Henshke, Y., “Oral Language Traditions and Classical Hebrew: Phonological and Morphological Phenomena.” Revue des Études Juives 168 (2009): 181–94.

181

ORAL LANGUAGE TRADITIONS AND CLASSICAL HEBREW Yehudit HENSHKE Université hébraïque de Jérusalem

ORAL LANGUAGE TRADITIONS AND CLASSICAL HEBREW: PHONOLOGICAL AND MORPHOLOGICAL PHENOMENA

RÉSUMÉ La présence de termes hébraïques dans les langues vernaculaires des communautés juives d’Afrique du Nord constitue un élément d’importance pour l’étude historique de la langue hébraïque. On repère en effet deux démarches a priori antithétiques. D’une part, au niveau oral des langues non juives, l’insertion de mots hébraïques entraîne la création de néologismes. Mais, d’autre part, ces apports étrangers à la langue locale ont permis de préserver les strates archaïques de l’hébreu post-biblique. Dans cet article, nous confrontons les langues vernaculaires d’Afrique du Nord aux traditions de lecture de la Thora, aux meilleurs manuscrits de la Mishna et autres documents d’époque dignes de foi. S’impose alors à nous la fidélité et la précision de la phonologie comme de la morphologie de l’hébreu intégré au judéo-arabe tunisien. Dans le champ de la phonologie, on remarque que l’accent tonique pénultième — caractéristique de l’hébreu ancien — perdure dans le judéo-tunisien. D’autres exemples viennent étayer notre thèse: ainsi le redoublement du resh et la consonne vav, le «v» se prononçant «w». Dans le champ de la morphologie, deux exemples témoignent de deux stades differents dans l’élaboration de l’hébreu ancien: l’emploi du pluriel «-iyot» (yeshiviyot), les formes pausales telles que (se¨uda mafsaqet et non mafseqet). D’autres formes attestent des traditions plus anciennes de l’hébreu: Ìomesh, kummar, afiqomen, gehinnam ainsi que de mots araméens (¨arubba, ma¨al) et d'expressions (¨ese® ¢d-d¢bb®ot et tÌayat ¢m-mitim). SUMMARY The Hebrew component of Judeo-languages constitutes an important dimension in the historical study of the Hebrew language. It testifies to two, ostensibly conflicting, processes. On the one hand, the incorporation of Hebrew words into the spoken, non-Jewish, language creates neologisms; on the other, this component preserves traditions from earlier strata of postbiblical Hebrew. Based on manuscripts attesting to Mishnaic Hebrew, ethnic oral traditions, and other trustworthy witnesses, the latter phenomenon is examined through the prism of Tunisian JudeoArabic. In the realm of phonology, I note the preservation in Judeo-Tunisian of a penultimate stress characteristic of earlier Hebrew strata. Also treated here are the realization of the consonant waw as v alongside the vocalic realization of w,

Revue des études juives, 168 (1-2), janvier-juin 2009, pp. 181-194 doi: 10.2143/REJ.168.1.2035306

1888-08_REJ09/1-2_07

181

09-15-2009, 14:51

182

ORAL LANGUAGE TRADITIONS AND CLASSICAL HEBREW

and the geminate resh. In the sphere of morphology, I cite examples from two categories witnessing earlier Hebrew traditions: plurals in the form -iyot (such as yeshiviyot), and pausal forms such as se{uda mafsaqet. Other forms attested in earlier traditions include: Ìomesh, kummar, afiqomen, and gehinnam, and the phrases {ese® ¢d-d¢bb®ot and tÌayat ¢m-mitim as well as the Aramaic words {arubba and ma{al.

The importance of investigating the vernacular Research of the spoken dialects used by Jews differs in many respects from that of their corresponding written languages. Among the features distinguishing the study of oral from written language, we must note the absence of systematic, edited texts; the existence of individual phonetic idiosyncrasies as well as communal speech habits; and shifts in meaning. Diverse linguistic strata can even be reflected in morphological structures. In addition, the study of vernacular has the ability to contribute to lexical knowledge: this is especially noteworthy for “concealed" words, such as “secret"1, and “women's", language2, whose appearance in written form is virtually precluded. But, above and beyond the wealth of data provided by the multiform vernacular dialects, the question arises as to the scholarly value of the language-traditions reflected therein. In certain fields, it appears that spoken Judeo-languages preserve early Hebrew forms ultimately stemming from postbiblical Hebrew traditions. For the scholar, in some cases these later reverberations shed light on the original linguistic phenomena and make a significant contribution to the historical study of the Hebrew language. Based on intensive interviews with a variety of informants from the Tunisian Jewish community3, this paper presents my findings regarding the Hebrew component of Tunisian Judeo-Arabic in the phonological and morphological spheres. Phonology 1. Paroxytone stress To date, investigation of the stress in Hebrew words as used in the vernaculars of the North African Jewish communities shows that they corre1. See Y. HENSHKE, Hebrew Elements in Daily Speech: A Grammatical Study and Lexicon of the Hebrew Component of Tunisian Judeo-Arabic, Jerusalem, 2007, pp. 409-418 (in Hebrew). 2. Ibid., pp. 4-5. 3. These materials are arranged and classified in HENSHKE 2007.

1888-08_REJ09/1-2_07

182

09-15-2009, 14:51

183

ORAL LANGUAGE TRADITIONS AND CLASSICAL HEBREW

spond to the Tiberian norms for stress. In other words: (a) most Hebrew words exhibit oxytone (millera¨) stress; and (b) Hebrew words with paroxytone (mille‘el) stress according to the Tiberian rules are pronounced as such in North African vernaculars as well4. However, the Tunisian communities constitute a prominent exception to this phenomenon: in many regions of Tunisia — more precisely, in northern and southwestern Tunisia5 — there is a notable tendency to use penultimate stress6, even in instances for which the Tiberian norm determines terminal stress. An example of this phenomenon is ‫ מגילה‬/ ´mg¢lla/ normally stressed paroxytone in the northwestern, northeastern, and southwestern Tunisian communities, but always oxytone in the central and the southeastern regions /mg¢l ´la/7. This is also the case for ‫הגדה‬: informants from the north and the southwest give this word penultimate stress, whereas in the southeastern and central regions an oxytonic pronunciation of ‫ הגדה‬is frequently heard. A similar isogloss emerges for the following words: ‫הבדלה‬, ‫נעילה‬, ‫משנה‬, ‫הפטרה‬, ‫התרה‬, ‫המוציא‬, ‫מנחה‬, ‫מצה‬, ‫נשמה‬, ‫סעודה‬, and ‫ערובא‬8, among others. Nonetheless, paroxytone stress does not only mark geographical differences — setting the northern and southwestern dialects apart from the southeastern ones — it also reflects gender differences. In the communities presenting paroxytone stress, there is a notable difference between the speech-acts of men and of women: the paroxytone tendency pertains predominantly and extensively to women. Men, although accustomed to a paroxytone stress for the Hebrew words in their vernacular, are also familiar with, and occasionally adopt, oxytonic stress in their speech9. For example, the words ‫ מגילה‬and ‫הגדה‬, mentioned above as instances of paroxytone stress in northern and southwestern Tunisia, can be heard pronounced by men with oxytone stress. Similarly, the paroxytone pronunciation ‫חנוכה‬ 4. For the norm in Algeria, see, for example, M. BAR-ASHER, Traditions linguistiques des Juifs d'Afrique du Nord, Jerusalem, 1999, pp. 280-281 (in Hebrew); this state of affairs is true for Morocco as well (oral communication from Prof. Bar-Asher). 5. The southeastern communities show a distinct divergence from the others in their clearcut oxytone stress. For a more comprehensive discussion, see Y. HENSHKE, “Penultimate Accentuation: The Evidence from Tunisian Jews”, in Sha‘arei Lashon: Studies in Hebrew, Aramaic and Jewish Languages Presented to Moshe Bar-Asher, ed. A Maman et al., Jerusalem, 2007, vol. 3, pp. 321-325. 6. For dialectal differences in stress between the various Tunisian communities, see below. 7. Because of the presence of migrants from many regions, the capital city, Tunis, has an intermediate status. Despite Tunis' northern location, the oxytone-stress on ‫ מגילה‬is encountered there. For the distinction recorded between men and women’s stress-habits, see below. 8. For a precise enumeration of the communities and the distinctions between them regarding these words, see HENSHKE 2007, op. cit. (n. 1), according to their individual entries. 9. Informants attributed this to the influence of the rabbis and schoolteachers, who were, in the main, from Djerba, in the southeast: their stress-tradition was specifically oxytone. Clearly, this influence was restricted to the male population only.

1888-08_REJ09/1-2_07

183

09-15-2009, 14:51

184

ORAL LANGUAGE TRADITIONS AND CLASSICAL HEBREW

/ ´Ìn¢kka, Ì´ nokka, Ìa ´nukka/ is quite prevalent in the north and the southwest, whereas in the southeast, only the oxytone stress ‫ חנוכה‬/Ìn¢k ´ka, Ìnok ´ka, Ìanok ´ka/10 is current. Note, however, that terminal stress on this word is often found in the northern and southwestern regions, specifically in men's speech. It is also noteworthy, that the centrally located cities of Gafsa and Sfax attest to both pronunciations. Thus, although in North Africa as a whole the stress on words in the Hebrew component of the vernacular is mainly oxytone, the Tunisian Jewish community has preserved a fair degree of paroxytone stress in the majority of its communities, and in women's speech in particular11. Paroxytone stress is attested in the oral traditions of other communities: it is found in both Bible and Mishna recitation in Yemen12, Aleppo13, Baghdad14, and Ashkenaz15. In Tetouan, Morocco16, and in Djerba17 it is attested for Mishna-recitation alone. The Hebrew component of the vernacular also displays paroxytone stress among the Jews of Yemen18, Ashkenaz19, Iraq20, and Zakho21; it even shows up, albeit to a limited extent, in the vernacular 10. Exceptions to this norm are a few cases of paroxytone stress of ‫ חנוכה‬in El-Amma in the south. Concerning residual paroxytone stress in the south, see HENSHKE, op. cit. (n. 5). 11. I find some evidence of paroxytone stress in the southern communities, too. See HENSHKE, op. cit. (n. 5), pp. 322-325. 12. S. MORAG, The Hebrew Language Tradition of the Yemenite Jews, Jerusalem, 1963, pp. 220-261, 284 (in Hebrew). 13. K. KATZ, The Hebrew Language Tradition of the Aleppo Community: The Phonology, Edah ve-Lashon 7, Jerusalem, 1981, pp. 71-83 (in Hebrew). 14. S. MORAG, The Hebrew Language Tradition of the Baghdadi Community: The Phonology, Edah ve-Lashon 1, p. 89-114 (in Hebrew). 15. See M. WEINREICH, “Reshit ha-havarah ha-ashqenazit be-ziqatah le-ba‘ayot qerovot shel ha-yiddish ve-ha-‘ivrit ha-ashqenazit”, Leshonenu 27-28 (1963), pp. 326-327. Cf. I. ELDAR, The Hebrew Language Tradition in Medieval Ashkenaz, Edah ve-Lashon 4, Jerusalem, 1979, p. 170, and n. 351 (in Hebrew), who attributes the paroxytone-stress tendency in Ashkenaz to German norms of stress. 16. A. MAMAN, The Reading Tradition of the Jews of Tetouan: Phonology of Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew, Massorot 1, Jerusalem, 1984, pp. 96, 109 (in Hebrew). 17. K. KATZ, The Hebrew Language Tradition of the Community of Djerba (Tunisia): The Phonology and Morphology of the Verb, Edah ve-Lashon 2, Jerusalem, 1977, pp. 145183 (in Hebrew). 18. Neither S. D. GOITEIN, “Ha-yesodot ha-‘ivriyim bisefat ha-dibbur shel yehudei teiman”, Leshonenu 3 (1931), pp. 356-380, nor Y. KARA, “Hebrew and Aramaic Elements in the Women's Language of Yemen”, in M. BAR-ASHER (ed.), Studies in Jewish Languages: Bible Translations and Spoken Dialects, Jerusalem, 1988 (in Hebrew) discusses the stress patterns of Hebrew words in the Yemenite tradition. I received oral confirmation from Dr. Kara that the paroxytone stress is indeed prevalent in the Hebrew component of JudeoYemenite. 19. See n. 15 above. 20. See A. BEN-YAACOB, Hebrew and Aramaic in the Language of the Jews of Iraq, Jerusalem, 1985, p. 18 (in Hebrew). 21. Y. SABAR, “The Hebrew Elements in the Neo-Aramaic Dialect of the Jews of Zakho

1888-08_REJ09/1-2_07

184

09-15-2009, 14:51

185

ORAL LANGUAGE TRADITIONS AND CLASSICAL HEBREW

of Lithuanian Karaites22. Although the Tunisian paroxytone stress is indeed somewhat unique within the broader framework of North African Judeolanguages, a corresponding phenomenon was found to exist in the Bibleand Mishna-recitation traditions of many communities. Furthermore, explicit evidence for paroxytone stress — contrary to the Tiberian norms — comes from ancient postbiblical sources, including the Dead Sea Scrolls23, manuscripts of the Mishna24, and Samaritan Hebrew25. Thus, to the literary evidence for paroxytone stress in postbiblical Hebrew, we can now add its prominent attestation in the oral traditions of Jewish communities. The importance of these traditions lies in their twofold testimony to this phenomenon: in the recitation of source texts as well as in the Hebrew component of the vernacular. 2. The Semi-vowel /w/ The semi-vocalic realization /w/ for the letter ‫ ויו‬is the most widespread one in Tunisia in general. Examples include: ‫( דוד‬Dawid), ‫( ודאי‬wdday), ‫( מקוה‬m¢qwe), ‫( דור ודור‬dor wador), ‫( וכולי‬w-xolle). In northern Tunisia, however, the consonantal realization consistently appears in certain words. This realization is fairly frequent in ‫( מצוה‬m¢zva / m¢Òva), in ‫עוון‬- ‫עוונות‬ (‘abon-‘avonot) and even, occasionally, in ‫( וידוי‬v¢dduy), ‫( לוי‬levi-lbiyim26), and ‫( סם המות‬sam am-mavet), among others. Further evidence for the conin Kurdistan”, Leshonenu 38 (1974), p. 211 (in Hebrew). In contrast, the Azerbaijani dialect displays oxytone stress by and large, with the exception of the festival-name ‫ראש השנה‬, which has paroxytone stress (Y. SABAR, “The Hebrew Elements in the Aramaic Dialects of the Jews of Azerbaijan”, Leshonenu 39 (1975), p. 280 n. 23, 282 [in Hebrew]). 22. M. ALTBAUER, “Al ha-‘ivrit she-be-fi qaraei lita ve-al ha-yesodot ha-‘ivriyim shebileshonam”, Leshonenu 21 (1957), pp. 122-123. 23. Z. BEN-ÎAYYIM, “Masoret ha-shomronim ve-ziqata la-masoret shel megillot midbar yehudah ve-lileshon Ìaza"l", in M. BAR-ASHER (ed.), QoveÒ maamarim bileshon Ìaza"l, t. 1, Jerusalem, 1972, pp. 38-44; E. Y. KUTSCHER, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll, Jerusalem, 1959, pp. 255-261 (in Hebrew); E. QIMRON, “Studies in the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls”, Hebrew Linguistics 33-35 (1992), pp. 79-92 (in Hebrew). I. Yeivin is the only scholar who does not accept the evidence of paroxytone stress in the Scrolls; see I. YEIVIN, “The Verbal Forms ‫יקוטלנו‬, ‫ יקטולנו‬in DSS in Comparison to the Babylonian Vocalization”, in B. UFFENHEIMER (ed.), Bible and Jewish History: Studies in Bible and Jewish History Dedicated to the Memory of Jacob Liver, Tel Aviv, 1971, pp. 256-276 (in Hebrew). 24. E. Y. KUTSCHER, “Leshon Ìaza"l", in M. BAR-ASHER (ed.), QoveÒ maamarim bileshon Ìaza"l, t. 1, Jerusalem, 1972, pp. 32-35; BEN-ÎAYYIM, op. cit. (n. 23), pp. 38-39; M. BAR-ASHER, “Contextual Forms and Pausal Forms in Mishnaic Hebrew According to MS Parma B”, Language Studies 4 (1990), pp. 51-100 (in Hebrew). Note, however, that in BarAsher’s opinion the extent of this phenomenon is somewhat restricted. 25. Z. BEN-ÎAYYIM, The Literary and Oral Tradition of Hebrew and Aramaic amongst the Samaritans, t. 5, Jerusalem, 1977, pp. 48-53 (in Hebrew). 26. Surprisingly, this realization is attested for Djerba, which is in the southern region.

1888-08_REJ09/1-2_07

185

09-15-2009, 14:51

186

ORAL LANGUAGE TRADITIONS AND CLASSICAL HEBREW

sonantal /v/ in Hebrew words in Northern Tunisia emerged from the interviews I conducted. Most informants cited the realization [w] as common in their community; at the same time, they noted the consonantal realization [v] as specific to certain words. Indeed, the realization [v] in the words ‫ מצוה‬and ‫ עוונות‬was noted time and again by speakers. I have even come across a popular adage, in which ‫ עוון‬is rhymed with ‫סבון‬. This saying reads as follows: na® bas i{mlu s-sabon iqulu, m®a adi-k nha® cnd-a {abon, “The day on which ‘sabbon' (i.e., laundry) is done, one says: this lady has, ‘{abon'27 (‫עוון‬, ‘iniquity'").

The rhyme substantiates the widespread nature of the fully consonantal realization [v]. Comparison to communities outside Tunisia shows that they too present differing tendencies regarding the realization of ‫ ויו‬in the Hebrew component of their vernaculars. The Jews of Yemen28, Zakho29, Baghdad30, and some regions of Morocco31 pronounce it /w/; whereas among Algerian Jews32, and Jews from the Moroccan33 commumities of Meknès, Sefrou, and Fès, the realization [v] is found. The latter pronunciation is used by Judezmo-speaking Jews34 as well. Based on the above facts alone it could be argued that the [v]-realization derives from the Hebrew component of Judezmo. However, because the [v]-realization occurs in Bible and Mishna recitation in Aleppo35, and has been attested in the Hebrew of Iranian Jews36, in whose vernacular that realization is found alongside the vocalic [w]-realization, we cannot make a straightforward occidental-oriental distinction. I therefore propose that the interchange /w/ > /v/ is of early origin and can be attributed to a well-known phenomenon in Mishnaic Hebrew. 27. The phonetic realization b, rather than v, stems from the inability of Tunisians to pronounce the labial fricative. 28. MORAG 1963, op. cit. (n. 12), p. 45. 29. SABAR 1974, op. cit. (n. 21), pp. 214-317. 30. MORAG 1977, op. cit. (n. 14), p. 15. 31. BAR-ASHER 1999, op. cit. (n. 4), p. 15. 32. Ibid., p. 275 n. 105. 33. Ibid., p. 15 n. 48; J. TEDGHI, “Shiluvan shel otiyot ha-alef-bet ha-‘ivri be-‘aravit hayehudit shel Òefon afriqa”, Studies in Hebrew Language and Literature, Helsinki Congress: Proceedings of the 11th Hebrew Scientific European Congress, Helsinki University, May 1994, Jerusalem, 1997, p. 95. 34. D. M. BUNIS, A Lexicon of the Hebrew and Aramaic Elements in Modern Judezmo, Jerusalem, 1993, s.vv.: ‫מצוה‬, ‫עוון‬, ‫לוי‬, ‫ויסעו‬, ‫ ויעבור‬, ‫ ויכוח‬, ‫ ויו‬. 35. KATZ 1981, op. cit. (n. 13), p. 4. 36. I. GARBELL, “Mivta ha-‘iÒurim ha-‘ivriyim be-fi yehudei iran”, Leshonenu 15 (1947), p. 69.

1888-08_REJ09/1-2_07

186

09-15-2009, 14:51

187

ORAL LANGUAGE TRADITIONS AND CLASSICAL HEBREW

Indeed, scholars classify the orthographic exchange vav/beit in Mishnaic manuscripts as reflecting a partial phonetic shift from /w/ to /v/37. This raises the possibility that this early tradition constitutes the underlying cause for the diversity in this phone's pronunciation in Judeo-languages. 3. Gemination of ‫ר‬ Gemination of the consonant ‫( ר‬resh) can be noted in several words belonging to the Hebrew component of Tunisian Judeo-Arabic: ‫חריף‬ (Ìa®®if)38, ‫( פרוכת‬ba®®ox¢t), and ‫( קראים‬q¢®®aem). It has also been recorded in the participial form ‫( והמקרא‬ve-amka®®e), as well as following the definite article ‫ ה‬in the word ‫( הרוב‬a®-®ob). Thus, this gemination occurs in nominal structures with a linguistic basis for gemination: ‫ חריף‬belongs to the ‫ַקטּיל‬ ִ pattern; ‫ פרוכת‬to ‫לֶת‬$‫[ — קראים ;ַקטּ‬from ‫ ]ָקָרא‬to ‫ַקטּל‬ ָ ; ‫ והמקרא‬is a participial pi‘el form; whereas, in ‫הרוב‬, the definite article ‫ ה‬requires gemination of the following consonant. Tiberian Biblical Hebrew tradition precludes gemination of the resh in the above instances, relating to them instead as cases of the rule of a secondarily-opened syllable: accordingly, ‫חריף‬ ָ will be marked with a qameÒ under the first radical, as will be ‫פּרוכת‬ ָ , ‫ָקראים‬, and ‫ והמָקרא‬and ‫הרוב‬ ָ . However, in the Mishnaic Hebrew languagetraditions of the eastern type, the letter resh behaves precisely as a regular consonant39, and appears as such in eastern manuscripts, for example, MS Parma B of the Mishna40. The same phenomenon, namely, of divergence from the Tiberian norm, is also reflected in the oral recitation traditions of the following Jewish communities: Djerba41, Aleppo42, Yemen, Morocco43, Baghdad44, and Tetouan45. Evidently, the Hebrew component of Tunisian Judeo-Arabic preserved this early tradition, also found in the Bible recitation of the Djerban community.

37. J. N. EPSTEIN, Introduction to the Mishnaic Text, 3rd ed., Jerusalem, 2000, pp. 12231225 (in Hebrew). 38. The same realization occurs in other communities. See BAR-ASHER 1999, op. cit. (n. 4), pp. 324-326. 39. M. BAR-ASHER, “The Different Traditions of Mishnaic Hebrew”, Tarbi 53 (1984), pp. 198-199 (in Hebrew). 40. Ibid., p. 198. 41. KATZ 1977, op. cit. (n. 17), pp. 53-58. 42. KATZ 1981, op. cit. (n. 13), p. 33. 43. S. MORAG, “Le-meÌqar massorot ha-‘edot bileshon Ìakhamim”, in M. BAR-ASHER (ed.), QoveÒ maamarim bileshon Ìaza"l, t. 1, Jerusalem, 1972, pp. 190-192. 44. MORAG 1977, op. cit. (n. 14), pp. 42-44. 45. MAMAN, op. cit. (n. 16), p. 82.

1888-08_REJ09/1-2_07

187

09-15-2009, 14:51

188

ORAL LANGUAGE TRADITIONS AND CLASSICAL HEBREW

Morphology 1. ‫מֶש‬$‫( ח‬Ìom¢s). The five books of the Torah are usually referred to using the term ‫ׁים‬ ִ ‫חוּמ‬ ָ , and each of these books is designated a ‫חומש בראשית( חוּמש‬, ‫חומש שמות‬, and so on). However, early traditions of the Mishna, as reflected in MS Parma A, MS Paris, and Babylonian traditions46 record the form ‫מֶש‬$‫ח‬, as in the appellation ‫מש הפקודים‬$‫ ח‬for the more common ‫חוּמש במדבר‬. This form's source comes from the Joseph narrative (Gn 47, 26), where ‫מֶש‬$‫לח‬ ַ means ‘a fifth'. At first glance, this appears to be an archaic, no longer current usage; however, this form [Ìom¢s] is actually found in Djerban vernacular. A scholar from Djerba provided the following description of the conduct of the ‫ סעודת יתרו‬, namely: yq®aw 's-sid® p¢®us m¢-l-Ìom¢s ba®ast 'sima‘ yt'®o (‘They read the Arabic sharÌ-translation in sequence from ‫[ החומש‬i.e., the Pentateuch] from the portion ‫[ וישמע יתרו‬Ex 18-20])

Consequently, in Djerba, a form equivalent to a Tannaitic one has been preserved. 2. ‫מּר‬ ָ ‫כּ‬ ֻ (kummar). The nominal form ‫מּר‬ ָ ‫כּ‬ ֻ , instead of the frequent and more popular form ‫מֶר‬$‫כּ‬, also shows signs of antiquity47: there are good indications that it, too, has early roots. Corroboration for this premise comes from this morpheme's preservation in the Judeo-languages spoken by the communities of Zakho48, Morocco49, and from the ‘proto-Ashkenazic’ tradition50. 3. ‫אפיקומן‬ ֶ (afiqomen). The vernaculars of the southern and central Tunisian communities testify to a unique realization of this Greek word's final syllable (epixwmon). These communities exhibit a shared pronunciation of the final syllable of 46. See also K. FELLMAN, Variations of a Nominal Pattern in the Traditions of Hebrew: The Pattern Q'otel in Mishnaic Hebrew, Edah ve-Lashon 8, Jerusalem 1982, p. 83, par. 1.2.4.4 (in Hebrew). 47. Ibid., p. 4; see also Y. HENSHKE, “Hebrew Elements in the Spoken Arabic of Djerba”, Massorot 5-6 (1991), pp. 96-97 (in Hebrew). 48. SABAR, op. cit. (n. 21), p. 216. 49. FELLMAN, op. cit. (n. 46). 50. ELDAR, op. cit. (n. 15), p. 46.

1888-08_REJ09/1-2_07

188

09-15-2009, 14:51

189

ORAL LANGUAGE TRADITIONS AND CLASSICAL HEBREW

this word: ‫אפיקומן‬ ֶ (apeqomen; piqomen; abiqumim; abeqomen; abekomen; beqomem; fiqomen; meqomen; mekomen). The earliest written sources exhibit lack of uniformity with regard to this final syllable's vocalization. Most manuscripts of Tannaitic sources mark this syllable with a graphic vowel-sign reflecting a link with the Greek suffix -on51: this is the case for MS Kaufmann, MS Parma A, MS Cambridge of the Mishna52, the Erfurt MS of the Tosefta53, the Leiden MS of the Jerusalem Talmud54, the Oxford MS of the Mekhilta55, as well as for the oral Mishna-recitation tradition of erudite Yemenite scholars56. In contrast, old Sefaradi and Ashkenazi Haggadot tend to record the final syllable as -en57. A similar pronunciation of this form can also be inferred from its spelling in the editio princeps of the Mishna (Constantinople, 1515), namely, ‫אפיקומין‬. This realization has also been preserved by other Jewish communities, to wit, Algeria58, Libya and Yemen59, Iraq60, as well as in Judezmo61, and even in Judeo-Italian62. The varied appearances of the final syllable -en in the different Jewish language-traditions point to its antiquity. 4. ‫( גיהנ ָם‬gehennam)63 The realization of the final syllable with the vowel a in this word is characteristic of Tunisian Jewry in particular, as well as of the Sephardic traditions in general. This vowel (‫ )נ ָם‬surfaces in Morocco and Algeria64, in 51. An exception is the Vienna Codex of the Tosefta, PesaÌim 10:11: see S. LIEBERMAN, Tosefta: Mo‘ed, New York, 1962, p. 198. 52. PesaÌim 10:8. 53. See S. LIEBERMAN, op. cit. (n. 51). 54. PesaÌim 10:4, 37d. 55. Mekhilta, Masekhta de-PisÌa, parashah 18 according to the version of the manuscript entered in Ma’agarim: Literary Sources Database, CD-ROM, Hebrew Language Historical Dictionary Project at the Academy of the Hebrew Language—and not as recorded in the Horowitz-Rabin ed. 56. Y. RATZABY, OÒar Leshon Haqqodesh Shellivne Teman: Dictionary of the Hebrew Language Used by Yemenite Jews, Tel Aviv, 1978, p. 20 (in Hebrew). 57. I. ELDAR, “The Vocalization of the Haggada in MaÌzor Vitry (ms. Sassoon 535)”, Leshonenu 39 (1975), p. 213 (in Hebrew). 58. BAR-ASHER 1999, op. cit. (n. 4), p. 294. 59. Y. RESHEF, “Shki‘ei massorot ‘ivriyot be-lahagei ha-‘aravit ha-yehudit”, MA thesis, Hebrew University, 1993, p. 62. 60. BEN-YAACOB, op. cit. (n. 20), p. 12. 61. BUNIS, op. cit. (n. 34), p. 104. 62. RESHEF, op. cit. (n. 59), p. 62. 63. For various realizations of this word, see HENSKHE 2000, op. cit. (n. 1), p. 201. 64. BAR-ASHER 1999, op. cit. (n. 4), pp. 182, 296.

1888-08_REJ09/1-2_07

189

09-15-2009, 14:51

190

ORAL LANGUAGE TRADITIONS AND CLASSICAL HEBREW

Zakho65, Yemen66, Iraq67, Persia68, and even in Judezmo69. The same vocalization for ‫ גיהנם‬is found in manuscripts of Mishnaic Hebrew70. Evidently, the Hebrew components of the vernacular retained this ancient Mishnaic Hebrew feature, which has now been supplanted by the Ashkenazi reading ‫ם‬$ ‫( גיהנּ‬with a Ìolem). 5. ‫( ערובא‬la-{ ´®obba71) Tunisian Jews use the term ‫ ערובא‬to designate the festival eves. Each festival has its own ‫ערובא‬: as in the ‫[ ערובא‬the Eve] of New Year, the ‫ ערובא‬of [The Day of] Atonement72, the ‫ ערובא‬of [the festival of] Tabernacles, the ‫ ערובא‬of Purim, the ‫ ערובא‬of Passover, the ‫ ערובא‬of Pentecost, and sometimes simply the abridged appellation ‫יום הערובא‬. The Sabbath as well has its ‫ ערובא‬, namely, Friday. This Aramaic noun is well attested in the Jerusalem Talmud, in expressions such as ‫ ערובת שובא‬73 or ‫ערובת ריש‬ ‫שתא‬74; and even occurs in mixed Aramaic-Hebrew phrases, such as, ‫ערובת‬ ‫ראש השנה‬, ‫ערובת סוכות‬75. This form is also documented in Genesis Rabbah and Pesiqta Rabbati—in the phrase ‫ערובת צומא רבא‬76. It appears, in addition, in early-eleventh-century Geniza documents77, and can be found in the Libyan Jewish vernacular78, and in Judeo-Italian79. 6. ‫( מעל‬l-ma¨l; ma¨n) In Tunisia, the most popular appellations for the Eve of the Day of Atonement are ‫ מעל‬or ‫מען‬, and, in expanded form, ‫[ יום המעל‬nhar l¢-ma¨l]. 65. SABAR 1974, op. cit. (n. 21), p. 320. 66. KARA, op. cit. (n. 18), p. 139. 67. BEN-YAACOB, op. cit. (n. 20), p. 36. 68. A. NETZER, “Studies in the Spoken Language of the Jews of Iran”, in J. DAN (ed.), Culture and History: Ino Sciaky Memorial Volume, Jerusalem, 1987, p. 30 (in Hebrew). 69. BUNIS, op. cit. (n. 34), pp. 148-149. 70. M. BAR-ASHER, The Tradition of Mishnaic Hebrew in the Communities of Italy [according to Ms. Paris 328-329], Edah ve-Lashon 6, Jerusalem, 1980, p. 61 (in Hebrew). 71. For various realizations of ‫ערובא‬, see HENSHKE 2007, op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 334-335. 72. Notwithstanding, the usual appellation for Yom Kippur eve is ‫ ;מעל‬see below. 73. In Samaritan Aramaic, the concise expression ‫ יום ערובתא‬occurs, instead of ‫ערובתא‬ ‫דשבתה‬. See A. TAL, A Dictionary of Samaritan Aramaic, Leiden, 2000, p. 661. 74. Y Ta‘anit 2:8, 67a. 75. See Y Nedarim 8:1, 40d. 76. Genesis Rabbah, 11:4 (Theodor-Albeck ed., p. 91); Pesiqta Rabbati, 23, (Ish-Shalom ed., 119a). 77. H. BEN-SHAMMAI, “Jum‘a in Judeo-Arabic in the Sense of Eve: A Loan Translation from Aramaic ‘arubta”, Leshonenu 57 (1993), pp. 125-136 (in Hebrew). 78. BAR-ASHER 1999, op. cit. (n. 4), pp. 317-318. 79. M. D. CASSUTO, “Ha-yesod ha-‘ivri bi-leshon dibburam shel yehudei italyah”, Leshonenu 16 (1948-49), p. 190. See also BAR-ASHER 1999, op. cit. (n. 4), p. 318, n. 9.

1888-08_REJ09/1-2_07

190

09-15-2009, 14:51

191

ORAL LANGUAGE TRADITIONS AND CLASSICAL HEBREW

This expression, also recorded in the Libyan Jewish vernacular, as well as in the vernacular of Jews from Constantine, Algeria80 probably represents a shortened form of the expression ‫‘( מעלי יומא דכיפורי‬The Eve of the Day of Atonement’), found in b Yoma 7b and elsewhere. Through a process of abbreviation ‫ מעלי‬reverted to the singular form ‫מעל‬, and the final lamed turned into a nun, creating the form ‫מען‬81. 7. ‫¨( עשר הדיברות‬ese® ¢d-d¢bb®ot) Tunisian Jews generally designate the Decalogue, together with their associated piyyutim (liturgical hymns), by the name ‫עשר הדיברות‬. Prima facie this is linguistically corrupt; the elliptic form ‫( לעשר‬l-¨s¢®) is especially popular. But in fact, early documentation for precisely this strange appellation appears in various manuscripts attesting to Mishnaic Hebrew, as well as in later materials. The identical expression appears in MS Vatican 32 of Sifré to Numbers, considered a reliable text-witness: ‫שכל המודה בעבודה זרה‬ ‫‘ =( כופר בעשר הדיברות‬Any person who endorses idolatry denies the Ten Commandments'). It also occurs in Mekhilta de Rashbi82, in Palestinian piyyutim discovered in the Geniza, as well as in several other early sources83. Accordingly, this epithet for the Decalogue is not an incorrect, late phrasing, but rather an early usage dating back to the Tannaitic period. 8. ‫תים‬ ִ ‫מּ‬ ֵ ַ‫חי ַת ה‬ ָ ‫תּ‬ ְ (tÌayat ¢m-mitim) As pronounced by the Djerban community, this phrase has two different realizations: one reflected in their oral recitation-tradition and liturgy, where we find the ‘conventional’ pronunciation ‫תחית המתים‬ ִ 84; the other — ‫תחית המתים‬ ָ — attested in spoken Tunisian Judeo-Arabic, as reported by many informants. True, the Djerban community treats the latter realization as erroneous, as befitting women and illiterate individuals. However, the realization with qameÒ is by no means erroneous. It shows up among Yemenite85 and Algerian86 Jews, as well as in MS Paris of the Mishna87. 80. BAR-ASHER 1999, op. cit. (n. 4), pp. 318-320. 81. Ibid., pp. 318-319. 82. Mekhilta de-Rabbi Shimon bar YoÌai to Ex. 15, 11 (Epstein-Melamed ed., pp. 92-93). 83. As documented in Ma’agarim, op cit. (n. 55). 84. As I was informed by Rabbi Chadir ∑abban, a leading Djerban rabbi in recent times, now deceased. His oral communication was: ‘‫תחיית המתים‬ ָ ’ ‫“( רק עמי הארצות אומרים‬Only the uneducated say ‘‫תחיית המתים‬ ָ ’"). See also HENSHKE 1991, op. cit. (n. 47), p. 97. 85. I. SHIVTIEL, “Massoret ha-Teimanim be-diqduq leshon Ìakhamim”, in M. BAR-ASHER (ed.), QoveÒ maamarim bileshon Ìaza"l, t. 1, Jerusalem, 1972, pp. 221, 235. 86. BAR-ASHER 1999, op. cit. (n. 4), pp. 221, 304-305. 87. See BAR-ASHER 1980, op. cit. (n. 70), p. 64.

1888-08_REJ09/1-2_07

191

09-15-2009, 14:51

192

ORAL LANGUAGE TRADITIONS AND CLASSICAL HEBREW

This suggests that the ‘conventional’ reading-tradition with Ìiriq came into general use under the influence of printed texts; nonetheless, its prevalence was not sufficient to displace the pronunciation ‫תחית‬ ָ in the living vernacular. This is an instructive illustration of the inherent conservatism of the vernacular, which in this case proved stronger than scholastic recitation-traditions. 9. Pausal Forms In Tunisia, the expression ‫'( סעודה מפסָקת‬s¨oda m¢fsa'k¢t) signifies the final meal consumed before the Day of Atonement fast. The participial form ‫ מפסקת‬in this phrase is realized as a pausal form, even when used in context-status88. Moreover, the expression ‫'( פחי נ ָפש‬baÌe 'naf¢s), commonly used by women to convey harsh disappointment, has also preserved a pausal form in its vocalization, namely ‫ נ ָפש‬instead of ‫נ ֶפש‬. Evidence for pausal forms in context-status is widely available in the Yemenite vernacular89, and in Morocco90. This is a well-known and frequent phenomenon in Mishnaic Hebrew, and the Mishna-recitation traditions of the Yemenite91, Djerban92, Baghdadi93 and Aleppo94 communities all provide further corroboration for this phenomenon. Furthermore, vocalized manuscripts of the Mishna95 record the form ‫כוהנת‬ ָ instead of ‫כוהנת‬ ֶ ; we also find: ‫חולצת‬ ָ , ‫הוג ָנת‬, ‫יעמוֹדו‬, ‫יפחוֹתו‬, etc. This demonstrates that Tannaitic pausal forms became embedded, and were preserved, in the Hebrew component of Jewish vernaculars. 10. The plural suffix ‫יּוֹת‬ִ Well known and well documented in manuscripts of Mishnaic Hebrew, this plural morpheme is of limited distribution96. The known forms with 88. This pausal form has also been preserved by Iraqi Jews (BEN-YAACOB, op. cit. [n. 20], p. 142) and by Yemenite Jews (RESHEF, op. cit. [n. 59], p. 136). 89. S. MORAG, “Ha-migbash ha-meshulav shel ha-‘ivrit: BeÌinot shel Òura ve-shel mashma‘ut”, in M. BAR-ASHER, Y. BREUER, and A. MAMAN (eds.), Studies in Hebrew, Aramaic and Jewish Languages, Jerusalem, 2004, pp. 395-396 (in Hebrew). 90. MAMAN, op. cit. (n. 16), p. 178. 91. T. KESSAR, “Pausal Forms in Verbal Mishnaic Hebrew according to the Yemenite Tradition”, in Proceedings of the Eleventh World Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, June 22-29, 1993, Division D, vol. 1, Jerusalem, 1994, pp. 25-31 (Hebrew section). 92. KATZ 1977, op. cit. (n. 17), pp. 86-87. 93. MORAG 1977, op. cit. (n. 14), p. 108-109. 94. KATZ 1981, op. cit. (n. 13), pp. 79-83. 95. See KUTSCHER, op. cit. (n. 24), p. 32; G. HANEMAN, A Morphology of Mishnaic Hebrew: According to the Tradition of the Parma Manuscript (De-Rossi 138), Tel-Aviv, 1980, pp. 39-62 (in Hebrew); BAR-ASHER 1980, op. cit. (n. 70), pp. 65-67. 96. KUTSCHER, op. cit. (n. 24), pp. 102-104; M. BAR-ASHER, “Mishna ketav-yad parma

1888-08_REJ09/1-2_07

192

09-15-2009, 14:51

193

ORAL LANGUAGE TRADITIONS AND CLASSICAL HEBREW

this plural morpheme are nouns whose singular terminates in the suffix ‫ות‬-: ‫גליות‬ ִ , ‫מלכיות‬ ִ , ‫כיות‬ ִ ָ ‫ז‬, ‫ חנ ִיות‬, and the like. In the Hebrew component of Tunisian Judeo-Arabic, the Biblical Hebrew plural morphemes ‫ים‬- and ‫ות‬- are extremely common; in southern Tunisia, the Mishnaic plural form ‫יּוֹת‬ִ is likewise attested. True, a distinction must be drawn between that vernacular and Mishnaic Hebrew proper. In the latter, the use of this plural morpheme is restricted to certain nouns, terminating in ‫ות‬- only; in Djerba several other feminine nouns ending in ‫ה‬ָ or ‫א‬ָ in the singular were found to adopt this plural suffix. In any event, the Djerban tradition reflects a wider distribution of this plural suffix. For example, the plural of ‫ גמרא‬is ‫גמריות‬ (gma®eyot); of ‫ישיבה‬, ‫( ישיביות‬l-isibiyut); of ‫פרשה‬, ‫( פרשיות‬ba®asiyot)97; of ‫שושבינה‬, ‫שושבניות‬ ָ (sosbaneyot). In the case of the noun ‫ ברכה‬the choice of alternative plural morphemes allowed semantic differentiation: ‫ ברכות‬is used in the conventional sense, whereas the plural ‫ברכיות‬ ִ (b®axeyot) is used for the traditional dishes eaten at night on the New Year; namely, the socalled ‫ סימנים‬eaten as a good omen. Note, however, that the ‘variant’ plural ‫ ברכיות‬is nowhere attested outside Tunisia98. This brief survey focused on the Hebrew component of spoken Judeolanguages, based on the proposition that its study constitutes an important tool in the historical investigation of the Hebrew language. Undeniably, the study of living speech has its place in the research of linguistic traditions, and the findings in this sphere may ultimately prove no less important than those from manuscripts and other reliable sources of postbiblical Hebrew. Examination of the interwoven links between the rich sources for the Hebrew language undoubtedly poses a fascinating challenge for sound linguistic scholarship.

[Abbreviations] BAR-ASHER, 1980 = ‫ פרקים במסורות לשון חכמים של יהודי איטליה ]עדה‬,‫מ‘ בר–אשר‬ [‫ולשון ו‬, Jerusalem, 1980 BAR-ASHER, 1984 = “‫ ”הטיפוסים השונים של לשון המשנה‬,‫מ‘ בר–אשר‬, in ‫ ב‬,‫תרביץ נג‬ ([Jerusalem] 1984), pp 187-220. bet le-seder tohorot”, in QoveÒ maamarim bileshon Ìaza"l, t. 1, Jerusalem, 1972, pp. 172173. 97. This form has several phonetic realizations. See HENSHKE 2007, op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 347-349. 98. With the exception of the form ‫גמריות‬, recorded in Morocco as well (J. CHETRIT, “The Hebrew-Aramaic Component of the Moroccan Judeo-Arabic: The Language of a Muslim Poem Written as Jewish”, in Massorot 3-4 (1989), p. 246 n. 110 [in Hebrew]).

1888-08_REJ09/1-2_07

193

09-15-2009, 14:51

‫‪194‬‬

‫‪ORAL LANGUAGE TRADITIONS AND CLASSICAL HEBREW‬‬

‫מ‘ בר–אשר‪” ,‬צורות הקשר וצורות הפסק בלשון המשנה )על פי כתב– = ‪BAR-ASHER, 1990‬‬ ‫‪, Jerusalem 1990, pp. 51-100.‬מחקרים בלשון ד ‪ in‬יד פארמה ב(‬ ‫‪, Jerusalem‬מ' בר–אשר‪ ,‬מסורות ולשונות של יהודי צפון אפריקה‪BAR-ASHER, 1999 = ,‬‬ ‫‪1999.‬‬ ‫ז' בן–חיים‪” ,‬מסורת השומרונים וזיקתה למסורת של מגילות ים–המלח = ‪BEN-HAYYIM, 1972‬‬ ‫‪, Jerusalem,‬מ' בר–אשר )עורך(‪ ,‬קובץ מאמרים בלשון חז"ל‪ ,‬א‪, in ,‬וללשון חז"ל“‬ ‫‪1972.‬‬ ‫‪, Jerusalem, 1985.‬א' בן –יעקב‪ ,‬עברית וארמית בלשון יהודי בבל = ‪BEN-YA’AKOV‬‬ ‫‪BUNIS = D.M. Bunis, A Lexicon of the Hebrew and Aramaic Elements in Modern‬‬ ‫‪Judezmo, Jerusalem 1993.‬‬ ‫י' שיטרית‪” ,‬יסודות עבריים בערבית של יהודי מרוקו‪ :‬לשונו של שיר = ‪CHETRIT, 1989‬‬ ‫‪ ([Jerusalem] 1989), pp. 203-284.‬מסורות ג–ד ‪ in‬מוסלמי בלבוש יהודי“‬ ‫א' אלדר‪ ,‬מסורת הקריאה הקדם–אשכנזית‪ ,‬מהותה והיסודות המשותפים לה = ‪ELDAR, 1979‬‬ ‫‪,‬ולמסורת ספרד‪ ,‬כרך א — ענייני ניקוד' כרך ב — ענייני תצורה ]עדה ולשון ד–ה[‬ ‫‪Jerusalem, 1979.‬‬ ‫‪, Jerusalem, 1982.‬ק' פלמן‪ ,‬חילופי צורה במסורות לשון ]עדה ולשון ח[ = ‪FELLMAN, 1982‬‬ ‫‪ in‬י' הנשקה‪” ,‬שקיעים עבריים בערבית המדוברת של יהודי ג'רבה“ = ‪HENSHKE, 1991‬‬ ‫‪ ([Jerusalem] 1991), pp 77-118.‬מסורות ה–ו‬ ‫‪HENSHKE, 2007 = Hebrew Elements in Daily Speech: A Grammatical Study and‬‬ ‫‪Lexicon of the Hebrew Component of Tunisian Judeo-Arabic, Jerusalem,‬‬ ‫‪2007.‬‬ ‫‪HENSHKE = “Penultimate Accentuation: The Evidence from Tunisian Jews", in‬‬ ‫‪Sha‘arei Lashon: Studies in Hebrew, Aramaic and Jewish Languages Pre‬‬‫‪sented to Moshe Bar-Asher, ed. A. Maman et al., Jerusalem, 2007, vol. 3.‬‬ ‫‪pp. 320-333.‬‬ ‫י' קארה‪” ,‬היסודות העבריים והארמיים בלשון הנשים בתימן — בחינה לשונית“ = ‪KARA, 1988‬‬ ‫‪,‬מ' בר אשר )עורך(‪ ,‬מחקרים בלשונות היהודים‪ :‬תרגומי המקרא ולהגים מדוברים ‪in‬‬ ‫‪Jerusalem, 1978, pp. 113-145.‬‬ ‫ק' כ"ץ‪ ,‬מסורת הקריאה של קהילת ג’רבה במקרא ובמשנה‪ ,‬תורת ההגה = ‪KATZ, 1977‬‬ ‫‪, Jerusalem, 1977.‬והפועל ]עדה ולשון ב[‬ ‫ק' כ"ץ‪ ,‬מסורת הלשון העברית של יהודי ארם צובא )חלב( בקריאת המקרא = ‪KATZ, 1981‬‬ ‫‪, Jerusalem, 1981.‬והמשנה ]עדה ולשון ז[‬ ‫מ' בר–אשר )עורך(‪ ,‬קובץ מאמרים בלשון ‪, in‬י' קוטשר‪” ,‬לשון חז"ל“ = ‪KUTSCHER, 1972‬‬ ‫‪, Jerusalem 1972, pp. 1-35.‬חז"ל א‬ ‫א' ממן‪” ,‬מסורות הקריאה של יהודי תיטואן במקרא ובמשנה‪ :‬פרקים בתורת = ‪MAMAN, 1984‬‬ ‫‪ ([Jerusalem,] 1984), pp. 51-120.‬מסורות‪ ,‬א ‪, in‬ההגה“‬ ‫‪, Jerusalem, 1963.‬ש' מורג‪ ,‬העברית שבפי יהודי תימן = ‪MORAG, 1963‬‬ ‫ש' מורג )עורך(‪ ,‬מסורת הלשון העברית של יהודי בגדאד בקריאת המקרא = ‪MORAG, 1977‬‬ ‫‪, Jerusalem, 1977‬והמשנה– תורת ההגה ]עדה ולשון א[‬ ‫‪, M.A. thesis,‬י' רשף‪ ,‬שקיעי מסורות עבריות בלהגי הערבית היהודית = ‪RESHEF, 1993‬‬ ‫‪Jerusalem, 1993.‬‬ ‫‪ in‬י' צבר‪” ,‬היסודות העבריים בניב הארמי שבפי יהודי זאכו בכורדיסטאן“ = ‪SABAR, 1974‬‬ ‫‪ (1974), pp. 206-219.‬לשוננו‪ ,‬לח‬

‫‪Yehudit HENSHKE,‬‬ ‫‪[email protected]‬‬

‫‪09-15-2009, 14:51‬‬

‫‪194‬‬

‫‪1888-08_REJ09/1-2_07‬‬