Printer Friendly

A scholar's dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic.

Lexicography is an art easily learned but seldom mastered. A comprehensive dictionary requires of its editor dozens of difficult decisions on every page. Moreover, different kinds of users have different needs, diverse enough that it often becomes impossible to satisfy them all in a single work. This is especially true in the case of rabbinic literature, wherein Hebrew and Aramaic materials of different dialects and periods are often interspersed in what can be a most chaotic fashion.

For several generations now, advanced students of the Aramaic and Hebrew dialects of rabbinic literature have been taught that the existing dictionaries of this literature are scientifically useless, inasmuch as they are based on inaccurate printed editions rather than on the best available manuscripts, and that words and meanings from the two different languages, or at least from the several distinct dialects of each, are inadequately distinguished within and across entries. Thus, however practical these works may be for students working with the traditional printed texts, they fail to present an accurate linguistic picture of any of the dialects in question, especially so after the publication of so many valuable treasures from the Cairo Genizah. The impressive, massive Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic by Michael Sokoloff, Professor of Hebrew and Semitic Languages at Bar-Ilan University, constitutes an attempt to begin to remedy that situation on the Aramaic side. It is to be followed by a companion volume on Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (JBA), which Sokoloff is currently working on under the auspices of the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon Project.(1) This dictionary covers the textual material from several closely related but hardly identical dialects of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (JPA), in ten major divisions:

I. Inscriptions, mostly from the remains of

synagogues.

II. Targums; specifically: Targum Neofiti, the

Genizah fragments of the Palestinian targums,

and the Fragment Targums. III. Palestinian Midrash.

IV. Palestinian Talmud.

V. Fragments of halachic literature of the Gaonic

period.

VI. Liturgical poetry (piyyutim). (An addendum

includes a selection of material from five new

poems discovered after the main text was set

for press. VII. Fragmentary papyri with the remains of letters

and documents from 5th cent. C.E. Egypt. VIII. Amulets--both originals from Palestine and

manuscripts from the Genizah.

IX. Ketubbot from the Genizah--Arabic period

documents preserving old Palestinian terminology.

X. Masoretic notes on medieval Tiberian Bible

codices.

From the point of view of dialect, these materials can be divided roughly into three major divisions: inscriptional (I), targumic (II), and "Galilean" (III-X). Proper nouns are not generally included, though some lexically interesting ones are (e.g., [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]`Leviathan' is given, but not the ubiquitous, [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] Pharaoh').

Clearly, most of this material was not available to lexicographers prior to the Cairo Genizah discoveries and publications, reason enough for a new lexicon; but to create such a lexicon required a totally new approach. One could not simply extract a list of headwords and citations from the older dictionaries and modify them slightly according to a shoe box full of additional citation slips, the traditional procedure followed by most dictionaries in most fields, be they monolingual or bilingual. Instead, Sokoloff first had the entire text corpus input into the Bar-Ilan computer. Then, using specially modified programs originally developed for the Bar-Ilan responsa project, the texts were lexically tagged by the computer (by no means a trivial job for a consonantally written Semitic language), and key-word-in-context (KWIC) concordances were generated, corrected, and generated again. Finally, the dictionary entries themselves were written using the data assembled in the KWIC concordances. The entire process took about ten years--a very short time, as such projects go.

The result is a lexicon of the classical kind, wherein citations of varying length and accompanying English translations justify each meaning. Cognate forms are regularly adduced from the other late Palestinian Aramaic dialects (Samaritan and Christian Patestinian Aramaic) and Syriac, and notes to discussions of words in the scholarly literature are impressively extensive. Semitic dictionaries have traditionally been arranged by triliteral root. On the other hand, the modem Akkadian lexica (CAD, AHw) as well as dictionaries of Modem Hebrew and even some classical Arabic dictionaries,(2) are ordered purely alphabetically. Each sequence has its own set of advantages and disadvantages, and little is to be gained by criticizing one choice or the other.(3) Whatever system is chosen, one must allow for homographs in some rational manner. DJPA uses an alphabetic arrangement; homographs are ordered by part of speech, and are numerically distinguished only when both the part of speech and consonantal orthography are identical. Nouns are listed in the absolute state--an appropriate choice for a Western Aramaic dialect. But what is the spelling of each headword to be? Jewish texts are particularly problematic for both lexicographer and reader because of rampant inconsistencies in the use of vowel letters. The lexicographer is thus required to choose from among several possible spellings for many if not most headwords. Sokoloff's choice of spelling practice is consistent with the philosophy underlying the work as a whole: "the entry header itself is spelled in accordance with what has been shown to have been the original JPA practice" (p. 6). Cross-references under other common spellings are used, but not regularly. Thus, by the very choice of headword spelling, Sokoloff has demonstrated his implicit desire to produce not a reference work for students but, rather, first and foremost, an accurate presentation of the lexicon and orthography of his dialects. The choice and extent of selected citations and translations, the absence of references for clear scribal errors, and the limited adduction of support from cognate dialects all comport with this lexicographic philosophy. Such a presentation constitutes a legitimate scholarly enterprise. It should not be criticized for failing to be what it does not try to be. It will not easily serve the needs of a beginning student.

On the other hand, one is entitled to question whether DJPA lives up to its own standards and does present an accurate picture of the attested lexical stock of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period. Here we must express some mild dissatisfaction, in particular as regards targumic texts:

a) Although it is nowhere mentioned in the very limited

introduction to the work, the fact is that the

extensive marginalia to Targum Neofiti to the

Pentateuch (TNGI) were not fully incorporated

into the database from which the dictionary was

created--only citations deemed to be lexically interesting

were included. Our notes below attempt

to remedy this lacuna.(4) b) The Paris 110 manuscript of the Fragment Targum

is completely included, but that text has now

been shown to be heavily influenced by European

traditions,(5) so forms unique to it must not be ascribed

to this dialect. On the other hand, Sokoloff

is quite correct in having excluded the Pseudo-Jonathan

Targum from consideration. Although it

incorporates much Palestinian targum material, it

is at core a late composite work in a totally different

dialect.(6)

Equally, one must ask if the chosen system of headword spelling, ordering, and cross-referencing provides a consistent and maximal guide to the entirety of the lexicon. Generally the situation is quite satisfactory in this regard, but there are some disturbing inconsistencies. Unfortunately, the introduction is lamentably brief, as a result of which the lexicographical principles governing the dictionary, including those that might account for the inconsistencies, are never explicitly stated. In all such cases, it is quite possible that a logical and correct explanation for the apparently inconsistent approach may exist, but if so the user searches in vain for it. Examples: a) Words that are conceptually a part of other headwords are treated in four different ways: 1) They can have a separate entry (e.g., [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] adj., `exalted', actually a derived stem passive participle of the verb [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED!; or the hapax [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] `dispersed one', a simple passive participle translating a Hebrew nifal participle. 2) They can be listed simply as a part of the main entry (e.g., [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED! `destroyed' is not listed, only given as passive participle under the verb; [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] why is this different from the previous case?). 3) There is a very strange amalgam of (1) and (2) where we find an abbreviated main entry, with a cross reference to the base word (e.g., [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] adj. `pregnant' [p. 321], which is, of course, a passive participle as well)! 4) The same word can appear twice, as both (1) and (2): Targumic [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] (Lev. 21:7) is listed as a pael p.p. under [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] vb., but Galilean attestations are treated under the separate headword, [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] `divorcee'.(7)

b) The placement and treatment of compounds always present problems for the lexicographer, but the user expects consistency, whatever approach is chosen. Again in this case, however, inconsistencies are never accounted for. It is by no means clear, for example, why some compound prepositions are listed as independent words, others cited as indented words after the main entry of their first component, and yet others cited only as sub-meanings of the second component. An example of the last is, [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] `in view of' (booked under), [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] as opposed to, say, [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] towards', which is a separate entry. Similarly, why is [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] adv., `close up' a separate word, but [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] adv., `in truth' only listed as a sub-meaning of the noun [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]? Why is [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] `in secret' (which occurs eight times in TN) a separate word, whereas much more common adverbial expressions, such as, and are [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] are [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED], are not so considered?

c) Most such compounds have a cross-reference under their second element, but some do not. Again, no obvious scheme is apparent, but even where there is a cross-reference, its referent is not always easy to find. For example, at [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] (p. 122) there is a cross-reference to, [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] but where is the latter headword to be found? In fact, it is listed not under bet-nun-yodh but rather under the main entry, [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] `son', but it is in sequence with other words compounded of the singular [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] (between [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] and [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] p. 98), so it is virtually impossible to find! Nor are all such cross-references even completed: s.v. [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] conj., we are told that discussion of [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] `except', is to be found under [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]--but it is not so.

d) In the case of homographic nouns and verbs, the nouns come first, but again, there are unexplained exceptions, e.g., [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]. (The noun probably follows in this case because it was understood to be a verbal noun, but this is nowhere explained.

e) Another inconsistency is evident in the choice of headwords for nouns that appear to be plural tantum. Some are given as plurals, e.g., [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] `first fruits', whereas others, e.g., [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] `benefit, reward' (a better gloss would be `recompense'), are listed as singulars (in this case, under 4# [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]). One may speculate that, in such cases, the singular was chosen because it is attested as such in other dialects, but that should be made clear.

f) Treatment of orthographic inconsistencies:

1) Where several different orthographies of the

same word appear in the sources, the testimony

of the other Palestinian dialects usually sways

the decision as to proper spelling. But not in

this example (p. 518):

[UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] n.f. security, reliance [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED!

[UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] (CPA

LSp 193, SA [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] ST Gen 34:25) sg. a. general:

[UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] he put his trust in the Strong

One TN Gen 49:24; [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] our

reliance is not like that of the nations ib. Dt 32:31; Gen

40:23; b. in phase [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] securely; ib. Gen 34:25 [H];

[UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] Lev 25:19; 26:5; Dt 12:10; 33-28

Note that CPA and Sam show [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]. In fact the

form [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] occurs at least twice in the corpus,

at TNGI (Gen. 3:16, 40:23). At the very least,

two separate entries should have been given.

2) Why are [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] and [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]

`strong' combined in a

single entry, while [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] and [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED!

both meaning `outside', are separated?

A valuable component of the work, one that will make it much more useful for students, is an index of all cited passages. This is essential, for the user of the standard editions ([UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]) of Talmud or Midrash will often search here in vain for a word, since erroneous forms found only in the [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] are not included. Even clearly written forms from the best manuscripts are regularly omitted, when Sokoloff has chosen to emend them away. Such an index would have been particularly useful had Sokoloff chosen to follow the practice of providing citations and provisional translations of opaque passages as well as those of strictly lexical interest. Too often this is not the case. Indeed, often the citation is intentionally broken just before--or begins just after--a difficult word. Nor will the index help in those many cases where Sokoloff has emended the text to something common and then neglected to bring any citation of the passage at all. As an example, the form [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] at TN Exod. 23:4 can be cited. The passage does not appear in the index at all, nor will the reader find the form listed either under the entry [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] vb. or under the rarer by-form vb. For another example, see below, S.V. [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED].

Even when emendation is not at issue, the combination of incomplete citation lists, orthographic variation, and inconsistent glossing is guaranteed to prove troubling to a beginning student. One struggling with this passage at Yoma 39a: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] will find succor under the entry [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] n.f, where it is glossed "a payment was imposed upon the council and the magistrates." Obviously, then, DJPA is telling us that [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] means `magistrates', but there is no entry for such a word, nor does the index point the way to the proper headword. In fact the appropriate entry is [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] n.m., `commander', but since our passage is not cited there, and both the gloss and the Aramaic orthography are different, how is one to be sure?

Although the policy of emendation adopted here can be somewhat frustrating, Sokoloff is a master of the Talmudic and Midrashic literature, and his judgment in such matters is well worth having. His treatment of the targumic material, however, may be a bit too cavalier. Often he seems to miss the point that the Targum is doing exegesis rather than translation. Elsewhere, the marginal additions to Neofiti contain some wonderful midrashic oral word plays that Sokoloff's emendations and/or omissions have totally eliminated. Some examples:

Exod. 7:23. [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]. The marginal text has [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] instead of the Hebraic form. [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] Surely this not a simple correction to an Aramaic, [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] `to his house'; rather it is homophonous with it but means `his group of people'; Pharaoh was much more interested in partying than dealing with Moses' magic tricks.

Exod. 11:5 [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]

for the indicated words of which we find [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] in the margin. [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] sounds just like [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] but means something like `to defile'; cf. the entry [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED!, `doer of abomination' (p. 587).

The index will help students, but inconsistency in terms of citations, translations, and citation policy are bound to limit the usefulness of the work for the beginner:

a) The same passage may be rendered quite differently under different headwords. Compare these two renditions of the very same text: "every word (spelled) which means `to him' is preceded by a conjunctive accent; every word which means `no' is followed by a conjunctive accent" (p. 75, s.v. [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] vb.); "every word which is understood `to him' takes a penultimate conjunctive accent. Every word which is understood `no' takes an ultimate conjunctive accent" (p. 366, s.v. [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] vb.) Or compare the translation of the single phase [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] s.v. [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] ("that he should remove the priestly gifts from it," p. 282) and s.v. [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] ("to set aside the priestly gifts for him," p. 589). These are some of the more glaring examples, but there are virtually hundreds of cases where minor differences are to be found.

b) Different words meaning the same thing may be glossed differently. Compare [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED], glossed nurse, foster-mother', with [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]--used in different targums for the selfsame Hebrew text--glossed `wet-nurse'. Even within brief, single entries, the translations do not always evidence the consistency and care that a single author ought to have been able to provide. See, for example, [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] `guarantor', where, in the first two citations, the translations for [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] and [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED! are identical, ignoring the determination on the latter form.

c) On the other hand, we find the same English gloss used to translate many different, albeit semantically related Aramaic words, resulting in an inevitable loss of precision: There are at least six [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] words that are said to mean `towards', for example: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED], and [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]. But each is used slightly differently, and the lexicographer should endeavor to distinguish among them. Surely [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] means `out onto the surface of, into the face of (literally!)', or the like, not just `towards'. The word [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] occurs only with human beings or other animate objects. But neither [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] nor [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] implies that the mover will end up `before' the object, as do [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] and [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]] The principle thus exemplified also applies to words meaning `from', such as, [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] `from on top of a surface'. Perhaps because of such imprecision, some meanings seem to have gotten lost. The preposition [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED], for example, does mean `in front of' (p. 83); yet neither under that entry nor under the base word [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED], `face, surface', does Sokoloff indicate the very common targumic usage of [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] (with, [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED], `field') to mean `on the surface of'.

d) Sometimes, the very same passage may appear under two different entries, not only translated inconsistently but also using different lists of text attestations for no obvious reason. Compare, for example, the following entry

[UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] vb. to pick one's teeth (Sy [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED!

LS 251, MH [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]

Moreshet, Lex 171) Pe. [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] bring

me a chip to pick my teeth Hal 60b(36); ib. 38 // Dem

23b(60)[]]; ib. 62

with the treatment of the same passage under the word, [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] `tooth'

[UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] bring me a piece of wood so

that I can pick my teeth Dem 23b(62) // Hal 60b(38).

e) The translation of compounds is strangely inconsistent: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] is `nose', [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] is `court', but [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] is `house of instruction' (why not `school'?) and [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] is `place of joining' (why not `junction'?).

f) Usually, emendations are marked by []] after the citation, but not consistently so, which can be quite misleading. For example, TN Gen. 49:22 actually reads, [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] whereas Sokoloff quotes the passage as follows: "crag of a rock": pl. [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] "the crags of all the rocks" FT Gen. 49:22; TN ib. Similarly, at TN Gen. 50:1, [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED], the first word is an emendation from, [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] but "[]]" is not given.

g) The citations do not always present a reasonable distribution of the attestations. Usually if a lexeme occurs in any of the three major contexts (inscriptions, targumic, Galilean), examples are cited from each, but this is not as consistent as it should be. Thus conj. `but rather, however', occurs regularly in the targumic texts (nine times in Neofiti), but not a single such example is cited, in contrast to two dozen examples cited from Galilean.

h) The grammatical theories underpinning the work are nowhere explained; nor are they consistently applied. For example, almost without exception, noun and verbal noun patterns ending in waw and heh are kept totally separate (unjustifiably so, in my opinion), e.g., on p. 78 [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] n.f., [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] n.f., [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] v.n. are three separate entries. But then one comes across [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] v.n. (p. 563), where both [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED! and [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] are given as the construct form. Which approach is correct? Surely not both. Again, almost without exception, a precise part of speech is declared for every lemma, even though it is really very difficult to justify distinguishing between adjectives and many nouns, between many adjectives and adverbs, and between prepositions and conjunctions in most Semitic languages. But, for some strange reason, [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] (p. 511) has escaped this fate, being listed as "adj. n." On the other hand, Sokoloff has decided in places to distinguish the "verbal noun" from the simple noun of the selfsame form, e.g., [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED! n.f, `inheritance' vs. [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] v.n. `giving an inheritance'. Surely this semantic distinction should be viewed as a matter of syntax, not of lexicon.

i) Sokoloff has systematically emended forms he does not like out of existence--then omitted them from the dictionary. So, for example, the form [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED], `daughter' (constr. only?) is not listed, even though it appears often in the texts, especially in TNGI where the main text has [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]. Similarly, [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] prep., `to', known from earlier Aramaic, does in fact occur in TN; it is a Hebraism, but it deserves to be listed, at least in brackets. So too, Biblical Hebrew [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED], `here I am', occurs seven times in TN. Surely it belongs in a lexicon of JPA, just as it would belong in a lexicon of the English dialect of most Hebrew-literate Jewish Americans! Another Hebrew word, [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] `therefore', occurs four times in TNGI. Other unusual and therefore interesting spellings and words have been similarly lost to DJPA. For example, TNGI has [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] at Exod. 10:14 and [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] at Exod. 11:6 as variants of [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] `like'. Surely the variation is intentional and not the result of simple error. The attempt is to reflect a meaning such as 'as much as that' instead of simple `like that'. Be it a Hebraism, an invention, or an authentic usage, it deserves to be preserved.

j) It is difficult at the initial stages of such a long-term project to know what the final list of lemmata will look like. But there is some evidence in this case that once a new lemma was established, examples that had already been interpreted otherwise were not always systematically combed for parallels. For example,

[UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] v.n. going up

([UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] Mal messq-l nohra Berg,

GI 81) [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] at dawn ST 8

is a nice entry, but apparently it was added only at the end of the project. Other examples in the targumic dialect thus slipped through the net, e.g., at Gen. 32:25 TNGI bis: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] (var.) [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED].

The orthographic alternation between sin and samekh naturally presents problems for both lexicographer and reader, but surely one should also be consistent here. Why, then, is [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] (p. 571) `old age' but so is [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] (p. 373)? Moreover, neither headword refers the reader to the other. And what kind of justification could there possibly be for listing the root `to hate'[UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] as but the nouns `enemy' and `enmity' under sin? To be sure, there may be a certain bias in the sources toward such a distribution. Nonetheless, it makes little practical sense and is more than a trifle confusing.

Many of these problems of inconsistency are undoubtedly due to the fact that although the database was collected and initially analyzed on a computer, and the dictionary itself was written using a word processing program, little effort was made to take advantage of the computer's ability to eliminate errors and inconsistencies. Surely, in his subsequent volume on Babylonian Aramaic, Sokoloff will be able to minimize these minor irritations. Even with the most advanced computer technology, however, the final decisions always have to be made by the lexicographer, and there will inevitably be errors and omissions that remain hidden in the tens of thousands of lines of data. (Cf. below s.v. [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] n.f., a form that was mistakenly parsed as a verb in Sokoloff's KWICS.)

Understandably, to be sure, DJPA concentrates on meanings and usages previously undocumented for distinctively Palestinian Aramaic texts. The result of such concentrated effort, however, is that many entries are incomplete for less specifically Palestinian Aramaic usages, in particular the manifold instances in the targumim that simply calque Biblical Hebrew usage. A goo example of this is [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] vb. in the afel, where many nuances of usage as calques of Biblical Hebrew [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] are overlooked: `to have a lot of', `to do a lot of' and even the most basic (and surely real Aramaic) of all meanings, `to make s.t. more numerous' is missing. Another example: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] (peal) is given only as `to circle', but at TN 36:7 and 36:9 it means 'to move around' (from one tribe to another), with the Hebrew. A more serious lexicographical flaw, perhaps, is that some of the most common and multifaceted words are given the shortest entries, e.g., [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] prep. and [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED! conj. These are widely used, in many different syntagms, most, perhaps, due to translation from Hebrew, but surely not all. The lexicographer should detail them.

Students of JPA grammar, too, are not completely well served here. Undoubtedly Sokoloff knows Jewish Palestinian Aramaic better than many of the scribes who have transmitted the texts to us, and both student and scholar will usually welcome his insightful emendations. Unfortunately, however, there appear to be certain noun/adjective patterns that he has systematically eliminated from the grammar of JPA due to his preconceptions. In particular, most CCwC passive adj./noun types have simply been corrected into classical CCYC. There are far too many instances of this for it to be mere scribal error. Some examples are: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] (Examples of most of these can be found in DJPA under the equivalent CCyC patterns.) Derived stem passages with u in the initial syllable (such as [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] and) [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] also appear quite frequently in the texts. (See, e.g., s.v. [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] vb., pael.) Some passives in waw are included as independent headwords (e.g., [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]), but not most. What are the criteria for including them?

Sokoloff's old theory (apparently first taught by H. J. Polotsky) that the "ethical dative," [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED], marks ingressivity with some verbs is preserved here (p. 274). In fact this idea was conclusively refuted by T. Muraoka.(8) Supposedly, [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] (p. 479) is one of the verbs that have such an ingressive lamedh, but the very examples cited by DJPA only support Muraoka's refutation: e.g., [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] `because Miriam stood on the riverbank, TN Num. 12:16; Exod. 14:9; [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] `they cried, remained silent, and stood still', Tan 68d(40) etc., [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] `he stood praying' RH 58b(9); etc., all of which are clearly stative "stood there," not ingressive "stood up." To be sure, this use does have a lexical significance, but DJPA does not capture it.(9)

The following additions and corrections are based primarily on extensive work with the Targum Neofiti text and marginalia in the course of preparation of a concordance to that material. These notes would have been impossible without access to Sokoloff's original KWIC of the Neotiti material.

P. 37: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] n.m. Correct to [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] n.f., a technical term referring to the transfer of ritual impurity from a corpse to others sharing the same `tent' as dealt with in detail in Mishnah tractate Oholoth. (I owe this observation to a personal communication of J. Wesselius.)

P. 40: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] adj. Add [[UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] adj.!

P. 49: Add [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] conj.

P. 49: Add [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] adv.

P. 51: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] adj. Add [[UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] adj.!

P. 56: Add [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] adv. It occurs at TNGI Gen. 3:9 in a non-translation context. Undoubtedly, it is a Hebraism. But many other Hebraisms are listed: why not this? See above for other examples.

P. 59: Add [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]

P. 62: Add [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] interj. `Amen', common in our texts. Although this is a borrowed word in Jewish Aramaic contexts, as it is in Syriac, Greek, English, etc., it is still rightfully regarded as a part of the lexical stock of this dialect.

P. 69: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] n. DJPA has been misled by Sperber, GLLT (see below ad p. 448), p. 56, into understanding the TN examples as `title deed'. In fact, many targumic examples clearly demonstrate that the correct meaning here is rather `treasure' (see Levy, Wdrterbuch), from a different Greek word (apotheke) altogether.

P. 71: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] v.n. How can the afel verbal noun of this root mean `going out'? That should be the semantic realm of the peal. Instead, what we have in the cited targumic renditions of MT [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] is not translation but typical targumic exegetical precision: "when you were taken out of Egypt." The word means only `taking out', but the 2 pl. pronominal suffix in the Hebrew Vorlage is the subject of the verb while in the Aramaic text it is the object. One might go so far as to add the gloss `being taken out'. It might be worthwhile to search for similar transformations in this material, to determine if this is simply an exegetical phenomenon rather than a grammatical one.

P. 72: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] adj. `weak, lean'. Hapax in TN, no etymology is suggested; but cf. Syriac ptr, `nausea'.

P. 78: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] The gloss `setting' is not very clear; `(stone) setting' would be better.

P. 94: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] n.m. Add the plural form [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED! TNGI Num. 24:5.

P. 94: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] For [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] read [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]

P. 96: n. The correct form of this word (<Latin balnearia) is now shown to be [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] by KetPap.

P. 109: Add [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] n.f. `wife' (cf. Syr. bylt) [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] `or upon the wife of his youth' (TN Marg. Deut. 28:54 for [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] `or upon his bosom wife' in the main text).

P. 110: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] adv. This does not mean `with difficulty' in its normal English connotation, but rather `harshly, troublesomely'.

P. 122: Add [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] n. `color' (as in Syriac and Babylonian Talmudic) TNGI Exod. 28:6, as a variant. [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]

P. 130: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] vb. The pael citation is incorrect (TN Gen. 28:10). It should be cited as a poel. (The text reads, [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] corrected interlinearly to [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED].)

P. 131: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] n.m./f. The unique feminine form [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] TN Lev. 11:4 should be noted. Although apparently an error, it is the kind of unusual attestation that may prove to be of interest in light of future discoveries. P. 132: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] vb. means `to treat someone as is their due', not `to show kindness'; see below, s.v. [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED!

P. 138: Add. [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]

P. 139: Add. [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] n.f `impulse': TNGI Exod. 32:22 [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] "because an evil impulse is controlling him."

P. 141: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] vb. For the itpael, add a possible reference to TN Gen. 6:6 where [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] is probably to be amended to, [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] "and he debated with himself." The passage is cited under [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] vb. (p. 430), but there the difficult word is cut from the citation.

P. 150: Why is [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] prep. `without' a separate word, while those examples wherein it precedes an infinitive are listed under adv.?

P. 158: Add [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED], interrogative particle; and under the latter should be added references to the proclitic spelling, e.g., Num. 16:14 TN [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED], TNGI [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] .There are several dozen such spellings in the targums, mostly in TNGI.

P. 162: Add [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] and correct [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED!.

P. 164: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] conj. Add the form [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED!, used several times in TNGI alongside.

P. 164: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] adv. This word appears in the targumic dialect as well as in Galilean (TNGI Lev. 8:34 and Exod. 30:13).

P. 169: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] n.f. The double plural form [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] occurs at TN Exod. 38:15.

P. 177: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] vb. Add the meaning `to take title' to the pael: TN Gen. 25: 10: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED].

P. 186: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] vb. The peal gloss `combine against' is not correct. This example should be understood rather as 2# [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] vb. peal [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] = `to shout down, to boo someone', as in rabbinic Hebrew.(10)

P. 209: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] n.m. This important Jewish concept means `devotion' in both Hebrew and Jewish Aramaic, not the popular but egregiously incorrect `kindness'.

P. 215: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] n.m. For "ib." read "TN."

P. 222: 2# [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] n.m. Though listed as a masculine, the form [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] in the citation suggests that this noun is feminine. In fact, however, the interlinear correction of the cited Neofiti passage (not given in the entry), does correct the text to [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] Cf. Syriac tawra, `distance, measure'.

P. 224: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] n.m. The gloss `banner' is not correct. It means a military unit, as do both the Greek etymon and the inter-dialectal equivalent [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] in the Aramaic texts from Elephantine.

P. 235: Add [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] n. [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] "and anyone who consults conjuration or the bone of a y." TNGI Lev. 20:6 (where [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] corresponds to MT [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]). Traditionally interpreted as a kind of bird or beast, perhaps it is rather to be understood (like Syriac yaddua) as `soothsayer' or `familiar spirit', like the Hebrew.

P. 253: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] n.m. is surely the same word as, [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] p. 257 (as pointed out by Macuch, "Problems," 223.

P. 259: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] vb. This entry confuses two separate lexemes, Semitic kl, `to hold, restrain' and (Hebrew) kly, `to cease'.

P. 262: Add [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] prep. `equivalent to, according to the amount of': e.g., TN Deut. 15:8 [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] "you shall provide for him according to his need," TN Gen. 49:28; Exod. 36:5; Lev. 25:26; Num. 7:7-8; Deut. 16:10, 17.

P. 266: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] For "adj." read "adv."

P. 270: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] n.f. This appears in targumic at TNGI Lev. 4:11 and Exod. 12:9.

P. 276: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] vb. `to have incestuous relations'. The specific context of the citation may involve incest, but why so the connotation of the word? `To have relations' would be better.

P. 277: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] There is no justification for the hataf patah. The cited text is a plural construct, where such a reduced vowel is expected. Point, instead, [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED].

P. 277: Add [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED].

P. 281: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] adv. The gloss `entirely' smacks of Modem Hebrew. Something like `without recourse' would be better.

P. 281: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] n.m. Translate the citation: "it brought forth blossoms," as correctly implied s.v. [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] vb.

P. 286: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] blib prep. Add the reference TN (similarly Fragment Targum and Psjon) to Deut. 33:3: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]. Whether this means `(moving) behind' (as in Syfiac), `for the sake of', or `at the speed of' is by no means clear, however.

P. 288: Add [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] a prep./conj. [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED! The assimilated form of this word is common in the sources, especially the targums (and not at all always due to Hebrew influence).

P. 292: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] n.m. and [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] v.n. should be a single entry.

P. 294: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] This perfectly good Aramaic verb should be booked under [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]. It means `to recognize, to befriend', not `to relate.'

P. 300: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] n.m. Add TNGI Gen. 18:14.

P. 308: Add [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] n.m. `storehouse', TNGI Deut. 28:8 [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] `in your storehouses'.

P. 314: Add [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] adv., used as such in TNGI Gen. 9:23 (bis): [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]

P. 315: Add [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] adv. Since adv. [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED! and [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] adv. merit separate entries, surely [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] and [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] should be separate entries as well (for examples of the latter see s.v. [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]).

P. 324: Add [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] n.m. `taskmaster, pl. [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] TN Exod. 1:11 (a form confirmed by Pseudo-Jonathan.

P. 328: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] n.f. `staff'. This is a strange word, indeed. It is a hapax resulting from Sokoloff's emendation. Then he proceeds to tell us that it is of unknown etymology! If it is unknown, how does one know how to emend? In fact, this reading comes from Jastrow (who got it from the Aruch). And it is supported by TNGI, but DJPA gives us no such indication! But I would stay with Tn's reading [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED], a word easily etymologized as `rod' < `chastisement'[UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]. Cf., too, Syriac mardna, `spindle'. Alternatively, if we are to emend, emend to [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] (UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED! n.f. `spear', p. 296).

P. 332: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] n.m. What is `blowing of the day' [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] supposed to mean? Why not `windy time of day' (i.e., = Heb. [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]).

P. 339: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] are given for `prophecy'. The Hebraic form [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] is ubiquitous in the sources, however, and should be added, along with the apparently legitimate Aramaic equivalent [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] four times in TNGI).

P. 341: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] vb. Add the gloss `to afflict' and the peal, attested at TN Exod. 32:35. [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED].

P. 345: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] n.m. `Nazirite'. In fact at TN Num. 6:18 and TNGI Num. 6:7 it means specifically, `crown' (i.e., the hairdo of the nazirite). This is a separate word, corresponding to [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] (as distinct from) in Onkelos.

P. 358: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] n.m. At TN Gen. 40:10 for [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] the text in [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] fact has.

P. 359: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] vb. Although this is a perfectly good Aramaic root, the sole attestation cited here for JPA is incorrect: TN Deut. 33:21 [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED], which Sokoloff renders "there precious stones and pearls are bored through." Surely one must read [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] (pael p.p., `inset' along with all other Palestinian witnesses (including the Genizah fragments).

P. 361: Add [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]

P. 362: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] adj. The correct reading at TN Lev. 22:24 and for the lemma is [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED].

P. 364: Add [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] or [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] n.m., something like `unclean action' (cf.) [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED], TNGI Lev. 15:31 (bis); 16:16 (bis), 19.

P. 383: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] n.m. Delete this non-word. It is due to emendation of TN Gen. 25:25, which reads [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] This text should be corrected rather to [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] a reading supported by the Fragment Targum, Pseudo-Jonathan, and Syriac.

P. 393: Should one add [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] DET. [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED! a unique feminine form of [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] `slave, servant': [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] TN Deut. 15:17 (= Heb. [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED!)? The obvious solution to emend to [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED], `Hebrew', is problematic, since that form is elsewhere spelled with double yodh in TN.

P. 394: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] vb. Add Pe. 5. `to be exchangeable'; see below s.v. [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] Also, add an afel, `to transfer, occurring four times in TNGI and move the pael 5 example to afel.

P. 396: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] vb. means `to pass away, to disappear', not `to pass by'.

P. 416: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] vb. [H [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]] read [H [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]].

P. 426: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] n.m. Add TN Gen. 32:7 where pl. [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] is an interlinear variant for [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED!

P. 444: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] `to whip', attested only at TNGI Deut. 8:5 (bis) as an alternative for [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] and [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]. In spite of its Greek etymology, this word is well attested in Syriac in the meanings `to rebuke, to warn' and the like. Surely it means that here as well, rather than the nonmetaphoric `to whip'.

P. 444: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]: read [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]. There is no waw in the sole exemplar, TN Lev. 24:25: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED].

P. 448: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] vb. Since the noun [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED! is correctly glossed as `marriage settlement' (i.e., ketubba), that is, the bridewealth paid by the husband (this is an inner Jewish development from the Greek, where it does mean `dowry', the funds provided by the bride; cf. Daniel Sperber, A Dictionary of Greek and Latin Legal Terms in Rabbinic Literature [Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan Univ. Press, 19841, 163), one can only wonder why the verb is glossed `to provide with a dowry'. In fact it means 'to give marriage gifts' both in the targumic translations of Exod. 22:15 and in the ketubba text cited in the entry, as can be demonstrated by structural parallels. (I owe this observation to my student and assistant, Dr. Steven W. Boyd.

P. 449: Add [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] n. (<#2 [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] vb.) `disarranged hair' [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] TNGI Lev. 21:10.

P. 454: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] n.m. Five citations are given, in all of which the word simply means `table'. Add [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] FT Gen. 23:16, where it means `money changer's table'.

P. 461: 2# [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] vb. means `to besiege' (as in JBA) at TNGI Deut. 20:19, [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] `to hide from you in a besieged city' (MT [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]). To be sure, the form is troubling. Read perhaps [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] a pael p.p.

P. 472: Add [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] prep., `opposite' TN Gen. 31:32 ([UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]). This is the same word as the entry [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] prep. (p. 477), but it is by no means clear that the latter should be the preferred orthography.

P. 474 top: The meaning `to swell up `(intrans.) for [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED! surely belongs to the root [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] not to this one. The adduced Syriac parallel is inappropriate.

P. 476: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] adv. `first'. The correct entry should be [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]. The older form (with nun) occurs in targumic in the meaning `easterly': TN Num. 2:3 [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] (MT: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]).

P. 476: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] n.m. `cedar', only in TNGI, is a nonword. The marginal text has only [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] undoubtedly intended to be understood as an emendation of the main text's [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] or the like.

P. 481: Add [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] n. `gentile hairdo' (<Greek., see Jastrow): [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] TNGI Lev. 19:27.

P. 486: Add 2# [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] n. `killing, execution'. See the next entry.

P. 487: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] n.f. `execution' is incorrect. This is rather the masculine abstract noun [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] emphatic [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED!, as in all other Aramaic dialects. The interpretation as a feminine appears to be due to the last citation (EchRB), but that is a passage replete with Babylonianisms, and hence quite unreliable.

P. 500: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] vb. Add a second pael meaning, `to jump back and forth', pass. part., [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] `the fire was flickering within the hail', TN Exod. 9:24. See next entry.

P. 500: 2# [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] vb. Remove the citation for pael. It properly belongs to the previous entry, as above. Add etpeel `to shrink: TNGI Gen. 28:10.

P. 512: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] is frequent in the targumim in addition to the isolated form cited from Galilean Aramaic; e.g., TN Gen. 21:22, 32; 26:26.

P. 514: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] n.f. `first rain'. Add the construct form [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] to the forms section, TN Num. 29:31. P. 524: Add [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] n.m. `discharge' (so Syriac and Bab. Talmud): TN Lev. 15:3 (bis).

P. 526: Add [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] n.m. `rein': FT P Gen. 13:7, [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] `their rein'. This is a Hebrew word--but surely an error for [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED].

P. 528: Add [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] vb. `to spread over, to fall on', TN Num. 11:31. This text reading, as noted by Jastrow, is supported by the Aruch and Levita. Cf. the entry, `low' (better, perhaps, `flat' .

P. 538: The following entry was accidentally omitted:

[UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] vb. to blast by heat

([UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] SA [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] Ham 596:86)

Pe., part. pass. [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] FPT Gen 41:23[05;

H.[UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]; TN

ib.[]]; ib. 6[]]; 27[]]

Itpa. to be withered: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] (the

nets) were withered by the sun Bes 62d(54) // [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED!

Sab 7a(3).

P. 541: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] n.f. Used with [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED! this means `stubble' of the beard, not `whiskers'.

P. 550: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] vb. For the meaning `to nest', add the nuance to rest on (of birds)' as in the Targumic TN Gen. 15:11: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] "when the bird came down, it was resting on the pieces."

P. 559: Add [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] `ban', TNGI Exod. 17:13. Many other Babylonian Talmudic words are listed, albeit in brackets; why not this one?

P. 576: Add [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] `similar form', TNGI Exod. 30:32.

P. 576: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] adv. The distribution of the forms in the citations suggests that [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] is the Targumic form, [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] the Galilean. In fact, though, [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED! does occur in TNGI Lev. 22:27.

P. 577: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] Add n.f. `descent'. See s.v.

P. 578: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] n.f. `powerful deed'. This word may be attested in one dubious case at TNGI Gen. 18:1 [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED! (though I would prefer to understand it as [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] with a pronominal suffix). But the example cited in the entry (TN Exod. 15:2) is misconstrued. Translate "our strength."

P. 582: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] n.f. Sokoloff correctly notes that forms spelled with waw after both the taw and the daleth are probably influenced by Hebrew: e.g., [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]. But CPA and SAM both have [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] thus [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED! at TN Gen. 2:4 and TNGI Gen. 48:6 should be viewed as a legitimate form as well.

P. 584: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] vb. A better gloss would be 'to be surprised'.

P. 587: Add [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] vb. `to defile', TNGI Exod. 11:5; see above.

P. 592: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] vb. The single example for the use in the peal is, rather, almost certainly the noun [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED].

P. 593: [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED]: The cited Samaritan parallel, does not belong with this word. Rather it corresponds to the feminine noun, [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] which occurs in Onkelos and Jonathan targums and is often confused with this common Rabbinic Hebrew form in the sources.

(*) A Review article of: A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period. By Michael Sokoloff. Dictionaries of Talmud, Midrash and Targum 2. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1990. Pp. 823. $99. (1) The reviewer is editor-in-chief of the latter project. (2) E.g., F. Steingass, A Learner's Arabic-English Dictionary (Beirut: Librairie du Liban, 1972). (3) Note the baseless diatribe of R. Macuch in "Some Lexicographical Problems of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic," BSOAS 55 (1992): 205-30. (4) One wonders why TNGI was treated so cursorily, virtually ignoring every unusually spelled or strange form there. It is, after all, only in the margin where we find the supposedly "correct" spellings [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] for 'son' and (once only!) [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] for `between'. (5.) Y. Maori and S. A. Kaufman, "The Targumim to Exodus 20: Reconstructing the Palestinian Targum," in Textus: Studies of the Hebrew University Bible Project 16, ed. M. H. Goshen-Gottstein (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1991), 28. (6) See p. 20, n. 2; the criticisms in this regard raised by A. Tal in his review article, "[UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] Tarviz 60 (1991): 277-87, are profoundly unwarranted. (7) Queried on this matter, Sokoloff elaborated on his methodology in an e-mail message to this reviewer on June 6, 1993, as follows: The treatment of the pass. parts. is the result of a deliberate scheme, viz., when a pass. part. occurs only in a predicate form, then I considered it as part of the verbal scheme, and hence no separate entry. When it is used as an adjectival modifier, it receives a separate entry. This in fact is more or less what [C.] Brockelmann does in his L[exicon] S[yriacum]. Thus, [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] is only used adjectivally, but [UNKNOWN TEXT OMITTED] is used both as a predicate form and as a modifier. The morphological justification for this procedure is that as an adjective the form can take determination, which is not the case as a predicate. (8) "On the So-called Dativus Ethicus in Hebrew," Journal of Theological Studies 29 (1978): 495; Muraoka anaanalysis is accepted by B. Waitke and M. O'Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 206. (9) Without elaborating here on this still difficult problem in Semitic syntax, suffice it to say that I believe that the "ethical dative" is to be connected to verbal "voice." Specifically, its increasing frequency is tied to the gradual disappearance of other lexical and grammatical means of expressing "middle voice" in Semitic. The recent article by Jan Joosten, "The Function of the So-called Dativus Ethicus in Classical Syriac," Orientalia 60 (1991): 473-92, has many insightful ideas but still misses the mark. I hope to develop this idea further in another context. (10) This was demonstrated convincingly by David Sperling in a paper at the 1992 meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in San Francisco.
COPYRIGHT 1994 American Oriental Society
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1994 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Michael Sokoloff
Author:Kaufman, Stephen A.
Publication:The Journal of the American Oriental Society
Date:Apr 1, 1994
Words:8632
Previous Article:Mountain deities in China: the domestication of the mountain god and the subjugation of the margins.
Next Article:Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |