Notes on the Noun Patterns in the Yemenite Tradition 51

NOTES ON THE NOUN PATTERNS IN THE YEMENITE TRADITION 51

Matthew MORGENSTERN University of Haifa

NOTES ON THE NOUN PATTERNS IN THE YEMENITE TRADITION OF JEWISH BABYLONIAN ARAMAIC*

RÉSUMÉ

La tradition yéménite de lecture du Talmud de Babylone a été perçue par certains savants (par exemple S. Morag), comme une source fiable pour la vocalisation du judéo-araméen de Babylonie. Cette étude confronte la vocalisation yéménite des formes nominales aux données que nous fournissent les manuscrits ainsi que d'autres matériaux et suggère que, dans plusieurs cas, la tradition yéménite ne con- serve pas les formes authentiques. La seconde partie de l'article consiste en un examen détaillé de cas d'alternance entre gentilices et nomina agentis dans les textes araméens de Babylonie.

SUMMARY

The Yemenite reading tradition of the Babylonian Talmud has been regarded by some authorities (e.g. S. Morag) as providing a reliable source for the vocalization of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic. The present study considers the Yemenite vocalization of nominal forms in the light of manuscript evidence and comparative material and suggests that in many cases, the Yemenite tradition does not preserve the historical forms. The article cncludes with a detailed examination of interchanges between the gentilic and nomen agentis forms in Babylonian Aramaic sources.

Until recently, information on the noun patterns found in Jewish Babylo- nian Aramaic (JBA) could be gleaned from three published grammars. The first is the English edition of Levias’s A Grammar of the Aramaic Idiom Contained in the Babylonian Talmud, which lists numerous examples ac- companied by copious notes and comparisons. Levias appears to have been * This article is part of an ongoing research project into the grammar of Jewish Babylo- nian Aramaic according to manuscript sources. A wider account of this project and of its findings to date can be found in my forthcoming volume, Studies in Jewish Babylonian Ara- maic. I would like to thank Prof. Moshe Bar-Asher and Prof. Steven Fassberg for reading this article prior to its publication and for their helpful comments.

Revue des études juives, 168 (1-2), janvier-juin 2009, pp. 51-83. doi: 10.2143/REJ.168.1.2035301

1888-08_REJ09/1-2_02 51 09-15-2009, 14:42 52 NOTES ON THE NOUN PATTERNS IN THE YEMENITE TRADITION

the first scholar to undertake the difficult task of classifying the noun patterns of this dialect, and his work was thus groundbreaking in its time. His detailed discussions often contain interesting observations; he accurately notes, for example, the interchange between the qitl and q¢tal forms, citing However, it appears that in many cases he did not .1זמאנא and זימנא both fully appreciate the differing orthographies found in his various sources, fish’2. Since this‘ ַכּוּ ָאָרא and ַכּוְָרא , ְכּו ָָרא ,and hence vocalizes, for example word is derived from Akkadian kamaru, it seems most likely that the waw was consistently vocalized by a long vowel, an assumption that is supported found כורא by the findings in several manuscripts3. The defective spellings in the printed editions of the Talmud are a relatively late development in .4 ַכּוְָרא the textual tradition, and cannot be used as evidence for a reading Furthermore, many of his etymological reflections are questionable or at least require further consideration5. The comparative notes are mostly missing from the Hebrew edition of Levias’s Diqduq, which also contains shorter and better organized lists of nouns. Regrettably, when adding his proposed vocalization6, Levias altered all his spellings to scriptio defective, so it is not always possible to establish whether his vocalization is based upon the internal evidence of JBA (which he drew primarily from the printed editions of the Talmud) or upon comparative grounds. Furthermore, the examples are cited without references7. An important step forward in the study JBA was the publication of Epstein’s 1961 Grammar, which to date remains the most up-to-date research tool on the dialect available to the scholarly community. As a major scholar of Talmudic and post-Talmudic Babylonian Aramaic literature, Epstein was able to draw upon a wider range of sources than his predeces- sors, in particular upon the Geniza fragments, many of which he himself had published or studied firsthand. Epstein’s Grammar also contains a brief

1. LEVIAS, Grammar, §788. I shall discuss this issue further below. .כוארא ,כוורא .Compare SOKOLOFF, DJBA, p. 557 s.v .2 3. Several examples are adduced by SOKOLOFF, ibid. Others may be found through search- ing the Talmud Text Databank of the Saul Lieberman Institute of Talmudic Research. I have made considerable use of this valuable research tool. 4. LEVIAS, Grammar, §795a. The example appears to have been removed from the He- brew edition. -with Arabic {Òd , as Levias sug ְדָּרָרא For example, it is not possible to connect Aramaic .5 gested in Grammar, §859. ,LXXVI ‘member§ ֶא ְבָרא This vocalization primarily reflects Tiberian phonology; e.g .6 pinion’. See below. 7. This deficiency is less serious nowadays, when advanced computer searches are possible, than it was when the book was originally published. A more comprehensive survey of Levias’s contribution to the study of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic is found in Chapter One of my Studies in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic.

1888-08_REJ09/1-2_02 52 09-15-2009, 14:42 NOTES ON THE NOUN PATTERNS IN THE YEMENITE TRADITION 53

outline of the noun patterns, with appropriate references and plene orthog- raphy8. Particularly rewarding was Epstein’s decision to include comparative material from Mandaic, which is absent from Levias’s works9. Never- theless, the section on the noun patterns is relatively short, and it would appear that not all the noun patterns are represented in Epstein’s lists; for .qoqilla?10 קוקילא qe††ela? or קיטילא example, we do not find examples of The work is also marred by several printing errors, which contradict the author’s (correct) analysis11. A fourth source of information is Y. Ben-David’s unpublished 1979 He- brew University MA dissertation, The Noun Patterns in the Aramaic of the Bavli, written under the direction of the late Professor Morag. The work, which covers the letters ’alef to Ìet, is primarily based upon the printed editions, but also draws upon a wide range of secondary sources, including some manuscripts and the mediaeval dictionary, He-‘Arukh. Ben-David carefully correlated this evidence with the evidence of the cognate dialects of Mandaic and Syriac to produce a work that is generally convincing and reliable12. It is regrettable that the work was never expanded to a full-length study13. The most recent study of this topic is S. Morag’s and Y. Kara’s Babylo- nian Aramaic in Yemenite Tradition: The Noun. This Hebrew volume, which was in an advanced state of preparation at the time of Morag’s pass- ing, represents the collaborative work of two outstanding experts on the Yemenite tradition of Babylonian Aramaic. Morag was also one of the pioneers of the linguistic study of Babylonian Aramaic according to Eastern manuscripts14, and in addition, his expertise in the Yemenite linguistic traditions of Hebrew and Aramaic was unparalleled15. Kara, Morag’s student, has similarly focused on the Yemenite traditions, both written and oral, and

8. EPSTEIN, Grammar, pp. 105–121. 9. Levias’s comparative material is drawn primarily from Arabic, with occasional references to Akkadian, Hebrew, and Ethiopic (several dialects). .לוליבא and הילילא See below regarding the forms .10 tongue, language’ and‘ ִל ָיש$נָא For example, the dagesh sign is missing in the entries .11 red’ (p. 111), even though these appear in the paragraph entitled ‘Nouns of which‘ ָסוּמָקא .(שמות שהאות האמצעית שלהם מודגשת) ’middle letter (sic) is geminated 12. I have found a few contradictions between the manuscript findings and Ben-David’s spark’ with a shewa after‘ ְבּוּט ָטא proposed vocalization. For example, he vocalizes the form .See below .בוטאטי the first †et, while some important witnesses contain the plene spelling Similarly, it is not always certain on what grounds he distinguishes between the /u/ and /o/ vowels. 13. It is also unfortunate that in its present state as a typescript, it is very difficult to read. 14. Morag’s articles on these early manuscripts, ‘Phonology’ and ‘Geniza’, are amongst the seminal studies in this field. 15. This is evidenced in his two major monographs, BAYT and HLYJ.

1888-08_REJ09/1-2_02 53 09-15-2009, 14:42 54 NOTES ON THE NOUN PATTERNS IN THE YEMENITE TRADITION

his study of the Yemenite manuscripts of the Talmud is one of the primary reference tools for the phonology and verbal morphology of this dialect16. Their volume is the most comprehensive discussion of the noun patterns of JBA currently available. An assessment of its method and conclusions is thus essential to the continued research in this field. In a detailed review, Breuer has drawn attention to many of the book’s strengths, while addressing many of the methodological issues it raises17. While praising its scope, Breuer has also noted the problematic arrange- ment of the book, wherein nouns are organized by morphological patterns rather than stem-patterns, hence nouns of the pattern CaCC¢Ca are listed together whether they are based upon quadriliteral roots or trilateral roots with the mem prefix (maqt¢la). In the latter part of this article, Breuer has selected a single topic, the noun pattern qu†la, and weighed up the evidence from the Yemenite reading tradition against the findings in manuscripts. Breuer’s conclusions are summarised in the following statement, which specifically addresses the results of his investigation into the qu†la pattern, but may equally serve as an accurate assessment of the entire work: It may be clearly discerned here how the strength of the Yemenite tradition is able to overcome the orthography and agree with the original form preserved in manuscripts. At the same time, sometimes a form has become widespread in the Yemenite tradition which is not original to Babylonian Aramaic precisely because of the informant’s freedom to read against the orthography, and thus different traditions have become mixed. Sometimes, there are forms of unclear source, and until a reliable source can be found, we may suspect that they result from error18. Though published in Hebrew in a monograph series aimed at specialists in the field, the material recorded in the book has received wide exposure to the English-reading community through its frequent citation in Sokoloff’s A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, under the siglum BAYTN. Un- der almost every noun and adjective listed in Sokoloff’s Dictionary the Yemenite pronunciation tradition is cited. By virtue of its inclusion in the most up-to-date dictionary of JBA, an essential reference work based on the most reliable sources that is unlikely to be superseded in the coming years, BAYTN has achieved a status almost parallel to that of the earliest manu-

16. See KARA, Yemenite Manuscripts. 17. BREUER, ‘Yemenite Tradition’, pp. 125–132. ניכר כאן איך כוחה של מסורת תימן עשוי להתגבר על הכתיב ולכוון אל הצורה :In Hebrew .18 המקורית שנשתמרה בכתבי-היד. עם זאת, לעיתים נתפשטה במסורת תימן צורה שאינה מקורית בארמית הבבלית דווקא משום חירותו של המסרן לקרוא שלא ככתוב, וכך נתערבה מסורת במסורת. ולעיתים יש צורות שמקורן אינו נהיר, ועד שיימצא להן מקור נאמן יש לחשוד שמא מקורן בשיבוש. ,BREUER ‘Yemenite Tradition’, pp. 139-140.

1888-08_REJ09/1-2_02 54 09-15-2009, 14:42 NOTES ON THE NOUN PATTERNS IN THE YEMENITE TRADITION 55

scripts. In light of Breuer’s comments, and of my own findings regarding the historical validity of the Yemenite reading tradition in the fields of phonology and verbal morphology, the value of that tradition and its place within a scholarly dictionary merit closer scrutiny. The following notes are based on observations recorded from compari- son of materials in BAYTN with the material found in DJBA and other sources. The etymological and comparative notes in DJBA have been particularly helpful for the undertaking of this study19. However, since in order to provide a comprehensive listing of all the lexemes found in Rabbinic Babylonian Aramaic the DJBA necessarily has recourse to manuscripts of secondary value, the material recorded within has been employed primarily when it was been drawn from the more accurate manuscript sources. It is not simply enough to state that a certain form is attested in Talmudic manuscripts. The later European manuscripts of the Talmud contain many errors that are shared with the printed editions, and it is important to recall that these manuscripts often contain a text form very close to that of the earliest printed editions, which were themselves based on manuscript sources similar in character to the surviving European manuscript sources. The analysis provided here is based upon extensive comparisons, but does not claim to be exhaustive. Numerous examples were omitted if the evidence contradict- ing the Yemenite reading was not unequivocal.

1. Scope

As a reading tradition first and foremost of the printed editions of the Talmud, the Yemenite tradition cannot provide information about JBA lexemes which are not attested in the Talmud. However, this is also true for Talmudic forms which are not attested in the printed edition of the Talmud. Modern research has demonstrated conclusively that the language of the Talmud preserved in eastern manuscripts, particularly early eastern manuscripts (EEMSS) of a textual type known primarily from the Cairo Geniza, differs greatly from that found in the European traditions and particularly

19. Sokoloff utililised the unpublished page proofs of BAYTN in the preparation of DJBA (see ibid, p. 11), and these proofs appear to have differed slightly from the final published injury, ruin’, notes the Yemenite‘ חבאלא ,חבלא version. For example, DJBA, p. 427, s.v. 1# according to San 100b, and refers the reader to BAYTN p. 81. However, in the ַח ָבלא reading is drawn from BQ 74a. While there generally ַח ָבלא published version of BAYTN, the reading seems to be no difference between the Yemenite reading cited in DJBA and that found in BAYTN, I have consistently cited the examples according to the published version of BAYTN.

1888-08_REJ09/1-2_02 55 09-15-2009, 14:42 56 NOTES ON THE NOUN PATTERNS IN THE YEMENITE TRADITION

from the printed editions.20 Reliance upon the printed editions of the Tal- mud provides us with linguistic data that differ significantly from those found in the EEMSS. For example, the Aramaic word for ‘sesame’ found in and this is the ,(שומשמי :.pl) שומשמא the printed editions of the Talmud is Sot 3b [BAYTN 265]). However, the) ְש$וּמש$ ָמא :form cited in BAYTN e.g. BM) שושמי ,manuscripts frequently employ another form of this word 49a [HPS 127:1]), and the distribution of the two forms appears to differ significantly in the various textual witnesses. Let us consider the two ap- pearances of this word in MQ 12b:

Manuscript First Second occurrence occurrence שושמי שושמי (HPS 279:11,12 (EEMSS שושמי שושמי (NY Columbia X893-T141 (Yemenite שימשמי שמשמי ,London, BL Harley 5508 (Ashkenazi-Italian Late 11th Century). שושמי שושמי Vatican 108 שומשמי שימשי Vatican 134 שומשמי שומשמי Munich 95

Consider also the following example, BM 104b, wherein the word appears five times:

Manuscript First Second Third Fourth שושמי שושמי שושמי שושמי HGP 30b:24-27 שומשמי שומשמי שומשמי שושמי (Hamburg 165 (Spanish שומשמי שומשמי שומשמי שומשמי Escorial שומשמי שומשמי שומשמי שומשמי Florence 9 שומשמי שומשמי שומשמי שומשמי Vatican 115 שומשמי שומשמי שומשמי שומשמי Vatican 116-7 שומשמי שומשמי שומשמי שומשמי Munich 95

-is found in important eastern manuscripts, and sporadi שושמי The form cally attested in later sources. In HPS and HGP it is the only form of this noun that appears, but its presence in other accurate Talmudic sources implies that it is not to be regarded as a specifically ‘geonic’ form. It is better

20. I discuss this issue at length in my forthcoming book. Compare FRIEDMAN, ‘Early Manuscripts', passim, and idem, ‘Typology’. I have sought to demonstrate the historical reliability of the EEMSS in my article ‘Moussaieff Collection’; see especially pp. 349–50; 363– 4.

1888-08_REJ09/1-2_02 56 09-15-2009, 14:42 NOTES ON THE NOUN PATTERNS IN THE YEMENITE TRADITION 57

taken as an early eastern form which had been generally lost in later textual perhaps under ,שומשמי witnesses, wherein it has been replaced by the form The Yemenite .21שומשמין the influence of the common Hebrew cognate reading tradition, which is dependent primarily upon the printed edition of the Talmud for its linguistic information, does not inform us how this noun form was vocalized. I write ‘primarily’ advisedly, since from BAYTN it would that the Yemenite reading tradition frequently preserves alternative readings that differ from those of the printed editions. However, a degree of caution is required when considering these alternative readings. They are in the most part not the result of spontaneous correction during the process of reading, but of careful study by a Talmudic scholar who employed the re- sources at his disposal (apparently mediaeval commentaries and the ‘Arukh)22.

2. Forms based upon apparent textual errors

Several of the forms listed in BAYTN are based upon questionable readings in the printed editions. In this section, I have listed only examples wherein clearly erroneous forms occur. At the end I list several examples which are very unlikely. flour and herb dish’ (‘AZ 34b [BAYTN 73])23. The reading with a‘ ַא ָבטא אכטא טיאעא בכף :beth is incorrect, as noted explicitly by the Geonim »*with a kaf∞; in Arabic it’s wdFÃ« qB אכטא‘ הואבטיית טיאעא אלמצל אלערבי “Arabic whey"’ (Hark 23:19). Compare DJBA, p. 129. ,fatigue’ (BM 36b [BAYTN 263]). ‘Amr’s marginal reading‘ ְאוּבצנ ָא ,apparently drawn from the ‘Arukh, appears to be correct. See DJBA אוכצנא p. 89. -phoenix’24 (San 108b [BAYTN 270]). However, the plene spell‘ ֵאוְּרש$ינ ָה San 108b [Hark 145:6]) and the comparative evidence from) ורשאנא ing Akkadian, Syriac and Arabic (DJBA 97) make it unlikely that the noun contained an e vowel. ההוא גברא :This process can be witnessed in the manuscript tradition, for example .21 A certain person who deposited sesame‘ דאפקו’ שומש[מ]י גבי חבריה. אמ’ ליה: הב לי שומש[מ]י with his fellow. He said to him: “Give me the sesame”’ (Yeb 115b [M141]). In both cases, may be שומשי .שומשמי has been corrected by a second hand to שומשי we find the unusual form or may simply be a textual error caused by the scribe’s lack of ,שושמי an alternative form of familiarity with the shorter form. 22. BREUER, ‘Review of BAYTN’, pp. 123-4, has similarly noted the need to identify the sources of the alternative readings. cited by Tosafot ad loc. BAYTN follows Rashi in interpreting ,אכטא See ‘Arukh, s.v .23 ‘skin bottle’, a translation rejected by other early sources. 24. So BAYTN following Rashi; Sokoloff, DJBA, translates ‘a dove or pigeon’.

1888-08_REJ09/1-2_02 57 09-15-2009, 14:42 58 NOTES ON THE NOUN PATTERNS IN THE YEMENITE TRADITION

ַבּ ְהתּ ַתיהוּ :shame’ (San 12b [BAYTN 77]). Alternative reading‘ ַבּ ָהתּא BAYTN]). The form] בהתייהו their shame’ (Îul 56b, contra printed text‘ :as evidenced by early sources ,בהתתא in Sanhedrin should also be shameful elders’ (San 12b [Hark 145:10]); compare in‘ סאבי דבהתאתא .idem’ (San 12b [J]). See DJBA, p. 189‘ סבי דבהתתא :Yemenite MS J reed mat’ ({Erub 8a [BAYTN 145]). This is a ghost word. The‘ בּוּדי ָא reed mats’ (Suk 20b‘ בּוּדיַ ָתא The plural form .בוריא correct form is [BAYTN 145]) is similarly not supported by the manuscript evidence, .Suk 20b [Yemenite O51]). See DJBA, p. 193) ברואתא which reads HPS) ְב ֲ|אקא thigh bone’ (BB 7a [BAYTN 159]). HPS reads‘ ָבּוּקּא 306:16). See DJBA, p. 192. -sparks’ (BM 85b [BAYTN 163]). The correct reading ap‘ ִבּוּט ֵיטי/בּוֹ ִט ֵיטי appears only in the printed בוטיטי The reading .בוטאטי or בוטטי pears to be editions of the Talmud25. Compare DJBA p. 190. single hair’ (Naz 39a [BAYTN 38]). The Yemenite vocalization‘ ִבּינ ֵ ָיתא contains a wide array of alternative forms, reflecting the various spellings Shab 95a) ְבּנ ִ ָיתא ;([Yom 79b [BAYTN 33) ִבּינ ִ ָיתא :of the printed edition Naz 39a [BAYTN 34]), as well as one pseudo-plural) ֵבּינ ְ ָתא ,([BAYTN 27] Shab 140a [BAYTN 32])26. However, none of these forms are) ִבּינ ַ ָתא ,form -BM 84a [G1]); see fur) ִבינתא attested in the best manuscripts, which read .(a single hair’ (TJ Jud 20:16‘ בנת סערא ther DJBA 203, which compares -Shab 140a) represents a misun) ִבּינ ַ ָתא The pseudo .ביני The plural form is from a hair of‘ מבינתא דראשי ועד טופרא דכרעי derstanding of the merism -is sin בינתא is singular, so טורפא my head to a toenail of my foot’. Just as gular. Compare DJBA, p. 203 .his assistant shepherd’ (BQ 56b [BAYTN 235]). This is a ghost‘ ַבּרז ִ ֵיליהּ ’idem‘ כּוּרז ְ ֵליה The correct reading is with a kaf, as in the marginal reading (BQ 56a [BAYTN 264]). For textual evidence and etymology see DJBA, p. 600. :palaces, fortresses’ (Pes 4a [BAYTN 165]). Marginal reading‘ ָבּיַראתא juniper’ (Pes 4a [BAYTN 165; compare BAYTN 41]). The main‘ בראתא reading follows the printed text, while the marginal reading accords with the reading of a geonic responsum known from early manuscripts and also cited in Rashi’s commentary ad loc. Compare DJBA, p. 250.

בוטאשי According to the data in the Lieberman Project database. MS Hamburg’s .25 .ט for the graphically similar ש sparks’ (BM 85b [H]) appears to be copying error of‘ ibid, marginal reading) cited in) ִבּני ְ ָתא ;(Nid 45b) ִבּניֵ ָיתא (Erub 18a‘) ַבּניַ ָיתא The forms .26 see context and ;בנ"י BAYTN 38, are irrelevant, since they mean ‘female builders’, from root .’hairdresser‘ ,בנייתא Rashi ad. loc., and Sokoloff, DJBA, p. 223 s.v. 1#

1888-08_REJ09/1-2_02 58 09-15-2009, 14:42 NOTES ON THE NOUN PATTERNS IN THE YEMENITE TRADITION 59

-gardener’ (Shab 110b [BAYTN 322]). This form, vocalised an ab‘ גּ ִינַּאי which is ,גינאה solute singular27, is corrupt in its context. We would expect the form attested in MS O366, and in the Yemenite reading tradition else- .gardener’ (Îul 105b [BAYTN 322]). See DJBA 281‘ גּ ִינּ ָ ָאה :where bird of prey’28 (Îul 109b [BAYTN 324]). The form of this word‘ גּ ִ ָירוּתא in manuscripts, the Akkadian etymology, and the parallel forms in Mandaic, Syriac, and Arabic, all indicate that the waw of the printed editions is a scribal error for a yod, and that the nouns should be /girita/ or /girrita/. DJBA p. 283. Shab) ְרִקיֵדי :baskets’ (BM 84a [BAYTN 67]). Alternative reading‘ ְדּקוֵּרי .([BAYTN 62] דקורי 127a; marginal reading from ‘Arukh against printed כרָקוֵדי The reading in BM is a ghost form; the best textual witnesses read (BM 84a [G1]). The vocalization in MS G1, coupled with the Arabic loan form œuÁ«—, implies that the pronunciation was /raqo∂a/29. See DJBA 1093– 4. cinnamon’ (Shab 65a [BAYTN 242]). This is a ghost form. The‘ ַדּרצוּנ ָא Shab 65a [BAYTN) ַדּ ִארצינ ָא ,marginal readings based upon the {Arukh 242]) etc., more closely reflect the forms found in the manuscripts. Even ,See DJBA .דרצינא the early Soncino printed edition of the Talmud reads 353. ibid). The) ַהדְּרנ ִ ָיתא Ket 53a [BAYTN 216]). Marginal reading) ַה ָדִרינתא first form follows the erroneous printed edition. I am uncertain regarding the source of the marginal reading. However, this too is unlikely, since the nomen agentis endings would normally be /-ana/ for masculine, /-anita/ for feminine30. buyer; sale, purchase’ (Qid 4a [BAYTN 55]). Only in the meaning‘ ז ְ ִבינ ָא of ‘sale, purchase’ is the noun attested in this form in the better manu- zabona/. See DJBA/ זבונא scripts. In the meaning ‘buyer’ the correct form is 397. -ibid mar) זיְ ַאנ ָא :loss’ (Ket 66b [BAYTN 67]). Alternative reading‘ ז ְיוּנ ָא gins). Only the marginal reading, which may be based upon the ‘Arukh, is supported by the manuscripts and by all the comparative evidence31. See DJBA 407-8. could also be an emphatic plural form. In גינאי ,In the printed editions of the Talmud .27 .([e.g. Gi† 13a [Hark 34:35) גינאיי the best manuscripts, this would be 28. So Rashi; Sokoloff, DJBA, p. 283, defines ‘murry/lamprey’. 29. In MS G1 the qamaÒ sign seems to represent an o or å vowel. See MORGENSTERN, Geonic Responsa, pp. 50–51. 30. Compare Nöldeke, MG, p. 153 end. Men 77a) found in the Vilna edition of the Talmud is left) דיאנא The ghost form .31 unvocalised by R. ‘Amr; compare Massoret Ha-Shas ad. loc.

1888-08_REJ09/1-2_02 59 09-15-2009, 14:42 60 NOTES ON THE NOUN PATTERNS IN THE YEMENITE TRADITION

הזר a thousand’ (San 98a [BAYTN 331]). This is a ghost-form for‘ ֵחיו ַר ‘thousand’ (ibid [J]) accurately preserved in the Yemenite manuscript of this tractate. See DJBA 374. robe, garment’ (MQ 23a [BAYTN 204]). This is a ghost form‘ ִח ְיצוּצ ָתא .idem’ (MQ 23a [HPS 264:8]). See DJBA 457‘ חימוצתא for asafoetida’ (Shab 140a [BAYTN 194]). Alternative form‘ ִח ְילתּ ָתא Îul 59a). Only the alternative reading suits the spellings in the) ִח ִלתּ ָיתּא manuscripts and the vocalization of the cognates. (DJBA 457; add to entry Yemenite reading from Îul). bitter wine’ (‘AZ 30a [BAYTN 209]). This is a ghost-word; the‘ י ְַרנָקא AZ 30a [Hark 23:10]), presumably /yarqana/. See‘) ירקאנא correct form is DJBA 543. :A type of tree’32 (Pes 111b [BAYTN 86]). Alternative readings‘ ַכּנָדא BB 48b marginal reading [BAYTN) ִכּינּ ִאָרא ,([BB 48b [BAYTN 117) ִכּינָרא .is not supported by any reliable textual evidence כנדא The reading .([252 .See DJBA 576 .33כנרא The Yemenite MS E1 reads -torches’ (MQ 12b [BAYTN 212]). This is apparently a ghost‘ ְמדוּכֵרי -ibid [Col]) at) מדבורי idem’ (MQ 12b [HPS 279:20]) or‘ ַמדבוָּרא word for tested in the manuscripts. See DJBA 642. ַמטְרָקא goad’ (Yom 77a [BAYTN 219]). Alternative reading‘ ַמ ְרטָקא of the printed editions of the מרטקא Yom 23a [BAYTN 218]). The spelling) Talmud is a copying error; the correct reading is found also in the Yom 77a [E1]). From the) מטרקא :Yemenite textual witness of this passage goad’ (Yom‘ ַמטראקא :/EEMSS, it seems that the vocalization is /ma†raqa 23a [Hark 158:15])34. ’crate‘ ַס ָפטא :crate’ (Yeb 46a [BAYTN 84]). Alternative readings‘ ַט ָפסא ִס ָיפתּא ,([idem’ (Ta‘n 21a [BAYTN 122‘ ִס ָיפטא .([San 82b [BAYTN 91) and ִס ָיפטא idem’ (San 104a [BAYTN 122], with marginal readings of‘ .([Ta‘n 21a, cited in Menorat ha-Ma’or 126 [BAYTN 261) ִסימפּוֹ ָטא .( ַס ָפטא -Ta‘n 21a, cited in Menorat ha-Ma’or 126 [BAYTN 217]). The bet) ַט ְפסָקא ([Ta‘an 21a [J) סיפטיה ,([San 82a [J], 104a [J) סיפטא ter manuscripts read -BM 73b [H165])35. The evidence of the better manuscripts ac) ספטא or cords with the forms in Mandaic, Arabic and with the Persian etymology. It

.defines this as a lote tree ,כינרא .Sokoloff, DJBA, p. 576 s.v .32 .see below ִכּינּ ִאָרא and ִכּינָרא On the alternative readings .33 34. The Tiberian pataÌ is found in the manuscript, but was not reproduced in Harkavy’s edition. The printed edition’s reading in BM and .ספטא ’As opposed to the printed editions .35 Yeb is supported by the less accurate manuscripts, e.g. Vat 115 of BM, and Vat 111 of Yeb, and thus predates the printed editions.

1888-08_REJ09/1-2_02 60 09-15-2009, 14:42 NOTES ON THE NOUN PATTERNS IN THE YEMENITE TRADITION 61

is possible that two readings existed, /saf†a/ and /sif†a/, reflecting the shift of *a > /i/ in closed syllables36. In any case, the other forms appear to result from faulty textual transmission. See DJBA, p. 824. . ְסוּלּ ָתא :afterbirth’ (Shab 134a [BAYTN 195]). Marginal reading‘ ִסילי ְ ָתא ibid). As DJBA 804-5 notes, this) ִס ָילתא … ְס ִל ָיתא :R. Kara’s reading form is probably a loan from Akkadian, and is vocalized /silita/ in HPS 307:19. testament’37 (San 92b [BAYTN 201]). An EEMS reads‘ ִפּוּרט ָיתא :San 92b [Hark 144:32]) while the Yemenite sources read) פירטאתא Gi† 57b [MGN 600:15]38; San 96b [J]). The printed text appears) פרטאתא to be based upon faulty transmission. See DJBA, p. 932. as ,קנישקיז Shab 62b [BAYTN 310]). This is a ghost form for) ְקנ ִיְׁקנ ִין .See DJBA 1029 .קנישקיז בזין :explicitly stated in a Geonic responsum -pomegranate’ (San 108b [BAYTN 262]). This form does not ap‘ ִרמּו נֹ ָא .רומאנא pear to be attested in Eastern Aramaic39. The Yemenite MS J reads See DJBA 1066. שומשמנא ant’ (Yeb 76a [BAYTN 265]). This is a ghost form for‘ ְׁוּמשנ ָא .See above, §1 .שושמנא or branch, twig’ (BM 91b [BAYTN 46]). This is a ghost form. The‘ ְׁ ַָרכא .See DJBA 1112 .שדאכא or שדכא correct reading appears to be bunch [of dates]’40 (Ket 80a [BAYTN 130]). The correct reading‘ ִׁיגָרא ibid [Hark 136:31])41. The reading of this EEMSS is supported) שוגריא is by the Akkadian etymology and Arabic loan form. See DJBA 115. domestic cat’ (Ber 56b [BAYTN 252]). This form is based upon‘ ִׁינַָּרא a textual error. The Talmudic discussion is based upon two different the standard JBA form) and one) שונארא forms of the word ‘cat’, one This distinction is lost in the European .42(שורנא Syriac , OA) שוראנא However, it .שינרא is contrasted with שונרא manuscripts, wherein the form is maintained in the Yemenite Midrash ha-Gadol, Gen 696. See DJBA 1125.

36. On this shift, see MALONE, ‘Observations’, p. 163; MORAG, ‘Geniza’, pp. 65–6, reprinted in MORAG, Studies, pp. 298–299; Morgenstern, ‘Moussaieff Collection’, p. 354. 37. Following Rashi’s interpretation. .פרטתא The Vilna edition of the Talmud reads at this point .38 39. Compare FASSBERG, Grammar, §18l, 19g, and p. 232 n. 440; 40. So BAYTN according to the second interpretation of Rashi. Sokoloff, DJBA, p. 1115, follows the Geonic interpretation and Akkadian etymology in translating ‘basked woven out of palm leaves’. 41. This form survived in Vat 113 and the Soncino printed edition of 1487. 42. See GREENFIELD, ‘Three Notes’, 100.

1888-08_REJ09/1-2_02 61 09-15-2009, 14:42 62 NOTES ON THE NOUN PATTERNS IN THE YEMENITE TRADITION

3. Noun pattern readings not supported by eastern MSS, by comparative evidence or by both

A. Interpretation of yod The orthography of the eastern manuscripts of Babylonian Rabbinic literature (including that of the Yemenite manuscripts) differs from that of the European sources in several ways. In the Eastern manuscripts, the doubled yod is rarely employed to mark a medial /ay/ diphthong, hence forms from -RH 29b) will appear in the Eastern manu) היינו the printed editions such as RH 29b [HPS 26:3]). Since the early manuscripts do not) הינו scripts as orthographically distinguish between /ay/ diphthong and the collapsed diphthong /e/, it is not always possible to determine whether to read, for exam- HPS) ְלבֲיתא bayta/ or /beta/. Only the vocalized forms such as/ ביתא ,ple -HPS 303:17) indicate how these forms were pro) ְדזֲיתא and (15:21 nounced43. However, the printed editions also employ the doubled yod to indicate ’for collection‘ לגוביינא .a consonantal yod at the start of a syllable, e.g blank sheet’ (BQ 98a). In such circumstances the eastern‘ ניירא ;(BM 110b) manuscripts will often employ a medial ’alef to indicate that an /a/ for collection’ (BM 110b [HPS‘ לגוביאנא .vowel follows the yod, e.g loss’ (BM 105a [HPS‘ זיאנא .([blank sheet’ (BQ 98a [G1‘ ניארא .([83:10 93:16]). The lack of distinction in the printed editions between the orthographies of /ay/ and /ya/ or /ye/ has led to many anomalies in the Yemenite reading tradition. summer’ (BB 3b [BAYTN 65]). This reading is surprising, given‘ ְקי ֵ ָיטא that the form is a reflection of PS qayÂ, and that reflexes of that form are found in all the Aramaic dialects44. It seems that this is a reading influenced by the spelling of the printed edition. It is significant that the single instance Shab) ֵָקיטא of defective spelling that occurs in the printed edition is read 119a [BAYTN 16]). Since the diphthongs were generally preserved in JBA, we may presume that both spellings reflect the reading /qay†a/.

Compare similarly the readings of the following lexemes and their vocalization in the Yemenite reading tradition:

43. Compare MORAG, ‘Phonology’, pp. 84-5, reprinted in MORAG, Studies, pp. 261-262. ;(DODI, Grammar, p. 435); Syriac , (BROCKELMANN, LS, p. 664) ֵָקיטא :Onkelos .44 .(DROWER-MACUCH, MD, p. 76) גאיטא Mandaic

1888-08_REJ09/1-2_02 62 09-15-2009, 14:42 NOTES ON THE NOUN PATTERNS IN THE YEMENITE TRADITION 63

Shab) ְסיַאנ ָא cap’ (¨Erub 102b [BAYTN 64]), with alternatives‘ ְסיֵינ ָא -Shab 119a [BAYTN 90]); the form under) ַסיינ ֵיהּ 138b [BAYTN 44]), and lying all these spellings would appear to be /s¢yana/, as indicated by the plene spelling and Syriac equivalent . See DJBA 802. form of salve’ (Îul 111b [BAYTN 65]), against plene spellings‘ ְש$י ֵ ָיפא .and Syriac equivalent . See DJBA 1134 שיאפא ,fullers’ presses’ (Shab 123a [‘Amar]); but in manuscript sources‘ ז יְ ֵיֵרי .See DJBA 498 .זיארי ,זיארא In the opposite direction:

.([band of marauders’ (Ber 60b [BAYTN 47‘ גּיְ ָ ָיסא

BB 73b) ִׁ ָיצא and ֵׁ ָיצא , ְׁיֵ ֵיצי ’The variant readings of the word for ‘fin [BAYTN 65]) point to similar difficulties the Yemenite readers had with these spellings. In this case, both the etymology and vocalization are uncertain. keeper of royal seal’45 (‘AZ 41a [BAYTN 273], contra printed‘ ִא ְיׁ ִתּ ָימא ibid [BAYTN 273]). But in) ַא ְׁ ִתּ ָימא :Variant readings .(אישתיימא .ed AZ 41a [Hark 23:33,34])46, matching Syriac‘) אישתיאמא :EEMSS citation . See DJBA 126. addition’ (BM 63b [BAYTN 270]). Kara ad loc. notes that this is‘ טוּפיֵינ ָא a faulty reading influenced by the spelling of the printed edition, and notes טיפונא Tem 43a, marginal reading against printed) טוּפי נַ ָא the more accurate [BAYTN 266])47. The marginal reading of Tem 43a is clearly superior; .addition’ (Hark 38:11). DJBA, p. 497-8‘ טופיאנא .compare e.g

B. Lack of medial /a/ In several cases, the Yemenite reading tradition has lost a medial /a/ vowel which is recorded in the manuscripts by a mater lectionis. their quittances’ (San 74b [BAYTN 210]). This is a loan word‘ ְא ִביזַרייהוּ from Persian abezar, which has a long vowel after the z. The EEMSS simi- .(Hark 166:24, 27) אביזאריה .larly show long /a/ vowel after the zayin, e,g 45. So BAYTN following traditional commentators; Sokoloff, DJBA, marks meaning as unknown. .איש תיאמא :In his initial transcription in l. 34 Harkavy divided the word into two parts .46 See, however, his addenda et corrigenda, ibid, p. 350, wherein he corrects the reading to Collation with the manuscripts reveals that Harkavy’s correction represents the .אישתיאמא true reading. ’more‘ טפיאתא of BM 63b is a copying error for טופיינא ,It is possible that in context .47 .end טפי .BM 63b [H]). Compare Sokoloff’s note in DJBA, p. 498, s.v)

1888-08_REJ09/1-2_02 63 09-15-2009, 14:42 64 NOTES ON THE NOUN PATTERNS IN THE YEMENITE TRADITION

:Asafoetida’ (‘AZ 29a [BAYTN 213]). A geonic gloss reads‘ ַא ְגדּנ ָא implying a long /a/ vowel following the dalet as in ,אגדאנא בטיית אנגדאן and Persian etymology אנגדאן Syriac The Judeo-Arabic form angudan imply that the gimel should be geminated. Perhaps vocalize: .Compare DJBA 7848 . ַאגּ ְַדאנ ָא -fishing net’ (Gi† 60b [BAYTN 144]). The Akkadian ety‘ אוּהֵרי ,אוּחֵרי MQ 11a [HPS 277:13]) suggest) הוהארי mology and plene spelling in HPS that this should be vocalized with a long /a/ following the second conso- nant. See DJBA, p. 86. -cobbler’. The evidence of Syriac, Akkadian and Arabic, and oc‘ ְאוּש$כ ָפא casional plene and vocalized spellings in early sources, suggest that this should be vocalized /’uskapa/. See DJBA, p. 98. type of tree’ (BeÒ 15b [BAYTN 75]). The evidence points to a‘ ַאדָרא long /a/ following the dalet. Much of this evidence comes from Yemenite sources such as MS J and the Midrash Ha-gadol. See DJBA, p. 82. :his host’ (BeÒ 12b [BAYTN 314]). Alternative readings‘ ֵאוּש$פּז ִיכנֵיהּ -ibid, marginal reading [BAYTN 314]). Neither ֵ reading is sup) ֵאוּש$פּיז ַכנ ֵיהּ ’idem‘ ְא$ישפ$יזכ ניה ported by the EEMSS, which contain the vocalized form (Îul 132b [HPS 60:18]). The Yemenite manuscripts include plene spell- -San 7b [J]), simi) אשפיזכאנא Zeb 18b [Col]) and) אישפיזכאניה ings such as larly pointing to a pronunciation with an /a/ vowel after the kaf. The spell- with the yod following the zayin is not supported by any of אושפזיכניה ing the manuscripts of BeÒ 12b49. wad of wool’ (‘AZ 28b margin [BAYTN 143]). As Sokoloff‘ אוְּדָדא notes, the Syriac reading is . איטאפי hole in cheese’ (‘AZ 35b [BAYTN 108]). The EEMSS read‘ ִא ֵטפי (‘AZ 35b [Hark 23:20]). See DJBA, p. 11250. way station’ (p. 74). The comparative material suggests that a long‘ ַאוונ ָא . ַאוּ ָונָא a/ follows the waw. DJBA p. 86 vocalizes/ pressure, squeezing’ (Yeb 121b [BAYTN 109]). The eastern‘ ִא ָיצצא איצאצא :MQ 11a [HPS 278:10]) or Yemenite MS Col) אצאצא manuscripts (MQ 11a [Col]), a reading supported also by MS O366. The contemporary Yemenite reading is also unlikely since geminated consonants are not generally written as digraphs51. Compare DJBA 125. 48. Contra DJBA, I have not found any evidence suggesting that the gimel of the Syriac form was marked by the rukkacha diacritic. 49. Tal, BeÒa I, vol. ii, p. 122. AZ 35b [GK V 136:21 = Cambridge TS G2.109) appears to be a‘) איטיאפי The form .50 scribal error. 51. The few exceptions are (1) spellings of consonantal waws followed by a vowel, which he intended’ (Hark 155:34) (2) geminated‘ איתכוון .may coincidentally be geminated e.g -I am trustworthy’ (BB 33a [HPS 191:6]). Com‘ מהימננא .nuns at morpheme boundaries, e.g pare MORGENSTERN, Geonic Responsa, p. 26.

1888-08_REJ09/1-2_02 64 09-15-2009, 14:42 NOTES ON THE NOUN PATTERNS IN THE YEMENITE TRADITION 65 statue’ (Shab 72b [BAYTN 301]). The plene spelling found in‘ ַא ַנדּ ָרטא Ker 3a [G3]) and in a Yemenite manuscript) [אנ]דראטי both an EEMSS .San 61b, 62a [J]) indicate a long /a/ vowel following the resh) אנדראטא See DJBA, p. 144. steel’ (Ber 62b [BAYTN 214]). The plene spellings and Syriac‘ ַא ְסט ָמא and Arabic cognates indicate a long /a/ after the †et. See DJBA 147. -north wind’ (Ber 59a [BAYTN 214]). The spellings in the manu‘ ַא ְסתּנ ָא scripts, comparative material and etymology all point to the vocalization אסתאנא :istana/. The medial long /a/ is attested in a Yemenite manuscript’/ (Meg 28b [Col]). See DJBA, p. 123. family home’ (Shab 23b [BAYTN 2]). The evidence all points to‘ ֵבּי-נ ְ ָׁא BM) נאשה the vocalization /nasa/. The EEMSS contain the plene spelling 84b [G1]; Hark 35:32, 35). See DJBA, p. 216. buck’ (BQ 20 [BAYTN 77]). Plene spellings, including Yemenite‘ ַבּ ָרחא San 63b [J]), and Syriac parallel indicate that noun) בראחא MS J pattern is probably qa††ala. See DJBA, p. 243. stick, branch’ (Gi† 69b [BAYTN 41]). The frequent plene spellings‘ גּ וְ זַ ָא indicate that the waw is followed by a long vowel, as in the Yemenite reading tradition. However, in both Syriac and Mandaic, the gimel is vocalized with an /a/ vowel, implying that the waw may have been geminated to preserve the original /a/ of the proposed Persian etymon, gawaza. See DJBA 267. גְֲונא Erbu 82a [BAYTN 41]) ‘colour, type’. The vocalized form‘) גּוְ ַונ ָא HPS 2:18, according with the vocalization in Mandaic and Syriac, implies that the Yemenite reading is incorrect. See DJBA, p. 267. Furthermore, the in the EEMSS points to the fact גואנא fact that we never find the spelling that there is no vowel following the waw; in the works of the later Geonim and some Talmudic EEMSS, the use of a mater lectionis is almost manda- tory when an /a/ vowel follows a consonantal waw52. The Yemenite reading has presumably been influenced by the double-waw employed in the printed editions of the Talmud to mark the /aw/ diphthong. In this lexeme, we find that an overwhelming majority of the examples in the printed edi- -pre‘ ַדוָקא tions are written with a doubled-waw53. By contrast, the reading cisely’ (Gi† 27b [BAYTN 80]) retains the /aw/ diphthong, perhaps because in the printed editions of the Talmud it is written primarily with a single -pre‘ דְ|ֲ|וקא waw54. In the EEMSS both are written with a single waw, hence cisely’ (HPS 257:21).

.([like him’ (BM 77a [G1‘ כואתיה ,Compare, for example .52 .גונא in contrast to 13 examples of ,גוונא The Bar Ilan database records 121 examples of .53 .דווקא in contrast to 18 examples ,דוקא The Bar Ilan database records 201 examples of .54

1888-08_REJ09/1-2_02 65 09-15-2009, 14:42 66 NOTES ON THE NOUN PATTERNS IN THE YEMENITE TRADITION

גּ ִ ֵרבּי :(.vessel for liquids’ (Pes 36b [BAYTN 79]). Alternative (pl‘ גּ ַ ָרבּא (BB 73b [BAYTN 111]). However, the plene spelling from Yemenite BB 73b [MGG 51:16]) and the cognates from) גראבא Midrash Ha-Gadol Syriac and Akkadian suggest that it should be read /g¢raba/. Compare DJBA, p. 298. portion of food’ (Ber 50b [BAYTN 216]). Both plene spelling‘ ַדּ ְסתנ ָא /Shab 156b [O366]) and Syriac cognate indicate a long /a) דסתאנא following the taw. See DJBA, p. 345. interpretation of scripture’ (Yeb 80b [BAYTN 112]). There is‘ ִדּ ָרש$א overwhelming evidence from the JBA manuscript tradition, including the -San 64b [Y]), as well as from the cog) דראשא .Yemenite manuscripts e.g nates in Mandaic and Syriac, for the vocalization /d¢rasa/. See DJBA, pp. 354-5. vapour, heat’ (BB 18a [BAYTN 80]). The internal evidence points‘ ַה ָבלא ’the vapour‘ הבאלא to the vocalization /h¢bala/. So in Yemenite sources .BB 73a [MGG 31:14]). See DJBA, p. 360) מיהבאליה ;([San 77a [J) darkness’ (Tam 32a [BAYTN 80]). The evidence of Syriac and‘ ַהבָרא Mandaic matches the plene spellings in eastern manuscript sources, includ- -Pes 112b [E1]), and points to the vo) הבארא ing a Yemenite manuscript calization /habbara/. See DJBA, p. 360. order, authority’ (BB 46b [BAYTN 216], against printed reading‘ ַה ְרמנ ָא Erub 59a [BAYTN‘) ֻה ַרמנ ָא :BAYTN 301]). Alternative reading] ַה ַרמני ָא 266]). The mem must be followed by a long /a/, as indicated by the plene ,BM 83b [G1]; Hark 37:12). See DJBA) הרמאנא :spellings in the EEMSS p. 390. Hallel’ (Ta‘an 28b [BAYTN 241]). HPS reads in several places‘ ַה ֵלּ ָילא Arak 10a [HPS 51:1]; HPS 16:2, 3, 4), and this form is also‘) הילילא the Egyptian Hallel’ (Ber‘ הילילא מצריא :found in the Midrash Ha-Gadol 56a [MGG 706:1]). See DJBA p. 384. -blow’ (Îul 8a [BAYTN 81]). The plene spelling in a geniza frag‘ ַח ָבטא ment and the Syriac parallel indicate that a long /a/ followed the bet. Vocal- ise /h¢ba†a/. injury, ruin’ (BQ 74a [BAYTN 81]). But compare plene spellings‘ ַח ָבלא San 93b, 100b [J]), and in an Aramaic magic) חבאלא :in Yemenite MS J text. The manuscript readings match the vocalization of the Targum, of Mandaic and Syriac. See DJBA, p. 427. :pressed cake’ (Ket 80a [BAYTN 149]). Alternative reading‘ ָחוּבצא Ket 80b) חיבוצא idem’ (BM 99b [BAYTN 55]). The EEMSS read‘ ְח ִב ָיצא [Hark 136:33]). See DJBA, p. 450.

1888-08_REJ09/1-2_02 66 09-15-2009, 14:42 NOTES ON THE NOUN PATTERNS IN THE YEMENITE TRADITION 67 and חילאפא willow’ (Gi† 68b [BAYTN 114]). The plene spelling‘ ִח ָילפא cognates in Mandaic and Syriac suggest that this noun should be vocalised /hilafa/. See DJBA, p. 456. -emmer’ (MQ 13b [BAYTN 37]). The plene spelling of the manu‘ כּוּנ ְ ָתא is supported by the parallel from Syriac . Compare כונאתא scripts DJBA, p. 564. weakness’ (BM 101b [BAYTN 85]). A geonic manuscript reads‘ ַכּ ָחש$א .Compare DJBA 569 .כחאשא -parched grain’ (‘Erub 29b [BAYTN 117]) against printed or‘ כּיסנ יֵ The printed orthography is supported by the EEMSS, and .כיסאני thography also matches the form in classical Syriac. Vocalise /kissane/. See DJBA, 577. -brazier’ (Shab 47a [BAYTN 588]). The comparative material sug‘ ְכּנוּנ ָא gests that the first vowel should be long, not a shewa. Vocalise /kanuna/. See DJBA p. 588. plowing’ (BB 12a [BAYTN 598]). However, in EEMSS we find‘ ַכּ ָרבּא which matches the Syriac and Mandaic cognates. This spelling is ,כראבא also found in the Yemenite Midrash ha-gadol (Nid 65b [MHG 453:9]). See DJBA, 598. leg, foot’ (Ber 7a [BAYTN 87]). The evidence of Targum‘ ַכּ ָרעא Onkelos, Syriac, Mandaic and the plene spellings in JBA points to the vocalization /k¢ra‘a/ (or /k¢ra’a/). The plene spellings are found in the his/its foot’ (San‘ כראעיה .EEMSS and in theYemenite manuscripts, e.g 67b [J]; Hark 6:17). See DJBA, p. 604. -lulav, shoot’ (Suk 37b [BAYTN 272]). The EEMSS and Ye‘ לוֹ ַל ָבּא Suk 32a [HPS 43:5; O51; E2]). See) לוליבא menite manuscripts read DJBA, p. 621. whisper’ (Ber 45b [BAYTN 57]). All the accurate textual and‘ ִל ִח ָיש$א liÌsa/. Compare/ לחשא comparative evidence points to this noun being DJBA, p. 625. parasitic worm’ (‘AZ 26b [BAYTN 153]). The alternative reading‘ מוּרנ ָא -idem’ (ibid, marginal reading from ‘Arukh [BAYTN 161]) is sup‘ מוַּראנ ָא AZ 26b [Hark 22:24]; HPS 205:8), and by‘) מוראנא :ported by EEMSS the Syriac cognate. See DJBA, p. 650. portion’ (Yeb 37b [BAYTN 30]). The correct form of the singular‘ ָמנ ְ ָתא is /m¢nata/, as indicated by the numerous plene spellings in the EEMSS and HPS 86:9; San 30a [J]). Compare) מנאתא .Yemenite manuscripts, e.g .Syriac . See DJBA, p. 68955 ,מנאתא Mandaic -I have doubts as to the authentic .מנואתא As DJBA records, the plural form in Hark is .55 .cited in DJBA from two manuscripts מני ity of the plural form

1888-08_REJ09/1-2_02 67 09-15-2009, 14:42 68 NOTES ON THE NOUN PATTERNS IN THE YEMENITE TRADITION pearl’ (Ber 33b [BAYTN 279]). The comparative material and‘ ַמרגּנְ ִ ָיתא vocalization in HGP suggests that the gimel is followed by a long /a/ vowel. fibre from date palm’(Îul 51a [BAYTN 89]; Shab 90b, against‘ נַבָרא The reading of the printed text is supported by the early .(נבארא printed text manuscripts, including the Yemenite Midrash Ha-gadol, and by Syriac. See DJBA, p. 727. -thread, piece of metal’ (Naz 26b [BAYTN 120]). Alternative read‘ נ ִ ָסכּא ,Shab 59b margin) נ ַ ָסכא .([Shab 59b margin [BAYTN 120) נ ִ ָיסכא :ings -BAYTN 90]). It would appear that this repre] נ ִ ָיסכּא against printed text thread of the woof’ (Shab‘ ניסכא :sents a conflate of two historical entries strip of metal’ (BQ 98a [G1]; BB 165b‘ נסאכא 96b [O366]), DJBA 752, and [HPS 91:9]), DJBA 758. From the plene spellings and Syriac cognate it seems likely that the latter entry is to be vocalized /n¢saka/. Messiah’ (San 96b [‘Amr]). The Yemenite manuscript J reads‘ ַבּר נ ִ ֵפלי .בר נפאלי clapping’ (San 25b [BAYTN 90]). The Yemenite MS J reads‘ נַ ָקש$א San 25b), which matches the forms in Mandaic and Syriac. The) נקאשא combined evidence points to the vocalization /n¢qasa/. See DJBA, p. 777. -anvil, base’ (Qid 27b [BAYTN 90]). The Yemenite Midrash ha‘ ַסדנ ָא -which matches forms in Mandaic and Syriac. The com ,סדאנא Gadol reads bined evidence points to the vocalization /saddana/. See DJBA, p. 788. cloak, overall’ (BM 91a [BAYTN 221]). The plene spelling‘ ַס ְרבּ ָלא San 44a) סרבאלא Men 41a [Hark 190:4]) and in Yemenite MS J) סורבאלא [J]) imply that the beth was vocalized with a long /a/, in spite of the vocali- .BM 81a [HGP 29a:35])56) ס ֲרבֿלא zation :legal decision’ (BB 130b [BAYTN 124]). Alternative reading‘ ִפּסָקא Eruv 30b [BAYTN 44]). The reading /p¢saqa/ is supported by plene‘) ְפּ ַסָקא מאי :spellings in the EEMSS, and by explicit vocalization in SBHG 157:14 .See DJBA 922 . ְפ ַסַקה איש קטעהא ותחרירהא its plain meaning’ (‘Erub 23b [BAYTN 125]). The original noun‘ ִפּ ֵש$טיהּ pattern was /q¢tala/ as demonstrated by the plene spellings in the early manuscripts and by the forms in Mandaic and Syriac. This is also the form .([San 20a, 100b [J) כפשאטיה .in the Yemenite MSS, e.g -parasitic worms’ (Îul 67b [BAYTN 267]). The manuscript evi‘ קוּקי ַאנ יֵ dence and Akkadian etymology support the reading /quqane/. See DJBA 1001.

-may be ex סורבלא found in some textual witnesses and סרבלא The interchange of .56 plained by the sporadic partial assimilation of the /a/ vowel to the resh. Compare MORGENSTERN, Geonic Responsa, p.77.

1888-08_REJ09/1-2_02 68 09-15-2009, 14:42 NOTES ON THE NOUN PATTERNS IN THE YEMENITE TRADITION 69 edible water-plant’ (‘Erub 22a [BAYTN 156]). Marginal reading‘ ֵקוּרמי .ibid [BAYTN 128]). Compare, however, R) ִֵקירמי :based upon ‘Arukh אנשי הכפרים קוראין אותו קוראמי :ָקָרמית Hai’s statement regarding the plant the people of the villages call it‘ כי דאמרינן בעירובין הא קוראמי באגמי as we say in ‘Eruvin, “But what of the qurame plants in the ,קוראמי ,See DJBA .57ְ|ק רמית marshes?”' (Hark 179:9-10), explaining Hebrew p. 1003. :artemisia’ (Suk 12b margin [BAYTN 161]). Alternative readings‘ ַשוּצאֵרי in Yemenite MSS שואצרי ibid). The plene spelling) ְש$ו ַ ְוצֵרי ,(ibid) ַש$ ְווצֵרי Oxford and comparative material from Syriac and Arabic implies the pronunciation /s¢wasra/; see DJBA, p. 1123. body’ (BQ 31b [BAYTN 131]). The Syriac and Mandaic forms‘ ִש$ ָלדּא and the apparent Akkadian etymology imply that the vocalization should be /s¢ladda/. See DJBA 1146. -bereavement by loss of children’ (Shab 151b [BAYTN 133]). Al‘ ִתּ ָכלא -bereavements’ (Ket 62a [BAYTN 133]). The evi‘ ַתּ ֵכלי :ternative readings dence of the plene spellings, and of the vocalization of Mandaic, Syriac, The . ְתּ ָכ ָלא and Targum Jonathan, all imply that the noun pattern should be is found in a European manuscript of Shab 151b (Vatican תיכלא spelling 108). See Sokoloff, DJBA, p. 1207. border’ (BM 108b [BAYTN 324]). The Akkadian etymology and‘ ְמ ַצָרא BM 108b [HPS 142:3]) indicate that the mem is) מיצרא .plene spellings, e.g vocalized with a high vowel, /i/ or /e/. Compare DJBA p. 672. dates’ (Ber 12a [BAYTN 171]). The vocalization of this form is‘ ְתּ ָמֵרי BQ 59a) תְ מֿרי :Pes 8a [HPS 7:16]), and in HGP) ְת מרי :attested in HPS [HGP 16a:21]). The vocalization of these manuscripts conforms with the -with partial as) תומריא findings in other dialects: Syriac , Mandaic -HGP 33a:20). The Ye) תימרי similation of *am>/um/). Compare also menite vocalisation is a Hebraizing reading.

C. Loss of /ana/ morpheme. presumably /yarqana/. See ,ירקאנא Above I discussed the examples of DBJA, p. 543.

גּ ִילַדניֵ :a small fish’ (BB 73b [BAYTN 247]). Alternative reading‘ גּ ִילְדנ ָא ‘small fishes’ (Ber 44b [BAYTN 251]). The plene spellings in the manu- San 100b [Hark 145:14]) and Yemenite) גילדאנא scripts, including EEMSS

57. The word appears vocalized thus in Hark 179:7 (Harkavy did not reproduce the vocalization). Compare YEIVIN, Babylonian Vocalization, p. 1054.

1888-08_REJ09/1-2_02 69 09-15-2009, 14:42 70 NOTES ON THE NOUN PATTERNS IN THE YEMENITE TRADITION ibid [J]) correlate with Syriac to suggest the reading) גלדאנא /gildana/. See DJBA, p. 280. bearded ones, adult men’ (BM 39a [BAYTN 248]). From the‘ ִדּיקננְ יֵ -BM 39a [H]) it would ap) דקנאני Syriac cognate and plene spelling BM 70a [BAYTN 251]). See) ִדּקנ נַ יֵ pear that the alternative reading is DJBA, p. 336. with hump’ (Shab 110b [BAYTN 263]). The manuscripts read‘ חוּטְרנ ָא .See DJBA, p. 437 and GK v 169:6 .חוטראנא floods’ (Ta‘an 10a [‘Amar]). The Yemenite manuscript reads‘ ְטוּבענ יֵ .Ta‘an 10a [J]). See DJBA, p. 496) טובעאני droughts’ (Ta‘an 10a [‘Amar]). As in the previous entry, so here‘ ְיוּבש$נ יֵ Ta‘an 10a) יובשאני :we find the plene spelling in the Yemenite manuscript [J]). See DJBA, p. 496. סודאני :villagers’ (?) (Ber 44b [‘Amar]). The EEMSS reading is‘ סוּדנ יֵ (Nid 12b [Hark 214:4]). Compare DJBA, pp. 791-2.

It is possible that some of the interchanges between the noun patterns qitla and q¢tala may be explained as examples of a more general interchange between these patterns in Aramaic. Above I mentioned Levias’s An additional example may be .זמאנא and זימנא note on the interchange of bung)-hole’ (Yeb)‘ ִבּרז ָא adduced. The Yemenite reading tradition vocalizes 75b [BAYTN 110]). This would seem to contradict the plene spelling e.g. ‘AZ 59b [HGP 56b:27]). However, in a vocalized fragment of) בראזא R. Sa‘adia Gaon’s poets’ manual, the Egron, we find the vocalized form ,However, it is unlikely that all of the examples fall into this category . ַבּרז ָא -evidence exists support ,זמאנא/זימנא and while for some examples, such as ing both noun patterns, in most of the above mentioned cases, the inner-textual and comparative evidence overwhelmingly points towards the forms with the long /a/ vowel.

D. Gemination ,כס"ן coral’ (BB 81a [BAYTN 27]). Since the root of this word is‘ ְכּ ִס ָיתא as indicated by both Syriac and neo-Aramaic, we may assume that this spelling represents /k¢sitta/ < *k¢sinta, as suggested in DJBA 592 and as . ְכּ ִס ָיתּא :vocalized in MS Antonin 873 goose’ (p. 74). The comparative material suggest the reading‘ ַאווז ָא . ֲאו ַוזּ ָא ,adopted by DJBA 86 People’ (Ber 2b [BAYTN 252]). The gemination of the nun is not‘ ִאינָּ ֵש$י supported by the comparative material.

1888-08_REJ09/1-2_02 70 09-15-2009, 14:42 NOTES ON THE NOUN PATTERNS IN THE YEMENITE TRADITION 71 open areas’ (BB 40b). The gemination indicates that the‘ ַ(בּ ַּרי ְ ָיתּא), ַבּ ְּרי ַ ָיתא -How .בר"ר Yemenite tradition regards this as a noun derived from the root ever, since, as Kaufman demonstrated, this is a loanword from Akkadian biritu ‘alley’, derived from the root barû, we would not expect the gemination of the resh58. Furthermore, the plene spelling found in a Jewish Ara- AMB 6:9) indicates that it cannot be /a/, as the) ביריאתה ,maic magic bowl numerous plene spellings indicate. See DJBA 206. wheel, sphere’ (Ber 59a [BAYTN 215])59. There is considerable‘ גַּלגּ ְ ָלא evidence to suggest that this noun was pronounced /gilgilla/ in JBA. Re- -with dis) גירגלא garding the first vowel, Sokoloff has listed the example -the eye‘ גילגלוהי דעינה similation of the lamed), to which we may now add ball’ (Bowl M156:5-6). The second vowel may well have been /i/, as BB 74a [M]). The vowel may have been) גלגילא indicated by the spelling preserved through the gemination of the lamed, attested in Biblical Aramaic .(its wheels’ (Dan 7:9‘ גַּ ְלגּ ִלּוֹ ִהי -ungeminated beth; BM 103b [BAYTN 55]), with alternative read) ז ְ ִבּ ָילא Ber 8a [BAYTN 137], BM) ז ִ ָיבוּלא ([Ta‘an 21b [BAYTN 55) ז ְ ִב ָילא ings ;Ta‘an 21b [Menorat ha-Ma'or 12b) ז ִ ָבלא ,([103b margin [BAYTN 55 BAYTN 113]). The Akkadian etymology and form of the noun in Syriac suggest that the pronunciation should be /zabbila/. The gemination is reflected in neo-Aramaic zambila in the dissimilating mem60. See DJBA, p. 397. apple’ (Ket 60b [BAYTN 67]). The Syriac and neo-Aramaic‘ ְח ָבוּש$א forms indicate that the beth was geminated. Vocalize: /Ìabbusa/.

E. Other interchanges other (f.s.)' (Shab‘ ֻא ִחִריתי ;([other (m.s.)’ (Ber 59a [BAYTN 269‘ ֻאחִרינ ָא 10b [BAYTN 317]). These reading is unlikely, since in the EEMSS we Furthermore, the EEMSS .אוחריתי ,אוחרינא never find the plene spellings .(HPS 54:19) ְא חרית$י HPS 43:19) and) ְא חרֲינא contain the vocalized forms The spellings with a waw are found exclusively in Yemenite manuscripts ,אוחרינא E1, E3, O51, Col), though not in MS J61. It appears that the forms) areƒ conflates of the Babylonian dialectal formsƒ with the literary אוחריתי ,Leb 18:9 [Dodi) אוחר$י Leb 18:9 [Dodi, Grammar, 558]) and) א ֲוחרן forms

58. KAUFMAN, Akkadian Influences, p. 44. Tam 32b, marginal reading), presented by) גּ ִילגּ ְ ָלא (Tam 32b) גּוּלגּ ֻ ָלתּא The forms .59 BAYTN as alternatives, probably reflect a different noun, meaning ‘skull’. 60. The gemination is also reflected in some sources in Arabic. Alongside the form qO Ó“ mentioned in DJBA 397, we find the form qO=Ó“. See LANE, Lexicon, 1212c. 61. Based upon a search of the Lieberman Institute database.

1888-08_REJ09/1-2_02 71 09-15-2009, 14:43 72 NOTES ON THE NOUN PATTERNS IN THE YEMENITE TRADITION

Grammar, 564]). The literary forms are occasionally found in the writings .other’ (Assaf 28 I 4a 14)62‘ אוחרנא .of the Geonim, e.g expenses’ (BB 6b [BAYTN 210]), against printed spelling‘ ְאזֵינָקא -in the manuscripts and the Persian ety אוזינקא The plene spelling .אוזינקא mology point to a pronunciation /’uzenqa/. Compare DJBA, p. 87. limb, arm, organ’ (Yom 25b [BAYTN 139]). It is hard to justify‘ ֵא ַיבָרא the /a/ vowel following the beth, given that the comparative Semitic and internal Aramaic evidence would appear to indicate that this is historically his organ’ (BM‘ ִאיבֵריה :a qi†l noun. Compare vocalized form in EEMSS 84a [G1]). Compare DJBA, p. 109. .איסקריא sailyard’ (Ket 69b [BAYTN 301]), against printed text‘ ַאסַקרי ָא The consistent spelling in the manuscripts and apparent Greek etymology imply that the first vowel should be /i/ or /e/. איצטלא garment’ (BM 17a margin, against printed orthography‘ ַא ְצט ָלא Yev) אוצטלא BAYTN 214]). The EEMSS form of this word is regularly] Yev 66b [Assaf 28 iv) אוסטלא 66b [HPS 159:5]; BM 17a [HGP 21a:23], or 3b 29]). Roman coin’ (Gi† 14b [BAYTN 238]). Alternative reading‘ ַא ֵסתּיֵרי idem’ (BM 85b [BAYTN 273]). The plene spellings in the EEMSS‘ ִא ֵסתּיָרא ;[BB 166b [HPS 100:4) איסתירי .supports the latter pronunciation, e.g Hark 37:28). See DJBA 123. dream’ (Ber 55a [BAYTN 82], against printed orthography‘ ַח ָלמא -is extremely common in all Babylonian Ara חילמא The spelling .(חילמא in a dream’ (BM 84b‘ בחילמא .maic sources, including the EEMSS e.g for a dream’ (San 93a [J]). See‘ לחילמא G1]) and the Yemenite MS J] DJBA, p. 445. round object’ (BB 67b [BAYTN 199]). The Syriac cognate and‘ ָחוּמְרתא early vocalized text of Halakhot Pesuqot suggest that the vocalization should be /hummarta/. See DJBA, p. 440. digraph is employed -טצ four’ (Gi† 86a [BAYTN 331]). Since the‘ ִט ָצהר to represent the affricative phoneme /c/ of the Persian etymon cahar ‘four’, it is not likely that a vowel appeared between the two consonants. RH) יוֹ ֵב ָלא :Jubilee’ (RH 26a [BAYTN 151]). Alternative reading‘ ָיוּבלא 26a margin [BAYTN 166]). The manuscript evidence, including the form .See DJBA 528 .יוֹ ֵב ָלא San 97b [J]) points to the pronunciation) יובילא on accountƒ of’ (Ber 7b [BAYTN 338]). However, in HPS this is‘ ְמש$וֹם .(HPS 214:20, 21; 225:19, 20) מ$שום always vocalized

62. The entry in DJBA, pp. 105-6, does not distinguish between these two historical forms. Compare further BREUER, ‘Karetot’, §2.3.2.1.

1888-08_REJ09/1-2_02 72 09-15-2009, 14:43 NOTES ON THE NOUN PATTERNS IN THE YEMENITE TRADITION 73 reflects the כס silk’ (Shab 20b [BAYTN 218]). Since the digraph‘ ַמ ְטכ ָסא Greek z of the etymon metaza it is unlikely that the vowel would separate the two consonants. The Syriac form is closer to the original Greek form, and it is possible that the JBA form was similar. -immovable property’ (Ket 91a [BAYTN 316]). There are sev‘ ִמ ַקּ ֵרְקעי eral grounds for assuming that this noun formed on the basis of the pa‘‘il participle rather than that of the itpa‘‘al: (1) we never find the spelling .even though a yod would be expected were this an itpa‘‘al form63 ,מיקרקעי .(HPS 96:12; 97:12; 240:7,12) בימקרקעי In HPS we find the spelling (2) Since HPS does not employ a yod to mark a shewa, we must assume that is vocalized with an /i/ vowel. This would only occur -ב the prepositional through the rule of shewa if the mem were vocalizedֵ with a shewa. (3) The ;HPS 240:17 ְ|במקרקֿעי absence of the /i/ vowel in the vocalized forms Ket 51a [HGP 41b:22]). Occasionally, not all the vowels of) ממקרקעי pointed forms are written, so this is not decisive; however, the absence of the /i/ vowel accords with the other evidence. Compare DJBA, p. 70364. hide, leather’ (Yom 84a [BAYTN 89]). While it is possible that‘ ַמ ָש$כּא this reading is historically justifiable, the existence of spellings such as Hark 86:12) point to an alternative reading, and one that matches) מישכי Mandaic and Syriac. It is possible that both /qatla/ and /qitla/ forms existed for this lexeme. See DJBA, 714-5. :drawers of boats’ (BM 107b [BAYTN 104]). Alternative reading‘ נָגֵדי drawers of boats’ (So† 48a‘ ניגדי So† 48a]). However, the EEMSS read) נ גַּ ֵָדי [Hark 28:3]; San 106a [Hark 145:11]). Compare Syriac . See DJBA, p. 747. grain’ (Ta‘an 23b [BAYTN 69]), against printed orthography‘ ְעבוָּרא The printed form is supported magic texts (M149:6)65 and by the .עיבורא vocalized manuscripts of Targum Onkelos. act, deed’ (Shab 49b [BAYTN 173]). The early manuscripts all‘ ְע ִב ָיְדתא ;([BM 83b [G1) עיבידיתיה :.show an /i/ vowel in the first radical, e.g Git 52a [HPS 81:4]) and many others. See DJBA, p. 851. Such) עיבידתה forms are also found vocalized with an /i/ vowel in the early Babylonian fragments of Targum Onkelos66.

63. I have checked all the manuscripts in the Lieberman Institute database. For the spelling of the ’tpe’il forms, compare MORGENSTERN, Geonic Responsa, pp. 35–36. 64. The lemma should be vocalized accordingly. 65. See MORGENSTERN, ‘Mousaieff Collection’, p. 362, for this corrected reading. e.g. TO , ְע ִב ָיְדתא DODI, Grammar, p. 535. By contrast, the Yemenite manuscripts read .66 Ex 36:6. The Yemenite reading of the Talmud thus matches the Yemenite reading of Targum Onkelos.

1888-08_REJ09/1-2_02 73 09-15-2009, 14:43 74 NOTES ON THE NOUN PATTERNS IN THE YEMENITE TRADITION

Ket) ִע ֵקּוּלי :coves’ (BB 24a [BAYTN 209]). Alternative reading‘ ְע ֵַקולי 97a [BAYTN ibid]). It is very unlikely that the pattern q¢†awle exists in JBA, and most of the examples would be better vocalized as nomen agentis forms. See below, §4. It would appear to be an analogy to the infinitive pattern qa††awle. scorpion’ (Îag 5a [BAYTN 221]). The Yemenite manuscript‘ ַע ָקְרבא scorpions’ (San 67). The form found in‘ עקירבי MS J contains the reading attested עקירבא the Yemenite manuscript is now supported by the spelling in an unpublished Aramaic magic bowl (see plate 1)67.

ten’ (San 21a [BAYTN 328]). The plene spellings in the EEMSS‘ ַעשִֹרין HPS 67:18) indicate that the pronunciation) ע$יסר$ין and vocalized example was /‘isrin/ פילפלא peppercorn’ (Ket 75a, against printed orthography‘ ַפ ְלפ ָלא [BAYTN 221]). The evidence would appear to point towards a singular .with alternative forms containing a resh ,פילפלי and plural פלפילתא form peppercorn’ (Meg 7a‘ פרפילתא :Consider the following attested examples ,([peppercorns’ (Gi† 69b [GK v 3:11] BB 126b [HPS 86:9‘ פירפלי ,([Col] .idem’ (HPS 293:4, 306:11). See DJBA, p. 901 and p. 905-6‘ פילפלי public matter (Îag 5a [BAYTN 302]). The frequent spellings‘ ַפ ַרהסי ָא San 74a [HGP 55a:17]; HGP) פרהיסיא .with the yod in EEMSS e.g 37b:18; Hark 35:6, 18) suggest that the etymological /e/ vowel was pre- served68. This spelling is also found in the Yemenite manuscripts (MQ 17a [Col]). Compare DJBA, p. 929. scaled fish’ (Shab 119a [BAYTN 138]). Given that the bet of‘ ִׁ ָיבוּטא this word is geminated in Syriac and Arabic cognates, it is probably to be regarded as geminated in JBA. See DJBA, 1131. dead person’ (BB 91a [BAYTN 131]). Sokoloff, distinguishes‘ ִׁ ָיכבא ,lying down‘ שיכבא dead person’ (DJBA p. 1142) and‘ ָׁ ְכ ָבא between

67. I am preparing this text for publication. Contra DJBA, p. 878, we must assume that This vocalization .עקרבא this form was derived from /‘aqr¢ba/ rather than from Targumic would match the Mandaic form arqba (see DROWER-MACUCH, MD, p. 39). 68. Compare also LERNER, ‘She’iltot’, p. 164.

1888-08_REJ09/1-2_02 74 09-15-2009, 14:43 NOTES ON THE NOUN PATTERNS IN THE YEMENITE TRADITION 75

death’ (DJBA 1135), and it seems that the textual evidence supports this distinction69. This cannot be regarded as an instance of *qa†la> /qitla/, since the /a/ vowel in this case is long, i.e. /sakba/. apprentice’ (Mak 8a [BAYTN 158a]). The Yemenite manuscript‘ ש$וּלי ָא -Pes 108a [E1]) accords with the Mandaic form and Akka) שווליא spelling dian etymology, and would seem to indicate a pronunciation such as /s¢walya/ or /s¢wall¢ya/. Compare DJBA 1116. licorice wood’ (Suk 12b [BAYTN 97]). DJBA records only this‘ ַש$ ֵוש$י in a Geniza fragment of Halakhot ֵש$וּש$י reading from YT, noting the reading as an alternative reading. In ֵש$וּש$י Gedolot70. However, BAYTN 97 records light of its Syriac and Akkadian parallels, the reading with the /u/ vowel is more likely. ,statue, image’ (Ket 33b [BAYTN 94]). Compare, however‘ ַצ ָלמא Pes) מיצילמא its image’ (BQ 98b [G1]), and Yemenite MS‘ צילמיה EEMSS the image’ (MSF 18:1; ZHS‘ צילמה ,55b [E1]), and from the magic corpus It is possible that both .צילמא Compare further Mandaic .(7:1 ,6:1 ,5:2 noun patterns existed in JBA.

4. Nisbe and nomen agentis forms

In JBA, several patterns serve to mark the nomen agentis71. It would seem that the pattern qa††ala is somewhat rare, and not especially productive; most of the examples seem to belong to the common Aramaic stock (sometimes based on Akkadian etymologies) rather than being specifically judge’ (BB‘ דיאנא ,([thief’ (San 39a [J‘ גנאבא ,JBA forms. See, for example town watchmen’ (BM 93b [H]), etc. Within‘ חזאני מתא ,([174a [HPS 73:20 JBA, it would seem that two primary methods existed for creating the nomen agentis form. One was to employ the qa†ola pattern, also an inher- attacker’ (BB 45a‘ ֲאנו ¬ֲסא .ited form from the common Aramaic stock, e.g [HGP 2b:25]; HPS 310:18). The other method was to employ the nisbe -seller of bitumen’ (BM 63b [M165]), which by the pho‘ קיראה .ending, e.g netic process *aya>*a’a(>*aa?)> /a/ are often identical with the noun tavern keeper’ (Pes 110b [E1])72. In‘ חנוא marker in the singular, hence

However, this is a citation from .שכבא to שיכבא On p. 686, Sokoloff emends the form .69 .שכבא an inferior manuscript; MS Hamburg, the best available textual witness, reads 70. MORAG, Vocalised Manuscripts, p. 13, no. 41. 71. The number of noun patterns employed is much wider than indicated in MÜLLER- KESSLER, ‘Targum Onkelos’, p. 189. ַָקמא This process is of course common in the nisbe endings of the ordinals, such as .72 ,(qadmaˆa/ (HPS 203:17/ ַָקדמ ָאה qamma/ ‘the first’ (HPS 230:20) derived from historical/ which itself derives from *qa∂maya.

1888-08_REJ09/1-2_02 75 09-15-2009, 14:43 76 NOTES ON THE NOUN PATTERNS IN THE YEMENITE TRADITION

theory this would mean that such nisbe forms would only be recognizable by their plural /aye/ (on this form, see below). In practice, few singular examples of the nomen agentis with the nisbe ending alone are found in the Talmudic and post-talmudic Babylonian literature. However, it is perhaps because of this loss of the nisbe ending that a blend of the two noun patterns emerges in JBA: nouns formed on the basis of the qa†ola bearing the nisbe ending. The existence of such a blend is evi- Savoraim’ (Hark‘ סאבוראיי dent from forms in plene spelling such as נ ַ ַקוּטאי יֵ AZ 60a [HGP 56b:30]), and the vocalized form‘) שאקולאיי ,(101:19 ‘collectors’ (BM 83b [G1]). These spellings prove that the vowel of the first syllable must be /a/. Some lexemes still exhibit ƒ theֵ plural endings of both ([San 6a [HGP 36a:17) אמור$י .the regular nouns and of the nisbe forms, e.g -Meg 15b [Col]). In this case it is striking that the best manu) אמוראי and while the later sources ,אמורי script sources (HGP, Hark, Assaf 28 i73) read -Sanhedrin MS J contains one example of the plu .אמוראי generally reading San 17b bis). It is possible that the) אמורי San 6a) and two of) אמוריי ral have been formed in analogy to the plural forms אמוראי and אמוריי forms טיפשי :’foolish‘ טפשאה Similarly we find two plural forms of .תנאי and תנאיי טיפשאיי Pes 34b [E1]; Yom 57a [E1]; San 46b [J]; Mak 22b [J]), but also) (Zeb 60b [Col]). Incidentally, we may note that the early manuscripts are consistent in ,indeed ;–אי rather than –איי spelling the plural morpheme of the nisbe form this may be regarded as one of the characteristics of the EEMSS. See for -interme‘ מציעאיי ;(black people’ (HPS 65:4; HGP 36a:39‘ זנגאיי :example ;([latter ones’ (BB 85a [G1‘ בתראיי ;([diate ones’ (BQ 112b [HPS 123:18 נהרבילאיי ,(!people of Harpanya’ (BM 84a [G1]; note vocalization‘ הרפנאי יֵ of the side’ (Sheb‘ סיטראיי,([people of Nehar-Bel’ (BM 104b [HPS 158:8‘ leather workers’ (BM 24b‘ גילדאיי ,([42a [HPS 200:3; Harkֵ 114:3574 BB 55a) פרסאיי ,([Sheb 42a [HGP 12b:5) ֲסיטראיי HGP 22a:5]). See]) [HGP 3a:32]). forms, there is some disagreement קטולאיי/קטולי/קטולא Regarding the between the manuscripts regarding the vocalization of the waw. From the examples I have cited, it is emerges that there is a difference between the attacker’ (BB 45a [HGP 2b:25]; HPS 310:18), and plurals‘ ֲאנו ¬ֲסא ְ singularƒ -collectors’ֵ (BM 83b [G1]). How‘ נ ַ ַקוּטאי יֵ San 6a [HGP 36a:17]) and) אמור$י ,([BM 83a [HGP 29b:22) שקו ¬ֲלאיי ever, HGP also contains the vocalization

73. The lexeme does not occur in HPS. Ket 85a [Hark 114:23]). In my opinion, such) סיטראי In the same responsum we find .74 forms may be regarded among the sporadic late influences in Harkavy’s collection. See my Studies in Babylonian Aramaic, Chapter 1.

1888-08_REJ09/1-2_02 76 09-15-2009, 14:43 NOTES ON THE NOUN PATTERNS IN THE YEMENITE TRADITION 77

and so we cannot simply state that the o and u vowels are two allophones which are dependent somehow on the singular/plural difference. In this case, it would appear that the vocalization of HGP is inconsistent. Perhaps further manuscript findings will clarify this issue. In light of these comments, the following Yemenite readings are probably historically inaccurate. I have added additional comments when the evidence of the early manuscripts or cognate dialects enlightens our un- derstanding of the forms in question.

-diver’ (RH 23a margin [BAYTN 322], against printed orthog‘ ַבּר ְאמוֹ ֵָדאי .Compare Syriac , and DJBA, p. 234 .(אמוראי raphy אבולאיי :gatekeepers’ (Nid 67b [BAYTN 322]). In EEMSS‘ ְא ַבוּלאי ‘idem’ (Nid 67b [HPS 215:1]). This is probably a denominative from .city gate’ (e.g. San 96b [J]). See DJBA, p. 74‘ אבולא -Builders at the hands of de‘ ְבּנַוי ֵי ְבּי ַד ְס ַתוֵרי builders’, in expression‘ ְבּנַוי יֵ stroyers?’ (Yom 10a [‘Amr]). -sounders of the depths’ (BM 42a [BAYTN 107]). This is prob‘ גּ ְ ַש$וּש ֵאי .גש"ש ably a compound nomen agentis form derived from the verbal root Compare Syriac , and DJBA 306. This is but one of three of nomen agentis forms appearing in parallel formulae in BM 42a. The others ;knockers [on wall]’ (BM 42a [BAYTN 324]), see DJBA 512‘ ְט ַפוּח ֵאי are burglars’ (BM 42a), compare Syriac and see DJBA‘ ְפּ ַרוּמ ֵאי and 929. These are also best regarded as compound qa†ola forms. .(דיורי tenants, guests’ (San 109 margin, against printed edition‘ ְדּ ֵיוַּראי דיוראי idem’ (San 109 [J]) and‘ דיורי Compare Yemenite manuscript forms ‘idem’ (Ta‘an 21a [J]). In light of the Syriac form this should be regarded as a compound qa†ola form. As noted above, the plural of these nouns may be /–e/ or /–aye/. See DJBA, p. 328. .([palm-branch basket makers/sellers’ (BB 22a [BAYTN 323‘ ִדּ ַיקוּל ֵאי .(דיקולאי ibid margin, against printed text) ְדּ ַקוּל ִאי :Alternative reading Since this lexeme does not survive in the EEMSS, it is difficult to establish which of the two noun patterns is more original. The reading following the orthography of the printed text would be denominative, built upon the noun reed basket’ (see DJBA, pp. 334-5) with the nisbe ending. This‘ דיקולא leather workers’ cited‘ גילדאיי would be in keeping with examples such as above. The alternative reading is closer to the forms of the qa†ola-based nomina agentis found in the Yemenite reading tradition, but since there is in this dialect, it is unlikely that דק"ל no related verbal use of the root .is to be regarded as a compound qa†ola form 75דקולאי 75. This spelling is attested in MS Hamburg, which often employs defective spellings for short /i/ vowels in closed syllables.

1888-08_REJ09/1-2_02 77 09-15-2009, 14:43 78 NOTES ON THE NOUN PATTERNS IN THE YEMENITE TRADITION sprinkler of water’ (Îul 60a [BAYTN 323]). This is probably a‘ ז ְ ַלוּח ֵאי ,Compare DJBA .זל"ח compound qa†ola form based on the verbal root p. 414. expert on animal defects’ (Îul 48b). The qa†ola based form is‘ ְט ַרוּפ ֵאי somewhat surprising, since it is generally employed as an active form of the ,’טריפות verbal stem, whereas here it is used in the meaning of ‘expert in Unfortunately, the .76טריפאיי and we might have expected to find the form word does not appear to be attested in the best manuscripts. .([sweepers’ (Îul 60a [BAYTN 324‘ ְכּ ַנוּש$ ֵאי collectors’ (BM 83b [BAYTN 325]). Compare the EEMSS form‘ נ ְ ַקוּט ֵאי .collectors’ (BM 83b [G1]) cited above, and DJBA, p. 588‘ נ ַ ַקוּטאי יֵ the porter’ (BM 93b) [BAYTN 325]. Ms H and HGP 29b:29‘ ְס ָבוּל ָאה .perhaps a gentilic form. Compare DJBA, p. 809 ,סכולא read ספנאיי sailors’ (BM 84b [BAYTN 167]). MS G1 of BM reads‘ ַספוּנַ ֵאי (BM 84b [G1]), which may allude to the reading /sappanaye/. This reading is further supported by the orthography of the Yemenite Sefer Ha- BM 84b [SM 64:27]), and would be a cognate of Syriac) ספאני :Ma‘asiyot . Compare DJBA, p. 824. fugitives’(Îul 46a). This is probably a compound qa†ola form‘ ְע ֵרוַּקאי -fugi‘ ערוקא to flee’. Compare the lexeme‘ ער"ק based on the verbal root tive’ (Hark 111:34), and DJBA, p. 881. This particular nominal form is employed almost as a participle, at least according to a reading preserved in We“‘ ערוקינן ערוקו ערקו :the geonic responsa and in the printed editions shall flee.” “Flee!” They fled' (BB 8a bis [Hark 265:10, 11])77. .’insects’ (Gi† 8b [BAYTN 209]). Compare Syriac ‘bird‘ ְפּ ֵַרוחי See DJBA p. 929. , gravediggers’ (San 26b [BAYTN 326]). Compare Syriac‘ ְֵקבוַּראי and DJBA p. 978. -diggers’ (Shab 152b [BAYTN 326]). This is probably a com‘ ְָקפוּל ֵאי .’to uncover, remove‘ קפ"ל pound qatola form based on the verbal root Compare DJBA, p. 103278. .’[AZ 93a) ‘pourers [of wine‘) ְש$ ַפוּכ ֵאי AZ 60a‘) שאקולאיי porters’ (BM 83a [BAYTN 326]). Compare‘ ְש$ ַקוּל ֵאי [HGP 56b:30]), cited above.

.([is attested once (Îul 48b [H 169 טריפאי The spelling .76 77. This is essentially a predicative construction of predicate and subject: ‘fugitives we are’ i.e. we are fugitives. Such constructions employing enclitic subjects are not common, but are sporadically attested in JBA and in Mandaic. Compare Nöldeke, MG, §75. 78. In JBA, the qal of the root, from which nomina agentis of the qa†ola pattern are derived is not attested. However, it is found in Mandaic (Drower-Macuch, MD, p. 415) and in Classical Syriac (Brockelmann, LS, p. 683).

1888-08_REJ09/1-2_02 78 09-15-2009, 14:43 NOTES ON THE NOUN PATTERNS IN THE YEMENITE TRADITION 79

דרב משרשיה It is possible another example underlies the personal name ’surveyor‘ ָמש$וֹ ָח ָאה Ket 100b [HPS 191:11]). Exceptions are) בר חקולאיי (Erub 56b [BAYTN 325]), which apparently preserves the original qa†ola ַתּ ָנּוָּראה moneychanger’ (Îul 54b [BAYTN 325]) and‘ ָפּ ָתוָּראה form, and תנורא oven maker’79 (MQ 11a, marginal reading against printed text‘ [BAYTN 325]) are denominatives, and not built upon a qa†ola base.

Conclusions of Nisbe and nomen agentis forms JBA would appear to have had a productive nomen agentis pattern, qa†ola alongside a denominative nisbe form which often served also as a nomen agentis form, predominantly with the meaning of ‘dealers in’ or ‘makers of’. The semantic similarity of the two noun patterns, along with the partial loss of morphological distinction in the singulars (caused by the shift in the spoken language of word-final *a’a > /a/) led to interference between the two noun patterns. Nomina agentis built on the historical pattern qa†ola frequently take the nisbe ending, which is particularly clear in the plural morpheme /–aye/. The sporadic evidence of plene spellings and occasional vocalized forms in early manuscripts indicates that these hybrid plural forms were pronounced /qa†olaye/ or /qa†alaye/. In the Yemenite realized as) ְַקטוּל ֵאי reading tradition, they are generally pronounced ga†ula’e).

5. Arabic Influences

-affection’ (Shab 88b [BAYTN 287]). The second bet is pro‘ ַח ִבּ ָיבּוּתא nounced with a plosive, presumably through the influence of Arabic. lamp’ (Shab 45a [BAYTN 46]). Kara, Yemenite Manuscripts, p. 82‘ שְַֹרגּ ָא already noted that this reading reflects the influences of Arabic Ã«d.

6. Conclusions

The lack of primary textual witnesses for many lexemes in JBA literature hinders the description of the noun patterns in this dialect. Nevertheless, through the judicious use of the best manuscript sources and its integration with the evidence of cognate forms in related dialects and etymological data, we are often able to propose with a high degree of certainty a recon- helmet, corselet’, and‘ #2תנורא derives this from ,תנוראה .Sokoloff, DJBA, p. 1217 s.v .79 translates ‘corselet maker’. 80. I deal with this in detail in Chapter Two of my forthcoming book.

1888-08_REJ09/1-2_02 79 09-15-2009, 14:44 80 NOTES ON THE NOUN PATTERNS IN THE YEMENITE TRADITION

struction of the noun pattern of many individual lexical items. This has generally been done to good effect in Sokoloff’s DJBA, and in the majority of cases listed above, the lemma in the dictionary matches that which I have proposed. In my opinion, these certain or near-certain examples can serve as test cases to determine the reliability of the Yemenite reading tradition of the Talmud as a source for reconstructing the noun patterns of our dialect. In light of the examples cited above — which are, as I have noted, the ones in which the evidence of the early manuscripts most clearly challenges the validity of the Yemenite reading — I would propose that the contemporary Yemenite reading tradition has lost a considerable amount of linguistic information regarding the noun patterns current in JBA. The reading tradition appears to be at its most reliable when the lexemes are also attested in those parts of the Targum familiar from the liturgy (primarily all of Onkelos and Targum Jonathan to the haftarot). However, even in these cases, the differ- ences between the orthography and phonology of the Targums and the printed editions of the Talmud have occasionally lead the readers astray, as -summer’. Furthermore, the phonol‘ ְקי ֵ ָיטא we saw in the case of the reading ogy is often that of the Yemenite recension of the Targum, rather than of .’act, deed‘ ְע ִב ָיְדתא the old Babylonian versions, as in the reading The loss of linguistic information is especially prominent in two catego- ries: the loss of medial /a/ vowels and the correct pronunciation of loan- words. What is striking, though, is that many are accurately preserved in the Yemenite manuscripts. This implies that, as I have suggested elsewhere regarding phonology and verbal morphology80, so in the pronunciation of the noun patterns the influence of the printed editions of the Talmud has been critical. This influence occurs on two levels. On the simplest level, erroneous textual readings have been generally accepted by the Yemenite scholars and incorporated into their reading tradition to the best of their abilities. Even the learned emendations of R. ‘Amr on the basis of the ‘Arukh and other mediaeval sources, which often serve as ‘alternative readings’ in BAYTN, have only partially rectified the many textual errors found in the printed editions of the Talmud. However, on the second level, changes in orthography, most notably the considerable reduction in the use of ’alef as a medial vowel marker in the European tradition of Babylonian Aramaic to which printed editions belong, have led to a major loss of linguistic knowledge amongst the Yemenite readings of the Talmud, at least according to the state of that

1888-08_REJ09/1-2_02 80 09-15-2009, 14:44 NOTES ON THE NOUN PATTERNS IN THE YEMENITE TRADITION 81

knowledge as recorded in BAYTN. Whereas the Yemenite manuscripts often (though not always) contain plene spellings that accord with the lexemes’ patterns in Mandaic and Syriac, or with their etymologies from Persian, Akkadian or Greek, even this information has been lost in the present reading tradition, so that the modern tradition does not even agree with earlier Yemenite sources. The corollary of this conclusion is that the Yemenite reading tradition should not be included alongside other linguistic data relating to the nature of JBA, and that it would have been better omitted from the scientific dictionary of the dialect. It should be noted that even the ‘accurate’ readings included in the dictionary are somewhat misleading, since they have selected eclectically from the many readings available, with preference given to the reading that best matches the findings in the better manuscripts. This gives the reading tradition the appearance of an accuracy that it in fact lacks: alongside the many accurate readings we often find several inaccurate readings of the very same lexeme. Moreover, the Yemenite reading is sometimes omitted entirely if the only available reading is far removed from the reliable form of the lexeme found in the manuscripts. The noun patterns in JBA can only be established by reference to the most accurate textual witnesses. To this end, it will be necessary to study closely the large corpus of early Geniza fragments of Babylonian Rabbinic literature and to compare these findings with the related linguistic material to determine precisely the nature of the noun patterns in JBA.

Bibliography

Abbreviations

BAYTN – S. MORAG and Y. KARA, Babylonian Aramaic in Yemenite Tradition: The Noun (Jerusalem, 2002). DJBA – M. SOKOLOFF, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods (Ramat Gan, Baltimore and London, 2002). Hark – A. HARKAVY, Studien und Mittheilungen aus der Kaiserlichen Oeffent- lichen Bibliothek zu St. Petersburg: Vierter Theil, Responsen der Geonim (zumeist aus dem X–XI. Jahrhundert (Berlin, 1887) – cited by page and line number. HGP – Sefer Halakhot Gedolot, Codex Paris 1402 (Jerusalem, 1971) cited by page and line number of facsimile edition. HPS – Sefer Halakhot Pesuqot by Rav Jehudai Gaon, Codex Sassoon 263 (Jerusa- lem, 1971); cited by page and line number of facsimile edition.

1888-08_REJ09/1-2_02 81 09-15-2009, 14:44 82 NOTES ON THE NOUN PATTERNS IN THE YEMENITE TRADITION

Studies

BREUER, ‘Karetot' – Y. BREUER, ‘The Babylonian Aramaic in Tractate Karetot according to MS Oxford', Aramaic Studies 5 (2007), pp. 1-45. BREUER, ‘Yemenite Tradition’ – Y. BREUER, ‘The Noun in the Aramaic of the Ba- bylonian Talmud according to the Yemenite Tradition’, Leshonenu 65 (2003), pp. 121-141 (Hebrew). BROCKELMANN, LS – C. BROCKELMANN, Lexicon Syriacum (Second edition; Halle, 1928). DODI, Grammar – A. DODI, The Grammar of Targum Onkelos According to Geniza Fragments, PhD Thesis Submitted to the Senate of Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, 1981 (Hebrew). DROWER–MACUCH, MD – E.S. DROWER and R. MACUCH. A Mandaic Dictionary (Oxford, 1963). EPSTEIN, Grammar – J.N. EPSTEIN, A Grammar of Babylonian Aramaic (Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, 1960, Hebrew) FASSBERG, Grammar – S. FASSBERG, A Grammar of the Palestinian Targum Frag- ments from the Cairo Geniza (Atlanta, 1990) FRIEDMAN, ‘Early Manuscripts’ – Sh. FRIEDMAN, ‘Early Manuscripts to tractate Bava Metzia’, Alei Sefer 9 (1981), pp. 5-55. FRIEDMAN, ‘Typology’ – S.Y. FRIEDMAN, ‘The Manuscripts of the Babylonian Tal- mud: a Typology Based upon Orthographic and Linguistic Features’, in M. BAR-ASHER (ed.), Studies in the Hebrew and Jewish Languages Presented to Shelomo Morag (Jerusalem, 1996), pp. 163-190 (Hebrew). GREENFIELD, ‘Three Notes’ – J.C. GREENFIELD, ‘Three Notes on the Aramaic Sefire Inscription, JSS 11 (1966), pp. 98-105. KARA, Yemenite Manuscripts – Y. KARA, Babylonian Aramaic in the Yemenite Manuscripts of the Talmud (Jerusalem, 1983, Hebrew). KAUFMAN, Akkadian Influences – S. KAUFMAN, Akkadian Influences on Aramaic (Chicago and London, 1974). E.W. LANE, Arabic English Lexicon (Facsimile edition, 2003). LERNER, ‘Sheeltot’ – M.B. LERNER, ‘The Geniza Fragments of She’iltot de Rav Ahai in the Münich Library’, in M. A. FRIEDMAN (ed.), A Century of Geniza Research (Te‘uda XV, Tel Aviv University, 1999), pp. 161–188. LEVIAS, Diqduq – A Grammar of Babylonian Aramaic (New York, 1930; He- brew). LEVIAS, Grammar – C. LEVIAS, A Grammar of the Aramaic Idiom Contained in the Babylonian Talmud (Cincinnati, 1900). MALONE, ‘Observations’ – J.L. MALONE, ‘Observations of Linguistic Similarity Be- tween the Babylonian Aramaic of the Halakot Pesuqot and Mandaic’, Leshonenu 37 (1973), p. 161–164 (Hebrew). MORAG, ‘Geniza’ – S. MORAG, ‘Some Notes on the Grammar of Babylonian Ara- maic as Reflected in the Geniza Manuscripts’, Tarbiz 42 (1972-3), pp. 60–78 (Hebrew). MORAG, ‘Phonology’ – S. MORAG, ‘Notes on the Phonology of Babylonian Ara- maic as Reflected by the Vocalization of Halakot Pesuqot’, Leshonenu 32 (1968), pp. 67-88.

1888-08_REJ09/1-2_02 82 09-15-2009, 14:44 NOTES ON THE NOUN PATTERNS IN THE YEMENITE TRADITION 83

MORAG, Studies – S. MORAG, Studies in Hebrew, Aramaic and Jewish Languages (Jerusalem, 2003). MORAG, Vocalised Manuscripts – S. MORAG, Vocalised Talmudic Manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah Collections, Volume I, Talylor-Schechter Old Series (Cambridge, 1988). MORAG, BAYT – S. MORAG, Babylonian Aramaic: The Yemenite Tradition: His- torical Aspects and Transmission, Phonology, The Verbal System (Jerusalem, 1988; Hebrew). MORAG, HLYJ – S. MORAG, The Hebrew Language Tradition of the Yemenite Jews (Jerusalem, 1963; Hebrew). MORGENSTERN, Geonic Responsa – M. MORGENSTERN, Jewish Babylonian Aramaic in Geonic Responsa: Studies in Phonology, Verb Morphology, Pronouns and Style (Thesis submitted for the degree Doctor of Philosophy, The Hebrew Uni- versity of Jerusalem, January 2002). MORGENSTERN, ‘Moussaieff Collection’ – M. MORGENSTERN, ‘Notes on Aramaic Magic Bowls in the Moussaieff Collection’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 68 (2005), pp. 349–67. MÜLLER-KESSLER, ‘Targum Onkelos’ – C. MÜLLER-KESSLER, ‘The Earliest Evi- dence for Targum Onqelos from Babylonia and the Question of its Dialect and Origin’, Journal for the Aramaic Bible 3 (2001), pp. 181-198. NÖLDEKE, MG – Th. NÖLDEKE, Mandäische Grammatik (Halle, 1875). TAL, Beza II – A. TAL, Geniza Fragment 891 to the Chapter Beza, Tractate Yom Tov, Babylonian Talmud: Characterisation and Tradition (MA Thesis Sub- mitted to the Hebrew University, 2000, volume 2). YEIVIN, Babylonian Vocalization – I. YEIVIN, The Hebrew Language Tradition as Reflected in the Babylonian Vocalization (Jerusalem, 1985; Hebrew).

Matthew MORGENSTERN, [email protected]

1888-08_REJ09/1-2_02 83 09-15-2009, 14:44