Jewish Babylonian Aramaic [phrase omitted] (B. Bava Mei'a 67a, etc.): Its Meaning and Etymology.

• Author: Rendsburg, Gary A.

to the memory of Saul Levin, [phrase omitted] (July 13, 1921-March 4, 2021) The vast majority of the lexical items registered in Michael Sokoloff's magisterial dictionaries of the various Aramaic dialects of late antiquity have a clear meaning and a clear etymology. Nonetheless, occasionally one encounters a word that defies one or the other, or at times even both. One such item is the word [phrase omitted], attested in the Babylonian Talmud (henceforth ?.), Bava Mei'a 67a, and (to the best of my knowledge) only three other times (see anon).

Sokoloff's entry reads as follows: "[phrase omitted] n. (uncertain) sg. [phrase omitted] you and... are kinsmen BM 67a(14)," with the additional note (in smaller font) "Perh. a PN." (1) For secondary literature, Sokoloff cited

1. Moshe Beer, The Babylonian Amoraim; b) Shelomo Morag on the vocalization as preserved in a Cairo Geniza document; and c) the Yemenite oral tradition as recorded by Yosef 'Amr.

   The latter two references, as indicated, treat the vocalization only, which we repeat here as [phrase omitted] in the former, and as [phrase omitted] in the latter. (2) For Beer's treatment, see below, nn. 16-17.

   Additional information regarding [phrase omitted] (henceforth, when transliterated, simply nawla) was provided by Theodore Kwasman in his review essay of Sokoloff's DJBA in the pages of this journal, (3) including the different readings from the various manuscripts, though in general that information has little or no bearing on the present treatment. Nonetheless, for the sake of completeness, herewith: (4)

   [phrase omitted] (edd., Es, F, V (23));

   [phrase omitted] (Es);

   [phrase omitted] (M);

   [phrase omitted] (H).

   To place the phrase in its larger context, I present here the relevant section of the Talmudic discussion, divided into sense-units: (5)

   [phrase omitted] (6). [phrase omitted] A serviceable translation, from the (first) English version of the Steinsaltz Talmud project, follows: (7)

   A certain woman said to a certain man, "Go [and] buy land for me from my relatives." He went [and] bought [it] for her. He [the seller] said to him: "If I will have money, will you return it to me?" He said to him. "You and she [i.e., [phrase omitted]] are relatives." Rabba bar Rav Huna said: Whenever someone says. "You and she [i.e.. [phrase omitted]] are relatives', [the seller] relies [on this], and does not completely decide and sell. The reader will notice that the key word [phrase omitted] nawla (2x) is rendered 'she' here. (8)

   Kwasman further observed, "Rashi (ad loc.) states that the Geonim considered [phrase omitted] to be a personal pronoun with the meaning 'he or she'. Rashi himself interprets the word as a personal name." (9) Herewith Rashi's original Hebrew comment: [phrase omitted]. To repeat, per Kwasman's summary (see above), Rashi learned from Geonic sources that the key word [phrase omitted] is an Aramaic pronoun used for either masculine or feminine, that is, it may serve for either 'he' or 'she'. (10) This analysis, accordingly, informs the above translation with 'she'. Rashi's own understanding of our term as a proper noun ([phrase omitted]) is reflected, for example, in the Soncino translation, "You and Nawla, he replied, are relatives." (11)

   The same information is conveyed in the commentary section of the Steinsaltz Talmud project (whose translation appears above), as follows: "The word [phrase omitted]--translated as 'she' in our commentary--appears nowhere else in Talmudic literature, and its etymological derivation is obscure [emphasis added]. In our translation and commentary, we have followed the Geonic tradition, which reports that [phrase omitted] is the Aramaic pronoun for the 3rd person of indeterminate gender ('he' or 'she' in English). Rashi gives this explanation, but also suggests that [phrase omitted] might be a proper noun, i.e., the name of the woman who wanted to buy the land." (12) Kwasman's final contribution to our subject is his astute reference to B. Gi??in 68b (in a sugya dealing with Solomon and Ashmedai) as presented in the Cairo Geniza fragment C.U.L. T-S Fl(l).31, fol. 1r, lines 21-22. (13) The standard wording (e.g., ed. Vilna) is as follows: (14)

   [phrase omitted] One day, he was standing alone (with him), he said to him (15) But the Geniza fragment reads: (16)

   [phrase omitted] One day, he and he sat in the house, he said to him Clearly, this reading demonstrates that the form [phrase omitted] is an epicene pronoun (per Rashi's first suggestion) and not a proper noun (per his second suggestion). (17) Note that in B. Bava Mesi'a, the antecedent of [phrase omitted] is a woman, while in B. Gittin 68b, the antecedent of [phrase omitted] is a man.

   Our third attestation, at B. Nidda 25b, is known to us only indirectly. The standard reading (e.g., ed. Vilna) is as follows: (18)

   [phrase omitted] R. Ze'ira said, 'Rav Bibi merited [that his ruling/tradition/etc.] was heard [i.e., accepted]. As I and he were both sitting before Rabbi Yo?anan,... But the Geonim knew of a different reading, as follows: (19)

   [phrase omitted] Minor differences aside (as occurs when any two textual witnesses are compared), note the use of [phrase omitted] "I and he" in this version, instead of the standard reading [phrase omitted] "I and he," with the form [phrase omitted] in place, with a masculine antecedent (to wit, R. Bibi). To repeat, we know of this reading only indirectly, but it is an early one (to wit, Geonic) of great significance.

   In sum, based on a survey of all witnesses to the Babylonian Talmud, we can aver that the corpus of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic texts attested to three instances of [phrase omitted] nawla.

   A fourth attestation occurs in Tractate Sofrim 11:3, as transmitted in Bodleian MS Oppenheim 726 (= Neubauer, no. 370.12), fol. 211v. (20) Note that the framework and indeed the entire tractate are in Hebrew, but in this particular passage the conversation is couched in Aramaic. Moreover, although the context of Tractate Sofrim is situated in the Land of Israel (as opposed to Babylonia), (21) in this passage, the episode is set specifically in the synagogue of the Babylonians (either in Sepphoris or Tiberias, the two great rabbinic centers in the Galilee), (22) where, one may assume, the dialect of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic could be heard. (23)

   [phrase omitted] (24). [phrase omitted] R. Yose would command Rav 'Ulla, the ?azzan (overseer) of the synagogue of the Babylonians: When there is one Torah, let it [phrase omitted] be behind the parokhet (curtain). And when there are two, you should carry one and bring one. (25) Here the form appears as [phrase omitted], but there can be no doubt that the same morpheme is intended. Once again, our form serves as an epicene pronoun, in this case with a feminine antecedent, the word [phrase omitted] 'Torah', with reference to a single Torah scroll. (26)

   Apparently unaware of the form [phrase omitted], most manuscripts of Tractate Sofrim read [phrase omitted] (vel sim.) (21) "let him roll it behind the parokhet." This reading presumably arose due to the obvious connection between rolling and a Torah scroll--though one may wonder how such action could be accomplished behind the parokhet. (28) Regardless, the rule of lectio difficilior provides some primacy to the reading [phrase omitted] in Bodleian MS Oppenheim 726. (29)

   The context of the four passages cited here--three from the Babylonian Talmud proper and one from Tractate Sofrim (one of the so-called "minor tractates" thereto)--allows us to reach the true understanding of the form, as intimated by Kwasman already. The form /[phrase omitted] /[phrase omitted] is an epicene 3rd person pronoun, (30) serving as the equivalent to Hebrew [phrase omitted], English 'he, she, it', German 'er, sie, es', etc. (31)

   But what is the source of the form [phrase omitted] Are we able to establish an etymology? Especially in light of the comment in the Steinsaltz Edition highlighted above: "and its etymological derivation is obscure."

   The two great lexicographers of rabbinic literature in the nineteenth century, Jacob Lewy and Alexander Kohut, each proposed an etymology for [phrase omitted] nawla, though to my mind neither is convincing. First, Jacob Lewy, in his monumental Neuhebräisches und Chaldäisches Wörterbuch über die Talmudim und Midraschim, interpreted the word as a common noun meaning 'Freigebige, Wohlwollende, Edle', with a nod to Arabic nal, a far reach in my estimation. Though he also presented the view expressed above, with reference to Rashi and the earlier Geonic literature, using the German glosses 'jene, jener'. (32)

   Alexander Kohut, in his comprehensive (Arukh ha-Shalem (Aruch Completum), proffered the Hebrew glosses [phrase omitted] ,[phrase omitted], along with the German glosses 'er, sie; der, die andere'. (33) Toward the end of the entry, Kohut turned his attention to the source of this word, with reference to two Iranian languages, "Afghani" [phrase omitted] and "Zend language" [phrase omitted]; by the former, presumably he meant Pashto, (34) and by the latter, presumably he intended Avestan. (35) Kohut's proposed etyma include Pashto nor 'other, another', (36) and Avestan nara 'man', natri 'woman', (37) to which he added the following information: nal [phrase omitted] nar [phrase omitted] --with reference to Ossetian. (38) While one respects Kohut's effort to seek a suitable etymology for [phrase omitted] nawla, especially from Iranian, in particular Avestan (as was his wont throughout the dictionary), (39) the proposal fails on several accounts. One does not feel the need to counter the proposal here in any detail, except to note: a) the Pashto word for 'other' takes one too far afield within the Iranian family; b) the Avestan words for 'man' and 'woman' display gender distinction, whereas [phrase omitted] is epicene, as demonstrated above; (40) c) in general, Avestan and Old Persian display gender distinction in the personal...