A manual of the Aramaic language of the Babylonian Talmud: grammar, chrestomathy and glossary

CLAVIS

LINGUARUM SEMITICARUM EDIDIT

HERMANN L STRACK PARS

III

THE ARAMAIC LANGUAGE OF THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD BY

MAX I.

II.

L.

MARGOLIS

GRAMMAR CHRESTOMATHY AND GLOSSARIES ENGLISH EDITION

MONCHEN C.

H.

KECK'SCHE VERLAGSBUCHHANDLUXG OSKAR BECK 1910.

ENGLAND:

DAVID NUTT, LONDON.

AMERICA:

G.E.STECHEET &

Co.

,

NEW YORK.

A MANUAL OF THE

ARAMAIC LANGUAGE OF THE

BABYLONIAN TALMUD

BY

MAX

L.

MARGOLIS,

PH. D.

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

MfJNCHEN C.

H.

BECK'SCHE VERLAGSBUCHHANDLUNG OSKAR BECK 1910:

ENGLAND DAVID NUTT, LONDON.

AMERICA

:

G. E.

STECBERT &

:

Co.,

NEW YORK.

PJ 5301

Printed by Fischer

&

Wittig in Leipzig.

TO MY WIFE IN LOVE AND GRATITUDE

PREFACE As of

the

ray first criticism

suggested to me the writing and purposes similar- to the The plan was elaborated in detail, and present one. I actually commenced work on a number of larger texts. Soon, however, I realized that with the means at my disposal 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 of a

,

back as 1894, Professor HERMANN L. STRACK, of Berlin, who had favorably noticed two publications, both dealing with the textual

far

University of the

work

to

Talmud,

all

intents

When in the autumn 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 JUDAH SENI'S n^JP rnirp ISRAEL all

of

thought of prosecuting this plan.

1907

I

visited

,

Moi'SE SCHUHL'S Sentences et MICHELSTADT'S "pSTT "p^Q proverbes du Talmud, and MOSES LEWIN'S Aramdische Sprichrvorter und Volksspruche, and a manuscript collection of a ,

similar character compiled by ed a large number of short

my

sainted father, I transcrib-

and pithy Aramaic sentences

from the Talmud noting the variants from RABBINOVICZ' work. I then copied a large number of connected Aramaic texts from all parts of the Talmud with the variants I once more realized that unless I belonging thereto. secured manuscript evidence at first hand, my texts as well as the grammar that I had constructed from them would be unreliable. 1 therefore proceeded to Munich where, ,

,

PREFACE

VIII

beside the famous cod. Hebr. 95, I

was

privileged to collate

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 predecessors (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

the sources, the otherwise scholarly work of the author of the Variae Lectiones being entirely unreliable in the province

Then again my

linguistic point of view differed predecessors in a number of vital questions. I say all this with no intent to criticize the 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.

of grammar. from that of

my

guidance of NOLDEKE in his exGrammars 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 manuBut in order to reduce the bulk and cost of the script. volume, it was deemed advisable to drop them in all but a few 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 I

therefore

cellent

followed the

Mandaic

and

Syriac

piece that witness of the text, which seemed to merit distinction 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

impression

Both

as in

to

the

(for silence

would have led

to

a false

the

actual contents of the manuscript). Grammar and in the Chrestomathy I

refrained from adding vowel points. Only in the Connected Texts did I here and there deviate from this rule ;

PREFACE

IX

P each

be obvious. the reasons The first part of the Chrestomathy, the "Forms and Sentences", being arranged according to a graded system, with references to the paragraphs of the Grammar, the 2 5 and a moderate knowstudent, with the aid of ledge of Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic, will be able to accurately vocalize every form occurring in the Grammar in

case will

be

found

to

and in the corresponding portions of the Chrestornathy. Moreover, he may look up every form in the Glossary under the proper root, where he will find the forms occurring in Grammar and Chrestomathy recorded, defined, There is also another reason why the and vocalized. 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 naught but confusion, latter presupposes an entirely different system of orthography (such as we find in Biblical Aramaic). With each system is allowed to the method adopted by me

since the

,

own

characteristics without confusion.

Moreover, whatever subjective features may attend the vocalization are thus kept out of the texts themselves which are presented with utmost fidelity and accuracy exactly in the form in which they have come down.

exhibit

its

As for the choice of material, the texts naturally come But the Halakah also is not largely from the Haggadah. I believe, represented by a few specimens which meet the requirements of beginners, but also in the first part of the Chrestomathy by phrases and sentences judiciously culled from the large frame-work and thus exhibit-

only

ing

,

the

methodological

terminology

of

the

halakic

dis-

Additional cussions, concisely explained in the Glossary. information is to be found in MIELZINER'S Introduction and

BACKER'S Terminologie (see

p. 97. 98). In writing the Glossary, I naturally availed myself of the great Talmudic lexica and of the lexicographical in

PREFACE

X

works concerned with the cognate Ai'amaic dialects. My aim was not so much to discover new identifications, as to give that which was tenable and most adequately supported. I have followed tradition as far as it is embodied in the = omittunt. = margo A = textus. corrector. = hebraice. = nomen proprium. ||

Taan

5

||

tr

_*_

||

omittit,

K

2_

_^

||

||

||

||

P_

h.

,

prae-

= Ros

= status

Grammar. Introduction 1.

(

1

3).

The Aramaic Idiom of the Babylonian Talmud. Its

1.

Place in General Aramaic.

By Talmud (Gemara) we understand

the

inter-

pretation of the Mishna, which usually takes the form or discussion; hence, the large framework. The language of this

there tions

framework

is

Hebrew from Hebrew

is

of

throughout Aramaic. Whatever Talmud is confined to quota-

in the

sources,

or to certain expressions

which had become part of the spoken language and But even within certainly of the scholastic speech. the framework there is a considerable amount of Aramaic consisting of sayings of scholars whose vernacular

was Aramaic, people,

or

of

or

the

of

the conversation of

mass

legends, and the like, non- Jewish origin.

the

common

of popular proverbs, stories, some of which are even of a

which belongs to the editors b (redactors) Talmud, is on the whole uniform and did not vary greatly from the vernacular employed by the Babylonian teachers (Amora'6, Sabora'e) in their daily life. This language had as its area Upper This

framework, of

Margolis,

the

Gr. Bub. Talm.

1

2

1.

The Aramaic Idiom

of the Babylonian Talmud, etc.

Babylonia, the seat of Babylonian Jewry, with the towns Neharde'a, Sora, Pumbeditha and others in which it was scholastic institutions were found spoken during ;

and 6 th post - Christian centuries, during which period the accumulated Talmudic material was

the 4 th ,

5 th ,

subjected to frequent redaction,

until

it

reached

its

final form. c

The language did not really die out until the ninth century when it was supplanted by Arabic. Its nearest relative is Mandaic, the language of Lower Babylonia. There certainly existed between the two dialectal differences; but it may be doubted whether there was a noticeable Jewish coloring to the popular speech of Upper Babylonia as handled by the Jews. Whatever there

may be

of

Hebrew influence, should be looked for The phonetic decay characteristic

rather in the syntax.

Mandaic may be witnessed on Talmudic ground only its beginnings; at any rate the spelling of the Talmudic Aramaic is more archaic. Both dialects are

of in

closely related to Syriac ; compare for instance the form of the st. d. of the masc. pi. in the noun and the prefix of the 3. person masc. of the imperf. in the verb.

Much more

d

ancient

in certain tractates

MeUla,

Tamid)

redactional

is

the Aramaic which

we

find

(Nedarim, Nazir, Te"mura, Keritot, belonging to an earlier

apparently

stratum.

Elsewhere "we find remnants of

the earlier language in (a) quotations from the Targum, and paraphrastic usually jn the name of R. Joseph expositions of biblical passages after the fashion of ,

the

Targum,

cf.

Ber 38 a

of Megillat Ta