(Aaron Maman) Comparative Semitic Philology in The Middle Ages

COMPARATIVE SEMITIC PHILOLOGY IN THE MIDDLE AGES
STUDIES IN SEMITIC
LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS
EDITED BY
T. MURAOKA AND C.H.M. VERSTEEGH
VOLUME XL
COMPARATIVE SEMITIC PHILOLOGY IN THE MIDDLE AGES
COMPARATIVE SEMITIC
PHILOLOGY IN THE MIDDLE
AGES
From Sa#adiah Gaon to Ibn Barn (10th-12th C.)
BY
AHARON MAMAN
TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH BY DAVID LYONS
BRILL
LEIDEN BOSTON
2004
The publication of this work has been made possible by the Authority for Research and
Development, the Charles Wolfson Fund, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Mamam, Aaron.
Comparative Semitic philology in the Middle Ages : from Saadiah Gaon to Ibn Barn
(10th-12th c.) / by Aharon Maman ; translated into English by David Lyons.
p. cm. (Studies in Semitic languages and linguistics ; 40)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 90-04-13620-7
1. Hebrew languageGrammar, ComparativeArabicHistory. 2. Hebrew
languageGrammar, ComparativeAramaicHistory. I. Title. II. Series.
PJ4527.M34 2004
492.4509021dc22
2004050577
ISSN 0081-8461
ISBN 90 04 13620 7
Copyright 2004 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands

Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill Academic Publishers,
Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written
permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal

use is granted by Koninklijke Brill provided that
the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright
Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910
Danvers , MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.
printed in the netherlands

In memory
of my beloved sisters
annah (194664) and Dinah (195167) zl
CONTENTS
Abbreviations .............................................................................. xiii

Introductory Notes .................................................................... xv
Foreword .................................................................................... xvii
Introduction ................................................................................ 1
The present study and previous studies .............................. 1
Delimitation of the subject .................................................... 4
Chapter One The motives of the comparative philology .... 8

1.1 Linguistic motives .............................................................. 8
1.2 Literary motives ................................................................ 10
Chapter Two The fundaments of comparison and the

restrictions imposed ................................................................ 13
2.1 The permissible extent of comparative philology .......... 13
2.2 The measure of anity between the three languages .... 18
2.3 The problem of loan words: Were loans from
Aramaic and Arabic reckoned with by the Hebrew
grammarians? .................................................................... 21
2.4 The theory of substitutions .............................................. 32
2.5 The theory of the root and its eect on comparative
philology ............................................................................ 39
2.6 The semantic equivalence factor .................................... 40
Chapter Three Explicit comparisons .................................... 50

3.1 The nomenclature of the languages and the
terminology for comparison ............................................ 50
3.2 Explicit comparison identiable on tauto-etymological
grounds .............................................................................. 60
3.3 Explicit comparison on the strength of the Arabic
model ................................................................................ 61
3.4 Implicit comparisons holding the rank of explicit
comparisons ...................................................................... 61
3.5 Comparison formulae ...................................................... 62
3.6 Explicit comparisons of Hebrew with Aramaic .............. 63
3.7 The three-way comparison: Heb./Aram./Arab. ............ 74
viii contents
3.8 The Heb./Arab. comparison ........................................ 76

3.9 The Aram./Arab. comparison ...................................... 76
3.10 Appendix .......................................................................... 76
3.11 Conclusion ...................................................................... 78
Chapter Four The implicit comparison ................................ 80

4.1 Zero term .................................................................... 83
4.2 Integrated comparisons with explicit and implicit
components ...................................................................... 83
4.3 Implicit comparison in one place converted elsewhere
into explicit ...................................................................... 84
4.4 Implicit comparison by one scholar converted into
explicit by a subsequent one .......................................... 85
4.5 Sequence of several words translated by their
Arabic cognates .............................................................. 86
4.6 Hebrew synonyms and their Arabic synonym
equivalents ........................................................................ 86
4.7 Entries translated by both cognates and
non-cognates .................................................................... 90
4.8 The location of the cognate when accompanied by
synonyms .......................................................................... 93
4.9 The choice between a cognate and a non-cognate .... 94
4.10 Entries translated only by cognates .............................. 95
4.11 Summary .......................................................................... 97
4.12 Appendix to 4.7 .............................................................. 98
Chapter Five The aims of language comparison ................ 100

5.1 Typology of the linguistic works .................................... 100
5.2 The aims of comparison as promulgated by the
authors ............................................................................ 102
5.3 Aims of comparison according to the comparison
formulae .......................................................................... 104
5.4 Synopsis and conclusion ................................................ 133
Chapter Six Language comparison in treatises translated

into Hebrew ............................................................................ 138
6.1 Omissions of explicit comparisons ................................ 140
6.2 Zero in "Ul > comparison in Shorashim .............. 148
6.3 Aram./Arab. comparisons in Shorashim ........................ 157
6.4 Ibn Tibbon retention of comparisons in "Ul ............ 158
contents ix
6.5 Ibn Tibbons method of adducing Arabic materials

in comparisons and in inner-Arabic specimens .......... 160
6.6 Summary ........................................................................ 161
Chapter Seven Rav Sa'adiah Ga"on ...................................... 162

7.1 Grammatical comparisons ............................................ 163
7.2 Hebrew/Arabic stylistic comparisons ............................ 165
7.3.1 Lexical comparisons of Hebrew/Arabic cognates ...... 165
7.3.2 Hebrew/Arabic semantic comparisons ........................ 166
7.3.3 Hebrew/Aramaic etymological comparisons ................ 166
7.3.4 Implicit comparisons ...................................................... 169
7.3.5 Translation by cognates ................................................ 172
7.4 Nomenclature and comparative terms ........................ 178
Chapter Eight R. Judah ibn Quraysh (in remark Dunash

b. Tamm) .............................................................................. 180
Chapter Nine David b. Abraham Alfsis comparative

philology .................................................................................. 182
9.1 Alfsis theory of language comparisons ...................... 182
9.2 Comparisons in areas of syntax and style .................. 186
9.3 Letter substitutions in the comparison theory ............ 188
9.4 The Hebrew/Aramaic comparisons ............................ 196
9.5 Explicit comparisons: Hebrew/Arabic .......................... 213
9.6 Hebrew/Aramaic/Arabic .............................................. 224
9.7 Cognate Aram./Arab. comparisons .............................. 228
9.8 Full listing of Heb./Arab. implicit comparisons .......... 228
9.9 Uncertain comparisons .................................................. 232
9.10 The comparisons as reected in the texts of the
copyists and compendia editors of Alfsis lexicon .... 234
9.11 The comparison terminology ........................................ 236
9.12 The sources used by David b. Abraham Alfsi .......... 250
Chapter Ten Menaem B. Saruq .......................................... 276

10.1 Menaem b. Saruq and his opinion on Hebrew
comparison with Arabic ................................................ 276
10.2 Hebrew/Aramaic comparison as recorded by
Menaem ........................................................................ 283
10.3 The nomenclature for the languages and the
comparison terminology ................................................ 287
x contents
10.4 Comparisons recorded by Menaems disciples ........ 288

10.5 Comparative terms ........................................................ 288
Chapter Eleven Dunash ben Labrat ...................................... 289

11.1 Comparisons with Arabic ............................................ 289
11.2 Letter interchanges ........................................................ 292
11.3 Hebrew/Aramaic comparisons .................................... 293
11.4 Grammatical comparisons ............................................ 294
11.5 The comparative terms ................................................ 295
Chapter Twelve Rabbi Judah ayyj .................................. 296

12.1 Comparisons in the grammatical treatises .................. 296
12.2 The comparisons in Kitb al-Nutaf .............................. 297
12.3 Nomenclature for the languages and the comparative
terminology .................................................................... 298
Chapter Thirteen R. Jonah Ibn Jan .................................. 299

13.1 Ibn Jans comparative philology and the text
versions of the Rouen manuscript .............................. 300
13.2 The theory of letter interchange as used by
Ibn Jan ...................................................................... 316
13.3 The condition necessary for comparison record:
A comparison established only in instances of
specicity ........................................................................ 324
13.4 Comparison methods .................................................... 326
13.5 Comparison with Aramaic cognates ............................ 330
13.6 On formula Bib. Heb.1/Bib. Heb.2/Targ.
Aram./Arab. .................................................................. 337
13.7 Listing of comparisons on formula Bib. Heb./Targ.
Aram. (non-cognate) ...................................................... 339
13.8 Comparison of Hebrew with Arabic .......................... 341
13.9 Explicit comparisons in "Ul/zero in Shorashim
(Heb./Arab. cognates) .................................................. 343
13.10 Implicit comparisoncognate in "Ul/zero
comparison in Shorashim ................................................ 345
13.11 Implicit comparisoncognate "Ul/explicit
comparison in Shorashim ................................................ 347
13.12 Explicit comparisonnon-cognate translation synonym 347
13.13 Explicit semantic comparisons at entries which are
non-cognates both in "Ul and in Shorashim .............. 348
contents xi
13.14 Heb./Arab. explicit semantic comparisons in "Ul/

zero in Shorashim ........................................................ 350
13.15 Comparisons in Ibn Jans Opuscules ........................ 352
13.16 Comparative philology in Sefer haRiqmah .................... 353
13.17 Uncertain comparisons ................................................ 355
13.18 Rejected comparisons .................................................... 355
13.19 Nomenclature for languages and comparative
terminology .................................................................... 357
13.20 Ibn Jans sources ...................................................... 367
13.21 The unique nature of Ibn Jans comparisons ........ 368
Chapter Fourteen Hai Ga"on, Ab-l-Faraj,

Samuel HaNagid and Abraham HaBavli ............................ 371
14.1 R. Hai Ga"on ................................................................ 371
14.2 Ab-l-Faraj Hrn Ibn Al-Faraj .................................. 375
14.3 R. Shemuel HaNagid .................................................. 380
14.4 Abraham HaBavli ........................................................ 382
Chapter Fifteen Mosheh HaKohen ibn Gikatilla,

Judah b. Bal'am and Isaac b. Barn .................................. 384
15.1 Mosheh HaKohen ibn Gikatilla .................................. 384
15.2 Judah ibn Bal'am .......................................................... 385
15.3 Isaac ibn Barn ............................................................ 392
Synopsis and conclusion ............................................................ 403
Chapter Sixteen The chart of comparisons .......................... 413
Abbreviations and Bibliographical References ........................ 479

General Index ............................................................................ 491
ABBREVIATIONS
Arab. = Arabic, Arabic entry

Aram. = Aramaic, Aramaic entry
Bib. Aram. = biblical Aramaic
Bib. Heb. = biblical Hebrew
ed. = edition
etym. = etymological
exp. comp = explicit comparison(s)
Heb. = Hebrew, Hebrew entry
imp. comp = implied comparison
prim. rad. = rst radical of a trilateral root
Rab. Heb. = Rabbinic Hebrew
Sa'adiahs Tafsr = Rav Sa'adiahs Arabic translation of the Bible
TJ = Targum Yonatan (b. Uzziel)
Talm. Aram. = Talmudic Aramaic
Targ. Aram. = Targumic Aramaic
v. = versus
var. lect. = variant reading
INTRODUCTORY NOTES
1. All emphases in quotations from the works of philologists are

my emphases, unless it is explicitly stated that the emphasis was in
the source text.
2. If one letter of a weak verbal root is printed in parentheses, it
is implied that in the opinion of the scholar under discussion, the
parenthesized letter is non-radical; in his lexicon, the root is to be
located disregarding the aforementioned letter. For Example, [d(y)
means, according to David b. Abraham, that the yod is not part of
the root; in his lexicon, the root can be found within the letter daleth
entries.
3. Regarding the numeral appearing in parentheses after a com-
parison of excerpts from the works of David b. Abraham, it is not
regularly indicated whether this numeral relates to vol. 1 or vol. 2
of Jmi' al-"Alf; this can be easily ascertained from the root of the
entry word itself, as based on the grammatical approach of David
b. Abraham.
4. A reference to an entry in R. Jonah ibn Jans lexicon is com-
prised of two numerals set apart by a diagonal. The numeral to the
left of the diagonal refers to "Ul and that to the right to Shorashim.
If no numeral is noted the entry can be located by the root.
5. Two or three entries set apart from one another by diagonal(s)
are interrelated qua tr. syn, whether cognate or non-cognate. The entry
to the extreme left of the expression is a Hebrew entry; the second
(to the left) is an Aramaic one; the third (i.e. that on the extreme
right) is an Arabic one (unless otherwise indicated). If the expression
contains only two entry words, the second (viz. the one on the right)
can be identied as Aram. by the paragraph rubric or by a special
symbol.
6. Wherever the term etymology/etymological appears, it refers
to the meaning of the given entry (word) according to ancient lin-
guistic scholarship and not according to modern scientic linguistics.
For instance, J. Marouzeau, 1961, p. 90, distinguishes between the
meaning of etymology in early linguistics and its meaning in modern
linguistics. He denes its ancient sense as Science de la liation des
mots, .a.d. . . . recherche de leur sense propre (gr. etymon) (= the
xvi introductory notes
science of the stemmatization of words from each other, i.e. the

investigation of their true meaning. In contrast, etymology in modern
linguistics incorporates, additionally, the study of the diachronic links
between words. See, in addition, F. de Saussure, 1983, p. 259, which
also enumerates several senses for the term etymology: the fourth
sense listed relates to the intralinguistic non-diachronic connection
between dierent entry words.1
7. When I speak of semantic transparency, I imply the sense
used by D. Tn, 1983, p. 269 (= the transparency of an unexplained
Hebrew word by an Arab. or Aram. cognate) and not its standard
sense in Hebrew semantics (as e.g. used by G.B. Sarfatti, Hebrew
Semantics, Jerusalem 1978, ch. 4, especially pp. 6061; bibliography,
ibid., p. 18. See also R. Nir, Semantics of Modern Hebrew, Tel Aviv
1978, pp. 9, 1114, 240.
8. Chapters 16 of the present study are introductory; they deal
with general problems of language comparison and with matters
relating to linguistic scholars of the given epoch in general.
Chapters 715 set out the comparison data culled from the works
of each grammarian who ourished in the given epoch, together
with the specic problems regarding each one. Each of chapters 713
is devoted to one grammarian, in chronological order; the chapters
on Judah ibn Quraysh (ch. 8) and ayyj (ch. 12) are extremely
short (for the system and theory of Ibn Quraysh has been exhaus-
tively discussed by D. Becker, The Risla of Judah b. Quraysh, A Critical
Edition, Tel Aviv 1984, while very few comparisons are recorded by
ayyj). The special rank occupied by these two scholars in the his-
tory of comparative philology justies in my opinion the decision to
allocate separate chapters to them. Chapter 14 comprises a discus-
sion of four grammarians from whose works little data for compar-
ison survive; the chronological arrangement of Hebrew grammarians
is to some extent disturbed in this chapter (the material is too sparse
to justify a division into separate chapters). Finally, one chapter (ch.
15) is devoted to a discussion of the three grammarians who lived
at the very end of the period to which this study relates.
1
See also B. Pottier (ed.) 1973, p. 125: Etymology was a non-diachronic concept
until the 19th century . . .; Larousse, in the Dictionary of Linguistics, Paris 1973, s.v.
FOREWORD
The encounter of medieval Jewish scholars with Arabic linguistic lit-

erature during the last decades of the tenth century CE produced
one of the most important branches of Hebrew linguistics, namely,
that of comparative Semitic philology. This branch not only changed
the nature of Hebrew philology but inuenced considerably the philo-
logical exegesis of the Bible as well. The purpose of the present study
is to give a detailed overview of the medieval theoretical framework
in which fourteen Hebrew philologists practised comparative Semitic
philology during the tenth and eleventh centuries, from R. Sa'adiah
Ga"on at the beginning of this period until R. Isaac ibn Barn at
its end. This literary activity spread in the Arabic-speaking area from
Iraq in the east, through the Land of Israel, Egypt and North Africa,
to Andalusia in the west. This study also describes the contribution
of each of these philologists, focusing on his specic characteristics.
The study presents a full-scale description of the lexical comparisons
of Hebrew with Aramaic and Arabic and resorts to comparative
grammar only when necessary for the purposes of the study. Certainly,
medieval comparative Semitic grammar as reected in the works of
these scholars as well as the comparative philology of the successors
of Ibn Barn are worth a comprehensive study but such a descrip-
tions is beyond the scope of the present volume. At any rate, as
regards a comparative lexicon, it seems that the general principles
revealed here did not undergo signicant change after Ibn Barn.
This study has its origins in a dissertation written at the Hebrew
University of Jerusalem in the years 198084, under the joint super-
vision of Professor Mosh Bar-Asher and the late Professor David
Tn. In the last two decades, several works touching upon medieval
grammatical thought in general and on comparative philology in
particular have been published, both by myself and by others, espe-
cially in the light of new materials from the Cairo Genizah and
other manuscripts that were then either inaccessible or unknown.
The time has come for the publication of an updated study, for the
benet of scholars interested in medieval Hebrew philology, com-
parative Semitic philology and even general comparative philology.
xviii foreword
I would like to express here my deep gratitude to the esteemed

advisers of my dissertation. It was a privilege to study under them.
It is also a pleasant duty to thank Dr. Dovid Lyons for his transla-
tion of the Hebrew original into English. A special debt of gratitude
is owed to Mrs. Evelyn Katrak for her excellent editing of the English
style and to Professor T. Muraoka for his invaluable comments to
the nal draft.
INTRODUCTION
The present study and previous studies1
Hebrew philologists of the tenth and eleventh centuries C.E. set out
explicit and systematic comparisons of Hebrew with Arabic and
Aramaic in the areas of vocabulary and grammar. Certain scholars
even wrote works devoted entirely to comparison between these lan-
guages. At the commencement of this period, R. Judah ibn Quraysh
compiled the Risla; Dunash ibn Tamm, almost contemporary with
Ibn Quraysh (according to R. Abraham ibn Ezra in the preface to
Sefer Moznayim) wrote a work compounded of the Languages of Eber
and Arabia, a work that has survived merely in some quotations;
at the termination of our period, R. Isaac Ibn Barn compiled the
Kitb al-Muwzana bayn al-Lugha al-'Ibrniyya wal-'Arabiyya. The other
Hebrew grammarians incorporated a considerable number of com-
parisons between these languages in their grammatical treatises and/or
lexicons; this was the practice of R. Saadiah Gaon, David b. Abraham
Alfsi, Menaem b. Saruq, R. Hai b. Sherira (Gaon), R. Jonah ibn
Jan, R. Moses HaKohen b. Gikatilla and R. Judah ibn Bal'am.
Comparisons are also included in the critiques and polemical works
of Dunash b. Labrat, Ibn Saruqs Disciples and Yehudi b. Sheshet
as well as in Bible commentaries such as those of R. Sa'adiah, Salmon
b. Yeruim and other Karaites, Ibn Bal'am etc.
European scholars of the late nineteenth century showed a keen
interest in the language comparisons between the three Semitic lan-
guages per se, several of them considered these to be the beginnings
of comparative Semitic linguistics. They published scholarly reviews
comprising a considerable quantity of the comparison data culled
from the source texts known to them and on the basis of the method-
ology they adopted: S. Pinsker, Liqqutei Qadmoniot (1860) set down a
list of lexical comparisons, selected from the material in David b.
1
For a concise review of scholarly achievements in the study of language com-
parison during the tenth-twelfth centuries, see Poznanski 1926, pp. 23745; D. Tn
1983, p. 244 (n. 20), outlines in a brief bibliographical survey, the recent develop-
ments on this issue in the scholarly world, as of 198283.
2 introduction
Abraham Alfsis Kitb Jmi' al-"Alf; and W. Bacher (1882) surveyed

briey R. Abraham ibn Ezras Hebrew comparisons with Arabic;
Bacher also published two synopses (1884, 1885) of the language
comparisons occurring in the works of R. Jonah b. Jan. P.K.
Kokowtzow (1890, 1916) edited R. Isaac ibn Barns Kitb al-Muwzana
and (1893) appended a translation and notes in Russian. S. Eppenstein
(1900) issued a study of the language comparisons with Arabic, taken
up by R. Judah ibn. Quraysh. S. Poznanski (1916) published a selec-
tion of Hebrew-Arabic comparison data documented in Ibn Bal'ams
grammatical treatises and Bible commentaries. These surveys and
their like are no more than incomplete monographs based on a selec-
tion of the works; they fall short of a thorough discussion of the com-
parison literature in its entirety. Furthermore, the above-mentioned
studies, despite their use of MS copies as a basis and granted that
several detailed comparison data were thereby made available to
serious students who hitherto had no access to the relevant source
material, have meantime become outdated. Several of these studies
are now useless for research, rst, since text sources that were
known at the end of the nineteenth century cannot objectively be
considered sucient nowadays; second, because the theory of lan-
guage adopted by the nineteenth and early twentieth century schol-
ars for evaluating the materials is unacceptable in present times.
Take as an example Bachers surveys: when he reviewed Ibn Jans
language comparisons, there had been issued neither the original
Arabic text of Kitb al-Luma' nor the Hebrew translation of Sefer
HaShorashim and he used Sefer Ha-Riqma in its inaccurate version as
edited by Goldberg (1856). Subsequently, Kitb al-Luma' (1886) and
Sefer HaShorashim (1896) were published; likewise, a critical edition of
Sefer HaRiqma (ed. Wilensky, 192931 and ed. Wilensky-Tn, 1964).
Kitb al-"Ul, which had originally been published in 1875, had now
undergone textual improvement2 with further text emendations by
Razhabi, 1966, pp. 27395.
Bacher, in the introduction to his edition of Shorashim, p. xxiv, held
that his 1884 and 1885 works had exhaustively collated everything
appearing in R. Jonahs treatises concerning views, arguments and
suppositions as to the similarity between cognate Semitic languages
2
W. Bacher, Berichtungen zur Neubauerschen Aufgabe des Kitb al-"Ul ,
ZDMG 1884, pp. 62029; ibid., Weitere Berichtungen zur Neubauerschen Ausgabe
des Kitb al-Ul, ZDMG 42, 1888, pp. 30710.
introduction 3
and Hebrew, whereas in fact he had failed to enter a considerable

quantity of the materials; he did not record the tenets and argu-
ments in their entirety. As remarked by P.K. Kokowtzow (1916b,
p. 76): There has yet to be produced a thorough review and eval-
uation of the contributions of the author of Kitb al-Tanq to Hebrew
linguistics. The latter judgment does not apply only to the works of
R. Jonah Ibn Jan; the 185657 Bargs-Goldberg edition of R. Judah
ibn Qurayshs Risla also contained several errors, as is clearly demon-
strated by the critical edition of the work issued by D. Becker (orig-
inally in 1977 and more recently in 1984). David b. Abraham Alfsis
important lexicon was then known merely from fragments published
by S. Pinsker in 1860, while scholars can now use the edition by
S.L. Skoss (1936; 1945). In the area of the scientic theory of lan-
guage, in the period subsequent to the issue of the above-mentioned
surveys, a new branch in linguistic studies evolved, namely seman-
tics, while the elds of lexicology and lexicography had each further
developed, as also the theory of languages in contact and trans-
lation theory; thus current scholarship now possesses new linguistic
tools for the investigation of the comparative philology adopted by
Jewish grammarians. Furthermore, subjective critical judgments of
the comparison theory of the Hebrew grammarians, made by several
nineteenth century scholars, such as those of Steinschneider (1901,
pp. 13132) concerning R. Hai B. Sherira Ga"on and by Kokowtzow
(1893: p. 80, n. 168; p. 88, n. 175) concerning R. Jonah ibn Jan
and Ibn Barn, were founded on the premise of identifying the com-
parison method of the Hebrew grammarians with the modern approach
of comparative linguistics (see e.g. A. Dotan, 1977, p. 135); such an
identication is nowadays unacceptable to several scholars (D. Tn,
1980 and 198283); the nineteenth and early twentieth century
research has thus left open wide areas and extensive scope for con-
temporary scholars to ll in. Several important and fundamental
problems in the comparison methods of Hebrew grammarians, in
their wider context of reference, have yet to be discussed. For the
rst time since the survey written by Pinsker in 1860, D. Tn (in
198283) raised the question of how it was that the Hebrew gram-
marians reached the eld of language comparisons. Only recently
(Dotan, 1977; Tn, 1980) has the attention of the scholarly milieu
been once again engaged by the problem of the demarcation between
language comparison adopted by the Hebrew grammarians and mod-
ern comparative linguistic science. Several other problems in this
4 introduction
subject are still presently being debated, while the discussion of yet
other questions remains to be opened.
Now that the scope of base texts has expanded and scholarly tools
having improved, the time is ripe for a denitive analysis of this
topic. Indeed, the subject, which has been termed by D. Tn
(198283, p. 269) one of the most notable characteristics of Jewish
medieval linguistic scholarship, is in need of a renewed, exhaustive
and updated study.
The present study proposes a discussion of the general problems
in linguistic comparison made by Hebrew grammarians as well as
of their principles and methodology, so that the theories of linguis-
tic comparison of the various grammarians, most of which were to
date only partially described, will be set out fully in this work.
Delimitation of the subject
The period
The literature of Hebrew philology composed by the Hebrew gram-
marians, including the records of comparative philology, commences,
indeed, with the writings of R. Sa'adiah Gaon (who is described by
R. Abraham ibn Ezra [Moznayim, p. 1b]), as foremost in the regis-
ter of the sages of the Hebrew language; however, the very initial
steps in this eld remain lost in the depths of obscurity (Tn,
198283, p. 239). But this literature does not terminate with Ibn
Barn; it continues into the subsequent period, with R. Abraham
Ibn Ezras Bible commentary,3 in the late thirteenth century Tanum
Yerushalmis Al-Murshid al-K (ed. Shy, 197475, pp. 8086), etc.
In principle, the latter should also be included in the discussion;
however, the literature produced in the tenth and eleventh centuries
alone constitutes in itself a chapter in the history of the compar-
ative philology of the Hebrew grammariansa chapter possessing
3
Eppenstein (190001), p. 233 declares that Ibn Ezra marks the commence-
ment of the deterioration of Hebrew linguistics. This statement warrants valida-
tion; if it can be veried, it would constitute a further reason for delimiting the
period of this studyi.e. to the peak of dynamic linguistic productivity, marked by
Ibn Barn and prior to the subsequent regression, marked by Ibn Ezra. I plan to
deal elsewhere with language comparison after the time of Ibn Barn.
introduction 5
clear, unambiguous features. This chapter has a beginning, a middle

and an end. This two-hundred-year period saw the composition
of the outstanding writings in comparative philology: the Risla by
R. Judah ibn Quraysh, at its beginning and Kitb al-Muwzana by
R. Isaac ibn Barn, at its end. (The third magnum opus, written
close to Ibn Qurayshs time, i.e. the work of Dunash ibn Tamm,
has been transmitted to us by merely some few quotations). The two
aforementioned major works enable scholars to observe the stages of
development of comparative philology during the two centuries.
Furthermore, precisely at the mid-point of this dened period, Hebrew
linguistic science underwent a drastic change: R. Judah b. David
ayyj founded the novel conception of the Hebrew language root;
this new approach additionally created a change in the direction
taken by, and the theory of, comparative philology. Ibn Barns
achievement is to a certain extent treated as the peak in language
comparative study as reached by the Hebrew grammarians; and this
serves as the essential reason for my decision to set Ibn Barn as the
termination point of the period of this investigation and not simply
as an arbitrary delimitation mark.
The sources
An additional limitation adopted in this research project relates to
the literary sources serving my collation of comparison data. My
intention is to present a systematic discussion of the comparison data
appearing in works devoted entirely to this topic as well as those
data recorded in the grammatical treatises and the lexicons, thus
excluding those comparison data that are embedded in exegetical
literature. This rule of collation has not been applied with regard to
comparison data previously collated (from Bible commentaries) in
the framework of certain monographs, such as that of Poznanski
(1916), nor, to some extent, to the materials I myself have collected
from commentaries adjoining R. Sa'adiah Gaons Bible translation. It
must also be borne in mind that the present study has, in the main,
adopted printed editions; only when necessary has it used manu-
script materials as basic text sources; and it must be emphasized that
in this respect the various linguistic works are anything but uniform
(textually). Some works are available in excellent editions, e.g., Jmi'
al-Alf (ed. Skoss 1936; 1945); Menaem b. Saruqs Maberet and
the Teshubot de Dunash b. Labrat (= Objections of Dunash to the
6 introduction
Maberet of Menaem; eds. A. Senz-Badillos, 1980); R. Judah ibn

Qurayshs Risla (ed. Becker, 1984). Others appear in editions that
were satisfactory at the time but that presently await updating, such
as R. Jonah ibn Jans Kitb al-"Ul 4 (ed. Neubauer, 187375). Yet
others are available only in editions presenting an unsatisfactory ver-
sion of the text. In any case, in all cases in which I had reason to
suspect the printed text version as possibly corrupt, I consulted the
manuscripts.5
The above limitations, both historical and philological, may well
result in a restriction in the scope of the comparisons but in my
opinion they do no injustice to this analysis of the fundamental prob-
lems in comparison theory. It should be further noted that the com-
parison theory in the various treatises is far from being homogeneous;
this activity comprises several subtypes and incorporates an assort-
ment of trends in comparative philology. The upshot is that it is
very unlikely that an investigation of comparison data in the later
literary documents, whether in the biblical exegetical texts or in other
text sources pertaining to the twelfth and thirteenth centuries (and
possibly later as well), would reveal additional aspects of compari-
son theory. To sum up, the comparison models that can be abstracted
from the text sources relating to the periods taken up in this study
can be assumed to serve as a reliable typological spectrum for the
materials pertaining to the later periods, too.
The problems
The topics dealt with in the present study are of two kinds: method-
ological problems and essential questions. Methodological analysis
aims at dening objectively whether a datum of comparison is pre-
sent or not and whether translation by an Arabic cognate is to be
4
Certain problems in methodology, which are subsequently discussed in the pre-
sent work (see below, ch. 6, Language Comparison in Treatises translated into
Hebrew; ch. 13.1, Comparative philology by Ibn Jan and the Text Version of
the Rouen MS) are likely to provide philological criteria for the determination of
the correct text version of Ibn Jans Kitb al-"Ul.
5
I express my deepest appreciation to the Israel National and University Librarys
Institute of Microlmed Hebrew MSS for giving me access to microlms and enlarge-
ments (enumerated below); I am also greatly indebted to the late Prof. D. Tn for
making available for my use several copies of the manuscripts of Kitb al-"Ul in
his possession.
introduction 7
regarded as a comparison datum (implicit comparison) or not; whether

the Hebrew grammarians additionally conceived of interlingual loans
between two of the three relevant languages; which of the dierent
text variants in a given treatise most likely records accurately the
form penned by the author. The latter question crops up chiey in
the comparisons used by R. Jonah ibn Jan, as these appear to be
formulated in the version of Oxford MS of the al-"Ul, in the Rouen
MS and in the (translated) Hebrew work Sefer HaShorashim produced
by R. Judah ibn Tibbon. But the question further pertains to the
several text forms, whether original Arabic or Hebrew translation,
of the grammatical treatises of Ibn Bal'am. Similar is the question
whether an additional criterion can be applied in attempting a resolu-
tion of a central issue under dispute, i.e. whether Menaem b. Saruq
resorted to comparisons with Arabic or not.
The term essential questions refers to the description of the com-
parison theory of each grammarian separately as well as the ideo-
logical and technical conditions within which comparison of languages
is in fact applied.
All the comparison data deriving from the treatises inspected in
the historical and textual scopes previously detailed, whether explicit
or implicit comparisons, has been assembled for this study. These
materials have been classied by models and subtypes, thus resolu-
tions to the above-mentioned problems have been established. In
each and every case, the aims of the comparative philology with its
terminology have also been evaluated, thereby abstracting general
principles from the disparate details.
CHAPTER ONE
THE MOTIVES OF THE COMPARATIVE PHILOLOGY
The basic question in the topic dealt with in the present work,
namely when and where Semitic comparative philology originated
as well as what the circumstances were of its evolution, is the sub-
ject of a recent publication of D. Tn (198283). That extensive
article contains a thorough survey, so there is no need to dwell on
it at length. However, for the sake of setting a complete picture, I
shall summarize Tns study, with a certain emphasis on some data
and criticism of others and with a concise classication of the several
kinds of motivations for comparative philology. The circumstances
that served as soil for the growth and development of comparison
between Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic comprise motives of several
types and forms:
1.1 Linguistic motives
1.1.1 The speech motive

The linguistic conditions with which tenth to eleventh century Jews
lived, termed by Tn (ibid. 2) a multi-language diglossia were
an invitation to associative interlingual links (ibid. 34).
Tn (ibid.) interrelated medieval comparative philology with the
acquaintance to the languages, which were subject to that compar-
ative theory. That is, the fact that the Jews in the epoch under dis-
cussion spoke Arabic for their daily life and studied Hebrew and
Aramaic for cultural purposes, enabled them to engage in a com-
parative philology. Basically this thesis holds true. However, one
aspect has to be reexamined. Had comparative philology been only
dependent on knowing another cognate (Semitic) language, one would
expect it to have emerged much earlier. For similar linguistic con-
ditions must be assumed to have prevailed at a considerably earlier
period, extending from the last decades of the Second Temple until
the Arab conquests in the seventh century. Aramaic was then a living
the motives of the comparative philology 9
language; the Jews dwelled in a diglossia of Hebrew and Aramaic.

This state of aairs induced thought associations linking the two lan-
guages. However, the time was not yet ripe for the production of a
Hebrew/Aramaic comparative lexicon or grammar. Only a few tes-
timonies of such interlingual links are embedded in rabbinic litera-
ture. The total number of Hebrew-Aramaic comparisons in the
Babylonian Talmud is few and does not surpass the comparisons
with Greek or with Arabic recorded there.1 It follows, therefore, that
comparative philology, including its Hebrew-Aramaic part, along with
Hebrew grammar itself, began only with the knowledge of Arabic
and possibly only with the study of Arabic linguistic literature.
1.1.2 The graphic factor

The fact that the Jews generally wrote Arabic with Hebrew char-
acters made a considerable impression on the student of the extent
of similarity between the sequence of written symbols in the Hebrew
on the one hand and the Arabic which it proposed to translate on
the other (ibid., p. 249, referring to Kokowtzow, ibid., p. 268). This
motive can be deduced also from the denition given by Ibn Barn
(in his Kitb al-Muwzana, ch. 23) for the maximal correspondence
between a given Hebrew entry and its Arabic cognate. In this cat-
egory, in Ibn Barns opinion, the cognate matches the entry in writ-
ing, too (. . . fklab qaptala yp [qw brx). Such a correspondence
can be understood solely on the basis of Arabic transcribed with
Hebrew characters. It goes without saying that between Hebrew and
Aramaic such correspondence is obviously present, as early as the
Bible itself. This kind of correspondence clearly served as an impor-
tant function in comparative philology.
1
See, for example, BT Sanhedrin 26a, where the word alwflf (hlflf lflfm
Isa. 22:17) is compared with its cognate Talm. Aram./Bib. Heb.; ibid. 107a, the
word ammz (compared, similarly, with the word ytwmz; Ps. 17:3); BT Gittin 68a, com-
paring the Aramaic expressions ytdyw hdy (Babylonian dialect) and atdy (Palestinian
dialect) on the basis of the cognate Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram., twdw hd (Eccles. 2:8).
10 chapter one
1.2 Literary motives
1.2.1 The theoretical framework of the grammatical treatises

Becker (1998) has recently uncovered the Arabic grammatical works
that served as the sources for the grammatical treatises of Ibn Jan
and Ibn Barn. The same was done by N. Basal (1998, 1999) for
the works of Ab-l-Faraj Harn. Becker has shown that Ibn Jan
not only cast his Kitb al-Luma' in the mold of Arabic grammars of
his time but also copied from them a great many rules and denitions.
All he had to do was change the Arabic examples into their Hebrew
counterparts (whenever they existed). Scholars of the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries who investigated medieval Hebrew linguistic lit-
erature postulated that Ibn Jan and other Hebrew medieval philol-
ogists were inuenced by Arabic grammatical thought; yet Becker
was the rst to point out specic Arabic grammars and to decipher
the text processing of Ibn Jan. He compared paragraphs and chap-
ters from Ibn Jan to their Arabic sources.
This has an important implication, namely, that the systematic
Hebrew grammar was initially formulated as a comparative and con-
trastive grammar, regardless of whether the comparison was made
explicitly or implicitly. That is to say, comparative philology emerged
concomitantly and interrelated with Hebrew grammar. Now, since
Hebrew grammar emerged while Arabic grammatical theory pre-
vailed in the cultural world of the Jews, they could not prevent it
unless they could suggest an alternative theory. Once they decided
to cast their own treatises in the framework of the already existing
theory, it was only natural for them to use intensively any ready-
made rule, denition or paradigm. This characteristic is not pecu-
liar to medieval Hebrew philologists or to that epoch alone; rather
it is universal in theoretical sciences. However, it should be empha-
sized here that Beckers approach is applicable only to syntax and
to some parts of phonology and morphology, certainly not to lexi-
con, which is the subject matter of our study. Needless to say, the
comparison with Aramaic was entirely deliberate and independent.
I shall therefore, in what follows, point out other literary motives
for the lexical interlingual comparison:
the motives of the comparative philology 11
1.2.2 Biblical Aramaic

The fact that Aramaic texts exist in the Bible side by side with
Hebrew texts (in some cases these even provide on-the-spot orig-
inal + translation: see d[elig"/at;Wdh}c; rg"y (Gen. 31:47).
1.2.3 The existence of Aramaic Bible translations

With the exception of Dunash b. Tamm and Ibn Barn, in the
works of whom no systematic comparison data between Hebrew and
Aramaic was included, all the Jewish philologists in the period in
question who practised language comparisons record comparisons of
Hebrew with Targumic Aramaic. In other words, the Aramaic Bible
translation was used by them as a bilingual lexicon for compara-
tive purposes (albeit not in an alphabetical or topical arrangement
but in the order of the biblical text).
1.2.4 The existence of Arabic Bible translations

The fact that there existed Arabic translations of the Bible: These
indeed played a part in the emergence of Arab./Heb. comparative
philology, especially if it can be posited that the initial ground for
comparative philology was the necessity felt for deciphering obscure
words and phrases as well as rare expressions and hapax legomena
in the biblical text. It can be shown that the Hebrew grammarians
drew freely and directly on the Bible translations or made reference
to them. Alfsi, for example, borrowed material form R. Sa'adiah
Gaons Tafsr as well as from Karaite translations (i.e. Salmon b.
Yeruim; see below 9.12). Furthermore, Ibn Barn proposed more
suitable translations for several biblical words (below, 5.3.4). It can
further be assumed that R. Judah ibn Quraysh is also by no means
free of the shackles that had bound the biblical language materials
with the Arabic Bible translations and this assumption applies to Part
C1 of the Risla, too, for in this part he refrains from incorporat-
ing unconnected or abstract entries; included are only lemmatized
entries presented exactly as they appear in the Bible.
It is not easy to evaluate which of the above-mentioned motives
had the greater inuence on the formative stage of comparative
philology in the tenth century. It is even more dicult to conjec-
ture what might have been the fate of comparative philology if not
12 chapter one
for Aramaic and Arabic Bible translations. At any rate, it is not

improbable that these translations hastened the arrival of compara-
tive linguistics, at least of the more sophisticated aspects of this sci-
ence; for a parallel can clearly be discerned between the seven
correspondence levels set down by Ibn Barn in the preface to his
Kitb al-Muwzana (Tn, ibid. 5) on the one hand and the several
stages in the evolution of comparative philology on the other. In
that it constitutes the simplest and most natural level, the First
Level dened as those language comparisons that show a maximal
correspondence between the translation synonym entries, i.e. in writ-
ing, in pronunciation and in sense (yn[mlaw f pllaw fklab), was dis-
cerned with ease by the readers and speakers. The subsequent
correspondence types, as their equivalence level diminishes, demand
of the reader-cum-speaker a higher level of abstraction and reection
on the language data to grasp, orally or from the literary source
texts, the linguistic parallels, that he compared.2
2
This argument is elaborated in Maman (1998).
CHAPTER TWO
THE FUNDAMENTS OF COMPARISON AND THE

RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED
2.1 The permissible extent of comparative philology
Certain Hebrew grammarians occasionally apologize in their trea-

tises for comparing Hebrew with Arabic; behind these apologies can
be discerned the traces of a dispute that raged between diering fac-
tions, a fundamental dispute concerning the very issue of compar-
ing Hebrew with Arabic. Some Hebrew grammarians are silent on
this issue. This silence cannot, however, be taken as proof that there
was no opposition to language comparison in their times. A good
example can be found in the treatise of Ibn Barn. The materials
surviving from this treatise, which constitute a considerable quantity
textually, contain no statement of apology, not even a veiled state-
ment of such, for language comparison. This might well lead to the
assumption that in his generation opposition to language compari-
son had subsided and that comparison of Hebrew with other lan-
guages had become a widespread and conventional practice. But
information from external sources rules out this assumption. R. Moshe
b. Ezra wrote in one of his poems in praise of al-Muwzana that
language comparison with Arabic is like sweet honey for the pure-
minded and like wormwood for the deceitful (the hypocrites)1 (see
R. Moshe ibn Ezra, Diwan, ed. Brody, p. 17, line 31; Wechter (1941),
p. 5; p. 133, n. 53). Scholars have concluded from this allusion that
in Ibn Barns time the opposition to language comparison with
Arabic continued. It is possible that Ibn Barn did apologize some-
where in his work, in which case it can be assumed that this apol-
ogy appeared in the part of the treatise that was lost (it should be
noted that most of the introduction has not survived). Another pos-
sibility is that the author simply ignored the objections of his con-
temporaries, bypassing them entirely. In the survey below, the Hebrew
1
ypnjl wrw ypwxk yrbl
14 chapter two
grammarians are not discussed in chronological order but rather in

accordance with the relative measure(s) of their opposition to lan-
guage comparison: Commencing with those grammarians who voiced
outspoken and unequivocal opposition; next, those who voiced a
more moderate opposition and nally, those who expressly justied
the practice of language comparison. Menaem b. Saruq expresses
no clear opinion on this matter; however, his failure to incorporate
any comparison with Arabic (below, 10.1) can serve as a solid basis
for our deduction that he did not favor language comparison with
Arabic. Such a conclusion nds support in unambiguous statements
of B. Saruqs disciples.2 Menaems disciples were even opposed to
comparisons with Aramaic.3 On this issue, at any rate, the disciples
do not reect the stand taken by Menaem himself; Menaem did
indeed compare Hebrew with Aramaic (below, 10.2). Furthermore,
despite their theoretical opposition to such, the disciples actually
recorded comparisons with Aram.; it was Dunashs pupil Yehudi b.
Sheshet (see Stern II, p. 24) who showed the disciples the error they
had made regarding the standpoint they had imputed to Menaem.
Paradoxical though it be, it is hard to reconcile fundamental,
axiomatic, pronouncements that tend to assume a rather stringent tone,
on the one hand, with actual linguistic habits in all their details, on
the other; these latter tend perforce to compromise with the needs of
dynamic lexicographic activity. It is clearly applied lexico-linguistics
rather than pure theoretical adavits that determine the true con-
viction and attitude of the grammarian; for linguistic comparative
activity is always conducted unconsciously.
The frequently used reason for opposition to language compari-
son of Hebrew with Arabic is either that the one is sacred and
the other secular or that the one is the mistress and the other
the maidservant (see Becker, p. 19). The reasoning given by
Menaems disciples is, however, dierent: If we are to state that
any word lacking a parallel word of similar nature in Hebrew can
be analogized by a similar word in Aramaic or Arabic, we thereby
imply that the languages are equal and indistinguishable: The
remaining parts of Hebrew that became missing could thus be
2
See Teshubot Talmidey Menaem pp. 9596; Yellin, Toledot Hitpatteut Ha-Diqduq
Ha-'Ibri, 1945, p. 97; N. Netzer, Leshon Hakhamim Be-Khitbey HaMedaqdeqim Ha-'Ibriyyim
Biymey HaBenayim, 1983, p. 161; pp. 16364; Becker, 1984, p. 19 and n. 7.
3
See Teshubot Talmidey Menaem, p. 15; p. 98 stanza 77; p. 96, etc.
the fundaments of comparison and the restrictions 15
retrieved from the other two languages and such an assumption is

unacceptable.4 They are concerned about possible breaches in the
bounds of the sacred Hebrew language, a concern stemming from
the presumption that the several languages subject to comparison
are all on an equal footing. Recording an interlingual comparison
on such an assumption is tantamount to assessing the three languages,
Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic as having the same status, and such . . .
is unacceptable. Furthermore, the linguistic setting of the three lan-
guages that stood out as a clear fact was one of non-identity, for
which reason the opponents rejected language comparison. However,
as noted above, Menaem as well as his disciples did not refrain
from comparing Heb. with Aram. Dunash and his pupil Yehudi b.
Sheshet, the disputants of Menaem and his pupils, viewed language
comparison with Aramaic and Arabic positively; although no trace
of apology can be detected in the writings of the former, a restric-
tive principle can be noted, namely, linguistic comparison must not
be used whenever it is theoretically possible (i.e. in every case in
which the conventional technical requirements for such are fullled);
it should be used only on a limited scale. You should know that
Hebrew should not be likened to Aramaic, nor to Arabic, unless no
intra-Hebrew parallel at all can be found . . . (retort 26 to R. Sa'adiah
Gaon, ed. Schrter, p. 8); . . . and Hebrew is comparable with
Aramaic and Arabic in exigency only (Schrter, p. 18). According
to this approach, language comparison constitutes not a matter of
discretion but rather a necessity.5
My impression is that the latter approach was also adopted by
R. Jonah ibn Jan, for he states (Riqma, p. 18): Comparison should
be made regarding words, for which Hebrew evidence is lacking.
However, he records comparison even in instances in which no exi-
gency can be felt (below, 5.3.5.3). The fact that Ibn Jan does not
4
waxmn br[w tymra wlb hmwd hl y yk wnrma wymd (!) l ya ra hlym lk wlyaw
kty al k twyhlw ,rsjnhw l[nh tyrb[h wl ra wndmlw hldbh ylbm tww twnwlh
(Teshubot Talmidey Menaem, p. 96). It is noteworthy that Ben-Yehudas policy on the
coinage of new Hebrew words, at the time of the revival of the language, accorded
precisely with the approach of Menaems disciples. See Ben-Yehuda, Lexicon,
Introduction with Addenda, Jerusalem, 193940, p. 13.
5
This standpoint is to be noted in R. Abraham ibn Ezras sefat yeter, also; see
ibid., p. 61: tymral rwx wnl ya qhlb rbh wl wnaxm rjaw (now that a counter-
part has been found in Hebrew, there is no further need for [comparison with]
Aramaic). In comparison with the extreme viewpoint of Ibn Barn, Ibn Ezras
words are truly a step backward. See Eppenstein, 190001, p. 233.
16 chapter two
record a comparison whenever such is theoretically possible does not

relate to ideology but rather to technique; just as he does not trou-
ble to express denitions for those entries termed well-known, so
likewise he is not exhaustive in recording comparisons. But it is in
Ibn Jans works, more than in those of other contemporary lin-
guists, that traces are noticeable of the vigorous dispute that was
raging, between the party of the grammarians who were pro-
comparison and the party of the opponents to comparison, in
his lifetime. Ibn Jan calls the opponents those of our contempo-
raries whose knowledge is frail and whose erudition is meager.6 He
furthermore rejects their main claim that language comparison
implies that sacred words have need of secular words,7 stating that
Hebrew does not stand in need of Arabic; language comparison was
designed merely to show that what is tting in the Hebrew language
bets other languages, too (Riqma, pp. 23536). This reasoning recurs
many times in his works.8 Ibn Jan also falls back on R. Sa'adiah
Gaon in approving language comparison (ibid.). In the opinion of
Perez (1978, pp. 44249; ibid. 1981, pp. 21415), Ibn Bal'am, too,
apologized for recording comparisons of Hebrew with Arabic, merely
echoing Ibn Jans statements, although Ibn Bal'am does not draw
openly on R. Jonah but falls back only on R. Sa'adiah Gaon and
R. Hai Gaon.
In the remnants of the works of R. Moses ibn Gikatilla, no apolo-
getic statement has survived, nor is there any discussion whatsoever
on the question of permissibility of language comparison. However,
in Ibn Gikatillas preface to his Hebrew translation of ayyjs works
(Nutt, 1870) an allusion appears: Hebrew language is concealed,
while Arabic, revealed and explicit and the Holy Tongue is obscure
and it is betting to explain the concealed by means of the intelligible and to
interpret the obscure by means of the explicit (emphasis added). This is
meant to imply that for a Hebrew word whose meaning is obscure
and concealed, the sense can be derived from the Arabic etymologi-
cal cognate, provided that the latter possesses a well-known meaning.
(wky is used here in the sense of betting, feasible and permissible.)
This statement is not meant as an apology but rather as a way of
6
Riqma, p. 17, Kitb al-Luma' p. 6; Bacher, Shorashim, p. XXIII.
7
Bacher, ibidem.
8
Mustalaq, pp. 140141; "Ul, p. 122 lbg, p. 130 wg a.e.; see seq., below, 5.2.
explaining infrequent words in the Bible. In the comparison data

within the fragmentary remnants of the works of R. Sa'adiah Gaon
and R. Hai Gaon, no apologetics appear. Also, the philologists who
drew on them, e.g. R. Jonah b. Jan and Ibn Bal'am did not, to
the best of my knowledge, quote from them any note of apology.
Further to the above, R. Judah ibn Qurayshs Risla also, in the
surviving text at least, presents no apologetic statement. Becker (1984,
p. 19) states categorically: If in R. Jonah b. Jans lifetime there
were still opponents to comparison of Hebrew with Arabic, a for-
tiori must there have been such in the time of R. Judah ibn Quraysh.
It is therefore very surprising that in the introduction to Risla and
in the copious materials that survive from it, the opposition to com-
parison is nowhere expressly spelled out. It is very far-fetched to sug-
gest the argument that R. Judah ibn Quraysh fought shy of issuing
an express headline regarding comparison of Hebrew with Arabic
(ibid.). It cannot be stated of a scholar who compared with Arabic
hundreds of Hebrew entries, including a large number of not-so-rare
biblical words, that he conducts language comparison activity in an
unobtrusive manner. On the contrary, he goes to the extreme of
incorporating the chapters containing comparison of biblical Hebrew
with Aramaic and with Rabbinic Hebrew in the section devoted to
Hebrew/Arabic comparison. From the set-up of his book it can be
inferred that he opines the status of Arabic to be equivalent to the
status of Aramaic and of rabbinic Hebrew (the latter two being indu-
bitably sacred languages), as regards the right of a linguist to resort
to Arabic for purposes of Bible interpretation.
The work of Alfsi, despite its extensive scope, does not contain
even a single expression that might point to the authors standpoint
on the matter under discussion.9 His silence on this matter might
perhaps be interpreted as an implied acquiescence to the viewpoints
that had been widespread before his time and continued also in his
time, i.e. the opinions of R. Sa'adiah Gaon and of R. Judah ibn
9
Becker (1984, p. 19, n. 7) quotes the following from Alfsi (vol. 1, p. 510):
Aramaic can serve no proof for Hebrew; he includes this formula among the
expressions listed as apologetic statements made by the other grammarians regard-
ing comparison of Hebrew with Arabic and with Aramaic. In my opinion, however,
Becker is mistaken. The above-mentioned quote contains no trace of apology; it is
simply meant as a factual explanation, ad loc., restricted specically to a single
issue, that the Hebrew root (h)yj is not to be determined on the basis of the Aramaic
root (a)j(m).
18 chapter two
Quraysh, as to whether these opinions had reached him directly or

indirectly. At any rate, the comparisons themselves as well as the
undertones of the comparative terminology, which set side by side
the three components Heb./Aram./Arab., are conducive to the con-
ception that the three languages are close to one another and con-
stitute entities deserving of comparison. As for the aims of the language
comparison, it is crystal clear that comparison is legitimate per se
and not merely as a tool for the correct understanding of the Bible.
No tone of apologetics can be detected in Alfsis words regarding
his having to resort to Arabic for the elucidation of the biblical text.
To sum up:10 Comparison of Hebrew with Aramaic was a con-
ventional and customary matter, according to the school and theory
of the Hebrew grammarians. This was so even for Menaem b.
Saruq, who neither posed ideological obstacles to, nor formulated
any apologies for such comparison. The opposition that arose was
only to comparison with Arabic; it was apparently only in Spain that
the tendency was to refrain from comparing Hebrew with Arabic,
whereas in the Orient there is no record of apologetic statements;
here language comparison was practised to the maximal extent, prob-
ably in the wake of R. Sa'adiah Gaons stand on the matter. The
extent to which the Arabic language is resorted to diers from scholar
to scholar. The extremists in dissension to such comparison are
Menaem and his disciples. At the opposite extreme stand R. Judah
ibn Quraysh, Alfsi, R. Jonah b. Jan, Ibn Bal'am and Ibn Barn,
who conduct comparison with Arabic indiscriminately, as apparently
do R. Sa'adiah Gaon and R. Hai Gaon. Dunash b. Labrat stands
somewhat midway between the camps; he permits the practice of
Hebrew/Arabic comparison restrictively and on a limited scale,
specically when under compulsion, i.e. failing any other option.
2.2 The measure of anity between the three languages
R. Jonah b. Jan is the only scholar in the period under discus-

sion to record an explicit opinion regarding the anity between
Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic. He discusses this matter at length in
10
Regarding Dunash ibn. Tamim and R. Samuel Ha-Nagid there is virtually
nothing to note on this issue on account of the paucity of textual materials sur-
viving from their treatises.
Mustalaq (pp. 13136). The substance of R. Jonahs view can be

stated as follows: Hebrew and Aramaic are closer to each other than
either of the two languages are to Arabic. They are so close that
they can justly be termed twins. The special anity existing between
Hebrew and Aramaic, in the opinion of Ibn Jan, stems from the
following phenomena:
1. In terms of grammar the two languages possess common features,
these being absent from Arabic: the same vocalization signs, the
common inuence eected by the four laryngeals [ ,j ,h ,a on the
vowels; their similarity regarding the vocalic entities twjtpw twxmq
(= vocalization signs in general), most of which are lacking in
Arabic; the declension of the Hebrew hitpa''el conjugation for roots
commencing with a sibilant, like Aramaic itpe'el l[tpa, etc.
2. The Masora treats the two as one language-entity; Hebrew and
Aramaic words (= word occurrences) that are identical are listed
and enumerated indiscriminately.
3. Our ancestors were familiar with Hebrew and Aramaic equally,
on account of their anity.
4. The proof that the two languages were equally known is that
in two biblical books, Daniel and Ezra, the two languages are
utilized alternately.
R. Jonah b. Jan himself does not treat items 3 and 4 separately
but records them as a single factor.
The only factor that can be considered a genuinely linguistic
one is item 1, for here a structural anity is pointed up between the
two languages; this is of course stated in an exemplary fashion. The
others are either historical (2, 3) or literary (2, 4). R. Judah ibn Quraysh
(Risla, p. 19) links the linguistic anity between Hebrew and the
other two Semitic languages with the genealogical anity between
the Hebrew-speaking, Arabic-speaking and Aramaic-speaking nations
as well as with their geographical closeness. However, R. Jonah b.
Jan refers, in his comparative discussion, to the typological aspect
common to these languages, and no more than that.
In several other places in his works (e.g. introduction to Riqma,
p. 18) R. Jonah b. Jan reiterates his claim that Aramaic and
Hebrew show a greater reciprocal anity than the respective anity
of each with Arabic; occasionally he treats of language features relat-
ing to the two languages jointly, as though treating of one language.
A case in point is his discussion of the partial assimilation of taw
20 chapter two
characterizing the hitpa''el conjugation with the following letter zayin

(= rst radical) to daleth (in the Aramaic wtnmdzh (Dan. 2:9): Riqma,
p. 107).
The remaining Hebrew grammarians make no express statement
regarding the measure of anity between these three languages.
Their opinion can be deduced solely from comparison practice or
from several indirect allusions: Menaem sometimes relates to Hebrew
+ Aramaic as if to one language. An example is in his discussion
of the he bearing a mappiq (p. 51).
Likewise, Alfsi: In the framework of his discursus on the inter-
change of letters (ynxylh pp. 439445) Alfsi treats of intra-Hebrew
switches, intra-Aramaic switches and interlingual Heb./Aram. switches
but does not treat of intra-Arabic switches nor of switches of the
pattern Heb./Arab., Aram./Arab. He most likely views Hebrew-cum-
Aramaic as needing to be treated as one entity, versus Arabic, which
is distant from them.
The lexicons produced by Alfsi and by Menaem deal at ran-
dom with Hebrew and/or Aramaic entries. The amalgamation of
entries may well originate from the simple fact that the compiler
intended to exhaust the elucidation of all biblical word entries.
However, the raison dtre of cause-and-eect proceeded further:
the linguistic comparison pointing up the joint occurrence of the two
languages in the Bible served as evidence for the specic anity
between the two. In contrast to Alfsi, R. Jonah b. Jan did not
register the Aramaic entries in his lexicon; he included Hebrew entries
only. Theoretically, these two grammarians could have set aside the
Aramaic entries in a separate section, as R. David Qimi did cen-
turies later. That both Alfsi and Menaem merged the Hebrew
entries with the Aramaic ones is clear evidence of their opinion
regarding the anity between Hebrew and Aramaic. (Clearly no
such conation of lexical materials, i.e. Hebrew side by side with
Arabic entries, would have been postulated if an equivalent Arabic
lexicon had been produced.)
In the several introductions to their Lexicons, or in their com-
mentaries, the Hebrew grammarians outline a methodology for expli-
cating words in the Bible for which no intra-biblical match can be
found. They employ a graded method of preference, which can
hardly be seen to be arbitrary: (a) evidence for the support of rab-
binic Hebrew (via a comparison therewith) can be enlisted; (b) if the
use of the word in question cannot be documented in rabbinic
Hebrew, the support of Aramaic (via a comparison therewith) is

feasible; (c) if neither (a) nor (b) is relevant, the support of Arabic,
(via a comparison therewith) can be postulated. A graded system of
this kind is posited by Alfsi in the introduction to his Kitb Jmi'
al-Alf (p. 12), as also R. Judah Ibn Bal'am in the introduction to
his Bible Commentary (Perez, 1981, p. 214).
In all likelihood, the facts enumerated by R. Jonah b. Jan (above)
were not unknown to the other Hebrew grammarians; such data
clearly directed them in their molding of an approach of this nature,
namely, that Aramaic possesses a higher grade of anity with Hebrew,
with Arabic ranking third in this respect.
The opinion(s) of Dunash ibn Tamm and of Ibn Barn on the
above issue remain(s) unknown, for these two grammarians compiled
works dealing with Hebrew/Arabic comparison only. Can it be
assumed that they thought the equivalence of grammar-cum-lexicon
of Heb.+Aram. to be more restricted than the corresponding one of
Heb.+Arab.? Is it possible that they concluded therefrom that Arabics
anity with Hebrew is of a higher grade? At any rate, a few iso-
lated comparisons of Hebrew with Aramaic are recorded in Ibn
Barns work, showing that this grammarian did not neglect the
Aramaic language entirely.
2.3 The problem of loan words: Were loans from Aramaic and Arabic
reckoned with by the Hebrew grammarians?
Alfsi says in entry brz (p. 506): wtmxn wbrzy t[b ( Job 6:17): tqw yp
ahl sylw ljnt hyl[ smla kst am dn[ gwltla yn[y w[mqna wbrzy
jm ybr[ wh lb ynarb[la yp qaqta i.e. since this word is a hapax
and has no Hebrew etymology it should be regarded as pure
Arabic. Similarly in entry fj (532), Alfsi regards hnfja (Gen. 31:39)
as rare in the Bible, from Arabic . . . In these instances as well as
in many others an ambiguous statement appears in the texts of the
Hebrew grammarians.
On the one hand, it is implied (a) that the origin of a given bib-
lical Hebrew word is in Aramaic or in Arabic, i.e. no language com-
parison is applicable, it is merely the source language of the word
in question that is to be ascertained. On the other hand, a contra-
dictory implication is to be noticed simultaneously, (b) that the matter
at stake is indeed language comparison, as between the Hebrew word
22 chapter two
and its equivalent in Aramaic or in Arabic. If (a) suggests the cor-

rect intent, then we can conclude that the Hebrew grammarians
determined that Arabic and Aramaic loan words do exist in bibli-
cal Hebrew. If however, (b) is correct, how are we to accommodate
such an express formulation regarding foreign words imported, so
to speak, into biblical Hebrew?
The clarication of this matter is important (1) per se, as one
essential element of the totality of problems involved in the issue of
the Hebrew grammarians ideology concerning language theory and
comparison method; and (2) for practical purposes of material
classication i.e. for weeding out the loan entries (if such are pos-
tulated) from the register of instances of language comparison. Bacher,
for example (1884, Appendix II, p. 72), takes for granted that Alfsi
determined several biblical words, e.g. hnfja, lxpyw, rqyw, to be loan
words from Arabic. Skoss held the same opinion in his introduction
to the edition of Alfsis work (p. xl). As for R. Judah ibn Quraysh,
Becker discussed this question (1984, pp. 2530); his conclusion (ibid.,
p. 29) is that Ibn Quraysh postulated loan words from Aramaic only
and not from Arabic. This conclusion will be further discussed below
(2.3.4). Let us attempt to clarify this issue as reected in the theories
of Alfsi, Menaem, R. Jonah b. Jan and other grammarians.
2.3.1 Formulae
Formulae in the same vein as those quoted above are adopted by
David b. Abraham in the following root entries: bwz (506); (532); fj
(561); rmj; rkn (272); (287); bxn abs (302); t[ (439); lxp (532 fj);
rpx (524); rq (576); qpr (622); [qr (628); a (710).
The same impression, namely that Alfsi postulated loan words in
Hebrew from Arabic, is obtained vis--vis the existence of loan words
from Aramaic. The terms and expressions seem to relate unambigu-
ously to lexical loan: The root of the Hebrew word under discus-
sion is borrowed from Aramaic, although it is dressed-up, grammatically
and contextually, in Hebrew garb.11 Menaem b. Saruq also uses
11
This view would clearly not be held of the several Aramaic phrases appear-
ing in the midst of a continuous Hebrew text, as, for example, atwdh rgy (Gen.
31:47) or the well-known completely Aramaic verse ( Jer. 10:11) and of course
vis--vis the Aramaic sections in Daniel and Ezra. The Aramaic character of these
excerpts is unmistakable; these texts were ostensibly viewed as texts in a language
expressions that could imply word borrowing from Aramaic, for

example: awh tymra wl yk yrmwa ra yrtwphm yw . . . ask (= Several
expositors state that this word is Aramaicp. 107); twyhl kty . . . qp
tymra wl taz hlm (= It is betting that this word is Aramaic,
p. 179); awh tymraw . . . qnpm (= this is Aramaic, p. 143); ta-hkk-aw
yl hw[- (Num. 11:15) nbrbrw tnaw tymra wlb hrwbd hlmh tyarn
(= this word is apparently an Aramaic expression, as in the verse tnaw
nbrbrw (Dan. 5:23; p. 38).
R. Jonah b. Jan, likewise,12 when he deals with the formation
of the word dj (Ezek. 33:30), states (Riqma, p. 275): dj hyhy rpaw
yymrah ylmh m (= The word may perhaps be one of the Aramaic
loan words); and so, in relation to the dagesh in the taw of lwmT]aime
(1 Sam. 10:11), R. Jonah adopts a phraseology with a fairly clear
borrowing import: ymrah rwbdh ghnm wb wghn (= in marking the dagesh
they adopted the practice current in Aramaic speech, i.e. language);
regarding rjs he remarks ("Ul, p. 479): ynayrsla m qtm.
If we are to take these phrases literally, as terms denoting loan
words from Arabic and Aramaic, we are faced with the following
problems: Did the Hebrew grammarians presuppose that as early as
Mosaic times, the historical and geographic linguistic setting allowed
for the inuence of the Arabic and Aramaic languages on Hebrew?
This question arises, because loan terms of this type occur even with
regard to several words in the Pentateuch, such as hnfja (Gen. 31:39),
lxpyw (ibid. 30:37), rmj (Deut. 32:14), rkntyw (Gen. 42:7), etc. Moreover,
it can be supposed that the orthodox beliefs of the Hebrew gram-
marians could accommodate the notion that within the Holy Scriptures
there are to be found words borrowed from Arabic. If this were the
case, the unique issue would certainly not have been left unmentioned!
It is also worth asking why, when David b. Abraham determines
that rmj is ybr[la hgl m, he chose Arabic as its source rather than
Aramaic; the same word rmj is regularly and frequently used so in
Aramaic, (including biblical Aramaic armj, Dan. 5:1). In Aramaic it
distinct from the usual biblical language; for these passages, the concept of loan
would not have been postulated even theoretically by the Hebrew grammarians.
Regarding the issue of loan words in Indo-European languages, see, for example,
A. Meillet (1937), ch. 8, pp. 378.
12
Perez (1981, p. 223) remarks that in the "Ul, he did not encounter any terms
of etymology (wrzg l yjnwm), implying that R. Jonah b. Jan refrained from the
use of any phraseology reserved for word loans. However, Perez curtailed any fur-
ther discussion on this issue.
24 chapter two
is even more commonly used than the word rmk is in Arabic!13

Considering, then, that there is a greater anity between Hebrew
and Aramaic, in that historically, within the time frame of the Hebrew
grammarians, both are Jewish languages and these languages, and
no other, are employed in the Bible, would it not be more proba-
ble that Hebrew borrowed a word (if indeed this is a matter of loan)
from its closer sister, Aramaic, rather than from its distant sister,
Arabic? Furthermore, on what basis did Alfsi state categorically that
this word is a loan word in Hebrew only; why should it not also be
considered a loan in Aramaic? Why is Aramaic given preference, on
the assumption that in that language the word is not a loan? For
he remarks: ynayrslabw (= also in Aramaic). We must thus infer the
following assumption: the aforesaid expressions and phraseologies
despite their plain sense implying word borrowing are not to be
taken at face value; the Hebrew grammarians did not mean to imply
that the lexical entries employing such expressions are in fact loans
from Arabic. This assumption nds additional support as follows:
1. The Arabic expressions ybr[la hgl m ,jm ybr[ (= from the
Arabic language, pure Arabic)14 are most likely not to be taken lit-
erally; they are intended to point up the total similarity between the
Hebrew entry and the Arabic one, a similarity in all the linguistic
aspects, phonetic, phonological, etymological, semantic and perhaps
even textual. Were it not for the Arabic, we would be unable to
ascertain its precise Hebrew meaning, on account of the rarity of
the word (which is sometimes even hapax legomenon) in the Bible.
2. In the case of several of the words regarding which the gram-
marians applied the phraseology the plain sense of which indicates
word loan, an additional etymological discussion is recorded elsewhere
in the treatise(s); where the formulation adopted is a clear expres-
sion of comparison with Arabic, not borrowing from that language.
For example, in the lexical entry t(n) in Alfsis Lexicon (p. 754), the
entries abs ,bxn ,fj ,brz appear merely within the formula brq m
(br[la hgl), that is, as entries for language comparison, although the
13
In several Arabic dialects the words barw ybn are more usual; furthermore,
Alfsi himself (yy, 51) uses bn[la bar as a rendering for yy.
14
When this expression occurs in the Risla, Becker (1984, pp. 2728) translates
precisely as in Arabic (tybr[b wmk mm).
four specied words had previously been described as loans. Further,

in the same lexicon, the entries rmj/rmk are listed in an excursus
on j/k switches in the entry ljb (p. 208), and there also merely
for the purpose of language comparison.
The same phenomenon occurs in R. Jonah b. Jans works. The
word dj, which had originally (Riqma p. 275) been treated under
the head word-borrowing (i.e. governed by the term literally refer-
ring to such), recurs in the "Ul (p. 211) under the unambiguous
heading of language comparison: ynayrsll snagm whw; likewise the word
lwmja is again discussed in Riqma (p. 407), where the term used is
specically one of language comparison: ymrah wml hmwd awh. Also
when the word rjs reappears under the entry rw, R. Jonah adopts
the usual term for language comparison of the subtype Bib.-Heb./Targ.-
Aram. i.e. wgrt m
The non-literal implication of the loan phraseologies is almost cer-
tainly the case in Menaems works, too. In his Maberet he neither
records any express discussion nor any clear-cut expression implying
that he is dealing with word loan. Since no statement or justication
of loans vis--vis those specic entries in which the term appears,
we are entitled to assume that in these entries Menaems intended
sense is that of language comparison, not of word borrowing.
Even more remarkable is that in the lexicons of Alfsi and of
R. Jonah b. Jan, the two alternative phraseologies for indicating
the connection of the Hebrew entry word with the Arabic one some-
times appear together in the same entry. In the entry fj (p. 532),
Alfsi rst states that this word is ybr[la hgl m; but at the end of
the entry, he states: hnfja ynarb[law ybr[la yp qpta amk (Gen. 31:39).
What had initially seemed to be a loan from Arabic is not such but
merely a comparison with Arabic, i.e. very similar to the Arabic or
entirely equivalent to it. If we interpret at face value the expression
at the close of the entry and presume that the phraseology earlier
on in the entry is to be thereby interpreted, the conclusion reached
is that the phrase ybr[la hgl m is not meant to indicate word loan.
In the same light is to be treated the phrase hybr[ hfpl yhw, occur-
ring in the entry abs. Prima facie this is a term for word loan; how-
ever, the correct understanding of the expression ensues from the
phrase br[la wlwqy amk occurring subsequently in the entry text;
this phrase proves more or less explicitly that the lexicographers
intent was language comparison and no more.
26 chapter two
2.3.2 Aramaic word-loan terminology

With regard to Aramaic, too, the use of the word-loan terminology
may be followed up in the same vicinity by substitute expressions,
conveying the true meaning, namely that of comparison. For exam-
ple, in discussing the sense of the word rtk ( Job 36:2), Alfsi states
that rtk is derived from Aramaic (wgrtla m qtm whw), serving
as the Targum translation for ljy (Mic. 5:6); but in the immediate
sequel, he adds that the sentence containing the word rtk comprises
four words, including the word rtk, all of which are shared with
Aramaic (ynayrsla hgl [m hkrtm). If rtk belongs to both Hebrew
and Aramaic, the implication is that this word is an integral part of
both, i.e. it is not a loan word.
Further examples of the phenomenon of dual terminology are
proered by the entries rf[ and qls. In entry rf[ (p. 387) he states
ynayrsla m lb ynarb[la m hfpllla hdh sylw (= this word is not
from Hebrew but from Aramaic), and in entry q(l)s (p. 347) he
states: ynayrsla m hnkl ryfn ynarb[la yp hl sylw (= It has no equiv-
alent in Hebrew but is from Aramaic), i.e. borrowing terminology.
The substance of these two entries is reiterated in an excursus appear-
ing under the entry qt (p. 750), recorded under the heading rytkw
ynayrsla [m rty ynarb[la yp (= many [words] in Hebrew are shared
with Aramaic), implying that the word pertains to both languages.15
R. Jonah b. Jan in entry drf (p. 267) states that drf is hfpl
hynayrs (a case of word borrowing); but then continues axya hybr[w,
which addition totally changes the import; it is quite out of the ques-
tion to posit that the same word is borrowed simultaneously from two
dierent sources, Arabic and Aramaic. In a Bib. Heb./Tal. Aram.
comparison mk/mk (p. 322), Ibn Jan similarly adopts in the same
dictum two expressions that are apparently contradictory: (a) snagm
ynayrsll and (b) hnm qtm. It is very probable that m qtm is nothing
other than an abstract phrase indicating semantically derived from
(see below, the terms of R. Jonah b. Jan, in sub-section 2.3.3)
The common feature shared by the entries for which the Hebrew
15
It is noteworthy that the copyists and the compilers of the work Jmi' al-Alf
made a frequent practice of interchanging these terms. An example is the entry
grtmla hyp laq [f ydkw (ibid., p. 18), where a varia lectio in MS E reads hgl m
ynayrsla; The same holds for the entry (p. 696; also qt, p. 749) where the
body of the text has merely wgrtw, while in MS I the text reads ryfn hl sylw
ynayrs hnklw ynarb[la yp. These redactor-transmitters, then, did not take literally
the very borrowing terms they themselves used.
grammarians tend to adopt the phraseologies implying prima facie

word borrowing is their recording of rare biblical words, including
hapax legomena. Absolute consistency, however, is not maintained
for all the infrequent words. A certain number are entered with the
borrowing terminology, although in the main, the comparison ter-
minology stands. The following examples are from the lexicon of
Alfsi: in the case of brs (p. 353), jtm (p. 238) and tksh (p. 326)
he remarks: (ynarb[la yp) ryfn hl sylw, i.e. the entries recorded are
biblically unique; for tksh, he uses on the one hand, a borrowing
expression, wgrt m, while for the others he makes do with the
expression of concurrence: for brs, ynayrsla yp hnklw for jtm, wgrtw.
2.3.3 Besides the terminological inferences, the following inferences

can be adduced
David b. Abraham Alfsi: If Alfsi indeed believed that the Hebrew
language contains loans from Aramaic and Arabic, how can it be
explained that he nowhere uses the specic loan-word terminology,
for example, artqa, or, at least, hra[tsa?16
R. Jonah b. Jan: True, R. Jonah b. Jan resorts in one instance
to the unambiguous loan word terminology: . . . hdydjla yh brdh
hlykd yh lb hybr[ hfpl tsylw qrmla lha dn[ arap amstw (= dor-
ban is a peace of iron . . . called farisha in the Orient and it is not
an Arabic word but rather a borrowed one), although the matter
here is one of a Hebrew loan word in Arabic.17 But at any rate,
Ibn Jan is fully aware of the concept of word borrowing from one
language to another; had he thought that Arabic and/or Aramaic
16
Two non-Hebrew words appearing in the Book of Esther regarding which
explicit loan word expressions are used cannot invalidate the inference. I am refer-
ring to rwp and rtja. In the entries rwp (p. 452), rtja (p. 69) and kr (p. 610)
these are dened explicitly by the grammarian as Persian words, for the simple rea-
son that the biblical text itself records them as such ad loc together with their
Hebrew translational synonyms. This could easily have served Alfsi as a clear indi-
cation that a colloquial dialect was here recorded in Scripture itself for the purpose
of providing a vivid description of the actions and events narrated in the Esther
Scroll. This is no dierent from the phenomenon, highlighted by Alfsi in entry
rwp (p. 452), that the Bible itself sets the name d[lg alongside with its Aramaic
parallel atwdh rgy. The exclusive term hra[tsa in its special connotation of metaphor
occurs in entry [xq (p. 568). The same term, in the sense of borrowing from one lan-
guage to another, appears in the preface to the Risla of R. Judah ibn Quraysh (pp.
11819; for some reason, this reference was omitted from Beckers index).
17
This is not the only instance of the assumption of a Hebrew loan word in
Arabic: Bacher (1884, p. 33) remarks that in Ibn Jans opinion, the Arabic word
zrk is a loan from the Hebrew zrg.
28 chapter two
loan words existed in biblical Hebrew, he certainly could have used

the above-mentioned exclusive term(s) in dealing with them.
Assume for a moment that the Hebrew grammarians did arm
the existence of word loans in Hebrew; how would such an assump-
tion be compatible with the fact that their linguistic approach was
of a descriptive rather than historical nature? For a detailed exami-
nation of their theory proves this quite conclusively.18
The fundamental pronouncements set out in the several intro-
ductions to the works of the Hebrew grammarians proclaim that
unique or infrequent words in the Bible can be interpreted by rab-
binic Hebrew, Aramaic or Arabic, whereas no indication is given,
with regard to the phenomenon of word borrowing from Arabic or
Aramaic. The context proves beyond all doubt that the grounds for
resorting to these two Semitic languages is the concurrence they share
with biblical Hebrew.
It is therefore highly likely, if not certain, that the terms supercially
implying word borrowing are in fact about interlingual comparison
terms; thus the entries treating of lexical entities by such terms are
indeed an integral part of the inventory of lexical comparisons.
Ibn Bal'am: Perez (1981, p. 223) states that Ibn Bal'am does not
interpret a biblical word under discussion on the basis of an Arabic
etymology but rather by mere comparison with Arabic.19 The contrast
between etymology (wrzg) and comparison (hawwh) in this context
is tantamount to contrasting word loan with language comparison.
Ibn Barn: With regard to Ibn Barn, I have been unable to detect
in the Kitb al-Muwzana even a single expression that might be inter-
preted as implying word loan; and this is indeed to be expected,
considering that the title of Ibn Barns opus stipulates language
comparison, not word borrowing.
2.3.4 R. Judah ibn Quraysh

The above arguments have the same validity with regard to R. Judah
ibn Quraysh, too. Yet Becker (1984, p. 29), having thoroughly
18
The term diachronic is out of the question here, since no diachronic approach
existed prior to the end of the 18th century.
19
hawwh yp[ ala tybr[h m wrzg yp[ hnwdnh tyarqmh hlmh ta rabm awh ya
taz wll
inspected ibn Qurayshs theory, asserts that R. Judah postulates word

borrowings into (biblical) Hebrew from Aramaic but not from Arabic.
However, it would seem very probable that in the work of Ibn
Quraysh also, the word loans are only seemingly so.
This is evident from various remarks in lexical entries recorded
by Ibn Quraysh; for example:
In Risla (A3, pp. 12223), the biblical word wypnk is termed wl
jmla dwqh (pure holy language or pure Hebrew) (Becker, 1984,
p. 28), in contrast to its synonym wypga. Becker (p. 29) concludes
therefrom that in Ibn Qurayshs opinion wypga is a loan word from
Aramaic. The upshot of Beckers discussion (ibid., pp. 2829) is that
the expression jmla dwqh wl is decisive proof for this. But as
Becker himself assumed (ibid., p. 27) regarding several prima-facie
Arabic word loans, this expression, too, can be interpreted metaphor-
ically. It is thus quite feasible that R. Judah maintained wypnk to be
indeed a pure Hebrew word, for the reason that of the two syn-
onyms wypnk and wypga, the former is the Hebrew word par excellence
whereas the latter is rarer as Hebrew and is properly an Aramaic
word.
A survey of all the 94 entries contained in part 1 of the Risla,
i.e. Hebrew-Aramaic comparisons, reveals that in the opinion of Ibn
Quraysh, 91 entry words are spelled with the same root letters as
those of the Aramaic words with which they are compared. These
comparisons are generally of the pattern Bib. Heb.1/Bib. Heb2/Targ.
Aram. In Beckers opinion, the picture evolving is such that the entry
words are Aramaic borrowed into Hebrew, the pattern being Bib.
Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (below, 3.6.7). It seems likely that
this entry setup served as the grounds for Beckers conclusion that
Ibn Quraysh postulated Aramaic loans into Hebrew. However, three
of the entries involve letter substitution, rendering the foregoing con-
clusion, somewhat problematic. Details are as follows:
Ibn Quraysh states denitively that ytljz (entry A53) corresponds
with tyljd. This being the Targum translation for ytary, the one-
to-one relationship of these two words is exactly the same as that
of the pairs, abhd/bhz, a[wrd/[wrz, anqd/qz, i.e. the pairs are char-
acterized by the consonantal interchange20 d/z. This letter switch is
interlingual: it operates between Hebrew and Aramaic and is neither
20
I have avoided the use of modern terms such as shift which emerged in the
nineteenth century as part of the diachronic approach.
30 chapter two
an intra-Aramaic nor an intra-Hebrew switch. Hence, ytljz also is

a Hebrew word, for if it were a loan from Aramaic, it would have
to be ytljd, i.e. spelled with a daleth. The assumption that R. Judah
envisaged the said interchange as having taken place after or before
the time of the loan must be ruled out; for if such were the case it
would deserve explicit mention.
A similar situation occurs in the pairs rpa/arp[m (A19) and
mwg/axmwk (A37). These are thus clear indications that no word loan
is involved but rather language comparison: the three specic entries in
question serve as a basis for deriving the general principle that com-
parisons and comparisons only, are perceived by Ibn Quraysh.
Furthermore, we have the right to ask, regarding Ibn Quraysh:
what is the criterion for his determining a word loan? If the crite-
rion is (biblical) infrequency, this can be refuted by the fact that in
part C1 of the Risla, too, 28 percent of the entries consist of rarely
occurring words (Becker, p. 50) and yet R. Judah does not state that
these are loans from Arabic!
Becker (p. 120) entitles the rst part of the Risla ylmh r[
arqmb twywxmh twymrah (= The Chapter of Aramaic Words Occurring
in the Bible). On p. 29 he explains that to all intents and purposes
these are tymram twlwa ylm (= words borrowed from Aramaic).
Discussion of several of these words, however, recurs in part C1, i.e.
a section whose heading makes unmistakable mention of Hebrew
words being compared with Arabic (Becker, p. 221). For instance,
rmj (C1 495) is entered as Hebrew, whereas previously (A71) it was
recorded as Aramaic. Likewise, rfj is entered twice (C1 501; A73)
once under each. True, in part C1 he includes a few Aramaic words
culled from the Aramaic biblical texts, e.g. rjp yd j (C1 512).
But this is a genuine exception, for the majority of the words recorded
in this connection (part C1) are unequivocally Hebrew items, whereas
the pure Aramaic words that are sporadically recorded there can
be clearly discerned as such by the text from which they have been
culled; any remark concerning their Aramaic nature would be
superuous. This is not the case regarding a word that is Aramaic
loaned into Hebrew (tyrb[h wtb hlwa tymra). Such an instance
certainly calls for an express remark by Ibn Quraysh and failing
such a remark the word must surely be classied in its proper per-
spective as a Hebrew word, for the very reason that it is recorded
in the midst of a series of Hebrew entries. The claim that an Aramaic
word is to be treated as a loan merely on account of its being incor-

porated into part A of the Risla is thus refuted.
However, another diculty arises: the reasoning serving Ibn Quraysh
as grounds for the assumption of an anity between the three lan-
guages Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic is set out as twofold, genealog-
ical anity and environmental anity (twnkh tbrqw jyh tnrq;
Becker, 1984, pp. 25; 11619); environmental anity for our pur-
poses implies interlingual word borrowing. Ibn Quraysh is thus fully
aware of the borrowing concept. But it is one thing to state that
there exists a linguistic law, and quite another to show how it actu-
ally works in the language concerned. At any rate, if there were
such an environmental anity between Hebrew and Arabic (Becker
maintains that R. Judah did not posit any word borrowing between
these two), or between Aramaic and Hebrew, Ibn Quraysh failed
to explain the implications. One wonders whether the opinion of
J. Derenbourg (1895, p. 156) can be borne out, namely that Ibn
Qurayshs purpose in comparing Hebrew with Arabic, Aramaic and
even Berber was to reveal Hebrew elements within these languages. According
to such an assumption, the word borrowing is in the opposite direc-
tion: i.e. from Hebrew into Arabic and Aramaic. Even as a conjecture,
however, Derenburgs stand fails to nd any support from the actual
expressions used by Ibn Quraysh in his lexicon.
It must therefore be concluded that in the eyes of the Hebrew
grammarians the loaning concept was vague and unclear, because
neither Ibn Quraysh, nor his successors, ever formulated clear prin-
ciples enabling a clear-cut determination as to whether a certain
word is a loan word and if so from which language it was borrowed.
This indistinct perception of the matter of word loan stands behind
the stereotyped comparison applied by R. Jonah b. Jan regarding
the word(s) yt[rt/[rt/[rt (pp. 549, 700). It does not occur to this
grammarian to query why Hebrew needs to resort to two signiants,
yt[rt and r[w for the same referent signi, whereas Aramaic makes
do with [rt alone; also what the real connection is between [rt
and r[. It stands to reason that the language comparison system
conventionally operated by the Hebrew grammarians (see below) was
not conducive to developing a theory of any substance on loaning
between the several languages under discussion. It is furthermore
quite probable that a fundamental demurrer can be discerned in lin-
guistic literature, which obviated entirely any assumption of borrowings
32 chapter two
from foreign languages within Hebrew. An unmistakable expression

of such a demurrer is contained in a statement by R. Abraham Ibn
Ezra in Safah Berurah referring to rp: Many people opine that this
word is [of ] Aramaic [origin]; God forbid; this is a Holy Language
(= Hebrew) [expression] and both languages are equal.21
2.4 The theory of substitutions
Lexical-etymological comparison can be dened as the comparison

of a Hebrew root (realized in the form of an entry, according to the
Hebrew grammarians methods) with an Arabic or Aramaic root.
The letters constituting the corresponding radices are matched respec-
tively and in the same order, according to a conventional chart of
correspondences, as is enumerated below. For instance, the radices
dlg/dlg match each other letter-wise (d/d ,l/l ,g/g) and in the same
order (3d 2l 1g/3d 2l 1g). Some corresponding radices consist of match-
ing radical letters, which, however, do not appear respectively in the
same order. In these cases, the comparison operates by metathesis
(as Alfsi puts it: swk[la qyrf m; or, as other Hebrew grammarians
write: blqlab). Comparisons of the latter type are attested in the
works of all the Hebrew grammarians but their scope is consider-
ably restricted. For example, Alfsi records a comparison of the two
entries rpx/rx (p. 524) between which there exists a metathesis of
the second and third radicals. Further examples of comparisons involv-
ing metathesis appear in the works of R. Judah ibn Quraysh (Becker
1984, p. 40), Menaem (below, 10.2.1.8), Dunash b. Labrat (below,
11.3. 5), R. Jonah b. Jan (Bacher 1884, pp. 3435) and Ibn Barn
(Wechter 1964, n. 310).
At the base of the etymological comparison of Hebrew/Arabic
entries lies a chart of correspondence setting out the correlation of
each Hebrew letter with the corresponding Arabic letter bearing a
similar name to its Hebrew counterpart (Tn, 1983, p. 262). The
same denition clearly applies also to Hebrew comparisons with
Aramaic. As regards Arabic, the equivalences are true graphically as
well as regard the Hebrew accepted transcription system of Judeo-
21
ytw dwqh wl awh qr ,hlylj hlylj ,tymra hrzgm taz yk wbj ybrw (1 g)
tww twnwlh
Arabic. If some minor dierences in the sounds of certain phones

are set aside, such as those of the letters b and k, which in Hebrew
and in Aramaic have two phonetic values they are sometimes pro-
nounced with dagesh and other times aspirated, whereas in Arabic
these are monophones, i.e. with dagesh, it can be said that the con-
gruences hold true phonologically, too.
Thus the basic chart of correspondences reads: a, b, g, d (nowadays
termed 1d) h, w, z (= 1z), j (= 1j), f (= 1f), y, k, l, m, n, s, [ (= 1[),
p, x (= 1x), q (= 1q), r, (= 1), t. For example, in the threefold
comparison of bt;K/ ] btK/] BatKi the letter k is identical in all three
languages; likewise the two letters t and b. This chart of equivalents
was acceptable to all Hebrew grammarians in medieval times (nowa-
days, also). Those who opposed comparison with Arabic adopted
the chart only insofar as the Hebrew-Aramaic correspondences are
concerned. The above chart is, however, only part of a larger-
scale Table of Comparison. The element complementing the above-
mentioned basic chart and thereby completing the table comprises
Hebrew letters matched by Aramaic and/or Arabic parallel letters
by a system of substitution; the substitutions may be phonetic or
graphic in nature. The exhaustive Correspondence Table, which is
really an abstraction, was not accepted in its entirety by all the
Hebrew grammarians. Some adopted the greater part while others
made use of only a small part. Menaem practises the substitution
system for the letters ywha alone and postulates comparisons with
Aramaic only, whereas Ibn Barn extends the scope to the utmost,
incorporating 49 Heb./Arab. letter substitutions.22 The remaining
grammarians stand midway between the two extremes. We set out
herewith a Comparative Table of Correspondences by Letter Substitu-
tions for six Hebrew grammarians, whose respective methods and
theories in this eld are known fairly well in the scholarly world.
22
Tn, (1983, 5.2) enumerates 43 substitutions used by Ibn Barn; three fur-
ther substitutions, namely g-g, a-h and t-y (see below, table and note) are to be
included as well as an additional three substitutions, listed by Tn, in the para-
graph dealing with taf (= erroneous graphic interchanges in Arabic), i.e. z-r, j-
g and g-[ (ibid., 5.4).
34 chapter two
2.4.1 Table of Hebrew-Arabic letter substitution according to several

Hebrew grammarians23
Substitution Ibn Alfsi Dunash Ibn Ibn Ibn
Quraysh Jan Bal'am Barn
Heb./Arab.
a-[ =
a-h (=) =24
a-w =
a-y =
b-p = (=)
b-m =
g-g = = = = = =
g-k = =
g-k = =
g-[25 = =
g-g = =
d-t =
d-t =
d-d = = = =
d-x =
d-x =
w-a =
w-y = =
z-d26 = = = = = =
z-r =
z-x27 =
23
The data in this table have been partially culled from the listings of Tn
(1983, n. 69 regarding Alfsi and 5.2 regarding Ibn Barn) as well as those of
Becker, 1984, pp. 3738.
24
Tn (1983, 5.2) failed to mention the substitution g-g in the list of Ibn Barns
substitutions; but this substitution is implicit in his comparisons rg/yrg, hgn/sg,
g/sg (p. 167). The substitution a-h also is clearly implied in the comparisons
hahn, an-yhn (ibid., p. 169)
25
Bacher (1884, pp. 3334) enumerated g-h as one of Ibn Jans substitutions;
cf also Becker (1984, p. 39, n. 27) but see below, 13.2.1.
26
(Tn, 1983, n. 69) entered z-d as an additional substitution, for Alfsi. The
proof adduced is not from an explicit comparison; therefore the comparison and
thus the substitution cannot be considered certain. As for f-f, it should be noted
that the relevant comparison is non-explicit. On the other hand, in Tn ibid., the
following substitutions should be added: g-k, d-x, z-d, j-k, [-g; the Heb.-Aram. sub-
stitutions are also to be added.
27
Tn (ibid., n. 61) ascribes this substitution for Ibn Quraysh also; but this
remains a matter of uncertainty, for the reason that the pair of words jrzak/jyrxlak
(cont.)
j-a =
j-g =
j-k = = = = = =
j-[ (=) =
j-k =
j-h =
f-t (=) =
f-d =
28
f-f (=) =
y-a =
y-h =
y-w = (=) = =
k-g29 = =
k-k = =
k-q =
l-r30 =
l-n =
n-l =
n-m =
z-s =
-s = = =
x-s = = = =
[-k =
[-g = = = = = =
p-b = =
were adduced solely for an illustration of grammatical comparison (k/k as a prex

of similarity). Becker (1984, pp. 3738) excludes this substitution pair from the list
of Ibn Quraysh; cf also p. 343, n. 1 (ibid.)
28
This substitution is applied by Ibn Jan in Aram.-Arab. comparisons.
29
Tn (ibid., n. 62) records the substitution k/g for Ibn Quraysh on the basis
of the comparison tyk/twsg; Becker, on the other hand (ibid., pp. 3738) excludes
it. We opine that its inclusion is justied, for Ibn Quraysh compares twk with
Rab. Heb. entry hsg. The existence of the two aforementioned comparisons pro-
vides ground for carrying over the intra-Hebrew comparison k-g into the realm of
Heb.-Arab. substitutions as k/g.
30
Tn (ibid., n. 63) ascribes the substitution l-m to Ibn Quraysh, his grounds
being the comparison wtlglg/htmgmg. However, these translation synonyms are
adduced (Risla, C1, p. 546), rather than for their own sake (and certainly not for
the sake of the aforementioned substitution), as part of one section of a verse, which
itself is cited for the discussion of another word, i.e. (wtlglg ta) rtw ( Judg. 9:53)
and as illustration of the substitution x/x. Becker (ibid., pp. 3738) indeed excludes
this substitution (l-m) from those of Ibn Quraysh.
36 chapter two
(cont.)
x-s =
x-x = = = = = =
x-f = = = = = =
31
q-k = =
r-l =
-t =
-t = = = = = =
-z =
-s = = = = = =
-x =
-f =
c- = = = = = =
t-t = = = =
t-f =
t-y32 =
2.4.1.1 Classied summary of data in gures

The following 9 substitutions were approved and used by all Hebrew
grammarians: g-g, z-d, j-k, [-g, x-x, x-f, -t, -s, c-
18 substitutions are used jointly by several of the Heb. gram-
marians; out of these, the following 13 are used by two grammari-
ans only: a-h, b-p, g-k, g-k, g-[, g-g, w-y, j-[, f-f, k-g, k-k, p-b, q-k;
one by three grammarians: s-; 4 by four grammarians: d-d, y-w, s-
x, t-t.
35 substitutions in our table are known each to have been used
by only one Hebrew grammarian; in detail:
2 substitutions are uniquely used by R. Judah b. Quraysh: -f, n-m.
2 substitutions are uniquely used by Alfsi: d-x, [-k.
31
Used as a substitution in Aram./Arab. comparison.
32
Ibn Barn compares ttr with hytr (Kitb al-Muwzana p. 95). This compari-
son would seem to posit two substitutions: (a) t-t (as regard the rst t in ttr); (b)
t-y (as to the second t of (ttr by a taf switch: t and y in Arabic dier from
each other, as to their diacritical points only, otherwise these two letters are graph-
ically identical.
4 substitutions are uniquely used by R. Jonah ibn Jan: a-h, f-

t, x-s, -z.
27 substitutions, representing almost one half of the total number,
are used by Ibn Barn alone. A certain number of these may well
have been adopted owing to the phonetic anity between the two
sounds (clearly, this anity has to be dened in accord with the cat-
egories and terms current in the works of the Hebrew grammari-
ans, such as Riqma, p. 36): laryngeals: a-[, j-a, j-h; labials: b-m;
linguals: d-t, d-t, f-d, l-r (?), l-n, n-l, r-l (?), t-f; dentals: z-x, s-z,
-x; palatals; k-q. Several letters constituting letter substitution per-
tain to the special group ywha a-w, a-y, w-a, y-a, y-h. Certain substi-
tutions Ibn Barn himself explained on grounds of taf (Arabic
graphic interchange): d-x, z-r, j-g (Tn, 1983, pp. 266267), like-
wise t-y. Finally, two substitutions defy classication according to the
above categories: j-k, -t.
Thus the sum total of substitutions in the Table is 61. Only 12
of this total are unattested by Ibn Barn, in all probability because
his work did not survive in its entirety. For each of the other gram-
marians there can be abstracted, in descending order, smaller totals
of substitutions: For Ibn Jan, 23 substitutions; for Ibn Quraysh,
19; for Alfsi, 17; for Dunash, 14; and for Ibn Bal'am, 11. It is
probable that in the case of some grammarians the fairly low totals
of substitutions are due to the incomplete surviving documentation
of their works. As already noted, the comparison data encountered
in the writings of Dunash b. Labrat as a whole are not truly rep-
resentative, in that the character of Dunashs opus is essentially selec-
tive in nature. For Ibn Bal'am, the comparison data have yet to be
exhaustively culled from his biblical commentary. At any rate, I have
incorporated in the table only those substitutions, whose employment
can be quite denitely determined, whether from absolutely explicit
application or from more or less explicit instances, as for the work-
ing hypotheses of the Hebrew grammarians in toto. The disparity
between the total substitutions used by Ibn Barn, 49, and the totals
abstracted from the works of the other grammarians is certainly
remarkable; 27 switches are unique to Ibn Barn alone! A rationale
for this phenomenon has already been put forward by P. Kokowtzow
(1893, pp. 8489) and more recently by Tn, (1983, p. 267.). Let
this suce for the moment.
38 chapter two
2.4.2 Table of letter substitutions: Hebrew-Aramaic

Substitution Ibn Quraysh Alfsi Ibn Jan Ibn Bal'am Habavli
Heb.-Aram.
a-[ =
b-p = =
g-k = = = =
g-q =
d-z =
h-a =
w-y =
z-d = =
f-t =
s- =
x-f = =
-t =
2.4.3 Table of letter substitutions: Aramaic-Arabic

Substitution Ibn Quraysh Alfsi Ibn Jan Ibn Bal'am
Aram.-Arab.
g-g = = =
z-d =
j-k = =
f-f = =
s- =
[-g = =
q-g =
q-k =
-s =33 = =
t-t =
The data in the above two Tables also is not to be considered

exhaustive on account of the incomplete documentation. The non-
exhaustivity is specically predominant as for Ibn Bal'am; as for
Dunash, not a single Heb./Aram. or Aram./Arab. substitution has
been encountered, while Ibn Barn very seldom recorded compar-
isons with Aramaic.
33
See Tn, 1983, n. 55.
Three-way language substitutions were hardly treated by the Hebrew

grammarians. Only Alfsi dealt with the three-way switch x-f-f (in
comparison of the entries ybx/ybf/ybf, (p. 143, entry wqa) and -t-
s in comparing the entries y/ytya/sya (ibid., p. 79). The switch of
the type x/[/x was not traced by the Hebrew grammarians.
2.5 The theory of the root and its eect on comparative philology
The theory of ayyj regarding the triliterality of the Hebrew root

(see, recently, Goldenberg, 1980) did not aect the comparison of
radices belonging to the regular verb; in certain cases such com-
parisons were rejected by later Hebrew grammarians but on dierent
grounds. Several comparisons of weak radices as well as of geminate
radices also remained unaected; however, in the latter the concept
of the root and thus the nature of the comparisons underwent a
change. For example, the three comparisons a/na, j/nh, lgm/lgnm
(as e.g. in R. Judah ibn Qurayshs lexicon, p. 234, entry C1 37):
before the time of ayyj, it was assumed that the n in the Aramaic
or the Arabic was supplementary to the root, while the root was
represented by the Hebrew forms. From ayyjs time onward it
became clear that the n belongs to the root: in Hebrew it is dropped
(in forms without axes) or is assimilated (in forms with axes); (see
e.g. R. Jonah b. Jan, "Ul, entries lgm p. 363; lgn, p. 405).
As for the weak verbs, the comparisons of the root types subse-
quently termed yp and yl (or hl) can serve as a good illustration.
When Alfsi (vol. 2, p. 50) and R. Judah ibn Quraysh (C1, 177)
compared the Hebrew root jy with the Arabic cognate ypj, the
assumption was that there existed full etymological concurrence
between the two radices, i.e. pj(y)/(y) pj. But after ayyjs time,
the Hebrew grammarians (such as Ibn Barn, Muwzana p. 61) felt
the need to posit an etymological stipulation for such a comparison,
namely (a) the interchange of php (= the rst radical) with phl (= the
third radical) or (b) the alternation of radical patterns (= yp-yl). Ibn
Quraysh also compared abg with bg on the assumption that the root
is identical, namely, (a)bg/(b)bg, whereas after the time of ayyj,
such comparison remained valid solely on the understanding that
there root pattern alternation existed between al and [[. In fact
R. Jonah ibn Jan compared abg with hybag, which clearly matches
the root abg more suitably.
40 chapter two
Another example: R. Judah ibn Quraysh established a compari-

son wmh/wmah (C1 132, p. 254), assuming that the two verbs were
cognate (of the same root); however, Ibn Barn (Muwzana, p. 168b)
posited a qualication for the comparison, stating that its validity
depends on pattern alternation. Yet there are cases in which later
Hebrew grammarians ruled out comparisons established by earlier
Hebrew grammarians, on account of more novel conceptions in
Hebrew grammar, such as were introduced by ayyj. For instance,
Alfsi compares dwdg with (yymd) ydgn (p. 301), jgn with (abrq) yjygm
(p. 316), yzm (b[r) with (anwtal) hzml (ibid. root z, p. 469) and rwm
with rwsa (I, p. 129); his grammatical theory treated these pairs as
identical radices in Hebrew and Aramaic respectively, i.e.: dg, jg,
z, rs. From ayyjs time onward, however, these comparisons were
rejected, either e silentio (by their not being recorded at all) or in
some cases explicitly (see Ibn Janh, below, 13.18).
2.6 The semantic equivalence factor
A characteristic feature of the comparison theory of the Hebrew

grammarians is that entries in two or more of the three relevant
languages are compared on the grounds of common etymology only
if the respective meanings of the entries are alike in the two lan-
guages. But grammarians do not make explicit mention of this issue,
with the possible exception of two allusive statements.
(1) Yehudi b. Sheshet (Stern p. 24; Varela Moreno, pp. *18, 36)
states in one of his rejoinders that the words of the Jewish language
are not to be likened to those of the Arabic on the basis of phono-
logical anity (lit: when the two are close in pronunciation) but
diering semantically (lit: in their elucidation(s), as, for example,
mjra (Ps. 18:2).
(2) Ibn Jan ("Ul, entry wr, p. 749) brackets together hqbafm
yn[mla (= semantic congruence) with fplla hsnagm (= phonological/
etymological similarity). The proximity of the terms points to the
restriction under discussion. Actually the stand of the Hebrew gram-
marians can be ascertained only from their applied language com-
parison practice. Evidence for such conditioning is of two types: (a)
positive indication (on the basis of comparisons actually adopted in
many entries) and (b) negative evidence (absence of comparisons) in
instances where comparison would be predictable, or on the basis
of an express or implied rejection of language comparison, as adduced

by other grammarians.
There is no need to deal at length with proofs of type (a). Suce
it to say that language comparisons that the Hebrew grammarians
adopted conform to this principle. Such, for example, is the case in
Heb./Aram. comparisons of the pattern Bib. Heb.1/Bib. Heb.2/Targ.
Aram. (see below, 3.6.4 and 5.3.2.1).
Negative evidence (b) is pertinent regarding the exhaustive bibli-
cal lexicons of Alfsi and R. Jonah b. Jan and to a limited extent
regarding the comparative treatises of R. Judah ibn Quraysh and of
Ibn Barn; but it is inapplicable for the Egron of R. Sa'adiah Gaon
and for the Maberet of Menaem b. Saruq, the reason being the
paucity of comparison materials in these lexicons.
2.6.1 Evidence from rejection of comparisons

In Risla (C1, entry 278), Ibn Quraysh compares wrkny (Deut. 32:27)
and hrkntmw (1 Kings 14:6) with the Arabic cognates wrkny (= they
deny) and hrkntmw (= disguising herself, masquerading [fem. sing.]);
he states bluntly, however, that these words should neither be cor-
related with rkn (1 Sam. 23:7) nor with rkn ynb (2 Sam. 22:45), etc.
The implication is that despite the existence of a semantic link with
the former entries, the latter entries are not to be compared with
their Hebrew counterparts; and naturally not with the adduced
Arabic cognate, for their meanings are non-concurrent. The same
reservation can be detected, when the grammarian rejects the com-
parison yalj/ylj (ibid., B22, p. 190): yalj refers to the referent
a specic ornament, whereas the cognate ylj in Arabic refers to
the referent ornaments in general, since these two referents pos-
sess semantic anity. But lacking an absolute semantic equivalence,
they, too, are barred from serving as etymological synonyms.
Dunash records a well-known instance of comparison rejection. In
the entry ynjfw (Senz-Badillos, 1980 p. 113, ibid. 1981, p. 367) Dunash
challenges Menaem b. Saruq: You elucidated jmq, w[mmk (= accord-
ing to the meaning of its Arabic cognate);34 its correct elucidation is
34
jmqhw hfjh ayh tybr[b w[mmk jmqh yk ,w[mmk wnwrtp yaw ,w[mmk jmq trtpw
.qbak qdh wjfh awh tyrb[b On w[mmk as used by Menaem, see below, ch. 10.1,
devoted to Menaems comparisons.
42 chapter two
not w[mmk; for the plain meaning of jmq in Arabic is wheat, whereas
jmq in Hebrew means wheat ground ne like dust!
The modern-day linguist would summarize the above principle
more or less as follows: Etymological parallels are not to be com-
pared unless they are real synonyms. This proviso can be adduced
additionally from a further objection raised by Dunash against
Menaem, for his having compared ty[ra (Dan. 6:25) with [ra (=
the Targum translation for ra) (see Senz-Badillos 1980, p. 30; see
also the retort to the latter by R. Tam, ed. Philipowski, p. 17).
In "Ul 281/402, R. Jonah b. Jan remarks that the word hlbn
stems from the root lbn, in the sense of lpn (= fall); a carcass is so
called because it is hlwpnw h[wr (= outstretched and fallen); this is
evident also from the word hlpm (hyrah tlpm, Judg. 14:8) which
there connotes hlbn (= carcass). He further states explicitly that the
word hlybn in Arabic, despite its phonetic and semantic similarity
with the Heb. hlbn, has no connection with it; for the Arabic hlybn
derives from a dierent semanteme, a metaphorical sense, i.e. lybn
in the sense of an ,r ,lyxa (= noble, aristocrat, exalted); this term
is used in Arabic for carcass on account of its being hhwbg ,tan
twjypnm (= elevated, high owing to swelling). Thus the comparison
hlbn/hlybn is negative; it is cited merely to obviate an erroneous
notion. In other words, a comparison cannot be maintained on the
basis of mere external anity, even in a case where the two entries
undergoing treatment refer to the same referent, at least from the
descriptive and applied perspective (for when all is said and done,
the two words hlbn/hlybn are translation synonyms); a cognizance
of the semantic background of the two translation synonyms as well
as their respective relevance to the meanings of their respective
radices, leads to the conclusion that no semantic concurrence exists
between them; an etymological comparison between them is thus
also ruled out.
Furthermore, mere etymological equivalence between a Hebrew
entry and an Arabic (or Aramaic) one cannot serve as a guarantee
that the two entries possess semantic equivalence. For this reason,
Ibn Jan does not consider it sucient to check the etymological
equivalence but wherever possible sets up other restricting factors,
too; it is not at all surprising that in his explanations he often resorts
to a comparison with rabbinic Hebrew entries as well as to com-
parison with Arabic or Aramaic. A factor of decisive importance,
which is checked out, is the semantic criterion. When a Hebrew
entry is etymologically congruent with an Arabic one, both entries

being closely similar in their meaning but the semantic factor ham-
pers the assumption that the two entries indeed refer to the same
referent, then the etymological equivalence is considered valueless.
For example, some authorities identied rpk (Cant. 1:14) with the
Arabic rwpak (p. 329), most likely on the basis of etymological equiv-
alence; however, R. Jonah b. Jans semantic parameter nullies
this identity for the reason that rp,K has a raceme (rpkh lka ibid.),
while the rwpak is without a raceme, though both are fragrant plants
(see below, 13.18).
2.6.2 Evidence based on the avoidance of application of semantic connection

Alfsi occasionally records, in the framework of one main entry, a
number of subentries; this grammarian does not highlight any ety-
mological liaison between the subentries, for the reason that in lin-
guistic usage these are heterosemic. An example is ab in Hebrew
versus atyab in Aramaic; Alfsi considers each of these an inde-
pendent entry.
Likewise Menaem b. Saruq; in root bx(y) (p. 148). In the third
subsection of this root he records Hebrew entries from this root, in
the sense of standing, such as bxytyw (1 Sam. 3:10), while in the
fourth subsection, he places co-radical Aramaic entries, the sense of
which is truth (hmh fq yyn[), such as byxy (Dan. 2:45); he sees
no common feature bridging between the notion of standing,
rmness and the notion of truth. Thus, failing semantic equiv-
alence, the etymological connection is disregarded.
2.6.3 Evidence from a polysemic entry
2.6.3.1 Examples
Example: The entry wy is a polyseme. Alfsi (II, p. 44) records
therein two distinct senses: (1) rahn (= day as opposed to night); (2)
wy (= a complete 24hour unit). It cannot be coincidental that in
references for sense (1), no note is made of the cognate wy; all the
instances are translated, uniquely, by the term rahn. It is evident
from this that in the case of what is a biblical polysemic entry (such
as wy), the Hebrew grammarians are giving expression to the vari-
ous senses by means of diering Arabic translation synonyms (such
44 chapter two
as, in our case, rahn, wy); but for one of the senses and for one only
do they adopt an Arabic denition that is also a cognate, namely
for that sense in which the entry and its denition are semantically
equivalent (in our case: wy in the sense 24 hours). In principle, this
Arabic etymological cognate is one quite suitable for the entry word
in all its senses; however, the Hebrew grammarians consistently avoid
such a generalized indication. They do not view the etymological
comparison as an entity distinct from the semantic linkage.
A further example: Alfsi translates the entry jy (p. 317) initially
tabnla ryasw . . . rg; only subsequently does this grammarian remark:
jy anlw . . . jy . Prima facie, the etymological connection could have
been mentioned with regard to the rst of the senses discussed.
Further examples:
Entry hp (II, p. 342) is dened by its Arabic cognate hp only
for the rst sense (lip) but no further mention is made of the con-
nection between these two etymological synonyms with regard to the
other senses, i.e. hp in the sense hgl (language), hp in the sense
hyaj (edge), etc., although these senses are nowadays regarded as
metonymic developments from the basic meaning edge.
Likewise for jf (p. 663) he denes/compares jfs but for jf
(yypk) the denition is (yypkla) fsb; for alm (p. 209) he denes/com-
pares lamk, following which comes the denition ample (alm/wlm);
for bj (p. 593) he denes/compares bsj but twbjm is dened
tarybdt; afj (p. 533) is dened/compared afk, while tafj is dened
jxn; [qr (p. 628) is dened/compared [qr, while for the senses
listed earlier ([qr in the sense fsb and [qr in the sense qqr), the
denition in each case is indicated without comparison. For tk
(p. 136) he denes/compares tk while in the subsequent enumer-
ation of senses, tk is merely dened as bnag; rj (p. 587) is dened
as at, in contrast with the expression yprj-ymy ( Job 29:4) for which
he denes/compares ypyrk aya; jl (p. 159) is rst dened zbk and
only subsequently is jl dened/compared with jl; tm (p. 237) is
rst dened/compared with tam, tyam but in the causal sense tymh
(= put to death, kill) the word is merely translated ltq.
2.6.3.2 The "Ul of R. Jonah ibn Jan

The same picture can be demonstrated in the "Ul of R. Jonah ibn
Jan. In entry bj (p. 253) he fails to link bj dened as and
compared with bsj with bj dened as rkp, yar, f; nor (p. 219)
does he link afj dened/compared yfk with other senses of afj,
i.e. dened rpgtsa, etc. Likewise (p. 335) with tk: Its primary
denition is wr[m (= well-known); he creates no connection between

that sense of the root and between its second and third senses, hhg
hyjanw and abyg respectively; similarly with the entry wy (p. 279): Its
primary translation is rahn; only later in the entry is the word wy
dened/compared aya; likewise (p. 738) no connection is drawn
between hp dened/compared hp and hp dened hyaj or hp
dened hgl. Regarding the entry alm (pp. 37476), Ibn Jan takes
the trouble to remark explicitly that this verb ought not to be trans-
lated mechanically, in each instance, as its etym. synonym cognate
alm, since in some cases semantic concurrence is lacking; the trans-
lation should be either lmk or t, according to the context. In the
entry jl (p. 351) an etymological link with the Arabic jl is estab-
lished only for the sense meat, this despite the fact that he pro-
vides a descriptive classication for the meanings of j,l, and states
explicitly that the primary sense of the word is lkay ra lkam lk
(= any foodstu) and in the great majority of occurrences, refers to
hrw[hm wa hfjhm hpam (= what is baked from wheat or from bar-
ley); no description is presented of the semantic narrowing of usage
that occurred in Hebrew and it goes without saying that no men-
tion or allusion is made regarding the narrowing of the sense of this
word in Arabic, or in comparison therewith. The entry pq (p. 640)
in its basic sense is implicitly compared by R. Jonah with the Arabic
cognate zpq but in positing a translation of pq in the rabbinic
Hebrew metaphorical usage ybwjb hnbga ydk wnwlaw pqa (BT Gittin,
49b) he does not mechanically adopt the denition zpq, for the rea-
son that with Arabic zpq the semantic development noted with pq
did not occur; he translates the expression: yla yl[ bwtww hrdabm.
Of all the entries stemming from the root rbg, i.e. rybig, hr;Wbg,
rb'g,: etc. Ibn Jan records comparison only for the entry showing
semantic equivalence, i.e. rwbg (p. 122) dened/compared rabg.
Of the entries bk (p. 719) Ibn Jan records a comparison with
bks only for those possessing semantic concurrence with the Arabic
such as lfh tbk (Exod. 16:14); the same applies to the several
senses of entry lqm (p. 746); each sense is translated by means of
the translation synonym that matches it semantically: 1lqm is trans-
lated zw, while 2lqm is translated/compared laqtm; he does not
establish an etymological link between these two entries and thus of
course does not spell out a semantic development.35
35
It should be conceded that on this score the several grammarians very likely
46 chapter two
2.6.3.3 Works devoted to language comparison

The same phenomenon can be traced in works devoted specically
to language comparison, i.e. works that are not necessarily complete
lexicons. Ibn Quraysh in entry tk (C1, p. 211) records merely a
reference pertaining to the comparison of tk with Arabic tk,
whereas references pertaining to other senses of the root are omit-
ted. Likewise for entry root afj (C1, p. 493), the grammarian records
only the words af]je and yaiFj; ', which match the sense applicable to
the Arabic cognate yfk but, for instance, he refrains from record-
ing tafj, since the cognate does not concur semantically with this
word. The situation is similar with jl (C1, p. 219): the compari-
son refers only to the sense jl (= meat), whereas for other senses
of this entry no reference is made.
2.6.3.4 Ibn Barn

Ibn Barn follows suit. In entry bj, he records several references
for the verb bj, tbj (Gen. 50:20); bv'j;w (2 Sam. 14:13); wbC]jy'
(2 Kings 12:16) comparing them with the Arabic cognate bsja; how-
ever, twbjm is excluded. The root qry (Gen. 9:3; Exod. 10:15) he
compares with qrw, dening its meaning as yl[ (= leaves) but, for
instance, he omits a reference to qrqry (Lev. 12:49). For [qr he
adduces [yqr and compares it with the Arabic cognate but he omits
any other word pertaining to this root. As regards afj compared
with afk, he fails to record, among other things, the form tafh, for
the reason that this word would not be suitably translated by afk.
Even when Ibn Barn posits comparisons not recorded by his pre-
decessors, the validity of the comparison does not hold for all the
senses of the Arabic cognate, while a diachronic description of the
semantic links between the translation synonyms fails to appear;
the comparison is always restricted to the concurrent meanings of
the entry and to these alone. In Kitb al-Muwzana, p. 64, for example,
had dierences of view. For instance: Alfsi (p. 663) rather than rendering jf
(yypk+) by means of an Arabic cognate syn., prefers the tr. syn (non-cognate) fsb;
R. Jonah ibn Jan, in contrast ("Ul, p. 716) mentions both of these options.
Similarly, in the case of entry [qr (see Ibn Jan, p. 689 and Alfsi, above).
However, the dispute (if such exists) is restricted to the question as to whether
semantic congruence is to be assumed between homophonic Heb. and Arab. entries
not that one grammarian assumes historical semantic links while the other rejects
them. A further instance can be noted: Ibn Quraysh, in contrast to Alfsi and Ibn
Barn, adduces twbjm (C1, p. 393) in his comparisons with Arabic bsj.
when comparing by with btw, the scope of reference is restricted

to d[q yn[mb btw, as used by the residents of imyar; no reference
is made to the other sense of btw (= jump). The same exclusion
occurs in entry rma (ibid., p. 38): he compares with the Arabic rma
only those instances of the Hebrew rma that have the meaning com-
mand but not the frequent Hebrew verb rma (in the sense of say,
speak).
Comparisons of the type hmda with Arabic hmda (such as are to
be found in Alfsis lexicon and elsewhere) are to be viewed in the
same light. This comparison and others like it is not intended as a
comparison of Hebrew hmda as to its diachronic connection with
Arabic hmda (= outer shell, skin) but rather as setting an anity
semantically between the Arabic hmda and the Hebrew; Ibn Barn
makes an eort to nd the Hebrew sense within an etymologically
parallel Arabic usage, even if such can be found solely in a remote
usage and a rare textual documentation of the word.
2.6.3.5 Omission of cognate translation synonyms

In all the instances enumerated above as well as in many others it
goes without saying that the Hebrew grammarians have no interest
in tracing diachronic semantic connections between a Bib. Heb. entry
with its several senses on the one hand and the Arabic translation
synonym with its various senses on the other; but that is not all:
within the Hebrew entry itself, no priority is given, in the arrange-
ment of the several meanings of the entry word, to that specic
meaning for which the Bib. Heb. entry is translated/compared with
the Arabic cognate; the meaning for which the comparison is recorded
appears in a random place within the several subsections of the entry.
In the general Bible lexicons written by Alfsi and by R. Jonah
ibn Jan further evidence is forthcoming for the above thesis. In
these lexicons several entries appear for which the authors did not
resort to cognate translation synonyms, although prima facie it would
have been appropriate to record such cognates; the omission of such
materials can only be explained on the grounds that these gram-
marians were concerned solely about etymological comparison if and
when it can be associated with semantic concordance. For example,
in the entry rmt (palm-tree) Alfsi (p. 738) records the translation
lkn, while R. Jonah ibn Jan (p. 764) states rst wr[m (well-known)
and then second hlkn; neither of the two grammarians make note
of any historical semantic connection of the entry word with the
48 chapter two
Arabic cognate rmt. Likewise, the entry bk: Alfsi (p. 85) translates
it axw wrk, while Ibn Jan (p. 307) renders it hg[nw lmj; neither
makes reference to the cognate bk. Similarly with the entry blj:
Alfsi (p. 551) and R. Jonah (p. 226) both translate it bl; and both
grammarians refrain from setting up a link for this entry word with
the Arabic cognate bylj; and so on.
Only in the works of R. Jonah b. Jan and Ibn Barn have I
found a small number of cases, constituting a breach of this princi-
ple. Below, I enumerate the instances that run counter to the norm.
1. The entry qza (20/31) is dened by R. Jonah b. Jan: [mawg
lalgaw (Ibn Tibbon translates: yl[w twrswm); he posits a comparison
with etymological parallels that are not translation synonyms, namely
qza-qzam, in the sense of hmjlmb hqwxm (military predicament) and
hkr[mh hd (battleeld). The grammarian determines that the con-
nection between the Hebrew qza and the Arabic qza is limited to
what present-day linguistics refers to as a single feature, in this
case qyx (rendered by Ibn Tibbon: wqwx rwb[b (= on account of his
straits).
2. A further instance of comparing of entries between which anity
of meaning exists, though without absolute equivalence: In compar-
ing [wxqm/lymza/lymza (453/642), Ibn Jan notes that lymza in
Aramaic signies wawlmb ylkh (the utensil as a whole) (its non-etym.
synonym in Hebrew being [wxqm). In Arabic on the other hand,
lymza has a more restricted signication, namely merely the blade
of such an implement. Indeed, the phraseology adopted (ibid.) i.e.:
hrpll hfplla hdh br[la tra[tsaw may well imply that the orig-
inal signication was the one current in Aramaic, whereas the spe-
cialization of meaning occurred within Arabic (this of course is not
meant to imply that this word is a loan word in Arabic!).
3. A similar picture appears with regard the comparison rg/rg/mf[
(99/144). The Hebrew rg and the Arabic f[ have equivalent
meanings, their basic (a) and metaphorical (b) meanings respectively:
(1) the basic signication, organ of the body; (2) the metaphorical
sense, the substance of something, the essence. The Aramaic word
rg, however, is used only in sense (1). Despite this, the grammar-
ian had no qualms about setting up a semantic comparison in which
the metaphorical signication (2) appears.
4. Several such cases can be found in the work of Ibn Barn, too.
For the comparison rsb/rsb (p. 165) he posits a restriction of the
semantic congruence, namely that in Hebrew the entry word can
signify any fruit that is unripe, whereas in Arabic the sense is restricted
to the unripe fruit of the palm-tree.
5. A similar case in which Ibn Barn sets a restriction regarding
a semantic equivalence can be found in the comparison of rab (a
well of running water) with Arab. ryb as against the comparison of
rwb (a pit that must be dug and does not contain water) with ryb.
For additional cases of etymological congruences in which the
relatedness is characterized by a plain sense of the entry word for
one member versus a metaphorical sense for the other, see qrz/qrz,
nj/nj.
Even in these instances, the grammarians do not trace a devel-
opment in the Hebrew signication vis--vis the etymologically par-
allel Arabic signication, or vice versa. What is shown by these
instances is a restriction of the semantic congruence of the transla-
tion synonym or a statement of the semantic anity between the
two parallel entities, in other words, an indication of partial equiv-
alence, namely an equivalence in respect of a single semantic fea-
ture common to the two etymological parallels irrespective of the
question as to whether the two are indeed translation synonyms, or
ever served as such.
CHAPTER THREE
EXPLICIT COMPARISONS
Two characteristic features are present in explicit lexical comparison:

(1) The grammarian recording a comparison juxtaposes two lexical
entries, pertaining to two distinct languages.
(2) A special expression is used to indicate that there exists a link-
age, whether etymological, or semantic, or of whatever kind,
between the two entries.
3.1 The nomenclature of the languages and the terminology for comparison
The stock of expressions serving in this context is fairly well dened

and virtually unambiguous. By and large the nomenclature and term
recur for each and every language comparison, with very few changes
or variations. The repeated application and occurrence of each expres-
sion and/or term led to a professional technicalization of these usages
in comparative language science. It is reasonably probable that terms
consisting of one word and embodying the nucleus of the term are
an outcome of a reduction of the basic expansive expressions that
can be seen to be structured on the same nucleus. However, the
opposite development may also have occurred, i.e. concise expres-
sions that were originally customary underwent an expansion, thus
bringing about more lengthy phraseology.
The range of terms must be considered an essential element in
the comparison methodology (of each and every grammarian, lexico-
grapher and exegete) and corresponds with each respective system
of concepts. The terminology adopted by the grammarians is highly
instructive for an appreciation of the character of their theories of
language comparison, whether individual theories or those held in
common by one or other of the schools of the medieval linguists. Terms
can further serve us in tracing whether or not one lexicographer
relied on another.1 For these reasons a study of the terminological
1
For instance, judging from the comparison terms adopted respectively by R. Judah
explicit comparisons 51
system is important for its own sake. Certain terms can serve as
excellent examples. For instance, it became necessary (below, 10.1)
to determine whether the term w[mmk as used by Menaem in his
Maberet, although this expression in itself shows no evidence of its
being a comparison term, belongs in fact to the term system or
not. Were it indubitably clear that this expression implies language
comparison, Menaems inventory of comparisons would expand con-
siderably, for it would then also incorporate those instances in which
the term w[mmk is utilized (below, 10.1). What is more, it is subse-
quently shown that the range of terms also includes zero term. In
other words, comparisons can be discerned in which no external
indicator shows a motive of comparison. The adoption of the term
zero in itself has far-reaching implications for determining the com-
plete inventory of language comparisons used by the Hebrew gram-
marians. For instance, several Heb./Aram. explicit comparisons on
which no doubt can be cast were recorded with a zero comparative
term. Such an assumption is also very probable in the case of many
non-explicit Heb./Arab. comparisons. Furthermore, an elucidation
of the precise meaning of several expressions that may be, at least
potentially, terms for lexical borrowing, implying Aramaic or Arabic
borrowings in Hebrew, is of prime importance for deciding what is
to be reckoned as part of the comparison inventory and what is to
be excluded from it. Apart from the signicance of terminological
denition for determining the scope of the corpus of comparisons,
this aspect is essential for resolving debatable and problematic issues
as regards the nature of certain comparisons, and their aims. For
example, in entry rM'ai (p. 118) Alfsi compares the entries consisting
of the translation synonyms bk/rma (Exod. 29:35) and subjoining
two Hebrew nominals belonging to the semantic eld twrwhfh twmhbh
(= pure beasts) with their Aramaic counterparts: yrp/yrwt (Exod.
24:5) and ylyaw/yrkd (Exod. 25:5). It is very likely that this appar-
ent digression from the topical lexicon entry word under consid-
eration in fact characterizes a common practice of this grammarian
to provide a full explication of the source text cited for lexical pur-
poses, together with its wider context, in this case the phrase yrwt
yrma yrkd (Ezra 7:17). This is not an exceptional instance but a
clear example of Alfsis habit of expanding his lexical denition by
setting out an elucidation of the biblical source phrase in its entirety.
b. Quraysh and Alfsi, it is doubtful if interdependence between the two can be

denitively determined (Becker, 1984, pp. 7477).
52 chapter three
As a rule this tendency is noticeable in cases of extensive exegetical

discussion or instances about which dierences of opinion prevail as
to their interpretation; in contrast, setting out a Hebrew translation for
a series of consecutive Aramaic words cannot be considered as exegesis
of any specic note. It would therefore seem preferable to treat the
above-mentioned excerpt as a discussion on a minor detail and of to
the semantic eld concerned. Here the terminology adopted is indeed
instructive. As we have discovered, the inventory of terms denoting
semantic comparison is essentially and linguistically dierent from such
colorless expressions as wgrtw, that cannot be reckoned as a specic
comparison term; the latter is indeed the standard term for transla-
tional comparisons in instances that present no semantic discussion.
Furthermore, a scrutiny of the terminological system reveals not
only the concepts expressly contained in it but also what is lacking in
it of its prima facie components or of what constitutes other systems
of terminology. For example, the non-appearance of a clear-cut term
for word loan (that might have signied the borrowing of an entry in
one language from that in another) such as artqa or hra[tsa in
the discipline of language comparison of the Hebrew grammarians,
as well as the absence of an explicit expression testifying to a lan-
guage apparatus of this kind in the set of the non-specic terms,
lends support to the conclusion that the Hebrew grammarians did
not literally imply the existence of word borrowing in Hebrew from
Arabic or Aramaic, despite that at rst sight the terms adopted might
seem to convey the impression of word loan.
The range of terms may also serve as a philological criterion for
ascertaining the authenticity of texts attributed to certain authors.
For instance, in the textual variants glossed in later copies and abridg-
ments of Kitb Jmi' al-"Alf, certain terms alien to the set of terms
indubitably used by David b. Abraham himself can be noted. One
example: in the comparison y/y according to MSS X and Z
(pp. 33132) the term ynadskla is used. This expression, unknown
elsewhere in the scope of language comparison, is adopted (albeit
only twice) by Alfsi ( Jmi' al-"Alf I, pp. 3, 153) but not as a term
of comparison. The abnormality in such usage serves as grounds for
suspicion regarding the authentic attribution to Alfsi of the glossed
variants in these MSS; on these grounds it is likely that these lec-
tiones are copyists later additions.2
2
The nomenclature for the several languages and the comparison terms used by
For the terminologies of R. Judah b. Quraysh and Ibn Barn,

references are merely made to earlier studies. In the present section,
a rather generalized and concise statement is set out and no more.
Those terms for which no specic source is referenced can be assumed
to be general terms, utilized by all the Hebrew grammarians or most
of them.
3.1.1 The nomenclature for the languages

The three languages that were systematically treated by the Hebrew
grammarians are Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic. These languages
are referred to sometimes, each by its respective name (below) and
sometimes collectively, by the name tagl taltla (= the three lan-
guages) (so Ibn Bal'am) or by the more elaborate expression taltla
ahanml[ ytla tagl (= the three languages with which we are famil-
iar) (so Alfsi). The specic language nomenclature, however, is far
more frequent.
3.1.1.1 Nomenclature for Hebrew

The names for Hebrew are ynarb[la, yrb[ wl (so Dunash and
R. Judah ibn Tibbon), dwq(h) wl (so R. Judah ibn Quraysh, p. 119)
and lyarsa ynb hgl (so R. Sa'adiah Gaon). Occasionally the given term
denotes the speaker of the language rather than the language itself;
for Hebrew speakers the regular term is wynarb[la (so R. Sa'adiah
and Ibn Jan); once only R. Sa'adiah uses the term lyarsa ynb.
These terms, it goes without saying, relate to Hebrew speakers of
the biblical and Mishnaic epochs, not to Hebrew readers or writers
contemporary with the Hebrew grammarians themselves.
3.1.1.2 Nomenclature for Aramaic

The most characteristic name for the Aramaic language with its var-
ious dialects is ynayrs (Syriac or Syrian). This name is a transfor-
mation, rst in Greek, and subsequently in Arabic, of the Hebrew
term tyrwa. The latter of course was originally the name for another
each grammarian are dealt with in detail in separate sections, below (for R. Sa'adiah,
see section 4.7; for Alfsi, 9.11; for Menaem b. Saruq, 10.3; for Menaems dis-
ciples, 10.5; for Dunash b. Labrat, 11.5.1; for R. Hai Gaon, 14.1.3; for Abu al-
Faraj, 14.2.5; for Judah ayyj, 12.3; for R. Jonah b. Jan and R. Judah b.
Tibbon, 13.19; for Ibn Bal'am, 15.2.4; for Abraham HaBavli, 14.4.
54 chapter three
Semitic language nowadays termed Akkadian but at some point in

early history, subsequent to the extinction of Akkadian as a spoken
language and to its widespread oblivion, it was generally thought
that Assyrian equals Aramaic (tyrwa equals tyrws).3 For exam-
ple, Alfsis Arabic rendering for the name tymra in the biblical verse
(2 Kings 18:26) tymra ydb[ la an-rbd is lwqy ahypw ynayrsla hgl yh
and for the name ydk wl (another biblical term for Aramaic) his
rendering of Dan. 1:4 ydk wlw rps dmllw (root mwa, p. 153;
introduction p. 3) is: ynadskla hgl m adz[w laynd yp am. This term
ynayrs is commonly used by most of the Hebrew grammarians,4 and
is applied also to post-biblical Aramaic (Poznanski 1896, p. 16; 1909,
p. 256, n. 2). Apart from ynayrs, the following three designations
appear for Aramaic: (h)ynadskla (R. Sa'adiah, the transmitters of
Alfsis work, and R. Hai Gaon); ydk wl (Dunash b. Labrat); (la)
yfbn (R. Sa'adiah, Ibn Bal'am [once], R. Hai [4 times, within a fairly
short extract of text]). H. Lammens (1890, p. 177) quotes in the
name of Palgrave a conjectural etymology for the term yfbnla: an
appellation used by the Arabs for the non-Arab population resident
in Aram Naharayim. In fact, this term is in the main used by the
Babylonian grammarians.
The common designation for this language in the works of the
grammarians who wrote Hebrew is (t)ymra or (t)ymra wl (so Menaem
b. Saruq, Dunash, HaBavli, and R. Judah ibn Tibbon). Terms used to
designate the Aramaic speakers of the ancient past are: yynadskla (hgl)
(R. Sa'adiah; see Bacher 1895, p. 249, n. 1), tymra yl[b (Menaem),
ylwala (lwq) (for talmudic Aramaic and so for Aramaic generally,
Ibn Bal'am), and lyawala (lwq) (so R. Jonah b. Jan).
Several terms that eventually came to designate Aramaic are lit-
erally designations for Aramaic literary texts: (hgl), wgrt, wgrt wl
3
The events set out in 2 Kings 18:1728 may well have served to strengthen
the identication of the two, for Ravshaqeh, an Assyrian, spoke Aramaic. See also
Oar Ha-Ge"onim to Tractate Gittin, 28, p. 13: wk[ awh ysrws btkw ysrws wlw
arqn awh wqm wtwa -l[ ynayrws wtwa yarwqw lbbb yyrxn ydyb (the Sursian Language
and the Sursian script which at present is in the hands of the Nazeriyyim in Babylon
and which people call Suryane, it is named after that location, namely Syria).
D. Rubens (1881) in his introduction discusses the origins of the two names tyrws and
tymra; see also Epstein, 1982, p. 49, n. 183, and the bibliography ibid. pp. 5153.
4
Clearly this term is absent from the works of those grammarians who wrote in
Hebrew or from those whose writings little has survived.
wgrt la (R. Sa'adiah Gaon, Dunash, R. Judah b. Tibbon); laynd;

swlqnwa; layzw[ b tnwy (so R. Sa'adiah, Alfsi, Menaem and his dis-
ciples). The term wgrt serves mainly to designate Targumic Aramaic
and in this connotation the term occurs as early as the Mishnah
(Megillah, I, 1); however, the term was used for biblical Aramaic
also, as in Mishnah Yadayim IV, 5; Bavli, Shabbat 115a.5 Talmudic
Aramaic is termed dwmlt (so R. Hai Gaon and R. Jonah b. Jan),
dwmlt yl (so R. Judah b. Tibbon); this dialect is sometimes even
called hnm wl or hnm (see Abramson 1974, p. 175; Becker 1984,
p. 33 and n. 12; Epstein 1982, pp. 31, 38, 52).
3.1.1.3 Nomenclature for the Arabic language

The name most extensively used for the Arabic language is ybr[, with
several variations: (h)ybr[la, br[la alk (so Ibn Jan, Ibn Bal'am),
br[la asl (ibid.). In Hebrew writing the language is designated
(y)la[my wl (so Dunash, Ibn Bal'am), ybr[ wl (ibid., R. Judah b.
Tibbon), yrgh wl (so Dunash).
The nomenclature for Arabic occasionally refers to a certain aspect
of the language only, rather than to the language as a whole; the
aspect implied might be, for example, phonology or etymology, under
the term ybr[la fplla.
Various terms are used for Arabic speakers. The most frequent is
br[lain Hebrew br[h (so Ibn Tibbon); other terms: yla[myh
(Ibn Bal'am). The latter by and large designates the ancient Arabs
as well as their mother tongue as reected in the grammar books
and lexicons; however, the reference in the Hebrew grammarians is
sometimes to contemporary Arabic-speakers or even to their com-
patriots (specically). For this restricted usage the following are used:
sanla (R. Sa'adiah); wqla (ibid.); andn[, qar[la yp, myla lha,
hma[la, (the latter four terms are used by Ibn Jan). Occasionally
Ibn Jan quotes the Arab linguists or their works, in a general way,
rather than by their individual names; the expressions used are dn[
br[la aml[; br[la batk yp.
5
See Encyclopaedia Judaica, Vol. 15, col. 811, entry Targum. See also Epstein
1982, p. 65.
56 chapter three
3.1.2 Terms used for comparison
3.1.2.1 Heb./Arab. and Heb./Aram. comparisons

As a rule, terms commonly used in comparing Hebrew with Arabic
are customary for Hebrew/Aramaic comparison also. There are,
however, several terms whose application is specically for compar-
ison with one or other of the two languages (the special usages are
indicated below, in each case) and not for both. The terms for com-
parison are often extremely condensed, as, for example, when the
term is concerned with a single letter or a single short particle
attached to a word or phrase designating one of the languages. In
such cases, a particle is not itself an indicator of a comparison; this
is identied by the phraseology as a whole. An abstraction of the
phraseology would read: (Hebrew) entry word A (is) in Aramaic
(or: in Arabic) B. From this expression one is to deduce that equiv-
alence exists between the Hebrew entry and its counterpart in the
other language, or that the two are in fact identical. The particles
used are b, yp, dn[ together with a name of one of the languages,
as br[la alk yp, ynayrsla hglb. At times the particle is accompa-
nied by a verb with the meaning of being or of knowing, thus:
ynayrsla yp . . . rwhm ,. . . yp fplla adh wky ,(ynayrsla) yp dgn dqw
(these examples are from entries of Ibn Jan). The particle may at
times be a personal pronoun such as awh or ayh functioning as a
copula that links (or identies) the word in question with its coun-
terpart in the other language. Examples: ymra wl awhw (HaBavli);
. . . wgrt awh (Dunash); . . . . hybr[w hynayrs hfpl yhw (R. Jonah ibn
Jan); wgrtla hglb wh (R. Sa'adiah); grtmla lwq whw (Alfsi).
3.1.2.2 Words with the sense of alternative or substitute

Sometimes the term of comparison is a word with the sense of alter-
native or substitute, from which follows, as an extension, the word
translation (wgrt). The sense then is the substitute in Arabic or
Aramaic for the Hebrew entry word X is Y; thus ynarb[la yp hmaqm
(R. Sa'adiah); wmk aqm k (R. Judah ibn Quraysh, B67, p. 7);
. . . aqm yhw (Alfsi). For the latter implication, as might be expected,
the term frequently used is translation (wgrt), in Hebrew or in
Arabic, thus wmwgrtw (Menaem); hmwgrtw or htmgrtw. This expression
may sometimes be preceded by a causal conjunction, as: wgrt yk
(Ibn Bal'am); wgrt hnal (R. Sa'adiah, Alfsi et al.). Another com-
monly used particle is m. When this particle is adjoined to one or
other of the names for Aramaic or Arabic it serves to indicate, prima

facie, the source of the entry word; however, the true import is
merely that of comparison (see 2.3 on word loans). Examples: /hgl m
ynayrsla lwq (Ibn Jan); tymrah yrbdm (R. Judah ibn Tibbon); m
wgrt (Alfsi); wgrt wl m (R. Sa'adiah); wlwala lwq m (Ibn Bal'am);
la[my wl m/wlm (Dunash, (Ibn Bal'am). At times there is a direc-
tional reversal of the source phrase(ology): grtmla lwqy hnmw (Ibn
Bal'am). For an extension of the source particle, the following verbs/
verbals can be added: m qtm (Alfsi, Ibn Jan) qaqta m (Alfsi);
m dwkam (Abu Al-Faraj, Ibn Jan).
3.1.2.3 Translation by means of certain verbs

At times the Hebrew grammarians designate the translation synonym
in the other language by means of certain verbs. It is then that the
general context determines the application of comparison; for these
verbs in particular are not generally used to imply language com-
parison. The verbs used are semantemes of lwq (saying, calling); hymst
(appellation); qalfa (appellation; R. Sa'adiah); lam[tsa (use, sense;
R. Sa'adiah, Alfsi, Ibn Jan) with its Hebrew parallel wmy (Dunash);
hmgrt (translation); jalfxa (terminology; R. Sa'adiah); [wqw (correspon-
dence, overlapping; Alfsi, Ibn Jan); anb (structuring on a formula;
Alfsi). These verbs are used at times to delineate a limited linguistic
action whether of grammatical, semantic or other nature. Examples:
da yla yj wpyxyw (R. Hai); ynayrsla yp wmkpy dq (R. Sa'adiah);
. . . xt br[law (Ibn Jan); Hebrew parallels: . . . wrps tymra yl[bw
(Menaem); . . . yyn[h hzm wprx al yla[myhw (Ibn Bal'am); ldkw,
br[la tra[tsaw, ltmla hb brxt br[la, br[la [stt (all three, Ibn
Jan); wgrtla hgl yp zag am yl[ (R. Sa'adiah).
3.1.2.4 Word or verbs in the usage of comparison

The following terms are founded on, or derived from, a word or
verb in the general service or usage of comparison; as a result they
became t for use as comparison terms. They are: . . . hlwq ryfn,
ltm, (Alfsi); tymra wlb wnwymdw (Ibn Tibbon); wmk, kw (Menaem,
Ibn Tibbon, Ibn Bal'am); hlk mw ldkw, adkhw, amk (. . . lwq)k,
(Alfsi); . . . hqyrf yl[ (transmitters of Alfsis work). The following
verbs, whose general connotation is that of similarity, equivalence,
identity, congruence, concurrence, anity or interrelation between
diverse entities, were commonly earmarked for language comparison;
the prominent examples: hb in its various forms, as fplla yp htbam
58 chapter three
(Ibn Quraysh, p. 343, according to Beckers index of terms, p. 382),

rta (Ibn Quraysh; Alfsi), ytglla hyp tkrta (Alfsi); hsnagm
(mainly from the time of Ibn Jan and onward. Regarding the term
syngt as used by Ibn Bal'am, see Kokowtzow, 1916, III 202, n. 4;
on its use by Ibn Barn, see Wechter, n. 318); hglla yp hbsanm (only
Ibn Quraysh, ib); hbraqm (frequently used by most Hebrew gram-
marians); dy[b in the sense of contrast, as the opposite of hbraqm:
as hglla yp dy[b y . . . yb sylw (Alfsi); . . . twast (Ibn Quraysh,
p. 335; Ibn Jan); hqpawm or qapta6 (most Hebrew grammarians);
hnzawm (once in Ibn Quraysh, p. 299. This term serves also as the
title for Ibn Barns work) (see Eppenstein 190001, p. 236); t[mg
or t[mtga (Alfsi); yrgm . . . yrg (ayyj; Ibn Jan); hlkam (Ibn
Jan); also the parallels in Hebrew: hmd (Dunash, Ibn Tibbon); hw
(Ibn Tibbon).
3.1.2.5 Other expressions for language comparison

Other expressions indicative of language comparison: fplla yl[
(ynayrsla) (ayyj); . . . grkm yl[ (ayyj); h[wmsm yl[ (unique to the
style of Alfsi); hrhaf yl[ (Ibn Jan, twice only); also, the Hebrew
equivalents: w[mmk ybr[ (used by transmitters of the work of Alfsi);
w[mmk (Dunash). Regarding the adoption of the term w[mmk, it is
plausible that some connection existed, between Alfsis transmitters
and Dunash (or one of Dunashs disciples).
3.1.2.6 The term zero

An examination of the lexicons of the Hebrew grammarians reveals
an occasional biblical quote containing an Aramaic entry word adja-
cent to one containing a Hebrew entry word, without any term of
comparison; in some instances, the entry caption is Hebrew, in oth-
ers it is Aramaic. The lexicographer was no doubt aware of the
source of his Aramaic Bible quote (e.g. from Daniel, etc.) and was
quite aware of its being in the Aramaic language. This is clearly evi-
6
The term qapta is found additionally in the exceptional sense of random,
unintended and extraordinary correlation; R. Moshe b. Ezra adopted the term
in this connotation in discussing Ibn Barns comparison of Hebrew with Latin and
with Berber (A. Halkin, 1975, p. 40). For the use of the term with the same mean-
ing in medieval philosophy, see Moreh Nevukhim, e.g. part 3, ch. 17 (ed. Schwarz,
p. 474, n. 2 and the reference).
dent; for in several other cases, quotes from the same text sources
appear with express indication of the Aramaic nature of the entry
word and with an explicit statement of comparison. It must further
be presumed that the compiler relied on the reader of the lexicon
himself recognizing the Aramaic language of the entry word, though
this was not explicitly stated. Moreover, if the reader resorted to the
lexicon on perusing an Aramaic text source (bearing in mind that
this was precisely the aim and purpose of the lexicon!), there was
all the more reason to assume that he could identify the word in
question as Aramaic. The conclusion is that in such cases the com-
parison between the Hebrew and the Aramaic entry words is pre-
sented with no comparative term, or, in other words, by the term
zero. Zero term can be assumed also for non-explicit comparisons
of Hebrew with Arabic (below, 4.1).
3.1.2.7 Terms for contrast

Occasionally a grammarian may posit a contrast between entries set
out for comparison. In some cases, this may be in order to guide a
reader who might erroneously established a comparison, owing to the
phonetic-phonological similarity between the two. Phraseologies indi-
cating contrast are . . . yp amaw; . . . l lakm; yl[ lyld (ynayrsla) sylw
(ynarb[la), these examples, being all from Alfsis lexicon.
3.1.2.8 Conclusion
The above classication of the terminology relates predominantly to
form and style; substantially, all the terms were meant to denote the
same content, namely, to mark the etymological or semantic con-
nection (or, rarely, the absence of such link) between entry words
pertaining to two or all three of the languages under discussion. In
fact the contexts calling for the occurrence of the terms are fairly
uniform; the conditioning for the occurrence of any given term is
quite restricted.
Moreover, late grammarians quote several comparisons from their
predecessors; while they meticulously quote the entry words, they show
no concern to record the comparative term verbatim. For instance,
Ibn Jan set a comparison of the pair of entries rwnk/rank, using
the term br[la dn[. Ibn Barn recorded the same comparison, more
or less word for word, which he had indubitably quoted from Ibn
Jan; the term he used, however, was dierent: l snagm (Muwzana,
p. 68). It is thus clear that for Ibn Barn the two expressions were
60 chapter three
identical in substance and meaning. Such was also the practice of

those who transmitted abridged versions of Alfsis lexicon (below,
9.11.3.3). There are, however, a good number of explicit compar-
isons, whose nature is determinable not by a specic term but by
other means. Such labels of language comparison now follow.
3.2 Explicit comparison identiable on tauto-etymological grounds
In some instances, explicit comparison is established, not directly by

a given term of comparison but indirectly, on what might be termed
tauto-etymological grounds. An example is a case where an exegete,
for the sake of illustrating the sense of a word X of some obscurity,
resorts to a word YY being co-radical with X, thus rendering the
meaning of X more transparent semantically; it thus transpires that
X and Y pertain to the same radix. The structure of the reasoning
(grounds) is as follows: Let Y equal A1; X equal A2. A2, as a mean-
ingful word, is consequent on A1, or: A2 conveys the general sense/idea
of A1, in that A1 is (so to speak) contained within A2 (A1 and A2
are homo-radical.) The reasoning is etymological, because we are to
interpret A2 on the basis of A1, the two being co-radical; it is tau-
tological, because the second member is largely a reiteration of the
rst. It is somewhat like presenting an identical equation A = A
(when verbalized, the equals sign is replaced by the copulae awh, ayh
or by wlm and the like). If, for example, it is proposed that tqrb
(= one of the precious stones of the breastplate; Exod. 28:17) is thus
named on account of its qrb, we would have a proposition, whose
part is expressed as a tauto-etymological cause. Formulations of this
nature are quite clearly frequent and widespread in Hebrew litera-
ture, from the Bible right up to contemporary literature, especially
in the literatures of hermeneutics, exegesis, and linguistics. However,
in the primary form the interlingual comparison has yet to appear.
Such comparison commences the moment the dening word (= the
[Hebrew] word standing as basis for the denition) in the second
part of the proposition is replaced by its cognate, entry word, equiv-
alent, in Arabic. After this change the proposition reads tqrb, thus
named on account of its barq. This formulation implies an etymo-
logical equation of head and adjunct, tqrb/qrb. It follows that tauto-
etymological reasoning conceals a latent etymological semantic
comparison between Hebrew and Arabic. Such language comparison

has the same weight as explicit comparison. Tauto-etymological rea-
soning occurs in 16 entries in Alfsis lexicon and three in Ibn Jans.
3.3 Explicit comparison on the strength of the Arabic model
"Ul contains several comparisons, whose explicit nature can be

determined from the setting of the lexicological discussion itself, rather
than from any specic comparison term. For example, in the com-
parison twlypa/hlpa (p. 44; Shorashim, p. 64) Ibn Jan adduces
the expressions rala tjt bag ada ngla lpaw ,bag ada yla lpa
tbg ya ya an[ tlpa ya laqyw ,smla (tlpa) ldkw, all of which are
unique to Arabic. There can be no doubt that these are presented
expressly for the purpose of illustrating the sense of lpa in Arabic
and at the same time to point up the etymological and semantic
connection between the two cognates lpa/lpa. Although Ibn Jan
makes no overt statement phrased in the set terminology to the eect that
a comparison is being made, it is manifest from his lexicological pro-
cedure that the Arabic data are recorded for purposes of compari-
son. The characteristic features of the discussion in this and other
similar instances can be summed up as follows: the grammarian is
making note of a linguistic usage current in Arabic. This remark has
no direct relevance to the entry word. The linguistic usage does not
serve as a rendering of a Hebrew quote/reference; it is adduced for
its own sake and to clarify something. The fact that no comparison
term occurs, as is customary for explicit comparisons, can in no way
extenuate the explicit nature of the comparison. In such cases the
word laqy is mostly used, a word that has no meaningful interpre-
tation other than ybr[lab laqy.
3.4 Implicit comparisons holding the rank of explicit comparisons
The Hebrew grammarians record instances of comparison in which

appear neither a comparison term nor an indication in one of the
aforementioned ways that a comparison is intended. Non-explicit
comparisons possessing the weight of explicit comparisons are of the
following types:
62 chapter three
If their documentation is in a grammatical treatise devoted uniquely

to language comparison, a comparison is explicit even if the com-
parison term is absent; one clear statement of intent in the intro-
duction to the treatise covers all the comparisons in the work,
rendering them explicit comparison; an expression of intent, for each
comparison would be redundant.
In excursuses devoted specically to language comparison and incor-
porated within comprehensive treatises, such as those contained within
Alfsis Jmi' al-Alfa, the same applies as in the case of treatises
dwelling specically on comparison: one general proposition is sucient
to cover all the comparisons listed in the excursus.
Comparisons with Aramaic (with the exception of inevitable com-
parisonssee below, 3.6.1) are always explicit comparisons, because
neither are they part of the body of the discussion on the entry
words nor do they belong to the substance of the exposition; they
are invariably adduced for the specic purpose of comparison.
Likewise, a comparison occurring once in a given treatise as a
non-explicit comparison but reiterated elsewhere in the same treatise
as an explicit one is reckoned as an explicit comparison as in Alfsis
work (below, 9.5.5) and in that of R. Jonah ibn Jan (below, 13.4.3)
(Hebrew/Arabic non-explicit comparisons are given special treat-
ment, below, in chap. 4).
3.5 Comparison formulae
The comparisons recorded by the Hebrew grammarians are set out

below, in accordance with various formulae, which were in fact adopted
in the treatises themselves. The grammarians failed to spell out clearly
the formulae on which the comparisons are arranged; it is quite fea-
sible that the formulae were adopted intuitively; or perhaps the for-
mulae were at least partly an imitation of the methods of their
precursors. An attempt will be made to uncover the pattern under-
lying the comparisons and set them out in the form of a formulaic
presentation. The latter should not be taken as a merely ornamental
or symbolic expedient; rather it is intended to convey thereby the
essential basis of the comparison, the vessel that shapes the substance
poured into it. Further, the formula is an objective instrument, aid-
ing and assisting the scholar to sift the materials: to distinguish com-
parisons from non-comparisons; to detect which comparisons are
deliberate and consciously built, as opposed to those that are forced

or involuntary; to distinguish comparisons recorded in the true inter-
est of language comparison from those adduced for other objectives.
Within these subtypes, the thematic treatment serves to point up the
ner colorings and features of the comparison; for not all comparisons
that supercially appear identical prove to be so in fact. Moreover,
several language strata set out for comparison are intrinsic to the
formulae themselves. From the thematic setting the comparison can
be readily analyzed into its primary and secondary element. This is
notably the case with compound formulae, each comprising more
than two elements for comparison. The thematic arrangement can
occasionally be decisive for doubtful cases, such as to determine
whether the comparison is etymological or merely semantic in nature.
For instance: on the grounds of Alfsi comparing the Aramaic [a
with Hebrew [ (p. 129), it might be inferred that he was making
an etymological comparison and a knowledge of the historical sound
shift involved in [/x as well as the dissimilating shift [ > a, [[ > [a,
might thereby be attributed to Alfsi, which is an unfounded impu-
tation. The formula to which the given comparison pertains proves
clearly that the grammarian was aiming merely at semantic comparison.
In thematic presentation, the entry before the diagonal line des-
ignates the entry referred to, while the entry/ies to the right of the
diagonal indicate the languages with which the given entry word is
compared.
3.6 Explicit comparisons of Hebrew with Aramaic
3.6.1 Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. inevitable comparison (Alfsi and Menaem)

The lexicons of Alfsi and Menaem (also that of R. Hai Ga"on)
do not allocate separate sections to biblical Hebrew and biblical
Aramaic; the entries pertaining to the two languages are amalga-
mated and assembled together, whether in alternate consecutive units
or as parts of one, overarching entry, as though the two languages
were one. This lexicological method provides for a single entry com-
prising biblical Hebrew and biblical Aramaic side by side. When the
radical consonants of the given entry word are etymologically and
phonologically equal in Hebrew and Aramaic, without any sound
shift, these lexicographers nd it necessary to enter the technically
64 chapter three
identical entry caption twice, once as Hebrew and once as Aramaic,

under the same arch-entry. Juxtaposing the identical entries consec-
utively as two subentries invites language comparison, whether explicit
or implicit. (Were two separate divisions allocated to the two lan-
guages, one for the Hebrew and one for the Aramaic, a comparison
would not be automatically established.) Such an editing arrange-
ment would prevent the assumption of a deliberate Hebrew/Aramaic
comparison by David b. Abraham and Menaem. It is quite feasi-
ble that in such cases the grammarian had no intention of setting
up a comparison but merely purposed to set forth the lexicograph-
ical data; the impression of a language comparison derives from the
external editorial method. For example, in the entry rb (p. 271),
Alfsi states:
twyj lk hltmw ( Job 39:4) rbb wbry hynb wmljy arjxla rb rb anlw
.ynayrsla yp (Dan. 2:28) arb
In the given entry, the Hebrew rb and the Aramaic rb appear under
the same archentry rb, thus inducing almost imperceptibly a reci-
procal language comparison. A comparison of this type is what I
have termed an inevitable comparison; for the other Hebrew gram-
marians such a comparison is deliberate.
3.6.2 Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. deliberate comparisons even for Alfsi

The formula referred to here is that of pairs of Heb./Aram. entries
in which the respective members are etymologically and semantically
equivalent but possess non-identical phonological realizations. This
inequality of realization may at times be manifest (1) by the substitution
of radical letters, for instance, Heb. z versus Aram. d in pairs such as
rbzg/rbdg (as Alfsi puts it, p. 301: yzla lydbtb) or bhzw/abhd (ibid.,
ynxylh, p. 442) or (2) by the addition of one letter in one of the entries
vis--vis its cognate counterpart in the other parallel language, as for
example, the addition of the dissimilating n, in Aramaic, to the entry
hdm, hdnm (Alfsi does not use the given terms but states simply hdayzb
wnla; entry dm, p. 189). He thus does not deem it necessary, in the
light of his lexical system, for the two to be recorded under one
archentry. The two subentries are in fact edited separately, each ad
loc. as for its salient phonological feature: hdm on p. 189, hdnm on
p. 216. The comparison established by the grammarian is in no way
forced upon him; it is quite denitely deliberate. For Menaem, such
translation synonyms are non-cognate, for he refrains from adopting
the letter substitution system (with the exception of ywha); he there-

fore fails to establish any comparison for hdm/hdnm. The rest of the
Hebrew grammarians employ the present formula in several ways.
For example, R. Sa'adiah Ga"on adduces the comparison yfj/yfnj
in his discussion on lnm ( Job 15:29) (see Bacher 1895, Nitzanei ha-
diqduq p. 61, n. 3).
3.6.3 Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.

In several entries, the Hebrew grammarians compare a Biblical Hebrew
entry word under discussion with its cognate in Targumic Aramaic;
the Aramaic translation synonym, however, is not always the direct
rendering (= equivalent) of the biblical Hebrew word in the relevant
quote/reference. For example, in the comparison jg(n)/j(w)g: (Exod.
21:28) abrq yjygm brjla lagr grtmla ymsy ld mw . . . rw jgy ykw
(Alfsi, p. 316), where the Targ. Aram. word is not a rendering of
the Bib. Heb. under discussion. Such cases should be clearly distin-
guished from those in which the Targ. Aram. adduced indeed serves
to translate the relevant Bib. Heb., e.g. laq ydkw . . . kry[b ta wn[f
. . . wkry[b ty wnw[f grmla hyp (Gen. 45:17, [f, p. 18). An example
recorded by R. Jonah ibn Jan for a Targ. Aram. not ad loc. is
the comparison qp/qps ("Ul, p. 741). An instance given by R.
Sa'adiah Ga"on relates to the Bib. Heb. [, l O B] (Prov. 23:2) in his
commentary to his biblical translation (ibid.). There are even cases
in which the Targ. Aram. that is adduced for comparison is not a
rendering of any actual Bib. Heb. word but rather a part of the exeget-
ical augmentation of the Targum translation. For instance, the Aramaic
word adgn occurs in the augmentation of the translation of the verse
ym yljn ra (Deut. 8:7), which is rendered yymd yljn adgn, the word
serves merely for elucidation. This word (adgn) is adduced by Alfsi
( Jmi' al-Alf, entry dg, p. 301) for comparison with the word dwdg
in the verse hydwdg tjn (Ps. 65:11).
3.6.4 Bib. Heb.1/Bib. Heb.2/Targ. Aram.7

In the group of entries presenting comparisons according to this for-
mula, the Hebrew grammarians highlight the etymological equivalence
7
A rudimentary demonstration of this formula has been set out by Becker regard-
ing Ibn Quraysh (1984, p. 31, p. 32, n. 8). Becker remarks that this formula was
66 chapter three
between the Bib. Heb. entry word under discussion (= Bib. Heb.1)
and the etymologically parallel Targ. Aram. word, which, however,
is an ad loc. rendering not of that Bib. Heb. word but of another
synonymous or semantically related Bib./Heb. word (= Bib. Heb.2).
The three-way comparison aids the grammarian in two aspectsor
perhaps in a single determination comprised of two connected argu-
ments(1) regarding the aim: to determine the etymological equiva-
lence of Bib. Heb.1 and Targ. Aram.; and (2) incidentally: to determine
the semantic equivalence of Bib. Heb.1 and Bib. Heb.2. In some of
such comparisons the etymological equivalence is transparent, in oth-
ers it is less so. Three cases in point are I mwg/mwk, II hrg/arga,
and III wnyhtw/ynhta, despite their relatively dierent degrees of trans-
parency, these all belong to the same formula.
For a full understanding of the present formula, it is worth studying
two of the abovementioned entries as entered by several grammarians.
Example I: Recorded by R. Judah ibn Quraysh (A, p. 37), by Alfsi

(p. 331) and by R. Jonah ibn Jan (p. 139). The entry is recorded
as follows by Alfsi and similarly by the other grammarians:
(Isa. 24:17) tjpw djp ynayrslab ld mw ,hybz (Eccles. 10:8) mwg rpj
lmygla aqm wqt klaw axmwkw aljd
The ultimate aim is to give a sense for the Bib. Heb.1 mwg. With
this in mind, the Hebrew grammarians adduce Bib. Heb.2 tjp, with
the Targ. Aram. ad loc. translation axmwk. On account of the pho-
netic non-equivalence of Bib. Heb.1 and Targ. Aram., the comparison
includes an explanation, i.e. that the substitution g/k occurred.
A schematic presentation of the comparisons might be as follows
To be Shown: mwg = ? (sense)
Data: 1) tjp = axmwk (non-cognate tr. syn)
2) mwg = axmwk (cognates)
Conclusion: tjp = mwg (sense)
adopted by the rest of the grammarians, too. If, however, Ibn Quraysh indeed
allowed for word borrowing from Aramaic (ibid., p. 29), it must be said that he
adopted a dierent formula, i.e. Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (see below,
3.6.7, and above, 2.3).
Abstraction:
To be Shown: Bib. Heb.1 = ? (sense)
Data: 1) Bib. Heb.2 = Targ. Aram. (non-cognate tr. syn)
2) Bib. Heb.1 = Targ. Aram. (cognates)
Conclusion: Bib. Heb.1 = Bib. Heb.2 (sense)
Example II: The comparison is recorded as follows, by Alfsi (entry

yh, p. 434):
[xb hm wgrtw t[mf hryspt (Deut. 1:41) hrhh twl[l wnyhtw
.anl ynhtn wmm hm (Gen. 37:26)
The entry requiring denition is wnyhtw. These are the data: the word
is identical etymologically (according to the grammatical opinion on
the radix, of this grammarian) with the Targ. Aram. ynhtn; since the
latter is itself a translation synonym for [xb, the conclusion is that
wnyhtw and [xb are semantically equal.
In both Examples I and II, more than one argument serves in
determining the second datum, namely the equivalence between Bib.
Heb.1 and Targ.-Aram., owing to the need to resort to a secondary
datum, whether a substitution of letters as in Ex. I, or the determi-
nation of the number of radical lettersh or yh for wnyhtw and h
or ynh for ynhtnas in Ex. II. However, in the large majority of com-
parisons pertaining to this formula, the etymological equations can
be established with virtually no diculty.
E.g. wfa/wfa, wla/wla, ma/ma, l[y/al[y, [xb/[xb etc. Nonetheless,
even in the straightforward instances, the second datum should not
be omitted when tabulating the comparison.
Underlying the present formula a presumption exists that Bib.
Heb.2, which is adduced as that which sets the denition and so does
not act merely as an intermediary between Bib. Heb.1 and Targ.-
Aram., is more clearly understood than what it comes to dene, namely
Bib. Heb.1. We are thus provided with a clue for classifying Biblical
Hebrew entries according to two kinds, those whose meaning the
Hebrew grammarians saw as obvious (self-explanatory) and those
whose meaning was less obvious to them. It would seem that such
an estimation by the Hebrew grammarians conceals a solution to
the question as to when and under what circumstances the Hebrew
grammarians altogether resorted to language comparison by non-
cognate translation synonyms.
68 chapter three
Sub-formulae that are alternates of the above arch-formula,

which dier from it neither in essence nor by objective but merely
set the order of the entry components dierently from the standard
formula arrangement, are recorded in comparisons of Alfsi, wydb/
amyr/yr (p. 379); rd/jra/tra (p. 405). In these comparisons, Bib.
Heb.1 appears third in the formula arrangement and not rst; thus
the formula reads: Bib. Heb.2/Targ. Aram./Bib. Heb.1. Yet a dierent
arrangement is salient in the comparisons wqa/l[y/al[y (p. 144),
wyd/ar/amyr (ibid.), and rmj/rk/rwk (ibid., p. 561). In the latter
arrangement, Bib. Heb.1 intervenes between Bib. Heb.2 and Targ.
Aram.
3.6.5 Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./(Targ. Aram.)

This formula is basically the same as the previous one. The dierence
is that whereas in the previous formula Targ. Aram. is expressly
indicated, in the present formula it is to be understood implicitly.
But considering that Targ. Aram. is cognate with Bib. Heb.1, its
inclusion can be dispensed with. A suitable example: R. Sa'adiah
Gaon translates ypkw ( Job 30:6) as rwkxlaw. But in a marginal gloss
he comments: y[ls wgrt ypkw. This gloss is in fact a condensed
form of a more expansive statement, one that incorporates the Targ.
Aram. too, namely: aypyk/ypk y[ls wgrt :ypkw (reconstruction).
Thus here two elements in the arch-formula are lacking: (1) an actual
quote/reference from the Bible text for Bib. Heb.2 and for its Targ.
Aram., and (2) an explicit dictum asserting the etymological equiv-
alence of Bib. Heb.1 and Targ. Aram. But as stated earlier, this
equivalence is self-evident.
3.6.6 Rab. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.

This formula is structured similarly to Bib. Heb.1/Bib. Heb.2/Targ.
Aram. (above, 3.6.4) except that here the entry word is attested in
rabbinic Hebrew and not in the Bible. The formula is used in lex-
icons or in commentaries discussing on Rab. Heb. entries, when such
are in need of denition, as in R. Hai Gaons lexicon Kitb al-wi
(below, ch. 14).
3.6.7 Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.

This formula occurs for Aramaic/Hebrew comparisons only, i.e. in
instances where the relevant entry is from Bib. Aram. The formula
consists of two elements: (1) comparison of entry word with non-
cognate translation synonym in Bib. Heb. and Targ. Aram.; (2) com-
parison of cognate in Bib. Aram. and Targ. Aram. However, it may
well be that the second datum should not be treated as a compar-
ison, considering that the matter at issue here is that of two mani-
festations (for the Hebrew grammarians perhaps two dialects) of one
and the same language, one being from Biblical Aramaic and the
other from the targumic dialect. It is hardly reasonable to reckon as
a comparison a case in which equivalence, in fact identity, is proposed
between a datum from Bib. Aram. and its counterpart in Targ.
Aram. For all intents and purposes, this would be comparison of an
entity with itself. Thus when tabulated schematically the present for-
mula can be said to parallel the above formula Bib. Heb./Bib.
Heb./Targ. Aram. as follows:
To be shown: rma = ? (sense)
Data: 1) arma = bk (non-cognate tr. syn)
2) arma = rma (identity)
Conclusion: rma = bk (non-cognate tr. syn)
Generalized:
To be shown: Bib. Aram. = ? (sense)
Data: 1) Targ. Aram. = Bib. Heb. (non-cognate translation
synonym)
2) Bib. Aram. = Targ. Aram. (identity)
Conclusion: Bib. Aram. = Bib. Heb. (non cognate translation synonym)
The condensed tabulation formulaically generalized, omitting datum
(2) will appear as follows:
To be shown: Bib. Aram. = ? (sense)
Datum: Bib. Heb. = Targ. Aram. (= Bib. Aram.) (non cognate
translation synonym)
Conclusion: Bib. Aram. = Bib. Heb. (non cognate translation synonym)
Further, it can be incidentally deduced from this formula that the
Hebrew grammarians thought that a Bib. Heb. entry word adduced
to assist in the denition is more intelligible than its counterpart in
70 chapter three
Bib. Aram. It thus follows that for the contemporary student in the
era of the Hebrew grammarians, Aramaic was less intelligible than
Hebrew and perhaps less known, too. The aforementioned formula
occurs regularly and systematically when the Hebrew grammarians
discuss Bib. Aram. For instance, when biblical exegetes wrote their
commentaries also on the Bible chapters in Aramaic, or when lex-
icologists discussed entry words occurring in the Aramaic sections
(Alfsi, Menaem, and R. Hai Gaon).
An example from Rav Sa'adiahs Bible translation (Tafsr) of Dan.
7:25:
(Exod. 23:17) ym[p l wgrt ynmz tlt laq amk . . . ynmz
3.6.8 Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./(Targ. Aram.)

This formula is practically identical with the previous one. The only
dierence is that in the present formula no specic quote is adduced
by the Hebrew grammarians for the Bib. Heb. and for its Targ.
Aram. counterpart; they nd it sucient to state that the Bib. Aram.
entry word is the same word recorded by the Targ. Aram. for the
Bib. Heb. with which the entry is compared: as e.g. (Dan. 2:28) rb
a wgrt . . . (Alfsi, p. 277). In this sub-formula, the Hebrew gram-
marians dispense with two elements that were present in the previ-
ous formula: (1) actual quotes/references from the Bible text and
from the targumic Aramaic text, to illustrate Bib. Heb. and Targ.
Aram.; (2) an explicit statement of the etymological equivalence of
Bib. Aram. and Targ. Aram. The omission of these two elements
can most probably be attributed to their being palpably obvious and
not requiring any corroboration.
3.6.9 Talm. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.

This formula is similar to the previous; its specic character is notice-
able from the text source of the entry word. In the present formula
the source is talmudic Aramaic (whereas in the previous formulae it
is Biblical Aramaic). This formula occurs occasionally in R. Hai
Gaons Kitb al-wi (below, ch. 14), where Talmudic Aramaic entry
words in a status of deniendum are systematically discussed.
3.6.10 Bib. Heb.1/Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb.2/Targ. Aram.

At times, the Hebrew grammarians merge comparisons pertaining
to dierent formulae. The present formula combines Bib. Heb./Bib.
Aram. with one of the two formulae Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.;
Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. The rst segment, the comparison
Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram., can be either inevitable (as in the works of
Alfsi and of Menaem) or deliberate. In neither case is the com-
parison a sucient basis for turning Bib. Heb. into a semantically
transparent entry word; for this reason, the lexicologist resorts to the
formula latent in the second segment. Here is an example from Alfsis
work (p. 213): ybl lmyw (Neh. 5:7) ynayrsla yp hljmw .yblq raa
nyklma hmwgrt x[ya .dn[ sjt ytrwm (Dan. 4:24) l[ rpy yklm
(Exod. 18:19).
3.6.11 Bib. Aram./Rab. Heb.

At times, for the denition of a Bib. Aram. entry word, a Hebrew
grammarian may resort to a rabbinical Hebrew entry of more com-
mon occurrence and having greater semantic transparency. The pre-
sent formula is encountered, in particular (as one might expect), in
the works of those Hebrew grammarians who systematically discussed
biblical Aramaic. This is exemplied in an extract from R. Sa'adiahs
Bible translation of Dan. 3:27: yjsp) hlwqk hpylk gsw . . . ayngs . . .
ynhkh gs hynnj r (w ,a.
3.6.12 Bib. Heb./Talm. Aram.

In a certain sense this formula has greater anity with the formula
Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. than with Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram., because a
Targ. Aram. synonym, whether cognate or non-cognate, is immedi-
ately available for the author, as a direct translation corresponding
with Bib. Heb. (in the Aramaic biblical Targums). Comparison with
Bib. Aram. (not inevitable) and with Talm. Aram., however, emanates
from the grammarians own eorts or his knowledge; he has the
laborious task of locating the Aramaic entry he seeks, unless something
happens to bring it to mind. An example of this formula appears in
"Ul, p. 137, where R. Jonah records, in the name of certain author-
itiesperhaps the opinion referred to is that of R. Sa'adiah Gaon
(Alfsi records the same comparison and he, too, quotes it, in the
72 chapter three
name of certain authorities), the word ymwlg (Ez. 27:24) with amylg,
a word of common occurrence in the Talmud (see TB Shabbat 77b;
see also hfpl y[bs, p. 34).8
3.6.13 Rab. Heb./Talm. Aram.

This formula is basically similar to the previous, its distinctive fea-
ture being in the source of the entry word that in the present for-
mula is Rab. Heb. The formula is encountered in lexicons and
commentaries that regularly discuss entries from Rab. Heb. bearing
8
A Bib. Heb./Syriac comparison?
Ibn Jan compares the entry a (Lev. 21:20) with the Aramaic al[t yka
(48/70). The same comparison is encountered in an entry written by R. Judah b,
Quraysh in Risla B, 5. An identication of the likely source used by Ibn Quraysh
as a basis for this comparison was made by Epstein (1982, p. 73); in the intro-
duction to his Prush HaGe"onm le-Seder Teharot (also by Becker, 1984, p. 33). The
source suggested is the Works of Medicine (twawpr yrps) in Syriac. The question
remains whether R. Jonah b. Jan borrowed the comparison from the Risla or
gleaned it directly from the Works of Medicine. Bacher (1885, p. 36; see Becker
1983, p. 171, n. 5) argues that Ibn Jan utilized Ibn Quraysh. Although this stand
is reasonably probable, the possibility cannot be ruled out that Ibn Jan himself
cited those Works of Medicine directly, since medicine was indeed his profession
(see Bacher, introduction to HaShorashim, p. 12) and it is not far-fetched to sup-
pose that he possessed a copy of these works. Moreover the phraseology used by
Ibn Jan in the entry under discussion, rather than indicative of secondary quo-
tation, shows evidence of direct citation, for the comparison text runs as follows:
yka amsy bl[tla axkb wr[mla ryq[ll ynayrslab laqyw yytnala jwsmm a jwrm
al[t. Had he quoted secondarily from Risla, it would have been more appro-
priate to phrase it: al[t yka amsy bl[tla axkb wr[mla ryq[la a laqyw.
Furthermore, whether he intended to conrm this rendition or proposed to dispute
it, one would expect that Ibn Jan would at least cite R. Judah b. Qurayshs
denition (= translation) for a jwrm i.e. hyxkla wpnm. In fact, instead of doing
so, he phrased his own translation dierently, as yytnala jwsmm. The initial ques-
tion clearly bears on a more important and fundamental problem, namely: whether
Ibn Jan knew that he was positing a comparison with a non-Jewish dialect of
Aramaic and if so whether he was aware of the nature of this dialect and how it
was related to Jewish Aramaic. Had he cited the Works of Medicine directly, it
would have followed that he knew the language of these to be Syriac. If, however,
his source was secondary, in a quotation from Ibn Quraysh, he might well have
thought the source text to be in Jewish Aramaic. Epstein (1982, p. 72) conjectures
that the Works of Medicine utilized by Prush HaGe"onm had been transcribed from
Syriac script into Hebrew square script and thus had been made available for the
use of Jewish scholars. It is probable that such was also the case with the text of
Works of Medicine used by Ibn Quraysh (and Ibn Jan). However, Epstein notes
that R. Sherira Ga"on himself never saw the Works, rather it was the author of
Prush HaGe"onm who had discovered it and that R. Sherira Ga"on had taken it
over secondarily from that author. This may have been the case with Ibn Quraysh
and Ibn Jan, too.
the status of an entity requiring denition, such as in the work of

R. Hai Ga"on (below, ch. 14).
3.6.14 Bib. Heb.1/Targ. Aram./Bib. Heb.2 (non-cognate)

This formula is seldom encountered in comparisons of the type cog-
nate translation synonym; the need to dene and classify it is twofold:
(1) because it can serve in setting up cognate comparisons and (2)
because it serves as basis for the next formula (3.6.15), which indeed
sets up cognate comparisons. The present formula is not meant to
represent one three-way comparison but two separate comparisons
possessing in common an equivalent Targ. Aram. entry word. The
two separate comparisons might be represented schematically as Bib.
Heb.1/Targ. Aram. + Bib. Heb.2/Targ. Aram. This scheme, how-
ever, does not point up the Targ. Aram. equivalence in the two
comparisons.
For example, in the entry word [rk, Ibn Jan records the com-
parison of the structure Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (non-cognate trans-
lation synonym) y[rk/ylwsrq. This comparison in no way diers
from the regular comparisons of the structure Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.
(non-cognate translation synonym). The dierence is that whereas in
those comparisons the ultimate aim of comparison is to adduce a
Targ. Aram. entry word, the sense thereof being plainer than the
caption entry (Bib. Heb.), in the present formula, the Aram. word
is less transparent. In the example under discussion, the word ylwsrq
seemed to Ibn Jan insuciently intelligible, so he adduces a second
comparison, of the structure Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (non-cognate
translation synonym), comprising a Targ. Aram. identical with that
appearing in the rst comparison, in this instance, twnwhb/ylwsrq. In
eect, this is merely a means of establishing the semantic equiva-
lence of the two Biblical Hebrew words: y[rk and twnwhb. The mea-
sure of intelligibility of the Targ. Aram. is of no import; its weight
is no more than that it serves as a third entity to which two other
entities are equivalent. The fact that these are equal in value to the
third entity (= the Targ. Aram. entry word) proves that the two are
themselves equivalent. Thus Targ. Aram. here is not an end but a
means. This is what Ibn Jan is referring to when summing up
the comparisons twgw[/xyrg and twlj/xyrg as follows (p. 507): hgw[la
aws hljlaw; Ibn Tibbons rendering is (p. 357): hljhw hgw[h k aw
tww, thus hgw[ and hlj are equivalent.
74 chapter three
A schematic representation of the purpose of this formula is as

follows: [rk/lwsrq + hwb/lwsrq = [rk/hwb: or, as an abstraction:
Bib. Heb.1/Targ. Aram.1 + Bib. Heb.2/Targ. Aram.1 = Bib. Heb.1/Bib.
Heb.2.
In the present formula, it is not essential that etymological equiva-
lence exist between the three entry words constituting the two com-
parisons, namely between the Bib. Heb.1, Bib. Heb.2 and the Targ.
Aram. entry word.9 This indeed distinguishes the present formula
from Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.
3.6.15 Bib. Heb.1/Targ. Aram.Rab. Heb./Bib. Heb.2

This formula is on the same lines as the previous one, with the reser-
vation that the Bib. Heb.2 entry word instead of being compared
with Targ. Aram. is compared to a Rab. Heb. entry word, cognate
to the Targ. Aram. rendering of Bib. Heb.1
The formula is encountered only once, in a comparison recorded
by Ibn Jan: bg/trfj l[b/tbd (l[b)10 (Kitb al-Ul, p. 122).
3.7 The three-way comparison: Heb./Aram./Arab.
The three-way comparison between Heb./Aram./Arab. entries can

be divided into ve types, according to the nature of the link exist-
ing between the several components, whether etymological or non-
etymological; this aside from the textual typology of sources for the
entries, i.e. biblical or post biblical as to the Heb. or the Aram.; tar-
gumic or talmudic Aramaic, when the entry word is Aramaic etc.:
9
An exception is the comparison wywbm/htthb tyb in which according to cur-
rent concepts, Bib. Heb. and Targ. Aram. are cognate synonyms, although the
comparison term used by Ibn Jan shows clearly that the grammarian did not
treat these words as such.
10
Actually, the second comparison represented here by this formula is tbd/trfj;
to combine this comparison with the rst one, we subjoin the word l[b to the sec-
ond comparison. The comparison established is thus tbd l[b/trfj l[b, this being
a suitable match for the rst comparison, bg/trfj l[b.
1. Etymological equivalence of all three entries, e.g. dlg/dlg/dlg

2. Etymological ambivalence of all three entries, e.g. rwat/[wrka/
ybr (Ibn Jan 51/74)
3. Etymological equivalence between two of the three entries, i.e.
between Heb. and Arab., e.g. rdg/ltwk/rydg; (ibid., 86/125)
4. Ditto between Aram. and Arab., e.g. hla/amfwb/fb (ibid., 30/47)
5. Ditto between Heb. and Aram., e.g. ga/g/jang (ibid., 12/20)
(Note: Regarding type 5, failing an explicit comparison with Arabic,
the three-way feature of the comparison is insignicant, such a com-
parison is therefore presented as merely two-way: Heb./Aram.)
The great majority of three-way comparisons Heb./Aram./Arab.
are those of cognates in all three languages; the minority are com-
parisons between non-cognate translation synonym.
The aspect of comparison between the Heb. and the Aram. entries
has been dealt with above in the context of Heb./Aram. compar-
isons and their subtypes. Because this aspect, according to its for-
mulae, terms and aims, is essentially no dierent from the express
two-way Heb./Aram. comparisons in which no third comparative
element with Arab. is present. (The comparison with Arabic in these
three-way comparisons is at times explicit comparison and at times
implicit comparison). Thus the comparison formulae for the three-
way comparison are basically structured on the same pattern as the
two-way Heb./Aram. formulae (enumerated above), except that the
third, Arab. element is to be appended to them. For example, accord-
ing to the formula Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram., the Arabic
element may be subjoined, thus resulting in the expanded formula:
Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram./Arab.; and the latter, in turn,
may be (a) an Arabic explicit comparison or an implicit comp. and/or
(b) an Arabic non-cognate translation synonym comparison or a cog-
nate comparison. No need was felt to reiterate the several afore-
mentioned formulae of two-way comparisons merely for the sake of
subjoining to them the third Arabic element. Here it seems sucient
to note the principal element in these compound structures. In the
formulaic listings, however, the pattern for each formula will be
spelled out in full (in the captions to the listings).
76 chapter three
3.8 The Heb./Arab. comparison
Heb./Arab. comparison formulae can be divided into two main types,

according to the explicit/implicit nature of the comparison. As for
explicit comparisons, the relevant question is merely whether the
comparison is Heb./Arab. (cognate) or Heb./Arab. (non-cognate
translation synonym). Comparison of non-cognates is the so-called
semantic comparison. In implicit comparisons, it is of importance to
note whether a non-cognate synonym appears alongside the cognate,
Heb./Arab. (cognate + non cognate), or whether there is an itera-
tion of the cognate. A lengthy discussion of these formulae is included
in the chapter on the implicit comparisons (below, 4.74.10).
3.9 The Aram./Arab. comparison
In the records of those grammarians who systematically discuss the

Aramaic portions in the Bible and whose works are in Arabic (with
the exception of Menaem), Aram./Arab. comparisons are liable to
occur. An example is rjp/rakp from the work of Alfsi (p. 457).
However, even in the works of the Hebrew grammarians who incor-
porate no special discussion on biblical Aram., such comparisons are
occasionally encountered; the above instance of comparison is itself
to be found in the lexicon of R. Judah b. Quraysh (C1, p. 512).
3.10 Appendix
In the two subsections, following, two further formulae are set out
peripherally that, rather than representing cognate syn. comparisons,
are of general signicance, with especial reference to sundry prob-
lems discussed in the present work.
3.10.1 Bib. Heb.1 = Bib. Heb.2/Targ. Aram.

(non-cognate translation synonym)
The present formula is encountered only twice, in Ibn Jans (non-
cognate) comparisons wn = hpn/lp (Ul, p. 418); twb[ = twb[/()lydg
(ibid., p. 501). The importance of this formula is manifold: (a) It
well illustrates the procedure of intra-Hebrew etymological identication
in Hebrew lexicology and in particular how the linguistic materials

are set out. The grammarian rst presents a Bib. Heb. entry word
(wn, twb[) appearing as an integral part of a biblical verse (wn hpy:
Ps. 48:3; wmytwb[ wnmm hkylnw: ibid., 2:3). He then adduces as exeget-
ical evidence11 the Aramaic Targ. translation of a (cognate) coun-
terpart of the entry, in another biblical occurrence of the entry word,
(twpn: Josh. 11:2/yklp; ytwb[: Judg. 15:13/lydg). (b) The main
import: by setting out the material according to this formula, it
becomes evident that no Aramaic Targ. was available to the gram-
marian for the rst biblical verse in each entry (the verse incorpo-
rating the respective entry words).12 For if the reverse were the case,
why resort to a remote Targ. translation? Had he possessed an imme-
diate Aram. translation for Bib. Heb.1, he could have recorded the
comparison as a normal non-cognate translation synonym compari-
son formula: Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. The unambiguous conclusion
is that the Aramaic Targum to the Book of Psalmsthe text source
for the verses cited and containing the relevant entry wordswas
not available to him. This, then, is an additional piece of evidence for
what is in fact known from elsewhere to be the case, that R. Jonah
Ibn Jan did not know of the Aramaic Targum to Psalms.13
A further similar formula, Rab. Heb. = Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.,
is employed in Prush HaGe"onm (see Epstein, 1982, p. 75).
3.10.2 Bib. Heb.1/Bib. Heb.2 = Arab.

Bib. Heb.2 and Arab. are cognates. This formula is predictable, in
principle, when Bib. Heb.1 requires denition; the only clue to its
meaning by other linguistic/exegetical means is its being synonymous
with Bib. Heb.2, while Bib. Heb.2 tself is a cognate synonym with
Arabic. In actuality, this comparison formula occurs only once, in
11
The phraseology adopted by Ibn Jan himself, ytwb[ yp wgrtla laq ldkw
ydj, leaves no room for doubt that the adduction of the second Bible quote with
its Aram. translation was meant as semantic evidence and not merely as an addi-
tional example.
12
In Miqra"ot GedolotPsalms, ed. Warsaw, 562226, photographic reprint Etz
Chayyim. Jerusalem 1974 (in which this translation is attributed to Jonathan [wgrt
tnwy]), this phrase is rendered: whtwll annm qwlsnw. If Ibn Jan had had an objec-
tion to such a rendering and preferred lydg, it is fair to assume that he would
have remarked on the matter.
13
For Alfsis text sources see below, 9.12.1.2
78 chapter three
an apparently casual manner, in R. Judah ibn Tibbons translation

of (= Sefer Hashorashim). Ibn Tibbon renders Ibn Jans denition
ryda = sap, yzrk ("Ul, p. 13) ryda = zrg; he appends a further
comparison zrg/zrk (that is itself contingent on an explicit comp.
recorded by Ibn Jan himself in entry zrg; p. 148). Thus transpired
the denition/comparison ryda/zrg = zrk.
3.11 Conclusion
To conclude the topic of comparison formulae, mention should be

made of the salient dierence between the Aramaic and Arabic for-
mulae. In comparisons with Aramaic, diverse formulae occur, of
which many are compound. This is not the case in comparisons with
Arabic. For example, there exists no Arab. comparison formula *Bib.
Heb.1/Bib. Heb.2/Arab. corresponding to the formula Bib. Heb.1/Bib.
Heb.2/Targ. Aram. To grasp why that formula is nonexistent for
Arab., let us examine the hypothetical comparison *ra/hmda/ra.
Externally this would seem to be built on the lines of the compar-
ison formula Bib. Heb.1/Bib. Heb.2/Targ. Aram., since (1) we have
Bib. Heb.1 (ra) + Bib. Heb.2 (hmda), these two being (partial) Hebrew
synonyms; (2) is a cognate to the Arab., i.e. ra/ra; (3) ra is a
frequent non-cognate synonym for hmda in the Arabic translation of
the Bible. However, this formula diers from Bib. Heb. 1/Bib.
Heb.2/Targ. Aram. in two signicant aspects: (1) In the former the
Bib. Heb.1 is frequent and not in need of denition: (2) in order to
arrive at the Arab. cognate ra and ipso facto to determine the
sense of the entry word, the intermediary Bib. Heb.2 is redundant,
for the Arab. Bible translation provides an on-the-spot comparison
ra/ra. Likewise in the hypothetical comparison *y/wn/sw the
intermediary wn is unnecessary. Another theoretical pattern, of the
type hm;d:a}/r,a/
, hmda, is absolutely ruled out, for the Arab. cognate
is a rare word and would never show up as the Bible tr. of the Heb.
entry word r,a, (= Bib. Heb.2).
There is a further reason for the paucity of Arab. comparison for-
mulae: Aramaic text sources are clearly classied and mutually distinct.
Thus in accord with the several Aram. types alone, the arch-formula
Heb./Aram. yields three sub-formulae (a) Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram.,(b)
Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram., and (c) Bib. Heb./Tal. Aram. By contrast,
the literary sources of Arabic used by the Hebrew grammarians in
their comparisons, though variegated, were lacking a corresponding

dialectal status of the sort applying in Aramaic. In principle, the
Arab. comparisons could be likewise subdivided into sub-formulae,
something like: *Heb./Arab. (Qur"n), Heb./Arab. (poetry), Heb./Arab.
(Bible translation), Heb./Arab. (dialects). But there is no evidence
that Hebrew grammarian implied such subcategories except in a few
rare cases. In many instances, it cannot be ascertained which of the
text sources had served them for the Arabic entry word; it is also
very doubtful whether the grammarians indeed signicantly distin-
guished the several aforementioned Arabic language strata.14
Another factor highlighting the dierence between Heb./Aram.
and Heb./Arab. is quite clearly reected in comparison formulae: it
is never an Arabic word that occupies the status of the entity requiring
denition; whereas Aramaic entry words quite regularly occupy such
a status, precisely as Hebrew entries do.
14
See Becker 2001.
CHAPTER FOUR
THE IMPLICIT COMPARISON
The explicit comparison, as demonstrated above, involves the jux-

taposition of a lexical entry word from one language with a lexical
entry word from a second language, accompanied by an explicit
remark as to the similarity between them; the remark is identiable
by being phrased as a specic term or by being an intentional turn
of phrase, a clearly dened statement of the anity between the
mutual entry words, whether that anity is etymological, semantic
or whatever.
In contrast to some frequently encountered lexicons and Bible
commentaries the juxtaposition of two cognate entries with the use
of no specic comparison term, prima facie juxtaposition of such
could be treated as no more than a translational denition of the
biblical entry word. However, it is feasible that such records include
language comparison also and may well be based upon such com-
parison. For example, in the entry lf ( Jmi' al-"Alf, p. 12), Alfsi
states: lf twrwa lf yk (Isa. 26:19) lf wnty (Zach. 8:12) adnw lf hlk.
By setting the denition of Bib. Heb. lf by the Arab. cognate
lf, the grammarian may possibly be employing language compari-
son, whereas it might be merely an unintentional translators denition
in which case there is no distinction between the cognate tr. syn and
the comparison lf/adn, for then it could be assumed that the inten-
tion is to posit a plain translation synonym. To obtain a correct con-
cept of the term unsophisticated translator/translating, it is worthwhile
to compare Ibn Barns translation for the word qj, (Kitb al-Muwzana
p. 47): qj wplj (Isa. 24:5) srla awplk, while in the entry itself,
(ibid., p. 52) the denition/rendering is: qjla awplak/qj wplj.
This is to be explained as follows: At the entry itself, where the
translation was adduced for the purposes of (explicit) comparison, the
grammarian took care to render it with a cognate, while in the record
external to the entry he used an unsophisticated translation, a non-
cognate translation synonym. Theoretically, a cognate can serve as
an unsophisticated rendering also, when recorded casually. It is hardly
possible to set criteria of preference between these two options of
the implicit comparison 81
analysis. A methodological investigation of the issue in itself is indeed

important, while also having direct and signicant bearing on the
question of the scope of the inventory of comparisons of the Hebrew
grammarians. Furthermore, this has relevance for other fundamen-
tal questions, too: the extent to which comparisons were practised
by the Hebrew grammarians in lexicology (and in exegesis), and the
measure of their consistency in recording etymological comparisons.
Scholars who took an interest in language comparison as prac-
tised by grammarians in the period under discussion did not ques-
tion the non-explicit comparisons. Some scholars treated cognate
tr-syns. as a clear sign of language comparison, e.g. Pinsker (p. 157),
Shay (1975, pp. 82, 8485), and Perez (1978, p. 437); others disre-
garded implicit comparisons in their discussions, as though these were
not to be considered comparisons, e.g. Bacher (1884) and Poznanski
(1916). Becker (1984, p. 115) leaves open the question of whether
an implicit comparison is indeed a comparison or not.1
Tn (1983, pp. 258, 261) makes a clear delineation of implicit
comparison as an independent category. He also states his intention
to resume the discussion of this issue elsewhere. A correct judgment
on the issue is not easy because we are liable to fall into the trap
of imposing our own knowledge on the grammarians text and thus
presenting an anachronistic distortion of the facts. To illustrate a
hypothetical misjudgment of such a kind, consider the entry rmj in
"Ul (p. 235), which reads:
rmj rmkla yms yn[mla adh mw . . . rmja hryspt . . . (Ps. 75:9) rmj yyw
yl[ ahnal (Deut. 32:14) rmj htt (Isa. 27:2) hl wn[ rmj rk lyq amk
rmj htt bn[ dw hlwq yp dlab ahhb hart ala armj rtkala
. . . (ibid.)
1
Becker (1984, p. 36, n. 20) remarks on the use of implicit comparison by certain
grammarians. It is worthwhile following up the development of his footnotes and
how they are phrased, from the time his doctoral dissertation was written in 1977,
right up to the year his printed edition of the Risla appeared (1984). The general
impression is that Becker was initially inclined to treat a translation by an Arabic
cognate as an implicit comparison, while later he retracted and left the matter unde-
cided. For example, with the comparison h[md/h[md (C1, p. 123) he remarked in
his earlier version that R. Saadiah Ga"on and Alfsi render it thus; but in the
later edition he omitted this footnote, leaving in his text merely: R. Jonah b. Jan
compares this entry word with Arabic and making no mention of the aforemen-
tioned two grammarians. The upshot is that he does not now reckon cognate tr.
syn alone as comparison. Likewise in several entries in his 1977 work Becker
remarked: Explicit comparison with Arabic is made only by R. Judah b. Quraysh
(Part C1, entries 121, 131, 133, 139, 140, 162, 195, 217, etc.). This phrasing implies
82 chapter four
Had R. Jonah not expanded his discussion in this entry, elaborat-

ing his etymological reasoning, that is, had he merely set a denition,
namely the denition underlying his phrasing, i.e. rmj/rmk, we would
be quite liable to attribute to him the etymological comparison
rmj/rmk, exactly as recorded by Ibn Quraysh (Risla, C1, p. 495)
and precisely as is currently adopted by Semitists. But once the gram-
marian set out the etymological link of rmj with rmja (= red), the
etymological connection rmj/rmk is ruled out, though the substitution
j (Heb.)/k (Arab.) is recognized in principle. Thus it is the expressly
stated opinion of the grammarian and that alone, that has spared
us from making an error of judgment.
I now proceed to set out data that can satisfactorily prove that
translational denitions consisting of juxtaposition of a cognate Arabic
with the Hebrew entry word are really comparisons, even though
no term or phraseology of comparison appears, thus corroborating
the existence of the category I have termed as non-explicit com-
parisons. I shall attempt to back up this conclusion: (a) on grounds
of logic2 but not on these grounds alone, for the weakness of such
is in their subjectivity, and in that they involve a risk of anachro-
nistic ramications; but also (b) basing my determination on sound
evidence. In the discussion, I take as basis the inventory in Jmi' al-
"Alf and in the "Ul, these being complete, exhaustive lexicons;
the outcome of the discussion can be applied to implicit compar-
isons in the other works, too.3
that the other grammarians compared but non-explicitly. In the 1984 edition, this
remark was generally removed and was only sporadically retained (as in C1, 212,
213).
2
Becker (1984, p. 35) makes a claim in favor of the existence of implicit com-
parisons in the Risla, as follows: In a work in which one of the main topics dealt
with is the comparison of Hebrew words with Arabic, it would be far-fetched to
postulate that the author was unaware that these entry words also constitute a par-
allel to their Arabic counterparts. This claim is certainly acceptable; but while our
categorization requires no further proof in respect of a work devoted entirely to
language comparison, proof must be adduced for it as for the general lexicological
works, which are not devoted exclusively to language comparison.
3
These works are in the main fragmentary (e.g. the works of R. Hai Ga"on and
Ab l-Faraj) or are dependent on the work of Ibn Jan; thus their comparisons,
e.g., the grammatical treatises of Ibn Bal'am, or even works on exegesis, a subject
outside our scope of reference, are to be treated with caution. In contrast are those
treatises devoted to language comparison and no more, i.e. Risla and Kitb al-
Muwzana. These contain, almost exclusively, explicit comparisons (see previous
note). Bible translations form a literary category of their own. In them, Arabic cog-
4.1 Zero term
The entity that might be designated zero term in comparisons,

denoting the absence of any feature identifying it as comparison, was
an intrinsic component in the comparative science of the Hebrew
grammarians and was an integral part of the array of technical terms
employed by them. In comparisons with Aramaic, the term zero
denitely implies a comparison. For example, in entry lhm, David
b. Abraham states:
amlab htwq [afqna yn[y amlab [wfqm bar (Isa. 1:22) ymb lwhm abs
. (see Targum to Exod. 4: 25) ajlwhm atkla amsy ld mw
On the surface, the term used by the grammarians to denote com-
parison of Hebrew with Aramaic seems redundant and its inclusion
would seem to be nothing more than a stereotyped expression; for
example the term ynayrslabw turns the comparison into an explicit
comparison, whereas if this term were dispensed with, the nature of
the comparison would in no way be impaired and such a record
would retain its status as an explicit comparison, because the text
following wnayrslabw, even disregarding the term, cannot be read as
anything except Aramaic. Why then should a corresponding Heb./
Arab. comparison record be denied the standing of an implicit com-
parison merely because it lacks the technical term ybr[lab or the
like? Is it not self-explanatory that what is involved is Arabic?!
4.2 Integrated comparisons with explicit and implicit components
R. Jonah b. Jan records three-way comparisons of cognates accord-

ing to the Heb./Aram./Arab. formula, in which the Heb./Arab. ele-
ment of comparison is non-explicit but in which the phraseology of
the Heb./Aram. comparison element, which is itself explicit, serves
as grounds for determining that the former element also possesses
the status of explicit comparison. A formulation of this nature is
nates are particularly problematic, in that there is always the possibility that the
translator produced the rendering in an unsophisticated manner; in any case, they
cannot be granted the status of implicit comparisons encountered in lexicons and
Bible commentaries.
84 chapter four
found in the comparison -lbq/-lbql/hlabq (624/439); the gram-

marian rst compares with Arab. as an implicit comparison and then,
compares with Aram. as follows: ynayrsll axya snagm fplla adhw.
It is probable that the word axya is intended to imply the inclusion
of the Aram. element in the comparison, apart from the aforemen-
tioned Arab. comparison element, in which case the phrasing adopted
in the second clause throws light on the ambiguous non-explicit
phrasing in the rst clause.
4.3 Implicit comparison in one place converted elsewhere into explicit
The Hebrew grammarians who compiled lexicons or Bible com-

mentaries generally adduced comparisons in accord with the needs
of each respective entry. Alfsi, however, compiled excursuses of
comparison lists, including those having no direct relevance to the
entry at hand (see Tn, 1983, p. 240 and n. 8). The comparison
records in the several lists were intended to serve as evidence for
several aspects of comparison theory as well as for illustration (below,
5.3.5.2). This form of collection is thus representative of merely a
minute part of the totality of comparisons scattered in the lexical
entries. An investigation of the relationship between the scattered
comparisons on the one hand and those in the above-mentioned lists
on the other is extremely instructive for dealing with the question
presently under discussion. In Jmi' al-"Alf I noted thirty instances
of comparison (enumerated below, 9.5.5), each of which is an implicit
comparison in its respective entry but recorded by Alfsi in the excur-
suses, thus giving them the status of explicit comparisons. It might
be concluded that what holds for one portion of the implicit com-
parisons (for the said 30 cases) holds for all the implicit comparisons.
R. Jonah ibn Jan does not record excursuses of comparison lists
in any of his works (the majority of the Hebrew grammarians like-
wise). For this reason, it was not possible to check out Ibn Jans
implicit comparisons in the way possible for Alfsis. Nevertheless
there are a few comparisons in "Ul, that, as separate entries, are
implicit comparisons but that when mentioned incidentally elsewhere
(i.e. outside the framework of their entries) are labeled as explicit
comparisons. For example, hyj (2 Sam. 23:11)/yj is recorded in its
own entry in "Ul (p. 221) merely as an implicit comparison, whereas
in the entry hwj (p. 214) it is labeled as an explicit comparison; and

in the entry xm (p. 386) Ibn Jan recorded the comparison m/m
merely as an implicit comparison4 whereas in the entry ym (p. 373)
the same comparison with the same biblical quotation is recorded
as an explicit comparison.
4.4 Implicit comparison by one scholar converted into explicit

by a subsequent one
On occasion, the Hebrew grammarians relate to implicit comparisons

of their forebears as real comparisons. For example, the copyists of
Jmi' al-"Alf (as well as those who abridged this work), who may
in part have been Alfsis disciples or disciples of his disciples, con-
verted some of Alfsis implicit comparisons into explicit ones (below,
9.10.2). It is not impossible that these copyists relied on some oral
teachings they had received, directly or indirectly, from their men-
tor. Ibn Bal'am also (Poznanski 1916, p. 468) converted a few implicit
comparisons of Ibn Jan into explicit ones, e.g., hqm (p. 650) and
twkb (p. 698). The practice of R. Sa'adiahs commentators and crit-
ics is a dierent and problematic matter. In a case where a com-
mentator or critic comments on R. Sa'adiah Ga"ons adoption of a
given comparison, it is a moot point whether this is to be taken as
an individual interpretation of the plain data in Sa'adiahs Tafsr or
a reaction to the original argumentation of Sa'adiah, which was in
fact stated in his commentary but has failed to survive for our perusal.
The textual condition of Sa'adiahs Tafsr and of the appended com-
mentary in particular, of which only a meager quantity has survived,
does not suce to resolve this problem. The Retorts to R. Sa'adiah
Ga"on, which are generally attributed to Dunash, are by and large
based on explicit dicta of Sa'adiah in his commentary. For example,
Retorts ## 26, 27, 48, 55 are founded on Sa'adiahs commentary
appended to his translation of the respective passages, while Retort
# 45 is founded on Sa'adiahs Kitb al-Sab'n Lafa al-Mufrada (ed.
Allony, entry 90). But meantime it cannot be ascertained whether
Ibn Bal'ams critical remarks on Sa'adiahs Tafsr in his commentary
4
The text as based on the emendation of Bacher, ZDMG 1884, p. 621.
86 chapter four
to Num. 7:84; 11:8, 31; 14:44 etc. (see Fuchs 1893) relate to express
statements of Sa'adiah in his commentary or whether they are Ibn
Bal'ams own interpretation of Sa'adiahs Tafsr.5
4.5 Sequence of several words translated by their Arabic cognates
In certain cases the Hebrew grammarians render two or three (or

more) consecutive words of a given quotation by means of their own
Arabic cognates. For example, Alfsi translates drwf ld (Prov. 27:15)
drfm ld,6 and ayh db rbh pn (Lev. 17:11) he translates spn
yh dlab rbla (entry d, p. 386) and likewise in many other
instances. For renderings of this type it would indeed seem far-fetched
to postulate that the translations here, too, are merely unintentional
and the translator was totally unaware that the Arabic wording
adopted in his translation is linguistically cognate with the phrase in
the source text (it being irrelevant whether the rendering is his own
or borrowed from others). If it were merely an isolated word ren-
dered by a cognate, this indeed might be a coincidence but for a
phrase of two words, and it goes without saying for a phrase of
three, four or more words, a rendering by means of a cognate could
not have been produced coincidentally or casually. In these cases,
despite the non-appearance of a comparison term, we have no right
to set them aside; we are obliged to arm that they indeed consti-
tute language comparison.
4.6 Hebrew synonyms and their Arabic synonym equivalents
In the biblical lexicon, many words can be found that share close
semantic anity, i.e. possess jointly several common semantic fea-
tures, thus showing partial synonymity. The method adopted by the
Hebrew grammarians for biblical synonyms is extremely instructive
for the issue under discussion here. Out of several synonymic entry
5
Dunashs interpretation of the expression w[mmk as used by Menaem, as sup-
posedly, signifying a Heb./Arab. comparison, is here irrelevant. See below, ch. 10.1.
6
See Tn, 1983, n. 35 and below, 9.12.2.3, concerning the rendering of Salmon
b.Yeruim for Ps. 65:5.
words, R. Jonah b. Jan and Alfsi choose a cognate for only one
Hebrew entry that entry whose cognate is precisely suitable; they fail
to record it for any other entry, even where the same translation
synonym would serve very satisfactorily as a non-cognate. I shall
now exemplify this practice as applied in entries that those two
Hebrew grammarians, each according to his methods, would view
as synonym entities.
4.6.1 David b. Abraham Alfsi 7

The entry word ata (p. 168) is rendered three times by Arab. yta.
At the end of the entry Alfsi records the non-cognate ag, too; how-
ever, at entry word ab (pp. 17884) it is remarkable that this entry
word is rendered seven times by ag and not even once by yta. In
other words, a cognate rendering is resorted to when and only when,
a comparison is relevant; and though this is no more than an implicit
comparison, the use of a cognate where it is most suitable cannot
be treated as a uke.
For the entry word t[ two, dierent translation synonyms apply
and are used: tqw and amz; but at entry mz (p. 490), amz alone is
used, as an explicit comparison, whereas tqw, though applicable as
a non-cognate translation synonyms, does not appear. Alfsi, then,
clearly gave prominence to etymological equivalence.
In the entry wg (p. 309), three words appear as denition: the cog-
nate synonym awg and the two non-cognates fsw and wg; at entry
wt (p. 728), awg is not recorded, the only deniendum being fsw.
At rdg (p. 304) Alfsi states explicitly that the entry is synony-
mous with ltwk and ryq; it is indeed remarkable that he employs
radg as a cognate translation for rdg, alongside the non-cognate
fyaj. For ryq, however, he employs the renderings fyaj and rws
only (ibid., p. 551) but not radg (the word ltwk he omits entirely,
at its appropriate position in the lexicon).
At by he records the cognate sby as well as the non-cognate pg;
at the entry of the synonym brj (p. 582), however, he registers pg
alone.
At hma (p. 113) he adduces the cognate hma, while at hjp; (p. 696)
he records hyrag alone.
7
On questions related to this topic, see also Maman 1992.
88 chapter four
hmda (p. 34) is rendered by the cognate hmda as well as by the

non-cognate ra; at its synonym ra (p. 154), however, ra alone
is used and no mention of hmda is made.
At rfn (p. 267) he employs the cognate tr. rfn, whereas at rm
(p. 684) he records the non-cognates fpj, srj, lbq and zrtja,
excluding rfn.
y is rendered with the cognate sw as well as with the non-cognate
an; however, at wn (p. 275) an alone appears (twice).
At (yypk+) qps (p. 344) only the cognate qpx is employed; at the
entry of the synonym (k+) ajm (p. 197), however, he records brx
only and not qps.
At ry (p. 71) the rendering is by the cognate rw as well as by
the non-cognate kp,8 whereas at djp (p. 456) only dkp is employed
and not rw.
Many additional illustrative examples9 could be provided for this
grammarians practice but the examples cited above are sucient
for setting a fairly clear picture.
4.6.2 R. Jonah ibn Jan

The scope for examining the rendering of each and every synonym
entered in "Ul is far more restricted than in Jmi' al-"Alf, because
a synonym pertaining to one of the weak word patterns is left
undened by Ibn Jan, who nds it sucient merely to provide a
reference to his minor treatises or to the works of ayyj. Likewise,
a synonym labeled by Ibn Jan wr[m (= well-known) or left with-
out any denition prevents us from systematically checking how Ibn
Jan rendered sundry Hebrew synonyms. For example, in the case
of (k) qps (p. 491) Ibn Jan employed qpx (cognate) together with
brx, whereas at ajm (p. 370) there appears merely a reference to
the works of ayyj. At qz[ (p. 516) he uses the renderings qz[ as
well as rpj, while at the synonymous rpj (p. 241), he merely notes
wr[m and at yet another synonym, hrk (p. 331) he simply refers to
ayyjs Kitb al-Af 'l Dhawt urf al-Ln. He renders the entry wra
(p. 68) as ara and twbat, whereas hbyt (p. 758) is left undened.
8
See the footnote of Skoss, ad loc.; Skoss fails to remark that this is merely a
vernacular form corresponding to the classical form dkp.
9
See e.g., the translations for the following synonyms a/fj; wb/db//ytp;
rzb/rzp; dwd/bha; zg/rb[/lj; z[/jk/x[/hrwbg.
Nonetheless, at the entries in which the synonyms are in fact ren-

dered, it is evident that his method is no dierent from that of Alfsi.
For example, the entry llgb (p. 135) is rendered with the cognate
lalg m and with the non-cognate lga m; at the entry of the synonym
[ml (p. 385), however, he records lga m alone (as well as amyk, for
another sense). At the entry trdjh (p. 212) he proposes the ren-
dering hnmkla ya hrdakla whereas at the synonym bra (p. 67) he
records merely mk. In hmj he adduces hymj as well as bxg, whereas
at s[k he records only bxg together with another (non-cognate) trans-
lation synonym but makes no mention of hymj.
4.6.3 Group A and Group B

In each of the above-mentioned examples we observe synonymous
Hebrew entry words (denoted Group A) versus their Arabic trans-
lation synonyms, these also being respectively synonyms (denoted
Group B). Prima facie, each and every deniens of Group B is
suitable and applicable for each and every denitum in Group A.
Take for example the cluster of synonymous denita qps and ajm.
Versus these, we observe the cluster of synonymous denientes qpx
and brx. How can we be sure that the lexicographer viewed the
entry words in each cluster as synonyms? Surely from the practice
he adopts in his denitions. If he adduces one deniens only, for
two denita, it is clear that he treated the two denita as synonyms
(e.g. in the given example, for both denita qps and ajm, the one
deniens brx is used). Likewise, if he adduces two dierent denientes
for one denitum, we can conclude with certainty that the two
denientes are synonyms in the eyes of the grammarian (for example
both Ibn Jan and Alfsi dened qps by qpx as well as by brx).
In instances in which the lexicographer had a choice of several
denientes, he may have made the choice casually or intentionally.
It is only by discerning some regularity amid the array of denientes
versus the denita that an indication can be found regarding the
method of choice and its motives. Denitions of the type qps-brx
and ajm-qpx express no sign of regularity. But the array qps-qpx and
ajm-brx leads us to deduce that preference was given to a cognate
deniens (for the denitum) when such was feasible.10 This criterion
10
When, however, only one Arabic deniens was available for the grammarian,
90 chapter four
clearly applies to the denitions hmda/hmda, hma/hma, rfn/rfn, ry/rw

rdg/radg, by/sby, and the like. They all have in common that the
deniens with its dinitum are cognate translation synonyms.
For the rest of the denita in each cluster, these of course being
synonyms, the lexicographer could nd no cognate and therefore
resorted to a non-cognate. But here also he had the option of choos-
ing one deniens from a cluster of non-cognates; the question remains
what criterion directed him in his preference of one non-cognate over
another. For instance, for the denitum ajm (synonymous with qps)
two possible denientes were available, qpx and brx; Alfsi used
brx. He likewise preferred to establish ryq/fyaj rather than ryq/radg;
hjp/hyrag rather than hjp/hma; ra/ra rather than ra/hmda,
etc. It is probable that the denientes actually chosen (i.e. brx, fyaj,
hyrag, ra) were viewed as words of common occurrence and thus
more lucid for purposes of denition than their respective synonyms
(qpx, radg, hma, hmda) which were regarded as rare and thus less
intelligible words (see 4.7).
4.7 Entries translated by both cognates and non-cognates
The denitions for entry words in Jmi' al-"Alf and "Ul include
a group of entries each showing two or more denientes for a given
entry word; one of these, generally the rst recorded, is a cognate
for the denitum, whereas the second is a non-cognate; of the two
or more syns. the cognate is liable to be less frequent, in the wider
context of linguistic usage,11 than the non-cognate. It seems proba-
ble that the deniens that is also a cognate is less intelligible (being
a rarer word) than the non-cognate. Therefore an additional deniens
is resorted to, i.e. a non-cognate. It is thus quite clear that the adduc-
tion of the cognate is not to be seen as a purely lexicographical
he had perforce to record it at each and every Hebrew synonymous entry. For
example, in Alfsis lexicon the entry words rfm (p. 202) and g (p. 353) are each
dened by rfm. Also hhg (p. 306) and hap (p. 443) are both dened by hhg. It
stands to reason that what are to be taken into account are those denientes that
are actually encountered in the lexicon of each respective grammarian, not the total
inventory of all possible denentes obtainable from the Arabic lexicons.
11
See lists of implicit comparisons, below, in paragraphs on the formulae Bib.
Heb./cognate + non-cognate translation synonym (9.8.1; 13.10.1); also appendix to
the present chapter (4.12).
requirement; because, as demonstrated, the lexicographer could have

been content well with the non-cognate. In other words, the use of
the cognate is neither coincidental nor an unsophisticated practice
of the translator; rather it appears in order to demonstrate the ety-
mological equivalence of the Hebrew denitum and its Arabic deniens,
although no express statement of such an intention appears. (It is
indeed quite irrelevant whether the cognate was produced at the ini-
tiative of the lexicographer or he borrowed it from a Bible transla-
tion available to him.) Thus, in instances of this category a non-explicit
comparison is indeed a genuine explicit language comparison!
I shall proceed to demonstrate this postulate. The entry word hmda
is rendered by the cognate hmda and also by the non-cognate xra
in Jmi' al-"Alf, (p. 34). It is possible that the choice of hmda as
denens for hmda was not founded on a genuine meaning of the
Arabic entry word but on an articial sense attributed to this Arabic
word by the Hebrew lexicographer (or by the translator).12 What is
beyond all doubt is that according to early Arabic lexicons, the word
hmda possesses no more than an approximate anity of meaning
with that of the Hebrew entry word, its meaning is posited as (1)
the crust of the ground, but generally the word pertains to the
semantic eld of (2) outer shell, skin. Ibn Barn also (Muwzana,
p. 28), when comparing hmda with hmda, states a restriction in the
sense of the latter: ahhgw yhw rala hmdal snagm. (The sequel to this
comment tends to indicate that this was meant as objective etymo-
logical argumentation, not as etymological comparison of entries pos-
sessing total or partial semantic correspondence.) The decisive datum
is as follows: A comparison of the total numbers of instances recorded
by the early Arabic lexicons for the two entry words hmda and ra
respectively, and on the basis of their relative frequency in the ad
(according to Wensincks Concordance, Leiden 193639), proves indu-
bitably that ra is more frequent than hmda (see below 4.12).
On the status of a cognate adjacent to which a non-cognate appears
within the same entry, it is of interest to follow up a certain denition
formula adopted by Ibn Jan in his lexicon. In the entry rqn (p. 454)
he states:
(Isa. 51:1) trqn rwx tbqm law . . . (1 Sam. 11:2) ymy y[ lk kl rwqnb
.[fqlaw rpjla wh rqnlaw
12
See below 9.12.1.3; Ben-Shammai, 1978, p. 296.
92 chapter four
By opening his denition with the phrase rqnlaw and omitting the
prefatory phraseology that might have been expected (see below),
the grammarian implies that the comparative identication of rqn/rqn
is so obvious that its explicit mention would be redundant. This
comparative equivalence is axiomatic for his statement of denition;
for the thought of the author is: What must be expressed further,
after considering the self-explanatory equation of rqn (Heb.) and rqn
(Arab.), is merely reasoning and grounds for the said etymological
equation. The formula, in full, applicable to this type of denition
is as follows:
Bib. Heb. equals Arab. cognate and this cognate equals non-cognate
translation synonyms.
This formula is encountered in several entries, among them f[b
(p. 100):
. . . lhgla yp wlgla wh fa[balaw f[bap ms f[byw rwy myw
likewise in lm (p. 395):
. . . jspn tydjla wh ltmlaw ltm . . . hxylmw lm
at [wbm (p. 402):
. . . y[la wh [wbnylaw [wbnyla yl[ [wbmh l[
etc.
Now, both aforementioned formulae, the unabridged and the
abridged, are to be found in cases of denition associated with explicit
comparison. It cannot be assumed that the use of the very same for-
mula did not imply that the grammarian had in mind the same aims
in the case in point, the aim of comparison, no matter whether this
be explicit or implicit. A similar case is to be noted at entry rwbk
(p. 325) at which Ibn Jan records two Bible quotations and, imme-
diately, leaving no indication of his omitting the deniens, deals with
the implied deniens. Hence the statement
. . . dw[la laqyw dla laqyw, rwbnfla br[la dn[ ranklaw
Thus in R. Jonahs eyes the use of an Arabic cognate13 as the
deniens, for dening the given entry word (considering it a term of
13
For the instance ad loc. at issue, Arabic language traditions show disagreement
realia) was quite natural. The phrasing . . . ranklaw . . . rwnk makes sense
only on the assumption that Ibn Jan presents the self-explanatory
equation as a citation from some existing Bible translation, or that
he opines the simplest way of dening a biblical term to be by an
Arabic cognate (that is, of course, if he has available a suitable equiv-
alent and the conditions stipulated in the previous chapters are met).
The possibility of this being a citation nds next to no support from
the surviving fragments of Sa'adiahs Tafsr, since Sa'adiah renders
the entry word rwbnf (4 times), ratyq (5 times), gnx (once), dw[ (twice)
(according to Alloni, HaEgron, p. 241), whereas the rendering rank
is undocumented. (My own check of the translations of the Karaites
Salmon b. Yeruim and Japhet for the 13 occurrences of rwnk in
the Book of Psalms revealed not even one case of rank). It is there-
fore probable that the second assumption is the correct one: a cog-
nate is used as deniens, just because it shows etymological equivalence
with its denitum, this, then, being an implicit comparison.
4.8 The location of the cognate when accompanied by synonyms
An examination of the location of the cognate when accompanied

by synonyms leads to the following results:14
The Arabic cognate stands out as initial deniens, whereas the
synonyms of that cognate (that are themselves non-cognates qua the
Hebrew entry word) are placed following it in second, third, etc posi-
tions. This very practice of placing the cognate translation synonym
in direct juxtaposition to the Heb. entry word gives prominence to
as to the sense of the given cognate, three dierent equivalents being suggested (see
e.g. al-munjid lexicon). Despite this, Ibn Jan had no qualms about recording it for
determining the sense of the Hebrew expression.
14
Sometimes R. Jonah records several consecutive quotes to illustrate dierent
entry words pertaining to the same root; but instead of writing their respective
denitions adjacently, he sets out at the end a series of several consecutive denientes,
without stating which deniens relates to which quotation. For example, at root
db[ (p. 497) he records various entry words (within quotations) with no statement of
denition, while at the end he sums up: hjalpw hdab[w adktsaw hmdk [ymgla yn[m.
Prima facie, the additional three denientes would appear to be synonyms of hdab[,
which is itself a cognate for db[. But in fact there is no synonymity at all; rather
each deniens relates to one specic quote and thus to one specic sense, e.g. hdab[
pertains to the verse l[bh ta db[ (2 Kings 10:18), hjalp to hmda db[ (Gen. 4:2),
and so on. Similarly, only after enumerating his entry quotes for hp does Ibn
Jan set out their denitions: hyajw hp, which are clearly not synonyms!
94 chapter four
the etymological anity between the denitum and its (rst) deniens
as well as the motive of xing that meaning for the entry word that
nds expression in the subsequent denientes, which are non-cog-
nates. At any rate, the systematic placement of a cognate in direct
adjacency to the denitum is certainly indicative of real language
comparison. It is quite rare that the cognate is located second in
position to the entry word. Examples (in "Ul ): At qz (p. 201), a
non-cognate hyjl was recorded as rst deniens, being merely fol-
lowed by the cognate qd. (However, the latter is a textual addition,
appearing only in MS O (Neubauer places it in parentheses); it is
probable that here Ibn Jan did not resort to a cognate at all. At
ddwmth (p. 364), lwaft appears rst and only after it the cognate
dtma. At bq[ (p. 543) b[x and r[w are registered rst and only after
them, the cognate hbq[. At dqpth (p. 580) dh[t appears rst and
only after it the cognate dqpt. At lhx (p. 600) tawxla [pr precedes
the cognate lyhx. At ydqh (p. 625) adtba and hylza precede dqt.
At dxq (p. 643) qyx is given precedence over rxq, most probably
because verbs in the sense of qyx were also entered rst (e.g. [xmh rxq;
Isa. 28:3); in this sense, these may not have been considered real
synonyms. At brq (p. 647) wnd is placed before cognate brq. At yar
(p. 658) rabk rahna is placed before cognate swar. At [r (p. 684)
barfxa is given precedence over a[tra. These exceptions, however,
are a tiny minority. Of the total of 113 comparisons in this cate-
gory in "Ul, a cognate is placed in initial position in 103 of them
(i.e. 92 percent). Furthermore, even in the 10 exceptional instances
in which a non-cognate is placed initially, it is quite clear that the
ensuing cognate is recorded for comparison purposes. Is it not rea-
sonable to posit that the grammarian, having already registered the
frequent deniens, that is a non-cognate, and thus fullled his lexi-
cographic duty, appended a cognate also (which by and large is a
rarer word) for purposes of etymological comparison?
4.9 The choice between a cognate and a non-cognate
It can be postulated that when a lexicographer or a translator/exegete

was about to render a Bib. Heb. entry, he had a translational choice.
With regard to the issue presently being dealt with, his choice was
between a cognate and a non-cognate. When the works of Alfsi
and Ibn Jan are investigated with regard to the translation sources
available to them (below, 9.12; 13.20), it transpires that occasionally
they preferred a cognate to a non-cognate. For example, R. Jonah

rendered ry[ (arp; Job 11:12) by the cognate ry[ (p. 521), in spite
of the fact that in Sa'adiahs Tafsr this entry word is translated by
the non-cognate jg and likewise in the case of rwnk/rank as men-
tioned above (4.7).
4.10 Entries translated only by cognates
In the list of Heb./Arab. implicit comparisons, there are a certain

number of items for which the lexicographers record one Arabic deniens
only, no matter whether it appears only once in the entry or is of
repeated occurrence. Some 50 percent of the denientes in this group
are items in the list of basic vocabulary items of the Hebrew and
Arabic languages. Here follow several examples, culled from Jmi'
al-"Alf:
Words pertaining to the area of natural phenomena: ym/ams;
drb/drb; rfm/rfm; wy/wy; br[/brg; [/hyy[; rj/rjs.
Words pertaining to the area of realiaanimal: lY:a'/lya; rn/rsn;
of realiavegetable: zra,/zra; jy/jy; w/w; awq/atq; wmr/hnamr;
jwpt/hjapt; w/asws.
Words pertaining to parts of the body: fj/fk; crk/rk; wl/asl;
y[m/a[m; y[/y[; x[/f[; djp/dkp; ar/sar; lgr/lgr; jr/jr.
Words pertaining to names of family relatives: ba/ba; yn/asn;
ymwat/wt.
Words pertaining to terms for material culture and nomenclature
for basic foodstus: hxyb/hxyb; rg/yrg; rb/rb.
Words denoting clothing: l[n/l[n.
Words denoting substances and names of occupations connected
with livelihood: rab/ryb; hkreb/hkrb; rq b O /raqb; h[ Or/y[ar; [rz/
[rz; rj/trj; jf/jf; fql/fql; rd[/rd[; dyx/dax; hq/yqs;
lyk/lyk; ddm/dm; lq/lqt; rfn/rfn; wn/an; jl/jl (in sense of
war); hb/ybs.
Words pertaining to the areas of humanities and spiritual culture,
denoting faith, religion and worship: hnwma/hnama; dq/sdq.
The numeral substantives: la/la; mj/smk; wr[/r[; ty[ybr/
[br; yyl/tlat; hnm/hynamt.
To sum up: Of the 191 items belonging to the category implicit
comparisons recorded twice or more in the work of Alfsi, roughly
90 are basic lexical items, about 48 percent. The list of implicit
96 chapter four
comparisons of single occurrence is no dierent in nature. The com-

mon factor in the two lists is the non-appearance of synonyms for
the denientes in their entries. This is not surprising, for basic lex-
ical Items and especially terms for realia possess the most restricted
and meticulous sense content attainable in language. From the stand-
point of language comparison, how are we to relate to the record-
ing of these translation synonyms? On the one hand it is only natural
and even essential to record them; considering that it was the con-
cern of the grammarian to record some deniens to serve as translation
synonyms for the given entry, in the above-mentioned cases this was
bound to be a cognate, no alternative deniens was available. The
question remaining, is whether these denientes (that are cognate)
have a unique standing, in that they possess a special quality absent
from non-cognates (as, for instance, bytn/hks; qyrf (p. 295); jtn/wx[
(ibid.); and similar comparisons). In both these categories, the cog-
nate as well as the non-cognate, their use is merely as translation
synonyms, whose adduction is the prime purpose of the lexicon. The
conclusion is that if the two categories are, for the given sector of
entries, considered of equal standing, there is no basis for the claim
that the adduction of cognate rather than non-cognate translation syn-
onyms constitutes language comparison; indeed, this may be no more
than simply a technique of translation.
On the other hand, granted that the cognate recorded is natural
or essential, such as to exclude any other synonym and further con-
sidering that this translation synonym is a basic vocabulary item, it
would be far-fetched to postulate that the author was not aware of
the phenomenon of basic vocabulary equivalence between the two
languages. If the Hebrew grammarians could regularly establish com-
parisons between cognate Hebrew and Arabic synonyms in the case
of words of rare occurrence in the Bible, how can it be postulated that
for the frequent, basic vocabulary items so common in both lan-
guages, he did not think of registering such linguistic comparison, as
for example ba/ba; y[/y[, and the like (these being even graphi-
cally identical, according to their spelling in Hebrew characters!)?
How much more so, when the deniens is reiterated time and
again in the text of the entry: the very fact that the deniendum
and the deniens, cognate as they are, recur several times in one
entry (when several examples of the Bib. Heb. are under discussion)
precludes the likelihood that the phenomenon is random, that the
author did not pay attention to what he had written. A good illus-
tration: the parallel placement of the entry words p/ps appears
seven times consecutively, in instances adduced in entry p (p. 698).
Is it feasible that the translator did not pay attention to the pho-
netic similarity, echoing in his ears throughout the sevenfold itera-
tion of the pair and thus to the etymological aspect of the bond
between the Hebrew and Arabic words? The reiteration of the Bib.
Heb. itself, with its cognate placed adjacently, is indicative of lan-
guage comparison. This is also the case in the work of Ibn Jan
(in implicit comparisons reiterated).
4.11 Summary
The upshot of the above-mentioned arguments is that it is proba-

ble, even very likely, that what I have termed non-explicit com-
parisons are indeed real comparisons and cannot be dismissed as
though they are not instances of language comparison. But as for
their formal presentation, they are not to be amalgamated within
the same framework as of explicit comparisons; such a step would
in eect disallow the option reserved for the assumption of an occa-
sional or isolated non-explicit comparison, in which the grammar-
ian had no inkling of a comparison or was not concerned to recognize
such.15 In such an occasional instance, it seems reasonable to pre-
sume that the grammarian recorded the Arabic entry word, seen by
us as etymologically cognate and semantically equivalent to the given
Hebrew entry word, merely as a matter of unintentional translation,
his intention being to render the entry by the most suitable trans-
lation synonym, rather than by its etymological equivalence to the
Bib. Heb. and its translation synonym. The pitfall of anachronism,
the imposition of present knowledge on the science of the Hebrew
grammarians, regarding some comparisons, should also be avoided.
It is therefore imperative that a clear-cut boundary be drawn between
comparisons expressly named as such by the grammarians and those
that are not spelled out verbatim but emerge from an allusion or
15
For example, in entry m Alfsi ve times renders by hmwsd and only once,
by the cognate ms.
98 chapter four
some other external parameter. Provided all the necessary precautions

are followed, the above-mentioned arguments favor the treatment of
non-explicit comparisons as real linguistic comparisons.
4.12 Appendix to 4.7 (above)
An attempt was made to ascertain the credibility of the claim that

in a category in which appear two or more denientes, of which
one is a cognate, in Classical Arabic itself the frequency of the given
cognate is lower than that of the corresponding non-cognate. Despite
consultation with specialist scholars, it has not yet been possible to
locate suitable studies on lexical frequency in classical Arabic and
certainly no such study on lexical frequency in Judeo-Arabic of the
epoch under discussion.16 Furthermore, there is an insuciency of
concordances to texts pertaining to sundry elds current in the period
applicable to the stock of vocabulary encountered in lexicographical
denitions of Alfsi.17 Meanwhile, I have perforce resorted to a single
method, although indirect, of seeking a solution to this problem,
through the Concordance to ad.18 Although the lexical stock in
ad is generally too restricted for our issue, it does contain a fairly
general scope of vocabulary, although partial, used in ordinary prose.
16
Even in modern Arabic, there exists only one study on this topic and it describes
word frequency in journalese. I refer to M. Brills scholarly monograph twlm rxwa
tybr[h tymwyh twnwt[b dwsyh (= the inventory of basic vocabulary in the Arabic daily
press), Tarbiz, XI, pp. 17687. This study has of course no relevance to the pre-
sent problem.
17
An inspection based on G. Troupeau (Paris 1976) has shown clearly that Lexique
Index du Kitb de Sibawayhi is of no use in this matter, because the lexical stock in
this work comprises mainly grammatical terms or words used to exemplify gram-
matical phenomena. The major part of the inventory of words of that category in
non-cognate tr. syns occurring as denitions as used by Alfsi, as well as practi-
cally all the the inventory of cognates is undocumented in Troupeaus concordance.
The Concordance to the Qur"n is also unsuitable for our purposes, the vocabulary of
the Qur"n being far too specic, apart from its language not being that of ordi-
nary prose.
18
Wensinck, Concordance de la Tradition Musulmane, 193639. Even in works on the
inventory of rare words in Arabic, such as kitb al-nawdir li-"abi masal al-"i'rbiy no
solution to our problem is forthcoming, because the latter works are concerned pri-
marily with rare morphological types for frequent and well-known words, rather
than with issues and problems such as those with which we are here concerned.
An inspection of the Concordance to ad led to the following

results:
In approximately one-half of the pairs of synonymous denientes
(of mutual synonymity), the frequency ratio accords with what has
been postulated, namely, that a cognate entry word appearing in
Alfsis denitions is rare or not encountered at all in ad, whereas
its non-cognate counterpart is common in ad. In a total of 33
pairs of denientes pertaining to the relevant category, the cognate
member is entirely undocumented in ad, whereas each respec-
tive counterpart, that is a non-cognate for Alfsi, appears dozens of
times. The following are examples of the type that are for Alfsi
cognates: hmda, r[ba, drg, frk, lbs, zwl, ysamt, hrt[, the frequently
occurring non-cognate counterparts being: ra, byys, Kj, fk, smg,
lwz, bad, akd.
But the remaining half of the material does not bear out the pos-
tulation. The cognate/non-cognate frequency ratio is about equal in
ad; about 6 percent of the entry words of both members in the
category are entirely absent from ad. For this sector it is very
likely that the second deniens, the non-cognate, was adduced by
Alfsi not on account of the Arabic lexical rarity of the cognate ini-
tially adduced but on the basis of some other pattern of entry struc-
ture that did not take into account the linguistic frequency of a
deniens but merely adopted the lexicographic habit of recording
several alternative denientes for the convenience of the reader.
CHAPTER FIVE
THE AIMS OF LANGUAGE COMPARISON
5.1 Typology of the linguistic works
5.1.1 The aims of comparison in works devoted specically to

comparative philology
The comparison aims in the Risla have already been discussed
(Becker, 1984, pp. 1820). Therefore in the present context, I shall
relate only to a collation of Ibn Qurayshs comparison aims with
those of Ibn Barn in his Kitb al-Muwzana. Beginning with the
assumption that no work typologically comparable to Risla preceded
this work, it is possible to claim that R. Judah ibn Quraysh suc-
ceeded in two respects: (1) in summing up comparative philology theory
to the extent that this had taken shape by his time and according
to the degree of its inclusion in the biblical exegetical literature or
as transmitted orally; (2) in forging a new path in Hebrew language
science, namely to determine the general principles of Heb./Aram./
Arab. comparative philology and to test them, this in itself being a
novel contribution to scholarship. Thus the comparison materials
ought to be considered illustrative rather than exhaustive.
The Kitb al-Muwzana, however, was produced after 200 years
pursuit of comparison of these languages, its main concern being an
exhaustive assembly of language comparison materials as well as a
survey of the theory of comparison of Hebrew with Arabic (Ibn
Barn entered comparisons with Aramaic only in rare cases). While
there are several novel contributions to be found in the work, it is
essentially a compendium. The same typology is applicable in deter-
mining the nature of the excursuses in Dunashs Retorts against
Menaem as well as those in Alfsis lexicon. These latter, which
are each a miniature work within a major work, are of the same
type as the Risla, in that they are only illustrative: they discuss the
fundamental aspects of language comparison in a general manner,
without purporting to exhaust the theory and methodology of the
subject.
the aims of language comparison 101
5.1.2 The aim of language comparison in the lexicons

The Bible lexicons produced by Alfsi, Menaem, and R. Jonah Ibn
Jan are not works devoted specically to the subject of language
comparison. Thus it cannot be posited that these were initially writ-
ten for the purpose of comparative philology whether with the aim
of establishing some theory in the area of language comparison or
providing evidence for the ecacy of comparisons for Bible exegesis
or for the study of the Hebrew language in general. Moreover, con-
sidering that these lexicons were not written for the sake of language
comparison, it is quite tenable to argue that all the comparisons pro-
vided by their authors in the respective lexicon entries are subject
to one single purpose, the elucidation of the inventory of the biblical
vocabulary. In point of fact, however, in the lexicons, at least in
Jmi' al-"Alf and Kitb al-"Ul, there denitely can be found sev-
eral comparisons recorded for their own sake, so that within this
limited scope, a similarity can be noted between Jmi' and "Ul on
the one hand and the Risla on the other. The Risla was initially
planned with the aim of language comparison. Nonetheless, as Becker
(1984, p. 29) has shown, some of its chapters are structured like a
lexicon and thus incorporate some comparisons recorded with other
objectives. In contrast, the situation in the aforementioned lexicons
is reversed: their primary objective was to produce a lexicon to the
Bible. Nevertheless, comparisons established for their own sake can
occasionally be encountered within them.
5.1.3 The aim of comparative philology as reected in polemical writings

In one respect the polemical writings of Dunash, Dunashs disciple,
and Menaems disciples are similar to the Risla. These works, like
the latter, tend to discuss fundamental matters bearing upon lan-
guage comparison. The essentials of the issue are: (1) Is language
comparison permissible? and (2) under circumstances where it is per-
missible, within what restrictions can it be practised (see above 2.1)?
5.1.4 The aim of comparative philology in Bible commentaries

Language comparison in biblical exegetical works, as portrayed in
the materials assembled by Fuchs (1893), Poznanski (1895, 1916),
and Perez (1978), culled as it is from the commentaries of Ibn Bal'am
102 chapter five
and Ibn Gikatilla, is merely an activity subordinated to exegesis; its

objective is merely to clarify the sense of the biblical entry word at
its given occurrence. The comparisons encountered in the explana-
tory comments appended to R. Sa'adiah Ga"ons Bible translation
are largely aimed at providing grounds for the translation he is under-
taking, for a single biblical word or a word combination. The com-
parisons to be found in Ab al-Farajs Bible translation also belong
to this category (see Poznanski, 1896).
5.2 The aims of comparison as promulgated by the authors
Certain Hebrew grammarians living in the tenth and eleventh cen-

turies propagated their intention to compare Hebrew with Arabic or
Aramaic and even provided a rationale, usually in the prefaces to
their works, for their decision to practise language comparison. The
essentials of these preliminary announcements have been discussed
above, in the chapter devoted to the fundamental of comparison
(above, 2.1; 2.2). We are here concerned with an analysis of one of
R. Jonah ibn Jans proclamatory statements, reiterated time and
again in sundry locations in his works. An example follows: the
proclamation as stated in Riqmah, pp. 23536:
wtlwzbw hz yrpsb twnwlb tw[dw br[h yrbd aybm yna yk yl[ bwjt law
ytwph twarhl a ,hyghnmw yrb[h tw[db yrbd hb qyzjhl <yrpsm>
m ymwr[ hw y[dwy h yk mx[b yrwbs h ra ,ymkjtmh m tlwzw
.twnwlh m htlwzb g kty tyrb[h wlb kty rmwa ra hz yk ,t[dh
(= . . . But do not accuse me (lit: attribute to, think of me) that my
adducing, in this work and in other works of mine, [of ] the Arabs
wording as well as [of] their thoughts concerning their languages is
[meant] for the corroboration of my stated opinions of the Hebrew
conceptions and practices. [This is certainly not the case,] rather
[my aim is] to put right ignoramuses and such like, as well as indi-
viduals who make out that they are wise, indeed are convinced that
they know but [as I show,] are verily lacking any knowledge: let me
enunciate my position unambiguously: [By employing language com-
parison] I wish to imply that what is feasible in the Hebrew lan-
guage is indeed feasible in other languages.)
The gist of the above is additionally enunciated elsewhere, by Ibn
Jan (Kitb al-Mustalaq, pp. 14041, pp. 18182; "Ul, entries lbg,
p. 122 and wg, pp. 12930; Riqmah p. 24). Ibn Jan would hereby
convey that Hebrew, as a language, is not imperfect, either quali-
tatively or quantitatively; it is independent and capable of being elu-
cidated internally. Language comparisons were intended to do no
more than demonstrate that the characteristics of the Hebrew lan-
guage, rather than existing in isolation, are paralleled in other lan-
guages. The upshot is clearly that in his eyes language comparison
is for its own sake and not merely for the purpose of explicating
lexicographical entries or rationalizing sundry grammatical features.
As it happens, other enunciations and comparison practice encountered
in Ibn Jans works draw a totally dierent picture. In the rst
place, the above quoted statement may at most be applicable to
comparisons of general grammatical traits but is inapplicable to lex-
icological comparisons. For example, regarding the entry word ynypwt
(p. 768) R. Jonah states: batkla m ,hfplla yn[m yl[ anl lyld alw
(in Ibn Tibbons translation: arqmh m hlmh yn[ l[ hyar wnl yaw (=
we possess no evidence of the meaning of the word, from the Bible
itself ). This is doubtless the rationale for etymological and semantic
extra-biblical research resorted to, specically in rabbinic source texts
and through comparison with Arabic. Here, as in the greater part
of the lexical comparisons, the statement that the comparison was
intended merely to demonstrate that what is feasible in Hebrew is
feasible outside Hebrew also cannot be borne out; for in this instance
nothing at all is feasible/applicable (i.e. no interpretation for the entry
word is possible) without resorting to Arabic. Thus comparison is
here an essential procedure, not a secondary or trivial matter.
In cases of grammatical comparisons, too, there are some instances
where a comparison is of a functional nature, serving to establish
norms for Hebrew, and not merely to provide a raison-dtre for
Hebrew usage. A prominent category of such is the kind of com-
parison with Arabic applied by Ibn Jan for a conclusive determi-
nation of the Hebrew root of several entry words. An example is
the verb wttwht (Ps. 62:4), which is a hapax legomenon. ayyj had
been uncertain as to its grammatical parsing and had proposed one
of two alternative roots: (1) twh, i.e. of the medial yod pattern, whose
conjugation is in the manner of the [[ category (as ttwml from twm)
or (2) tth of the [[ pattern. ayyj had not come to a conclusion
on the matter, but R. Jonah decides in favor of second alternative,
arguing that this reects the correct parsing; his reasoning is: ynal
th ybr[la fpllab hhba (= for I compare it with the Arabic root
104 chapter five
h-t; p. 181). Were it not for the fact that Arabic serves as evidence
for Hebrew, no decision could be arrived at regarding the two alter-
natives set by ayyj. Furthermore, the above-quoted claim is ten-
able with regard to Hebrew-versus-Arabic comparison of existing data
that are equivalent or parallel in the two languages. However, a
comparison in one language versus zero comparison in the other
runs counter to the said enunciation. For example, on p. 344 the
grammarian states that whereas the Hebrew language possesses the
substantive hnbel as well as the denominative verb bll, in Arabic a
cognate exists only for the noun, i.e. hnbl, whereas no such cognate
exists for the verb. When set out schematically, the comparison thus
reads: hnbel/bll//hnbl/. Here the axiomatic statement kty hm
htlwzb g kty tyrb[h wlb is untenable, because the comparison
demonstrates that an element present in Hebrew is lacking in the other
language.
It is therefore more or less certain that enunciations of the type
al ybr[h wlh m d[ wyl[ axmaw ytrkz hm d[ wyl[ axma al hmw . . .
. . . wb ywlgh m d[ aybhl [nma (= when I cannot nd any [internal,
intra-Hebrew] evidence for what I have recorded but am able to
adduce evidence from Arabic, I shall not refrain from recording such
proof, inasmuch as it is manifest) (Riqmah, p. 16) and the like, are
to be treated as decisive, whereas statements of the former type are
very restricted in their applicability; they were probably voiced for
tactical purposes only, i.e. to appease the opinions of skeptical peo-
ple or those unequivocably opposed to comparison with Arabic.
5.3 Aims of comparison according to the comparison formulae
5.3.1 Inevitable comparisons

In the lexicons of Alfsi and Menaem, are to be found language
comparisons that, rather than having been produced at the instigation
of the author, are inevitable products of the lexicographical method.
Because the system adopted makes for homophonic entries deriving
from Hebrew and from biblical Aramaic within one common arch-
entry. For this reason, it cannot be claimed that comparisons pertain-
ing to this type were recorded at the outset with a particular objective;
although it cannot be ruled out that here and there some objective
may be discernible. As far as we are concerned, these are largely an
automatic end-product of the lexicographical method and insofar as

they contain no additional linguistic comparative information, there
seems no reason to search for any hidden specic aims within them.
In comparisons with Arabic occurring in other lexicons, too, a certain
type can be discerned as inevitable, as also emanating from the lex-
icographical system; the lexicons of Alfsi and R. Jonah b. Jan are
each structured as a bilingual lexicon, setting out for each entry word
its Arabic translation synonym. The denitions appearing in them
comprise many entries, that are rendered by a cognate Arabic only,
appending neither a non cognate translation synonym nor a descrip-
tion for the entry. For these entries, it may well be that lexicogra-
phers could nd no additional deniens (in the form of a non-cognate).
The comparison transpiring from the presentation of the entry word
side by side with its cognate is therefore inevitable. In several instances
this fact can be deduced from the lexicographers method itself.
For example, the entry word hrwga is translated by Alfsi hrga
(p. 345); the entry word fwj by fyk (p. 526) and the entry word
jp by sp (p. 487) etc. It is probable that Alfsi had no alterna-
tive deniens available for these entry words, evident from the tr.
synonyms he proposes for their respective Hebrew synonyms: rk
(p. 325) is rendered by hrga (rk in Alfsis opinion is a synonym
for hrwga); lytp (p. 491) is fyk and f (p. 690) is rendered sp.
Similarly, both rp (p. 488) and rtp (p. 492) are rendered by rsp;
both ryx (p. 508) and dy (p. 41) by (babla) ryx; and rw (p. 658) as
well as hmwj (p. 527) by rws. It can therefore be posited, for these
instances at least and for the category hapax legomena implicit
comparisons or comparisons that seldom occur, that the compari-
son must be inevitable, considering that the lexicographical method
compelled the authors to adduce the cognate as a deniens, even
if their conscious intention was to maintain a linguistic comparison
between the cognate and the Hebrew (or Aramaic) entry word, or
they merely wished to elucidate the entry word. This fact can be
borne out for the three-way comparisons, too: the Heb./Aram./Arab.
comparisons such as [bxa/[bxa/[bxa (Alfsi, p. 141), g/g/g
(ibid. p. 353), rkz/rkd/rkd (ibid. p. 381), wgra/awgra/mgra (p. 150),
[wrz/[rd/[ard ([rd, p. 407), and the like.
To sum up: Because the comparison in the above-mentioned types
is inevitable, no eort is made to observe any specic objective unless
an unambiguous wording of a redundant nature can be noted, that
would allow for a conscious objective in the comparison.
106 chapter five
5.3.2 Comparison for determination of the meaning of the entry under

discussion
Language comparison as an instrument for determining the mean-
ing of biblical entries, whether Hebrew or Aramaic, is quite clearly
the primary and supreme objective of comparative linguistics in the
epoch under discussion. This has been explicitly stated (a) by medieval
Hebrew grammarians who practised language comparison and (b)
by scholars of recent times who have studied and examined their
theories and methods. Examples of relevant documented statements
within the last century and a half are among others: Munk, 1851,
p. 2; Hirschfeld, 1926, p. 7; Skoss, introduction to his edition of Jmi'
al-Alf, p. 36; Wechter, 1941, p. 172; Malter, 1942, p. 141; Kopf
1954, p. 72; Tur-Sinai (introduction to HaRiqmah, 1964, p. 9); Tn,
1983, p. 243; Becker, 1984, p. 50. This aim of linguistic compari-
son seems to be so highly acclaimed as not to be in need of any
proof, for which reason we could spare ourselves the trouble of fur-
ther discussing it. Nevertheless, this determination is worthy of sys-
tematic corroboration, notwithstanding the widespread consensus it
has gained, the latter being grounded merely on a general impres-
sion. What is more, by setting out the appropriate tools for putting
comparisons to the test with this aim in mind, i.e. that of semantic
determination of entry words, we are well-equipped for the task of
substantiating the other objectives of comparison; I shall therefore
proceed to investigate the (correct) application of this axiomatic state-
ment, through the comparison types according to their several for-
mulae. The formulae will be set out according to their frequency of
occurrence and according to their relative importance, rather than
being based on their formal structure. The conclusions set out below
stem from a meticulous inspection of each and every comparison
adopted by the Hebrew grammarians in their several works. In this
chapter, only summaries and selected instances are presented.
5.3.2.1 The aim as reected in comparisons of Hebrew with Aramaic

In formula Bib. Heb.1/Bib. Heb.2/Targ. Aram.
The procedure of comparison used in this formula was noted above
(3.6.4). The lexicographer or exegete here simultaneously compares
Bib. Heb.1 with Targ. Aram., the latter being etymologically equiv-
alent to the former. Since this has the identical sense as Bib. Heb.2,
serving as the Heb. rendering in a given Aramaic Bible translation,
the implication is that Bib. Heb.1 and Bib. Heb.2 are themselves
semantically equivalent. Prima facie, the aim of the comparison in
this formula is straightforward and obvious; there would seem to be
no room for any doubt that the objective is the semantic determi-
nation of the entry word. Nevertheless, the complex fabric of the
formula allows for an interpretation of a dierent nature and there-
fore warrants further investigation. Take for example the comparison
ba/yrp/aba (Alfsi, p. 22; Menaem, p. 11). This comparison in
eect comprises two interlingual comparisons and an intra-Heb. com-
parison. The interlingual comparisons are: (a) a cognate comparison:
Bib. Heb.1/Targ. Aram. (ba/aba); (b) a non-cognate translation syn-
onym comparison: Bib. Heb.2/Targ. Aram. (yrp/aba). The intra-Heb.
comparison is (c): Bib. Heb.1/Bib. Heb.2 (ba/yrp). It is therefore
indeed an open question: the three-way comparison: Bib. Heb.1/Bib.
Heb.2/Targ. Aram. may equally have been recorded having in mind
comparison (a) (Bib. Heb.1/Targ. Aram. as the main aim, just as it
might have been adduced with the comparison (b) being its main
objective; in either case it cannot be assumed for certain that com-
parison (c) (Bib. Heb.1/Bib. Heb.2) was the unique objective.
The following arguments will establish that the comparison aimed
at by the lexicographer is the intra-Hebrew comparison (c).
(1) If comparison Bib. Heb.2/Targ. Aram. were the principal one,
it would be fair to assume that the comparison was recorded, in the
lexicon or in the commentary, at a location in which Bib. Heb.2
constituted the entry word. One would expect the comparison to be
recorded either at that location alone or at that location as the main
record together with an additional location constituting a secondary
record of the comparison (c).
For example, from the comparison ba/yrp/ba we would expect
to encounter at entry yrp (Alfsi, p. 481; Menaem, p. 145) a Bib.
Heb./Targ. Aram. comparison: yrp/aba. Similarly, the entry rtym
(Alfsi, p. 75; Menaem, p. 101; Ibn Jan, p. 302) would have
been the natural location for the comparison rtym/zfa (out of the
comparison wfa/rtym/wfa) but in fact is absent there. A systematic
inspection of all the entry words pertaining to the formula under
discussion, as slot Bib. Heb.2 in their natural locations in the lexicons
of Alfsi, Menaem and R. Jonah ibn. Jan, shows that in 106
instances of a Bib. Heb.2 in Jmi' al-"Alf, the comparison is recorded
in only 5 cases; out of 148 instances of a Bib. Heb.2 in the al-"Ul,
the comparison is recorded in only two cases, whereas in the 24
108 chapter five
instances in the Maberet, no express reiteration of the comparison

appears at all (in two cases a trace of a comparison can be noticed
but no more than that). Even in the isolated instances the reitera-
tion can in each case be rationalized.1 If such a comparison was
important, it should certainly have been recorded within all Bib.
Heb.2 entries or at least within a considerable number of them. But
it is not surprising that these Bib. Heb.2 entry words do not sys-
tematically call for comparisons, since they are much more intelli-
gible than the corresponding Bib. Heb.1 entry words. A check of the
frequency of occurrence of the latter versus the Bib. Heb.2 entry
words bears this out. The outcome is that almost all Bib. Heb.1 entry
words are hapax legomena or very rare, whereas the Bib. Heb.2
entry words are quite common and frequent. For example, ba appears
only twice in the Bible, whereas yrp occurs 76 times with its basis
signication, with a further 42 occurrences in a metaphorical sense;
hrwga is hapax legomenon, whereas rk occurs 28 times; wfa is
hapax, whereas rtym appears 9 times; kbw twice only, za 141 times
and so on. Therefore, in conjunction with Bib. Heb.2, at the latters
entry location, no comparison appears with its Aramaic translation
synonym; in fact, it has no need of such comparison for semantic
purposes; the Bib. Heb.1 entry words, on the other hand, are extremely
rare, so their sense is less transparent and needs external corrobo-
ration (in the manner described above). In certain entries, the Hebrew
1
Alfsi recorded the comparison dj/dja/dj at entry dja (p. 62) as well as at
entry dj (p. 521). At the latter entry the comparison appears as an essential Bib.
Heb./Bib. Aram. comparison, this being its logical location, whereas at the former
entry it is employed for the refutation of an alternative etymological analysis (i.e.
that dj is simply an abbreviation for dja). In contrast, however, the comparison
wqa/al[y/l[y is reiterated, at l[y (p. 60) and at wqa (p. 144), the reason being that
both entry words are of rare occurrence. This is the case for yj/an/yj; jp/s/jp,
too; the comparison yj/an is reiterated at Bib. Heb.2 (an), probably because Alfsi
intended to reject the sense given by the Targum together with the comparison
implied within it. In the work of Ibn Jan, at wn (p. 418) we nd a reiteration
of the comparison entered at lp/hpn/lp (p. 574); whereas at rj (p. 253) there
is a repetition of the comparison entered at hkw/rj/hkws (p. 709). At rhg, how-
ever, (p. 126), he refrains from reiterating a comparison; instead, a cross reference
is given to jg (p. 132). In the Maberet, it seems that the denition djp (jwpn) for
a (p. 35) alludes to the comparison established at ent djp (p. 141); the com-
parison wnllfyw/lx/llf occurs at lx (p. 149) specically, rather than at llf, that
is merely given a general denition lx wl; as a matter of fact, it seems that the
comparison here is incorrectly located.
grammarians themselves take note of the fact that a (Bib. Heb.1)

entry word is a hapax or of extremely rare occurrence; this is expressed
ryfn hl sylw or by some similar expression. With these formulae, a
comparison will appear, in juxtaposition, as for instance in Alfsis work
where the standard formula is . . . wgrtw ryfn hl sylw, as in entries
mk (p. 110), tks (p. 326), brs (p. 353), jr (p. 606), ttr (p. 633)
or (y)p (p. 696). In Menaems Maberet we nd hlml ya . . . wfa
whwmk tymra wlb lba . . . wymd wz (p. 22); likewise at wpygy (p. 58), etc.
Let us now weigh up the former alternative, that the three-way
comparison established by the Hebrew grammarians was geared to
highlighting the etymological equivalence between Bib. Heb.1 and
Targ. Aram. (= the translation of Bib. Heb.2), as ba/aba, wfa/wfa,
and the like so that Bib. Heb.2 is adduced as merely subservient to
this aim. The following data and arguments tend to refute such a
possibility:
Many entries in the Hebrew grammarians lexicons present no
comparison between Heb. and Aram. to uphold the etymological
link between the two, as ylydg (Alfsi, p. 302, Ibn Jan, p. 124)
and rg (Alfsi p. 350, Ibn Jan, p. 146), even though a three-way
comparison of the given formula, Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.
could have been recorded, such as:
*ylydg (Deut. 22:12)/twb[ (Exod. 28:14)/wlydg (Targ. Onkelos ib);
*rg/h[y (Exod. 23:17)/typwrgm (Targ. ibid.);2
If the Hebrew grammarians were concerned with etymological com-
parisons for their own sake, they would surely have recorded these
comparisons and many similar ones.
Furthermore, they could have adopted a good many comparisons
pertaining to formula Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (cognate available from
local translation), such as: bg (Lev. 21:20)/ybg; lag/lyag (Num. 35:25);
ydg/ydg (Exod. 22:5); rdg/rdg (Num. 22:24); zzg/zzg (Gen. 31:19);
lglg/lglg (Isa. 17:13) gn/gn (Exod. 21:35) and many others, whereas
2
This theoretical argument must not be adduced regarding potential compar-
isons in which etymological equivalence between the Bib. Heb.1 and Targ. Aram.
components is determinable solely by testimony for such a Targ. Aram. entity in
the Aramaic Targum(s) of Job, Psalms and other books of the Ketuvim, because
these Targums were not yet available at the time of Alfsi and Ibn Jan (see
below, 9.12.12; 13.20, also above, 3.10.1).
110 chapter five
these comparisons were all left unrecorded. What is more, in sev-

eral such entries, comparison was indeed registered with non-cog-
nate translation synonyms, so if they were concerned with cognate
translation synonyms, such were immediately available. For example
R. Jonah compares bg with trwfyj (p. 122) whereas with the cog-
nate ybg he established no comparison.
If indeed the intermedium Bib. Heb.2 served merely to create the
said etymological link between Bib. Heb.1 and Targ. Aram., whereas
Bib. Heb.2 in itself is secondary in the comparison, it could have
simply been omitted; the Hebrew grammarians could have maintained
the comparison as per the formula Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (cognate
from a distant location).
Moreover, in the following instances the grammarians placed sev-
eral Bib. Heb.2 entities to intermediate between Bib. Heb.1 and Targ.
Aram. for comparisons of this type, one entity being insucient for
this purpose. Examples: wb/db, , ytp/wb (Alfsi, p. 191; Ibn
Jan, p. 87) (db alone or alone would, prima facie, have suced);
twry/jj, dymx, hd[xa/ry (Ibn Jan, p. 718); bwj/(t)afj, w[, a/
hbwj (Alfsi, p. 512); hd[/wm, rws, rb[/hd[ (ibid. p. 371). Were the
intermediation in itself insignicant, one example would surely have
been enough.
The upshot is that it is not Bib. Heb.2 that serves to mediate
between Bib. Heb.1 and Targ. Aram.; rather Targ. Aram. serves as
intervenior between Bib. Heb.1 and Bib. Heb.2, its function being to
determine the semantic synonymity between the two; the more syn-
onymic entities adduced to illustrate this, the better.
A further argument: the present formula is but one of an array of
inductions for determining the sense of an entry word. For example,
for xing the denition of the entry word rf (Gen. 8:11), R. Jonah
sets down three sources of arguments, one of which pertains to the
present formula (p. 269). Also, in Alfsis lexicon there is a case of
almost direct evidence for determining the real aim of the comparison
in Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. when recording comparison
rypx/ry[/rypx (entry ry[, p. 337; the comparison appears at rypx,
p. 525, too). The grammarian states: rypxhw hlwql djaw wh ry[w rypxw
wy lm ry[h (Dan. 8:21), i.e. what has already been proven from
the Targum is again demonstrated by the synonymity between Bib.
Heb.1 and Bib. Heb.2. Ibn Jan, likewise (p. 495), following his com-
parison, concludes: djaw hxnw rdms yn[mp.
The data and reasoning set out above all point to the conclusion
that it is not the etymological comparison between Bib. Heb.1 and
Targ. Aram. that constitutes the main aim neither is it the transla-
tional non-etymological comparison between Bib. Heb.2 and Targ.
Aram. The objective of comparison is the result of the combination of
these two comparisons, i.e. the sense equivalence between Bib. Heb.1
and Bib. Heb.2. Indeed this is to be seen as the ultimate aim.
5.3.2.2 Formulae Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. and

Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./(Targ. Aram.)
Comparisons pertaining to this formula were also adopted with the
aim of determining the sense of the Aramaic entry word under dis-
cussion (see analysis of this formula, above 3.6.7). Support for this
contention is to be found in the similarity existing between this for-
mula and formula Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.; the single
aspect dierentiating between these two formulae is the source of
the entry word, that in one case is biblical Aramaic and in the other
biblical Hebrew. Further, the very same phenomena identied in Bib.
Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. are to be noticed in the present for-
mula, too: the majority of Aramaic entry words dealt with are infre-
quent biblical words, very often, even hapax legomena. For this
reason these are in need of language comparison; their Hebrew coun-
terparts, in contrast, are generally of very common occurrence.
Examples (from Alfsi): ab, t(w)b, wkz, (y)dj, rj, jr, m, ayxy
are all unique words in Aramaic, whereas their Hebrew counterparts
are frequently occurring words: [r occurs 438 times (as noun or verb),
wl 40 times, qdx 317 times (as verb or noun), hzj 13 times, yntm
47 times, jfb 162 times, tr 62 times, trk 285 times. Furthermore,
on perusal of the Hebrew entry words, each in its appropriate place
in the lexicons appearing as an entry caption,3 it transpires that there
is not a single instance presenting a comparison with Aramaic. It is
also impossible to postulate that the aim of the comparison here is
the etymological equivalence of Bib. Aram. and Targ. Aram., for
these two are co-lingual and it is very improbable that Alfsi and
3
See for example, bk (p. 85), [r (p. 615), l (p. 170), ary is entirely out of
place (pp. 70, 582), appearing only at hr (p. 537) but not as an entry caption; lya
(p. 76), jtn (p. 295), qdx (p. 501), etc.
112 chapter five
Menaem treated the two strata of Aramaic as representing two

dierent languages. It it thus conclusive that comparison serves to
determine the sense of an entry word under discussion.
5.3.2.3 In formula Bib. Heb.1/Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb.2/Targ. Aram.

Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. is here an inevitable comparison in the lexi-
cons of Alfsi and Menaem (in contradistinction to Ibn Jan, who
treats this comparison as deliberate). It is therefore likely that the
additional portion of the complex comparison, structured as it is on
Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (or on Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ.
Aram.) aims at providing greater intelligibility to Bib. Heb.1 and Bib.
Aram. (respectively); for these latter, despite their mutual compari-
son, remain somewhat insuciently lucid, for which reason they
require comparison with a translation synonym. Indeed, both Bib.
Heb.1 and Bib. Aram. have low frequency, for example rmg (in the
sense under discussion) appears only once in biblical Aramaic and
twice in biblical Hebrew; contrast lylk, which appears 15 times;
rbdh 4 times in biblical Aramaic (plus once only (in the opinion of
Alfsi] in biblical Hebrew); contrast root ghn which appears 30 times
as a verb, apart from all its occurrences as a noun; llf is a hapax
in biblical Hebrew and also in biblical Aramaic, in contrast with lx,
which occurs 53 times as a noun and twice more as a verb; lm (in
the sense of counsel, advise) is a hapax both in biblical Aramaic
and in biblical Hebrew, as against [y 65 times as a verb (apart
from the several nominal occurrences of same); dhc, is also a hapax
both in biblical Aramaic and in biblical Hebrew, whereas the sub-
stantive d[e, appears 69 times, and the verb dw[, a further 40 times.
5.3.2.4 In Formula Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.

In this category, the comparison is between two entries, whose ety-
mological equivalence is crystal clear. It would seem at rst that the
comparison plays no signicant part in determining the sense of the
relevant Bib. Heb. For instance, if it is stated that biblical Heb. jtm
is equivalent to jtm in Targ. Aram., it would seem, supercially,
that such comparison contributes nothing on the semantic plane; it
might be assumed that this comparison is merely for its own sake.
As shown below (5.3.5), the number of comparisons recorded by the
Hebrew grammarians, according to this formula is relatively low.
Occasionally R. Jonah b. Jan adopts this formula of comparison
(as aylya/ylya, p. 39; yla/yla, p. 46; wzgn/wzygyw, p. 130, etc.). But
because he perceives that the elucidation of meaning of the entry

word is not aided by the comparison, he resorts to comparison by
another formula, lya/hma/lya; yla/nwq/yla; wzgn/jlx/zwg and these
appear subsequently in the text of the respective entries. This per-
ception is on occasion even expressed in words. For instance, when,
having compared (Ezek. 24:26) hla with its Targ. Aram. cognate,
he determines: hyp hbhdm yrda amw (= I do not know his opinion
on this), implying that translation by a cognate can be worthless for
semantics. If the Hebrew grammarians held as their main objective
to established cognate Heb./Aram. comparisons for their own sake,
it would have been quite than simple to utilize the Aramaic Targum
systematically, no matter whether the Targ. Aram. provided cor-
roboration for the sense suggested for the entry word or was of no
import. For this reason, Ibn Jan, at the entry tkw ( Judg. 9:49)
makes no mention of the on the spot Targ. Aram. hkws but prefers
to resort to a comparison tkw/rj-y[s/hkws (p. 709). Likewise at
entry ry[b (p. 103), R. Jonah could have adopted the comparison
formula as used by Alfsi, who established the comparison: ta wn[f
kry[b (Gen. 45:17) with the ad loc. Targ. Aram. wkry[b ty wnw[f.
Instead, he chose to record a comparison of the formula Bib. Heb./Bib.
Heb./Targ. Aram., namely ry[b/hmhb/ry[b. Nonetheless, in the few
cases in which the comparison was recorded merely as Bib. Heb./Targ.
Aram., it would seem that the Targ. Aram. entities were more intel-
ligible, either on account of their extreme frequency of occurrence
or due to a traditional interpretation existing for these entry words.
The aim of this comparison is quite certain for those instances that
closely suit the formula Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (see below)
but lack the intermediary element, Bib. Heb.2. The grammarian
indeed omits it, apparently on the presumption that the reader him-
self can locate the Bib. Heb.2 by the Targ. Aram. One comparison
of this type, i.e. yhl/yhl (p. 153), is recorded initially as Bib.
Heb./Targ. Aram. alone but further on in the entry Alfsi spells out
expressly the Bib. Heb.2 entity that had earlier been passed over:
yhl/y[/yhl.
5.3.2.5 In formula Bib. Heb./Talm. Aram.

For comparisons pertaining to the formula Bib. Heb./Talm. Aram.
also, the Aramaic component, here Talm. Aram., is more intelligi-
ble. For example, the entry word amylg occurs about 80 times in the
Babylonian Talmud; for this reason it can serve to support the
114 chapter five
grammarians decision (al-"Ul, p. 137) on the sense of ymwlg (Ezek.

27:24) which is a hapax legomenon in the Bible; this is also the case
with rdh (an extremely frequent word in the Talmud) versus yrwdh
(Isa. 45:2) (ibid. p. 171). Occasionally it is the context of the word
in the Talmud, that proves the sense as determined, e.g. twlypab
("Ul, p. 64), which is compared with synm ywhd atlpab (BT Rosh
HaShanah, 8a) and likewise trwxb (p. 105). It can happen that the
denition of a Talm. Aram. entity appears ad loc. in the Talmud.
This was cited by Ibn Jan, for example in entry n (p. 464): adhw
n, ammy ata, aylyl n ,wwh ypn yrt ya br rma . . . lyawala bhdm
aylyl ata ammy (BT, Berakhot, 3b). Further, in some cases Talm.
Aram. is transparent owing to a tradition of exegesis deriving from
the school of the Ge"onim. For example, the sense of Talm. Aram.
arma (recorded from tb tksm m rz[yla r qrp in "Ul, p. 57) is
that which accords with R. Sherira Ga"ons interpretation; and like-
wise the Talm. Aram. wg (BT, Bava Mezia 101a) whose meaning
is adduced as follows: arp[ wag aryr br wb ryp kw ("Ul, p. 129),
and so on.
5.3.2.6 In formula Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (non-cognate)

In this category no evidence exists, even a priori, that the aim of
the comparison is to secure an etymological link between the entry
word and its Aramaic translation synonym, for indeed they possess
no etymological equivalence. Failing any further express linguistic
comparison of a grammatical or semantic nature, we would have no
reason to deal with this formula at all. But in its background, one
may detect a hidden comparison, adducing a cognate between the
Targ. Aram. that is in fact recorded and an additional Bib. Heb.
entity that holds the same status as Bib. Heb.1 in the broad formula
Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. For example, in the comparisons
rhg/jg hdwmlg/hadyjy, fa/rj, h[m/rxwa, wlqx/wbl, yqwmx/
wby ybn[, hnq/hyynzam, rwrx/ba, twnp/yyr, etc. (Ibn Jan, below,
13.7), the Targ. Aram. element is a cognate of another Bib. Heb.
entity, as rj/rj, jg/jg, hdyjy/hadyjy, etc. Thus for practical pur-
poses the comparison is three-way: hdyjy/hdwmlg/hadyjy, jg/rhg/jg,
etc. The dierence between the standard formula Bib. Heb./Bib.
Heb./Targ. Aram. and the present one is merely that one of the
two Bib. Heb. entities, Bib. Heb.1 or Bib. Heb.2, is rarer and thus
more obscure. In any case, in the instances indicated, the lexicog-
rapher/exegete requires of the reader no erudition in Aramaic, for
the Targ. Aram. adduced in the comparison has a cognate Hebrew

counterpart that occurs frequently and whose sense is well known.
In certain other comparisons, the Targ. Aram. element that is
non-cognate with the Bib. Heb. element is a cognate with a Rab.
Heb. entry. Thus the comparisons r/mms, zgra/atwbyt, rzmm/yarkwn,
and the like can be considered to contain a Rab. Heb./Targ. Aram.
(cognate) comparison, too: mms/mms, yarkwn/yrkn, hbyt/atwbyt, and
so on.
This assumption nds corroboration in R. Jonahs practice when
recording several comparisons of this type. Alongside the compari-
son dga/rsa he also records rsa/rsa:
wll hmwd awhw abwza trsa hb wgrth rmaw . . . (Exod. 12:22) bwza tdga
(Num. 30:11) rsa hrsaw yyrb[h
(= . . . the Targum renders thereto abwza trsa and this resembles
the expression in the language of the Hebrews rsa hrsaw) (Shorashim,
p. 11).
The second comparison aimes to demonstrate that the sense of
rsya Aramaic non-cognate for dga is known from biblical Hebrew
itself. In fact, according to this conclusion the formula might be:
Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. = Bib. Heb. by this inter-connected com-
parison the grammarian actualized precisely what I earlier postulated
as regards the other comparisons. Similarly the instance of hrjm/w[,
where Ibn Jan notes that w[ in rabbinic Hebrew (Mishna, Kelim
XIII, 8) means such and such according to R. Hai Ga"on proves
conclusively that the comparison with Targ. Aram. would have been
of no value were it not for its cognate Rab. Heb. bearing a similar
familiar connotation.
5.3.2.7 In formula Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb. (in Alfsis lexicon only)

In the formula Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb. (cognate heterophonic enti-
ties), the comparison is intended to further clarify the etymology of
Bib. Aram., thus determining its meaning. The non-transparency of
the Bib. Aram. etymology is due to either mutual switches of radical
letters between Heb. and Aram. or to a redundant letter in one of
the two compared entities versus the other. Thus a vital compari-
son arises in entries hdnm (p. 216), af[ (p. 386) rbdg (p. 301), baf
(p. 2), yda (p. 34), and the like.4
4
See below, 9.4.2, full lists of Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. comparisons (deliberate).
116 chapter five
To verify that the aforementioned is indeed the aim of this com-

parison type, the following test can be applied. For the respective
Hebrew components of the pairs of entities in this category, with
the exception of hdm, no reiteration of the comparison occurs. For
example, the comparison ba/bna occurs at bna (p. 122) only, not at
the entry word bae. If this comparison were of importance per se,
with no connection to the etymological transparency of the entry
word, then this comparison ought to have appeared additionally or
exclusively at entry ba. It is likely that bna and similarly the Aramaic
entities of parallel status in this category are less transparent than
their Hebrew counterparts. This is because, in general, Aramaic was
less known than Hebrew in the period under discussion and because
those words in Aramaic in which, as against Hebrew, an additional
letter/consonant is incorporated, by phonetic dissimilation or for ren-
dering the root triliteral (as e.g. baf, that is compared with Heb.
bwf, that in Alfsis opinion is a biliteral root, precisely parallel with
Aram. fhr v. Heb. wr), are obscure relative to Heb. on account of
the additional letter. But the main corroboration of the stand taken
here derives from the fact that Alfsi himself provides a certain para-
meter enabling us to objectively determine which element of the
respective entry pair is the more intelligible. This transpires from a
chain of translation synonyms emanating from the sum-total of
denitions of co-semic entries, entry for entry. For example, bna is
dened by ba, whereas ba, at its own entry (p. 22) is dened by
yrp in the framework of the comparison ba/yrp/ba, whereas yrp in
its own entry (p. 481), is dened merely by the Arabic translation
synonym rmt. Perhaps if Alfsi had adopted zero deniens of the
well-known type such as Ibn Jan uses in his lexicon, he would
have left yrp undened, relying on its being a commonly known
entity not needing denition, given its frequent occurrence in the
Bible. A clue to this is that the denition of the latter appears merely
at the transition point intersecting the secondary entries of rp; there
the grammarian says: rmtll sa rp anlw, implying that Alfsi is not
dening yrp itself but the root from which that entity as well as the
verb hrp derive; and this denition is recorded solely for the sake
of distinguishing this word from its homonyms: rp 1 (= cattle) and
rp 2 (= nullication, cancellation). Thus yrp is very intelligible, ba
is less intelligible, and bna least intelligible. A similar gradation, from
the obscure to the most lucid is to be found in the category of Bib.
Heb./Bib. Aram. ljd-ljz-ary. ljz (p. 481) is dened by comparing
it with Aramaic ljd, whereas ljd itself (at its entry, p. 376) is not
compared with ljz (as is the case at entry ljz itself ) but with ary,
by the formula Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (ljd/ary/ljd).
On the other hand, ary is nowhere to be found at any likely location
in the lexicon: at ry (pp. 6970) it is lacking, for according to Alfsis
grammatical thesis the yod is non-radical in this verb. At r as well
as at ar (pp. 58285), it is also excluded. We encounter it coinci-
dentally at the entry hhr (p. 597 hr), indeed not as a denitum (!)
but as a unique deniens (!) for hr, as follows:
trkd rqw (Gen. 43:23) waryt la ltm (Isa. 44:8) whrt law wdjpt la
yhw ya ywh ywa ltm ladbala wrj yp hlatma
Thus there is no further verbalized denition; in other words, ary
itself is in no need of any denition, being suciently intelligible, presum-
ably on account of its high frequency in the Bible. This entry is thus
that of the greatest lucidity, in the graded series of inter-lingual trans-
lation synonyms and intra-lingual sense synonyms ljz-ljd-ary. Of
less lucidity is the Aramaic ljd and even less so the Hebrew ljz
indeed a rare word. It is plausible that we have here one of the clues
for Alfsis system of entry denition in his lexicology: one denes
the most obscure entry word by the entity that is one stage more
lucid than itself; and the latter in turn is dened by an even more
lucid entity and so on until one reaches the most intelligible entry
word in the series. But this entire process is conditioned on the type
of synonymity existing between the denientes and the denita,
whether cognates or non-cognates (in their respective formulae).
For our purposes, the given gradation is of signicance, because
it demonstrates that the relevant comparison is recorded at the loca-
tion at which it is necessary for the explication of the entry word.
The gradation series is especially noticeable in those cases in which
the series of translation synonyms consists of more than two entries;
but the system is indeed tenable in instances of series comprising
only two components, if they pertain to the type discussed earlier,
appearing as it does according to formula Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb. (if
the Arabic translation synonym is appended, the series becomes one
containing three units), for example (from obscure to lucid):
rbdg (Aram.; p. 301)rbzg (Heb. and Aram.; p. 314)lma[ (Arab.
ibid.)
baf (Aram.; p. 2)bwf (Heb.; p. 3)dwg, ryk (Arab.; ibid.)
af[ (Aram.; p. 386)[(y) (Heb.; p. 421)hrwm (Arab.; ibid.)
118 chapter five
The addition of the third unit, the Arabic component, is notewor-

thy, because owing to the historical and socio-linguistic conditions
of that medieval period the language possessing the highest measure
of intelligibility of the three languages with which the lexicons are
concerned is in fact Arabic, Arabic being the vernacular, the lan-
guage having a living, unbroken tradition, and therefore used for
grammatical and linguistic discussion and for formulating denitions.
Hebrew and Aramaic, in contrast, had ceased to be spoken lan-
guages, causing many expressions in those languages to lose their
intelligibility (see for instance the statements of Ibn Jan in Kitb
al-Mustalaq pp. 131 et seq.). The restoration of this intelligibility
could be achieved (a) by tradition, of interpretation, rendering, and
the like; (b) by internal investigation (parallelism, context, etc.); or
(c) by etymological comparison with other more intelligible, languages.
It is probable that an entry requiring external comparison has a
lower limpidity level than one that does not call for such comparison.
In all the aforementioned comparisons then, the Aramaic entries
are all less limpid than their Hebrew translation synonyms, for which
reason, in each case, the comparison is recorded at the Aramaic
entry rather than at the Hebrew one. Had the opposite been the
case, had the comparison been recorded at the more limpid entry
word and not at the obscure entry, this would have been quite sur-
prising as regards the aim under discussion (albeit not as regards
other aims). Moreover, even exceptions to this rule, such as hdm/hdnm,
in which a comparison appears at both entries, do not refute the
rule, since the comparison appears at the more obscure of the two
entry words, at hdnm, as well. It was noted above that a compari-
son reiterated at the limpid entry is merely a matter of repetitive-
ness, apparently connected with Alfsis tendency to occasionally
practise language comparison for its own sake.5
5
Entries [wrz and lzrb fail to appear in Alfsis lexicon at their predictable loca-
tions, despite their being recorded in the context of their Aramaic counterparts [rd
and lzrp. [wrz occurs neither between brz and ryzrz (p. 507) nor in the archentry
[rz (p. 507). True, in the list of entries appearing in the preface to entries rz
(p. 502) he notes [wrz immediately following [rz and adduces three quotes Isa.
44:12; Job, 31:22; ibid., 38:15. But as an entity in itself, it does not appear any-
where among the enumerated entries. If this is not a simple aberration of the author
or copyists omission, there may be reason to cast doubt on the authenticity of these
prefaces. lzrb also is missing. in the preface to rb (p. 268) as well as in its pre-
dictable place (p. 272). Skoss made no mention of these omissions.
5.3.2.8 In Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb. (non-cognate translation synonym)

What has been mentioned in the previous paragraph holds for this
category (9.4.4) as well. The comparison is used in Aramaic entries
solely with the aim of rendering them more limpid; comparisons of
this formula are neither encountered nor reiterated in the respective
Hebrew entries, e.g. at y (p. 72); ab (pp. 17884), hnh (p. 448), lg
(p. 321), d[ (p. 372), hp (p. 449), glyp (p. 459). At yj the com-
parison was not recorded at the Aram. entry, because at entry j
also the comparison is a negative one, i.e. a comparison was men-
tioned merely to be rejected. In Menaems work, three compar-
isons pertaining to this formula are encountered; the conclusions
related to Alfsi (above) are applicable also to Menaem.
5.3.2.9 In Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram.

It has already been stated that the nature of the comparison per-
taining to this formula in the lexicons of Alfsi and Menaem is an
inevitable one, on account of their lexicographical method. However,
comparison of this type in Ibn Jans lexicon, far from being
inevitable is deliberate, as are the rest of his comparisons with
Aramaic. Analysis of the materials in this category, by the compar-
isons recorded by R. Jonah, casts considerable light on the problem
of frequency/limpidity comparison. As against 13 Bib. Heb. hapax
legomena (such as lfb, rwd, qsn, zr) Bib. Aram. entries are fairly
frequent (lfb 6 occurrences, rwd 10, qsn 8, zr 9). This reects a
fairly typical state of aairs for entering a comparison of a unique
entity with one more frequent than itself. But there are instances
where not only the Bib. Heb. is rare but also the Bib. Aram. with
which it is compared, e.g. in the pairs lj/lj, lbrk/lbrk, sna/sna,
rbzg/rbzg, ryg/ryg, rj/rj and so on, in which both components
of the comparison are hapax legomena. In what way does the com-
parison aid in clarifying the sense of the entry word? Two solutions
to this enigma may be proposed. At times the comparison with Bib.
Aram. is not isolated but is associated with a comparison with rab-
binic Hebrew, so that through a combination of the two compar-
isons the sense of the entry word is ascertained; such is the case with
sna. A second solution is that the Bib. Aram. entity, despite its infre-
quent, even unique, occurrence, appears in a biblical context that
renders its meaning clear and lucid, much more so than the corre-
sponding biblical context with regard to the Bib. Heb. entry. For
example, the sense of the word rjth (Dan. 3:27) (= was burnt) is
120 chapter five
transparent from the context whmgb arwn fl al yd la ayrbgl yzj

rjth al whar r[w, whereas this is not the case in the correspond-
ing Heb. context of the Bib. Heb. component rj, hymr rjy al
wrj rqy da whw wdyx (Prov. 12:27). Thus the rarity of an entry
word is likely to be but not necessarily a reason for its semantic
obscurity.
This further gives the grounds for comparisons of the given formula
in which the Bib. Heb. entry is even more frequent than the Bib. Aram.
For example, ga 7/g 3; ypal 4/na 2; yskn 5/yskn 2; jxn 6 (exclud-
ing the words jxnml and jxn)/jxnta 1. These examples demonstrate
clearly that a high degree of frequency does not in itself guarantee
limpidity, especially if the frequency is of a technical nature, i.e. a
reiteration of the same expression, either without any variation or
with changes of phraseology so minute as to be of no avail for its
limpidity. Such is the case for the Heb. entry jxnl (Ezra 3:89) and
similar words: the Bib. Aram. counterpart is more limpid, despite its
infrequency. Several other comparisons of this type have a dierent
objective, for example hfj 32/hfnj 2, which is recorded for deter-
mination of the root.
5.3.2.10 In Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (non cognate)/

Arab. (cognate for Targ. Aram.)
This formula is adopted primarily for Bib. Heb. entries that are
terms of realia. As is well-known, the correct identication of the
signis of such terms had become problematical ever since Hebrew
ceased to be a spoken language in the earliest centuries CE and was
so until recently with the revival of spoken Hebrew at the end of
the nineteenth century. Ibn Jan expended considerable eort to
identify the meaning of such terms; he spared neither the time nor
the exertion required to locate artisans, and to inspect their profes-
sional utensils, convinced as he was that these tools, with the tasks
that they achieved, reected the true picture of realia in biblical times.
A good example is his attempt to identify the meaning of the term
yInb" a] ; (p. 18). Ibn Bal'am, likewise, encountered diculty in elucidating
terms of realia; at times he refused to adopt identications proered
by other scholars even when he had no alternative identication to
suggest, deeming it preferable to leave the term unidentied rather
than adopt what he considered an unfounded identication. Following
are examples for such diculties: ylha} (Num. 24:6; Fuchs 1893);
ysyb (Isa. 3:18; Perez 1981, pp. 27, 218). Given that 22 entries
pertain to this formula in Ibn Jans lexicon as against only four

such in Alfsis, it seems that Ibn Jan found the present compar-
ison formula an ideal, even sophisticated apparatus for overcoming
the aforementioned diculties. To reach the correct denition for
the Bib. Heb. entry, he exploits the non-cognate translation synonym
for that entry occurring in the parallel Targum text continuum. This
Targ. Aram. (non-cognate) has dual utility. First, it stands as a trans-
lation synonym for rendering the Bib. Heb. (which already in Ibn
Jans lifetime was obscure), enjoying such status since the earlier
epochs when the Bib. Heb. was limpid, rendering the mutual iden-
tity of the two, according to targumic tradition, as good as certain.
Second, this Targ. Aram. entry is a cognate to the Arabic entry
word, providing further proof for the identication. Now the advan-
tage of adducing the Arabic component is that in the linguistic
identication in Arabic the tradition is boosted by an uninterrupted
span of that vernacular over many centuries, further enhancing the
limpidity of the term.6 This approach is reected in several choices
of expression. An example is
laq amk hwskla hyp ydla a[wll amsa ak ambrw . . . (2R 10:22) hjtlmh
twbatla br[la asl yp rfmqlaw ayrfmq l[ wgrtla
The grammarian does not even take the trouble to remark that
ayrfmq and Arab. rfmq are cognate. This is taken for granted.
5.3.2.11 In Bib. Heb./Talm. Aram. (non-cognate)/

Arab. (cognate with Talm. Aram.)
The statement of opinion in the previous formula on the aim of
comparison is equally applicable in the present formula. The only
dierence is that here the Aramaic elucidation of the Bib. Heb. entry
is not based on a tradition of Aramaic Targums to the Bible, since
the latter oer no corroboration (e.g. when no Arabic cognate exists
for the Targ. Aram. or when the Targ. Aram. itself is a cognate for
the Bib. Heb. entry) but on the tradition of interpretation to be
found in the Talmud. For example, rwat (Isa. 41:19) is identied
in the Talmud with anbyrw (TB, Rosh HaShanah, 23a). Ibn Jan
6
It cannot be stated for certain whether Ibn Jan took into account the pos-
sibility, and if so to what extent he postulated such a possibility, that even in the
course of an uninterrupted span of a spoken vernacular, uctuations can be expected
to have taken place in the sense of the terms.
122 chapter five
("Ul, p. 74) exploits the phonetic similarity of anbyrw (Talm. Aram.)

and ybr (Arab.) for identifying the signi of the Bib. Heb. Incidentally,
if Ibn Jan had been concerned merely to enrich his lexicon with
entries dened/identied by Bib. Heb./Talm. Aram. for their own
sake, whether the Talm. Aram. was transparent or non-transparent,
he might have adduced, from the same text source as that of /anbyrw
rwat (Rosh HaShanah, ibid.), all the remaining nine names for
cedar tree types in Hebrew and Aramaic as documented there;
whereas in fact he adduced from the aforementioned source only
those names for which he could establish no reliable identication
on the basis of Targ. Aram. and, side by side, of the Talm. Aram.,
for which cognate Arabic existed.
5.3.2.12 In Comparisons with Arabic

As stated earlier, any ordinary comparison, provided it cannot be
proven that it was recorded for its own sake or for any other specic
objective, can be assumed to have as its aim the semantic denition
of its entry word. To warrant placing such an ordinary comparison
outside this category would require solid, well-grounded evidence.
For this reason I have set aside the comparisons contained within
the special collective lists as well as the grammatical comparisons
and allocated for them a separate class, on the basis of their com-
parison aim. All the remaining comparisons are treated as possess-
ing the principal aim of language comparison. Corroboration for this
aim can be obtained from the general pronouncements set out by
the Hebrew grammarians in the introductions to their several lexi-
cons (above, 2.1, 2.2, 5.2). In comparisons with Aramaic, proof was
available from the comparison formulae themselves; these were found
to indicate that comparison is the aim in the great majority of
instances. As regards Arabic, this aim can be said to be attributable
to the formula, in the case of the formula Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.
(non-cognate translation synonym)/Arab. (cognate) and for that for-
mula alone. As for other comparisons, the formula cannot be said to
demonstrate this aim. However, a process of analogy enables us to
deduce the comparison aim for Arabic, from the corresponding com-
parison aim determinable for Aramaic. The argument runs as fol-
lows: in the same way that comparison with Aram. is employed
because the entry word under discussion is rare or unique and thus
non-limpid, so, likewise, a comparison with Arab. is likely to be
employed. Furthermore, in the same way that the Heb./Aram. com-
parison serves to make up for the lack of limpidity, due to the low
frequency of the compared entry, so, likewise and with the same
aim, a Heb./Arab. comparison is employed in those cases in which
the biblical frequency of occurrence of an entry word is low. A con-
cordance check shows that a good number of entry words incorpo-
rated in Hebrew-Arabic comparisons are indeed biblical hapax
legomena.
5.3.3 Comparison aimed at the determination of the lack of an etymological

connection between homonymic Hebrew roots
This aim is a more or less systematic principle for each entry in Part
One of Risla, whereas in Part Three, sec. 1, also, this aim of com-
parison is occasionally encountered. In the works of the other Heb.
grammarians this phenomenon is met with less than in the works of
Ibn Quraysh but is indeed present.
In the archentry ps (p. 344), Alfsi sets out two Hebrew entries:
wps (1 Kings 7:3) and hnyps ( Jon. 1:5). In his semantic etymological
discussion of these entries, he initially suggests the possibility that the
latter stems from the former, namely that a boat is called hnyps on
account of its being hnwps = roofed, decked. But he raises a further
possibility, namely that the noun hnyps is not to be derived etymo-
logically from wps and thus also has no semantic connection with
that word but is simply a noun in its own right (htadb sa) as
can be proven from the Arabic word hnyps. This comparison is to
be explained as follows: in Arabic the noun hnyps is an independent
entry, as regards its etymological liaison, considering that no verb
ps* in Arabic exists from which it could have been derived. Thus
correspondingly, in Heb. also it can be postulated that the noun
hnyps is independent, having no etymological connection with ps.
The object of the comparison, therefore, proves to be the determi-
nation of non-linkage between these two given Heb. entry words.
A similar aim is noticeable in entry hn (p. 258): in the second part
of his discussion, Alfsi concludes that no connection exists between
that word and the root (h)mh; this analysis nds support from com-
parison with the Arabic root hn. The phraseology here is very sim-
ilar to that employed with ps (above), i.e. ahsarb hgl hn zwgyw, i.e.
hn is an independent root. The comparison jwj/wk also, (p. 526)
aims at obviating an etymological link between jwj and jj. In this
vein, too, we should understand Ibn Jans explication of hjl sn
124 chapter five
(Deut. 34:7). The latter can be interpreted as deriving from swn in

its usual sense of eeing (jrb) or as a metaphorical extension of
that sense. Therefore, in order to exclude such a hypothesis, the
grammarian compares that entry word with the Arabic sn (= dry)
("Ul, p. 417).
5.3.4 The aim of comparison: Bible translation

In the special treatises of language comparison, it is to be expected
that comparison will be recorded, in the rst place, for its own sake,
namely with the aim of determining the principle that an anity
exists between the languages discussed, for discussing comparison
methodology and with an emphasis on pointing up the scope of sim-
ilarity or equivalence between those languages, both in the gram-
matical and in the lexicographical contexts. However, Becker (1984,
p. 29) has demonstrated that in Part One (and Two) of the Risla,
compiled by R. Judah ibn Quraysh, a dierent objective can be dis-
cerned, i.e. the elucidation of the dicult words in the Bible.
In the work of Ibn Barn also, being as it is exclusively for lan-
guage comparison and clearly presenting comparisons for their own
sake, the other objective of comparison can be discerned as well,
albeit with a somewhat dierent emphasis. Between the lines of
the remarks appearing in the comparative lexicon within Kitb al-
Muwzana, it can be inferred that Ibn Barn had intended to pro-
vide Bible translators with an apparatus comprising all possible Heb./
Arab. cognate entries (i.e. those he held to be so). He may have
held the opinion that the ideal Bible translator, when setting down
an Arabic rendering, should strive to translate every biblical expres-
sion, according to his capacity, by a cognate Arabic or at least by
a homophonic translation synonym even if such is not a cognate.
One nds, accordingly that in entry dydy (Muwzana, p. 59) the gram-
marian not only discusses the comparison with the Arab. dydw; he
remarks, additionally:
ynarka lxa m ak aw( Job. 40:14) dwa yna gw grty a sjyw
. . . dwa
Ibn Barn thus explicitly informs us that dwa is not from the root
ddy; nevertheless he recommends that the rendering be by a similar
homophonic translation synonymi.e. the Arabic expression dwa
(this rendering clearly suiting the context well, in his opinion). Likewise
at the termination of other entries: after the comparative discussion,

it is noticeable that he is especially concerned about the rendering
of several phrases or expressions in the Bible. For example, at entry
yb (p. 163), aside from noting that ynybh ya (1S. 17:4) pertains to
that root, the grammarian takes the trouble to propose that this
expression be translated by the cognate . . . ynybla-wd. So, after record-
ing the comparison jb/jm, he elucidates the expression jb ba (Isa.
28:16) and nally remarks hnjmla rgj grtyp. It is probable that
Ibn Barn rejected R. Saadiah Ga"ons rendition for this expression,
i.e. anx rgj; further, he states in the context of his explanation that
this expression is qdmlab wr[mla. This being so, it is surprising that
he did not propose this very Arabic expression as a rendering for
jb ba! It is quite likely that his endeavors to render by a cognate
wherever possible determined his choice of one of two alternative
translation synonyms. Renditions, with subsequent suggestions of this
type, are to be found further, in entries [gr (Ps. 30:6; p. 89); ab
(p. 160); bda, tj, (Exod. 18:1); dw[ (p. 77), etc. The terms employed in
such remarks allude clearly to such an objective; these are grtyp
(above, jb); grty a sjyw (above, dydy); and in particular: a ygbnyw
grty (entry p. qbd, 168) and so on. It goes without saying that the
very fact that the discussion often involves full-scale biblical phrases,
together with their contexts, constitutes an additional aspect of the
eorts exerted to achieve the aforementioned objective.
5.3.5 The comparison for its own sake

In the previous section a denition of the characteristic elements of
comparison for its own sake was set out. It was noted also, that
even in treatises devoted specically to language comparison, this aim
of comparison can be assumed to be present, despite the fact that
in certain individual comparisons or in specic sections within trea-
tises, other salient aims of comparison can be noticed. Moreover, in
other types of linguistic works, too, examples of comparison for its
own sake are encountered here and there. Henceforth guidelines for
determining such comparisons are set out.
The denition of comparison for its own sake will be: any inter-
lingual comparison, that (a) is not inevitable and (b) is not absolutely
necessary for the elucidation of the lexical entry under discussion. If
the context containing the given entry word gives the sense of the
entry word clearly, or alternatively if the sense can be clearly inferred
126 chapter five
by intra-Hebrew material (that is actually adduced by the lexicog-

rapher), such as local or remote parallelism, the further adduction
of information regarding Arabic or Aramaic is redundant for demon-
strating the sense as determined. In other words whenever the com-
parison of an entry word with a cognate Arabic or Aramaic is
adduced even though the meaning can be determined by the above-
mentioned alternative procedures, it is reasonable to posit that the
sole purpose of recording the comparison is to highlight the simi-
larity, the equivalence, or the dierence existing between the lan-
guages related to the given entry. If the comparison as recorded has
no direct relevance for the sense of the entry word under discussion
but merely points up some analogous aspect of consequence for lin-
guistic comparative study, with bearing on the given entry, the com-
parison can denitely be classied as comparison for its own sake.
We now proceed to enumerate typologically the instances in which
comparison is employed for its own sake.
5.3.5.1 Comparison propositions of a general nature

Propositions of the type ynayrslaw ybr[law ynarb[la ld t[mg dqw
(Alfsi, p. 327, dlg) were designed to posit a generalized comparison
of translation synonyms in the three languages Heb./Aram./Arab.
Such propositions were recorded for the sake of pure comparative
science; they do not serve the purposes of specic comparison of an
entry word with its parallels, i.e. its translation entries in other lan-
guages, because for the latter purposes one encounters, apart from
the general propositions, appropriate terms of comparison.
Let us inspect, for example, one entry pertaining to this category:
,ynayrslaw ynarb[la ld t[mg dqw ydlg yl[ ( Job 6:15) .ydlg yl[ ytrpt q
(Targ. to Ezek. 23:24) ydlg ynayrslabw ydlg ybr[labw ydlg yl[ ynarb[lap
(Alfsi, p. 327)
Alfsi rst denes the entry word dlg by the cognate Arabic dlg.
Next, he makes a general comparative proposition, that there exists
equivalence between the three languages Heb./Aram./Arab. in their
use of this entry wordnamely, the given entry, sense-wise, is
employed similarly in the three languages but subject to the usual
morpho-phonemic dierences between them. Finally he proceeds to
set out the details, adopting, as he does so, the style of comparison
customary in ordinary explicit comparisons that contain no com-
parison phraseology of a generic character. That part of the propo-
sition that constitutes a detailed comparison is designed to ascer-

tain the meaning of the entry word and thus has nothing to do with
comparison for comparisons sake. However, the generic reitera-
tion of the comparison is clearly redundant, and this portion of the
proposition would seem quite denitely to be nothing but compar-
ison for comparisons sake.
5.3.5.2 Comparisons in the excursuses (Alfsi and Dunash)

Comparisons that occur outside of their natural entry location in the
lexicon and that are collated rather in classied lists in several lex-
ical entries possess no intrinsic lexicological objective; they are recorded
merely for the corroboration of some general linguistic principle in
the area of comparative philology. These comparisons do not aim
at substantiating the semantics of any one particular entry word,
as would be the case in an instance of a comparison having pertinence
to a given entry; rather, they are indeed a part of comparative lin-
guistic science. For instance, the Heb./Arab. comparisons rj/yrk,
rmj/rmk, brj/brk, etc., compared as they were in the entry ljb
(+lkb; Alfsi, p. 208), were not designed to corroborate or to estab-
lish the sense of the entry words rmj, brj, rj, and it goes with-
out saying that they were not designed to determining the sense of
the entry at handi.e. ljb. These comparisons were adduced in
order to demonstrate the substitution between Hebrew j and Arabic
k, as is clear from the fact that the ad loc. comparison of entry
word ljb with its Arabic counterpart lkb is founded upon this sub-
stitution. Of a similar nature are the compendia of comparisons
recorded in the following entries in Jmi' al-"Alf: hz (p. 478), rtk
(p. 137), z[l (p. 172), rwp (p. 452), qt (p. 749), t (p. 754) as well
as in a certain number of the entries appearing in ynxylh (p. 43945),
such as bwt/bw, rbt/rb, and so on.
In this connection, one comparison, i.e. jq/jsq, is of special
interest. This comparison fails to appear at its appropriate entry in
the lexicon but is encountered twice, in the two collative compari-
son lists, recorded respectively at hz and t (p. 754). At the entry
itself, the entry word is rendered merely by means of a non-cognate
translation synonym ysq (this of course does not constitute a com-
parison); had the comparison been indispensable for establishing the
meaning, it would surely have been more suitably recorded at the
location that calls for its appearance, namely at its appropriate entry in
the lexicon. Its non-appearance at the home entry implies that the
128 chapter five
lexicographer held the comparison to be inessential. It thus follows

that the inclusion of such a comparison in the generic compendia
implies no intrinsic lexicological aim of comparison but merely serves
to provide further evidence regarding the similarity and general
anity existing between the languages subject to comparison.
It would furthermore be redundant to state that in cases where
comparisons are reiterated in the lexicon, appearing once at their
home location and once again in some collative list, the record in
the list has the status of comparison for its own sake. As a matter
of fact, the captions of these collative compendia shed considerable
light on the objective of the lists. For example, prefatory to the list at
entry qt (p. 749), it is stated: ynayrsla [m rty ynarb[la yp rytkw.
This implies that the aim of the collative list is to corroborate the
general relationship between Hebrew and Aramaic and further to
explicitly legitimize particular comparisons adopted in his lexicon at
various entries. The excursus contained in The Retorts of Dunash against
Menaem, too (Senz-Badillos 1981, pp. 3233, entry jsm), had in
view to prove the tenet that for many Hebrew entry words there
exist corresponding Aramaic cognate translation synonyms. Moreover,
the excursus at yn[fm (ibid., pp. 88.) had as its aim to evidence the
fact that Heb./Arab. language comparison is indeed of signicance
for the correct interpretation of a good number of biblical Hebrew
words.
5.3.5.3 Comparisons essentially of linguistic nature and not for

exegetical purposes
This class comprises several comparison types: (1) grammatical com-
parisons having no direct import for ascertaining the meaning of the
entry word; (2) comparisons of general semantics or of use of lan-
guage (these comparisons constitute digressions from the entry dis-
cussion or at times serve to clarify several linguistic processes); (3)
specic comparisons that are liable, additionally, to point to the deter-
mination of the sense but that, considering their contextual location,
are plainly aimed at demonstrating some linguistic phenomenon
in other words, comparisons for their own sake. Several examples
follow:
In the area of grammatical comparisons, for example, Alfsis
adduction of the comparison of the plural form of rhn in Hebrew
with the corresponding form in Aramaic, i.e. twrhn/ayrhn (p. 258) or
the comparison of the use of the numeral dja with a following noun
in the plural, in Hebrew and in Arabic (dja p. 61): Neither of these

comparisons have any bearing on the sense of the entry word; they
are nothing but comparisons for comparisons sake. An example
from the work of Dunash (see Senz-Badillos, p. 100): the compar-
ison ksm/yksm is recorded merely to demonstrate that the radical
letter in Hebrew is samekh, as it is . . . in Arabic. In Ibn Jans
works, such comparisons are very frequent; as a matter of fact, com-
parisons of this type in Riqmah, especially those of the formula Bib.
Heb./Bib. Aram., are veritably comparisons for their own sake.
Instances in point are: the comparisons rb'g/rb'G (Riqmah, p. 241),
dj/dj (ibid., p. 275), bdnth/bdnth (ibid., p. 192), lwmta/lwmta (ibid.,
pp. 154, 257), etc. In "Ul, also, there are several comparisons on
grammatical topics, that are far from indispensable for determining
the meaning of the entry word. Thus the comparison hfj (32 times
in the Bible) /yfnj (twice in the Bible) ("Ul, p. 238) serves merely
to establish whether the root is fj or fnj. Likewise, hw:g/ E hw:gE (p. 127)
is recorded simply to prove that hwg is indeed a root in its own right,
rather than a reduced form of hwag, as posited by earlier grammar-
ians. In the same way there are classied comparisons ypal/yhwpna
(p. 63), rq/ryrq (p. 645) as well as the Heb./Arab. comparisons /zrk
zrg (p. 148), ddyh/dyh (p. 170), shyw-sh/hxhx-hx (p. 179; also in
Rislat al-Tanbh, p. 262), wttwht/th (p. 181), hmj/hmj (p. 233), hdwxm-
dxm/daxm (p. 390), lgm/lgnm (p. 405), wyx/hwx (p. 607), twhma-a/
tahma (p. 55), and others.
Examples of comparisons whose sole function is to illuminate a
broad language process, found to be active in several languages, with
no particular pertinence to the exact sense of the entry word, are
as follows: dbz > laydbz/ybz > anybz/rf > yrf (Alfsi, entry dbz,
p. 474). The comparison in the following pairs of Heb./Arab. syn-
onyms i.e. dd=d/ydt=dhn (ibid. p. 370) can likewise only be seen
as comparison for its own sake, since for the purpose of dening
the sense of the Hebrew entry word dd there was no need to adduce
a pair of translation synonyms from Arabic.
Belonging to the present type are also those specic or general
typological comparisons in which a distinct entity or phenomenon
in Hebrew is paralleled by zero in Arabic. An example of such a
comparison is Alfsis record at entry dgn (p. 253) in which he states
that from this preposition Hebrew derived the noun dygn, whereas
Arabic failed to develop a similar entry from its corresponding prepo-
sition: layj, lbaqm. It is, of course, feasible that Alfsi merely intended
130 chapter five
to provide the student with logical grounds for his having failed to
render ydygn (ibid.) with an exactly parallel expression in Arabic, i.e.
by a concrete noun in the plural, whereas he found himself forced
to render it in a roundabout way, namely by a singular abstract
madar. Whichever way one views it, this comparison belongs to the
category comparison for its own sake, and to no other. Ibn Jan
also records such comparisons. At entry bl ("Ul, p. 344) Ibn Jan
renders the expression hnbl hnbln (Gen. 11:3) anbl dktn; he states
explicitly why he does not translate it anbl bln, i.e. by an expres-
sion containing two translation synonyms: his argument is that whereas
for the Heb. hnbl there exists an Arabic translation synonym hnbl,
the denominative Heb. verb bl has no equivalent Arabic translation syn-
onym to match it.
Regarding several specic comparisons, it is quite evident that the
aim of the comparison was for its own sake and neither to determine
nor to corroborate the sense of the entry word concerned. Such is
often the case on account of the circumstances that conduced the
comparison. For example, entry word hnyps ("Ul p. 491), though
hapax legomenon in the Bible, is nevertheless quite limpid, owing
to (a) its salient synonymity in the Hebrew Bible text with hyna ( Jon.
1:34); (b) its use as a translation synonym for hyna in targumic
Aramaic; and (c) its frequent occurrence in Rab. Heb. Ibn Jan
himself does not even trouble to remark on any of these three grounds
but suces to simply state: the word is well known. Now, despite
all, he adds the rider axya hybr[ yhw; thus the comparison exhibits
the form of comparison for its own sake. It also goes without say-
ing that in the case of many entry words of very common biblical
occurrence, comparisons with Arabic were established by the Hebrew
grammarians. Take for example Ibn Jans comparisons flp/tlp
("Ul, p. 573), [yqr/[yqr (p. 689), ma/yma (p. 56), arb/arb (p. 107),
[dg/[dg (p. 124), and btkm btk/batk (p. 334, also Riqmah p. 239),
among many others.
In a number of instances the meaning of an entry word shows
up clearly; prima facie, from its manifold biblical contexts. Such
words are in no need of comparison with an Aramaic translation
synonym to establish their proven sense. Indeed it is possible that if
a comparison is recorded, it was adduced merely for comparisons
sake. However, another possibility exists, namely that the Hebrew
grammarians found it convenient, even suitable, to found the sense
by the process of language comparison. If the latter is indeed the
case, it could be posited that the Hebrew grammarians made lan-

guage comparison the primary device for determining the sense of
biblical entry words, whenever and wherever support from compar-
ison was available. Several exemplary instances, structured on the
formulae Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.; Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./
Targ. Aram.; or Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. culled
from Jmi' al-"Alf follow: r[ (p. 433) appears ten times in the
Bible and its meaning is quite salient there from; nevertheless Alfsi
adduced the comparison r[/hfm/sr[. Aramaic hnd occurs 42 times,
[k 13 times, m 10 times, jlp 10 times, tjn 6 times, rwt 7 times, bwt
8 times, qpn 11 times, lza 7 times, rbg 21 times, yd 335 times, bc
5 times. For all these entry words, the sense shows up clearly from
their several contexts, despite which Alfsi did not fail to compare
them with their respective Hebrew translation synonyms, using the
Targ. Aram. entries as intermedia, as built on the given formulae.
Thus all these comparisons can be viewed as cases of comparison
for its own sake.
Many entry words were rendered by the Hebrew grammarians by
both cognate and non-cognate translation synonyms; the two latter
sorts of translation synonyms are, in their opinion, synonymous (9.8.1;
13.10.1). It was noted above (4.7; 4.12) that in a large proportion
of instances, the cognate is rarer, in contrast with the frequent non-
cognate, for which reason the cognate is less limpid. It is fair, there-
fore, to argue that from a purely lexicographical standpoint there
was no need to adduce the cognate for denition of the entry word:
the non-cognate would have well suced. Perhaps the Hebrew gram-
marians simply wished to maintain propinquity with the source texts
serving them for adoption of their renderings/denitions of the sev-
eral entries under discussion and for this reason also entered the
cognate translation synonyms. But it cannot be ruled out that perhaps
the grammarians had intended to set down not only the denition
of the entry word (by the non-cognate) but also the modus operandi
adopted in order to reach such denitionsnamely, (1) the etymolog-
ical equivalence of Hebrew entry word and cognate Arabic translation
synonym, (2) the synonymity in meaning of cognate and non-cognate,
and (3) the logical result ensuing from the coalescence of (1) and
(2)i.e. the equivalent sense of entry word and non-cognate translation
synonym. Whichever position is taken, the aforesaid assumption
remains unchanged, namely that the aim of the Hebrew grammarians
was to record comparison for comparisons sake at least in those
132 chapter five
instances in which the frequency of the entry word in the Bible was
sucient to provide limpidity.
5.3.5.4 Comparison with the aim of providing an etymological rationale

Regarding some comparisons, it is saliently clear that their purpose
was not for determining the sense of an entry word but for setting
out an etymological background; in these cases the comparison pro-
vides a response to the question: Why is the referee of the entry
word called such and such? This aspect is not identical with the
usual sense, meaning, for the determination of the latter is some-
thing basic; it can be derived and/or deduced from the context(s)
in which the entry word occurs, irrespective of etymological com-
parison. Etymological reasoning, on the other hand, is by denition
not restricted to substantiating the meaning of the entry word but
is rather aimed at a wider investigation of the etymological sense of
the word. A clear sign of this objective is the relatively great fre-
quency of occurrence of the entry word. For example, the word wlj
appears 31 times in the Bible and Alfsi nonetheless records a com-
parison of that word with Aramaic lyljindeed built upon the for-
mula Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram., although this formula is
designed primarily for the determination of meaning rather than for
etymological reasons: the comparison (p. 549) runs hljm-wlj/bwbn/lylj.
This modus operandi is in fact clearly discernible from the form of
Alfsis expression (ibid.) ahjtpw ahpywgtl: the lm serves to explain
the meaning, not to determine it (he had already stated earlier that
the meaning of this root is bqt). What is more, the very word that
had been hereby adduced in the status of Bib. Heb.1, this being the
entry in need of denition, i.e. wlj, this word itself is used as inter-
medium in entry rj (p. 585; in comparison rj/wlj/rj); this
implies that in Alfsis view the given word wlj is common and
quite transparent. It is thus probable that the comparison of that
word with Aramaic lylj, established at its home entry, was meant
not as a corroboration of the meaning of wlj but with the aim of
etymological reasoning: a window is termed wlj because of its
being lwlj. This is borne out by the fact that bwbn in Exodus is ren-
dered by the Aramaic Targum lylj. Similar reasoning appears with
the comparison bgn/bgn (p. 252): this comparison is superuous for
the determination of meaning, since bgn occurs 110 times in the Bible.
Its comparison with Aramaic (with the intermedium brj, according
to formula Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ.) was only adduced on ety-
mological grounds, this being also evident from Alfsis own words,
at the home entry (ibid.):
hfpl ahna ldw . . . amla d[w f[law apgla m bgn sa hyl[ [qy zwgy
aym wbwgn ymh wbrj wgrtw ynayrslab apg yxtqt
In Ibn Jans lexicon, also, one encounters instances of this com-
parison type, such as: Aramaic ybx/abx (p. 598), awpsm/hps (p. 488),
and yj/mj/yj (p. 714), as well as the Heb./Arab. comparisons
g/hng (p. 140), gj/gj (p. 210), mj/mj (p. 234), hjnm/jnm (p. 381),
and jm/jsm (p. 394).
5.3.6 Adducing comparisons in order to repudiate them

In the polemical work attributed to Dunash b. Labrat, The Retorts of
Dunash on R. Sa'adiah, Dunash records comparisons in the name of
Sa'adiah Ga"on and then discards them. Examples are the comparisons
appearing at entries ysj (Retort # 26) and wgrjyw (# 27), etc. Other
authors also record, at several entries, comparisons adduced by pre-
decessors and/or contemporaries, comparisons to which they them-
selves would dissent. Cases in point can be noted: (a) in Menaems
Maberet (ask, p. 107; jlx, p. 149); (b) in Alfsis Jmi' al-"Alf (dja,
p. 62), and so on.
5.4 Synopsis and conclusion
One main objective can be seen to be present, consistently and uni-

formly, throughout all the works in our study, whether biblical com-
mentaries, lexicons, polemical works, or even those works devoted
specically to language comparison. The majority of comparisons
appearing in these treatises are such that the aim of the comparison
was substantiation of the meaning of the home entry word. The latter
word is, by and large, a word of rare occurrence in the Bible, one
that could hardly be explicated by its context or from remote par-
allelisms. This was the reason for the need felt by the Hebrew gram-
marians for comparing Hebrew words with Aramaic or Arabic, so
long as a translation synonym from one of these languages would
assist in the elucidation. Arabic is a language possessing long-stand-
ing continuous speech tradition, for which reason it was taken for
granted by Heb. grammarians that Arabic entry words were well
134 chapter five
known and limpid. Thus the meaning of a Hebrew entry word that
had been forgotten since Hebrew had ceased to be spoken might
once again be resuscitated by its cognate in Arabic; and likewise
with Aramaic, with the reservation that the latter was not spoken
by the Hebrew grammarians in the Arabic speech area in the tenth
and eleventh centuries. Comparison with Aramaic, therefore, would
be of much less avail for the direct resolution of non-limpid Hebrew
entries than would a corresponding comparison with Arabic. Neverthe-
less, the grammarians resorted to roundabout routes to engage Aramaic
for purposes of lexicological support, especially by comparison with
the Aramaic in the biblical Targums (as well as by employing com-
parison with biblical Aramaic and the talmudic dialect). One encoun-
ters sophisticated combinations of Hebrew and Aramaic entries, with
cognate and non-cognate translation synonyms from the biblical
source text as well as from the Targum; these, together, were eectively
harnessed for the aim of elucidating the home entry. The most promi-
nent of these combinations is the comparison of Bib. Heb.1 with an
Aram. cognate, the latter being itself non-cognate with another Bib.
Heb. entry, i.e. Bib. Heb.2 (i.e. the formula Bib. Heb.1/Bib. Heb.2/Targ.
Aram.). This formula, like other complex formulae, is built on the
basic, major principle that two entries each of which is identical with
a third entry are themselves identical. Thus here, too, the etymo-
logical equivalence of the Hebrew entry word (Bib. Heb.1) and the
Aramaic entry word (Targ. Aram.) enabled the determination of the
meaning of the Bib. Hebrew entry word (Bib. Heb.2). In other com-
parison combinations, the unknown quantity was even the mean-
ing of the Aramaic entry word (in some instances Targ. Aram., in
others, Talm. Aram.); its etymological equivalence with an Arabic
entry word was decisive for both the Aramaic and the Hebrew entries
under discussion.
The Hebrew grammarians comparisons also comprise several com-
parisons designed to corroborate the principle of mutual anity of
the three languages subject to study or, alternatively, to establish a
rule for the scientic study of Semitic comparative philology, whether
in the area of grammar or in that of syntax, the latter objective
being termed comparison for comparisons sake. With this aim in
mind the following works devoted to language comparison were com-
piled: the Risla of Ibn Quraysh, and the Kitb al-Muwzana of Ibn
Barn; also, apparently, the lost treatise of Dunash ibn Tamm and,
on a limited scale, the excursuses contained within David b. Abraham
Alfsis Jmi' al-"Alf and within Dunashs Retorts on Menaem. Nonethe-

less, one additionally comes across comparisons for their own sake
here and there in other treatises and works that were not devoted
solely to language comparison.
Ibn Barn exhibits an additional aim in language comparison: he
compiles a Heb.-Arab. comparative lexicon for the benet of the
Bible translator. Apparently Ibn Barn held that an ideal Bible trans-
lator should render the biblical text words by an Arabic cognate
expression wherever this was feasible.
The upshot is that the great majority of the comparisons serve a
practical objective, namely the elucidation of the pertinent biblical
entry words. In other words, the Hebrew grammarians comparative
linguistic science was exploited primarily in the service of the lexi-
cographical and philological needs of biblical study. In this matter
the Hebrew grammarians resemble those modern lexicologists who
attempt to utilize comparative linguistics for this purpose itself, i.e.
biblical philology. However, the resemblance is solely in the aspect
of aim; furthermore, even within this resemblance, a basic distinc-
tion can be noticed between the medieval and the modern scholars:
the latter are concerned with ascertaining the primeval meaning of
the root as well as the semantic shifts that it underwent, in all its
detailed aspects, in the given language itself as well as in other cog-
nate languages. The Hebrew grammarians, in contrast, are inter-
ested merely in the particular meaning of the actual entry words
within the given language (or in the compared languages). They
establish interlingual comparison between two entry words if, and
only if, there is a distinct correspondence between the two accord-
ing to the sense of the entry word(s) in actual practice in the sev-
eral language strata. For the Bible, with its translations, it would be
more appropriate to adopt the expression corpuses rather than
language strata to denote the entry from which the grammarians
cite, this being what is here referred to as translation synonyms. It goes
without saying that in modern times, tools for comparison have
increased considerably and, moreover, are much more mature pro-
fessionally. Further elaboration would be appropriate outside of this
framework, but let me very briey allude to certain isolated matters,
in a general way: (a) the diachronic approach in linguistics, as a
rule; (b) critical research in all spheres of science; (c) the employ-
ment of several newly discovered Semitic languages that only recent
generations have had cognizance of and that have indeed proted
136 chapter five
comparative scholarship considerably. Only the minority of com-

parisons of the Hebrew grammarians serves a purely linguistic
objective (above, 5.3.5). True, the scholarly writings of the Hebrew
grammarians are instructive for an evaluation of their respective
standpoints on the similarity and/or anity between the three lan-
guages known by them. But, and this deserves emphasis, nowhere
in the writings of the Hebrew grammarians can be found, either as
an express statement or even as an allusion, any trace of those addi-
tional aims posed by modern linguists for comparative linguistics.
Examples of such aims are: exposing the historical identity of the
Semitic languages or reconstructing of the proto-Semitic tongue by
a synthesis of the concurrent aspects found in the several Semitic
languagesin other words, putting together the totality of Semitic
grammatical and lexicological data that are known to be original,
i.e. excluding those data that owe their origin to the inuence of
extraneous non-Semitic languages.7 Indeed, in contrast to the latter,
the Hebrew grammarians exhibit no conception of diachronic devel-
opment in their comparative premises (Tn 1983, 1.3). For them,
Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic are merely kindred languages and no
more than that. The expression most applicable as representative of
their approach is br[la hgl brq m: no intimation exists of a full-
scale equivalence and certainly not of identity of the languages subjected
to comparison. A further clue to the intentions of the Hebrew gram-
marians in their practice of language comparison, with the excep-
tion of Ibn Barn, can be obtained from the comparisons they record
and, in fact, from their habitual avoidance of comparison activity in
the area of grammar. It can be argued insofar as Alfsi is concerned
that, considering that he had never proposed to compile a work on
grammar but merely a lexicon, it could not be expected a priori
that his treatise would contain comparative grammar as well. In fact,
however, his work does comprise a plethora of grammatical materials,
so much so that Skoss (introduction to Jmi' al-"Alf, p. 79) expressed
his opinion that a thorough collation and arrangement of the mate-
rials was indeed a desideratum.8 It is probable that, given the quan-
tity of grammatical discussion, some essays on comparative grammar
7
See, for example, Brockelmann, 1908, 6; 1910, 6; Moscati, 1980, 1.8.
8
We intend to implement this undertaking in a suitable framework, some time
in the future PG.
would be encountered; yet paradoxically, only a very meager quan-

tity can be culled.9 The same, a fortiore, applies to Ibn Jan, who
devoted to biblical Hebrew grammar a treatise of enormous size and
exceptional quality, Sefer ha-Riqmah; the disparity, however, between
the number of comparisons in this treatise (or, to be more precise,
in the portion of the treatise known as Kitb al-Tanqh) and the total
number of such comparisons appearing in his biblical lexicon Sefer
HaShorashim, is indeed very considerable. A clear change of direction
in this respect occurs only in the work of Ibn Barn, this being one
of the principal factors aording that grammarian his unique stand-
ing, among all the philologists of that time engaged in language com-
parison. This is not meant to imply that Alfsi, Ibn Jan, and other
grammarians lacked the capacity for abstraction required for gram-
matical comparisons. (It is obvious that the level of abstract analysis
in grammatical comparisons is innitely higher than the corresponding
level of abstraction associated with lexical comparisons.)10 Comparisons
of this type can be found, at least in limited number in their trea-
tises, too. The inevitable conclusion is that these Hebrew grammar-
ians devoted the cream of their scholarly endeavors to the aim that
struck them as being of a concrete and practical nature, namely the
explication of biblical entry words by means of language compari-
son. Their avoidance of recording comparisons for entry words that
are etymologically equivalent but of no absolute semantic equivalence is
probably due to their nding no value in theoretical linguistic discus-
sions, insofar as these contributed little to their ultimate objective.
This assumption could well provide good grounds for the style of
the treatise now recognized as the pioneering work on the subject
of comparative Semitic philology, namely the Risla of Ibn Quraysh,
i.e. that this work contains only a scant measure of grammatical
comparisons, whereas its main contents comprise lexical comparisons
only. Here is indeed further conrmation of Beckers conclusion
regarding the aim of the earlier portions of Risla, which quantita-
tively constitute the substance of this treatise.
9
In the introduction to Alfsis Language Comparison Theory (below, 9.1), a
more or less exhaustive survey of these materials is presented.
10
See Maman, 1998.
CHAPTER SIX
LANGUAGE COMPARISON IN TREATISES

TRANSLATED INTO HEBREW
The works dealt with in the present study that were initially com-
piled in Arabic were, in part, subsequently translated into Hebrew:
The two major works of R. Jonah Ibn Jan, Kitb al-Luma' and
Kitb al-"Ul (in practice, there are two parts of one large treatise
called Kitb al-Tanq) were translated into Hebrew by R. Judah Ibn
Tibbon. The Hebrew names of the two translations are, respectively,
Sefer ha-Riqmah and Sefer ha-Shorashim. The minor works of Ibn Jan
were translated by several scholars: Kitb al-Mustalaq was translated,
as Sefer ha-Hassagah, by Obadiah ha-Sepharadi but has yet to be pub-
lished.1 The several other translations, too, have also not yet been
published.2 The grammatical treatises of R. Judah Ibn Bal'am, were
likewise rendered into Hebrew, and the parts that survived have been
published (Abramson 1975). The discussion that follows is principally
founded on materials in Kitb al-"Ul compared with the Hebrew
rendering in Sefer haShorashim. In addition I used materials based on
a comparison of Sefer HaHassagah with the original Mustalaq, together
with the corresponding collation of versions in Ibn Bal'ams works,
original and translation, to check my ndings. The issue to be dis-
cussed, then, might be formulated as follows: What was the fate of
the comparisons in Kitb al-"Ul when converted into Hebrew as
Shorashim? In other words, how do the comparisons, relate to each
other in the two forms of this work: the original and the Hebrew
translation?
Prima facie, a translation should reect only what is contained in
the original, no more and no less. In fact, however, this is not the
case. There are occasional instances in which Ibn Tibbon adduces
the comparison in the original verbatim but omits the Arabic example
1
The translation was edited by the late D. Tn and is now in press. See Bachers
introduction to Shorashim, p. xxx; Tn, 1972, p. 1386, 4.
2
Tn, ibid. 14.2; 14.4; 14.5; 56.1; 56.2.
language comparison in treatises translated into hebrew 139
either totally or partially. Sometimes he turns an implicit comparison

into an explicit comparison, and sometimes he is liable to even add
comparisons of his own solely on the basis of a non-cognate trans-
lation synonym (comparison category > explicit comparison, below,
6.2). In yet other cases he fails to express an implicit comparison in
the original because of his rendering the Arabic word by a Hebrew
word cognate with the entry word (implicit comparison > ; below,
13.10). Rather than proceeding to enumerate the various alterations
in detail, the motivation for intentional omissions and/or additions
in relative to the Arabic source texts should rst be ascertained. At
rst sight, intentional omission would appear to be the most applic-
able phenomenon. R. Judah Ibn Tibbon declared clearly and explicitly
his reasons for translating Ibn Jans work: . . . the exiled Jewish
People in the Diaspora of France and of Greater Italy have no
knowledge of the Arabic language; therefore, these works have become
for them like a sealed book; their access to these works will be
possible only after their having been rendered into the Holy Tongue
(Riqmah, p. 4). Furthermore, in his conclusion to Sefer HaShorashim
(p. 550), he states that from the outset he omitted from the trans-
lation those occasional Arabic idiomatic phrases that the author had
employed in certain places to illustrate some usage he was discussing,
because the Jews of these local provinces could not appreciate them
and their inclusion would thus be of no value. R. Judah implies that
the French Jews, as also the Italian (lit: those of the Land of Edom),
do not know Arabic, from which it follows that the language com-
parisons would be superuous for them. But this explanation, by
itself, falls short of explaining the plethora of changes in Ibn Tibbons
rendering; for it cannot be said that he systematically and entirely
omitted the language comparisons. On the contrary, he often leaves
the comparison untouched. What is more, in not a few instances
Ibn Tibbon himself includes a comparison where Ibn Jan had not
recorded any! How are we to accommodate such an unsystematic
approach, one that allows sometimes for omissions and sometimes
for additions? Several scholars have drawn attention to this phe-
nomenon but have failed to treat it exhaustively; they have neither
explained this matter thoroughly nor added any essential rationale
beyond Ibn Tibbons own express argumentations. Kokowtzow (1916,
Part 3, pp. 20415) dwelled on the omission of Arabic material in
the Hebrew rendering of R. Judah Ibn Bal'ams grammatical treatises,
without, however, taking note of how the language comparisons had
140 chapter six
thereby been especially aected. Kokowtzow (ibid., p. 209) even

attributed the omissions to insucient care and attention of the
translator; but the example put forward by Kokowtzow to sub-
stantiate his case, the entry lglg from the Tajns, belongs in fact to
a well-dened class of omissions, namely non-explicit comparison
> , for which other grounds exist. Abramson (1975) in his foot-
notes made mention of the translators omissions in the wider frame,
not specically those omissions of phrases, constituting language com-
parison. An example of such is entry rj (p. 41), dened by Ibn
Bal'am as atla, this denition/comparison having been omitted by
the translator. Abramson remarks: In the original there appears an
Arabic interpretation of the word. At entry hrwbd (p. 37, n. 2)
Abramson refers the reader to the textual discrepancies between "Ul
and Shorashim, suggesting tentatively that this might be an addition
in "Ul. In fact, however, this discrepancy represents nothing but
an omission in the Shorashim.. Becker, too, (1984, p. 36, n. 20), pointed
out some implicit comparisons in the "Ul that Ibn Tibbon himself
had reverted to explicit comparisons but failed to elaborate on the
issue. In contrast, Bachers categorical statement (introduction to
Shorashim, p. xxxviii): However, the explication of the Arabic words
appearing in Shorashim was entirely omitted by Ibn Tibbon . . . is
exaggerated and untenable.
6.1 Omissions of explicit comparisons
Ibn Tibbon ignores inner Arabic discussions on grammatical or

semantic topics, due to these having no direct relevance for the
meaning of the Hebrew entry word. For example, Ibn Jan draws
a parallel between hydwdg (Ps. 65:11) and hymlt (ibid.) on the basis
of an explicit comparison with the Arabic cognate dyadg. He states,
additionally, that the given sense of ydwdg is metaphorical, its fun-
damental sense being wmkw wdk (scratches; incisions). This is fol-
lowed by a lengthy discourse on the inner Arabic morphology of
wmk and on the metaphorical usages of the Arabic expressions
adduced. This inner Arabic discussion was entirely ignored by Ibn
Tibbon. Similarly, at dyt[ (p. 555), Ibn Jan renders ydwt[ by
ad[; he goes on to explain why he adopted that specic Arabic
form rather than adt[ (he preferred the form in which assimilation
of t to d occurred, this being the form that Arab grammarians
treated as the normative one). This discussion thus relates to the

inner Arabic technicality regarding translation of a word and has
virtually no bearing on the interpretation of the form or the sub-
stance of the entry word. Ibn Tibbon therefore passed over this in
his translation. Moreover, Ibn Tibbon, could well have grounded his
decision to omit it on Ibn Jans own didactic comment: txkl amnaw
yl zal ryg ak aw adh lk (I elucidated all this, although I was not
under any obligation to do so). Apparently, Ibn Jan was referring
to simple Hebrew lexicographical needs. It can also be shown that
in those places where Ibn Jan recorded a comparison with Rab.
Heb. apart from the comparison with Arabic, Ibn Tibbon felt justied
in ignoring the Arabic comparison. Double comparisons of this type
are to be found in the following entries: zwga (p. 19/p. 12), twrwkb-
yrwkb (p. 92/p. 64), ddg-dwg (p. 127/p. 87), lglg-llg (p. 134/p. 92),
rg (p. 146/p. 100), (ar-)tld (p. 159/p. 109), tywz (p. 189/p. 128),
tbnzw (p. 198/p. 134), wbj (p. 210/p. 142), yljy (p. 230/p. 157),
nj (p. 237/p. 162), lgrj (p. 258/p. 176), bj (p. 253/p. 173), rzmm
(p. 369/p. 257), rwm (p. 748/p. 534), hgws (p. 476/p. 334), whqz[yw
(p. 516/p. 363), wytwyf[ (p. 518/p. 365), htmxp (p. 579/p. 407),
lytp-ltltp (p. 594/p. 418), [bx (p. 599/p. 422), lylx (p. 609/
p. 429), twlybqm (p. 624/p. 439), pq (p. 640/p. 450), harm
(p. 655/p. 462), ysysr (p. 682/p. 482), ttr (p. 690/p. 488), htyl
(p. 724/p. 516), hymlt (p. 762/p. 543).
Examples of entries from which Ibn Tibbon omitted the larger part
of the discussion concerning (a) the deniens and/or (b) the Arabic
instances adduced by Ibn Jan.
In his translation of the entry tjn (p. 429/p. 301) Ibn Tibbon passes
over the following paragraph, leaving it untranslated:
rtk ada hrgla tlzna laqyw .hwmnw htdayz ya [rzy am [yr wh . . . lznlaw
yp atglla tqpta dqw alkla hrytkla hlznla ralaw ahrmt ya ahlzn
.lwznla yp yn[mla ydh [amtga
Here, we are faced not merely with the oversight of one isolated word
or a single phrase; this is an intentional passing-over of a full-length
paragraph, a conspicuous and prominent omission. What is even
more interesting, this is an omission practice characteristic of Ibn
Tibbons translation method. For in fact Ibn Jan in this paragraph
denes the signi of lzn, this being a non-cognate translation synonym
set in one-to-one correspondence with the entry word, following
142 chapter six
which, he illustrates the inner Arabic usage of this non-cognate.

These are the two aspects (each of which involves pure inner Arabic
analysis) generally omitted in Ibn Tibbons rendering. In the exam-
ple cited here, the translator also omitted the comparative semantic
remark made by Ibn Jan. All these elements were considered by
Ibn Tibbon non-essential for the Hebrew reader. Omissions and
abridgments of this nature are encountered in the rendering of the
following entries: [dg (p. 124/p. 85), rj (p. 255/p. 174), lf (p. 263/
p. 180), jql (p. 357/p. 249), ql (p. 359/p. 250), ddm (p. 364/p. 254),
rxm (p. 390/p. 272), ljn (p. 424/p. 297), tjn (p. 429/p. 301), tw[
(p. 514/p. 362), rap-hrap (p. 560/p. 394), axax (p. 621/p. 438),
wyx (p. 607/p. 428), [rq (p. 649/p. 457), gr (p. 665/p. 469), [r
(p. 684/p. 483), rk (p. 701/p. 496), rw (p. 711/p. 505), rk
(p. 723/p. 515), ll (p. 724/p. 515), p (p. 740/p. 529).
The comparison type most aected by translation omissions was
the implicit comparison category, from which Ibn Tibbon excluded 258
comparisons, no matter whether the Arab. cognate was the sole
deniens or a deniens jointly with one or more non-cognate trans-
lation synonyms. In each entry of this category Ibn Tibbon, when
he did not curtail the translation entirely,3 translated the synonyms
that were non-cognate either entirely or partially, while omitting the
translation of the cognate synonyms. Here Bacher is mistaken when
he states (introduction to Shorashim, p. 39, n. 1) that Ibn Tibbon
translated all the denientia, as including the cognate translation syn-
onyms, through one Heb. deniens. This is saliently clear at those
entries where Ibn Tibbon introduces the denition with the Heb.
rmwlk, this being the rendering for (Arab.) ya (= the word employed
in the original for commencing the explication for the cognate, not
3
On occasion, of course, Ibn Tibbon does translate the cognate by a synonym
for the entry word, thus fullling his translation duty in toto; this however does not
prevent the elimination of the implicit comparison that existed for the cognate, for
example, . . . ahn[ tjbw . . . rwmala zw ,rqjw za (p. 31) that Ibn Tibbbon, in Shorashim
(p. 19), renders: . . . hyl[ rqjw ynyyn[h lq. For further instances see also dja
(p. 33/p. 21), ddwmth (p. 364/p. 254), and jxp (p. 579/p. 407). At times, the trans-
lator omitted to translate the denition in its entirety, e.g.: rskb rala yp l[gw wrab yyw
. . . hyp pdy twbat whw hzmhla ("Ul, p. 68). Of all this text, Ibn Tibbon here retains
merely wrab yyw and omits all the rest (Shorashim, p. 47). See similarly [lb (p. 96/
p. 66), pg (p. 143/p. 98), [f (p. 265/p. 182) as well as some other entries at
which, instead of translating the denition, Ibn Tibbon states simply [wdy (well-
known), e.g., jl (p. 351/p. 244), sm (p. 382/p. 266), and jxm (p. 390/p. 272).
R. Nathan b. Jeiel, too, omitted the Arabic from his quotations from Perush haGe"onim
(see Epstein, 1982, p. 13).
for directly linking the entry word with the non-cognate). Ibn Tibbon
retained this word, though he omitted the rendering of the cognate.
Examples follow:
Original: qlkla [ymg ya rbla [ymgrb (p. 116)
Translation: rxwn lk rmwlk rb (p. 80)
Original: klga m ya klalg mkllgb (p. 135)
Translation: krwb[b rmwlk kllgb (p. 93)
Original: yrskt ya ymrgtymrgt (p. 145)
Translation: yrbt rmwlk ymrgt (p. 100)
Likewise at entries rg (p. 146/p. 100), hdn (p. 153/p. 106), bnz
(p. 198/p. 134), rdj (p. 212/p. 144), and many others.
But the omission is evident even when ya does not appear between
cognate and non-cognate, e.g.:
Original dargla m nx whw lgrjlalgrjh (p. 258)
Translation: hbra m ym lgrjh (p. 176)
and especially at those entries where the denition is set up in a
way such that the non-cognate precedes the cognate, as:
Original: hbq[law r[wla b[xlarwtnk bq[h (p. 543)
Translation: wb twl[l hqhrwyml bq[h (p. 382)
and likewise yar (p. 658/p. 464) , etc.
Ibn Tibbons omission policy at times even went to the extreme
of dispensing entirely with the deniens and merely entering, the
remark [wdy (well-known) (this being equivalent to the remark wr[m
used by Ibn Jan himself at some entries), e.g.:
Original: [ardhywfn [wrzb (p. 203)
Translation: [wdyhywfn [wrzb (p. 138)
Original: rmnlarmn (p. 437)
Translation: [wdyrmn (p. 306)
Likewise the entries ry (p. 297/p. 205), p (p. 740/p. 529), and
jl (p. 351/p. 244) (at the latter entries no cognate translation syn-
onym appears as deniens). This translators practice of elimination
is adopted even at such entries as xj (p. 244/p. 166), where it is
extremely doubtful that the sense of the entry word could reasonably
be called [wdy: in this instance, this word appears altogether only
3 times in the Bible and Ibn Jan took the trouble to dene it
clearly through its cognate equivalent in Arabic. In the translations
144 chapter six
of Ibn Bal'ams treatises also (Abramson, 1975, p. 109) one encoun-

ters [wdy in lieu of the deniens occurring in the Arabic original (e.g.:
[wdy . . . awh/hraala rj . . . awh).
In 28 entries Ibn Tibbon dispensed with the deniens, this being
the only translation synonym, indeed a cognate, proposed by Ibn
Jan; he records no substitute for what he has eliminated and thus
leaves the entry word without any denition. The entries are: zwga,
wra, ra, rab, qwb, [lb, lxb, rb, hkreb, hnbg, ldgm, pg, brg, yld, baz,
bwbz, [wrz, j, xj, ry, syk, hjm, jwlm, wmr, [wb, [b, lk, hq.4
As far as some of these entries are concerned, it can be argued
that the entry words are indeed well known and in no need of
denition. This, however, cannot be maintained for such rare entry
words as qwb, hnbg, brg, and xj. To ascertain the reason for the
omission of these four, let us attempt to determine the several pos-
sibilities that were open to Ibn Tibbon when faced with the task of
translating these and similar denitions. In theory, he could have (a)
reverted the implicit comparisons to explicit comparisons or (b) dis-
regarded the cognate translation synonym entirely and ipso facto the
implicit comparison (in a similar fashion to that of the above-mentioned
instances) or (c) chosen to be meticulously faithful to his original,
such that the result would be a tautological denition. To illustrate:
in a good many entries in the "Ul, no description or denition is
given for the referent of the entry word; an Arabic translation appears
and nothing more. When Ibn Tibbon set about providing a Hebrew
rendering for the given Arabic deniens, he was faced with a dilemma
that might be dened as either a technical problem or an essential
quandary. If he rendered in accord with the equation appearing
in the original, namely by the translation synonymity of denitum
and deniens, he would nd he had arrived back at the entry word
itself and was therefore recording a tautological and thus lexico-
graphically worthless denition. For example, in "Ul, Ibn Jan
denes the entry word hpna: agbbla-hpnahw (p. 59). This denition
implies that hpna and agbb are one and the same, because the
4
Entries that for some reason were ignored entirely in Shorashim have been
excluded from this list, such as hrf (p. 183), llj (p. 154; the section relating to
al wrbd ljy; Num. 30:3), rb (sense hrwb, p. 80), twynj (hnj, p. 162), bbl (p. 238).
Regarding the omission of entire entries in the Rome MS of Shorashim versus the
el-Escorial MS, see Bachers introduction to Shorashim, p. 37 and n. 7.
denition proposed by the author (or by the source from which he

had drawn) presupposes identity of the referents designated by these
two signiants, the former being in fact translated by the latter. On
the principle of reversibility of an equation, the latter signiant could
likewise be translated by the former. In other words: if hpna equals
agbb, then agbb equals hpna. Hence, when Ibn Tibbon set about
rendering this deniens, he had, technically, the option of translat-
ing such that Ibn Jans text quote would appear in Hebrew hpnahw
hpnah ayh: the rst hpna standing for the entry word and the second
as the translation word for agbb. If he were to leave this tautological
rendering as it stood, he would have achieved nothing; even though
he would have fullled his duty as translator, for the reader, at any
rate, he would certainly have achieved nothing. This very option of
tautological denition is indeed adopted by Ibn Tibbon, but not sur-
prisingly, for only on extremely rare occasions. From the viewpoint
of the lexicologist, the absurdity of such a formulation is quite obvious.
One such instance is entry [qp ("Ul, p. 583)/Shorashim (p. 409):
Original: rfpla yn[a [qpla yh . . . hd tw[wqp (2 Kings 4:39)
Transl. tw[wqph h hd tw[wqp
Further instances: afls . . . wfl (p. 727)/twnfl wfl (p. 518); jtp
jtphw hjytp lkh yn[w . . . (p. 594/p. 418); likewise, at entries rdg
(p. 125/p. 86), r[r[ (p. 557/p. 392), rqb (p. 106/p. 73), ae (p. 37),
drb (p. 77), tywz (p. 128), dy (p. 188), m (p. 260), y[m (p. 267), hn
(p. 325), awq (p. 458), ym (p. 275), ylb (p. 494), rk (p. 514).
At the following entries, the tautology is somewhat attenuated by
the fact that, together with the tautological deniens, an additional
(non-cognate) deniens is encountered: tpfjw (p. 221/p. 150), (wyny[w)
hmq (p. 630/p. 444), [wn (p. 417/p. 293), ljw (yxy) (p. 229/p. 156).
Thus we see the employment of two of the three possibilities. The
third option, reversion of implicit comparison to explicit comparison,
is also fairly frequent; it is adopted in a total of 34 instances (for
details, see below 13.11, Implicit comparisonscognates in "Ul,
/explicit comparisons in Shorashim). An example is in p. 66/p. 45:
tarqnh ayh . . . wkw h[pa/a[pala yh . . . (Isa. 30:6) pw[m rw h[pa
a[pa ybr[b
Ibn Tibbons treatment of implicit comparisons leads one to conclude
that he omitted the large majority of instances in this category.
146 chapter six
It is worthwhile comparing Ibn Tibbons practice with that of

Obadiah the Spaniard in his rendering of Kitb al-Mustalaq (Sefer ha-
Hassagah) in the isolated instances where Ibn Jan had adopted the
choice of the implicit comparison.
6.1.1 Implicit comparisonscognates in R. Jonah Ibn Jans Opuscules

All the following comparisons appear in Mustalaq; of these one com-
parison alone appears also in Kitb al-Taswi"a.
(lly) llwt/lyla (Mustalaq, p. 240), k/k (ibid., p. 149), jx/jx
= sm (ibid., p. 210), lyla/ynf-lylx (ibid., p. 211; Kitb al-Taswi"a,
p. 377), llx/[ smla tlaz lf (Mustalaq, p. 213).
The translator of Mustalaq into Hebrew (as Sefer haHassagah),5
namely Obadiah ha-Sepharadi, in the above sporadic instances of
implicit comparison, cognate translation synonymproceeded accord-
ing to the same method as that used by Ibn Tibbon in the vast
majority of comparisons of this type in "Ul, i.e. the omission of the
comparison. The student reading Sefer haHassagah could have no
inkling of the fact that Ibn Jan employed implicit comparison in
these instances. If numerous additional implicit comparisons were
encountered in the Mustalaq, the Hebrew translation might perhaps
have revealed a variety of additional solutions for the problem of
comparisons with Arabic, of a similar nature to those attested in the
renderings of Ibn Tibbon. Moreover, it is probable that the solution
resorted to in Hassagah is, practically, the most natural one in the
socio-linguistic environment in which the translation was undertaken
(i.e. the requirements of the Hebrew reader, the potential options
available to the translator, the text materials standing to be translated,
etc.). It is therefore not at all surprising that the above-mentioned
resolution is indeed the one most frequently employed by Ibn Tibbon
in the Shorashim for the category implicit comparisoncognate trans-
lation synonym
An instance of original text v. translation. (Mustalaq v. Hassagah)
follows:
5
The relevant material has been checked against MS Rome, Casanatenza 3132
(202,2), a photograph of which is available at the Institute of Microlmed Hebrew
MSS at the National and University Library in Jerusalem; the reel number is F
80, P 3350. The page numbers designate the numbering in the MS itself. In F 80
Sefer HaHassagah commences on page 101 (= p. 182).
Original: lylx hnhw [wnla adh mw . . . llx ( Judg. 7:13) ynf whw lylx hryptw
(Mustalaq, p. 211)
Translation: . . . wa lwq wwrypw yrw[ jl lylx yyn[hw ymh hzmw . . . llx
(Hassagah, p. 165, col. ii)
The implicit comparison lylx/lylx in the original has been entirely
lost in the translation lylx/wa lwq. This was also the fate of the
comparisons in the rest of the entries, similarly rendered by Obadiah.6
These are anlyla/wntyykbw wntlly, k/k (Hassagah, p. 146, col. i),
lfa/lxh h[n (Hassagah, p. 165, col. ii et seq.).
It has been demonstrated, then, that in a minority of cases of
implicit comparison: cognate translation synonym, i.e. in about 20
instances, Ibn Tibbon adopts a rendition of the cognate translation
synonym, thus reaching a tautological denition. In a total of 34 cases,
these constituting a group of notable size, Ibn Tibbon changes the
implicit comparison into an explicit one. However, in a clear majority
of cases, amounting to 258, he omits entirely the cognate translation
synonym as well as the implicit comparison. In fact in certain instances
of explicit comparison: cognate translation synonym, too, he practises
omission. The latter method at least can be said to faithfully reect
the approach he outlined in the epilogue to his translation of "Ul.
These data give rise to the following baing question: if the omis-
sion method of cognate translation synonym was adopted in so many
instances of implicit comparisoncognate translation synonym, for
what reason did the translator leave intact non-cognate Arabic trans-
lation synonyms and in some cases even provide these with a sem-
blance of comparison (such as the common comparison terminology)?
Bacher discusses those comparisons not omitted by Ibn Tibbon and
proposes the following argument: There still remained several mem-
bers of the Jewish community in southern France for whom Shorashim
was prepared (lit: translated), who had an understanding of the Arabic
language and who appreciated its linguistic elegance. For this reason,
R. Judah Ibn Tibbon left intact the majority of the materials by
which R. Jonah had demonstrated the similarity of Biblical language
and Arabic (introduction to Shorashim, p. 38). However, this argument,
6
In the translation of entry jx (Hassagah, p. 165, col. i) it is probable that the
copyist committed an unintentional omission due to homoioteleuton, between l[ and
yl[; the text reads: . . . wjwxjxw wtwnblw wtwryhb (l[ . . . y)l[ jx tk wnmmw. Thus
the rendering of the word jx in the original has been overlooked.
148 chapter six
apart from its insuciency, does not mitigate the aforementioned

problem. Whichever way one analyzes the issue, the problem remains:
If Ibn Tibbon had in mind the interests of those who had an under-
standing of Arabic, why did he not leave intact in Shorashim the
Arabic materials pertinent to language comparison (including the
inner Arabic discussions)? On the other hand, if what is correct is
the admission that he had omitted the Arabic materials, since the
local residents of this country do not understand it and thus the
materials would serve no purpose for them (Shorashim, p. 550), why
did he retain a number of comparisons with Arabic and even sub-
join several comparisons (non-cognate translation synonym) that
Ibn Jan never intended to adduce?!
An inspection of the comparisons (non-cognate translation syn-
onym) initiated by Ibn Tibbon shows that these comprise terms of
realia: A classied enumeration of all the instances, according to their
semantic elds, follows.
6.2 Zero in "Ul > comparison in Shorashim
Below are recorded all the places in Shorashim where Ibn Tibbon on
his own initiative subjoined a gloss ybr[ wlb (= in the Arabic lan-
guage) or some similar phrase, though Ibn Jan in "Ul 7 had merely
rendered the entry word by a non-cognate translation synonym. The
list of locations is classied according to the pertinence of the respec-
tive entry to one of several semantic elds (all location references in
parentheses are to the Shorashim):
7
In his introduction to Shorashim (p. xxxix, n. 4), Bacher made note of a certain
number of these subjoined notations; nevertheless, in Index 10 (ibid., pp. 56667),
a good number of appropriate entries have been unintentionally omitted e.g. p. 3716,
p. 409, p. 5117, p. 15528, p. 16022, p. 1612, p. 2164,5, p. 22521, p. 2396, p. 2408,10,
p. 2417, p. 26026, etc. On the other hand, some references are redundant, e.g.,
p. 349, p. 6932, p. 15930, p. 21611, etc. Even more surprisingly, Bacher further
recorded in his Index certain materials that are in fact nothing but his own addenda
and corrigenda in Shorashim according to "Ul (I am referring to notations/state-
ments that Ibn Tibbon had himself passed over, such as, p. 4011, p. 1171, etc. For
this reason, I was not able to rely on Bachers Index; I assembled and collated the
materials on the basis of a systematic comparison of "Ul and Shorashim.
Semantic Area: Fauna

hpna (Deut. 14:18)/agbb (p. 40); hn[y tb (Lev. 11:16)/a[n (hnb,
p. 68); rmz (Deut. 14:8)/hparz (p. 134); bgj (Lev. 11:22)/bdng (p. 142);
fmj (Lev. 11:30)/abrj (p. 159); smjt (Lev. 11:16)/afk (p. 160);
hdysj (Lev. 11:19)/rqx (p. 163); jk (ibid. ib. 30)/wdrj (p. 214); swk
(ibid., 17)/wb (p. 215); tywl (Isa. 27:1)/rhzwg (p. 242); hafl (Lev.
11:30)/hyaf[ (p. 245); tmnt (ibid. 11:18)/yha, ;qynadws tmnt (ibid.,
11:30)/rba as (p. 325); rwg[ ( Jer. 8:7)/afk (p. 354); lf[ (ibid.,
11:19)/apk (p. 391); ybk[ (Isa. 59:5)/bkn[ (p. 392); bwk[ (Ps.
140:4)/hlytr (p. 392); h[pa (Isa. 30:6)/ww[pa (p. 405); srp (Lev.
11:13)/baq[ (p. 413; wq (1 Kings 10:22)/drq (p. 444); bfq (Deut.
32:24)/tj (p. 446); zwpq (Isa. 34:15)/apk, afk 8(p. 451); arwq
( Jer. 17:11)/lgj (p. 455); har (Deut. 14:13)/jrag (p. 463); lwlb
(Ps. 58:9)/wzlj (p. 494); j/as (p. 507); l/gmwz (p. 516); tymm
(Prov. 30:28)/afk (p. 521: Ibn Tibbon overlooked the additional
rendering recorded by Ibn Jan, i.e. hwnwns); yn (Isa. 1:18)/zmrq
(p. 734/p. 524); jt (Num. 4:10)/rad (p. 542); yn t[lwt (Exod.
28:10)/zmrq (p. 544).
Semantic Area: Flora

byba (Lev. 2:14)/yrp (p. 9); ylha (Num. 24:6)/ldnx (p. 15); bwza
(Exod. 12:22)/rt[x p. 19); dfa (Gen. 50:10)/gsw[ (p. 23); ymwgla
(2 Chron. 9:10)/agrm; qb (p. 240); wab (Isa. 5:2)/awz (p. 55); amg
(Exod. 2,3)/ydrb (p. 95); rpg (Gen. 6:14)/ram (p. 98); yadwd (Cant.
7:14)/japl (p. 106); hnblj (Exod. 30:34)/ynbl (p. 277/p. 154);
lwrj/rj (Append., p. 344); krk (Cant. 4:10)/arp[z (p. 234);
lmrk (Lev. 23:14)/yrp (p. 234); zwl (Gen. 30:37)/rwj (p. 243); fl
(Gen. 43:11)/fwlb ha, rbwnx (p. 243); hn[l ( Jer, 9:14)/ql[ (p. 247);
ylwlhn (Isa. 7:19)/twbny (p. 289); dprs (Isa. 55:13)/saws (p. 348);
tw[wqp (hd: 2R 4:39)/lfnj (p. 409); wyqyq ( Jon. 4:6)/[wrk (p. 447);
wmq (Isa. 34:13)/yrq (p. 449); jxq (Isa. 28:25)/zynw (p. 453); ty
(Isa. 5:6)/wxyq (p. 510); rym (Isa. 32:13)/sj (p. 524); hmq (Am.
7:14)/zymg (p. 533); hzrt (Isa. 44:14)/rbwnx (p. 549).
8
In the Arabic original as well as in the Hebrew rendering according to Cod.
Vatican, the reading is apk; the version afk appears only as the Hebrew render-
ing in Cod. El-Escorial. See the remarks of Neubauer ("Ul, p. 640) and Bacher
(Shorashim, p. 451).
150 chapter six
Names of Gems and Colors

da (Exod. 28:17)/rmja twqay (p. 21/p. 13); fhb (Esther 1:7)/fnlb
(p. 84/p. 58); jldb (Num. 11:7)/wlwl (p. 118/p. 81): lhy (Exod.
28:18)/gzwryp (p. 176/p. 120); hmlja (ibid., 28:19/amrhb 9(p. 228/
p. 155); qrqry/rpxa (p. 298/p. 205); dkdk (Isa. 54:14)/dnkrk (p. 336/
p. 234 (?)); l (Exod. 28:19)/[zg (p. 359/p. 250); pn (ibid., 28:18)/twqay
rwj (p. 443/p. 311); trjs (Esther 1:6)/aspysp (p. 479/p. 337); ryps
(Exod. 28:19)/ahm (p. 492/p. 346); hdfp (ibid. 17)/drmz (p. 570/
p. 400); ynynp (Prov. 20:15)/twqay (p. 575/p. 404); twmar (Ezek.
27:16)/agrm (p. 672/p. 474); wb (Exod. 28:19)/gbs (p. 697/p. 493);
rym (Ez. 3:9)/sam (p. 733/p. 524).
Names of Items of Clothing and Ornaments

twxljm (Zach 3:4)/llj (p. 230/p. 156); yxlj (Num. 31:3)/yzayj
(p. 230/p. 156); yrj/hyqbyd (p. 217/p. 147); yfyrj (Isa. 3:22)/ldanm
(p. 247/p. 169); bj (Exod. 28:8)/gp (p. 253/p. 173); j (Exod.
25:7)/hndb (p. 254/p. 174); t[bf (ibid., 28:12)/hqlj (p. 259/p. 177);
twptk (Exod. 28:7)/bwyg (p. 335/p. 233); yjl (Isa. 3:20)/glamd
(p. 352/p. 245); ly[m (Exod. 28:4)/rfmm (p. 385/p. 268); tkrp (Exod.
26:33)/gs (p. 587/p. 412); lygytp (Isa. 3:24)/hlalyg (p. 596/p. 420);
yx (Exod. 39:30)/hbax[ (p. 608/p. 428); y[x (Gen. 38:14)/[anq
(p. 615/p. 434); syb (Isa. 3:18)/lykalk (p. 699/p. 494); dr (Exod.
31:10)/yw (p. 749/p. 535).
Names of Personal Washing Requisites and Perfumes

tyr Ob ( Jer. 2:22)/anwa (p. 107/p. 74); rwm (Exod. 30:23)/sm
(p. 368/p. 256); fn (Exod. 30:16)/yktsmqytm (p. 431/p. 302);
fn/rwfsa (ibid.); rtn ( Jer. 2:22)/wrfnblpf (p. 470/p. 330);
wp (2 Kings 9:30)/dmta (p. 565/p. 397); tlj/dal (Exod. 30:34;
s, p. 485/p. 340); (b) hnq/hryrdla bxq (Exod. 30:23; p. 678/
p. 450); h[yxq/rbn[ (p. 642/p. 453).
Names of Sundry Substances

rmje (Exod. 2:3)/rpq (p. 235/p. 160); rwpk (Ps. 147:16)/qmd
(p. 330/p. 228); (1R 10:18)/ga[ (p. 734/p. 524).
9
In Shorashim, the reading is mhrb; this needs to be emended accordingly.
Names of Vessels and Utensils

lfrga (Ezra 1:9)/lfs, lyk (p. 78/p. 53); ja ( Jer. 36:22)/wnak (p. 32/
p. 20); hpya (Deut. 25:14)/hbyw (p. 40/p. 25); lBeji (Prov. 23:34)/hyms
(p. 207/p. 140); hkj (Isa. 19:8)/hranx (p. 224/p. 152); rwk (Deut. 4:26)/
hfwb (p. 312/p. 216); rwyk/wj (p. 319/p. 221); bwlk/pq (p. 320/
p. 222); sypk (Hab. 2:11)/rga (p. 329/p. 228); bkrk (Exod. 27:5)/
bgr10 (p. 337/p. 234); bhl (1 Sam. 17:7)/ans (p. 346/p. 240); has/lyk
(2 Kings 4:1; p. 471/p. 331); hrjs (Ps. 91:4)/aqrd (p. 479/p. 337);
dx[m/sap (p. 541/p. 380); lp (Prov. 31:19)/lzgm (p. 574/p. 403);
slp (Isa. 40:12)/apq (ibid.); bx (Isa. 66:20)/lmjm (p. 597/p. 421);
[wx[x (2 Chron. 3:10)/frk (p. 621/p. 438); ()tp;x] (ra) (Ezek.
32:6)/hma[ (p. 617/p. 435); fhr (Gen. 30:38)/wj (p. 669/p. 471);
trm (2 Sam. 13:19)/gaf (p. 752/p. 537).
Names of Musical Instruments

lylj (Isa. 5:12)/yan (p. 224/p. 153); bgw[ (Ps. 150:4)/ratyq (p. 502/
p. 353); yxlx (ibid. ib. 5)/ytqpxm (p. 609/p. 429).
Names of Illnesses
hpkn (BT Pesachim, 112b)/[wrxm (p. 329/p. 228); yrwjf (Deut.
28:27)/rysawb (p. 262/p. 179); tlby (Lev. 22:22)/lylawt (lwlat)
(p. 273/p. 187); tply (ibid.)/abwq (p. 284/p. 196).
Names of Zodiacal Signs

hmyk ( Job 9:9)/ayyrwt (p. 319/p. 221); lysk (ibid.)/lyhs (p. 327/
p. 226).
Miscellaneous Words
rj'a' (Gen. 15:1)/t (p. 35/p. 22); tyrja (Eccles. 7:8)/rka (ibid.);
yai (Isa. 11:11)/hryzg (p. 37/p. 24); qna (Ezek. 24:17)/qyh (p. 59/
p. 40); lb/al, am (p. 93/p. 64); tbd/ans (p. 152/p. 105); ywjfm
(Gen. 21:16)/hwlg (p. 262/p. 179); wwy (Ps. 69:3)/bljf (p. 279/
p. 192); [yxy/wr (p. 291/p. 201); alh ( Job 4:6)/ala (alh) (p. 347/
p. 241); fl (Gen. 4:22)/lqyx (p. 352/p. 245); twndgm (Gen. 24:53)/
10
In these entries another comparison occurs; this comparison, however, has no
relevance here, because in the original text of Ibn Jan it appears explicitly by a
term spelling out dialectological dierences in Arabic despite the absence of the
word ybr[ itself.
152 chapter six
yarf (p. 362/p. 253); lbn (Prov. 36:32)/fjna, wh (p. 402/p. 281);
jn/rgz (p. 428/p. 300); hx,[; (Lev. 3:9)/[x[ (p. 541/p. 380);
h[x/gxgx11 (p. 615/p. 434); tyjypx (Exod. 16:31)/yafq (p. 617/
p. 436); gg (Isa. 17:11)/[s[s12 (p. 754/p. 539); lwka (Cant. 7:9)/dwqn[
(p. 720/p. 512); hmx (Cant. 4:1)/baqn (p. 612/p. 431); wmra ( Jer.
30:18)/rxq (p. 672/p. 474); twp (rqb-; 2S 17:29)/abl (p. 738/
p. 527).
At one specic entry, r, which also pertains to the semantic
area of colors, Ibn Jan considered it sucient to dene by the
Targ. Aram. non-cognate translation synonym of the entry word, i.e.
mms, whereas Ibn Tibbon further subjoined an Arabic non-cognate
deniens, namely rypgnz (p. 693/p. 490).
For the above-mentioned additional comparisons of Ibn Tibbon
several explanations can be proposed:
(1) Ibn Tibbon desired in these instances to adhere faithfully to
the original text, for on the one hand an exclusion of material would
certainly do an injustice to the original, whereas on the other hand
a straightforward translation would create tautology. It is tenable to
suppose that the translator was thus forced to retain the Arabic word
occurring in the original and serving as an inevitable deniens.
The dilemma facing Ibn Tibbon is a general problem faced by any
scholar proposing to translate a bilingual lexicon into a unilingual
lexicon written in the same language as that of the entry words of
the original, bilingual, lexicon. The production of any such transla-
tion would necessarily be hampered by the same problem as that
faced by Ibn Tibbon.
(2) With regard to a restricted sector of words, it may be plausi-
ble to posit that considering that these are terms of realia, they were
well known to the ( Jewish) readers or speakers of medieval Provenal,
French, Spanish, or Italian, referred to by Ibn Tibbon as twlg ynb
wda ra lwbg lkbw tprxb ra hzh ljh (the exiled Jewish people in
the diaspora of France and of Greater Italy [lit: Edom]). It is well
known that certain Arabic termsthose for fragrant spices, for gems
and charms, for musical instrumentsas well as nomenclature in the
11
In the Hebrew edition of Shorashim, there appears in this entry a fairly exten-
sive insertion; no note of such was made by Bacher nor by Neubauer.
12
At entry gy (p. 717/p. 510), Ibn Tibbon, additionally, subjoins an extensive
note.
area of astronomy penetrated these languages in the Middle Ages

due to the contact with Arabic culture, whether the mundane culture
of voyagers and merchants or the humanitarian culture of scientic
literature (alchemy, medicine, philosophy, mathematics, etc.)
A certain proportion of these Arabic words corresponds to Arabic
or foreign words (la'az glosses) encountered in R. David Qimis
Sefer Shorashim. Qimis la'az glosses t Provenal well, this being also
the language intended by Ibn Tibbon in his la'az glosses. It remains
an open question what provoked Qimi to provide the Arabic name
for sundry concepts in his lexicon.13 At any rate, several words in
the aforementioned listings denoted by Ibn Tibbon as Arabic words
are recorded by Qimi as la'az glosses, e.g. rwm/wqwm; yn t[lwtw
yn/zymrq; fmwj/abrj (see editors notes). It follows that these words
were indeed loan words in Provenal. Elsewhere Qimi adduces the
word as Arabic, however, his phraseology implies that the word was
intelligible to non-Arabic speakers, e.g. krk/arp[z; rmz/hparwz;
ylha/ldnx. As for such words as jwk/wdrj; srp/baq[; fhb/fnlb;
hdfp/drmz, etc., it cannot be ascertained whether Qimi intended
to imply that the words were borrowed into Provenal or merely
that they were Arabic words intelligible to Provenal speakers. It is
thus very plausible that the given words, entered alike by R. Judah
ibn Tibbon and by R. David Qimi in the body of their Hebrew
texts, were known to speakers of Provenal, owing to the intercul-
tural contact mentioned earlier.
If it is permissible to suppose that words well known to Provenal
speakers might very likely have been intelligible to the residents of
the neighboring country further north, i.e. to French speakers, we
would have available an additional parameter for proposing a reso-
lution of the present issue. P. Guiraud (1971, pp. 923), in his work
on foreign words in French, enumerates some 270 Arabic words that
had permeated into French between 1100 and 1850 C.E.; two-thirds
of these had already been absorbed by the sixteenth century. Guiraud
13
The entire issue of the Arabic words adduced by Qimi in his lexicon as well
as how they relate to la'az glosses is in need of analysis. Be this as it may, one can
clearly isolate a group of words for which Qimi records the Arabic word, together
with its la'az translation: it is quite evident therefrom that such a word was not
borrowed into Provenal; it is even very doubtful that the word was comprehensible
to Provenal speakers. Some instances in point: rwg[/afk/anwdnwra; tymm/afk/nwra;
alwd ;bwza/rt[x/ynygyrywa; l/[zg/wxpwf; fwlb/fwlbha/fnlg, etc.
154 chapter six
classies these words according to the several time spans of their

penetration into French or, to be more precise, according to the sev-
eral dating of the French literary documents within which the words
are attested. (It must be taken into account that a certain time
elapses, during which a loan word is absorbed into the spoken lan-
guage only, before its total integration in written documents of the
language.) Subsequently, he arranges the words in accordance with
their several semantic elds. A large segment of them pertain to
terms of realia, bearing considerable anity with the semantic areas
listed above. I attempted to ascertain on the basis of Guirauds list,
whether any words in my listing were documented in the French of
the twelfth century. For this investigation I further made use of lists
recorded by T.E. Hope (1971), who had examined French loan words
in Italian, and vice versa, in the twelfth to nineteenth centuries; tak-
ing into account that some Arabic words had migrated to French
via Italian. I also checked out the lists of H. Lammens (1890), although
it seems, prima facie, that Guiraud would have entered in his work
all materials that Lammens had already collated. The fact is, how-
ever, that Guiraud does not refer to Lammens but merely states as
a broad generalization (p. 5) that lexicographers show no unanim-
ity of opinion on the question of the number of loan words on which
his collection is structured; he thus warns that the compendium com-
piled by him is far from exhaustive. It is not surprising that Guirauds
list shows a correspondence with Ibn Tibbons in isolated entries
only, as e.g., agbb ( papegai for hpna); arp[z (safran for krk); ksm
(musc for rwm) in the eleventh-thirteenth centuries; and ratyq (guitare;
for bgw[), fourteenth cent. An inspection of Lammens lists reveals
correspondence in the following entries, too: hma[n (ema for hn[y tb;
p. 58); hparz (girafe for rmz; p. 127: according to Guiraud, the word
penetrated French in the fteenth century from Italian; it is likely
that Italian had absorbed it somewhat earlier; indeed, according to
Hope, vol. I, p. 40, the word is already attested in Italian at the
close of the thirteenth century); rqx (sacre for hdysjaccording to
Guiraud in the fourteenth century but according to Lammens,
p. 210, the word itself is a loan word from Latin, from which it
would seem that Guirauds documentation is somewhat late); twbkn[
(alancabuth for ybk[, p. 4); zymrq (cramoisi for yn t[lwt, p. 19); ldnx
(sandal, Santal for ylha, p. 213); agrm (almargen for ymwgla, p. 18):
ydrb (alvarde for amg, p. 21); ram (cimterre for rpg, p. 88; see also
Hope, p. 34); yha (sahin for tmnt; see introduction, p. 34, n. 1);
fwlb ha (only Ballote for f lO ; Lammens, p. 261); lfnj (alhandal; for
hd tw[wqp, p. 259); lydnm (mandille for yfyrj, p. 284); wrfn (natron
for rtn, p. 180; Guiraud remarks that this word was adopted as late
as the seventeenth cent.; however, he states that the source of the
word is in Latin and it was therefore probably in use in early French);
dmta (bismuth for wp, p. 52); aqrd (Targ. for hrjs, p. 236); yafq
(kadif or kataif for tyjypx).
Thus clear evidence exists for a sizeable list of Arabic words that
were imported into French in a period fairly close to that of R.
Judah ibn Tibbon; this rationalizes the above-mentioned phenome-
non wherein Ibn Tibbon leaves untouched, Arabic words within his
Hebrew, translated text: this could be justied by the Edomite
reader possessing a certain knowledge of Arabic, acquired by his
European vernacular. It is not an improbable assumption that many
other words appearing in Ibn Tibbons list were incorporated into
European languages in the twelfth century despite the absence of
any literary documentation. Indeed, Ibn Tibbons list might itself
constitute an element lling out the picture.
Ibn Tibbon himself, twice in entry fn (p. 302), uses the phrase
ybr[bw z[lb, by which he would imply that the given Arabic trans-
lation synonyms ykfxm (mastic) and krfxa (storax; Ben-Yehudah, p. 3638,
n. 3) were in use at that time, both in Arabic and in European lan-
guages. Neither of these words appears in any of the lists of Lammens,
Giraud or Hope.14
Less frequently, Ibn Tibbon further appended a la'az translation
(apart from the Arabic term) to aid readers whose vernacular was a
Rumanian language. This might reect the shortcomings of the trans-
lator vis--vis the specic term or the category to which it pertained,
namely realia. Alternatively, he may have had a suspicion that in
each of these instances, the Arabic term was not suciently intelli-
gible, or was even incomprehensible, to the reader, on the assumption
14
In principle, one might postulate that Ibn Tibbon had taken these expressions
from some Latin translation of the Bible. Apart from such a conjecture nding no cor-
roboration in Ibn Tibbons system of translation, oers no resolution but instead
raises the following questions: Why is it that in this category alone of all the cat-
egories he retains the Arabic la'az terms? What benet would accrue from an Arabic
term for a medieval reader with no knowledge of Arabic, unless the term had been
absorbed in Latin vernaculars of the twelfth century?
156 chapter six
that the students knowledge of Arabic was restricted to the words

that had been borrowed into European Languages.15
In the entry arwq (p. 455) to the Arabic translation synonym lgj,
Ibn Tibbon appended the la'az term zydrp,.16 For the term ymwgla
(p. 240), side by side with the Arabic translation synonym agrm, Ibn
Tibbon subjoined the la'az larwq (bois de corail ); likewise at la
(p. 48), in addition to Arabic lta he subjoined zyrmf.
In a limited number of entries, Ibn Tibbon recorded the Arabic
translation synonym for the respective entry, following which, he sub-
joined, on his own initiative, some Hebrew synonym or denition
for the referent: smw rts awhw gsla ybr[ wlb, tkrph (Shorashim,
p. 412), in contradistinction to simply gsla tkrph in the Arabic
original ("Ul, p. 587). Likewise, at y[x (p. 434), after recording
the translation synonym [anq, as in the original (p. 615), Ibn Tibbon
glossed the following denition: hynp ynh wb ypf[m wf[ (a wrap
with which women cover their faces). Other instances of such are
to be found at syb (p. 494), ywjfm (p. 179), yrwjf (ibid.), hmyk
(p. 221), lysk (p. 226), bx (p. 421), hmx (p. 431).
Similar to the entries discussed here, zero in "Ul/comparison
in Shorashim, is a group implicit comparison in "Ul/explicit com-
parison in Shorashim. It would be feasible to check, for each entry
in this category, whether a reason can be noted for the retention of
the comparison in the body of the Hebrew rendering. There are,
however, good grounds to postulate that Ibn Tibbon treated these
as real comparisons, rather than simply as translation synonyms, this not
being the case for those entries that lacked all basis for etymological
comparison. Be this as it may, for illustration of the principle discussed
here, I simply adduced the category zero in "Ul/explicit com-
parison in Shorashim, considering that this latter type quite satisfac-
torily typies the problematic of Ibn Tibbons methodology in dealing
with Arabic translation synonyms.
15
Enumeration of the subjoined la'az glosses appears in Bachers Shorashim, index
11, p. 567; however Bacher overlooked the Arabic words that Ibn Tibbon had
retained, on account of their having been borrowed into Latin languages.
16
Ben-Yehudah, at the relevant entry (pp. 6137.) remarks that the Septuagint,
ad loc. ( Jer. 17:11) rendered arwq perdix, and he further states that this word
appears in French also, as perdix, and in English, as partridge.
6.3 Aram./Arab. comparisons in Shorashim
The comparison formula Bib. Heb./Aram. (non-cognate)/Arabic (cog-

nate with Aram.) contains a comparison of an entry of targumic or
talmudic Aramaic with a cognate Arabic translation synonym. For
example, in the three-way comparison h[wxqm/lymza/lymza (p. 642/
p. 453), is a sub-comparison Aram./Arab., i.e. lymza/lymza. This is
the only category containing regular etymological comparisons between
Aramaic and Arabic without adducing a Hebrew cognate transla-
tion synonym. I have presented these etymological sub-comparisons
for separate discussion, to determine how Ibn Tibbon treated them
in the Shorashim. Of the total of 24 comparisons, only four are explicit
comparisons, and one of these was omitted by Ibn Tibbon. The rest
are implicit comparisons. Ibn Tibbon disregarded most of them (13
of the 20), whereas the remainder he reverted to explicit comparisons.
In this respect, his method is exactly the same as that used by him
for Heb./Arab. comparisons.
The comparisons, classied into four types:
1. Explicit comparisons in both Kitb al-"Ul and Shorashim:
lymza/lymza ([xq: p. 642/p. 453); anybrw/ybr (ra: p. 74/
p. 51); arp/arap (brd: p. 163/p. 112).
2. Explicit comparison in "Ul/zero in Shorashim:
rfmq/rfmq (jtl: p. 360/p. 250)
3. Implicit comparisons in "Ul/explicit comparison in Shorashim:
amfwb/fb (hla, p. 47/p. 30); jwlm/jalm (lrj, p. 248/p. 169);
syqrn/sgrn (p. 257/p. 176); rp[/rpgm (rpa, p. 66/p. 45);
akwryp/yrp (p. 338/p. 234; lqx, p. 619/p. 436); atrx[m/hrx[m
(p. 567/p. 398).
4. Implicit comparisons in "Ul/zero in Shorashim:
fwlb/fwlb (wla, p. 51/p. 33); swwf/swwaf (ykt, p. 761/p. 543);
arpwf/rpf (tlj, p. 714/p. 506); aykrwk/ykrk (sws, p. 477/
p. 335); grwm/grwm (wrj, p. 250/p. 171); ls/hls (p. 154/
p. 106); atpwqs/hpksa (tpm, p. 595/p. 419; b[, p. 497/p. 350);
jlp/jlp (rd[, p. 507/p. 357); jmwr/jmr (wdyk, p. 318/p. 220);
aga/gas (rhdt, p. 153/p. 106); qw/qws (wj, p. 216/p. 147);
fl/flst (bjr, p. 668/p. 471).
158 chapter six
6.3.1 Ibn Tibbons omissions of comparisons with Aramaic

Ibn Tibbon only rarely disregards Ibn Jans comparisons with
Aramaic in the "Ul. One example is at entry qry (p. 298), in which
Ibn Jan compares the Hebrew entry word qry (Exod. 10:15) with
its own Aramaic rendering qwry; however, Ibn Tibbon in the Shorashim
omitted this comparison (see qry, p. 205). This may well have been
because the translator had already recorded the word qwry as a Hebrew
word, mentioning the deniens hrxk adduced by Ibn Jan, for
which reason, he thought it unnecessary to record the Aramaic form
as well. He similarly omitted the Heb./Aram. comparison rqy/rqy
(p. 295/p. 204). Generally he left the comparisons with Aramaic
untouched, probably presuming that the student from the Edomite
land was suciently versed in Aramaic by virtue of his study of
the Talmud as well as his browsing in the Aramaic biblical Targums.
This was likewise the practice of Ge"onim and early exegetes in their
use of the Aramaic materials. (Rashi, for instance in his commen-
tary at Gen. 12:20, s.v. wjlyw; 14:14, s.v. qryw; 37:3, s.v. ynqz-b;
37:7, s.v. ymla ymlam, etc., merely remarks wmwgrtk without eluci-
dating the Aramaic rendering; elsewhere (e.g. Gen. 6:14), he simply
states ymra wl, and so on.
6.4 Ibn Tibbon retention of comparisons in "Ul
I have shown that as far as Aramaic was concerned, Ibn Tibbon

was in no quandary: he retained the material verbatim and even
adduced further Aramaic material that had no textual basis in the
Arabic original.
As for the Heb./Arab. implicit comparison category, he reverted in
many instances to explicit comparisons, whether constrained by his
duty as translator or because in each instance he regarded the case
as one of real, explicit comparison.
As for the Heb./Arab. explicit comparisons contained in "Ul, it
cannot be said that Ibn Tibbon made a habit of either omission or
retention. Rather, he used a variety of practical solutions: (i) retain-
ing the discussion in full; (ii) condensing it; (iii) discarding it entirely.
For instance, at entry za (p. 19), he retains the inner Arabic gram-
matical analysis of da and dnm; likewise, at qlb (p. 67), he preserves
the example itself, together with the Arabic usages of the Arabic cognate
translation synonym qlb. At hyla (p. 30) and at rwnk (p. 225), he even
preserves the inner Arabic dialectological discussion. Ibn Tibbon may
retain the Arabic explicit comparison even in cases where Ibn Jan
adduced support from Rab. Heb. (twhma, p. 37; dlg, p. 93; jjz, p. 129;
glp, p. 402; hwq, p. 459) as well as when, apart from the cognate,
a non-cognate translation synonym appears for a Bib. Heb. entry word
(as na/na (p. 39), although he had already rendered by lydb). Even
in instances where prima facie the entry word is well known, being
a frequent word in the Bible, Ibn Tibbon often did not fail to adduce
the comparison appearing in the original (e.g.: g, p. 96; tj, p. 175;
y, p. 196, (where Ibn Jan states denitively wr[m, [well] known;
rwnk, p. 225; btk, p. 232; hjnm, p. 266; jn, p. 330; hnyps p. 345 [Ibn
Jan: wr[m]; rfp, p. 400; glp, p. 402; flp, p. 403; [yqr, p. 487).
In contrast, cases in which comparisons with an Arabic cognate trans-
lation synonym were discarded have been noted, when the cognate was
a unique deniens and in these cases the translator suggested no
substitute for what he had omitted. Certain comparisons can be
shown to highlight Ibn Tibbons method in retaining intact explicit
comparisons, as in his source. I shall cite one example for a non-
cognate translation synonym comparison (A) and one for a cognate
comparison (B):
A. The entry word ryda (p. 22) is rendered by Ibn Jan as yzrk;
yzrk itself is phonetically similar to its Hebrew cognate zrg. Ibn
Tibbon alluded to this comparison, for he retains yzrk, considering
that in this case the Arabic might be instructive, even for a reader
unfamiliar with Arabic, by virtue of its corroboration of the ten-
ability of his explanation for the Bib. Heb. entry.
B. At rks (p. 482/p. 338), Ibn Jan records two comparisons:
rks/rks and rks/rgs. Ibn Tibbon discards the rst one and retains
the second. One might have expected him to retain specically the
comparison that was of particular interest (namely, the one con-
taining the switch k/g), rather than a comparison lacking any letter
switch. But it seems likely that his choice was based on the follow-
ing logic, if that Heb./Aram. uctuation g-k exists for a pair of inner
Hebrew entries, it enables the rendering of the Arabic entry word by
the alternative Hebrew entry word, as, in our instance, rgs/rgs. The log-
ical consequence is that the comparison rks/rgs can itself be trans-
lated into the inner Hebrew comparison rks/rgs. Indeed, this letter
uctuation is applicable to Hebrew, too, as is evident from Ibn
160 chapter six
Jans own words, expanded as they are to some extent, by Ibn

Tibbon.
6.5 Ibn Tibbons method of adducing Arabic materials in comparisons

and in inner-Arabic specimens
When Ibn Tibbon sets out Arabic materials for the purpose of com-
parison with the Hebrew entry word he generally leaves it untouched,
and where the relevant cognate is embedded in an Arabic expres-
sion, he tends to cite the Arabic expression in full.17 There are, how-
ever, instances in which Ibn Tibbon translates several elements of
the expression, aside of course from the cognate concerned, that can
be read as an Arabic word (precisely as in "Ul) but that could also
be interpreted as an Arabicized Hebrew word. This format of edit-
ing the material in the body of the running Hebrew text is liable
to mislead readers who might mistakenly suppose that they see a
Hebrew expression rather than an Arabic one; or they might be mis-
led into thinking that a Hebrew language practice exists equivalent
to that customary in Arabic. For example, in the expression ya
tbg ya ya an[ tlpa ("Ul, lpa, p. 64), Ibn Tibbons rendering is as
follows: trtsn rmwlk wnmm tlpa hna :yrmwaw. The words ya and an[
are rendered by hna and wnmm, whereas the word tlpa is quote prob-
ably Arabicized Hebrew, in that the reader (of Shorashim, p. 44) may
well interpret it as Hebrew on account of its occurrence in the midst
of a Hebrew sequence. There are cases in which Ibn Tibbon trans-
lates the Arabic expression adduced for illustration in its entirety,
though he proceeds immediately to elucidate it by a Hebrew para-
phrase. For example, at entry rja (p. 35/p. 22), Ibn Jans text
reads: ynjqt dwbk rjaw (Ps. 73:24) arw m jnw br[la lwqt hm yl[ adh
l dla.
Ibn Tibbon renders the Arabic illustration as follows: br[h yrmwa
hml hmwd hz yrwjam wnjna trz[ and he further adduces independently
a reasoned argument for the given example, as if he had retained
the Arabic phrase verbatim and was still awaiting its Hebrew ren-
dering and elucidation, as follows: l yrzw[ wnjna ,rmwlk.
17
For example, ynwp ra wqmh rmwlk hhwgw hmhm br[ wlb hynp tmgm yp hyhyw
wyla (amg, p. 95); . . . aka ma lkl br[h yrwq wmk (rj, p. 172).
At rj (p. 170) Ibn Tibbon translates the Arabic example in full,

oering no explanation of his own:
ahw mh hrj :rmam wtwa yrzwgw ,wpa hrj ynwlp :br[h myrmwa kw
.mwj qzjyk
(in the original: smla tymj :lwq m hl hqaqta amna nala ymj
lwgr :br[la lwqw ahrj dta da ,ranlaw ("Ul, p. 249))
Likewise, at entry rb[ (p. 500/p. 352), Ibn Jan states: yl[ adh wkyp
m rygb adk lgaw m hdayzb adk lga m br[la lam[tsa latm which
is rendered by Ibn Tibbon as follows: yrmwa br[h ghnmk hz hyhy
m ytlbm kw k ynp yrmwaw kw k ynpm. It is worth noting that the
expression kw k ynp (corresponding to adk lga) is articial Hebrew,
for this phrase is never used without m.
6.6 Summary
To sum up, a lexicon that is essentially similar to the bilingual type

of lexicon (in our case Hebrew-Arabic), when undergoing a transla-
tion into the language of its entry words generates very specic prob-
lems. Sometimes the rendering for the deniens is nothing but a
reiteration of the denitum itself, so that a tautological denition is
arrived at, a denition valueless for a lexicologist. Owing to the con-
straints of this problem, Ibn Tibbon was impelled to adopt several
alternative solutions as for example, the omission of denitions and/or
of comparisons or, vice versa, the reversion of ordinary translations
into comparisons.
This issue has important repercussions vis--vis the xation of the
text form of the original work. For establishing the text of the orig-
inal work ("Ul), no reliance should be placed on the readings of
Ibn Tibbon the translator; any claim that the readings in the Hebrew
rendering are of greater authenticity, having been overlooked by
copyists, must be ruled out. It is far more probable that all the
comparisons, whether those that are beyond all doubt real compar-
isons, or those that may well be regarded as such that constitute
additions in Shorashim, were indeed merely Ibn Tibbons original creation,
whereas all the textual omissions of such are Ibn Tibbons inten-
tional omissions; for the purpose of language comparisons the orig-
inal text is indeed that in "Ul.
CHAPTER SEVEN
RAV SA'ADIAH GA"ON
R. Sa'adiah Ga"on is, in the opinion of R. Abraham ibn Ezra

(Moznayim, p. I), to be assigned a place at the head of the list of
the elders of the Hebrew language;1 it is conventionally held that
said list is in chronological order. Poznanski (1926, p. 237) was
of the opinion that R. Sa'adiah was the rst to compile specic
works on the subject of Hebrew linguistics. Others thought that the
Karaites anteceded R. Sa'adiah in the production of literature on
grammar (see Munk, 1851, p. 4; Hirschfeld 1926, pp. 78; n. 1). At
any rate, as far as can be ascertained, R. Sa'adiah did not compile
any work devoted specically to language comparison. Nonetheless,
in R. Sa'adiahs general treatises on grammar, lexicon, and biblical
exegesis are embedded comparisons of many Hebrew entry words
with Aramaic and with Arabic. These comparisons can be graded
into three levels according to their explicity: (1) Absolutely explicit
comparisons; (2) implicit comparisons; and (3) translation of a Hebrew
word by its Arabic cognate translation synonym, in the framework
of R. Sa'adiahs Arabic Bible translation. The limitations xed for
the present study are such that discussion of types (1) and (2) only
(i.e. explicit and implicit comparisons) is required to the extent that
these are encountered in this grammarians works and in his lexi-
con. But owing to the meager quantity of material appearing in these
two works and considering the important rating of R. Sa'adiahs
translation, which served as a source text for scholars in subsequent
times, our attention will be focused on the third level, too, namely
his elucidations of his biblical translation. The material embedded
in the translation text itself, on which no remark or annotation was
made by R. Sa'adiah, warrants a separate study. Here these mate-
rials are resorted to merely for determining its essential value and
status vis--vis the material pertaining to the rst two classes or as
a possible basis for explicit comparisons proposed by scholars who
came after R. Sa'adiah Ga"on.
1
In Ibn Ezras own words: dwqh wl ynqz.
rav sa'adiah ga"on 163
7.1 Grammatical comparisons
7.1.1 Comparative Hebrew-Arabic conjugation chart

The First Hebrew Table of Conjugation (Skoss 1942; Goldenberg 1979;
Dotan 1997, pp. 33895), being as it is a synopsis of the chapter
on conjugation of R. Sa'adiahs Sefer Zahot, is in eect a compara-
tive Hebrew-Arabic conjugation chart (Tn 1983, p. 240; Dotan
1993, p. 55). The comparison method in this table is basically struc-
tural. It is clear that the choice of the Arabic verb [ms as a coun-
terpart for the conjugated forms of the parallel Hebrew verb [m is
not an arbitrary one. The two verbs are cognates, and this choice
in itself is sucient evidence for us to determine the intention of the
comparisons. Indeed, R. Sa'adiah speaks expressly of language com-
parison when he states: tml[ br[la hgl ypw ,ytrkzh yt[mh lwqk
trbka (Skoss, ibid., p. 192). Moreover, in his introduction to the
table he poses the argument that the patterns that he is about to
discuss are suitable for all tongues of which he has knowledge (adh ynawqw
[ymg yp lb fqp wynarb[la hgl yp lm[tst amna syl hd[awqw zgla
ahanpr[ ytla taglla, Skoss, ibid, p. 174).2 All tongues was clearly
intended to include Aramaic as well, and this being the case, the
table, potentially at least, implies the comparison of at least three lan-
guages. R. Sa'adiah does not adopt a comparison term for each and
every item in the table; nonetheless, comparison is a systematic ele-
ment in the table. This consistency is especially noticeable from a
remark made in the margins of the table concerning a negative
comparison: yntl[p/ynyty[. R. Sa'adiah determines that the Hebrew
verb form (in Ezek. 29:3) that incorporates the subject and object
pronoun for the rst person singular is illogical and for this reason
should not be included in the table (lajm hmlk hdn[ ahnap; Skoss,
ib., p. 190), despite the fact that the equivalent Arabic form is
considered by the Arab grammarians, t for linguistic analogy.3
2
This and similar expressions have led Dotan (1993, p. 54; 1997, pp. 10510)
to infer that Sa'adiah not only established comparative philology but also thought
in terms of general linguistics.
3
Discussion on the respective contrast between these two forms in Hebrew v. in
Arabic came into the limelight for the rst time in the Retort of Dunash on R. Sa'adiah
Ga"on (Schroeter, 1866, retort 102). It was on this that Bacher (Nitzanei, 1894, p. 58
and n. 2; p. 64, n. 3) placed reliance for his deduction that R. Sa'adiah made a
general habit of grammatical comparisons of Hebrew with Arabic. The original
164 chapter seven
R. Sa'adiah sets up structural grammatical comparisons in his com-

mentary to his Bible translation, too. I shall herewith enumerate
these (the grammatical terminology in current use is adopted here,
though Sa'adiah himself used other classications and terms):
The Hebrew hif 'il conjugation as well as its Arabic counterpart
fa''ala may be used in a declarative4 sense,5 e.g. yly (Prov. 3:34)
he proclaimed that so and so was l (scoer) or was in the posi-
tion of l; wqydxhw (Deut. 21:1) [the judges] shall determine that he
[= the accused] is qydx. Likewise in Arabic: lf [= determined/
declared] that so and so was laf, and so on (Sa'adiahs Tafsr to
Prov. 3:34).6
h and hnh before the Hebrew imperfect verbal forms have an
equivalent function to that of sin prexing imperfect forms in Arabic:
h[yba hnh/ywras (Sa'adiahs Tafsr, Prov. 1:23; Q, 1976, p. 35).
Comparison of sentence syntax and of general logic

A complete idea in a sentence cannot be established if one bypasses
a fundamental element within the sentence, even when the parallel
sentence arrived at after the omission seems structurally correct. R.
Sa'adiah demonstrates this axiom, with two pairs of sentences, one
Hebrew, one Arabic. The Hebrew pair is jqy hylwtbb ha awhw, in
contrast with the condensed sentence hv;ai awhw; he parallels these
with the Arabic pair hlla ala hala al as against hala al. In
Hebrew and Arabic, the apocopation distorts the meaning of the
complete sentence (Sa'adiahs Tafsr to Prov. 18:13).7
excerpt from R. Sa'adiahs kutub al-lughah that treats these forms was rst published
by Harkavy (1898, p. 90). Yellin (1945, p. 34) used the latter as his basis, whereas
Skoss (1942) published the above-quoted passage in the larger frame of the frag-
ments of hyyfnh r[. Skoss himself discussed these verb forms again (1955, p. 57),
this being the one and only language comparison noted by him in his concluding sum-
mary as a sign of the inuence of Arabic grammar on R. Sa'adiahs work.
4
For this term, cf Gesenius, p. 144, 53, sec. 2.
5
The concept binyan (conjugation) was unknown to Sa'adiah, as has been demon-
strated by Irene Garbell. See Goldenberg, 1979, p. 87.
6
ld [ymgb wdyry . . . alp lwq bdkw alp batk rwwzw alp lf br[la lwqk whw
ymlafla hlznm analp lzn kajla a; See Maman 1992a, pp. 3334, for a broader
discussion.
7
To a dierent category belong the sweeping comparisons of the features of one
language versus those of anotherof the wealth of their vocabularies and expres-
sions, their mannerisms, and the like. R. Sa'adiah resorts to such comparisons of
Hebrew with Arabic through ideological and socio-linguistic settings. Harkavy (1900,
pp. 8586) adduces a passage from R. Sa'adiahs commentary to Exodus, on the
words hk-d[ (Exod. 7:16); in this comment, he states that the Hebrew expression
hk-d[ has six synonyms including that phrase: ht[ d[, d[, ya d[, yda, and d[
7.1.2 Hebrew Aramaic grammatical comparisons

The word lnm ( Job 15:29) was interpreted by R. Sa'adiah as an
expanded form (hmkpm) of the word L;mi, with the addition of a nun.
This mode of expansion, he states to be comparable with the expan-
sion noted in the Aramaic form yfnj as against yfj (attention was
drawn to this comparison by Bacher, 1894, ynxn, p. 61, n. 3).8
tlht ( Jer. 49:25) and tljn (Ps. 16:6) are modeled on Aramaic
(Bacher, ibid., p. 60 and n. 3).9
7.2 Hebrew/Arabic stylistic comparisons
Neither in Hebrew nor in Arabic may one ascribe to the deity the
concept of hjk (= forgetting, etc.); in other words, it is improper
to combine any form of the verb jk with one or other of the names
of God. However, it is allowable in both languages to combine a
negated form of the verb rkz with Gods name, as: wylgr wdh rkz alw
wpa wyb (Lam. 2:1). Mevasser HaLevi raised an objection against
R. Sa'adiah on this matter (Zucker, 1955, pp. 26, 79).
7.3.1 Lexical comparisons of Hebrew/Arabic cognates

I recorded only a few instances of comparisons of this nature:
hylb fsw yp hna ya ,hfrw yp alp sanla wlwqy .ynfrwy . . . ynfry (Sa'adiahs
Tafsr to Job 16:11). The phrase/term sanla wlwqy, together with the
example illustrating Arabic usage, i.e. hfrw yp alp, determine the
explicitness of the comparison
At Prov. 18:16 R. Sa'adiah renders byjry by bjry, adding the remark:
djaw yn[m yl[ br[la hgl yp h[slaw bjrlaw.
wyk[. In Arabic, maintains R. Sa'adiah, there exists only a single translation synonym
for all six, this being anh. This proves that Hebrew is a richer language than Arabic
and thus a preferable one. R. Sa'adiahs passage continues as follows: a ft alp
ypw ,br[la hgl yp hdjaw hfpl *ya ldkw .alkla lk yp ynarb[la m [swa ybr[la
awh kyh hnmla hgl yp [baslaw . . . hpya . . . hna . . . a; . . . hya ,ya :z axya ynarb[la.
All these words are rendered by R. Sa'adiah by the single Arabic word ya.
* This is the correct reading. Harkavy maintained the reading a, his Hebrew
rendering being: . . . hlm dw[ axmt kw.
8
It would be of interest to ascertain, if feasible, whether R. Sa'adiah parsed the
form L;mi as a declined form from ll,m,, i.e. with 3rd pl. possessive pronoun sux
or, rather, as from lme by reduction (Goldenberg, 1974, p. 200), i.e. from the root
llm or hlm. See Maman 1992a, p. 32.
9
On other grammatical comparisons with Arabic see Dotan (1993), pp. 5460.
166 chapter seven
At Job 37:15, he renders n[ by hnan[ and notes: ymst br[la

an[la bajsla (Ecker, 1962, p. 215).
One comparison is discernible by tauto-etymological reasoning
(above, 3.2): sdqla yp hl ak yywlla a yl[ anldy tynymh l[ hlwq
. . . ajla hynamt (Sa'adiahs Tafsr to Ps. 6:1).
7.3.2 Hebrew/Arabic semantic comparisons

This category of comparisons is more widespread than the previous
one. Sa'adiah compares lyg with its Arabic translation synonym, brf.
Both these words connote ecstasy of joy as well as an intense
feeling of sadness. This very instance was adduced by R. Jonah ibn
Jan in his lexicon ("Ul, p. 128) and was subsequently recorded
by Ibn Barn (Muwzana, p. 24) as an example of the category termed
semantic concord (fpllab al yn[mlab hb qaptala ag brx).10
Neither of the latter two grammarians made reference to Sa'adiah
(i.e. his introduction to Psalms, ed. R. Yosef Q, p. 46).
The expression blw blb, in the sense of being two-faced, hypo-
critical, is compared by R. Sa'adiah with the Arabic expressions:
yyblq, yyhgw, yynasl. (Sa'adiahs Tafsr to Ps. 12:3).
Sa'adiah recorded further semantic comparisons in the commen-
tary to his translation at Isa. 63:7 (Derenbourg, p. 143) as well as
at Ps. 80:3, Prov. 15:32, and Job 9:4, and 24:20.
7.3.3 Hebrew/Aramaic etymological comparisons

In his commentary to his Bible translation Sa'adiah states very fre-
quently that the entry word under discussion should be elucidated
according to the Aramaic Targum, e.g. at Ps. 89:9 and 139:17:
wgrtla hgl mw; Prov. 31:2: wgrtla hglb, etc. Ecker (1962, p. 10
and 1 passim) recorded a long list of words from the Book of Job,
that were rendered by Sa'adiah according to their connection with
their Aramaic parallels. Below I list the Heb./Aram. comparisons
adduced from the commentaries of Sa'adiah to his Tafsr to the
Books of Isaiah, Psalms, Proverbs, Job, and Daniel as well as from
his treatise Kitb al-Sab'n Lafa al-Mufrada.
10
See Tn, 1983, n. 84.
Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram.

wy[bt/a[by (Sa'adiahs Tafsr to Isa. 21:12); twjml/(tjmw) (ibid., Prov.
31:3); hd[m/ad[hm (ibid. 25:2); abx/abxy (ibid. Dan. 10:1); wdq/ydq
(ibid. Dan. 8:13); twbrb/atwbr (ibid., Prov. 29:2;16); [wrt/[[rm
(ibid., introduction to Tr. Ps., ed Q, p. 46; and Prov. 11,15);
mwta/mwta (Sa'adiahs Tafsr to Isa. 63:5).
Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.

[lb/([wlb) (Prov. 23:2); mjra/(jr) (Ps. 18:2).
Bib. Heb./Talm. Aram.

hytafafw (Isa. 14:23)/ afafw (Sab'n Lafa, p. 34); ymwlgb (Ezek.
27:24)/amylg (ibid.).
Bib. Heb.1/Bib. Heb.2/Targ. Aram.

yrb/b/rb (Sa'adiahs Tafsr, to Prov. 31:2); wzj/harm/wzj (ibid. Dan.
8:13); ysj/ry/ysj (ibid., Ps. 89:9); wgrjyw/hmya/. . . tgrj (ibid.,
Ps, 18:46); wnymfn/wmts/ynwmf (ibid. Job 18:3); ask/jbz/atskn (ibid.,
Ps. 81:4); yklm-lmyw/twx[/yklm (ibid., Prov. 31:3); tjn/drwh/tjna
(ibid., Ps. 65:11); htmxp/[rq/yxp (Sab'n Lafa, p. 37).
Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./(Targ. Aram.)

ypkw/y[ls/(aypk) (Sa'adiahs Tafsr to Job 30, 6); lfUy/[sn/(lfn) (ibid.
41:1); (twm)yy/tky/(yn) (ibid., Ps. 55:16); glp/hljn/(glp) (ibid. 65:10);
hd[/rs/(ad[) (ibid. Job 28:8); y[r-y[r/(wxr)/(aw[r) (ibid., Ps. 139:2);
tml/i t/(yl) (ibid. 91:8).
Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb.

td/hytdw-td (Sa'adiahs Tafsr Dan. 7:25); ljw/yljnh (ibid. 2:40)
Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.

ynmz/ym[p/ynmz (Sa'adiahs Tafsr Dan. 7:25); yhwdj/hzj/aydj (ibid.
2:32); atrbn/twrn/atarbn (ibid. 5:5; 12); rbsyw/ytllp/tyrbs (ibid.
7:25); rw[k/wmk/(rw[) (ibid. 2:35); [[rm/wxr/([[rm) (ibid. 2:40);
hpyqtw/hqzj/(hpyqt) (ibid. 3:7); yntmya/arwn, wya/(yntmya) (ibid. 7:7).
Bib. Aram./Rab. Heb.

azwrkw/zyrkhl (Sab'n Lafa, p. 18); qyzn/yqyzn (ibid.); ayngs/gs (Sa'adiahs
Tafsr Dan. 3:27).
168 chapter seven
Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram./Arab.

rT'yIw/wrT'a/' rttnt (Sa'adiahs Tafsr Job 37:1).
All of the above are a part of the explicit language comparisons
of R. Sa'adiah Ga"on. The Heb./Arab. comparisons are in the main
structural, in the areas of grammar and semantics, whereas the com-
parisons with Aram. are in the areas of lexicon and of etymology.
These comparisons are established according to the prominent themes
highlighted earlier (3.6.2; 3.6.3; 3.6.4, etc.) The number of explicit
comparisons encountered in the works of R. Sa'adiah is certainly
not insignicant when one takes into account that the Kutub al-lugha
as well as the commentaries to Sa'adiahs Tafsr have survived only par-
tially. As a matter of principle, comparison is practised by R. Sa'adiah
as a tool for grasping the lexicon and the grammar of Hebrew. It
can be surmised that he held no ideological reservations regarding
language comparison, nor did he stipulate any precondition as a sine
qua non for this practice, as did Menaem, Dunash, and others (see
above, 2.1). For it is reasonably likely that if this were the case, it
would have expressed itself somewhere among the surviving recorded
comparisons. What is more, R. Jonah ibn Jan (Riqmah, p. 17 and
elsewhere) as well as Ibn Bal'am have recourse to R. Sa'adiah in
their sanctioning of comparisons with Arabic; had they come across
any reservation in his writings, it is fair to assume they would not
have refrained from relating to it.
To sum up the data as culled from R. Sa'adiah: in the Heb./Arab.
explicit comparisons, I encountered 4 lexical comparisons of cog-
nates, 6 semantic comparisons, and 3 grammatical comparisons; in
the Heb./Aram. explicit comparisons, I recorded 3 grammatical com-
parisons and 41 lexicological comparisons of cognates.
Despite these data, the lack of sucient information leaves us in
a state of indeterminacy as regards several signicant elements that
would serve to complete the panorama of R. Sa'adiahs language
comparison system. On the theory of letter/sound substitutions of
Heb. v. Arabic and v. Aramaic, no express mention by R. Sa'adiah
has survived.11 Nevertheless, it might not be thought farfetched, if
11
If a deduction regarding Heb.-Arab. substitutions may be drawn from letter sub-
stitutions within Hebrew, the following intra-Hebrew uctuations are recognized by
R. Sa'adiah: a/h (Sa'adiahs Tafsr to Isa. 63; ibid., Prov. 10:3); k/q (Sab'n Lafa,
Allony 1958, p. 25); l/n (Sa'adiahs Tafsr to Isa. 21:15); n/l (ibid., Ps. 58:7); p/b
one attributed to him the cognizance of at least those substitutions

that were reckoned with by Hebrew grammarians in general (includ-
ing Dunash, who was R Sa'adiahs disciple and from whom he may
well have gained the knowledge of this theory), such as the Heb./Arab.
substitutions: g/g; z/d; j/k; /t, etc. (above, 2.4.1). Moreover, it is
fair to impute to him the notion that semantic equivalence was a
prerequisite for comparison (above, 2.6). For instance, in the Egron,
p. 274, he renders blj by bl and not by bylj.
7.3.4 Implicit comparisons

Implicit comparisons are encountered in the Egron (Alloni, 1969,
Goldenberg, 197374, Dotan, 1981). Implicit comparisons of the type
discussed above (ch. 4), are noticeable mainly in the lexicons. The
Egron, although a lexicon of a unique category, belonging as it does
to the proto-lexicographical stage has the basic shaping, embryonically
at least for subsequent lexicographic work (Tn, 1972, p. 549).
Thus, in so far as what concerns potential comparisons embodied
in cognate synonym translations appearing in the lexicons, the status
of the Egron for Sa'adiah, is parallel to that of the Jmi' al-"Alf for
Alfsi, or that of the Kitb al-"Ul for Ibn Jan.12 It goes without
saying that the Egron was not specically intended for language com-
parison as such. Indeed, one can even discern that in Egron the scope
of language comparisons is more restricted than that in the com-
mentary of Sa'adiah to his biblical translation, perhaps owing to the
condensed structure of the formers entry. Take for example the
entry word ask. In the Egron (p. 242) Sa'adiah renders it in Arabic
by ajxa with nothing else added. However, for the same entry word at
Sa'adiahs Tafsr at Ps. 81:4 he added a reasoning embodying a com-
parison with Aramaic: atskn jbz wgrt al hyjx yl[ askn trspw.
Thus R. Sa'adiah discusses briey in one location and elaborates in
(ibid. 112:9); /x (ibid. 71:4). Heb./Aram. uctuations are implied: a/h; x/z (ibid.
Dan. 3:14).
12
Abramson (1954) has demonstrated that the lexicon of the Mishna (the so-
called "Alf al-Mishna) that Allony (1953) had attributed to Sa'adiah (on the basis
of its title) is in fact not Sa'adiahs at all. Abramsons reasoning seems valid as
regards the fragment published by Allony (1954) too. That fragment does not even
bear the name of any known author and it was merely by a process of analogy
with the aforementioned fragmentary work (1953) that Allony attributed to Sa'adiah.
170 chapter seven
another. Could it be that he chose to be brief in the Egron because

he relied on the amplication adopted in his Bible commentary? In
fact, a trace of the reasoning (recorded in Ps., ibid.) can be detected
underlying the rendering hyjx. There are, however, also instances
in which R. Sa'adiah in his Tafsr rendered by a cognate, whereas
in the Egron he recorded only a non-cognate. For example, the entry
word ga in his Tafsr is rendered by the cognate hmga and/or aga
eight times (for their enumeration, see Allony, HaEgron, p. 179; cf.
also, ibid., p. 54, n. 207), whereas in the Egron itself, this word was
rendered merely by the non-cognate gylk; this can have no expla-
nation other than that the grammarian had unintentionally over-
looked the comparison. As noted above (4.0), it can happen that a
translator adopts an unsophisticated rendering, without conscious
intention of language comparison, and this can be so even in a case
where a rendering by a cognate is used. This contingency is, of
course, applicable vis--vis the implicit comparisons occurring in the
Egron, too.
7.3.4.1 List of implicit comparisons in the Egron
Bib. Heb./Arab.
ga/hnaga (p. 180); rymah/rmay (p. 195); rb/hyrb (Dotan 1981,
pp. 173, 187); ymwrb/hmwrbm (ibid., pp. 173, 188); abg/bg (ibid., pp.
175, 190); hnybg bg/bg (ibid., pp. 175, 193); hrwbg/hywrbg (ibid.);
ybg/sbg (twqay m; ib., p. 175); rwg/rwg (ibid., p. 177); ywzm/dwadm
(p. 289); afh/hyfk (p. 217); bfj/baftja (p. 218); yj/nj (p. 221);
dlj/dlk (p. 225); hdl/hdalw (p. 264); yrtym/ratwa (p. 317); hmk/k
(p. 237); wmk/wmk (p. 238); sk/ysrk (p. 242); jsk/jwskm (p. 243);
k/k (p. 246); trpkw/rypqt (p. 248); bwrk/bwrk (p. 250); hrk/yrk
(p. 251); wrk/rk (p. 253); rk/rk (p. 254); y[rk/y[ark (p. 255);
btk/batk (p. 257); tk/tk (p. 258); al/al (p. 261); aybl/wbl
(p. 262); fbl/fblt (ibid.) hn<bl/hnbl (p. 263); bhl/byhl (p. 264);
tywl/ywtlm (p. 268); alwl/alwl (ibid.) jl/hmjlm (p. 270); hlyl/lyl
(p. 272); hml/l (p. 273); tplyw/tptlaw (p. 275); fql/fql (p. 277);
ql/syql (ibid.); wl/asl (p. 278); ham/hyam (p. 281); hm/am
(p. 285); gwmn/gam (p. 282); jwm/m (p. 287); twm/twm (pp. 289, 324);
gzm/gzm (p. 289); hjm/wjm (p. 290); rfm/rfm (p. 294); ym/am (ibid.);
skm/ skm (p. 295); jlm/ jlm (p. 297); lm/ lm (p. 298); mi/ m
(p. 299); m;/m (p. 300); [nm/[nm (p. 301); y[m/a[m (p. 304); rm/rm
(p. 311); grwm/grwm (p. 311); jm/jsm (p. 314); lm/ltm (p. 315);
an/yn (p. 318); aybn/ybn (p. 319); rdn/rdn (p. 325); hn/yhn (p. 326);
rhn/rhn (ibid.); whnyw/yhtna (ibid.); dn/dyan (p. 323); [n/[yan (p. 337);
hljn/hljn (p. 329); rjn/dkn (p. 330); tvjn/sajn (ibid.); ryn/ryn
(p. 333); hlmn lmn/hlmn (p. 335); rmn/rmn (p. 336); l[n/l[n (p. 337);
[n/hm[n (p. 338); qn/hmqn (p. 342); (h)n/hyysn (p. 344); hmn/hmsn
(p. 345); rn/rsn (p. 346); rtn/wrfn (p. 348); lws/ls (p. 358);
tws/hwsk (p. 359); wls/als (p. 371); twrmsm/rymasm (p. 373); hns/ans
(p. 375); ss/sws (ibid.); (d[s)/d[s (p. 376); h/ha (p. 357); hr[/hr[
(p. 378).
Bib. Heb./Arab. with letter transposition

bgn/bwng (p. 322)
Rab. Heb./Arab.
ysga/aga (p. 180); sbg/sbg (Dotan 1981, p. 175); hqn/hqan
(p. 342); rgn"/ragn (p. 323); lyjn/ljn (p. 331); fpn/fpn (p. 339); rn/
rttnm (p. 346); hkws/hka (p. 359); ys/ys (p. 364).
Aram./Arab.
dylg/dylg (Dotan 1981, p. 176); mk/wmk (p. 237); lkm/laykm
(p. 295); tyl/syl (p. 272); jsn/hksn (p. 336); yn/aysn (p. 344);
dgs/dgs (p. 353).
Following are comparisons with Aramaic that, according to our
method, we treat as explicit comparisons:

lza/(lza) (p. 183); pk/(pk) (p. 247).

rj/arj (Dotan 1981, p. 179).
Non-cognate translation into Aramaic, of the relevant entry word

(tlkt) ymwlg/yzgzg (Dotan 1981, p. 176); rwf/rds (ibid., pp. 181, 204).
Targ. Aram./Bib. Heb.

[a/[ (p. 170); alrb/h (Dotan 1981, p. 173); (rf)q/rq (ibid.,
pp. 185, 208); rhf/rhx (ibid., pp. 181, 204); rwf/rh (ibid.); ldq/r[
(ibid., pp. 183, 207)
172 chapter seven
7.3.5 Translation by cognates

Many scholars have noted that Sa'adiah in his Tafsr used Arabic
words phonetically similar to the Hebrew words in the original text
(I call these cognate translation synonyms. This fact was noted by
Ibn Jan himself, shortly after Sa'adiahs time (see Riqmah, p. 17
a.e.), and modern scholars are of the same opinion, e.g. D. Haneberg,
1840, p. 360, S. Munk, 1858, pp. 5557, S. Baron, 1900, pp. 79,
S. Galliner, 1903, p. 11, J.Z. Lauterbach, 1903, p. 14, E. Eisen (Eitan),
1934, pp. 57, H. Malter, 1942, p. 145, Wechter, 1947, p. 376,
B. Klar, 1954, p. 216, R. Ecker, 1962 passim, A. Goldenberg, 1974,
p. 201, and M. Perez, 1978, p. 412, n. 19, p. 413. These scholars
also opine that rendering a Hebrew word with a cognate reects
language comparison, a question not yet exhaustively discussed. Nor
do I intend, even, to deal with it fully in the present study. I intend
merely to touch upon certain crucial aspects. Two main diculties
stand in the way of a clear resolution for this issue:
(1) The credibility of the text form of Sa'adiahs Bible translations;
Epstein, 1915 (= 1982, p. 35, 66) remarked about these trans-
lations: they are not always authentic textually.
(2) It is problematical to prove successfully that rendering by a cog-
nate indeed implies language comparison.
It was M. Zucker (1959, pp. 284.) and Y. Razhabi (1964) who set
about grappling with problem (1). They maintain that the Geniza
fragments of Sa'adiahs Tafsr corroborate J. Derenbourgs text ver-
sion, whereas the Yemenite manuscripts are very close to the text
version penned by R. Sa'adiah. Regarding problem (2), it seems
doubtful, whether it can be indisputably settled for each and every
instance in which a cognate is adopted in R. Sa'adiahs rendering.
Nevertheless, one can locate several groups of Arabic words con-
cerning which it can be quite condently asserted that a conscious
aim of language comparison was present.
A group of Arabic words exists whose meaning is not precisely
equivalent to the meaning of the Hebrew word in the original: the
translator, in all likelihood approximated their sense to that of the
Hebrew original to enable them to be used to render the original
Hebrew. It is out of the question that these words were excogitated
by an unsophisticated translator, as can be well exemplied by
the fact that Ibn Bal'am in his commentary to the Bible criticizes
R. Sa'adiah Ga"on regarding this phenomenon, as follows. R. Sa'adiah

had rendered wl (Num. 11:31) by ywls. Ibn Bal'am (Fuchs, 1893,
p. v) declares he does not know what the referent of ywls is. Thus
in his opinion the use of this word is articial.13 Modern scholars
have remarked on this phenomenon, too. For example, Wechter
(1947, p. 376, n. 22) remarks that R. Sa'adiah rendered the word
hrb[, by the Arabic word hrb[, even though the meaning of the
Hebrew word being anger, the meaning of the Arabic word (accord-
ing to Qur"n, Sra 12, verse 111, and R.P.A. Dozy II, 91) is warn-
ing, caution, example. It is indeed an open question whether
we know today all the applications and nuances of the Arabic vocab-
ulary,14 in particular, all the senses of the Arabic words adopted by
R. Sa'adiah. At any rate, the testimonies of the closely contempo-
rary scholars are trustworthy.
Another prominent category is a collection of articial Arabic words
adopted by Sa'adiah in his translation. The following are instances
pertaining to this category. Ibn Jan ("Ul, p. 344) renders the
expression ynbl hnbln (Gen. 11:3) by anbl dktn remarking that he
could nd no documentation for use in Arabic (lit.: by the Arabs)
of the denominative verb from the noun hnbl. This might have been
a disguised criticism of Sa'adiahs translation of that verse as bln
anbl. In any case, Ibn Jans evidence is enough for us to conclude
decisively that Sa'adiahs use of the Arabic verb bl is indeed articial.
Ibn Barn (Muwzana, p. 79, entry z[) criticizes Sa'adiah for ren-
dering hynz[ (Lev. 11:13) by aqn[; he notes that amongst the Arabs
themselves, use of the word (= aqn[) was restricted to the language
of parables, the word signifying no concrete entity.15 R. Abraham
ibn Ezra (in his commentary to Lev. 11:13) also censured Sa'adiah
on this point (see Wechter, 1964, p. 7 and n. 68). Modern scholars
have made further note of this phenomenon in Sa'adiahs Tafsr.16
13
There exists, however, a reverse example; Ibn Bal'am initially rejected R.
Sa'adiahs translation but subsequently ascertained the grounds for Sa'adiahs ren-
dering. See Ibn Bal'ams comment on the word hpwsb (Num. 21:4) in: Fuchs (ibid.,
pp. viiiix); see also: Poznanski (1916, p. 452), who records Ibn Bal'ams annota-
tions to R. Sa'adiahs translation of the words wknjyw (1R. 8:63) and t[n (Isa. 9:18).
14
See the use of the Arabic word hmda for rendering biblical Hebrew hmda in
Alfsis works (above, 4.7 and n. 53) and, in contrast, Ibn Barns opinion.
15
For an interesting discussion of a comparable problem regarding the use of
the word qwna in the works of Arabian writers, see: Kop, 1976, pp. 12532.
16
In Karaite writings, this practice is quite frequent. For instance, see Birnbaum
174 chapter seven
Derenbourg (1896) referred to Sa'adiahs rendering ynx for ynx at

Isa. 62:3, stating: the word ynx is not used in Arabic in this sense,
rather, the word used is yxn. Further, on Sa'adiahs rendering of
ysmh (ibid. 64:1) by smhla, he recorded the following remark:
Sa'adiah mimicked the word ysmh as smhla, this word being unsuit-
able here as in Arabic. P.K. Kokowtzow (1916, p. 57, n. 1) observed
that the verb qs used in Sa'adiahs translation as equivalent to the
Hebrew root slp is not documented in the major Arabic lexicons
and for this reason he surmised that this word is a loan from Syriac.
Razhabi (1964, pp. 245, 24850) discusses, in particular, a clearly
dened type of articial words and expressions, namely Hebraisms;
he proceeds to illustrate the phenomenon by means of a lengthy list
of words and phrases of this kind, among them yml yjbz/jyabd
hmals; tj (Isa. 61:10)/tk; wzpjy (Ps. 104:7)/zpjna; bwrk (Exod.
25:9)/bwrk. Blau (1965, pp. 162.) adduced a collection of words
from Judeo-Arabic that he opines to be Hebraisms, e.g. bqn, rdn, ghn,
(in the sense of llyq curse), etc. These words are employed in
Sa'adiahs translation also as renderings for their Hebrew counter-
parts. Blau (1984) summed up the phenomenon in the following
words: One of the characteristic features of the translation [of R.
Sa'adiah Ga"on to the Bible] is the articial use of Arabic words
from the root parallel with that of the Hebrew original word, even
if the linguistic use of such is not conventional in Arabic, or even is entirely
non-existent therein.17
(1942), p. xxxiii, as well as R.M. Bland (1966), p. x and n. 41, p. 30 n. 125,

p. 307 n. 35, p. 312 n. 100 and p. 309 n. 57. But articial usages have been
located in writings of non-Karaites, too. Eppenstein (19001901, p. 240 n. 2) remarks
that the rendering of the glossator of the MS Rouen ("Ul, p. 366, n. 93) for the
word lhm (Isa. 1:22) by the Arabic word lhm is an articial one. Becker (1984)
notes, regarding Ibn Qurayshs rendering hmdy/ymdty and similar cases (C1, p. 118),
that the Arabic lexicons record no usage of a verbal form from root ymd in this
sense: one nds solely the form hymd (image, idol); he further remarks regarding
the rendering lwjm/lwjm (C1, p. 233) that no Arabic lexicographical documenta-
tion can be found for lwjm in the sense of musical instrument. Becker (1980) had
already recorded a similar remark on Ibn Barns rendering twllw[/talal[.
17
Certain remarks appearing in Sa'adiahs commentary to his Bible translation,
on the other hand, allude to a certain wariness in the use of articial coinages.
One example: he renders the word hndy (Ps. 20:4) by ahqrjy amb ahyp rmay,
remarking in his commentary that he had refrained from adopting a literal ren-
dering ahdmry (from damr), since the use of that (denominative) verb does not exist
in Arabic. Likewise, regarding twpylam (ibid. 144:13), R. Sa'adiah rendered it by
wla and noted: qlft l[aptla yp br[la hgl dga l amlw . . . la m twpylam rxtyw
hqta lw hlajb htkrt ld. He thereby implies that he did not coin the articial
The same applies to Aramaisms: Derenbourg (1893) remarked, on

Sa'adiahs Tafsr ynxrj/axrp (Num. 6:4), that Targum Onkelos
renders ynwxrp. In the Arabic dictionaries, the word registered is
daxrp; thus the word axrp must be treated as an Aramaism.18
Additional examples were adduced by Razhabi (1964, p. 246).
In conclusion, it may be stated that the Arabic words encoun-
tered in Sa'adiah Ga"ons Bible translation (also in the translations
of other scholars) showing articiality, whether in content or in form,
can be readily assumed to have been especially adapted to the orig-
inal words in the Hebrew source text; such forms were created con-
sciously and intentionally: they bear an unambiguous implication of
language comparison.
Outside Aramaisms, also, the inuence of targumic Aramaic on
Sa'adiahs translation can be discerned.19 This is noticeable in the
following areas:
In the area of terms for realia (Heb./Aram. (non cognate)/Arab.
(cognate with Aram.); above, 3.7, 5.3.2.10), as: hlah/amfwb/hmfbla
(Gen. 35:4); wy[yw/hytypwrgmw/hpragmw (Exod. 27:3); wmr[w/bwld/bld
(Gen. 30:37); tply/zzj/zazj (Lev. 21:20); ryxjh/ytrkw/tarkla (Nu.
11:5); rbkm/adrs/adrs (Exod. 27:4); lmrkw/kwrypw/akyrpw (Lev.
23:14); ydymx/yry/yraws (Gen. 24:22); yr T O h/anyp/ynap (Lev.
1:14).
In the area of halakhic tradition and religion, such as: rdh [ yrp
/ygwrta/grta (Lev. 23:40); rac/arymj/rymk (Exod. 12:15); twksh gj
/aylfmd agj/lfmla gj (Deut. 16:13); tbl/tnykl/tnyksl (Exod.
15:17).
In instances where alternative renderings are available for R. Sa'adiah,
at several occurrences of a given entry word, as: la [fyw/abxn bxnw
/abxn bxnw (Gen. 21:33). Here, he could have rendered, for exam-
ple, alta bxn or alta srg or even hrg srg (if he had not felt the
verb hplwm in order to match the translation to the source text (as e.g., was done
by Alfsi). See further his remark on his own rendering hrzm (Prov. 1:17) by fwsbm.
18
A distinction must, of course, be drawn between an Aramaism that occurred
in Arabic at a period earlier than that of Sa'adiah, such as tark < ytrk (Frnkel,
p. 144), hgrta < grta (ibid., p. 139), and apwf < anpwf (= rendering for lwbm),
this latter being already encountered in Qur"n (Sura 7, v. 133) being an Aramaism
that appeared in the framework of Judeo-Arabic.
19
As for R. Sa'adiahs regard for the Aramaic Targum, in general, see Emunot
veDe"ot, essay II, end of ch. 9, Galliner (1903) p. 10, n. 1, with bibliography ad loc.;
see also Zucker, 1959, p. 266, n. 109.
176 chapter seven
need to identify the referent of la). Elsewhere, he rendered [fyw

by srg, although the Aramaic Targum adopts bxn (Gen. 2:8). Another
example: jwl/halxl/ylxyl (Gen. 24:63). As a rule, he translates the
verb ylx by -l a[d. The word blj he renders in one case abrt
(Exod. 29:22) and in another (hybljmw; Gen. 4:4) ahnams; in each
case the rendering is modeled on Targum Onkelos, who rendered
in the rst case abrt and in the second whynymmw. In his rendering
for gj twksh too (Deut. 16:11, enumerated above), he could have
rendered dy[ rather than gj (lfmla in fact has the appearance of
an Aramaism).
In places in which an alternative rendering might be feasible,
namely a rendering divorced from the inuence of the Aramaic
Targumas, for example, twjpw/hmaw/amaw (Gen. 12:16)he might
have rendered: yrawg; wpn/rdbtn/rdbtn (Gen. 11:4): he might have
rendered qrpt or the like. In the case of rq yrbdb/ ymgtpb
ylfb/hlfab rwma (Exod. 5:9), he chose not to render bdk. Similarly,
instead of the following renderings: hyal/hl[bl/ahl[b (Gen. 3:6),
rwbhw / abwgw / bg (ibid. 37:24), hmynp / hawwg / ynawwgla ( Lev. 10:8),
yy/armj/armk (Gen. 19:32), rhb/arwfb/rwf yp (Lev. 25:1), wytwarm/
yhwdsya/hdswwtm (Gen. 28:11), wlj/twwk/hwk (Gen. 8:6), wjb/hqwb/
qwsla yp (Gen. 9:22), and (wtntk . . .) wfpyw/wjlaw/ahwkls (Gen. 37:27);
the translator might have rendered respectively: ahgwz, ryb, ylkad, bar
or dybn, lbg yp, hsar tjt, ab, arb, w[zn, etc., but chose otherwise;
his use of a cognate with the Aramaic entry word in each case would
appear to be the fruit of an intentional choice.
An comparison of Sa'adiahs translation of the Pentateuch with
the original Hebrew text and with Targum Onqelos reveals a total
of 136 entry words (roots, not occurrences) (this, according to the
version of Drenbourg; according to the Tj version, the total is 143
entry words) that Sa'adiah rendered by a word cognate with the
Aramaic version. This statistic cannot be considered a uke, as shown
above.
Another group of words for which language comparison may be
almost certainly presumed is the type known as basic vocabulary
items (examples were enumerated above, 4.10).
In the setting of Sa'adiah Ga"ons translation, one can detect addi-
tional matters on the aspect of comparison motivation from an obser-
vation of the relation existing between Sa'adiahs Tafsr and the Egron.
Specialists who have made a close examination of the two works of
R. Sa'adiah, have concluded that the two works possess a close-set
nexus. The rst to assert this was Harkavy (1898, p. 89, II). Allony
(1969) checked out thoroughly the entries in the Egron appearing also
in R. Sa'adiahs translation and stated his conclusion (ibid., p. 54)
concurs with this stand: As a rule, Sa'adiahs rendering in his Egron
is identical with his rendering in his Bible translation, nonetheless,
absolute consistency cannot be found [in this matter] (Tn, 1972,
p. 548). This being the situation, it can be posited that R. Sa'adiah
himself viewed his Bible translation as a base for a bilingual Heb.-
Arab. lexicon. This alone would indicate that renderings by cognates
are to be seen as implicit comparisons.
A further intimation that Sa'adiah had a conscious objective in
cognates can be derived from his remarks on those entries he rendered
otherwise than by cognates, although, prima facie, such renderings
would have been appropriate. In his comment to Ps. 6:7 he states:
llbla whw hyadtba lb hspn ysamtla dry l hnal ara[tsm hsma tl[gw.
It can be deduced from such a statement that his standpoint is such,
that the straightforward rendering for hsma is ysamt (and not specically
abwd, etc.): thus translation by a cognate is a matter requiring no
explanation. In contrast, justication is required for a non-literal
(non-peshat) rendering, in our case, a non-cognate synonym. In his
translation of Ps. 8:10, he remarks: [ymg ynatla rah lkb tl[gw
hxak ra la yla hprxa tnkp ym qwspla yp syl da la[la. As
a matter of fact, at the rst occurrence of the phrase m ryda hm
rah lkb (ibid., verse 1), he rendered ra by ra, for the Hebrew
word ra stands in complementary parallelism with dwh hnt ra,
ymh (ymh l[ ibid.) Justication statements of this kind for ren-
derings by non-cognates, where a rendering specically by a cognate
might have been expected, also occur, further in Sa'adiahs Tafsr at
Isa. 18:7; Ps. 21,13; Job 1:12,14,17; 4:8; 7:3; 9:4; 15:2,13, and 16:10.20
20
However, it should be emphasized that the incentive that stimulated an absolutely
systematic practice of rendering by a cognate, which characterized several other
translators, Karaites in particular, such a measure of religiosity is not to be dis-
cerned in R. Sa'adiahs renderingswitness the following entry words rendered by
other translators, each according to his own method, by Arabic cognates, whereas
R. Sa'adiah translated them by non-cognates: hglpn (Gen. 10:25)/tglpna (R. Judah
ibn Quraysh and others) but R. Sa'adiah: tmsqna; ywl (ibid. 18:6)/ytl (Ibn Quraysh
and Alfsi) but R. Sa'adiah: hyng[a; l[ttw (ibid. 38:14)/tplgt but R. Sa'adiah:
tfgt; wdxrt (Ps. 68:17)/wdxrt (Ibn Quraysh and Ibn Barn) but R. Sa'adiah:
w[qwtt; ymhltmk (Prov. 18:8)/whl (Alfsi) but R. Sa'adiah: jazm; hlhltmk (ibid.
26:18)/yhaltm (Alfsi), but R. Sa'adiah: jzam.
178 chapter seven
It is not surprising, therefore, that many scholars continue to relate

to the practice, in Sa'adiahs Tafsr, of rendering by a cognate, as a
genuine language comparison. Be that as it may, even we restricted
the scope of R. Sa'adiahs language comparisons to those explicit
comparisons encountered in his grammatical treatises and in his Bible
translation commentaries, we would still obtain a clear enough pic-
ture of his comparison theory. It can be stated conclusively, then,
that in the sphere of language comparison, too, R. Sa'adiah Ga"on
was yrbdmh ar (the primary spokesman).
7.4 Nomenclature and comparative terms
7.4.1 The nomenclature for the languages

The name used for Arabic: br[la hgl (Isa. 63:7 a.e.);
Nomenclature for Arabic-speaking people: br[la ( Job 9:4 and
elswhere); wqla (ibid. 24:20); sanla (ibid. 16:11);
The names used for Hebrew: lyarsa ynb hgl (Introduction to tr./com-
mentary to Psalms, ed. Q, p. 46)); ynarb[la (Isa. 63:7);
Nomenclature for Hebrew-speaking people: wynarb[la (Skoss, 1942,
p. 190).
Names for Aramaic: ynayrsla ( Job 15:29); wgrtla hgl (used also for
biblical Aramaic; Prov. 31:2 a.e.); wgrt wl (Dan. 10:1); yynadskla hgl
(ibid. 7:1); (yytmlk) ytyyfbn (ibid. 3:8).
Names for books/works in Aramaic: laynd (Ps. 2:9).
7.4.2 The comparison terminology

In Heb./Arab. comparisons: sanla wlwqy ( Job 16:11); wqla lwqk
( Job 24:20); br[la wlm[tsy amk . . . wynarb[la wlm[tsy (Ps. 12:3);
br[la ymst amkw ( Job 9:4); br[la hgl yp (Ps. 2:1; ed. Q, p. 46);
ldk ynarb[la ypw . . . (Isa 63:7); . . . ld qlft br[la hgl (Ps. 144:13;
Zucker 1955, pp. 26, 79); . . . lwqt amk (Ps. 80:13); . . . . lwqk whw
(Prov. 3:34); ld yl[ wjlfxy l ynarb[la ap . . . (Skoss 1942,
p. 190); ynarb[la yp hmaqm (Prov. 1:23).
In Heb./Aram. comparisons: . . . ynayrsla yp wI mkpy dq ( Job 15:29);
wgrtla hgl m (at entries: [wlb, mjra; ysj, wgrjyw, y[r-y[r;
wy[bt, hd[m, twbrb, twjml); hmgrt yhp (at tyrkta); wgrt (whp) (entries
ynmz, atrbn, rbsyw, hpyqtw, yntmyaw alyjd); wgrt al (at yhwdj; rw[(k));
wgrt hnal (at [[rm, askb); wgrtla hglb wh (at yrb); wgrt whw (in
three-way comparisons Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.: tjn, ypkw,
lfwy, twmyy, glp, hd[, tmwlw, wzj, wmts, yklm). wgrt wl m (at abx);
zero term (at entries: ygwlgb, td; ljw; azwrkw, qyzn, awngs, [r, [wry,
rtyw, hytafafw).
In Aram./Arab. comparisons: hqlft amk . . . qlft al br[la hgl
yynadskla hgl (Dan. 7:1); wgrtla hgl yp zag am yl[ . . . (ibid. 7:15).
CHAPTER EIGHT
R. JUDAH IBN QURAYSH

(IN REMARK DUNASH B. TAMM)1
R. Judah ibn Qurayshs treatise the Risla, which to the best of my

knowledge was the rst work to be devoted to language comparison
of Hebrew/Arabic/Aramaic, has been fairly recently published in a
high-quality edition (Becker, 1984) containing the Arabic original
side by side with a Hebrew rendition by the editor. Becker, in addi-
tion, wrote a detailed introduction to the Risla (pp. 1111) in which
he discussed a plethora of issues regarding Ibn Quraysh, concern-
ing the treatise itself, the manuscripts of the work, its earlier edi-
tions, its linguistic theory, as its theory-cum-method of language
comparison as reected in the treatise, and the status of Ibn Quraysh
as compared with other contemporary scholars and with those who
succeeded him.2 On several topics having a bearing on the present
study, I have commented on R. Judah ibn Qurayshs theory and,
at times, on the conclusions reached by Becker. For such materials
and remarks, see above, 2.1, 2.3.4, 2.4.1.1, 2.6.1, 2.6.3.3, 5.1.1, 5.3.3,
as well as footnotes to pp. 3435, 50, 65, 81 and 82; see also below
the introduction to the Table of Comparisons (at the end of this
work). On the position held by R. Judah ibn Quraysh among his
contemporaries, especially in relation to Sa'adiah Ga"on, I would
merely add here: the view of Bacher (1894, Nitzanei, p. 65)3 and oth-
ers,4 as well as that of Becker himself 5 (ibid., p. 77), that the special
1
Regarding Dunash ibn Tamm very little is known. P. Wechter (1964, notes
32, 33) recorded all bibliographical information available on the lifetime of that
grammarian, on his treatise on language comparison and on the writers who had
quoted him and the surviving fragments of his work.
2
For further insights into Ibn Qurayshs method, see Tn (1983, 4.2.3).
3
As Bacher (ibid.) states: Ibn Quraysh was the rst to pave the way of sys-
tematic comparison of Semitic languages.
4
Among them Wechter (1964), p. 130 and n. 34.
5
Becker (ibid.) writes: Ibn Qurayshs individual innovation is his systematic com-
parison of words and of grammar, in the three languages: Hebrew, Aramaic and
Arabic, all in the one specic treatise, treating of this subject and of no other.
r. judah ibn quraysh 181
character of Ibn Quraysh lies in his having compiled a treatise focused

specically on methodical comparison of Hebrew with Aramaic and with Arabic,
rather than attributing to him the status of being an absolute initiator
of work in this area (see Becker, ibid., p. 73: He was the pioneer in
the comparison of Semitic Languages. Indeed, we have seen in
Chapter Seven that explicit language comparison is incorporated on
a quite a considerable scale in Sa'adiahs works; thus whether Ibn
Quraysh knew of R. Sa'adiahs writings or did not (as Becker opines,
ibid.), the position of precedence in language comparison must indeed
be granted to R. Sa'adiah Ga"on.6
6
As noted earlier, R. Abraham ibn Ezra (Moznayim, I) places R. Sa'adyah Ga"on
as rst and foremost in the list of the Elders of the Hebrew Language. But Becker
opines that the order in this List is chronological. See also Tn, 1983, 0.2 and
p. 239), who describes the language comparisons of the Sa'adiahs predecessors as
giving the impression of being in a fairly developed stage of a process, not at its
outset. With regard to R. Judah ibn Quraysh, Tn maintains (ibid.) that his state-
ments do not give the impression of being amateurish in this topic. This can be
illustrated in one specic aspect. Ibn Quraysh (A 93) adduced the comparison
yt[rt/r[/a[rt/ay[rt (Ezra 7:24) in the name of some scholar, whom he leaves
anonymous and rejects it. It can with fair certainty be deduced therefrom that Ibn
Quraysh was familiar with the comparison theme Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.
as one used by his predecessors; it was not Ibn Quraysh who innovated this theme.
CHAPTER NINE
DAVID B. ABRAHAM ALFSIS

COMPARATIVE PHILOLOGY
In the second half of the tenth century, Alfsi composed a lexicon

for biblical language entitled Jmi' al-"Alf, (literally Treasury of
Words).1 The entries set out and discussed in this lexicon pertain to
biblical Hebrew and biblical Aramaic, whereas the language of the
denitions and the running text is by and large Arabic.2 Jmi' al-
"Alf, was not composed with the intention of producing a treatise
on the specic topic of comparative linguistics.3 The main aim and
purpose of the Jmi' lexicon is to serve as a biblical lexicon; but just
as this lexicon reects a certain image of Bible exegesis and of bib-
lical Hebrew grammar, so, likewise, does it incorporate considerable
material pertaining to the comparison of Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic;
and though, indeed, these data are of sporadic occurrence in sundry
entries throughout the lexicon, their underlying principles can indeed
be synthesized into a unied thesis. In what follows I attempt to pre-
sent the characteristic features of this thesis.
9.1 Alfsis theory of language comparisons
As stated above, Jmi' al-"Alf, was not compiled with comparative

linguistics in mind. Thus, a priori, one should not expect to nd
therein any organized running discussion on this subject; indeed no
uninterrupted discussions text of this type is to be found in the trea-
tise. However, the customary practice of a lexicon, i.e. the use of
interlingual comparisons for lexicographical purposes, provides us
with the means to obtain some picture of the comparison theory
1
Published by S.L. Skoss. See Bibliographical Abbreviations, Skoss (193645).
2
This dialect pertains to the stratum of Arabic known as Middle Arabic.
3
Examples of the exegetical character of the lexicon can be found at entries ra
(p. 154), ywg (p. 311); disputation with interpretations of others is at bha (p. 37),
bwza (p. 53), bg (p. 294), wmh (p. 446), dj (p. 525), dly (p. 151).
david b. abraham alfsis comparative philology 183
embedded in the structure of the Jmi' lexicon. In other words, since

the lexicon sets out the applied aspect of comparative linguistics, it
follows that this applied science was founded on some pure sci-
ence, that guided the compiler: it is this pure scientic theory that
we wish to discover from deep below the revealed application. It
must be borne in mind that one cannot discern in each and every
specic lexical comparison something of signicance, something
uniquely instructive regarding one specic characteristic of the gen-
eral comparison theory. One encounters very many comparisons all
based on a single theoretical principle: however, I deemed it neces-
sary to collect every single detail in the lexicon that has or might
have relevance to the issue under discussion. I make it a principle
to analyze, elucidate, dene, and determine whatever instructive piece
of information might be available from it for the elucidation of Alfsis
method of language comparison. The inevitable outcome is that for
the present study I propose to identify and determine the full scope
of lexical comparisons recorded by Alfsi. A priori, we do not feel
obliged to deal with the grammatical comparisons, however, restrict-
ing the scope to the lexicographical materials alone is likely to cre-
ate a distorted view of the comparison theory/method. These data
by themselves may lead the reader to conclude that with regard to
the comparison issue Alfsi fails to depart from the framework of
specic comparisons, i.e. local and primitive language comparisons.
The impression received would be that Alfsi possesses no wider or
more expansive approach on the issue, an approach of a compre-
hensive and abstract nature. For this very reason, I have rst set out
samples of the grammatical comparisons incorporated by Alfsi in
his lexicon, whether the comparisons appear explicitly or allusively.
Grammatical comparisons are naturally likely to reect a larger mea-
sure of abstraction than comparisons of separate dened lexical enti-
ties; for in grammatical comparisons one is comparing a phenomenon
permeating very many word forms as well as the length and breadth
of morphological categories, whereas in lexicological comparison,
each instance sets up a contrast solely between isolated entry words.
9.1.1 Comparisons of verbal conjugations

At entry br, (p. 362) Alfsi analyzes the form bdn appearing in bib-
lical Aramaic; he parses it as a form modeled on the participial verb
form of the Hebrew nif 'al conjugation. This can be clearly inferred
184 chapter nine
from the fact that he compares bdn with the Hebrew forms ltpn
and rhmnis clearly a comparison of the formation of the Hebrew
conjugation with that of the Aramaic one. Agreed, one cannot be
sure whether Alfsi held (i) that this isolated form possessing a
nif 'al structure (as he would put it) evidences that this structure was
a standard one in biblical Aramaic, although in fact it is not to be
further encountered in the Aramaic text corpus appearing in the
Bible on account of the restricted scope of that corpus or (ii) that
the grammatical categories of the two languages had a great mea-
sure of anity. For our purposes, it makes no dierence; it is impor-
tant to note the upshot, i.e. that an attempt is made here to set up
a comparison of grammatical categories.
In one instance it would appear that Alfsi compares the conju-
gation used in Hebrew with the corresponding one used in Arabic
in the case of the translation synonyms ytyn[n/tbga: In Hebrew, the
conjugation is nif 'al, whereas in Arabic, it is "af 'ala. The corresponding
Arabic cognate in conjugation, "infa'ala, would in this case be inap-
plicable (entry hb, p. 198).
In discussing the entry mz (p. 490), Alfsi compares several forms
of the hitpa''el conjugation, i.e. forms in which the rst radical is a
sibilant, the issue being the assimilation of the tav of the conjuga-
tion as well as its metathesis with the initial radical. In contrast to
modern grammarians, Alfsi makes no mention of such terms; nei-
ther does he explain the phenomenon: It is, however, crystal clear
that he has the aforesaid grammatical phenomenon in mind, since
he adduces from the three languages Heb./Aram./Arab., side by
side, the forms: wtnmdzh/[rdzm, gwdzm; qdfxn/gbfxm.
9.1.2 Comparison of verbal tenses

This type of comparison pertains to the area of the conjugation of
the verb in the qal conjugation in Hebrew and in Aramaic. At entry
[d(y) (p. 393), Alfsi compares the 3rd person masculine singular
form (perfect) and masculine singular participial form of the qal in
Hebrew and in Aramaic. The resulting comparison pattern produced
the pairs: [d"y:/[d"y; [dE y4/[d"y.: The impression is that the motive for
the comparison is the morpho-semantic ambiguity of the form [d"y:.
4
This contextually must be the correct vocalization, although in MSS A and B,
The latter form, in Hebrew denotes the 3rd. pers. sing in the per-
fect tense, whereas in Aramaic the same form denotes the masc.
sing. participle. A similar comparison is made for the root rma (entry
rma, p. 118). It is thus evident that Alfsi thinks in terms of the
comparison of grammatical categories, even if such comparison is
reected only in particular instances (lakm ynayrslab hglla hdh wjnw
ynarb[la wjnl, as Alfsi states at entry [d[y] ibid.).
9.1.3 Comparison of various forms of the nominal type

Regarding certain Hebrew nominal entries, Alfsi remarks that
their use is encountered equally as singular forms and as plural forms,
in contrast with their corresponding Arabic translation synonyms,
whose use is as singular forms only: An example is qjrmyqjrm,
as opposed to Arabic d[b, which has no plural in that language
(ybr[lab rytkt hl sylentry qjr, p. 606). So, likewise, rqyrq
as opposed to Arabic lfab, which is used in the singular only (ibid.,
p. 705), and so wbrjynwbrj compared with wms (p. 583), and
htpytp compared with atk (p. 488).5
Regarding the translation synonyms yxljyntm/ywqj (entry lj,
p. 555), he remarks that these possess no singular form at all. At
the entry bl (p. 146), he remarks that this noun appears sometimes
in the feminine form hbl, in contrast to the translation synonym in
Arabic, for which only the masculine form blq is used.
9.1.4 Comparison of morphological traits

At entries bl (p. 146) and hap (p. 444), Alfsi draws attention to
the fact that Hebrew derives denominative verbs from several nouns,
according to Skoss, this form is vocalized [d"y. Skoss suggested no correction in the
body of the text, nor did he propose an emendation in his apparatus.
5
On the other hand, Alfsis statement, at entry rhx p. 502, i.e.rhfla yrhx lk
yn[m dyzy al amm hyp ymlaw dwylaw, could be construed in one of two ways: If we
assume that this grammatical comment regarding the fact that the morpheme yI '
of the dual in the word yrhx is non-functional semantically and is an intra-Hebrew
one, possibly originating from an inspection of the Hebrew word itself in compar-
ison with the potential singular form, then this remark has no pertinence for inter-
lingual grammatical comparisons; if, however, we postulate that the aforementioned
note is made vis--vis a comparison of the Hebrew form yrhx with the parallel
Arabic translation synonym rhf which is a singular form, then this is indeed another
instance pertaining to the topic discussed here.
186 chapter nine
in contrast to Arabic, which fails to do so for the equivalent nouns.6

To express the same idea Arabic nds it necessary to employ a suit-
able verb form adjoining the noun form in each case. To illustrate,
he adduces the verbs ha;p]hi, bBel,i bNEzI, r[es,i these deriving from the
nouns hap, bl, etc. whereas Arabic has translation synonyms for the
nominals only, as blq, hhg, but does not build verbs there-from.
Thus the rendering for the verb haph, e.g., is tahgla yp ddb. Likewise,
he compares the forms ylbh (Eccles. 1:2), wlbhyw (2 Kings 17:15),
and wlbht ( Job 27:12) with Arabic abh, from which no verb is
derived: The word wlbht, e.g., is thus to be translated abhlab wmlktt.
Furthermore, instances where Alfsi remarks that nominalization
from a particle/conjunctive is practised in Hebrew whereas in Arabic
this does not occur for the corresponding translation synonym of the
given particlee.g., the noun dygn, which in Alfsis opinion is derived
from dg<n< (straight, opposite) (the noun thus means righteous words
or ways in which it is worthy to walk (dgnl). Likewise, the noun
j kO n is built from the preposition jk' nO , whereas from layj and lbaq
Arabic does not create nominal forms morphologically and seman-
tically equivalent to dygn and jwkn (entry dgn, p. 253).7 Comparison of
morphological creation traits, such as proper nouns developed from
verbs, is to be encountered at dbz (p. 474), e.g. dbz > laydbz/ybz >
anybz/rf > yrf.
9.2 Comparisons in areas of syntax and style
The parts that follow present comparative syntax and style as recorded
by Alfsi at several entries:
The Hebrew expression an is liable to be reiterated within the
same sentence, e.g. j ytaxm an a an la (Gen. 33:10), whereas in
Arabic the equivalent cannot be repeated.
6
In Alfsis words: tdka laqyp hdayzb ala ybr[lab rxty a zwgy al ynytbbl
yblqb . . . He does not use a term exactly equivalent to denominative; however this
concept is implicit in his words.
7
In the text (ibid.) the word laqy has apparently fallen between the words alp
and hlayj ymy. Its restoration enables a lucid construing of our text. In Arabic
one phrases it ywtsmla qyrfla yp lsy (in the righteous path) but one does not say
hlbaqm wa hlayj ymy being the literal rendering of h Ojwkn lwh, as one does in
Hebrew.
In Arabic, the hail interjection ay appears directly before the

name of the person addressed or prior to the equivalent personal
pronoun, whereas in Hebrew, no corresponding mark of the voca-
tive exists (and this can occasionally be the cause of syntactical ambi-
guity) (e.g. rjb, p. 207).
At entry dja (p. 61) Alfsi discusses the expression wynbm dja
(Lev. 13:2), as follows: dja br[la hglb laqy a at[y mla hdayzlp
hynb m dja ,aybxla m. He wishes to say that the syntactical phrase,
structured on a combination of (a) the numeral dja (one) with (b)
the preposition m and (c) a nominal in plural in a dened state, as
used in Hebrew, is disallowed in Arabic. In other words, with a
plural noun Arabic does not tolerate the combination dja with m
followed by the denite article la.
The accusative mark ta is paralleled in Arabic by a technical,
translational entry, namely aya; however, it is not possible to auto-
matically render every ta by aya. Alfsi does not enumerate the syn-
tactical conditions required for the use of aya but simply remarks:
ld b[xl adk ayaw adk aya ybr[lab lwqy asna ag wl (entry an,
p. 246).
The combination tab hzm-ya (Gen. 16:8) cannot be rendered
into Arabic unless the particle ()mi is placed before yae, since in Arabic
one says: . . . adk ya m (entry ya, p. 73). In sum, there is a non-cor-
respondence of word order for this expression in Hebrew/Arabic.
To sum up, the aforementioned comparisons demonstrate that Alfsi
paid attention to structural phenomena, too. True, no full-scale, sys-
tematic comparison of a full paradigm of any noun or verb is encoun-
tered in his works, i.e. a Hebrew/Arabic or Hebrew/Aramaic
comparison, whether for persons or tenses or for the respective pat-
terns or for equivalent conjugations. It is even uncertain whether
this philologist indeed conceived of such concepts. Nevertheless, one
should not underestimate the signicance of these local structural
comparisons, reecting as they do a distinct level of abstraction and
extension from specic comparisons of an isolated entry word with its
translation synonym to generic comparisons.
188 chapter nine
9.3 Letter substitutions in the comparison theory8
Alfsis comparative philology and, to be more precise, the element

in his theory that treats of etymological comparison of the three
Semitic languages he knew, Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic,9 is clearly
founded on a certain theory of letter substitutions. The term letter
substitutions well suits Alfsis conception of comparison theory as
well as the terminology that he himself adopts (see below). No basis
can be noted in his discussion for the idea of sound shifts, a con-
cept current in diachronic and comparative linguistics. The letter
switches listed below stem from express statements by Alfsi encoun-
tered in the lexicon in various occurrences10 or indirectly from explicit
comparisons of translation synonyms. For example, the three-way
comparison dlg/dlg/dlg (p. 327) demonstrates (a) the mutual equiv-
alence of the letters l and d for this comparison entry in the three
languages as well as (b) the switch g/g occurring between Hebrew
and Aramaic on the one hand and Arabic on the other.
The list also incorporates letter substitutions common to other
comparison theories, whether these precede Alfsi or are subsequent
to him, as well as several substitutions that are at variance with mod-
ern linguistic science.
9.3.1 Alfsis express statements regarding letter substitutions
HebrewAramaic
z/d: This switch appears in the separate, compounded substitu-
tion list, at entry ynxylh (p. 442).
x/f: Concerning this switch, he states (ibid.): ydxlab ldbny tyfla
af[ byth ltm (Dan. 2:14) hx[ yxtqy.
/t: he states: rytk ynayrslabw . . . wytlab (yla) ldbntw and
exemplies with bwy (Lev. 13:16)/bwty (Dan. 4:31); r[ (1S 17: 25)
art[u/(Targum Jonathan, ibid.) (ibid., p. 445).
8
See Tn (1983) notes 6869 and above, 2.4.
9
The expression ahanml[ ytla tagl taltla recurs several times in his lexicon
(see below, 9.11.1.1).
10
See enumeration below. See also Skoss (193645) at entries ynxylh (pp. 43945)
regarding Heb.Aram. letter substitutions and at entries ljb (p. 208), lz (p. 488),
z[l (p. 172), fb[ (p. 362), etc., regarding Heb.Arab. letter switches.
HebrewArabic
z/d: ladlab yzla lydbtb ld lz anlw (entry lz, p. 488)
j/k: This switch is encountered in several entries in the lexi-
con, as follows: hybr[la hgl yp aklab tyjla balqna m: jrm/rm
(p. 232); (a)rj/ark (p. 582); ypecj
i }/ypk (p. 569).
[/g: This switch is attested, too, passim, in the lexicon: anl
yg y[b ltm yglab grky y[ ynarb[la yp rytk (z[l, p. 172); y[
ygla aqm (g[, p. 369).
[/k: This switch is attested in one solitary instance in the lex-
icon, i.e. ybr[la hgl brq m fabk fb[ anlw (fb[, p. 362). This is
indeed a surprising supposition, for the switch cannot be considered
regular even in the frame of Alfsis own system. However, consid-
ering that he maintains an intra-Hebrew switch of [ and j (see tjba,
p. 24; ynxylh, p. 442, 444; bgj p. 520), the rationale is increased for
the switch [/k; for if one juxtaposes the [/j to the switch j/k, one
arrives at the substitution [/k.
The logical implication that can be derived from those letters,
concerning which Alfsi states explicitly that they can be mutually
switched, is twofold:
(1) The remaining letters constituting the majority, are interlin-
gually equal or identical phonetically and consequently etymologi-
cally, e.g. d/d/d; l/l/l; m/m/m, etc. Regarding such switches of
identical sound entities, no express statement is encountered; these
can be deduced solely from explicit comparisons of identical entry
words possessing phonetic/phonological and etymological equivalence.
(2) Letters that are phonetically dierent interlingually, so long as
he refrained from an express statement of their interchangeability,
are in Alfsis opinion indeed non-interchangeable. For example, the
switch x/[/x is nowhere mentioned in Alfsis lexicon. It is certainly
to be wondered: if he takes the trouble to reiterate, time and again,
the commonplace substitutions, surely a substitution of infrequent
appearance (in Alfsis own comparisons) should be noted at least
once! The consequence is that the cognizance of this three-way switch
cannot be attributed to Alfsi.11
The essence of the substitution is that Alfsi sets out no logical
grounds for the switches of the heterophonic letters, such as x/f and
11
See below, 9.4.12, on the comparison [a/[.
190 chapter nine
j/k. In other words, he does not provide a justication for the given
switches. It would seem that his decision as to the xation of one
or other of the switches was based on contemporaneous linguistic
use. For instance, the fact that the two entry words a[ra and aqra
are employed with semantic equivalence in Aramaic serves as basis
for his xation of [/q as an intra Aramaic letter substitution. But
Alfsi nowhere concerns himself with the issue of whether the two
given heterophonic consonants were perhaps once homophonic. It
cannot be doubted that if he had thought that the two interchangeable
letters once possessed some phonetic or etymological anity, he
would have been explicit about it. In any case, it would be a mis-
take to attribute to him anything pertaining to diachronic links, a
notion that he nowhere expressed.
9.3.2 A listing of the interchangeable letters

The following list is based on express statements of Alfsi (above,
9.3.1) as well as on explicit comparisons of entry words pertaining
to two or three of the languages concerned.
In three-way comparisons Heb./Aram./Arab.

g/g/g (dlg, p. 327); z/z/d ([]kz, p. 485); j/j/k (rmj, p. 561);
x/x/f (wqa, p. 143); /s/ (jl, p. 673); /s/t (tya, p. 79); t/t/t
(hnt, p. 740).
In Hebrew/Arabic comparisons
g/k (wg/kw, p. 313); g/g (gr, p. 592); z/d (lz, p. 488); j/k (ljb,
p. 208); [/k (fb[, p. 362); [/g (z[l, p. 172); x/x (br, p. 590); /
(dy; ryg, p. 320); /t indirectly, by comparison hnt/ynt (p. 740) and
by equivalence of hn/hnt.
In Hebrew/Aramaic comparisons
g/k (mwg, p. 331); z/d (bhz/bhd, p. 442); x/f (ynxylh, p. 442); /t
(ibid., p. 445).
Apart from the above-mentioned letter switches, certain special
substitutions, derivable from the implicit comparisons recorded by
Alfsi, are attested.
Heb./Arab. switches
d/x: This switch can be inferred from the implicit comparison of
Hebrew dd[ and Arabic dx[.12 This would also seem compatible
with Alfsis system of letter substitution. Examination of the above
list shows that, primarily on the basis of phonetic similarity the dis-
tinct majority of interchangeable letters are of the kind that exists
between the members of each pair, whereas the etymological equiv-
alence required by modern comparative linguistics is not aorded
the same measure of weight. In Alfsis theory, the / switch is a
legitimate, standard, and normative one and it is actualized not only
in the given instance but also in the comparisons znf[/zwnfa
(p. 692), a/w (p. 710), j/yj (p. 595), and wg/kw (p. 313).
He does not treat this substitution as exceptional vis--vis the /s
switch, as modern linguists would. Likewise, are the switch g/g in
gr/gr (p. 592) and g/k in wg/kw (p. 313), based as they are on
their phonetic similarity (the dierence between g and k being in
the voiced/non-voiced contrast of the sounds only). It goes without
saying that all the rest of the switches of the type m/m/m in which
the sounds are identical are based on the same principle. No won-
der, then, that Alfsi set up dd[ and dx[ as translation synonyms
k/k: The same applies to the consonant pair k and k met with
in the comparisons of the translation synonyms ks/ks and d/dkd
(pp. 37980). In entry d (ibid.) Skoss remarks that the diacritical
point on the k of dkd might be redundant and that in fact the
verb in question is a dierent one, i.e. Kd. The comparison would
thus be k/k, which would be correct according to present day lin-
guistics, too. Behind Skoss remark can be discerned an attempt to
idealize the comparison theory of Alfsi; however, the fact remains
that Alfsi set up comparisons for consonants on a pure phonetic
basis that nowadays would not be treated as etymological at all.
What is more, the rendering dkd is to be found not only in Jefet
b. 'Ali at the locations noted by Skoss himself (p. 258) but even by
the antecedents of Alfsi, i.e. Salmon b. Yeruim and even (once)
by R. Sa'adiah Ga"on.13
12
See my listing of doubtful comparisons. The rendering of dd[ by dx[ is quite
frequent in Karaite writings and, likewise, in R. Sa'adiahs Tafsr. See Index of
words in Q (1966, p. 336, col. Iii). See also Epstein (1982, p. 62).
13
See below, 9.12.1.3.6.
192 chapter nine
A Hebrew/Aramaic switch
At entry snk (p. 114), where Alfsi implicitly compares this entry
word with Aramaic nk, there is an implication of the switch s/.14
9.3.3 The conditions for substitutions

For identical letters, Alfsi set no limit on the extent of their switch
application in entry comparison of the three languages. However, in
the adoption of switches between non-identical letters, he does set a
criterion, this being inferable from the following: At entry yrrj ( Jer.
17:6) Alfsi adduces the Jonathan Targum rendering dlw ald; but
he immediately rejects it, on the grounds that TJ equated yrrj with
yryr[, on which basis it is so rendered. However, it is not because
the j/[ switch is unacceptable to Alfsi that he rules out the TJ
derivation; on the contrary, he includes this substitution in the lengthy
register of substitutions at ynxylh (pp. 43945). Rather he rejects it
on ideological grounds, saying: ld yla hrwrxla t[pd amw, mean-
ing: The adoption of this substitution is not necessary. The ques-
tion then arises: When does one operate the given rules of substitution?
The answer: When this is inevitablenamely, when the entry word
has no other feasible explanation, either contextually or as it stands,
except on the basis of letter substitution.
9.3.4 Summing up letter substitution

If one compares Alfsis chart of letter switches to what are now
considered conventional sound shifts in comparative Semitic linguis-
tics, one nds that Alfsi presents several additions on the one hand
and some deciencies on the othernotably, the switch x/[/x.
Signicant also is his failure to set any comparing vocalic entities in
the three languages.
14
The feasibility of each and every Hebrew letter being interchangeable with the
letter following it in the alphabet order, as attested in Ms Z at entry wrb (p. 272),
has no basis whatsoever in any verbatim statement of Alfsis. Considering the exten-
sive reiterations of letter switches adduced by Alfsi in his lexicon, it is surprising
that such a remark, if authentic, is nowhere encountered! The notion seems to have
been adduced from the later system of Ibn Barn (see below, ch. 15).
9.3.5 Comparison of vowels in compared Heb./Aram./Arab. entries

The comparison of entry words pertaining to the three given lan-
guages adopts, as a basis, the consonantal frame of the compared
words (this notwithstanding the grammatical approach current before
ayyji.e. that of R. Sa'adiah Ga"on, R. Judah ibn Quraysh and
Alfsiand, after ayyj, as held by R. Jonah ibn Jan and R.
Isaac ibn Barn). However, no account is taken of the interchanges
of vowels, not to speak of the vowel shifts noticeable in these entry
words. Even in the isolated instances of apparent comparison of the
respective vowels in the compared Heb./Aram. entries,15 the matter
is not one of comparing of homo-semic entry words but of con-
trasting hetero-semic entries, these being highlighted merely to obvi-
ate misunderstanding in homonymic Heb./Aram. entries (e.g. Heb.
[d"y: designates the perfect, whereas Aram. [d"y: denotes the present).
Greater account is taken of the morphological patterns of the entry
words than of their vowels (except perhaps that allusion is made to
the external equivalence of the qamatz in Heb./Aram., also of the
pata). Nevertheless, nowhere is either a systematic comparison of
the vocalic system or even a partial description of it as such to be
found although a partial, comparative description is recorded for the
consonantal complex; nor, indeed, is any norm set for vowel sub-
stitutions. Furthermore, Alfsi provides no comparison whatsoever
between the vowels in Hebrew or Aramaic and those in Arabic.
9.3.6 Root theory and Alfsis comparison theory

Alfsis theory of the root is identical with that current before the
time of ayyji.e. it lacked any notion of the triliterality of the
root for those verbs subsequently termed [ [ (geminates) and verbs
having a weak letter as radical. This theory had an eect on the
comparison of entry words pertaining to weak pattern roots in all
the three Semitic languages, even in those instances in which the
root was not considered weak in one or other of the languages
(e.g. the primae-n, which is treated as a weak pattern in Hebrew
and in Aramaic, whereas it is treated as a regular pattern in Arabic)
(see above, 2.5). As noted above (2.6), the Hebrew grammarians set
15
See the introduction to Alfsis comparison theory.
194 chapter nine
up comparisons for entry words that are a reality in language, and

only for such, not for roots, these being an abstraction. Nonetheless,
it can be proven that Alfsi was cognizant of the concept root.
This is evident from the fact that he compares not only entry words
bearing correspondence in all their lettersi.e. including their axes
but also translation synonyms, even when such pertain to dierent
parts of speech. For instance, he compares a noun with a verbe.g.
the Hebrew verb hnk with the Aramaic substantive tnk (whtwnk) and
with the Arabic substantive hynk (p. 113); he also compares the
Hebrew verb xp with the Arabic noun yxpa (p. 475), etc. Even
more conclusive for the manner in which Alfsi conceives of the root
are the comparisons he records for entry words with mutual metathe-
sis of consonants, such as rpxyw ( Judg. 7:3)/rxnaw (p. 524).
Alfsis conception of the root as latently reected in certain specic
comparisons is demonstrated as follows:
At entry la (p. 106) Alfsi makes the following remark on the
root of the entry words wla ( Jer. 3:4) and lat (Prov. 22:25):
35:11) ra twmhbm wnplm hlwql . . . hylxa hglla hdh yp lala sylw
wnpyla hanhl alw (Targ. Num. 22:30) anpyla lm ynayrsla ypw ( Job
.16(Targ. Jer. 6:29) whyplm
The result is that the a of la is not a radical letter, as evident
from the fact that forms exist in Hebrew and in Aramaic in which
this a does not appear. In this particular case, indeed, the root is
the same for both Hebrew and Aramaic. But there are other cases
where this root theory induced Alfsi to treat as equivalent two roots
that ayyj had held to be entirely separate. Several examples are
herewith recorded:
16
In the introduction to Jmi' al-"Alf, (p. lviii, n. 77), Skoss notes that he was
unable to identify the correct source reference for this citation. He states that Prof.
Ginzburg had supposed this to be some textual variant for the sentence appearing
in BT, ullin, 115b: l [mmq al hanhb lba hlykab ylym ynh (= the above-men-
tioned applies to eating only; regarding other, general benecial use, no impli-
cation exists). Apart from the fact that this more or less wreaks havoc with the
Talmudic text and that, furthermore, it is quite far-fetched to attribute to Alfsi,
Karaite that he was, a Talmudic citation (see below, 9.12.1.2.2), the above proves
to be irrelevant, for in this case the correct source for this phrasing has actually
been located verbatim (Sperbers text reads: wnwpyla) at Tosefta to Jonathan Targum
at Jer. 6:29. True, this quote could not have been discovered from Aramaic lexi-
cons and, even more, could not have been located by the Bible text word it was
used to render, for indeed the whole phrase is nothing but a Targum Tosefta (a
free addition to the Targum rather than a literal rendering); in fact I have come
across it by a scanning of the TJ text itself.
Alfsi records a comparison of Aramaic rwsa with Hebrew rwcm

(rsa, p. 129); this comparison lends color to the implication that the
root for these two words is simply s (= c) + r.
At jg (p. 316) he compares jg(n) with j(w)g (abrq jygm), and at dg
(p. 301) he compares (dw)dg with yymd ydg(n); at j (p. 501) he contrasts
the Hebrew root yj with the Aramaic root j (ytm ajm) although no dif-
ference of meaning exists between them ynarb[la yl[ lyld ynayrsla sylw ;
at z (p. 469) he compares (b[r-) hzm with the Aramaic hzml.
Likewise, he sets up a Heb./Arab. comparison for the follow-
ing pairs of roots: rg(n)/rg (p. 343); jp(n)-j(w)p/pn (jp, p. 455);
d[(y)/d[w (p. 373); d(t)[/dd[ (ibid.); bx(y)/bxn (p. 496); (l)l-l(n)/ls
(p. 671); ()xj/yxj (p. 573).
For certain roots, it appears prima facie that he maintains a
comparison on the basis of mutual metathesis of their letterse.g.
ay/sya (p. 157); jy/ypj (p. 50)the implication being that the y
is part of the Hebrew root. But it is salient that Alfsi does not con-
sider the letter y in the Hebrew roots a radical, for, as can be seen,
ay is adduced by him in the frame of the entries constituting the
arch-root a. Moreover, had he thought that the y was part of the
root, he could quite easily have set a comparison of ay/say, whereas
in fact he recorded no such comparison of these roots.
One may wonder, in all the above examples, why Alfsi in the
Arabic component of the comparison made no remark on the let-
ter additional to the root and/or its status, i.e. indicating whether it is
a radical or not. However, it seems possible to deduce his opinion
on this matter from one isolated statement: At entry hn (p. 258) he
proposes two etymological and semantic options: (a) the entry word
might be construed as stemming from hmh, in which case the stem/root
is biliteral, i.e. mh; or (b) it stems from hn, in which case the root
is triliteral. Option (b), as he would have it, relies on Arabicnamely,
on the translation synonym hn. The clear implication is that in
Arabic the root is triliteral: The status of rst-n verbs in Arabic is
non-identical with their status in Hebrew. The paradox is that verbs
pertaining prima facie to the same pattern, and equivalent in all
their component letters in some of their occurrences are dened dierently
as to their root. What is alluded to at hnthis indeed gaining cor-
roboration from his silence with regard to other verb patternslends
support to the conclusion that Alfsi was of the opinion that on the
topic of root theory analogy should not be made between Arabic
and Hebrew.
196 chapter nine
9.4 The Hebrew/Aramaic comparisons
9.4.1 Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. inevitable comparisons exhibiting some

deliberate aspect
The impression that for inevitable comparisons of formula Bib.
Heb./Bib. Aram. Alfsi did not consciously intend to record com-
parison but merely to enter each entry at its correct location is indeed
convincing, especially in those instances in which the comparison
term is zero. In such cases, there is no salient proof that the
lexicographer indicated the Aramaic origin of the entry word, recorded
in immediate proximity to the given Hebrew entry. This leaves room
for the feasible decision to exclude the given entries from the list-
ing of compared entry words. However, in a distinct number of
instances, amounting to 35 in all and constituting 20 percent of the
total number of entries of this type, a certain dimension of deliber-
ateness can be discerned with regard to language comparison. This
is sucient to rule out the likelihood that no comparison was actu-
ally made and even the assumption that an involuntary comparison
was created merely on account of technical editing arrangements
in the lexicon. Thus the state of aairs pertaining to the 35 instances
is probably the same for the group as a whole, and it is probably
just a matter of coincidence that the dimension of volition did not
surface in the rest of the instances.
The extent of volition can be discerned when Alfsi subjoins a
remark of some sort with regard to his presentation of the two entries,
the Hebrew and the Aramaic, in immediate proximity to each other.
A more specic comment is encountered at drf (p. 22) and at dgs
(p. 306), in which he adopts an unambiguous and general phrasing
concerning the equivalence of Hebrew and Aramaic at these entries
(ynayrslaw ybr[law ynarb[la . . . tagl taltla hyp t[mtga dqw). However,
there are occasions where the intention aspect is alluded to not by
the term of comparison but by an additional statement of comparison;
in other words, apart from the inevitable comparison, Alfsi remarks
on an additional feature of equivalence between the two entry words
being compared this equivalence being either grammatical or seman-
tic in nature. For example, having recorded a comparison of yna with
hna (p. 121), he notes that the accent in the Hebrew word yna is at
times, on the penultima, whereas at others it is on the ultima. In
Aramaic, in contrast, no such distinction exists: the entry word hna
is always stressed on the ultima, whether in context or in pause. At

the entry mz (p. 490), apart from the juxtaposition mz/mz, he notes
a grammatical phenomenon appearing in both Hebrew and Aramaic:
the partial phonetic assimilation of the t of the hipa''el conjugation
with the initial radical as well as their metathesis (though are not
spelled out explicitly, his illustrations indicate clearly that this is
indeed what is meant): wtnmdzh (Dan. 2:9)/qdfxn (Gen. 44:16), etc.
Grammatical remarks are also encountered at the following entries:
hyra (p. 151), a (p. 156), wd (p. 391), hwh (p. 427), rmz (p. 491),
sk (p.120), lm (p. 212), [ (p. 403), hzm (entry z, p. 469), na
(p. 124), rma (p. 118), h (p. 445), [d(y) (p. 393), hla (p. 96), hla
(p. 97), [bxa (p. 141), [bra (p. 148), lj (p. 553), lk (p. 103),
(p. 679), and by (p. 38). An example of the subjoining of a seman-
tic comment is to be found at y[ (p. 390); Alfsi remarks here that
this word is employed, additionally, in the sense of mercy in Hebrew
and in Aramaic, as shown by wyary la h y[ hnh (behold, the mercy
of the Lord is upon those who fear him) (Ps. 33:18)/twh hhla y[w
(and the mercy of their God was) (Ezra 5:5). By way of contrast, at
entry rb (p. 271), he subjoins a remark concerning two word phrases,
constructed on the given entry word, appearing jointly in Hebrew
and in Aramaici.e.: yhla ynb/yhla-rb, in the sense of angels.
In other instances the volition feature can be discerned on
account of Alfsis creation of an etymological link between the
Hebrew and the Aramaic entry words, aside from their lexicographical
juxtaposition. This can be noted at bg/ybg (p. 290), dg (p. 300), g
(p. 353), ra (p. 153), bhd (p. 172), lbrk (p. 129), rwsa (p. 129),
and lya (p. 76). The upshot of this matter is as follows: In each of
the above comparisons, in which the set-up of their entry words
appears on the surface inevitable, Alfsi appends some datum or
other indicating the deliberate nature of the comparison. The com-
parison qt/qt is especially enlightening in this connection. At the
outset, no verbal indication of comparison appears; there is simply
an editorial juxtaposition of the two entries. Subsequently, however,
he adduces a cumulative list of comparisons, concerning which he
states: ynayrsla [m rty ynarb[la yp rytkw. It stands to reason, that
the list of comparisons occurring directly following the above state-
ment intends to imply an inclusion within the cumulative list of
that very preceding comparison, i.e. qt/qt. This comparison indeed
served as a stimulus, generating the list that follows. If this were
not the case, the list would prove to be disjoined from any logical
198 chapter nine
context. Indeed, this is precisely Alfsis practice in his other excur-

susesnamely, to append a list of comparisons to the comparison
that happened to come rst in the discussion of the given entry.
Another example is t (p. 754): by dint of the Heb./Arab. com-
parison t(n)/tn he adds Heb./Aram. comparisons. It can thus be
condently concluded that a Heb./Aram. comparison set up by the
zero term is indeed a comparison.
9.4.1.1 Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. inevitable comparisons

Below are listed the Hebrew and Aramaic biblical entry words for
which comparison was recorded by dint of the fact that each entry
pair was adduced in the frame of one arch-entry:
lya/(y)lya ,(68) rja/rja ,(494) z/z(a) ,(53,488) lza/lz(a) (28) ba/ba
,(91) la/hla ,(89) lka/lka ,(79) ytya/tya ,(78) yntmya/ hmya ,(76)
,(118) rma/rma ,(434) ymah/myh ,(113) hma/hma ,(97,99) hla/hla
rsa/rsa ,(128) rsa/rsa ,(124) na/wna ,(123) sna/sna ,(121), hna/yna
mgra ,(148) [bra/[bra ,(141) [bxa/[bxa ,(129) rwm/rwsa ,(ibid.)
a/a ,(156) a/a ,(152) ra/ra ,(151) ayra/ayra ,(150) wgra/
atryb/hryb ,(ibid.) ta/twa ,(ibid.) ata/ata ,(168) ta/(masc.) ta ,(162)
rb/rb (271) (son) rb/rb ,(264) h[qb/h[qb ,(248) a[b/(y)[b ,(220)
bg/bg ,(290) bg/bg ,(276) 2rb/rb ,(274) 1rb/rb (ibid.) (eld)
rbzg/rbzg ,(310) hwg/hwg ,(309) wg/wg ,(301) rdg/dg ,(295) rbg/rbg ,(ibid.)
g/g(a) ,(332) rmg/rmg ,(322) (y)lg/(y)lg ,(320) ryg/ryg ,(315) rzg/rzg ,(314)
/hrbd ,(367) (leading) rbd/rbd ,(353) g/g ,(346) rg/rg ,(340)
(383) qld/qld ,(377) yd/yd ,(374) rwd/rwd ,(372) bhd/hbhdm ,(365) hrbd
,(425) rdh/rdh ,(417) ah/ah ,(412) td/td ,(400) qd/qd ,(391) d(n)/d(n)
,(494) wz/(w)z ,(476) dwz/d(w)z ,(448) h/h ,(445) wmh/h ,(427) hwh/hwh
,(ibid.) mz/mz ,(490) mz/mz ,(485) z/z ,(487) [wz/[(w)z (480) wyz/wz
hwj/hwj ,(521) dj/dj ,(514) lbj/lbh ,(501) qz/qz ,(491) rmz/rmz
sj/sj ,(561) rmj/rmj ,(558) amj/hmj ,(553) lj/lj ,(137 rtk)
jbf/jbf ,(599) tj/tj (556 lj) lj/lj ,(585) frj/frj ,(568)
lb(y)/lb(y) ,(22) drf/drf ,(ibid.) (counsel) [f/[f ,(17) [f/[f ,(6)
,(65) dqy/dqy ,(418) bh(y)/bh(y) ,(393) [d(y)/[d(y) ,(38) by/by ,(228)
sk/sk ,(113) tnk/(h)nk ,(103) lk/lk ,(688) (y)/(y) ,(70) jry/jry
,(190) hm/hm ,(163) aylyl/hlyl ,(129) hlbrk/lbrk ,(129) rwk/rk ,(120)
(l)lm/(l)lm ,(196) (a)jm/(h)jm ,(197) (a)jm/(a)jm ,(469) (h)z(m)/(h)z(m)
(advise =) lm/lm ,(212) lm/lm ,(211) jlm/jlm ,(137 rtk ,208)
,(250) aybn/(ay)bn ,(216) (a)nm/(h)nm ,(215) (h)nm/(h)nm ,(214) m/m ,(213)
/lf(n) ,(598) tj(n)/tjn) ,(259) arwhn/rhn ,(258) rhn/rhn ,(357) ddn/(d) d(n)
qn/qn ,(347) qs(n)/qs(n) ,(313) jsn/js(n) ,(21) rf(n)/rf(n) ,(13) lf(n)
gs/gs ,(306) dgs/dgs ,(304) lbs/lbs ,(172 rta ;751) rt(n)/rt(n) ,(290)
/(h)d[ ,(346) rps/rps ,(345) (count =) rps/rps ,(ibid.) rgs/rgs ,(307)
[/[ ,(400) aml[/lw[ ,(390) y[/y[ ,(398) (l)l[/(l)l[ ,(371) (h)d[
,(421) bx[/bx[ ,(418) yp[/ap[ ,(412) n[/n[ ,(410) (y)n[/(y)n[ ,(403)
/b[ ,(429) hwr[/(hw)r[ ,(430) br[/br[ ,(429) r[/r[ ,(426) rq[/rq[

srp/srp ,(457) hjp/hjp ,(440) qyt[/qyt[ ,(437) t[/t[ ,(415) b[
dx/dx ,(63 tpy ;490) (h)tp/(h)tp ,(488) rp/rp ,(485) rp/rp ,(483)
,(535) lbq/1lbq ,(524) rpx/rwpx ,(512) lx/lx ,(511) jlx/jlx ,(500)
,(565) txq/q ,(549) rfq/rfq ,(548) lfq/lfq ,(ibid.) lbq/2lbq
/(h)mr ,(600) zr/zr ,(588) wbr/awbr ,(579) fq/fq ,(577) rq/rq
/rb ,(644) byb/byb ,(ibid.) n[r/n[r ,(618) ([)[r/([)[r ,(612) (a)mr
,(331) (y)/(y) ,(749 qt) dh/dh ,(305) (ay)g/(ay)g ,(304) rbs
,(679) / ,(674) fl/fl ,(672) (mistake) wl/wl ,(669) k/k
,(707) (y)r/(y)r ,(699) rp/rp ,(686) m/m ,(680) ()m/()m
.(749) qt/qt ,(748) qt/qt ,(ibid.) r/r ,(708) qr/qr
The total number of comparisons in the above category is 182. For
the majority, the Bib. Heb. appears rst, followed by the Bib. Aram.;
but in a few cases the order is the opposite, e.g.: yrtm hyxrj yrfqw
(Dan. 5:6)/twrfq twrxj (Ezek. 46:22) (entry rfq, p. 549) ; likewise
zr/zr (p. 600).
The great majority of the comparisons are purely lexical, how-
ever, a lexical comparison can be seen in the background of some
grammatical comparisons. An example is yna/hna (p. 121), in which
the discussion relates mainly to the issue of the placement of the
stress, which is non-xed in the Hebrew entry word, in contrast with
the Aramaic one. This is however, a secondary comparison, since it
implicitly incorporates a lexical, etymological and semantic compar-
ison. This is the case with [d(y)/[d(y) (p. 393) as well as rwpx/rpx
(p. 524).
The prominent term employed in comparisons of this type, is
ynayrslabw (below, 9.11.2.2). This term would seem colorless, with
no import apart from serving to signal the student to be aware that
the forthcoming citations are not Hebrew but Aramaic. Nevertheless
on the occasions when this term digresses beyond its normal func-
tion of interposing between the Hebrew and Aramaic entry words
and adopts the additional function of comparing of a grammatical
topic of relevance to the given entries or of being semantic in nature,
then ynayrslab transpires to be specically a comparison termas is
exemplied in the comparisons appended to the following entries:
yna/hna (p. 121), hyra/hyra (p. 151), d(n)/(y)d (p. 391), mz/mz
(p. 490), hzh/hzh (p. 427), sk/sk (p. 120), lm/lm (p. 212). At
these entries, and others, the grammatical similarity or dierence is
proof that a real comparison is intended, given that the term ynayrslabw
does not in itself prima facie indicate comparison specically. As a
matter of fact, other terms even more unambiguous than ynayrslabw,
200 chapter nine
are available for indicating contrastive comparison, such as yp ama

ynayrsla (below, 9.11.2.9). The point is that frequently used terms
tend to tolerate a reduction of their word components, so that a
reduced term is quite likely to reect a concept of wider mean-
ing. Apart from the aforementioned term, other comparison terms
are employed including the zero term (below, 9.11.2.11).
Occasionally, Alfsi forgets to open some specic Aramaic entry,
the result being that a potential comparison is missinge.g. *ry[z/ry[z
(see entry ry[z, p. 499), where he clearly overlooked the Bib. Aram.
ary[z (Dan. 7:8; below, 9.4.5).
9.4.2 Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. comparisons in excursus

Four comparisons (included in the above-mentioned list), entered at
their appropriate locations in the lexicon, are reiterated in the frame
of an independent excursus (qt pp. 74950). Two of these, (h)[b/(a)[b
and qs(n)/qs(n) pertain, jointly, to the comparison formula Bib. Heb./
Bib. Aram.; whereas two others, lfq/jxr/lfq; ydh/twd[/atwdh,
belong to a dierent formula, i.e. Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.
(below, 9.4.9). This subgroup is set apart from the rest of the main
listing, because Alfsi discusses these entry words in a frame created
for this specic purpose, the comparison aim for this subgroup
being of a dierent kind.
List of deliberate comparisons in formula Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram.

bae/bna (p. 122), rbzg/rbzg (p. 301), bhz/bhd (ynxylh, p. 442), ljz/
ljd (p. 481), bwf/baf (p. 2), [(y)/f[(y) (ynxylh p. 442), bt(y)/b(y)
(p. 722), hdm/hdnm (dm, p. 189; hdnm, p. 216), r[/rt[ (ynxylh, p.
445), b(w)/b(w)t (ibid.) rb/rbt (ibid.) yn/()yrt (p. 752), r[/r[t
(ibid.).
9.4.3 Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. (cognates according to Alfsi?)

When he compares entry words using this formula, Alfsi does not
seem to imply comparison of a specically etymological nature; the
context allows for the possibility that he means to compare the seman-
tic aspect only. For example, at [wrza/[rda it is feasible that he intends
to highlight the equivalence of merely the metaphorical sense (power,
force) that they share in common. Several of the pairs appearing in
this group present more than one feature marking the distinctive
component of the pair. E.g., the distinction between za and yda,

apart from the letter switch z/d, is marked by a morphological
dierence, toonamely, the sux yI , which is an augmentation in
A
the Aramaic word vis--vis the Hebrew one. Had Alfsi viewed the
two words as cognate, he would have made reference to their dis-
tinctive features. Indeed, the terms employed with these comparisons
are merely generic, of the type: ynarb[la yp . . . ltm whw or simply
ltm. However, these are very similar to entry words compared on
the previously enumerated formula (Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. deliber-
ate) regarding the interchanging letters d/z, /t, these being the very
same letters stated to be interchangeable in entry words of the pre-
vious category and regarding the apparent augmentation, i.e. the addi-
tional n (see a > na) or the apparent reduction (na > a). It is
therefore feasible that Alfsi intended to record etymological com-
parison. Considering the dubiety as to a clear conclusion, the rele-
vant examples are separated and treated as an independent category.17
The comparisons comprised in this category are: za/yda(b) (p. 34),
[wrz/[rda (pp. 36, 407), a/na (p. 123), y/ytya (ytya, p. 79),
lzrb/lzrp (p. 482).
9.4.4 Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. non-cognate translation synonym

On this formula, Alfsi presents a Bib. Heb. in contrast with a non-
cognate Bib. Aramaic translation synonym. From a practical stand-
point, this is not a real comparison, considering that what is referred
to is a non-cognate lacking further any semantic equivalence with
its Hebrew counterpart. Nevertheless, as shown above (5.3.2.6),
even non-cognate comparisons have some signicance. Entry words
bearing comparison in this category are available biblically in juxta-
position, in one solitary instance onlynamely, in the instance of
d[lg/atwdh rgy (Gen. 31:47) (This comparison incorporates two
pairs of entry words: lg/rgy; d[/wdh). The remaining cases are
such that their respective components appear in remote parallelism,
in similar passage contexts. Alfsi himself initiates a discussion
about them. The potential resource serving as stock for such com-
parisons on this formula is as expansive as the stock of biblical
17
Further on, we shall see that instances exist of Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. (non-
cognate), too.
202 chapter nine
Aramaic words itself, when corresponding cognate translation synonyms

in biblical Hebrew are unavailable. As a matter of fact, however, Alfsi
draws on this stock for comparison purposes in only seven entries:
a(w)b/(l)[ (l[, p. 398), lg/rgy (rgy, p. 39), hnh/wla (wla, p. 103),
(h)yj/(hy)j (p. 510), d[(lg)/atwdh (rgy, p. 39, rwp, p. 452), hp/p
(p. 466), glp/hnjl (p. 160).
Quite surprising is the comparison (h)yj/(hy)j, according to which
the y, which by current concepts is the medial radical, is indeed rad-
ical in Hebrew but not in Aramaic. Alfsi provides the following
corroboration for this: ynarb[la yl[ lyld ynayrsla sylw (Aramaic can-
not serve as proof for Hebrew). The upshot is that Alfsi is not of
the opinion that the two roots, the Heb. (h)yj and the Aram. h(y)j,
are identical!
9.4.5 Concluding summary of the Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. category

In comparisons pertaining to the type Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. (with
its several aforementioned subtypes) Alfsi falls short of an exhaus-
tive record of all the potential comparisons i.e. all those that mod-
ern scholars set up for comparison. An inspection of the quantity of
comparisons recorded by Alfsi, as against the total quantity of same
entered in the Aramaic lexicon of Baumgartner, in the etymological
section of each entry, shows that Alfsi recorded for comparison only
about one-half of the total possiblei.e. 208 out of a possible 435.
Moreover, 18 of the comparisons he recorded would be unaccept-
able to modern linguistic theory, for several reasons: (1) because of
their grammatical approach (e.g. rwsa/rwm, the root of both being,
in Alfsis opinion, merely r s; ytya/tya; [b[r] hzm/, [anwta]) hzm (2)
on account of the historical connection of the entry words with other
languages beyond the scope of Alfsis knowledge, as for example,
Old Persian (in the instance rbdh, derived by Alfsi from the root
and the sense of twrbd, meaning leadership, oce); (3) on account
of a specic exegetical or linguistic attitude (as in the case of
hbhdm/bhd). The great majority of the comparisons that were left
unrealized, totaling some 170 potential comparisons, can only be
explained on the assumption of the absence of some entry (gener-
ally the Aramaic one) that had escaped Alfsis mind when he com-
piled his lexicon. In a good many instances, this may have occurred
because of the infrequent appearance of the entry word in the Bible,
e.g. rhz, q[z, dyt[, pr, fp, etc. A corroboration of the assump-
tion that these omissions were due to oversight can be seen in Alfsi
at times overlooking even the Hebrew entry.18 For example, he over-
looked wnjna, wT]n, hfj, ltk, ynzam, hnydm, wy[r. On occasion he
even discusses an Aramaic entry word without noting that the very
same entry is in use in Hebrew, too, as in the cases of lfb, m;, r.
The assumption gains further support from those instances in which
Alfsi compares the Bib. Heb. with the Targ. Aram. (cognate)19 with-
out remarking on its use also in Bib. Aram.e.g.: ry[z, hdj/hzj
gtp, zmr, gr dja/zja/dja for had he been aware at the time that
a corresponding Aramaic entry word existed, he would most likely
have adduced it as well, thus expanding the scope of the compari-
son and thereby producing a case of the formula Bib. Heb./Bib.
Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (9.4.13). The characteristic of the
group of Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. instances left unrecorded, then is
that they pertain to the category of inevitable comparisons, i.e. the
Hebrew and Aramaic entry words are in each case equi-radical objec-
tively and equi-phonetic, so the very fact that they are juxtaposed
spontaneously produces a comparison.20 The fact is, simply, that one
of the two component entry words failed to appear in the lexicon,
thus preventing the actual recording of the comparison.
The situation is dierent in the comparison category made up of
entries that show equivalent etymology but are hetero-phonic. There
are several grounds for that comparisons in this category having been
omitted:
18
The statistics are as follows: approximately 40 percent of the Aramaic entries
were overlooked, whereas he omitted only 4 percent of the Hebrew potential entries.
These data are derived from an inspection of all the entries in letters g and p in
Koehler-Baumgartners lexicon (excluding proper names), as collated with the cor-
responding inventory for those two letters in Alfsis lexicon. It is noteworthy that
in the area of proper names, about 50 percent are missing! Despite these data, it
should not be inferred that Alfsis lexicon was, so to speak, not designed for bib-
lical Aramaic: He does incorporate about 60 percent of the biblical Aram. mater-
ial. What is more, in a good many roots he adduces only an Aramaic entry (without
recording a Hebrew one!). Moreover, in the introduction to his lexicon, he makes
explicit note of his intention to include the Aramaic biblical materials andxq jnw)
hgl m arz[w laynd yp am arqmla fapla aws taglla ryas m adh anbatk yp jrn
.(ynadskla Skoss was remarkably imprecise in that he failed to indicate that the dic-
tionary also encompassed biblical Aramaic (see its present title [Skoss 193645], in
bibliographic listings, although in his introduction (p. ix) he terms it the com-
prehensive dictionary of the Bible.
19
As, for instance, on formula Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram., below, 9.4.9.
20
This category, of course, does not purport to include entries that lack mutual
semantic equivalence, such as jxn/jxn.
204 chapter nine
Alfsi may fail to record a separate entry that Baumgartner does

include, e.g. wtna/ta. Alfsi probably considered that the compar-
ison implied in the framework of the comparison ta'/ta to be sucient.
Certain entry words are adduced by Alfsi, each at its appro-
priate location according to his lexicographical system; however, he
admits to no cross connection between several similar words for
purposes of comparison. Either he was unaware of their etymologi-
cal anity or he simply disregarded it. Examples are rzp-rzb, b/rb,
/bz[ wllk/llk, afm/axm, rfn/rxn, r[/rx; [ra/ra, qra/ra, rdb/
ajm/jm, rj/lj, rwf/rwx, axy/axy, bzy, for several pairs per-
taining to this type, Alfsi does set up a translational comparison
but not an etymological one: e.g. [l[/[lx, hnd/hz, [k/t[, [a/[.
At times, Alfsi refrains from creating a comparison in instances
such where it would be necessary to posit the phenomenon of con-
sonantal metathesis (although in Heb./Arab. comparisons this cate-
gory is considered legitimate), e.g. hbkra/rb, [rt/r[.
For some potential comparison pairs Alfsi recorded no compa-
rison, because he did not recognize any semantic equivalence, between
the two elementse.g. rta/ra, rda/yrda, ab/ab, hwf/hwf.
However, there are also several instances where the omission
was due to oversight, as is evident from the fact that the Aramaic
entry is not to be found at its appropriate location(s) in the lexicon,
examples being jbd, hfnj, ty, bdk, asrk, am, rm[}, fyq, wre. A promi-
nent pair in this category is the pair grp/gtp, which, at rst sight
would seem to have been compared by Alfsi, although by an intra-
Heb. comparison and not interlingually. The instance he adduces
for grp is from Hebrew, but he fails to state that this word is an
Aramaic one, too.
In some isolated instances, it remains unclear whether Alfsi
recorded a comparison or not: on the one hand, he employs no
comparison term and adduces no citation from Aramaic; on the
other, he opens the discussion with a generic sentence that could be
applied at ones discretion to biblical Aramaic also. For example, at
entry rqy he states: hylxa hyp dwyla rqy lkw; likewise, at entry
awh he states: tynatll ayhi lkw rykdtll aWh lk; and at [ he
notes . . . [m hnm aptsmla [ lk. It is probable that the particle lk
used at the opening of each generic statementif it can be assumed
not to be a meaningless expressionincludes the Aramaic Bible
text, too, all the more so when he expounds further on the generic
expression, applying it to the whole biblical corpus as he puts it:
arqla ypas e.g., at entry yb (p. 219)or alternatively in instances

in which no quotation appears from either Hebrew or Aramaic in
following to the general statement, as at entry jwjyn.
9.4.6 Bib. Aram./Rab. Heb.

In only one instance does Alfsi set up a comparison of a rabbinic
Hebrew entry with a biblical Aramaic cognate: hrts hnd htybw (Ezra
5:12) hz yrbd ta rtws hz wlwqy hnmla ypw ynayrsla hgl m yhw hxqn
(see BT, Shabbat, 30 a; rts, p. 358).
9.4.7 Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.

Following is a list of the entry words based on this formula:
/j(g)n ,(301) dg(n)/(dn)dg ,(299) dg/dg ,(219) yb/yb ,(106) l(a)/l(a)
,(583) grj/grj ,(340) (w)g/(w)g ,() lg/lg ,(327) dlg/dlg ,(316) j(w)g
/(t)rm ,(191) lhm/lhm ,(153) yhl/(h)hl ,(20) pf/pf ,(18) [f/[f
.(740) hwt/hwt ,(659) rz/rz ,(238) jtm/jtm ,(230) (tw)rm
9.4.8 Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (non-cognate translation synonym)

I have attempted (above, 5.3.2.6) to show that comparisons based
on this formula are liable to include latent cognate translation syn-
onym comparisons, too. In principle, the stock of comparisons in
this category is extremely large. Its extent equals that of the total-
ity of entities of the potential bilingual lexicon founded on biblical
Hebrew and on translation synonyms, culled from the (biblical)
Aramaic translations (at least those that were known to Alfsi, see
below, 9.12.1.2.1). For every Bib. Heb. entry spontaneously calls for
its Targ. Aram. counterpart, to be recorded adjacent to it. The ques-
tion is: For what reason did the grammarian resort to only a small
percentage of that stock? It may possibly be suggested that since as
a rule he did not commit himself a priori to undertake systematic
comparison for each and every entry word; it is unreasonable to
expect, that the entire stock should have been recorded. But see above,
5.3.2.6)
Following is a list of comparisons, pertaining to this category:
srh ,(99 yk) akh/hnh ,(351) lqt/rg ,(48 rwa) yny[ lglg wzyj/hrwam
/yrj ,(454 srh) m/srj ,(527) rb/wj ,(144 wqa) axyd/rmz ,(454) brj/
206 chapter nine
ra) hwxa rtwm/tram ,(58 ja) db[/h[ ,(14) [wqr/awlf ,(587) wlf
,(690) jp/s ,(277 qrb) yrt dj l[/hn ,(661) arpwf/ tlj ,(640
.(270) yr/wnt ,(164 ra) [wrka/rwat ,(337) d/ry[
9.4.9 The list of comparisons on formula Bib. Heb.1/Bib. Heb.2/Targ.

Aram.
,(62) dj/dja/dj ,(345 rg ,32) arga/rk/hrwga ,(22) ba/yrp/ba
/wl/wla ,(99) hla/hnyq/(h)la ,(71) wfa/rtym/wfa ,(61) dja/zja/dja
ayrwa/swba/hwra ,(115) ma/rj/ma ,(173) la/yksh/l(a) ,(102) wla
kb/za/kb ,(158) ra/p/ra ,(405 rd) 21jra/rd/jra ,(24 swba)
/[xb ,(191 db) wb/ytp , ,db/wb ,(251) ry[b/hmhb/ry[b ,(225)
lka/rmg ,(331) axmwk/tjp/mwg ,(328) lg/jrq/lg ,(258) [xb/ttp
/f[m ,fq/r[z ,(434) (h)nh/[xb/yh ,(369) rwgd/rmj/rgd ,(332) rmg/
bwj/a ,w[ ,afj/b(w)j ,(153 b jpsn) rwz/rws/r(w)z ,(137 rtk ,499) ry[z
,(540) yj/an/yj ,(192 db) arfwj/hfm/rfj ,(526) fwj/lytp/fwj ,(512)
adsj/hprj/dsj ,(552) yfwljl/twtymxl/flj ,(549) llj/bbn/(l)lj
lflf/[gn/lflf ,(585) akrj/wlj/rj ,(568) atnsja/hljn/sj ,(567)
/wqa/l[y ,(37 bby ,18) bby/h[wrt/bb(y) ,(23) aprf/hl[/rf ,(13 lf)
,(123) apyk/[ls/k ,(111) rmk/hk/rmk ,(110) mk/bra/mk ,(60) al[y
,(153) yhlta/y[/(h)hl ,(137) rtk/ljy/rtk ,(125) anpk/b[r/pk
/tsm ,(219) rsm/m/rsm ,(538 j) ajm/hkh/hjm ,(187) algm/mrj/lgm
rjs/bbs/rjs ,(310) rhs/jry/rhs ,(252) bgn/brj/bgn ,(220) tsm/yd
/afj/jrs ,(355) brs/hrm/brs ,(326 yks) yktsa/yqh/tksh ,(315)
d[/rf/al d[ ,(365) arwby[/lka/rwb[ ,(358) awts/rj/wts ,(354) jrs
/()[ ,(387) rf[/rws/rf[ ,(371) hd[/wm ,rws ,rb[/(h)d[ ,(22 rf) al
dp/hd/dp ,(434) qr[/swn/qr[ ,(433) sr[/hfm/r[ ,(403) am[/hhk
,(483) jrpd/nk/jrp ,(475) xp/[rq/xp ,(468) qnp/gn[/qnp ,(448)
gtp ,(487) jp/s/jp ,(487 yp) (w)p/hrp/(w)p ,(485) qrp/[y/qrp
/ryx ,(500) hdx/m/(h)dx ,(498) tbx/yjqlm/tbx ,(490) gtp/rbd/
/ry[/rypx ,(525) arpx/rqb/rpx ,(511) jlx/[qb/jlx ,(508) ryx/dy
/h[yxq ,(564) pq/rtn/pq ,(527) yx/rypns/yx ,(337 ry[ ,525) rypx
21
At entry jra, dened here as Targ. Aram. for rd on the basis of the cita-
tion adduced by Alfsi: yd hytjraw/fpm wykrd lk yk (Deut. 32:4), Skoss in con-
tra distinction records an independent reference for Aramaic jra, namely, from the
Aramaic biblical text of Daniel (4:30). The comparison is thus interpreted as one
of Bib. Heb. with Bib. Aram. and not with Targ. Aram., probably because Skoss
saw the Targ. Onkelos reading anyd hytjraw. This construction, however, carries
no weight, for it is evident from the context as well as from the comparison for-
mula that, had there been any need to adduce Bib. Aram., the comparison would
be with Targ. Aram. and the appropriate location for referring to it would have
been at entry jra (p. 150) as a Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. (inevitable cognate transla-
tion synonym). In fact, at that entry, he fails to record it, apparently due to over-
sight; moreover, whenever he adduces Bib. Aram. together with Targ. Aram., he
subjoins it to Targ. Aram., rather than adducing it in its stead.
/ar ,(578) atrq/ry[/trq ,(577) lwsrq/[rk/lsrq ,(568) at[yxq/hdyq

/hn/gr ,(591) azgr/hmj/zgr ,(589) [br/br/[br ,(144 wqa) yr/yd
bfr/jl/bfr ,(606) ajyr/mr/jr ,(604) jr/bha/jr ,(594) gr
/ynba/rbm ,(633) atytr/d[r/ttr ,(ibid.) atytr/d[r/ffr ,(607)
,(369 rds) ards/rwf/hrd ,(582 brj ;652) 22d/dx/d ,(648) arbtm
,(666 ry) yry/jj/twry ,(314) yjs/jr/hj ,(658) arw/hmwj/rw
,(159 b jpsn) br/brj/br ,(696) (h)p/jf/(h)p ,(673) jl/fyph/jl
.(219 rsm) atrsm/trbjm/trm ,(356) twqyrs/h[r/qr
The sum-total of comparisons in this category is 99.
9.4.9.1 List of comparisons Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. appearing

in the excursus (qt pp. 74050)
Ten comparisons based on this formula appear as a separate list
recorded for the purpose of demonstrating the special anity between
Hebrew and Aramaic. Eight of these had already been recorded in
the Lexicon at their predictable locations; see in previous list: da,
pk, tsm, (h)dx, rf[, qr[, jf, (h)p. These are reiterated in the afore-
mentioned excursus. However, two comparisons are entirely new:
hsk/gj/ask; lfq/jxr/lfq. They do not appear at their regular lex-
icon entries. hsk appears at that entry (p. 117), but with no com-
parison with Aramaic, whereas lfq is recorded, at its entry, with a
comparison based on the formula Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. (cognate
translation synonym inevitable).
This list is placed under a separate head, distinct from the pre-
vious one, because it appears separately in the lexicon itself, but
especially because the aim of the comparison in the comparisons
22
Skoss remarks that Onqelos, Targum Jonathan, and Peshitta render dx by
yrfys (or, in Jonathan, yrfyx; see brj p. 583). This remark probably indicates that
Skoss could not comprehend the rendering adopted by Alfsi for dx, a rendering
that appears twice, at separate locations, in the lexicon. Indeed, in Onqelos to the
Pentateuch and in T. Jonathan to Earlier Prophets (according to Sperber and Rieder
to Pseudo Jonathan to the Pentateuch), I noted, as a rendering for dx, nothing other
than rfs (with var. lect. rfx) and certainly not d. (The occurrence in juxtaposi-
tion of dx/yd at 1 Sam. 20:20, text/T. Jonathan, is irrelevant: yd is there a ren-
dering for hrwa). It would seem that Alfsi mistakenly switched the renderings of
the two expressions kmh ydx (Exod. 26:13) and kmh ry (Exod. 40:22), for at
the latter expression, Onqelos indeed rendered ankmd ad. But the possibility
remains that Alfsi possessed a version, one that failed to reach us, in which ad
indeed appeared as a rendering for dx, this version itself perhaps being the out-
come of a subconscious analogy/parallel, stemming from the rendering of ry (ytkry
is also rendered ad; see Meturgeman, entry ad, p. 150 b).
208 chapter nine
comprising it is dierent from that of the previously listed category

(above, 5.3.2.1).
9.4.10 Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram./Bib. Aram.

This formula is employed in two instances only:
. . . arhn rhn wgrtw (Targ. Exod. 8:1) ayrhn . . . ynayrslabw ( Jer. 2:18) rhn
(Dan. 7:10; p. 258) qpnw dgn rwn-yd rhn hltmw
ayrhn is apparently adduced for the sake of grammatical compar-
ison of plural forms in the respective Hebrew and Aramaic of this
entry. Since this form is cited from Targumic Aramaic, the addi-
tional phrase arhn rhn wgrtw would seem redundant, both lexically
and from the standpoint of comparison. Regarding the reference
from biblical Aramaic, its signicance is not merely in its docu-
mentation in the literary corpus, taken up for inspection in Alfsis
lexicon, but also on account of the sense of that word in Daniel,
ibid.a sense more metaphorical than that of the earlier occur-
rencesnamely, rwn yd rhn. (In biblical Aramaic, the basic sense
of rhn is attested solely as a place name, i.e. hrhn-rb[ (Ezra 4:10).
Nonetheless, Alfsi fails to record this name in the current entry.)
arb yd hatdb . . . laynd yp laqw hatd ad wgrt (Dan. 4:12; ad,
p. 411)
Alfsi fails to state clearly, whether the comparison recorded is
etymological. It is feasible that that was his implication, for he is well
cognizant of the Heb./Aram. substitution /t; indeed, he discusses
it elsewhere (ynxylh, p. 445). Nevertheless, it is possible that he had
in mind merely a translational comparison and no more.
9.4.11 List of comparisons based on formula Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ.

Aram.
ljd ,(282) twb/yl/t(w)b ,(186) ayb/[r/ab ,(118) rma/bk/rma
/hqdx/wkz ,(424) dh/jtn/dh ,(381) rkd/lya/rkd ,(376) ljd/ary/
,(589) rj/tm/rj ,(577) yxj/z[/xj ,(522) ydj/hzj/ydj ,(485) atwkz
/axy ,(ibid.) arpwf/tlj/rpf ,(20) arpwf/rwpx/rpf ,(9) ywf/ylx/twf
qpn ,477) qpn/axy/qp(n), (69 tja) tjn/dry/tj(n) ,(700) ayxy/trk
/qb ,(605) jr/jfb/jr ,(498) [bx/sbk/[bx ,(470) sp/k/sp ,(285
/byth ,(725) rydt/dymt/rydt ,(687) m/tr/m ,(647) qb/bz[
.(752) rwt/rp/rwt ,(727) hwt/drj/hwt ,(456) byta/hn[
9.4.11.1 Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb. (cognate)/Targ. Aram.

Three comparisons are recorded on this formula: ta/twa/ta (p. 169);
b(w)t/bw/bwt (p. 722); rbt/rb/rbt (p. 724). These comparisons
are structured on the lines of the previous formula, except that in
the present one the three comparisons here under discussionBib.
Heb., Bib. Aram. (and perforce Targ. Aram.)are synonym entries.
The rst of the three is even an inevitable comparison, the other
two are founded on the rule of substitution v(Heb.)/t (Aram.), a
rule explicitly dealt with by Alfsi in his list of interchangeable let-
ters (ynxylh, p. 445). Note further that the entry words taken up here
for comparison are compared in that referenced location also, as
demonstration for the rule of substitution. It remains an open ques-
tion what caused him, for the present comparisons, at their respec-
tive entries, to adopt the formula Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb. (cognate)/Targ.
Aram., rather than the formula Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram., which would
have seemed more natural. The only explanation is that in the entry
context, Alfsi clearly focused his attention on the meaning of the
entry wordi.e. his aim was to prove explicitly that the sense he had
set down for the entry word had good corroboration. In the special
excursuses, on the other hand, his aim was to emphasize the etymo-
logical equivalence of the two entry words juxtaposed for comparison.
The point is that the present formula, Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ.
Aram., is geared principally for comparison of Bib. Aram. and Bib.
Heb. which are non-equivalent etymologically, i.e. non-cognate. But for
the fact that Alfsi himself made plain elsewhere that he recognizes,
for the entries here discussed, their etymological equivalence, it could
never have been independently concluded that his opinion was indeed
such.
9.4.12 Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./(Targ. Aram.)

In this formula no distinction is made between comparisons of cog-
nate and non-cognate translation synonyms, because in Alfsis eyes
none of the entries in this group possessed equivalence in etymology.
However, an asterisk will mark each of the pairs that modern lin-
guistics determines to be mutually etymologically equivalent. It it is
clear that Alfsi was not aware of this etymological equivalence for
these pairs: (1) The formula he employs for their comparison is the
usual one, for the comparison of non-cognate translation synonym
pairs; (2) for several of these pairs, the cognizance of etym. equivalence
210 chapter nine
would necessitate a familiarity with disguised phonological/morpho-

logical interchanges, which are relatively complex. Had Alfsi had
these interchanges in mind, he would have made express mention
of them. For example, the interchange x (Heb.)/x (Aram.) is not
explicitly remarked upon anywhere in Alfsis treatise. Moreover, in
one pair, additional letter shifts are encountered. For instance, in
the case of [a/[, apart from the [/x switch, a further interchange
operatesnamely, the [ (of [) with the a; this can be expressed
[/[[ > [a. Likewise, there are two additional variations, regard-
ing the pair ad:-taOz, apart from the basic switch, i.e. z/d: (1) the vari-
ation of olem (in taz) with/qame (in ad:); (2) the non-appearance of
t in the Aramaic form ad:/its appearance in the Hebrew taz.
Similarly with the comparison [k/ht[: the assimilation of n plus the
addition of the h in Hebrew hT;[' versus the axed k at the head
of [+k in Aramaic [k; (3) the location of the entry in the lexicon,
which serves to identify the root from which Alfsi derives the word,
thus automatically revealing the comparison type he intended to
employ. For example, the entry word [k appears in letter k (after
entry sk and before entry s[k, pp. 12021), the implication being
that the words root is -[-k; since this entry word does not appear
again under root [ (pp. 40710), it cannot be argued that it was
accidentally adduced under [k and that in practice he held the
letter k to be an ax/prex.23 Given, further, that at ht[ (p. 439)
no comparison with Aramaic is adduced, it is obvious that Alfsi
conceived of no equivalence of etymology between [k and ht[.
List of entries recorded on this formula:
*[a/[/([a) (p. 129); rb/a (p. 277); rtb/rja (p. 283); llg/tyzg
(p. 325); *ad/taz (p. 358); *rkd/rkz (p. 381); *hnd/hz (p. 392); atd/ad
(p. 413); rwf/rh (p. 9); *[k, tn[k/ht[ (p. 121); m/ym (p. 215); *[l[/[lx
(p. 401); jlp/db[ (p. 463); *lqt/lq (p. 748).
9.4.13 Formula Bib. Heb.1/Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb.2/Targ. Aram.

The Bib. Heb.1/Bib. Aram. component of this comparison is inevitable.
The latter component is apparently subjoined, because the sense of
23
In several cases Alfsi records an entry twice in his lexicon: once according to
its root and a second time, according to the initial letter of the entry word, this to
facilitate use of the lexicon, especially by readers not very expert in either gram-
mar or Semitic philology.
Bib. Heb.1 is insuciently limpid and therefore requires a synonym.

List of entries pertaining to this category:
/ rymg/ rmg ,(295) rbg/ ya/ rbg/ rbg ,(488 ;53) lza/ lh/ lza/ lz( a)
/yd ,(367) rbd/ghn/rbd/rbd ,(346) rg/x[/rg/rg ,(332) rymg/llk
/rwj ,(526) hwj/dygh/hwj/hwj ,(521) dj/dja/dj/dj ,(377) yd/ra/yd
,(208) llm/rbd/llm/(l)lm ,(12) lf/llx/llf/(l)lf ,(528) rwj/bl/rwj
db[/db[ /h[/db[ ,(598) tjn/dry/tjn/tj(n) ,(213) lm/[y/lm/lm
/hw ,(303) 24b/qz/b/b ,(63 tpy ,490) ytp/bjr/htp/(h)tp ,(361)
.(668) jk/axm/jk/jk ,(654) hw/y/hw
The comparison db[/h[ (and others like it) belongs to this cate-
gory, even though its Bib. Aram. component appears fourth and not
second; moreover its Bib. Heb.1 is not explicitly mentioned. Possibly
the lexicographer had in mind db[ (Eccles. 9, 1), the only Hebrew
biblical occurrence in the sense of h[m (= do, make)25 At any rate
it cannot be maintained that the db[ in general connotes the exis-
tence of the same root in Aramaic, for in such cases the practice is
to introduce the discussion with the phrase ynayrs anlw.
9.4.14 Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. in the excursus

The comparison dh/dh/twd[/atwdh is absent at its predictable loca-
tion in the lexicon; it does appear in the excursus qt (p. 749). The
comparison aim being of a dierent nature from the previously
adduced comparisons, it is here treated separately.
Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./(Targ. Aram.)

Two comparisons are attested on this formula: dwr[/dr[/arp/(dr[)
(p. 432); fq/fq/qdx/(fq) (p. 579).
Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram./Bib. Aram.

In this formula one encounters a single comparison: /atynk/nk
snk/hd[ (p. 114). This comparison is again classied separately from
24
Either here or in formula Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram., Alfsi, due to an oversight,
omitted to record in the lexicon Bib. Aram. gr and made mention only of its
Targ. Aram. documentation: see gr/hn/gr (p. 594). He likewise overlooked Bib.
Aram. gtp, noting merely its Targ. Aram. occurrence (p. 490)and omission made
good by MS G. See also, above, concluding summary of Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram.
25
See Even Shoshan, Concordance, at the given entry.
212 chapter nine
the others, not on account of the diering order of its constituent

elements but because the Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. element in the com-
parison is not inevitable, given the switch s (Heb.)/ (Aram.). In
fact, nk appears independently (for editorial reasons or to aid those
insuciently versed in grammar), as a separate entry (p. 116), but with
no comparison. To justify this comparison, Alfsi, was obliged to pro-
vide, from the start, proof of etymological equivalence between snk
and nk by means of the intermediate Targ. Aram. hd[. One is thus
compelled to set down the comparison snk/nk as a cognate one;
for the formula Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. is ultimately struc-
tured on the etymological equivalence of Bib. Heb.1 and the Targ.
Aram. of Bib. Heb.2
9.4.15 Bib. Heb./Talm. Aram. (cognate)

On only one occasion, did Alfsi compare a Hebrew biblical entry
word with one from talmudic Aramaic: ykh/ykh (k, p. 99). This is
in no way surprising. The Karaite aliation of Alfsi is quite clearly
reected in the meager quantity of material he records from Rab.
Heb. in general and from the Talmud in particular.26
9.4.16 Rejected comparisons

There are cases where Alfsi begs to dier with his predecessors on
a matter of exegesis; sometimes he expressly identies opponents by
name, at other times he does not. Similarly, he occasionally records
dierences of opinion on grammar or on other topics. The matter
concerning us here is the Heb./Aram. comparisons of which he
expressly disapproves. From a practical standpoint, his disagreement
with the Aramaic translator is tantamount to saying: This Bib.
Heb./Targ. Aram. comparison is, in my view, inapt.
For example, at entry trz (p. 508), Alfsi states:
(Exod. 2:5) htma ta jltw hlwq yp grtmla rgh swlqnwa flg dqw
alw [wrz ltm hma l[g hna djawla ah[ard tdm yn[y ,htma ty tfywaw
26
See above, 3.6.13, and below, 13.7, on R. Jonah ibn Jan. A full enumera-
tion of all citations from Rab. Heb. adduced by Alfsi appears in Netzer (1983,
pp. 84124). Given the sparsity of Alfsis rabbinic citations, it is surprising that
Skoss and Ginzburg viewed it as quite natural to attribute a Talmudic citation to
Alfsi. See above, p. 194 note 16.
. . . hma ltm ypr wh ydla htma rsp hna ynatlaw ,anjr amk ld zwgy
.hglla yp zwgy al adhw wgdmla
Here he is implicitly rejecting the comparison Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.
hma/hma (however, this does not mean that he refrains from the
comparison hma/hma elsewhere). Further cases of such rejected com-
parison are: hwg/hgh (wg, p. 309); lp,T (proper name)/lpt (p. 746);
also the Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (non cog. translation synonym) com-
parison yjyr/ yfwm ( jyrb, p. 273). He likewise rejects a Bib.
Heb./Targ. Aram. comparison that would necessitate the letter switch
s/: jps (= jp)/db[ (p. 343) as well as a comparison founded
on letter metathesis: sk[ (= s[k)/zgr (p. 394).
For semantic Heb./Aram. comparisons see below, 9.5.4.
9.5 Explicit comparisons: Hebrew/Arabic
9.5.1 h[wmsm yl[/k

Tn (1983, p. 258) has shown clearly that the term h[wmsm yl[/k
applies to comparisons with Arabic. Here I shall merely add a few
remarks on how this technical term relates to other terms and on
the precise sense of the term.27
It is possible that this term possesses a certain distinctive aspect
not found in other comparison terms, in that it signies a relatively
greater measure of phonetic anity of the Hebrew translation syn-
onym with its Arabic counterpart. Nonetheless, the term does not
additionally incorporate a correspondence of vowels of the two trans-
lation synonyms, as is evident from the fact that for the translation
synonym pairs gzm/gazm, lnm/hlanm aybl/wbl, tpz/tpz, j/yj,
and so on, equivalence of vocalic entities is partly or entirely lack-
ing. Nor could it be posited that h[wmsm yl[/k denotes a greater
measure of morphological correspondence between the translation
27
For certain comparisons, the copyists of Jmi' al-"Alf employed the term
h[wmsm yl[ in lieu of another term used by Alfsi himself. For example, for the com-
parison hn/hn, the term Alfsi used was ybr[lab laqy amk but in MS X Yg the
term appearing is h[wmsm yl[ (p. 258). Conversely, in the instance [f/[f (p. 18),
Alfsi established the comparison with the term h[wmsm yl[, whereas MS K in copy-
ing same, altered the term to ybr[la hgl brq m. (Appendix II, p. 160); likewise
at comparison rwk/rwk (ibid.). Note that at entry hbqu/hbq (p. 535), MS Y ren-
dered the phrase h[wmsm yl[ in the original text, into Hebrew, as w[mmk ybr[.
214 chapter nine
synonyms, because as can be seen, in the comparison g[/tga, there

is no equivalence, either in the conjugation or in gemination. Moreover,
in the comparison k/k the second consonant is geminated in
Arabic in the absolute state but not so in Hebrew. Thus the ele-
ment of equivalence signied by h[wmsm yl[/k must be restricted to
the consonantal skeleton of the translation synonyms. The most that
may be stated is that, according to Alfsis conception, h[wmsm yl[/k
is best applicable to translation synonym comparisons involving no
letter substitutioni.e. translation synonyms that possess the greatest
measure of phonetic equivalence. Indeed, a collation of the Heb./Arab.
list of comparisons fully bears out this conception.28
What dierence can be discerned between h[wmsm in its use as a
comparison term and in its use in areas other than language com-
parison?29 Let us examine the following extract:
At entry ya (p. 72), Alfsi states:
mw lyw[la m yrbla tlpy hlla a ( Job. 22:30) yqn ya flmy hltmw
lywla m hxalk hyp rgla ap yrbla lyw tlpy h[wmsm ak aw hdla
.ypk rbb flmnw laq amk
What is the dierence between the interpretation of the given com-

bination (yqn ya flmy) appearing after yrbla lyw tlpy h[wmsm and that
appearing earlier, i.e. as a direct continuation of the lemma of the
verse? The interpretation given after h[wmsm is a literal rendering or a
literal elucidation for the given combination. It matches the word order
of the Hebrew, rigidly and punctiliously, word for word, with no
exegetical additions. Thus the term h[wmsm yl[/k, when applied to
a word combination signies a literal rendering of the given com-
bination, and when applied to a single word, it denotes a literal
rendering for that single word, geared to its basic meaning. Thence
can be derived the subtle implication of h[wmsm in the area of lan-
guage comparison. Just as the term is meant to apply to the indi-
vidual components of the combination, original versus translation, word for
word, as above, so it is in language comparison. For the individual
word, h[wmsm focuses on the individual components of the words estab-
28
It would be of interest to establish whether the term h[wmsm yl[ might have
been eligible for use in comparisons with Aramaic; at any rate, no such phrasing
as ynayrslab h[wmsm yl[* has as yet been encountered.
29
I am grateful to Prof. Z. Ben-Hayyim, for kindly drawing my attention to
Alfsis broader usage of h[wmsm.
lished for comparison, consonant for consonant, constituting phonetic

(= etymological) correspondence.
One instance exists in which h[wmsm yl[ is used for a similar
but non-identical, purpose. When Alfsi discusses the combination
yrwa-tb (Ezek. 27:6), he proposes (entry bf, p. 5) two possible ways
of analysis: viewing the combination (1) as a prepositional phrase com-
binationnamely, yrwat + b (this, in the name of one of his pre-
decessors); (2) as a construct state combination yrwa + tb (in
accordance with traditional biblical vocalization and word division).
The second analysis is connoted by him: h[wmsm yl[, its signication
here being apparently an interpretation founded on the text as tra-
ditionally uttered or as based on the plain sense of the scriptural
text, without any adjustment, whether by a switch of vowels or by
a morphological or any other alteration.
It thus seems that h[wmsm yl[, in its various applications, corrob-
orates the sense attributed to it, in the context of language com-
parison. As regards the links existing between the several comparison
terms with their respective aims, no unique purposive feature can be
found for this term. In this respect, h[wmsm yl[ is similar in nature
to the other comparison terms.
9.5.2 Cognate Heb./Arab. comparisons

Tn (1983, pp. 27481) recorded a full list of the entry words
that Alfsi explicitly compared with Arabic. To complete that list,
the following comparisons should be included: ja/a; dja/djaw;
(dja/dja); wla/wla; dg/dg; lh/lh; gj/gj; j/k; tj/tj, tpl/ltp;
lm/lm; m/m; rhn/rhn; (h[wmsm yl[); y[/y[; xp/xp; dy/dy.
It should be noted that Tn incorporated in his list a number of

comparisons that derive not from the body of the text of Jmi' al-
"Alf but from variant readings stemming from copyists and sec-
ondary editors who abridged the work. Considering that it cannot
be said with certainty that the latter comparisons were penned by
David b. Abraham Alfsi, they are set apart from the ordinary com-
parisons and allocated a separate subsection in the present study
(below, 9.10).
216 chapter nine
9.5.3 Explicit Heb./Arab. comparisons, non-cognate translation synonym

Denition: Explicit comparisons of non-cognates = explicit compar-
ison of translation synonyms showing no etymological equivalence, the
two translation synonyms merely possessing the same semantic content.
In his lexicon, Alfsi sets up ve Hebrew/Arabic comparisons of
the above type: hjna/dyhnt (djy, p. 48); htjm/hrmgm (tj, p. 598);
(h)[p/gawpa, gawma, bkawm, rafq (p. 699); hrp/hnsj (ibid.); htpt/hywah
(tp, p. 490).
I shall elaborate on two of these instances: (1) In the context of
pn, Alfsi delineates the referent twjnayh (dejection, sighing) (similar
to spnt, a word discussed there, on account of its anity with pn)
and sums up, as follows: hjna tyrb[bw dhnt ybr[lab amsyw. Now, the
two entry words hjna and dhnt have nothing in common except for
their equivalence of signi: the pretext for their mutual comparison
is not a common feature of phonetics or etymology. In fact, it is
indicated here that the two entry words stand merely as translation syn-
onyms and no more than that. (2) The second example, in contrast,
contains an allusion to semantic comparison or to comparison of
proper name structure in Hebrew v. Arabic but fails to be explicit on
the matter. It reads:
ybr[lab hnsj yhw (Exod. 1:15) hrp tdlymla tymsa hnmw . . . rp
.(p. 699)
It would seem that the mere translation synonymity of the two entry
words in the respective languages provides no basis for language
comparison theory. Even for lexicographical purposes, there is no
real need for the grammarian to specify, in each and every entry,
In Arabic one denotes it so and so or it is called so and so.
The lexicographer needs to record merely the translation word itself
and no more. It is no wonder, then, that the grammarian recorded
a veritable minimum of comparisons of the above-mentioned type,
although the potential stock of such is vast, comprising as it does
the entire range of lexicon entries whose translation synonyms are
non-etymological. In this category, it would be out of the question
to posit the documentation of a comparison, even an implicit com-
parison, were it not for the term ybr[lab. In fact, even with the
employment of this term, the comparison is tenuous and virtually
worthless.
9.5.4 Semantic comparisons

Alfsi also records non-cognate translation synonym comparisons
avored with an additional characteristic feature pertaining to
semantics. For example, at entry jl (p. 672) he states:
dqw . . . (Gen. 32:4) ykalm bq[y jlyw ltm lasra yxtqt hjyl hgl
qalfalaw lasrala yb sylw (Gen. 45:22) wyja ta jlyw qalfa wkt
br[la hgl yp dy[b y
The technical comparison of the translation synonyms jl/lsra,
qlfa would have been insignicant but for the semantic comment
accompanying it. The gist is: Although Arabic does employ two dis-
tinct (hetero-radical) verbs, to match the two referees of jl, send-
ing and releasing, these two referents are very close in meaning
and possess several common semantic features. In fact, they are so
close that in Hebrew two separate roots are not required as they are
in Arabic; one root suces for both referees. We have here a real
comparison. It could be justiably stated that this comparison touches
on the crucial issue of interlingual comparison of the interrelationship of
signiants and signis within a given semantic eld.
Another example: Alfsi compares the non-cognate translation syn-
onyms qna/qh with regard to some semantic topic as follows:
br[la hgl yp qyhla ak aw swbjmla hqh (Ps. 102:21) rysa tqna
raxw dhntm lkl ynarb[la ahlm[tsy rytkw awyjla m hryg wd rymjll
.(p. 123)
Here, too, the comparison pertains to the reference areas of the two
translation synonyms: qh is used specically in the sense of the
braying of the ass, whereas its non-cognate counterpart, qna, has a
wider range of meaning. It may well be that the comparison of the
semantic eld of qna as against qh was taken up merely to account
for the fact that in the Arabic translations of the Bible available to
Alfsi the rendering he found for rysa tqna was swbjmla hqh. Had
this not been the case, he could have rendered the word tqna with
a word that raised no problems of incomplete semantic correspon-
dencea word such as dhnt, which in fact he subsequently adduced.30
Be that as it may, the signicance of these comparisons lies in
the semantic remarks that accompany them, rather than in the
30
See below, 9.12.1.3.12. Indeed, R. Sa'adiah Ga"on renders tqna by qyh.
218 chapter nine
determination of their respective entry words as translation synonyms

The semantic topics constituting subject matter for comparison to
which Alfsi applied Hebrew versus Aramaic and/or Arabic are mul-
tifarious. They generally deal with the measure of correspondence
existing for one or more signiants of the three languages with their
respective signis, or with the measure of correspondence of the
semantic relationship present in several signiants in the given lan-
guages. Only in a few instances did Alfsi relate to the comparison
of equivalent sectors within the semantic elds of these respective
languages. The extracts pertaining to these issues follow:
Full scale correspondence of signiants and their signis.:
Semantic equivalence of two pairs of synonyms: d = dd/dhn = ydt
(dd, p. 370)
In both Hebrew and Arabic the meaning of all these synonyms, the
intra-linguistic syns. as well as the translation synonyms is the breasts of
a woman, whether of a virgin or of a married woman (the semantic
dierentiation of the two states as maintained by certain exegetes,
is here rejected). The equivalence here resides in both languages
employing two signiants for one and the same signi.
Semantic equivalence of signiant and its own signi, in Hebrew
and in Arabic: trz/rb (p. 508):
trz and rb share a semantic corresponding feature, by virtue of
the fact that each refers to the signi that equals a unit of mea-
sure, and not a part of the body (used for measuring, etc.). The
implication intended by Alfsi is something like this: Granted the
current meaning of each is a measure, it is likely that this sense
developed, by metonymy, from the original sensei.e. a limb of
the bodyand took its place in the language.
Semantic equivalence of adverbs derived from a Hebrew noun
and an Arabic noun; equivalence of the sense correlation of a noun
with an adverb, in the two languages (dam, p. 183):
dam/dg (= noun, in the sense determined eort, earnestness,
resoluteness); dam dam/adg adg (= adv.)
d Oam] (noun)/dam (adv.)//dg (noun)/adg (adv.); i.e. the noun dam
and the adverb dam possess the same mutual semantic relationship as
do the Arabic dg and adg
Semantic equivalence of a pair of verbs v. a pair of nouns
derived therefrom, with their respective semantic correlation: m/jrb.
m and jrb are two verbs possessing equivalent meanings. In

the opinion of Alfsi, the noun pair ma/hjrabla were developed
from them: The latter, too, are tr. synsthus pinpointing an equiv-
alence in the semantic relation between m/ma and jrb/hjrabla.
Partial correspondence of signiants and their signis.
Partial correspondence between two similar forms of the same word:
A comparison of the Heb. pair wdjy-djy with the Arab. pair a[ymg
[ymg shows that (a) in Hebrew the two forms are identical in sense;
each of the pair may be used equally for dual or for plural; (b) in
Arabic in contrast a[ymg is employed for the dual, but [ymg for the
plural (djy, p. 47).
Correspondence of reference areas but not of the total number
of signiants: jl/lsra, qlfa (see above).
Partial correspondence of reference areas:
I. qna/qh (see above); II. blj/j (p. 551); III. hma/[ard (trz,
p. 508).
In II, blj is used in the broader, generative sense, incorporating
the physical organs [of the animal] or the fat enclosing it, the tail,
the innards and the protrusion of the liver, whereas in Arabic, j
denotes some of same but not all. In III, in contrast, the opposite
is the case. The sense of Arabic [ard is broader and includes (a)
limb of the body as well as (b) the metonymical sense of a mea-
sure equal to the length of the said bodily limb, whereas the mean-
ing of hma in Hebrew is more restricted and relates only to the
measure of the length of the arm.
Heb./Aram. semantic comparison:

Similarity in the form of semantic liaison of two pairs of homonyms:
rmz i (animal)rmz ii (music, melody)/axyd (Targ. Aram. for
rmz i), hxyd ( joy) (wqa, p. 144).
Comparison of sectors of semantic elds

Heb./Aram./Arab.:
At entry rf (p. 22), Alfsi remarks that the particles ,rf, rfb,
dq, ynpl ,ynpl and al d[ are all used in the sense of before;
these are paralleled in Arabic by the translation synonyms lbq, dq,
and l d[b and in Aramaic, by al d[. He does not make it clear
whether a specic sense exists for each one of these temporal particles
220 chapter nine
and if so, what it is. It further remains unstated how these expres-
sions relate to one another, according to the scope of their mean-
ing, and which of the expressions is a matching counterpart to which,
in the respective languages. Alfsi merely states that rf would seem
to match most suitably l d[b in Arabic and al d[ in Aramaic.
Thus he records a comparison, in the three languages, of a small
sector of the semantic eld dened as the relative time sequence
of events. This cannot be regarded as a description of a semantic
eld in modern terms; moreover, there is no concept/term reecting
the cognizance of the notion semantic eld. But it cannot be doubted
that this is something beyond an ordinary comparison of a pair or
two pairs of translation synonyms in the several languages; it is indeed
an incipient stage in the development of the concept.
At entry wqa (p. 143), Alfsi records seven names of fauna. He
remarks that three of themlya/lya/lya; ybx/ybf/ybx; rwmjy/rwmjy/
rwmjyare identical in Hebrew, Arabic and Aramaic, i.e. cognate.
Two names have partial equivalence in Hebrew/Aramaic. In
Hebrew, for each of the two, there are two synonyms, for which only
one translation synonym exists in Aramaic, and this latter is cognate
with one of the two Heb. synonyms [ls-l[y-wqa/al[y, ar-yd/
amyr. The remaining two names have merely a non-cognate in both
Aramaic and Arabic: wat/albrwt, rmz/axyd/hparz. At dn (p. 255).
Alfsi enumerates the names for the concept gift in Hebrew, in
contrast with the Arabic and Aramaic names but without dening
their precise meanings and without setting them in mutual opposition:
In Hebrew the names are y, rka, hjnm, tm, ttm, hnta, nta, hdn,
dn, dj, hjwra, tam, hrk; in Arabic (plural forms) ayadh, yafl,
rf, l[g, jt, talx, tabh, ayazg, lyfrb; in Aramaic ntm ,hjnm, rqy,
hbzbn, yjjyn.
Heb./Arab.
At j (p. 661), Alfsi compares the names for lion in Hebrew
and in Arabic:
In Hebrew the names are yra, hyra, rypk, lj, j, yl, aybl as well
as the feminine haybl; in Arabic, the names are dsa, agrx, [bs,
rbzh, wbl, tyl, and the feminine hwbl.
The last two items in each list are cognates: yl/tyl; haybl/wbl;
moreover, the one and only feminine nominal adduced matches the
last cognate in the list of the several nouns: haybl/hwbl.
Thus with the above-mentioned reservations, these comparative lists can

be viewed as a foundation for the subsequent concept semantic
elds. While his main aim was to set out the elements that were
equivalent in the three languages under discussion (or in two of the
three), one perceives that Alfsi did not ignore the aspects of non-
equivalence between them. This is especially noticeable at entry wqa
(p. 143). As for the areas represented in the lists, it is of signicance
that two of the large-scale groupingswqa and jpertain to the
area fauna, and the other groupings come near to the area of realia.
9.5.5 Implicit comparison > explicit comparison

The group treated next comprises entry words that at their respec-
tive entries, are adduced by Alfsi merely in the form of implicit
comparisons, whereas in other lexical contexts, in particular in the
excursuses lists encountered here and there in the Lexicon,31 they
are presented in the form of explicit comparisons. For example, the
comparison flm/falm is established at its entry in the lexicon
(p. 212) merely as an implicit comparison: blmb flmb tn[fw ( Jer. 43:9)
falmla yp, whereas at entry t(n) (p. 754), flm is recorded in a list
of Hebrew words that are ybr[la hgl brq m, i.e. which bear pho-
netic and semantic anity with Arabic translation synonyms Likewise
the comparison ln/lan, at its entry (ln, p. 273; tlnk, Isa. 33,1)
appears as no more than an implicit comparison. However, at another
occurrence of the same root, i.e. at the word lnm ( Job 15:29),
recorded in letter m (although the mem is non-radical, p. 217), this
root is compared with Arabic in the form of an explicit comparison
(h[wmsm yl[); and likewise the comparison is recorded explicitly in a
list at entry t(n). Occasionally one can even encounter an entry
word for which no comparison is given ad loc., whereas in the body
of collocated lists, it shows up as an explicit comparison. The entry
word jq is ad loc. dened merely by a non-cognate translation
synonymnamely, ysqwhereas in the lists embodied in entries hz
(p. 478) and t(n) (p. 754) the same word is adduced in the form
of an explicit comparison cognate jq/jsq. What is more, some
entry words are entirely absent from their predictable locations in
31
At entries ljb (p. 208), hz (p. 478), z[l (p. 172), t(n) (p. 754).
222 chapter nine
the lexicon and appear only in the excursuses, such as byn/bwn (see hz
and t(n) ibid.)
Following is a list of entry words of this category (32 comparisons
in all):32
arb/(a)rb ;(t ,122) na/na ;(t ,106) wla/wla ;(ljb) ,(58) a/ja
,512) abk/bj ;(hz ,353) sg/g ;(t ,271) rb/rb ;(t ,hz ,270)
;(ljb ,587) yrk/rj ;(tw ljb ,583) brk/brj ;(t ,550)/lj/lj ;(ljb
lan/ln ;(t ,212) falm/flm ;(t ,159) jl/jl 33;(t ,134) batk/btk
/pn ;(hz ,t) bwn/byn ;(hz ,t ,220) ranm/rwm ;(t ,217 lnm ,273)
;(hz ,t ,384) qz[/qz[ ;(320 ryg ,309) dy/dy 34;(48 djy ,285) spn
,433) hmr[/hmr[ ;(z[l ,369 g[ ,403) g/[ ;(hz ,t ,386) sf[/f[
,612) mr/mr ;(t ,hz ,579) jsq/jq ;(t ,498) rbx/rbx ;(t ,hz
;(t ,667) bks/bk ;(t ,632) sr/r ;(t ,624) dxr/dxr ;(t ,hz
(t ,689) hns/hn ;(t ,hz ;673) ls/jl ;(t ,673) jals /jl
9.5.6 Comparisons founded on a tauto-etymological rationale

(Exod. 28:17) tqrbw hdfp da rhawgla [b tymsa ld lk mw
(p. 277) ah[mlw ahqyrbl
(Exod. 29:14) tafj abrqla amsy hyfkla bbs brq tafj anlw
(p. 533)
hmj smla amst ld mw . . . yblq ymj (Ps. 39:4) ybrqb ybl j
(p. 55758) ahwmjl . . .
tamamjla hbt ahnal . . . (Isa. 17:8) ynmj tasynktla amst ld mw
(ibid.)
hlm[ al bj gabdla amsy ld mw . . . basj yxtqy bj anlw
(p. 593) basjb
(p. 17) ym[fm hm[fala amst ld mw . . . qawd yxtqt [f hfpl
sbkt ahnal bk ahamsp . . . sbk (2 Chron. 9:18) . . . bkw hlwqw
(p. 86) hmyaqla [fq taltla
yyrjbla wymsa ld lk mw . . . jlmlab (Lev. 2:13) jlmt jlmb
32
In parentheses will be noted: (1) the page number in the lexicon on which the
implicit comparison appears; (2) a reference to its appearance as an explicit com-
parison. In cases where the latter reference is in one of the excursuses, the page num-
ber will not be repeated for each subsequent entry. For references of the relevant
excursuses, see preceding footnote.
33
This entry item holds good as presented on the assumption that the adduc-
tion of the verse tma btkb wrh ta (Dan. 10:21) has this comparisonbtk/batk
in mind; if, however, the verse was cited for the purpose of wr, the entry
item/comparison btk/batk should be excluded from this category and wr/sr
should be entered. The possibility exists, however, that the verse was cited with
both comparisons in mind.
34
On this entry word, see the subsection on tauto-etymological rationale, below.
(p. 211) amyad jlamla amla yp hnal yjlm

djy) ahnm rxjny am [pdy ydla spntla hl[l pn ahams ynatlaw
(p. 48
ayxla sab amst hla yhw grs hlk . . . (Exod. 27:28) . . . rnE
(p. 291) rwnlaw
awhla ysn yla ahtgajl hmn sa ahyl[ [qwa tlatlaw
(p. 49 djy) . . .
wdy rty m rt hfplla saw . . . (Lev. 11:21) rah l[ hb rtnl
(p. 295) ymy wh ada rala yl[ rtwtla 35yn[ml ( Job 6:9)
whtmw ylpsla rwmgla yp lyqw . . . bar (Exod. 23:5) wam tjt bOr
(Deut. 33:13) tjt txbOr
brk ahyl[ hlwmjm ralaw rala tjt hxbar yh haymla al
(p. 590) lmjll hbadla
(ibid.) [b rab ry[h k l[ (Gen. 26:33) . . . sa h[b anlw
w[bn yk h[wb m yh sylw ga[n [bsla bbsb ldk tymsw
(p. 646) wq hwk (ibid. 21:31)
twnbrqla [b yms ld mw . . . las (Gen. 33:18) l bq[y abyw
(p. 676) bnd yl[ al hmals yl[ bagt ahnal (Exod. 24:5) yml
s ahnal ga[la amsy ld mw . . . s (Exod. 21:24) tjt
(p. 687) lypla
In one instance a comparison is set up by h[wmsm yl[, but a tauto-

etymological rationale follows, too. This proves that these two meth-
ods of comparison overlap (tk, p. 136).
An instance of especial interest, falling on the borderline between
implicit comparison and comparison founded on tauto-etymological
rationale, is the following: rb lk d (Lev. 13:14), kmd ta aw
(Gen. 9:5), yqyqj d hlk (p. 386). It is probable that in the deep
structure of this denition lies a tautological interlingual denition:
d (blood) equals d. The word yqyqj (really, literally) is indicative
of this, for which reason this comparison takes on the appearance
of an explicit comparison, if it be not indeed such!
35
If indeed yn[ml is used as a rationale term, in the same sense as l,B,] which
is quite plausible.
224 chapter nine
9.6 Hebrew/Aramaic/Arabic
9.6.1 Generic explicit comparisons

In four comparisons, Alfsi adopts double terminology: the term is
used (1) in standard comparisons, e.g. ynayrslabw, ybr[labw and the
like (below, 9.11), interposing between the two entry words set for
comparison; and (2) in a generic comparison formula (below, 9.11.1.1).
Two of these comparisons are structured on formula Bib. Heb./Bib.
Aram./Arab.: drf/drf/drf (p. 22) and dgs/dgs/dgs (p. 306), and
a further two on the formula Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram./Arab.:
dlg/dlg/dlg (p. 327) and hnt/hnt/ynt (p. 740).
9.6.2 Explicit comparisons in the excursuses

At wqa (p. 143) are recorded the following three-way comparisons:
lya/lya/lya, rwmjy/rwmjy/rwmjy, ybx/ybf/ybx. There is also an allusion
to two further three-way comparisons: l[y/l[y/l[w, ar/ar/yr,
if we adduce the data of comparison at entries l[y (p. 60), ar
(p. 585) and yd (p. 379).36 The Aramaic element in these com-
parisons is from Targ. Aram.
9.6.3 Explicit comparisons of individual items

The following comparisons are recorded with their standard terms
and with no generic formula appended. Each of the comparisons appears
at its appropriate entry location in the lexicon. Nine comparisons are
structured on the formula Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram./Arab.: (299) dg/dg
rmj ,(490) amz/mz/mz ,(417) ah/ah/ah ,(320) ryg/ryg/ryg/dg ,(561)
;(390) y[/y[/y[ ,(258) rhn/rhn/rhn ,(214) m/m/m ,(190) rmk/rmj/
am/hm/hm
Three comparisons are built on the formula Bib. Heb. (Bib.
Heb.)/Targ. Aram./Arab.:
wla/wla (wl)/wla (p. 102), xp/xp ([rq)/xp (p. 475), jl/jl
(fyph)/ls (p. 673, hz, p. 478, qt, p. 749, t, p. 754). The last
of these is an implicit comparison at its entry and explicit in the
excursuses.
36
l[y (p. 60) is rendered l[w by the intermediary al[y-wqa; and ar (p. 585)
dkrk; so is rendered yd (p. 379) which is also compared with Aram. amyr and
with Heb. yr.
One triad belongs in this context but remains unrecorded at its pre-
dictable lexicon location, i.e. dhs, p. 310; in the comparative excur-
suses, too, it is entered merely in the form of two separate pair units:
At qt (p. 749) the Heb. Aram. constituent is recorded as a com-
parison, whereas at t (p. 754), the Heb. Arab. constituent is sep-
arately recorded. If we combine the two elements of comparison, a
three-way comparison dh/dh/dh is produced, on the formula
Bib. Heb./Aram./Arab.37
In the case of two other comparisons, the explicit comparison
with Arabic stems from a tauto-etymological rationale: jlm/jlm/jlm
(p. 211) and m/m/sm (p. 686).
9.6.4 Explicit comparison Heb./Aram./implicit comparison Arab.

In the listing of three-way comparisons that follows, the comparison
with Arabic is of the category implicit comparison. Sub-classication
of this comparison element follows the lines of classication set out
for implicit comparisons, above, 4.7.
9.6.4.1 Explicit comparison Heb./Aram./implicit comparison Arab. +

Arabic synonym
rb/rb/rb ;(168) ag + ata/ata/ata ;(106) l[ ,r[+la/la/la
[(w)z ;(309) fsw + wg/wg/wg ;(301) jrg ,[fq + dg/(d)dg/(d)dg ;(271) arjx +
ymj/(a)mj (h)j ;(485) ypx + ykd/(h)kz/()kz ;(497) [zg ,qlq + [z[z/[wz/
(y) ;(79 ytya) dgw+sya/ytya/y ;(38) 38pg + sby/by/by ;(558) fks +
yd[/(h)d[/(h)d[ ;(272 rta) rdb + rtn/rt(n)/rt(n) ;(688) wn + s(w)/(y)
.(565) yxq/()xq/()xq ;(511) jgn + jlx/jlx/jlx ;(371) laz +
The Aramaic element in this category derives from Bib. Aram.,
with the exception of the rst comparison (la), whose derivation is
Targ. Aram.
37
In fact, Bib. Heb./Aram. in this comparison points to the formula Bib. Heb./Bib.
Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. See above, 9.4.13.
38
In this comparison, the Aramaic entry word is not expressly stated nor is any
unambiguous comparison term adduced. But given that the statement of the
denendum is formulated by the generic phrasing hlk tbyw tbyw by hgl, it is
fair to assume that the Bib. Aram. atby is also included (Gen. 2:10). Regarding
the comparison term itself, it may well be that the term ynarb[la that immediately
follows (dwyla aqm wywla ynarb[la hyp lm[tsy dqw) is intended to rule out the Heb.
or Aram. practice (as held by Alfsi but not borne out in language usage as we know
it), and thus the comparison proves to be even more explicit. Concerning the term
ynarb[la, see below, 9.11.2.5.
226 chapter nine
9.6.4.2 Explicit comparison Heb./Aram./reiterated implicit comparison

Arab.
,(219) yb/yb/yb ,(141) [bxa/[bxa/[bxa ,(61) dka/dja (zja)/dja
/rkz ,(400) qd/(q)qd/(q)qd ,(353) sg/g/g ,(274) rb/rb/rb
,(113) ynk/tn:k/(h)nk ,(103) lk/lk/lk ,(65) dqy/dqy/dqy ,(381) rkd/rkd
/lw[ ,(398) l[/(l)l[/(l)l[ ,(212) lm/lm/lm ,(129) rk/rwk/rk
/(aw)br ,(548) ltq/lfq/lfq ,(535) lbq/lbq/lbq ,(400) la[/l[
/rb ,(612) ymr/(a)mr/(h)mr ,(607) bfr/bfr/bfr ,(588) hwbr/wbr
.(674) fls/fl/fl ,(669) ks/k/k ,(648) rbt/rbt
The Aramaic element in this category derives from Bib. Aram.,
with the exception of the rst and third comparisons (yb ,dja) whose
source is Targ. Aram.
9.6.4.3 Explicit comparison Heb./Aram./implicit comparison Arab., solitary

record
/hla/hwla ,(96) ylwah/la/hla(h), (345 rg) hrga/arga/hrg-hrwga
/wgra/wgra ,(124) asna/na/wna ,(113) hma/(h)ma/(h)ma ,(97) hala
/wmh/h ,(290) bg/bg/bg ,(191 db) ayb/wb (db)/wb ,(150) awgra
/lj ,(526) fyk/fwj (lytp)/fwj ,(36 ;407) [ard/[rd/[wrz ,(445) h
/hlyl ,(60) l[w/l[y (wqa)/l[y ,(599) tk/tj/tj ,(553) lj/lj
(hw)r[ ,(358) at/wts/rj/wts ,(751) rtn/rt(n)/rt(n) ,(163) lyl/aylyl
/ryx ,(488) rsp/rp/rp ,(487) sp/jp/jp ,(429) hwr[/hwr[/
/rw ,(148) [bra/[bra/[bra ,(535) lbq/lbq/lbq ,(508) ryx/ryx (dy)
,(679) sa// ,(666) raws/ry (jwj)/hry ,(658) rws/rw (hmwj)
.(707) bars/br/br
The Aramaic element in this group derives from Bib. Aram., with
the exception of comparisons wb, fwj, l[y, wts, jp, ryx, rw, hry,
whose source is Targ. Aram.
9.6.5 Doubtful trilingual comparisons 39

In the case of the three comparisons lgm/lgm/lgnm (p. 187), pq/pq/zpq
(p. 564), trq/trq/hyrq (p. 578), it cannot be said with certainty
39
In several instances, the reader may receive an initial impression of a three-way
comparison, but on careful inspection it becomes clear that what he is viewing is
simply two separate, independent comparisons, one Heb./Aram. and one Heb./Arab. or
Aram./Arab. For example, at rp (p. 699) there are two comparisons: rp/rp
and hrp/hnsj; at jm (p. 197), what appears to be a three-way comparison is not
such but rather two separate comparisons: (a)jm/(a)jm (Heb./Aram.), followed by
that Alfsi intended to incorporate the Arabic entry word in the

comparison, as well. The uncertainty derives from the fact that the
radical consonants are not fully equivalent/identical or from some
peculiarity in the formations of the Heb. and Arab. words. pq and
zpq dier with respect to the x (Heb.)/z (Arab.) interchange and it
stands to reason that this would be expressly indicated. True, in the
listing of intra-Hebrew letter switches (ynxylh pp. 43945) Alfsi men-
tions the x/z switch, but nowhere does he expressly state that the
said switch can apply to the interlingual Heb./Arab. comparison(s).
Although such an analogy might be postulated on the basis of the
intra-Hebrew letter switch x/z and by the adduction and applica-
tion of certain data emerging from Alfsis comparison theory, such
an assumption remains doubtful. The same argument applies to
lgm/lgnm: Had Alfsi intended to relate consciously to the omission
of the n in Heb. or to its redundancy in Arabic, the comparison
would be of a denite nature. This applies also to the morphologi-
cal dierence between trq and hyrq.
9.6.6 Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (non-cognate)/Arab. (cognate translation

synonym)
In Alfsis lexicon, four comparisons based on this formula are attested:
rj/wlf/lf (p. 587), awlf/[wqr/[qr (p. 14), tlj/arpwf/rapfa
(p. 661), s/jp/sp (p. 690). In all four comparisons, it is patently
clear that the comparison of the Aram./Arab. translation synonyms
was intended to make the Aramaic entry word more limpid and, in
turn, to elucidate more plainly the Hebrew entry word for which
the Targ. Aram. stands as translation synonym.40 In the rst of the
above comparisons, two explicit comparisons appear, whereas in the
remaining comparisons, the Heb./Aram. element is an explicit com-
parison but the Aram./Arab. element is an implicit comparison.
(a)jm/ajm (Aram./Arab.). This is evident because the matter at issue is two dierent
senses of the root (a)jm. Similarly, at jm (p. 196), there are two distinct compar-
isons: (h)jm/wjm (erase) and (h)jm/(a)jm (wipe, dry).
40
See also, above, 5.3.2.10.
228 chapter nine
9.7 Cognate Aram./Arab. comparisons
9.7.1 Explicit comparisons

In certain entries, Alfsi compares a Bib. Aram. entry word with its
Arabic deniens. An example is hla awh m'w . . . (Dan. 3:15) yp hltmw
ydk laq m ybr[la (p. 214). Such comparisons are essentially no
dierent from Heb./Arab. comparisons, except that, as noted above,
the source of the Aram. entry word is the Bible. In contrast, no
independent Targ. Aram./Arab. comparisons have been encountered;
they are always linked up with some Bib. Heb. entity. An enumer-
ation of the Aram./Arab. comparisons follows:
,(p. 214) m/m ,(p. 9) ywaf/tw:f ,(p. 532) fwj/fwj41 ,(p. 353) sg/g
.(p. 466) p/pu ,(p. 457) rakp/rjp ,(p. 288) jxn/jxn
9.7.2 Implicit comparisons

,(215) lfb/lfb ,(282) tab/t(w)b ,(197) rdb/rdb ,(169) wta/wta
,(153) hbkr/hbkra ,(577) rq/rq ,(511) ylx/(y)lx ,(285) hqpn/hqpn
.(736) tlt/tlt ,(712) (y)ts/(y)t ,(692) h[as/h[ ,(631) 42sr/r
The comparison (a)jm (Dan. 4:32)/wjm (p. 197), as it stands, is an
implicit comparison, but considering that it was adduced to suggest
an alternative interpretation (i.e. for (a)jm/brx), it is probably founded
on etymological equivalence, for which reason it approximates more
to being an explicit comparison.
9.8 Full listing of Heb./Arab. implicit comparisons
9.8.1 Implicit comparison Bib. Heb./Arab. cognate + non-cognate

translation synonym
;(90) jalp ,raka/rka ;(34) ra ,hmda/hmda ;(23) lt ,dab/dba
/ma ;(134) hmlf ,hmhd ,lpa/lpa ;(434 myh) qqj ,tbt ,ma/ma
41
At its relevant entry, this is an implicit comparison but in the excursus con-
tained in hz it is an explicit comparison, where, however, its Aramaic identity is
not indicated.
42
This, however, at t (p. 754), appears to be an explicit comparison.
,lblb/(l)lb ;(215) skn ,jfb/jfb ;(206) db ,rdb/rzb; (162) kx ,yms

,[dg/[dg ;(295) hmx[ ,hrwbg/hrwbg ;(254) bys ,r[ba/r[b ;(229) ttt
;(312) brg ,rag/rwg ;(309) fsw ,wg/wg ;(304) fyaj ,radg/rdg ;(304) rsk
/lkyh ;(373) [gw ,ywad/ywd ;(346) j ,drg/drg ;(342) kas ,rwagm/rg
,gz/[z ;(481) fsb ,ljz/ljz ;(480) kr ,hywaz/tywz ;(434) rxq ,lkyh
aynd ,dlk/dlj ;(530) dj ,zwj/hzj ;(513) d ,fbk/fbj ;(499) fks
;(563) fj ,j/j ;(560) rmk ,mj/mj ;(554) arft ,lk/lj ;(552)
;(586) pg ,q ,rk/rj ;(585) fk ,frk/frj ;(582) wmj ,rj/(w)rj
/rhf ;(7) tak ,[baf/t[bf ;(6) smg ,lbf/lbf ;(599) [fq ,tk/tj
,frw/fr(y) ;(279 b ;38) pg ,by/by ;(12) adn ,lf/lf ;(8) fn ,rhf
/hwsk ;(688 ;74) wn ,sw/y ;(71) kp ,krw/ry ;(607) klh ,[qw
,gwm/g(w)m ;(158) lwz ,zwl/z(w)l ;(148) hbwf ,hnbl/hnbl ;(118) afg ,hwsk
,grm ,k[m/[m ;(218) bwd ,ysm/(s)sm ;(196) yms ,lybn ,m/jm ;(186) g[z
,(254 dn ,366 d) rp ,lwg ,dwn/dwn ;(343) yrg ;bdg ,rg/rg(n) ;(222) srm
,lys ,jxn/jxn ;(280) dl ,[n/[n ;(270) [xawtm ,-rwskm ,-ykan/hkn
;(341) [fq ,rq ,ws/(h)ps ;(572) [lq ,rqn/rq(n) ;(287) 43d ,dydx
;(406) lpstm ,qymg/qm[ ;(396) d[x ,[pr ,wl[/(h)l[ ;(358) wx ,rts/rts
/rt[ (435) p[ ,t[/[ ;(431) hmlf ,a[/[ ;(428) k ,yr[/(h)r[
,lf/(l)lx ;(484) rsk ,qrp/qrp ;(467) lt ,ynp/(h)np ;(441) akd ,hrt[
,wq/(w)q ;(538) lbqtsa ,dqt/dq ;(514) f[ ,amx/(a)mx ;(510) apyp
/(h)nq ;(557) fbr ,lt ,fmq/fmq ;(227) [xwm ,aqm/wqm ;(555) wl[
;(569) [yrs ,ryxq/rxq ;(566) [fq ,q/()xq ;(228 hnqm) bsk ,ynq
/bhr ;(591) qlq ,zgr/zgr ;(583) rfn ,yar/har ;(577) [fq ,rq/rq
,r/()xr ;(608) dkrk ,yr/yr ;(603) wjaf ,ajr/yj'r ;(597) [zp ,bhr
da[a ,ynt/(h)n ;(639) rftna ,w/a ;(627) lzh ,qr/(q)qr ;(623) qd
.(456 th) ynp ;(737) lmk ,t/()mt ;(562) [xq ,r[q/r[q() ;(688)
9.8.2 Implicit comparisons reiterated twice or more

/lya ;(74) ya (m)/ya(m) ;(68) rka/rja ;(31) aga/ga ;(21) ba/ba
/h[pa ;(113) hnama/hnwma ;(105) la/la ;(87 lka)/lka ;(77) lya
;(184) ryb/rab ;(158) ssa/()a ;(150) zra/zra ;(471 [p ;136) a[pa
/(h)lb ;(ibid.) hrkb/hrkb ;(225) rkb/rwkb ;(223) akb/ykb ;(203) wb/wb
hxyb/hxyb ;(246) rb/rb ;(233) [lb/[lb ;(229) ylb/(l)lb ;(228) ylb
43
In fact, jxntsa, in the rendering, does not really stand for jxn but for zy:
ydgb l[ jxn zyw (Isa. 63:3)/hmdw hdydx jxntsy lysy. However, the semantic latent
anity of jxntsa with jxn as well as their mutual proximity in the wording, makes
it very likely that Alfsi intended to compare the two.
230 chapter nine
;(272) drb/drb ;(270) rb/rb ;(265) raqb/rqb ;(264) [yqb/h[qb ;(256)

lylg/lg ;(323) wlg/(h)lg ;(314) zwg/z(w)g ;(306) hhg/hhg-hg ;(276) hkrb/hkrb
;(375) yjd/hjd ;(370) ddwt/dd ;(348) yrg/rg ;(345) rartga/hrg ;(324)
Appendix 495) ynz/(h)nz ;(487) rkd/wrkz ;(485) rkd/rkz ;(483) wtyz/tyz
dj/dj ;(507) [rz/[rz ;(506) wrd/(h)rz ;(505) rrd/r(w)z ;(p. 153 ,b
;(535) yj/yj ;(534) fk/fj ;(538) bfk/bfj ;(154 b Appendix ,522)
/xj ;(565) qnk/qnj ;(564) fnj/fnj ;(561) smk/mj ;(544) ykj/kj
;(15) amf/amf ;(10) jf/jf ;(599) tk/tj ;(589) trj/rj ;(577) xj
jwt/jy ;(48) dyjw/dyjy ;(44) wy/wy ;(40) dy/dy ;(157 a ;35) sya/a(y)
/bx(y) ;(373) d[w/d[(y) ;(53) lwlw/(l)ly ;(151) dlw/dl(y) ;(50) ypj/jy ;(50)
ywk/(y)wk ;(75) rtw/rty ;(630) trw/r(y) ;(538) dqw/dq(y) ;(496) bxn
/rk ;(113) ynk/(h)nk ;(86 bzka 93) bdk/bzk ;(106) lyk/l(w)k ;(90)
wl/wl ;(154) bhl/bhl ;(153) whl/(hl)hl ;(149) sbl/bl ;(131) rk
/(d)dm ;(178) asl/wl ;(176) fql/fql ;(159) (war) jl/jl ;(156)
y[m/y[m ;(209) alm/alm ;(202) rfm/rfm ;(237) twm/t(w)m ;(188) dm
sm/()m ;(229) rm/(r)rm ;(223) yn[m/hn[m ;(223) hyn[m/tyn[m ;(221)
;(275) wn/(w)n ;(258) qhn/qhn ;(250) ybn/(a)bn ;(236) ltm/lm ;(234)
/jp(n) ;(280) l[n/l[n ;(267) rfn/rfn ;(266) rkn/rhn ;(263) hljn/hljn
;(294 ;292) asn/(y)n-(h)n ;(289) yqn/yqn ;(498) bxn/bx(n) ;(455) pn
;(ibid.) rsn/rn ;(696) w/(n) ;(293) ysn ,hmsn/hmn ;(671) ls/l(n)
/lg[ ;(344) qps/qps ;(305) gys/g(w)s ;(303) kab/bs ;(302) bbs/(b)bs
l[ ;(381) z[/(z)z[ ;(376) rd[m-rd[/rd[m-rd[ ;(371) dy[w/d[ ;(368) lg[
;(415) r[/wr[ ;(410) yn[/(h)n[ ;(402) hql[(m)/hqwl[ ;(396) yl[/(y)
/[ ;(430) brg/br[ ;(425) bq[/bq[ ;(ibid.) f[/x[ ;(422) f[/x[
;(455) pn/j(w)p ;(447) ydp/hdp ;(446) gp/gp ;(373) d[/d(t)[ ;(435) hy[
/rp ;(485) trp/rp ;(484) [rp/[rp ;(472) l[p/l[p ;(456) dkp/djp
/[bx ;(496) bxn/(h/a)bx ;(491) ltp/ltp ;(490) jtp/jtp ;(485) srap
/ry[x ;(528) qyx/q(w)x ;(513) wx/(w)x ;(500) dyx/d(w)x ;(498) gbx
sdq/dq ;(538) dq/dq ;(530) hrarx/(rw)rx ;(530) rx/(r)rx ;(520) rygx
;(579) atq/aq ;(576) rq/rq ;(ibid.) [lq/[lq ;(553) ylq/(h)lq ;(540)
-lgr/ylgr-lgr ;(589) [br/[br ;(585) sar/ar ;(584) yarm/harm-yar
;(599) jawr/jwr ;(ibid.) jwr/jwr ;(598) ywr/hwr ;(593) gr/gr ;(592) lgar
bkr/bkr ;(602) hjyar/j(y)r ;(604) hmjr/ymjr-jr ;(603) jr/jr
;(618) d[r/d[r ;(616) y[r/(h)[r ;(614) r/(s)sr ;(613) hnamr/wmr ;(609)
/[wb ;(643) ybs/(h)b ;(639) ps/a ;(638) las/la ;(628) qr/qr
kw/(w) ;(654) yws/hw ;(651) ydt/d ;(648) tbs/tb ;(646) [wbsa
rjs/rj ;(661) qjs/qj ;(658) asws/w ;(657) qws/qw ;(322)
;(668) lkt/lk ;(317) jy/jy ;(664) ryfst/(bwj-) rf ,rfm ;(ibid.)
/l ;(676) ls/l ;(672) ylas/wl ;(671) ls/(l)l ;(669) rks/rk
[ms/[m ;(683) hynamt/hnm ;(681) ams/ym ;(680) t/ ;(677) tlt
kps/p ;(696) pw/(y)p ;(ibid.) r[/r[ ;(340) r[/r[ ;(ibid.)

;(354) fr/fr ;(704) lqt/lq ;(703) yqs/(h)q ;(ibid.) lps/lp ;(698)
.(745) hjapt/jwpt ;(720) awt/at-wat ;(355) kr/r
9.8.3 Implicit comparisons of single occurrence

da/za ;(42) wa/wa ;(34) ymda/da ;(ibid.) ygaga/twnga ;(31) zwg/zwga
;(64) hzaja/hzja ;(63) dka/dja ;(60) djaw/dja ;(ibid.) rzym/rwza ;(54)
/jrpa ;(119) anh/hnh-hna ;(113) hma/hma ;(112) a/a ;(94) yla/la
/a ;(161) lta/la ;(154) ra/ra ;(150) zwra/yzra ;(139) rp
tyb/tyb ;(215) fb/fb ;(200) hmyhb/hmhb ;(79) yta/hta ;(ibid.) ta
ydg/ydg ;(246) yrb/rb ;(244 ,241) ynb/(h)nb ;(225) rkawb/yrwkb ;(220)
hnpg/pg ;(333) ang/g ;(331) lmg/lmg ;(313) zg/zg ;(312) wrg/rwg ;(301)
;(ibid.) rbd/hrwbd ;(361) bd/bd ;(354) ssg/g ;(345) brga/brg ;(340)
/baz ;(417) ja/jah ;(402) grd/hgrdm ;(390) [md/[md ;(408) swd/(w)d
jzjz/jz ;(478) bhd/bhz ;(ibid.) jbd/jbz ;(475) babd/bwbz ;(470) bad
;(536) awyj/hyj ;(534) fk/fj ;(501) qd/qz ;(496) bnd/bnz ;(481)
/twynj ;(561) rmj/rmj ;(559) wmj/j ;(555) lk/lj ;(552) dlk/dlj
/zwrj ;(581) (hy)rj/(hy)rj ;(ibid.) rpj/rpj ;(571) pj/pj ;(564) ayanj
(559) j(y) ;(591) trj/trj ;(586) rj/rj ;(ibid.) fyrk/frj ;(584) zrk
;(72) sya/y ;(it is a repeated implicit comparison jy but in)
sbk/bk ;(84) rbka/rybk ;(85) lbk/lbk ;(75) yty/wty ;(75) dtw/dty
;(ibid.) wmk/mk ;(110) k/hmk ;(108) blk/blk ;(91) sak/swk ;(86)
/hnwbl ;(143) al/al ;(131) [ark/[rk ;(130) rk/rk ;(125) rpk/rpk
hyam/ham ;(163) tyl/yl ;(157) jwl/jwl ;(ibid.) anbl/hnbl ;(149) abl
;(225) m/(h)xm ;(217) [nm/[nm ;(204) am/ym ;(194) grwm/grwm ;(184)
/[b(n) ;(251) jbn/jbn ;(238) ytm/ytm ;(236) ltm/lm ;(235) jsm/jm
sajn/tjn ;(266) sjnt/jn ;(402) rdn/rd(n) ;(343) yrg/rg(n) ;(249) [bn
(635) ysn/(h)(n) ;(292) ysna/hn ;(556) qtna/q(n) ;(275) rmn/rmn ;(ibid.)
;(329) hlsm/hlls ;(308) rwgas/rgs ;(ibid.) (forget) ysn/(h)(n) ;(debt)
;(222) y[m/y[m ;(376) sd[/d[ ;(369) hlg[/hlg[ ;(334) ramsm/rms(m)
bn[/bn[ ;(410) hyn[m/tyn[m-hn[m-hnw[ ;(406) rmg/rm[ ;(400) alg/l[
barg/brw[ ;(431) brg/hbr[ ;(426) brq[/brq[ ;(426) rqa[/rq[ ;(411)
;(454) p/jp ;(477) qpw/q(w)p ;(452) lwp/lwp ;(439) dyt[/dwt[ ;(ibid.)
;(477) dqpa/dqp ;(463) jlp/jlp ;(458) syfp/yfp ;(457) jp/jp
;(502) bhxa/bhx ;(483) frp/frp ;(ibid.) rp/jrpa ;(482) swdrp/sdrp
;(507) arjx/rjx ;(530 ,504) hrwx/hrwx ;(503) jax/jwx ;(ibid.) lhx/lhx
;(531) rx/jrx ;(530) hrx/hrx ;(ibid.) [lx/[lx ;(512) tamlf/twmlx
;(549) fq/fq ;(556) yaq/(w)q(y) ;(538) jdq/jdq ;(536) rbq/rbq
/brq ;(575) hbarq/(hbyrq)-bwrq ;(574) abrq/brq ;(558) ytnqa/(h)nq
232 chapter nine
;(ibid.) ybr/(h)br ;(588) abr/tybrm-tybrt ;(578) q/q ;(ibid.) brq

/qr(wt) ;(600) hjar/jwr ;(599) jyr/jwr ;(48 djy) jwr/jwr ;(596) adr/dydr
;(603) hbjr/ bwjr ;?(273 jyrb)- hyjyr ( bkarm)/ yjyr ;(626) qywrt
/sr ;(613) r/r ;(612) jmr/jmr ;(608) hjyar/jyr ;(605) jr/jr
jbs/jb ;(633) tr/tr ;(625) yxr/hpxr ;(623) yxr/(h)xr ;(614) sr
;(ibid.) wt/w ;(656) fws/fw ;(304) [b/[b ;(303) hkb/hkb ;(644)
/rf ;(664) f/f ;(663) jfs/jf ;(658) rwt/rw ;(657) qas/qw
/hbj ;(720) yt/hnat ;(712) lt/lt ;(672) glt/gl ;(ibid.) rfys
;(733) lt/lt ;(731) syt/yt ;(730) tjt/tjt ;(724) bt/bt ;(721) twbat
.(741) ynt/ynt ;(735) lt/lt
9.9 Uncertain comparisons
In the listing that follows, Hebrew entry words are set out about
which one cannot be certain of Alfsis intention to compare them
with Arabic. This uncertainty exists, both regarding comparisons that
these days are considered authentic (but cannot be denitely attributed
to Alfsi), as well as comparisons that these days are unacceptable
(though they match Alfsis method of language comparison). The
uncertainty emanates (a) from the non-coincidental fact that Alfsi
in each instance refrains from expressing any clear statement of com-
parison and (b) from the fact that these uncertain comparisons, in
contrast with standard implicit comparisons, comprise several pheno-
mena that call for an express reference, and their absence casts doubt
on the grammarians intention to record a comparison. Cases in
point are instances in which (1) the comparison implies letter metathe-
sis, such as tpk/tk, fqn/fnq, x[/mg, hwx/yxw, etc.; (2) there is an
interchange/substitution of letters: b/p (as [rp/twgrb, qp/(qb;
g/k (as tyrpg/tyrbk, ydg/(sydk; l/r (as hnmla/hlmra); m/n (as
d/hmwsd), etc. and especially, (3) there is an assumption of unusual
interchanges of letters: b/m ([bq/[mq); d/x (as rdj/arxk, dd[/(dx[;
g/g (as ylg/lwg); [/k (x[/xk); or (4) the comparison would neces-
sitate that one or other of the potentially compared entries contains
an additional letter absent from the other entry, such as a/ya,
a/na, ryzj/ryznk, j/knj, ymlj/swbmlj, f/lpf, ask/ysrk, etc.
The doubt is even greater in those uncertain instances necessitat-
ing several such switches simultaneously, such as: g/b + p/b in the
pair tyrpg/tyrbk; p/b + [/g + /t in the comparison [rp/twgrb;
l/r + n/l in hnmla/hlmra; x/x and metathesis in the comparison
x[/mg; x/x + an extra n in the Arabic + reduplication of the

radix in the Hebrew, in pxp/pn; x/x + q/k in the comparison
qjx/jx. In sum, the common feature of all those instances is that
their etymological equivalence is not suciently limpid and requires
to be openly asserted, whereas in the comparisons that would be unac-
ceptable today, no etymological equivalence can be objectively deter-
mined, merely a phonetic similarity (e.g. dd[/dx[).44 A list of the
uncertain comparisons follows:
(132) na a ,(119) ya/a ,(108) a/a ,(104) 45hlmra/hnmla ,(52) dnyj/za

,(216) fb/fb ,(200) ahb/hb ,(165) hyras/hra ,(159) 46ks/k-a
lwg/ylg ,(302) sydk/ydg ,(282) qtp/qtb ,(281) hnba/tb ,(220) rab/ryb
(-ra) ,(485) gagz/tykwkz ,(411) hmwsd/d 47,(340) tyrbk/tyrpg ,(324)
,(551) bljm/hnblj ,(544) knj/j ,(531) ryznk/ryzj ,(523) arxk/rdj
,(125) rpgtsa/rpk ,(117) ysrk/ask ,(19) lpf/f ,(553) swbmlj/ymlj
/p(n) ,(254) hmgn/hnygn ,(187) km/gm ,(185) [wbny/[wbm ,(126) tk/tpk
rfn/rtn ,(548) fnq/fq(n) ,(290) fqn/dqn ,(535) bqt/bq(n) ,(475) pn
yng/hn[ 48,(399) lylay[/twl[ ,(374) dx[/dd[ ,(367 g[) hng[/gw[m ,(295)
44
It could hardly be posited, for these and similar instances, that Alfsi held that
the one-to-one correspondence of two letters out of three (in those patterns now
termed strong verb patterns) in the respective Hebrew/Arabic entry words suces
for establishing an etymological comparison. This can be illustrated by the follow-
ing example. The entry word jq is rendered by Alfsi, at its own entry, as ysq,
i.e. by a translation synonym corresponding to the Heb. entry as regards two con-
secutive letters q/sq but diering in their third letter, j/y; in the comparison lists
embodied in entries hz and t, however, he does indeed adduce the comparison
jq/jsq in the comparison context. Now had Alfsi believed that the translation
synonyms jq/ysq that he had already adduced at entry jq was indeed mutu-
ally cognate, he would certainly have adduced them as etymological explicit com-
parisons in the aforesaid lists as well, and he would have had no need to resort to
a pair of translation synonyms showing correspondence in all three of their letters.
45
Subsequently in this entry, Alfsi makes note of the intra-Hebrew interchange
l/r in the pair wmra-wmla; but he makes no mention, of the word hnmla. Moreover
there are two distinct interchanges here, l/r and n/l, both being interlingual switches.
46
Could Alfsi have meant to imply that the n in Arabic ks is not part of the
root? Nowhere does he treat the Arabic root in the same manner as the Hebrew
one as regards the weak letters, which are sometimes lacking!
47
Two interchanges underlie this comparison. The intra-Hebrew p/b switch he
discussed at entry g (p. 340), whereas the Heb./Aram. g/k switch he discussed at
mwg. But ad loc., he said nothing about letter switches and, furthermore, he expressed
no Heb./Arab. comparison.
48
Skoss remarks that at this entry several MSS present the text version lylaw[,
Skoss himself conjectures the reading lylay[, which is very likely correct: Alfsi
immediately afterwards interprets the entry word by dalwa tawd; it seems quite
probable that lylaw[, identical as it is in sense with dalwa tawd, is indeed to be
derived etymologically from hlya[-lw[.
234 chapter nine
,(ibid.) mg/x[ ,(423) xk/x[ ,(421) [x[/hx[ ,(419) rpg/rp[ ;(409)

/[rp ,(475) pn/pxp ,(474) p/hxp ,(471) qb/qp ,(463) tlp/flp
,(536) [mq/[bq ,(506) jx/qjx ,(506) jxaw/jx ,(503) yxw/hwx ,(484) twgrb
,(580) swq/tq ,(577) rq/rq = srq ,(563) dpnq/dpq 49,(560) q/ssq
,(708) hlsls/trr ,(356) rq/qr ,(333) hynwns/tymm ,(663) fns/hf
.(524) rpf/rpx ,(382) zn[/z[ ,(709) sds/tyi
9.10 The comparisons as reected in the texts of the copyists and compendia
editors of Alfsis lexicon
Among the variant readings appearing in his edition of Alfsis lex-

icon, Skoss records textual readings culled from several copyists and
compendia compilers of Jmi' al-"Alf. The variants that concern us
here are those, which have bearing on language comparison. I have
collocated these variants under the heading Uncertain Comparisons
because one cannot be sure they were in fact penned by Alfsi him-
self. Several of these data seem to contradict Alfsis comparison sys-
tem, leading to the suspicion that these comparisons (or the specic
formulae of comparison by which they have been transmitted), rather
than emanating from Alfsi himself, may merely be the product of
the transmitters of his work.
9.10.1 Comparisons by h[wmsm yl[

258) hn/hn ,(X 176) ql/(q)ql ,(Abs 154) ghl/ghl ,(F129) rk/rk
,329) ls/ls ,(X 328) als/wls ,(Abs, G, Z 324) ks/ks ,(X Yg
Z 353) dyr/dyr ,(Z Abs, X 344) lps/lps ,(Abs, X, Z w[mmk ybr[
/tpr ,(A, B, Abs, Ha I 535) hbq/hbq ,(Abs 434) qr[/qr[ ,(Abs, X,
(G, Hb, X, 622) tpr
These are 12 comparisons in all, of which 2 appear in Alfsis
text under a dierent term: qr[, hn.
49
At that entry, he states that samekh interchanges with sadhe as an intra-Hebrew
switch. On these grounds, ssq is equivalent with xq; yet he does not expressly
established the Heb./Arab. comparison sq/q. By our classication system, however,
were the denitum xq and the deniens q, we would be required to reckon this as
an implicit comparison. Can it be claimed that once the grammarian had recorded
an intra-Hebrew comparison xq-ssq, as though he had made the same Heb./Arab.
comparison? Otherwise, might it not be more fair to Alfsi to expect that he would
have recorded such a comparison expressly and unambiguously?
9.10.2 Alfsi: implicit comparisons > copyists: explicit comparisons

ibid. and 383) ld/ld ,(K 201 and Appendix II, 160) qhb/qhb
Z, 154) ghl/ghl ,(App. ibid. 129) rk/rk ,(E 584) zrk/zwrj ,(App.
[bn/[b(n) ,(App. ibid. ,192) rhm/rhm ,(X, Z 191 ra) lhm/lhm ,(Abs
,323) yks/yk-yk ,(App. ibid. ,219) yksm/ksm ,(App. ibid. ,249)
ss ,(Abs, X, Z ,329) ls/ls ,(Abs, G, Z ,324) ks/ks ,(App. ibid.
Z 353) dyr/dyr ,(Abs, X, Z 344) lps/lps ,(App. ibid. ,336) sws/
/lx(n) ,(App. ibid., 425) dq[/dq[ ,(App. ibid. ,425) bq[/bq[ ,(Abs, X)
hjar/tjr ,(A, B, Abs, Ha, I 535) hbq/hbq ,(App. ibid. ,510) lxnt
.(App ibid. ,731) syt/yt ,(App. ibid. ,621) spr/pr ,(G 606
9.10.3 Alfsi: no comparison > copyists: explicit comparison

mk/mk ,(App. ibid. 176) bhd/bhd ,(K 340, App. ibid. 160) g/pg
ra) wn/wn ,(App. ibid. ,258) 50lhn/lhn ,(X 176) ql/(q)ql ,(X 110)
trq/trq ,hyrq ,(G 394) sk[/sk[ ,(X 328) als/wls ,(Abs, X ,275
(G, Hb, I, X, 622) tpr/tpr ,((G 576) ra)
9.10.4 Alfsi: no comparison > copyists: implicit comparison

/hrypx ,(A, B, Abs, Y, 225) yxm/(y)xm ,(Abs, X ,217) hrwanm/rwnm
(I 654) yws/yw ,(Ha 525 rpx) hrypf
9.10.5 Alfsi: entry lacking > copyists: implicit comparison

(Abs, X 322) rdnms/rdms
9.10.6 Alfsi: entry lacking > copyists: explicit comparison

(160 Appendix II K) rprp/rprp
50
In this instance, MS K presents a novel turn of meaning in relation to what
Alfsi himself had remarked in the original work. At the appropriate entry, Alfsi
recorded the sense qwsw arys . . . hryys, i.e. in the sense of gwhyn (= guiding, lead-
ing), whereas MS K compared/dened the entry word as lhn i.e. in the sense of
quenching the thirst of.
236 chapter nine
9.11 The comparison terminology
In this section, the comparison terms are surveyed and classied by

the scope of comparison51 to which they apply. These elds can be
categorized as follows:
(a) Comparison of entry words in two of the languages or in all
three
(b) Comparison of entry words according to how they pertain to
generic comparisons or specic comparisons
(c) The unique nature of each and every term and the compari-
son formulae to which it is suitably applied; in other words, whether
a regularity exists in the use of a given term, say, with regard to its
appearance in certain comparison categories only,52 etc.
9.11.1 Heb./Aram./Arab. comparison

The comparison expressions employed are modeled from (a) an Arabic
verb denoting concurrence ([mg) or unison (qapta); (b) the term
tagl talt, signifying the three languages treated, i.e. Hebrew, Arabic,
and Aramaic; (c) the names for these languages (this component may
be omitted and incorporated instead in the general term tagl talt)
(d) words/particles linking the aforesaid terms. Thus these technical
phrases, which include the components as enumerated, are the most
lucid and unambiguous expressions of the mutual equivalence of the
three languages at a given lexicographical entry. Indeed, these terms
deserved to be adduced as terms of introduction or terms of con-
clusion for all the three-way comparisons of the pattern Heb./Aram./
Arab.; but in fact they are encountered in only ve instances as
follows:
51
In assembling these datain deciding whether to list the terminologies or the
comparisons themselves, I made no use of the indices in Skoss (193645). The rea-
sons are as follows: (a) they fail to exhaust the materials; (b) one of the terms I
employ for comparison is zero term, an entity that essentially could not have been
entered in those indices; (c) in certain matters, those indices can mislead the stu-
dent (see, e.g. below, 9.12.1.2.1); (d) they are not arranged in accordance with my
methodology.
52
Certain terms might supercially appear to be comparison terms but on care-
ful inspection prove to be merely general modes of expression. They serve only to direct
the readers attention to some matter; an example is ynayrsla yp in the context
tynatl yhp ynayrsla yp ad lkw (entry ad, p. 358).
9.11.1.1 All-embracing technical expressions used in explicit trilingual

comparisons
(p. 327 ,dlg) ynayrslaw ybr[law ynarb[la ld t[mg dqw
ybr[law ynarb[la yn[a ahnml[ ytla tagl taltla hyp t[mtga dqw
(p. 22 drf) ynayrslaw
(p. 306 dgs) ybr[law ynayrslaw ynarb[la hgl hfplla hrh t[mg dqw
(p. 740 hnt) ynayrslaw ynarb[law ybr[la tagl taltla ld yp qpta dqw
(p. 144 wqa) ynayrslaw ybr[law ynarb[lab ahamsa qptt ytla htltla ama
For the remaining three-way comparisons of the languages Heb./
Aram./Arab. pertaining to this type, the expressions occurring are
those regularly employed for bilingual comparisonsin other words,
those employed in independent Heb./Aram., or Heb./Arab. compar-
isons or in Aram./Arab. comparisons. For example, at the compar-
ison xp/xp/xp (p. 475), (1) the standard comparison expression
for Heb./Aram. comparison is unaccompanied by a comparison with
Arab. i.e. grtmla laq ld mw and (2) the standard comparison
term for Heb./Arab. comparison is unaccompanied by a compari-
son with Aram., i.e. ybr[labw. Thus these expressions, per se,
possess no special aspect indicative of their use for trilingual com-
parisons. It also goes without saying that when those comparisons
at which the Arabic entry word is adduced and compared merely
in the implicit comparison status, in other words with zero term
comparison, they certainly have no such unique property. These lat-
ter usages are thus recorded only under the category bilingual com-
parison terms; the expressions listed above (at the beginning of the
present paragraph) are only the comparison phrases that have appli-
cation specically for trilingual comparison.
9.11.1.2 All-embracing expressions in bilingual explicit comparisons

ybr[la yp qpta amk ybr[law ynayrsla yn[a ytglla yp tqpta dqw
(p. 532 fj) . . . ynarb[law
(p. 288 jxn) ybr[la m ynayrsla hgl brq m
(p. 722 bt) . . . lm[t ynayrslaw ynarb[la yp hgllaw hfplla hdhw
(p. 251 dy[b) . . . wgrt ynayrsla ypw . . . ynarb[la ytglla hyp tkrta dqw
(p. 137 rtk) . . . ynayrsla hgl [m hkrtm yh
(p. 749 qt) ynayrsla [m rty ynarb[la yp rytkw
The latter two expressions each incorporate extensive lists of com-
parisons and not just a single comparison. What has been stated with
regard to the all-embracing comparison expressions used in the three
238 chapter nine
languages is equally applicable to the group of comparison expressions

embracing two languages only. These broader expressions could have
been entered to preface each and every bilingual Heb./Aram. and/or
Aram./Arab. comparison; but if they had been, this would have con-
stituted an articial and to a great extent superuous repetitiveness,
because these wider expressions do not render the specic terms
redundant (see below).
9.11.2 The Hebrew/Aramaic comparative terms

9.11.2.1 laynd (Daniel)
The following expressions are structured on the name laynd and
relate to specic entry words pertaining to biblical Aramaic as encoun-
tered in the Book of Daniel:
(p. 367 rbd) hglla hdh laynd yp lm[tsy dqw
(p. 411) laynd yp laqw
although in this instance, a comparison with Targ. Aram., too (ex-
pressed by the term wgrt), subsequently occurs:
.(p. 526 hwj) laynd yp ynayrslab hltmw
9.11.2.2 ynayrsla
To designate biblical Aramaic, Alfsi recognizes the term ynadskla
(entry ra, p. 153 and introduction to Jmi' al-"Alf, p. 3) as well
as the term wgrtla hgl (9.11.2.4). In the routine of the lexicographic
work, he is accustomed to adopt the designation ynayrs specically,
this indeed being the term that is applied regularly in contrastive
opposition to the parallel terms ynarb[la (see llg, p. 325; rwp,
p. 452) and ybr[la. In principle, this term is distinct from the term
wgrt, used by Alfsi to denote the Aramaic Targum to the Bible
(or the targumic dialect of Aramaic). This distinction is especially
notable in those formulae that bracket together Bib. Aram. and Targ.
Aram. The comparison with Bib. Aram. is set up using the term
ynayrs, the comparison with Targ. Aram. using wgrt and the like.
This dierentiation is, by and large, kept consistently; however, here
and there one encounters a sporadic use of the term wgrt and of
course of wgrtla hgl (lza, p. 53) as a name designating the Aramaic
language in toto, thus also including biblical Aramaic. The term
ynayrs is the nucleus of the series of comparison terms that follows.
The various expanded forms of this term come about by the incor-
poration of one or other (or even all) of the following additional ele-
ments (some of these additions are of course interchangeable): (a)
deniteness + the appending of the particle axes b, yp, m before
the denite article, as in ynayrslab, etc.; (b) the nominal hgl inserted
between the components of that prepositional phrase, as in hglb
ynayrsla, etc.; (c) the verbs laq or yms in their various forms, passive
or 3rd person neutral as in lyq, lwqy, yms, ymsy, etc.; (d) the verb
m grk; (e) ltm, ldk, or lk m ld.
These terms are as follows:
anh/hnh :ynayrsla hgl m grky ;(168) ta :ynayrsla m ahgyrktw
.(99 r)
;(347) qs(n) ,(353) g :Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. :ynayrsla m
;(522) ydj ,(498) [bx :Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.
;(230) twrm/hrm ,(340) g :Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.
:(521 ry[b) [f :Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.
dj ,(488) lz ,(310) hwg Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. :ynayrsla hgl m
:Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. ,(358) rts :Bib. Aram./Rab. Heb. ;(521)
(583) grj ,(327) lg
(271) rb :ynayrsla lwqy ydk ;(124) na :axya ynayrsla lwqy dqw
(78 hmya) yntmya :ynayrslab lyq hglla hdh mw
:ynayrsla yp lyq ld mw ;(152) hkra :ynayrslab lyq hlk mw
(113 k) whtwnk ,(374 rwd) hyrwdm ,(301) wdg
(229 lb) lbyh :ynayrslab lyq hnmw
hdh mw ;(310) rhs :ynayrslab ymsa ;(68) rja :ymsy ynayrslabw
(77 lya) lya :ynayrsla ymsy hglla
;(275) hkrb ,(97) hla (97) hla (89) lka :ynayrsla hgl yp/b
(102) wla :Bib Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.
,(113) twma ,(53) lza :Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. :ynayrsla yp/b hltmw
,(417) ah ,(412) td ,(314) rbzg ,(290) bg ,(271) (son) rb ,(123) sna
(advise) lm ,(211) jlm ,(190) hm ,(22) drf ,(494) (w)zm ,(470) (h)z(m)
lx ,(418) ap[ ,(304) lbs ,(313) js(n) ,(290) qn ,(216) (h)nm ,(213)
(535) lbq ,(512)
:Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. ;(301) dg :Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.
(53) lza ,(213) lm ;(173) l(a)
(yla) hla ,(97) hla ,(99) lza :Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. :ynayrsla yp/b
wgra ,(141) [bxa ,(ibid.) rsa ,(128) rsa ,(124) wna ,(121) yna ,(91)
,(274) rb ,(271) rb ,(220) hryb ,(169) ata ,(156) a ,(151) hyra ,(150)
240 chapter nine
hwh ,(400) (q)qd ,(377) yd ,(346) rg ,(332) rmg ,(320) ryg ,(295) rbg
lbj ,(501) qz ,(497) [z ,(491) rmz ,(490) mz ,(485) (w)kz ,(427)
[f ,(6) jbf ,(568) sj ,(561) rmj ,(558) hmj ,(553) (x2) lj ,(514)
,(163) hlyl ,(120) sk ,(688) (y) ,(70) jry ,(418) bh(y) ,(393) [d(y) ,(17)
lf(n) ,(258) rhn ,(258) d(n) ,(214) m ,(212) lm ,(196) (h)jm ,(197) (a)jm
,(403) [ ,(400) lw[ ,(398) (l)l[ ,(390) y[ ,(346) rps ,(313) js(n) ,(13)
,(430) br[ ,(ibid.) (hw)r[ ,(429) r[ ,(426) rq[ ,(421) bx[ ,(410) (y)n[
,(579) fq ,(548) lfq ,(524) rwpx ,(483) srp ,(457) hjp ,(437) t[
,(304) rb ,(644) byb ,(ibid.) n[r ,(618) ([)[r ,(612) (h)mr ,(588) (aw)br
,(686) m ,(679) e ,(674) fl ,(669) k ,(331) y ,(305) ayg
(748) qt ,(707) (y)r ,(699) rp
ynxylh) rt[/r[ ,(122) bna/ba :Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram (inevitable)
(ibid.) bwt/bw ,(ibid.) rbt/rb ,(445
d[lg/atwdh rgy ,(79) y/ytya :Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram (non cognate)
(466) hp/p ,(452 ,39)
;(238) jtm ,(106) la :Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram
:Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram/Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram
,(258) rhn ,(12) (l)lf ,(377) yd ,(346) rg ,(332) rmg ,(295) rbg
(654) hw ,(579) fq ,(432) dwr[
9.11.2.3 ynayrsla + grt/wgrt

(p. 99) yla :wgrt ydla ynayrsla m
(p. 328) lg :grty ydla ynayrsla m
(p. 62) dj(a) :grty al ynayrsla hgl m ala wh sylw
(p. 37) bby :wgrt m ynayrs hnkl
(p. 561) rmj :ynayrsla grty amk
(p. 252) bgn :wgrtw ynayrslab
(p. 331) mwg :ynayrslab grty ld mw
(p. 219) rsm :wgrt ynayrsla m
All the above expressions appear in comparisons of the formula Bib.

Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.; they are instructive, in that they pin-
point a clearly dened divergence of usage: wgrt and grt (and its
variants) are employed for comparisons with targumic Aramaic, whereas
ynayrs stands as a hyper-term denoting the Aramaic language with
all its various types, notably the biblical but also the post-biblical.
9.11.2.4 wgrt/grt
The nucleus of the following series of expressions is the substantive
wgrt or the Arabic verb grt. This nuclear term expands into sev-
eral slightly diering expressions in the same way that ynayrs can
expand. The term (in its various shades) is employed, as stated
ealier, for comparisons of Bib. Heb. and Targ. Aram., whether the
comparison consists of one Bib. Heb. only, together with a Targ.
Aram. or comprises additional componentsi.e. an additional Bib.
Heb. or Bib. Aram. component.
Heb. ;(14) [wqr/awlf ,(527) rb/wj Bib. Heb.:/Targ. Aram. :wgrtw
:Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram./Bib. Heb. ;(153) (h) hl :(cognates) Targ. Aram./Bib
,(434 yh) wnyhtw ,(2 X ,332) rmg ,(225) kb ,(158) da ,(71) wfa
,(538 yj) hyjm ,(192 db) rfj ,(526) fwj ,(512) bwj ,(2 X ;499) r[z
,(187) lgm ,(750 qt) hsk ,(110) mk ,(23) rf ,(13) lflf ,(585) rj
r[ ,(371) (h)d[ ,(22 rf) al d[ ,(365) rwb[ ,(353) brs ,(315) rjs
,(498) tbx ,(ibid.) jp ,(487) (w)p ,(485) qrp ,(468) qnp ,(434) qr[ ,(433)
,(577) srq ,(525) rypx ,(527) yx ,(511) jlx ,(508) ryx ,(500) (h)dx
ffr ,(607) bfr ,(606) jr ,(604) jr ,(594) gr ,(591) zgr ,(578) trq
,(749 qt) dh ,(309) hrd ,(652) d ,(648) rb ,(673) ttr ,(ibid.)
(696) ,(673) jl ,(666) ry ,(658) rw
And another 9 times in the list at the entry qt:

,(169) ta ,(3 X ;118) rma :Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.
rj ,(522) (y)dj ,(485) z ,(381) rkd ,(376) lyjd ,(282) tb ,(186) ab
,(687) m ,(647) qb ,(498) [bx ,(470) sp ,(477) qp(n) ,(2 X ,20) rpf ,(589)
(752) rwt ,(727) hwj ,(725) rydt ,(722) b(w)t ,(700) ayx
(413) atd ,(381) rkd ,(277) rb :Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./(Targ. Aram.)
rmg ,(488) lz(a) :Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram
,(114) snk ,(528) rwj ,(526) hnj ,(521) dj ,(377) yd ,(346) rg ,(332)
,(303) b ,(668) jk ,(654) hw ,(63) (y)tp(y) ,(598) tj(n) ,(208) (l)lm
(749 qt) dh
Bib.Heb./Bib.Heb./Targ.;(285) qpn :Bib.Aram./Bib.Heb./Targ. Aram.:wgrtwhw
,(283) rtb ,(129) [a :Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. ;(490) gtp (358) wts :Aram.
Bib. Heb./Bib. ;(748) lqt ,(463) jlp ,(401) [l[ ,(214) m ,(9) rwf ,(392) hnd ,(358) ad
(579) fq ,(432) dwr[ :Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.
,(577) xj ,(568) sj :Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. :wgrt m
(605) jr ,(69) tj(n) ,(9) twf
,(115) ma ,(6361) (seize) dja :Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.
242 chapter nine
,(123) k ,(187) bb(y) ,(567) dsj ,(137 rtk) r[z ,(945) hrg ,(32) hrwga
;371) (h)d[ ,(354) jrs ,(326) tks ,(220)-tsm ,(153) (h)hl ,(125) pk
(314) (h)j ,(582 brj) d ,(483) jrp ,(2 X
And in the excursus in qt (749):

(568) sj ,(12) (l)lf ,(367) rbd :Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.
(498) dp :wgrt ydkw
.(490) (y)tp :wgrt hnal ;(524) rpx ,(403) (a)m[ ;(456) byt(h) :wgrt al
,(512) bwj ,(ibid.) rmz ,(ibid.) rmz ,(ibid.) yd (144) wqa :(a)hmwgrtw
Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. ,(468) qnp ,(312) lm ,(552) flj
Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (cognates) ,(659) rz :hmwgrt adkw
Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (137) rtb :wgrt m qtm whw
Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (121) [k :ynarb[lab . . . wgrt whw
:Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. :wgrtla hgl m
(53) lza
Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. and grtmla hyp lwq(y)/laq (ydk/ld m)w
,(191) db ,(24 swba) hwra ,(48) rwa Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.
,(540) yj ,(379) yd ,(258) [xb
ry[) rypx ,(475) xp ,(58 ja) db[/h[ ,(18) [f ,(587) amlwf/rj
.(270) wr/wnt ,(640) hwxa rtwm/tram ,(589) [br ,(337
(273 jyrb) yfwm/yjyr :grtmla lwq whw
:Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (non cognate) :(hyp) laq (p) grtmlaw
.(690) jp/p ,(568) ,h[yxq (454) srh
,(661) arpwf/tlj ,(277) qrb :yrt dj l[/hn :hlwqb grtmla . . .
.(164 ra) [wrka/rwat
ld mw ;(219) rm (III) rmk) :grty ydkw ;(153 Appendix II) r(w)z :grty
lwk ,(549) (l)lj ,(369) rgd ,(158) da ,(22) ba :grt(y)
Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.
;(60) l[y :Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. grtmla hmgrtw
.(424) dh Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. grtmla grty ldkw
-rtlaw ,(317) jg :Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. grtmla ymsy ld mw
.(337) d/ry[ :hams wg
.(356) qrs :layzw[ b tnwy laq amk
(p. 299) dg/dg :hnmla hgl m
It seems likely that hnmla, as one of Alfsis technical terms could

cover both talmudic literature and the Midrashim, including their
Aramaic components, since the expression adg is to be found in this
wider corpus. Such an assumption does not overly stretch the plain
sense of hnmla. But if we assume that Alfsi does treat the cited
expression abf adg as an entity in itself, as pertaining to hnmla,

then the inevitable consequence would seem to be that the term
hnmla is meant to denote the targumic Aramaic; for, (as far as can
be deduced from the lexicons) the given expression is encountered
only in the Targum (Pseudo-Jonathan to Gen. 30:11) and nowhere
else.
9.11.2.5 ynarb[la yp
The term ynarb[la yp occurs in several of Alfsis discussions in an
unconnected manner, i.e. in the absence of any complementary con-
trastive expression of the kind ynayrsla yp ama or ybr[la ypw. Prima
facie, one could claim that such a complement can be reconstructed
on a contextual base, and thus could assume that ynarb[la yp was
never used simply in a neutral status, without intending to exclude
some linguistic practice in Aramaic or Arabic. If that were the case,
wherever the phrase appeared, it would have to be treated as an
elliptical expression and so, automatically, as a term of comparison
of Hebrew with Aramaic (or with Arabic). However, this assumption
can be conclusively refuted. At entry by, for instance, Alfsi writes:
dwyla aqm wywla ynarb[la hyp lm[tsy dqw .apgw sby hlk . . . by hgl
ybwh ra ltm ( Josh. 2:10). Here it cannot be maintained that
ynarb[la is adduced in oppositional contrast with ynayrsla yp or with
ybr[la yp; because the very same grammatical rule laid down for
Hebrew (dwyla aqm wywla) applies equally in Arabic and in Aramaic.
The upshot is that ynarb[la yp can indeed appear in a general, non-
technical sense. A further example: The very grammatical formula
mentioned earlier (dwyla . . . lm[tsy dqw) is stated to apply to the verb
[gy (p. 38) although no comparison, either explicit or implied is set up
at that entry. The indisputable outcome is that the term ynarb[la yp
is non-technical, not a specic comparison expression. For this rea-
son, I did not exhaustively collocate every occurrence of ynarb[la yp:
I recorded only those occurrences in whose vicinity an unambigu-
ous comparison must be determined by virtue of the linguistic mate-
rials adduced. In fact, at all these locations one would clearly discern
the comparison even setting aside the term ynarb[la yp. However,
considering that the expression in the given context allows for the
sense that was initially presumedi.e. the sense of a comparison
termit is assigned the status of a term of comparison.
Below is the inventory of its occurrence, as dened:
244 chapter nine
(1) ynarb[labw: Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb.: rbdg/rbzg (p. 301)

(2) ynarb[lab . . . hgl m: baf (p. 2)
(3) ynarb[lab hltmw: rta (p. 172)
(4) whw/-b ltm/ynarb[la yp: Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb.: yda/za
(p. 34), wlaw/hnhw (p. 103), hnjl/glp (p. 160), lzrp/lzrb (p. 482);
in Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.: llg (p. 325)
(5) ynarb[lab lwqk: in Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb.: [rd/[wrz (p. 407);
in Heb./Arab.: dja (p. 61)
(6) ynarb[lab hlwqp adw: in Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.:
ab (p. 186)
(7) ynarb[la yp hlwq ryfn: in Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb.: na/a
(8) ynarb[la yp lm[tsy dqw: by (p. 38). Here there is no specic
citation from biblical Aramaic; but having employed, the generic
phrasing tbyw by wl lk, at the opening of the entry, it would
seem that Bib. Aram. is also to be included.
9.11.2.6 ynwbrla wmsy ld mw: pf (p. 20). It is quite likely that

here, too, talmudic Aramaic is referred to, but this cannot be stated
denitively.
9.11.2.7 . . . aqm yhw: ll[/aby (p. 398); ba . . . ygy . . .w[w (p. 28)
9.11.2.8 qaqta m: g (ya, p. 153)

The latter three expressions stand on the borderline of the zero term.
Indeed, only their essence intimates that these are comparison terms;
as they stand, they possess no property applicable to language
comparison.
9.11.2.9 Contrastive terms

ynayrsla (yp/-b) amaw: This expression is employed in entry word
comparisons Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. when the two components share
something in common lexicologically but each exhibits some dis-
tinctive aspect, such as a vocalization dierence, e.g. rma (p. 118),
h/wmh (p. 445), lk (p. 103), m (p. 214).
ynarb[la yl[ lyld ynayrsla sylw: This expression is used to deter-

mine the root of two hetero-lingual words that are apparently sim-
ilar to each other: (hy)h/(h)yj (p. 510).
ynarb[la wjnl lakm ynayrslab hglla hdh wjnw: [dy (p. 393).
9.11.2.10 Terms for rejected comparisons (in Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.)

(508) trz :hlwq yp grtmla rgh swlqnwa flg dqw
(309) wg : . . . hl[gw grtmla flg dqw
(746) lpt :grtmla lwqk sylw
(273 jyrb) yfwm/yjyr :hglla yp byrg a yrm[l . . . grtmla lwq whw
(343) jp :dy[b whw . . . laq grtmlaw
(581 rj) yryr[/rrj :grtmla laq am zwgy alw
(394) sk[ . . . m hl[g grtmlaw
(219) yb . . . grtmla f dqw
9.11.2.11 Instances of zero term
In formula Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram.

a ,(128) sa ,(79) tya/ytya ,(494) z(a) ,(340) g(a) ,(28) ba
hbhdm ,(365) hrbd ,(322) (y)lg ,(315) rzg ,(290) bg ,(264) h[qb ,(162)
frj ,(137 rtk) hwj ,(480) wyz ,(476) d(w)z ,(425) rdh ,(383) qld ,(372)
,(208 ,137 rtk ) ( l ) lm ,(129) lbrk ,(65) dqy ,(599) tj ,(585)
,(307) gs ,(751) rt(n) ,(21) rf(n) ,(598) tj(n) ,(357) dd(n) ,(250) (ay)bn
,(440) qyt[ ,(415) b[ ,(412) n[ ,(ibid.) rpws ,(345) rps ,(ibid.) rgs
rfq ,(535) lbq ,(511) jlx ,(500) dx ,(490) (y)tp ,(488) rp ,(485) rp
,(672) wl ,(749 qt) dh ,(600) zr ,(577) rq ,(565) q ,(549)
(749) qt ,(708) r ,(707) qr ,(680) ()m
In formula Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.

(191) lhm/lhm

(405 rd) jra
Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.

,(749 qt) dh ,(114) nk ,(490 ,63) ytp ,(598) tj(n) ,(208) (l)lm
(303) b(y)
In instances in which data of grammatical (or other) nature is

recorded data that might be construed as nothing other than a
Heb./Aram. comparison, as in . . . ladlab ldbnt yazla (ynxylh,
p. 442); also: ljz (p. 481), hdm/hdnm (pp. 189, 216), [y/f[y (ynxylh,
p. 442; af[, p. 386), (y)rt/yn (p. 752), [rt/r[ (p. 752) or, in
cases of Aram./Arab. as: rjp/rakp: aklab ajla lydbtb (p. 457)
246 chapter nine
It happens occasionally that a grammatical proposition is lacking that

would serve to posit an abstract principle for the issue under com-
parison. In such case, Alfsi may adduce an additional instance of
the same type as in the following example, which demonstrates clearly
that the grammarians intention was to apply the formula lydbtb
yglab y[la, namely, to set up an explicit comparison:
hm[rh rwb[b gr [r anlw (1 Sam. 1:6) wjwr y[b ltm (Isa. 51:15)
.(p. 618) [r) hjayr ygb
ltm
The use of this term is broader than that of a term restricted
specically to language comparison; in this respect, it is equivalent
to zero term. Nonetheless, those comparisons for which ltm was
employed have been collocated, considering that though it approx-
imates to zero, it is not identical with it. The comparisons are: [rda/[wrz
(p. 36), myh (p. 434), h (p. 448), lj (p. 594), (h)d[ (p. 371). The
two comparisons (h)[b/a[b and q(l)s occurring in the comparison
list at entry qt (p. 750) seem prima facie to be compared by ltm,
but on close inspection the comparisons set up are in fact sustained
by the incorporative comparison expression with which the list com-
mences.
wlwqyw
An elliptical expression, occurring where the text content shows that
the term stands for ynayrsla yp/hnmla hgl yp/dwmltla yp wlwqyw and
such like. It appears in comparisons Bib. Heb./Talm. Aram. such
as: ykhd at[da (BT Nedarim 22b)/ykh (yk, p. 99).
wmsy
Its use is similar to that of the previous term, in Heb./Aram./Arab.
comparisons: dbz (p. 474).
laqy: in Heb./Arab. comparison, such as lpa (p. 134)
.amsy: ql (p. 176).
lwqk: ynlp (p. 464); [rq (p. 577).

Zero term is in use consistently, for obvious reasons, in comparisons
of the types (a) implicit comparison Heb./Arab. and (b) explicit com-
parison Heb./Arab. by virtue of tauto-etymological rationale.
9.11.3 Terms for comparison with Arabic

In explicit comparisons with Arabic, the terms most frequently
employed are those structured on the nuclear terms ybr[ or hybr[
with the insertion of several alternative linking particles as well as
phraseologies expanding on that nucleus. Similar phrases are adopted
in explicit comparisons with Aramaic (see above).
An enumeration of these expressions follows:
9.11.3.1
;(799) hnsj/hrp ,(577) [rq :hybr[lab whw (622) qpr :hybr[ yhw
;(490) hywah/htp(t) ,(217) hrnm ,(351) zwj ,(490) mz ,(327) dlg :ybr[lab(w)
;(for Aram./Arab. Comparison 2x ;214) m ,(403) wrd :ybr[la yp/-b hltmw
hfpl (yhw) ;(576) rq :hybr[ ahna zwgy ;(320) ryg :ybr[lab ldkw
;(272) rkn hgl yh ;(710) a ,(628) [qr ,(524) rpx ,(302) abs :hybr[
(172) z[l :br[la hgl yp . . .
ltm ;(561) rmj ,(532) fj :ybr[la hgl m ;(438) lh :br[la hglbw
. . . ynarb[lab ;(506) brz : jm ybr[ wh ;(475) lxp : aws ybr[la
laqy (amk) ;(475) xp ,(299) dg :laqy ybr[labw ,(569) j : . . . ybr[labw
zwgyw ;(102) wla :br[la lwqt amk ;(258) hn ,(390) y[ :ybr[la yp/-b
(190) hm :ybr[lab laqy
znf[ ,(344) ps :ybr[lab amst amk/w ;(474) dbz :br[la wmsy amkw
(692)
dyg :wmsy ydla br[la hgl m hna zwgy ;(569) j :br[la wmsy ydkw
(319)
(287) bxn :ybr[ sa wh ;(48 djy) hjna :ybr[lab amsyw
(598 tj) htjm :l ybr[lab salaw
,(526) jwj ,(488) (l)lz ,(294) hnbg ,(272) rb :ybr[la hgl brq m
39 comparisons (754) t( n) ;(434) qr[ ,(754) t( n) ,(397) [d( y)
,lbj ,brz ,hz ,dlg ,yg ,dyg ,hnbg ,rb ,arb ,rb na ,wla :including
,bxn ,rwm ,byn ,lnm ,flm ,b[l ,jl ,bjk ,ljk ,ymy ,brj ,l(w)j ,fj
,r ,dxr ,mr ,jq ,rbx ,lxp ,qr[ ,hmr[ ,yf[ ,qz[ ,d[ ,abs
.jl ,jl ,bk ,dh
This term applies also to comparisons that are non-cognate in the
view of modern linguistics:
(313) kw/wg ;(362) fbk/fb[
b[ :ybr[la brq m ;(645) lb : . . . hglla m brqt . . . hfpl
(518) gj :hglla yrqtl ;(365)
248 chapter nine
including all the other (478) hz :ybr[lab hbt (hbyrg) hfpl

.comparisons there
(439) t[ ;hybr[la hglla yl[ ynbm whw
rafq ,bkawm ,gawma ,gawpa/(h)([p :ybr[lab hb qylt hfplb grky
(699)
for a grammatical comparison, that follows ybr[la yp [qy dqw
the lexical comparison
(490) mz :Heb./Aram./Ar.
(9.5.1) see above h[wmsm yl[
,rtwj ,(a)bj ,ja ,(208) ljb :hybr[la hgl yp a[lab tyjla balqna m
jrm ,j ,rj ,brj ,rj
Terms that do not contain ybr[

There are instances in which the explicit comparison can be recog-
nized from the text content, despite the fact that not one of the afore-
mentioned terms actually appears
;(ibid.) [r ,m[ ,y[b ,(172) z[l :yglab grky y[ ynarb[la yp rytk
qyrf m ;(369) g[ :ygla aqm y[ ;(488) lz :ladlab yzla lydbtb
(174) ltp/tpl :swk[la
9.11.3.2 Terms used for semantic comparisons

[qy sa whw ;(370 dx) yl[ [qt yh a[ymg ytfpllaw ybr[la yp amkw
(508 trz) . . . ybr[lab alw . . . ynarb[lab laqy zwgy alw . . . yl[ al . . . yla
lkw . . . hpltkm fapla ynarb[ll ;(id.) . . . yl[ [qt . . . hfpl hltmw
yl[ bkry jlxyp ;(2322 rf) ahb qylt hfplb grkt ahnm hdjaw
.(ibid. for; Heb./Aram. Comparison) wgrtw (ibid.) . . . hfpl
Terms used to denote semantic anity

(672 jl) br[la hgl yp dy[b y . . . . . . yb sylw
.(144 wqa in a Heb./Aram. comparison) yn[mla yp byrq wh . . . hmwgrtw
Terms used to denote (merely) partial equivalence + partial contrast

laqy . . . br[la hglb amaw ;(508 trz) . . . laqy zwgyp ybr[lab amaw . . .
(47 djy) . . .
(551 blj) ybr[lab amsy al am ahnm ak aw . . . ynarb[lab amsw
(ibid.) . . . ahymsy ynarb[lab ak ada anmzly sylp
ahlm[tsy rytkw . . . m hryg wd . . . l br[la hgl yp . . . ak aw

hdayzb ala br[la hglb . . . ryspt jxy alw (123 qna) . . . l ynarb[la
(420 lbh) . . . alk
Terms for comparison: plus in one language, as against minus in

the other
(61 dja) br[la hgl yp lwqy a at[y
(253 dgn) ybr[lab anl ty l ak aw
(417 ah) br[la rxtky amk
9.11.3.3 Comparison terms in copies and late compendia of Jmi' al-"Alf

These expressions, as a rule, match the array of terms used by Alfsi
himself, especially with regard to comparisons with Arabic. The spo-
radic exceptions to this systematic correspondence are instructive:
they may well serve as a philological parameter for evaluating which
comparison materials were penned by Alfsi himself and which were
appended at later periods. The expressions ynayrslabw (lhm, XZ 191),
ynayrsla yp hltmw (gtp, 2x G 490), wgrt m (trq, hyrq G 576),
ynayrs hnkl (, I 696) appearing in the addenda to these MSS, fre-
quently appear in Alfsis own writing; they can be viewed simply as
an imitation of the array of terms employed widely in the original work.
Even in those cases where the comparison itself was recorded by
Alfsi (i.e. it does not refer to a comparison that was reconstructed
or lled in by a late copyist) but the comparison term was changed
by the copyist, it is manifest that the new expression is one
also in common use by Alfsi in other contexts. Following are exem-
plary instances: At d(l) (p. 652) Alfsi used the term wgrtw, i.e.
ankm yd l[ kmh ydx l[ wgrtw; in Ms I, however, the expression
is wgrt m hnkl ynarb[la yp ryfn hl sylw. This alteration is thus
not excessive. But in the case of the expressions wgrtla m qty
(wn/wn, p. 275, Ab5, X), ynayrsla hqyrf yl[ (sm, p. 218, Abs), and
especially ynadskla (y, p. 331, XZ), these cannot be traced in
Alfsis own writing. It is thus quite clear that the comparisons
adduced under these terms and expressions are nothing but
glosses/additions by the copyists and/or compilers.
In the array of terms for comparison with Arabic there is hardly
any innovation vis--vis the terms in general use by Alfsi. One
exception is w[mmk ybr[ appearing in the comparison lsu/ls (Z,
p. 329). Nevertheless, since it can be shown that these MSS made
sporadic alterations and coined comparisons and terms in the area of
language comparison with Aramaic, one may have good reason to
250 chapter nine
suspect that they did indeed interpolate comparison material, although

without creating new terms, in the area of comparison with Arabic.
Enumeration of the expressions follows:
ybr[: hn (Yg 258), ghl (Z 154), dyr (Z 353)
hybr[ hfpl: tjr/hjar (G 606)
ybr[la hglb: sk[/sk[ ( G 394)
hybr[ ahna hbalaw: mk/mk (X 110)
w[mmk ybr[: ls (Z 329)
ybr[la hgl brq m: at the commencement of a lengthy list of
comparisons, in Appendix II of MS K (p. 160). The following list
contains only comparisons culled from the above-mentioned list that
fail to appear (a) as explicit comparisons at their appropriate entries
in the lexicon or (b) in special lists collocated by Alfsi:
/ksm, rhm/rhm, rk/rk, drf/drf ,(E) zrk/zrj, ld/ld, qhb/qhb
dq[/dq[e, bq[/bq[;, sws/ss, yks/yk-yk, lxnt/lx(n), lhn/lhn, yksm
.spr/ypr, rprp/rprp,
h[wmsm yl[
rk/rk (F, p. 129), rwk/rwk (K Appendix II, p. 160), ghl/ghl (Abs,
p. 154), (q)ql/ql (X, p. 136), ks/ks (Abs, G, Z, p. 324), wlsi/als
(X, p. 328), lsu/ls (Abs X, 329), lpse/lps (Abs, X, Z, p. 344),
dyr/dyr (Abs X, p. 353), hbqe/hbq (A, B, Abs, Ha, I, p. 535),
qr [O /qr[ (Abs, p. 434), hn/hn (X Yg, p. 258), tpr/tpr (G, Hb,
X, p. 622).
Abs and X record a maximal number of occurrences of this term,
each using h[wmsm yl[ 7 times. Three of the instances are common
to both MSS, but Alfsi himself adopted a dierent comparison
termfor instance, at qr[b/qr[, where Alfsi set up the compari-
son by the expression ybr[la hgl brq m.
Zero term
rwnm/hrwanm (Abs, p. 217), hyxmtla m . . . m (A, B, Abs, Y 225),
rdms/rdnms (Abs Z, p. 332), hrypx/hrypf (Ha, p. 524).
9.12 The sources used by David b. Abraham Alfsi
Delineation of the topic

When proceeding to deal with the issue of Alfsis sources, it is of
the essence, to take good note well, of the heterogeneous facets of
the issue: the scholastic sources for the languages he discusses, the
linguistic usages adopted in his literary style and the language mate-
rials and tools that serviced him in building up the lexicon, with all
its variegated contents.
Sources of several dened types are excluded from the present
study and will therefore not be discussed here. This applies espe-
cially to Alfsis sources on topics of grammar as recorded in his
lexicon, since the issue of grammatical comparisons falls outside the scope
of this project. Neither will the nature of the Arabic dialect employed
by Alfsi nor its sources be dealt with.53 It goes without saying that
Alfsis own language of dissertation is exclusively Arabic, with some
very isolated and exceptional cases in which he employs Hebrew.54
On the other hand, there are in the magnum opus contexts in which
Arabic, side by side with Hebrew and Aramaic, plays a role in the
linguistic setup. I refer to the Arabic inventory of words adduced
for the denition of Hebrew and Aramaic entry words or for ren-
dering the numerous sections of biblical verses recorded for illustra-
tion purposes as well as the vast thesaurus of Arabic vocabulary
resorted to for explicit Heb./Arab. or Aram./Arab. comparisons.
Attention will be subsequently devoted to the source of all these lan-
guage materials, as well as of the comparisons per se, insofar as this
issue can be suitably treated.
9.12.1 Alfsis sources for the languages dealt with

9.12.1.1 Hebrew
The Hebrew dialect treated by Alfsi, and generally presented in the
context of the denienda, is biblical Hebrew, his lexicon being devoted
specically to biblical Hebrew; the citations from post-biblical Hebrew55
are adduced merely for corroboration of the meanings determined
for the entry words. There are only a few instances in which a rab-
binical Hebrew entry word itself becomes the object of discussion.56 In
isolated cases, Hebrew serves as a deniens for an Aramaic entry word
53
This important subject which also has a bearing on other issuese.g. the lan-
guage of culture at a given epoch, the knowledge of languages, etc.is worthy
of examination in an independent framework.
54
See, for example, entry db (p. 193); also Skoss, introduction, p. 52, where
Alfsi prefers to adopt Hebrew, this being a precautionary measure, for his criti-
cism of and severe defamatory essay on the Muslims.
55
See Netzer (1983, pp. 84124).
56
See formula Bib. Aram./Rab. Heb. (above, 9.4.6).
252 chapter nine
under discussion or as a cognate translation synonym for itfor

instance, when the word bk is adduced as a deniens-rendering of
the Aramaic entry word rma (p. 118), with no Arabic word in the vicinity.
9.12.1.2 Aramaic
The Aramaic entry words appearing in Alfsis lexicon as denienda/
denita are all from the Bible, because biblical Aramaic constitutes
the essential component of the vocabulary treated by him. A cer-
tain number of biblical Aramaic entry words are employed in lan-
guage comparison Heb./Aram. as cognate or non-cognate translation
synonyns for the Hebrew entry word.
9.12.1.2.1 Targumic Aramaic

Additional Aramaic materials incorporated by Alfsi in his linguistic
discussions have their origin in the Jewish Bible Targums, i.e. Onqelos,
Pseudo-Jonathan, the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, and
Targum Jonathan to the Prophets. Can it be said that in addition to
the above Alfsi incorporated, Aramaic materials from the Targum/s
to the Ketuvim and to Chronicles? To put it in another way: did
Alfsi know of an Aramaic Targum to Hagiographa and to Chronicles?
According to the index in the edition of Skoss (p. 84), which reects
solely the references as determined by Skoss himself for Alfsis cita-
tions in the body of the lexicon (in the apparatus), it seems at rst
glance that Alfsi did in fact adduce citations from a Targum to
Ketuvim. However, on inspecting each citation individually, against
the background of the lexicon itself and not with reference to the
index, it becomes apparent that this is not the case. For example,
as the index intimates, Alfsi records two citations from the Targum
to Psalms: the renderings for Ps. 19:8 and 76:4 (vol. 1, pp. 13, 317
and vol. 2, pp. 40, 749). The very meagerness of occurrences should,
in itself, arouse our suspicion. For the statistics show that the two
instances in which it is supposed that Alfsi quotes from the Psalms
Targum stand in contrast to a total of approximately 500 words/por-
tions of verses recorded by Alfsi from Psalms, some of them being
verses to which he has need to resort two or more times.57 If we
were to collate these gures with the almost equal number of quotes
from Genesis, a stark numerical disproportion becomes apparent.
57
See the index cited, p. 60 col. b, p. 66, col. a.
Whereas the Aramaic Targum to Genesis is recorded in about 60

citations, the Targum to Psalms is cited in only two instances!58 This
could hardly be attributable to the supposed greater quantity of lin-
guistic diculties present in Genesis as against those existing in the
Book of Psalms!
In actuality, it was an unwitting error on the part of the editor
that created such an impression: the Bible cum Targum reference
Ps. 19:8 is linked by the editor to a single Hebrew word twd[,
adduced by Alfsi (this Hebrew word cannot be denitely identied
as an unambiguous verse portion i.e. quotation) as well as, to its
Aramaic translation synonym atwdhs.59 This Hebrew word is very
common in the Pentateuch; its Targum rendering in Onkelos is also
frequent. If Skoss had been more precise in his references, he would
have avoided entering a reference to Psalms. Had Alfsi had in mind
some biblical phrase with its actual Targum rendering, rather than
merely a Hebrew word as such, with its translation synonym, prob-
ably would have been a word occurrence in the Pentateuch, rather
than in Psalms. The situation is similar regarding the second cita-
tion. In the discussion on the root jg (p. 317), Alfsi adduces the
Aramaic expression brjla lagr grtmla ymsy ld mw abrq yjygm)
(abrq yjygm as one adopted by the Aramaic Targum in general, with-
out having in mind any one specic citation. Skoss chose to adduce,
for this expression, a reference from the Targum to Psalms,
specically, Ps. 76:4, whereas in fact, he could well have provided
a reference to it from the Pentateuch (for instance, Exod. 17:8:
jlyw/abrq jgaw).
It is almost a matter of certainty that the Psalms Aramaic Targum
was completely unknown to Alfsi, just as it was unknown to many
other Jewish scholars almost contemporaneous with Alfsi, as has
been demonstrated by Weiss.60 The conclusion with regard to the
Psalms Targum holds true for the Aramaic Targum of Job, Proverbs,
Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Chronicles. From Targum to Proverbs,
he apparently adduces only a single citation,61 7:20. In fact, Skoss
himself (ch. 2, p. 750), in his apparatus, merely enters a cross-reference
58
See index (ibid.) pp. 2126; p. 81.
59
See Alfsi, vol. 2, p. 749, line 40; apparatus to this line.
60
See Weiss (1979), ch. 2 and especially, p. 41, n. 1, pp. 5758 and n. 109;
even more specically: pp. 6769 and notes 17478.
61
See Skoss, index, p. 84.
254 chapter nine
note regarding the phrase ask gj wgrtw, referring the reader to the
Targum at Prov. 7:20 (ady[d amwylw), not implying that that phrase
itself is cited from the Proverbs Targum. He likewise attributes the
expression ayrhn twrhn, recorded by Alfsi (p. 258) to the Targum
to Job, 28:11; but Skoss himself marks (via the + sign) that this ren-
dering is attested further at other locations, presumably meaning
locations outside the book of Job. Considering that this word does
not appear in a context in which its identication with the Job ref-
erence is so to speak inevitable, it is far preferable to reference it to
some other biblical book. In the same way the reference for the
phrase atqb jtm (p. 238), Targum Lam. 2:4, is quite arbitrary;
supposedly, it would constitute the single adduction of the Lamentations
Targum! Such is the case, too, regarding the reference to Eccles.
2:25 entered by Skoss for rb wj wgrtw (entry wj, p. 527) as well
as the index reference to 2 Chron. 20:33.62
To sum up, Skosss implicit determination that Alfsi cited the
Aramaic Targum to Ketuvim and to Chronicles has no basis. It is far
more likely that no copy of an Aramaic Targum to those biblical
books was within Alfsis reach. His source texts for targumic Aramaic
comprise the Pentateuch Targums, including Pseudo Jonathan, the
Palestinian Targum,63 the Targum to the Prophetsand no more.
The Aramaic materials recorded from targumic Aramaic, whether
as cognate or as non-cognate translation synonyms, are enumerated
above (9.4.79.4.14).
9.12.1.2.2 Talmudic Aramaic

Talmudic Aramaic is very sparsely recorded in Jmi' al-"Alf, (see
above, 9.4.15). It is not surprising that the use made by a Karaite
of such a specically rabbinic work as the Talmud is far more
restricted than its use, by rabbinic philologists such as Ibn Jan and
others.
9.12.1.3 Alfsis text sources for Arabic

I referred earlier to the Arabic employed in lexicographical denitions
of Hebrew or Aramaic entry words. Of special concern to us are
62
See vol. 2, p. 750, apparatus to line 50.
63
This Targum is cited as renderings for Gen. 30:1 (Alfsi vol. 1, p. 299, line
36); Deut. 15:17 (ibid., p. 361, line 31); Deut. 28:50 (ibid., p. 577, line 199).
(1) those Arabic entry words standing as translation synonyms (cog-

nate or non-cognate), these being the substance of the denitions
and (2) the renderings for biblical verses or sections of verses. The
question requiring clarication is (a) whether these denitions were
created and initiated by Alfsi himselfi.e. it was he himself who
initiated the translation synonyms for the Hebrew and Aramaic entries
or (b) whether these were culled from the Arabic translations and
commentaries to the Bible, current in his lifetime. This question can
be only partially resolved: Alfsi does not stipulate in a consistent
manner who his mentor was according a particular theory or a par-
ticular rendering; nor does he intimate whether he is recording it as
his own opinion or that of another: Even on those rare occasions
where he attributes some statement to others, the attribution is to
an anonymous authority.64 It is only in exceptional instances that
Alfsi indicates the name of the scholar holding the opinion adduced
by him, this being invariably R. Sa'adiah Ga"on. This has been
taken note of by Pinsker and by others.65 What is more, the Karaite
translations and commentaries to the Bible, that antecede Alfsi
those extant before the second half of the tenth century66have
mostly been lost; these include the commentaries and translations of
B. Nahawendi, Daniel Qumisi and J. Qirqisani, as well as the major
portion of the translation and commentary by Salmon b. Yeruim.67
At any rate, one can state condently that Alfsi made use of
translations and commentaries produced by his predecessors, this fact
being obvious from his numerous citations, even though he failed to
indicate their respective sources.
Despite the considerable quantity of quotations from other schol-
ars and works, these are but a tiny minority of the total number of
64
See, for example, Skoss (193645), index, p. 120, col. b et seq., entry wq and
its sub-entries, ibid., such as wq laq ,wl[g wqw, and the like. On the phenome-
non that the medieval student had no interest in knowing the originator of an opin-
ion but was satised with knowing the opinion itself, giving rise to the recording
of citations with no indication of their sources, see Birnbaum (194243), p. xxiv,
bibliography, ibid., n. 68: Goldziher, Studien ber Tanchum Jeruschalmi (Leipzig, 1870),
p. 3.
65
Pinsker (1860), pp. fkq, 108; Poznanski (1971), p. 148.
66
On the epoch of Alfsi and on his scholarly activity, see Poznanski (1971),
p. 147 and n. 4; the opinions of Pinsker and Neubauer are adduced, in ibid. See
also R. M. Bland (1966) with bibliography; Z. Ankori (1959), p. 206, note at
p. 66; p. 69. These brief passages constitute all that Ankori wrote regarding Alfsi!
See especially Skoss (introduction), pp. 35.
67
See Bland (1966), introduction, p. 8.
256 chapter nine
comments, opinions and denitions that, as set down, purport to be

originals. It cannot be doubted that a very considerable percent-
age of these are in fact Alfsis innovations, encompassing not only
those instances where Alfsi puts forward his own express opinion
in stated contrast to that of another scholar, but also in many places
where no indication is given of the originator of the notion. But the
precise scope of the original portioni.e. of Alfsis own production
cannot at present be determined. This is due in particular to the
fact that medieval scholars by and large were not in the habit of
specifying their sources. And again it should be noted that poten-
tial source texts in the form of translations and commentaries to
the Bible had largely perished without trace. However, from the sur-
viving fragments of translations produced before Alfsis timenamely,
those of Sa'adiah and of Salmon b. Yeruimit can be ascertained
with fair probability in which entries, contexts, etc., Alfsi followed
in the footsteps of those earlier renderings or, at least, whether the
renderings adduced in his lexicon were documented in the works of
his antecedents. Investigation of this issue was not limited to research
for the topic of the present study. It was checked out whether a
given comparison of a Hebrew entry word and its Arabic cognate
recorded by Alfsi had already been established by the earlier writ-
ers or could be said to have been founded on renderings of those
scholars. In addition, the question of the extent to which Alfsi relied
on the earlier scholars has been investigated in the widest context.
Analysis of this issue has, therefore, been undertaken by means of
two clearly dened samples:
First, all the entries from Psalms, for each of which Alfsi adduces
an Arabic cognate have been checked out, and these amount to a
total of 141 entry words.
Second, all those entries from Psalms encompassed by Ps. ch. 42,
72 only, which were elucidated by Alfsi in his lexicon by non-cog-
nate translation synonyms, have been checked out, amounting to a
total of 86.
Alfsis renderings for these entries, 227 in all, were checked against
the corresponding renderings of his antecedentsin this case, Sa'adiahs
and Salmon b. Yeruims translation to Psalms.68
68
The Salmon translations are all from Psalms because approximately two-thirds
of the text of Salmons translation of Psalms is extant. MSS details are as follows:
Alfsis anity with Judah b. Quraysh, has been discussed by

Becker (1984, pp. 7477).
The rst sample reects a full-scale investigation of the compari-
son materials included in Alfsis work (no matter whether the com-
parisons are explicit or implicit): it strives to determine whether the
cognate (and not the comparison itself ) could objectively be identied
in the antecedent translations. It should be borne in mind that
whereas these translations are far from enjoying the status of lexi-
cons, and were certainly not comparative lexicons, they nonetheless
could easily have constituted an infrastructure for comparisons or,
as it were, a source for Alfsis comparison records.
The second sample provides merely something of a double check,
a ratication of the ndings of the rst. The second sample does
not ascertain the specic source for each comparison, since, for non-
cognate translation synonyms the issue is one of comparison only if
and when Alfsi expressly says so by unambiguous comparison ter-
minology. The second sample merely checks out the feasibility that
Alfsi, for his denitions and renderings of the entry words under
discussion,69 adopted expressions and phraseologies attested in ante-
cedent Bible translations into Arabic.
These samples are, to a great extent, random in nature. The text
choice, at least in the case of the second sample, was arbitrary: From
Ps. 189, in MS Firkowitch I 1555, microlm reel 10584 in the Institute for
Microlmed Hebrew MSS, at the HUNL in Jerusalem. Of these, Ps. 4272 were
edited by L. Marwick (1956), who used MS Firkowitch II 1345. (A collation of the
material in ed. Marwick with MS, I 1555 reveals no textual dierences between
the two.) Further, Sa'adiahs entire translation of Psalms has survived in its entirety,
in the following editions: Margulies (1884), the translation of Ps. 120; Lehmann
(1901) of Ps. 2141; Hofmann (1891) of Ps. 4249, etc.; Baron (1900) of Ps. 5072;
Galliner (1903) of Ps. 7389; Eisen (1934) of Ps. 90106; Lauterbach (1903) of Ps.
10724; and Schreier (1904) of Ps. 12450, as well as R. Yosef Qs edition
(1966) of Sa'adiahs Tafsr of the whole Book of Psalms and the complete transla-
tion of Yaphet b. Ali, ed. Bargs (1861), although later than Alfsi (but see below).
Within the scope of the sample investigation are some instances in which Alfsi,
instead of adducing a specic verse from Psalms, adduces a general proposition (of
the type h[yx hyrq lk). This means to say that wherever the entry word under
discussion happens to occur in the Bible, its rendering is such and such. Though
Alfsi fails in these cases to record an express quote from Psalms, they have been
treated as if he intended to refer to the Psalms verse.
69
Clearly, it would be worth checking whether we must rule out the likelihood
that Alfsi drew on the ancient Midrashim to the Bible when recording his com-
mentary and renderings. The linguistic criterion is here unavailable. Such an inves-
tigation would be of interest primarily in the context of linguistics, rather than in
that of text substance but the two contexts are to a great extent intertwined.
258 chapter nine
the range of Psalms 189, this being the text range surviving from
Salmon b. Yeruims translation of that Book, the section Ps. 4272
has been selected. This choice was inevitable, since, of all the Karaite
translations, Salmons was the sole survivor, and Ps. 4272 is itself
the portion that has principally survived out of his total translation
of the Bible. Nevertheless, the compulsory element relates only to
the restricted range of the text, not to the nature of the materials
selected for the sample. There was no reason to aspire to exhaust
the sources in their entirety or to investigate the total range of what
could be examined in the context of writings of Alfsis antecedents.
The aim was simply to demonstrate, with the aid of the samples,
that Alfsi cannot be said to have practised in a vacuum, nor was
he an absolute innovator. A sample of 227 entries would seem a
fairly reasonable number on which to base a conclusive resolution
of this issue. Before enumerating the ndings and summarizing them
synoptically, a number of typical instances that are of special inter-
est will be presented.
In his elucidation of the word tya (Ps. 19:14), Alfsi states:
dynyj yl[ wflsy al wlaq wqp .tya za yb wlmy la yp sanla ltka dqw
al laq [bw . . . dwy hyp syl hks wh ydla ta al ymy al adhw . . . htksb
tya m htbalxb laq rkaw . . . (Deut. 33:21) atyw m hnayta dn[ yl[ wflsy
. . . y sylp adhw hdjw t;w hdjw yae l[gw hmlkla sq rkaw . . . (Num. 24:21)
(Dan. 3:12) yrbwg ytya m hdwgw dn[ yn[a htysya dn[ rspy a brqalaw
.(p. 79 ytya) . . .
We thus have here no fewer than ve alternative linguistic inter-
pretations and analyses for this word. It is notable that the rst inter-
pretation to be rejected, htksb, is the rendering of Salmon b.
Yeruim. The second interpretation, hnayta, is encountered as that
of Yefet b. Ali,70 in his commentary but not in his translation.71 The
interpretation preferred by Alfsi, however, corresponds with the ren-
dering as reected in Yefets translation, arousing the conjecture,
that Alfsi and Yefet b. Ali might both have drawn their interpreta-
tion(s) from the same earlier source, one that remains unknown to us.
70
On the expediency of making a collation with Yefet b. Ali, who postdated Alfsi,
see below (9.12.1.3.1).
71
See Bargs (1861), p. 34, n. 21.
His parsing of the form wny, in the verse wm wny m ynpl (Ps.
72:17), as a verb derived from the noun yn (n, p. 275), with the
meaning: May he have great-grandchildren and ospring for all
generations, is based on Sa'adiahs rendering lstny and on Salmons
construing of that biblical verse.
The analysis of the verb hnmsrky (Ps. 80:14) as a contamination
of the substantive srk as well as, possibly, of the denominative verb
srk that evolved from that noun, with the particle m, in the sense
hnmm wsrk almy (ahnm hrk alm) (p. 131), is to be found already in
Salmons commentary (and, somewhat later, in Yefets commentary).72
Alfsis rendering of y (p. 72) as sya is not his own innovation:
this is documented by Salmon (Ps. 58:12; 7:4) and later in Yefets
commentary.
Moreover, Alfsi was not the one who initiated the parsing of lwlb
(Ps. 58:9) as a grafting of the subordinate letter onto the adjec-
tive lwlb (lwlbm y), (p. 645): this analysis appears already in Salmons
work.
Alfsi occasionally adduces two dierent but synonymous ren-
derings for certain entry words in his lexicon. For example, for twnygn,
he has two renderings: ajla and tamgn (in the captions of Psalms
4, 6, 54, and 76) (gn p. 254); for ws (Ps. 73:19; p. 341) he records
both as and rqna; for aer (Ps. 52:22; 29:15; p. 608) he records
both yr and dkrk. It is tempting to speculate that these doublets
constitute nothing but a combination of the respective renderings of
Sa'adiah and Salmon for the same entry word. Inevitably one gets
the impression that Alfsi is chiey a transmitter, rather than an
author, of an intra-Karaite exegetical tradition. The remarkable cor-
respondence in the above instances, as well as in many others, of
Alfsis rendering with that of his antecedents is not to be viewed as
a stylistic imitation, the truth is that Alfsi simply adopted their
several renderings and exegetical comments, embedding them in his
lexicon.
9.12.1.3.1 A comparison of Alfsis biblical renderings with those

of Yefet b. Ali
The Bible translation of Yefet b. Ali as well as his commentary to
the Bible, the greater portion of which are to date still in manuscript
72
See Maman (2000a), p. 270.
260 chapter nine
form, are presumed by scholars to have been written later than the
works of Alfsi, probably very shortly after. Thus on such a pre-
sumption these cannot be treated as potential source materials for
Alfsi. Nevertheless, since this work is generally considered to be an
eclectic commentary,73 it stands to reason that it reects (Karaite)
sources that Alfsi might well have resorted to. This premise, how-
ever, should be posited with the greatest caution; for the opposite is
just as likely to be truethat Alfsi himself was Yefets source for
his commentary.74 The upshot is: wherever equivalence is encoun-
tered between Alfsi and Yefet in the rendering of a biblical word,
it is feasible that both grammarians drew on a common source that
preceded both of them. At the same time the possibility remains
that the rendering originated with Alfsi and Yefet adopted it. Given
that these two possibilities are equally likely, it would seem, prima
facie, that an examination of Yefets works yields no prospect of deter-
mining the identity of Alfsis sources, unless Yefet expressly identied
the author of his citation and this author is known also to have ante-
ceded Alfsi.
Notwithstanding the rst possibility, several ndings will be adduced
that can be inferred from a comparison of Alfsis renderings of
several Bible verses with those verses as interpreted by Yefet in his
commentary.75
When all is said and done, a decisive inference can be made only
by a comparison with Sa'adiahs Tafsr and Salmons translation.76
73
See Ben-Shammai (1978).
74
This possibility might even obtain some corroboration from the fact that it was
Yefets son who set down a compendium of Alfsis lexicon, and it is not at all
unlikely he did so in the lifetime of his father.
75
Yefet would probably have preferred to use systematic and unbroken transla-
tions of and commentaries to the Bible, verse by verse in biblical order, rather
than resorting to a biblical lexicon. But clearly, it is not impossible that the gram-
marian might seek at times to ascertain, with the aid of the lexicon the rendering
for some isolated Heb. word.
76
But it should be borne in mind that interpolations have very likely penetrated
into Salmons translation in the course of its transmission. This is clearly evidenced
through the following phenomenon: several words occurring in the commentary as
glosses have crept into the main text of the translation, creating thereby an appar-
ent contradiction between the translation as we have received it and the transla-
tion that Salmon himself relates to in the context of the commentary. For an
illustration of this point, see the comments below on wgsp (Ps. 48:14) and htmxp
(Ps. 60:4). This phenomenon is especially noticeable in the rendering and elucida-
tion of the verse: whwrxny m tmaw dsj (Ps. 61:8): in the translation he adduces m/lkw,
whereas in the commentary he remarks that he nds such a rendering unaccept-
9.12.1.3.2 Entries in which Alfsis renderings are not his own, these
being recorded already in the works of Sa'adiah and Salmon (also,
subsequently, of Yefet) (54 cognates):77
,11) lpa/lpa ,(106 ;55:14) 79yla ,wla/la 78,(77 ;42:5) lya/lya

[dg/[dg ,(Alfsi adduces from Amos 8:5, 270 ;65:14) rb/rb ,(134 ;2
hnwrgy/whwrygy ,(342 ;61:5) rwag/rg ,(304 ;62:4) radg/rdg ,(304 ;75:11)
lkyh ,(411 ;36:9) hmwsd ,sd/d ,(373 ;41:4) 80awd/ywd ,(344 ;63:11)
rj ,(557 ;39:4) ymj/j ;(522 ;57:5) (h) daj/(h)dj ,(434 ;68:30) lkyh/
/rty ,(50 ;51:7) jw/jy ,(48 ;25:16) dyjw/dyjy ,(208 ljb ;74:17) yrk/
,(159 ;23:7 ;24:8) 81hmjlm/hmjlm ,(154 ;29:7) byhl/hbhl ,(75 ;11:2) rtw
4:19, 221 ;22:15) a[m/y[m ,(196 ;69:29) wjm/hjm ,(186 ;46:7) gwm/gwm
Gen. ;65:2) rdn/rdn ,(236 ;49:13) ltm/lm ,(225 ;75:9) m/hxm ,( Jer
rts ,(289 ;73:13 ;26:6) aqn/wyqn ,(263 ;78:55) hljn/hljn ,(402 rd 28:20;
wydp ,(381 ;68:35) z[/z[ ,(374 ;etc 20:9) dx[/dd[ ,(358 ;32:7) rts/
able and he would prefer to derive m' from the Aramaic aynm (vessels). Is it pos-
sible that the renderings attributed to him were not in fact adduced by him but in
general represent some canonical, received translation version into which he
refrains from introducing any alterations, with the rare exception of such deviations
as are incorporated in the context of his commentary. This matter requires further
investigation.
77
In those instances in which there is disparity among the four translators, numer-
ous alternative possibilities of mutual non-consonance exist. The renderings could
reect two, three or four opinions; and combinations of opinions, can be switched
around and subdivided: When there are two opinions, it may be that the rst opin-
ion is held by three and the second by only one; or the opinions may be equally
divided. When there are three opinions, the combinations are more complex. The
sum-total of possible permutations is thirteen. There seems no reason to classify the
translators according to their renderings, whether representing equivalence or dis-
parity, the main reason being that Yefets opinion/rendering is adduced merely for
certain instances, largely when Salmons rendering is unavailable and even then
only as a supplementary datum. Furthermore (and this is the primary argumenta-
tion), we are here concerned more with ascertaining the extent to which Alfsi fell
back on his antecedents and conversely how much he was an independent lexicol-
ogist in his own right, rather than with a comparison and classication of the meth-
ods of renderings, of the translators as a whole.
78
In parentheses appears, rst, the verse ref. from Psalms, which constitutes the
source for the entry word and then the page number of the relevant entry in Alfsis
lexicon.
79
Alfsi records the word as ypyla; likewise Sa'adiah (according to Baron, 1900).
But according to Q (1966), the correct reading in Sa'adiah is ypwla, precisely
as Yefet enters it. Salmon records it as yml[m but it is possible that ypwla, recorded
before yml[m, is meant to be not the Hebrew entry word but the Arabic one in
which case he records two Arabic translation entries. At any rate, the text of
Sa'adiahs Tafsr is certain whereas that of Alfsi here is not original.
80
Here Yefet translates: qs/ywd.
81
The rendering brj is also attested; but all the translators, in one verse or
another, record jl, too.
262 chapter nine
/brq ,(536 ;5:10) rbq/rbq ,(475 ;60:4 82xp/xp ,(447 ;49:9) adp)
jr /jr ,(598 ;65:11) ywr/hwr ,(591 ;4:5) zgr/zgr ,(575 ,73:28) brq
614 ;32:9) sr/sr ,(511 jlx ;45:5) bkr/bkr ,(Lev. 1:9, 605 ;26:6)
yxr/hxr ,(616 ;78:71) y[r/h[r ,(618 ;48:7) hd[r /hd[r ,( Job 41:5,
wdh/jb ,(628 ;45:15) qr/qr ,(623 ;74:14) xr/xr ,(623 ;40:14)
rk ,(661 ,30:36 ;18:43) qjs/qj ,(658 ;45,1) sws/w ,(644 ;65:8)
;55:21 ,htmals ywd :tpy) hymlasm/wymwl ,(Lev. 10:9, 669 ;69:13) rksm/
ps/p ;(687 ;35:16) s/ ,(Prov. 25:18; 689 ;45:6) wnsm/wn ,(675
.(741 ;74:13) ynt/ynt ,(712 ;1:3) 83lwtm/lwt .(698 ;79:3)
For practical purposes, there is no need to resort to Yefets testi-
mony. Nonetheless, it has been presented to demonstrate the conti-
nuity of the respective dependence of later scholars on the works
and opinions of their predecessors. The focus here is on the equiv-
alence or disparity of philologists and translators in their rendering
not of a verse as a whole, but of the single word; for there are cases
in which the translators represent lexical unanimity (i.e. unanimity
on each biblical word) but dier in aspects of syntax, style, or exe-
gesis of the text, and the latter issues being irrelevant to the present
survey. The general picture that emerges is as follows: there is gen-
erally much more consonance among the three Karaite translators
(the later ones clearly taking after the earlier) than there is between
each of these and Sa'adiah Ga"on. Furthermore, their renderings are
far more atomistic and literal than those of R. Sa'adiah.
9.12.1.3.3 Entries for which Alfsis rendering is already recorded

in Sa'adiahs writings (and subsequently by Yefet) (30 cognates):
;144:11) taplwm ;wla ,ala ryxt/twpylam ,(31 ;114:8) aga/ga
;102:27) ylb/hlb ,(150 ;92:13) zra/zra ,(124 ;103:15) asna/wna ,(105
/qrb ,(272 ;141:8) drb/drb ,(264; Isa. 63:14, ;104:8) h[qb/h[qb ,(228
;(Isa. 49:22 ,577 ;129:7) xj/xj ,(538 ;10:9) fk/fj ,(277 ;144:6) qrb
;149:8) lbk/lbk ,(25 ;146:9) yty/wty ;(538 ;102:4) dqwtsm ,dqwm/dqwm
ysamt/(s)sm ,(202 ;147:8) rfm/rfm ,(531 zwj ;107:30) zwjam/zwjm ,(85
/qwp ,(275 ;121:4) wn/wn ,(Lev. 8:12, 235 ;89:21) jsm/jm ,(218 ;58:9)
,(Deut 22:6; 482 ;84:4) rp/jrpa (454 ;71:3) p/jp ,(477 ;146:9) qpw
82
However, Q (1966), in the body of the text, has aht[rx. At any rate in
other MSS of Sa'adiahs Tafsr the reading is [dx. For our purposes, this is already
attested in Salmons work.
83
Q (1966) records this reading from MS a (Munich Cod.) only and in this
loc. alone and, nota bene, in juxtaposition with the word swrgm; in the other Psalms
passages, however, i.e. 92, 14; 128:3, Sa'adiah renders by srg only, whereas Yefet
renders lt.
/lfq ,(555 ;17:7) waq(t)m/mwqtm ,( Judg. 9:36, 510 ;121:5) lf/lx

5:12; 578 ;73:14) q/q ,(569 ;89:46) rxq/rxq (548, 139:19) ltq
;120:4) tr/tr ,(Alfsi: Zach 8:5, 603 ;144:14) hbjr/bwjr ,(Exod.
(698 ,147:6) lps/lp ,(644 ;117:1) jbs/jb ,(633
The list encompasses those chapters of Psalms for which Salmons
rendition has not survived; thus Yefets translation is here very signi-
cant, in that it is quite possible that Salmons translations may be
reected by Yefet and thus could be reconstructed from Yefets
renditions.
9.12.1.3.4 Entries rendered by Alfsi by a cognate attested in

Sa'adiah but in which both Alfsi and Sa'adiah dier from Salmons
rendition (as non-cognate)84 (7 entries):
,yqn/yqn ,(344 ;75:9) bx ,bn/rg(n) ,(59 ja ;35:21) 85ynmt ,ykat/jah

87
lxp ,qrp/qrp ,(381 ;24:8) 86 ywq ,zyz[/zwz[ ,(289 ,24:4) yfn ,yrb
,ysj(t) ,w(t)/a ,(612 ,78:9) (swq+) amr jlst ,ymr/hmr ,(484 ,7:4)
(639 ;57:4 ;56:2,3 ;119:131) ql
9.12.1.3.5 Entries in which Alfsis rendering is identical with that

of Sa'adiah but diers from that of Yefet (Salmons rendition is not
extant),88 (2 entries):
(589 ;139:3) [ybrt ,br/[br ;(375 ;118:13) [pd ,wjd/hjd
9.12.1.3.6 Entries in which Alfsi combines Sa'adiahs tafsir with
Salmons translation (cognate + non-cognate translation synonym) when
the two renderings are distinct (8 entries):
;(379 ;38:9 ;74:21) dkdm ,(and Galliner ;w ,m ,k Qh MSS) y[x/d
tamgn ,ajla/tnygn ;(74 ;78:65) sw ,yan/y ,(38 ;74:15) 89pg ,sby/by
84
At hmr Yefets rendering equals that of Alfsi and of Sa'adiah; at yqn his ren-
dering diers from all three; at rty, the rendering equals that of Salmon.
85
The rendering immediately following the slash (right to left) is that of Alfsi and
Sa'adiah; the one following it is that of Salmon and Yefet.
86
But see also above z[, rendered by z[ by Salmon as well.
87
But Salmon in his commentary subjoins qrp, too.
88
The rendering immediately following the slash is that of Alfsi and Sa'adiah; the
one following is of Yefet.
89
The rendering immediately following the slash is that of Sa'adiah; the one fol-
owing is of Salmon. Alfsi, of course, records both renderings. In two instances (by
,rj), Yefets rendering equals that of Sa'adiah; in four instances (y, d, ws, ar),
his rendering equals that of Salmon; in one instance (tnygn), it equals that of Alfsi;
in one instance (q), Yefet records an independent rendering that diers from all
the others.
264 chapter nine
:Yefet ;axqna ,lga/q ;(341 ;73:19) rqna ,as/ws ,(254 ;4 ,6 ,54 ,76)
rjs ,rgp/rj ,(608 ;29:15 ;22:22) dkrk yr/ar ,(565 ;39:5) dj
90
(661 ,22:1)

of Salmon and of Yefet but diers from Sa'adiahs (8 entries):91
;7:4 ;58:12) sya ,dwgwm-/y ,(499 38:14 ;7:12) 92gz ,fks-ad/[z
dwnt-dan ,ztja/dwn ,(131 ;80:14) 93ahnm hrk alm ,rq/hnmsrky ,(72
,(431 ;31:11) 94t[ ,swst/[ ,(254 54 ,356 d ,Gen. 4:12; :Yefet ;69:21)
,hmals/wl ;(228 hnqm ;78:54) yntqa ,lm/hnq ,(469 ;56:8) tlp ,hw/flp
(672 ;73:12) ylas
In these entries, the divergence of the translational and exegetical
traditions of the Karaite versus the Rabbanite rendering is especially
salient.

of Salmon but diers from Sa'adiah and Yefet:
,fbtga/hrjth ,(552 ;39:6) dlkt ,rm[/dlj ,(314 ;71:6) 95zwg ,[fq/zwg

96
,lwlbm y ,hlbns/lwlb ,(430 ;55:18) bwrg ,asm/br[ ,(582 ;37:1) rtja
(645 ;58:9) bfr wh ydla
9.12.1.3.9 This subcategory is divided into two sub-groupings

Entries in which Alfsis rendering diers from that/those of Salmon
and Sa'adiah but is identical with that of Yefet (a total of 5 entries):
/tya ,(34 ;4 ,146:4 ,137 ,49:12) 97hmda ,h[yx ,bart-dlb-ra/hmda

mj(t) ,rkpt ,rmtka/mjth ,(79 ;19:14) htysya ,ahtks ,ahtjlsa
90
In this grouping, Sa'adiah three times employs a cognate, in the remaining
instances a non-cognate; in contrast, Salmon employs cognates in 5 instances.
91
Here, Salmon employs cognates throughout; Sa'adiah, non-cognates only.
92
The rendering immediately following the slash is Sa'adiahs; the one following
is that of Alfsi = Salmon = Yefet.
93
Salmon adduces this rendering merely in his commentary, attributing it to his
predecessors (It is said); in the body of his translation, he renders ahmxqy.
94
The text of Salmon reads: w[t[tt; this is in all likelihood a scribal error.
95
The rendering immediately following the slash is that of Sa'adiah = Yefet; the
one following it is that of Salmon = Alfsi. In the last entry, the third rendering
is that of Yefet.
96
Both Salmon and Alfsi record lwlbm y in the name of others, this being pre-
ceded in each case by their own individual renderings, i.e. hgrmla, wzljla.
97
The entry (or the hyphenated cluster of entries) adjacent to the stroke is/are
from Sa'adiah; next appears Salmons rendering that is again followed by the ren-
qyx ,hd ,qya[/hq[ ,(196 ;66:15) ykm ,krm ,jas/jm ,(560 ;73:21)
(424 ;55:4)
If Yefets rendering reects a tradition antecedent to that of Alfsi,
then clearly Alfsis rendering cannot be considered original; if, how-
ever, Yefet took over the rendering from Alfsi, then Alfsis rendi-
tion may have been the original. Be that as it may, Alfsi employs
cognates for 4 entries, Sa'adiah a cognate for one entry only, Salmon
non-cognates throughout.
Entries in which Alfsis srendition diers from that of Sa'adiah but
is identical with that of Yefet (Salmons translation not extant) (7
entries):
;(Lam. 3:16, 348 ;119:20) rg ,jlk/srg ,(229 ;82:11) llb ,smg/llb
,104:28) fql ,qztra/fql ,(533 ,114:8) swbnlj-swbmlj ,dlxla rgjla/ymlj
98
dxr ,[qwt/dxr ,(548 ,75:6) fnq ,rgxtsa/fwq ,(Exod. 16:22, 176
(654 ,18:34) yws ,[rsm . . . l[g/hw ,(624 ;68:17)
In all these entries, Alfsi and Yefet rendered by cognates whereas
Sa'adiah used non-cognates throughout.
9.12.1.3.10 Entries for which Alfsi adopts an independent stand

in his rendition and apparently shows originality (there are four alter-
native groupings, as for the several renditions of the lexicographers):
(a) Alfsi versus the three others, each records his own rendering
(3 entries):
,d[awxla ,rwgla [awna/twlw[ ;(206 ;68:31) 99ddb ,rdb ,qrp ,zyawg/rzb

ypk 100,alqna ,rpk ,waht/hlqn ;(398 l[ ;64:7) rfawkla ,ll[la
(553 38:8)
(b) Alfsi versus the three others: the latter show partial equiva-
lence (4 entries):
aynd ,dlk ,dlb ,aynd/dlj ,(215 ;22:10) jfba :Alfsi ;lkw/jyfbh

;23:4) (X1) hmlf ,(X2) twm lf ,tamlf ,twmlf ,sbg/twmlx ,(552 ;49:2)
(172 z[l ;81:8) d[r ,gr ,b[r ,hwwqw b[r/[r ;(512 ;10:14 ,107
dering of Alfsi = Yefet. At entry hmda, Salmons rendition relates to Ps. 49:12:
the renderings for the instances in the other Psalm chapters are not extant.
98
In the MS of Salmons translation there is here a lacuna.
99
The entries renderings are arranged in the following order: (1) Sa'adiah, (2)
Salmon, (3) Alfsi, (4) Yefet.
100
However, Alfsi adduces an opinion other than his own, i.e.: apktsa laqyw
wlq m whw.
266 chapter nine
Here Alfsi employs cognates throughout; Salmon and Yefet cog-

nates in one entry only; Sa'adiah non-cognates throughout.
(c) Alfsi versus Sa'adiah and Yefet: the latter disagree in their
renderings (Salmons rendering not extant) (4 entries):
,zgal ,fgl/z[l ;(480 tywz ;144:13) 101anarha ,anayawz ,andwadm/wnywzm
rsknm ,ykan ,byak/hakn ;(530 ;139:5) qyx ,rwx ,fpj/rwx ,(172 ;114:1) jyqw
(270 hkn ;109:16)
In all the above instances, Alfsi used cognate; Sa'adiah and Yefet
invariably non-cognates.
(d) Alfsi versus Sa'adiah and Yefet: the latter record identical
renderings (4 entries):
wx ,gars/rn ,(267 ;103:9) rfn/dqj/rfn ,(554 70:5) 102lk ,yxm/lj
(467 ;70:9) ltw ynp ,ylw/hnp ,(291 ;119:105) rwnw
In all these instances, Alfsi used cognates, in contradistinction with
Sa'adiah and Yefet, who invariably used non-cognates.
9.12.1.3.11 Synopsis and conclusion

The grand total of all Alfsis translation synonyms for Psalms entries,
incorporated in the above listings is 141.
A statistical analysis follows:
The sum total of all the translation synonyms from Psalms denitely
attested in works of his antecedents:
Sa'adiah, Salmon (and Yefet) 54
Sa'adiah and Yefet (Salmon not extant) 30
Sa'adiah Only (v. Salmon) 7
Sa'adiah (v. Yefet; Salmon not extant) 2
Amalgamates Sa'adiah with Salmon 8
Salmon and Yefet (v. Sa'adiah) 8
Salmon (v. Sa'adiah+Yefet) 5
Total 114 = 81.5%
Entries for which some doubt exists as to whether Alfsis render-
ing was original:
101
The order of renderings is: Sa'adiah, Alfsi, Yefet.
102
The order of translation synonyms is: Sa'adiah followed by Alfsi. The trans-
lation synonym of Yefet is included in (i.e. identical with) that of Sa'adiah.
Alfsi identical with Yefets rendition : 5

(v. Sa'adiah+Salmon)
Alfsi identical with Yefets rendition
(v. Sa'adiah; Salmon not extant) : 7
Total 12 = 8.5%
Entries for which Alfsi very probably uses his own original cognate
translation synonym:
Versus all the others, each rendering dierently 3
Versus the others: three of thempartially equivalent 4
Versus Sa'adiah and Yefet (Salmon not extant) 4
Versus Sa'adiah and Yefet (Sa'adiah = Yefet) 4
Total 15 = 10%
In 84 entries all the above-mentioned translators employ cognates.

In 57 entries Alfsi prefers to render by a cognate (with no concern
for identifying an equivalent antecedent rendition); these can be divided
as follows:
In 30 entries a cognate rendition is attested in at least one of the
antecedents.
In 12 entries a cognate rendition may have existed and been used by
one of the antecedents.
In 15 entries it is very likely that Alfsi himself made an original
choice of a translation synonym.
In 9 instances Alfsi gives preference to Sa'adiah (a Rabbanite!) over
a Karaite rendering.
In 13 instances Alfsi prefers a Karaite rendition (that of Salmon
in 8 instances Yefet likewise) over that of Sa'adiah.
To sum up, Alfsi gives preference to a cognate over a non-cognate
translation synonym in cases where a cognate is either (1) feasible
(= potential) or (2) actually recorded; it is noteworthy that Alfsi
made a deliberate choice of his cognates from the range of render-
ings available to him.
On account of this tendency, and only on this account, can it be
explained why Alfsi, Karaite as he was, did not consistently and
exclusively follow in the footsteps of the Karaite renderings, although,
he does show some preference for such renditions as against those
of the Rabbanites (i.e. Sa'adiah Ga"on). Even in those instances,
however, the decisive criterion for his choice may have been the ety-
mological equivalence of deniens and deniendum that he discerned.
268 chapter nine
9.12.1.3.12 Entries from Psalms 4272 for which Alfsi used non-
cognate translation synonyms compared with the parallel renderings
of Sa'adiah, and Salmon (and Yefet), of eight types:
(1) Those in which Alfsis renderings are already attested in the
translations of Sa'adiah and of Salmon (a total of 30 entries):
16) qbf/rfa ,(70 ;58:10) gsw[) dfa ,(Yefet: jang .28 ;55:7) yr/rba
:47) rdq ,radtqa/wag ,(470 ,gsp ;48:14) rxq/wmra ,(Yefet: 64 ;71 ;69:
/r(w)z ,(470 gsp ;48:14) lyg/rwd ,(371 dd ;42:5) hydja/dda ,(286 ;5
,(571 ;64:7) tp/pj ,(215 m ;61:8) lxp/dsj ,(503 ;58:4) bntga ,bngt
yn m hna zwgyw/wny ,(568 tw[yxq ;45:9) sm/rm ,(179 58:7) bayna/tw[tlm
,(72:17) lstny :Sa'adiah ;lsn . . . yn m hwqta wqw :Salmon ;(57 y)
dfa ;58:10) w/hrys ;(371 dd ;42:5) lalf/s ,(337 ;55:9) (h)ljar/h[s
xq/rps ,(wd :Yefet ;357 d ;56:9) yxja/rps ,(337 ;55:9) xa[/r[s ,(70
/gsp ;(385 ;55:2) lq/f[ ,(385 45:2) btak/rpws ,(470 gsp :48:14)
/hlwxm ,475 ;60:4) 105[dx/xp ,([pr :tpy 470 ;48:14) 104[alq 103,[lq
rd/[r ,(ibid.) rkm/hmrm ,(515 ;50;19) gwaz/dymxh ,(45 wy ;69:3) r[q
:tpy ;154 fhl ;5 ,57) [gxna/bk ;(284 wn ;48:3) rwrs/wm ;(619 ;55:12)
.(699 ,16:6) sj/rp ,(161 ;72:10) hpjt/rka ,(an
(2) Those in which Alfsis rendering is identical with Salmons but

diers from Sa'adiahs (16 entries):
dxq ,f/hmd ,(46:7 ;446 mh) bzj ,hma/ywg ,(323 ;43:4) 106brf ,rwrs/lyg
,(gah:M ,K MSS) ah/hmh ,(399 ;62:2) htks ,rbx/hymwd ,(389 ;48:10)
djg ,[xk/jk ,(10 jf ;51:8) tanyfm ,blq-dx/twjf(b) ,(446 ,46:7) gah
,(215 ;61:8) 107lkw ,hpyfw/m ,(154 ;57:5) [mal ,[fas/fhl ,(96 ;66:3);
57 y ;72:17) . . . hmsa adh wlaq wq hsarb sa . . . ; lstny / wny
,(365 rbd ;51:6) ld[/qdx/qdx ,(!Sa'adiah adduces one meaning only
,(539 ;42:10) klfm ,hsbag/rdq ,(511 ;45:5) (bt :Yefet) jgn ,jlx/jlx
,yqsa/qqw ,(665 ;57:7) hybz ,htwh/hjy ,(172 ;44:14) wzh-znf ,hywt/slq
(703 ;65:10) yfl
103
In his commentary, Salmon states: wpr wgsp wq laq. The original render-
ing would therefore seem to have been merely w[lq, this annotation being a gloss
that had crept into the main text; in the translation text of the verse a dual ren-
dering appears for wgsp, i.e. w[lq wpr.
104
Sa'adiah renders: ah[alqw ahlyxp yp klab wdraw: thus all three derive gsp
from hgsp.
105
Salmon records two renderings for this word: aht[dx ahtqq; but the note
in his commentary would seem to indicate that it is specically ahtqq that con-
stituted the original rendering, whereas aht[dx, as a gloss, had penetrated the trans-
lation text.
106
The rendering immediately following the slash is that of Sa'adiah; the one
following that of Salmon = Alfsi.
107
Salmons annotation in his commentary, however, implies non-equivalence of
his rendering and Alfsis.
Yefets rendering is identical with Salmons in 12 entries; in two

entries, it is identical with Sa'adiahs; in the remaining two entries
(i.e. jlx and fhl) it diers from both.
(3) Those rendered by Alfsi precisely as rendered by Sa'adiah but
diers from Salmons translation (7 entries):
;(110 hmk ;63:2) rb ,db/rb ,(568 tw[yxq ;55:9) ldanx ,rbn[/twlha
tabwbjm , . . . hbyyfm/tw[yxq ;(387 ;65:14) f[t ,(jtla+) lmta/f[
ql ,ljz/a ,(475 xp ;60:4) d[ra ,lzlz/y[rh ,(568 ;45:9) tafwqm-
.(ibid. 56:3) sj ,jz/a ,(639 ;56:2)
Yefet rendered two entries precisely like Sa'adiah (i.e. y[rh, f[);
for two he recorded originals (tw[yxq/tadrgm; a I/sj); the remain-
ing three he rendered like Salmon.
(4) Entry for which Alfsi sets out two renderings, one of which cor-
responds with that of Sa'adiah and with that of Salmons transla-
tion (+ of Yefet)
(647) tany[m m . . . wq wrsp dqw bhdla talqtm m ,(45:14) twxbmm
(5) Those that Alfsi rendered dierently from both Sa'adiah and
from Salmon but in accord with a rendering antecedent to Salmon
and adduced in (the latters) commentary in the name of some other
source (5 entries):
wlaqw . . . qawrla :Salmon ;(104 ;58:2) hsrkla ,(103 ;56:1) syrkt/la
wlaqw . . . wdh :Salmon ;(389) hhb/(55:2) hymwd ;[mg :Sa'adiah srk la
wlaqw . . . w :Salmon ;(430) thb/(62:4) ttwh ;qlt :Sa'adiah ;hby . . . axya
ydwnt :Salmon, (357 d) twlgla adh yp ytlwg/(56:9) ydOn ;blw :Saadiah ;thb . . .
.ybwrhw yrwpn :Sa'adiah ;ytwlg hdm yn[y ydrt wlaq wqw . . .
Yefet renders like Alfsi throughout.
(6) Entry in which Alfsi amalgamates Salmons rendering with that
of Sa'adiah:
:Sa'adiah ;(tpy so) wrk[ty :Salmon ;(561 rmj) wrk[tyw wrdkty/(46:4) wrmjy
wkrtw
(7) Entries for which Alfsi renders contrary to Sa'adiah and to
Salmons translation, the latter two being identical (5 entries):
108
;(123) k[a/(57:7) pk ;lwq yp ;(365 rbd) d[w yp/(51:6) rbdb
108
The entries are arranged, following the slash as follows: Alfsi, followed by
Sa'adiah=Salmon.
270 chapter nine
ybybr ;twmla asny ;(9 hmdqmla) hjwlaw hwlkla/(55:16) twmyy ;skn

jr ;(503 wrz) fb/(58:4) jr ;(y)f ;(507 yzrz) ar/(72:6)
Yefet adopts his own independent rendering for rbdb/bfaktb and
for pk/ynja for the others, his rendering is identical with that of
Salmon = Sa'adiah.
(8) Those rendered by Alfsi contrary to the renderings of Sa'adiah
and of Salmon, the latter two recording diering renderings (a total
of 22 entries):
,hp/yb ;(215 m ;61:8) (hnama :Yefet) asja 110,wr[m 109,qj/tma
tj ;65:11) (f :Yefet) fk ,swdrk ,am/dwdg ;(70 dfa ;58:10) 111 ,zym
ras ,yxm ,ls/lh ,(332 ;57:3) sja ,lxpb mt ,lxp lmk/rmg ;(598
,rkzy/yzrz ;(482 ;50:10) jw ,y[s ,awyj/zyz ;(539 rdq ;42:10) (ym :Yefet)
hrdq yl[ ,bfr yj ,yrf bfr/yj ;(507 ;72:6) (ywry :Yefet) ,rgpy ,bfry
bt ;71:4) yak ,laf ,spnla rmrmm/mwj ;(70 dfa ;58:10) (yrfla :Yefet) . . .
bh ;55:23) (darm yf[y :tpy) lqt ,yf[y ,xarga-bwlfm/bhy ;(723
/wn hpy ;(45 ;69:3) (ljw :Yefet) bljf ,tl ,amj/wy ;(675 l ;420
a[ptrala ysj :Yefet) lamgla lmga ,wn m . . . sja ,jgar sj ay
1966: ,rmk :40:5 yyk ;dmk :MS:K) dmk ,rmx ,q/hmk ;(284 ;48:3)
;(560 mj ;68:24) wk ,hw ,bxk/jm ;(110 ;63:2) according to Q
:Yefet) . . . yl[ tygla lzn ,rys ,lzna/tjn ;(215 ;61:8) hpyfw 112,hla ,lkw/m
(dadtsa ryhm :Yefet) rham ,datsa ,am/ryhm rpws ;(598 tj ;65:11) (fj
(rb-) jsp ;(619 [r ;65:12) lsm ,hgjm ,hfars/lg[m ;(385 f[ ;55:2)
hljnm ,tadrgm ,ta[faq tadaj/tjytp ;(469 ,72:16) bxkm ,k ,ratna/
44:11) lfxa 113,dabtsa ,jabtsa/hs (491 ;22 55) (hlwlsm wys :Yefet)
/wnr[y ;(482 zyz ;50:10) (ar[ :Yefet) yrarbla ,lqjla ,(y)jw/yd ;(690
(70 dfa ;58:10) w[lq(n)y wlqny ,hlla h[bwzy ,xaw[la hpx[t
109
The Entries are arranged as follows: Alfsi, Salmon, Sa'adiah.
110
This rendering is preferable, according to Salmons opinion as he expressed
it in the note to his commentary; in the translation text, however, his rendering is
identical with that of Alfsi.
111
Sa'adiah by-passes this word, without translating it: . . . kkawa ryxt a lbq.
Might it have fallen out of the text of the translation? We could certainly not posit
a rendering wnyby/ryxt. It is feasible that Sa'adiah himself omitted the translation
of wnyby simply because he subjoined ryxt, which is of prime importance for com-
prehension of the plain sense of the Bible text (although, Sa'adiah is not entirely
consistent in his numerical correlation i.e. of the total of words in the translation
text v. that of the original.
112
This rendering is preferable, according to Salmons opinion as he expressed
it in the note to his commentary; in the translation text, however, his rendering is
identical with that of Alfsi.
113
Alfsi includes here the phrase ytyw hytdyt[w (Isa. 10:13), too, but records
neither a rendering nor an exegetical remark; at entry dt[, however, (p. 439), he
interprets twdt[, hnzakmla lawmala. At any rate, jabtsa which means to aban-
don the blood of, and which can also mean to disown money, shows partial
equivalence with Salmons dabtsa. However, the possibility can be reckoned with
Yefet is independent in his rendering in 11 instances (these are indi-

cated above by parentheses); in 6 instances his rendering equals that
of Salmon (yb, rmg, rmg, mwj, jm, tsp, lg[m), in 3 instances it
equals that of Alfsi (r[, hs, m) and in two instances it equals
that of Sa'adiah (hmk, yd).
It is on the basis of this category that Alfsis originality can be
most eectively estimated, given that his renderings follow neither
Sa'adiah nor Salmon. This determination, however, is not unequiv-
ocal; it must be qualied by the following considerations: It is fea-
sible that Alfsi in these cases is simply perpetuating an early
translational or exegetical tradition, a tradition remaining unreected
in the translations of both Sa'adiah and Salmon. Moreover, the dis-
tinction between the rendition entry word employed by Alfsi and
that adopted by Sa'adiah is on occasions not an exegetical dierence
but a matter of styleas, for example, zym-hp as a rendering for
yb; mt-lxp lmk, sja-lxpb as renderings for l[ rmg. Even in
instances in which the dierence is of an exegetical nature, the very
same entry word adopted by Alfsi can be encountered in the records
of his antecedents as a rendition for a Hebrew entry, although in a
dierent context and in a dierent location. For example, the word
tma at Ps. 61:8 was rendered by Alfsi as qj, as opposed to wr[m
and asja employed by Salmon and Sa'adiah; however, the ren-
dering qj for tma is very frequent in Sa'adiah, at other occurrences
(such as Ps. 15:2; 19:10; 146:6, etc.).114 In other words, Alfsis appar-
ent originality and freedom in certain entries is largely to be attrib-
uted to the high semantic transparency of these entry words and to
the availability of several alternative denientes of relatively frequent
occurrence.
(9) A summary of entries from Ps. 4272 in which the renditions
employed by Alfsi are already documented by Sa'adiah and/or by
Salmon, reveals a total of 59 entries (out of 86), namely, 68.2 per-
cent. The remaining entries, in which their non-cognate translation
synonyms would appear to be Alfsis own original renderings (para-
graphs 7 and 8) amount to 27 in number, namely, 31.8 percent. If
that a corruption of text occurred in one of the recensions, i.e. the letter ,j assum-
ing the graphic text was in Arabic characters, had turned into d or vice versa. Be
this as it may, Yefet records the version wjabtsa, too.
114
For full enumeration for Psalms, see index in ed. Q, (1966), p. 308.
272 chapter nine
we deduct from this total,(a) three entries for which Alfsi and Yefet
have identical renditions as well as (b) two further entries attested
in Salmons commentary but not in his rendition, the percentage of
Alfsis own original renderings is reduced to a mere 26 percent.
This is the maximal number of translation synonyms that we can
assume to be indubitably originated by Alfsi. But as noted above,
one cannot be certain that even this number is indeed all to be
attributed to Alfsis own initiative. Be this as it may, the percent-
age is relatively low, though it exceeds the corresponding percent-
age noted for entries rendered by cognates. What is of signicance
here is that for his translation synonyms. Alfsi can be seen to fall
back upon the renditions of his antecedents to a considerable extent:
70 percent for non-cognates and 84 percent for cognates.
9.12.2 Alfsis sources for language comparisons

9.12.2.1 While the previous section dealt with the assumption that
the language materials used for comparisons comprise materials loaned
from Arabic and Aramaic translations to the Bible, the emphasis
here is on ascertaining whether the comparisons as such or the com-
parison formulae used by Alfsi were established by his predecessors.
Skoss (introduction to Jmi' al-Alf, pp. 5960) and more recently
Becker (1984, pp. 7477) claim that Alfsi was acquainted with the
Risla, the magnum opus of Ibn Quraish, although he never men-
tions it by name. So it can be postulated that Alfsi took over his
comparisons, at least in part, from Ibn Quraish. Indeed, it is not
Alfsis practice to refer to the authors of his sources by name; nev-
ertheless, it remains quite surprising that he found no opportunity
to indicate even once the name of that founder or, at least that
scholar who had molded the theory that served as Alfsis constant
guide for the comparisons in his lexicon. It is also very remarkable
that the many comparisons appearing in Risla are nowhere men-
tioned by Alfsi (Skoss, ibid.). Had Alfsi consciously omitted them,
on account of purposefully refuting them, he could have explicitly
stated so, as he indeed did, with regard to several other instances
of comparison.115
115
To resolve this diculty, we might assume that the Risla in its original recen-
sion had not yet included the comparisons undocumented by Alfsi, the assump-
Be that as it may, we are entitled to categorically state that it was

not Alfsi who invented the Theory of Language Comparisons, since
its fundaments as well as a good many actual comparisons are embed-
ded in the commentaries to the Bible of Sa'adiah and Salmon, and
the latter clearly lay within Alfsis cognizance: those of Sa'adiah in
the form of rsthand express citations and those of Salmon in a less
direct fashion.
9.12.2.2 Comparisons in the records of Salmon b. Yeruim

In the surviving fragments of Salmon b. Yeruims commentary to
Psalms,116 one encounters several comparisons of Hebrew with Arabic
and with Aramaic, established on the patterns of certain compari-
son formulae used by Alfsi in his lexicon. Following is a classication
according to the above-mentioned comparison formulae, of all the
comparisons occurring in Salmons commentary to Psalms 4272:
117
(143) (Ezra 7:26) r/(52:7) r :Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram.
(Alfsi 708 =)
but Alfsi 606 =) (12) jr/(45:2) jr :Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.
.(in formula Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.
(78) 118hmk/(Ps 107:5) amx/(63:2) hmk :Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram
;(lacking in Alfsi, 110)
;(missing in Alfsi, 424) (47) hq[/(1 Sam. 26:24) hrx/(55:4) hq[
(Alfsi 470 but he does not apply it to this specic verse =) (119)
(ady-) sp/k/(72:16) tsp
(475 Alfsi =) (67) xp/( Jer. 22:14) [rq/(60:4) xp
tion being that these comparison materials were glossed in by copyists of the Risla
in the course of time (this did in fact occur, for example, in the case of Ibn Jans
Kitb al-"Ul, in the Rouen MS). However, this assumption nds no corroboration.
116
On the basis of ed. L. Marwick (1956).
117
Following the Bib. Heb. entry (before the slash) appears in parenthesis a ref-
erence from Ps.; the numeral in parenthesis appearing next to the nal component
of the comparison designates the page number in Marwicks ed. (1956).
118
In the meantime, this is an isolated text variant, for which I nd no support
in the Aramaic Targum according to Sperbers ed.; this applies to all the instances
in the Bible at which the root amx occurs (excluding Psalms and Job, for which
Sperbers ed. of the Aramaic does not exist: these latter I inspected in the printed
rabbinic Bible ed. (Miqra "ot Gedolot). For that matter, support was not found in
Sa'adiahs commentary to the word hmk, or in the lexicons Arukh, Meturgeman and
of Jastrow. Finally, this comparison is nowhere to be found in the records of Alfsi.
274 chapter nine
(brq)/hmjlm/(68:31) brq :Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./(Targ. Aram.)

(575 missing in Alfsi,) (96)
/ylk/(61:8) m :Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram
(74) (Ezra 7:9) aynm/aynm this comparison is missing in Alfsi, 215; how-
ever, he adduces the rst explanation,) already attested in Salmon.
Does it mean that he refutes the explanation based upon this com-
parison?
9.12.2.3 Comparisons with Arabic

In Salmons commentary to Psalms 4272, only two explicit com-
parisons with Arabic appear; in one case, a cognate is compared on
tauto-etymological grounds, i.e. dlj/dlkt (Ps. 49:2, pp. 2425);
in the second, a non-cognate translation synonym is compared:
ra/xw, yra laq (Ps. 72:17, p. 120). The rst rendering, xw, is
encountered in Alfsis records but in contexts other than the pre-
sent verse; the second rendering is entirely lacking (p. 164). However,
the comparison dlj/dlkt is unattested in the records of Alfsi
(p. 552).
These comparisons serve merely as examples, constituting, as they
do, a minute portion of materials extant from Salmons commen-
tary. However, they suce to permit the assumption that the total
number of comparisons incorporated in his commentary to the Bible
amounted to at least several dozen and possibly to several hundred.
All the comparisons appear in the commentary that followed from
the translation, their pragmatic purpose being to explain why one
or other biblical word was rendered by a specic Arabic expression
or, as in some cases, to provide an additional rendering or an alter-
native interpretation, to the rendition initially posited for the given
biblical phrase. These comparisons are by their very nature explicit:
eight comparisons are here encountered with Aramaic and only two
with Arabic!
The scant comparison with Arabic might be attributable to the
fact that his renditions by cognates were viewed as lling the role
of implicit language comparison; indeed it would be very far-fetched
to conceive the possibility that such an enormous quantity of ren-
dition by cognates was produced merely co-incidentally. A very clear
example of the phenomenon of an extensive rendition by cognate
translation synonyms in one biblical verse can be found in the fol-
lowing ky brqtw rjbt yra lkyh dq tyb bwfb h[bn yrxj/
ksy brqtw ratkt ydla abwf lkyh dq tyb ryk yp [bn ryaxj (Ps. 65:5).
In this verse, 7 (!) of its 10 wordsnamely, all except the rst, sec-
ond and seventhwere rendered by cognates.
But an exhaustive enumeration of the cognate translation syn-
onyms occurring in Salmons commentary is not intended; the pre-
sent interest is to study the explicit comparisons in particular, the
comparison methodology, the terminology and the aims of the com-
parison. The aim of Salmon b. Yeruims comparisons is clear: it
invariably serves to provide good reasoning for the renderings of a
given biblical word; the scholar will search for explicit comparison.
The widely used term for comparison with Aramaic is hgl m
wgrtla (jr, hq[, xp, m). Other terms, however, are attested: wgrt
(entries hmk, sp), wgrt whw (entry brq); m qtyw (entry r)whereas
the term for comparison with Arabic is br[la hgl yp (see entry ra).
Some of these comparisons are encountered more or less verba-
tim in Alfsis records, i.e. the entry words specied for comparison
are lemmata from the same verses and their comparison formulae
are the same (so r, xp), or their comparison is by a dierent
comparison formula (such as dlj, jr). Yet one other instance
appears with co-formulaic comparison but citing the entry word from
a dierent verse (-tsp). Some comparison instances are unattested
as such by Alfsi, but the formula serving for their comparison is
encountered in other comparisons (as with hmk, m, ra, hq[, brq).
The omission of one or other specic comparison can be explained
by the assumption that Alfsi disagreed with it; for which reason he
preferred not to adduce it: he may well have thought that the given
verse could be satisfactorily elucidated even without the comparison,
or he had some other unknown reason for omitting it.
CHAPTER TEN
MENAEM B. SARUQ
10.1 Menaem b. Saruq and his opinion on Hebrew comparison with Arabic
Did Menaem, in his maberet, use comparisons with Arabic for the
elucidation of biblical entry words? Discussion of this question has
continued incessantly ever since the maberet was compiled (around
950 CE). Dunash b. Labrat, his rival and critic, interpreted the term
w[mmk, which occurred frequently in the maberet, as a technical term
intimating comparison with Arabic. At the entry ynjfw (Senz-Badillos,
p. 113; ibid. 1981, p. 367) Dunash responds: w[mmk jmq . . . trtpw
. . . hfjh ayh tybr[b w[mmk jmqh yk w[mmk wnwrtp yaw. Dunash
reiterates this claim, in his preface to the Hebrew/Arabic compa-
rison excursus appearing in Dunashs response to the entry word
yn[wfm (ibid., pp. 88 .) which reads: twmdl wnl hm rmat aw
lb [mmk yrbd trtp hta g hnh bya r[h wll tyrb[h wlh
(And if you argue: What right have we to compare the Hebrew
language with the Arabic language? I respond as follows: But you
yourself have interpreted several words [mmk (= in their literal
meaning, as they sound in Arabic!). In his footsteps followed his
disciple Yehudi b. Sheshet (p. 43) who also imputed to Menaem
comparison of Hebrew with Arabic on the basis of the expression
w[mmk. Supercially, this seems irrefutable proof that Menaem used
the comparison. But Menaems disciples very soon took up the cud-
gels for their master, proposing to rebut the criticisms that Dunash
had aimed at Menaem, they set out to bolster their opposition to
the comparison of Hebrew with Arabic: they were thus forced to
take up the issue of the term w[mmk. Their reply is as follows: tymd
harm hlml y yk ybr[h wlb tymd rak wnnyaw . . . br[ wlb w[mmk yk
rta (the word harm here signies sense) (talmidei Menaem, p. 103).
In contra-distinction to the entry words that Dunash and B. Sheshet
had singled out as evidence that Menaem compared Bib. Heb. with
an Arabic cognate, Menaems disciples adduced other entry words,
for which Menaem employed the term w[mmk and concerning
which there was no possibility of adducing the existence of an Arabic
menaem b. saruq 277
cognateas for instance, hd[xa and dgb (talmidei Menaem, p. 103).

Although, prima facie, Menaems disciples may be presumed to
have reliably represented their masters opinion and doctrine with
regard also to this issue of language comparison, the dispute did not
abate. On the contrary, in the nineteenth century the controversy
came to life again: Pinsker (note at pp. 14344) remarked that the
term w[mmk could be interpreted in one of two ways: (a) as interpreted
by Dunash; (b) tlgrwm hnbwmw wmhh lxa ayh h[wdy rbk tyrb[h hlymh
wrypl wa wgrtl hkyrx hnya d[ wlxa That the Hebrew word is
well known by common folk and its sense is familiar to them, so
that they have no need for a rendering or an explanation. Thus b
corresponds with what Menaems disciples maintained, i.e. w[mmk
means wfwpk. Pinsker probably viewed Menaems disciples expla-
nation as a mere excuse and held that Menaem also practised com-
parisons of Hebrew with Arabic. S. Gross, too (1872, p. 65), maintains
that when Menaem was compelled by force of circumstances to
relinquish his tenet of refraining from (explicit) comparison with
Arabic, he adopted the term w[mmk implying veiled comparison. It
was apparently S. Gross who rst located the expression in the com-
mentary of Rashi to hqwl[ (Prov. 30:15): w[mmk hqwl[l rtp jnm
ybr[ awh wndml, (Menaem interpreted hqwl[l literally, thus show-
ing us that it is an Arabic word) (ibid., n. 5). Bacher (1894, Appendix
I, pp. 6871) also took up this topic: in fact he adopted a stance
very similar to that of Pinsker, presenting nothing new toward a res-
olution of the controversy; his conclusion, that Menaem had indeed
compared Hebrew with Arabic, remains a matter of mere specula-
tion. True, Menaems laconic denitions, as well as the fact that
he fails to pinpoint his sources, leave room for the claim made by
Bacher; but on what basis is that scholar certain that the interpre-
tation of wtmhzw as ab was arrived at by Menaem through com-
parison with Arabic!? Surely it is equally feasible that this derivation
was made through a comparison with rabbinic Hebrew! Bacher took
the trouble to count all the occurrences of w[mmk in Menaems
work and found that they totaled about 200. Kaufmann (1886) was
brisk in putting forward the argument that the textual condition of
the maberet (ed. Filipowski) was totally unsatisfactory, so that no
reliance could be placed on it even regarding the total number of
occurrences of w[mmk. Kaufmann even suggested several improved
textual readings, from MS Bern 200. Kaufmann thought that accord-
ing to the latter MS, the total number of appearances of w[mmk is
278 chapter ten
considerably less than the total posited by Bacher, and he thereby

claims to have undermined the main basis of Bachers argument.
However, the statistical situation as outlined in Kaufmanns article
suggests no alteration in the essential problem discussed above, for
which reason Bacher (1895, p. 74, n. 5) did not retract his original
stand, remarking that in at least a considerable number of instances
of the use of w[mmk, Menaem had indeed connoted a comparison
with Arabic. Wechter (1947, p. 382), too, held that Menaem employed
comparisons with Arabic, in disguise. Perez (1978, p. 423) adopts
Bachers standpoint but only hesitantly. Most recently, Tn (1983,
n. 65) has also adopted Bachers opinion, whereas Becker (1984,
p. 75) did not commit himself.1 The question thus remained unresolved.
The present study attempts to resolve this question from a newly
dened viewpoint and thereby to come to a clear conclusion. It
stands to reason that to ascertain the true connotation of this term,
only its actual occurrences are to be taken into account. However,
it can be shown that its occurrence is somewhat random, rather than
systematic. Take e.g., entry bhl (p. 174/380*):2 ad loc. some man-
uscripts use the term w[mmk while others do not. But at entry bhl
(p. 112/229*) he fails to use this term; he merely adduces biblical
citations, with no denition adjoining them. In an excursus on mono-
literal, bi-literal and expanded roots (at the beginning of Section bet
of the maberet (pp. 3940/79*)incorporated incidentally to the
entry arprpb (Dan. 6:4), a word commencing with the servile,
letter 'b)Menaem makes a note of the radical link existing between
tbhl and tbhl within the context work hnwarbml twa ypwd[ ylmh
1
Becker (1984, p. 321, in note to entry rpa [C1, p. 516] states that Menaem
may possibly have established comparisons with Arabic; he makes a cross-reference
to the note of the editor of the maberet. It is instructive to compare Beckers notes
in his 1977 edition of the Risla with the corresponding notes in his 1984 publi-
cation, regarding the point at issue. In the 1977 edition, at several entries, he noted
cross-references to various entries to which Menaem had applied w[mmk, as e.g.
C1, pp. 141, 176, 194, 202, 208, 229, 240. He intended thereby to allude to the
possibility that Menaem had endorsed comparison with Arabic. If this were not
the case, why did Becker classify Menaem within the same grouping as other var-
ious grammarians who practised comparison with Arabic? On the other hand, in the 1984
work Becker omitted these cross-references. Did he thereby imply that he was then
inclined to disallow the feasibility that Menaem had indeed recorded comparisons
with Arabic? At any rate, at entry rpa, as noted earlier, he did not absolutely rule
out this notion.
2
The number with the asterisk refers to Senz-Badillos edition.
menaem b. saruq 279
(words possessing an initial redundant letter) (p. 45). Prima facie,

at tbhl, too, the meaning should have been dened by the term
w[mmk but in fact this is not the case. Incidentally, it should be
noted that the term w[mmk is marked specically at root bhl, which
possesses no Arabic expanded cognate counterpart and not at bhl,
which does possess such. Therefore, the dispute between Kaufmann
and Bacher as to how many times the term w[mmk is used by
Menaem in the edition of the lexicon issued by him personally has
little bearing on the issue under discussion
If Menaem did indeed used comparison with Arabic, although
in a veiled manner, his comparisons should be evaluated with respect
to the general texture of his comparative and lexicological theory.
It would be inappropriate to determine the meaning of the term
w[mmk per se, detached from that theory. If, for example, we exam-
ine his comparison from the standpoint of the aims of comparison,
it will become clearly evident that Menaems comparison is under-
taken within clearly dened aims. Because, by and large, compari-
son is adopted by the Hebrew grammarians in the age of Menaem
and proximate epochs for the purpose of ascertaining the sense of
the entry word under discussion, especially if that word is a rare or
hapax legomenon entry in the Bible. However, at junctures where
comparison with Arabic would have been anticipated, the records
of Menaem contain no indication of comparison. For example, at
entry lb (Dan. 6:9), had Menaem considered language compari-
son, he would obviously have compared the entry word with the
Arabic cognate lab, a word possessing precisely the same meaning.
Instead, he preferred a forced comparison, by the system of metathe-
sis: bl m hkwph hbyt tyarn (this appears to be a word, reversed in
spelling, from bl): this, despite Menaem generally ghting shy of
the principle of metathesis. At entry drgthl ( Job 2:8; p. 59), Menaem
himself states that this word has no counterpart in the Bible (ya
hrwtb wymd wz hlml), i.e. it is a hapax (so also Gross, 1872, p. 49,
n. 1), for which reason he determines its sense from its context
(hnyyn[ ypk hnwrtpw). In this instance, of all such, the masked expres-
sion of comparison w[mmk would surely have been expected! Likewise,
at wrb[ ( Joel 1:17), about which Menaem states yyn[h ypl wnwrtp:
its signication is determined from the general context and not
from the obvious comparison with Arabic. The same applies to lg
(p. 56/106*) and many further instances. In contrast to this, at entry
words of frequent appearance at which prima facie no comparison with
280 chapter ten
Arabic would seem necessary for ascertaining the sense, such as the
word hkb, the designation w[mmk is indeed encountered.
Generally speaking, a correlation is noticeable between the intra-
Hebrew language theory of the Hebrew grammarians and their the-
ory of language comparison (Tn 1983, 68). Tn applied this
supposed correlation to their principle of letter substitutions as well
(ibid. 7). It would seem fair to proceed further and assume that the
aforementioned correlation is applicable to the various facets of the
theory of letter switches. The conclusion reached by Tn, (ibid.,
p. 273) might be tenable as a negative proposition, toonamely, that
a rule which is not an integral element of the one-dimensional lan-
guage study practised by the Hebrew grammarians cannot be assumed
to be in eect in their interlingual multi-dimensional area of inves-
tigation. Menaem took an extremely moderate stand on this point:
he restricted letter substitution to the group y''wha and no more. The
resulting conclusion is: Heb./Arab. comparisons built upon any other
letter switches3 (such as j/'k) cannot be attributed to Menaem. The
Hebrew grammarians and later scholars who resorted to compari-
son of Hebrew with Arabic failed to take note of the fact that the
tag w[mmk is to be found at a good many entries that yield Arabic
cognate translation synonyms but necessitate the assumption of a
Heb./Arab. letter switch. For instance, w[mmk bhz (p. 78/151*) nec-
essarily implies the switch z/'d whereas according to those manu-
scripts in which w[mmk is usede.g. ryxj (p. 93/186*)if the literal
meaning is meant to relate to r'x'ka, then two switches would be
necessitated: j/'k and x/'x (perhaps semantic exibility as well). Also
in the case of wgrjyw (p. 94), if the implied comparison is with 'gr'k,
two letter switches would necessarily be involvedi.e. j/'k and g/'g
(as well as a metathesis, following his denition (ibid.) hrwgj wypr
3
See Menaems own words in the maberet at entries tjba (p. 12), bg (p. 50).
On this issue, see also Bacher (1895, p. 85), Yellin (1945, p. 64), Perez (1978, pp.
33447). Thus even the word wmra dened (p. 34) by Menaem by wmla, does
not emanate from the letter switch l/r but simply from the semantic anity of
the two. Note, also, that at entry lzrp (p. 145), no comparison with lzrb is estab-
lished (lzrb itself was omitted at its suitable location in the lexicon, on p. 48). Even
more, Menaem did not show an awareness of the Heb./Aram. switch /t for
which reason, he posited no etymological link between the Heb. and the Aram.
yt-t (pp. 18283) nor between b(y) (p. 169) and bt(y) (p. 184). This conclusion
can be inferred, further, from the need he had to resort to formula Bib. Aram.*/Bib.
Heb./Targ. Aram. in his comparison glt/gl/glt (p. 184).
menaem b. saruq 281
(slackening of the belt). Likewise for n[/amg (p. 135/285*), ax/a'x

(p. 148/314*). By positing that Menaem established comparison
with Arabic only in those few instances for which no substitution is
necessary, the scope of his comparison would be reduced to the point
that its utility was virtually nil, considering that from the context of
comparison would be eliminated all those Arabic words containing
one of the following letters: 't, 'g, 'j, 'd, (i.e. both shin and sin, in
most of the instances) these being a part of those letters bearing
a diacritical point, excepting only such switches as q/k ( qjx/j'x).
Even according to Filipowskis editionwhich in Kaufmanns esti-
mation is replete with this expressionin only 80 instances of the
occurrence of w[mmk can a comparison with a cognate Arabic trans-
lation synonym be posited, and of these 80 in only 37 of them, can
a comparison be maintained without letter switches;4 moreover, most
of the cases are of such frequent occurrence that their meaning is
well-known and thus necessitate no comparison with Arabic. In fact,
when one takes as text version the critical edition issued by A. Senz-
Badillos the total is reduced to 30.5 It can therefore be concluded
that w[mmk does not imply comparison with Arabic.
Bacher (1895), Rabinovitsch, p. 74, n. 1, and Gross (1872, p. 65,
n. 5) see their conclusion that w[mmk refers to Arabic cognate com-
parison as corroborated by Rashis remark on hqwl[l (Prov. 30:15).
This assumed corroboration can be refuted by postulating that Rashi,
in the above comment, very likely reects Dunashs construing of
w[mmk and not Menaems own opinion on the matter.6
What, then, is the true sense of this expression?
4
At entries: [bxa, [bra, zra, lxb, rwb, yrb, twlwtb, tyb, wrd, wtmhzw, tpz, dy, wy, dbk,
blk, mk, rpk, rk, hnbl, dly, lyl, wlyly, ham, rhm, hjm, lm, twm, hlbn, rmn,
y[m, hrq[, lwp, lytp, hpxpx, sr, tqprtm, bwfr.
5
An examination of the maberet in A. Senz-Badillos ed. shows that in seven
of the entries enumerated in the previous noterwb, twlwtb, wrd, wtmhzw, wlyly, lwp,
tqprtmthe designation w[mmk does not appear.
6
Dunash of course uses w[mmk in the sense of tybr[b w[mmk (according to
the sense in Arabic), and this is not surprising. However, the connotation in its
simple sense, according to the spelling and pronunciation customarily applicable to
the word, without bringing any changes into operation can also occasionally be
found, as, for example, in Retort # 4 against Sa'adiah Ga"on (Schrter, p. 2), in which
he criticizes Sa'adiah for interpreting baK] ( Job 31:18) in the sense of baK.] and
states categorically: w[mmk bak ytlb k wnyaw (it does not mean so but according to
its usual meaning).
282 chapter ten
The disciples (talmidei Menaem, p. 103) provide the following authen-

tic denition for Menaems w[mmk: y[wdyh ylmb [wdy awh rak
(as the word is well-known, as one of the familiar words). This
denition is of a general nature and fails to identify the ner sec-
ondary senses that are sometimes contained within expression:
w[mmk = the most common meaning (out of the various meanings)
of the word under discussion
For example, at entry ra (p. 36/64*), Menaem enumerates sev-
eral senses: as a relative word, in the sense of one of the three par-
ticles yk, a, [ml the latter two comprise only a small minority of
all the instances, whereas the rst sense, for which he assigns w[mmk,
is the main sense of ra.
w[mmk = the basic or simple sense (in contrast to the meta-
phorical sense)7
For example, at entry bhz (p. 78/151*), he states that bhz (Zach.
4:2): w[mmk bhz wnnyaw rwhfw jxw z wnwrtp. In other words, w[mmk bhz
denotes the regular sense, i.e. the metal entity called bhz, whereas
the metaphorical sense of bhz is rwhfw z (i.e. rened/clean and pure).
This connotation of w[mmk is evident, further, from Menaems
remarks on wyAytbng (Gen. 31:39; p. 57) and kj-bl (Eccles. 10:2),
in contrast with ymy bblb ( Jon. 2:4).
w[mmk = the meaning salient from the context
Bacher (1884, p. 70) mentions entries at whose lexicon locations the
term w[mmk is used, whereas in the excursus at entry blg (p. 56/106*)
on the topic of unique words, the same entries are classied under
the category dened as follows: hwjmb tzyja alwlw hyl[ hrwy nyyn[
.nwrtp [dwn al yyn[m tyyltw. (words whose subject matter delim-
its their sense, and were it not for their being embodied in a con-
text and governed by a dened topic, it would be impossible to
determine their meaning).8
7
Incidentally, R. Hai Ga"on in his Kitb al-wi (Abramson, 1977, p. 110) uses
the term [wmsm (in the simple sense) in contrast with ra[tsm (in the metaphorical
sense) as follows: ra[tsmla mw y[wmsm yan[mlaw lw'kdla [ laqyw y'gmla [ laqy
ab Abramson (p. 114) rendered: hlahh mw y[mn, whereas a more precise ren-
dering would be hlahkw fwpk.
8
Note that this very expression implies that Menaem did not engage comparison
menaem b. saruq 283
10.1.1 Concerning the isolated explicit comparison rpa/rpgm

At entry rpab (1 Kings 20:38) (ed. Filipowski, p. 31), it is stated:
. . . la ybr[ wlbw The editor remarks (ibid.): ybr[h h rman alw
hzl hmwdk wa [qrbla awh ylwaw awh hm (the Arabic noun intended,
is not specied: perhaps [qrbla or some similar word was intended).
Pinsker (p. 173) suggests the reconstruction rpgmla, probably on the
basis of what Ibn Quraish adopted for comparison in his Risla.
Perez (1978, p. 422), also, maintains that this is the noun to be
reconstructed; although he doubts the likelihood that this compari-
son was penned by Menaem himself, he does not utterly rule it
out. Becker (1984, p. 321 in n. to entry C1, p. 516) is of the same
opinion but Kaufmann (1887, p. 298) had long before remarked that
this comparison is nothing but a secondary gloss that penetrated
into the Hamburg Codex and of which no trace at all appears in
the Bern MS.9
Further proof that no comparison with Arabic exists in the maberet,
that if so explicit a comparison had been set down by Menaem, it
would hardly have failed to elicit some reaction from Dunash and
his disciple!10
10.2 Hebrew/Aramaic comparison as recorded by Menaem
Menaem practises comparison with Aramaic only:11 moreover, in

this context his comparisons are, in the main, inevitable comparisons
(pertaining to formula Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram., above, 3.6.1). However,
with Arabic to determine the meaning; for he states outright that out of context, the
sense could not be established. Prima facie, there remains also the option of compari-
son with cognate languages, but with such an approach he is clearly unconcerned.
9
In the Senz-Badillos ed., this text version is attested in only 3 MSS of the
maberet, whereas in the majority of the witnesses the comparison is unattested.
10
Dotan (1993, p. 52, n. 14; 1997, p. 106, n. 4), upon reading the rst version
of the present study, wrote that my excluding any kind of comparison with Arabic
from the content of w[mmk was not convincing. However, Dotan did not adduce
any new evidence to support his claim nor did he attempt refute any of my argu-
ments. This calls to mind Bachers reply rejecting Kaufmanns claim. I believe that
the new evidence supplied here leaves no doubt that w[mmk was never meant in
Menaems maberet to be an allusion to Arabic.
11
Yellin (1945, p. 105) held that Menaem disapproved of comparison, even com-
parison with Aramaic, whereas according to Wechter (1957, p. 382), Menaem pledged
(so to speak) in his discussion at entry jba (p. 12) that he would refrain from com-
parisons with Aramaic but did not fulll his word.
284 chapter ten
there exists a group of noticeable size, of deliberate comparisons

(above, 3.6.2). Menaems comparisons are subject to his grammat-
ical approach to the notion of the Hebrew root, as discussed by him
in the maberet, (pp. 39, 43), i.e. that there exist radices possessing
less than three letters (= the theory current in Hebrew grammar,
before the time of ayyj; see Tn (1972), p. 1369, 2.7.2) This
theory maintains that comparison is permissible on the condition
that the radical letters be identical in the two compared languages
and with no switches, excepting the interchanges of y''wha. Only in
one instance does Menaem compare by the use of metathesis, i.e.
lb/bl (p. 45). Nonetheless the stringent reservations for comparison
that he set did not prevent him from being systematic in his com-
parison practice, as he states, at entry twf (Dan. 6:19): tyrb[ wlb
wyd taz hlml ya. (This word possesses no counterpart lit: com-
parable entity in the Hebrew language).
10.2.1 A listing of the Heb./Aram. comparisons in the maberet of Menaem
10.2.1.1 Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. inevitable but explicit comparisons

12
.(21) dyja/twdyj (80) yqz/qz ,(29) yhwpna/ypa ,(15) g ga
10.2.1.2 Inevitable Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. comparisons with zero term
,(25) yhla/yhla ,(25) anlya/ylya ,(86) dj/dja ,(19) aynzam/ynzam
ya ,(29) rysa/rsa ,(28) sna/sna ,(26) hma/twma-yma ,(24) la/(h)la
rb/rb ,(47) rqb/rqb ,(46) yab/y[b ,(45) lfb/lfb ,(35) aya-yhwa/hytwya
,(54) hwg/hwn ,(53) ddg/ddwgth ,(51) abg/ybg ,(48) arb/rb ,(47 ,son)
,(61) trbd/trbd-rbd ,(58) g/g, (55) llg/llg ,(59) aryg/ryg ,(54) yrzg/rzg
hwh/hyh-hwh ,(68) ah/ah ,(67) qqd/qqd ,(67) rz/rwz ,(67) whrdm/rwd
rmz/rmz ,(79) mz/mz ,(80) [wz/[wz ,(73) rhrh/hrh ,(72) wmh/h ,(70)
,(87) wfyjy/fwj ,(21) dyja/hdyj ,(86 21 ,tell) ywj/hwj ,(84) lbj/lbj ,(79)
13
yfj/yfnj ,(91) armj/rmj ,(89) lj/lj ,(87) hwyj/hyj ,(87) hyj/hyj
12
The reference here is to Filipowskis ed. However, one can easily nd the
counterparts in Senz-Badillos edition.
13
Filipowski (1854) did not record any Bible reference to yfj, and it is feasible
that he believed Menaem had in mind the intra-Aramaic interchange yfj/yfnj
But in fact the form yfj, without nun, is unattested in biblical Aramaic, whereas
when Menaem compares with post-biblical Aramaic, he makes this explicit by a
term or by an express location reference. For this reason, it is most probable that
the comparison intended is with the Hebrew yfj and that the biblical reference is
thus to be drawn on, i.e. Ezek. 4:9.
menaem b. saruq 285
,(98) llfa/llf ,(96) lj/lj ,(94) rjta/rj ,(92) sj/sj ,(91)

hlbrk/lbrk ,(110) rwk/rk ,(68) bhy/bhy ,(99) drf/ drf ,(99) [f/[f
,(117 ,destruction) jlm/jlm ,(116) ajmta/ajm ,(111) ltk/ltk ,(110)
,(66) ddn/hndn ,(118) ynm/hnm ,(118) anm/hnm ,(117 ,advise) lm/lmn
/rtn ,(182) an/an ,(149) lxn/lxn ,(80) qzn/qzn ,(122) ryhn ,ryhn/hrhn
/rps ,(ibid.) jsn/hjs ,(ibid.) rgs/rgs ,(ibid.) gs/gs ,(125) dgs/dgs ,(38) rtn
,(135) yp[/ap[ ,(133) ll[/ll[ ,(132) f[y/hf[ ,(131) hd[/hd[ ,(188) rps
br[ta/br[th ,(ibid. ,enemy) r[/r[ ,(137) rq[ta/rq[ ,(136) byx[/bx[
hwjp/hhp ,(144) qpn/qwp ,(139) ty[/t[ ,(ibid.) dr[/dwr[ ,(138)
,(146) rp/rp ,(143) sp/hsp ,(142) glp/glp ,(143) p/hmyp ,(141)
,(ibid.) dx/dx ,(148) abx/ybx ,(ibid.) gtp/gtp ,(147) htp/hpy-htpt
,(ibid.) wq/wq ,(155) lq/lwq ,(ibid.) lbql/twlybqm ,(153) lbq/lbq
,(161) hbbr/hbbr ,(160) fq/fq ,(ibid.) rq/rq ,(159) brq/brq
sprth ,(ibid.) [[r/[[r ,(165) wy[r/wy[r ,(164) ymr/hmr ,(162) grh/gr
q/qw ,(171) yw/hw ,(170) hlg/lg ,(169) byb/byb ,(ibid.) spr
rp/rp ,(176) m/ytm ,(174) wl/hl ,(181) rw//ry ,(179)
.(185) qt/qt ,(36 ,182) yr/r ,(181) tyqwrm/ qr ,(179)
10.2.1.3 Comparisons on formula Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.

/rwj ,(61) rbd/ghn/rbd ,(58) hpwgm/dymx/ygh ,(22) wfa/rtym/wfa
skn/fj/ask ,(100) rf/hl[/rf ,(149) llf/lx/llf ,(86) rwj/bl
/rzn ,(121) bygn/brj/bgn ,(109) pk/b[r/pk ,(108) apyk/[ls/k ,(107)
qr[/swn/qr[ ,(131) d[/ll/d[ ,(125) dhs/jdy/rh-ths ,(81) dwz/rws
,(ibid.) jp/s/jp ,(146) qrp/[y/qrp ,(190) djp/a/djp ,(139)
,(157) h[yxq/hdq/h[yxq ,(151) arpx/rqb/rpx ,(149) jlx/[qb/tlx
/ trm , ( 1 8 0 ) ry / zn / twr , ( 1 7 7 ) y[ta / rps / h[ - h[th
.(121) bat/by/bat ,(181) tyrsm/tbjm
10.2.1.4 Bib. Heb./(Bib. Heb.)/Targ. Aram.

/wdxn ,(143) qwnpt/d[m/qnp ,(141) djp/a/djp ,(79) yz/ylt/twnz-za
.(148) aydx/wht
10.2.1.5 Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./(Targ. Aram.)

.(161) ([br)/br/[br
10.2.1.6 Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.

,(54) wg/wt/(a)wg/wg ,(19) lza/lh/lza/lza ,(11) ba/yrp/hybna/ba
qls/hl[/qls/qls ,(93) rwj/bl/rwj/rwj ,(59) rg/x[/rg/rg
.(155) lfq/grh/lfq/lfq ,(188 ,128)
286 chapter ten
10.2.1.7 Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.

14
(179) qps/qp
10.2.1.8 Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. by metathesis

.(45) bl/lb
10.2.1.9 Rab. Heb./Bib. Aram.

.rq[/rq[
Non-Cognate Heb./Aram. translation synonyms in Maberet Menaem
10.2.1.10 Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram.

.(97) anyf/fyf ,(89) awk/wlj.
10.2.1.11 Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.

.(98) dgym/ywjfm ,(83) rx[/rwz ,(82) alqt/arz-rwzm ,(23) apqwt/tya
10.2.1.12 Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb.

(146) gtp/grp ,(23) y/ytya ,(15) za/yda
10.2.1.13 Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.

/rb ,(34) [ra/ra/ty[ra-[ra ,(23) yxrwq lka/lykr lh/yxrq lka
/ [wrza / [rda ,(64) rkd / rkz / rkd ,(64) yd / ra / yd ,(48) rb / a
,(92) sj/srh/sj ,(86) ydj/hzj/ydj ,(80) hnz/ym/hnz ,(17) [rda/
/hl[/qls ,(109) tpk/lmg tpk ,(99) arpwf/rwpx/rpf ,(97) ywf/ylx/twf
fyq/yq/fyq ,(108) [k/ht[/[k ,(171) (bzy)/lyxh/bzy ,(188) qls
.(184) glt/gl/glt ,(170) qb/jls ,bz[/qb ,(154)
The comparisons in the latter two groups, according to Menaems

conception, are not of etymological nature, (a) as is evident from his
attitude to the issue of letter interchanges (above, 10.1) and (b) as is
salient from the very formula represented in the last category (above,
3.6.7).
14
But the statement made by Menaem on h (p. 72) is not a Heb./Aram.
comparison with a but a simple denition, this being clear, since the comparison
would necessitate the switch m/n that is unacceptable. It goes without saying that
the remark subjoined by Filipowski, in entry rd (p. 171) in the name of Meturgeman,
i.e. ''yrl 'lh wlyjb twldth wl does not match Menaems system and thus
there was no reason in adducing it.
menaem b. saruq 287
10.3 The nomenclature for the languages and the comparison terminology
Zero term is the designation employed in Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram.

inevitable comparisons, in a comparison by metathesis (lb/bl) and
in the Rab. Heb./Bib. Aram. comparison (rq[/rq[).
In the remaining comparisons of formulae Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram.
and Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram., the comparison term is
tymra wlb. This term recurs in 38 comparisons; in two of these
the phrasing is ymra wlb (d[, rhs), in one awh tymraw (qnp), and
in one other, wrps tymra yl[bw (ba). In contiguity with the term wlb
tymra, the comparison word wmk or whwmk (preceding or following it)
is generally appended, with, in some cases the addition of the exis-
tential expressions y or axmn, as tymra wlb whwmk axmnw (and there
exists likewise, in the Aramaic language) (za, p. 79); in one instance
the phrasing tymra wlb wnwymdw appears (djp, p. 141).
In several comparisons the Targum componenti.e. Bib. Heb./Targ.
Aram., within the formula Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.is
phrased in a generic way (i.e. as a generalization/rule,) e.g. lkw
rwj tymra wlb bl (p. 86) and likewise at entries, rf, pk, d[,
qr[ rpx, h[tn, h[br.
In cognate translation synonym comparisons, Menaem just once
uses a term from the root grt: yhwpab a yk grwtm wnya wypa lkw
(p. 29).
In non-cognate translation synonym comparisons (formulae Bib.
Heb./Targ. Aram. and Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.) the term
most commonly used (i.e. 16 times) is tymra wlb, whereas in only
four instances does a term from grt appear: wmwgrtw (rzn, p. 83),
grwtm (m; ywjfm, p. 98), wgrtb (fyq, p. 154), nymgrtm (yxrq lka,
p. 23).
In three instances the phrase swlqnwa rtp occurs: entries, ywjfm
tya, rwzm.
In two cases, zero term + wmk: za wmk yda (p. 15), likewise at
grp (p. 146); in three cases the term is wl: y wl ytya (p. 23),
also wlj (p. 89), fyf (p. 97).
To sum up: Menaems comparative terminology matches well his
lexicographical method in general; just as his denitions are laconic
and his lexicographical terminology uniform, so, likewise, are his
comparison terms.
288 chapter ten
10.4 Comparisons recorded by Menaems disciples
10.4.1 Heb./Bib. Aram./Targ. Aram.

.(Stern 1870, p. 65) ysysn/yp[wz = snb
.(ibid. 6162) rqby/atryqb/trqb-arqbl/rqbl
.(ibid. 96) rgp/srh = rgp ,(ibid. 73) jskt/rmzt = yjwsk
10.4.2 Bib.Heb. Arab.

.(62) jzn=jzy ,(ibid. 96) lk=twplk ,(ibid. 99) na/na
10.4.3 Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (non-cognate translation synonyms)

.(ibid. 100) atdx/yjwj
/qt[yw ,(ibid. 73) (a)myw/hn[y ,(ibid. 77) ryjb rmya/wla bk
.(76) ytwbat/ytqwt ,(ibid. 91) ynktaw/q[xyw ,(33) qyltsaw
10.4.4 Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram./Bib. Heb.

.(ibid. 75) wsmh/wrbta/wgmn
10.5 Comparative terms
layzw[ b tnwhy rtpw (rqb); laynd rpsb wnaxmw (ibid.)
In non-cognate translation synonym comparisons, of formula Bib.

Heb./Targ. Aram.: yswy layzw[ b tnwyw (hn[w), layzw[ b rtp kw (wla bk)
wgrt kw wrmwab mwa yswy layzw[ bw (yjwwj), wrmab wrtpl qwt dw[
tnwy rtp kw (q[xyw), swlqnwa grtm (wgmn), layzw[ b tnwy rpw (ibid.),
.sylqnwa (qt[yw), swlqnwa rtp kw (tqwt),
CHAPTER ELEVEN
DUNASH BEN LABRAT
Dunash b. Labrat did not compile any work specically on language

comparison. Nor did he write any systematic grammar book or lex-
icon. His generic productions, i.e. the retorts on R. Sa'adiah Ga"on
(attributed to Dunash) as well as the retorts against Menaem are of a
polemical nature. In these works, he does no more than record his
rejoinders on various issues of a grammatical or exegetical nature,
raised in the works of other Hebrew grammarians. His retorts (along-
side various issues) have a bearing on the comparative philology of
Heb./Aram./Arab. Certain retorts relate to some specic compari-
son by either his mentor Sa'adiah Ga"on or his rival Menaem b.
Saruq. In some cases he rejects the comparison, whereas in others,
in lieu of the sense proposed by them (Sa'adiah and/or Menaem),
he suggests a sense for the word founded on comparison with Arabic
or with Aramaic. For example, he utterly rejects Sa'adiahs com-
parison rymah/ryma (a[) (Schrter, p. 16, retort 50). Elsewhere,
(ibid., p. 15, retort 45), he proposes the comparison z[l/z[l, in dis-
agreement with Sa'adiahs exegesis for the Bib. Heb. z[l. There are,
however, some retorts that discuss the fundamental aspects of lan-
guage comparison. These materials have been dwelled on above (2.1;
2.2; 2.4, 5; 5.1.3). This chapter deals with the remaining compari-
son topics pertaining to Dunash, to the extent that this is possible
via what is embedded in those retorts.
Here a certain change in the usual sequence of discussion has
been made, comparisons with Arabic coming rst on account of a
certain methodological problem observed therein. Only after a well-
founded list of his comparisons has been established will it be pos-
sible to draw conclusions on Dunashs method vis--vis this issue.
11.1 Comparisons with Arabic
Dunash sets up 181 comparisons with Arabic (as well as two further
citations of comparisons by other grammarians that he adduces, only
290 chapter eleven
to reject them. Fourteen comparisons are sparsely scattered among

various retorts, whereas 167 (all the others) are recorded together in
a special collative list, included in entry yn[fm (Senz-Badillos, pp. 88.).
For three comparisons, and for these three alone, Dunash spells
out the Arabic cognate with which he compares the Bib. Heb.;
they are ryma, z[l, jmq (see below, list of comparisons). In all the
rest he found it sucient to record a general formulation, such as
tybr[b w[mmk (like its plain sense in Arabic), without expressly
opining which Arabic cognate should be established as counterpart
to the Bib. Heb. word under discussion. Gross (1872, pp. 10512)
lled in (reconstructed, as it were) the appropriate cognate trans-
lation synonyms for the items in the above-mentioned concentrated
list but failed to state in each case whether he had based his recon-
structions on some specic authority or text source, or had lled
them out by merely using his own discretion. The majority of his
proposed reconstructions seem plausible; only in the case of a few
of his postulated tr. syns, can one cast doubt on the validity of his
determination. For instance, for the entry z[l (Ps. 114:1), Gross
(p. 108) settled on the Arabic cognate zglwhich, according to the
Latin rendering (ibid.), has the sense of unclear, meaningless mat-
ters); however, Dunash himself had stated expressly (Schrter, p. 15,
retort 45) that the Arabic cognate translation synonym for z[l is z[l,
(in the sense of an, commit adultery), and had Gross done his
homework properly, he would have been aware of the comparison
actually intended by Dunash. Some other judgments of Gross are
indeed questionable. Two methodological errors are apparent in his
treatment of the comparison hdn/'kd, there are: (a) he attributes
to Dunash the Heb./Arab. interchange h/'k, which has no corrob-
oration; (b) he overlooks hd, an absolutely equivalent cognate current
in the comparative philology of Dunashs contemporaries (see below,
ch. 16).
Gross likewise postulates the cognate translation synonym k to
counterpart cj (Isa. 52:10); and in fact Ibn Barn (about 200 years
after Dunash) adopted this very comparison in his Kitb al-Muwzana
(p. 55). But Ibn Barns comparisons should not be applied to ascer-
tain Dunashs meaning. It is quite possible that Dunash had in mind
the Arabic cognate s'k (or even z'k) (= tear linen material; in
this context: lb) or sjt (= peel, in a metaphorical sense). The
comparison of twplyk with balk is also far-fetched. More likely, would
be the comparison with lk or wlk. Further, the comparison p
dunash ben labrat 291
(Num. 35:33)/ps is preferable to the comparison with jps postu-

lated by Gross. For a comparison with lk (Isa. 40:12), he would
have done better to postulate lak, rather than lk. In attributing to
Dunash the comparison ksy (Eccles. 10:9)/'g, Gross went to an
extreme. Such an assumption is extremely improbable, for three rea-
sons: (a) the meaning inherent in that cognate (i.e. becoming sad)
does not suit the context; (b) the interchange k/'g is not to be found
in any other of Dunashss comparisons; (c) he assigns to Dunash a
comparison involving two switches within one word, i.e. s/ and
k/'g. It is more probable that Dunash simply had in mind the trans-
lation synonym encountered in the works of Alfsi and other gram-
mariansnamely, the comparison ksy/'ks. Certain other comparisons
posited by Gross, feasible as they may be, each appear to be only
one of two or more possible comparisons. Instead of [nky (Lev.
26:41)/[nk, rpk (Deut. 21:8)/rpk, wsmyw ( Judg. 15:14)/m, [z (Num.
23:8)/[z, lx (Ps. 39:7)/nx, lx one might postulate, the follow-
ing alternatives respectively, taking as basis the comparisons estab-
lished by Dunashs contemporaries: [nky/[n'ky, rpk/rpg, sm/ysamt
[z/gz, lx/al'f.1 The last two alternative comparisons involve the
assumption of a dierent sense for the entry word under discussion.
The rest of Grosss proposed comparisons are reasonable; counter-
parts for them can be located in the records of the contemporary
Hebrew grammarians. In what follows are presented only those com-
parisons with Arabic that Dunash adopted here and there in his
retorts, they are comparisons that were omitted by Gross from his
listing.
ryma/rymah-ryma (Schrter 50),2 ba/na (Senz-Badillos 24),
ylb/hlb (ibid. 29), (dbz)/dbz (Schrter 21), fnj/wfnjyw (Senz-Badillos
86), ymy/ymy (oath; Schrter 12, #37), (lk)/twplk (Senz-Badillos
56), z[l/z[l (Schrter 45), (yn)/an (Senz-Badillos 36), (rm)/jrm (ibid.
1
In several of the comparisons proposed by Gross there are some technical
errors. In the case of three comparisons r (1 Sam. 12:3)/r, a[ ( Jer. 50:6)/
ax, yaxax (Isa. 48:19)/axaxthe diacritical mark of the letter 'x has apparently
been dropped. At comparison htmxp (Ps. 60:4) the word adduced should probably
be xp not sp; also, instead of ta'k, one should probably read l(a)j at com-
parison for wlj (Gen. 41:15).
2
The interpretation attributed by Dunash to Sa'adiah Ga"onnamely, ryma rtpw
(Isa. 17:6) w[mmk is not compatible with the text in Sa'adiahs Tafsr as we have
it, in which the rendering is xg. See Alloni, HaEgron, p. 195, comments to ryma.
292 chapter eleven
98), (qrm)/qrwk (ibid.), (jjz ,jzn)/twy (ibid. 82), (ykam)/ksm (ibid. 100),
(qr[)/qrw[ (ibid. 106), (jp/jp) (ibid. 53), jmq jmq (ibid. 113).
Of the comparisons in the above list, ninedbz, twplk, z[l, jrm,
qrm, an, qrw[, jpare reiterated in the excursus (yn[fm, Senz-
Badillos, pp. 88.). Tworyma, jmqare recorded only to be rejected.
Five comparisons are new (do not appear in the excursus): na,
hlb, wfnjyw, ymy, ksm.
11.2 Letter interchanges
The theory of Heb./Arab. letter substitution held by Dunash can

be derived from his express statements at the opening of the excur-
sus and further from the various comparisons that one can be sure
are his (namely, those for which there exists only one possible cognate
translation synonym). However, the interchanges postulated by Gross
as his own reconstructions for Dunashs comparisons have been excluded
here, because they have no corroboration. For example, the switch
h (Heb.)/'k (Arab.) cannot be identied in even a single comparison
or unambiguous proposition recorded by Dunash. Furthermore, this
interchange is attested by not even a single philologist in the period under
discussion. Despite this, Gross assigns it to Dunash, although indi-
rectly, by postulating the reconstruction of the Arabic cognate 'kd
as a counterpart to hdn. Moreover, the Heb./Arab. interchanges
j/k, k/j, k/'g, ensue merely from those comparisons, i.e. j/k,
p/jps, ksy/'g attributed to Dunash by Gross: these pseudo-com-
parisons of Dunash indeed have already been ruled out, above.
The interchanges noted specically by Dunash are as follows: z/'d,
j/'k, s/, [/g, /'t (yn[fm, Senz-Badillos, p. 88): the j/'k switch is
reiterated at entry jwm (Senz-Badillos, p. 98) and its application is
demonstrated in the list of Heb./Arab. words. The remaining inter-
changes ensue from the comparisons as such; they are as follows):
'g/g (in comparisons pg, rg rdg, dg, lbg, zg, ryg and many more)
'd/d (in comparison dymlt)
x/s (in comparison qps)
b/p (in comparison r'db/rzp)
'x/x (in comparison br)
'f/x (in comparison amx, rhx)
s/ (in comparison jl, yb, tn, jq, rp, yfp etc.)
Bib. Heb./Arab. comparisons necessitating two interchanges are found

in two instances only, i.e. rg (g/'g + c/) and rzp (b/p + 'd/z).
Dunash made no specic mention of letter interchanges between
Hebrew and Aramaic, nor were any such interchanges embodied in
his comparisons.3
11.3 Hebrew/Aramaic comparisons
In this sub-section are incorporated also the comparisons rejected by

Dunash, to point up the polemical character of his retorts.
11.3.1 Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram.

mz/mz ,(83) rwdm, yryyd/yrwd ,(51 Schter) aywa/yya ,wathw
ybrsm ybrs (35 ibid.) m/m ,(47 ibid.), ajm yj ,(21 Senz-Badillos)
hl[/hnn[y ,(ibid. 31) hf[ fy[ ,(ibid. 100), hf[ hfw[m (ibid. 99),
(ibid. 59) arm/ytyr ,(ibid. 58), wp hmyp (ibid. 100)
11.3.2 Bib. Heb.1/Bib. Heb.2/Targ. Aram.
,(32 Senz-Badillos) arygj/jsp/wrgjyw (16 Schrter), rbdy/gjny/rbdy

wgrtyw ,(27 ibid.) tgrj/hmya wgrjyw ,(26 Schrter) ysj/ljl ysj ,(83)
/rmzt/yjwsk ;(96 Senz-Badillos) bkw/qjw/wbk ,(ibid.) arygj/jsp/
yjm/hkm twjml ,(ibid. 56) ylyk/twmwdrq/lyk ,(ibid. 93) jskt
Senz-Badillos) aklm/hx[/lmyw ,(ibid.) aklm/hx[ yklm ,(48 Schrter)
had[/ll/d[ ,(ibid. 23) ysysn/myp[wz/sn(b) ,(ibid.) tsm/ydm/tsm ,(32
,(ibid. 106) qr[/swn/yqrw[j ,(ibid. 104) (l)l[/ab/ytllw[w ,(ibid. 33)
jrw/bhayw/mjra ,(33 ibid.) ytpy/byjry/tpy ,(ibid. 108) argp/srh/wrgp
,(64 ,ibid.) yjsyw/jrw/hja ,(55 Schrter) aw[r/wxr y[r ,(ibid. 32)
hbyat/hby/ytbat ,(116 ,33 Senz-Badillos) tw[y[/tqlj/ y[ml
.(29 Senz-Badillos) atlykm/hdm/lkw ,(96 Schrter)
3
It is worth noting that in the Chart of Letter Equivalences in Hebrew/Arabic, as
recorded by Dunash, the equivalence / is also included, on the basis of the com-
parisons rz/rz and f/f (Gross, 1872, p. 112).
294 chapter eleven
11.3.3 Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb.

yrkz yrkd ,(ibid.) hnqt/anqt ,(59 Senz-Badillos) qt anqt
.(ibid. 60)
11.3.4 Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.

.(ibid.) yhwnzl/wbyml/ynz ,(60 Senz-Badillos) yrkd/ylya/yrkd
11.3.5 Comparison by letter metathesis

Dunash records one solitary instance of comparison established by
metathesis of letters: wgrjyw/arygj (see above Bib. Heb.1/Bib. Heb.2/
Targ. Aram., 11.3.2).
11.4 Grammatical comparisons
In his retorts, Dunash records ve grammatical comparisons between

Hebrew and Aramaic or Arabic. Despite this meager total, these
comparisons are proof that Dunash did not restrict himself to lexi-
cal comparisons but delved also into an analytical comparison of the
structure of these languages. An enumeration of these comparisons
follows:
(a) In both Hebrew and Aramaic, d stands in place of t in the
hitpa''el conjugation when the prim. rad. is a sibilante.g. wtnmdzh
(Dan. 2:9, Qer)/yrhdzm/yqqdzm (Schrter, p. 2, retort 5). With
regard to Arabic, also, he noted that f stands in lieu of t (of the
"ifta'ala form) when the prim. rad. is x.
(b) The ending t : in the words tL;ht ( Jer. 49:25, Qer) and tl;jn
(Ps. 16:6) is a plural morpheme wgrth rd ypl (according to the
way of the Targum), as it is in Aramaic. This comparison was
adduced in the name of Sa'adiah (Schrter, p. 23, retort 89).
(c) In both Hebrew and Arabic, proper names can be declined
with possessive pronoun axes as well as with gentilic yod; this is so also
in the plural form: w[m, nw[m, ynw[m, ynw[m (ibid., p. 29, retort
104).
(d) In retort 47 (Schrter, p. 15) he discusses ym with its equiva-
lent in Arabic.
(e) At the entry ynmjh (Isa. 17:8) he compares the derivation path
of the singular form mj from hmj, with elision of the h with the
parallel derivation of zj from hzj. He seems that the morpheme
is Aramaic (Schrter, p. 56, retort 170).
11.5 The comparative terms
11.5.1 The nomenclature

(5 ,2 Schrter) yrb[ wl :Hebrew
(5 ,2 Schrter) ydk :Aramaic
;26 retort ibid. ) tymra wl ,(96 ,83 ,20 ,16 ,Schrter) ymra wl
.(106 Senz-Badillos,
(20 Schrter) wgrt wl
(21 ;5 Schrter) yrgh wl :Arabic
(21 ;5 Schrter) yla[my wl
.(Senz-Badillos, p. 98) br[h wlb ,(45 ibid.) ybr[ wl
11.5.2 The terminology

.(5 Schrter) yrghh wlb mt k ,ydkh yrb[h wlb
(ibid. 55) (wgrth) m ;(96, 48 ,64 ,27 ,26 ,83 ibid.); wlm wl m
(ibid. 48) (wgrt) awh
(ibid. 16) (ymrah) wll hmdy awh
(ibid. 50 ,37) ((y)la[my) wlb (awh) k(w)
Senz-Bandillos, p. ;45 ,21) (yrgh/ybr[) wl m/-b h[mmk (hbwrtpw)
(106 ,98 ,88 ,86 ,82 ,53 ,36 ,24
It is not surprising that Dunash adopts the term w[mmk (Schrter,

retort 50; Senz-Badillos, pp. 29, 98) to connote comparison with
Arabic (it is encountered also in comparison with Aramaic, see Senz-
Badillos, p. 106), considering that he was convinced this was indeed
the connotation of the expression in its use by Menaem, too (see
above, 10.1).
CHAPTER TWELVE
RABBI JUDAH AYYJ
12.1 Comparisons in the grammatical treatises
The three grammatical treatises of ayyj,1 as well as the extant

portion of his grammatical commentary to the Prophets, namely,
Kitb al-Nutaf (The Book of Plucked Feathers, i.e. selected exegetical
notes)2 contain virtually no treatment of language comparison. Only
one single comparison has been located in the grammatical works
of ayyj3his comparison of the morphological formation of the
words awklhh ( Josh. 10:24) and awba (Isa. 28:12)4 with the 3rd per-
son plural perfect verb form in Arabic, awl[p5. In each, the vocalic
orthographic w is followed by a quiescent a (see Kitb al-Af 'l Dhawt
urf al-Ln, p. 20). In fact, ayyj, citing the other grammarians,
1
See ayyjin the Bibliographical References. For recent systematic analyses of
ayyjs theory see Goldenberg 1980, Basal 1992, Watad 1994. See also Maman
(2000a), pp. 26367.
2
On the name Nutaf see Maman (2000a), note 3. The extant parts of Nutaf
have been published in Harkavy (1895a); Harkavy (1901); Kodowtzow (1916); Allony
1963, 1970, pp. w-a; Abramson, 197879, pp. 203.; Eldar (1979). Basal (2001)
republished all that material, along with new remnants from the ENA and Firkowitch
collections.
3
See Bacher, 1884, p. 5; P.K. Kokowtzow, 1916, p. 64, n. 1; Wechter, 1964,
n. 28.
4
This grammatical comparison is not reiterated in the grammatical comment to
the word awba itself in Kitb al-Nutaf to Isa. 28:12 (Allony, 1970, p. 25; Basal, 2001,
p. 176 and n. 180). There he describes the additional a as a matter of eloquence
of the language (yr[ awl awn ltm hjaxpll hdyaz awba yp, lala hdh Ps.
139:20); but he does not mention awklhh. It cannot be assumed that ayyj with-
drew his original opinion. In such cases the grammarian would be expected to state
expressly his revision regarding grammatical elucidation. It is more probable that
ayyj intended to provide additional datanamely that the Arabic form is primary
( lxa) and that, therefore, linguistic habit or inection in accord with the primary
form is considered a linguistic eloquence (hjaxp). Ibn Janah, however, opposed this
comparison; see Becker 1998, 119.
5
Wechter (1947, p. 384) maintains that ayyj avoided the use of comparison
with Arabic; Wechter himself remarks on the comparison awklhh/awl[p recorded
by ayyj, without oering an explanation of the paradox of a scholar who opposed
comparison with Arabic nonetheless allowing himself to establish this comparison!
rabbi judah ayyj 297
notes two further comparisons in said treatise (ibid., p. 187), both

being grammatical in nature but constituting comparison with
Aramaic. He compares the sux morpheme 3rd person pl. appear-
ing in the word wysim]hi ( Josh. 14:8) with an identical morpheme used
in the Aramaic word wyT]ai (Dan. 5:4) ('gr'km yl[ t'gr'k hmlkla h'dh
wyta l't ynayrsla 'fplla). Likewise, he compares the possessive
pronoun ax in the word yhwlwmgt (Ps. 116:14) with the Aramaic
sux as in yhwdy, yhwl[. It is no wonder that ayyj failed to record
lexical comparisons in his grammatical treatises, for, rather than
dening his entries by lexical denitions, his methodology tends to
dene them grammatically (although within the entries, he arranges
the several forms according to their meanings). As a rule, as Kokowtzow
(1916, p. 72) observed, ayyj restricted his activity to one very
clearly dened area in language science and treated it with virtually
no digressions.
12.2 The comparisons in Kitb al-Nutaf
In Kitb al-Nutaf a commentary to the Bible, too, ayyj centers

solely on grammatical issues and refrains entirely from expansive anno-
tations to the verses (see Abramson, 197879, p. 229; p. 47, 3);
only on rare occasions does he subjoin an Arabic rendition. In one
instance he employs a comparison phraseology: wnrbdn (Mal.
3:13)/hybr[la yp hmlakm (Eldar, 1979, p. 256; Basal, 2001, p. 277).
This comparison relates to a grammatical issue, i.e. that the Heb.
nif 'al and Arab. f'ala possess reciprocal functions. The entry word
renderings into Arabic comprise some cognate tr. syns, as well, as
follows: fja (Isa. 48:9)/ft'ka (Abramson, ibid., p. 227; Basal, ibid.,
p. 185); ygrwm-hrgm (2 Sam. 12:31)/'grawm (Abramson, p. 30; Basal,
ibid., p. 109); tdmxUm (2 Sam. 20:8)/hdm'xm (Kokowtzow 1916 [=
Allony, 1970], p. 193; Basal, ibid., p. 119); jyr ( Jer. 48:11)/hjyar
(Abramson, p. 36, ibid., p. 209; Basal, ibid., p. 203). These are all im-
plicit comparisons. The comparisons hrgm/'grawm and tdmxm/hdm'xm
are uniquely ayyjs own initiative: they are not attested in the records
of any other Hebrew grammarians in the period under investigation
The comparison hrgm/'grawm is established by letter metathesis.6
6
It is possibile that Kitb al-Nutaf to Ezek. 8:6 (Kokowtzow 1916 = Allony 1970,
p. 46) contains an allusion to an additional grammatical comparison Heb./Arab.
298 chapter twelve
The letter interchanges ensuing from the above implicit compar-

isons are as follows: g/'g (hrgm), j/'k (fja), x/'x (hrmxm).
12.3 Nomenclature for the languages and the comparative terminology
In comparisons with Aramaic: (yhwlwmgt/yhwl[); ynayrsla 'fplla 'gr'km yl[

(wysmh/wyta) ynayrsla 'fplla yl[
In comparisons with Arabic: br[la hgl yr'gm l'd yr'gy (awl[pw . . .
awba); hybr[la yp (wnrbdn/hmlakm).
Thus the signicant contribution of ayyj is not to be seen in
the comparisons as he happened to record, for these are very mea-
ger in quantity and of next to no value for scholarship: his impor-
tant contribution is rather in the theory of the Hebrew root established
by him. This theory had direct inuence on language comparison as it
was subsequently practised (see above, 2.5). Kokowtzow (1916, p. 73
and n. 2) even claims that ayyjs theory left its impression, indi-
rectly at least, on the development of modern-day Semitic compar-
ative linguistics.
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
R. JONAH IBN JAN
R. Jonah ibn Jan did not compile any work devoted uniquely to
comparative philology but many comparisons are embedded in his
treatises on grammar and lexicology. (Concerning the comparisons
in the minor works, see below, 13.15.)1 Kitb al-Luma' (= Sefer
HaRiqmah), apart from having been written in the context work of
the Arab grammarians theory (as shown by Becker 1998, see above,
1.2.1), comprises, in the main, grammatical comparisons (which are
outside the scope of the present study),2 whereas Kitb al-"Ul (= Sefer
HaShorashim) is replete with lexical comparisons. The latter are clear
proof that Ibn Jans practice of language comparison was a method-
ical system. Various scholars have discussed certain parts and/or sec-
tors of this comparison system.
Bacher (1884, 1885) issued synopses on Ibn Jans comparisons
with Aramaic and rabbinic Hebrew, as well as on his comparisons
with Arabic. But these surveys did not handle the issue thoroughly
and did not even approach being a complete coverage of the mate-
rials. The quality of the printed editions and/or transcriptions of
MSS on which Bacher based his publications was less than satis-
factory (above, 0.1). Furthermore, ever since the publication of Ibn
Barns Kitb al-Muwzana, there have been always some scholars
who viewed Ibn Jans methodology, as mirrored by Ibn Barns doctrines.
In the present study, an attempt has been made to arrive at a
new evaluation of the comparison methods of Ibn Jan, based on
the entire range of his lexical comparisons as encountered in his sev-
eral works. The better printed editions have been used as source
texts but whenever necessary, the MSS themselves of the four works
i.e. "Ul, Shorashim, Kitb al-Mustalaq and Sefer HaHassagah were
resorted to. The present study aims to present the lexical comparisons
1
On Ibn Jans comparisons in general, see Maman (2000a), pp. 27175.
2
With regard to Ibn Jan, comparative grammar has now been comprehen-
sively treated in Becker 1998.
300 chapter thirteen
exhaustively and to evaluate them with the aid of new scientic tools. Certain
fundamental problems having a bearing on Ibn Jans methodol-
ogy have been discussed in earlier chapters, alongside discussion of
the comparison methods of other scholars (see, for example, 2.1, 2.2,
2.3, 2.5, also ch. 6 in its entirety). Here the treatment is restricted
to those issues that specically characterize the comparisons of Ibn
Jan.
13.1 Ibn Jans comparative philology and the text versions

of the Rouen manuscript
13.1.1 Ibn Jans Lexicon

Ibn Jans Lexicon was transmitted not in a single, recognized
recension but in three distinct recensions: (1) the version represented in
the Oxford Codex of Kitb al-"Ul (broadly speaking, the body text
appearing in Neubauers edition); (2) the version of MS Rouen, its
distinctive aspect being the glosses recorded therein (in the appara-
tus of the aforementioned ed. of Neubauer; below, it is referred to
by the mark MS-R); (3) the Hebrew translation penned by R. Judah
ibn Tibbon of the Kitb al-"Ul (i.e. the Bacher edition of Sefer
HaShorashim).
The three recensions are non-equivalent with regard to the total
number of lexical comparisons established by Ibn Jan in his work.3
In some cases, the Oxford MS + MS-R together stand in opposi-
tion to the Shorashim; in others, the Oxford MS + Shorashim dier
jointly from MS-R. The two may have an addition whereas the
onean omission or vice versa. Do we have the means to determine,
in every case, whether a given entry is an original comparison or a
secondary addition? Further, is it possible for us to ascertain the
identity of the redactor who subjoined the additions in the original
version? How this was done and with what aim in mind? An analy-
sis and/or resolution of these problems will enable us to inventor-
ize the original comparisons, those established by Ibn Jan himself,
3
Comparisons that do not appear in the lexicon of Ibn Jan, are not counted
here, though it could theoretically be proven that Ibn Jan endorsed them. Only
the fact that he did not record them in his lexicon is decisive, regardless of whether
or not there is a reason for their omission.
r. jonah ibn jan 301
and to deduce his method from these alone. The problem regarding
comparisons in the Shorashim versus the two other recensions have
been bracketed together with a problem of a more general nature
the matter of what became of language comparison in those trea-
tises that underwent translation into Hebrew, an issue to which a
detailed discussion has already been devoted (above, ch. 6). In the
present chapter the aspect of the question that relates to the text
variants appearing in MS-R is discussed.
In the MS catalogued under n 5 in the Rouen Municipal Library
and comprising Kitb al-"Ul,4 glosses and annotations appear as
additions between the lines of the main text of the MS and in the
margins. These annotations are absent from the Oxford MS, which
served as basis for the main text of Neubauers edition (1875), these
being incorporated in the note apparatus of that edition. The edi-
tor, however, failed to treat them thoroughly in his introduction. Nor
did he relate to the complex dilemma (a) whether or not the addi-
tions/annotations are an integral part of the original work and (b)
who had penned these notes, the original author or a subsequent
reader/student. Bacher claims, in his preface to Shorashim (p. 40) that
there are some additions that R. Jonah himself had subjoined to
his Book, when the latter had already been publicly distributed: these
additions are in MS-R.5 The fact that R. Judah ibn Tibbons trans-
lation fails to include any of the MS-R gloss annotations, not even
one of them (!), was rationalized by Bacher, in his argument: R.
Judah b. Tibbon copied Sefer HaShorashim from the First Edition of
his work, for which reason the additions included in MS-R are miss-
ing from the translation (= Shorashim)6 (ibid., p. 41). This argument
has no foundation, as will be shortly demonstrated.7 Poznanski (1916,
p. 468, entry hgn) treats the comparative materials in the MS-R
4
A photographic reproduction of this MS, in microlm and photostat, is housed
in the Institute for Microlmed Hebrew MSS, the Jerusalem National and University
Library. Its catalogue numbers are F6652, F7336 and P881884. For a good descrip-
tion of the MS, see Neubauers introduction to his Kitb al-"Ul pp. 68.
5
.awr yk awhw ynah ydyb wrps hyh ra yrja hnwy r rbjmh synkh ra twpswh y
6
wtqt[hm wrd[n kl ,yrh rps ta qyt[h hnwarh arwdhmhm wbyt b yr
(MS-R =) r[b waxmn ra twpswhh.
7
Ibn Jan did revise his book but did not make any changes once it was
released to the public. This can be learned from his remark in entry f, where he
explains that the reason he does not correct a mistake that occurred in the rst
editioni.e. he does not move tpff to root fis that the book has been already
spread in the cities.
glosses as the authentic composition of R. Jonah, and in this approach

he apparently follows Bacher. Allony (1944, pp. 198201) inspected
these MS-R glosses from the standpoint of their relevance to Ibn
Jans treatises in general and with special reference to the Bible
translation: Allony located in them some express citations from R. Abraham
ibn Ezra (ibid., p. 201). He entirely ignored the Bachers determina-
tion and he was unequivocal about the conclusions that can be tac-
itly drawn from his discovery of the Ibn Ezra quotations, i.e. that
the glosses cannot have been penned by Ibn Jan but must have
been the work of some glossarist who ourished after the time of
R. Abraham ibn Ezra.
The MS-R glosses deserve a more exhaustive study that investi-
gates all the annotations (and not merely a part of them, as was done
above) and discusses all their aspects. In the present study, only about
300 of the annotations have been treated, i.e. those possessing some
aspect of language comparison. They are scrutinized from the view-
point of the present research project and an attempt is made to put
forward a solution to the fundamental problem as delineated earlier.
13.1.2 wr[m/MS-R
The lexicographical method of Ibn Jan is selective in the denitions
given for entry words. An entry word that is so well-known that it
requires no denition, is not provided with any denition, and on
occasion he notes alongside such a word, wr[m ([well] known).
One unambiguous conclusion ensuing from Ibn Jans system of
language comparison is that the fundamental aim of the compar-
isons is to aord support for the given denition of the entry word,
i.e. to determine it precisely or to corroborate it. For this reason it
is not surprising that the entries marked with wr[m contain no lan-
guage comparison, either in the Oxford recension of the "Ul or in
Ibn Tibbons translation (Shorashim). The argument, clearly, is: if the
entry is not in need of denition, to what purpose might language
comparison be employed? In MS-R, many cognate translation syn-
onyms have been subjoined to entry words, even in cases where the
original entries lack denition and are simply marked wr[m or are
even devoid of this mark.8 The subjoining of this cognate serves as
8
In entry qqd (163/112) Ibn Jan broaden the denition to wr[m han[m
a ller for the missing denition as well as for language comparison,

almost invariably only Heb./Arab. comparison. Comparisons with
Aramaic in MS-R are indeed few and far between. As they stand,
the subjoined denitions, with the comparisons they embody, almost
never stand in contradiction to the sense assigned by Ibn Jan with
his expression wr[m, especially in those instances in which the entry
word possesses only one sense or to which only one potential Arabic
deniens can be assigned (e.g. fb/fb; lmg/lmg etc.). However, the
juxtaposition of wr[m and the denition/comparison as subjoined is
contradictory: whichever way one interprets it, an illogicality remains: (a)
if Ibn Jan retracted his basic assumption that a certain given entry
word is wr[m and he now sets out to correct (ll in) what was pre-
viously lacking, we would expect him to delete the wr[m; and (b) if
he did not revise his judgment, the additum has no place. It is prob-
able that the additum was penned by a glossarist, who stepped short
of taking the liberty to delete Ibn Jans initial denition, i.e.
wr[mand yet felt free to gloss at his own discretion.
The list of entries in this category that follows comprises only
those instances in which the deniens glossed in by MS-R is a cog-
nate translation synonym; those cases in which the glossarist appended
a non-cognate translation synonym to the entry word are ignored.
Of special interest in the context of the entries dened by wr[m,9
are those entry words that were initially marked by him wr[m but
for which a rendering of a complete verse containing the entry word
was subsequently recorded a translation that clearly incorporates a
rendering for the entry word itself. (Such a rendering is very often
the upshot of an exegetical discussion or of a syntactical analysis of
(Ibn Tibbon: [wdy wnyyn[w), hence he specically relates to the meaning of the entry
word and not to other aspects that might have relevance to it. See also rk
(p. 332), where he says: rwhm whw wr[m lyawala alk yp. On the use of wr[m
as a denition in medieval Arabic dictionaries see Kopf, p. bs, par. 1j.
9
An entry included in this category is one, dened by Ibn Jan as a partial
denition while leaving the rest categorized as wr[m, whereas MS-R glossed in a
cognate translation synonym n[r tyz ( Jer. 11:15 ,rgla dyry . . . tyz rdt hta (Mic.
6:15) rmtla dyry . . . (p. 193). When dening the entry word tyz, Ibn Jan feels
no urge to dene the signi (i.e. the type of fruit, together with its identifying fea-
ture) by a specic rendering, for these are virtually well-known. But he does deem
it necessary to record a dierentiation between subtle senses of the signiant: at times
this word denotes the signi the olive tree, and at other times, rather the fruit of
this tree. Ibn Jan himself does not spell out and identify this fruit or this tree,
whereas MS-R lls in this information by means of the cognate wtyz.
the entry word.) A rendering of this type does not directly serve the
purpose of the entry word but claries the general context of the
verse under discussion. In such a case, if MS-R subjoined to wr[m
the Arabic cognate, the instance is included in the listing, for it can-
not be posited in such a case that Ibn Jan rescinded his original
denition of wr[m. At entry wl (359/250), Ibn Jan indicates
wr[m, whereas further along he discusses the expression wnwll ya
(Gen. 10:5), rendering it htgl yl[ ya hnasl yl[. The rendering
wnwl/hnasl incorporated in the translation of the phrase is not
meant to vitiate the axiomatic fact that the entry word is indeed
well-known and in no need of denition: the rendering is recorded
not for the purpose of the entry word wl but for the expression
as a whole. It stands to reason that in the rendering of the phrase,
the emphasis was placed specically on the syntax (the prepositional
ax l was rendered by Arabic yl[ rather than by l); however, it
is feasible that the emphasis is semantic (i.e.: that asl is intended
not in its basic connotationnamely, the speech organ, the
tonguebut in its secondary, metaphorical connotation, language).
Either way, the MS-R additum is redundant, not only because it
stands in contradiction to wr[m but also because of its being incor-
porated in the rendering of the verse adduced by Ibn Jan, which
follows.
13.1.2.1 The entry words that Ibn Jan expressly categorized as wr[m
and for which MS-R subjoined an Arabic cognate
,(123) ydg/yrg ,(114) qrb/qrb ,(89) fb/fb ,(68 lwxa) zra/zra
,(163) qaqdna/qdh-qd ,(162) [md/h[md ,(160) d/d ,(139) lmg/lmg
/blk ,(305) dbk/dbk ,(235) ramj/rwmj ,(201) tpz/tpz ,(188) bhd/bhz
,(335) tk/tk ,(332) rk/rk ,(328) k/k ,(322) wmk/wmk ,(320) blk
/hlmn ,(377) jlm/jlm ,(359) asl/wl ,(353) lyl/lyl ,(346) byhl/hbhl
hlg[/hlg[ ,(502) lg[/lg[ ,(483) ls/ls ,(465) rsn/rn ,(437) hlmn
,(542) f[/x[ ,(ibid.) (amla) y[/y[m ,(519) (rfnla) y[/y[ ,(ibid.)
,(658) sar/ar ,(599) [bxa/[bxa ,(547) barg/brw[ ,(557) brq[/brq[
,(734) sm/m ,(722) yks/yk ,(711) rwt/rw* ,(675) hparw hmjr/jr
,(749) dyr/dyr ,(ibid.) ry[/hrw[ ,(738) r[/r[ ,(734) s/
.(710) wt/w*
13.1.2.2 The entry words for which Ibn Jan recorded no denition
(leaving them classed as wr[m) and for which MS-R subjoined an Arabic
cognate
hxyb/hxyb ,(88) rdb/rzb ,(78) ata/ta (78) yta/hta ,(68) ra/ra ,(57) rma/rma
mh) ah/wh ,(167) hmwsd/d ,(157) jd/jd ,(ibid.) rab/ryb ,(91)
,(194) rkd/rkz ,(193) wtyz/tyz ,(187) babd/bybz ,(173) lkyh/lkyh ,(177)
/hfj ,(219) ryznk/ryzj ,(206) fbk/fbj ,(205) abk/abj ,(197) amz/mz
ylj/ylj ,(224) kj/kj ,(ibid.) fk/fj ,(220) bfj/bfj ,(ibid.) hfnj
,(278) dwht/dhyth ,(241) pj/pj ,(238) qnk/qnj ,(233) wmj/j ,(227)
/lbk ,(ibid.) bkwk/bkwk ,(303) bak/bak ,(ibid.) yty/wty ,(300) dty/dty
(346) ghl/ghl ,(344) sbl/bl ,(332) rk/rk ,(313) bdk/bzk ,(305)lbk
rfm/rfm ,(367) m/jwm ,(361) ham/ham ,(353) tyl/yl,(349) jwl/jwl,
/qn ,(424) ljn/ljn ,(412) rdn/rdn ,(382) [nm/[nm ,(378) lm/lm ,(372)
bn[/bn[ ,(507) sr[/d[ ,(486) ramsm/rmsm ,(484) ls/ls ,(452) qn
,(598) ybf/ybx ,(565) lwp/lwp ,(551) b[/b[ ,(550) hmr[/hmr[ ,(536)
/lwq ,(627) sdq/ydqh ,(ibid.) jdq/jdq ,(625) rbq/rbq ,(602) jax,/jwx
/arq ,(634) fq/fq ,(633) ltq/lfq ,(630) hmaq/hmwq ,(444) lwq
/yjyr ,(675) hlkr/ljr ,(663) br/br ,(647) hyrq/hyrq 10,(646) arq
/d[r ,(682) bnra/tbnra ,(681) mr/mr ,(ibid.) bfr/bfr ,(677) ajr
ydt/d ,(697) jbs/jb ,(689) qr/qr ,(686) dxr/dxr ,(482) d[r
,(709) fws/fw ,(708) yws/hw ,(500/705) dha/dh ,(705) ha/hc, ,(703)
lam ,(730) ams/ym ,(724) glt/gl ,(ibid.) qas/qw ,(711) qws/qw
an ,(ibid.) [ms/[m ,(ibid.) hynamt/hnm ,(ibid.) ms/m ,(732) lam/
.(750) fw/fr ,(740) lps/lp ,(734) an/
13.1.3 rkd dq/MS-R

Ibn Jan states in his introduction to Kitb al-Ul (p. 5, Shorashim,
p. 2, Bachers preface, p. xxii) that his lexicon is not to be treated
as an absolutely independent work. The student will nd using the
lexicon alone insucient for obtaining a complete picture of the lex-
ico-grammatical data required; he should also consult Ibn Jans
earlier works as well as those of R. Judah ayyj. In all likelihood,
10
Ibn Jan enumerates all the connotations of arq but sees no need to single
out the sense reading a book. Nonetheless, MS-R reiterates, all the connotations
and species that one, too, the one ignored by Ibn Jan, namely: haarqla [barlaw
. . . tazh hrwth ta arqt ltm. It is further noteworthy that even MS-R fails to
adduce this connotation, with the etymological comparison arq/arq reected therein,
as the basic signication or at least the rst connotation to be entered.
the reason he refers the reader to those works is in order to have

grounds for reducing the scope of the treatise he was currently com-
piling. In "Ul one encounters some 500 cross-references to or cita-
tions from the works of R. Judah ayyj (see Shorashim, pp. 55455,
index ii), this in addition to all the references to works of Ibn Jan him-
self (ibid., pp. 55657, index iv). Many of these cross-references stand
in lieu of lexicographical denition and explication; in other words,
an entry in which appears a note such as This has already been
mentioned in the Treatise on Letters of Weakness [i.e. by R. Judah
ayyj]11 neither supplies a denition nor employs any language
comparison. In such cases the writer also refrains from any redun-
dant elaboration except in instances for which some information
should be added to that of ayyj or where he decides to cancel
some part of it. This is especially applicable when Ibn Jan clearly
implies that he proposes to rescind an opinion he expressed in one
of his earlier works. For example, the entries hkb (92/63) and hlb
(95/66) each incorporate citations of certain verses only, with a cross-
reference to Kitb al-Af 'l Dhawt urf al-Ln, whereas they present
no denition at all; nor do they record any elucidation or language
comparison. On the other hand, the entry llb (93/64) includes sev-
eral original elements beyond what ayyj had already set down in
his own entry in the work Kitb al-Af 'l Dhawt al-Mithlayn and beyond
what Ibn Jan himself stated in his Kitb al-Mustalaq. This struc-
ture is characteristic of the entries constituting weak verbs, these
being the topics (a) of the grammatical treatises of R. Judah ayyj
and (b) of the treatise that constituting the greatest of all Ibn Jans
minor works, Kitb al-Mustalaq. And it is nothing other than the
implementation of the objective that Ibn Jan had formulated in
the introduction to "Ul. A consistent loyalty to this structure is to
be found in the Oxford MS of "Ul as well as in the Rome and
Escurial MSS of Sefer HaShorashim, whereas the Rouen MS deviates
from it by virtue of its subjoining exegetical annotations and lan-
guage comparisons even at those locations at which the original work
made do with a cross-reference to earlier treatises. Such insertions
run quite counter to the original plan set by Ibn Jan, as expressed
unambiguously in his introduction and as implemented in the entries
as transmitted according to the Oxford MS of "Ul.
11
ylla wrj batk yp rkd dq (Ibn Tibbon renders: ywprh twytwa rpsb rkzn rbk).
Had Ibn Jan himself wished to revise his initial statements, it

stands to reason that he would have made changes in the form
and style of the entry; for instance, instead of simply . . . rkd dqw
he would probably have stated, more elaborately, something like
anh hyp yxn/rkdn jnw. At any rate, he would certainly have been
more elaborate in his phrasing. It is quite evident that a late browser
annotated the MS with glosses; he limited himself to the context of
addita and correcta but made no physical alteration, either in the body
of the text or in the gist of the treatise.
13.1.3.1 Entry words for which Ibn Jan gave no denition but was
content with a cross-reference to his earlier treatises or to those of R. Judah
ayyj, whereas MS-R subjoined to them an Arabic cognate
,(143) rg/rg ,(140) g/ng ,(95) ylb/hlb ,(94) llb/llb ,(92) ykb/hkb
/hgh ,(163) qd/qdh-qd ,(157) yjd/hjd ,(156) swd/wd ,(147) ssg/g
,(202) yrd/hrz ,(193) wkd/hkz ,(194) rkd/rkz ,(189) bwd/bwz ,(169) gh
tay ,(255) ytj/htj ,(228) lj/lj ,(221) hayj/yyj ,(205) bbj/bbj
,(293) dqw/dqy ,(285) ymy/ymy ,(281) jw/jy ,(273) by/by ,(272) taw/
ark/hrk ,(310) yk/hwk ,(300) hns/y ,(298) trw/ry ,(297) frw/fry
z[/z[ ,(376) alm/(alm =) hlm ,(372) am/-ymym-ym ,(368) twm/twm ,(331)
12
jwp/jwp ,(551) yt[/[ ,(548) yr[/hr[ ,(536) ang/hn[ ,(522) l[/l[ ,(514)
,(604) rwx/rwx ,(ibid.) qyx/qwx ,(602) wx/wx ,(590) ap/hp ,(565)
ylq/hlq ,(631) fyq/yq ,(630) wq/wq ,(629) yq/ayq ,(619) rrx/rrx
/hbr ,(660) ybr/hbr ,(650) sq/q ,(640) q/xq ,(638) ynq/hnq ,(635)
,(683) y[r/h[r ,(682) r/hnr ,(681) ymw/hmr ,(680) hmr/hmr ,(ibid.) abr
.(757) at/at ,(748) hrs/rr ,(697) ybs/hb ,(688) qr/qqr
13.1.4 Entry words rendered by Ibn Jan by a cognate translation

synonym and for which MS-R records redundant retranslations when they
recur several times within the entry
In his entries, Ibn Jan makes a practice of adducing divers bibli-
cal citations. In some instances, he does not take the trouble to trans-
late or dene the entry word under discussion either before the
citations or after the rst in the series of citations. He does so only
subsequently, after several of the citations have been recordedin
fact, in the very midst of the discussion on connotations and ner
12
This comparison is recorded in the name of R. Abraham ibn Ezra.
nuances in the sense of the entry word at its several occurrences. In

some cases MS-R redundantly subjoins such defenientes (= renderings)
for the initial occurrences of the entry word, reiterating them time
and again for each and every citation. Here a tendency can be dis-
cerned in MS-R, to record in advance what Ibn Jan sets out
later. For example, at entry jbz (p. 187) Ibn Jan adduces several
portions of verses without rendering them, whereas MS-R subjoins
cognate translation synonyms for some of them: the text there reads:
jbdm ( Josh 22:10) harml lwdg jbzm . . . jbdbw (Exod 8:23) hl wnjbzw.
But clearly the additions jbdbw and jbdm in MS-R are superuous;
for, when Ibn Jan subsequently considers it necessary to record a
specic lexicographical annotation trwfq rfqm jbzm ty[w lyq amnaw)
(. . . jbdmla hpx yl[ ak hnal typ hjybdla brqt l aw), he him-
self resorts to a cognate translation synonym (i.e. hjybd) as a link
with the rendering of jbzm. Here are set out only those instances in
which one may see a real reiteration of the Arabic cognate per-
taining to the entry word (without indicating any non-cognate that
may have been systematically subjoined by MS-R):13
gj/gj ,(198) anz/hnz ,(198) bnd/bnz, (187) jbd/jbz ,(146) yrg/rg
/lf ,(262) hf/hf ,(260) rhf/rhf ,(237) j/nj ,(235) ramj/rwmj ,(210)
,tlp/flp ,(557) bkn[/ybk[ ,(366) rhm/rhm ,(267) yrf/hrf 14,(263) lf
dwx ,(600) qdx/qdx ,(590) sp/jp ,(577) y[pa/h[pa ,(573) flp
brq/brq ,(631) fyq/yq ,(608) lf/lx ,(605) jxjx/jyjx ,(601) dyx/
,(669) ywr/hwr ,(661) hwbr/awbr ,(655) yarm/harm ,(650) atq/aq ,(647)
rwt/rw ,(694) las/la ,(681) r/nr ,(681) amr/wmr ,(678) bkr/bkr
(743) yqs/hq ,(730) sa/ ,(727) fls/fl ,(722) ks/k ,(711)
It goes without saying that this phenomenon is additionally to be
found in MS-R, in the form of subjoining a non-cognate translation syno-
nym to the entry word, a translation synonym adduced much later
in the discussion by Ibn Jan himself. For example, adjoining the
rst connotation recorded at entry hjtlm (p. 360)i.e. hwsk (gar-
ment, raiment)MS-R hastily subjoins a statement implying that
some believe the word to be explained as hnazk (a receptacle for
storage of clothing); this addition, however, is superuous, because
13
An example is the rendering of hrwp by hrx[m, as recorded by Ibn Jan in
his entry, this being repeatedly recorded by MS-R in his glosses. And again, at entry
am, MS-R redundantly records a vefold repetition of the rendering for the subse-
quently entered occurrences of this verb.
14
For the grammatical aspect of this comparison see Becker 1998, 61.
Ibn Jan himself mentions this opinion in the sequel to this dis-
cussion. MS-R continues this practice at entry apq (p. 640) and else-
where. The long citation from Sefer he-'Anaq of R. Moses ibn Ezra
concerning the various connotations of entry rwt is also entirely
redundant, for Ibn Jan had fully enumerated these signications
earlier.
13.1.5 Annotations in MS-R that contradict statements of Ibn Jan

The deviations from Ibn Jans method and from his fundamental
structural plan for the treatise Kitb al-"Ul, as these transpire from
MS-Rs annotations, lead to the inevitable conclusion that the nota-
tions were the work of a late glossarist. If some decisive piece of evi-
dence were needed for this fact, then there may be adduced the
striking contradictions noticeable between certain annotations in MS-
R and the elucidations and grammatical analyses of Ibn Jan as
set out by him ad loc. or elsewhere in his lexicon. Given these con-
tradictions the evidence is irrefutable. The instances of contradiction
are as follows:
At root dhy (p. 280) MS-R subjoins an example, explaining it as
follows: tahgla m hhgb ydjta ya hnm (Ezek 21:21) ynmyh ydjath. This
implies that The word ydjath is from the root djy and its mean-
ing is congregate at one of the corners. The grammatical treatment
together with the interpretation supplied by MS-R stand in contra-
diction to Ibn Jans clear statement at root dja (p. 33) viz.:
ydjab ydrpna ya ydjatsa hryspt ynymyh ydjath, which means: to
. . . tahgla be alone (= isolated) or secluded in one of the corners. The
semantic dierence in the two senses here is subtle but absolutely
limpid. For Ibn Jan adopts a deniens ( djatsa) that diers from
the one employed by MS-R (= djta); indeed, these pertain to two
dierent roots. Again, Ibn Jan interpreted the form ydjath as deriv-
ing from the root dja whereas MS-R recorded it amid the entries
of d jy. It is tempting to surmise that the MS-R glossarist was under
the inuence of the grammatical system of a lexicographer belong-
ing to the pre-ayyj, school, which had failed to distinguish between
the two roots, classing them under the one biliteral root d j.
At root dwz (p. 190) MS-R glosses as follows: h[pa [qbt hrwzhw
(Isa. 59:5) . . . hrdmla hxyblaw hyp rsp. Ibn Jan himself fails to
record this quotation ad loc. nor, for that matter, does he record it
at any other potential entry. However, he does record the given
Arabic deniens hrdm yb at root rzm (p. 369) in his elucidation of

the entry rzmm. It is, therefore, improbable that Ibn Jan assigned
the same deniens to entry hrwz, which has no radical mem.15
At root ddj (p. 211), MS-R subjoins the verse djy lzrbb lzrb
(Prov. 27:17), whereas Ibn Jan himself, in immediate proximity (!),
regarding a dierent rootnamely hdjstates that he classies this
occurrence of djy with the tertiae yod verbs and not under the geminates.
Regarding the form tll in the expression tll hrh (1 Sam. 4:19),
MS-R states (p. 345): tdll laq hnak hyp lyq, whereas Ibn Jan
himself, in his Mustalaq (p. 153), had long before ruled out that
grammatical parsing of the form. In its place, he proposed one of
three other grammatical, cum semantic resolutionsnamely, (a) the
root hll, (b) the root ttl, (c) the prexed particle l combined with
the word tl.
At root fwp (p. 367), MS-R states: yhw hfm lxala adh m a lyqw
brqala whw hfm hlxa a lyqw fbs hfm ax[ hfm ,dyrsla Ibn Jan,
on the other hand, records the entries hFmi and hF,m, under the root
h fn, without mentioning the possibility of any other grammatical
parsingeither in his own name or in the name of other philo-
logistseither as a conjecture or in a denitive manner.
The entry wnjna is recorded by Ibn Jan under the root jna (p. 58),
whereas MS-R speaks of the rendering jn. If MS-R had a cognate
translation synonym in mind, then this did not accord with Ibn
Jans opinion.
At root my Ibn Jan discusses the entry ymy in the sense year
(p. 285). Quite surprisingly, MS-R subjoins here the combination
ymy t[b (seven days) and renders it aya h[bs. This annotation
of MS-R is out of place here, for the root and entry recorded here
are totally dierent: the word wy had already been treated in its
appropriate place by Ibn Jan.
The analysis of the verbal form hn<r]ti ( Job 39:23) is also a mat-
ter of dispute between Ibn Jan and MS-R. Ibn Jan, in his own
analysis, refers the reader to ayyjs Kitb urf al-Ln, where the
form is classed under the tertiae yod category; MS-R, on the other
hand, renders it r, which implies that the glossarist parsed it in
15
The rendering recorded by MS-R for the quote is to be found in Sa'adiahs
Tafsr at the given biblical location. Derenbourg remarks that this interpretation is
documented in the works of R. Judah Ibn Bal'am, too.
Hebrew as a geminate verb. In the parsing of the verbs ydjath, djy,

and hnrt, as well as the nouns hrwz, hFmi and hF,m, MS-R follows in
the footsteps of grammarians of the school prevalent before ayyj;
and in this approach the glossator contradicts the grammatical method
of Ibn Jan both in the wider context, and in particular, Ibn Jans
outspoken statements as regards the said entries. From this stand-
point, it can be said that the glossator of MS-R did not merely sub-
join but impaired the Ibn Jan text; for that glossators grammatical
system would appear to reect a clear regression vis--vis the theo-
ries of both ayyj and Ibn Jan. A further case of contradiction:
When attempting to identify the referent of the plant, denoted rp.K
(Cant. 1:14; 4:13), Ibn Jan rejects the suggestion that it be identied
with the Arabic rwpak (the latter apparently postulated on account
of its being phonologically cognate with the equivalent Hebrew
noun), his grounds: a non-correspondence between the nature of the
plant ensuing from its biblical usage on the one hand and the fea-
tures of the rwpak in the reality of his time on the other. He there-
fore gives preference to R. Sherira Ga"ons identication, i.e. that
what is referred to is the plant anj16 (henna), again, on account of
the physical/botanic correspondence of rp.K as described in the Bible.
MS-R subjoins, with no explanation, a third possible identication,
i.e. lpnrq. It appears very probably that the latter was not a pro-
posal penned by Ibn Jan; for it is out of the question that Ibn
Jan put forward an additional identication contra to the one imme-
diately preceding, without stating the logical grounds. Likewise, Ibn
Jan identies biblical tr with the Arabic tr, whereas MS-R, in
the name of other scholars, proposes the identication lta (p. 691).
In accord with the comparison la/lta established elsewhere by
Ibn Jan, it is salient that tr equals la; thus if Ibn Jan had
held this indeed to be the case, he would have specically stated
soas he indeed stated, as regards the synonyms (aws hljlaw hgw[lap
hgw[-hlj, p. 507/p. 357), ra, tmda (rah l[ laq hnak . . . hmdah l[,
p. 21/p. 13)) and the like.17 Alternatively he might have set out data,
for each respective entry whose mutual collation would have made
possible the determination of their synonymity.18
16
In fact, this identication is already attested in the translation attributed to
Sa'adiah at the relevant biblical passages; but remarkably, a variant reading exists
that, indeed, accords with the MS-R gloss!
17
Also hr[n ,hml[ (l[, p. 529/p. 372).
18
In this category, for example, are to be reckoned all the paired entries that
The same applies with regard to the terms rmj (Ibn Jan: rpq/MS-
R: rmj, p. 235) from realia.
Another instance: At entry tyrqhw (Num. 35:11, hrq, p. 647),
Ibn Jan proposes no specic denition, contenting himself with a
reference to what ayyj had stated in Kitb urf al-Ln. ayyj,
in the relevant entry, states: hyrq . . . yn[m m wky a dy[bb sylw; like
his predecessor, he juxtaposed tyrqhw with hyrq, without any remark
of disapproval on the etymological connection established by ayyj
between the two, clearly implying consensus with ayyj. On tyrqhw
MS-R remarks that it pertains to the sense ayh (hayya"a, prepara-
tion); he adduces support for this from the Targum, which in Num.
ibid. renders wnmztwa clear contradiction of the opinion alluded to
by Ibn Jan when he cross-referenced to ayyjs statement. It
seems likely that the MS-R, glossator did not take the trouble to
check out what ayyj had written. A subtle but clear intimation
of this: MS-R did not set down this opinion as one diering from the
opinion propounded by the author himself (as he does in fact in
several other instances, e.g. lyqw, hyp rspw, etc.). In other words, MS-
Rs intention was not to supplement the authors thesis but to expli-
cating it. Unfortunately, however, he explained it incorrectly.19
A further example: For fwn (Ps. 99,1), Ibn Jan proposes two pos-
sible connotations: fwm, hlt (p. 416), whereas MS-R renders lym,
showing that he identied fwn with hfn, a proposal for which no inti-
mation can be found in Ibn Jans record and, further, this being
an assumption irreconcilable with Ibn Jans grammatical theory.
match the formula Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram./Bib. Heb.2 (non cognate translation
synonym).
19
Neubauer assigns the additional annotation laws in MS-R to the word ytwlam
(Ps. 20:6) (Ul, p. 694, n. 19). However, the intention of the glossator in this note
may have been to subjoin it to la la (Gen. 43:7) or to lay (Deut. 6:20). Both
biblical citations indeed appear directly before ytwlam, a word of the type wr[m,
that Ibn Jan left undened, as he was accustomed to do in several entries. The
morphology of the glossed word laws cannot serve as a pointer to the correct text
link, for this word, as it appears in its inected form, matches neither of the two poten-
tial lemmata; it is an abstract nominal formation or madar (innitive). However, if
Neubauer is correct, the explanation represented in MS-Rs gloss is in blatant con-
tradiction to Ibn Jans statement in the body of the entry. For Ibn Jan dis-
tinguishes between la/las (ask, question) and la/bhwtsa (request, seek) (as well
as la/bhw [give]), and he warns the scholar to beware of mechanical renderings.
It is indeed remarkable that ytwlam accords perfectly with the connotation bhwtsa
and not with laws!
13.1.6 The aims of the cognate translation synonyms glosses in MS-R

What might have been the motive for the glossator to subjoin cog-
nates at entries for which Ibn Jan did not bother to provide any
deniens and, on the contrary, labeled them wr[m? It is hard to believe
that the explanation lies in a deliberate renewed investigation of the
problem of precisely dening an entry treated as [wdy (well-known)
from which it would follow that an entry not so labeled is presum-
ably not well-known. It is also far-fetched that this entails an attempt
to refute the contention that there indeed exist well-known entries
or to undermine the lexicological system that allows for this sort of
denition of entry words. The glossator himself never subjoined a
denition at any location where Ibn Jan had omitted to record
one, as, for instance, at entries br[(b wa ytb), tyb, (ljn-) ybr[, etc.
Entries that Ibn Jan left with no rendering and with no denition,
were occasionally lled out by the glossarist, who subjoined them to
a non-cognate translation synonym. This served to ll in the void
left by Ibn Jan. Entries of this kind are: rypk (p. 330), yh (p. 173),
hqhl (p. 342), dn (p. 407). For Ibn Jan, these are no doubt wr[m.
Nonetheless, MS-R subjoined to them respectively the following syn-
onyms: grd lyqw dsa, yk ,hqwg, dwf. But in those entries dened
by Ibn Jan by a non-cognate translation synonym and for which
MS-R subjoined a cognate translation synonym, it is probable that
the gloss was indeed entered for the purpose of comparison, since the lexi-
cographical need had been fullled by the non-cognate translation syn-
onym. What is more, a large number of entries exist for which Ibn
Jan saw no need to record any denition and at which MS-R
subjoined both cognate and non-cognate translation synonyms, in exact
imitation of the practice adopted by Ibn Jan himself at a wide
range of entries in his lexicon.
13.1.6.1 Entries to which MS-R subjoins cognate as well as non-cognate

translation synonyms
,fk/fj ,(173) rxq ,lkyh/lkyh ,(177) rsk ,ah/mh ,(140) rts ,g/ng
yp lkd ,dwht/dhyth ,(272) qbaf ,taw/tay ,(221) a[ ,ayj/hyj ,(220) sma
,(514) hwq ,z[/z[ ,(353) dsa ,tyl/yl ,(346) [lw ,ghl/ghl ,(278) ydla
,(590) rtna ,fsbna ,ap/hp ,(548) k ,yr[/hyr[ ,(522) rxa ,lg/l[
,(ibid.) qrtja ,dqwt ,jdq/jdq ,(625) pd ,rbq/rbq ,(602) rx ,jax/jwx
,(ibid.) bxtna ,wq/wq ,(630) twx ,lwq/lwq ,(627) rhf ,sdq/ydqh
,(638) lm ,ynq/hnq ,(631) yx ,fyq/yq ,(629) dq ,yq/ayq ,(634) [fq ,fq/fq
dwd , hmr / hmr ,(675) h g[n , hl kr / ljr ,(640) [fq , q / xq

,[qwt ,dxr/dxr ,(683) ztha ,d[r/d[r ,(681) fqs ,ymr/hmr ,(680)
hmyq ,yws/hw ,(689) qn ,qr/qr ,(ibid.) [fq ,r/xr ,(686) lmat ,rftna
gb ,an/an ,(732) rasy ,lam/lam ,(711) rqb ,rwt/rw ,(708)
.(757) hbjfxm ,hmawtm/ymawt ,(740) apkna ,lps/lp ,(734)
13.1.6.2 Entries that Ibn Jan rendered by a non-cognate translation

synonym and to which MS-R also glossed a cognate
In the list that follows, only the cognate translation synonyms sub-
joined by MS-R are enumerated:
,(114) rb/rb ,(105) h[qb/h[qb ,(86) lb/llb-lwb ,(32) ykat/ja(h)
wh/awh ,(ibid.) nh/hgh ,(169) ah/ah ,(144) drg/drg ,(ibid.) twrb/wrb
,(296) drw/dry ,(247) rtja/hrj ,(241) zpj/zpj ,(235) rmj/rmje ,(171)
rb[ ,(494) rts/rts ,(445) pn/pn ,(428/300) sajn/ytjn ,(347) wl/Wl
fbs/fb ,(640) bxq/bxq ,(589) qrp/qrp ,(565) jyp/jyp ,(499) rb[/
.(713) rks/rk ,(698)
13.1.6.3 Entries that Ibn Jan left without a deniens and to which
MS-R subjoined a cognate and even reiterated the cognate gloss several times
lm/lm ,(349) jwl/jwl ,(300) yty/wty ,(197) amz/mz ,(78) ata/ta
br/br ,(647) hyrq/hyrq ,(619) rrx/rrx ,(550) hmr[/hmr[ ,(378)
(705) ha/hc, ,(703) ydt/d ,(663)
13.1.6.4 Entries for which MS-R subjoined a deniens that is probably a

cognate translation synonym concurring with his own system (= only partial
equivalence of the radical letters)
/hakn ,(291) bxn/bxy ,(282) apj/jy ,(266) lpf/f ,(232) wmj/mj
,(525) wl[/l[ ,(463) ls/ln ,(410) yjd/jdn ,(306) h[bq/[bwk ,(303) yk
.(659) hwbr/hbbr ,(632) fqy/yqh ,(596) twgrb/w[rp ,(541) g/hx[
13.1.6.5 Entries for whose denition Ibn Jan was content with an
Aramaic cognate, whereas MS-R recorded, additionally, an Arabic cognate
/rj ,(211) (dja) dj/dja/dj ,(107) (hyrb) arb/rb ,(89) (lfb) lfb/lfb
,(413) 21(rwn) rhn/rhn ,(354) (b[l) b[l/[t[t/b[l ,(247) 20(qrj) rj
20
According to MS-Rs approach, it is very likely that this is a case of a k/q
interchange.
21
According to the glossarists approach, these are two entries pertaining to the
root rn.
(dha) dh/d[/dh ,(690) (sr) r/r ,(591) (rsp) rp/rtp/rp

(fyk) afwj/lytp/fwj .(718) (hrwsa) ry/hd[xa ,dymx ,jj/ry ,(705)
.(648) rq/rq ,(215)
13.1.6.6 Explicit comparisons in the MS-R annotations

Only on rare occasions are explicit comparisons to be found in the
MS-R glosses. In entries dba/dab (p. 15), dyrg/drg (p. 144) gd/gd
(p. 153), bwrk/bwrk (p. 331), qhn/qhn (p. 413), MS-R adopts distinctive
terminology, i.e. expressions commonly in use in Ibn Jans inventory
of comparison terms though not unique to him. The expressions are:
ybr[la fpll snagm (gd); ybr[lab whw (bwrk); ybr[la m byrq (qhn); bwlqm
hybr[la lwq lxala adh m (dba). In one instance, no term occurs
but the employment of an intra-Arabic example has the same status as
an explicit comparison: hlb (p. 95): lab bwt laqy, ylb.
The large majority of MS-Rs comparisons, however, are merely
implicit comparisons, structured on the pattern used by Ibn Jan
in his implicit comparisons.
13.1.6.7 Comparisons with Aramaic encountered in MS-R glosses

Within the range of the MS-R glosses to Kitb al-Ul, in only nine
instances,22 are comparisons with Aramaic resorted to, this being
an extremely rare measure relative to the many hundreds of compar-
isons with Arabic that the glossarist subjoined. Only three of these
Aram. comparisons are of the etymological type, i.e. based on the
formula Bib. Heb.1/Bib. Heb.2/Targ. Aram. (493) brs/am/brs (371),
lwfm/am/lyfm (370), ajm/hkh/ajm. The remaining comparisons
pertain to formula Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (non cognate translation
synonym) ,(548) pn/hr[ ,(517) wq/hf[ ,(271) ymwa/lyawh ,(180)
anyz ynam/xh ,(173) yr/yh ,(647) mz/hrqh).
13.1.7 Synopsis of the conclusive evidence that the MS-R annotations post-
date Ibn Jan
Citations from source texts that postdate Ibn Jan (such as R.
Abraham ibn Ezra; see Allony 1944, p. 201). Tn (1972, p. 552)
22
This total does not include those comparisons with Aramaic that constitute
nothing more than the comparison gist as stated by Ibn Jan himself.
also opines that the composer of the MS-R annotations long post-
dated Ibn Jan.
2. In Ul according to MS Oxford and in Shorashim, all the anno-
tations are lacking.
3. The salient contradiction between the wr[m label or what can
be classed as wr[m and the very subjoining of a deniens by the glos-
sarist of MS-R.
4. The several cases in which MS-R contradicts an explicit opin-
ion of Ibn Jan, whether at the entry ad loc. or at a dierent entry,
these contradictions comprising issues of grammar as well as issues
of lexicology and semantics.
5. The instances in which the MS-R annotation is practically
redundant, in that the gist of the annotation is spelled out by Ibn
Jan himself in the course of the discussion, sometimes before the
link point of the annotation and sometimes after it.23
13.2 The theory of letter interchange as used by Ibn Jan
Ibn Jan left no systematic discourse on the topic of the letters that
can be interchanged in the context of etymological comparison of
Hebrew with Arabic or with Aramaic. Nor does he make a habit of
remarking on the letter switches in close proximity to his recording
of explicit language comparisons. It is from an inspection of the com-
parisons themselves, however, that we can deduce which letter switches
Ibn Jan permitted. A list of these interchanges follows; the paren-
23
Cases can be pinpointed in which it might be surmised that MS-R is merely
reiterating what Ibn Jan himself states at length elsewhere. Nonetheless this can-
not be said with certainty. It is more probable that MS-R copied these statements
from text sources that had been used systematically. At root fqn (p. 452), Ibn Jan
makes a cross-reference to what he discussed in his Mustalaq and subjoins noth-
ing, whereas MS-R does subjoin the deniens fnq; Ibn Jan allows such a com-
parison, qua one of metathesis, at root ffq (p. 633) and prima facie it would seem
that MS-R copied from there. However, it is more likely that the glossators source
was Sa'adiahs translation of Job (10:1), where this word is encountered; for this
would accord with his habit of recording supplementary materials gleaned from
Sa'adiahs Tafsr (as noted by Allony 1944). Furthermore, nothing indicates that the
glossators grasp of Ibn Jans theory was suciently profound to enable him to
draw an analogy between statements in separate treatises and reach a synthesis of the
two. On the contrary, the salient evidence is that MS-R adduced source texts whose
systems stood in direct conict with the principles of Ibn Jans grammatical system.
theses refer to a sample entry at which a comparison was established

incorporating the given interchange.
Interchanges of letters, Hebrew/Arabic: a/h (ynbh; twrhnm [implicit
comparison]); b/p (twbr[/hprg; hymstla yp hbraqm); g/g (lzwg); g/k
(rg/r; abraqtm); g/k (zrg); y/w (l[y; [ry); z/d (za); j/k (jl);
(flp); y/w (;dly implicit comparison); k/g (hytwrkm ;rks); /s (as; wts);
s/x (ssq, qps); [/g ([r, h[x); x/s (anyw); x/x ( xj); x/f (x[); /z f/t
(ll/llz ;asnagm wky a zwgyw); /t (a); s/ (jl,, p); /c
(rb, hwq); t/t (qtb, ttr).
Interchanges of letters, Hebrew/Aramaic: b/p (tw[wb[ba/y[wp[p);
g/q-k (mwg/axmwq-axmwk).
Interchanges of letters, Arabic/Aramaic: g/g (wgra); f/f (arpwf;
tlh); s/ (awts/at); [/g (arp[m/rpgm); q/g (syqrn/hsgrn); /s
(aga/gas; rhdt).
13.2.1 Did Ibn Jan practise taf?

Certain scholars have attributed to Ibn Jan additional Hebrew/Arabic
letter interchanges and even remarked on their peculiarity. Bacher
(1885, pp. 3334) and Kokowtzow (1893, p. 88 n. 175), followed by
Wechter (1964, n. 322) enumerated the following in the list of Ibn
Jans innovative letter switches: hytrkm (Gen. 49:5) /rgm; any
(Eccles. 12:5); /sn; wjypy (Prov. 29:8)/gapa; wLvT (Ruth 2:16)/lza; rg
(Deut. 7:13)/r; rk (Isa. 19:10)/rgs. Bacher maintains that Ibn
Jans statement ("Ul, p. 138, pp. 1822) concerning the com-
parison hmgm/hmhm (i.e. ybr[la fpll asnagm wky aw) is clear evi-
dence that Ibn Jan had in mind a real (etymological) link between
mg and mh! Wechter (1964, n. 771) took the matter further and
claimed that the comparison wjypy (Prov. 29:8)/gapa involves the
interchange j/g and is on the same footing as the comparison j
(Exod. 28:4)/wg by the system of taf 24 (confusion regarding
the marking of the diacritical dot). Clearly implied is Wechters
assumption that Ibn Jan is employing comparison based on the
rule of taf. It would appear from some comments he made on
24
Concerning the connotation of this term, see Kokowtzow (1893), p. 80, n. 168,
Wechter (1964), n. 311, Kopf (1976), p. 65 and nn. 35, Tn (1983), p. 266 and
n. 96. On taf in the Arabic lexicography, see Kopf (ib), pp. 65, 85. The com-
parison j/wg was established by Ibn Barn in al-Muwzana (p. 55).
Ibn Barns comparisons that Wechter ascribes to Ibn Jan several

further comparisons by taf. The comparisons are: qzb/qrb (Wechter,
n. 405), jb/jm (n. 407), jrza/jyrx (n. 444), j/k (n. 553),
hqj/q[ (n. 554), f/lpf (n. 577). Ibn Jans employment
of comparisons by taf is additionally evidenced by an instance, in
a discourse on letter interchanges within Hebrew (Riqmah, p. 109), in
which the comparison can be interpreted as having been established
on the basis of taf. The issue under discussion here is that of the
possible substitutes for the letter zayin. Ibn Jan states: dw[ hrmwhw
qzbh harmkb rhm (Ezek. 1:14). The upshot is that Ibn Jan main-
tains an intra-Heb. comparison of the words qrb/qzb. Prima facie,
this is a limpid indication of the use of taf ;25 the intra-Heb. inter-
change reects the Hebrew/Arabic comparison qzb/qrb (a compar-
ison expressly maintained by Ibn Barn, by the rule of taf ). This
assumption gains corroboration from Ibn Janhs statement in his
introduction to ch. 7 (w) as follows: txqb twytwah txq trwmt rwayb
(An explanation i.e. enumeration of the mutual interchange of sev-
eral letters with each other) (ibid., p. 104). In that introduction, Ibn
Jan sets out the categories of letter substitution, one of which he
denes as the interchange of letters trwxb ymdtm h (that have
similarity in their graphic appearance).26 Cannot this be clearly
viewed as an intimation of the taf procedure (in interlingual
comparisons)?
The truth is, however, as regards the potentiality of an interchange
of such nature, the interchange itself is not expressly specied. A very
general restriction was set by Ibn Jan, which he spelled out (at
the end of the above-mentioned chapter) as follows: If the two entry
words set for comparison are both in widespread use in the ver-
nacular, such that neither can be given priority over the other,
then an interchange cannot be postulated between them, i.e. each
must separately constitute an entry. This provides us good grounds
for determining that no interchange exists between Hebrew qzb and
25
Regarding taf interchange between the two Arabic letters r and zy, in
Arabic, see Kopf (1976), p. 74, subsection 3 and p. 75, subsections 6, 12.
26
As examples of this type of letter interchange, Wilensky (ibid., n. 4) gives the
alternation between the Heb. letters b/k and /v: these do indeed show graphic
anity, b/k with regard to the square script and /v . . . with regard to the specic
location of the diacritical point.
Arabic qrb, for each is in regular use in its respective language.

Moreover, in the preface to the above-mentioned chapter, Ibn Jan
enumerates articulative anity of two letters as one of the reasons
for interchange between them. Elsewhere (Riqmah, p. 36), in the chap-
ter discussing the articulative classing of the letters, he includes under
the class dental letters the letters rx sz. Thus it is quite feasible
that the intra-Heb. z/r interchange referred to by Ibn Jan in the
context of the switch qzb/qrb is tenable simply because (in his opin-
ion) the two consonants are of similar articulation type, rather than
being based on his conviction as to the applicability of the prin-
ciple of taf. As for the comparison wjypy/gapa, Wechter interpreted
it as an etymological comparison, for which reason he maintained that
it is founded on the interchange j/g. However, this determination
is by no means indisputable. It is much more probable that Ibn
Jan is comparing the expression hyrq wjypy, as a single entity, with
its translational counterpart rala yp gapa, the comparison being
merely semantic in nature and no more. How can this be explained?
wjypy, in another context, has the connotation hjypn (blowing), whereas
gapa has the sense rryq (cool down): it is plausible that the concept
cooling down incorporates the sememe blowing as well. But gapa
possesses, additionally, another sense, i.e. to leave hurriedly (see
e.g. the Munjid dictionary, p. 598): thus the same sense can be assigned
to wjypy, too. Had Ibn Janh in this case intended an etymological
comparison, one would have expected him to adopt the phrasing
hsnagmla [b (see below).
The other comparisons that Wechter intimated were cases of
Ibn Jan employing comparison by the system of taf (i.e.
hb/jm; jrza/jyrx; j/k; hqj/q[; f/lpf) were not established
as comparisons by Ibn Jan, either explicitly or tacitly, neither by taf
nor by any other rule. Wechter merely clutched at a straightforward
rendering recorded by Ibn Jan and mistakenly attributed to it an
implication that cannot be traced. It seems very likely that Wechter
read Ibn Barns methodology into the works of Ibn Jan.
The other bizarre comparisons are, for the most part, not so
unusual when treated against the background of the comparison
method of the Hebrew grammarians of that epoch; some were born
merely out of copyists ghost comparisons.
The comparison hytwrkem/rgm, according to Neubauers edition
("Ul, p. 374), involves several problematical aspects: (i) the notion
of the root seems confused to an extent that could hardly be attrib-

uted to Ibn Jan, considering that the comparison is between the
roots rkm and rrg, which show equivalence in the scope of two let-
ters only, i.e. rk/rg (ii) this comparison itself would necessarily require
(a) the k/g interchange (which is indeed feasible according to Ibn
Jan) as well as (b) interchanges between strong verbs (such as rkm)
and a root pertaining to the geminate group. Ibn Jan subjoins,
next to rgm an additional deniensnamely, rks[although nowhere
in the Arabic lexicons is the entry word rgm recorded with the sense
of rks[.27
MS British Library, BM Marg. 953 = Or. 4837, which Margaliouth
asserts to be the earliest extant MS of the Ul and which merits
the status of constituting the primary basic text form to be used
for any new edition of "Ul, reads here rgm (without the shaddah).
This lectio simultaneously resolves all the above-mentioned diculties;
for according to this version, the comparison is between rkm and
rgm, both being strong roots and showing mutual equivalence for all
three of their radicals (allowing, of course, for the switch k/g). As
for lexical documentation, the root rgm is indeed encountered in the
lexicons in the sense of (great) army (see for example, Lane,
vol. 7, p. 2690), precisely as dened by Ibn Jan).
The comparison hmgm/hmhm, too (as recorded in "Ul, ed. Neubauer,
p. 138), seems very strange:28 the interchange g/h is not encountered
even in the records of Ibn Barn and it is extremely surprising that Ibn
Jan did not see t to comment on the application of such an inter-
change, despite its bizarre nature and apparently unique occurrence.
Owing to the special importance of this matter, a full citation fol-
lows of the relevant passage from the "Ul, where Ibn Jan dis-
cusses the matter at entry hmgm (according to Neubauers version,
27
Only R.P.A. Dozy, vol. 1, p. 180, records this connotation; the sole quotation
that he adduces for the entry is the one here referred to, according to Neubauers
ed. of the "Ul. As shown in what follows, it seems certain that Dozy was misled,
in that he blindly followed the misjudgment of those scholars who remarked on the
comparison under discussion as being bizarre or innovative.
28
It is indeed surprising that Bacher did not reckon with the MS-R reading:
hmjm (it occurs no less than 12 times!). Had he given precedence to this reading,
he might have surmised the employment of taf, for the sole distinction between
j and g in the Arabic script is the diacritical dot. However, at the time Bacher
penned these statements, the taf rule in Ibn Barns comparison theory was as
yet undiscovered.
ibid.): aw hMvm] hnz yl[ yyltmla tawd m wky a ydn[ hyp ylwala . . .
wkyp ,adxq tdxq ya hmh tmmh wh ydla ybr[la fpll asnagm wky
hdxq ya hhwgw hmhm hmydq hynp tmgm ryspt. Thus according to
this reading, the comparison is exactly as presented by Bacher. The afore-
mentioned British Lib. MS omits the passage asnagm ywky aw to hmydq
inclusive; nonetheless, the text as a whole in that version does not
seem to be lacking or erroneous. For example, no potential error
involving a skip of the copyists eye due to homoioteleuton seems rel-
evant in the BL version. Thus in that recension, no comparison is
established between hmgm and hmhm. What is more, that MS, in the
denition (not the comparison!) recorded for hmhm, reads hmjm instead
of hmhm. This provides support for the MS-R reading (twice hmjm
with a j). The reading hmjm is indeed the lectio dicilior,29 in lieu of
which the copyist of the Oxford MS (or perhaps Neubauer himself )
read or preferred the lectio facilior, i.e. hmhm. Consequently, one
way or the other, no interchange g/h* occurs but at the most, a
case of the switch g/j, which at least has a justication in the rule
of taf. But as demonstrated above, no real corroboration can be
found for the notion that taf can be attributed to Ibn Jan. It
should furthermore be noted that in Arabic the word hmgm is used
in the very sense of dxq.30 If in a certain transmission a copy of the
"Ul text was written in Arabic characters,31 it might be surmised
that the comparison possibly established by Ibn Jan was /hmgm,
hmgm, and that in a subsequent copy, the diacritical point was
accidentally lost or omitted and from this error emerged the version
hmjm. Be that as it may, the comparison as set down by Bacher
derives nil support, either from MS-R or from the British Lib. MS.
The remaining comparisons are straightforward: any/sn: The x/s
interchange exists within Hebrew, for Ibn Janh also compares sn
(Deut. 34:3)/sn with the very same connotation ("Ul, p. 417). Ibn
Jan states this explicitly at entry wn ("Ul, p. 418). For the word
wlt, Ibn Jan suggests two alternatives: (a) comparison with the
29
hmjm with the connotation dxq is documented in Arabic lexicons, See, e.g.,
br[la asl, entry mj in vol. 12, p. 152, Beirut ed., 1952; also Lane, p. 635.
30
See e.g., br[la asl at entry mg. It ensues that semantically mj = mg =
mmh.
31
But see Bacher ZDMG, 1884, p. 305; Wilensky in his notes to HaRiqmah,
p. 59, n. 4; p. 264, n. 3.
Arabic root lls and (b) comparison with llz. It is thus feasible that
he is postulating the existence of an intra-Arabic interchange z/s, in
the same way that he maintains the viability of such an interchange
within Hebrew (Riqmah, p. 109).32
Regarding the comparisons rg/r and ttr/hytr, Ibn Jan
does not mention total hsnagm, but braqt and hsnagmla [b
namely, partial similarity. In fact, in the rst case, both (a) the
g/k interchange and (b) the metathesis rg/r are present, whereas
in the second case, (a) the interchange t/t but (b) not a corre-
spondence of the tertiae radical, i.e. t as against y are present. In other
words, a switch might be assumed here of the two verb patterns:
geminates and third yod.33 If it is necessary to postulate two dis-
crepancies in the same comparison, then, in the opinion of the
Hebrew grammarians, a full comparison may not be determined.
It was only Ibn Barn who viewed the ttr/hytr comparison as full-
scale hsnagm, by the taf rule (see above n. 28). Had Ibn Jan had
a conception of taf, he would surely have regarded this instance
as normative and full, and not merely as partial, hsnagm.
13:2.2 Comparison of vocals

The outcome of what Ibn Jan stated regarding the anity of
Hebrew with Aramaicthe two languages being so close as to be,
so to speak, twins because of their similarity in respect of the
closed and open vocalic entities (twjtpw twxmq) (above, 2.2)is that
the grammarian made comparisons not only of the letters but also of
the vowel entities in these languages. His positive declaration regarding
the anity of Hebrew and Aramaic in their vowel entities allows
further for a parallel negative inductioni.e. that Hebrew and Arabic
are non-equivalent in this area: this is indeed borne out, for not a sin-
gle Heb./Arab. comparison has been encountered that relates as well to
their vocalic entities.
32
The issue of how the interchange of letters within Hebrew relates to their
respective interchanges with the corresponding letters in Arabic still remains to
be investigated and claried.
33
The mutual interchange of these two verb patterns is maintained by Ibn Jan.
See, e.g., "Ul, p. 745, at entry hq.
13.2.3 Comparison of cognates whose roots present mutually metathesized

letters34
(346/493) rsn/rs ;(228/329 ;aypwk) nk/pk :Heb./Aram.
;(446/633) fnq/fqn ;(34, Bacher 1884) lxk/yljy :Heb./Arab.
/lsj ;(332/473 bas/abs ;(90/131) hzwrgm/hrzg ;(118/173) rhk/rkh
/[w ;(13.2.1 above) r/rg ;(478/677) jr/jr ;(163/239) sjl)
(710) [w
The comparison lsj/sjl is one of two possible comparisons. The

other is the comparison with Aramaic: lsj/lsj. It is surprising that
Ibn Jan did not give preference to the comparison with Aramaic
and made no decision in its favor in spite of (a) its constituting a
comparison with Aramaic, a language closer to Hebrew than Arabic;
and (b) the clearer equivalence of the respective Aram. root with the
Heb. one, in that the letter-for-letter correspondence does not necessi-
tate the rule of metathesis. In this case, however, the comparison
with Arabic is, in a certain sense inevitable, for the sense of the root
sjl, plus the specic linguistic context in which it is used (destruc-
tion caused by locusts), render the word most appropriate and suit-
able for the connotation and context of the Heb. lsjnamely,
hbrah wnlsjy yk (Deut. 28:38). This suitability is so decisive as to
cancel out the weakness factor in comparison, reected in the neces-
sity to fall back on metathesis.
The same applies to the comparison hrzg/hzrgm (p. 131/p. 90).
Ibn Jan rst proposes an interpretation for the phrase hrzg ra
(Lev. 16:22) on the basis of an intra-Heb. etymology, assigning to it
the sense hrwzg (cut o from civilization). This etymology does not
necessitate metathesis; nevertheless the comparison with hzwrgm appears
to him more suitable (cut o, not only from human civilization but
even from vegetation, in other words a barren desert), despite the need
to resort to the rule of metathesis. In almost all the remaining com-
parisons established by metathesis, an alternative etymological anal-
ysis is available without the need to postulate metathesis; nonetheless,
the former alternative was justiably given preference, on semantic grounds. It
should be remarked, however, that this approach is not considered
by Ibn Jan as the etymologically ideal solution, because comparisons
34
On metathesis in Ibn Jans grammar see Becker 1998, 35, 37.
of this type possess only partial correspondence.35 Furthermore, the

total number of comparisons by metathesis is minute as a propor-
tion of the grand total of Ibn Jans comparisons. Additionally, it
is noticeable that several comparisons established by his predecessors
by the rule of metathesis were rejected by Ibn Jan and replaced by
non-metathesis ones, provided that the semantic disparity of the
respective comparisons was marginal to the extent that resorting to
metathesis might have been considered unjustied. This is the case,
for example, in entry [ry (Ps. 72:16). Other grammarians (e.g.
Sa'adiah) elucidated the word, in the sense of r[ (auence, pros-
perity), by metathesis. Ibn Jan, however, interpretes it by employ-
ing a comparison with sgr (blessing, welfare and growth). The two
connotations are close, for the subject of the verb is the noun yrp
(fruit).
In fact, it is not only letter metathesis that requires reservation; let-
ter interchanges are also in need of same. Comparison without resort-
ing to interchange might be considered more interesting than
comparison involving letter interchange. Ibn Jan compares jl
( Joel 2:8) with jals, remarking, however, that in one Arabic dialect,
the word is ajl. This rider would seem to have been adduced sim-
ply and solely for the purpose of reaching a more precise measure
of suitability for the Heb. jl, a correspondence for which the
assumption of a /s switch becomes redundant. (The Hebrew gram-
marians of that period treated inter-lingual comparisons of roots
incorporating the match Hebrew right-handed shin v. Arabic shin
[bearing the three diacritical dots], as quite regular and normative
comparisons, and not as extraordinary or irregular phenomena.)
13.3 The condition necessary for comparison record: A comparison

established only in instances of specicity
One of the denition terms used in Ibn Jans lexicon is wr[m

(well known). This term is applied to entry words that occur fairly
frequently in the Bible or even in rabbinic literature, provided that
they possess a high level of semantic transparency and require no
explanation. Incidentally, this seems to me further evidence that the
35
hsnagmla [b. See, for instance, entry hrzg; also, above, end of 13.2.1.
lexicon was not aimed at the reader possessing no knowledge at all

of Hebrew,36 but at an erudite student having a reasonable knowl-
edge of Hebrew (the measure of his familiarity with the language is
determined, basically from those biblical entry words that Ibn Jan
does not trouble to dene but merely marks as wr[m). It may be
concluded that at each entry word for which Ibn Jan spared him-
self having to dene or even simply render itin which case if he
had indeed rendered it, a cognate implicit comparison (at times, an
explicit comparison) would have arisenthe modern scholar has
missed an instance of language comparison. Considering that Ibn
Jan established hundreds of comparisons, many of them reecting
a good measure of abstract thought and profundity, it seems rea-
sonable to assume that he realized that in the cases of wr[m entries
there were, theoretically at least, satisfactory grounds for recording
explicit cognate translation synonym comparisons and that he nonetheless
refrained from setting them up in practice.
The upshot is that Ibn Jan records comparisons only in the
event of some singularity, such as some unique aspect in the semantic,
occurring in a Hebrew word. For example, the entry tyb in its basic
connotation was left undened, he merely marked it wr[m; in con-
trast, regarding the entry tyb in the sense of woman, he saw t
to record a comparisonnamely, a comparison with its Arabic coun-
terpart tyb, also used in the sense woman. It goes without saying
that the comparison forfeited on account of wr[m is now auto-
matically restored; for if the cognate translation synonyms are semanti-
cally equivalent in their metaphorical connotation, it is fair to
equate them also as to their basic sense (provided there is no log-
ical reason to do otherwise).
But in fact the term wr[m is nothing but an explicit expression
of a general, indeed a prominent phenomenon reected in Ibn Jans
lexical work, i.e. to refrain from translating or comparing words
determined, at their loci, to be wr[m. For instance, at entry har
(p. 655), no rendering is given for the basic connotation (physical sight
of the eye); thus automatically avoiding an implicit comparison with
36
Moreover, it cannot be maintained that the precise meaning of wr[m is of
frequent occurrence in certain texts, because it is not frequency alone that proves
erudition. Furthermore, to indicate high textual frequency of a word he employs
another term: rwhm . . . yp e.g. hnmla yp hrwhm hfplla hdhw ("Ul, p. 19).
the cognate yar; subsequently, however, when enumerating the out-

standing connotations, he resorts to translation and thus spontaneously
to recording an implicit comparison for the metaphorical sense intel-
lect and cognizance: blqla hywrw l[la hb dary am hywrla mp
t[dw hmkj jbrh har yblw ltm (Prov. 1:16). The same happens at
alm (p. 375). At the initial citations, exemplifying the plain sense,
no comparison is recorded; but when, subsequently, he adduces
another connotation, i.e. alm (complete), Ibn Jan notes that this
use of alm is not to be rendered by alm, as the previous connotation was
so to be rendered, but by amt. It is only by a negative process of
induction that the comparison alm/alm, in the rst sense, is disclosed.
Had it not been for the fact that Ibn Jan at the second conno-
tation wished to steer clear of ayyjs classicationi.e. to avoid
a technical rendering by a word of phonetically similar sound (= a
cognate translation synonym), alm/almthere would have been no
intimation of the comparison he had in mind at the rst connota-
tion. Likewise at rw/rwt (p. 711/p. 504) and elsewhere. In princi-
ple, then, entry words that lack explicit denition, lack a rendition,
and come under the category wr[m, the hypothetical deniens of
which is a cognate translation synonym, may supposedly be treated
as bearing a comparison. Nevertheless, the approach adopted by
Ibn Jan in the rest of his lexicon entries leads us to understand
that in his comparative system, no comparison is necessary even hypo-
thetically at the entries marked by the term wr[m.
13.4 Comparison methods
13.4.1 Explicit comparison on tauto-etymological grounds ( >zero comparison

in Shorashim)
Explicit comparison maintained on tauto-etymological grounds is
fairly rare in Ibn Jans records: it is encountered in the following
instances only:
yl[/wl[: aml ldb tyms rhpla whw sarhmla dy hb (dyry) (bk ,zk m yl[B
wl[la m ahb brxy (Ibn Tibbon translates: rmwl hxwr yl[B l[m wb
ykm rwb[b k arqn . . . tkmh dy) (he means to say that the han-
dle of the mortar is so called because one strikes with it l[m i.e.
from above) (p. 525/369).
ynba / wnb ( B] a i ) : 3 7 daryw . . . hdyaz hyp lala ynbah

wnbla hyl[ fqsy ydla rbtmla hb . . ., (I b ,hnb) (p. 98/p. 68). It would seem
that the phrasing . . . . . . fqsy ydla is a rationale; indeed this seems
probable, since the deniens rbtmla is suciently clear and needs
no further elucidation. This is evident from the fact that the custom-
ary particle of elucidation ya was not used here. Also, the word wnbla
was specically chosen, this being a cognate with b-ynba rather than
a word standing merely as a non-cognate such as ydwlwm; the latter
indeed is semantically more likely, since it encompasses twnb (Ibn
Tibbon in fact rendered it ydlyh). In this context, it is worth men-
tioning the denition adduced by Ibn Jan for the entry word ynba,
by way of his discussion of the entry wynpa (Prov. 25,11; see pa
p. 64/p. 44), this being adduced there merely for purposes of gram-
matical comparison (in Ibn Jans opinion, the a in the words ynba,
wynpa and yspa is not radical but additional). Ibn Jan states (ibid.):
dalwala fqsm ya ynb m qtm ynbah. Because the word ynba,
together with its denition, were only incidentally treated here, Ibn
Jan did not trouble to dene the entry word with a denition
incorporating a cognate translation synonym but merely stated dalwa,
this being a non-cognate. In contrast, at the natural location in his
lexicon, at which the entry ynba was recorded for its own sake,
Ibn Jan took care to provide it with a denition constituting a
cognate, i.e. wnbla. This is further corroboration for my thesis that
denitions comprising implicit comparisons of cognates are produced
on purpose and not in coincidental fashion; and it also shows that
implicit comparisons are indeed comparisons and not simply renderings.
rmj/rmja: rtkalayl[ ahnal . . . rm,j rmklaymsyn[mla adhmw (p.235/p.160).
. . . armj
13.4.2 Explicit comparison by dint of discussion of the Arabic example

The comparison pg/pg contains no comparison term and is there-
fore prima facie an implicit comparison. Further on, however, Ibn
Jan remarks that the nominal form pg has, in addition, a feminine
37
For the grammatical aspect of the comparison of this entry see Becker 1998,
67.
counterpart (in Arabic)namely, hnpg also, in Hebrew the noun pg

can be used in the masculine form (e.g. qqwb pg [Hos. 10:1]) or
in the feminine form (e.g. tjrws pg [Ezek. 17:6]). This very dis-
cussion of the grammatical nature of the Arabic word, and its cor-
respondence with the Heb. word forms, even though he fails to use
the conventional comparison terms, justies our treating the com-
parison as an explicit one. Likewise, Ibn Jan explains the entry
ydjath (Ezek. 21:21) by the cognate ydjatsa and the non-cognate
translation synonym ydrpna follows this with a comment on the use
of djatsa (in Arabic parlance): drpna ada lgrla djatsa laqy
(p. 33). The specic regard expressed as to the Arabic deniens, ren-
ders an otherwise implicit comparison to be one of an explicit nature.
The same applies at entry h[x (p. 615): after his rendering by the
cognate ygxa, Ibn Jan employs the term laqy, and follows it directly
with an example of an intra-Arabic usage; this procedure serves as
a clue to the explicit nature of the comparison. Likewise, at the com-
parisons [w/[w (p. 710/[lacking in p. 504]) and grwm/grwm (p. 791/
p. 273).
13.4.3 Implicit comparisons that to all intents and purposes are

explicit comparisons
The category implicit comparison > explicit comparison as encoun-
tered in Alfsis records does not exist in Ibn Jans works, for his
records do not comprise comparison lists. However, there are instances
in which an implicit comparison may be interpreted as an explicit
one, given its context. Take, for example, the entry ax (p. 602/
p. 424): axla hb ky dqw . . . a[ymg z[mlaw axla [t ax hfplw . . .
dn[ ngla al ngla m (y ,a qyw) wnbrq axh m amaw . . . z[mla wd
z[mlaw axla [t ybr[la. No specic attention is paid to the ety-
mological equivalence of ax/ax; prima facie, one might posit that
Ibn Jan intended merely to point out the two dierent renditions
and, in their wake, the two diering connotations available for ax:
(1) ng, (2) ax. In his initial phrasing, he does not specify ng but
merely mentions the entity as a whole, with its separate compo-
nents, (a[ymg) z[mw ax. It follows that the grammarian is also relat-
ing to the semantic range of ax1 and ax2, as these relate respectively
to their cognate counterpart ax and not just to their formal render-
ings (ax, ng). There is thus much more than a mere allusion to the
semantic connotation of the Heb. ax being far broader than ax.
Taken together, this would seem to justify classing the comparison

as an explicit one.
Likewise, at entry alm (p. 375) Ibn Jan shies away from incor-
porating talmkw (Esther 1:8) in the context of alm in its normal
sense (as ayyj thought): he claims that the Esther occurrence is to
be rendered by amt and not by alm. His argument gives us to
understand that some occurrences of alm should indeed be rendered
by a cognate; this being the case, he has thereby also established a
comparison.
At entry ae (p. 55),38 he denes: hyqyqj a in a manner similar
to Alfsis denition of yqyqj d, d.
At entry hkalm (p. 342), with the connotation property, possessions,
Ibn Jan sums up the discussion by citing the verse jl al a
wh[r tkalmb wdy (Exod. 22,7), the word being dened, hlam yp ya
hklmw. All the discussion is recorded under the root al, on the
assumption that the m of hkalm is not a radical letter. The auto-
matic consequence is that hkalm and limU are merely (non-cognate)
translation synonyms. Immediately following that denition, he cites
a dierent opinion (held by others) regarding the etymological pars-
ing of the entry word, as follows: amw hkalmh lgrl ym wq l[gy dqw
aklm hnwrspyw alxa hhba. In other words, the m in hkalm is indeed
radical, whereas the Arabic rendering is the cognate lm. (It is unclear
whether this is the reason for Ibn Jans conclusion vis--vis the
notion of the scholars who so thought or is the outcome of the
explicit comparison they established.) It is of extreme importance to
draw a distinction between Ibn Jans own rendering [= lm(w lam)],
which according to his interpretation is a non-cognate to hkalm, and
the rendering of the other scholars, for whom the same phrase is a
cognate to hkalm. Indeed, there is no doubt that aklm hnwrspyw is
meant to apply as an etymological comparison hkalm/lm, (a) by
dint of the essential distinction discernible here and (b) because, if
his attention had been focused on the grammatical issue alone (i.e.
m being radical or otherwise), he would have had no need to resort
to their rendering or (at most) might have adduced it paraphrasti-
cally, such as lmw lam, in the same manner that he had earlier
expressed his own denition.
38
On this comparison see Becker 1998, 61.
At entry qpr (p. 696/p. 484), Ibn Jan states: hdwd l[ tqprtm
yryg laqw hl hyradm tb hpfltm ya ahbybj yl[ tqprtm (Cant. 8:5)
lyld alb hyl[ hlldtm (Ibn Tibbons rendering reads: . . . tqprtm)
awh yrja wrmaw ahbybjb hqprtm br[h wll hmwd wtsypm rmwlk
hyar alb t[g[gtm wmk. At this entry, Ibn Jan rejects the interpre-
tation proposed by other authorities, because they have no proof
(lyld) implying that his own opinion has a proof for the sense he
has determined, although he does not state explicitly what this proof
is. It is probable that what he wishes to allude to is nothing more
than the usual proof, which, indeed, is encountered at this entry,
too, i.e. the etymological equivalence of (a) the entry word and (b)
the Arabic deniens, qprth/qprt. We thus have here a comparison
that is apparently implicit but in essence and in fact is an explicit
comparison (and no wonder that Ibn Tibbon interpreted it as such
and indeed treated it as such in his translation).
13.5 Comparison with Aramaic cognates
Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram./Ar. (implicit comparison, cognates)

/-lbq ;ddg/ddg/dwg ;sasa-ssa/aya/ya ;awgra/wgra/mgra-wgra
.hya[r/wy[r/wy[r-h[r ;hlabq/lbql
Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram./Ar. (explicit comparison, cognates)

rq[/rq[/rq[ ;drf/drf/drf
Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram./Ar. (cognates)

gbx/[bx/[bx ;[qp/y[yqwp/tw[wqp ;jbn/jbn/jbn
Ibn Jan does not himself record any example of the Aramaic entry
word at entry [bx, but he states, in a non-specic way, that the
word is a word (or root), well-known in Aramaic. In Shorashim, one
encounters an expanded version of this entry, with an additional
illustration from biblical Aramaic, the example [bfxy (Dan. 4:30).
However, that Aramaic entry word is unsuitable for an illustration
of the said connotation, namely, the sense tint, color ([bfxy denotes
immerse, moisten). It is hard to determine if Ibn Tibbon is to be
blamed; it might rather be surmised, with some probability, that this
is but the gloss of some unversed student who was entirely misled
by the phonetic anity of the Heb. [bx and the Aram. [bfxa. It
is thus more than likely that, by using ynayrs, Ibn Jan had in mind
targumic Aramaic, such as yn[bxl in the Targum (to Judg. 5:30),
which renders the Heb. y[bx. In the jbn comparison, Ibn Jan
does not state clearly that he is referring to targumic Aramaic, but
this is no doubt the case because in Bib. Aram. that root is unattested.
Bib. Heb./Talm. Aram./Arab.

(The comparison with Arabic was omitted in Shorashim): rb/arybs
rbs; hyl/atyls/yls; dhf/rhf/dhf; (implicit comparison + synonym
hmym).
Heb./ Aram. general comparisons (cognates)

In three comparisons Ibn Jan refrains from using a phrasing indica-
tive of the Aramaic stratum with which the Hebrew entry word is
to be compared; nor is any specic example for the Aram. entry
adduced, either from biblical Aramaic or from the targumic stratum.
The comparison in each case is of a general nature, its formulation
being something like Bib. Heb. XYZ ynayrsll snagm (is similar to
Aramaic). But it is probable that in all three instances, he intends
to compare with Targ. Aram. specically; see rg, and lbq in com-
parison Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (not ad loc.), jbn in comparison Bib.
Heb./Targ. Aram./Arab.
Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. (cognates)

Ibn Jans lexicon systematically treats of only the Hebrew entry
words in the Bible and does not deal with the Aramaic words in
the inventory of dened entries. Thus no comparison with Aramaic
occurs that is inevitable for the lexicon on lexicographical grounds, as
was noted in Menaems and Alfsis works. On the contrary, all
Ibn Jans comparisons are absolutely deliberate and self-motivated.
A listing follows of the entry words for which Ibn Jan estab-
lished comparisons with Bib. Aram. (for a full enumeration, see chart,
ch. 16).
tylbt-twlbl ,wlfbw ;(65 ,64) yspa ,rsa ,(face) ypal ,snwa ,twma ,wypga
dj ,rwd ,ypg ,ryg ,rbzg ,hwg ,dwgy ,(Riqma 241) rbg ,(hd =) rkb (94)
,tdml ,htrgm ,wnltk ,lbrkm ,yljnh ,rjy ,sj ,hfjhw hzjy ,(Riqma 275)
,qsa ,yngs ,wtn ,jxnl ,tsy ,yskn ,(Riqma 192) bdnth ,lmyw 39,hjlm
39
The verse Ibn Jan cites from Bib. Aram. is anjlm alkyh jlm yd (Ezra 4:14),
,rq ,ymlx ,abx-ybx ,ysp ,br[th ,(652) rqpl ,yap[ ,lyl[b ,(l[ =) d[
ytyr ,twlw ,lykm ,rw ,byb ,wrh ,prm-sprtm ,yzr
Rab. Heb./Bib. Aram.

Only one entry word from rabbinic Hebrew was compared by Ibn
Jan with Bib. Aram., namely, the Mishnaic occurrence yqh (Tamid,
7:3)/qn (Dan. 5:6).
Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (cognate translation synonym)

.rk ,ynrs ,qry ,rkz ,(257 ,154 Riqma) lwmta ,hla ,yla
Bib. Heb./(Targ. Aram.) (cognate)

rqy/rqy (p. 295; in Shorashim, p. 204, this comparison was omitted).
The comparison with the Targum was recorded chiey for exeget-
ical purposes, as Ibn Jan states: jyl[m ytrqy ra (Zach. 11:13)
he does not state clearly, however, whether the form anjlm is a nominal or a ver-
bal form. R. Abraham ibn Ezra, too, in his commentary, is terse and obscure; it
is Rashi who elucidates according to the context byrjhl yxwr wna lkyhh brwj ta
(the destruction of the Temple, we aspire to destroy). The implication is that Rashi
interpretes anjlm as a verb in the perfect tense but with the sense of the future
(such as is fairly common in biblical Hebrew; the reference is thus to the Holy
Temple). Bauer and Leander also class the form anjlm in the category: verb, Qal
= Pe'al, perf. rst pers. pl. (see BL, 50, p. 174). But it is very unlikely that Ibn
Jan intended to parse the word in this way. On the contrary, this word may well
be a nominal form, on the following grounds: (1) Perfect verbal forms with future
connotation are unusual in biblical Aramaic; (2) the context does not allow for con-
struing the form as perfect (= with the plain past tense connotation). More likely
is the interpretation the destruction of the palace (= of the King, not of the Temple)
is itself our own destruction/downfall. It would appear that Menaem in his Maberet
(entry [k, p. 108) also understood it thus (wnqzh wqyzhw wnrts lkyhh tryts). However,
this interpretation of the phrase raises a morphological problem: the regular inection
of the segolate nouns with personal possessive ax for 1st pl. is on the pattern an:li[]P,i
according to which, if parsed as a nominal, the vocalized form would be an:j}l]m.i
The following might be a resolution for this problem: the inected suxed, 1st pl.
form according to pattern an:l]['P] is common in post-biblical Aramaic (see Dalman,
p. 206; Stevenson, p. 38), and the biblical form an:j]l'm] may well constitute a pre-
natal appearance of the later normative phonological pattern (one might compare
occasional biblical occurrences of 1st pers. sing. perfect tlef'q,] tl'f'q,] such as tr,mea,}
tl'feB,] instead of the standard Bib. Aram. form tlef]q,i which may be considered as
heralding the oncome of the post-biblical forms). Be this as it may, Prof. I. Yeivin
conrms that no Babylonian tradition MS (of non-Tiberian reading tradition) containing this
verse is extant. Nor in fact is any such MS extant for any part of the Book of Ezra,
so that an inspection for a variant vocalization tradition for this word cannot be
made. Kittel and Kahles conjectured text emendation, i.e. l. an:jl]m,i is surpris-
ingly erudite and certainly interesting, but no corroboration for their suggestion is
forthcoming!
wgrtla bhdm yl[ hyp tnw. He very likely has in mind the element
of meaning delineated by the additional word ytljd used for the
exclusion of anthropomorphism and is concerned to interpret broadly
the whole Targum quotation whyny[b ytljd trqyd lj (since my fear
was dear to them); however, this comparison ipso facto incorporates
the above-mentioned linguistic comparison.
Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (cognate, not ad loc.)

qpc/qps (p. 741/p. 529). The Targ. Aram. (Deut. 2:7) is not a direct
translation of the Bib. Heb. (1 Kings 20:10), and in the absence a
further link with some other specic Bib. Heb. (for it was adduced
from the Tosefta of the Targum to that given biblical verse), the com-
parison was not eligible for inclusion in the formula Bib. Heb./(Bib.
Heb.)/Targ. Aram.
The comparisons rg/rg (p. 144/p. 99) and lbq/lBeqi (p. 624/
p. 439) were adduced in a general mode with no express citations.
In all probability, Ibn Jan meant to compare them with targumic
Aramaic as a whole entity rather than with biblical Aramaic,
because in Bib. Aram. rg and lbq are of rare occurrence: rg is a
hapax legomenon and lbq though appearing three times as a verb,
is not used with the connotation under discussion (the remaining
occurrences of the root are phrases with lbq}): Thus a comparison
of the Hebrew entry words with their Bib. Aram. counterparts is of
no avail in these instances for determining their meanings.
Bib. Heb./Talm. Aram. (cognate)

atlypa/twlypa ,(39/57) (sign) arma/rymah ,(69/100) y[wp[p/tw[wb[ba
,(73/105) atrwxb / trwxb ,(71/103) hayxyb / hxb ,(44/64; late)
,(115/168) 40ardrd/rdrd ,(94/137) amylg/ymwlg ,(89/129) (dust) wg/wg
42
lsj/wnlsjy ,(136/202) brz/brz ,(117/171) 41rdh-anardwh/yrwdh
n/n ,(289/413) (look) anrhn/wrhnw ,(228/329) nk/pk ,(163/329)
40
Ibn Jan records this comparison in the name of R. Sherira Ga"on in his
swqaydrwq wzja ym fapla ryspt (BT Gittin).
41
It is evident, from this comparison, that Ibn Jan was not aware of the com-
parison rdh/rzj with the interchanges necessitated by the latter.
42
The example he adduces for the Aramaic entry word is the occurrence appear-
ing outside of the talmudic text but accompanying that text as an addendum at
the conclusions of Sedarim (Orders, groups of Tractates), such as: d[wm rds lysj
(Concluded is the Seder [Order] Mo'ed.)
,(343/488) (feed, taste) hps/awpsm ,(338/481) s/s ,(326/464)

.(478/677) jr/hr ,(455/645) ryrq/rq ,(395/562) dp/dp
The comparison nk/pk is obtained by metathesis.

The comparison rymah/arma is founded on the exegetical comment
recorded by R. Sherira Ga"on on the word arma in the chapter
'Rabbi Eliezer in tractate Shabbat;43 the word being interpreted is
mys (mark, sign). Both earlier and later commentators explained arma
as rja [bxbw rja ym wb ynrwa wyh dgbh tlyjt (the beginning of a
garment that they would weave in one kind of material but have it
dyed with another).44 This interpretation would appear to have evolved
by a semantic narrowing from the wider sense mys, a connotation
preserved in the records of Ibn Jan in the name of R. Sherira
Ga"on. It would further seem to be linked, however, by the phono-
logical anity of arma with the Arabic word hrama (used in the
sense mys).
43
He has in mind here the chapter named in our editions of the Talmud qrp
grwah, which is the thirteenth chapter in Tractate Shabbat and not the chapter
hlymd rz[yla ybr qrp (The Rabbi Eliezer Chapter on Circumcision), which is the
nineteenth chapter in that tractate. This is proven by the word arma not being
encountered in that chapter, whereas in ch. 13 it does occurnamely in BT fol.
105a, in a citation from the Tosefta (Shabbat 12 in the Lieberman ed. = chap. 13
in the printed ed. and in the Leiden MS). Moreover, it would seem that the
epithet grwah for ch. 13 is a late abbreviated form of a fuller title, rmwa rz[yla ybr,
grwah these words being, indeed, the opening words of this chapter. In fact, this
title is attested in the Vatican MSS of the BT (In the ed. issued by Maqor, Jerusalem,
1972, vol. 1 [book 2], p. 94, the text reads: grwah wa [yla `r a qrp qyls). See
also the Munich Codex (ed. Strack, p. 256): wa rz[yla r l[ rdh. This is also
borne out by the complementary epithet for ch. 19hlymd rz[yla ybrwhich
serves to distinguish it from ch. 13, which also bore the general undened title
rz[yla ybr qrp, as referred to by Ibn Jan. Subsequently, the latter was termed
grwah (a) to emphasize the above distinction and (b) on account of its contiguity
with the chapters [ynxmh (10), qrwzh (11), and hnwbh (12).
44
This is the interpretation of Rashi at Shabbat 105a and other authorities, too,
as also of Lieberman, at Tosefta Shabbat, ch. 12 (13) and Tosefta, Kil"ayim 5, 19
(see Tosefta to Seder Zera"im, New York, 1955, p. 244); likewise Kohut, in Arukh
HaShalem, and Jastrow in his lexicon; also Kosowski, various Concordances to rabbinic
literature; and Perush haGe"onim le-Seder Teharot, on the word twyrmwa (pp. 9899); see
also n. 2 on p. 99 (ibid.). R. anan"el is alone (most probably following R. Sherira
Ga"on) in construing the word arma by the connotation l[ in la[my wl (Arabic),
which corresponds well with the interpretation mys given by Ibn Jan. It is fea-
sible that Kohut and Jastrow, too, are alluding to the sense twa mys (sign) in the
entry arma as it occurrs in the Mekhilta to Exodus, pericope Beshalla, section Shira,
Parasha 3.
The comparison ymwlg/amylg is classed in talmudic Aramaic, rather

than in the context of comparisons with Targ. Aram. (Bacher aorded
no source ref. for amylg), even though the reading in the printed text
version of Targum Onqelos to Gen. 25:25, as a rendering for the
Bib. Heb. trda, is amylg or ylg (the comparison with Targ. Aram.
specically might be corroborated by the text appearing in Shorashim
namely, amylg trdal rmam (that they call trda, amylg), except that
the given word trda in Shorashim is merely a translation of the word
ask in "Ul. However, this rendering, ylg, recorded in Jastrows
lexicon, is adduced in the Sperber ed. as the reading of the VE
group of manuscripts only, whereas in all the other MSS, and indeed
in the body of the text, the reading is lk]k (in Babylonian point-
ing), which is also the rendering recorded by Rieder in his 1974 ed.
of the Pseudo-Jonathan Targum to this verse. This version is like-
wise attested in Berliners ed. of Targum Onqelos, according to
Jastrow, and it was also the one used by Levita, according to the
entry lk in the Meturgeman (p. 66, col. a) (as well as in the com-
parison with entry word amylg for which he adduces one solitary cita-
tion of lk; lkk, i.e. from the Second Targum to Esther 8:9; this
Targum was apparently unknown to Ibn Jan). It thus seems prob-
able that the Targum reading known to Ibn Jan for the Heb. in
Gen. 25:25 was also lkk and it therefore follows that he could never
have cited the word amylg from targumic Aramaic: i.e. what he had in mind
in his comparison was the word as documented in Talm Aram., in
which this word appears quite frequently (about eighty times).
Another question might be raised: Why did Ibn Jan not estab-
lish his comparison directly with the ad loc. rendering of the Bib.
Heb. ymwlg in Ezek. 27:24i.e. yzzwg. It would appear, from amylg in
his interpretation, that he was unwilling to accept the rendering of
the Targum ad loc., yzzg,45 i.e. a ball of wool;46 he preferred rather,
to adopt an interpretation based on a cognate Aramaic rendering.
To the formula Bib. Heb./Talm. Aram. belongs, further, the com-
parison rdh yrwdh/-anardwh, despite the fact that the expression
45
See Ben-Yehuda, Thesaurus, entry wlg I, (p. 776) the biblical ref. at ibid.
should be emended to Ezek. chap. 27, instead of chap. 23!
46
The vocalized reading in Sperbers ed. is yzigz"wOgb (in Babylonian pointing), but
the reading in MSS C F O Y B Z is yzzwgb. The version in the Arukh is yzydwg: this
reading, adduced by Ben-Yehuda (as in the preceding note) is not attested in the
Sperber edition.
atrqd anardwh as so recorded in "Ul and in Shorashim, is nowhere

to be found in the Talmuds.47 Indeed, neither Kosowskis Concordance
nor the lexicons to rabbinic literature (Arukh, Levi, and Jastrow,
etc.)48 provide any documentation for this phrase. At any rate, for
our purposes, whether the documentation of this expression in "Ul
is unique or is documented in other sources and whether it pertains
to the Aramaic of the talmudic period or to Ga"onic Aramaic,49 the
word anrdwh itself as well as the root rdh in general, in the sense
assigned to it here by Ibn Jan in his comparison, is treated as
being encountered in the Talmud.
The expression atnybz s recorded by Ibn Jan in "Ul (p. 481)
for purpose of the comparison s/s also lacks any documentation
in BT, and no record of it appears in the lexicons to the Talmuds
and to their commentators.50 We have, furthermore, found no ref-
erence to it in the indices to Otzar haGe"onim: it might possibly be
one of the few Aramaic expressions of the Geonic epoch that have
survived solely in a citation by Ibn Jan.51
Comparisons based on formula Bib. Heb.1/Bib. Heb.2/Targ. Aram.
(for full enumeration, see below, chap. 16)
,wytaxb ,hrybh ,ytrjb ,wb ,ydbh ,da ,yla ,wlh ,ylal ,(660 g) wfa
,w[wz ,(190) ynza ,wdt ,hbhdm ,rgd ,qbdyw ,yzng ,mwg ,wpygy ,nwjg ,wzgn ,ybg
,sjy ,lj ,rfj ,twbwfj ,(Mustalaq 79, too) rwj ,fwjk ,wrgjyw ,ryzrz ,yqz
,ypfw ,wn[f ,w[fh ,wnllfyw, twpff ,wfy ,ykjm ,yrj ,prjb ,ykrjh
47
Bacher records not a single source/reference for this expression in Shorashim
(p. 117).
48
Nor have I located it in the indices to Ozar haGe"onim 112 or in variant read-
ings for anrdwh (Shabbat, 77b; Pesaim 76a, etc.). Documentation is also lacking in
the Syriac lexicons: Duval, R. Lexicon syracum auctore Hassano Bar Bahlule I-3, Paris
1901 and Gottheil, R.J.H., Bar 'Ali, The Syriac-Arabic glosses II, Roma 191028. I also
checked in vain Payne-Smith, Thesaurus Syriacus, Oxford, 18791901. In BT ullin,
48b and 113a, the expression atnkd arwdh occurs; but since we are prima facie
placing reliability on Ibn Jans text version, we cannot assume the possibility of
a switch of the attested expression with the one recorded by Ibn Jan, and cer-
tainly not of a corruption of the "Ul text.
49
It is not documented by Epstein (192122); however, he does record ( 44)
hynrdwh wbwry[d and twma [bra hynrdwh rdhw.
50
Bacher states, in Shorashim (p. 338): wmwqm yt[dy al (I do not know its location).
51
In several instances, Ibn Jan constitutes the most ancient corroborative source
and at times the sole source, for elucidation of various words used by R. Sherira
Ga"on. See, for example, Ozar haGe"onim to Tractate Shabbat (vol. 2), part 2, 144,
p. 37 and n. 1, 96 on p. 23, n. 1, 99, and n. 7, 285 on p. 80, n. 1, as well
as further references that can be culled from the indices under entry: yrh rps
jang-b yrl.
,kbw ,ypkb ,rwk ,bkw ,jry ,ytrsy ,jykwhw ,wlybwy ,bbytw ,yprf ,rf ,pf
,tsm ,ynmm ,(704) ydl ,yby[lm ,wqlm ,walyw ,rtk ,lykb ,pklw ,yjwsk
-twnksmb ,rjrjs-hrjsw ,yrds ,dgsy ,wtkw ,rwnm-dyn ,yhnyw 52,bgn ,wrsmyw
,yrf[ ,tq[ ,hp[ ,(508) (loot) d[ ,yd[ ,rwb[m ,rb[yw ,rdms ,ksm
,twjrpl ,yrwrpb ,dqp ,lp ,flp ,yrwfp ,ytjph ,wydjp ,gpyw ,wrgp ,yqr[h
,wjljw ,yx ,hjx ,twjx ,(164, in Mustalaq too) wdxn ,ytbxh ,tpy ,wnqrpyw
, hbr , hmarw , tq , ylsrq , tw[yxq , ytxpq , ytxq , tbrx , tyjwlx
,ttr ,ysysr ,mjar ,wdrw ,(Mustalaq 220, as well) ddwrh53 ,y[brw
,twry ,tyf ,yj ,hja ,(117 Mustalaq) [h ,tkw ,rg ,fab
,fybr ,tbhl ,(750) ytwr ,wgrty ,br ,yrqt ,ypwq ,wpw ,h[tnw
.ytbat
Entry words compared on formula Bib. Heb.1/(Bib. Heb.2) Targ.

Aram.:
,ynmkmb ,fwyw ,twrj ,(Riqmah 143) twljmbw-wlh ,dmg ,(31) ynza
.hydb[m ,(66) bgn
On formula Bib. Heb.1/Bib. Heb.2/(Targ. Aram.):

.qt ,trm ,ydhw ,gtp ,(503) d[ ,kbw ,ry[z ,wrd ,kry[b
13.6 On formula Bib. Heb.1/Bib. Heb.2/Targ. Aram./Arab.
,[h ,ynjpyw ,qnpm ,r[ ,rhsh ,wpqny ,ryn ,hrfn ,grwm ,yrpkb ,rmj ,[xbw
.yt[rt ,h[qw
On formula Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram./Arab. (implicit com-

parison):
.hmq (wyny[w) ,wtsh ,htmxp ,yrmk ,f[byw ,twrwal
52
The comparison dygn/m/wdwgn, recorded in "Ul (p. 404) in the name of
R. Hai Ga"on, in his Kitb al-wi, is merely a marginal gloss and bears the mark
hyaj as a heading and as an end mark. Both Neubauer ("Ul ibid.) and Bacher
(p. 283) noticed this and commented on it. The gist of the text annotation cor-
roborates the above, for after recording this comparison, the annotation reads:
hyla rwfnmla wqla hygw ya wdgn m hqty dylwla wbaw. Now, it is not Ibn Jans
practice to set out his own opinion in the 3rd person, in the middle of a discus-
sion (as he does, in fact, at the commencement of a treatise, a chapter, etc.).
53
Apparently Ibn Jan did not postulate an etymological link between br and
[br and was not aware of the interchange x/[/x. This can be gleaned from the
fact that he specically chose the present formula for this comparison.
On formula Bib. Heb. /Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.:

,rp ,ysp ,twnwt[-t[ty ,dwr[ ,tjn ,wrhnw ,qwzw ,ynz ,wrbdh ,wg
.hrp ,wjktyw ,wgr ,fq ,brq 54,twrfq ,gtp
On formula Bib. Heb. /Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram./Arab.

.hglpn ,hd[m ,hytwya
On formula Bib. Heb./Talm. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.:

.q/qz/ayq/wwqth
On formula Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.:

qn/qyh ,[qt/qn
On one occasion only does Ibn Jan establish a comparison on this
formulaand then with an apology, because his lexicon does
not usually treat lexical items from biblical Aramaic as entry words:
afaytja ld anmzly l (ak) aw hynayrsla hfplla hdh anrsp amnaw
[r qwn ybw ahnyb snagy alp (Ps. 9:17) ajbajxaw ("Ul, p. 454)
(Ibn Tibbon renders: wnyl[ hyh al p[a tymrah tazh hlmh wnrpw
wyrbjw [r qwnl htwa hmdy al hrpl. (I have elucidated this
Aramaic word, although under no obligation to explain it, simply to
prevent its being compared with the similar word qwn in the phrase
qwn and other similar expressions) (Shorashim, p. 319).
On formula Bib. Heb./Arab. (cognate)/Targ. Aram. (non-cognate):
, arkd/ lbwy/ lbwy,/ rpk/ yj/ twj , qjd/ qpd/ wqpdw , ltwk/ rydg/ rdg
y qn / hqn , ytg-yrm / daqn / dqwn , rqwtya / [m / y[ml , wqyrm / jsm / wjm
,rrj/lylx/lylx ,bwrj/(t)mt[a/t[n ,ysmta/sb[/wk[ ,bwrj ,qwr/
.fq/q/sswqy
On formula Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (non-cognate) /Arab. (cognate
with Targ. Aram.) (The comparison with Arab. is implicit in
"Ul/explicit, in the main, in Shorashim:
wj ,hls/ls/dwd ,rpgm/arp[m/rpa ,fwlb/fwlb/wla ,fb/amfwb/hla
lmrk ,jmr/jmwr/wdyk ,grwm/grwm/wrj ,jalm/jwlm/ylwrj ,qws/qw/
54
The comparison formula proves beyond all doubt that Ibn Jan did not pos-
tulate a connection between rq and rfq, an etymological link currently accepted
in modern lexicology, as represented by the following expression: rq/ rtq
(Arab.)/rtq* (Aram.) > rfq (by assimilation of the emphasis component with that
component in the q).
/wrd[y ,hynwns/tynwsns/rwg[ ,ykrk/aykrwk/sys-sws ,(619 lqx) yrp/arwryp/

/asnrwq/[p ,hrx[m/atrx[m/hrwp ,bwk[/atybwk[/r[r[ ,jlp/jlpta
/yykt ,rpf/arpwf/tlh ,glst/fl/bhr ,hpqsa/atpwqs/ltpm ,sanrq
.swwaf/swwf
In the following comparisons the comparison with Arab. is explicit:
55
.lymza/lymza/[wxqm ,rfmq/ayrfmq/hjtlm ,wn/wn/yzh
On formula Bib. Heb./Talm. Aram. (non-cognate)/Arab. (cognate
with Talm. Aram.):
/tlxbj and probably (153) gas/aga/rhdt ,ybr/anybrw/rwat
56
hsgrg/syqrn as well.
On formula Bib. Heb./Talm. Aram. (cognate)/Arab. (non-cognate):
57
.anj/rpwk/rpk
On formula Bib. Heb./Aram. (cognate)/Arab. (non-cognate):
.f[/rg/rg
13.7 Listing of comparisons on formula Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.

(non-cognate)
,yts/ymwfa ,rj/fa ,ybwf/ylja ,ynwqry/twrwa ,h[m/hrg-hrwga

,tya/(y=) ah ,(564 wp) wdk/awpya ,(47 too) rym/wla-lya ,ylwtj/yya
,qt/yyal ,jbdm/larh-layra ,fq/yxma ,rtb/a ,a[yxm/wtyah
/rhgyw ,yd/hg ,aml/hkrb ,w[/rwbrb ,lya/akb ,lylj/bwb(n) ,swjs/ldb
/ynwybd ,rbt/prg ,grd/rg ,hadyjy/hdwmlg ,wjt/twlylg ;tyhla ,jg
55
For a detailed discussion of this comparison, see Maman (2000a), p. 272.
56
Ibn Jan built this comparison by combining the comment of R. Yehuda"i
Ga"on (in Halakhot Gedolot, p. 70, sic Bacher, Shorashim, ibid.) on tlxbj (Cant. 2:1),
i.e. syqrn, with the interpretation given by R. Hai Ga"on for syqrn at BT Berakhot
43b, sgrn/tlxbj. We classify his comparison within the context of comparisons
with Talm. Aram., and not with Targ. Aram., despite the fact that, according to
Jastrow, the text rendering syqrn exists in Canticles for the Heb. tlxbj. Sperber
records only the reading ygern" (in Bab. pointing), (and no var. lec. at all are regis-
tered for Canticles). It is quite feasible that this reading evolved from syqrg
(= Greek narkissos). However, considering the late dating of the Targum to Ketuvim,
which clearly implies its reliance on the Midrashim and the Talmudim and, in par-
ticular, since this Targum was unknown to Ibn Jan, the documentation of the
given Aram. cannot be excluded from pertaining to the talmudic stratum, as so
clearly indicated by Ibn Jans own citations.
57
This is based on the commentary of R. Sherira Ga"on to BT Gittin, 69b.
,yswf/ynbh ,tywd/ykrdt ,nk/rgd ,arwfyj/tbd 58,albyzd-albwyd

/twyj ,jwr/zyzj ,atdxm/jwj ,atyqdnwp/hnwz ,hx[/hmz ,rbt/(mh =) hyw
,fj/wfljyw ,hwt/hlj ,bak/hljn ,amwhyz/htalj ,(Mustalaq 142) .mykj
/twrjm ,(anyd) gwlp/wrj ,ynbwg/(blj-) yxyrj ,rqy/pj ,zng ,rxa/sjy
/twjpf ,(a[rad) apqwt/(rah) rwbf ,(ock) rzg/ypyj ,hkws rj 59,hypw[
/hykwh ,yxrj/[zy ,alqjb jlpm/ybgwy ,aba al/lawyw ,rybt/rf ,aykwp
,mz/d[wm ,[r[/dy[wh ,zyz/[yxy ,qpnta/wrmytn ,(ayrbg)/ymy ,swmyn/ydlybw ,mz
/hnwkm-k ,fwqb/wkn(-la) ,rbd/dry ,blx/wn[qwhw ,(abwdd) anyq/r[y
,a[rt jwtyp/rwtpk ;amyfp tyb ,am/bwlk ,rymg/lylk ,kb/yk ,sysb
/trjml ,yarkwn/rzmm ,yk/wl ,tyma/yqla wta jql ,yskn/hkalm
ywbl/ ym , apyf/ rm , [z[dza/ wd[m , yrwryp/ wytw[mk , yhwrtbw amwyd
whwna ,hyrwmfm/twrhnmh ,(see bibliography above) lylj/bwbn ,ynw[bx
, rbt / tjnw , jnd yqz - ll / ytjn , wlyhbb / wjn , adqm ynb /
,lflfyad/r[n ,qyr[w rybt/ssn ,yzng (tyb)/tkn (tyb) ,ayskn yryt[/ylyfn
hnrdsmh , wlfqyw / wknw , dqwa / tam - an , rgp / ( hyrah ) tlpm
/wfb[y ,anql/lps fl/[ls ,lm/whtystw ,hjmd anam/ysa ,ardska/
/ww[ ,rbrbw rb/hnw[w ry[ ,jrp/w[ ,dqm tyb/w[m ,yqwnpt/ynd[ ,bk[
,ybr/tyl[ ,dbw[/kll[m ,mk/yw[ lg/ (zy[) z[h ,atwydx/hbwz[ ,nkta
/hr[m ,aybrbr/twbr[t ,(171 rdh) alpk/yq[m-bq[h ,anyxt/dx[m
;(342 al) yskn/h[m ,rxwa/h[m ,alwj(-ymy)/h[mh (-ymy) ,gwz/r[ ,rym
/jn[p ,agz/wm[p ,(69 a)-yyr/([h lk-) twnp ,abwf (abhd) /zpwm (bhz)
,jyr/hnjx ,yp/alkwa/hndrp ,y[yb trwx/y[yqp ,anypw/hryxph ;ylg
,wfl/ry[x ,yby ybn[/yqwmyx ,(Riqmah 112) yqa/qyxh ,anybk/rjx
,hajndm/ynwmdq ,ba/rwrx ,wbl/wlqx ,aynb ynb/tw[ypx ,anam/tjpx
/wxqyw ,aynzam/hnq ,ardq/tjlq ,drm/qyw ,afyq ypwys ,atlybd ,dxj/yq
,nkta/wqth ,hbwkr/ylwsrq ,afyq tyb (tyl[)/hrqmh (tyl[) ,hzb
/twjqr ,aw[r/jwrh ,rbt/dry ,atwbyt/zgra ,tyrj/[q[q ,tyyxm(d), 60bq
/yj ,rp/qw ,ljn/twmdb ,(branch) hkws/bw ,yrsn/ybb ,m
,bljd ykbwg/twp ,jp/syw ,(522/732) rbq/ynma ,brbr/hyryk 61,pj(d)
58
The reading albwyd in "Ul is documented also in one of the MSS recorded
by Sperber in his apparatus, whereas the reading lbzd, as in Shorashim, is the ver-
sion adopted by Sperber in his main text (at 2 Kings 6:25).
59
Sperber, at Targum Jonathan to I Sam. 13:20, records (in the main text) hyp[
and in the following verse, ayp[l; however, in MSS T and MS b, at the second
occurrence, the registered reading is hypw[, aypw[, as in Ibn Jans version.
60
Wilensky remarks in Riqmah (p.127 n. 11),that this vocalizationi.e. bveq with
tzerediers from the vocalization in accepted Bible editions and MSS in which
the is with segol. He states: ly[lm ayh twqyywdmh twajswnh lkb rmwa qdr
hnwy ybr wyl[ ms ra ymlwry rpsm wj.
61
But in Sperbers ed. of Targum Jonathan ad loc. (Ezek. 41:16), the reading is
,jtp/tyrwr[q ,lyp /ybhn ,hytp ypwq ,fp/hqm ,lza/wqypy

wpt 62,rwry-dwry-rwdy/t ,wyd/arjt 63,albrwt-arb rwt (rwd)/wat ,mms/r
.(abhd) ypjm/(bhz)
On formula Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram./Bib. Heb.

/dgnta/m ,twnhb/ylwsrq/y[rk ,rwf/bdn/hryf ;qm[/rym/lba
atpwqs/yb[ ,twlyl[/ypwqst-qtsa/lpnth ,wywbm/tthb/twjn ,fwp
.jtp/lg/t[lqm ,lpn/kr/jnx ,bxy/[n/jnx ,hlj/hxyrg/hgw[ ,tpm/
On formula Bib. Heb./Talm. Aram. (non-cognate)

.arw rb/l(y)j64 ,arb lgnrt/tpykwd
13.8 Comparison of Hebrew with Arabic
The comparisons in this major category are classied in accordance

with the standard comparison typology, i.e. explicit comparisons, implicit
comparisons, cognate and non-cognate translation synonyms. However,
an additional factor has been taken into accountnamely, the prac-
tice of R. Judah ibn Tibbon in his production of the translation
Kitb al-Tanqh (see above ch. 6).
ypjd with no var. lec. registered. Incidentally, the word, rdan, which in Ibn Jans
record in "Ul follows [ yj, was transliterated by Neubauer in Hebrew charac-
ters, giving the impression that it pertains to the verse quotation, but in fact this
is an Arabic word that, according to Neubauers editing method, should have been
transliterated into Arabic characters.
62
It seems that the "Ul reading (arb) rwd, is mistaken; for in Shorashim the text
reads instead (arb) rwt. In Sperbers edition of Onqelos, likewise, no variant with
d appears, from any MS, the unanimous version being with t. Sperber registers
no var. lec. arb with r; the reading is unanimously albrwt or alb rwt with a l.
In fact, Ibn Jans version arb rwt, is more transparent etymologically; a l/r
switch may well have occurred subsequently.
63
In Shorashim the reading is ydwry, in "Ul: yrwdy; in the Sperber ed.: yrwry
(MSS s l Z), yrwdy (MSS b g) and ydwry (MS o).
64
Ibn Jan adduces this comparison in the name of R. Sherira Ga"on in his
Glossary to Tractate Shabbat (78a); this in itself is sucient indication that the com-
parison is meant to be with Talm. Aram. and not as a hypothetical comparison
with Targ. Aram., such as to the Targum at Ps. 50:11 (yd zyz); Job 3:7 lwgnrtd hnnr)
(wb hnnr awbt la/. . . arb. This Aramaic entry word appears twice further in the
Targum to Job as well as twice in the Second Targum to Esther, both these
Targums were almost certainly unknown to Ibn Jan. (The above examples have
been culled from the Levitas Meturgeman, at entry arb lwgnrt.)
13.8.1 Heb./Arab. explicit comparisons that lack "ishtiqq i.e. are not
derived from a real inectional root in the language.
In the work Rislat al-Tanbh, (Drenbourg 1880, pp. 26163),65 Ibn

Jan discusses at length the forms sh (Zach. 2:17), wsh (Neh. 8:11)
and shyw (Num. 13:30). He there investigated the possibility of assign-
ing these forms to the regular verb patterns, according to their sev-
eral inections. But, having found no regularity in their inection,
he reached the conclusion that these verb forms cannot be taken as
derived from a normal root (one that can be inected in a regu-
lar fashion) but are rather part of the inection of a word with no
root, which is sh (i.e. a sort of onomatopoeia). Thus the meaning
of shyw is He said sh. The Arabic counterpart is hx (with the same
connotation as the Heb. sh, i.e. a call or signal for all present to
be silent), where, likewise, the word has no root and the verb derived
therefrom, hxhx, also means to say hx.
Comparisons for words that lack "ishtiqq are established by Ibn
Jan also at entries hha/hha (p. 169/p. 116); ywa/wa (p. 26/p. 16),
ay/ahya/-h ( p. 41/p. 26), ddyh/dh, dyh, (p. 170/p. 116). These words
are employed, both in Hebrew and in Arabic, for invocation, a loud
cry, cheering, or lament.
13.8.2 Heb./Arab. explicit comparisons, cognate translation synonym, in

"Ul and Shorashim
Only the entry headings are recorded below; for the comparisons in
full, the reader should refer, in each case, to the source itself or to
the chart of comparisons (below, ch. 16). Source references are indi-
cated only for those instances in which the comparison appears out-
side of its logical location or outside "Ul and Shorashim.
Riqmah) a/a ,hyla ,lyla ,yfah ,yqz-yqza ,zam-za ,ryah-rwa ,ymga
(ph=) pa ,na ,whnan ,man ,twhma ,(rdh-) a ,(ibid.) a/a ,(101
(hmjlm-) tyb ,yyal ,ymaw ,la ,hytwya ,hnwpa ,twlypa ,(Riqmah 22)
,lzwg ,[dg ,wqtbw ,rb ,arb ,[xb ,ytl[b ,hqlwbm ,hrkb ,(Riqmah 311)
,[mdw ,rbdtw ,zrg ,rg ,g ,ydrg 66,hrzg (ra) ,(Riqmah 147) wzgn-tyzg
65
Translated into Hebrew by Solomon b. Joseph b. 'Iyyob, as Sefer Ha-Ma'aneh.
66
In "Ul the comparison is hrzg/hrwzgm; however, Neubauer, in his apparatus,
recorded from MS 0 the reading hzwrgm. Bacher (ZDMG 1884 = Berichtungen . . .,
p. 38; ZDMG 1884, p. 624) emended the text of "Ul on the basis of MS 0. From
,ylzh ,wtmhzw ,yndbz ,wttwht ,twrmhmb ,wlht ,wrkht ,sdh ,ybhbh ,wqpdw
,wnlsjy ,tmj ,rwmjy ,wrmrmj ,mjty ,ymj ,mj ,wgwjy ,ytljz ,jzy ,y[z[zm
,(621) yaxax ,yl[y ,y ,tmj ,ryhy ,dydy ,lbwyh ,drf ,ytjpf ,tj ,hyrwjw ,trj
,(also Riqmah 239) ,btkb ,yrpkb ,hjwsk 67,hskb ,rwnk ,tljk ,h[ry ,thqy
,twrzm ,ddwmyw ,samy ,(704) ydl ,tmjlw ,ymhltmk ,ynbl ,fbly ,twbwalt
,hdwxm-dxm ,hjnm ,hfylmhw ,(Riqmah 139) jwlm ,jlmm ,alm ,hytwrkm
,(369422) twrzm ,jzy ,anyw ,sn ,fwnt ,lgm ,tbnl ,yntm ,y[ml ,frmy ,yrxmh
,ytyjsw ,rhsh ,as ,tyw ,qwtnw ,wpqny ,dqn ,wr[n ,wx[n ,ryn ,hrfwn ,twpyfn
(during the lifetime of ynp-) l[ ,tw[l ,yyd[ yd[b-hd[ ,wb[ ,hnyps ,rksy ,js
,r[ ,hkr[m ,wmx[ ,tmx[ ,(2 times) hn[t ,wll[tyw ,(Riqmah 313)
,hbqh ,glp ,hglpn ,rfp ,hnwpa ,(Rislat al-Taqrb 323) wjypy ,hyapa
,hywrl ,wngrtw ,ytlgrt ,tkbrm ,wytwqw ,sswqy ,ynfmqtw ,trfqm ,wrfq ,hbqhw
,(twice) wlt ,jlh rk ,rzm ,yrwtw ,rbaw ,qtry ,[yqr ,tpxr ,[ry ,jr
.yt[rt ,wnyllwtw ,qrw ,wqy ,p ,py
13.9 Explicit comparisons in "Ul/zero in Shorashim

(Heb./Arab. cognates)
,llwjtm-lwjy ,wz ,hmyhaw ,pg ,hydwdg ,(wife) tybw ,hqwb ,ydjath 68,ynba
,wnbjsw 70,hn 69,hfqn ,(twmb) wbqn ,grwm ,nky ,yk ,hyrf ,xjb ,rmj ,ljy
a semantic viewpoint, the concord of hrzg with hzwrgm is greater, in that both words
are used in the sense of soil that lacks vegetation and cannot enable anything to
grow. This reading nds corroboration in the term of comparison used by Ibn
Jan: ybr[la fpll hhbamlaw hsnagmla [b ahyp wkyw; in other words, what is
being discussed is a partial similarity with regard to the fpl, i.e. the etymology.
The partial nature of the similarity is due to the roots of the words being com-
pared by metathesis. If Ibn Jan had had in mind the comparison rzg/rzg, we would
have a complete comparison. Bacher in his Shorashim (ed. 1896) did not grasp the
subtlety of the distinction and thus failed to emend the reading hrwzgm. It would
thus appear that Ibn Tibbon used an Arabic recension in which the error had
already occurred. The likelihood of the occurrence of such a corruption is greater
in a text written in Arabic characters (in which the letters r and z are similar, their
distinction residing merely in the marking/non-marking of a diacritical dot that
may be easily switched from one to the other) than in a text written in Hebrew
transliteration.
67
According to Bachers emendation (ZDMG 1884, ibid., p. 621), the compari-
son is with ask and not with sk.
68
The comparison is here established according to tauto-etymological reasoning.
69
Ibn Jan records this verb both at root fqn and at root ffq; it is notewor-
thy that the comparison by metathesis is recorded at ffq specically! This implies
that he treats the grammatical analyses for hfqn ( Job 10:1) and for wfqn (Ezek. 6:9)
as of equal validity; for, if the comparison with Arabic were the decisive factor in
determining the root, he would have recorded the verb at root fqn only.
70
This is based on an addendum registered by Razhabi (1966, p. 286).
,whw[xw ,ynwyx ,twjxjxb 71,ylwtpn ,qnpm ,ydt[h ,yl[b ,wzwl[y ,qptsyw ,rksy
,(master) rw ,[h ,rg ,rbw ,rbm ,qyra ,(also p. 192) wzgry
.wr ,h[qw ,jlml ,wl ,wjfyw
Uncertain cognate translation synonyms in this category

ypt / tp ,(503/709) wla ( [xw )/ wc ,(384/547) hprg / twbr[
.(504/710) [w/[w (530/742)
The uncertainty in the case of t/br:[ stems from Ibn Jan relating
to hymstla yp hbraqm (anity with respect to name); and it is not
entirely clear whether he is referring (a) to anity of the signi (that
in both Heb. and Arab. the seventh sphere is denoted by a name
connoting the semantic area of glory and exaltation, in which case,
the pair twbr[ and hprg are merely non-cognates; or (b) to the anity
of the signiants (that the two nouns are cognates). If b were the case,
some remark regarding the interchange b (Heb.) /p (Arab.) could
have been expected.
The w/w comparison is uncertain, because the word w is
cited as a part of the phrase wla [xw and not as a unique deniens;
moreover, the phrase itself serves as a secondary synonym of the
principal deniens of wnamely, zrk. Thus the comparison in fact
is wla [xw ,zrk/w.
The uncertainty in the case of tp/ypt, on the other hand, is
rooted (a) in the comparison not being established by the unam-
biguous comparison term/s as well as; and (b) in Ibn Jan failing
to deal with the discrepancy in the third root letters of the respec-
tive entry words being compared.
The typology of the [w/[w comparison is likewise uncertain, on
account of Ibn Jan neglecting to relate to the metathesis of the w
and the (the rst and second radicals) in the Arabic versus the
Hebrew; here, too, the comparison term used is not an unambigu-
ous one.
71
This accords with Bachers proposed emendation (ZDMG 1884, p. 627), whereas
in the opinion of Neubauer, who reads lwtqm, no comparison occurs here at all.
13.10 Implicit comparisoncognate in "Ul/zero

comparison in Shorashim
13.10.1 Implicit comparisons, cognates, accompanied also by a non-cognate

translation synonym
;yxqtsa ,zw/za ,(68 too) dwadm ,la[m ,yrawwa/twra ;hsaf ,hnaga/ga
/wra ,hqt ,hnwma/wma ;drpna ,djatsa/ydjath ;a[ ,hdjtm/ydja
;dqt ,hyrwkb ,rwkab/twrwkb-yrwkb ;rgx ,rb ,l[b/hljb ;twbat ,wra
/73hrbw ;ld[ ,rb/rb 72,rqb bjax/rqb ;gwz ,l[b/l[b ;drdza ,[lb/yn[lb
,bnag ,hdg/wytwdg ;wj ,bawg-hybag/abgm ;san ,qlk ,rb/rb ;[fq ,yrb
m ,lalg m/llgb ;r[b ,hlg/yllgk ;rj ,lglg/wllgl ;qlga ,rdg/rdg
;ygm ,whdm/hdn ;ljn ,rbd/yrwbd ;-b rm ,rg/prg ;rsk ,rg/ymrgt ;lga
,qd/qz ;bxgt ,gzt/[z ;[wzn ,anz/hzw ;yslab . . . [bt ,bndtsa/tbnzw
/hY:jl ;bltsa ,fk/tpfjw ;mk ,rdk/trdjh ;wgsm ,swbjm/wbj ;hyjl
;yf[a ,jr ,nj/njy ;bxg ,hymj/hmj ,ddgt ,lk/ljy ;h[mtgm twyb, yj
/bjy ;[wfqm ,rka/wrj ;dargla m nx ,lgrj/lgrj ;rqn ,rpj/hrph
,[f/ytm[f ;qs ,llf/wnllfyw ;mt ,lmk ,tk/tj ;-b lab ,bsjta
;dya/byxy ;rdq ,spf/pf ;pn/afaf/hytafafw ;gw[bm ,w[fm/yn[fm ;lka
;lwaft ,dtma/ddwmtj ;ywl ,tpl/tplyw ;b[kla wd ,a[ark/y[rk ;hwq
walm ;ams ,hzntkm ,hkmm aprk/yjim ;dspy ,rdm/rzmm ;gwzt ,rhm/rhm
;yf ,falm/flm ;ytwn ,halm/hyjlmw ;rwat ,rmat rma . . . alm/(wbl)
;tydj ,ltm/lm ;[zn ,jsm/jm ;rjt ,rmrmt/rmrmtyw ;ld ,[m/w[m
,yhn/hnyw ;ls ,ghntsa/(hmkjb) ghnyw ;y[ ,[wbny/y[wbm ;dm ,jtm/jtmyw
;las ,yrg ,rfq ,fn/wpfn ;barfxa ,[n[nt/y[n[nm-[rnt ;ryazla qwp twx
,b[t ,abtsa/b bsb ;lxatsa ;yqn/hqnw ;jartsa ,spnt/pnyw
whqz[yw ;hblx ra ,zaz[/lzaz[ ;brx ,qpx/qpsyw ;yds ,gays/hgws ;bat
/wytwyf[ ;lam ,f[/f[y ;tagtsa ,jrtsa ,f[tsa/f[ ;rpj ,qz[/
,hbq[/bq[h ;bgj ,yfg mg/wmm[ ;ytp ,alg/l[ ;rknm ,saf[m-saf[
;laz ,brg/br[ :hzagm ,hbqa[m/bq[ rata ,bq[/twbq[-bq[b ;r[w ,b[x
; rha hr[ , arw[ / rw[ ; lga / lrga , lr[ ; axpx , brg / ybe r [
72
This accords with Bachers proposed emendation (ZDMG 1888, p. 307), whereas
in the opinion of Neubauer, who took the word rqb following bjax to be a Hebrew
word, this is not an instance of a comparison.
73
The spelling with h is in conict with the Masoretic spelling (at Ezek. 23:47).
In the glosses of MS-R to "Ul as well as in Shorashim, the spelling is with a. The
truth is that Ibn Jan most probably had in mind the spelling with a, since the
location of this scriptural citation is at root arb, in which case the spelling with h
may be just a copyists error.
; qrp , adp / twdp ; lfa / t[a / t[n ; rxja , d[a 74 , dt[ / hdt[w
;rsk ,xp/wjxp, l[a ,hxpa/yjxp ;jtp ,rgp/hr[pw ;[nx ,l[p/tl[p
,[qp/tw[wqp ;dh[t ,dqpth ;axqn ,dqp/wdqpyw ;rsk ,qq ,xp/htmxp
;zal ,yl[ tbt ,ltpna,/ltltp-lytp ;qrtpa ,lz[na ,drpna/drpn ;rfp
;-b lqtna ,[f/[xy ;ynf ,lylx/lylx ;ajrp twxla [pr ,ajrm lhx/wlhxy
/twlybqm ;dka ,lbqt/wlbqw ;jax ,rx/jrx ;sla tydj ,rygx/ry[x
;adtba ,dqt/ynmydqh ;hrxjb ,hlabq/([-) lbq ;hyqaltm ,hlbaqtm
,ryxq/rxq ;btw ,zpq/pqm ;rj ,lqlq/lqlq ;rxbla bhd ,wq/hmq
,qbr/qbrm ;rybk rhn ,sar/yar ;l[ ,yar/har ;wnd ,brq/brq ;qyx
;h[wmgm hragj ,hmgr/hmgrm-gr ;rbq ,ydawla fb ,hbgr/ybgr ;lbj
akm ;hbjr/hbjrb ;twx ,jyzrm/jzrm ;spn ,jwr/jwr ;rytk am ,ywr/hwr
, [tra / [rtw ; dqpt , rkp , y[r / wy[r ; dyd twx , r/ wnynrh ; [saw
,hlyls/hly ;qyrf ,lybs/ylyb 75,wt/a ;dns ,dpr/ynwdpr ;brfxa
.kja ,qta/qt ;glba ,mt/mtk ;hmym ,yls/htylbw ;hdly
13.10.2 Entries, for which an implicit comparison was reiterated

,baz ,hrg ,rkty ,yb ,a, la-twpylam ,hwla ,(hz) ya ,wrja 76,ja
,jpyw ,rjn ,ytrrm ,alm ,ry ,ayl ,wnjfw ,rjy ,wfnjyw ,mj ,lbj ,[rz
,jtp ,jp ,wxwpy ,rw[ ,r[ ,yyn[ ,hqwm[h ,ry[ ,hmn ,bqny ,hbxm-byxn
, lgr - tlwlgrm , awbr , ar , harm hmwq , twmlx , dwx , wqdx , y[bxh
,yly ,rkw ,rw ,twb ,[wb ,tlb ,hkb ,hxr ,wmrw ,bkr ,ylgr
.ltb ,hqy ,hnm ,tlw
74
Neubauer, in "Ul, marked a shaddah (doubling mark), above the d in dt[a;
in this case, the t is the taw of the VIII-conjugation, the root being dd[. According
to this reading, there is no implicit comparison to be registered. However, an inspec-
tion of the MSS of "Ul (i.e. MS Oxford, which Neubauer himself used in prepar-
ing his edition) it emerges that there is no shaddah in this word, which is to be
interpreted ahdt[aw, i.e. the IV-conjugation of the root dt[. This reading reveals
an implicit comparison, as registered in the text, i.e. dt[/dt[. This reading is also
the more likely one because, the non-cognate ahd[aw follows the cognate and it is
very unlikely that a root would be given an elucidation, by that same root, ya ahdt[aw
ahd[aw. It ensues that we should here identify two distinct roots. Incidentally, this
MS is consistent in marking the shaddah and as noted earlier, the word referred to
is not marked with any shaddah. In MS-R, the reading is ahdh[aw, which is most
probably corrupt.
75
According to the Addenda of Razhabi (1966, p. 290, addendum 45).
76
For the grammatical aspect of the comparison of this entry see Becker 1998,
67.
13.10.3 Entries, for which an implicit comparison is encountered once only

,rab] ,a wna ,ae ,"a/ a ,"a/i a :a/i a ,wla ,yam ,za ,da ,zwga
,hnhe ,yldmi ,tl"d" ,rg ,brg ,ldgm ,rwbg ,hnbig ,hkreb ,drb ,ylxbh ,qhb
,twynUjh ,ynxlj ,dlj ,(?) j ,hyjh ,afj ,[wrz ,rk;Z:Ti ,rykzm ,twywiz:k] ,hz
,lyl ,bbly al ,yrmkh ,syk ,swk ,rybk ,rty ,dly ,wy ,dy ,jbfh ,j ,yfyrj
,ss ,rn ,rmn ,meh ,y[m mi ,(342) ]limU/hkalm, jwlm ,hqjm ,hjmw ,gzmh/
,yfp ,r/[ ,yqr[w ,r[r[ ,hrq[ ,y:[m ,yf[hbw ,twpf[mh ,wdb[i ,wtsh
,ymmwqtmm ,jlxt ,lxlx ,Hryx ,yrhx ,y[bx yrp ,[rp ,yjrpa
,srl ,thrb ,jawr-jwr/jwr ,jyr/jwr ,[wbr tCq jyqt ,aqm-yawqh
,twryr ,lqm ,hp , ,ymwllw ,wfl ,hlkm ,tbkw ,tqjw ,t[bw
.tjt ,tjtma-rwm
13.11 Implicit comparisoncognate in "Ul/explicit comparison

in Shorashim
,Wj ,twrmzm ,ynbh ,wlg ,rdg ,wyl[b ,f[yw ,wgra ,y[pa/h[pa ,rjea
,rwqnb ,blm ryhm ,(also in Riqmah 138) hn<bl ,hnwbl ,() qrj ,mej
,bhx ,bx ,sdrp ,hrp-arp, ,jlp ,wynyf[ ,rgws-trgsm 77,wny ,hnh (dyg)
,hnwk ,tr ,tqprtm ,jr ,(642) fq ,y[lq ,hpxpx ,jyrx ,yMix
.hpy ,wl ,tpj ,tlb
The entry fq, in the comparison fq/fsq, adduced as it is by dint

of a discussion within the entry tw[yxq (p. 642), is a rabbinical Heb.
word: its identication with fsq is attributed to R. Sa'adiah Ga"on
and fe.
13.12 Explicit comparisonnon-cognate translation synonym
(a) Explicit comparison, non-cognate translation synonym in "Ul

and Shorashim
brd ,(692 qtr) ytw/(bhzh-) tlg ,arw m/rja ,ama/wa ,(13) yzrk/ryda
,yqw aksa/rj ,as[n ,yan blk/yzh ,rk ,rgnk/rdrd ,zamhm/
/kes ,(Riqmah 59) yK/[ml ,glap/tl ,baqj/zmwk ,dq/rbk] ,lagb/ymyE
77
According to the Addenda of Razhabi (1966, p. 287, par. 26).
,gapa/wjypy ,rk ,hyranq ,rgnk/r[r[ ,jaqp/rdms ,(137 hlg) [qp

yrax/rt ,ltyt/wat ,hqrjm/r:; ,wpay ,dqdq/
(b) Explicit comparison, non-cognate translation synonym in "Ul/zero

in Shorashim
wmh ,fsq/yh ,wmk-wdk/hydwdg ,agm/bwbn ;hdhw ,hrpj/rwj-hrwam
,djg/jk ,bng/hprf ,(reached the middle) pxn/ hxj ,dyxrp/gz ,atlh/
/n ,ydaw/ljn ,gw/rwnm ;dwzm ,hbrk/fwqly ,ryafla hrbad/y[rk ,kl/yk
/twllw[ ,arp/ydy[ (dgb) ,hpn[z/rypns 78,[pq/kws ,hblaw/yjs ;hs[s[
,rj/tqq ,rmfm/(hdmh-) wq ,bwd/rx ,rtn/frp ,lgj/dq[ ,axk
,gza/at ,aqr/drc] ,[rs/gr ,rxnm/fybr ,ylawd/ twmd ,dgn/ytdbr
.dbr[/t 79,rmg/ wht
13.13 Explicit semantic comparisons at entries which are non-cognates

both in "Ul and in Shorashim
The entry pairs listed above were established for comparison on the
basis of their common semantic element, whether of metonymy,
metaphor, or whatever. There are several instances in which the
common denominator is the very existence, in both languages, of
the same noteworthy phrase.
Following the pair of entry words, the connotations shared by both
are indicated (in parentheses); if the basic sense is straightforward
and well known, the additional connotation only is marked in paren-
theses. Adjoining the phrases no semantic elucidation is given; cross-
reference is given only for those comparisons appearing outside of
"Ul.
yhr/hwqt-rysa ,(end, grandchild) arw/ktyrjaw ,(I wish, lest) l[l/ ylwa

(darkness, a place where one is disoriented, blind) fg/hylpam (ra)
(Riqmah 331) rkla lzwg/lzwg, (branch of the underworld, branch,) qr[/ydb ,
78
However, according to Bacher, loc. cit., p. 338, n. a, in the Escurial MS of
Shorashim this comparison does appear.
79
In Neubauers ed., loc. cit., the Arabic word adjoining the comparison term
ybr[labw is rag, but in all likelihood this is a printers error, for which, read ramg.
This is evident from the word appearing as a rendering of a Heb. plural entry
word twmwht. What is more, the non-cognate translation synonym recorded at the begin-
ning of this entry as the rendering for wht is rmg.
,(13.2.1; will?, direction?) hmjm/hmgm ,(pigeon edgling, any bird edgling,)

(na) ymj/(a) hrj ,(oppression, change) kf/smj ,(anklet, cable) lnj/jj
,(inundation and) w[/pf ,(closed, full) [wbfm/wtj ,(burning, overcoming)
interior) dbk/bl ,(compassion stirred, be dried) gah/wrmkn ,(swimming, walk)
na / wl , bxq / ql ,(begin) dka / jql (ibid. Riqmah, ;guts,
,(urine descendants) lwb/ym .(the speech organ, a mountain or a part
of it, roar [lion], sound) raz/r[n (going down, give fruit) lzn/tjn
,(blowing wind, expel) pn/bn ,(surrender) dy yf[a/dy tn ,([any other beast],
(gold, glorious song) hbhdm-bhd/btkm-twd[-yd[ ,(beams) dpawr/twlsim
,(Riqmah 314 in the rank of my people); ymwq hwrd yp/ym[ wtb
[fm/wypb dyx ,(provisions, livelihood) daz/hdyx ,djaw asl /dja hp
,(cut, crossing water) [fq/wjlx ,(Riqmah, ibid.; . . . succeeding) dyxla
(cold and wind, attic) hjwrm/hrqm ,(talk a lot Riqmah, 331) qrk/[rq
ywr/wn (against, equal) aza/(ynwlp) dgnk (ynwlp) ,(shoulder, side) bknm/k
.(saturate, blow wind)
Instances of a lack of complete semantic correspondence:

In comparing the pair lge (Ps. 45:10)/hyrsU (p. 703/p. 498), Ibn
Jan remarks that hyrs is the most suitable translation synonym
(the most suitable, presumably, of the various alternative translation
synonyms possessing an approximately similar connotation) for lg,
although the two terms do not refer to the same signi (ahna ala
hynarb[la hfplla hqyqj yl[ tsyl). This might be paraphrased,
according to our notions, as follows. The words lg and hyrs are
not equivalent as to all their semantic featuresfor instance, in their
use for dening legal status and social standing: in this respect,
they cannot be termed absolute translation synonyms; however, by
dint of their having several basic semantic features in common
(han[m yp ahnkl), they are indeed eligible, on the level of language
practice, to serve as translation synonyms.
Correspondence in ways of derivation:

The verb form hyapa (Deut. 32:26) (hap]h)i derives from haPe, with
the connotation: I shall put/scatter them into a remote hap (cor-
ner, edge) (in the world). By a similar way of derivation, the
Arabic verb yxqa is derived from yxq, and qpa from qpa, with con-
notations equivalent to those of (hap]hi < haPe (p. 559/p. 393).80
80
See Becker 1998, 137.
Likewise, the derivation of the verb rape from trp,o hrap parallels
the derivation of the translation synonym bxq from byxq (p. 560/
p. 394); likewise hLsi > tl,s/g > yg (p. 485/p. 340).
13.14 Heb./Arab. explicit semantic comparisons in "Ul/zero in

Shorashim
The following are examples of non-cognate translation synonyms

used with the same metaphorical connotation.
The verbs amg and hl, although constituting non-cognates, are
both used in the sense of swallowing, and both possess the metaphor-
ical sense, with the object ra/ra: ra amg/rala htla (speed-
ily traversed an enormous distance, within a small measure of time,
p. 138/p. 94).
Additional comparisons of non-cognates in metaphorical connota-
tions are mentioned by Ibn Jan, at the following entries: rykzh/r[
(inform/notify or evaluate an object as goodly and pleasant,
p. 195/ p. 131); yljh/lxk (satiate, delight, p. 230/p. 157); -b lpn/
yp [qw (harm); tdlm hdm[/hdalwla m td[q (ceased [from], p. 532/
p. 374); Ibn Jan fails to note that the fundamental meanings of
dm[ and d[q are opposite (for the connotation of the Arabic verb d[q
is sit). However, it is probable that he means to say that both
verbs denote the consummation of a motion (whether this cul-
mination comes after walking or follows a passing-over from one
state to another state, e.g. from standing to sitting or vice versa);
gr[/gan (utter a sound, a voice: originally used for the sounds of cer-
tain beasts and subsequently used metaphorically for humans also;
p. 547/p. 385); (ha)b qjx/ (harma)b whl (a euphemism for sexual
intercourse; p. 606/p. 427); tt/brs (one of the basic connotations
of wfpf [dripping, light streaming], for the metaphorical conno-
tation owing and continuously moving on; p. 752/p. 537).
Mutual concurrence of two connotations of the same word:

yrtsm/taypk ypk (hide oneself, seclude and also the lions lurk-
ing places or den in Ibn Tibbons rendition, p. 494/p. 347); rbv/
yr
(purchase and also sell, p. 700/p. 496).
Mutual concurrence in extension of meaning (via metonymy or

metaphor):
ldg/f[ (superiority in quantity or in quality, p. 124/p. 85) and

similarly rybk/yf[ (p. 306/p. 211). lh/yta (p. 175/p. 119; a guest
coming from afar; a ow of honey, used as a symbol for what/who
comes from afar); jx/lka (spotless, pure, also color white; p. 606/
p. 427); rj/yjx (rise early in the morning, as well as clarify,
elucidate; p. 715/p. 508); k [qt/qpx (smite, and also make a
business deal, p. 77/p. 549).
Semantic concurrence in (a) of verb and connotation (b) of a sub-

stantive derived from that verb:
jql/dka: jql >jwqlm/dka > hdyka (booty, plunder, p. 357/p. 248);
hdM]ji/tmlja: dwmj > dmj/ylja lj (gave birth to gorgeous or
lovable children, p. 233/p. 159).
Partial semantic concurrence:

rxb/rbt (p. 105/p. 75): rxb signies rened gold whereas rbt
denotes non-rened gold; jl/a[f (p. 351/p. 244): the wider con-
notation of jl basically applies to all foodstus, just as is the case
with Arabic a[f (ldk br[la asl yp a[fla a amk); however,
by and large, jl denotes specically something baked from wheat
or barley grain. The two signiants sns/bf-[s (p. 496/p. 348)
denote branches of palm trees; however, in Arabic parlance, [s
mostly signies a dried-out palm tree branch, whereas Heb. sns
and Arab. bf are used for a fresh green palm branch. ynypwt/kr
(p. 768/p. 547): The Hebrew entry word (a) denotes unnished
baking, whereas (b) kr denotes dough; on account of the seman-
tic anity of the two, however, (b) is used as a rendering for (a).
One Hebrew signiant versus two signiants in Arabic: h[t/lx,
brfxa (p. 766/p. 546).
Comparison of ways of derivation and linguistic usage:

[xrmb [xr/xkmlab bqt (p. 687/p. 486): In Hebrew both the action
of boring and the implement are derived from the same root, whereas
in Arabic the phrase is built of two dierent roots. In principle, a
phrase equivalent to the Hebrew might have been feasible, i.e.
xkmlab xk, but for the fact that in Arabic the object of xk can
be only what is neither a human nor the limb of a human.
[lwtm/zmrqlab gwbxm sablb sblm: Hebrew uses a verbal partici-
ple ([lwtm) derived from the noun (yn t[lwt). Arabic, in contrast,
did not evolve a denominative verb from the noun zymrq, even
though, prima facie, it might have been possible to render [lwtm by

a single Arabic equivalent word, i.e. *zmrqm (p. 762/p. 544). tam/[m m
(from within, p. 76/p. 52).
13.15 Comparisons in Ibn Jans Opuscules
In his minor works (Derenbourg, 1880), Ibn Jan used compar-

isons only sparsely: a total of fourteen lexical comparisons. Eleven
of them are in Kitb al-Mustalaq; the remainder are divided up as
follows: one in Rislat al-Taqrb wa-t-Tashl, one in Rislat al-Tanbh,
and one in the Kitb al-Taswi"a. Further encountered in Mustalaq
are four discussions on specically grammatical topics or on issues
of general principles in the eld of Heb./Arab./Aram. compari-
son; there are also two grammatical comparisons in the Kitb al-
Taswi"a. Relative to the enormous number of comparisons recorded
later in the exhaustive work Kitb al-"Ul (Shorashim), the above is
indeed a meager total. However, this is not surprising, given that
these treatises were designed for lling out and emending ayyjs
treatises, for elucidating his method, or to argue with his opponents;
one wouldnt expect to encounter lexical comparisons in those works.
Moreover, the grammatical comparisons that are encountered, by
dint of an analysis of some biblical forms and the fundamental dis-
cussions on the problem of language comparison, are astonishing in
the extent of their thoroughness as well as of their profundity; As
in other areas, the impression is that these sporadic discussions are
nothing but a prelude and blueprint for his magnum opus on
the grammar and lexicography of biblical Hebrew.
Inventory of the lexical comparisons in Ibn Jans minor treatises

rwj/rwj (Isa. 24:6; 29:22; Esther 1:6; and more) (rwj)/bl (Mustalaq
79); wrxn (Zeph. 3:6)/wht (Gen. 1:2); ytmhw (Lev. 26:32)/ydxaw ,aydx
(ibid. 164); dryw (1 Kings 4:32)/w[qryw (Exod. 39:3)/wdydrw (ibid. 220);
fa (Ezek. 25:15; ibid. 6)/zbyw (Gen. 25:34)/faw (ibid. 112); [h
(Isa. 6:10)/jfw (Lev. 14:42)/[wyw (ibid. 117).
Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (local non-cognate)

hyj (heal), twyj (Exod. 1:19)/(mykj) (Mustalaq 142).
Bib. Heb./Arab. (explicit comparison)

ka (Mic. 6:6) k/k (Mustalaq 149); shyw (Num. 13:30) wsh (Neh.
8, 11)/hxhx-jx (Tanbh 262);81 jph (Isa. 42:22), wjypy (Prov. 29:8)/pn
(Taqrb 262).
Bib. Heb./Arab. (implicit comparison + synonym)

wnyllwt (Ps. 137:3) < lly/lyla (Mustalaq 240); jx (Lam. 4:7; Isa. 18,
4) jx + sm (ibid. hjx 210); lylx/lylx + ynf (ibid. 211; Taswi"ah
377); wllx (Neh. 13:19) llf + [ smla tlaz (Mustalaq 213).
All the above-mentioned comparisons, with the sole exception of
twyj/mykj (Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram., non-cognate translation synonym),
are reiterated in Shorashim or, at least alluded to by a cross-reference
to Mustalaq or to one or other of the minor treatises.
13.16 Comparative philology in Sefer haRiqmah
The bulk of Ibn Jans comparisons in the Sefer haRiqmah are in

the area of grammar: they are numerous, multifarious, and profound
in the nature of their abstraction. (Since these comparisons are not
treated in the present study, they are not here enumerated.) But here
and there one encounters lexical Heb./Aram. or Heb./Arab. com-
parisons apropos of a discussion on grammatical comparisons or
while the writer is elucidating a biblical verse or some isolated word
from Scripture that may have a bearing on some general topic. For
example, when discussing the issue of the doubling of some conso-
nants beyond the requirements of grammar, he adduces the word
lwmta, in which the t is sometimes doubled (dagesh, as in 1 Sam.
10:11) and sometimes not doubled (raf ). Here, he remarks that the
equivalent word acts similarly in (targumic) Aramaic, i.e. ylmta which
is in some cases with a doubled and in other instances with a sim-
ple t (Riqmah, pp. 154, 257). On the subject of the morphological
pattern of the word rbN (Ps. 18, 26), he remarks that it may be com-
pared with the Aram. word rbg] (rbg ytya Dan. 5:11; Riqmah, p. 241).
It is quite obvious that the grammatical comparison is founded on
the etymological and semantic equivalence of those two words. A list-
ing of the lexical comparisons adduced by Ibn Jan in his Riqmah
81
See Becker 1998, 124.
follows; however, instances of the comparison of grammatical parti-

cles (such as d/d in the sense of ra, p. 88) are excluded.
Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. (cognate)

.(192) bdnth/bdnth ,(275) dj(a)/dj ,(241) rbg/rbg

local cognate:
(154) ylmta/lwmta
non-local cognate:
.(143) wp/wyp ,(143) lylj/hljm-wlh
non-cognate: yqa/qyxh (present) (112).

.(130) brx/r[b/brx ,(327) rgp/srh/rgp
Bib. Heb./Arab. (cognates)

tyb/(war) tyb ,(22) (dph =) pa/pa ,(ibid.) ai a ,(101) ai/a
ynblU/hn<bl ,(239) (epistle, book) batk/btk ,(147) zg/zzg-tyzg ,(311) (place)
.(313) (that, As I live! I swear) yl[/l[ ,(139) jalmU/jwlm ,(138)
Bib. Heb./Arab. (non-cognates; phrases for semantic comparisons)

wtb ,(59) yK/[ml ,(332331) dbk/bl ,(331) (rk) yhr/(hwqt) rysa
.(314) dyxla [fm/wypb dyx ,(314) ymwq hwrd yp/ym[
These comparisons are, by and large, repeated in Sefer haShorashim

(e.g. dj/dj); indeed, it may be inferred that a comparison that is
not reiterated is recorded for grammatical purposes only. Take the
following instance: the comparison on formula Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.
(local non-cognate translation synonym) qyxh/yqa had as its aim to
demonstrate that Hebrew possesses the potential consonant inter-
change g/q, for it is on the basis of the Aramaic rendering of the
word wqyxyw (2 Sam. 15:24) as wmyqaw that he concludes that wmyqaw is
an alternate form for wgyxyw. Likewise, rbg/rbg (recorded in detail
above) and bdnth/bdnth.
13.17 Uncertain comparisons
In "Ul one occasionally encounters renderings that appear to be

aimed at etymological comparison but that Ibn Jan nevertheless
refrained from expressly recording as comparisons. Prima facie, it
might be argued that he transmitted them as implicit comparisons.
However, these comparisons are founded on special or complex lan-
guage processes; had Ibn Jan had language comparison in mind,
might have been expected an explicit mention regarding these processes.
I am referring to those comparisons necessitating letter metathesis
such as djp/zpj, additional letters such as l[w/bl[t, more than
one letter interchange between the two respective pair components
such as sm/gzm, or an interchange of morphological patterns such
as dydr/adr. It is an open question, whether the grammarian treated
these as real comparisons or merely desired to render these entry
words by similar sounding counterparts, in the same way that other
philologists practised such renderings as lbh/abh ,mz/mh etc., where
no etymological equivalence exists.
Uncertain comparisons are encountered also with regard to explicit
comparisons. In this category are to be reckoned those comparisons
adduced in the name of others, without an explicit remark on whether
Ibn Jan consents to or rejects them. For example, at entry al
(p. 342) Ibn Jan records the comparison hkalm/lm. The lexical
(unnatural) location of this entry seems to indicate that the m of
hkalm is not radical. On the other hand, he refrains from using any
clear expression of rejection of or disagreement with the comparison.
13.18 Rejected comparisons
Several comparisons occur in "Ul that Ibn Jan adduced merely

to rebut them or to propose alternative ways to render or elucidate
them. The rejection of a comparison can be eected in a number
of ways: (1) If in Ibn Jans opinion an etymological comparison
has an incorrect basis of grammatical parsing, he rejects the com-
parison categorically. A case of this type is the comparison azml
(b[r-) yzm/(anwtal) (p. 369/p. 257), since the m in b[r-yzm is radical,
whereas the m in azml is an additional letter (= an ax) (in Ibn
Jans words: ymla al . . . htgl m . . . alw azml yn[m m sylw . . . yzm).
hdyaz . . . azml yp. The nullication of the comparison is expressed
by the phrase: . . . m alw . . . m sylw. Incidentally, this comparison is

recorded in Alfsis work; nonetheless, this is not an unequivocal
basis for assuming that Ibn Jan had Alfsis opinion in mind when
he used the impersonal subject in stating: wq . . . hnwrspy. Nor is it
clear that Ibn Jan even knew of Alfsis Jmi' al-"Alf. (2) But
there are etymological comparisons that Ibn Jan would not dis-
qualify merely on the grounds of grammatical or semantic analysis:
he would simply opine that the comparisons are unsuitable to the
context in which the entry word happens to occur. For this reason,
these comparisons are not rejected with sharply worded expressions;
nor, indeed, are they totally ruled out. This is especially the case
when an interpretation built on a comparison that is rejected by him
is set forth with the endorsement of a commonly accepted author-
ity, such as an interpretation based on a tradition to be found in
rabbinic literature or in the Aramaic biblical Targum. An instance
of type (2) is the comparison bhw (Num. 21:14)/bhy, i.e. a Heb./Aram.
comparison an allusion to what the Targum had said (= interpreted)
and to what has been traditionally received82 (Shorashim, p. 126):
Ibn Jan refrains from rebutting the comparison on grammatical
grounds and avoids rejecting it, with semantic arguments, on account
of his faith in the Oral Law as transmitted by the Sages: And we
shall not contradict anything of their words but we state that another
way of construing is possible (ibid.).83 Even the comparisons m/m
and bae/bae, which cannot be disqualied etymologically, he rejects, gen-
tly as follows: . . . except that my opinion is more inclined to inter-
pret in the way I already told you84 ("Ul, p. 372; Shorashim,
p. 259); or he employs the phraseology: but what we have stated
seems more likely (= correct) (Shorashim, p. 9). At times the received
or commonly known interpretation proposed for the entry word
is not founded on etymological comparison and Ibn Jan postulates
such a comparison as a basis for that interpretation. Such is the inter-
pretation ensuing from Targum Jonathan for the verb rf[ in the
phrase dwd la yrf[ (1 Sam. 23:26), which was rendered as ynmk
hiding (mustering?). Ibn Jan interprets it, using the etymologi-
cal equivalence with Aram. rf[, in the sense of rws or lza (turn
aside, go), verbs the Targum renders by the root rf[ (p. 518/p. 365).
82
hlbqb wb hab hmw wgrth rma hml zmr awh.
83
wkw rja yyn[ wb twyhl kty rman lba hyrbdm hmwam rwtsn al wnaw.
84
l htlq am yla lyma yna ala.
For further rejected comparisons, see the chart in chapter 16,

below (in col. Ibn Jan, where the symbol occurs). However,
several comparisons can be traced85 that were not expressly rejected
(see above, 13.2.1). It may be safely assumed that some traceable
comparisons were rejected by Ibn Jan because a letter interchange
implied by them was unacceptable to him. For example, the inter-
change [/k which is normative in Alfsis comparisons (e.g. wfb[y
/wfbky, kytwmx[/kmwxk), is not encountered in Ibn Jans records
and in all likelihood was unacceptable to him; thus such comparisons
can indeed be treated as rejected.
13.19 Nomenclature for languages and comparative terminology
The comparison terms will be set out precisely as phrased by Ibn

Jan, with their counterparts as rendered in Hebrew by R. Judah
ibn Tibbon. Adjoining each term, one sample entry in which the
term occurs is noted as well as the total number of records of the
entry (or of its translations) in parentheses. The statistics are approx-
imately correct, if not precisely so. If Ibn Tibbon omitted a term in
his translation, this omission is marked by the symbol 0.86
85
I have excluded from the present discussion Ibn Jans rejection of interpre-
tations whose basis is something other than (etymological) language comparison,
even if the non-relevance to language comparison was patently clear throughout
i.e. even from the start as tsq (Ezek. 9:3), which is rendered by Targum Jonathan
asqnp, whereas Ibn Jan rejects this rendering and proposes instead an interpre-
tation that is likewise unconnected with any equivalent etymology, Heb./Arab. or
Heb./Aram. (see tsq, p. 639; Shorashim, p. 450). The exclusion of these materials
accords precisely with the decision to exclude from this study such citations from
the Targum as have a bearing on exegesis, rather than on philology, such as lza
(I Sam. 9:7) (p. 31/p. 19); wmjn (Isa. 40:1) (p. 424/p. 297); lpt (Ezek. 13:10)
(p. 767/p. 547); ypt (Ezek. 28:13) (Shorashim, ibid.).
86
The terms used by Ibn Jan, on those occasions when he avails himself of
the Aramaic Targum for exegetical purposes do not belong here, although they show
a similarity to comparison terms. For instance, the expression . . . bhd adh yla
hlwqb wgrtla which is common in comparisons (see below), is used for purposes
of exegesis, too (hlp[, p. 539): yla lk tyl yrma whblb ay[yr ah. The usage in
the given instance as well as in others of a similar nature, is thus not included in
our terms and phrases of comparison.
The names of the languages

At times, when Ibn Jan treats Heb. and Aram. jointly, he fails to
designate each of the languages separately but uses for both the gen-
eral appellation: ynaslla (entry k) or ytglla (entry r[n ,rts)/
twnwlh yt. Ibn Tibbon once (at twbwalt) adopts the general appel-
lation at a place corresponding to that where Ibn Jan species
separately the names for the Hebrew and the Arabic.
Names for Hebrew

;(dxm ,[z[z) (t)yrb[h wl(h)/(h)ynarb[la ,aslla ,hglla ,ynarb[la
.(tt) 0
A certain aspect of Hebrew:

tyrb[h hlmh/hynarb[la hfplla ;rsa) tyrb[h wlh/ynarb[la lwq
.(lg)
Hebrew speakers:
.(ldg ,y[lwtm ,rfq) 0 ;(twice + wl ;bl) (y)yrb[h/wynarb[la
Names for Arabic

.(dxm ,[z[z 7 times) (t)ybr[-h wl-h/(13 times) hybr[la
(rwmjy) br[ wlb ;(hyla) ybr[b/(4 times) ybr[la
;11 times) br[h wl ;(qtr ,sh ; 7 times) br[ yrbd/br[la alk
0 ;(hyapa) nwlb k yw[ br[hw ;(wrkht) br[h .(lxa) ;(wat
.(ytdmj; 7 times)
;(hmj ;3 times) ybr[h wlh ;(tk ;6 times) br[h wl/br[la asl
.(-b lpn; 7 times) 0 ;(alm ,tls) -l br[h (y)rmwa ;(zmwk ,rfq) ybr[h
.(gr ,n ,rwnm) 0/ybr[la aslla
.(t ,wyx ,fqn) 0 ;(hdyx) ybr[b ;(x[ ,y ,rb) br[h wl/br[la hgl
yrmwa ;(jyph) br[h yrbd ;(wlt ;4 times) br[h rmam/br[la lwq
0 ;(twrap) nwlb br[h ;(tw[) hzh wlh yaybm br[h .(hrj) br[h
.(ttr ;8 times)
.(hyapa ;22 times) br[h wl ,(hytwrkm ;times 19) br[h yrmwa hm
;16 times) ybr[h wl-h ;(anyw ;18 times) br[h wl/ybr[la fplla
;(2 times + yqza) br[h (y)rmwa hm ;(dbz) br[h yrbd ;(hjwsk
.(4 times + nk) 0 ;(hjnm ,twpyfn) ybr[ ;(wttwht) tybr[h hlmh
.(tljk) ybr[h wl/ybr[la fpl
.(in quoting R. Sherira Gaon ,brd) la[my wl/la[my wl
Arab dialects
.(ryn) 0/htagl [b ;(rwnm) 0/hym[la hglla
Speakers of Arabic
dn[ (97 times, with a verb or the particle) br[/br[la
Speakers of Arabic vernacular

.(tmj) 0 ;(hmd) wmd ;(hyla) [h/hma[la
.(rdrd) 0 (rwat) br[ wlb/andn[
.(r[r[) 0/andlb yp
.(rdrd) lbbb/qar[la yp
.(jl ,srh) 0/myla lha
Arab. grammarians:
.(wx[n) . . . yrpm/wrspmla ;(twhma) br[h ymkj/br[la aml[
Arabic treatises
br[la hgl (yp tarqw) ;(twllw[) 0/br[la hgl btk ;(t) 0/br[la btk
.(y)ybr[h wlb (ytdmlw)/
Names for Aramaic

tymra-h/ynayrs-la
This term is usually meant to apply to Aramaic in general and not
specically to a certain expression or aspect (such as etymological or
semantic) or to a certain literary corpus of Aramaic. In this mean-
ing the term is used about fty times (e.g. lbq ,rbzg ,rg ,lfb ,sna).
.(wq) wgrt ;(rb[ ,bk ,bg ,wla) wgrth wl/ynayrsla

.(ddg) tymra/ynayrsla hgl
rmab tymral ,tymrah yrbd ,tymrah rmam/ ynayrsla + lwq
refers to a certain Aramaic work including the Targum, about 30 times,)
.(h[th ,dqp e.g.
wgrt-h/wgrt-la
refers to the Aramaic translations of the Bible; in this sense the term
is used about 390 times)
.(rwk ,hbhdm e.g.
.(7 times e.g. tlj) 0/(17 times e.g., rwbf) grtmh/wgrtla
.(fb[ ,lay) grtmh ;(rdms ,hryf) wgrth l[b/wgrtla bjax
.(n) wnytwbr ;(lj) lzr/lyawala
.(8 times+ q) (lz) wnytwbr yrbd/lyawala alk
wnytwbr yrbd ;(rymah) ynwmdqh wrma ;(rb) wnytwbr wl/lyawala lwq
.(awpsm ,s ,rz ,yrwdh ,hxb)
Aramaic books
,trwxb ,twlypa) dwmlt/dwmlt ;(see above) wgrt ;(dwr[) laynd/laynd
;(see above) lyawala alk ;(hyl rhdt) dwmlt wl/dwmlt-la ;(rwrp
.(brd) ynwagh wryp/nbrd anyl
Comparative terms and expressions

Regarding the manner in which terms of comparison link up with
language nomenclature and with other additional, linking words, see
above (3.1.2)
The term hsnagm serves primarily to denote etymological concord.87
In the opinion of the Hebrew grammarians this automatically
implies semantic concord; in fact, this term is occasionally adopted
for semantic, non-etymological, comparison, as adh snag ambrw
yn[mla ([w, p. 710) (Ibn Tibbon renders: yn[b hmwd hyhy rpaw
as it is feasible that it is similar in the meaning, p. 504). Thus the
term can be applied to the comparison of two signis of the same
language88 or for a universal language phenomenon and not restricted
to a linguistic link between two languagesi.e. one that is established
by comparing Heb. to Arab. Such is the comparison maintained
between the semantic components (a) detachment, tearing and (b)
empty space, void (qtr/qtr, p. 691/p. 488):
hhbamw hsnagm yla yp llklaw lxtmla yla [afqna ybw.
Enumeration of terms:
(hmwd/(different inections) snagm
;(about 80 times in the comparison to Arabic and 70 times in the
comparison to Aramaic)
br[hw ;(hlb) bwrq
(7 times) 0 ;(wngrtw) ghwn wlh hzw ;(rj) wlh ylypm
.(mk) wnmm rzgnw . . .-l hmwd/hnm qtmw . . .-l snagm
.(yjlm) 0 ;(yd[ ,lsj) hmwd/snag
.(jyph) hmdy ;(8 times e.g. hha) hmwd/snagy
.([w) whwnymd/ansng
87
ayyj in his introduction to his grammatical treatises ( Jastrow, 1897, p. 3)
explains that he intends to set out the materials according to kw [wn ,sng. According
to his denition (ibid.), and according to Ibn Jans explanation in his preface to
Mustalaq, sng refers to root. This implies that hsnagm applies primarily to equiv-
alence as regards the root and, as a consequence, to the meaning or one of the
meanings of the root.
88
lwql snagm can apply to comparison with Rab. Heb. too: . . . (Ps 41:2)
ld la lykm yra . . . (Avot 3:1) yrbd hlb lktch lyawala lwql snagm whp ("Ul,
p. 721).
.(hqlbm ,anyw) wtwa hmdm yna ;(sj) hmdn ;([r) whmda/hsnga

.(twbwalt) wwth/hsnagmla tqptaw
.(mj) ymwd/ysnagtm
txq/hhbamlaw hsnagmla [b ;(qwtr) wymd txq/hsnagmla [b
.(ttr) 0 ;(hrzg) wymd
,rp) hmwd/qpawm ;(arbs-rb) yksm/qpawy ,(dxm) wymd/89qapw
0 ;(tjn) hmwd ;(r[n) wmyksh/tqpta ;(rts) 0/hqpawm ,(hr
.(twbwalt) wwtn/hsnagmla hdh tqpta ;(hylpam)
The term qaqta is not restricted in its use by Ibn Jan to ety-
mological derivation but can be applied also to semantic attribution.
One encounters instances in which Ibn Jan expressly juxtaposes
this term to yn[m, as e.g.: ryg mp hlybn hpygll br[la qaqta amaw
[aptrala yn[m m hwqta hna yn[a ,yn[mla adh ("Ul, p. 402);
likewise: dqtmla yn[mla m qtm whw (rp, p. 589); also at fj
(p. 713). At times, the word yn[m is missing but the phrase m qtm
adjoins some other word expressing the idea of semantic substance
of the signi, as ratnala m qtm (jrp, p. 586): the latter signies
that the entry word yjrpa is semantically connected with jrp in
the sense of radiation and display (ratna). Likewise: am ltm adhw
hdn[ qpxla al dyla yl[ dyla brx m [ybla hqpx br[la tqta
brxla ([qt, p. 770). In other words, the concept hqpx (business
deal) is derived, semantically, from the concept of qpx-brx (striking
> handshake [as commitment, pledge]; metonymic grounds).
Enumeration of occurrences:
yn[b . . . hrzgh/djaw . . . qaqtalaw ;(ma) hrzgh wmk/qaqta . . . ltm
rzgn/yn[m m . . . qaqta ;(bfj) . . . trzgw ;(k) 0/qaqta ;(rp) rja
89
One of the connotations of qpta is volitional and intentional consent or agree-
ment. For the comparison terms built on this root, this connotation is incompatible.
In the comparison terms the use of this root, is in the sense co-incidental congruence
existing between two phenomena within the two languages under discussion. Ibn
Jan is greatly enthused by a certain qapta between Hebrew and Arabic regarding
sh> shyw/hx > hxhx: hyybr[la hgllaw hyynarb[la hglla yp qaptala adh bg[a amp);
Rislat al-Tanbh, p. 262). Had there been a conscious mutual language concord, so
to speak, between the users of the two languages, his enthusiasm would be out of
place. The expressions yksm and wmyksh employed by Ibn Tibbon, in his rendi-
tion of the above-mentioned term, also refer to coincidental consonance only.
;([qt ,rf[) 0/tqta am ;(rf[) wtwa rwzga/hqta ;(hlbn) 0; (g) yn[hm . . .

;(hbhdm) 0 ;(6 times + sp) rzgn/. . . qtm ;(tls) m wtwa yrzwg/m qtt
.(mk) wnmm rzgnw . . . l hmwd/hnm qtmw . . . l snagm
.(rb) 0 ;(llf ,za) . . . m jqln/. . . m dwkam
0/hb ;(ym) yrmwa br[h ;(x[ ,ql ,a ,tyrja) . . . hmwd/hyb
0 ;(hryb) hmwd/hbm ;(wttwht) wtwa hmdm yna/hhba ;(db) hmwd/hby ;(k)
[b ;( ryzrz) wymd txq/ hhbamla [b ;( rtk) hmwd/ hbam ( tam)
.(hrzg) wymd txq/hhbamlaw hsnagmla
.(rq ,rfq ,hjnm) -l hw/ -l wasm
.(wr) 0/fplla hsnagmw yn[mla hqbafm
.(xr) -l hmwd/yb hsnagmw hlkam
hbraqm ;(fmq) yn[ . . . wll bwrq/yn[m braq ;(ybx) -l bwrq/braqy
.(dl ,rg) 0/abraqtm (afplla) ;(twbr[) 0/hymstla yp
.(la) . . . axmn/grkm . . . garka
.(x[) ghnm wb yghwn/yrgm . . . hyp yrg
ghnm awh . . . ghnmw ;(jql) pjk . . . wb pjhw/. . . bhdm . . . hyp bhdmlaw
zmr ;(jm :wgk X 10) wwk ;(wat) hfn / bhd (bhdmla adh yla), (wl)
t[dw ;(X 3 + r[n) rd ayhw ;(lylk) ryp kw/bhdm (whw) ;(wn) 0 ;([q[q)
.(rqy) 0 ;(rdms :wgk X 5) t[dh l[/bhdm yl[-yp ;(ln ,ssn ,ymy)
.(rkz) t[d awhw/yn[m whw
.(-b qjx) 0/rgk
;([r) 0/. . . yrxt ;(rmkn) mtm rak . . . mm/yrxtk . . . hprxtm
.(rybk) 0/rxtt
Particles of comparison
14 times e.g.) 0 ;(about 60 times e.g. [yqr) kw/adkhw ,ldk
.(ryn ,hrwam
0 ;(12 times e.g. bl) rak ;(17 times e.g. rj) (-) wmk/amk
.(hla) kw ;(7 times e.g. lh)
.(hyrf) 0 ;(tlj) wmk ;(2 times) rak / -k
ltm ypw ;(hmj) - rwb[b ;(ggj) rak ;(9 times e.g. [z[z) wmk/ltm
.(hd[) 0 ;(dgnk) hzkb/adh
.(2 times) rak ;(rja) . . . hml hmwd hz/. . . am yl[
.(lg) ttyma l[/hqyqj yl[
Other particles (above, 3.1.2.1)

.(ddg) -bw/yp dgw
.(fybr) -b hyhy yw/yp wwky
times, e.g. hnyps) -b awh kw ;(46 times, e.g. hyla) -b/(axya) yp ,-b yhw
lxa ;(ynjpyw) -l hmwd awhw ;(rwmjy) -b wl yarwq k ;(lgm) wlbw ;(2
.(e.g. 17 times wht) 0 ;() l[ lpwn . . . hzh wlhw ;(wrkht)

. . . wlbw ;(tmj ,rpk) yrwq br[hw ;(13 times, e.g. yaxax) lxa/dn[
.(4 times, e.g. ql) 0 ;(llh ,[dg) . . . wll hmwd ;(dqdq ,rwnk) -b ,(l[y)
.(lyk) kw ,(6 times) awhw ,ayhw/whw ,yhw
,(2 times + jx) -l hmwd ;(flp ,sh) -b ;(14 times, e.g. jr) -m ,m/m
.(1 time ytdmj) 0
.(wqlm) yk ,([rt) - ynpm/al
.(tbhl ,wqlm) yk/ap
.(yk) 0/yn[m yp
Other connecting verbs (above, 3.1.2.3)

:(about 270 times in a comparative context and twice as lwq
a comparative term or its substitute)
/-yp lwqy ;(dwd ,rpa wla ;(about 100 times, e.g. hq) rma/hyp laq
rmay/(yp) laqy ;(3 times, e.g. [w) grtm ;(9 times e.g. ybb) -b rma
0 ;( jl , rdrd ) arqnw ;(twice + rwat ) yryq ;( twlypa ) yrmaw ;( hyla )
/wlwqy ;(rhdt) 0;(6 times, e.g. rbd) -b rman/ . . . yp . . . lyq ;(8 times e.g. -b lpn)
l[ hzh wlh ylypm ,(20 times + hp) yrmwa/(br[la lwqt) ;(lj) warq
wlb ;(rbx) wll hmwd awh ;(hyapa ,rg) (k) yw[ ,(p) yaybm ,(dqn)
,ljz) warq ,(rmkn) lxa ;(31 times, e.g. dbr ,rypns) 0 ;(lwz) wlm (wn)
.([rt ,ryn) yarwq ;(ddg
;(5 times + r ,gr) yrbd ;(jxn) rmam ;(wngrtw) lxa/(br[la) lwq

,rhn) 0 ;(6 times, e.g. hwg) wl ;(12 times, e.g. hd[) rma ra ,rma hm
;(17 times, e.g. hqn ,lay) rmab ,wrmab-m/()hlwq yp-m ;(6 times, e.g. rj
.(tlj) rman ;(bwbn ,hryb) grt wmk/(grtmla) lwq
;(tkm ,yd[) yrmwa ;(8 times, e.g. ylax) -l yrwq ,yarwq/ymst ,ymsy
.(ql) 0/hymst ;(dwdg) 0 ;(rp) whwarq/tms ,(yry ,r[) arqn
;(rfq ,hylpam) 0;(rwb[b) ghnmk ;(sna) ghwn ;(ql) wmy/lam[tsa

/lm[tst ;(ynypwt 0 ;(jpf) wl wlyph ;(rfn) yrmwa ;(bl) wm/tlm[tsa
yaybm ;(lfb) -b mm ,(tyb) ,mtm/lm[tsm ;(ykhyk) 0;(ma) ymtm
.(wtkyw) wtwa
.(y[lwtm) 0/zgya
.(lzwg) wbyjrh/[stt
.(pf) 0/xt
.q 0/hb tmlkt
wgrt ;(fq ,r[r[ ,hryf) grt/grt ;wb yrpm/(wrspmla hmgrtw
.(see above pp. 35859)

.(tt) 0/ra[tsm ;(h[wxqm) l[ . . . hlmh tlpm/tra[tsaw
.(wmh) 0/yn[mla hb dary
.(yzh) wb lm yawn/ . . . ltmla hb brxt
.(ldg) 0/zaga
.l[ . . . lpn/yl[ [qy
.([zy ,rwbf) -b zmwr/yla . . . raa
.(rzmm) wryph hz wb ryp/jrla adhb hb kj
hrhaf yl[ ;(tljk) . . . awh wmk/(ybr[la fplla m) hrhaf yl[
.(see Bacher 1884, 71) (rwmj) wfwpk/
Comparison terms used by R. Judah ibn Tibbon in the category of

implicit comparisons> explicit comparisons (above, 13.11)
.(21 times, e.g. arp ,jlp ,lg ,l[b) br[h wlb ,m
.(tpj ,sdrp ,rgws ,hnbl) ybr[ wlb ;(rpa) ybr[ wlw
.(12 times, e.g. bx ,wgra) ybr[bw ,(tqprtm ,qrj ,aya) br[h wll hmwd
,rdg) br[ wlb y-arqn-h hw ,awhw ;(h[pa) ybr[b arqnh awhw
.(wl ,la) br[-ybr[b wl yrwq ;(twrmzm
wrp wl br[h ylypm k ;(3 times, e.g. f[b) br[h lxa
.(jr) l[ hlmh
.(tlb) l[ . . . br[h wlb lpwn
Comparison terms used by R. Judah ibn Tibbon in the category

Zero > Comparison (above ,6.2)
;(39 times, e.g. ybr[-h wlb-w ;(62 times, e.g. bgj ,rpg ,tyrb) ybr[b(w)
,krk ,tlby) br[b ;(14 times e.g. fhb ,jldb) br[ wlb lfrga ,byba)
;(6 times, e.g. hpna ,lbj ,rwk) ybr[ (wl)b . . . yrwq ;(6 times, e.g. lmk
arqn ;(21 times, e.g. yfyrj ,yat ,hpya ,hdysj) (y)br[ (wl)b arqn
,(rx[) br[h yrmwa k wmkw ;(lbn) br[h rmwa rak ;(hnblj) ybr[b wm
.(tywl ,dprs) 0
Comparison terms in marginal glosses of the MS-R

wgrtla laqw ;(hf[ ,lyawh ,yh) wgrt w/whw/ldkw . . . wgrtla hyp laq
,(brs) wgrtw ,(lyfm) wgrt da ;(hrqh ,hr[ ,xh) wgrtla yar whw ;([bn)
. . . br[la lwqt am hb adhw ;(gd) ybr[la fpll snagm ;(fam) wgrt amaw
;(dba) hybr[la lwq lxala adh m bwlqm ;(qtn) ybr[la m byrq ;(y[s)
.(bwrk) ybr[lab whw
The remaining comparisons in MS-R are all implicit comparisons.

The terms registered above correspond well with Ibn Jans scheme
of terminology; however, they are acceptable to other grammarians,
too. Nonetheless, it is discernible that the term wgrtla yar whw occur-
ring three times in MS-R is nowhere to be found in Ibn Jans
records. Further, the term hfplk (Bacher, 1884, p. 71) is not encoun-
tered in the original comparisons of Ibn Jan.
Conclusion
The names for the several languages in Ibn Jans records are more
or less systematic and rmly established. Aramaic is designated ynayrs,
whereas targumic Aramaic is termed also wgrtla hgl. (R. Sa'adiah,
for example, likewise gave it a special additional designation, hgl
yfbnlaw yynadskla). The name for Arabic, likewise, is (h)ybr[ (com-
bined with hgl, asl, etc. or not combined). On just one isolated
occasion, he deviates from this nomenclature and refers to Arabic
as la[my yl, but the instance concerned is a citation, from the
works of R. Sherira Ga"on.
The terms most prevalent in comparisons are hsnagm (occurs about
150 times); wgrtw, in various combinations (about 400 times); -b/yp
(about 70 times). The remaining terms are of rarer occurrence, several
of them being encountered once only (e.g., hlkam, hqbafm, . . . garka
,yrg yrgm). Of main interest is that no essential dierence exists between
the several terms and they all are meant to denote the same thing.
Even the term -l ywasm does not have a stronger connotation of
equivalence of compared entry words than snagm and the like.
Connecting verbs are used systematically, too: there are about 270
instances, the large majority constituting forms of lwq, in contrast
with only 2 instances of yla . . . raa as well as an isolated usage of
hb dary and some similar expressions.
In contrast with Ibn Jan, R. Judah ibn Tibbon was more ex-
ible in his use of terms. For example, the verb lm[tsa in its various
forms is rendered by ibn Tibbon by no less than ve dierent verbs:
my, mth, ghn, rma, . . . l[ wl wlyph, l[ . . . ta yaybm); further
alterations occur, but these generally do not distort the original con-
notation intended by Ibn Jan. At times, however, Ibn Tibbons
term fails to accurately reect the wording in the original. The
rendering tymrah wlh of Ibn Tibbon does not unambiguously
reveal which of the following appears in the original: (a) . . . hglla
hynayrsla i.e. a general epithet of language, (b) fpl ynayrs, relating
to a certain Aramaic expression, or (c) ynayrsla lwq, denoting a cita-

tion from an Aramaic corpus: the same expression of Ibn Tibbon
translates all three, alike. (See, for example, the terminology in the
original and in the translation, for entries rp, rq, hwg).
The terms are used in comparisons of cognate and non-cognate trans-
lation synonyms, indiscriminately. Even the terms hsnagm and qaqta,
whose use is primarily for etymological comparison, are used also
for semantic, non-etymological comparisons.
A study of Ibn Jans terminology further enables one to ascer-
tain his sources for the linguistic text materials he discusses. The
term wgrt by and large signies the Aramaic of the Targum. In
contrast, however, no Arabic term exists to denote one specic Arabic
literary corpus: the few terms of this type have generic application,
to br[la btk, wrspm, and the like. On the other hand, certain terms
indicate quite clearly that Ibn Jan made use of various dialects of
the Arabic language; I refer to such terms as hglla, htagl [b
hyma[la and, in some further respect, myla lha, andn[ (i.e. the
Andalusian vernacular), etc.
The extent of etymological or semantic concord between the entry
words compared is reected in some way in the terminology, too.
As an example, hsnagmla [b expresses merely partial or incom-
plete equivalence. Other expressions, outside of the array of com-
parison terms, to some extent reect the resoluteness of the comparison.
An expression such as adg byg[ (entry rts, dxm), which conveys
enthusiasm, implies an assertive determination of concord. An expres-
sion such as hynayrslaw hybr[la hgll hsnagm hglla hdhw (entry hbn),
on the other hand, is no more than a colorless term of comparison,
implying no appraisal. Hundreds of comparisons were established by
Ibn Jan by objective terms, but they would all seem to contain a
resolute determination of comparison. These should all be distin-
guished from another group of terms that, expressly or allusively,
point to several alternative paths of comparison or of elucidation, of
which one path is to be preferred. To this group belong:
,lg ,ybb) qylaw ,(hrzg ,hywr ,anyw) hyp ylwalaw ;(wla) yyla amhbjaw
,hqn ,lyfn ,lay ,dwg ,lba :and similarly) sjalaw ,(ybb) lxpa ,(wr
.(hhn) brqalaw .(hdr ,hxq ,hbwz[
Several comparisons are openly recorded as a matter of feasibility only
,hyapa ,hn[ tjn ,ddwmyw ,sam ,pj ,ljz ,ybhbh ,rg lyla) zagw ,zwgyw
,ddyh ,a) ambr ,(jpf ,brz) kmy ,(wnyllwtw ,qq ,wlt ,d ,twtp ,jyph
,[ry) axya lmtjt yhw ,(fmq ,yd[ ,rks ,twpyfn ,lsj ,twrwmhm ,wrkht
.(fbly
One seems to be the least assertive of all:
.([r ,q ,wq ,hkr[m ,bk ,rg ,hnwpa ,yfa) a d[by amw
It goes without saying that some expressions imply reservations about
or actual rejection of a comparison: (and others ,zng) yna ala ,(hla) amaw.
13.20 Ibn Jans sources
Bacher (Shorashim, indices 13, 57, pp. 55359; ibid., p. xl), Wilensky-
Tn (Riqmah, indices b-h; z-j, pp. 48993, 67071; also Riqmah,
p. 17 n. 2) enumerated all the locations at which Ibn Jan adduced
statements and materials in the name of his predecessors, including
R. Sa'adiah Ga"on, R. Judah ibn Quraysh, Menaem, Dunash, and
R. Hai Ga"on, or which he recorded without indicating his source.
True, this does not necessarily imply that Ibn Jan had actually
seen the works of all the above-mentioned writers. Of R. Sa'adiahs
works, for example, he certainly did not know of Kutub al-Lugha
(Skoss, 1955, p. 34, n. 88; 66; Tn, 1972, p. 552 and n. 17); of
R. Hais works, he did not know of the comprehensive lexicon to
the Bible and to rabbinic literature, Kitb al-wi (Drenbourg, 1880,
introduction, p. 106 and n.).90 Moreover, scholars have long noted
that the Aramaic Targum to Ketuvim was unavailable to Ibn Jan.91
Drenbourg (1880, p. 105 and n. 3) further assumed that Ibn
Jan was not acquainted with the Karaites treatises; indeed, it
seems that Ibn Jan knew of neither Jmi' al-"Alf of David b.
Abraham Alfsi nor Kitb al-Mushtamil 'ala al-ul wa-l-Ful f, l-Lugha
l-'Ibrniyya of Ab-l-Faraj Hrn Ibn Al-Faraj. This is salient from
the fact that certain comparisons in Ibn Jans records that are
attested earlier in Alfsis work or in the work of Ab Faraj Hrn are
set out as his own, by the expression ydn[ zyagw or ana hqta ydla
90
It is noticeable that a unique citation from this lexicon appears in the Rouen
MS of Ul (p. 15). However, since it is missing both from the Oxford MS and
from the Hebrew version (Shorashim, p. 9 and note b), is obviously a later addition.
91
Bacher, REJ 1882, p. 273; Wilensky, Riqmah, p. 503, n. 12. See also above,
3.10.1; 9.12.1.2.
or some similar phrase. This is the case, for example, at entries rf[
("Ul, p. 518) and hj (ibid., p. 713). At entry drp Ibn Jan even
boasts that nobody before him had reached the elucidation of the
biblical verse . . . twdrp wb[ ( Joel 1:17), as he had explicated it, i.e.,
on the basis of the comparison b[/sb[. Yet this very comparison
is already attested in Alfsis lexicon (rb[, p. 365; t, p. 754). True,
the explication of the verse in its entirety as interpreted by Ibn Jan
does not accord completely with Alfsis explication, but, at least as
to the comparison b[/sb[ they have the same opinion. Clearly, if
Ibn Jan had known of the Jmi' al-"Alf, he would not have
accorded himself the credit of pioneering these comparisons.
Likewise, Ibn Jan (Kitb al-Luma', p. 33; Riqmah, p. 44) treats
the analysis [wdm = hm+ [wd as his own interpretation. But just this
analysis can be found before him in Kitb al-Mushtamil.92
13.21 The unique nature of Ibn Jans comparisons
By the language comparisons he adopted, Ibn Jan made practi-

cal application, of the great discovery that ayyj had revealed in
the theory of the Hebrew root. Herein lies Ibn Jans unique, fun-
damental, and distinctive contribution to Hebrew lexicology, etc. It
was solely by means of ayyjs novel discovery that Ibn Jan was
able to check out the comparisons of his predecessors and exclude
those that were not compatible with the tri-literal root system. Ibn
Jan rejected such comparisons as (Heb./Aram.) yzm/azml (above,
13.18), a comparison recorded by Alfsi as well as trwgal/arga
(recorded also by Ibn Quraysh). Some other comparisons, founded on
the pre-ayyj root theory, were not explicitly ruled out by Ibn Jan.
However, an inspection of his comparison listings demonstrates that
no mention at all was made of comparisons pertaining to that cat-
egory, which can only mean that Ibn Jan treated them as rejected
comparisons without even feeling the need to state this fact, and
treating their rejection as self-understood. Very probably, this can
be safely assumed for the following comparisons from Alfsis records
/hd[y ,hlwlw/tll ,axj/xj ,tj/wjy ,lj/wlwjy ,pg/wpygy ,wks/a
,rtwt/rtnl ,wt/n ,yrg/yrgnh ,jwra/jwrm,akm/twjml ,r[tsa
/wxqh ,ybxtnm/hyb,x ,ytpt/pb ,hy[/[ ,a[/h[ ,ayar[/ypyr[
92
Bacher, 1895, p. 233 and n. 6; Abramson 1975, pp. 12728 and notes 16.
/jgy ,tlyfnw/lfyw ,ynhtn/wnyhtw (and Heb./Arab.) wa/ytaw ,yqn

wkd (:and from Ibn Quraysh) ;aytnp/htpt ,wwp /tpw ,(abrq) yjygm
Riqmah 184, treats this verb as a hollow) rrdt/wrz ,wmah/wmh ,qd/
/jypy ,g/x [w ,hlanm /lnm ,hhwna/whwnaw ,rg/rgIhw ,(Ibn Jan,
and) yktsa/tksh (and Heb./Aram.) axqna,/yxnq ,p/hxpy ,awjpty
.qpn/qpyw ,af[/fy[ ,af[/hfw[m ,td[/yd[ ,jsnty/ytyjsw (from Menaem
Other comparisons Ibn Jan rejected on account of their lacking
semantic concord such as: jpfw/hw/ytjpf ,wl[yt/ ytllw[w ,qn/qn
etc. (above, 2.6) and Heb./Ar. ,rb/rb (Gen. 45:23) ,awyk/wyk,
hlybn/hlbn
It was noted earlier (13.3) that Ibn Jan maintained comparisons
only if they contained some element of particularity; thus he saw no
reason to establish comparisons for extremely frequent entry words such
as wa, la, and the like.
However, Ibn Jans originality and specialty are noticeable above
all in the 342 comparisons he himself devised. For these were born
of his own profound research and not some rule of thumb formu-
lated by another scholar nor a critique he had launched against some
rival philologist. These comparisons reveal the facts that his predeces-
sors had overlooked and that he undertook to reveal to scholarship. To sub-
stantiate this statement, I have selected one category from this plethora
of comparisonsnamely, those entry words for which Ibn Jan
revealed subtle dierences within what can be broadly called com-
ponents of a eld of similarity, in other words: unique connotations
of frequent lexemes. His predecessors had compared, with Arabic or
with Aramaic, (a) entry words of very common occurrence or (b) entry
words pertaining to a unique or rare root, the later being notably infre-
quent. Apart from applying himself to comparisons of roots of rare
occurrence, Ibn Jan also highlighted unique signications issuing
from frequent entry words, illustrated in what follows:
The entry word yk appears in the Bible 4,475 times. The conno-
tations of the word were well known; they had been crystallized in
talmudic times and transmitted in the name of the Amora Resh
Laqish: ahd ,ala ,amld ,ya :twnwl h[brab mm yk (ky is used in
four senses: if, lest but, because) (BT, Rosh HaShana, 3a). Ibn Jan
discovered two verses in the Bible in which yk is used with the con-
notation of Arabic kay (for, in order to).93 d[ appears in the Bible
93
For a detailed discussion on this comparison, see Maman (2000a), p. 273.
1,269 times as a conjunctive. In one of these instances, as detected

by Ibn Jan the particle serves the same sense as the word l[ in
biblical Aramaic. a occurs 1,071 times in the Bible and Ibn Jan
discovered the single instance in which this particle is used with the
connotation of Arabic "an or "inna (R. Judah ibn Quraysh had ear-
lier noticed the use of Heb. ai/Arab. "am). dy appears in the Bible
about 1,617 times (plus 17 times in biblical Aramaic); among these,
Ibn Jan discovered the specic connotation ydy/dya (strength). The
root jl is encountered 846 times in the Bible (plus 14 times in
biblical Aramaic) in its usual connotation (not including jl',, etc.);
of all these occurrences, Ibn Jan identied the special connota-
tion by the comparison jl/lt. a appears in the Bible about
100 times as a verb or as a noun with the ordinary connotation of
sin; it was Ibn Jan who identied the specic occurrence aymaw
in the sense of tat, meaning atonement (these being dadxa,
according to our linguistic approach). The root rsy occurs in the
Bible about 40 times as a verb and a further 50 times as a noun
(rswm). Ibn Jan located one occurrence, ytrsyy, with the connota-
tion of Aramaic rsyy (girds, fastens the belt). j appears about 110
times in the Bible, and among all these, Ibn Jan detected the
semantically unique occurrences ykjm/aykyj (the impoverished, the
miserable). swn appears in the Bible about 160 times in the sense
ee. Ibn Jans predecessors had interpreted hjle sn: alw (Deut.
34:7) as a metaphorical use of that same sense, but it was Ibn Jan
who decided conclusively that that occurrence constitutes a once only
instance of the connotation in Arabic nassa (dry). Similar semanti-
cally unique word occurrences were detected by Ibn Jan for radices
hzj, ddm, hn[, wq, rb, alm and many more. From these roots,
he pinpointed, as semantically unique, the following words: hzjy,
(ra), ddwmyw, hn[t, hmq wyny[w, rbaw (rbt/), etc. (The full details of
these comparisons are set out in the chart (ch. 16) and, of course,
can be referred to in the source text, i.e. Kitb al-Ul, each accord-
ing to its relevant root.)
The above represents a succinct summary Ibn Jans unique acu-
men in the area of lexical comparison.
CHAPTER FOURTEEN
HAI GA"ON, AB-L-FARAJ, SAMUEL HANAGID, AND

ABRAHAM HABAVLI
14.1 R. Hai Ga"on
R. Hai Ga"on lived and ourished in Babylon in the years 9391038

C.E. and compiled a comprehensive lexicon of Hebrew and Aramaic,
entitled Kitb al-wi. The greater part of this lexicon has not sur-
vived, and of the surviving remnants only about a third have appeared
in print (Harkavy 1895, 1896; Abramson 1977; Maman 2000).1 In
addition, certain citations from al-wi, recorded by several schol-
ars, were assembled by M. Steinschneider (1901) and S. Poznanski
(1901). Abramson (1977, p. 108) collected other quotations from the
lexicon that had been unknown to Steinschneider and Poznanski but
never published them. On this scanty basis the aforementioned schol-
ars have attempted to evaluate the true nature of al-wi.
R. Hai Ga"on culled his entry words from the Bible, the Mishna,
the Tosefta, the Midrashim, and the Talmuds. His lexicon is edited
according to the alphabetical order of the root, but its arrangement
is anagrammatic (see, e.g., Abramson, 1977)according to a system
adopted in several Arabic lexicons that had been composed about
200 years before the time of R. Hai (see Kopf 1976, pp. 11718).
By this system, the arch-entry for any given bi-literal or tri-literal
root incorporates not only the entry words pertaining to that specic
root but also the several entry words arrived at by a permutation
of the letters of that root. For example, at root flj (in letter t in
al-wi ), entry words from the following roots are dealt with: flj,
lfj, ljf, jlf, fjl, jfl.2 Included in the lexicon are also roots that
have no linguistic actuality (in Hebrew or Aramaic), these being
accompanied by a marginal note lmhm (unused) to that eect.
Henceforth R. Hais language comparisons are discussed on the
basis of those portions of the Kitb al-wi that have been published.
1
I am preparing all those remnants for publication.
2
On a detailed presentation of this system see Maman 1999, pp. 23539.
372 chapter fourteen
Steinschneider (p. 131) and Poznanski (p. 597) have already shown
cognizance of the fact that R. Hai had embedded a good number
of comparisons of Hebrew with Arabic and with Aramaic in his lex-
icon; however, in discussing Kitb al-wi, they failed to dwell on
this aspect in a detailed manner.
R. Hai Ga"on ourished in the generation of ayyj and the one
following it. Nevertheless, the method reected in his lexicon is none
other than that root theory that had predominated in Hebrew gram-
mar before the time of ayyj. The geographical distance between Spain
and Babylon was apparently the reason ayyjs theory did not
reach R. Haiat any rate, not before he compiled al-wi. The
root theory inuenced the comparisons and their nature, as demon-
strated above (2.5), and this probably was true of R. Hai Gaons
comparisons, too.
In the materials I inspected, 45 comparisons were encountered,
the majority, 39 in number, being comparisons of cognates. Of this,
14 are Heb./Aram., 29 Heb./Arab., and 2 Aram./Arab. Of the
comparisons with Arabic, only 9 are explicit, the remainder implicit.
Notwithstanding the paucity of comparisons, 17 (about 38 percent)
are attested for the rst time in R. Hais record, the reason being
that his lexicon discusses rabbinical Hebrew entry words, too. This
indeed is the distinctive characteristic of R. Hai as compared with
other Hebrew linguists of that epoch. In al-wi, the Hebrew and
Aramaic entries and discussions are pooled together indiscriminately.
This unclassied arrangement is conducive to what is termed
inevitable comparisons (above, 3.6.1). Yet, for all these compar-
isons, R. Hai adopted terms or formulae that converted all the com-
parisons into deliberate explicit comparisons.
On one occasion, R. Hai Ga"on illustrates a linguistic phenomenon
in Hebrew and Aramaic, failing to distinguish the one from the other.
From this it follows that he postulated a greater anity between those
two languages than between either of them and Arabic (see above,
2.2): wgrtla yp andgw aw ,ylxa la lbq (w)aw hglla yp andg(w amw)
ylxa wawla sylp hawx mymkj wl ypw haw hawh (we have not found
in the language a radical waw preceding an aleph, though we found
in Aramaic haw hawh and in Rab. Heb. hawx, yet the waw is not
radical).3 In one case he opposes a Heb./Arab. comparison (azym/yyn-
3
Harkavy 185556, p. 4 = 1970, p. 112. Harkavys Hebrew translation is as follows:
rav hai, ab-l-faraj, hanagid and habavli 373
zam) on etymological grounds; in two cases he identies two dierent

forms of the same Aramaic word appearing in dierent Aramaic
corpuses; and once he identies a Hebrew word as a Greek borrowing.
14.1.1 The theory of letter interchanges

In the comparisons discussed here, only the following letter inter-
changes are encountered: g/g (rgws), z/d (za), these in explicit com-
parisons; in implicit comparisons, there are ve instances of j/k.
(Additionally, the intra-Heb. interchange f/t is encountered, in the
comparison of words jtm/ywjfm (T-S, 5a). One Heb./Aram. com-
parison is established by letter metathesis: wrgjyw/tgrj.
14.1.2 Listing of the comparisons

fyaj-hfaja/wfyjy/hnfja :Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram./Arab.
.(Maman, 2000, 352)
(bwa)/twbwa :Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram./Talm. Aram.
.(Poznanski 600 ,1901) yjg/wjg ,(Abramson 110, 1977)
,(Maman, ibid.) lzaw/lyw/wlza :Bib. Heb. 1/Bib. Heb. 2/Targ. Aram.
hfm/rfwj ,(Poznanski 602) tgrj/hmya/wrgjyw ,(ibid.) nyz/ylk/yz-ynza
.(ibid. 353) 4yfwljl/twtymxl/hwfljyw ,(Maman, ibid.) arfwj/
(Harkavy 95) aym [yqr rywa/ymb/rywa :Rab. Heb./Targ. Aram.
(Maman, ibid.) fj/fjfjm-ffjm-yffwj :Rab. Heb./Talm. Aram
.(ibid.) fwjm/fjm ,
ada/yza ,(Harkavy 96) dynyj ,da/za :Bib. Heb./Arab. (explicit)
ynzam ,(ibid.) da/zaw-hnzah ,(Maman 2000, 352) za/ynza ,(ibid.)
(Poznanski 598) rwgas/rgws ,(ibid.) thth/wttwht ,(ibid.) fa/fa ,(ibid.) azym
hawx ymkj wlbw haw hawh wgrtb axmn aw tyr a dwq w twa qhlb wnaxm alw
tyrw hnya wh.
After wh, Harkavy adds, in parenthesis: ah lx . This remark is incorrect. Harkavy
took the rst occurrence of ylxa (radical) to be an epithet to la but as the sec-
ond occurrence of la shows clearly, it should rather be attributed to waw.
4
It is not clear whether R. Hai intended to establish an etymological semantic
link between the entry word yfwljl, i.e. the rendering for twtyxl and the adjoin-
ing entries = entry citations:
1) wl flwj ahy . . . mfn hyh hnwarb;
2) ta mmh ty[xmah wxyjh m tja tamfnw yryk yn a[
ty[xmah hflj hrwhf hlfn, rwhf rwhfh ta mmhw amf amfh
wkw hamwfl;
3) ynahw lyq dq[law qyqjtla lybs yl[ sanla alk m dka amw
wnmm hwfljyw wrhmyw wjny.
hala/hwla ,(Maman, ibid.) r ka/rja :Bib. Heb./Arab. (implicit)

hfj ,(ibid., 353) fka/fja ,(Maman, ibid.) fyk/ fwj ,(Harkavy, ibid.)
,(ibid.) frk/frj ,(ibid.) fk/tpfjw ,(ibid.) fnj/wfnjyw ,(ibid.) hfnj/
.(ibid.) jf/jf ,(ibid.) yjawfla/twnjwfh ,(ibid.) fyark/yfyrj
twice in dierent meanings) bwbna/bwba :Rab. Heb./Arab. (implicit)
,fykm/fjm ,(Maman, ibid. 353) hrarj/rrwj-rjwa ;(Abramson, 110,
,(ibid.) fkma/ yfjwm ,(ibid. 353) afk/ fj ,(ibid. 352) fayk/ fyj
.(ibid.) jfn/jyfh-jyfm
.(ibid. 352) fafj/yffj :Rab. Heb./Arab. (explicit)
.(Harkavy 95) ran/rwa :Rab. Heb./Arab. (not cognate explicit)
,(Abramson 112) afwqb/lba :Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (non cognate)
(ibid. 402) (atqb) dgymb/ywjfm ,(Maman, ibid., 388) ylwtj/jwj
(Maman, ibid., 408) hfnjla/yfnj :Bib. Aram./Arab.
,(ibid., 400) atfylj/yjlh :Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (non cognate)
.(ibid., 396) (rymf) fjy/b[tn rxn
(ibid., 353) fmkt/afmjyl :Talm. Aram./Arab.
The following are identications rather than comparisons, the third

case being a borrowing:
.(Harkavy 96) za/qm/hza :Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram
112) hylwba/jyswbam/lwba :Talm. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram
.(Abramson
.(Maman, ibid., 353) wfmh/yfmyj :Talm. Aram./Greek
14.1.3 Terms of comparison5

:Talm. Aram. =) hyfbnla latmala yp ,(yfjwm ,yfmj ,bwa) (h)yfbnla yp
,(according to Epstein 1982, ydk ;(yfnj :Bib. Aram. =) ynarsk la yp ,(hfyfj
,(comparisons listed in 14.1.2 in most of the) wgrtla hyp laqp p. 51)
(lwba) dwmtla yp ;(hza ,fhy ,atfylj ,jwj ,lba) wgrt(w) ;(rywa) wgrtla yp
lwqk whw ;(za) wpyxy . . . ylwqyw . . . (hyb)r[(labw) ,(yffj) hymst br[law
.(rwa) hybr[lab ,(yza) hybr[lab lyaqla
14.2 Ab-l-Faraj Hrn Ibn Al-Faraj
Ab-l-Faraj Hrn, The Jerusalemite grammarian, is reckoned by

R. Abraham ibn Ezra (Moznayim, p. 2a) to be one of the Elder
Scholars of the Holy Tongue immediately following the time of
R. Sa'adiah Ga"on;6 Ibn Ezra even praises him highly: He com-
piled eight works on the grammar of the (Hebrew) language, (solid)
as precious sapphires.7 R. Abraham ibn Ezra is referring here to the
vast, comprehensive work, containing eight parts composed by Ab-
l-Faraj, i.e. the treatise known as Kitb al-Mushtamil 'al al-ul wa al-
Ful f al-Lugha al-'Ibrniyya. The composition of this work ended
before the year 1026 (Bacher, REJ, 1895, p. 253); it has been pre-
served in several manuscripts, one of which comprises 579 pages and
is housed in the St. Petersburg Library. The treatise was abridged
several times. One condensed version is commonly known as Al-Kitb
al-Kf f al-Lugha al-'Ibrniyya published recently by G. Khan et al.;
a further, condensed synopsis of the latter bears the name Kitb al-
'uqd Tarf al-Lugha al-'Ibrniyya. However, only portions of these
works have been published.8 Apart from his grammatical treatises,
Ab-l-Faraj composed an Arabic translation of part of the Bible,
accompanied by explanatory annotations. Sample portions were pub-
lished in Poznanski, 1908.
In these treatises, Ab-l-Faraj showed a keen fondness for lan-
guage comparison (Poznanski 1896, p. 16, n. 2, quoting Harkavy).
So much so that Poznanski (1908, p. 50) concluded that even for
the sake of the linguistic comparisons in this work (= Kitb al-
Mushtamil ), for these alone, the treatise is worthy of full publication.
Indeed Ab-l-Faraj incorporated a large quantity of comparative
treatments in his treatises, constituting explicit and implicit compar-
isons as well as renderings by cognate translation synonyms.9 Almost
all of the comparisons incorporated in Mushtamil are grammatical
due to the nature of the work. Even the seventh part of Mushtamil,
5
On the nomenclature see Maman 2000, pp. 35354.
6
For a precise chronology, see Bacher (1835, p. 253) and Poznanski (1908,
p. 54). According to their reckoning, Ab-l-Faraj ourished in a period partially
overlapping, (a) that of R. Hai Ga"on in Babylonia and (b) that of R. Judah ayyj
and R. Jonah ibn Jan in Spain.
7
yrqy yrypsk yrps hnwm wlh qwdqdb qt. See Bacher, REJ, 1895, p. 232.
8
For details, see Tn 1972, p. 1381. I am preparing a critical ed. of Mushtamil.
which is lexical in nature, is meant to prove a grammatical charac-

teristic of the Hebrew root.10
As Basal (1998, 1999, and elsewhere) has shown, Ab-l-Faraj fol-
lowed in the footsteps of Ibn al-Sarrj and other Arab grammari-
ans. This means that already at the outset, Ab-l-Faraj wrote his
book as a comparative and contrastive grammar (see above, 1.2). A
clear example of this method is his adoption of the 'amal concept
from Arab grammarians (see Maman 1997) or the Arabic perspec-
tive in general (see Maman 2001, 9). However, even in the frame-
work of the adopted theory he was subtle enough to prove originality,
such as in the case of the comparison of the Hebrew innitive and
verbal noun with the Arabic madar (see Maman 1996, esp. 1416).
The linguistic theory of Ab-l-Faraj and, necessarily, his compar-
ison method,11 are founded on the theory of the bi-literal root (Bacher,
ibid., p. 256; Poznanski, 1896, p. 7), although he ourished in ayyjs
time as well as somewhat afterwards. Though he had heard of (or
probably read about) the new development of ayyj in the theo-
retical studies of the Hebrew rootas one can learn from his straight-
forward reply to ayyjs theoryhe was unable to adopt it,12 for
this meant renouncing the traditional Karaite method, including his
own development of that theory.
14.2.1 Grammatical comparisons13

A good many comparisons established by Ab-l-Faraj treat of the
three languages with their respective grammars. Part 8 of Mushtamil
is set aside for biblical Aramaic grammar; there one encounters con-
trastive comparison of the Heb. v. Aram. grammar. Hirschfeld (1892,
pp. 5460) published a portion of this chapter. Elsewhere in Ab-
l-Farajs works, several structural comparisons of Hebrew with Arabic
appear. A list of these comparisons follows:
9
The renderings are similar to those of R. Sa'adiah Ga"on, see above, 7.0.
10
See Maman 1999, pp. 24048, and Maman 2002.
11
The present discussion of this issue is only partial and remains provisional,
pending the future publication of the Kitb al-Mushtamil in its entirety, which I hope
to accomplish in the near future.
12
See Maman 1995, p. 95.
13
The grammatical comparisons mentioned in the previous paragraph are not
Comparisons of Hebrew and Aramaic

The two languages are equivalent in the inection of the regular
verb, in the 3rd pers. masc. sing., in the future tense, qal form, as:
fly/fly; jly/jly; also in suxing the n for the 2nd pers. and
3rd pers. pl. forms in the future tense, as: i w[mt/w[mt, etc., except
that in Aramaic this additional is invariable.
They are also equivalent in the 3rd pers. sing. past tense qal forms
/ and the participial forms Lehm' ]/lhm as well as in the past
tense inection of verbs of the type tmmwrth/tnnwbth.
On the other hand, certain verbal forms in the two languages are
homonymic: the form l['P,] in Hebrew, denotes the 2nd person Imperative,14
whereas in Aramaic, it signies the 3rd person sing. past tense form,
as jl/jl, etc. (see above 9.1.2 on Alfsi). Also, the form l['P; in
Heb. signies the 3rd pers. masc. sing. past tense, whereas in Aramaic
the same form denotes the masc. sing. participle form, e.g. [d'y:/[d"y;:
rm'a/; rm'a; (this, of course, only when the 3rd radical letter is a guttural).
The 3rd person pl. masc v./and fem. forms of the past tense, in
Heb. share the same form (Wl[;); in contrast. in Aram. these possess
two distinct forms: wqyls wq;yls (= hq;yls).15
Comparisons of Hebrew with Arabic

Due to the lexical nature of the present study only few examples of
comparative grammar will be presented here:
In both Hebrew and Arabic exist intransitive verbs (verbs with-
out an object), e.g. dm[, by/aq, da[ (Zislin, 1962, p. 181).
There exists, in both languages, an imperative for the 1st pers.
(in Heb. only, sometimes paraphrastically): ynp hara al* (expressed
as ynp ta hart al) (2 Sam. 3:13) /hgw yra al (ibid., p. 182).
The uninected conjunction ra is used in Hebrew, irrespective
of gender and number of the governing noun, whereas in Arabic
the parallel conjunctive ydla is inected according to gender and
number (ytla, etc.); it is omitted in Arabic asyndetic relative clauses
(Poznanski, 1896, p. 29; 1908, p. 62).
Arabic kil is treated as a singular form, although its connotation
is dual (= two); thus in Heb., the accusative pronoun sux in the
repeated here.
14
Ab-l-Faraj did not know of or did not adopt the concept of binyan (conjuga-
tion) but used dierent morphological patterns for the classication of the verbal
forms. See Maman 1995, pp. 8795. For this reason the post-ayyj terms such
as qal and pi''el are avoided here.
15
One of the feminine forms represents the Masoretic Qere the other the Ketib.
form wOnpxtw ( Josh. 2:4) is, morphologically, singular but signies the
dual (for nEpxtw [. . . and she concealed the two of them]; ibid., p. 63).
14.2.2 Semantic comparisons

Ab-l-Faraj sets up an etymological semantic comparison between
the Heb. [g"r, and [gEwOr (yh) and the Arabic non-cognate translation
synonyms fjl-hfjl as follows: [gr/hprf-hfjl = an instant, a small
moment of time; [g"r/ ; fjl are, in his view, denominative verbs from
the above-mentioned nouns, having the connotation: he looked for
an instant, in a ash of time (lit: in the twinkling of an eye).
In part 5, 16 of Mushtamil, Ab-l-Faraj sets out parallel series of
homonyms in Hebrew and Arabic respectively. Bacher (ibid., p. 246)
adduces, as an illustration of the materials of this paragraph, the
series: pj-rqb-rqj-qyb-rd-la/tp-jp-blf-smtla-las. Ab-l-
Faraj even notes the ner dierences of connotation between the
several items within the series.
14.2.3 Listing of the lexical comparisons

,(Poznanski 1896, 8) ybr[tm/wbr[tyw ;(Hirschfeld 1892, 57) tyzj/htyzj
.(Hirschfeld 1892, 56) jby/jbm
And in the framework of grammatical comparisons:

/la ,db[/db[ ,rgs/rgs ,[dy/[dy ,lhm/lhm ,rma/rma ,lza/lza
w[mt / w[mt , fly / fly , jf / jf , y / y , rbsy / rbw , la
.(Bacher 1895, 250 ;Hirschfeld 1892, 5456)

.(Poznanski 1896, 10) a[ybr/txbr/y[br
Bib. Heb./Arab. (explicit)

pnk ,(Bacher 1895, 245) sby/by ,(Poznanski 1908, 49) dlg/ydlg
.(Poznanski 1908, 47) hlg[/hlg[ ,(ibid. 249) nk/
Bib., Heb./Arab. (implicit)

ldg/ylydg ,(ibid., 9) r[bt/r[bl ,(Poznanski 1896, 30) ya m/yam
hragm/hr[m ,(Poznanski 1896, 7) rwb[/rwb[ ,(Poznanski 1908, 49)
11) rpg/rp[ ,(ibid., 12) rmg/rm[ ,(ibid., 14) ylgt/tpl[m ,(ibid., 12)
,(ibid., 9) barg/brw[ ,(ibid., 8) bwrg/br[ ,(ibid., 7) brg/hbr[ ,(ibid.,

l[p/l[p ,(ibid. 13) ry[t ,r[/ . . . yr[ ,r[ ,(ibid., 12) hmr[/hmr[
. . . h[bra ,[ybrt/ . . . [wbr ,[bra ,(ibid., 15) gbx/y[bx ,(ibid. 14)
.(ibid.) r[/r[ ,(13 ibid.,) ry[/yrw[ ,(ibid., 10) y[brt/y[ibr
] i ,(ibid., 10)
14.2.4 Arabic cognates in Ab-l-Farajs translation of the Bible

In Ab-l-Farajs translation of the Bible, a tendency can be discerned
to render the text by cognate Arabic translation synonyms. In his
explanatory annotations, he occasionally makes a remark corroborating
that this tendency was consciously present. For example, for rendering
the biblical phrase dl d yb (Deut. 17:8), one encounters dw d yb.
Regarding this rendering, he remarks: hdh yp ytla tamalla hdh
amsala (the lams in these nouns, i.e. the other nouns in the verse
from which this example is taken) yp sjy al da ,wwla yn[mb yh
adkw adk yb lb ydkl ydk yb laqy a ybr[la (Poznanski, 1908, p. 59).
The upshot is that this grammarian aspires to translate as literally as
possible, i.e. by cognate translation synonyms. Were it not for the rules
of the Arabic language, he would have rendered by a maximal
amount of cognate translation synonyms (dl* d yb/dl d yb)
(for further examples, see ibid., p. 58, to Deut. 9:7; p. 60, to Deut.
28:11). Further signs of this tendency are noticeable from the occur-
rence of a succession of cognates in a single rendition unit. In the
verse segment rkzh naxbw rqbb lwy ra rwkbh lk (Deut. 15:19),
5 of the 7 words are rendered by cognate translation synonyms,
namely, lk, rkbla, dlwy, rqb, arkd. This tendency is especially
noticeable in his usage of articial Arabic words, such as hfms for
rendering Heb. hfm (Deut. 15:2) (R. Sa'adiah Ga"on, for example,
renders it byystla) (see the same phenomenon in Sa'adiahs Tafsr,
above, 7.3.5).
Listing of renderings by Arab. cognates (according to materials recorded

by Poznanski, 1908, pp. 5761):
ahrka/tyrja ,(59) yka/yja ,(58) hya/twa ,(57) aba/ytwba
hra ,(ibid.) ra/ra ,(57) halala/yhlah ,(ibid.) lka/lkal ,(58)
qyrb/qrb ,(ibid.) rqb yp/rqbb ,(58) rkb/rwkb ,(59) yb/yb ,(58) hyras/
lwj ,(57) [ard/[wrz ,(59) [rzt/[rzh ,(58) arkd/rkzh ,(59) d/d ,(61)
dlwy/dlwy ,(58) aya/ymy ,(57) dy/dy ,(ibid.) khyfk ktafj ,(58) laj/
ajda/jydhl ,(58) lk/lk ,(60) hsya/wOn]y< ,(58) atra . . . tr/trl . . . r ,(ibid.)
ymwx[ ,(59) all[/tlyl[ ,(ibid.) knwy[/kyny[ ,(ibid.) spn/pn ,(ibid.)
sdqt/dqt ,(59) ahrapxa/hynrpx ,(61) ltpnm/ ltltpw ,(58) f[a/

,(ibid.) rwt/rw ,(59) ha/wy ,(58) h[bs/t[b ,(61) wmwqy/wmwqy ,(ibid.)
yns (dn[)/ytwn ,(58) hns/hnh ,(57) ams/ym ,(58) hfmsla/hfmh
.(57) tjt m /tjtm ,(61) (ypys)
14.2.5 Nomenclature for the languages and comparative terminology

1892, 54) ynarb[la hqyrf qpawy . . . ynadskla hgl yp alkla
58 twice, 59) ynadskla ypw ;(ibid. 57) ytglla yp qpty ;(Hirschfeld
16
.(y[br) wgrt m dwkam ;(ibid. 54) laky ahnm amw ;(ibid. 55 twice,
.(pnk) ybr[la yp . . . grty ,(ydlg) ybr[la m byrq
14.3 R. Shemuel HaNagid 17
According to R. Abraham ibn Ezra (Moznayim, 2b) HaNagid com-

piled a scientic treatise on the Hebrew language, known as r[h rps
(Book of Amplitude), this being greater than all the works men-
tioned elsewhere and surpassed by none other.18 But this treatise
(whose original was called Kitb al-"Istighn") has been almost entirely
lost; only a meager fragment of it has survived and was published
by P.K. Kokowtzow (1916, pp. 20524). In his introduction (in
Russian),19 Kokowtzow even assessed the linguistic achievement of
HaNagid in the area of language comparison as well. As a broad
and general appraisal, Kokowtzow maintains (ibid., p. 178) that
HaNagid surpassed Ibn Jan in the profundity of his linguistic analy-
sis. We have no way of ratifying this evaluation or of refuting it, on
account of the insuciency of extant materials of HaNagids work.
However, it is evident, from the nature of the remnants of the al-
"Istighn" that it was an enormous concordance-style lexicon: for each
and every entry, it had comprised not only a plethora of biblical
examples but also a survey of the exegetical chain of tradition, from
rabbinic literature up to his contemporary writings including refer-
16
The term ynayrs does not appear and this might serve as a stylistic mark.
17
On the lifetime and (scholarly) achievement of HaNagid, see Munk (1851) pp.
86109; Kokowtzow (1916b), pp. 100106.
18
wnmm hl[ml yaw yrkznh yrpsh lkm lwdg awhw
19
This introduction indeed deserves to be translated into Hebrew, together with
all Kokowtzows introductions (ibid., p. 1893).
ences to the treatises of R. Judah ibn Quraysh and Dunash b. Tamm

on comparative linguistics (ibid., p. 217).20
In the entry ma, which is extant, one encounters Heb./Arab.
implicit comparisons ma/ma seven times, in several meanings (ibid.
pp. 21314, pp. 21617); one cognate translation synonym explicit
comparison as well as two non-cognate explicit comparisons ma/qdx
(pp. 21516) as well as four instances in which he resorted to the
Aramaic Targums (pp. 21617). All this points to a plenteous usage
of language comparison, yet a comprehensive outline of HaNagids
comparison system cannot be drawn. Perhaps it can merely be stated,
in the wake of Ibn Barns citation in HaNagids name (Muwzana,
p. 18), that HaNagid and following him Gikatilla were profuse in
setting comparisons, between Hebrew and Arabic grammar; they
even endeavored to locate common grammatical features in the two
languages, whenever this was possible. This approach led them, in
the wake of Arabic, to search for a case in Hebrew of a verb tak-
ing no less than three direct objects (ibid. pp. 162, 165).
To date no other fragments of Kitb al-"Istighn" have been found
among Genizah fragments. Yet two works aspiring to reconstruct
some of HaNagids lost linguistic materials have been published
recently; Perez (2000) found over sixty quotes from Kitb al-"Istighn"
in an early twelfth century commentary to Psalms and 'Ukashi (1999)
partially described the use of Hebrew in HaNagids poetry, assum-
ing a link between HaNagids philological exegesis of the Bible and
his usage of the same Hebrew for his poetry. The latter is too indi-
rect to serve as evidence for HaNagids comparative philology. How-
ever, the former does contribute thirteen statements either for or
against specic etymological Heb./Arab. comparisons, part of them
being of a grammatical nature.21
Listing of lexical comparisons (all from the citations in the anony-

mous commentary to Psalms; every other reference is to Perez 2000):
hmalx (73:20)/mlx ;(254) amk (73:15)/wmk ;(251) tt (73:9)/wt
;n. 43) an ;(74:3)/twaVm ;(251) hxmaj spn (73:21)/ybbl mjty ;(255)
20
On the structure of entries in HaNagids lexicon, see Poznanski (REJ 1909,
pp. 25557).
21
Eldar (1996), though dealing with HaNagids new grammatical material, does
not include anything related to comparative philology.
/yxxj22 ;(266) axj (77:18) yxxj ;(258) lk (74:6) twplk ;(257,

hnapa :16) 88 (hnwpa ;(267) asnm (88:13)/hyn ;(ibid.) axk (ibid.)
.(ibid) hnyp (ibid.) hnwpa ;(268)
Heb./Arab. grammatical comparisons:

nyn (74:8)/a[fla (259): in both cases the verb preceding the object
is missing, the fuller expressions would be nyn dymn/a[fla awm[fa;
ynwttmx (88:17) < twtymx (Lev. 25:23)/kmt (88:17) < akm (269): both
verbs are denominative.
Further grammatical comparisons, as recorded by Kokowtzow (on

the basis of citations in HaNagids name, by authors who succeeded
him):
The syntactical status of the madar as this relates to the Hebrew
innitive absolute (ibid. pp. 13147)
Imperfect forms of the type wT'y and the parallel l['p]y forms in
Arabic
The usages of the l[pna and the l[pn conjugations; the respec-
tive correspondence of the applications of Arabic l[tpa-l[pna and
Hebrew l[pth-l[pn conjugations
The forms n[r and na relate to quadriliteral radices, just like
Arabic amf
The assumed etymological comparison tj't'/tjt is nothing but a
conjecture of Kokowtzow
To sum up, it can only be assumed that if HaNagid was so subtle

in comparing the structure and grammar of the two languages, he
would have been even more systematic in comparing their lexicon
and semantics; but unfortunately, the latter part has been almost
entirely lost.
14.4 Abraham HaBavli
Of all the Hebrew philologists of the epoch under present discus-

sion, Abraham HaBavli is the least documented scholar of all.
Practically nothing is known about his life; nor is it known exactly
22
This was Dunash b. Tamms suggestion. See Perez, ibid.
when he ourished. A single grammatical work by him is known,

whose meager extant portion was published by Neubauer (1863). His
grammatical method, or as much of it as can be recovered from the
remnants of the treatise, pertains to the pre-ayyj school. (It should,
however, be borne in mind that a denitive determination of the
dating of any philologist cannot be made merely on the basis of his
grammatical method, as noticed in the cases of R. Hai Ga"on (14.1.0)
and Ab-l-Faraj (14.2.0). Neubauer (1863, pp. 19596) identied
Abraham with David b. Abraham Alfsi,23 owing to the close anity
of the body of the fragmentary work and the Jmi' al-"Alf: at any
rate the matter concerning us is that he established a close similar-
ity between those two treatises. Moreover, this was the basis upon
which, Neubauer set the earliest possible dating for the grammarian
Abraham HaBavli.
In HaBavlis treatise one encounters very few comparisons. All of
a grammatical nature and all Heb./Aram., these comparisons are
incorporated in the discussion of letter interchanges within Hebrew;
they therefore further allude to certain lexical comparisons.
Listing of comparisons
Bib.Heb./Bib.Aram.
.(210) alzrp/lzrb ,(213) wxljyw/hwfljyw ,(ibid., 214) ljw/yljn
Bib.Heb./Targ.Aram.
.atytr/ttr-ffr ,dpwq/zwpyq ,dypwq/dwpyq ,(211) axmwk/mwg
Bib.Aram./Bib.Heb.
.(213) hx[/yhwf[y-wf[yta-af[
The Heb. /Aram. interchangeable letters., according to these com-

parisons, are b/p (lzrb); g/k (mwg); d/z (rwpq) ;f/t (ffr); x/f (af[).
Comparative terms
tnwyw ,( ffr) tymra wl awhw ,( af[) tymrabw ,( mwg) ymra wlb
.(ydpwq zwpyq-dwpyq) dja wgrt . . . h[
23
Due to the dierence in the names, it would make more sense to identify him
with Alfsis father but by now Neubauers suggestion can not be denitively
approved.
CHAPTER FIFTEEN
MOSHEH HAKOHEN IBN GIKATILLA,

JUDAH B. BAL'AM, AND ISAAC B. BARN
15.1 Mosheh HaKohen ibn Gikatilla
Ibn Gikatilla lived and worked in the third quarter of the eleventh
century C.E.1 He translated into Hebrew the grammatical treatises
of ayyj and compiled his own grammatical work called Kitb al-
Tadhkr wa-l-Ta"nth (Treatise on masculine and feminine genders).
Most of this treatise has been lost; about 10 percent of it has been
published (Tn, 1972, p. 1383), initially by Kokowtzow (1916, pp.
5966) and subsequently by Allony (1949). Ibn Gikatilla composed
a commentary to the Bible, too: this also was almost entirely lost.
Poznanski (1895) collected all that is known of the content of this
commentary, by means of citations adduced by scholars in Ibn Gika-
tillas name. Bacher (1909) discovered an Arabic translation, with an
appended commentary, on the Book of Job; relying on certain indi-
cations, he ascribed this work to Ibn Gikatilla and issued it as a part
of the Harkavy Memorial Volume (St. Petersburg 1909/Jerusalem 1969,
vol. 1, pp. 22172). Kitb al-Tadhkr wa-l-Ta"nth is a selective gram-
matical lexicon: it deals with (a) biblical substantives showing two
plural forms, one of the masculine pattern and one of the feminine
or (b) such as have a plural form that seems to be discordant with
its grammatical gender (i.e., a feminine plural form for a noun of
a masculine pattern (= having no morpheme sux of the femi-
nine) or a masculine plural form for a noun of a feminine pat-
tern. The character of this lexicon is such that it is not meant to
provide lexical denitions, not even (Arabic) renderings for its entries:
such, in fact, is the situation: for 28 of the 40 surviving entries,
neither a denition nor a translation appears, for the entry concerned.
It follows that no language comparison is to be expected in this
lexicon. Nonetheless, one explicit comparison of Heb. with Arabic
is encountered, namely, yytp/hypta-ypata (Allony, p. 59). The
1
For a general overview of Ibn Gikatilla see Maman, 2000a, pp. 27577.
ibn gikatilla, judah b. bal'am, and isaac b. barn 385
Hebrew entry word and its translation synonym, are cognate; however,
whereas the Hebrew uses the dual form only, the Arabic counterpart
uses singular and plural forms as well. The remaining entries are dened
by an Arabic translation synonym, in 10 instances a cognate (several
present a cognate and a non-cognate). These can all be viewed as im-
plicit comparisons. They are: ,hm;a/; hma, /a/hma, ma/hnama, m/sm,
hn/hns, hywt/sya, za/da, ynzam/azym, ja/a, ae/a. No com-
parisons with Aramaic are to found in the remnants of this work
(Allony, ibid., p. 37).
In his introduction to the translation of ayyjs works into Hebrew,
Ibn Gikatilla discusses the relationship of the state of Hebrew with
that of Arabic in his time (see above, 1.2).
The comparisons incorporated by Ibn Gikatilla in his transla-
tion of Job have not yet been exhaustively inspected. Of the total,
Poznanski (1916, p. 451, n. 1) made mention merely of the follow-
ing: arp qhnyh/arpla qhny lhp ( Job 6:5); [/ht[ (4, 19); wrkht/rhq
(19:3); sl[/sl[ (20:18). In contrast, in citations culled by Poznanski
from secondary sources in Ibn Gikatillas name, only one single
comparison cropped up: dg/dg (Poznanski 1895, p. 39). According
to Poznanski, Ibn Gikatillas method of word elucidation is very
broadly dependent on Ibn Jan. Allony, too, pointed to this being
the main source for Ibn Gikatilla. But Allony adds the following rider:
However, there are occasions where he disagrees with Ibn Jan and
adopts an independent stand, as e.g., hla, ty, hp, twpa, hywt.
Ibn Gikatilla makes express mention of Ibn Jan only at entry
hnat: yb hplak m sylw qjltsmla bjax ldk laq (ibid., p. 62).
It is fair to assume that, as in linguistic inquiry in general, Ibn
Gikatilla proceeded on the same lines of language comparison as
Ibn Jan (and perhaps, likewise, of HaNagid). If any new initiative
is discerned, it must be treated as restricted to secondary details (as
e.g. sya/hywt) and not taken to be a novel element in the main
fundaments of comparison method.
15.2 Judah ibn Bal'am
Judah ibn Bal'am2 compiled three grammatical treatises; these are

basically selective grammatical dictionaries, their entries taken over
2
For a general overview of Ibn Bal'am see Maman, ibid., pp. 27781.
386 chapter fifteen
from biblical Hebrew: 1) Kitb al-Tajns (The book of homonyms) deals

with homonyms and generally speaking indicates the dierent con-
notations of same; 2) Kitb urf al-Ma'n (Sefer Otiyyot ha-'Inyanim:
Book of particles) enumerates the Hebrew particles and explains them;
3) Kitb al-Af 'l al-Mushtaqqa min al-"Asm" discusses denominative
verbs in the Bible. Surviving portions of these treatises have been
published by Kokowzow (1916), by Abramson (1963), and by Allony
(Beit Miqra" 1964). Abramson (1975) collocated all the remnants of
these works in one volume. Judah ibn Bal'am also composed a Bible
commentary, some parts of which have been published, while oth-
ers remain as yet in manuscript (for details, see Abramson, 1963,
pp. 54, 56). These have now been issued in new editions (Perez,
1981, n. 6; Goshen 1992;3 Perez 2000). In his grammatical works
as well as in his Bible commentary, Ibn Bal'am adopted comparisons
with Arabic, grammatical as well as lexical in nature. Poznanski
(1916) and Perez (1978) collated a certain number of these com-
parisons. Poznanski dealt only with explicit comparisons with Arabic4
(ignoring the implicit ones and the comparisons with Aramaic), mainly
in the grammatical works; Perez, on the other hand, dwelled only
on hapax legemena in the Book of Isaiah. The latter scholar fur-
thermore (p. 445, n. 225 and 1981, n. 26) referred to Ibn Bal'ams
treatments of Aramaic. Thus the collation and analysis of these mate-
rials has yet to be completed. All the material presented here is of
partial nature and provisional, pending compilation of the compar-
ison materials embedded in Ibn Bal'ams Bible commentary in their
entirety.
15.2.1 Grammatical comparisons

Judah ibn Bal'am established structural grammatical comparisons
(Poznanski ibid., pp. 45359) as well as lexical comparisons both ety-
mological and semantic in nature. A list follows of some additional
comparisons that Ibn Bal'am established in the sphere of derivation
3
This edition was reviewed by Maman, 1996a.
4
For instance, Poznanski failed to record comparisons from the fragments of a
commentary published by S. Fuchs, 1893, such as the comparisons wwqth/ayyq
(Heb./Aram.), fry/frwt (implicit), twwj/yj as well as Ibn Bal'ams demurral to
R. Sa'adiahs rendering: wl]/ywls. Moreover, Poznanski overlooked the semantic
comparison [h ta wknyw-wtkyw/brjla htx[ (Fuchs, ch. 6), etc.
and inection patterns, in Hebrew and in Arabic, in his work on

denominative verbs:
The Hebrew verb wnlsjy derives from the noun lysj, just as ryw
derives from hmrI, and in Arabic, drg derives from darg (Abramson,
1975, p. 163).
The Heb./Arab. translation synonyms lha > lhayw/hmyk > yk
evolved in the same way (ibid., p. 147).
Ibn Bal'am draws a parallel between hap > hyapa and the Arabic
pairs rsn > rsntsa (became mighty as an eagle) and qpa > qpa
("ufq > "faqa is present in the distant horizons) (ibid., p. 145).
The denominative verbs ediO (from ,d,) and bxq (from byxq) are
used in the privative sense (removal of the entity signied by the
substantive) (ibid., p. 156).
In the form a'h' there is a conation of particles: h+ a (having
the same notation) just as in Arabic "ahal is a conation of a + lh
(ibid., p. 102).
15.2.2 The letter substitutions

The letter substitutions ensuing from the comparisons collated to
date, do not present any departure from the interchange theory of
Ibn Jan. Following is a full enumeration. (Samples of entries in
which the respective interchanges occur are given in parentheses):
w/y ,(rj ,wjxp) k/j ,(baz ,zam) d/z ,(hytwwj) y/w ,(llgb ,dg ,ryg) g/g
t/ ,(lx ,w[xy) f/x ,(yaxax ,[xbw) x/x ,(h[d) g/[ ,(fry ,ynwyx)
(py ,rk) s/ ,(qr ,twkb) c/v ,(twp ,hqym).
One Heb./Aram. interchange: (h) a/h and one Aram./Ar. inter-
change: (ryg/aryg) g/g.
It is noticeable that Ibn Bal'am tends to prefer comparisons that
do not necessitate any interchange, as yljy lxk (Poznanski, 1916,
p. 461). Also, he intimates that preference is to be given to the com-
parison tw[/ta[ over Ibn Jans comparison tw[/tg. Ibn Bal'am
has no objection, in principle, to letter interchanges; however, his
proviso is that these be operated in essential instances only, i.e. if/when
the semantic concurrence is greater on the basis of the comparison
with the interchange than without it. There can be cases in which
the situation is reversed, e.g. the comparison tpxr/tapxr, with the
letter interchange he prefers, without operating any interchange,
rather than the comparison established by Ibn Jan.
388 chapter fifteen
For comparisons involving metathesis, too, the decisive factor for

Ibn Bal'am is the semantic concord. In one instance he rejects a
comparison established by Ibn Jan on the basis of metathesis
namely, abs/basand he proposes instead, a comparison without
metathesis: abs/abs.5 Elsewhere, he records comparisons employing
metathesis: ynrs/yrsn (Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.), in certain cases even
those necessitating root pattern interchange, e.g. yrwrmt/ara
(Poznanski, ibid., p. 464), yzh/zhzh (ibid., p. 446).
Ibn Bal'ams sources

Kokowzow (1916, III pp. 195, 201, and elsewhere) determined, that
as a rule, Ibn Bal'am, just like R. Mosheh HaKohen ibn Gikatilla,
was an epigone of Ibn Jan, his innovative contributions constitut-
ing partial supplements of what Ibn Jan had omitted but pre-
senting no novelties in the principles of methodology. This evaluation
would seem to be valid for language comparison, too. Other schol-
ars also noted Ibn Bal'ams reliance on Ibn Jan (Poznanski, 1916,
pp. 453, 459; Abramson, 1963, p. 63). In this connection a partic-
ular remark by Ibn Bal'am is especially instructive. In his Kitb urf
al-Ma'an (p. 111), he states: dylwla wba hrkdy l amm adhw. The
implication is that he checked out the records of Ibn Jan sys-
tematically and exhaustively so that he could condently criticize
him for what he had failed to say. Ibn Bal'am discusses other source
texts, too. For example, Eppenstein (19001901, p. 237, n. 1) noted
that Ibn Bal'am (in his commentary to Deut. 28:27) recorded a cita-
tion from Dunash b. Tamm; Abramson (ibid., p. 11, entry lba, end
of n. 7) remarked that Ibn Bal'am had quoted Ibn Quraysh. Fuchs
(1893, in his note to Ibn Bal'ams exegetical remark to Deut. 14:1),
noted that Ibn Bal'am had even used a Christian translation of the
Bible, as well. Nonetheless, in several matters, Ibn Bal'am took an
independent stand, as noted by Perez (1981, pp. 23031). Ibn Bal'am
undoubtedly imbibed the fundaments of the system from his prede-
cessors; however, he rechecked their recorded statements, for each and
every comparison, setting aside whatever comparison he held to be unac-
ceptable. (Ibn Bal'am voiced his criticism of R. Sa'adiah Ga"on, for
example, regarding the latters elucidation of Num. 22:30, 14:44,
Deut. 1:14; see details, noted by Fuchs, ibid.).
5
For other rejections, see e.g., Maman, 1996a, p. 474.
15.2.3 Listing of comparisons

Bib. Heb./Aram./Arab.
;(464 Abramson 65, ryn/ryn/l[/ryn ;(Perez 1978, 443; 1981, 215) ryg/aryg/ryg
.(Perez 2000, 122) spr/spr Poznanski)

lglg/lglg ,(ibid. 26) rb/rb ,(Abramson 14, 98) (hla =) la/la
.(ibid. 77) abx/abx ,(ibid. 113), ah/ah ,(ibid.) ypgw/wypga ;(ibid. 33)

,(ibid., 25) (rb)/b/rb ,(ibid., 29) [xb/twtp/[xb ,(ibid., 107) wla/wl/wla
/ bhz / hbhdm ,(ibid., 154) amrg / x[ / rg ,(ibid.) arb / wj / rb
,(Abramson, 159) lylj/bwbn/ylyljb ,(Perez, 1978, 445; 1981, 222) abhd
( abby )/ h[wrt / bbytw ,(ibid., 50; Perez, 2000, 54) rf / hl[ / rf
(wdygn)/wkm/dygn ,(Abramson 108) kbw/za/kbw ,(Perez, 1978, 445)
(byrsw)/amyw/ybrs ,(Fuchs, 1893, 6) wtykn/wknyw/wtkyw ,(ibid. 129)
arb[/jyrb/(1 Kings 6:21) rb[yw ,(Perez, 1981, 222; ibid. 2000, 23)
,(ibid., 77, 78) ryx/dy/ryx ,(ibid. 78, 171) yx/rypns/yx ,(Abramson 176)
,(Perez, 1981, 229) (ttr)/d[r/ttr ,(Perez, 2000, 153) trfqw/rqtw/twrwfq
.(ibid., 104) tryy/tjra/ytwr ,(Perez, 2000, 53) fw/zbyw/twfah
Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (by metathesis)

.(Abramson, 69) yrsn/ynrs
Bib.Heb./Talm.Aram.
/wwqth ,(Poznanski, 472, ibid., 163) lysj/lysj ,(ibid., 115) ya/h
.(Fuchs, ibid., 8) ayq
Bib. Heb./Ar. (explicit)

,(hplwm/twpylam ,(ibid., 93) (rnm)/zam ,(Abramson 10) ba = ba
,(Poznanski 452) na/na ,(Abramson, 20) na/a Poznanski, 468 ibid. 148)
,(Perez, 2000, 57 ,Poznanski, 469) rsb/rsb ,(ibid. 465) tqlba/hqlwbm
,(Perez, yrb/arb ,(ibid., 465) [xb/[xbw ,(Poznanski 463) tl[b/ytl[b/dg
,(Poznanski 469 ,Abramson 152) qrb/qrb 2000, 84; ibid. 468)
,(Poznanski 468) ssgn/hgn ,(Abramson 113) lalgb/llgb ,(463 ibid.) (dg)/dn
,( Poznanski 461) ybhbh / ybhbh ,( Perez, 1978, 445) hd / hdn
,(ibid. 469) lalha/ylwlh ,(ibid., 463) dyh/ddyh ,(Poznanski 466) bhzh/yzwh
,(Fuchs, 13) yj / hytwwj ,(ibid.) [z[z / [z[z ,(ibid., 463) ljz / yljz
typj ,(ibid., 463) trmj/wrmrmj ,(Poznanski 461) lxk yljy
390 chapter fifteen
,(Poznanski 464) tljk/tljk ,(ibid., 464) hyrf/hyrf ,(ibid., 461) pj/

,(Poznanski bal/twbwalt ,(Abramson 51) rpk/rpk ,(ibid. 468) lpk/ylpk
tpl/tplyw ,(Abramson 168) hnbl/hnbl ,(ibid.) fbtly ,fbly/fbly 466)
,(Perez, 2000, 48) daxm/dxm,(ibid. 462) (rxbla+) dm/ddwmyw ,(464 Poznanski)
jtm/jtmyw ,(Perez, 2000, 50) [m/y[ml ,(Poznanski 464) ara/yrwrmt
,(Poznanski 469) rknt/hrkntm ,(Perez, 1978, 445) jbn/jbnl ,(ibid.)
,(ibid., 467) qn/qn ,(ibid., 426) dqan/dqn ,(ibid. 464) r[n/rw[n
,(Perez, wjs/yjs-hjws ,(ibid., 467) abs/abs ,(ibid., 461) a as
,(ibid. 464) sb[/wb[ ,(ibid., 467) js/jsn 2000, 94; ibid., 464)
:Abramson 177 ? n[)/ n[ ,(ibid., 473) y[/ y[ ,(ibid., 461) ta[/ tw[l
r[r[ ,(Poznanski 473) bq[/wbq[ ,(Abramson 179) bx[/bx[ ,(amg ,yg
wjxp ,(ibid., 464) glp/yglp ,(ibid.) t[a t[n ,(ibid., 462) r[r[
yaxax ,(Perez, 2000, 73; ibid. 472) jtp/hjwtp ,(ibid., 465) xp/
,(ibid.) hwx/ynwyx-wyx ,(ibid.) jxajx/twjxjx ,(Poznanski 465) yaxax/
,(ibid., 467) [f/[xy ,(ibid., 465) gxgx-gax/h[x ,(ibid., 467) lylx/lylx
hwtqm/hqm ,(ibid., 473) hmyaq/hmq (wyny[) ,(ibid., 468) jrx/jyrx
jzr/jzrm ,(ibid., 465) qbr/qbrm ,(ibid. 469) babr/ybybr ,(ibid. 468)
hkb/twkb ,(ibid., 468) tapxr/tpxr ,(ibid., 465) ynr/hnr ,(ibid.)
wl ,(ibid., 465) rks/rk ,(ibid., 470) jas-hjays/jwl-yjy ,(ibid.)
ypt/ytp-twp ,(Poznanski 470) aps/(wjy) py (Fuchs, 5) ywls
.(ibid., 452) qyr-qyrs/qr ,(ibid., 470) bars/br ,(ibid., 465) hypta-
Bib. Heb./Arab. (implicit)

sws/ss ,(Fuchs, 10) tfrwt/fry ;(Perez, 2000, 103) hmrbm/ymwrb
,(Perez 2000, 122) tmr/twmr ,(Perez, 1981, 223) whqz[yw ,(Perez, 1978, 445)
.(Fuchs, 13) w/ykl
Bib. Heb./Arab. (implicit) > zero in the Heb. translation

,(ibid., 40) bad/baz ,(ibid., 37) rbd/hrwbd ,(Abramson, 32) sg/g
.(ibid., 79) hmlf/lx ,(ibid., 48) absj/wbj ,(ibid., 46) arka/rj
Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (non-cognate)/Arab. (cognate to Targ. Aram.)

.(Poznanski, 470) thl/tyhlaw/rhgyw
Semantic comparisons
jybq ,sb sj/fq f[mk ;(Abramson 92) (same in Arab.)/ylwl = ylwa
.(ibid., 103) rj/pj ;(Perez, 2000, 53) [rqa [mga ,jyq
For the rest of comparisons, see Poznanski 1916, pp. 47076
15.2.4 Comparative terms

.(abx ,ah ,rb) 0 ,(g) yfbnla ypw ,(lglg ,la) ynayrsla ypw
Bib.Heb. 1/Bib.Heb. 2/Targ. Aram.

lqy hnmw ;(ttr) wgrt whw ;(ryx ,yx ,kbw ,rf ,rb ,yrb ,wla) wgrt(w)
wgrt m ,(dygn) wgrt yk ,wgrt wlm ;(ryn) wgrt al ,(lylj) wgrtla
.(rg) wgrt m ,(rb[yw)
Bib. Heb./Talm. Aram.

.(h) lz wnytwbr yrbdbw ;(wwqth) ylwala lwq m .
Bib. Heb./Aram./Arab.
.(ryg) yrt amk hyp tagl taltla tbraqt dqp
Bib. Heb./Arab.
byg[ m adhp ,(yzwh) ytglla yytah yp hbraqmla yp byrg adhw
m arhw . . . br[la lwqt ldkw ,(wqx) ytglla ytah yb qaptala
. . . l br[la hymstl asnagm ak ambrw ,(twpylam) ytglla hsnagm
ybr[la fpll snagm ,(yljy) yn[mlaw fplla yp dy[b syngt whw ,(hytwwj)
,(hqm) br[la lwqt adkhw ,(hjws ,abs ,llgb) br[la lwqtw ,(twkb)
,(areb) ybr[la asl yp ,(yjs) br[la alk ypw ,(hdn) br[la lwq hby
,(rsb) br[la dn[ ,(wl]) br[la asl m hmgrtla adh (rspmla) dmtsa
[b yp hmsa ldkw ,(qrec) hyrxj hbr[m hfpl ,(qrb) hybr[la ypw
.(na) taglla
The term zero and comparison on the strength of the Arabic

example: .[xy ,lylx ,r[r[ ,tw[l
The following terms appear as the usage by the translator of the
grammatical treatises of Ibn Bal'am:
yla[myhw ,(twp ,yjy ,txjk ,dg ,zam) (y)la[my wlb awh kw

,(n[) yla[my wlb rmay hzm bwrqw ,(hnbel) l[wp yn[h hzm wprx al
la[my wlm awh rmwa y ,(twpylam) nwlb yla[myh wrmay kw
.(rpk) arqy tybr[ wlb yk ,(ylwa) yla[myh w[y kw ,(ynwbx[)
392 chapter fifteen
15.3 Isaac ibn Barn
Isaac ibn Barn, the last Hebrew grammarian in the epoch under
discussion, compiled the Kitb al-Muwzana bayn al-Lugha al-'Ibrniyya
wa-l-'Arabiyya, which contains fully detailed comparison of Hebrew
with Arabic in the spheres of lexicon and of grammar. Kokowtzow
published the surviving parts of al-Muwzana in 1890 as well as addi-
tional fragments in 1916. In 1893 he published a synopsis (in Russian)
of the contents of that treatise and of the comparison theory ema-
nating from it. The substantial contents of the Muwzana, included
in the two groups of fragmentary remnants, were translated into
English by Wechter (1964) and redacted in the form of one con-
secutive list (arranged in alphabetical order of the root of each entry
word). In his annotations to the text, Wechter also incorporated the
gist of Kokowtzows synoptic survey. Wechter added further inde-
pendent notations; but according to Tn (1983, notes 16, 20, 82,
86, 96, 98, 104), Wechters main contribution was to make Kokowt-
zows survey available to English readers. Tn ( 2.2.4; 5) again
reviewed Ibn Barns comparison method (in his general treatment
of language comparison of several other tenth and eleventh century
scholars). Various other issues and problems not dealt with by the
aforementioned scholars have been discussed in the present work
(above, 2.2; 2.33 at end; 2.4; 2.6.3.4; 2.6.3.5; 5.1.1; 5.3.4; 5.3.5;
see also p. 33, n. 22 and p. 34, n. 24).
15.3.1 Listing of comparisons

Kitb al-Muwzana, as noted earlier, has only partially survived. For
this reason, scholars have endeavored to reconstruct (= complete)
the lacunae on the basis of several sources. Wechter (1522) lled
in certain portions such as (philological) reconstructions from frag-
mentary quotations by grammarians who succeeded Ibn Barn. Becker
(1980) also restored materials, by citing Abraham b. Shelomo in his
Bible commentary as well as by additional citations recorded by an
anonymous scholar. In fact, the list of his lexicographical compar-
isons can also be restored from the text of Kitb al-Muwzana. In the
introduction to his comparative lexicon (ibid., pp. 2325), Ibn Barn
recorded several lexical comparisons to exemplify certain substitu-
tion rules in comparison method. For example, the interchanges /s
and c/v are illustrated by the two words r[c and ar (ibid., p. 23).
These two entry words are not to be found in the remnants of

al-Muwzana (pp. 87, 98, 171). However, since they are encountered
in the introduction, where they are unambiguously presented as
explicit comparisons, there are no grounds for not subjoining them
to the general listing of Ibn Barns comparisons. Some comparisons
appearing in the introduction have also survived in the body of the
worke.g. the comparison zrg/yzrk appears in the introduction
(p. 23) and is reiterated in the body of the lexicon (p. 167), likewise,
hb (pp. 24, 161), ynfb (pp. 24, 163), and others. It is therefore
reasonable to assume that the remaining words now appearing only
in the introduction, in fact also occurred in the lost portions of the
work. In what follows, no mention is made of those words that have
survived in the body of the lexicon, merely those that now appear
in the introduction:
qd/hkdmb wkd ,lmg/lmg ,sydk/ydg ,hbkr/ykrb ,hrkb/rqb
,wrgp/wr[p ,y[/y[ ,m/jwm ,rkd/rkz ,jbd/jbz ,sd/d ,qdmlab
.r[/r[ ,glt/gl ,rwt/rw ,sar/ar ,yar/har ,arq/arq
Some further comparisons can be restored on the basis of allusions
made by Ibn Barn at entries that show a similarity, in their gram-
matical pattern, to the relevant presumed entry words. The numer-
als from 3 to 10, with their various forms and combinations, masc.
and fem. gender, etc., whole integers and fractions and so on, can
be restored on the basis of Ibn Barn comments, in the grammat-
ical section, on the close similarity of Hebrew and Arabic in the
morphology of the numerals (p. 7) as well as by parallel statements
within entries [br and mj. There, Ibn Barn states that the Hebrew
form for a fraction ty[ybr, (side by side with [br), used in Arabic
as well (= [ybr), is proper for ymt and ry[ as well, corresponding
with tynym and tyry[, hlatmaw. The word hlatmaw alludes to the
comparison ty[yb/[ybs and the like. Other lexical comparisons can
be restored by the sample instances adduced by Ibn Barn in the
grammatical section, as illustration of several grammatical rules (pp.
89): ,[lx/[lx ,[bxa/[bxa ,tk/tk ,k/k ,ramj/rwmj ,hma/hma
.s/ ,sm/m ,qas/qw ,swq/tq
In the latter instances, cognate translation synonyms were largely
adduced as renderings for the word illustrating the rule in question,
these perforce leading to at least implicit comparisons.
The comparisons ai/a'; ai/ai can be restored from Ibn Barns
statement at entry la (p. 36).
394 chapter fifteen
Wechter reconstructed only one instance of this category: jnztw/jnz,

which comparison survived in the introduction but nowhere in the
substance of the lexicon (pp. 41, 168). He might well have recon-
structed all the rest if the single reconstruction he made was indeed
founded on that principle.
15.3.2 Comparisons with Aramaic

The title of the treatise and its salient purpose intimate that this
work was aimed at a comparison of Hebrew with Arabic only; Aramaic
is not mentioned in the title. Indeed, in the majority of his com-
parisons Ibn Barn avoids any treatment of Aramaic. Nevertheless,
certain isolated comparisons with Aramaic are to be found therein.
Wechter (nn. 17980) noted only the comparisons at entries afj,
jba, zwj. But in fact, one encounters several additional comparisons
with Aramaic in Muwzana: a/na (ynayrsla yp wnla trhf dqw).
Ibn Barn quotes from Jamharat al-lughah that the expression rwhas
exists in Hebrew as well as in Aramaic.
A semantic comparison: Ibn Barn interprets the expression yrbh
ym (Isa. 47:13) in the sense tj ,[fq (cleave, cut o ) by comparing
with Arabic rbh, on the grounds, that the concept cutting, cleav-
ing is encountered in Aramaic, too, in the linguistic context of for-
tune telling, astrology: see yrzg ymfrj (Dan. 2:27); ayrzgw (Dan. 4:4).
In entry rma, the Aram./Arab. comparison rM'ai/rma (bk wgrt)
occurs. Ibn Barn even calls this comparison qaptala byrg m (one
of the most wonderful concurrences).6
In some cases Ibn Barn rejects comparisons that his predeces-
sors established with Aramaic. Ibn Gikatilla explained rbdy (Ps. 47:4)
in the sense of ghny; a comparison with Aramaic being the most likely
background of this interpretation. Ibn Barn refuses to adopt that
explanation, apparently because in his opinion it does not suit the
context. He likewise rejects Ibn Jans comparison at wypga and at
dryw. But the few comparisons that he does maintain are enough to
indicate that in principle he acquiesces to setting up comparisons
6
The gist of the passage would seem to intimate that the entry word is to be
identied as the Arabic, whereas the Aramaic is adduced for elucidation of the Arabic.
In that case, this would be the only instance in which an Arabic word has the sta-
tus of denitum. However, it is possible, although as a forced suggestion, to inter-
prete the Aramaic word rM'ai as the entry word.
with Aramaic. Yet at several entries he purposely ignored an obvious

comparison with Aramaic. For the comparisons wnlsjy/sjl; wnllfyw/lfa,
f[byw/f[b; Ibn Barn adduced Ibn Jans statements (but without
acknowledging their source) almost verbatim, but only with regard
to the section of the comparison relating to the Arabic; he entirely
ignored the section of the comparison established by Ibn Jan with
Aramaic.
In other locations, where it can be reasonably postulated that com-
parison with Aramaic would be appropriate, no mention of it appears.
For example, at the comparison hqlj/lqj a comparison with Aramaic
alqj is suggestive; likewise at lylk/lylk ( gat), at mla, at fb etc.
Why then did he see t to compare with Aram., only in the instances
mentioned above? Possibly in those instances there was some unique
or specic feature, such as for instance, that the Aramaic served as
real corroboration for the Arabic or for the connotation he had
determined on the basis of the Arabic:
At tjba he resorted to the Targ. Aram. non-cognate translation
synonym abrj ylwfq as a corroboration of his comparison with
hjabtsa (= laxatsa); likewise at hnfja.
At wzj (Ps. 46:9), he took up comparison with Aramaic, merely to
justify rejection of the elucidation oered by other grammarians, i.e.
in the sense of wymy wzj al ( Job 24:1). Apparently for this entry word
he could not nd an Arabic cognate bearing precisely the same con-
notation. Indeed, he had explained the phrase yzwjh ta in the sense
yzaj = ryfla rgaz, i.e. pigeon gamesters (in the astrological sense of
divination or fortune telling, not in the sense of plain seeing).
The comparison rhs/arhys has a unique feature, in that it was
discovered in an Arabic dictionary. At rM'ai/rma, Ibn Barn himself
expressed his wonderment, by the expression qaptala byrg m.
Likewise, the semantic comparison rbh/rzg contains an element that
is lacking in the Heb./Arab. comparison rbh/rbh.
15.3.3 Terminology
Wechter (n. 318) recorded the comparison terms of Ibn Barn in a
general way. It should be noted that the zero and zero-like terms
as well as wl[m are used in Ibn Barns comparisons. For example,
at entry yna, Ibn Barn states wl[m and by this he means to imply
the comparison yna/ana, likewise at entries ayh, awh, hmj. In some
cases, there is no term at all: for example, at entry sj (p. 51), he says:
396 chapter fifteen
tazh ry[h sj lk ta ( Jer. 20:5) rqyw sj hnmw ahlamgw ahnsj (Ezek.

22:25), this being the whole text of the entry. Also in entries rrj, trj,
hpj, llf, hrf, etc., no term appears. Nevertheless, the comparison is
still an explicit one. The basic term used by Ibn Barn is snagm or snagy;7
it is of such frequent occurrence, that one might wonder why he
entitled his treatise Kitb al-Muwzana and not Kitb al-Mujnasa! But
apparently, Muwzana is a term of a more general nature, whereas
hsnagm, as used by Ibn Barn following the practice of R. Jonah Ibn
Jan, is a more specic technical term.
15.3.4 The sources of Ibn Barn

The sources used by Ibn Barn were long ago dealt with: by
Kokowtzow (in his Hebrew introduction to Kitb al-Muwzana, 1893,
p. ii, w), by Bacher (1896, introduction to the Shorashim, p. XXIV,
n. 3), by Eppenstein (19001901), and by Wechter (1964, pp. 722).
Broadly and typically, these scholars pointed out Ibn Barns anity
with R. Sa'adiah Ga"on (e.g. Eppenstein, p. 241), with R. Hai Ga"on
(pp. 24344), and with R. Judah ibn Quraysh (ibid., pp. 24243).
The general consensus is that Ibn Barns main inspiration was
R. Jonah Ibn Jan (see Bacher, ibid.; Eppenstein, ibid., p. 237, p. 245).
Kokowtzow, in his introduction to the Kitb al-Muwzana listed 43
verbatim citations from Ibn Jans works, not necessarily in mat-
ters of language comparison. From the Comparative Table (below,
ch. 16) it can be deduced that out of the total of 71 comparisons
surviving in Muwzana and already encountered in Ibn Jans works
but untraceable to any earlier source, eleven are recorded as implicit
comparisons by Ibn Jan as well as a further three that he rules
out. He does not cite Ibn Jan in each and every comparison, but
by and large the citations are verbatim, thus removing any doubt
as to their source. 290 of Ibn Barns comparisons are already
encountered in the records of R. Sa'adiah, whether in his Bible
7
Becker (1980, p. 296 and n. 39) remarks that snagm, the most recurrent term
in Ibn Barns work, is encountered tmw[l lfwbm fw[ymb a yrja yrbjm lxa g
wrb b lxa ywxmh (in works of other authors, but its frequency in those works is
extremely meager relative to its frequency in the work of Ibn Barn). It was noted
above (13.19) that in R. Jonah ibn Jans works, the term is very prominent and
is encountered in a fair number of comparisons.
translation or elsewhere as part of his inventory of explicit compar-

isons. However, it is absolutely clear that R. Sa'adiah did not view
as comparison entities each and every entity viewed as such by Ibn
Barn. For example, wkd R. Sa'adiah renders qd; wjbf, he renders
jbd; and f, he translates lpf. But there is no certainty that
R. Sa'adiah took these three to be cognates. One way or the other, the
rendering itself is already there in Sa'adiahs Tafsr. It is feasible that
Ibn Barn took over many comparisons attested indirectly in R.
Sa'adiahs translation, i.e. by Ibn Jans Ul. For, considering that
Ibn Barn made very thorough use of Ul, it is quite possible that
that work served him as a source for comparisons recorded there
secondarily, as well. But it is not impossible that Ibn Barn estab-
lished several comparisons on his own accord, without resorting to
any documented source, and this is especially plausible regarding
such common words as wy, dylwy, ymy, ryy, lg[, ar, la, rw, and
the like. Despite all this, I treat as most decisive the documentation
of a primary nature, the important matter being not what could the-
oretically have been borrowed from R. Sa'adiah, but what is known
to have been one borrowed from him. Of the comparisons whose
rst documentation is in a record of R. Judah ibn Quraysh, 90 are
attested in the records of Ibn Barn. Eppenstein (ibid., pp. 24243)
illustrated Ibn Barns anity with Ibn Quraysh by the com-
parisons wykynjw/hyknjm; tjb tj; rz[y/rz[y etc. Indeed, the feature
unique to these as well as other comparisons (see, for example,
also wnaw, qbdl, lhy, tbyyjw, w[m, wndpa) is that Ibn Barn could not
have cited them from any other grammarians, for only he and Ibn
Quraysh are known to have recorded them (at least according to
our present knowledge). One further encounters 49 of Ibn Barns
comparisons whose rst attestation is in a record of Alfsi, but a
good percentage of these might well have been adduced by Ibn
Barn from a source subsequent to Alfsi. For example, the com-
parisons tyw/tn; rgws/rwgas; ydydr/hydra, and others are encoun-
tered in Ul, too. Furthermore, the Heb./Aram. comparison yla/ayla
is adduced by Ibn Barn explicitly in the name of R. Jonah ibn
Jan, even though it is recorded also by Alfsi. On the other hand
some comparisons characteristic of the Karaites are to be found in
the records of Ibn Barn. One such, the comparison ya/sya, hap-
pens to appear in the records of Alfsi (but is also encountered in
the writings of other Karaites) and is reiterated in the work of Ibn
Barn. Moreover, additional comparisons recorded jointly by Alfsi
398 chapter fifteen
and Ibn Barn are not known in any other sourceas, for exam-
ple, lt/slt and wr/ar, and it is feasible that this unam-
biguously indicates Ibn Barns source. Be that as it may, Kokowtzow
(1893, p. 120, n. 280; p. 145, n. 377) and Wechter (n. 115) remarked
that Ibn Barn made use, additionally, of Bible translations apart
from that of R. Sa'adiah, and it cannot be ruled out that some of
these were Karaite translations.
The name Dunash b. Labrat is nowhere encountered in what
remains of Muwzana. What is more, the aforementioned scholars
failed to note any link between him and Ibn Barn. However, the
comparison listing reveals that eleven of Ibn Barns comparisons
are attested for the rst time as a record of Dunash. A certain num-
ber of these, such as y/y and twplyk/wlk, could possibly have
been taken over by Ibn Barn directly from a record of R. Jonah
ibn Jan. But at any rate, ve comparisons unknown from another
source were recorded jointly by Ibn Barn and Dunash; these are:
tr/tr, ynwkms/ms, hypy[s/hpy[s, rr/rar, qr/qyr, and it is fair
to assume that they were in fact taken over by Ibn Barn directly
from the records of Dunash b. Labrat himself.
But the above does not mean to imply that Ibn Barn was entirely
dependent on his predecessors. In many cases, he rejects their com-
parisons and even proposes alternative ones (see 15.3.6 below).
15.3.5 The taf

The taf is an original concept of Ibn Barn (Kokowtzow, 1893,
p. 168, n. 80). Earlier (13.2.1) I attempted to demonstrate that Ibn
Barn could not have taken over this concept from the comparison
theory of R. Jonah ibn Jan because Ibn Jan himself did not
practise taf. It is possible that Ibn Barn interpreted various ren-
derings in "Ul as cases of taf.8 For example, Ibn Jan rendered
rjb as rykt and hxr as yxr: Ibn Jan views the rst pair as non-
cognate and the second as cognate translation synonym; Ibn Barn,
however, treated both as cognate translation synonyms, by taf. In
the opinion of Ibn Jan, ttr/hytr is no more than a partial com-
parison, whereas Ibn Barn views it as a full etymological compar-
8
This also applies to those cases, in which Ibn Barn established a comparison
on the lines of rwa[t and in which R. Jonah ibn Jan intended to render merely
by non-cognates, such as jb/jm; jrza/jyrx; ytnjt/ytljm; tjbf/tjbd.
ison, by taf. Scholars have investigated the essence of taf. Tn

(1983, p. 266, with bibliography in n. 96) denes it as an error in
the placing of the diacritical dots, i.e.: if one writes down qzb in
Arabic characters and does not mark the diacritical dot of the zay(n),
the word matches its Arabic translational synonoym qrb.9
But this denition fails to relate to either the circumstances in
which the aberration occurred or to the problem of whether the
error occurred within an Arabic text or within a Hebrew one. The
possibility of Hebrew is very far-fetched, since no diacritical mark
exists in cases of the interchange z/r. That the error occurred with
regard to switches owing to the formal similarity of two alterna-
tive letters is again, hardly applicable in Hebrew, for Hebrew let-
ters z and r have no close similarity. It must, therefore be concluded
that the error occurred within Arabic, where, in the given example
and in other cases as well, the interchanging letters are almost iden-
tical and are distinguished merely by the diacritical point placed
on one member of the pair. But the problems are still not entirely
settled: What relevance does the distinction between qrb and qzb in
Arabic have to the Hebrew counterparts? In the context of what
socio-linguistic process and in what (historical) circumstances did the
erroneous switch pass from Arabic to Hebrew? Did Ibn Barn imag-
ine the distortion in historical grounds? By its very nature, an aber-
ration must be linked with a historical process. Insucient data are
available for ascertaining the entire substance of Ibn Barns con-
cept of taf, but it is quite possible that he viewed this concept
technically and no more. In other words, it might well be that he
did not perceive taf to be a profound linguistic approach nor think
of it on a historical level but merely through speculative compari-
son of Arabic word pairs with their Hebrew counterparts, such as
qzb-qrb (Arab.)/qzb-qr;B; (Heb.). The Arab philologists viewed the
entry word qzb as a case of taf; so Ibn Barn applied the same
concept vis--vis the Hebrew qzb. The next stage was to extend the
eld of this concept to entry words in which no counterpart pair
exists in Hebrew, such as wj/wg, and even further with regard to
interchanges that his predecessors had simply treated as normal
switches, such as x/x (see wxr/awxr).10 In sum, we have here another
9
ta ynmsm yaw twybr[ twytwab qzb ybtwk a :rmal ,jbhh tdwqn wmysb wby
(qrb) tybr[l hl thnl qzb tyrb[h hlmh tywwtm, yaz l jbhh tdwqn
10
In the comparison rjb/rykt, in the opinion of Tn (1983, n. 97), the three
400 chapter fifteen
concept/term that made its way from the unilingual context (in this
case, the starting point being specically Arabic) into the Hebrew-
Arabic interlingual context (see Tn, 1983, 7).
15.3.6 The unique characteristics of Ibn Barn

Ibn Barn was the rst Hebrew grammarian to have conducted a
systematic and exhaustive comparison of Hebrew with Arabic, his com-
parisons being established, of course, according to his own theoret-
ical system. His systematization is salient in several aspects:
(1) Ibn Barn recorded comparisons of even extremely frequent
words, such as lk / lk , la / la , hta / tna , ra / ra , wawa , ba
/ba, ayh/ayh, dy/dy, and the like.
(2) Ibn Barn made every attempt to reach the maximal number
of cognates in Hebrew and Arabic as well as to discover alternate
comparisons within the same entry. In the entry rwnk, Ibn Barn
rejects Ibn Jans comparison (rank) and remarks that he had checked
out the entry in Kitb al'ayn (of Al-Khall), in letter k (rank) and in
letter k (rwnk), and failed to nd in either the meaning Ibn Jan
had assigned to the word rank. Thus Ibn Barn described, almost
unintentionally, his method of search: to check out all hypothetical
possibilities. It is thus no coincidence, when he proposes two cognate
translation synonyms for hbky: wbk and hybak; and similarly for
la: lta and lsa; for according to his substitution chart, Hebrew
k is liable to interchange with Arabic k, whereas Hebrew inter-
changes with Arabic t or s. On the same lines, for hnwpa, in addi-
tion to the two suggestions of Ibn Jan (apa, hnyp), he subjoins a
third comparison possibility, tynp.
(3) Ibn Barn would compare a Hebrew entry (root) with an Arabic
entry (root) as to all their respective equivalent connotations (e.g.
lj/lk), whereas Alfsi and Ibn Jan for example, established com-
parison of such roots only with respect to the rarer signication of the entry.
(4) Ibn Barn established a systematic and structural comparison in
the grammatical context, too (Bacher, ZAW 1894, p. 283).
pairs of letters b/k, j/y and r/r are the corresponding ones. But if, for this com-
parison, we graft a metathesis as well, we obtain the pair rjb/rky, resulting in the
respective correspondences: b/y, j/k, and r/r. The two latter pairs are usual and
well known. The pair b/y in the Arabic script dier merely in the number of dia-
critical points (for the b, a single dot; for the y, two dots: in both letters the dots
are sublinear). Construing the switch in this way well ts taf.
(5) Ibn Barn systematically inspected each and every entry in

Ibn Jans lexicon and made a search to determine the occurrence
or absence of specic comparisons. At zy (Muwzana, p. 60), he
remarked: ay dylwla wba hyp rkdy l.
The criticism launched by Ibn Barn against the comparisons of his
predecessors is clear evidence of his feeling of independence. Regarding
an etymological reasoning proposed by Ibn Jan for deriving hlybn
from lbn, Ibn Barn made the following comment: alw ld ra lp
yb rm. It is also worthwhile comparing his annotations at lj, at
hha, etc. (see Wechter, 1964, pp. 8.).
Tn (1983, 4.2.2) remarked that a classication of comparisons
by various types of similarity is unique to Ibn Barn. The implica-
tion is that Ibn Barn, aside from setting up and creating explicit
language comparisons, practised meta-comparison as well.
Ibn Barn regularly subjoins arguments for the corroboration of
the sense of an Arabic word adopted by him in his comparison work:
these he adduces from usages in Arabic poetry, from the Qur"n,
and from the adth, as well as from his own consultation of Arabic
lexicons.
Taf, as previously discussed, is a created element in Ibn Barns
theory. This is an additional expression of the lenience and exibility
so conspicuous in Ibn Barns theory of language comparison. Further
evidence of this can be seen in the 33 comparisons founded on
metathesis (including inection interchanges) adopted by Ibn Barn
that are unattested in the records of former grammarians. Comparisons
with Berber and with Latin (in Bachers opinion, ZAW 1894, p. 245,
these come in the wake of R. Judah b. Quraysh) constitute further
proof of Ibn Barns level of exibility in comparison, for Ibn Jan
(as an example) did not practise comparison with those languages.
Indeed, Ibn Barn suered criticism for such exibility from his con-
temporary R. Moshe b. Ezra (see Halkin, p. 40).
Ibn Barns comparisons (as these have survived in al-Muwzana)
total 271 of which his record is the rst known documentation; these
include one comparison by dadxa (the semantic comparison hba/yba),
19 comparisons built on substitutions and interchanges (whether by
taf or by ta'wur, by alphabetical juxtaposition of the mutual let-
ters, and the like) that were disqualied by former scholars, as well
as 33 comparisons established by metathesis (see previous par.).
402 chapter fifteen
15.3.7 Summary
Kokowtzow (1893, pp. 4849) thought that Ibn Barns compar-
isons were immeasurably superior to those of his predecessors, Ibn
Jan included (Tn, 1983, p. 267); Wechter (1941, pp. 17374)
assigned relatively little importance to pre-Ibn Barn comparison.
Having taking into consideration that the contributions of Ibn Barns
predecessors in full detail, it can be armed that the evaluations of
Kokowtzow and Wechter are correct as regards the systematic nature
of Ibn Barns comparison, especially in the eld of grammar. In
the area of lexical comparisons, however, while his contribution is
noteworthy it cannot be said to stand out over and above those of the
earlier Hebrew philologists. What is more, according to Kokowtzows
own view, the employment of taf reveals a regression vis--vis his
predecessors. But it goes without saying, that Ibn Barns primacy
is in his systematic comparisons practised in the area of grammar:
in this sphere, he clearly stands above his predecessors. Since this
sub-topic, however, is not treated in the present study, it may well
be that Ibn Barns status as reected here appears to be reduced
in the macro-eld of language comparison.
SYNOPSIS AND CONCLUSION
Hebrew philologists in the epoch scanned and treated in the pre-

sent study compiled many books and treatises devoted to grammar,
lexicography, Bible exegesis, and Bible translation, as well as trea-
tises devoted specically to language comparison. All these works are
replete with comparisons between Hebrew, Arabic and Aramaic.
These comparisons have as their rootstock a fully edged compara-
tive philology theory; nevertheless, only rarely does this theory sur-
face in the works themselves in the form of a planned discussion;
and even when such a discussion is encountered, it comprises no
more than certain specic aspects of language comparison. Comparative
philology as a theory and practice of medieval Hebrew philologists,
in the form the present study has attempted to mold it, has evolved
from the comparison activity itself, as recorded in the works of these
scholars.
The fourteen philologists whose works have been examined here
ourished in a variety of geographical areas and eras. They lived in
many places, from Babylon in the Orient, through the land of Israel
in the Middle East and as far West as North Africa and Spain.
These were giants, starting from R. Sa'adiah Ga"on in the early
tenth century, right up to Ibn Barn at the beginning of the twelfth
century. Topographical as well as temporal factors proved decisive
in molding the thesis of each and every grammarian; and to some
extent those two factors played a part in shaping the several schools
of thought. But the several conceptions were indubitably nurtured,
additionally, by the fundaments of Jewish faith or by singular disci-
plines. The general picture that emerges is that in the Orient, the
grammarians who recorded comparisons set no ideological restric-
tions on the subject, whether the comparison was with Aramaic or
with Arabic. In Spain, however, certain circles in Jewry were entirely
opposed to comparison practice throughout the period. There were
some parties who endorsed the activity, but with certain reservations
(above, 2.1). Menaem b. Saruq restricted himself to comparison
with Aramaic and then only, with stringent reservationsi.e. dis-
allowing letter interchanges, with the single exception of the ywha
interchange (above, 2.4), and hardly ever postulating metathesis. Yet
404 chapter fifteen
it was in the Occident, that language comparison gained a solid

foothold and was systematized. Ibn Quraysh, whose home was Tahort
in North Africa, at the early dawn of the epoch, composed the rst
treatise pertaining specically to comparative philology. Essentially,
this work is a comparative lexicon; whereas, in Spain, Ibn Barn,
at the close of this period, compiled an exhaustive comparative lex-
icon as well as a systematic comparative grammar for biblical Hebrew.
He even succeeded in demolishing not only the ideological reserva-
tions that had been placed on comparison but also the scholastic
limitations set by earlier authorities. This gave the green light for
language comparison without any restriction; many comparisons pre-
viously ruled out were now validated, including many that the ear-
lier scholars had never conceived of. This lenience was reected (a)
in that Ibn Barn approved at least 49 letter interchanges (above,
2.4.1.1), about half of which (27 in all) were practically applied by
him and by no one else; and (b) in that he initiated the taf con-
cept (above, 15.3.5). Thus at the ideological poles of language com-
parison stand the two linguists of comparison: Menaem and Ibn
Barn.
A group of scholars who, aside from their unity by socio-political
factors were also united by a common code of doctrine, were the
Karaites. They, it appears, evolved their own particular school of
thought, in whose framework they adopted the language compar-
isons that suited their own tendencies. The comparison y/sya, for
example, is a common heritage of the Karaitesnamely, Salmon b.
Yeruim, Alfsi (9.12.1.3.7), Ab-l-Faraj Hrn (14.2.4), and Yefet
b. Ali. Moreover, the Hebraisms of Alfsi and of Ab-l-Faraj: hfmi,
/hfms ,znf[/zwnfa have more the appearance of some system than
of being merely accidental.
But if some line of demarcation can be pinpointed among the
various schools of thought and comparison systems, it must be drawn
at and from the works of ayyj. Once ayyj had determined the
doctrine of the tri-literality of the root, comparative philology took
a new turn (chap. 12). All the pre-ayyj comparisons, which had
been founded on the equivalence of one or two radical letters [e.g.
(b[r) hzm/(anwtal) azml], were altogether invalidated by ayyjs doc-
trine. R. Jonah ibn Jan was the rst grammarian to apply the law
of tri-literality of the root to the area of comparative philology (13.21).
The heirs to his scholarship continued in his footsteps. Yet not all
his contemporaries were aware of or adopted ayyjs theory, either
synopsis and conclusion 405
for their general philology or for their language comparison method.

The Babylonian scholar R. Hai Ga"on did not apply the tri-literal
theory of the root in his dictionary, probably because this dictionary
was compiled earlier to diusion of Hayyjs theory, and the
Jerusalemite scholar Ab-l-Faraj, though aware of Hayyjs theory,
was unable to abandon the linguistic Karaite tradition in favor of
ayyj.
Each and every one of the fourteen Hebrew philologists provided
a quantitative or qualitative contribution to language comparison and
its method. Clearly, the totality of the description herein provided
is based on what has remained of the works of the Hebrew gram-
marians as well as on reliable testimonies of their original writings.
It cannot be known to what extent the picture would appear dierently,
had additional materials survived. Nonetheless, the general depiction
of the comparative method as well as the singular characteristics of
the several grammarians separately would seem to have been satis-
factorily represented. The most precise way of evaluating the con-
tribution made by each separate philologist is to take a count of the
lexical comparisons for which his documentation is the rstin other
words, those that are unattested in the records of his predecessors.
An enumeration along these lines reveals the following statistics:
R. Sa'adiah Ga"on: 692; R. Judah ibn Quraysh: 366; Alfsi: 437;
Alfsis Transmitter Copyists: 6; Menaem: 47; Dunash: 51; ayyj:
2; R. Hai Ga"on: 25; Ab-l-Faraj Hrn: 7; R. Jonah ibn Jan:
342; Rouen MS: 25; R. Judah ibn Bal'am: 17; Ibn Gikatilla: 2;
HaBavli: 3; Ibn Barn: 271: anonymous disqualied comparisons: 6;
total: 2299.
However, the numerical data in themselves are insucient for pro-
viding an accurate picture; in some cases, they are even likely to
mislead. For instance, if we were to measure ayyjs contribution
to the history of language comparison on this score alone, his sta-
tus would be seriously impaired, since the chart testies that he estab-
lished only two new lexical comparisons (even if we subjoin his
grammatical comparisons, the total of his novel contributions amounts
to only four!). The quantitative datum then constitutes merely one
aspect of the general picture. The other aspect can be deduced only
through an item-by-item inspection of every total comparison inven-
tory, analyzing the relationship between each of the several gram-
marians and the others, and evaluating the standing of each, in the
diachronic chain of transmission. One might then, say, for example,
406 chapter fifteen
that one comparison of grammarian A is worth a hundred comparisons

of grammarian B. Indeed, it cannot be denied that it is far easier
to compare two basic vocabulary items, such as ba;/ba or ae/a, than
to propose a complex comparison of the type hrzEg (ra)/hzwrgm, (ra)
which necessitates (a) a letter substitution (g/g) and (b) metathesis
([lp-l[p). Comparisons of the former type are readily available for
any grammarian, from the stock of very frequent entry words that
can be spontaneously compared in the two or three languages with
which he is familiar. The latter type, in contrast, belongs to a cat-
egory of comparisons that are totally and plainly the product of pro-
found language study. Therefore, the comparison total of 692 for R.
Sa'adiah, foremost in the line of grammarians of that epoch, quite
naturally includes a comparison of many basic vocabulary items; the 342
comparisons recorded for R. Jonah ibn Jan, in contrast, include
no basic vocabulary items at all.
The following analysis is intended to append summarily various
characteristic aspects to supplement the above statistics.
The singularity of R. Sa'adiah is his position as the earliest author-
ity (yrbdmh ar), in the sphere of language comparison as well as
in other spheres. R. Judah ibn Quraysh stands out for originating a
scholarly treatise specically geared to comparative philology. As
regards the establishment of this academic science, in general, for
both R. Sa'adiah and Ibn Quraysh, the comparison of basic vocab-
ulary, was of prime importance. For these philologists, quantity implies
quality. Alfsi was the rst lexicographer to make large-scale, sys-
tematic use of language comparison in the eld of Bible lexicon.
Menaem, and Dunash, and their respective disciples, enhanced the
eld of comparison, by stimulating discussion on matters of basic
principle, e.g. if it is permissible to compare Hebrew with Arabic at
all, and if so, to what extent. ayyj, despite the paucity of his com-
parisons, made a signicant contribution to the eld; his novel the-
ory of the tri-literality of the Hebrew root implanted a principle for
language comparison, too. Ibn Jan made the most immense con-
tribution to the evolvement of comparative philology: it is not sur-
prising that scholars such as Poznanski (1916, p. 250) were so
enthusiastic by his comparisons that they viewed Ibn Jan as the
forerunner of modern comparative linguistics. We have, in our
time, the means to make a more precise evaluation of Ibn Jans
contribution to the subject. Ibn Jan made a practical and sys-
tematic application of ayyjs theory in the area of comparative
philology and thereby determined which of the comparisons of for-

mer scholars were valid and which were null and void. Even more
Ibn Jans keen acumen not only revealed new semantic aspects in
radically unique words, but even pinpointed the unique semantemes. For
example, of all the 4,475 occurrences of yk in the Bible, he located
two where the connotation of yk is identical with that of Arabic kay
(above 13.21).11 The prominent feature of R. Hai Ga"on is that in
his lexicon he systematically compared Rabbinic Hebrew entries, too,
with Aramaic and with Arabic. The contribution of Ab-l-Faraj has
yet to be fully evaluated. Research on the grammatical thought in
his treatises, Kitb al-Mushtamil and Kitb al-K, is under way. From
what has been published to date, it appears that the Ab-l-Farajs
singular contribution in language comparison lies in his extensive com-
parisons of grammatical topics. Part 8 of the al-Mushtamil deals with
the grammar of biblical Aramaic and, concomitantly, his contrastive
comparison of Aramaic versus Hebrew grammar. The contributions
of HaNagid, HaBavli and Ibn Gikatilla, once again, are hard to
evaluate, because the remnants of their treatises are so scanty. As
regards Ibn Gikatilla, R. Judah ibn Bal'am and R. Isaac Ibn Barn,
at any rate, it can be condently stated that, (a) they proceeded fur-
ther in the ways of comparison paved earlier by Ibn Jan, while
simultaneously re-checking his comparisons one by one and even express-
ing their objections to his views wherever they saw t to do so.
Further, Ibn Barn strove to ll in each and every comparison that Ibn
Jan had omitted.
The extent, to which each grammarian was dependent on his pre-
decessors, has been examined by a number of modern scholars.
Becker (1984, pp. 7477) discusses Ibn Qurayshs reliance on Alfsi,
but his viewpoint is without foundation. Nor could he reach a clear
conclusion on the link between Ibn Quraysh and R. Sa'adiah Ga"on!
Undeniably, communication between contemporary scholars residing
in far-ung countries was arduous and slow, at least insofar as the
linguistic discipline was concerned. It would seem that exegetical
works and Bible translations traveled much more readily and smoothly
than did scholarly philological treatises. For example, R. Jonah ibn
Jan was acquainted with R. Sa'adiahs Tafsr as well as with
R. Sa'adiahs and R. Hai Ga"ons commentaries on rabbinic literature,
11
See Becker 1998, 218. For a detailed discussion on this comparison, see
Maman 1992a, pp. 2731; 2000a, p. 273.
408 chapter fifteen
whereas R. Sa'adiahs treatises on linguistics12 and R. Hais lexicon

Kitb al-wi13 were unknown to him. It is quite possible, then, that
Ibn Quraysh had not heard of R. Sa'adiah, just as, in a later epoch,
R. Hai had not heard of the theory of ayyj, who lived in his life-
time but in a distant land. However, from the explicit citations one
can infer that all the relevant grammarians, with the possible excep-
tion of R. Judah ibn Quraysh, at least knew of R. Sa'adiahs Bible
translation. Menaem and Dunash also knew of the Risla. Pinsker
(p. 172) found evidence, at rst sight, that Menaem knew of Alfsis
lexicon (as is evident, for example, from their similar interpretations
of hnmsrky).14 But he did not conclude denitively on the matter on
account of the possibility that Menaem gleaned his information from
Alfsis sources (in Bible exegesis) rather than from Alfsis lexicon itself
(as noted above 9.12.1.3.0, the very same interpretation for hnmsrky
is encountered in the records of Salmon b. Yeruim, too); R. Jonah
ibn Jan was familiar with most of his predecessors works, yet sur-
prisingly he did not know of ayyjs Kitb al-Nutaf (see Abramson,
197879, p. 229, ibid., p. 47).
The whole issue of the demarcation between primary and sec-
ondary documentation of comparisons is complex and quite per-
plexing: even when one nds one philologist citing from an earlier
scholar, in connection with a particular comparison, one cannot con-
clude therefrom that whenever the texts of their comparison state-
ments are identical, the matter is indeed one of citation. Excepted from
this reservation are only Ibn Bal'am and Ibn Barn and also, pos-
sibly, Ibn Gikatilla, who are known to have thoroughly and sys-
tematically cross-checked every record of Ibn Jan. Thus a much
more objective parameter for weighing up the records of any gram-
marian and determining his novelties in comparative philology, is
the relative dating of the several grammarians, in other words: the
historical criterion.
Logic demands that the originality of a comparison encountered
in the records of two or more grammarians be attributed only to
the grammarian who anteceded the others chronologically, even if it can be
denitely established that the later grammarian did not know of the
12
See Allony, 1970, p. 23.
13
See Steinschneider, 1901, p. 130; against him: Bacher 1885, p. 88; Poznanski,
1901, p. 597.
14
On this word see Maman 2003, pp. 28082, 286 and the literature quoted there.
former. The origination of a given comparison can be attributed

to only one grammarian. Nevertheless, one speaks here in relative
rather than absolute terms; for the totality of documentation is far
from being complete.
Regarding the quantitative statistics recorded above, the scope of
language comparison of a scholar depends on the structure and pur-
pose of his work. Because R. Judah ibn Quraysh in his treatise
adduced comparisons for purposes of exemplication only; he did
not endeavor to be exhaustive. Likewise Dunash, in his excursus
(yn[fm: Senz-Badillos, pp. 88.), recorded comparisons merely as
samples. In all the rest of his entries, he set out merely to criticize
the comparisons of R. Sa'adiah and of Menaem, in accordance
with the polemical character of his treatises. In Bible commentaries,
comparison is used only for selected words and for certain specic
expressions. Prima facie, the lexicons might have been expected to
incorporate systematic language comparison, yet Ibn Jan consciously
disregarded a good many comparisons at entries that he thought to
be well known, or at locations where he found it sucient to give
a cross-reference to the works of ayyj or to other of his own
treatises.
As to comparison doctrines, the philologists investigated here reveal
a considerable measure of common ground. They all believed that
Aramaic has a greater anity with Hebrew than does Arabic (above,
2.2). These languages did not borrow words from each other (2.3).
Even Ibn Quraysh, who emphasized geographical proximity as a
factor in language comparison, apparently did not go so far as to
postulate word loan in Hebrew from Aramaic and/or Arabic (2.3.4).
Though the philologists had some inkling of the concept of loan
from one language to another, they failed to dene the conditions
and circumstances in which this phenomenon would take place. The
grammarians established comparisons of two cognate translation syn-
onyms if and only if these had basically equivalent meanings (nowa-
days termed on the synchronic plane; 2.6). They would not compare
heterosemic cognates on the grounds of some equivalent connota-
tion, as it were, on the diachronic plane. Their aims of compar-
ison are fairly well dened. One aim that can be traced, as an
uninterrupted dynamic through all the works is the use of com-
parison for determining the connotation of unique or very rare bib-
lical entry words and, in Ibn Jans comparisons, for isolating unique
semantemes. Other traceable aims include: clarication of a grammatical
410 chapter fifteen
issue (5.3.5.2) or of an etymological question (5.3.5.4) or to illustrate

a matter of principle in comparison theory (this is the case in works
and excursuses geared specically to language comparison; 5.1.1).
These all incorporate many comparisons for comparisons sake
(5.3.5), in contrast, to inevitable comparisons (5.3.1). Ibn Barn
would even seem to have endeavored to provide the Bible trans-
lator with a handy comparative Hebrew/Arabic lexicon (5.3.4).
Comparison was carried out by means of various formulae (3.5).
Biblical entry words were compared sometimes with their Aramaic
cognates and sometimes with their Arabic cognates. Some were placed
in direct comparison (e.g. Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram.; 3.6.1), others
were compared by an additional intermediary (e.g. Bib. Heb.1/Bib.
Heb.2/Targ. Aram.: 3.6.4). Formulae classication makes for eciency
in the arrangement of entry words vis--vis the text sources, per-
taining to several linguistic strata, from which they are taken over
(i.e., Hebrew or Aramaic; biblical or post-biblical, etc.). It is useful
also for the purpose of summing up the quantity of entry words,
under one comparison unit and for determining the aim of the com-
parison, as well as its nature, as perceived by the grammarian adduc-
ing itnamely, whether etymological or other (3.5). The philologists,
furthermore, used a variety of terms for comparison. In earlier times,
the terms are multifarious (3.1.2.4); toward the latter end of the
epoch, a consolidated, uniform character can generally be discerned
in the terminology. The climax is reached when Ibn Barn denotes
almost all his comparisons by the single term hsnagm (15.3.3). Many
comparisons were recorded with no comparison term (3.1.2.6); some
can be identied only by the discussion itself (3.2; 3.3) or when the
grammarian is known to have discussed the issue elsewhere as an
explicit comparison. (3.4). In chapter 4 I attempted to demonstrate that
the rendition of a Bib. Heb. by an Arab. cognate when no com-
parison term is used implies an implicit comparison. This cate-
gory necessitates an expansion of the range of language comparison
far beyond the limits set by earlier philologists, for they assumed
explicit comparisons only.
Apart from general issues, I have also treated questions of specic
pertinence as relating to one or other of the philologists. Of the trea-
tises examined, some were originally composed in Arabic (e.g. the
Kitb al-Ul by R. Jonah Ibn Jan and the grammatical treatises
of Judah ibn Bal'am) and subsequently translated into Hebrew. The
substance of the comparison in the original and in the transla-
tion proves to be non-identical. The question is then: Which of the

two more objectively represents the comparisons penned by the gram-
marian, those appearing in the Arabic original or those contained
in the Hebrew translation? If the former, what caused the Hebrew
rendering to be no longer a true reection of the original docu-
mentation? I reached the conclusion that the comparisons in the orig-
inal are to be taken as authentic, and only these are to be treated
as the text substance penned by the author himself, whereas the
translator made many alterations and omissions on account of the
constraints of tautological expression. For example, if the translator
wished to literally translate into Hebrew the implicit comparison
zwga/zwg, he would arrive at the rendition zwga/zwga. Two shortcom-
ings present themselves in this sort of rendering: (a) the comparison
itself is lost; and (b) what results is a tautological denition, worth-
less for the lexicographer. Thus the translator felt compelled to make
changes in the structure from its form in the original. In princi-
ple, he had available three dierent options (and instances of all
three are, in fact, encountered): to convert the implicit comparison
into an explicit one; to entirely omit the deniens or to leave the tau-
tological rendering/denition as it stood.
In chapters 715, I discussed the comparison method of each
grammarian and treated the problems associated with each; I col-
lated the list of comparisons emanating from his various works and
dwelled on his various sources and terminological usage.
To highlight the specic issues pertaining to some philologists I
shall now note down a few comments. For R. Sa'adiah Ga"on (chap. 7)
and for Ab-l-Faraj (chap. 14), I attempted to prove that a rendering
by a cognate translation synonym, in the context of an uninterrupted
Bible translation, can denitely reect real language comparison. As
for Menaem, I have shown that the term w[mmk does not intend
or imply a comparison with Arabic. In the chapter on Dunash (chap.
11), I rechecked the listing of Arabic cognates proposed by Gross
(1872, pp. 10512), collating them in contrast with the entry words
recorded by Dunash at entry yn[fm. Most of those proposed trans-
lation synonyms are probable, but a few are denitely far-fetched
and I put forward alternative cognates, in their stead. In the chap-
ter on Ibn Jan, I attempted to demonstrate conclusively that the
comparisons embedded in the Rouen MS were not produced by Ibn
Jan and proved, tentatively, contrary to the opinion of other recent
scholars, that Ibn Jan did not reckon with taf.
CHAPTER SIXTEEN
THE CHART OF COMPARISONS
In the following chart, I have assembled and set out all the com-
parisons presently known to occur in the works examined in the pre-
sent study. In the right-hand column, the comparison itself appears,
in a condensed form, as necessitated by the format of this chart and
in the columns to the left, I have allocated one column for each
grammarian, in chronological order. The grammarians from whose
works little has survived, or who recorded relatively few comparisons
ab initio, are placed together in one columncol. 8: Various Hebrew
Grammarians. In these columns, some symbol appears for each com-
parison encountered in the records of that grammarian: the symbols
used are: +, =, or some other mark. These markings enable the
reader to obtain a birds-eye view of the materials recorded anew
by that grammarian vis--vis his predecessors (as well as what he
failed to record), which of the comparisons he endorsed or objected
to, etc. But perusal of the chart is not to be taken by the reader as
a dispensation from referring in detail to the study of the Hebrew
grammarians itself; in the chart, I could include neither the conno-
tation emanating from the comparison nor (in most cases) the non-
cognate adduced by the grammarian together with the cognate. It
also goes without saying that the chart cannot reect, the compari-
son method of the grammarian.
Sigla used in the chart:

* before the comparison signies comparison with Aramaic.
x before the comparison signies that the entry word treated (i.e.,
to the right of the comparison diagonal) derives from rabbinic Hebrew.
= in the columns for the grammarians signies that the comparison
entered in col. 1 is recorded by the respective grammarian, verbatim.
+ in the columns for the grammarians signies that the compar-
ison entered in col. 1 is recorded by that grammarian with a for-
mulaic alteration or a variant citation.
? in the columns for the grammarians signies that the compari-
son entered in col. 1 is an uncertain comparison.
414 chapter sixteen
in the columns for the grammarians signies that the compar-

ison entered in col. 1 is disapproved of by that grammarian.
in col. 6, signies that the Rouen MS conicts with the opin-
ion of R. Jonah ibn Jan.
+ in col. 1, after a cognate translation synonym, signies that the
(respective) Hebrew grammarian adduced, additionally, one or more
non-cognate translation synonym(s).
(+) or (=) signies that the comparison is an implicit one.
(=) in col. 3 signies that Ibn Quraysh does not expressly spell out
the cognate translation synonym with which he sets up the comparison.
(=) in col. 2 signies an implicit comparison in the Egron.
T in col. 2 signies that the comparison (or the rendering) appears
as a cognate in Sa'adiahs Tafsr.
B in col. 8 signies Abraham HaBavli.
D in col. 8 signies Dunash.
F in col. 8 signies Ab-l-Faraj Hrn.
FT in col. 8 signies Ab-l-Faraj, Bible translation.
G in col. 8 signies Ibn Gikatilla.
H in col. 8 signies R. Hai Ga"on.
J in col. 8 signies R. Judah ayyj.
L in col. 8 signies R. Judah ibn Bal'am.
M in col. 8 signies Menaem b. Saruq.
N in col. 8 signies Samuel Ha-Nagid.
TD in col. 8 signies Disciple of Dunash.
TM in col. 8 signies Disciples of Menaem.
X, Y, etc. in col. 4 signies Alfsis transmitters/copyists and
abridgment redactors.
B in last col. signies Ben-Yehudah.
K in last col. signies the lexicon of Koehler-Baumgartner (3rd
edition).
= in last col. signies Brown, Driver, and Briggs lexicon (BDB).
One column is allocated to the Rouen MS (= MS-R), the main
aim being to try to identify the sources of that glossator. I did not
trouble to enter in this column the mark signifying that the com-
parison is an implicit one. The few comparisons recorded by Rouen
MS as explicit have been enumerated above, 13.19, under the rubric
Comparison terms in marginal glosses of the MS-R.
In order to collate the comparisons for all Hebrew grammarians,
including those who compared only with Aramaic or only with Arabic,
the chart of comparisons 415
I have listed comparisons with Aramaic or with Arabic respectively,

as distinct and separate entries in the chart, even in those cases
where the relevant philologist adopts both Aramaic and Arabic com-
parisons within one record. Every separate comparison is given a
serial number, from 1 to 2299, this being the total number in the
works discussed here. An entry word that is found to be a compo-
nent of several dierent comparisons, each comparison assigning it
a dierent connotation, is allocated chart entries in accordance with
the total number of connotations. A few isolated comparisons appear
without a serial number; these are listed merely for some specic
aspect of signicance that they seem to show, but they do not rep-
resent a totally new meaning. The biblical or rabbinic literature
source references are given for the entry words treated in the com-
parisons, but references to the source(s) in the grammatical treatises,
etc., are not provided. Comparisons recorded by Ibn Quraysh and
by Ibn Barn can be located in their respective works by the root
of the relevant entry word. For Ibn Quraysh these can be obtained
from the index in Beckers ed. (1984, pp. 36379); for R. Sa'adiah
Ga"on, by the Bible verse, if the source is in his Bible translation;
for the remaining grammarians, the source can be located by the
materials assembled in the chapters of this study, allocated respec-
tively to those grammarians (chaps. 715). The order of comparisons
is alphabetical, by the root of each entry word treated, the arrange-
ment according with that adopted in modern lexicons (generally this
accords with the BDB lexicon). (But I have not arranged v and c
separately; third yod verbs are arranged accordingly, i.e. as yl and
not as hl). When two or more roots appear in a comparison, the
rst of these as set out in our comparison formulation is what
determines the alphabetical arrangement.
Explicit comparisons and implicit comparisons are presented in
the chart unclassied, because what is an implicit comparison for
one philologist may be an explicit comparison for another.
The philologists elucidated the entry words incorporated in this
chart, by comparison with Aramaic and/or Arabic but also addi-
tionally by other means of interpretation. It has not been possible
to extend the scope of the footnotes to set out the wealth of con-
notations recorded for this or that entry word; the annotations are
restricted to remarks on connotations stemming directly from the
comparison, and this will have to suce.
416 chapter sixteen
When the philologists bring together various entry words bearing

the same connotation and pertaining to the same root and set them
up for comparison with Arabic, I have listed only one entry word
in the chart, and this will generally be the verbal form. For example,
from root abj/ybk, R. Judah ibn Quraysh (C1, p. 489) records 6
entry words, 5 of them verbs and one a noun. In the chart, only
the instance jabjn (Gen. 31:27) is listed. On the other hand, when
a specic form is of special interest, as e.g., when its connotation
was subject to dispute, it is listed separately as well. For example,
ybj (Isa. 26:27) is listed, because both Alfsi and Ibn Barn assign
it to the same sense as tabjn, comparing it with ybtka. This pre-
sentation serves to stress that R. Jonah ibn Jan omitted to record
this comparison; in fact, Ibn Jan derives the form from another
root and assigned it a dierent connotation (these data naturally
could not be incorporated in the chart and not even in the footnote
apparatus, for lack of suitable space).
For certain comparisons, secondary numberings are marked (1)
and (2) standing for dierent parts of a comparison. If a given gram-
marian recorded only part 2 of the comparison, the digit 2 is
marked in the pertinent column opposite the relevant comparison
and so on. If the grammarian recorded all parts, no digit is entered
at all: the siglum used is merely the = sign or the + sign.
Certain data in this chart, i.e. the positive data, are unchangeable.
As for the data missing from the chart (i.e. in the empty slots)
some data, for instance what relates to the materials lacking in the
records of Menaem and Dunash, are not subject to any future
change, whereas some data, for instance what pertains to R. Hai
Ga"on and R. Judah ibn Bal'am, are liable to be eventually sup-
plied. It is obvious that if and when the remaining parts of Kitb al-
wi or of Kitb al-Mushtamil are published or, if the epoch of
investigation is extended so as to reach the thirteenth or fourteenth
centuries, very many more comparisons will have to be subjoined
and, further columns would then have to be added to the chart,
especially with reference to all the entry words from rabbinic Hebrew
and from Aramaic. The column for R. Sa'adiah Ga"on only serves
to determine the sources for the other grammarians; it must not be
deduced from that column that R. Sa'adiah in fact established com-
parisons at each and every instance, even when he can be assumed
to have been the source for the comparisons of others. For example,
R. Sa'adiah rendered hkdmb (Num. 11:8)/qdm; and ydg (Exod. 22:5)/
sydk. See also rb, f, wjbf, but it was Ibn Barn, who converted
these renderings into explicit comparisons. In some other cases, it is
extremely doubtful if R. Sa'adiah postulated a comparison at all,
e.g. hydd/ydt, rjb/rykt, bgn/bwng, gwsn/gyz, wdqrw/txqr. All these are,
for Ibn Barn at least, etymological comparisons. I have listed these
in the column of R. Sa'adiah merely to allude to a possible source
for Ibn Barn. Thus in the various calculations that one might work
up from the chart and its data, the aforementioned instances for
R. Sa'adiah should be excluded from the count.
In the last column (moderns), I have recorded data from the BDB
lexicon, from Koehler-Baumgartner (3rd ed.), and from Ben-Yehudahs
thesaurus, as regards entry words documented in Rabbinic Hebrew.
The aim of this column is chiey to ascertain whether the compar-
isons customarily applied in the works of the Hebrew grammarians
are reckoned with by modern linguists or rejected by them. In these
data I have ignored the aspect of interlingual loans, for obvious rea-
sons. The main point of interest here is the etymological identication
of an entry word in two or three of the given languages. For exam-
ple, if the grammarians compared lkyhe/lkyh, and if this identication
is admissible in present-day linguistics, this is considered sucient
for marking and I did not consider it necessary to take into account
that modern grammarians determine, for these words, a chain of
word loan from one language another, reaching back to the Sumerian
e-gal, the Akkadian ekallu, and from these to Aramaic and to Arabic
(see, e.g., Kaufmann 1974, pp. 27, 40, 155).
The data in the chart of comparisons can be subjected to several
forms of statistical processing. The most important of these forms
have been set out above (in the Synopsis and Conclusion)namely,
the total number of initially documented comparisons for each gram-
marian. In what follows I merely subjoin a few further data.
Of the 2,299 comparisons, 569 are comparisons with Aramaic,
representing about 25 percent of the total. The rest are comparisons
with Arabic. Various reasons can be suggested for the small quan-
tity of comparisons with Aramaic: (a) the corpuses are relatively
restricted; (b) some of these corpuses were viewed by certain schol-
ars or scholarly circles, as extraneous to the literary source eld
for one reason or another. For instance, talmudic Aramaic was not
resorted to by the Karaites; in the relevant period, Aramaic had
ceased to be a spoken language, for which reason, many of its entry
words were by that time probably not semantically transparent. For
418 chapter sixteen
Arabic in contrast, many lexicons existed apart from the fact that
Arabic was a living language with an uninterrupted speech tradition.
As a general rule, comparison with Aramaic was extremely selective.
Of R. Sa'adiah Ga"ons comparisons, 19 are specically his own,
several of these because the entry words treated in them derive from
rabbinic Hebrew (sbgn rgn, hqn, lyjn, rn, hkws, ys) and the remaining
ones being comparisons with Aramaic. To the list of comparisons
documented initially in the records of Ibn Quraysh (see Becker 1984,
pp. 7780), comparisons for the following entry words should be
added: (Heb./Aram.): bwd, twgrdm, [wrz, qz, w[l (occurs in the frame-
work of Bib. Heb./Rab. Heb. comparisons), hpwqt, tpqhw (to be
added to whpqtt); Heb./Arab.: gwrta, htrhzhw, hrzm, yglwm, jn, hbqh,
ymm. The entry ytjpf should be marked with an asterisk to sig-
nify it is a comparison unique to Ibn Quraysh. The comparison
hdn/atynwdn should be shifted from section Bib. Heb./Rab. Heb. to
the Heb./Aram. section. In my listing, 11 fewer comparisons for Ibn
Quraysh appear than in Beckers list. The reason for this is that
Becker supplied a separate serial number for each comparison, as it
occurs in the Risla; even when the same comparison is reiterated
several times in various locations, it is given several numbers, in
accord with the total of its occurrences. On the other hand, in some
instances only one number appears, although several Hebrew entry
words were compared with, one Arabic word or one Aramaic word.
My system of charting requires that each Hebrew entry word be
given a separate number, as a separate comparison., for example,
Beckers entry C1, 91 incorporates, according to my numbering sys-
tem, the comparisons zg/zg, zgyw/zaga, whereas in my listing of what
corresponds with Beckers list entry C1 393, I reckon two compari-
sons, i.e.: bj/(hbjm) bsj, twnwbj/tanabsj (yxj), the grand total
for Ibn Quraysh in my reckoning, being 698 comparisons. For David
b. Abraham Alfsi, the grand total of comparisons in my chart is
1092, approaching one half (48 percent) of all the comparisons
charted. (As noted earlier, of this total, 437 were comparisons of
Alfsis own initiation).
For R. Jonah ibn Jan I have counted a total of 902 compar-
isons, these amounting to about 40 percent of all the comparisons
charted. Each of these 342 is a primary documentation of compar-
ison. The comparisons recorded by Ibn Barn that are part of the
stock of his predecessors can be classied as follows: 290 are iden-
tical with comparisons of R. Sa'adiah Ga"on; 90 with original com-
parisons of R. Judah ibn Quraysh (i.e. the initial documentation is

in the records of Ibn Quraysh); 49 with comparisons of Alfsi; 11
with comparisons of Dunash; 1 with a comparison of R. Hai Ga"on;
71 with comparisons of R. Jonah ibn Jan; and 7 with comparisons
of the Rouen MS. (As noted above, it may well be that Ibn Barn
himself served as a documentary source for the Rouen glossator.) As
noted above 271 of Ibn Barns comparisons exhibit the rst docu-
mentation of comparison. The grand total of Ibn Barns compar-
isons is 790.
N M B R G F Q S
= M,H = ;(Cant 6:11) aba/yrp/hbna/ybab* 1

(Dan 4:9; Deut 26:2)
H = (yrp=) ba/(Cant ibid.) ybab 2
= L = = (y[rm+) ba/ybab x 3
B (H) (+) bwbna/(Arak 2, 3) bwba x 4
B (H) (+) bwbna (Kelim 2,3) bwba x 5
= = (=) = T (+) hdaba (Deut 12:2) dba 6
= = = aba/( Job 9:26) hba* 7
= F + (+) (+) = T ba/(Isa 8:4) yba 8
= = (dadxa) yba/(Deut 25:7) hba 9
= +hjabtsa/(Ezek 21:20) tjba 10
= (zjt+) lbat/(Gen 37:34) lbatyw 11
= = + lb/(2Kings 4:14) lb;a 12
K = /(1Sam 6:18) anba/ba (=lba)* 13
= (son) wnb ,ba/(Exod 1:16) ynba; 14
K = rbw/(Ezek 17:3) rba 15
= = (=) = = zwg/(Cant 6:11) zwga 16
= (wj+) lgam ( Job 38:28) ylga 17
= = = (=) = +T hmga/(Ps 114:8) ga 18
1
= = (yrxbm=) aga/( Jer 51:32) ymgah 19
= D = (=) (=) = (=) (Exod 24:6) twngab, (Cant 7:3) ga 20
hnaga/
B (=) aga/ysga x 21
2
= ML () = = (Dan 7:4) ypgw/(Ezek 12:14) ypga* 22
= (h[amg+) h^pg (ibid.)/wypga 23
+ = = arga/rk (1Sam 2:36) trwgal* 24
(Deut 15:18)
= = hrga/(1Sam ibid.) trwgal 25
= (h[amg+) rag/(Prov 6:8) hrga 26
= hgara/(Esth 9:29) trga 27
= hbada/(1Sam 2:33) bydalw 28
1
Ibn Quraysh includes this entry in the meaning place where reeds and papyrus
grow.
2
Ibn Barn refutes the meaning stemming from the comparison to Aramaic and
it seems that he refutes the comparison itself.
420 chapter sixteen
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
+ = (=) (=) = (y)mda/(Gen 1:26) da 29

3
= = (=) = hmda (Gen 4:2) hmda 30
+ = qwp+) da (1Sam 16:12) ynwmda 31
(. . . rmsa
4
= 1,3= 2= 2= 1= hh:3 hha ,h^ha:2 ha (2Kings 6:5) hha 32
(=) = lalha lha/( Job 25:5) lyhay 33
5
= = = = T wa/(Lev 5:22) wa 34
= H (Deut 4:17) ymb/(Ahal 4, 1) rywa x* 35
. . . [yqr rywa/
H (bwa) fbn (Tos. Ber. 2, 15) twbwa x* 36
= (lh+) ydw ;yda/( Job 53:31) dya 37
6
+ ? ywa ba/(Deut 14:13) hy:a 38
= = wywy/(Deut ibid.) hy:a 39
2= 1= hwa:2 ;wa:1/(Num 21:29) ywa 40
= (da[+) yay a/( Josh 10:13) a 41
7
= = = rawa/(Isa 50:11) rWab] 42
= = (Dan 3:32) ayta/twa* 43
= FT = ? T hya/(ibid.) ayta-(Deut 13:2) twa 44
= htawm/(Gen 34:22) wtway 45
= H = (+) T da/za 46
= H = ? T a +da/(Ps 124:3) y+z"a 47
= L = = d+n(m/(Exod 5:23) za;+me 48
= (rt[x+) bza/(Exod 12:22) bwzae 49
8
= H,M,F + = (=) lza/lh/(1Sam 9:7) lza* 50
= laz/(ibid.) lza 51
= ^lz/(Deut 32:36) tlza 52
= (G) = (=) T da/(Prov 15:31) za 53
K H = ([mtsa+) da/yzah
= M (Isa 40:15, Dan 5:27) aynzam/ynzam* 54
= H = T azym/(ibid.) ynzam 55
= = (=) (+) zw/(Eccl 2:9)/za 56
+ M,H = = nyz/ylk/(Deut 23:14) ynza* 57
9
(Gen 23:3)
= (Dan 3:5) ynz/(Deut ibid.)/ynza* 58
H za/(id.) ynza 59
10
= = (=) = razym ,raza/( Jer 13:1) rwza 60
3
Ibn Barn alone adds a restriction to the meaning, saying and it is its face.
4
Ibn Jan at this entry, MS-R in hha as well.
5
Ibn Barn includes [nky za wa (Lev 26:41) in this meaning, which Ibn Jan
translates as if it were [nky zaw.
6
Ibn Barn adduces it at entry ya, where he refers to yyal (Isa 34:14).
7
For twrwEa cf. hra.
8
Alfsi and Menaem add a Biblical Aramaic reference from Ezr 4:23.
9
In fact Alfsi compares ynzw (2Chron 16:14) with ynzw (Dan 3:5) and generally
equates it to ylk (ustensils) while he includes ynza with ynz. Cf. Becker 1984,
p. 124, n. 5. Menaem juxtaposes ynza with twnzhw (1Kings 22:38) and denes them
war and charriots instruments and it is not clear whether he has in mind two
dierent comparisons and meanings or only one.
10
qza cf. qqz.
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
11
= 2= 1= (ya[:2 ;dd 1+) rza/( Jer 1:17) rzat 61
12
K = = ja/(Ps 35:21) ja(h) 62
= T y^kat/(ibid.) jah 63
= 2= 3+ 2= 1= T1 dj^ta:3 djaw:2 ;dja 1 (Deut 6:4) dja 64
wnydja/wmzjay/(Gen 3:22) dhak* 65
(Exod 15:15)
13
= G,FT = (=) = T a/ja 66
= + (=) T dka (Exod 15:14) zja 67
+ = T hzaja ,zwj/(Gen 48:4) tzja 68
= = (=) T r^kat/(Gen 34:19) rjae 69
(=) = (=) (=) ryka/(Exod 4:8) wrja 70
(=) FTx (=) rka/(Eccl 7:8) tyrja
= = = rja/(2Sam 18:26) rj'a*' 71
= (H) (=) = T rka/(2Sam ibid.) rja 72
(H) hrarj/rrwj-rjwa x 73
= = (pk+) ayfaftm/(2Kings 21:27) fa' 74
= = = fyfa/(Isa 19:3) yfiaih 75
+ M = = = whynwfya/hyrtym/(Prov 7:16) wfa* 76
(Exod 35:18)
= = rafa ,rfat (Ps 69:16) rfat 77
= (tsbtja ya) trfat/( Judg 3:15) rfeai 78
14
= = = = = ya/yae 79
= D(+F) = (=) (=) = T ya m/(Gen 29:4) yame 80
(=) anh/(1Kings 5:25) hnaw hna 81
K = ana/(Deut 1:28) hna 82
= apw/(1Sam 1:24) hp;ya 83
K = lya(kym), lya/lah 84
= +M = = lya/[ ,jy/(Isa 1:29) ylyam* 85
= twlya/twma/(Ezek 40:10) ylyal* 86
(Isa 6:3)
15
= = = = T l^ya/(Deut 14:5) ly:a' 87
K = alya/(Deut ibid.) lya* 88
+ = (Dan 7:7) yntmya/(Gen 15:12) hmya* 89
= T asna/ya 90
= = (y[la) asna/(Deut 32:10) wya 91
(=) (qyafla) h^ysya/(Prov 30:1) (la) ytya 92
= (+FT) = (=) = T lkay/(Gen 49:27) lkay 93
= = T (ranla) tlka/(Deut 4:24) hlkwa (a)
alykm/(1Kings 5:25) tl OKm' 94
= ^k/(Prov 16:26) ka 95
= = (=) = ra^ka ( Jer 51:23) rkai 96
11
Ibn Barn refers to the metaphorical meaning only from ynrztw : rza (2Sam
22:40).
12
ja cf. hja.
13
ytwja cf. hwj; ydjath cf. djy.
14
At entry ya Ibn Barn adduces l ya (Ecc 10:16)/lyw and it is unclear whether
yw/ya is an intentioned or incidental Heb./Ar. comparison. For hy:a cf. hwa.
15
Alfsi adduces this comparison at entry wqa (p. 143).
422 chapter sixteen
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
16
= M,H, = = hl;a/( Job 12:4) hwlal* 97
FT
= H = (=) = = T hala/( Job ibid.) hwlal 98
+ M,L (h)la/(h)lae(h)* 99
= = = T yalwh/hlah 100
= L = = = = wla/Wl/(Esth 7:4) Wlaiw* 101
(Isa 48:18; Num 22:29)
= = = +T yla/( Job 15:22) ylea 102
= = T yla/lae 103
17
+ = = = ayla/hnyq/( Joel 1:8) ylia* 104
+ = /(1Sam 14:24) la OYw" ;(Lev 5:1) hl;a; 105
ala
= = = T hyla/(Lev 3:9) hyl]a' 106
= (pain) lyla/( Job 13:4) lyla 107
= = (pain) lyla/(Mic 7:1) ylla 108
18
= atlia/' ( Josh 24:26) hl;a*' 109
= ,^l/(Gen 37:7) ymla ymlam 110
(h[amg) hml
= (=) T hlmra/(Exod 22:21) hnmla 111
= = (=) T la/(1Chron 21:5) l,a, 112
L = (=) (=) T hplwm ,ala ryxt/(Ps 147:14) twpylam 113
+ 1,3= 3= 3= 1,2= lawm:2 la:1/( Jer 3:4+) yla 114
yla:3
+ = + /( Job 35:11) wnplm/(Prov 22:25) lat* 115
(Num 22:35) lymh/kshh
= = lat/(ibid.) lat 116
= = (+) (=) T (a/i (Exod 21:3) ai 117
= = T a'/(Num 11:12+) ai 118
= = (=) (a/' (Gen 24:33) ai 119
(=) ^ai (Prov 24:11) ai 120
= (G) = (=) = T hma/(Gen , 21:13) hm;a; 121
= (G) + + = T ^ a/(Gen 28:5) ae 122
= (qrfla) a/(Ezek 21:26) (rdh) a
= M = = (Dan 3:4) ayma/(Num ,25:15) twma* 123
= (G) = (=) +T m a (ibid.) twma 124
+ = = mwa/r:t/; (Cant 7:2) m;a*; 125
(Deut 27:15)
= (G) = (+) = +T ama ,amya/+(2Sam 7:16) man 126
= T yma/(Num 5:22) mea; 127
= F = (Dan 2:4) rma/rma* 128
= = = rma (1Kings 11:18) rma 129
= = 2= 19 r^ma:2 rma:1/(Deut 26:18) rymah 130
16
Ibn Quraysh notes the Arabic form "alh as well.
17
The Muwzana manuscript is damaged here and from the remnants we can
only learn that Ibn Barn quotes Ibn Jan and opposes ayyjs view, though he
supports his grammatical analysis.
18
Ibn Jan notes that he does not unterstand the Targums view.
19
The second meaning Ibn Barn proposes ts with Sa'adiahs view. However,
Ibn Barn does not adduce Sa'adiahs dener ryma (high branch) but rather jrma
(hill).
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
20
D = ryma/(Isa 17:6) ryma 131
= = arma/(ibid.) rymah* 132
(TB Shabbat 105a)
= wrmatt/(Isa 61:6) wrmytt 133
= = T (Gen 19:34) sma/ma 134
= = jna (Isa 24:17) wjnan 135
= = = T jn/wnjna 136
= = T jn/(Num 32:32) wnjn 137
= = (Dan 7:28) hna/yna 138
= = yna . . . wnay/(Isa 19:8) wnaw 139
= TM,D = = = = na/(Amos 7:7) na 140
L
= = ^naty/(Lam 3:39) nwaty 141
21
= M = = = (Dan 4:6) sna/(Esth 1:8) snwa* 142
= = nay/(Ps 2:12) nay 143
= (ytymjw) ytpna/(Exod 22:23) ypa (hrjw)
= = (Dan 3:19) yhwpna/(Prov 11:22) a* 144
= L = = (+) = T na/(Prov ibid.) a 145
= (ibid.) yhwpna/(e.g. 2Sam 18:28) ypeal* 146
M + (Dan 2:46) yhwpna/(1Sam 1:5) ypa*
= = (=) T san ,asna/(Ps 103:15) wna 147
= = (Dan 4:14) na/(ibid.) wna* 148
= hnasna/(Gen 2:23) h;ai 149
= (+) = T anasn/(Num 14:3) wnyen: 150
= = ta/(Num 11:15) T]a*' 151
K = +T tna/(ibid.) hta-ta' 152
= = (hbqn) tna/(Gen 12:11) ta' 153
K = asa/+( Jer 8:13) wsa 154
= asps/(Num 11:4) wspsa 155
= +M + = (Dan 6:13,14) rsa/(Num 30:3) rsa* 156
(=) = (Ezra 7:26) yrwsalw/(Gen 40:3) rwsa*
(=) = T rwsam/(ibid.) rwsa 157
(=) = T rysa/(Ps 79:11) rysa 158
(=) = rsa/(Num 30:4) rS;ai 159
22
= p^tm, pa/pa 160
= = (=) +T lpa/(Amos 5:20) lpea; 161
(=) = = = T talpa/(Exod 9:32) t Olypa 162
K = atlpa/(ibid.) twlypa* 163
(TB RoshHash 8a)
N = = a^pa/(Ps 88:16) hnwpa 164
N = = hnyp/(ibid.) hnwpa 165
= ynp/(ibid.) hnwpa 166
= tnpa ,tynp (ibid.) hnwpa 167
20
Dunash attributes this comparison to Sa'adiah. See, however, Allonys remark
in HaEgron, p. 195.
21
Ibn Quraysh adduces this comparison in a reversed order in part B, entry 4,
and in dierent formula in part A, entry 14.
22
The comparison appears in Riqmah p. 22. For wndpa cf. dp below.
424 chapter sixteen
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
23
+ = (Dan 5:5) sp/(Ezek 47:3) yspa* 168
K = = (dlgt+) hqapa/(Ezek 31:12) yqypa 169
= qywapa/(Ps 126:4) yqypak 170
(am [mtgm+)
= = (dlgt+) hqapa/(Esth 5:10) qpatyw 171
= = = arp[m (1Kings 20:41) rpah 172
= = = rpgm/(ibid.) rpah 173
= = lyxa/(Exod 24:11) ylyxa 174
= (fabala) lwxa/( Jer 38:12) twlyxa 175
+ = hbrawm/( Josh 8:2) brwa 176
= = /(Exod 26:1; 2Chron 2:6) wgra-mgra* 177
= (Dan 5:7) anwgra
= = (=) (=) = T awgra/(ibid.) wgra 178
= = = = ayrwa/swba/(1Kings 5:6) twwrwa* 179
(Isa 1:3)
= = (=) = yrawa/(ibid.) twwrwa 180
= = (=) yrawa/(2Chron 32:28) twrwEa} 181
+ = (Dan 6:8) atwyra-ayra/hyra* 182
= = = (+) = +T zra/(1Kings 6:18) zra 183
= + = jrwa/rd/(Gen 18:11) jra* 184
24
(ibid. 31:35)
= = (Dan 4:24) hkra/(Prov 25:15) rab 185
= D = (=) ara/(Gen 50:26) wra 186
= = = T bnra/(Lev 11:6) tbnra 187
= FT = = (=) = T ra/(Gen 1:10) ra 188
= tyl/lkwt al/(Ps 21:3) traw* 189
(Deut 17:15) wr l
K = sr[a/(Deut 20:7) ra 190
= (ibid.) tyah/(Mic 6:10) aih* 191
+ = (Dan 7:11) aa/(Deut 4:36) wai* 192
= = = = dym/p/(Num 21:15) daw* 193
(Lev 4:12)
= /(Ezra 4:2) ayaw/( Jer 50:15) hytwya* 194
(Ezek 13:14) ahwa/wdwsy
= = = hysa/(ibid.) hytwya 195
= = = (Syriac ,al[t) yka/(Lev 21:20) a* 196
(=) wks/(ibid.) a 197
+ = lwkta/(Mic 7:1) l OKa 198
= = = (=) = lta/(Gen 21:33) la 199
= lsa/(ibid.) la 200
= + (=) (=) = T ta/(Gen 26:10) a 201
+ = 25
(pardon) ^tat/(Ezra 10:19) ymaw 202
= = (ibid. 4:4) aypa/(Dan 2:2) yp;alw* 203
FT (=) (=) = T hyras/(Deut 16:21) hrea 204
M,D = = (Ezra 4:12) ayaw/(Isa 16:7) yya* 205
23
For h[pa cf. h[p below.
24
For jyra cf. hra Alfsi adduces the comparison at entry rd.
25
For ma cf. m.
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
= = = tasasa/(Isa ibid.) yya 206

= = + (Ezra 5:16) ata/(Isa 21:12) hta* 207
= D = (=) = + +T yta/(Isa ibid.) hta 208
= = = T ata/(Num 22:33) wta 209
= = ^grta/(Bikkur 2:6) gwrta x 210
b
= = T yb/+(Gen 31:7) yb 211
= = (=) (=) = T ryb/(Gen 26:19) rab 212
= = = (x) = ryb/( Jer 6:7) ryIb' 213
= = T ryb/(Exod 21:33) rwb 214
= = sab/(1Sam 27:12) yabh 215
= +) wb/(Isa 5:2) ywab 216
(sanla falka+)
= = wbwb/(Zech 2:12) (wny[) tbb 217
+ = ydba/(1Kings 12:33) adb 218
= [dtba ,[db/(ibid.) adb 219
= = dadbtsa/(Lev 13:46) ddb 220
= = ydb/twbah/( Jer 50:36) ydbh* 221
(1Sam 20:3)
= = hlwdbm/( Josh 16:9) twldbmh 222
= hhwb/(Gen 1:2) whbw 223
= = (=) T hmyhb/(Gen 1:24) hmhb 224
= = (=) (=) T ahb(a)/(Lev 8:23) hb 225
= D = (=) K(=) = T qhb/(Lev 13:39) qhb 226
= D = rhb/( Job 37:21) ryhb 227
= = hrhb/(Lev 13:2) trhb 228
= (smla) tbay/(ibid. 22:7) abw 229
= (htrgab) ab/(Exod 22:14) (wrkb) ab 230
= llb/(1Kings 6:38) lwb (jry) 231
= y[wp[p/(Exod 9:10) tw[wb[ba* 232
(TB Shabbat 109a)
= = = = axwb/ytp , ,db/(Esth 8:15) wb* 233
(=) T wb/(ibid. 1:6) wb 234
= + = (=) = T wb/(Deut 22:6) yxyb 235
= = = hqyab/(Nah 2:11) hqwb 236
= = = ^ztby/(Ezek 29:19) zzbw 237
= qrb/(Ezek 1:14) qzbh 238
= = = (=) rdb/(Ps 68:31) rzb 239
+ = tlkb/(Zech 11:8) hljb 240
? tl[b/(ibid.) hljb 241
26
= = jtma ,jm/( Jer 11:20) jb 242
= = ytnjbw/(Isa 48:10) ytrjb* 243
27
(Zech 13:9) wbyrjba/
26
Ibn Jan uses jm to render jb. However, there is no indication whatsoever
of a comparison.
27
Ibn Jan renders this entry trbtka and hypothetically one could assume a
comparison by a metathesis. However, one would expect such a comparison which
involves both a metathesis and letter interchange k/j to be expressed explicitly.
426 chapter sixteen
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
= T ratka ,r^ykt/(Exod 17:9) rjb 244

= (=) (+) jfbnm/( Jer 12:5) jfwb 245
= = T yfb/(Num 1:5) yjyfbah 246
= M = = (Ezra 4:24) hlfb/(Eccl 12:3) wlfbw* 247
(Exod 12:15) wlfbt/wtybt/
= = = = lfbt/(ibid.) wlfbw 248
= = = (=) = T fb/(Gen 30:2) fb 249
= = (=) (=) = T fb/(Gen 43:11) ynfb 250
= (ibid. 26:28) yb/(Gen 1:4) ybe* 251
= FT = (=) (=) T yb/yb 252
= (+) ynybla (wd) (1Sam 17:4) ynybh (ya)
28
= = ^ybt ,ayb/(Prov 23:1) ybt yb 253
= 2= 1= (Ezra 6:2) atrybb:1/(Est 2, 3) hrybh* 254
( Jer 9:20) anatynrbb/wnytwnwmrab:2
= = (=) +T tyb/(Gen 17:12) tyb 255
= (wife) tyb/(Deut 14:26) tybw 256
= = = (+) +T akb/(Lam 1:2) hkb 257
= FT + (=) = T rkb/(Deut 15:19) rwkb 258
(=) (=2) 1T (Gen 27:36) ytrwkb
hyrwkb:2 ,hrwkb:1
(=) + (+) = T rkby/(Lev 27:26) rkby
= = (=) (+) = T rykawb/(Lev 2:14) yrWKBi
= = = (=) = hrkb/( Jer 2:23) hrk]Bi 259
? T yrbk/(Gen 19:31) hrykbh 260
= gwlb/(Ps 39:14) hgylbaw 261
+K = (r^yjt+) h^lbt/(Isa 17:14) hhlb 262
= +D + + (=) = T yalb/(Gen 18:12) yt OlB] 263
= T ([fq+) htlb/(Isa 10:25) tylbt 264
= ad[ am/(Gen 14:24) yd[lb 265
= = = (+) = tllb/(Ps 92:11) yt OLB' 266
= (=) (t^t+) lblb/(Gen 11:9) llb 267
= + (=) (+) = +T (+) yn[lb/( Jer 51:34) yn[lb 268
= = = qlba ,hqwlb/(Nach 2:10) hqlbumw 269
(close, destroy)
L qlba/(ibid.) hqlbmw 270
(cause for troubles)
= ([fq+) tlb/( Job 14:12) ytlb 271
= = = T ba/(Gen 4:25) b 272
29
= (alg-)ba/(1Sam 14:52) (lyj-) b
= = T tnb/(Gen 34:3) tb 273
= + (+) = T anb/(Deut 20:5) hnb 274
= L = rsb/(Ezek 18:2) rsb 275
= 2+M 2+ = 2= ,a[b/qb/:1 (Isa 21:12) wy[bt* 276
(Dan 6:8) a[b/:2
= = ygtba ,ygb (ibid.) wy[bt 277
= = (=) (+) f[ba/(Deut 32:15) f[byw 278
= fy[btmd/ytkrd/(ibid.) f[byw* 279
(Isa 63:3)
28
For ryb cf. rab and for hxyb cf. wb.
29
I.e. in a metaphorical meaning of b in several phrases.
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
= = (=) = T (gwz+) l[b/(Exod 21:22) l['b' 280

= = (=) (bjax ,br+) l[b/(Exod 22:14) wyl[b 281
= L = = (-b qax+) l[b/( Jer 31:31) ytl[b 282
= (nx+) l[b/(1Kings 18:26) l[bh 283
F (=) (hjaba+) ra[ba/(Isa 5:5) r[bl 284
= = = = ry[b/hmhb/(Gen 45:17) kry[b* 285
= (=) = = T lxb/(Num 11:5) ylxbh 286
= +L = = = [xb/twtp/(Amos 9:1) [xbw* 287
(Lev 2:10)
= L ([fq+) [xb/[xbw 288
K = (^q+) [xb/( Judg 5:10) [xb 289
= = htaxyb/(Ezek 47:11) wyta Oxbi* 290
yxb/(Isa 14:23) ymgaw/(TB BB 73a)
K = atrwxb/( Jer 17:8) trxb 291
(TB Ketub 97a)
= = (+) = T h[qb/(Gen 11:2) h[qb 292
K = (Dan 3:1) t[qbb/(Isa 63:14) h[qbb* 293
K (2=) (=) rqb bjax:2 ,ra^qb/(Amos 7:14) rqwb 294
= +FT = T rqb/(Gen 26:14) rq;b;
+ M,TM (Ezra 4:15) rqby/(Ps 27:4) rqblw* 295
K = = hrkb/(Gen 1:5) rq bO 296
= 2+M 1= 2= 2= 1= ,rb/b:1/(Prov 31:2) yrb* 297
1L (Dan 3:13) rbk/:2
= +D + = arb/(Gen 1:1) arb 298
= L = (=) = = ([fq+) hyrby/(Ezek 23:47) arebw 299
= (+) (=) = drb/(Exod 9:24) drb 300
(=) drw/(Zech 6:3) ydrub 301
= B alzrp/lzrb* 302
(=) hyjyr (bkarm)/(Isa 43:14) yjyrb 303
= (+) + = T hkrb/(Gen 12:2) hkr;b 304
+ = (Dan 4:31) tkrb/(Ps 103:3) wkrb 305
= (+) (+) = hkrb/(2Sam 2:13) hkreb 306
= = rba/(Gen 24:11) rby"w" 307
= L = yhwkrb l[ rb;/(Isa 45:23) r<b*, 308
(Dan 6:11)
= = ? T hbkr/(ibid.) rb 309
= (L) = = (=) hmwrbm/(Ezek 23:24) ymwrb 310
= L,+FT = = = +T qrb/(2Sam 22:15) qrb 311
= D (+) = T ^rb/(Gen 45:23) (jlw) rb 312
= (=) ^rb (Ps 72:16) rb 313
= L+M + + = arbb/wjb/( Job 39:4) rbb* 314
(Deut 24:11)
= = = = (=) (h^y) ^rb (ibid.) rbb 315
30
= = twrb/(Isa 41:19) wrb 316
= (+) (=) = T rbm/(Isa 52:7) rb'm] 317
= (+) = +T yrb/(Lev 13:18) r;b; 318
= = lwtb/(Gen 24:16) hlwtb 319
31
= = wqtby/(Ezek 16:40) wqtbw 320
30
Sa'adiah renders ytwrb and cf. Drenbourgs note.
31
Alfsi renders wqtpy and it is unclear whether he practises a comparison
assuming the interchanges p/b and t/t.
428 chapter sixteen
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
= = rtbw/(Gen 15:10) rtbyw 321
g
M = (Dan 6:13) abg/(Isa 30:14) abg<m* 322
= (2=) 1= (1=) hybag:2 bg:1/(ibid.) abgm 323
K 1= 2= bgl:2 ;abwg/rwb:1/(2Kings 3:16)/ybgE* 324
(Dan 6:8)
= = bg/(ibid.) ybg 325
K = (Dan 7:6) Hbg"/(Ps 129:3) ybg* 326
K = (abwg/hbra/(Nach 3:17) yb; Og* 327
Exod 10:4)
32
= D lbg (Exod 39:15) twlbg 328
= (=) = = (=) hnbg/( Job 10:10) hnybg 329
(=) sbg/(Miqv 4:3) sbgn x 330
= 1+ + = /(Dan 3:12) ayrb:1/(Deut 22:5) rbg<* 331
33
(Gen 24:22) arbg/ya:2
= (+) = T ra^bg/(Gen 10:8) rwbg 332
= (Dan 3:20) yrbg/(Isa 13:3) yrwbg* 333
+ (2+) (1=) hwrbg:2 ;hywrbg:1/(Exod 32:18) hrwbg 334
+ (=) (twqay m) sbg ( Job 28:18) ybg 335
= = dg/(Deut ibid.) wddgtt 336
= M = = (Dan, ibid.) wdg/(Gen 49:19) dwgy* 337
= + = = T ^dg/(Gen 49:19) dwgy 338
= = Gen 30:11) adg/(Isa 65:11) dgl* 339
(Palest. Targ.
= L,G = = dg/(Isa ibid.) dgl 340
= ydgn/(Ps 65:11) hydwdg* 341
(Targ. Isa 44:4)
= ahdyadg/(Ps ibid.) hydwdg 342
= (=) hddg/( Josh 3:15) wytwdg 343
= + (=) = T ydg/(Gen 38:17) ydg 344
K (F)D T lydg/(Deut 22:12) ylydg 345
K (=) +T ldgm/(Isa 5:2) ldgm 346
= = (=) = T [dg/(Lam 2:3) [dg 347
= [dg/(Lam ibid.) [dg 348
= 1D (2=) (1=) 1= 1T rydg:2 , radg/(Num 22:24) rdeg: 349
K (=) T (qlga=) r^dg/( Job 19:8) rdgI 350
= = ?+ ?= T sydk/(Exod 22:5) ydg 351
(=) hhg/(Ezek 47:13) hgE 352
K (=) hhg/(Prov 17:22) hhgE 353
= hag/(Prov ibid.) hhg 354
+2=1M =1 1= 2= (Dan 3:6) awgl:1/( Job 30:35) wg* 355
+2 (Gen 6:14) wgm/tybm:2
M 1= 2= ibid.:2, ibid.:1/( Job 20:25) hwgm 356
(=) = ^wyg/(ibid.) hwgm-(ibid.) wgE 357
K M = = (Dan 4:34) hwgb/( Jer 13:17) hwgE* 358
32
Ibn Jan renders t b
O gw (Ezek 1:18) by bng and banga and it is unclear whether
he thought of a comparison.
33
Ibn Jan compares rb'g/rb'g in Riqmah, p. 241.
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
= ^zg/(Ps 90:10) zg 359

= = zag/(Ps ibid.) zg 360
= (=) = zaga/(Num 11:31) zgyw 361
= = ^zg/( Job 1:20) zgyw 362
K ?D = wpygy/(Neh 7:3) wpygy 363
?D = ^pg/,(ibid.) wpygy 364
+K M + = (Num 19:15) tpwgm/dymx/(ibid.) wpygy* 365
= = hpyg/(1Chron 10:12) tpwg 366
= (=) + hrwagm/(Gen 26:3) rwg 367
= (2=) 1= hrwagm:2 ,hrag:1/(Deut 1:16) wrgE 368
(=) (=) = wrg/(Gen 49:9) rwg 369
= = (TB Shabbat 15b) awga/( Job 7:5) wg* 370
= kw/(ibid.) wg 371
= = = (ibid. 7:21) ayrbzg/(Ezra 1:8) rbzgh* 372
= +D (=) = T ^zg/(Deut 18:4) zgE 373
K + = atzgm/twrb[mh/(Nach 1:12) wz Ogn* 374
zag/( Josh 2:7)
= = +T lzwg/(Gen 15:9) lzwg 375
= M = + (Dan 2:27) yrzg/(1Kings 3:25) wrzg* 376
= = wrzga/(ibid.) wrzg 377
K = hzwrgm/(Lev 16:22) hrzEg 378
= 1H = (TB BM 59a) yjg:1 (Gen 3:14) nwjg* 379
(1Kings 18:42) yjgw/rhgyw:2
= = dyg/(Ezek 37:6) dyg 380
= L,M = = = (Dan 5:5) aryg/(Isa 27:9) ryg* 381
= L,D = = T ryg/(Isa ibid.) ryg 382
= F = = = T ydlg/( Job 16:15) ydlg 383
= = (Ezek 23:24) ydlg/(ibid.) ydlg* 384
= (+) = +T ylgny alg/(Amos 5:5) hlg 385
= = (Dan 2:22) alg/(1Sam 9:15) hlg* 386
= = a^lg/(ibid.) hlg 387
34
= a^lga/(Zech 10:11) ylg" 388
= M (Ezra 6:4) llg/(Prov 26:27) llgw* 389
K (=) (^rj+) lglg/(Gen 29:3) wllgw 390
K (=) h^lglak/(Zeph 1:17) yllgk 391
= L (=) (lga m+) lalg m/(Gen 39:5) llgb 392
= ( Josh 22:10) ylylgl/twlylgb* 393
+K L (Dan 7:9) yhwlglg/(Isa 17:13) lglgkw* 394
= = = = amylg/(Ezek 27:24) ymwlgb* 395
(TB Shabbat 114b)
= wlg/jrq/(Cant 6:5) wlg* 396
(Lev 13:40)
= (=) slg/(ibid.) wlg 397
= = ( Judg 3:16) adymrg/dmg* 398
= = = (=) T lmg/(Isa 21:7) lmg 399
+ B = = = axmwk/tjp/(Eccl 10:8) mwg* 400
(Isa 24:18)
34
Alfsi attributes this comparison to the Aramaic Targum. However, it is unclear
whether Alfsi compares ylgl ( Jer 51:37) too.
430 chapter sixteen
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
+ + = arymg/rjh ,hlk/(Ps 3:10) rmg* 401

(Deut 20:17 ;Gen 18:21)
+ = lylk/(Ezra 7:12) rymg/(Ps 57:3) rme Og* 402
rymg/(Lev 6:15)
= 2= 1= ( Jer 51:13) twrxa:1/(Esth 3:9) yzng* 403
(Deut 33:21) zyng/wps:2 ayzng/
= = (=) + T ang/(Gen 2:8) g 404
= = = = ^g/(2Kings 20:6) ytngw 405
? ^km/(Gen 14:20) GEmi 406
(=) (=) asg/(TB Bekh 1a) hsg x 407
= +D (=) (=) T (rk+) hnpg/(Deut 8:8) pgw 408
35
M = (Dan 7:4) ypg/(Prov 9:3) ypeg* 409
= (=) (+) = T brg/(Deut 28:27) brg 410
36
= = (=) = (tjy+) drgy/( Job 2:8)/drgthl 411
K = = zrk/(Deut 20:19) zrg 412
= M 2+ + 1= yhwmrg/wytwmx[:1/( Job 40:18) wymrg* 413
(Dan 6:25) whymrg:2 (1Kings 13:31)
= L amrg/x[/(Zeph 3:3) wmrg* 414
(=) (yrskt+) ymrgt/(Ezek 23:34) ymrgt 415
= = rg/(2Kings 9:13) (twl[mh) rg 416
(themselves)
K = yrg/(Gen 49:14)/rg (rwmj) 417
37
= = yrg/(Num 15:20) rwg 418
= = [rgy/( Job 36:27) [r"g:y} 419
= + (=) = = 38
(hb ^rm+) hprg/( Judg 5:21) prg 420
= (=) (=) = T rartga/(Lev 11:7) rgy al hrgE 421
= arga/rk/(Exod 30:13) hrg* 422
(Num 18:31)
= = rargna/( Jer 30:23) rrwgtm 423
(=) = h^rgm/(1Kings 7:9) hrgEmb 424
J grawm/(2Sam 12:31) hrgEm 425
= D = = (=) T yrg/(Lev 2:14) crg 426
= = = sg/(Isa 44:14) g 427
= (Dan 4:30) hmg/(ibid.) g* 428
= L = = (=) = T ssgn ,ssgtn/(Isa 59:10) hgn 429
d
= awad ,ayad/(Deut 28:49) hady 430
= = abwd/(Prov 17:2) bd* 431
= (+) = T ^bd/(Prov ibid.) bd 432
+ = hlbd/(2Kings 20:7) tlbd 433
+ = + wnyqbdaw/gyyw/(Gen 31:23) qbdyw* 434
(Gen 44:6)
+ = = qbd/(Isa 41:7) qbdl 435
35
Alfsi and Ibn Jan render tyrpg (Gen 19:24) by tyrbk and it is doubtful
whther they intended to practise a comparison.
36
For hrg cf. rrg.
37
Cf. Becker 1980, p. 297.
38
In Muwzana the text is corrupt and no reference survived.
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
+M = (Dan 4:14) trbd/(Eccl 3:18) trb]d*i 436

+ D,M1 + + 1= rbd/ghn:1 (Mic 2:12) wrbD:h*' 437
(Dan 3:24) yhwrbdh:2 (2Kings 4:24)
39
+ = = rbad/(2Chron 22:10) rbdtw 438
= (L) + (=) (=) (ljn+) rbd/(Isa 7:18) hrwbd 439
40
= + = sbd/(Gen 43:11) bd 440
= gd/(Deut 28:51) gd 441
= + = = yrwgd/yrmj/( Jer 17:11) rgd* 442
(Exod 8:10)
= T ydt/(Prov 5:19) hydd 443
K 1=L 1= 2= = bhd:2/bhd/bhz:1/(Isa 14:4) hbhdm* 444
(Dan 2:32)
K K = bhd/hbhdm 445
= L,D (=) whdm ,hd/( Jer 14:9) hdn 446
+K (1=) T2 hdwm:2 ,d^dwt:1/(Cant 1:2) yd" Od 447
(=) dydw/(Cant 2:16) ydwd 448
(=) = T (+) awdala m ad/(Ps 41:4) yw:d 449
= = T ^ dm/(Num 11:8) hkdmb wkd
q 450
= 2= 1= yd/wm:1/( Job 41:4)/wdt* 451
wy/(Isa 54:1) ylhxw:2 (Isa 80:15)
wd/(ibid. 66:10)
+ M + = (Dan 5:21) hrwdm/(Ps 84:11) rwdm* 452
D = Qeri) yryyd/(Isa 38:12) yrwd* 453
41
(Dan 2:38
+ M rdw rd/(Exod 3:15) rwd rwdl* 454
(Dan 3:33)
= + (+) = T swdt (Isa 41:15) wdt 455
K = (=) = T yntyjd/(Ps 118:13) yntyjd hjd 456
= = = kd/(Ezek 4:9) jd 457
= = ( Judg 4:3) qjd/jl/( Joel 2:8) wqjdy* 458
(=) +T dkdm/(Ps 74:21) d 459
= (time) ad/(Hab 2:13) (a) ydEb 460
= = yd/( Jer 5:28) yd 461
= = ad/(Gen 30:6) ynn"d: 462
+D = (pour water) jld/(Ezek 32:2) jldtw 463
= (=) = T wld/(Isa 40:15) yld]mi 464
(=) = lald/(Cant 7:6) tldw 465
D K(=) = ld/(Prov 27:15) ld 466
= 1= 2= /(Dan 7:9) qld:1/(Ezek 24:10) qldh* 467
(Exod 22:5) qylda/ry[bmh:2
= +FT + = = T d/(Lev 17:14) d 468
+ = amdty/(Ps 89:7) hmdy 469
= + (+) = T h[md/(Isa 25:8) h[md 470
= = [md/(Exod 22:28) [mdw 471
= D qpd/(Gen 33:13)/wqpdw 472
= = qpd/( Judg 19:22) yqpdtm
39
Dunash explains rbdy" (Ps 47:4) from the meaning of wrbdh (Mi 2:12) and so
did Ibn Gikatilla, according to Ibn Barn. However, Ibn Barn and others explain
it from the meaning of rbdt'w (2Chron 22:10).
40
In Muwzana there is a lacuna here.
432 chapter sixteen
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
= + (+) = T qyqdt/(Isa 41:15) qdtw 473

42
+ +M = (Dan 2:34) tqdhw/(Deut 9:21) qd* 474
= = ygrd/twl[m/(Ezek 38:20) twgrdmh* 475
(1Kings 10:19)
= = = = +T grd ,gdadm/(Ezek ibid.) twgrdmh 476
= wrad/(Eccl 1:6) wrd 477
= (wrd)/bgn/(Deut 33:23) wrd* 478
K = ardrd/(Gen 3:18) rdrd* 479
(TB Gittin 70a)
= = (Dan 4:12) hatd/(Gen 1:12) ad* 480
= = + (+) = T hmwsd ,sd/(Ps 65:13) d 481
+ = (Dan 6:9) tdk/(Esth 3:8) hytdw* 482
h
= L2,M2 + 1= (Gen 19:8) ah/hnh:1/(Gen 47:23) ah* 483
(Dan 2:43) ah:2
= D = = = ah/(ibid.) ah 484
L = ^ybhbh/(Hos 8:13) ybhbh 485
K = swnba/(Ezek 27:15) ynbh; 486
43
= = ([fq+) rbh/(Isa 47:13) yrb Oh 487
2= 1= gatha ,gyha:2 ;^gh:1/(Ps 77:13) ytyghw 488
= agh/(Ezek 42:12) hnygh 489
= L = = ^dh ,dyh/( Jer 25:30) ddyh 490
= wdh/(Isa 11:8) hdh 491
= th/( Job 40:12) wdhw 492
= = sdh/(Isa 41:19) sdh 493
= = (Dan 4:34) rdhmw/(Ps 96:6) rdhw* 494
= anardwh/(Isa 45:2) yrwdhw* 495
= yah yah/(Amos 5:16) wh wh 496
= = = T wh/(Gen 41:28) awh 497
= +M = (Dan 2:20) awhl/(Gen 27:29) hwh* 498
= (adnll) ah/(Isa 10:5) ywh 499
= (hbdnll) hwht ,hwhw/( Jer 22:18) ywh 500
= = = T yha/(Ps 55:3) hmyhaw 501
K H = thth ,^th (Ps 62:4) wttwht 502
L zhzh/(Isa 56:10) yzwh 503
= = T yh/(Gen 24:44) ayh 504
44
= + + (+) = +T (rzq+) lkyh/(1Sam 1:9) lkyh 505
= ynhtn . . ./[xb/(Deut 1:41) wnyhtw* 506
(Gen 37:26)
= = (bg[t+) wrkht/( Job 19:3) wrkht 507
= (moroseness) rhk/( Job ibid.) wrkht 508
= F + (Dan 4:26) lhm/(Ps 104:3) lhm]* 509
41
Dunash assigns this comparison to Sa'adiah. Cf. Schroeter, retort 83.
42
For rdrd cf. rrd.
43
Though Muwzana has a lacuna here, I reconstructed the Ar. translation syn-
onym rbh as a conjecture. As a matter of fact, Ibn Barns discussion may sup-
port that.
44
This seems to be the completion of the lacuna in Muwzana, s.v. lkh.
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
K + = ^lhy/(Ezek 32:37) lhey: 510

= L = (voice raising) lalha/(Ps 75:5) wl Oht; 511
= = ^lh/(Exod 3:5) lh 512
= = = T amh ,h/(Exod 6:27) h 513
+ = T wmah/(Ps 46:7) wmh 514
45
= T aha (Exod 14:24) hyw 515
= = (be shed) rmh/(Ps 140:11) twrmhmb 516
= L yai/(Gen 30:34) h* 517
(e.g. TB Ketubot 65a)
= (Dan 3:18) hw/(ibid.) h* 518
= = (a/i (Gen ibid.) h 519
= (=) T anh/(Gen 15:16) hnh 520
(=) lh/( Jer 2:10) h 521
K = sh/(Zech 2:17) sh 522
= hxhx/(Num 13:30) shyw 523
M (Dan 4:2) yrhrhw/(Isa 29:13) wrh* 524
= D srh/(Lam 2:2) srh 525
w
= bhw/tn/(Num 21:14) bhw* 526
K (=) = bhw/(Num ibid.) bhw 527
z
= (+)L (+) (+) = T byd/(Gen 49:27) baz 528
= D = (=) T babd/(Eccl 10:1) ybwbz 529
= D = dbz/(Gen 30:20) dbz 530
= + + (=) T hjybd/(Exod 23:18) jbzt 531
= T ^gz ,ygz/(Num 6:4) gz 532
= (=) + = T ad/(Gen 5:29) hz 533
= = wd/(Isa 43:21) Wz 534
= = = abhd/(Exod 25:3) bhz* 535
= + (+) = T bhd/(ibid.) bhz 536
= = atmwhz/htalj/( Job 33:20) wtmhzw* 537
(Ezek 24:6)
= D = = = hzt/( Job ibid.) wtmhzw 538
46
= = rhdza (Exod 18:20) htrhzhw 539
= D T rhz/(Dan 12:3) wryhzy 540
= = (Dan 5:6) yhwyz/(1Kings 10:1) wzI* 541
= D bad ,(baz)/( Jer 49:4) bz 542
= = bwd/(Ps 78:20) wbwzyw 543
(=) dwadm/(Ps 144:13) wnywzm 544
= (=) (=) = +T (akra+) ayawz/(Zech 9:15) twywzk 545
2= 1= wlyaz:2 ;ylyzm:1/(Isa 46:6) ylzh 546
= = (Dan 4:9) wzm/(Gen 45:23) wzm* 547
= M = (Dan 5:19) y[yz/(Esth 5:9) [z* 548
= = (Isa 6:4) w[zw/w[wnyw/(Eccl 12:3) w[wzy*
= = [z[zt/(Esth 5:9) [z 549
45
Ibn Jan renders ysmh (Isa 64:1) by yh, but it is doubtful whether he
meant to practise a comparison by metathesis.
46
Risla, C2, p. 338.
434 chapter sixteen
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
(=) = (Exod 15:14) w[z/wzgry/(Isa 28:19) h[wz 550

(=) = T [z[zt/(Isa ibid.) h[wz 551
K L = = h[z[z/(Hab 2:7) y[z[zm
L (=) = rrdt/(Isa 1:6) wrz 552
= T hrdm/(Isa 59:5) hrwzhw 553
(=) T wrd/(Exod 32:20) rzyw 554
= = (Num 16:20) wrwz/wrws/(Isa 1:4) wrzn* 555
= zrzw/mjiw/(Prov 30:31)(yntm-) ryzrz* 556
(Gen 41:34)
K #TM,D = (=) = jzjzty/(Exod 28:28) jzy 557
= jzn/(ibid.) jzy 558
K 2= 1= tyljd/ytary:1/( Job 32, 6) ytltz* 559
(Dan 2:31) lyjd:2/(Gen 31:31)
= +L,D = = ljz/(ibid.) ytljz 560
+ = (Dan 5:20) hdzhl/(Deut 17:13) wdyzy* 561
47
= = yqwqz)/(Isa 50:11) twqyz* 562
(TB Hul 137b
= = (=) +T wtyz/( Jer 11:16) tyz 563
K = T wkz/( Job 25, 4) hkzy 564
= (Dan 6:23) wkz/( Job 33:9) z* 565
(Deut 24:13) atwkz/hqdx/
+ = +T ykd/(Exod 27:20) z 566
= + + = T rkd/(Exod 17:14) rkz 567
= = (ibid.) wtrkdad/(Ezek 21:29) krkzh* 568
= +FT + (=) = T rkd (Gen 1:27) rk;z: 569
= = yrkd (dqt)/(Exod 34:19) rk;W:t*i 570
= = ahw^lda/(Lam 1:8) hwlyzh 571
48
= + + = T amz/(Eccl 3:1) mz 572
+ = whtnmdzh/(Ezra 10:4) ynmzm* 573
(Dan 2:9)
= +D,M (Dan 7:12) mz/(Esth 9:31) hynmzb* 574
= +M = (Ezra 7:24) ayrmz/(Ps 9:12) wrmz* 575
(=) rmazm/(1Kings 7:50) twrmzmhw 576
= + (=) +T bnd/( Judg 15:4) bnz 577
(=) (+) wbndtst/( Josh 10:19) tbnzw 578
= nyz/ylk/(1Kings 22:38) twnzhw* 579
(Gen 27:3)
K = = /(Dan 3:5) ynz/(2Chron 16:14) ynzW* 580
49
(Gen 1:12) yhwnzl/whnyml
# hynaz/(Lev 21:14) hnwz 581
= = +T ([wzn+) anz/(Deut 31:16) hnzw 582
= jzn/(Lam 3:17) jnztw 583
+M + = w[z/wzgry/(Deut 28:25) hw[zl* 584
(Exod 15:14)
47
Cf. Becker, 1984, p. 148, n. 55.
48
Becker (1984, C1, entry 138) remarks that Dunash compared mz with Arabic,
which is approved by Philipowskis ed. (1855). However, in Senz-Badillos (1980)s
edition, p. 21*, Dunashs comparison is rather with Aramaic.
49
MS-R adduces this comparison at enrty wytm ("Ul, p. 396).
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
(=) = [z[zt/(Deut ibid.) hw[zl 585

= D (+) (=) (fks+) gz/(Num 23:8) [z 586
= = = (Gen 18:4) ry[z/f[m/(Isa 10:25) r[zm* 587
= = = (Gen ibid.) ry[z/f[m/( Job 36:2) ry[z* 588
= = = T tpz/(Exod 2:3) tpz 589
= = anqd/(Lev 13:30) q;z*: 590
= (+) (=) qd/(ibid. 29) qzb 591
= M1 = =1 /(Ezra 6:11) yqzw :1 (Ps 145:14) qwzw* 592
(Gen 13:14) qz/a:2
= = jn yd yqzl/ytjnl/(Ps 149:8) yqizbI * 593
(2Sam 3:34)
= = qzam ,qza/( Jer 40:1) yqzab 594
= = wbrzy/( Job 6:17) wbrzy 595
+ = (TB Yoma 78a) byrdzmd/(ibid.) wbrzy* 596
= = ardm/( Jer 15:7) hrzmi 597
50
= ? = hyrdt/(Ezek 5:2) hrzt 598
= T jyrx/(Lev 16:29) jrza 599
= +FT + (=) (=) T [rz/(Lev 11:37) [rz 600
= = a[wrd/(Deut 33:20) [wrz* 601
= +FT = (=) = T [ard/(Exod 6:6) [wrz 602
= + = qrzy/(Isa 28:25) qrzyI 603
= qrd ,qrz/(Ezek 36:25) ytqrzw 604
j
= = (=) + +T tybtka/(Gen 31:27) ytabjn 605
= T yybakm ,yabtka/( Job 31:33) ybjub 606
= = T ybtka/(Isa 26:20) ybij}
= = = bybj/(Deut 33:3) bbj 607
= = = (=) = fbak/( Judg 6:11) fbwj 608
(=) + (+) + = lbj/(Zech 2:5) lbj 609
= = lbj bjax/( Jon 1:6) lbjh br 610
(=) = +lbj (Prov 23:34) lbeji 611
K = = = lbj/(Cant 8:5) hlbj ,(Ps 7:15) lbjy 612
= 1+M 1= 2= /(Cant 2:15) ylbjm ;(Eccl 5:5); lbejiw* 613
lbjmw/tjw :2 (Dan 6:23) hlwbj:1
(Gen 38:9)
= = labk ,lbk ( Job 17:1) hlB;ju 614
K = (qlk+) labj/(1Sam 10:5) (yaybn) lbj 615
= (lxawt+) lbj/(Hos 11:4) (da) ylbjb 616
= hlyj/(Prov 24:6) twlwbjtbw 617
+D + = rbj/(Exod 28:7) rbjuw 618
= (r[+) hrbrbj/( Jer 13:23) hrwbrbj 619
= (rbw+) rybk/(ibid.) hrwbrbj 620
= (=) sbj/( Job 34:17) bjy 621
= = swwr+) ytbgj/(Eccl 12:5) bgjh 622
bgaj ;(ykrwla
= + + = T ^gj/(Exod 12:14) gj 623
50
In Muwzana the text here is corrupted. However, according to the remnants
of the entry the reconstruction seems possible. For ryzrz cf. rwz.
436 chapter sixteen
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
= + = = ^gj/(Ps 107:27) wgwjy 624

D = (Lev 21:18) arygj/jsp/(2s 22:46) wrgjyw* 625
H (Deut 32:25) tgrj/hmya/(ibid.) wrgjyw* 626
= 2= = 1= (Gen 1:5) dj/dja:1/(Ezek 33:30) dj* 627
(Dan 6:3) dj:2
51
= = (=) = h^daj (Ezek 5:1) hD;j' 628
= (=) = T ^dawj/hdadj hdwdjm/( Job 41:22) ydwdj 629
K = = (=) T ^djny ^dtjy ,djy/(Prov 27:17) djy 630
= = ydjw/jmyw/(Exod 18:9) djyw* 631
( Judg 19:3)
= +D + (=) = +T rdk/(1Kings 20:30) rdj 632
= = (=) (hnmak+) hrdak/(Ezek 21:19) trdjh 633
= = +T tdjt/( Job 10:17) djt 634
= = + (Lev 19:17) hbwj/afj (Ezek 18:7) bwj* 635
= = = (ta=) bwj/(Dan 1:10) tbyyjw 636
= +T tydj/( Judg 14:12) hdyj 637
= 2M 1= + (Gen 29:15) ywj/hdygh:1/(Ps 19:3) hwjy* 638
= 1M 2= (Dan ibid.) tywja:1/( Job 13:1) ytw:j]a'w* 639
(Lev 5:1) ywjy/dygh:2
K2 +L 2= 1= 1= awj:2 ,^yj:1/(Num 32:41) t/j 640
+K = /(Ezek 19:9) yjjb ,(1Sam 13:6) yjwj 641
^wk
= +H + (+) = T fyk/(Gen 14:23) fwjmi 642
= = = (Exod 28:37) afwj/lytp/(Cant 4:3) fwjk* 643
M (Ezra 4:12) wfyjy/(Cant ibid.) fwjk* 644
B (H) fykm/(Shab 6:1) fjm x 645
+B (H) fa^yk/(1:3 ibid.) fY:j' x 646
= lwjm/(Ps 150:4) lwjmw 647
= = = ^ljy/(2Sam 3:29) wlwjy/( Jer 23:19) lwjy 648
K = (tw+) laj/(ibid.) llwjtm ,(ibid.) lwjy 649
= T jlaj/(Eccl 5:12) hlwj 650
1= 1= 2= T ymj:2 ;wmjy ,^ja:1 (Gen 30:32) wj 651
= (^qr+) ^sj/(Ps 72:13) swjy 652
= 1M =2 = /bl:2/(Dan 7:9) rW:j:i 1/(Esth 1:6)/rWj* 653
(Gen 30:35) rwj
1M = (Eccl 10:7) yrwj b:2 ,(Isa 19:19) yrwh:1* 654
ibid./
K = T (yba qyqd+) yrawj/(Gen 40:16) yrwj 655
K = = rwja/(Esth ibid.) rwj 656
D (?) ^j/(Deut 32:35) jw 657
= = ^sjy/(Eccl 2:25) wjy 658
= ([ag+) swj/(Eccl ibid.) wjy 659
= ^tjy/(Eccl ibid.) wjy 660
= = aydj/(Lev 8:29) hzj* 661
= hdj ,jzj/(Exod 29:27) hzj 662
= F = + atyzj/tyar/(Prov 22:29) tyzj* 663
(Gen 20:10)
= = yzaj/(2Sam 22:11) hzwj 664
51
For ydjath cf. djy.
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
= (Dan 4:8) hytwzjw/( Job 8:17) hzjy* 665

(thicket)
(=) zwj/(ibid.) hzjy 666
52
= (zyza/? ( Job 28:26) zyzj) 667
+ = wqzjt/( Josh 17:13) wqzj 668
= = = (?=) T ryznk/(Lev 11:7) ryzjh 669
= +FT + (+) = = (+) afk/(Lev 19:17) afj 670
= = (axqn+) ^fj/(Gen 31:39) hnfja 671
H (Ezra 4:12) wfyjy/(Gen ibid.) hnfja* 672
fyaj/
= D + = (=) (+) bftja ;bafj/(Deut 29:10) bfjm 673
K = tbfj/trmah/(Prov 7:16) twbwfj* 674
(Deut 26:17)
B H fafj/(TB Yoma 77b) yffj x 675
H fjfjm-(Tos. Hul. 7:4) ffjm x* 676
(cf. Yerush. Orla 5, 63a)
(TB Pesachim 28a) fj/
= (=) = fk/(TB Yeb 16:3) fwj x 677
= (H,J) = = (=) = (+) ftka/(Isa 48:9) fja 678
= H afk/(TB Shabbat 5:1) fj x 679
= (H) = (=) (+) = fk-/( Judg 21:21) tpfjw 680
H fjm/fwjm*
= H = + = (Exod 4:2) arfwj/hfm/(Isa 11:1) rfj* 681
= rfk/(Isa ibid.) rfj 682
= + + (+) = +T tyyjaa/(Num 31:15) tyyjh 683
53
M,D = (Dan 5:19) ajm/(Isa 35:19) yj* 684
= hyj/(Gen 37:20) hyj 685
(=) (=) awyj/(Gen 8:17) hyjh 686
K M (Dan 7:7) hwyj/(Gen 1:21) hyjh* 687
= (Exod 12:9) yj/an/(1Sam 2:15) yj* 688
(=) = ^yjla/(Lev 13:15) yjh 689
= = = ^yh/(2Sam 23:11) hyjl 690
= (h^wq+) lwj/(Ps 118:15) lyj 691
+K = (Deut 3:29) atlyj/ayg/(Lam 2:8) lje* 692
K = wqj/(Exod 4:6) qyjb 693
+ + = (=) T ^kjt/(Prov 23:15) k'j; 694
= = (bl+) blj/(Exod 3:8) blj 695
(=) bljm/(Exod 30:34) hnblj 696
= 2= 2= (=) (=) hdlk:2 dlk:1/(Lev 11:29) dlj 697
= + + (=) +T d^lkt ,dlk/(Ps 49:2) dlj 698
+K = ^lja/(Deut 29:21) hL;ji 699
K H = /twtymxl/(1Kings 20:33) wfljyw* 700
(Lev 25:23) yfwljl
= flj/(ibid.) wfljyw 701
54
= + = = T ylj/(Prov 25:12) yljw 702
52
The text is corrupted here, and the comparison is only a conjecture.
53
But Alfsi says that Aramaic does not prove whether the root is j or yj.
54
Ibn Quraysh (B 22) makes a restriction on the semantic identication of these
entries, and he might have refuted the comparison.
438 chapter sixteen
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
= +L = = = lylj/bwbn/(Isa 2:19) t/Ljimbw* 703

(Exod 27:8)
= = (r^yg+) ^ljy/(Num 30:3) ljy 704
= D+FT + + = +T wmljy/( Joel 3:1) wmljy 705
+1
= = (Dan 2:26) amlj/(Gen 37:9) wlj* 706
= (ydg+) alj/( Job 6:6) twmlj 707
(?=) swbmlj/(Ps 114:8) ymlj 708
= = lj/[y/(Num 18:21) l,j*e 709
(Gen 22:16)
(=) = lk/(Num ibid.) lj 710
= (=) (=) (+) lky/(Ps 90:5) ljy 711
= M (Dan 4:13) wpljy/( Job 9:11) ljyw* 712
= hpltkm (bayt)/( Judg 14:12) twpylj 713
= (srla) awplk/(Isa 24:5) wplj 714
= = lk/(Cant 2:11) lj 715
= = = (=) (+) = T ynx^lk/(Ps 140:2) ynxlj 716
= (=) ^lky/(Isa 58:11) yljy 717
L = lxky/(Isa ibid.) yljy 718
+K D = qylj/(Gen 27:11) qlj 719
(=) = (slma+) qlka/(Gen ibid.) qlj 720
= lqj/(2Sam 14:31) hqljh 721
= = lj/hprh/( Joel 4:10) ljh* 722
(Num 13:18)
= = dmj/(Ps 68:17) dmj 723
55
= (lwj rad+) hmwj/(Exod 14:22) hmwj 724
= = = (=) T wmj/(Gen 38:13) ymj 725
= T ymtja ,ymj/(Ps 39:4) j 726
56
1= = 2= wmj:2 tmmj:1 (Isa 44:16) ytwmj 727
(=) tamamj/(Isa 17:8) ynmjhw 728
= (adrq+) anmj/(Isa ibid.) ynmjhw 729
= = = mj/(Exod 12:15) mej; 730
= = (yh+) hxmj/(Isa 30:24) ymj 731
(=) = = (hypytla) hxwmjll (Num 6:3) mj 732
(=) = = (=) = ^mjty/(Ps 73:21) mjty 733
N hxmaj spn (ibid.)/ybbl mjty
= = = T ramj/( Job 24:1) rwmj 734
= = rwmjy/(Deut 14:5) rwmjy* 735
= = T rwmjy/(Deut ibid.) rwmjy 736
K 1M 2= 1= 2= (Dan 5:1) armj:1/(Deut 32:14) rm,j*; 737
(Lev 10:9) armj/yy:2/
= = = = T rmk/(Deut ibid.) rmj 738
M (Dan ibid.) armj/(Ps 75:9) rm'j*; 739
= D T rmk/(Ps ibid.) rmj 740
= = ^rmja/(Ps ibid.) rmj 741
2+K 1L 1= = (rq+) rmj:1/( Job 16:16) wrmrmj 742
57
(^rj ^d+) hramj:2
55
For hmje cf. jy.
56
Alfsi adds: wmjla yn[ml alw.
57
It is amazing that Ibn Barn quotes here (Muwzana 49) from Ibn Bal'am and
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
+K = (=) = T ramj/(Gen 14:10) rmj 743

= = (=) (=) = T hsmk/(Gen 18:28) hmj 744
+K = (=) smk (la dkay)/(Gen 41:34) mjw 745
= ([mg+) mj/(Gen ibid.) mjw 746
= ([mg+) smk/(Gen ibid.) mjw 747
+ = (^d+) smj/(Exod 13:18) ywmjw 748
K D = = tymj/(Gen 21:14) tmjw 749
= ^lj/(Exod 13:20) wnjyw 750
= tynawj/( Jer 37:16) twywnjh 751
(+) (=) (=) ayanj/( Jer ibid.) twywnjh 752
+ D,H = (=) (=) T (+) fnj/(Gen 50:2) wfnjyw 753
= = hfnaj/(Cant 2:13) hfnj 754
= +M = (Ezra 6:9) yfnj/(Exod 9:32) hfjhw* 755
= H = + = T hfnj/(Isa 28:25) hfj 756
= = (?=) (?=) = (=) nj/( Job 34:3) j 757
+ = = hykntm/(Gen 14:14) wykynj 758
+ (=) (+) hnj/(Gen 39:21) wnj 759
= = (=) anj ,ynj ,^j/(Amos 5:15) njy 760
= = (lym+) nj/(e.g. Jer 23:11) nj 761
= = = (=) qntta/(2Sam 17:23) qnjyw 762
= = = adsj/hprj/(Lev 20:17) dsj* 763
(Gen 34:14)
= L = lysj/(Deut 28:38) wnlsjy* 764
K = = sjl/(Deut ibid.) wnlsjy 765
58
(damage caused by locust)
59
?D = ykt/(Ezek 39:11) tmsjw 766
= +M1 1= 1+ = (Dan 2:37) ansj:1/(Ps 89:9) ysj* 767
(Gen 43:31) ysjtaw/qpatyw:2/
= D = = (Num 18:23) ansja/hljn , /(ibid.) ysj* 768
= (lamg+) s j/( Jer 20:5) s Oj 769
1K = aynswj/twrwgmm/(Isa 23:18) sjy* 770
( Joel 1:17)
= = = rsj/(1Kings 17:16) rsj 771
= = (Num 9:15) apj/hsk/( Jer 14:4) wpj* 772
= = (afg+) awpka/( Jer ibid.) wpj 773
60
= D +T zpj/( Job 40:23?) zpjy 774
not directly from Ibn Jan. This might imply textual problems in "Ul or in
Muwzana.
58
Ibn Barn expresses the meaning by an example from which eating by a
worm is alluded. This meaning is close to, but not identical with Ibn Jans one.
59
Gross (1872) attributes to Dunash the comparison with sj. However, Dunash
possibly had in mind Ibn Qurayshs comparison.
60
Philipowski (1855, p. 68) and Senz-Badillos (1980, pp. *89, 99) refer to wbnz
zpjy ( Job 40:17) noting no variant readings. However, the same verse reads wpjy
in the Bible, without variant readings. Neither Philipowski and Senz-Badillos nor
Gross (1872), who completed zpj/zwpjy, noticed that. Two solutions can be given
to this problem: 1) It is possible that Dunash intended to compare wbnz wpjy to
pj or pk but the copyists were mistaken because of the anity of to z of wbnz,
or because of its relationship to zwpjy in the following verse (23). [Ibn Jan ("Ul
440 chapter sixteen
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
= + = zapjna ,zpj/(2Sam 4:4) hzpjb 775

D + = (=) = T hynpj/(Lev 16:12) wynpj 776
+K = pwjtm/jry/(Deut 33:12) pj* 777
(Deut 32:11)
= = htpaj ,apapj/(Deut 33 ibid.) pj 778
= = (af+) ^pj ,hpjm/(Isa 4:5) hpwj 779
(1+) 1= 2+ ;(bnag) apj:1/(Gen 49:13) wjl 780
(ljas) wj:2
= +D + (+) (+) = T rpj/(Gen 26:22) rpjyw 781
= = (lgk+) rpk/(Isa 54:4) yrypjt 782
61
L = = = apj/(1Kings 15:5) typhj 783
= pj (Ezek 27:20) pj 784
= yxajt ,xaj/(Num 31:27) tyxjw 785
62
(=) = = (=) = xj/(Isa 49:22) xjb 786
= = = axj/(Prov 20:17) xj 787
= axjla rapj/( Judg 5:11) yxxjm 788
= h^d+) axj/( Judg ibid.) yxxjm 789
(wd[la
= ayb+) hxjxj/( Judg ibid.) yxxjm 790
(qjla
Tamim,N axj/(Ps 77:18) yxxj 791
N axk (id.)/yxxj 792
= + = hrxk/(1Kings 18:5) ryxj 793
= ywat [xwm+) ryxj/(Isa 34:13) ryxj 794
(wjwla hyla
= (radla hjas+) hjrx/(ibid. 42:11) rxj 795
K = qj/(Isa 24:5) qj 796
= = ark/(2Kings 10:27) twarjml 797
= = + = bark/(Ezek 25:13) hbrj 798
= = hbrj/(Ezek ibid.) hbrj 799
+ = brj/( Job 39:22) brj; 800
D hbrj/(Zeph 2:14) br jO 801
= #D = = tgrh/hmwa/(Ps 18:46) wgrjyw* 802
63
(Deut 32:25)
D arygj/jsp/(Ps ibid.) wgrjyw* 803
(Lev 21:18)
= (=) T lgrj/(Lev 11:22) lgrjh 804
K = drj/(Gen 27:33) drjyw 805
= ^rtja/(Neh 3:20) hrjh 806
241) compares it to zwpjy assuming the interchange z/x, and based on the common
meaning speed of movement.] 2) It is possible that Dunash intended to compare
zwpjy (verse 23) [zpjy alw rhn q[y h], while quoting a single word only, zpjy, and
a later copyist completed the quotation confusing the two verses.
61
Cf. Becker 1984, part C1, entry 161, and the note on the semantic nuance
of these words, as to Ibn Quraysh and Ibn Jan.
62
Ibn Jan makes a restriction on the semantic equivalence.
63
Alfsi translates wgrjyw by wgr[ny, which might imply a comparison with two
interchanges, [/j and g/g. However, such a comparison needs to be expressed
explicitly.
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
= E(=) = zrk/(Cant 1:10) yzwrjb 807

= (H) = (=) (=) = fyark/(2Kings 5:23) yfyrj 808
+ ((H + (=) = hfyrk/(Isa 8:1) frjb 809
= (Dan 2:10) frj/(Gen 41:8) ymfrj* 810
= = = = akrj/wlj/(Cant 2:9) ykrjh* 811
(Gen 26:8)
+ M = = (Dan 3:27) rjth/(Prov 12:27) rjy* 812
K = qrj/(ibid.) rjy 813
= = (=) (=) = T rka ,wrkm/(Lev 21:18) wrj 814
= + (=) hmarj/(Lev 27:29) rjy 815
(L) (+) arka/(Lev ibid.) rjy 816
64
= artka/(Exod 22:19) rjy 817
= +D + = +T yprk/( Job 29:4) yprj 818
= = yprjm/ynwn/(2Sam 23:9) prjb* 819
(Isa 49:2) hnwn/hdj; (Isa 5:28)
+ = rjny/( Job 27:6) rjy 820
= rjy/(Exod 11:7) rjy 821
K = rjt/(2Sam 5:24) rjt 822
K = ([fq+) rj/(Isa 10:23) hxrjnw 823
+ = (=) (sarxa) qrj/(Ps 37:12) qrwjw 824
= + (=) + hrarj/(Ezek 24:10) wrjy 825
(H) hrarj/rrwj-rjwa x
+ (=) ^rtjy/( Jer 6:29) rjn 826
K (=) = (=) rkn/( Jer ibid.) rjn 827
(=) ^rtjt/(Ps 37:1) rjtt 828
= = yrwh rb/ypj/(Neh 4:18) yrwjh* 829
(Deut 15:12)
= = (=) rarja ,^rj/(Neh ibid.) yrwjh 830
= awryyjt ,wraj/(Isa 24:6) wrj 831
= y^rtjm/( Jer 17:6) yrrj 832
+ = tad ra+) h^rj/( Jer ibid.) yrrj 833
(hqrjm hragj
= = = ayrj/ypkm/(Isa 3:3) yrj* 834
(Exod 7:11)
(=) = T+ srka/(Lev 19:14) reje 835
= = srka/(Gen 34:5) yrjhw 836
= + (+) (+) = T trjy (Isa 28:24) wrjy 837
= hfwrkm/( Jer 17:1) hwrj 838
= = arj (Ezek 31:3) r< jO 839
(=) htarj/(1Sam 22:5) trj 840
= ytyrh/[q[q/(Exod 32:16) twrj* 841
(Lev 19:28)
= twrjm/(Exod ibid.) twrj 842
= tanabsj/(2Chron 26:15) twnwbj 843
(yxj=)
+ +D,L + + = (dd[+) bsj/(1Sam 18:25) bj 844
64
It seems that Ibn Barn made a dierentiation between rjy whose subject is
r,j to be compared with yrjt and rjy whose subject is man (Exod. 22:19),
which he compares with (bhd ,tam+) artka.
442 chapter sixteen
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
+ + (=) +T (b lab+) bstjy/(Ps 40:18) bjy 845

= aykyj/yldh/(Ps 74:20) ykjm* 846
( Jer 39:10)
+ M,B = = ljw/(Deut 25:18) yljnh* 847
(Dan 2:40)
= wg/(Exod 28:4) j 848
+ = k/(1Kings 20:27) ypij} 849
1K D sk sjt/(Isa 52:10) j 850
= k/(Isa ibid.) j 851
= ?= q[/(Gen 34:8) hqj 852
= = = ([mg+) rj/(2Sam 22:12) trj 853
= = (qqr+) rj/(1Kings 8:33) hyrwjw 854
K = (=) = = yj (Isa 5:24) jw 855
K = (dqwa+) j (ibid.) jw 856
+ + = T (wtjt.gsr) ytj/(Prov 25:22) htj 857
= fjy/(Ps 52:7) t]j]y" 858
K = (Dan 6:8) hmtjw/(Esth 8:8) wtjnw* 859
= +D + (=) (+) = +T tak/(Ezek 28:12) twj 860
= +D = + (=) = tk/(Gen 19:12) tj 861
= +D = = = (twm+) tj/(Prov 23:28) tjk 862
f
K = afafw/(Isa 14:23) hytafafw* 863
(TB Meg 18a)
K = (=) (pn+) afaf/(Isa ibid.) hytafafw 864
K = ayjbf/(Gen 41:12) yjbfh* 865
(Dan 2:14)
+ = (=) = ybf/(1Sam 9:24) jbfh 866
= T jbd/(Exod 21:37) wjbfw 867
K + (smg+) hlabf/(Num 19:18) lbfw 868
+ = w[bfa/(Exod 15:4) w[bfu 869
+ = (+) [baf/(Exod 35:22) t[bf 870
= +D + = (+) (=) T (fn+) rhf/(Lev 14:8) rhfw 871
= = rhf/(Lev ibid.) rhfw* 872
= = byf baf (Num 24:5) wbwf 873
= (bhd ,ybp+) jaf/(Isa 44:18) jf 874
= (fsb+) jf/(Lev 14:42) jfw 875
(H) jfn/(TB BK 28b) jyfhx 876
= lfn/[sn/( Job 41:1) lfy* 877
= (Dan 7:4) tlyfnw/(1Sam 18:11) lfyw* 878
K = lflfm/[n/(Isa 22:17) lflfm* 879
(Gen 4:12)
= rafa/(Ezek 46:23) rwfw 880
= = (Hab 1:8) yaf/j/( Job 9:26) wfy* 881
K = af/( Job ibid.) wfy 882
= yj^wfm/(Gen 21:16) ywjfmk 883
= (H) + + (+) (=) = T wnjfw/(Num 11:8) wnjfw 884
= (H) (=) (ansa+) jawf/(Eccl 12:3) twnjwfh 885
= = ryjf/(1Sam 5:6) yrwjf 886
= = atpfwf/hd[xa/(Deut 6:8) tpffl* 887
(2Sam 1:10)
= = = alf/(Isa 65:25) hlfw 888
= = aylf/(1Sam 7:9) hlf* 889
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
= + + + (+) = T ^lf/(Num 11:9) lfh 890

+ 2M = = 2= (Dan 4:9) llft:1/(Neh 3:15) wnllfyw* 891
(Gen 9:8) alwf/lx:2/
K = (=) (=) (qs+) ^lf/(ibid.) wnllfyw 892
K +D (=) amfty/(Lev 21:3) aM;F'yI 893
= = ynwmf/wmts/( Job 18:3) wnymfn* 894
(Gen 26:15)
= + = t[fw/[ttw/(Ezek 13:10) w[fh* 895
(Gen 21:14)
= = (=) (Dan 5:21) hnwm[fy/( Job 34:3) [fy* 896
= = (=) (lka+) [f/(1Sam 14:40) ytm[f 897
(=) +M = (Dan 2:14) [ef/ ] (Ps 119:66) [f* 898
= + + = [fml/tal/(Gen 45:17) wn[f 899
(ibid. 44:1)
= D = (=) = = T (ygw[bm+) ynw[fm/(Isa 14:19) yb[ Ofm] 900
= jpfw/hw/(Lam 2:22) ytjpf* 901
(Ezek 21:19)
K = (hdalw+) jpf/(Lam ibid.) ytjpf 902
= = yfad/yxh/(Isa 3:16) pfw 903
(Deut 11:14)
K = (hdayz+) ypft/(Isa ibid.) pfw 904
K = ?= ?= T lpf/(Esth 3:13) f 905
= + = atwpf/w[g/(Ps 119:70) pf* 906
(Deut 28:28)
= = (Isa 6:10) spf/mh/(Ps ibid.) pf* 907
K = (=) (. . . hzw rdq+) spf/(Ps ibid.) pf 908
= = dr^fm/(Prov 27:15) drwf 909
= M = = (Dan 4:22) ydrf/(Prov ibid.) drwf* 910
K = = = drf/(Prov ibid.) drwf 911
= L = = = hyrf ( Judg 15:15)/hyrf 912
= L,M = + = (Gen 3:7) yprf/hl[/(Ezek 17:9) yprf* 913
= aprfym/[ptw/(Gen 8:11) rf* 914
(ibid. 41:8)
= (bls+) rf/(Gen 49:27) rfy 915
= (. . . ynf[a+) ynprfa/(Prov 30:8) ynpyrfh 916
y
+ = htawm/( Jer 10:7) htay 917
(=) sya/(Eccl 2:20) ayl 918
= = (=) say/(Eccl ibid.) ayl 919
K L + = abby/h[wrt/( Judg 5:28) bbytw* 920
(Lev 23:24)
= 2+ 1= (Ezra 6:5) lbyhw:1/(Zeph 3:10) wlbwy* 921
(Ezek 17:12) lybwaw/abyw:2
65
K = (Arab.) albwy/( Josh 6:4) ylbwyh 922
= F + + (=) = T (apg+) sbay/(Isa 19:7) byy 923
= +F = (+) (+) = +T dy/(Prov 18:21) dyb 924
(=) (^hwq+) dya/( Josh 8:20) ydy 925
65
Ibn Jan quotes this comparison from R. Aqiba (BT).
444 chapter sixteen
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
= (+hrdq) dy/( Josh ibid.) ydy 926

= (hm[n+) dy ydya/(Neh 2:8) dyk 927
= ydyala (yf[a)/(1Chron 29:24) dy (wntn) 928
(h[af+)
= dy/( Joel 4:3) WDy" 929
= + (=) T (bybj+) dydw/(Deut 33:12) dydy 930
= ^dwa/( Job 40:14) dwa 931
= F = (Ezra 7:25) [dy/(Gen 31:32) [dy* 932
= [dwa/(1Sam 21:3) yt[dwy 933
= w[ydm/(2Chron 23:14) y[ydwmw 934
= 1M 1= 2+ (Dan 3:28) wbhyw:1/(Prov 30:15) bhy* 935
(Num 27:4) bh/hnt:2
= = + bhw/( Judg 1:15) hbh 936
K = ybhy/(Ps 55:23) bhy* 937
66
(Megilla 18:21)
2= 1= T dah:2 ^dwht:1/(Esth 8:17) ydhytm 938
K = = rhy/(Prov 21:24) ryhy 939
= D, + (+) (=) (=) T wy/(Gen 1:5) wy 940
+FT
= hnyzm/( Jer 5:8) ynzym 941
= = (=) T dyjw/(Gen 22:2) dyjy 942
= = wnydja/wmzjay/(Ezek 21:21) ydjath* 943
(Exod 15:15)
= ydj^ta/(Ezek ibid.) ydjath 944
= = (drpna+) ydjatsa/(Ezek ibid.) ydjath 945
= = (=) T jwt/(Gen 30:39) wmjyw 946
K = (Dan 3:19) amj/(Deut 29:27) hmjbw* 947
K = (=) (+) +T (fks ,bzg+) hymj/(Isa 27:4) hm;je 948
= = = + (s+) hmj/(Ps 58:5) tm'j} 949
= = = (+) (=) +T ypj/(2Sam 15:30) jy 950
(=) byflab tnsj/(2Kings 9:30) bfytw 951
+K = bfya/(Esth 2:9) bfytw 952
= = jkwtaw/hfpaw/(2Kings 19:4) jykwhw* 953
(1Sam 12:7)
= +FT + (+) (+) (=) (+) dlwy/(Gen 17:20) dylwy 954
hlwlw/(1Sam 4:19) tll 955
+K + (=) hlwlw/(Deut 32:10) lly 956
= D = = (rjb+) ^y/(Ps 24:2) ymy 957
= myt/( Josh 15:1) myt 958
= = + = (=) T hnmy ,ymy/(Deut 5:29) ymy 959
D (oath) ymy/(Ps 77:11) ymy 960
= = (Lev 16:4) rsyy/rgjy/(Hos 7:15) ytrsy* 961
= rsa/(Hos ibid.) ytrsy 962
67
(=) (=) dad[tsa+d[awt/(Exod 21:8) hd[y 963
66
Ibn Quraysh quotes this comparison from the Rabbis (BT Megilla 18a).
67
The Ar. word ajd[w is completed by Becker (1984, note to entry 180), based
on Ibn Barns comparison. However, Ibn Barn did not refer specically to hd[y
and the possibility that Ibn Quraysh had in mind d[tsa or d[awt, attested in
Alfsis lexicon, should not be excluded.
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
= = hd[w/(2Sam 20:5) wd[y 964

= = awd[awt/( Judg 20:38) wd[wyw 965
= + dy[wt ,dy[w/(2Kings 17:13) d[yw 966
= T day[a/(Lev 23:2) yd[wm 967
= = (Deut 14:5) al[y/wqa/( Job 39:1) yl[y* 968
= = = (=) (+) T lw[w ,l[w/( Job ibid.) yl[y 969
= hwptt/( Jer 4:31) jpytt 970
= = (ra+) [pya/(Deut 33:2) [ypwh 971
K = (ra+) [apy/(Ezek 28:7) t[py 972
= L,D + yaxyx/(Isa 48:19) yaxaxw 973
= (=) T bxn ,bxtna/(Gen 33:20) bxyw 974
= = T [xw/(Gen 33:15) hgyxa 975
+ = rywxt/( Job 17:7) yrwxyw 976
= = (rpj+) bqw/(Hos 9:2) bq,y<w: 977
= = (Dan 7:11) tdqyl/(Isa 10:16) dwqy* 978
= + = (=) (=) T dyqw/(ibid.) rwqy 979
1= 2= 1= (h[af+) hhqy:1/(Gen 49:10) thqy 980
haq:2
= + = ryqyta/dbkn/(1Sam 3:13) rqy* 981
(2Sam 6:20)
= = (=) raqw/(Ps 36:8) rqy 982
= + = T dwrw/(Gen 11:5) dryw 983
= T hyrwt ,harwt/(Deut 33:4) hrwt 984
= 2+ = (Dan 4:26) yjry:1/(Deut 21:13) jry* 985
(Gen 29:14) jry/dj:2
= L + = (=) T f^rwt/(Num 22:32) fry 986
= (h[ydk+) farw/(Num ibid.) fry 987
= + (+) (+) (=) T rw/(Num 4:22) ry 988
68
= = = (bgna+) [rw/(Isa 15:4) h[ry 989
+ = qwry/(Exod 10:15) qry* 990
= = qrw/(Exod ibid.) qry 991
K = aqry/(1Kings 8:37) wqry 992
+FT + + (+) = T try/(Gen 21:10) ryy 993
(=) G+FT = (=) sya/(Prov 14:12) y 994
= = btw/(Ps 110:1) b 995
(G) (dwgw+) sya/(Isa 28:29) hywt 996
= = fywaw/jlyw/(Esth 5:2) fwyw* 997
(Gen 8:9)
= +D + + (=) = hnsw/(Cant 5:2) hney 998
+ = (Dan 6:19) htnw/(Ps 90:5) hn* 999
= (=) T sy/(Exod 39:13) hpy 1000
= = + (=) T dtw/(Deut 23:14) dtyw 1001
= = + (=) T yty/(Deut 10:18) wty 1002
= (. . . hrkx+) ata/(Num 24:21) tya 1003
= = (=) (=) (=) (+) rtw/(Ps 11:2) rty 1004
= hrta/(Eccl 1:3) wrty 1005
= rtwt/(Gen 49:4) rtwt 1006
68
Sa'adiah renders: t[wrt.
446 chapter sixteen
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
k
= = (=) byyk ,bak/(Isa 17:11) bak 1007
K + = ([x+) yyk/(Ps 109:16) harnw 1008
= = = +T bkwk/(Amos 5:26) bkwk 1009
= = = = (=) T dbk/(Exod 29:22) dbk 1010
= wbk/(1Sam 3:3) hbky 1011
= = hybak/(1Sam ibid.) hbky 1012
= = = (=) T lbk/(Ps 102:18) lbkb 1013
69
= = ylbk/ytjn/(Ps 149:8) ylbkb* 1014
= lbka ,lbktsa/(1Kings 9:13) 1015
K = [abqa/( Jer 46:4) y[bwkb 1016
= D = (=) (=) (=) T rbka/( Job 15:10) rybk 1017
= rbk/(Isa 28:2) yrybk 1018
= = wbkw/wdklyw/(Gen 1:28) hwbkw* 1019
(Num 21:32)
= + (+) = hwsbka/(Gen ibid.) hwbkw 1020
K = sbk/(2Chron 9:18) bkw 1021
K D = bkw/qjw/(2Chron ibid.) bkw* 1022
(Exod 38:28)
K = bk/(Lev 4:32) bk 1023
= = = (=) T ywknt ,ywtkt hyk/(Isa 43:2) hwkt 1024
70
+ D alykm/hdm/(Isa 40:12) lkw 1025
= D = (=) T lyk ,lak/(Isa ibid.) lkw 1026
K L = = = kbw/za/(Esth 4:16) kbw* 1027
(Exod 12:45)
= = wk/( Job 31:15) wnnwkyw 1028
= = (=) (=) T sak/(Gen 40:13) swk 1029
= = = (=) rwk/(1Kings 8:51) rwk 1030
K = (=) (=) (laykm+) rk/(1Kings 5:2) r k O 1031
K +M + = rk/rmj/(1Kings ibid.) r Ok* 1032
(Ezek 45:11)
= (rks[+) rgm/(Gen 49:5) hytwrkm 1033
= = = (=) (=) T bdk/(Isa 28:15) bzk 1034
K = djg/(Ps 40:11) ytdjk 1035
= DL = = = (=) tljk/(Ezek 23:40) tljk 1036
= = yK'/(Ps 16:8) yk 1037
= ykh/(2Sam 23:19) ykh* 1038
(Nedarim 22b)
= # awyk/(Amos 5:26) wyk 1039
= = (=) = (=) +T syk/(Prov 1:14) syk 1040
K (=) ryk/(Lev 11:35) yryk 1041
= (. . . hrpj+) hrka/(Exod 30:18) rwyk 1042
= = = (=) (=) T blk/(Exod 11:7) blk 1043
69
Cf. Beckers note, on Risla, part A, entry 85.
70
The noun alykm is not found in the rendering of hdm. Probably Dunash
intended to generally compare the notion of measuring with the root lwk such as
wdmyw (Exod 16:18)/wlkw, but it is also possible that he had in mind names of mea-
suring ustensils, e.g. hpya (Deut 25:14) and hrwm (Lev 19:35), which are rendered
atlykm.
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
K = T hwlk ,hylk/(Exod 29:13) twylkh 1044

+K = lalk ,lkt/( Job 1:20) hnylkt 1045
= = (Dan 4:25) alk/(Gen 43:34) lKu* 1046
(=) +FT = (=) h^ylklab/(Lev 6:15) lylk 1047
= lkalk/(1Kings 21:27) wlklkw 1048
(ta[amg+)
K = (gat+) lylka/(Ezek 16:14) lylk 1049
= = hnk/(1Sam 4:19) wtlkw 1050
D,TM, = = 71
lk ,wlk/(Ps 74:6) twplykw 1051
N
= (+) (=) (=) k/( Job 13:23) hmk 1052
N amk (Ps 73:15)/wmk 1053
= = = (=) (=) (=) wmk/(Isa 28:25) Omk'w 1054
= + + = wmky/braw/(Dan 11:43) ynmkmb* 1055
(Deut 19:11)
= = + = ayrmk/ynhk/(Zeph 1:4) yrmkh* 1056
(Gen 47:26)
(=) ramk/(Zeph ibid.) yrmkh 1057
= trmakt/(Hos 11:8) wrmkn 1058
= (Ezra 4:23) whtwnkw/(Isa 45:4) nka 1059
= = (=) T ynka/(Isa ibid.) nka 1060
B = atwnk/td[/(Cant Rabba 1:4) tsnk* 1061
(Exod 12:3)
= tznk/(Eccl 2:8) ytsnk 1062
= D (=) [nka/(Lev 26:41) [nky 1063
= ([xk+) [nk/(Lev ibid.) [nky 1064
72
= D,F + (=) nk/(Gen 1:21) nk 1065
= = (rts+) nk/(Isa 30:20) nky 1066
= ?= = ra^nk/(Gen 4:21) rwnk 1067
= ark/(Gen ibid.) rwnk 1068
= (=) ysrk/(Exod 17:16) sk 1069
= (+) (=) +T ysrk/(1Kings 7:7) ask 1070
= (=) (=) (=) hwsk/(Gen 20:16) twsk 1071
= = (+) +T yska/(Ezek 16:10) skaw 1072
M = atskn/jbz/(Ps 81:4) hskb* 1073
(Exod 34:25) swkt/fjt
= (Prov 7:20) ask/gj/(Ps ibid.) hskb* 1074
+K = (ryka wy+) ask/(Ps ibid.) hskb 1075
= = = (=) (=) hjwskm/(Ps 80:17) hjwsk 1076
= #D,TM = jskt/rmzt/(Isa 32:12) yjwsk* 1077
(Lev 25:4)
= = (Dan 2:35) apsk/(Num 22:18) sk* 1078
= M = = = + apyk/[ls/( Jer 4:29) ypkbw* 1079
(Num 20:8)
= whk/( Jer ibid.) ypkbw 1080
= D,L lpk/( Job 11:6) ylpk 1081
71
Neubauer ("Ul, p. 321) transliterated the Arabic word lk. However, it is
possible that rather lk is meant here, as Ibn Barn actually quotes.
72
Sa'adiah renders by nk only in the context of dgb-nk, such as Num 15:38,
or of qyj, such as Deut 23:1.
448 chapter sixteen
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
= aypwnk/(Ezek 17:7) hnpk* 1082

(TB Shab 60b)
= M = = = anpk/b[r/( Job 8:22) pklw* 1083
(Gen 12:10)
= = + + (=) (=) ^k/(Gen 32:26) k 1084
= = k/(Mic 6:6) ka 1085
(=) (=) rpq/(Gen 6:14) trpkw 1086
+K = = = rapka/(Cant 7:12) yrpkb 1087
= + = ynrpk/twj/(Cant ibid.) yrpkb* 1088
(Num 32:41)
?= T rpgtsa/(Lev 14:31) rpkw 1089
= D r^pk/(Deut 21:8) rpk 1090
K L rpk/(Cant 1:14) rpkh 1091
= (=) bwrk/(Exod 25:20) ybwrkh 1092
= M = = whtlbrkw/(1Chron 15:27) lbrkm* 1093
(Dan 3:21)
= (=) rk/(Ps 7:16) hrk 1094
= + (=) (=) (=) rk/(Lev 19:10) mrkw 1095
= (2=) (1=) (+) a[rk:2 ,[rawk:1/(Lev 1:9) wy[rkw 1096
K =? [wkr/(Gen 49:9) [rk 1097
73
= (=) (?sabrk) sprk/(Esth 1:6) sprk 1098
(=) rk/(Gen 31:34) rkb 1099
= = (=) = (=) hrk/( Jer 51:34) wrEk 1100
= (=) T twsg/(Deut 32:15) tycik 1101
= D = ylyk/twmdrq/(Ps 74:6) lykb* 1102
( Jer 46:22)
= + + (=) (+) btk/( Josh 8:32) btk; 1103
= M + (Dan 5:5) ltk/(Cant 2:9) wnltk* 1104
(=) tk/(Isa 13:12) tkm 1105
(=) wtkm/(Ps 16:1) tkm 1106
= = = = (+) (+) tk/(Num 7:9) tkb 1107
= + = (Mic 5:6) rtkm/ljyy/( Job 36:2) rtk* 1108
L = wtykn/wknyw/(Num 14:45) wtkyw* 1109
(Num 21:6)
l
= (=) T yl/(Ps 60:9) yl 1110
= (+) (=) (=) (=) al/(Deut 16:3) al 1111
= L = (f[+) bal/(Hos 13:5) twbalt 1112
+ = (adwk+) balt/(Hos ibid.) twbalt 1113
= = yalw/[gyw/(19:11 qrb) walyw* 1114
(Deut 25:18)
74
= (=) + (=) (=) (h) wbl/(Isa 30:3) aybl 1115
(=) (=) T bblty ,(lq[+) ^bl/( Job 11:12) bbly 1116
1= D,L = (=) ;([rxy+) fbly:1/(Hos 4:14) fbly 1117
(gr[+) fbtly:2
73
Cf. Becker, 1984, p. 267, note to entry 209.
74
It is unclear whether Ibn Jan only refutes the comparison with wbl, or he
totally refutes the comparison with aybl, hwbl included.
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
= L = (+) T (bwf+) hnbl/(Gen 11:3) ynbel 1118

= (=) (=) T abl/(Lev 24:7) hnwbl 1119
= (=) (=) (=) anbl/(Gen 30:37) hn<b]li 1120
= (=) . . . w^ta+) blm/(Nach 2:14) blm 1121
( bll
= = (+) = T sbly/(Lev 6:3) bly 1122
+ = (=) (=) byhl/( Josh 2:5) bhl 1123
= = atybwhl/bhlh/(Ezek 21:3) tbhl* 1124
( Judg 13:20)
K = (=) (=) ghl/(Eccl 12:2) ghl 1125
Abs
+K (=) yhaltm/(Prov 26:18) hlhltmk 1126
+ = yhlm/y[/(Gen 47:13) hltw* 1127
(Deut 25:18)
= = ([lb+) hl/(Prov 18:8) ymhltmk 1128
(=) whl/(Prov ibid.) ymhltmk 1129
= = (=) + w l/(Isa 48:11) awl 1130
= (=) = zwl/(Gen 30:37) zwl 1131
= (=) = (. . . lawz+) dwl/(Prov 3:32) zwln 1132
= + (+) (=) T jwl/(Isa 30:8) jwl 1133
(=) ywtlm/(Ps 74:14) tywl 1134
= = [wl/(Prov 23:2) [ lO b* 1135
75
(=) = ytl/(Gen 18:6) ywl 1136
76
+ D = = = (esh) jl/(Zeph 1:17) mjulw 1137
(=) (=) (=) (=) hmjlm/( Judg 5:8) j,l; 1138
= = (Dan 2:19) aylyl/(Deut 28:66) hlyl* 1139
= (+) (=) lyl/(Deut ibid.) hlyl 1140
= +D + (+) = T tyl/( Job 4:11) yl 1141
D (=) dymlt/(1Chron 25:8) dymlt 1142
(=) (+) l/(Gen 31:27) hml 1143
= D = = = b[l/(2Chron 36:16) yby[lm 1144
= = b[ltmk/[t[tmk/(ibid.) yby[lm* 1145
(Gen 27:12)
= = = (^d ,by[+) zgal/(Ps 114:1) z[e lO 1146
D (commit adultery) z[l/(ibid.) z[l 1147
77
+ (=) (? ;ra)/( Job 6:3) w[l* 1148
2= D?,L (2=) (1=) tpl:2 ;tptla:1/(Ruth 3:8) tpl;yw 1149
(ywl+)
D? = ltpna (ibid.)/tplyw 1150
= = (+) (=) (=) fql/(Lev 19:9) fqlt 1151
= X qly/( Judg 7:5) q lO y: 1152
= (=) = (=) syql/(Amos 7:1) ql, 1153
= = /ypwf[h/(Deut 11:14) wqlm* 1154
(Gen 31:42) ayyql
75
Alfsi renders ytl and Becker (1984, note to C1, entry 467) assumes that it
should be ytl as attested in Risla.
76
This comparison is already attested in the Rabbinic literature (Exod Rabba,
42:2). Cf. Wechter, 1964, p. 2 and n. 18.
77
Cf. Becker, l.c., B, note to entry 34.
450 chapter sixteen
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
= = ady/ry/(Ps 32:4) ydl* 1155

(Exod 40:22)
= (ydn+) yds/(ibid.) ydl 1156
= = + + + (=) (=) asl/(Prov 18:21) wl 1157
(=) = = slt/(Prov 30:10) lt 1158
m
= + (=) (=) hyam/(Exod 27:9) ham 1159
78
K = (dspa+) sam/( Job 7:5) samy 1160
= = (Ezra 6:12) rgmy/(Ps 89:45) htrgm* 1161
= + (=) (lwf+) ddm/( Job 7:4) ddmw 1162
= = = (Ezra 4:13) hdnm/(Neh 5:4) tD"mil*] 1163
L = rxbla ^dm/(Hab 3:6) ddwmyw 1164
= + + = am/(e.g. Gen 21:29) hm 1165
= = (Dan 4:32) hm/(Exod 32:1) hm* 1166
= = Exod 4:25) atlwhm/(Isa 1:22) lwhm* 1167
(Targ.
= +D = (=) T rham/(Prov 22:29) ryhm 1168
= +D = K(=) T rhm/(Exod 22:16) rhmk 1169
= (=) +T amk/(Gen 19:15) wmkw 1170
= (=) = (=) (+) ^gwmt ,gam/(Exod 15:15) wgmn 1171
(=) = gwm/(Ps 65:11) hnggwmt 1172
= = wm/(Ps 1:4) wmk 1173
= + (=) = (+) tam/(Gen 42:38) tm 1174
= (=) = = (=) gazm ,gzm/(Cant 7:3) gzmh 1175
= (Dan 3:19) hzml/(Deut 32:24) yzm* 1176
= = lzanm/(2Kings 23:5) twlzmlw 1177
(K) = lzanm/( Job 38:32) twrzm 1178
= (=) dsap+) rdm/(Deut 23:3) rzmm 1179
(hbsnla
= +M1 2= = O(=) O (Dan 4:32) ajmy:1/(Ezek 26:9) yjmw* 1180
(Exod 2:12) ajmw/yw:2
D = (ajmw)/yw/(Prov 31:3) twjml* 1181
(Exod 2:12)
(=) akakm/(Prov ibid.) twjml 1182
= + (=) = (=) wjm/(Ps 69:29) wjmy 1183
= = (Ezra 6:11) ajmty/(Isa 25:8) hjmw* 1184
(qtny ,jstmy+)
= T zwjam/(Ps 107:30) zwjm 1185
= zwj/(Ps ibid.) zwjm 1186
= = = (=) (=) ^m/( Job 21:24) jwm 1187
= (=) (=) (ms+) h^kmm/(Ps 66:15) yjm 1188
B (H) fkm/(TB Beiza 32b) yfjwm x 1189
(garsla)
= (=) = tqjm/( Judg 5:26) hqjm 1190
= lwfm/am/( Job 40:18) lyfmk* 1191
(Num 4:15)
= + (+) (=) (=) rfm/(Deut 11:17) rfm 1192
= + (+) (=) am/(Gen 1:6) ym 1193
78
For lgm cf. lgn and for gm cf. ng.
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
D (=) 79
^m/(Isa 16:4) mh 1194
80
= = (=) skm/(Num 31:28) skm 1195
= + (+) (=) T alm/(Exod 40:34) alm 1196
(=) (hspn) htalm/(Esth 7:5 wbl) walm 1197
(htrma+)
B = glm/(TB Beiza 34a) yglwm x 1198
= + + + = (=) jlm/(Gen 19:26) jlm 1199
= = (Ezra 4:14) jlm/(Lev 2:13) jlm* 1200
M = (Ezra ibid.) jlm/(Ps 107:34) hjlml* 1201
K = T (mj tbn+) ja^lm/( Job 30:4) jwlm 1202
jwlm
= (^yz ,^fn+) jlm/(Exod 30:35) jlmum 1203
81
= (=) + (ytwn+) jalm/(Ezek 27:15) hyjlmw 1204
+ = (dlw+) flm/(Isa 66:7) hfylmhw 1205
= (=) = (yf+) falm/( Jer 43:9) flmb 1206
(=) T (property=) lmu/(Gen 33:14) hkalmh 1207
+ + + (=) (=) lm/(Gen 14:1) lm 1208
= (Dan 2:11) hklm/(e.g. ibid.) lm* 1209
= 1M 1= = = yklm:1/(Neh 5:7 ;ybl) leM;yw* 1210
+2D nyklma/x[ya :1/ ;(Dan 4:24)
(Exod 18:19)
= (yklm)/twx[/(Prov 31:3) yklm* 1211
(Deut 32:28)
= = (Dan 7:8) llmm/(Gen 21:7) llm* 1212
82
(Deut 22:14) ylm/yrbd/
= F + + = (=) m/(Gen 8:2) mi 1213
+ = (Dan 2:47) m/(Gen 7:8) mi* 1214
= D (Dan 3:15) m'/(Exod 16:15) m;* 1215
= (=) m/(Exod ibid.) m; 1216
= (Dan 3:12) tynm/(Ps 61:8) m'* 1217
1+M 2= 1= tynm:1/(2Chron 9:29) ynmum*
(Deut 20:9) wnmy/wdqpw:2 (Dan ibid.)
= +M = (Dan 5:25) anm/(Num 23:10) hn:m*; 1218
83
= = hjnm/(Num 16:15) tjnm 1219
= + (+) = (+) w[nmt/(Prov 3:27) [nmt 1220
(=) (=) +T (abwd+) ysamt/( Josh 14:8) wysmh 1221
(+) ? T gzm/(Isa 19:14) sm 1222
84
(=) +D = = hnksm/(Deut 8:9) tWnksmb 1223
+ = anyksm/wyba/(Deut ibid.) tWnksmb* 1224
(Deut 15:4)
79
According to Ratzabi (1966, p. 278), MS A (Alsheikh, San'a) to "Ul reads
mla which corrects the comparison to m/m.
80
For tlkm cf. lka and for hytwrkm cf. rwk.
81
Alfsi relates this noun with jlm in its usual meaning (salt), and so jlmm.
82
In fact Alfsi uses here the general expression rwbd, but according to his sug-
gestion ylm from the Targum, yrbd suggests itself.
83
For lnm cf. hln.
84
Becker, ibid., notes in entry C1, 256 (twnksmb Deut 8:15) that Ibn Barn com-
pares with Arabic. In fact this entry did not survive in Muwzana. What Ibn Barn
really compares is twnksm (Exod 1:11) in a dierent meaning (living, dwelling) from
a dierent root, ks.
452 chapter sixteen
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
+D (=) (=) +T (bwd+) ysamt/( Josh 7:5) sM'yIw" 1125

= = yrysm/ynwtn (Num 31:5) rsml* 1126
(Num 3:9)
= rsmml/tt/(Num 31:5) Wrs]M;YIw*"
85
(Num 2:31)
= +D = = tsm/ydE/(Deut 16:10) tS'm*i 1227
(ibid. 15:8)
= (=) (=) = (+) a[m(a)/( Jer 4:19) y[m 1228
= D+ (=) (=) = (+) w[mm/(Lev 22:24) w[mw 1229
K L = daxm/(1Chron 11:7) dxm] 1230
K = daxm/(2Sam 23:14) hdwxm]
86
(=) = T w^xmy/(Ps 75:9) wxm]yI 1231
(=) A,B,Y hyxmt ,axmty/(Lev 5::9) hx,M;yI
AbS
= (=) = ^m/(Isa 66:11) Wx Omt; 1232
= (dwdj+) raxma/(Lam 1:3) yrxmh 1233
= (+H) = (=) (=) (grwn+:G) ,grwm/(Isa 41:15) grwm 1234
+K = ygyrwmb/wrjb (Isa ibid.) grwm 1235
(Isa 28:27)
= = drm/(Ezek 17:15) drmyw 1236
= D = wkrmy/(Isa 38:21) wjrmyw 1237
(=) jwra/(Lev 21:20) jwrm] 1238
= D = far^ma ,frm/(Lev 14:40) frmy 1239
= twrm/(2Kings 14:26) hr, Om* 1240
(cf. Targ. Ezek 16:9)
= D (=) = = qrm/( Judg 6:20)/qr;M;h' 1241
= (=) = (+) rm/(Isa 38:17) rm 1242
= (=) = T (^rjt+) rmrmt/(Dan 8:7) rmrmtyw 1243
K (=) = T h^rm ,rarm/( Job 16:13) ytrrem] 1244
L ara/( Jer 31:20) yrwrmt 1245
= + (+) = (=) jsm/(Num 35:25) jm 1246
= +D (+) (+) = +T ltm/(1Kings 5:2) lm 1247
D = tw[y[/tqlj/(Ezek 16:4) y[ml* 1248
(Gen 27:16)
L = (^fn+) [m/(Ezek ibid.) y[ml 1249
= (=) = ^sm/(Gen 27:12) ynmy 1250
= tjt/(Gen 44:2) tjtma 1251
= = jtm/(Isa 40:22) jtmyw* 1252
(cf. Targ. Lam 2:4)
= L (=) T (^dm+) jtm/(ibid.) jtmyw 1253
= +D (=) T ytm/(Gen 30:30) ytm 1254
= + = tm/(Deut 33:11) yntm 1255
n
= D = (=) y^ n/(Exod 12:9) an 1256
= yhn ,hwhn ,hahn/(Exod ibid.) an 1257
= = amy^yn ,an/(Num 24:3) an 1258
85
Cf. Ben Hayyim, 1958, p. 244.
86
For dxm cf. dwx.
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
B (=) hqan/(Shab 5:1) hq;n: x 1259

= (haybn:K) aybn/(Gen 20:7) aybn* 1260
(Ezra 5:1)
= = (=) = (=) ybn/(Gen ibid.) aybn 1261
= L = = (=) T jbn/(Isa 56:10) jbnl 1262
= = jbn/(Isa ibid.) jbnl* 1263
(Aram. e.g. Exod 11:7)
= lbant ,lbn/(Ps 14:1) lb;n: 1264
K = +T hlybn/(Deut 21:23) hlben 1265
= = K(=) = T [ban/(Prov 18:4) [bwn 1266
= (=) (=) T (y[+) [wbny/(Isa 49:10) y[wbm 1267
= +M + = wbwgn/wbrj/(Exod 27:9) bgn* 1268
(Gen 8:13)
K = T bwng/(Exod ibid.) bgn 1269
= H,L wdwgn/wkm/(2Sam 6:21) dygn* 1270
(Exod 12:21)
= (abrq) yjygm/(Exod 21:28) jG"y*I 1271
(e.g. Targ. Exod 17:8)
+ = algm/mrj/( Joel 4:13) lgm* 1272
(Deut 16:9)
= = = (=) = lgnm/( Joel ibid.) lgm 1273
?= tamgn/(Ps 4:1) twnygnb 1274
(=) = ^rg/( Jer 18:21) rEGIh'w 1275
(=) yrg/(2Sam 14:4) yrg:nIh 1276
+B (=) ra^gn/(Tos. BK 10:8) rG:nx" 1277
= = (Dan 6:19) tdn/(Gen 31:40) dD"Tiw*" 1278
K = atynwdn/(Ezek 16:33) hd<n*E 1279
(TB Ketub 54a)
FT + T ajda/(Deut 13:11) jydhl 1280
= = (Dan 7:15) hndn/(1Chron 21:27) hndn* 1281
M (Dan 6:19) tdn/(1Chron ibid.) hndn* 1282
K = atynwdn/(Ezek 16:33) yInd" n* 1283
(TB Ketub 54a)
87
K = (+) = (=) rdnt/(Num 30:4) rdt 1284
= (+) = (ls+) 88 ghna/(Gen 31:18) ghnyw 1285
+K = (=) yhtna/(2Sam 7:2) whnyw 1286
= ( Jer 3:17) whntyw/wwqnw/(ibid.) whnyw* 1287
= K = lhny/(Isa 40:11) lhny 1288
= (+) = (+) hn/(Isa 5:30) hnyw 1289
= = (=) (=) T qhny/( Job 6:5) qhnyh 1290
= = (Dan 7:10) rhn/( Jer 2:18) rhn* 1291
= = (+) rhn/( Jer ibid.) rhn 1292
= 1+M 2= 1= (Dan 2:22) arwhnw:1/(Ps 34:6) wrhnw* 1293
(1Sam 14:27) arhnw/hnratw:2
= = anryhn/( Jer 31:11) wrhnw* 1294
( ^l^mat ,rfn+) (TB Rosh 34b)
(=) (+) ryanm/( Judg 6:2) twrhnmh 1295
= bwn/(Mal 1:12) wbynw 1296
87
Blau (1965, p. 166) notes that this word is a Hebraism in Arabic.
88
See previous note.
454 chapter sixteen
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
= = (=) (hlwgla rarp+) dyan/(Gen 4:12) dn:w 1297

= hh^wna/(Exod 15:2) whw"na'w 1298
= = (q^l[+) fwn/(Ps 99:1) fwnt 1299
= D = (=) T an/(Ps 121:4) wny 1300
= (sby+) ^sn/(Deut 34:7) sn: 1301
+ (=) (+) (barfxa+) [n[nt/(Isa 24:20) [wnt 1302
= hpwnt/(Exod 29:24) hpwnt 1303
D an/(Isa 30:25) hpnhl 1304
= (sby+) ^sn/(Eccl 12:5) anyw 1305
= = rwn/(Exod 27:20) rnE 1306
89
(=) = T hranm/(Exod 25:31) tr Onm] 1307
= M (Ezra 4:15) tqznhmw/(Esth 7:4) qznb* 1308
M wrwz/wrws/(Lev 15:31) trz"hiw* 1309
(Gen 19:20)
= = (+) (+) ljn( Josh 14:1) wljn: 1310
B (=) ljn/(BK 10:2) lyjn x 1311
90
= (=) = +T hyrknm ,hrykn/( Job 39:20) /rj]n" 1312
= = (bad luck) sjn/(Num 23:23) j'n" 1313
(=) s^jnt/(Num ibid.) jn 1314
(seek knowledge)
= + (=) (=) sajn/(Gen 4:22) tjn 1315
= + 1= + 1= twj/dr:1(Ps 65:11) tjn* 1316
(Dan 5:20) tjnh:2/(Exod 19:24)
= = (Dan 7:4) tlyfnw/(Isa 63:9) lfnyw* 1317
= (=) (alys ,rfq+) apfn/(Cant 5:5) wpfn 1318
= = (hfrq ,wlwl+) hpfn/(Isa 3:19) twpyfnh 1319
= 2= 1= /(Dan 7:28) trfn:1 (Cant 1:6) hrfe On* 1320
(Gen 26:5) rfnw/rmyw:2
91
= = (=) hrwfan/(Cant ibid.) hrfn 1321
= rnml/rjlw/( Jer 4:3) wryn* 1322
(1Sam 8:12)
K = = (=) ryn/(Prov 13:23) ryn 1323
L = ryn/l[/(1Kings 11:36) ryn* 1324
(Deut 28:48)
= L = (. . . hbk+) ryn/(1Kings ibid.) ryn 1325
(AbS) hrwanm/(1Sam 17:7) rwnmk 1326
= (=) ([xawtm+) ykan/(Isa 66:2) hknw 1327
= = (Ezra 7:26) yskn/( Josh 22:8) ysknb* 1328
= L = = +T hrkntm/(1Kings 14:6) hrKen"t]mi 1329
= = = hlanm/( Job 15:29) l;nmi 1330
= = lyn/(Isa 33:1) ;t] OlnK'
= = = (=) (=) hlmn/(Prov 6:6) hlmn 1331
= (=) = (=) (=) rmn/( Jer 5:6) rmen: 1332
92
= = = (Ezra 6:11) jsnty/(Prov 15:25) jsy* 1333
= (=) (=) (+) l[n/(Exod 3:5) yl[n 1334
(+) (=) (+) (+) hm[nm/(Isa 17:10) ynm[n 1335
89
For jzn cf. jjz; for twlzm cf. lzm and for twrzm cf. rzm.
90
For rjn cf. rrj.
91
For byn cf. bwn.
92
For sn cf. swn and for qsn cf. qls.
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
= = ygn/(Ps 81:3) y[n 1336

K = [n/(Isa 55:13) wx[n 1337
= = = (jax+) r[n/( Jer 51:38) wr[n: 1338
= (+) (=) T pn/(Gen 2:7) jpyw 1339
(=) fpn/(Shab 2:2) fpnE x 1340
+ + (=) + pn/(1Kings 5:23) ytxpnw 1341
= +FT (+) (+) + = T spn/(Gen 1:20) pn 1342
(=) (=) (+) (jartsa+) s^pnt/(Exod 31:17) pn:yw 1343
= (=) = = baxn/( Judg 3:22) bX;NIh' 1344
(=) (+) T hbxn/(Gen 19:26 ;jlm) byxn 1345
= = (Dan 6:4) jxntm/(Ezra 3:9) txnl* 1346
= (=2) 1= jxntsy:2 ;hjxn:1/(Isa 63:3) jxn 1347
= = l^xnt/(Gen 31:9) lXeY"w" 1348
= M (Dan 6:28) lxmw/(Amos 3:12) lyxy* 1349
= (=) = bqny/( Job 40:24) bqny 1350
= (sab) bqn/(Num 1:17 ;twmb) wbqn 1351
= L = = dqn ,daqn/(2Kings 3:4) dqe On 1352
= ?= ?= T f^qnm/(Gen 30:32) d Oqn: 1353
= = (=) T tfnq/( Job; 10:1) hfqn 1354
= (=) T yqn/(Ps 24:4) yqn 1355
= (=) (lxatsa+) y^qn/( Jer 30:11) hqnw 1356
= + (=) (=) qtna ,qn/(Gen 4:24) qy 1357
= = qm/bybs/(2Kings 11:8) tpqhw* 1358
(Lev 25:31)
= apyqnd/hpwr[h/(Isa 29:1) wpqny* 1359
(Deut 21:6)
+L = (rsk+) qn/(Isa ibid.) wpqny 1360
= (=) (=) (=) (rpj ,[lq+) rqn/(1Sam 11:2) rwqnb 1361
= = + (Dan 5:6) qn/(Bekhorot 7:6) yqh*x 1362
= tqnw/[qttw/(Ps 9:7) q On* 1363
( Judg 4:21)
# (Dan 5:6) qn/(Ps ibid.) q On 1364
+K = dran/(Cant 4:14) drn 1365
= M (Ezra 5:15) a/(Ps 32:1) ywn* 1366
= yn/jk(Ps 55:16) twmyy 1367
= (+) (=) = T ynasna/(Gen 41:51) ynI'nO " 1368
= = (=) T ysnla ,ysnala/(Gen 32:33) hnh 1369
N an (Ps 74:3)/twaVm 1370
K (=) (credit) hyysn/(Deut 24:11) h,t O ' 1371
93
N asnm (Ps 88:13)/hyn
= = lny/(Deut 7:1) l'n:w 1372
= (=) ^lsy/(Deut ibid.) lnw 1373
= (+) + = (=) hmsn/(Deut 20:6) hmn 1374
(=) a^sn/(Lev 11:17) wny 1375
= = (TB Ber. 3b) ypn/( Job 3:19) wpn* 1376
(=) ^wt/(Isa 21:4) n 1377
= = qstna ,qsn/(Ps 85:11) wqn 1378
= ^fxt/(Ezek 3:13) twqym 1379
93
For yn cf. rna.
456 chapter sixteen
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
= = + (=) (=) rsn/(Deut 14:12) rnh 1380

B (=) rttna/(Eduyot 5:6) r'nx: 1381
= = (=) = ranm/(1Sam 10:15) rwmh 1382
K = (ibid. 18) anwtn/(Ezra 4:7) wtnh* 1383
K = tn/(Lev 1:12) jtnw 1384
= = = (bdg+) qtn/(Lev 22:24) qwtnw 1385
M = = (Dan 4:11) wrT'a/ ' ( Job 37:1) rtyw* 1386
(=) (=) wrttna/( Job ibid.) rtyw 1387
= r^twt/(Lev 11:21) rtnl 1388
K = (=) (=) (w)rfn/( Jer 2:22) rt,n< 1389
= + = = tn/(Deut 29:27) tyw 1390
s
= hysaws ,aws/(Isa 27:8) hasasb 1391
#L = a/(Isa 9:4) as 1392
= +D = = ybs/(Deut 21:20) abwsw 1393
= (ywr+) bas/(Isa 56:12) habsnw 1394
= = (rmkla yrta+) abs/(Isa ibid.) habsnw 1395
= = (=) bbs/(1Sam 22:22) yt OBs 1396
= = (=) (=) (b^[t+) ab/(Gen 22:13) bsb 1397
= = (Ezra 6:3) ylbwsmi/(Exod 6:6) t lO bs* 1398
= +M 2= = /(Dan 3:12) ydgs:1/(Isa 44:17) dgsy* 1399
(Gen 23:7) wdygsw/wwjtyw:2
= D = = = dgs/(Isa ibid.) dgsy 1400
= +M = = (Dan 3:2) ayngs/(Isa 41:25) yngs* 1401
= +M,F + (Dan 6:23) rgsw/( Josh 6:1) trgs* 1402
= H = = (=) rwgas/(Ezek 19:9) rgwsb 1403
= dy/( Job 13:27) rsb 1404
= = + = yrds/twkr[m/( Job 10:22) yrds* 1405
(Lev 24:6)
K M + = = arhs/jryhw/(Cant 7:3) rhsh* 1406
(Gen 37:9)
= = rwhasla/(Cant ibid.) rhsh 1407
= = (=) (=) = T (^ds+) hg^ysm/(Cant 7:3) hgws 1408
= T (lym+) gyz/(Ps 44:19) gwsn 1409
K = daws/(Prov 11:13) d/s 1410
(=) hka/(Makhsh 1:3) hk;/s x 1411
= aws ,asa/( Jer 8:13) pysa 1412
= rys ,rysa/(Exod 3:3) hrwsa 1413
= yrs/(Gen 38:14) rstw 1414
(=) hwsk/(Gen 49:11) h Otws 1415
= = = (^rg+) bjs/(2Sam 17:13) wnbjsw 1416
M (Ezra 6:11) jsnty/(Ezek 26:4) ytyjsw* 1417
= L = = (drg ,rq+) wjs/(Ezek ibid.) ytyjsw 1418
+L = = (drg ,yb bhd+) js/(Prov 28:3) js 1419
+ = rwjs/bybs/(Ps 91:4) hrje Osw* 1420
(Ezek 8:10)
K + = rwjs/bybs/(Ps 38:11) rjrjs* 1421
(Ezek ibid.)
B (=) ys/(Shab. 6:4) ys x 1422
= (TB BB 166b) sym/(Ps 42:8) sb* 1423
= wks/( Job 34:9) ksy 1424
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
K = kasm/(Exod 1:11) t/nksmi 1425

= (tml[+) tnkz/(Ps 139:3) tnksh 1426
D + X(=) ks/(Eccl 10:9) kS;yI 1427
= + = (+dads) rks/(Ps 63:12) rksy 1428
= (alm+) rgs/(Ps ibid.) rksy 1429
= = yktsa/hpyqh/(Deut 27:9) tksh* 1430
(ibid. 26:15)
= = = (gxa+) tksa/(Deut ibid.) tksh 1431
X (=) als/(Ezek 28:24) wlsi 1432
= = = T lals ,h^ls/(Gen 40:17) lsbw 1433
(=) h^lsm/(Ezek 21:27) hll Os 1434
= = = XZ (=) ^ls/(Gen 28:12) ls 1435
(=)
AbS
= (. . . japx+) [alx/(Num 20:10) [lsh 1436
= = (lbg yp ^q+) [ls/(Ps 104:18) y[ls 1437
= 1M 1= 1= 2= (Dan 6:24) hqsghl:1/(Ps 139:8)/qS'a*, 1438
(Gen 44:34) qsa/hl[a:2/
X, T rdnms/(Cant 2:15) rdms 1439
AbS
= D = ([pr+) ms/(Cant 2:5) ynwkms 1440
= + + (=) (+) rymasm/(1Chron 22:3) yrmsml 1441
= = (=) yns/(Exod 3:2) hnsh 1442
K = sans/(Cant 7:9) wynysnsb 1443
= L = (=) K(=) (=) sws ,sas/(Isa 51:8) ss; 1444
= = (=) d[sy/(Ps 20:3) d[sy 1445
= D + axga+) hp[s/(Isa 27:10) hypy[s 1446
(hlkn
= = (TB Pes 3b) wps/( Judg 19:19) awpsm* 1447
K + (=) T (wxrqna+) wpasna/(Ps 73:19) wps 1448
K = ajyps/(Ezek 13:21) kytwjpsm 1449
= AZ = lps/( Judg 6:38) lpsh 1450
(=)
AbS
= = = = hnyps/( Jon 1:5) hnyps 1451
94
?D = = = T qpx/(Num 24:10) qpsyw 1452
= ?D (=) (=) T qps/(Num ibid.) qpsyw 1453
= M+ = (Ezra 4:15) rp's/
] (Neh 8:1) rpse* 1454
= D + = T rps/(Deut 31:26) rpse 1455
+K = rps (Ezra 7:12)/(Gen 15:5) r OpsW* 1456
(yxaj+)
= swrypas/(Exod 28:18) ryps 1457
= M,D + = ybrsm/yrmm/(Ezek 2:6) ybr;s*; 1458
L, (Deut 9:7)
= = ynjrws/yafj/( Jer 49:7) hjrsn* 1459
(Gen 41:9)
94
Sa'adiahs Tafsr has a variant reading. The Drenbourgs ed. reads qpx while
the Tj reads qps.
458 chapter sixteen
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
L = yrsn/(1Kings 7:30) ynrs* 1460

= = syrs/(Isa 56:3) syrs 1461
= D = (=) (=) = T (awt+ :wrb) at/(Cant 2:11) wt;sh 1462
= = = awts/rj/(Cant ibid.) wtsh* 1463
(Gen 8:22)
= + + (=) +T (hnayx+) rts (Ps 17:8) ynrytst 1464
[
= + + (=) T db[/(Gen 9:25) db[ 1465
= = (+) + T hdab[/(Exod 10:8 ,h ta) wdb[ 1466
= +F + = wdb[/w[yw/(Eccl 9:1) hydb[w* 1467
(Exod 12:28)
= (wmjdzy+) wfbky/( Joel 2:7) wfb[y 1468
= D+, + + (+) = +T rb[/(Gen 33:3) rb[ 1469
+F
+K L = arb[w/jyrbhw/(1Kings 6:21) rb[yw* 1470
(Exod 26:28)
= T hrb[/(Ps 78:49) hrb[, 1471
= (rmkla) htrmg/( Jer 23:9 ;yy) /rb;[} 1472
+ + = arwb[i/lk Oa/( Josh 5:11) rWb[}m*e 1473
(Gen 41:35)
K = (lagbla) tsb[/( Joel 1:17) Wb][; 1474
= L = = (sby+) sb[/( Joel ibid.) wb[ 1475
= (b[l+) tb[/(Mi 7:3) hwtb[yw 1476
= + = (=) (=) T lg[/(Lev 9:2) lg[e 1477
K +F = = (=) (=) +T hlg[/(1Sam 6:7) hl;g:[} 1478
= t^mtga( Job 30:25) hmg[; 1479
= +F = (al) d[/rf/(Prov 8:26) (al) d[* 1480
(Gen 2:5)
K M,D = had[/ll/(Gen 49:27) d[* 1481
(Deut 20:14)
= (Dan 4:14) d[/(Num 21:30) d[* 1482
( l[=)
= T dx[y/(Ps 146:9) ddw[y 1483
= ayd[/tjps/(Isa 64:5) yDI[*i 1484
(Lev 13:2)
M (Dan 4:28) td[/(Isa ibid.) yd[* 1485
= + + = hd[/rs/( Job 28:8) hd[* 1486
= + + = (Dan 2:21) ad[hm/(Prov 25:20) hd[m*
= = ad[/( Job ibid.) hd[ 1487
K = (speed) adg/(Ezek 16, 7) yd[ yd[b 1488
= (raxja+) wd[/(Ps 32:9) wyd[, 1489
= (=) wrd[y/(Isa 7:25) wrd[y 1490
= = = (=) = T sd[/(Gen 25:34) yd[ 1491
= (bajs+) bwb[y/(Exod 19:9) b[b 1492
= hg[/(1Kings 19:6) tgw[ 1493
= g[/(Ezek 4:12) hngw[t 1494
= = (hyntt+) dw[/(Gen 8:21) dw[ 1495
= wt[ ,at[/(Esth 1:16) htw[ 1496
= = lwk ,(rwg ,lym+)/(Lev 19:15) lw<[; 1497
(=) (?lyay[) lylay[/(Gen 33:13) twl[; 1498
K = = (rar+) yngm/( Jer 9:10) w[m 1499
= (lznm+) a[m/( Jer ibid.) w[m 1500
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
H = m hlps+) agwg/(Isa 19:14) y[w[i 1501

95
(sanla
= y[t/tlpkw/(Zech 5:1) hp[* 1502
(Exod 26:9)
= = a[ ,w[/(Gen 1:21) w[ 1503
= = aq[/hrx/(Ps 55:90) tq[* 1504
(1Sam 26:24)
= qy[t/(Ps ibid.) tq[ 1505
L r[n/(Zech 2:17) rw[n 1506
= = +T rw[ ,rw[a/(2Kings 25:7) rw[ 1507
L = = (. . . [bta+) tg/(Isa 50:4) tw[l 1508
= = T (hblx ra+zaz[/(Lev 16:8) lzaz[ 1509
= = bz[/(Gen 24:24) bz[ 1510
= = + (+) + +T z[/( Judg 6:2) z[tw 1511
= zn[/(Deut 14:12) hynz[ 1512
= D,(L) = (=) = = T hqz[/(Isa 5:2) whqz[yw 1513
+D + = rz[/(2Sam 21:17) rwz[yw 1514
M,D (Dan 2:14) af[/(Ezek 21:20) hfw[m* 1515
= = (=) af[a ,fa[m/( Job 21:24) wynyf[ 1516
+ = (=) ^f[t ,af[/(Isa 3:22) twpf[mh 1517
(=) f[nm/(Gen 30:42) yf[hbw 1518
(=) (+) f[tsa/(Ps 102:1) f[y 1519
= (=) (lym+) f[/(Isa 57:16) f[y 1520
+ = wrf[/wrs/(1Sam 23:26) yrf] O[* 1521
(1Kings 22:44)
= (=) = = T saf[/( Job 41:10) wytyf[ 1522
M,D (Dan 2:14) af[/(Isa 46:11) fy[* 1523
= = yg/(Isa 11:15) y[b 1524
= FT,L = = = (=) T y[/(Exod 21:24) y[ 1525
= + (=) = T y[m y[/(Gen 16:7) (ymh) y[ 1526
(Cant 4:15)
= (=) (=) = T y[ ,y[m/
= (=) ry[/( Job 11:12) ryI['w 1527
= = = (=) T (tw)bkn[l/(Isa 59:5)/ybk[ 1528
= (G) T ska[ ,sak[/(Prov 7:22) sk[kw 1529
= (. . . hd[r+) zl[/( Jer 51:39) wzwl[y 1530
= (=) T yl[/(Lev 1:8) l[' 1531
= F (e.g. Dan 3:15) l[/(cf. Lev ibid.) l[* 1532
= (hgw) yl[/(Num 3:4 ;ynp) l[
(in the lifetime of )
= (=) T ([aptra+) wl[/(Deut 28:1) wyl[ 1533
(+) (=) hyl[/(2Kings 4:10 ;ryq) tyl[ 1534
= = wl[la m/(Prov 27:22) yl[b 1535
= = lg/(Deut 28:48) l [O 1536
= (Dan 5:10) tll[/(Ps 12:7) lyl[b* 1537
K D /(Dan 6:5) l[/( Job 16:15) ytllw[w* 1538
(Exod 12:25) wl[yt/wabt
= ([aptra+) tyl[/(ibid.) ytllw[w 1539
= (eradicate) talal[/(Isa 17:6) twllw[ 1540
95
R. Hai Ga"ons comparison is adduced by Ibn Barn.
460 chapter sixteen
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
(=) M = (Dan 6:5) hl[i/(Deut 22:14) twlyl[* 1541

FT T ll[/(Deut ibid.) twlyl[ 1542
= ,whl+) l^l[t/( Judg 19:25) wll[tyw 1543
(jakn
= = (Dan 7:18) aml[/(Ps 90:2) lw[* 1544
= (=) +T (+) la[/(Ps ibid.) lw[ 1545
= D (=) (=) alg/(1Sam 17:56) l,[, 1546
K G (eat, drink) sl[/( Job 20:18) sl[y 1547
K F (hyfgt+) ylgt/(Gen 38:14) l[ttw 1548
= (=) hql[m ,hql[/(Prov 30:15) hqwl[l 1549
= = (Dan 3:4) aymm[/(Neh 9:22) ymm[* 1550
= (=) = (y^fg+) w^mgy/(Ezek 28:3) wmm[ 1551
+ = (Lev 13:6) am[/hhk/(Lam 4:1) [wy* 1552
K (=) (lpstm+) qymg/(Lev 13:25) q mO [; 1553
= +D (=) +T hqwm[/(Ezek 23:32) hqm[h 1554
= (+F) (=) T rmg/(Lev 23:15) rm,[ 1555
= = (=) = T bn[/(Deut 32:14) bn[e 1556
= D hn[/(Hab 2:11) hnn[y* 1557
= = = (=) = +T zn[/(Lev 3:12) z[ 1558
(=) (=) (=) hyan[ ,yn[m/(Eccl 1:13) yn[ 1559
(=) hyn[m/(Ps 129:3) tyn[m 1560
= = (d[q+) yn[a/(Hos 2:23) hn[t 1561
= (tbn+) yn[/(Hos ibid.) hn[t 1562
= + (=) ^yng/(Exod 15:21) [tw 1563
= = (Dan 4:24) yn:[/(Exod 22:22) hn[t]* 1564
+K T hnan[/( Job 37:15) wnn[ 1565
L ?= T amg/(Gen 9:14) n[ 1566
= = (Dan 4:9) yhwpn[bw/(Lev 23:40) n[* 1567
= = tn[a/(Prov 17:26) wn[ 1568
= M = = (Dan 4:9) hyp[/(Ps 104:12) yap[* 1569
= (F) XZ+ T rpg/(Cant 2:9) rp, O[l] 1570
= = rp[t/(2Sam 16:13) rp[w 1571
M = (Dan 6:21) byx[/(Gen 3:17) wbx[b* 1572
= hbw[x/(Gen 3:16) bx[b 1573
= L bx[ (bx[)/( Job 10:8) ynwbx[ 1574
= (?=) = T [x[/(Lev 3:9) hx,[,h, 1575
(?=) T (ag :Saadiah) ^g/(Prov 16:30) hxw[ 1576
= = (=) = T f[/(Gen 2:23) x[ 1577
= +FT = (=) = T f[/(Gen 26:16) tmx[ 1578
= (hmaf[ rsk+) hm^f[/( Jer 50:17) /mx][i 1579
(?=) T kmwxk/(Isa 41:21) kytwmx[ 1580
= (?=) mg/(Isa 33:15) x, O[w 1581
= T ^g/(Isa ibid.) x, O[w 1582
= = (=) T (. . b[x+) hbq[/(Isa 40:4) b Oq[h 1583
= (=) T ynb^q[t ,hbwq[/(Gen 27:36) ynbq[yw 1584
= + (=) K(=) + T bq[/(Gen 25:26) bq[b 1585
= hbqa[m/(Ps 41:10) bq[ 1586
= L (ws=) bq[/( Josh 8:13) /bq[ 1587
= D = = dq[/(Gen 22:9) d Oq[yw 1588
(=) K(=) dq[/(2Kings 10:12) dq[ 1589
K = (swytla m) dq[a/(Gen 30:40) dwq[ 1590
(=) = hwq[/(Deut 22:8) hq[m 1591
+ = (. . gw[a+) lwqa[/(Hab 1:4) lq[m 1592
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
K D = (=) (=) T rqa[/(Deut 7:14) hrq[ 1593

= bqr[/(Gen 49:6) WrQ][ 1594
= = rq[/( Josh 11:6) rq[t 1595
= M (Dan 7:8) wrq[ta/(Zeph 2:4) rq[t* 1596
= = = (Dan 4:12) rQ'[/
i (Lev 25:47) rq,[el* 1597
= rq[/(Lev ibid.) rq[l 1598
= + (=) T brq[/(Deut 8:15) brq[w 1599
= q[tm/(Deut 32:5) Qe[i 1600
K M = (Dan 4:16) yr;[l/(1Sam 28:16) ;r,[*,; 1601
K + (=) br[/(Ezek 27:21) br'[} 1602
= M,F = = ybr[tm/(Ps 106:35) wbr[tyw* 1603
(Dan 2:43)
= +F,+D + (=) (=) +T bwrg/(Ps 55:18) br[, 1604
= (F) = (=) (=) T brg (Lev 23:40 ;ljn) yber]['w 1605
96
(axpx+)
= F,+D = = (=) T barg/(Lev 11:15) bre O[ 1606
= hprg/(Ps 68:5) twbr[b 1607
= (sjla yp) byrg/(Cant 2:14) bre[; 1608
= = wbr[ ,abr[/(Gen 38:17) wbr[ 1609
= M1 = = aydr[:1/( Job 39:5) dwr[* 1610
(cf. Jer 2:24) dr[/arp:2/(Dan 5:21)
= = = (+) = T ar[/(Lev 20:18) hr[h 1611
= T hrw[/(Gen 9:23) hwr[ 1612
+K (=) hwr[/(Gen ibid.) hwr[ 1613
= (Ezra 4:14) twr[w/(Gen ibid.) hwr[* 1614
= = = hkr[m/(1Sam 17:20) hkr[m 1615
= = (=) lrga/(Gen 17:14) lr[w 1616
= +T ayr[/(Ezek 16:6) wr[ 1617
= (F) = = = = T tmr[t/(Exod 15:8) wmr[n 1618
= lkn+) rm[/(Ezek 31:8) ynwmr[w 1619
(rksla
= = amr[/(Gen 30:37) wmr[w 1620
= ahpar[a/(Isa 5:30) hypyr[b 1621
= a[r/(Deut 32:2) wr[y 1622
= = r[/( Josh 7:12) r, O[ 1623
+M,+D = = qr[w/snyw/( Job 30:3) yqr[h* 1624
(Exod 4:4)
D = (=) = = T qwr[/( Job 30:17) yq'r] O[w 1625
(=) ayar[/(Lev 20:20) yryr[ 1626
= L = = r[r[/( Jer 17:6) r[r[k 1627
= ra[t/(Ps 102:18) r[r[h 1628
K (F) T hragm/(Gen 23:9) tr[m 1629
= = = asr[/hfm/(Deut 3:11) r[* 1630
(2Kings 4:10)
= D = = r[/(Deut ibid.) r[ 1631
= /(Dan 4:12) ab[/(Deut 11:15) b[* 1632
= = = T b[/(Deut ibid.) b[ 1633
= D + at[/(2Sam 22:9) [ 1634
96
Drenbourg reads here br[.
462 chapter sixteen
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
= (F) + (+) (=) + T r[/(Num 15:4) wr[ 1635

(=) T arw[/(Gen 24:55) r/[
(=) T tad :yra[/(Ps 92:4) rw[/hr[
ratwa hr[
= = (ibid.) artw[/(1Sam 17:25) r O[* 1636
= (tp[x+) t[/(Ps 6:8) h[ 1637
= = = T t[/(Ps ibid.) h[ 1638
(=) (hmlf+) a[/(Ps ibid.) h[ 1639
(=) (rahnla) h^y[/( Job 4:19) [ 1640
= = (=) T ^t[/(Isa 51:8) [ 1641
= T [n tanb/( Job 9:9) [ 1642
= M1 1= 1= /(Dan 6:4) ty[:1/( Jon 1:6) t[ty* 1643
( Jer 11:19) ynwt[/twbjm:2
= = (=) = (d[a+) dt[a/(Prov 24:23) hdt[w 1644
(=) ^d[a/( Job 15:28) dt[th 1645
= = = (=) +T adt[/(Gen 31:10) ydt[h 1646
K #L = (=) = = (lfa+) t[na/(Isa 9:18) t[n 1647
= = = hqyt[/(1Chron 4:22) yqyt[ 1648
(=) (+) hrt[/(Ezek 8:11) rt[w 1649
= (rabg) ryt[/(Ezek ibid.) rt[w 1650
p
= = = (^q ,[fq+) yap/(Deut 32:26) hyapa 1651
= = (=) = ^gp/(Cant 2:13) hygp 1652
= TM, = argp/srh/(1Sam 30:10) wrgp* 1653
D,L (Exod 23:22)
= + (=) (=) + T ydp/(Ps 111:9) twdp 1654
= = andp/hd/(Gen 25:20) dpm* 1655
(Hos 10:10)
+ = andpa/(Dan 11:45) wndpa* 1656
(TB Ber 56a)
K = (+) (rxq+) dp/(Dan ibid.) wndpa 1657
= hrdp/(Lev 1:8) rdph 1658
= + 1= 1T p:2 ,ap:1/(Isa 9:11) hp 1659
= gp/taxb/(Gen 45:26) gpyw* 1660
(1Sam 25:37)
= (content) awjpty/(Prov 14:5) jypy 1661
(=) pny/(Cant 2:17) jwpy:, 1662
= jyp/(Cant ibid.) jwpy 1663
(=) (drf+) pn/(Prov 29:8) wjypy 1664
97
K = T jyp/(Exod 9:10) jyp 1665
98
= = = (=) = lwp/(2Sam 17:28) lwpw 1666
= = (=) T yp/(Prov 5:16) wxwpy 1667
= (=) T qpaw ,qypwt/(Prov 8:35) qpyw 1668
M (Dan 7:10) qpnw/(Prov ibid.) qpyw* 1669
= = arwp trap/(Isa 24:19) hrrwpth 1670
(aylg+)
97
Ibn Jan translates pny.
98
For hnwpa cf. pa.
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
= (rtna ,rhf+) ap/(Mal 3:20) tpw 1671

= wwp/WrP]/(Mal ibid.) tpw* 1672
(Gen 1:22)
(=) D (=) rdb/(Ps 53:6) rzp 1673
= = (q^qt+) trzpt/(Ps 141:7) wrzpn 1674
(=) M = ydjp/a/( Job 40:17) wydjp* 1675
(Lev 21:20)
= = = (=) T dkp/( Job ibid.) wydjp 1676
= M = (Dan 3:2) atwjpw/(Esth 8:9) twjphw* 1677
(?=) yzpjnm/( Judg 9:4) yzjpw 1678
= +D = (+) (=) = +T ^p/(Hos 9:8) jp 1679
= +D (+) = T jp/(Isa 54:16) jp 1680
K = (Dan 3:2) atwjp/(Neh 5:14) jp* 1681
+ = tjp/twrwr[q/(2Sam 17:9) ytij;p]h* 1682
(Lev 14:37)
+ = = rafpna/(Exod 13:2) rfp 1683
= = wrfpta/wjl/(1Chron 9:33) yrwfp* 1684
(Gen 44:3)
= +D (=) (=) syfp/( Jer 23:29) yfpkw 1685
D,M (Dan 6:23) p/( Job 15:27) hmyp* 1686
= +L,D = (. . . rhn+) glp/(Ps 65:10) glp 1687
= M whtglpb/( Judg 5:15) twglpb* 1688
(Ezra 6:18)
= = (tmsqna+) tglpna/(Gen 10:25) hglpn 1689
= = whtglpb/(Gen ibid.) hglpn*
(Gen 14:15)/glptaw/qljy/(Ezra 6:18)
= +D + (2=) 1= jylpt:2 ,hjalp:1/(2Kings 4:39) jlpyw 1690
= = (=2) 2T tlp(a):2 ,flpa:1/(Ps 17:13) hflp' 1691
= = ( Jon 2:11) flpw/aqyw/(Ps 56:8) flp* 1692
= = yklpbw/twpnbw/(Neh 3:9) lp* 1693
( Josh 11:2)
= = alp/(1Sam 21:3) yn lO p 1694
= (=) (lt+) ynp/(Ps 90:9) wnp 1695
= M = = yqwnpt/ynd[m/(Prov 29:21) qnpm* 1696
(Gen 49:20)
= D = qnp/(Prov ibid.) qnpm 1697
= (disdainful) lsp/( Judg 17:3) lsp 1698
K = /(Dan 5:5) sp/(Gen 37:3) ysp* 1699
(2Kings 9:35) tspw/twpkw
= = = (=) (=) T a[pa/(Isa 30:6) h[pa 1700
= +F (+) (=) + T ([nx+) l[p/(Ps 44:4) tl[p 1701
= +D + (=) T (tjtp+) (t)rgp/(Isa 5:14) hr[pw 1702
(+) = p/( Job 35:16) hxpy 1703
K D (=) (l[a+) jxpa/(Isa 54:1) yjxp 1704
= L (=) (. . rsk+) xp/(Mic 3:3) wjxp 1705
= D = lxp/(Gen 30:37) lxpyw 1706
= = = = yxpw/[rqw/(Ps 60:4) htmxp* 1707
( Jer 22:14)
+ D (=) = yxpa:2 ,xp:1/(Ps ibid.) htmxp 1708
= = (trskt+) txpna/(Hab 3:6) wxxwptyw 1709
= = (ynrsk+) ynxp/( Job 16:12) ynxpxpyw 1710
(=) T ynxpn/( Job ibid.) ynxpxpyw 1711
= (+) (=) +T daqtpa/(Exod 3:16) ytdqp 1712
464 chapter sixteen
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
= (=) + (axqn+) dqp/(2Sam 2:30) Wdq]P;yIw" 1713

= = (Lev 24:2) dyqp/wx/(Ezra 1:2) dqp 1714
= D jqp/(2Kings 6:17) jqp 1715
+ = (rfp+) [qp/(2Kings 4:39) tw[wqp 1716
+ = y[qwp/(2Kings ibid.) tw[wqp* 1717
= = arp/(Gen 16:12) arp 1718
= (=) T (lz[na+) drpna/(Prov 18:1) drpn 1719
= (=) (=) = T swdrp/(Cant 4:13) sdrp 1720
= = /twrgm/(2Kings 23:11) yrwrpb* 1721
(Ezek 27:28) ayrwrp
= + = jrpd/nk/(Ezek 13:20) twjrpl* 1722
(Gen 7:14)
= (=) (=) T arp/(Deut 22:6) yjrpa 1723
?= [yrpt/(Ezek 17:24) ytjrph 1724
1= (1=) 2T fwrpm:2 ,frpt:1/(Lev 19:10) frpw 1725
= = /(Dan 5:28) tsyrp/(Isa 58:7) srp* 1726
= (=) (=) T [rp/(Num 6:5) prp 1727
= (=) twgrb/(1Sam 24:15) [rp 1728
K = ([fq+) rp/(Ps 60:3) wntxrp 1729
= = K T (ynxpn+) ynrprp/( Job 16:12) ynrprpyw 1730
= M = = + qrpw/[wyw/(Ps 136:24) wnqrpyw* 1731
(Exod 14:30)
(=) = (=) = qrpm/(Obad 1:14) qrph 1732
= (=) = qrpy/(Zech 11:16) qrpy 1733
= = (=) T trp/(Lev 4:11) /rpiw 1734
(=) (=) trp/( Judg 3:22) hndrph 1735
= D (+) (=) = +T srap/(Nah 3:3) rp 1736
= = (Ezra 4:18) rpm/(Num 9:34) r Op* 1737
= + + = T (rtna ,rhf+) wpy/(Lev 13:35) hpy 1738
= M = = jpw/syw/(Lam 3:11) ynjpyw* 1739
(1Sam 15:33)
K = G(=) ynksp/(Lam ibid.) ynjpyw 1740
(=) = qab/(Prov 13:3) qp 1741
= 1+M = 1= 1= (Dan 5:12) rpm:1/(Eccl 8:1) rp* 1742
(Gen 41:13) rp/rtp:2
(=) = ryspt/(Eccl ibid.) rp 1743
(?=) ytpt/( Job 35:15) pb 1744
= = = gtp/rbd/(Eccl 8:11) gtp* 1745
(Gen 18:14)
= +M G (Ezr 4:17) amgtp/(Eccl ibid.) gtp*
= +D,1M + = (Dan 3:1) hytp:1/(Gen 9:27) tpy"* 1746
(Exod 26:16) aytwp/bj Or:2/
= (+) (+) = T jtpa/(Prov 31:8) jtp] 1747
L (pys) jtpa/(Ezek 21:33) hjwtp (brj)
(=) (=) jatpm/( Judg 3:25) jtpmh
= = lwtpm/(Exod 28:37) lytp 1748
(=) FT = (=) = T ltpnm/(Deut 32:5) ltltpw 1749
(=) D = (=) latpna/(Gen 30:8) ylwtpn
K = (Ezra 4:11) grp/(Esth 3:14) gtp* 1750
( Josh 8:32) grp/hnm
= = ([fq ,rsk+) ^tp/(Prov 24:28) tytphw 1751
= = = ^tp/(Lev 2:6) twtp
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
x
= = lax/( Job 40:21) ylax 1752
99
= D = ax/( Jer 50:6) ax 1753
L + = (Dan 4:29) abxy/(Dan 10:1) abxw* 1754
= ybxtnm/(Isa 29:7) h;yb, Ox 1755
= (=) = T bx/(Lev 11:29) bxhw 1756
= + = = T ybf/(Deut 14:5) ybx 1757
= = aybf/(Deut ibid.) ybx* 1758
= M = (Dan 5:19) abx/(Ezek 7:20) ybxw* 1759
= + = (=) T [bxa/(Lev 14:27) w[bxab 1760
= = (Dan 5:5) [bxaw/(Lev ibid.) w[bxab* 1761
= (F),D (=) (=) tag^bxm/( Judg 5:30) y[bx 1762
= = (ynw[bx)/( Judg ibid.) y[bx* 1763
= (=) gabx/(1Sam 13:18) y[bxh 1764
K D = + = (sdk ;[mg+) rbx/(Exod 8:10) wrbxyw 1765
= = = ahtbx/hyjqlm/(Ruth 2:16) ytbxh* 1766
(Num 4:9)
= +M = (Dan 7:25) dxl/(Deut 31:26) dX'm*i 1767
= dyxt/(Num 35:22) hydIx] 1768
= +M + = = aydx/hmm/(Zeph 3:6) wdX]n*I 1769
(Exod 23:29)
K = qydx/(Exod 9:27) qydxh 1770
= (=) = +T qdx/(Ps 19:10) wqd]x; 1771
= D (=) (=) = T bhxa/(Lev 13:30) b Ohx; 1772
= D (+) (+) = +T (hrm+) lhx/( Jer 5:8) wlhxy 1773
= +D = (+) (=) = T hryhf ,rhf/(Isa 16:2) yrhx 1774
= + (+) (+) = T dx ,rafxa/(Gen 27:3) hdwxw 1775
= (=) hdyxm/(Ezek 12:13) hdwxm 1776
= (?+) (?=) T yxwa/(Gen 28:1) whwxyw 1777
= = (=) = T wjyxy/(Isa 42:11) wjw:xy 1778
= + (=) + T+ yax/(2Sam 12:23) x 1779
2= ?= T :Saadiah:2) ,^f:1/(Deut 11:4) yxh 1780
(afa
?= yp/(Lam 3:54) wpx 1781
= hragj+) tapx/(Ezek 32:6) tp;x; 1782
(hmkx
= + (=) + T qyx/(Deut 28:53) qyxy 1783
= = = T htrwxw/(Ps 49:15) rwxw 1784
= (=) = rywxt/(Ezek 43:11) trwx
= = yjx/ytamx/(Isa 5:13) hjxi* 1785
( Judg 4:19)
K + = jaxjx/(Ezek 24:8) jyjx 1786
K L = jxajx/(Isa 58:11) twjxjxb
(=) = jxwa/(Lam 4:7) wjx 1787
K = (sm+) jx/(Isa 18:4) jx 1788
= wjxjx/wqrm/(Isa 32:4) twjx* 1789
( Jer 46:4)
= (?+) (?=) +T jx/(Gen 21:6) qwjx 1790
99
For axax cf. axy.
466 chapter sixteen
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
(=) yrajx/(Ezek 27:18) rjx 1791

+ = rjxa/(Ezek ibid.) rjx 1792
= L = awxa ,h^wx/( Jer 31:20) ynwyx 1793
= L = = yxyx/rypns/( Jer 48:9) yx* 1794
(Lev 11:9)
K L = yryx/twdy/(Prov 26:14) Hr;yxi* 1795
(Exod 26:17)
K (=) T ryx/(Prov ibid.) hryx 1796
= = yjlxmw/(Gen 39:3) jylxm* 1797
(Ezra 6:14)
= (+) (+) = (jgn+) jalx/(Num 14:41) jlxt 1798
= +M = = jlxw/[qbyw/(2Sam 19:18) wjlxw* 1799
(Gen 22:3)
= = tyjwlx/tnxnx/(2Kings 2:20) tyjwlx* 1800
(Exod 16:33)
= = alx/(Exod 12:8) ylx 1801
= = ylxa/(Isa 44:19) hlxa
= + (=) = +T ^lf/( Judg 9:36) lxe 1802
= (=) (=) (+) tlfa ,tllf/(Neh 13:19) wllx 1803
L (=) (ynf+) lylx/( Judg 7:13) lylx 1804
(=) T hl^lfm/(Isa 18:1) lxlx 1805
= (=) tamlf/( Job 28:3) twmlxw 1806
= (=) twm ^lf/( Job ibid.) twmlxw 1807
= = (Dan 3:19) lxw/(Ps 39:7) lxb* 1808
=1 (L2)D 2= alf:2 lx:1/(Ps ibid.) lxb 1809
= = (Dan ibid.) lxw/(Num 33:52) ymlx* 1810
= T nx/(Num ibid.) ymlx 1811
N hmalx/(Ps 73:20) mlx 1812
= + + (+) = +T [lx/(Ezek 41:6) [l;xe 1813
= +D (=) amf/( Judg 15:18) amxb 1814
J hdmxm/(2Sam 20:8) tdmxm 1815
(=) amf/( Job 5:5) ymx' 1816
(=) (hblx ra+) wamx/( Job ibid.) ymx 1817
(?=) /(ibid. 3:23) twpynx-(Isa 22:18) pnxy 1818
(rwk ,rwd+) yxn
= nx/( Jer 29:26) qnyxh 1819
= = (. . . axqn+) ygx/( Jer 48:12) whw[xw 1820
L = (q^rp+) gxgx/( Jer ibid.) whw[xw 1821
K +L = (lyam=) gax/(Isa 63:1) h[ Ox 1822
= L (=) T (lqtna+) [f/(Isa 33:20) [xy 1823
100
= (=) (=) T rygx/(Gen 25:23) ry[x 1824
= (=) axpx/(Ezek 17:5) hpxpx 1825
= = (Dan 4:9) yrpx/(Lev 14:4) yrpx* 1826
= = rypx/ry[/(Dan 8:21) rypxhw* 1827
(Gen 37:31)
K = rxny/( Judg 7:3) rpxyw 1828
= M = (Gen 1:5) arpx/rqb/(ibid.) rpxyw* 1829
M arpx/rqb/(Isa 28:5) trypxlw* 1830
(Gen 1:5)
100
For tpx cf. wx.
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
Ha hrypf/(Isa ibid.) trypxlw 1831

= FT = = (=) T rapfa/(Deut 21:12) hynrpx 1832
= (=) +T [dpx/(Ps 78:45) [drpx 1833
+K = abrxl/r[bl/(Prov 16:27) tbrx* 1834
(Isa 5:5)
= (=) (=) = (jyx+) rax/(Zeph 1:14) j're Ox 1835
K L (=) jrx/( Judg 15:49) jyrxh 1836
K D (=) T ^rx/(Deut 14:25) T;r]x'w 1837
(=) hrarx/(Amos 9:9) rwrx 1838
= = (=) = h^rx/(1Sam 1:6) htrx 1839
= = +T h^rx/(1Sam 26:24) hrx 1840
q
= habq/(Num 25:8) hbqh 1841
= D = Y= T hbq/(Num ibid.) hbqh 1842
= = AB T hbq/(Deut 18:3) hbqehw 1843
(=)
= M = = (Dan 7:18) wlbqyw/(Esth 9:23) WlB]qwi * 1844
= (=) T lwbq/(Esth ibid.) wlbqw 1845
(=) (=) (=) = T hlbaqtm/(Exod 26:5) t Olybqm 1846
+ +M = = lbql/(2Kings 15:10 :[-) lbq* 1847
(Dan 2:31)
+ = (=) = hlabq/(2Kings ibid. ;[-) lbq 1848
(=) (dka+) lbqt/(Ezra 8:30) wlbqw 1849
= + (=) T rbq/(Deut 34:6) wtrbq 1850
= D = (=) = T (ranla) jadqna ,jdq/(Isa 64:1) jdqk 1851
+ (+) (=) ydq/(Deut 33:27) dq 1852
K+ (=) ^dqta/(Mic 6:6) deqa 1853
(?=) rdk/( Job 6:16) yrdqh 1854
= +Z,+FT + (=) + T s^dq/(Isa 8:13) wydqt 1855
K = (ibid. 4:10) ydq/(Dan 8:13) wdq* 1856
= M (Dan 4:28) lq/(Ps 29:7) lwq* 1857
= = +T lwq/(Deut 21:20) wnlwqb 1858
= +FT,+D + (+) = T tmq/(Num 32:14) tmq 1859
K M (Dan 6:27) yqw/(Esth 9:27) wmyq* 1860
(=) (=) T ymwaqm/(Ps 17:7) ymmwqtmm 1861
K + (+) (=) T hmaq/(Isa 10:33) hmwqh 1862
(K) (=) yaq/(Gen 7:4) wqyh 1863
= wlk/(1Sam 4:15) hmq (wyny[w)* 1864
( Jer 14:6) tmq/(hyny[)
L = hmyaqla (y[la)/(1Sam ibid.) hmq 1865
(ahrxb bhd+)
(=) yaq ([rz)/( Judg 15:5) hmq 1866
= = qm/bybs/(Exod 32:24) tpwqt* 1867
(Lev 25:31)
= = wxwqt/wsamt/(Gen 27:46) ytxq* 1868
(Lev 26:15)
(=) (t[fq+) t(x)xq/(Lev 20:23) qaw 1869
= +M = (Dan 3:22) lfq/( Job 13:15) ynlfqy* 1870
(Exod 20:13) lwfqt/jxrt/
= + (=) T ynltqy/(ibid.) ynlfqy 1871
= D + (=) T fq/(Deut 23:26) tpfqw 1872
468 chapter sixteen
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
= L = =1 yrfqw:1/(Ezek 46:22) twrfq* 1873

(Dan 5:6)
(Gen 28:38) trfqw/rqtw:2
= = ratq/(2Kings 23:8) wrfq 1874
K = hrfqm/(2Chron 26:19) trfqm 1875
= + = T hayqtt/(Prov 25:16) wtwaqhw 1876
(=) hanq/(2Sam 21:16) wnyqe 1877
= ?D fyq/(Isa 18:6) qw 1878
= = T fyq/(Ps 74:17) yq
= + = +T fqytsa ,fqy/( Jer 31:25) ytwxyqh 1879
= = (=) = T (wlqm) ,ylq/(Lev 2:14) ywlq 1880
= (=) = tlqna ,t^lqt/(Ps 38:8) hl,q]nI 1881
= (=) = (xwlab) [lq/(1Sam 17:49) [L'q'yw" 1882
(=) T (. . . [ar+) [wlq/(Exod 27:9) y[lq 1883
(=) lqlq/(Ezek 21:26 ;yxjb) lqlq 1884
(rj+)
= #D = jmq/(Gen 18:6) jmq 1885
= = (=) = (fbr+) fmq/( Job 16:8) ynfem]q]Tiw" 1886
= = (=) + (bstka+) yntqa ,ynq/(Exod 21:2) hnq]ti 1887
= D (Ezra 7:16) anqt/(Exod ibid.) hnqt* 1888
= T axqna/( Job 18:2) yxnq 1889
= = T sq/(Deut 18:10) sq 1890
K = (=) ^yqy/(Ezek 17:9) sswqy 1891
= (=) hr^[qm/(Lev 14:37) twrwr[q 1892
(h[^xqm+)
= trpqta/hrxq/(Isa 38:12) ytrpqi* 1893
(Isa 50:2)
= (+) (+) = dqnq/(Zeph 2:14) r pO qi 1894
= B dpwq/(Zeph ibid.) d pO q* 1895
(K) B dpwq/(Isa 34:15) zwpq* 1896
(?=) = T bqt/(Deut 15:7) pqt 1897
= = axpql/rtnl/(Cant 2:8) pqm* 1898
(Lev 11:21)
(=) (=) T zpqtm ,(btw+) zpqm/(Cant ibid.) pqm 1899
+ D = = (^dq ,[fq+) bxq/(2Kings 6:6) bxqyw 1900
+ = +T axqa/(Exod 26:28) hxq;h 1901
= (ibid. 4:26) txql/(Dan 1:18) txqmlw* 1902
(=) dqn/(Lev 14:41) wxqh 1903
= M = = at[yxq/hdq/(Ps 45:9) tw[yxq* 1904
(Exod 30:24)
= D = axqna/( Joel 1:7) hpx;ql 1905
= + = T ([fq+) ^q/(Exod 39:3) xqw 1906
(=) = T ( lga+) axqna ,axq/(Gen 6:13) qe 1907
= (=) (=) = T ryxq/( Job 14:1 ;ymy) rxq 1908
= = arq/(e.g. 2Kings 19:14) arq 1909
= + (+) (+) = +T (wnd+) brqa/(Lev 9:7) br'q] 1910
K (=) T abrq/(Lev 17:4) brq 1911
K (=) T hbarq/(Lev 21:2) brqh
= 1M = /(Dan 7:21) brq:1/(Zech 14:3) br;q*] 1912
(Gen 14:2) abrq/hmjlm:2
= = T hyrq/(Isa 29:1) tyrq 1913
(K) (=) hyrq/(Prov 11:11) trq 1914
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
K = atrq/ry[/(Prov ibid.) trq* 1915

(Gen 4:17)
+K = (afg+) hmrqm/(Ezek 32:6) ytmrqw 1916
= M = (Dan 7:20) aynrq/(Amos 6:13) ynrq* 1917
= + (=) +T rq/(1Sam 16:13) rq 1918
(=) rq/(Isa 46:1) sr Oq 1919
= = = ylwsrq/y[rk/(2Sam 22:37) ylsrq* 1920
(Lev 11:21)
= (alklab) [rq/(Ps 35:15) w[rq 1921
= whyxrq (wlkaw)/( Jer 46:20) rq,* 1922
(Dan 3:8)
K (=) = ([fq+) rq/( Jer ibid.) rq 1923
= D = T rq/(Gen 8:22) r Oqw 1924
+ = yryrq/(Gen ibid.) r q O w* 1925
101
(TB Hul 49b)
= +L = + (=) T atq/(Num 11:5) yawqh 1926
= = hwq/(Exod 25:29) wytwqw 1927
= D (=) = = jsqt/(Isa 63:17) jyqt 1928
= 1M + = (Dan 2:47) f v O q:1/(Ps 60:6) f Oq* 1929
(Deut 25:15) fwq/qdx:2/
102
= = T+ (ld[+) fsq/(Ps ibid.) f Oq 1930
= (cassia) fsq/(BT Kerit 6a) fwq x 1931
= = ysaq/(1Sam 25:3) h,q; 1932
= +D = (=) = T ^qt/(Exod 5:12) e Oql 1933
1L = ayq:1/(Zeph 2:1) wwqth* 1934
(1Sam 12:2) tyq/ytnqz:2 (TB BM 60b)
( J) = wsatqa/(ibid.) wwqth 1935
= = aytq/yrwmh/(Gen 21:20) t;q O *' 1936
(1Sam 31:3)
+ + (=) (=) + T swq ymar) sa^wq/(Gen ibid.) tO;q' 1937
(Saadiah:
r
= + (+) = T wry/(Gen 12:12) War]yI 1938
(=) blqla hywr/(Eccl 1:16) har
(=) (thought) yar/(1Kings 19:3) aryw
= (=) (=) T ayarm/(Exod 38:8) twarmb 1939
= yar/hbg/(Zech 14:10) hmarw* 1940
(Ezek 28:2)
= = = (Deut 14:5) amyr/yd/( Job 39:9) yr* 1941
= (=) T (dkrk+) yr/( Job ibid.) yr 1942
= + + (+) = T sar/(Gen 3:15) ar 1943
(=) T syar/(Num 14:4) ar
+ = (=) +T hwbr/(Ezek 16:7) hb;b;r 1944
= hbr:2 ;babr:1/(Ezek ibid.) hbbr 1945
101
For trq cf. hyrq.
102
Becker (1984, entry C1, 402, n.) notes that Ibn Jan compares with Arabic
(at entry [xq). Indeed, Ibn Jan compares there fsq/fq but in a totally dierent
meaning (h[yxq), which has no connection to the entry discussed here.
470 chapter sixteen
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
= +M = w:b]ri wbr/(Ezra 2:69) twa OBri 1946

(Dan 7:10)
L babr/( Jer 3:3) ybybr 1947
+ = atwbr/(Prov 29:2;16) t/br]b*i 1948
(Dan 5:18)
+ = + (=) = hybrt/(Num 32:14) twbrt 1949
= = = (=) T abr/(Lev 25:37) tybrm 1950
= T (tybr) tbbr/(Lam 2:22) ytybrw 1951
= aybr/r[nw/(Gen 21:20) hb, Or* 1952
( Judg 13:24)
= = = (drt+) hkwbrm/(Lev 6:14) tkbrm 1953
= = (Dan 7:17) [bra/(Lev 11:23) [bra* 1954
= (F) = (=) = T h[bra/h[bra 1955
= (+F) (=) +T h[bar/(1Kings 6:1) ty[ybrh
(F) + (=) T [br/(Exod 29:40) [br,
(F) = (=) (=) T [^brm/(Exod 39:9) [Wbr;
M,F + = a[ybr/txbr/(Ps 139:3) y[b]riw* 1956
(Deut 22:6)
(F) (swlg lwa+) y[^brt/(Ps ibid. ibid.) y[brw 1957
= +D + + (=) T bar/(Exod 23:5) be rO 1958
= L = (=) = qbr/(1Sam 28:4) qbrm 1959
= (=) (+) hbgr/( Job 21:33) ybegri 1960
= = (Isa 34:2) azgwr/hmj/(Hab 3:2) zgrb* 1961
= = (bad[+) zgr/(Hab ibid.) zgrb 1962
= + + (=) = T zgr ,wzgtry/(Exod 15:14) wzgry 1963
= = (=) (+) = T lgr/(Exod 21:24) lgr 1964
= (=) (+) +T lgar/(Exod 12:37) ylgr 1965
= ([pr+) l^grt/(Hos 11:3) ytlgrt 1966
= = = + + = T gr/(Lev 24:16) wmgry 1967
hmgr:2 ,hmgrm:1/(Prov 26:8) hmgrmb
2= (2=) 3= 1= 1T hyp wgrm [xwm :3
= gr/(Ps 68:28) tmgr 1968
= = (dsp+) gtra/(Deut 1:27) wngrtw 1969
= (rf+) [gr/(Ps 30:6) [gr 1970
= 2M + 1= twgrtak/tmhnk :1 (Ps 2:1) wgr* 1971
(Dan 6:12), wgIrh:2/(Isa 5:30)
= = (Exod 39:3) wdydrw/(Ps 144:2) ddwrh* 1972
= L # = wdydrw/w[qryw/(1Kings 6:32) dryw*
103
(Exod ibid.)
= = (=) (=) hydra ,adr/(Isa 3:24) ydydrhw 1973
= = wdrtt/wrswt/(Lev 26:17) wdrw* 1974
(Lev 26:23)
= = (lhy+) ydry/(Isa 41:2) dry 1975
= = dr/(Gen 35:5) wpdr 1976
= (=) ([zp+) bhr/(Isa 3:5) wbhry 1977
= (d^lbt+) awhrwtt/(Isa 44:8) whrt 1978
= + + (+) (=) T ywra/(Ps 65:11) hWEr' 1979
+ = (hbyyf jyr) ayr/(Ps 66:12) hywrl 1980
103
Ibn Bal"ams comparison is quoted by Ibn Barn.
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
+ + (+) (=) T (+) jwr/(Gen 41:38 ;yh lO a) jwr 1981

= + (+) (=) T jyr/(Gen 8:1) jwr 1982
= (=) (=) jawr/(Gen 3:8) jwrl 1983
= (+) (=) hjar/(Exod 8:11) hj;w:r]h; 1984
= ra/(Ezek 16:25) tm;r; 1985
L = (=) (twx+) jyzrm/( Jer 16:5) jzrm 1986
= = (Dan 4:6) zr/(Isa 24:16) yzr* 1987
= (lyww+) zr/(Isa ibid.) yzr 1988
= = = zmr/( Job 15:12) wmzry 1989
= = (ylj+) yzr/(Ps 2:2) ynzwrw 1990
(=) (=) +T hbjr/( Judg 19:20) bwjrb 1991
= D + bjr/( Job 36:16) bjr
+ (=) ([sw+) hbjr/(Ps 119:45) hbjrb
= = = (=) T (+) hyjra ,ajr/(Num 11:8) yjreb 1992
= D = = T hlkr/(Isa 53:7) ljrkw 1993
= = (=) +T jr/(Exod 13:12) jr, 1994
= D+ + + (=) T hmjr/(Deut 13:18) ymjr 1995
= D = + = jrw/bhayw/(Ps 18:2) mjra* 1996
(Gen 6:28)
= = (=) T kr ,hmkr/(Lev 11:18) jrh 1997
= = (=) +T (lsg+) jry/(Lev 1:9) jry 1998
= = ajyr/mr/(Ps 45:2) jr* 1999
(Gen 1:25)
= = (TB Meg 27b) jrm/(Ps ibid.) jr*
= jr/(Ps ibid.) jr 2000
(=) = T jar ,hjar/(Isa 30:24) tjrb 2001
G
= = jawrm/(Isa ibid.) tjrb 2002
= = = (=) = T bfr/( Job 8:16) b Ofr; 2003
= = ybyfr/yjl/( Job ibid.) bfr* 2004
(Num 6:3)
= = atytr/d[r/( Jer 49:24) ffrw* 2005
(Exod 15:15)
= +J + (+) = +T hjyar/(Gen 8:21) jyr 2006
= (twm+) qyry/(Ps 18:23) qyra 2007
(=) T qwwrm ,qywrt/(Cant 1:3) qrwt 2008
(=) qrt/(Isa 29:8) hqrew 2009
= = qyry ,qar/(Zech 4:12) yqyrmh 2010
D = rar/(Lev 15:3) rr; 2011
= ^tr/(1Sam 18:23) r; 2012
(whose clothes are worn out)
= + + (+) (+) = T hbkar/(Exod 15:1) wbk Orw 2013
= r/(Gen 18:7) r 2014
= D = = (=) (=) T jmr/(Num 25:7) jm Or 2015
= M = (Dan 3:21) wymrw/(Exod 15:1) hmr* 2016
= D = = = T amr ,ymr/(Exod ibid.) hmr 2017
= = = T amr ,mr/(Esth 8:10) ykmrh 2018
= = = T (dwr+) h^mr/( Job 21:26) hM;riw 2019
(L) tmr/(Ezek 32:5) twmr
= = + + (=) = T (h)na^mr/(Num 20:5) wmrw 2020
= = (bart+) smr/(Ps 7:6) smryw 2021
= = = = bnra/(Lev 11:6) tbnra 2022
= = T anra ,^ra/( Job 39:23) hn<r]ti 2023
472 chapter sixteen
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
= ,+D + (=) (=) + +T (. . . dyd twx+) ^r/(Deut 32:43) WnnIr]h' 2024

+L
= + (=) = T sr/( Job 41:5) wnsr 2025
= = (=) (=) ^ r/(Ezek 46:14) s Orl; 2026
= aysysr/ybybr/(Cant 5:2) ysysr* 2027
( Jer 3:3)
(?=) ^r/(Amos 6:11) ysysr 2028
= = = (=) = T hd[r/(Ps 48:7) hd[r 2029
= + + (=) = T y[ar/(Gen 4:2) h[,wr 2030
= D = aw[r/wxr/(Ps 139:17) y[r* 2031
(Deut 33:23)
= M = (Dan 2:29) nwy[r/(Eccl 4:16) wy[r* 2032
= (rkp+) hya[r/(Eccl ibid.) wy[r 2033
= + = gr/(1Sam 1:6) hm[iR]h 2034
?= (h^z[+) hmar[/( Job 39:19) hm[r 2035
= (Dan 4:1) n[rw/(Deut 12:2) n[r* 2036
= +M = = (Dan 2:40) [[rm/(Ps 2:9) [wrt* 2037
= = wp[ry/(Ps 65:13) wp[ry 2038
= (brfxa+) [r/(Exod 15:6) [rt 2039
= + (=) = t[tra/(2Sam 22:18) [rtw 2040
(brfxa+)
= = (amn ,hkrb+) sgr/(Ps 72:16) [ry 2041
= = (bwtla) wpry apr/( Jer 17:14) ynapr 2042
= D = (=) T (ywwq ,dnsa+) ynwdpra/(Cant 2:5) ynwdpr 2043
(=) = T bk+) hdapr/(Cant 3:10) wtdypr 2044
(qsla
+ M = (Dan 7:7) hspr/(Ps 68:31) sprtm* 2045
= = (kr+) spr/(Ezek 32:2) sprtw 2046
= = T rprt/( Job 26:11) wppwry 2047
= = = = (flt+) hqprtm/(Cant 8:5) tqprtm 2048
= = ahqprm tqla/(ibid.) tqprtm 2049
= = (Dan 7:7) hspr/(Prov 25:26) prn* 2050
= + K swprm/(Prov 25:26) prn 2051
(=)
GHb tpr/(Hab 3:17) ytprb 2052
X
= = = = ([^qwt+) dxr/(Ps 68:17) wdxrt 2053
= + (+) (+) = T yxr/(Ps 147:10) hx,r]yI 2054
= = ([f+) [xr/(Exod 21:6) [xrw 2055
= = = (=) = T xr ,yxr/(Esth 1:6) tpxr 2056
L hpxr/(ibid.) tpxr 2057
= L+ = = xr (1Kings 19:6) ypxr 2058
= D+ = + (=) = T txxr/(Ps 74:14) txX'ri 2059
= T qr/(Ps 114:4) wdqr 2060
= = = (=) + T (qn+) qr/(Exod 26:36) q Or 2061
= = [qr/(Ezek 6:11) [qrw 2062
D = = [yqr/(Gen 1:6) [yqr 2063
D = qyr/( Job 30:10) q Or 2064
= = = (=) T qaqr ,h^qr/(Exod 29:2) yqyqrw 2065
= = l tyl/lkwt al/(Ezra 3:7) wyrk* 2066
(Deut 17:15) wr
= = (ibid. 5:25) yr/(Dan 10:21) wrh* 2067
D = = T sr/(Dan 10: ibid.) wrh 2068
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
= = wrm/(Dan ibid.) wrh 2069

= + (=) (=) +T tr/(1Kings 19:4) t Or 2070
= D = tr/(Mic 1:13) Otr] 2071
= = yb llk+) qtr/(Eccl 12:6) qtry 2072
([baxala
= L = = atytr/d[r/(Hos 13:1) ttr* 2073
(Exod 15:15)
= = (lxapmla [gw+) hytr/(Hos ibid.) ttr 2074

= = faw/zbyw/(Ezek 25:15) fab* 2075
(Gen 25:34)
L faw/zbyw/( Jer 16:57) twfah
(Gen 25:34)
= + + (=) + +T las/(1Sam 25:8) la 2076
= F la/(1Sam ibid.) la* 2077
(?=) ^s/( Jer 14:6 ;jwr) wpa 2078
= (=) (=) T (raftna+) ywt/( Job 7:2) ay 2079
= (gb+) apa y/(Ps 56:2) ynpa 2080
= (=) (rhaf+) ^wtm/(Eccl 1:5 ;jrwz) aw 2081
= = (yqb+) ras ,rws/(1Sam 16:11) ra 2082
= hy/(Lev 13:28) ta 2083
+ M = = (Dan 7:9) ybyb/( Job 18:5) byb* 2084
= = (dqwa ,l[ta) ^b/( Job ibid.) byb 2085
= = (rsk+) bs/(Hos 8:6) ybb 2086
+ + (=) + T jybst/(Ps 117:1) whwjb 2087
F (Dan 4:34) jbm/(Ps 145:4) jby* 2088
+ = + T fabsa/(Ps 122:4) yfb 2089
= = = (=) + T ybs/(Num 21:1) B]]YIw" 2090
(=) (=) abs/( Jer 30:18) twb 2091
= +L = (=) (+) = hkb/(1Kings 7:17) hkb 2092
= = (=) (+) + +T hlbns ,hlwbs/(Ruth 2:2) ylbb 2093
= (=) (=) hrtk+) lbs/(Ps 69:16 ;ym-) tlb 2094
(amla
= D = (=) + +T (qyrf+) lybs/( Jer 18:15) ylyb 2095
= (mustache) hlbs/(Isa 47:2) lb, Ov 2096
(=) lbsala yla/(ibid.) lb 2097
= +F + = + T (h)[bs/(Gen 26:33) h[b 2098
+ (+) (=) T [ybasa ,[ybaws/(Deut 16:9) tw[wb 2099
= + (+) (=) T [ab ,[b/(Gen 41:29) [b 2100
= F + = (Dan 7:25) rbsyw/(Neh 2:15) rbc* 2101
= = rbs/(Neh ibid.) rb 2102
= arbtm/ynbah/(2Kings 19:3) rbm* 2103
(Exod 1:16)
= = +T rbtm/(2Kings ibid.) rbm 2104
= (sbj+) rbt/( Job 38:10) rbaw 2105
= (lh+) rbt ,rbt/( Jer 17:18) wrb 2106
= (=) = T tbs/(Exod 16:30) wtbyw 2107
= = (Ezra 4:22) hgy/( Job 8:11) agy* 2108
M (Dan 5:2) htlg/(Neh 2:6) lghw* 2109
= = /rgy/hndrt/(Exod 13:12) rg* 2110
( Jer 14:17)
= (gatn+) r/(Exod ibid.) rg 2111
474 chapter sixteen
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
104
= = (+) = T ayadt ,yydt/(Gen 49:25) yd'; 2112
= = ards/rwf/(1Kings 6:9) twrdw* 2113
(ibid. 36)
= = + T ^hts/(Gen 30:20) h 2114
= +F = (=) ha/(Deut 14:4) hc, 2115
= 2+ = atwdh:1/( Job 16:19) ydhw* 2116
atwdhs/twd[:2 (Gen 31:47)
= = dh/(ibid.) ydhw 2117
= = (Dan 4:31) bwty/(Lev 13:16) bwy* 2118
= 1M = /(Dan 5:21) yw:1/(Ps 89:20) ytyw* 2119
(Gen 4:15) yww/yw:2
= I yws/(Ps ibid.) ytyw 2120
(=) awtsa/(Esth 3:8) hw 2121
= (hm^yq+) hawasm/(Esth ibid.) hw
L ;jas)/(Gen 24:63) jwl 2122
(walking between the trees
= = (=) T fws/(Prov 26:3) fw 2123
(2=) 1= hka:2 ,hkw:1/( Judg 9:48) tkw 2124
= = (Ezek 31:3) hykwsw/r Ojw/(ibid.) tkw* 2125
= = (=) = T wt/(Num 11:5) ymwh 2126
= (Lev 14:42) [wyw/jfw/(Isa 6:10) [h* 2127
= (yyf+) [yys/(Isa ibid.) [h 2128
= (. . . [ptra+) [w/( Job 34:19) [w 2129
M (Dan 2:33) yhwq/(Exod 29:22) q/* 2130
= = = (=) T qas/(Exod ibid.) qw 2131
= = (=) T qawsa/(Cant 3:2) yqw:b 2132
(=) (rpas+) ras/(Isa 57:9) yrwtw 2133
= = yrnw/wnjnw/(Ezek 27:25) ytwr* 2134
(2Sam 17:12)
M = (Ezra 4:22) ayrww/(Gen 49:22) rw* 2135
= arw/hmwj/(Gen ibid.) rw*
(Exod 14:22)
(=) (=) + T rws/(Gen ibid.) rw 2136
= +FT + + (=) = T rwt/(Exod 21:29) rw 2137
= (leader, patron) rwt/(Gen 49:6) rw
= (=) = rn/(1Chron 20:3) rc'Y:w" 2138
= = (=) (=) = T hnsws ,asws/(Cant 2:2) hnwk 2139
= (ibid.) ryz/(Exod 21:1) rzm* 2140
= D = T (ltp+) rz/(Exod ibid.) rzm 2141
= D = = (Lev 15:13) yjsy/jrw/(Ps 6:7) hja* 2142
= (ajn+) jaa/(Isa 51:23) yj 2143
= = yjw/jyw/(Exod 9:10) yj* 2144
(Isa 44:15)
= (=) (^ls+) ajs/(Deut 28:22) tpjb 2145
= = (=) (=) = T qjst/(Exod 30:36) tqjw 2146
= (+) = T+ rjs/(Gen 19:15) rjh 2147
= = afsw/fyw/(Num 5:20) tyf* 2148
(Exod 32:8) wfs/wrs/(Gen 38:16)
= (=) = T fns/(Exod 25:10) yfi 2149
104
For ydl cf. dl.
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
= = (=) T wjfs/(Num 11:32) wjfyw 2150

D (=) f/(Lev 6:21) f 2151
= (=) (afls+) rfysm/(Deut 16:18) yrf] Ow 2152
(=) ryfst/(Ketub 9:9 ;bwj) rf x 2153
= +D = T ytby/(Gen 42:38) ytby 2154
= D = = dy/(Deut 27:2) dyb 2155
= (=) jy/( Job 30:4) jy 2156
(=) (hdlw+) hlyls/(Gen 49:10) h Oly 2157
= +F = (Dan 3:10) tm/(Exod 4:11) c* 2158
= (=) = + T bks/(Exod 16:13) tbk 2159
= = = (Ezra 6:2) jkthw/(Eccl 8:10) wjktyw* 2160
jktaw (Gen 44:12) axmyw/
= = w/( Job 40:31) twkcb 2161
= L w/(Num 33:55) yKicli 2162
K yks/(Num ibid.) yKicli 2163
(=)
= (+) (=) + T (h)lktm/(Exod 23:26) hlkm 2164
= = (mix up) lk/(Gen 48:14) lKeci 2165
= = (Dan 7:8) lktsm/(Ps 41:2) lyKic]m*' 2166
= + (=) + +T ksa/(Gen 26:2) Okv] 2167
= = (Ezra 6:12) Ki/ ' (Lev 17:4) km* 2168
= (twmlab) wks/(Nah 3:18) wnky 2169
= D = K (=) T yks/(Prov 23:2) yKic' 2170
= (=) (=) T rksm/(Lev 10:9) rk;ew 2171
L = = T (amla dars+) rks/(Isa 19:10) rk,c, 2172
= (ibid.) arkys/(Isa ibid.) rk* 2173
= (alm+) rwgsm/(Isa ibid.) rk 2174
= + + (=) = T glt/(Ps 148:8) gl 2175
= (=) T ylas/( Job 16:12) wle; 2176
= L (=) T ywls/(Num 11:32) wl;h] 2177
= (Dan 6:5) wl/(Prov 1:32) twlw* 2178
M (Dan ibid.) wl/(2Chron 29:11) Wl;t*i
= F (Dan 3:2) jl/(Exod 4:13) jl* 2179
= D = = = jals/( Joel 2:8) jl,h 2180
= ajl/( Joel ibid.) jlh 2181
= = jlyw/fyphw/(Neh 4:17) /jl]*i 2182
(Lev 1:6)
= = ls/(Neh ibid.) wjl 2183
= wkls/( Job 30:11) wjl
= ltm/(Isa 7:25 ,rw) jlml 2184
= = (=) (=) = +T afls/(Eccl 8:4) wfl 2185
= +F = (Dan 4:14) fyl/(Eccl ibid.) wfl* 2186
= D (=) = (hmym+) als/(Deut 28:57) htylbw 2187
+ = atylsw/(Deut ibid.) htylbw* 2188
(TB Shab 134a)
= = = (qrs+) ^lsa/(Ruth 2:16) wlt; 2189
= (yf[a+) ^lza/(Ruth ibid.) wlt; 2190
= yl/t/(Ps 91:8) tmwliw* 2191
(Num 32:13)
= (=) + T ^ls ,ymlsm/(Prov 16:7) yly 2192
= = lstsa/(Prov ibid.) yly 2193
= = T las/(Gen 33:18) le; 2194
= (=) T ^lsy/(Exod 21:36) ley 2195
476 chapter sixteen
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
= (+) = T T;]L'iw ;htalt/(Gen 6:10) hl 2196

(1Sam 20:19)
(=) tlatla wyla yla rbxt/
= = (Ezr 5:10) /(Gen 2:11) e* 2197
= G + (=) = T sa/(Gen ibid.) e 2198
(=) T ;tadla sa [ hyank/(Lev 24:11) Oeh'
sala
= (=) = T ^t/(Gen 2:8) ; 2199
+ FT hfms/(Deut 15:2) hF;mih']O 2200
= FT + (+) = T tawams ,ams/(Gen 1:8) ym 2201
= = T lam/( Job 23:9) lwam 2202
= = = mwta/(Isa 63:5) mwtaw* 2203
(Dan 4:16)
= + (+) = T hnyms/(Gen 49:20) hnme 2204
= (=) ams/(Isa 59:10) ynmab 2205
= + (=) + T ynamt/(Exod 26:2) hnm 2206
= +F + (=) + T [msa/(Deut 5:1) [m 2207
+ = hrmasm ,rms/(1Sam 11:11) trma 2208
(deep night)
= +G + + (=) +T sm/( Joel 2:10) m 2209
= (Dan 6:15) am/( Joel ibid.) m* 2210
M hnwmy/(Isa 54:12) ytm* 2211
(Dan 7:10)
B = sms/(Shab 2:2) ymm x 2212
= = T (gb+) an/(Ps 139:21) yanm 2213
= FT,G (+) = T hns/(Deut 11:12) hn:; 2214
= (=) + +T anta/(Exod 2:13) ynE] 2215
= (=) T ^wnty/( Job 29:22) wn]yI
= (=) (+) ynt/(Esth 10:3) hn<]mi
= FT (+) = T y^ns ,jnns/(Deut 32:41) ytwn 2216
= = = (=) T ^s/(Exod 21:24) 2217
(=) hyntt/(Deut 6:7) tnnw 2218
M = y[taw/rpsyw/(Isa 41:23) h[tnw* 2219
(Gen 24:66)
= zwnfa/(Lev 19:19) znf[ 2220
?= bl[t/(Neh 3:35) l[w 2221
= (+F) = + (+) = (=) r[/(Gen 28:25) r[ce 2222
= (+) = ahwr[y/(Deut 32:17) wr[;c] 2223
= (F) = +T ry[/(1Kings 5:8) yrw[ 2224
+ = w/jfyw/( Job 33:21) wpw* 2225
(Exod 32:20)
(=) ywt/(Num 23:3) yp, 2226
= +L,G + (=) ypata ,hypta/(Ps 68:14) ytp 2227
= (+) (=) +T hp/(Prov 22:18) ytp;] 2228
= +D + (+) = +T (hamd) psy/(Lev 4:7) py 2229
= (d) jps/(1Kings 2:31) p 2230
L = aps/(Ps 102:1 ,wjy) py
(alklab)
= + (=) T l^pstm/(Lev 13:20) lp 2231
M = ;whykrx) qps/(Isa 2:6) wqypy* 2232
(Targ. Deut 32:10
= 1M = 1= (Dan 4:24) rpy:1/(Ps 16:6) hrp* 2233
(Gen 29:17) aryp/tp'y: 2/
= (+) (=) T yqs/(Exod 2:19) qyw 2234
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
= = (=) (=) T hyqas ,aqsm/(Gen 30:38) twtqb 2235

= + (+) (=) T laqtm/(Gen 23:15) lq 2236
= = w[qta/wllx/(Amos 9:5) h[qw* 2237
a[qta/[bfh; (Exod 15:10)
( Jer 38:22)
= (br . . . rtka+) [q/(ibid.) h[qw 2238
= ypqbw/yqyqnbw/(1Kings 6:4) ypwq* 2239
(Isa 7:19)
(?=) h^pksa/(Exod 12:23) wqmh 2240
= (. . . ym+) ^qta/( Joel 2:9) WQ Oy: 2241
= = rqn/dgbn/(Lev 19:11) wrqt* 2242
(Mal 2:10)
= L (=) bars/(Isa 49:10) br;; 2243
= + = abr/brwj/(Isa ibid.) br* 2244
(Gen 31:40)
= /yfwb/(Esth 4:11) fybr* 2245
(1Kings 12:11) yfybrb
= = ygyr/ykb/(Lam 1:14) wgrty* 2246
(1Kings 7:17)
= (dtma bxqla) [rs/(Lam ibid.) wgrty 2247
= = X(=) +T dyr/( Josh 8:22) dyr 2248
AbS,Z
= +D = (=) = wfry/(Lev 21:5) wfry 2249
= (Dan 5:6) yrtm/(Num 6:3) tr]m*I 2250
D = (Dan 5:12) armw/( Jer 15:11) ytyr* 2251
= ( lhs+) wrs/(Cant 2:1) wrh 2252
(=) = (=) ar/(Gen 14:23) wr 2253
= (=) hk^rm/( Jer 2:63) tkrm 2254
= M = (Dan 3:5) atyqwrm/(Isa 5:26) qrw* 2255
= whtqyrsb/t[rb/(Isa 19:19) twqyr* 2256
(Hos 7:3)
= (ryrjla dwga+) qrs/(Isa ibid.) twqyr 2257
L (=) T qy^rs/(Isa 5:2) qrec 2258
= (rkla dwga+) qyr/(Isa ibid.) qr 2259
= = (?=) rq/(Zech 1:8) yqr 2260
= = (=) T h^rs/(Cant 7:3) rr 2261
= ^r/(Deut 29:18) twryrb 2262
= M = = yry/jj/(Isa 3:19) t/rehw* 2263
(Exod 35:22)
= K hrwsa/(Isa ibid.) t/rehw 2264
(=)
+ M = (Ezra 7:26) ywrl/(Ps 52:7) rew* 2265
= M atyrsm/tbjmh/(2Sam 13:9) trmh* 2266
(Lev 2:5)
= = (?=) T lsals/(Exod 39:15) trr 2267
= ^wa/(Ezek 39:2) ytaewi 2268
105
= (=) lwtm/(Ps 1:3) lwt 2269
105
Cf. Margulis, 1884, p. 1, n. 1. and Qh, 1966, 55. The reading hlwtm is
only attested in this occurrence and in only one manuscript of Sa'adiahs Tafsr to
Psalms, while other manuscripts and in other occurrences of lt the verb is ren-
dered srg. Possibly it is a Karaite gloss.
478 chapter sixteen
(cont.)
N M B R G F Q S
N tt/(Ps 73:9) wt 2270
t
M,D = hbyat/hby/(Ps 119:174) ytbat* 2271
(Num 11:6)
= D = (=) T wt/(Gen 38:27) ymwat 2272
= = (=) wt tawd/(Cant 4:2) twmyatm
= = T ymat ,amwt/(Gen 25:24) ymwt
= + (+) = T hnyt/(Gen 3:7) hnat 2273
= (=) + T twbat/(Gen 6:18) hbteh 2274
= = (=) = T bt/(Gen 24:25) bt 2275
= = +T (a)hyt/(Gen 1:2) wht 2276
= hmaht/(Ps 71:20) twmwhtmw 2277
= FT+ (=) = +T tjt/(Gen 49:25) tjt 2278
= K(=) = T swyt/(Gen 32:15) yyt 2279
= qta/(Isa 40:13) KeTi 2280
= D = (+) = T ^lt/(Deut 13:17) lte 2281
= (dh+) llt/(Ps 137:3) wnllwtw 2282
(=) lyla/(Ps ibid.) wnllwtw 2283
= D + (=) = T alta/(Ps 65:11) hymlt 2284
= = (ibid.) ylmT]aim/ e (1Sam 10:11) lwmT]am* 2285
= (=) +T ( lmk+) ^t/(Lam 4:22) t 2286
= + (=) (anpa+) amta/(Ezek 24:10) th 2287
= = rmt/(Ex 15:27) yrmt 2288
= = hyntt/( Judg 5:11) wnty 2289
= ynt/hn/( Judg ibid.) wnty* 2290
= (=) T ynt/(Isa 51:9) ynt 2291
= = = T r^wnt/(Lev 11:35) rwnt 2292
= (+) (=) = +T hjapt/( Joel 1:12) jwptw 2293
= (ibid.) wlpT'a/ i (Deut 1:1) lp TO * 2294
+1M = (Dan 3:1) hytp:1/(Isa 30:33) ht,p]T*; 2295
(Ex 21:16) aytwp/bj Or:2/
+ M = (Dan 4:33) tnqth/(Eccl 12:9) qt* 2296
D (=) = (kja+) qta/(Eccl ibid.) qt 2297
= 2= 1= 2+ (Dan 2:37) apqtw:1/(Esth 9:29) q t O * 2298
(Num 13:18) yqt/qzj:2
= a[rt/r[h/(1Chron 2:55) yti[;r]T*i 2299
( Josh 2:5)
ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES
Abraham Habavlisee below: Neubauer (1863), pp. 195216

Abramson (1954)m[ ,(ryt) jy wnnwl , wag hyd[s brl hnmh wlm ,wsmrba
5049
Abramson (1963),wly wnj rps [lb ba hdwhy brl syngtla rps ,wsmrba
rkt ylwry
Abramson (1974)dlt ylwry ,ynwagh twrpsb twnyyn[ ,wsmrba
Abramson (1975)1975 ylwry ,[lb b hdwhy br l yrps hl ,wsmrba
Abramson (1977)wnnwl wan yyah brl (samh rps) ywajla batk m ,wsmrba
116108 m[ ,(zlt) am
Abramson (19781979), b lawml gwyj hdwhy brl tnla batk m ,wsmrba
5129 (flt) nm ;236203 m[ ,(jlt) bm wnnwl
Ab MashalSee Kitb al-Nawdir
Ab-l-FarajSee Hirschfeld (1892, 1922, 1923), Poznanski (1895, 1908) and Zislin
(1962, 1965)
Al wisee Kitb al-wi
Alfsisee Skoss
Allony (1949) ,(ft) dk ynys , tynatlaw rykdtla batk ,hlyfqyg hkh m ,ynwla n
zs-dl
Allony (19521958)see Saadia, Alf al-Mishna
Allony (1958)see Sab'n Lafa
Allony (1962)- blg r[b twddwbh ylmhw jnm trbjmb twyarq twpqh ,ynwla n
5421 m[ ,bkt ylwry ,h ,drps ydwhy rxwa
Allony (1969)see ha-Egron
Allony (1970a)lwap y[ hnwarl rwal axy ,yynybh ymyb tyrb[h twnlbh yrpsm
rl hjrqh rpsm dj [fq tpswtb djm spdwhw lwx ,1916 grwbrfp ,bwxbwqwq
lt ylwry , dq taxwh ,ynwla hymjn tam gwyj hdwhy
Allony (1970b)6719 ,lt arqm tyb , wag hyd[s brl dwqynh rps ,ynwla n
Allony (1970)rps , (qay =) yrq ba hdwhyl hlasrb twddwb ylm y[b ,ynwla n
425409 ,lt ,ybyy lawm
Al-Munjid1969 twryb ,wr[la h[bfla ,al[alaw hglla yp dgnmla
Al-Mushtamilsee Kitb al-Mushtamil
Ankori (1959)Z. Ankori, Karaites in Byzantium, New York-Jerusalem 1959
Arukh ha-Shalemwft qrwy-wyn (fwhaq a dhm) lh wr[ rps ,layjy b tn
Bacher (1882)W. Bacher Wilhelm, Notes sur Aboul Walid, RJ 4 (1882),
273274
Bacher (ZDMG 1884)W. Bacher, Berichtungen zur Neubauerschen Aufgabe des
Kitb al-"Ul, ZDMG 38 (1884), 620629
Bacher (1884)W. Bacher, Die hebrisch-arabische Sprachvergleichung des Ablwalid Merwan
Ibn Ganah, Sitzungsber. Der Kais. Akad der Wissensch.; Phil. Hist. Classe 106 (1884),
96119 (special reprint, with Bacher 1885, Amsterdam, Philo-Press 1970)
Bacher (1885)W. Bacher, Die hebrisch-neuhebrische und hebrisch-arami-
sche Sprachvergleichung des Ablwalid Merwan Ibn Ganah Sitzungsber. der kais.
Akad. der Wissenschaft, Phil. Hist. Classe 110 (1885)
Bacher (1885)W. Bacher, Leben u. Werke des Ablwalid Merwan Ibn Ganah u. die
Quellen seiner Schrifterklrung, Leipzig O. Schulze ( jetzt Berlin, Felber) 1885
Bacher (1888)W. Bacher, Weitere Berichtungen zur Neubauerschen Ausgabe
des Kitb al-"Ul, ZDMG 42 (1888), 307310
480 abbreviations and bibliographical references
Bacher (1892)W. Bacher, Die hebrische Sprachwissenschaft vom 10 bis 16 Jahrhundert,

Trier 1892 (reprint 1974, in: Studies in the History of Linguistics, Vol. 4, 1120)
Bacher (ZAW 1894)W. Bacher, Die hebr. arab. Sprachvergleichung des Ab
Ibrahim Ibn Barn, ZAW, 14 (1894), 223249
Bacher (REJ 1895)W. Bacher, Le Grammairien anonyme de Jrusalem, Paris 1895 (=
REJ 30, n. 60, pp. 232256)
Bacher (1895)W. Bacher, Die Anfnge der hebrischen Grammatik (1895) (reprint 1974,
in: Studies in the History of Linguistics, Vol. 4, 133235)
Bacher (1896)see Shorashim
Bacher (1898), hnwy rl ra yrh rpsm yfwqyll twhghw twr[h ,rkab zb 95
92 ,(jnrt) 1 rgh
Bacher (1899)fnrt syrap ,gsrl hjrw bwya rps ryspt ,r[kab zb
Bacher (1907)see Ben Tamim
Bar BahluleR. Duval, Lexicon syriacum auctore Hassano Bar Bahlule IIII, Paris 1901
Barges (1861)J.J.L. Barges, Libri Psalmorum David . . . Yaphet ben Heli, Paris 1861
Barges (1884)J.J.L. Barges, Yaphet . . . in Canticum Canticorum, Paris 1884
Barges-Goldberg (1857), J.J.L. Barges, D.B. Goldberg, R. Jehuda ben Koreisch Epistula
de Studis targum Utilitate Risala, Paris 1857
Baron (1900)S. Baron, Saadya al-Fajjumis arabische Psalmenbersetzung und Commentar,
Psalm 5075, Berlin, 1900
Basal (1992),twrwxh trwtw hghh trwt ,awbm ,gwyj hdwhy r l tyqwdqdh wtrwt ,lsab n
bnt byba lt ,hyxfrsyd
Basal (1998)wrh grpla wbal lmtmla batkla l warh qljh ,lsb rsan
191209 m[ ,(jnth) as wnnwl , garsla bal wjnla yp lwxala batkb wtwltw
Basal (1999)N. Basal, The Concept of l in the Al-Kitb Al-Mushtamil of Ab
Al-Fara[ Harn in comparison with Ibn Al-Sarr[, Studies in Memory of Naphtali
Kinberg (19481997)Israel Oriental Studies 19 (1999), pp. 391408
Basal (2001)ast byba lt ,gwyj hdwhy rl tnla batk ,lsab n
Bauer-Leander (1922)H. Bauer & P. Leander, Historische Grammatik der hebrische
Sprache des A.T., 1922 Max Niemeyer/Verlag (Holms, Hildesheim 1965)
Bauer-Leander (1927)H. Bauer, & P. Leander, Grammatik des Biblisch Aramischen,
Tbingen, 1927 (Hildesheim 1966)
BDBF. Brown, S.R. Driver, C.A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old
Testament, Oxford 1955
Becker (1977)lt tfysrbynwa ,rwfqwd rwbyj ,yrq b hdwhy l hlasrh ,rqb d
See also Risala zlt byba
Becker (1980),wrb b qjxyl (hawwhh rps =) hnzawmla batkl twmlh ,rqb d
298293 m[ ,(t) dm wnnwl
Becker (1984)dmt byba lt ,tytrwqyb hrwdhm ,yrwq b hdwhy l hlasrh ,rqb d
Becker (1988)hdw[t , yynybh ymyb yydwhyh wlh ymkj ybtkb tybr[h m hnw ,rqb d
158139 m[ ,(jmt) w
Becker (1998)fnt byba lt ,jang ba hnwy r l wqwdqdl yybr[ twrwqm ,rqb d
Becker (2001)qwdqdh yb wrb b qjxy l twawwhl yybr[h twrwqmh ,rqb d
201183 m[ ,(ast) j wlb yrqjm , ybr[h qwdqdl yrb[h
Ben Hayyim (1958)twlygm l wlh trwsml htqyzw ynwrmwh trwsm ,yyj b z
a , jlb yrmam bwq) 245223 m[ ,( jyt) bk wnnwl , lzj wllw jlmh- y
(blt ylwry ,ra rb m tkyr[b
Ben Shamai (1977)ynasqrqla bwq[y swy wba l tytdh hbjmh twfy ,yam b j
jlt ylwry ,rwfqwd rwbyj ,yl[ b tpyw
Ben Yehudabyba ltw ylwry ,zf-a ,hdjhw hnyh tyrb[h wlh wlm ,hdwhy b a
fyt-z[rt
Berliner (1884)(1557 =) mwjb a jswn yp l[ hrwth l[ swlqnwa wgrj ,rnylrb a
1884 zy hfnwybs swpd
Birnbaum (1942)P. Birnbaum, The Arabic Commentary of Yefet ben 'Ali the Karaite of
the Book of Hosea, Philadelphia 1942
abbreviations and bibliographical references 481
Birnbaum (1971)P. Birnbaum (ed.), Karaite Studies, 1971

Bland (1966)R.M. Bland, The Arabic Commentary of Yephet ben Ali on the Book of
Ecclesiastes 16, Univ. of California Ph.D., 1966
Blau (1965)J. Blau, The Emergence and Linguistic Background of Judaeo Arabic, A Study
of the origins of Middle Arabic, Oxford, University Press, 1965
Blau (1973)wnnwl ,jang b hnwy rl lwxala batk l dyh ybtkl hr[h ,walb y
233232 m[ ,(glt) ,zl
Blau (1977) J. Blau, Weak Phonetic Change and the Hebrew 'Sin, Hebrew Annual
Review I (1977)
Blau (1984)hydpwlqyxnah tyyrps ,awbm yqrp-arqmh ymwgrt , yybr[ ymwgrt ,walb y
163156 m[ ,dmt ylwry ,tyarqmh
Blau-Lwenstamm19681957 ylwry ,arqmh wl rxwa ,fnwyl aw walb y
Brockelmann (1910)C. Brockelmann, Prcis de Linguistique Smitique, traduit par
W. Marais et M. Cohen, Paris, 1910
Brockelmannidem, Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen (Verlag
von Reuther & Reichard) Berlin 19081913 (Olms 1966)
Dalman (1938)G. Dalman, Aramisches-neuhebrisches Wrterbuch zu Targum etc.
Gttingen 1938
De Saussure (1983)F. de Saussure, Cours de linguistique gnrale (dition critique
Tullio de Mauro), Payot, Paris 1983
Del ValleC. Del Valle, Sefer Sahot de Abraham Ibn Ezra, Salamanca 1977
Drenbourg (1880)J. et H. Drenbourg, Opuscules et traits dAb l-Walid Merwan
Ibn Djanah, Paris 1880
Drenbourg (1886)see Luma
Drenbourg (18931896)see Tafsir
Drenbourg (1895)J. Drenbourg, Contributions lhistoire de la philologie
hbraque et de la littrature juive-arabe au moyen-ge, I, Le livre de le Comparaison
de lhbreu avec larabe dAbou Ibrahim ibn Baroun par P. de Kokowzo, REJ
30, 1895, pp. 155158
Dotan (1977)A. Dotan, Wilhelm Bachers Place in the History of Hebrew
Linguistics, HL 4:2, 135157
Dotan (1981)212163 m[ ,(amt) hm wnnwl, wrga rpsm dj [fq ,twd a
Dotan (1993)6249 m[ ,(gnt) 54 ym[p , djm lb wag hyd[s ,wtwd a
Dotan (1997)hyd[s brl yrb[h wl twjx rps ,wlh tmkjb war rwa ,twd a
znt ylwry ,wag
Dozy (1967)R.P.A. Dozy, Supplment aux dictionnaires arabes, Leiden-Paris 1967
Drachman (1885)B. Drachman, Die Stellung und Bedeutung des Jehuda Hajjug in der
Geschichte der hebrischen Grammatik, Breslau, 1885
Dukes (1843)L. Dukes, Dunasch ben Librat, Literaturblatt des Orients IV, 1843
Dukes (1844)rps ,lpkh yl[p rps ,jwnh twytwa rps ,[bar ,(rydhm) sqwd l
1844 mn[ frwpqnrp ,(gwyj yrps wgrt-), dwqynh
Dunash ben Labratsee: Dukes (1843), Philipowski (1855), Schrter (1866), Senz-
Badillos (1980)
Dunash ben TamimW. Bacher, ZDMG 61 (1907), 700704
Ecker (1962)R. Ecker, Die arabische Job bersetzung des Gaon Saadia, Mnchen
1962
Eisen (1934)E. Eisen, Sa'adya al-Fajjumis arabische bersetzung und Erklrung des Psalmen,
Psalm 90106, Leipzig 1934
Eldar (1979),( flt ) gm wnnwl r[ yrtl . . . tnla batk m [fq , rdla a
(240 dm , ,ynwqytw) 259254 m[
Eldar (1996)dygnh lawml jang ba yb tyqwdqdh tqwljmh twdlwtl ,rdla a
tyrb[h wlb yrqjm ,jang bal hmlkhh rpsm hzyng [fq l wywlyg twbq[b
6141 m[ ,wnt ylwry ,(ra-rb m rw[) grwm hmll ygwm ydwhyh twnwlbw
Eppenstein (1900)S. Eppenstein, Die hebr.-arabische Sprachvergleichung des
Jehuda Ibn Koreisch, MGWJ 44 (1900), pp. 486507
Eppestein S. (19001901)Ishak Ibn Baroun et ses comparaisons de lhbreu avec

larabe, REJ 41 (1900), pp. 233249; 42 (1901), pp. 76102
Epstein (19211922)J.N. Epstein, Post-Talmudic-Aramaic Lexicography, II,
sheelot, JQR N.S. 12, pp. 299230
Epstein (1982)ylwry ,dmlm x[ ydyb wr[ twrhf rdsl ynwagh wryp ,yyfpa ny
bmt byba ltw
Feuerstein (1898)Der Commentar des Karaers Salmon Ben Jerucham zu den Klageliedern
von Salomon Feuerstein, Krakau 1898
Filipowski (1854)1854 grwbnyd[ ,jnm trbjm ,yqswwapylyp laqwjy b ybx
Filipowski (1855) x dhm ,jnm brh trbjm rps l[ . . . frbl b nwd twbwt rps
1855 ,grwbnydaw wdnwl ,yqswwapylyp
Frnkel (1886)S. Frnkel, Die aramischen Fremdwrter im Arabischen, Leiden 1886
Friedlander (1902)I. Friedlander, Der Sprachgebrauch des Maimonides Ein lexikalischer
und grammatischer Beitrag zur Kenntnis des Mittelarabischen, I Lexikalischer Teil, Frankfurt
a.M., Verlag von J. Kaumann, 1902
Fuchs (1893)S. Fuchs, Studien ber . . . ibn Bal"am, Berlin 1893
Galliner (1903)S. Galliner, Saadia al-Fajjumis arabische Psalmbersetzung und Commentar,
(Psalm 7389), Berlin 1903
GeseniusGesenius Hebrew Grammar edited by E. Kautzsch, second English Edition,
by A.E. Cowley, Oxford 1910 (= 1976)
Gikatillasee: Nutt (1870), Kokowtzow (1916), 5966, Allony (1959)
Goldenberg (19731974)zl wnnwl ,wag hyd[s brl wrgab ynwy[ ,grbndlwg a
9078 m[ ,(dlt) jl ;290275 ;136 117 m[ ,(glt)
Goldenberg (1974),tyrb[h hydpwlqyxnah ynwlh wl[pm wag hyd[s ,grbndlwg a
201199 yrwf dlt atw ylwry ,wk
Goldenberg (1979)8398 m[ ,(flt) gm wnnwl , warh yrb[h hyyfnh jwl rtsa ,grbndlwg a
Goldenberg (1980),(mt) dm wnnwl , yrb[h rwhw qljh kwh l[ ,grbndlwg g
292281 m[
Goshen (1992)see Maman (1996a)
Gottheil (19101928)R.J.H. Gottheil (ed.), Bar 'Ali, The Syriac-Arabic glosses II, Roma
19101928
Gross (1872)S. Gross, Menahem ben Saruk mit Bercksichtigung seiner Vorgnger und
Nachfolger, Breslau 1872
Guiraud (1965)P. Guiraud, Les mots trangers, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris
1965 (Que sais je, no. 1166)
HaEgron,ynwla n dhm ,wag hyd[s br tam ynarb[la r[la lwxa btk-wrgah
fkt ylwry
Halkin (1975)rps) hrkadmlaw hrxajmla batk ,arz[ b bq[y b hm wrh wba
hml hrba twr[h wryxb grtw hygh ,r[ (tyrb[h hryh l[ ynwydhw ynwy[h
hlt ylwry ,yqlh
Haneberg (1840)D. Haneberg, ber die Mnchener Handschrift aufbehaltene arabische
Psalmenbersetzung des Saadia Gaon (in Abhandlungen der philosophisch-philologischen Classe
der Kniglichen Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften III 354410, Mnchen 1840
Harkavy (1895)yny g ydj , wag yyah rl ywajla batk l y[fq ,ybkrh aa
53 m[ ,(wnrt-hnrt) 7
Harkavy (1895a)A.E. Harkavy, Un quatrime ouvrage de Juda Hayyoudj, REJ
31 (1895), pp. 28889
Harkavy (1896)9694 m[ ,wnrt [yww ,br[mmw jrzmm , l wmh la btkm ,ybkrh aa
Harkavy (1898)lary tmkjl sam ,rgh , wag hyd[s brm yfwql ,ybkrh aa
9189 m[ ,jnrt bwfydrb ,war rps ,yqx[darah aba lawm y[ lwy ,br[b
Harkavy (1906). . . hyd[s wagh l tyrb[ wl twjx rpsm amgwd ,ybkrh aa
3830 m[ ,(wsrt) w rwgh
Hwisee Kitb al-Hwi
ayyj,yltmla tawd la[pala batkw ylla wrj tawd la[pala batk ,gwyj hdwhy
1897 dyyl ,lyrb ,bwrfsay syrwm dhm
Ha-Nagid, Kitb al-"Istighn"see Kokowtzow (1916), 205224
Hirschfeld (1892)H. Hirschfeld, Arabic Chrestomathy in Hebrew Characters, London
1892, pp. 5460
Hirschfeld (19221923)H. Hirschfeld, hglla raxt yp dwq[ la batk ,wrah grpla wba
hyynarb[la, JQR (192223), pp. 17
Hirschfeld (1926)Literary History of Hebrew Grammarians and Lexicographers, Oxford
Univ. Press, 1926
Hofmann (1891)T. Hofmann, Mitteilungen aus Saadias arabischer bersetzung und
Erklrung der Psalmen: Die korachitischen Psalmen, Stuttgart 1891
Hope (1971)T.E. Hope, Lexical borrowing in the Romance Languages III, Oxford 1971
Ibn Barnsee Kokowtzow
Ibn Gikatillasee Gikatilla
Ibn Tibbonyr ,hmqr :(grtm) wbyt ba hdwhy r
IMHMInstitute of Microlmed Hebrew Manuscripts
Jmi', or: Jmi' al-Alfsee Alfsi
Jastrow (1903)M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, etc., N.Y. (1886; 1903)
Ksee Tafsir
Kaufman (1974)S.A. Kaufman, The Akkadian Inuences on Aramaic, Chicago and
London, 1974
Kaufmann (1886)D. Kaufmann, Das Wrterbuch Menachem Ibn Saruks nach
Codex Bern 200, ZDMG 40 (1886), pp. 367409
Kaufmann (1887)idem, Die Schler Menachems und Dunaschs im Streite ber
w[mmk jmq, ZDMG 41 (1887), pp. 297301
Kitb al-wiMS TS Ar. 31.129; see also Harkavy (18951896), Steinschneider
(1901), Poznanski (1901), Abramson (1877), Maman (2000)
Kitb al-"Istighn"see S. HaNagid
Kitb al-Mushtamilsee Ab-l-Faraj
Kitb al-Muwzanasee Kokowtzow
Kitb al-Nawdir,rdawnla batk ,brj b bahwla db[ ybar[ala ljsm yba
1961 qmd ,sj hz[ qyqjtb
Kitb al-Nutafsee: Kokowtzow (1916), pp. 193204; Allony (1970), Abramson
(19781978), Basal (2001)
Kitb al-Sab'n Lafarps ,(ynwla n dhm), wag hyd[s brl hfpl y[bsla batk
481 m[ ,b qlj ,(jyt) rhyxdlwg y dwbkl wrkyz
Kitb al-Tashwrsee Drenbourg (1980)
Kitb al-Taswiasee Drenbourg (1980)
Kitb Al-"Ulsee "Ul
Klar (1954)dyt byba lt ,ynwy[w yrqjm ,ralq b
Khler-BaumgartnerHebrisches und aramisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament, von
L. Khler und W. Baumgartner, dritte Auage, Leiden I 1967, II 1974, III 1983,
IV 1990, V 1995
Kokowtzow (1890)P.K. Kokovcov, hynarb[la hglla yb hnzawmla batk m hfylph rty
rz[yla swpdb grwbrfp fs ,ydrpsh wrb b qjxy yhrba wba wrbj ra hybr[law
1893 bwxbwqwq [ djy srptn ,1890 fywwanybar ybxw amrh[b
Kokowtzow (1913)P.K. Kokovcov, Kniga sravnenija evrejskogo jazyka s arabskim Ab
Ibragima (Isaaka) Ibn Barna ispanskago evreja konca XI i nachala XII veka (= K istoru
srednevekovoj evrejskoj lologu i evrejskoarabskoj literatury, vol. l). Petrogard: Akad. Nauk
1890, 1893
Kokowtzow (1916b)Kokowtzow (1916) yswrh qljb 19474 m[
Kokowtzow (1916)P.K. Kokovcov, hglla yb hnzawmla batk m ydj yfwql hzya
wrb b yhrba ybal-hybr[law hynarb[la Novye materialy dlja kharakteristiki Iekhudy
Khajjudzha Samuila Nagida i Nekotorykh drugikh predstavitelej evrejskoj lologiceskoj nauki v
X, XI i XII veke (= K istoru srednevekovoj evrejskoj lologu I evrejsko arabskoj literatury),

Vol. 2. Petrogard: Akad. Nauk 1916
Kopf (1976)[yys ,yyffwg-wg hm r[ ,tyrb[w tybr[ twanwlymb yrqjm ,pwq l
wlt ylwry ,ysa agr wdyb
Kosowsky (19161960)t-zft ylwry ,hnmh wl rxwa ,yqswwasaq yj
Kosowsky (19331961)akt-gxrt ylwry ,atpswth wl rxwa ,yqswasaq yj
Kosowsky (19541982)bmt-dyt ylwry ,dwmlt wl rxwa ,yqswwasaq ymynbw yj
Kosowsky (1980)bmt b ,mt a ,ylwry ,ymlwry dwmlt wl rxwa ,yqswswq m
Kutscher (1970)tyllkh twnlbh [qr l[ tyrb[h wlh rqjm twdlwt ,rfwq y
lt ylwry ,(tlpkwm trbwj)
Kutub al-Lughasee Skoss: (19421943, 1951, 1955); Harkavy, Hagoren (1906),
pp. 3132; Dotan (1997)
Lammens (1890)H. Lammens, Remarques sur les mots franais drivs de lArabe, Beyrouth
1890
Lane (18631893)E.W. Lane, An Arabic-English Lexicon, 18631893 (reprint 19556)
Lauterbach (1903)Saadja Al-fajjumis arabische Psalmenbersetzung und Commentar (Psalm
107124) von J.Z. Lauterbach, Berlin 1903
Lehmann (1901)S. Lehmann, Saadia al-Fajjumis arabische Psalmenbersetzung und
Commentar (Psalm 2141), Berlin 1901
Levin (19281943)gt-jprt ylwry ,by-a ,ynwagh rxwa ,ywl mb
Levitasee Meturgeman
Levy (1867)J. Levy, Chaldisches Wrterbuch ber die Targumim, Leipzig 1867 (Neu-
hebrisches und chaldisches)
Levy (1924)J. Levy, Wrterbuch ber die Talmudim und Midraschim, Berlin und Wien 1924
Liebermann (1915) wft qraywn ,y[rz rdsl atpswt ,mrbyl
Lisn al-'Arab19561955 twryyb ,ykrk 15 ,br[la asl ,rwfnm ba
LumaJ. Drenbourg, Le Livre des Parterres Fleuris, Grammaire Hbraque en Arabe dAboul-Walid
Merwan Ibn Djanah de Cordoue rywjnla ylat ,jyqntla batk m lwala zgla whw [mlla batk
qdqdmh hnwy rb zwbnmla ybfrqla jang ba awrm dylwla wba rwhmla ,
Paris 1886
Malter (1942)H. Malter, Saadia Gaon, His Life and Works, Philadelphia 1942
Maman (198990)A. Maman, Rabbi Jonah ben Janah, Leshonenu La'am 4041,
Jerusalem, 19891990, pp. 125131 (in Hebrew)
Maman (1992)A. Maman, The Lexical Element in David Alfsis Dictionary
Denitions, Genizah Research after Ninety Years: The Case of Judeo-Arabic (eds. J. Blau
and S.C. Reif ), Cambridge 1992, pp. 119125
Maman (1992a)A. Maman, The contribution of Aramaic and Arabic to the
philological exegesis of the Bible in the Middle-Ages, 'Am Vasefer VII, Jerusalem
1992, pp. 2537 (in Hebrew)
Maman (19934)A. Maman, Meor 'Ayin and the Karaite grammatical thought:
Review-Essay of: Meir Zislin (ed.), Meor 'Ayin, Moscow 1990, Leshonenu 58
(19931994), pp. 153165; IVV; (in Hebrew; English abstract)
Maman (1995)A. Maman, Medieval grammatical thought: Karaites versus
Rabbanites, Mehqarim Belashon 7 (1995) pp. 7996 (in Hebrew; English abstract)
Maman (1996)A. Maman, The innitive and the verbal noun according to Ab-
l-Faraj Harun, Studies in Hebrew and Jewish Languages, Presented to Shelomo Morag,
Jerusalem 1996, pp. 119149 (in Hebrew; English abstract)
Maman (1996a)A. Maman, Goshens Judah Ibn Bal'ams Commentary on Isaiah,
Review of M. Goshen-Gottstein, R. Judah Ibn Bal'ams Commentary on Isaiah: The
Arabic Original according to MS Firkovitch (Ebr-arab I 1377), With the assistance of Ma'aravi
Perez, Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1992, JQR LXXXVI, January-April
1996, 468476
Maman (1997)A. Maman, The 'amal theory in the grammatical thought of Ab-
l-Faraj Harun, Massorot 91011: The Gideon Goldenberg Festschrift, pp. 263274
(in Hebrew; English abstract)
Maman (1998)A. Maman, To what extent have medieval Hebrew grammarians

made linguistic comparisons?, Te"uda 14 (1998) [Proceedings of the Fourth World
Conference of the Judeo-Arabic Society], pp. 8193 (in Hebrew)
Maman (1999)A. Maman, Hai Gaons method in his lexicon Kitb al-wi,
Studies in Ancient and Modern Hebrew in Honour of M.Z. Kaddari, ed. S. Sharvit, Ramat-
Gan 1999, pp. 235249 (in Hebrew)
Maman (2000)A. Maman, The remnants of R. Hai Gaons dictionary Kitb al-
wi in the Adler and Taylor-Schechter Geniza Collections, Tarbiz 69 (2000),
pp. 341421 (in Hebrew, English abstract)
Maman (2000a)A. Maman, The Flourishing Era of Jewish Exegesis in Spain:
The Linguistic School: Judah ayyj, Jonah ibn Janah, Moses ibn Chiquitilla
and Judah ibn Bal'am, Hebrew BibleOld Testament: The History of its Interpretation
I/2: The Middle Ages (ed. Magne Saboe), Gttingen (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht)
2000, chapter 31.1, pp. 261281
Maman (2001)A. Maman, The Hebrew alphabet as a grammatical mnemotech-
nic framework: Introduction to Al-Kitb al-Mushtamil, Part III, Mehqarim be-lashon
8 (2001), pp. 95139 (in Hebrew, English abstract)
Maman (2002)A. Maman, Order and meaning in radical letters: Ab l-Faradj
Haruns Al-Kitb al-Mushtamil, Part VII, Pe'amim 89 (2002), pp. 8395 (in Hebrew)
Maman (2003)A. Maman, The compound words in the eyes of Medieval Hebrew
philologists, Yaakov Bentolila Jubilee Volume (eds. D. Sivan & P.I. Halevy-Kirtchuk),
Eshel Beer-Sheva 8 (2003), pp. 277295 (in Hebrew)
Maman (Hassaga)A. Maman, Introduction, Sefer Ha-Hassaga, the Obadia Ha-
Sefardi translation of R. Yona b. Janahs Kitb al-Mustalhaq, annotated critical edition
by D. Tn (in Hebrew, 12 pp. in press, Publication of the Academy of Hebrew
Language, Jerusalem)
Margulies (1884)Saadia Al-fajjumis arabische Psalmenbersetzung von S.H. Margulies,
Breslau, 1884
Marouzeau (1961)J. Marouzeau, Lexique de la Terminologie Linguistique, Paris 1961
Marwick (1956)L. Marwick, The Arabic Commentary of Salmon ben Yeruham the Karaite
on the Book of Psalms, Ch. 4272, Philadelphia 1956
Meillet (1937)A. Meillet, Introduction ltude comparative des langues Indo-Europennes,
Paris 1937
Meturgeman1541 ynsa ,mgrwtm ,(rwjbh) yznka ywlh whyla
Mi-sifrei ha-balshanutsee Allony (1970)
Morag (1981)241 n ybrt ,[lb ylmb yynwl ynwy[-twmdq ydbwr ,grwm
m[ ,(amt)
Moscati (1964)S. Moscati (ed.), An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic
Languages, Otto Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden, 1964 (= Porta Linguarum Orientalium,
N.S. 11. 1964)
Moznayimanqt yyhndyyh w dhm ,arz[ b hrba rl dqh wl ynzam
MS Mnchen BTH.L. Strack, Talmud Babylonyium Codicis Hebraici Monacencis 95,
Leiden 1912
Munjidsee Al-Munjid
Munk (1851)S. Munk, Notice sur Aboul-Walid Merwan Ibn Djanah, etc., Paris 1851
(= JA, 1850.1, 297337; 1850.2, 550, 201247; 353427; 1851.1, 8593)
Munk (1858)S. Munk, Notice sur R. Saadia Gaon, Paris, 1858
Mushtamilsee Kitb al-Mushtamil
MustalaqJ. et H. Drenbourg, jang ba awrm dylwla ybal qjltsmla batk
ybfrqla Opuscule et Traits dAboul-Walid Merwan Ibn Djanah de Cordoue, Paris (1880),
1246
Muwzanasee Kokowzow
Netzer (1983)-rbynwah ,rwfqwd rwbyj ,bhmyb yyrb[h yqdqdmh ybtkb lzj wl ,rxn n
gmt ylwry ,tyrb[h hfys
Neubauer (1863)A. Neubauer, Notice sur la lexicographie hbraque avec des remarques
sur quelques grammairiens postrieurs Ibn Djanah, Paris 1863 (= JA 1861, 441476;
1862 4781, 359416; 1863, 195216)
Neubauer (1875)see "Ul
Nir (1978)jlt byba-lt ,hdjh tyrb[h l hqyfnms ,ryn r
NitzaneiA.Z. Rabinowitz, yrb[h qwdqdh twynwmdqb tyrwfsyh hryqj ,qwdqdh ynxn
zprt byba lt ,(1895 rkab l yrb[ wgrt)
Nutt (1870)J.W. Nutt (ed.), Two Treatises on Verbs Containing Feeble and Double Letters
by R. Jehuda Hajjug of Fez, Translated into Hebrew from the Original Arabic by R. Moses
Gikatila of Cordova to which is Added the Treatise on Punctuation by the Same Author,
Translated by Aben Ezra, London-Berlin 1870
Otzar ha-Geonimsee Levin
Payne SmithR. Payne Smith, Thesaurus Syriacus, Oxford, 18791901
Perez (1978),rwfqwd rwbyj ,[lb ba hdwhy r l tygwlwlyph wtwnrp ,rp m
jlt ,g tmr ,lya-rb tfysrbynwa
Perez (1981), [lb ba hrwhy r ywrypb rwb twyadyjy ylmb lwpyfh ,rp m
232213 m[ ,(amt) hm wnnwl
Perez (2000)wryp wtb dygnh lawm r l angtsala batk wtm twabwm ,rp m
287241 m[ ,(st) by ,wdqh jrzmhw arqmh rqjl wtn , ylht rpsl ymynwna
Perez 2000ast g tmr ,(rp m rydhm) ,laqzjy rpsl [lb ba hdwhy r wryp
Pinsker (1860)hl rwfar[fylhw arqm ynb td twrwql ,twynwmdq yfwql ,rqsnyp
rt hnyw ,yybr[w yyrb[ dy-ybtk p[
Pottier (1973)B. Pottier (ed.) Le Language, Paris, 1973
Poznanski (REJ 1909)S. Poznanski, Les Ouvrages linguistiques de Samuel Hannaguid,
Paris 1909 (= REJ 1909, 253267)
Poznanski (1895)S. Poznanski, Moses B. Samuel Hakkohen Ibn Chiqatilla nebst den
Fragmenten seiner Schriften (1895)
Poznanski (1896)S. Poznanski, Aboul-Faradj Haroun Ben Al-Faradj le gram-
mairien de Jrusalem et son Mouschtamil, REJ 33 (1896), 2439; 197218
Poznanski (1901)S. Poznanski, Zu Hai Gaons Kitb al-wi, ZDMG 55 (1901),
pp. 597604
Poznanski (1908)S. Poznanski, Nouveaux renseignements sur Aboul-Faradj Haroun
Ben Al-Faradj et ses ouvrages, REJ 55 (1908), 4269
Poznanski (1916)S. Poznanski, Hebrisch-arabische Sprachvergleichung bei Jehuda
Ibn Bal"am, ZDMG 70 (1916), pp. 449476
Poznanski (192526)S. Poznanski, New Material on the history of Hebrew and Hebrew-
Arabic philology during the XXII centuries, JQR 16 (19256), pp. 23766
Poznanski (1969)a yrb[h qljh ,ybkrhl wrkz rps , awryq yna ,yqsnnzwp a
220175 m[ (fsrt grwbrfp =) fkt ylwry
Poznanski (1971)S. Poznanski, The Karaite Literary Opponents of Saadia Gaon,
in Ph. Birnbaum (ed.), Karaite Studies, N.Y. 1971
Rabbenu Tam wdnwl ,yqswwapylyp dhm (nwdl jnm yb) tw[rkh ,(tr) ryam b bq[y
(nwd twbwt [) 1855
RadaqBisenthal-Lebrecht (eds.), 1847 ydrpsh yjmq swy b dwd ybrl yrh rps
Ratzhabi (1964)at ,yrgnrwql wrkzh s , arqml hyd[s br ryspt l[ ,ybhxr y
(250237 m[) dkt
Ratzhabi (1966)ytlb ynmyt yk wtm ynwqytw ,yawlym-gbyrl lwxala k ,ybhxr y
295273 m[ ,(wkt) l wnnwl , [dwn-
Ratzhabi1256 (fyt) gk ,4541 m[ ,(zft) k wnnwl , hnmla faplal twpswn
Rieder (1974)ymwj hmj l[ layzw[ b tnwy wgrt hnwkmh ymrah wgrth ,rdyr d
dlt ylwry ,hrwt
Riqmaba hdwhy r l yrb[h wmwgrtb jang ba hnwy rl ([mlla batk) hmqrh rps
aybh ,rydhmh l wnwbzy[m twdj twr[h hbw hyyn hrwdhm (fprt) yqsnlyw dhm ,wbt
dkt ylwry ,yyj b baz [ hx[b anf dwd swpdl
Rislat al-Tanbhsee Drenbourg (1880)

Rubens (1881)D. Rubens, Trait de Grammaire Syriaque, Paris 1881
Saadia, Alf al-Mishna,hyt (bk); 178167 ,4831 (dyt) jy wnnwl ynwla rhm
172147
Sabn Lafasee Kitb al- Sab'n Lafa
Senz-Badillos (1980)A. Senz-Badillos, Teshubot de Dunash ben Labrat, Granada,
1980
Senz-Badillos (1981)A. Senz-Badillos, Les Teshubot de Dunas Ben Labrat
Contre Le Mahberet de Menahem, Matriaux Nouveaux, Mlanges D. Barthlmy,
dit par P. Casseti, O. Keel et A. Schenker, (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 38)
Fribourg-Gttingen 1981)
Senz-Badillos (1986)A. Senz-Badillos, Menahem Ben Saruq, Mahberet, Granada
1986
Safa Berourafxqt ,ampyl hn dhm ,arz[ ba hrba rl hrwrb hp
Salmon ben YeruhimCommentary to Psalms 6269, MS Oxford Bodley 29/2626;
Psalms 189, ll. 1a359b with Arabic translation, MS St. Petersburg, Firkowitch
1555; Psalms 172, MS St. Petersburg, Firkowitch II 1345 (= IMHM P 3316, F
10584/5) See also: Marwick (1956), Vajda (1971)
Schreier (1904)Saadia Al-fajjumis arabische Psalmenbersetzung und Commentar (Psalm
125150) von Bernard Schreier, Berlin 1904
Schrter (1866)frbwr xwh ,wag hyd[s ybr l[ frbl b ywlh nwd twbwt rps
1866 walsrb ,rfr
Sefer ha-HassagaMSS Casanatensa 2, 202, Rome (IMHM F 80, P 3350); see
also: Maman Hassaga and Drenbourg (1880); Mustalaq
Sefer ha-Riqmasee Riqma
Sefer ha-Shorashimsee Shorashim
Shai (1975)ymlwryh swy rb wjnt rl (qypsmh yrdmh) ypakla drmla ,hsdh
hlt ylwry ,rwfqwd rwbyj (-l twytwa)
Shorashimb hnwy r br[ wlb wrbj qwdqdh trbjmm ynh qljh awh yrh rps
wnrt ,r[kab zb dhm ,wbt b hdwhy r dqh wl la wqyt[hw jang MS Vatican 1
54/Ar. (IMHM F 693); MS El-Escorial G 16 1 (IMHM F 10352)
Skoss (1933)S.L. Skoss, Fragments Unpublished . . . Philological Works of Saadia Gaon,
Philadelphia 1933 (= JQR N.S. 23 pp. 329336)
Skoss (19361945)S.L. Skoss, The Hebrew-Arabic Dictionary of the Bible Known as Kitb
Jmi' Al-Alf (Agron) of David ben Abraham Al-Fsi the Karaite (Tenth Century), vol.
III, Yale University Press, 19361945
Skoss (1942/3)S.L. Skoss, A Study of Inection in Hebrew from Saadia Gaons
Grammatical Work Kutub al-Lughah, JQR, N.S. 33 (1942/3), pp. 171212
Skoss (1951), gsrl hglla btk rpsm tyrb[b tw[wnth l[ rmamh , swqs . l. z.
184174 bk ybrt JQR 42, pp. 283317
Skoss (1955)S.L. Skoss, Saadia Gaon, the Earliest Hebrew Grammarian, Dropsie College,
Philadelphia, 1955 (= Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research
21 (1952), 75100; 22 (1953), 6590; 23 (1954), 5973
Sperber (1959);hrwtl swlqnwa wgrt :a rk (1959) tymrab rqh ybtk ,rbrp a
ynwrja yaybnl tnwy wgrt :g rk ;ynwar yaybnl tnwy wgrt :b rk
Steinschneider (1901)M. Steinschneider, Das Wrterbuch (al-wi) des Gaon
(Schulhauptes) Hai (gestorben 1038) ZDMG, 55 (1901), pp. 129134
Stern (1870b) ydymlt yrbd l[ byh ra frbl b ywlh nwd dymlth twbwt ,rf z
b qlj, 1870 hnyw) ,qwrs b jnm
Stern (1870)b nwd twbwt l[ qwrs ba bq[y b jnm ydymlt twbwt ,rf z
1870 hnyw ,br jnm l[ qlj ra ywlh frbl
Tafsr 1. (gnrt) grwbnyryd hw y dhm ,hybr[lab hyrwtla ryspt ,hrwtl gsr wgrt
[ ylht .3 (wnrt) grwbnyryd hw y dhm ,hy[y rps ryspt ,hy[yl gsr wgrt .2
ryspt ,ylml gsr wgrt .4 (wkt) jpaq y rhm ,hyd[s wnbr wagh wrypw wgrt
hpaq y ryspt ,bwyal gsr wgrt .5 (dnrt) frbml mw grwbnyryd y dhm ,hjrw yl rps
ryspt ,twlygm mjl gsr wgrt .6 (fnrt) r[bab zb dhm ,hjrw bwya .7 (bkt)
dhm ,twlygm mjl Tafsr to Psalms: see Margulies (1884), Lehman (1901), Hofman
(1891), Baron (1900), Galliner (1903), Eisen (1934), Lauterbach (1903), Schreier
(1904)
Tajwgrt [ hrwt ymwj hmj awhw gat wnynwmdq wlb arqnh hrwt rtk rps
hrwdhm , adn yyj b hrba-k yqar[ swy b wl . . . yhygmh . . . swlqnwa
jkt) tnqwtm
Talmid Dunashydymlt yrbd l[ byh ra . . . frbl b ywlh nwd dymlt twbwt
1870 rf z dhm ,ywlh frbl b nwd twbwt l[ . . . qwrs b jnm
Talshir (1981)amt ylwry ,ynwrmwh l ymrah wgrtb yyjh yl[b twm
Tn (1972a)47 rps tyrq , (fkt) ynwla l[ trwqyb ,ymwypla swy b hyd[s ,anf d
m[ ,(blt) 553545
Tn (1972)D. Tn, Linguistic Literature, Hebrew, EJ 16, pp. 13521390
Tn (1980)D. Tn, The Earliest Comparisons of Hebrew with Aramaic and
Arabic in K. Koerner (ed.), Progress in Linguistic Historiography (= Studies in the
History of Linguistics vol. 20, Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic
Science, III, AmsterdamJohn Benjamins B.V. 1980, pp. 355377
Tn (1983)yh twamb ybr[h rwbydh rwzab) wlh t[ydyw twnwlh tawwh ,anf d
tkyr[b hbyl w[yghb yyj-b bazl ygwm wl yrqjm wtb ,(lbwqmh yynml ayhw
287237 m[ ,nmt ylwry ,ytprx [bg ,anf d ,twd a ,ra-rb m
Tn (1984)see Willensky-Tn
Teshubot Dunash on Sa'adiasee Schrter
Teshubot Dunashsee Filipowski (1855), Senz-Badillos (1980)
Teshubot Menahems studentssee Stern (1870)
Troupeau (1976)G. Troupeau, Lexique-Index du Kitb de Sibawayhi, Paris 1976
Tzahotzpqt ampyl hn dhm ,arz[ ba hrba rl twjx rps and see: Del Valle
Ukashi (1999)fnt ylwry ,(hyxfrsyd) wtry yp l[ dygnh wlym ,yqw[ x
"UlA. Neubauer, The Book of Hebrew Roots by Abl Walid Marwan Ibn Janah,
Called Rabbi Jonah, dylwla ybal lwxala batk whw jyqntla batk m ynatla zgla,
jang b awrm, Oxford 1875
"Ul, ManuscriptsThe British Library, Margoliouth; London, Or. 953 4837
(IMHM F 6457); Rouen, the Municipal Library 2 (IMHM F 6652, F 7336, P
8814)
Vajda (1971)G. Vajda, Deux Commentaires Karaites sur lEcclsiastes b wmls wrypm
tlhql yjwry, Leiden 1971
Varela MorenoMa Encarnacion Varela Moreno, Teubot de Yehudi ben eet, Granada
1981
Watad (1994)ybr[h rwqmb wyjnwml d[bm gwyj yr l tynwlh wtnm ,dtw [
1994 hpyj ,(ynwyxndrwqnwq wlym llwk) yrb[h mwgrtbw
Wechter (1941)P. Wechter, Ibn Barns Contribution to Comparative Hebrew
Philology, JAOS 61 (1941), pp. 172187
Wechter (1947),f-j ,hqyrma ydwhyl hnh rps tyrb[h twnlbh twdlwtl ,stnp rfkww
389371 ,m[ ,zt qrwy wyn
Wechter (1964)P. Wechter, Ibn Barns Arabic Works on Hebrew Grammar and Lexico-
graphy, Philadelphia, The Dropsie College for Hebrew and Cognate Languages, 1964
Wensinck (19361939)Wensinck, Concordance de la Tradition Musulmanne, Leiden,
19361939
Willensky-Tnsee Riqma
Yastrow (1897)M. Yastrow, The Weak and Geminative Verbs in Hebrew by Ab Zakarijja
Yahya ibn Dawid of Fez known as Hayyug, Leiden 1897
Yellin (1942)lawmlw qalwg ral wrkz rps ,frbl b nwd twqbath ,yly d
114104 m[ ,bt ylwry ,lz yylq
Yellin (1945)ht ylwry ,yrb[h qwdqdh twjtpth twdlwt ,yly d
Zarfati (1978)jlt ylwry ,tyrb[ hqyfnms ,ytprx ym[-b dg

Zislin (1962)grpla wbal hynarb[la hglla yp ypakla batkla m [fq ,ylsyz m
,wrah Palestinskiy Sbornik 7 (70) (1962), pp. 178184
Zislin (1965)hynarb[la hglla yp ypakla batkla m [fq ,ylsyz m, Kratkiye
Soobashcheniya 86 (1965) 164177
Zucker (1915)ardtsala batk ,ywlh ysn b rbm ,rqwx m
Zucker (1959)fyt ,ylqwrb hrwtl gsr wgrt l[ ,rqwx m
GENERAL INDEX
Abraham b. Shelomo 392 296, 299, 301, 302, 305, 317, 321,
Abraham HaBavli 38, 53, 54, 56, 335, 337, 339, 342345, 348, 364,
382, 383, 405, 414 365, 367, 368, 375, 376, 378, 384,
Abraham ibn Ezra see: Ibn Ezra 396, 400, 401, 408
Abramson 55, 144, 169, 282, 296, Ballote 155
297, 368, 371, 386, 387, 388390, Bar 'Ali 336
408 Bar-Asher xvii
Ab-l-Faraj Hrn 53, 57, 102, 367, Bar Bahlul 336
368, 375380, 383, 404, 405, 407, Bargs 257
414, 419478 Bargs-Goldberg 3
Ab Masal al-"i'rabiy 98 Baron 172, 257
Accent 196, 197 Basal 10, 296, 297, 376
Accusative 187 Basic vocabulary 406
Akkadian 417 Bauer-Leander 332
Alancabuth 154 Baumgartner 202204
Alfsi xv, 1, 2, 3, 5, 11, 17, 18, BDB 414, 419478
2027, 3439, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, Becker xvi, 3, 10, 14, 17, 24, 27, 29,
5153, 5559, 6166, 70, 71, 77, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 51, 55, 65, 81,
81, 84, 85, 87, 8991, 95, 98, 99, 82, 100, 101, 106, 124, 137, 174,
100, 101, 104112, 116119, 121, 180, 181, 257, 272, 278, 283, 299,
126, 127, 129, 131, 133, 135137, 308, 323, 327, 329, 346, 349, 396,
173, 177, 182275, 328, 356, 367, 407, 418, 420, 430, 434, 440, 444,
368, 377, 383, 397, 400, 404, 405, 446, 448, 449, 451, 469
407, 408, 419478 Ben ayyim 452
Alhandal 155 Ben Labrat 1, 5, 14, 15, 18, 34, 35,
Al-Khall 400 36, 42, 5358, 86, 100, 127129,
Allony 93, 169, 170, 291, 296, 297, 133, 135, 168, 169, 276, 281, 283,
302, 316, 384, 385, 386, 408, 423 289295, 367, 398, 405, 406, 408,
Almargen 154 409, 411, 414, 423, 419478
Al-Murshid al-K see: Tanum Ben Saruq 1, 5, 6, 7, 14, 15, 18, 20,
Yerushalmi 22, 25, 32, 33, 37, 38, 4143, 51,
Alvarde 154 5355, 63, 64, 70, 71, 76, 86, 100,
'amal 376 101, 104, 106109, 112, 119, 133,
Ankori 255 168, 276289, 331, 332, 367, 403,
Arabicez Hebrew 160 404406, 408, 409, 411, 414,
Aramaism 175 419478
Articial words 173, 379 Ben Saruqs disciples 14, 53, 276,
Arukh see: Nathan 277, 282, 414, 419478
Assimilation 19 Ben-Shammai 91, 260
Assyrian 54 Ben Sheshet 1, 14, 15, 40, 101, 276,
414, 419478
Babylonian Talmud see: Talmud Ben Yehuda 15, 155, 156, 335, 414,
Babylonian Tradition 332, 335 417
Bacher 2, 16, 22, 27, 32, 34, 54, 65, Berber 31, 58, 401
72, 81, 85, 138, 140, 144, 148, 149, Berliner 335
152, 156, 163, 180, 277, 278, 281, Birnbaum 173, 255
492 general index
Bismuth 155 209, 212, 215, 216, 267, 280, 317,

Bland 174, 255 319, 323, 329, 337, 349, 350, 353,
Blau 174, 452 355, 356, 357, 360, 361, 373, 382,
Bois de corail 156 398, 401, 410
Brill 98 Even-Shoshan 211
Brockelmann 136 Excursuses 62, 84, 127, 197, 200,
Brody 13 222, 228, 278, 410
Cairo Genizah xvii, 381 Firkowitch 296

Chrisitan translation of the Bible 388 Foreign words 22
Cimterre 154 Fraenkel 175
comparative grammar see: French 152156
grammatical comparisons Frequency 123
Conjugations see: verb Fuchs 86, 101, 120, 173, 388, 389,
390
Dagesh 33
Dalman 332 Galliner 172, 175, 257
David b. Abraham see: Alfsi Garbell 164
David Qimi see: Qimi Gender 185, 327, 384
Declarative 164 Gesenius 164
Deliberate comparison 64, 115, 196 Ginzburg 194, 212
Denominative verb 186, 351, 378, 387 Girafe 154
Dental 37 Goldenberg 39, 163165, 169, 172, 296,
Derenbourg 31, 166, 172, 174, 175, Goshen-Gottschtein 386
176, 310, 342, 352, 427, 457, 461 Goldziher 255
De Saussure xvi Gottheil 336
Descriptive 28 Grammatical comparisons 103, 114,
Diachronic xvi, 28, 29, 135, 409 128, 163, 183, 185, 197, 199, 208,
Diacritical 321, 343, 399, 400 251, 294, 296, 297, 299, 312, 353,
Dialectological 159 375, 376, 381, 382, 383, 386, 392,
Diglossia 8, 9 405
Dotan 3, 165, 169171, 283 Greek xv, 339, 373
Dozy 173, 320 Gross 277, 279, 281, 290, 291, 411,
Dunash ben Labrat see: Ben Labrat 439
Dunash b. Tamm 5, 11, 18, 21, Guiraud 153
180, 381, 382, 388 Guitare 154
Duval 336
HaBavli see: Abraham HaBavli
Edomite 155 HaBaur see: Levita
Egron see: Sa'adiah adth 91, 98, 99, 401
Ecker 172 Hai Ga"on 1, 3, 16, 17, 18, 63, 68,
Eisen 172, 257 70, 73, 82, 115, 282, 337, 367,
Eldar 296 371374, 383, 396, 405, 407, 408,
Ema 154 414, 419478
ENA 296 Hagiographia see: Ketuvim
Eppenstein 2, 4, 15, 58, 174, 388, Halakha 175
396, 397 Halkin 58, 401
Epstein 54, 55, 72, 77, 142, 172, HaNagid 18, 380382, 385, 414
191, 336 Haneberg 172
etymology/etymological xv, xvi, 21, hapax legomena 108, 119, 279
23, 28, 40, 41, 42, 43, 49, 59, 63, Harkavy 164, 177, 296, 371, 372,
66, 67, 74, 75, 76, 80, 97, 103, 373, 384
106, 108111, 114, 115, 118, 123, ayyj xvi, 5, 16, 39, 40, 53, 88,
137, 157, 197, 201, 202, 204, 208, 103, 104, 193, 284, 296298,
general index 493
305307, 309312, 360, 368, 372, Inevitable comparisons 64, 104, 196,
375, 376, 377, 383, 384, 385, 404, 203, 206, 283
405, 406, 408, 409, 414 Indo-European 23
Hebraism 174, 404, 452 Institute of Microlmed Hebrew
Heterophonic letters 189, 203 MSS, The National and
imyar 47 University Library, Jerusalem 6,
Hirschfeld 162, 376, 378 146, 257, 301
historical 28, 202 Iraq 403
Hofmann 257 Isaac ibn Barn see: Ibn Barn
Homoioteleuton 321 Israel 403
Homonymy 123, 193 Italian 152
Homophony 124
Hope, T.E. 154 Jamharat al-lughah 394
Japhet see: Yefet
Ibn al-Sarrj 376 Jmi al-Alf see: Alfsi
Ibn Bal'am 1, 2, 7, 16, 17, 18, 21, Jastrow 273, 334336, 360
28, 3437, 38, 53, 54, 57, 82, 85, Jewish languages 40, 98
86, 101, 120, 138, 139, 140, 144, Jonah Ibn Jan see: Ibn Jan
172, 173, 310, 385391, 388, 405, Jonathan see: Targum Yonathan
407, 408, 414, 419478 Judah ayyj see: ayyj
Ibn Barn xvii, 1, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, Judah ibn Bal'am see: Ibn Bal'am
12, 13, 15, 18, 21, 28, 3437, 40, Judah ibn Quraysh see: Ibn Quraysh
41, 4649, 53, 58, 59, 82, 91, 100, Judah ibn Tibbon see: Ibn Tibbon
124, 134136, 166, 173, 174, 177, Judeo-Arabic 174, 175
192, 299, 317, 318, 319, 320, 322,
392402, 403, 404, 405, 407, 408, Kadif, kataif 155
419478 Karaites 93, 162, 173, 177, 191, 212,
Ibn Ezra 1, 2, 4, 13, 15, 32, 162, 255, 258, 259, 262, 264, 267, 367,
173, 181, 302, 307, 332, 375, 380 376, 397, 398, 404, 405, 417, 477
Ibn Gikatilla 1, 16, 102, 381, 384, Kaufmann 277279, 281, 283, 417
385, 388, 394, 405, 407, 408, 414 Ketib 377
Ibn Jan xv, 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 15, Ketuvims Targum 109, 252, 339,
16, 17, 1823, 25, 26, 31, 32, 367
3448, 5358, 61, 62, 65, 66, 71, Kitb al-Af 'l "al-Mushtaqqa min al-"Asm"
72, 73, 74, 77, 78, 8183, 85, 386
8795, 101105, 107, 109, 110, Kitb al-'ayn 400
112116, 118123, 129, 130, Kitb al-"istighn" see: HaNagid
137146, 148152, 156, 158160, Kitb al-K see: Ab-l-Faraj Hrn
166, 168, 169, 172, 193, 212, 273, Kitb al-Mushtamil see: Ab-l-Faraj
299370, 375, 385, 387, 388, 396, Hrn
397, 398, 400, 401, 402, 404411, Kitb al-Muwzana bayn al-Lugha
414, 419478 al-'Ibrniyya wal-'Arabiyya see: Ibn
Ibn Quraysh xvi, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, Barn
17, 18, 19, 22, 24, 27, 28, 3032, Kitb al-Luma' see: Ibn Jan
3441, 46, 51, 53, 58, 65, 66, 72, Kitb al-Nutaf see: ayyj
76, 81, 82, 100, 101, 123, 124, Kitb al-tadhkr wa-l-ta"nth 384
134, 137, 174, 177, 180181, 193, Kitb al-"Ul see: Ibn Jan
257, 272, 283, 367, 368, 381, 396, Kitb al-'uqd see: Ab-l-Faraj Hrn
397, 401, 404407, 408, 409, 414, Kitb al-Tanq see: Ibn Jan
419478 Kitb urf al-ma'n 386
Ibn Tibbon 7, 48, 53, 54, 55, 57, Kitb Jmi al-Alf see: Alfsi
58, 78, 139142, 144, 145, 148, Kittle-Kahle 332
152, 153, 155161, 300, 330, 341, Klar 172
350, 357, 361, 364, 365 Kutub al-luah see: Sa'adiah
494 general index
Koehler-Baumgartner 203, 414, 417, Meillet 23

419478 Metaphor 42, 49, 200, 282, 350,
Kohut 334 423
Kokowtzow 2, 3, 9, 37, 58, 139, 140, Metathesis 194, 204, 232, 297, 322,
174, 296, 297, 298, 317, 380, 382, 323, 324, 334, 343, 344, 388, 400,
384, 386, 388, 392, 396, 398, 402 401, 403, 433
Kopf 173, 303, 317, 318, 371 Metonymy 361
Kosowski 334, 336 Meturgeman see: Levita
Mevasser Ha-Levi 165
La'az 153, 155, 156 Middle Arabic 182
Labials 37 Middle East 403
Lammens 154 Mishnah 55, 371
Lane 321 Moreh Nevukhim 58
Laryngeals 37 Morpheme 185, 294, 297, 332, 377,
Latin 155, 156, 401 384
Latin translation of the Bible 155 Morphology 296, 332, 353, 355, 377
Lauterbach 172, 257 Moscati 136
Lehmann 257 Mosheh HaKohen ibn Gikatilla
Letter interchanges 32, 33, 34, see: Ibn Gikatilla
3638, 188192, 201, 210, 214, Moshe ibn Ezra 58, 401
233, 234, 291293, 316, 317, 321, MS Alsheikh, San'a 451
322, 333, 357, 373, 387, 392, 399, MS Bern 277, 283
400, 403, 423, 427 MS British Library 320, 321
Letter substitutions see: letter MS El-Escorial 144, 149, 306, 348
interchanges MS Hamburg 283
Levi 336 MS Leiden 334
Levita 207, 273, 286, 335, 341 MS Munich 334
Lexicology-lexicography 119, 127, MS Oxford 300, 306, 321, 342, 346,
128, 138161, 196197, 204, 210, 367
254, 309, 310, 312, 316, 321, 326, MS Peterburg 375
328, 330, 331, 344, 395, 411 MS Rome 144, 146, 306
Lieberman 334 MS Rouen see: Rouen MS
Limpidity see: transparency MS Vatican 149, 334
Linguals 37 Munk 106, 162, 172, 380
Liqqutei Qadmoniot see: Pinsker Muraoka xviii
Luma' see: Ibn Jan Mustalaq see: Ibn Jan
Muwzana see: Ibn Barn
Maberet see: Ben Saruq
Malter 106, 172 Nahawendi 255
Maman 87, 137, 164, 165, 259, 296, Narkissos 339
299, 369, 371, 373, 376, 377, 384, Nathan ben Yeiel 142, 273, 335, 336
385, 386, 388, 407, 408 Natron 155
Mandille 155 Netzer 14, 212, 251
Mappiq 20 Nir xvi
Margaliouth 320 Neubauer 6, 149, 152, 255, 300, 312,
Margulies 257, 477 319, 320, 321, 337, 341, 342,
Marouzeau xv 344346, 348, 383, 447
Mastic 155 North Africa 403, 404
Madar 130, 376 Number 185, 187, 384, 385
Masora 19, 345, 377 Numeral 187
Mekhilta 334
Menaem ben Saruq see: Ben Saruq Obadiah Ha-Sepharadi 146
Menaems disciples see: Ben Saruqs Onqelos 55, 176, 206, 207, 212, 252,
disciples 286, 335, 341
general index 495
Opuscules see: Ibn Jan Rislat al-tanbh see: Ibn Jan

Otiyyot ha-'inyanim 386 Rislat al-taqrb wa-t-tashl see: Ibn Jan
Rislat al-taswi"a see: Ibn Jan
Palatals 37 Root theory xv, 39, 117, 309, 322,
Palestinian Targum 252, 254 404, 405, 406
Papegai 154 Rouen MS 7, 174, 273, 299316, 345,
Partridge 156 346, 364, 365, 367, 405, 411, 414,
Payne-Smith 336 419478
Perdix 156 Rubens 54
Perez 16, 21, 23, 28, 81, 101, 172,
278, 280, 283, 381, 386, 388, 389, Sa'adiah Gaon 1, 4, 5, 11, 15, 16,
390 17, 18, 41, 5457, 65, 68, 70, 71,
Permutation 371 72, 81, 85, 86, 93, 102, 162179,
Persian words 27, 202 181, 191, 193, 217, 255257, 259,
Philipowski 42, 277, 284, 286, 434, 439 262264, 266271, 273, 281, 289,
Phonetics-phonology 40, 59, 122, 291, 310, 311, 316, 324, 365, 367,
189, 210, 215 375, 379, 386, 388, 396, 397, 398,
Pinsker 1, 3, 81, 255, 277, 283 403, 405409, 411, 414, 419478
Polysemy 43 Sab'n lafa see: Sa'adiah Gaon
Possessive pronoun 294 Sacre 154
Pottier xvi Senz-Badillos 6, 41, 42, 128, 129,
Poznanski 1, 2, 5, 81, 85, 101, 102, 276, 278, 281, 283, 284, 290, 291,
162, 255, 301, 371, 372, 373, 375, 293, 295, 409, 434, 439
376, 377379, 384, 385, 386, Safah Berurah see: Ibn Ezra
388390, 406, 408 Safran 154
Preposition 187, 215, 310, 387 Sahin 155
Provenal 152, 153 Salmon b. Yeruim 1, 11, 86, 93,
Peshitta 207 255, 256, 258260, 263273, 275,
Pseudo-Jonathan 207, 252, 254, 404, 408
335 Sandal, Santal 154
Schreier 257
Q 164, 166, 167, 191, 257, 261, Schroeter 15, 163, 281, 289, 293,
262, 271, 477 294, 295, 432
Qeri 294, 377 Sarfatti xvi
Qimi 20, 153 Schwartz 58
Qirqisani 255 Second Targum to Esther 341
Qumisi 255 Sefer Ha-Ma'aneh 342
Qur"n 79, 98, 173, 175, 401 Sefat Yeter see: Ibn Ezra
Sefer haRiqmah see: Ibn Jan
Rabbenu anan"el 334 Sefer HaShorashim see: Ibn Jan
Rabbenu Tam 42 Sefer Moznayim see: Ibn Ezra
Rabbinic Hebrew 74, 205, 212, 360, Semanteme 42, 407, 409
372, 407, 449 Semantics/semantic comparisons 40,
Radaq see: Qimi 41, 42, 47, 59, 66, 67, 80, 103, 128,
Rabbi Aqiba 443 200, 203, 204, 217, 219, 220, 229,
Rabinovitsch 281 348350, 353, 360, 361, 373, 388,
Rashi 281, 332, 334 390
Razhabi 2, 172, 175, 343, 346, 347, semantic transparency xvi, 115, 123,
451 130,
Resh Laqish 369 Shay 81
Realia 96, 120, 152, 154, 175 Shemuel HaNagid see: HaNagid
Rieder 207, 335 Sherira Ga"on 72, 114, 333, 334,
Riqma see: Ibn Jan 336, 339, 341, 358
Risla see: Ibn Quraysh Shift 29
496 general index
Shorashim see: Ibn Jan Varela-Moreno 40

Sibawayhi 98 variant readings 26, 52, 94, 192,
Sibilant 19 194, 210, 213, 233, 235, 249,
Signiant-signi 31, 120, 122, 141, 250, 262, 265, 283, 331, 335,
145, 216219, 303, 344, 351 340, 341
Skoss 3, 5, 88, 163, 164, 182, 185, Verbs:
188, 194, 203, 212, 233, 236, Conjugations 19, 20, 163, 164,
251253, 255, 272, 367 183, 184, 187, 197, 297, 332,
Solomon b. Joseph b. 'Iyyob 342 346, 382, 387
Spain 403 In 193
Spanish 152 Iy 39, 117
Sperber 207, 273, 335, 340, 341 IIy 103
Steinschneider 3, 371, 372, 408 IIIaleph 39
Stern 40 IIIy 39, 310, 322, 415
Stevenson 332 Geminates 39, 103, 193, 311
Storax 155 Tenses 164, 184, 185, 332
Strack 334 Vowels 193, 210, 215
Stylistic comparisons 165
Substitution see: letter Watad 296
Sumerian 417 Wechter 13, 32, 58, 106, 172, 180,
Syntax 164 278, 283, 296, 317, 318, 392, 394,
Syriac 53, 72, 336 396, 398, 401, 402, 449
Syrian 53 Wensinck 91, 98
Wilensky 2, 318, 321, 340, 367
Ta"wur 401 Wilensky-Tn 2, 367
Tafsr see: Sa'adiah Gaon Word loan 2527, 30
Tajns see: Ibn Bal'am
Talmud 9, 55, 72, 113, 114, 121, Yefet 93, 257272, 404
212, 334, 336, 369, 371 Yehuda"i Ga"on 339
Tanum Yerushalmi 4 Yehudi b. Sheshet see: Ben Sheshet
Targum Yonathan (b. Uzziel) 55, Yeivin 332
188, 192, 194, 207, 286, 340, Yellin 164, 280
356, 357
taf 33, 37, 317, 318, 320, 322, Zero term 51, 58, 59, 83, 196, 236,
398400, 404, 411 245, 246, 250, 286, 391, 395
tauto-etymological 60, 222, 225, 326, Zislin 377
343 Zucker 165, 172, 175
tautological denition 147, 411
Tn xvi, xvii, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, [, j, h, a 19
32, 33, 34, 37, 38, 81, 84, 86, 106, ywha 33, 65, 280, 403
136, 138, 163, 177, 180, 181, 188, ynagh rxwa 54, 336
215, 278, 280, 284, 317, 375, 384, rtja 27
392, 399, 400, 402 tw[dw twnwma see: Sa'adiah
Teshubot de Dunash b. Labrat see: hra[tsa 27, 52
Dunash b. Labrat lxa 296
Teshubot Dunash 'al Sa"adiah 133 artqa 27, 52
Tosefta 334, 371 tyrwa 53, 54
Transparency see: semantic qaqta see: qtm
transparency arta 58
Troupeau 98 qapta 25, 58
Tur-Sinai 106 hrwg 32
hlykd 27
"Ukashi 381 twlwdg twklh 339
"Ul see: Ibn Jan yqyqj 223
general index 497
[wdy 143, 303, 312 yfbn 54

w[mmk 41, 42, 51, 58, 86, 249, 250, ryfn 26, 27
276283, 290, 291, 295, 411 ysrws 54
jmla dwqh wl 29 twawpr yrps 72
h/snagm 25, 40, 58, 59, 322, 343, swk[la qyrf m :swk[ 32
360, 366, 396, 410 h[wmsm yl[ 213215, 250
lmhm 371 jm ybr[ 21, 24
hqbafm 40 yntl[p/ynyty[ 163
[wmsm 282 rwp 27
ra[tsm 282 twrhf rdsl ynwagh wryp 72, 77,
yn[m 40 334
wl[m 395 hjaxp 296
wr[m 88, 143, 159, 302304, 312, blqlab :blq 32
316, 325, 326 twjtpw twxmq 19
kpm 165 yrbdmh ar 178, 406
hnm 242, 245, 325 dwmlt 246
qtm 23, 57 gsr l[ twbwt 85, 163, 281
STUDIES IN SEMITIC
LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS
3. Corr, A.D. The Daughter of My People. Arabic and Hebrew Paraphrases of
Jeremiah 8.13-9.23. 1971. ISBN 90 04 02552 9
5. GrandHenry, J. Les parlers arabes de la rgion du Mza b (Sahara algrien). 1976.
ISBN 90 04 04533 3
6. Bravmann, M.M. Studies in Semitic Philology. 1977. ISBN 90 04 04743 3
8. Fenech, E. Contemporary Journalistic Maltese. An Analytical and Com-
parative Study. 1978. ISBN 90 04 05756 0
9. Hospers, J.H. (ed.). General Linguistics and the Teaching of Dead Hamito-
Semitic Languages. Proceedings of the Symposium held in Groningen, 7th-
8th November 1975, on the occasion of the 50th Anniversary of the Insti-
tute of Semitic Studies and Near Eastern Archaeology of the State University
at Groningen. 1978. ISBN 90 04 05806 0
12. Hoftijzer, J. A Search for Method. A Study in the Syntactic Use of the H-
locale in Classical Hebrew. With the collaboration of H.R. van der Laan
and N.P. de Koo. 1981. ISBN 90 04 06257 2
13. Murtonen, A. Hebrew in its West Semitic Setting. A Comparative Survey of
Non-Masoretic Hebrew Dialects and Traditions. Part I. A Comparative
Lexicon.
Section A. Proper Names. 1986. ISBN 90 04 07245 4
Section Ba. Root System: Hebrew Material. 1988. ISBN 90 04 08064 3
Section Bb. Root System: Comparative Material and Discussion. Sections C,
D and E: Numerals under 100, Pronouns, Particles. 1989.
ISBN 90 04 08899 7
14. Rets, J. Diathesis in the Semitic Languages. A Comparative Morphological
Study. 1989. ISBN 90 04 08818 0
15. Rouchdy, A. Nubians and the Nubian Language in Contemporary Egypt. A Case of
Cultural and Linguistic Contact. 1991. ISBN 90 04 09197 1
16. Murtonen, A. Hebrew in its West Semitic Setting. A Comparative Survey of
Non-Masoretic Hebrew Dialects and Traditions. Part 2. Phonetics and
Phonology. Part 3. Morphosyntactics. 1990. ISBN 90 04 09309 5
17. Jongeling K., H.L. Murre-van den Berg & L. van Rompay (eds.). Studies in
Hebrew and Aramaic Syntax. Presented to Professor J. Hoftijzer on the
Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. 1991. ISBN 90 04 09520 9
18. Cadora, F.J. Bedouin, Village, and Urban Arabic. An Ecolinguistic Study.
1992. ISBN 90 04 09627 2
19. Versteegh, C.H.M. Arabic Grammar and Qur"a nic Exegesis in Early Islam.
1993. ISBN 90 04 09845 3
20. Humbert, G. Les voies de la transmission du Kitab de Sbawayhi. 1995. ISBN
90 04 09918 2
21. Mifsud, M. Loan Verbs in Maltese. A Descriptive and Comparative Study.
1995. ISBN 90 04 10091 1
22. Joosten, J. The Syriac Language of the Peshitta and Old Syriac Versions of Matthew.
Syntactic Structure, Inner-Syriac Developments and Translation Tech-
nique. 1996. ISBN 90 04 10036 9
23. Bernards, M. Changing Traditions. Al-Mubarrads Refutation of Sbawayh
and the Subsequent Reception of the Kita b. 1997. ISBN 90 04 10595 6
24. Belnap, R.K. and N. Haeri. Structuralist Studies in Arabic Linguistics. Charles A.
Fergusons Papers, 1954-1994. 1997. ISBN 90 04 10511 5
25. Talmon R. Arabic Grammar in its Formative Age. Kita b al-"Ayn and its Attribution
to ]all b. Ah.mad. 1997. ISBN 90 04 10812 2
26. Testen, D.D. Parallels in Semitic Linguistics. The Development of Arabic la- and
Related Semitic Particles. 1998. ISBN 90 04 10973 0
27. Bolozky, S. Measuring Productivity in Word Formation. The Case of Israeli
Hebrew. 1999. ISBN 90 04 11252 9
28. Ermers, R. Arabic Grammars of Turkic. The Arabic Linguistic Model Applied to
Foreign Languages & Translation of #Abu- ayya-n al-#Andaluss Kita-b al-"Idra-k li-
Lisa-n al-"Atra-k. 1999. ISBN 90 04 113061
29. Rabin, Ch. The Development of the Syntax of Post-Biblical Hebrew. 1999.
ISBN 90 04 11433 5
30. Piamenta, M. Jewish Life in Arabic Language and Jerusalem Arabic in Communal
Perspective. A Lexical-Semantic Study. 2000. ISBN 90 04 11762 8
31. Kinberg, N. ; Versteegh, K. (ed.). Studies in the Linguistic Structure of Classical
Arabic. 2001. ISBN 90 04 11765 2
32. Khan, G. The Early Karaite Tradition of Hebrew Grammatical Thought. Including a
Critical Edition, Translation and Analysis of the Diqduq of "Ab Ya#qb
Ysuf ibn N on the Hagiographa. 2000. ISBN 90 04 11933 7
33. Zammit, M.R. A Comparative Lexical Study of Qur"nic Arabic.
ISBN 90 04 11801 2 (in preparation)
34. Bachra, B.N. The Phonological Structure of the Verbal Roots in Arabic and Hebrew.
2001. ISBN 90 04 12008 4
35. kesson, J. Arabic Morphology and Phonology. Based on the Mar al-arw by
Amad b. #Al b. Mas#d. Presented with an Introduction, Arabic Edition,
English Translation and Commentary. 2001. ISBN 90 04 12028 9
36. Khan, G. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Qaraqosh. 2002. ISBN 90 04 12863 8
37. Khan, G., ngeles Gallego, M. and Olszowy-Schlanger, J. The Karaite Tradi-
tion of Hebrew Grammatical Thought in its Classical Form. A Critical Edition and
English Translation of al-Kitb al-Kf f al-Lua al-#Ibrniyya by "Ab al-Faraj
Hrn ibn al-Faraj. 2 Vols. 2003. ISBN 90 04 13272 4 (Set), ISBN 90 04
13311 9 (Vol. 1), ISBN 90 04 13312 7 (Vol. 2)
38. Haak, M., De Jong, R., Versteegh, K. (eds.). Approaches to Arabic Dialects.
A Collection of Articles presented to Manfred Woidich on the Occasion of
his Sixtieth Birthday. 2004. ISBN 90 04 13206 6
39. Takcs, G. (ed.). Egyptian and Semito-Hamitic (Afro-Asiatic) Studies in Memoriam
W. Vycichl. 2004. ISBN 90 04 13245 7
40. Maman, A. Comparative Semitic Philology in the Middle Ages. From Sa#adiah
Gaon to Ibn Barn (10th-12th C.). 2004. ISBN 90 04 13620 7
41. Van Peursen, W.Th. The Verbal System in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira. 2004.
ISBN 90 04 13667 3
42. Elgibali, A. Investigating Arabic. Current Parameters in Analysis and Learning.
2004. ISBN 90 04 13792 0
43. Florentin, M. Late Samaritan Hebrew. A Linguistic Analysis of Its Different
Types. 2004. ISBN 90 04 13841 2
44. Khan, G. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Sulemaniyya and \alabja. 2004.
ISBN 90 04 13869 2

(Aaron Maman) Comparative Semitic Philology in The Middle Ages

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

(Aaron Maman) Comparative Semitic Philology in The Middle Ages

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

COMPARATIVE SEMITIC PHILOLOGY IN THE MIDDLE AGES

T. MURAOKA AND C.H.M. VERSTEEGH

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Copyright 2004 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal

printed in the netherlands

Abbreviations .............................................................................. xiii

Chapter One The motives of the comparative philology .... 8

Chapter Two The fundaments of comparison and the

Chapter Three Explicit comparisons .................................... 50

3.8 The Heb./Arab. comparison ........................................ 76

Chapter Four The implicit comparison ................................ 80

Chapter Five The aims of language comparison ................ 100

Chapter Six Language comparison in treatises translated

6.5 Ibn Tibbons method of adducing Arabic materials

Chapter Seven Rav Sa'adiah Ga"on ...................................... 162

Chapter Eight R. Judah ibn Quraysh (in remark Dunash

Chapter Nine David b. Abraham Alfsis comparative

Chapter Ten Menaem B. Saruq .......................................... 276

10.4 Comparisons recorded by Menaems disciples ........ 288

Chapter Eleven Dunash ben Labrat ...................................... 289

Chapter Twelve Rabbi Judah ayyj .................................. 296

Chapter Thirteen R. Jonah Ibn Jan .................................. 299

13.14 Heb./Arab. explicit semantic comparisons in "Ul/

Chapter Fourteen Hai Ga"on, Ab-l-Faraj,

Chapter Fifteen Mosheh HaKohen ibn Gikatilla,

Synopsis and conclusion ............................................................ 403

Chapter Sixteen The chart of comparisons .......................... 413

Abbreviations and Bibliographical References ........................ 479

Arab. = Arabic, Arabic entry

1. All emphases in quotations from the works of philologists are

science of the stemmatization of words from each other, i.e. the

The encounter of medieval Jewish scholars with Arabic linguistic lit-

I would like to express here my deep gratitude to the esteemed

The present study and previous studies1

Abraham Alfsis Kitb Jmi' al-"Alf; and W. Bacher (1882) surveyed

and Hebrew, whereas in fact he had failed to enter a considerable

Delimitation of the subject

clear, unambiguous features. This chapter has a beginning, a middle

Maberet of Menaem; eds. A. Senz-Badillos, 1980); R. Judah ibn

regarded as a comparison datum (implicit comparison) or not; whether

THE MOTIVES OF THE COMPARATIVE PHILOLOGY

1.1 Linguistic motives

1.1.1 The speech motive

language; the Jews dwelled in a diglossia of Hebrew and Aramaic.

1.1.2 The graphic factor

1.2 Literary motives

1.2.1 The theoretical framework of the grammatical treatises

1.2.2 Biblical Aramaic

1.2.3 The existence of Aramaic Bible translations

1.2.4 The existence of Arabic Bible translations

for Aramaic and Arabic Bible translations. At any rate, it is not

THE FUNDAMENTS OF COMPARISON AND THE

2.1 The permissible extent of comparative philology

Certain Hebrew grammarians occasionally apologize in their trea-

grammarians are not discussed in chronological order but rather in

retrieved from the other two languages and such an assumption is

record a comparison whenever such is theoretically possible does not

explaining infrequent words in the Bible. In the comparison data

Quraysh, as to whether these opinions had reached him directly or

2.2 The measure of anity between the three languages

R. Jonah b. Jan is the only scholar in the period under discus-