You all may note that I have officially given up on these discussion for the time being. It was not for the lack of a better argument but rather the incapability of some to listen and formulate arguments that show an understanding of Aramaic and its peculiar rules of Grammar that are not shared with Hebrew. Many can consider this discussion, in Email, my official response to the claim by Uri Yosef and others that there is no Aramaic in the book of Psalms. I am posting these emails unedited with every error and lie in tact. the only thing I will be doing is removing email addresses for the privacy of those involved. These reflect more recent discussion that I took a head on approach toward after baiting them into this discussion.
This is the discussion as it starts when I responded to an error.. Originally Uri's response did not include a comment about the Beyor HaMilot which you will see makes a revealing statement below. But first, the preliminary claims:
My Claim: I am claiming that there is Aramaic in the Psalms and that in Psalm 139:8 the word אסק is in fact an Aramaic word attested only once in the Hebrew portion of the Bible in Psalm 139:8 but is otherwise attested in the Aramaic portions of the Bible in it various grammatical forms.
Oct 19 (12 days ago)
 | | |||
| ||||
URI YOSEF RESONDS:
Wrong again!
All Ibn-Ezra says is כמו תרגום (like Targum), i.e., "it has the same meaning as the word in the Targum", not "this is an Aramaic word like the Targum has", because the Hebrew word in Psalms 139:8 is אֶסַּק (note the daGESH [accentuation mark] in the letter ס], transliterated as "eSSAQ"), whereas the Aramaic word in the Targum is אֶסַק (note the absence of the daGESH in the letter ס], transliterated as eSAQ).
Moreover, on p. 765, the Even-Shoshan Hebrew concordance lists אֶסַּק under the Hebrew root verb נסק, not under the Aramaic same root verb! In other words, both Hebrew and Aramaic share this verb. If he wants more proof, then tell him to look it up in the Reuben Alcalay Complete Hebrew-English dictionary, where various forms of the Hebrew root verb נסק are listed under the root verb in various forms, in different stems.
In a message dated 10/18/2012 11:34:55 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, .com writes:
(11:33 PM) Yosef Menachem2: So Stan was Ibn Ezra Wrong on PSalm 139:8?
(11:34 PM) Yosef Menachem2: calling אסק an aramaic word
NEVERAGAIN1: what did ibn ezra say about psalm 139:8?? please type it
My response was to this particular claim specifically. I had others but this is the one I wanted them to bite on because the case was much stronger here. here was my reponse:
|
Oct 21 (10 days ago)
| | ||
| ||||
Seriously Uri? This has to be the most dishonest, Pilpul, arguments I have ever seen. You are 100% wrong on all accounts and here is why.
You reference the Even Shoshan but fail to follow it even further. The root of this verb is not נסק it is actually סלק and this verb is used only once in the Hebrew portion of the Bible. In Psalm 139:8. This verb is very well attested in Aramaic, including the Targumim, and its even in the Bible as you will see below. This is where your amateur rating is strongest because you don't even realize that this verb לנסוק doesn't appear as a true Hebrew word till Mishnaic times, in Mishnaic Hebrew, after Aramaic has already had its affect on the language.
Now, You conveniently leave out what the Ibn Ezra says by only quoting him partially. Here is what he really says:
ומלת אסק – כמו תרגוםו כמוהו: אש נשקה ביעקב, כמו עלתה אע"פ שהוא כתוב בשי"ן
And the word :אסק [Just] like the [Aramaic] Targum. It is like this "A fire burst out against Jacob" "just like it (fire) rose up although it is written with a Shin ש
So to tell me that he does not say that it refers to the Aramaic while quoting a Hebrew equivalent is flat out wrong. In fact, the Ibn Ezra describes how it raises and tries to relate it to two words נשק and its translation as the verb לעלות.
Now, you have more to contend with than you think. The Metzudat Tzion and Beiyor HaMilot both refer to this and link it to Aramaic. the Beiyor HaMilot is a bit more specific but here is the Metzudat Tzion.
Metzudat Tzion:
מצודת ציון
"אסק" - אעלה כמו והוסק דנייאל מן גובא (דנייאלו)
Here Metzudat Tzion refers you tothe Aramaic of Daniel 6:24 where the verb is used. First he translates this verb into Hebrew אעלה then he refers you to its biblical use. THANK YOU METZUDAT TZION!
Next we have the Beiyor HaMilot:
ביאור המילות
"אסק". אעלה ובארמית והוסק דניאל מן גובא:
This is amusing by now. Here we see a direct translation into Hebrew אעלהand then saying ובארמית "And [its] in Aramaic!"referring you to the same Daniel 6:24.
Your reference to the dagesh is the biggest pilpul argument of everything in your comments. This word is well attested as being both with a Dagesh and without. We can find it without in Targum Yontan to 2 Samuel 6:2 לְאַסָקָא and with a Dagesh in Targum Onkelos Leviticus 11:3 מַסְּקָא. So your PIlpul argument of "since the word in the Targum doesnt have a Dagesh" is moot, amateurish and tries to split the proverbial hair.
Hebrew and Aramaic do not share this root until much later since סלק is a loan word from Aramaic that produces theverb נסק. Of course Reuven Alcalay's dictionary would record it. It's a MODERN Hebrew dictionary with all sorts of Loan words from Aramaic, Arabic, English, Greek, Latin, and so on. This loan word is used as a True Hebrew word in the Mishnah and subsequently in Modern Hebrew. So i'm not surprised at all that later Hebrew adopted this word. However, this does not negate my point. Theword אסק in Hebrew bible is 100% Aramaic and the Commentators above knew it and referred to it.
Shalom,
The Debate doesn't stop there It continues with Uri making a response to something I challenged him on. The lack of a Response for the Beyor HaMilot among others. His response was primarily a repeat of everything he previously said with a non answer to the Beyor HaMilot:
Yosef, is this the missing response? When you send mail you have to include all our addresses including Uri Yosef's. When he responds he will forward it to those names appearing... I did send this to you...if we are missing something let me know..Trust me Yosef, it is not us who are delaying anything its you. Like I said to you in PM, it has been about 6 months now and you still have not given your formal response on your blog and in email refuting Uri Yosef's teaching on Psalms 2:12..WE ALL KNOW THIS.
From Uri Yosef:
In the first place, the root verb for אֶסַּק is נסק not סלק as he claims. He should check out Jastrow's Aramaic/English dictionary. Jastrow has two listings for נסק only as "to go upward, ascend", with many examples of conjugations in which the letter נ is missing (p. 918), and two relevant listings for סלק "to go up, go away, pile up", with many examples of conjugations, none of which have the letter ל missing. Additionally, YM should check נסק in Mattityahu Clark's Etymological Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew (p. 158) - no reference to Aramaic there whatsoever.
Both in Hebrew and Aramaic grammar there are root verbs that start with the letter נ, which "disappears" under various conjugations of the verb - these verbs belong to the category (גִּזְרָה) of defective verbs called פ״נ. If what YM is claiming were true, the root verb סלק would belong the a defective verb category called ע״ל, i.e., that the middle letter ל of the root verb disappears under various conjugations of the verb, but such a category exists neither in Hebrew nor in Aramaic grammar!
Secondly, his translations of the Hebrew commentaries are stretched to suit his claims, not only with the inserted parenthetical comments, but also in terms of their actual translation. None of these commentaries say explicitly something like "אֶסַּק is an Aramaic word". YM's reference to
Next we have the Beiyor HaMilot:
ביאור המילות
"אסק". אעלה ובארמית והוסק דניאל מן גובא:
This is amusing by now. Here we see a direct translation into Hebrew אעלה and then saying ובארמית "And [its] in Aramaic!" referring you to the same Daniel 6:24.
is also misleading. The Aramaic word that appears in Daniel 6:24 is וְהֻסַּק, spelled in the commentary as והוסק, which isn't the problem. The problem here is with YM's translation of the Hebrew. Specifically, he adds context to his translation of the Hebrew that favors his claim. The proper translation of the Hebrew is:
"אעלה". "אסק - I shall rise", and in Aramaic "והוסק דניאל מן גובא - and Daniel was lifted [up] from the pit".
In other words, the commentator points out that the verb "אסק" means "אעלה", in the same sense as the Aramaic verb "הוסק" means at Daniel 6:24. It is a stretch to say that the commentator means to say that "אסק" is an Aramaic word. The same applies to YM's loose translations of Metzudat Zion and Ibn Ezra.
Honestly Don and all, I'm getting a bit tired of dealing with YM and the others who know just enough to think they know it all.
Uri
Here is the final part and my response to Uri's above response. My comments are in red and this is the final email on the matter.
| Oct 28 (3 days ago) | | ||
| ||||
Thank you for giving this to me Stan. This will just go to show how Uri likes to treat Aramaic in any time period as if it were modern Hebrew. He is correct on one note that Jastrow's dictionary does not connect the two סלק and נסק but this will soon be taken care of. I am glad he did take the bait on this so let me first be the one to congratulate you Uri on this amateur mistake. Mazal Tov! I will respond to you in Red below so that you can see why I say that you are wrong.
.
From Uri Yosef:In the first place,the root verb for אֶסַּק is נסק not סלק as he claims. He should check out Jastrow's Aramaic/Englishdictionary. Jastrow has two listings for נסק only as "to goupward, ascend", with many examples of conjugations in which the letter נ is missing (p. 918), and two relevant listingsfor סלק "to go up, go away,pile up", with many examples of conjugations, none of which have theletter ל missing. Additionally, YM should check נסק in Mattityahu Clark's Etymological Dictionaryof Biblical Hebrew (p. 158) - no reference to Aramaic there whatsoever.Both in Hebrew andAramaic grammar there are root verbs that start with the letter נ, which"disappears" under various conjugations of the verb - these verbsbelong to the category (גִּזְרָה) of defective verbs called פ״נ.If what YM is claiming were true, the root verb סלק would belong the a defective verb category called ע״ל,i.e., that the middle letter ל of the root verbdisappears under various conjugations of the verb, but such a category exists neitherin Hebrew nor in Aramaic grammar!Secondly, histranslations of the Hebrew commentaries are stretched to suit his claims, notonly with the inserted parenthetical comments, but also in terms of theiractual translation. None of these commentaries say explicitly something like"אֶסַּק is an Aramaic word".Actually it is the root word. You are posing your modern Hebrew learning on an Aramaic word without even coming close to understanding Aramaic Grammar.
This in Aramaic is what we call a "Pseudo Geminate." It is one of the few verbs that are designated as a "weak Lamed" verbs in Aramaic. Keep in mind that Aramaic and Hebrew are closely related languages but they are not the same. There are three main verbs that fit this category they are ,הלךְ ,סלק andסבל . Each of these words exhibits a Lamed as the second or third consonant in which the Lamed either disappears or is assimilated in the previous consonant. We are going to focus strictly on סלק.The Verb סלק exhibits forms that are analogous to the geminate class in its derived conjugations but not in the Pe'al Stem. It has perfectly normal attestationsPerfect: (Sing.) סלקת;(Plural) סלקוHowever, in the derived conjugations of the verb סלק it does have performatives, but these are analogous to the geminate class. The ל is completely elided and in compensation the initial consonant is doubled סּ,or this doubling is resolved by a נ. To put this another way, the ל is assimilated to the previous consonant. the attested forms in the Tanakh are as follows:Haf'el perfect: הֵסִּקוּHaf'el infinitive: הֵנְסָקָהHof'al perfect: הֻסּקBreaking it down toyou Uri: You know a lot about Modern Hebrew grammar, but as far as conjugating an Aramaic verb and understanding that some rules in Aramaic are not in Hebrew Grammar shows how much you are missing. If you want to know where this message is brought to you from you can find this in the first grammar book I used in my first class in Aramaic, specifically for Biblical Aramaic. It is called "A Short Grammar of Biblical Aramaic" by Alger F. Johns. On Pg. 71 and 72.I have also attached for your viewing pleasure, a scan of Rabbi Ezra Zion Melamed's dictionary inwhich he concurs that this word is in fact from the root סלק. The funny thingis when he translates it into Hebrew he translates it as the verb עלה. Which is why below I am going to call you out on your misrepresentation of Beyor HaMilot and your, lack of, representation of Ibn Ezra.YM's reference toNext we have the BeiyorHaMilot:ביאור המילות"אסק".אעלה ובארמית והוסק דניאל מן גובא:This is amusing by now.Here we see a direct translation into Hebrew אעלה andthen saying ובארמית "And [its] in Aramaic!" referring you to the sameDaniel 6:24.is also misleading.Umm.....No its not! The only reason you are trying to say it is misleading is because it is inconvenient and it shows you are ignoring the rules governing Rabbinic Hermeneutics and the interpretation of the Tanakh. The other problem, Uri, is that you have no other attestations of אסק or נסק in the Hebrew portions of the Tanakh. It appears only in the Aramaic portions as described above and below. So you are not telling the whole truth on this one Uri.The Aramaic word that appears in Daniel 6:24is וְהֻסַּק,spelled in the commentary as והוסק, which isn't the problem. The problem hereis with YM's translation of the Hebrew. Specifically, he adds context to histranslation of the Hebrew that favors his claim. The proper translation of theHebrew is:"אעלה"."אסק - I shall rise", andin Aramaic "והוסק דניאל מן גובא - and Daniel was lifted [up] from thepit".In other words, thecommentator points out that the verb "אסק" means "אעלה",in the same sense as the Aramaic verb "הוסק" means at Daniel6:24. It is a stretch to say that the commentator means to say that "אסק"is an Aramaic word.Ok, either you don't understand fully Rabbinic Hermeneutics or you completely missed the point that Beyor Hamilot was getting at. When the Beyor HaMilot says אסק: אעלה he is doing the exact same thing as Rabbi Ezra Zion Melamed did in his dictionary. He is translating the word from what it is in the Text to what its Hebrew counterpart is. By translating this word he is also interpreting its meaning. Then when he says ובארמית והוסק דניאל מן גובא we know that he is indicating a proof that this definition of אעלה is true and accurate by association. If you notice that this occurance is one of the instances in the Grammar book I cited as being from the Root סלק with an assimilated ל . You are trying to take away from the Beyor HaMilot, Metzudat Zion, and the Ibn Ezra what you cannot and should not take away.The same applies toYM's loose translations of Metzudat Zion and Ibn Ezra.I guess if you can't beat them you have to demonize them somewhere. Please due tell me where I am wrong on both of them.Honestly Don and all,I'm getting a bit tired of dealing with YM and the others who know just enoughto think they know it all.UriUri, I'm just getting started!
The above is only edited to remove email addresses, names, and redundancies. this is exactly what I wanted to debate Uri Yosef on and I got my wish.I made other claims in order to bait the argument onto my playing field where I can control the flow. Look at the arguments and judge for yourselves on who had the best content, argument, evidence, and coherency. You the audience can decide!
Shalom,
Yosef Menachem
