PDF Studies in Classical Hebrew 1St Edition Moshe Bar Asher Ebook Full Chapter

Studies in Classical Hebrew 1st Edition
Moshe Bar-Asher
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/studies-in-classical-hebrew-1st-edition-moshe-bar-as
her/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Perspectives on Causation Selected Papers from the

Jerusalem 2017 Workshop Elitzur A. Bar-Asher Siegal
https://textbookfull.com/product/perspectives-on-causation-
selected-papers-from-the-jerusalem-2017-workshop-elitzur-a-bar-
asher-siegal/
Theology of the Hebrew Bible volume 1 Methodological

Studies Marvin A. Sweeney
https://textbookfull.com/product/theology-of-the-hebrew-bible-
volume-1-methodological-studies-marvin-a-sweeney/
From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries Select

Studies in Aramaic Hebrew and Greek 3rd Edition Tarsee
Li
https://textbookfull.com/product/from-ancient-manuscripts-to-
modern-dictionaries-select-studies-in-aramaic-hebrew-and-
greek-3rd-edition-tarsee-li/
A First Course in Functional Analysis 1st Edition Orr

Moshe Shalit
https://textbookfull.com/product/a-first-course-in-functional-
analysis-1st-edition-orr-moshe-shalit/
New Essays on Aristotle s Organon Routledge Monographs
in Classical Studies 1st Edition António Pedro
Mesquita
https://textbookfull.com/product/new-essays-on-aristotle-s-
organon-routledge-monographs-in-classical-studies-1st-edition-
antonio-pedro-mesquita/
Maternal grief in the Hebrew bible 1st Edition Kozlova
https://textbookfull.com/product/maternal-grief-in-the-hebrew-
bible-1st-edition-kozlova/
The Human First Edition Neal Asher
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-human-first-edition-neal-
asher/
In Defense of Israel A Memoir of a Political Life 1st

Edition Moshe Arens
https://textbookfull.com/product/in-defense-of-israel-a-memoir-
of-a-political-life-1st-edition-moshe-arens/
Deathly The Dillon Sisters 1 1st Edition Brynne Asher
https://textbookfull.com/product/deathly-the-dillon-
sisters-1-1st-edition-brynne-asher/
Moshe Bar-Asher
Studies in Classical Hebrew
Studia Judaica
Forschungen zur Wissenschaft des Judentums
Begründet von
Ernst Ludwig Ehrlich
Herausgegeben von
Günter Stemberger, Charlotte Fonrobert
und Alexander Samely
Band 71
Moshe Bar-Asher
Studies in Classical
Hebrew
Edited by Aaron Koller
DE GRUYTER
ISBN 978-3-11-030024-6
e-ISBN 978-3-11-030039-0
ISSN 0585-5306
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;
detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.
© 2014 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Typesetting: Meta Systems Publishing & Printservices GmbH, Wustermark
Printing and Binding: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
♾ Printed on acid-free paper
Printed in Germany
www.degruyter.com
Preface
In this volume I have collected twenty-five of my published studies that deal
with three divisions of the classical Hebrew language: Biblical Hebrew, the
Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Mishnaic Hebrew. What is included here
is but a sampling of the studies I have published in these fields. The growing
interest in the last generation or two, in Europe and in the United States, in
Israeli research into the Hebrew language, which is generally published in
modern Hebrew, is sufficient reason for the publication of these studies in the
language which has been for some time the international language of scholar-
ship.
Some of the chapters in this book have been previously published in En-
glish, and many were translated specifically for the current volume. By the
nature of scholarship, most of the chapters have been updated to some degree,
both with regard to the data and with regard to the scholarly literature pub-
lished in the interim.
De Gruyter’s has long been a major force in the publication of research in
Jewish Studies, including in the study of the Hebrew language. I wish to
express my gratitude to the directors of the press, and especially to Dr.
Albrecht Döhnert, Editorial Director for Religious Studies, for their decision to
include this book in their Studia Judaica series and for their attentiveness to
its production and quality. The staff of the press worked hard to produce a
volume with the same high quality of production to which one is accustomed
from De Gruyter’s books.
This book could not have been published without the dedicated and edu-
cated work of my friend, Dr. Aaron Koller. He translated most of the articles
into English, saw to the production of a unified bibliography, and oversaw the
preparation of the indexes for the book. He also read a number of drafts of
the entire book, and edited it carefully. Dr. Koller is a scholar with his own
impressive accomplishments in the fields of Hebrew and Aramaic, and I could
not have found someone more appropriate to do the editorial work needed for
this volume. His devotion to the project is evident on every page of the book,
and for this I offer him my deep gratitude.
MBA
Contents
Preface v
Introduction 1
A 1
B 1
C 4
A Biblical Hebrew 7
1 The Qal Passive Participle of Geminate Verbs in Biblical

Hebrew 9
1.1 Introduction 9
1.2 ‫ה‬ and ‫ה‬ 9
1.2.1 ‫ה‬ ‘menstrual impurity’ / ‫ה‬ ‘sprinkling’ 9
1.2.2 ‫ה‬ (abstract noun) / ‫ה‬ (designating a female) 11
1.3 Qal Passive Participle of Geminate Verbs 16
1.4 Conclusion 20
2 ‫בוֹ‬ '‫הּ – וה‬‫י‬: The morphology and meaning of the word

‫ידיד‬ 23
2.1 Background Notes 23
2.2 On the Meaning of the Word 24
2.3 On the Morphology of the Word 39
2.4 Concluding Remarks 45
3 The Bible Interpreting Itself 47

3.1 Introduction 47
3.2 Words that Explain and Words that are Explained 48
3.2.1 Parallelism and Parallel Verses 48
3.2.2 The Explicit Suggestion of the Explanation 52
3.2.3 The Use of an Explanatory Word or Expression 54
3.2.4 Explanatory Words in Similar Structures 56
3.3 Conclusion 59
4 Gesenius’ Thesaurus and Mishnaic Hebrew Studies 63

4.1 Introductory Remarks 63
4.2 Data in need of correction 65
4.3 Augmentation of incomplete data 68
viii Contents
4.4 Early signs of MH scholarship 70

4.5 Summary remarks 74
5 ‫איש יהודי היה בשושן הבירה‬: When did ‫ יהודי‬Come to Denote

‘Jew’? 75
6 Biblical Language in Mishnaic Texts 81

6.1 Introductory comments 81
6.2 Relationship of the Mishna to Biblical Hebrew 82
6.3 Substantive changes due to biblical influence 86
6.3.1 ‫בין האולם ולמזבח‬ 86
6.3.2 ‫הזורע והחורש והקוצר‬ 89
6.4 Concluding comment 93
7  ‫ד‬ ‫ל‬ ‫ִוּ‬: Regarding One Sentence from the Letter to
Pelatyahu 95
8 The verse ‫ל‬ ‫ע‬ (‘Hear, O Israel’) in Greek transcription on

an ancient amulet 103
8.1 The text 104
8.2 Linguistic comments 104
8.3 Summary 108
B Qumran Hebrew 109
9 A Few Remarks on Mishnaic Hebrew and Aramaic in Qumran

Hebrew 111
9.1 Mishnaic Hebrew and Qumran Hebrew 111
9.1.1 Example 1 111
9.1.2 Example 2 113
9.2 Aramaic at Qumran 114
9.2.1 Example 1 115
9.2.2 Example 2 116
9.3 Summary 118
10 On Several Linguistic Features of Qumran Hebrew 119

10.1 ‫ריקמה‬ 119
10.2 ‫מאחד‬ 127
10.3 ‫עם החביב‬ 129
10.4 ‫התקיים‬ 131
Contents ix
10.4.1 ‫קם = התקיים‬ 131

10.4.2 ‫התקומם = התקיים‬ 135
10.5 Concluding remarks 137
11 Qumran Hebrew Between Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrews:

A Morphological Study 139
11.1 Introductory Comments 139
11.2 Third-person Pronominal Suffixes on Plural Nouns with the Ending
‫וֹת‬- 140
11.2.1 Biblical Hebrew 140
11.2.1.1 Distribution patterns in some biblical books 142
11.2.2.1 Analysis of one late biblical text 142
11.2.2 Mishnaic Hebrew 143
11.3 A note on the Samaritan Pentateuch 145
11.4 QH and Ben Sira 146
11.5 Summary of the findings within Hebrew 149
11.6 Concluding comments 150
12 Mistaken Repetitions or Double Readings? 153

12.1 The Data and the Interpretations Current in the Scholarly
Literature 153
12.2 A Proposal for a New Explanation of the Phenomenon 156
12.3 Conclusion 164
13 Two Issues in Qumran Hebrew: Synchronic and Diachronic

Perspectives 165
13.2 (‫י‬‫בוֹ‬) ‫בוֹי‬/‫בוֹא‬ 167
13.3 ‫ה‬ and (‫יא‬) ‫ה‬ 174
13.4 Concluding Comments 179
14 Grammatical and Lexicographic Notes on a Qumran Fragment

(4Q374 ii) 181
14.2 ‫ארץ חמדות כל הארצות‬ 181
14.3 ‫מחיגה‬ 187
14.4 Conclusion 195
15 ‫ כיניי הצלמים‬/ ‫כיון הצלמים‬ 197

x Contents
15.2 A biblical expression in the Damascus Covenant and its

pesher 198
15.3 Concluding Statements 205
16 The Patterns Pe‘ila and Pi‘‘ul in Qumran Hebrew 207

16.2 Specifics and Generalities in the relationship of Qumran Hebrew to
Mishnaic Hebrew 210
16.3 The Pattern Pe‘ila 211
16.4 The Pattern Pi‘‘ul 217
C. Mishnaic Hebrew and Aramaic 227
17 Mishnaic Hebrew: An Introductory Survey 229

17.1 Mishnaic Hebrew and Rabbinic literature 229
17.2 The Origin of Mishnaic Hebrew 231
17.3 Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew 232
17.3.1 Common and Contrasting Features 232
17.3.2 Diachronic Differences 233
17.3.3 Dialectal differences 234
17.3.4 Difference of Tradition 236
17.3.5 Literary Influence of Biblical Hebrew upon Mishnaic
Hebrew 237
17.4 Unity and Diversity in Mishnaic Hebrew 239
17.4.1 The assumption of uniformity re-examined 239
17.4.2 Contrasts between the language of the Tannaim and the
language of the Amoraim 240
17.4.3 Mishnaic Hebrew and its different dialects 241
17.4.4 Linguistic differences within the Mishnah 243
17.4.5 Editions and manuscripts 244
17.4.6 Linguistic types in the manuscripts of the Mishnah 246
17.4.7 Special traditions 247
17.4.8 Written and Oral Traditions 248
17.5 Mishnaic Hebrew and Other Languages 249
17.5.1 The situation of multi-lingualism 249
17.5.2 Mishnaic Hebrew and Aramaic 250
17.5.3 Borrowings from Greek and Latin 253
17.6 Mishnaic Hebrew from indirect sources 254
17.6.1 Direct and indirect sources 254
Contents xi
17.6.2 Documents from the Judean Desert 256

17.6.3 The Samaritan tradition 257
17.6.4 Greek and Latin Transcriptions 259
17.6.5 The language of Liturgy and the Piyyut 260
17.7 Conclusion 260
18 The Study of Mishnaic Hebrew Grammar Based on Written Sources:

Achievements, Problems, and Tasks 263
18.2 Research and Achievements 264
18.2.1 Description of Mishnaic Hebrew Studies 264
18.2.2 Some Central Questions in the Study of Mishnaic
Hebrew 264
18.2.3 Results of Mishnaic Hebrew Research 272
18.2.4 Unity of Mishnaic Hebrew 275
18.3 Problems and Tasks 280
18.3.1 Investigations of Reliable Manuscripts and other
Manuscripts 280
18.3.1 Strata versus Traditions 282
18.3.3 Reliable Traditions and Scribal Corrections 284
18.3.4 Expanding the Fields of Research 285
18.3.4.1 Investigation of the Different Periods of Mishnaic
Hebrew 285
18.3.4.2 Investigation of Traditions and Other Manuscripts 286
18.3.4.3 Investigation of Traditions and Examination of General
Grammatical Topics 287
18.3.4.5 Proportions between Research Fields 288
18.3.5 Preparing a New Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew 289
19 The Different Traditions of Mishnaic Hebrew 293

19.1 Introduction 293
19.2 The Division of Mishnaic Hebrew into Different Traditions 294
19.3 The Western tradition vis-à-vis the Eastern tradition within the
Palestinian branch 296
19.4 The Palestinian branch vis-à-vis the Babylonian branch 298
19.5 Comments on the Proposed Divisions 300
19.6 The Western and Eastern traditions of the Palestinian branch 304
19.6.1 Gemination of rēš 304
19.6.2 The relative šîn with šəwa 306
xii Contents
19.6.3 The realization of the short vowel [u] 306

19.6.4 The Final Vowel in the Qatt and Related Noun Patterns 309
19.6.5 The Definite Article with segol before ’aleph with qameṣ 309
19.6.6 Noun Pattern po‘lān/pa‘lān 310
19.6.6.1 ‫רן‬/‫ן‬ 312
19.6.6.2 The plural ‫יוֹת‬/‫יוֹת‬ 311
19.7 The Nature of the Differences between the Western and Eastern
Traditions 312
19.8 The Historical Background of the Different Traditions of the Western
Branch 313
19.9 The Palestinian Branch and the Babylonian Branch 317
19.10 Background of the Linguistic Differences between the Two
Branches 318
19.11 Conclusion 325
20 The System of binyanim in Mishnaic Hebrew (A Morphological

Study) 329
20.1 The binyanim in general 329
20.2 Comments on the common binyanim 330
20.3 Comments on the uncommon binyanim 332
20.3.1 Pu‘al 332
20.3.2 Nuf‘al 335
20.3.3 Nippə‘al 339
20.3.4 Pē‘ēl (pā‘‘ēl), po‘al (məfo‘‘āl), niṯpā‘‘al 341
20.3.5 Pē‘ēl 342
20.3.6 Pō‘al 344
20.3.7 Niṯpā‘al 344
20.4 Comments on these three binyanim 345
20.4.1 Po‘ēl, Niṯpo‘ēl 348
20.4.2 Po‘ēl 349
20.4.3 Niṯpō‘al 349
20.4.4 Niṯṯapˉ ‘al 352
20.5 Other binyanim? 354
20.6 Conclusion 354
21 The Formation of the Nif‘al III-yod Participle in Mishnaic

Hebrew 359
21.1 The Readings Traditions in the Bible 359
21.2 The Mishnaic Hebrew Traditions that have been Studied 360
21.3 Other Traditions of Mishnaic Hebrew 361
Contents xiii
21.4 MS Antonin 362

21.5 MS Parma B 362
21.6 MS Kaufmann, MS Paris, and the Livorno Edition 364
21.7 Summary 368
21.8 Appendix 372
22 Comments on the Morphology of Nouns

in Mishnaic Hebrew: Nouns Attested
and Unattested in Biblical Hebrew 375
22.1 Introduction 375
22.2 Nouns Attested in BH 376
22.3 Nouns Not in BH 380
22.4 Summary 381
23 Mishnaic Hebrew and Biblical Hebrew 383

23.2 Rabbinic Hebrew vis-à-vis Biblical Hebrew in Nominal
Morphology 386
23.2.1 Nouns borrowed from the Bible 387
23.2.2 Nouns Common to the Languages of the Bible and the
Mishnah 390
23.3 Conclusion 392
24 On the Language of the Beit ‘Amar Papyrus 395

24.1 Preliminary Notes 395
24.2 On the General Nature of the Language in the Document 396
24.3 Orthography 397
24.4 Orthography and phonology 399
24.5 Minor items in Configuration and Syntax 404
24.6 Concluding note 405
25 From Oral Transmission to Written Transmission (Concerning the

meaning of some orthographic forms in the manuscripts of the
Mishnah and of Rabbinic Literature) 407
25.2 Unusual orthographic forms and their meanings 408
25.2.1 ‫רוב עצמות‬/‫ – רובע עצמות‬a quarter-qab of bones 408
25.2.2 ‫ה‬/‫ת‬ – has arisen 408
25.2.3 ‫יו‬‫י‬/‫ב‬‫י‬ 409
25.2.4 ‫להיות‬/‫היות‬ 411
xiv Contents
25.3 Additions 413

25.3.1 ‫הּ‬ > ‫ַל‬, as in ‫וקוצה לה חלה‬ > ‫וקוצה לחלה‬ 413
25.3.2 ‫א‬ >  415
25.3.3 The spelling of short words 416
25.4 Summary 416
Bibliography 419
Indexes 437
Introduction
A
Classical Hebrew is the language that was written in the eras when Hebrew
was a spoken language. This is the language in which the Bible, the Dead Sea
Scrolls, Ben Sira, and Tannaitic literature were all composed. By the nature of
languages, this is not a single homogenous dialect, but a complex of dialects
stretching over at least 1300 years, approximately from 1100 BCE until 200 CE,
when Hebrew ceased to be a spoken language. Clearly over a period as lengthy
as this one no language can remain entirely unified, and with the passage of
time and generations, not to mention the vicissitudes and ruptures of history,
numerous changes, small and large, are evident within Classical Hebrew.
Within the Bible itself, which alone spans nearly a millennium, are evident
numerous strata within the history of Hebrew, and the literary products of the
post-biblical era differ even more starkly from the biblical texts. These differen-
ces are evident both in the consonantal orthographies of the texts and in the
reading traditions which have come down to us (Tiberian, Babylonian, Samari-
tan, and what can be inferred from Greek and Latin transcriptions).
Furthermore, there is no doubt that the various corpora of classical Hebrew
texts were differentiated by dialects. For example, it is evidence that the lan-
guage of the First Temple biblical books, known as Standard Biblical Hebrew
(SBH), and the language of the Tannaim, known as Mishnaic Hebrew (MH),
do not merely reflect different stages in the history of the language, but in fact
represent distinct dialects. Scholars generally assume, justifiably, that SBH
reflects the dialect from the area of Jerusalem, but this may not be the case
with regard to MH. This reflects, apparently, a dialect from some other region
of the country, which descended from a sister-dialect of SBH.
Despite this, it is important not to ignore the textual connections that exist
between the later corpora of Classical Hebrew and the biblical texts and lan-
guage. Or, to put it differently: Ben Sira, the sectarian texts from Qumran, and
Tannaitic literature are all shaded with the colors of the Bible, in language
and style. Each of them has words and phrases borrowed from the Bible, which
do not reflect their own contemporary language but hark back to earlier eras.
B
The volume presented here is only a selection of the studies I have written
about Classical Hebrew. The twenty-five chapters in the book include lexical
2 Introduction
and grammatical studies about three literary corpora: the Bible, the Dead Sea
Scrolls, and Tannaitic literature. Because of the intimate contact between
Qumran Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew, on the one hand, and Aramaic on the
other, studies of Aramaic are also included.
These studies present synchronic analyses of linguistic issues, without dis-
regarding the diachronic data and explanations relevant to each issue. In some
of the chapters, one can see the changes that occurred over time with regard
to certain words, forms, or other linguistic phenomena.
A. The first eight chapters, which are devoted to Biblical Hebrew, include
broad studies and detailed investigations. Chapters 1–4 and 6 cast a wide
net within each of the issues studied. Chapters 5 and 7–8, on the other
hand, are devoted to narrowly defined studies of only the particular details
needed by the topics addressed therein.
Here are some examples. Chapter 1 deals with the internal passive form of the
participle in the Qal of geminate verbs. Here the data discussed include forms
from within the Bible itself, as well as evidence from the ancient translations
(the Septuagint, Onqelos on the Pentateuch and Jonathan on the Prophets, as
well as the Peshiṭta and the Vulgate). In this study a previously-unrecognized
ancient Hebrew grammatical form is uncovered. The study also draws on data
from Mishnaic Hebrew and interpretations ascribed to lexemes in the Bible by
ancient translators and commentators.
In Chapter 2, two separate discussions are presented: semantic and gram-
matical studies of the same word, the noun ‫ידיד‬. The two studies in this chap-
ter are again based on varied types of data, each of which can reveal a different
aspect of the meaning or morphology of this noun. Here, too, the testimony
of the ancients – translators and interpreters – turns out to be decisive. This
chapter also presents a method for semantic and grammatical investigation of
words from ancient Hebrew, where the relevant data are fragmentary and par-
tial. There are also here insights into the various reading traditions extant in
Jewish communities throughout the centuries, when Hebrew was only a liturgi-
cal and literary language.
An example of one of the shorter chapters is Chapter 5, which traces the
semantic changes that befell the word yǝhudi (‫י‬‫הוּ‬) in the transition between
the eras of the First Temple and the Second Temple. Here language intersects
with other realms of inquiry, as the semantic change appears to be the result
of extra-linguistic changes that occurred within Jewish history with the Babylo-
nian exile, as is reflected within the Bible itself, and within the Rabbis’ referen-
ces to the meanings of this word.
Introduction 3
B. Eight chapters – Chapter 9 through 16 – then deal with the Hebrew of the
Dead Sea Scrolls. Here, too, there are broad synthetic studies and narrow
investigations into particular grammatical phenomena. As is known, many
important studies have already been written by the greatest of Hebraists
since the discovery of the texts from Qumran more than sixty years ago.
These studies have dealt broadly with both the grammar and the lexicon
of the texts, as well as the relationship between the language of these
texts and SBH, Aramaic, and MH. Not a few studies also dealt with the
unique features of this language, again both in the realm of the lexicon
and the realm of grammar. Still, there are more than a few general topics,
and many details, in need of further study, both in terms of collecting and
presenting all the relevant data, and in terms of accurately explaining it
all. In the past decade I have devoted a series of studies, including the
eight presented here, to furthering this field of research.
For example, I present different aspects of Qumran research in Chapters 11 and

13. Chapter 11 follows a grammatical phenomenon from the earliest layer of
biblical literature through the texts of the Tannaim, and shows the changes
that can occur – and did occur – in the spoken language over the generations.
At the same time, however, it also shows the tendency of the literary texts to
present a static and unchanging literary language, as the literary dialect found
in Ben Sira and the Dead Sea Scrolls tends strongly to stick to archaic patterns
from centuries earlier. Chapter 13 shows that words and grammatical features
in the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls reveal various realities. One phenom-
enon in QH may be comparable to what is known from SBH, while another is
more closely comparable to the colloquial dialect of the day, reflected later on
in MH. Chapter 12, too, is a comprehensive study of a linguistic feature which
peeks out from the medieval copy of the Damascus Covenant: there we find
two versions of the same words, one in its ancient formulation and the other,
alongside, in its later variation.
C. In the nine chapters 17–25, devoted primarily to Mishnaic Hebrew but also
partially to Aramaic, I give a sampling of my primary field of research over
the past 40 years and more: Mishnaic Hebrew. My first publication in this
field was in 1971, and since then I have been intensively occupied with it.
The studies presented here include some introductory presentations and
overviews (Chapters 17–19), and some broad synthetic studies such as the
new description of the system of binyanim of MH presented in Chapter 20.
There are also other studies of great interest, such as the investigation into
the question of the transition of Tannaitic literature from oral transmission
to written texts (Chapter 25).
4 Introduction
Like the studies of my teachers, my colleagues, and my students, the scholars

of the “Jerusalem school”, these studies establish the status of MH as a spoken
language. In our generation there is hardly any scholar worthy of the name
who still holds the position that MH was not a spoken language. It should be
admitted, however, that there are still voices heard insisting – entirely mistak-
enly – that MH was an artificial scholastic language; this ignores the modern
study of the dialect, which began to crystallize around the studies of M. Z.
Segal and H. Yalon in the early parts of the twentieth century and continued
in the following generations.
D. Epigraphic materials. In each of the three sections of the book, I have
included studies of epigraphic texts which did not come from Qumran:
chapters 7, 8, 24. These include the amulet from the third century CE found
in Austria (Chapter 8) in which there is a transcription of the verse
“Shema” (Deut. 6:4) into Greek letters. Another example is the document
from Beit ‘Amar (Chapter 24) which reveals important information about
the contact between Hebrew and Aramaic, as well as about the presence
of Greek in the language of Hebrew and Aramaic speakers (and writers)
in the generation of Shimon Bar Koseba.
There is no epigraphic Hebrew (or Aramaic) text found that does not add to
our knowledge of the history of the Hebrew language, whether with regard to
a detail or to a more general issue. The text from Beit ‘Amar, for example,
provides firm evidence for the linguistic variation, or the dialectal diversity, in
the pronunciation of the relative particle -‫ ש‬in the generation of Bar Koseba
and in MH. To my mind, it is clear that alongside the pronunciation with an
[e] vowel, še-, there was also a pronunciation with an [a] vowel, as ša-. There
is no doubt that the epigraphic data is of singular important for the study of
Classical Hebrew, being texts untouched by copyists and editors, and arriving
on our desks in their pristine forms. The study of this material often shows
that the transmission of Jewish literature – Bible and rabbinic literature – in
reliable manuscripts is remarkably accurate.
C
As I mentioned, theses 25 chapters are only a selection of my studies devoted
to Classical Hebrew. This selection brings between two covers a sampling of
the studies dealing with a cross-section of topics on the various strata of Classi-
cal Hebrew and its literary corpora. I have drawn encouragement in the past
generation from the increasingly common phenomenon of scholars and stu-
Introduction 5
dents around the world studying not only the Hebrew of the Bible, but also of
the literary texts from later centuries.
It is of course clear that one who wishes to follow modern scholarship on
the Hebrew language in all the various eras and ages, and in all its literary
crystallizations, ought to read the many important studies being published, in
various forums, in modern Hebrew. Despite this, it is important to realize that
there are many contexts in universities in different countries in which the
Hebrew of Qumran and of rabbinic literature is studied. A handful of books
and numerous articles published in European languages in recent years serve
this community of research, scholarship, and learning. With this volume I add
the voice that emerges from these collected essays to this effort.
A Biblical Hebrew
1 The Qal Passive Participle of Geminate Verbs
in Biblical Hebrew
1.1 Introduction
§ 1 I would like to suggest the possible existence of a previously unidenti-
fied grammatical form in Biblical Hebrew. All grammatical conclusions are
based on an exact understanding of the words in any given corpus, and I will
therefore begin by investigating the meaning (or meanings) of one Hebrew
word. To be more precise, I will begin with an investigation into the meanings
that have been attributed to the word throughout the history of Hebrew, and
which are attributed to it today. The topic is the word ‫ה‬, which has been
discussed extensively in recent years.
§ 2 I believe that an examination of ‫ה‬ and the identification of other
forms from the root ‫ נד"ד‬and other geminates might reveal a grammatical
category among geminate verbs, well attested for strong verbs, which has so
far eluded recognition. Such an inquiry can potentially aid in the elucidation
of other forms. Two meanings are usually assigned to ‫ה‬: “menstrual impu-
rity” and “sprinkling.”
1.2 ‫ה‬ and ‫ה‬

1.2.1 ‫ה‬ ‘menstrual impurity’ / ‫ה‬ ‘sprinkling’
§ 3 In addition to the entries found in biblical dictionaries and commen-

taries, mention should be made of two short but important studies devoted to
‫ה‬ that were written in the past few years. The first is “Word Studies III”
by Ze’ev Ben-Ḥayyim,1 and the second is “The Etymology of ‫ה‬ (Menstrual
Impurity)” by Moshe Greenberg, which was published in the Festschrift for
Jonas Greenfield.2
In his article, Ben-Ḥayyim discusses five Hebrew and Aramaic lexical
entries; the shortest of the discussions concerns ‫נדה‬.3 He begins by saying that
“the noun ‫ נדה‬is derived in dictionaries from the root ‫ נד"ד‬either with the meaning of
‘impurity,’ ‘female impurity’ or in the expression ‫ה‬ ‫‘ ֵמי‬waters of sprinkling’ and these
1 Ben-Ḥayyim 1980–1981.
2 Greenberg 1995.
3 Ben-Ḥayyim 1980–1981:199–200.
10 1 The Qal Passive Participle of Geminate Verbs in Biblical Hebrew
waters were intended in biblical times to purify an impurity. Since the noun apparently
means one thing and its opposite, one usually resolves the contradiction by assuming
that the ‘waters of sprinkling’ were called such because they served to purify the impure.”
As is his wont, Ben-Ḥayyim begins with the greatest of the medieval linguists
(Ibn Janah and Radaq) and concludes with the modern scholars (the dictionary
of Koehler-Baumgartner). He examines the midrashic and contextual interpre-
tations of the words as they appear in the Babylonian Talmud in Avoda Zara
75b and the Targumim (Onqelos and the Peshitta). His conclusion is that two
homonyms exist within Hebrew: (1) ‫ה‬ from the root ‫ נד"ד‬and (2) ‫ה‬ from
the root ‫נד"י‬.4 In more detail: (1) means menstrual impurity, from the root
‫נד"ד‬, and is inflected like other nouns from geminate roots such as ‫ה‬, ‫ה‬‫ִדּ‬,
‫ה‬, and ‫ה‬;5 and (2) “sprinkling,”6 from the root ‫( נד"י‬cognate to ‫)נז"י‬,7
which is inflected like nouns from final weak roots such as ‫ה‬, ‫ָוּה‬, ‫ָוּה‬, and
‫ָוּה‬.8
§ 4 Greenberg in his study examines in depth the etymology of ‫ה‬ mean-
ing “menstrual impurity.” He thoroughly reviews the dictionaries9 and modern
commentators,10 and he describes in some detail the usages of the root ‫נד"ד‬
in the targumim and the Peshitta. He makes a good argument for deriving the
noun ‫ה‬ from ‫ נד"ד‬and rejects the view that it should be derived from ‫נד"י‬,
which had been suggested by J. Milgrom and B. Levine.11 The basis for this
4 Ben-Ḥayyim 1980–1981:200.
5 Ben-Ḥayyim 1980–1981:99 relates the noun pattern ‫ה‬ (qitta[h]) to the pattern ‫ה‬
(qatta[h]).
6 In addition to the expression ‫ה‬ ‫ ֵמי‬/ ‫ה‬ ‫( ֵמי‬Num 19:9, 13, 20, 21;31:23), some of the
early translations also understood the expression ‫ה‬‫( לחטאת ול‬Zech 13:11) meaning towards
‘sprinkling.’ This is apparent from Targum Jonathan ‫כמה דמידכן במי אדיותא ובקטם תורתא‬
‫‘( דחטתא‬as those who purify themselves in the waters of sprinkling and by the ashes of the
cow of sin’) and from the Peshitta ‫‘( לרססא ולדכיתא‬for sprinkling and for purification’). Clearly
the two targumim hint at a reverse order of the two nouns, as if it were written ‫לנדה ולחטאת‬.
7 Ben-Ḥayyim 1980–1981:199 comments on additional pairs of Hebrew roots such as ‫נדר‬/‫נזר‬,
‫נטר‬/‫“ נצר‬regardless of whether the doublets have arisen within Hebrew or as a result of loans
from Aramaic.” See also Rabin 1970:290–297.
8 Ben-Ḥayyim 1980–1981:200. Here, too, he believes there is a connection between the noun
pattern ‫ה‬ (qiṭṭa[h]) and ‫ה‬ (qaṭṭa[h]).
9 He is interested primarily in modern European dictionaries beginning with the dictionary of
Gesenius-Buhl (17th edition from 1915) and ending with HALOT (1967–1996). He also examines
concordances to the Old Testament, Mishna, Targum Onqelos, and the Peshitta.
10 The commentaries of Milgrom (1991) and Levine (1989 and 1993).
11 Even though Milgrom suggests a derivation from ‫נד"י‬, he recognized the fact that ‫ה‬ is
inflected like ‫ה‬ from a geminate root. Moreover, he points out the alternation between
geminate and final weak verbs (such as ‫ שג"ג‬and ‫)שג"ה‬. Levine takes ‫ה‬ as a Nif ’al passive
participle from the root ‫ה <( נד"י‬).
1.2 ‫ה‬ and ‫ה‬ 11
suggestion was the verbal forms ‫ִדּים‬‫( ה‬Amos 6:3) and ‫ם‬‫ֵדּי‬ (Isa 66:5), as
well as comparative evidence. Greenberg, however, cites additional material
from the targumim, Peshitta, and Ben-Sira that substantiates his conclusion
that ‫ה‬ is derived from ‫ נד"ד‬meaning physical or spiritual removal (loathing).
He believes that ‫ִדּים‬‫( ה‬Amos 6:3) and ‫ם‬‫ֵדּי‬ (Isa 66:5) are denominative
verbs from ‫ה‬.
§ 5 Thus Ben-Ḥayyim and Greenberg conclude (like the medievals) that
‫ה‬ marking female impurity is derived from ‫ נד"ד‬and not from ‫נד"י‬. I would
like to argue, however, that one should distinguish between (1) ‫ה‬, an abstract
noun referring to menstrual impurity and (2) ‫ה‬, a designation for an impure
woman, which functions as both a noun and adjective. Greenberg points out
this distinction in his article.12 He did not, however, go one step further and
come to what I think is the logical conclusion, namely, that these are two
separate grammatical forms.
§ 6 I should stress that the general, scholarly consensus holds that ‫ה‬
is only an abstract noun. This is the impression one gets from looking at three
biblical dictionaries that are widely used today: BDB, HALOT (Koehler-Baum-
gartner), and that of Ben-Yehuda. BDB defines ‫ה‬ as “impurity (as abhorrent,
shunned)” and suggests two secondary meanings: (1) impurity; (2) figuratively
an impure thing. This dictionary cites all twenty-nine occurrences of the word
in the Hebrew Bible, including the expression ‫ה‬ ‫ֵמי‬.13 The form ‫ה‬‫י‬ (Lam
1:8) is also included in this entry.14 HALOT suggests two meanings: (1) bleeding,
menstruation of a woman, and the expression ‫ה‬ ‫ ֵמי‬is included under this
meaning;15 (2) separation, abomination, defilement.16 Ben Yehuda lists three
meanings: (1) female menstruation; (2) anything despised (e.g., ‫ואיש כי יקח‬
‫ נדה היא‬,‫ את אשת אחיו‬Lev 20:21); (3) water of impurity.17
1.2.2 ‫ה‬ (abstract noun) / ‫ה‬ (designating a female)
§ 7 Yet it is clear that ‫ה‬ is not an abstract noun designating menstrual

impurity in every passage in which it occurs in the Old Testament. We also
12 See Greenberg 1995:75–76 (and § 8 below).

13 See § 3 above and n. 6. Zech 13:1 is not included in this dictionary under the category of
‫ה‬ ‫ֵמי‬.
14 ‫ה‬‫י‬ is cited as a separate entry, but at the end of the entry is it noted (= ‫ה‬).
15 See n. 13 above. Zech 13:1 is cited under the second definition.
16 This dictionary lists ‫ה‬‫י‬ as a separate entry under ‫נו"ד‬. Only at the end of the entry is it
noted that it might be a reflex of ‫ה‬.
17 Ben Yehuda 1960: 7.3533–3534 also does not include Zech 13:1 under this definition. See
above nn. 6, 13, and 15.
find passages in which ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ appears to be an adjective/noun designating a

woman during her menstrual period, as is the case in Mishnaic Hebrew.18 See,
e.g., ‫ה לא יקרב‬ ‫( ואל אשה‬Ezek 18:6) in which ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ is a collocation
composed of a noun and its modifying adjective and not an abstract noun. In
this collocation ‫ה‬ designates an impure woman similar to the common mish-
naic usage. It is true that the noun ‫ה‬ functions as an abstract noun with the
meaning “female impurity” in many of its occurrences in Mishnaic Hebrew
(according to Ben Yehuda: “the status of the woman during her period”),19
such as ... ‫בכבול ובפאה נכרית‬... ‫ ובטוטפת ובסונבוטין‬...‫יוצאת אשה בחוטי צמר‬
‫ה‬ ‫( במוך שבאזנה ובמוך שבסנדלה ובמוך שהתקינה‬m. Sabb. 6:5). Nonethe-
less, ‫ה‬ meaning an “impure woman” is also quite common, e.g., ‫ה שבדקה‬‫י‬
‫( עצמה יום שביעי שחרית‬m. Nid. 10:2), ‫( בנות כותים נידות מעריסתן‬m. Nid.
4:1), ‫( הנידות והיולדות טובלות כדרכן ביום הכיפורים‬t. Kip. 4[5]:5).
§ 8 Greenberg already pointed out the unique use of ‫ה‬ in the phrase
‫ה‬ ‫( אשה‬Ezek 18:6), which he interprets as two nouns in apposition.20 On
this interpretation, ‫ה‬ in this expression means “an impure [woman],” and
not “female impurity,” and that therefore the mishnaic usage can be found
already in the Bible.21 However, Greenberg argues that all meanings developed
within one form, which originally possessed an abstract meaning (‫= נידה‬
“menstrual impurity”), which developed secondarily into a concrete usage
(‫“ = נידה‬an impure thing,” “an impure woman”). I would like to suggest, on
the contrary, that we should consider the possibility of two separate grammati-
cal forms. Before offering my interpretation, I shall review what the ancient
versions had to say.
§ 9 The ancient biblical versions translate the noun ‫ה‬ with two differ-
ent grammatical forms. Let us begin with Targum Onqelos. Of thirteen occur-
rences of ‫ה‬22 in the Pentateuch (all in the book of Leviticus), Onqelos trans-
18 For some reason Ben Yehuda 1960:7.3533–3534 also includes in his definition (‫ת האשה‬
‫ )= מעמד האשה בומן וסתה בזיבת דמה החדשי‬the passages from Mishnaic Hebrew in which
‫ נידה‬deals with a woman, e.g., ‫( נידה שבדקה עצמה יום שביעי שחרית‬m. Niddah 10:2).
19 Ben Yehuda 1960:7.3533–3534.
20 “In ‫ אשה נדה‬of Ezekiel, the word ‫נדה‬, in apposition to the word ‫אשה‬, denotes an embodi-
ment of menstrual impurity, a woman, a menstruant = a menstruous woman on the pattern
of ‫‘ אשה זונה‬a harlot woman’” (Greenberg 1995:75). I do not understand the necessity of taking
the collocations ‫ אשה נדה‬and ‫ אשה זונה‬as constructions consisting of nucleus and apposition
as against noun and modifying adjective. These constructions are identical to ‫( אשה גדולה‬2
Kgs 4:8), ‫( אשה זרה‬Prov 2:16), ‫( אשה יפה‬Prov 11:22), ‫( אשה עזובה‬Isa 54:6), etc.
21 It should be stressed that Greenberg 1995:76 also recognizes the fact that what is attested
in Mishnaic Hebrew (‫ה‬ as a title for a woman which also has the plural form ‫דּוֹת‬), already
can be found in the Hebrew Bible in the phrase ‫ה היתה‬‫( ל‬Lam 1:17).
22 This number does not include the six occurrences of ‫ה‬ ‫ ֵמי‬/ ‫ה‬ ‫ֵמי‬, which as already
noted (§ 3), do not belong here.
1.2 ‫ה‬ and ‫ה‬ 13
lates ‫ה‬ twelve times as a verbal noun, which also functions as an abstract
noun: ‫יחוּק‬. Thus, the expression ‫ַדּת דותה‬ (Lev 12:2) is translated ‫ריחוק‬
‫( סאובתה‬also in Lev 12:5; 15:19,20,24,25[3×], 26[2×],33; 18:19). In one passage,
however, Onqelos uses a Pa‘‘el passive participle from the root ‫ ואיש‬:‫רח"ק‬
‫ה היא‬ ,‫( אשר יקח את אשת אחיו‬Lev 20:21) is translated ‫וגבר דיסב ית איתת‬
‫היא‬23 ‫א‬ ,‫( אחוהי‬not ‫חוּק‬ but ‫א‬ ‘far away,’ or ‘removed’)! In this
passage Onqelos translates ‫ נדה‬as in the expression ‫( אשה נדה‬Ezek 18:6),24
which we mentioned above,25 and corresponds to the second meaning of ‫נדה‬
in Mishnaic Hebrew. I should add that ‫ מרחקא‬also can be found in Targum
Lamentations (1:17): ‫ה ביניהם‬‫ היתה ירושלם ל‬is translated ‫הות ירושלים דמיא‬
‫ביניהון‬26 ‫לאיתתא מרחקא‬.27
§ 10 In the Peshitta, too, there is evidence of a distinction between the
abstract noun and the designation of a woman during her impurity. The
abstract noun may be translated by one of several nouns: ‫( כפסא‬kefsā),
‫( טמאותא‬ṭam’ūṯā), ‫( נדתא‬neddǝṯā), or ‫‘( עולא‬awlā). Here are some examples:
the word ‫הּ‬ is translated by ‫ איך כפסה‬in Lev 12:5 and in all its other
occurrences in Leviticus, with the exception of the verse ‫ואיש כי יקח את אשת‬
‫ נדה היא‬,‫( אחיו‬Lev 20:21) where one finds ‫ל =( עולא‬ ‘iniquity’). ‫ה‬ in Lam
1:17 and ‫ה‬‫י‬ Lam 1:8 are both rendered ‫נדתא‬. The expression ‫בנדת עמי‬
‫( הארצות‬Ezra 9:11) is translated ‫תא‬‫א ודמדי‬‫‘( בטמאותא דעמ‬because of the
impurity of nations and cities’). The expression ‫( והוציאו את הנדה‬2 Chr 29:5)
is translated ‫שא‬‫כון ב‬‫קו עבד‬‫ואפ‬. Note that the noun ‫ה‬ is translated in this
23 We should add that the data from the Palestinian Targumim as reflected in Targum Neofiti
and in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan match what we find in Targum Onqelos. All the occurrences
which Targum Onqelos renders ‫ ריחוק‬are translated in Targum Neofiti by ‫נדה‬, ‫ריחוק‬/‫רחוק‬
‫נדת סאבתא‬, ‫ריחוק נדה‬, (‫)נדתה‬. The passage in which ‫ נידה‬is translated by Onqelos as ‫מרחקא‬
is rendered also in Neofiti as ‫( מרחקה‬with heh as a final mater lectionis). In Pseudo-Jonathan
the data are identical to those of Onqelos. ‫ ריחוק‬translates ‫ נדה‬wherever Onqelos does (the
third occurrence in Lev 15:25, however, is omitted), and the same is true for ‫מרחקא‬.
24 Yet it should be noted that one always find in Targum Jonathan to Ezekiel an abstract
noun, e.g., ‫ה‬ (Ezek 7:19, 20) is translated by ‫‘( לבוסרן‬in scorn’). The expression ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬
(Ezek 18:6) is translated ‫א טומאה‬. (It is almost certain that the version ‫ אתא מסאבא‬found
in the First [1515–1517] and Second [1524–1525] Rabbinic Bible as evidenced by Sperber’s edition
is not the original version). ‫ת הנדה‬‫ֵמ‬ (Ezek 22:10) is translated ‫מאה‬ ‫אתא‬, but the expression
‫מאת הנדה‬‫( ב‬Ezek 36:17) is translated ‫מאה‬ ‫‘( כסואבת איתא‬according to the female impurity
she was made impure’); in this passage the translator included the noun ‫ איתא‬and also used
a construction made up of nucleus and apposition.
25 See § 8.
26 See n. 29 below.
27 Greenberg 1995:74 notes that the participle ‫א‬ also translates the nouns ‫ה‬‫( תּוֹ‬e.g.,
Deut 7:26; Isa 1:13) and ‫גּוּל‬ (Lev 7:18; 17:7) in the targumim. Even though ‫א‬ translates
nouns, its status as a passive participle is not changed, even if it functions as a noun.
verse by an abstract noun and a modifying adjective ‫שא‬‫כון ב‬‫‘( עבד‬your evil
deeds’). ‫( ואל אשה נדה‬Ezek 18:6) is translated ‫ ;ולאתתא בכפסה‬in this passage
the translator added a beth before the noun and a 3 f.s. pronominal suffix
(‫ )בכפסה‬in order to avoid the syntactic construction of noun and modifying
adjective.
§ 11 In the Peshitta, ‫ה‬ is also translated by concrete nouns, i.e., words
referring to a menstruating woman. For example, ‫ֵמאת הנדה‬‫( ו‬Ezek 22:10) is
translated ‫‘( וטנפותא דכפסניתא‬the pollution of the menstruating woman’), and
the expression ‫דה‬‫טמאת ה‬ ֻ ‫( כ‬Ezek 36:17) is rendered ‫ואיך טמאותא דכפסניתא‬
(‘and like the impurity of the menstruating woman’). It is important to add
that kefsaniṯa also translates the participial ‫ָוה‬28 (Lev 15:13). The word ‫ה‬
is sometimes translated as a passive participle of Af‘el of the verb ‫ אסלי‬:‫מסליא‬
(maslǝyā “removed,” “rejected,” “condemned,” “violated”); this is the case in
Ezek 7:19–20. ‫ה‬ can be translated, too, by a participle ‫ =( טמאא‬ṭamā < ṭam’ā)
‘impure.’ I would like to emphasize that in one verse the word ‫ נדה‬is attested
twice: ‫ בנדת עמי הארצות‬,‫( הארץ אשר אתם באים לרשתה ארץ נדה היא‬Ezra
9:11). The Syriac translator interprets the first occurrence of ‫ נדה‬as an adjective
and translates it as a participle, whereas the second occurrence is taken as an
abstract noun designating impurity and thus he translates ‫ארעא דעאלין אנתון‬
‫תא‬‫א ודמדי‬‫‘( לה למארתה טמאא הי בטמאותא דעמ‬the land you are entering
to inherit it, is impure because of the impurity of the nations and cities’).
§ 12 Several centuries before Targum Onqelos and the Peshitta, one finds
that the Septuagint already distinguishes in translation between forms of ‫ה‬.
In passages where the word is understood as an abstract noun, it is translated
by the appropriate Greek word, and where it is perceived as designating a
woman, it is translated by a participle. Representative examples are ‫ַדת‬ ‫כימי‬
‫( דותה‬Lev 12:2), which is translated κατὰ τὰς ἡμέρας τοῦ χωρισμοῦ τῆς
ἀφέδρου αὐτῆς; χωρισμός means ‘separation,’ ‘removal’; ‫הּ‬ (Lev (15:24) is
translated ἡ ἀκαθαρσία αυτῆς (‘her impurity’) and is commonly translated by
ἄφεδρος (‘the impurity of the menstruant’), e.g., ‫הּ‬ (Lev 15:19,20) is trans-
lated ἐν τῇ ἀφέδρῳ αὐτης. In contrast, the expression ‫מאת הנדה‬‫( כ‬Ezek 36:17)
is translated κατὰ τὴν ἀκαθαρσίαν τῆς ἀποκαθημένης (‘like the impurity of [the
woman] who moves herself to the side’ or ‘who sits herself down on the side’).
Ἀποκαθημένη is a feminine medial participle of the verb ἀποκάθημαι (‘to sit
oneself down on the side’). This is identical to what occurs in translating the
28 In Biblical Hebrew ‫ָוה‬ is a participle designating a menstruating woman (‫אלא‬ ‫אין דוה‬
‫ נדה‬Sifra Qed. 11:1).
1.2 ‫ה‬ and ‫ה‬ 15
collocation ‫ה‬ ‫ת‬‫ֵמ‬ (Ezek 22:10), and this is what we find in the translation
of ‫ה‬ (Lam 1:17)29: εἰς ἀποκαθημένην.
§ 13 The Vulgate also distinguishes between ‫ה‬ as an abstract noun and
‫ה‬ as designating a woman, e.g., it translates ‫ַדּת‬ in the collocation ‫ַדּת דותה‬
(Lev 12:2) separationis (‘separation’). On the other hand, in the verse ‫ואל אשה‬
‫( נדה לא יקרב‬Ezek 18:6) the Vulgate translates a medio-passive participle men-
struatam (‘a woman during her monthly period’). We also find in the Vulgate
that ‫ה‬ in the collocations ‫את הנדה‬ (Ezek 22:10), ‫( כטומאת הנדה‬Ezek 36:17)
translated by the genitive menstruate. A similar translation is also found in the
verse ‫ה ביניהם‬ ‫( היתה ירושלים‬Lam 1:17): facta est lerusalem quasi polluta
29 In the Tiberian vocalization to Lam 1:8,17 ‫ה‬‫י‬ and ‫ה‬ are clearly distinguished: ‫חטא‬
‫ה היתה‬‫י‬‫( חטאה ירושלם על כן ל‬1:18), ‫ה ביניהם‬ ‫ היתה ירושלם‬,‫צוה ה' ליעקב סביביו צריו‬
(1:17). In v. 8 ‫ה‬‫י‬ is from ‫ נו"ד‬and in v. 17 ‫ה‬ is from ‫נד"ד‬. The Tiberian vocalization is
confirmed by the ancient translations and from the midrash, which give a historical dimension
to both forms. The Septuagint translates ‫ה‬‫י‬ as εἰς σάλον; σάλος means “shaking.” ‫ה‬‫י‬ is
similar to ‫ה‬‫י‬ from the root ‫ קו"ם‬and to ‫ה‬‫י‬ from the root ‫שו"ב‬. ‫ה‬, on the other hand,
is translated by ἀποκαθημένην “to the one who sits down by the side,” “to the one who moves
away.” This is what we find in Targum Lamentations 1:8 ‫ה היתה‬‫ני‬, which is translated by
‫בטלטול הוות‬, and the clause ‫ה ביניהם‬ ‫( היתה ירושלים‬Lam 1:17) is translated ‫הוות ירושלים‬
‫דמיא לאתתא מרחקא ביניהון‬. One should probably read ‫א‬ along with Targum Onqelos.
There is some similarity to Midrash Lamentations: ‫( על כן לנידה היתה – לטלטול היתה‬Parasha
1, sect. 36), ‫( היתה ירושלים לנדה ביניהם – לריחנק היתה‬Parasha 1 § 60). The midrash too
distinguishes between two versions, but in v. 17 it uses the verbal noun ‫ ריחוק‬as does Onqelos
in all the passages where ‫ה‬ is interpreted as an abstract noun.
Note also that later generations preserved the distinction in translating the words (since
they considered them separate words). Sa‘adia Ga’on translated ‫( לנידה היתה‬Lam 1:8) as ‫צארת‬
‫( נאידה‬became a wanderer; see R. Y. Qafih to the verse), ‫ה‬ ‫( היתה ירושלים‬Lam 1:17) ‫וצארת‬
‫ נדה( ירושלים מבערה‬is translated ‘distanced’!). Sa‛adia translates with participles in the two
verses. In Rashi’s commentary one hears echoes of the midrash and the targum: ‫( לנידה‬v. 8);
'‫ לגולה – לשון 'נע ונד‬.‫ה‬ (v. 17) – ‫לריחוק לבוז‬. In explaining ‫ה‬‫י‬, Rashi takes it as a
participle in explaining ‫ה‬ he interprets it as a verbal noun (as in the midrash). Ibn Ezra also
explains ‫ה‬‫י‬ in v. 8 from the root ‫נו"ד‬, though he believes the intent is one of mocking as in
‫ מנוד ראש‬and it is from the same verbal class as the expression ‫נע ונד‬. Several modern
commentators maintain this distinction. For example, Perles (1902–1903) correctly states that
‫( נידה‬vs. 8) “in targum and in midrash the word is to be interpreted from ‫( נו"ד‬shaking) and
this is more correct.” On the other hand, he follows Ibn Ezra in seeing this as mocking. Perles
did not notice that the distinction between ‫ נידה‬and ‫ה‬ exists already in the Septuagint. He
does cite some scholars who believe that ‫ נידה‬is a reflex (an erroneous one?) of ‫ה‬ (see Perles
ad loc.). This is apparent in the concordances of Mandelkern and Even-Shoshan, both of
whom list ‫ נידה‬in the entry of ‫ה‬. The modern dictionaries also relate ‫ נידה‬to ‫ה‬ (see nn. 14
and 16 above). Perles also did not notice that the blurring of the distinction between ‫ נידה‬and
‫ נדה‬can be observed in the Peshitta, where in both verses one finds ‫( נדתא‬see § 10 above).
The evidence from the Tiberian Masorah, supported by the Septuagint, Midrash Lamentations,
and the Jewish Aramaic Targum Lamentations outweighs the evidence from the Peshitta.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
adjutant were already transferred to new regiments, and their places
were not yet filled. The three months of the enlistment expired a few
days after the battle.
In the fall of 1861, the old artillery company of this town was
reorganized, and Captain Richard Barrett received a commission in
March, 1862, from the state, as its commander. This company,
chiefly recruited here, was later embodied in the Forty-seventh
Regiment, Massachusetts Volunteers, enlisted as nine months’ men,
and sent to New Orleans, where they were employed in guard duty
during their term of service. Captain Humphrey H. Buttrick, lieutenant
in this regiment, as he had been already lieutenant in Captain
Prescott’s company in 1861, went out again in August, 1864, a
captain in the Fifty-ninth Massachusetts, and saw hard service in the
Ninth Corps, under General Burnside. The regiment being formed of
veterans, and in fields requiring great activity and exposure, suffered
extraordinary losses; Captain Buttrick and one other officer being the
only officers in it who were neither killed, wounded nor captured.[190]
In August, 1862, on the new requisition for troops, when it was
becoming difficult to meet the draft,—mainly through the personal
example and influence of Mr. Sylvester Lovejoy, twelve men,
including himself, were enlisted for three years, and, being soon after
enrolled in the Fortieth Massachusetts, went to the war; and a very
good account has been heard, not only of the regiment, but of the
talents and virtues of these men.
After the return of the three months’ company to Concord, in 1861,
Captain Prescott raised a new company of volunteers, and Captain
Bowers another. Each of these companies included recruits from this
town, and they formed part of the Thirty-second Regiment of
Massachusetts Volunteers. Enlisting for three years, and remaining
to the end of the war, these troops saw every variety of hard service
which the war offered, and, though suffering at first some
disadvantage from change of commanders, and from severe losses,
they grew at last, under the command of Colonel Prescott, to an
excellent reputation, attested by the names of the thirty battles they
were authorized to inscribe on their flag, and by the important
position usually assigned them in the field.
I have found many notes of their rough experience in the march
and in the field. In McClellan’s retreat in the Peninsula, in July, 1862,
“it is all our men can do to draw their feet out of the mud. We
marched one mile through mud, without exaggeration, one foot
deep,—a good deal of the way over my boots, and with short rations;
on one day nothing but liver, blackberries, and pennyroyal tea.”—“At
Fredericksburg we lay eleven hours in one spot without moving,
except to rise and fire.” The next note is, “cracker for a day and a
half,—but all right.” Another day, “had not left the ranks for thirty
hours, and the nights were broken by frequent alarms. How would
Concord people,” he asks, “like to pass the night on the battle-field,
and hear the dying cry for help, and not be able to go to them?” But
the regiment did good service at Harrison’s Landing, and at
Antietam, under Colonel Parker; and at Fredericksburg, in
December, Lieutenant-Colonel Prescott loudly expressed his
satisfaction at his comrades, now and then particularizing names:
“Bowers, Shepard and Lauriat are as brave as lions.”[191]
At the battle of Gettysburg, in July, 1863, the brigade of which the
Thirty-second Regiment formed a part, was in line of battle seventy-
two hours, and suffered severely. Colonel Prescott’s regiment went
in with two hundred and ten men, nineteen officers. On the second of
July they had to cross the famous wheat-field, under fire from the
rebels in front and on both flanks. Seventy men were killed or
wounded out of seven companies. Here Francis Buttrick, whose
manly beauty all of us remember,[192] and Sergeant Appleton, an
excellent soldier, were fatally wounded. The Colonel was hit by three
bullets. “I feel,” he writes, “I have much to be thankful for that my life
is spared, although I would willingly die to have the regiment do as
well as they have done. Our colors had several holes made, and
were badly torn. One bullet hit the staff which the bearer had in his
hand. The color-bearer is brave as a lion; he will go anywhere you
say, and no questions asked; his name is Marshall Davis.” The
Colonel took evident pleasure in the fact that he could account for all
his men. There were so many killed, so many wounded,—but no
missing. For that word “missing” was apt to mean skulking. Another
incident: “A friend of Lieutenant Barrow complains that we did not
treat his body with respect, inasmuch as we did not send it home. I
think we were very fortunate to save it at all, for in ten minutes after
he was killed the rebels occupied the ground, and we had to carry
him and all our wounded nearly two miles in blankets. There was no
place nearer than Baltimore where we could have got a coffin, and I
suppose it was eighty miles there. We laid him in two double
blankets, and then sent off a long distance and got boards off a barn
to make the best coffin we could, and gave him burial.”
After Gettysburg, Colonel Prescott remarks that our regiment is
highly complimented. When Colonel Gurney, of the Ninth, came to
him the next day to tell him that “folks are just beginning to
appreciate the Thirty-second Regiment: it always was a good
regiment, and people are just beginning to find it out;” Colonel
Prescott notes in his journal,—“Pity they have not found it out before
it was all gone. We have a hundred and seventy-seven guns this
morning.”
Let me add an extract from the official report of the brigade
commander: “Word was sent by General Barnes, that, when we
retired, we should fall back under cover of the woods. This order was
communicated to Colonel Prescott, whose regiment was then under
the hottest fire. Understanding it to be a peremptory order to retire
then, he replied, ‘I don’t want to retire; I am not ready to retire; I can
hold this place;’ and he made good his assertion. Being informed
that he misunderstood the order, which was only to inform him how
to retire when it became necessary, he was satisfied, and he and his
command held their ground manfully.” It was said that Colonel
Prescott’s reply, when reported, pleased the Acting-Brigadier-
General Sweitzer mightily.
After Gettysburg, the Thirty-second Regiment saw hard service at
Rappahannock Station; and at Baltimore, in Virginia, where they
were drawn up in battle order for ten days successively: crossing the
Rapidan, and suffering from such extreme cold, a few days later, at
Mine Run, that the men were compelled to break rank and run in
circles to keep themselves from being frozen. On the third of
December, they went into winter quarters.
I must not follow the multiplied details that make the hard work of
the next year. But the campaign in the Wilderness surpassed all their
worst experience hitherto of the soldier’s life. On the third of May,
they crossed the Rapidan for the fifth time. On the twelfth, at Laurel
Hill, the regiment had twenty-one killed and seventy-five wounded,
including five officers. “The regiment has been in the front and centre
since the battle begun, eight and a half days ago, and is now
building breastworks on the Fredericksburg road. This has been the
hardest fight the world ever knew. I think the loss of our army will be
forty thousand. Every day, for the last eight days, there has been a
terrible battle the whole length of the line. One day they drove us; but
it has been regular bull-dog fighting.” On the twenty-first, they had
been, for seventeen days and nights, under arms without rest. On
the twenty-third, they crossed the North Anna, and achieved a great
success. On the thirtieth, we learn, “Our regiment has never been in
the second line since we crossed the Rapidan, on the third.” On the
night of the thirtieth,—“The hardest day we ever had. We have been
in the first line twenty-six days, and fighting every day but two; whilst
your newspapers talk of the inactivity of the Army of the Potomac. If
those writers could be here and fight all day, and sleep in the
trenches, and be called up several times in the night by picket-firing,
they would not call it inactive.” June fourth is marked in the diary as
“An awful day;—two hundred men lost to the command;” and not
until the fifth of June comes at last a respite for a short space, during
which the men drew shoes and socks, and the officers were able to
send to the wagons and procure a change of clothes, for the first
time in five weeks.
But from these incessant labors there was now to be rest for one
head,—the honored and beloved commander of the regiment. On
the sixteenth of June, they crossed the James River, and marched to
within three miles of Petersburg. Early in the morning of the
eighteenth they went to the front, formed line of battle, and were
ordered to take the Norfolk and Petersburg Railroad from the rebels.
In this charge, Colonel George L. Prescott was mortally wounded.
After driving the enemy from the railroad, crossing it, and climbing
the farther bank to continue the charge, he was struck, in front of his
command, by a musket-ball which entered his breast near the heart.
He was carried off the field to the division hospital, and died on the
following morning. On his death-bed, he received the needless
assurances of his general that “he had done more than all his
duty,”—needless to a conscience so faithful and unspotted. One of
his townsmen and comrades, a sergeant in his regiment, writing to
his own family, uses these words: “He was one of the few men who
fight for principle. He did not fight for glory, honor, nor money, but
because he thought it his duty. These are not my feelings only, but of
the whole regiment.”
On the first of January, 1865, the Thirty-second Regiment made
itself comfortable in log huts, a mile south of our rear line of works
before Petersburg. On the fourth of February, sudden orders came to
move next morning at daylight. At Dabney’s Mills, in a sharp fight,
they lost seventy-four in killed, wounded and missing. Here Major
Shepard was taken prisoner. The lines were held until the tenth, with
more than usual suffering from snow and hail and intense cold,
added to the annoyance of the artillery fire. On the first of April, the
regiment connected with Sheridan’s cavalry, near the Five Forks,
and took an important part in that battle which opened Petersburg
and Richmond, and forced the surrender of Lee. On the ninth, they
marched in support of the cavalry, and were advancing in a grand
charge, when the white flag of General Lee appeared. The brigade
of which the Thirty-second Regiment formed part was detailed to
receive the formal surrender of the rebel arms. The homeward
march began on the thirteenth, and the regiment was mustered out
in the field, at Washington, on the twenty-eighth of June, and arrived
in Boston on the first of July.
Fellow citizens: The obelisk records only the names of the dead.
There is something partial in this distribution of honor. Those who
went through those dreadful fields and returned not deserve much
more than all the honor we can pay. But those also who went
through the same fields, and returned alive, put just as much at
hazard as those who died, and, in other countries, would wear
distinctive badges of honor as long as they lived. I hope the disuse of
such medals or badges in this country only signifies that everybody
knows these men, and carries their deeds in such lively
remembrance that they require no badge or reminder. I am sure I
need not bespeak your gratitude to these fellow citizens and
neighbors of ours. I hope they will be content with the laurels of one
war.
But let me, in behalf of this assembly, speak directly to you, our
defenders, and say, that it is easy to see that if danger should ever
threaten the homes which you guard, the knowledge of your
presence will be a wall of fire for their protection. Brave men! you will
hardly be called to see again fields as terrible as those you have
already trampled with your victories.
There are people who can hardly read the names on yonder
bronze tablet, the mist so gathers in their eyes. Three of the names
are of sons of one family.[193] A gloom gathers on this assembly,
composed as it is of kindred men and women, for, in many houses,
the dearest and noblest is gone from their hearth-stone. Yet it is
tinged with light from heaven. A duty so severe has been
discharged, and with such immense results of good, lifting private
sacrifice to the sublime, that, though the cannon volleys have a
sound of funeral echoes, they can yet hear through them the
benedictions of their country and mankind.
APPENDIX
In the above Address I have been compelled to suppress more
details of personal interest than I have used. But I do not like to omit
the testimony to the character of the Commander of the Thirty-
second Massachusetts Regiment, given in the following letter by one
of his soldiers:—
Near Petersburg, Virginia, June 20, 1864.

Dear Father:
With feelings of deep regret, I inform you that Colonel
Prescott, our brave and lamented leader, is no more. He was
shot through the body, near the heart, on the eighteenth day
of June, and died the following morning. On the morning of
the eighteenth, our division was not in line. Reveille was at an
early hour, and before long we were moving to the front. Soon
we passed the ground where the Ninth Corps drove the
enemy from their fortified lines, and came upon and formed
our line in rear of Crawford’s Division. In front of us, and one
mile distant, the Rebels’ lines of works could be seen.
Between us and them, and in a deep gulley, was the Norfolk
and Petersburg Railroad. Soon the order came for us to take
the railroad from the enemy, whose advance then held it. Four
regiments of our brigade were to head the charge; so the 32d
Massachusetts, 62d, 91st and 155th Pennsylvania regiments,
under command of Colonel Gregory, moved forward in good
order, the enemy keeping up a steady fire all the time. All
went well till we reached the road. The Rebels left when they
saw us advance, and, when we reached the road, they were
running away. But here our troubles began. The banks, on
each side of the road, were about thirty feet high, and, being
stiff clay, were nearly perpendicular. We got down well
enough, because we got started, and were rolled to the
bottom, a confused pile of Yanks. Now to climb the other side!
It was impossible to get up by climbing, for the side of it was
like the side of a house. By dint of getting on each other’s
shoulders and making holes for our feet with bayonets, a few
of us got up; reaching our guns down to the others, we all
finally got over. Meanwhile, a storm of bullets was rained
upon us. Through it all, Colonel Prescott was cool and
collected, encouraging the men to do their best. After we were
almost all across, he moved out in front of the line, and called
the men out to him, saying, “Come on, men; form our line
here.” The color-bearer stepped towards him, when a bullet
struck the Colonel, passed through him, and wounded the
color-bearer, Sergeant Giles of Company G. Calmly the
Colonel turned, and said, “I am wounded; some one help me
off.” A sergeant of Company B, and one of the 21st
Pennsylvania, helped him off. This man told me, last night, all
that the Colonel said, while going off. He was afraid we would
be driven back, and wanted these men to stick by him. He
said, “I die for my country.” He seemed to be conscious that
death was near to him, and said the wound was near his
heart; wanted the sergeant of Company B to write to his
family, and tell them all about him. He will write to Mrs.
Prescott, probably; but if they do not hear from some one an
account of his death, I wish you would show this to Mrs.
Prescott. He died in the division hospital, night before last,
and his remains will probably be sent to Concord. We lament
his loss in the regiment very much. He was like a father to us,
—always counselling us to be firm in the path of duty, and
setting the example himself. I think a more moral man, or one
more likely to enter the kingdom of heaven, cannot be found
in the Army of the Potomac. No man ever heard him swear, or
saw him use liquor, since we were in the service. I wish there
was some way for the regiment to pay some tribute to his
memory. But the folks at home must do this for the present.
The Thirty-second Regiment has lost its leader, and calls on
the people of Concord to console the afflicted family of the
brave departed, by showing their esteem for him in some
manner. He was one of the few men who fight for principle,—
pure principle. He did not fight for glory, honor nor money but
because he thought it his duty. These are not my feelings
only, but of the whole regiment. I want you to show this to
every one, so they can see what we thought of the Colonel,
and how he died in front of his regiment. God bless and
comfort his poor family. Perhaps people think soldiers have
no feeling, but it is not so. We feel deep anxiety for the
families of all our dear comrades.
Charles Bartlett,
Sergeant Company G, 32d Mass. Vols.[194]
XVIII
EDITORS’ ADDRESS
MASSACHUSETTS QUARTERLY REVIEW,

DECEMBER, 1847
The old men studied magic in the flowers,

And human fortunes in astronomy,
And an omnipotence in chemistry,
Preferring things to names, for these were men,
Were unitarians of the united world,
And, wheresoever their clear eye-beams fell,
They caught the footsteps of the Same. Our eyes
Are armed, but we are strangers to the stars,
And strangers to the mystic beast and bird,
And strangers to the plant and to the mine.
The injured elements say, ‘Not in us;’
And night and day, ocean and continent,
Fire, plant and mineral say, ‘Not in us;’
And haughtily return us stare for stare.
For we invade them impiously for gain;
We devastate them unreligiously,
And coldly ask their pottage, not their love.
Therefore they shove us from them, yield to us
Only what to our griping toil is due;
But the sweet affluence of love and song,
The rich results of the divine consents
Of man and earth, of world beloved and loved,
The nectar and ambrosia are withheld.
EDITORS’ ADDRESS
The American people are fast opening their own destiny. The
material basis is of such extent that no folly of man can quite subvert
it; for the territory is a considerable fraction of the planet, and the
population neither loath nor inexpert to use their advantages. Add,
that this energetic race derive an unprecedented material power
from the new arts, from the expansions effected by public schools,
cheap postage and a cheap press, from the telescope, the telegraph,
the railroad, steamship, steam-ferry, steam-mill; from domestic
architecture, chemical agriculture, from ventilation, from ice, ether,
caoutchouc, and innumerable inventions and manufactures.
A scholar who has been reading of the fabulous magnificence of
Assyria and Persia, of Rome and Constantinople, leaves his library
and takes his seat in a railroad-car, where he is importuned by
newsboys with journals still wet from Liverpool and Havre, with
telegraphic despatches not yet fifty minutes old from Buffalo and
Cincinnati. At the screams of the steam-whistle, the train quits city
and suburbs, darts away into the interior, drops every man at his
estate as it whirls along, and shows our traveller what tens of
thousands of powerful and weaponed men, science-armed and
society-armed, sit at large in this ample region, obscure from their
numbers and the extent of the domain. He reflects on the power
which each of these plain republicans can employ; how far these
chains of intercourse and travel reach, interlock and ramify; what
levers, what pumps, what exhaustive analyses are applied to Nature
for the benefit of masses of men. Then he exclaims, What a negro-
fine royalty is that of Jamschid and Solomon! What a substantial
sovereignty does my townsman possess! A man who has a hundred
dollars to dispose of—a hundred dollars over his bread—is rich
beyond the dreams of the Cæsars.
Keep our eyes as long as we can on this picture, we cannot stave
off the ulterior question,—the famous question of Cineas to Pyrrhus,
[195]—the where to of all this power and population, these surveys
and inventions, this taxing and tabulating, mill-privilege, roads, and
mines. The aspect this country presents is a certain maniacal
activity, an immense apparatus of cunning machinery which turns
out, at last, some Nuremberg toys. Has it generated, as great
interests do, any intellectual power? Where are the works of the
imagination—the surest test of a national genius? At least as far as
the purpose and genius of America is yet reported in any book, it is a
sterility and no genius.
One would say there is nothing colossal in the country but its
geography and its material activities; that the moral and intellectual
effects are not on the same scale with the trade and production.
There is no speech heard but that of auctioneers, newsboys, and the
caucus. Where is the great breath of the New World, the voice of
aboriginal nations opening new eras with hymns of lofty cheer? Our
books and fine arts are imitations; there is a fatal incuriosity and
disinclination in our educated men to new studies and the
interrogation of Nature. We have taste, critical talent, good
professors, good commentators, but a lack of male energy. What
more serious calamity can befall a people than a constitutional
dulness and limitation? The moral influence of the intellect is
wanting. We hearken in vain for any profound voice speaking to the
American heart, cheering timid good men, animating the youth,
consoling the defeated, and intelligently announcing duties which
clothe life with joy, and endear the face of land and sea to men.[196]
It is a poor consideration that the country wit is precocious, and, as
we say, practical; that political interests on so broad a scale as ours
are administered by little men with some saucy village talent, by deft
partisans, good cipherers; strict economists, quite empty of all
superstition.
Conceding these unfavorable appearances, it would yet be a poor
pedantry to read the fates of this country from these narrow data. On
the contrary, we are persuaded that moral and material values are
always commensurate. Every material organization exists to a moral
end, which makes the reason of its existence. Here are no books,
but who can see the continent with its inland and surrounding
waters, its temperate climates, its west-wind breathing vigor through
all the year, its confluence of races so favorable to the highest
energy, and the infinite glut of their production, without putting new
queries to Destiny as to the purpose for which this muster of nations
and this sudden creation of enormous values is made?
This is equally the view of science and of patriotism. We hesitate
to employ a word so much abused as patriotism, whose true sense
is almost the reverse of its popular sense. We have no sympathy
with that boyish egotism, hoarse with cheering for one side, for one
state, for one town: the right patriotism consists in the delight which
springs from contributing our peculiar and legitimate advantages to
the benefit of humanity. Every foot of soil has its proper quality; the
grape on two sides of the same fence has new flavors; and so every
acre on the globe, every family of men, every point of climate, has its
distinguishing virtues. Certainly then this country does not lie here in
the sun causeless; and though it may not be easy to define its
influence, men feel already its emancipating quality in the careless
self-reliance of the manners, in the freedom of thought, in the direct
roads by which grievances are reached and redressed, and even in
the reckless and sinister politics, not less than in purer expressions.
Bad as it is, this freedom leads onward and upward,—to a Columbia
of thought and art, which is the last and endless end of Columbus’s
adventure.
Lovers of our country, but not always approvers of the public
counsels, we should certainly be glad to give good advice in politics.
We have not been able to escape our national and endemic habit,
and to be liberated from interest in the elections and in public affairs.
Nor have we cared to disfranchise ourselves. We are more solicitous
than others to make our politics clear and healthful, as we believe
politics to be nowise accidental or exceptional, but subject to the
same laws with trees, earths and acids. We see that reckless and
destructive fury which characterizes the lower classes of American
society, and which is pampered by hundreds of profligate presses.
The young intriguers who drive in bar-rooms and town-meetings the
trade of politics, sagacious only to seize the victorious side, have put
the country into the position of an overgrown bully, and
Massachusetts finds no heart or head to give weight and efficacy to
her contrary judgment. In hours when it seemed only to need one
just word from a man of honor to have vindicated the rights of
millions, and to have given a true direction to the first steps of a
nation, we have seen the best understandings of New England, the
trusted leaders of her counsels, constituting a snivelling and
despised opposition, clapped on the back by comfortable capitalists
from all sections, and persuaded to say, We are too old to stand for
what is called a New England sentiment any longer. Rely on us for
commercial representatives, but for questions of ethics,—who knows
what markets may be opened? We are not well, we are not in our
seats, when justice and humanity are to be spoken for.
We have a bad war, many victories, each of which converts the
country into an immense chanticleer; and a very insincere political
opposition.[197] The country needs to be extricated from its delirium
at once. Public affairs are chained in the same law with private; the
retributions of armed states are not less sure and signal than those
which come to private felons. The facility of majorities is no
protection from the natural sequence of their own acts. Men reason
badly, but Nature and Destiny are logical.[198]
But, whilst we should think our pains well bestowed if we could
cure the infatuation of statesmen, and should be sincerely pleased if
we could give a direction to the Federal politics, we are far from
believing politics the primal interest of men. On the contrary, we hold
that the laws and governors cannot possess a commanding interest
for any but vacant or fanatical people; for the reason that this is
simply a formal and superficial interest; and men of a solid genius
are only interested in substantial things.
The State, like the individual, should rest on an ideal basis. Not
only man but Nature is injured by the imputation that man exists only
to be fattened with bread, but he lives in such connection with
Thought and Fact that his bread is surely involved as one element
thereof, but is not its end and aim. So the insight which commands
the laws and conditions of the true polity precludes forever all
interest in the squabbles of parties. As soon as men have tasted the
enjoyment of learning, friendship and virtue, for which the State
exists, the prizes of office appear polluted, and their followers
outcasts.
A journal that would meet the real wants of this time must have a
courage and power sufficient to solve the problems which the great
groping society around us, stupid with perplexity, is dumbly
exploring. Let it now show its astuteness by dodging each difficult
question and arguing diffusely every point on which men are long
ago unanimous. Can it front this matter of Socialism, to which the
names of Owen and Fourier have attached, and dispose of that
question? Will it cope with the allied questions of Government,
Nonresistance, and all that belongs under that category? Will it
measure itself with the chapter on Slavery, in some sort the special
enigma of the time, as it has provoked against it a sort of inspiration
and enthusiasm singular in modern history? There are literary and
philosophical reputations to settle. The name of Swedenborg has in
this very time acquired new honors, and the current year has
witnessed the appearance, in their first English translation, of his
manuscripts. Here is an unsettled account in the book of Fame; a
nebula to dim eyes, but which great telescopes may yet resolve into
a magnificent system. Here is the standing problem of Natural
Science, and the merits of her great interpreters to be determined;
the encyclopædical Humboldt, and the intrepid generalizations
collected by the author of the Vestiges of Creation. Here is the
balance to be adjusted between the exact French school of Cuvier,
and the genial catholic theorists, Geoffroy St.-Hilaire, Goethe, Davy
and Agassiz. Will it venture into the thin and difficult air of that school
where the secrets of structure are discussed under the topics of
mesmerism and the twilights of demonology?
What will easily seem to many a far higher question than any other
is that which respects the embodying of the Conscience of the
period. Is the age we live in unfriendly to the highest powers; to that
blending of the affections with the poetic faculty which has
distinguished the Religious Ages? We have a better opinion of the
economy of Nature than to fear that those varying phases which
humanity presents ever leave out any of the grand springs of human
action. Mankind for the moment seem to be in search of a religion.
The Jewish cultus is declining; the Divine, or, as some will say, the
truly Human, hovers, now seen, now unseen, before us. This period
of peace, this hour when the jangle of contending churches is
hushing or hushed, will seem only the more propitious to those who
believe that man need not fear the want of religion, because they
know his religious constitution,—that he must rest on the moral and
religious sentiments, as the motion of bodies rests on geometry. In
the rapid decay of what was called religion, timid and unthinking
people fancy a decay of the hope of man. But the moral and religious
sentiments meet us everywhere, alike in markets as in churches. A
God starts up behind cotton bales also. The conscience of man is
regenerated as is the atmosphere, so that society cannot be
debauched. The health which we call Virtue is an equipoise which
easily redresses itself, and resembles those rocking stones which a
child’s finger can move, and a weight of many hundred tons cannot
overthrow.
With these convictions, a few friends of good letters have thought
fit to associate themselves for the conduct of a new journal. We have
obeyed the custom and convenience of the time in adopting this form
of a Review, as a mould into which all metal most easily runs. But
the form shall not be suffered to be an impediment. The name might
convey the impression of a book of criticism, and that nothing is to
be found here which was not written expressly for the Review; but
good readers know that inspired pages are not written to fill a space,
but for inevitable utterance; and to such our journal is freely and
solicitously open, even though everything else be excluded. We
entreat the aid of every lover of truth and right, and let these
principles entreat for us. We rely on the talents and industry of good
men known to us, but much more on the magnetism of truth, which is
multiplying and educating advocates for itself and friends for us. We
rely on the truth for and against ourselves.
XIX
ADDRESS TO KOSSUTH
AT CONCORD, MAY 11, 1852
God said, I am tired of kings,

I suffer them no more;
Up to my ear the morning brings
The outrage of the poor.
My angel,—his name is Freedom,—

Choose him to be your king;
He shall cut pathways east and west,
And fend you with his wing.
ADDRESS TO KOSSUTH
Sir,—The fatigue of your many public visits, in such unbroken
succession as may compare with the toils of a campaign, forbid us to
detain you long. The people of this town share with their countrymen
the admiration of valor and perseverance; they, like their
compatriots, have been hungry to see the man whose extraordinary
eloquence is seconded by the splendor and the solidity of his
actions. But, as it is the privilege of the people of this town to keep a
hallowed mound which has a place in the story of the country; as
Concord is one of the monuments of freedom; we knew beforehand
that you could not go by us; you could not take all your steps in the
pilgrimage of American liberty, until you had seen with your eyes the
ruins of the bridge where a handful of brave farmers opened our
Revolution. Therefore, we sat and waited for you.
And now, Sir, we are heartily glad to see you, at last, in these
fields. We set no more value than you do on cheers and huzzas. But
we think that the graves of our heroes around us throb to-day to a
footstep that sounded like their own:—
“The mighty tread

Brings from the dust the sound of liberty.”[199]
Sir, we have watched with attention your progress through the

land, and the varying feeling with which you have been received, and
the unvarying tone and countenance which you have maintained.
We wish to discriminate in our regard. We wish to reserve our honor
for actions of the noblest strain. We please ourselves that in you we
meet one whose temper was long since tried in the fire, and made
equal to all events; a man so truly in love with the greatest future,
that he cannot be diverted to any less.
It is our republican doctrine, too, that the wide variety of opinions is
an advantage. I believe I may say of the people of this country at
large, that their sympathy is more worth, because it stands the test of
party. It is not a blind wave; it is a living soul contending with living
souls. It is, in every expression, antagonized. No opinion will pass
but must stand the tug of war. As you see, the love you win is worth
something; for it has been argued through; its foundation searched; it
has proved sound and whole; it may be avowed; it will last, and it will
draw all opinion to itself.
We have seen, with great pleasure, that there is nothing accidental
in your attitude. We have seen that you are organically in that cause
you plead. The man of Freedom, you are also the man of Fate. You
do not elect, but you are elected by God and your genius to the task.
We do not, therefore, affect to thank you. We only see in you the
angel of freedom, crossing sea and land; crossing parties,
nationalities, private interests and self-esteems; dividing populations
where you go, and drawing to your part only the good. We are afraid
that you are growing popular, Sir; you may be called to the dangers
of prosperity. But, hitherto, you have had in all centuries and in all
parties only the men of heart. I do not know but you will have the
million yet. Then, may your strength be equal to your day. But
remember, Sir, that everything great and excellent in the world is in
minorities.[200]
Far be from us, Sir, any tone of patronage; we ought rather to ask
yours. We know the austere condition of liberty—that it must be
reconquered over and over again; yea, day by day; that it is a state
of war; that it is always slipping from those who boast it to those who
fight for it: and you, the foremost soldier of freedom in this age,—it is
for us to crave your judgment; who are we that we should dictate to
you? You have won your own. We only affirm it. This country of
workingmen greets in you a worker. This republic greets in you a
republican. We only say, ‘Well done, good and faithful.’—You have
earned your own nobility at home. We admit you ad eundem (as they
say at College). We admit you to the same degree, without new trial.
We suspend all rules before so paramount a merit. You may well sit
a doctor in the college of liberty. You have achieved your right to
interpret our Washington. And I speak the sense not only of every
generous American, but the law of mind, when I say that it is not
those who live idly in the city called after his name, but those who, all
over the world, think and act like him, who can claim to explain the
sentiment of Washington.
Sir, whatever obstruction from selfishness, indifference, or from
property (which always sympathizes with possession) you may
encounter, we congratulate you that you have known how to convert
calamities into powers, exile into a campaign, present defeat into
lasting victory. For this new crusade which you preach to willing and
to unwilling ears in America is a seed of armed men. You have got
your story told in every palace and log hut and prairie camp,
throughout this continent. And, as the shores of Europe and America
approach every month, and their politics will one day mingle, when
the crisis arrives it will find us all instructed beforehand in the rights
and wrongs of Hungary, and parties already to her freedom.
XX
WOMAN
A LECTURE READ BEFORE THE WOMAN’S

RIGHTS CONVENTION, BOSTON, SEPTEMBER
20, 1855
The politics are base,

The letters do not cheer,
And ’tis far in the deeps of history,
The voice that speaketh clear.
Yet there in the parlor sits

Some figure in noble guise,—
Our Angel in a stranger’s form;
Or Woman’s pleading eyes.
“Lo, when the Lord made North and South,

And sun and moon ordained he,
Forth bringing each by word of mouth
In order of its dignity,
Did man from the crude clay express
By sequence, and, all else decreed,
He formed the woman; nor might less
Than Sabbath such a work succeed.”
Coventry Patmore.
WOMAN
Among those movements which seem to be, now and then,
endemic in the public mind,—perhaps we should say, sporadic,—
rather than the single inspiration of one mind, is that which has urged
on society the benefits of action having for its object a benefit to the
position of Woman. And none is more seriously interesting to every
healthful and thoughtful mind.
In that race which is now predominant over all the other races of
men, it was a cherished belief that women had an oracular nature.
They are more delicate than men,—delicate as iodine to light,—and
thus more impressionable. They are the best index of the coming
hour. I share this belief. I think their words are to be weighed; but it is
their inconsiderate word,—according to the rule, ‘take their first
advice, not the second:’ as Coleridge was wont to apply to a lady for
her judgment in questions of taste, and accept it; but when she
added—“I think so, because—” “Pardon me, madam,” he said,
“leave me to find out the reasons for myself.” In this sense, as more
delicate mercuries of the imponderable and immaterial influences,
what they say and think is the shadow of coming events. Their very
dolls are indicative. Among our Norse ancestors, Frigga was
worshipped as the goddess of women. “Weirdes all,” said the Edda,
“Frigga knoweth, though she telleth them never.” That is to say, all
wisdoms Woman knows; though she takes them for granted, and
does not explain them as discoveries, like the understanding of man.
Men remark figure: women always catch the expression. They
inspire by a look, and pass with us not so much by what they say or
do, as by their presence. They learn so fast and convey the result so
fast as to outrun the logic of their slow brother and make his
acquisitions poor.[201] ’Tis their mood and tone that is important.
Does their mind misgive them, or are they firm and cheerful? ’Tis a
true report that things are going ill or well. And any remarkable
opinion or movement shared by woman will be the first sign of
revolution.
Plato said, Women are the same as men in faculty, only less in
degree. But the general voice of mankind has agreed that they have

PDF Studies in Classical Hebrew 1St Edition Moshe Bar Asher Ebook Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PDF Studies in Classical Hebrew 1St Edition Moshe Bar Asher Ebook Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Studies in Classical Hebrew 1st Edition

Perspectives on Causation Selected Papers from the

Theology of the Hebrew Bible volume 1 Methodological

From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries Select

A First Course in Functional Analysis 1st Edition Orr

Maternal grief in the Hebrew bible 1st Edition Kozlova

The Human First Edition Neal Asher

In Defense of Israel A Memoir of a Political Life 1st

Deathly The Dillon Sisters 1 1st Edition Brynne Asher

Forschungen zur Wissenschaft des Judentums

Edited by Aaron Koller

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

© 2014 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

1 The Qal Passive Participle of Geminate Verbs in Biblical

2 ‫בוֹ‬ '‫הּ – וה‬‫י‬: The morphology and meaning of the word

3 The Bible Interpreting Itself 47

4 Gesenius’ Thesaurus and Mishnaic Hebrew Studies 63

4.4 Early signs of MH scholarship 70

5 ‫איש יהודי היה בשושן הבירה‬: When did ‫ יהודי‬Come to Denote

6 Biblical Language in Mishnaic Texts 81

8 The verse ‫ל‬ ‫ע‬ (‘Hear, O Israel’) in Greek transcription on

B Qumran Hebrew 109

9 A Few Remarks on Mishnaic Hebrew and Aramaic in Qumran

10 On Several Linguistic Features of Qumran Hebrew 119

10.4.1 ‫קם = התקיים‬ 131

11 Qumran Hebrew Between Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrews:

12 Mistaken Repetitions or Double Readings? 153

13 Two Issues in Qumran Hebrew: Synchronic and Diachronic

14 Grammatical and Lexicographic Notes on a Qumran Fragment

15 ‫ כיניי הצלמים‬/ ‫כיון הצלמים‬ 197

15.2 A biblical expression in the Damascus Covenant and its

16 The Patterns Pe‘ila and Pi‘‘ul in Qumran Hebrew 207

C. Mishnaic Hebrew and Aramaic 227

17 Mishnaic Hebrew: An Introductory Survey 229

17.6.2 Documents from the Judean Desert 256

18 The Study of Mishnaic Hebrew Grammar Based on Written Sources:

19 The Different Traditions of Mishnaic Hebrew 293

19.6.3 The realization of the short vowel [u] 306

20 The System of binyanim in Mishnaic Hebrew (A Morphological

21 The Formation of the Nif‘al III-yod Participle in Mishnaic

21.4 MS Antonin 362

22 Comments on the Morphology of Nouns

23 Mishnaic Hebrew and Biblical Hebrew 383

24 On the Language of the Beit ‘Amar Papyrus 395

25 From Oral Transmission to Written Transmission (Concerning the

25.3 Additions 413

For example, I present different aspects of Qumran research in Chapters 11 and

Like the studies of my teachers, my colleagues, and my students, the scholars

1.2 ‫ה‬ and ‫ה‬

§ 3 In addition to the entries found in biblical dictionaries and commen-

1.2.2 ‫ה‬ (abstract noun) / ‫ה‬ (designating a female)

§ 7 Yet it is clear that ‫ה‬ is not an abstract noun designating menstrual

12 See Greenberg 1995:75–76 (and § 8 below).

find passages in which ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ appears to be an adjective/noun designating a

Near Petersburg, Virginia, June 20, 1864.

MASSACHUSETTS QUARTERLY REVIEW,

The old men studied magic in the flowers,

AT CONCORD, MAY 11, 1852

God said, I am tired of kings,

My angel,—his name is Freedom,—

“The mighty tread

Sir, we have watched with attention your progress through the