Targum Pseudo-jonathan And Late Jewish Literary Aramaic

Aramaic Studies

Aramaic Studies 11 (2013) 1–26

brill.com/arst

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Late Jewish Literary Aramaic Stephen A. Kaufman* Hebrew Union College Cincinnati, OH, USA Translated by Seth Ward, Bernard Grossfeld and Paul V.M. Flesher Edited by Paul V.M. Flesher

Abstract The twentieth-century’s Targum manuscript discoveries made clear that if Neofiti, the Fragment Targums, and the Cairo Geniza fragments were composed in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, then Targum Pseudo-Jonathan was not. In this classic essay, originally written in Hebrew in 1985–1986 and translated here for the first time, Stephen Kaufman worked to describe Pseudo-Jonathan’s dialect. He found that it borrowed from other dialects, but merged them into a single unified dialect appearing not only in Pseudo-Jonathan, but also in several Writings Targums. This essay thus presented the earliest description of Late Jewish Literary Aramaic. Keywords Aramaic; dialect; Late Aramaic; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan; Targum writings [363] In the nineteenth century, it was traditional for researchers of Jewish Aramaic to

divide Targum into three types, from the criterion of linguistic dialect: 1) Babylonian—that is to say, Targum Onqelos to the Torah (hereinafter TO) and Targum Jonathan to the Prophets; 2) Yerushalmi—That is to say, Targum “Jonathan” to the Torah (generally described in research literature as Targum “attributed to Jonathan,” Targum * This

article was written while I was a Fellow of the Institute of Advanced Studies of the Hebrew University, in a group organized by Professor Moshe Goshen-Gottstein (1985– 1986). I am eternally thankful for the invitation to participate in this group. I wish to indicate my great gratitude to the staff of the Institute for their constant readiness to assist me. This article originally appeared as Stephen (Shalom) A. Kaufman, “Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Late Jewish Literary Aramaic”, in M. Bar-Asher et al. (eds.), Moshe Goshen-Gottstein—In Memoriam (Studies in Bible and Exegesis, 3; Ramat Gan, Bar Ilan University Press, 1993), pp. 363– 382 (in Hebrew).] Pagination given here in square brackets refers to the original article. © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2013

DOI: 10.1163/17455227-13110104

2

Stephen A. Kaufman / Aramaic Studies 11 (2013) 1–26

Pseudo-Jonathan or “YI”, hereinafter PJ), the Fragmentary Targums (“YII”), Targum Job and Targum Psalms. 3) A mixed type—That is to say, the Targums to the Five Megillot Today, after the manuscripts of the original “Yerushalmi” Targum of the Torah have been discovered (hereinafter TY: manuscript fragments from the Cairo Geniza, and a complete manuscript—the well-known Neofiti manuscript from the Vatican Library), it is clear that even though the Targum known by the name “Pseudo-Jonathan” includes significant material from the tradition of the Land of Israel, it is not a “Yerushalmi” targum at all, but something of a mixture of TO, the Yerushalmi Targum, and fragments of midrash from various sources. Moreover, it is not uniform from a linguistic point of view: it contains words and idioms from the Aramaic of the Yerushalmi Targum, from that of TO, from Biblical Aramaic, and from the language of the Babylonian Talmud as well. In this light, M. Sokoloff was right when he decided to exclude PJ from the sources used in his new dictionary dedicated to the Jewish Aramaic of the Land of Israel.1 But there is a new lexicographical project in the field of Aramaic—the CAL (The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon)2—and for the purpose of defining the scope of this “comprehensive” dictionary, one must, from the inception, take into account all Jewish texts written in Aramaic, including Targum PseudoJonathan. The question is this: Is it proper to cite from PJ in the dictionary, and if so, under what dialect of Aramaic would it be reasonable to put it? In order to answer these questions, and despite my feeling that the language [364] of PJ is nothing | but a complete mixture (and therefore not to be considered for the purposes of the CAL), I have undertaken to study the characteristic features of its language in more fundamental way. Since PJ includes material taken both from TO and from TY, it is clear that in order to get a correct impression about the language of the author of PJ himself, we must analyze only textual fragments that are not parallel to these Targums. Therefore I went over the first two parashot of Genesis, Exodus, and Deuteronomy, and isolated the places where the text of PJ differs from both TO

1)

My thanks to Prof. Michael Sokoloff for making it possible for me to review the enormous body of material he gathered and edited for his dictionary [now published as Michael Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press and Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990). Second edition, 2002.] 2) The work of preparing the CAL was centralized at John Hopkins University in Baltimore, MD, USA. The main editors are D. Hillers, J.A. Fitzmyer and S.A. Kaufman, with the participation of an international committee of Aramaic scholars. [Ed. Shortly after the publication of the original article, the CAL moved to the Hebrew Union College/Jewish Institute of Religion in Cincinnati, OH, under the direction of Professor Kaufman.]

Stephen A. Kaufman / Aramaic Studies 11 (2013) 1–26

3

and TY in all its forms, even when the difference between them encompassed one word only.3 I thus found about 700 words, about half in continuous texts, and I went over this corpus again, in order to discover the lexicographical character of PJ. It is clear from the start that some drawbacks lie in this approach: A. There may be some places (perhaps many places) where the text of PJ was taken from a text of the Targum of the Land of Israel unknown to us.4 B. I did not try to discover whether word combinations in PJ lacking parallels in TO or PT in that location were actually borrowed from another place in PJ, and in that place the combinations were taken from TO or TY. C. I did not attempt to separate the material according to its aggadic source, that is to say, I did not examine whether the author used Babylonian terms when bringing a citation from a Babylonian source, but used Western dialect when taking an aggada from a Palestinian source. Despite these caveats, it seems to me the general picture is correct, and if it is necessary to revise our conclusions, it will only be in minute details. This analysis resulted in a list of words may be divided into seven groups (for the specific wordlists see the appendix to the essay): 1) General Aramaic: words known in most dialects and most periods of Aramaic. 2) Jewish Literary Aramaic: words and/or forms known from the languages of TO and Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, or from the Aramaic texts discovered in the Qumran caves. These two dialectal sources (Targum and Qumran) reflect the literary language in the Land of Israel in the last centuries of the Second Temple Period, and up to the year 200 ce, more or less.5

3)

Only one manuscript of PJ has survived to our times. I used the new edition. E. Clarke et al. (eds.), Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch: Text and Concordance (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1984). Please note that the concordance should be used with great caution. 4) The known texts are A. Diez Macho, Neophyti I, vols. 1–5 (Madrid-Barcelona: CSIC Press, 1968–1978); Fragment Targum: Michael L. Klein, The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch According to the Extant Sources (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980), and the Geniza fragments that Prof. Klein is about to publish. My thanks to him for enabling me to use his edition before it appeared in print. [Ed. The translation retains Hebrew terminology used in the original essay for this category of texts. “Targum of the Land of Israel” is equivalent to “Targum Yerushalmi” and the “Palestinian Targum.”] 5) [Editor: Referred to in recent scholarship and the CAL as Jewish Literary Aramaic ( JLA).]

4

Stephen A. Kaufman / Aramaic Studies 11 (2013) 1–26

3) Jewish Aramaic of the Land of Israel: Words characteristic of the dialect of the Targum of the Land of Israel and/or of Galilean Aramaic (dialects of the [365] Jerusalem Talmud and the Jerusalem Midrashim).6 | 4) Babylonian Aramaic: words/forms/orthography borrowed from or influenced by the dialect of the Babylonian Talmud. 5) “Hebrew:” Hebrew forms or words imitating forms in sources written in Hebrew (including words borrowed from Greek). 6) Archaic or obscure: It is known that our author often uses forms that imitate the salient characteristics of Biblical Aramaic, in particular “nasalization” (adding a nun in place of a doubled consonant) and the “haphel” form in place of the “aphel,” and also loves to invent forms which have an archaic flavor. 7) Unique/Syriac: This is the most important list. (See below.) In my comments on the lists, I noted justifications for my analysis, as well as the forms attested in the corpus when there is more than one attested form for a word. What conclusions derive from our analysis? At first glance, it appears we face a situation of complete chaos—that state which we expected to find at the beginning. How can it be explained? Were we to consider PJ exclusively, even if we discount the existence of list 7, perhaps we could suggest two explanations: (1) We have a late author, with a deficient knowledge of Aramaic (more precisely, one with relatively good knowledge of the classic dialects, but lacking the ability to distinguish between them, and lacking any spoken Aramaic dialect of his own), or, (2) we are dealing with a pure “Yerushalmi” text (a sort of “Yerushalmi” reworking of TO), that underwent all kinds of scribal adventures until it reached its present state. And indeed, these two explanations are the ones usually accepted by Targum scholarship at present. And from the point of view of many scholars, the same reasons even explain the state of the known manuscripts of the Targums of the books of the Hagiographa. But the truth of the matter is that the Targums of the Writings are not part of the problem, but rather part of its solution! The other part of the solution we find in our list 7. List 7 contains single words that occur, among Pentateuchal Targums, only in PJ. But most of the words of the list are common to Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and to the Targums to the book of Job and the book of Psalms (and sometimes also in other Targums of the Writings)—and are not found in other Targums.

6)

[Editor: Referred to in recent scholarship and the CAL as Jewish Palestinian Aramaic ( JPA).]

Stephen A. Kaufman / Aramaic Studies 11 (2013) 1–26

5

An additional characteristic of list 7 is that many words are also known in Syriac (with small differences, of course). This phenomenon spurred me to review all the lists an second time from the point of view of the lexicon of the Writings Targums, from which a very interesting fact emerged. Even though PJ has some characteristics of a source of the Land of Israel, others of a Babylonian source, additional characteristics of Literary Aramaic, and others not characteristic of any of these dialects, almost all the characteristics in all the groups (lists) are found also in language of the “Yerushalmi” Targums to the Writings. But our data demonstrates that what unifies these Targums is not their “Yerushalmi-ness” but a unique, standard system of “Yerushalmite” characteristics, both lexical and grammatical. Furthermore, these common “Yerushalmite” [366] characteristics are merely part of a larger group of features | that characterize the literary dialect in which these Targums were written—Late Jewish Literary Aramaic (hereinafter, LJLA). I do not intend to claim that all these texts (i.e., Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and the Writings Targums), or even a single pair of them, were written or edited in the same place or the same century, and we cannot escape the conclusion that every composition has unique characteristics that deviate from the normative type we might have been able to delineate on the basis of the clearlyshared characteristics. But I am prepared to defend two basic conclusions, each of which contradicts one of the fundamental conclusions of one of the major schools of Targum scholarship: On the one hand, LJLA was a literary dialect used in an area in which Aramaic was still spoken, an area in which the tradition of Aramaic literary dialects was still alive and kicking. When the language deviates from the ordinary (excluding archaisms, scribal “corrections” and hypercorrections), it is possible to suppose that local dialects peek through the literary screen, just as we suppose with other literary dialects. On the other hand, the fact that these Targums are characterized by a standard, lengthy list of linguistic features of the Aramaic of the Land of Israel does not prove that the Targumic traditions found in them are “Yerushalmi.” Nor does this prove that the homeland of even a single one of these texts is in the Land of Israel. The “Yerushalminess” of these texts is merely a feature of the literary language we are examining. Can it be that an Aramaic text, from a period in which Aramaic was still spoken, would have artificial forms and linguistic inventions such as we find in PJ? Not in an early period, apparently, as long as the original exegetical-targumic tradition was still felt. But PJ and the Writings Targums do not directly belong to this chain of tradition. They are something else, from another period (and from another place?). From the standpoint of the language they contain, they are much more related to the later Jewish biblical targums—the product of the

6

Stephen A. Kaufman / Aramaic Studies 11 (2013) 1–26

Academy and not the product of the Synagogue—in which we find a freedom of language usage greatly similar to what we find in PJ.7 Let us clarify, I acknowledge that here I propose to forego once and for all a foundational premise established by Prof. Y. Kutscher, z’ʾl. He argued, correctly, that the presence of characteristics from Babylonian Aramaic in a Jewish Aramaic text does not prove that the source of that text is in the East. For, given the central position of the Babylonian Talmud in late scribal tradition (and, regarding Targum Onqelos and in Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, in the light of the Babylonian transmission of the texts), the later scribes often “fixed” the text to match the known Babylonian typology. But I am no longer prepared to accept his second claim, that is, that the presence of Aramaic traits of the Land of Israel dialect in a particular text could be explained solely by the Land of Israel origin of that text. He used to say, “Why would a scribe add Western characteristics to a text whose origin was not in the West?”8 I am not now prepared to argue [367] that characteristics like these were never indeed added even once, | but I suggest that there is a block of texts connected to scripture—Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Targums of the Writings and others—that were composed from the start in an Aramaic dialect that used certain specific Western characteristics abundantly, but it is very likely these texts were not composed in the Land of Israel. So it is quite proper to consider this question: Why did this literary dialect use these features of the language of the Land of Israel? I am not willing or able to give the decisive answer to this question now, but what I do wish to emphasize is that we cannot answer our question with the simple response: “Their source is in the Land of Israel.” In the meantime, it is possible to surmise that one of the reasons for using Western characteristics is because in that period (between the sixth century and the ninth century?) and in that area (from the Land of Israel to central Syria and even further east) the Yerushalmi Targums to the Pentateuch were well-known, and they served as archetype for writing in Jewish “Literary” Aramaic. So what are the distinguishing characteristics of this Aramaic dialect, LJLA, and which texts are written in it? We will not achieve a satisfactory answer without undertaking comprehensive research. For now, it is possible only to list a few general principles: apparently, most of the words in lists 3, 7 and even 4 are typical of our dialect, especially ‫ איהו‬,‫ מוי‬,‫ שייל‬,‫ כיסוף‬,‫ סיגוף‬,‫ שדר‬,‫ מטול‬,‫ מאן‬,‫ חמי‬,‫ כדון‬,‫ארום‬ 7)

See, for example, Yona Sabar, Sefer Bereshit be-Aramit hadasha (The Book of Genesis in Neo-Aramaic) ( Jerusalem: Magnus Press, 5743 [1983] (in Hebrew)), pp. 25–35. 8) But I tend to think that the Targum Yerushalmi to the Pentateuch is based on a source formulated in Literary Aramaic (that is, the same text that served as a basis for TO), that underwent afterwards a series of additions and changes that made it closer to the Western dialect, and to the “Yerushalmi” system of doing Targum.

Stephen A. Kaufman / Aramaic Studies 11 (2013) 1–26

7

‫ טוורא‬,‫ אוף‬,‫ חכים‬,‫ הינון‬,‫ אדם‬and ‫איקר‬. This is also true of many morphologies from Jewish Literary Aramaic in general and from Targums Onqelos and Jonathan in particular. And finally, “scriptural” / Syriac archaizing such as ‫ אינתתא‬and ‫ אנת‬is typical of our dialect. From a grammatical aspect it is very difficult to recognize the special characteristics because of many corrections which have fallen into the manuscripts before us. But it is clear that the ending ‫ ־וי‬for masculine third person (for example, ‫ידוי‬, “his hands”) was typical of the dialect, and so also the use of pronominal suffixes attached to a verb to indicate the object (in contrast to the Yerushalmi Targums to the Pentateuch). In most cases the morphology is similar to that of Targum Onqelos. Additionally, it seems to me, that there are principles of usage in this dialect, at least as used by the more talented authors who wrote in it, not found in any other Jewish Aramaic dialect whatsoever. See, for example, the notes to ‫אינתתא‬, ‫( דנן‬list 2), ‫איהי‬, ‫( איהו‬list 4), and ‫( מטול‬list 7). Likewise it is difficult to assemble a complete list of the written texts in this “new” dialect, especially in light of the poor state of the manuscripts in our hands. For example, although the nature of the targums to the Five Megillot appears quite different from that of PJ, Job and Psalms, apparently these were all written in this dialect (except, perhaps, the Second Targum to Esther, which appears to me to be very late), and underwent further correction because of their use in the synagogue. And as for the Targumim that remained “Yerushalmite,” they remained that way because they were not used at all in the Synagogue.9 These corrections may be divided into two groups: those which mimic TO, and those based upon the language and orthography of the Babylonian Talmud. It is pos[368] sible to add to these Targums (merely as an initial suggestion): |

A) Most of the “Yerushalmi” supplements (tosephtot) for Targum Jonathan of the Prophets. B) Later compositions and translations such as the Book of Tobit and “Bel and the Dragon.”10 C) Piyyutim and reshuyot (personal liturgical poems “introducing” a major prayer) from medieval times, that is, written after the Land of Israel piyyutim of the Byzantine period, but earlier than the later compositions written in the Western diaspora.

9)

Targum Proverbs is known to be translated from Syriac, but the dialect of the Targum is that of Late Jewish Literary Aramaic! 10) Both of these are found in A. Neubauer, The Book of Tobit (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1878). There is no doubt that “Bel and the Dragon” is translated from Syriac, and apparently so is the Book of Tobit.

8

Stephen A. Kaufman / Aramaic Studies 11 (2013) 1–26

We must emphasize that it is very apparent that there are many texts (and among them certainly some that appear on this list) that were not written in our dialect itself, but only after the period in which the dialect flourished. Their similarity to the texts in our dialect teaches that they were influenced by it just as our dialect was influenced by the earlier Literary Aramaic. What is new in our explanation? A few scholars in the nineteenth century, and even already in the sixteenth century, emphasized that there is a similarity between the Targum of the book of Job and the Targum of the book of Psalms, and that both of them are similar to “Targum Yerushalmi” (that is to say, PJ). Even in our own generation, several scholars who treated the Targums of selected books of the Writings tended increasingly to emphasize the Land of Israel character of these texts.11 Our innovation lies in the conclusion that the Land of Israel features of the Targums to the books of the Writings and PJ are not Land of Israel in the full meaning of the term. In other words they did not derive from an original Land of Israel tradition of the Targum of these biblical books. These features represent only one dimension, albeit a truly important and central one, of the LJLA: a dialect, in which different Aramaic traditions participate: Biblical Aramaic, Jewish Literary Aramaic, Aramaic of the Yerushalmi Targums, Aramaic of the Babylonian Talmud, and a spoken Aramaic dialect very close to Syriac in its forms (and also cognizant of the orthographic tradition of Syriac). All of these take their part, not in anarchy, but every one in a measured and normal manner. I doubt very much if it is possible to compare sections from Targum PseudoJonathan, Targum Job, Targum Psalms, and Targum Chronicles (of course, sections lacking outside sources) and to argue that in one of them there are more words or forms corresponding to the dialect of the Yerushalmi Targums to the Pentateuch than in another. True, some use more archaic forms or artificial forms, and some make more use of Babylonian forms. In contrast to this, the Land of Israel character derives from a shared, circumscribed nucleus of Land of Israel lexicographical and grammatical material (in addition to that part of the nucleus that is not Land of Israel). None of these texts testifies to a source within a living and flourishing tradition of spoken Aramaic of the Land of Israel, as do the various Pentateuchal Targums, neither in the form known to us today, nor even [369] in any | form we are able to reconstruct, if we thought the text underwent farreaching “corrections” by later scribes.

11)

For example, Raphael Weiss, The Aramaic Targum of Job (Tel Aviv: The Chaim Rosenberg School for Jewish Studies, 5738 [1979]); and R.T. White, A Linguistic Analysis of the Targum to Chronicles with Specific Reference to its Relationship with Other Forms of Aramaic (Ph.D. dissertation, Oxford, 1981). The exaggerated dating suggested for PJ in this dissertation should not be taken seriously.

Stephen A. Kaufman / Aramaic Studies 11 (2013) 1–26

9

A long road stands before scholars of Jewish Aramaic until they are able to sketch the full picture of this dialect. It is a fact that the single manuscript of Pseudo-Jonathan is an exceedingly poor manuscript. But we know of much better manuscript of the Targums of some books of the Writings, and I am certain that the dialect reflected in the best among them will emerge as very close to the standard I have described here. I am likewise certain that research will determine that there are a very few distinctly Babylonian forms in the reconstructed source of those texts. If so, we have succeeded in resurrecting a lost and important dialect of Jewish Aramaic. Its lexicography deserves to stand alongside the other dialects in CAL. Postscript by Stephen A. Kaufman, October, 2013 This paper was written when the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon Project (CAL) was just a dream. Almost all the texts mentioned in the article are now available for study online at the project’s web site http://cal.huc.edu, and many of its proposals and tentative conclusions should now be refined using the tools found there. A sample such study will be published in a subsequent issue of this journal from the Munich conference proceedings. The following remarks reflect a quarter-century’s work with this data for the project. One thing that this work has made crystal clear that was not emphasized enough in the original paper is that the amount of scribal tampering and/or error reflected in the known copies of these texts was both substantial and widely varied. Especially in the case of the Syriac-like expressions distinctive to the LJLA dialect, later scribes—living in non-Aramaic-speaking milieus—could not possibly be expected to understand most of them, and corruption is rampant. It should also be emphasized that Dr. E. Cook had actually started on his dissertation work at UCLA on the grammar of Pseudo-Jonathan before my research that took place in the autumn of 1985. We reached very similar conclusions and have since collaborated, but I did not have the opportunity to see his work until after my oral presentation. Nonetheless, I should have insisted that reference to it be included in the six-years delayed print publication. Lamentably, Dr. Cook has yet to publish his complete findings. Specific Comments p. 3 paragraph B). This procedure can and should be easily done now using the CAL. At the time of the original article the only concordance for these texts was the somewhat unreliable one for Pseudo-Jonathan referenced in fn. 3.

10

Stephen A. Kaufman / Aramaic Studies 11 (2013) 1–26

p. 7, 2nd full paragraph. The Second Targum to Esther. When I wrote this impression I was undoubtedly influenced simply by the massive aggadic material in the text to suggest it was ‘very late.’ Only with the study appearing in the forthcoming Munich paper did I learn that its base text in fact belongs, from a lexicographic perspective, to the core of LJLA. Having gone through substantially more generations of scribal tampering, however, it gives a false impression when compared with the other LJLA core material. p. 7 bottom paragraph B) and fn. 10. I have no idea how I came up with the idea that Tobit and Bel and the Dragon were translated from Syriac. It is now clear Tobit was not at all from the Syriac, but was rather rendered from a Europeanlanguage source in a non-Aramaic-speaking environment. (Consult my forthcoming Munich paper.) As for the additions to Daniel, the ‘Bel and the Dragon’ material published by Neubauer referenced in the article indeed shows undeniable connection to the Syriac text where the portions are parallel and must have been based on it. The text published by M. Gaster in Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology vol. 16 (Dec. 1894): 312 ff. (which contains both the ‘Prayer of the Three’ and ‘Bel and the Dragon’), on the other hand, shows no such similarities and is written in an Onqelos-type but simplistic Aramaic similar to that of the medieval Tobit text and is thus strongly suggestive of a non-Aramaicspeaking milieu. As a demonstrative example, consult the passage at v. 27 of Bel and the Dragon (CAL text number 62035) where the Syriac ‫ܘ󰁈̣󰁅󰀭 ܕ󰀱󰀥󰀊󰀤󰀭 ܙ󰀽󰁋ܐ ܘ󰀴󰀻󰁇ܐ ܘܬܪ󰀍󰀊 ܘ󰀍󰁉󰀭 ܐ󰀱󰀙ܢ ܐ󰀨󰀜󰀖ܐ ܘ̣󰀺󰀎󰀖 󰀮󰀲󰀘ܘܢ ܐ̈󰀴󰀾󰁇ܐ ܘ̣󰁈󰀖ܐ‬ 󰀊󰀲󰀥󰀱‫ܐ󰀱󰀥󰀳 󰀍󰀾󰀙󰀮󰀘 ܕܬ‬

corresponds word for word to the Neubauer text except for a few standard orthographic differences between Jewish Aramaic and Syriac scribal practice: ‫ונסב דניאל זיפתא וסערא ותרבא ובשלינון אך חדא ועבד מנהון אספירי ואישדי אינון בפומיה דתנינא‬

whereas the Gaster text is totally different—closer to the Greek texts but corresponding precisely to neither Greek recension: ‫ואזל דניאל ונסיב ליה זפתא ושמנוניתא וכיתן ושערין ויגלול ית כול דין סחור סחור למסריקא ורמהי‬ ‫בפומי דתנינא‬

In sum, the core texts of LJLA properly speaking are Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to the Pentateuch, Targum Psalms, Targum Job, and Targum Sheni, along with, perhaps, a few of the tosephtot to Targum Jonathan to the Prophets. (Which ones and precisely how much demands further research.) All other late texts are included in the general rubric of LJLA but must be understood to have widely varied origins as regard both place and time.

‫‪11‬‬

‫‪Stephen A. Kaufman / Aramaic Studies 11 (2013) 1–26‬‬

‫‪Appendix‬‬ ‫‪1. General Aramaic‬‬ ‫אב‪1‬‬ ‫אבן‪2‬‬

‫או‬ ‫אודן‪3‬‬

‫אויר‬ ‫אולפן‪4‬‬ ‫אומן‪5‬‬

‫אוצרי‬ ‫אוקינוס‬ ‫אורח‪6‬‬ ‫אורייתא‬ ‫אורכות )’‪(‘a long period‬‬ ‫אזל‪7‬‬ ‫אחד‪8‬‬ ‫אח‪9‬‬ ‫איברין‬

‫אלין‪ ,‬אילין‬ ‫אילני‬ ‫אימיה‬ ‫אין‪10‬‬ ‫אינש‬ ‫איפשר‬ ‫אישתא‬ ‫אית‬ ‫אכל‪11‬‬ ‫אלקא‪12‬‬ ‫אלה)י(ן‬ ‫מלפא‬ ‫אלפין‬ ‫אמר‪13‬‬ ‫אנא‬ ‫אניק‬

‫אסי‪14‬‬

‫אסבר־אפין‬ ‫אסכטלא‪15‬‬ ‫אסרתון ‪(you m.pl.‬‬

‫)‪bound‬‬ ‫אפקרסו‬ ‫אפשר‪16‬‬ ‫אצבעתא‬ ‫ארבע‪17‬‬ ‫ארבעין‬ ‫אורכתנון ‪(you m.pl.‬‬

‫!)‪tarried‬‬ ‫ארכא )‪(period‬‬ ‫ארע‪18‬‬ ‫אשד‪19‬‬ ‫אתון‪ ,‬את‪20‬‬

‫‪.‬אבתהתכו‪ ,‬אבוי‬ ‫‪.‬אבנין‪ ,‬אבנא‬ ‫‪.‬אדניה‪ ,‬אודנין‪ ,‬אודניהון‬ ‫‪.‬אולפנך‪ ,‬אולפן‬ ‫‪.‬אומנותיה‪ ,‬אומנא‬ ‫‪.‬ארחן‪ ,‬אורחיהון‬ ‫‪.‬איזל‪ ,‬איזילו‬ ‫‪.‬אחידן‬ ‫‪ (3 times).‬אחוי‬ ‫‪’ is Western (for example, Weiss, Job, p. 306), but since it is used in both‬אין‘ ‪Some say that‬‬

‫)‪1‬‬ ‫)‪2‬‬ ‫)‪3‬‬ ‫)‪4‬‬ ‫)‪5‬‬ ‫)‪6‬‬ ‫)‪7‬‬ ‫)‪8‬‬ ‫)‪9‬‬ ‫)‪10‬‬

‫‪TO and Syriac, I include it here.‬‬ ‫‪.‬מתאכל‪ ,‬אכיל )‪11‬‬ ‫‪ (1 time).‬אלהא )‪12‬‬ ‫‪.‬אמרית‪ ,‬אמרין‪ ,‬מימר‪ ,‬למימר‪ ,‬לאומר‪ ,‬יימר )‪13‬‬ ‫‪.‬איתסיית )‪14‬‬ ‫‪.‬אסטלא ‪15) Gen. 9:23, a mistake for‬‬ ‫‪16) A word common to all Jewish dialects.‬‬ ‫‪.‬ארבעת )‪17‬‬ ‫‪ (11×).‬ארעא ‪18) (1×).‬‬ ‫‪.‬ישוד )‪19‬‬ ‫‪ in list 6.‬אנת ‪20) See‬‬

12

[371]

21)

Stephen A. Kaufman / Aramaic Studies 11 (2013) 1–26

(healthy) ‫ברייא‬

26‫בית־מקדשא‬

21‫אתי‬

‫ברכתי‬ ‫ברתיה‬ ‫בשילת‬ ‫בתולין‬ ‫בתר‬ ‫בתר־כן‬ 34‫גבורן‬ ‫גביי‬ ‫גבר‬ ‫גובא‬ ‫גווית‬ ‫אגחת‬ ‫גומליהון‬ ‫גופא‬ ‫גופנא‬ 35‫גזר‬ ‫גיברייא‬ ‫גידין‬ ‫גיוותנין‬ 36‫גינוניתא‬

(then)27 ‫בכין‬

‫אתר‬ 22‫ב־‬ 23‫בגו‬ ‫בהתתהון‬ ‫בוכרייא‬ ‫איתבונן‬ ‫מבזע‬ ‫בחיר‬ ‫אבטיל‬ ‫ביד־‬ | ‫ביכוריא‬ ‫ביניינא‬ ‫בירייתא‬ ‫בירין‬ ‫בין‬ ‫ביני־שימשתא‬ 24‫ביש‬ ‫שרא‬/‫ביס‬ (in construct ‫בית‬

‫בלא‬ ‫בלחודיי‬ ‫איתבלעו‬ 28‫ במציעות‬,‫במיצעא‬ 29‫בנא‬ 30‫בעא‬ ‫בעותא‬ ‫בעיר‬ ‫בעלה‬ ‫בציר‬ ‫תבצרון‬ ‫בציר‬ 31‫בר‬ 32‫בר־נשא‬ (field) ‫ברא‬ ‫ברא‬ 33‫איתברי‬ (creature) ‫ברייה‬ ‫ברייתא‬

case)25

‫ איתי‬,‫אייתי‬. See ‫ בהום‬in list 6. 23) ‫בגויה‬. 24) ‫ בישא‬,‫ בישין‬,‫בישתא‬. 25) ‫ ביה‬,‫ ביה( בתין‬is an error for ‘‫ ’בית‬and not an unusual orthography for the Babylonian form “‫”בי‬, even though this form is present in this manuscript). 26) This is the correct and expected form. On rare occasions, the Babylonian form ‘‫בי‬ ‫ ’מ)ו(קדשא‬is attested in PJ. 27) Perhaps this should be transferred to List 2. 28) The long form is characteristic of JLA and Galilean Aramaic; the short form is more characteristic of our dialect. 29) ‫ מתבניא‬,‫בנייה‬. 30) ‫בעי‬. 31) ‫ בריה‬,‫בנוי‬,‫ בני‬,‫ בניהון‬,‫ בניכון‬,‫ בנן‬,‫ בנתיהון‬,‫בנתיכון‬. 32) ‫ בני־אינשא‬,‫בני־נשא‬. 33) ‫ איתבריא‬,‫ איתבריאו‬,‫ איתבריאת‬,‫איתבריין‬. 34) ‫ גבורת‬,‫גבורתיה‬. 35) ‫ גזיר‬,‫ גזירת‬,‫ גזירתא‬,‫מגזרי‬. 36) (4×) In contrast to only one occurrence of the classic form ‫גינתא‬, as is generally the case in PJ. It’s not clear to me which group this word belongs to. Perhaps it is influenced by Babylonian traditions, but one may also suppose that it is a good form in late Literary Aramaic, or even 22)

‫‪13‬‬

‫‪Stephen A. Kaufman / Aramaic Studies 11 (2013) 1–26‬‬

‫גינתא‪37‬‬

‫גיף‬ ‫גירין‬ ‫גלי‪38‬‬ ‫גלותא‪39‬‬ ‫תגמרינון‬ ‫גנונא‬ ‫גניסת‬ ‫גרי‪40‬‬ ‫דא‬ ‫דבר‬ ‫מידן‪41‬‬ ‫אודיק‬ ‫מידחי‬ ‫דחיל‬ ‫דחילת‬ ‫דחלתא )‪(Godhead‬‬ ‫די‬ ‫דיינא‬

‫דיירן‬ ‫דינא‬ ‫תדכון‬ ‫דכייתא‪42‬‬ ‫דלא‬ ‫דליק‬ ‫דמא‬ ‫דמי ‪(similar)43‬‬ ‫דמך ‪| (to sleep)44‬‬ ‫דעיץ‬ ‫דעתהון‪45‬‬ ‫דקיק‬ ‫דר‬ ‫מדרע‬ ‫הא‬ ‫ההוא‬ ‫הוא‪46‬‬ ‫הוי‪47‬‬ ‫היא‪48‬‬

‫הימנתו‬ ‫הכי‪49‬‬ ‫מהלך‪50‬‬ ‫אתהני‬ ‫הפיכו‪51‬‬ ‫הרהירו‬ ‫ווי‬ ‫זהירין‬ ‫אזהר‪52‬‬ ‫אזדווגא‪53‬‬ ‫זוגיה‬ ‫זיינא‬ ‫זכותא‪54‬‬ ‫זכיי‬ ‫זמן‬ ‫זמן ‪(to prepare,‬‬

‫‪summon)55‬‬ ‫זנו‪56‬‬

‫זני‬

‫‪ (settee), a development from the‬גנוני ‪an artificial orthography based on the western form‬‬ ‫‪common word (from Akkadian), the meaning of which is ‘wedding canopy’.‬‬ ‫‪.‬גינוניתא ‪37) Gen. 8:20. A classic form, see‬‬ ‫‪.‬יגלי‪ ,‬איתגליתי‪ ,‬איתגליאת‪ ,‬איתגלי )‪38‬‬ ‫‪.‬גלוותא )‪39‬‬ ‫‪.‬מתגריא‪ ,‬איגרי )‪40‬‬ ‫‪.‬מדנהון‪ ,‬אידיין )‪41‬‬ ‫‪.‬דכיין )‪42‬‬ ‫‪.‬דמיין )‪43‬‬ ‫‪.‬דמיך )‪44‬‬ ‫‪.‬דעתיהן‪ ,‬דעתיה )‪45‬‬ ‫‪ in List 4.‬איהו ‪46) (17×). See‬‬ ‫‪ in List 3, and forms without‬הוינא ‪. See also‬הוי‪ ,‬הות‪ ,‬הוות‪ ,‬הוון‪ ,‬תהוון‪ ,‬מיהוי‪ ,‬יהוי‪ ,‬הוו‪ ,‬תיה‪ ,‬הוה )‪47‬‬ ‫‪ in List 2.‬ה‬ ‫‪ in List 4.‬איהי ‪48) (9×). See‬‬ ‫‪.‬בתר כדין ‪: Correct to the regular form‬בתר הכי ‪49) Gen. 7:11.‬‬ ‫‪.‬מהלכן )‪50‬‬ ‫‪.‬איתהפיכו‪ ,‬איתהפיך )‪51‬‬ ‫‪.‬אזהרינון‪ ,‬אזדהרון )‪52‬‬ ‫‪.‬אזדווגן )‪53‬‬ ‫‪.‬זכותיה‪ ,‬זכוותך‪ ,‬זכוות )‪54‬‬ ‫‪.‬זימניה‪ ,‬זמנו )‪55‬‬ ‫‪.‬זנותה )‪56‬‬

‫]‪[372‬‬

‫‪Stephen A. Kaufman / Aramaic Studies 11 (2013) 1–26‬‬

‫זנירתא‬ ‫זעירחא‬ ‫אזדערת‬ ‫זקף‪57‬‬ ‫זריזן‬ ‫זרעית‬ ‫חביב‬ ‫חבלא‬ ‫יתחבר‬ ‫חבריה‬ ‫חגא‬ ‫חד‬ ‫חוב‪58‬‬ ‫חוב‪59‬‬ ‫חייב‬ ‫חוויא‬ ‫מחוורא‬ ‫חוטרא‬ ‫חוי‪60‬‬ ‫חוכמתיה‬ ‫חולק‬ ‫חיישן‬ ‫חושבן‬ ‫חי‬ ‫חיין‪61‬‬ ‫חיון‬

‫חיותא‬ ‫ח)י(למא‬ ‫חיתונכון‬ ‫חלף‬ ‫חמוי‬ ‫חמשין‬ ‫חמש‬ ‫חסידא‬ ‫חסין‬ ‫חקיק‪62‬‬ ‫חקרא‬ ‫מחרבא‬ ‫חררן‬ ‫חרשיותא‬ ‫חרשין‬ ‫מתחתן‬ ‫טבע‬ ‫טבתא‬ ‫טומריא‬ ‫טימרא‬ ‫טופרא‬ ‫טיבו‬ ‫טייסיה‬ ‫טינא‬ ‫טליא‬ ‫יטמא‬

‫‪14‬‬

‫איטמרי‬ ‫מטעי‪63‬‬ ‫טעוותהון‪64‬‬ ‫איטרד‬ ‫טרחת‬ ‫יד‬ ‫מודי‬ ‫ידע‪65‬‬ ‫יהב‪66‬‬ ‫יום‬ ‫יום דינא רבא‬ ‫יחוס‪ ,‬ייחוסין‬ ‫איתייחסו‬ ‫אוכחותא‬ ‫יכיל‬ ‫ילד‪67‬‬ ‫ימא |‬ ‫תומון )‪(you swear‬‬ ‫ימינא‬ ‫יממא‬ ‫יצרא‪68‬‬ ‫איתוקד‪69‬‬ ‫יקירא‬ ‫יקרא‪70‬‬ ‫ירח‪71‬‬ ‫אושיט‬

‫‪.‬יזקף‪ ,‬אזדקפו‬ ‫‪.‬מחייבין‪ ,‬חב‬ ‫‪.‬חובתהון‪ ,‬חובך‪ ,‬חובי‬ ‫‪.‬אחויית‪ ,‬חויאת‬ ‫‪.‬חייהון‪ ,‬חייא‪ ,‬חיא‬ ‫‪ by mistake.‬חקיין ‪Ex. 4:2. Ex. 2:21‬‬ ‫‪.‬טעו‬ ‫‪.‬טעותיה‬ ‫‪.‬ידעית‪ ,‬ידעו‪ ,‬אודעת‬ ‫‪.‬יהיב‬ ‫‪.‬יוליד‪ ,‬מתיליד‪ ,‬אולידת‪ ,‬אוליד‬ ‫‪.‬יצרין‪ ,‬יצר‬ ‫‪.‬מיקד‪ ,‬מוקידיה‬ ‫‪ on List 3 which appears only three times.‬איקר ‪. Compare‬יקריה‪ ,‬יקרהון )×‪(4‬‬ ‫‪.‬ירחין‪ ,‬ירחייא‪ ,‬ירחא‬

‫]‪[373‬‬

‫)‪57‬‬ ‫)‪58‬‬ ‫)‪59‬‬ ‫)‪60‬‬ ‫)‪61‬‬ ‫)‪62‬‬ ‫)‪63‬‬ ‫)‪64‬‬ ‫)‪65‬‬ ‫)‪66‬‬ ‫)‪67‬‬ ‫)‪68‬‬ ‫)‪69‬‬ ‫)‪70‬‬ ‫)‪71‬‬

Stephen A. Kaufman / Aramaic Studies 11 (2013) 1–26 79‫אלקי‬

‫לשום‬ ‫מאה‬ ‫מאה‬ ‫מאתן‬ 80‫מאן‬ ‫מבתר‬ ‫מדבחא‬ ‫מדורהון‬ ‫מדינתא‬ (after) ‫מד־‬ ‫מה‬ ‫מהולתא‬ ‫מהלך‬ ‫מודנא‬ 81‫מיא‬ ‫מולד‬ ‫מושכא‬ ‫מותא‬ ‫מותב‬ ‫מזונא‬ ‫מחזורין‬ 82‫מחי‬

72) 73) 74) 75) 76) 77) 78) 79) 80)

‫כרעא‬ ‫כשורין‬ 74‫כתב‬ ‫כתפיהון‬ ‫איכתש‬ ‫ל־‬ ‫לא‬ ‫לבוש‬ ‫להבי‬ ‫לווט‬ ‫לוח‬ 75‫לוות‬ ‫לחש‬ 76‫ליבהון‬ 77‫לישן‬ ‫לית‬ ‫למא‬ ‫למה־דין‬ ‫לעיל‬ 78‫לעי‬ (towards) ‫לצית‬ ‫לקבל‬ ‫לקובלי־כון‬

15 72‫יתיב‬

‫יתיר‬ ‫כאחד‬ ‫כאילו‬ ‫כבישא‬ ‫כד‬ ‫כדין‬ ‫כהנא‬ ‫אתכוון‬ ‫כורסי‬ ‫כותליה‬ ‫כח‬ ‫כחלן‬ ‫כיפא‬ ‫כיתנא‬ 73‫כל‬ ‫כל־חד‬ ‫כמא‬ ‫כמין‬ ‫כן‬ ‫כנישתהון‬ ‫כנפינון‬ ‫כף‬

‫ מיתב‬,‫ אותיב‬,‫יתבי‬. ‫ כול־הון‬,‫כולא‬. ‫ כתיבין‬,‫ כתביה‬,‫כתיב‬. ‫ לותיה‬,‫לוותך‬. ‫ ליביה‬,‫ליבך‬. ‫לישנין‬. ‫ ליעות‬,‫נלעי‬. ‫מיחלקי‬.

In Jewish Literary Aramaic and the Aramaic of the Targums of the Land of Israel, this is written ‫ מן‬as in all early dialects of Aramaic. (‫ מאן‬appears only four times in Neofiti). Despite what appears at first glance, this is not a Babylonian form! It is the usual form in our dialect, which appears in about 90 % of occurrences. Important testimony to its authenticity is given in MS Paris 110 of T. Ecclesiastes, in which there are an abundance of Land of Israel forms, whereas the other testimonies use literary forms: MS 110 always uses ‫מאן‬, as opposed to ‫ מן‬in the other MSS. 81) See ‫ מוי‬in List 4. 82) ‫ מימחייא‬,‫ אתמחיין‬,‫מחיתך‬.

‫‪Stephen A. Kaufman / Aramaic Studies 11 (2013) 1–26‬‬

‫מחר‬ ‫מחתא‪83‬‬ ‫מטא‪84‬‬

‫מיגו‬ ‫מיטרא‬ ‫מילי‪85‬‬ ‫מימר‬ ‫מיסת |‬ ‫מיצחיה‬ ‫מישחא‬ ‫מישרי‬ ‫מיתו‬ ‫מכיכי‬ ‫מכתשין‬ ‫מלאך‬ ‫מלך‬ ‫מלי‪86‬‬ ‫מליל‪87‬‬ ‫ממלל‬ ‫ממונא‬ ‫מן‪88‬‬ ‫מן־בתר‬ ‫מן־ד‬

‫מן־לא‬ ‫מן־לרע‬ ‫מן־קדם‪89‬‬ ‫מן־קדמת‪90‬‬ ‫ממני‪91‬‬ ‫מן )‪92(vessel, utensil‬‬ ‫למימס‬ ‫מעל‬ ‫מעסקכון‬ ‫מצו)ו(תא‬ ‫מציעות‬ ‫מקטע‬ ‫מרד‪93‬‬ ‫מרומא‬ ‫מרי‬ ‫מרמירין‬ ‫אמרירו‬ ‫משח‬ ‫משך‬ ‫משכך‬ ‫משכנא‬ ‫משריתא‬ ‫מתויה‬

‫‪16‬‬

‫מתילא‬ ‫אמתינו‬ ‫מתקליה‬ ‫נביא‬ ‫תתנגב‬ ‫נגד‪94‬‬ ‫נגיבתא‬ ‫נהורא‬ ‫אנהר‪95‬‬ ‫נהרא‪96‬‬ ‫נוכראה‬ ‫תנוסון‬ ‫נורא‬ ‫להנזקותך‬ ‫נח‬ ‫נחלת‬ ‫נחמתא‬ ‫נחת‪97‬‬ ‫נטל‪98‬‬ ‫נטר‪99‬‬ ‫ניכסין‬ ‫ניסא‪100‬‬ ‫אנייצת‬

‫‪.‬מחתיי‪ ,‬מחת‬ ‫‪.‬מטי‬ ‫‪.‬מיליהון‪ ,‬מילוי‬ ‫‪.‬מליא‪ ,‬מליין‪ ,‬מלא‪ ,‬מלי‬ ‫‪.‬ימליל‬ ‫‪.‬מינן‪ ,‬מיניה‪ ,‬מיני‬ ‫‪.‬מן־קדמיי )×‪(3‬‬

‫]‪[374‬‬

‫)‪83‬‬ ‫)‪84‬‬ ‫)‪85‬‬ ‫)‪86‬‬ ‫)‪87‬‬ ‫)‪88‬‬ ‫)‪89‬‬ ‫)‪90‬‬

‫‪Gen 5:4.‬‬ ‫‪.‬מתמנן‬ ‫‪.‬מנוי )‪92‬‬ ‫‪.‬מרודי‪ ,‬מרודא‪ ,‬מרדו )‪93‬‬ ‫‪.‬תינגדון‪ ,‬יתנגד )‪94‬‬ ‫‪.‬אנהרות‪ ,‬אנהרה‪ ,‬אתנהרן‪ ,‬אנהרותכון‪ ,‬אנהרא )‪95‬‬ ‫‪.‬נהרוותא )‪96‬‬ ‫‪.‬נחתין‪ ,‬נחתו‪ ,‬ניחות‪ ,‬נחית‪ ,‬מלימיחת‪ ,‬אחית )‪97‬‬ ‫‪.‬נטלין‪ ,‬מנטל‪ ,‬למיטול )‪98‬‬ ‫‪.‬נטיר‪ ,‬מנטר )‪99‬‬ ‫‪.‬ניסין )‪100‬‬ ‫)‪91‬‬

‫‪17‬‬

‫‪Stephen A. Kaufman / Aramaic Studies 11 (2013) 1–26‬‬

‫נכיסתא‪101‬‬

‫סוף‬

‫עבדיה‬

‫נסב‪102‬‬

‫מיסחי‪109‬‬

‫עבר‪115‬‬

‫נפל‪103‬‬

‫סטי‪110‬‬

‫נפק‪104‬‬

‫סטר‬ ‫סיטרי‬ ‫סילעא‬ ‫סליק‪111‬‬ ‫סמיך‬ ‫סמיכה |‬ ‫סימנא‬ ‫סני‬ ‫סנייא‬ ‫סיעתיה‬ ‫ספיר‪112‬‬ ‫ספרא‪113‬‬ ‫אסרחתון‬ ‫סריין‬ ‫סרקא‬ ‫סתווא‬ ‫סתמין‬ ‫סיתרא‬ ‫עבד‪114‬‬

‫עד‬ ‫עד־לא‬ ‫עולבנא‬ ‫תיטעוקון‬ ‫עורדעניא‬ ‫תעטרון‬ ‫עיבורי‬ ‫עידן‬ ‫עיטפיכון‬ ‫עילעא‬ ‫עימיה‬ ‫עינבין‬ ‫עינין‬ ‫עיסקין‬ ‫עירבוב‪116‬‬ ‫עכיב‪117‬‬ ‫על‪118‬‬ ‫עלימותא‬ ‫עלל‪119‬‬ ‫עלם‪120‬‬

‫נפש‪105‬‬

‫נפש ‪(reflexive‬‬ ‫‪pronoun)106‬‬ ‫נצח‪107‬‬

‫נשמתא‬ ‫נשיכון‬ ‫מסאבתא‬ ‫סאין‬ ‫סב‬ ‫סבר־אפין‬ ‫סיגדיהון‬ ‫איסתגרו‬ ‫סגירתא‬ ‫סדר‪108‬‬ ‫סידרי‬ ‫סהדין‬ ‫סיהרא )‪(moon‬‬ ‫סומכיה‬

‫]‪[375‬‬

‫)‪101‬‬

‫‪.‬נכסת‬ ‫‪.‬נסבתיה‪ ,‬נסיבתון‪ ,‬נסיב‬ ‫‪.‬נפלת‪ ,‬מנפלן )‪103‬‬ ‫‪.‬נפקא‪ ,‬מפקין‪ ,‬לאפוקי‪ ,‬יפקון‪ ,‬אפקיה )‪104‬‬ ‫‪.‬נפשתא‪ ,‬נפשך )‪105‬‬ ‫‪.‬נפשיהון‪ ,‬נשפיה‪ ,‬נפשי )‪106‬‬ ‫‪.‬נצחני )‪107‬‬ ‫‪.‬למסדרא )‪108‬‬ ‫‪.‬סחיא )‪109‬‬ ‫‪.‬סטיתון‪ ,‬סטו )‪110‬‬ ‫‪.‬סלקא )‪111‬‬ ‫‪ in List 5.‬סמפיריון ‪112) See‬‬ ‫‪ (2×).‬ספר )‪113‬‬ ‫‪.‬עבדתינון‪ ,‬עבדתון‪ ,‬עבדיתיה‪ ,‬עבדו‪ ,‬עביד‪ ,‬מעבד‪ ,‬מיעבד‪ ,‬יעבד‪ ,‬איתעביד )‪114‬‬ ‫‪.‬אעברית‪ ,‬עברתון‪ ,‬מתעברא‪ ,‬איתעברת )‪115‬‬ ‫‪.‬עירבוביא )‪116‬‬ ‫‪.‬תתעכבון )‪117‬‬ ‫‪ (2×) as is usual and correct in PJ. But scribes‬עלוי ‪118) With the 3rd person masculine pronoun,‬‬ ‫‪—see List 4.‬עיל)י(י ‪also often ‘corrected’ the form to‬‬ ‫‪.‬תיעול‪ ,‬מיעלך )‪119‬‬ ‫)‪102‬‬

‫‪Sic! Gen. 2:8.‬‬

‫)‪120‬‬

‫‪Stephen A. Kaufman / Aramaic Studies 11 (2013) 1–26‬‬

‫על־אפי‬ ‫על־יד‬ ‫עם‪121‬‬ ‫עני‬ ‫ענני‬ ‫עסק‪122‬‬ ‫עפרא‬ ‫עצרינון‬ ‫עקמנותא‬ ‫עקרבין‬ ‫עקתיה‬ ‫איתערטל‪123‬‬ ‫ערק‬ ‫עשרא‬ ‫עשרין‬ ‫מתעתדין‬ ‫עתיד‬ ‫עתיר‬ ‫פולחנא‬ ‫פולחני‬ ‫פולחננא‬

‫פותיה‬ ‫פטימהון‬ ‫פטר‪124‬‬ ‫פירי‬ ‫פיתגמי‬ ‫פלאין‬ ‫פלג‪125‬‬ ‫פלגא‬ ‫פלגותא‬ ‫פלח‪126‬‬ ‫פליטת‬ ‫פניא‬ ‫פסולא‬ ‫פסק‪127‬‬ ‫פקד‪128‬‬ ‫פרח‬ ‫פרישתא‪129‬‬ ‫מפרנסא‬ ‫איתפרסם‬ ‫פרסת‬ ‫פרק‪130‬‬

‫‪18‬‬

‫פרש‪131‬‬

‫פשרות‬ ‫פתחין‬ ‫איתצד‬ ‫צדיק‬ ‫צולקא‬ ‫צורכיה‬ ‫ציוותת‪132‬‬ ‫מצלי‬ ‫צלותנא‬ ‫מצלחא‬ ‫צער‬ ‫צפרי‬ ‫צרוך‬ ‫תצטרכון‬ ‫מצית‪| 133‬‬ ‫קבלא‪134‬‬ ‫קבע‪135‬‬ ‫קדם‪136‬‬ ‫קדמאי‪137‬‬ ‫מקדשא‬

‫‪.‬עממיא‪/‬ה‬ ‫‪.‬עסקית‪ ,‬מיעסוקכון‬ ‫‪.‬איתערטלו‬ ‫‪.‬למפטור‪ ,‬יפטור‪ ,‬פטור‬ ‫‪.‬פלגוהא‪ ,‬איתפליג‬ ‫‪.‬פלחו‪ ,‬מפלח‬ ‫‪.‬פסקו‪ ,‬פסיק‬ ‫‪.‬פקידתני‬ ‫‪.‬פרישן‬ ‫‪.‬פרוקייא‪ ,‬פריקין‬ ‫‪.‬מפרשא‪ ,‬מפרש‪ ,‬אתפרשתון‬ ‫‪.‬ציווחתהון‬ ‫‪.‬מצתות‬ ‫‪.‬קבילו‪ ,‬תקביל‪ ,‬קבילתיה‪ ,‬קבילתון‬ ‫‪.‬קבעו‬ ‫‪.‬קדמך‪ ,‬קדמי‪ ,‬קדמוי‬ ‫‪.‬קדמין‬

‫]‪[376‬‬

‫)‪121‬‬ ‫)‪122‬‬ ‫)‪123‬‬ ‫)‪124‬‬ ‫)‪125‬‬ ‫)‪126‬‬ ‫)‪127‬‬ ‫)‪128‬‬ ‫)‪129‬‬ ‫)‪130‬‬ ‫)‪131‬‬ ‫)‪132‬‬ ‫)‪133‬‬ ‫)‪134‬‬ ‫)‪135‬‬ ‫)‪136‬‬ ‫)‪137‬‬

‫‪19‬‬

‫‪Stephen A. Kaufman / Aramaic Studies 11 (2013) 1–26‬‬

‫קודשא‪138‬‬

‫קולין )‪(compartments‬‬ ‫קום‪139‬‬

‫קיימא‬ ‫קוסמין‬ ‫קושטא‬ ‫קטל‪140‬‬ ‫קייטא‬ ‫קל‬ ‫קליל‬ ‫קלן‬ ‫יתקצצון‬ ‫קרא‪141‬‬ ‫אקריב‪142‬‬ ‫קריבין‬ ‫קרבא‬ ‫קרבן‬ ‫קרם‬ ‫קרתא‬ ‫קשיא‬ ‫קשיטא‬ ‫קשתין‬ ‫רב‬ ‫רבא‬ ‫רביעיי‬ ‫רבנין‬ ‫מרגישין‬ ‫רוח‬

‫רומיה‬ ‫איתרוקנו‬ ‫רחיקין‬ ‫רחמין‬ ‫יתרחצון‬ ‫ריבוון‬ ‫ריגלך‬ ‫רינניכון‬ ‫ר י שי‬ ‫ריש־שתא‬ ‫רם‬ ‫רמא‬ ‫רמיין‬ ‫רמשא‬ ‫רעות‬ ‫רעיון ‪(will)143‬‬ ‫א)י(תרעמתון‬ ‫רקיעא‬ ‫רקקי‬ ‫רשאין‬ ‫רשו‬ ‫רשיעותא‬ ‫רשיעין‬ ‫רשם‪144‬‬ ‫רתיחין‬ ‫אשאיל‬ ‫שאר‪145‬‬ ‫שבח‬

‫שביל‬ ‫שיבעין‪ ,‬שבעין‬ ‫שבעתא‬ ‫שבק‪146‬‬ ‫שיוויה‪147‬‬ ‫שום‬ ‫שחים‬ ‫שחינא‬ ‫שיבט‬ ‫שיזבותא‬ ‫שיחנא‬ ‫שימשא‬ ‫שיצי‪148‬‬ ‫שיקרא‬ ‫שירויא‪149‬‬ ‫שירתא‬ ‫שית‬ ‫שיתין‬ ‫שכיב‬ ‫אשכח‪150‬‬ ‫שכינתא‬ ‫שכלול‬ ‫שלטא‪151‬‬ ‫אשייני‬ ‫שלים‬ ‫שלמא‬ ‫ישלף‬ ‫שמאלא‪152‬‬

‫‪.‬קדשי‬ ‫‪ in List 4.‬קאי ‪, and see‬קימין‪ ,‬קמון‪ ,‬קמו‪ ,‬קיים‪ ,‬תתקיים‪ ,‬קאים‪ ,‬אקימיתון‪ ,‬קיימין‪ ,‬מיקום‬ ‫‪.‬קטלתיה‪ ,‬קטלתא‪,‬קטלין‪ ,‬קטלא‪ ,‬מתקטלין‪ ,‬לאיתקטלא‪,‬איתקטל‪ ,‬קטילת‪ ,‬קטול‬ ‫‪ (in Babylonian!).‬מתקריין‪ ,‬מיקריא‬ ‫‪.‬אקריבו‬ ‫‪.‬ריעיוניהון‪ ,‬רעיונהון‬ ‫!רושם‬ ‫‪.‬ישיירון‪ ,‬אישתארו‬ ‫‪.‬שבקינכון‪ ,‬שבקיה‪ ,‬ישתביק‬ ‫‪.‬שווין‪ ,‬שוויה‬ ‫‪.‬תשיציניה‪ ,‬ישיצון‬

‫‪Perhaps a Western word.‬‬ ‫‪.‬אשכחית‪ ,‬אשכחו‬

‫)‪138‬‬ ‫)‪139‬‬ ‫)‪140‬‬ ‫)‪141‬‬ ‫)‪142‬‬ ‫)‪143‬‬ ‫)‪144‬‬ ‫)‪145‬‬ ‫)‪146‬‬ ‫)‪147‬‬ ‫)‪148‬‬ ‫)‪149‬‬ ‫)‪150‬‬

‫‪Stephen A. Kaufman / Aramaic Studies 11 (2013) 1–26‬‬

‫שמא‬ ‫שמיא‬ ‫שמינין‬ ‫שמע‪153‬‬ ‫מישמשא‪154‬‬ ‫שמשא |‬ ‫שנין‬ ‫אישתעיית‪155‬‬ ‫שעבודיהון‬ ‫שעתא‪156‬‬ ‫שפירתא‬ ‫ישפר‬ ‫מושכיה‬ ‫אתחשדו‬ ‫שרי )‪(permitted‬‬ ‫שריא )‪(dwells‬‬

‫שריש‬ ‫תברותי‬ ‫תהו‬ ‫תוב‪157‬‬ ‫תושבחתיה‬ ‫תחומין‬ ‫תחות‬ ‫תיבותא‬ ‫תיובתא‬ ‫תיומתיה‬ ‫תימהא‪158‬‬ ‫תקי‪159‬‬ ‫תלגא‬ ‫תליש‬ ‫תליתאי‬ ‫תלת‪160‬‬

‫‪20‬‬

‫תלתיו‬ ‫תמי‬ ‫תמן‬ ‫תמני‬ ‫תנאה‬ ‫תניין‬ ‫אתניין‬ ‫תננון‬ ‫תקופת‪161‬‬ ‫תקיף‬ ‫תקנן‬ ‫תרין‪ ,‬תרי‬ ‫תריך‪162‬‬ ‫תרעא‬ ‫תשעה |‬

‫‪.‬שלטת‬ ‫‪ (sin rather than samekh).‬ש ֹ ‪In PJ, this is always written with the archaic‬‬ ‫‪.‬שומעין‪ ,‬שמעו‪ ,‬שמיעין‪ ,‬משמע‪ ,‬מישתמע‬ ‫‪.‬משמעין‬ ‫‪.‬אישתעות‬ ‫‪.‬שעין‬ ‫‪.‬תתיב‪ ,‬יתובון‪ ,‬אתיבו‪ ,‬תב‬ ‫‪.‬תימהין‪ ,‬תימהיא‬ ‫‪.‬תיק ‪Deut. 6:9, instead of‬‬ ‫‪.‬תלתיהון‪ ,‬תלתא‬ ‫‪.‬תקופות‬ ‫‪.‬תרכיה‬

‫]‪[377‬‬

‫]‪[378‬‬

‫)‪151‬‬ ‫)‪152‬‬ ‫)‪153‬‬ ‫)‪154‬‬ ‫)‪155‬‬ ‫)‪156‬‬ ‫)‪157‬‬ ‫)‪158‬‬ ‫)‪159‬‬ ‫)‪160‬‬ ‫)‪161‬‬ ‫)‪162‬‬

Stephen A. Kaufman / Aramaic Studies 11 (2013) 1–26

21

2. Jewish Literary Aramaic (like this) ‫כדנא‬ (compared to) ‫כל קבל‬ (now) ‫כען‬ (from now) ‫מכען‬ (to look at)171 ‫איסתכל‬ ‫סכום‬ (red) ‫סומק‬ ‫סייפא‬ (because) ‫על עיסק‬ 172(mouth) ‫פום‬ 173‫איתפרע‬ ‫מצלהבא‬

(sour, ‫בסירא‬ unripened) ‫ברם‬ (flock)168 ‫גיתי‬ ‫גרם‬ (possessive) ‫דיל‬ (lest) ‫דילמא‬ (this) ‫דין‬ (this)169 ‫דנן‬ 170! ‫ תהי‬,‫אהי‬ (today) ‫יומא דין‬ (defined accusative ‫ית‬

163(to be late) ‫אוחר‬

(others) ‫אוחרנין‬ (another)164 ‫אוחרי‬ (its ‫אושרהא‬ fundamentals)165 ‫אילו‬

(woman)166 ‫אינתתא‬ (you ‫איתחרתון‬ delayed) (oven) ‫אתונא‬ (in front ‫ באפי‬,‫באנפי‬ of, before)167

marker)

163)

Deut. 1:6, ‫לאיתרחא‬, a mistake for ‫?אוחרתון‬ Feminine! Here, a mistake instead of masculine in Deut. 4:34, but in most of PJ, it is used correctly, compare T. Tos. to Gen. 4:8 ( JTS MS 605 26v). 165) Note the orthography of the suffix, as in TO. 166) .‫ אינתתיה‬,‫ אינתתך‬,‫ איתתא‬A most important form. Orthography with nun does not appear in TO or TN, but is normal in Qumran, in Official Aramaic and Syriac, and sometimes in the Geniza fragments. There are exceptions (see ‫)איתתא‬, but PJ mostly distinguishes carefully between the two forms: without nun in absolute and construct, and with nun when defined or with personal pronouns. Compare T. Tos. to Gen. 4:8 (Bod Heb c 74r) line 19, in which ‫ איתתיה‬and ‫ אינתתיה‬appear in the same line! 167) Two examples of each form, parallel to the general situation in PJ. As is the case with ‫אינתתא‬, PJ uses a literary form here which is not found in TO but is frequently found in Qumran and more ancient Aramaic. In this case, the form ‫ אנפין‬is also found in BA. 168) The ending in yod does not come from Babylonian Aramaic but is a salient feature of Literary Aramaic—the plural form of a collective noun. See A. Tal, The Language of the Targum of the Former Prophets and its Position within the Aramaic Dialects (in Hebrew), (Tel Aviv: Tel-Aviv University Press, 5735 [1975]), pp. 83-85. 169) This form (in contradistinction to ‫ )דין‬is mostly used only for ‫ זה‬in the original in an adverbial sense—“already” etc. But Deut. 3:25 is an incorrect usage (compare TN margin ‫)הדין‬. 170) See Gustaf Dalman, Grammatik des jüdisch-palästinischen Aramäisch, (second edition, Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1905), p. 353. 171) ‫באיסתכלותיה‬. 172) ‫( פוהון‬a mistake! This is the only time without mem in PJ.) ,‫ פומך‬,‫ ;פומא‬As is well-known correct? from Prof. Kutscher’s research, the form of this word in the West is ‫פם‬. It remains to be investigated as to whether there are in fact PJ orthographies without vav in texts lacking a Land of Israel source. 173) ‫ איתפרע‬,‫יתפרע‬. 164)

22

Stephen A. Kaufman / Aramaic Studies 11 (2013) 1–26

(to tire)176 ‫אשתלהבי‬ | 177‫שלח‬

[379]

175(to put) ‫שווי‬

(its flame) ‫שלהוביה‬

(to deposit) ‫אצנעה‬ (their cities)174 ‫קירויהון‬

3. Jewish Aramaic of the Land of Israel (they) 184‫הינון‬ (other)185 ‫חורן‬ (to know)186 ‫חכים‬ (to see)187 ‫חמי‬ 188(mountain) ‫טוורא‬ 189‫טייל‬

(to throw)190 ‫טלק‬

174)

(commandment) ‫דבירא‬ (of ) ‫דיד־‬ (where) ‫האן‬ (I was) ‫הווינא‬ (like, as)182 ‫ היך‬,‫הי־ך‬ ‫ הי־כמא‬,‫היכמא‬ (when)183 ‫ד‬

(blood)178 ‫אדם‬ (also) ‫אוף‬ 179‫איקונין‬

(because) ‫ארום‬ ‫בגין‬

(son)180 ‫ביר‬ (self-, reflexive ‫גרם־‬ pronoun)181

The plural form of ‫( קרתא‬city) alternates freely in PJ between this literary form (TO) and the form ‫ קוריין‬known from the Land of Israel. But see also Syriac ‫קוריא‬. 175) ‫ תשוינא‬,‫ נישוי‬,‫משוויין‬. 176) ‫אשתלהית‬. 177) ‫ שלחינון‬,‫ משתלחין‬,‫ משתלחא‬,‫ למשתלחא‬,‫ אשלח‬,‫ אישתלחו‬,‫משלח‬. 178) ‫ אדמיהון‬,‫אדמא‬. 179) This is the correct form, as it is in TN (and PJ) Gen. 28:12. Only in Gen. 5:3 ‫ איקוניה‬uses the possessive pronoun “his” with this word. ‫ איקונין‬occurs 12 times, whereas the Babylonian form ‫( דיוקנא‬see List 4) is documented six times in PJ. 180) One time, in contrast to six times for the normal form ‫בר‬. 181) .‫ גרמיכון‬,‫ גרמיה‬,‫ גרמהון‬The Syriac New Testament also uses ‫ גרמ־‬instead of ‫ נפש־‬as is usual in Syriac. 182) PJ often uses this divided orthography. TN has only ‫היך‬. Apparently this is a “literary” orthography, based, as it were, on the form ‫ הא כ־‬in TO. On the other hand, the conjunction (‫ היכמא)ד־‬is written as a single word some hundred times in contrast to only ten times for ‫הי‬ ‫כמא‬. In TN it is always ‫ !היך מה‬I have no explanation. 183) See previous note. 184) Most think this to be a Palestinian form, but it is found in Geniza fragments. In the light of the nun in Syriac, it may perhaps be considered to be the normative form in Late Jewish Literary Aramaic. See below. 185) ‫חרן‬. 186) ‫ חכמת‬,‫ לאתחכמא‬,‫ חכימן‬,‫ חכימית‬,‫חכימין‬. 187) ‫ חמיין‬,‫ חמי‬,‫ חמון‬,‫ מיחמי‬,‫ לאחמי‬,‫ אחמי‬,‫חמא‬. 188) ‫ טוור‬,‫טורי‬. In the Geniza fragments, the form with doubled vav is found frequently— ‫—טוורא‬whereas in the construct case the double vowel has collapsed—‫טור‬. There are many forms in PJ that follow the path of these variations, although there are also many deviations. It’s possible the original Galilean form became the normative form in this dialect—both as a defined noun and in the construct case—but it may be that the deviant forms are scribal errors. 189) ‫ נטייל‬,‫מטייל‬. 190) ‫טלקת‬.

Stephen A. Kaufman / Aramaic Studies 11 (2013) 1–26

(before him) ‫קומוי‬ ‫קוריין‬ (sevenfold) ‫שובעין‬ (return) ‫תוב‬ | (repentance) ‫תתובה‬

[380]

23

‫לגבי‬ ‫לחוד‬ 193‫מוי‬ ‫מן בגלל‬ ‫מן יד‬ 194‫עישרתי‬

(inflammation) ‫טריב‬ (to advise)191 ‫אתייעט‬ (honor) ‫איקר‬

197(maid- ‫גרמידה‬

(that, m.) ‫איהו‬ (that, f.)195 ‫איהי‬ (Majus) ‫אמגושא‬ (fourteen) ‫ארבסר‬ (ropes) ‫אשלוון‬ (his seed) ‫ביזריה‬ (learned)196 ‫גמר‬

‫כבר‬ 192‫כדון‬

‫כלו־קבל‬

4. Babylonian Aramaic (now)200 ‫השתא‬ (fish) ‫כוורי‬ (canopy) ‫כילתא‬ (water)201 ‫מוי‬ (skull) ‫מוקר‬ (fears) ‫מסתפי‬ (on) 202‫עילוי‬

191) 192) 193) 194)

servant) (block) ‫גרגישתא‬ ‫דיוקנא‬

(now) ‫האידנא‬ (to return)198 ‫הדר‬ (wedding 199‫הלולא‬ feast)

‫נתייעט‬. ‫ כדון‬4 times, and twice only ‫כדו‬, the late Galilean form. 3 times, correctly, = ‫מימיה‬. For the corrupted forms, see List 4. In the case of a defined numeral, the suffix ‫ ־תי‬is correct in Palestinian Aramaic (See

Dalman, Grammatik des jüdisch-palästinischen Aramäisch, p. 129). But in the four occurrences in our texts, this form comes with the independent plural form. Apparently such forms were learned from phrases such as ‫‘ עישרתי דיביריא‬The Ten Commandments’ and were transferred mistakenly to other places. 195) The forms ‫ איהו‬and ‫ איהי‬are identical to the regular personal pronouns in the Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmud, but the usage is not the same. Here, the reference is to ‘that one’—that is, exactly as the parallel forms in Syriac ‫ הויו‬and ‫היהי‬. 196) Deut. 6:7 ‫ותגמרינון‬. 197) ‫גרמידין‬. 198) .‫ אהדרה‬,‫ תיהדור‬,‫ הדרת‬The root is occasionally found in good texts of Galilean Aramaic, but it is certain that it is always a case of scribal ‘Babylonization’ of the Western root ‫חזר‬. 199) See also T. Tos. to 1 Sam. 17:43. 200) Only twice in PJ. Compare a Geniza text of T. Tos. T-S AS 69:1:5. 201) The correct literary form for ‘the water’—that is ‫—מיא‬appears often in PJ. ‫ מוי‬means ‘its waters’ in Galilean Aramaic, and appears three times in this meaning in our texts (see List 3). But it seems to me that thanks to the Babylonian and Galilean forms being identical, despite the difference in meaning, the authors (or scribes) of Late Literary Aramaic chose precisely this form, because its meaning was clear to all Aramaic speakers. 202) 12 times in our texts, 6 of them are clearly Babylonian forms instead of the expected ‫על‬, and 6 are scribal errors, resulting from the correct Galilean form ‫‘ עלוי‬on it’ but it must be

24

Stephen A. Kaufman / Aramaic Studies 11 (2013) 1–26

(both of ‫)?( תרוויהון‬ them)203 [381]

‫תריסר‬ | (lower)204 ‫תתאי‬

(excommunica- ‫שמתא‬ tion) (thirteen) ‫תלסרית‬

(rises, stands) ‫קאי‬

‫בר קייומי‬ ‫גילוי‬ 208‫דיפטיא‬ ‫דלטור‬ ‫מסמיס‬

205‫אבל‬

‫רבתי‬

(seven) ‫שב‬

5. ‘Hebrew’ ‫מימי‬ ‫סמפירינון‬ 209‫צלילן‬ ‫קובתא‬ 210‫רגן‬

‫מאגר‬

(heating)206 ‫אסקותא‬ 207‫אפוטניותא‬

‫אפילו‬

emphasized that, as an inseparable part of the preposition ‫מן־עילוי‬, this form is documented with great frequency in the Targum of the Land of Israel also. 203) This ‘correction’ is found frequently in Jewish texts, even among the best of them. About half of the occurrences in PJ reflect this error, and the forms ‫ תרויהום‬and ‫ תרוויהום‬even occur, forms with the Biblical suffix ‫־הום‬. But these forms with vav are the normal ones in TO/Jonathan also. Therefore it is very possible that they belong to a layer of Jewish Literary Aramaic. See Tal, The Language, p. 66. 204) ‫תתאין‬. 205) Gen. 4:8. Only one other place in PJ, Deut. 32:31, apparently reflecting a midrashic source in Hebrew. But see Kutscher, Studies, p. 63. 206) This understanding is based on midrashic parallels. 207) = Pirqe deRabbi Eliezer, chapter 23. 208) = ‫דיופטין‬. 209) ‫צלילתא‬. 210) ‫ יתרגנון‬,‫ רגינתון‬,‫תרגינו‬.

Stephen A. Kaufman / Aramaic Studies 11 (2013) 1–26

25

6. Archaic or Obscure (BA) ‫השכחית‬ (around)215 ‫חזרנות‬ (flood) 216‫טובענא‬ | (to suffer)217 ‫סובל‬

[382]

(BA) ‫דנא‬ (he will throw ‫ידרקיניה‬ it)214 (BA) ‫הנפקא‬

211‫אוניס‬

(messengers) 212‫עזגדין‬ 213‫אנת‬

(BA) ‫בהום‬

7. Special / Syriac (shame) ‫כיסופא‬ (what!)221 ‫מאן‬ (reprimand) ‫מכסנא‬ (since)222 ‫מטול‬ (from the ‫מן־אוולא‬ first)223 211)

‫גחון‬ (place) ‫דוכתא‬ (thus, how)220 ‫ה)י(כדין‬ (thus) ‫היכנא‬ (these) ‫הלין‬ (planners) ‫מחשלין‬

218(magician) ‫אסטגניניא‬

(fatal drug) 219‫איריסא‬ (between, among) ‫ביני‬ ‫ברירין‬

(wings) ‫גדפין‬ ‫גוונהון‬

Obscure. See Werner Philipp, ‘Eine Notiz zum Targum Jonathan,’ Jüdische Literaturblatt, 5 (1876), p. 19. 212) In Literary Aramaic and Syriac ‫אזגדא‬. Thus ʿayin replacing aleph is an innovation. Compare the usual form ‫‘ עורדענייא‬frog’ parallel to the usual form with ‫ א־‬even though in this second example, the ʿayin is justified etymologically! 213) Likely borrowed from BA, but compare the orthography in Syriac. 214) The dalet is a hypercorrection. In every other Aramaic dialect the first root letter is zayin. 215) An artificial form—an amalgamation of ‫ סחרנות‬from Literary Aramaic with the parallel Land of Israel root ‫חזר‬. 216) ‫ טובעא‬once, but this is a mistake. The word is frequent in Late Jewish Literary Aramaic, the result of a false archaization of the parallel form in Syriac and Literary Aramaic ‫( טופנא‬from the root ‫ צוף—טוף‬in Syriac). It is as if it derives from the root ‫טבע‬. 217) ‫מסובל‬. Apparently an artificial archaization of the Palestinian root ‫ סבל‬in analogy to the well-known root in the Land of Israel ‫סובר‬. But it is likely this is a spoken-dialect form! Note its use in Tos. MS T-S AS 69.11 line 6. 218) ‫איצטיגנוני‬. 219) ‫אירס‬. 220) Galilean Aramaic has ‫אייכדין‬/‫( ה‬see ‫ הכדין‬in Christian Palestinian Aramaic), meaning ‘how’. Perhaps the usage here is an amalgamation of two forms: ‫‘ הכדין‬thus’—Literary Aramaic ‫כדין‬, and ‫‘ היכדין‬how’. 221) Deut. 5:21. 222) ‫ אמטולתך‬,‫מטולכון‬. In general, PJ distinguishes between two forms—always lacking the aleph for the independent form, and with the aleph before personal pronouns, as in Babylonian Aramaic. But in Babylonian, the independent form is ‫אמטו‬. 223) ‫ אוולא‬is found in Samaritan and Mandaic, in the Targums of Psalms and Job, and in Aramaic logograms in Persian (see Dr. Mashkour, The Huzvaresh Dictionary (Tehran: Tehran University, 1968), p. 172) and even in the Neo-Aramaic of the Jews of Kurdistan (see Sabar, Genesis, p. 164).

26

Stephen A. Kaufman / Aramaic Studies 11 (2013) 1–26

(areas)230 ‫קמורין‬ 231‫רתת‬

(to ask)232 ‫שייל‬ (to send) 233‫שדר‬ (their paths) ‫שיטריהון‬ (its nest) ‫שרכפיה‬ (one third) ‫תולתא‬

224)

(echoes, “bat qol” ‫פונין‬ [pl.])226 (satchels)227 ‫פוקלין‬ (fate) ‫פיצתא‬ (blush)228 ‫פקס‬ (mixture) ‫פתכא‬ (side)229 ‫ציטרא‬

(to stone) ‫אטל‬ (blows) ‫מנתבה‬ (your wages) ‫סוטרייך‬ (blow) ‫סיגוף‬ (to look at)224 ‫איסתכי‬ (assembly) ‫סנדרי‬ (panic) ‫סרהוביא‬ (detectives)225 ‫פולין‬

.‫ תיסתכין‬,‫ מיסתכי‬In literary, Galilean and Syriac Aramaic this word’s meaning is ‘to hope’. The meaning ‘to look at’ is characteristic of Late Jewish Literary Aramaic. 225) Unique. 226) Deut. 5:5. This occurs only one more time in Jewish Aramaic, in T. Job, 4:16, where it also occurs as ‫קל פונין‬. Compare Syriac ‫ פוניא‬and/or Greek φωνή. 227) Unique. But compare the Talmudic ‫פקולין‬. 228) ‫פקסן‬. 229) Alternates with the better-known Literary form ‫סיטרא‬. ‫ ציטרא‬also appears in Samaritan Aramaic, but since it is lacking in Galilean Aramaic, I include it here and not in List 3. 230) Syriac, Babylonian, and Targum Job. 231) ‫ירתתון‬. 232) ‫ שיילינון‬,‫שיילתון‬. Most scholars think this is a Babylonian form, but in truth it appears to a certain extent in all the late dialects. Therefore I place it here, as it is late Aramaic, and not exactly Babylonian Aramaic. 233) ‫ אישדר‬,‫ אשדרינך‬,‫ נשדר‬,‫ שדרא‬,‫ שדרית‬.‫שדרני‬.