אֵין מְבָרְכִין לֹא עַל הַנֵּר וְלֹא עַל הַבְּשָׂמִים שֶׁל נָכְרִים, וְלֹא עַל הַנֵּר וְלֹא עַל הַבְּשָׂמִים שֶׁל מֵתִים, וְלֹא עַל הַנֵּר וְלֹא עַל הַבְּשָׂמִים שֶׁלִּפְנֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. אֵין מְבָרְכִין עַל הַנֵּר עַד שֶׁיֵּאוֹתוּ לְאוֹרוֹ

They may not recite a blessing over a lamp or spices of gentiles, nor over a lamp or spices of the dead, nor over a lamp or spices [which have been placed] before [objects pertaining to] idolatry. And they do not recite a blessing over a lamp until they make use of its light (אורו).

כָּל הַקֲּדָשִׁים שֶׁאֵרַע בָּהֶם פְּסוּל קֹדֶם לְהֶפְשֵׁטָן, אֵין עוֹרוֹתֵיהֶם לַכֹּהֲנִים. לְאַחַר הֶפְשֵׁטָן, עוֹרוֹתֵיהֶם לַכֹּהֲנִים. אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא סְגַן הַכֹּהֲנִים, מִיָּמַי לֹא רָאִיתִי עוֹר יוֹצֵא לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵפָה. אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, מִדְּבָרָיו לָמַדְנוּ, שֶׁהַמַּפְשִׁיט אֶת הַבְּכוֹר וְנִמְצָא טְרֵפָה, שֶׁיֵּאוֹתוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים בְּעוֹרוֹ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵין לֹא רָאִינוּ רְאָיָה, אֶלָּא יוֹצֵא לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵפָה

A. All Holy Things [burnt offering, sin offering, guilt offering] which suffered an invalidity before they were flayed—their hides do not belong to the priests. [If an invalidity was incurred] after they were flayed, their hides belong to the priests. Said R. Hananiah, Prefect of the Priests, “In all my days I never saw a hide taken out to the place of burning.” Said R. Aqiba, “From his statement we learn that: “He who flays the firstling [which was blemished and slaughtered] [that is, it was disqualified even before flaying] and it turns out to be terefah—“the priests make use of its hide (עורו).” And sages say, “’We have not seen’ is no proof. But: “It goes forth to the place of burning.”

It’s very likely that somebody has already written about this somewhere, so hopefully I’m in good company.

כי סליק איסי בר היני אשכחיה לר’ יוחנן דקא מתני ליה לבריה רחלים אמר ליה אתנייה רחלות א”ל כדכתיב (בראשית לב) רחלים מאתים אמר ליה לשון תורה לעצמה לשון חכמים לעצמן

A. When Issi bar Hini left [to go to the Land of Israel], R. Yohanan found him teaching his son [our Mishnah at L, with a variation in the plural suffix of the word sheep]: “Five sheep [masculine plural suffix, rhylym].”
B. He [Yohanan] said to him, “It was taught [in the Mishnah differently, namely using the plural feminine suffix]: `Sheep [rhylwt].’”
C. He [Issi] said to him, “That is the way it is written in scripture, `Two hundred sheep [rhylym] (Gen. 32:15).’”
D. He [Yohanan] said to him, “The Torah has its own language and the sages have their own language. [You should not confuse the two.]”
(trans. from here)

The classic work on the subject was done by Abba Ben-David, and recently linguists such as Yoḥanan Breuer have been refining the distinction. For some accessible online discussion of this specific question (plural endings) and the distinction between the Hebrew of the Torah and the Hebrew of the Sages, see this by Philologos, and in Hebrew, here, this Wikipedia entry, here, and here.

Another Israeli TV show, Asfur, has been picked up by an American production company. (hat tip) Here’s a description of the show from Wikipedia:

Motti Amoyal lives on a bus farm in Jerusalem with his three best friends, Itzik, Newton and Katzar. Their lives are about to change drastically as they discover that the land, on which Motti built the farm, holds an enormous debt to city hall because of his late grandfather’s past disputes over garbage dumping. The city threatens to repossess the land because of the future profit from zoning plans. Amit Peled, an insurance agent who works for his overly demanding father, accidentally discovers the zoning plans and visits the farm in order to buy it. He arrives there with his girlfriend Shir, who sees Motti and they both recall that they were romantically involved during a trip to India.

Upon learning of the zoning plans, the four friends realize that keeping the farm is their chance of redeeming their lives. From that moment on, it becomes a race against time for them. They try every possible scheme, be it working on a taxicab they “borrow” from the repair shop where Itzik works, laundering the lottery Grand Prize through the black market, stealing from houses, gambling online, selling drugs or even committing armed robbery for a criminal lord. The season’s plot mainly revolves around their adventures, as well as the intricately woven relationship between Shir and Motti, along with other romantic complications.

In this past Friday’s Maariv, Rubik Rosenthal wrote about the Hebrew that is used in Asfur. Rosenthal wrote that the “Asfur Dialect” is defined as “Jerusalem Dialect,” often influenced by different Arabic dialects. Here are a few of them.

עספור-Arabic for bird, the meaning in slang is someone who is a wanderer or beggar

פדיחה בצבע-mistake or failure

יוגורט-someone who is Ashkenazi

זקנבות-that someone should choke

וואי דה מי-”Why the me?”, i.e. “Why me?”

פפוקה-from Kurdish, someone who is eccentric

דולה וזורנה-drums and horns from a wedding, Turkish-Kurdish origin

טעבן-Arabic for being tired

בארד-Arabic slang for someone who is overweight and non-essential

Full episodes of Asfur can be viewed here.

The vocalization of rabbinic texts can also be found in the well-known MS Kaufmann of the Mishnah and the MS of Sifra, Codex Assemani 66. Who vocalized these texts, while important, is less important for this post than the very act of vocalization itself.

Scholars have discussed the linguistic importance and characteristics of these different traditions of vocalization, but I am interested in their cultural context. Who needed this vocalization? What was the level of Hebrew knowledge of these MSS’s readership that they required a vocalized text? In some cases it is clear that the vocalization was added later. What were the factors that brought about this later addition?

I have been thinking about these questions after realizing that almost every single rabbinic text is available today in a vocalized version. Not only are they vocalized, but the more recent the edition, the greater chance that it is vocalized.

As I mentioned above, the text of the Mishnah has been vocalized for centuries. Individual tractates of the Talmud were vocalized before the complete vocalization of the Talmud found in Steinsaltz, Artscroll, or Tuvia’s (not yet complete). Probably every single midrash is available in a vocalized edition. For Midrash Rabbah, Merkin vocalized the text years ago, and this has continued with the Midrash ha-Mevoar series. Here are two other examples of midrashim that I recently bought. The first is a newly typeset edition of Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer with David Luria’s commentary. In this edition, the text of the midrash is vocalized. The other example is a recent edition of the Tanḥuma that includes both the traditional text and Shlomo Buber’s edition. In both versions, the text of the midrash is vocalized. A vocalized edition of Mikra’ot Gedolot is also available.

This vocalization is also found in halakhic texts. I just bought a vocalized edition of the Shulḥan Arukh that is only the text itself and doesn’t include any commentaries (excluding Isserles). The most popular editions of the Mishneh Berurah are vocalized, and another point is that they often don’t have any Rashi script. I could go on and on with examples.

I personally think that vocalized texts are extremely important and aid in learning correct Hebrew and Aramaic. Has modern technology brought us into a new era in the publication of rabbinic works?

The Greeks and Romans were mostly preoccupied with the monotheism of the Jews, their customs and rituals such as abstinence from pork, Sabbath, and circumcision, and their success: proselytism.

blogger-רשתונאי
tweet-שדרון
comment on a blog/talkback-קישורית