A Touch of Grace

Studies in Ashkenazi Culture, Women’s

History, and the Languages of the Jews

Presented to Chava Turniansky

Editors

Israel Bartal, Galit Hasan-Rokem,

Ada Rapoport-Albert, Claudia Rosenzweig,

Vicky Shifriss, Erika Timm

The Zalman Shazar Center Center for Research

for Jewish History on Polish Jewry

Jerusalem The Hebrew University

CONTENTS

Preface 9*

Hans Peter Althaus Ein Theaterabend im Jahr 1921. Arthur 11*

Koestler und das Jiddische

Marion Aptroot Diskursn vegen di naye kille be-Amsterdam. 25*

More Polemical Pamphlets from Amsterdam

(1797)

David M. Bunis “Whole Hebrew”: A Revised Definition 37*

Naftali Loewenthal From “Ladies’ Auxiliary” to “Shluhot 69*

Network”: Women’s Activisim in Twentieth-

Century HABAD

Maria L. Mayer Yiddish Elements in Judeo-Italian 95*

Modena

Agnes Romer Segal Seder Mitzvos ha-Noshim and its Place 111*

in Early Yiddish Narrative Literature

Erika Timm Early Yiddish Prayers for Travelers: On 121*

the Migration of Yiddish Customs from

Southern Germany to Northern Italy

List of Contributors 145*

Articles in Yiddish

Preface `i

Anna Maria Babbi Women Readers of Paris et Vienne fi

Helen Beer “A Quiet Kitten with Sharp Claws”: Rachel dk

(Khayele Bir) Auerbach’s Journalism

Moshe Taube Pseudo-Subordination in Yiddish: Narrative fl

Az-Clauses

Simon Neuberg A Few Words of Romance Stock (a bintl fn

romanizmen)

Mikhail Krutikov A Stranger in a Foreign Land: Three Letters bq

of Meir Wiener to Melech Rawicz

David G. Roskies Devilspeak: How Satan Speaks in Yiddish hq

Walter Röll A Yiddish Glossary in Roman Script, ft

Dating from c. 1500

Volume I

Preface 11

Jacob Elbaum Kav ha-Yashar: Some Remarks on Its 15

Structure, Content, and Literary Sources

Noga Rubin Sefer Lev Tov by Isaac ben Eliakum of 65

Posen: An Ashkenazic Book of Ethics

Avriel Bar-Levav The World of (Rabbinic) Texts and the World 95

of (Yiddish) Readers: Bilingualism in the

Writings of Shimon Frankfurt of Amsterdam

Elchanan Reiner An Itinerant Preacher Publishes His Books: 123

An Untold Chapter in the Cultural History

of European Jewry in the 17th Century

Shlomo Berger Hayyim ben Jacob Known as Hayyim 157

Druker: Typesetter, Editor, and Publisher in

Amsterdam

Shalhevet Dotan-Ofir The Intended Readership of Jacob of 181

Yanov’s Tsenerene and Meylets Yoysher

Israel Bartal Jeremy Bentham and Samson of Slonim: 207

Two Book Lovers’ Story

Immanuel Etkes The Early Hasidic Court 227

David Assaf Isaac Baer Levinsohn (RIBAL) Meets 247

Abraham Joshua Heschel of Apt: A Study

in Polemic Memory Traditions

Michal Oron The Tale of Joseph de la Reina and Its 271

Transmutations in Modern Hebrew

Literature

Shmuel Werses Liturgical Intertextuality in the Works of 295

Mendele Moykher-Sforim

Nurit Orchan “It Is Your Books that Are at Fault! They

Should be Burnt!” 321

Nathan Cohen “A Jewish Woman with the Head of a 335

Man”: A Portrait of the Rebetsn Bath-Sheva

Singer

Moshe Rosman Stereotypes and Prejudices about Early 351

Modern Jewish Women

Shaul Stampfer Was the Traditional East European Family 359

in the Recent Past Patriarchal?

Ada Rapoport-Albert Glikl Hamel as a Widow 379

Galit Hasan-Rokem Conception, Pregnancy, and Birth in the 393

Rabbinic Imagination of Leviticus Rabbah

14: Preliminary Remarks

Esther Juhasz The Shiviti Plaque in the Ashkenazi World 423

Yehoshua Granat “Af morgn nokh yontev’”: Reverberations 471

of Yiddish in Piyyut

Michael Lukin On the Pripetshik of the Traditional Lyric 511

Folksong

Dalit Berman Hebrew and “Hebrew”: Hebrew Words in 539

the Haredi Weekly Dos idishe likht

Claudia Rosenzweig Publications by Chava Turniansky 551

(1965–2012)

List of Contributors 560

9

Preface

The present collection of studies is dedicated, with much gratitude,

admiration and love, to Professor Chava Turniansky by her numerous

students, colleagues and friends in Israel and abroad. Marking her

seventy-fifth birthday, and celebrating her long and productive career, it

reflects the four major fields of research to which her contribution has been

path-breaking: Ashkenazi Jewish culture, Old Yiddish Literature, the

languages of the Jews, and the position of women in Jewish society.

Born in Mexico to immigrant parents from Lithuania and Poland, Chava,

née Punsky, was brought up in a Zionist household steeped in East European

Jewish culture, and was educated in both Yiddish and Hebrew. In 1957 she

immigrated to Israel, where, having already qualified as a teacher – a

vocation that was to define her academic practice and mark her as an

exceptionally devoted mentor to her students – she enrolled in the Hebrew

University to study Jewish history and Yiddish literature with the leading

exponents of these subjects at the time, among them Israel Halpern,

Haim-Hillel Ben-Sasson, Shmuel Ettinger, Dov Sadan, Chone Shmeruk, and

Shmuel Werses. Her doctoral dissertation, written under the supervision of

Chone Shmeruk, was devoted to the bilingual – Hebrew and Old Yiddish –

literature of Ashkeanzi Jewry in the early-modern period. From 1963 until

her retirement in 2005, she taught at the Hebrew University’s Yiddish

Department, of which she served as Head for several terms of office, while

periodically being hosted as Visiting Scholar by academic institutions

abroad, including Oxford University’s Centre for Hebrew and Jewish

Studies, University College London, Università degli Studi di Milano, the

University of California Berkeley, and the University of Pennsylvania. Her

scholarly achievements have earned recognition in the form of several

prestigious awards, including the Emma Schaver Prize (1987), the Itzik

Manger Prize (1988), and the Bialik Prize (2006). In 2007 she was elected

Preface

10

Fellow of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, and in 2013 was

awarded the State of Israel’s highest hounour, the Israel Prize.

Chava Turniansky’s scholarship encompasses the full scope of the

Ashkenazi diaspora’s literary production in Yiddish, from the earliest extant

sources, through the writings of the Haskalah period, to modern Yiddish

literature. Much of her work has focused on bilingual Yiddish-Hebrew

writings in a variety of literary and historical contexts. She has shown how

Yiddish translations and adaptations that mediated the Hebrew canonical

literature of Judaism to a wide public, including women, played a crucial

role in the transmission of religious values and norms of conduct that gave

distinctive shape to Ashkenazi society and culture. Her pioneering studies

are devoted to such topics as the Yiddish translations of the Hebrew Bible

and the epic poetry written in Yiddish on biblical themes, Yiddish songs

commemorating historical events, the characteristics of Yiddish literature in

Italy, the didactic works written in Yiddish in early-modern Amsterdam, and

the contribution of women to the development of Ashkenazi book culture.

Perhaps her greatest single achievement is the bilingual edition of Glikl’s

‘memoirs’ – a unique late-seventeenth to early-eighteenth-century ‘ego

document’ written by a woman. Glikl’s original Yiddish text is accompanied

by Chava’s ingenious Hebrew translation and illuminated by her magisterial

Introduction as well as copious notes on both the Yiddish and the Hebrew

version.

According to Glikl’s own testimony, she was driven to write her

‘memoirs’ by the bitter experience of widowhood following the premature

death of her beloved first husband. It is, perhaps, not by accident that Chava

was drawn to her Glikl project in the wake of the sudden and premature

death of her own beloved husband, Uri, to whose memory she dedicated the

Glikl volume. She produced the bulk of the work during many years of bitter

widowhood, but eventually found solace and a new happiness with her

partner Berti (Zvi) Salzman.

In the name of all the contributors, we are delighted to present this

volume to our beloved Chava, and to wish her many more years of

productive work and domestic fulfilment.

37*

“WHOLE HEBREW”: A REVISED DEFINITION

David M. Bunis

The Terminology of Comparat ive Jewish Inter l inguis t ics

In his ground-breaking article “Prehistory and Early History of Yiddish:

Facts and Conceptual Framework” (1954),1 Max Weinreich not only laid out

the principles which were to guide the study of early – as well as later –

Yiddish for three generations; he also established a fundamental methodology

and theoretical framework for what was to develop into a novel field

bridging Jewish studies and historical-comparative linguistics: comparative

Jewish interlinguistics. Much of the specialized terminology Weinreich was to

propose for use in the analysis of Jewish languages was already incorporated

in this seminal article: “Jewish subculture and language areas” (as well as

internally derived language names such as “Loez,” “Judezmo,” “Targumic,”

“Yevanic,” and toponyms such as “Ashkenaz I, II, III,” “Sefarad I, II, III,”

“K[e]naan,” “Provense”); “fusion language”; “pre-language”; “coterritorial

* The research for this article was undertaken with support from Israel ScienceFoundation grant no. 807/03. It is my pleasure to thank Chava Turniansky forreading the article and offering valuable comments; all errors are my own.

1 Uriel Weinreich, ed., The Field of Yiddish [One] (New York: Publications of theLinguistic Circle of New York, 1954), 73–101. Note the following abbreviationsused in this article: A = Arabic, BH = Biblical Hebrew, F = French, G = German,Gk = Greek, H = Hebrew, IH = Israeli Hebrew, J = Judezmo, L = Latin, OS = OldSpanish, P = Polish, Pt = Portuguese, S = Spanish, T = Turkish, Y = Yiddish.Judezmo citations enclosed within angular brackets reproduce material originallyappearing in romanization; those in italics are my own romanizations of materialoriginally appearing in the Hebrew alphabet, or are transcriptions of oraltransmissions. Unless otherwise indicated by an acute accent, stress in Judezmo ispenultimate in words ending in a vowel or -n or -s, and final in others. Thetranscriptions of Yiddish and Ashkenazic Hebrew follow the system of the YIVOInstitute for Jewish Research.

David M. Bunis

38*

language”; “stock language”; “Jewish correlate” of a non-Jewish language;

“quantitatively principle stock”; “(Hebrew-Aramaic, Germanic, Slavic, etc.)

component”; terms designating historical periods of Jewish languages such

as “Earliest,” “Old,” “Middle” and “Modern (Yiddish)”; and in fact the

consistent use of “Jewish language” itself to denote an autonomous

language, traditionally differing from its “non-Jewish correlate” at all

structural levels as a result of phenomena such as linguistic conservatism on

the one hand, and analogical innovation on the other. Many of the terms

advocated by Weinreich became widely accepted by Jewish language

scholars internationally, and they continue to be used to this day, in

accordance with Weinreich’s definitions. In most instances the terms

Weinreich suggested have proven highly successful, supplying a lexicon for

the analysis of individual Jewish languages, and for their comparative study.

However, Weinreich’s definition of one term, meant to stand in opposition

to another, seems to me inadequate for contemporary research.

“Whole Hebrew” versus “Merged Hebrew”

One of the most useful proposals in Weinreich’s article was a distinction

between what he called “Whole Hebrew” (henceforth, WH) – defined by

him as “the language of the running Hebrew texts read (from sight or

memory) by a speaker of a Jewish language (whose everyday language, by

definition, is not Hebrew)”2 – and “Merged Hebrew” (MH) – “the Hebrew

component in any of the Jewish languages in which Hebrew, as it were, has

taken shelter.”3 These terms draw attention to the fact that, following the

2 Weinreich, 85. That Weinreich maintained this conception of WH throughout hiscareer is evident from the definition of the term he offered in his History of theYiddish Language (translated from Yiddish by Shlomo Noble, with Joshua A.Fishman, [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980]): “Let Whole Hebrew be thename of the language of continuous Loshn-koydesh texts (or of single phrases orwords taken unchanged out of a continuous text) that a Yiddish speaker reads whenhe looks into a holy book or cites from memory” (352).

3 Weinreich, 85. As Weinreich noted, Aramaisms may be understood to constitute apart of the l∂shon ha-kodesh ycewd oeyl component of Jewish languages; theirspeakers occasionally read texts (e.g., the kaddish yicw memorial prayer) in what

“Whole Hebrew”: A Revised Definition

39*

decline of Hebrew as the everyday spoken language of the Jews, Jewish-

language speech communities were always multilingual. Biblical Hebrew

(BH) and Mishnaic Hebrew, and to a lesser extent Aramaic, were the

languages of their most sacred canonical texts, and most of their formal

liturgy was composed in derivative varieties of those languages. Varieties

of Rabbinical Hebrew which developed in the widely dispersed

communities of the Jewish world from the Middle Ages through the modern

era were used in original, high-level works of rabbinical scholarship and

other creative writing of an essentially religious nature, and often in

record-keeping and correspondence, as well as communication between

members of different Jewish subcultures lacking a common vernacular.

Most other intragroup communication needs were filled by the everyday,

spoken Jewish languages, which all traditionally included a Hebrew-

Aramaic component. Communication with the outside world was conducted

in varieties of local non-Jewish languages (e.g., Slavic among Yiddish

speakers, Turkish among Ottoman Judezmo speakers).

In each Jewish-language community, the Hebrew language proper4 and

the everyday Jewish vernacular, existing in a state of diglossia, co-existed

and influenced one another over time and space for centuries, resulting in

the continuous development of a somewhat distinctive use of Hebrew in

each Jewish subculture, as well as a partially unique Hebrew component in

each Jewish language. In fact, since the decline of spoken Hebrew, any

cautious discussion of the “use of Hebrew by Jews” must be qualified, at

the least, by an indication of the specific Jewish subculture using it, and the

particular time and place of this use. As is well known, the mutual

influences of Hebrew proper – especially Rabbinical Hebrew – as used by

a particular community, and the Hebrew component in that community’s

Jewish language, reached all structural levels of both languages. At the same

might be called “Whole Aramaic.” In the present article, “Whole Hebrew” and“Merged Hebrew” should be understood to encompass “Whole Aramaic” and“Merged Aramaic.”

4 For the sake of economy, in the present article the term “Hebrew” will be used asa blanket term denoting the Hebrew language proper, in any and all of its historical,regional and stylistic varieties.

David M. Bunis

40*

time, the various elements comprising the Hebrew component of a Jewish

language, and their analogs in the varieties of Hebrew proper used by the

speakers of that Jewish language, have never been entirely identical at any

level of linguistic structure – and it is precisely for this reason that

Weinreich’s definition of the term “Whole Hebrew,” as adduced above,

proves unsatisfactory. This is because Weinreich’s “Merged Hebrew,” a

broad term referring to the entire Hebrew component in a Jewish language,

at all structural levels, stands in opposition to “Whole Hebrew” which, by

his definition, is limited to phonology. I shall illustrate why this is

problematic with examples from two major languages of European Jewry,

Judezmo and Yiddish. I shall then suggest how to rectify the problem by

re-defining “Whole Hebrew.”

Whole Hebrew: Sole ly a Phonological Phenomenon?

In establishing his opposition between “Whole” and “Merged” Hebrew,

Max Weinreich ostensibly limited his focus to the traditional phonic

realization – or “reading” or “recitation” – of Hebrew texts by speakers of

a Jewish language, as opposed to the phonic realization of elements

occurring in those texts which were incorporated in the speakers’ Jewish

language. Weinreich’s article focused primarily on Yiddish, and it is from

that language which his illustrations were drawn; but with his keen interest

in “the Jewish language phenomenon” Weinreich was well aware that other

Jewish languages could provide parallel examples.

The phonological distinction between “Ashkenazic Whole Hebrew”

versus “Merged Hebrew in Yiddish” which Weinreich sought to exemplify

through his now classic opposition WH báal habáyis versus MH balebós/

-bús “householder” certainly has parallels in other Jewish subcultures, e.g.,

synonymous báal abáyiè5 in the careful, formal Hebrew reading tradition of

5 Throughout the present article citation forms in Hebrew proper as realized amongJudezmo speakers of the former Ottoman regions are transcribed according to theirtraditional realization among Judezmo speakers in pre-World War Two Salonika, oneof the major communities of the speech group.

“Whole Hebrew”: A Revised Definition

41*

Salonika and Istanbul Judezmo speakers versus balabáy in their everyday

Judezmo.6 Many other examples could be brought from Biblical, Mishnaic

and rabbinical sources. However, the contrast which Weinreich meant to

underscore is particularly striking in early manuals of Modern Hebrew,

some of them including Hebrew in romanization, composed by Judezmo

speakers with a traditional background and orientation. In such texts the

distinctive principles of WH phonology as traditionally maintained among

Ottoman Judezmo speakers were applied equally to ancient vocabulary and

modern borrowings, in passages meant to be “read” or “recited,” – i.e.,

studied and learned – by readers wishing to acquire Hebrew as a spoken and

written language in the modern era. This may be seen for example in the

6 Many additional examples of distinctive WH vs. MH phonological forms – and theirorthographic reflections – can be offered from the Judezmo speech community.Some typically appear in opposing columns in bilingual Hebrew-Judezmophrasebooks and dictionaries; e.g., “throat” is rendered as <oxB> in the vocalized¨Hebrew column of the bilingual, two-column conversation manual Avlas familiyareslašón akóäeš-espanyol (see: Ben Ardut, 6), with occlusive [g] indicated by pointedgimal and a denoted by the qames vowel-point, but the (MH) “Espanyol” translation×

is spelled according to the rules of phonemic Judezmo orthography, <oex`b> – theunpointed initial letter probably denoting fricative [ã] (cf. Nehama, 224 ãarón) andthe matris lectionis ’alef denoting a (cf. Y. MH [a] sax “a lot” often spelledphonemically as K`q` rather than as Kq` [H. jq] in Nahman, e.g. 26). On the other©© ©© ×hand, the WH and MH forms of elements may be realized identically by Jewish-language speakers; e.g., among Judezmo speakers “the evil Haman” (ryxd ond) isrealized as Amán Ar(r)ašax both in WH (cf. Saltiel, 340 <amàn arachàh>) and MH(see Bunis, Lexicon, no. 1142), with he having zero realization and syllable-final‘ayin articulated as x in both. Despite identical realization, the WH and MH formsmay differ ortho-graphically, with the etymological Hebrew spelling used in WHand phonemic spelling in the Jewish language; e.g., Moše, 73 “translated” WH<holira> rxilg as identically realized J xolirá, spelled phonemically (dxileg).Although, as Weinreich (86) noted, “Yiddish still maintains the age-old unvocalizedspelling of words of Hebrew origin” [emphasis mine] as opposed to the phonemicspelling of words of other origins, the BH = Y orthographic correspondence issometimes true only of unvocalized texts; in vocalized texts in rabbinical ívri-taytshthe punctuation occasionally reflects merged realization (e.g., <rbEyn> and <dixA>,§¤ ¤§¨reflecting Yiddish MH meshuge “crazy” and berye “skillful person,” rather than WH<rbEyn> m∂shugo and <dixA> b[∂]riyo, in Yiddish editions of the tales of Rabbi§¨ §¦¨Nahman of Bratslav [Nahman, 27, 49]).× ×

David M. Bunis

42*

word-final stress assigned to old lexemes – such as the substantives <imà>

`n` “mother,” the personal name <Dinà> dpic,7 and, on analogy, even

to the surname of the greatest Hebrew poet of modern times, [Hayyim×

Nahman] <Beyalìk> wilia [!] (i.e. Bialik, 1873–1934);8 to the adverb×

<afiloù> elit` and to f.sg. present-tense qal verb forms such as <(aoniyà)

tsafà> dtv (dip`d) “the ship floats,”9 – as well as to recent borrowings

from European and other foreign languages such as H <(a)poulîtikà>

dwihilet(d) “politics,” and finally-stressed -ím miÎ and -óè zeÎ plural forms

of substantives borrowed from Judezmo and other languages such as H m.pl.

<meneralìm> milxpin < J me-/mineral “mineral” and f.pl. <bamiyòt> zeina< bámya “okra.”10 The punctilious, obligatory realization of š∂wa as

e/i when following a word-initial consonant, according to the rules of

WH phonology accepted among Judezmo speakers, led Moše to propose

that the apparent “ševa na’” under the initial tet of the Modern Hebrew×

adaptation of English “charter” – once spelled <xhxyh> – be realized§

as e: <techarter> in his French-based Romanization (Moše, 205). Patterns

of WH may also cause modifications in Judezmo words of other

origins, e.g., metathesis of the final sequence in pre-modern J eznoããããa

“women’s section of the synagogue”> (e)znóax,11 on analogy with -óah×

in MH lexemes in Judezmo such as kóax gek “strength” and móax gen“brain.”

Conversely, in numerous instances it is probably MH phonology that

influenced the phonology/spelling of lexemes in WH contexts; e.g.,

<fpMy`> (Eškenáz) “Germany” appears in WH texts with segol rather than¤§§¨

patah under the ’alef (e.g., Hakkohen, 15); skz is romanized as <tékef>,×

7 Saltiel, 145, 155.8 Saltiel, 321. Never having heard the name said aloud perhaps, the author was

possibly influenced in suggesting its vocalization by (Arabic-origin) T bey’a“(touching of hands to conclude a) sale” + abstract-denoting -lik.

9 Saltiel, 213, 165. The predominance of final stress in Hebrew occasionally affectsthe stress in some words with historical penult stress, e.g., cf. <baàl> lra, but also<bàal dodatéha> in Saltiel (145, 150).

10 Saltiel, 351, 166, 65. This is in opposition to IH polítika, minerálim andbámya/bámyot.

11 Cf. Nehama, 517 s. snóaj.

“Whole Hebrew”: A Revised Definition

43*

with the occlusive rather than fricative value of kaf, in Saltiel.12 The

unstable height of nonstressed front and back vowels, realized as vacillating

e/i and o/u, respectively, are noticeable in the transcription of lexemes in

WH contexts such as <di-/defous> qetc “press” and <nedonia> dipecp“dowry” [Moše, 139/159, 37]. Just as BH Yaván oeei “Greece” is the base¨

for all derived MH forms in Judezmo (e.g., the masculine and feminine

plural forms in the phrase “los yavanim kon las yavanoè” “the Greek men

with the Greek women,”13 and the language name yavanesko “Greek”),14 so

it is too in inflected forms in WH contexts (e.g., <yavanìt> zipeei “Greeklanguage,” [Saltiel, 295] as opposed to BH y∂∂∂∂wanit zipeei). Conversely,§

Judezmo has influenced the vocalization of post-biblical borrowings

occurring in WH environments (e.g., J. estorya “history” <estôria> dixehqid[Saltiel, 248], vs. IH historiya), their consonantism (e.g., J [< T < A] zibil

“rubbish” > H <zébel> [Saltiel, 202], vs. IH zével), and stress position (e.g.,

J [< A] [a]súkar “sugar” > WH <soùkar> [Saltiel, 50], vs. IH sukár).

The centrality of phonology in Weinreich’s discussion of MH and WH is

perhaps not surprising given the emphasis placed on phonological analysis

among the structural/descriptive linguists of the 1950s. It is further

exemplified in the predominance of phonological data in Weinreich’s

discussion of other features of early Yiddish, including its Germanic and

Romance components. In defining Whole Hebrew, Weinreich not only

focused almost entirely on phonology, but also limited the corpus of his

discussion to canonized texts such as the Bible, Talmud and liturgy – texts

shared for the most part by Jewry worldwide – since presumably such texts

only would merit being “read (from sight or memory).” While noting the

prescriptive efforts of “Ashkenazic grammarians” [my emphasis] directed

toward the normative use of Hebrew among Ashkenazim for more than two

12 46. Cf. BH ’Ašk∂náz, téxef. Similarly, the spelling of borrowings in Ashkenazic WHtexts is influenced by Yiddish orthographic norms, e.g., <`iicrn`wde> v∂hakomedya“and the comedy”, rather than <dicnewde>, in Nahman, 43.×

13 El caketón 3/28 (Salonika, 1922): 1.ï

14 E.g., “Avlavan en yavanesko” “They were speaking Greek” (El rizón 12/13[Salonika, 1937]: 1).

David M. Bunis

44*

centuries,15 Weinreich summarized what he perceived as the failure of their

efforts in strictly phonological, canonical text-bound terms: “no completely

set standard in reading the prayers or even the Bible [my emphasis] has

been achieved.”16

Thanks to advances in the comparative study of Jewish languages, by

Weinreich himself as well as by other scholars, it is clear today that the

relevance of the relationship between Hebrew proper as used by members

of a particular Jewish subculture and the Hebrew component in their Jewish

language is not limited to phonology, but in fact extends to all levels of

linguistic structure. What is more, the distinctive use of Hebrew proper by

individual Jewish subcultures is obviously not limited to the passive

“reading from sight or memory” of ancient canonized texts, but also of later

medieval and even contemporary texts,17 and also includes the active,

creative use of Hebrew by speakers of Jewish languages in the composition

of new texts – in liturgy and traditional areas of religious scholarship such

as textual exegesis, ethics and morality, philosophy and mysticism, and,

especially from the eighteenth century, in early “Jewish studies” in its

broadest sense, including historical and literary studies and criticism, as well

as early fictional writing in diverse genres. The varieties of Hebrew used in

15 Judezmo speakers were aware of the contributions to Hebrew grammar of theirAshkenazic contemporaries (e.g., “Il Talmud Lašón Ivri di ’[be]n Ziev u restu dilivrus di dikduk” ‘Talmud l∂šon ‘ivri [1796] by [Y.] Ben-Z∂’ev or other [Hebrew]grammars’ were cited in the periodical Il trizoru di la kaza 1/4 [Vienna, 1871]: 4);but these publications did not necessarily affect the Judezmo speakers’ distinctive,traditional use of Hebrew, which they tended to maintain into the 20th century.

16 Weinreich, 86. Efforts on the part of Judezmo-speaking Hebrew educators to publishHebrew grammars in Judezmo for Ottoman Sephardic boys began in the early 19th

century. Most of the earliest works (e.g., Alkalay, No‘am; Alkalay, P∂raqim; ’Abba;Farhi; Alagem; Hakkohen) attempted to elucidate the structure of canonized sacred× ïtexts such as the Bible and Mishnah, with examples drawn from those texts. But insome (e.g., Bexa”r Hayyim; Alkalay, Hinnux; Mitrani; Moskoná; Ben Ardut; Peres;× × ×Saltiel; Alkalay, Siyyon; Behar) the general principles were also exemplified in×

original reading selections composed by the authors. Among the latter, the earlierworks present a fusion of essentially BH and some of the distinctive features ofRabbinical Hebrew as traditionally used by Judezmo speakers.

17 E.g., the prayer for the State of Israel as read in Orthodox Ashkenazic synagoguesin America today.

“Whole Hebrew”: A Revised Definition

45*

these writings are often intimately connected with the distinctive Hebrew

traditions of their authors’ diverse communities; and the latter developed in

constant contact with the communities’ everyday Jewish languages,

including their MH components. No less so than upon their Biblical and

Mishnaic Hebrew forerunners, it is upon the foundations of these

local/ethnic Hebrew traditions, which developed parallelly with everyday

Jewish-language traditions, that Modern Hebrew began to arise. And yet

today, half a century after Weinreich first drew attention to the dichotomy

between communal Hebrew proper and the Hebrew component in Jewish

languages, and despite the consensus among contemporary linguists of all

schools that levels of analysis such as morphology, syntax, lexicon and

semantics are no less worthy of consideration than phonology, Jewish

language scholars persist in using the term “Whole Hebrew” in the limited

sense of the phonological realization of canonized texts in Hebrew proper

among members of a particular Jewish subculture, in contradistinction to the

phonological realization of elements of Hebrew origin which have become

“merged” in the everyday Jewish language of that subculture.

“Whole Hebrew” – Not Jus t a Reading Tradi t ion but an Enti re

Linguis t ic System

I would like to suggest that, in response to the requirements of contemporary

linguistic research in general, and in order to help promote the advancement

of comparative Jewish interlinguistics in particular, the definition of Max

Weinreich’s useful term “Whole Hebrew” be broadened to denote ‘the

Hebrew language proper, in all of its historical, regional and stylistic

varieties, and at all structural levels (including phonology, morphology,

grammar, syntax, lexicon and semantics), as used by a particular Jewish

subculture.’ This conception is in fact captured by the term Weinreich used

for “Whole Hebrew” when he wrote in Yiddish: loshn-koydesh mamesh, i.e.,

“actual” or “real” (H ynn) Hebrew, as opposed to Hebrew borrowings

incorporated in Yiddish.18 The broad use of “Whole Hebrew” as I have

18 The Hebrew equivalent of the term has actually been used in Hebrew texts for

David M. Bunis

46*

re-defined it would on the one hand stand in opposition to “L∂šon

Haqqodeš” and other designations of the Hebrew language in its entirety,

without respect to the use of that language by a particular Jewish subculture,

and on the other, to “Merged Hebrew,” the entire Hebrew component of a

specific Jewish language. The blanket use of “Whole Hebrew” as proposed

here adheres to Weinreich’s anthropological “approach from within,” in that

it essentially reflects a terminological and conceptual dichotomy actually

maintained by Jewish-language speakers. This is between “Holy Tongue”

(e.g., Y loshn koydesh ycew oeyl) or simply “Tongue” (e.g., J lasón oeyl) –i.e., Hebrew, in all of its historical and stylistic varieties – and “words

(borrowed) from the Holy Tongue” (e.g., Y verter fun loshn-koydesh,19 J

byervos de lasón akoäes20) (corresponding to Weinreich’s “Merged Hebrew

component”) in an everyday Jewish vernacular, the latter often popularly

referred to as “the Jewish language” (e.g., Y yidish, J el guäezmo21/giäyó or,ï ï

in the context of vernacular translation of Hebrew texts, by a term recalling

an archaic version of the principle stock language (e.g., Y taytsh [cf. G

Deutsch], J laäino22 [cf. S Ladino < L Latinus]). As reflected in the English

centuries. For example, writing about the spelling of the masculine personal nameHanina `pipg, Moše ben Š∂lomo Ben Habib (b. Salonika c. 1654, d. Jerusalem 1696)× ×wrote: "ynn ycwd oeyl `ed myd ...daizd seqa s"l`a cenlza xkfen `ed df my" “Thisname is mentioned in the Talmud with a final ’alef… The name is actual HolyTongue (l∂šon haqqodeš mammaš),” Sefer ‘ezrat našim [Constantinople, 1731;republished Jerusalem: Hosa’at Hassifriyya Hass∂faradit, 1989], 75b). By this the×author meant that, etymologically, the name was entirely Hebrew, and not a fusionform bearing the Romance-origin hypocoristic suffix -ina.

19 E.g., Mark, 163.20 E.g., ’A. Palaci, Sefer w∂hoxiah ’Avraham (Izmir, 1877), [ii]a (first ed. Salonikaï ×

1853).21 E.g., “Myentres los tres mwaäim … los pyutim serán kantaäos en guäezmo, en luãarï

ke syempre, asta aãora, … en lasón akoäes” “During the Three Feasts the hymnswill be sung in Judezmo instead of, as always, until now, in the Holy Tongue” (A.Benghiatt, El meseret 23/67 [Izmir, 1919]: 3).

22 E.g., Livro lyamaäo en lasón (h)akoääääes Šulxán (h)apanim i en laääääino Meza de elalma, a non-calque adaptation of Yosef Karo, Šulhan ‘arux, published in Salonika×

1568. The parallel opposition is designated in Sephardic Hebrew texts by l∂šonhaqqodeš vs. la‘az frl “Judezmo,” e.g. oeyla od "[my]d xqena mi`xi ixtq ... `xwl""f"rla e` ycewd (Hayyot, 43b). Among Ashkenazim, taytsh serves in both Yiddish×

“Whole Hebrew”: A Revised Definition

47*

definition offered by Uriel Weinreich for loshn-koydesh – “traditional

Hebrew, the Sacred Tongue; rabbinical Hebrew-Aramaic”23 – Jewish

language speakers usually do not distinguish terminologically between

divergent historical or stylistic varieties of Hebrew,24 and they certainly do

not mark an opposition between the phonology of Hebrew proper and that

of the Hebrew elements merged in Jewish languages. Even if restricted to

“reading tradition of canonized texts,” as Weinreich’s original definition

implies, “Whole Hebrew” would have to be further qualified since, at least

in some traditions, there are differences in reading practices between what

I would call the “Biblical WH phonology” and “Mishnaic WH phonology”

of various Jewish subcultures. For example, some traditions realize b∂gad

k∂fat z"tk c"ba letters which follow a word-initial prepositional element +Õ

š∂wa as fricatives in Biblical texts (e.g., J speakers’ Biblical WH bexóax

gka), but as occlusives in Mishnaic texts, as well as in MH (e.g., bekóax).25Ÿ

It should be kept in mind that, in numerous post-Biblical Hebrew works,

especially rabbinical tracts, several varieties of Hebrew frequently co-occur

in a single paragraph, as when Biblical, Talmudic and Medieval Hebrew

passages are incorporated in an original modern rabbinical work, with the

grammatical and other peculiarities of each variety preserved in the

citations.

I believe that the conceptual and terminological use of “Whole Hebrew”

as proposed here will facilitate and perhaps even encourage the exploration

and Hebrew contexts: e.g., “Mayses … oyf loshn hakoydesh un … oyf taytsh,”"yhiih oeyla mb zeiyrn" (Nahman, title page).×

23 Modern English-Yiddish Yiddish-English Dictionary (New York: YIVO Institute forJewish Research, 1968), 564.

24 They can do so, of course, when required, using expressions such as lasón di misná“Mishnaic Hebrew” or una militsá muy irmoza “a very flowery style of Hebrew”(cf. Bunis, Lexicon, nos. 2183, 2490).

25 For J MH bekóax see Bunis, Lexicon, no. 482. The general tendency to realize suchconsonants as occlusives is strong in the post-Biblical WH of Judezmo speakers,e.g., <lekaf zehout> zekf skl “granting benefit of the doubt” (Mose, 127),ï<bepombi> ianeta “publicly” (Moše, 136). On the other hand, following the Biblicaltendency, these consonants may receive fricative realization when following aword-final vowel, e.g., <Velàma hol zé?> ?df lk dnle, “And why all of this?”(Saltiel, 89).

David M. Bunis

48*

of intriguing new research topics. Assuredly, some of these will focus on

phonology; e.g., distinctions in the traditional phonic realization of Biblical

vs. Mishnaic vs. Rabbinical Hebrew texts among diverse Jewish subcultures,

both ideally (i.e., in adherence to the prescriptive dictates of the individual

speech community) and really (i.e., in actual performance) – for which I

suggest employing the distinction Ideal vs. Real Whole Hebrew phonology;26

the phonological realization of Hebrew as spoken sporadically within diverse

Jewish subcultures before the emergence of Israeli Hebrew,27 and between

members of diverse Jewish subcultures, before the modern period;28

26 An example of Real as opposed to Ideal WH phonology in the modern period wouldbe the popular women’s realization of šin W in the blessing šeheheyanu epiigdy×

(epribde epniwe), recited over diverse joyous or first-time occurrences, as s- ratherthan š-, i.e., as se-/sixyanu (instead of Ideal šeexeyanu). This was criticized byRabbi ’E. ben Š. T. Papo of 19th-century Sarajevo: “Es il minag di algunas muzeris× ï

ki dizin ‘sixyanu vigiymanu vikyanu’ ("epiiwe epniibe epiigq") vixulé” “It is thehabit of some women to say ‘sixyanu vigiymanu vikyanu’ ” (Sefer Dammeseq’Eli‘ezer, vol. 1, ’Orah hayyim [Belgrade, 1862], 84b). However, there is evidence× ×

that among the Jews of pre-Expulsion Spain the Ideal WH realization of W was infact s.

27 Judezmo rabbinical works cite numerous sources advocating the use of spokenHebrew: e.g., during the Sabbath – cf. “[Sabaè,] avlar toäo en lasón akoäes esmunco aboniãwar” “On the Sabbath, speaking entirely in the Holy Tongue is a veryï

good practice” (’A. ben Y. Asa, Sefer sorxe sibbur [Constantinople, 1733], 94b,× ×

based on the Zohar and Sefer hakkawwanot), on Shavuoth – cf. “[Savuoè] avlarlasón akoäes, esta noce ãrande maalá” “Shavuoth, speaking in the Holy Tongue onï

this night is a great virtue” (ibid., 122b, citing various sources), and at the hour ofone’s death – cf. “Ora de yesiaè nesamá avlar lasón akoäeš, muy byen eco” “Whenï

one’s soul departs his body, speaking the Holy Tongue is very well done” (ibid.,130b). Early manuals of Modern Hebrew for Judezmo speakers also stressed this,e.g., Ben Ardut (2) explained that his book was intended to “kontentar los maestrosdezeozos de aprender la avla de mwestra lingwa santa a los elevos … mwestralingwa-maäre” “satisfy those teachers wishing to teach the spoken form of our HolyLanguage to their students … our mother tongue.” For remarks by early 19th-centuryJudezmo authors to Hebrew instructors on the importance of teaching spokenHebrew, see David M. Bunis, “Rabbi Yehuda Alkalay and his Linguistic Concerns,”in Zeev Harvey, Galit Hasan-Rokem, Haim Saadoun and Amnon Shiloah, eds., Zionand Zionism Among Sephardic and Oriental Jews (Jerusalem: MisgavYerushalayim, 2002), 155–212 (in Hebrew).

28 An allusion to this is a Judezmo name for “Ashkenazim,” mašemexas/-os, derived

“Whole Hebrew”: A Revised Definition

49*

and the relation of such features to the phonological realization of the

Merged Hebrew elements in the Jewish languages of those subcultures.

Even more, a new perception of “Whole Hebrew” as Jewish subculture-

specific Hebrew proper in its broadest sense will also naturally lead to the

analysis at all structural levels of the distinctive varieties of Hebrew,

especially Rabbinical Hebrew, used creatively in original compositions and

lectures by members of diverse Jewish subcultures. These Hebrew varieties

should first be analyzed on their own terms, of course; but they are also of

especial interest in relation to the everyday Jewish languages spoken and

written by their users, well beyond the level of phonology. The remainder

of this article will be devoted to some preliminary explorations in this

direction.

Prel iminary Explora t ions in the Comparat ive Study of Whole

and Merged Hebrew in Judezmo and Yiddish

In support of my suggestion that the definition of “Whole Hebrew” be

broadened to include linguistic levels beyond that of phonology I shall touch

on several characteristic features of morphology, syntax, lexicon, and

semantics, with reference to WH and MH as encountered among speakers

of Judezmo and Yiddish. As we shall see, in ways somewhat paralleling the

differences between WH and MH as defined by Weinreich with respect to

phonology, the incorporation of elements of Hebrew origin in the

grammatical systems of Judezmo and Yiddish sometimes differs from that

in Biblical and occasionally later varieties of Hebrew proper. On the other

hand, in original Hebrew compositions by Judezmo and Yiddish speakers

the use of certain grammatical features frequently corresponds to, and was

undoubtedly influenced by, that in the Merged Hebrew components in

Judezmo and Yiddish, but diverges from their use in Biblical and

occasionally later varieties of Hebrew proper.

from the question Ma šemexa? ?jny dn “What is your name?” posed in Hebrew byJudezmo speakers to Ashkenazic visitors to Ottoman Sephardic communities.

David M. Bunis

50*

Morphology

Some of the most pronounced distinctions between the WH as opposed to

MH of Judezmo and Yiddish speakers, as well as the common bonds shared

by their distinctive variants of WH and their MH as opposed to Biblical and

other pre-medieval varieties of Hebrew, emerge from an examination of

diverse problems in morphology.

Substant ives and Adject ives : Gender Assignment

Biblical and later varieties of Hebrew distinguish masculine vs. feminine

gender. A substantive referring to a female, or displaying final stressed -á

(dÎ, e.g., ‘alma dnlr “lass”) or suffix-final -t (zÎ, e.g., galut zelb “exile”),¨

is usually feminine in BH.29 Other lexemes are generally masculine in BH,

although there is variation with respect to some substantives with final

consonants (e.g., m./f. ruah gex “wind”). Adjectives generally exhibit×

inflections reflecting the gender of the substantives they qualify (e.g.,

[‘alma] se‘ira dxirv [dnlr] “[young] lass,” with f.sg. -á dÎ).× ¨

As in Spanish, Judezmo also distinguishes masculine vs. feminine gender.

At the synchronic level the assignment of gender may be analyzed as

correlating primarily with semantic reference and word-final phonological

shape, irrespective of the etymological origin of the specific substantive.

Roughly speaking, unless their references are males, Judezmo nouns,

whether of Romance, HA, Balkan or other origins, generally receive

feminine gender if they end in -a/-á (e.g., péndola “pen” [OS], seäaká

“charity” [H dwcv], fúrca “brush” [T firça], eléva “[f.] pupil” [F] élève), orï

in specific Hispanic-origin feminine suffixes, e.g., -äaä (S -dad) in

garoneäaä “gluttony”(< H garón oexb “throat”). Masculine gender is

generally assigned to the remaining substantives, which are the majority,

and include most substantives having a male reference (e.g., m. tokea

“blower of the ram’s horn” [H rwez], pašá “pasha” [T pasa]), as well asÜ

29 Unless otherwise noted, what is said here and throughout of BH is generally true ofpre-medieval Rabbinical Hebrew as well.

“Whole Hebrew”: A Revised Definition

51*

those ending in a phoneme other than -a/-á (e.g., séfer “Torah scroll” [H

xtq], galú(è) “exile” [H zelb],30 cay “tea” [T çay]).ï

In Hebrew proper, or Judezmo speakers’ WH (according to my

definition), as used in original writings by Sephardic authors in Medieval

Spain as well as in the Ottoman Empire and North Africa, the gender

assignment of substantives generally corresponds with the essentially

semantic and phonological principles just delineated for Judezmo. As a

result, there is frequently a positive correlation between the gender of a noun

used in Judezmo speakers’ Rabbinical WH (henceforth, JRWH) and in the

Judezmo MH component (henceforth, JMH), whereas both correlate

negatively with that in BH. It will be convenient to illustrate this and

subsequent comparisons which will be made here with citations from the

moralistic tract Sefer miqr∂’e qodeš by ’Efrayim Hayyot, published in×

Istanbul 1828 in Judezmo (Hayyot), and in the following year in Hebrew×

(Hayyot, Hebrew).31 A number of Judezmo nouns of Hebrew origin reveal

shifts in gender when compared with their pre-medieval HA etyma: e.g.,

pre-medieval H m. mora `xen “fear” vs. JRWH f. morá = JMH f. la morá;32

BH f. galut (š∂lema) (dnly) zelb “(complete) exile” (Amos 1:6) vs. JRWHÕ

m. galuè zelb (Hayyot, 2b: xnd zelbd zekix` df) = JMH m. galuè amarão×

“bitter exile” (Hayyot, Judezmo, 4b). Sporadically, the gender of×

substantives in WH may also be influenced by that of corresponding

Jewish-language synonyms of non-Hebrew origin, e.g., a historically feminine

30 Historically, the motivation for masculine gender assignment to Hebraisms withsuffix-final tav may perhaps be connected with that assigned to cognate Arabicsubstantives with -t (cf. Esther Goldenberg, “Hebrew Language. Medieval”Encyclopedia Judaica [New York: Keter, 1972], 1607–1642, esp. 1628–9, 1640–41).At the synchronic level this motivation is generally unnecessary, since most suchsubstantives do not end in -a/-á and lack a specifically feminine reference, and thusare automatically perceived as masculine. As a result of phonological tendencies inJudezmo such as apocope, however, some lexemes ending in -a are neverthelessmasculine, e.g., sabá “Sabbath” (< šabaè, H zay).

31 Parallel examples could be adduced from pre-Expulsion Judezmo texts as well asOttoman Sephardic Hebrew texts from the 16–20th centuries.

32 E.g., la morá “fear” in Y. Magriso, Sefer me‘am lo‘ez heleq š∂liši sefer wayyiqra×

… en laäino (Constantinople, 1753), 66b.

David M. Bunis

52*

substantive is followed by a masculine plural verb form in JRWH igzedcydxne`mi (Bexa”r Hayyim, 137), paralleling the author’s Judezmo translation,×

los animales del kampo dizen. Irregular plural forms, in which

predominantly masculine-marking -im miÎ occurs with feminine substantives,

and primarily feminine-marking -oè zeÎ occurs with masculine substantives,

may influence the gender and number markers used with their qualifiers.

For instance, the plural suffix -oè added to m.sg. maaxal lk`n “food” (> pl.

maaxaloè) attracts a f.pl. adjective in the phrase maaxaloè asuroè zelk`nzexeq` “forbidden foods” (Hayyot, 7b); -im added to páam mrt (> pl.×

peamim) attracts the same inflectional ending to the qualifier in peamim

meatim mihrn minrt “few times” (Ben Ardut, 69). Nevertheless, whereas

gender assignment in Judezmo tends to be quite fixed, original JRWH texts

exhibit some variation. Thus a noun which functions consistently as

feminine in BH, and as consistently masculine in Judezmo, may vacillate in

the gender of the adjectives, verbs, pronominalized prepositions and

negative particles it attracts in WH texts, the latter often being generically

masculine (and occasionally singular) regardless of the gender and number

of the substantive,33 e.g., m.pl. noun + m.sg. adjective: ielz mc`d iigy mixa`mda “organs which a human’s (m.pl.) life is’ (m.sg.) dependent upon”

(Hayyot, 20b); f.pl. noun + m.pl. verbs: mc`l mixqine mixrvn zetilwd “The×

(f.) evil spirits (m.) grieve and torture man” (Hayyot, 11a). There may be×

divergent concord within a single phrase, e.g., f.pl. saroè receives both f.pl.×

and f.sg. adjectives in: daxe zetkez zexvde “(f.pl.) sorrows are (f.pl.) in quick

succession and (f.sg.) many” (Hayyot, 2b-3a) – the latter perhaps indicating×

the “real” perception of the concept of “sorrow[s]” as singular (e.g., J sáar

< H xrv). Lack of concord may even be noted, although rarely, in manuals

of Modern Hebrew, e.g., <Aomanoùt azôt kavàch eth levavô> (f.) “This

art (m.) captured his heart” (Saltiel, 347).

In Yiddish speakers’ Rabbinical WH (YRWH), substantives also display

considerable vacillation as to masculine vs. feminine gender assignment; the

determining factors require further study. As in Judezmo, however, the

33 It should perhaps be noted here that, as in Spanish, Judezmo verb forms distinguishnumber but not gender.

“Whole Hebrew”: A Revised Definition

53*

gender assigned to MH substantives in Yiddish is rather fixed, at least in

each regional and stylistic variety. Formally, as in Hebrew proper, Northern

(“Lithuanian”) Yiddish distinguishes masculine vs. feminine gender only;

but substantives in Southern Yiddish, as well as so-called “Standard

Yiddish,” exhibit a three-gender – masculine-feminine-neuter – system

reminiscent of German. As in Judezmo, much of the gender assignment of

Hebraisms in Yiddish may be analyzed as semantically or phonologically

motivated (Wexler, section 4.5). Very roughly stated, substantives with a

male reference are masculine (e.g., bal-tkie “blower of the ram’s horn” [H

driwz lra]), as generally are those with a final consonant (e.g., seyfer

“religious book”); in such instances they often agree with BH. MH

sustantives with final -e (which corresponds to all Ashkenazic WH

unstressed word-final vowels except -u and occasional -iy,34 and to Judezmo

speakers’ WH -a/-á) are generally feminine;35 thus some MH elements in

both Yiddish (with -e) and Judezmo (with -a/-á) receive identical gender,

both languages sometimes disagreeing with pre-medieval Hebrew (e.g., Y f.

moyre, J f. morá vs. BH m. mora `xen “fear”). Because of divergences in

their phonological realization of Hebraisms, however, Yiddish and Judezmo

merged nouns sometimes differ in their gender, e.g., J ševá `eey “schwa” is

feminine,36 since it ends in -á; Yiddish shvo is masculine, since the final

vowel is stressed -o rather than -e. There seems to be a semantic motivation

for the neuter gender assignment widespread in Southern and obligatory in

Standard Yiddish of Hebrew-origin substantives with final -es reflecting

Hebrew zeÎ, which often carries an abstract sense (e.g., dos rakhmones

zepngx “compassion”; cf. synonymous G neuter Mitleid);37 other substantives

34 E.g., WH rega rbx = MH rege “moment,” boyrey `xea = boyre “Creator,” koyne© ¥dpew = koyne “buyer,” b(∂)rokho dkxa = brokhe “blessing,” oysoy eze` = oyse “(this)¤very (thing),” k(∂)liy ilM = keyle “vessel” but mitsriy ixvn = mitsri “Egyptian,” teyku§¦ ¦ewiz = teyku “let it stand!, it’s a draw!”

35 There are some exceptions, most notably Hebrew present participles of the typelamed-’alef and lamed-he functioning as agentives; e.g., m. royfe `tex “doctor,”soyne `pey “enemy,” khoyle dleg “ill person.”

36 E.g., JMH f. la ševá naá (drp `ey) (Alkalay, No‘am II, 6a).37 Northeastern and certain other Yiddish regional varieties instead assign masculine

or feminine gender to such substantives, e.g., m. der rakhmones. In regional Yiddish,

David M. Bunis

54*

with -es reflecting other final sequences in Hebrew are generally masculine,

even if abstract in sense (e.g., der emes zn` “truth” der takhles zilkz“aim”). Certain other Hebrew-origin substantives also carry neuter gender

in Southern and Standard Yiddish (e.g., dos mazl lfn “luck,” cf. German-

origin synonymous glik [G. Glück]); and some of them disagree with

German-origin synonyms, e.g., dos loshn oeyl “language,” although the

German-origin synonym di shprakh is feminine (as is G Sprache). All such

cases of neuter gender in Yiddish constitute divergences between Yiddish

speakers’ MH and WH (not to speak of BH), the corresponding lexemes

being masculine or feminine – or masculine/ feminine – in WH.38

Substantives and Adject ives : Plural Formation

Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew employ the plural suffixes -im/-in oiÎ/miÎ and-ot zeÎ. While the former is generally attracted to masculine substantives

and the latter to feminine, there are numerous instances of substantives with

masculine gender (or displaying masculine/feminine vacillation) which

pluralize with -ot (e.g., dor xec “generation” > pl. dorot zexec).If the gender assignment of Merged Hebraisms is relatively strict in

individual varieties of Judezmo and Yiddish, as opposed to somewhat free

in the WH written by their speakers, the converse is true of plural formation.

Single-element substantives in the rabbinical WH of Judezmo and Yiddish

if not in the “standard” language (in which they are invariably feminine),substantives with the abstract suffixes -keyt and -shaft are feminine or neuter, e.g.,n. dos / f. di beryeshaft “efficiency” (< dixa “skillful person”), as opposed toStandard German, in which derivations with -keit and -schaft are consistentlyfeminine (e.g., die Wirksamkeit “efficiency”). On the complexity of Yiddish genderassignment and plural formation see Wexler, section 4.5.

38 E.g., in Nahman (57), Yiddish MH mazl lfn is neuter (e.g., “Dos mazl hot zikh im×shoyn oyf gehoybn” “His luck improved already”), but in the corresponding WH textmazol is masculine ("elfn mnexzp"). In the same work (26), Yiddish MH khalász`leg “(contemptuous) disease” is neuter (“Dos iz mesugl se zol heyln dos khalás,un dos iz mesugl tsu ayn ander khalás” “This [remedy] can heal this disease, andthis [other one] can heal another disease”), while WH khoylaas vacillates betweenmasculine and feminine ("zxg` z`legl dfe df z`leg z`etxl lbeqn dfe").

“Whole Hebrew”: A Revised Definition

55*

speakers do exhibit some vacillation in the use of plural suffixes: both

miÎand oiÎ (JRWH -im/-ín / YRWH -im/-in) (reflecting Biblical/Mishnaic

variants) are used, mostly with masculine substantives: (e.g., JWH mipiicd /

oipiicd “the judges” [Hayyot, 36a]; cf. BH dayyan oiic > BH dayyanim,×

post-BH also dayyanin). Both zeÎ as well as zeiÎ (JRWH -oè/-iyoè / YRWH

-oys/-iyoys) occur, mostly with feminine nouns (e.g., JRWH m. šabaè zay‘Sabbath’ > pl. šabatoè/-tiyoè zeiÎ/zezay; cf. BH šabbat > šabbatot).Õ Õ Õ

But the pluralization of the corresponding merged substantives in

Judezmo and Yiddish can be considerably more complex and vacillating

than their WH parallels. For example, the plurals of MH substantives in

Judezmo fluctuate between (a) those accepted in JRWH (e.g., m.sg. dayán

> m.pl. dayanim/-ín, m.sg. sabá(è) > m.pl. sabató[è]/-ió[è]) – which are

preferred in rabbinical Judezmo, but also known in popular speech; (b)

plurals generated by the suffixing of Hispanic-origin -(e)s to the singular

base (dayanes, sabás/sabaäes); (c) tautological plurals displaying suffixes

both of Hebrew and Hispanic origin (e.g., dayanimes/-ines,

sabatoäes/sabatós); and (d) the absence of an overt, formal singular/plural

distinction (e.g., m.sg. el sabá /pl. los sabá). Whereas Yiddish MH plural

substantives frequently display H-origin plural suffixes (although not

necessarily reflecting those used in Hebrew proper or corresponding to

those in other Jewish languages), as well as stem-internal vowel alternation

(e.g., m.sg. shabes “Sabbath” > m.pl. shabosim), many instead exhibit plural

markers of Germanic and other origins, e.g., m.sg. poroykhes zkext “Torah

ark curtain” > m.pl. poroykhesn (cf. G -en), n.sg. ponem mipt “face” >

pénemer (cf. G ablaut + -er), m.sg. oylem mler “audience” > oylems (cf. G

-s), or Hebrew-/Germanic-origin plural-morpheme variation, e.g., skhus zekf“merit” > skhusn/-im (miÎ). Numerous noun, verb and other phrases have

become lexicalized as m.sg. substantives in the MH of Judezmo; historically

tautological plurals of such substantives are created by suffixing -(e)s to

already (etymologically) plural HA nominal constructions such as bené

amenu+s “sons of our people, Jews; Sephardim” < m.pl. bené amenu ipaepnr < m.sg. ben amenu epnr oa “son of our people.” Such fusion plurals

and other kinds of plural variants characteristic of MH in Judezmo and

Yiddish, the use of which is partly connected with geographic region and

David M. Bunis

56*

social/literary level are essentially unknown in the corresponding forms used

by Judezmo and Yiddish speakers in rabbinical WH.39

Generally for lack of a Hebrew word which would precisely express an

object or concept required in a WH context, certain substantives of

non-Hebrew origin sometimes appear in the rabbinical WH of Judezmo and

Yiddish speakers. In such instances their plural forms generally correspond

to their Judezmo or Yiddish plurals, mostly generated with non-Hebrew-

origin plural markers (e.g., J ãroš “an Ottoman coin” [T g-/kurus] > JWHÜ

ãrošes,40 Y groshn [G Groschen] “coin of little value” > YWH groshns) –

thus, as it were, denying them full “citizenship” within the “Holy Tongue.”41

But in Jewish languages we find quite a different situation. As Weinreich

observed with respect to the Merged Hebraisms in Yiddish – and this is true

of Jewish languages generally – “Merged Hebrew ... has surrendered ... to

the general phonic and morphological structure of the fusion as a whole”

(87, my emphasis). The use in Judezmo and Yiddish of numerous merged

Hebrew substantives with Hebrew-origin plural morphemes has resulted in

the acquisition by those morphemes of a modest level of pan-component

productivity, and thus they are occasionally attracted even to bases of

non-Hebrew origin: e.g., J m.sg. rifrán “proverb” (S refrán) > pl. rifranim/

-ín42 (miÎ), f.sg. kasabá “town” (T kasaba < A qasaba) > pl. kasaboè43 (zeÎ),×

39 For example, cf. JRWH n leykn xiqdleepinr ipa (Hayyot, 17a); JWH <Bachabatòt×ouvahaguìm> vs. JMH los šabaèèèè i fiestas “on Sabbaths (sg. ‘Sabbath’) and holidays”(Saltiel, 293).

40 Cf. yiyexb dxyr jq “an amount of ten kurus” (Y. Adarbi, Divre rivot [Salonika,Ü1581], r. 361).

41 An exception is J m. yarsáy(t) “(Jewish) anniversary of death,” derived from Yyórtsayt hövx`i, which apparently entered Judezmo from Ashkenazic Hebrew¨rabbinical texts read by Sephardic scholars, thus accounting for its phonologicalrealization (` = a, v = s). The form yar sayat <h`iiv x`ii> appears in Y. ben ’A.¨Molxo, Sefer ’orhot yošer (Salonika, 1773), [iv]a, citing Moše Isserles [c.×

1520–1572], Hamappa). Perceived as a Hebraism, the variant plural forms inJudezmo and Sephardic WH are constructed with Hebrew-origin plural markers: cf.yarsaytim <mihii`qx`ii> and yarsayoè ze`iqxi> (Bunis, Lexicon, nos. 1809 kk,1338).

42 E.g., “Para ke vos uzeš la boka ameldar un poko el talyano, akí vos meto syertoslakirdís i rifranín” “So that your mouth grow accustomed to reading a little Italian,

“Whole Hebrew”: A Revised Definition

57*

Y m.sg. doktor “doctor” (G Doktor) > pl. doktoyrim (miÎ). Thus, while WH

tends to be grammatically exclusive, restricting the use of Hebrew bound

morphemes to Hebrew elements and “foreign” bound morphemes to non-

Hebrew elements, MH elements – including inflectional and derivational

morphemes – are fully incorporated within the grammatical structure of

Jewish languages.44

Syntax

The syntax of rabbinical WH as written by speakers of Jewish languages

often exhibits influence from their spoken languages, the resulting

constructions tending to diverge from Biblical and other varieties of

pre-medieval Hebrew. A few features of the WH of Judezmo speakers will

suffice to illustrate this.

Passive Voice

Whether a WH verbal construction is expressed in the active or passive

voice is frequently determined by the corresponding Jewish-language

construction; for example, a passive verbal infinitive (rather than an active

I have set before you a few [Italian] conversations and sayings” (D. ben M. ‘Atias,×La gwerta de oro [Livorno, 1778], 11a).

43 E.g., “Le dešó a el su paäre mil kasaboè por lo seko i mil naves por la mar” “Hisfather left him a thousand towns on land and a thousand ships at sea” (R. Ben’Avraham, Sefer tiqqune hannefeš, vol. 1 [Salonika, 1765], 64b).

44 One use of a derivational morpheme of Hebrew origin in Judezmo is exemplified inthe abstract suffix -uè zeÎ attached to Hispanic-origin xaraãán “lazy” (S haragán)in the fusion form xaraãanuè <zep`b`x`g> “laziness” (e.g., “Teneš xaraãanuè” “You[2pl.] are lazy,” Y. ben M. Xulí, Sefer me‘am lo‘ez heleq rišon ... en laäino ... séfer×

berešiè [Constantinople, 1730], 135b). The same suffix occurs in the WH synonym<atselout> zelvr (Moše, 73, where this fusion form is offered as the Judezmodefinition). But Judezmo has also creatively employed H-origin derivational patternsin apparent lexical innovations in which both the stem and base are of Hebrew originbut the resulting combination is unknown in varieties of WH and MH except thoseused among Judezmo speakers; e.g., xorfá “intellectual sharpness” < h-r-f sÎxÎg “be×

sharp” + CoCCá as in hoxmá dnkg (J xoxmá) “wisdom”; balabayú(è)×

“proprietorship; (good sense of) housekeeping, (gracious) hospitality” < báal abáyièziad lra (J balabáy) “householder” + abstract -uè zeÎ (J -ú[è]).

David M. Bunis

58*

substantive) appears in <bait aomédet leïssahér> “a house that is for rent

(‘to be rented’)” = kaza ke está por alkilarse (Saltiel, 179).

Demonstrat ives

Apparently under the influence of Judezmo, demonstrative adjectives tend

to precede the noun, which is frequently indefinite: e.g., ('[a]ezkl iz`vi)df

xtq “(I went out to write) this book” (Hayyot, 2b) = este livro (Hayyot,× ×

Judezmo, 4a); l`xyi xa lkl olvil '[`]pngxxrv `eddn “Heaven forbid that

any son of Israel should suffer that sorrow” (Hayyot, 21b).×

Comparat ives

Paralleling the Judezmo construction, comparative-marking yoter xzei“more” also tends to precede the adjective, e.g., <ealìm … aelionìm em

aketanîm veayotér tovim> “The upper leaves are the small and better (‘more

good’) ones” = las ozas … de ariva son las cikas i las mas bwenas (Saltiel,ï ï

208).

Quest ion Formation

The syntax of questions often follows that in Judezmo, e.g., question-word

+ verb + subject: e.g., <Ehàn madbîk ou eth ahagorôt?> “Where does he

glue (‘glues he’) the belts?” = Onde enklava [el] los kolanes? (Saltiel, 197).

Elements intended to receive focus stand at the head of the sentence, e.g.,

<Atseroufòt en cheôt alimoudîm?> “Are the study hours consecutive

(‘Consecutive they, hours of the studies’)?” = Konsekutivas son las oras de

estuäyo? (Saltiel, 292).

Negative Part ic le ’en oi`

Paralleling the Judezmo use of Hispanic-origin no(n) “no, not,” the negative

particle ’en oi` may be used with non-present tense verb forms, e.g., epi`rx zeyrl ayg “He did not mean to do evil” (Hayyot, 47a).×

“Whole Hebrew”: A Revised Definition

59*

Possess ion

Hebrew me-/min (o)n is used in a manner paralleling the Judezmo use of the

preposition de to express possession, e.g., xirddnmil`rnyi “the Turks’ city

(‘the city from the Turks’)” (Hayyot, 16b) = la sivdaä de los turkos.45×

Omission of Subject Pronouns

As in Judezmo, third-person and other subject pronouns are occasionally

omitted when not emphasized: e.g., <Selihà adonî! Chahàh eth agalachîm>

= Pardón sinyor! Se ulviääääó los kalošes “Excuse me sir! [You] forgot the

galoshes” (Saltiel, 188).

Anaphoric Pronouns

Logically pleonastic pronouns denoting antecedents follow the verb, as in

Judezmo, e.g., <Eth achaôn agadòl tolim otò al akîr> “The big clock they

hang (it) on the wall” = La ora ãrande la enkolãan en la pareä (Saltiel, 283).

Def ini te Art ic le

Qualified nouns when definite are often treated in a manner similar to

lexicalized nouns: the definite article frequently precedes the noun but not

the qualifier; e.g., Hayyot, 27a: ziqdl [r]x"d[x]vid lekiohw clidl “The evil×

impulse can incite the little boy (‘to the boy little’).” This is true of construct

formations as well, in which the article tends to precede the nomen regens

rather than the nomen rectum, e.g., Hayyot, 42b: el`axqen ixtqd “in these×

morality books (‘the books-of morality’).” However, definite-marking he

Îdmay precede the qualifier rather than the substantive, e.g., Hayyot, 11a:×

mirpd `xew jiptl riv`e “and I shall offer you, pleasant reader (‘reader the

pleasant’).”

45 There is an Ashkenazic WH parallel: În corresponding to Yiddish fun; e.g., dcr y`xnbxeand “head of the community of Hamburg.” This and further examples appear in

Glikl: Zikhroynes 1691–1719, annotated and translated by Chava Turniansky(Jerusalem: The Zalman Shazar Center and The Ben-Zion Dinur Center for JewishHistory, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2006).

David M. Bunis

60*

Verbal /Adject ival Forms

Certain verbal and adjectival forms are characteristic of JRWH, while

divergent forms occur in JMH. For example, in JWH “excommunicated” is

mu-/moxram mxgen (i.e., the anticipated present-tense hu-/hof‘al form of

h-r-m mÎxÎg) – cf. Hayyot, 23b: l`xyi idl`n dcepne mxgen `ed “He is× ×

excommunicated and ostracized by the God of Israel”; while the MH form

in Judezmo is mexoram mxegn (perhaps a pseudo-pu‘al, or a phonological

development from a hof‘al variant, moxoram): “Le demandava este

mexoram de mi mešareè” “This accursed servant of mine asked of him”

(Hayyot, Judezmo, 25a).×

Adverbs

The dative construction lahus (mi-) (În) uegl “out, outside (of)” would seem× ×

to calque Judezmo ax-/afwera [reanalyzed as a “to” + x-/fwera “out’ ”; cf. S

afuera] (de): uegl jliy '[z]xynl izxn` “I told the servant to go out”

(Hayyot, 16b) = Le diše a mi mešareè ke se xwera axwera (Hayyot,× ×

Judezmo, 25a).

Preposi t ions

In various fixed expressions and other idiomatic constructions the choice of

prepositions in the WH of Judezmo speakers differs from that of some other

Jewish subcultures: cf. be- Îa in bemašal lyna “for example” (Ashkenazic

le- lynl), e.g., <Ma kotevìm bemachâl> “What do they write, for

example?” (Saltiel, 14); la- Îl in laãããã laómer xnerl b"l “Lag Ba-‘Omer”

(Ashkenazic axner ). The prepositions governed by specific verbs seem

occasionally to reflect those governed by the Judezmo synonyms of those

verbs, as well as the use of the so-called “personal a (literally, ‘to’)” which

precedes a human (/animate) definite object; e.g., le- Îl (“to”) instead of ’et

z` in: oixikn miaxlxrpd df “Many know (‘to’) this young man”(Hayyot,×

16b) = munca gente … ya lo konosen a este mansevo (Hayyot, Judezmo,ï ï ×

25a); meha- Îdn “of, from” instead of ba- Îa in <amichtamechîm meealìm>

“who use (‘of’) the leaves” = ke se syerven de las ozas (Saltiel, 70).ï

“Whole Hebrew”: A Revised Definition

61*

Pausal Forms

Original texts (e.g., vocalized Hebrew manuals for children) in the WH of

Judezmo speakers reveal a tendency to prefer pausal forms of substantives,

as well as other parts of speech, in both pausal and contextual positions. For

example, the nominal form <dodatéha> jzcec, rather than <dodatehà>¤

jzcec, <Reouvén baal dodatéha, vedodatéha hi lo leïchà> “Reuven is your§

aunt’s husband, and your aunt is his wife” (Saltiel, 150). The passive verb

form šeniftáxa dgYtpy rather than šeniftexá dgYtpy occurs in <assifriyਠ§

ahadachà cheniftàha lifné yamîm ahadìm> “the new library that was opened

a few days ago” (Saltiel, 317). The prepositional pronoun form lax Kl̈instead of lexá Ll is used in <Alày leaïr lah lezéher ma ànou madlikìm> “I§

have to inform you in commemoration of what we light [Hanukkah

candles]” (Saltiel, 247, where the reference is to a male).

Lexicon and Semantics

Given various lexical alternants which exist in the diverse historical and

regional varieties of Hebrew, Judezmo speakers’ rabbinical WH tends to

prefer certain ones over others, and sometimes innovates. It tends to be these

same distinctive forms which are incorporated in the MH component of

Judezmo. In some instances this is manifested in the sequence of vowels in

the mišqal, e.g., JWH <pinkés> qwpt “register” (Saltiel, 17) rather than¥

pinkás; <pékek> wwt “bottle plug” (Saltiel, 50) rather than pekák. In some¤¤

cases there is a distinction between the WH and MH forms, e.g. JWH

paraša dyxt “Bible chapter” (Alkalay, No‘am, II, 59a) vs. JMH perašá. In

other instances one particular word or expression (often Biblical), rather

than another (e.g., Mishnaic, Aramaic), is used to convey a concept: e.g.,

Hebrew-origin sav aq and savá daq rather than Aramaic-origin `aq sabá and

savtá `zaq express “grandfather” and “grandmother.”46 Biblical ori“because” is often preferred to post-Biblical zngn, e.g., Ben Ardut, 44: `lziaa il mikgn izia ipa ori ,... lke` “I cannot, because my family members

await me at home.” The congratulatory exclamation “More power to you!”

46 Bexa”r Hayyim, 81; cf. also Saltiel, 147 <sav, savà>.×

David M. Bunis

62*

is expressed by Xazak veemás! !un`e wfg rather than Yišar koax/koxaxá! xyii!(j)gk (as preferred among Yiddish speakers), e.g., Ben Ardut, 32: un`e wfg!jini lk dfd jxcd on xiqz l` ... “More power to you; never depart from this

path!” The sense in which WH words are used may also be influenced by

Judezmo near-homonyms of other origins, e.g., WH <semid> cinq is

translated by Saltiel (58) as J simit “crusty bread-ring baked with sesame

seeds” (cf. T semit < A. samid, Gk semídalis), although it was used inå

post-Biblical Hebrew to denote “fine flour.”47

The distinctive religious and cultural life which had developed among the

Jews while they still spoke Hebrew and Aramaic is reflected in many

Hebrew-Aramaic terms denoting objects and concepts unique to Judaism.

Many of these were later absorbed in Jewish languages (e.g., J mezuzá dfefn“mezuzah,” xamín oing “Sabbath stew”). However, the dynamism of Jewish

life which continued during the Middle Ages and into the modern era led to

the rise of new objects and practices for which no single-lexeme Hebrew

terms existed. In such instances terms were created in Jewish languages

drawing upon diverse linguistic resources, including Hebrew. When writers

of WH made reference to these objects and practices they generally used

their Jewish-language names. Some were old Hebrew words with new

semantic references. For example, H halla dlg, used in the Bible to denote×

a certain kind of “loaf made from fine flour” (Lev. 24:5, II Sam. 6:19) and

the “priest’s share of the dough” (cf. Nos. 15:19-20), and later, the “piece

of dough ritually removed and burnt before baking” (cf. Mishna, Halla),×

came to be realized in Yiddish as khale, and is used to denote a special

“Sabbath loaf.” In Judezmo, xalá is used ironically to designate a “cut” or

commission deducted by one of the parties to a financial transaction.48 Thus

in Yiddish and Judezmo, and in the Whole Hebrew of their speakers,

reflexes of dlg carry the new as well as the old senses.

For lack of a sufficiently developed lexicon in some semantic domains,

traditional WH sometimes uses a single lexeme to convey a wide range of

47 ’Avraham ’Even-Šošan, Hammillon hehadaš (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1985), 1812.×

48 E.g., “Le paresyó de kitar una xalá de 210 grošes” “He thought to take acommission of 210 kurus” (El guãetón 4/46 [Istanbul, 1913]: 3).ï ï

“Whole Hebrew”: A Revised Definition

63*

meanings, whereas Jewish languages have, over the centuries, evolved a

richer vocabulary in those spheres, enabling more discriminating

distinctions of style and nuance. For example, the use by Saltiel (339) of

WH <(be)vaté akenésset> is generic, denoting “(in the) synagogues” of all

types; while his Judezmo translation, templos, refers to the “modern

synagogues” or “temples” preferred by some modern, westernized

Sephardim. The latter are also known in Judezmo in the Italianate form

tempyos, and by near synonyms such as sinagoges/-as, all of which stand

in opposition to the more traditional synagogues denoted by Judezmo

Merged Hebrew kal and keilá (dlidw ,ldw), rabbinical Judezmo beè

akenéseè (zqpkd zia), the women’s section known as azará (dxfr) or

eznoãa/-nóax, and other terms.

The characteristic tendency in Jewish languages to fuse Hebrew-origin

stems with non-Hebrew derivational affixes has facilitated the coining of

many lexemes with a “Jewish” or abstract reference for which no exact

correspondents had existed in early Hebrew. For instance, among the

Ottoman Sephardim the name xaminero,49 designating the “pot used for

preparing the Sabbath stew,” was devised from the base xamín oing and the

Hispanic-origin vessel-denoting suffix -ero; while among Haketia speakers×

in Morocco the same ending was suffixed to the base mezuzá to yield

mezuzero, the “case holding the small mezuzah prayer scroll” attached to

Jewish doorways.50 A gift given on the occasion of Purim is known from

nineteenth-century Judezmo as purimlik (cf. H mixet, J -lík < T. -lik),51 and

49 E.g., “Xaminero <expin`g> … ke lo ensendyó kon … lenya” “a Sabbath stew cookerthat he lit with firewood,” A. ben Y. ’Asa, Sefer šulhan hammelex ... šulhan arux× ×

[’orah hayyim] ... en laäino (Constantinople, 1749), 111a.× ×

50 José Benoliel, Dialecto judeo-hispano-marroquí o hakitía (2d ed.; Barcelona, 1977),232.

51 E.g., “Ya te vo a dar purimlik; te vo merkar orezales” “I will give you a Purimï

present; I’ll buy you earrings” (El meseret 1 [Izmir, 1897]: 82–83). For more detailson inanimate fusion substantives with Hebrew bases in Judezmo, see D. M. Bunis,“Judezmo and Haketia Inanimate Nouns With Hebrew-Origin Bases and Romance-×Origin Affixes,” in Steven Fassberg and Aharon Maman, eds., Shaare Lason:Studies in Hebrew, Aramaic and Jewish Languages Presented to Moshe Bar-Asher(Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute, 2007), 40–63.

David M. Bunis

64*

in Yiddish is referred to by the Hebrew/Germanic-origin compound

khánike-gelt (cf. G Gelt “money”). Slavic-origin nominalizing suffixes

appear in Yiddish fusions such as khsidarnye, a “Hasidic house of worship”

(cf. khsid-, stem form of khosed ciqg “Hasidic Jew” + P -arnia) and

peysekhovke “Passover brandy” (cf. Y peysekh gqt “Passover” + P -owka).

The Turkish-origin Judezmo agent suffix -gí (T -ci) attaches to masá dvnï

“matzah” in masagí “matzah baker”; among Yiddish speakers the sameï

functionary is denoted by the Hebrew/Germanic-origin compound noun

mátse-beker (cf. G Bäcker “baker”).

Both Judezmo and Yiddish have rich hypocoristic systems, in which MH

elements are well incorporated. Among Ottoman Sephardim the

“noisemaker used by children in the synagogue at the mention of the vilified

Haman’s name during the reading of the Scroll of Esther on Purim”

was called amaniko, a hypocoristic form of Amán ond “Haman,” generated

with Hispanic-origin diminutizing -iko (S -ico).52 (Among Ashkenazim the

Purim rattle is known by Hebrew/German-origin fusion names such as

Hómen-grager, Hómen-dreyer/-klaper/-patsher.53 Homen, as Haman is

known in Yiddish, also accepts a fusion suffix – Aramaic-origin

femininizing -te (`zÎ) – in hómente, also known as hómen-tash (G Tasche

“pocket”), the “triangular filled dough pocket” eaten during Purim.

Hypocoristic suffixes can also add emotive shades to Hebrew elements

for which no single-lexeme parallel constructions existed in traditional

Hebrew: e.g., an “insignificant rabbi” can be denoted in Judezmo and

Yiddish by attaching pejorative suffixes to the Hebrew-origin base

signifying “rabbi”: cf. J xaxamote (< xaxam mkg “traditional scholar” +

Hispanic-origin -ote), Y rebl (< rebe iax “[especially Hasidic] rabbi” +

Germanic-origin hypocoristic -l < -el). Annoyance over the long Tisha

Be’av fast can be expressed in Judezmo by referring to the holiday in the

52 E.g., “un amaniko de lenya” “a wooden Purim noisemaker” (El burlón 1/13[Constantinople, 1909]: 4); for additional examples see Bunis, Lexicon, no. 1141.

53 Cf. G Dreher, “turner,” Klapper “rattle,” patschen “to slap.” Thanks to ChavaTurniansky for bringing to my attention these terms; cited by Nahum Stutchkoff,Der oytser fun der yídisher shprakh, ed. Max Weinreich (New York: YIVO Institutefor Jewish Research, 1950 [1991]), 568).

“Whole Hebrew”: A Revised Definition

65*

pejorative form tesabeuco “miserable/annoying Tisha Be’av” (cf. tesábeáï

a`a dryz + Hispanic-origin depreciative -ucho). A hint of doubt regarding

the “certainty” of a forthcoming event can be added by using the

hypocoristic form vadaiko “almost certain” (cf. vadáy i`ce “certain” +

diminutizing -iko).

As we have seen, Yiddish has productively employed the characteristic

Germanic process of substantive compounding: the result is a wealth

of fusion terms employed in connection with Jewish holidays, religious

festivities and dates in the Jewish calendar for which no traditional

WH correlates existed. These include púrim-flodn “Purim cake” (mixet;cf. G Fladen), khánike-lomp “Hanukkah lamp” (G Lampe), yom-kíper-

likht “candle for the Day of Atonement” (xetikÎmei; G Licht), resh-khóydesh-

gelt “gift of money to a teacher on the first day of the new month”

(ycegÎy`x), khásene-kleyd “wedding dress” (dpezg; G Kleid), táles-zak

“bag for prayer shawl” (zilh; G Sack), shabes-oyps “fruit or candy given

to children on the Sabbath” (zay; G Obst), mátse-bray “matzah pancakes”

(dvn; G Brei), heshayne-rábediker tsimes “cooked carrot dish in honor

of the last day of Sukkoth” (`ax `pryed), zókher-kikhl “cake eaten in honor

of the birth of a boy” (xkf; G Kuchen), mitsve- and broygez-tants “traditional

wedding dances” (deevn, fbexa; G Tanz), and súke-sher “(an imaginary)

‘scissor’ used for cutting a sukkah (only someone foolish would believe

that such a thing exists)” (dkeq; cf. G Schere). In comparable instances

Judezmo prefers typically Romance possessive constructions with de

“of, belonging to”: e.g., pitas de sabá “Sabbath buns” (J/G pita), sabá

de folares “Sabbath preceding Purim (so called because of the special dough

and egg treats – folares [cf. Portuguese folar] – given to children during

the holiday),” flores de suká “kind of marigolds used to decorate the

Sukkoth booth” (J/S flores “flowers”), kandela de xanuká “Hanukkah

candle” (J/S k-/candela “candle”), komplas de purim “rhymed verses sung

in honor of Purim” (J kompla, S copla “couplet”), orezas and ãwevos deï

amán “(literally, ‘Haman’s ear and eggs’) sweet treats served during Purim”

(cf. OS oreja, popular S güevo), deäos de amán “(literally, ‘Haman’s

fingers’) a children’s game played during Purim” (S dedo “finger”),

burmwelos de pésax “Passover fritters” (cf. S buñuelo), and numerous

David M. Bunis

66*

others.54 Since Hebrew equivalents for these terms are non-existent in

traditional WH, the Judezmo and Yiddish terms were borrowed into the

rabbinical WH of their speakers. For example, merenda, the Judezmo name

for a traditional Hanukkah party, was incorporated in the Hebrew manual of

Saltiel (253): <A: “Messaperim cheayoù orehim yaldé bate asséfer im

amorim yàhad michté behàg ahanoukà veayoù koreïm otò vechém

‘merénda.” B: “Beéze makòm ayoù orehim eth amerénda?”>.55

Concluding Remarks

When, as they often do, Ashkenazic rabbinical lecturers in United States

synagogues and study halls read passages from medieval moralistic works

such as Bahye ibn Paquda’s Hovot hall∂vavot, or much later halakhic× ×

treatises such as the Hebrew version of ’Avraham Danziger’s Hayye ’adam,×

they pronounce the phrase ziad lra, when it appears, as báal habáyis. If

they then discuss, in Yiddish, a passage containing that phrase, they

pronounce the phrase balebós/-ús. They thus establish a phonological

distinction in their use of a Hebrew element in Hebrew proper, as opposed

to Yiddish, parallel to the “Whole” versus “Merged” Hebrew distinction

Max Weinreich marked between Hebrew as read from older, canonized

works such as the Bible and Mishnah, and as realized in spoken Yiddish.

But just as the use of Hebrew in the Bible is often distinct from the use of

Merged Hebrew elements incorporated in Yiddish Bible translations not

only in phonology, but also in morphology, syntax, lexicon and semantics,

so too the Merged Hebrew of the Yiddish translations of Hovot hall∂vavot×

and Hayye ’Adam differs from their Hebrew versions at all linguistic levels.×

Some of the types of divergence we would encounter have been illustrated

in the preceding paragraphs. I believe that by expanding our conception of

“Whole Hebrew” from the narrow phonological definition suggested by

Weinreich to “the Hebrew language proper, in all of its historical, regional

54 Such constructions will receive further consideration in a separate article.55 “A: ‘They say that the school children and their teachers used to hold a feast together

on the Hanukkah holiday and they called it merenda [cf. Pt. merenda (luncheon)].’ ”“B: ‘Where did they hold the merenda?’ ”

“Whole Hebrew”: A Revised Definition

67*

and stylistic varieties, and at all structural levels (including phonology,

morphology, syntax, lexicon and semantics), as used by a particular Jewish

subculture,” the opposition between “Whole Hebrew” and “Merged

Hebrew” which Weinreich sought to establish will be more natural and

comprehensive, and will result in greater and more innovative scholarly

attention to formerly neglected areas in the comparative study of Hebrew

and Jewish languages.

Frequent ly Cited Sources

’Abba = ’Abba, Y.Y.D. Sefer yavi mippiryo. Izmir, 1878.

Alagem = Alagem, H. Sefer more layyeled. Ruse (Bulgaria), 1894.ï ï

Alkalay, Hinnux = Alkalay, M.D. Hinnux l∂šon ‘ivri. Belgrade, 1871;× ×Vienna, 1890.

Alkalay, No‘am = Alkalay, Y. b. Š. H. Quntres darke no‘am. Belgrade,× ×1839.

Alkalay, P∂raqim = Alkalay, M.D. Š∂mona p∂raqim missefer hinnux l∂šónבivri umvo haddiqduq. Bucharest, 1860.

Alkalay, Siyyon = Alkalay, B. M. S∂fat Siyyon. Vienna, 1934.× ×

Behar = Behar, N. <More adereh. Silabaryo por pratikarse el elevo en kurto

tyempo el Ebreo sin profesor>. Istanbul, 1946.

Ben Ardut = Ben Ardut, H. Sefer y∂sod s∂fat ‘ever / Avlas familiyares lašón

akóäeš-espanyol. Salonika, 1893.

Bexa”r Hayyim = Bexa”r Hayyim, Y. ’Osar hahayyim. Vienna, 1823.× × × ×

Bunis, Lexicon = Bunis, D.M. A Lexicon of the Hebrew and Aramaic

Elements in Modern Judezmo, with a foreword by Sh. Morag. Jerusalem,

1993.

Farhi = Farhi, M. Sefer rav-p∂‘alim. Constantinople, 1880.× ×

David M. Bunis

68*

Hakkohen = Hakkohen, Y.’E. L∂šon limmudim / Livro de gramátika.

Salonika, 1895.

Hayyot = Hayyot, ’E. Sefer miqr∂’e qodeš. Orta Köy (Istanbul), 1829.× ×

Hayyot, Judezmo = —. Sefer miqr∂’e qodeš … en laäino. Orta Köy×

(Istanbul), 1828.

Mark = Mark, Y. Gramatik fun der yídisher klal-shprakh. New York, 1978.

Mitrani = Mitrani, B. ben Y. Sefer hinnuxe banim. Vol. 1. Jerusalem, 1875.×

Moše = Moše, M. Millon-kis y∂hudi-s∂faradi ‘ivri. [Salonika], 1934.

Moskoná = Moskoná, D. Magén David. Vienna, 1891.

Nahman = Nahman mi-Braslav. Sefer sippure ma‘asiyyot [… gam bilšon× × ×

taytsh], edited by N. ben N. Herts Shternharts. Jerusalem, 1968.

Nehama = Nehama, J. Dictionnaire du judéo-espagnol. Madrid, 1977.

Peres = Peres, Y. Haddibbur ha‘ivri / Métoda prátika por embezar el ‘ebreo× ×

sin ayuda de profesor. Sofia, 1919.

Saltiel = [Saltiel?, Š.Y.]56 Metod fácile por embezar el ‘ebreo. Salonika:ï

Aksyón, c. 1930.

Wexler = Wexler, P. Two-tiered Reflexification in Yiddish. Berlin, 2002.

56 No authorship is indicated in this work; the French-based transcription system isreminiscent of that in the Hebrew-Judezmo dictionary of Moše; but Š.Y. Saltiel wasresponsible for an appendix on Hebraisms in French, and perhaps he authored therest of the book as well.