Center For Advanced Judaic Studies, University of Pennsylvania

Center for Advanced Judaic Studies, University of Pennsylvania
How the Study of Hebrew Grammar Began and Developed

Author(s): William Chomsky
Source: The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series, Vol. 35, No. 3 (Jan., 1945), pp. 281-301
Published by: University of Pennsylvania Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1452188
Accessed: 09-12-2015 20:16 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Center for Advanced Judaic Studies, University of Pennsylvania and University of Pennsylvania Press are
collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Jewish Quarterly Review.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 134.121.47.100 on Wed, 09 Dec 2015 20:16:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
HOW THE STUDY OF HEBREW GRAMMAR
BEGAN AND DEVELOPED
By WILLIAMCHOMSKY
Gratz College
THE tenth century marks the turning point in Hebrew

and biblical studies. Original masoretic research efforts
reached their high watermark in the works of Ben Asher.
The vowel-system became definitely established, with the
Tiberian system' predominating. Students of Hebrew then
began to direct their attention to purely grammatical prob-
lems, without regard to their implications for biblical
exegesis.
Occasional grammatical observations are to be found
already in the Talmud and the Midrashim. Thus, the
rabbis observe2 that the ending ;lr in such forms as
,nns.P, ;in, etc. indicates direction and stands in place
of a prefixed i, as O'nxD^, yrn, etc. In another instance3
it is pointed out that the particle '. has four different
meanings: if, lest, indeed, because. The masoretic notes
and comments, likewise, contain a number of significant
grammatical remarks. Considerable grammatical material
is to be found in the Sefer Yezirah, an ancient kab-
balistic work. But it was not until Saadia that Hebrew
grammar was treated as an independent science, and not
merely as an aid to the clarification of biblical texts. This
IThis is our vowel-system, the authorship of which is generally

traced to the school of Masoretes who flourished in Tiberia during the
seventh and eighth centuries, C.E.
2Yeb. 13b.
3 Git. 90a.
281
282 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
versatile scholar laid the foundation for the scientific move-

ment in Hebrew philology, and although most of his
grammatical works were lost many centuries ago, his
observations on grammar have come down to us through
the works of his successors, who quoted him extensively,
especially through the commentaries and grammatical
writings of Ibn Ezra, who revered him and regarded him
as the "chief spokesman everywhere" (5Z= w,n-Inn tin
OnlpD).4
Saadia was prompted to undertake the task of writing
Hebrew grammar, as he himself testifies in his introduction
to his Agron, because he was irked by the ignorance of the
language, and disregard for grammatical accuracy among
the Hebrew writers and poets of his day. His work was,
accordingly, designed to guide and aid these writers in the
correct use of the language.
As time went on, the philological movement initiated by
Saadia, gathered momentum and grew apace, especially
under the spur of Arabic philological pursuits and the
urge for literary and religious expression in Hebrew. The
rise of the Karaite sect (toward the end of the eighth cen-
tury) which rejected rabbinic tradition as expressed in the
Talmud and emphasized the diligent scrutiny of the Bible
as a basis for its tradition, was also a significant factor in
focusing the attention of Hebrew scholars on a more search-
ing study of the language of the Bible. The knowledge of
Hebrew grammar, consequently, became a vital need at that
time. Grammatical accuracy served as a criterion for the
recognition of the merits of literary and religious composi-
tions, and grammatical knowledge constituted the measure
of Jewish learning and scholarship. Interest in Hebrew
grammar was, therefore, not confined to professional gram-
marians, but gained vogue among statesmen, poets and
4 Introduction to Iloznayimn.
STUDY OF HEBREW GRAMMAR-CHOMSKY 283
philosophers. Samuel ha-Nagid, Judah ha-Levi, Ibn Gabirol

and others, all concerned themselves with Hebrew gram-
matical problems to a greater or lesser degree and wrote
about them more or less extensively. Ibn Gabirol wrote a
grammatical work in verse, entitled 'Anak (Necklace).
The study of Hebrew grammar as an independent science
was pursued with zeal and profundity by Saadia's succes-
sors. An important lexical work by Menahem ben Saruk,
entitled Mahberet, inaugurated Hebrew grammatical re-
search on Spanish soil and provoked a vehement attack
by a pupil of Saadia, Dunash ben Labrat, a brilliant gram-
marian. Dunash pointed out a great many errors in Mena-
hem's work, and he advanced views which already forecast
the triliteral theory, later scientifically and systematically
expounded by Yehuda Hayyuj (ca. 1000 c. E.), one of Men-
ahem's disciples. This theory postulates that all Hebrew
words have as their basis a stem consisting of three conso-
nants, which are called radicals. All the predecessors of
Hayyuj, with the exception of Dunash,s operated with the
idea of biliteral and even unliteral stems, which are obtained
by removing all the suffixes and prefixes. Thus, for example,
in D?.(form of n,3), the stem would be only L, since this
letter alone remains after the prefixes have been removed.
Similarly in the case of nN?, (I shall bake), the X is the only
consonant which remains permanently in the inflections
and is, therefore, the only stem letter. These grammarians
failed to recognize the special character of the assimilated
verbs, such as the 1"S(pr) in which the Nun with Sheva
is dropped and assimilated to the subsequent letter, as is
5 Comp. Teshubot Dunash against Menahem, 30, where he identifies

the Waw in fn1lnft Mal. 2.7 as representing the Yod radical, and where
he also refers the formil1wi Hos. 13.15 to the stem V:', in which instance
the Yod stands, in his opinion, for both the preformative and the initial
radical. Similar references may be drawn from his statements on pp.
16 f., 20, 23 and 26.
indicated by the Dagesh in this letter (e. g. pw: for p.m).

Nor were they able to comprehend the nature of the weak
verbs, such as have one of the letters "1ni,as a radical.
Although Hayyuj's view was universally accepted by
subsequent grammarians, his disciples diverge in their
interpretation of the master's views. Nor was his triliteral
theory consistently adopted. The versatile and brilliant
statesman, soldier and poet, Samuel ha-Nagid (llth cen-
tury), found time amidst his multifarious duties and occu-
pations to engage in verbal clashes on grammatical issues
with the profound grammarian Ibn Janah and to write,
according to Ibn Ezra's testimony, twenty-two books of
"supreme quality" (noD nyni 1 o1)6on Hebrew grammar.
The monumental works of Ibn Janah, who was a physician
by profession, have been preserved, while those of the Nagid
were lost. Fortunately, a few fragments were recently
discovered. A number of quotations from his writings are
also to be found in the works of Ibn Ezra and others. But
even from these fragmentary remains it is evident that he
was an exceedingly ingenious grammarian. In point of
fact, some of his grammatical theories anticipate very im-
portant discoveries in Hebrew grammar recently made;
such as, for example, the passive of the Kal (97lp);7 the
6
Comp. Yesod Mora, chap. 1 and Introduction to Moznayim. In
Moznayim Ibn Ezra refers to a book ?1IYT 15D by Samuel ha-Nagid.
But according to Bacher in his introduction to Ibn Janah's Sefer ha-
Shorashim, p. 17, this is a collective title for the Nagid's "twenty-two
books."
7 The prevailing view among the grammarians that the Nif'al is the
passive of the Kal has been disproved by modern grammarians. On

the basis of comparative Semitics modern grammarians have discovered
that such forms as nr' Gen. 18.4 and 'T ibid 46.27 are really the normal
passive forms of the Kal, many examples of which are found in the
Bible and even in talmudic Hebrew. Because of the obscurity of the
Nagid's works, these grammarians had to rediscover some very impor-
tant theories which had already been discovered long ago. Comp.
below p. 286.
character of the so-called ,r* verbs, in which he correctly

recognized the Yod as the third radical; and the like.
The grammatical controversy between Ibn Janah and
Samuel ha-Nagid is recounted at some length in the writ-
ings of some of the medieval Hebrew grammarians.8 Samuel
ha-Nagid apparently aroused by Ibn Janah's criticism of
some of the views of his teacher, Yehudah Hayyuj, sent
a messenger from Granada to Saragossa, the place of Ibn
Janah's residence, charged with the task of challenging
Ibn Janah to a verbal duel on certain grammatical issues
and of exposing publicly the "fallacy" of his theories. On his
arrival in Saragossa, the messenger stayed at the home of
a communal leader in that city, named Abu Soleiman ben
Taraka, a friend of Ibn Janah. A public reception was
arranged in honor of the visitor, to which 'Ibn Janah was
invited. The latter, without suspecting the chief purpose
of the gathering, accepted the invitation. During the re-
ception, the visitor began to inveigle Ibn Janah gradually
and subtly into a discussion. Some of the questions raised
by him were readily disposed of and adequately answered
by Ibn Janah. But others followed, and Ibn Janah, un-
prepared for this barrage of questions, was befuddled, and
he promised to reply at some future time.
He did so and sent his reply to the visitor. The latter,
however, superciliously remarked that it would be wiser
for Ibn Janah to withhold his reply until the Nagid's book
was published, where he would find even more serious
criticisms leveled against him. This Ibn Janah refused to
do. He issued his reply in book form and called it Kitab
at-Taswiya. After the publication of the Nagid's attack
8 Comp. Opuscules d'Abau'l-Walid, 344 ff.; also Ibn Barun, Kitab al-
Muwazana, ed. Kokowzoff, 12. Reference to this controversy is also
found in Parhon's Introduction to his 'Aruk as well as in Ibn Tibbon's
Introduction to Ibn Janah's Rikma.
on him, Ibn Janah retorted with a violent counter-attack

in a book, which he called Kitab at-Tashwir. Ibn Janah
was very proud of this book, and he frequently referred to
it in glowing terms,9 but, unfortunately, only a fragment
of it is now extant.
One of the points at issue in the controversy between
Ibn Janah and Samuel ha-Nagid was the case of the Pu'al
as the passive of the Kal. According to Ibn Janah, the
forms rtzrand ni? Is. 32.14, np. Jer. 29.22, nri Ez. 16.34,
in Job 33.21, r;: Gen. 46.27, etc., the Pi'el of which forms
either does not occur or has a different meaning, are all
construed by Ibn Janah as passives of the Kal. But the
future of the passive Kal, he maintained, is the same as
that of the Pu'al, the passive of the Pi'el, namely, tn?,
.jy, etc. Hence, forms like nj., Gen. 18.4 and ]n Lev.
11.38 cannot be taken as passive Kal, but rather as Hof'al
forms.10 Samuel ha-Nagid, on the other hand, regarded
the last two forms also as passive Kal." In this case Ibn
Janah was in error, and Samuel ha-Nagid displayed a keener
insight into the nature of this conjugation, as we have
learned from comparative Semitics. The theory of the
existence of a passive Kal in Hebrew was revived and sys-
tematically elaborated in modern times, independently of
the older Hebrew grammarians, by Boettcher12 and, par-
ticularly, by Barth.I3
Let us return however to the above-mentioned session.
Another subject of dispute raised there was the case of DwP:!
Gen. 50.26 and ID': Ex. 30.32. Hayyuj had once rejected
9 See Sefer ha-Shorashim s. vv. K2n, inr, n',, n1,r, npl,

I, t,n,
lx.
o0Comp. Opuscules, 33 ff. and 260; also Rikma, ed. Goldberg, 92.
I SeeMoznayim, 33 and Mikhlol, ed. Lyk 62b.
12
Comp. ?? 904 and 1022.
3 Comp. "Das Passive Kal und seine Participien" in the Festschrift
.. Hildesheimer, Berlin, 1890, 145 ff.
as "remote"'4 the view suggested by some (D,DnmK,) that

o'*3 was a passive form and that the Hirek under the Yod
was in place of Shurek (ant'). Ibn Janah, on the other hand,
had recognized the plausibility of this view and suggested
that 1lD"was to be similarly construed1s and in support of
his etymology, had adduced other examples, where the
Hirek replaced the Shurek or Kibbuz. During the argument
at this session on this point the visitor from Granada chal-
lenged Ibn Janah's view, and he stated that in his home-
town Hayyuj's opinion was favored. Ibn Janah re-
plied by corroborating his etymology on the basis of addi-
tional evidence and numerous examples in the Bible, where
Hirek occurs in place of Shurek or Kamez (short).,6
Most of the modern grammarians are in agreement with
Ibn Janah in this particular issue, and some regard the form
as a passive Kal (Kutal).17 Others, however, question the
correctness of this reading.'8 The interchange of Hirek and
Kibbuz or Shurek is certainly quite common both in the
Bible and in the Talmud;19 and S. Pinsker seems to be
correct in his assumption, based on plausible evidence
drawn from ancient masoretic and grammatical sources,
as well as from Arabic, to the effect that the u sound in the
Palestinian pronunciation resembled the French u and the
German i, with the predominance of i. The Polish Jews,
who still pronounce Shurek and Kibbuz as i, Pinsker main-
tains, received this pronunciation from the Palestinian Jews
via Caucasia, the land of the Khazars, and the Crimea;
4
Comp. Hayyuj, ed. Nutt, 57.
I5 Op. cit. 32.
16 Ibid. 370 ff.
7 Comp. Ewald ? 131d; Boettcher ? 460; Tuch and Dalman on Gen.
24.33; Barth, op. cit., 151, note 1; Lambert ? 1052.
I8 Comp. Ge.-K. ? 73 f.
'9 Comp. Yalon H. Kiriat Sefer IV, 136 and LeshonenuIII, 307, also
H. L. Ginsburg, TarbizV, 208 note 1. See also Dalman, Grammatikdes
JuedischPalestin-Aramaisch,53 f.
while the Sephardic Jews, pronouncing the Shurek and

Kibbuz as u, got their pronunciation from the Babylonian
Jews via Africa.20 The influence of the Babylonian pro-
nunciation of Hebrew on the Sephardic pronunciation is
also evidenced by the sounding of the Kamez(a) and is to
be traced to the fact that in the 11th century the Baby-
lonian Jews were the founders of Jewish scholarship in
Spain.21
Most of the works on Hebrew grammar were written

at that time in Arabic and were, therefore, inaccessible to
the Jewish scholars of France, Italy and Germany. But
that traveling scholar, Abraham Ibn Ezra (1167), served
as the intermediary, and through his copious writings and
commentaries, he popularized the ideas of the Spanish He-
brew grammarians among the Jews of the non-Arabic
speaking countries. The translations into Hebrew of
Hayyuj's work by Ibn Gikatilia and of Ibn Janah's works
by Judah Ibn Tibbon, also aided in the dissemination of
grammatical knowledge among the Jews of these countries.
The subsequent grammatical works of outstanding merit
during the medieval period were nearly all written in
Hebrew.
These philological pursuits reached their culmination
in the writings of the Kimhi family, especially those of the
younger member, David (1235), popularly called Radak
(p"ni). His works, though inferior in originality and pro-
fundity to those of Hayyuj and Ibn Janah, eclipsed and
displaced almost entirely the works of these masters. Even
so thorough a grammarian as Koenig made constant ref-
erence to David Kimhi in his Lehrgebdudeder Hebr. Sprache
as recently as fifty or sixty years ago. As an indication of
20
Comp. Mabo, 153 ff., note 103.
21 Comp. Graetz, Gesch. V, chapter 11; also Chomsky, David Kimhi's
Hebrew Grammar, part I, notes 14 and 16.
the esteem in which Kimhi was held by posterity we may

cite the following Mishnic dictum which was applied to
his works: nnln 1m n 1p 1't oM,22 and which was interpreted
in the sense of "without the works of Kimhi no knowledge
of the Torah is possible." His comprehensiveness, simplic-
ity, conciseness, and systematic organization, are chiefly
responsible for the popularity of his works. His main con-
tribution to Hebrew grammar was the development and sys-
tematization of the theory originated by his father, Joseph,
relative to the subdivision of the vowels into five long and
five short vowels. The Kimhian theory placed the study
of the Hebrew phonetics on a scientific basis, and although
its essential features have been disavowed by the modern
grammarians on historical-comparative grounds, the theory
is very useful pedagogically because it helps explain vowel
changes in Hebrew.22a
According to the Kimhian theory of vowels, the five
short vowels occur in a closed syllable, while the five long
vowels occur in an open syllable. Under the influence of
the accent, the case may be reversed; that is, short vowels
may occur in open syllables and long vowels in closed
syllables, e. g. 'I , nmiT,'rn.t etc. However, this theory
led the Kimhians and the subsequent grammarians who
accepted their theories into a pitfall. Since long vowels
are found in closed syllables, or are followed by Shewa, in
which case they are protected by a Meteg, (e. g. j.:1, nn,?,
etc.), the Kimhians assumed that in all such cases the Shewa
is vocal, hence the syllable is really open. They thus estab-
lished the rule, commonly accepted by the modern gram-
marians, that a Shewa following a long unaccented vowel
is vocal.23 However, S. Baer already disproved this theory
22
Abot 3.21.
22a See below, p. 296 f.
23 Comp.
Mikhlol, 136b.
on the basis of the accents, as well as authentic grammatical

sources.24 Baer correctly maintains that every Shewa, pre-
ceded by any of the vowels is silent, except when it occurs
under a laryngeal, or under the first of the same two con-
sonants in succession, in which case it is designated by an
additional vowel (Hatef), e.g. 'n.i.nm ,onnilon Nehem.
12.45, ,nv ,rn. Job.20.17, etc.25
David Kimhi is to be noted particularly for his progres-
sive and vital attitude toward the development of the He-
brew language. Beside taking cognizance frequently of
the grammatical forms and constructions found in post-
biblical literature, he often sanctions and suggests the
creation and coinage of new forms and conjugations as long
as they conform to the pattern of the Hebrew language
and its grammar. Thus, he criticizes the grammarians,
including his own father, for objecting to the use of the
word y'pn in the transitive sense in the liturgical formula
O' ,. y'p.;r7 and for attacking an "eminent linguist"
(Moshe Ibn Ezra) because he uses this conjugation in the
same sense in one of his poems. David Kimhi maintains
that since there is no other form of this stem in the transi-
tive it is perfectly legitimate to use it both in the transi-
tive and the intransitive sense, although it does not occur
in the transitive in the Bible.26 He also proposes the
coining of new paradigms, whenever needed, if some sug-
gestive basis for such coinage can be found either in the
Bible or in the Talmud. He even sanctions the use of such
imperative forms as ~is (stem ?m) and Vin (stem -rn),
which occur in the Talmud, but are contrary to the rules
of biblical Hebrew grammar.27
24 Torat Emet, 9, note **.
25
Comp. also Chomsky, David Kimhi's Hebrew Grammar, part I
note 19.
26
Comp. Mikhlol, 21a.
27 Ibid. 62ab and 75 a.
Kimhi himself made no claim to originality. In the intro-

duction to his Hebrew Grammar he modestly assumed the
role of a "gleaner after the reaper," whose task it was to
compile and present succinctly and simply the voluminous
scientific findings of his predecessors. But Kimhi was more
than a mere compiler. He was thoroughly conversant with
the entire range of Hebrew language and literature. He
had a fine sense of system and organization and deep in-
sight into the language and its structure, and splendid
critical acumen. All this equipment stood him in good
stead in his undertaking. In an independent and rigorous
manner he examined and evaluated the rich harvest of the
grammatical research of his predecessors, presenting it
systematically and concisely, selecting and rejecting, ad-
vancing some original ideas and adding some grammatical
material of his own.28
Since David Kimhi's works mark the closing of the
"Golden Era" of Hebrew medieval philology, it might be
appropriate to pause here and summarize the contributions
of the medieval Hebrew grammarians to the science of
Hebrew grammar. Such a summary, in the space allotted
in this article, will have to include only the highlights of
these contributions and in general and broad outlines.
One of the most notable and helpful contributions in the
field of Hebrew grammar is, undoubtedly, the triliteral
theory as presented by Hayyuj. This theory shed signif-
icant light on the nature and structure of the Hebrew
language, particularly as related to the assimilated verbs
(1Is) and the weak verbs. Without an understanding of
the character of these verbs, Hebrew writers were groping
in the dark whenever they ventured to turn aside from
28 On the
extensive use which later grammarians and lexicographers
made of Kimhi's works see Jacob Tauber, R. David Kimhi, Breslau,
1867, p. 9, note 1.
the set models and familiar constructions found in the Bible

or in the Talmud. Witness some of the flagrant errors in
verbal and nominal constructions to be found in the works
of the early Paytanim. Hayyuj criticizes his own teacher,
Menahem ben Saruk, for employing erroneously the infini-
tive forms inlrx (for rn,a, stem rx) and mny (for nrnry,
stem ,rry) because he failed to understand the character
of these weak verbs.29 The significance of this theory in
promoting the progress of the study of the Hebrew lan-
guage can hardly be overestimated. It enabled the gram-
marians to envisage the Hebrew language as a design in
which the structure of nouns and verbs fitted in a perfect
mosaic fashion. Later grammarians differed with Hayyuj
in regard to minor details of this theory. Samuel ha-Nagid
and Ibn Ezra regarded the "lyand the y"yverbs as biliteral,
while Ibn Janah assumed a biliteral stem for all such words
as : , n I, '7, DO, , ,D, all of which occur with Dagesh
D
in the second radical but never with the duplication of
the radical.30 Modern grammarians are likewise divided
in their opinions on this matter. Some are consistent tri-
literalists, while others assume a monosyllabic or biliteral
ground-form for the "iy and y"y verbs.31 However, these
are minor differences of opinion, and they do not detract
from the tremendous significance of this theory in explain-
ing the nature of the Hebrew verbs, particularly those of
the assimilated (INv)and weak stems.
The terms "strong" and "weak" were first applied to
the respective categories of verbs by Dunash, after the
example of the Arabic (nntx= Dt, n.Y=1;pD or 13.n):32
Hayyuj, likewise, employs this term n.nyV to designate
Comp. op. cit., 2.
29
Comp. Bacher's Ibn Ezra etc., 89 f.; also Derenbourg's Introduction

30
to Opuscules, XXVI f.
31 Comp. Ges.-K., 176Tand 1941 and Ges.-Bergstrasser II, ? id.
32 See Bacher, Anfange, 101.
the weak verbs, or verbs having one of the letters '"ln as

one of their radicals, which becomes latent in the inflections.
Joseph Kimhi renders this term in Hebrew by the word
,n;,33 while Ibn Tibbon in his translation of Ibn Janah's
Kitab al-Luma' translates it by the word 'liy, from the
same stem as the Arabic rnyn. Neither Hayyuj nor Ibn
Janah includes the y'y verbs in the category of weak verbs.
Ibn Barun, however, who more nearly approaches the
Arabic grammarians, regards the yy verbs also as weak or
irregular.34
Another significant contribution by the medieval gram-
marians is the arrangement of the paradigms in the differ-
ent conjugations. Saadia was the first to attempt such an
arrangement. He employed the verb yv as the model and
confined himself to the Kal and Hif'il forms only.35 The
paradigm 5y, borrowed from the Arabic grammarians,
was probably first adopted throughout, according to Bacher,
by Ibn Janah, although it had been previously used by
Saadia,36 Dunash,37 and by the disciples of both Dunash38
and Menahem.39 Joseph Kimhi was the first to give the
Pu'al and the Hof'al the prominence of distinct conjuga-
tions.40 The order adopted by him was as follows: (1) Kal,
(2) Pi'el, (3) Hif'il, (4) Nif'al, (5) Hitpa'el, (6) Pu'al, (7)
Hof'al, (8) Po'el. Hayyuj, Ibn Janah, and Ibn Ezra placed
the Hif'il before the Pi'el, and they did not regard the pas-
sive conjugations (Pu'al and Hof'al) as separate conjuga-
tions,4' but rather as parts of their respective active forms.
33 Zikkaron, 30 etc.
34See Ibn Barun, ed. Kokowzoff, p. 60 and note 122.
35Comp. Skoss, "Saadia's Kutub al-Lughah, JQR, N.S., XXXIII,
Nos. 2 and 3; also quotations by Dunash in Bacher'sAnf. 52 f.
36 Comp. Skoss, op. cit. 37 Comp. Bacher, op cit., 109.
38 Comp. Tesh. Talmide Dunash, 35.
39Comp. Tesh. Talmide Menahem, 70 and 101.
4 Zikkaron, 14.
41 Comp. Profiat Duran, Ma'ase Efod, 53.
Moses Kimhi is responsible for the final and standard

arrangement, which has been followed with slight modifi-
cations to this date, namely: Kal, Nif'al, Pi'el, Pu'al,
Hif'il, Hof'al, Po'el, Hitpa'el. His paradigm inp was also
accepted by subsequent grammarians; but it has been re-
placed, in modern times, after Danz, by $up, a common
verb in all the Semitic languages, in which none of the
radicals is changed in any of the inflections.
David Kimhi was severely criticized by Profiat Duran
(Efodi) for introducing this paradigm ip9 and for the
present arrangement of the conjugations.42 Although the
verb npn occurs in all the conjugations, Duran maintains,
it has different semantic values in the various conjugations.
The student of Hebrew grammar might, therefore, be mis-
led and might attach the same basic meaning to all the
conjugations of this verb. Similarly erroneous and mis-
leading, Duran avers, is Kimhi's arrangement in placing
the Nif'al immediately after the Kal and in regarding it
as the passive of the Kal, whereas, in effect, the Pu'al and
not the Nif'al is the passive of the Kal. The Nif'al, like the
Hitpa'el, has an active or transitive connotation, according
to him, and belongs together with this conjugation.43 Kimhi
is, likewise, criticized by Derenbourg for his "misunder-
standing" of the nature of the Nifal.44
However, it should be pointed out that Kimhi never
applied the term ilnp -nT3HNz,used by the medieval He-
brew grammarians to denote the passive forms, to the
Nif'al. It is, therefore, to be assumed that he did realize
the distinction between the relationship which the Nif'al
bears to the Kal and that which the Pu'al or Hof'al bears
86 and 91 f.
42 Ibid.,
54. Efodi follows Ibn Janah in this regard, comp. Rikma,
43 Ibid.,
93 and Opuscules, 6 f.
44 Comp. Introduction to Opuscules, XXXVII, note 2.
to its respective active. In point of fact, Kimhi recognizes

the reflexive type of Nif'al, as in the case of In.. s5 2 Sam.
20.10, as well as the Nif'al which is employed also as the
passive of the Pi'el and the Hif'il, e. g. nnit Ex. 16.35,
inl3 Ezek. 16.19, t.. Gen. 33.7, mnp3,Ex. 22.7, etc.45 The
latter type of Nif'al is denied by Ibn Janah, who relates
the Nif'al only to the Kal,46but it is corroborated by analo-
gous instances in other Semitic languages.47 Kimhi's love
for simplicity and brevity, as well as his living sense of the
language, may have prompted him to disregard the Pu'al
as the passive of the Kal, since this conjugation, because
of its resemblance to the passive of the Pi'el, had become
obsolete, and since the Nif'al was gradually gaining pre-
dominance as the passive of the Kal, even in the Bible,
but particularly in later Hebrew. The Nif'al, originally
representing the reflexive (or middle voice), came to ex-
press later also the passive, because of the closeness in
meaning existing between the two voices since they both
imply the idea that the change or effect of the activity is
centered upon the subject. An analogous phenomenon may
be found in Latin, where the passive verbs have taken on
the endings of the middle, or so-called deponent verbs,
because of their mutual semantic relationship.48 Even in
Arabic, where changes proceed at a much slower pace
than in Hebrew, examples of this transition from the re-
flexive to the passive occur,49 while in Accadian this con-
jugation is almost exclusively employed in the passive
sense.50
45Comp. Mikhlol, 21b f.

46See Rikma 93 and Shorashim216.
47 Comp. Brockelmann,GvGI, 536 f.; also Ges.-BergstrasserII, ? 16d.
48Comp. The Psychology of Language, Walter B. Pillsbury and
Clarence L. Meader, 1928, D. Appleton & Co., 273.
49See Brockelmann,op. cit., 536.
50
Comp. Bauer-Leander,7.
The Kimhian vowel-system, in which the vowels are

divided into two groups of five long and five short vowels,
has been referred to previously. Joseph Kimhi, the origi-
nator of this theory, was very likely led to it under the
influence of the Latin languages employed in the Provence
where he lived. His predecessors, following the masoretic
tradition of the vowel-signs, knew of seven vowels only,
which they called top.p (kings) because the pronunciation
is governed by them, while they designated the Shewa and
the Ilatef vowels, which are not independent vowels, as
D'.l7 (slaves).5' They did not differentiate in name between
Kamez hatuf (e. g. '3T) and long Kamez, between short
and long Hirek and between Kibbuz and Shurek.52 Hayyuj,
in whose system vowel-changes play an important part,
seems to have recognized the distinction between long and
short vowels, and he resorts to the explanation that every
long vowel is followed by a written, or unwritten (latent)
quiescent, i. e., by the sound of one of the letters ,1i. Thus
the Ilolem in -i.t is long because of the written quiescent
Waw, while in the Kamez of -n.t the quiescent t is latent
(n= ininr), etc.53 It is clear, however, that neither the
Babylonian, nor the Tiberian vowel-system, points to any
quantitative distinction of vowels.
However, the Kimhian system seems to fit the Hebrew
masoretic scheme of vocalization. It provides a scientific
background and explanation for the change of vowels from
"long" to "short" and vice versa, as the case may be, de-
pending on the position of the accent, the Meteg, the laryn-
geals or non-laryngeals. Without the Kimhian system, the
whole scheme of vocalization lacks a rational and scientific
basis. "The division of the vowels in respect of quantity is
5I
Comp. Ma'ase Efod, 34.
See Dikduke ha-Teamim of Ben Asher, 11 f.; Dunash, Tesh ag.
52
Menahem, 5b; Hayyuj, ed. Nutt, 4; etc.

53Op. cit., 6-7.
a later attempt at a scientific conception of the phonetic

system, which was not invented but only represented by
the masoretes."54
An earlier and more basic treatment of the vowels and
their development is presented by Ibn Janah.55 The three
original vowels are, according to him, Shurek, Hirek and
Patah. "These correspond to the three types of motion in
nature. Thus, the vocal organs producing the Shurek raise
its sound upward, resembling the ascending movement of
fire. The Hirek is produced by forcing the sound downward,
corresponding to the movement of a falling stone. The
Patah, which is produced by a rotary movement of the
vocal organs, corresponds to the movement of the heavens
around the earth. These three vowels are 'the mothers' and
primitive vowels, from which all the other vowels, 'the
daughters', originated. The Shurek gave rise to the Kamez
and Holem, the Patah to the Segol, and the Hirek to the
Zere."56 Ibn Ezra57 and Judah ha-Levi58 present similar
discussions on the development of the vowels, but the
Shurek in Ibn Janah's system, as a primitive vowel, is re-
placed by HIolemin Ibn Ezra's system and by Kamez in
that of Judah ha-Levi. This classification, which is based
on the Arabic, is already found in Dunash Ibn Tamim's
commentary on Yezira.59 It has been revived and, in the
main, accepted by the modern grammarians.6"
54Ges.-K. ? 8, Preliminary Remark.
55
Comp. Opuscules, 275-7.
56Chomsky, David Kimhi's Hebrew Grammar, note 12.
57Bacher, Ibn Ezra etc., Chapter IX.
58 Kuzari, ed. Ziprinowitz, 126. 59 Ed. Grossberg, 20 f.
60 Ges.-K. ? 7a. On the history and development of our vowel-
system see W. Chomsky, The History of Our Vowel-System in Hebrew,
JQR., N. S., XXXII, 1. On the development of the three vowel-
system in Hebrew, the Palestinian, the Babylonian and Tiberian, and
on their interrelationship see Budde, Noeldeke's Festschrift, 651-7,
Hommel E., Hebraische Lautlehre, 52, also Blake, Vowel Symbols in
Alphabets, JAOS, LX (1940), 408.
It is impossible to enumerate in the space allotted

here the manifold grammatical discussions by the medi-
eval grammarians on the various aspects of the Hebrew
language. There is hardly a phase of the language which
escaped their scrutiny and comment. Theirs was a labor
of love.6' With selfless devotion, untiring assiduity and
unremitting zeal they applied themselves to the pioneer-
ing task of analyzing and investigating every aspect of
the Hebrew language in the field of phonology, morphology
and syntax.62 They left a rich heritage, which, unfortu-
nately, has not yet been fully exploited, although splendid
efforts in this field of research have been made by such
profound scholars as Bacher, Poznanski, Joseph and Hart-
wig Derenbourg, and Kokowzoff.
The reaction which set in against the works of Maimon-
ides toward the end of David Kimhi's days, which he
endeavored valiantly but vainly to offset, marked the wane
of grammatical research and of any studies outside of the
Talmud. Most of the Jewish scholars of the subsequent
generations regarded the study of grammar as a waste
6r After having succeeded in unraveling some etymological difficulty,
Ibn Janah waxes ecstatic and proclaims proudly: "This is one of the
wonderful things we have discovered by the grace of God ... after
much labor, effort and study, and after searching day and night, so
that we expend on oil (in burning the midnight oil) twice as much as
other people spend on wine" (Shorash. s. v. 77:).
62 The view is sometimes
expressed by modern Hebrew grammarians
to the effect that the medieval grammarians neglected the study of
syntax, or that they had only a vague idea of it. This view is entirely
incorrect. They did not treat of syntax as an independent category, but
there is a considerable wealth of syntactical observations scattered
through the works of these grammarians. These observations attest
their interest in these problems, as well as a keen insight and sound
judgment in this branch of research. The writer was able to glean to-
gether 12 chapters on syntax in his systematization of David Kimhi's
Hebrew Grammar, only part one of which has thus far been published.
These unpublished chapters contain some extremely interesting and
revealing observations on syntax by Kimhi and by his predecessors.
STUDY OF HEBREW GRAMMAR--CHOMSKY 299
of time, and some even considered such study heresy.63

Even the study of Bible began to be regarded as of second-
ary importance and was gradually dwindling to such an
extent that a German rabbi of the 17th century complained
that there were certain rabbis in his generation "who had
never in their lifetime seen a text of the Bible."64 The
center of interest in Hebrew grammar and lexicography
shifted from Jewish to Christian scholars. The father of
Hebrew grammar among the Christians was the famous
humanist Johan Reuchlin (1522). His book, De Rudimentis
Hebraicis, ushered in the Hebrew philological movement
among the Christians. This movement was accelerated by
the arrival of the itinerant Jewish scholar Elias Levita.
Through his personal contact with the Christian scholars
and by means of his books, some of which were translated
into Latin by his pupil, Sebastian Munster, Levita became
the exponent of the Kimhian School to the Christians and
he set the Kimhian stamp on succeeding grammatical
works. The Christian grammarian, whose work enjoyed
widest currency and influence was Wilhelm Gesenius (1786-
1842). His grammar and dictionary appeared in numerous
editions and adaptations.
The contribution of the Christian scholars to Hebrew
grammar was considerable. They resumed the comparative
study of Hebrew and Arabic, which had been interrupted
after a promising beginning made by the early medieval
Hebrew grammarians. The Christian grammarians ex-
tended these studies to include the other Semitic languages,
and on the basis of these studies they succeeded in making
some interesting discoveries, a good many of which, how-
63
Comp. the complaints against this attitude by Efodi, Ma'ase Efod,
5; also by Judah L. Modena, Bet Judah, commentary on Kid., chapter
1, Mishna 1.
64 Comp. S. Asaf, Mekorat le-Toldot ha-Hinukh be-Yisrael, I, 229.
ever, had already been discovered by the medieval Jewish

grammarians, but had been forgotten because the works
of these grammarians were not readily accessible. Besides
not being conversant with the Kimhian and pre-Kimhian
source materials of Hebrew grammar, the Christian Hebrew
grammarians were also handicapped by the tendency to
restrict themselves in their Hebrew studies to the language
of the Bible and to regard the language of post-Biblical
Jewish literature as a variety of corrupted dialects, unde-
serving of serious study. These handicaps robbed the work
of these grammarians of its real progressive and dynamic
value.
The renewed interest in Hebrew grammar, awakened
by the renaissance of the Hebrew language and literature
during the Haskalah period, produced only two Jewish
grammarians who made original and notable contributions
to the science of Hebrew grammar, namely, Samuel David
Luzzatto (1800-1865) and Simhah Pinsker (1801-1864).
The former was the first to make a thorough study of Ara-
maic, and as a result of his studies he arrived at the con-
clusion that both Aramaic and Hebrew stem from the same
origin, but that Aramaic has preserved the original forms
to a greater degree than Hebrew. He, accordingly, sought
to explain many lexical and grammatical phenomena in
Hebrew upon the background of Aramaic, and not of
Arabic, as the Christian grammarians attempted to do.
Pinsker specialized in researches in the history of vocal-
ization and of the Masorah, and he made some very inter-
esting discoveries in these fields.
The trend among modern students of Hebrew grammar
is to treat Hebrew grammar historically rather than de-
scriptively; that is, to trace the course of the development
of the language during the various historical stages within
the sphere of the Semitic languages and in the light of
general principles of linguistic science. Most of the moder

grammarians, however, confine themselves to biblical He-
brew only and fail to take into account the later stages
of the language evolved during the Mishnic and Medieval
and Moder periods. Nor do they avail themselves to the
fullest extent of the vast grammatical resources stored
away in the Jewish ancient and medieval writings. A truly
scientific study of the Hebrew language under such limita-
tions is hardly possible. The notion that the life and growth
of Hebrew was definitely arrested at a certain stage, which
was followed by a period of decay and corruption, is respon-
sible for misconceptions in Hebrew grammar among stu-
dents of the Hebrew language and for some distorted views
on the language. In point of fact, Hebrew never ceased
to be the medium of written, if not oral, expression among
the Jews, and Hebraic terms and processes of thought
found their way into the various languages adopted by
the Jews. The use of Hebrew in traditional Houses of
Study and Prayer has never been interrupted. Linguistic
study cannot, therefore, be scientific unless cognizance is
taken of actual usage in all the successive stages in the
process of the development of the particular language in
question. To base the study of a language and its grammar
exclusively on classical models handed down from antiquity
is to violate a most fundamental tenet in modern linguistics.

Center For Advanced Judaic Studies, University of Pennsylvania

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Center For Advanced Judaic Studies, University of Pennsylvania

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Center For Advanced Judaic Studies, University of Pennsylvania

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Center for Advanced Judaic Studies, University of Pennsylvania

How the Study of Hebrew Grammar Began and Developed

THE tenth century marks the turning point in Hebrew

IThis is our vowel-system, the authorship of which is generally

versatile scholar laid the foundation for the scientific move-

philosophers. Samuel ha-Nagid, Judah ha-Levi, Ibn Gabirol

5 Comp. Teshubot Dunash against Menahem, 30, where he identifies

indicated by the Dagesh in this letter (e. g. pw: for p.m).

passive of the Kal has been disproved by modern grammarians. On

character of the so-called ,r* verbs, in which he correctly

on him, Ibn Janah retorted with a violent counter-attack

9 See Sefer ha-Shorashim s. vv. K2n, inr, n',, n1,r, npl,

as "remote"'4 the view suggested by some (D,DnmK,) that

while the Sephardic Jews, pronouncing the Shurek and

Most of the works on Hebrew grammar were written

the esteem in which Kimhi was held by posterity we may

on the basis of the accents, as well as authentic grammatical

Kimhi himself made no claim to originality. In the intro-

the set models and familiar constructions found in the Bible

Comp. Bacher's Ibn Ezra etc., 89 f.; also Derenbourg's Introduction

the weak verbs, or verbs having one of the letters '"ln as

Moses Kimhi is responsible for the final and standard

to its respective active. In point of fact, Kimhi recognizes

45Comp. Mikhlol, 21b f.

The Kimhian vowel-system, in which the vowels are

Menahem, 5b; Hayyuj, ed. Nutt, 4; etc.

a later attempt at a scientific conception of the phonetic

It is impossible to enumerate in the space allotted

6r After having succeeded in unraveling some etymological difficulty,

of time, and some even considered such study heresy.63

ever, had already been discovered by the medieval Jewish

general principles of linguistic science. Most of the moder

You might also like