ENCYCLOPEDIA OF HEBREW LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS Volume 3 P–Z General Editor Geoffrey Khan Associate Editors Shmuel Bolokzy Steven E. Fassberg Gary A. Rendsburg Aaron D. Rubin Ora R. Schwarzwald Tamar Zewi LEIDEN • BOSTON 2013 © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 Table of Contents Volume One Introduction ........................................................................................................................ vii List of Contributors ............................................................................................................ ix Transcription Tables ........................................................................................................... xiii Articles A-F ......................................................................................................................... 1 Volume Two Transcription Tables ........................................................................................................... vii Articles G-O ........................................................................................................................ 1 Volume Three Transcription Tables ........................................................................................................... vii Articles P-Z ......................................................................................................................... 1 Volume Four Transcription Tables ........................................................................................................... vii Index ................................................................................................................................... 1 © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 60 pentateuch, linguistic layers in the semantic status (as the ending of nouns derived advantage of such a situation: a word can be from roots III-y or as the feminine ending, re-shaped to satisfy formal rhyme requirements respectively). A similar situation obtains in the without undergoing any alteration in meaning. case of the formation of infinitives from roots However, over the course of the development III-y. The standard form of such infinitives of piyyu†, this practical aim resulted in defor- lióbnot. We have already seen above mation/flexibility becoming one of its most ִל ְבנוֹת is basic, immanent characteristics, the reforming ִל ְב ֶנה that in piyyu† analogical forms such as lióbne are also possible. Furthermore, piyyu† of words eventually extending far beyond the employs ‘bare-stem’ forms of III-y infinitives: necessities of line-final rhyme. leha≠al ‘to ְל ַה ַﬠל ’,lenaqqo ‘to cleanse him ְל ַנקּוֹ raise’ (note the segholate structure). Such bare- References stem forms are also attested in piyyu† with Fleischer, Ezra. 2007. Hebrew liturgical poetry in the the final element -a: leha ala ‘to raise’. Middle Ages (in Hebrew). Jerusalem: Magnes. Harshav, Benjamin. 2008. The history of Hebrew ≠ ְל ַה ֲﬠ ָלה (Alternatively, but less plausibly, such forms versification: From the Bible to modernism (in may be seen as analogical derivations from the Hebrew). Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press. Biblical Hebrew cohortative of III-y verbs of Rand, Michael. 2006. Introduction to the grammar of Hebrew poetry in Byzantine Palestine. New ε < .wë-± š≠å ‘so that I might regard’ Jersey: Gorgias ְו ֶא ְשׁ ָﬠה the type [Ps. 119.117]). Taken together, such forms ——. 2009. “More on the seder beriyot.” Jewish appear to imply free alternation in III-y infini- Studies Quarterly 16:183–209. tive endings: ø ~ -e ~ -a ~ -ot. ——. 2011. “Some fundamental features of the mor- phology of classical piyyu†” (in Hebrew). Israel— The tentative conclusions reached above Linguistic Studies in the Memory of Israel Yeivin, regarding the status of the various elements as ed. by Rafael I. (Singer) Zer and Yosef Ofer, free variants may be supported on the basis of 453–464. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Bible other, albeit rare and isolated, cases in piyyu†. Project. Yahalom, Joseph. 1985. Poetic language in the early Thus, we may find that a III-y imperfect form piyyu† (in Hebrew). Jerusalem: Magnes. appears with the final element -a instead of Yeivin, Israel. 1996. “Characteristics of the features yurßa ‘it will be desired’. of piyyu†” (in Hebrew). Studies in Hebrew and ֻי ְור ָצה :the expected -e Also, we may find a 3ms perfect form with Jewish Languages Presented to Shelomo Morag, ed. by Moshe Bar-Asher, 105–118. Jerusalem: the final element -a in place of the expected ø: Center for Jewish Languages and Literatures, .he±e™ida ‘he caused to grasp’. Alter- Hebrew University of Jerusalem/Bialik ֶה ֱא ִח ָידה nately, a 3ms perfect form of a III-y verb may be attested with the final element ø instead of Michael Rand (The Academy of the Hebrew Language) ha≠al ‘he raised’ (note the ַה ַﬠל :the expected -a segholate structure). Finally, we may find an infinitive with the final element -ot in place of leúonenot ‘to establish’. Pentateuch, Linguistic Layers ְל ְכוֹננוֹת :an expected ø The data cited above converge in pointing to in the the same conclusion—in the language of piyyu†, a number of terminal elements that, within the In modern biblical scholarship the Torah (or standard language, have a defined morpho- Pentateuch) has typically been viewed as com- logical or semantic status may be more or posed of four main sources: Yahwist (J), Elohist less freely interchanged within certain morpho- (E), Priestly (P), and Deuteronomic (D), dated, logical environments. The implication of such respectively, to the 10th, 9th, 8th, and 7th cen- a situation is that the elements are devoid of turies B.C.E. Although most scholars continue the power to signal morphological or semantic to date the Priestly source to the exilic (6th distinctions. In the terms suggested above, the century B.C.E.) or even post-exilic (5th century variation may be seen as serving the purpose B.C.E.) period, the linguistic evidence for the of deformation/flexibility. In piyyu†, within the earlier date is compelling (Hurvitz 1974, 1982, parameters outlined here, words can change and many others). Recently there have also their shape without changing their meaning. been attempts to move the date of the Yahwist The fact that the majority of the innovative source to this late period, but here, again, the forms described here are found in rhyme posi- linguistic evidence militates against this view tion points to the most immediate practical (Wright 2005). The simple fact is that there is © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 pentateuch, linguistic layers in the 61 not a single indicator of Late Biblical Hebrew D sources at their appropriate places (Mt. Sinai in either of these sources, both of considerable for the former, and the Moabite Plateau for the size, or in the Torah as a whole for that matter. latter), along with a series of ancient poems (see In every instance where a linguistic opposi- below). While occasional doublets (for exam- tion (of either lexical or grammatical elements) ple, the two stories of creation in Gen. 1–2) and exists between Standard (pre-exilic) and Late contradictions (for example, the different lists Biblical Hebrew, the language of the Penta- of Esau’s wives and fathers-in-law; compare teuch squares firmly with the former. Gen. 26.34, 28.9 with Gen. 36.2–3) remained, An example of a lexical feature is the word these do not detract from the validity of the sin- šèš, while Late gle narrative tradition hypothesis. This unified ֵשׁשׁ for ‘linen’: the Torah uses bùß. An example narrative approach follows upon recent literary בּוּץ Biblical Hebrew texts use of a grammatical feature is the 3mpl pronomi- and stylistic investigations into the Torah (see, .(òμ: for example, Alter 1981:131–154- -וֹת nal suffix attached to nouns ending in In addition to the more traditional arguments ֲא ָבוֹתם Standard Biblical Hebrew forms such as (dòròμåm< ‘their presented by Hurvitz and Wright (see above ָדּוֹרוֹתם ,’òμåm< ‘their fathers∫≤± generations’, etc., with the shorter suffix -åm< , for dating the Torah to the pre-exilic period, we dominate over Late Biblical Hebrew forms such now have several new approaches developed -dòròμèhÆm, by Frank Polak. He notes that Standard Bibli ֵדּוֹרוֹת ֶיהם ,òμèhÆm∫≤± ֲא ֵבוֹת ֶיהם as etc., with the longer suffix -èhÆm. These and cal Hebrew shows a greater propensity for the ָל ַקח rå< ±å< ‘see’, and ָר ָאה ,’håla< ú ‘go ָה ַלְך many more examples clearly demonstrate that verbs P and J do not belong to the exilic and/or post- låqa< ™ ‘take’, in contrast to the more frequent bò בּוֹא exilic periods. Rather, P is earlier than D (but attestations, respectively, of the verbs ,’b-w-±) ‘come בו"א see below), and J (if it is to be considered an (i.e., the qal of the root בו"א the hif ≠il of) ֵה ִביא šåma< ≠ ‘hear’, and ָשׁ ַמע independent source at all; again see below) is the earliest source of the Torah. Linguistically b-w-±) ‘bring’ in Late Biblical Hebrew (Polak speaking, then, the Torah is written by and 1997–98:158–160; note that the respective large in Standard Biblical Hebrew (for a dif- verbs correspond to related semantic fields). ferent methodology, see Young 2005; Young- Polak thus distinguishes between an ‘oral’ style Rezetko-Ehrensvärd 2009). of language and literature, utilized by a story- In this article, however, a slightly different teller who ‘went’, ‘saw’ the action, and then approach is taken. P and D are considered as ‘took’ the details home in order to weave them distinct sources, each expounding the legal and into a story, and