16 A Manual of the Aramaic Language of the Babylonian Talmud

295 Pages·2011·16.45 MB·English

A MANUAL

OF THE

ARAMAIC LANGUAGE

OF THE
BABYLONIAN TALMUD

GRAMMAR
CHRESTOMATHY AND GLOSSARIES

BY

MAX L. MARGOLIS, Pu. D.

PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL PHILOLOGY IN THE DROPSIE COLLEGE
PHILADELPHIA, PA.

MONCHEN
C. H. BECK’SCHE VERLAGSBUCHHANDLUNG
OSKAR BECK
19107
ENGLAND: AMERICA:

DAVID NUTT, LONDON. G. E.STECHERT & Co., NEW YORK.
PREFACE

As far back as 1894, Professor Hurmany L. Srrack,
of the University of Berlin, who had favorably noticed
my first two publications, both dealing with the textual
criticism of the Talmud, suggested to me the writing
of a work to all intents and purposes similar: to the
present one. The plan was elaborated in detail, and
{ actually commenced work on a number of larger texts.
Soon, however, I realized that with the means at my dis-
posal it was impossible for me to arrive at a satisfactory
form of the text. Moreover, my professional work lying in
other directions, I was forced to abandon for the time being
all thought of prosecuting this plan. When in the autumn
of 1907 I visited Germany, Prof. Strack urged me to let
go for a while my Septuagint studies and to resume that
long neglected piece of Talmudic work.

With the aid of Jupan -Sem’s Toy: an, Iszacy
Mionetsripr’s 217 poo, Moise Scuuuc’s Sentences et
proverbes du Talmud, and Moses Lewin’s Aramdische Sprich-
worter und Volksspriiche, and a manuscript collection of a
similar character compiled by my sainted father, I transerib-
ed a large number of short and pithy Aramaic sentences
from the Talmud, noting the variants from Raxsrxovicz’
work. TI then copied a large number of connected Aramaic
texts from all parts of the Talmud, with the variants
belonging thereto. I once more realized that unless I
secured manuscript evidence at first hand, my texts as well
as the grammar that I had constructed from them would
be unreliable. I therefore proceeded to Munich where,
VU PREFACE

beside the famous cod. Hebr. 95, I was privileged to collate
the manuscripts and early prints enumerated on p. XV.

Only when the grammar, as far as based on my
own texts, had been completely worked up, did I proceed
to an examination of the grammatical works of my prede-
cessors (see p. 98). I found that there were two points
which placed my work on a footing entirely its own. In
the first place, my own examples were marked by that
certainty which comes only from a personal perusal of
the sources, the otherwise scholarly work of the author of
the Variae Lectiones being entirely unreliable in the province
of grammar. Then again my linguistic point of view differed
from that of my predecessors in a number of vital questions.
I say all this with no intent to criticize tho labors of others.
I merely wish to point out the independent character of my
own work. In the Syntax I had no predecessors at all.
I therefore followed the guidance of Noupexe in his ex-
cellent Mandaic and Syriac Grammars as closely as
feasible. The examples, of course, are my own.

In the first part of the Chrestomathy, the sources of
each form, phrase, or sentence, were indicated in my manu-
script. But in order to reduce the bulk and cost of the
volume, it was deemed advisable to drop them in all but
afew cases. As for the Connected Texts, not only are the
sources noted, but also a certain amount of variants. Here
again economy was imperative. I therefore chose for each
piece that witness of the text, which seemed to merit distinc-
tion because of its correctness or originality, giving the
authority for all deviations therefrom in the margin, where
are likewise registered not only important variants bearing
on grammar, lexicon, or meaning, but also scribal errors of
the codex chosen (for silence would have led to a false
impression as to the actual contents of the manuscript).

Both in the Grammar and in the Chrestomathy I
refrained from adding vowel points. Only in the Connec-
ted Texts did [ here and there deviate from this rule;
PREFACE 1x

the reasons in each case will be found to be obvious.
The first part of the Chrestomathy, the “Forms and Sen-
tences”, being arranged according to a graded system,
with references to the paragraphs of the Grammar, the
student, with the aid of §§ 2—5 and a moderate know-
ledge of Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic, will be able to
accurately vocalize every form occurring in the Grammar
and in the corresponding portions of the Chrestomathy.
Moreover, he may look up every form in the Glossary
under the proper root, where he will find the forms oc-
curring in Grammar and Chrestomathy recorded, defined,
and vocalized. There is also another reason why the
vocalization was on the whole sedulously kept out of
Grammar and Chrestomathy. The orthography of the
sources being adjusted to unpointed texts, the introduction
of vowel-points would have created nanght but confusion,
since the latter presupposes an entirely different system
of orthography (such as we find in Biblical Aramaic). With
the method adopted by me, each system is allowed to
exhibit its own characteristics without confusion. Moreover,
whatever subjective features may attend the vocalization
are thus kept out of the texts themselves which are pre-
sented with utmost fidelity and accuracy exactly in the
form in which they have come down.

As for the choice of material, the texts naturally come
largely from the Haggadah. But the Halakah also is not
only represented by a few specimens which, I believe,
meet the requirements of beginners, but also in the first
part of the Chrestomathy by phrases and seutences judi-
ciously culled from the large frame-work and thus exhibit-
ing the methodological terminology of the halakie dis-
cussions, concisely explained in the Glossary. Additional
information is to be found in Mreuziver’s Introduction and
in Bacusr’s Terminologie (see p. 97. 98).

In writing the Glossary, I naturally availed myself
of the great Talmudic lexica and of the lexicographical
x PREFACE

works concerned with the cognate Aramaic dialects. My aim
was not so much to discover new identifications, as te give
that which was tenable and most adequately supported. I
have followed tradition as far as it is embodied in the fArux,
in Hananet, Rast, and others, both with a conservative
bias and with criticism. The discerning critic will find that
the lexicographical material has been thoroughly consulted
and just as accurately weighed. The student may confidently
feel that he is everywhere treading upon safe ground,

It is a pleasant duty for me to acknowledge my in-
debtedness to the directors of the Libraries of Gittingen,
Hamburg, Karlsruhe, for the readiness with which they con-
veyed their Talmudic manuscripts to Munich for my use; but
above all to Dr. von Lausxann, the director of the Royal
State and Court Library at Munich (whose recent demise is
a source of deep regret), and his able assistant, Dr. Ler-
piNGER, for the uniform courtesy extended to me for five full
months. I am also beholden to the National Library at
Florence for the permission to have certain pages of its
Talmudic manuscripts photographed, and to Chief Rabbi
Dr. 8S. H. Marcuries for securing and forwarding those
photographs. Above all others, my sincere gratitude is
herewith expressed to Professor Srrack who not only sug-
gested this work but also read a number of proofs and
was untiring in his efforts, in which he was aided by his
wide experience, to enhance the accuracy of the contents,
the economic arrangement of the details, and the appea-
rance of the whole. Nor would I be derelict in acknow-
ledging the kindness of Commercial Councillor Herr Oscar
Beck, head of the publishing firm of C. H. Beck in Munich,
who most readily consented to undertake the publication
of this work.

Philadelphia, Pa., February 1910.

Max L. Margolis.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Grammar.

Introduction (§ 1—3). Pag
The Aramaic Idiom of the Babylonian Talmud. Its
Place in General Aramaic. . - . 2... ee
Script and Orthography. . . . - 2. 1. we
Means of Fixing the Vocalization . . . . . ..

1. Phonology (§ 4—7).
The Consonants and their Changes . . . . . .
The Vowels and their Changes . .
Syllabic Loss. Loss of Sounds through “Collocation
of Words in the Sentence. . . . . oe
The Accent . we

I. Morphology (§ 8—41).
A. The Pronoun (§ 8—11).

Personal Pronoun. . 2. 2 2. ee
Demonstrative Pronoun. . 2. 2 2. 1 se
Relative Prono. . 2 2...

Interrogative Pronoun. 2 2 2. eee

B, The Noun (§ 12—23).

(a). The Nominal Stems (§ 12—18).

Preliminary Remarks. . 2... .. 2. ee
Nouns with Shortened Stem... . . . 1 ~~
TABLE O¥ CONTENTS

Triconsonantal Nominal Stems with Vowel Gradation
With the Middle Radical Geminate . . . . . .
With Prefixes 2 2 2 1 1 ee ee ee ee
Pluriconsonantal Stems. . .

Denominatives formed by means 5 of Afformatives . .

(b), Inflection (§ 19—22).

Inflectional Endings . . . . .
Modification in the Stem occasioned by the In-
flection. © 6-6 ee ee ee ee
Pl. fem. from Masculines and conversely . . . «
The Noun with Pronominal Suffixes .

Numerals... 2 we ee ee

C. Particles (§ 24—26).

Adverb, 2 0.
Prepositions . See ee
Conjunctions. . . . . 1...

D. The Verb (§ 27—41).

The Modification of the Stem see
Inflectional Elements. . . 2... 2... 2 ee
Perfect. . . .
Imperfect, Imperative, and Infinitive. |...
The Participles. ©. 6. 1 ee eee ee
Itpetel . see

Patel we ee ee ee
Ital. 2
Afll. 2 2 0 ee
Ittafal. 6 we
Verbs 3°26
Verbs Wr...

Verbs ">, 2 6
Pluriconsonantals . . . woe

The Verb with Objective Suffixes . see
§ 42.
§ 43.
§ 4d.
§ 45.
§ 46.
§ 47.

§ 48.
§ 49.
§ 50.
§ 51.

$052.
§ 53.

§ 54,

§ 55.
§ 56.
§ 57.
§ 58.
§ 59.
§ 60.
§ 61.
§ 62.

§ 63.
§ 64.
§ 65.
§ 66.
§ 67.
§ 68.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

IIL. Syntax (§ 42—74).
A. The Noun (§ 42—54).

The Neuter... . hee
St. absol. and determ. |

St. constr, and Periphrastic Genitive .

Coordination. . . .

Construction of >: on

The Joining together of several Nouns.
Repetition, . 2... . ee 2a.

Pronoun (§ 48—52)
Personal Pronoun. . . . .
Demonstrative Pronoun . ne
Interrogative Pronouns. . . . . .
Relative Pronoun .

Numerals... rs
Adverbial Expression. rs
Prepositions... . 1...

B. The Verb (§ 55—62).
Person and Gender . 2. . +.
The Perfect... . 2...
The Imperfect... . . .
The Participle . . . 2... 1.
The Imperative. . . 2... 2

The Infinitive . . . soe eee
Government of the Verb see
PR

XI

Distributive

C. The Simple Sentence (§ 63—68).

The Copa... 2...
The Casus Pendens . . oe
Concord of the Parts of Speech oe
The Order of Words. . . . . . +
Negative Sentences . . . 1. -
Interrogative Sentences. . . .
xIV

D. Compound Sentences § 69—73)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
§ 69. Copulative Sentences . 2... 2... . . 92
§ 70, Attributive Relative Sentences. . . 2. 1 1. OF
§ 71. Conjunctional Relative Sentences . . . . . . . 95
§ 72. Indirect Interrogative Sentences . . . . . . . 96
§ 73. Conditional Sentences . . . . . 1... . 96
Literature © 6. 1 ee

Chrestomathy and Glossaries.

Chrestomathy.

L Forms and Sentences. 2. 2. 2. 2 1. 1) OF
IL Connected Texts . Se ee + 34*
A. Barlier Language... 2. 2... 8d
B. Later Language. . ° . . . BT

(From the “Chapter of the Sauts” p. 88*, — Wonder-

stories p. 70*. — Halakie texts p. 74*.
Glossaries.

A. Aramaic Glossary . 2 6 2 1 ee ee we BAF

B. Hebrew Glossary . . 2 2 2 1 1 1 7 we. 180*
Abbreviations and Signs.

1, F = Florenz (Florence), Biblioteca Nazionale codd. If,

1, 7-9.

G = Gottingen, Universitiits-Bibliothek cod. hebr. 3 (init.
saec. XII).

H_= Hamburg, Stadtbibliothek, cod. hebr. 165 (1184
p. Chr.).

K = Karlsruhe, Hof- und Landes-Bibliothek cod. orient. 9
(1400—1450).

M = Munchen (Munich), Hof- und Staats-Bibliothek, cod.
hebr. 95 (1343 p. Chr,).

M1 = Miinchen, codd. hebr. 6. 140. 141.

3B = cd. Bomberg. 1, Venetiae 1520—23.

ArM = ‘tAruk cod. hebr. 142 Miinchen (1285 p. Chr.) contains
only the second part, not made use of by Kohut
Arv#¥ = ‘Aruk cod. Wien (Vienna), ed. Pesaro,
ed. Veneta (cf. Kohut).

HanM = Hanan'el cod. hebr. 227, Miinchen.

RaM = Radi; RSbMM—= RSemu'el ben Meir. Cod. hebr. 216,

Miinchen.
En = ‘En Jatakob, ed. prince. (Saloniki ¢. 1516).
Hal-ged = Halakot gedolot, Ven. 1548.
Te3-geon = TeSubot ha-ge'onim, Ed. Harkavy, Berlin 1887.
2. Ars=‘Arakin | A. ‘Aboda zara.

Ba, ba = Biblisch- Aramiiisch (Biblical Aramaic). { B-b.= Baba
batra || Ber(akot) || Bes(a). || B. k = Baba kamma
B, m, = Baba mesila.