Babylonian Aramaic Research Articles

Daniel James Waller, The Bible in the Bowls: A Catalogue of Biblical Quotations in Published Jewish Babylonian Aramaic Magic Bowls

<scp>Daniel James Waller</scp>, <i>The Bible in the Bowls: A Catalogue of Biblical Quotations in Published Jewish Babylonian Aramaic Magic Bowls</i>

Remarks on a New Aramaic Incantation Bowl IM 77781

Abstract This article presents the edito princeps of a formerly unpublished incantation bowl written in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic. The text consists of fifteen lines and is devoted to protecting the client, his wife and his daughter against the curses of enemies and opponents. The bowl is a gift of Mr. Ismā'īl Nāyf and is part of a collection housed in the Iraq Museum (IM 77781).

A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods. Second revised and expanded editionSokoloffMichaelA Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods. Second revised and expanded editionBar-Ilan University PressRamat Gan, 2020, lxx, 1221, ₪500.00ISBN 978-9-65226-405-3

A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods. Second revised and expanded editionSokoloffMichaelA Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods. Second revised and expanded editionBar-Ilan University PressRamat Gan, 2020, lxx, 1221, ₪500.00ISBN 978-9-65226-405-3

Jewish Babylonian Aramaic נוולא (B. Bava Meṣiʿa 67a, etc.)

&#x0D; &#x0D; &#x0D; This article treats the Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (JBA) 3rd person singular pronoun נוולא nawla, attested four times in the vast rabbinic corpus: three times in the Babylonian Talmud and one time in Tractate Sofrim. First, it is shown that the form is epicene, as it can have both masculine and feminine antecedents. Second, the four attestations reveal a specialized meaning for the form, to wit, ‘this-one’ or ‘that-one’ (as opposed to the other one) when there are specifically two items under discussion. Which is to say, the form נוולא nawla is not used for simple ‘he’ or ‘she’ or ‘this’ or ‘that’, for which JBA and other Aramaic dialects have familiar and widely attested forms. Third, the article proposes that the form is borrowed from the Hurro-Urartian family, well known for its epicene pronouns. See, for example, Hurrian anni=lla, ani=lla, etc., Urartian i=ne=lə, ina=ne=lə, etc. Even though these forms are plural forms, while נוולא nawla is a singular form, comparative evidence demonstrates that when pronouns are borrowed from one language to another, they at times may jump person and number.&#x0D; &#x0D; &#x0D;

Bene Pareza: A new talmudic lexeme

AbstractThe Persian lexeme pahrēz-, pahrēxtan (inf.), “to avoid, to abstain” and also “to care, to protect”, is found in Jewish, Christian, and Mandaic magical literature. It is also current in Mandaic works, and is found in some Geonic works in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic. It has not yet been found in the Babylonian Talmud itself. In this article I discuss a recently discovered occurrence of this word in a reconstructed codex of chapters of Babylonian Talmud, found in the Cairo Genizah (GM). I begin with a reading of the talmudic sugiya. I then discuss other uses of pahrēz in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, in other dialects of Eastern Aramaic, and in Middle Persian. I end with a re-reading of the talmudic sugiya in GM in light of the meaning of pahrēz.

Jewish Palestinian Aramaic: Chronology, Geography, and Typology

Abstract Jewish Palestinian Aramaic was the language of the Jews of Palestine and is identifiable from around the third or fourth centuries CE until the last centuries of the first millennium, by which time it was completely displaced in speech by Arabic. This article surveys its origins and subsequent stages of development, chronologically from Palestinian Targumic to Palestinian Talmudic to Late Jewish Literary Aramaic. Geonic and post-Geonic scribes were not kind to manuscripts written in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic since they did not know the language and were influenced by the more prestigious Babylonian Aramaic. As a result, they sometimes inserted Aramaic forms they knew from non-Palestinian texts. It is probably these scribes who are responsible for the ‘gemischtem Sprachtypus’ of the late targumim.

Hebrew In The Incantation Bowls and In The Babylonian Vocalization Tradition1

Abstract Babylonian Jewish communities possessed a Hebrew vocalization tradition in parallel to the better-known Tiberian and Palestinian traditions. Most of the available evidence regarding Babylonian Hebrew comes from vocalized manuscripts, which were produced during a late period in the history of the dialect. This article examines Jewish Babylonian Aramaic incantation bowls as earlier sources of information regarding the Babylonian Hebrew vocalization tradition. Plene spellings of Hebrew words in these texts, along with other orthographic details, attest to characteristically Babylonian features, such as the preservation of short u, o, e, and i in phonological environments that trigger lowering to ɔ and ε in the Tiberian tradition; the correspondence between Babylonian a-vowels and Tiberian sĕgōl; and non- systematic differences between the Babylonian and Tiberian traditions.

Image of the Dragon in RS 16.266 (= KTU1–3 1.83)

&#x0D; &#x0D; &#x0D; The fragmentary Ugaritic text RS 16.266 (= KTU1–3 1.83) contains a number of lexical and other problems exacerbated by the state of the tablet and difficulties in defining the plot and characters involved in the text. One of these lexical issues involves the analysis of two verbs that appear to be from the root √trp. In the present paper, I survey previous hypotheses as to the etymology and semantics of this verb and contrast the deficiencies of these with the merits of identifying a thus far unrecognized cognate set in lexemes from the root √trp in later Aramaic dialects, i.e., Syriac, Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, and Mandaic. The verbs in this cognate set have the semantics ‘to strike (esp. of a snake)’, and thus clarify both the activity and morphology of the fearsome dragon described in RS 16.266.&#x0D; &#x0D; &#x0D;

Wandering Arameans: Arameans Outside Syria. Textual and Archaeological Perspectives

Wandering Arameans: Arameans Outside Syria. Textual and Archaeological Perspectives

The case for external sentential negation: Evidence from Jewish Babylonian Aramaic

AbstractThis paper has a twofold goal: (i) In the context of negation in general to provide a clear conceptual distinction between internal and external negation, which is summarized as follows:

Reciprocal NP-Strategies in Jewish Dialects of Near Eastern Neo-Aramaic in Light of Parallel Semitic Constructions

This article focuses on the origin of the forms of various NP-strategies for expressing reciprocity in the Jewish dialects of North Eastern Neo-Aramaic (nena). The discussion concerning the origin of these forms is of special interest when considering their historical relationship with their regional ancestors from Late Aramaic (Syriac, Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, and Mandaic). This discussion is conducted in light of what has been previously discussed concerning similar constructions among the Semitic languages and cross-linguistically. This article also elaborates on the relationship between reciprocal constructions and sociative- comitative- collective expressions.

Divorcing Lilith: from the Babylonian incantation bowls to the Cairo Genizah

One of the striking features of ancient Jewish magic is the disappearance of numerous magical spells and formulae that are known to us from the Babylonian Aramaic incantation bowls; spells that come to be absent from the register of later Jewish magic. In the present paper we present one exception to this general rule, by editing a Genizah fragment (Hebrew Union College 1029) that contains a spell which is well attested in the incantation bowls. The fragment in question was copied in the twelfth century as part of a larger magical recipe book. One of its recipes, entitled ‘A deed of divorce for Lilith’, contains an anti-demonic get (divorce formula) which is attested in several different versions in the Babylonian incantation bowls, produced half a millennium earlier. In our paper, we offer a synopsis of all these versions, and a detailed assessment of the significance of this discovery.

Phonetic Spellings of the Subordinating Particle d(y) in the Jewish Babylonian Aramaic Magic Bowls

The Jewish Babylonian Aramaic magic bowls date to the late Sasanian and very early Islamic periods. They are for the most part written in an archaic literary dialect (or dialects) that appears to have significantly differed from the spoken language of Babylonian Jews at that time. Occasional non-standard phonetic spellings, however, cast light on the spoken language of the practitioners who wrote the bowls. This article deals with phonetic spellings of the subordinating (or relative) particle (י)ד as either ת or ט. It is difficult to discern a uniform phonetic condition for all occurrences of ת, but the examples suffice to prove that it is a genuine form. In the presently available documentation the form ט occurs solely before words beginning with ʾaleph (&lt; historical ʾ or ʿ). The latter form also occurs in Classical Mandaic as ṭ. These spellings suggest that the realizations of the subordinating particle as t and ṱ later attested in many Neo-Aramaic dialects go back at least as far as late Sasanian times.

Notes on the Noun Patterns in the Yemenite Tradition of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic

La tradition yemenite de lecture du Talmud de Babylone a ete percue par certains savants (par exemple S. Morag), comme une source fiable pour la vocalisation du judeo-arameen de Babylonie. Cette etude confronte la vocalisation yemenite des formes nominales aux donnees que nous fournissent les manuscrits ainsi que d'autres materiaux et suggere que, dans plusieurs cas, la tradition yemenite ne conserve pas les formes authentiques. La seconde partie de l'article consiste en un examen detaille de cas d'alternance entre gentilices et nomina agentis dans les textes arameens de Babylonie.

The Aramaic Dialect(s) of the Toldot Yeshu Fragments

Abstract The Aramaic fragments of the Toldot Yeshu have long been recognized as the oldest version of this polemical tradition which was translated, and elaborated, into many other languages, and transmitted throughout the centuries after its inception. The Aramaic dialect of these fragments has been described as an artificial mixture of Palestinian and Babylonian Aramaic. A grammatical analysis of each of these fragments reveals that they display the signs of an incomplete dialectal translation from Western to Eastern Aramaic, with conspicuous Western Aramaic morphemes in one fragment. On the other hand, the vast majority of the text of the other fragments is written in a blend of two Eastern Aramaic stocks, one literary type Aramaic which resembles that of Onqelos, and one more colloquial dialect which comes very close to Talmudic Aramaic. Finally, the hybrid construction of the agreement pronoun attached to the nota objecti, followed by the direct object marked by, suggests that the text received further linguistic updating in the West at a relatively late stage in the textual history of this tradition.

The Recovery of the Aramaic Root br' 'to cleanse' and Another Possible Aramaising Rendering in the Septuagint

Abstract One source of our knowledge of the Aramaic used in Hellenistic Egypt is the Septuagint, whose translators at times resorted to Aramaic when rendering their Hebrew Vorlage. The present article proposes one such 'Aramaising rendering', in which the Hebrew verb br' pi''el 'to cut down (wood)' was translated as if derived from the Aramaic homonymous root meaning 'to cleanse'. This root, attested in Nabataean, Samaritan, and Jewish Babylonian Aramaic and mistakenly seen as an Arabism in these dialects, is recovered as Aramaic.

A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods. By Michael Sokoloff. Dictionaries of Talmud, Midrash and Targum III and Publications of the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon Project. Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press; Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. Pp. 1,582. $160.A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period. 2d ed. By

Previous articleNext article No AccessBook ReviewA Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods. By Michael Sokoloff. Dictionaries of Talmud, Midrash and Targum III and Publications of the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon Project. Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press; Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. Pp. 1,582. $160. A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period. 2d ed. By Michael Sokoloff. Dictionaries of Talmud, Midrash and Targum II and Publications of the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon Project. Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press; Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. Pp. 847. $109. A Dictionary of Judean Aramaic. By Michael Sokoloff. Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 2003. Pp. 88.Dennis PardeeDennis PardeeThe University of Chicago Search for more articles by this author The University of ChicagoPDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Journal of Near Eastern Studies Volume 66, Number 3July 2007 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/521758 Views: 18Total views on this site * Permission to reprint a book review in this section may be obtained only from the author.PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

The Babylonian Aramaic in Tractate Karetot According to MS Oxford

Abstract This article describes the Aramaic of Tractate Karetot of the Babylonian Talmud according to MS Oxford Bodl. heb. b. 1. Tractate Karetot is one of the tractates which exhibit a special kind of Babylonian Aramaic. The first part of the article contains a description of this kind of Aramaic, with an attempt to define its unique features and their origin. MS Oxford Bodl. heb. b. 1 is the oldest dated manuscript of the Babylonian Talmud (BT) to have reached us. The second part of the article describes the features found in this manuscript which are different from the type of Aramaic known from the printed editions of the Babylonian Talmud. This is the first comprehensive description of a manuscript of the Babylonian Talmud outside the Yemenite manuscripts.

Review: A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods

Review: A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods

Michael sokoloff: a dictionary of jewish babylonian aramaic of the talmudic and geonic periods. (dictionaries of talmud, midrash and targum, iii.) 1582 pp. ramat-gan, israel: bar ilan university press; baltimore and london: the johns hopkins university press, 2002. michael sokoloff: a dictionary of judean aramaic. (dictionaries of talmud, midrash and targum, iii.) 88 pp. ramat-gan, israel: bar ilan university press,

michael sokoloff: a dictionary of jewish babylonian aramaic of the talmudic and geonic periods. (dictionaries of talmud, midrash and targum, iii.) 1582 pp. ramat-gan, israel: bar ilan university press; baltimore and london: the johns hopkins university press, 2002. michael sokoloff: a dictionary of judean aramaic. (dictionaries of talmud, midrash and targum, iii.) 88 pp. ramat-gan, israel: bar ilan university press, 2003. - Volume 68 Issue 2