MAARAV 22.

1–2 (2018): 11–20

ON SOME SUPPOSED ARCHAISMS

IN MISHNAIC HEBREW

Edward M. Cook
CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA

There is now, it seems, general agreement that Mishnaic Hebrew (MH)

is, or is derived from, a spoken dialect of the Second Temple period,
and that for a time, it co-existed with Biblical Hebrew (BH) either as a
colloquial alternative or as a regional variant, or both. Some would go
further than this, however, and claim that MH is not genetically derived
from BH at all, but from a different dialect of the pre-exilic period.
M. Bar Asher says, “We have to think, rather, of two simultaneous but
distinct states, reflecting two different dialects. In other words, MH is the
continuation not of BH itself, but of a related dialect.”1 In support of this
claim, Bar-Asher and others point to several features of MH that, they
say, are more archaic than the parallel features in BH, indicating that BH
could not have been the matrix out of which MH developed.
This assertion has been picked up by Ian Young, Robert Rezetko, and
Martin Ehrensvard in their study Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts,2 in
support of the idea that the lexical and grammatical differences found
in the books of the Hebrew Bible are never indications of chronologi-
cal change, but are always and only stylistic variants. Among other as-
sertions, they claim that “Mishnaisms,” features like or anticipating the

1
  M. Bar-Asher, “Mishnaic Hebrew: An Introductory Survey,” in Studies in Classical
Hebrew (A. Koller, ed.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014): 235 (repr. of an article published in
Hebrew Studies 40 [1999]: 115–151). See also, e.g., A. Sáenz-Badillos, A History of the
Hebrew Language (J. Elwolde, trans.; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ., 1993): 56.
2
  I. Young and R. Rezetko, with M. Ehrensvard, Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts,
Volume I: An Introduction to Approaches and Problems (London: Equinox, 2008).
11
12 MAARAV 22.1–2 (2018)

grammar or lexicon of MH, are no sure indication of a later date: “If MH

is an independent dialect from BH, whose ancestor co-existed with BH
for an unknown length of time in the biblical period, non-chronological
explanations for the appearance of Mishnaisms are equally plausible.”3
Therefore the question of archaisms in MH is important, not simply
for the understanding of the genesis of MH itself, but for the deployment
of MH in understanding the history of Biblical Hebrew. It is accordingly
high time to re-examine the supposed archaisms in MH to see if they
are in fact archaisms and whether they can support the idea of MH as
stemming from a separate ancient dialect that sometimes preserves older
features than BH. I will argue that the supposed archaisms are not in fact
archaisms at all.
The most frequently cited archaic forms are the relative pronoun ‫שׁ‬ ֶ,
the feminine singular demonstrative pronoun ‫זֹו‬, the construct form of
the word for “night,” ‫ לֵילֵי‬, and the short ending -at/-āt instead of -tā in
the third person feminine singular perfect in final-weak (IIIy) verbs. I
shall discuss these in the order given.

1. THE RELATIVE PRONOUN ‫ ֶׁש‬+ GEMINATION

Although ‫ש‬ ֶ 4 is also occasionally found in BH, it is argued that, since

its etymology is completely separate from the usual BH relative ‫ֲשר‬ ֶ ‫א‬, it
must have originated in a different dialect, namely MH or its ancestor,
which uses exclusively ‫ש‬ ֶ .5
However, in 2006 John Huehnergard6 revived an old idea, that is, that ‫ש‬ ֶ
is actually derived from ‫ֲשר‬ ֶ ‫א‬. He demonstrates, in the first place, that ‫ ֶש‬is
not etymologically related to the Akkadian relative ša, an etymology that
is a mainstay of the “archaic” view. The evidence from the orthography
of Old Akkadian shows that Akkadian ša is from *θa, a variant of
Proto-Semitic *ða. Akkadian ša, then, is etymologically cognate to the
older Hebrew relative ‫ זּו‬and Aramaic ‫( ּדִי‬both of which derive from a
proto-form *ðV-), not to ‫ש‬ ֶ . Furthermore, as Huehnergard argues, the

3
 Young and Rezetko [n 2]: 246.
4 
‫ ֶׁש‬normally appears proclitically, with the first consonant of the host word doubled
(geminated). Since it is unwieldy to always repeat the words “‫ׁש‬ ֶ plus gemination,” I will
refer only to ‫ׁש‬ֶ , but the reader should understand this entails the longer description.
5
  E.g., Miguel Pérez Fernández, An Introductory Grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew (J.
Elwolde, trans.; Leiden: Brill, 1999): 8.
6 
John Huehnergard, “On the Etymology of the Hebrew Relative šɛ-,” in Biblical Hebrew
in its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives (S. Fassberg and
A. Hurvitz, eds.; Jerusalem and Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006): 103–125.
 COOK: ARCHAISMS IN MISHNAIC HEBREW 13

contraction of ‫ֲשר‬ ֶ ‫ א‬to ‫ ֶש‬is fully in accord with the kinds of phonological
reduction that typically take place in grammaticalization. It is generally
granted that ‫ אשר‬is a grammaticalized form of an original common noun
*ʾašr- meaning ‘place’, but the phonological erosion that led to ‫ׁש‬ ֶ has
not been noticed because of the previous erroneous etymology. Both the
elision of ʾalep when beginning a pretonic or propretonic syllable, and
the assimilation of final sonorant /r/ to the following syllable (resulting
in a geminate consonant) are not phonologically unusual, although they
do not fall into the category of regular sound changes.
As W. R. Garr has noted, “loss of [aleph] + short vowel in an open,
unaccented syllable is consistent with the general pattern” of the North-
West Semitic dialects.7 Huehnergard cites examples from Arabic and
Aramaic,8 but occurrences in the Canaanite dialects are not lacking.
One may note, for instance, in Phoenician, the proper name ‫חירם‬, from
original *‫אחירם‬, as well as ‫( חמלך‬compare BH ‫)אחימלך‬. Within Hebrew,
there is the progression of BH ‫ ֲא ַב ִטּי ַח‬to MH ‫ ַּב ִטּי ַח‬, and BH ‫ ֲא ַב ְעבֻּעֹת‬to
MH ‫ע‬ ַ ‫ ַּבעְבּוּ‬, as well as the infrequent first person plural pronoun ‫ נַחְנוּ‬in
place of the regular ‫ ֲאנַחְנוּ‬.9 An example particularly analogous to ‫אשר‬
is seen in the contraction of the object marker ‫ את‬to ‫ ת‬in the Bar Kosiba
letters of the second century c.e. (as well as in Punic,10 and even in
colloquial Modern Hebrew), so that, for intance, ‫ תמקום‬tammāqōm can
occur (5/6Hev 44 1:7) in place of standard ‫ את המקום‬ʾet hammāqōm.11
Although it does not lead in Hebrew to a regular sound change, the
general phonological instability of an unaccented syllable consisting of
initial /ʾ/ + short vowel is clear.
As for the assimilation of final /r/, it is a much less frequent sound
change in Semitic, but it is not completely unknown. Most examples are
sporadic and inter-dialectal; compare BH ‫ ַק ְרקַע‬, Akk. qaqqaru ‘ground’;
common Semitic ʾarnab, Akk. annabu ‘hare’;12 Aramaic has both ḥarṣā
and ḥaṣṣā ‘loin’.13 In addition, Huehnergard points to the case of the

7
 W. R. Garr, Dialect Geography of Syria-Palestine, 1000–586 B.C.E. (Philadelphia:
Univ. of Pennsylvania, 1985): 51–52.
8
  Huehnergard (n 6): 121.
9 
As Garr notes ([n 7]: 51), the form without ʾalep winds up being more like the probable
proto-form, but it is not likely that Hebrew ‫ נחנו‬in its few occurrences is a survival; the
resemblance is purely fortuitous.
10
  S. Segert, A Grammar of Phoenician and Punic (Munich: Beck, 1976): 164.
11 
In addition to the Aramaic instances Huehnergard cites, the evolution of the Biblical
Aramaic word ‫ָן‬ ‫‘ אָ ֳחר‬other’ to ‫ חורן‬in later dialects provides an apt comparison.
12
  Some further examples are given by Carl Brockelmann, Grundriss der vergleichenden
Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen (2 vols.; Berlin: Reuther and Reichard, 1908): 1.177.
13
  Carl Brockelmann, Kurzgefasste vergleichende grammatik der semitischen sprachen
14 MAARAV 22.1–2 (2018)

Jewish Babylonian Aramaic verb ‫‘ אמא‬to say’, which originates from a

reanalysis of a form in which the final /r/ was assimilated across word
boundaries: /ʾəmar lēh/ “he said to him” > /ʾəmallēh/ > /ʾəmā lēh/.14 Such
assimilations are facilitated by the phonological nature of /r/: as a sonorant
liquid consonant, it has obvious phonetic affinities with other sonorants
such as the lateral /l/ and the nasal /n/,15 both of which exhibit tendencies
to assimilate progressively to an immediately following consonant, even
across word boundaries. The presence of such assimilation with ‫אשר‬,
which is always bound prosodically to the following word, is therefore
not surprising.
Indeed, the much-discussed connection of the Phoenician relative
‫אש‬, later ‫ש‬, to both ‫ֲׁשר‬ ֶ ‫ א‬and ‫ ֶׁש‬might reasonably be explained by
understanding ‫ אש‬as the evolutionary middle term between ‫ אׁשר‬and ‫ׁש‬.
This is uncertain, however,16 and for the purposes of this argument I do
not rely on the Phoenician evidence.
If ‫ֲׁשר‬
ֶ ‫ א‬is the true origin of ‫ ֶׁש‬, there is no possible relationship with
Akkadian ša except via borrowing, and it seems unlikely that a Canaanite
dialect would borrow this Akkadian particle.17 Borrowing a highly
frequent function word like ša implies a level of intense language con-
tact and widespread bilingualism, and it is reasonable to expect that this

(Berlin: Reuther & Reichard, 1908): 75. Another possible instance is the dialectal
Aramaic construct form bat ‘daughter’, derived from *bart via assimilation of /r/:
*bart > *batt > bat. However, a derivation from original *bṇt- is equally likely; see D.
Testen, “The Significance of Aramaic r < *n,” JNES 44 (1985): 143–146.
14
  Huehnergard (n 6): 121–122 (following Daniel Boyarin, “The Loss of Final Consonants
in Babylonian Jewish Aramaic (BJA),” Afroasiatic Linguistics 3.5 [1976]: 103–107). R.
Holmstedt, “The Etymologies of Hebrew ʾăšer and šeC-” (JNES 66 [2007]: 187), objects
to the use of this parallel on the grounds (also citing Boyarin) that the phenomenon is late,
“occurs only on the final consonant of verbal roots,” is not the only case of assimilation
in JBA, occurs with prepositions other than ‫ל‬, and has not been sufficiently studied. It is
difficult to see how any of these considerations form an objection to the validity of the
parallel.
15
  See, for example, A. Fitzgerald, “The Interchange of L, N, and R in Biblical Hebrew,”
JBL 97 (1978): 481–488.
16 
C. Krahmalkov (A Phoenician-Punic Grammar [Leiden: Brill, 2001]: 94) vocalizes
‫ אש‬as /ʾīš/ based on Greek and Roman transliterations; B. Levine (‫“הכינוי 'ׁש' בעברית‬
”‫מקראית לאור האפיגרפיה העתיקה‬, ErIsr 18 [1985]: 147–152) proposed that it is simply
‫ ֶׁש‬with prothetic ʾalep; while S. Gevirtz proposed an etymon cognate to the particles of
existence, i.e., BH ‫יש‬, Aramaic ‫“( איתי‬The Etymology of the Phoenician Particle ‫אש‬,”
JNES 17 [1957]: 124–127). I find it difficult to believe that ‫ש‬, ‫אש‬, and ‫אשר‬, bearing a
phonetic resemblance, and serving the same functions in closely related languages, do not
have an etymological relationship.
17
  Baruch Levine (“‫[ ”הכינוי‬n 16]: 147) argues that ša was borrowed from Akkadian by
Phoenician, and then diffused into northern Hebrew via Phoenician influence.
 COOK: ARCHAISMS IN MISHNAIC HEBREW 15

borrowing would be accompanied by many other borrowings, including

other function words, betraying this bilingualism.18 Although there are
Akkadian loanwords in Hebrew, they do not constitute a high percentage
of the vocabulary, and they tend to be limited to the legal-administrative
sphere; in addition, many of them entered Hebrew in the post-exilic pe-
riod.19 Accordingly, the hypothesis that ‫ׁש‬
ֶ is borrowed from ša is highly
unlikely.
Therefore, the use of ‫ׁש‬
ֶ cannot be used to argue that MH is derived
from a dialect genetically separate from BH, since ‫ׁש‬ ֶ is a reduced form
of BH ‫ֲׁשר‬
ֶ ‫א‬.

2. THE PRONOUN ‫ זֹו‬OR ‫ זֹה‬FOR THE FEMININE SINGULAR

DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUN.

The standard demonstrative feminine singular pronoun in BH is ‫זֹאת‬,

but occasionally the form ‫ זֹה‬or ‫ זֹו‬is used instead, and the latter is the
exclusive form in MH. E. Y. Kutscher claimed that “‫ זו‬can not [sic]
be explained as a shortened form of ‫ זאת‬because of the difficulty of
accounting for the dropping or [sic; read of] the /t/,” and therefore “a
linear development from S[tandard] B[iblical] H[ebrew] seems to be out
of the question”20 and this claim has often been repeated by others.21 The
argument is not very strong, however. The form ‫ זֹאת‬is already marked
by vocalic contrast to masc. sing. ‫זֶה‬, so that the final /t/ pleonastically
marks the feminine; such redundancies are often targeted by analogical
levelling processes.
Moreover, in BH the form ‫ זֹה‬does already appear in a particular
environment, i.e., in the idiomatic expression ‫“‏ּכָזֹה וְָכזֶה‬such and such”
(lit., “like this and like this”) in Judg 18:4, 2 Sam 11:25, 1 Kgs 14:5, in
which ‫ זֶה‬and ‫ זֹה‬are paired in rhetoric, as they are paired paradigmatically.
One can note as well the rhetorical pairing in 2 Kgs 6:19, ‫ֹלא זֶה ַה ֶּדרְֶך וְֹלא‬
‫זֹה ָהעִיר‬, “this is not the way and this is not the city.” Words that naturally
occur in pairs often change their form, when possible, to approximate
each other. Benjamin Wheeler in the nineteenth century had already not-
ed that when “[w]ords of contrasted signification and of partly similar

18
  S. G. Thompson and T. Kaufman, Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic
Linguistics (Berkeley: Univ. of California, 1988): 61.
19
  See P. V. Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew (HSM 47; Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000).
20 
E. Y. Kutscher, A History of the Hebrew Language (R. Kutscher, ed.; Jerusalem:
Magnes, 1982): 154.
21
  E.g., Pérez Fernández (n 5): 8; Bar-Asher (n 1): 235.
16 MAARAV 22.1–2 (2018)

form are grouped in couplets,” then “a further approximation in the out-

ward form is the result.”22 The phenomenon is now generally known as
contamination.23 The standard textbook example is the Latin adjective
pair levis ~ gravis, “light ~ heavy,” wherein the second word is contami-
nated by the first, yielding levis ~ grevis; or English female, originally
*femelle, but contaminated by a natural pairing with male. Compare also
English father, instead of the expected *fader, under the influence of
brother,24 or Ancient Greek μηκέτι “no longer,” under the influence of
οὐκέτι “no longer,” instead of *μη έτι.25 In light of this common, though
unsystematic, mechanism, the change of ‫ זֶה־זֹאת‬to ‫ זֶה־זֹה‬in parallelistic
rhetoric, and the spread of the changed form to the language as a whole,
seems natural and not “out of the question.” This, too, is no archaism.

3. THE FORM ‫לֵילֵי‬, ‘NIGHT’

Bar-Asher has argued that in the form ‫ לֵילֵי‬in such expressions as ‫לֵילֵי‬
‫“ ַשׁבָּת וְיֹומֹו‬the night of the Sabbath and its day” we encounter “the form
that most resembles the primitive quadriconsonantal form laylay.” This
is one of the archaic forms he cites to suggest that “MH is the continu-
ation not of BH itself, but of a related dialect.”26 The form ‫לֵילֵי‬, as a
construct form, contrasts with the BH forms ‫( ַליְלָה‬absolute), ‫( לֵיל‬con-
struct).
Bar-Asher is no doubt correct in stating that the proto-form of both sets
of forms is *laylay, and that the BH form is a later development either by
sound change, haplology, or both. ‫ לֵילֵי‬is closer to the proto-form. But he
is wrong in stating that “there is no other way to explain” the presence
of the archaism than by postulating the separate descent of MH. It is far
more probable that ‫ לֵילֵי‬is borrowed from Aramaic, where both the abso-
lute and construct have the form ‫לֵילֵי‬, and the determined form is ‫לֵי ְליָא‬.
The form lēlē as the construct singular is attested in Qumran Aramaic
(where it is spelled ‫ לילא‬or ‫)לילה‬, e.g., ‫בלילא תמניה‬, “on the eighth
night,” 4Q209 1 i 5; ‫בלילא תשעה‬, “on the ninth night,” 4Q209 1 i 7;

22 
B. I. Wheeler, Analogy and the Scope of its Application in Language (Ithaca, NY:
Wilson & Sons, 1887): 28.
23
  H. H. Hock, “Analogical Change,” in The Handbook of Historical Linguistics (B.
Joseph and R. Janda, eds.; Oxford: Blackwell, 2003): 442; L. Gaeta, “Analogical Change,”
in Continuum Companion to Historical Linguistics (S. Luraghi and V. Bubenik, eds.; New
York: Continuum, 2010): 153.
24
  Gaeta (n 23): 153.
25
  Wheeler (n 22): 20.
26
  Bar-Asher (n 1): 235.
 COOK: ARCHAISMS IN MISHNAIC HEBREW 17

‫‏בלילה מעלי‬, “on the night of my entering” the land of Egypt, 1QapGen
19:14, etc. The construct form ‫ לילי‬is also used in Jewish Babylonian
Aramaic in precisely the way it appears in the Mishnah, as, for example,
‫כל לילי שובא‬, “every night of the Sabbath” (i.e., Friday night).27
The borrowing of Aramaic forms—indeed, the pervasive influence of
Aramaic at all levels—is a well-known feature of MH, and it is thus a
more likely hypothesis that ‫ לֵילֵי‬is due to the influence of Aramaic, than
to the unexpected retention of an archaic form.

4. THIRD FEMININE SINGULAR OF FINAL WEAK VERBS

In the most reliable manuscripts of the Mishnah, such as the Kaufmann

or Parma manuscripts, the third feminine singular of final-weak (IIIy)
verbs is usually realized with final -āt or -at, not final -tā(h) as is the
rule in Biblical Hebrew, e.g., MH ‫ָׂשת‬ָ ‫ע‬/‫ָׂשת‬
ַ ‫ ע‬instead of BH ‫ָׂשתָה‬ְ ‫ע‬, “she
did/made.”28 The change in inflection had been noted before, and was
attributed to possible Aramaic influence.29 But now it is usually claimed
that the phenomenon is a retention in MH of the original, archaic form,
epigraphically attested in the eighth century b.c.e. Siloam inscription in
the form ‫הית‬, and that this provides additional evidence that one of the
ingredients of MH was “a non-biblical Hebrew dialect.”30
As with the other features discussed, the claim has some surface plau-
sibility, but proves shaky on further examination. A trenchant critique
has been given by Joshua Blau in two related articles, the first appearing
in 1983, the second, responding to objections, in 1996.31
Blau relied on the data gathered by Gideon Haneman and published in
1980.32 Haneman had noticed that there was one very notable exception
to the general pattern with final-weak verbs in MS Parma A, and that

27
 As cited in M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic
and Geonic Periods (Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan Univ., 2002): 282b s.v. ‫לילי‬.
28
 A small number of occurrences of final -āt/-at with both strong and weak verbs occurs
in the Bible; see GKC §§44f, 75m.
29 
E.g., Abba Ben-David, ‫( לשון מקרא ולשון חכמים‬Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1967): 1.133.
30
  E. Y. Kutscher, “Hebrew Language: Mishnaic,” Encyclopedia Judaica (17 vols.;
Jerusalem, 1972): 16.1599.
31
Joshua Blau , “?‫היָת שבלשון חכמים צורות קדומות הן‬ ָ ‫האם צורות נסתרת מעין‬,”
Leshonenu 46 (1983): 158–159; “‫היָת במשנה—טענות וקושיות על מוצאה‬ ָ ,” in the
collection ‫( עיונים בבלשנות עברית‬Jerusalem: Magnes/Hebrew Univ., 1996): 252–255.
(The earlier article also appears in the collection, pp. 250–251.)
32 
Gideon Haneman, -‫יד פרמה (דה‬-‫תורת הצורות של לשון המשנה על פי מסורת כתב‬
)138 ‫( רוסי‬Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv Univ., 1980).
18 MAARAV 22.1–2 (2018)

was with the verb ‫היה‬: the 3rd fem. sg. form ‫הית‬, without final hē, did
indeed appear, but only as a pausal form; in context, the normal form
was ‫ ( ָהיְתָה( הייתה‬as in BH.33 Blau proposed that this distribution—‫־ת‬
in pause, ‫ ־תה‬in context—was the original distribution of the inflection
in the earliest stages of MH; it differed from BH only in the loss of
final ‫ ־ָה‬in pause. This loss was not unusual, since, on the evidence of
the Masoretic text, the final segment was unaccented in pause, and the
loss of final unaccented vowels in pause is not uncommon in Semitic.34
Therefore the initial stage was (e.g.) pausal ‫ָׂשת > ָע ָׂ֫ש ָתה‬
ָ‫ע‬
The second step consisted of the spread of the pausal forms to the
context, a spread that Blau attributes both to simplification (the BH form
redundantly marks the 3rd fem. sg., with both final ‫ ־ה‬and ‫ ־ת־‬separately
marking person, number, and gender) and Aramaic influence (the parallel
3rd fem. sg. forms in Aramaic end in ‫)־ָת‬. This change, spurred by both
simplificatory pressure and language contact, did not, however, affect
the 3rd fem. sg. forms of ‫היה‬, since its high frequency “insulated” it
from the changes affecting the other IIIy verbs. Such phenomena are
commonplace in language change: “Higher frequency of usage appears
to contribute to the preservation of certain language traits, in particular of
irregular features, by resisting the pressure for regularization (analogical
leveling).”35
In summary, Blau’s proposal provides a plausible mechanism for the
production of inflectional forms that resemble archaic retentions, but in
fact are later developments of the BH inflections.

5. THE DEVELOPMENT OF MH

These features of MH, therefore, do not prove that MH descended from

a Hebrew dialect of the pre-exilic period that was separate from BH—
indeed, except for ‫לילי‬, they are arguably derived from BH features. It

33
  Haneman (n 32): 345. Since the Parma MS is only partially vocalized, most of the
evidence Haneman cites is not vocalized.
34 
For support, Blau was content to refer to Richard Steiner, “From Proto-Hebrew to
Mishnaic Hebrew: The History of ‫ ־ְָך‬and ּ‫ָ־ה‬,” Hebrew Annual Review 3 (1979): 157–174.
Steiner gives evidence for pausal apocope in Semitic (pp. 159–161) and also notes “the
tendency of BH pausal forms (such as ‫ ֶּכלִי‬, ‫יֹפִי‬, ּ‫קּדָׁשו‬
ְ ‫הּו‬, ּ‫ )ָאמָרו‬to spread into non-pausal
positions in MH” (p. 162). Steiner did not apply these considerations to the inflections
under discussion, however.
35
  Lyle Campbell and Mauricio J. Mixco, A Glossary of Historical Linguistics
(Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univ., 2007): 66.
 COOK: ARCHAISMS IN MISHNAIC HEBREW 19

seems, therefore, that MH, contrary to the view under consideration, was
indeed a “continuation of BH itself.”
Nevertheless, there are many conspicuous differences between MH
and BH—too many, indeed, to be accounted for by a simple genetic
model. Although a thorough consideration of the genesis of MH will
require a much longer treatment, the source of many of the differences
between it and BH must be sought in post-exilic language contact—spe-
cifically, contact with Aramaic—and not in a divergence of dialects in
the pre-exilic period. As Levine has noted, “Without a doubt, the most
salient feature of PBH [Post-Biblical Hebrew] is the pervasive infusion
of Aramaic, affecting phonology, morphology, tense system, syntax, and
vocabulary.”36
Two of the four features treated here have clearly been affected in
one way or another by contact with Aramaic. The form ‫ לילי‬was a direct
borrowing of the Aramaic cognate, and the spread of the apocopated
3rd fem.sg. ending on IIIy verbs was likely influenced by the parallel
Aramaic inflection.
In addition, ‫ׁש‬ֶ , although apparently originating through a process
internal to Hebrew, is obviously used in MH in a way influenced by the
analogous particle ‫( די‬later ‫ )ד‬in Aramaic. For instance, in BH ‫ אשר‬is
only occasionally used as a verbal complementizer, a function usually
reserved to the particle ‫כי‬. In MH, however, the use of ‫ כי‬is greatly
restricted, and ‫ׁש‬ֶ is the normal complementizer, as well as serving as
the relative particle. The same functions are filled in Aramaic by ‫די‬.
In short, the functions of MH ‫ׁש‬ ֶ no longer precisely match those of its
etymon ‫ֲׁשר‬ֶ ‫א‬, but have been realigned to match those of ‫די‬.37 This reflects
substratum influence from Aramaic speakers.
The reduction of ‫ זֹאת‬to ‫ זֹה‬is likely a wholly internal change within
Hebrew, but even here Aramaic influence may have played a part in
solidifying the later prevalence of the form without ‫־ת‬, since the Aramaic
equivalent ‫ דא‬does not have final ‫־ת‬.
All these facts taken together undermine the view, based on the appar-
ent archaisms, that MH is descended from a dialect of the pre-Exilic pe-
riod unrelated to BH. MH is most reasonably understood as a variety of
Hebrew that is genetically descended from BH, but also deeply affected
by contact with Aramaic. Its emergence as a completely separate variety

36
  Baruch Levine, “Hebrew (Post-Biblical),” in Beyond Babel: A Handbook for Biblical
Hebrew and Related Languages (J. Kaltner and S. L. McKenzie, eds.; Atlanta: SBL, 2002):
159.
37
  One may also note inter alia the MH collocation ‫מִּׁשֶ־‬, ‘after’, a calque of Aramaic ‫מן‬
‫די‬. The BH equivalent ‫ מאשר‬does not have a temporal meaning.
20 MAARAV 22.1–2 (2018)

took place in the Second Temple era, perhaps as late as the Hellenistic
period.
Where does this leave the chronological implications of “Mishnaisms”?
Obviously each feature said to be a “Mishnaism” must be treated on
its own terms; however, if the sketch just given of the genesis of MH
is accurate, then the more a text resembles MH, the more likely it is
to be chronologically later relative to standard pre-exilic BH. This is
particularly true when the MH-like features co-occur with Aramaisms.
Accordingly, the argument that “Mishnaisms” have no chronological im-
plications must be rejected.