el whose t was assimilated. Another diﬃculty in seeing rjbm as essentially a noun is its syntactical distribution: parallel nouns whose meaning is “the choicest”, such as [md and πfq, generally appear in a construct state: μydgsmh [md “the choicest place of worship”, μyaybnh πfq “the choicest prophet”. As opposed to these, rjbm is only found in the phrase rjbmh μwqmh, and there is no locution of the type twmwqmh rjbm*. This role is assumed by the participle rwjb: μyçdqmh rwjb “the choicest sanctuary” (C. 139), hdgsm lk rwjb (C. 413), μyçna lk rwjb “the choicest person” (C. 125). If rjbm is indeed the participle of Itp6'el, we have here an interesting diﬀerentiation: the participle in which the t is assimilated, rjbm, is used in the phrase rjbmh μwqmh, while the participle rjbtm is used as a designation for the nation, the congregation, the priest, etc. The following are some examples: the poet ywatpjh πswy refers to Israel as rjbtmw hlwgsw çdq μ[ (C. 313; hlwgs and rjbtm have the same literal meaning: “selected”). And Åb'r9m Al'ayye refers to Israel as: μyrjbtm ha ˆwta “O you, chosen people” 460
I have mentioned every another stem which is attested in the Pentateuch. It is said in TM that “Mt. Gerizim has thirteen names in the Torah” (99a, they are mentioned there). 461
(C. 665). And this is not only in piyyutim: in the Tùlìda, sjnyp, the High Priest, is referred to as rjbtmh çwdqh lwdgh ˆhkh462 and this same clear diﬀerentiation is also found in TM: ˚kl rjbtm wd μkjw “and he knew he has been chosen for this” (67a). It would thus appear that the noun rjbm mè'bàr, which appears and is frequently read in the Pentateuch, has displaced the original form. ldg “grow”—Qal and Hif 'il are found in the Pentateuch. There is no Nif 'al in HSH, but rather Itp6'el: ldga (C. 502). rxy “form”—Itp6'el: rxytad (C. 436). btk “write”—btkad (C. 253, 427), btktm (C. 181), hbtktm (C. 789). ˚r[ “arrange”—Qal, Pi'el and Hif 'il are found in the Pentateuch, but not Nif 'al. HSH only has Itp6'el: wkr[ty (C. 189). çgp “meet”—wçgpta (C. 200). çrp “spread out”—tçrpta (C. 252). rtp “interpret”—μyrtptm (C. 131), rtptt (C. 228). ymr “throw”—ymrta (C. 266). 2. Roots that appear in the Pentateuch, but do not produce verbal forms: flp “save”—flpta (C. 823), μyflptm (C. 184). frp “say”—frptt (C. 296). We have already said that verbs that do not appear in the Pentateuch as well as verbs that are clearly Aramaic, do not produce Nif 'al verbal forms in HSH. These are the verbs: yòò[b “ask”, [òòbq “established”, çòòrq “congeal”, ≈òòjr “trust”, yòò[r “want”, yòòwç “put”, yòòrç “begin”. Taking this fact into account, we can understand how impossible it would be for a verb such as yòòmç with its Arabic origin (it is derived from the noun μçe “name”—see p. 150) to produce the Nif 'al verbal form in HSH. And indeed, only Itp6'el is found, e.g. hmtça “was called” (C. 421). An interesting example of the use of Itp6'el is the verb lxnta, which appears in a piyyut for the Day of Atonement: lxnta rça μy[bçh ˚ynqz rçb lk ybn ˆm jwrh ˆwyl[. The words are based on Nu 11:25: dryw
μynqzh çya μy[bç l[ ˆtyw wyl[ rça jwrh ˆm
lxyw wyla rbdyw ˆn[b hwhy
“then the Lord came down in the cloud and spoke to him, and took some of the spirit that was upon him and put it upon the seventy elders”. The poet, as expected, uses the Itp6'el stem, but as is cus462 463
In the margins of p. 18a (Tùlìda, p. 192). MV has lxayw instead of lxyw.
hybrid samaritan hebrew
tomary in HSH and SH to avoid a weak root when possible, he derived the verb from the triliteral root lòòxn.464 From the above profusion of examples I would emphasize the following conclusion: Itp6'el is the only stem that can create new passive verbal forms in HSH. There is no Hebrew radical that cannot be interlaced with it. HSH can thus produce forms such as hç[ta “was made” (see above), but forms such as y[bn* (instead of y[ba “was asked”), ≈jrn* (instead of ≈yjrta “trust”) etc. cannot be found. (d) Summary—the stem system From the above, we see that in principle there are not two systems here, but rather one. This statement is not a result of our inability to separate the two systems, but rather the fact that the HSH writers themselves in many instances perceived the Hebrew and the Aramaic stems as being one. In cases of obvious diﬀerence between a Hebrew stem (Nif 'al ) and an Aramaic (Itp6'el ) they consciously chose the latter and rejected the former. I do not intend to claim that Samaritan writers were unaware of the diﬀerences that still existed between the Hebrew and the Aramaic verbal system. On the contrary. In quite a few instances we see that the Hebrew and the Aramaic forms complement each other in many respects.465 This is one of the most important principles of HSH, one which I have tried to elaborate as much as possible. (e) The uses of the stems 1. Af 'el instead of Qal Af 'el is often used as Qal in SA: sòòwj—ˆnyl[ sja “have mercy on us” (LOT III/2, p. 272); πòòrf — πrft al ta†r6f “do not reject” (ibid., p. 104); yòòçn—yçnm ald hbf hrwkd “the good one who remembers and does not forget” (ibid., p. 86); jòòtp—hml[l rynmw jtpm “opens and illuminates the world” (ibid., p. 71); yòò[r—˚twhlal ˆy[rmw “they are desirable to Your divinity” (ibid., p. 182); yòòrç—ˆwbgl yrçmw “and dwells among them” (ibid., p. 287). 464
It is quite possible that the origin of the ﬁrst radical of the secondary root
lòòxn is the n of the participle Nif 'al form lxan* (which is admittedly unknown to us). One cannot, however, reject the possibility that the meaning of the root lòòxa was grafted on the existing root lòòxn, which in its few occurrences in HSH has a meaning which is not remote from that of lòòxa as expected in this context. 465
See, for example, p. 114.
The same phenomenon is found in HSH, even with verbs that are not used this way in SA. dba—μydybam ˆwkymq ˆwkybbdw ˆwkyl[ rbgty ˆm l[ rbgtyw “and He will overcome those that would attack you and the enemies you face will be annihilated” (C. 235); μydybam [çwhy dyb wm[w qlm[ “Amalek and his people are annihilated by Joshua” (C. 328). arb—μl[ yrbm hbf “the good, the creator of the world” (C. 853). Most appearances of yrbm are in the locution tw/μyarwbh ayrbm: yrbm μywrbh “creator of creations” (C. 452); yarwbh lk yrbm hml[ lk rbdm “ruler of the whole world, creator of creations” (C. 222); yrbm twarwbh (C. 238, 248, 335). [rg “detract”—[rgm alw πswm al magra “does not add and does not detract” (C. 150). In SH, [òòrg is conjugated in Qal, e.g. yigra (Ex 21:10). jrz—jrza wrwn “his light shined” (C. 377). rzj—hrp[ la rz[m arbta hm lk yk “for everything that is created returns to dust” (C. 852). This is already found in the piyyutim of Mårqe: ˆyarwb ˆny[f 466ˆyrzjm ˆyna “they return loaded with creatures” (LOT III/2, p. 268). yjm—μyjmm hyçnalw μyab htnydml wwh μyja ˆyrt “two brothers came to the city and beat the people (lit.: would beat)” (C. 330). In SA texts, yòòjm only appears in Qal: y[my ˆrw[ alw “there is nobody who can protest” (LOT III/2, p. 48; the usual spelling is with [). axm—ylm bl ˆm axwm llmm “words emerging wholeheartedly” (C. 726). lçm—çmrw rpxb μylçmm “ruling day and night” (C. 449). In the Pentateuch the inﬁnitive form lçmhl (Gn 1:18) is found and is pronounced lèm“ål. In LOT IV, Ben-Óayyim attributed it to Qal, but was unsure whether it was not perhaps Hif 'il (ibid., p. 308 and GSH, §2.14.12). A diﬃculty arises from the vowel e, as opposed to the regular a of the inﬁnitive of Hif 'il. However, the form μylçmm, which unquestionably belongs to Hif 'il/Af 'el, provides a clear indication of what is doubtful in reading the Pentateuch. 2. Itp6'el instead of Qal The Itp6'el/Itpa'al is often used as an active stem in SA. Some examples: bòòhy—ˆwl tbhytad “that you gave them” (LOT III/2, 466 It is quite possible that ˆyrzjm is Pi'el rather than Af 'el (as preferred by BenÓayyim, LOT III/2, p. 179).
hybrid samaritan hebrew
p. 67), yòòks—çwpnl yksm ˆmw miss9ki “and who expects relief ” (ibid., p. 92).467 This use is also found in HSH: rwg “dwell”—hrta ˆdb rgythw wittìgår “and he dwelled in this place” (C. 219). This use is also found in some ST manuscripts (not in J). As opposed to rG: in Nu 9:14, we ﬁnd rygty in Ms. N, and raygty in Ms. B and Ms. V. The Itp6'el form can be found a number of times in Ms. A, e.g. trgtad for hT;r]G" (Gn 21:23). q[z “call”—twmx hty q[dzad “he called it ‘gathering’” (C. 431). And in TM: hynhkl πa q[dza bçw “and he also called the priests” (171b). Ben-Óayyim avoided amending the text from q[dza to q[z for reasons he detailed (ad loc.), and the quote here from the HSH piyyut only strengthens his view. dml “learn”—hwhy trwt dmltyw “and he will study God’s law” (C. 837); wrps lk çwdq dmltyw ybrtyw “and he grew and studied the holiest of books” (C. 838; see also C. 148, 542). A similar use can be found in an ancient piyyut by Mårqe: ˚b dmltyd ywç “who is worthy of learning from You” (LOT III/2, p. 232). Also in TM: tyl ˆwnm ala dmltn ywal: “it is appropriate that we learn only from them” (204a). yçn “forget”— hçnty al wymjr ˆm ˚lw “He will not forget you in His mercy” (C. 781). This is the regular form in SA, e.g. yçntt ˚lsjw “far be it from You to forget” (LOT III/2, p. 112). rbs “support, supply”—hrbl rbwsyw “and he will support his son, (Ben-Óayyim, Samaritan Piyyutim, p. 340).468 ynp “turn”—ynptn ˚ymç r[ç la “we will turn to the gate of Your heavens” (C. 218); μyzyrgrh la ynptm hyhy μwy lkw “he will turn every day toward Mt. Gerizim” (C. 576); wnpty wb yml ybwfw (blessed be they who turn to Him” (C. 669).469 rxq “short”—hnrkdb ytrxqtaw hty ytrkd ˆmw “he who I have mentioned and I have only brieﬂy referred to” (C. 836); rxqtm ynçl yk “for I can only speak brieﬂy” (C. 395). Here we also see the inﬂuence of the Arabic form .470 467 Bar-Asher, Palestinian-Syriac Studies, Source-Texts, Traditions and Grammatical Problems (in Hebrew), Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew University 1977, p. 157, introduced examples of this phenomenon in Ms. Vat. Ebr. 32 to Sifre Bemidbar: twrpktm instead of twrpkm “forgive” and ˚rbtn instead of ˚rb “bless”. 468 On ròòbs and rbws, see TM, 272b, n. 1. 469 Note, however, the Arabic counterpart “turn to, go to”. 470 See p. 150.
When the active action is not expressed in Qal or Pi'el but rather in Hif 'il, the Itp6'el takes sometimes the place of the Hif 'il in marking the active action. This often happens with the root jòòlx: lkb jlxtyw rbd “may he succeed in everything” (C. 849); jlxtt ˚ydbw[w “may your actions succeed” (C. 261; see also: 143, 149, 170, 403). I have not encountered this use of jòòlx in SA. 22.214.171.124.2. The preformatives and the aﬀormatives With regard to the preformatives and aﬀormatives of the verbs, as with any question of formation, it is necessary to clarify the use HSH makes of the two systems at its disposal, namely SH and SA. (a) The aﬀormatives of the perfect The following table shows that the diﬀerence between SA and SH can be seen in these categories: (a) 1st sing.; (b) 3rd sing. fem.; (c) 1st pl.; (d) 2nd masc. pl.; (e) 2nd fem. pl.; (f ) 3rd fem. pl. The above question is therefore relevant to these aﬀormatives, but other aﬀormatives will be mentioned below as they are likely to raise other questions. Person
1st sing. 2nd masc. sing. 2nd fem. sing. 3rd masc. sing. 3rd fem. sing.
-ti -ta -ti Ø -at, -a
-6t -ta -ti Ø -at
1st pl. 2nd masc. pl. 2nd fem. pl. 3rd masc. pl. 3rd fem. pl.
-nu -timma -t6n -u -u
-nan -ton -t6n -u -i
1. 1st sing. The clearly dominant 1st sing. aﬀormative in HSH is the Hebrew morpheme—ti. It is of course found in Hebrew verbs such as ytrbd yrbd dabbirti dèb9ri “I said my words” (C. 250), μwlj ytyar r9"ìti èlom “I saw a dream” (C. 366), ytdm[w ytqçnw wna““iqti w9mådti “I kissed and I stood” (C. 48). The use of this morpheme is also the rule in Aramaic verbs: ytryb ˆk rwb[b bèbor kan bayyarti “I thus explained” (C. 250), wm[ ytqlosw ws9låqti immu “and I went up with him” (C. 480), ytrmaw wta ytbga 9gibti ùto w9mårti “I answered him and I said” (C. 481). The few instances of the Aramaic morpheme lacking a ﬁnal vowel can usually be explained: trmaw ytarq μçbw wba““6m q9r9tti w9m9r6t “and I called the name and I said” (C. 496), trmaw
hybrid samaritan hebrew
is doubtless the consequence of rhyming (-6t) which forced the poet to turn to the Aramaic form. tfma d[ ytqls s9låqti 'ad am†6t 471 “I went up until I arrived” (C. 480). Note that as opposed to this single Aramaic aﬀormative, we ﬁnd in this piyyut, “The vision of ±bì“a”, 22 forms of the type qatalti, despite the fact that here, as in many of the piyyutim of [çyba, the basic Aramaic form is clearly evident: ytlka “I ate”, ytrma “I said”, ytbga “I answered”, ytqçn “I kissed”, ytdgs “I bowed down”, ytqls “I went up”, ytrb[ “I passed”, ytdm[ “I stood”, ytmdq “I approached”, ytmq “I stood”, ytyar “I saw”, yt[mç “I heard”. The choice of Hebrew is thus clear. This Hebrew element of HSH penetrated the later layer of SA. Its most prominent evidence can be seen in Ms. A of the ST. In an examination I undertook of the Books of Genesis and Exodus in this manuscript, I found that of the 160 1st sing. verbs found there, more than 30 end with the Hebrew morpheme, e.g. ytspj “I dug” (Gn 21:30), ytllm “I said” (Gn 24:33), ytbhs “I am old” (Gn 27:2).472 Concluding this issue, I would mention again that the 1st sing. morpheme yt- is not infrequently found in Onqelos,473 and it is also attested in an Aramaic piyyut of the Samaritan poet Ab Gillùgå: ymwks μwy μdq whtb ytylma “I was ﬁlled with repentance before my ﬁnal day” (LOT III/2, p. 296).474 Maybe this reality, too, which possibly also existed in ancient SA, assisted in creating the (almost) complete dominance of the yt- morpheme in those Aramaic verbs in HSH. 2. 2nd masc. sing. The aﬀormative -ta (common to both SA and SH) is the only 2nd masc. sing. in HSH. The general Aramaic morpheme (-t, without a vowel), which is not found in the SA piyyutim recorded by Ben-
471 The existence of the aﬀormative t- in this particular verb is not haphazard: in all HSH poems only tyfma (rather than ytyfma) is found, e.g. d[ ytklh ˚rdhw yjnm tyfma “the way I walked until I arrived at my resting place” (C. 136), hnhw μlw[ t[bg yrqtmh μwqmh la tyfma d[ hmya yl[ talpn “and lo, dread fell upon me until I arrived at the place called ‘eternal hill’ ” (C. 367). 472 For more details about the aﬀormative yt- in SA texts, see Florentin, Characteristics, pp. 4–5. 473 See p. 91 and n. 131. 474 Admittedly, one can see in this case a late interpolation of the Hebrew aﬀormative.
Óayyim,475 is thus also not found in the piyyutim written in HSH. I have already stated that the morpheme without a vowel did not exist at all in SA.476 This can now be corroborated by the ﬁndings in HSH: had -t existed in SA, its traces would have appeared in HSH, since we ﬁnd in this category another pure (Samaritan) Aramaic aﬀormative, i.e. -6k, which is the regular morpheme of yòòl (3rd radical y) verbs,477 e.g. ˚ym[ ˆa “If you saw” (C. 487). The verbs t[mç “à'màt “you heard” (C. 697) and t[bçw tlkaw w“à'bàt “And you shall eat and be full” (C. 497, cf. Dt 6:11), which do not have a ﬁnal vowel, are in no way remnants of that vowelless Aramaic morpheme. They, too, as with trma introduced above, were created by the need for rhyming. 3. 3rd fem. sing. This is the only aﬀormative in HSH, which is entirely Aramaic, i.e. only the suﬃx -at, (rather than -a) exists: tryna ˆwtwkzd adzèkùton 9nìråt “whose righteousness illuminated” (C. 252). There are many of these forms in this section of the piyyut: trma “said”, tta “came”, trbgta “prevailed”, tbrj “was destroyed”, trty “exceeded”, trrm “was bitter”, etc. The aﬀormative is dominant in Hebrew verbs as well: tyhn “became”,478 trx[n hpgmhw wammaggìfa niyy9ß9råt “and the plague was stopped” (C. 252),479 ˆza t[mç alw wl9 “à'màt èz6n “no ear has heard” (C. 697), tklh dk hymwyw wyùmayya kad 9lèkåt “the days were over” (C. 252). Only a few isolated (yòòl) verbs contain the Hebrew morpheme: htl[ '9l9tå “went up” (C. 496), htyh ayy9tå “was” (C. 495), tç[yn niyy9“9tå “became” (C. 499). These, of course, do not aﬀect the clear rule that produces about 40 Aramaic forms in opposition to them, and it certainly should not surprise us to ﬁnd the insertion of Hebrew forms within an Aramaic category which is part of a system that is mainly Hebrew. However, two of these forms are quoted from the Pentateuch: hxn htl[ tjrpk ayhw '9l9tå “as soon as it budded, its 475
See Florentin, Characteristics, p. 6. Ibid., p. 8. 477 For a discussion on this morpheme in SA, see ibid., p. 9. 478 Indeed, the pronunciation is with a, i.e. niyy9ta, as can be seen from the rhyming as well, but the spelling (tyhn rather than htyhn) points to the customary language use, in which the 3rd. fem. sing. ended with a vowelless t. 479 There is a deviation here from what is found in the Pentateuch: hrx[n hpgmhw (Nu 17:15), and possibly the rhyming caused the ending of the verb. 476
hybrid samaritan hebrew
blossoms shot forth” (Gn 40:10), trja jwr htyh ayy9tå, “he has a diﬀerent spirit” (Nu 14:24). The verb tç[yn niyy9“9ta “became” is also pronounced this way in the Pentateuch. Note the lack of h in the spelling in the piyyut, probably written as such by the poet. It would not be farfetched to assume that the readers deviated here from the original form of the piyyut, under the inﬂuence of the reading of the Pentateuch. In general terms, this is an area in which Aramaic dominated completely. 4. 1st pl. Here the commonality of Hebrew and Aramaic is clearly evident. Admittedly, most of the forms (about 70% of the recorded piyyutim of [çyba) are Hebrew, e.g. wnrma hm rmynw “we will say what we said” (C. 251), ˚b wnmyaw wnqdx “we were righteous and we believe in you” (C. 486), ˆkçmh la wnrb[ “we moved to the Tabernacle” (C. 480). However, Aramaic forms are found alongside them (about 30%, which are 10 forms in the recorded corpus): ˆnfçqta “we realized” (C. 250), htwlx ˆnmtjw “and we ﬁnished the prayer” (C. 480). This morpheme is also attached to a Hebrew verb: ˆnyar hm “we did not see” (C. 378). It seems that there are no conditions governing the use of Aramaic forms as opposed to their Hebrew equivalents. However, it should be mentioned here that a clear dominance of the Hebrew morpheme can also be found between Hebrew and Aramaic in the 1st possessive pronoun attached to the preposition l: wnl (×320) as opposed to ˆl (×40). 5. 2nd masc. pl. Its rare occurrence in HSH piyyutim precludes any estimate of its distribution in the language under discussion. Alongside ˆwtdryw ˆwtyta “you came and went down” (C. 251), we also ﬁnd Hebrew forms such as μtyar “you saw” (C. 377). 6. 3rd fem. pl. The Aramaic morpheme is rather rare, and its appearances as in y[rmw μym[ y[mç “the peoples have heard and they trembled” (C. 496) are quotes from the earlier Aramaic piyyutim.480 This line is taken in
480 On the broad substratum of HSH forms inherited from the ancient Samaritan Aramaic piyyutim see p. 99.
full from a piyyut of 'Åmråm D9re (LOT III/2, p. 55), which itself is quoted from the ST, Ex 15:14: wzgryw μym[ w[mç (MV: ˆwzgry). Comment: an added nun in the 3rd pl. (masc. and fem., i.e. ˆwbtk instead of wbtk, probably a reﬂection of the nasalization of ﬁnal vowels) that appears in various SA texts,481 and especially the later texts, does not appear here at all.482 Admittedly, this is surprising in light of what is reﬂected in the ST manuscripts, especially, as I have mentioned, the later ones, yet it is compatible with the reality of the language of both the earlier and the later SA piyyutim. In these Aramaic piyyutim as well, as opposed to the other Samaritan texts, the added nun is absent. Its absence in HSH is thus a legacy from the ancient SA piyyutim. (b) The suﬃxes of the imperfect Since the point of departure for the discussion is the choice of language between Hebrew and Aramaic forms, we will only discuss here the 2nd and 3rd masc. pl. suﬃxes (the feminine morpheme is not documented), by which the two languages are diﬀerentiated: in Hebrew wbtky/wbtkt (ˆwbtky ,ˆwbtkt is of course also found) and in Aramaic ˆwbtky/ˆwbtkt. In both these cases, HSH clearly chooses the Hebrew forms. In the 2nd masc. pl.: waryt wmm “you will fear Him” (C. 250), wçrdt hm lbqty “you will receive whatever you ask for” (C. 336). This is also the rule with regard to Aramaic verbs: wtyt ˆwkyrta ˆm “you will come from your places” (C. 251). As against this decisive majority, it is rather rare to ﬁnd the Aramaic morpheme ˆw-: ˆwtyt d[ ht[bg la “until you reach the ‘hill’” (C. 252), ˆwrqtw ˆwlxt “you will pray and read” (ibid.). The form ˆwçyrjt t9rrì“on “you have to be still” (C. 292, 486) is not exceptional, for it is quoted from the Pentateuch (Ex 14:14). This can also be found in the 3rd masc. pl.: wlçlçty wmmd “who will descend from him” (C. 242), wçnkty tma “when they will assemble” (C. 431) and many others similar to these. Here, too, the Aramaic morpheme is rather rare: ˆwrta ˆm ˆwtyy “they will come from their place” (C. 252).483
481 482 483
See Tal, The Added Nun, and Tal, ST III, p. 85. See p. 99. On what can be learned from this distribution in SA itself, see p. 175.
hybrid samaritan hebrew
126.96.36.199. The stems 188.8.131.52.1. The Qal stem (a) The perfect As in the Hebrew reading of the Pentateuch, HSH also diﬀerentiates the patterns of the perfect by their vowels: a. Q9tal—Parallel to the Tiberian Hebrew l['P,; and as in SH,484 this is the most frequently found pattern. Examples: ytçrd d9rå“ti “I begged, asked for” (C. 250), tqrp f9råqta “You redeemed” (C. 504), rqd d9qår “he pierced” (C. 697), wldg g9d9lu “they are great” (C. 486). The wide distribution of this pattern in HSH is attested to by verbs such as rqd which are not conjugated in the perfect in the Pentateuch, i.e. this pattern in HSH is fruitful. Only a few other patterns exist, some of which are connected to the ancient perfect lfeq; ( tj*, and because alongside this, (dry>) dr* was found as well, a new verb, tjy, was created by analogy (spelled t[y, pronounced yà:t). This assumption is substantiated by the spelling t[y 570 But also: μhynç l[ hrp[ qlsw “and the dust covered both of them” (C. 325). The form qs shows that—as in Hebrew—a secondary root qòòsn has been derived from imperfect forms such as qS'a, “I will go up”, which completely resembles I-Nun verbs. 571 Tal drew attention to the existence of the phenomenon in these manuscripts (see Tal, ST III, pp. 90–91); the examples to be presented below are taken from there. 572 In the Masoretic version dreyE is imperfect and the Samaritan pronunciation yèråd is also imperfect (and not y9råd, perfect), but all the manuscripts (except C) introduce tjn, which cannot be imperfect. 573 Tal, ST III, p. 95 wrote: “C, like J, originated in the period when Aramaic was still a living language”.
with [. The spelling [ is a normal spelling of j ﬁrst radical verbs,574 because j at the beginning of a word is pronounced as [. Thus, t[y (< t[*) can only grow out of a form such as tj. These forms are similar to those found in a piyyut of Mårqe: t[yy yi'yàt “came down” (LOT III/2, p. 218), tjym miy'yàt “come down” (ibid., p. 219). Ben-Óayyim analyzed the second form as Itp6'el and reconstructed its development as follows: *mitn6˙et > *minn6˙et > *minn˙at > *mi˙˙at > miy'y9t. According to this process, however, the expected form should have penultimate stress (as usual). The ultimate stress in the two forms can only be explained by the elision of the ultimate stress syllable which contained a guttural, i.e. miyyè˙at.575 In fact, this is the form of Itp6'el II-guttural verbs: rhnh in'n9r “remember” (ibid., p. 44), ratçm mi“ 't9r “remain” (ibid., p. 302). The gemination of the y is thus not a result of the guttural that has been lost (but whose traces are evident in the ultima stress), but rather due to the assimilation of the y of the secondary root tòòjy to the t.576 Can we conclude from t[y in Ms. C and t[yy as written by Mårqe that the widespread phenomenon in HSH has roots in SA? It is diﬃcult to provide a deﬁnitive answer, but the existence of the phenomenon in the Hebrew piyyutim of Eretz Israel, which reﬂects the Aramaic of Eretz Israel,577 together with hints from SA, strengthens the impression that this way of conjugation did exist in SA. The great diﬃculty of this assumption is of course the fact that we have little more than these hints. It should be recalled, however, that from the 4th century in which the poet Ninna wrote, until the 10th and 11th centuries, we do not have a single Samaritan piyyut to enlighten us how this type of literature was expressed over hundreds of years. The possibility thus cannot be ruled out that verbs like bs “took”,
574 The verbal derivations of ròòzj “return” are spelled in Ms. J of the ST only with an [, e.g. rz[y, rz[. 575 In isolated cases, such as h[wrt tirruw'wà “blast”, hjwlç “9luw'wà “sent”, an ultima stress is possible without the existence of the above condition (see GSH, §1.4.6). 576 A verb derived from the root tòòjy was probably used by Yannai as well: yb tjyt la dly ynda “O my lord, don’t cast down the boy” (Rabinovitz, I, p. 243); see A. Kor, Yannai’s Piyyutim, (Liturgical Poems)—Evidence to the Hebrew in Eretz Israel during the Byzantine Period (in Hebrew), Ph.D. dissertation, Tel-Aviv University 1988, p. 193. 577 For general discussion, see J. Yahalom, Poetic Language in the Early Piyyut, Jerusalem 1985, pp. 72–76.
hybrid samaritan hebrew
tj “came down” etc. were already part of SA of that period, and from which HSH drew. 2. qwpml —An inﬁnitive of Af 'el An inﬁnitive form such as qwpml usually belongs to Qal. Note, however, this occurrence of qwpml: qwpml ˆmyta hfçq l[d μrm[ ˆb hçm ˆdyzh h[rp twçymçt ˆm wm[ “Moses son of Amram who was commissioned by God to bring forth his people from the labor of Pharaoh the presumptuous” (C. 312). Here qwpml is the inﬁnitive without the h of the derived Af 'el stem. Note that the words of the poet relate to Ex 6:13, 27: μyrxm ≈ram larçy ynb ta ayxwhl. The Ms. J version of the ST ad loc. is hqpml, as is usual in Aramaic. But in Ms. A qwpml is used. This use of the language is relatively late, parallel to the period in which the poet wrote. The (assumed) novelty of these forms is compatible with what is found in TM: Ben-Óayyim showed that in the ﬁrst book, which preserves ancient language patterns more than the other books, these forms are rare, while in the other books they are more frequent (TM, p. 21).578 3. Itpa'al of bòòxn Forms such as bX;n,I which are Nif 'al in Tiberian Hebrew, are pronounced in SH as nèß6b and they belong to Qal. In SA we also ﬁnd ˆybxnm amnåßß9b6n “set up” (passive participle Pa'el of bòòxn, LOT III/2, p. 191). The regular forms parallel to this root are ﬁrst y roots: bxyta (see p. 199). In HSH bòòxn also has a Itpa'al form: μlsh bxntaw “the ladder was set up” (C. 480). bxnta is also found in TM: bxntad hnlya sydrp wgl “the tree which was planted in a garden” (269a). This would seem to be a late development; in any event it is only found in the later layers of SA. In TM it is only found (4 times) in the late books IV and V. Besides this, it is found in Asatir: bxnad μwy ˆm t[dd hnlya “from the day in which the tree of knowledge of good and evil was planted” (Asatir, p. 116).
In book IV one can ﬁnd e.g. μym wnmm qpml “to bring water out from it” (193a).
(b) II-Waw (wòò[) 1. Regular and shortened imperfect (a) The spelling of the imperfect forms of aòòwb in Qal hints at the fact that HSH did not always maintain the distinction between the regular imperfect awby y9'bù and the converted imperfect aby yàba, signs of which can already be found in SH.579 Thus, we ﬁnd in a piyyut of Ban M9n6r: ˚yl[ aby rça rwxmh (rather than awby) “the distress which will come to you” (C. 184).580 (b) There is a diﬀerence between μwqy and μqyw: the preformative vowel of μwqy is e, while the preformative of μqy, is a.581 This is the heritage from SH as pronounced in the Pentateuch. 2. The participle μym[q Alongside the participle μw[q we also ﬁnd μ[q, and in the plural we almost only ﬁnd μym[q: μym[q wwh ˆwlhkw “everybody was standing” (C. 377), μym[q ˆwrm ydy ˆyb ˆwlhk wwhw “they were all standing in front of their master” (C. 296), μym[q ˚ymjr jtp l[ “stand by the gate of Your mercy” (C. 490), wtyrçmb ˆwnm lk μym[q wwh hykalmw “the angels stood, each one in his camp” (C. 382).582 3. Itpa'al of μòòwq The Itpa'al of μòòwq is found in nearly all the Samaritan texts, yet we only have evidence of its pronunciation from HSH: ˚lhmb μmwqtaw hrwth ykrd witqùmåm “go right583 in the path of the law” (C. 438),
See GSH, §2.9.7. Ostensibly, the poet ±bì“a also blurs this boundary: wglmw wrb[w hty wbsw wrjtsa hykalmw waby hnn[. However, the context shows that the verb waby, despite lacking a w, denotes the perfect: “they took him and passed and from the cloud they came and the angels were around him” (C. 377). 581 I have dealt with the formation of these verbs in my article Florentin, Morphological Notation. The e preﬁx of yèqom is certainly not the original vowel of the verb, which was a (*yaqùmu). It can be assumed, as Ben-Óayyim has done (GSH, §2.6.10), that the origin of the e vowel is the “6wa, which occurred in verbal forms such as ˆWmWqy“ (> *yèqùmon), from which the vowel came to dominate the forms that did not have a “6wa at all (cf. p. 193). It is quite probable, however, that SH received the vowel from Aramaic (Samaritan, of course), in which the e is the regular vowel of the preﬁx ( yèqom < μWqy“). 582 μymw[q, the plural of μw[q, is relatively rare: μymw[q hzb wwhd ˆwna “those who stood here” (C. 390), μkynp μymw[qh μynhkh “the priests who stand in front of you” (C. 742). 583 in Arabic means “being right”. 580
hybrid samaritan hebrew
μmwqtm ˚twdymt mitqùmåm “Your eternity stands” (C. 373), πk l[w μmwqtn lgrh nitqùmåm “we stand on our foot” (C. 105). (c) III-Yod verbs (yòòl) 1. ywh—wnwhy (yòòwh “to be” )
wnwhy, wnwht forms, the imperfect of the Aramaic yòòwh, are most characteristic of HSH. The following are some examples: wnwhy μkytbw μyalm “may your houses be full” (C. 453), μy[mtçm wnwhyw “they will be heard” (C. 566), ˆykyrb wnwhy “may they be blessed” (C. 482), wnwht μynma “may you be safe” (C. 337), μyfwb[ wnwht ˆrm twtrbw “with the mercy of our Lord you will cause to give pledges” (C. 401).584 An examination of the distribution of wnwht/wnwhy as opposed to ˆwht/ (ˆwy) ˆwhy in the whole Samaritan piyyutim corpus, leads to an indisputable conclusion: wnwht/wnwhy are common, as opposed to ˆwht, which is not found at all. ˆwhy is found a few times: ˆwhy al htwkd ˆydysm hyyj “life testiﬁes that (nobody) will be like Him” (C. 50), tbhytad htwhra hb ˆyrq ˆwhy d[ larçy ynbl “the law which was given to the Israelites in order that they will read it” (C. 58). This distribution is compatible with that found in TM (see below). These forms are also found in the later ST manuscripts,585 as well as in the ancient Aramaic piyyutim of 'Åmråm and Mårqe.586 Despite this, they were held to be foreign elements that later copyists had inserted into the ancient treatises.587 They are also most frequently found in TM, even in the ﬁrst book, whose language is generally untainted by later inﬂuences. Ben-Óayyim later rejected the view that these forms were constructed under the inﬂuence of Hebrew after Aramaic had ceased being a written language.588 In his opinion, we cannot assume either a Hebrew or an Arabic inﬂuence, because neither have the verb yòòwh. He thus sees them as being a result of the internal development of SA when it was still a living language: imperfect forms like ˆwwhy became ˆwy/ˆwhy. Later the morpheme w was added to this shortened form, which then became wnwhy.589 584 The words of the poet are based on Dt 15:6: μybr μywg tfb[hw “you shall lend to many nations”. The SP also has Hif 'il of fòòb[ ad loc. Despite this, the poet uses the l/fq; pattern, which was a widespread custom in his language. On the distribution of this pattern, see p. 221. 585 See Tal, ST III, p. 70, 90. 586 See for example: LOT III/2, pp. 78, 79, 80, 219, 256. 587 See LOT III/2, p. 11, n. 7. 588 See TM, p. 20. 589 On verbs such as yht ,yhy in SA, see p. 67.
2. Itp6'el of yòòrq HSH only has yrqta, e.g. ˆwyd[wmb larçy wçnkta wb yk twmx yrqta hmlw “why was it called ‘twmx’ (i.e. conjunction)? Since the people of Israel gathered in their assemblies” (C. 107), yrqty yrmç wrmç ˆm lk “everyone who preserves it (the Sabbath) is called ‘yrmç’ (i.e. Samaritan”, C. 82). These are clearly Aramaic forms, seeing that in SH yòòl verbs and aòòl verbs did not merge.590 The rule in the Pentateuch is thus reﬂected in verbs such as arqy yiqra “call” (Gn 2:19). Admittedly, the Pentateuch has a number of forms of aòòrq that are conjugated as yòòl, such as yiqqàri, the 3rd person imperfect of Nif 'al, and ostensibly we may see in them the ﬁrst indication of the widespread rule in HSH. In SA, however, the regular yrqtm is found, therefore yrqta found in HSH should be regarded as a SA heritage encouraged by the preference for Itp6'el over Nif 'al. It should be pointed out that in HSH the Hebrew forms of aòòrq are actually more widespread in the Qal stem, that is to say arqa is found frequently, while yrqa is very rare. This is not simply coincidental, but rather a linguistic custom, for in the imperfect (like this yrqa) and in the participle (e.g. yrq, C. 804; ˆyrq, C. 107) we have only found Aramaic forms, while in the perfect, only Hebrew forms, e.g. ytarq (C. 38), tarqw (C. 455), wnarq (C. 127). 3. yòòtç
yòòtç forms of Qal in the Pentateuch are pronounced like “9tå (htç “drank”, Ex 34:28). As opposed to this, in the ST according to Ms. J, the prothetic a forms, such as htça, wtça “they drank, he drank”, are found relatively frequently.591 HSH has a forms from which we learn the pronunciation: bwf ˆyy wtça i“tu “drink good wine” (C. 189). 184.108.40.206. Numerals The structure of all the forms we found, Hebrew and Aramaic, do not deviate from what is found in the previous Samaritan texts, the Hebrew Pentateuch and the various SA texts. What is noticeable is
See GSH, §220.127.116.11. This in fact is the rule in Ms. J: only two verbs, wtçw (Gn 43:34) and ˆwtytç (Dt 29:5), are spelled with a. 591
hybrid samaritan hebrew
the total domination of the Hebrew forms throughout the numerical system, and the distribution tables given below speak for themselves. (a) dj/dja The Hebrew dja “one” and the Aramaic dj are pronounced identically: 'àd. dj and dja are thus no more than orthographic variants, and the presence of either says nothing about the pronunciation. Moreover, the spelling dja—and not dj—is dominant in the best Samaritan Aramaic texts. The numbers are instructive: in Ms. J of the ST, dja is found 196 times and hdja (Heb. djah) 46 times. As opposed to this, the spelling dj is found only once, and the spelling hdj 26 times. Similar proportions are found in other Aramaic texts. However, in other manuscripts of the ST, especially the late manuscripts, another spelling norm is found: in Ms. A, for example, the spelling dj and hdj is attested 22 times, while the spelling dja is attested only once!592 Based on these data, one may assume that in later generations (i.e. the 14th century and later) the spelling dj was considered by the scribes as clear Aramaic, while dja—though found in the most ancient SA texts—was considered as Hebrew. Thus, the spelling dja in the late piyyutim composed in HSH seems to me a result of a preference for a Hebrew rather than an Aramaic form. (b) ˆyrt The ratio between the Hebrew μynç “two” and the Aramaic ˆyrt, 86 versus 24, is instructive, because of the relatively high frequency of the Aramaic numeral in comparison with other numerals. An explanation and a comment are therefore required: 1. Some of the occurrences are terms inherited in their original form from the SA literature. When, for example, Jacob the priest wrote: hyml[ yrtb tmaw dsj brw “abounding in kindness and faithfulness [Ex. 34:6] in the two worlds” (C. 656), he used the term hyml[ yrt “the two worlds”, which reﬂects the Samaritan belief in resurrection and life after death.593 This term is used several times in the SA literature, e.g. hyml[ yrt wgl yl[ μjrtaw “have compassion for me in the two worlds” (LOT III/2, p. 296); ˆwrft ˆh hyml[ yrtb μyjlxm ˆwta htybwtym hty “if you will keep that rank you
hyrbf dja l[ (Heb. μyrhh dja l[) “upon one of the mountains” (Gn 22:2).
See p. 97 and n. 151 above.
will succeed in the two worlds” (TM, 146b). A Hebrew rendering of the term is used by ±bì“a in reference to Moses: ˚yml[ ynç ybn “the prophet of Your two worlds” (C. 241). Again in reference to Moses, the same poet used another term, htyrb yjwl yrt “the two tablets of the covenant”: htyrb yjwl yrt lbqm (C. 378). In this case as well, the poet used an Aramaic term already found in TM: μlç hyjwl yrt lbqm ha ˚yl[ “peace be upon you, O the one who received the two tablets” (259b). 2. Of all the occurrences of the Aramaic numeral, only a few are in the absolute state (i.e. ˆyrt or μyrt): μyrt twbyxm μyqaw “he erected two pillars” (in reference to Jacob, C. 97); μyja ˆyrt ymq “before two brothers” (C. 330); μyja ˆyrt da l[ [çwa “[the people that] was saved by two brothers” (C. 527); μyrt μynba twjwl “two stone tablets” (C. 574). As opposed to these few Aramaic forms, the Hebrew counterpart μynç occurs dozens of times. (c) htlt This Aramaic numeral occurs mainly in non-secular contexts: 1. Most of the occurrences of htlt “three” refer to the three fathers, e.g. hlpkmh tr[m ynwkç htlth ˆwmçm hla wnyhla ynp ˆazyrk tlt “three prayers before our God on behalf of the three, the dwellers of the cave of Machpelah” (C. 238);594 htwmlçw htwkz yçra μnhw htlt μçb zrka “I pray in the name of the three who are the foundation of righteousness and perfection” (C. 336); hybf ytlt çra wkzh rqa yhla “the God of the root of righteousness [i.e. Abraham], the foundation [patriarch] of the three righteous” (C. 481).595 2. Several occurrences relate to the “three feasts” (Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles): μynbz htlt htjmçb hnç lk wç[t “every year you shall do three feasts with joy” (C. 716); htlt wgl wyla gjy ym ybwf ha μynd[ “O happy is he who will pilgrim (to Mount Gerizim) three times (a year)” (C. 765); twgj htlt çyr . . . wd twxmh gj “the feast of unleavened bread . . . which is the ﬁrst of the three feasts” (C. 789).
594 This use by the late poet ('Àb6d El ) is probably inspired by the prayer known as ˆazyrk tlt composed by an anonymous poet: htlth ˆwmçm ˆazyrk tlt bq[y yhlaw qjxy yhlaw μhrba yhla (LOT III/2, p. 361) and by a piyyut of Ildus'tàn: . . . htr[mb ˆybyhyd hbr hlyj hnq μymjr htlt “the great God has three lovers . . . who dwell in the cave” (ibid., 286). 595 Following an Aramaic piyyut of Ninna: hybf ytlt ˆwtydl rkda “remember those three righteous” (LOT III/2, p. 272).
hybrid samaritan hebrew
In most cases, the conditioned occurrences of htlt (and tlt) are not haphazard. This may be deduced from the distribution of the Hebrew counterpart hçlç, which even occurs in sentences whose main part is written in Aramaic, e.g. hyçn la wçgt la hymwy tçlç πws la “be ready by the third day; do not go near a woman” (based on Ex 19:15, C. 337). In most cases, (h)çlç is used in secular contexts: hçlç μyqlj “three parts” (C. 229); ˆhmç hçlçb hmtça “he was called by three names” (C. 384; 480); rç[ hçlç tnçb “in the thirteenth year” (C. 503, etc.); lkm μymtwq hçlç ytlkaw “three morsels”596 (C. 480). However, the Hebrew numeral (h)çlç is also used in nonsecular contexts, e.g. hml[ yakz hçlçh tyrb rkzw “remember the covenant of the three righteous of the world” (C. 397); ˚yrwy ˚yyj ymwyw trp ˆbw hçlçb “may He prolong your life in [the merit of ] the three and the fruitful bough (i.e. Joseph)” (C. 438). (d) htç, hnmt, h[ça The unequivocal Aramaic numerals htç “six”, hnmt “eight” and h[ça “nine” are not attested in HSH at all. (e) yt[bra, ytçmj, yt[bç The numerals h[bra “four”, hçmj “ﬁve” and h[bç “seven” in Hebrew are identical with their counterparts in Aramaic. Therefore their occurrences cannot indicate anything about the relative distribution of the two languages in this case. Nevertheless, there are several occurrences of clear Aramaic numerals, such as: hynbz yt[braw “the four times” (C. 253); hybtk yt[brab “in the four books” (ibid.); hymwy ytçmj “the ﬁve days” (C. 384, 388); hymwy yt[bç “the seven days” (C. 208, 384). (f ) hrç[, hrs[ Unlike Hebrew and Aramaic dialects, there is a clear diﬀerence in Samaritan pronunciation between the Hebrew numeral hrç[ and the Aramaic hrs[. Since every Samaritan ˆòòyç (including Sin) is pronounced “, and ˚òòms is pronounced s, the pronunciation of the Hebrew numeral is '9“9rå, while the Aramaic hrs[ is pronounced
596 The noun μtwq (dealt with by Margain, p. 119) is not documented in SA. It . It thus seems that μtwq is a has counterparts in Syriac amfq and in Arabic scribal error (instead of μfwq), and indeed it is documented in a (late) Samaritan proverb: hmdqd [lbt μdq hmfwq ˚dyb μyçt al “do not place a morsel in your hand before you have swallowed the previous one” (Powels, Samaritan Proverbs, p. 84).
'9s9rå. Note that the construct Aramaic form ytrs[ occurs several times, always as part of the locution hylm ytrs[ “the Decalogue” (C. 384), while the absolute state form hrs[ is very rare, e.g. hrs[b hjryl “on the tenth day of the month” (C. 484). The Hebrew counterpart μyrbdh trç[ is documented as well: μynba twjwl ynç wl ˆtw μyrbdh trç[ ˆwb “He gave him two stone tablets on which the Decalogue [are written]” (C. 345); μyrbdh trç[ arqd harq glgty “praised be the reader who read the Decalogue” (C. 438). The Hebrew numeral hrç[ appears dozens of times in free contexts: μytpwm hrç[b “in ten signs” (C. 138); çdjl rç[ [bra d[ hrç[ ˆm “from the tenth to the fourteenth day of the month” (C. 153). (g) The numerals from 11 to 90 The numeral μyrs[ is not documented at all, but rather only the Hebrew μyrç[ i“r6m, e.g. μyrç[w hçlç ˆwrpsm “its number is twenty three” (C. 574); h[ç μyrç[w [bra “twenty four hours” (C. 661); hçç hakz μyrç[w “twenty six righteous” (C. 759). The only Aramaic numeral documented is ˆytça, and then only once, in a piyyut by ±bì“a: μ[x μynd[ ˆytçaw ham “[Moses] fasted one hundred and sixty times” (C. 251), however, it is an exact citation from an ancient SA piyyut composed by Mårqe (LOT III/2, p. 222). The numerals μy[bra “forty”, μyçmj “ﬁfty”, μy[bç “seventy” are common in Hebrew and Aramaic (both in pronunciation and in spelling). Regarding the ﬁnal mem of the plural, note that in some pure SA texts the spelling μy- of the plural suﬃx is widespread, alongside the Aramaic spelling ˆy-.597 However, one should not ignore the total absence of the suﬃx ˆy- in the numerical system of HSH. We can obtain an idea about the norm of writing at that time (i.e. the 14th century) by examining the spelling with ﬁnal μy-/ˆy- in the various manuscripts of the ST. In Ms. A, for example, the ratio between the Hebrew suﬃx μy- and the Aramaic ˆy- is 1:1.598 In Ms. J the plural suﬃx is generally spelled μy-. In light of these ﬁndings one may reach the conclusion that the norm of spelling of the plural suﬃx in HSH was diﬀerent from the spelling of the same suﬃx in SA texts copied at the same time. 597
See p. 66. The spelling norm in this important manuscript is striking since it exhibits a sharp diﬀerence between the books of Genesis and Exodus on the one hand, and Leviticus and Numbers on the other: the spelling ˆyrs[, ˆytlt occurs mainly in 598
hybrid samaritan hebrew
(h) Lack of gender agreement It is evident that in HSH the gender distinction in the domain of the numerals was partly neutralised. One can thus ﬁnd dozens of cases in which a masculine form is used instead of feminine, and vice versa. The following are some examples from each numeral: μynç and μytç: hlm rç[ μynç “twelve words” (C. 236); μym[p ynç “two times” (C. 96, 98, 109); hyrwam ytç “the two lights” (C. 430); fbç rç[ μytç “twelve tribes” (C. 431); rç[ μynç ˆabwq[w “twelve glories” (C. 429). hçlç and çlç: μyglp çlç “three parts” (C. 292); μymy çlç “three days” (C. 183); rç[ hçlç tnçb “in the thirteenth year” (C. 253, 503); hyçpn hçlç “three persons” (C. 348). h[bra and [bra: μyglp [bra “four parts” (C. 252); μylgd [bra lbq “in front of four divisions” (C. 377); μyrqa [bra “four roots” (C. 109); μydwm[ [bra “four pillars” (C. 436); μybgç [braw “four veils” (C. 358); μyrhn [bra “four rivers” (C. 437); μynbz [braw “four times” (C. 437). hçç and çç: tw[ph hçç “the six corners” (C. 383); hççw μytam hnç μy[braw “two hundred and forty six years” (Tùlìda, 3b15). h[bç and [bç: hy[wbç [bçb “in the seven weeks” (C. 322, 337); ˆbrq rç[ [bç “seventeen oﬀerings” (C. 550); μymy [bç “seven days” (C. 634); μynç h[bçw “seven years” (Tùlìda, 4a33). Comment: it is not surprising that most cases of the use of the feminine instead of the masculine form (but not vice versa, see below) in the domain of the numerals are with the two forms of the numeral “four” (h[bra and [bra). In the Samaritan pronunciation the only diﬀerence between these two forms is the stress: [bra is pronounced 'arba while h[bra is pronounced ar'bà (< *ar'ba'a). It is quite plausible that this similarity brought about the confusion between them. The use of the (short) feminine form instead of the masculine is reminiscent of the same phenomenon in new layers of modern spoken Hebrew in which expressions such as μydly çwlç “three boys” and rlwd [bra “four dollars” are quite common.
Genesis and Exodus (57× versus 6× μyrs[, μytlt), while μyrs[ and μytlt occurs almost only in Leviticus and Numbers (57× versus 7× ˆyrs[, ˆytlt). Since it is unlikely that a single scribe would act in such an inconsistent manner, one may assume that Ms. A is a copy of a manuscript copied by two scribes: one copied Genesis and Exodus, while the other copied the rest of the Pentateuch. This, of course, requires further examination.
18.104.22.168. Particles 22.214.171.124.1. Interjections (a) ha The usual spelling of this interjection, which functions as a vocative,599 is ha and its pronunciation is è. It is thus diﬀerent from the presentative interjection ah, which is pronounced 9. It is very common in HSH since it is used at the beginning of addresses to the congregation, to God or to Moses, the one and only prophet. It is almost always part of the poet’s blessing to his audience, e.g. ha wjbç çdq μ[ “praise, O holy people!” (C. 101); ˆwkyl[ ˚rbm çdj çar hzw μyrmç haw μynhk ha “let this beginning of the month be blessed for you, O priests, O Samaritans” (C. 136); hlhq ha ˚krby “O congregation, may He bless you” (ibid.); rdtsa hna ˆm ha ˚yray ˆwkymwyb hla “may The Lord prolong your life, O who were assembled here” (C. 357). ha is frequently used as an opening appeal to God: ha hml[ lk wyrb ha ˆrm “O our Lord, O creator of the whole world” (C. 144), and sometimes to Moses: hçm ha hçm ha ˚l wwjtçy μybkwkhw “the stars will bow down to you, O Moses, O Moses” (C. 145). (b) l[ ywa/l ywa This interjection, pronounced uwwi, is a SH heritage (Nu 21:29; 24:23) in HSH. Its Samaritan structure is derived from the monosyllabic y/a, in which the diphthong has been split into two syllables according to the phonetic rules of SH.600 Due to its speciﬁc function of expressing lament, it is found less frequently in the piyyutim than the general interjection ha.601 Examples: ywa yjwr bwdtw yçpn rwxtw yl[ “my soul is in sorrow and my spirit in anguish, woe to me” (C. 214); ˆwkwl ywa “woe to you” (C. 330).602 (c) lyw This interjection is a combination of the interjection yw and the preposition l.603 Its meaning is identical with that of l ywa, but their 599 I did not come across any example of ha denoting excitement or astonishment (for such uses, see DSA, s.v. ha). 600 See GSH, p. 65. 601 It is also relatively rare in SA: it is found only once in the ST and several times in TM (e.g. çnal ywa, 245b). Instead, yw and ha are used (see DSA, ywa). 602 See also: C. 214, 330, 455, 492, 493. 603 Cf. the counterpart Arabic (Palestinian Arabic: ya wèlak “woe to you”; see
hybrid samaritan hebrew
distribution is quite diﬀerent: lyw is always attached to suﬃxes (unlike lsj which also appears independently), i.e. yw alone (without l and suﬃxes) is not used at all. This rule applies to all Samaritan texts, both ancient (e.g. LOT III/2, p. 183) and relatively late: ym[d hlyww “woe to him who saw” (C. 266);604 hfçq ykrd ybwz[ ˆwlyww ˆwykrd yrwmç ybwfw “happy are those who keep their ways and woe to those who leave the ways of God” (C. 348). (d) yrça Contrary to Tiberian Hebrew, this word is conjugated in SH as singular, i.e. ˚rça 9“9råk (Dt 33:29; not ˚yrça *9“9r6k).605 But in HSH it is conjugated as plural, i.e. wnyrça “happy are we”, e.g. wnyrçaw wnybwf wnl hwhy ˆtn hmb “happy606 are we in what God gave us” (C. 82); wyrwmçl yrça hzh tbçh “happy are those who keep this Sabbath” (ibid.); [dm wl ˆml yrça yrça “happy is he who has knowledge” (C. 739); wtafjm bwçy yml bwfw yrça “happy is he who repents his sins” (C. 493). It is not surprising that the original structure is kept while quotes are taken from the Pentateuch: ˚rça larçy (not ˚yrça; C. 249 [Dt 33:29]). Note also that yrça in HSH is supplemented by the preposition l, probably analogous to the structure l bf found in SA, e.g. hlad htwjyrb ˚lhtn ˆl bf “happy are we if we walk in the will of God” (TM, 98a); hl ym[d ˆm lkl bf “happy is he who sees Him” (LOT III/2, p. 71; for other examples see ibid.) and Arabic “happy they are”. The conjugation of rça as a plural was probably developed in HSH under the inﬂuence of the parallel Aramaic interjection ybwf. (e) ybwf This particle is usually conjugated as a plural: ˆwrm tad hyml[ ybwf ˆwrbdw “happy are the worlds that You are their master and leader” (C. 36); ˆwkybwf ha ˆwkybwf yrds ha wyl[ wmlç “bless him, O the congregation, happy are you with him, happy are you” (C. 249). However, Elihai, Arabic-Hebrew Dictionary, s.v. lyw) and the interjection lsj “far be it”, which is a combination of sj + l (see LOT III/2, p. 246). 604 This use by the late poet (Matt9na) is probably based on an ancient Aramaic poem: ˚l jbçm alw ˚ydbw[ ym[d hlyww “woe to him who sees Your deeds and does not praise You” (LOT III/2, p. 183; on the structure and the syntactic distribution of this interjection, see ibid.). 605 See GSH, §6.3.9. 606 Note the use of the Aramaic word ybwf alongside the Hebrew yrça for the sake of emphasis.
it is also found in the singular: ≈rqw rjçd bwfw μybwrqh ybwf “happy are those who [stand] close [to God] and happy is he who rises early [for pleasing God]” (C. 130);607 llpty hzb ym bwfw “happy is he who prays [on this day]” (C. 501). Note that despite the limited distribution of the singular basis -bwf, it is the only form used with the 2nd sing., i.e. only ˚bwf (and not ˚ybwf*) is found:608 wtary tmç ˆh ˚bwf ˚bblb “happy are you if you put His fear in your heart” (C. 100); [mçt ˚rml ˚bwf “happy you will be listening to your master” (C. 262). It is quite reasonable to assume a reciprocal inﬂuence: ˚bwf in analogy with the singular ˚rça, and yrça in analogy with the plural -ybwf. Such a case of analogy is reﬂected in the following verse: ˚mçl ˆjbçt bhyd hmp hbwf ˚mpb hz yhyw bht yht ˚bwf “happy you will be when returning [to God] and when this [the blessing] will be in your mouth, happy is the mouth which praises You” (C. 265): hmp hbwf, instead of the expected hmp ybwf (used by Mårqe, LOT III/2, p. 178) was created under the inﬂuence of the singular (and regular) form ˚bwf at the beginning of the verse. ybwf is well documented in Jewish sources as well: hyty ymjml tkzd aybwf “happy is [his mother] who was lucky to see him” ( y. Sheqalim 49a); wybfbw hswra awh tad httyd “happy is the woman whose ﬁancé you are” (in an Aramaic poem from the Byzantine era, JPAP, p. 78); ywbwf hçydqd hytw[r db[d arbwgl “happy is the man who pleases the holy” (ibid., p. 248). 126.96.36.199.2. Adverbs (a) tyl This negation particle is used in HSH before a ﬁnite verb:609 w[dy tyl “they did not know” (C. 379); ytryç trmta tylw “my poem was not said” (C. 577); rz[la ybyb[ ala wrtb rtwta tylw “nobody was left after him but my uncle Èlàzår” (LOT III/2, p. 333); hyht tyl yk [rzh ypk ala htawbt “the yield is not [a result] but of the sowing” (Ben-Óayyim, Samaritan Piyyutim, p. 340). As already mentioned by 607
The end of the sentence is borrowed from Mårqe (LOT III/2, p. 174). I did not come across forms such as ˚bwf and hbwf in the ancient Samaritan piyyutim; their source, as quoted in Macuch, GSA, p. 330, is therefore questionable. 609 Note that the Hebrew parallel ˆya is rarely used in the Bible to negate a ﬁnite verb: rbd μkta lkwy ˚lmh ˆya “The king cannot oppose you in anything” ( Jer 38:5); hrhm h[rh hç[m μgtp hc;[n ˆya “The sentence against an evil deed is not executed speedily” (Eccl 8:11). 608
hybrid samaritan hebrew
Ben-Óayyim,610 tyl is found in several Aramaic dialects with the verb hwh to emphasize past tense. We thus ﬁnd in TM: hwh tyl hkyra jwr “there was no patience” (49a). However, the combination of tyl and a ﬁnite verb is doubtless a phenomenon which must be attributed to the inﬂuence of Arabic. And indeed this use of tyl is found also in TM, mainly in the late parts of this composition: tyl db[ty dbw[ yl[ yskty “none of his deeds are hidden from me” (150a); ˚nym rb hnyfmy tyl grdl yfmt d[ “in order that you will reach the way that nobody else will reach” (194a); çyb μdam hb flçy tyl “no bad thing will happen to him” (222a). It is thus not surprising that the phenomenon is widespread in Ms. A of the ST, which is replete with Arabic characteristics: h[ra ˆwty tlbs tylw “the land could not support them” (Gn 13:6); rb hl tdly tyl μrba tta yrçw “Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children” (Gn 16:1). The declension of tyl Spellings like wtyl are very common in HSH: dgdgm wtyl ˆynb “a building which can be ruined” (C. 254); t[b qbdm wtyld hyhla hla “the God of all gods who is not tied to time [i.e. eternal]” (C. 656). In a hybrid language such as HSH one can ostensibly observe here the Hebrew suﬃx w- (instead of the Aramaic h-) attached to the Aramaic particle. However, this form is well documented in ancient SA, which lacks Hebrew inﬂuence of this kind. One can thus ﬁnd in the ST 611hnyl (< hna tyl) “I am not” (Ex 5:10) instead of the common ytyl. Moreover, the Hebrew wnnya “he is not” is always translated in Ms. J of the ST as wtyl; htyl is not found at all.612 In the ancient SA piyyutim as well, wtyl rather than htyl* is used: ˆrkd lflfm wtyld adlìtu613 “a remembrance that will never be abolished” (LOT III/2, p. 239). wtyl must thus be considered a genuine Aramaic form, reﬂecting the way of attaching the personal pronoun wh to the
TM, p. 22. Such forms with nun do not exist at all in HSH; for discussion of these forms in SA see TM, 5a, and DSA, s.v. 1tyl. 612 One cannot assume that wtyl of Ms. J contains the Hebrew suﬃx since the scribe of this manuscript used the Aramaic morpheme consistently: e.g. the suﬃx attached to the article of the object ty is only the Aramaic h, i.e. hty; wty* does not occur at all. 613 The vowel u of the suﬃx is clear proof that it derives from the pronoun wh. Were it the pronominal suﬃx it would have been pronounced o, i.e. *lìto, and spelled wytyl*. 611
adverb tyl. A parallel form in MH is Wnya (= ˆya + awh; /nya being the common form).614 (b) ˚ya This interrogative particle, essentially meaning ‘how’, also functions as a preposition meaning “as, like”: ˚ya wtmjlm ylkb byxn larçy hnjm μydypl μyqrb “the Israelite army stands with its weapons of war like ﬂash lightings” (C. 327). This use of ˚ya is the same use of the Aramaic parallel ˚h, which is very common in SA, e.g. hqdx db[ ˚twnma yd ˚h “do charity as You are used to” (LOT III/2, p. 145), and one should note that in fact the only diﬀerence between the Hebrew ˚ya and the Aramaic ˚h is the spelling, since both forms are pronounced ik. ˚h is very widespread in HSH and must be regarded as the Aramaic word and not as the Hebrew word spelled in the Aramaic way. This is mainly true with the purely Aramaic combinations yd ˚h, dm ˚h: ˚twnma yd ˚h (C. 35, entirely borrowed from a piyyut by Mårqe [see above]); wtwjyr yd ˚h dja lk “everyone [was doing it] as he wanted” (C. 376); db[w ywal dm ˚h “as it should be”615 (C. 238). It should be noted that in all SA texts the two spellings, (˚yh) ˚h and ˚ya, occur side by side without any diﬀerence in function. Indeed, most of the occurrences of the interrogative particle as introduced in DSA are spelled ˚ya; however, the preposition and conjunction whose meaning is “as, like”, are spelled either way. This means that the spelling ˚ya found in HSH was not necessarily considered by the poets to be a Hebrew word. ˚h functioning as the interrogative ˚ya “how” is diﬀerent in distribution from the preposition ˚h “as”. The ﬁrst stands always alone, e.g. wtmxfa ˚hw wnwkta ˚h μtyar wl “you should have seen how they stood and how they gathered” (C. 377). The latter stands alone— exactly like the Arabic —only when it does not precede a sentence, e.g. jryhw çmçh ˚h “like the sun and the moon” (C. 109); hl ˆm ˆnbtk ˚h btk “who has a book like our book” (C. 251); wkwtbw μy ˚h
For a comprehensive discussion of the issue, see Cohen, “The Declension of
ˆya in Tannaitic Hebrew” (in Hebrew), in: A. Dotan (ed.), Studies in Hebrew and Arabic in Memory of Dov Eron (= Te'uda 6), Tel-Aviv 1988, pp. 120–127. He claims that the ﬁnal vowel of Wnya is a reﬂection of the pronominal suﬃx -u (< o), rather than an attraction of the personal pronoun awh. 615 See ywal bellow.
hybrid samaritan hebrew
hbyt “like a sea in which there is an ark” (C. 252); ˚lm ˚h wmçw “and he appointed him as if he were a king” (C. 311); ˚h waxw ys[fm μypw[ “they went out like ﬂying fowls” (C. 376). When preceding a sentence, the conjunction is hm ˚h, exactly like the Arabic : trfmh hm ˚h “as You have rained” (C. 108); wyqj lk rmçtw ˚[dwh hçm hm ˚h “keep all His laws as Moses has told you” (C. 297); wtwbr tym[ hm ˚h hlk μyqa “He established everything the way His greatness saw” (C. 430). d ˚h is also found: ˚h hm[ ˆkhw hl rymad “he prepared the people as he had been told” (C. 347); rymad ˚hw “as it is said [in the Torah]” (C. 622); ˆwdqpd ˚h ˆwrm “as their master had commanded them” (C. 869). One should mention the frequent distribution of yd ˚h, especially in the phrase ˚twnma yd ˚h “as You are used to” (e.g. C. 153, 212), which is borrowed from SA (e.g. C. 14). It is noteworthy that the relative pronoun d is absent in this structure, i.e. trfmhd hm ˚h* is not found at all. dm ˚h is found mainly as part of the locution ywal dm ˚h “as it should be” (e.g. C. 243; 458, 507), but also: hwx dm ˚h db[nw “we shall do what he commanded us” (C. 220); jbç dm ˚h rçkb jbçnw hçm “we praise properly as Moses did” (C. 858). The conjunction hmk is sometimes found instead of d/hm ˚h: hmk hç[ çrd “he did as he had ordered him” (C. 182); ˆthbal hç[ hmk “as He did to our fathers” (C. 267); yçymlj rwxb hç[ hmk hç[y “He will do what He has done in the ﬂinty rock” (C. 325). d hmk—which is parallel to Hebrew ç wmk—is rarely used: hwhd hmk twrj ˚blb wnwhyw yçrq ynç l[ “it will be engraved upon your heart as it was upon the two tablets” (C. 336); ywal yl[ wd hmk “as I have to do” (C. 609). (c) hka This locative adverb, always pronounced 9ka, is a heritage of SA in HSH. The only diﬀerence between the two languages in this respect is that while in SA we ﬁnd two spellings, hka and hkh,616 the only spelling in late piyyutim written in HSH is hka. hka is mainly found in HSH in two locutions: (1) as part of the common blessing —which appears in several formulations: ˆm ha wm[q hkad “O you who stand here” (C. 131); μynj hkad ˆm “all
616 The usual spelling in Ms. J of the ST is hkh, while the usual spelling in TM is hka.
those who are present here” (C. 193); wtmfxa hkad hrds “the congregation who gathered here” (C. 228); (2) as part of the SA locution lzaw hka ˆm “from this time forth” (LOT III/2, p. 137; C. 248). Note that the Aramaic ˆm in this blessing is never substituted by the Hebrew ym, i.e. a phrase like wm[q hkad ym ha* is not found at all. In other environments ym is frequently used: ça wgl srd ym lm[b “in the merit of him who treads inside the ﬁre” (C. 197); . . . ym μçm hrrgb r[d ym μçmw aryt la wl rymad “in the name of him who was informed: ‘fear not’ and in the name of him who dwelt in Gerar” (C. 246). This implies that despite the hybrid nature of HSH, the poets were still subject to limitations and rules that dictated the choice between Aramaic and Hebrew.617 Alongside hkh/hka one can also ﬁnd in SA its variant ˆhka, which includes the added nun.618 In the ST (Ms. J) it translates only the Hebrew word hk in its two meanings, “thus” and “here”: ˆhka μa rmyy (Heb. rmay hk μa) “if he said thus” (Gn 31:8); ˆhka q[za hnaw (Heb. hk hrqa yknaw) “I meet the Lord there” (Nu 23:15). ˆhka denoting place (“here”) and time (“now”) is also found in TM: ˆmtd ddjta ˆhka hlgh “what was revealed there was renewed here” (65b); llmyw ˆbwar μwqy ˆhka “now Reuben stands and speaks” (138b). In the ST ˆhka is also found as an intensiﬁer, exactly like the Hebrew adverb ˆka, and it is quite probable that it is based on it: μykj ˆhka hllmm “surely the thing is known” (Ex 2:14). In contrast to this wide distribution in SA, ˆhka in HSH is very rare, denoting only location, i.e. “here”: ˆhkad hrds ha “O the congregation [who gathered] here” (C. 387), and even this rare case is probably a consequence of rhyme, especially if one takes into consideration that ˆhka is not found at all in the ancient SA piyyutim. (d) hna This adverb of place is the most common synonym of hka in HSH. Its basic form is not clear: perhaps it is related to the Hebrew hna, which functions in the Pentateuch only as an interrogative: hna ynaw ab yna “and I, where shall I go?” (Gn 37:30); at the same time, one cannot ignore its aﬃnity to the Aramaic demonstrative pronoun ˆha “this” (see below), which due to its nature can denote a place, like 617 618
See the discussion in §188.8.131.52 above. See p. 100 and n. 159.
hybrid samaritan hebrew
the Hebrew hz “this”, e.g. tab hzm ya “where have you come from?” (Gn 16:8). Taking into account the late nature of HSH, one should also note the Arabic which is perhaps the basis of hnh, which only appears a few times in SA texts.619 hna, like hka, is frequently used as part of the blessing to the community, such as: wçnkta hna ym “those who gathered here” (C. 132); hna μyrwdsh htd[ rds ha “O the congregation gathering here” (C. 253). hna, however, is not totally similar to hka: while hka only appears with d as part of the blessing, i.e. hm[q hkad ˆm ha (there are no occurrences of hka* ˆm ha), hna only appears without d, e.g. ˆm ha wçnkta hna (there are no occurrences of wçnkta hnad* ˆm ha). Moreover, while hkh is used in HSH only in clearly deﬁned contexts, hna is used freely and commonly to denote “here”, e.g. hna tyl μwqm “there is no place here” (C. 499); hna ˚twlxb rdtstw l[tw “you will come and gather to pray here” (C. 503); ˆwxrpt μçw hna yk “you will spread here and there (i.e. everywhere)”. The word is pronounced in HSH 9na, i.e. the same way as in the reading in the Pentateuch. The common spelling in HSH, however, is hna even in quotations from the Pentateuch, in which it is written with h, i.e. hnh. (e) ˆha As in SA, ˆha620 (also spelled ˆah) is an interrogative of place. Its basic form is ˆa and it is pronounced 9n: hçm twk ˆha “where is there [anyone]like Moses?” (C. 266); ˚lt ˆhal “where are you going?” (C. 502); htwk br btk ˆah “where is there a book as great as this?” (C. 251); hlbqd ˚h aybn âˆah “where is there a prophet like that who received it [the book]?” (ibid.); hçm twk ˆah hyhla hla twk hla ˆah hyjwl lbqd “where is there [any] God like God of Gods? where is there [anyone] like Moses who got the tablets?” (C. 36; LOT III/2, p. 312). (f ) lh This adverb, usually spelled l[l and pronounced wlèl, is not connected to the Aramaic ly[l “above”; rather its origin is the adverb halh, which is very common in several Aramaic dialects.621 It appears 619
See DSA, s.v. hnh. E.g. μy[r ˆwna ˆha (Heb. μy[r μh hpya) “where they are pasturing” (Gn 37:16). 621 In Syriac and in CPA lhl (see Brockelmann, LS, p. 176a; Schulthess, Lexicon, p. 51a). 620
mainly as part of the locution l[lw hkh/hna ˆm “from this time forth”, e.g. çdjh hz ˆrkdb yrçn l[lw hna ˆm “henceforth we will begin to remember this month” (C. 461); hryqy μyrbd çrpn l[lw hna ˆm “henceforth we will explain notable things” (C. 601); l[lw hkh ˆmw ˆynb ynbn “we will henceforth build a building” (C. 526). An exact Jewish parallel is found in Leviticus Rabba: anbçwj ljn lhlw hkh ˆmw “we will begin the calculation from this time forth” (Leviticus Rabba, XXX, 7 [ed. Margulies, p. 705]).622 An etymologic spelling lhl is the common translation of the Hebrew halh in the ST (Ms. J, e.g. Gn 19:9 [another version: l[l]; Nu 15:23; 17:2). The spelling l[l is found in TM: ˚twbr yntt l[lw μwyh ˆm “Your glory will be spoken of from this day forth” (52b); wtwjyrb ˚lh l[lw wdkmw “from this time forth he pleased him” (115b). However the locution is not found in the ancient SA piyyutim, which only present w hka ˆm (see below). A Hebrew parallel used in HSH is halh, e.g. çgn halhw hnm “we shall proceed from it henceforth” (C. 116). (g) lza This adverb, derived from the root lòòza “go”, is mainly found in HSH as part of the old locution lzaw hka ˆm “from this time forth”,623 e.g. rkzn μyd[wmh ydwsw lzyn lzaw hka ˆm “from this time forth we shall go and remember the secret of the feasts” (C. 560). The total parallelism to the Hebrew locution ˚lyaw ˆakm is the basis for the suggested etymology of ˚lyaw being derived from the root ˚òòlh.624 This is reinforced by other Samaritan sources such as the Hebrew-ArabicAramaic glossary the Meliß, in which the Hebrew halh is translated by ytadl (p. 452). The same is found in the ST, in which the Hebrew halh is translated by the Aramaic words lhl and ytadl (e.g. Lv 22:27). ytadl in this context is also found in TM, e.g. ytadlw wdkm “from now on” (7b); ytadlw rb[dl “from the past and henceforth” (122a). lza is found in the ST only in the late Ms. A: hwhy dqpd hmwy ˆmd ˆwkyrdl lzaw (Heb. μkytrdl halhw hwhy hwx rça μwyh ˆml) “from the
Note, however, Arabic locutions such as “henceforth” and min ilyom u†àle' “from this day on” (see Elihai, Arabic-Hebrew Dictionary, s.v. [laf); if the HSH locution is built after the Arabic pattern, then l[l means literally “upwards” (the basic meaning of the Arabic root is “go up”). 623 Already found in a piyyut by Mårqe (LOT III/2, p. 137). 624 See ibid.
hybrid samaritan hebrew
day that the Lord gave the commandment and on through the ages” (Nu 15:23). Ostensibly, its origin is thus the Arabic , which is found, for example, in the rubric of one of the piyyutim: “from this place henceforth [the words were written] by its scribe (i.e. the scribe of manuscript and not the author himself )” (C. 421). However, we ﬁnd it in SA piyyutim composed prior to Arabic inﬂuence (see above). Moreover, the common locution in SA and HSH is not totally parallel to Arabic, i.e. lzaw hna ˆm* is not found, but rather only hkh ˆm, despite the frequent distribution of hna in HSH (see above). Note the diﬀerence in form and in use in TM: lzaw is not found in this sense, but rather ytadl, which is the exact parallel of the Hebrew abhl used in the common locution abhlw ˆakm. Moreover, lza in TM is used to denote the past, not the future: lza lzad hm “what was, was” (115a);625 ytyy hmw lza hmw “what has past and what is yet to come” (169a). (h) ˆmt This adverb usually means “there”, but in several Samaritan texts it also denotes time, i.e. “then”. The following are some examples from HSH: μnyb hmjlmh tlpn ˆmt “then the war between them began” (C. 325); μllmm [mçw hçm ab ˆmt “then Moses came and heard their words” (C. 390); rmaw wyny[ ta h[rp aç ˆmt “then Pharaoh looked up and said” (C. 629). As in SA, ˆmt in HSH also means “afterwards”: htbwtt ˆmtw μwyh yh htwht “today is the day of regret, and tomorrow—repentance” (C. 503). There is no doubt that the distribution, not to mention the use, of ˆmt in late Samaritan texts (such as Asatir, CASD and the late piyyutim) is the result of Arabic inﬂuence. Note, however, that ˆmt “then” is found in the early parts of TM and in the ancient SA piyyutim, e.g. hybnl wrma ˆmt “then they said to the prophet” (LOT III/2, p. 235). Ben-Óayyim has rightly suggested that this use of ˆmt has no connection to Arabic; rather it is a genuine Aramaic phenomenon, probably parallel to μwt in Mandaic.626 In HSH piyyutim the Hebrew parallel za “then” is found mainly in citations from the Pentateuch: rçy za “then he sang” (C. 266 = 625
The same wording appears in Leviticus Rabba, XXX, 7 (ed. Margulies, p. 705). Unlike Ben-Óayyim, Nöldeke believed that its origin is bwt, but he, too, rejected the possibility of Arabic inﬂuence in this case since it is found in ancient Mandaic texts, which do not show any Arabic traces. 626
Ex 15:1); wnyhla μçb arql ljh za “it was then that men began to call upon the name of our God” (C. 489 = Gn 4:26); wlhbn za μwda ypwla “then were the chiefs of Edom dismayed” (C. 244, 287 = Ex 15:15). Examples of uses which are not dependent on the Pentateuch are: hjwrl rxh μhl tkph za “then You turned the distress to relief ” (C. 81);627 lydgy aybn hçm ljh za arç za “then Moses the prophet began to become great” (C. 346); wswny wwqy za “then they hoped to ﬂee” (C. 534). It thus seems that the adverb za was replaced in HSH by ˆmt, while za is used mainly as a conjunction zam: rbdh zamw ˚k “since the time it was like that” (C. 324); tarb hm zam “since You created” (C. 373); wylyçma hyarwb l[ zam “since the time in which He made him master of the creatures” (C. 410). Surprisingly, the original use of ˆmt, well documented in SA to denote place (i.e. “there”),628 is very rare in HSH: hmk ˆmt wtwa wlkaw μyrjb ˆwna “they ate it there [then?] as they wished” (C. 274). The usual adverb denoting place in HSH is the Hebrew μç “amma. (i) ywal
ywal l9bi in SA is an adjective meaning “appropriate”:629 hlyjl ywal dm “what is appropriate to His strength” (LOT III/2, p. 172); hl hywal hlm “the thing is appropriate to him” (ibid.). In HSH piyyutim ywal is very common, but it is hardly ever declined and is used in cases not found in SA: 1. As an undeclined adjective, parallel to the Hebrew ç ywar, bfwm ç “it is better that . . .”. This use of ywal is connected to the subsequent verb in three ways: a. Without partition, e.g. μkmçt hryç wl ryçn ywal “it is appropriate that we will sing a song for Him which will gladden you” (C. 189); μkl rmya ywal “it is appropriate that I will tell you” (C. 328); ˚ryçnw ˚llhn ywal μymyh lkb “it is appropriate that we praise you all the days” (C. 374). b. Sometimes by the preposition l: twlxh ˚l ywal “it is appro627
In the prayer of Ab Isdå, whose Hebrew style is unique (see pp. 42–59). On ˆmt in the Aramaic dialects, see Tal, The Language of the Targum, p. 48. 629 It is quite possible that ywal is connected to the words han, ywn “nice, beauty”. Alongside this assumption, Ben-Óayyim suggested an aﬃnity to ylaw found in the Aramaic of the Babylonian Talmud (LOT III/2, p. 314). Tal (DSA, s.v. 3ywl) suggests connecting it to the optative particle wl (in SH and SA: ywl). While his suggestion saves us from assuming a rare shift as w>l or metathesis (ywal < ylaw), his assumption that the optative particle turned into an adjective is questionable. 628
hybrid samaritan hebrew
priate to pray to You” (C. 373); hrmçn ˆl ywal “it is appropriate that we shall guard it [the Torah]” (C. 385). This syntactic structure is found in TM: hbr hrwn ˆha qbçn ˆl ywal al “it is not appropriate for us to leave this great light” (290b). c. In many cases by the preposition l[: wllh yl[ ywal “I have to praise Him” (C. 266); ˆnyl[ ywal μrpsmd twtbçh “the Sabbaths that we have to count” (C. 310); rkza ybblb ywl[ ywalw “it is appropriate that I will remember in my heart” (C. 440). This structure is also found in TM, e.g. ˚çpn twmlç rft ˚yl[ ywal “it is appropriate to you to keep the integrity of your soul” (142b). Ben-Óayyim wrote about the distribution of this structure in SA: “In spite of the fact that this use is found in TM, its antiquity is questionable since the common phrase is l ywal” (LOT III/2, p. 72). As we see in HSH, Ben-Óayyim’s ﬁrst impression was correct. As we have stated, in this late layer of Samaritan literature l[ ywal is quite common, while the use of the old l ywal is relatively limited. The use of l[ ywal in the sense of “one has to, one must”, is identical with that of ˆl bh, e.g. htjbçm ˆl bh “we have to praise Him” (LOT III/2, p. 168), and it is noteworthy that alongside l bh, which is used in HSH, the structure l[ bh is also used: yrds l[ bhw yrd[ wfçpy yrwds hkad “the congregation gathering here has to forgive me” (C. 441); rkza wl yl[ ba “I ought to remember Him” (BenÓayyim, Samaritan Piyyutim, p. 369). d. Rarely by ˆa: wyl[ ynwxjr μyça ˆa ywal “I should trust him” (C. 256). 2. As an adverb in the locution db[w ywal dm ˚h “as it should be”:630 db[w ywal dm ˚h ˚l ydwn “we praise You as it should be” (C. 251); db[w ywal dm ˚h htwhra rmçml ˆty ylmyw “may He qualify us to guard the Torah as it should be” (C.347). Sometimes db[ is omitted: d[wmh hz ywal dm ˚h db[ ym lk hla rmçy “may God guard every one who keeps [lit.: makes] as it should be this feast” (C. 187). Expanded variants are found here and there: ybrn db[w hpyw ywal dbknh wmç “it is appropriate that we will praise His honorable name” (C. 201); ˆwkwl db[ alw had ˆwkwl ywal al yhy al hdbw[ ˆd “this deed is not agreeable; it is not appropriate and worthy for you” (TM, 144a).
630 Parallels to this locution in TM were introduced in LOT III/2, p. 314, n. 8. The adverb db[ has a parallel in Syriac and in Hebrew (ibid., p. 137; DSA, p. 617b). An interesting parallel to l[ db[ “have to” is found in the Mishna:
A rare plural form of ywal is used once by the poet la db[: yrds larçy l[ ˆywal wwhd μynbrqh “the order of the oﬀerings which the people of Israel were obliged to sacriﬁce” (C. 529). ( j) qr The uses of qr “only” in HSH are similar to those found in SH: qr yçra hm llma “I speak only what I am authorized to” (C. 107). It also has the meaning “but, rather”: harl ylg qr hsky al hfçq “the truth is not hidden, rather it is evident to the observer” (C. 411). Note that the Aramaic parallels dwl, dwjlb, which are very common in SA, are not found at all in HSH. This is also the case with the Aramaic preposition dwl “alone”, which is not found in HSH; rather the Hebrew parallel dbl is used. (k) ylwa
ylwa “perhaps” is used in HSH the same way as it is used in the Pentateuch: hçrpy wymjr ylwa yçwrd μkyhlal wwh “entreat your God, perhaps He will spread out his mercy” (C. 99); hyq[ tazm ynlyxy ylwa “perhaps He will save me from these troubles” (C. 331). In this case as well, the Aramaic parallel ˆam631 is not used at all in HSH. 184.108.40.206.3. Prepositions (a) la/dyl As is known, the meaning of the preposition dyl in Aramaic (“toward, to”) is diﬀerent from its meaning in Hebrew (“near”). In HSH the Hebrew la “toward” predominates (we ﬁnd it hundreds of times) while the Aramaic dyl is very rare: hçm dyl wabw “and they came toward Moses” (C. 376); wtyxy hdylw “they will listen to him” (C. 377);
ˆyy ˆhb ylxa ˚l yrhw μyrnyd μyçwlçb yl[ twywç[ ˚yfj yrh “let your wheat be reckoned to me at thirty denars, and thus you now have a claim on me for wine [to that value]” (m. Bava Meßi'a 5:1). 631 This adverb is sometimes written ˆa hm (e.g. Gn 18:24, Ms. C). This spelling reinforces the assumption that ˆam is a combination of ˆa + hm (as proposed by Macuch, GSA, p. 330). Tal, The language of the Targum, p. 56, connected it with μa hm which renders in Targum Jonathan the Hebrew ylwa and is also found in MH (m. Óullin 10:1). Note that ˆam is identical in structure with the Aramaic hmd and the Hebrew amç. Thus, in ancient SA we already have a use of ˆa as a (or at least parallel to) relative pronoun d. This may reinforce the assumption that some of the uses of ˆa in TM are not due to Arabic inﬂuence, but rather are traces of ancient and genuine Aramaic character.
hybrid samaritan hebrew
ydyl zwrzb qsa “come up quickly toward me” (C. 381); wçgn hdylw “they approached him” (C. 382). The preposition la is not found in ancient layers of SA. It occurs in Asatir (only 3 times), in TM (37 times) and in several manuscripts of the ST (but not in J). This la in SA is not necessarily Hebrew. As Ben-Óayyim showed (TM, p. 18), the Aramaic preposition l was pronounced al and became an independent word, separated from the preceding noun to which it was formerly attached, e.g. hçml “to Moses” was pronounced almu“i, and afterwards written hçm la. The la in Aramaic sentences such as μ[lb la ˆyjlç jlçw “he sent messengers to Balaam” (Asatir, 16b) does not thus reﬂect a Hebrew lexeme but rather a genuine Aramaic word written in a Hebrew manner. Note that suﬃxed forms such as wyla, ˚yla—which are deﬁnitely Hebrew—do not exist at all in Asatir where the pure Aramaic dyl is used, e.g. hdyl tlzaw “she went to him” (2a). (b) b SA has two spellings of this preposition with the 2nd masc. pl. suﬃx: ˆwkb and ˆwkwb. The ﬁrst is probably the original one and is pronounced b9kon, while the second, later, is pronounced bùkon. I have based the conclusion regarding the age of the two forms on ﬁndings in the various manuscripts of the ST. In Ms. J (reﬂecting ancient SA) ˆwkb appears 15 times and ˆwkwb only 3 times. In Ms. A (reﬂecting late SA) the situation is reversed: ˆwkwb is the common form, while ˆwkb appears only once (Ex 35:10). The diﬀerence in the vowels (a/u) is due to diﬀerent developments of the “6wa (ˆwkb]*) into a full vowel.632 Neither form is used in HSH, which only has the Hebrew μkb. I have only come across ˆwkwb in HSH once: μwks ˆwkwb yfmy alw “destruction will not reach you” (C. 388), while ˆwkb is not found at all. The same applies to the pair ˆwkwl/ˆwkl “to you”: ˆwkl is the common form in Ms. J, while ˆwkwl is very frequent in manuscripts reﬂecting later layers of SA. It is thus not surprising that in HSH we ﬁnd only ˆwkwl, while ˆwkl is not found at all. (c) ˆyb/ynyb Instead of the preposition b one can sometimes ﬁnd the construct state of the plural of this particle, i.e. ynyb bìni. It is uncommon in
See p. 193.
HSH but when used it maintains the same diﬀerence which existed in SA between ynyb and ˆyb: ynyb only means “among” while ˆyb is unmarked, i.e. it means both “among” and “between”: wtwdym[ μwy htarwbg ynyb “the day of his standing among the mighty forces” (C. 345); μym[h lk ynyb “among all the nations” (C. 367); hnad rds ynyb rdtsm “among the congregation gathering here” (C. 402). Note those cases in which one can hardly distinguish between the preposition ynyb and the preposition ynEy[b “in one’s eyes”. Also the latter is pronounced bìni, and can thus be written without the [, i.e. like the former. The following are two examples: ynyb wnjyr ta μtçabh wta wydb[w h[rp “you have made us oﬀensive amongst Pharaoh and his servants” (C. 589 = Ex 5:21 [ynyb instead of yny[b “in the sight of ”]); [t[tmk ym[ ynyb ytyyhw “I shall appear among my people as a trickster” (C. 595, based on [t[tmk wyny[b ytyyhw “I shall appear to him as a trickster”, Gn 27:12). Note that a diﬀerence in use between two forms of the preposition ˆyb, i.e. wnynyb and wnytwnyb, is also found in Biblical Hebrew. (d) k/wmk As in SH, the 3rd masc. suﬃx attached to the preposition wmk is the common wh, i.e. whmk, e.g. whmk ˆya rça çdqty “sanctiﬁed be He who has no equal” (C. 243). However, a new form, wmk k9mu “like him”, is very common: wmk tyl μr lqb wrmaw “they said in a loud voice that there is none like it” (C. 244); wmk μwkjw ˆwbn ˆya rça hçm hbr hybn “the great prophet Moses, none is as wise and discreet as he” (C. 499); wmk rçbb tyl “there is none among human beings like him” (BenÓayyim, Samaritan Piyyutim, p. 344). The Aramaic counterpart twk is much more frequent than wmk: the ratio of twk/wmk in all HSH piyyutim is 3:1. (e) m/wmm
wmm, instead of wnmm “from him”, is very frequent in HSH; in all HSH piyyutim we ﬁnd about 140 occurrences of wmm against about 70 of wnmm. The following are some examples: μymal ynç μq wmmd “two nations issued from him” (C. 231); tryna hml[ wmm “the world was illuminated by him” (C. 452); rbd wmm alpy alw “nothing is too wondrous for him” (C. 732). It is also found in TM: hwhy ydb[ wmm wax dk “when they [the servants of God] went out from him” (63a). The fact that wmm appears only in late Samaritan texts does not mean that it is a new form, since it is also found in the poems of
hybrid samaritan hebrew
Yannai: μmm taxbw μb μçpn awbb “when their soul enters them and when [it] leaves them (i.e. when they are born and when they die)” (Rabinovitz, I, p. 484); hbw hmm “of itself ” (lit.: from it and in it) (ibid., II, p. 36). (f ) d[/d[s The Hebrew preposition d[ “till” is sometimes translated in the ST by d[s (e.g. Gn 25:18, Ms. A). It is relatively rare in Ms. J of the ST and very common in Ms. A. Therefore Tal considered it as a late element in SA.633 It is also used in TM: wdk d[sw hçyrm “from the beginning till now” (185b). In the ancient SA piyyutim it is found only once: hwhy d[sl rzjtw “you will turn back to God” (LOT III/2, p. 138, cited from Dt 4:30). It can thus be said that the only SA text in which d[s does not appear is the ancient piyyutim. It is therefore not surprising that in HSH only d[ is used while d[s is found only as a quotation of the above-mentioned verse (C. 545). This aﬃnity of HSH with old SA piyyutim is evident in other cases as well. Even though HSH is quite diﬀerent from the language of the ancient SA piyyutim, these old compositions of the ﬁrst Samaritan poets served as the main text from which the late poets drew their ideas and style of writing.634 (g) l[/ywl[
ywl[ ill9bi “on” in SA and in other Aramaic dialects635 is a variant of l[ formed after plural nouns of wòòl/yòòl verbs. Its distribution in HSH is infrequent: ˆwkywl[ srpd hxjlw hkçj ˆn[ lpqyw “He will remove the cloud of darkness and agony which is spread upon you” (LOT III/2, p. 364); h[ra ywl[ hymwç ymyk “as long as there is a heaven over the earth” (ibid., p. 369, cf. Dt 11:21); μywl[ yqwjç ˆm dryd drbhw “the hail which came down from the sky upon them” (C. 185). In HSH the usual preposition is l[. This distribution of l[ as opposed to ywl[ is an heritage from SA, in which ywl[ is very rare: for example, in Ms. J of the ST ywl[ occurs only 10 times versus about 1500 occurrences of l[. In the ancient SA piyyutim as well, ywl[ is rare.
Tal, ST, p. 26. Cf. p. 96. 635 See Jastrow, Dictionary, s.v. ywly[. A parallel of gemination of the l is reﬂected in the pronunciation of the noun ˆwyl][, illiyyon “uppermost, supreme” in SH and HSH and in the Aramaic ha;L;[.i 634
Due to this limited distribution of ywl[ in SA and HSH, it is diﬃcult to determine exactly whether the use of ywl[ alongside l[ was conditioned. However, it seems that at least in Ms. J of the ST and in TM, one can trace some of the speciﬁc uses of ywl[: in Ms. J it occurs only in two deﬁned environments: (1) as a complement of the verb μq, e.g. wybl[ μym[q μyçwna htlt (Heb. wyl[ μybxn) “three men stood in front of him” (Gn 18:2); (2) as a translation of the form yle[:} μym ybl[ μyzrak . . . rhn ybl[ ˆyngk (Heb. . . . rhn yl[ twngk μym yl[ μyzrak) “like gardens beside a river . . . like cedar trees beside the waters” (Nu 24:6). In TM ywl[ occurs: (1) as in the ST, as a complement of the verb μq, e.g. h[rpd hrwkb ywl[ wm[qw “they stood in front of the ﬁrst-born of Pharaoh” (46a);636 and (2) after the preposition m, e.g. ˚ywl[ ˆm hl ˆyfsmw ˆylxm ˆna “we will pray and remove it from you” (34b). Note that ywl[ also occurs after ˆm in Ms. A of the ST (e.g. Ex 10:17), and in a poem by Fì'nås Arråbbån: ljzyw ˚ybbd lk ˚ywl[ ˆm “may He remove all your enemies from you” (C. 441).637 l[ is sometimes declined in HSH with Hebrew suﬃxes, e.g. μhyl[, wnyl[, μkyl[, and sometimes with Aramaic suﬃxes, e.g. ˆnyl[, ˆwkyl[, ˆwyl[, and neither suﬃx predominates. (h) ynp/ymq Alongside the common Hebrew preposition ynpl, in HSH ynp, the same preposition without l, is used. The ratio of ynpl versus ynp in all HSH piyyutim is 1:1: hçqh h[rp ynp “in front of Pharaoh the hard man” (C. 182); μylpç wynp μynwyl[ lk “all elevated persons are low in front of Him” (C. 213); wnyhla ynp “in front of our God” (C. 269). It is quite reasonable that ynp was formed after the Aramaic counterpart ymq (< ymdq), which is very common in SA and HSH, e.g. ynys rh ymq hplaw “He taught him in front of Mount Sinai” (LOT III/2, p. 73); wymq ˆndb[ dmb “in what we had done before him” (TM, 165b), and in HSH: dgsy wymqw ylxy “he will pray and bow down in front of Him” (C. 251); ytpçb hrmym ˆd ytd[ ymq ytrkd “I spoke [lit.: recalled with my lips] this statement in front of my community” (C. 332); μw[q ˚ymq awh rça ˆhkh “the priest who stands in front of you” (C. 388). 636
See also: 25a; 30a; 148b; 266b. Note that these facts do not ﬁt Macuch’s view about ywl[. He thinks that ywl[ and l[ are unconditioned variants (Macuch, GSA, p. 326). 637
hybrid samaritan hebrew
Surprisingly, ymq does not occur at all in Ms. J of the ST, but rather μdql is used systematically to translate the Hebrew ynpl. In contrast, μdql is relatively rare in the piyyutim, both those written in Aramaic and in HSH. The diﬀerence in language between SA reﬂected in the ST (mainly according to Ms. J) and SA reﬂected in the piyyutim is evident from other lexical and grammatical instances as well (see for example the issue of ˆwkwb, ˆwkwl, discussed above), but the discussion of this important issue is beyond the scope of this book. (i) lbq Alongside ynp(l) and) μdq(l), one can ﬁnd in HSH the preposition lbq(l): wlbql μ[q “stands in front of him” (C. 111); qlm[ lbql abw qbç hljdhw blh twkykrw “he came in front of Amaleq without [lit.: by leaving] fear and faintness638 of the heart” (C. 324); ask lbql htwbr “in front of the chair of greatness” (C. 413). Note the Hebrew suﬃx w- (instead of the Aramaic h-) attached to an Aramaic base. While this phenomenon in a hybrid language such as HSH is not at all surprising, the pure Aramaic form hlbq, however, does not occur at all. An interesting form is wylbq “in front of him”: πswyw wylbq rybq “Joseph is buried in front of him” (C. 249). Its base is -ylbq*; the spelling, reﬂecting the pronunciation qabb9lo, probably follows the Hebrew and the Aramaic counterparts wynpl and wymq. 220.127.116.11.4. The direct object articles ta, ty Both forms are used in HSH, with the Hebrew ta dominating (5 times more than the Aramaic ty). Most of the occurrences of ty are with a suﬃx, e.g. jql μçm ˆrm ˆtyw “our Lord took us from there” (C. 181); ˆwty rkzn “we remember them” (C. 381); rqyab hty yfmt “you shall arrive at him with honor” (C. 388). We only found a few cases of ty before a noun: wmp ty jtpw “he opened his mouth” (C. 229); waçn μlwq tyw “they lifted up their voice” (ibid.); wrkç ty jqlw “he took his reward” (C. 242); hym ty ˆwl hljw “He sweetened the water for them” (C. 386). The following ﬁndings clearly emphasize the infrequency of ty before a noun: (1) the ratio ta + suﬃx and ta + noun is 3:1, while
638 I have translated blh twkykr as “faintness” based on wkykr in the ST, which translates the Hebrew μbblb ˚rm as “faintness into their hearts” (Lv 26:36, Ms. M).
the ratio ta + suﬃx and ty + noun is 8:1; (2) the ratio ta + suﬃx and ty + suﬃx is only 2:1, while the ratio ta + noun and ty + noun is 45:1! This low distribution of ty before a noun is not accidental. The same situation characterizes the SA piyyutim: ty + suﬃx is found there 27 times, while we ﬁnd ty + noun only 7 times. Note that ty is not the main way the object is marked in SA: objects attached to the verb without an intermediary particle (e.g. ytra ˆthçpn “have mercy over our souls”, LOT III/2, p. 44) occur about 250 times, and objects before l (e.g. hl qbd “saves him”, ibid., p. 49) occur about 150 times. These ﬁndings in HSH thus ﬁt the situation in SA, although the similarity is not complete since ta is very frequent in HSH. In sum: ty is relatively rare in SA texts, especially before nouns; yet in the ST we ﬁnd ty regularly, translating the particle ta. 18.104.22.168.5. Conjunctions (a) d/rça HSH has two relative pronouns, the Hebrew rça, and the Aramaic d. The frequency of these two forms is noteworthy: 424 times for rça versus 675 times for d. This ratio stands in contrast to the general ratio between Hebrew and Aramaic forms in HSH. Note for example that, with regard to the deﬁnite article, the ratio is 3:1 in favor of the Hebrew article. One must thus conclude that the relative pronoun d was not considered by the late poets as a foreign element. This assumption is not far-fetched considering that a Samaritan grammarian states that the (Aramaic) vocative ha is Hebrew (see above). Noteworthy is the total absence of the relative pronoun ç. This is true even in late Samaritan texts such as CASD, which are replete with Hebrew elements. This absence is not surprising if we remember that the ç does not exist at all in SH. Still, certain facts show that the Samaritans did have knowledge about this relative pronoun: (1) the ç in the Hebrew words rynIc] Senir (i.e. Mount Óermon, Dt 3:9) and yD'v' Shaddai (i.e. God Almighty, e.g. Gn 17:1) was interpreted by the Samaritans as a relative pronoun: rynIc] was translated in the ST as hdb[çm “the one who is enslaved”. This rendering proves that the Samaritans understood the word as being ryNIv,, i.e. “one who [has borne] a yoke”. The word yD'ç' was rendered by hqwps
hybrid samaritan hebrew
“the one who supplies”. This proves that they understood yD'ç' as being yD'v;, 639 (2) the relative pronoun ç is explicitly mentioned by the Samaritan grammarian qjxy yba: while discussing the ç in the word hç[yç, he states that it appears “instead of rça”.640 (b) μlwaw This conjunction in HSH can serve as an example of the considerable inﬂuence of SH on HSH. In the Pentateuch we only ﬁnd μlwaw, never simply μlwa. Because of this, μlwa also cannot be found in HSH piyyutim, where we ﬁnd only μlwaw, e.g. yna yj μlwaw “but truly, as I live” (C. 140 = Nu 14:21); rykzm yna ht[ç μlwaw “but now641 I recall” (C. 430). (c) ˆa/ˆh
ˆa, very frequent in HSH, has two functions: 1. As the conditional conjunction μa “if ”: ˆw[mm πqçh tyar ˆa ˚çdq “if You see, look down from Your holy dwelling” (C. 109, borrowed from 'Åmråm: ˚çdq ˆw[mm tqyda, LOT III/2, p. 88); tyl ˆaw wnytltm jwry ˆm ˆrm wnyrxb ˚yl[ ≈jrtn “if we shall not trust in You in our distress, our Lord, who will alleviate all our anxieties” (C. 170); ˚rwn ryny rft ˆa “if you will keep [the law] your light will shine” (C. 201); yrm hta yntçrg ˆaw yntqjrh ˆaw yntbz[ ˆhw yntyjh ˆaw yntyma ˆa “if You will kill me, and if You will let me live, and if You will leave me, and if You will remove me, and if You will expel me—You are [all the same] my master” (C. 216); ˆthçpn ytra ˚ym[ âˆa ˆrm ha “O our master, if You saw [our distress], favor our souls” (C. 241, borrowed from 'Åmråm: ˆtytra ˚ym[ ˆa, LOT III/2, p. 90). 2. As a conjunction introducing object clauses (like yk): wtqdx lwçnw hnal ˆwktyw ˆna rz[y ˆa “we ask His charity, that He will return us and you here” (C. 252); hçmçth l[b yna ˆa [dt hm “you do not know that I am the servant” (C. 367); ˆwkwl μyçy ˆa . . . hla ˆm yçrdm hlag “my request from God . . . is that He will redeem you” (C. 227); ykz yna ˆa yblb rmaw “I said in my heart that I am righteous” (C. 481).
See GSH, §6.3.18. LOT I, p. 124. 641 For ht[ç “now” (lit.: this hour), cf. Arabic “hour” > (also other languages, e.g. Spanish hora “hour” > ahora “now”). 640
The frequent distribution of ˆa in HSH is probably due to its aﬃnity to the Arabic . Alongside ˆa, HSH also uses the Hebrew μa. This conjunction introduces mainly conditional clauses, e.g. hz ym wnlwq [mçt al μa wn[mçy “if You will not hear our voices—who will hear us!?” (C. 184). Only rarely does it occur before an object clause, e.g. yl an hdyga μdah ynbm ta hyht μa “tell me if you belong to the human race” (C. 367). Note that the diﬀerence between ˆa and μa is not necessarily a diﬀerence between Aramaic and Hebrew, but rather that these are perhaps two variants of the same word reﬂecting the common neutralization of m and n at the end of a word.642 The answer to this question depends mainly on the general character of the text and its language. In the Aramaic composition TM, for example, due to the spelling rules of Hebrew, the spelling of mem instead of nun at the end of Aramaic words is very common, e.g. μybrbr μynmys “great signs” (8a). Against the background of this phenomenon, i.e. a Hebrew spelling used in purely Aramaic words, Ben-Óayyim stated that “the conditional particle μa, which occurs [in TM] alongside ˆa and ˆh, is Aramaic in its origin” (TM, p. 17). The same spelling, i.e. the conjunction μa, will be treated diﬀerently when it occurs in texts written in HSH, the reason being that, as Hebrew words appear naturally alongside Aramaic words in these texts, the spelling μa may well be interpreted as reﬂecting the Hebrew particle. ˆh is also used very frequently in HSH, and has the same meanings as ˆa: 1. As a conditional conjunction (like μa): ynxyrh ˚ymjrb ˚ym[ ˆh “if You see [my stress] save643 me with Your compassion” (C. 214); wtwç[l ˆwrhm bf rbdh hz hwh ˆh ˆwkyyjb “I bid you, if this thing is proper, hurry and do it” (C. 252); ˚ygrd wny[b bwfhw rçyh tyç[ ˆh açntt “if you will do what is right and good in His sight your degree will be elevated” (C. 545). 2. As a conjunction introducing nominal clauses, especially object clauses: wjrby μhm ˆh wçrdw “they wanted to run away from them” (C. 229); dja aybn wh ˆh ˆnrma ˆnywhw “we said that he is one [i.e. the only] prophet” (C. 251); μta rpsn ˆh wnyhla hwhy wnwxd “the Lord our 642
See the discussion on ˆhka, p. 256 above (and p. 100, n. 159). The use of ynxyrh to denote “save me” is based on Gn 41:14: rwbh ˆm whxyryw “they brought him hastily out of the dungeon”. 643
hybrid samaritan hebrew
God commanded us to count them” (C. 289); wnbç ˆh wnybwf “happy we are that we turned back [i.e. repented]” (C. 189). ˆh is frequently used in the Tùlìda: ˆwçyarh lbwyh ˆh [dw “know that the ﬁrst jubilee” (3b16); larçy ynb wç[ ˆh . . . wnytwba ˆm wnqt[ ˆkw jsph ta “we also inherited from our fathers . . . that the Israelites celebrated the Passover” (4a36); h[bra tnçb twh hl wtwbtkm ˆh wb rkzw twam çmjw μy[braw “he mentioned there that he had written it in the year 544” (5a54). Alongside these uses, ˆh is also used as an emphasizing particle: la tyb awh ˆh ala dgsm db[ta hyrbf lk ˆm hrwf ˆha hmlw “why has this mountain become a place of worship? [For no reason] but for its being the house of God” (C. 250); ylgtm çmçk ylg ˆl wh ˆh fçqhw “the truth is revealed to us like a revealed sun” (C. 412). It is somewhat diﬃcult to diﬀerentiate between ˆh and ˆa. One may assume that the only diﬀerence is orthographic, implying that ˆh, too, goes back to Arabic. This assumption is quite reasonable in a language such as HSH. However, it is quite probable that ˆh in HSH, at least in some of its occurrences, is basically the Aramaic (and Hebrew) presentative and emphasizing interjection, which came to function as a conjunction. These two functions—an exclamation to emphasize the unexpected and a conjunction—are found in the Hebrew and Aramaic counterpart yk. This particle is used in SA (and in Biblical Hebrew) as a stressing word, e.g. byrq hl jqçm yk “indeed he has somebody close to him” (LOT III/2, p. 213).644 Note that alh, which in Hebrew is an emphasizing particle, is the common translation of the Hebrew conjunction yk in the ST: μyrbg alh ˆnjna μyja (Heb. wnjna μyja μyçna yk) “for we are kinsmen” (Gn 13:8). However, even if ˆh of HSH is originally Aramaic, its frequent distribution in HSH may well be attributed to Arabic.
d ˆa This conjunction occurs only once in SA piyyutim: hb çybl tad ˆa ˚lm ta “if you are dressed in it, you are a king” (LOT III/2, p. 263). J. Blau has suggested, that ç μa found in Arabicized Hebrew is due to Arabic inﬂuence.645 However, it is not possible that the ancient SA piyyutim were inﬂuenced by Arabic. In HSH, too, d ˆa is
For more examples see DSA, s.v. 1yk. J. Blau, “"O “e- in Rabbinic Hebrew” (in Hebrew), L^“onénu 21 (1957), p. 12 n. 14. 645
very rare: t[d y[b td ˆa tmaw “if you want to know” (C. 497; see below, tma).
ˆa d[ This conjunction is similar to the Hebrew yk d[ “till”: llkty ˆa d[ “till it will be completed” (C. 499). It is also spelled with h, e.g. d[ dygy ˆh “till he says” (C. 250). It can even be found in a piyyut of Mårqe where it cannot be considered as being inﬂuenced by Arabic: ˆwbwty ˆh d[ “till they return” (LOT III/2, p. 210). (d) yk This conjunction is used in HSH mainly as introducing causal and object clauses: wnyhla hta yk μmwyw hlyl lkb ˚jbçnw “we praise You every night and day because You are our God” (C. 167); μyxbhw db ynp yk [dt [dyh rmay “the egg said: do you know that my color is white?” (C. 191). Note that despite the fact that yk as introducing a causal clause is inherited from the Pentateuch, most of the causal clauses in HSH are introduced by ˆa/ˆh. As an emphasizing word, yk occurs in HSH only in rare cases: wmlçb dgtsm yyk “indeed He is worshipped totally” (C. 460, based on an ancient SA piyyut, LOT III/2, p. 43, 253); typk hlk yk [xnm al wy[xn wtwhlal “triumphant who is not defeated; indeed everything is subjected to His divinity” (C. 213). (e) tma Unlike the ST, tma “when” in the HSH piyyutim does not function as an interrogative,646 but rather only as a conjunction introducing a time clause (about 30 times): jrth jtp μdq yrmym [mç tma “when he heard my saying he approached the entrance of the gate” (C. 368); wbtyta tma “when they sat” (C. 377); ynys rwf l[ tjnd tma “when he descended on [from?] Mount Sinai” (C. 388); jmth hz wm[w wmq tmaw “when they stood and saw this wonder” (C. 401); wrmym yt[mç tma wynp ypa l[ ytdgs “when I heard his words, I bowed low in front of him” (C. 480). The structure d tma (instead of tma) is comparatively rare, and the counterpart of what one can hear from time to time in spoken Israeli Hebrew: -ç ytm (instead of ytm).
646 E.g. ytybl hna πa db[a tma (MV: ytybl yna μg hç[a ytm) “when shall I make provision for my own household” (Gn 30:30).
hybrid samaritan hebrew
ˆa tma This conjunction is an innovation of HSH and is used to introduce a conditional clause: t[d y[b td ˆa tmaw “if you want to know” (C. 497); çwrd td ˆa tmaw “if you ask” (C. 499); y[b td ˆa tma ˚lhmh “if you want to go” (C. 555). A similar structure, without ˆa, is found in the Tùlìda: μkjm y[b td tma “if you want to know” (5b4). (f ) dk
dk “when” (parallel in structure and in function to the Hebrew -çk) functions as tma and is even more frequent (about 100 times): dkw rbdh hz [mç “when he heard this matter” (C. 120); ˆwtdryw ˆwtyta dk “when you arrived and descended” (C. 251); ˚dyl ˆnyta dk “when we came to you” (ibid.). d dk, with a redundant d, is rarely used: tbtkad hylm yrqd dk rydt “when the eternal read the words which had been written” (C. 503, borrowed from a piyyut of Mårqe, LOT III/2, p. 193). The use of this redundant is either: (1) analogous to the counterpart d tma (see above); or (2) analogous—like d ˆa d tma, d hmd,—to conjunctions in which the d is a genuine element.647 (g) d hmd
d hmd is not used in HSH, but is quite common in TM: ysatyd hmd “perchance he might be healed” (32a). 3.5. The Lexicon 3.5.1. The innovations of HSH 22.214.171.124. New meaning or use (a) ˆma
ˆòòma in HSH has two main derivations: 1. The Qal participle, i.e. ˆma 9m6n “safe”: hnyd lkm μynma “safe from any punishment” (C. 142); bbd lkm μynma “safe from any enemy”
See Ben-Óayyim’s explanation in LOT III/2, pp. 193, 263.
(C. 178). Particularly common is the locution ˆwkyrtab μynma “safe in your places”: ˆwkyrtab μynma wnwhtw jfbl wnkçtw “may you dwell (securely) and be safe in your places” (C. 454). This meaning of ˆòòma is also found in Arabic,648 but one does not have to attribute its meaning in HSH to Arabic, since the basic meaning of ˆòòma in Hebrew is “stand”.649 This meaning is also evident in HSH itself: (tw)d[h ˆwra l[ ˆmaw drçh ydgb çwbl dqwph rmtya “Itamar the overseer who wears the service vestments and stands by the Ark of the Pact” (C. 277). One may thus assume that the meanings “stable, safe”, or “steadfast” developed independently in Hebrew (and in Aramaic) from the basic meaning “stand”.650 Concurrently, the frequent distribution of ˆma itself in HSH may be due to Arabic inﬂuence. This use is also found in TM: ybgm lkm ˆmanw “we shall be safe from any punishment” (36b); ˆnynkçmb μynma yhnw “we shall be safe in our dwellings” (241b). 2. Pa'el, e.g. ˚tary ˆmayw dyrjm ˆyaw jfbl ˆkçtw651 “you will dwell in safety untroubled by anyone and He will strengthen your fear [of God]”.652 This use of ˆòòma is not found in ancient Samaritan texts.653 The whole idea reﬂected in the locution is already expressed in the Pentateuch, e.g. μymyh lk yta haryl ˆwdmly rça yrbd ta μ[mçaw “I may let them hear my words, so that they may learn to fear me” (Dt 4:10); yta haryl μhl hz μbbl hyhw ˆty ym “may they always be of such mind to fear me” (Dt 5:29). ˆòòma meaning “steadfastness” is widespread in SA:654 μl[l ˆmm hbwfd hbwf “the good (i.e. God) whose goodness is steadfast for ever” (LOT III/2, p. 205); ˚rwyw ˆmy “let him
648 And also in Biblical Hebrew; see Yellin, “Forgotten Meanings of Hebrew Roots” (in Hebrew), L^“onénu 1 (1929), p. 8. 649 See LOT III/2, p. 165. 650 Note as well that the noun tma in the MH locution byxyw tma is usually translated “true and ﬁrm”. As is well known, tma is derived from ˆòòma and byxy is derived from bòòxn “stand”. There is no doubt that at least in this locution tma has the meaning “stable”. 651 The locution hary ˆma is very common (see, e.g. C. 90, 403, 608). 652 Cowley has translated the locution “strengthen us against fear” (see his glossary in C.). However, this interpretation does not ﬁt the syntactic structure of the locution, which lacks a preposition between the verb and the object hary. The meaning “force” and “existing” of ˆòòma was discussed by H. Yalon, The Dead Sea Scrolls (in Hebrew), Jerusalem 1967, p. 80. 653 The possibility of Arabic inﬂuence— —has been rightly proposed by Tal (DSA, s.v. 1ˆma). Yet the meaning “safety” could have developed independently in HSH. 654 And also in Syriac (see Payne-Smith, Thesaurus, col. 231).
hybrid samaritan hebrew
endure and prolong [his days]” (TM, 245b). Based on this use of ˆma in SA, one may alternatively translate the locution wntary ˆma: “make our fear of you steady”. Note that ˆòòma in the ancient SA piyyutim is used as an intransitive verb, while in this HSH locution we assume a transitive use. This assumption can be strengthened by the Medieval-Hebrew counterpart dymtm, which also has both meanings.655 In TM one can also ﬁnd a transitive use of ˆòòma: dymt ˚yl[ hbwf ˆmy “He will always give you the best” (274a). Another locution, similar to wntary ˆma but with still another meaning, is ˚mm ˚nmay aryt “may He strengthen you from what you fear” (C. 294). (b) ˆpa This word—pronounced by the Samaritans 9f6n—has a unique meaning in HSH. It is not the counterpart of the Hebrew word ˆp,ao “way, manner”, but rather it means “the front”, the counterpart of the Hebrew μynIP; “face, front”. It is quite frequent as part of the locution ˆpa ˆkçm “tabernacle of the Presence (or: the front, the honorable, tabernacle)”, which was located according to Samaritan belief on Mount Gerizim: ˆpa ˆkçm wbw hjwnmh rh ˚dy wnnwk ˆrm ˚dsjb “with Your grace Your hands have established the ‘resting mountain’, in which the tabernacle of the Presence is located” (C. 492); ˆkçml axtw çnktt rjm hbd ˆd[ ˆgl ˚rd ˆpa “you will go out to the tabernacle of the Presence on the way to the Garden of Eden [where] you will gather tomorrow” (C. 664). Sometimes we ﬁnd a Samaritan poet who identiﬁes ˆpa ˆkçm with ˆd[ ˆg itself: ˆpa ˆkçm ayh yk ˆd[ ˆg wl dt[w “He prepared the Garden of Eden for him, which is ˆpa ˆkçm”. The identiﬁcation of ˆpa with “front” is also reﬂected in the ST: hmwdq rwtp (Heb. μynph ˆjlç) “the table of display” Nu 4:7). At the same time, ˆpa in HSH has another, derivative, meaning: “ﬁrst” (< “stands in the front”) and “honorable” (< “ﬁrst”). These meanings are reﬂected in several places in SA, the most prominent being in the Pentateuch: wytbkrm ˆpa ty rsayw (Heb. rsyw; ST yamdq, yamq; Ex 14:25).656 Thus, the Samaritans did not interpret ˆpa as “wheel”657
See Ben-Yehuda, Thesaurus, s.v. ˆma. Cf. also the Arabic translation ad. loc.: “more sublime”, “mighty”. 657 Except Ms. B: ylglg, which does not reﬂect a Samaritan tradition, but rather follows the Jewish tradition embedded in Targum Onqelos. On inﬂuences of Onqelos, see n. 32 (p. 54 above). 656
but as “honorable”, i.e.: “God seized the honorable [or the ﬁrst] armed men”.658 This meaning of ˆpa thus entirely parallels the Hebrew μynp, which in Hebrew sources has the meaning “honorable”, e.g. twyrwd μhl jlçm lyjth ry[bç μynph ta ˆnj “he showed mercy to the honorable people of the city—began to send them presents” (Genesis Rabba, p. 940; a Midrashic commentary on Gn 33:18). We thus conclude that the new use of ˆpa in HSH is based on old tradition, common to Jews as well, which is reﬂected in the ST. (c) db The word db in BH is deﬁned in the dictionaries as “pieces of cloth probably linen” (HALOT ), and since linen is white, it is not surprising that some were more explicit and deﬁned db as “white linen” (BDB). Following this interpretation, the locution db (y)dgb was rendered in MH as ˆbl ylk “a white garment” (e.g. m. Yoma 3:6). The Samaritans hold the same tradition: while Onqelos usually renders the word db by ≈wb (e.g. Ex 28:42), the Samaritans use rb[, rba, a spelling which refers to the general Aramaic word rwj “white”. In HSH piyyutim db took a step forward and also simply means “white” in every context: db ˆyy htçnw “we shall drink white wine”659 (C. 189). db is used in HSH several times in the phrase db ˆmw çwk ˆm “black and white”, which actually means “everybody”: çwk ˆm rbg lk wynp tpkhw db ˆmw “he subdued everybody for him—a black man and a white man” (C. 383); db ˆmw çwk ˆm μlw[h lk “all the world—black and white as well” (C. 425); yrmrmk db r[wx ˚l harm hpyw rat hpy “you are shapely and beautiful—your neck is white like marble”660 (C. 844).
658 See Z. Ben-Óayyim, “The Gleanings of Ephraim” (in Hebrew), in: H. BenShammai (ed.), Hebrew and Aramaic Studies in Honour of Joshua Blau, Jerusalem and Tel-Aviv 1993, p. 103, where he mentions that Ibn-]ana˙, in his Book of Roots (s.v. ˆpa), translates wynpa l[ rwbd rbd “a word ﬁtly spoken” (Prov 25:11) into Arabic: hhgw yl[ “on its face”. This proves that the tradition of interpreting ˆpa as μynp was also common among Jewish scholars. 659 An interesting counterpart is qyt[ ˆyrwyj rmj “old white wine” mentioned in y. Yoma 41d. 660 yrmrm “marble” is used instead of the common (a)r(y)mrm because of the rhyme.
hybrid samaritan hebrew
(d) afb The Hebrew verb afby “utters” (Lv 5:4) is pronounced in SH yèbè†å— not in Pi'el, as in the Tiberian tradition, but in Qal.661 Perhaps this fact enabled the poet Ab Isdå to create a causative verbal form in Pi'el meaning “cause to speak”: ynafbyw μla “[I was born] dumb and He caused me to speak” (C. 80). This use is unknown elsewhere and it is rather diﬃcult to decide whether it is the poet’s own creation or whether he drew on sources still unknown to us. Support for the ﬁrst assumption can be found in the fact that in his unique prayer (see chapter two) this poet uses other words whose form and meaning are unknown to us, e.g. ˆnrmw μyry[bh [ydwm ≈[wm alw wl ˆya rz[ μyçrjh [ymçmw μyryw[h jyqwpw μymlah “He [God] has no helper and no adviser; He gives knowledge to the ignoramus, causes the dumb to sing, causes the blind to see and causes the deaf to hear” (C. 79). (e) dyg This word is used in HSH in its usual meaning, i.e. “sinew”: ˆy[hw blh twdygh lkw hywghw jwrhw “the heart, the eye, the spirit, the body and all the sinews” (C. 283). The word is frequently used as an element of the locution hanqh dyg “the feeling of jealousy”: hpwlç wynpb hanqh dygw “the feeling of jealousy is reﬂected in his face” (C. 374); dygw dm[ wny[ ˆyb hanqh “feeling of jealousy was reﬂected in his eyes” (C. 529;); hanqh dyg ynpb μq wtm dk hyçna ytaxm “when I found the people dead the feeling of jealousy arose and was reﬂected in my face” (in a remark in a manuscript of Torah dated 1766/7; Von Gall, p. XXXVII). (f ) glg The basic meaning of gòòlg is “praise”. The verbal derivations of this root in Pa'el and Itpa'al are very common in SA. In Pa'el we thus ﬁnd: hlyjb wglg “praise His power” (LOT III/2, p. 172). b glg is also found in HSH: hnw[m ˆm yrq lwqw hb ˆyglgm ˆwna hm ˆybw “a voice called from the holy habitation while they were praising Him” (C. 378). In Itpa'al: hbtk μlçb glgty “let the book [i.e. the Torah] be praised in peace [or: entirely]” (LOT III/2, p. 255); hbr hybn glgtyw “let the
661 This is the sort of Qal whose “6wa of the ﬁrst radical (af;b]y*I ) has developed into a full vowel (GSH, §126.96.36.199).
great prophet be praised” (TM, 221b). In HSH: arqd harq glgty hçm hyybnd ˆwbrl “let the reader [God]662 be praised who called to Moses, the master of the prophets” (C. 322). The reﬂexive meaning is also found: rmaw 663glga byrwj rwf “Mount Horeb praised itself and said” (C. 749). However, alongside this use, inherited in HSH from SA, glg is used in a sense which is not found in SA, namely an element of the locutions ˆçl glg and μp glg. In these expressions glg has the meaning “purify”. It is used mainly in Pa'el: wrhfw μklk ˆçlh wglg μmph “everybody purify your tongue and your mouth” (C. 135); glgaw htwgylg taz ˆrkdb ynçl “I will purify my tongue in recalling this praise” (C. 819); yglg yrb[h ˆçlb rmynw ˆnymmp glgn ˆa ˆnyyj ymy lk ˆnybwf rbgh hz “happy we are all our lives if we purify our mouths and say in Hebrew the praises of this man” (C. 825). The special meaning of glg here is also evident from its parallel rhf in phrases like those mentioned above. Moreover, in HSH we ﬁnd locutions such as ˆçl twykd and μp twykd which are entirely parallel to ˆçl glg and μp glg. These locutions are also innovations of HSH: ˆwkytwlx wmtj dja μp ˆwklhk μynwçl twykdb wrmaw “ﬁnish your prayers and say with pure tongues all of you with one accord” (C. 109); twykdb wrmaw dja μp ˆwklhk htwmmp “say with pure mouths all of you with one accord” (C. 256; see also: 385; 398; 456); arq hmk arqml μph ykdnw wnybn hçm “we shall purify our mouth in order to read as Moses our prophet read” (C. 385); μmph rhfnw çdj rmym çdjn “we will renew a new saying and purify our mouth” (C. 248). Note that the same double meaning—“pure” and “praise”—also exists in the root ròòxn: in HSH alongside the common meaning “devotion” (< “guarding the covenant”), it is sometimes parallel to rhf “pure”,664 while in Syriac it means “praise”.665 (g) wng In SA wng is the counterpart of the Hebrew twng, i.e. it means “blame”: hbr wng yhw “this is a great blame” (LOT III/2, p. 168). However, in HSH the usual—if not the only!—meaning of wng is “mourn, sorrow,
Cf. ynys rh l[ wnyhla hwhy awh μyrbdh trç[ arqd harq glgty (C. 348). glga is pronounced iggallåg (< glgta). 664 See ˆyn[, p. 349. 665 S. Lieberman argued that ròòxn also has the meaning “praise” in SA. He based his proposal on occurrences such as ˚m[ ryxnd çyal hdgs lsp alw (LOT III/2, 663
hybrid samaritan hebrew
suﬀer”. The form wng with aﬃnity to “sorrow” is already documented in the ST: ˆwgyb “with sorrow” (Gn 42:38) was rendered by wngb. While the translator’s intention might have been to say “blame”, there is no doubt that later HSH writers understood its meaning as “sorrow”. The shift in meaning from “blame” to “sorrow” was probably also encouraged by the prominent tendency of HSH yòòp roots—such as ˆwgy—to drop their ﬁrst radical yod.666 This phenomenon brought ˆwgy closer in form to t/wng. The following are some examples of wng in HSH: ybzj hm[ alw bzj wl ytyar al yba twng tta “my father passed away [lit.: the sorrow of my father came], I did not see him, and he did not see me” (LOT III/2, p. 333); wng μkb hyhy alw wdbktw wbrtw “you will increase and you will be honored and you will not know any sorrow” (C. 239; another version: πgn); ˚yla wynp hwhy ryay wndyz lk ˚ynpm dbyw wng lk ˚mm qjryw “may the Lord make His face shine upon you and remove from you any sorrow and destroy any presumptuousness before you” (C. 414); alw ˆwkyrtab μynma wnwhtw wng ˆma wart “may you be safe in your places and not see any sorrow, Amen” (C. 454). The form hmwng occurs several times (6 in all HSH piyyutim) with the same meaning of wng, e.g. hmwngh ˆm μyrybçh ˆwybblw “their hearts which are broken from sorrow” (C. 760); [rh rsyy ˆa laçnw ˆrm çrdn hmwng lk rfsyw lba lk ˆwnm qjryw larçym “we ask our master and beg Him to remove the harm from Israel and take away any mourning and remove any sorrow” (C. 865). All the occurrences of hmwng, however, clearly stand at the end of a verse ending with the syllable hm-. Seemingly, hmwng should thus not be considered an independent word but rather a variant of wng which is used only in speciﬁc poetic environments. However, the ending -ma may reﬂect an Arabic inﬂuence since it exists in the Arabic counterpart “sorrow”. (h) qwd In several piyyutim the verb qyda—usually “look down”—has another meaning, e.g. qydm wyl[ rwnhw μyzyrgrh la qyls yna ˆa ymljb ytyar. p. 174), which he translated: “he does not disqualify the worship of a person who praises you”. This, however, can also be translated “a person who is devoted to you”, and indeed Ben-Óayyim (TM, 81a, n. 1) argued that the former meaning is not evident in the occurrences of ròòxn in SA. Neither did Tal, DSA, s.v. rxn accept Lieberman’s proposal. 666 Thus, we have ax instead of axy “went out”, dr instead of dry “descended” etc.; see p. 237.
Ostensibly, in this verse qydm has its usual meaning: “I saw in my dream that I climbed up to Mount Gerizim and saw the light on it” (C. 480).667 But this translation does not ﬁt the syntax of the phrase: qydm stands here without the preposition l[, which is not found elsewhere in SA. I thus suggest that qydm here means “illuminate”.668 This meaning of qydm is clear in other occurrences as well: qydm wyl[ rwnhw wyfbçl ˆkç awhw qyls μyrxmm ˚hw larçyl ypxn ht[
hylylb ˆn[w ça dwm[ qydyw wynpl μyhlah ˚alm qypyw wynjm l[ yrç hrm ˆwxrw “now we shall see Israel, and how he left Egypt and he is encamping tribe by tribe [cf. Nu 24:2] and the light illuminates him and the presence [lit.: the will] of his master dwells in his camps and He sent out the angel of God before him and the pillar of ﬁre and cloud illuminates by night” (C. 604); qydm wynp rwnd qydxh aybnh awh hz “this is the righteous prophet—the light of his face illuminates” (in Mùlåd Mù“i; Miller, p. 33319).669 This double meaning—“see” and “look” on the one hand, and “illuminate” on the other—is known from other roots in Hebrew and Semitic languages, like ròòhz and ≈òòwx.670 To these we can now add qòòwd. It seems that this meaning of qyda is also found outside Samaritan sources, i.e. in JPA: a poem composed for Passover was written as follows: hrhwn ˚yh qyda hrjç bkwk “the star of dawn illuminated like light” ( JPAP, p. 92).671 (i) rwd The verb ryda/rydh 9d6r (Af 'el of ròòwd) is very common in HSH with the meaning “shine, illuminate”: wtwarwn ˆm hml[ trydaw qld wynp rw[w “the skin of his face shined and the world was illuminated from his light” (C. 447); rydh wnbzb bkwk lk “every star illuminated in its time” (C. 479); wrydhw wjrza htwlylw hymwy “the days and nights shined and illuminated” (C. 749). An interesting use is that made by the poet hy[la μhrba: rydhw [ypwhw ry[çm jrzw “He rose up from Se'ir and shined forth and illuminated” (LOT III/2, p. 339, based on Dt 33:2)—the poet added the word rydh in order to emphasize the notion of “shining”. Note that ròòwd in this sense is not used in 667
And indeed, Margain’s translation was: “ﬁxant la lumière” (Margain, p. 119). I have dealt with this word in my article Florentin, Lexical Nature, p. 10. 669 S. J. Miller, The Samaritan Molad Mosheh—Samaritan and Arabic Texts Edited and Translated with Introduction and Notes, Ph.D. Dissertation, Columbia University 1949 (Reprinted: Philosophical Library, New York 1949). 670 See, J. Blau, “Über homonyme und angeblich homonyme Wurzeln”, VT 6 (1956), pp. 247–248. 671 The editor’s Hebrew translation is: rwa wmk ≈yxh rjçh bkwk. 668
hybrid samaritan hebrew
SA.672 The etymology of the verb is uncertain. The assumption that it is based on rdh which occurs in the Pentateuch: wl rdh wrwç rwkb “His ﬁrstling bull has majesty”, is tempting, especially when one takes into consideration that one of the versions of the SP has rydh.673 However, the shift “glory” > “light” is not that simple and the spelling rydh might reﬂect a late interpretation of the verse. Derivation from the noun hrwdm “pile”674 seems reasonable, although one should note that hrwdm does not exist in the Pentateuch or in any Samaritan text. Moreover, the tendency of SH and HSH toward triliteral roots would have caused a secondary formation of the verb ròòdm (< hrwdm). I therefore believe that it is not far-fetched to assume that HSH has preserved the ancient root ròòwd “light”. In any case, the Samaritan evidence helps us understand rwd in the Bible: hytjt μymx[h rwd μgw “and burn also the bones under it” (Ezek 24:5). Ancient and modern commentators disagree about the meaning of rwd in the verse: Rashi wrote: hkyr[ ˆwçl rwd “the meaning of rwd is to arrange”, while Rabbi David Qim˙i related it to the noun hrwdm: “rwd is the imperative, like μwq, and it is related to hrwdm, i.e. [the author actually] wrote: set the bones on ﬁre under it”.675 BDB follows Rashi to some extent and translates rwd “heap up”, while Ben-Yehuda followed Qim˙i: He related the noun hrwdm to the root ròòwd and argued: “the noun hrwdm testiﬁes that in [ancient times] a verb rwd ‘to set ﬁre in a pile’ did exist . . . in the related [i.e. Semitic] languages there is no such verb, as there is no parallel to the noun hrwdm; however, the meaning of rwd is undisputable”.676 HSH reinforces Ben-Yehuda’s assumption. ( j) ynhd (< ynh)
yòònh “pleasure” was already used in the ancient SA piyyutim, e.g. tma ˚tnjd “whenever You please” (LOT III/2, p. 160).677 In HSH a ﬁxed locution was created: wtmkj tnjd hm ˚h, literally “as His wisdom 672 One can ﬁnd in DSA the entry 2rwd “illumination”. However, all the quotations there are from HSH piyyutim. 673 As pointed out by Ben-Óayyim, LOT III/2, p. 339. 674 Proposed by Tal, DSA, s.v. 2rwd. 675 In the Hebrew original: hytjt μymx[ ry[bt rma ;hrwdm ˆwçlm μwq lqçb ywwx rwd. 676 In the Hebrew original: tyyç[ ˆyyn[l rwd l[p μg hyh yk dy[m hrwdm μçh lç wtw[mçmb ˚a ,hrwdm μçhl rbj ˆyaç wmk hz l[pl rbj ˆya twyjah twnwçlb . . . hrwdmh
qpqpl ˆya rwd. 677 ˚tnjd consists of d (relative pronoun) + ynh (participle of yòònh) + ˚t (the pronominal suﬃx). On the issue of object suﬃxes in SA, see my article Florentin, The Object Suﬃxes.
pleased (or: pleases)”, meaning “as he pleases”. E.g. hmb hçm byga μç wtmkjw wbl typx tnjd “then Moses answered as he pleased (lit.: as his heart’s will678 and his wisdom pleased)” (C. 378). A surprising structure in HSH is wtmkj tnjdd (Ben-Óayyim, Samaritan Piyyutim, p. 356), with the duplication of the relative pronoun. When ﬁrst noted by Ben-Óayyim (ibid.), he was uncertain whether this was simply a dittography or a reﬂection of a secondary root whose ﬁrst radical is d. Now that we have recorded all the HSH material, we have found more occurrences of this kind and can state that indeed a new root— ˆòòhd—was created: ˚twjyr wb tnjdd μwqmb wmmwqw ˚nkçm ylgaw “reveal Your dwelling and establish it in the place You please [lit.: in the place your acceptance pleases]”679 (C. 220). The grammatical proof that the d of the locution must be considered part of the root is our ﬁnding that the conjunction hm ˚h is always connected to the following verb without the relative d, i.e. d hm ˚h* does not exist, e.g. trfmh hm ˚h “as you sent rain” (C. 108).680 Against the background of this linguistic fact, one can make assumptions about the motivation for creating the secondary root: on the one hand the HSH poets were acquainted with SA structures such as hmbw ˚tnjd tma ˚l ynjd (LOT III/2, p. 160), while on the other hand in their own use the common conjunctions lacked the relative pronoun. Therefore when seeing a phrase such as the above discussed tnjd hm ˚h wtmkj they analyzed it as: hm ˚h + tnjd + wjmkj. It is thus the structure of their own language which led them to create the secondary root. Furthermore, at least in one occurrence, it seems that a new noun, hnjd “will”, was created: μynym μlw[h twrxyb wtnjd typxd hlyj br μypljtm μynwgw “great is God who wanted (lit.: his will wanted) to create diﬀerent kinds and species in the world” (C. 324).681 (k) dbz The noun dbz occurs only once in ancient Samaritan sources written in SA: in the ST it renders the Hebrew dbz as “endow” in the
For several explanations of ypx “will”, see LOT III/2, p. 182. Note that in the ST, htwjr is used to mean “presence of God” to avoid anthropomorphism (DSA, s.v. 1y[r), e.g. yskta ˚twjrmw (Heb. rtsa ˚ynpmw) “and from Your face I shall be hidden” (Gn 4:14). In the ST, however, it renders only the Hebrew μynp, while in HSH, as we see here, the use was expanded. 680 See the discussion on this conjunction on p. 255. 681 The ﬁrst part of the phrase was built following the phrase hmb hçm byga μç wtmkjw wbl tnjd discussed above. 679
hybrid samaritan hebrew
verse bwf dbz yta μyhla yndbz (ST: bf dbz yty μyhla yndwz) “God has endowed me with a good gift” (Gn 30:20). In addition to this ancient meaning, dbz in HSH also has the meaning “excellent, the best”, perhaps due to Arabic inﬂuence, in which means “butter, essence”. However, in HSH dbz is mainly an adjective:682 μydbz ljn ybr[w z9bèd6m “and selected willows of the brook” (C. 782). In this use dbz is identical with [md, a noun that also functions as an adjective. Note, too, that the basic meaning of these two nouns is very close.683 As a noun dbz also means “joy” in HSH. This cannot be attributed to Arabic, nor does it have any known counterpart in Hebrew. This meaning of dbz is clear from the context: yxjb wlkynw ˆbrq byrqn dbzb lylh “we shall present an oﬀering and eat it in the middle of the night with happiness” (C. 165); d[wmh hz dbzbw dbk rqyab db[t jmçbw whzb d[wm lkw “you shall observe this feast with great honor and happiness and every feast with joy and happiness” (C. 175). While dbz may also be interpreted in these cases as “assembly” (see below), it seems that the meaning “joy” is appropriate for the following reasons: (1) regarding the coincidence of rqya and dbz here, one should notice that rqya occurs with the noun (h)jmç “joy”, e.g. larçyw wrqyaw jmçb hmr dyb wax “the Israelites went out deﬁantly [lit.: with an high hand, based on Ex 14:8] in joy and honor [or: wealth]” (C. 131); μyrqyab ˆwkyd[wm wç[t yhzw ydjb hnç hamw “may you do your feasts for hundreds of years with joy and happiness and glory” (C. 408); (2) dbz occurs frequently as an element of synonymous nouns such as (h)jmç, yhz, ydj, e.g. ytjmçaw yhzw dbzb d[wm lk db[t “you will undertake every feast with happiness and joy and gladness” (C. 441). Note especially the plural form μydbz, which functions as an adjective: μydjw μyhz μydbz μydbk μydysj μyd[wmw “pleasant, honorable, merry, happy and joyous feasts” (C. 465); (3) dbz is a counterpart of nouns meaning “joy”, e.g. the phrase dbzb lylh yxjb wlkynw ˆbrq byrqn (above) is very similar to the phrase: ˆbdjb lylh yxjb ˆbrq lkym “the eating of the oﬀering in the middle of the night with happiness”. dbzb is thus the clear counterpart of ˆbdjb (plural of wdj); (4) dbz also appears with the noun ˚dç (and its variant hmkdç; see below): hmkdçw whzw wdj wb ˆwl μçw “He created [in the feast] joy, gladness 682 On nouns functioning as adjectives in HSH, see p. 306. The phenomenon of shifting from one category to another in Modern Hebrew is dealt with by P. Tromer, “Categorial Shifts in Modern Hebrew”, Óelqat La“on 29–32 (2000), pp. 222–242. 683 See [md, p. 309.
and happiness” (Ben-Óayyim, Samaritan Piyyutim, p. 358). This parallelism between ˚dç and dbz is very important since ˚dç—which in HSH means “joy”684—means “dowry, present for marriage” in Syriac. The same is true for dbz, which has the same meaning in Syriac.685 It thus seems that the meaning “joy” has developed by metonymy in both words—dbz and ˚dç—from the basic meaning “endow, give”. In Itp6'el dbz has several additional uses. As there are only few occurrences, it is not always easy to ﬁx the meaning; still the data itself is very important. The most common meaning of dbdza is “assemble”, e.g. dbdza hkad hrds “the congregation that gathered here”. In this case as well we are helped by the stereotypy of the HSH poets: dbdza here is parallel to many other verbs whose meaning is “gather” and they are also elements of this joint appeal to the congregation: ˆmdza, çnkta, ≈bqta, lhqta, ywqta: wnmdza hkad ˆm “those who assembled here” (C. 740); wlhqh hkad htwlx rds “the praying congregation who gathered here” (C. 111). The semantic shift which brought about the meaning “gather” is unclear. Ostensibly, it may be due to the Samaritan interpretation of dbz in Gn 30:20 (see above): Ms. A of the ST renders dbz by d[s “help, sustain”, and also by “join, gather”.686 The result of this interpretation was that dbz and d[s became two options for the same Hebrew word, and dbz thus absorbed one of the meanings of d[s, i.e. “gather”, “join”. This interpretation is also reﬂected in a late piyyut: hbf wnmwz ˆmzy ˚l “He will convene a good occasion for you”, which is based on dbzy ˚l bwf dbz*. However, it seems that this explanation687 is questionable, since dbz means “gather” in non-Samaritan sources as well. Thus Yannai wrote: wnjy hdybzbw ˆwmyzb “they will encamp together” (Rabinovitz, II, p. 17). Therefore another solution is required, one that is not dependent on a unique Samaritan tradition of interpretation of the Pentateuch.688 I suggest that we are dealing with a 684
Proposed by Ben-Óayyim, Samaritan Piyyutim, p. 358. Payne-Smith, Thesaurus, col. 1073. 686 See DSA, s.v. d[s. 687 Proposed by me earlier (Florentin, Lexical Nature). 688 Note another Samaritan tradition connected with dbz: in the ST the Hebrew μtrb[ in Gn 49:7 is rendered by ˆwtqybdw (in other manuscripts: ˆwtwrbjw, ˆwtbzw): htçq yk μtrb[w z[ yk μpa ryda (ST: hyçq alh ˆwtqybdw zyz[ alh ˆwzgr jbçm “cursed [SP: mighty] be their anger, for it is ﬁerce; and their wrath, for it is cruel”). Thus, μtrb[ was interpreted as μtrbj “their group”, and ˆwtbz (< ˆwtdbz; hdbz) means the same, i.e. “group, congregation”. 685
hybrid samaritan hebrew
semantic shift from the basic meaning of dbz “give” to the meaning “stay, be”, and then to “be gathered”. This shift is well attested, too, in the passive forms of the parallel Hebrew and Aramaic verbs ˆtn and bhy: the Hebrew ˆwtn (pass. part. of Qal ) is used in MH as a copula, expressing existence, e.g. μç ˆwtn μda hyh “a person was [lying] there” (m. Ahelot 11:3). The Aramaic byhy (pass. part. of Qal ) is used in SA the same way: ˆmt byhy hwhd hç[ya wh br “great was the despair that was there” (TM, 32a). To reinforce my assumption I would like to draw attention to the fact that: (1) the verbal derivations of dbz “assemble, stay” in HSH are only passive, i.e. Itp6'el; (2) alongside verbs denoting “gathering” in the appeal wnmdza hkad ˆm, one can ﬁnd verbs denoting “existence”, e.g. hm[q hkad ˆm (hm[q = participle of μòòwq). Another meaning of dòòbz, “light”, can probably be inferred in the use made by several poets: dbz hml[ l[ dwbk “the glory [of God] illuminated the world” (C. 346)—the meaning “illuminate” is clear from the context. The poet describes the scene of the people of Israel in front of Mount Sinai, and the motif of light is dealt with in details, e.g. [pwm rhn [pwa “a bright light appeared” (ibid.); larçy ynb lklw hdbz μtwbçwmb rwa hyh “all the Israelites had light in their dwellings (cf. Ex 10:23)—brightness” (C. 361);689 hb wrwnw rç[ çlç hlyl lk dbdzy izd9b6d “the moonlight shines690 on the thirteenth of every month” (C. 538); dbz wrwn jrzw dbkwy brq ˆm abw dlyta μlçbw “[Moses] was born in peace and came from Jochebed and his light shined” (C. 705). In all these cases one might assume that dbz does not mean “light” but rather “happiness”. However, it is not only the context which strengthens our assumption, but also that in general roots which mean “light” sometimes also mean “joy”. The double meaning of dbz—“joy” and “light”—is thus reinforced by the root yòòhz and zòòwr: yòòhz in HSH means “joy” while in Syriac it means “brightness”;691 zòòwr in Syriac means “joy”692 while in Mandaic zawr means “light”.693
Note that hdbz (hd- because of the rhyme) is used here as a kind of apposition. I admit that the usual meaning of dbz is possible here, since the poet describes the changes in the shape of the moon. Later he adds that after the fourteenth day the light dndnm, i.e. reduces gradually. 691 See Payne-Smith, Thesaurus, col. 1086. 692 Ibid., col. 3846. 693 See Drower-Macuch, Dictionary, s.v. ruaz. The issue was discussed by BenÓayyim, “Word studies II” (in Hebrew), in: E.Y. Kutscher, S. Lieberman and M.Z. Kaddari (eds.) Henoch Yalon Memorial Volume, Ramat-Gan and Tel-Aviv 1974, p. 58. 690
ˆwmyz and wnmwz “gather” are inﬁnitives of the ungeminated Pa'el in SA694 and were incorporated into HSH where, as in SA, ˆwmyz is more frequent: çdq ˆwmyz “a holy assembly” (C. 657; çdq ˆwmyz is the common translation of çdq arqm, e.g. Ex 12:16); ˆmzy ˚l hbf wnmwzw “may He gather a good gathering for you”695 (C. 239, 388). As in SA, ˆwmyzl functions as a preposition meaning “toward”: hymwç ykalm rdsw wrhm rbgh hz ˆwmyzl “all the angels of heavens hastened toward this man” (C. 382); hybn ˆwmyzl hynk ˆylha l[ wbtyta tma hykalm abxw hymwç jrt jtpa wbhab “the gate of heavens was open when the angels’ army was arranged by those pillars toward the prophet with love” (C. 377).696 In HSH we ﬁnd three interesting uses of ˆòòmz: (1) the noun (μy)nwmyz means “congregation” (i.e. the gathering people): ynwmyz ˆm yna çwrd ynwlbsy “I ask the congregation to forgive me” (C. 466); ha hmwy μynt hnwmyz “be repeated this day a hundred years, O congregation” (C. 736); hynwmyz rfyw “may He guard the congregation” (C. 818); (2) ˆwmyz means not only “gathering” or “alliance” but also “feast”, e.g. wlgsaw μydbk μyçydq ynwmyzb “He singled him with holy and honorable feasts” (C. 576). This use is probably based on the fact that in the ST lha d[wm is commonly rendered by hnwmyz ˆkçm (e.g. Ex 27:21); (3) the participle ˆmwz is found—although only once, to the best of my knowledge—as an epithet of God: ˆmwzh jbtçy “blessed be the God [the creator]” (Tùlìda, 14b37). This use is also based on one of the uses of ˆòòmz in SA, i.e. “create”,697 e.g. yarwb lk tnmz “You have created all the creatures” (C. 43). (m) blj
bl,je (in BH: “fat”) is used in SA metaphorically to mean “the best, the choicest”, e.g. hçdq lwlk πlj hdb[çm hrwt πswy “Joseph is a 694 See p. 229; LOT III/2, pp. 172–173; H. Yalon (Introduction to the Vocalisation of the Mishna [in Hebrew], Jerusalem 1964, pp. 193–197) dealt in detail with the ˆmz which means “gather” and “connect”. 695 Probably based on a SA piyyut by Mårqe (LOT III/2, p. 172). 696 Note that the same process occurred in SA and in HSH with the noun dòò[s: this root, whose basic meaning is “help”, means “assembling” in SA, HSH and MH. See A. Tal “Observations on the meaning of d[s”, in: A. Dotan (ed.), Studies in Hebrew and Arabic in Memory of Dov Eron (= Te'uda 6), Tel-Aviv 1988, pp. 31–35. Thus, in the ST d[sl, as ˆwmyzl, renders the Hebrew tarql (e.g. Gn 14:17). 697 Note, too, that in Arabic (lit.: the collector) is one of the epithets of God.
hybrid samaritan hebrew
submissive ox, the choicest of all the holiness” (TM, 231a; πlj < blj). In HSH it sometimes functions as an adjective denoting a high rank, mainly of Moses: [mdh hçm ˆblj dy l[ ˆwx hmk ˆbrqh μylka “we ate the oﬀering as He commanded us through our choicest Moses the excellent” (C. 174); twarwn twarm wyny[b hzj μymçh bbl la hl[ blj bbwj “the amiable,698 the choicest, climbed to the heart of the sky and saw awesome visions” (C. 823). Note that another, very common, epithet of Moses is [md, which has the same basic meaning as blj (“fat, the choicest”): bl,je ta wlkaw ≈rah (Gn 45:18) is rendered in the ST by h[ra [md ty ˆwlkyyw. The only diﬀerence between the two nouns in HSH is their distribution: [md is far more widespread. (n) jrf The root jrf in HSH has the same basic meaning as the noun jr'fo “burden”, which occurs in the Pentateuch (Dt 1:12). Yet in HSH this root has several derivations which do not occur at all in previous Samaritan texts: 1. jrf “be grave, heavy”—a verb of Qal stem: zgrh ˚ydb[ l[ jrf μykybn wrpxw ˆwljdw “the trouble of Your slaves was grave and they feared and they became perplexed” (C. 89); yna yk yt[dy ylbsm yl[ jrf afj “my burden is heavy, I know that I am a sinner”699 (C. 217). 2. jrf “heavy”, an adjective, mainly used in the locution jrf ˆnr “slow melody (lit.: heavy melody)”. Examples: rçk jrf twnnrb “in a heavy and beautiful melody” (C. 480); ˆnr hçyr lqb ˆard tyb wtyyw rty jrf “[the congregation] will come [and sing] a Duran stanza with a voice whose beginning is a very slow melody” (C. ibid.); ˆnrb rtwm d[ bf jrf “in a heavy, very pleasant, melody” (C. 727). The term jrf ˆnr is no doubt the Hebrew parallel of the Arabic term found in rubrics of piyyutim as part of the instructions to the worshippers (e.g. C. 839).700 jrf is also used as a free adjective: μyjrf μyllmm lbsy rçb yl tylw “I cannot stand [lit.: I have no ﬂesh to carry] heavy sayings” (C. 566). Note that the use of the 698 bbwj is also an epithet of Moses: bbwj wrml wh ˆm wrabd hrbd ˆha brw “the thing which the beloved of his master has written is great” (C. 222). This use is based on Dt 33:3: μym[ bbwj πa “lover of the people”. 699 Without wishing to imply a Jewish inﬂuence in this case, note the similar idea in Psalms: ynmm wdbky dbk açmk yçar wrb[ ytnw[ yk “For my iniquities have overwhelmed me; they are like a heavy burden, more than I can bear” (Ps 38:5). 700 Another musical term is “light melody” (e.g. C. 114).
noun jrf as an adjective is a reﬂection of a general phenomenon in HSH.701 (o) tpy
tpy in Samaritan texts means “beauty” and is based on the Pentateuch: tpyl μyhla tpy “May God enlarge Japheth” (Gn 9:27). The common interpretation is also reﬂected in the ST itself, where ytpy “enlarge” renders the Hebrew T]p]y." However, alongside this tradition we have other traditions of interpretations, where tpy means “beautiful”. These are already reﬂected in the Samaritan reading of the Hebrew text and in other versions of the ST: the Hebrew word is pronounced yèf6t—which is Qal of tòòpy, i.e. it cannot mean “enlarge” (root yòòtp), but rather “beauty” (root yòòpy). Moreover, in Ms. A of the ST the word is translated by hpy “beautiful”. It is quite diﬃcult to determine the dating of this interpretation; however, with due caution, one may assume that it is comparatively late. A hint is oﬀered by the fact that it is reﬂected in Ms. A. In Ms. B, which also reﬂects relatively late phenomena, tpy is rendered by bfyy “will do good” (bwf “good” and hpy “beautiful” are actually synonyms). Note also that in Onqelos and the Peshi†ta tpy is rendered by ytpy and atpn “enlarge” respectively, while in the later Targum Neophiti the word is rendered by rpçy “will do good”. (p) bty—ylbq btyta
ylbq btyta “sit in front of me” is a metaphoric locution which actually means “pay attention and listen to me”. It is another of those many cases in which Arabic inﬂuence is probably—but not certainly—in the background. On the one hand, there is nothing in this locution which contradicts Aramaic character, neither in form nor in syntax, and one may therefore consider it a result of inner development in the language. On the other hand, Arabic inﬂuence is still reasonable since means “to sit together with somebody, to join him”, which is quite close to the meaning of ylbq btyta. Examples: [r wb tyl bf llmm [mçw ylbq btyta “sit in front of me and listen to a good saying which has nothing bad” (Ben-Óayyim, Samaritan Piyyutim, p. 341); μwljh [mçw ylbq btyta ˚yyjb “I bid you, sit in front of me and hear the dream” (C. 367); wwqa hkad hrds 701
See p. 306.
hybrid samaritan hebrew
wtyxa yrmym [mçmlw wbh ˆwkt[dw wbtyta ymq “the congregation which gathers here, sit in front of me, and pay attention702 and listen to my saying” (C. 446); harw ˚yny[ jqpw hbbl ty ryxnaw ylbq btyta hbrbr twjmt “sit in front of me and be devoted [lit.: devote the heart] and open your eyes and see great wonders” (C. 569); btytyw [mç al dm [mçyw ylwm “he will sit in front of me and hear what he [never] heard” (C. 818). (q) çwk, tyçk These words, which have the same origin in the MV, have two diﬀerent meanings in HSH, “beautiful” and “black”. The ﬁrst meaning is based on the same verse in the Pentateuch: hçmb ˆrhaw μyrm rbdtw jql tyçk hça yk jql rça tyçkh hçah twda l[ “Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushitic woman he had married: he married a Cushitic woman!” (Nu 12:1). 1. As is well known, the meaning of tyçk (MV: tyviK;¨ SH: k9“6t) in this verse is disputable, “Cushitic” (gentilic of Cush) being only one of the suggestions. As pointed out by Ben-Óayyim, the Samaritans interpreted tyçk as “beautiful”.703 This interpretation is reﬂected in the ST: htryçk htta “the beautiful woman”.704 Onqelos as well went in this direction: trypç.705 The Samaritans went one step further and adopted the word for free use in their writings: tyçk ˚twklmmw “Your kingdom is beautiful” (Ben-Óayyim, Samaritan Piyyutim, p. 371); hymwyw tyçk “good days” (C. 138); tyçk blb wdb[lw “to worship Him with good heart” (C. 618); tyçk blb rmayw “he said with good heart” (C. 791); htyçk wydbw[ lkw “all his deeds are good” (C. 836). Moreover, the feminine morpheme of the word tyçk has been interpreted in HSH as part of the root. Thus, the masculine form is not yçk* but rather tyçk as seen in the above examples. tyçk also functions as an adverb meaning “well”: tyrbh trk ˚m[ tyçk hdb[l “He made the covenant with you to worship Him well (i.e. with all your might)” (C. 814). The linguistic background of the Midrashic interpretation of tyçk is dubious. In any event, the explanation has to be valid for all the various traditions, Samaritan and non-Samaritan, which share it. 702
˚t[d bh is the counterpart of ˚lb bh discussed below, p. 344.
Ben-Óayyim, Samaritan Piyyutim, p. 368; LOT II, p. 496; TM, 214a, n. 4. On ryçk see below, p. 311 (ˆrçk). The same view is reﬂected by several Biblical commentators, e.g. Rashi.
One may assume that in all these traditions the word tyçk literally meant “Cushitic”, i.e. “a black woman”, and that such a woman was considered inappropriate for Moses.706 tyçk is thus explained as a kind of euphemism. This attitude is well reﬂected in Rashi’s commentary: alç ydk yçk han wnb ta arwqh μdak tyçk tarqn hywn μç l[ h[r ˆy[ wb flçt “she was called ‘Cushitic’ because of her beauty; it is like a person who calls his handsome son “Cushitic” to prevent the evil eye”. At the same time, it is quite reasonable that this interpretation, in common with any interpretation, must have had a foothold, a solid base, in the form of the explained word. If so, perhaps the similarity between fòòçq and tyçk could constitute such a base: fòòçq means “truth” in Aramaic, and in MH it also (usually) means “decorate, ornament”.707 2. In contrast to the MV, in which the word tyviK¨ is derived from the name vWK, SH clearly diﬀerentiates in form between tyviK¨ k9“6t and vWK ko“.708 We cannot know exactly which country the Samaritans identiﬁed the proper name vWK ko“ with; what is certain is that the people of that country were black. This is evident from HSH in which çwk is used as an adjective whose meaning is “black”, e.g. hmzh wm[w h[rp μyçwkh μyçybh μydbamw “they destroy the bad: the blacks, Pharaoh and his corrupted people” (C. 174). Note that μyçwk as an epithet for the Egyptians is used by the Jewish poets as well: ht[gy twkmb μyçwk “You have wearied the Egyptians with aﬄictions” (Rabinovitz, II, p. 262); μyçwkw μymn[ wtjyw “the Anemites and the Egyptians were afraid” (Yahalom, ”im'on Bar Megas, p. 186). All these poems were probably based on writings in which çwk and μyrxm are
706 A comprehensive research about the whole issue of “black” in Jewish texts is introduced in A. Melamed, The Image of the Black in Jewish Culture, London 2003 (translated by Betty Sigler Rozen; the Hebrew edition was published in Haifa, 2002); the story of the black wife of Moses is discussed there in pp. 110–121. Note the author’s important statement: “In rabbinic literature the black appears for the ﬁrst time in Jewish cultural history as not only other and diﬀerent, but as a consequence, inferior too, and in this light the Bible texts about the black were expounded” (ibid., p. 60). 707 Ben-Óayyim (n. 703 above) did not accept the aﬃnity between tyçk and fçq. His approach is reinforced by the fact that fçq “ornament” is not documented in SA and HSH. Nevertheless, it is quite plausible that the Samaritans did know this meaning of fçq (documented for example in the Tosefta) and that this meaning was a factor in the interpretation of tyçk. 708 Were the two forms derived from the same base, one would expect to ﬁnd one of these pairs: k9“6t / *kå“ or *kù“6t / ko“.
hybrid samaritan hebrew
mentioned together, e.g. μyrxmw çwk μj ynbw “And the sons of Ham; Kush, and Mißraim” (Gn 10:13). μyçwk μynp “black faces” is a pejorative locution which means “bad person”: μyçwk ˆwynp ym dym wm[ lyxh “He saved His people from those whose faces are black” (C. 118); μy[çrh wm[ lkw h[rp μyçwk ˆwynpd μ[ μyçybh “a people whose faces are black—Pharaoh and all his wicked and evil people” (C. 251); μymr[ μlk μhyrbqm wmwqy t[ μywghw μym[h lkw harm tw[r ˆwtwarw μyçwk μhynpw jyr tw[r ˆwtwjyr “when all nations and peoples will come from their tombs they will all be naked and their faces will be black and their smell will be bad and they will look bad” (C. 516). çwk is used alongside ˆbl “white” as its opposite: çwkhw ≈wjm ˆblh tyblm “white outside and black inside” (C. 752). çwk has also a metaphorical meaning, “bad”: ˆd[ lk çwk hnbz ˆdw “this time is the worst of all times” (C. 773). Noteworthy is the locution çwk bl “black heart”, meaning “an evil person”, the complete opposite of db bl “white heart” and tyçk bl “good heart”, discussed above: lkl dlbm μyçwkh μybblh yl[b “He frightens all the bad people (lit.: whose hearts are black)” (C. 143); wbl ˆmw zlyw rapty qr zzbm ykk db wbl hwh ˆm zja lya çwk “the good-hearted (lit.: whose heart is white) despises this thing and he is gloriﬁed and is happy and the bad-hearted agony grips” (C. 190; cf. Ex 15:14). As noted above, çwk is used several times in HSH in the phrase ˆm db ˆmw çwk “black and white as well”, which actually means “everybody”.709 (r) μwam (μymwam) The word hmwam, which in the Pentateuch means “anything” and “nothing”, has two additional usages in HSH: (1) a masculine form μwam (cf. Jb 30:7), e.g. μwamh hz μym[ w[mç “the nations heard this thing” (C. 287); μl[n al wmm μwamw “nothing was hidden from him” (C. 325); μwam ˆm al μwam “something from nothing” (C. 374); wkrxt alw μwam “you will need nothing” (C. 388); (2) a plural form μymwam (and twmwam), which is always followed by an adjective: twdysj μymwam “nice things” (C. 138); [dwtt μymwam “known things” (C. 346); μymwx[ μymwam “great things” (C. 518); and in CASD: rpst al twmwam “things which cannot be numbered” (p. 135). The Aramaic counterpart of twmwam
For examples and for the use of db as “white”, see above, p. 276.
is the word hymdam “things” (plural of μdm/μ[dm “anything”)710 found in TM: hyarwb lk ylm[ ˆm hymdam lk l[ hlayç μwy “the day of interrogation about all the deeds of all creatures” (236b). Since this form occurs only once, and since its occurrence is in the fourth book of TM, which is replete with late additions, it is reasonable to assume that it was created in later generations as an analogy to the HSH twmwam/μymwam. (s) ˚bn A secondary root ˚òòbn had already been developed from ˚òòwb in SH: the participle μykbn in the verse ≈rab μh μykbn “They are entangled in the land” (Ex 14:3) is pronounced nèbìk6m—Qal of ˚òòbn. The secondary root is also documented in SA: hwgl ym[tm tyl lypq rwsa tyb μykybn hwgld hyrysa lkw ran “a dark prison in which no light is seen and all the prisoners inside it are perplexed” (TM, 37a). HSH follows the same direction: ˚bn hyh h[rp nèb6k “Pharaoh was perplexed” (C. 630). In HSH, however, there are some new derivations and uses of ˚òòbn: 1. A new derivation Itp6'el which is similar in function to Qal: wnbçjb ˚bna μlwaw . . . hlky hm llmmw rbdh hzb μhrba ˚bnta “Abraham was perplexed in this thing and could not speak . . . but his thought was perplexed” (˚bna is Itp6'el whose t was assimilated,711 C. 585); wbw μymwkjh wkbnta “the wise men were perplexed by it” (C. 600). Note that sometimes ˚bnta has the sense “broken”: wnbbd ˚bny wb “our enemy will be broken there” (C. 488 = LOT III/2, p. 329). This use of ˚bny (< ˚bnty) is probably a reﬂection of the fact that ˆyrybt is one of the Samaritan translations of μykbn in the Pentateuch.712 2. A new derivation Af 'el is (rarely) used: rça ala hml[b ynkbna hmw wpsps “those who perplexed me in the world are those who burned [my soul]”713 (C. 774).
See DSA, s.v. μ[dm. On this phenomenon, see p. 109. 712 See the Meliß, p. 531 and LOT III/2, p. 329. 713 The use of wpsps is based on a piyyut of 'Åmråm: wntmy ˆnyjwr wpspsd hyns yndqy ˚ymjr lfb “the ﬁre of the enemies which burned our souls will be calmed in the shadow of Your compassion” (LOT III/2, p. 114). 711
hybrid samaritan hebrew
lòòmn, like ˚òòbn, is a secondary root derived from lòòwm found in SH: lwOMnI “circumcised” (Gn 17:26) is pronounced nèm6l—a passive form of Qal.714 lòòmn is also used in HSH alongside new forms and uses: 1. Noun: hlymn “circumcision”, e.g. hlymnh tyrb ta ˚nybw wnyb trkw “He made the covenant of circumcision with you” (Ben-Óayyim, Samaritan Piyyutim, p. 362); Note that hlymnh tyrb is the Samaritan counterpart of the Hebrew hlymh tyrb, which is also a medieval innovation, based on Gn 17:11: tyrb twal hyhw μktlr[ rçb ta μtlmnw μkynybw ynyb “You shall circumcise the ﬂesh of your foreskin, and that shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you”; wtlr[ tlymn hqt[tm ynymçh μwyb “the ﬂesh of his foreskin should be removed” (C. 584). Note that hlymn here is used metaphorically as the MH hlym in the sense of “penis”. 2. Hitpa'el: lmnh μymy tnmç ˆbw (< lmnth) “he was circumcised at the age of eight days” (C. 344, 828). It should be noted that a participle lmntm* is not found, which should not be viewed as simply accidental. After all, the main motive for the new derivation lmn(t)h was to diﬀerentiate between the past form and the participle form which are both pronounced nèm6l: the new pair itn9m6l (past)/nèm6l (participle) left no room for confusion. The same is true of ˚òòbn: only ˚bnta was innovated in HSH (see above); ˚bn(t)m* does not exist. The only diﬀerence between the two verbs is that since ˚òòbn is an intransitive verb, the creation of a compound form ˚ybn + hyh was possible; lymn + hyh* was impossible, lòòmn being a transitive verb. If the diﬀerentiation between identical forms was really the motive, one should ask whether such a process could happen in a non-spoken language such as HSH. Would it not be preferable to assume that the origins of the diﬀerentiation, although not documented, already exist in SA?715
714 All the Nif 'al forms of lòòwm in Tiberian Hebrew are lòòmn in SH (see LOT IV, p. 181, s.v. lmn). μT,l]m'n“ “You shall circumcise” (Gn 17:11) should also be analyzed as lòòmn, Qal. This simple analysis is more plausible than the complicated explanations found in some grammars which attribute the verb to Nif 'al whose ﬁrst long radical’s vowel has been shortened (e.g. G. Bergsträsser, Hebräische Grammatik, II, Leipzig 1929, §28i). 715 On the reﬂection of SA in HSH, see p. 96 above.
3. Some occurrences of lòòmn in HSH have the meaning “pure”. The ﬁrst is the widespread locution lymn blb “with a circumcised heart”, which is based on the verses μkbbl tlr[ ta μtlmw “Circumcise the foreskin of your heart” (Dt 10:16); ˚bbl ta ˚yhla òh lmw “And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart” (Dt 10:30). This locution actually means “with a pure heart”, and this evidence from late writing such as: lymn rwhf blb “with a pure heart”, in which rwhf and lymn are used together to emphasize the idea, is a common technique used by HSH poets.716 The meaning “pure” of lòòmn can be better understood when one takes into consideration the fact that its counterpart in Arabic is the root , which has two meanings: “pure” and “circumciser” . The second derivation of lòòmn in HSH whose meaning is “pure” is the proper name hlymn. The name occurs several times in Samaritan deeds, e.g. . . . trb hlymn tklmm la hçwdqh hrwth taz tqt[ta “this holy Torah has passed to the property of Nemila the daughter of . . .”.717 (u) çqn The derivations of çòòqn—originally “strike”—have some interesting uses in HSH. The ﬁrst meaning of çqn is “play, perform on an instrument”. It occurs with two nouns: rpwç “horn” and hrxxj “trumpet”: çdqh rpwçb ˆwçqy “they blared the holy horn” (C. 153); çqy wyrpwçw “he will blare the horn” (C. 464); çqn μlçh rpwçb “we shall blare the horn of peace” (C. 744); wçqy htarxyxjw “the trumpets will blare” (C. 431). Needless to say, alongside this new use of çqn, the old verb [qt is still used to denote “blare with trumpet or horn”: rpwçh [qty “the horn will blare” (C. 482); w[qty ˆwb μynhkh μy[mç wyht twrxxj ylwqw “you will hear the voice of the trumpets with which the priests will blare” (C. 453). In non-Samaritan Hebrew we do not ﬁnd çqn—or its synonym hkh—with the noun rpwç. However, something similar to it is found in MH: μhynpl hkm lyljh “the ﬂute strikes before them” (m. Bikkurim 3:4). And more prominent is the ﬁnding in Syriac: artyqb ˆyçqn “play (lit.: strike on) the cithern” (Payne-Smith, Thesaurus, p. 2465). Ostensibly, 716
Cf. locutions such as yhzw ydj “happy and joyful” (see p. 325). Ben-Zvi, Sefer Hashomronim, p. 283. hlymn can also be found in Von Gall, pp. xxiv, xxv, xxxiii. 717
hybrid samaritan hebrew
one can attribute the use of rpwç çqn to Arabic in which the verbs and “strike” are used in this sense. However, the evidence of MH and Syriac shows that the assumption of Arabic inﬂuence is unnecessary. çòòqn is used in SA in its usual sense of “strike”: hrfab hmyl çqaw “he struck the sea with his rod” (TM, 55a); hnçqt htaw çyr ˚nçqy awh bq[ (Heb. bq[ wnpwçt htaw çar ˚pwçy awh) “He shall strike at your head, And you shall strike at his heel” (ST, Gn 3:15). From the predominant meaning of “strike”, the meaning “engrave” developed in HSH: hnwkyt hnhba la çqnm wmçw “his name is engraved718 on the middle stone” (Tùlìda, 17b82). The same use of çqn is documented in the late layers of the ST in which the Hebrew jT'Pi “engrave” is rendered by çqn, e.g. larçy yrb tamç ty ˆwhybl[ çqntw (Heb. larçy ynb twmç ta ˆhyl[ tjtpw) “engrave on them the names of the Israelites” (Ex 28:9). In Arabic means “engrave”, and the possibility of Arabic inﬂuence should thus not be discounted. (v) rds In HSH, rds like ˆwmyz719 means not only “order” but also “join, assemble”.720 These are the main derivatives of rds in HSH: 1. Qal participles rwds (q9tol 721) and ryds (qèt6l ) rwds, and its plural form μyrwds (never ˆyrwds*), appear mainly as part of the phrasing of the blessing call addressed by the poet to the congregation: rwds hna ˆm ha ˚rbm ˚yl[ hyhy “blessed be he who is gathered here” (C. 769); wnylhq rds ha μkyl[ ˚rbm μayx wnyrta lkbw hna μyrwdsh “O our entire congregation who are gathering here and in all our places, let it be a blessed fast for you” (C. 654).722
718 Since we have no tradition of pronunciation the Tùlìda, the morphological analysis of çqnm is dubious: it is either a passive participle of Af 'el, i.e. *manqa“ or a participle of Itp6'el whose t was assimilated, i.e. *minn9q6“. 719 See p. 285 above. 720 Other roots whose meaning is “gathering” are discussed on p. 284 above (dbdza). Yalon was the ﬁrst to draw attention to rds in HSH; see H. Yalon, “From Midrash to Piyyut”, Quntrasim 2 (1938/39), p. 4 n. 6; Id., Introduction to the Vocalisation of the Mishna (in Hebrew), Jerusalem 1964, p. 194 n. 6. In the discussion below (nos. 2, 3 and 4) I have used several of his examples. 721 It is actually the passive participle q9tùl (lWfq;) which merged with the active participle q9tòl (lwOfq;) due to the Samaritan shift ù > o in closed syllable (see p. 221 and n. 500). 722 See also C. 770, 831.
The other pattern, ryds, is used in other contexts, although also meaning “gather”, e.g. μyryds lpr[w ˆn[w “cloud and gloom are gathered (lit.: remixed)”723 (C. 424). Note that the same poet uses the participle rwds in the same stanza as part of the blessing: μkyyj rmçy μyrwds hna ˆm ha μklk “O you who are gathered here, let Him guard your lives, all of you”. Thus, we again see that the poets utilized the inventory of morphological options well for denoting diﬀerent meanings and uses of the language.724 2. Itp6'el participle μyrdtsm This form, also meaning “gather”, appears in all contexts: ˆkw rdtsm hnad rdsh hz yyj rmçy “and also let Him guard the lives of this congregation gathering here” (C. 175); μyrdtsm ha hmwy μynt “O the gathering [people], be repeating the day” (C. 735); hmç ˆbrq byrqyw anfh ˚wt rdtsmd hmdah yrp tyçarm “he will bring there an oﬀering of all the ﬁrst of the fruit of the earth which is gathered inside the basket” (C. 622, based on Dt 26:2) htbç μ[ ˆmdzad ynymçh d[wm hzw ˆyrdtsm hz μ[ hz “this is the eighth feast which occurs on Sabbath— they gather each with the other” (C. 807). Like ryds, rdtsm, too, has the sense of “mix”: wrdtsa çaw drbw “hail and ﬁre are mixed” (C. 193). Note the other phrasing of this idea: çah wkwtb drbw “hail and inside it ﬁre” (C. 194). 3. rds “congregation” rds “congregation” is very common in HSH, alongside its synonym lhq: ˚rdslw ˚l lagh ˚lmh “the king who redeems you and your congregation” (C. 172); ˚rds l[w ˚yl[ ˚rbm tbçh hzw “be this Sabbath blessed on you and your congregation” (C. 405); hkad hrds hdmfxm “the congregation gathered here” (C. 413); μrdza hkad hrds “the congregation gathered here” (C. 416). As with other words, rds may also appear with other nouns denoting “congregation”, simply for emphasis or for poetic purposes: wlhqw wtd[w wrdsw larçy ha “O the congregation of Israel” (C. 242). 4. rds “synagogue” The usual word for “synagogue” is htçnk:725 hna μynmdzmh htd[ htçnk tazb “the congregation gathered here in this synagogue” 723 724 725
Cf. no. 2 below. For the complete phenomenon, see §188.8.131.52. In SA hçnk occurs only with the meaning “congregation” (see DSA, s.v. çnk,
hybrid samaritan hebrew
(C. 304); htçnk tazb dgst “you will worship in this synagogue” (C. 504). However, in all HSH piyyutim rds appears once with the meaning of “synagogue”: rdsh hz rm[y hla “let God build this synagogue” (C. 690). rds thus has the two meanings, “congregation” and “synagogue”, and in this respect it is similar to other words such as hçnk, tsnk, hwqm, which also have these two meanings.726 5. rds “all” This use of rds is very common, alongside the Hebrew lk and the Aramaic lhk. Note, however, that rds is not the perfect synonym for lk, but rather it is used with speciﬁc nouns and in many cases one can deﬁne its meaning as “congregation in a metaphoric sense”. This is illustrated in the examples below. In any event, the meaning “all” is quite evident when rds is followed by nouns such as h[ys ,hd[ ,lhq etc. meaning “congregation”: hty ˆwdb[y larçy t[ys rds (Heb. wta wç[y larçy td[ lk) “All the congregation of Israel shall keep it” (ST, Ms. A, Ex 12:47); πan d[w hakz ˆm ˚ydb[ rds yqçaw “make all your servants drink—the righteous and the adulterer” (C. 87); μym[h rds yny[l “in front of all the nations” (C. 121); lhq rds μ[ htwarb[ “with all the Hebrew congregation” (C. 179); l[ wlyçmhw htayrb rds “He made him master over all creation” (C. 210); μyntw ht[ys rds ha hnç ham hmwy “be repeating this day one hundred years, O all the congregation” (C. 227); rds ˆyb wbf hmw hbf μwy μyd[wmh “it is a good day! How good it is between all the feasts!” (C. 234); htd[ rds ha “O all the congregation” (C. 253); rmçy ˆkkw ˆwkylhq rds yyjw ˆwkyyj “let Him also guard your lives and the lives of all your communities” (C. 289). (w) wqt[
qòòt[ “pass, move” is not documented in SA, but appears in the Pentateuch, e.g. la tybl μdqm hrhh μçm qt[yw “From there he moved on to the hill country east of Bethel” (Gn 12:8). In HSH this meaning is also expressed by Itp6'el: μynkçm wl ˆya yk qt[ty alw “He does not move since He has no dwellings” (C. 182); jmçy yhy ˆwrkz ah
726 Note that the Hebrew lhq also has these two meanings, although the meaning “synagogue” is not mentioned in the dictionaries. lhq and hlhq mean “synagogue” in Judaeo Spanish, and note that some of the instances of lhq quoted by Ben-Yehuda in his dictionary (Thesaurus, s.v. lhq) may be understood as “synagogue” and not “the street of the community of the Jews”.
ba ˆm ˆbl yfm qt[tm blh “behold, a beautiful remembrance gladdens the heart, passes (i.e. inherited) to son from father” (C. 187);
μynb hçlç dlwhw rrg la rhz qt[w “Zohar moved to Gerar and begot three sons” (Tùlìda, 10b160). qt[ta in HSH also means “pass away (die)”: tqt[ta rça htta ˆdw hmwqm ˆd[ ˆgb . . . hml[ taz ˆm “this woman, who passed away from this world . . ., be her place in Paradise” (C. 865). From the locution μlw[h ˆm qt[ the noun wqt[ obtained the meaning “death”: ˆbz ˆm wtwqt[ μwy la wdlwm “from the time of his birth to the day of his death” (C. 747); hrtb wtwqt[ μrf wdwd rz[la wmyqaw “his uncle Èlà:zår appointed him [as a priest] after him before his death” (Tùlìda, 14a25). , and All these meanings of qòòt[ are included in the Arabic root 727 as I have already mentioned, it is quite plausible that at least some of these uses of qòòt[ in HSH are a result of Arabic inﬂuence. This is especially true with regard to the meaning “inherited” (Arabic: ), which appears in phrases such as ˆm qt[tm ˚dyb μnbçj μçw μywkzh “He gave you their calculation [of the feasts], [which is] inherited from the righteous” (C. 53). (x) [bxa In HSH [bxa means not only “ﬁnger” but also—quite commonly— “power”:728 [bxab hyrb lkl db[d hdwb[ “the Creator who created all the creatures in His power” (LOT III/2, p. 304); hyarwb lk db[d [bxab “He made all the creatures in [His] power” (C. 449); ˆwl qpa w[bxab rwxm μym “He brought forth water for you from the rock in His power” (C. 635, based on Dt 8:15); twjmth ynym w[bxab hb algw “He made there (i.e. in the land) in His power [many] sorts of wonders” (C. 624). This meaning and use of [bxa has been developed from the Samaritan interpretation of writings such as: ayh μyhla [bxa “This is the ﬁnger of God” (Ex 8:15).729 This is not a unique case of this interesting phenomenon: the use of db “white”, çwk “black” and tyçk “beautiful” are results of the same approach toward the interpreted holy text of the Pentateuch.
727 728 729
Tùlìda, 1b2, n. 8 (also see the index there). Ben-Óayyim, LOT III/2, p. 304. Which is rendered in the ST by htlky, twlky.
hybrid samaritan hebrew
(y) ywq As in Hebrew and Aramaic, yòòwq in HSH simply means “collect, gather”. However, HSH is unique with regard to several derivations and uses of the root: 1. Itp6'el (almost always without the t of the stem being assimilated to the ﬁrst radical q of the root). ywqa/wwqa is very common as an element of the widespread blessing to the community: μkyyj rmçy ˆkw ywqa hna ˆm ha μklk “may He also guard your lives, all of you, who were gathered here” (C. 314); wwqy μ[h lk wb wbf hm ynymçh μwy “the eighth day, how good it is, all the people gather on it” (C. 806). It also appears in other circumstances: wyglgd y[ybçh çdj d[wm ywqa μyd[wm [bra wbw ybr “the feast of the seventh month whose praises are many and in which four feasts occur” (C. 811). ywqa is also used as an active verb: ywqa wb μyrzgw wb dqp μydwqp “He commanded commandments on that day and gathered laws” (Ben-Óayyim, Samaritan Piyyutim, p. 361).730 2. Qal—(a) As a transitive verb meaning “collect”: hym hwq wldgb hçylç hmwyb “in His greatness He gathered the water on the third day” (C. 208); (b) As an intransitive verb meaning “stand, stay”: ˆwkyrbf çdq l[ ywq ˆkçmh wartw “may you see the Tabernacle stand on your holy mountain” (C. 268);731 ywq [rlw l[l ˆyb çrptm ˆwrwn μçw “He spread out their light, [which] stayed between above and below (i.e. the earth and the sky)” (C. 720). 3. A noun hwqm: (a) “assembly”—hwqm πswy ynb μyrmçh td[ wç[yw μkç tçnkb “the community of the Samaritans the sons of Joseph made an assembly in the synagogue of Nablus” (CASD, p. 171); wç[yw yskb twx[ hwqm “they made in secret an assembly of advisers” (ibid., p. 94–95); (b) “synagogue”: hwqm μç wnbyw “they built a synagogue there” (ibid., p. 130). (z) πfq Alongside the usual meaning of πòòfq “to pluck, pick”, the noun πfq renders in the ST the Hebrew words πfn and takn, which denote 730
On active Itp6'el verbs, see p. 211. This case was dealt with by H. Yalon, Studies in the Hebrew Language (in Hebrew), Jerusalem 1971, p. 29, p. 478. He also mentioned wq in Yannai’s piyyutim: çnw[l rkbmhw wql rwkbh “the ﬁrst born (i.e., Jacob) will be strong, and the onewho-prefers (i.e. Esau, who sold his birthright) will be punished” (Rabinovitz, I, p. 162). 731
kinds of perfumes:732 πfq μynms ˚l bs (Heb. πfn μyms ˚l jq) “Take sweet spices, stacte” (Ex 30:34); μkrkw hb[ç πfq (Heb. fwlw yrx takn) “gum, balm, and myrrh” (Gn 37:25). And rqb tamj “Butter of kine” (Dt 32:14) is also translated in the Meliß (LOT II, p. 473, l. 449) by πfq.733 The use of πfq is very common in HSH but not with these concrete meanings; rather it functions as an adjective meaning “the chosen, the best”. It is thus a synonym of [md, dbz and blj, whose basic meaning is similar to that of πfq.734 Examples: lk πfq twjwlh ydnm hmçn “[Moses], the best of all souls, who brought the tablets”735 (C. 483); μynba πfq μynbah l[w “on the stones, the chosen stones”;736 πfqw rwjb ˆm μklk hrds “the entire congregation, the selected and the chosen” (C. 706). The function of πfq as an adjective is prominent when it follows another noun or when it takes the plural morpheme, e.g. πfqh wrpsb “in his selected book” (C. 332); tyrbh yl[b μypyfqh “the chosen persons who made the covenant [the priests, the descendants of Aaron and Phinehas]” (C. 105); πfq [rz wmm μqw “a selected oﬀspring came forth from him” (C. 573). In HSH πfq has another meaning as well: “gleaning”, and it is also used to denote a collection of abbreviated Pentateuch verses read in one sequence during prayer.737 It seems that this πfq is inﬂuenced by Arabic, in which means “collect”.738 (aa) μyçrq
μyçrq is found frequently in HSH meaning “the tablets”. This use, not found elsewhere, originated indirectly from the ST, in which the Hebrew çrq “board, plank” is rendered by the Aramaic jwl (e.g. Ex 35:11). Note that the Hebrew jwl is never rendered in the ST
732 Tal has deﬁned this πfq as generally meaning “a spice”. This use of πfq has an interesting parallel in the Babylonian Talmud: πfqh yx[m πfwnh πrç ala wnya yrxh “balm is nothing but a resin which exudes from the wood of the balsam-tree” (b. Keritot 6a). 733 Needless to say, this πfq is unconnected to the word πfq “linen” (Heb. hpyfq), which also exists in SA (see DSA, s.v. 2πfq). 734 See p. 309, 282, 286. 735 hmçn lk πfq is a common epithet for Moses; see e.g. C. 97, 102, 109. 736 The reference here is to the stone altar which was located on Mount Gerizim, called in the Tùlìda hynba (14b1, n. 17). 737 See Companion, p. 196. 738 Also in Syriac πfq means “collect”; this meaning, however, is not documented in SA. Still, it is not far-fetched to assume that the new meaning of πfq was a result of inner development: “pluck” > “collect”.
hybrid samaritan hebrew
by çrq, but rather by the same Aramaic word, i.e. jwl. Examples from HSH: yçrq ynç lbqd wrznw hml[ dqdq hçm “Moses the leader (lit.: head) and the crown of the world who got two tablets” (C. 258); yçrq ynç ta hml[d hrm ˆm jqlw jyçmh ˆhkh hz abw “this anointed priest came and took from the master of the world the two tablets” (C. 536). In rare cases the word is spelled with s, i.e. srq: ˆb hçm μçmw ysrq ynç lbqd μrm[ “in the name of Moses son of Amram who received two tablets” (C. 351, 326). This spelling has undoubtedly resulted from the resemblance of wysrq “his hooks” to wyçrq “his boards” (Ex 35:11; 39:33). (bb) rwfyr
rwfyr “spokesman” is a loan word from Greek, and it already appears in its original meaning in MH sources: srwfyr (pl.) and the variants rwfyal and rwfyn.739 In Samaritan sources rwfyr appears relatively late, and then only once, in the margins of Ms. M of the ST, where it has the meaning “spokesman”: rwfyrl ˚l yy wh (Heb. hpl ˚l hyhy awh) “and he shall be a mouth for you (i.e. spokesman)” (Ex. 4:16). From this basic meaning of rwfyr, a new meaning developed: “poet, singer”. This meaning is documented once in an Aramaic piyyut by ˇåbya ban Dårtå dating from the 10th century: ynçl frpm l[ ˆyrb[ ˚tagylgw hyrwfyr “Your praises surpass the sayings of the poems (i.e. Your praise is indescribable)” (C. 868). This meaning was traced by Tal in Ms. A of the ST:740 μyjçmaw μyrwfyr wwh ˆdd yrbw (Heb. ˆdd ynbw μyçflw μyrwça wyh) “The descendants of Dedan were the Ashurim and the Letushim” (Gn 25:3): The Samaritan translator did not interpret μyrwça as a proper noun, but rather he related it to the participle μyriç,; “singers”, thus: μyrwfyr. In many of its occurrences in HSH, rwfyr has been emptied of its original meaning and is used as a general honoriﬁc title. It is mainly found in colophons and deeds in which members of the community are mentioned: μlçh rybgh μhrba rwfyrh rmgh “the perfect man, the righteous man,741 the “poet”
739 See D. Sperber, A dictionary of Greek and Latin legal terms in Rabbinic literature, Ramat-Gan 1984, p. 198. 740 See DSA, s.v. rwfyr. 741 μlç and rmg, like μymt, the basic meaning of which is “completion”, also means “righteous”. Examples of μlç in SA: μlç rbg bq[yw (Heb. μt çya bq[yw) “Jacob was a quiet man” (Gn 25:27); hymlç wxrq “the righteous men got up early” (TM, 28b); in HSH: ˚ymlçw ˚ynman lm[b “in the merit of Your faithful and righteous men” (C. 65); ˚ymlçw ˚ybhaw ˚ynhkb ˚tçrd “I beg You in [the merit] of Your
Abraham”;742 ht[d μyw hlhq ˆwkraw hlhq ˚wms hçwdqh hrwth taz hnq
hdsj ba hnbz fpwçw htçydq htwhra rwtpw hrwfyrw hw[dyw htnybw htmkjw “this holy Torah was bought by Ab Isdå, the supporter of the community, the noble of the community, the see of knowledge and wisdom and insight, wise, the poet, the interpreter of the holy Torah, the judge of the generation”.743 In the piyyutim, which are essentially less private, this title is less frequent. Nevertheless, by tracing the occurrences of rwfyr, it can be seen that it was not only used as an empty honoriﬁc title, but rather its context—occurring mainly with words which denote “wisdom”—proves that it had the clear meaning of “wise man”, one who knows how to “interpret secrets”. Examples: rwfyrw wy[dy lkl hmwy μynt “be repeating this day, every savant and wise man” (C. 179); rwfyrh μ[dy μydws yl “I have secrets that the wise man knows” (C. 190); ynm br w[dyd ynwbnh μyrwfyrl “to the discreet wise men who know much more than me” (C. 232); rwtp zr lklw rwfyr wmçw “he made him a wise man and an interpreter of all the secrets” (C. 264); wnyny[b al hary μwlk rwfyr μkjy “the wise man knows that which is not seen in our eyes” (C. 353); htmkjw rwfyr alb μy[t ˆaxk wnrsw “we have become like wandering sheep without a wise man” (C. 365); wy[dyh ˆwbnh μwkjh çyak ayhw rwfyrh “[the poem] is like a wise, discreet, savant and clever man” (C. 495); rmyyw wmp jtpy rwfyrw ˆwbnw μwkj “the clever and the discreet and the wise man will open their mouth and say” (C. 505); wabyw yrbd yrwtp ˆwna ˆah ˆwl rmaw hyfbç yrwfyr ynpl wmdqw larçy yrfwç “the foremen of the Israelites came and approached the sages of the tribes and [God] said to them: where are those who interpret my words?” (C. 507). Another sense of rwfyr, i.e. “a person of higher rank” (and not simply “wise”), is reﬂected in a colophon of a Samaritan “great manuscript:744 the rwfyr is described there as: among his community” and the word rwfyr itself is translated as , i.e. “head, leader, chief ”.
priests and Your lovers and Your righteous men” (C. 216). The same use is found in Yannai: rwçymb hjnt ˚ymwlçw “You lead Your righteous on level ground” (Rabinovitz, I, p. 233). 742 Von Gall, p. x, in a 14th century colophon. 743 Ibid., in a 15th century colophon. 744 See TarbiΩ 10, p. 365.
hybrid samaritan hebrew
(cc) ˚dç, μynkdç From the root ˚òòdç, HSH has a number of derivations: ,hkdç ,˚dç hnkdç and the plural μynkdç. HSH is unique regarding the special meanings and senses of these words. In SA ˚dç is found with the usual meaning of ˚dç in Aramaic dialects, i.e. “tranquility”, e.g. hm[ ty blk ˚dçaw (Heb. ta blk shyw μ[h) “But Caleb quieted the people” (Nu 13:30). This meaning is also common in HSH and it is especially evident when it occurs with μlç, e.g. htwmlçw ˚dçb μtaw “you are in peace and tranquility” (C. 256); μlçw ˚dçb ˆwayxwhw μyh la μdgnaw “He led them to the sea and took them away in tranquility and peace” (C. 389).745 Although the locution μlçw ˚dç is not found in ancient SA sources, it does not appear to be an innovation of HSH, and its absence from SA is purely coincidental. This assumption is based on two early nonSamaritan occurrences of the locution. The ﬁrst is found in the Pseudo-Ezekiel scroll from Qumran.746 As pointed out by D. Dimant, a similar use is found in Yannai’s piyyut: μylybal fqç μylym[l ˚dç (Rabinovitz, I, p. 311). She rightly connected ˚dçw μwlç with fqçw μwlç already found in 1 Chr 22:9 translated as: aykwdçw amlçw. Later evidence, but still earlier than the Samaritan evidence at our disposal, is a Jewish Aramaic piyyut composed in Eretz Israel in the Byzantine era: ˆwkm[ larçy lkw ˆwta ˆwdjttw ˆwdjt ˆwkymwyb ywwhy hmlçw hkdwç “let tranquility and peace be in your days, be glad and happy, you and all the Israelites with you” ( JPAP, p. 280). A similar form is hkdç, which occurs with the meaning “quiet” in the sixth book of TM, which is one of the late parts of that composition: hbr hkdçw πyqt dwlbw “a strong fear and great stillness” (277a). Like ˚dç, in HSH hkdç also means “joy” and it only occurs in this sense in the locution hmlçw hkdç, e.g. hkad ˆm ha
745 The locution μlçw ˚dç also occurs in C. 96, 242, 257, 424. μynwççw ˚dç was found instead of μlçw ˚dç only once: μynwççw ˚dçb hmwy ˆdl wrz[t hnç hamw “be repeating this day for a hundred years (lit.: may you return to this day . . .) in tranquility and joy” (C. 109). 746 We possess several fragments of this ancient composition, and I refer here to fragment 4Q386ii, line 7, which before its publication in DJD was dealt with by D. Dimant in “A Prophecy on Hellenistic Kingdoms?”, Revue de Qumran 18 (1998), pp. 511–529 (for other publications of this fragment, see ibid., p. 511, n. 2). From the photocopy of the fragment it seems that the reading of the wòòyw and the μòòm of the word μwlçh is doubtful.
hmlçw hkdçw jmçb hty wç[tw hm[q “O he who is attendant here (lit.: standing), you will do it [the feast] with joy, and happiness and peace” (C. 131); hmlçw hkdçb μyrxmm wm[ lyxhw “He saved His people from the Egyptians with joy and peace” (C. 397). hnkdç is not simply a variant of ˚dç with an added nun (as is, for example, bf / ˆbf747), since it is diﬀerent from ˚dç in both meaning and context: it is not connected only to μlç, and its (only?) meaning is “joy”, e.g. hnkdçw wççbw whzb “with joy and gladness and happiness” (C. 134); hnkdçb ydj ˚yta “you came with joy and happiness” (C. 378); hnkdçb ˆwkyd[wm wç[t hnwmyz ha “O the community, may you do your feasts with joy” (C. 736); wlxt hnkdçb hnwmyz ha hnç ham “O the community, may you pray with happiness for a hundred years” (C. 740). A secondary form of hnkdç is hmkdç, which is no more than the consequence of rhyme limitation, e.g. hmlç ˆkw hmkdçb hmwy μynt “be repeating this day with quiet (or: happiness) and peace” (C. 441); μynt hmkdçb hmwy μynt / hmwy ˆdl / hmwy μynt / hm[ ha ˚l / hmwy μynt / hmwy (C. 464); jmçh twarm yl[ rz[w / hmkdçb wtyb la whaybhw “bring him to his house in peace and return to me the visions of joy” (BenÓayyim, Samaritan Piyyutim, p. 358).748 Also the masculine form ˆkdç, which occurs only once, is a result of the rhyme: alw ˆkdç alw jmç al μynpgn t[ lkb ˆrsjb ˆwyl[ μylyba ˆmdzn hkrbb alw rbd wnl μty “we mourn because their absence, all the time [we suﬀer] troubles, no joy and no happiness, nothing is perfect, and we do not assemble for blessing” (C. 773). The plural form of hnkdç is always μynkdç, and as ˆkdç does not exist, so too the feminine plural twnkdç* does not exist. Like hnkdç, it means “joy”: μynkdçw jmçb htbç hz wç[tw “may you observe this Sabbath with joy and gladness” (C. 109); ddjta ˆwbd ynymçhw twkshw μynkdçw jmçb ˆwkyl[ wrb[y μynwççh “may you celebrate with joy and gladness the feasts of tabernacles and the eighth [day of tabernacles] in which the celebrations749 will be renewed” (C. 432); μynkdçw br whzw “a great joy and gladness” (C. 832).750
See p. 310 and n. 773. Here, too, the stanzas end with the syllable hm-. 749 Note the use of ˆwçç meaning “celebration”. This is an innovation of HSH, parallel to the MH and HSH hjmç “celebration” (e.g.: twjmçhw ˆrsbh larçy ha ˚l μyrtyh “O Israel, you will have the tidings and the great feasts” [C. 390]), which does not occur in BH in this sense. 750 μynkdç also occurs with jmç in C. 109, 349, 733, 815, 832, 834, Ben-Óayyim, 748
hybrid samaritan hebrew
A variant form of μynkdç is ynkdç “joy”, losing the ﬁnal μòòm due to the rhyme: ˆtyw wyyj rmçy hwhy ynwmyz ˆyb q[dzm wmç ˆm ha ynkdçw jmçb gbdzy byrq wl htbwq[w yntm bf wl “O he who is called so and so among the congregation; may God guard his life and give him good gifts and hasten his [good] end and he will marry with joy and gladness” (C. 834).751 It also occurs without jmç, e.g. ˚yd[wmbw htbç ˆd wç[t ynkdçbw ynwmyz ha ynjtt “may you have pleasure in your feasts, O congregation, and in joy celebrate this Sabbath” (C. 112); ynkdçbw hmlçb hm[ ha ˚l hmwy μynt “be repeated this day, O people, with peace and joy” (C. 691). As noted above concerning (μy)ˆwçç “celebration”, ynkdç also has this meaning: twjmçh jtpw çwpnh jrt awh yk . . . hzh ˆwçyarh çdj ynkdç lkl çyr hwhw . . . ynwççhw “this ﬁrst month . . . is the gate of relief and the entrance to the celebrations and festivities . . . and it was the beginning of all festivities” (C. 123). On the meaning of ˚dç in Syriac, which is not only “quiet” but also “joy”, see the discussion on dbz.752 (dd) ryç—ryçm In SH one can already see the beginning of the process of replacing Qal of ròòyç with Hif 'il: Alongside hag ywg yk hwhyl wryç “Sing to the Lord; lo, the people prevailed” (MV: hag hag “triumphed gloriously”, Ex 15:21), in which the Qal wryç is used, we also ﬁnd the Hif 'il: hag ywg yk hl wryça “Sing to the Lord; lo, the people prevailed” (MV: hryça “I will sing”, Ex 15:1); the Hif 'il is reﬂected in the pronunciation as well: 9“ìru. This process has been completed in HSH, in which only the Hif 'il is found, i.e. μyryçm ,wryça (and not wryç, μyrç) e.g. br μ[ ha hlal wryça wryça larçy lhq ha “O the congregation of Israel, sing, sing to the Lord, O great people” (C. 263); μyryçm hwhylw μyrb[ wwh πws μy l[w “they crossed the Sea of Reeds and sang to God” (C. 279). Note that in all occurrences of ryça in HSH, it does not simply mean “sing” but rather “praise”. The ST consistently diﬀerentiates between two kinds of ryç: singing to God is translated as jbç “praise” (Ex 15:1); every other singing is translated as ryça, e.g. larçy ryça hff (Heb. larçy ryçy za) “Then Israel sang” Samaritan Piyyutim, p. 370. Without jmç it is quite rare: ˆwta μynkdçb μwyh hz wç[tw ˆwkynbw (C. 731); μynkdçb μynwmyz ha hnç ham hmwy μyntw (C. 812). 751 ynkdç also occurs with jmç in C. 734, 736, 740, 844. 752 On p. 282.
(Nu 21:17). This distinction does not exist in HSH, which usually uses ryça “praise” (alongside jbç), and it is noteworthy that the same rule applies to Ms. A of the ST, which renders every Hebrew ròòyç by the Aramaic jbç. The meaning “praise” is clear in phrases such as μydwmw μymmwrmw μyjbçmw μyryçm, in which all the words mean “praise” (C. 234).753 Thus, all the occurrences of ryça with “God” in HSH should be interpreted as “praise”. Note that the same semantic shift “singing” > “praising” happened with the Hebrew and SA verb rmz “sing”, e.g. hnjbçaw yhla ˆd hnrmzaw hbad hhla (Heb. whnmmwraw yba yhla whwnaw yla hz) “this is my God, and I will praise Him, my father’s God, and I will exalt Him” (Ex 15:2).754 In HSH, ryça is usually followed by the preposition dòòml, i.e. μyryçm lal “praise God”. An exception is the use ˚ryçn (instead of ryçn ˚l): ˚ryçnw ˚llhn ywal μymyh lkb “we should glorify and praise You all the days” (C. 374), which can be explained as follows: wnrwça “I behold him” (Nu 23:9) is rendered in the most ancient manuscripts of the ST as hnjbça. It is quite plausible that this translation was only possible in a (Hebrew) language in which ryça was followed by a direct object. Thus, ˚ryçn found in HSH probably follows an ancient use of the language. ryçm (usually hryçm) is a participle of Hif 'il which is used frequently (and only) as an honoriﬁc title. This title was also emptied of its original meaning, which was probably “praised”. It usually appears in a sequence of other titles of persons mentioned mainly in colophons,755 deeds of marriage,756 etc.: hd[h yny[mw hryçmw hrwfyr “the wise man, the praised, the guard of the community” (C. 835); μyryçm μyrwfyr μynwbn μy[wdy (Ben-Óayyim, Samaritan Piyyutim, p. 370). (ee) fybrç
fybrç is very rare in SA compositions, and appears only in its late layers. Its basic, original, meaning of “scepter, staﬀ ” is documented only once in the ST: harys[ hfybrç tjt rb[yd lk (Heb. rça lk yryç[h fbçh tjt rb[y) “all the tithe of herds and ﬂocks, every tenth animal of all that pass under the [herdsman’s] staﬀ ” (Lv 27:32). 753 754 755 756
For instances in which hdwm in SA means “praise”, see DSA, s.v. ydy. For Examples in BH, see HALOT, s.v. rmz. See, e.g. Von Gall, p. iii, x. See p. 83 (l. 19), 84 (l. 21) above.
hybrid samaritan hebrew
This meaning is not documented at all in HSH. The word itself, however, appears several times with a secondary meaning of “blow, plague”:757 hlag ˚l ˆty fybrçw hq[ lkm “He will redeem you of all the tribulations and plagues” (C. 238); fybrçw hq[ lkm hfylp ˆwkwl μyçy “He will save you from all the tribulations and plagues” (C. 453); wnayxwt fybrç lkm fybn ˚yla “we hope that You will remove us from any plague” (C. 693). Possibly, the ﬁrst documentation of fybrç “plague” predates HSH, since it is found in a piyyut of Ab Gillùgå: lkmw μxra lkm yrm yflp fybrç “save me from any distress and plague” (C. 78). However, the dating of this poet—the 11th century—is uncertain.758 The word is also documented in the earlier part of TM: hlkw ytyyd hrd wh hlyw μyfbrçw μynyd “woe to that generation which is about to come—all of it [will suﬀer] from punishments and plagues” (93a). 3.5.2. Nouns functioning as adjectives (a) wlyla/lyla The noun wlyla “lie”759 occurs in the ancient SA piyyutim: ald jbtçy wlylab “praised be without hypocrisy” (LOT III/2, p. 62); hblb ald wlyla “no lie in his heart” (ibid., p. 199). It seems that wlylab ald became a ﬁxed locution, and was inherited by HSH in this form: htwnmya yans htwlyla yl[b “the liars, who hate the faith” (C. 412); htlyla wyd[lb lkw htwk tyl br btk ah “behold, a great book, there is nothing equal to it, everything besides it is a lie”760 (C. 547); wlylab ald hwgl [rz “he sowed inside it with no lie” (C. 666); μyçw twlyla yrja lzyt ˚lb “beware761 and do not pursue the lie” (C. 757). 757
Cf. the Hebrew counterpart fbç in BH: whaxmy dsjl μa wxral μa fbçl μa “whether for correction, or for his land, or for love, he causes it to happen” ( Jb 37:13). 758 See LOT, III/2, p. 19. 759 lyla is connected either to lòòl[ (μylm twlyl[ hl μçw [H: μyrbd twlyl “and charges her with shameful conduct”, Dt 22:14) or to lòòlj (cf. Syriac htlylj “lie”; see Ben-Óayyim’s discussion in LOT III/2, p. 62). 760 If htlyla is not a scribal or copyist’s mistake, we have here evidence of a noun hlyla alongside the common noun wlyla. 761 It is unnecessary to attribute ˚lb μyç to the Arabic dir balak, since lb “mind” is documented in Aramaic dialects, and the same phrase ˚lb bh and ˚lb [bq is documented in SA (see DSA, s.v. 1lb). However, lb and its complements are found only in TM, most of which is replete with Arabic inﬂuences, and as noted by BenÓayyim (43b, n. 3), ˚lb bh does not occur at all in the ﬁrst book (of TM), which
Alongside wlyla in HSH, the abstract noun lyla is used with the same meaning: μyzyrgrh tkrb ˆwkwl μwqtw lyla lkm waxtw “you will remove yourself from any lie and you will have the blessing of Mount Gerizim” (C. 319); lyla wb tyl rwhf blb “with pure heart which has no lie” (C. 423); lyla al fçq btk “true book, no lie in it” (C. 572). It is also found in TM: μynmdzm ˆna μwy lkb lylab “we join the lie every day” (300b). The uniqueness of lyla in HSH is that it also functions as an adjective: μylyla al μyfyçq hrbdmbw hmyb μyldgh μytpwmh “the great wonders in the sea and the desert were true, not false” (C. 526). (b) db, ddb The adverb ddb documented in the Pentateuch762 also appears in HSH, but only in full or partial citations from the Pentateuch, e.g. wnkçt ddb jfbw “you will dwell alone in safety” (C. 153, based on Dt 33:28; also C. 387); rkn la wm[ ˆyaw wnjny ddb hwhy “the Lord alone did lead him” (C. 493 = Dt 32:12). ddb with preceded l, i.e. ddbl, is not used at all in HSH, and the same is true for the suﬃxed forms. Nowhere in HSH do we ﬁnd wdbl*, only wdb:763 wdb trmçmh μçd rmtya “Itamar who was appointed on the charge alone” (C. 239, based probably on Nu 4:28; 38:21); ymg tbytb μçwh db “[Moses] was put alone in a basket made of bulrushes” (C. 266); wdb μda hç[w “He made the man by himself ” (C. 498); wdb wçpn axmyw “he found himself alone” (C. 571). HSH went a step further in using ddb as an adjective meaning “peerless” (almost always an epithet of God): ddbh hwhyl “to God the peerless” (C. 183); drph ddbh . . . hwhy μdq yhla “the Lord is an ancient God . . . peerless and only” (C. 185); ˚twadjyb ddb ta “You are alone in Your oneness” (C. 304). When ddb is not describing God, it may appear in a plural form μyddb b9d9d6m: μynwkç μkmçyw μyddb jfb “He will cause you to dwell alone in safety” (C.235, based on Dt 33:28).
represents the ancient layer of the composition, probably written prior to Arabic inﬂuence on SA. Thus, despite the ancient documentation of lb, its occurrences in SA and HSH may well be attributed to Arabic inﬂuence. 762 E.g. bçy ddb “he shall dwell alone” (Lev 13:46); ˆkçy ddbl μ[ “a people dwelling alone” (Nu 23:9). 763 Note the use of wynp instead wynpl (p. 266 above).
hybrid samaritan hebrew
(c) çbd The noun çbd “honey” documented in the Pentateuch (e.g. tbz ≈ra çbdw blj “a land ﬂowing with milk and honey”, Ex 3:8), is also used with its basic meaning in HSH: ytwrymz w[mç rma çbdb zrahw “the rice mixed with honey said: listen to my singing” (C. 191). Needless to say, çbd occurs in HSH as part of a quotation from the Pentateuch: wh[qynyy [lsm çbd “and He made him suck honey out of the rock” (C. 267, based on Dt 32:13); çbdb tyjpsk wm[fw “and the taste of it was like wafers764 made with honey” (C. 310 = Ex 16:31). Alongside this inherited use, çbd in HSH also functions as an adjective meaning “sweet”: çbd μwlk lkyn “we shall eat something sweet” (C. 107); ytwbbl l[ wrkdm çbd hmw “how sweet is his remembrance in my heart” (C. 247); wçbd hmw wbf hm “how fair and sweet he is” (C. 431); μlk μyçdj μyrbd jmçy blh wb hm [mçt ˆa jyrtt ˆhw μyçbd “if you want to hear what gladdens the heart—new things, all of them sweet!” (C. 699). Of course, the shift between the substantive use and the adjectival use was encouraged by metaphorical uses of çbd such as çdj llmm çbdk bf “new speech, good like honey” (C. 465); çbdk aybnh bf ˆrkd ybbl l[ “the remembrance of the good prophet is like honey on my heart” (C. 864). In some cases çbd seems to function as a (stative) verb: hçbd hm hqtm hmw “how sweet and mellow it is [the ordinance of the Passover]” (C. 260); ˆwçbd hm μyd[wm “so sweet feasts” (C. 142). In both cases the ﬁnal words hqtm and ˆwçbd are in accordance with the rhyme, which implies that they are simply poetic substitutions of çbd and do not reﬂect a real verbal conjugation. On the other hand, in the Jewish piyyuttim çbd did function as a verb, e.g. wçbky ˚ymjr ˚s[k wçbdy ˚ynpl ytwnjtw “may Your mercy conquer Your anger and my pleading be good (lit.: sweet) in Your sight”.765 (d) [md
[md in HSH has two unconnected meanings: “tear” and “oﬀering”, both of which are already documented in the Pentateuch (and in
On the shift ß > s, see p. 189. Found in a piyyut by R. Shmuel Hashlishi; the text was never published and a photocopy of the fragment (n. 103) is found at Schoken collection; see Ma"agarim, s.v. çbd. 764 765
SA as well ).766 The ﬁrst and better known [md is used in HSH only in its original meaning, e.g. tw[md rfm ryfmt wnyny[w “our eyes rain a rain of tears” (C. 252). I shall discuss here only the second [md, since it has new meanings and functions in HSH. In the Pentateuch this [md is documented in the verse: ˚talm rjat al ˚[mdw “You shall not delay to oﬀer from the fullness of your harvest and from the outﬂow of your presses” (Ex 22:28, translation of the RSV).767 According to some lexicographers, such as BenYehuda, [md in BH had the same meaning it has in MH, i.e. ,769 “oﬀering”.768 As to the etymology, some connect it to Arabic i.e. they connect it to [md “tear”, while others see a connection to Arabic “brain”, j'wOm in Hebrew, which is probably related to j'me “fatling” (e.g. Ë o l; hl,[a} ' μyjime twl[ “I oﬀer up fatlings to You”, Ps 66:15). As is known, the noun hmwrt in MH not only means “oﬀering, donation”, but is also used as an adjective meaning “excellent”, e.g. abyq[ ybr lç wytwdm twmwrtm twmwrt ytwdm “my rules are better than the best rules of R. 'Aqiva” (b. Gi††in 67a). The same semantic shift happened to [md in SA and in HSH, e.g. htçbyd [md hçydq hrwjb “the chosen, the holy, the choicest of the earth” (LOT III/2, p. 50).770 The same use of [md, which, attached to another noun, gives it the sense of a superlative—as the Hebrew rjbm—is very widespread in HSH, e.g. tbçh μymyh [md “the Sabbath is the choicest day” (C. 389, based probably on an Aramaic piyyut: htbç ayh hymwy lkd ˆw[md, C. 68); twrwdh lk [md hçm “Moses, the choicest [person] of all generations” (C. 416); twrbfh [md “the choicest mountain” (C. ibid.); μyrpsh [md ˆmanh ybnh “the faithful prophet, the choicest teacher” (C. 429); μyçwnah [md ˆthba “our ancestors, the choicest people” (C. 251); [rlm μydm[ μym[h y[mdw “the choicest people are standing downstairs” (C. 377); μlw[h y[md larçy ynb “the Israelites, the choicest of the world” (C. 749). HSH is unique in converting the noun [md to function as an [entire] adjective. Thus, one not only ﬁnds twrwdh lk [md hçm but
See DSA, s.v. 2, 1[md. A similar interpretation is already reﬂected in the LXX: lhnÒw (“winepress”). 768 See Ben-Yehuda, Thesaurus, s.v. [mda. 769 BDB introduced “wine”. 770 Note that this metaphoric use of [md is reminiscent of the use of the English word “cream” in the sense of “the choicest part”. This semantic shift happened without the mediation of a word meaning “donation”. If this is so, one may not need the parallelism of hmwrt in order to understand how [md came to mean “choicest”. 767
hybrid samaritan hebrew
also [mdh hçm and even μy[mdh [md hçm “Moses, the choicest of all”, and also: [mdh larçy “Israel the choicest” (C. 170); μ[ ha ˆwkybwf [mdw çdq “happy you are, holy and excellent people” (C. 415); μydwgsh [mdh rtal “worship to the choicest place” (C. 866). Note that this use of [md completely parallels the Modern Hebrew adjective ymwrt, “excellent, choicest”, which is derived from the noun hmwrt. Parallel nouns which are used in HSH and have the same meaning and function are: πfq ,blj ,dbz.771 (e) ˆrty In SA ˆrty means “prominency”, e.g. ynmtm al μl[l ˚ydsj ˆrtyd “the prominency of Your grace is never counted” (LOT III/2, p. 288). The main use of ˆrty in HSH is as an adjective meaning “many, great”: μynrty wyglg wbf hm htbç hzw “how good is this Sabbath! Its praises are great!” (C. 439); hb μylypn ˆwnad hnrtyh h[rxhw “the great distress in which we fall” (C. 683). Note that in all these occurrences ˆrty follows the rhyme. Thus, this form—instead of rty—is ostensibly simply a result of the rhyme. Note also that the original adjective is no less frequent, e.g. rty jmçb “in great joy” (C. 112); rty lwqb “with a loud voice”772 (C. 132). Despite this, I believe that ˆrty is a vivid part of HSH vocabulary, for the following reasons: (1) the formation of a new adjective by addition of suﬃx ˆ- is well documented;773 (2) ˆrty is too common to simply be a result of the rhyme; (3) because of its nature as an adjective it appears mainly at the end of the sentence (or other syntactic unit), which is the natural place of the rhyme. Therefore it need not be regarded as a result of the rhyme, but rather a vivid word that ﬁts the rhyme. It is thus not at all surprising that rty also ﬁts the rhyme in many cases; (4) the Hebrew name of the family yrtkla is ynrtyh774 and not yrtyh* (though we have names such as yrpxh, yrfmh etc.), and this family name is of course not dependent on any rhyme. 771
See pp. 282, 286, 299. Based on lwdg lwqb (Gn 39:14). Note however that all the ST manuscripts render the Hebrew lwdg by br or μr, while none of them use rty. 773 Cf. ˆbf—bf; μynkdç—˚dç. This added nun was already mentioned by BenÓayyim, who raised the possibility that the suﬃx ˆ- was added under the inﬂuence of Arabic, in which the suﬃx -an is very common in adjectives (Ben-Óayyim, Samaritan Piyyutim, p. 335). 774 On the connection between the Arabic name and the Hebrew rtk, see C. xxxi, n. 1. 772
312 (f ) ˆrçk
ryçk is already found in Ms. J of the ST: htryçk htta (Heb. hçah tyçkh) “the Cushitic woman” (Nu 12:1). ryçk is used also in HSH with the similar meaning of “good” and “exalted”, e.g. hryçkh qçmdb “in exalted Damascus” (C. 192); hryçk twtbç [bç “seven exalted Sabbaths” (C. 312); ryçk h[dmd çyah “the person whose perception is good”. rçkb is found as an adverb meaning “appropriately”: μwy lkb hnrmyn rçkb jbçnw “we shall say it every day and we shall praise it appropriately” (C. 858). Alongside this noun, ˆrçk is used with the same meaning and function: hnrçkh ≈rah “the good land” (C. 130); μyryqyw μybf μyntj μynrçkw μyryanw “good noble wise and exalted bridegroom” (BenÓayyim, Samaritan Piyyutim, p. 366). It is also used, like rçk, with the preposition b as an adverb: hnrçkb hnç lk wta wç[t “may you celebrate it [the Day of Atonement] appropriately every year” (C. 678); hnrçkb hnç hamw “hundred years appropriately” (C. 441). It was noted by Ben-Óayyim,775 that ˆrçk in TM (used there only as an abstract noun) has more than one meaning. The same is true of HSH: the adverb hnrçkb in phrases such as hnrçkb hnç hamw is parallel to the words ydj, yhz, jmç “joy” in phrases such as hnç hamw yhzw ydjb or jmçw ydjb hnç hamw. One may thus assume that hnrçkb actually had the meaning “with joy”. In this light, it is quite possible that hnrçkb wta wç[t (quoted above) may be translated as “you will celebrate it with joy”. This is even more plausible when we consider the beginning of the piyyut: rwpkh μwy ydj ˚yta “you came with joy, the Day of Atonement”, and: wbdjb ˆjbçtw ˆawlxb wwqy μ[h lk wb “on [the Day of Atonement] all the people will gather with joy to pray and to praise” (C. 678). There are of course other nouns which function as adjectives, like blj, jrf and πfq. 3.5.3. Words which are not documented in the ancient Samaritan literature (a) hra This noun—pronounced èra776—is found only once: [ra ˚h μymyh yk hra ˆmw hkrb ˆm w[dt hl hm dylwt “the days are like the earth which 775 776
TM, 253b, n. 2. The imperative hra “curse” (Nu 22:6) is also pronounced èra.
hybrid samaritan hebrew
you do not know what it will bear—both blessing and curse”777 (C. 675). The noun most similar to hra in SA is hryra: al hryra çblw μl[l hnm yfst “he will be dressed in a curse which will not leave him for ever” (TM, 275a). It is also found in the Tùlìda: hy tryraw wta wllqy rça μyxanmh l[ “the curses of God will be upon the cursers who will curse him” (18a84). (b) ˆwkra Like rwfyr, ˆwkra as well—a loan word from Greek êrxvn “a leader, chief, commander”—is used as an honoriﬁc title. ˆwkra is also documented in MH, e.g. ˆynwkra μyqm ab rb ayyj ybr wrwçy μyrç yb “By me princes rule (Prov 8:16), Rabbi Óiyya interprets [the word μyrç] as arkonin” ( y. Pe"a 21a),778 but it is not documented in SA.779 This absence is probably accidental, since in a piyyut composed in the 4th century the denominative (from ˆwkra) verb ˆkra “elevate” does occur: hmwnq ˆkrad hl ˆybrm “praise Him, that He made himself a master” (LOT III/2, p. 51). In its original sense “chief ” I have found ˆwkra only once in HSH: hragn πswy ˆb μyrm ˆb wçy lfqa ˆtnwhy ymwyb . . . hnwkra hfylp dyb ymwr ˚lm syrbyf ymwyb μlç yrwrab tpanh ˆb “in the days of Jonathan, Jesus the son of Miriam and Joseph the carpenter, the son of the adulteress, was killed in Jerusalem—in the days of Tiberius the king of Rome—by the governor Pilatus” (Tùlìda, 8a109). As an honoriﬁc title ˆwkra is widespread in various HSH texts. Examples from piyyutim: hçm hbr hybn hbf hnwkra “the good noble, the great prophet Moses” (C. 250); ˆwkra ˆmw ˚wms ˆm μkyyj rmçy ˆkw “may He guard your lives—leaders and nobles” (C. 388); ynwmyz ha ynwkra rdsw ynyqzw μynhk ˆm “O congregation—priests, and elders and all the nobles” (C. 426); μynwkra yrdsw μynhkh rmçy μynwdah ˆwda “may the Master of [all] masters guard the priests and all the nobles” (C. 848).
777 Note that this use of ˆm is also found in the idiom db ˆmw çwk ˆm (pp. 276, 291 above) and is probably inﬂuenced by the Arabic which can appear before detailing a general idea, its meaning being “such as” ( , Wright, Grammar, II, p. 137). Sometimes ˆm stands alone before the objects detailed, precisely as in Arabic, e.g. μynwkraw μynhk ˆm μklk μkyyj rmçy ˆkw “may He guard your lives, all of you— priests and nobles” (C. 136). 778 See S. Krauss, Griechische und lateinische Lehnwörter im Talmud, Midrasch und Targum, II, Berlin 1899, p. 129. 779 The quotation in DSA, s.v. ˆkra is from HSH.
Examples from colophons: hrwth taz ytbtk . . . bq[y ˆb μhrba yna . . . hyxptm hnwkraw hkwms μç l[ hçwdqh “I, bq[y ˆb μhrba, wrote this holy Torah in the name of the nobleman and leader hyxptm” (Von Gall, p. i); wkwmsw wayçnw wnd[b larçy hnçm hrwth taz hnq . . . ht[d çmyçw htabf hç[ wnwkraw “this Torah was bought by the vice[-president of the community] of Israel in his time, its prince and leader and noble, the doer of good deeds and the sun of wisdom” (ibid., p. ii). ˆwkra is also used in HSH as an adjective describing the superiority of non-human items, e.g., dgsm “a place of worship”, as in the phrase dgsmw ˆhkw aybn μynwkra htlt taz “these are three noble things: the prophet, the priest and the place of worship” (C. 251). Moreover, in several contexts ˆwkra means “foundation”, e.g. d[wm ydhs h[raw hymwç hbd ynys rh dm[m ynwkra l[ ynbtm wh ynç “the second feast (i.e. the tabernacle feast) is built on the foundations of the revelation of Mount Sinai, to which the heaven and the earth were witnesses” (C. 425); wçrçw hml[ ynwkra ˆwna . . . ≈rahw μymçh “the heaven and the earth are the world’s base and its origin” (C. 430); hlkw μyçdqh ˆw[ açn wyl[w μynynbh ˆwkra ˚yh hb qybd “everything is attached to him [to the high priest], as a base of a building” (C. 529). It is not diﬃcult to assume that this meaning is a result of a semantic development: “excellent, distinguished” > “essence” > “foundation”. However, I believe that an additional factor brought about this new , which in Arabic means “base, essence”, and its use of ˆwkra: plural form is , quite similar to ˆwkra arkon. It is thus quite reasonable that the HSH ˆwkra (loaned from Greek) absorbed in some of its occurrences the meaning of the similar (in pronunciation only) Arabic word. I also believe that ˆwkra has the sense “base” in other occurrences, especially when it is attached to ˚wms “pedestal, leader” in the frequent collocation hnwkraw hkwms (especially in colophons and deeds of marriage). It is thus in fact a combination of two synonyms780 which have the same original meaning, “base”, and both of which developed another meaning, “leader”. (c) dgdg From the root dòòdg “cut” (BH and Aramaic), a quadrilateral root dòògdg was created, whose meaning is the same as dòòdg, e.g. rbgty ˆmw 780 A very similar combination, though found only once, is ˚mwtw ˚mws (in the prayer of Ab Isdå. See Florentin, Ab Isdå, p. 202, l.152; Arabic translation: ˆkrw dns; ˚òòmt “support” is the Hebrew counterpart of ˚òòms).
hybrid samaritan hebrew
dgdgty wçar l[ wnyl[ “he who will act violently781 against us—his head will be cut” (C. 176); dgdgm wtyl ˆynb “a building which cannot be destroyed”782 (C. 254); ddgm wtyl wnaynbw (C. 538).783 dòòdg in SA and HSH also means “rebel”: hfçq ymq ddgn “we rebel against the truth” (TM, 204a).784 This meaning is documented in HSH in Itpa'al: hwhyb wnmayw wddgta alw hwhy ta μ[h waryyw itg9dèdu “and the people feared the Lord; and they did not rebel; and they believed in the Lord” (C. 281, based on Ex 14:31). It is quite probable that the poet also based his phrasing on TM: wddgh μyçar htlt ymdq “three companies rebelled785 against me” (218a). Note that dgdgm in the phrase dgdgm d[wm (C. 739) is deﬁnitely not connected to our dòògdg, since it is written in the context of the joy of the Feast of Tabernacles. According to a Samaritan oral tradition of interpretation (told to me by Mr. Y. Tsedaka) it means “heralded feast”, being a deviant passive form of dygh “tell”. This oral tradition is not far-fetched, because in the ST the Hebrew wndwgy dwdg dg (Gn 49:19) is rendered by hnrsby rwsb dg “Gad will be announced with tidings”. (d) πdg
πòòdg “curse”, which is already documented in the Pentateuch, is also used in HSH: πdgm wh hwhyld yarkn “alien who curses God” (C. 178). However, it usually means “to expel, remove”: πxqh ˆkw πgnh lk πdgyw “may He remove all plague and wrath” (C. 175); lk blkw [çwhy yhla πdgy ˆwkwld bbd “the God of Joshua and Caleb will remove any enemy of yours” (C. 332); dz lk drfyw dwrm lk πdgty d[ hzb ytçrdw “I ask that any rebel and presumptuous will be expelled” (C. 554; πdgty is a synonym of drfy yi††9r6d ). The meaning of πdg is also clear
Note that rbgty meaning “act violently” is inﬂuenced by Arabic . Another version is dndnm, which has the same meaning (dòòwn > dòòndn; “hurl” > “to be shattered”). 783 See Sokoloﬀ, DBA, s.v. ddg; JPAP, p. 49, and n. 12. 784 See additional occurrences in DSA, s.v. 3ddg. D. Talshir dealt with this meaning of dòòdg in SA and showed that the same meaning is documented in other sources: Targum Neophiti, Targum Jonathan, Peshi†ta. He mentioned ddgm, the epithet of jrq (“the rebel”; ST, Nu 16:1); see D. Talshir, “tt'rdwn in the Peshi†ta”, TarbiΩ 49 (1980), pp. 81–101. 785 wddgh < wddgth*. The t of the stem is assimilated in all the occurrences of ddgth* in TM. As is well known, there is no reliable tradition of pronunciation of this composition. Talshir, on p. 89 of his article (see preceding note), analyzed these forms as Af 'el (in DSA they are analyzed as Itpa'al ). 782
from the parallelism in the following phrase: πxq lkw πgn lk açyw ˆwkyl[m (LOT III/2, p. 363), in which açyw “may He remove” is parallel to πdgty. All these blessings are the opposite of the verse: axy πgnh ljh hwhy ynplm πxqh “for wrath has gone forth from the Lord, the plague has begun” (Nu 17:11). The origin of πdg “remove” is questionable. Possibly, it is related to πòòdg “wipe” which is connected, according to some dictionaries,786 to πòòrg “sweep away”,787 and is documented in the Palestinian Talmud: μwlk hb htryyç alw hr[qh lk ta htpdyg “you have wiped the whole dish and did not leave anything” ( y. Sanhedrin 25b). in Arabic means “cut”, and this meaning may ﬁt some of the contexts in which πdg is found. (e) htbj
htbj is the title of a priest whose duty was probably to assist the high priest, especially in the Samaritan community in Damascus. The duties of the htbj and the meaning of the word were thoroughly dealt with by Ben-Óayyim.788 Sometimes the htbj carried the Torah scroll, and he is mainly referred to as the person who would recite some of the prayers, i.e. he was a kind of cantor, assisting the high priest. It was probably because of this duty that one of the priestly families in Damascus was called ywatp[, a name found for the ﬁrst time in a colophon of a bilingual Hebrew-Arabic manuscript, which was copied in 1219 for jlç hbr hnhk, the grandson of ywatp[ ˆmd μhrba, i.e. from the ywatp[ family. This name bears a close resemblance to the Arabic pronunciation of the word under consideration (see below). We also know of several priests and poets with this name: ˆhkh htbj πswy (in a rubric of a piyyut, C. 299; or: htb[ πswy, C. 316), htbj μhrba (C. 303), qçmd htb[ hkrb ˆb hwhy db[ ˆb μhrba (C. 312), qçmd htb[ μhrba ˆb hwhy db[ (C. 449). The parallel Arabic epithet for these poets is , e.g. is mentioned in one of the rubrics of a piyyut of the jbtçy i“tabba type (C. 133). The noun htbj is probably derived from the Aramaic root yòòwj “say”, and the htbj was indeed a kind of dygm or ˆmgrwtm i.e. a per-
786 787 788
See Ben-Yehuda, Thesaurus, and Kohut, Aruch Completum, s.v. πdg. Also documented in SA (see DSA, s.v. πrg). Ben-Óayyim, Samaritan Piyyutim, p. 86.
hybrid samaritan hebrew
son whose main duty is to speak, to recite (a prayer, sermon etc.). As mentioned by Ben-Óayyim,789 in the chronicle of Abù ’l-Fat˙ it is said about the that he was , i.e. “interpreter”.790 The Aramaic form of the name shows that the job of the htbj was ﬁrst introduced when Aramaic was still a living language. The Arabic pronunciation 'aftawi of the noun seems not to be directly derived from the Aramaic pronunciation 'abta, but rather an interpretation of an Aramaic spelling such as yatpj (instead of yatwj). Despite the (assumed ancient) Aramaic origin of the word, it occurs only in the relatively late Samaritan texts written in HSH. Since the htbj played an important role in the life of the community, he is mentioned quite frequently in HSH piyyutim. Based on these occurrences, I draw attention to two issues: 1. The Samaritan tradition told to Gaster791 regarding the duty or function of the htbj as a person who recites the Targum in the synagogue, is reinforced by explicit words of the (16th century) poet yxbqh μhrba: μymwgrt htbj ˆwty yrqy wtrqm ˆhkh lsjy t[w “when the priest concludes the recitation [of the Torah], the htbj recites the translation” (C. 551). 2. In several places the htbj is mentioned alongside yrmç and ˆhk, all three comprising the whole Samaritan community, e.g. hmwy μynt htbjw ˆhkw yrmç htç ham “be repeated this day, O Samaritan and priest and htbj” (C. 188); ˆhkw yrmç ht[ys rds ha htç ham hzl yfmt μydymx hkad ˆm htbjw “O that you might reach this [day], [for more than a] hundred years, O all the community—Samaritan, and priest and htbj who are gathered here” (C. 806). These verses of the poet yxbqh μhrba are reminiscent of the Jewish division ˆhk, ywl, larçy. From the parallelism of yrmç, htbj, ˆhk, and larçy, ywl, ˆhk it is obvious that the htbj is the Samaritan counterpart of the Levite, i.e. the Samaritan htbj used to assist the Samaritan priest as the Levite assisted the Jewish priest. yxbqh μhrba lived in Damascus792 and his evidence is doubtless direct. As already mentioned, he followed Maimonides in drawing up a list of the 613 commandments (twwxm gòòyrt).793 Thus, this division of yrmç, htbj, ˆhk is presumably
789 790 791 792 793
Ibid., p. 88. E. Vilmar, Abulfathi Annales Samaritani, Gotha 1865, p. 128. See M. Gaster, The Samaritans, London 1925, p. 145. See LOT III/2, p. 22. See p. 53 above.
another reﬂection of Jewish inﬂuence on this Samaritan poet. However, the 14th century poet ladb[ has already written: ham ˚yd[wm hç[t htb[w ˆhk yrmç htç “may you celebrate your feasts for hundred years, [O] Samaritan, priest and htbj” (C. 179). Thus, if this Samaritan division is indeed a result of a Jewish inﬂuence it considerably predates the times of yxbqh μhrba. (f ) wnk, wynk The word ˆK' “base”, which is already documented in the Pentateuch, is also used in SA as a loan word from Hebrew, e.g. çjn hrwyk ty db[w çjn hnk tyw (Heb. tçjn wnkw tçjn rwyk tyç[w) “You shall make a laver of bronze, with its base of bronze” (Ex 30:18). Two nouns were derived from this noun in HSH: wnk and wynk (the latter being more common). These are not simply morphological innovations; both have a mainly metaphorical meaning: “rank, place of encampment, post”, e.g. tyçk twnk wgl ˆwçnkta çmçhw jryh wbd . . . ˆwçyarh çdj tbç “the Sabbath of the ﬁrst month . . . in which the moon and the sun gathered in a pleasant place” (C. 134); fm ˚tyl ytwnklw “you do not reach my rank” (C. 199); ˆwtwnk l[ wbtytaw “they arranged themselves at their post” (C. 371); ˆwtwnk l[ hymwç ylyjw “the heavenly host [arranged themselves] at their post” (C. 536); rwf ylwpçb μym[q μnhw ˆwtwnk l[ ynys “they stand at their post at the foot of Mount Sinai” (C. 540). The noun probably also occurs in TM: ywld htyb lk ha ˆwkytwnk wrf “O all the house of Levi, keep your post”794 (C. 257). wynk occurs only a few times and it seems to mean simply “rank” (and not “post” or “place”), e.g. htwynk hdh l[ μ[qd “he [Moses] held [lit.: stood on]that rank” (C. 559); htwynk hdh l[ μwqy ymw hzl hfma ˆm htwybnd hrwam hçm hz ala “who has reached this and who holds this rank? Only Moses, the light of prophecy” (C. 819). Note that the spelling wynk in HSH may imply two other origins: (1) an abstract noun meaning “honesty” (Modern Hebrew: tWnKe) derived from the adjective ˆKe “honest”; (2) a variant of the abstract noun wnhk “priesthood”.795 Therefore, when [çyba the poet wrote htwynk lylk djaw htwybnb lylk dja “one [Moses] is perfect in prophecy
794 Ben-Óayyim (ibid.) interpreted it as wnhk, i.e. “priesthood” (and so did Tal, DSA, s.v. wnhk). This interpretation is also possible, except that the spelling wnk instead of wnhk is not found elsewhere. 795 See the previous note.
hybrid samaritan hebrew
and one is perfect in htwynk” (C. 431), the reader may see—whether the poet intended it or not—two other meanings of htwynk: “rank” and “honesty”. All meanings of ynk, wynk are also found in the various derivations of bòòty in SA: bwty yittob means “encampment”: lwflfw bwty htlyç “[Moses’] request is settlement and migration” (TM, 185a); bwtym means “base”: hybwtym (Heb. hykry “its base” (Ex 25:31); bwtym also means “rank”: hbwtym awh hçymçtw “his service is his rank” (TM, 119a). (g) ynk The most ancient Samaritan source in which ynk k9ni “honest, faithful, truthful” is documented is a 10th century piyyut of ˇåbya ban Dårtå: ynk ˚twnmad yrm “my Lord, that Your way is truthful” (LOT III/2, p. 301). In HSH piyyutim ynk is frequently used as an epithet of Moses: ynkh ybnh dy l[ trfnta jsph tqj wbw “at [that time] the law of Passover was kept by the faithful prophet” (C. 123); ybnh hçmw ynkh “Moses the truthful prophet” (C. 386). Note that Moses is also called fçqh aybnh, ynk being thus the exact synonym of fçq.796 Examples of other nouns are: ynkh ˆrhal rmya “say to Aaron the truthful” (C. 629); ynk çydq lhq “holy and faithful congregation” (C. 362). The root of ynk is ˆòòwk, derived from the word μynIKe “honest men” (Gn 42:11; see LOT IV, p. 136),797 which is also used in HSH: al wnyrbf μwrb μyndyz yrbqw μynman al ˆkw μynk wnjna “we are not honest men and also not faithful, and [therefore] tombs of presumptuous men are [located] on our most exalted mountain” (C. 63); ˆwlhk wnwyw μynmam ˚b whyw ˚mm μta qjrt alw μynk “they all will be honest, and do not remove them from You and they will believe in You” (C. 110). The poet qjxy ˆb hybf once calls himself μynk rb hnhk hybf “ˇåbya the prophet, son of honest men” (C. 199), and it seems that μynk rb is a locution whose counterpart in Hebrew is μybwf ˆb “son of good men”. The word [ynk, a passive participle of [òònk “humbled, submitted” (not documented in the Pentateuch), is also pronounced k9ni and sometimes it is even spelled the same way, i.e. ynk. In HSH it occurs
796 fçq is either a variant spelling of the adjective fyçq “true”, or it is the noun fçq “truth” functioning as an adjective (cf. p. 306). 797 ynk is thus the result of back-formation and it resembles the formation of hn