Cambridge Semitic Languages and Cultures

The Tiberian Pronunciation

Tradition of Biblical Hebrew
Volume I

GEOFFREY KHAN
 THE TIBERIAN
PRONUNCIATION TRADITION
OF BIBLICAL HEBREW

VOLUME I
The Tiberian Pronunciation
Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Including a Critical Edition and English Translation of the Sections on

Consonants and Vowels in the Masoretic Treatise

Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ ‘Guide for the Reader’

Volume I

Geoffrey Khan
 https://www.openbookpublishers.com

© 2020 Geoffrey Khan. Recorded material © 2020 Alex Foreman, CC BY.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license
(CC BY 4.0). This license allows you to share, copy, distribute and transmit the text; to
adapt the text and to make commercial use of the text providing attribution is made to the
authors (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
Attribution should include the following information:

Geoffrey Khan, The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew, Volume I. Cambridge,
UK: Open Book Publishers, 2020, https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0163

In order to access detailed and updated information on the license, please visit, https://
doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0163#copyright

Further details about CC BY licenses are available at, https://creativecommons.org/

licenses/by/4.0/

All external links were active at the time of publication unless otherwise stated and have
been archived via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine at https://archive.org/web
Updated digital material and resources associated with this volume are available
at https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0163#resources

Every effort has been made to identify and contact copyright holders and any omission or
error will be corrected if notification is made to the publisher.

Semitic Languages and Cultures 1, volume 1.

ISSN (print): 2632-6906
ISSN (digital): 2632-6914

ISBN Paperback: 978-1-78374-675-0

ISBN Hardback: 978-1-78374-676-7
ISBN Digital (PDF): 978-1-78374-677-4
DOI: 10.11647/OBP.0163

Cover image: The Aleppo Codex, Courtesy of the Ben-Zvi Institute, Jerusalem.
Photographer: Ardon Bar Hama
Cover design: Luca Baffa.
 Volume I

Description of the Tiberian Pronunciation

Tradition
 CONTENTS

PREFACE ............................................................................... xiii

I.0. INTRODUCTION ................................................................ 1
I.0.1. Pronunciation Traditions of Biblical Hebrew.......... 1
I.0.2. The Bible in the Second Temple Period .................. 6
I.0.3. The Bible in the Middle Ages ................................. 9
I.0.4. The Tiberian Masoretic Tradition ......................... 14
I.0.5. Qere and Ketiv ...................................................... 33
I.0.6. The Accents .......................................................... 49
I.0.7. The Representation of the Qere in Written Form .. 55
I.0.8. The Historical Depth of the Tiberian Reading
Tradition .............................................................. 56
I.0.9. The Prestige of the Tiberian Tradition.................. 85
I.0.10. The Internal Diversity of the Tiberian Tradition... 92
I.0.11. Orthoepy .............................................................. 99
I.0.12. The Close of the Tiberian Masoretic Period ........ 105
I.0.13. Sources for the Tiberian Pronunciation
Tradition ............................................................ 115
I.0.13.1. Masoretic Treatises ................................... 115
I.0.13.2. Masoretic Notes ........................................ 121
I.0.13.3. Karaite Transcriptions of the Hebrew Bible
into Arabic Script ...................................... 122
I.0.13.4. Grammatical and Lexicographical Texts .... 124
I.0.13.5. Commentaries on Sefer Yeṣira.................... 127
I.0.13.6. Non-Standard Tiberian Systems of
Vocalization .............................................. 129
viii The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

I.0.13.7. The Tiberian Reading Tradition in

Babylonian Vocalization ............................ 133
I.0.13.8. Tiberian Signs Used to Represent Other
Languages .................................................. 134
I.1. CONSONANTS ................................................................ 135
I.1.1. ʾAlef )‫ ָא ֶלף (א‬........................................................ 135
I.1.2. Bet (‫ ֵּבית )ב‬........................................................... 150
I.1.3. Gimel )‫ימל (ג‬
ֶ ִּ‫ ג‬....................................................... 154
I.1.4. Dalet )‫ ָד ֶלת (ד‬........................................................ 156
I.1.5. He )‫ ֵּהא (ה‬............................................................. 161
I.1.6. Vav )‫ וָ ו (ו‬.............................................................. 171
I.1.7. Zayin )‫זַ יִּ ן (ז‬........................................................... 190
I.1.8. Ḥet )‫ ֵּחית (ח‬........................................................... 193
I.1.9. Ṭet )‫ ֵּטית (ט‬........................................................... 199
I.1.10. Yod )‫ יֹוד (י‬............................................................ 201
I.1.11. Kaf )‫ ך‬,‫ ַכף (כ‬......................................................... 204
I.1.12. Lamed )‫ ָל ֶמד (ל‬...................................................... 207
I.1.13. Mem )‫ ם‬,‫ ֵּמם (מ‬...................................................... 207
I.1.14. Nun )‫ ן‬,‫נּון (נ‬.......................................................... 208
I.1.15. Samekh )‫ ָס ֶמְך (ס‬................................................... 208
I.1.16. ʿAyin )‫עיִּ ן (ע‬..........................................................
ַ 209
I.1.17. Pe )‫ ף‬,‫ ֵּפה (פ‬.......................................................... 213
I.1.18. Ṣade )‫ ץ‬,‫ ָצ ֵּדי (צ‬...................................................... 220
I.1.19. Qof )‫ קֹוף (ק‬........................................................... 221
I.1.20. Resh )‫ ֵּריׁש (ר‬......................................................... 223
I.1.21. Sin )‫ ִּשין (ש‬............................................................ 234
I.1.22. Shin )‫ ִּׁשין (ׁש‬.......................................................... 237
I.1.23. Tav )‫ ָתו (ת‬............................................................ 237
 Contents ix

I.1.24. Consonant Phonemes ......................................... 240

I.1.25. Distribution of the Variants of ‫ בגדכפת‬................ 242
I.2. VOWELS AND SYLLABLE STRUCTURE .......................... 244
I.2.1. Basic Vowel Signs............................................... 244
I.2.1.1. The Qualities of the Vowels ...................... 244
I.2.1.2. The Terms Pataḥ and Qameṣ ...................... 245
I.2.1.3. More on the Quality of Pataḥ and Qameṣ .. 246
I.2.1.4. The Quality of Qameṣ in Other Traditions . 251
I.2.1.5. Segol and Ṣere ............................................ 256
I.2.1.6. Ḥireq ......................................................... 261
I.2.1.7. Ḥolem, Shureq and Qibbuṣ .......................... 262
I.2.1.8. Medieval Classifications of Vowels ............ 265
I.2.2. Vowel Length ..................................................... 268
I.2.2.1. General Principles ..................................... 268
I.2.2.2. Stressed Syllables ...................................... 269
I.2.2.3. Open Unstressed Syllables ......................... 273
I.2.2.4. Closed Unstressed Syllables ....................... 275
I.2.3. Vowel Phonemes ................................................ 277
I.2.3.1. Vowel Phonemes with a Specified Length
Feature ...................................................... 278
I.2.3.2. Vowel Phonemes without a Specified Length
Feature ...................................................... 279
I.2.4. Long Vowels in Closed Syllables......................... 288
I.2.5. Shewa and Ḥaṭef Vowels ..................................... 305
I.2.5.1. Principles of Phonetic Realization and
Graphical Marking .................................... 305
I.2.5.2. Syllabification and Metrical Structure ....... 320
I.2.5.3. Phonological Principles ............................. 325
x The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

I.2.5.4. Ḥaṭef Signs on Guttural Consonants ........... 330

I.2.5.5. Ḥaṭef Signs on Non-Guttural Consonants ... 343
I.2.5.6. Silent Shewa after a Long Vowel ................ 347
I.2.5.7. Vocalic Shewa after a Long Vowel ............. 350
I.2.5.8. Vocalic Shewa after Short Vowel
Phonemes .................................................. 370
I.2.5.9. Marking of Shewa at the End of a Word ..... 406
I.2.6. Syllabification and Metrical Structure of Word-final
Syllables ............................................................. 422
I.2.7. Lexical Ḥaṭef Vowels ........................................... 429
I.2.8. Variation in the Duration of Long Vowels ........... 438
I.2.8.1. Syllables with the Main Stress and Unstressed
Syllables .................................................... 438
I.2.8.2. Syllables with the Secondary Stress ........... 458
I.2.9. Shewa Gaʿya ........................................................ 486
I.2.10. Metrical Epenthesis ............................................. 496
I.2.11. Maqqef ................................................................ 509
I.2.12. Further Cases of Second Accents in a Word on
Closed Syllables with Short Vowels .................... 517
I.3. DAGESH AND RAFE ........................................................ 520
I.3.1. Dagesh ................................................................. 520
I.3.1.1. Preliminary Remarks ................................. 520
I.3.1.2. Morphological Gemination ........................ 523
I.3.1.3. Dagesh to Distinguish Meaning .................. 524
I.3.1.4. Gemination Resulting from Assimilation ... 530
I.3.1.5. Gemination to Preserve High Lexical
Vowels ...................................................... 531
 Contents xi

I.3.1.6. Gemination of a Consonant in Place of Vowel

Lengthening .............................................. 531
I.3.1.7. Gemination Associated with Stress ............ 533
I.3.1.8. Gemination after a Prefix .......................... 533
I.3.1.9. Gemination at Word Boundaries (Deḥiq) ... 535
I.3.1.10. The Distribution of the Fricative and Stop
Variants of the Letters ‫ בגדכפת‬................... 536
I.3.1.11. Orthoepic Uses of Dagesh .......................... 542
I.3.1.12. Dagesh in the Word ‫ ָב ִּתים‬........................... 563
I.3.1.13. Loss of Gemination.................................... 567
I.3.1.14. Erroneous Printing of Dagesh in BHS ......... 570
I.3.2. Rafe .................................................................... 571
I.3.3. Dagesh and Rafe in Manuscripts with Non-Standard
Tiberian Vocalization ......................................... 575
I.4. REFLECTIONS OF THE IMPERFECT LEARNING OF THE
TIBERIAN PRONUNCIATION IN THE MIDDLE AGES .... 586
I.4.1. Preliminary Remarks .......................................... 586
I.4.2. Consonants ......................................................... 588
I.4.3. Vowels ............................................................... 596
I.4.3.1. Interchanges of Signs Reflecting a Substrate of
Palestinian Pronunciation ......................... 596
I.4.3.2. Evidence for the Phonetic Realization of
Interchanged Signs .................................... 598
I.4.3.3. Interchanges of Signs Reflecting a Substrate of
Arabic Vernacular ..................................... 600
I.4.3.4. Hypercorrect Lengthening of Vowels ........ 606
I.4.4. The Reading of the Tiberian Vocalization in the
Later Middle Ages .............................................. 607
xii The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

I.5. SUMMARY OF THE TIBERIAN PRONUNCIATION AND

SAMPLE TRANSCRIPTIONS OF BIBLICAL PASSAGES .... 608
I.5.1. Summary of the Phonetics and Phonology of the
Consonants ......................................................... 608
I.5.2. Summary of the Phonetics and Phonology of the Full
Vowel Signs ........................................................ 611
I.5.3. Summary of the Phonetics and Phonology of Shewa
and the Ḥaṭef Signs ............................................. 612
I.5.4. Sample Transcriptions of Biblical Passages ......... 614
I.5.4.1. Genesis 1.1-13 ........................................... 614
I.5.4.2. Psalm 1 ...................................................... 620
REFERENCES AND ABBREVIATIONS.................................... 624
Abbreviations ................................................................... 624
References ........................................................................ 625
INDEXES ............................................................................... 683
 PREFACE

The term ‘Biblical Hebrew’ is generally used to refer to the form

of the language that appears in the printed editions of the Hebrew
Bible and it is this form that it is presented to students in
grammatical textbooks and reference grammars. The form of Bib-
lical Hebrew that is presented in printed editions, with vocaliza-
tion and accent signs, has its origin in medieval manuscripts of
the Bible. The vocalization and accent signs are notation systems
that were created in Tiberias in the early Islamic period by schol-
ars known as the Tiberian Masoretes. The text of the Bible that
appears in the medieval Tiberian manuscripts and has been re-
produced in modern printed editions is known as the Tiberian
Masoretic Text or simply the Masoretic Text.
The opening sections of modern textbooks and grammars
describe the pronunciation of the consonants and the vocal-
ization signs in a matter-of-fact way. The grammatical textbooks
and reference grammars in use today are heirs to centuries of
tradition of grammatical works on Biblical Hebrew in Europe,
which can be traced back to the Middle Ages. The paradox is that
this European tradition of Biblical Hebrew grammar, even in its
earliest stages in eleventh-century Spain, did not have direct
access to the way the Tiberian Masoretes were pronouncing
Biblical Hebrew. The descriptions of the pronunciation that we
find in textbooks and grammars, therefore, do not correspond to
the pronunciation of the Tiberian Masoretes, neither their
pronunciation of the consonants nor their pronunciation of the
xiv The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

vowels, which the vocalization sign system originally

represented. Rather, they are descriptions of other traditions of
pronouncing Hebrew, which originate in traditions existing in
Jewish communities, academic traditions of Christian Hebraists,
or a combination of the two.
In the last few decades, research of a variety of manuscript
sources from the medieval Middle East, some of them only re-
cently discovered, has made it possible to reconstruct with con-
siderable accuracy the pronunciation of the Tiberian Masoretes,
which has come to be known as the ‘Tiberian pronunciation tra-
dition’ or the ‘Tiberian reading tradition’. It has emerged from
this research that the pronunciation of the Tiberian Masoretes
differed in numerous ways from the pronunciation of Biblical He-
brew that is described in modern textbooks and reference gram-
mars.
In this book, my intention is to present the current state of
knowledge of the Tiberian pronunciation tradition of Biblical He-
brew based on the extant medieval sources. It is hoped that this
will help to break the mould of current grammatical descriptions
of Biblical Hebrew and form a bridge between modern traditions
of grammar and the school of the Masoretes of Tiberias. The main
focus of the book is on the synchronic state of the Tiberian pro-
nunciation when it was a living tradition in the early Islamic pe-
riod. Some comparisons with other traditions of Hebrew from
different periods are, nevertheless, made where this is thought to
be appropriate.
The book is divided into two volumes. The introductory
section of the first volume discusses the background of the
Tiberian pronunciation tradition, with particular attention to its
 Preface xv

historical depth, its prestigious status and its relationship with

other medieval reading traditions. It also describes the various
extant medieval sources that are used in the book to reconstruct
the pronunciation. Chapter 1 describes the pronunciation of the
consonants. Chapter 2 presents a description of the pronunciation
of the vowels and shewa, as well as an analysis of the syllabifica-
tion and metrical structure of words. Chapter 3 describes the
function of the diacritical signs known as dagesh and rafe. Chapter
4 examines various hybrid types of pronunciation, which arose
due to imperfect learning of the Tiberian pronunciation tradition
in the Middle Ages. Chapter 5 presents a summary of the recon-
structed pronunciation and sample transcriptions of some Bibli-
cal passages. It is recommended that readers who would like a
quick overview of the Tiberian pronunciation should look at
chapter 5 first. It contains links to oral performances of the sam-
ple transcriptions by Alex Foreman.
The second volume presents a critical edition and English
translation of the sections on consonants and vowels in the Ju-
daeo-Arabic Masoretic treatise Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ (‘Guide for the
Reader’) by the Karaite grammarian ʾAbū al-Faraj Hārūn (elev-
enth century C.E.). Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ is one of the key medieval
sources for our knowledge of the Tiberian pronunciation tradi-
tion and constant reference is made to it in the various chapters
of this book. Since no complete edition and English translation of
the sections on the consonants and vowels so far exists, it was
decided to prepare such an edition and translation as a comple-
ment to the descriptive and analytical chapters of volume one.
This book is a spinoff from a larger project on Biblical He-
brew to revise Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. I am working on this
project in collaboration with various other scholars, including
xvi The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Aaron Hornkohl, Shai Heijmans and Ben Kantor, who are co-au-
thors. I cite some of their contributions to the Gesenius grammar
project in this book with due acknowledgement. I am grateful to
Aaron, Shai and Ben for their help with the preparation of the
book in various ways. Shai created the attractive Arabic font with
Hebrew vowels and accents, which I use for the Karaite transcrip-
tions of Hebrew. Ben skilfully laid out my edition of Hidāyat al-
Qāriʾ in the Classical Text Editor programme, which aligned text
and translation, and carefully proofread the text and translation.
Many thanks also to my graduate student Estara Arrant, who
drew my attention to a variety of examples of Non-Standard Ti-
berian vocalization in Genizah manuscripts from the database
she has created for her Ph.D. research project. I am very grateful
to my graduate student Joseph Habib for his help with the proof-
reading of the book. I also greatly appreciate the comments and
corrections sent to me by Aaron Rubin and Ben Outhwaite, who
read an earlier version of the book. Finally, I am very grateful to
Alex Foreman, who made an impressive oral performance of the
sample transcriptions.
Some aspects of the work that forms the basis of this book
were funded by research grants. A British Academy small re-
search grant supported my investigation of manuscripts of
Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ. A grant from the Leverhulme Trust (2013–2016)
supported the posts of Aaron Hornkohl and Shai Heijmans when
they were gathering material for the revision of Gesenius’ Hebrew
Grammar. I acknowledge here with gratitude the support of these
institutions.
 I.0. INTRODUCTION

I.0.1. PRONUNCIATION TRADITIONS OF BIBLICAL

HEBREW
Hebrew is generally thought to have ceased to be a spoken ver-
nacular around the beginning of the third century C.E., after the
destruction of the final remaining Hebrew-speaking settlements
in Judaea by the Romans following the Bar-Kochba revolt. This
coincides with the end of the Tannaitic period in Rabbinic tradi-
tion.1 The surviving Hebrew texts that are datable to before this
date would, therefore, have been written when Hebrew was still
spoken. This includes the books of the Hebrew Bible, Qumran
literature, Tannaitic Rabbinic literature, documents and epigra-
phy. There are references to the use of Hebrew as a vernacular in
the second century C.E., for example the anecdote of the maid-
servant of Rabbi Yehudah ha-Nasi, who is said to have known the
meanings of some Hebrew words with which the scholars of the
time were not familiar (Babylonian Talmud, Megilla 18a, Pales-
tinian Talmud, Megilla 2.2, 73a). The Bar Kochba documents in
the first half of the second century C.E. contain a number of fea-
tures that appear to reflect the spoken language (Mor 2013a;
2015).
Although Hebrew is thought to have ceased to be a vernac-
ular language by the third century C.E., it remained alive in later

1
Kutscher (1982, 115–16), Saenz-Badillos (1996, 171–72), Schnie-
dewind (2013, 191), Y. Breuer (2013).

© Geoffrey Khan, CC BY 4.0 https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0163.14

2 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

periods in oral as well as written form. The oral recitation of the

Hebrew Bible continued in a variety of traditions down to mod-
ern times. The Hebrew Rabbinic material of not only the Tanna-
itic period but also of the Amoraic period (220-500 C.E.) was
composed orally. Furthermore, after Rabbinic literature was
committed to writing, the oral dimension continued in reading
traditions that have survived down to the present. There is a
reference also to the use of Hebrew for ‘spoken discourse’ (‫)לדיבור‬
in a saying attributed to Rabbi Yonatan of Bet-Guvrin (Palestine,
third century C.E.):
Rabbi Yonatan from Bet-Guvrin said there are four
languages that are pleasant for use: Greek for singing, Latin
for combat, Syriac for lamentation, and Hebrew for spoken
discourse.2

Even as late as the tenth century one finds in a Masoretic

treatise attributed to ʿEli ben Yehudah ha-Nazir (ed. Allony 1973)
a description of how the author undertook fieldwork in the
streets of Tiberias to verify his analysis of the resh in the Tiberian
biblical reading, on the grounds that the Hebrew resh could still
be heard in the local speech of the (Jewish) inhabitants of
Tiberias. These references are unlikely to refer to vernacular
speech. Hebrew continued to be used as a form of learned
discourse among scholars in the Rabbinic period after it had
ceased to be a vernacular (Smelik 2013, 109–16). It was,
moreover, promoted as a language of everyday speech by the

2
Palestinian Talmud, Megilla 1.11(8), 71b: ‫גוברין ארבעה‬-‫אמ' ר' יונתן דבית‬
‫לשונות נאים שישתמש בהן העולם ואילו הן לעז לזמר רומי לקרב סורסי לאילייא עברי‬
‫לדיבור‬.
 Introduction 3

Karaite scholar Benjamin al-Nahāwendī (mid-ninth century C.E.)

on ideological grounds (al-Qirqisānī 1939, VI 25.3; Khan 1992b,
157). Hebrew words and phrases, as well as Biblical Hebrew
quotations, continued in the so-called ‘Hebrew component’ of the
vernacular languages spoken by the Jews down to modern times,
which, it seems, is what ʿEli ben Yehudah ha-Nazir was listening
to on the streets of medieval Tiberias. A particularly large
Hebrew component existed in Jewish secret languages, used
mainly by merchants.3
When Hebrew was a spoken vernacular language before the
third century C.E., it existed in a diversity of dialects, which
differed on various linguistic levels (Rendsburg 2013a). This
dialectal diversity existed synchronically at particular periods
and there was also diachronic change in the various spoken forms
of the language. Both of the synchronic and the diachronic
differences in the spoken language were disguised to a large
extent by the written form of the language, which was
considerably standardized in its orthography and linguistic form
(Rendsburg 1990; 2013b). Several differences are, nevertheless,
identifiable from the surviving written evidence, some of which
relate to pronunciation. We know from epigraphic evidence from
the biblical period that diphthongs tended to be contracted in the
northern (Israelian) dialects whereas they tended to be preserved
uncontracted in the southern (Judahite) form of Hebrew, which
is the basis of the standardized Biblical Hebrew language. In the
Samaria ostraca, for example, one finds the orthography ‫‘ ין‬wine’,

3
See the entries on the Hebrew component of secret languages in the
Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics (vol. 3, 511-520).
4 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

reflecting the pronunciation yēn, whereas the Arad ostraca from

the south have the orthography ‫ יין‬corresponding to Masoretic
Hebrew form ‫( יַיִ ן‬Bruck 2013). The shibboleth incident described
in Jud. 12.1-6 is clear evidence of differences in pronunciation
between the dialects of Transjordan and Cisjordan (Rendsburg
2013c). In the Second Temple Period, there were differences in
dialects of Hebrew regarding the pronunciation of the guttural
consonants (laryngeals and pharyngeals). In many of the Dead
Sea Scrolls from Qumran datable to this period, including those
containing biblical texts, and Judaean inscriptions there is evi-
dence of the weakening of the gutturals. This is shown by the fact
that they are often either omitted or interchanged in the orthog-
raphy. Such weakening was presumably due to Greek influence,
which was spoken in Palestine during this period, especially in
the educated or urban classes, since Greek did not contain phar-
yngeals in its sound inventory. The Bar Kochba documents, on
the other hand, exhibit remarkably little weakening of the gut-
turals, despite the fact that they otherwise deviate quite radically
from the standard language and orthography and appear to be
close reflections of the spoken language. These documents are
likely, therefore, to reflect a spoken dialect that had preserved
the gutturals to a large extent.4 The biblical scrolls from Qumran
which exhibit weakening of the gutturals, such as the Isaiah
Scroll 1QIsaa, therefore, reflect a particular dialectal variety of
pronunciation, which was not general throughout Palestine.

4
See Mor (2013b; 2013a), Fassberg (2013), Morgenstern (2013, 505–
6).
 Introduction 5

Some of the biblical scrolls from Qumran have an

orthography close to that of the Tiberian Masoretic Text without
omission or interchange of gutturals. This may be due to
conservatism of orthography, but it is necessary to assume that
some traditions of Biblical Hebrew at this period did preserve the
gutturals and were the source of later traditions that preserved
them. In the Second Temple Period there is further evidence of
variation in the pronunciation of the gutturals in the Greek
transcriptions of Hebrew words in the Septuagint (late first
millennium B.C.E.), which reflect the preservation of the Proto-
Semitic velar fricatives *ḵ and *ġ, e.g. Αχαζ ‘Ahaz’ (cf. Arabic
ʾakhadha ‘he took’ = ‫)א ָחז‬,
ָ Γαζα ‘Gaza’ (cf. Arabic Ghɑzzɑ, = ‫)עזָ ה‬.
ַ
The Hebrew orthography represents the merger of the original
velar fricatives with the pharyngeal fricatives ‫ ח‬and ‫ע‬. This
orthography, which was derived from Phoenician, may have
concealed a distinction that was preserved in some Hebrew
dialects, but it is clear that there must have been a merger in
some dialects by the Second Temple Period. This is due to the
fact that some sources from Qumran that are roughly
contemporary with the Septuagint exhibit weakening of the
pharyngeals irrespective of their historical origin.5
There were a number of differences in morphology across
the various dialects of Hebrew when it was a spoken language.
Of particular significance for the later reading traditions of
Biblical Hebrew are the differences in pronouns and pronominal
suffixes. In the Second Temple Period there is evidence from the

5
For a discussion of the chronology of merger of velar fricatives with
pharyngeals see Steiner (2005a).
6 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Dead Sea Scrolls for variation between vocalic and consonantal

endings of pronominal forms, e.g. in the second person forms:

2ms suffixes: ‫ך‬-/‫כה‬-, ‫ת‬-/‫תה‬-

2mpl forms: ‫אתם‬/‫אתמה‬, ‫תם‬-/‫תמה‬-, ‫כם‬/‫כמה‬-

Another case of variation is found in the 3ms pronominal

suffix on plural nouns, which has the forms ‫יו‬-, ‫ו‬- or ‫והי‬- (Qimron
1986, 58–59; 2018, 269-78; Reymond 2014, 153–64).

I.0.2. THE BIBLE IN THE SECOND TEMPLE PERIOD

The text of the Hebrew Bible that is reflected by the Qumran
manuscripts and other sources from the Second Temple Period
was pluriform and dynamically growing (Ulrich 2015, 18). There
were variant literary editions of many of the biblical books, these
being particularly numerous in the Pentateuch (Tov 2016). A
sizeable proportion of the Qumran biblical manuscripts, how-
ever, exhibit a text that is close to that of the medieval Masoretic
Text. These have been termed by Emanuel Tov ‘proto-Masoretic’
or, in his more recent work (Tov 2012, 107–9) as ‘Masoretic-like’
texts. These show us that great efforts were made in some circles,
apparently the Temple authorities, to preserve a stable text. In
Talmudic literature, there are reports of three scrolls of the
Pentateuch that were found in the Temple court. These differed
from one another in small details. They were carefully collated
and differences were corrected towards the majority reading.6
These activities were motivated, it seems, by a desire to preserve

6
The sources are discussed in detail by Talmon (1962). See also Ofer
(2019, 88).
 Introduction 7

and level variants in one particular type of text, but not neces-
sarily to standardize and eliminate rival texts (Tov 2014; van der
Kooij 2014). This is clearly shown by the fact that such Masoretic-
like texts exist alongside other types of biblical texts in the Qum-
ran corpus that exhibit a variety of substantial differences from
the Masoretic Text. Furthermore, the Masoretic-like texts from
Qumran themselves exhibit some degree of diversity, since minor
textual differences are found from one manuscript to another.
Some hold the view that the Masoretic-like texts did not repre-
sent a central authoritative type of a text but rather one of several
forms of text that were of equal status. Doubts are cast on the
existence of sufficient cohesion in Judaism in the late Second
Temple Period or of a sufficiently acknowledged leadership to
make it conceivable that a majority of Jews recognized a single
authoritative text (Ulrich 2015, 19). Lim (2013, 126) draws at-
tention to the fact that different types of text are sometimes cited
side-by-side, which he presents as evidence that there was no
preference for one particular type of text. A further issue is the
selection of the text of the Masoretic-like manuscripts. It is now
generally agreed that this text was selected largely by chance ra-
ther than due to the archaic nature of the text or its perceived
accuracy.
Despite the pluriformity of the biblical text that is reflected
by the Qumran manuscripts, after the destruction of the Temple
in 70 C.E. the Masoretic type of text was the only text tradition
that continued to be transmitted in Jewish communities.
Fragments of biblical scrolls discovered in sites outside Qumran
datable to the first two centuries C.E. contain a consonantal text
8 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

that is identical with that of the medieval Masoretic manuscripts,

even in the smallest details of orthography and cancellation dots
above letters. These include fragments found in Masada (first
century C.E.) and the somewhat later sites of Wadi Sdeir (Naḥal
David), Naḥal Ḥever, Wādī Murabbaʿāt and Naḥal Ṣeʾelim (early
second century C.E.). The same applies to the recently published
charred fragments of a scroll of Leviticus from En Gedi, which
have been dated to roughly the same period (M. Segal et al.
2016). According to Tov (2008, 150), these texts from com-
munities outside Qumran constitute an ‘inner circle’ of proto-
Masoretic texts that derive directly from Temple circles and were
copied from the master copy in the Temple court. The proto-
Masoretic texts of Qumran, on the other hand, formed a second
transmission circle copied from the inner circle, and so exhibits
small differences.
The exclusive transmission of the proto-Masoretic tradition
in Judaism is nowadays generally thought to be the consequence
of historical events. Power and influence were gradually trans-
ferred from the priestly Sadducees to the Pharisees (Schiffman
1991, 112). The Pharisees, who as part of this process espoused
the proto-Masoretic text from the priestly authorities, constituted
the only organized Jewish group that survived the destruction of
the Temple (Albrektson 1978; Tov 2012).
Several scholars have drawn attention to the interaction
and interdependence of oral and written tradition in the
formation and transmission of the Hebrew Bible through the first
millennium B.C.E. down to the destruction of the Second Temple,
for example Nyberg (1934), Niditch (1996), Person (1998; 2010)
 Introduction 9

and Carr (2005). Carr, in particular, stresses the fact that even
after the textualization of Scripture in written form in the first
millennium B.C.E., the written text remained combined with a
tradition of oral reading. The oral tradition of reading was mem-
orized and the texts were learnt as part of an educational process,
which has parallels in other ancient Near Eastern cultures. Such
a tradition of transmission relied not only on written texts but
also on teachers to pass on the oral traditions to pupils. Such was
the importance and self-sufficiency of the oral tradition of the
text, claims Carr, that at times of crisis, such as the Babylonian
exile, it may have been used to regenerate lost written forms of
the text. Raymond Person argues that the oral mind-set of ancient
Hebrew scribes influenced the way they copied texts, in that they
did not feel obliged to replicate the texts word by word, but pre-
served the texts’ meaning as a dynamic tradition like performers
of oral epics, with numerous small adaptations. This resulted in
a pluriformity of texts, which were nevertheless understood as
faithful representations of the tradition.

I.0.3. THE BIBLE IN THE MIDDLE AGES

After the destruction of the Second Temple, the Hebrew Bible
continued to be transmitted in a process similar to that attributed
by Carr to the earlier period, i.e. there was an intertwining of
written text and oral reading tradition. The written text was
copied by scribes and the memory of the oral reading tradition
was passed on from generation to generation by teachers. The
fact that the Hebrew Bible lost its pluriformity in its surviving
written consonantal text after the Second Temple Period does not
10 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

mean it lost pluriformity also in its oral transmission. The

aforementioned fragments of biblical scrolls from the period after
the destruction of the Temple must have been recited with an
oral reading tradition. Just as the consonantal text (ketiv) of the
medieval Masoretic manuscripts corresponded to the written
consonantal text of these early scrolls, it is likely that the
medieval oral reading of the Middle Ages, which is represented
by the Masoretic vocalization signs, also had a close
correspondence to what was being recited orally at the beginning
of the first millennium C.E. There is, indeed, evidence that the
medieval reading tradition had its roots in the Second Temple
Period (§I.0.8.).
The reading traditions of Biblical Hebrew that were
transmitted after Hebrew ceased to be a spoken vernacular
language exhibit diversity in phonology and morphology, some
of which is likely to have had its roots in the dialectal diversity
of spoken Hebrew at earlier periods.
We can distinguish broadly three stages of attestation of the
later reading traditions:
(i) The pre-Masoretic Greek and Latin transcriptions dat-
able to the first half of the first millennium C.E. The most
important sources from this period are the Greek transcriptions
found in the second column of the Hexapla of Origen (c. 185–254
C.E.) and the Latin transcriptions in the Vulgate and writings of
Jerome (346–420 C.E.). In addition to these, transcriptions are
sporadically found in late Greek translations, such as Aquila,
Symmachus and Theodotion, and in the writings of the Church
fathers.
 Introduction 11

(ii) The medieval traditions reflected by vocalized manu-

scripts and other sources. In addition to the Tiberian vocalization
system, medieval manuscripts are extant that contain other
vocalization sign systems, which reflect different reading
traditions.
(iii) The reading traditions that have survived in Jewish
communities in modern times.
The reading traditions of the Bible in Palestine reflected by
the Greek transcriptions of Origen and the Latin works of Jerome
exhibit a number of features that can be correlated with some of
the dialectal features mention in §I.0.1. They appear to have
preserved the gutturals, although they are not directly
represented by the Greek and Latin script, and so have their roots
in dialectal pronunciations in which these consonants were not
weakened. The 2ms pronominal suffixes are generally trans-
cribed without a following vowel and so correspond to the
variants ending in consonants reflected by the orthographies ‫ך‬-
ִ ‘your
and ‫ת‬- in Qumran sources, e.g., σεδκαχ (Tiberian: ‫)צד ְֶ֑קָך‬
ָ ‘you
righteousness’ (Origen, Psa. 35.28), φαρασθ (Tiberian: ‫)פ ַ ַ֥רצ ָת‬
have breached’ (Origen, Psa. 89.41); phalach vs. ‫פ ָעלָך‬,
ָּֽ ָ ‘your work’
(Jerome, Hab. 3.2), calloth (Tiberian: ‫ֹות‬ ַ ‘you are vile’ (Jerome,
ָ ‫)ק ָּֽל‬
Nah. 1.14).7
The reading traditions of the Hebrew Bible that are
reflected by the medieval systems of vocalization signs were
transmitted orally for many generations during the first
millennium C.E. Their commitment to written form by means of

7
See Sperber (1937), Brønno (1943; 1970), Sutcliffe (1948), Janssens
(1982), Yuditsky (2013; 2017), Kantor (2017).
12 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

vocalization sign systems was a textualization of oral traditions.

This was no doubt stimulated by the general increasing shift from
oral to written transmission of knowledge in the early Islamic
period.8 This is a phenomenon that affected the whole of society
in the Middle East at this period. It is likely to have been brought
about, in part at least, by the archival documentary culture of the
Abbasid bureaucracy, which developed in the eighth century
C.E., and the spread in the production of paper at that period.9
The systems of vocalization signs that were developed in
the Middle Ages reflect three major traditions of pronunciation,
which are normally referred to as the Tiberian, Babylonian and
Palestinian traditions. The Palestinian pronunciation is reflected
also by some manuscripts vocalized with Tiberian vowel signs.
This latter type of vocalization will be referred to as Non-
Standard Tiberian vocalization (§I.0.13.6.). Although the sign
systems were a creation of the Middle Ages, the pronunciation
traditions that they reflect had their roots in an earlier period and
had been transmitted orally for many generations. There is some

8
For a detailed discussion see Schoeler (2006) and Bloom (2010).
9
For the documentary culture of the Abbasid administration see Sijpes-
teijn (2007), van Berkel (2014), Khan (2007, 13–65) and for the spread
of paper at this period see Bloom (2001). An analogy can be identified
in the increase of written culture in the kingdom of the Judean king
Hezekiah in the eighth century B.C.E. According to Schniedewind
(2004; 2013) this was stimulated by the increase in administrative bu-
reaucracy and urbanization. The role of bureaucracy and documentary
culture appears to have been a catalyst to written culture also in
medieval Europe; cf. Clanchy (2013).
 Introduction 13

evidence that they originated in the Second Temple Period

(§I.0.8.). They share more features among themselves than they
do with the Samaritan pronunciation tradition, which was
transmitted orally by the Samaritan community through the
Middle Ages down to modern times. This suggests that they were
more closely related, due to a common origin and/or due to
convergence through communal contact. They nevertheless
diverged from one another in a number of ways in phonology
and morphology. The distinctness of the Samaritan tradition of
reading reflects the fact that it split from the Jewish traditions
with the separation of the Samaritan community from Judaism
at an early period.
The various Jewish reading traditions had distinctive vowel
systems. The Tiberian pronunciation tradition distinguished the
vowel qualities [a] (pataḥ), [ɔ] (qameṣ), [e] (ṣere) and [ɛ] (segol).
The Babylonian vocalization system lacked a sign for segol and
generally used a pataḥ sign where Tiberian had segol, suggesting
that Babylonian pronunciation did not distinguish between the
qualities [a] and [ɛ], but only had the quality [a].10 The Pales-
tinian pronunciation tradition did not distinguish between pataḥ
and qameṣ, on the one hand, and between ṣere and segol, on the

10
The Babylonian tradition has been exhaustively described by Yeivin
(1985), which is the most authoritative scholarly source. Important
earlier studies of manuscripts with Babylonian vocalization were made
by Kahle (1902; 1913; 1928). For an overview of the distinctive features
of Babylonian vocalization and the reading traditions it reflects see
Khan (2013f) and Heijmans (2016).
14 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

other, but rather had only one ‘a’ vowel and one ‘e’ vowel. 11
There was, however, internal diversity within these traditions of
pronunciation. This applied in particular to the Babylonian and
the Palestinian traditions, which exhibit a considerable amount
of variation both in the sign systems and the pronunciation these
systems reflect in the medieval manuscripts. The Tiberian
vocalization system and the pronunciation it reflects are more
uniform and standardized than the other traditions, but,
nevertheless, there is some internal diversity (§I.0.10).

I.0.4. THE TIBERIAN MASORETIC TRADITION

The textualization of the orally transmitted Tiberian reading
tradition was carried out by a circle of scholars in Tiberias known
as Masoretes. The Masoretes (known in Hebrew as ‫)ב ֲע ֵלי ָמס ָֹרה‬
ַ
were scholars who devoted themselves to preserving the
traditions of writing and reading the Bible. Their name derives
from the Hebrew term masora or masoret, the meaning of which
is generally thought to be ‘transmission of traditions’.12 The

11
The most important scholarly studies of the Palestinian vocalization
include Kahle (1930), Dietrich (1968), Revell (1970a; 1970b; 1977),
Chiesa (1978) and Yahalom (1997). For overviews of the system see
Heijmans (2013b) and Yahalom (2016).
12
There is no complete consensus concerning the original meaning or
etymology of the term. It seems to be connected with the Rabbinic
Hebrew verb ‫‘ ָמ ַסר‬to hand over’, though this may be a denominal form.
The noun ‫ ָמסֹרת‬occurs in Ezek. 20.37, which is generally understood
today as ‘bond’ (< ‫)אסר‬. One of its ancient interpretations, however,
was ‘number’ (cf. Septuagint ἀριθμῷ). As we shall see, counting letters
 Introduction 15

Tiberian Masoretes were active over a period of several centuries

in the second half of the first millennium C.E. The medieval
sources refer to several generations of Masoretes, some of them
belonging to the same family. The most famous of these families
is that of Aharon ben Asher (tenth century), whose forebears
were engaged in Masoretic activities over five generations.13 The
Masoretes continued the work of the soferim (‘scribes’) of the
Talmudic and Second Temple periods, who were also occupied
with the correct transmission of the biblical text.14

and words to ensure the correct preservation of the text was one of the
activities of the Masoretes. The word occurs also in Mishnah Avot 3.14
in a statement attributed to Rabbi Aqiva (c. 50-135 C.E.) ‫מסרת סיג לתורה‬
‘The masoret is a fence for the Torah’, where it may have been originally
used with the same sense (i.e. ‘counting’ of letters/words). Ben-Ḥayyim
(1957b) has suggested that the verb ‫ מסר‬in Hebrew actually had the
meaning of ‘to count’, as did its cognate in Samaritan Aramaic. The form
‫ ָמס ָֹרה‬is a variant feminine pattern of the noun. The form ‫ ַמסֹרת‬or ‫מס ָֹרה‬,
ַ
which is reflected in the English spelling ‘Massorah’, has no textual basis
but is a modern reconstruction on the analogy of the pattern found in
nouns such as ‫‘ ַכפֹרת‬mercy seat’ and ‫‘ ַבצֹרת‬dearth’.
13
Asher ‘the elder’, the great-great-grandfather of Aharon, probably
lived in the second half of the eighth century C.E.; cf. Kahle (1959, 75–
82; 1927, vol. 1, 39).
14
According to the Babylonian Talmud (Qiddushin 30a) the soferim
acquired their name from the fact that they counted (Hebrew ‫ )ספר‬all
the letters of the Pentateuch. As we have seen above the term ‫ ָמסֹרת‬was
probably originally understood in the sense of ‘counting’. This
connection with the Talmudic interpretation of the term soferim may be
more than coincidental, in that ‫ ָמסֹרת‬may have been intended originally
16 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

The Tiberian Masoretes developed what can be termed the

Tiberian Masoretic tradition. This was a body of tradition that
gradually took shape over two or three centuries and continued
to grow until it was finally fixed, and the activities of the
Masoretes ceased, at the beginning of the second millennium.
During the same period, circles of Masoretes are known to have
existed also in Iraq. It is the tradition of the Tiberian Masoretes,
however, that had become virtually the exclusive Masoretic
tradition in Judaism by the late Middle Ages and has been
followed by all printed editions of the Hebrew Bible.
The Tiberian Masoretic tradition is recorded in numerous
medieval manuscripts. The majority of these were written after
1100 C.E. and are copies of older manuscripts that were made in
various Jewish communities. The early printed editions are based
on these late medieval manuscripts. The most authoritative of
these early editions was the so-called second Rabbinic Bible (i.e.
the Bible text combined with commentaries and translations,
known as Miqraʾot Gedolot) edited by Jacob ben Ḥayyim ben
Adoniyahu and printed at the press of Daniel Bomberg in Venice
between 1524 and 1525. These early Rabbinic Bibles appear to
have been based on more than one manuscript (Penkower 1983).
This came to be regarded as a textus receptus and was used as
the basis for many subsequent editions of the Hebrew Bible.

to refer to the activity of the soferim. In the Middle Ages the term sofer
acquired the narrower sense of ‘copyist’. According to a medieval list of
Masoretes published by Mann (1935, 2:44) the chain of Masoretes
began with Ezra the scribe.
 Introduction 17

A small number of surviving manuscripts are first-hand

records of the Tiberian Masoretic tradition. These were written
in the Middle East before 1100 C.E., when the Masoretes were
still active in the tenth century or in the period immediately after
the cessation of their activities in the eleventh century. They are,
therefore, the most reliable witnesses of the Tiberian Masoretic
tradition. They all come from the end, or near the end, of the
Masoretic period, when the Masoretic tradition had become fixed
in most of its details. After 1100 C.E. the fixed tradition was
transmitted by generations of scribes. Some of the modern
editions of the Bible are based on these early manuscripts, e.g.
the Biblia Hebraica from the third edition (1929–1937) onwards
(the latest edition of which is the Biblia Hebraica Quinta, 2004–),
The Hebrew University Bible (1975–), the editions by Aron Dotan
(1973; revised 2001) and Mordechai Breuer (1977–1982) and the
modern edition of the Rabbinic Bible by Menachem Cohen
(known as Ha-Keter, Ramat-Gan, 1992–).
The Tiberian Masoretic tradition can be divided into the
following components:

1. The consonantal text of the Hebrew Bible.

2. The layout of the text and codicological form of the

manuscripts.

3. The indications of divisions of paragraphs (known in

Hebrew as pisqaʾot or parashiyyot).

4. The accent signs, which indicated the musical cantillation

of the text and also the position of the main stress in a word.
18 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

5. The vocalization, which indicated the pronunciation of the

vowels and some details of the pronunciation of the
consonants in the reading of the text.

6. Notes on the text, written in the margins of the manuscript.

7. Masoretic treatises. Some manuscripts have appendices at

the end of the biblical text containing various treatises on
aspects of the teachings of the Masoretes.

8. Orally transmitted reading tradition.

The first seven of these components are written, whereas

the eighth existed only orally. The orally transmitted Tiberian
reading tradition was passed on from one generation to the next.
The reading tradition is only partially represented in graphic
form by the vocalization and accent signs. These written compo-
nents were created during the Masoretic period in the last third
of the first millennium C.E. The most famous Masorete, Aharon
ben Asher, who lived in the tenth century, represented the last
generation. At the close of the Masoretic period at the beginning
of the second millennium, the written components of the Tiberian
Masoretic tradition had become fixed and were transmitted in
this fixed form by later scribes. By contrast, the oral component,
i.e. the Tiberian reading tradition, was soon forgotten and
appears not to have been transmitted much beyond the twelfth
century. As a result, the Tiberian vocalization signs came to be
read according to the various local traditions of Hebrew
pronunciation, most of them influenced by the vernacular
languages of the communities concerned. The vocalization and
accents were no longer direct representations of the way in which
 Introduction 19

the biblical text was recited and they became fossilized written
components of the text. Since the Tiberian oral tradition of read-
ing did not survive down to modern times, the letters, vocaliza-
tion and accent signs are symbols that require interpretation. This
interpretation is little more than speculation unless we examine
extant sources that were written by medieval scholars and scribes
who had direct access to the Tiberian pronunciation when it was
still a living oral tradition. The description of the Tiberian pro-
nunciation that is presented in this book is based on such medie-
val sources. Our main concern will be with the pronunciation of
the vowels and consonants.
The Tiberian Masoretic manuscripts are codices, i.e. books
consisting of collections of double-leaves that were stitched
together. A Bible codex was referred to in medieval Hebrew
sources as a ‫ מחזור‬maḥzor, as opposed to a scroll, which was re-
ferred to as a ‫ ספר‬sefer. The term maḥzor later came to designate
specifically a codex containing a prayer-book for festivals. An-
other term that was used for a Bible codex in the Middle Ages
was ‫ מצחף‬miṣḥaf, which is an Arabic loanword (< Arabic
muṣḥaf).15 The Hebrew Bible began to be produced in codex form
during the Islamic period. The earliest surviving codices with
explicitly dated colophons were written in the tenth century C.E.
All of these originate from the Jewish communities in the Middle
East. There is indirect evidence from some Rabbinic sources that

15
The Arabic word muṣḥaf is itself a loanword from Ethiopic maṣḥaf,
which means ‘book’, or specifically ‘Scripture’, see Leslau (1987, s.v.
ṣaḥafa).
20 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

the codex had been adopted for Hebrew Bibles already in the
eighth century C.E.16
Previously, the Hebrew Bible was always written in a scroll.
After the introduction of the codex, scrolls continued to be used
for writing the Hebrew Bible. Each type of manuscript, however,
had a different function. The scrolls were used for public
liturgical reading in the synagogues, whereas the codices were
used for study purposes and non-liturgical reading. The scroll was
the ancient form of manuscript that was hallowed by liturgical
tradition and it was regarded as unacceptable by the Masoretes
to change the custom of writing the scroll by adding the various
written components of the Masoretic tradition that they dev-
eloped, such as vocalization, accents and marginal notes. The
codex had no such tradition behind it in Judaism and so the
Masoretes felt free to introduce into this type of manuscripts the
newly developed written Masoretic components.17 The desire to
commit to writing in the Middle Ages many components of the
Masoretic tradition that had been previously transmitted orally
was, no doubt, one of the main motivations for the adoption of
the codex at this period. It had been available as a format of book
production since the Roman period. It started to be used for the
writing of Christian Bibles as early as the second century C.E. The
earliest extant datable codices of the Qurʾān pre-date the dated
codices of the Hebrew Bible by about two centuries. The fact that

16
See Beit-Arié et al. (1997), Glatzer (1989, 260–63), Outhwaite (2018,
323).
17
For the association of the scribal innovations with changes in the
physical form of manuscripts see Khan (1990b).
 Introduction 21

one of the medieval Hebrew terms for Bible codex, miṣḥaf, is a

loanword from Arabic (muṣḥaf) suggests, indeed, that the Jews
borrowed the format from the Muslims. We may say that the
liturgical scroll remained the core of the biblical tradition,
whereas the Masoretic codex was conceived as auxiliary to this.
This distinction of function between liturgical scrolls with no
vocalization, accents or Masoretic notes, on the one hand, and
Masoretic codices, on the other, has continued in Jewish
communities down to the present day. Occasionally in the Middle
Ages, Masoretic additions were made to scrolls if they had, for
some reason, become unfit for liturgical use. The fact that the
leaves of a codex were written on both sides, unlike biblical
scrolls, and its overall practical format meant that the entire
twenty-four books of the Bible could be bound together in a
single volume. The less practical scroll format meant that the
books of the Bible had to be divided up into a series of separate
scrolls. In many cases, however, codices consisted of only
sections of the Bible, such as the major divisions of Pentateuch
(Torah), Prophets (Neviʾim) and Writings (Ketuvim), or smaller
units.
The scrolls generally differed from Masoretic codices not
only in the lack of vocalization, accents and Masoretic notes, but
also in the addition of ornamental strokes called tagin (‘crowns’)
to the Hebrew letters shin, ʿayin, ṭet, nun, zayin, gimel and ṣade.
In the Masoretic period, the task of writing codices was
generally divided between two specialist scribes. The copying of
the consonantal text was entrusted to a scribe known as a sofer,
who also wrote scrolls. The vocalization, accents and Masoretic
22 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

notes, on the other hand, were generally added by a scribe known

as a naqdan (‘pointer’, i.e. vocalizer) or by a Masorete. This
reflects the fact that the tradition of transmitting the consonantal
text and the tradition of transmitting the Masoretic components
were not completely integrated. According to the colophon of the
Aleppo Codex, for example, the text was copied by the scribe
Shlomo ben Buyāʿā and its vocalization and Masora were sup-
plied by Aharon ben Asher.18 For the scribe who wrote the con-
sonantal text the base of authority was constituted by an existing
authoritative exemplar manuscript.19 For the naqdan the base of
authority was a master teacher of the oral reading tradition. In
the case of the Aleppo Codex, the naqdan and the master teacher
were one and the same person. By contrast, the Codex Lenin-
gradensis, which was produced in the early eleventh century af-
ter the close of Masoretic period and the death of the last author-
ities of the Tiberian oral tradition, was written and vocalized by
the same scribe, Samuel ben Jacob.20

18
The original inscriptions are now lost and survive only in copies
(Kahle 1930, 7–12; Ofer 1989). The scribe Shlomo ben Buyāʿā also
wrote the manuscript I Firkovitch II.17 (L1 according to the abbrev-
iation of Yeivin 1980, 22-23), but the naqdan was different from that of
A and so the vocalization and accentuation.
19
In one extant Judaeo-Arabic document from the Genizah the Persian
loanword namūdhaj ‘model, exemplar’ is used to refer to such a model
manuscript (Outhwaite 2018, 331).
20
There is evidence from colophons that other Masoretic codices, also
apparently from the post-Masoretic period, were produced entirely by
a single scribe (Outhwaite 2018, 329).
 Introduction 23

So far we have made a distinction between manuscripts of

the Hebrew Bible written in scrolls and those written in Masoretic
codices and also between the early Tiberian codices datable to
before 1100 and later ones. In the early period, coinciding with
or close to the time when the Masoretes were active, we can
distinguish between various types of Hebrew Bible codices. The
type of codex that has been referred to in the preceding dis-
cussion is what can be termed a ‘model’ codex, which was
carefully written and accurately preserved the written
components of the Tiberian Masoretic tradition. Such manu-
scripts were generally in the possession of a community, as is
shown by their colophons, and were kept in a public place of
study and worship for consultation and copying (to produce both
codices and scrolls). References to various model codices and
their readings are found in the Masoretic notes, e.g. Codex
Muggah, Codex Hilleli, Codex Zambuqi and Codex Yerushalmi
(Ginsburg 1897, 429–33). Sometimes accurately written manu-
scripts also contain the text of an Aramaic Targum.
In addition to these model Masoretic codices, there existed
numerous so-called ‘popular’ Bible codices, which were generally
in the possession of private individuals. These were not written
with such precision as the model codices and usually did not
include all the written components of the Tiberian Masoretic
tradition. Often they contain no accents or Masoretic notes but
only vocalization, and this may deviate from the standard
Tiberian system of vocalization in a number of details. Some
24 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

popular Bible manuscripts were accompanied by an Aramaic

Targum or an Arabic translation and commentary.21
All popular manuscripts were not necessarily written
carelessly. The crucial feature of their production was that the
scribes felt less bound by tradition than in the copying of the
model manuscripts. Many of them are distinguished from the
model manuscripts also in their smaller dimensions and their dif-
ferent page-layout (Arrant 2020).
There were, therefore, three classes of Hebrew Bible
manuscript in the early Middle Ages: (i) scrolls used for public
reading in the liturgy; (ii) model Masoretic codices, the purpose
of which was to preserve the full biblical tradition, both the
written tradition and the reading tradition; (iii) popular
manuscripts that aided individuals in the reading of the text.
We describe here briefly some of the surviving model
Tiberian Masoretic codices that have come to be regarded as
among the most important and are referred to in various places
in this book. All of these manuscripts originate from the Middle
East, as do the vast majority of the early codices. The early
eastern manuscripts began to come to the attention of scholars in
the nineteenth century, mainly due to the collection of eastern
manuscripts assembled by Abraham Firkovitch (1787–1874), the
majority of which were donated to what is now the National

21
For this type of medieval manuscript see Goshen-Gottstein (1962, 36–
44), Díez Macho (1971, 22), Sirat (2002, 42–50), Stern (2017, 88–90),
Arrant (2020) and Outhwaite (2020). These scholars use different terms
to refer to such Bible manuscripts. Sirat, for example, refers to them as
‘common Bibles’, a term that is adopted by Outhwaite (2020).
 Introduction 25

Library of Russia in St. Petersburg. An important breakthrough

was also the discovery of the Cairo Genizah in the late nineteenth
century, which contained many fragments of early eastern Bible
manuscripts, the majority of which are now in the possession of
Cambridge University Library. The earliest surviving codices that
were written in Europe are datable to the twelfth century (Beit-
Arié et al. 1997). The early medieval model codices with stand-
ard Tiberian vocalization all reflect a basically uniform Masoretic
tradition, though no two manuscripts are completely identical.
The differences are sometimes the result of scribal errors and
other times due to a slightly different reading tradition or system
of marking vocalization and accents that is followed by the
naqdan.

1. The Aleppo Codex (referred to henceforth as A)

In the colophon of this manuscript, it is stated that it was written

by Shlomo ben Buyāʿā and the Masorete Aharon ben Asher (tenth
century C.E.) added the vocalization, accents and Masoretic
notes. This is confirmed by comparison with the statements
concerning the traditions of Ben Asher and Ben Naftali in the
Masoretic treatise known as ‘The Book of Differences’ (Kitāb al-
Khilaf) of Mishaʾel ben ʿUzziʾel (§I.0.13.1.). The Aleppo Codex
agrees with Ben Asher against Ben Naftali in 94% of the cases of
differences between the two Masoretes recorded in this work. It
is indeed thought to be the manuscript that Maimonides
examined when he pronounced that Ben Asher’s tradition was
superior to that of other Masoretes. It should be regarded,
therefore, as the authorized edition in Jewish tradition after the
26 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

time of Maimonides (Penkower 1981). When Maimonides saw

the manuscript, it was kept in Egypt, possibly in the Ben-Ezra
synagogue in Fusṭāṭ, which later became famous for its ‘Genizah’.
From the later Middle Ages, however, it was kept in Aleppo. In
1948 the synagogue in which it was kept in Aleppo was set on
fire and only about three-quarters of the original manuscript
were preserved. The surviving portions are now kept in
Jerusalem in the library of the Ben-Zvi Institute (Shamosh 1987;
Friedman 2012; Goshen-Gottstein 1960; Yeivin 1968). It has
been published in a facsimile edition by Moshe Goshen-Gottstein
(1976) and images are available online.22 This manuscript forms
the basis of a number of Israeli editions of the Hebrew Bible,
including the Hebrew University Bible (Goshen-Gottstein 1975),
the edition of Mordechai Breuer (Jerusalem 1977–1982, re-
edited in 1996–1998 with inclusion of new information on the
parasha divisions) and the modern Rabbinic Bible (ha-Keter)
edited by Menachem Cohen (1992–).

2. Codex Leningradensis, St. Petersburg (Leningrad), National Li-

brary of Russia, I Firkovitch Evr. I B 19a (referred to henceforth
as L).

This codex is still widely known as Codex Leningradensis. One of

the colophons of the manuscript states that it was written in
Fusṭāṭ, Egypt, and subsequently checked and corrected
‘according to the most exact texts of Ben Asher’. Its date is given
23

in the colophon according to five different systems of reckoning,

22
http://www.aleppocodex.org.
23
‫לפי הספרים המדויקים של בן אשר‬.
 Introduction 27

which do not completely coincide, but a date in the region of

1008-1009 C.E. seems to be intended. It was, therefore, written
after the close of the Masoretic period and was not the original
work of a Masoretic authority, unlike the Aleppo Codex, which
was vocalized by the Masorete Aharon ben Asher. It is, neverthe-
less, very similar to A and agrees with Ben Asher against Ben
Naftali in 90% of the cases of differences between them that are
recorded in the ‘The Book of Differences’. The commissioner and
first owner of the manuscript was a wealthy Karaite merchant
known as Joseph ibn Yazdād.24 The Codex Leningradensis differs
slightly from the Aleppo Codex in a few minor details. There is a
lesser degree of marking of ḥaṭef signs on non-guttural conso-
nants than in A (§I.2.5.3.) and a slightly greater degree of mark-
ing of gaʿya on open syllables. Some of the original vocalization
and accentuation has clearly been changed during the correction
process referred to in the colophon and the corrections, in gen-
eral, correspond to what is found in A. These consist of erasures,
mainly of gaʿya signs, and additions, mainly of ḥaṭef signs under
non-guttural consonants. The manuscript has been preserved in
its entirety and it contains the complete text of the Bible. Paul
Kahle made this the basis of the third edition of Biblia Hebraica
(Stuttgart 1929–1937) and it has been used for all subsequent
editions. For practical reasons, unless otherwise indicated, man-
uscript L is cited according to the edition in the fourth edition of
Biblia Hebraica (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, abbreviated as

24
For the background of the manuscript and the interpretation of its
colophon see Outhwaite (2018).
28 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

BHS). In places where there are problems with the reading re-
flected by BHS (see, e.g. §I.3.1.14.) the manuscript is cited di-
rectly. Manuscript L is also the basis of the edition of the Hebrew
Bible by Aron Dotan (Tel-Aviv 1973, revised 2001).25

3. British Library, London, Or. 4445 (referred to henceforth as B)

This manuscript contains leaves from different periods. The ones

of greatest interest for the study of the Tiberian Masoretic tradi-
tion are the oldest leaves, which constitute most of the Penta-
teuch. These are generally thought to have been written at the
same period as A in the first half of the tenth century, or possibly
slightly earlier. This older section agrees with Ben Asher against
Ben Naftali in 80% of the recorded cases of differences. It marks
ḥaṭef signs on non-guttural consonants slightly more frequently
than in the corresponding portions of L, in accordance the prin-
ciples found in A. The marking of gaʿya in open syllables is, how-
ever, less frequent than in A. The rafe sign, furthermore, is used
on non-‫ בגדכפת‬consonants less often than in A (§I.3.2.). It ap-
pears, therefore, to represent a slightly less developed tradition
than A.26

25
A facsimile edition of the manuscript was published by Loewinger
(1970).
26
Yeivin (1968, 359–60), Ginsburg (1897, 469–74), Lyons (1983), Do-
tan (1993).
 Introduction 29

4. The Cairo Codex of the Prophets (referred to henceforth as C)

This manuscript, which contains all of the books of the Prophets,

was preserved down to modern times in the Karaite synagogue
in Cairo. It has a colophon attributing it to the Masorete Moshe
ben Asher, the father of Aharon ben Asher, with the date 895 C.E.
There is now a consensus that the manuscript was written later,
most likely in the eleventh century, and this is a later copy of an
earlier colophon.27 The manuscript reflects a tradition that is
closer to that of Ben Naftali than to that of Ben Asher. In places
where a difference is recorded between Ben Asher and Ben
Naftali, it agrees with Ben Asher in 33% of cases and with Ben
Naftali in 64% of cases. C also reflects some features of vocaliza-
tion that are attributed to Ben Naftali in the Masoretic sources.
These include forms such as ‫ ִליש ָר ֵאל‬instead of ‫ליִ ש ָר ֵאל‬, the latter
being the tradition of Ben Asher, which is found in A and L
(§I.2.5.1.). Another case is the marking of dagesh in the qof of the
verb ‫‘ יַעקֹב‬he supplants’ (Jer. 9.3) (§I.3.1.11.2.). It does not, how-
ever, correspond to the tradition attributed to Ben Naftali in all
features. In general, it exhibits a more developed tradition than
A and L. It marks, for example, gaʿya in open syllables (§I.2.8.2.1)
and dagesh in consonantal ʾalef (§I.1.1.) more frequently than is
the case in A and L.28 A facsimile of C was published by Loew-
inger (1971). A Spanish team directed by Pérez Castro (1979–

27
For the arguments regarding its dating, see Menachem Cohen
(1982b), Glatzer (1989, 250–59), Lipschütz (1964, 6–7).
28
Yeivin (1968, 360–61).
30 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

1992) produced an edition of the manuscript together with its

Masora.

5. Jerusalem National and University Library, Heb. 24, 5702 (for-

merly MS Sassoon 507) (henceforth referred to as S)

This is likely to have been written in the tenth century. The sur-
viving sections contain most of the Pentateuch. It does not exhibit
a predominant correspondence to either Ben Asher or Ben
Naftali, in that it agrees with Ben Asher against Ben Naftali in
52% of the recorded cases of differences. The vocalization exhib-
its some features that are attributed to Ben Naftali, e.g. ‫ִביש ָר ֵאל‬
(§I.2.5.1.). In some features it is more developed than A and L,
such as the greater marking of rafe and the greater marking of
gaʿya in open syllables. Unlike A and L, however, it does not mark
ḥaṭef signs on non-guttural consonants.29

Towards the end of the Masoretic period in the second half of the
tenth century and the eleventh century, many Karaite scholars
became involved with the Tiberian Masoretic tradition. Some
studies have shown that the Masoretic notes in some Tiberian
Bible codices, including the Aleppo Codex, contain some
elements that appear to reflect Karaite rather than Rabbanite
theology.30 Does this mean that the whole circle of Tiberian
Masoretes were Karaites? There are several problems with such
a simple assessment. The medieval sources refer to several

29
Yeivin (1968, 361-362), Shashar (1983).
30
For example, the gradual revelation of miṣvot to generations before
Moses; cf. Zer (2003).
 Introduction 31

generations of Masoretes, some of them belonging to the same

family. They indicate that the family of the famous Masorete
Aharon Ben Asher had been involved in Masoretic activities over
five generations. Aharon Ben Asher lived in the tenth century,
and so Asher ‘the elder’, who is stated to be the great-great-
grandfather of Aharon, is likely to have lived in the second half
of the eighth century C.E., before the emergence of Karaism on
the historical scene. There is no evidence of a Karaite community
in Tiberias during the Masoretic period. The immigration of
Karaites to Palestine evidently began in the second half of the
ninth century and was directed towards Jerusalem (Gil 1992,
182). Some of the Masoretes, furthermore, were closely
associated with the Rabbanite Jewish authorities, e.g. Pinḥas
Rosh ha-Yeshiva (‘head of the Academy’), who lived in the ninth
century. The ‘Academy’ (Yeshiva) was the central body of
Rabbanite Jewish communal authority in Palestine. Some close
parallels to the format and phraseology of the Masoretic notes
can, in fact, be found in Midrashic literature composed before the
Islamic period (Martín Contreras 1999; 2002; 2003). It is likely
that these Midrashim were redacted by Jewish sages in Tiberias,
which was a thriving centre of Rabbinic scholarship in the
Byzantine period (Rozenfeld 2010, 120–26). All this suggests that
Karaite scholars joined forces with an existing stream of tradition
of ‘Bible scholarship’ in Rabbanite Judaism, enhancing it and
developing it.
The Karaites contributed to the Tiberian Masoretic
tradition in various ways. They sponsored the safekeeping of the
model Masoretic codices produced by the Masoretes. This is
32 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

shown by the fact that colophons of many of the surviving

codices indicate that they had come into the possession of Karaite
public institutions, such as study houses and synagogues. The
Karaites also become involved in the production of accurate
copies of Masoretic biblical codices, particularly in the eleventh
century, after the cessation of the activities of the Tiberian
Masoretes. In the late tenth and early eleventh century, they
produced several Masoretic treatises (§I.0.13.1.) and developed
the para-Masoretic philological activity of grammar (§I.0.13.4.).
Several of the colophons of the model Tiberian also indicate
that the codices were used for liturgical reading by the Karaite
communities on Sabbaths and festivals, e.g.
The Aleppo Codex (A):
‘in order that they bring it [the codex] out to the settle-
ments and communities in the holy city on the three pil-
grimage festivals, the festival of Passover, the festival of
Weeks and the festival Tabernacles to read in it’.31

The Cairo Codex of the Prophets (C):

‘This is the codex, the Eight Prophets, which Yaʿbeṣ ben
Shlomo consecrated in Jerusalem … for the Karaites who
celebrate the feasts at seeing the moon, for them all to read
on Sabbath days, at new moons and at the feasts’.32

31
Kahle (1930, 3): ‫כדי שיוציאוהו אל המושבות והקהלות שבעיר הקודש בשלשה‬
‫רגלים חג המצות חג השבועות וחג הסוכות לקרות בו‬.
32
Kahle (1959, 93): ‫זה הדפתר שמנה נביאים שהקדיש אותו יעבץ בן שלמה‬
‫בירושלים … לקראין העושים המועדים על ראות הירח יקראו בו כלם בשבתות ובחדשים‬
‫ובמועדים‬.
 Introduction 33

II Firkovitch Evr. II B 34:

‘This Bible should be taken to one of the settlements in
which there are Karaite communities on Sabbaths and fes-
tivals in the city of Cairo so that the congregation can read
it each Sabbath and blessed festival’.33

The use of Masoretic codices for liturgical reading distin-

guished the Karaites from the Rabbanites, who continued to use
scrolls for this purpose (Allony 1979).

I.0.5. QERE AND KETIV

The medieval Tiberian Bible codices record the reading tradition
not only in the vocalization sign system but also in marginal
notes. These are known as qere notes. The term qere is the Ara-
maic passive participle ‫‘ ק ֵרי‬read’. The notes were marked when
there was a conflict between the orthography of the text, known
as the ketiv (from the Aramaic passive participle ‫‘ כ ִתיב‬written’),
and the oral reading. The usual practice in the manuscripts was
to write the vocalization of the qere on the orthography of the
ketiv and then write in the margin the appropriate orthography
of the qere without vocalization. The qere note in the margin is
generally flagged by the word ‫( קרי‬qere) under it or the abbrevi-
ation ‫ק‬, e.g.

2 Kings 20.4

L: ‫ָה ֵעי֖ ר‬ Margin: ‫חצר‬ i.e. read the ketiv ‫ העיר‬as ‫ָח ֵ ֖צר‬
‫ק‬

33
Kahle (1930, 74–77): ‫יאסף זה המקרא אל אחת המושבות שיהיה בה קהלות‬
‫הקראיין בשבתות ובמועדים במדינת מצרים לקראת הקהל בו בכל שבת ומועד ברוך‬.
34 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

In some places in the manuscripts, the qere note is accom-

panied by a sign that resembles a final nun ‫ן‬. This was evidently
a device to draw the attention of the reader (Ofer 2019, 89–91).
Qere notes are unevenly distributed across the Hebrew Bi-
ble. They are less frequent in the Pentateuch than in the Prophets
and Writings.34
When there is a regular conflict between the orthography
of the reading in frequently occurring words and forms, as is the
case, for example, with the Tetragrammaton (ketiv ‫יהוה‬, qere ‫ֲאד ֹנָ י‬
or ‫ֹלהים‬ ֱ the place name ‘Jerusalem’ (ketiv ‫ירושלם‬, qere ‫רּוש ַליִ ם‬
ִ ‫)א‬, ָ ‫)י‬
and some morphological suffixes (see below), the vocalization of
the word reflects the qere but there are no qere notes in the mar-
gins with the appropriate orthography.
It is important to distinguish between the qere notes and
the qere. The term qere should properly refer to the entire reading
tradition, reflected by the vocalization, whereas the qere notes
concern selected cases where the reading tradition differs suffi-
ciently from the orthography to lead to errors in reading. Errors
in reading included not only errors in pronunciation but also er-
rors in the understanding and parsing of a word.
As remarked, the transmission of the Hebrew Bible in-
volved the intertwining of written text and oral reading tradition.
The written text was copied by scribes and the memory of the
oral reading tradition was passed on from generation to
generation by teachers. The scribes and the teachers constituted
two distinct groups and their activities were distinct. This is one
of the reasons why discrepancies arose between the two channels

34
Barr (1981), Tov (2015, 157).
 Introduction 35

of transmission. To understand further the phenomenon of a

reading tradition (qere) of the Hebrew Bible that does not always
correspond to the orthography of the written text (ketiv), it is
helpful to compare the qere to the oral reading traditions of the
Qurʾān, known as qirāʾāt.
According to early Islamic sources, immediately after the
death of the prophet Muḥammad, Qurʾānic verses were preserved
in both written and oral form. They were recorded in writing on
small fragmentary objects, such as palm stalks and thin stones,
and were transmitted in human memory ‘in the hearts of men’
(ṣudūr al-rijāl).35 The implication is that oral traditions accompa-
nied written traditions from the very beginning of the process of
transmission. After the written text of the Qurʾān had been offi-
cially stabilized and had undergone a process of standardization
in the form of the edition of the caliph ʿUthmān (seventh century
C.E.), considerable diversity still remained in the various tradi-
tions of orally reciting the text, despite the fact that ʿUthmān had
commanded the written texts that did not conform to the new
ʿUthmānic recension to be destroyed. These oral reading tradi-
tions exhibited different linguistic features, reflecting differences
between the spoken Arabic dialects of the period, and also textual
differences. Some of the differences were also due to grammatical
errors by reciters. For approximately two centuries after the in-
troduction of the ʿUthmānic standard written text, some textual
differences in the reading traditions still deviated from the or-

35
See ḥadīth 4986 in the collection of al-Bukhārī (Ṣaḥiḥ al-Bukhārī) ed.
Muḥammad M. Khan (1997).
36 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

thography of this standard text. The textual differences, there-

fore, were not only different interpretations of the written or-
thography but also, it seems, different readings that arose in oral
transmission. By the third century A.H./ninth century C.E., how-
ever, the permitted forms of reading were strictly brought into
line with the orthography of the text and with standardized rules
of Arabic grammar. This was largely due to the activities of Ibn
Mujāhid (d. 324 A.H./936 C.E.), who had the official backing of
the government authorities. Ibn Mujāhid also reduced the num-
ber of authorized reading traditions to seven canonical ones,
which were transmitted from a recognized authority and had a
large number of tradents. The principle of conformity with the
orthography of the ʿUthmānic text did not necessarily require
correspondence to the reading originally intended by the orthog-
raphy, but rather it was required that the reading could be ac-
commodated by the orthography. The potential for variation was
increased by the fact that what was fixed was the orthography
without diacritical dots on the Arabic letters (known as the rasm).
This is likely to have been intentional in order to accommodate
a diversity of reading traditions. The text, therefore, could not
serve as a stand-alone document but rather functioned as an aide-
mémoire for the oral reading (Graham and Kermani 2007, 116;
Roxburgh 2008, 8). Various different dialectal forms of Arabic
were permitted in the reading traditions, so long as they could be
supported by the rasm. The orthography originally represented
the western Arabian dialect of the Ḥijāz in which a glottal stop
was elided. The word for ‘well, spring’, for example, was
pronounced as bīr in the dialect of Ḥijāz (i.e. ‫ )بير‬and this is what
 Introduction 37

was originally intended by the orthography ‫ىىر‬. This was how it

was pronounced also in some of the canonical reading traditions.
Other canonical reading traditions, however, read the rasm with
a glottal stop, viz. biʾr, in accordance with the phonology of the
eastern Arabian dialect (i.e. ‫)بٸر‬. Some of the most widely
followed canonical readings in later centuries, in fact, followed
the eastern type of pronunciation, which deviated from what the
orthography was originally intended to represent.36
The qere of the Hebrew Bible was most likely analogous to
the Qurʾānic reading traditions, especially those of the early
Islamic period, which sometimes differed textually from the
orthography.37 As with the Qurʾānic reading traditions, the qere
reflects an orally transmitted reading tradition of the written text,
i.e. a memorized tradition of oral recitation. It need not be as-
sumed that it is derived from a variant written tradition that had
its origin in written manuscripts.38 Indeed allusions to Jewish ed-
ucation in the Second Temple Period refer to learning the Torah

36
For a good overview of Qurʾānic reading traditions see Leemhuis
(2017). See also Nasser (2013) and Graham and Kermani (2007).
37
Cf. Crowther (2018), who draws analogies between the diversity of
Qurʾānic oral reading traditions with the pluriformity of biblical texts
from Qumran.
38
We take the view here of scholars who have stressed the oral dimen-
sion of the text reflected by the vocalization; cf. especially Barr (1968,
194–222; 1981), Morag (1974), M. Breuer (1997) and Ofer (2019, 87–
89). A discrepancy between a reading tradition and the written text
similar to the one found in the transmission of the Hebrew Bible is found
38 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

by hearing the recitation of texts, which would be memorized

and repeated orally. This acquired knowledge of the text would
stand independently of the written text. Josephus (d. 100 C.E.)
describes such a process of education as follows:
Let the high priest stand upon a high desk, whence he may
be heard, and let him read the laws to all the people; and
let neither the women nor the children be hindered from
hearing.39

Such memorized oral traditions could potentially survive

punctuations such as the physical destruction of written texts, as
is likely to have happened after the destruction of the First
Temple in the sixth century B.C.E.40 and as is reported to have
happened during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who,
according to 1 Macc. 1.56-57, ordered the destruction of books
in the Temple in 168–167 B.C.E. In a similar manner oral
traditions of the Qurʾān maintained textual traditions that were
eliminated by the physical destruction of written non-ʿUthmānic
versions (Zbrzezny 2019).
The qere notes in the medieval Masoretic codices are
unlikely to have originated as written marginal corrections of
specific words in the written text, as advocated, for example, by
scholars such as Ginsburg (1897, 183–87) and Gordis (1971).

also in the tradition of reciting the Talmud in the Yemenite Jewish

community; Morag (1988).
39
Antiquities (4.214). The passage is discussed by Schniedewind (2013,
196). Josephus refers elsewhere also to the memorization of Psalms by
the Levites (Antiquities 20.218).
40
Cf. Carr (2005, 161–73).
 Introduction 39

Rather they constitute a system that was developed before the

vocalization signs were created to alert the reader to places
where the oral reading deviates from what is represented by the
written orthography.
In the early Islamic tradition, the Qurʾān was typically
recited only from memory during congregational prayers. In an
attempt to bring the oral traditions more into line with the
written text, Ḥajjāj ibn Yūsuf (d. 95 A.H./714 C.E.), the governor
of Iraq, ordered the recitation to be made from a book rather
from memory alone (Hamdan 2006, 172). Such an attempt to
bring the recitation of oral tradition more closely together with
the text is likely to have occurred also in Judaism in the process
of fixing the text after the destruction of the Temple. The oral
and written traditions of both the Hebrew Bible and the Qurʾān,
nevertheless, continued to be separate levels of transmission. The
oral reading was the oral performance of the written text,
whereby the two levels were intertwined.
As is the case with Qurʾānic reading traditions, the qere
reflected linguistic differences from the ketiv, textual differences
and sporadic errors in reading.
The linguistic differences often appear to reflect dialectal
divergences. The qere of the pronominal suffixes ‫ָך‬- [-χɔː], ‫ת‬-
ָ
[-tʰɔː] and ‫יו‬-ָ [-ɔːɔv], for instance, reflect different morphological
forms from those reflected by the ketiv. The ketiv of the second
person suffixes ‫ך‬-, ‫ת‬- reflect forms without a final vowel and the
3ms suffix ‫יו‬- appears to reflect a suffix containing a front vowel,
such as -ēw or the like. The forms of the qere are reflected in
Qumran manuscripts and Hebrew epigraphic texts from the first
40 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

millennium B.C.E. by spellings such as ‫כה‬-, ‫תה‬- and ‫ו‬- (Cross and
Freedman 1952, 53, 66–67; Qimron 1986, 58–60). The spelling
of these suffixes with the normal Masoretic type of orthography
is also found in Qumran and epigraphic texts.41 The qere of the
suffixes ‫ָך‬-, ‫ת‬- ָ moreover, is reflected by the orthography
ָ and ‫יו‬-,
of the consonantal text in a few sporadic cases, e.g. ‫‘ ָיָ֣ד ָכה‬your
hand’ (Exod. 13.16), ‫‘ ַגַָ֥֣ר ָתה‬you have sojourned’ (Gen. 21.23), ‫ִִ֝ח ָָּ֗צו‬
‘his arrows’ (Psa. 58.8). It is not necessarily the case, therefore,
that the linguistic differences between the qere and the ketiv al-
ways reflect later stages of development of the Hebrew language,
but rather in many cases these may have been contemporary di-
alectal differences. Exceptional pronominal forms that appear in
the ketiv but not in the qere and have been considered archaic are
often attested in the orthography of Qumran manuscripts. This
applies, for example, to 2fs pronominal forms with final yod:

ketiv ‫אתי‬, qere ‫ ַ ֖את‬1 Kings 14.2 ‘you (fs)’

ketiv ‫הלכתי‬, qere ‫ ָה ָלֶ֑כת‬Jer. 31.21 ‘you (fs) went’

ketiv ‫לכי‬, qere ‫ ָלְ֖ך‬2 Kings 4.2 ‘to you’

The yod occurs on these pronominal forms in Qumran man-

uscripts where they do not occur in the ketiv of the Masoretic
Text, suggesting that it was still a living linguistic feature in the
late Second Temple period. Examples are particularly numerous
in the scroll 1QIsaa, e.g.42

41
For a detailed discusssion of the attested forms of the suffix see
Hornkohl (2020).
42
Material incorporated from the Gesenius grammar project contrib-
uted by Aaron Hornkohl.
 Introduction 41

ִ֛ ִ ‫ אַת‬Isa. 51.9 ‘[are] you

‫( אתי היאה‬1QIsaa 42.24 | BHS ‫־היא‬
[not] she’)

‫( לבכי‬1QIsaa 39.26 | BHS ‫ ִל ֵבְך‬Isa. 47.7 ‘your [fs] heart’)

‫( עליתי‬1QIsaa 17.4 | BHS ‫ ָע ִ ַ֥לית‬Isa. 22.1 ‘you [fs] have gone

up’)

In fact, the forms with yod occasionally occur in the qere of

the Masoretic text, e.g. ‫‘ ַח ָ ֶ֑יָ֣י ִכי‬your (fs) life’ (Psa. 103.4).
There are other less frequently occurring instances where
there appear to be differences in morphology between the form
represented by the orthography of the ketiv and the qere without
it being felt necessary to write a qere note, e.g.

Cant. 3.4. ‫יאתיו‬ ֶׁ֤ ‫‘ ַע‬until I had brought him’

ִ ‫ד־ש ֲה ֵב‬

Gen. 24.47. ‫‘ וָ ָא ִ ֶׁ֤שם‬and I placed’

Lev. 20.26. ‫‘ וָ ַאב ִ ַ֥דל‬and I have separated’

Here the ketiv orthography is likely to reflect the forms

‫ה ִביא ִֹתיו‬,
ֲ ‫ וָ ָא ֵשם‬and ‫ וָ ַאב ֵדל‬respectively. Evidently, the orthography
of the ketiv was considered to be acceptable as a representation
of the qere due to analogy with orthography in other contexts,
e.g. ‫‘ ָה ֵ ַ֥ביא‬bring!’ (1 Sam. 20.40), and defective spellings such as
‫‘ ו ָש ִל ִ ֖שם‬officers’ (Exod. 14.7).43
With regard to textual differences between the qere and the
ketiv, sometimes there is a difference in the whole word, e.g. 2
Kings 20.4, written ‫‘ העיר‬the town’, read ‫‘ ָח ֵ ֖צר‬the court’ or the

43
The linguistic differences between the qere and the ketiv are particu-
larly prominent in Biblical Aramaic, where in many cases each of these
layers clearly reflects different dialects of Aramaic.
42 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

division of words, e.g. Ezek. 42.9, written ‫ומתחתה לשכות האלה‬,

read ‫‘ ִמ ַ ֖ת ַחת ַהל ָשכֹות ָה ֵ ֶ֑אלה‬below these chambers’. In some isolated
cases the discrepancy amounts to omissions or additions of words
or phrases, e.g. Jer. 31.38, written ‫הנה ימים‬, read ‫ִה ֵנִ֛ה יָ ִ ַ֥מים ָב ִ ֖אים‬
‘behold the days are coming’.
In a few cases, a textual difference in the qere does not
differ in its phonetic form from the reading offered by the ketiv.
This applies, for example, to several instances where the ketiv is
‫‘ לו‬to him’ and the qere is ‫‘ לֹא‬not’ and vice versa, e.g.

‫יתת לַ קֹנַ֥ה א ֹ֖תֹו‬

ִ֛ ‫ר־ב ִ֜ ִעיר ֲאשר־ל ֹא ח ָָֹּ֗מה ַלצ ִמ‬
ָ ‫ו ְָ֠קם ַה ַַּ֨ביִ ת ֲאש‬

qere: ‫ֲאשר־לֹו ח ָָֹּ֗מה‬

‘The house that is in a city with a wall (ketiv: a city that is

not a wall) shall be made sure in perpetuity to him who
bought it’ (Lev. 25.30).

‫ו ָא ַ ַ֥מר ׀ לֹו ִ ִּ֚כי ַע ָתה ִת ֵתן‬

qere: ‫ו ָא ַ ַ֥מר ׀ לֹא‬

‘He would say “No, you must give it now”’ (ketiv: ‘He would
say to him “You must give it now”’ (1 Sam. 2.16).

In such cases, the conflict between the oral qere and the
orthography of the ketiv is only a difference in its interpretation,
which shows that the oral reading was transmitted together with
an associated semantic content. So the note in the margins of
medieval Masoretic manuscripts stating that the qere is ‫ לו‬where
the ketiv has ‫ לא‬indicates that in the reading tradition this word
lō has the meaning ‘to it’ and offers an orthography that is more
appropriate for this than the orthography of the ketiv (‫)לא‬, which
 Introduction 43

reflects a different meaning of lō, namely the meaning of the

negative particle. In late antiquity, this semantic content was
expressed by the Targums (Onqelos and Jonathan), which
frequently reflect an interpretation of the qere and not the ketiv
(e.g. Onqelos to Lev. 25.30: ‫‘ ביתא דבקרתא דליה שורא‬a house that
is in town that has a wall’). In a number of cases, however, the
Targums reflect the semantic content reflected by the
orthography of the ketiv. This applies, for example, to the Targum
to 1 Sam. 2.16, which reflects the ketiv ‫‘ לו‬to him’: ‫‘ ואמר ליה‬and
he said to him’. This reflects a diversity of interpretative
traditions.
Another case where the ketiv and qere have the same
phonetic form is 2 Sam 5.2: ketiv ‫והמבי את‬, qere note ‫‘ המביא את‬the
one bringing in + object marker’ (‫)ו ַה ֵמ ִ ֖ביא את־‬. The ketiv seems to
have arisen by haplography of an ʾalef. The qere note need not be
taken as evidence that it has its origin in a written manuscript
with the correct orthography, but rather indicates that in the
reading tradition the ketiv ‫ המבי‬is interpreted as meaning ‫המביא‬.
The purpose of the note was to ensure that readers parsed the
anomalous orthography ‫ המבי‬correctly. Similar cases of qere notes
that do not reflect a different pronunciation but rather offer help
in parsing words with an unusual orthography include Jer. 18.3
ketiv ‫והנהו‬, qere note ‫‘ והנה הוא‬and behold he’ (‫ה־הּוא‬
ִ֛ ֵ‫ )ו ִהנ‬and Exod.
4.2 ketiv ‫מזה‬, qere note ‫‘ מה זה‬what is that?’ (‫)מה־זה‬.
ַ In these last
two cases, the orthography of the ketiv has the purpose of
reflecting the prosodic bonding of the words. Although this
prosodic bonding indeed exists also in the qere, the qere note was
44 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

considered necessary since such combinations of words are

normally not represented in this way in the orthography.
Another case of the qere note apparently differing only in
orthography from the ketiv is

1 Chron. 11.17. L: ‫‘ וַ יִ ת ָ ַ֥או‬and he desired’, qere note: ‫ויתאיו‬,

i.e. the qere is ‫וַ יִ ת ָ ַ֥איו‬.

Here the spelling of the qere note with final ‫( יו‬imitating the
orthography of the 3ms pronominal suffix on plural nouns ‫ ָָיו‬-)
is likely to be a device to ensure that the ending of the word is
read as a final diphthong. Similar qere notes for this verb are
found in Prov. 23.6 and Prov. 24.1. An analogous type of note is
found in Jer. 17.11: ketiv ‫ימו‬, qere ‫‘ ימיו‬his days’ (‫)י ָָמיו‬. The orthog-
raphies ‫ ויתאו‬and ‫ ימו‬would, in principle, be possible for the rep-
resentation of a final diphthong consisting of qameṣ and conso-
nantal vav [ɔːɔv]. The point is that the vav in orthographic se-
quences such as ‫או‬- and ‫מו‬- at the ends of words would normally
be read in the biblical corpus as a vowel. The qere note warns
against following the normal practice, which would result in an
error of reading.
In a few cases, the qere has a qameṣ ḥaṭuf or ḥaṭef qameṣ
where the ketiv has a vowel letter vav, e.g.

Neh. 4.9. L: ‫‘ וַ ָנ ֶָׁ֤שוב‬and we returned’, qere note: ‫ונשב‬, i.e. the

qere is ‫וַ ָנ ֶָׁ֤שב‬.

The purpose of the qere note is to supply a more appropriate

orthography for the short vowel of the reading tradition since the
orthography of the ketiv with vav could cause an error in reading.
 Introduction 45

In some cases falling into the category of those just

discussed, in which the qere note presents a more frequent
variation of orthography rather than the orthography of a
completely different word, there is a Masoretic note relating to
orthography rather than a qere note, which serves the same
purpose, e.g.

Neh. 13.23. L: ‫‘ ַאשדו ִדיֹות ַעמונִ י֖ ֹות‬Ashdodite, Ammonite

women’, note ‫‘( יתיר ו‬the vav is redundant’), i.e. the qere is
‫ ַאשד ִדיֹות ַעמנִ י֖ ֹות‬.

In these types of cases the manuscripts occasionally differ,

some having a qere note and others a Masoretic note relating to
orthography (Ofer 2019, 92), e.g.

2 Sam. 16.8. ‫תח ָתו‬:

ַ

L: ‫‘ תחתיו ק‬the qere is ‫’תח ָתיו‬

ַ

A: ‫‘ ד חס‬one of four cases in which the orthography (of this

suffix) lacks (yod)’

Notes such as those just described, in which the qere is

pronounced the same or similarly to the ketiv, suggest that the
qere notes were originally compiled before the creation of the
vocalization signs, since the vocalization would have ensured
that such an error of reading was not made. References to
differences between qere and ketiv are, in fact, already mentioned
in Rabbinic literature (Yeivin 1980, §105; Ofer 2008; 2009).
In a large proportion of cases where the qere differs from
the ketiv, the qere represents an easier reading than the ketiv. The
reading may be textually easier. The qere, for example,
46 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

sometimes has a vav where the ketiv has a yod that is textually
difficult and has evidently arisen through scribal error, as in:

Jer. 13.20. L: ‫‘ ש ֶׁ֤אי ֵעינֵ יכם‬lift up your (pl) eyes’ (where the
ketiv reflects ‫‘ ש ִאי‬lift up (fs)’), qere note ‫שאו‬, i.e. the qere is
‫ש ֶׁ֤אּו‬

In some places, the qere inverts the letters of a ketiv of an

obscure form to produce a familiar form, e.g.

2 Sam. 20:14. L: ‫‘ וַ יִ ָקלֲ הּו‬and they assembled’, qere note

‫ויקהלו‬, i.e. the qere is ‫וַ יִ ָק ֲהלּו‬.

In such cases in the Aleppo Codex the vocalization signs are

not marked in the order required by the qere but rather are
marked on the letters of the ketiv in a different order from the
form of the qere that they are intended to represent, i.e. ‫וַ יִ ָקל ֲהּו‬
(Yeivin 1962). Here each individual letter has the vocalization
required by the qere but the sequence of vowels is still according
to the order of the letters in the ketiv. This may reflect the notion
that the qere here is correcting a mistaken orthography, which is
scrambled in the ketiv.
The qere may be socially easier, in that it supplies a euphe-
mism in place of a less socially polite ketiv, e.g.

Deut. 28.30. L: ‫‘ יִ שגָ לנָ ה‬he will ravish her’, qere note ‫ישכבנה‬,
i.e. the qere is ‫‘ יִ ש ָכבנָ ה‬he will lie with her’.

It may be theologically easier by, for example, supplying a

substitution for the sacred Tetragrammaton or avoiding an an-
thropomorphism, as in
 Introduction 47

Deut. 16.16. L: ‫הוה‬

ָ ‫ָשלֹוש פ ָע ִמים ׀ ַב ָש ָ֡ ָנה יֵ ָר ַּ֨אה ָכל־זכּור ִָ֜ך את־פ ֵני ׀ י‬
ָּ֗ ‫‘ ֱא‬Three times a year all your males shall appear before
‫ֹלהיָך‬
the Lord, your God’.

Here the verb ‫ ֵי ָר ַּ֨אה‬is read as a nifʿal, but the ketiv ‫ יראה‬ap-
pears to have originally represented a transitive qal verb ‘he will
see (the face of the Lord)’. The reading tradition was less anthro-
pomorphic and so theologically more acceptable.
In a few cases, however, the qere contains textual
differences that appear to be more difficult than that of the ketiv
and have arisen by an error, e.g.

2 Sam. 16.12. L: ‫ב ֵעו ִנֶ֑י‬, qere note ‫בעיני‬, i.e. the qere is ‫ב ֵע ִינֶ֑י‬
‘upon my eye’.

The ketiv reflects the word ‫‘ ֲעֹונִ י‬my punishment’, and this
would seem from the context to be the original reading here (C.
McCarthy 1981, 81–83) and the reading ‘my eye’ has arisen by
an erroneous reading of the word: )‫הו֖ה ב ֵע ִונֶ֑י (קרי בעיני‬
ָ ‫אּולִ֛י יִ ר ַ֥אה י‬
ַ
‫טֹובה ַ ַ֥ת ַחת ִקללָ ֖תֹו ַהיַ֥ ֹום ַהזָּֽה׃‬ ָ ‫‘ ו ֵה ִַּ֨שיב י‬It may be that the Lord will
ָ ‫הוַ֥ה ִלי‬
look upon my punishment (qere my eye) and that the Lord will
repay me with good for this cursing of me today.’ The Septuagint
translates ἐν τῇ ταπεινώσει μου ‘in my humiliation’, which is clearly
a rendering of the ketiv. The interpretation of Targum Jonathan,
however, reflects the reading of the qere: ‫מא אם גליא קדם יי דמעת‬
‫‘ עיני‬what if the tear of my eye is revealed before the Lord?’.
Another example is

Gen. 8.17. L: ‫‘ ַהו ֵצא‬bring out’, qere note ‫היצא‬, i.e. the qere is
‫ ַהי ֵצא‬.
48 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

The qere here is the morphologically difficult form ‫הי ֵצא‬,

ַ
whereas the ketiv reflects the expected form ‫הֹוצא‬.
ֵ Here again, the
qere seems to have arisen by an erroneous reading of a yod
instead of a vav. The letters vav and yod were often difficult to
distinguish in the Hebrew square script used in the Second
Temple Period (Tov 2012, 228–32).
Difficult qere readings such as ‫ ב ֵעינִ י‬and ‫ ַהי ֵצא‬, which appar-
ently arose from a confusion of written letters, do not necessarily
originate in scribal errors in written texts but rather could have
been due to misreadings of a written text in the oral recitation.
This would imply that the oral reading tradition, although mem-
orized and potentially independent of the written text, in practice
had some degree of dependence on it. As remarked, it is best
characterized as an oral performance of the visible written text.
The tradition of this oral performance was evidently less fixed in
antiquity and could adjust to the visible written text, even when
this was misread. At a later period, the Tiberian reading tradition
was fixed in its textual form, but it nevertheless continued to
have the status of an oral performance of the written text and so
have some degree of dependence on it. This is reflected, in par-
ticular, in the phenomenon of orthoepy in the Tiberian reading
tradition, i.e. the effort to ensure that the distinct elements of the
written text are given their optimal realization (§I.0.11.).
The intertwined nature of the oral reading tradition and the
written text is reflected also in the interpretation exhibited by the
early versions and by the interpretation traditions that existed
during the first millennium C.E. when the Tiberian reading was
still a living oral tradition. In the ancient versions, such as the
 Introduction 49

Septuagint, the Peshitta and the Vulgate, the renderings of pas-

sages with qere and ketiv differences in the Masoretic tradition in
some cases reflect the Tiberian qere and in other cases reflect the
ketiv.44 Even Greek transcriptions of Hebrew proper names in the
Septuagint in some cases reflect the ketiv rather than the qere.45
It is possible that in the source text and source reading tradition
of the Septuagint in the Second Temple Period the qere and ketiv
variations were distributed differently from what came to be
fixed in the Masoretic tradition. This is less likely, however, in
later versions such as the Peshitta and Vulgate, and it appears
that the translators were basing themselves on either the qere or
the ketiv. In the Talmudic period, indeed, the Rabbis based their
interpretations of Scripture on both the qere and the ketiv, and
traces of this practice continued into the Middle Ages.46

I.0.6. THE ACCENTS

The qere became canonical and fixed. After the canonization of
the qere, another level of oral reading was superimposed on the
qere in the form of the divisions of the qere text expressed by
cantillation. These divisions, which came to be represented
graphically by the medieval accent signs, expressed a particular

44
According to Gordis (1971, 66) the Peshitta and Vulgate versions
reflect approximately 70% qere readings and the Septuagint approxi-
mately 60%.
45
Myers (2019, 285–86).
46
Goldberg (1990), Naeh (1992; 1993).
50 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

interpretation of the text.47 Occasionally the accent divisions do

not correspond to the tradition of the written text. This applies
to some cases where there is a conflict between the accents and
the paragraph divisions, known as parashiyyot, in the Tiberian
Masoretic text. These paragraph divisions in the layout of the
written text are found in the manuscripts from Qumran, both
biblical and non-biblical. There is a large degree of agreement
between the paragraphing of the Qumran biblical scrolls and that
of the medieval manuscripts, which indicates that the tradition
can be traced back to the Second Temple period. In a number of
places, however, the paragraph divisions in the medieval manu-
scripts do not coincide with the end of a verse according to the
accents. This is known as ‫‘ פסקה באמצע פסוק‬a paragraph division
within a verse’, e.g. Gen. 35.22, 1 Sam. 16.2. The reason for this
appears to be that the paragraph division of the written text and
the division expressed by the cantillation are two different layers
of exegetical tradition, which occasionally do not correspond
with one another. In a number of cases, the cantillation divisions
conflicted with the qere, as is seen by the fact that in a number
of verses a division in the qere represented by a pausal form in
the vocalization has a conjunctive accent in the cantillation.48

47
There is evidence that the written accent signs were introduced before
the vocalization signs in the various traditions of notation of reading
traditions (Dotan 1981).
48
For this phenomenon see Revell (1980; 2015), I. Ben-David (1995)
and Khan (2013a, 59–60). According to Dresher (1994) and DeCaen
and Dresher (2020) this phenomenon is motivated by the system of pro-
sodic division, which obliges conjunctives to be used in long verses in
 Introduction 51

The cantillation is a layer of reading that has roots in late

antiquity. There are references to the teaching of biblical
cantillation in Talmudic literature. One passage (Babylonian
Talmud, Berakhot 62a) mentions the use of the right hand by the
teacher or leader of the congregation to indicate the accents of
the reading. The term ‫‘ פסקי טעמים‬stops of the accents’, which is
found in Talmudic literature, reflects the function of the accents
to mark syntactic division. The association of the chant with the
interpretation of the meaning of the text was recognized, as is
shown by the Talmudic interpretation of Neh. 8.8 ‘[And they read
from the book, from the law of God, clearly;] they gave the sense
and (the people) understood the reading’ (‫)ושֹום שכל וַ יָ ִ ֖בינּו ַב ִמק ָ ָּֽרא‬,
which is said to refer to the reading with accents.
Evidence for the division of the biblical text by accents in
the Second Temple period is found in a Septuagint manuscript
from the second century B.C.E. that has spaces corresponding to
the major pausal accents of the Tiberian tradition (Revell 1971).
In addition to the Tiberian accent signs, there was also a tradition
of marking cantillation divisions by accents in manuscripts with
Babylonian vocalization. Divisions of the Babylonian cantillation
in most cases coincide with those of the Tiberian tradition
(Shoshany 2003; 2013). This can be interpreted as reflecting that
they had a common origin in antiquity.
There is evidence that in the Second Temple period the
exegesis of the syntax of the biblical text did not always

some places where they are not expected. This would imply that the
prosodic accent system was imposed on an earlier inherited reading tra-
dition.
52 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

correspond to that of the Tiberian accents. This is seen in the

Septuagint translation, which often reflects a different syntactic
division of the verse. From the Pesher commentaries found in
Qumran, moreover, it appears that the delimitation of biblical
verses did not always correspond to the placement of the final
pausal accent (silluq) in the Tiberian tradition. It should be taken
into account, however, that, just as there was a large range of
consonantal textual traditions at this period, it is likely that there
were a variety of exegetical traditions regarding the syntax of the
text.
This is seen in the case of Isa. 40.3. In the New Testament,
‘the voice of one crying in the wilderness’ of Matt. 3.3 reflects an
interpretation that is different from the one reflected by the
Tiberian accents. In the Manual of Discipline from Qumran (1QS
8.13-14), however, the introit ‘a voice calls’ is omitted and the
teacher uses the verse to exhort the sectarians ‘to prepare a way
in the wilderness’, i.e. establish a community there. This shows
that the Masoretic interpretation of the syntax was also current
at that period. The version found in Matt. 3.3 is apparently an
exegetical reworking to support the call of John from the wilder-
ness (Fishbane 1988, 367–68). Another case is Deut. 26.5. The
interpretation in conformity with the accents ‘An Aramaean was
seeking to destroy my father’ can be traced to the Second Temple
period. Midrashic literature, however, indicates that there was
also an ancient tradition of interpreting it ‘My father is an
Aramaean about to perish’ (Goldschmidt 1960, 34ff.).49 It is likely

49
The Septuagint translation (συρίαν ἀπέβαλεν ὁ πατήρ μου ‘my father
abandoned Syria’) seems to reflect a slightly different consonantal text.
 Introduction 53

that the exegetical tradition of the Masoretic accents has its

origin in the teachings of mainstream Pharisaic Judaism. Within
the accent system itself one can sometimes identify different
layers of tradition. One example of this is the decalogue in Exod.
20.13-16. The accentuation of this passage is unusual in that most
words have two different accents. The explanation of this double
accentuation is apparently that it reflects two layers of tradition.
According to one layer of tradition, the four commandments are
presented in four separate verses, whereas in another they form
together one accentual unit.50
The Targums frequently reflect an interpretation of the text
that corresponds to the divisions of the cantillation. In Deut. 26.5,
for instance, the disjunctive accent on the first word of the clause
‫ ֲא ַר ִמי א ֵֹבד ָא ִבי‬indicates that it is syntactically separated from the
following word and so the two should be interpreted as subject
and predicate rather than a noun and attributive adjective. The
sense reflected by the accents, therefore, is ‘An Aramaean (i.e.
Laban) was seeking to destroy my father’. This is a Midrashic
interpretation, which is reflected by Targum Onqelos ( ‫לבן ארמאה‬
‫)בעא לאובדא ית אבא‬.
We may say, therefore, that three layers of textual tradition
became fixed and canonized, one written, i.e. the ketiv, and two
oral, i.e. the qere and the cantillation tradition. It is not known
whether there was a difference in the historical depth of the two
oral layers of tradition. The accents, however, clearly relate more
closely to the qere than the ketiv. When, for example, the qere

50
For the existence of different layers of accent systems see Menahem
Cohen (1987).
54 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

contains words that are not written in the ketiv, these words have
accents and, vice versa, words that are written but not read have
no accents. When a word that occurs in the qere is omitted in the
ketiv, some manuscripts write the accents, e.g. in Jer. 31.38,
where the ketiv is ‫ הנה ימים‬and the qere is ‫‘ ִה ֵנִ֛ה יָ ִ ַ֥מים ָב ִ ֖אים‬behold the
days are coming’, L writes the accents of the qere ‫ ָב ִ ֖אים‬on a filler
sign:

L:

This phenomenon of two oral traditions may be compared

to the toleration of pluriformity in the oral reading traditions
(qirāʾāt) of the Qurʾān. As we have seen above, attempts were
made to restrain this pluriformity, but it was not eliminated
altogether and a limited diversity of reading traditions were
legitimated. The most direct analogy to the different Qurʾānic
qirāʾāt is the existence of reading traditions that were distinct
from the Tiberian one, namely the Babylonian, Palestinian and
various non-standard Tiberian traditions. One could, however,
also regard the existence of distinct oral layers within the
Tiberian tradition as a manifestation of the legitimation of a
pluriformity of reading traditions.
 Introduction 55

I.0.7. THE REPRESENTATION OF THE QERE IN WRITTEN

FORM
As is well known, the Targums sometimes go beyond the oral
reading reflected by the medieval Masoretic tradition and make
further adjustments for purposes of exegesis or the resolution of
perceived textual difficulties. One may regard them, therefore, as
a further layer of tradition, refining the oral cantillated qere. It is
of interest that some features of the oral qere and the adjustments
of the Targums actually appear in the written text of some
Qumran Hebrew Bible manuscripts.51 This may be compared to
the situation in the early years of the transmission of the Qurʾān.
There are references to the existence of early codices of the
Qurʾān that deviated from the ʿUthmānic text. Some of the
readings attributed to these codices that differed from the
ʿUthmānic text survived as oral reading traditions after the
ʿUthmānic recension had become the standard written form of
the text.52 Even in some medieval manuscripts of the Hebrew
Bible, the reading of the qere was written in the text in place of
the reading of the ketiv. These were predominantly manuscripts
written for private use. Such manuscripts, which are mainly
preserved in the Genizah in fragmentary form, often deviate from
the traditional Masoretic tradition in other respects. Many, for

51
For the reflection of the qere in the ketiv of 1QIsaa from Qumran see
Kutscher (1979, 519–21). The correspondences between the adjust-
ments of the Targum and the ketiv of Qumran manuscripts have been
discussed by Gottlieb (2016).
52
See Leemhuis (2017).
56 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

example, exhibit features of Non-Standard Tiberian vocalization

or lack accents. An extreme case of such private medieval
manuscripts is a corpus of Hebrew Bible manuscripts written by
Karaite scribes in Arabic transcription (§I.0.13.3.). These regu-
larly represent the qere in the transcription rather than the ketiv.
By contrast, monumental manuscripts, which were typically
deposited in public institutions, preserved the traditional dis-
tinction between the ketiv and the qere.
Biblical manuscripts with Palestinian vocalization, which
in general should be considered to be private texts, frequently
have the qere form written in place of the ketiv (Revell 1977, 164–
65). Manuscripts with Babylonian vocalization, most of which
can be assumed to have been written in Iraq, correspond to the
Tiberian consonantal text very closely and differ only in a few
details. These differences are generally related to orthography
and include, in some cases, the harmonization of the ketiv with
the qere. Such small divergences between the ‘Easterners’ (Madin-
ḥaʾe) and the ‘Westerners’ (Maʿarbaʾe) are mentioned in the
Tiberian Masoretic notes and also in lists appended to Tiberian
manuscripts.

I.0.8. THE HISTORICAL DEPTH OF THE TIBERIAN READING

TRADITION
There are a number of indications that the Tiberian reading tra-
dition, i.e. the qere of the Tiberian Masoretic Text, which came
to be represented by the Tiberian vocalization sign system, had
its roots in the Second Temple Period.
 Introduction 57

As has been remarked, the textual differences between the

reading and the written text are referred to in Rabbinic literature.
Furthermore, some of the Qumran scrolls from the Second
Temple period have in a number of places the text of the Tiberian
qere.53 One may trace back the text of qere forms even further,
into the period of literary growth of the biblical books. There is
internal evidence for this in the distribution of qere and ketiv
within the Masoretic text. This is found, for example, in the fact
that the ketiv of the text of Chronicles often corresponds to the
qere of its earlier biblical source. An example of this is the word
ָ ‫‘ ִמג ָרש‬surrounding pasture-lands’, which is used in association
‫יה‬
with the lists of Levitical cities in Josh. 21 and 1 Chron. 6. The
Chronicler is clearly using the text of Josh. 21 as his literary
source. In the original text in Joshua, the word is always written
as a singular form but it is read in the reading tradition as a
plural: ‫מג ָרש ָה‬.
ִ This reflects a later interpretation of an originally
singular form as a plural (Barr 1984). This ‘later’ interpretation,
however, is no later than the consonantal text of Chronicles,
where it is written as a plural. Even if we do not attribute this
interpretation to the author of the Chronicles passage, there are
good grounds for arguing that the text of the reading tradition of
Josh. 21 is as old as the consonantal text of 1 Chron. 6.54

53
This is found particularly in ‘popular’ texts such as 1QIsaa; cf. Kutscher
(1979, 519–21).
54
For the antiquity of the reading tradition see the discussion in Barr
(1968, 207–22) and Grabbe (1977, 179–97). Maimon Cohen (2007)
argues that the qere variants listed in the Masoretic notes are linguistic
58 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

In Late Biblical Hebrew, certain verbs with a reflexive or

non-agentive meaning appear as nifʿal in the past suffix
conjugation form (perfect) whereas they appear as qal in Classical
Biblical Hebrew. The intransitive form of the verb ‘to stumble’
(‫)כשל‬, for example, appears in the nifʿal ‫ נִ כ ַשל‬in the book of Daniel
(‫‘ ונִ כ ַ ַ֥של‬and he will stumble’ Dan. 11.19) but in the qal form ‫ָכ ַשל‬
elsewhere. In the prefix conjugation (imperfect), however, the
verb is vocalized as a nifʿal throughout the Bible. This is because
the ketiv of the prefix conjugation (‫ )יכשל‬is ambiguous as to the
verbal conjugation and could, in principle, be read as qal or nifʿal.
The Tiberian reading tradition treats the verbal forms as nifʿal
where this would be compatible with the consonantal text, but
the occurrence of the qal form in the suffix conjugation in
Classical Biblical Hebrew suggests that the verb was originally
read as qal in all forms. This is clearly the case in the infinitive
form of this verb ‫( ּו ִִ֝ב ָכש ָּ֗לֹו‬Prov. 24.17), where the consonant text
lacks the initial he of the nifʿal (‫)ה ָכ ֵשל‬
ִ and so must have repre-
sented the qal, but it is nevertheless read as a nifʿal. The crucial
point is that the replacement of the qal by the nifʿal is reflected
by the consonantal text itself in Late Biblical Hebrew in the book
of Daniel. In some cases, the evidence for the development of an
original qal verb into a nifʿal form that is independent of the vo-
calization is found in the Qumran manuscripts from the Second
Temple period many centuries before the creation of the vocali-
zation sign system. This applies, for example, to the verb ‫‘ נגש‬to
approach’. On account of the assimilation of the initial nun in this

variants that date back to the time of the composition of the biblical
books.
 Introduction 59

verb when in contact with the following consonant, the orthog-

raphy of the prefix conjugation can only be read as qal (‫) ִיגַ ש‬, since
a nifʿal reading would require the insertion of a nun in the conso-
nantal text (‫) ִינָ גֵ ש‬. The orthography of the suffix conjugation form
(‫)נגש‬, however, could be read as either qal or nifʿal, and it is the
nifʿal reading that was adopted in the reading tradition (‫)נִ גַ ש‬. In
the Qumran text 4Q512 (40–41, 2) the infinitive of this verb ap-
pears in the form ‫בהנגשו‬, which is unambiguously a nifʿal (‫)ב ִהנָ גשֹו‬
(Ariel 2013, 947). Similar distinctions between the suffix conju-
gation and prefix conjugation of passive forms are found,
whereby the former is vocalized as puʿal whereas the latter is vo-
calized as nifʿal (e.g. ‫‘ ט ַֹרף‬was torn apart’ vs. ‫)יִט ֵרף‬.
ָ Furthermore,
the vocalization interprets certain verbs as piʿel, which are likely
to have been originally qal. The verb ‫‘ גרש‬to drive out’, for exam-
ple, is normally vocalized as piʿel in the prefix and suffix conju-
gations (‫גֵ ר ָשה‬, ‫)תגָ ֵרש‬, in which the orthography is ambiguous be-
tween a qal or piʿel reading. In the participles, however, where
the orthography of qal and piʿel would be distinct, the original
ָ ‫)ג‬. The shifts of puʿal to nifʿal and qal
qal is preserved (‫ג ֵֹרש‬, ‫רּושה‬
to piʿel are developments that are attested in Post-biblical Hebrew
already in Second Temple sources.55
Another case of correspondence of the ketiv of late books
with that of the qere of earlier books is the word ‘Jerusalem’. The

55
For these issues relating to the vocalization of verbal forms see
Ginsberg (1934), Ben-Ḥayyim (1958, 237), Qimron (1986) and Fass-
berg (2001). For further re-interpretations of the Masoretic orthography
in the Samaritan reading tradition see Ben-Ḥayyim (2000, 338–339)
and Schorch (2004).
60 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

regular ketiv or this word in the earlier books is ‫ירושלם‬, whereas

ָ ‫[ י‬jaʀ̟uːʃɔːˈlaːjim] with the final syllable broken
the qere is ‫רּוש ַלם‬
by a glide. In some of the late books, there are a few examples of
the ketiv of this work spelt with a yod before the final mem, e.g.
‫ּוש ַליִ ם‬
ָ ‫( ִמיר‬Esther 2.6).
External evidence for the antiquity of the qere includes the
fact that in many cases where there is a semantic difference be-
tween the qere and the ketiv, the meaning of the qere is reflected
by the Greek Septuagint. A clear example of this is the exegetical
alteration in the reading tradition whereby an original expression
of ‘seeing the face of God’ is changed into the theologically more
acceptable ‘appearing before God’ by reading the verb as a nifʿal
rather than as a qal, e.g. Deut. 16.16 ‫ָשלֹוש פ ָע ִמים ׀ ַב ָש ָ֡ ָנה ֵי ָר ַּ֨אה ָכל־‬
‫ֹלהיָך‬ ָ ‫‘ זכּור ִָ֜ך את־פ ֵני ׀ י‬Three times a year all your males shall
ָּ֗ ‫הוה ֱא‬
appear before the Lord, your God’. This change is clear where the
verb is an infinitive and it lacks the expected initial he of the nifʿal
form in the consonantal text, e.g. Exod. 34.24 ‫ַב ֲע ָֹּֽלת ָָּ֗ך ֵל ָראֹות את־פנֵ י‬
ָ ‫‘ י‬When you go up to appear before the Lord, your God’.
‫הוה ֱאֹלהיָך‬
This change in the reading tradition is reflected not only in the
Targums but also already in the Septuagint (C. McCarthy 1981,
197–202), the Pentateuch section of which is normally dated to
the third century B.C.E.
One example that demonstrates the conservative nature of
the phonology of the Tiberian reading is the pronunciation of the
pe in the word ‫‘ ַא ַפדנֹו‬his palace’ (Dan. 11.45). According to
medieval sources, this was pronounced as an emphatic
unaspirated stop, whereas the letter pe with dagesh in all other
places in the reading tradition was pronounced as an aspirated
 Introduction 61

stop, i.e. a stop followed by a short flow of air before the onset
of the voicing for the ensuing vowel (§I.1.17.). The hard
pronunciation of the pe is also mentioned by Jerome, who states
that it is the only ‘Latin’ p in the entire Bible (p in Latin was
regularly pronounced as an unaspirated stop).56 The hard
pronunciation is also reflected by the Greek transcription Απαδανω
by the Church father Theodoretus (fifth century CE). Here the
Hebrew letter is with Greek pi, which, like Latin p, was pronounced
as unaspirated [p].57 The word is in origin a loan from Old Persian.
The unaspirated pronunciation of the pe, which is
uncharacteristic of Hebrew, evidently preserves a feature that
existed in the pronunciation of the source language.58 The fact
that this feature, which conflicted with normal Hebrew
pronunciation, should have been preserved from the original

56
Notandum autem quod cum pe littera hebraeus sermo non habeat,
sed pro ipsa utatur phe cuius uim graecum φ sonat—in isto tantum loco
apud Hebraeos scribatur quidem phe sed legatur pe. ‘But it should be
noted that while Hebrew speech does not have the letter pe (i.e., Latin
p [p]), but instead of it uses phe, the force of which is approximated by
the sound of Greek φ (i.e., [ph])—in that particular place (i.e., Dan.
11.45) among the Hebrews phe (i.e., ‫[ פ‬ph]) indeed is written but it is
read as pe (i.e., Latin p [p])’. Translation by Ben Kantor. Cf. Sutcliffe
(1948, 124–25).
57
Some Greek transcriptions represent the Hebrew pe with Greek phi
(i.e. aspirated [pʰ]), e.g. εφαδανω (Theodotion, second century C.E.),
εφαδανω / αφαδανω (Polychronios, fifth century C.E.). These could be
interpreted as reflecting variant reading traditions. The Greek data were
supplied by Ben Kantor.
58
Steiner (1993).
62 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

period of composition right down to the period of the Masoretes,

centuries after contact of the transmitters of the tradition with
the source language had ceased, demonstrates great conservatism
in the Tiberian reading tradition.
Another relevant issue in this context is the pronunciation
of the letter ‫ש‬, which is read in the Tiberian reading tradition in
two ways, distinguished in the vocalization by points, namely
either as [ʃ] (shin) or as [s] (sin), the latter being equivalent to
the sound of the letter ‫( ס‬samekh). It is clear that the reading
tradition of ‫ ש‬differed from the original pronunciation of the
letter in the pre-exilic period when Hebrew was first committed
to writing, otherwise the letter ‫ ס‬would regularly appear in the
orthography where the reading tradition pronounces the sound
[s].59 It is noteworthy, however, that roots and words that were

59
This orthographic phenomenon can be interpreted in two ways. The
pre-exilic ‫ ש‬may have been pronounced as a single sound, presumably
[ʃ], in all contexts. Possible evidence for this is the fact that in the
Samaritan reading tradition the letter is always pronounced [ʃ],
including where the Tiberian tradition has sin. This feature of the
Samaritan reading tradition may have its roots in a type of
pronunciation that existed side by side with the Tiberian type in the
Second Temple Period. Alternatively, the letter ‫ ש‬in the pre-exilic
orthography may have been intended to represent two sounds, which,
according to this interpretation, are normally thought to have been [ʃ]
and a lateral sibilant resembling the lateral s [ɬ] of Modern South
Arabian languages. In the Second Temple Period the lateral sibilant
would have shifted to [s]. It should be taken into account, furthermore,
that both of these alternative types of pronunciation of ‫ ש‬may have
existed in the pre-exilic period. The necessity to use a single letter to
 Introduction 63

regularly spelt with sin in pre-exilic books are occasionally spelt

interchangeably with sin and samekh in later books, e.g.

Ezra 4.5: ‫‘ וסֹכ ִ ִ֧רים‬and they hire’ vs. 2 Chron. 24.12 ‫ש ֹכ ִרים‬

The letters sin and samekh occasionally interchange in

proper names in the late books, e.g.

Ezra 4.11: ‫‘ ַאר ַתח ַ ֖ששתא‬Artaxerxes’ vs. Ezra 7.1 ‫ַאר ַתח ַשסתא‬

Such cases of interchange between the written letters sin

and samekh are sporadic and most likely unintentional deviations
from the standard orthography that reflect the interference of
contemporary pronunciation.
In Rabbinic literature, the qere of sin is sometimes referred
to as samekh and its ketiv as shin.60 In these sources, the reading
(qere) of the letter sin is identified with that of samekh. Inter-
changes of orthography such as ‫ וסֹכ ִ ִ֧רים‬and ‫ש ֹכ ִרים‬, therefore, con-
stitute another case of the qere being datable to the Second
Temple Period by orthographic variations internal to the
consonantal text.
In some manuscripts with Palestinian and Babylonian vo-
calization, the letter sin is distinguished from shin by writing over
sin a miniature ‫( ס‬samekh) and over shin a miniature ‫( ש‬shin)
(Revell 1970a, 87; Kahle 1902, 11). In some manuscripts with
Palestinian vocalization written in abbreviated form (known as

represent two sounds arose from the fact the alphabet used to write
Hebrew was in origin the one that was developed to represent
Phoenician, in which the two sibilant sounds in question were not
distinguished.
60
Steiner (1996).
64 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

serugin) a letter samekh is written in place of sin (Revell 1977,

66).
There is some evidence that the placement of samekh over
the letter ‫ ש‬as a diacritical sign for sin was an ancient practice
with roots in the period in which the ketiv was being stabilized,
i.e. the Second Temple period. One persuasive case is the variant
spellings of the following proper name in the books of Nehemiah
and Ezra:

Neh. 7.52. L: ‫נ ִ ָּֽפוש ִ ָּֽסים‬, qere note: ‫נפישסים‬, i.e. the qere is
‫נ ִ ָּֽפיש ִ ָּֽסים‬.

Ezra 2.50. L: ‫נפי ִ ָּֽסים‬, qere note ‫נפוסים‬, i.e. the qere is ‫נפּו ִ ָּֽסים‬.

If we leave aside the difference between the ketiv and the

qere regarding the medial vowel in this name, the spelling with
the added shin in Neh. 7.52 ‫ נ ִ ָּֽפוש ִ ָּֽסים‬could be explained as the
result of the fact that the spelling was originally ‫שים‬
֯ ‫ נפו‬with a
superscribed samekh over the ‫ ש‬to indicate that it should be read
as sin. The samekh was subsequently incorporated into the line of
the text by scribal error.61 The reading of the first letter of the
sequence ‫ שס‬as shin is likely to have been a later orthoepic
measure to ensure that the two letters were read distinctly
(§I.0.11.). The form ‫ נפי ִ ָּֽסים‬in Ezra 2.50 with samekh is presumably
an orthographic variant of the original form ‫ נפישים‬with sin. If
this is the correct explanation, then this is further evidence for
the equivalence of samekh and sin at an early period.
It should be pointed out that in qere notes in the medieval
manuscripts a sin of the ketiv is spelt ‫ ש‬and not ‫ס‬, e.g.

61
Cf. Honeyman (1944).
 Introduction 65

Ezra 4.23. L: ‫ ַאר ַתח ַששתא‬, qere note: ‫ששת‬, i.e. the qere is
‫אר ַתח ַששת‬.
ַ

Ezra 10.37: L: ‫ויַ ֲע ָשו‬, qere note: ‫ויעשי‬, i.e. the qere is ‫ויַ ֲע ָשי‬.

Ezra 10.44. L: ‫נָ ש ֖אי‬, qere note: ‫נשאו‬, i.e. the qere is ‫נָ ש ֖אּו‬.

In such cases, the focus of the qere note is not on the sin but
rather on other letters in the ketiv. It may be for this reason that
it has not been replaced by samekh in the note. Moreover, the
purpose of the qere notes was to supply an appropriate
orthography of the qere. Within the norms of the biblical
orthography, ‫ ש‬was an appropriate orthography of [s] and so
there was no need to alter it.
Another indicator that the roots of the Tiberian reading
tradition were in the Second Temple period is its close
relationship with the Babylonian reading tradition, which is
reflected by manuscripts with Babylonian vocalization. This close
relationship between two branches of tradition transmitted in
different geographical locations is most easily explained through
the comparative method of historical linguistics as the result of a
common genetic connection in a single location at an earlier
period. The most obvious place of origin would be Second
Temple Palestine. Just as the written text of both the Babylonian
tradition and the Tiberian tradition has its origins in a proto-
Masoretic text of the Second Temple Period,62 it is likely that
there was a proto-Masoretic reading tradition, which likewise
split into an eastern and western branch. This proto-Masoretic

62
For the phenomenon of the proto-Masoretic text-type in the Second
Temple sources see Tov (2012).
66 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

reading tradition was clearly distinct from the Samaritan reading

tradition, which itself exhibits some features that can be
correlated with Second Temple sources, such as the long
pronominal forms (attimma, -kimma).63
As remarked, there is evidence of great conservatism in
some elements of the Tiberian reading tradition, such as the pe
of ‫( ַא ַפדנֹו‬Dan. 11.45), but a comparison of the Tiberian and Bab-
ylonian branches of the biblical reading tradition shows that in
some features the Babylonian reading appears to be more linguis-
tically conservative. This is shown by the fact the Babylonian
tradition sometimes has parallels with earlier sources that are
lacking in the Tiberian tradition. For example, the preservation
of an /a/ vowel in unstressed closed syllables that is found in the
transcriptions of the Septuagint, Origen and Jerome is a feature
of Babylonian pronunciation, whereas this vowel is more widely
attenuated to /i/ in the Tiberian tradition, e.g. Septuagint
Μαβσαρ ‘Mabsar’ (Tiberian: ‫מב ָ ָּֽצר‬,
ִ 1 Chron. 1.53),64 Origen’s Hex-
apla λαμαλαμα ‘for the battle’ (Tiberian: ‫ ַל ִמל ָח ָ ֶ֑מה‬Psa. 18.40),65
ִ 66 Babylonian ‫מבצַר‬
Jerome: macne ‘cattle’ (Tiberian: ‫)מקנה‬,
[mavˈsˁɑːr].67 Babylonian corresponds to Origen and Jerome and
also to some Qumran texts in preserving the unstressed /o/ vowel

63
Morag (1971), Ben-Ḥayyim (2000).
64
Sperber (1937, 191).
65
Brønno (1943, 387).
66
Siegfried (1884, 50), Sperber (1937, 192).
67
Yeivin (1985, para. 41.46).
 Introduction 67

in prefix conjugation verbs where it is reduced to shewa in Tibe-

rian, e.g. ‫[ תִטבֹ ַל ַנ ִי‬tiṭboˈleːniː] (Job 9.31, Tiberian: ‫‘ ִתטב ֵלֶ֑נִ י‬you will
plunge me’);68 cf. Origen ιεφφολου (= ‫ ִיִ֝פ ָּ֗לּו‬Psa. 18.39),69 Jerome
iezbuleni ‘he will honour me’ (Tiberian: ‫ יִ זב ֵלנִ י‬Gen. 30.20),70 and
the frequent occurrence of vav in the Qumran manuscripts after
the second radical of prefix conjugation verbs where Tiberian has
shewa, e.g. ‫יקטולו‬, ‫אקטולה‬, ‫יקטולהו‬.71
Some features of the Tiberian reading that differ from Bab-
ylonian may have developed under the influence of the vernacu-
lar Aramaic of the Jews of Palestine. It is not clear whether this
applies to the aforementioned features, but we can identify a pos-
sible case of influence in the pronunciation of consonantal vav.
We know from medieval sources that in the Tiberian reading tra-
dition of Biblical Hebrew the default pronunciation of this letter
was a labio-dental [v] (§I.1.6.(. In Jewish Palestinian Aramaic,
vav appears to have had the same labio-dental pronunciation.
This is shown by the interchange of vav and fricative bet in Jewish
Palestinian Aramaic texts and Rabbinic Hebrew of sources of Pal-
estinian provenance. The fact that fricative bet in these texts also
sometimes shifts to pe due to devoicing shows that it must have

68
Yeivin (1985, para. 16.36).
69
Janssens (1982, 92).
70
Siegfried (1884, 48), Sperber (1937, 158).
71
Qimron (1986, 50; 2018, 195-196), Reymond (2014, 209–21). For
the parallels between these Qumran forms and the medieval Babylonian
tradition see Yeivin (1972).
68 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

been labio-dental and this implies that vav also was labio-den-
tal.72 There is also evidence of the pronunciation of vav as a labio-
dental in Mishnaic Hebrew, in that vav in some words corre-
sponds to bet in Biblical Hebrew and vav and bet interchange in
the orthography of some manuscripts, e.g.

‫‘ נִ ּו ָלּה‬he has disfigured her’ (Soṭah 1.7); cf. Biblical Hebrew

‫( נב׳׳ל‬M. H. Segal 1927, 34–35)

‫‘ ֲא ָבזִ ים ~ ֲאוָ וזִ ים‬geese’ (Bar-Asher 2015, 61-62)

The shift in the pronunciation of vav to a labio-dental in

Aramaic and Hebrew in late antique Palestine is likely to be due
to convergence with a shift of [w] to [v] in Greek at this period
(Kantor and Khan forthcoming).73
The Babylonian tradition itself appears to have undergone
some change due to the influence of the local vernacular, which
resulted in a number of features that differed from Tiberian due
to their being innovative rather than conservative. One such fea-
ture that is characteristic of the Babylonian pronunciation tradi-
tion is the shift of ḥolem to ṣere, which is reflected in the vocalized

72
A. Ben-David (1960, 255), Kutscher (1976, 16–17), Sokoloff (1968,
30), Epstein (1964, 1223–26). This pronunciation of vav can also be
reconstructed in the Samaritan tradition of Hebrew (Ben-Ḥayyim 2000,
33).
73
Possible evidence for the embryonic merging of vav and fricative bet
in Palestine is found already in some Qumran manuscripts, see Qimron
(2018, 122) (I am grateful to Noam Mizrahi for drawing my attention
to this).
 Introduction 69

manuscripts by an interchange of these two vowels.74 The Karaite

scholar al-Qirqisānī writing in the tenth century C.E. attributes
this feature to influence from the language of the ‘Nabaṭ’, i.e. the
Aramaic speaking population of Iraq.75 The fronting of back vow-
els is still a feature of modern vernacular Iranian dialects in west-
ern Iran, including those spoken by Jews (Borjian 2012, 9, §D14).
One aspect of Tiberian vocalization that several scholars
have identified as an indicator of the antiquity of the reading tra-
dition is the apparent historical layering of variant types of vo-
calization of words with the same orthography across different
Biblical books. These are differences in vocalization between
words in late biblical books and corresponding words in earlier
biblical books. In such cases, the vocalization found in the later
books often corresponds to a type of vocalization that is charac-
teristic of Rabbinic Hebrew or Aramaic, i.e. languages associated
with the language situation in the Second Temple Period rather
than the pre-exilic period. In two cases in Chronicles, for
example, the nifʿal of the verb ‫ ילד‬is vocalized in an unusual way,
with shureq rather than ḥolem and dagesh in the middle radical:
‫‘ נּולדּו‬they were born’ (1 Chron. 3.5, 20.8). This morphological
feature is not found in the vocalization of the earlier books but is
found in some traditions of Rabbinic Hebrew.76 The vocalization
of these forms apparently reflects a dialectal form of morphology

74
Yeivin (1985, para. 11.6).
75
Cf. al-Qirqisānī (Kitāb al-ʾAnwār w-al-Marāqib, ed. Nemoy 1939, vol.
2: 140).
76
Cf. Yalon (1964, 152–57) and the references cited in Morag (1974,
310).
70 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

that was current in the time of the Chronicler. By implication,

the vocalization of the earlier books must reflect a different,
presumably slightly earlier tradition (Morag 1974). A further
example is the difference in vocalization between ‫‘ אמ ַ֫ ַלל‬feeble’
(Psa. 6.3) and ‫‘ ָה ֲא ֵמ ָל ִ ֖לים‬the feeble’ (Neh. 3.34). The vocalization
‫ ָה ֲא ֵמ ָל ִ ֖לים‬in the late biblical book reflects the one that is used in
Rabbinic sources (Boyarin 1988, 63–64). The dual of the noun
‫ קרן‬is vocalized ‫ ַקר ַנַָ֥֣יִ ם‬in Hab. 3.4, with the normal pattern of the
dual, but ‫ ק ָרנַ יִ ם‬in Dan. 8 (verses 3, 6, 20), with the pattern of the
stem of plural nouns, as is found in early vocalized manuscripts
of the Mishnah (Kister 1992, 47, n.9; 1998, 246, n.9). The form
‫‘ ֲע ָר ִבי‬Arab(ian)’ occurs in pre-exilic sources, whereas the word
has the vocalization ‫ער ִבי‬,
ַ corresponding to that of Aramaic, in
post-exilic sources (Nehemiah and Chronicles) (Steiner 2016,
313). There is a difference in vocalization between ‫לּודים‬
ִ ‫( ַהי‬1
Chron. 14.4) and ‫ֹּלדים‬
ַ֥ ִ ִ‫ ַהי‬in the parallel passage in 2 Sam 5.14. The
word ‫ חבל‬in the phrase ‫‘ ֲח ֖בֹל ָח ַבלנּו‬we have acted corruptly’ (Neh.
1.7) is vocalized with the vocalic pattern of an infinitive con-
struct in a context where the vocalic pattern of an infinitive ab-
solute may have been expected in earlier books. In Dan. 11.20
the construct of the noun ‫‘ ָה ָדר‬glory’ is vocalized ‫הדר‬, rather than
‫ה ַדר‬,
ֲ which is the vocalic pattern of the construct in earlier
books.77
Such differences in vocalization across pre-exilic and post-
exilic books constitute strong evidence for the argument that

77
These last three cases are noted by Jan Joosten, paper delivered at
the conference The exegetical value of the Masora: Pointing and accen-
tuation in historical perspective (Oxford, 7-8 November, 2016).
 Introduction 71

there is historical layering in the reading tradition reflected by

the medieval vocalization. The variant types of morphophonol-
ogy in the late books, which often correspond in form to Rabbinic
Hebrew or Aramaic, would have become incorporated into the
reading tradition of the late books at some point in the Second
Temple Period, whereas the variants found in the earlier books
must reflect an earlier stage in the development of the biblical
reading tradition. Crucially the later types of morphophonology
were not extended to the reading tradition of the earlier books.
I would like to explore in greater detail the last point, i.e.
the fact that the late morphophonology in the forms in question
was not applied uniformly across the reading of all books. We
have, in fact, already seen some counterexamples to this phenom-
enon. Attention was drawn above to the phenomenon whereby
innovations in verbal patterns that are characteristic of the Sec-
ond Temple Period (i.e. shifts of intransitive qal to nifʿal and tran-
sitive qal to piʿel) were extended to the vocalism of the earlier
books. There are also cases of exegetical harmonization whereby
the vocalism of words in late books is extended to parallel
phrases in earlier books that have an orthography reflecting a
different meaning. An example of this is the word ‫יה‬
ָ ‫ִמג ָרש‬
‘surrounding pasture-lands’ in 1 Chron. 6. As remarked, the
Chronicler is clearly using as his literary source the text of Josh.
21, in which the word is written as a singular form but it is read
in the reading tradition as a plural: ‫מג ָרש ָה‬.
ִ This reflects a later
interpretation of an originally singular form as a plural. This
‘later’ interpretation is reflected also by the consonantal text of
72 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Chronicles, where it is written as a plural. The later interpretation

has been extended to the reading tradition of the earlier book.
It should be taken into account that there are a number of
other variations in Tiberian vocalization within the biblical cor-
pus that cannot easily be correlated with chronological layer-
ing.78 These include, for example:

(1) Variations in the use of dagesh in the same lexeme such as

‫‘ יִ סֹב‬let it go round’ (1 Sam 5.8) vs. ‫‘ יָ ֖סֹב‬it goes round’ (1
Kings 7.15); ‫‘ ֲחב ָר ֖תֹו‬his wound’ (Isa. 53.5) vs. ‫‘ ַחב ָר ִ ָּֽתי‬my
wound’ (Gen. 4.23)

(2) Variations in ḥaṭef vowels in the same lexeme, such as ‫יַ חש ֹבּו‬
‘they consider’ (Isa. 13:17) vs. ‫‘ יַ ֲחש ָֹּֽבּון‬they conceive’ (Psa.
35:20)

(3) Variation between ḥireq and segol in the same lexeme, as in

‫‘ ו ִהג ָלה‬and he carried into exile’ (2 Kings 24.14) vs. ‫‘ הג ָל֖ה‬he
carried into exile’ (Jer. 52.28), or at least in the same mor-
pheme, as in ‫‘ וא ָכ ֵבד‬and I will be honoured’ (Isa. 49.5) vs.
‫‘ ִא ָד ֵ ַ֥רש‬I will be asked’ (Ezek. 36.37).

(4) Variations between qibbuṣ and short qameṣ as the reflex of

a historical short *u in the same lexeme or in similar
contexts, e.g. ‫( גד ָּֽלֹו‬Psa. 150.2) vs. ‫‘ גָ ד ֕לֹו‬his greatness’ (Deut.
11.2).

(5) Occasionally a ḥaṭef qameṣ occurs in a prefix conjugation

verb (imperfect) before a pronominal suffix or a cohor-
tative suffix rather than the normal vocalization with shewa

78
Several of these were noted by Nöldeke (1912).
 Introduction 73

in such contexts. This reflects the lack of complete

reduction of the vowel that occurs after the second radical
in forms without suffixes, e.g. ‫‘ אשתלנּו‬I will plant it (m)’
(Ezek. 17.23), ‫‘ וָ אשק ָולה‬and I weighed’ (Ezra 8.25), ‫ֲא ַלק ָטה־‬
‫‘ נָ א‬let me glean’ (Ruth 2.7).

(6) Variations between ṣere and pataḥ in the stem of piʿel verbal
forms, e.g. ‫[‘ גִ ֵדל‬who] has brought up?’ (Isa. 49.21) vs. ‫גִ ַ ֶׁ֤דל‬
‘he made great’ (Josh. 4.14).

(7) Variations between ḥireq and ṣere before gutturals in piʿel

verbs, e.g. ‫( נִ ֵאר‬Lam. 2.7, ‘he has spurned’) vs. ‫‘ ֵמ ֵאן‬he has
refused’ (Num. 22.13).

The key question is whether the types of variation in

Tiberian vocalization discussed above, diachronic and syn-
chronic, have any semantic or exegetical significance.
Some morphophonemic variations are exploited to express
distinctions in meaning in various reading traditions of the
Hebrew Bible. There are many examples of this in the Samaritan
tradition of reading. Typically the pairs of variant patterns of a
word in the Samaritan tradition consist of one member that is
conservative and another member that is innovative by a process
of analogy or assimilation to an Aramaic form, or two members
that are originally morphophonemic alternants that have now
become distinct in meaning.79 Many of these distinctions are
between different grammatical categories of lexical items.

79
See in particular Florentin (1996) for examples of this phenomenon.
74 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Internal differences in vocalism have developed, for example,

between wayyiqṭol past forms and yiqṭol non-past forms, e.g.80
̄́
wtåråd ‘and she went down’ (Tiberian ‫)וַ ֵַ֫תרד‬, by analogy
̄́ vs. téråd ‘she goes down’ (non-past,
with the pattern qåṭål
Tiberian ‫ת ֵ ַ֫רד‬,
ֵ ‫)ת ַ ַ֫רד‬
ֵ

A morphophonemic distinction is made in the Samaritan

tradition between verbal and nominal participles, e.g.

q-w-m ‘to rise’: qāʾəm (verbal, based on Aramaic) vs. qam

(nominal)

nifʿal form: niqqåṭål (past verbal, by analogy with imperfect

̄
yiqqåṭəl) vs. niqṭål (nominal)

There are a number of cases of variants of a single lexeme

with and without gemination of one of the consonants to express
distinctions in meaning, e.g.

ådåni ‘Lord’ (divine) vs. ådanni ‘master’ (human)81

å:sīdå ‘the stork’ (animal) (Tiberian ‫ ַה ֲח ִס ָידה‬Lev. 11.19) vs.

assidåk ‘your pious one’ (human) (Tiberian ‫ידָך‬
ֶ֑ ‫ ֲח ִס‬Deut.
33.8)82

yamən ‘Yamin’ (proper name) (Tiberian ‫יָמין‬

ִ֛ ִ Gen. 46.10) vs.
yammən ‘right hand’ (Tiberian ‫)יָ ִמין‬.83

80
The transcription system of Ben-Ḥayyim and Florentin is adopted
here.
81
Ben-Ḥayyim (1957a-77, vol. 4, 8-9, vol. 5, 194; 2000, 260).
82
Florentin (1996, 231).
83
Florentin (1996, 234).
 Introduction 75

wyåbåd ‘and he perished (past)’ (< *yaʾabad, Tiberian

‫ )וַ יא ַֹבד‬vs. yåbbåd ‘he perishes (non-past)’ (< *yaʾbad with
assimilation of the /ʾ/ to the /b/, Tiberian ‫אבד‬
ַ ֹ ‫)י‬, i.e. a pair
of alternants such as Tiberian ‫( יַ חש ֹבּו‬Isa. 13:17) vs. ‫יַ ֲחש ָֹּֽבּון‬
(Psa. 35:20) has come to express a difference in meaning.84

ʿā:rəm ‘the cities’ (Tiberian ‫ )ה ָע ִרים‬vs. ʿarrəm ‘cities’

(Tiberian ‫)ע ִרים‬
ָ 85

wåmå ‘and the cubit’ (Tiberian ‫ )ו ָה ַא ָמה‬vs. wåmmå ‘and a

cubit’ (Tiberian ‫)וא ָמה‬
ַ 86

Most of the cases of synchronic variation listed in (1)–(7)

above do not appear to have semantic or exegetical significance.
Many of these types of variation in the Tiberian vocalization are
not found, or only very marginally found, in the Babylonian
tradition of vocalization, i.e. the other descendant of what I
propose to identify as the proto-Masoretic reading tradition. This
is either because the Babylonian tradition is more conservative
of the proto-Masoretic reading of the particular feature in
question whereas the Tiberian variation is a later development or
the Babylonian tradition has levelled variation that has been
preserved by the Tiberian tradition. In the list of features (1)–(7)

84
Florentin (1996, 218). This particular minimal pair is not attested in
the Samaritan Pentateuch, but it can be inferred from the contrasting
patterns used for the attested forms of the past and non-past, e.g.
wyåbådu ‫‘ וַ יֹאב ֖דּו‬and they perished’ (Num. 16:33) vs. tåbbåd ‫ֹאבד‬
ַ֥ ַ ‫‘ ת‬it
becomes lost’ (Deut. 22:3).
85
Ben-Ḥayyim (2000, 92).
86
Ben-Ḥayyim (2000, 92).
76 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

above the Babylonian tradition lacks variation in features (3)–

(7). In features (3)–(5) it is more conservative and in features (6)-
(7) it has levelled earlier variation. These are presented as (3a)–
(7a) below:

(3a) ‫‘ ו ִהג ָלה‬and he carried into exile’ (2 Kings 24.14): ‫הִגלָה‬

[hiʁˈlɔː]87

‫‘ הג ָל֖ה‬he carried into exile’ (Jer. 52.28): ‫[ הִגל ָה‬hiʁˈlɔː]88

‫‘ וא ָכ ֵבד‬and I will be honoured’ (Isa. 49.5): ‫וְאִכָבד‬

[wʔikkɔːˈvaːð]89

‫‘ ִא ָד ֵ ַ֥רש‬I will be asked’ (Ezek. 36.37): ‫[ אִדָרש‬ʔiddɔːˈraːʃ]90

(4a) The Babylonian reading tradition normally preserves a his-

torical short *u where in Tiberian it shifts to short /ɔ/
(qameṣ), e.g.

‫‘ גָ ד ֕לֹו‬his greatness’ (Deut. 11.2): ֹ‫[ גֻדלו‬guðˈloː]91

‫‘ ָחכ ָ ֖מה‬wisdom’ (Jer. 49.7): ‫[ חֻכמָה‬ħuχˈmɔː]92

87
Yeivin (1985, 302). The transcriptions of the examples with Babylo-
nian vocalization are in some cases approximations, since there is un-
certainty regarding the precise realization of some of the phonetic seg-
ments in the Babylonian pronunciation.
88
Yeivin (1985, 144).
89
Yeivin (1985, 505).
90
Yeivin (1985, 505).
91
Yeivin (1985, §37.12).
92
Yeivin (1985, §37.18).
 Introduction 77

‫‘ ָהש ַלכ ִתי‬I was cast’ (Psa. 22.11): ‫[ הֻשלַכתי‬huʃˈlaːχtʰiː]93

(5a) In the Babylonian reading tradition, it is the norm for the

vowel of the prefix conjugation verbal stem to be preserved
before suffixes,94 e.g.

‫אזכ ֖רנּו‬ ‘I will remember him’ (Jer. 31.20): ‫אִזכֹר ַנ ֻו‬

ַ
[ʔizkoˈraːnuː]

‫‘ ִתטב ֵלֶ֑נִ י‬you will plunge me’ (Job 9.31): ‫[ תִטבֹ ַל ַנ ִי‬tiṭboˈleːniː]

‫‘ ונִ דר ָ ֖שה‬and we will inquire’ (2 Chron. 18.6): ‫שָה‬

ַ ֹ‫ונִדר‬
[wniðroˈʃɔː]

‫‘ אזכ ָרה‬I will remember’ (Psa. 77.4): ‫אִזכֹרָה‬

ַ [ʔizkoˈrɔː]

(6a) In the Babylonian reading tradition it is the norm for the

vowel of the final syllable of the 3ms piʿel to be pataḥ,95 e.g.

‫ גִ ֵדל‬Isa. 49.21 ‘he brought up’ OB ‫[ גִדל‬ʁidˈdaːl]

‫ ִב ֵ ַ֥קש‬Isa. 1.12 ‘he asked’ OB ‫[ בִקש‬viqˈqaːʃ]

(7a) The Babylonian vocalization reflects a tradition in which it

is the norm for the vowel to be ṣere before a guttural in the
piʿel,96 e.g.

‫‘ ו ִ ַ֥כחש‬it will deny’ (Job 8.18): ‫[ וכחש‬wχeːˈħaːʃ]

‫‘ ו ִכ ֵ ַ֥הן‬and he will serve as a priest’ (Exod. 40.13): ‫וכהן‬

[wχeːˈhaːn]

93
Yeivin (1985, §24.1).
94
Yeivin (1985, §16.36, §16.45).
95
Yeivin (1985, §20.01).
96
Yeivin (1985, §20.06).
78 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

ִ ‘and it will graze’ (Exod. 22.4): ‫[ ובער‬wveːˈʕaːr]

‫ּוב ֵ ֖ער‬

‫‘ נִ ֵאר‬he has spurned’ (Lam. 2.7): ‫אר‬

ַ ‫[ נ‬neːˈʔaːr]

‫‘ ִ֘ ִנ ֵ ַ֥אץ‬he renounced’ (Psa. 10.3): ‫[ נאץ‬neːˈʔaːsˁ]

It is unlikely, therefore, that synchronic variations such as

those listed in (3)–(7) had any semantic or exegetical significance
in the proto-Masoretic reading tradition, since they are either a
later development in the Tiberian tradition without clear
semantic significance or were early features but were eliminated
in the Babylonian tradition. They were simply cases of internal
morphophonemic variation that is common across languages.
The variations in the use of dagesh in the same lexeme in
the specific examples cited under (1) above do not appear to have
any semantic or exegetical significance. It should be noted, how-
ever, that several examples of dagesh distinguishing the meaning
of doublets of the same lexeme or homophonous words can be
found in the Tiberian tradition and this has been developed fur-
ther in the Babylonian tradition. There are, for example, a num-
ber of homophonous pairs of words in the Tiberian tradition that
are distinguished by dagesh. These include cases such ‫‘ ֲא ִביר‬pow-
erful’ referring to God, used in the construct state in phrases such
ֲ ‫‘ ֲא ִביר‬the Mighty One of Jacob’ (Gen. 49.24, Isa. 49.26,
as ‫יַעקֹב‬
Isa. 60.16, Psa. 132.2, 5) vs. ‫‘ ַא ִביר‬powerful’ used to refer to hu-
mans (for further details see §I.3.1.3.).
With regard to pairs of forms from the same lexeme exhib-
iting a variation between a ḥaṭef vowel and silent shewa (as in
‫ יַ חש ֹבּו‬vs. ‫)יַ ֲחש ָֹּֽבּון‬, in many such cases there appears to be a met-
rical motivation for the variation, which will be discussed in
 Introduction 79

§I.2.5.4. We have seen, however, that in the Samaritan tradition

such a variation has been exploited to distinguish meaning in
pairs such as wyåbåd ‘and he perished (past)’ (< *yaʾabad) vs.
yåbbåd ‘he perishes (non-past)’ (< *yaʾbad). There is, indeed,
one isolated example of the exploitation of such variation to ex-
press a semantic distinction in the Tiberian tradition, namely the
difference in vocalization between the verb ‫‘ יַ עקֹב‬he supplants’
(Jer. 9.3) and the proper name ‫יַ ֲעקֹב‬.
Returning now to the list of variant vocalizations from the
late books, we should examine whether these had any semantic
or exegetical significance. I should like to argue that there are
indeed grounds for hypothesizing that many of the examples of
such variations were motivated by an attempt to express a se-
mantic distinction. It is relevant to note that these distinctions
appear also in biblical manuscripts with Babylonian vocaliza-
tion,97 so they must be attributed to the proto-Masoretic reading
tradition. Some examples of semantic distinctions are as follows:

‫ אמ ַלל‬vs. ‫( ָה ֲא ֵמ ָל ִ ֖לים‬Neh. 3.34)

All cases of ‫ אמ ַלל‬and its inflections are predicative, most with
clear verbal inflection. ‫ ָה ֲא ֵמ ָל ִ ֖לים‬is the only nominal form with
nominal inflection (functioning as an attributive adjective): ‫ּופֹר ֵ ַ֥שי‬
‫י־מיִ ם אמ ָ ָּֽללּו‬ ֹ ִ֛ ‫‘ ִמכ‬and those who spread a net upon the
֖ ַ ֵ‫מרת ַעל־פנ‬
water will languish’ (Isa. 19.8), ‫‘ אמ ַ֫ ַלל ָ ַ֥אנִ י‬I am languishing’ (Psa.
ַ֥ ִ ‫‘ ַהי‬the feeble Jews’ (Neh. 3:34). This dis-
6.3), vs. ‫הּודים ָה ֲא ֵמ ָל ִ ֖לים‬
tinction in vocalism can be compared to the development of a

97
Examples of such forms that are attested in the manuscripts can be
found in Yeivin (1985, 608, 843, 956, 1050).
80 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

distinction in vocalism between verbal and nominal participles

in the Samaritan tradition.

‫ נּולדּו‬vs. ‫נֹולד‬/‫ד‬
ָ ‫נֹול‬
ַ
Here again, the formal distinction appears to reflect a distinction
between verbal and nominal categories. The form ‫ נּולדּו‬is the only
inflection of the nifʿal of ‫ ילד‬that has transparent verbal inflection
ָ ‫‘ ו ֵ ַ֥אלה נּולדּו־ל֖ ֹו ִב‬and these were born
in the biblical corpus: ‫ירּוש ָלֶ֑יִ ם‬
to him in Jerusalem’ (1 Chron. 3.5). Other attestations of the
nifʿal of this verb are either in the singular form ‫נֹולד‬,
ָ which is
explicitly adjectival, or ‫נֹולד‬
ַ with pataḥ but often used
impersonally without agreement with a plural subject, so both
may have been interpreted as adjectival, e.g. ‫ית־דוִ ד‬
ָ ‫נֹולֶׁ֤ד ל ֵב‬
ָ ‫ָּֽה־בן‬
ֵֵ֞ ‫ִה ֵנ‬
‘behold a son is born’ (1 Kings 13.2), ‫ֹולד־ל֖ ֹו‬
ַ ָּֽ‫ו ֵ ֶׁ֤אלה ָהיּו ב ֵני ָדויִ ד ֲא ַ֥שר נ‬
‫‘ בחב ֶ֑רֹון‬These are the sons of David that were born to him in Heb-
ron’ (1 Chron. 3.1).

‫ יִ לֹוד‬vs. ‫יָ לּוד‬

There may be a distinction also here between nominal and verbal
participles. Targum Jonathan to ‫ירּוש ָלֶ֑ם‬
ָ ‫ֹּלדים ל֖ ֹו ִב‬
ַ֥ ִ ִ‫( ו ֵָּ֗אלה ש ִ֛מֹות ַהי‬2
Sam 5.14) clearly interprets ‫ יִ לֹוד‬as a verbal participle: ‫ו ִא ֵלין ש ָמ ָהת‬
‫ירּושלם‬
ַ ‫‘ ד ִאתי ִלידּו ֵליה ִב‬These are the names of the ones who were
born to him in Jerusalem’. The form ‫ יָ לּוד‬is clearly used as a noun
in some contexts, e.g. ‫‘ ַהיָ לּוד ַה ַחי‬the living child’ (noun) (1 Kings
3:26); cf. Targum Jonathan: ‫רביָא ַחיָ יא‬.ָ Targum Jonathan to ‫ו ֵאלה‬
‫ירּוש ָלֶ֑ם‬
ָ ‫לּודים ֲא ַ֥שר ָהיּו־ל֖ ֹו ִב‬
ִ ‫( שמֹות ַהי‬1 Chron. 14.4), the parallel to 2
Sam 5.14, is ‫‘ ואליין שמהת דאתילידו דהוון מתרביין בירושלם‬and these are
the names of the ones who were born who were being
 Introduction 81

raised/were adolescents in Jerusalem’. This Targumic rendering

of 1 Chron. 14.4 seems to reflect a nominal interpretation of the
participle, presumably motivated by the added relative modifier
phrase ‫א ַ֥שר ָהיּו‬,
ֲ which would typically take a nominal antecedent.

‫ ֲה ַדר‬vs. ‫הדר‬
The two forms of these apparently synonymous construct forms
in the biblical corpus express a distinction between ‘divine glory’
ֲ and ‘human glory’ (‫)הדר‬, e.g. ‫כּותֹו‬
(‫)ה ַדר‬ ָּֽ ‫‘ ֲה ַדר ַמל‬the glory of His
kingdom’ (God’s glory) (Psa. 145.12) vs. ‫‘ הדר ַמל ֶ֑כּות‬glory of the
kingdom (human glory)’ (Dan. 11.20). As we have seen above,
the practice of using gemination to express semantic distinction
is often applied to separate the usage of the same lexeme in di-
vine and human contexts, e.g. ‫( ֲא ִביר‬divine) vs. ‫( ַא ִביר‬human) and
examples cited above from the Samaritan and Babylonian tradi-
tions.

‫ ֲע ָר ִבי‬vs. ‫ַער ִבי‬

There is a distinction in meaning here between ‘desert nomad’
ֲ and ‘a gentilic term of an ethnic group’ (‫)ער ִבי‬:
(‫)ע ָר ִבי‬ ַ ‫ו ָּֽל ֹא־יַ ֵ ַ֥הל ָשם‬
‫‘ ֲע ָר ִבי‬and no desert nomad/Arab will pitch his tent there’ (Isa.
13.20) vs. ‫‘ וגשם ָ ָּֽה ַער ִבי‬Geshem the Arab’ (Neh. 2.19). One may
compare this to the formal distinction in Arabic between ʾaʿrābī
‘nomad of the desert’ vs. ʿarabī ‘Arab, Arabian’ (ethnic term)’.

‫ ַקרנַ יִ ם‬vs. ‫ק ָרנַ יִם‬

The dual form ‫ ק ָרנַ יִם‬in Daniel chapter 8, which has a characteris-
tically Rabbinic type of vocalization, has the meaning ‘horns’.
82 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

The form ‫ ַקר ַנַָ֥֣יִ ם‬in Hab. 3.4, which has the normal dual vocalic
pattern, has the meaning ‘rays (of light)’. This is the only other
place where the word occurs in the biblical corpus as a common
noun without a suffix or not in construct. The difference in vo-
calization, therefore, is likely to express a distinction in meaning
between the two forms.98

‫ ָחבֹל‬vs. ‫ֲחבֹל‬
The infinitive absolute form ‫ ָחבֹל‬immediately preceding the
cognate verb occurs in Exod. 22.25 as an internal object with the
meaning of ‘taking in pledge’: ‫ם־ח ַ֥בֹל ַתח ֖בֹל ַשל ַמת ֵר ֶ֑עָך‬
ָ ‫‘ ִא‬If ever you
take your neighbour’s garment in pledge’ (Exod. 22.25). Here the
infinitive absolute is an inner object of the verb. It is connected
to the verb by a conjunctive accent, which is typical for infinitive
ֶׁ֤ ‫ שֹוב‬literally: ‘I shall return a
absolute internal objects; cf. ‫אָשּוב‬
returning’ (Gen. 18.10). The construction ‫( ֲח ֖בֹל ָח ַבלנּו ָלְֶ֑ך‬Neh. 1.7)
differs prosodically from ‫( ָח ַ֥בֹל ַתח ֖בֹל‬Exod. 22.25) in that the initial
form ‫ ֲח ֖בֹל‬is separated from what follows by a disjunctive accent.
The word ‫ ֲח ֖בֹל‬differs from ‫ ָח ַ֥בֹל‬semantically, in that it is from a
different, albeit homophonous, lexical root. Finally it differs from
it syntactically according to the interpretation reflected by the
early versions, which treat it as an adverbial noun rather than an
inner object: LXX διαλύσει διελύσαμεν ‘we have broken with a
breaking [covenant]’, Vulgate: vanitate seducti sumus ‘we have
been seduced by vanity’, rather than nominative active partici-
ples, which are the common translation technique of Greek and

98
See the remarks of Yeivin (1985, 844, n.74).
 Introduction 83

Latin for inner objects, e.g. ‫ ָקנֹו אקנֶׁ֤ה‬: LXX κτώμενος κτήσομαι
‘buying I shall buy’ (2 Sam 24.24).

We may summarize the hypothesis developed above regarding

the formation of the reading tradition as follows. The variations
in vocalization in the late biblical books are very likely to have
had their origin in the language situation of the Second Temple
Period. The proto-Masoretic reading tradition of the late books
was fixed in the Second Temple Period and the distinctive late
forms of vocalization discussed above are likely to reflect features
of contemporary vernacular speech. At the time when the proto-
Masoretic reading was fixed for the late books, a reading
tradition was already in existence for the earlier books. During
the Second Temple period, some of the innovative features of the
reading of the late books were extended to the earlier books (e.g.
the reading of intransitive qal verbs as nifʿal and the transitive qal
as piʿel). Some of the innovative features of the later period,
however, were not retroverted into the reading of the same
lexemes in the earlier books, but rather the corresponding earlier
forms were retained. One factor, perhaps the key factor, that
motivated this retention of some of these distinct forms in the
reading of the biblical corpus was the desire to distinguish
different aspects of meaning or the distinction between
homophonous lexemes. There were other cases of variation
across the proto-Masoretic reading tradition as a whole, some
most likely the result of synchronic language variation. Some of
these variations were exploited to distinguish meaning (in
particular, gemination). A large proportion of the synchronic
84 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

variation, however, did not have any semantic or exegetical

significance. Some of this type of variation that survived in the
Tiberian tradition was eliminated by levelling in the Babylonian
tradition. Moreover, some new variation with no semantic
significance developed in the Tiberian and Babylonian reading
traditions after the two branches split from the proto-Masoretic
tradition. The use of gemination to distinguish meaning within
lexemes and between homophonous lexemes was extended
further after the Tiberian and Babylonian branches had divided,
especially in the Babylonian branch (§I.3.1.3.).
The exploitation of diachronic or synchronic morphopho-
nemic variation to express distinctions in meaning was a form of
inner-biblical exegesis. It should be pointed out, however, that
similar processes occur in living spoken languages.99 One phe-
nomenon that is directly analogous to the issue of diachronic var-
iants discussed here is the phenomenon of doublets, which are
found in many languages by a process of retaining older forms
alongside new forms of the same lexeme with different meanings.
An example from Neo-Aramaic is as follows. In the North-Eastern
Neo-Aramaic dialects, a historical *ġ develops into /ʾ/ or zero
/∅/. So in the Barwar dialect100 *šaġəš ‘to trouble; to dandle (a
child)’ developed into ša∅əš, which is pronounced šayəš with a
glide. The new form šayəš means specifically ‘to dandle, to rock
(a child)’. The old form šaġəš, however, is retained in the dialect
with the meaning of ‘to trouble’. This is a strategy for reducing

99
I have described some cases from Neo-Aramaic dialects in Khan
(2018a).
100
Khan (2008, 51–52, 207).
 Introduction 85

ambiguity in the meaning of a lexeme. Such a development is

directly analogous to the hypothesized process described above
whereby older forms were retained alongside new forms in the
biblical reading tradition during the Second Temple as a strategy
to reduce ambiguity and elucidate meaning in the biblical corpus.

I.0.9. THE PRESTIGE OF THE TIBERIAN TRADITION

Despite the fact that there are indications that the Tiberian pro-
nunciation tradition had undergone linguistic change in the
course of its transmission since splitting from the proto-Masoretic
reading, in the Middle Ages the Tiberian reading tradition was
regarded as the most prestigious and authoritative. The medieval
sources justify this by the claim that the transmitters of the Tibe-
rian tradition were able to preserve the original reading more
accurately since they never left Palestine, unlike the diaspora
communities.101 In reality, as we have seen, the Tiberian reading
did undergo change and was, in many cases, less conservative
than the Babylonian tradition. It is likely that the authoritative-
ness of the Tiberian tradition had its roots primarily in its associ-
ation with the Palestinian Yeshiva ‘Academy’, the central body of
Jewish communal authority in Palestine, which was based in Ti-
berias from late antiquity until the Middle Ages.
After the Bar-Kochba revolt in the second century C.E.,
rabbinic leadership moved to the Galilee. Rabbi Joḥanan (d. 279
C.E.) established an academy in Tiberias. Subsequently, the

101
Cf. the passages from al-Qirqisānī discussed in Khan (1990c) and the
introduction of the long version of the Masoretic treatise Hidāyat al-
Qāriʾ (§II.L.0.3. in the edition in this volume).
86 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Jewish patriarch (nasī) relocated from Sepphoris to Tiberias,

which transformed Tiberias into the Jewish capital of Palestine.
A large number of Jewish sages who were active in Palestine in
the Talmudic period studied in Tiberias. The Palestinian Talmud
and most of the Aggadic Midrashim were redacted in the city
(Rozenfeld 2010, 120–26). After the Islamic conquest of the city
in 636, it became the capital of the administrative district known
as Jund al-Urdunn. The city flourished between the eighth and
tenth centuries, as is witnessed by archaeological records of its
urban expansion, incorporating the neighbouring town of Ham-
mat (Avni 2014, 72–78). During the ninth and tenth centuries,
Tiberias was a thriving centre also of Muslim scholarship (Gil
1992, 329–30).
The association of the Masoretes with the Palestinian Ye-
shiva is reflected by the fact some of the Masoretes had direct
connections to this academy. One of the known Masoretes was
indeed the ‘head of the Academy’, namely Pinḥas Rosh ha-
Yeshiva (‘head of the Academy’), who lived in the ninth century.
We also know of a certain ʾAḥiyyahu ha-Kohen he-Ḥaver, whose
epithet ḥaver indicates that he was a ‘member of the Academy’.102

102
See the Treatise on the Shewa edited by Levy (1936, 9), the document
published by Mann (1969, 2:43–44) and Gil (1992, 179). The passage
in the Treatise on the Shewa refers to the Tiberian pronunciation as a
tradition that was received from ‘the men of the Great Assembly’ ( ‫אנשי‬
‫)כנסת הגדולה‬, which was the supreme legislative body in Palestine during
the Second Temple Period.
 Introduction 87

The medieval sources describe how teachers from Tiberias

would travel to various communities of the diaspora to give in-
struction in the Tiberian reading and how people from the dias-
pora communities would travel to Tiberias. We read, for example,
in the introduction of the long version of the Masoretic treatise
Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ:103
‘The people in the communities of the exile would press
any teacher who travelled (from Tiberias) to these distant
lands to teach their children the reading of the Land of
Israel and eagerly imbibed that from him, making him sit
down so that they could assiduously learn it from him.
Whoever came from the exile to the Land of Israel had a
desire for the teaching of the reading of the Land of Israel
that was equally ardent as that of those absent [i.e. those
just mentioned who received teachers in diaspora lands]
and for abstaining from his own (tradition of reading)’.

Similarly, we read in a medieval Karaite commentary on

Genesis in a passage concerning Gen. 49.21:

The fact that he compared Naftali to ‘a hind let loose’ ( ‫ַאיָ ָלה‬
‫של ָ ֶ֑חה‬, Gen. 49.21) is on account of what he foresaw by the
help of prophecy, namely that he would be beautiful of
voice, excellent in reading, excellent in speaking Hebrew.
This is because from the inheritance of Naftali teachers and
masters will go forth, such as Ben Asher and Ben Naftali.
The Jews of the world follow the reading of these two
teachers. This is the reading of Palestine, which has been
disseminated throughout the corners of the world. The
teachers of it have gone forth to the land of Iraq and other

103
Edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.0.4.
88 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

places. They have taught people and written many copies

(of manuscripts). He compared it (the inheritance of
Naftali) here to a ‘hind let loose’, which is beloved and
brought up in dwellings that bring ease to the heart, just
as is the case with the teachers who were sent from the
inheritance of Naftali to the lands of the exile to teach peo-
ple the reading of Palestine. For that reason, he said ‘a hind
let loose’. … The superbly beautiful reading has its origin
in the inheritance of Naftali, namely the town of Tiberias,
which is uniquely renowned for this. For this reason, he
said ‘which gives words of beauty’ (‫י־שפר‬
ָּֽ ָ ‫הנ ֵ ֹ֖תן ִאמ ֵר‬,
ַ Gen.
49.21), since the reading (of Tiberias) is the original one.104

The prestige and authoritative nature of the Tiberian read-

ing are reflected in various ways.
Many manuscripts with Babylonian vocalization exhibit
convergence with the Tiberian tradition of reading, eliminating
thereby distinctly Babylonian features. In some manuscripts with
Babylonian signs, there is almost total convergence with the

104
II Firk. Evr. Arab. II 4633, fol. 241r-241v: ‫ותמתילה לנפתלי באילה שלו הו‬
‫למא נטרה בעון אלנבוה ואנה יכון חסן אלקול גיד אלקראה גיד אלללגה פי כלאם‬
‫אלעבראני דלך אן מנחלת נפתלי יכרג אלמעלמין ואלאסתאדין מתל בן אשר ובן נפתלי‬
‫אלדי אהל אלעאלם מן אליהוד יתבעון קראן הדין אלמעלמין והי קראה אלשאם אלתי‬
‫אנבסטת פי {אד} אפאק אלעאלם ואן אלמעלמין מנהא כרגו אלי בלדאן אלעראק וגירהא‬
‫ועלמו אלנאס וכתבו אלנסך אלכתיר ומתלהא פי הדא כאילה שלוחה אלמחבובה‬
‫אלמרבאה פי אלביות אלתי להא אנס פי אלקלב כמא כאן ללמעלמין אלדי בעתם (צ׳׳ל‬
‫בעתו ) מן נחלת נפתלי אלי כל בלדאן אלגלות ליעלמו אלנאס קראה אלשאם לדלך קאל‬
‫ ואלקראן אלפאכר אלחסן אצלה מן נחלת נפתלי והו מדינת טבריה‬... ‫אילה שלוחה‬
‫ אלמערופה בהדא דון סואה לדלך קאל הנתן אמרי ש אד אלקראן הו אלאצל‬. This
extract was published by Mann (1935, 2:104–5) with some mistakes in
reading. The text above is the correct reading of the manuscript.
 Introduction 89

Tiberian pronunciation tradition and additional signs were even

created to ensure a maximally close correspondence.105
The same applied to Biblical manuscripts with Palestinian
vocalization. Many of these represent a reading tradition that is
very close to the Tiberian one. This is almost certainly due to
convergence, which involved the creation of signs to express
vowel quality distinctions that did not occur in the Palestinian
pronunciation.106 It should be noted that the background and
status of the Palestinian tradition of pronouncing the Hebrew
Bible were different from the Tiberian and Babylonian. When the
author of Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ refers to the reading of ‘the Land of
Israel’, he is clearly referring to the Tiberian tradition, not the
tradition of reading with Palestinian pronunciation. The term ‘the
reading of Palestine’ (al-Shām) in the passage from the Karaite
commentary on Genesis is likewise referring to the Tiberian
tradition. The Karaite scholar al-Qirqisānī (tenth century Iraq)
discusses in his Kitāb al-ʾAnwār the relative merits of the reading
of Babylonia (ʿIrāq) and the reading of Palestine (al-Shām).107
Here also what is intended is the Tiberian tradition. For
al-Qirqisānī the Palestinian tradition of reading was not relevant
in his discussion of authority. This appears to reflect the fact that
the Palestinian pronunciation was a popular tradition of reading,
which had no authoritative roots. Al-Qirqisānī’s focus on the
Babylonian and Tiberian traditions reflects the fact that only
these two traditions had claims to authority. It is likely that this

105
Yeivin (1985, 77–87).
106
Revell (1977), Chiesa (1978).
107
See the passages from al-Qirqisānī discussed in Khan (1990c).
90 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

was due to the fact they were both descendants of the original
proto-Masoretic reading. Al-Qirqisānī maintains that of these
two, the Tiberian is the most authoritative.
The distinctive features of Palestinian pronunciation,
which are particularly discernible in the non-biblical manuscripts
with Palestinian pronunciation, have close parallels with what is
known about the vowel system of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic.108
Unlike Tiberian and Babylonian, the Palestinian biblical reading
is unlikely to be a direct descendant of the proto-Masoretic
reading, but rather it has its roots in other traditions of reading
that were current in Palestine in antiquity. The Greek
transcription in Origen’s Hexapla (the middle of the third century
C.E.) reflects a reading that has even more evidence of influence
from the Aramaic vernacular, especially in the pronominal
suffixes, such as the 2ms suffix -akh, e.g. σεμαχ ‘your name’
(Tiberian ‫ ִִ֝שמ ָָּ֗ך‬Psa. 31.4).109 This is also a feature of the Samaritan
tradition, e.g. yēdåk ‘your hand’ (Tiberian: ‫)יָדָך‬.110 Some of these
features, such as the Aramaic type of pronominal suffixes, appear
in medieval non-biblical texts with Palestinian vocalization. In
the second half of the first millennium, however, it appears that
the popular biblical reading converged to a greater extent with
the prestigious Tiberian tradition. As a result, the Aramaic type
of suffixes were eliminated in the biblical reading.111

108
Fassberg (1991, 28–57).
109
Brønno (1943, 110, 196–200).
110
Ben-Ḥayyim (2000, 228).
111
Yahalom (1997, Introduction).
 Introduction 91

Various features deviating from the Tiberian reading trad-

ition that are found in the earlier biblical traditions are rarely
attested in the medieval biblical traditions but are found in non-
biblical Hebrew texts. This applies, for example, to the forms of
the 2ms suffixes without a final vowel in Origen and Jerome, and
indeed in the consonantal text that is found already in the proto-
Masoretic biblical manuscripts from Qumran (‫ך‬-, ‫ת‬-), which is a
feature that surfaces in some traditions of post-biblical Hebrew
(Ben-Ḥayyim 1954, 27–32, 63; Kutscher 1979, 442–43; Fassberg
1989), including biblical quotations within non-biblical Hebrew
texts (Yahalom 1997, 24). The gutturals are clearly weakened in
some biblical texts from Qumran and are omitted or interchanged
in the orthography (Fassberg 2013, 665), but in the medieval
biblical texts one does not find evidence of such systematic
breakdown of distinctions. In non-biblical texts, on the other
hand, there is evidence of such a weakening. In piyyuṭim, for
example, ‫ ע‬often rhymes with ‫א‬, and likewise ‫ ח‬rhymes with ‫ה‬,
reflecting a weakening of the pharyngeals to laryngeals (Yahalom
1985, 173). In piyyuṭ manuscripts with Palestinian vocalization
segolate nouns ending in a guttural often have an ‘e’ vowel in the
֯ meleḥ ‘salt’, Tibe-
last syllable without a furtive pataḥ (e.g. ‫מ ֯לח‬
rian: ‫( )מ ַלח‬Yahalom 1997, 25), again reflecting the weakening of
the guttural.
Another indicator of the prestigious nature of the Tiberian
reading tradition is the fact that the early traditions of Hebrew
grammar that emerged in the tenth century, i.e. those of Saadya
Gaon and the Karaite grammarians, were based on the Tiberian
92 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

reading.112 The grammarian Ibn Janāḥ (eleventh century Spain)

states that the Tiberians were ‘the most eloquent of the Hebrews
in language and the most lucid’.113
Finally, there is evidence in some sources of hypercorrec-
tions in the production of the Tiberian reading. These reflect sit-
uations in which a reader’s pronunciation of Hebrew differs from
the standard Tiberian pronunciation, due to it belonging to a dif-
ferent tradition114 or being influenced by a vernacular language,
but the reader nevertheless attempts to pronounce words with
the Tiberian pronunciation due to its prestige. In some cases, this
results in producing distinctive features of Tiberian pronuncia-
tion that are used in the incorrect context (see chapter 4 for de-
tails).

I.0.10. THE INTERNAL DIVERSITY OF THE TIBERIAN

TRADITION
There was not complete uniformity in any of the traditions of
reading reflected by the vocalization systems. This applied also
to the Tiberian school. We have seen (§I.0.8.) that there are in-
consistencies in the Tiberian vocalization across different parts of

112
Dotan (1997), Khan (2000b; 2000a). Some features of Babylonian
pronunciation sporadically appear in the works of the eastern gram-
marians such as Saadya (Dotan 1997, 39) and the Karaites (Vidro 2011,
131–36).
113
Kitāb al-Lumaʿ (ed. Derenbourg 1886, 29): ‫הם אפצח אלעבראניין לסאנא‬
‫ואכתרהם ביאנא‬.
114
For examples of such hypercorrections in manuscripts reflecting a
Tiberianized Babylonian tradition see Yeivin (1985, 185).
 Introduction 93

the Hebrew Bible. There were also various streams of tradition in

the Tiberian Masoretic school that differed from one another in
the reading and vocalization of particular words. The monumen-
tal Hebrew Bible manuscript codices with Standard Tiberian vo-
calization that have survived from the Middle Ages exhibit minor
differences in vocalization of this nature. This applies even to
manuscripts that were written by the same scribe.115 Minor dif-
ferences between vocalization practices of Masoretes and differ-
ences in the vocalization of codices are referred to also in Maso-
retic notes and Masoretic treatises. The tradition of vocalization
reflected in the Standard Tiberian manuscripts was, however, far
more uniform than other non-Tiberian traditions. This was the
result of greater efforts of standardization of the Tiberian tradi-
tion due to its greater authoritative status. The standardization
process is reflected in particular by Masoretic treatises collating
differences between Masoretes, the best known being the ‘Book
of Differences’ (Kitāb al-Khilaf) of Mishaʾel ben ʿUzziʾel, who was
active in Jerusalem at the end of the tenth or early eleventh cen-
tury.116 This work concerned differences between the two

115
Examples of this are manuscripts written by the scribe of L, Samuel
ben Jacob, who has been identified as the scribe of several other early
Bible manuscripts. These manuscripts exhibit minor differences in
vocalization among themselves. See Phillips (2016; 2017; 2020).
116
Lipschütz (1964; 1965). A manuscript preserved in the Karaite syn-
agogue in Cairo (known as C3) contains the inscription ‫אני מישאל בן עזיאל‬
‫‘ בן יוסף בן הלל בדקתי זאת התורה שלקדש חצר בן בכתויה ירחמיהו אל‬I Mishaʾel
ben ʿUzzʾiel ben Yoseph ben Hillel checked this holy Torah in the en-
closure of ben Bakhtavaih, may God have mercy on him’ (Gottheil 1905
94 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

foremost Masoretic authorities at the end of the Masoretic period

in the first half of the tenth century, Aharon ben Asher and Moshe
ben Naftali. This lists disagreements between Ben Asher and Ben
Naftali in 867 specific places and agreements of Ben Asher and
Ben Naftali against another, usually unnamed, authority in 406
places. Most of these relate to differences in very small details.
The majority of the disagreements concern the minor gaʿya (i.e.
gaʿya on a short vowel in a closed syllable) and shewa gaʿya (i.e.
gaʿya written on shewa) (§I.2.8.2.2., §I.2.9.). A few relate to
spellings, divisions of words, and vocalization. Several of these
are listed by Mishaʾel in the introduction as general differences
rather than relating to specific passages. Ben Asher, for example,
vocalized a preposition ‫ ל‬or ‫ ב‬with shewa when it was followed
by yod with ḥireq (e.g. ‫‘ ליִ ש ָר ֵאל‬for Israel’), Ben Naftali, on the
other hand, vocalized the first letter with ḥireq with no vowel on
the yod (‫)ליש ָר ֵאל‬. ָ ‫‘ י ִָש‬Issachar’,
ִ Whereas Ben Asher vocalized ‫שכר‬
Ben Naftali vocalized this name ‫יִ ש ָש ָכר‬. Another Masorete, Moshe
Moḥe, vocalized it ‫יִ ש ָש ָכר‬. Ben Asher vocalized the kaf in all forms
of the verb ‫‘ אכל‬to eat’ before segol with ḥaṭef pataḥ, e.g., ‫אכלֶ֑נָ ה‬
ֲ ֹ ‫ָּֽת‬
‘you will eat it’ (Ezek. 4.12), reflecting the reading of the shewa
as mobile, whereas Ben Naftali read the shewa in all such cases
as silent (§I.2.5.7.5.). The purpose of the collation of differences

no. 18; Penkower 1989). This is likely to be the Mishaʾel who was the
author of Kitāb al-Khilaf. The scholarly institution known as the enclo-
sure of ben Bakhtavaih was founded by Yūsuf ibn Bakhtavaih (also
known as Yūsuf ibn Nūḥ) in Jerusalem at the end of the tenth century
and was the hub of Karaite scholarship there in the first half of the
eleventh century.
 Introduction 95

was to impose a degree of standardization on the Tiberian

Masoretic tradition, which had developed into a number of
heterogeneous sub-schools by the tenth century, of which those
of Ben Asher and Ben Naftali were regarded as the most
authoritative. The readings of Ben Asher in Kitāb al-Khilaf
conform very closely to the readings of the manuscript A, which
was produced by Ben Asher, and also to L, which contains many
erasures and corrections that made the correspondence closer
than was originally the case. The Ben Naftali readings conform
closely to C.117
At the close of the Masoretic period in the tenth century
and the early eleventh century, the traditions of Ben Asher and
Ben Naftali were considered to be equally authoritative. Mishaʾel
ben ʿUzziʾel does not give priority to Ben Asher or Ben Naftali in
Kitāb al-Khilaf. In his Masoretic treatise Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, ʾAbū al-
Faraj Hārūn, likewise, does not give priority to either one of these
two authorities. It is significant, however, that according to one
passage in this treatise a reader should not mix the traditions
according to personal assessment of correctness of the reading of
individual words in each tradition. One should adopt either the
tradition of Ben Asher in its entirety or that of Ben Naftali in its
entirety:
‘The reader, therefore, has two options. Either to read with
the reading of Ben Naftali, in which case he must read all
good and difficult forms that he (Ben Naftali) reads, or to

117
For differences between other Tiberian Masoretes see Diqduqe ha-
Ṭeʿamim (ed. Dotan 1967, 139–40), Levy (1936, ‫לג‬-‫)לא‬, Mann (1969,
2:43–44), Lipschütz (1965, 5), Yeivin (1981).
96 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

read with the reading of Ben Asher, which also is autho-

ritative. If somebody reads what he deems to be the best
reading of this one and of that one, he would (read)
without any rule, because he deviates from the rationale
of each of them.’118

The lack of ranking of these Masoretic authorities was the

practice among Masoretic scholars until the time of Maimonides,
who declared Ben Asher to be the most reliable authority. David
Qimḥi (d. 1235), it seems, was the first who decided in favour of
Ben Asher in the context of reported differences between Ben
Asher and Ben Naftali (Lipschütz 1965, 4).
The fact that the Kitāb al-Khilaf rarely mentions vowels and
accents implies that their reading was virtually entirely fixed in
a tradition over which there was consensus among Masoretic au-
thorities. A passage in an anonymous Masoretic treatise discuss-
ing the cantillation of the Tiberian accents indicates that the way
the accents are read has been transmitted ‘from the hearts of the
two masters (ʾal-ʾustādhayin)’, i.e. Ben Asher and Ben Naftali, and
they cannot be explained, i.e. their form is fixed by tradition and
readers cannot exercise any personal initiative with regard to
them:
‘As for all the other accents, every one of them has a single
melody that does not change for any reason, either
lengthening or shortening, as is the case with pronouncing
a vowel and shortening it. It is not possible to explain how

118
Long version of Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, edition in vol. 2 of this book,
§II.L.1.7.11.
 Introduction 97

they are read, because they are melodies transmitted from

the hearts of the two masters.’ 119

This passage makes it clear that the ultimate bases of au-

thority of the reading were Ben Asher and Ben Naftali. This can
be compared to the way reading traditions of the Qurʾān (qirāʾāt)
were anchored to the authority of particular scholars.
Although readers had to adhere to the traditions of Ben
Asher and Ben Naftali in most details of their reading without
personal initiative, the masters themselves did, it seems, take
some degree of personal initiative in fixing their traditions. This
applies in particular to Ben Naftali, whose reading tradition ex-
hibits more consistency in various features than the more con-
servative tradition of Ben Asher. In some places, for example, Ben
Naftali has introduced pausal forms where they are not found in
the Ben Asher tradition, with the result that their distribution in
his reading is more consistent than they are in that of Ben Asher
(A. Ben-David 1957b). Ben Naftali, moreover, introduced various
orthoepic measures into his tradition to ensure a greater accuracy
of reading (§I.0.11.).
The focus on minor gaʿya and shewa gaʿya in the lists of
Kitāb al-Khilaf indicates that these details also formed part of the
fixed sub-traditions of Ben Asher and Ben Naftali. The fixing of
the vowels, accents, minor gaʿya and shewa gaʿya is reflected by
the fact that there is only minimal variation in these features
across the model Masoretic Tiberian Bible manuscripts. By the

119
CUL T-S NS 301.21: ‫ואמא באקי אלטעמים גמיעהא כל ואחד מנהא לה לחן‬
‫וחדה לא יתגייר מן סבב שי אמא תטויל או תקציר וכדלך פי אלתחריך ופי אלכטף ולא‬
‫ימכן שרוחהא כיף תקרא לאנהא אלחאן תנקל מן צדור אלאסתאדין‬.
98 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

end of the Masoretic period, however, not every detail had been
completely fixed and there was some permitted variation in the
sign system and also some variation in the oral reading. This ap-
plied in particular to the writing of ḥaṭef signs on non-guttural
consonants and the pronunciation of major gaʿya (i.e. gaʿya on
long vowels) in the oral reading, as expressed by the following
passages from Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ:
The people responsible for this matter have agreed on the
rule of combining shewa and a vowel (i.e. writing ḥaṭef
signs) only under the four (guttural) letters. It is said,
however, that some scribes wanted to remove uncertainty
from places that may lead to error and have combined a
vowel with shewa (under a non-guttural letter) … because
they thought that people would err in the reading … This
is an exception to their customary practice. What supports
the claim that this is the view of only some of them with
regard to letters not belonging to the group of the four
(guttural letters) is that in most codices one does not find
what has been presented as counterevidence (i.e. the
combination shewa with a vowel under non-guttural
letters), but all codices are uniform in the combination of
shewa with a vowel under the four (guttural letters)
letters.120

120
Long version of Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, edition in vol. 2 of this book,
§II.L.2.12.6. Differences between scribes regarding the writing of ḥaṭef
signs under non-guttural consonants is referred to also in in the earlier
Masoretic treatise Diqduqe ha-Ṭeʿamim, which is attributed to Aharon
ben Asher (ed. Dotan 1967, sec. 19).
 Introduction 99

The gaʿya does not have a definite status in the reading of

Scripture. One reader may omit it and another reader may
sustain it.121

This is also reflected by the model Tiberian Masoretic Bible

codices, which exhibit a greater degree of variation in the writing
of ḥaṭef signs on non-guttural consonants (§I.2.5.5.) and the
marking of major gaʿya than in features that had been fixed, such
as vowels, accents, minor gaʿya and shewa gaʿya.

I.0.11. ORTHOEPY
The variation in the marking of ḥaṭef signs on non-guttural con-
sonants reflects the continual efforts that were made to refine the
vocalization system to ensure accurate reading towards the end
of the Masoretic period. By combining a vowel sign with a shewa
sign, the shewa was unambiguously marked as vocalic, which
removed potential ambiguity of the sign in the vocalization
system and so reduced the risk of inaccurate reading (§I.2.5.5.).
Another measure to ensure correct reading of vowel length that
is occasionally found in standard Tiberian manuscripts is the use
of ḥaṭef signs in unstressed closed syllables to mark explicitly that
the vowel is short. A few examples of this are found in L, e.g.
‫‘ ָּֽ ַב ֲחרט ִ ֖מם‬on the magicians’ (Exod. 9.11), ‫‘ ָה ֲער ַ ֖ביִם‬the evening’
(Exod. 30.8), ‫‘ י ֱחזקּו‬they are strong’ (2 Sam. 10.11), ַ֥‫‘ יַ עכרָך‬he
brings trouble on you’ (Josh. 7.25) (§I.2.5.1.).122

121
Long version of Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, edition in this vol. 2 of this book,
§II.L.3.1.
122
The phenomenon in L is described by Dotan (1985).
100 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

It is important to distinguish these differences in notation

with regard to the clarity of representation of the reading from
the existence of genuine differences in the reading between
Masoretes that are reflected in works such as Mishaʾel ben
ʿUzziʾel’s Kitāb al-Khilaf.
I would like to focus here in particular on another deve-
lopment that took place within the Tiberian tradition, namely an
increasing effort to pronounce the reading with maximal clarity,
a phenomenon that I shall call orthoepy. Such orthoepic
measures are sometimes not discernible from the vocalized text
and can only be reconstructed from external sources, in particular
transcriptions and Masoretic treatises.
The basic principle of orthoepy is to ensure that the distinct
elements of the text are given their optimal realization, keeping
them maximally distinct and avoiding slurring over them. These
elements include letters, vowels, syllables and words.123
One orthoepic measure was to minimize the number of
separate orthographic words that had no accent and so were at
risk of being slurred over. The Tiberian tradition, in general, is
more orthoepic in this respect than the Babylonian tradition
through the Tiberian practice of placing conjunctive accents on
orthographic words between disjunctive accents. In the
Babylonian tradition, there are only disjunctive accents and the
words between these are left without any accent (Shoshany 2003;
2013). The vocalization of some words that have acquired
conjunctive accents in the Tiberian tradition reflects their

123
This phenomenon corresponds closely to the careful recitation of the
Arabic Qurʾān known as tajwīd (Nelson 2001).
 Introduction 101

originally unstressed status. This applies to stressed construct

forms such as ‫‘ ד ַבר ַהש ִמ ָטה‬the matter of the release’ (Deut. 15.2),
and cases such as ‫‘ ַ֥את גאֹון יַ ֲע ֖קֹב‬the pride of Jacob’ (Psa. 47.5), ‫ָ ַ֥כל‬
ָ ‫‘ ֲא ֵח‬all the brothers of a poor man’ (Prov. 19.7), where the
‫י־רש‬
object marker and the quantifier have the vocalization
characteristic of their unstressed form (‫ את־‬and ‫)כל־‬
ָ rather than
of their stressed form (‫ ֵאת‬and ‫)כֹל‬.124
There are still, however, a sizeable number of orthographic
words in the Tiberian tradition that have no accent and are
connected to the following word by the maqqef sign. The lists of
differences in Kitāb al-Khilaf, however, show that Ben Naftali in
a number cases read a word with a conjunctive accent where Ben
Asher read it with maqqef (A. Ben-David 1957b, 391–92), e.g.

Lev. 24.16

Ben Asher: ֖ ֵ ‫בנָ ק‬, Ben Naftali: ‫‘ בנָ ק ַ֥בֹו ֵ ֖שם‬when he

‫בֹו־שם‬
blasphemes the Name’

Gen. 39.6

Ben Asher: ‫ת ַאר‬ ֹ ֖ ‫‘ י ֵ ַ֥פה‬beautiful in form’

ֹ ֖ ‫י ֵפה־‬, Ben Naftali: ‫ת ַאר‬

Job 12.3

Ben Asher: ‫י־אין‬

ַ֥ ֵ ‫ת־מ‬ ֖ ִ ‫‘ וא‬with whom is
ִ ‫וא‬, Ben Naftali: ‫ת־מי ֵ ַ֥אין‬
not?’

This and other features of Ben Naftali’s tradition, some of

which are discussed below, indicates that he introduced more

124
Cf. the long version of Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, edition in vol. 2 of this book,
§II.L.3.2.
102 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

orthoepic innovations in the reading than Ben Asher, who was,

in general, more conservative.
The orthoepic measures taken to separate prosodically
words connected by maqqef sometimes resulted in reading a word
as prosodically separated even when the maqqef sign continued
to be written. One clear example of this is the reading of the word
‫ ַמה־‬vocalized with pataḥ and connected by maqqef to the
following word, the first letter of which has dagesh, e.g. ‫ה־ד ֖בר‬
ִ ‫ּומ‬
ַ
‘and what did he say’ (Jer. 23.35). It is clear that the pataḥ in this
particle originally developed due to its prosodic and syllabic
bonding with the following word, and this is reflected by the
maqqef. It continued, however, to be written as an ortho-
graphically separate word. In order to ensure that the
orthographic distinctness was expressed clearly in pronunciation
one of two orthoepic strategies were followed, both of which are
reflected by transcriptions of the Tiberian reading into Arabic
script. The most common strategy was to lengthen the pataḥ, e.g.
ִ ‫[ ַמ‬maˑ-ttʰisˁˈʕaːaq]̟ ‘Why do you cry?’ (Exod. 14.15). An-
‫ה־תצ ַ ֖עק‬
other strategy was to glottalize the pataḥ vowel by pronouncing
an [h] after the vowel, which separated syllabically from what
followed, e.g. ‫[ ַמה־שמֹו‬mah-ʃʃaˈmoː] ‘What is his name?’ (Exod.
3.13) (for further details see §I.2.8.1.2., §I.2.11.).
Various orthoepic measures were taken to ensure that
adjacent letters in contact were enunciated clearly and not
slurred together. Here again, these measures were more
developed in the tradition of Ben Naftali than in that of Ben
Asher. According to Kitāb al-Khilaf, Ben Naftali placed a dagesh
in the first nun of the name ‫ נּון‬in the combination ‫( ִבן־נּון‬ed.
 Introduction 103

Lipschütz 1965, ‫)כד‬. This was a measure to prevent the

coalescence of two identical letters across a word-boundary, by
strengthening the second letter, which stood at the onset of a syl-
lable. Another strategy to keep the articulation of adjacent iden-
tical letters separate is seen in Ben Naftali’s reading of the name
Issachar ‫יִ ש ָש ָכר‬. In Ben Asher’s tradition the second and third
letter of the name are pronounced as a geminate sin: ‫שכר‬
ָ ‫יִ ָש‬
[jissɔːχɔːɔʀ̟]. The form ‫[ יִש ָש ָכר‬jiʃsɔːχɔːɔʀ̟] of Ben Naftali looks,
prima facie, to be a more archaic form, corresponding more
closely to the ketiv and perhaps to proposed etymologies of the
name such as ‫‘ יש שכר‬there is hire’ or ‫‘ איש שכר‬man of hire’.125 It
is possible, however, that the pronunciation of the second letter
of the name as shin was an intentional dissimilation as an
orthoepic strategy to keep it distinct from the sin. A similar
process seems to have taken place in the name ‫ נ ִ ָּֽפוש ִ ָּֽסים‬in Neh.
7.52. Here the first letter in the sequence ‫ שס‬is likely to have
been a sin and this was dissimilated to shin by an orthoepic
process to keep it distinct from the following identical sounding
samekh (cf. the discussion of the form of this name in §I.0.8.).
Ben Naftali marked a dagesh in the qof of the verb ‫‘ יַ עקֹב‬he
supplants’ (Jer. 9.3) (ed. Lipschütz 1965, ‫ )לג‬as a orthoepic stra-
tegy to ensure that the shewa on the preceding guttural was read
as silent, and therefore not confused with the more common
ֲ ‘Jacob’. A related orthoepic measure that
proper name ‫יַעקֹב‬
developed in the Tiberian tradition, which is not attributable to
any specific subtradition, is what I call the extended dagesh forte

125
See for example Skinner (1994, ad loc.).
104 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

reading. This involved pronouncing the dagesh lene of ‫בגדכפת‬

letters at the beginning of syllables as dagesh forte (§I.3.1.11.3.).
The extended dagesh forte reading arose by giving the dagesh sign
its full value in all contexts. The primary motivation for this was
most likely an attempt to make a maximally clear distinction
between fricative and plosive forms of the ‫ בגדכפת‬letters. Another
effect of strengthening the pronunciation of the dagesh was to
mark a clear separation between syllables.
The orthoepic features of the Tiberian reading have a
variety of different historical depths. The orthoepic practices that
we have examined so far appear to be developments that took
place in the later stages of the transmission of the Tiberian
reading, probably around the end of the Masoretic period in the
tenth century. It is possible to identify some orthoepic measures,
however, that have a greater time depth. One such case is the
lengthening of the vowel of prefixes of the verbs ‫ ָהיָה‬and ‫ָחיָה‬
(§I.2.10.), e.g. ‫[ ִתהיַ֥ה‬tʰiˑhjɛː] ‘it will be’ (Jer. 7:34), ‫[ יִ חי ֶ֑ה‬jiˑħjɛː]
‘let him live’ (Neh 2:3). The lengthening of the vowel of the
prefixes in the verbs ‫ ָהיָ ה‬and ‫ ָחיָ ה‬is likely to have been an ortho-
epic measure taken to ensure that the initial guttural consonants
were not weakened. If these consonants were weakened, the two
verbs would not be formally distinguished. There is evidence that
this particular orthoepic feature has deep historical roots that can
be traced to the proto-Masoretic reading in Second Temple Pal-
estine before the split of the Tiberian and Babylonian branches
(see §I.2.10. for details). It arose as a measure to ensure that the
gutturals were not weakened in these verbs at a period when gut-
turals were vulnerable to weakening under the influence of
 Introduction 105

Greek. It would appear, therefore, that orthoepy was already a

feature of the ancient reading and that care over the oral reading
of the text went hand in hand with care over the copying of the
written text at an ancient period, presumably within Temple cir-
cles during the Second Temple period.

I.0.12. THE CLOSE OF THE TIBERIAN MASORETIC PERIOD

The activities of the Tiberian Masoretes came to an end in the
tenth century after the generation of Aharon ben Asher and
Moshe ben Naftali. The archaeological record shows that Tiberias
was almost deserted in the second half of the eleventh century.
This seems to have been due to the combined effect of
devastating earthquakes in 1033 and 1068 and the political
instability caused by the Seljuk raids into Palestine in the middle
of the eleventh century. When the Crusaders invaded Palestine in
1099, Tiberias was a half-ruined city (Avni 2014, 87–88; Gil
1992, 397–418). The cessation of the activities of the Masoretes,
however, occurred before this decline of the city in the tenth
century, when, it seems, the city was still thriving. The key factor
that brought about the end of the Masoretic school is likely to
have been the removal of the Palestinian Yeshiva to Jerusalem,
which can be dated to the middle of the tenth century.126
The knowledge of the Tiberian reading tradition, which
was the most prestigious form of pronunciation, rapidly fell into
oblivion after this period. During the period in which the
Tiberian Masoretes were active, the oral tradition of Tiberian
reading was transmitted alongside the vocalization sign system.

126
Gil (1992, 499–500), Wechsler (2013).
106 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

As we have seen, the sign system, indeed, was constantly being

refined to represent the reading with maximal accuracy. This is
clear, for example, in the many added ḥaṭef signs under non-
guttural consonants in A, which was vocalized by Aharon ben
Asher in the Masoretic period. The oral reading tradition was
primary and the sign system was a mechanism of graphic
notation.
Bible codices, of course, also had the consonantal text
(ketiv). In the Talmudic period, a practice developed of
interpreting Scripture on two levels, one according to the
consonantal text (ketiv) and one according to the way it was read
(qere). It is reflected by the Talmudic dictum ‫יש אם למקרא ויש אם‬
‫‘ למסורת‬The reading has authority and the traditional text has
authority.’127 Traces of this type of exegesis are found in medieval
sources. It was a practice that was condemned by many medieval
Karaites, who recognized the authority of only the reading
tradition.128 This is reflected not only in their rejection of exegesis
on the basis of the ketiv. They used vocalized codices rather than
scrolls for liturgical reading.129 Moreover, in many cases they
dispensed with the Hebrew ketiv altogether and wrote biblical

127
Naeh (1992; 1993), who argues that this exegetical technique was
not practiced in the Rabbinic tradition before the Amoraic period.
128
A vocal exponent of this was the Karaite al-Qirqisānī, see Khan
(1990c) and §I.0.13.3. Some medieval Karaite scholars did, however,
accept the possibility of interpreting according to the ketiv where it
conflicted with the qere, see al-Fāsi, Kitāb Jāmiʿ al-ʾAlfāẓ (ed. Skoss
1936, vol. 1, 12-13), Hadassi (Bacher 1895a, 113) and Habib (2020).
129
Allony (1979).
 Introduction 107

manuscripts that consisted of Arabic transcriptions of the reading

tradition.130
The Karaite grammarian ʾAbū al-Faraj Hārūn, who wrote
his works in Jerusalem in the first half of the eleventh century,
states in the introduction to his Masoretic treatise Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ
that his sources were earlier Masoretic treatises and the pupils of
the writers of these earlier treatises.131 This indicates that he had
access to an oral tradition of instruction in the Tiberian reading
that was still alive in his time in Jerusalem. Karaite scholars in
Jerusalem in the eleventh century were, in many respects, the
heirs of the Masoretic school. It was in Jerusalem in the early
eleventh century that Mishaʾel ben ʿUzziʾel, who was also a Kar-
aite, composed his work Kitāb al-Khilaf, which recorded differ-
ences between the Masoretes Aharon ben Asher and Moshe ben
Naftali (Penkower 1989).
Already at this period, however, Hebrew grammarians out-
side of Palestine were not able to gain direct access to the oral
tradition of Tiberian reading. Ibn Janāḥ writing in the first half
of the eleventh century in Spain, for example, laments the fact
that he was not able to verify the length of particular occurrences
of qameṣ vowels in the Tiberian tradition:
‘In such places [i.e. in the reading of the biblical text] and
others like them, a person needs readers and teachers [of

130
Khan (1992b).
131
Edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.0.9.
108 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

the Tiberian tradition], which we lack in this country of

ours.’132

After the close of the Masoretic period and the death of the
primary Masoretic authorities Ben Asher and Ben Naftali, the
anchoring of the written vocalization signs to authoritative oral
traditions was broken. The primary base of authority began to
shift to the vocalization sign system, which was the textualization
of these oral traditions. Only the oral reading of Masoretic au-
thorities such as Ben Asher and Ben Naftali was independent of
the vocalization vowel system. This is the import of the following
passage in Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ:
Indeed there is no doubt that when somebody takes a
simple codex without accents or pointing, he stumbles in
the reading … apart from a few exceptional people that are
found in some generations, such as Ben Asher and Ben
Naftali in their time and those like them.133

As the orally transmitted Tiberian reading was lost and the

primacy of its authority was transferred to the written sign
system, the signs were read with reading traditions that differed
from the Tiberian tradition. The incipient signs of this are found

132
‫אלרואה ואצחאב אלתלקין‬
̈ ‫פפי הדה אלמואצע וגירהא מתלהא יצטר אלאנסאן אלי‬
‫אלדין עדמנאהם נחן פי קאציתנא הדה‬, Kitāb al-Lumaʿ, ed. Derenbourg (1886,
322–23). Ibn Ezra states that ‘scholars of Egypt and [North] Africa’
(‫ )חכמי מצרים ואפריקייא‬knew how to pronounce the Tiberian qameṣ
correctly; cf. Sefer Ṣaḥot (ed. Lippmann 1827, 3b). This was presumably
referring to his own time, i.e. the twelfth century.
133
Long version of Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, edition in vol. 2 of this book,
§II.L.3.0.
 Introduction 109

in a variety of medieval manuscripts in which standard Tiberian

vocalization is written under words with another vocalization
system.134 These can be interpreted as reflecting the tolerance of
two traditions of written vocalization alongside each other in a
way that can be compared to the apparent tolerance of different
written textual traditions alongside each other in some Qumran
manuscripts, which has been alluded to above (§I.0.2.).135 It is
clear from the medieval sources that one of the traditions in such
manuscripts, viz. the Tiberian, was more prestigious.
One of the consequences of the shift of authority to the
written vocalization and accent sign systems after the loss of the
Masoretic authorities who were guarantors of the oral tradition
was the increasing production and reliance on Bible codices that
recorded the authoritative sign systems.136
In most communities other than Yemen the oral traditions
that came to be used to read the standard Tiberian vocalization
were derived ultimately from the Palestinian pronunciation of
Hebrew, with a five vowel system (without distinctions between
qameṣ and pataḥ, on the one hand, and ṣere and segol, on the
other) that was based on that of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic. As
we have seen, the Palestinian pronunciation tradition had no

134
In the Genizah Bible manuscript T-S A38.10, for example, the scribe
has vocalized the text with both Babylonian and Tiberian signs.
135
A similar situation is found in some early Qurʾān manuscripts in
which the vocalization records different reading traditions, distin-
guishing them with different colours of ink (Dutton 1999; 2000).
136
See Outhwaite (2018) for discussion of the commissioning and
production of codices.
110 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

authoritative roots, but this was not relevant after the transition
of the authority of the Tiberian tradition from the oral reading to
the written sign system. It was the written sign system that now
preserved the authoritative standard. This meant that the process
whereby the Palestinian pronunciation was adapted to converge
with the standard Tiberian pronunciation, which is reflected in
manuscripts with Palestinian vocalization signs, now no longer
took place.
It is unlikely that the removal of the Palestinian Yeshiva
from Tiberias was the only factor that brought about the loss of
the oral Tiberian reading tradition. Another factor is likely to
have been that it was transmitted by a very small number of elite
practitioners. A related issue was that the conservative Tiberian
tradition and its highly careful orthoepic features deviated in
various ways from the spoken vernacular languages of the Jewish
communities. The Palestinian pronunciation of Hebrew, by
contrast, was very widely used and was closer to the vernacular.
As remarked, the vowel system of the Palestinian pronunciation
had its roots in that of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, which was
the vernacular of the Jews in the early Islamic period. When the
Jews of the region adopted Arabic as their vernacular, this
rapidly had an impact on the Palestinian pronunciation tradition.
In regions where the Arabic dialects did not have interdental
fricatives (θ and ð), for example, there is evidence that already
in the Middle Ages the Hebrew consonants tav and dalet came to
be pronounced as stops (t and d) in all contexts (§I.4.2.) (Khan
1997).
 Introduction 111

Developments in the transmission of the Qurʾān in the tenth

century may also have had an impact on the fate of the Tiberian
reading tradition. At this period an official policy, endorsed by
the ruling ʿAbbāsid régime, was instigated by the scholar Ibn
Mujāhid (d. 324 A.H./936 C.E.) to reduce the number of reading
traditions of the Qurʾān.137 Before the time of Ibn Mujāhid, a very
large number of reading traditions of the Qurʾān existed. Many
of these were transmitted by only a small number of readers. As
a result of the activity of Ibn Mujāhid, the traditions with
restricted numbers of transmitters were eliminated in favour of
seven canonical traditions that had wide levels of transmission.
Some of the smaller traditions that were lost exhibited unusual
features that deviated from normal Arabic usage. One example of
such non-canonical readings (šawādhdh) that is of particular
interest in light of the discussion above concerning the orthoepic
extension of dagesh forte to all contexts in Tiberian Hebrew
(§I.0.11.) is the practice of some Qurʾān readers to geminate a
consonant after a preceding vowelless consonant, e.g. ُ‫يَ ْخطِّف‬
yakhṭṭifu ‘it takes away’ (Q 2.20).138 This process of obsolescence
of traditions with small numbers of transmitters and with
features that deviated from normal Arabic usage, which took
place in the Islamic world in the tenth century, could have
influenced the transmission of the Hebrew Bible at that period,

137
Ibn Mujāhid, Kitāb al-Sabʿa fī al-Qirāʾāt (ed. Cairo, 1972), Nöldeke et
al. (1938, 155–56).
138
This is recorded in the collection of shawādhdh by Ibn Khālawayh (d.
370/980), Mukhtaṣar fī Shawādhdh al-Qurʾān min Kitāb al-Badīʿ (ed.
Bergsträsser, 1934, 3).
112 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

whereby the continuation of the Tiberian oral reading was

disfavoured due to the small number of readers.
After the loss of the orally transmitted Tiberian pronun-
ciation and its textualization as a historical relic in the written
signs, readers and teachers of the Hebrew Bible were obliged to
interpret the sign system as it was received. Many features of the
Tiberian pronunciation that are not discernible in the sign system
fell into complete oblivion. These include the orthoepic features
I have described above, such as the extended dagesh forte reading.
In the later Middle Ages, the standard Tiberian sign system was
a graphic fossil that reflected an extinct tradition that was
different from the pronunciation traditions of the various
communities. In some cases, however, the reading was adapted
to the sign system. A conspicuous example of this is the
development of Biblical reading in late medieval Ashkenaz.
The distribution of vowel signs in manuscripts from medi-
eval Ashkenaz dating to the twelfth and thirteenth centuries
reflects a five-vowel system, in which no distinction is made
between qameṣ and pataḥ, nor between ṣere and segol.139 This in-
dicates that at that period the pronunciation of the Ashkenazi
communities still had the original Palestinian five vowel system.
By the middle of the fourteenth century, a new vowel system
evolved in the Ashkenazi tradition of Hebrew, in which there was
a distinction in pronunciation between qameṣ and pataḥ and
between ṣere and segol. One of the main causes of this change in
the vowel system was the occurrence of vowel shifts in the dia-
lects of German that were spoken by the Jews. In the twelfth

139
Eldar (1978).
 Introduction 113

century, a number of German dialects, including Yiddish,

developed a labio-velar pronunciation (in some [o] and in others
[u]) of Middle High German [aː] as well as of [a] in an open
syllable. This shift found its way into the Hebrew component of
Yiddish. Since, however, words of Hebrew origin were
assimilated into Yiddish at an earlier period, in which there were
no quantitative distinctions (between long and short a), this shift
only affected cases of [a] in an open syllable. In Hebrew words
that met the criteria for the shift to [o] or [u], a lengthened [a]
in open syllables mostly corresponded to historical qameṣ, e.g.,
ָ ‘released’, [boro] (=‫)ב ָרא‬
[poter] (= ‫)פטּור‬ ָ ‘he created’, [dvorim]
(=‫‘ )ד ָב ִרים‬words’, and in a few cases also to historical pataḥ, as
in [noxem] (=‫‘ )נַ חּום‬Nahum’, [kadoxes] (=‫)ק ַד ַחת‬
ַ ‘fever’. In the
thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, Yiddish began to develop a
diphthongized articulation of long [eː] in an open syllable. The
shift [eː] > [ei] or [ai] entered the Hebrew component of Yiddish
as a reflection of ṣere (in an open syllable), as in [eyme] (=‫ימה‬
ָ ‫)א‬
ֵ
‘terror’, [breyšis] (=‫אשית‬
ִ ‫‘ )ב ֵר‬in the beginning’ and also as a
reflection of segol (in an open syllable) in a small group of words
that were pronounced in Yiddish as if they were vocalized with
ṣere, e.g., [meylex] (= ‫‘ ) מלְך‬king’, [keyver] (=‫‘ )קבר‬grave’, etc.
The variations between [o] and [u], on the one hand, and [ei]
and [ai], on the other, in Ashkenazi Hebrew were reflections of
the local dialects of Yiddish. At approximately the same period
as these vowel shifts took place in the vernacular dialects, the
scribes in Ashkenaz began to make an association between the
newly developed vowel distinctions and the Tiberian vowel signs.
114 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

What is of particular interest is that in the biblical reading tradi-

tion mismatches between the sign system and the pronunciation
were adjusted, e.g. pataḥ was always read with the [a] quality,
even where it was pronounced as [o] or [u] due to the sound shift
of [a] in stressed open syllables in the Hebrew component of Yid-
dish, e.g. [kadoxes] (=‫)ק ַד ַחת‬.
ַ The written sign system, therefore,
had an impact on the biblical reading tradition, in that there was
an attempt to assign a particular phonetic value to each sign.140
This development of the Ashkenazi reading in the late
Middle Ages reflects the primacy of the authority of the written
sign system over the oral reading tradition. Such a phenomenon
should be contrasted with the situation in the Masoretic period,
when the oral Tiberian reading tradition of particular Masoretes
had primary authority and the sign system underwent a constant
adaptation to reflect it.
We may identify a typological parallel here between the
developments after the destruction of the Second Temple and
those that occurred after the demise of the Tiberian Masoretic
school. Before the destruction of the Temple, there was a
stabilized proto-Masoretic text within a pluriformity of other
textual traditions. After the destruction of the Temple the
prestigious proto-Masoretic text gained general acceptance. The
diversity reflected by the pluriform biblical manuscripts from
Qumran was replaced by a uniform prestigious text that was read
with a pluriformity of oral reading traditions, of which one, the
Tiberian tradition, was regarded as the most prestigious. After
the dispersal of the Tiberian school, the pluriform written

140
Weinreich (1965), Eldar (2013).
 Introduction 115

vocalization sign systems reflecting the different oral reading

traditions were gradually replaced by a uniform prestigious
vocalization system that was read with a pluriformity of oral
reading traditions. In both cases, there was a punctuation in
Jewish society involving the loss of a central prestigious body
that was responsible for the stabilization of the transmission of
the Hebrew Bible. In the first century C.E., this was the des-
truction of Temple. In the tenth century C.E., it was the loss of
the Tiberian Masoretic school. In both cases, after the ongoing
activity of stabilization ceased, the tradition reached completion
and became fossilized. In both cases, the written tradition, of the
text or of the vocalization system respectively, gained general
acceptance.

I.0.13. SOURCES FOR THE TIBERIAN PRONUNCIATION

TRADITION
The early model Tiberian Bible codices are an important starting
point for the reconstruction of the Tiberian pronunciation
tradition. Various additional sources, however, are crucial for
establishing many aspects of pronunciation that are not
discernible in these codices. In this section, we shall review these
additional sources.

I.0.13.1. Masoretic Treatises

A number of important details relating to pronunciation can be
found in a variety of treatises written by Tiberian Masoretes or
by scholars close to their circle who had direct access to the
Tiberian Masoretic tradition.
116 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

A number of early Masoretic treatises that are written in

rhymed Hebrew and preserved mainly at the end of the medieval
Tiberian Bible codices contain material relating to pronunciation.
Many of these were published by Baer and Strack (1879). They
relate to selected issues concerning vocalization and accents,
particularly the shewa and gaʿya. In some cases, they go beyond
description and offer explanatory rules for differences based on
their context of occurrence. Some of the Hebrew texts gathered
by Baer and Strack, furthermore, concern topics relating to
grammatical theory, such as the classification of consonants
according to their points of articulation, or according to whether
they are ‘radical’ or ‘servile’ letters, the distinction between
construct and absolute forms, the distinction between contextual
and pausal forms, and verbal tenses.
Baer and Strack attributed the majority of the texts in their
corpus to a Masoretic treatise known as Diqduqe ha-Ṭeʿamim (see
below for meaning) by the Masorete Aharon ben Asher (tenth
century), although they did not clearly delineate the scope of the
treatise. Dotan (1967) made a thorough study of such texts and
concluded that the original treatise of Ben Asher contained
twenty-six sections, which are reproduced in a fixed order in
some manuscripts. Other sections, of unknown authorship, were
subsequently added to these in various manuscripts. The work
was not intended as a systematic collection of rules relating to
the accents, but only as a treatment of selected details that were
regarded as potentially problematic. This is reflected by the name
of the work Diqduqe ha-Ṭeʿamim, which can be rendered ‘The Fine
Details of the Accents’. The work also includes discussions of
 Introduction 117

some aspects of vocalization, in particular of the shewa. Dotan

argues that Aharon ben Asher incorporated some of the material
of Diqduqe ha-Ṭeʿamim from earlier Masoretic collections. This
probably explains why the work is in Hebrew, since in the tenth
century Masoretic treatises were generally written in Arabic. The
source material for the work is likely to have been composed in
the ninth century.
A number of Arabic Masoretic treatises are extant that are
datable to the tenth century. Most of these concern the biblical
reading tradition and its phonological principles. In some cases,
a number of the technical terms and even sections of the text
itself are in Hebrew. These Hebrew elements may be regarded as
vestiges from the earlier Hebrew tradition of Masoretic treatises.
Some of the texts datable to the tenth century include treatises
on vowels and the shewa, such as those identified by Allony as
Kitāb al-Muṣawwitāt ‘The Book of Vowels’ (Allony 1963) and
Seder ha-Simanim ‘The Order of Signs’ (Allony 1965). These two
treatises offer explanations for the distinction between vowels
based on factors such context and placement of stress, and
develop many of the topics that are found in the Diqduqe ha-
Ṭeʿamim. In some cases, the explanations for distinctions in
vowels is correlated with semantic distinctions, which is a level
of functional explanation not found in earlier texts. The
functional concern of the work is also clear in the title of one of
the extant sections of the text ʿilal al-muṣawwitāt ‘the reasons for
the vowels’ (Morag 2003, 251–52). An Arabic treatise devoted to
the shewa that is datable to the tenth century was published by
Levy (1936). This develops an analysis of the shewa based on a
118 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

theory of syllable structure. The treatise warns that mistakes in

reading shewa can lead to the corruption of the form of words
and, in general, has a pedagogical tone. This reflects the fact that
the correct transmission of the Tiberian reading still depended on
a tradition of teaching even after the details of the Tiberian Ma-
sora had been committed to writing (Eldar 1994, 3–8; Khan
2012, 3–4).
Allony (1973) published a fragment of an Arabic treatise
on consonants, which he attributed to ʿEli ben Yehudah ha-Nazir.
This also appears to be datable to the tenth century. The extant
text is concerned mainly with the pronunciation of the letter resh.
A remarkable feature of this text is the reference by the author to
the fact that he undertook fieldwork in the streets of Tiberias to
verify his analysis of the resh in Tiberian reading, on the grounds
that resh had the same pronunciation in the local speech of the
(Jewish) inhabitants of Tiberias: “I spent a long time sitting in
the squares of Tiberias and its streets listening to the speech of
the common people, investigating the language and its principles,
seeing whether anything that I had established was overturned
or any of my opinions proved to be false, in what was uttered
with regard to Hebrew and Aramaic etc., that is the language of
the Targum, for it resembles Hebrew ... and it turned out to be
correct and accurate”. The interpretation of this is not completely
clear. The Aramaic mentioned by the author could have been
vernacular Aramaic that was still spoken in Tiberias at the time.
The Hebrew must have been the recitation of Hebrew liturgy or
the occurrence of a ‘Hebrew component’ (Hebrew words and
 Introduction 119

phrases) within vernacular speech. Drory (1988, 33–35) sug-

gested that this report of fieldwork may have been an imitation
of the topos in the medieval Arabic grammatical literature of
verifying grammatical phenomena by carrying out fieldwork
among the Bedouin Arabs, who were deemed to be speakers of
‘pure Arabic’, the inhabitants of Tiberias being the corresponding
tradents of pure Hebrew. A Hebrew treatise concerning the resh
is found also in the corpus published by Baer and Strack (1879,
§7), in which it is likewise stated that this pronunciation existed
in the conversational speech of the common people ( ‫והוא קשור‬
‫בלשונם אם יקראו במקרא ואם ישיחו בשיחתם והוא בפי האנשים והנשים ובפי‬
‫‘ הטף‬it is on their tongues, whether they read the Bible or
converse in their conversation, in the mouths of men, women,
and children’).
The authorship of these works on Tiberian pronunciation
cannot be established with certainty, although Allony, who
published many of them, attributed them to various medieval
scholars who are known from other sources. In most cases, there
is no decisive evidence for these attributions and they should be
treated with caution (Eldar 1986). It has been argued by Eldar
(1988) that the treatise on the shewa published by Levy (1936)
and Kitāb al-Muṣawwitāt ‘The Book of Vowels’ published by
Allony (1963) are parts of the same work.
An important work composed in the eleventh century was
the Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ ‘The Guide for the Reader’. This work was
studied in detail by Eldar, who published sections of it (see, in
particular, Eldar 1994 and the references cited there). It can be
classified as a Masoretic treatise, although, unlike the treatises
120 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

discussed above, the Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ was composed several dec-

ades after the time in which the final Tiberian Masoretic
authorities, Ben Asher and Ben Naftali, were active. Its author
was the Karaite grammarian ʾAbū al-Faraj Hārūn, who was based
in Jerusalem in the first half of the eleventh century (Khan 2003).
Although he did not have direct contact with the Masoretes of
the tenth century, he did have access to teachers of the Tiberian
reading tradition, who could still be found in Palestine in the
eleventh century, in addition to the Masoretic treatises of earlier
generations. ʾAbū al-Faraj produced the work in a long and a
short version. The long version, which was composed first,
contains more expansive theoretical discussions. The short
version became more popular, as is reflected by the greater
number of extant manuscripts. The work presents a systematic
description of the consonants, vowels (including shewa), and
accents. It was divided into three parts, part one being devoted
to the consonants, part two to the vowels, and part three to the
accents. The Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ was conveyed beyond the confines
of Palestine to Yemen and to Europe. The long version was
transmitted to Yemen, probably in the thirteenth century. Two
abridgements were made of this in Yemen, one in Arabic (ed.
Neubauer 1891) and one in Hebrew (ed. Derenbourg 1871). Each
of these was known as Maḥberet ha-Tījān ‘The Composition of the
Crowns’, since they were copied at the beginning of Bible codices
known as ‘crowns’ (Arabic tījān) (Eldar 1994, 15–16).141 The
short version of Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ found its way to central Europe

141
Another derivative Arabic version was published in Ginbsburg’s
(1885, 43-51) corpus of Masoretic material.
 Introduction 121

and two full Hebrew translations were made of it. One was made
in Mainz and was given the title Horayat ha-Qore ‘Guide for the
Reader’ in the manuscripts, the earliest being datable to the
thirteenth century. The other translation was given the title
Tokhen ʿEzra ‘The Ruling of Ezra’ in a manuscript dated 1145 and
the title Ṭaʿame ha-Miqra ‘The Accents of the Bible’ in a
manuscript dated 1285–1287. Both copies were made in Italy. In
the version entitled Ṭaʿame ha-Miqra the work is erroneously
attributed to the Spanish grammarian Yehudah ibn Balʿam (Busi
1984; Eldar 1994, 16–18).
The sections on the consonants and vowels in Hidāyat al-
Qāriʾ are of great importance for the reconstruction of the
Tiberian pronunciation tradition. This applies in particular to the
original Arabic long and short versions. So far, no full edition of
these is available. I have, therefore, included a critical edition of
the sections on consonants and vowels of the Arabic versions of
Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ together with a facing English translation as a
supplementary volume to this book. Eldar (2018) has recently
published the section on the accents from the Arabic versions.

I.0.13.2. Masoretic Notes

The Masoretic notes in the margins of Bible codices occasionally
contain information about the pronunciation of the reading tra-
dition that supplements what is encoded in the vocalization sign
system. This applies in particular to notes that relate to vowel
length. The Masoretic note ‫‘ חטף‬short’, for example, occurs in
places where there may be some doubt as to whether a vowel is
long or short, as in:
122 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

L: ‫‘ זָ כ ָ ֕רה‬remember!’ (2 Chron. 6.42). Masoretic note: ‫ל חטף‬

‫‘ בסיפ‬the only form in the book in which the vowel is short’,
i.e. it is an imperative with a short qameṣ and not a 3fs. past
verbal form, which would have had a long qames.

A: ‫‘ ִרבבֹות‬ten thousands of’ (Deut. 33.17). Masoretic note: ‫חטף‬

‘short’, i.e. the ḥireq is short here, in contrast to cases with
gaʿya, such as ‫( ִ ָּֽרב ֖בֹות‬Num. 10.36), in which the ḥireq is
long.

I.0.13.3. Karaite Transcriptions of the Hebrew Bible

into Arabic Script
In the tenth and eleventh centuries C.E., many Karaite scribes in
the Middle East used Arabic script not only to write the Arabic
language but also to transcribe Hebrew. Such Hebrew texts in
Arabic transcription were predominantly Hebrew Bible texts.
These were sometimes written as separate manuscripts contain-
ing continuous Bible texts. Some manuscripts in Arabic script
contain collections of Biblical verses for liturgical purposes. Ara-
bic transcriptions of verses from the Hebrew Bible or individual
Biblical Hebrew words were, in many cases, embedded within
Karaite Arabic works, mainly of an exegetical nature, but also in
works of other intellectual genres. Several Karaite Arabic works
also contain Arabic transcriptions of extracts from Rabbinic He-
brew texts (Tirosh-Becker 2011). The Karaites transcribed into
Arabic script only texts with an oral reading tradition, as was the
case with the Hebrew Bible and Rabbinic texts in the Middle
Ages. The transcriptions reflect, in principle, these oral traditions.
It is for this reason that the transcription of the Hebrew Bible
 Introduction 123

represents the qere (the orally transmitted reading tradition of

the text) rather than the ketiv (the written tradition) (Khan
1992b).
Most of the known manuscripts containing Karaite tran-
scriptions of Hebrew into Arabic script are found in the British
Library (Khan 1993), the Firkovitch collections of the National
Library of Russia in St. Petersburg (Harviainen 1993a), and in the
Cairo Genizah collections (Khan 1990a). These manuscripts em-
anate from Palestinian circles of Karaites or Karaites in Egypt
who had migrated to Egypt from Palestine after the capture of
Jerusalem by the Crusaders in 1099. The majority of them were
written in the tenth and eleventh centuries. Most of the transcrip-
tions of Biblical Hebrew reflect the Tiberian reading tradition.
The transcriptions, therefore, are an important source for the re-
construction of this reading tradition. The Karaites represented a
movement within Judaism and were closely associated with the
Tiberian Masoretes (§I.0.4.). The tradition of Biblical Hebrew re-
flected by their texts is not a separate communal tradition com-
parable, for example, to that of the Samaritans.
The Karaite Hebrew grammarians of the tenth and eleventh
centuries were, in general, concerned with the reading tradition
(qere) reflected by the Tiberian vocalization signs and showed
little concern for the orthography of the written text (ketiv) (Khan
2000b; 2003; 2013b). The Karaite al-Qirqisānī, in his discussions
of the bases of authority for the Hebrew Bible, contended that
the ultimate authoritative source was the reading tradition of the
people of Palestine (by which he meant Tiberias), rather than the
written form of the text with orthographic inconsistencies. One
124 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

of his justifications was that the reading tradition had been

transmitted by the whole community (ʾumma) since the time of
the prophets whereas the written orthography had been
transmitted on the authority of small circles of scribes, which is,
therefore, more liable to corruption or wilful change (Khan
1990c). The Arabic transcription texts can be understood most
easily as a reflection of the priority that the Karaites gave to the
reading tradition.

I.0.13.4. Grammatical and Lexicographical Texts

Some of the early works on Hebrew grammar were written by
scholars who had knowledge of the pronunciation of Hebrew in
the Tiberian reading tradition. All these were written in the
Middle East in the tenth and eleventh centuries at the end of the
Masoretic period. As has been remarked, the grammarians of
Spain did not have direct access to the Tiberian reading tradition,
despite their extensive discussion of vocalization and phonology
in a number of their works.
The grammatical works written by grammarians with a
knowledge of the Tiberian reading tradition can be classified into
the works of Saadya Gaon and the works of Karaites.
The grammatical writings of Saadya contain elements
taken from the Masoretic tradition (Dotan 1997). After leaving
Egypt, Saadya spent a few years in Tiberias studying with the
Masoretes. According to Dotan, he composed his main grammar
book (Kitāb Faṣīḥ Lughat al-ʿIbrāniyyīn ‘The Book of the Eloquence
of the Language of the Hebrews, also known as Kutub al-Lugha
 Introduction 125

‘Books of the Language’) while he was in Tiberias during the sec-

ond decade of the tenth century. The surviving sections of the
work include not only treatments of grammatical inflection and
word structure, but also several chapters relating to the Tiberian
reading tradition. The material for some of these has clearly been
incorporated from the Masoretic tradition and direct parallels can
be found in the extant Masoretic treatises, such as Diqduqe ha-
Ṭeʿamim (Dotan 1997, 34–36). Dotan, indeed, suggests that one
of the missing chapters may have been concerned specifically
with accents. We may say that Saadya’s grammar book is not a
product of collaboration with the Masoretes or a complementary
expansion of the scope of Masoretic teaching, but rather was in-
tended to stand apart from the Masoretic tradition.
The grammatical texts written by the Karaites, on the other
hand, reflect a closer association with Masoretic activities, in that
they were intended to complement the Masoretic treatises rather
than incorporate elements from them. Several grammatical
works have come down to us that were written by Karaite schol-
ars who had direct access to the Tiberian reading tradition. These
can be divided into works reflecting the early Karaite grammati-
cal tradition and those written by the grammarian ʾAbū al-Faraj
Hārūn together with texts dependent on ʾAbū al-Faraj’s works.
The main source for the early Karaite grammatical tradition is
the grammatical commentary on the Bible of ʾAbū Yaʿqūb Yūsuf
ibn Nūḥ, known as the Diqduq, which was composed in Jerusalem
the second half of the tenth century. ʾAbū al-Faraj’s works are
datable to the first half the eleventh century and were, likewise,
written in Jerusalem (Khan 2003). The Diqduq of Ibn Nūḥ
126 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

contains some discussion of pronunciation and accents, but this

is usually related to some issue regarding linguistic form. The
Diqduq was intended, it seems, to complement such treatises as
Diqduqe ha-Ṭeʿamim, the exclusive concern of which was
pronunciation and accents.
ʾAbū al-Faraj Hārūn ibn Faraj wrote several works on the
Hebrew language. The largest of these is a comprehensive work
on Hebrew morphology and syntax consisting of eight parts
entitled al-Kitāb al-Mushtamil ʿalā al-ʾUṣūl wa-l-Fuṣūl fī al-Lugha
al-ʿIbrāniyya ‘The Comprehensive Book of General Principles and
Particular Rules of the Hebrew Language’ (Bacher 1895b; Khan
2003). ʾAbū al-Faraj subsequently wrote a short version of this
entitled al-Kitāb al-Kāfī fī al-Lugha al-ʿIbrāniyya ‘The Sufficient
Book concerning the Hebrew Language’, the entire text of which
has been edited with an English translation (Khan, Gallego, and
Olszowy-Schlanger 2003). The works of ʾAbū al-Faraj were
radically different from the Diqduq of Ibn Nūḥ in their approach.
There was, nevertheless, a certain degree of continuity of
grammatical thought from the teachings of the earlier Karaite
grammarians in the works of ʾAbū al-Faraj, which can be found
especially in some of his theories of morphological structure. This
continuity can be identified also in the scope of his grammatical
works and their complementarity to the Masoretic treatises. The
subject matter of al-Kitāb al-Mushtamil and his other grammatical
works includes mainly the description of morphology and syntax.
There is no systematic description of pronunciation or the
accents. As we have seen, ʾAbū al-Faraj devoted a separate work
to this topic, viz. the Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ ‘The Guide for the Reader’.
 Introduction 127

This was intended by him to complement his work on grammar.

It was conceived as a continuity of earlier Masoretic treatises on
pronunciation and accents, which were among his sources, as
ʾAbū al-Faraj states in his introduction to the work. Thus the
composition of Hidāyat al-Qāri by ʾAbū al-Faraj separately from
his grammatical works may be explained as a continuation of the
complementarity between grammatical and Masoretic treatises
that existed among the Karaite grammarians of the previous
generation (Khan 2014).
A number of valuable observations about the Tiberian
pronunciation tradition are found in the extensive
lexicographical work written in Palestine in the tenth century by
the Karaite scholar David ben Abraham al-Fāsī known as Kitāb
Jāmiʿ al-ʾAlfāẓ ‘Book of the collection of words’ (ed. Skoss 1936).

I.0.13.5. Commentaries on Sefer Yeṣira

Sefer Yeṣira is a mystical work of cosmology and cosmogony that
came to form part of the literature of the Qabbalah. It describes
God’s creation of the world by means of the ten cosmic numbers
(sefirot) and the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet
(Gruenwald 1971). Scholars differ widely regarding the date of
its composition. Gershom Scholem (1965, 158–204) believed it
was written in Palestine in the Tannaitic period (second to third
centuries C.E.) with some post-Talmudic additions, whereas
Bravmann (1934, 29) and Allony (1972; 1982b; 1982a) argued
that it was composed in the eighth or ninth century, due to the
fact that it contains features that he identified as the result of
influence from Arabic grammatical thought in the Islamic period.
128 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

The fact that Sefer Yeṣira is already referred to in the Baraita d-

Shmuel and the poems of Eleazar ha-Kallir (c. sixth century)
(Scholem 2007, 330) suggests that such passages are later addi-
tions to the original work. Weinstock (1972) argues that a variety
of historical layers can be identified in the text, ranging from the
Tannaitic period until the tenth century C.E. Hayman (2004, 5)
also identifies layers in the text, but is reluctant to accept the
early dating of Weinstock.
The work is extant in two main versions, one short and one
long, without major divergences in ideas between them. On
account of its focus on letters of the Hebrew alphabet, the work
is of some importance for the history of the Hebrew language. It
contains, for example, a classification of the letters according to
their places of articulation in the mouth. It is not accurate, how-
ever, to identify the work as the first composition on Hebrew
grammar and orthography, as was proposed by Mordell (1914).
The inclusion of the letter resh together with ‫ בגדכפת‬in a list of
the letters that have hard and soft realizations has been inter-
preted as reflecting a Babylonian rather than Tiberian tradition
of pronunciation (Morag 1960). Numerous commentaries were
written on work from the tenth century onwards, which made
expositions of its laconic and enigmatic text. It is in some of these
commentaries that one can find information about the Tiberian
reading tradition. The two extant commentaries that are relevant
in this respect are those of Saadya Gaon and Dunash ibn Tamīm,
both written in the tenth century in Arabic. Saadya wrote a phil-
osophical commentary on the long version of Sefer Yeṣira in 931
 Introduction 129

when he was Gaon in Iraq (ed. Lambert 1891). As has been re-
marked, Saadya was familiar with the Tiberian reading tradition
and makes reference to it in several places in this commentary.
ʾAbū Sahl Dunash ibn Tamīm made a commentary on the short
version in 955/6 in Kairouan. Fragments of the Arabic original
have been discovered in the Genizah (Vajda 1954; 1963). Several
later revisions were made, mainly in Hebrew (e.g. ed. Grossberg
1902). The commentary is apparently based on the lectures of
Dunash’s teacher, Isaac Israeli, who is said to have known the
Tiberian reading tradition.

I.0.13.6. Non-Standard Tiberian Systems of

Vocalization
There are a variety of extant medieval manuscripts of the Hebrew
Bible that are vocalized with Tiberian signs but do not follow the
standard Tiberian system of vocalization. These manuscripts
exhibit numerous differences among themselves, though certain
tendencies are observable. Some of the differences from the
standard Tiberian vocalization can be interpreted as reflecting
stages of development different from the one exhibited by the
standard system, some more primitive and some more advanced,
in particular in the use of the dagesh, rafe, shewa and ḥaṭef
signs.142 Other differences from standard Tiberian reflect a
different pronunciation tradition, the most conspicuous feature
being the interchange of segol and ṣere, on the one hand, and
pataḥ and qameṣ, on the other. Manuscripts exhibiting such
interchanges have been interpreted as reflecting the Palestinian

142
See Khan (1991, 856; 2017b).
130 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

pronunciation tradition, since similar interchanges are found in

manuscripts with Palestinian vocalization. The interchanges are,
however, inconsistent across the extant manuscripts and they
appear to reflect a variety of types of pronunciation with minor
differences.
The Non-Standard Tiberian type of vocalization has been
found in biblical manuscripts written in medieval Europe, in both
Ashkenaz and Italy.143 The best known European biblical
manuscript of this type is Codex Reuchlinianus, written in Karls-
ruhe in 1105 CE.144 A range of manuscripts with Non-Standard
Tiberian vocalization that were written in the Middle East were
discovered in the Cairo Genizah by Kahle (1930, vol. 2), who
published descriptions of some of them. Descriptions of other
Genizah fragments were subsequently made by other scholars, in
particular Díez Macho (1956; 1963; 1971), Murtonen (1961) and
Revell (1969). Further work has been carried out by Blapp (2017;
2018) and Arrant (2020) on the Bible fragments with Non-Stand-
ard Tiberian vocalization from the Genizah at the University of
Cambridge.
The wide distribution of the non-standard type of Tiberian
vocalization in many medieval manuscripts written in Europe led
Kahle to believe that it must have been associated with a major

143
See Sperber (1956-1959). Additional manuscripts of this type from
Italy are described by Pilocane (2004).
144
Cod. Reuchlin 3 of the Badische Landesbibliothek in Karlsruhe; cf.
Sperber (1956-1959), Morag (1959). This type of vocalization is also
found in liturgical manuscripts from medieval Ashkenaz (Eldar 1978)
and some manuscripts of the Mishnah (Heijmans 2013b).
 Introduction 131

stream of Masoretic tradition that is traceable in the Masoretic

sources. A common feature of the manuscripts is the vocalization
with ḥireq before yod in contexts such as ‫ ִליש ָר ֵאל‬where standard
Tiberian generally has shewa followed by yod with ḥireq (‫)ליִש ָר ֵאל‬.
As we have seen, this is recorded in Masoretic treatises as a dis-
tinctive practice of Ben Naftali. For this reason, Kahle held that
this vocalization type was associated with the tradition of Ben
Naftali.145 In reality, however, the manuscripts with Non-Stand-
ard Tiberian vocalization contain numerous features that are not
attributed to Ben Naftali or Ben Asher in the Masoretic lists, such
as the extended use of dagesh and rafe and the interchange of
qameṣ and pataḥ, on the one hand, and segol and ṣere, on the
other. The attribution of the system to the Ben Naftali school was
subsequently followed by Prijs (1957). Díez Macho (1956; 1963)
maintained that the vocalization had its roots in the Ben Naftali
school but had undergone further development, and so he terms
it ‘Pseudo-Ben Naftali’. Morag (1959) argues against the attribu-
tion of the system to the Ben Naftali school and terms it ‘Fuller
Palestinian’. Dotan (2007, 645) believed that the vocalization
was a continuation of the Palestinian vocalization. Allony (1964)
termed the vocalization ‘Palestino-Tiberian’ on account of the
fact that in many cases, as remarked, they reflect a Palestinian
type of pronunciation. It is known that this type of pronunciation
existed in medieval Ashkenaz before the fourteenth century. The
term Palestino-Tiberian has been widely accepted (Eldar 1978;

145
He was following in this respect the identification by Delitzsch of the
non-standard features of the Codex Reuchlinianus with the Ben Naftali
tradition; see Baer and Delitzsch (1890, ix) and Ginsburg (1897, 640).
132 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Heijmans 2013b). Yeivin (1980; 1983), however, preferred the

term ‘Extended Tiberian,’ on account of the fact that the vocali-
zation system in many of the manuscripts extends some of the
principles found in the standard Tiberian vocalization, such as
the use of the dagesh, rafe and ḥaṭef signs. It is this development
of principles of standard Tiberian vocalization as well as the
reflection of these principles in a less advanced stage of
development in the corpus of Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts
that will be of particular interest to us in this book. I shall refer
to the various vocalization systems of this type by the generic
term Non-Standard Tiberian, following Blapp (2017, 2018) and
Arrant (2020).
Despite the wide attestation of the Non-Standard Tiberian
system of vocalization in manuscripts written in the Middle East
that are preserved in the Genizah and in manuscripts written
Europe in the High Middle Ages, in both Ashkenaz and Italy,146 it
never had the same status as the standard Tiberian system and it
eventually fell into disuse. The existence of large numbers of
manuscripts with Non-Standard Tiberian vocalization indicates
that during the Masoretic period and for a period of time
immediately following it, a pluriformity of Tiberian vocalization
existed. Within this pluriformity the standard Tiberian system
was regarded as the most prestigious, due to its association with
the oral traditions of the Masoretic authorities, but there was no
systematic attempt to replace the Non-Standard Tiberian sign
systems. Indeed many of the manuscripts with Non-Standard

146
See Sperber (1956-1959). Additional manuscripts of this type from
Italy are described by Pilocane (2004).
 Introduction 133

Tiberian vocalization have a monumental codicological form

(Arrant 2020). It was only after the primary base of authority
passed from the oral traditions of the Masoretes to the written
vocalization that textualized these traditions that the standard
Tiberian vocalization gradually began to replace the Non-Stand-
ard Tiberian sign systems, and indeed also other non-Tiberian
sign systems.

I.0.13.7. The Tiberian Reading Tradition in

Babylonian Vocalization
As remarked (§I.0.9.), due to the prestige of the Tiberian reading
tradition, there was a tendency for other reading traditions to
converge with it. As a result, non-Tiberian systems of
vocalization were sometimes used in manuscripts to represent the
Tiberian tradition. The vocalization in such manuscripts cast
light on several aspects of Tiberian pronunciation. Of particular
importance are manuscripts that represent the Tiberian tradition
with a system of Babylonian signs known as ‘compound
Babylonian vocalization’. The ‘compound system’ of Babylonian
vocalization distinguished between long and short vowels, in that
it marked short vowels in open and closed syllables by the use of
different signs from those used to indicate long vowels. This sys-
tem, therefore, is helpful for the reconstruction of vowel length.
The longest and best known extant manuscript that represents
the Tiberian reading with this compound system of Babylonian
signs is the manuscript I Firkovitch Evr. I B 3 of the National
Library of Russia, which is generally known as Codex Babyloni-
cus Petropolitanus. This was published in facsimile by Strack
134 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

(1876) and is a major source for the reconstruction of Tiberian

pronunciation (see, for example, A. Ben-David 1957a).

I.0.13.8. Tiberian Signs Used to Represent Other

Languages
In the Middle Ages, Tiberian vocalization signs were used in
manuscripts written in a variety of Jewish languages other than
the canonical biblical languages of Hebrew and Aramaic. Those
emanating from the medieval Middle East include manuscripts in
Judaeo-Arabic (Blau and Hopkins 1985; Khan 1992a; 2010;
2017a), Judaeo-Persian (Shaked 1985, 35–37) and Judaeo-Greek
(de Lange 1996). Of particular importance in this context are the
medieval vocalized Judaeo-Arabic manuscripts, since many of
these reflect the use of the vocalization signs with the phonetic
and syllabic value that they had in the Tiberian reading tradition.
This indicates that they were written when the Tiberian
pronunciation was still a living tradition. Many of these vocalized
Judaeo-Arabic manuscripts have been preserved in the Cairo
Genizah. The vowel signs in vocalized Judaeo-Arabic manu-
scripts from the later Middle Ages, by contrast, do not reflect the
Tiberian pronunciation, since by that period it had fallen into
oblivion.
 I.1. CONSONANTS

I.1.1. ʾALEF ‫)א( ָא ֶלף‬

Glottal plosive [ʔ]

Consonantal ʾalef occurs in the following contexts:

In the onset of a syllable at the beginning of a word, e.g.

‫[ ָא ַ֗מר‬ʔɔːˈmaːaʀ̟] ‘he said’ (Gen. 3.16), ‫ֹלהים‬
ִ֑ ‫[ ֱא‬ʔɛloːˈhiːim]
‘God’ (Gen. 1.1).

In the onset of a syllable in the middle of a word after a

silent shewa, e.g. ‫[ וי ְב ַ֣אׁש‬vaɟɟivˈʔaːaʃ] ‘and it became foul’
(Exod. 7.21).

In the onset of a syllable in the middle of a word after a

vowel, a ḥaṭef vowel or vocalic shewa, e.g. ‫[ יָ ִ֑ביאּו‬jɔːˈviːʔuː]
‘they bring’ (Exod. 16.5), ‫[ ֲאאזֶ ְר ָ֖ך‬ʔaʔazzɛrˁˈχɔː] ‘I gird you’
(Isa. 45.5) ‫[ ְמ ִ֑אד‬moˈʔoːoð] ‘very’ (Gen. 1.31).

In the coda of a syllable in the middle of a word, e.g. ‫ויֶ ְא ֹ֤סר‬

[vaɟɟɛʔˈsoːorˁ] ‘and he tied’ (Gen. 46.29).

In the Standard Tiberian tradition consonantal ʾalef in the

middle of a word between vowels is marked with dagesh in four
places:

(i) ‫‘ ויָ ִ֥ביּאּוָ֖ל֛ ֹו‬and they brought to him’ (Gen. 43.26)

(ii) ‫‘ ויָ ִ֨ביּאּוָ֖ ָ֜ ָלנּו‬and they brought to us’ (Ezra 8.18)

(iii) ‫‘ ָת ַ֣ביּאּוָ֖׀ָ֖ ֶל ֶַ֣חם‬you shall bring bread’ (Lev. 23.17)

© Geoffrey Khan, CC BY 4.0 https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0163.01

136 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

ֻ ‫‘ ַ֣ל‬they were not seen’ (Job 33.21)

(iv) ‫אָ֖ר ּּֽאּו‬

These four cases are specified in Masoretic treatises and Maso-

retic notes. They are referred to, for example, in the Masoretic
treatise Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ:1
It has been said that dagesh is placed in ʾalef in some
specific places in Scripture, namely in the following four
cases: ‫‘ ויָ ִ֥ביּאּוָ֖ ֛לֹוָ֖ ֶאת־המנְ ָ ִ֥חה‬and they brought him the present’
(Gen. 43.26), ‫ֹלהינּו‬ ֱ ‫‘ ויָ ִ֙ביּאּוָ֖ ָ֜ ָלנּוָ֖ ְכי‬and they brought to us by
ִ֙ ‫ד־א‬
the hand of our God’ (Ezra 8.18), ‫יכם ָ֖ ָת ַ֣ביּאּו ָ֖׀‬ ְ ‫‘ מ‬from
ֶָ֜ ‫מֹוׁש ִ֙בת‬
you dwellings you shall bring’ (Lev. 23.17), ָ֖‫מֹותיוָ֖ ַ֣לא‬
ַָ֗ ‫וְ ֻׁש ִ֥פּוָ֖ ַ֝ע ְצ‬
‫‘ ֻר ּּֽאּו‬and his bones, which were not seen, are laid bare’ (Job
33.21).

Some examples of references to the four places in Masoretic

notes include the following:
ָ֖‫ָ֖יביאו‬,‫ג׳ָ֖אלפיןָ֖דגשיןָ֖בלישנאָ֖וסימנהוןָ֖ממושבתיכםָ֖תבטאוָ֖לחםָ֖תנופה‬
ָ֖‫ָ֖וחדָ֖בלשו׳ָ֖אחרָ֖ושפוָ֖עצמותיוָ֖לא‬,‫ָ֖ויביאוָ֖לנו‬,‫לוָ֖אתָ֖המנחהָ֖אשרָ֖בידם‬
‫ראו‬

There are three occurrences of ʾalef with dagesh in a

particular lexical item (viz. derivatives of the root ‫‘ בוא‬to
come’), these being in the verses ָ֖‫ָ֖ת ַ֣ביּאּו׀ ֶָ֖ל ֶַ֣חם‬
ָ ‫יכם‬
ֶָ֜ ‫מֹוׁש ִ֙בת‬
ְ ‫מ‬
‫ָׁ֖שתים‬ ָ ַ֗ ‫‘ ְת‬You shall bring from your dwellings two loaves
ְׁ֚ ְ ‫נּופה‬
of bread to be waved’ (Lev. 23.17), ‫ָ֖ויָ ִ֥ביּאּוָ֖ ֛לֹוָ֖ ֶאת־המנְ ָ ִ֥חהָ֖ ֲא ֶׁשר־‬
‫‘ ְביָ ָדם‬they brought to him the present which they had in
their hand’ (Gen. 43.26), ‫‘ ויָ ִ֙ביּאּוָ֖ ָ֜ ָלנּו‬they brought to us’ (Ezra
8.18), and one (case of ʾalef with dagesh) in another word,

1
Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.2.
 Consonants 137

ַָ֗ ‫‘ וְ ֻׁש ִ֥פּוָ֖ ָ֜ע ְצ‬and his bones which were

(in the verse) ‫מֹותיוָ֖ ַ֣לאָ֖ ֻר ּּֽאּו‬
not seen stick out’ (Job 33.21).2

‫חדָ֖מןָ֖ד׳ָ֖אלפיןָ֖דגשיןָ֖בקרי׳‬

One of four ʾalefs with dagesh in Scripture.3

These show that the occurrence of dagesh in ʾalef in these

specific places was fixed in the Tiberian tradition. In some of the
early Standard Tiberian codices, however, dagesh is marked in
ʾalef also elsewhere in addition to these canonical four places.
This applies even to L, where it occurs in the following two addi-
tional places:4

L: Ruth 2.10: ָ֖‫‘ וְ ָּאנכי‬and I’ (A: ‫אנכי‬

ָָ֖ ְ‫)ו‬

L: ָ ‫‘ ו ּֽתעזְ ִ֞ב‬and you left your father’ (A: ָ֖‫ותעזְ ִ֞בי‬

Ruth 2.11: ‫יָּ֖א ַ֣ביְך‬
‫א ַ֣ביְך‬
ָָ֖ )

These two additional occurrences of dagesh in ʾalef in L are

not referred to in the Masoretic notes, which indicates that they
were not canonical in the Tiberian tradition. In the manuscript C
there are numerous additional cases of ʾalef marked with dagesh,
none of which are referred to in the Masoretic notes (Yeivin
1980, 285), e.g.

C: ָ֖ ‫‘ ְׁש‬Shealtiel’ (L [BHS]: ָ֖‫)ׁשא ְלתיא ִ֙ל‬

Hag. 1.1: ‫ּא ְלתיא ִָ֖֙ל‬ ְ

2
Ginsburg (1880, §5), source: Masora magna in British Library, Harley
1528 (fourteenth century, Spain).
3
Ginsburg (1905, 2), source: Masora magna in the Second Rabbinic
Bible (Venice 1516–17, Bomberg) to Lev. 23.17, Job 33.21 and Ezra
8.18.
4
I am grateful to Ben Kantor for drawing these to my attention.
138 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

C: ִָ֖֙ ‫‘ ְב‬rags’ (L [BHS]: ‫לֹואי‬

Jer. 38.12: ‫לֹוּאי‬ ִ֙ ‫)ב‬
ְ

C: Isa. 51.19: ‫‘ ּֽק ְרּאָ֖ ַ֔תי ְָ֖ך‬the things that befall you’ (L [BHS]:
ָ֖‫)ק ְרא ַ֔תיְך‬
ּֽ

Ginsburg (1905, 2) draws attention to the existence of some

Masoretic notes in European manuscripts that refer to a greater
number of instances of dagesh in ʾalef than the canonical four.
These must reflect the awareness of a greater extent of marking
the dagesh in some manuscripts.
In manuscripts with Non-Standard Tiberian vocalization,
the marking of dagesh in consonantal ʾalef is very frequent. In the
Codex Reuchlinianus this is the general rule with only a minority
of exceptions. In the single verse Isa. 37.33, for instance, we find:
‫‘ ָּא ָ ֹ֤מָ֖ר‬he said’ (L [BHS]: ‫)א ֹ֤מר‬,
ָ ‫‘ ֶּא ָ֖ל‬to’ (L [BHS]: ‫)אל‬, ַָ֖֔ ‫‘ ָּא‬Assyria’
ֶ ‫שּור‬
(L [BHS]: ‫( )א ַ֔שּור‬Morag 1959, 218). There is frequent marking of
dagesh in ʾalef also in manuscripts with Non-Standard Tiberian
manuscripts written in the Middle East. In some of the Genizah
fragments described by Blapp (2017), for example, the marking
is as regular as in Codex Reuchlinianus. The following are a few
selected examples from T-S A12.1 (Blapp 2017, 83):

‫( ּא ּֽמֹו‬T-S A12.1 | L [BHS]: ‫ א ּֽמֹו‬Prov. 29.15 ‘his mother’)

‫( ּא ְש ּֽרהּו‬T-S A12.1 | L [BHS]: ‫ א ְׁש ּֽרהּו‬Prov. 29.18 ‘happy is

he’)

‫( ָ ָּּ֧אץ‬T-S A12.1 | L [BHS]: ‫ ָ ַ֣אץ‬Prov. 29.20 ‘he who is hasty’)

‫( ּֽ ֶב ֱּא ֶ ַ֣מת‬T-S A12.1 | L [BHS]: ‫ ֶ ּֽב ֱא ֶ ַ֣מת‬Prov. 29.14 ‘truthfully’)

‫( כ ְס ַּ֗אֹו‬T-S A12.1 | L [BHS]: ‫ ַ֝כ ְס ַ֗אֹו‬Prov. 29.14 ‘his throne’)

‫( י ְרּאּו‬T-S A12.1 | L [BHS]‫ י ְר ּֽאּו ׃‬Prov. 29.16 ‘they will see’)

 Consonants 139

‫( ְבּאיַ֣ ן‬T-S A12.1 | L [BHS]: ‫ ְב ַ֣אין‬Prov. 29.18 ‘where there is

not’)

The motivation to mark the dagesh in the four canonical

places in the Standard Tiberian tradition was, it seems, to ensure
that the consonantal ʾalef was pronounced correctly and was not
slurred over (Yeivin 1978, 1980, 285). The forms ‫( ויָ ִ֥ביּאּו ָ֖ל֛ ֹו‬Gen.
43.26), ‫( ויָ ִ֨ביּאּו ָ֖ ָ֜ ָלנּו‬Ezra 8.18) and ‫יּאּו׀ָ֖ל ֶַ֣חם‬
ֶ ‫( ָת ַ֣ב‬Lev. 23.17) are dis-
tinguished from other instances of similar forms of this verb in
the biblical corpus by having a conjunctive accent followed by a
word with an accent on the initial syllable. This is the context in
which deḥiq occurs when the final vowel of the first word is qameṣ
or segol, in which there is a fast reading and compression of the
syllable between the two accents (§I.I.2.8.1.2.). They also exhibit
the sequence of two adjacent high vowels [iː—uː] separated by
ʾalef. It is likely, therefore, that the consonantal ʾalef was consid-
ered to be particularly in danger of being slurred over in such a
context. Another common feature of these three cases is the oc-
currence of the sonorant consonant lamed at the beginning of the
second word. The ʾalef in ‫( ֻר ּּֽאּו‬Job 33.21) was evidently consid-
ered to be in danger of losing its pronunciation and being read as
a glide between the two high [uː] vowels.
The greater number of occurrences of dagesh in ʾalef in
some of the model Tiberian codices, especially C, reflects the ex-
tension of this principle to other cases of consonantal ʾalef that
were considered to be at risk of being misread. Still further ex-
tension of this practice is found in some manuscripts with Non-
Standard Tiberian vocalization, in which the marking of dagesh
has become virtually regular.
140 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

The question arises as to whether this dagesh in ʾalef marked

gemination or not. Some modern scholars have interpreted it as
a sign to distinguish the consonantal realization of the ʾalef from
cases where it does not have consonantal realization (e.g. Morag
1959, 218–19, 1960, 208 n.6, 1963, 5–6). It would, therefore, be
equivalent to a mappiq on the letter he, which distinguishes final
consonantal he from final he that is a vowel letter, rather than a
marker of gemination. A statement in Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ appears to
support this interpretation:
If it were said: Surely the dagesh in some of the four letters
of this place (i.e. the letters ‫)אהחע‬, namely in the ʾalef in
the four passages that you have just mentioned, disproves
your statement that dagesh is not put on the letters of this
place of articulation, the response would be: If one exam-
ines carefully the so-called dagesh in the ʾalef in these four
passages, one sees that it is not dagesh, since the speaker
strives to introduce heaviness into it, but it is not made
heavy.5

There is, however, evidence for the gemination of the ʾalef

in some early Karaite sources. Yūsuf ibn Nūḥ, a Karaite scholar
active in the second half of the tenth century, in his grammatical
commentary known as the Diqduq compares the dagesh in the
forms ‫( ויָ ִ֥ביּאּוָ֖ל֛ ֹו‬Gen. 43.26) and ‫( ויָ ִ֨ביּאּוָ֖ ָ֜ ָלנּו‬Ezra 8.18) to the dagesh
that occurs in other forms due to the preceding stress:

ּֽ ‫( ְת ָה ִ֥ת‬Job 13.9): … The dagesh that occurs in the lamed

‫ּלּוָ֖בֹו‬
has arisen due to the fact that the stress lengthens (the
ּֽ ‫‘ ְת ָה ִ֥ת‬you
syllable beginning with) the tav, resulting in ‫ּלּוָ֖בֹו‬

5
Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.5.
 Consonants 141

deceive him’. This conforms to what we have stated before,

with regard to the occurrence of dagesh in some places
when the stress lengthens what precedes, for example ‫ֶאל־‬
ּֽ ‫‘ מ ֶ ִׁ֥שה ָּ֖ל‬to Moses saying’ (Exod. 6.10), ‫אמ ַ֣רּו ַָּ֖֔לא‬
‫אמר‬ ְ ‫‘ וי‬and
they said “No”’ (Gen. 19.2), ‫( ויָ ִ֨ביּאּוָ֖ ָ֜ ָלנּו‬Ezra 8.18) and ָ֖‫ויָ ִ֥ביּאּו‬
‫( ֛לֹו‬Gen. 43.26). The word ‫ ויָ ִ֥ביּאּו‬is like ‫ת ָה ִ֥תּלּו‬,
ְ in that the
stress and the dagesh occur within the same word.6

This passage implies that the dagesh in the ʾalef indicates

ְ Ibn Nūḥ
gemination in the same way as the dagesh in ‫ת ָה ִ֥תּלּו‬.
makes the following statement about the form ‫( ֻר ּּֽאּו‬Job 33.21):

The imperative of this is ‫רּאה‬,ֻ like ‫ ֻכסה‬and ‫ׁשפה‬.

ֻ 7

In Ibn Nūḥ’s system of grammar, the imperative form is the

morphological base of derivations. This statement indicates that
‫ ֻר ּּֽאּו‬has the morphological base ‫ ֻרּאה‬and that this has the same
ֻ which are the bases of the forms ‫‘ יְ ֻכ ֶ ּֽסה‬it
pattern as ‫ ֻכסה‬and ‫ׁשפה‬,
is covered’ (Ecc. 6.4), ‫‘ וְ ֻׁש ִ֥פּו‬and they stick out’ (Job 33.21) with
medial gemination.
In a Karaite transcription of ‫אָ֖ר ּּֽאּו‬
ֻ ‫( ַ֣ל‬Job 33.21) into Arabic
script, an Arabic shadda sign is written over the ʾalif that tran-
scribes the ʾalef with the dagesh:

6
ָ֖‫ָ֖כק‬
̇ ‫ָ֖גההָ֖אנהָ֖מדָ֖אלטעםָ֖פיָ֖תו‬
ָ ‫ָ֖ואלדגשָ֖אלדיָ֖וקעָ֖פיָ֖אללאםָ֖הוָ֖מן‬...ָ֖ :‫תהתלוָ֖בו‬
ָ֖‫עָ֖דגשָ֖ענדָ֖מאָ֖ימדָ֖אלטעםָ֖פיָ֖מא‬
ֻ ‫ָ֖אלמואצ‬
̇ ‫ָ֖והוָ֖כמאָ֖קלנאָ֖אנהָ֖יעמלָ֖פיָ֖בעץ‬:‫ּלּוָ֖בו‬
̇ ‫ְת ָהת‬
:‫ירָ֖אלָ֖מׁשהָּ֖לאמר‬
ִ֥ ֶ ‫קבלהָ֖נט‬
̇ ‫ ָ֖ויָ ִ֥ביּאּו ָ֖לֹו‬:‫יּאּוָ֖לנּו‬
ָ ‫ויב‬
ִ֨ ָ֖ :‫ּוָּ֖לא‬
ַ֔ ‫ויאמר‬
ַ֣ ‫ְת ָה ִ֥תּלּו מתל ויָ ִ֥ביּאּו צאר‬
‫ פיָ֖אלכלמהָ֖אלואחדה ואלָ֖דגש במאָ֖צארָ֖מדָ֖אלטעם‬, Diqduq (ed. Khan 2000b,
369).
7
‫הָׁ֖שפה‬
ֻ ‫הָ֖מתלָ֖כס‬
ֻ ‫אמרהָ֖רּא‬,
ֻ Diqduq (ed. Khan 2000b, 399).
142 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

‫( ُۣراُۣ ُۣو‬BL Or 2552 fol. 51r, 1 | L [BHS]: ‫ ֻר ּּֽאּו‬Job. 33.21 ‘they

were [not] seen’)

This manuscript, which is datable to the tenth or eleventh

century, elsewhere uses the shadda sign only to mark dagesh forte.
This is clear evidence, therefore, that the ʾalef was being read as
geminate.
The interpretation of the dagesh in ʾalef as a marker of gem-
ination rather than a mappiq is reflected also by a statement in a
Hebrew Masoretic treatise:

Moreover, three of the four (i.e. the four letters ‫ )אהחע‬have

a single fixed type (of pronunciation), which is less than
all the (other) letters, (namely) ‫ העח‬are deprived of taking
dagesh.8

The implication of the passage is that ʾalef, unlike the other

guttural letters, does indeed take dagesh.
Returning to the passage from Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ cited above,
a close reading of this reveals that the author is not saying that
the point in the ʾalef is simply a mappiq indicating consonantal
realization. Rather the reader ‘strives to introduce heaviness into

8
ָ֖‫ָ֖הע׳׳חָ֖מןָ֖הדגשה‬,‫ָ֖מכלָ֖האותיותָ֖גרועה‬,‫ָ֖דרךָ֖אחדָ֖להםָ֖קבועה‬,‫ועודָ֖שלשהָ֖מןָ֖הארבעה‬
‫( פרושים‬Baer and Strack 1879, 5).
 Consonants 143

it, but it is not made heavy’, i.e. the reader intends to read it as a
dagesh forte, but the muscular tension normally associated with
dagesh forte is not achieved due to its articulation in the larynx.
The articulation of the ʾalef could, nevertheless, have been held
for a longer duration.
In some manuscripts with Babylonian vocalization, the
dagesh sign is marked on consonantal ʾalef in a wide variety of
words (Yeivin 1985, 265–66). It is significant that mappiq on final
he is represented by a different sign (Yeivin 1985, 335–36), sug-
gesting that the dagesh in the ʾalef did not have the function
simply of mappiq but rather indicated gemination.
In some of the reading traditions that have continued down
to modern times in Jewish communities in the Middle East, the
ʾalef with dagesh in the four canonical places is indeed still read
as a geminate ʾalef, e.g. Aleppo (Katz 1981, 16), Baghdad (Morag
1977, 14), Yemen (Morag 1963, 5–6). Transcriptions of the
Aleppo tradition, following Katz (1981, 16) are as follows:

Gen. 43.26: [ˌvajjaˈβiʔˈʔu]

Ezra 8.18: [vajaˈβiːʔˌʔu]

Lev. 23.17: [taˈβiʔˈʔu]

Job 33.21: [ˈruʔˈʔu]

These traditions of reading the ʾalefs need not be inter-

preted as late interpretations of the point in the ʾalef, as Morag
(1977, 14) argues, but rather continuities of medieval traditions.
In sum, the weight of evidence suggests that the dagesh
point in ʾalef in the four canonical places in the Standard Tiberian
144 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

tradition indicated gemination of the ʾalef, and so should be tran-

scribed [vaɟɟɔːˈviːiʔʔuː], [tʰɔːˈviːiʔʔuː], [ʀ̟uʔˈʔuː]. The gemination
was an orthoepic strategy that involved pronouncing the ʾalef
with additional effort to ensure that it was not slurred over.
Within the Tiberian Masoretic tradition there are a number
of pairs of identical lexical words, many of them in parallel pas-
sages, one of which has preserved the consonantal ʾalef whilst the
other has lost it both in the ketiv and in the qere,9 e.g.

‫( תֹומם‬Gen. 25.24) — ‫( ְתאֹומים‬Gen. 38.27) ‘twins’

ֻ (Gen. 46.13) — ‫ּופּואה‬

‫ּופָּוה‬ ָ֛ (1 Chron. 7.1) ‘and Puah’10

‫( ותזְ ִ֥רני‬2 Sam. 22.40) — ‫( ו ְתאזְ ַ֣רני‬Psa. 18.40) ‘you did gird
me’

‫( ה ַ֣בר ַ֔תי‬1 Chron. 11.39) — ‫( ה ְב ַ֣אר ַ֔תי‬2 Sam. 23.37) ‘of

Beeroth’

‫( ל ְה ׁ֛שֹות‬2 Kg. 19.25) — ‫( לה ְׁש ֛אֹות‬Isa. 37.26) ‘to cause to crash

into ruins’

ָ֖‫( ויְ ר ִ֞פּו‬Jer. 8.11) — ‫( וַּֽֽיְ ר ְפ ִ֞אּו‬Jer. 6.14) ‘and they have healed’

In some biblical scrolls from Qumran, an ʾalef that is pro-

nounced consonantal in the Tiberian Masoretic tradition is omit-
ted in the orthography, indicating that it had lost its consonantal

9
These are listed in the Masora, e.g. Ginsburg (1880, §16a).
10
In the Non-Standard Tiberian manuscript BL Add MS 21161, fol. 250v
this word is vocalized ‫ּופ ָוָ֖ ָ ֛אָֿ֖ה‬
ֻ , which appears to be a hybrid form of ‫ּופָּוה‬
ֻ
and ‫ּופּואה‬.
ָ֛
 Consonants 145

pronunciation. This is particularly common in the scroll 1QIsaa,

but is found also occasionally elsewhere, e.g.11

‫( משריך‬1QIsaa 3.17 | L [BHS]: ‫ ְמא ְש ֶ ַ֣ריך‬Isa. 3.12 ‘your guides’)

‫( נספים‬1QIsaa 11.14 | L [BHS]: ‫ ֶנ ֱּֽא ָס ַ֔פים‬Isa. 13.4 ‘gathered

[mpl]’)

ָ Isa. 14.21 ‘and [the

‫( ומלו‬1QIsaa 12.23 | L [BHS]: ‫ּומ ְל ִ֥אּו‬
surface of the world] will be filled’)

‫( וישמו‬1QIsaa 19.3 | L [BHS]: ‫ וַּֽֽיֶ ְא ְׁשמּו‬Isa. 24.6 ‘[and its

inhabitants] pay the penalty’)

‫( טלים‬1QIsaa 33.11 | L [BHS]: ‫ ְט ָל ַ֔אים‬Isa. 40.11 ‘lambs’)

‫( תנתו‬1QIsaa 29.25 | L [BHS]: ‫ ְתאנָ ַ֔תֹו‬Isa. 36.16 ‘his fig tree’)

‫( הביו‬1QIsaa 13.19 | L [BHS]: ketiv ‫ הביאו‬qere ‫ ָה ֹ֤ביאי‬Isa. 16.3

‘give [fs advice]!’)

‫( בוו‬4Q141 f1i.12 | L [BHS]: ‫ ַָ֔באּו‬Deut. 32.17 ‘they came’)

‫( אליב‬4Q138 f1.13 | L [BHS]: ‫ב‬ ָ ‫ ֱאל‬Deut. 11.6 ‘Eliab’)

ָ֖ ‫יא‬

‫( נוות‬4Q78 f10–12.7 | L [BHS]: ‫ נְ ַ֣אֹות‬Joel 1.19 ‘pastures of’)

‫( הרץ‬4Q79 f1–2.9 | L [BHS]: ‫ ָה ָ ִ֑א ֶרץ‬Hos. 2.2 ‘the earth’)

In living reading traditions that have survived down to

modern times in Jewish communities in the Middle East a conso-
nantal ʾalef is general pronounced, but is sometimes elided, espe-
cially between vowels, e.g.

11
Data supplied by Aaron Hornkohl.
146 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Aleppo

haˈele (Katz 1981, 15 | L [BHS]: ‫ ָה ַ֔א ֶּלה‬Gen. 48.1 ‘these’)

Baghdad

wearbaˈʕɪm (Morag 1977, 13 | L [BHS]: ‫ָ֖וְ א ְר ָב ִ֥עים‬Gen. 47.28

‘and forty’)

Yemen

bɔɔˈħiːw (Morag 1963, 3 | L [BHS]: ‫ ְבאָחיו‬Isa. 19.2 ‘against

his brother’)

Morocco

israˈil (Akun 2010, 65 | L [BHS]: ‫ י ְש ָראל‬Exod. 14.30 ‘Israel’)

The variants within the Masoretic tradition and the loss of

ʾalef in the Qumran scrolls and modern living traditions reflect
the vulnerability of consonantal ʾalef to weakening in reading tra-
ditions, which would have motivated orthoepic measures being
taken to ensure their correct reading.
In the model Standard Tiberian manuscripts ʾalef that does
not have a consonantal realization is sometimes marked with a
rafe sign, e.g.

L: ָ֖ ‫‘ ָ֜ר‬my head’ (Psa. 40.13)

‫א ַׁ֗שי‬

L: ָ֖ ‫‘ ֹ֤לאָ֖יָ ִ֙ר‬we do not fear’ (Hos. 10.3)

‫אנּו‬

It is regularly marked in L on ʾalef between two vowels that

is not read as consonantal, e.g.

L: ‫איַ֣ם‬ ָָ֖ (Psa. 116.6) ‘the simple’

ָ֖ ‫פת‬

L: ‫א ַ֗ים‬ ָָ֖ ‫( ָ֜ע‬Psa. 104.12) ‘branches’

ָ֖ ‫פ‬
 Consonants 147

L: ‫איִ֥ם‬ ָָ֖ ‫( ְָ֖ו ָ֖כ ְצ‬1 Chron. 12.9) ‘and like gazelles’
ָ֖ ‫ב‬

These words are listed in the Masora as cases where ‘ʾalef

is written but not read’.12
In some manuscripts with Non-Standard Tiberian vocaliza-
tion the marking of rafe on non-consonantal ʾalef is very frequent,
e.g.
Codex Reuchlinianus:

‫א‬ ָ֖ ָ ‫( מ‬Morag 1959, 218 | L [BHS]: ‫ מ ָשא‬Isa. 23.1 ‘oracle’)

ָ֖ ‫ש‬

‫א‬
ָ֖ ‫ב‬ ִָ֖֙ ָ‫ י‬Isa. 37.33 ‘(does not)
ָּֽ֖ ָ֖‫( י‬Morag 1959, 221 | L [BHS]: ‫בֹוא‬
come’)

Genizah manuscripts

‫א ֶבה‬ ֲָ֖ (T-S A11.1 | L [BHS]: ‫ ֲהַָ֣֖יא ֶבה‬Job 39.9 ‘will it be

ָ֖ ‫הִָ֥֖י‬
willing’) (Blapp 2017, 59)

‫א‬
ָ֖ ‫שֹונ‬
ַ֣ (T-S A12.1 | L [BHS]: ‫ שֹונַ֣א‬Prov. 29.24 ‘he who hates’)
(Blapp 2017, 99)

ָ֖ ‫( וְ ַָ֣֖ל‬T-S A12.1 | L [BHS]: ָ֖‫ ולַ֣ א‬Prov. 29.24 ‘and not’) (Blapp
‫א‬
2017, 99)

In Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts, ʾalefs that are non-

consonantal in the Standard Tiberian tradition are occasionally
marked with dagesh. In some cases where the ʾalef occurs word-
internally, it is possible that these reflect consonantal readings of
the ʾalef, e.g.

‫ּאים‬
ַָ֖֗ ‫פ‬
ָָ֖ ָָ֖֜‫( ֲע‬BL Add MS 21161, fol. 160v | L [BHS]: ‫א ַ֗ים‬
ָ֖ ‫פ‬
ָָ֖ ‫ ָ֜ע‬Psa.
104.12 ‘branches’)

12
Ginsburg (1880, §13).
148 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

‫ּאל‬
ַָ֖֣ ְָ֖‫מע‬
ָָ֖ ‫ש‬
ְָ֖ ‫( י‬Codex Reuchlianus | L [BHS]: ‫ַ֣אל‬
ָ֖ ‫ י ְׁש ָמע‬Jer. 40.14
‘Ishmael’)

It is sporadically, however, marked on a word-final ʾalef,

which must have been read as non-consonantal, e.g.

‫( ָנּא‬T-S NS 248.2, Arrant 2020 | L [BHS]: ‫ ָנא‬Gen. 13.9

‘please’)

‫( וי ָשּא‬T-S NS 248.2, Arrant 2020 | L [BHS]: ‫ וי ָשא‬Gen. 13.10

‘and he lifted’)

‫ירּא‬
ַ֣ ָ ‫( ת‬T-S NS 248.2, Arrant 2020 | L [BHS]: ‫ירא‬
ַ֣ ָ ‫ ת‬Gen. 15.1
‘[do not] be afraid’)

In a few model Tiberian codices a rafe is marked on an ʾalef

in the word ‫ י ְש ָראל‬where it would be expected to be consonantal,
e.g.

C: ‫אל‬
ִָ֖֑ ‫יש ָר‬
ְ ‫ב‬ָ֖ , L [BHS]: ‫‘ ְבי ְש ָר ִ֑אל‬in Israel’ (1 Sam. 3.11)

Yeivin (1978, 226) suggests that this phenomenon in the

model manuscripts may indicate that in this proper name the ʾalef
was not pronounced as consonantal, i.e. [jisrˁɔːˈeːel].13
The marking of rafe on consonantal ʾalef is attested sporad-
ically also in manuscripts with Non-Standard Tiberian vocaliza-
tion, e.g.

‫( ָאנ ַ֣כי‬T-S A12.1, Blapp 2017, 99 | L [BHS]: ‫ ָאנ ַ֣כי‬Prov. 30.2ָ֖

‘I’)

13
A possible parallel to this elision of the ʾalef can be identified in the
proper name ‫[ ָדניאל‬dɔːniɟɟeːel] ‘Daniel’ < *dānī-ʔēl. Yeivin notes that in
both names the ʾalef is followed by the letter lamed.
 Consonants 149

ָ֖‫( ְב ָק ְראי‬T-S A13.20, Blapp 2017, 174 | L [BHS]: ָ֖‫ב ָק ְראי‬

ְָ֖ ָ֖ Psa.
69.4 ‘with my crying’)

In Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts that otherwise use

dagesh extensively in consonantal ʾalef, the ʾalef in the word ‫ישראל‬
is often marked with rafe (Pilocane 2004, 28).
In Biblical manuscripts with Palestinian vocalization, both
the dagesh sign (ֱ‫ )ב‬and the rafe sign (‫ )ֿב‬are found marked on
consonantal ʾalef, e.g.

Dagesh:

]‫א[ו‬
ֱ‫ש‬ֱ (Bod. Heb. e 30 ff. 48-49 | L [BHS]: ‫ ָׁש ִ֨אּו‬Isa. 6.11 ‘they
lie waste’) (Kahle 1901, 278; Revell 1970a, 77)

Rafe:

]‫א[ו‬
ֱ‫ב‬ֱ ‫( ֱו‬Bod. Heb. e 30 ff. 48-49 | L [BHS]: ‫באּו‬
ָ֖֛ ָ‫ ו‬Isa. 45.20
‘and come’) (Kahle 1901, 287; Revell 1970a, 77–78)

It is unlikely that in these cases the marking of the rafe re-

flects the loss of consonantal value of the ʾalef. The sign is likely
to be intended to signal that the ʾalef is consonantal but ungemi-
nated.
In L one encounters vocalizations such as the following:

Num. 26.7: ‫אּובנִ֑י‬ ָ ‘the Reubenite’ (B:

ָ֖ ‫( ָה ֻ ּֽר‬BHS: ‫)ה ֻ ּֽראּובנִ֑י‬
‫ראּובנִ֑י‬
ָ֖ ‫ ָה‬, S: ‫בנִ֑י‬
ָ֖ ‫)הָָ֖ ֻ ָּֽ֖ראו‬

ָ֖ ‫( ָָ֖ל ֻ ּֽר‬BHS: ‫‘ ) ָָ֖ל ֻ ּֽראּובנִָ֖֙י‬to the Reubenite’ (A:

Josh. 12.6: ‫אּובנִָ֖֙י‬
ִָ֖֙‫אּובני‬
ָ֖ ‫) ָָ֖ל ּֽר‬

ָ֖ ‫( וְ ָה ֻר‬BHS: ‫‘ )וְ ָה ֻראובני‬and the Reubenite’

2 Kings 10.33: ‫אּובני‬
(A: ‫ראּובני‬
ָ֖ ‫)וְ ָה‬
150 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Job 31.7: ‫אָּּֽ֖ום‬ ֻ ‘blemish’ (A: ‫אּום‬

ָ֖ ‫( ֻמ‬BHS: ‫)מ ּֽאּום‬ ָ֖ ‫מ‬
ָּֽ֖ )

Dan. 1.4: ‫ּום‬ ְ ‘blemish’ (qere note: ‫)מום‬

ָ֖ ‫( ֻמא‬BHS: ‫)מאּום‬

The way these words appear in BHS, which does not mark
rafe, would lead one to believe that the ʾalef in L is a consonantal
ʾalef between two vowels. In the manuscripts the ʾalef is marked
with rafe and in manuscripts other than L there is only one vo-
calization sign, either qibbuṣ before the ʾalef or a shureq dot on
the vav, indicating that the ʾalef did not have a consonantal real-
ization. The vocalization in L adds a qibbuṣ sign on the letter pre-
ceding the ʾalef. This is, therefore, a double marking of the u
vowel that follows the consonant. The words should be read
[hɔːʀ̟uːveːˈniː], [muːum],14 as shown by other model manuscripts,
and also by the qere note in Dan. 1.4. The double marking and
qere note were strategies to ensure that the u vowel was pro-
nounced immediately after the consonant.

I.1.2. BET ‫)ב( בית‬

Bet with dagesh (‫)ב‬: voiced bilabial stop [b]

Bet without dagesh (‫)ב‬: voiced labio-dental fricative [v]

A bet without dagesh is frequently, but not regularly, marked by

the rafe sign in the model Standard Tiberian codices.
According to Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, the Tiberians called this
letter by the name ‫בי‬.15 This form of the name is also found in

14
The second [u] is an epenthetic, which is inserted after the long vowel
in CVVC syllables (§I.2.4.).
15
Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.1.2.
 Consonants 151

other Masoretic treatises, sometimes vocalized ‫בי‬,16 and the later

recensions of Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ.17 It is referred to in Masoretic
treatises also as ‫בא‬.18 Both of these spellings represent the Arabic
name of the letter, viz. bāʾ, which is pronounced bē due to ʾimāla
in Arabic dialects (Nöldeke 1910, 131). This form of the name is
found in some versions of Sefer Yeṣira.19
It is stated in Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ that the bet with dagesh is
pronounced by closing the lips firmly.20 In the Karaite
transcriptions it is represented by Arabic bāʾ (Khan 1990a, 4,
2013).
According to Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, bet with rafe is pronounced
by closing the lips lightly. Taken by itself, this could be a
description of a bilabial articulation of bet rafe. This is not
confirmed, however, by other sources. The light closure of the
lips would have accompanied a labio-dental articulation, and no
doubt it is this secondary feature that the author refers to.21
Elsewhere in the Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ it is stated that bet rafe and
consonantal vav have the same pronunciation:

16
Allony and Yeivin eds. (1985, 96), Baer and Strack (1879, 7, §6)
17
Arabic version of Maḥberet ha-Tījān (ed. Neubauer 1891, 10), Hebrew
version of Maḥberet ha-Tījān (ed. J. Derenbourg 1871, 36).
18
E.g. Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book,
§II.L.1.1.1., §II.L.1.1.2.; the treatise on the shewa edited by Levy (1936,
‫)כו‬.
19
Eg. ed. Hayman (2004, 51).
20
Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.9. Eldar (1980,
fols. 10b-11a, lines 84-88).
21
Cf. Eldar’s (1980) commentary to this passage, n.75.
152 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

‘Every [consonantal] vav at the end of a word is

pronounced, according to the Palestinians, with [the
pronunciation of] bet rafe.’22

This feature is alluded to also in a Masoretic treatise on the

shewa:
‘Know that every vav which is prefixed to the beginning of
a word and has shewa is read with (the pronunciation of)
bet. … I mean, it is pronounced as if it were the letter bet,
as in … ‫“ וְ ָאמר‬and he shall say.”’23

In some Karaite transcriptions into Arabic script, a fricative

bet is occasionally transcribed by Arabic wāw and, vice versa, a
Hebrew consonantal vav is sometimes transcribed by Arabic bāʾ.
This is a reflection of the fact that the two sounds were the same,
e.g. in the manuscript BL Or 2548:

‫( عناويم‬BL Or 2548 fol. 3r, 10ָ֖ | L [BHS]: ‫ ֲענָ בים‬Isa. 5.4

‘grapes’)

‫( وقوبي‬BL Or 2548 fol. 42r, 3ָ֖| L [BHS]: ֹ֤‫קֹוי‬

ָ֖ ְ‫ ו‬Isa. 40.31 ‘those

who are hoping for’)

We know from David ben Abraham al-Fāsī that in Palestine

consonantal vav in these circumstances was pronounced as a

22
Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.7.7. Eldar (1984b,
Hebrew section, 10).
23
ָ֖‫ָ֖אעניָ֖יכרגָ֖כאנה‬...ָ֖‫ָָ֖֖ותחתהָ֖שואָ֖יקראָ֖בבא‬
̇ ‫אעלםָ֖אןָ֖כלָ֖ואוָ֖מזאדָ֖פיָ֖אולָ֖ללפטה‬
̇
‫ָ֖וְ ָאמר‬...ָ֖‫מתלָ֖חרףָ֖ביתָ֖כקולך‬
̇ (ed. Levy 1936, ‫)כו‬.
 Consonants 153

labio-dental (see the description of vav §I.1.6. for details). It

follows, therefore, that bet rafe was a voiced labio-dental.
In a few sporadic cases bet rafe is represented by Arabic fāʾ
in the Karaite transcriptions, e.g.

‫( وايزوف‬Genizah MS 12, Khan 1990a, 151 | L [BHS]: ‫וְ אזֹוב‬

Num. 19.6 ‘and hyssop’)

The transcription with fāʾ reflects the perception that this

Arabic sound was close acoustically to the voiced labio-dental
[v]. It is common in transcriptions of Hebrew in medieval Muslim
sources, e.g.

‫( عرافا‬al-Bīrūnī, Chronology of Nations, ed. Sachau 1878,

277 | ‫‘ ֲע ָר ָבה‬desert’)

‫( لفانه‬al-Bīrūnī, Chronology of Nations, ed. Sachau 1878,

187–192 | ‫‘ ְל ָבנָ ה‬moon’)

‫( دافورا‬Ibn Khaldūn, Schreiner 1886, 253 | ‫בֹורה‬

ָ ‫‘ ְד‬Deborah’)
There are a few isolated occurrences of pe in place of
fricative bet in biblical manuscripts from Qumran, which could
be taken as evidence that the labio-dental pronunciation existed
already in the Second Temple period, e.g.24

‫( בפנות‬4Q6 f1a.3 | L [BHS]: ‫ ב ְבנִ֥ ֹות‬Gen. 34.1 ‘[to visit the]

daughters [of the land]’)

24
Data supplied by Aaron Hornkohl.
154 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

‫( עפשו‬4Q78 f10–12.7 | L [BHS]: ‫ ָע ְב ַׁ֣שּו‬Joel 1.17 ‘[seeds of

grain] have shrivelled’)

Similar interchanges of fricative bet with pe are attested in

Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, alongside interchanges with vav, e.g.
‫‘ נבטייה‬the Nabatean’, ‫‘ נפתייה‬the Nabatean’, ‫‘ ניוותאי‬the Nabateans’
(Dalman 1894, 74).
Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ describes the stop [b] as one of the primary
letters (ʾuṣūl) and the [v] as an additional secondary letter (farʿ).25

I.1.3. GIMEL ‫ימל‬

ֶ ‫)ג( ג‬
Gimel with dagesh (‫)ג‬: voiced velar stop [g]

Gimel without dagesh (‫)ֿג‬: voiced uvular fricative [ʁ]

A gimel without dagesh is frequently, but not regularly, marked

by the rafe sign in the model Standard Tiberian codices.
In Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ the name of this letter is spelt ‫גמאל‬,
which appears to reflect a different pronunciation from that of
the normal Hebrew form of the name ‫ימל‬
ֶ ‫ג‬, with stress on the final
syllable.26 In the Hebrew Maḥberet ha-Tījān, a later recension of
Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, the name has the form ‫גם‬.27

25
Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.2.
26
The spelling ‫ גמאל‬is used by ʾAbū al-Faraj Hārūn also in his
grammatical text al-Kitāb al-Kāfī (ed. Khan, Gallego and Olszowy-
Schlanger 2003, e.g. §I.25.35., §I.25.40., §I.28.2., §I.28.11., §I.28.12.)
and by the anonymous Karaite author of the grammatical text Kitāb al-
ʿUqūd (ed. Vidro 2013, 27, 317).
27
Ed. Derenbourg (1871, 36).
 Consonants 155

Gimel with dagesh was a stop, which, according to Hidāyat

al-Qāriʾ, was articulated with the middle of the tongue.28 The
Karaite transcriptions represent it by Arabic jīm or, occasionally,
by kāf,29 e.g.

‫( هۚ ۠جامࣵ يۛل‬BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 63r, 3 | L [BHS]: ‫ הגָ ִ֥מל‬Gen.

21.8 ‘to be weaned’)

‫كبور‬ (BL Or 2554 fol. 11r, 7 | L [BHS]: ‫ ג ַ֣בֹור‬Ruth 2.1

‘mighty’)

These Arabic letters were pronounced respectively as a

voiced palatal plosive [ɟ] and an unvoiced velar plosive [kʰ]. This
is the pronunciation described by the early Arabic grammarians
Sībawayhi and al-Khalīl (eighth century C.E.). Ibn Sīna in the
eleventh century describes jīm as pronounced slightly further
forward.30 The Karaite transcriptions usually render gimel with
dagesh by Arabic jīm due to the latter being a voiced consonantal
plosive close to the place of articulation of [g]. It was preferred
to kāf, which differed from jīm in being not only voiceless but
also aspirated. It was a general principle of the transcriptions that
voiced sounds were transcribed by one that was voiced but of a
slightly different place of articulation rather than by an unvoiced
letter of the same place of articulation.

28
‫וסטָ֖אללסאן‬, Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.7.;
Eldar (1980, fols. 10a-10b, lines 61-73).
29
Khan (1990, 4, 2013).
30
Roman (1983, 101–6, 218)
156 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Gimel without dagesh, on the other hand, was a fricative

articulated further back, on ‘the posterior third of the tongue,
which is adjacent to the pharynx, opposite the (soft) palate.’31 In
the Karaite transcriptions, fricative gimel is transcribed by Arabic
ghayn, which was pronounced as a uvular fricative in the Middle
Ages according to the descriptions of the Arabic grammarians.32
Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ describes the stop [g] as primary (ʾaṣl) and
the fricative [ʁ] as secondary (farʿ).33

I.1.4. DALET ‫)ד( ָד ֶלת‬

Dalet with dagesh (‫)ד‬: voiced post-dental stop [d]

Dalet without dagesh (‫)ֿד‬: voiced post-dental fricative [ð]

A dalet without dagesh is frequently, but not regularly, marked by

the rafe sign in the model Standard Tiberian codices.
According to Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, the Tiberians called this let-
ter dāl, which is the name of the corresponding Arabic letter.34

31
‫תלתָ֖אללסאןָ֖ממאָ֖יליָ֖אלחלקוםָ֖קודאםָ֖אלחנך‬, Long version of Hidāyat al-
Qāriʾ, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.6.; ed. Eldar (1980, fol.
10a, lines 58-59).
32
Roman (1983, 218).
33
Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.6.; Eldar (1980,
fols. 8b, 10a, 254, n.58). Watson (2007, 43–44) considers the uvular
fricative [ʁ] in Modern Arabic dialects to be the emphatic counterpart
of the dorsal [g], involving a primary dorsal and non-primary ‘guttural’
feature.
34
Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.1.2.
 Consonants 157

This term is found also in some versions of Sefer Yeṣira (‫)דל‬,35 and
in the later recensions of Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, e.g. Arabic Maḥberet
ha-Tījān (‫)אלדאל‬,36 Hebrew Maḥberet ha-Tījān (‫)דל‬.
̇ 37
Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ states that the letter was articulated with
‘the extremity of the tongue in combination with the flesh of the
teeth’, i.e. the gums.38 Likewise, Saadya describes the place of
articulation of dalet as being adjacent to the inside of the upper
teeth.39 When the letter had dagesh, the tongue was pressed firmly
against the gums. When it was without dagesh, the tongue was
pressed lightly against the gums. Both forms of the letter were
articulated in the same place. The term ‘end of the tongue’ could
include both the tip and the blade. Most versions of Sefer Yeṣira
state that dalet was articulated with ‘the beginning of the
tongue’,40 but this is equally vague. The Spanish grammarian Ibn
Janāḥ (eleventh century) specifies that it was articulated with the

35
E.g. ed. Gruenwald (1971, 156), ed. Hayman (2004, 54).
36
Ed. Neubauer (1891, 12).
37
Ed. Derenbourg (1871, 36).
38
‫טרףָ֖אללסאןָ֖מעָ֖לחםָ֖אלאסנאן‬, Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book,
§II.L.1.3.7.; ed. Eldar (1980, fol. 10b, ed. Eldar, 1980-81, lines 67-69).
39
‫אורָ֖אלאסנאןָ֖מןָ֖דלךָ֖מןָ֖אעלאהא‬
̇ ‫ָ֖אנהאָ֖תג‬...ָ֖‫;ופיָ֖דטלנת‬
̇ Saadya, Commentary
on Sefer Yeṣira (ed. Lambert 1891, 75).
40
‫( בראש ָ֖הלשון‬ed. Gruenwald 1971, 147; ed. Hayman 2004, 92–98).
According to Morag (1960), however, the phonetic descriptions in Sefer
Yeṣira reflect the pronunciation of Hebrew in Babylonia, so it must be
used with caution when reconstructing the Tiberian pronunciation
tradition.
158 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

blade of the tongue and not the tip.41 This corresponds to the
description in one version of Sefer Yeṣira, where it is stated that
the letters ‫ דטלנת‬were articulated with the ‘middle’ of the
tongue.42 It is easier, however, to interpret Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ as
referring to the contact between the tongue tip and the gums. An
articulation with the blade of the tongue with the gums would
have involved contact with the teeth.
Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ describes the stop [d] as primary (ʾaṣl) and
the fricative [ð] as secondary (farʿ).43
The medieval scholar Isaac Israeli (ninth–tenth centuries
C.E.), who had an expert knowledge of the Tiberian reading
tradition, is said to have pronounced fricative dalet with a
secondary ‘emphatic’ articulation (i.e. pharyngealized with
retraction of the tongue root and increased muscular pressure) in
two words, viz. ‫‘ אפ ְדנַ֔ ֹו‬his palace’ (Dan. 11.45) and ‫‘ וַּֽֽי ְד ְר ֹ֤כּו‬and they
have bent’ (Jer. 9.2). This was apparently due to the fact that the
pe and the resh in these words were pronounced emphatic (see
§I.I.1.17., §I.1.20.) and the emphasis spread to the dalet. The ev-
idence for this is found in a commentary to Sefer Yeṣira by Dunash
ibn Tamim, who was a physician in court of the Fāṭimids in Kair-
ouan, North Africa, in the tenth century C.E. He was the pupil of
Isaac Israeli, who also worked as a physician in Kairouan:

41
‫פאןָ֖דלךָ֖אלטרףָ֖ליסָ֖הוָ֖אסלתָ֖אללסאןָ֖בלָ֖מאָ֖הוָ֖ארפעָ֖מןָ֖שלאסלהָ֖קלילא‬
̇ ‘This
end (of the tongue) is not the tip of the tongue but what is slightly
posterior to the tip’; Kitāb al-Lumaʿ (ed. Derenbourg 1886, 28).
42
‫דטלנתָ֖עלָ֖חציָ֖הלשוןָ֖משתמשות‬, Sefer Yeṣira (ed. Hayman 2004, 93).
43
Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.2., Eldar (1980,
fol. 8b, 254, n.58).
 Consonants 159

The Arabs have sounds that the Hebrews do not have,

namely the ḍād of ‫( קצָ֖̇יב‬qaḍīb) and the ḏ̣āʾ of ‫עטים‬
ָ֖̇ (ʿaḏ̣īm).
The meaning of qaḍīb is ‘rod’ or ‘sceptre’. It is written with
ṣade with a dot above it. It is a distinct sound, which
resembles dalet rafe. The meaning of ʿaḏ̣īm is ‘huge’. It is
written with ṭet with a dot above it. It is a distinct sound,
which resembles dalet rafe. … Our master Yiṣḥaq, the son
of our master Shlomo, of blessed memory, (i.e. Isaac Is-
raeli) used to say that in the language of the Hebrews
among the Tiberians there were (the sounds of) ḏ̣āʾ and
ḍād and he used to read ‫אפטנו‬
ָ֖̇ ָ֖‫( ויטעָ֖אהלי‬Dan. 11.45, L: ָ֖‫ע‬
ִָ֖֙ ‫וְ יט‬
‫‘ ָאה ַ֣ליָ֖אפ ְדנַ֔ ֹו‬He will pitch the tents of his palace’44), in which
he used to pronounce ḏ̣āʾ although dalet was written. He
used to read ‫ויצרכו ָ֖את ָ֖לשונם‬
ָ֖̇ (Jer. 9.2, L [BHS]: ‫וַּֽֽי ְד ְר ֹ֤כּו ָ֖ ֶאת־‬
ִָ֖֙ ָ‫‘ ְלׁשֹונ‬they bent their tongue’), in which he pronounced
‫ם‬
ḍād, although dalet was written. The reason for all this was
that he was an expert in the reading of the Tiberians. 45

Early in the history of Arabic, the distinction between the

pronunciation of ḍād (‫ )ض‬and ḏ̣āʾ (‫ )ظ‬broke down. In modern

44
BHS erroneously reads L as ‫אה ֶלַ֣י‬.
ָ
45
ָ֖‫ָ֖והםָ֖הצדיָ֖מןָ֖קצָ֖̇יבָ֖והטאָ֖מן‬,‫וישָ֖אצלָ֖הערבייםָ֖הברותָ֖שאינםָ֖נמצאותָ֖אצלָ֖העבריים‬
ָ֖‫קציבָ֖ שבטָ֖אוָ֖שרביטָ֖ונכתבָ֖בצדיָ֖ונקודהָ֖מלמעלהָ֖והיאָ֖הברהָ֖בפניָ֖עצמהָ֖וגם‬ ̇
ָ֖̇ ָ֖‫ָ֖פי׳‬.‫עטים‬
̇
ָ֖‫ָ֖ופי׳ָ֖עט יםָ֖עצוםָ֖ונכתבָ֖בטיתָ֖ונקודהָ֖מלמעלהָ֖והיאָ֖הברה‬.‫היאָ֖דומהָ֖להברתָ֖דלתָ֖ברפי‬
ָ֖‫ָ֖והיהָ֖רבנאָ֖יצחקָ֖בןָ֖רבנאָ֖שלמהָ֖ז׳׳ל‬...ָ֖‫בפניָ֖עצמהָ֖וגםָ֖היאָ֖דומהָ֖להברתָ֖דלתָ֖ברפי‬
̇
ָ֖‫הצדיָ֖והיהָ֖קוראָ֖ויטעָ֖אהליָ֖אפטנוָ֖והיה‬ ‫אומרָ֖כיָ֖ישָ֖בלשוןָ֖העברייםָ֖אצלָ֖הטברייםָ֖הטאָ֖ו‬
ָ֖‫ ָ֖והיה ָ֖קורא ָ֖ויצ̇רכו ָ֖את ָ֖לשונם ָ֖והיה ָ֖מייסד ָ֖הצ̇אד‬.‫מיסד ָ֖הט̇א ָ֖בלשונו ָ֖והיא ָ֖בכתב ָ֖דלת‬
‫ָ֖וכלָ֖זהָ֖למהָ֖מפניָ֖שהיהָ֖בקיָ֖בקריאתָ֖בניָ֖טבריה‬.‫בלשונוָ֖והיאָ֖בכתבָ֖דלת‬, cited by
Mann (1931, 670, n.106). Cf. Schreiner (1886, 221), Dukes (1845, 9,
93), Grossberg (1902, 24).
160 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

vernacular dialects, the two have merged either to an emphatic

stop ḍ (mainly in urban dialects) or to an emphatic interdental ḏ̣
(mainly in Bedouin dialects) (Versteegh 2011). In medieval Ju-
daeo-Arabic, a ṣade with an upper dot (ָ֖̇‫ )צ‬was used to represented
Classical Arabic ḍād (‫ )ض‬and a ṭet was used to represent Classical
Arabic ḏā
̣ ʾ (‫)ظ‬. As a result of their merger in the spoken language
already in the Middle Ages, however, there was frequent confu-
sion in the orthography of Judaeo-Arabic texts, in which a his-
torical ḍād and a historical ḏā
̣ ʾ were both represented by either ‫ָ֖̇צ‬
or ‫ט‬
ָ֖̇ interchangeably.46 The representation of a Hebrew dalet in
the passage by both ‫ ָ֖̇צ‬and ‫ט‬
ָ֖̇ and the statement attributed to Isaac
Israeli that ‘in the language of the Hebrews among the Tiberians
there were (the sounds of) ḏạ̄ ʾ and ḍād’ should be interpreted in
this light. A single emphatic sound was no doubt intended, pre-
sumably the emphatic interdental ḏ̣ [ðˁ], given the fact that the
author in the passage states that these two emphatic Arabic let-
ters resemble dalet rafe.
ʾAbū al-Faraj Hārūn in his al-Kitāb al-Kāfī refers to the phar-
yngealization of dalet in the words ‫( אפ ְד ַָ֖֔נֹו‬Dan. 11.45) and ‫ה‬
ִָ֖֙ ‫פ ְט ָד‬
‘topaz’ (Exod. 28.17):
‘Indeed, in Arabic there are letters that are pronounced
with sounds that are not found in Hebrew, such as jīm, ḍād
and others. Some teachers, however, when reading ָ֖‫ָאהלַ֣י‬
‫‘ אפ ְדנַ֔ ֹו‬the tents of his palace’ (Dan. 11.45) and ‫ה‬
ִָ֖֙ ‫ֹ֤א ֶדם ָ֖פ ְט ָד‬
‘sardius, topaz’ (Exod. 28.17) pronounce the dalet in them
like Arabic ḍād or ẓāʾ and these words sound like ‫ אפ ְַ֗צנֹו‬and

46
See the discussion by Wagner (2010, 28–32).
 Consonants 161

‫פ ְט ַָ֗צה‬. This, however, does not increase the number of let-

ters, since the dalet has the same form, although the read-
ing of it differs.47

In some modern reading traditions, dalet is pharyngealized

when in contact with an emphatic consonant. In the Moroccan
reading tradition, for example, this is documented by Akun
(2010) as occurring after emphatic [rˁ], e.g.

jarˁˈdˁu (Akun 2010, 72 | L [BHS]: ‫ יָ ְר ִ֥דּו‬Exod. 15.5 ‘they

went down’)

I.1.5. HE ‫)ה( הא‬

Glottal fricative [h]

The name of the letter is normally spelt ‫ הא‬or ‫הי‬, vocalized with
ṣere, in the Masoretic treatises.
A dot in a final he indicates that the letter was to be
pronounced as a consonant and was not merely a vowel letter
(mater lectionis) for a final vowel, e.g. ‫[ ָלּה‬lɔːɔh] ‘to her’, but ‫מ ְל ָכה‬
[malkʰɔː] ‘queen’. This dot is known as mappiq (‫)מפיק‬, meaning
literally ‘bringing out, pronouncing’. In medieval sources, such as
the Masoretic treatises, the term sometimes is vocalized as
mappeq (‫מפק‬, ‫)מפיק‬,48 which is an Aramaic hafʿel participle from

47
Ed. Khan, Gallego and Olszowy-Schlanger (2003, §I.24.2): ָ֖‫בל ָ֖פי‬
ָ֖‫יםָ֖ואלצאד‬
̇ ‫אלערביָ֖מןָ֖אלאחרףָ֖אלמנטוקָ֖בהאָ֖פיָ֖כלאמהםָ֖מאָ֖ליסָ֖לאלעבראניָ֖נחוָ֖אלג‬
̇
ָ֖‫ָ֖בעץָ֖אלמעלמיןָ֖אדאָ֖קראָ֖אהליָ֖אפדנוָ֖ואדםָ֖פטדהָ֖אכרגָ֖אלדאלָ֖פיהמא‬
̇ ‫וגירהםאָ֖ואןָ֖כאן‬
ָ֖‫נוָ֖פטצהָ֖פליסָ֖דלךָ֖בזאיד‬
̇ ‫אָ֖פיָ֖אלערביָ֖פיסמעָ֖מנהָ֖כמסמועָ֖אפצ‬
̇ ‫אדָ֖אוָ֖אלט‬
̇ ‫ככרוגָ֖אלצ‬
̇
‫פיָ֖עדדָ֖אלארףָ֖אדָ֖אלדאלָ֖צורתהאָ֖ואחדהָ֖ואןָ֖אכתלפתָ֖אלקראה‬.
48
E.g. CUL T-S D1.2.
162 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

the root n-p-q ‘to come out’. This is the earlier form of the term,
mappiq being a later Hebraization. Some manuscripts of Maso-
retic treatises vocalize the term mappaq (‫)מפק‬.49 In Hidāyat al-
Qāriʾ the consonantal pronunciation of he was referred to as ‘ap-
pearance’ (ḏ̣uhūr).50
The mappiq is in principle marked in consonantal he only at
the end of a word since inָ֖vocalized texts it is only in this context
that there would be ambiguity of reading, e.g. ָ֖‫[ י ְל ָדּה‬jalˈdɔːɔh]
‘her child’ as opposed to ָ֖‫[ י ְל ָדה‬jalˈdɔː] ‘girl’. At the beginning or
in the middle of a word, a consonantal pronunciation in the onset
of a syllable is indicated by a vowel sign on the letter or a follow-
ing vowel letter, e.g. ‫‘ ָהאֹור‬the light’ (Gen. 1.3), ‫‘ יְהּלְִ֑ך‬it will go’
(Psa. 85.14), ‫‘ הֹול ַ֣ידֹו‬his giving birth to’ (Gen. 5.4) or by a shewa
sign in a syllable coda, e.g. ‫[ ְפד ְהאל‬pʰaðahˈʔeːel] ‘Pedahel’ (Num.
34.28). A word-medial he that does not have a vocalization sign
or is not followed by a vowel letter must be read as a vowel letter,
ּֽ ‫[ ְפ ָד‬pʰaðɔːˈsˁuːurˁ] ‘Pedahzur’ (Num. 1.10; despite the
e.g. ‫הצּור‬
normal English spelling of the latter, the he is not pronounced
according to the Tiberian reading tradition).51 In some
manuscripts, however, consonantal he is marked with mappiq
within a word. This is found in particular in words of unusual
form in which consonantal he is pointed with shewa, e.g. L and S
‫ה‬ ְָ֖ ‫[ ָב‬bɔhʃamˈmɔː] ‘when it lies desolate’ (Lev. 26.43), S ‫ּהאל‬
ִָ֖֙ ‫ּהׁש ָמ‬ ְָ֖ ‫ְפ ָֿ֖ד‬

49
E.g. MS S27, fols. 1r-1v, Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, short version, edition in vol.
2 of this book, §II.S.2.0.
50
Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.4.; Eldar (1980,
fol. 9b, line 31).
51
Ofer (2013).
 Consonants 163

[pʰaðahˈʔeːel] ‘Pedahel’ (Num. 34.28).52 In such contexts, the

consonantal he was evidently felt to be at particular risk of being
read incorrectly.
In the manuscript A the dot of the mappiq in word-final he
is often placed low in the letter, as in Prov. 5.19 shown below,
and is occasionally written under the letter:53

A:

L: BHS: ‫‘ ְַ֝בא ֲה ָב ַָ֗תּה‬with her love’

Mappiq is frequently written under final consonantal he in

manuscripts with Non-Standard Tiberian (Non-Standard Tibe-
rian) vocalization, e.g.

Genizah manuscripts

‫ה‬
ָ֖ ‫ע‬
ִָ֖֥ ‫( יגְ י‬T-S A11.1, Blapp 2017, 51 | L [BHS]: ‫ ְיג ָיעַּ֣ה‬Job 39.16
‘her labour’)

ָ֖ ‫( ָָ֖ל‬T-S A11.1, Blapp 2017, 51 | L [BHS]: ‫ ַ֝ ָלּה‬Job 39.17 ‘to

‫ה‬
her’)

‫ה‬
ָ֖ ִ֥‫( ֶאלֹו‬T-S A11.1, Blapp 2017, 51 | L [BHS]: ‫ה‬
ָ֖ ַ֣‫ ֱאלֹו‬Job 40.2
‘god’)

In Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts from the Genizah,

the mappiq is occasionally written in the lower half of the letter
(Blapp 2017, 112, 128).

52
Yeivin (1980, 285).
53
Yeivin (1968, 49–50).
164 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

European manuscripts

‫ה‬
ָ֖ ‫ק ְר ָב‬
ָ֖ ‫( ְב‬Codex Reuchlinianus | L [BHS]: ‫ ְבק ְר ָבּה‬Isa. 19.14
‘within her’)

‫ה‬ ָ֖֛ ָ ָ֖‫( ּא‬Codex Reuchlinianus | L [BHS]: ‫ א ָ ֛תּה‬Isa. 19.17 ‘her

ָ֖ ‫ת‬
[obj.]’)

‫ה‬ ָָ֖ ‫( גְ ב‬Codex Reuchlinianus | L [BHS]: ‫ גְ ב ָּולּה‬Isa. 19.19 ‘its

ָ֖ ‫ּול‬
boundary’)

ָ֖ ָ֖‫( ְכ ָֹֿ֤֖גב‬BL Add 21161 | L [BHS]: ‫ ְכ ֹ֤גבּה‬Amos 2.9 ‘like the

‫ה‬
height’)

Mappiq in the form of a dot under a final consonantal he is

also found in some manuscripts with Palestinian vocalization,
e.g.

ָ֖ ֱ‫וטוב‬
‫ה‬ ֱ ֱ‫ה‬
ָ֖ ‫רי‬
ֱ ‫פ‬ֱ (T-S 12.197, Kahle 1927, II, 80; Revell 1970a, 95
ִָ֖֑ ָ ְ‫ פ ְר ָיּהָ֖ו‬Jer. 2.7 ‘its fruits and its good things’)
| L [BHS]: ‫טּובּה‬

In Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts, a mappiq is occa-

sionally written on a word-internal or even a word-initial conso-
nantal he with a vocalization sign. In such cases, it is written
within the letter, e.g.

Genizah manuscripts

‫( נ ְּה ִ֥רות‬T-S A13.35, Blapp 2017, 191 | L [BHS]: ‫ נ ֲה ִ֥רֹות‬Psa.

74.15 ‘streams’)

‫ת‬
ָ֖ ָ ‫ּה ְתעּל ְמ‬
ָ֖ ְ‫( ו‬T-S A5.12, Arrant 2020 | L [BHS]: ‫ת‬
ָָ֖ ‫תעּל ְמ‬
ְָ֖ ‫ וְ ה‬Deut.
22.4 ‘and you ignore’)

‫ּהיִ֥ ּו‬
ְָ֖ ‫( י‬CUL Or 1080.A4.18, Arrant 2020 | L [BHS]: ‫ י ְהיִ֥ ּו‬Num.
28.19 ‘they shall be’)
 Consonants 165

‫ּה ֶזה‬
ָ֖ (T-S NS 284.85, Arrant 2020 | L [BHS]: ‫ ה ֶזה‬Exod. 3.21
‘this’)

European manuscripts

‫ית‬
ָָ֖ ‫( וְ ָּהִָ֥֖י‬Codex Reuchlinianus, Morag 1959, 219 | L [BHS]:
ָּֽ֖ ָ ‫ וְ ָהי‬1 Kings 2.2 ‘and you will be’)
‫ִ֥ית‬

Mappiq in Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts is sporadi-

cally marked even where the he has the function of a mater lec-
tionis.

‫שּה‬
ַ֣ ‫( מ ֲע‬T-S NS 68.22, Arrant 2020 | L [BHS]: ‫שה‬
ַ֣ ‫ מ ֲע‬Deut.
28.12 ‘work of’)

‫ה‬
ָ֖ ‫( ְָ֖ומ ִ֥כ‬T-S AS 8.123, Arrant 2020 | L [BHS]: ‫ ּומ ִ֥כה‬Lev. 24.21
‘and he who strikes’)

It is significant that in A and in Non-Standard Tiberian

manuscripts that mark mappiq under the he, when a dot is marked
within consonantal ʾalef, it is, by contrast, always written within
the letter. Moreover, whereas the Masora refers to the dot in ʾalef
in the four canonical places (§I.I.1.1.) as dagesh, the term dagesh
is never used to refer to the mappiq. The Masoretic notes and
treatises generally refer to cases of mappiq in statements contain-
ing the participle mappeq ‘to pronounce’ such as

‫מליןָ֖מןָ֖חדָ֖וחדָ֖מפקיןָ֖ה׳‬

‘Unique words in which one pronounces he’ (Ginsburg

1880, §36)

This demonstrates that the mappiq does not represent gem-

ination. Moreover, he is not geminated in any other context.
166 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

On some occasions in Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts,

a final consonantal he is marked with a shewa sign, e.g.

Genizah manuscripts

‫וה‬
ְָ֖ ַ֣‫( אל‬T-S A11.1, Blapp 2017, 47 | L [BHS]: ‫ֹוה‬
ָ֖ ַ֣‫ אל‬Job 39.17
‘God’)

‫יה‬
ְָ֖ ‫( יגְ ַ֣ב‬T-S A11.1, Blapp 2017, 48 | L [BHS]: ‫יה‬
ָ֖ ‫ יגְ ַ֣ב‬Job 39.27 ָ֖
‘it mounts’)

European manuscripts

‫יה‬ ָ֖ ‫ י ִ֥ג‬Isa. 13.10 ‘[does

ְָ֖ ‫( יָ֖ ִ֥ג‬Codex Reuchlinianus | L [BHS]: ‫יה‬
not] give light’)

When word-final he acts as a vowel letter, it is sometimes,

though not regularly, marked with rafe in the model Tiberian
manuscripts, e.g.

L: ‫‘ וְ לא־יָ ְכָ֖ ָלַֿ֣ה‬she was not able’ (Exod. 2.3)

L: ‫‘ ָח ַָ֔זֿה‬he saw’ (Isa. 1.1)

L: ‫‘ ָס ָ ִ֑רֿה‬apostasy’ (Isa. 1.5)

Rafe is written more regularly in some Non-Standard Tibe-

rian manuscripts, e.g.

Genizah manuscripts:

‫( א ְש ָ ִ֑פֿה‬T-S A11.1, Blapp 2017, 56 | L [BHS]: ‫ א ְׁש ָ ִ֑פה‬Job

39.23ָ֖‘quiver’)

‫( מ ְל ָח ָ ִ֑מֿה‬T-S A11.1, Blapp 2017, 59 | L [BHS]: ‫ מ ְל ָח ָ ִ֑מה‬Job

39.25 ‘battle’)
 Consonants 167

‫( ה ָש ֶ ַֿ֗דָֿ֖ה‬T-S A11.1, Blapp 2017, 59 | L [BHS]: ‫ ַ֝ה ָש ֶ ַֿ֗דָ֖ה‬Job 40.20

‘the field’)

European manuscripts

‫מֿה‬
ָ֖ ָ ‫( למ ְל ָח‬Codex Reuchlinianus | L [BHS]: ‫ למ ְל ָח ָ ִ֑מה‬1 Sam.
23.8 ‘to war’)

‫ילֿה‬
ִָָ֖֑ ‫קע‬
ְָ֖ (Codex Reuchlinianus | L [BHS]: ‫ ְקע ַ֔ ָילה‬1 Sam. 23.8
‘Keilah’)

ָָ֖ (BL Add 21161 | L [BHS]: ‫ ָׁש ַ֔ ָנה‬Amos 2.10 ‘year’)

‫ש ַ֔ ָָ֖נֿה‬

Some Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts mark a rafe sign

on he in contexts where it is consonantal in the Standard Tiberian
tradition, e.g.

‫ּוא‬
ָ֖ ‫( ֹֿ֤ה‬T-S A13.20, Blapp 2017, 174 | L [BHS]: ‫ ֹ֤הּוא‬Psa. 68.36
‘he’)

‫ֿהֹוׁשיעַ֣ני‬
ָּֽ֖ (T-S A13.20, Blapp 2017, 174 | L [BHS]: ‫יעני‬
ִ֥ ‫ הֹוׁש‬Psa.
69.2 ‘save me!’)

‫ֿה ָ֛֖לֹות‬
ָ֖ ‫( ְ ְּ֭במ ְק‬T-S A13.20, Blapp 2017, 175 | L [BHS]: ‫ְ ְּ֭במ ְקהלֹות‬
Psa. 68.27 ‘in the congregation’)

‫ּוֿדֿה‬
ָ֖֛ ָ ‫( יְ ֿה‬T-S A13.20, Blapp 2017, 175 | L [BHS]: ‫ְּ֭הּוֿדֿה‬
ָָ֖ ‫ ְי‬Psa.
68.28 ‘Judah’)

Here the rafe should, it seems, be interpreted as signalling

that the letter is consonantal but not geminated.
The Masora identifies a number of cases where a word-final
he that would be expected to be consonantal is not pronounced:

‫חדָ֖מןָ֖י׳׳חָ֖לאָ֖מפק׳ָ֖ה׳ָ֖בסוףָ֖תיבותה‬
168 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

‘One of eighteen cases in which he is not pronounced at the

end of the word’ (Ginsburg 1880, §37)

This list includes cases where the he has the meaning of a 3fs
suffix. In some cases, a rafe is marked over the he in L, e.g.

L: ‫‘ ות ְח ְמ ָ ִ֥רה‬and she daubed it (fs)’ (Exod. 2.3)

L: ‫‘ הּוָ ְס ָ ָֿ֖דֿה‬its being founded’ (Exod. 9.18)

L: ‫‘ ֲעו ָֺנִֿ֥ה‬its (fs) iniquity’ (Num. 15.31)

L: ‫‘ צ ָ ַ֣דה‬its (fs) side’ (1 Sam. 20.20)

Another Masoretic note lists pairs of words ending in he, in

one member of which it is pronounced consonantal and in the
other it is not:
‫חדָ֖מןָ֖י׳׳אָ֖זוגיןָ֖חדָ֖מפק׳ָ֖ה׳ָ֖וחדָ֖לאָ֖מפק׳ָ֖ה׳ָ֖בסוףָ֖תיבותה‬

‘One of eleven pairs, in one of which he is pronounced and

the other he is not pronounced at the end of the word’
(Ginsburg 1880, §38)

Some words in this list exhibit what are clearly variant re-
alizations of the 3fs suffix. In some cases where the he is a vowel
letter a rafe is marked over the he in L, e.g.

L: ְ ‘and its (fs) hair’ (Lev. 13.20)

‫ּוש ָע ָרּה‬

L: ְ ‘and its (fs) hair’ (Lev. 13.4)

‫ּוש ָע ָרֿה‬

L: ‫‘ וְ ֶא ְתנ ַ֗ ָנּה‬and her hire’ (Isa. 23.18)

L: ‫‘ ְל ֶא ְתנ ָנִֿ֑ה‬to her hire’ (Isa. 23.17)

Examples of such 3fs suffixes without consonantal realiza-

tion could be interpreted as the phonetic weakening of a final
consonantal he that has become fixed in the reading tradition.
 Consonants 169

Alternatively, it may be morphological variation, reflecting dif-

ferent dialectal forms at an earlier period, which has become
fixed.
There is ample evidence from the Dead Sea scrolls of the
vulnerability of consonantal he to weakening in the Second Tem-
ple period. The cases of weakening that are discernible in the
orthography are between vowels, e.g.54

‫( ֯א ֯ח ̇רים‬4Q6 f1.10 | L [BHS]: ‫ָ֖א ֲחר ֶיהם‬Gen 48.6 ‘after them’)

ַ֣ ‫ ֱא‬Deut. 11.16 ‘gods’)

‫( אלוים‬8Q4 f1.35 | L [BHS]: ‫ֹלהים‬

ָ֖̇ ‫( ̇ל ̇ע‬4Q51 9e–i.9 | L [BHS]: ‫ לְ ה ֲעלַ֣ ֹות‬1 Sam 10.8 ‘to offer
‫לות‬
[sacrifices]’)

‫( ומטו‬1QIsaa 10.11 | L [BHS]: ‫ ּומ ִ֥טהּו‬Isa. 10.24 ‘his staff’)

ָ֖ ‫ ּֽמה ְש ָת ִ֑ר‬Isa. 28.20 ‘[is too

‫( משתריים‬1QIsaa 22.26 | L [BHS]: ‫ע‬
short] to stretch out’)

‫( מתלות‬1QIsaa 24.18 | L [BHS]: ‫ מ ֲהת ּּֽלֹות‬Isa. 30.10 ‘illusions’)

ָ֖ ‫ לְ ה ְׁש ִ֥מ‬Isa. 58.4 ‘to make

‫( לשמיע‬1QIsaa 47.26 | L [BHS]: ‫יע‬
heard’)

‫( בתומות‬1QIsaa 51.9 | L [BHS]: ‫ ב ְתה ִ֑מֹות‬Isa. 63.13 ‘through

the depths’)

Weakening of consonantal he occurs also in modern read-

ing traditions. This includes the weakening of final he written
with mappiq in the vocalized text, e.g.

54
Data supplied by Aaron Hornkohl.
170 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Aleppo

ˌleβadˈdaˑ (Katz 1981, 13 | L [BHS]: ‫ ְלב ָ ַ֔דּה‬Exod. 22.26 ‘by

itself [fs.]’)

missobˈʕa (Katz 1981, 13 | L [BHS]: ‫ מ ָש ְב ָ ּֽעּה‬Ruth 2.18 ‘from

her satisfaction’)

Morocco

saraˈta (Akun 2010, 67 | L [BHS]: ‫ּה‬

ִָ֖֙ ‫ ָ֖ ָ ּֽצ ָר ָת‬1 Sam. 1.6, ‘her
rival wife’)

ʕaluˈta (Akun 2010, 67 | L [BHS]: ‫ּה‬ ָ ‫ָ֖ ֲע‬1 Sam. 1.7 ‘her go-
ִָ֖֙ ‫ֹלת‬
ing up)

Kerala

haʃaˈbaː (Forsström 2013, 461 | L [BHS]: ‫ ֲח ָׁש ָ ַ֣בּה‬Gen. 50.20

‘he meant it [fs.])

In the Babylonian reading tradition, a mappiq occurs in a

3fs verbal object suffix attached to a 3fs suffix conjugation form
and after an energic nun (Yeivin 1985, 336). In both these con-
texts the suffix is regularly non-consonantal in the Tiberian tra-
dition. The Babylonian mappiq is a small superscribed he:55

‫כלתָװ‬
ַ ִ‫[ וְש‬wʃikkʰalˈlaːttʰɔːh] (‫ וְ ׁש ְכ ָל ִָ֑תה‬Ezek. 14.15 ‘and you
will make it (f) childless’)

‫[ וכֵעסתָװ‬wχeːʕasˈsaːttʰɔːh] (‫ וְ ּֽכ ֲע ֹ֤ס ָתה‬1 Sam 1.6 ‘and she

provoked her’)

55
Data supplied by Shai Heijmans.
 Consonants 171

‫בל ָענָװ‬
ַ ִ‫[ י‬jivlɔːˈʕaːnnɔːh] (‫ י ְב ָל ֶ ּֽענָ ה‬Isa. 28.4 ‘he will swallow it
(f)’)

This is most easily interpreted as reflecting the fact that the

Babylonian and Tiberian traditions here have different morpho-
logical forms of the 3fs suffix. The occasional occurrence of a
non-consonantal variant of the 3fs suffix in the Tiberian tradition
in other contexts, therefore, could also be the result of morpho-
logical variation.

I.1.6. VAV ‫)ו( וָ ו‬

Labio-dental [v] and labio-velar semi-vowel [w]

In Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ the name of this letter is spelt ‫ואו‬, which

represents, it seems, the corresponding Arabic name (wāw).56
According to Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, the place of articulation was
the lips.57 This could be referring to a bilabial [w] or labio-dental
[v] pronunciation. It is, however, explicitly stated by David ben
Abraham al-Fāsī (tenth century C.E.), the Palestinian Karaite
lexicographer, that in Palestine consonantal vav both with and
without dagesh was pronounced as a labio-dental. He makes this
observation in the entry in his dictionary, Kitāb Jāmiʿ al-ʾAlfāẓ
(‘The book of the collection of words’) on the name ‫פוָ ה‬:
ֻ

‫ּופָוה‬
ֻ ָ֖‫תֹולע‬
ִ֥ ָ (Gen. 46.13): name of a man. The accent is on the
vav and it is read rafe. The pronunciation of the vav in it is
like the way the Palestinians (pronounce the letter in
words) such as ‫‘ ֱהוֹ֤ה‬be!’ (Gen. 27.29), ‫‘ ָד ָ ַ֗וה‬ill’ [fs.] (Lev.

56
E.g. short version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.S.2.2.
57
Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.9.
172 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

20.18, etc.), ‫‘ ה ְרָוַ֣ה‬it watered’ (Isa. 55.10). Some of the

teachers have made a mistake by reading it (like the vav
ָ֖ ‘spirit’ and ‫יחֹוח‬
in) ‫רּוח‬ ָ֖ ‫‘ נ‬soothing’. This is because when-
ever the accent is on the letter before a vav, its
ָ֖ ‫‘ ֹ֤ר‬spirit’
pronunciation is light, between the lips, as in ‫ּוח‬
and ‫ֹוח‬ ֹ֤ ‫‘ נ‬soothing’, ‫ע‬
ָ֖ ‫יח‬ ֹ֤ ֻ ְ‫‘ י‬Joshua’, ‫ּוע‬
ָ֖ ‫הֹוׁש‬ ָ֖ ‫‘ ָלנ‬to sway’ (Jud. 9.9,
ָ֖ ‫‘ ָׁש‬to hear’, ‫ע‬
etc.), ‫מֹוע‬ ָ֖ ‫‘ יָ ד‬to know’, ‫ח‬
ָ֖ ‫‘ נ‬Noah’, ‫ח‬
ָ֖ ‫‘ מ‬brain’. Its
pronunciation (i.e. the vav of ‫)פָוה‬,
ֻ like every (consonantal)
vav in our (reading tradition), both light (i.e with rafe) and
with dagesh, is between the upper teeth and the lower lip.
Examples with dagesh are: ‫‘ ִָ֨י ָ ֹ֤צא ָ֖ק ָ ַּ֗ום‬their speech went out’
(Psa. 19.5), ‫‘ צָ ּּֽום‬he commanded them’ (Gen. 50.12, etc.),
‫‘ ּֽכ ֲא ֶ ׁ֛שרָ֖צָ ִּ֥וה‬as he commanded’ (Gen. 7.9, etc.), ‫‘ ֲא ִֶׁ֙שרָ֖יְ צ ֶ ָּ֜וה‬that
he commands’ (Gen. 18.19, etc.). Examples with light (vav)
are: ‫‘ הָוֹ֤ה ָ֖על־הוָ ה‬disaster upon disaster’ (Ezek. 7.26), ָ֖‫הֶוֹ֤ה‬
ִָ֖֙ ‫(‘ ָל ֶה‬you) be for them a king’ (Neh. 6.6), ‫אּול‬
‫ם ָ֖ ְל ֶַ֔מ ֶלְך‬ ִָ֖֙ ‫וְ ָרוֹ֤ח ָ֖ ְל ָׁש‬
‘and Saul was refreshed’ ָ֖(1 Sam. 16.23), ‫‘ ּֽלא־יבׁשּוָ֖קָוּֽי‬those
who wait for me will not be put to shame’ (Isa. 49.23).
Now, ‫עָּ֖ופָוה‬
ֻ ‫תֹול‬ ִ֥ ָ (Gen. 46.13) is like this.58

Al-Fāsī makes the point here that consonantal vav in all

contexts is pronounced as a labio-dental [v]. The only exception
is constituted by words that contain a vav followed by a guttural

58
Kitāb Jāmiʿ al-ʾAlfāẓ, ed. Skoss (1936, vol. 2, 451-452): ָ֖‫תולעָ֖ופָוֹ֤הָ֖אסם‬
ֻ
ָ֖‫לָ֖הוהָ֖דוָ הָ֖הרוָ ה‬
ֱ ‫ָ֖פיהָ֖אלויוָ֖כראיָ֖אלשאמייןָ֖מת‬
̇ ‫רוג‬
̇ ‫וכ‬
̇ ָ֖‫רגלָ֖ולחנהָ֖פיָ֖אלויוָ֖וקראתהָ֖רפי‬
̇
ָ֖‫ָ֖ודלךָ֖אןָ֖כלָ֖ויוָ֖יכוןָ֖אללחןָ֖פיָ֖אלחרף‬
̇ ‫ָ֖מתלָ֖רּוחָ֖ניחֹוח‬
̇ ‫ָ֖אלדיָ֖יקרוה‬
̇ ‫ָ֖בעץָ֖אלמעלמין‬
̇ ‫וקדָ֖גלט‬
ָ֖.‫ָ֖יהוׁשעָ֖לנּועָׁ֖שמֹועָ֖ידעָ֖נחָ֖מח‬
ֹ֤ ֻ ‫ָ֖ניחֹוח‬
ֹ֤ ‫ָ֖מתל ָֹ֤֖רּוח‬
̇ ‫ָ֖מכפףָ֖ביןָ֖אלשפתין‬
̇ ‫רוגה‬
̇ ‫ָ֖כ‬
̇ ‫אלדיָ֖קבלהָ֖יכון‬
̇
ָ֖‫רוג ָ֖כל ָ֖ויו ָ֖לנא ָ֖אלמכפף ָ֖ואלמדגוש ָ֖בין ָ֖אלאסנאן ָ֖אלפוקאניה ָ֖ואלשפה‬
̇ ‫ָ֖ככ‬
̇ ‫רוגה‬
̇ ‫פכ‬
̇
ָ֖‫אלספלאניָ֖אעניָ֖באלמדגושָ֖מתלָ֖יצאָ֖קּוָ םָ֖צּוָ םָ֖כאשרָ֖צּוָ הָ֖אשרָ֖יצּוֶ הָ֖ואעניָ֖באלמכפף‬
̇
‫ָ֖ומתלהָ֖אלאןָ֖תולעָ֖ופוָ ה‬.‫י‬
ֻ ָ‫הָ֖להםָ֖למלךָ֖ורוחָ֖לשאולָ֖לאָ֖יבׁשוָ֖קֹו‬
ָ ָ‫מתלָ֖הֹוָ הָ֖עלָ֖הֹוָ הָ֖הֹו‬
̇ .
 Consonants 173

with a furtive pataḥ such as ‫רּוח‬

ָ֖ and ‫יחֹוח‬
ָ֖ ‫נ‬, where it is pronounced
‘light, between the lips’. This must be referring to a bilabial glide
between the vowel and the following pataḥ [ˈʀ̟uːwaħ],
[niːˈħoːwaħ].
It is stated in the Masoretic treatises that consonantal vav
had the same pronunciation as bet rafe, e.g.
Every vav at the end of a word is pronounced according to
the Palestinians as a bet rafe. (Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ)59

Know that every vav that is prefixed to the beginning of a

word and has shewa is read with (the pronunciation of) bet.
… I mean it is pronounced as if it were the letter bet, as in
… ‫‘ וְ ָאמר‬and he shall say.’ (Treatise on the Shewa)60

Al-Fāsī indicates that the vav in the name ‫( ֻפָָ֖וה‬Gen. 46.13)

was pronounced like other cases of consonantal vav, i.e. as labio-
dental [v]. He says, however, that some teachers mistakenly read
it as a bilabial [w]. This implies that there were different tradi-
tions of pronouncing the vav in this context. Mishaʾel ben ʿUzziʾel
(tenth-eleventh century) makes the following observation about
the pronunciation of vav in this word in his Kitāb al-Khilaf:

As for the word ‫ּופָוה‬

ֻ (Gen. 46.13), there is a consensus that
it has a vav that (is pronounced) in the way it is read in

59
Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.7.7.
60
ָ֖‫ָ֖אעניָ֖יכרגָ֖כאנה‬...ָ֖‫ָָ֖֖ותחתהָ֖שואָ֖יקראָ֖בבא‬
̇ ‫אעלםָ֖אןָ֖כלָ֖ואוָ֖מזאדָ֖פיָ֖אולָ֖ללפטה‬
̇
‫ָ֖וְ ָאמר‬...ָ֖‫מתלָ֖חרףָ֖ביתָ֖כקולך‬
̇ (ed. Levy 1936, ‫)כו‬.
174 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Iraq, not like bet rafe, as in words such as ‫‘ ֲענָ וים‬poor’ and
so forth (in the pronunciation) of the Palestinians. 61

The consensus referred to here is between the foremost Ti-

berian Masoretic authorities Ben Asher and Ben Naftali. They
pronounced the vav in this word in the Babylonian fashion, i.e.
as a bilabial [w], not like the labio-dental pronunciation of a bet
rafe. This was presumably conditioned by the preceding [uː]
vowel: [fuːwɔː].
In Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts, there are sporadic
cases of fricative bet being written where Standard Tiberian or-
thography has a consonantal vav, which reflects their identical
phonetic realization, e.g.

‫ּובגָ א ָבתֹו‬
ְ (T-S A5.7, Arrant 2020 | L [BHS]: ‫ּובג ֲאוָ תֹו‬
ְ Deut.
33.26 ‘and in his majesty’)

‫( ּֽהחב ַ֔ ָילה‬T-S A21.125, Arrant 2020 | L [BHS]: ‫ ּֽה ֲחו ַ֔ ָילה‬Gen.

2.11 ‘Havilah’)

‫( ָשב‬T-S AS 44.35, Outhwaite 2020 | L [BHS]: ‫ׁשוְ א‬

ַָ֖֣ ָ Lam. 2.15
‘emptiness’)

In Karaite transcriptions into Arabic script, a vav is gener-

ally transcribed by Arabic wāw. It is sometimes, however, tran-
scribed by the Arabic letter bāʾ. Arabic bāʾ is used elsewhere to
transcribe both plosive bet [b] and fricative bet [v]. The occa-

61
ָ֖‫והָ֖מאָ֖פיהאָ֖כלףָ֖בוָ וָ֖עליָ֖מאָ֖יקראָ֖באלעראקָ֖לאָ֖בשבהָ֖אלביָ֖אלרפי‬
̇ ‫הָ֖ופ‬
ֻ ‫ואמאָ֖לפט‬
̇
‫אעניָ֖מתלָ֖ענויםָ֖וגירהאָ֖ללשאמיין‬,
̇ Kitāb al-Khilaf (ed. Lipschütz, 1965, p.‫)כ‬.
 Consonants 175

sional use of bāʾ to transcribe vav indicates that scribes were con-
fusing the labio-dental realization [v] of vav with that of bet rafe.
It is attested as a transcription of medial and final vav, e.g.

ُۣ‫( غ۠ ـاب۟اعـنو‬Genizah MS 1, Khan 1990a, 45 | L [BHS]: ‫גָ ו ְ֛ענּו‬

Num. 20.3 ‘we had expired’)

‫صبوث‬
ۢ ۚ‫( ه۟ م‬Genizah MS 1, Khan 1990a, 45 | L [BHS]: ‫המ ְצֹות‬
Num. 15.22 ‘the commandments’)

‫( وقوبي‬BL Or 2548 fol. 42r, 3 | L [BHS]: ֹ֤‫קֹוי‬

ָ֖ ְ‫ ו‬Isa. 40.31 ‘those

who are hoping for’)

‫( بغ۠ اذ۠ اب‬Genizah MS 1, Khan 1990a, 45 | L [BHS]: ‫ְבגָ ָ ֛דיו‬

Num. 19.19 ‘his clothes’)

Examples are attested in manuscripts of the transcription of

consonantal vav with bāʾ when preceded by long [uː], e.g.

‫[ ُۣوسُۣقوباي‬vaʃiqq̟ u̟ ːˈvaːaj] (BL Or 2551 fol. 67r, 9 | L [BHS]:

‫ וְ ַׁ֝ש ֻק ַ֗וי‬Psa. 102.10 ‘and my drinks’)

This corresponds to al-Fāsī’s description of the vav in this

context in the word ‫ ֻפוָ ה‬as a labio-dental [fuːˈvɔː], but not the
bilabial pronunciation [fuːˈwɔː] that is ascribed by Mishaʾel ben
ʿUzziʾel to Ben Asher and Ben Naftali.
There is even one documented case of bāʾ transcribing a
glide before a furtive pataḥ:
176 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

‫ˈ[ نوبع‬noːvaʕ] (Genizah MS 13, Khan 1990a, 155 | L [BHS]:

ָ֖ ֹ֤‫ וְ נ‬Psa. 109.10 ‘and wander’)
‫ֹוע‬

This does not correspond to al-Fāsī’s description of a bila-

bial [w] in this context.
The medieval sources, therefore, reflect a variety of differ-
ent distributions of the labio-dental [v] pronunciation of conso-
nant vav. These are summarized below:

Default After pretonic [uː] Glide after [uː]/[oː]

Mishaʾel [v] [w] ?
al-Fāsī [v] [v] [w]
Transcriptions [v] [v] [v]

It should be pointed out that the transcription in which the

form ‫ˈ[ نوبع‬noːvaʕ] is attested is a liturgical florilegium of biblical

verses and exhibits several other deviations from Standard
Tiberian reading.
We learn from the passage in the Treatise on the Shewa cited
above that an initial conjunctive vav with a shewa was pro-
nounced as a labio-dental like bet rafe, e.g. ‫[ וְ ָאמר‬vɔʔɔːˈmaːaʀ̟]
‘and he will say’. How was conjunctive vav pronounced when it
has the form ‫ּו‬, i.e. before the labial consonants ‫ ב‬and ‫ פ‬or before
a silent shewa? This is described in a further passage from the
Treatise on the Shewa:

When the vav is next to these three letters, namely ‫מ ָ֖̇ף‬

ָ֖̇ ‫ב‬
ָ֖̇ , it
should not be pronounced in this way (i.e. like bet) and it
is not pointed with shewa, but rather with one point in the
 Consonants 177

ָ ‘and he will build’ (Josh. 6.26,

body of the vav, as in ‫ּוב ִָ֞נה‬
etc.), ‫אתֹו‬ ַ֣ ‘and you will clear it’ (Josh. 17.18), ‫ּוב ָ ַ֣רא‬
ַ֔ ‫ּובר‬ ָ ‘and
he will create’ (Isa. 4.5), ‫‘ ּובינִ֥ת‬and the discernment of’ (Isa.
29.14), ‫‘ ּוָ֜ ַ֗בר‬and clean’ (Job 11.4), ‫ּופן‬
ֶ ‘and lest’ (Deut. 4.9,
ָ ‘and he will turn’ (Deut. 31.20, etc.), ‫ּופּוט‬
etc.), ‫ּופ ִָ֞נה‬ ִ֥ ‘and
Put’ (Gen. 10.6), ‫ּופי‬
ּֽ ‘and the mouth of’ (Exod. 39.23, etc.),
ִ֥ ‘and beans’ (2 Sam. 17.28), ‫ּופ ֛חי‬
‫ּופֹול‬ ְ ‘and breathe’ (Ezek.
ִ֥ ֶ ‘and king’ (Gen. 14.2, etc.), ‫( ּומ ְלכּות‬cf. ‫ּה‬
37.9), ‫ּומ ֶלְך‬ ִָ֖֙ ‫כּות‬
ָ ‫ּומ ְל‬
‘her royal office’ Esther 1.19), ‫‘ ּומׁשל‬and the ruler’ (Gen.
45.8, etc.), ‫‘ ּומ ְקלֹו‬and his staff’ (Hos. 4.12), ‫‘ ּומ ִ֥על‬and from
upon’ (1 Sam. 6.5, etc.), ‫ּומעל‬
ָ ‘and he acted treacherously’
(cf. ‫ ָ ֹ֤מעל‬Josh. 22.20). Nothing of this category is found that
is pointed or read ‫וְ ָבנה‬, ‫וְ ָמׁשל‬, or ‫וְ פּוט‬, because these three
letters are different from the other letters in this respect.
When they read them (i.e. these words), it is not
pronounced bet; I mean, the vav in them is not pronounced
bet, as the aforementioned cases that have shewa. Rather,
you read their vavs as if you are pronouncing ‫אּו‬, as if you
are saying ‫א ָבנָ ה‬,
ֻ ‫א ָב ָרא‬,
ֻ ‫א ָפנָ ה ֻא ָמלְך‬.
ֻ You should read all of
them in this way. You need not read with a pure ʾalef, for
an ʾalef does not appear in them, but I have only compared
it (to ʾalef) by way of approximation. … And if the second
letter of the words has shewa, then it is always pointed and
read with a point in the body of the vav and it is not read
as bet, I mean with shewa, rather it is read as a pure vav, as
ְ ‘and regarding Levi’ (Deut. 33.8), ‫ּוׁש ִ֥מע‬
in ‫ּוללוַ֣י‬ ְ ‘and hear’
(Exod. 23.21, etc.), ‫‘ ְּוד ִ֥בר‬and the matter of’ (Num. 23.3),
178 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

ְ ‘and call’ (Ruth 4.11, etc.), ‫‘ ְּור ִ֞דּו‬and have dominion

‫ּוק ָ ָ֖רא‬
over’ (Gen. 1.28, etc.), and other cases.62

According to this passage, the onset of the syllable repre-

sented by conjunction ‫ ּו‬was not ʾalef. It would be inappropriate,
therefore, to transcribe it as [ʔuː]. This, moreover, would be a
heavy CVV syllable, with a consonantal onset and long vowel in
the rhyme. This would be an unexpected syllabic structure for a
particle that has shewa in other contexts, when compared to the
syllable structure of particles such as ‫ב‬
ְָ֖ and ‫ל‬.
ְָ֖ These latter parti-
cles have a short vowel in an open syllable, represented by shewa
(i.e. [ba], [la], see §I.2.5.1.) or a short vowel in a closed syllable
when followed by a silent shewa, e.g. ‫[ ל ְׁשמּואל‬liʃmuːˈʔeːel] ‘to
Samuel’. It would be more appropriate to interpret the syllable
structure of conjunctive vav ‫ ּו‬as [wu], with a voiced labio-velar
approximant [w] as onset. Such a voiced onset would resemble
the vowel nucleus [u] in acoustic and articulatory properties, and
therefore would be difficult to distinguish from a long [uː].

62
ָ֖‫אדאָ֖גאורָ֖אלווָ֖להדהָ֖אלתלתהָ֖אחרףָ֖והיָ֖ב ̇מ ̇ף ָ֖פאנהָ֖לאָ֖יגוזָ֖חינידָ֖אןָ֖תכרגָ֖בדאך‬
̇
ָ֖‫אלכרוגָ֖ולאָ֖תנקטָ֖בשואָ֖בלָ֖בנקטהָ֖ואחדהָ֖פיָ֖גוףָ֖אלָ֖וָ וָ֖מתלָ֖ובנהָ֖ובראתוָ֖ובראָ֖ובינת‬
ָ֖‫עלָ֖ומעלָ֖וליסָ֖יוגדָ֖פיָ֖הדא‬
ָ ‫וב רָ֖ופןָ֖ופנהָ֖ופוטָ֖ופיָ֖ופולָ֖ופחיָ֖ומלךָ֖ומלכותָ֖ומושלָ֖ומקלוָ֖ומ‬
ָ֖‫נהָ֖ולאָ֖ומשלָ֖ולאָ֖ופוטָ֖לאןָ֖הדהָ֖אלתלתהָ֖אחרף‬
ָ ‫ולאָ֖יקראָ֖וב‬
ָ ָ֖‫אלגנסָ֖אלבתהָ֖שיָ֖ינקט‬
ָ֖‫מכאלפהָ֖לסאירָ֖אלאחרףָ֖פיָ֖הדאָ֖ואדאָ֖קרוהאָ֖ולאָ֖יקאלָ֖בבָ֖אעניָ֖לאָ֖יקראָ֖פיהאָ֖אלוּו‬
ָ֖‫בבָ֖כמאָ֖תקראָ֖אלאולהָ֖אלדיָ֖בשואָ֖בלָ֖תקראָ֖ואואתהאָ֖כאנךָ֖תכרגהאָ֖באּוָ֖כאנךָ֖תקול‬
ָ֖‫אָ֖וליסָ֖יגבָ֖תקראָ֖באלףָ֖מחץ‬
̇ ‫ךָ֖א ָפנָ הָ֖עליָ֖הדאָ֖אלמתאלָ֖תקראָ֖כלה‬
ֻ ‫אָ֖א ָמל‬
ֻ ‫הָ֖א ָב ָר‬
ֻ ָ‫ֻא ָבנ‬
ָ֖‫ָ֖ואןָ֖כאןָ֖אלחרףָ֖אלתאניָ֖מן‬...ָ֖‫ולאָ֖יביןָ֖פיהאָ֖אלףָ֖ואנמאָ֖מתלתָ֖לךָ֖באלתקריבָ֖וכדא‬
̇
ָ֖‫אלתיבותָ֖בשואָ֖פכלהָ֖ינקטָ֖ויקראָ֖בנקטה ָ֖פיָ֖גוףָ֖אלואוָ֖ולאָ֖יקראָ֖בבאָ֖אעניָ֖בשואָ֖בל‬
‫ָ֖כקולךָּ֖וללויָּ֖ושמעָּ֖ודברָּ֖וקראָּ֖ורדוָ֖וגירהמא‬
̇ ‫יקראָ֖בואוָ֖מחץ‬
̇ (CUL Or 1080.13.3.2,
fol. 1r–1v and Levy ed., 1936, ‫)כז‬. See on this passage Posegay (2019).
 Consonants 179

The Karaite transcriptions, indeed, represent the conjunc-

tion ‫ ּו‬with an initial Arabic wāw and not an Arabic ʾalif. In some
transcriptions, word-initial ‫ ּו‬is represented by Arabic wāw vocal-
ized with a Hebrew qibbuṣ, e.g.

‫( ولنۜخدۚي‬BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 65r, 3 | L [BHS]: ‫ ְּולנֶ ְכ ִ֑די‬Gen.

21.23 ‘to my posterity’)

‫( و ۟تخال‬BL Or 2539 MS B, fol. 124v, 9 | L [BHS]: ‫ ְּות ָּ֧כל‬Num.

17.25 ‘so that you may make an end’)

Elsewhere in the manuscripts long [uː] is transcribed with

a shureq point in wāw, e.g.

ُۣ‫احوثۛنُۣو‬
ۢ (BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 77r, 7 | L [BHS]: ‫ ֲאח ֵ֕תנּו‬Gen.
24.60 ‘our sister’)

‫( ميۚحُۣوص‬BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 113v, 5 | L [BHS]: ‫־מ ַ֣חּוץ‬

Deut. 23.11 ‘from outside’)

ُۣ‫( تۚجعو‬BL Or 2539 MS B, fol. 122v, 11 | L [BHS]: ‫ תגְ עּו‬Num.

16.26 ‘you touch’)

This applies even to cases where the orthography in the

Hebrew ketiv is defective and the Tiberian codices have a qibbuṣ,
e.g.

‫( لۚزقو ۠ن ࣵاُۣو‬BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 63r, 2 | L [BHS]: ‫ לזְ ֻק ָנּֽיו׃‬Gen.

21.7 ‘in his old age’)
180 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

‫( ۢيو ٘اخلوهو‬BL Or 2539 MS B, fol. 119r, 1 | L [BHS]: ‫י ְאכ ֻלּֽהּו‬

Num. 9.11 ‘they shall eat it’)

This suggests that the vocalization with qibbuṣ reflects a

consonantal + short vowel [wu]. In one manuscript an Arabic
ḍamma vowel is written on the wāw rather than a qibbuṣ, e.g.

‫( و َمُۣا‬BL Or 2554 fol. 80r, 12 | L [BHS]: ‫ ּומה־‬Cant. 7.7 ‘and

what’)

‫( وخرامينو‬BL Or 2554 fol. 54r, 4 | L [BHS]: ‫ ְּוכ ָרמינּו‬Cant. 2.15

‘and our vineyards’)

‫( وذمي‬BL Or 2554 fol. 94v, 7 | L [BHS]: ‫ ּוּֽ ְדמה־‬Cant 8.14

‘and be like!’)

In one manuscript, an initial conjunctive ‫ ּו‬is transcribed by

Arabic wāw vocalized with a Hebrew shewa. This most likely
represents a consonantal onset followed by a short vowel, e.g.

ُۣ‫( ومۚ س ۢفو‬BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 73v, 9 | L [BHS]: ‫פֹוא‬

ִָ֖֙ ‫ ּומ ְס‬Gen.

24.32 ‘and fodder’)

‫( و ۟مُۣ۟ايۚم‬BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 74r, 1 | L [BHS]: ‫ ִּ֙ומי ִָ֖֙ם‬Gen.

24.32 ‘and water’)

In one manuscript an Arabic fatḥa sign is marked over the

wāw that transcribes conjunctive ‫ּו‬, e.g.
 Consonants 181

‫( َومي‬BL Or 2552 fol. 99v, 5 | L [BHS]: ‫ ַּ֣ומי‬Ecc. 2.19 ‘and

who’)

This reflects a variant reading tradition in which the con-

junctive vav is read [va] even before a labial. This may be what
the vocalization with shewa in the manuscript BL Or 2539 MS A
was intended to represent. In Standard Tiberian pronunciation
[wu] reflects the shift of the short vowel to a rounded quality by
assimilation to the labial environment. One may compare tradi-
tions of reading such as [vamiː] (L [BHS]: ‫)ּומי‬
ַ֣ to cases in Origen’s
Hexapla such as the following, where the Greek transcription has
ουα or ουε where the Standard Tiberian tradition has ‫ּו‬:63

ουαδου (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ ּו ְְּ֭דעּו‬Psa. 46.11

‘and know! (mp)’)

ουαλσωνι (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ ּוְּ֭לְ ׁשֹוני‬Psa.

35.28 ‘and my tongue’)

ουαρημ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ ּוּֽ ְר ִ֥עם‬Psa. 28.9

‘and shepherd (ms) them!’)

ουεβροβ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ּוב ִ֥רב‬

ְ Psa. 49.7
‘and in the multitude of (cstr.)’)

Similar forms are occasionally found in the Babylonian tra-

dition, e.g.64

‫( ובמיִשוֹר‬Yeivin 1985, 1152 | L [BHS]:ָ֖‫יׁשֹור‬ ְ Mal. 2.6 ‘and

ִָ֖֙ ‫ּובמ‬
in uprightness’)

63
Data supplied by Ben Kantor.
64
Data supplied by Shai Heijmans.
182 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

The normal vocalization of vav in the Babylonian tradition

in such contexts, however, is with ḥireq, e.g.

‫מהומָה‬
ַ ִ‫( ו‬Yevin 1985, 338 | L [BHS]: ‫ּומה‬ ְ Prov. 15.16 ‘and
ָ ‫ּומ ִ֥ה‬
trouble’)

‫שע ֵיכם‬
ַ ‫( וִבפ‬Yevin 1985, 342 | L [BHS]: ‫ּובפ ְׁשע ֶיכם‬
ְ Isa. 50.1
‘and for your transgressions’)

‫שר ֹון‬
ַ ִ‫( וִבכ‬Yevin 1985, 352 | L [BHS]: ‫ּובכ ְׁש ִ֑רֹון‬
ְ Ecc. 2.21 ‘and
with skill’)

There is an exceptional case of ḥireq in L after conjunctive

vav in this context, where ‫ ּו‬is expected:

L [BHS]: ‫( ו ְׁש ּֽא ְל ִָ֖֙ך‬Gen. 32.18 ‘and he will ask you’ | S: ‫)ּו ְׁש ּֽא ְל ִָ֖֙ך‬

When word-initial conjunctive ‫ ּו‬is followed by a consonant

with silent shewa, it sometimes takes minor gaʿya in the Tiberian
tradition. Minor gaʿya lengthened the duration of a short vowel
in a closed syllable slightly (represented in IPA as a half-long
vowel, cf. §I.2.8.2.2.). When this is the case, some transcriptions
represent the lengthened syllable with two Arabic wāws. This
must be interpreted as representing a consonantal onset followed
by a lengthened vowel [uˑ] vowel, i.e. [wuˑ], e.g.

ُۣ‫( ووله۟ اعلُۣوثُۣو‬BL Or 2540, fol. 8v, 4 | L [BHS]: ‫ֹלתֹו‬

ָ֖ ‫ ּוּֽ ְלה ֲע‬Exod.

3.8 ‘and to bring him up’)

ُۣ‫( وولي۟اع۟ ق ۢو ٘ب‬BL Or 2546, fol. 85v, 8 | L [BHS]: ‫ ּוּֽ ְלי ֲע ִ֑קב‬Num.
32.11 ‘and to Jacob’)
 Consonants 183

‫( وولاا۟ه۟ رُۣوۢ ن‬BL Or 2544 fol. 158r, 4 | L [BHS]: ‫ ּוּֽ ְלא ֲה ַ֗רן‬Exod.
8.4 ‘and to Aaron’)

The same transcription is found when a word-initial

conjunctive ‫ ּו‬is lengthened by a phonetic gaʿya (§I.I.2.5.8.4.),
which causes a following shewa to be read as vocalic, e.g.

‫( و ۟وشث۟ي‬BL Or 2555 fol. 96r, 5 | L [BHS]: ‫ ּוּֽ ֲׁש ִ֥תה‬Ecc. 9.7 ‘and
drink!’)

In some model Tiberian codices a vav before a following

[uː] is written with a dot. This could be interpreted as an attempt
to represent a labio-velar onset [w] rather than [v], e.g.65

L, A: ‫(ָ֖וי ְּֽׁשת ֲחּוּו‬Deut. 29.25 ‘and they worshipped’)

L, B: ‫( ָטּוָּ֖ו‬Exod. 35.26 ‘they span’)

C: ‫( וְ נ ְלַָּ֣֖וּו‬Jer. 50.5 ‘let us join’)

In some manuscripts, consonantal vav, before [uː] and also

in other contexts, is marked with a rafe, e.g.66ָ֖

C: ‫( וְ ת ְׁשִָ֑֖וּו‬Isa. 46.5 ‘and you make equal’)

L: ֹ֤ ‫( ָ֖ו‬Psa. 90.17 ‘and let it be’)

‫יהי‬

In manuscripts with Non-Standard Tiberian vocalization,

these two strategies for marking consonantal vav have been ex-
tended to other contexts. The placement of a dot in consonantal

65
Yeivin (1980, 285–286).
66
Yeivin (1980, 286).
184 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

vav is found in such manuscripts in word-initial, word-medial and

word-final position, e.g.

Genizah manuscripts

‫( ָָּ֖ו ָ ִ֑א ֶרץ‬T-S A13.20, Blapp 2017, 162 | L [BHS]: ‫ וָ ָ ִ֑א ֶרץ‬Psa.
69.35 ‘and earth’)

‫( ּוְ ַ֣עם‬T-S A13.20, Blapp 2017, 162 | L [BHS]: ‫ וְ ִ֥עם‬Psa. 69.29

‘and with’)

‫תי‬
ִָ֖֑ ָ֖‫ת ְק ָּו‬
ָ֖ (T-S A13.20, Blapp 2017, 162 | L [BHS]: ‫תי‬
ִָ֖֑ ָ‫ת ְקו‬
ָ֖ Psa.
71.5 ‘my hope’).

‫( ע ָליּו‬T-S A11.1, Blapp 2017, 51 | L [BHS]: ‫ ָ ְּ֭ע ָליו‬Job 39.23

‘upon him’)

European manuscripts

‫ּא ָל֛יּו‬
ָ֖ (ASCNON B.I.1v, Pilocane 2004, 27 | L [BHS]: ‫א ָל֛יו‬
Num. 27.11 ‘to him’)

In such contexts, the vav would have been pronounced as a

labio-dental according to the Standard Tiberian tradition. More-
over, in some cases, a vowel sign is written under it, which shows
it must be consonantal, e.g. ‫ָָּ֖ו ָ ִ֑א ֶרץ‬. Comparison with the strategies
for marking consonantal vav in the Babylonian and Palestinian
traditions, however, suggest that the dot in the vav should be in-
terpreted as a shureq vowel sign. Its purpose in the Non-Standard
Tiberian manuscripts was to ensure that the letter was read as a
separate segment from the adjacent vowel, although it was only
an approximating representation of its pronunciation, i.e. pre-
sumably a labio-dental.
 Consonants 185

In Babylonian vocalization, consonantal vav is sometimes

vocalized with a sign that can only be interpreted as a shureq
vowel, e.g.67

‫ב ִַיו‬
ַ ָ‫( א‬OB, Yeivin 1985, 267 | L [BHS]: ‫ ָאביו‬Deut. 27.16 ‘his
father’)

‫( וִלפָנַָיו‬LB, Yeivin 1985, 267 | L [BHS]: ‫ ּו ְַ֝ל ָפ ַ֗ ָניו‬Job 21.33 ‘and

before him’)

‫( לגֵו‬OB, Yeivin 1985, 267 | L [BHS]: ָ֖‫ ְלגַ֣ו‬Prov. 26.3 ‘for the
back’)

According to the Mishaʾel ben ʿUzziʾel in the passage cited

above, the Iraqis, i.e. the Jews of Babylonia, pronounced conso-
nantal vav as a bilabial, so a shureq was more appropriate as a
representation of its pronunciation than in the Tiberian tradition.
In manuscripts with Palestinian vocalization, the vowel sign of
ḥolem occasionally represents consonantal vav, e.g.

‫( וישתחֱוו‬Bod. Heb. d 44, ff. 1-4, Dietrich 1968, 25* | L

[BHS]: ‫ וי ְׁשת ֲחוּו־לֹו‬2 Kings 2.15 ‘and they bowed before him’)

‫שֱועתי‬
ֱ (T-S 20.53, Murtonen 1958, ‫לד‬, Allony and Díez
Macho 1958, 259 | L [BHS]: ‫ ׁשּו ְִ֥עתי‬Psa. 30.3 ‘I cried’)

The ḥolem sign here, as with the Tiberian shureq, must be

regarded as an approximating representation of the labio-dental
pronunciation of Palestinian consonantal vav.
In Gen. 46.13 L has a dot in the second vav of ‫ּופָּוה‬.
ֻ Some
early codices do not have the dot, e.g. S: ‫ּופָָ֖וֿה‬
ָֻ֖ . In B a dot appears

67
Data supplied by Shai Heijmans.
186 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

to have been written and then erased.68 The name occurs also in
Num. 26.23 where L and other early codices have ‫ ְל ֻפ ָ ֵ֕וה‬without the
dot. It is likely that the dot in the vocalization of L in Gen. 46.13
should be identified as shureq to mark the consonantal pronuncia-
tion of the letter rather than a dagesh and the reading [fuːˈwɔː] was
intended, as in other manuscripts.69 The Babylonian vocalization
ֻ (L, Gen. 46.13) is ָ‫( ופוה‬Yeivin 1985, 764), with a shureq
of ‫ּופָּוה‬
over the vav and no vocalization on the pe. This could be com-
pared to Tiberian vocalizations such as ‫רּוח‬,
ָ֖ which al-Fāsī claims
contained a bilabial glide: [ʀ̟uːwaħ]. Babylonian ָ‫ פוה‬is likely to
have been intended to represent [fuːˈwɔː].
In Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts, rafe is marked on
consonantal vav in a wider range of contexts than in the Standard
Tiberian codices. It is found on vav in word-initial and word-me-
dial position, e.g.

‫( ְוגם‬T-S A12.1, Blapp 2017, 99 | L [BHS]: ‫ וְ גם‬Ruth 1.12 ‘and

also’)

‫קָָ֖וה‬
ְָ֖ ‫( ת‬T-S A12.1, Blapp 2017, 99 | L [BHS]: ‫ ת ְקָוה‬Prov.
29.20 ‘hope’)

‫ּאַָ֣֖ות‬
ֲָ֖ ‫( ג‬T-S A12.1, Blapp 2017, 99 | L [BHS]: ‫ ג ֲאוַ֣ת‬Prov. 29.23
‘pride’)

68
A trace of dot is visible and the parchment has been scraped.
69
In later sources the dot in the word is referred to as a dagesh. Jedidiah
Norzi (seventeenth century) in his work Minḥat Shai (Mantua, 1742–44
ad loc. Gen. 46.13) refers to it as dagesh and notes that there were
differences of opinion about its presence in the name in Gen. 46.13 in
the sources available to him.
 Consonants 187

The function of the rafe here is to mark the letter as conso-

nantal but ungeminated.
Occasionally a rafe sign is used to mark consonantal un-
geminated vav in Palestinian vocalization, e.g.

ֱ‫עוֱל‬
ֱ (T-S 12.195, Kahle 1930, 83 | L [BHS]: ‫ ַַ֝֗ ָעוֶ ל‬Psa. 53.2
‘iniquity’)

In Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts, a consonantal vav is

indicated by a shewa sign, often written within the letter. The
shewa makes it clear that the letter closes a syllable and so is to
be read as a consonant, e.g.

Genizah manuscripts

‫יו‬
ְָ֖ ‫( ָע ָָ֖ל‬T-S A13.18, Blapp 2017, 125 | L [BHS]: ‫ ָע ָליו‬Psa. 89.46
‘on him’)

‫יו‬
ְָ֖ ‫פ‬
ַָ֖֣ ָ ָ‫( ְכנ‬T-S A13.18, Blapp 2017, 125 | L [BHS]: ‫ ְכנָ ָפַ֣יו‬Psa. 91.4
‘his wings’)

European manuscripts

‫יו‬
ְָ֖ ‫ּול‬
ָָ֖ ‫ש‬
ָ֖ ְ‫( ו‬Codex Reuchlinianus, Morag 1959, 219 | L [BHS]:
ָ ְ‫ ו‬Isa. 6.1 ‘and his train’)
‫ׁשּוליו‬

‫יו‬
ְָ֖ ‫יֹות‬ ָ֖ ָ ‫ וְ ָהר‬Hos. 14.1 ‘and his
ָ֖ ָ ‫( וְ ָהר‬BL Add 21161 | L [BHS]: ‫יֹותיו‬
pregnant women’)

The distinction in the Middle Ages between the pronuncia-

tion of vav as a labio-dental in Palestine and its pronunciation as
bilabial in Iraq is continued in modern reading traditions. In
reading traditions of the Levant, such as Aleppo, consonantal vav
is pronounced as a labio-dental, e.g.
188 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

ħajˈjav (Aleppo, Katz 1981,4 | L [BHS]: ‫ח ַָָ֖֔ייו‬

ָ֖ Gen. 47.28 ‘his
life’)

ˌveɣamˈhuˑ ˌjiɣˈdal (Aleppo, Katz 1981,9 | L [BHS]: ָ֖‫ם־הּוא‬

ַָ֖֣ ‫וְ ג‬
‫ י ְגָ֖ ָ ִָ֑֖דל‬Gen. 48.19 ‘and he also will be great’)

In the Samaritan reading tradition, consonantal vav has

shifted to [b] (except in the case of conjunctive vav), reflecting
its merger with fricative bet [v] and the consequent shift of fric-
ative bet [v] to plosive bet [b] (Ben-Ḥayyim 2000, 33–34), e.g.70
̄
båbīyyima (Samaritan, Ben-Ḥayyim 2000, 33-34 | L [BHS]:
‫ וָ ו ֶיהם‬Exod. 26.32 ‘their hooks’)

īšåb (Samaritan, Ben-Ḥayyim 2000, 33-34 | L [BHS]: ‫ע ָ ּֽשו‬

Gen. 25.25 ‘Esau’)

The occurrence of pe in place of consonantal vav in a bibli-

cal manuscript from Qumran could be taken as evidence that the
labio-dental pronunciation already existed in the Second Temple
period:71

‫( צפהָ֖אדוניָ֖ליעקוב‬4Q111 3.8 | L [BHS]: ‫֛הָ֖לי ֲעקב‬

ְ ‫הו‬ ָ ְ‫ צָּוָּ֧הָ֖י‬Lam.
1.17 ‘The Lord commanded Jacob’)

The pre-Masoretic transcriptions into Greek and Latin,

however, reflect a pronunciation of the consonantal vav as a bi-
labial [w]. In Greek this is represented by ου or υ and in Latin by
u, e.g.72

70
Here and elsewhere the transcription system of Ben-Ḥayyim is used
for the Samaritan tradition.
71
Data supplied by Aaron Hornkohl.
72
Data supplied by Ben Kantor.
 Consonants 189

Septuagint (third century B.C.E.)

Οὐκάν (Göttingen Septuagint | L [BHS]: ‫ ו ֲע ָ ֲּֽקן‬Gen. 36.27

‘Akan’)

Εὕαν (Göttingen Septuagint | L [BHS]: ‫ חָּוַ֣ה‬Gen. 4.1 ‘Eve’)

Hexapla of Origen (c. 185–254 C.E.)

ουαδωρ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ וָ ִ֑דר‬Psa. 49.12

‘and generation’)

βγηουαθω (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ ְבג ֲאוָ ַ֣תֹו‬Psa.

46.4 ‘at its swelling’)

Jerome (346-420 C.E.)

uaiomer (Jerome, Epistula LXXIII.55.18, ed. Hilberg | L

ֶ ‫ ו ָּ֧י‬Gen. 4.15 ‘and he said’)
[BHS]: ‫אמר‬

illaue (Jerome, Hebraicae Quaestiones in Libro Geneseos, ed.

de Lagarde et al., 6.5, 6, 12 | L [BHS]: ‫ י ָּלֶוֹ֤ה‬Gen. 29.34 ‘[my
husband] will join himself [to me]’)

In medieval Greek transcriptions, on the other hand, con-

sonantal vav is represented by β, which reflects [v], e.g.

Nikolaos of Otranto (1155/60–1235)

βεέθ (Kantor forthcoming | L [BHS]: ‫ וְ ִ֥את‬Gen. 1.1 ‘and

(direct object marker)’)

βιγιομερου (Kantor forthcoming | L [BHS]: ‫אמ ַ֔רּו‬

ְ ‫ ו ַ֣י‬Ex. 32.4
‘and they said’)

In modern Iraqi reading traditions, such as Baghdad (Morag

1977, 8) and Kurdistan (Sabar 2013), vav is pronounced as a bi-
labial [w]. The same applies to the Yemenite reading tradition,
190 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

which was closely related historically with Babylonia in the Mid-

dle Ages (Morag 1963; Yaʾakov 2015), e.g.

wejɪdˈgu (Baghdad, Morag 1977,8 | L [BHS]: ‫ וְ ידְָ֖גִ֥ ּו‬Gen. 48.16

‘and let them increase’)

wăʃɔfatˁ (Yemen, Morag 1963,42 | L [BHS]: ‫ט‬

ִָ֖֙ ‫ וְ ָׁשפ‬Isa. 2.4
‘and He will judge’)

I.1.7. ZAYIN ‫)ז( זין‬

Voiced alveolar sibilant [z]

According to Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, the Tiberians called this letter zāy

(‫)זאי‬, which is the name of the corresponding Arabic letter.73 A
shortened form of the name, zay, was also used in Jewish
Palestinian Aramaic (Sokoloff 1992, 175) and Syriac (Payne
Smith 1879, 1116).
Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ states that the place of the articulation of
the letter is the teeth.74 This evidently refers to the movement of
the teeth accompanying the pronunciation of the sibilants. The
author does not mention the action of the tongue, which was the
main articulator.75 The Sefer Yeṣira describes zayin as being
articulated between the teeth with a ‘resting tongue’, or a ‘flat

73
Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.1.2.
74
Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.8. Eldar (1980,
fol. 10b, line 77).
75
Cf. Eldar (1980, n.70).
 Consonants 191

tongue’ according to some versions.76 In both these passages, the

intention may have been that the tongue tip was not engaged in
the articulation of the letter, i.e. it was articulated with the blade.
Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ mentions that there is a variant form of
zayin which is called zāy makrūkh, but the author says he knows
nothing about it.
It is said that there are some who attribute a particular
feature to zayin and call it zāy makrūkh. I have not,
however, been able to identify their purpose in using the
term makrūkh, so that I could have described it.77

It has been stated previously that I do not know anything

that I can report about the zāy makrūkh. I have only
mentioned it so that it be known that letters have different
attributes.78

The term makrūkh was used to refer to an emphatic, i.e.

pharyngealized, form of resh (§I.1.20.). It appears, therefore, that

76
‫‘ ביןָ֖שיניםָ֖ובלשוןָ֖ישן‬between the teeth and with a resting tongue’, ָ֖‫בלשון‬
‫‘ שכובהָ֖ושטוחה‬with a resting and flat tongue’ (ed. Gruenwald 1971, 147;
ed. Hayman 2004, 92–98).
77
Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.2.
78
Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.9.8. Cf. also Eldar
(1984a, 32). The Yemenite orthoepic treatise known as the Hebrew
Maḥberet ha-Tījān, which was based on the long version of the Hidāya,
contains a similar statement: ‫‘ וכןָ֖ישָ֖להםָ֖זי׳׳ןָ֖נקראָ֖מכרוךָ֖ואינוָ֖ידועָ֖אצלינו‬They
(i.e. the Jews of Palestine) have a zayin called makrūkh, but it is
unfamiliar to us (i.e. the Jews of Yemen)’ (ed. J. Derenbourg 1871, 81);
cf. Morag (1960, 210, n. 45 ).
192 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

the zāy makrūkh was an emphatic [zˁ], though its distribution is

unknown.
An anonymous Masoretic treatise refers to two variant
forms of the letter ṣade in the Tiberian Hebrew reading tradition:
There is another letter (with two realizations), which the
people of Palestine never utter (in their vernacular
speech). This is ṣade and (variant) ṣade. It is, however,
familiar to the inhabitants of the lands (of the diaspora)
due to their living in close proximity to other peoples and
their using other languages and languages of other
nations.79

It is possible that this is referring to a voiced variant of ṣade,

i.e. [zˁ]. Ibn Khaldūn (North Africa, d. 1406), indeed, refers to a
voiced allophone of ṣade [zˁ] in the pronunciation of the name
‫אמ ְציָ הּו‬,
ֲ i.e. [ʔamazˁˈjɔːhuː].80
Sībawayhi describes the existence of an emphatic [zˁ]
sound in Arabic, which arose through partial assimilation of the
letter ṣād to an adjacent voiced consonant. With regard to the
pronunciation of the ṣād in the word maṣdar ‘source’ he states:

79
Ed. Allony (1973, 102, lines 29-32 [Allony’s reading has been
corrected in places]): ָ֖‫חרףָ֖אכרָ֖לאָ֖יקולוהָ֖אהלָ֖אלשאםָ֖בתהָ֖והוָ֖צדיָ֖צדיָ֖ואנמא‬
ָ֖‫אלפוה ָ֖סכאן ָ֖אלבלדאן ָ֖ללמגאורה ָ֖ואלמסאכנה ָ֖בגיר ָ֖קבאילהם ָ֖ואלאסתעמאל ָ֖בגיר‬
‫לגתהםָ֖ולגהָ֖אמםָ֖גירהם‬. Allony attributed this text to ʿAli ben Yehudah ha-
Nazir, but this attribution has been disputed by Eldar (1984a, 33, n.54,
1986, 59–61).
80
He describes the ṣade as al-ṣād al-mušamma bi-l-zāʾ ‘ṣād flavoured with
zāʾ’; cf. Schreiner (1886, 254).
 Consonants 193

They make it (the ṣād) similar to the homorganic letter that

is most like dāl, i.e. zāy, since it is unaspirated and not
emphatic, but they do not change it into pure zāy, lest the
emphatic quality of the letter be removed.81

An emphatic Arabic zāy was recognized as an additional

Arabic letter in some medieval works on the correct recitation of
the Qurʾān (tajwīd), where a voiced variant of an Arabic ṣād is
intended.82 The Tiberian terminology may have been influenced
by this tradition in the Arabic tajwīd literature.
The statement in Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ concerning the zāy
makrūkh implies that it is a variant of the written letter zayin
(‘there are some who attribute a particular feature to zayin’). The
foregoing discussion, however, suggests that the term is referring
to the voiced oral reading of the ṣade.

I.1.8. ḤET ‫)ח( חית‬

Unvoiced pharyngeal fricative [ħ]

This letter is transcribed by Arabic ḥāʾ (unvoiced pharyngeal

fricative) in the Karaite transcriptions, e.g.

81
ָ֖‫فضارعواָ֖بهָ֖اشبهָ֖الحروفָ֖بالدالָ֖منָ֖موضعهָ֖وهىָ֖الزاىָ֖النهاָ֖مجهورةָ֖غيرָ֖مطبقةָ֖ولمָ֖يبدلها‬
‫زاياָ֖خالصةָ֖كراهيةָ֖االجحافָ֖بهاָ֖لالطباق‬, al-Kitāb, ed. Derenbourg (1889, 476–77).
82
Makkī ibn ʾAbī Ṭālib al-Qaysī (d. 437/1045), for example, refers to
ṣād allatī yuḵāliṭu lafẓuhā lafẓa al-zāy ‘A ṣād whose pronunciation is
mixed with that of zāy’, as in ‫ )قصد =( قزد‬and ‫)الصراط =( الزراط‬, al-Riʿāya
li-Tajwīd al-Qirāʾa wa-Taḥqīq Lafẓ al-Tilāwa (ed. Farḥāt 1996, 107).
194 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

‫( حيۛ ط‬BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 100r, 8 | L [BHS]: ‫ ־ח ְטא‬Deut.

19.15 ‘sin’)
٘ ۜ
ُۣ‫۟اح ۜاسذ‬
ُۣۜ ‫( ك‬BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 65r, 3 | L [BHS]: ‫ כ ֶָ֜ח ֶסד‬Gen.
21.23 ‘like the kindness’)

ُۣ‫( ه۟ مۚ ࣤزب ۟ۛيح‬BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 67v, 1 | L [BHS]: ‫ ־המזְ ַ֔ב ָ֖ח‬Gen.
22.9 ‘the altar’)

According to Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, the pharyngeals and the

laryngeals had the same place of articulation:

The letters ‫ אהחע‬have a single place of articulation. This is

the throat and the root of the tongue. The Tiberians call it
the ‘root of the tongue’ and ‘place of swallowing’. 83

It is possible that the division of this place of articulation

into the ‘root of the tongue’ and ‘place of swallowing’ was in-
tended to refer to the production of the pharyngeals and laryn-
geals respectively. Some medieval grammarians state that ḥet and
its voiced counterpart ʿayin were articulated less deep in the
throat than ʾalef and he.84
In the Standard Tiberian tradition, ḥet does not take dagesh.
According to Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, the letter ḥet could not be made

83
Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.2.
84
Ibn Janāḥ, Kitāb al-Lumaʿ (ed. Derenbourg 1886, 26–27), Menaḥem
ben Saruq, Maḥberet (ed. Filipowski 1854, 6).
 Consonants 195

‘heavy’ with dagesh,85 i.e. it could not be pronounced with

different degrees of muscular pressure.
In Non-Standard Tiberian vocalization, the distribution of
dagesh is different from that of the Standard Tiberian tradition.
The distribution of dagesh characteristic of the ‫ בגדכפת‬consonants
is extended to most other consonants, with the result that, like
the ‫ בגדכפת‬consonants, they take dagesh after a silent shewa or at
the beginning of a word when not preceded by a word ending in
a vowel and a conjunctive accent (Morag 1959; Blapp 2018). The
dagesh in these consonants represented gemination (Yeivin 1983;
Khan 2017). Further details of this system of marking dagesh will
be given in §I.3.3. What is significant here is that the extension
of dagesh to consonants other than ‫ בגדכפת‬in Non-Standard Tibe-
rian manuscripts does not include the pharyngeals, which in the
vast majority of cases do not take dagesh. This reflects the diffi-
culty of geminating these consonants. A dagesh is found only very
sporadically marked on ḥet in Non-Standard Tiberian manu-
scripts, e.g.

Genizah manuscripts

‫( חייִ֑ ם‬T-S A13.20, Blapp 2017, 163; 2018, 143 | L [BHS]:

‫ חיִ֑ים‬Psa. 69.29 ‘the living’).

European manuscripts

‫מ ְת ָָּ֧֖ך‬
ְָ֖ ‫ח‬
ָָ֖ ‫מ ְָ֖ל‬
ָ֖ (Codex Reuchlinianus, Morag 1959, 219 | L
[BHS]: ‫ מ ְלח ְמ ְת ָָּ֧֖ך‬2 Sam. 11.25 ‘your fighting’)

85
Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.5.
196 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

This may have been a strategy for ensuring that the letter
was read correctly and did not lose its consonantal pronuncia-
tion, rather than marking gemination. The rafe sign is occasion-
ally used with a similar function in Non-Standard Tiberian man-
uscripts. As in some other contexts in Non-Standard Tiberian
manuscripts, the rafe here marks the letter as consonantal but not
geminated, e.g.

ָּֽ֖ ָ ‫( ָ֖נ ְָ֖כ‬Blapp 2017, 175 | L [BHS]: ‫ נ ְָ֖כ ָ ּֽחֿדּו‬Psa. 69.6 ‘they are
‫חֿדּו‬
[not] hidden’)

Both of these strategies for ensuring that the letter is read

and not weakened are found in Palestinian vocalization, e.g.

Dagesh

ֱ ‫( ֱל‬Fassberg 1987, 84 | L [BHS]: ‫ ֶ ּֽל ֱח ַָ֔יּה‬Lam. 1.2 ‘her

‫חיֱה‬
cheek’)

Rafe

ֱ‫אלחו‬
ֱ ֱ‫( נ‬T-S 12.195, Kahle 1930, 82-84 | L [BHS]: ‫ ֶ֫ ֶנ ֱא ָ ִ֥לחּו‬Psa.
53.4 ‘they have become corrupt’)

The potential vulnerability of ḥet to weakening is reflected

in Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts by the practice of marking
a shewa sign under the letter in word-final position. The purpose
of this was to draw attention to the fact that they are consonants
closing a syllable and are not to be weakened and read as vowel
letters, e.g.

Genizah manuscripts

‫ח‬
ְָ֖ ‫ת ְש ָ֛֖כ‬
ָ֖ ‫( ָָ֖ו‬T-S A11.1, Blapp 2017, 48 | L [BHS]: ‫ ְּ֭ות ְׁשכח‬Job
39.14 ‘and she forgot’)
 Consonants 197

‫ח‬
ְָ֖ ‫( ָָּ֖ל ִֶָ֑֖נ ָ֖צ‬T-S A13.18, Blapp 2017, 127 | L [BHS]: ‫ ָל ֶנִ֑צח‬Psa.
89.47 ‘forever’)

European manuscripts

‫ח‬
ְָ֖ ‫ב ָ ָֹ֤֖ר‬
ְָ֖ ‫( וי‬Codex Reuchlinianus, Morag 1959, 233 | L [BHS]:
‫ וי ְב ֹ֤רח‬1 Kings 11.40 ‘and he fled’)

‫ח‬
ְָ֖ ‫( ָ ִ֑זַֽר‬ASCNON B.I. 2r, Pilocane 2004 | L [BHS]: ‫ ָ ִ֑זַֽרח‬1 Chr.
2.4, ‘Zerah’)

Within the Standard Tiberian reading tradition a ḥet was

prevented from potential weakening in some contexts by length-
ְ [wufˌθaˑḥˈjɔː] ‘and
ening the vowel before it (§I.2.10.), e.g. ‫ּופ ּֽת ְח ִָ֨יה‬
Pethahiah’ (Neh. 11.24), ‫ˌ[ ּֽמ ְח ָיִ֥ה‬miˑḥˈjɔː] ‘reviving’ (Ezra 9.8). An-
other strategy to protect the consonantal pronunciation of ḥet at
the end of a word-internal syllable was to place a dagesh in the
following letter (§I.3.1.11.2.). This is found in some early manu-
scripts (Yeivin 1980, 295; Ginsburg 1897, 133), e.g.

ְָ֖ ‫ל ְח‬.(JTS ENA 346 | L [BHS]: ‫‘ ל ְח ְמ ָ֖ך‬your bread’ Ezek. 4.15)

ָ֖‫מך‬

There is clear evidence from the Dead Sea scrolls of the

weakening of ḥet in some biblical reading traditions in the Second
Temple period, especially that of 1QIsaa. This is reflected by the
occurrence of he or ʾalef where the Masoretic tradition has ḥet,
e.g.86

‫( מהשוכים‬1QIsaa 35.27 | L [BHS]: ‫ מ ְח ִָׁ֨שְך‬Isa. 42.16

‘darkness’)

86
Data supplied by Aaron Hornkohl. Cf. also Reymond (2014, 92).
198 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

‫( ואהללה‬1QIsaa 37.6 | L [BHS]: ‫ ו ֲאחּלל‬Isa. 43.28 ‘and I will

profane’)

‫( ויהללהו‬1QIsaa 44.17 | L [BHS]: ‫ ֶ ּֽה ֱח ַ֔לי‬Isa. 53.10 ‘he caused

him sickness’)

ִָ֖֙ ‫ ְבצ ְח ָצ‬Isa. 58.11 ‘in

‫( בצצחות‬1QIsaa 48.6 | L [BHS]: ‫חֹות‬
scorched places’)

In the modern Samaritan reading tradition ḥet has weak-

ened in most contexts to ʾalef or zero (Ben-Ḥayyim 2000, 38–39),
e.g.87

ʾēsəd (L [BHS]: ‫ ֶח ֶסד‬Gen. 24.14 ‘grace’)

ʾamrāʾēfåt (L [BHS]: ‫ ְמר ֶח ֶפת‬Gen. 1.2 ‘was hovering’)

ֹ֤ Gen. 6.3 ‘my spirit’)

ruwwi (L [BHS]: ‫רּוחי‬

ָָ֖ Gen. 30.33 ‘tomorrow’)

mār (L [BHS]: ‫מ ַָ֔חר‬

ָ֖ ‫ וְ ַ֣ר‬Gen. 1.2 ‘and the spirit of’)

wrū (L [BHS]: ‫ּוח‬

The weakening of the pharyngeals reflected in the Dead Sea

scrolls and the Samaritan tradition had its roots in the contact of
Hebrew with non-Semitic languages, in particular Greek, in the
pre-Islamic period. The measures taken to ensure the correct
reading of the ḥet in the medieval manuscripts described above
show that a special effort had to be made to avoid its being weak-
ened in the transmission of the Masoretic biblical reading tradi-
tions still in the Middle Ages. Indeed, in the medieval period
there is evidence for the weakening of the pharyngeals in Pales-
tinian liturgical poetry (§I.0.9.).

87
Data supplied by Aaron Hornkohl.
 Consonants 199

I.1.9. ṬET ‫)ט( טית‬

Emphatic (i.e. pharyngealized, with retracted tongue root and
increased muscular pressure) unvoiced alveolar plosive [tˁ]

According to Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, it was articulated with the tongue

tip and the gums.88 In the Karaite transcriptions, it is represented
by Arabic ṭāʾ, which was a pharyngealized [tˁ], e.g.

ُۣ‫طوبو‬
ۢ ُۣ‫( م۟ ا‬BL Or 2539 MS B, fol. 131v, 11 | L [BHS]: ‫ה־טבּו‬
ִ֥ ‫מ‬

Num. 24.5 ‘how fair are [your tents]’)

۟ ۚ‫( م‬BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 57r, 8 | L [BHS]: ‫חּוט‬
ُۣ‫يحوط‬ ִָ֖֙ ‫ ־מ‬Gen.

14.23 ‘from a thread’)

ُۣ‫( كۚمط۟ ۟احوي‬BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 64r, 3 | L [BHS]: ‫כ ְמט ֲחוַ֣י‬

Gen. 21.16 ‘like the shots of’)

In Greek transcriptions from the pre-Masoretic period, ṭet is

represented by Greek tau, which was an unaspirated stop [t]. In
Latin transcriptions from the pre-Masoretic period it is repre-
sented by Latin t, which likewise represented an unaspirated stop
[t]. These reflected the unaspirated realization of the ṭet, which
is also a feature of Arabic ṭāʾ. Examples:89

88
Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.7.; ed. Eldar
(1980, fol. 10b, lines 67–69).
89
Data supplied by Ben Kantor.
200 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Septuagint (third century B.C.E.)

Φουτιὴλ (Göttingen Septuagint | L [BHS]: ָ֖‫פּוטיא ִ֙ל‬

ָּֽ֖ Ex. 6.25
‘Putiel’)

Ἰεκτάν (Göttingen Septuagint | L [BHS]: ‫ יָ ְק ָ ּֽטן‬Gen. 10.25

‘Joktan’)

Λώτ (Göttingen Septuagint | L [BHS]: ‫ ּֽלֹוט‬Gen. 11.27 ‘Lot’)

Hexapla of Origen (c. 185–254 C.E.)

βατε (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ ָב ִ֥טח‬Psa. 28.7 ‘[my

heart] trusted’)

εμματ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫מֹוט‬ ֶָ֖ Psa. 30.7 ‘I

ִָ֖֥ ‫א‬
[will not] be moved’)

φελλετηνι (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫פ ְָּ֖ל ּֽטני‬

ָ֖ Psa. 31.2
‘rescue me! (ms)’)

Jerome (346-420 C.E.)

phut (Jerome, Commentary on Ezekiel, ed. Glorie,

ִָ֖֙ ‫ ּופּו‬Ezek. 27.10 ‘Put’)
VIII.27.935 | L [BHS]: ‫ט‬

atemoth (Jerome, Commentary on Ezekiel, ed. Glorie,

XII.40.517–518 | L [BHS]: ‫ ֲא ֻט ַ֣מֹות‬Ezek. 40.16 ‘narrowing
(fp)’)

bete (Jerome, Hebraicae Quaestiones in Libro Geneseos, ed.

ִָ֖֑ ֶ Gen. 34.25 ‘security’)
de Lagarde et al., 54.5 | L [BHS]: ‫בטח‬

mesphat (Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah, ed. Gryson, II.42.6

| L [BHS]: ‫ט‬
ִָ֖֙ ‫פ‬
ָָ֖ ‫ׁש‬ ָ֖ ‫ ְל‬Isa. 5.7 ‘judgment’)
ְָ֖ ‫מ‬
 Consonants 201

phaleta (Jerome, Commentary on the Minor Prophets, ed.

Adriaen, Joel, II, p. 197, line 783 | L [BHS]: ‫יטה‬
ַָ֗ ‫ ְפל‬Joel 3.5
‘I will pour’)

I.1.10. YOD ‫)י( יֹוד‬

Palatal unrounded semi-vowel [j]; voiced palatal stop [ɉ] when
geminated

Saadya states that the Tiberians pronounced yod with dagesh like
Arabic jīm:
As for jīm, it is in between gimel and yod. This is why the
Tiberians pronounce it [i.e. jīm] when (reading) yod with
dagesh.90

According to the early Arabic grammarians Sībawayhi and

al-Khalīl (eighth century C.E.), jīm was realized as a voiced
palatal stop [ɉ], which had the same place of articulation as the
Arabic yāʾ (the semi-vowel [j]), so presumably Saadya is referring
to the realization of yod with dagesh as [ɉ], e.g. ‫מד‬
ַָ֖֣ ‫וי ְׁש‬
[vaɉɉaʃˈmeːeð] ‘and he destroyed’ (1 Kings 16.12), which resulted
from the strengthening of the articulation of [j] to a stop.91

90
‫ָ֖ולד׳לךָ֖ג׳עלהאָ֖אלטבראניוןָ֖פיָ֖אליודָ֖אלדגש‬,‫ואמאָ֖אלג׳יםָ֖פפיָ֖מאָ֖ביןָ֖אלגימלָ֖ואליוד‬,
Commentary on Sefer Yeṣira (ed. Lambert 1891, 42–43).
91
In some of the early Arabic dialects geminated yāʾ was pronounced
like jīm; cf. Roman (1983, 101–6, 218). Ibn Sīnā in the eleventh century
describes jīm as pronounced slightly further forward (Roman 1983,
243–46).
202 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

In many Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts, a word-final

consonantal yod is marked by a lower dot, which can be identi-
fied as a ḥireq vowel. Occasionally the yod is also marked with a
rafe sign, e.g.

Genizah manuscripts

ָ֖‫ּא ָ֖ל ָ ּֽהי‬

ֱָ֖ (T-S A12.1, Blapp 2017, 84 | L [BHS]: ‫ֹלהי‬
ּֽ ָ ‫ ֱא‬Prov. 30.9
‘my God’)

ָ֖‫שפָָ֖ ַ֗תָ֖י‬
ָ֖ ְ ַ֝ (T-S A13.18, Blapp 2017, 130 | L [BHS]: ‫פ ַ֗תָ֖י‬
ָָ֖ ‫ ְָ֜ש‬Psa.
89.35 ‘my lips’)

European manuscripts

ָ֖‫מ ָצ ָ ַָ֖֔רי‬
ָ֖ (Codex Reuchlinianus, Morag 1959, 220 | L [BHS]:
‫ מ ָצ ַ֔רי‬Isa. 1.24 ‘from my enemies’)

ִָ֖֙ ‫ ֿג‬Joel 1.6 ‘nation’)

ִָ֖֙‫( ֿגֹוי‬BL Add 21161 | L [BHS]: ‫ֹוי‬

In Babylonian vocalization, a ḥireq is marked not only on

word-final consonantal yod but also on consonantal yod that
occurs within a word, e.g.92

‫טַו ִי‬
ַ ָ‫( נ‬OB, Yeivin 1985, 277 | L [BHS]: ‫ נָ ִ֑טּוי‬Psa. 102.12 ‘bent’)

‫( ה ַג ַֹו ִי‬OB, Yeivin 1985, 277 | L [BHS]: ‫ הגַ֣ ֹוי‬Jer. 18.8 ‘the
nation’)

‫ה ִי‬
ַ ִ‫( וֲי‬OB, Yeivin 1985, 275 | L [BHS]: ‫ ויְ הָ֖י‬Ezek. 17.6 ‘and it
became’)

‫( חיִַיִל‬MB, Yeivin 1985, 275 | L [BHS]: ‫ ְּ֭חיל‬Prov. 31.10

‘virtue’)

92
Data supplied by Shai Heijmans.
 Consonants 203

Another strategy for marking word-final consonantal yod

that is sporadically found in Non-Standard Tiberian is to write a
dot within the body of the letter, which can be identified as a
mappiq sign, e.g.

‫( ְל ָפנִ֥י‬T-S A11.1, Blapp 2017, 51 | L [BHS]: ‫ לְ ָפנִ֥י‬Job 41.2

‘before me’)

These strategies for marking word-final consonantal yod re-

flect the perception that the letter was a weak consonant and was
vulnerable to being slurred over.
There is some sporadic evidence in various Greek transcrip-
tions from the pre-Masoretic period of the weakening and con-
traction of yod where it is consonantal in the Masoretic tradition,
e.g.93

Hexapla of Origen (c. 185–254 C.E.)

Final ay represented by eta possibly reflecting contraction to ē

(Kantor 2017, 234):

ωεβη (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ איְ ַ֣בי‬Psa. 35.19 ‘my

enemies’)

σωνη (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ שנְ אִַ֥י‬Psa. 35.19

‘those who hate me’)

Septuagint (third century B.C.E.)

Zero representation where consonantal yod appears in the

Masoretic tradition:

93
Data supplied by Ben Kantor.
204 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Ἀλληλί (Göttingen Septuagint | L [BHS]: ‫ הי ְחלְ א ּֽלי‬Num.

26.26 ‘Jahleelite’)

Ἀσιηλί (Göttingen Septuagint | L [BHS]: ‫ הי ְח ְצא ִ֑לי‬Num. 26.48

‘Jahzeelite’)

Ἐτεβάθα (Göttingen Septuagint | L [BHS]: ‫ ְביָ ְט ָ ּֽב ָתה‬Num.

33.33 ‘Jotbathah’)

In some of the biblical Dead Sea scrolls, an ʾalef occasion-

ally appears where there is consonantal yod in the Masoretic tra-
dition, which reflects weakening, e.g.94

‫( אהרוג‬1QIsaa 13.3 | L [BHS]: ‫ י ֲה ּֽרג‬Isa. 14.30 ‘it/he will kill’)

ְ Isa. 21.8 ‘lion’)

‫( הראה‬1QIsaa 16.22 | L [BHS]: ‫אַרי ִ֑ה‬

‫( גואים‬1QIsaa 18.8 | L [BHS]: ‫ גֹויּֽם‬Isa. 23.3 ‘nations’)

ִָ֖֙ ‫ ְׁש ָפי‬Isa. 41.18 ‘hilltops’)

‫( שפאים‬1QIsaa 34.23 | L [BHS]: ‫ים‬

‫( אואב‬4Q98g f1.6 | L [BHS]: ‫ אֹוי ַ֣ב‬Psa. 89.23 ‘enemy’)

I.1.11. KAF ‫כ( כף‬, ‫)ך‬

Kaf with dagesh (‫)כ‬: unvoiced aspirated velar stop [kh]

Kaf without dagesh (‫)כ‬: unvoiced uvular fricative [χ]

A kaf without dagesh is frequently, but not regularly, marked by

the rafe sign in the model Standard Tiberian codices.

94
Data supplied by Aaron Hornkohl.
 Consonants 205

According to Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, kaf with dagesh was arti-

culated with ‘the middle of the tongue.’95 Kaf without dagesh, on
the other hand, was articulated further back, on the posterior
‘third of the tongue, which is adjacent to the pharynx, opposite
the (soft) palate.’96 In the Karaite transcriptions fricative kaf is
represented by Arabic khāʾ, which was pronounced as an
unvoiced uvular fricative,97 e.g.

‫( لۜاا ٘ۜخ ُۣۢࣤول‬BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 74r, 2 | L [BHS]: ‫ ֶל ֱא ַ֔כל‬Gen.

24.33 ‘to eat’)

٘ ‫( ب ࣦ۟سب‬BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 68r, 3 | L [BHS]: ‫ ב ְסבְך‬Gen.

ُۣ‫۟اخ‬
22.13 ‘in the thicket’)
ۜ
ُۣ‫( بعۛ ي ۜۜنُۣ ۠اخا‬BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 63v, 2 | L [BHS]: ‫ ְבעינִֶ֙ ִָ֖֙יך‬Gen.
21.12 ‘in your (ms) eyes’)

Greek transcriptions from the pre-Masoretic period

represent plosive kaf with the letter χ, which represented an
aspirated voiceless velar stop [kh] until the Byzantine period,
rather than κ, which represented an unaspirated [k]. This

95
Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.6. Ed. Eldar
(1980, fols. 10a-10b, lines 61-73).
96
Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.6. Ed. Eldar
(1980, fol. 10a, lines 58-59).
97
Roman (1983, 218).
206 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

demonstrates that plosive kaf at the time of these transcriptions

was aspirated, e.g.98

Septuagint (third century B.C.E.)

Χαναναῖοι (Göttingen Septuagint | L [BHS]: ‫ וְ ּֽה ְכנ ֲעני‬Gen. 12.6

‘Canaanite’)

Χάσαδ (Göttingen Septuagint | L [BHS]: ‫ ֶכ ֶַ֣שד‬Gen. 22.22

‘Chesed’)

Χαλὲβ (Göttingen Septuagint | L [BHS]: ‫ ָכלב‬Num. 13.6

‘Caleb’)

Ἀσχανὰζ (Göttingen Septuagint | L [BHS]: ‫אַׁש ֲכנִ֥ז‬

ְ Gen. 10.3
‘Ashkenaz’)

Hexapla of Origen (c. 185–254 C.E.)

χααφαρ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ ְכ ָע ָ ִ֥פר‬Psa. 18.43

‘like dust’)

χαμμα (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ כ ָ ָ֪מה‬Psa. 35.17

‘how long/much ... ?’)

χελλωθαμ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ּלֹותם‬

ּֽ ָ ‫ כ‬Psa.
18.38 ‘wiping them out’)

δερχω (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ ֶ֫ד ְר ִ֥כֹו‬Psa. 18.31

‘his way’)

Likewise, in the Tiberian pronunciation tradition, plosive

kaf was almost certainly aspirated. In the Karaite transcriptions,

98
Data supplied by Ben Kantor.
 Consonants 207

plosive kaf with dagesh is represented by Arabic kāf, which was

an aspirated stop.99
Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ describes the stop [kʰ] as primary (ʾaṣl) and
the fricative [χ] as secondary (farʿ).100

I.1.12. LAMED ‫)ל( ָל ֶמד‬

Voiced alveolar lateral continuant [l]

In Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ the name of this letter is spelt ‫למאד‬, which

appears to reflect a different pronunciation from that of the
normal Hebrew form of the name ‫ל ֶמד‬,
ָ with stress on the final
syllable.
According to Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, the articulation of this letter
involved the contact of the tongue tip with the gums.101

I.1.13. MEM ‫מ( מם‬, ‫)ם‬

Voiced bi-labial nasal [m]

In Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ the name of this letter is spelt ‫מאם‬.

99
Roman (1983, 55).
100
Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.6. Ed. Eldar
(1980, fols. 8b, 10a, 254, n.58). Watson (2007, 43–44) considers the
uvular fricative [χ] in Modern Arabic dialects to be the emphatic
counterpart of the dorsal [kʰ], involving a primary dorsal and non-
primary ‘guttural’ feature.
101
Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.7. Ed. Eldar
(1980, fol. 10b, lines 67–69). See the description of dalet (§I.1.4.) for a
discussion of the passage.
208 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

I.1.14. NUN ‫נ( נּון‬, ‫)ן‬

Voiced alveolar nasal [n]

According to Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, it was articulated with the end of

the tongue and the gums.102

I.1.15. SAMEKH ‫)ס( ָס ֶמְך‬

Unvoiced alveolar sibilant [s]

In Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ the name of this letter is spelt ‫סמאך‬, which

appears to reflect a different pronunciation from that of the
normal Hebrew form of the name ‫ס ֶמְך‬,
ָ with stress on the final
syllable.
According to the medieval sources, it was articulated in the
same place as the letter zayin,103 apparently with the blade of the
tongue rather than the tip (see the description of zayin §I.1.7.).
In some medieval Muslim sources, the samekh in the name
‫‘ פנְ ָחס‬Phinehas’ is transcribed by ṣād [sˁ]: ‫( فنحاص‬Schreiner 1886,
254). This apparently reflects its pharyngealization after the
pharyngeal ḥet.

102
Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.7. Ed. Eldar
(1980, fol. 10b, lines 67–68). lbn Janāḥ (Kitāb al-lumaʿ, ed. Derenbourg,
27-28) distinguishes between the nun with a following vowel, which
was pronounced with an admixture of nasal resonance, and nun without
a vowel, which was articulated entirely in the nasal cavity.
103
Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3;
ed. Eldar (1980, fol. 10b, line 77); Sefer Yeṣira (ed. Gruenwald 1971,
147; ed. Hayman 2004, 92–98).
 Consonants 209

Sporadic examples of the pharyngealization of samekh in

the environment of pharyngeals is attested in the Dead Sea
scrolls, e.g.104

ַ֣ ֶ ‫ וְ ע‬Mal 3.21 ‘and you [pl]

‫( ועוצותם‬4Q76 4.12 | L [BHS]: ‫סֹותם‬
will trample’)

I.1.16. ʿAYIN ‫)ע( עין‬

Voiced pharyngeal fricative [ʕ]

This letter is transcribed by Arabic ʿayn (voiced pharyngeal

fricative) in the Karaite transcriptions, e.g.

‫( عۛ ي ۜࣤنُۣاه۠ ا‬BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 64v, 3 | L [BHS]: ‫ ־ע ֶַ֔ינ ָָ֖יה‬Gen.

21.19 ‘her eyes’)

ُۣ‫( ۟و ࣴيا۟ع۟ س‬BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 63r, 3 | L [BHS]: ‫ ויֹ֤עש‬Gen.

21.8 ‘and he made’)

‫( سُۣ ُۣ۟ماع‬BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 63v, 3 | L [BHS]: ‫ ְׁש ַ֣מע‬Gen.

21.12 ‘hear!’)

Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ does not distinguish between the place of

articulation of the laryngeals and that of the pharyngeals. Some
medieval grammarians, however, state that ḥet and its voiced
counterpart ʿayin were articulated less deep in the throat than
ʾalef and he (see §I.1.8.).
In the Standard Tiberian tradition, ʿayin does not take
dagesh. According to Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, the letter ʿayin could not be

104
Data supplied by Aaron Hornkohl.
210 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

made ‘heavy’ by dagesh,105 i.e. the consonant could not be

pronounced with different degrees of muscular pressure. Also in
Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts, where the use of dagesh has
been extended, ʿayin does not take dagesh.
In Palestinian vocalization dagesh is sporadically marked on
ʿayin, it seems as a measure to ensure that it was pronounced
correctly and not weakened, e.g.

‫תי‬
ֱ ֱ‫( ע‬T-S NS 249.6, Dietrich 1968, 74* | L [BHS]: ‫ ע ָ ּֽתי‬1
Chron. 2.35 ‘Attai’)

]‫( [פר]עֱ[ה‬T-S A43.1, Kahle 1930, 94 | L [BHS]: ‫ פ ְר ָּ֧עה‬Jer.

25.19 ‘Pharaoh’)

In Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts, ʿayin is occasionally

marked with a rafe sign, marking the letter as consonantal but
not geminated, e.g.

ָ֖‫ע ַ֣רְך‬
ֲָ֖ ‫( ָּֽ֖י‬T-S A13.18, Blapp 2017, 140 | L [BHS]: ‫ י ֲע ַ֣ר ְָ֖ך‬Psa. 89.7
‘is comparable’)

‫עם‬
ָָ֖ ‫( ָָ֖ל‬T-S A13.20, Blapp 2017, 177 | L [BHS]: ‫ָ֖ ָל ַ֗ ָעם‬Psa. 68.36
‘to the people’)

The rafe sign is occasionally found on ʿayin also in Palestin-

ian vocalization, e.g.

‫( ָ֖עינֱי‬T-S NS 249.3, Dietrich 1968, 128 | L [BHS]: ‫ ע ָינִ֑י‬Psa.

77.5 ‘my eyes’)

105
Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book,
§II.L.1.3.2., §II.L.1.3.3.
 Consonants 211

In many Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts a word-final

ʿayin is marked with shewa, indicating that it was a consonant
that closed a syllable, e.g.

Genizah manuscripts

ְָ֖‫הֹוֿדע‬
ִָ֖֑ (T-S A13.18, Blapp 2017, 127 | L [BHS]: ‫הֹודע‬
ִ֑ Psa.
90.12 ‘teach!’)

ְָ֖‫( ָר ָ ִׁ֑שע‬T-S A13.20, Blapp 2017, 156 | L [BHS]: ‫ ָר ָ ִׁ֑שע‬Psa. 71.4

‘wicked’)

European manuscripts

ְָ֖‫מע‬
ָֹ֖֤ ָ ‫ש‬
ָ֖ ְ ‫( וי‬Codex Reuchlinianus, Morag 1959, 233 | L [BHS]:
‫ וי ְׁש ֹ֤מע‬2 Sam. 22.7 ‘and he heard’)

ְָ֖‫( ָהרע‬ACAMO 28 2v, Pilocane 2004, 29 | L [BHS]: ‫‘ ָהרע‬evil’

1 Kings 16.25)

The use of dagesh, rafe and shewa in the manuscripts with

Non-Standard Tiberian and Palestinian vocalization reflect the
perceived vulnerability to weakening of the ʿayin. Similar strate-
gies of vocalization were also used for other gutturals in these
manuscripts (§I.1.1, §I.1.5., §I.1.8.).
Within the Standard Tiberian reading tradition a ʿayin was
prevented from potential weakening in some contexts by length-
ening the vowel before it (§I.2.10.), e.g. ‫[ ְׁש ּֽמ ְע ָיִ֥הּו‬ʃaˌmaˑʕˈjɔːhuː]
‘Shemaiah (2 Chron. 11.2), ‫ע־נֹ֤א‬
ָ ‫[ ְׁש ּֽמ‬ʃaˌmaˑʕ-ˈnɔː] ‘listen’ (1 Sam.
28.22). Another strategy to protect the consonantal pronuncia-
tion of ʿayin at the end of a word-internal syllable was to place a
dagesh in the following letter (§I.3.1.11.2.). This is found in some
early manuscripts (Yeivin 1980, 295; Ginsburg 1897, 133), e.g.
212 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

C: ַָ֖֔ ‫( י ְע‬L [BHS]: ‫‘ י ְע ַ֔קב‬he supplants’ Jer. 9.3)

‫קב‬

There is clear evidence from the Dead Sea scrolls of the

weakening of ʿayin in some biblical reading traditions in the Sec-
ond Temple period, especially that of 1QIsaa. This is reflected, for
example, by the omission of ʿayin where it occurs in the Standard
Tiberian Masoretic Text, or its replacement by ʾalef or he, e.g.106

‫( יבור‬1QIsaa 22.19 | L [BHS]: K ‫ עבר‬Q ‫ י ֲּֽעב ִָ֖֙ר‬Isa. 28.15 ‘[the

flood/whip] shall pass’)

ָ֖ ‫ ּֽמה ְש ָת ִ֑ר‬Isa. 28.20 ‘[is too

‫( משתריים‬1QIsaa 22.26 | L [BHS]: ‫ע‬
short] to stretch out’)

‫לפותָ֖רעב‬
֯ ָ ‫ ז ְל ֲע ִ֥פ‬Lam. 5.10 ‘fever
֯‫( ז‬5Q6 f1v.6 | L [BHS]: ‫ֹותָ֖ר ָ ּֽעב‬
from hunger’)

‫( נטה‬4Q27 f24ii+27–30.18 | L [BHS]: ‫ נָ ַ֣טע‬Num. 24.6

‘[Yhwh] planted’)

‫( מסלה‬1QIsaa 13.17 | L [BHS]: ‫ מ ֶ ַ֣סלע‬Isa. 16.1 ‘from Sela’)

ִָ֖֙ ‫ וְ ע ָת‬Isa. 5.5 ‘and now’)

‫( ואתה‬1QIsaa 4.16 | L [BHS]: ‫ה‬

‫( אצית‬1QIsaa 19.27 | L [BHS]: ‫ ע ִ֥צֹות‬Isa. 25.1 ‘counsel’)

In the modern Samaritan reading tradition ʿayin has weak-

ened in most contexts to ʾalef or zero (Ben-Ḥayyim 2000, 38–39),
e.g.107

ʾaz (L [BHS]: ‫ עז‬Lev. 3.12 ‘goat’)

106
Data supplied by Aaron Hornkohl. Cf. also Reymond (2014, 92).
107
Data supplied by Aaron Hornkohl.
 Consonants 213

̄
yišmåʾu (L [BHS]: ‫ י ְׁש ְמ ַ֔עּו‬Gen. 11.7 ‘they will (not)
understand’)

ָ ‫ מ‬Gen. 6.4 ‘of old’)

miyyūlåm (L [BHS]: ‫עֹולם‬

šār (L [BHS]: ‫ ש ָ ִ֑ער‬Gen. 25.25 ‘hair’)

šū (L [BHS]: ‫ּוע‬
ָ֖ ‫ ִׁ֑ש‬Gen. 38.2 ‘Shua’)

The measures taken to ensure the correct reading of the

ʿayin in the medieval manuscripts described above show that a
special effort had to be made to avoid its being weakened in the
transmission of the Masoretic biblical reading traditions still in
the Middle Ages.

I.1.17. PE ‫פ( פָ֖ה‬, ‫)ף‬

Pe with dagesh (‫)פ‬: unvoiced aspirated bi-labial stop [ph]

Pe without dagesh (‫)פ‬: unvoiced labio-dental fricative [f]

A pe without dagesh is frequently, but not regularly, marked by

the rafe sign in the model Standard Tiberian codices.
In Masoretic treatises the name of this letter is sometimes
spelt ‫ פי‬or ‫פא‬.108
According to Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, pe with dagesh was
pronounced by closing the lips firmly and pe without dagesh was
pronounced by closing the lips lightly. 109 Taken by itself, this
could be a description of a bilabial articulation [ɸ]. This appears,

108
E.g. Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, short version, edition in vol. 2 of this book,
§II.S.1.7.
109
Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.9.; ed. Eldar
(1980, fols. 10b-11a, lines 84-88).
214 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

however, to be only a partial description of the sound, as is the

case with the description of bet without dagesh (see §I.1.2.). The
light closure of the lips would have accompanied a labio-dental
articulation [f] and no doubt it is this secondary feature that the
author refers to.110
We know from Greek and Latin transcriptions that in the
pre-Masoretic period plosive pe was aspirated.111 This is shown
by the fact that it is represented in Greek by φ, which in the pe-
riods in question represented an aspirated stop [pʰ], and in Latin
by the digraph ph, the h reflecting aspiration [pʰ]. Greek π and
Latin p represented unaspirated [p]. Examples:112

Septuagint (third century B.C.E.):

Φαλτιὴλ (Göttingen Septuagint | L [BHS]: ‫ פ ְלטיאל‬Num.

34.26 ‘Paltiel’)

Ἀρφαξὰδ (Göttingen Septuagint | L [BHS]: ‫אַרפ ְכׁשד‬

ְ ְ‫ ו‬Gen.
10.22 ‘Arpachshad’)

Ζέλφα (Göttingen Septuagint | L [BHS]: ‫ה‬

ִָ֖֙ ‫ ז ְל ָפ‬Gen. 30.12
‘Zilpah’)

Hexapla of Origen (c. 185–254 C.E.)

φααδ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ ִ֥פחד‬Psa. 36.2 ‘fear

of (cstr.)’)

110
Cf. the commentary to this passage by Eldar (1980, n.75.).
111
Kutscher (1965, 24–35).
112
Data supplied by Ben Kantor.
 Consonants 215

φαδιθ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫יתה‬

ָ ‫ ָפד‬Psa. 31.6
‘you redeemed’)

φαλητ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ פּלִ֑ט‬Psa. 32.7

‘deliverance’)

αρφαθ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ ֶח ְרפַ֣ת‬Psa. 89.51

‘the reproach of (cstr.)’)

λαμεσφατι (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ ְלמ ְׁש ָפ ִ֑טי‬Psa.

35.23 ‘to my judgment’)

Jerome (346-420 C.E.)

pharis (Jerome, Commentary on Ezekiel, ed. Glorie,

VI.18.504 | L [BHS]: ‫ ָפריץ‬Ezek. 18.10 ‘violent one’)

phacud (Jerome, Commentary on Ezekiel, ed. Glorie,

VII.23.1001 | L [BHS]: ‫ ְפ ֹ֤קֹוד‬Ezek. 23.23 ‘Pekod’)

iesphicu (Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah, ed. Gryson, I.52.4

| L [BHS]: ‫ י ְש ּֽפיקּו‬Isa. 2.6 ‘[they] clap’)

mesphat (Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah, ed. Gryson, II.42.6

ִָ֖֙ ‫ ְלמ ְׁש ָפ‬Isa. 5.7 ‘judgment’)
| L [BHS]: ‫ט‬

Saadya refers to the existence of a ‘hard pe’ (al-fāʾ al-ṣulba)

in the hapax legomenon ‫‘ אפ ְדנַ֔ ֹו‬his palace’ (Dan. 11.45), which he
describes as ‘between bet and pe with dagesh’.113 This appears to
be referring to an unaspirated, fortis realization of [p]. One may
infer from this that the normal unvoiced stop pe was aspirated
also in the Middle Ages. Dunash ibn Tamim reports that the

113
‫פיָ֖מאָ֖ביןָ֖אלביָ֖ואלפיָ֖אלדגש‬, Commentary on Sefer Yeṣira (ed. Lambert
1891, 42).
216 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

scholar Isaac Israeli (ninth-tenth centuries), who was ‘an expert

in the reading of the Tiberians’, pronounced the dalet in this word
like an Arabic ḏ̣āʾ, i.e. as emphatic (pharyngealized).114 This
implies that the ‘hard’ pe was also emphatic, the dalet being
pronounced emphatic by assimilation (Steiner 1993).
The word ‫ אפ ְדנַ֔ ֹו‬is a loanword from Old Persian. The source
word in Old Persian is reconstructed by Iranists as apadāna,
āpadāna or appadāna ‘palace, audience chamber’. The p in Old
Persian was unaspirated. The lack of aspiration was preserved
when the word was loaned into Hebrew and this was transmitted
in the Tiberian oral tradition down to the Middle Ages. There is
no consensus among Iranists about the length of the initial vowel
in the Old Persian word and whether the p was geminate or not
(Ciancaglini 2008, 113–14). According to Henning (1944, 110
n.1), the p was originally geminated but the gemination of the
Old Persian p was lost in Middle Persian (Old Persian appadān >
Middle Persian *āpaðan). In the Tiberian tradition, the pe is gem-
inated, which could, therefore, be an ancient feature. The antiq-
uity of the gemination is shown, moreover, by the fact that the
Old Persian word appears as a loanword in an Akkadian text
datable to the Late Babylonian period where the p is represented
as geminated: ap-pa-da-an (appadān).115

114
Dunash ibn Tamim, Commentary on Sefer Yeṣira (ed. Mann 1931,
1:670, n.106). For this passage see §I.1.4.
115
The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of
Chciago, A/2 (1968), Chicago: Oriental Institute, 178.
 Consonants 217

There is evidence for the unaspirated pronunciation of the

pe in this word in Greek and Latin transcriptions in the pre-Mas-
oretic period, e.g.116

Απαδανω (Theodoretus, fifth century C.E., Commentarius in

Visiones Danielis Prophetae, e.g. Migne, 81.1532)

apedno (Jerome, fourth century C.E., Commentarii in

Danielem, ed. Glorie, IV.11)

In these transcriptions the pe is represented by Greek π and

Latin p without following h, both of which represented
unaspirated [p]. Jerome (Commentarii in Danielem, IV, 11–12)
comments on the pe in this word as follows:
Notandum autem quod cum pe littera hebraeus sermo non
habeat, sed pro ipsa utatur phe cuius uim graecum φ sonat,
in isto tantum loco apud Hebraeos scribatur quidem phe
sed legatur pe.

But it should be noted that while Hebrew speech does not

have the letter pe (i.e. Latin p [p]), but instead of it uses
phe, the force of which is approximated by the sound of
Greek φ (i.e. [ph]), in that particular place (i.e. Dan. 11.45)
among the Hebrews phe (i.e. ‫[ פ‬ph]) indeed is written but
it is read as pe (i.e., Latin p [p]).

It should be noted, however, that some Greek transcriptions

are extant that represent the pe in the word by φ, reflecting an
aspirated pronunciation, e.g.

εφαδανω (Theodotion, second century C.E.)

116
Data supplied by Ben Kantor.
218 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

εφαδανω/αφαδανω (Polychronios, fifth century C.E.,

Commentarii in Danielem, ed. Moutsoulas, 11.45)

This suggests that there were variant traditions of reading

the pe, some preserving the unaspirated pe others pronouncing
the pe as aspirated.
Another feature of all the Greek and Latin transcriptions
cited above is that they represent the pe as ungeminated, whereas
it is geminated in Tiberian tradition.
The word appears in various dialects of Aramaic, including
Syriac, Jewish Babylonian Aramaic and the Aramaic of Targum
Jonathan (Sokoloff 2009, 81, 2002, 154). In Syriac, where there
is a reliable tradition of vocalization, the pe is ungeminated:
‫( ܐܳ ܳܦܕܢܐ‬ʾāpadhnā). There are, however, variant vocalizations of
the word in the sources (Payne Smith 1879, 329–30). In some
manuscripts, the pe is marked with a diacritic that is used
elsewhere to represent the pe corresponding to an unaspirated π
in Greek loanwords (J. B. Segal 1989, 489). The word appears in
Arabic as fadan ‘palace’.
The pe in ‫ אפ ְדנַ֔ ֹו‬in the Tiberian reading tradition was
pronounced not only unaspirated but also pharyngealized.
Elsewhere in the sound system of Tiberian Hebrew unaspirated
unvoiced stops were pharyngealized, i.e. ṭet and qof. The feature
of lack of aspiration did not exist in unvoiced stops without
pharyngealization. Pharyngealization was, therefore, perceived
to be the closest equivalent in the sound system of Tiberian
Hebrew to the feature of lack of aspiration of the pe. This also
applied to the sound system of the spoken language of the
tradents of the reading tradition. At the time of Saadya and Isaac
 Consonants 219

Israeli, who report this feature, the spoken language was Arabic,
in which unvoiced unaspirated stops were pharyngealized (i.e.
the ṭāʾ and the qāf). It is not clear whether the pharyngealization
of the pe in ‫ אפ ְדנַ֔ ֹו‬existed in the reading tradition in the pre-
Islamic period. Greek unaspirated τ and κ, likewise, were
perceived to correspond most closely to Hebrew emphatic ṭet and
qof, as shown by Greek transcriptions of Hebrew, e.g. Λώτ
(Septuagint, ‫ ּֽלֹוט‬Gen. 11.27 ‘Lot’), Ἐνάκ (Septuagint, ‫ ֲע ָנּֽק‬Deut. 9.2
‘Anak’) and by Greek loanwords in Hebrew, e.g. ָ֖‫פרסטלון‬
‘colonnade’ < περίστυλον (Copper Scroll 3Q15), ‫יתרֹוס‬
ָ ‫( ק‬ketiv
‫‘ )קתרוס‬zither’ < κίθαρος (Dan. 3.5, 7, 10, 15) (Heijmans 2013a).
A Masoretic note to Dan. 3.21 in L reads as follows
‫פָ֖בפומיהוןָ֖וסימנהוןָ֖פסנתריןָ֖פטשיהוןָ֖אפדנוָ֖משניןָ֖לקראה‬
ָ֖̇ ָ֖‫מפק‬
ָ֖̇ ָ֖‫ָ֖̇ג‬

The meaning of this is not fully clear. One possible inter-

pretation is as follows:
There are three cases where pe is pronounced differently
by the reader, namely ‫‘ ְפסנְ תרין‬stringed instrument’ (Dan.
ַ֔ ‫‘ פ ְטׁש‬their tunics’ (ketiv ‫פטישיהון‬
3.5, 3.7, 3.10, 3.15), ‫יהֹון‬
Dan. 3.21), ‫‘ אפ ְדנַ֔ ֹו‬his palace’ (Dan. 11.45).

This suggests that the pe also of the words ‫ ְפסנְ תרין‬and

‫יהֹון‬
ַ֔ ‫פ ְטׁש‬, which occur in the Aramaic section of the Bible, were
pronounced unaspirated. The word ‫ ְפסנְ תרין‬is a loan from Greek
ψαλτήριον, so the pe would correspond to the unaspirated segment
in the affricate ψ [ps]. The word ‫יהֹון‬
ַ֔ ‫ פ ְטׁש‬is of uncertain
etymology, but it has been suggested by Nyberg (1931, 187) that
the source is Old Persian *patuš ‘garment’, in which case the pe
would correspond to an Old Persian unaspirated p. The ṭet in the
word would, moreover, reflect the Old Persian unaspirated t.
220 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

It should be noted that there are a number of other Old

Persian loanwords in Biblical Hebrew in which a Hebrew pe
corresponds to an unaspirated p in the Old Persian source word
but which were pronounced aspirated in the Tiberian Hebrew
reading tradition, e.g. ‫‘ ֲאח ְׁשד ְר ְפנים‬satrap’ (< Old Persian xšaθra-
pāwan) (Esther 3.12, 8.9, 9.3; Ezra 8.36), ‫‘ פ ְתגָ ם‬message’ (< Old
Persian *patiy-gama) (Ecc. 8.11; Esther 1.20), ‫‘ פ ְת ֶׁשגֶ ן‬a copy’ (<
Old Persian *patiy-caγniya or *patiy-caγna) (Esther 3.14, 4.8,
8.13) (Gindin 2013). It would appear that in such cases the
original unaspirated p was adapted to the sound system of
Hebrew. Greek transcriptions such as εφαδανω (Theodotion,
second century C.E.) and εφαδανω/αφαδανω (Polychronios, fifth
century C.E.), cited above, would reflect a similar adaption of the
pe also in the word ‫ אפ ְדנַ֔ ֹו‬in some reading traditions.

I.1.18. ṢADE ‫צ( ָצדי‬, ‫)ץ‬

Unvoiced emphatic (pharyngealized) alveolar sibilant [sˁ]

The name of the letter is vocalized ‫ ְצֿדי‬in a Masoretic treatise (ed.

Allony and Yeivin 1985, 102), with shewa in the initial syllable,
reflecting a pronunciation with stress on the final syllable.
According to the medieval sources, it was articulated in the
same place as the letters zayinָ֖and samekh,117 apparently with the
blade of the tongue rather than the tip (see the description of
zayin §I.1.7). In the Karaite transcriptions, it is represented by

117
Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book,
§II.L.1.3.8.; ed. Eldar (1980, fol. 10b, line 77), Sefer Yeṣira (ed.
Gruenwald 1971, 147; ed. Hayman 2004, 92–98).
 Consonants 221

Arabic ṣād, which was an unvoiced pharyngealized alveolar

sibilant [sˁ], e.g.
ࣤ
ُۣ‫( صب۠ا ۢاو‬BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 64v, 9 | L [BHS]: ‫ ְ־צ ָב ַ֔אֹו‬Gen.
21.22 ‘his host’)

‫( مۚ ص ۟ر ࣵاُۣيۚم‬BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 92r, 6 | L [BHS]: ‫ ־מ ְצ ָ ּֽרים‬Deut.

7.18 ‘Egypt’)

In §I.1.7. references are given to what appears to have been

a voiced emphatic variant of ṣade [zˁ].
A Karaite transcription is extant in which Arabic sīn is
written where the Masoretic Text has ṣade, reflecting the
weakening of the emphatic pronunciation:

‫( وفوريس‬BL Or 2555 fol. 111v, 3 | L [BHS]: ‫ ּופ ִ֥רץ‬Ecc. 10.8

‘and he who breaks’)

I.1.19. QOF ‫)ק( קֹוף‬

Unvoiced advanced uvular unaspirated plosive [q]̟

According to Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, qof was articulated with the

‘middle of the tongue’, and so further forward than fricative gimel
and kaf, which were pronounced with the ‘back third of the
tongue’.118 This suggests an advanced uvular point of articulation.
In the Karaite transcriptions, this letter is represented by Arabic
qāf, e.g.

118
Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.6.; ed. Eldar
(1980, fols. 10a–10b, lines 61–72).
222 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

ۜ
‫( ۠حالُۣ۠اق‬BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 85v, 4 | L [BHS]: ‫ ָח ָ֜לק‬Deut.
4.19 ‘he divided’)

ُۣ‫( و ٘ب۠اقا ۜ۠ر‬BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 74r, 5 | L [BHS]: ‫ ָּוב ָק ִָ֖֙ר‬Gen.

24.35 ‘and cattle’)

‫( لۚزقو ۠ن ࣵاُۣو‬BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 63r, 2 | L [BHS]: ‫ לזְ ֻק ָנּֽיו׃‬Gen.

21.7 ‘in his old age’)

According to the medieval Arabic grammarians, qāf was

unaspirated and articulated between the velar stop kāf and the
uvular fricatives khāʾ and ghayn (Roman 1983, 110), i.e. in ad-
vanced uvular position. It is the emphatic counterpart of the dor-
sal velar stop kāf (Jakobson 1978; Watson 2007, 43–44).
The lack of aspiration of qof is reflected by Greek and Latin
transcriptions from the first half of the first millennium C.E. In
these the letter is transcribed by Greek κ and Latin c or g, which
represented unaspirated stops, e.g.119

Septuagint (third century B.C.E.)

Κεδαμὼθ (Göttingen Septuagint | L [BHS]: ‫ ְקד ַ֔מֹות‬Deut. 2.26

‘Kedemoth’)

Ἐνάκ (Göttingen Septuagint | L [BHS]: ‫ ֲע ָנּֽק‬Deut. 9.2 ‘Anak’)

Hexapla of Origen (c. 185–254 C.E.)

ִָ֖֑ Psa. 18.39 ‘to

κουμ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫קּום‬
rise’)

119
Data suppied by Ben Kantor.
 Consonants 223

ουακισα (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫יצה‬

ָ ‫ ְו ְָּ֭הק‬Psa.
35.23 ‘awake! (ms)’)

Jerome (346-420 C.E.)

cira (Jerome, Commentary on the Minor Prophets, Amos,

ed. Adriaen, I.1, 217 | L [BHS]: ‫ ק ָירה‬Amos 1.5 ‘Kir’)

boger (Jerome, Commentary on the Minor Prophets, Amos,

ed. Adriaen, III.7, 324 | L [BHS]: ‫ בֹו ֲִ֥קר‬Amos 7.14
‘herdsman’)

I.1.20. RESH ‫)ר( ריׁש‬

(i) Voiced advanced uvular trill [ʀ̟] or advanced uvular
frictionless continuant [ʁ]̟ and (ii) pharyngealized apico-alveolar
trill [rˁ]

According to Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, the Tiberians pronounced resh in

two different ways, as was the case with the letters ‫בגדכפת‬.
Its basic articulation was with ‘the middle third of the
tongue’, as was the case with qof and plosive kaf, suggesting an
advanced uvular position. It is not made clear whether it was a
trill [ʀ̟] or frictionless continuant [ʁ].
̟ In what follows, it will be
transcribed as an advanced uvular trill [ʀ̟].120
The secondary pronunciation of resh is said in the medieval
sources to occur in the environment of the alveolar consonants
‫ דזצתטסלן‬and can be inferred to be an apical alveolar trill. It is
described by Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ as being intermediate in status

120
Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book,
§II.L.1.3.6.; Eldar (1984a).
224 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

(manzila bayna manzilatayn ‘grade between two grades’), i.e.

intermediate between the simple primary resh, which is described
as ‘light’ (khafīf), and geminated resh marked with the dagesh sign
in the Tiberian vocalization, which is termed ‘major resh’ (al-resh
al-kabīr).121 When contrasting it with the primary resh, Hidāyat al-
Qāriʾ describes the secondary resh as having the feature of
‘heaviness’ (thiqal) whereas the simple resh has the feature of
‘lightness’ (khiffa).122 The intermediate status of the secondary
resh, therefore, can be identified as being an intermediate degree
of muscular tension, between the light advanced uvular resh and
the maximal degree of muscular tension brought about by the
gemination of the resh. The instances of geminated resh marked
with dagesh in the Standard Tiberian reading tradition appear to
have lengthened forms of the primary resh, i.e. advanced uvular
trills. They do not occur in the contexts that are said to condition
the secondary alveolar resh. So geminated resh ‫ ר‬may be
transcribed [ʀ̟ʀ]̟ , e.g. ‫[ ה ְרע ָ ִ֑מּה‬hɑʀ̟ʀi̟ ʕiːˈmɔːɔh] ‘to irritate her’ (1
Sam. 1.6).

121
Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book,
§II.L.1.9.6.; Eldar (1984a).
122
Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book,
§II.L.1.9.5., §II.L.1.9.7. The Hebrew Maḥberet ha-Tījān (ed. J.
Derenbourg 1871, 81) states that the Tiberians pronounced this resh
strongly (‫)מחזקים‬. An anonymous Masoretic treatise preserved in the
Genizah fragment CUL T-S NS 311.113 states that the Tiberians
pronounced the resh with dagesh (‫)ידגשוהא‬, but ‘in our country we do
not know (this pronunciation)’. This is presumably referring to the
Tiberain secondary resh.
 Consonants 225

We know from various sources that the Hebrew letter resh

had two different types of pronunciation in the Middle Ages. The
earliest text referring to this is Sefer Yeṣira:

There are seven double letters, ‫בג׳׳ד ָ֖כפר׳׳ת‬. These are

pronounced in two ways, which are two opposites—soft
and hard, a strong structure as opposed to a weak one.123

In his commentary on Sefer Yeṣira, Saadya discusses the

double pronunciation of the Hebrew resh. He states that the
letters ‫ בגדכפרת‬are called double (muḍāʿafa) ‘because each of the
letters is pronounced with two pronunciations, a hard pronunci-
ation and a soft pronunciation’.124 He refers to a difference
between the Tiberian and Babylonian pronunciations of resh:
As for the double nature of the resh, the Tiberians have it
in their reading of the Bible, whereas the Iraqis have it in
their speech but not in their reading of the Bible. They call
one type resh makrūkh and the other ghayr makrūkh (‘not
makrūkh’). As for the customs of the Iraqis in this matter,
we have examined them but have found no principle
uniting them. As for the customs of the Tiberians, we shall
mention them in the commentary on the fourth part of this
book.125

123
ָ֖‫ָ֖גימל‬,‫ָ֖ביתָ֖בית‬:‫ָ֖ומתנהגותָ֖לשונותָ֖כפולותָ֖שלתמורות‬...ָ֖‫שבעָ֖כפולותָ֖בג׳׳דָ֖כפר׳׳ת‬
‫ָ֖תיוָ֖תויָ֖כנגדָ֖רךָ֖וקשהָ֖תבניתָ֖גיבורָ֖כנגדָ֖חלש‬,‫ָ֖רישָ֖ריש‬,‫ָ֖פהָ֖פה‬,‫ָ֖כףָ֖כף‬,‫ָ֖דלָ֖דל‬,‫גימל‬
(ed. Gruenwald 1971, 156; ed. Hayman 2004, 54). For variant versions
see Hayman (2004, 51, 127).
124
‫רגָ֖בצותיןָ֖צותָ֖כשןָ֖וצותָ֖ליין‬
̇ ‫לאןָ֖כלָ֖חרףָ֖מנהאָ֖יכ‬
̇ (ed. Lambert 1891, 29).
125
ָ֖‫ָ֖וללעראקייןָ֖פיָ֖כלאמהםָ֖לאָ֖פי‬,‫ואמרָ֖תצָ֖̇אעףָ֖אלרישָ֖פאנהָ֖ללטבראנייןָ֖פיָ֖אלמקרא‬
‫ ָ֖ויקולון ָ֖הדָ֖̇א ָ֖ריש ָ֖מכרוך ָ֖וריש ָ֖גיר ָ֖מכרוך‬,‫אלמקרא‬. ָ֖‫ָ֖דלך‬
ָ֖̇ ‫פאמא ָ֖רסום ָ֖אלעראקיין ָ֖פי‬
226 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Elsewhere in his commentary on Sefer Yeṣira Saadya refers

to the ‘hard’ resh as resh dagesh and the ‘soft’ resh as resh rafe.126
The word makrūkh, which is used by Saadya in the passage
cited above, has been interpreted by scholars in various ways. 127
The most satisfactory interpretation is that it is an Arabicized
form of the Hebrew word ‫‘ ָכרּוְך‬wrapped up, closed up’, analogous
to the forms madgūsh ‘with dagesh’ and marfī ‘with rafe’, which
are widely attested Arabicizations of the Hebrew terms ‫ ָדגּוׁש‬and
‫רפּוי‬.ָ The term ‫ ָכרּוְך‬is found in Masoretic sources in reference to
closed syllables, as in the following passage from Diqduqe ha-
Ṭeʿamim:
ָ֖‫אםָ֖לשוןָ֖ברכהָ֖עםָ֖בי׳׳תָ֖משוכהָ֖ובוָ֖הטעםָ֖תמוכהָ֖לעולםָ֖היאָ֖כרוכהָ֖כמו‬
ָ֖‫ָ֖ואםָ֖עלָ֖כ׳׳ףָ֖טעמוָ֖יפתחָ֖נאמוָ֖ובלשוןָ֖ינעימוָ֖כמוָ֖ואב ֲר ָכה‬...ָ֖‫כוָ֖בו‬
ָ ‫והתב ְר‬
ָ

ָ֖‫ָ֖ואמאָ֖רסוםָ֖אלטבראנייןָ֖פאנאָ֖נדָ֖̇כרהאָ֖פי‬.‫פאלתמסנאהאָ֖פלםָ֖נגדָ֖להאָ֖אצלאָ֖ ̇יגָ֖מעהא‬
ָ֖̇
‫( תפסירָ֖אלפרקָ֖אלראבעָ֖מןָ֖הדָ֖̇אָ֖אלכתאב‬ed. Lambert 1891, 46). In part four
Saadya describes how the hard resh occurs in certain phonetic environ-
ments (see below).
126
Ed. Lambert (1891, 79). In some medieval sources describing the two
different types of Tiberian resh the terms dagesh and rafe are confused.
This is the case, for example, in Diqduqe ha-Ṭeʿamim (ed. Baer and Strack
1879, §7) and the Hebrew Maḥberet al-Tījān (ed. J. Derenbourg 1871,
138). According to Revell (1981, 133) this confusion arose from the fact
that in the few cases where the dagesh sign is marked in the resh in the
Tiberian text, the resh is not preceded by the letters ‫ דזצתטסלן‬nor is it
followed by ‫לן‬. A resh that did occur in the environment of these letters
was, therefore, considered to be rafe. Such sources, or the versions that
have come down to us, must have been written by scribes who had no
direct knowledge of the Tiberian pronunciation tradition.
127
Morag (1960, 217–19).
 Consonants 227

ָ֖‫ָ֖חוץָ֖מאחדָ֖במקראָ֖מיוחדָ֖כיָ֖עלָ֖כ׳׳ףָ֖טעמוָ֖ולאָ֖יפתחָ֖בנאמו‬...ָ֖‫ְמ ָב ֲר ֶכיך‬
ָ֖ ‫ולעלאהָ֖ב ְרכת‬
ָ ָ֖‫מנדעיָ֖עליָ֖יתוב‬

If a form of the root ‫ בר׳׳ך‬has a bet with a vowel and the

accent falls on it (i.e. the bet), it is always pronounced
‘closed up’ as in ‫‘ וְ י ְת ָ ִ֥ב ְרכּו ָ֖ ִ֑בֹו‬and may they bless themselves
by him’ (Psa. 72.17) … But if the accent falls on the resh,
it is opened up in speech and pronounced with a vowel as
ִָ֖֙ ‫‘ ו ֲא ָ ּֽב ֲר ָכ‬and I will bless those who bless you’ (Gen.
in ‫הָ֖ ְמ ָ ַ֣ב ְר ֶַ֔כיך‬
12.3) … Except for one word, which is unique in the Bible,
for its accent falls on the kaf but it is not opened up in
speech: ‫הָ֖ ָב ְר ַ֔כת‬ ְ ָ֖‫‘ ָּ֖ומנְ ְדעִָ֖֙יָ֖ ֲעלַ֣יָ֖יְ ַ֔תּוב‬and my reason returned
ִָ֖֙ ‫ּולע ָּל ָא‬
to me and I blessed the Most High’ (Dan. 4.31).128

In this passage, the term ‫ כרוך‬is used to describe forms in

which a shewa is silent, i.e. the shewa coincides with the closure
of the syllable. The opposite of ‫ כרוך‬is when ‫יפתח ָ֖בנאם‬, which
literally means ‘it is opened up in speech’. This refers to the fact
that the shewa is vocalic.
In the phrase resh makrūkh, the term is a calque of the
Arabic phonetic term muṭbaq (literally ‘closed, covered’), which
was used in the medieval Arabic grammatical tradition to refer
to emphatic consonants, i.e. pharyngealized consonants.129 A
non-emphatic letter was referred to in the Arabic grammatical
tradition by the term munfatiḥ ‘open’. The description of the
Arabic emphatic letters by the grammarian Sībawayhi (eighth
century C.E.) is as follows:

128
Ed. Baer and Strack (1879, §53). For variant texts of this passage see
ed. Dotan (1967, 140, 263).
129
For details see Khan (1995).
 228 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

When you position your tongue in the places of articulation

of these four (emphatic) letters, your tongue forms a
cover/closure extending from their place of articulation
until the palate. You raise the back of the tongue towards
the palate and when you have positioned your tongue thus,
the sound is compressed between the tongue and the palate
up to the place of articulation of the letters.130

The terminological opposition between ‫ כרוכה‬and ‫יפתחָ֖בנאם‬

in the passage from Diqduqe ha-Ṭeʿamim above would, therefore,
be directly parallel to the contrasting pair of terms muṭbaq vs.
munfatiḥ, which designated emphatic vs. non-emphatic con-
sonants.
This variant of resh, therefore, was pronounced
pharyngealized. Evidence for such an interpretation is found in
the report by Dunash ibn Tamim that his teacher Isaac Israeli
(tenth century), ‘an expert in the Tiberian reading tradition’,
pronounced the dalet in the word ‫‘ וַּֽֽי ְד ְר ֹ֤כּו‬and they bent’ (Jer. 9.2)
like the pharyngealized Arabic letter ḍād (‫)ויצרכו ָ֖את ָ֖לשונם‬,
̇ by
which he meant a pharyngealized voiced interdental [ðˁ]. This
must have arisen by the spreading the pharyngealization of the
contiguous resh.131
In a fragment of a Masoretic treatise datable to the tenth
century, it is stated that this variant of resh ‘is pronounced with
a turning of the tongue’ (yuqāl bi-taqallub al-lisān).132 This seems

130
ָ֖‫وهذهָ֖الحروفָ֖االربعةָ֖اذاָ֖وضعتָ֖لسانكָ֖فىָ֖مواضعهنָ֖انطبقָ֖لسانكָ֖منָ֖مواضعهنָ֖الىָ֖ماָ֖حاذى‬
ָ֖‫الحنك ָ֖االعلى ָ֖من ָ֖اللسان ָ֖ترفعه ָ֖الى ָ֖الحنك ָ֖فاذا ָ֖وضعت ָ֖لسانك ָ֖فالصوت ָ֖محصور ָ֖فى ָ֖ما ָ֖بين ָ֖اللسان‬
‫والحنكָ֖الىָ֖موضعָ֖الحروف‬, al-Kitāb, ed. Derenbourg (1889, 455).
131
For this passage see §I.1.4.
132
Allony (1973, 102, text line 28).
 Consonants 229

to be referring to the retroflection of the tongue tip (Khan 1995,

79). Retroflection of the tongue tip is a feature often associated
with pharyngealized alveolar r in modern spoken Semitic
languages.133
The references to the ‘heavy’ or ‘hard’ pronunciation of the
secondary resh and its association with the term dagesh (e.g.
Saadya resh dagesh), can be correlated with the fact that
pharyngealized r was pronounced with greater muscular tension.
According to Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ and other medieval sources,
this apico-alveolar pharyngealized resh occurred when it is
preceded by the consonants ‫ דזצתטסלן‬or followed by ‫ לן‬and when
either resh or one of these consonants has shewa.134 This can be
reformulated as the rule that alveolar resh occurs when one of the
following conditions holds:

(i) Resh is in immediate contact with a preceding alveolar, e.g.

‫[ ְבמזְ ֶרה‬bamizˈrˁɛː] ‘with a pitchfork’ (Jer. 15.7), ‫מ ְצ ַ֣רף‬
[mɑsˁˈrˁeːef] ‘crucible’ (Prov. 17.3).

(ii) Resh is in the same syllable, or at least the same foot, as a

preceding alveolar, e.g. ‫[ ד ְרכֹו‬dɑrˁˈkʰoː] ‘his way’ (Gen.
24.21), ‫[ ט ְרפֹ֤י‬tˁɑrˁˈpʰeː] ‘the leaves’ (Ezek. 17.9). The con-
dition applies also to a resh in word-final position that is in
the same syllable or at least the same foot as an alveolar,

133
E.g. in Neo-Aramaic dialects (Khan 2008, 32).
134
Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book,
§II.L.1.9.4., §II.L.1.9.7.; Saadya, Commentary on Sefer Yeṣira (ed.
Lambert 1891, 79); Masoretic treatise attributed to Yehudah ha-Nazir
(ed. Allony, 104, text lines 51-56).
230 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

although the resh is not marked with a shewa in such cases,

e.g. ‫[ שר‬sɑrˁ] ‘commander of’ (1 Sam. 18.13), ‫ל ְמ ִ֥טר‬
[limˈtˁɑːɑrˁ] ‘by the rain’ (Deut. 11.11).135 A consonant with
vocalic shewa is treated as belonging to the same foot as the
following resh in the metrical structure of the phonetic re-
alization of the word (§I.2.5.2.), e.g. ‫רּופה‬
ָ ַ֔ ‫([ ְצ‬sˁɑ.rˁuː.)(ˈfɔː)]
‘refined’ (2 Sam. 22.31), where feet are enclosed in round
brackets and syllable boundaries are marked by dots. Like-
wise, as can be seen from the transcription ‫ל ְמ ִ֥טר‬
[limˈtˁɑːɑrˁ], a closed syllable containing a long vowel has
an epenthetic vowel of the same quality following the long
vowel. It will be argued, however, that it is nevertheless in
the same prosodic foot, viz. [(lim.)(ˈtˁɑː.ɑrˁ)] (§I.2.4.). On
the phonetic level, therefore, the resh is strictly not in the
same syllable as the alveolar in forms such as ‫רּופה‬
ָ ַ֔ ‫ְצ‬
[sˁɑ.rˁuː.ˈfɔː] and ‫[ ל ְמ ִ֥טר‬lim.ˈtˁɑː.ɑrˁ]. The conditioning fac-
tor for the emphatic allophone of the resh is that it occurs
in the same foot as a preceding alveolar.

(iii) Resh is in immediate contact with or in the same syllable,

or at least in the same foot, as a following ‫ ל‬or ‫ן‬, e.g. ‫ע ְרלי־‬
‫[ ּֽלב‬ʕɑrˁleː-leːev] ‘uncircumcised in heart’ (Jer. 9.25), ‫גָ ְרנִ֑י‬
[gɔrˁniː] ‘my threshing-floor’ (Isa. 21.10), ‫[ רנְ נַ֣ ּו‬rˁɑnnaˈnuː]
‘rejoice!’ (Psa. 33.1), ‫[ ְרנָ ָנַ֣ה‬rˁɑnɔːˈnɔː] ‘joyful cry’ (Job 3.7).

Elsewhere resh had an advanced uvular realization, e.g. ‫ֶ ַ֣ר ֶכב‬

[ˈʀ̟ɛːxɛv] ‘chariotry’ (Exod. 14.9), ‫[ מ ְר ֶאה‬maʀ̟ˈʔɛː] ‘appearance’

135
These last two examples are cited by Saadya, Commentary on Sefer
Yeṣira (ed. Lambert 1891, 79).
 Consonants 231

(Gen. 12.11), ‫[ ָׁש ִ֥מר‬ʃɔːˈmaːaʀ̟] ‘he kept’ (Gen. 37.11), ‫ֶא ְר ַ֣דֹוף‬
[ʔɛʀ̟ˈdoːof] (Psa. 18.38).
As can be seen in (ii) above, Saadya cites the example ‫שר‬
[sɑrˁ] with sin. The letter sin (‫)ש‬, therefore, also conditioned the
occurrence of the pharyngealized resh in the appropriate con-
texts, although it is not explicitly mentioned in the list of condi-
tioning consonants in the medieval sources, which includes only
‫דזצתטסלן‬. The letters sin and samekh had the same realization [s].
The written letter sin was considered to have samekh as its qere
(§I.0.8.).
Pharyngealized resh is not unknown in modern reading tra-
ditions, e.g. in the tradition of Morocco (with the exception of
Tetouan) resh may be realized as an emphatic alveolar trill [rˁ],
generally in the environment of a or u or an emphatic consonant

ʔúrˁ (Akun 2010, 49 | L [BHS]: ‫ָ֖ ּֽאֹור‬/‫ ִ֑אֹור‬Gen. 1.3 ‘light’)

This pharyngealization, moreover, may spread to adjacent

consonants, e.g.

isˁrˁɑˈil (Akun 2010, 72 | L [BHS]: ‫ י ְש ָר ָ֜אל‬Exod. 15.1 ‘Israel’)

jɑrˁˈdˁu (Akun 2010, 72 | L [BHS]: ‫ יָ ְר ִ֥דּו‬Exod. 15.5 ‘they

went down’)

In Jewish Palestinian Aramaic sources from the pre-Maso-

retic period, an a or i vowel sometimes shifts to a rounded vowel
represented by vav in the orthography. This occurs in particular
in a syllable closed by a labial consonant or resh, e.g. ‫<( גוברא‬
*gavrā), ‘man’, ‫* <( רומשא‬ramšā) ‘evening’, ‫* <( תורעא‬tarʿā)
‘door’, ‫* <( יורדנא‬yardenā) ‘Jordan’ (Dalman 1894, 65). A similar
232 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

vowel shift is attested in Christian Palestinian Aramaic, Samari-

tan Aramaic and also Palestinian Rabbinic Hebrew (Ben-Ḥayyim
1946, 194–96; Kutscher 1979, 496–97; Mishor 1998). Rounding
of a vowel in the environment of labials is a natural development.
The motivation for the rounding and backing in the environment
of resh is not so clear, but could reflect a pharyngealized pronun-
ciation of resh. Pharyngealized consonants involve the retraction
of the tongue and consequent lip-rounding.136 In Palestinian Ara-
maic and Rabbinic Hebrew, the vav before resh is not restricted
to the environments that induced the pharyngealized resh in Ti-
berian Hebrew, but it may be interpreted as evidence that a phar-
yngealized resh existed in the spoken language of the Jews of Pal-
estine in the pre-Islamic period.
In the passage from his commentary on the Sefer Yeṣira that
is cited above, Saadya states that the Tiberians have a double resh
in their reading of the Bible, whereas the Iraqis (i.e. Babylonians)
have it in their speech but not in their reading of the Bible.
Saadya does not specify which type of Tiberian resh
resembles the resh in the Babylonian biblical reading tradition.
Sefer Yeṣira classifies resh among the consonants pronounced at
the front of the mouth ‘between the teeth and with a resting
tongue’137 According to Morag (1960, 233), this reflects the

136
For labialization associated with pharyngealized consonants in
modern spoken Arabic dialects see Bellem (2007) and for this feature
in Neo-Aramaic see Khan (2016, vol. 1, 50).
137
‫‘ ביןָ֖שיניםָ֖ובלשוןָ֖ישן‬between the teeth and with a resting tongue’, ָ֖‫בלשון‬
‫‘ שכובהָ֖ושטוחה‬with a resting and flat tongue’ (ed. Gruenwald 1971, 147;
ed. Hayman 2004, 92–98).
 Consonants 233

pronunciation of the Babylonian Jews. This was no doubt similar

to the pronunciation of resh in the modern reading tradition of
the Jews of Baghdad, in which it is realized as an alveolar trill
(Morag 1977, 6). It is significant to note that in the modern
Arabic dialect of the Jews of Baghdad there are two reflexes of
Classical Arabic rāʾ, viz. (i) a back velar or uvular fricative ([ɣ],
[ʁ]) or (ii) an alveolar trill [r] (Blanc 1964, 20–25; Mansour
1974, vol. 1, 25-31, 34-35). This two-fold pronunciation in the
Arabic vernacular may be the double resh of the speech of the
Iraqis described by Saadya. So, the comparison by Saadya of the
Tiberian resh with the Iraqi vernacular resh can be taken as
evidence supporting the proposal to identify the two types of
Tiberian resh as apical and advanced uvular.
Saadya does not refer to the speech of the Tiberians, but
other sources indicate that the distinction between different types
of resh in the Tiberian reading is also found in the local vernacu-
lar speech. The author of one extant Masoretic Treatise datable
to the tenth century states that he undertook fieldwork in the
streets of Tiberias to verify his analysis of the resh of the Tiberian
reading, on the grounds that resh had the same pronunciation in
the local speech of the (Jewish) inhabitants of Tiberias:
‘I spent a long time sitting in the squares of Tiberias and
its streets listening to the speech of the common people,
investigating the language and its principles, seeing
whether anything that I had established was overturned or
any of my opinions proved to be false, in what was uttered
with regard to Hebrew and Aramaic, etc., that is the
234 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

language of the Targum, for it resembles Hebrew ... and it

turned out to be correct and accurate.’138

The interpretation of this is not completely clear. The

Aramaic mentioned by the author could have been vernacular
Aramaic that was still spoken in Tiberias at the period. The
Hebrew must have been the recitation of Hebrew liturgy or the
occurrence of a ‘Hebrew component’ (Hebrew words and
phrases) within vernacular speech. The reference to the two types
of resh is found also in a Hebrew treatise in the corpus published
by Baer and Strack,139 in which, likewise, it is stated that this
pronunciation existed in the conversational speech of the
common people.

I.1.21. SIN ‫שין‬

ָ֖ (‫)ש‬
Unvoiced alveolar sibilant [s]

This had the same pronunciation as samekh in the Tiberian

tradition. It is not distinguished from samekh in Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ.
When it is stated in this work that ‘The fourth place of
articulation is the teeth, from which are heard four letters,
namely ‫( זסצש‬zayin, samekh, ṣade and shin),’140 the letter ‫ ס‬is
intended to refer to both samekh and sin. As discussed in the

138
ָ֖‫ָ֖עלגלוסָ֖פיָ֖סוחאתָ֖טבריהָ֖ושוארעהאָ֖א[סת]מעָ֖כלאםָ֖אלסוקהָ֖ואלעאמה‬
̇ ‫וכנתָ֖אטיל‬
ָ֖‫רָ֖הלָ֖ינכסרָ֖שיָ֖ממאָ֖אצלתָ֖אוָ֖ינפסדָ֖שיָ֖ממאָ֖טהרָ֖לי‬
̇ ‫ָ֖עןָ֖עללגהָ֖ואצול[הא]ָ֖אנט‬
̇ ‫ואבחת‬
̇
ָ֖‫ָ֖אע ָ֖לגה ָ֖אלתרגום ָ֖וגירה ָ֖פאנה‬
̇ ‫ופי ָ֖מא ָ֖נֻ קט ָ֖ב[ה ָ֖מן] ָ֖אל עבראני ָ֖ואלסריאני ָ֖ואנואעה‬
‫רגָ֖צחיחָ֖מחרר‬ ̇ ...ָ֖‫מגאלנסָ֖ללעבראני‬
̇ ‫פכ‬ ̇ (Allony 1973, 98–100).
139
Baer and Strack (1879, §7).
140
Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.8.
 Consonants 235

Introduction (§I.0.8.), the written letter sin was considered to

have samekh as its qere.
In the Karaite transcriptions, the diacritical dot of Hebrew
sin is sometimes written over the left side of Arabic sīn when it
transcribes samekh, e.g.

‫( ُۣ۟حسُۣۚيدۜ ۠اخا‬BL Or 2551 fol. 10r, 8 | L [BHS]: ‫ ֲחס ֶ ּֽידיך‬Psa.

52.11 ‘your saints’)

‫( مۚ ُۣس ۟تتۛير‬BL Or 2551 fol. 13v, 7 | L [BHS]: ‫ מ ְסת ִ֥תר‬Psa. 54.2

‘he who hides’)
٘ ۜ
ُۣ‫۟اح ۜاسذ‬
ُۣۜ ‫( ك‬BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 65r, 3 | L [BHS]: ‫ כ ֶָ֜ח ֶסד‬Gen.
21.23 ‘like the kindness’)

As remarked in the Introduction (§I.0.8.), samekh and sin

sometimes interchange in the same word or root in the fixed or-
thography of the Masoretic Text, e.g.

Ezra 4.5: ‫‘ וְ ס ְכ ָּ֧רים‬and they hire’ vs. 2 Chron. 24.12 ‫ים‬

ִָ֖֙ ‫ש ְכר‬

In the biblical manuscripts from Qumran, there are many

cases of sin occurring in place of Masoretic samekh and vice versa,
which is additional evidence that the equivalence in
pronunciation existed already in the Second Temple Period,
e.g.141

‫( פשח‬4Q136 f1.8 | L [BHS]: ‫ ֶפסח‬Exod. 12.48 ‘Passover’)

141
Data supplied by Aaron Hornkohl.
236 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

‫( ושרתם‬XHev/Se5 f1.14 | L [BHS]: ‫ וְ ס ְר ֶַ֗תם‬Deut. 11.16 ‘and

you [mpl] will turn away’)

‫( שעפיָ֖הסלעים‬1QIsaa 47.4 | L [BHS]: ‫ ְסע ִ֥פיָ֖ה ְס ָל ּֽעים‬Isa. 57.5

‘the clefts of the rocks’)

ְֶּ֭ ‫ ָיּֽס‬Psa. 104.5 ‘he

‫( ישד ָ֖ארץ‬4Q93 1.11 | L [BHS]: ‫ד־א ֶרץ‬
established the earth’)

‫( סדהו‬4Q134 f1.26 | L [BHS]: ‫ ָש ָ֜דהּו‬Deut. 5.21 ‘his field’)

‫( ולחסוף‬1QIsaa 24.23 | L [BHS]: ‫ וְ ל ְח ִ֥שף‬Isa. 30.14 ‘and to

scoop’)

‫( סאי‬1QIsaa 41.16 | L [BHS]: ‫ ְש ּֽאי‬Isa. 49.18 ‘lift up [fs]!’)

Ibn Janāḥ (Spain, eleventh century) states that the dagesh

in the sin of ‫‘ ע ְש ִ֥בֹות‬herbage’ (Prov. 27.25) has the purpose of
ensuring that it is not interchanged with zayin.142 This suggests
that sin in contact with voiced consonants was susceptible of
being read as voiced.
In some medieval Muslim sources, sin is represented by ṣād
[sˁ] in the name ‫ע ָשו‬: ‫( عيصو‬Schreiner 1886, 254). This apparently
reflects its pharyngealization after the pharyngeal ʿayin.
The pharyngealization of sin in the environment of em-
phatic consonants is attested in some modern reading traditions,
e.g.

Yemen

[wajjɪsˁtˁɞːm]) (Morag 1963, 37-38 | L [BHS]: ‫ וי ְש ֹ֤טם‬Gen.

27.41 ‘and [Esau] hated’)

142
Kitāb al-Lumaʿ (ed. Derenbourg 1886, 240), Schreiner (1886, 241).
 Consonants 237

I.1.22. SHIN ‫)ׁש( ׁשין‬

Unvoiced palato-alveolar fricative [ʃ]

According to the medieval sources, its place of articulation was

the same as that of the sibilants zayin and samekh, namely the
teeth.143 As was pointed out above in the section on zayin
(§I.1.7.), this did not necessarily imply that the teeth were one of
the primary articulators. It is described by Ibn Janāḥ as a ‘spread-
ing letter’,144 which no doubt referred to its palatalized
articulation. In the Karaite transcriptions, it is represented by
Arabic shīn, which, according to the Arabic grammarians, was a
palatal fricative [ç], a pre-palatal fricative [ç+] or an alveolo-
palatal [ɕ].145 Tiberian shin was not primarily palatal, since it was
not included by Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ among the letters that are
pronounced with the middle of the tongue.

I.1.23. TAV ‫)ת( ָתו‬

Tav with dagesh (‫)ת‬: unvoiced aspirated alveolar stop [th]

Tav without dagesh (‫)ת‬: unvoiced alveolar fricative [θ]

A tav without dagesh is frequently, but not regularly, marked by

the rafe sign in the model Standard Tiberian codices.

143
Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book,
§II.L.1.3.8.; ed. Eldar (1980, fol. 10b, line 77). Sefer Yeṣira (ed.
Gruenwald 1971, 147; ed. Hayman 2004, 92–98).
144
‫( חרףָ֖אלתפשי‬Kitāb al-Lumaʿ, ed. Derenbourg, 27).
145
Roman (1983, 202, 218, 248).
238 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

In some manuscripts of Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, the name of this

letter is spelt ‫ תיו‬or ‫תאו‬.146
According to Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, tav was articulated with ‘the
end of the tongue and the flesh of the teeth’, i.e. the gums or
alveolar ridge.147 Likewise, Saadya describes the place of
articulation of tav as being adjacent to the inside of the upper
teeth.148 When the letter had dagesh, the tongue was pressed
firmly against the gums. When it was without dagesh, the tongue
was pressed lightly against the gums. Both forms of the letter
were articulated in the same place according to the medieval
sources. It appears to have been pronounced with the tip of the
tongue rather than the blade (see the description of dalet §I.1.4.).
Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ describes the stop [tʰ] as primary (ʾaṣl) and
the fricative [θ] as secondary (farʿ).149
We know from Greek transcriptions that in the first half of
the first millennium C.E. plosive tav was pronounced with
aspiration.150 In Greek transcriptions from the pre-Masoretic pe-
riod, plosive tav is represented by Greek theta, which was an as-
pirated stop [tʰ]. In Latin transcriptions from the pre-Masoretic

146
E.g. short version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.S.3.0., §5.1.
147
Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.3.7.; ed. Eldar
(1980, fol. 10b, lines 67–69).
148
Commentary on Sefer Yeṣira (ed. Lambert 1891, 75).
149
Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.2.
150
Kutscher (1965, 24–35).
 Consonants 239

period, it is represented by the Latin digraph th, which likewise

represented an aspirated stop [tʰ]. Examples:151

Septuagint (third century B.C.E.)

Θάρα (Göttingen Septuagint | L [BHS]: ‫ ָ ּֽתרח‬Gen. 11.24

‘Terah’)

Νεφθαλί (Göttingen Septuagint | L [BHS]: ‫ נ ְפ ָת ּֽלי‬Gen. 30.8

‘Naphtali’)

Hexapla of Origen (c. 185–254 C.E.)

θαμιμ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ ַָ֝ת ַ֗מים‬Psa. 18.26

‘blameless’)

αμαρθι (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫אָמ ְרתי‬

ַ֣ Psa. 30.7
‘I said’)

Jerome (346-420 C.E.)

tharsis (Jerome, Commentary on Ezekiel, ed. Gorie,

III.10.763 | L [BHS]: ‫ ת ְר ּֽׁשיׁש‬Ezek. 10.9 ‘Tarshish’)

machthab (Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah, ed. Gryson,

XI.14.6 | L [BHS]: ‫ מ ְכ ָתב‬Isa. 38.9 ‘writing’)

This aspirated realization of plosive tav continued in the

Tiberian reading tradition. In the Karaite transcriptions, plosive
tav with dagesh is represented by Arabic tāʾ, which was aspirated
according to the medieval Arabic grammarians.152

151
Data supplied by Ben Kantor.
152
Roman (1983, 55).
240 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

I.1.24. CONSONANT PHONEMES

The inventory of consonant phonemes in the Tiberian reading
tradition can be reconstructed as follows:153
Phoneme Allophones Orthography Comments
/ʔ/ [ʔ] ‫א‬
/b/ [b] ‫ב‬
/v/ [v] ‫ב‬ See §I.1.25. below
/g/ [g] ‫ג‬
/ʁ/ [ʁ] ‫ג‬ See §I.1.25. below
/d/ [d] ‫ד‬
/ð/ [ð] ‫ד‬ See §I.1.25. below
/h/ [h] ‫ה‬
/v/ [v], [w] ‫ו‬ There are variations in
the realization of the al-
lophones across differ-
ent sub-traditions of
reading (§I.1.6.).
/z/ [z] ‫ז‬
/ħ/ [ħ] ‫ח‬
/tˁ/ [tˁ] ‫ט‬
/j/ [j], [ɟ] ‫י‬ The stop allophone [ɟ]
occurs only when the
consonant is gemi-
nated.

153
The inventory of consonant phonemes presented here corresponds to
that proposed by Schramm (1964, 63) on the basis of the graphemes of
Tiberian Hebrew, although he did not have access to the original
phonetic realizations.
 Consonants 241

/kʰ/ [kʰ] ‫כ‬, ‫ּך‬

/χ/ [χ] ‫כ‬, ‫ך‬ See §I.1.25. below

/l/ [l] ‫ל‬

/m/ [m] ‫מ‬, ‫ם‬
/n/ [n] ‫נ‬, ‫ן‬
/s/ [s] ‫ס‬, ‫ש‬ These were equivalent
in the oral reading tra-
dition. The distinction
in orthography is an ar-
chaism (§I.0.8.).
/ʕ/ [ʕ] ‫ע‬
/pʰ/ [pʰ] ‫פ‬
/pˁ/ [pˁ] ‫פ‬ This is attested only in
‫‘ אפ ְדנַ֔ ֹו‬his palace’ (Dan.
11.45), where its occur-
rence is not conditioned
by the phonetic envi-
ronment, so it should be
identified as a phoneme
(§I.1.17.).
/f/ [f] ‫פ‬ See §I.1.25. below
/sˁ/ [sˁ], [zˁ] ‫צ‬ For the voiced variant
see §I.1.7.
/q/̟ [q]̟ ‫ק‬
/r/ [ʀ̟], [rˁ] ‫ר‬ The two variant realiza-
tions are conditioned
by the phonetic envi-
ronment and so should
be identified as allo-
phones (§I.1.20.).
242 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

/ʃ/ [ʃ] ‫ׁש‬

/tʰ/ [tʰ] ‫ת‬
/θ/ [θ] ‫ת‬ See §I.1.25. below

I.1.25. DISTRIBUTION OF THE VARIANTS OF ‫בגדכפת‬

In general, the fricative variants of the ‫ בגדכפת‬letters (i.e. the
forms written without a dagesh sign: [v], [ʁ], [ð], [χ], [f] and [θ],
respectively) occur after a vowel when the letter is not
geminated, e.g. ‫ˈ[ ַ֣רב‬ʀ̟aːav] ‘much’ (Gen. 24.25), ‫בּו‬
ִָ֖֙ ‫[ י ְׁש ְכ‬jiʃkʰaˈvuː]
‘they will lie’ (Isa. 43.17). In principle, therefore, the stop and
fricative variants appear to be allophones conditioned by the
environment. In many cases, however, the preceding vowel had
been elided in some previous stage of the language, but the
consonant nevertheless remained a fricative, e.g.

ָ֖ ‫[ ְב ָכ ְת‬baχɔθˈvoː] ‘when he had written’ (Jer. 45.1) <

‫בֹו‬
*bakutubō

‫[ מ ְל ִ֥כי‬malˈχeː] ‘kings of’ (Gen. 17.16) < *malakē

In a few such cases, a plosive and a fricative are in free

variation, e.g.

‫[ ר ְׁשפי‬ʀ̟iʃˈfeː] (Psa. 76.4), ‫[ ר ְׁש ֵ֕פי‬ʀ̟iʃˈpʰeː] (Cant. 8.6) ‘flames’

The distribution of the plosive and fricative allophones,

therefore, is not completely predictable from the phonetic
context in Tiberian Hebrew. Consequently, the plosive and
fricative variants of the letters should be distinguished in a
synchronic phonological representation, e.g.
 Consonants 243

‫ מ ְל ִ֥כי‬/malχē/ [malˈχeː] ‘kings of’ (Gen. 17.16)

‫ בנְ פל‬/binfol/ [binˈfoːol] ‘at the falling of’ (Isa. 30.25)

In the corpus of the Hebrew Bible, however, there is no

certain minimal pair arising from the phonemicization of the
variants of the ‫ בגדכפת‬consonants, though such oppositions could
hypothetically occur in Tiberian Hebrew. Such minimal pairs are
found in Aramaic, where the ‫ בגדכפת‬consonants were likewise
phonemicized (Khan 2005, 84–87).
I.2. VOWELS AND SYLLABLE STRUCTURE

I.2.1. BASIC VOWEL SIGNS

I.2.1.1. The Qualities of the Vowels

The basic vowel signs in the standard Tiberian vocalization
system indicated distinctions in vowel quality rather than
distinctions in length. The qualities of the various vowels can be
reconstructed as follows from the sources that are discussed
below (the signs are added to the letter ‫)א‬:

Pataḥ ‫)אַַ( ָּפ ַתח‬: Open, unrounded front [a] or back [ɑ]
Qameṣ ‫)אַָּ( ָּק ֵמץ‬: Back, open-mid rounded [ɔ]
Segol ‫)אֶַ( ֶסגֹול‬: Front, open-mid unrounded [ɛ]
Ṣere ‫)אֵַ( ֵצ ֵרי‬: Front, close-mid unrounded [e]
Ḥireq ‫)אִַ( ִח ֶירק‬: Front, close, unrounded [i]
Ḥolem ‫חֹולם‬
ֶ (‫א‬ ַֹ ):
ֹ Back, close-mid rounded [o]
Shureq ‫ׁשּורק‬
ֶ (‫)אּו‬ Back, close, rounded [u]
Qibbuṣ ‫)אַ( ִקּבּוץ‬:

These qualities correspond to the eight primary cardinal

vowels, which are represented diagrammatically according to
their position of articulation below:

© Geoffrey Khan, CC BY 4.0 https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0163.02

 Vowels and Syllable Structure 245

I.2.1.2. The Terms Pataḥ and Qameṣ

The terms pataḥ and qameṣ are found in the early Masoretic and
grammatical sources. They are in origin Aramaic active
participles and are vocalized as such in some manuscripts, viz.
‫ ָּפ ַתח‬and ‫ק ֵמץ‬.ָּ 1 In some Masoretic treatises forms with a final he
are used, viz. ‫ פתחה‬and ‫קמצה‬. The suffix may be the Aramaic
definite article or the feminine ending.2 In Arabic sources such as
Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ equivalent Arabic feminine participles are used,
viz. ‫ פאתחה‬fātiḥa and ‫ קאמצה‬qāmiṣa.3 The terms referred to the
distinct lip positions of the two vowels, pataḥ ‘opening’, qameṣ
‘closing, contracting’,4 indicating that the pataḥ was pronounced

1
For examples in early Karaite grammatical texts (Khan 2000a, 28).
2
For the sources see Steiner (2009).
3
Eldar (1994, 123–24)
4
In Jewish Palestinian Aramaic the verb ‫ קמץ‬is used in the sense of
‘closing (eye, mouth), e.g. ‫‘ דיַקמיץַחדאַופתחַחדא‬because (the sleeping
deer) opens one (eye) and closes the other’ (Palestinian Talmud, Shabbat
14b) (Sokoloff 1992, 496).
246 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

with open, spread lips whereas the qameṣ was pronounced with
a smaller aperture of the mouth on account of some degree of lip-
rounding. The fact that the terms are Aramaic in origin indicates
that they must have been created in the early Masoretic period,
before the tenth century, when Aramaic was in productive use by
the Masoretes. By the tenth century, Masoretic treatises were
written in Hebrew or Arabic (§I.0.13.1.). The names of these
vowels came to receive a variety of different vocalizations in later
sources. The practice developed of vocalizing the first syllable of
the names of vowels symbolically with the vowel it designated,
so pataḥ came to be vocalized as ‫פ ַתח‬.
ַ This type of vocalization,
which according to Dotan was used from the eleventh century
onwards,5 is the vocalization used, for example, by Elias Levita
(1469-1549). Subsequently, the vowel of the second syllable of
the names of vowels was also given a similar symbolic
vocalization. These often reflect pronunciation traditions that did
not distinguish between the pronunciation of the two vowels and
one finds vocalizations such as ‫ק ַמץ‬,
ָּ ‫ ַפ ָּתח‬and ‫פ ָּתח‬.
ַ 6

I.2.1.3. More on the Quality of Pataḥ and Qameṣ

Saadya and Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ give details of the articulatory
distinction between the vowels within the oral cavity. Their
descriptions are based on a theory of the production of vowels,
which can be traced to the Muslim physician Ibn Sīnā (980–1037
C.E.), that involves both the position of buccal organs and the

5
Dotan (2007, 634).
6
For details see Steiner (2009).
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 247

direction of the dynamic flow of air.7 The Hidāya states that the
place of articulation of pataḥ is the ‘surface of the tongue at the
bottom (of the mouth)’.8 Saadya similarly states that ‘its strength
(i.e. dynamic realization by airflow) goes over the surface of the
tongue moving downwards.’9 With regard to qameṣ the Hidāya
indicates that its place of articulation is ‘slightly above the root
of the tongue, that is the (back) third of the tongue, and its
movement is towards the (place) above the palate.’10 Saadya
indicates that the place of articulation of qameṣ is next to that of
ḥolem:
‘If one wants to move the vowel from this place (of ḥolem)
and then articulate it, the strength (i.e. realization) of
qameṣ comes about, and its movement (i.e. direction of
airflow) is towards the place above the palate in
particular.’11

According to the theory of the realization of vowels by

dynamic airflow, the realization of pataḥ took place through the
free flow of air across the surface of the tongue in a low position,

7
For details see Eldar (1983).
8
‫סטח ַאללסאן ַמן ַאספל‬, long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book,
§II.L.2.15.3.; Eldar (1994, 130).
9
‫( קותהאַסאירהַעליַסטחַאללסאןַמנחדרהַאליַאלספל‬Dotan 1997, 445).
10
‫לתַאללסאןַוהרכתהאַאליַפוקַאלחנך‬
̇ ‫פוקַאצלַאללסאןַקלילאַוהוַת‬,
̇ long version,
edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.2.15.2.; Eldar (1994, 130).
11
ַ‫עַתםַיפצלהאַטהרתַקוהַעלקמץַוכאנתַחרכתה‬
̇ ‫ואןַשאַאןַיתגאוזַבהאַהדאַאלמוצ‬
̇
‫( אליַאעליַאלחנךַכאצה‬Dotan 1997, 445).
248 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

whereas in the realization of qameṣ there was some obstruction

that directed the air upwards towards the palate.12
From the vowel names and the aforementioned des-
criptions of articulation, it can be determined that Tiberian pataḥ
was an open, unrounded vowel in the region of [a] or [ɑ]
whereas qameṣ was a back half-open rounded vowel below ḥolem
in the region of [ɔ].
As indicated, it is likely that pataḥ had both an open front
quality [a] and an open back quality [ɑ]. The back quality [ɑ]
would have been induced in particular by the environment of
consonants involving retraction of the tongue root, especially
pharyngeals and pharyngealized consonants. Indirect evidence
for this is found in the modern reading traditions of Middle
Eastern communities, in which the front open vowels have back
open variants in particular when adjacent to pharyngeal or
pharyngealized consonants. This is the case in the Sefardi type
traditions, in which pataḥ and qameṣ have a default quality of [a],
e.g.

Baghdad

[a] quality:

ˈjaːʕaˌbod (Morag 1977, 53 | L [BHS]: ‫ יַ ֲע ֹ֑בֹד‬Exod. 21.2 ‘he

will work’)

šaˈnaː (Morag 1977, 56 | L [BHS]: ‫ׁש ָּנֹ֑ה‬

ַָּ Gen. 47.28 ‘year’)

12
For this interpretation see Eldar (1983, 47).
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 249

[ɑ] quality:

wajjiˈṭɑbˑ (Morag 1977, 54 | L [BHS]: ‫ב‬ ַ ִַ‫ וַַיּ‬Esther 1.21 ‘and

ַ ‫יט‬
[the matter] was good’)

ˈbɑːʕaˌra (Morag 1977, 56 | L [BHS]: ‫ּב ֲע ָּ ָ֥רה‬

ַָּ Esther 1.12 ‘[his
anger] burned’)

Aleppo

[a] quality:

ˌjaʕaˈqọːb (Katz 1981, 45 | L [BHS]: ‫ יַ ֲעק ַֹב‬Gen. 47.28 ‘Jacob’)

ʃaˈnim (Katz 1981, 45 | L [BHS]: ‫ׁש ִ֔ ִנים‬

ַָּ Gen. 47.28 ‘years)

[ɑ] quality:

lezɑrʕɑˈxa (Katz 1981, 46 | L [BHS]: ַָ֥‫ ְלזַ ְר ֲעך‬Gen. 48.4 ‘to

your (ms) seed’)

Jerba

[a] quality:

ˌwenaˈfale (Katz 1977, 82 | L [BHS]: ‫ וְ נָּ ַ ָ֥פל‬Exod. 21.18 ‘and

he falls’)

joˈmar (Katz 1977, 83 | L [BHS]: ‫אמ ַר‬

ַ ֹ ‫ י‬Exod. 21.5 ‘[the
slave] will say’)

hiʃˈʃa (Katz 1977, 83 | L [BHS]: ‫ה‬

ַ‫שּׁ‬ ִַ Exod. 21.3 ‘woman’)
ַָּ ‫א‬

[ɑ] quality:

ˈjɪqqɑħ (Katz 1977, 84 | L [BHS]: ‫קּח־‬

ַ ַ ִֽ ִ‫ י‬Exod. 21.10 ‘he will
take’)

wẹˈjɑsˁiˈha (Katz 1977, 75 | L [BHS]: ‫ וְ יָּ ְַצאָָ֥ה‬Exod. 21.3 ‘[his

wife] will leave’)
250 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

In the Karaite transcriptions long pataḥ and qameṣ are

generally represented by mater lectionis ʾalif, e.g.

‫۟يجام۟ال‬
۠ ‫[ و‬vaɟɟiggɔːˈmaːal] (BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 63r, 2 | L
[BHS]: ‫ וַ יִּ גָּ ַ ֹ֑מל‬Gen. 21.8 ‘and he was weaned’)

The qualities of pataḥ [a] and [ɑ] would have been

allophones of Arabic long /ā/, the latter in pharyngealized
environments (known as tafkhīm). The choice of ʾalif in the
Karaite transcriptions for the rounded qameṣ [ɔ] was due to its
proximity to the normal range of allophones of Arabic /ā/.
The back rounded open-mid quality of qameṣ and its
distinctness from pataḥ is reflected by some of the medieval
Karaite transcriptions. The vowel is, for example, sporadically
represented by Arabic wāw, e.g.

‫[ واوساف‬vɔʔɔːˈsaːaf] (Genizah MS 12, Khan 1990a, 151 | L

[BHS]: ‫( וְ ָּא ַ ַ֣סף‬Num. 19.9 ‘and he will gather up’)

]‫[ وروحا[ص‬vaʀ̟ɔːˈħɑːɑsˤ] (Genizah MS 12, Khan 1990a,

151 | L [BHS]: ‫ וְ ָּר ַ ָ֥חץ‬Num. 19.8 ‘and he will bathe’)

‫[ هواحاث‬hɔːʔaːˈħaːθ] (II Firkovitch Arab.-Evr. 1, Harviai-

ַ ‫ַ ָּה ַא ַח‬Gen. 4.19 ‘the one’)
nen 1994, 36 | L [BHS]: ‫ת‬

‫[ يسروال‬jisrˁɔːˈʔeːel] (II Firkovitch Arab.-Evr. 1, Harviainen

ְ ‘Israel’)
1994, 36 | L [BHS]: ‫יִש ָּר ֵאל‬

In the British Library manuscript Or 2554, the qualitative

distinction between the open vowel pataḥ and the open-mid back
round vowel qameṣ is reflected by the fact that syllables with
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 251

pataḥ are marked by the Arabic vowel fatḥa, but fatḥa is not
marked on syllables with qameṣ, e.g.

‫[ ناْ َثاْن‬nɔːˈθaːan] (BL Or 2554 fol. 38v, 1 | L [BHS]: ַ‫ נָּ ַ ָ֥תן‬Cant.

1.12 ‘it gave’)

‫[ َيلا َذا ْثخا‬jalɔːˈðaːaθχɔː] (BL Or 2554 fol. 87r, 9 | L [BHS]:

‫ יְ ָּל ַד ְתך‬Cant. 8.5 ‘she gave birth to you’)

I.2.1.4. The Quality of Qameṣ in Other Traditions

The medieval Babylonian pronunciation tradition also had a

qualitative distinction between open pataḥ and rounded qameṣ.
This is reflected by Babylonian terminology for the vowels, viz.
miftaḥ pumma (‫‘ )מיפתח ַפומא‬opening of the mouth’, which
corresponds to the Tiberian term pataḥ, and miqpaṣ pumma
(‫‘ )מיקפץ ַפומא‬contraction (i.e., rounding) of the mouth’, which
corresponds to the Tiberian term qameṣ. The roundedness of
Babylonian qameṣ and its proximity in the vowel space to ḥolem
is reflected also by the representation of the vowel with wāw in
medieval Arabic transcriptions written by Muslims in the eastern
region of the Islamic world where Babylonian Hebrew
pronunciation was used, e.g. al-Bīrūnī, Chronology of Nations
(Khan 2013d): ‫‘ ַה ָּת ִמיד( هتوميد‬the daily offering’), ‫‘ אָב( اوب‬Av’), ‫حمو‬
(‫‘ ַח ָּמּה‬sun’), ‫תּולה( بثولو‬
ָּ ‫‘ ְּב‬Virgo’). In Hebrew words in incantation
bowls from Babylonian datable to the pre-Islamic period of the
first millennium C.E. there are some occurrences of vav that
corresponds to qameṣ, e.g. ‫‘ בורוך‬blessed’ (Tiberian ‫)ּברּוְך‬,
ָּ ‫קודוש‬
252 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

‘holy’ (Tiberian ‫)קדֹוׁש‬

ָּ (Juusola 1999, 54–68; Mishor 2007, 219;
Molin 2020).
The roundedness of qameṣ and its proximity in the vowel
space to ḥolem is reflected by numerous occurrences of vav in
biblical texts from Qumran where the Tiberian tradition has
qameṣ. Several of these are in the environment of labial
consonants, which could have conditioned the rounding of the
vowel, e.g.13

‫( חנום‬11Q5 13.13 | L [BHS]: ‫ ִח ָּנֹּ֑ם‬Psa. 119.161 ‘without

cause’)

ָ֜ ָּ ‫ וַ ֲא ִב‬Num. 16.1 ‘and

‫( ו]אבירום‬4Q27 f6–10.12 | L [BHS]: ‫ירם‬
Abiram’)

‫( מיום‬4Q57 f9ii+11+12i+52.40 | L [BHS]: ‫ ִמ ָּיּם‬Isa. 24.14

‘from the sea’)

In many cases, however, it is likely that the vav reflects a

different morphological form or exegesis from that of the
Tiberian tradition (Kutscher 1979, 247, 473–74), e.g.

‫( כבושים‬1QIsaa 5.3 | L [BHS]: ‫ ְכ ָּב ִ ִׂ֖שים‬Isa. 5.17 ‘sheep’)

‫( בוניך‬1QIsaa 41.16 | L [BHS]: ‫ ָּּב ָּ ֹ֑נִֽ ִיְך‬Isa. 49.17 ‘your [fs]

children’)

ַ ‫ ַק ְד ָּמ ָּת‬Isa. 23.7 ‘its former

‫( קדמותה‬1QIsaa 18.11 | L [BHS]: ‫הּ‬
time’)

‫( חוש‬4Q59 f4–10.2 | L [BHS]: ‫ ָּ ָ֥חׁש‬Isa. 8.3 ‘Hash’)

‫( כצור‬1QIsaa 5.17 | L [BHS]: ‫ ַכ ַצַ֣ר‬Isa. 5.28 ‘like flint’)

13
Data supplied by Aaron Hornkohl.
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 253

‫( חוזה‬1QIsaa 11.12 | L [BHS]: ‫ ָּח ִָּ֔זה‬Isa. 13.1 ‘[Isaiah] saw’)

ַ ‫ ָּח‬Isa. 24.6 ‘[and inhabitants

‫( חורו‬1QIsaa 19.3 | L [BHS]: ‫רּו‬
of the land] are scorched’)

‫( שוכן‬1QIsaa 27.29 | L [BHS]: ‫ ָּׁש ֵ ִׂ֖כן‬Isa. 33.24 ‘inhabitant’)

‫( להוכין‬1QIsaa 33.19 | L [BHS]: ‫ לְ ָּה ִ ָ֥כין‬Isa. 40.20 ‘to prepare’)

In the ancient Greek transcriptions of Hebrew, long qameṣ

is generally represented by α. There are a few sporadic cases
where ω or ο correspond to Tiberian long qameṣ. Most of these,
however, are likely to reflect different morphological patterns or
have some other explanation rather than reflecting a back
rounded quality, e.g.14

Septuagint (third century B.C.E.)

Ἰωυὰν (Göttingen Septuagint | L [BHS]: ‫ וְ יָּ ָּ ַ֣וִֽן‬Gen. 10.2

‘Javan’)

Ἰωβέλ (Göttingen Septuagint | L [BHS]: ‫ יָּ ָּ ֹ֑בל‬Gen. 4.20

‘Jabal’)

Γαυλὼν (Göttingen Septuagint | L [BHS]: ‫גֹולן‬

ָ֥ ָּ Deut. 4.43
‘Golan’)

The exceptional case Ιωυαν may be explained as an

imitation of the Greek word with a similar meaning, ἴων. The
examples Ιωβελ and Γαυλων probably reflect different patterns
(Knobloch 1995, 181, 314, 394-395).

14
Data supplied by Ben Kantor.
254 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Hexapla of Origen (c. 185–254 C.E.)

ουεσοκημ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS] ‫ ְו ֶא ְׁש ָּח ֵ ֵ֗קם‬Psa.

18.43 ‘and I crush them’)

εμωσημ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ ֶֶ֭א ְמ ָּח ֵצם‬Psa.

18.39 ‘I strike them’)

σφωθαϊ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ ְ֝ ְש ָּפ ֵַ֗תי‬Psa. 89.35

‘my lips’)

ολδ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ ָּח ֶלד‬Psa. 49.2 ‘(the)

world’)

The first two forms most likely reflect an /o/ theme vowel
(rather than an /a/ theme vowel) in these verbs. The final two
forms are likely to reflect variant morphological patterns.15
In the writings of Jerome (346-420 C.E.), there are a few
cases where the vowel o occurs corresponding to Tiberian long
qameṣ, e.g.

zochor (Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah, ed. Gryson,

VIII.23.56 | L [BHS]: ‫ זָּ ָּכר‬Isa. 26.14 ‘male’)

chauonim (Jerome, Commentary on Jeremiah, ed. Reiter,

100.21–22 | L [BHS]: ‫ ַכּוָּ ָ֜ ִנים‬Jer. 7.18 ‘cakes’)

gob (Jerome, Commentary on Ezekiel, ed. Glorie, V.16.85 |

L [BHS]: ‫ ֶגֹ֑ב‬Ezek. 16.24 ‘pit’)

bosor (Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah, ed. Gryson, X.14.82–

ָּ Isa. 34.6 ‘flesh’)
84 | L [BHS]: ‫?ּב ָּשר‬

15
Yuditsky compares σφωθαϊ to forms like ‫ בשפאותיכה‬and ‫ שפות‬in the
Dead Sea Scrolls (Yuditsky 2017).
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 255

In most cases, however, Jerome represents the vowel cor-

responding to Tiberian long qameṣ by a, e.g.

enach (Jerome, Commentary on the Minor Prophets, ed.

Adriaen, Amos, III.7, p. 318, line 178 | L [BHS]: ‫ ֲא ָּ ֹ֑נְִֽך‬Amos
7.7 ‘plumbline’)

hissa (Jerome, Hebraicae Quaestiones in Libro Geneseos, ed.

de Lagarde et al., 45.1 | L [BHS]: ‫ ִא ִָּ֔שּׁה‬Gen. 2.23 ‘woman’)

ethan (Jerome, Commentary on Jeremiah, ed. Reiter, 72.14

ַ֣ ָּ ‫ ֵא‬Jer. 5.15 ‘enduring’)
| L [BHS]: ‫יתן‬

aiala (Jerome, Hebraicae Quaestiones in Libro Geneseos, ed.

de Lagarde et al., 70.20 | L [BHS]: ‫ אַיָּּ ָּלַ֣ה‬Gen. 49.21 ‘doe’)

emsa (Jerome, Commentary on the Minor Prophets, ed.

Adriaen, Zechariah, III.12, p. 863, line 132 | L [BHS]: ‫אַמ ָּ ָ֥צה‬
ְ
Zech. 12.5 ‘strength’)

There are also some cases where the vowel corresponding

to long qameṣ is e, e.g.

besor (Jerome, Commentary on the Minor Prophets, ed.

Adriaen, Zechariah, III.11, p. 849, line 25 | L [BHS]: ‫ַה ָּּבצּור‬
ַ Zech. 11.2 ‘thick (ms)’)
[lege ‫]ה ָּּב ִציר‬

ciceion (Jerome, Commentary on the Minor Prophets, ed.

Adriaen, Jonah, IV, p. 414, line 126 | L [BHS]: ‫ ִק ָּיקי֞ ֹון‬Jonah
4.6 ‘gourd/plant’)

The cases of o corresponding to long qameṣ are, therefore,

marginal and it is likely that they either reflect morphological
patterns that are different from the Tiberian tradition or are
conditioned by the consonantal environment (Harviainen 1977,
256 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

104–6). This applies, for example, to zochor and bosor, in which

the o may have been conditioned by the r. In Palestinian Aramaic
dialects and Rabbinic Hebrew resh often brings about such a
vowel shift.16
The fact that long qameṣ had a back rounded quality in both
the Tiberian and Babylonian traditions of pronunciation could,
nevertheless, be proposed as an argument for this to be a shared
feature that the two traditions have retained from a proto-
Masoretic tradition of reading in Second Temple Palestine.
The open-mid back rounded quality [ɔ] of qameṣ, distinct
from the open quality of pataḥ, has been preserved in the modern
traditions of pronunciation of most Yemenite communities,
which have their roots in the Babylonian tradition, e.g.

mɪðbɔːrɔː (Morag 1963, 100 | L [BHS]: ‫ ִמ ְד ָּ ֹּ֑ב ָּרה‬Isa. 16.1 ‘in

the desert’)

I.2.1.5. Segol and Ṣere

In the early Tiberian Masoretic sources the terms pataḥ and qameṣ
were used not only for the vowels represented by the signs pataḥ
and qameṣ in the Tiberian vocalization, but also for the vowels
segol and ṣere respectively. This early terminology appears to
have developed before the creation of the vowel signs and
indicated broad differences in lip-position of the vowels, as a
guide to instruct readers how to distinguish between the various

16
See §I.1.20 and Ben-Ḥayyim (1946, 194–96), Kutscher (1979, 496–
97) and Mishor (1998).
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 257

vowel qualities.17 The vowels pataḥ and segol were pronounced

with spread, open lips, whereas there was some degree of closure
of the lips in the pronunciation of qameṣ and ṣere. In a later
version of this terminology, segol was referred to as pataḥ qaṭan
‘small pataḥ’ and ṣere as qameṣ qaṭan ‘small qameṣ’ with Hebrew
adjectives qualifying the originally Aramaic term.18
The term segol comes from Aramaic ‫‘ ְסגֹול‬cluster of grapes’,
referring to the graphic appearance of the vowel sign rather than
its phonetic production. Its vocalization with shewa under the
samekh is attested in some early Masoretic treatises.19 In Hidāyat
al-Qāriʾ it has the form ‫ סגולה‬with a feminine ending.
The term ṣere is from the Aramaic verb ‫‘ ְצ ָּרא‬to split’. Since
these terms are Aramaic, they are likely to have been created in
the early Masoretic period and they indeed appear in early
sources, such as the grammar book of Saadya.20 It is not clear

17
Bacher (1974, 15), Steiner (2005b, 374, 377–78), Posegay (2020).
18
Baer and Strack (1879, §10), Dotan (2007, 634). The attribute qaṭan
‘small’ reflects the concept that the [ɛ] and [e] qualities were in some
way more attenuated and more closed than the [a] and [ɔ] qualities
respectively. This theory of vowels can be traced back to Syriac
grammatical sources where the Syriac term qaṭṭīn ‘narrow’ is used to
describe the higher front vowels (Posegay 2020). An Arabic version of
this terminology is found in the Masoretic treatise Kitāb al-Muṣawwitāt
(ed. Allony 1963, 140–42): al-qamṣa al-kabīra ‘big qameṣ’ (= qameṣ), al-
qamṣa al-ṣaghīra ‘small qameṣ’ (= ṣere), al-patḥa al-kabīra ‘big pataḥ’ (=
pataḥ), al-patḥa al-ṣaghīra ‘small pataḥ’ (= segol).
19
E.g. Allony and Yeivin eds. (1985, 96).
20
Dotan (1997, 113; 2007, 634).
258 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

what the original form of the name ṣere was. The author of
Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ states that it means ‘splitting’ (šāqq) (through the
lips),21 suggesting that he read it as a participle ‫צ ֵרי‬.
ָּ In some
manuscripts of Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, however, it is vocalized ‫צ ִרי‬.
ֵ 22 It
is sometimes spelt, moreover, ‫ צירי‬both in Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ and in
Saadya’s work, with mater lections yod after the ṣade, and this is
vocalized ‫ ֵצ ִירי‬in some places.23 In a Masoretic treatise published
by Allony and Yeivin (1985, 96) it has the form ‫ ִַצ ְ ַריַָּא‬. It is likely
that the term is related to the Jewish Babylonian Aramaic word
‫‘ ִצ ְיריָּ א‬split, fissure.’24 The name refers to the contraction of the
lips to the extent that there is only a small aperture between
them. In later sources the practice developed of vocalizing the
first syllable with the vowels that the terms designated, i.e. ‫סגֹול‬,
ֶ
‫ ֵצ ֵַרי‬and eventually also changing the quality of the second
syllable in symbolic representation of the pronunciation of the
vowel, resulting in forms such as ‫סגֵ ל‬.
ֶ 25
In some Masoretic treatises and early grammatical texts,
segol and ṣere are referred to by the phrases ‘three dots’ (ַ‫שלוש‬
‫נקודות‬, thalāth nuqaṭ) and ‘two dots’ (‫שתי ַנקודות‬, nuqṭatāni)

21
Short version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.S.6.0.
22
E.g. Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book,
§II.L.2.17.
23
E.g. Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book,
§II.L.1.7.8.; short version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.S.6.0.
24
Eldar (1994, 124).
25
Steiner (2009, 496). For other vocalizations of the vowels see Dotan
(2007, 634).
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 259

respectively.26 This is probably a relic from a period in which

only the names pataḥ and qameṣ were in existence.
Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ describes the articulation of segol as being
on ‘the lower surface of the mouth,’27 as is the case with pataḥ,
but with ‘contraction of the sides of the mouth’.28 Saadya states
that the segol is articulated in the same position as pataḥ when
the speaker ‘fills the lower sides of the mouth with it.’29 This can
be interpreted as referring to a smaller degree of opening of the
mouth in the pronunciation of the vowel and a consequential
protuberance of the cheeks. The smaller aperture is reflected also
in the term ‘small pataḥ’ (‫ )פתחַקטן‬in some Masoretic sources.30
The result is an open-mid unrounded [ɛ].
In the Karaite transcriptions, long segol is represented by
mater lectionis ʾalif, e.g.

26
Cf. Dotan (2007, 634), e.g. Baer and Strack (1879, 34–36), the treatise
on the shewa published by Levy (1936), the Masoretic fragments
published by Mann (1969, 2:44), the Diqduq of Ibn Nūḥ (ed. Khan 2000,
28).
27
‫עלי ַסטח ַאלפם ַאלספלאני‬, long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book,
§II.L.2.15.4., Eldar (1994, 132).
28
‫צםַאגאבַאלפם‬,
̇ short version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.S.7.0,
Eldar (1994, 131).
29
‫( ימלאַמנהאַגאנביַפמהַאלספליין‬Dotan 1997, 445).
30
This interpretation of ‫ פתחַקטן‬is in the Yemenite redaction of Hidāyat
al-Qāriʾ known as the Arabic Maḥberet ha-Tījān (J. Derenbourg 1871,
16; Eldar 1994, 123).
260 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

‫[ ۟ب ۖر ࣤ ۜزال‬bɑʀ̟ˈzɛːɛl] (BL Or 2549 fol. 145r, 4 | L [BHS]: ‫ַּב ְר ִֶ֔זל‬

Ezek. 4.3 ‘iron’)

The quality [ɛ] was an allophone of Arabic long /ā/, due to

a process known by the medieval grammarians as ʾimāla
‘inclining’, i.e. inclining towards the vowel /ī/.
Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ presents the articulation of the vowels ṣere
and ḥireq as involving similar gestures. The place of articulation
of ṣere is ‘the teeth, without closure, because it breaks through
them’31 whereas the articulation of ḥireq involves ‘the closure of
the teeth tightly.’32 Saadya likewise links the articulation of the
two vowels:
If the end of the tongue approaches the teeth but does not
cover them, ṣere is produced, but if it covers them, ḥireq is
produced.33

The Masoretic term ‘small qameṣ’ (‫ )קמץַקטן‬for ṣere would

refer to the lesser degree of closure of the lips than in the
articulation of qameṣ.

31
‫מחל ַאלצרי ַוהו ַאלאסנאן ַבלא ַאטבאק ַלאנה ַישק ַבינהא ַשקא‬, long version,
edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.2.15.5.
32
‫אטבאק ַאלאסנאן ַבקוה‬, long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book,
§II.L.2.15.6.; Eldar (1994, 132).
33
‫( קרבַטרףַאללסאןַאליַאסנאנהַולםַיטבקהא‬Dotan 1997, 445–47). A similar
description of ḥireq is given by Dunash ibn Tamīm in his commentary
on Sefer Yeṣira: ‫‘ יחתכוהוַסוףַהלשוןַבעזרַמלתעותַמןַהשניים‬They articulate it
with the tip of the tongue with the help of (= in conjunction with) the
incisors’ (Grossberg 1902, 20–21; Eldar 1994, 133).
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 261

I.2.1.6. Ḥireq
The original vocalization of the name ḥireq is uncertain. The
name is spelt ‫ חרק‬in the manuscript of Saadya’s grammar book.
The vocalization as a segolate form ‫ ֶח ֶרק‬is found in some
manuscripts of Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ and medieval sources,34 or ‫ח ֶרק‬.
ֵ 35
In the Masoretic treatise published by Allony and Yeivin (1985,
92) it has the Aramaic form ‫חרקא‬. The form ‫ ִח ֶירק‬reflects the later
development of vocalizing the first syllable with the vowel the
name designates. In Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, the verbal root
ḥrq in the peʿal and paʿel has the meaning of ‘to gnash (one’s
teeth)’, which is likely to refer to the tight closure of the teeth in
the articulation of the vowel referred to in the Hidāya.36 The
vowel is also referred to in some early sources as ‘one dot’ (ַ‫נקודה‬
‫אחת‬, nuqṭa wāḥida).37 Abraham ibn Ezra (1089–c. 1167) used the
Hebrew term ‫‘ שבר‬breaking’ to refer to this vowel (Lambert 1889,
124–25).
In the Karaite transcriptions, both long ṣere and ḥireq are
normally represented by Arabic mater lectionis yāʾ, e.g.

34
E.g. Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book,
§II.L.1.7.8. For other sources see Ben Yehuda (1980, vol. 4, 1783),
Dotan (2007, 634).
35
E.g. Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, short version, edition in vol. 2 of this book,
§II.S.6.0, MS S18, fol. 7r. MS S14, fol. 3r.
36
Haupt (1901, 15) proposes that the name is related etymologically to
Arabic kharq ‘rent, fissure’ (cf. Rabbinic Hebrew ‫‘ ָּח ַרק‬to cut a gap’)
referring to the narrow opening of the lips.
37
Dotan (2007, 634), Khan (2000, 28).
262 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

‫[ هۚ ۠جامࣵ يۛل‬higgɔːˈmeːel] (BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 63r, 3 | L

[BHS]: ‫ ִהגָּ ֵ ָ֥מל‬Gen. 21.8 ‘to be weaned’)
٘
‫ۖهورۚيذو‬
ۢ ‫[ و‬vohoːˈʀ̟iːðuː] (BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 105r, 7 | L
ִ֡ ִ ְ‫ ו‬Deut. 21.4 ‘and they will bring down’)
[BHS]: ‫הֹורדּו‬

The choice of mater lectionis yāʾ to represented the quality

[eː] of ṣere was no doubt due to its being perceived as approx-
imating more closely to the prototypical quality of Arabic /ī/
than to that of Arabic /ā/.

I.2.1.7. Ḥolem, Shureq and Qibbuṣ

According to Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, the meaning of name ḥolem ‫ ח ֶַֹלם‬is

‘fullness’38 since the vowel ‘fills the mouth’.39 In the Masoretic
treatise published by Allony and Yeivin (1985, 92) it has the
Aramaic form ‫חלמא‬. An alternative name for the vowel in some
Masoretic sources is ‫‘ ְמלֹאַפּום‬filling the mouth’. This is presented
in opposition to ‫‘ ִקּבּוץַפּום‬contraction of the mouth’ (also called
‫ )קמץַפומא‬which refers in these sources to the /u/ vowel of shureq
and qibbuṣ.40 This terminology relates to the smaller rounding of
the lips in the production of the shureq quality. A few medieval

38
‫מלו‬, short version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.S.6.0, Eldar (1994,
120). Cf. the Hebrew root ‫‘ חלם‬to be healthy (i.e. whole in health)’.
39
‫לאנהאַתמלאַאלפם‬, ibid.
40
Bacher (1974, 16), Dotan (2007, 634), Eldar (1994, 121, 125).
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 263

sources vocalize the name ḥolem as a segolate ‫ ֶח ֶלם‬or ‫ח ֶלם‬.

ֵ 41 Some
early sources refer to ḥolem by the description the ‘upper dot’
(‫נקודהַעליונה‬, al-nuqṭa al-fawqāniyya) or similar phrases.42
Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ states that the place of articulation of the
ḥolem is the root of the tongue and the ‘place of swallowing’, i.e.
the pharynx43 and that the ‘movement of the vowel (i.e. the
airflow in its realization) is across the whole area of the mouth’.44
According to Saadya’s description, ḥolem is the vowel that is
articulated furthest back in the mouth and its ‘strength (i.e.
dynamic airflow in its realization) moves forward without
deviating upwards or downwards.’45
The Hidāya interprets the name shureq as ‘whistling’,
because it ‘gathers the lips together’,46 i.e. the lips are rounded in
the position they have when one whistles. The Hidāya uses this
as a general term to refer to the vowel quality /u/, including what
was later called specifically qibbuṣ (i.e. the sign ‫א‬
ַ without a vowel

41
Ben Yehuda (1980, vol. 3, 1466-67). The manuscript of Saadya’s
grammar book has ‫( ֵח ֶלם‬Dotan 1997, 447). This vocalization is also
found in the Genizah fragment of a Masoretic treatise CUL T-S NS
301.69.
42
Dotan (2007, 634), Khan (2000, 28).
43
‫מחלַאלחלםַעקרַהלשוןַוביתַהבליעה‬, long version, edition in vol. 2 of this
book, §II.L.2.15.1.; (Eldar 1994, 129).
44
‫ומסירהַעליַסטחַאלפםַכלה‬, long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book,
§II.L.2.15.1.; Eldar (1994, 129).
45
‫( וקותהַסאלכהַאמאמהַגירַחאידהַאליַפוקַולאַאליַאספל‬Dotan 1997, 445).
46
‫תגִַמעַאלשפתין‬, long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.2.14.;
Eldar (1994, 125).
264 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

letter).47 It occasionally refers to the sign ‫א‬,

ַ however, by the term
al-zujj (literally: ‘the arrow-head’).48 The term qibbuṣ was
introduced by Joseph Qimḥi, who categorized them as two
separate vowels, the former long and the latter short.49
In some medieval sources, including manuscripts of the
Hidāya, the name shureq is vocalized as a segolate ‫ׁש ֶרק‬.
ֶ 50 In the
Masoretic treatise published by Allony and Yeivin (1985, 92) it
has the Aramaic form ‫שרקא‬. According to the Hidāya, the place
of its articulation was ‘the lips (when) gathered together like (for)
whistling.’51 Likewise, Saadya states that it is pronounced
‘between the teeth and the lips’.52
In the Karaite transcriptions, long ḥolem and long
shureq/qibbuṣ are normally represented by Arabic mater lectionis
wāw, e.g.

47
In some manuscripts with Non-standard Tiberian vocalization the sign
is written reversed, with the three dots sloping up from left-to-right; see
Outhwaite (2020).
48
E.g. long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.2.12.1.6. This
term is also used by the author of the Treatise on the Shewa (ed. Levy
1936, ‫)יט‬.
49
Joseph Qimḥi, Sefer Zikkaron (ed. Bacher 1888, 17), Bacher (1974,
17).
50
Dotan (2007, 634).
51
‫אלשפתיןַמצמומתיןַכאלצפיר‬,
̇ long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book,
§II.L.2.15.7.; Eldar (1994, 133).
52
‫( פיַמאַביןַאלאסנאןַואלשפתיין‬Dotan 1997, 447).
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 265

‫[ ه۟ ۠جادࣦوۢ ل‬haggɔːˈðoːol] (BL Or 2544 fol. 74v, 2 | L [BHS]:

‫ ַהגָּ ִׂ֖ד ֹל‬Exod. 3.3 ‘the great’)

࣬ ‫[ ت‬tiħˈjuːun] (BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 93v, 5 | L [BHS]:

‫ون‬ٟ ‫ۚحي‬
‫ ִת ְחיָ֜ ּון‬Deut. 8.1 ‘you (mpl) will live’)

Sporadically mater lectionis ʾalif represents ḥolem in the

transcriptions, e.g.

‫[ بثاخام‬baθoːˈχɔːɔm] (Genizah MS 12, Khan 1990a, 151 | L

ִׂ֖ ָּ ‫ ְּב‬Num. 19.10 ‘in their midst’)
[BHS]: ‫תֹוכם‬

Such a transcription could be an attempt to represented the

lower quality of ḥolem compared to that of shureq/qibbuṣ rather
than a fronted quality of ḥolem. This is demonstrated by a
transcription of Hebrew liturgical poetry in the Genizah
manuscript T-S Ar.37.89,53 which represents ḥolem by ʾalif, e.g:
‫)נַ ְפׁשֹו( نفشا‬, ‫עֹולם( لعالام‬ ְ In this text, the glide between ḥolem and
ָּ ‫)ל‬.
a following furtive pataḥ is transcribed by wāw, demonstrating
that the ḥolem was pronounced as a back [oː]: ‫)וְ ָּשבֹועַַ( وساباوع‬.

I.2.1.8. Medieval Classifications of Vowels

In some sources, the seven Tiberian vowels are classified into the
three groups (i) pataḥ, segol, qameṣ, (ii) ṣere, ḥireq and (iii)
shureq/qibbuṣ, ḥolem by associating them with three prototype
vowels. Saadya, for example, associates each of these groups with
the Arabic case vowels a (naṣb ‘holding steady’), i (khafḍ

53
The text was published by Razhaby (1983).
266 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

‘lowering’) and u (rafʿ ‘raising’) respectively. He classifies them

further within these categories according to the notion of degree
of height of the airflow in their production,54 viz.

al-rafʿ al-kabīr ‘big rafʿ’ = ḥolem

al-rafʿ al-ʾaṣghar ‘smaller raising’ = shureq

al-naṣb al-ʾakbar ‘greater naṣb’ = qameṣ

al-naṣb al-ʾawsaṭ ‘intermediate naṣb’ = pataḥ

al-naṣb al-ʾaṣghar ‘smaller naṣb’ = segol

al-khafḍ al-ʾaṣghar ‘smaller khafḍ’ = ṣere

al-khafḍ al-ʾakbar ‘greater khafḍ’ = ḥireq55

Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ makes a similar classification, using both

the names of Arabic case vowels (naṣb, khafḍ, rafʿ) and also the
generic names of Arabic vowels (fatḥa, kasra, ḍamma). The
Hebrew vowels pataḥ, segol and qameṣ, for example, are identified
as variant types of fatḥa, which are termed ‘big fatḥa’, ‘medium
fatḥa’ and ‘small fatḥa’ respectively. This does not correspond to
Saadya’s classification of degrees of height but rather relates to
varying degrees of lip-spreading. The vowel pataḥ was
pronounced with the maximal degree of lip-spreading and qameṣ

54
Eldar (1983), Dotan (1997, 113–14).
55
Dotan notes that the terms al-khafḍ al-ʾaṣghar and al-khafḍ al-ʾakbar
appear to be referring to a reference point in the middle of the mouth,
from which ḥireq would constitute a greater lowering than ṣere. The
other terms have a reference point at the top of the mouth.
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 267

with the lowest degree, with segol exhibiting an intermediate lip

position.56
The basic Arabic vowel qualities a, i and u are also
associated with the Arabic vowel letters ʾalif, yāʾ and wāw. Any
other qualities of Arabic vowels were variations (furūʿ) of these
basic qualities, e.g. [ɛ] was termed ʾalif mumāla ‘inclining ʾalif’
(i.e. inclining towards i) and [ɑ] or [ɔ] ʾalif al-tafkhīm ‘ʾalif of
thickness’.57 The three-way classification of Tiberian vowel
qualities also corresponds to the three Arabic matres lectionis ʾalif,
yāʾ and wāw that are the normal transcription of the vowels of
these three categories respectively in the Karaite transcriptions,
viz. ʾalif = pataḥ, qameṣ, segol, yāʾ = ṣere, ḥireq and wāw =
shureq/qibbuṣ, ḥolem.
Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ correlates these groups of vowels with the
Hebrew vowel letters (i) ʾalef/he, (ii) yod and (iii) vav when the
vowels were pronounced long.58 This reflects the theory that long
vowels were the result of ‘soft letters’ (ḥurūf al-līn), i.e. vowel
letters. This theory was borrowed from the Arabic grammatical
tradition and developed more systematically by the Hebrew
grammarian Ḥayyūj (Spain, early eleventh century). Unlike in
Arabic, these vowel letters were sometimes elided in the
orthography, especially those of group (i).59

56
Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.2.3.–
§II.L.2.8.
57
Cf. Sībawayhi, al-Kitāb (ed. H. Derenbourg 1889, 452–53).
58
See Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, short version, edition in vol. 2 of this book,
§II.S.4.2.
59
Eldar (1994, 102–5).
268 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

I.2.2. VOWEL LENGTH

I.2.2.1. General Principles

The length of vowels represented by the basic vowel signs (i.e.
vowel signs that are not combined with shewa) is to a large extent
predictable from syllable structure and the placement of stress.
The general principles are as follows:

Vowels represented by basic vowel signs are long when

they are either (i) in a stressed syllable or (ii) in an un-
stressed open syllable.

Vowels represented by basic signs that are in an unstressed

closed syllable are short.

Examples: ‫ˈ[ ֶֶ֫מלֶ ְך‬mɛːlɛχ] ‘king’, ‫ˈ[ ֶ֫ ַנ ַער‬naːʕɑʀ̟] ‘youth’, ‫ָּח ְכ ֶָּ֫מה‬
[ħɔχˈmɔː] ‘wisdom’, ‫[ ַה ֶ֫הּוא‬haːˈhuː] ‘that’, ‫[ יַ ֲע ֶלֶַ֫ה‬yaːʕaˈlɛː] ‘he goes
up’, ‫[ ִׁש ֵחתּו‬ʃiːˈħeːθuː] ‘they have ruined’ (Nah. 2.3), ‫ֶּב ֶר ְכ ָּיִׂ֖הּו‬
[bɛːʀ̟ɛχˈjɔːhuː] ‘Berechiah’ (1 Chron. 2.24).
These principles are clearly reflected by the Karaite
transcriptions, which represent long vowels with Arabic matres
lectionis. They are also referred to in various other medieval
sources.60 Examples from the Karaite transcriptions are presented
below.

60
In Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, for example, it is stated that the pronunciation of
the stressed pataḥ in words such as ‫ ָּׁש ַמר‬and ‫‘ זָּ ַכר‬indicates the existence
of ʾalef’ (short version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.S.4.0), i.e. it is
pronounced long with a hidden vowel letter. For further references see
Hommel (1917, 99f.), Ben-David (1957a, 21–23), Yeivin (1981b, 42);
also the Masoretic note to Lev. 1.11 quoted by Wickes (1887, 25): ַ‫ַ ַ֣עלַח׳‬
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 269

When a long vowel occurs in a closed syllable, an epen-

thetic vowel is inserted after the long vowel before the syllable-
final consonant, e.g. ‫בר‬
ֶַָּ֫ ‫ ָּד‬and ‫ ָּׁש ֶַ֫מר‬should be represented as
[dɔːˈvɔːɔʀ̟] and [ʃɔːˈmɑːɑʀ̟] respectively. This feature of syllable
structure is discussed in detail in §I.2.4.

I.2.2.2. Stressed Syllables

(marked by shading in the roman phonetic transcription)

Qameṣ

‫[ ָּש ָּ ֹ֑רה‬sɔːˈʀ̟ɔː] (Gen. 21.7 ‘Sarah’) — ‫( ۠سار۠ ا‬BL Or 2539 MS A,

fol. 63r, 1)

‫[ נִ ָּ ִׂ֖סה‬nisˈsɔː] (Gen. 22.1 ‘he tempted’) — ࣦ‫( ن ۠ۚسا‬BL Or 2539

MS A, fol. 66r, 7)

‫[ ַה ָּד ָּ ָ֛בר‬haddɔːˈvɔːɔʀ̟] (Gen. 21.11 ‘the word’) — ࣦ‫( ه۟ د۠ ࣦ٘اب۠ار‬BL

Or 2539 MS A, fol. 63r, 8)

‫[ ַא ְב ָּר ָּ ֹ֑הם‬ʔavʀ̟ɔːˈhɔːɔm] (Gen. 21.11 ‘Abraham’) — ‫( ۟ا ۖبر۠اها۠م‬BL

Or 2539 MS A, fol. 63r, 8)

‫‘ מאריכיןַבטעםַבספרא‬8 instances in Leviticus lengthen the particle ‫ ַעל‬with

an accent’. Lengthening of vowels in open unstressed syllables is alluded
to by Saadya in his commentary on Sefer Yeṣira (ed. Lambert 1891, 76–
77; 1889, 125).
270 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Pataḥ

‫[ וַ ַיּ ַַּ֤עש‬vaɟˈɟaːʕas] (Gen. 21.8 ‘and he made’) — ࣦ‫( ۟و ࣴيا۟ع۟ س‬BL Or

2539 MS A, fol. 63r, 3)

֒‫[ ַהנַּ ַער‬hanˈnaːʕɑʀ̟] (Gen. 21.17 ‘the boy’) — ࣦ‫( ه۟ ۟نࣦاع۟ ر‬BL Or
2539 MS A, fol. 64r, 5)

‫[ ַה ַ ִׂ֖מּיִ ם‬hamˈmaːjim] (Gen. 21.15 ‘the water’) — ‫( ه۟ مࣦ۟ايࣦۚۚم‬BL Or

2539 MS A, fol. 64r, 1)

‫[ וַ יִּ גָּ ַ ֹ֑מל‬vaɟɟiggɔːˈmaːal] (Gen. 21.8 ‘and he was weaned’) —

‫۟يجام۟ال‬
۠ ‫( و‬BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 63r, 2)
‫[ ַּב ְס ַ ִׂ֖בְך‬bassaˈvaːaχ] (Gen. 22.13 ‘in the thicket’) —
٘ ‫ب ۖ۟سب‬
ࣦ‫۟اخ‬
(BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 68r, 3)

Segol

‫[ ַה ֵ֗ ֶג ֶבר‬hagˈgɛːvɛʀ̟] (Psa. 52.9 ‘the man’) — ‫ۜجابۜر‬ٟ ۟‫( ه‬BL Or

2551 fol. 9v, 3)

‫[ ִמ ָּפ ֶנִׂ֖יך‬mippʰɔːˈnɛːχɔː] (Isa. 26.17 ‘before you’) — ‫مۚ فࣦ۠انۜ ۠اخا‬

(BL Or 2548 fol. 186r, 4)

‫[ ִמ ְׁש ֶ ַ֣תה‬miʃˈtʰɛː] (Gen. 21.8 ‘feast’) — ࣦ‫( مۚ ࣦۖستۜا‬BL Or 2539 MS

A, fol. 63r, 3)
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 271

‫[ ַּב ְר ִֶ֔זל‬bɑʀ̟ˈzɛːɛl] (Ezek. 4.3 ‘iron’) — ‫( ۟ب ۖر ࣤ ۜزال‬BL Or 2549 fol.

145r, 4)

‫ם‬ ֶ ‫[ ֲאבֹ ֵת‬ʔavoːθeːˈχɛːɛm] (Exod. 3.16 ‘your fathers’) —

ַ ‫יכ‬

ࣦ‫ۛيخام‬
ۜ ‫( ا ۢ۟بوث‬BL Or 2544 fol. 77v, 8)

Ṣere

‫[ וַ ֵֵּ֨ת ֶׁשב‬vatˈtʰeːʃɛv] (Gen. 21.16 ‘and she sat’) — ‫تۛيࣦسࣦۜب‬ٟ ‫( ۟و‬BL

Or 2539 MS A, fol. 64r, 4)

‫[ ִהגָּ ֵ ָ֥מל‬higgɔːˈmeːel] (Gen. 21.8 ‘to be weaned’) — ‫هۚ ۠جامࣵ يۛل‬

(BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 63r, 3)

‫[ גָּ ֵ ָ֛רׁש‬gɔːˈʀ̟eːeʃ] (Gen. 21.10 ‘cast out!’) — ‫ࣦس‬

ࣦ ‫( ۠جار ۛي‬BL Or
2539 MS A, fol. 63r, 6)

Ḥireq
ִ֡ ִ ְ‫[ ו‬vohoːˈʀ̟iːðuː] (Deut. 21.4 ‘and they will bring down’)
‫הֹורדּו‬
٘
— ‫ۖهورۚيذو‬
ۢ ‫( و‬BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 105r, 7)
‫[ וַ ִֵּ֨יּ ֶבן‬vaɟˈɟiːvɛn] (Gen. 22.9 ‘and he built’) — ‫( و۟ي ۚيبۜن‬BL Or
2539 MS A, fol. 67r, 9)

ַ ‫ˈ[ ִא‬ʔiːim] (Gen. 15.4 ‘if’) —

‫ם‬ ‫( ا ۚۚيࣦم‬BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 58r,
4)
272 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

‫ˈ[ ִ ִׂ֖מן‬miːin] (Exod. 2.7 ‘from’) — ‫( مࣦۚين‬BL Or 2540, fol. 6r, 4)

Ḥolem
ࣤ
‫[ ְצ ָּב ִ֔אֹו‬sˁɑvɔːˈʔoː] (Gen. 21.22 ‘his host’) — ࣦۢ‫صب۠ااو‬ (BL Or

2539 MS A, fol. 64v, 9)

‫[ ַהגָּ ִׂ֖ד ֹל‬haggɔːˈðoːol] (Exod. 3.3 ‘the great’) — ‫( ه۟ ۠جادࣦوۢ ل‬BL

Or 2544 fol. 74v, 2)

ִֵּ֨ [wumiʁdɔːˈnoːoθ] (Gen. 24.53 ‘precious things’) —

‫ּומגְ ָּד ִ֔נ ֹת‬

‫( ومۚ غۖ د۠ ࣤان ۢوث‬BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 76v, 4)

Shureq/qibbuṣ
‫[ וַ יָּּ ָָּ֛קמּו‬vaɟɟɔːˈqu
̟ ːmuː] (Gen. 22.19 ‘and they rose up’) —

ࣦ‫و‬ٟ ‫وم‬ٟ ‫( ۟وي۠اق‬BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 68v, 6)

‫[ גְ ַ֣בּול‬gaˈvuːul] (Psa. 78.54 ‘border of’) — ‫ول‬ٟ ‫ب‬ٟ‫( ۖج‬BL Or 2551
fol. 32v, 13)

‫[ נְ ִׂ֖אם‬nuˈʔuːum] (Jer. 2.22 ‘utterance of’) — ‫وم‬ٟ ‫( نۖا‬BL Or 2549

fol. 3v, 12)

‫[ יְ ִריחן‬jɑʀ̟iːˈħuːun] (Deut. 4.28 ‘and they (mp) will smell’) —

‫ۚيحون‬
ۣ ‫( ۖير‬BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 87v, 4)
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 273

I.2.2.3. Open Unstressed Syllables

(marked by shading in the roman phonetic transcription)

Qameṣ

‫[ הַַגַָּ ִׂ֖ד ֹל‬haggɔːˈðoːol] (Exod. 3.3 ‘the great’) — ‫( ه۟ ۠جادࣦوۢ ل‬BL Or

2544 fol. 74v, 2)

ָ֥ ִ [jɔːˈmiːim] (Jer. 31.38 ‘days’) —

‫יַָּמים‬ ‫( ي۠امۚ ࣵيم‬BL Or 2549 fol.
93v, 8)

ַ‫[ ְּב ֵעינֶ יך‬beʕeːˈnɛːχɔː] (Gen. 21.12 ‘in your (ms) eyes’) —

ࣦ‫( بعۛ ي ۜنࣦ ۠اخا‬BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 63v, 2)

Pataḥ

ࣦ‫ࣦي‬ ࣤ
ִִ֔ ‫[ ה‬haːˈhiː] (Gen. 21.22 ‘that’) —
‫ַַהוא‬ ۚ ‫( ه۟ اه‬BL Or 2539 MS
A, fol. 64v, 8)

‫[ ַכ ֶָ֜ח ֶסד‬kʰaːˈħɛːsɛð] (Gen. 21.23 ‘like the kindness’) —

٘ ࣬
ࣦ‫۟اح ۜاسذ‬
ࣦۜ ‫( ك‬BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 65r, 3)
‫[ ַַל ַ֣חֹ ֶדׁש‬laːˈħoːðɛʃ] (Neh. 9.1 ‘of the month’) — ‫( ل۟اح ࣦۢوذۜ س‬BL
Or 2556, fol. 52v, 8)
274 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Segol

ֹ֑ ָּ ‫[ ּב‬bɛːˈħɔːʀ̟ɛv] (Num. 14.43 ‘by the sword’) —

‫ֶַח ֶרב‬ ‫ب ۠ۜاحارۜب‬
(Genizah MS 1, Khan 1990a, 26)

‫[ וְ נֶ ֱע ָּזִׂ֖ב‬vanɛːʕɛˈzɔːɔv] (Isa. 27.10 ‘forsaken’) — ‫( ۖونۜاعۜ ز۠ اب‬BL

Or 2548 fol. 187r, 12)

‫[ נֶ ֶע ְש ָּ ַ֣תה‬nɛːʕɛsˈθɔː] (Num. 15.24 ‘it [f] was done’) — ‫نۜاعۜ سث۠ا‬

(Genizah MS 1, Khan 1990a, 27)

Ṣere
ַּ֤ ָּ ‫[ לַָּע‬lɔːʕeːˈðɔː] (Num. 14.27 ‘for the congregation’) —
‫ֵַדה‬

‫( ل۠اعۛ يذ۠ ا‬Genizah MS 1, Khan 1990a, 23)

‫[ א ֵֵַלְִׂ֖ך‬ʔeːˈleːeχ] (Exod. 3.11 ‘I will go’) — ࣦ‫( اۛيلۛيخ‬BL Or 2540,
fol. 9r, 1)

Ḥireq

ַ֣ ‫[ מ‬miːˈħuːusˁ] (Deut. 23.11 ‘from outside’) —

‫ִַחּוץ‬ ‫وص‬ٟ ࣦ‫ميۚح‬
(BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 113v, 5)

ַ ‫[ מ‬miːˈħuːutˁ] (Gen. 14.23 ‘from a thread’) —

‫ִַחּוט‬
ۚ ۚ‫( م‬BL
ࣦ‫يحوط‬
Or 2539 MS A, fol. 57r, 8)
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 275

Ḥolem

ִ ‫[ א‬ʔɛloːˈhiːim] (Gen. 21.22 ‘God’) —

‫ֱַֹלהַַ֣ים‬ ‫( ۖال ۢۜوهࣦيۚم‬BL Or 2539
MS A, fol. 65r, 1)

‫[ ָּה ִ ַ֣ראׁש ִֹנִַ֔ית‬hɔːʀ̟iːʃoːˈniːiθ] (Jer. 25.1 ‘the first’) — ‫ࣦيشو ࣤ ۚنࣦيث‬

ۢ ۚ‫ه۠ ار‬
(BL Or 2543 MS A, fol. 5v, 2)

Shureq/qibbuṣ

ֵ ‫[ ְר‬ʀ̟uʔuːˈveːen] (Exod. 1.2 ‘Reuben’) —

‫ַאּובַ֣ן‬ ‫وبࣦۛين‬ٟ ‫( رۖا‬BL Or
2540, fol. 3v, 2)

ִִ֔ ‫[ חֲַמ‬ħamuːˈʃiːim] (Josh. 4.12 ‘those who are armed’) —

‫ַׁשים‬

‫و ۚࣤشيم‬ٟ ‫( ۘحم‬BL Or 2547 fol. 6v, 12)

‫[ י ַָּטל‬juːˈtˁɑːɑl] (Job. 41.1 ‘he will be hurled down’) — ‫و ۠طال‬ٟ ‫ي‬
(BL Or 2552 fol. 85v, 4)
٘
ָּ [duːðɔːˈʔeː] (Jer. 24.1 ‘baskets of’) —
‫דּוד ֵ ַ֣אי‬ ‫و ۠ذاࣦۛي‬ٟ ‫( د‬BL Or
2543 MS A, fol. 3r, 8)

‫[ וַ יַּ ֲע ִבַדּו‬vaɟɟaːʕaˈviːðuː] (Exod. 1.13 ‘and they made to serve’)

— ࣦ‫و‬ٟ ‫( ۟و ۟يࣦاع۟ بࣦۚيذ‬BL Or 2540, fol. 4v, 2)

I.2.2.4. Closed Unstressed Syllables

(marked by shading in the roman phonetic transcription)
276 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Qameṣ61

‫[ ָּק ְד ֵׁשי‬qɔðˈʃeː] (Num. 18.32 ‘the holy gifts of’) — ‫( ق۠دۖ ۛشي‬BL
Or 2539 MS B, fol. 126v, 12)

‫[ ָּכל־‬kʰɔl] (Isa. 38.17 ‘all’) — -‫( ك۠ل‬BL Or 2548 fol. 32r, 12)
‫[ וַ ָּ ַּ֤ת ָּמת‬vatˈtʰɔːmɔθ] (Num. 20.1 ‘she died’) — ‫( ۟وت۠ام۠ ث‬BL Or
2539 MS B, fol. 128r, 10)

Pataḥ
‫[ וְ נִ ַח ְמ ִ ַ֣תי‬vaniːħamˈtʰiː] (Jer. 26.3 ‘and I will repent’) —

ࣦ‫( ۖونۚيحࣦ۟مۖ تۚي‬BL Or 2543 MS A, fol. 8r, 5)

‫[ ַה ֶזִׂ֖ה‬hazˈzɛː] (Jer. 23.32 ‘this’) — ‫زࣦا‬ٟ ۜ ۟‫( ه‬BL Or 2543 MS A,
fol. 2r, 7)

Segol

ְ [wulnɛχˈdiː] (Gen. 21.23 ‘to my posterity’) —

‫ּולנֶ ְכ ִ ֹ֑די‬ ‫وۣلن ۖۜخدۚي‬
(BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 65r, 3)

61
The distinction between long and short qameṣ is expressed by the
terms qameṣ gadol and qameṣ ḥaṭef in the works of the early Hebrew
grammarians of Spain (Lambert 1889, 124).
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 277

‫[ ַכ ֶָ֜ח ֶסד‬kʰaːˈħɛːsɛð] (Gen. 21.23 ‘like the kindness’) —

٘ ࣬
‫۟اح ۜاس ࣦذ‬
ࣦۜ ‫( ك‬BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 65r, 3)

Ḥireq

‫[ ִמ ְׁש ֶ ַ֣תה‬miʃˈtʰɛː] (Gen. 21.8 ‘feast’) — ࣦ‫( مۚ ࣦۖستۜا‬BL Or 2539 MS

A, fol. 63r, 3)
ࣤ
‫ˈ[ ִַ֔איִ ל‬ʔaːjil] (Gen. 22.13 ‘ram’) — ‫( ۟ا ۚيࣦل‬BL Or 2539 MS A, fol.
68r, 2)

Shureq/qibbuṣ

‫[ ַהשּׁ ְל ָּ ָ֛חן‬haʃʃulˈħɔːɔn] (Exod. 25.30 ‘the table’) — ‫ه۟ ۣࣦشل ۠ۖحان‬

(BL Or 2544, fol. 125r, 5)

‫[ וַ יּ ֵ֗כּו‬vaɟɟukˈkʰuː] (Exod. 5.14 ‘and they were beaten’) —

ّ
ࣦ‫ࣦو‬ٟ‫يۣك‬ٟ ‫( ۟و‬BL Or 2540, fol. 14v, 6)
The vowels ḥolem and ṣere are invariably long and have no
short variants. This also is essentially dependent on stress and
syllable structure, in that they occur only in the aforementioned
environments that condition vowel length, e.g. ‫ביא‬
ִֶַ֫ ‫[ ֵמ‬meːˈviː]
‘brings’, ‫תה‬
ֵֶַ֫ ‫[ ְׁש‬ʃaˈθeː] ‘drink!’, ‫קֹומֹו‬ ̟ ːˈmoː] ‘his place’.
ֶַ֫ ‫[ ְמ‬maqo

I.2.3. VOWEL PHONEMES

In order to establish the synchronic phonological representation
of the vowels of the Tiberian reading tradition one must
278 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

distinguish between (i) vowels which are invariably long and

include length in their underlying phonological representation
and (ii) vowels whose length is determined by syllable structure
and stress so are of unspecified length at a phonological level
(Khan 2013g).62

I.2.3.1. Vowel Phonemes with a Specified Length

Feature
The long vowel phonemes with a length feature specified in their
underlying representation include: long qameṣ /ɔ̄/, ḥolem /ō/,
ṣere /ē/, long shureq /ū/, long ḥireq /ī/ (typically written with
yod), e.g.

‫ ָּׁש ֶָּ֫תה‬/ʃɔ̄θɔ̄/ [ʃɔːˈθɔː] ‘he drank’

‫ ֵע ָּ ֶַ֫דה‬/ʕēðɔ̄/ [ʕeːˈðɔː] ‘community’

ֶ֫ ‫ ֵּב‬/bēθō/ [beːˈθoː] ‘his house’

‫יתֹו‬

‫ ֶ֫קּומּו‬/qū
̟ mū/ [ˈqu
̟ ːmuː] ‘arise!’
ֶ֫ ָּ ִ‫ י‬/jīrɔ̄/ [jiːˈʀ̟ɔː] ‘he fears’
‫ירא‬

62
For an alternative analysis of the phonemes of Tiberian Hebrew based
on the phonetic realizations I have reconstructed from medieval sources
see Suchard (2018). For phonemic analyses based on earlier views of
the phonetic realization of the vowels see, for example, Morag (1962)
and Schramm (1964, 63).
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 279

I.2.3.2. Vowel Phonemes without a Specified Length

Feature
The vowel phonemes unspecified as to length include: pataḥ /a/,
segol /ɛ/, ḥireq /i/, qibbuṣ/shureq /u/. In principle, these are long
when they bear stress, e.g.

‫ ָּע ֶַ֫מד‬/ʕɔ̄mað/ [ʕɔːˈmaːað] ‘he stood’

‫ ָּל ֶֶ֫הם‬/lɔ̄hɛm/ [lɔːˈhɛːɛm] ‘to them’

‫ ִֶ֫מן‬/min/ [ˈmiːin] ‘from’

The length of the vowel, therefore, is a phonetic phenome-

non induced by stress and is not a feature of the underlying vowel
phoneme.
As shown above, vowels of this category represented by
basic vowel signs that occur in unstressed closed syllables are
short, whereas those that occur in open unstressed syllables are
realized as long.
An open syllable with a long vowel (CV̄) can be considered
to have the same weight as a closed syllable with a short vowel
(CVC). Their codas both contain two weight components, known
as morae, and both types of syllable are termed bimoraic. Bi-
moricity is, in fact, not obligatory in open syllables. There are
some cases of short lexical vowels in open unstressed syllables,
mainly rounded vowels with the quality of qameṣ, indicated in
the vocalization by ḥaṭef qameṣ, e.g. ‫[ ֳצ ִרי‬sˁɔˈʀ̟iː] ‘balm’, ‫ֳַד ִמי‬
[dɔˈmiː] ‘silence’ (§I.2.7.). The lengthening of the vowels of un-
specified length in open syllables must, therefore, be conditioned
by factors other than the need to conform to a principle of canon-
ical bimoricity.
280 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

One subset of vowels of this category that are lengthened

in open syllables occur before gutturals that were historically
geminated, but have now lost their gemination. In traditional de-
scriptions of Hebrew, this is referred to as ‘virtual doubling’ of
the guttural, i.e. the vowel is the type one would expect in a syl-
lable closed by gemination of the following consonant. The pho-
netically long realization of the vowel can be explained as having
arisen due to spreading of the vowel in compensation for the lost
gemination. This can be represented as the replication of the pho-
neme thus:

*/hahhū/ > /haahū/ [haːˈhuː] ‫‘ ַה ֶ֫הּוא‬that’

*/ʃiħħēθū / > /ʃiiħēθū/ [ʃiːˈħeːθuː] ‫‘ ִׁש ֵחתּו‬they have ruined’

(Nah. 2.3),

This can be regarded as a morphologically motivated

replication of the vowel, in order to bring the morphological
pattern of a word or prefixed particle (definite article or
preposition) into line with the pattern of these forms in other
contexts, in which they are typically followed by a geminated
consonant, e.g. ‫ ַה ַּביִַת‬/habbajiθ/ ‘the house’, ‫ ִמפֹה‬/mippʰō/ ‘from
here’, ‫ ִׁש ֵּבר‬/ʃibber/ ‘he shattered’, or have a long vowel phoneme,
e.g. ‫ ָּה ָּעם‬/hɔ̄ʕɔ̄m/ ‘the people’, ‫עיר‬
ִַ ‫ ֵמ‬/mēʕīr/ ‘from the city of’, ‫ֵמ ֵאן‬
/mēʔēn/ ‘he refused’.
A second subset of vowels of this category that are
lengthened in open syllables occur before gutturals with a ḥaṭef
vowel, e.g. ‫‘ יַ ֲעלֶַּ֫ו‬they go up’, ‫‘ ֶה ֱע ֶ֫ ָּלה‬he brought up’, ‫‘ ָּצ ֳה ַ ֶ֫ריִ ם‬noon’.
Here the lengthening is conditioned by metrical factors. This will
be discussed below (§I.2.5.4.).
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 281

A third, marginal, subset of vowels of this category that are

lengthened in open syllables occur in segolate forms that do not
bear the main stress, e.g. ‫[ ֶּב ֶר ְכ ָּיִׂ֖הּו‬bɛːʀ̟ɛχˈjɔːhuː] ‘Berechiah’ (1
Chron. 2.24). This also appears to have a metrical motivation
(§I.2.6.).
To the category of vowel phonemes that lack a specified
length feature we should add also /e/ and /o/. These are repre-
sented by the ṣere and ḥolem vowel signs respectively in the
stressed syllable of certain forms. Since stressed vowels are al-
ways long, on a phonetic level these are not distinguishable from
ṣere and ḥolem representing phonemes with underlying length.
This is necessary to account for apparent discrepancies in the his-
torical development of vowels in several morphological forms, in
which pataḥ (a vowel with no specified length feature) occurs in
parallel with ṣere and ḥolem (Sarauw 1939, 56–64; Khan 1994).
This applies, for example, to nouns with an originally doubled
final consonant. In forms deriving from the *qall pattern the
vowel is pataḥ, e.g. ‫ˈ[ ַ ֶַ֫רב‬ʀ̟ɑːɑv] ‘much’, and in forms deriving from
the *qill and *qull pattern, the vowel is ṣere and ḥolem respec-
tively, e.g. ‫ˈ[ ֵלֶַ֫ב‬leːev] ‘heart’, ‫עֹז‬
ֶַ֫ [ˈʕoːoz] ‘strength’. Such words
would all have a vowel of unspecified length on the phonological
level /rav/, /lev/, /ʕoz/ and the length would have been a con-
sequence of stress. There is, therefore, no discrepancy in their
pattern. The same applies to the underlying phonological repre-
sentation of the pataḥ, ṣere and ḥolem in verbal forms of the pat-
terns ‫ק ַטל‬,ָּ ‫ק ֵטל‬,
ָּ ‫י ְִק ַטל ָּ;קטֹל‬, ‫יִ ְק ֵטל‬, ‫ יִַ ְקטֹל‬and in segolate nouns of the
patterns ‫נַ ַער‬, ‫ס ֶפר‬,
ֵ ‫ק ֶֹדׁש‬, ‫חֹ ִלי‬
ַֹ֑ [pausal form], which would have the
phonemes /a/, /e/ and /o/ respectively:
282 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

‫ ָּע ֶַ֫מד‬/ʕɔ̄mað/ [ʕɔːˈmaːað] ‘he stood’

ֵֶַ֫ ַָּ‫ כ‬/kʰɔ̄veð/ [kʰɔːˈveːeð] ‘it became heavy’

‫בד‬

‫ ָּק ֶ֫טֹן‬/qɔ̟ t̄ ˁon/ [qɔ̟ ːˈtˁoːon] ‘it became small’

‫ יִ ְׁש ֶַ֫כב‬/jiʃkʰav/ [jiʃˈkʰaːav] ‘he lies down’

ֵֶַ֫ ִ‫ י‬/jittʰen/ [jitˈtʰeːen] ‘he gives’

‫תן‬

ֹ ֶ֫ ‫ יִ ְׁש‬/jiʃˈmoːʀ̟/ [jiʃˈmoːoʀ̟] ‘he guards’

‫מר‬

‫ ַנ ֶַַ֫ער‬/naʕr/ [ˈnɑːʕɑʀ̟]63 ‘youth’

‫ ֵֶ֫ס ֶפר‬/sefr/ [ˈseːfɛʀ̟] ‘book'

‫קֹ ֶדׁש‬ ̟ ðʃ/ [ˈqo

ֶַ֫ /qo ̟ ːðɛʃ] ‘holiness'
ַֹ֑ /ħoly/ [ˈħoːliː] ‘sickness’
‫חֹ ִלי‬

In syllables that do not have the main stress, the vowels /e/
and /o/ are generally realized phonetically as [ɛ] or [ɔ] respec-
tively, which overlap in quality with the phonemes /ɛ/ and /ɔ̄/,
e.g.

‫ וַ ֵֶ֫יּ ֶרד‬/vajjēreð/ [vaɟˈɟeːʀ̟ɛð] ‘and he came down’

ַָּ /qoðʃō/ [qɔðˈʃoː] ‘his holiness’

‫ק ְַד ֶׁ֫שֹו‬

‫ ֳח ִלֶַ֫י‬/ħoly/ [ħɔˈliː] ‘sickness’

‫ ֳק ָּד ִֶׁ֫שים‬/qoðɔ̄ˈʃīm/ [qɔðɔːˈʃiːim]

A secondary stress may be marked on short [ɔ], and in such

cases it is generally lengthened to [ɔː] rather than [oː], as in ‫ָּק ָּד ִִׁ֔שים‬
[ˌqɔːðɔːˈʃiːim] ‘holinesses’ (Exod. 29.37).

63
The second vowel in segolates is epenthetic and does not appear in
the underlying phonological form; see §I.2.6.
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 283

There are some marginal cases in the Tiberian tradition

where short [ɛ] and short [ɔ] are realized as [ɛː] and [ɔː], rather
than [eː] and [oː], with the main stress of an accent. The accent
in such cases is usually a conjunctive, though sporadic cases of
disjunctives are attested, e.g. seven cases of ‫‘ ֶּבן‬son’ (Gen. 17.17,
Lev. 1.5, Lev. 24.10 [disjunctive yetiv], Isa. 8.2, Esther 2.5, 1
Chron. 9.21, Neh. 6.18), three cases of ‫ ֶאת‬object marker/‘with’
(Psa. 47.5, Psa. 60.2, Prov. 3.12) and at least two cases of ‫‘ ָּכל‬all’
(Psa. 35.10, Prov. 19.7),64 e.g.

‫( ֶּבַ֣ןַיָּ ִאיר‬Esther 2.5 ‘son of Yair’)

‫תַא ַ ַ֣רםַנַ ֲה ַריִ ם‬

ֲ ‫א‬ַָ֥ ֶ (Psa. 60.2 ‘with Aram-naharaim’)

‫י־רׁש‬ ֲ ‫( ָּ ָ֥כ‬Prov. 19.7 ‘all the brothers of a poor man’)

ָּ ‫לַא ֵח‬

This phenomenon is likely to be due to the fact that, in the

Tiberian prosodic chant, words that were originally unstressed in
an earlier form of the reading tradition were occasionally as-
signed an accent. Such prosodic ‘transformations’, according to
DeCaen and Dresher (2020), occurred due to the length of a verse
and the desire to slow down the chant.
Conversely there are a few sporadic cases of /o/ and /e/
realised with the qualities of [oː] and [eː] in syllables two sylla-
bles back from the main stress that may be considered to be the

64
These are listed in Masoretic treatises, e.g. Diqduqe ha-Ṭeʿamim (ed.
Dotan 1967, sections 6-8), Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, long version, edition in vol.
2 of this book, §II.L.3.2.5., §II.L.3.2.6. The sources differ regarding the
number of cases of ‫ ָּכל‬with a main stress. Psa. 87.7, which is one of the
three cases cited in Diqduqe ha-Ṭeʿamim, has a maqqef in L [BHS]: ‫ָּכל־‬
‫( ַמ ְעיָּ ַנָ֥י‬Psa. 87.7 ‘all my springs’).
284 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

result of lengthening by a secondary stress (§I.2.8.2.), although

this is not always indicated by the accentuation, e.g.

‫ˌ[ א ָֹּה ִלים‬ʔoːhɔːˈliːim] (Gen. 25.27 ‘tents’); cf. singular ‫א ֶֹהל‬

/ʾohl/ (see §I.2.6. for further details concerning the
underlying form)

‫ˌ[ ֵה ֲע ִ֔ ָּלה‬heːʕaˈluː] (Hab. 1.15 ‘he has brought up’) (see

§I.2.5.4. for further details concerning the underlying form)

Vowel phonemes without a specified length feature in their

underlying form, which have been lengthened through stress or
compensatory reduplication (e.g. /haahū/ [haːˈhuː] ‫)ה ֶ֫הּוא‬,
ַ are
vowels that appear to have acquired phonetic length relatively
late in the history of the Tiberian tradition. In the Greek
transcriptions of the Hexapla of Origen (c. 185–254 C.E.) they
are still represented as short where length distinctions could be
made in Greek, viz. between the short and long ‘e’ and ‘o’ vowels
(Khan 1994). Where Tiberian had lengthened /e/ [eː] and
lengthened /o/ [oː], the Hexapla generally has ε and ο
respectively, which represented short ‘e’ and ‘o’, as opposed to η
and ω, which represented long ‘e’ and ‘o’. Examples:65

Verbal forms

ααλλελ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ ֲא ַח ֵ ָ֥לּל‬Psa. 89.35

‘I will [not] profane’)

ουϊεθθεν (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ וַ יִּ ֵ ִׂ֖תן‬Psa. 18.33

‘and he set’)

65
Data supplied by Ben Kantor.
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 285

ουβαρεχ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ּוב ֵ ָ֥רְך‬

ָּ Psa. 28.9
‘and bless! (ms)’)

ουκ*σσες (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ וְ ִק ֵצַ֣ץ‬Psa. 46.10

‘and [he] shatters’)

ιδαββερ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ יְ ַד ֵּבַ֣ר‬Psa. 49.4

‘[my mouth] will speak’)

ιμαλλετ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ יְ ַמ ֵּ֨ ֵלּט‬Psa. 89.49

‘[he] will rescue’)

εχαζεβ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ ֲא ַכ ֵזב‬Psa. 89.36

‘I will lie’)

εεζεκ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ ַה ֲח ֵזַ֣ק‬Psa. 35.2

‘take hold of! (ms)’)

ερδοφ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ ֶא ְר ַ֣דֹוף‬Psa. 18.38

‘I chase’)

ιαδομ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ יִ ֹ֑ד ֹם‬Psa. 30.13 ‘[it

will not] be silent’)

ισροφ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫יִש ָ֥ר ֹף‬

ְ Psa. 46.10
‘[he] burns’)

ηζχορ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ זְ ַ֣כ ֹר‬Psa. 89.51

‘remember! (ms)’)

*qill and *qull nominal forms

λεβ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ ֵלב‬Psa. 32.11

‘heart’)
286 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

εμ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ ְֵֵ֝֗אם‬Psa. 35.14

‘mother’)

βαες (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ ָּּב ֵאׁש‬Psa. 46.10

‘with fire’)

οζ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ ָ֥עֹז‬Psa. 30.8

‘strength’)

λαχολ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ ְל ַּ֤כֹל‬Psa. 18.31 ‘for

all)

Segolate forms
ιεθερ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ ֵֶ֗ ְ֝י ֶתר‬Psa. 31.24
‘remainder/abundance’)

ρεγε (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ ֶ ֵּ֨רגַ ע‬Psa. 30.6 ‘a

moment’)

κεσθ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ ֶק ֶׁשת‬Psa. 18.35

‘bow of (cstr.)’)

μενεγδ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ ִמ ֶנִּֽגֶ ד‬Psa. 31.23

‘from before’)

δερχ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ ָּ ֹ֑ד ֶרְך‬Psa. 89.42

‘(the) way’)

βεχι (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ ֵֶּ֗ב ִכי‬Psa. 30.6

‘weeping’)

βοκρ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ ּבֹ ֶקר‬Psa. 46.6

‘morning’)
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 287

κορ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ ֹ֬קֹ ַרח‬Psa. 49.1 ‘Ko-

rah’)

Contrast other adjectival and nominal forms, which have η,

representing long ‘e’, as the counterpart of Tiberian ṣere, and ω,
representing long ‘o’, as the counterpart of Tiberian ḥolem, e.g.

αηλ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ַ‫ ָּה ֵאל‬Psa. 18.31

‘God’)

εκκης (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ ְ֝ ִע ֵ ֵ֗קּׁש‬Psa. 18.27

‘crooked’)

κωλ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ ַ֣קֹול‬Psa. 28.6

‘voice’)

μαζμωρ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ ִמזְ ָ֥מֹור‬Psa. 31.1

‘melody/psalm’)

φεδιων (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ ִפ ְדיָ֥ ֹון‬Psa. 49.9

‘the redemption of (cstr.)’)

The counterpart of stressed ṣere and ḥolem in most verbal

forms that are pausal in the Tiberian tradition are transcribed by
the long vowels η and ω respectively in the Hexapla, e.g.

θηληχ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ ֵת ֵלְֹ֑ך‬Psa. 32.8 ‘you

go’)

ιησηβ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ יֵ ֵ ֹׁ֑שב‬Psa. 9.8 ‘he

sits’)

ιδαββηροθ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ יְ ַ ֶ֫ד ֵ ָּ֥ברּו‬Psa.

35.20 ‘the speak’)
288 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

ιαλληλου (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ יְ ַח ֵלֹּ֑לּו‬Psa. 89.32

‘they violate’)

ιεσμωρου (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫מרּו‬

ֹ ‫ יִ ְׁש‬Psa.
89.32 ‘they (do not) keep’)

This evidence supports the assumption that the ṣere and

ḥolem in such forms are the phonemes /ē/ and /ō/ with a length
feature. Segolate nouns and nouns with the historical pattern *qill
and *qull that are pausal in Tiberian tradition, by contrast, are
transcribed in the Hexapla with ε and ο (see the lists above).
There is one possible case in the Hexapla corresponding to
forms such as ‫‘ נִ ֶַ֫חם‬he was comforted’ ‫חּוץ‬
ֶַ֫ ‫‘ ִמ‬outside’ with ‘virtual
doubling’ of the guttural. The case in question is the following:

μερεσθ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ ֵמ ֶ ַ֣ר ֶׁשת‬Psa. 31.5

‘from (the) net’)

Here the resh has lost its gemination and the transcription
represents the preceding vowel as short. This form is interpreted
by Kantor (2017, 223) as equivalent to forms with ḥireq in
Tiberian such as ‫חּוץ‬
ֶַ֫ ‫ ִמ‬, i.e. the forebear of a hypothetical form
‫מ ֶר ֶׁשת‬.
ִ If this is correct, this would be evidence that the vowel
before ‘virtual doubling’ that we are proposing was a vowel
phoneme without a specified length feature in Tiberian was
represented as short in the Hexapla like other vowels of this
category.

I.2.4. LONG VOWELS IN CLOSED SYLLABLES

When long vowels with the main stress occur in closed syllables,
there is evidence that an epenthetic with the same quality as that
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 289

of the long vowel occurred before the final consonant in its

phonetic realization, e.g. (syllable boundaries are marked by
dots):

ֶַ֫ /qō
‫קֹול‬ ̟ l/ [ˈqo
̟ ː.ol] ‘voice’
‫ ֶַָּ֫יד‬/jɔ̄ð/ [ˈjɔː.ɔð] ‘hand’

ֶַ֫ ‫ ָּל‬/lɔ̄qū
‫קּום‬ ̟ m/ [lɔː.ˈqu
̟ ː.um] ‘to rise’
ִֶַ֫ ‫ ִה ְׁש‬/hiʃmīð/ [hiʃ.ˈmiː.ið] ‘he destroyed’
‫מיד‬

ֵֶַ֫ /bēθ/ [ˈbeː.eθ] ‘house of’

‫ּבית‬

This syllable split on the phonetic level was not

representedַin the vocalization notation since it did not change
the vowel quality. Onַaccount of the lack of change in phonetic
quality across theַsyllable boundary the epenthetic syllable could
not have beenַvery distinct perceptually.
The most compelling evidence for the insertion of an
epenthetic in a closed syllable with a long vowel phoneme is the
ַ ַ ‫ˈ[ ֶ֫ר‬ʀ̟uː.aħ] ‘spirit’. This short [a]
so-called furtive pataḥ, e.g. ‫ּוח‬
vowel is to be interpreted as the epenthetic vowel, which has
shifted quality through assimilation to the vocal tract
configuration of the following laryngeal or pharyngeal. If the
whole of the vowel nucleus were a unitary long vowel in the same
syllable, one would have expected the assimilation to affect it as
a unit.66

66
The splitting of a long vowel into two syllable nuclei is a phenomenon
that is attested in the Samaritan reading tradition, e.g. rēʾoš ‘head’ (=
Tiberian ‫)רֹאׁש‬, which, according to Ben-Ḥayyim (2000, 67), developed
from *rōoš with the first nucleus dissimilating.
290 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

The occurrence of this epenthesis appears to reflect a con-

straint against syllables heavier than two morae. An open syllable
with a long vowel (CV̄) and a closed syllable with a short vowel
(CVC) are bimoraic, i.e. they have two morae in their codas,
whereas a closed syllable with a long vowel (CV̄C) would have
three morae. The constraint causes the CV̄C syllable to be broken
into two bimoraic syllables on the phonetic level CV̄.VC.
The underlying syllable structure of a word such as ‫קֹול‬
could be represented thus: /qō
̟ .l/, with a stray extrasyllabic con-
sonant. This follows from the assumption that the epenthetic
vowel must have been added at the phonetic level and the afore-
mentioned constraint against superheavy syllables must have ex-
isted also at the underlying level. Following the analysis by
Kiparsky (2003) of Arabic syllable structure, we may say that
such unsyllabifiable consonants at the underlying level, or ‘word-
level’ according to Kiparsky’s terminology, are licensed by morae
adjoined to the higher node of the prosodic word rather than the
syllable node. Kiparsky refers to these consonants as ‘semisylla-
bles’. In the following tree ω = prosodic word, σ = syllable, and
μ = mora:
ω

μ μ μ

q̟ ō l
/qō
̟ .l/ ‘voice’
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 291

We may postulate that the epenthetic is added at the pho-

netic level, or ‘post-lexical level’ according to the terminology of
lexical semantics used by Kiparsky, to turn the semisyllable into
a syllable, i.e. /qō.l/ [qoː.ol], since in Tiberian Hebrew semisyl-
lables were not allowed at the phonetic level. The underlying syl-
lable structure of the other examples given above would, there-
fore, be /jɔ̄.ð/, /lɔ̄.qū
̟ .m/, /hiʃ.mī.ð/ and /bē.θ/.
It will be argued (§I.2.6.) that in the metrical parsing the
epenthetic in the phonetic syllable structure of a word such as
̟ ː.ol] belonged together with the preceding long vowel in the
[ˈqo
same prosodic foot.67 This foot would have consisted of a trochaic
metrical pattern with a strong syllable followed by a weak epen-
thetic syllable. This can be represented as follows, where brackets
enclose the foot and * = strong beat:

[ˈqo
̟ ː.ol]
(* .)

In the examples given above of epenthesis the closed sylla-

bles have a vowel phoneme with inherent length. There are some
words with furtive pataḥ in a word-final stressed closed syllable
that, according to their etymology, would be expected to have an
underlying vowel phoneme without a length specification. This
applies to the *qull noun forms ‫ˈ[ ר ַַֹע‬ʀ̟oːaʕ] ‘badness’ (< *ruʿʿ, root
ַ ַ ‫ˈ[ מ‬moːaħ] ‘marrow’ (< *muḥḥ, root ‫)מחח‬. The con-
‫ )רעע‬and ‫ֹח‬
straint against syllables heavier than two morae and the splitting

67
J. McCarthy (1979, 155) also proposed that such syllables were feet
containing ‘two rhyme nodes’, though he did not identify an epenthetic
in his framework of analysis.
292 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

of the final consonant from the rest of the syllable would have
operated here at the phonetic level only after the phoneme had
been lengthened at the phonetic level by stress, i.e. /roʕ/
[ˈʀ̟oː.aʕ]. We should analyse, therefore, the syllable structure of
short vowel phonemes that are lengthened by stress in syllables
without a furtive pataḥ as having epenthetic vowels with the
same quality of the vowel on the phonetic level, thus:

‫ ָּע ֶַ֫מד‬/ʕɔ̄.mað/ [ʕɔː.ˈmaː.að]

‫ ָּל ֶכֶַ֫ם‬/lɔ̄.χɛm/ [lɔː.ˈχɛː.ɛm]

‫ ֶ֫עֹז‬/ʕoz/ [ˈʕoː.oz]

‫ ֶ֫ ֵלב‬/lev/ [ˈleː.ev]

The existence of the vowel split on the phonetic level in

closed syllables with a long vowel is also reflected by the
phenomenon of nesiga. This is a metrical measure to avoid the
clash of two accents, whereby the stress represented by a con-
junctive accent in the first of a sequence of two words is retracted
when the second word has initial stress (Praetorius 1897; Revell
1983; Yeivin 1980, 236–40). It most regularly occurs when the
first word ends in an open syllable or else a closed syllable that
contains a vowel phoneme without a length specification, in par-
ticular pataḥ and segol, e.g.

ֹ֑ ָּ ‫( ָּ ַ֣מ ֵל‬Psa. 65.10 ‘full of water’)

‫אַמיִ ם‬

ָּ ‫( ֵ ָ֥ה ִב‬Gen. 39.14 ‘he has brought for us’)

‫יאַלָ֛נּו‬

‫לַל ֶחם‬ ַ ֹ ‫( ַ֣ת‬Gen. 3.19 ‘you will eat bread’)

ֶ ִ֔ ‫אכ‬

‫ת ַאר‬ ַ ‫( ִו‬1 Sam. 25.3 ‘beautiful of form)

ֹ ִ֔ ַ‫ַ֣יפת‬
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 293

ֶ ‫( ֲע ִ ָ֥ש‬Jud. 9.16 ‘you have done to him’)

‫יתםַלֹו‬

The accent is in principle not retracted when it falls on a

closed syllable containing a long vowel phoneme, e.g.

ִׂ֖ ַ ‫(ַ ָּל ָ֥צ‬Gen. 27.5 ‘to hunt for game’)

‫ּודַציִ ד‬

ָּ ‫(ַ ָּא ִ ָׁ֥ש‬Zech. 9.12 ‘I will restore to you’)

‫יבַלְך‬

ָּ ‫( נִ ָּינ‬Psa. 74.8 ‘we will oppress them together’)

‫ַ֣םַי ַֹ֑חד‬

ֹ֑ ֵ ‫( ְשר ַ֣פ‬Isa. 1.7 ‘burnt by fire’)

‫ֹותַאׁש‬

ִָּ֔ ‫( י ֵ ַֹׁ֣ש‬1 Kings 17.19 ‘he is dwelling there’)

‫בַׁשם‬

Praetorius (1897, 16) already suggested that the long

vowels in stressed closed syllables that fell adjacent to another
stressed syllable, as in the examples cited above, had an accent
with ‘two peaks’, which tended to split it into a disyllable. Ac-
cording to our formulation, this second syllable can be identified
as the result of the insertion of an epenthetic vowel, and this
would have acted as a buffer between the two stresses, thus
rendering nesiga unnecessary:

ִׂ֖ ַ ‫[ ָּל ָ֥צ‬lɔː.ˈsˁuː.uð ˈsˁɑː.jið].

‫ּודַציִ ד‬

Likewise, the accent is not retracted from the final syllable

when the epenthetic vowel is clearly discernible in the form of a
furtive pataḥ, e.g.

ֹ֑ ָּ ‫( ְל ָּה ִ ַ֣ר ַיח‬Exod. 30.38 ‘to smell it’)

‫ַּבהּ‬

We have seen that nesiga takes place when a vowel

phoneme without a length specification occurs in a final closed
syllable, e.g. ‫לַל ֶחם‬
ֶ ִ֔ ‫אכ‬
ַ ֹ ‫( ַ֣ת‬Gen. 3.19). When stressed, such a vowel
would be phonetically long and split by an epenthetic, which
294 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

would have rendered retraction unnecessary. The fact that nesiga

does take place is most easily explained as reflecting that the
retraction took place at an earlier historical period, when vowels
that are phonemes with unspecified length in the Tiberian
tradition were still pronounced short when stressed. The position
of the accents would have been fixed at this period.
There is a considerable degree of variation in the occur-
rence of nesiga when a word-final closed syllable contains ṣere.
Some of this variation reflects the fact that ṣere is the realization
either of a long vowel phoneme /ē/ or of the vowel phoneme /e/
of unspecified length that is lengthened by stress. Retraction
often takes place when the ṣere belongs to the latter category, as
one would expect from the discussion above. This is the case, for
example, in verbal inflections. Since the /e/ phoneme is not
stressed, it has the allophone [ɛ], which is represented by segol,
e.g.

ִ ‫( ֵ ַּ֤א ֶל‬Cant. 4.6 ‘I go’)

ַ‫ְךַלי‬

ָּ ‫( יִ ָּּו ֶָ֥ת‬Zech. 13.8 ‘it will be left in it)

‫רַּבהּ‬

ָּ ‫( יְ ַ ָ֥כ ֶח‬Hos. 9.2 ‘it will fail them’)

‫ׁשַּבהּ‬

In some cases, there is retraction of an accent on ṣere in a

closed syllable even where it would be expected to be a long /ē/
phoneme. This is found especially in participles, which are
nominal forms. When this occurs, the ṣere remains long
(generally indicated by a gaʿya), since its length is not dependent
on stress, e.g.

‫בַד ַעת‬ ֹ ַ֣ (Prov. 12.1 ‘loves knowledge’)

ֹ֑ ָּ ‫א ֵה‬

ָּ ‫( ָׁ֥ש ֹ ֵל‬Jud. 8.10 ‘drawing a sword’)

‫ףַח ֶרב‬
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 295

ְ (Isa. 49.7 ‘one abhorred by the nations’)

‫למ ָּ ַּ֤ת ֵעבַגֹוי‬

Retraction even takes place in such forms where the ṣere

occurs before a guttural and has a furtive pataḥ, e.g.

ַ ‫( ַּּ֤בֹו ֵָּק ַע‬Isa. 63.12 ‘cleaving the waters’)

‫ַמיִ ם‬

‫ַּבר‬ ֹ ַ֣ (Prov. 11.26 ‘one who holds back grain’)

ֶ֭ ָּ ‫מ ֵנ ַע‬

This retraction in forms with a long /ē/ phoneme in

participles may be due to analogy with the retraction in verbal
forms with ṣere, where the ṣere is a realization of the phoneme
/e/ without a specified length feature. It is significant to note that
the vowel corresponding to the ṣere in the final syllable of
participles in the Greek transcriptions of the Hexapla is normally
η, which represents a long vowel, but in one case ε, which
represents a short vowel, e.g.68

αννωθην (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫נֹּותן‬

ַ֣ ֵ ‫ ַה‬Psa. 18.48
‘the one who gives’)

νωσηρ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ נ ֵֹצַ֣ר‬Psa. 31.24

‘preserving’)

ωζηρ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ ע ֵֹזָ֥ר‬Psa. 30.11

‘helper’)

ααφης (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ ֶָ֜ה ָּח ֵ֗ ֵפץ‬Psa. 35.27

‘the one who delights’)

μαλαμμεδ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ ְמ ַל ֵ ַ֣מּד‬Psa.

18.35 ‘trains (ms)’)

68
Data supplied by Ben Kantor.
296 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

In the Hexapla, ε is the counterpart of Tiberian ṣere also in

verbal forms (§I.2.3.2.). This isolated use of ε in a participle may
likewise reflect the fact that the vowel has undergone partial
analogical levelling with that of the verbal inflections.69 Other
nominal and adjectival forms regularly have η, representing long
‘e’, as a counterpart of ṣere in the Tiberian tradition, e.g.

αηλ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ַ‫ ָּה ֵאל‬Psa. 18.31

‘God’)

εκκης (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ ְ֝ ִע ֵ ֵ֗קּׁש‬Psa. 18.27

‘crooked’)

A typological parallel to the hypothesized insertion of an

epenthetic vowel in closed syllables containing a long vowel in
Tiberian Hebrew existed in Classical Arabic. According to the
medieval Arabic grammars and works on the recitation of the
Qurʾān, when a long vowel occurred in a closed syllable on
account of a subsequent geminated consonant, e.g. šābbatun
‘young woman’, qūṣṣa ‘he was avenged’, the long vowel was
pronounced longer than a long vowel in an open syllables.70 The
grammarian Ibn Jinnī in his work al-Khaṣāʾiṣ states that this
phenomenon arose from the fact that syllables such as šāb and
qūṣ contained the inadmissible sequence of two quiescent letters.

69
Yuditsky (2017, 153–54) and Brønno (1943, 260) argue that the short
vowel is because the form is in construct with what follows. Such an
explanation, however, is not totally satisfactory because other nominal
forms with final η in the Hexapla transcription do not necessarily
shorten in construct (Ben Kantor, personal communication).
70
See the sources cited by Roman (1983, 720–21).
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 297

In the Arabic grammatical tradition, a long vowel was thought to

consist of a short vowel + quiescent letter of extension (ḥarf al-
madd) or ‘soft’ letter (ḥarf al-lin), i.e. šā (‫ )شا‬would be analysed as
šīn + a + quiescent soft ʾalif. This theory was introduced into
the medieval tradition of Hebrew grammar by Ḥayyūj. The extra
length of the vowel in closed syllables is said by Ibn Jinnī to have
occurred ‘as a substitute for the short vowel that is necessitated
by the clustering of two quiescent letters’.71 The Arabist André
Roman has proposed that the syllable structure described by Ibn
Jinnī should be represented as šaa-ab etc.,72 i.e. the overlong
syllable is split by an epenthetic vowel of the same quality as the
preceding long vowel. This sequence of long vowel + epenthetic
would have been perceived as an extra-long unitary vowel.
Roman suggests that the onset of the syllable of the epenthetic
vowel was constituted by a light constriction of the vocal folds.
This form of syllable onset was attested elsewhere as a weak
variant of the glottal stop (hamza), called by Sībawaihi hamza
bayna bayna (‘sound between hamza and zero’). Although the
virtually null articulation of the hamza bayna bayna was, in effect,
simultaneous with the beginning of the subsequent vowel, it
formed sufficient division between two vowels for the resultant
structure to be scanned as two syllables in poetry.73
It is reasonable to assume that the onset of the phonetic
syllable arising from the insertion of the epenthetic after a long
vowel in closed syllables in the Tiberian reading tradition of

71
See Roman (1983, 722-23).
72
Roman (1983, 723).
73
For the hamza bayna bayna see Roman (1983, 333).
298 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Hebrew was analogous to the Classical Arabic hamza bayna

bayna, i.e. a very light constriction of the vocal folds. As in
Arabic, this would have been hardly perceptible but nonetheless
sufficient to mark a syllabic boundary for metrical purposes.
When the epenthetic in such syllables in the Tiberian
tradition was a furtive pataḥ, the onset of the phonetic syllable
containing the epenthetic would have been a glide homorganic
with the quality of the preceding vowel. The medieval Karaite
lexicographer al-Fāsī refers to the existence of a bilabial glide in
words in which the vowel before the furtive pataḥ is shureq or
ḥolem:
Whenever the accent is on the letter before a vav, its
ַ ַ ‫‘ ַּ֤ר‬spirit’
pronunciation is light, between the lips, as in ‫ּוח‬
and ‫ֹוח‬ ַּ֤ ִ‫‘ נ‬soothing’.74
ַ ַ ‫יח‬

Glides before furtive pataḥ are mentioned also in a Genizah

fragment of a Masoretic treatise:

If one of the letters ‫ה‬, ‫ ח‬or ‫ ע‬occurs at the end of a word

and under the letter before it there is either ‫א‬
ִַ or ‫א‬,
ֵַ then
ַ ַ ‫‘ וְ ָּׁש ֵמ‬and he
they are separated by ‫( יַ א‬i.e. [ja]), as in ‫ע‬
heard’, ‫ח‬
ַ ַ ‫‘ ָּש ֵמ‬joyful’, ‫ח‬
ַ ַ ‫‘ פ ֵֹר‬flourishing’, ‫יע‬
ַ ַ ‫‘ ַמ ְׁש ִמ‬causing to
hear’. If ַ‫א‬
ֹ is over it, they are separated by ‫( וַ א‬i.e. [wa]), as

74
Kitāb Jāmiʿ al-ʾAlfāẓ, ed. Skoss (1936, vol. 2, 451-452): ַ‫כלַויוַיכוןַאללחן‬
‫ּוחַניחֹוח‬
ַּ֤ ‫לַר‬
ַּ֤ ‫פףַביןַאלשפתיןַמת‬
̇ ‫הַמכ‬
̇ ‫רוג‬
̇ ‫יַקבלהַיכוןַכ‬
̇ ‫פיַאלחרףַאלד‬.
̇ See §I.1.6. for
further details.
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 299

ַ ַ ‫‘ ָּׁש‬hearing’, ‫ֹח‬
in ‫מֹוע‬ ַ ַ ‫‘ נִ יח‬fragrant’, and it ‫ אּו‬occurs, cases
ַ ַ ‫‘ יְ הֹוש‬Joshua’.75
such as ‫ע‬

Such a glide is the result of a slight dip in the sonority of

the preceding vowel. This can be represented in the phonetic
ַ ַ ‫ ַּ֤ר‬thus: [ˈʀ̟uːwaħ]. A word with
transcription of a word such as ‫ּוח‬
a ḥireq or ṣere before furtive pataḥ can be represented with a
ַ ַ ‫ˈ[ ִש‬siːjaħ] ‘plant’.
palatal glide thus: ‫יח‬
In most modern reading traditions in Arabic-speaking
Jewish communities the glide before the furtive pataḥ is
geminated (Morag 1952), e.g.

Baghdad

jesoˈḥejjaḥ (Morag 1977, 55 | L [BHS]: ‫ח‬

ַ ַ ‫ֹוח‬
ֹ֑ ֵ ‫ יְַש‬Isa. 53.8
‘[who] considers … ?’)

ˈruːwwaḥ (Morag 1977, 55 | L [BHS]: ‫ח‬

ַ ַ ‫ ִַׂ֖רּו‬Ecc. 11.4 ‘spirit’)

Jerba

haˈreˑjˌjaʕ (Katz 1977, 87 | L [BHS]: ‫ע‬

ַַ ‫ ָּה ֵר‬Isa. 1.16 ‘doing
evil’)

ˈruwwaḥ (Katz 1977, 87 | L [BHS]: ‫ח‬

ַ ַ ‫ ַַ֣רּו‬Deut. 34.9 ‘spirit of’)

In some traditions, the gemination of the glide alternates

with the lack of it, e.g.

75
CUL T-S NS 301.32: ַ‫ואןַאתפקַאכרַכלמהַחרףַמןַה ̇ח ̇עַוכאןַתחתַאלחרףַאלדי‬
̇
ַֹ‫חַ ַמ ְׁש ִמ ַעַואדאַכאןַעליהַא‬
ַ ַ ‫ַש ֵמ ַחַפ ֵֹר‬
ָּ ‫ַופתחַבינהמאַּביַ אַמתלַוְ ָּׁש ֵמ ַע‬
ְ ‫ַאֹוַא‬
ֵ ‫קבלהַאמאַא‬
ִ
‫ע‬
ַ ַ ‫מֹועַנִ יח ַֹחַואןַאתפקַאּוַמתלַיְ הֹוׁש‬
ַ ‫אַמתלַׁש‬
ָּ ַ‫פתחַבינהמאַבו‬
ְ .
300 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Yemen

rejjaħ ~ reːjaħ (Morag 1963, 134 | L [BHS]: ‫יח‬

ַ ַ ‫ ֵ ֹ֑ר‬Cant. 2.13
‘fragrance’)

jaʤʤijjah ~ jaʤʤiːjah (Morag 1963, 134 | L [BHS]: ‫יה‬

ַ ַ ‫ַי ִ ָ֥ג‬
Isa. 13.10 ‘[he] will lighten’)

nɞwwaħ ~ nɞːwaħ (Morag 1963, 134 | ‫ֹח‬

ַ ַ ‫‘ נ‬Noah’)

ruwwaħ ~ ruːwaħ (Morag 1963, 134 | ‫רּוח‬

ַ ַ ‘spirit’)

In some of the Karaite transcriptions, an Arabic shadda sign

is written over the glide, indicating that it was read as geminated
in some variations of the Tiberian tradition already in the Middle
Ages, e.g.

‫( ۣر ۟وࣦح‬BL Or 2555 fol. 23r, 1 | L [BHS]: ‫ ר ַ ַּוח‬Ecc. 4.4 ‘spirit’)

‫مج ۟يࣦـع‬
ۚ (BL Or 2555 fol. 86v, 10 | L [BHS]: ‫ ַמ ִג ַַַּ֤יע‬Ecc. 8.14
‘that which reaches’)

ࣦ‫ࣦن ۢوغۛ يࣦ ۟ع‬ٟ ۟‫( ه‬BL Or 2559, fol. 5v, 13 | L [BHS]: ‫ וְ ַהנֹּגֵ ַ ַע‬Lev. 22.4
‘whoever touches’)

It is attested also in some medieval manuscripts of Rabbinic

Hebrew, e.g. ‫( ַה ִטיַּ ח‬Mishnah, Kelim 5.10 ‘the plastering’).76
The strengthening of the glide by gemination can be
regarded as a measure to preserve it. It results in the fortition of
the second vocalic mora of the preceding long [uː] or [iː] vowel,
thus:

76
Epstein (1950), Morag (1952, 236).
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 301

[Cuu] > [Cuw], e.g. [ˈʀ̟uːwaħ] > [ˈʀ̟uwwaħ]

[Cii] > [Cij], e.g. [magˈgiːjaʕ] > [magˈgijjaʕ]

The geminated [j] would, according to the normal

principles of Tiberian pronunciation be realized as [ɟɟ], so a more
accurate transcription would be [magˈgiɟɟaʕ].
A similar type of gemination of glides is reflected in other
contexts in the standard Tiberian vocalization, e.g. ‫( ֲאד ִֹמ ִָ֜יּים‬1
Kings 11.17 ‘Edomites’), ‫( ְר ִמ ָּיּה‬Job 13.7 ‘deceit’), ‫( וְ ַה ְשּׁ ִת ָּיָּ֥ה‬Esther
1.8 ‘and the drinking’). This too is likely to have developed as a
measure to preserve the glide. The vulnerability of such glides is
ַ ‫( ַה ִמּ ְצ ִר‬Gen. 12.14 ‘the Egyp-
shown by gentilic forms such as ‫ים‬
tians’ < *hammiṣrīyīm).
In the Samaritan reading tradition, gemination of the glides
[w] and [j] is normal between vowels. In many such cases an
original guttural has been lost between the vowels (Ben-Ḥayyim
2000, 38–39), e.g.

ֹ֑ ָּ Gen. 19.37 ‘Moab’)

muwwåb (‫מֹואב‬

ʾēluwwəm (‫ֹלהים‬
ֹ֑ ִ ‫ ֱא‬Gen. 1.1 ‘God’)

ַּ֤ ִ Gen. 6.3 ‘my spirit’)

ruwwi (‫רּוחי‬
̄
miyyådåm ָּ ‫ ֵמ‬Gen. 6.7 ‘from man’)
(ַ‫אָדם‬

miyyor (‫ ֵמ ַ֣אּור‬Gen. 11.31 ‘from Ur’)

miyyēləb (‫ ֵמ ָּח ָּלב‬Gen. 49.12 ‘than milk’)

A possible example of the opposite process is the reading

by Ben Naftali of the word ‫( יִ יָּּ ֶ ִ֔רה‬Exod. 19.13 ‘he will be shot’) as
‫ יִ יַָּ ֶ ִ֔רה‬without gemination of the second yod, which is reported in
302 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Kitāb al-Khilaf (ed. Lipschütz 1965, ‫)יא־יב‬. This would reflect an

original [Cij] shifting to [Cii].
In modern reading traditions in the Middle East, the furtive
pataḥ often receives a secondary or, in some cases, a second main
stress, e.g.

Jerba

haˈreˑjˌjaʕ (Katz 1977, 87 | L [BHS]: ‫ע‬

ַַ ‫ ָּה ֵר‬Isa. 1.16 ‘doing
evil’)

ˌhoˈfeːjˈjaʕ (Katz 1977, 87 | L [BHS]: ‫יע‬

ַ ַ ‫הֹופ‬
ִ Deut. 33.2 ‘he
shone forth’)

This phenomenon is reflected already in some Karaite

transcriptions, in which the furtive pataḥ is represented by mater
lectionis ʾalif, e.g.

‫( ا ۖ۟خنۚ يا۟ع‬BL Or 2551 fol. 42r, 7 | L [BHS]: ‫ ַא ְכ ִנ ַַֹ֑יע‬Psa. 81.15 ‘I

shall subdue’)

‫( ۢهوخياح ۢتو ۚخياح‬BL Or 2551 fol. 66r, 3 | L [BHS]: ַ‫הֹוכ ַַּ֤ח‬

ֵ

‫יח‬ ִ Lev. 19.17 ‘you shall surely rebuke’)

ַ ַ ‫תֹוכ‬

It is likely that the purpose of this measure was to preserve

the furtive pataḥ.
In some manuscripts with Non-Standard Tiberian vocal-
ization, a furtive pataḥ is not marked before a guttural where it
occurs in standard Tiberian vocalization, e.g.
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 303

Genizah manuscripts

ַ ַ ‫ ִפ ֵת‬Job 39.5 ‘he

‫( ִפ ֵתח‬T-S A11.1, Blapp 2017, 48 | L [BHS]: ‫ח‬
has loosened’)

‫יח‬
ְַ ‫( מֹו ִ ָ֥כ‬T-S A11.1, Blapp 2017, 47 | L [BHS]: ‫יח‬
ַ ַ ‫מֹוכ‬
ִַׂ֖ ִ Job 40.2
‘he who reproves’)

ַ‫( ַמּדּוע‬T-S A12.1, Blapp 2017, 71 | L [BHS]: ‫דּוע‬

ַ ַ ‫ ַמ‬Ruth 2.10
‘why?’)

ְַ‫( ִּב ְז ַ֣רֹוע‬T-S A13.18, Blapp 2017, 125 | L [BHS]: ‫ֹוע‬

ַַ ‫ ִּבזְ ָ֥ר‬Psa.
89.11 ‘with an arm of’)

European manuscripts

ְַ‫( וְ ִַל ְַנטֹע‬Codex Reuchlinianus, Morag 1959, 233 | L [BHS]:

ַַ ֹ‫ וְ ִלנְ ט‬Jer. 18.9 ‘and to plant’)
‫ע‬

‫יה‬
ְַ ‫( יַַ ִ ָ֥ג‬Codex Reuchlinianus, Morag 1959, 233 | L [BHS]: ‫יה‬
ַ ַ ‫יַ ִ ָ֥ג‬
Isa. 13.10 ‘it (does not) shine’)

‫ח‬
ְַ ‫( ִפ ֵ ִׂ֖ס‬ASCAMO 57.2 v, Pilocane 2004, 29 | L [BHS]:‫ח‬
ַ ַ ‫ ִפ ֵ ִׂ֖ס‬2
Sam. 9.13)

As can be seen, in some cases a shewa is marked on the final

guttural, which is a common practice in Non-Standard Tiberian
manuscripts (§I.1.8., §I.1.16.). The vocalization, however, re-
flects the absence of furtive pataḥ. A furtive pataḥ is absent also
in many manuscripts with Palestinian vocalization.77
It is also omitted in some modern reading traditions of the
Mishnah, e.g.

77
Morag (1959, 233), Katz (1977, 87), Bauer and Leander (1922, 112–
13).
304 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Yemen

pɞːħeːħ (Morag 1963. 128 | ‫ח‬

ַ ַ ‫פֹוח‬
ֵ Mishnah, Megillah 4.6,
‘clad in rags (ms)’)

The development of the furtive pataḥ after close ([iː], [uː])

and close-mid ([eː], [oː]) long vowels before gutturals in the Ti-
berian tradition was the result, as remarked above, of giving the
epenthetic after the long vowel a quality that is compatible with
the vocal tract configuration of the guttural. This is likely to have
had the orthoepic motivation of increasing the perceptibility of
the guttural in order to ensure that it was preserved in the read-
ing. The reading traditions that lacked furtive pataḥ were more
lax in the measures they took to preserve the gutturals in this
respect. It is significant to note that the Samaritan tradition,
which in its modern form has lost a large proportion of the gut-
turals, does not reflect the historical presence of a furtive pataḥ
(Ben-Ḥayyim 2000, 38–39), e.g.

ַ ַ ‫ וְ ַ֣ר‬Gen. 1.2 ‘and the spirit of’)

wrū (BHS: ‫ּוח‬
̄ (BHS: ‫ֹוע‬
zåˈru ַַ ‫ זְ ִׂ֖ר‬Deut. 33.20 ‘arm’)

šū (BHS: ‫ּוע‬

ַַ ‫ ֹׁ֑ש‬Gen. 38.2 ‘Shua’)

mazˈrī (BHS: ‫יע‬

ַַ ‫ ַמזְ ִ ַ֣ר‬Gen. 1.11 ‘producing seed’)

ʾarqi (BHS: ‫יע‬

ַַ ‫ ָּר ִ ִָּׂ֖ק‬Gen. 1.6 ‘expanse’)
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 305

I.2.5. SHEWA AND ḤAṬEF VOWELS

I.2.5.1. Principles of Phonetic Realization and

Graphical Marking

I.2.5.1.1. Default Realization of Shewa

The shewa (‫)ׁשוָּ א‬
ְ sign (ְַ‫ )א‬in the Tiberian vocalization system was
read either as a vowel or as zero.78 When shewa was read as vo-
calic, its quality in the Tiberian tradition was by default the same
as that of the pataḥ vowel sign, i.e., the maximally low vowel [a],
e.g.

‫[ ְת ַכ ֶ ָ֥סה‬tʰaχasˈsɛː] ‘you (ms) cover’ (Job 21.26)

‫[ ְמ ַד ְּב ִ ַ֣רים‬maðabbaˈʀ̟iːim] ‘speaking’ (mpl) (Esther 2.14)

This [a] vowel is the outcome of a type of vowel reduction.

Vowel reduction processes cross-linguistically usually result in

78
Various other terms are used in the early sources to refer to the shewa
sign, such as the Arabic terms nuqṭaṭayn qāʾimatayn ‘two dots standing
upright’ and jazm ‘cutting off’, both found in the works of Saadya. More-
over in some sources the word shewa is spelt with a bet (‫)שבא‬. For details
see Dotan (1953), Allony (1973, 105, n.165). In the early medieval
sources a terminological distinction was made between shewa and the
vowels, the latter being referred to by Hebrew terms such as ‫מלכים‬
‘kings’, ‫‘ סימנים‬signs’, ‫‘ נעימות‬melodies’, ‫‘ תנועות‬movements’ or Arabic
terms such as mulūk ‘kings’, naghamāt ‘melodies’, muṣawwitāt ‘sounding
forms’, ḥarakāt ‘movements’ and ʾanḥāʾ ‘inflections’. See, for example,
Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.2.1.,
also Allony (1963), Posegay (2020).
306 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

loss of prominence, involving centralization and truncating dura-

tion. It has been recognized, however, that in some languages
reduction involves pushing the vowels to the edges of the vowel
space.79 In some documented cases, this involves lowering vowels
to [a], which is the vowel quality with the highest sonority.80 This
can be regarded as a strategy for preventing loss of prominence
and maintaining duration. Such a strategy would be compatible
with the conservative nature and orthoepic tendencies of the Ti-
berian tradition.
Other pre-modern traditions of Hebrew generally exhibit a
less sonorous realization of vocalic shewa.
In the Greek and Latin transcriptions, it is frequently repre-
sented as an [e] quality, e.g.81

Septuagint

Γέραρα (Göttingen Septuagint | L [BHS]: ‫ גְ ָּר ָּרה‬Gen. 26.1 ‘to

Gerar’)

Νετωφὰ (Göttingen Septuagint | L [BHS]: ‫ נְ ט ָּ ִֹׂ֖פה‬Ezra 2.22

‘Netopha’)

Origen

79
See, for example, Crosswhite (2000; 2001; 2004).
80
E.g. in the unstressed syllables of Belarussian: ˈkol ‘pole’ > kaˈla ‘pole’
(genitive); ˈʃept ‘whisper’ > ʃapˈtatsʲ ‘to whisper’. This phenomenon is
discussed in the context of Tiberian Hebrew by Himmelreich (2019),
although he does not apply it to the vocalic shewa.
81
Data supplied by Ben Kantor.
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 307

γεδουδ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ גְ ֹ֑דּוד‬Psa. 18.30 ‘a

troop’)

σερουφα (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫רּופה‬

ֹ֑ ָּ ‫ ְצ‬Psa. 18.31
‘refined’)

Jerome

bethula (Commentary on Isaiah, ed. Gryson, III.16.21 |

ָּ ‫‘ ְּב‬virgin’ [comments on Isa. 7.14])
‫תּולה‬

mecchenaph (Commentary on Isaiah, ed. Gryson, VIII.7.11

| L [BHS]: ‫ ִמ ְכ ֵּ֨ ַנף‬Isa. 24.16 ‘from the edge of’)

In Origen, there is sometimes no vowel where Tiberian has

a vocalic shewa, e.g.

βδαμι (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ ְּב ָּד ִמַי‬Psa. 30.10 ‘in

my blood’)

φλαγαυ (Ambrosiana Palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ ְפ ָּל ֵ֗ ָּגיו‬Psa. 46.5

‘its streams’)

In medieval Palestinian vocalization, an [e] (represented

below by ‫)א‬
ֵ or [i] vowel (represented below by ‫)א‬
ֵ is often used
where Tiberian and vocalic shewa, e.g.82

‫מנֵ[ו]ח‬
ֵ‫מ‬ֵ (T-S NS 249.6, Dietrich 1968, 78* | L [BHS]: ‫ֹוח‬
ַ ַ ִׂ֖‫ִמ ְמּנ‬
1 Chr 6.16 ‘of the resting of’)

‫בה‬
ֵ ‫סב‬
ֵ ֵ‫( י‬T-S 12.195, Kahle 1930, 84 | L [BHS]: ‫ה‬
ַָּ ‫ְסֹוב ָ֥ב‬
ְ ‫ י‬Psa.
55.11 ‘they will go round’)

82
Data supplied by Shai Heijmans.
308 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

The older layers of the Babylonian vocalization tradition

appear to reflect a tendency to have zero where Tiberian has vo-
calic shewa. This can be inferred, for example, from a vocalization
such as the following (Yeivin 1985, §8.13):

‫סוד‬
ֹ ִ‫[ י‬iːsoːð] (Yeivin 1985, §8.13 | L [BHS]: ‫ יְ ִׂ֖סֹוד‬Lev. 4.25
‘the base of’)

Here the yod is vocalized with ḥireq, which appears to have

arisen due to the fact that this initial consonant clustered with
the second consonant without an epenthetic [jsoːð] > [iːsoːð].
A few modern reading traditions realize vocalic shewa as
the sonorous [a] vowel, as in Tiberian, e.g.

Yemen

[răfɔ.ˈim] (Yaʾakov 2013, 1014 | L [BHS]: ‫ ְר ָּפ ִ ָ֥אים‬Isa. 26.19

‘shades’)

[lăˈmaʕlɔ] (Yaʾakov 2013, 1014 | L [BHS]: ‫ ְל ַ ַ֣מ ְעלָּ ה‬Ezra 9.6

‘higher/above’)

Western Kurdistan

Šalomo (Sabar 2013, 480 | ‫‘ ְׁשֹלמֹה‬Solomon’)

našāma (Sabar 2013, 480 | ‫‘ נְ ָּׁש ָּמה‬soul’)

Eastern Kurdistan

tafillim (Sabar 2013, 481 | ‫‘ ְת ִפ ִלּין‬phylacteries’)

ִ ‫‘ ְּב ִר‬circumcision’)
barit mila (Sabar 2013, 481 | ‫יתַמ ָּילה‬

Kerala (festive reading)

[gaːdoːˈloː] (Forsström 2013, 462 | L [BHS]: ‫דֹולה‬

ָּ ִ֔ ְ‫‘ ג‬large (fs)’
Esther 8.15)
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 309

[taˈxeːleːðeː] (Forsström 2013, 462 | L [BHS]: ‫‘ ְת ֵכ ֶַ֣לת‬blue’

Esther 8.15)

In most Sefardi reading traditions vocalic shewa is realized

higher in the region of [e], e.g.

Baghdad

ˌmətteˈmol (Morag 1977, 67 | L [BHS]: ‫מל‬

ֹ ַ֣ ‫ת‬
ְַ ‫מ‬
ִַ Exod. 21.29
‘from yesterday)

Jerba

ʔəgˌgedoˈlaː (Katz 1977, 101 | L [BHS]: ‫הגְַד ֵ֗ ָֹּלה‬

ַַ Exod. 14.31
‘the big (fs)’)

Aleppo

ʃeˈneˑ (Katz 1981, 54 | L [BHS]: ‫ׁש ֵנַּ֤י‬

ְַ Gen. 48.1 ‘years of’)

Tripoli

šeˈlumu (Artom 1922, 6 | ‫‘ ְׁשֹלמֹה‬Solomon’)

Tunisia

weroxˈbu (Henshke 2013, 864 | L [BHS]: ‫ וְ ר ְֹכ ִׂ֖בֹו‬Exod. 15.1

‘and its rider’)

Karaite traditions (Lithuania, Poland, Ukraine, Crimea and

Istanbul)

bʲe-torat (Harviainen 2013, 457 | L [BHS]: ‫תֹורת‬ ְַ ‘in the

ָ֥ ַ ‫ּב‬
teaching of’ Psa. 119.1)

Italy

metunim (Ryzhik 2013, 363 | ‫‘ ְמתּונִ ים‬moderate’ (mpl))

310 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Kerala (regular reading)

[ʃefiˈpon] (Forsström 2013, 461 | L [BHS]: ‫ׁש ִפי ִֹׂ֖פן‬

ְַ ‘adder’
Gen. 49.17)

In Morocco, vocalic shewa is frequently realized as the high

vowel [i], e.g.

ַַ Exod. 14.31 ‘the

hagidulá (Akun 2010, 186 | L [BHS]: ‫הגְַד ֵ֗ ָֹּלה‬
big (fs)’)

Ashkenazi reading traditions often have zero where Tibe-

rian has a vocalic shewa, e.g.

Northeastern Ashkenazi

[krejˈvɔ] (Katz 1993, 74 | ‫רֹובה‬

ָּ ‫‘ ְק‬close’)

[gvul] (Katz 1993, 74 | ‫‘ גְ בֹול‬border’)

In some traditions, it is often realized as the central vowel

[ə], e.g.

Mideastern Ashkenazi

[mədiːˈnu] (Glinert 2013, 194 | ‫‘ ְמ ִדינָּ ה‬country’)

Central Ashkenazi

[mədiːˈnoː] (Glinert 2013, 196 | ‫‘ ְמ ִדינָּ ה‬country’)

I.2.5.1.2. Contextually-Conditioned Realization of

Shewa
In the Tiberian tradition, when vocalic shewa occurs before a gut-
tural consonant or the letter yod, it was realized with a different
quality through an assimilatory process. Before a guttural (i.e.
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 311

‫ )אהחע‬it was realized as a short vowel with the quality of the

vowel on the guttural,83 e.g.

ַָ֛‫[ ְּב ֶע ְר ְכך‬bɛʕɛʀ̟kʰaˈχɔː] ‘by your evaluation’ (Lev. 5.15)

‫[ וְ ָּה ָּיִׂ֖ה‬vɔhɔːˈjɔː] ‘and it became’ (Gen. 2.10)

‫[ ְּב ֵֶ֫אר‬beˈʔeːeʀ̟] ‘well’

‫[ ְמ ֶ֫אֹוד‬moˈʔoːoð] ‘very’

‫[ ְמ ִֶ֫חיר‬miˈħiːiʀ̟] ‘price’

‫[ וְ ִח ֵֵּ֕כְך‬viħikˈkʰeːeχ] ‘and your palate’ (Cant. 7.10)

ָּ ‫[ ְמ‬muʕuːˈχɔː] ‘pressed’ (1 Sam. 26.7)

‫עּוכה‬

Before yod, it was realized as a short vowel with the quality

of short ḥireq [i],84 e.g.

83
Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book,
§II.L.2.12.1, short version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.S.5.1. Some
Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts substitute a vowel sign for the
shewa in such contexts, explicitly marking the assimilation in quality,
e.g. ]‫( ִכ ִאמרת[ך‬T-S AS 68.100 | L [BHS]: ַָ֥‫ ְכ ִא ְמ ָּר ְתך‬Psa. 119.76 ‘according
to your promise’), ‫י־ל ִ ַּ֣בי‬
ִ ‫( יִ ִה‬T-S AS 68.100 | L [BHS]: ‫י־ל ִ ַּ֣בי‬
ִ ‫ יְ ִה‬Psa. 119.80
‘let my heart be’), ‫ׁשמ ָּרה‬
ַ ‫( ֶֶ֭ו ֶא‬T-S AS 68.100 | L [BHS]: ‫ וְ ְֶ֝א ְׁש ְמ ָּ ֵ֗רה‬Psa. 119.88
‘and I will keep’), ‫( ָּב ָּעניִ י‬T-S AS 68.100 | L [BHS]: ‫ ְב ָּענְ יִ י‬Psa. 119.92 ‘in
my affliction’) (Outhwaite 2020).
84
Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, short version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.S.5.2.
Saadya, Kutub al-Lugha (ed. Dotan 1997, 468–72). Treatise on the Shewa
(CUL Or 1080.13.3.2, fol. 2v.). Some Non-Standard Tiberian manu-
scripts explicitly mark this pronunciation before yod by vocalizing with
a ḥireq, e.g. ‫( ִביֹום‬T-S AS 44.35 | L [BHS]: ‫ ְּביַ֣ ֹום‬Lam. 3.57 ‘on the day’)
(Outhwaite 2020).
312 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

‫[ ְּביָ֛ ֹום‬biˈjoːom] ‘on the day’ (Gen. 2.17)

ַ‫[ ְליִ ְש ָּר ֵאל‬lijisrˁɔːˈʔeːel] ‘to Israel (Gen. 46.2)

‫[ ַה ְתיָּ ִָׁ֜שים‬hattʰijɔːˈʃiːim] ‘the goats’ (Gen. 30.35)

ְַ [tʰaðammiˈjuːun] ‘you liken’ (Isa. 40.18)

‫ת ַד ְמּיַ֣ ּון‬

According to the introduction to Kitāb al-Khilaf, where Ben

Asher vocalized a preposition ‫ ל‬or ‫ ב‬followed by yod thus ‫ְליִ ְש ָּר ֵאל‬
‘to Israel’, Ben Naftali vocalized the first letter with ḥireq with no
vowel on the yod, i.e. ‫יש ָּר ֵאל‬
ְ ‫( ִל‬Lipschütz 1965, 18). The pronun-
ciation of the reading of Ben Asher was [lijisrˁɔːˈʔeːel], the shewa
being pronounced as [i] before the yod. In the reading of Ben
Naftali, the sequence [iji] was contracted to a long vowel. As we
shall see below, long vowels in syllables closed by a shewa must
have had an epenthetic of the same quality, as was the case with
long vowels in closed syllables in word-final position (§I.2.5.6.).
Ben Naftali’s reading, therefore, can be represented [liːis-
rˁɔːˈʔeːel].
Among the early model manuscripts, C frequently exhibits
the type of reading of shewa before yod attributed to Ben Naftali.
Such vocalizations are common also in manuscripts with Non-
Standard Tiberian vocalization after the prefixed particles ‫ל‬, ‫ב‬
and ‫ו‬, i.e. types of vocalization such as ‫יש ָּר ֵאל‬
ְ ‫ל‬,
ִ ‫ִַיש ָּר ֵאל‬
ְ ‫ּב‬, ‫וִַיש ָּר ֵאל‬.
ְ 85

85
For this type of vocalization in Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts
see Ginsburg (1897, 578), Kahle (1930, 58*), Morag (1959, 233–34),
Blapp (2017, 40-41, 76, 204).
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 313

I.2.5.1.3. Ḥaṭef Signs

The shewa sign is combined with some of the basic vowel signs
to form the so-called ḥaṭef signs. In the standard Tiberian vocali-
zation these compound signs include:

ḥaṭef pataḥ (ֲַ‫)א‬ [a]

ḥaṭef segol (ֱַ‫)א‬ [ɛ]
ḥaṭef qameṣ (ֳַ‫)א‬ [ɔ]

In such signs the vocalic reading of the shewa is made ex-

plicit and also its quality.
In the Aleppo Codex (A) there are sporadic examples of a
ḥaṭef ḥireq sign,86 e.g.

A: ‫ת ִ ָ֥עיבּו‬ ִַ ְ ‫( ִה‬Psa. 14.1 ‘they have acted corruptly and

ִַ ְ ‫ׁש ִֵ֗חיתּו ַ ִה‬
have done abominable deeds’ | L [BHS]: ‫ֿת ִ ָ֥עיבּו‬
ְַ ‫) ִה ְׁש ִֵ֗חיֿתּוַ ִה‬

In ḥaṭef signs the shewa sign is normally placed to the right

of the vowel sign. There are, however, some isolated variant
forms of ḥaṭef signs in the early manuscripts in which the shewa
sign is placed under or above the vowel sign. When the

86
There are five cases of this sign in A; cf. Yeivin (1968, 21). Ḥaṭef ḥireq
is attested also in some manuscripts with Non-Standard Tiberian
vocalization.
314 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

component signs are stacked in this way, one of the components

is sometimes placed inside the open space of the letter under
which it is marked. Variants of this nature are attested, for
example, in A (Yeivin 1968, 17). In L several of the ḥaṭef pataḥ
signs are the result of later corrections of an original simple shewa
sign by the scribe of L, Samuel ben Jacob, or a later hand. In
many such cases, the ḥaṭef sign is misshapen with the vowel sign
component often squeezed into the space above the shewa sign
(Phillips 2020).

A: ‫ה‬ ֲַ ‫‘ ִה ְת‬it was rent asunder’ (Isa. 24.19)

ַ ‫פֹור ָּר‬

L: ‫‘ ִקלֲ ַלִׂ֖ת‬the curse of’ (Jud. 9.57)

The stacking of shewa above the vowel sign and writing in-
side the letter, especially ḥet and he, is common in Non-Standard
Tiberian manuscripts.87
The default pronunciation of vocalic shewa with the quality
of [a] was equivalent to that of the ḥaṭef pataḥ sign (ֲַ‫)א‬. Both the

87
Kahle (1930, 58*), Díez Macho (1963, 37) and Blapp (2017, 79).
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 315

vocalic shewa and the vowels expressed by ḥaṭef signs were short
vowels that, in principle, had the same quantity as short vowels
in closed unstressed syllables, which were represented in stand-
ard Tiberian vocalization by a simple vowel sign. So, the vocalic
shewa in a word such as ‫‘ ְת ַכ ֶ ָ֥סה‬you cover’ (Job 21.26) would have
been read with the same quality and quantity as the pataḥ in the
closed syllable that follows it: [tʰaχasˈsɛː]. Likewise, the ḥaṭef
pataḥ in ‫[ ֲה ֶמ ֶלְך‬haˈmɛːlɛχ] ‘interrogative + king’ would have been
read with the same quality and quantity as the pataḥ in ‫ַה ֶמּ ֶלְך‬
[hamˈmɛːlɛχ] ‘the king’. Evidence for this is found in the Treatise
on the Shewa published by K. Levy:
It is an established fact that every letter that has a ‘light’
(i.e. short) vowel requires a shewa unless this is precluded
by a dagesh (in the following letter), as we exemplified at
the beginning of our treatise, ‫ְך—ה ֶמ ֶלְך‬
ֲ ‫ה ֶמּ ֶל‬,
ַ or by a shewa
ַ the ʾalef has
that is adjacent to it, i.e. after it, as in ‫;א ְב ָּר ָּהם‬
a short vowel, and were it not for the shewa that comes
after it, we would have given it a shewa.88

The author of this treatise did not feel that there was a
quantity difference between the vowel written with the ḥaṭef sign
and the vowel represented by the full vowel sign. In his view, it
was the syllable structure that necessitated the notational
distinction and not the quantity of the vowel segment. The

88
ַ‫ותבתַאןַכלַמכפףַפלאַבדַלהַמןַשואַבתהַאלאַאןַימנעהַאלדגשַכמאַמתלנאַפי‬
ַ‫ְךַאוַימנעהַשואַיכוןַאליַגאנבהַאעניַבעדהַכקולךַא ְב ָּר ָּהםַאלאלף‬
ַ ‫ךַה ֶמּ ֶל‬
ַ ‫אולַקולנאַה ֶמ ֶל‬
ֲ
‫כפיףַולולאַאלשואַאלדיַבעדהַגעלנאַלהַשוא‬, ed. Levy (1936, ‫)כה‬. The lacunae
in Levy's text can now be supplied from the Geniza manuscript, CUL Or
1080.13.3.2, fol. 2v; cf. Yeivin (1981, 46), Eldar (1988, 127).
316 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

shortness of the vowel in a closed syllable was indicated by the

dagesh or shewa on the subsequent consonant. For the sake of
economy of notation, no additional sign was added to the vowel
sign.
Further evidence for the quantitative equivalence of shewa
and ḥaṭef vowels, on the one hand, and short vowels represented
by full vowel signs in closed unstressed syllables, on the other,
can be found in the use of the ḥaṭef signs and shewa in a variety
of Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts from the Cairo Genizah.
These manuscripts sometimes represent short vowels in closed
unstressed syllables with a ḥaṭef sign and represent short [a] in a
closed unstressed syllable by a shewa sign, e.g.

‫( ְל ֲא ְב ָּר ָּהם‬T-S A21.14, Khan 1991, 863 | L [BHS]: ‫ְַל ַא ְב ָּר ָּ ָ֥הם‬
Gen. 35.12 ‘to Abraham’)

‫( ַה ָּ ֹ֑פעֲַם‬T-S A2.30 | L [BHS]: ‫ ַה ָּ ֹ֑פ ַעם‬Exod. 9.27 ‘this time’)89

‫ת‬ ִַׂ֖ ָּ ‫ וְ ָּא ַמ ְר‬Num. 6.2 ‘and

ִַׂ֖ ָּ ‫( וְ ָּא ְמ ְר‬CUL Or 1080.A3.21 | L [BHS]: ‫ת‬
you will say’)

‫( ְּב ָּשּׁ ָּנִׂ֖ה‬T-S AS 67.133 | L [BHS]: ‫ ַּב ָּשּׁ ָּנִׂ֖ה‬Deut. 14.28 ‘in the
year’)

In manuscripts with vocalization, both those in the Genizah

and those written in Europe, a ḥaṭef qameṣ sign is frequently
marked on a closed syllable, e.g.

89
The data for this and the following two examples were supplied by
Estara Arrant.
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 317

Genizah manuscripts

‫( ֳח ְכ ָּמה‬T-S A13.18, Blapp 2017, 125 | L [BHS]: ‫ ָּח ְכ ָּמה‬Psa.

90.12 ‘wisdom’)

‫( וְ ֳר ְה ָּ ָּ֛בם‬T-S A13.18, Blapp 2017, 125 | L [BHS]: ‫ ְֶַ֭ו ַָּר ְה ָּּבם‬Psa.

90.10 ‘their strength’)

European manuscripts

‫( נֳַ ְַכ ִ ַ֣רי‬Codex Reuchlinianus, Morag 1959, 230 | L [BHS]: ‫נָּ ְכ ִ ַ֣רי‬
2 Sam. 15.19 ‘foreigner’)

‫חגְ ָּ ָ֥לה‬
ֳַ ְ‫( ו‬ASCNON B.I.1r, Pilocane 2004, 29 | L [BHS]: ‫וְ ָּחגְ ָּ ָ֥לה‬
Num. 27.1 ‘Hoglah’)

Even some of the Standard Tiberian Masoretic codices

contain a few cases of ḥaṭef signs and shewa in closed unstressed
syllables,90 e.g.

‫( ַּב ֲח ְרט ִ ִׂ֖מּם‬L [BHS], Exod. 9.11 ‘on the magicians’)

‫( ָּה ֲע ְר ַ ִּׂ֖ביִ ם‬L [BHS], Exod. 30.8 ‘the evening’)

‫(ַיֶַ ֱחזְ ַ֣קּו‬L [BHS], 2 Sam. 10.11 ‘they are strong’)

ַָ֥‫(ַיַ ְע ֳכ ְרך‬L [BHS], Josh. 7.25 ‘he brings trouble on you’)

‫( וַ ֲה ְרגְ נהּו‬L [BHS], Jud. 16.2, ‘and we will kill him’)

‫מּ ֶלְך‬ ֹ ִ֔ ‫ ַל‬Lev. 20.3 ‘to Molech’)

ֹ ִ֔ ‫( ְַל‬B | L [BHS]: ‫מּ ֶלְך‬

The ḥaṭef qameṣ representing a short qameṣ in a closed syl-

lable occurs in a number of imperatives in the model manuscripts
in forms that could be confused with suffix conjugation forms
with a long qameṣ. In such cases, the use of the ḥaṭef in a closed

90
Yeivin (1968, 18), Dotan (1985).
318 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

syllable clearly has orthoepic motivations. Ḥaṭef qameṣ signs are

marked frequently in this context in A (Yeivin 1968, 19), e.g.

‫( וְ ֳׁש ְַד ִַׂ֖דּו‬A | L [BHS]: ‫ וְ ָּׁש ְד ִׂ֖דּו‬Jer. 49.28 ‘and destroy!’)

ְַ ‫( ֳמ‬A | L [BHS]: ‫ ָּמ ְׁש ָ֥כּו‬Ezek. 32.20 ‘drag away!’)

‫ׁשכַָּ֥ו‬

‫( זֳ ְכ ָּ ֵַּ֕רה‬A | L [BHS]: ‫ זָּ ְכ ָּ ֵּ֕רה‬2 Chron. 6.42 ‘remember!’)

They are found occasionally in L, e.g.

ַָּ 1 Chron. 29.18 ‘keep!’, Masora parva in

‫( ֳׁש ְמ ָּרה‬L | A: ‫ׁש ְמ ָּרה‬
L and A: ‫‘ ̇לַחטף‬unique with short [qameṣ]’)

According to a medieval source, the Rabbanite authority

Hai Gaon (tenth–eleventh centuries) recommended the use of
ḥaṭef qameṣ in such words to ensure that the vowel was read cor-
rectly with a short vowel (Harkavy 1970, 24).
In the Masoretic literature, the root ḥ-ṭ-p is, in fact, is
employed not only to describe short vowels in open syllables but
also those in closed syllables, e.g.
ַ ‫כלַלשוןַיראהַגעיאַכלַלשוןַראייהַחטף‬

Whenever the verb is from the root ‘to fear’, (the prefix)
has a long vowel (e.g. ‫[ יִ ְִֽראּו‬jiːʀ̟ˈʔuː] ‘they fear’), whenever
it is from the root ‘to see’, (the prefix) has a short vowel
(e.g. ‫[ יִ ְראּו‬jiʀ̟ˈʔuː] ‘they see’).91

Furthermore, in medieval Judaeo-Arabic texts with Tibe-

rian vocalization, shewa and ḥaṭef pataḥ are used to represent Ar-
abic short /a/ in both open and closed syllables, e.g.

91
Baer and Strack (1879, 31); cf. Ben-David (1957a, 14–15).
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 319

‫[ ֲאלדּוד‬ʔalduːd] ‘the worm’ (T-S Ar. 8.3, fol. 16v, Khan

1992a, 107)

‫[ ַכ ְל ְק ְתני‬χalaqtaniː] ‘you created me’ (T-S Ar. 8.3, fol. 16v,

Khan 1992a, 107)

The use of ḥaṭef signs to indicate short vowels in unstressed

closed syllables was the regular practice in the so-called ‘com-
pound system’ of Babylonian vocalization. In this variety of Bab-
ylonian vocalization, short vowels in both open and closed sylla-
bles were regularly represented by different signs from those used
to indicate long vowels. Most of the signs marking short vowels
were formed by combining a vowel sign with the Babylonian ḥiṭfa
sign, equivalent to Tiberian shewa, and so were formally equiva-
lent to the Tiberian ḥaṭef signs. The ḥiṭfa sign was placed over the
vowel sign in unstressed syllables closed by dagesh in Tiberian or
under the vowel sign in unstressed syllables closed by shewa in
Tiberian or by a word-final consonant,92 e.g.

‫( ה֬ב ִיט‬Tiberian: ‫[ ִה ִּביט‬hibˈbiːitˁ] ‘he watched’)

‫( יֽשמר‬Tiberian: ‫יִׁשמֹור‬
ְ [jiʃˈmoːoʀ̟] ‘he guards’)

In such compound Babylonian vocalization, the consonant

following the vowel is typically not marked by a dagesh sign or
shewa sign (digsha and ḥiṭfa in Babylonian terminology). The
compound Babylonian system, therefore, marked on the vowels
what the Tiberian system marked on the following consonant,

92
For further details see Yeivin (1985, 364–69) and the summaries in
Khan (2013f) and Heijmans (2016).
320 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

one of the purposes of both being to indicate the shortness of the

vowel.

I.2.5.2. Syllabification and Metrical Structure

In the Tiberian Masoretic literature a consonant with a vocalic
shewa or a ḥaṭef vowel sign was not considered to stand inde-
pendently, but was said to be bound to the following consonant.
Thus the word ‫‘ ִת ְס ְפ ִׂ֖רּו‬you shall count’ (Lev. 23.16) was consid-
ered to have been composed of two prosodic units [tis–paʀ̟uː].
The sources refer to these prosodic units by the Arabic term
maqṭaʿ (literally: ‘point of cutting off’), which is used in the Ara-
bic grammatical literature to refer to a syllable. The treatise
Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ notes that syllables thus formed have the status
of words, i.e., they can stand independently:
‘Another of its [i.e. the shewa’s] features is that it divides a
word into (units) that have the status of words. This is
because every letter at the end of a word is quiescent when
it is deprived of an accompanying vowel and this letter that
is deprived of a vowel is the stopping point (maḥaṭṭ) of the
word and its place of division (maqṭaʿ), as in ‫אׁשית‬
ִ ‫ּב ֵר‬,
ְ in
which the tav is the stopping point of the word, and ‫אֹור‬, in
which the resh is the stopping point of the word, and so
forth. A quiescent shewa in the middle of a word has the
same status, for it is in a sense a stopping point on account
of its quiescence, for example ‫‘ וְ ָּה ֲא ַח ְׁש ַד ְר ְפ ִנַ֣ים‬and the satraps’
(Esther 9.3), ‫‘ ַה ְמ ַצ ְפ ְצ ִ ִׂ֖פים‬those who chirp’ (Isa. 8.19). Each
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 321

of these two expressions has the status of three words (ka-

lim) on account of the quiescent shewa’.93

In various passages in Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ there are references

to the fact that a vocalic shewa or ḥaṭef vowel is read more quickly
than a following full vowel sign, e.g. ‘The shewa makes a letter
mobile and causes it to be uttered quickly, so that one cannot
tarry on that letter’,94 ‘The shewa moves quickly forwards’.95 By
contrast, a vowel is read more slowly, e.g. ‘A vowel has an indis-
soluble feature, namely slowness and steadiness’.96 A vocalic
shewa was considered to be in a subordinate relationship to a fol-
lowing vowel. In some Masoretic treatises, the shewa is referred
to as a khādim ‘servant’ and the vowels are mulūk ‘kings’.97 This
would be analogous to the relationship of a conjunctive accent,
also referred to in the treatises as a khādim, with a following dis-
junctive accent.
These descriptions can be interpreted as referring to the
rhythmic structure of the prosodic unit consisting of a vocalic
shewa followed by a vowel whereby this unit is a prosodic foot

93
Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book,
§II.L.2.10.3.
94
Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book,
§II.L.2.12.4.2.: ַ‫אלשואַיחרךַאלחרףַויסרעַבנטקהַחתיַלאַימכןַאחדַאןַילבתַבדלך‬
‫אלחרף‬.
95
Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book,
§II.L.2.12.4.2.: ‫אלשואַיתחרךַבסרעהַאליַקדאם‬.
96
Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book,
§II.L.2.12.7.: ‫ללמלךַעלהַלאַתפארקהַוהיַאלתבאטיַואלתבאת‬.
97
E.g. CUL T-S NS 301.84.
322 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

consisting of an iambic metrical pattern with a weak syllable fol-

lowed by a strong syllable. This can be represented thus: (. *),
where the brackets enclose the syllables of the foot, the star *
represents the strong prominent syllable and the dot the weak
syllable. On a prosodic level, therefore, the phonetic realization
of a word such as ‫ ִת ְס ְפ ִׂ֖רּו‬would consist of three syllables parsed
into two feet:98

[(tʰis.) (pʰa.ˈʀ̟uː)]

(*) (. *)

A number of features reflect the prosodic weakness of the

syllable of a vocalic shewa. One feature is the neutralization of
the original vowel quality (see below). Another feature is the oc-
casional loss of gemination of a consonant with vocalic shewa.
This applies in particular to sibilants, sonorants (yod, lamed, mem,
nun) and qof, which constitute relative weak consonants. The
omission of the dagesh in such forms varies across the medieval
manuscripts, e.g. in L:

‫‘ ַ ַה ְׁש ַל ִּבים‬the frames’ (1 Kings 7.28, < ‫שּׁ ַל ִּבים‬

ְַ ‫) ַה‬

‫‘ וַ יְ ַד ֵ ָּ֥בר‬and he spoke (Gen. 8.15, etc. < ‫)וַ יְַּ ַד ֵ ָּ֥בר‬

‫‘ ַה ְמ ַד ֵ ָּ֥בר‬the one speaking’ (Gen. 45.12, etc.< ‫מּ ַד ֵ ָּ֥בר‬ ַַ ‘the one

ְַ ‫ה‬
speaking’)

‫‘ ַּבנְ ח ְׁש ִַ֔תיִ ם‬with bronze fetters’ (Jud. 16.21 < ‫) ַּבנְַּח ְׁש ִַ֔תיִ ם‬

98
Even though he was unaware of the medieval sources described here,
J. McCarthy (1979, 162) recognized that the vowel of shewa was not
shorter in quantity than other short vowels but rather was prosodically
weak due to its being bound to the following vowel in a foot.
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 323

ַ‫‘ַ ַה ְללּו‬sing praise’ (Jer. 31.7, < ‫לּו‬

ַ ‫) ַה ְַלּ‬

‫‘ יְ ַב ְק ֵּׁ֕שּו‬let them seek’ (1 Sam. 16.16, < ‫קּ ֵּׁ֕שּו‬

ְַ ‫)יְ ַב‬

The Masoretic notion of maqṭaʿ, therefore, can be equated

with the notion of foot in the prosodic hierarchy rather than
syllable.
In the representation above of the prosody of the ‫ ִת ְס ְפ ִׂ֖רּו‬it
will be noticed that the first syllable by itself has the status of a
foot, i.e. [(tʰis.) (pʰa.ˈʀ̟uː)], where feet are marked by rounded
brackets. This is in conformity with the current state of research
on the typology of the metrical phonology of the world’s lan-
guages. The foot (pʰa.ˈʀ̟uː), as remarked, is iambic, i.e. it consists
of two syllables, of which the second is the stronger. It is a binary
foot consisting of a light syllable with one mora, viz. CV, and a
heavy syllable consisting of two morae, viz. CVV. In many lan-
guages with metrical phonology with binary feet, the feet may be
binary either in the number of their syllables, as in the foot
(CVCVV), which is known as a syllabic foot, or in the number of
their morae, known as a moraic foot. This means that a heavy
syllable with two morae, viz. CVV or CVC, normally represented
in metrical phonology by (*), could function as a foot in the met-
rical scansion of a word alongside a syllabic foot.99 The metrical
parsing of ‫[ ִת ְס ְפ ִׂ֖רּו‬tʰis.pʰa.ˈʀ̟uː] would, therefore, be [(*), (. *)].
The CVC syllable with a vowel [tʰis], which constitutes an
independent foot, would be metrically stronger than the first syl-
lable of the foot (. *), which is represented by a shewa sign. This

99
For the typology of feet in iambic metrical systems see Hayes (1985;
1995), Kager (1993, 383; 2007, 200–201).
324 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

would conform to the medieval descriptions cited above, which

state that a vowel has the feature of ‘slowness and steadiness’
whereas a shewa ‘moves quickly forwards’. The CVC syllable
[tʰis] would, however, be lesser in prominence than the final CVV
syllable with the main stress [ˈʀ̟uː]. These differences in promi-
nence can be represented by a metrical grid.100 In the grid the
relative prominences are marked by differences in heights of col-
umns of index marks:

Level 3 x
Level 2 x x
Level 1 x x x
(*) (. ˈ*)
(tʰis) (pʰa. ˈʀ̟uː)

As can be seen, the syllable with the main stress is the most
prominent. This stress occurs on the strong syllable of the (. *)
foot.
The foot is of relevance for some phonological processes in
the Tiberian pronunciation tradition, such as the conditioning of
the allophones of resh (§I.1.20.) and the retraction of stress
(§I.2.6.). This is a key justification for the reality of such metrical
constituents (Nespor and Vogel 2012).

100
For hierarchical arrangement of linguistic rhythm on a grid see, for
example, Liberman and Prince (1977), Hayes (1995, 26–31) and Halle
and Vergnaud (1987). In a study of the metrical phonology of Tiberian
Hebrew, Hovav (1984, 87–211) argues for the need to combine foot
structures with grids.
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 325

As remarked, the phonetic realization of a word such as ‫קֹול‬

̟ ː.ol] should be parsed metrically as a single trochaic foot con-
[ˈqo
sisting of a strong syllable and a weak epenthetic syllable, which
can be represented (* .). The weak syllable [ol] is bimoraic, so,
in terms of its morae should be classified as heavy. It is somewhat
unusual for a moraically heavy syllable to be the weak syllable
of a binary foot (Kager 2007), but it is preferable to consider it
as belonging together with the preceding syllable in the same foot
constituent. The epenthetic syllable [VC] is weak and never
stressed. Moreover, there is evidence from the distribution of the
allophones of resh (§I.1.20.) and the pattern of the retraction of
accents (§I.2.6.) for the parsing of two heavy syllables together
as a single trochaic foot (* .). As for the occurrence of a trochaic
foot in the foot inventory of Tiberian Hebrew together with the
iambic foot (. *), it should be noted that the moraic foot consist-
ing of CVV or CVC, which is a very frequent foot, is, in fact, best
analysed as trochaic, although by convention it is normally rep-
resented (*). This is because the main prominence is on the first
vowel mora, which is the most sonorous segment of the syllable,
i.e. CV́V, CV́C (Kager 1993). A word-final syllabic sequence such
as [ˈqo
̟ ːol] can be preceded by a vocalic shewa, e.g. ‫‘ ְּבקֹול‬with a
voice’, which should be analysed metrically as an amphibrach
(. * .).

I.2.5.3. Phonological Principles

In the vast majority of cases, vocalic shewa and ḥaṭef vowels can
be regarded as having the synchronic status of epenthetic vowels.
Very often, vocalic shewas in the Tiberian reading tradition occur
326 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

where historically there were originally lexical vowels. These

vowels were of different qualities, e.g.

‫[ יִ ְכ ְתבֶַּ֫ו‬yiχtʰaˈvuː] ‘they (m) write’ (< *yaktubū)

‫[ ְס ָּפ ִ ֶַ֫רים‬safɔːˈʀ̟iːim] ‘books’ (< *siparīm)

‫[ ְד ָּב ִ ֶַ֫רים‬davɔːˈʀ̟iːim] ‘words’ (< *dabarīm)

The vocalic shewa, however, does not preserve the quality

of the historical lexical vowel; rather, the shewa is a vowel with
a neutralized quality, i.e., the maximally open vowel [a], in some
circumstances modified by assimilation to its phonetic
environment. As remarked, before a guttural, it was realized as a
short vowel with the quality of the vowel on the guttural and
before yod it was realized as a short vowel with the quality of
short ḥireq [i]. Shortness and non-rounded vowel quality and also
the copying of the quality of an adjacent vowel are characteristic
features of epenthetic vowels (Hall 2011, 1581). In examples
such as those cited for the reduction of lexical vowels to epen-
thetic vocalic shewa, the motivation for the vowel is no longer
lexical but rather phonotactic, in that it breaks illicit clusters of
consonants on the phonetic level. Lexical vowels can be reduced
to zero in contexts where licit sequences of consonants are the
result, e.g.

‫[ ַמ ְל ֵכֶַ֫י‬malχeː] ‘kings of’ (< *malaḵē)

ֵֶַ֫ ‫[ ִל ְׁש‬liʃmuːˈʔeːel] ‘to Samuel’ (< *la-Šamūʾēl)

‫מּואל‬

According to this analysis of vocalic shewa, it would have

to be assumed that the original vowel is absent at some
underlying level of the phonological derivation of words and an
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 327

epenthetic vowel is introduced at the phonetic surface level. A

/CC/ cluster at the onset of a syllable in word-initial position is
broken by an epenthetic and this can be represented thus:101

/mqō
̟ .mō/ [ma.qo
̟ ː.ˈmoː] ‘his place’ ‫קֹומֹו‬
ֶַ֫ ‫ְמ‬

/yiχ.tvū/ [yiχ.ta.ˈvuː] ‘they write’ ‫יִ ְכ ְת ֶ֫בּו‬

/sfɔ̄.rī.m/ [sa.fɔː.ˈʀ̟iː.im] ‘books’ ‫ְס ָּפ ִ ֶ֫רים‬

/dvɔ̄.rī.m/ [da.vɔː.ˈʀ̟iː.im] ‘words’ ‫ְד ָּב ִ ֶ֫רים‬

The only exception was the shewa in forms of the feminine

numeral ‫ ְׁש ַתיִ ם‬/ ‫‘ ְׁש ֵתי‬two’ and the first component in ‫יםַע ְׁש ֵרה‬
ֶ ‫ְׁש ֵת‬
‘twelve’, which was silent [ˈʃtaːjim] / [ʃteː] / [ʃteːem]. It is for
this reason that in many medieval manuscripts the accent yetiv is
written on these words, e.g.

L: ‫( ְ ְׁׁ֚ש ַתיִ ם‬Lev. 23.17)

L, A: ‫( ְ ְׁׁ֚ש ַתיִ ם‬Ezek. 1.11, 41.24)

The rule of the accent yetiv is that it occurs on a vowel that

is in the first syllable of a word. If the accent syllable is preceded
by another vowel, including vocalic shewa, yetiv cannot occur but
ַ ֹ ‫‘ ְּבז‬with this’ (Num. 16.28) (Yeivin
is replaced by pashṭa, e.g. ‫את‬
1980, 198–99). According to some sources, the word was
pronounced by the Tiberian Masoretes with a prosthetic vowel:

101
Such underlying representations without the epenthetic vowel are
adopted in analyses of Tiberian Hebrew made within the framework of
generative phonology and optimality theory, e.g. Prince (1975),
Greenstein (1992), Malone (1993), Coetzee (1999), Edzard (2013).
328 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

[ʔɛʃˈtʰaːjim],102 although this vowel is not written in the

manuscripts. According to the author of Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ old and
reliable codices (al-maṣāḥif al-ʿutuq al-jiyād) mark pashṭa (‫ם‬
ַ ִ‫תי‬
ַ ַ ‫) ְׁש‬
rather than yetiv (‫)ׁש ַתיִ ם‬
ְׁ֚ ְ on this word,103 and this is occasionally
found in the extant early codices, e.g.

C: ‫ם‬
ַ ִ‫תי‬
ַ ַ ‫( ְׁש‬Ezek. 1.11)

This can be interpreted as reflecting that the word was read

with a prosthetic vowel, on account of which the accented vowel
was not the first vowel of the word.
An anonymous Masoretic treatise indicates that there was
variation in the way the word was read:

As for ‫ׁש ַתיִ ם‬,

ְ some people read this word with a mobile shin
(i.e. a mobile shewa on the shin) on account of the necessity
(of doing so) due to the fact it occurs in initial position and
with strengthening of tav (i.e. with dagesh). Some people
do not permit the reading of the shin as mobile and add a
hamza (i.e. glottal stop, ʾalef) before pronouncing it,
although it is not written, in order to be able to pronounce
the shin as quiescent (i.e. pronounce the shewa on the shin
as quiescent). This (latter) is our reading. 104

102
Cf. the Treatise on the Shewa and the other sources discussed by Levy
(1936, 31–33), also Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, long version, edition in vol. 2 of
this book, §II.L.2.12.5, and an anonymous Masoretic treatise CUL T-S
NS 301.21.
103
Long version, MS II Firkovitch, Evr.-Arab II 418, fols. 21r–21v.
104
II Firkovitch, Evr.-Arab II 365, fol. 6r: ַ‫שתיםַהדהַאלכלמהַמןַאלנאסַמן‬
ַ‫ַיסתגיז‬
ַ ‫ַלצרורה ַאלאבתדא ַומע ַתשדיד ַאלתא ַומנהם ַמן ַלא‬
̇ ‫יקראהא ַבתחריך ַאלשין‬
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 329

The silent shewa in ‫ ְׁש ַתיִ ם‬/ ‫ ְׁש ֵתי‬/ ‫ ְׁש ֵתים‬could be explained by
the analysis of the shin as extrasyllabic and not part of the onset
of the syllable. Moreover, if the cluster /ʃtʰ/ were considered an
onset, this would violate the normal principle of rising sonority
of syllable onsets (Ewen and Hulst 2001, 136–41, 147–50;
Hoberman 1989):

/ʃ.tʰē/ [ʃ.ˈtʰeː] ‫ְׁש ֵתי‬

By contrast, in the imperative verbal form ‫‘ ְׁש ִֵ֔תה‬drink (ms)!’

(Gen. 24.14) the shin and the tav form the onset of a syllable and
are split by an epenthetic: /ʃθē/ [ʃa.ˈθeː].
The variant reading of ‫ ְׁש ַתיִ ם‬/ ‫ ְׁש ֵתי‬/ ‫ ְׁש ֵתים‬with a vocalic
shewa reported in the aforementioned Masoretic treatise could be
regarded as an epenthetic that was introduced late the transmis-
sion of the reading tradition after the rule of fricativization of
post-vocalic ‫ בגדכפת‬consonants had ceased to operate.105
When the preposition ‫‘ ִמן‬from’ is prefixed to the word ‫ְׁש ַתיִ ם‬
/ ‫ ְׁש ֵתי‬/ ‫ַע ְש ֵרה‬
ֶ ‫תים‬
ֵַ ‫ ְׁש‬and the nun is assimilated to the shin, two
processes are attested. In Jud. 16.28. the shin is geminated and
the shewa is read vocalic, resulting in the pronunciation of the
tav as a fricative:

L, A: ‫ַע ַינִׂ֖י‬
ֵ ‫ַמ ְשּׁ ֵ ָ֥תי‬ ַ ‫[ נְ ַק‬miʃʃaˈθeː] ‘avenge of one of my eyes’
ִ ‫ם־א ַ ָ֛חת‬
(Jud. 16.28)

ַ‫תחריךַאלשיןַפיזידַהמזהַקבלַינטקַבהאַולאַתכתבַליצלַבדלךַאליַתסכיןַאלשיןַוהדה‬
‫היַקראתנא‬.
105
For this phenomenon after guttural consonants see §I.2.5.4. below.
330 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

In Jonah 4.11 the shin remains ungeminated and the ḥireq

of the prefixed preposition is lengthened in compensation. The
lengthening is indicated by a gaʿya:

L: ‫ים־ע ְש ֵרה ִַר ָּ֜בֹו‬ ַ ‫‘ ַה ְר ֵּב‬more than twelve myriads’ (Jonah

ֶ ‫ה ַ ִמ ְׁש ֵת‬
4.11)

The author of the aforementioned anonymous Masoretic

treatise states that in the tradition he is familiar with the shewa
of the shin in ‫ ִמ ְׁש ֵתים‬is silent. He indicates, however, that some
people read the shewa here vocalic and maintain the dagesh in
the tav.106
In word-internal position, the sequence /CCC/ is in
principle syllabified /C.CC/, i.e. the second consonant is
syllabified as an onset, and the cluster of the second and third
consonants at the onset of the second syllable are split by a
vocalic shewa, e.g.,

/yiχ.tʰvū/ [yiχ.tʰa.ˈvuː] ‫יִ ְכ ְתבּו‬

‘They write’

A shewa under a geminated letter with dagesh within a word

was likewise vocalic, e.g.

/ham.mlɔ̄.χī.m/ [ham.ma.lɔː.χiː.im] ‫ַה ְמּ ָּל ִ ִׂ֖כים‬

‘The kings’ (Gen. 14.17)

I.2.5.4. Ḥaṭef Signs on Guttural Consonants

The discussion above concerning the epenthetic vocalic shewa
has been concerned so far with cases in which it has developed

106
II Firkovitch, Evr.-Arab. II 365, fol. 21r.
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 331

from a historical lexical vowel. Another motivation for an

epenthetic vowel was to introduce an ahistorical vowel between
two consonants for orthoepic purposes. This applies in particular
to the frequent insertion of an epenthetic after a guttural
consonant (‫ )אהעח‬where there was no historical lexical vowel in
a sequence where the guttural originally closed a syllable in
word-medial position and was in contact with a following
consonant. These epenthetics are regularly written with ḥaṭef
signs in the standard Tiberian tradition. The process can be
analysed as involving the following stages.

(i) The historical syllable structure reflects the morphological

pattern of the grammatical form in question, e.g. the prefix
conjugation verb ‫‘ יַ ֲעלֶַּ֫ו‬they go up’ would have the historical
syllable structure *jaʕ.lū, in line with, for example, ‫תּו‬
ֶַ֫ ‫יִ ְׁש‬
‘they drink’. This can be regarded also as the underlying
phonological syllable structure /jaʕ.lū/.

(ii) A short epenthetic is added after the guttural. This creates

a short open phonetic syllable [CV], viz. [ja.ʕa.luː].

(iii) The vowel in the syllable preceding the guttural is

lengthened, viz. [jaː.ʕa.luː]. This is likely to have come
about due to a metrical constraint on having a sequence of
a light CV syllable and a following weak epenthetic sylla-
ble.

In such syllabifications involving gutturals in word-medial

position the epenthetic copies the quality of the preceding vowel:

/jaʕ.lū/ > [jaː.ʕa.ˈluː] ‫‘ יַ ֲעלֶַּ֫ו‬they go up’

/heʕ.lɔ̄/ > [hɛː.ʕɛ.ˈlɔː] ‫‘ ֶה ֱע ֶ֫ ָּלה‬he brought up’

332 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

/tˁoh.rɔ̄/ > [tˁɔː.hɔ.ˈʀ̟ɔː] ‫‘ ָּט ֳה ָּ ֶ֫רה‬cleansing’

A similar process applies to sequences in which a monocon-

sonantal preposition is attached to a word beginning with a gut-
tural, e.g.

/beʔ.ðō.m/ > [bɛː.ʔɛ.ˈðoː.om] ‫ֶּב ֱא ִ֔דֹום‬

‘in Edom’ (Gen. 36.32):

The fact that an underlying short /e/ and short /o/ in forms
such as /heʕ.lū/ and /tˁoh.rɔ̄/ surface in the phonetic form with
a segol and qameṣ quality respectively, rather than as ṣere and
ḥolem, suggests that the lengthening was a late rule, both dia-
chronically and synchronically, in the derivation. The derivation
can be posited to be as follows:

/heʕ.lū/ > (i) [hɛ.ʕɛ.ˈluː] > (ii) [hɛː.ʕɛ.ˈluː]

/tˁoh.rɔ̄/ > (i) [tˁɔ.hɔ.ˈʀ̟ɔː] > (ii) [tˁɔː.hɔ.ˈʀ̟ɔː]

The short vowel phonemes /e/ and /o/ are normally

realized with the quality of [ɛ] and [ɔ] respectively when they
are short and [eː] and [oː] when they are lengthened in syllables
with the main stress, e.g. ‫ ֵלֶַ֫ב‬/lev/ [ˈleː.ev] ‘heart’, ‫עֹז‬
ֶַ֫ /ʕoz/
[ˈʕoː.oz] ‘strength’ (§I.2.3.2.). In a few sporadic cases the /e/ and
/o/ vowels before gutturals are realized as [eː] and [oː], e.g.

‫( ֵה ֲע ִ֔ ָּלה‬Hab. 1.15 ‘he has brought up’)

‫( הֹ ֲע ִ֔ ָּלה‬Jud. 6.28 ‘it was offered up’)

Here the epenthetic ḥaṭef on the guttural has its default

quality of [a], since a ḥaṭef does not have the qualities of ḥolem
or ṣere. These forms could be interpreted as reflecting a grammat-
icalization of the phonetic syllable structure in the environment
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 333

of gutturals with a lengthened vowel before the guttural,

whereby it is encoded in the underlying phonological form as a
long vowel phoneme, viz.

/hē.ʕlū/ [heː.ʕa.ˈluː]

/hō.ʕlɔ̄/ [hoː.ʕa.ˈlɔː]

Manuscripts with Babylonian vocalization exhibits many

forms in which stage (ii) posited above for the development of
most Tiberian forms (e.g. /heʕ.lū/ > (i) [hɛ.ʕɛ.ˈluː] > (ii)
[hɛː.ʕɛ.ˈluː]) does not seem to have taken place, with the result
that the vowel before the guttural remained short or was elided.
This is reflected in the following pattern of vocalization of gut-
tural consonants (Yeivin 1985, 313). Such a syllabification was
allowed because in the Babylonian tradition there was no con-
straint on the sequence of two weak CV syllables or on clusters
of consonants in syllable onsets (Khan 2019):

‫[ נְעַרה‬nʕaˈrɔː] or [naʕaˈrɔː] ‘young woman’ (1 Kings 1.3 | L

[BHS]: ‫)נַ ֲע ָּ ַ֣רה‬

‫מ ִיד‬
ֹ ַ‫[ יע‬jʕaˈmiːð] or [jaʕaˈmiːð] ‘He will build up’ (Prov. 29.4
| L [BHS]: ‫)יַ ֲע ִ ַ֣מיד‬

In the metrical scansion of medieval Hebrew poetry in

Spain, the vowel before a guttural with a ḥaṭef vowel is, likewise,
treated as a short vowel, e.g. ‫ ַמ ֲע ֶשה‬is scanned as CVCVCV̄
(Delgado 2020).
The Greek transcriptions in Origen’s Hexapla also reflect a
pronunciation in which the lengthening of the vowel before the
334 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

guttural had not taken place. This is seen in the following exam-
ples, in which epsilon reflects a short vowel:107
εετηθ (Ambrosiana palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ית‬
ַָּ ‫ ֶה ֱע ִֵּ֨ט‬Psa. 89.46
‘you wrapped’)
εελιθ (Ambrosiana palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ית‬
ַָּ ‫ ֶה ֱע ִ ַ֣ל‬Psa. 30.4
‘you lifted up’)
εεμεδεθ (Ambrosiana palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ת‬
ַָּ ‫ ֶה ֱע ַ ִׂ֖מ ְד‬Psa. 31.9
‘you established’)
This suggests that the late lengthening of the vowel before
the guttural is a feature specific to the careful reading of the Ti-
berian tradition.
The motivation for the introduction of the epenthetic be-
tween a guttural and a following consonant was orthoepic. Gut-
turals were weak consonants in the reading tradition and efforts
were made to ensure that they were not slurred over. Acoustically
the epenthesis made the gutturals more perceptible when sepa-
rated from the following consonant108 and this facilitated their
preservation in the reading.
Although there is a tendency for gutturals to be followed
by epenthetic vowels where parallel forms have silent shewa, this
is not a universal rule. It is sometimes possible to identify addi-
tional phonotactic and metrical factors that appear to have con-
ditioned the occurrence of the ḥaṭef vowels in certain forms with
gutturals in contrast to other forms that have silent shewa.

107
Data supplied by Ben Kantor.
108
Cf. Hall (2011, 1577–78), who discusses this function of epenthesis
in languages.
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 335

As shown by DeCaen (2003) and Alvestad and Edzard

(2009), one factor that conditions the occurrence of ḥaṭef vowels
on gutturals, at least on ḥet, is sonority of the following
consonant. They have shown that a ḥaṭef vowel tends to occur
when the following consonant is high in sonority, e.g. in ‫‘ יַ ֲח ַ֣רֹוׁש‬he
ploughs’ (Hos. 10.11), where the consonant is a sonorant rhotic,
but exhibits a greater tendency to be omitted when the following
consonant is lower in sonority, e.g. ‫‘ יֶ ְח ַ ָ֥דל‬he ceases’ (1 Sam. 9.5).
This is motivated by the principle that the optimal contact
between two adjacent syllables is where the onset of the second
syllable is stronger than the offset (coda) of the preceding syllable
(Vennemann 1988, 40), and so the contact with a following weak
sonorous onset is eliminated by an intervening ḥaṭef vowel.
Variations, however, occur in inflections of the same verb,
where the same consonants are involved, e.g. ‫‘ יַ ְח ִׁ֔ש ֹבּו‬they
consider’ (Isa. 13.17) vs. ‫‘ יַ ֲחׁש ֹבּון‬they consider’ (Psa. 35.20). In
such cases the ḥaṭef appears to have been motivated by a metrical
factor, namely the disfavouring of a rhythmic clash. This is seen
in a metrical grid representation of the two forms. In these grids
feet are marked in the first row. It will be assumed that feet after
the main stress are extrametrical (marked with angular brackets
< >). Evidence for this extrametricality is presented below.

Level 3 x
Level 2 x x x
Level 1 x x x
Feet: (*) (*) <*>
jaħ. ˈʃoː. vuː
336 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Level 3 x
Level 2 x x x
Level 1 x x x x x
Feet (*) (. *) (* .)
jaː. ħa ʃoː. ˈvuː. un

The grid representation displays the varying degrees of the

relative prominence of syllables. These include epenthetic sylla-
bles, syllables containing a vowel without the main accent, and
syllables with the main accent (represented as levels 1, 2 and 3
respectively in the grids above). It is likely that the insertion of
the syllable with the ḥaṭef vowel in the second form was favoured
since it created grid euphony by repairing a potential rhythmic
clash caused by two syllables of the same prominence before the
stress,109 as shown in the following grid:

Level 3 x
Level 2 x x x
Level 1 x x x x
Feet (*) (*) (* .)
*jaħ. ʃoː. ˈvuː. un

In the standard Tiberian tradition a shewa is in principle

silent on a guttural when the syllable of the guttural receives the
main accent and it is followed by another syllable, e.g.

‫[ ָּׁש ַ ִׂ֖מ ְענּו‬ʃɔː.ˈmaː.aʕ.nuː] ‘we heard’ (Deut. 5.24)

109
A clash is the occurrence of two adjacent metrically strong elements
with the same prominence. A lapse is the occurrence of two adjacent
metrically weak elements; cf. Prince (1983), Selkirk (1984).
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 337

‫[ ָּׁש ַל ְַּ֤ח ִתי‬ʃɔː.ˈlaː.aħ.tʰiː] ‘I sent’ (Num. 22.37)

If the accent moves forward after the attachment of a suffix

in such forms, however, a ḥaṭef appears, e.g.

ַָּ ָ֥‫[ ְׁש ַמ ֲענ‬ʃa.maː.ʕa.ˈnuːhɔː] ‘we heard it’ (Psa. 123.6)

‫ּוה‬

These phenomena can also be explained on metrical

grounds if we posit, as remarked above, that syllables after the
main accent are extrametrical and unfooted.110 The word ‫ָּׁש ַ ִׂ֖מ ְענּו‬
can be represented thus (extrametrical syllables in angular
brackets):

ʃɔː. ˈmaː. aʕ. nuː

(*) (* .) <*>

Here, since the syllable following the guttural is extramet-

rical and unfooted there is no rhythmic motivation for a ḥaṭef,
which is a weak syllable that is obligatorily footed and metrically
bound to a following strong syllable.
The metrical structure of ‫ּוה‬
ַָּ ָ֥‫ ְׁש ַמ ֲענ‬is:

ʃa. maː. ʕa. ˈnuː. hɔː

(. *) (. *) <*>

110
For extrametrical syllables at the right periphery of words see Kager
(2007, 204).
338 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Here the accent on the syllable after the guttural licenses

the ḥaṭef in that it can be footed and bound metrically to this
strong footed syllable.111
Apparent exceptions to this are cases where a conjunctive
accent are retracted by nesiga onto a syllable before a ḥaṭef vowel,
e.g.

‫הַלְּך‬
ָּ ִ֔ ‫ה־נּ ֲַ֣ע ֶש‬
ַ ‫ַמ‬ (Jonah 1.11, ‘what shall we do to you?’)

‫הַמנִּ י‬
ֶ ‫ָּ ַ֣ר ֲח ָּק‬ (Job 21.16, ‘it is far from me’)

This could be explained by a hypothesis of rule-ordering,

whereby the syllabification and foot structure is fixed on the pro-
sodic word level before the main stress retraction on the prosodic
phrase level.
In many cases where a guttural occurs after the main stress
in forms with an unstressed suffixed directive he particle the gut-
tural does not have a ḥaṭef, e.g.

‫ַה ַָ֜שּׁ ְע ָּרה‬ (Deut. 25.7 ‘to the gate’; contrast ‫ ַׁש ֲע ֵרי‬Neh.
13.19 ‘the gates of’)

‫ְל ֵַ֗מ ְע ָּלה‬ (Exod. 25.20 ‘above’; contrast ‫ ַמ ֲע ֵלַּ֤ה‬Lev.

11.5 ‘it brings up’)

‫וָּ ִַ֔מ ְע ָּלה‬ (Exod. 38.26 ‘and upward’)

‫הַמּ ְע ָּלה‬
ֹ֑ ָּ ‫ַ ַ֣מ ְע ָּל‬ (Deut. 28.43 ‘above and higher’)

111
According to J. McCarthy (1979, 164) the ḥaṭef vowel on a guttural
is bound prosodically with the preceding syllable rather than the fol-
lowing syllable. The descriptions in the medieval sources and the pro-
cess described here constitute counterevidence to such an analysis.
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 339

‫ַה ִַ֔יּ ְע ָּרה‬ (Josh. 17.15 ‘to the forest’, silent shewa
also with stressed suffix, e.g. ‫הּ‬
ַ ‫יַע ָּר‬
ְ Jer.
46.23 ‘her forest’)

‫הַמ ְצ ָּ ֹ֑ריִ ם‬
ִ ‫ַנ ְַ֣ח ָּל‬ (Num. 34.5 ‘to the brook of Egypt’)

‫ָּי ְֹ֑ה ָּצה‬ (Num. 21.23 ‘to Jahaz’)

There are, however, two exceptions to this, in both cases

the stressed vowel is ḥolem:

‫צ ֹ ֲע ָּרה‬ (Gen. 19.23 ‘to Zoar’)

‫א ֱה ָּלה‬
ֹ ִׂ֖ ‫ָּה‬ (Gen. 18.6 ‘into the tent’)

There is general agreement across the model Standard Ti-

berian manuscripts regarding the marking of ḥaṭef signs on gut-
turals. The reason a composite ḥaṭef sign was written rather than
a shewa is likely to have been that the Masoretes considered that
readers would have had greater difficulty predicting the
realization of shewa under gutturals than in other contexts. As we
have seen, there were differences conditioned by variations in
the sonority of the consonant following the guttural. There were
also variations within forms of the same root, e.g. in different
inflections of verbal forms such as

‫ֹׁש‬
ַ ‫חב‬ֲַ ַ‫ˌ[ ַוִֽיּ‬vaˑɟ.ɟaː.ḥa.ˈvoː.oʃ] (Gen. 22.3 ‘and he saddled’) —
‫[ וַ יַּ ְח ְּבׁשּו‬vaɟ.ɟaḥ.ba.ˈʃuː] (1 Kings 13.13 ‘and they saddled’)

‫[ יַ ְח ִׁ֔ש ֹבּו‬jaħ.ˈʃoː.vuː] (Isa. 13.17 ‘they consider’) — ‫יַ ֲחׁש ֹבּון‬

[jaː.ħa.ʃoː.ˈvuː.un] (Psa. 35.20 ‘they consider’)

There were variations also across different grammatical

categories, such as the distinction between the verb ‫‘ יַ ְע ִ֔קֹב‬he sup-
plants’ (Jer. 9.3) and the proper name ‫יַ ֲעקֹב‬.
340 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

The quality of the epenthetic vowel on gutturals deviates

from the normal rules, which likewise motivated the addition of
a vowel sign to the shewa. A shewa on a guttural, for example,
retained the quality of [a] even if it preceded a guttural that was
followed by a vowel of a different quality, e.g. ‫יִמ ֲחאּו‬
ְ [jim.ḥa.ʔuː]
‘they clap’ (Psa. 98.8). Moreover, as we have seen, an epenthetic
vowel on a guttural became assimilated to the quality of a
preceding segol or qameṣ, e.g. ‫[ ֶה ֱע ִֶ֫מיד‬hɛː.ʕɛ.ˈmiː.ið] ‘he set up’,
‫[ ָּה ֳע ֶַ֫מד‬hɔː.ʕɔ.ˈma:.að] ‘it was set up’.
In some extant manuscripts with Non-standard Tiberian
vocalization, simple shewa is frequently marked on a guttural
where standard Tiberian vocalization has a ḥaṭef sign, e.g.

‫( ְחנִ יֿת‬T-S A11.1, Blapp 2017, 44 | L [BHS]: ‫ ֲח ִנַ֣ית‬Job 39.23

‘spear’)

‫( יַַ ְע ַ֣שּׁ ֹק‬T-S A11.1, Blapp 2017, 44 | L [BHS]: ‫ יַַ ֲע ַׁ֣ש ֹק‬Job 40.23
‘it will oppress’)

‫( ֶא ְע ֵַֹ֑נֿה‬T-S A11.1, Blapp 2017, 43 | L [BHS]: ‫ ֶא ֱע ֶנֹ֑ה‬Job 40.5 ‘I

will answer’)

‫( ַַי ְחל ֹף‬T-S A13.18, Blapp 2017, 124 | L [BHS]: ‫חֹלף‬

ֲַ ַ‫ י‬Psa. 90.5
‘it passes away’)

This could be regarded as reflecting a more primitive stage

of the development of the Tiberian vocalization system, in which
the reading of a shewa on a guttural was not marked explicitly as
vocalic by the addition of a vowel sign next to the shewa sign. In
the standard Tiberian system a vestige of a more primitive stage
of development can be identified in the vocalization of the qere
of the Tetragrammaton with shewa corresponding to the ḥaṭef
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 341

vowel on the ʾalef in the standard vocalization of the words

representing the qere (‫אד ֹנָּ י = יְהֹוָּ ה‬
ֲַ , ‫ֹלהים = יְ הֹוִ ה‬
ִ ‫)א‬.
ֱ One can
compare this to the continuing use of the early Hebrew script to
write the Tetragrammaton in Qumran manuscripts that are
otherwise written in square script (Tov 2012, 205).112
In L a ḥaṭef segol is sporadically written on the Tetragram-
maton when the qere is ‫ֹלהים‬
ִ ‫א‬.
ֱ This is marked on the first two
cases where it has this reading (Gen. 15.2, 15.8) and thereafter
is vocalized with shewa:

L: ‫ה‬
ַ ִ‫( ֲאד ָֹּנַּ֤יַיֱ הו‬Gen. 15.2)

L: ‫הוה‬
ִִ֔ ֱ‫( ֲאד ָֹּנַ֣יַי‬Gen. 15.8)

In some Standard Tiberian manuscripts the Tetragramma-

ton is vocalized with ḥaṭef segol when the qere is ‫ֹלהים‬
ִ ‫ ֱא‬more reg-
ularly than in L, e.g. I Firkovitch Evr. I B 52.
In some Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts the Tetragram-
maton is vocalized with a ḥaṭef pataḥ (‫ ) יֲ הֹוָּ ה‬when the qere is ‫אד ֹנָּ י‬
ֲַ ,
e.g. II Firkovitch Evr. II B 3. Likewise, in Non-Standard Tiberian
manuscripts, ḥaṭef segol is written on the Tetragrammaton more
frequently than in L when the qere is ‫ֹלהים‬
ִ ‫( ֱא‬Blapp 2017, 151).113
Conversely, in some Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts a
ḥaṭef sign is marked on a guttural where the standard Tiberian
tradition has a silent shewa, e.g.

112
Also in early manuscripts of Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible
the Tetragrammaton is written in Hebrew script, in some cases even in
the early type of script (Roberts 1951, 173–174).
113
Some manuscripts with Babylonian vocalization represent the initial
vowel of the qere on the Tetragrammaton (Yeivin 1985, 912).
342 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Genizah manuscripts

‫ה‬
ִַ ‫ח ָּ ֹ֑ר‬
ֲַ ‫ס‬
ַַ (T-S A12.1, Blapp 2017, 71 | L [BHS]: ‫ס ְח ָּ ֹ֑רהּ‬
ַַ Prov.
31.18 ‘her merchandise’)

‫ֹ֑ה‬
ִַ ‫( ַּבעֲַ ָּל‬T-S A12.1, Blapp 2017, 71 | L [BHS]: ‫ ַּב ְע ָּלֹ֑הּ‬Prov.
31.23 ‘her husband’)

‫ע ָּת ֵ֗רֹות‬
ֲַ ַ‫( ְָ֜ונ‬T-S A12.1, Blapp 2017, 71 | L [BHS]: ‫ ְָ֜ונַ ְע ָּת ֵ֗רֹות‬Prov.
27.6 ‘and excessive’)

‫ה ִֶַ֔יה‬
ֱַ ‫( ֶא‬T-S A12.1, Blapp 2017, 74 | L [BHS]: ‫ ֶא ְה ִֶ֔יה‬Ruth 2.13
‘I will be’)

‫ֿת ְש ַּבעֲַ ַָּנֿה‬

ִַ (T-S A12.1, Blapp 2017, 71 | L [BHS]: ‫ ִת ְש ַּב ְענָּ ה‬Prov.
27.20 ‘will [not] be satisfied’)

European manuscripts

ַ‫מעֲַנּּו‬
ַָּ ‫שּׁ‬
ַָּ (Codex Reuchlinianus, Morag 1959, 224 | L [BHS]:
ַ‫ ָּׁש ַמ ְענּו‬Josh. 1.17 ‘we heard’)

‫א ֵ ִׂ֖פ ְַל ָּ ֹ֑יֿה‬

ֲַ ‫מּ‬
ַַ (Codex Reuchlinianus, Morag 1959, 224 | L [BHS]:
‫ ַמ ְא ֵ ִׂ֖פ ְל ָּיֹ֑ה‬Jer. 2.31 ‘darkness’)

‫עיַָּ ִַנים‬
ֲַ ‫מּ‬
ֶַ֭ ַ (BL Add MS 21161, fol. 160v | L [BHS]: ‫ ַ ֶ֭מ ְעיָּ נִ ים‬Psa.
104.10 ‘springs’)

The occurrence of a dagesh in the ‫ בגדכפת‬letter after the

ḥaṭef in forms such as ‫ע ָּת ֵ֗רֹות‬
ֲַ ַ‫ ְָ֜ונ‬and ‫א ֵ ִׂ֖פ ְַל ָּיֹֿ֑ה‬
ֲַ ‫מּ‬
ַַ indicates that the gut-
tural must originally have been vowelless and the epenthetic
ḥatef vowel was inserted at a late period after the rule of frica-
tivization of ‫ בגדכפת‬consonants following vowels had ceased to
operate. The same applies to the occurrence of the Non-Standard
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 343

Tiberian dagesh in the nun of ‫ענַּּו‬

ֲַ ‫מ‬
ַָּ ‫שּׁ‬
ַָּ , which would normally occur
only after a vowelless letter (§I.3.3.).
In manuscripts with Babylonian vocalization, there are sev-
eral attested cases of the phenomenon of late insertion of an ep-
enthetic and preservation of a plosive ‫ בגדכפת‬in word-internal
position marked by dagesh (a miniature gimel over the letter)
(Yeivin 1985, 342), e.g.114

‫יקו‬
ֹ ִ‫ת‬
ֹ ִ‫[ הִע‬hiʕiˈtʰiːquː] ‘they moved away’ (L [BHS]: ‫ ֶה ְע ִ ִׂ֖תיקּו‬Job
32.15)

‫[ מעַ ֹג ֹלתָיו‬mʕagloːˈθɔːw] (L [BHS]: ‫ֹלתיו‬

ָ֥ ָּ ְ‫ ַמ ְעג‬Prov. 5.21 ‘his
paths’)

‫תם‬
ָ ַ‫[ אַרבַע‬ʔarbaʕaˈtʰɔːm] (L [BHS]: ‫ ַא ְר ַּב ְע ִָּ֔תם‬Dan 1.17 ‘the
four of them’)

I.2.5.5. Ḥaṭef Signs on Non-Guttural Consonants

Ḥaṭef signs are occasionally marked on non-guttural consonants
in the Standard Tiberian vocalization. Many of these are
epenthetic vowels, which had the purpose of disambiguating the
reading of a shewa under a non-guttural consonant, i.e. to
indicate explicitly that it was vocalic and to indicate its quality.
This was an orthoepic measure to ensure correct reading. The
model manuscripts differ as to the number and distribution of
ḥaṭef signs on non-guttural consonants, and the Masoretic
treatises refer to differences in this regard among the Tiberian
Masoretes. The existence of these differences can be interpreted
as indicating that ḥaṭef signs on non-guttural consonants emerged

114
Data supplied by Shai Heijmans.
344 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

at a later stage in the development of the Tiberian vocalization

system than ḥaṭef signs on guttural consonants.
The main difference in the marking of ḥaṭef signs on non-
guttural consonants is the extent to which the vocalic shewa with
its default pronunciation of [a] was replaced by a ḥaṭef pataḥ sign.
The Aleppo Codex (A) exhibits a particularly advanced tendency
to mark ḥaṭef pataḥ in such contexts, and there are many exam-
ples where A has ḥatef pataḥ but L and other manuscripts have
simple shewa, e.g.

A: ‫ח‬ ַ ַ ‫ ַה ְמ ַר ֵצ‬2 Kings 6.32 ‘the murderer’)

ַ ַ ‫( ַה ֲמ ַר ֵ ַַּ֤צ‬L [BHS]: ‫ַּ֤ח‬

A: ‫( ַל ֲמ ִמ ִתים‬L [BHS]: ‫ ַל ְמ ִמ ִתים‬Job 33.22 ‘to those who bring

death’)

A: ַָ֥ ַ ‫( ַּב ֲמ ִצ ְל‬L [BHS]: ‫ ַּב ְמ ִצ ְל ַ ָ֥תיִ ם‬1 Chron. 16.5 ‘with the
‫תיִ ם‬
cymbals’)

A: ‫( ַהנֲ ַק ַַָּּ֤לּה‬L [BHS]: ‫ם‬ ֶ ֵ‫ ַהנְ ַק ָּלַּּ֤הַ ְב ֵעינ‬1 Sam. 18.23 ‘does it seem to
ַ ‫יכ‬
you a little thing?’)

A: ‫( ּו ֲׁש ַ ַָ֥לח‬L [BHS]: ‫ ּו ְׁש ַ ָ֥לח‬2 Kings 9.17 ‘and send’)

A: ‫( ֲה ִת ֲמ ִַֹ֔לְך‬L [BHS]: ‫ ֲה ִת ְמ ִֹ֔לְך‬Jer. 22.15 ‘are you a king?’)

A: ֲַ ‫( ָּל‬L [BHS]: ‫ לָּ ְק ַּ֤קּו‬1 Kings 21.19 ‘they licked’)

‫ק ַּ֤קּו‬

The manuscript L marks ḥaṭef pataḥ in place of vocalic

shewa in a number of cases, e.g.

L: ‫( וְ ִה ְת ָּּב ֲר ַ֣כּו‬Gen. 22.18 ‘they shall bless themselves’)

L, A: ‫( ר ֲט ַפַׁ֣ש‬Job 33.25 ‘his flesh became fresh’)

L, A: ‫( ּו ֲׁש ֵ ָ֥בה‬Jud. 5.12 ‘and take captive!’)

 Vowels and Syllable Structure 345

In some model manuscripts, however, ḥaṭef pataḥ never oc-

curs on non-gutturals, e.g. MS Sassoon 507 (S) (Shashar 1983,
20).
The Masorete Pinḥas Rosh ha-Yeshiva is reported in the
Diqduqe ha-Ṭeʿamim to have added a pataḥ sign to many instances
of vocalic shewa under non-guttural consonants, some of which
have simple shewa in L (ed. Dotan 1967, §20), e.g.

‫( סֹ ֲַכ ִ ַּ֤כים‬Exod. 25.20 ‘covering’ | L [BHS]: ‫)סֹ ְכ ִ ַּ֤כים‬

‫ה‬
ַ ‫פֹור ָּר‬ ַ ִ (Isa. 24.19 ‘it has been rent asunder’ | L [BHS]:
ֲַ ‫ה ְת‬
‫ה‬
ַ ‫פֹור ָּר‬
ְ ‫ה ְת‬
ִַ )

ֲַ ַ(Deut. 9.27 ‘stubbornness’ | L [BHS]: ‫)ק ִׁשַי‬

ַ‫ק ִׁשי‬ ְ

There are also differences in the manuscripts and among

the Masoretic authorities with regard to the replacement of a
vocalic shewa by a ḥaṭef sign on a non-guttural consonant before
a guttural consonant with the purpose of indicating the quality
of the shewa. This is referred to in Diqduqe ha-Ṭeʿamim, which
states that there was no consistency among the Tiberian
Masoretes in the marking of ḥaṭef qameṣ in words such as (ed.
Dotan 1967, §19):

‫ה‬
ַ ‫ת ָּח‬ ַ ‫ ַונִּ ְפ ְת ָּח‬Gen. 43.21 ‘and we opened’)
ֳַ ‫( ַונִּ ְפ‬L [BHS]: ‫ה‬

ֳַ ‫( ִׁש‬L [BHS]: ‫ ִׁש ְמ ָּ ָ֥עה‬Psa. 39.13 ‘hear’)

‫מ ָּ ָ֥עה‬

‫( וְ נִ ְק ֳַר ָּ ַּ֤אה‬L [BHS]: ‫ וְ נִ ְק ְר ָּ ַּ֤אה‬Zech. 8.3 ‘and it will be called’)

This was a measure to ensure that the shewa was read with
the quality of the qameṣ after the guttural rather than its default
346 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

pronunciation with the quality of pataḥ.115 Here L generally ex-

hibits the more conservative practice of leaving the words with
simple shewa with the expectation that the reader would know
the correct pronunciation. There are, however, some cases of
ḥaṭef qameṣ in this context in L, e.g.

‫( ִש ֳמּ ָּחהּו‬Jer. 20.15 ‘he made him happy’)

The Aleppo Codex exhibits a greater tendency to use a ḥaṭef

sign in these circumstances (Yeivin, 1968, 35), e.g.

A: ֳַ ‫( ַה‬L [BHS]: ‫ ַה ְקּ ָּה ִ ֹ֑תי‬Josh. 21.4 ‘the Kohathite’)

‫קּ ָּה ִ ֹ֑תי‬

As we have seen, A even uses an innovative ḥaṭef ḥireq. The

purpose of this was to mark explicitly that a shewa was vocalic
and that, since it was followed by a guttural with a ḥireq, the
shewa was to be read with the quality of ḥireq (Yeivin 1968, 21),
e.g.

ִַ ְ ‫[ ִה‬hiː.θi.ˈʕiː.vuː] (L [BHS]: ‫ ִה ְת ִ ָ֥עיבּו‬Psa. 14.1 ‘they have

‫ת ִ ָ֥עיבּו‬
done abominable deeds’)

Some Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts use the simple

vowel sign ḥireq in place of the shewa sign where the shewa has
the pronunciation of short [i] before a guttural with ḥireq, e.g.

115
Compare the remarks of David Qimḥi (Sefer Mikhlol, ed. Rittenberg,
1862, 138b): ַ‫וכןַעלַקמץַחטףַכמוַומגערַבךַקריאתַהגימלַנוטהַלקמץַחטףַמפני‬
ָּ
‫‘ העי׳׳ןַוישַספריםַמדויקיםַשהגימלַנקודהַבקמץַחטף‬Likewise with ḥaṭef qameṣ,
as in ‫ר־ּבְך‬ ִ “and from rebuking you” (Isa. 54.9), the reading of the
ָּ ‫ּומגְ ָּע‬
[vowel on] the gimel is similar to ḥaṭef qameṣ on account of the ʿayin.
There are accurately vocalized codices in which the gimel is vocalized
with ḥaṭef qameṣ.’
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 347

‫( וִ ִ ִׂ֖איּש‬T-S A12.1, Blapp 2017, 75 | L [BHS]: ‫ וְ ִ ַ֣איׁש‬Prov. 29.13

‘and a man’)

In Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts shewa before yod,

which is pronounced as [i], is frequently replaced by ḥireq, e.g.
Genizah manuscripts

ַ ָּ ‫( ִַָ֜ויָּ ֶ ֵַ֗ד‬T-S A12.1, Blapp 2017, 75 | L [BHS]: ‫יה‬

‫יה‬ ַָּ ‫ ְָ֜ויָּ ֶ ֵ֗ד‬Prov. 31.20
‘and her hands’)

‫( ִמ ַי ֵֵ֗ח ַל‬T-S A13.20, Blapp 2017, 151 | L [BHS]: ‫ ְְ֝מי ֵֵַ֗חל‬Psa. 69.4
‘waiting’)

European manuscripts

‫ס ֶ ִ֔דַנָּּ ֿה‬
ְַ ַָּ‫( יִַי‬Codex Reuchlinianus, Morag 1959, 234 | L [BHS]:
‫ יְ יַ ְס ֶ ִ֔דנָּּ ה‬Josh. 6.26 ‘he will found it’)

‫יל‬
ַ ‫( יִַיֵַ ִִַ֔ל‬Codex Reuchlinianus, Morag 1959, 234 | L [BHS]: ‫יְ יֵ ִ֔ ִליל‬
Isa. 15.2 ‘wails’)

I.2.5.6. Silent Shewa after a Long Vowel

When shewa occurred within a word after a long vowel, it was as
a general rule silent,116 e.g.

ַ‫[ַיֵ ְׁשבּו‬jeːeʃˈvuː] (Gen. 47.6 ‘let them dwell)

ִַׂ֖‫[ יָּ ְדך‬jɔːɔðˈχɔː] (Gen. 49.8 ‘your hand’)

‫[ ָּׁש ְמ ָ֥רּו‬ʃɔːɔmˈʀ̟uː] (Jud. 2.22 ‘they guarded’)

‫[ ׁש ְֹמ ֵ ָ֥רי‬ʃoːomˈʀ̟eː] (2 Kings 25.18 ‘the guards of’)

116
The evidence for this in the various medieval sources is discussed in
Khan (1987, 54–55).
348 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

As can be seen in the transcriptions above, we should

assume that an epenthetic vowel of the same quality of long
vowel occurred before the consonant with the silent shewa after
the long vowel. The presence of the epenthetic in such word-
medial syllables is demonstrated by the fact that the first syllable
can take a secondary stress in the form of a conjunctive accent,
e.g.
‫[ ְכ ַ֣עֹ ְט ִָּ֔יה‬kʰoˌʕoːotˁˈjɔː] ‘like one wrapped’ (Cant. 1.7)

A secondary stress cannot clash with the main stress but

must, in principle, be separated from it by intervening syllable
on the phonetic level.
This phenomenon may be compared to the insertion of an
epenthetic after a long vowel in a closed syllable at the end of a
̟ ː.ol] ‘voice’ (§I.2.4.). The underlying syllable
word, e.g. ‫[ קֹול‬qo
structure of words such as ‫[ ָּׁש ְמרּו‬ʃɔː.ɔm.ˈʀ̟uː] could, therefore, be
represented /ʃɔ̄.m.rū/, with a stray extrasyllabic consonant, just
as it has been proposed to posit the existence of an extrasyllabic
consonant in word-final position, viz. /qō ̟ .l/. Following the
analysis by Kiparsky (2003) of Arabic syllable structure, we may
say that such unsyllabified consonants, which he terms
‘semisyllables’, are licensed by moras adjoined to the higher node
of the prosodic word rather than the syllable node:
ω

σ σ

μ μ μ μ μ

ʃ ɔ̄ m r ū
/ʃɔ̄.m.rū/ [ʃɔː.ɔm.ʀ̟uː] ‘they guarded’
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 349

On the phonetic level the extrasyllabic consonant was syl-

labified by means of an epenthetic. There was a constraint
against word-final short epenthetic vowels in open syllables
[CV], since such syllables had to be combined in an iambic foot
with a following bimoraic syllable, i.e. a syllabification such as
̟ ː.la] or [ʀ̟oː.ʕa] was not licit. So the epenthetic came before
[qo
the consonant, forming a closed syllable [VC]: [ˈqo
̟ ː.ol], which
constituted a trochaic foot (* .) metrically. In principle, the word-
internal consonants in a sequence such /CV̄CCV̄/, as in ‫ׁש ְמרּו‬, ָּ
could have been syllabified /CV̄.CCV̄/ with an epenthetic break-
ing the cluster in the onset of the second syllable /CCV̄/ on the
phonetic level, thus [(CVː).(CV.CVː)], with the feet indicated by
the round brackets. This is because a short open syllable [CV] is
licit in this position. Such a syllabification, indeed, occurs in
some words (see below). The normal syllabification of word-in-
ternal sequences such as /CV̄CCV̄/ and /CV̄CCVC/ as /CV̄.C.CV̄/
and /CV̄.C.CVC/ rather than /CV̄.CCV̄/ and /CV̄.CCVC/ is likely
to have developed by analogy with the obligatory syllabification
/CV̄.C/ in word-final position.
The metrical parsing of a form such as [ʃɔː.ɔm.ˈʀ̟uː] would
be [(* .) ˈ(*)], i.e. [(ʃɔː.ɔm).(ˈʀ̟uː)]. As remarked already, the
second syllable in the trochaic foot (* .) is heavy since it is
bimoraic, but it would have been of relatively low prominence.
The relative differences in prominence can be reconstructed on a
metrical grid as follows:117

117
J. McCarthy (1979, 157) also proposed that such word-internal syl-
lables were feet containing ‘two rhyme nodes’, though he did not iden-
tify an epenthetic in his framework of analysis.
350 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Level 3 x
Level 2 x x
Level 1 x x x
Feet (* .) (*)
ʃɔː. ɔm. ˈʀ̟uː

I.2.5.7. Vocalic Shewa after a Long Vowel

I.2.5.7.1. On Guttural Consonants

In certain cases, a shewa after a long vowel in word-internal
position was pronounced vocalic. This applies to all cases where
the consonant after the long vowel is a guttural. In such cases, as
is the rule with gutturals, the vocalic reading is explicitly
indicated by ḥaṭef signs, e.g.

‫[ כ ֲֹהנִ ים‬kʰoːhaˈniːim] ‘priests’

‫[ צ ֲֹע ִ ָָּ֥קים‬sˁoːʕaˈqi̟ ːim] (Gen. 4.10 ‘crying out’)

ֲ [loːħaˈsˁiːim] (Exod. 3.9 ‘pressing’)

‫ֹלח ִ ָ֥צים‬

‫[ כֹ ֲא ִֵ֗בים‬kʰoːʔaˈviːim] (Gen. 34.25 ‘being in pain’)

Hypothetically it could have been possible for a type of fur-

tive pataḥ vowel to have been inserted before the guttural, i.e.
[loːwaħˈsˁiːim], by analogy with gutturals in word-final position,
ַ ַ ‫‘ מ‬marrow’. The insertion of the
as in, for example, [moːwaħ] ‫ֹח‬
epenthetic after the guttural had an orthoepic motivation. It was
a more optimal position to make the guttural maximally percep-
tible before the following consonant. This also put the guttural in
the onset of a syllable, which is a stronger position than the syl-
lable coda and thus more optimal from an orthoepic point of
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 351

view. The placement of the epenthetic before the guttural in

word-final position, i.e. furtive pataḥ, is due to the fact that the
constraint on word-final, unfooted CV syllables outranked the or-
thoepic principle of putting the guttural in onset position. The
Babylonian reading tradition did not have such a constraint on
word-final CV syllables and placed furtive pataḥ after a guttural
in word-final position. This is attested where the final consonant
is ʿayin (Yeivin 1985, 327–28), e.g.118

ַ‫[ יַג ִיע‬jagˈgiːʕa] (L [BHS]: ‫ֹ֑יע‬

ַַ ‫ ַי ִג‬Isa. 8.8 ‘it will reach’)

ַ‫מדוע‬
ֹ [madˈduːʕa] (L [BHS]: ‫ּוע‬
ַַ ‫ ַמ ִׂ֖ד‬Jer. 2.14 ‘why?’)

I.2.5.7.2. On Non-Guttural Consonants

The Masoretic sources list a number of cases where the shewa on
non-guttural consonants after a long vowel is vocalic rather than
silent according to the general rule. The early Tiberian Masoretic
manuscripts vocalize many of these cases with ḥaṭef pataḥ to
indicate that the shewa should be read as vocalic (§I.2.5.1.). As
remarked above, some manuscripts vocalize in this way more
frequently than others and it is particularly common in A.

I.2.5.7.3. Long Vowel before Two Identical Consonants

One notable case is a shewa under the first of a pair of identical
consonants, which was vocalic if the preceding vowel was long,
e.g.

L: ‫[ ָּל ְק ַּ֤קּו‬lɔːqa̟ ˈqu

̟ ː] ‘they licked’ (A: ‫ל ֲק ַּ֤קּו‬,
ָּ 1 Kings 21.19)

118
Data supplied by Shai Heijmans.
352 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

L: ‫[ ָּס ְב ָ֥בּו‬sɔːvaˈvuː] ‘they surrounded’ (A: ‫ ָּסבֲַ ָ֥בּו‬, Josh. 6.15)

L: ‫ׁשֹוט ֞טּו‬
ְ [ʃoːtˁɑˈtˁuː] ‘run to and fro!’ (A: ‫ׁשֹוט ֞טּו‬
ֲַ , Jer. 5.1)

L: ‫[ ע ְֹללָ֥ ֹות‬ʕoːlaˈloːoθ] ‘gleanings’ (A: ‫עֹלֲַלָ֥ ֹות‬, Jud. 8.2)

L: ‫[ַח ְֹק ִ ָָּ֥קי‬ħoːqa̟ ˈqi̟ ː] ‘one who carves’ (A: ‫ח ֲֹקָּ ִ ָ֥קי‬, Isa. 22.16)

L: ְ ‫[ ְּב‬baθoːχaˈχɛːɛm] ‘in your presence’ (Gen. 23.9)

‫תֹוכ ֶ ִׂ֖כם‬

L: ֲ ‫[ ה ִֹל‬hoːliːχaˈχɔː] ‘he caused you to go’ (Deut. 8.2)

ַָ֜‫יכך‬

The insertion of the epenthetic between the consonants was

most likely favoured since it made the two identical consonants
more perceptible and so ensured that they were not slurred to-
gether and contracted in the reading. The vocalic shewa, there-
fore, here has an orthoepic motivation. In a CV̄CC sequence one
repair strategy of the overlong syllable CV̄C would have been to
elide the consonant in the coda. This would have been easier
where there was a sequence of two identical lexical consonants.
If the preceding vowel was short, the shewa was silent.119
This was due to the fact that the syllable CVC with a short vowel
was bimoraic and not subject to any change to optimalize its
weight, e.g.

L: ַ‫[ ִהנְ נִ י‬hinˈniː] ‘behold me’ (Gen. 6.17)

119
Diqduqe ha-Ṭeʿamim (ed. Dotan, 1967, §5), Saadya, Kutub al-Lugha
(ed. Dotan 1997, 466–67). Treatise on the Shewa (ed. Levy 1936, ‫יז‬-‫)טז‬.
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 353

ֹ֑ ֶ ‫[ ַה ְר ֵר‬haʀ̟ʀe̟ ː] ‘the mountains of old’ (Deut. 33.15)

L, A: ‫י־ק ֶדם‬

ֶ ‫[ ִר ְב ַ֣ב‬ʀ̟ivˈvoːoθ] ‘the ten thousands of Efraim’ (Deut.

L, A: ‫ֹותַא ְפ ַ ִ֔ריִ ם‬
33.17)

L, A: ‫י־אוֶ ן‬ ִַ [ħiqqeː] ‘decrees of iniquity’ (Isa. 10.1)

ֹ֑ ָּ ‫ח ְק ֵק‬

L, A: ‫[ יִ ְל ָּל ִָּ֔תהּ‬jillɔːˈθɔːɔh] ‘its wailing’ (Isa. 15.8)

L: ‫[ וְ ָּׁש ְד ִׂ֖דּו‬vaʃɔðˈðuː] ‘and devastate!’ (A: ‫וְ ֳׁש ְד ִׂ֖דּו‬, Jer. 49.28)

Note that in the last example, A indicates the shortness of

the vowel in the closed syllable by ḥaṭef qameṣ sign.
In six words, however, shewa on the second of two identical
letters after a long vowel is silent, in all of which the long vowel
has the main stress. These are the following:120

L, A: ‫[ יִ ְמ ָּצאנְ נִ י‬jimsˁɔːˈʔuːunniː] ‘they (m) will find me’ (Prov. 8.17)

L, A: ‫[ יְ ַׁש ֲחרנְ נִ י‬jaʃaːħaˈrˁuːunniː] ‘they seek me’ (Hos. 5.15)

L, A: ‫ˌ[ יְ ֶַ֫כ ְּב ָּ ָ֥דנְ נִ י‬jaˑχabbaˈðɔːɔnniː] ‘he honours me’ (Psa. 50.23)

L, A: ‫ַ ְָ֜י ַׁש ֲח ֵ֗רנְ נִ יַוְ ַ֣ל ֹאַי ְִמ ָּצאנְ נִ י‬...ַ‫[ַ ִי ְֶ֭ק ָּראנְ נִ י‬jiqʀ
̟ ɔ̟ ːˈʔuːunniː …
jaʃaːħaˈrˁuːunniː vaˈloː jimsˁɔːˈʔuːunniː] ‘they call me … they
seek me but do not find me’ (Prov. 1.28).

This can be explained on metrical grounds in the same way

as the difference between ‫ּוה‬
ַָּ ָ֥‫ ְׁש ַמ ֲענ‬and ‫§( ָּׁש ַ ִׂ֖מ ְענּו‬I.2.5.4.) The occur-
rence of vocalic shewa after the main accent in ‫ י ְִמ ָּצאנְ נִ י‬is not op-
timal since the final syllable after the accent is extrametrical and
unfooted and a vocalic shewa is a weak syllable that is obligato-
rily footed and metrically bound to a following strong syllable.

120
Diqduqe ha-Ṭeʿamim (ed. Dotan, 1967, §5), the Treatise on the Shewa
(ed. Levy, 1936, ‫)טז‬.
354 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

When the accent on a word is retracted by nesiga onto a

long vowel before two identical consonants, A marks the shewa
on the first consonant as vocalic by ḥaṭef pataḥ in virtually all
cases, e.g.

L: ‫ˈ[ ָּ ָּ֥בזְ זּו ַַבז‬bɔːzazuː ˈbaːaz] ‘they took plunder’ (A: ‫ּבזֲ זּו‬,
ָ֥ ָּ Isa.
33.23)

L: ‫ˈ[ ָֹ֥נ ְס ָּסהַבֹו‬noːsasɔː ˈvoː] ‘it drove it on’ (A: ‫ ָֹ֥נ ֲס ָּסה‬, Isa. 59.19)

L: ‫ֹובבּו ַ ִעיר‬ ָ֥ ִ‫[ ו‬viːˈsoːvavuː ˈʕiːiʀ̟] ‘and they go around the city’
ְַ ‫יס‬
(A: ‫ֹובבּו‬
ֲ ‫יס‬ָ֥ ִ‫ו‬, Psa. 59.7)

L: ְַ ֹ‫[ יְ ַ֣ח‬joˈħoːqa̟ qu
‫קקּוַ ֶצ ֶדק‬ ̟ ː ˈsˁɛːðɛq]̟ ‘they decree what is just’ (A:
‫יְ ַ֣חֹ ֲקקּו‬, Prov. 8.15)

In one case that is extant in A, however, a shewa is written

rather than a ḥaṭef pataḥ. The consonant following the retracted
accent here is the sonorant nun:

L: ‫‘ ִת ְת ָּ֥בֹונְ נּוַ ָּ ִׂ֖בהּ‬you will understand it’ (A: ‫ת ְת ָּ֥בֹונְ נּו‬,

ִ Jer. 23.20)

It is clear from the vocalization in A of the majority of ex-

amples that the retraction of the accent did not cause the shewa
to become silent.121 As noted above (§I.2.5.4.), in the sequence of
rules of derivation, the retraction of an accent appears to have
taken place after the syllable structure had been established.
With regard to ‫( ִת ְת ָּ֥בֹונְ נּו‬Jer. 23.20), in which A has a simple shewa
sign, it is likely that here too the shewa was read as vocalic, since
the Treatise on the Shewa states that the shewa on the first of two

121
This is contrary to the claim of Dotan in his notes to his edition of
Diqduqe ha-Ṭeʿamim (1967, vol. 2, 192) that the shewa was silent in all
these cases.
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 355

identical letters after the vowel ḥolem was read in all cases with-
out exception as vocalic (ed. Levy 1936, ‫יז‬-‫)טז‬.

I.2.5.7.4. Long Vowel in a Prefixed Particle before

Resh
According to the Treatise on the Shewa published by Levy (1936),
if resh with shewa is the first letter of a noun and is preceded by
a prefixed grammatical particle that is vocalized with qameṣ or
ṣere, the shewa was pronounced vocalic. The relevant passage is
as follows (Levy 1936, ‫יח‬-‫)יז‬:
Rule concerning the resh that causes shewa to be vocalic:
Whenever resh has shewa under it and is the second letter
of the word, the shewa is always pronounced like pataḥ, as
ָּ ְ‫( ָּה ְר ָּפ ִ ָ֥אים ַי‬Job 26.5 ‘the shades tremble’), and as in
in ‫חֹולֹ֑לּו‬
‫( ָּה ְר ָּׁש ִ ֹ֑עים‬Psa. 1.4, etc. ‘the wicked’), ‫( ֵמ ְר ָ֥כּוׁש‬2 Chron. 35.7
‘from the possession of’), ‫( ָּּב ְר ָ֥כּוׁש‬Ezra 1.6 ‘with goods’),
‫( ָּב ְר ִׂ֖חֹוב‬Gen. 19.2, etc. ‘in the street’), ‫( ָּּב ְרח ֹֹ֑בֹות‬Prov. 7.12,
etc. ‘in the streets’), ‫( ָּּב ְר ָּמ ִִ֔חים‬Neh. 4.15 ‘[held] onto the
spears’), ‫( וְ ָּה ְר ָּמ ִ ַ֣חים‬Neh. 4.10 ‘and the spears’), and other
cases. Know that this rule applies only when it [i.e. resh] is
preceded by qameṣ or ṣere [lit. two dots]. If it occurs
without these two signs (preceding it), it is never
pronounced like pataḥ, as in ‫( י ְֹור ִ ִ֔דים‬Jud. 9.37 ‘coming
down’), ‫( מ ְֹר ִדים‬Neh. 2.19 ‘rebelling’), ‫( ִּב ְרחֹוב‬Ezra 10.9, etc.
‘in the open square of’), ‫( ִכ ְר ָ֥צֹון‬Esther 1.8 ‘according to the
will of’), ‫‘ ִל ְרצֹון‬for the will of’ (cf. ‫ ִל ְרצֹנִׂ֖ ֹו‬Lev. 1.3), ‫( ִמ ְרד ַֹף‬1
Sam. 23.28, etc. ‘from pursuing’), ‫( ִת ְר ֹ֑ד ֹף‬Deut. 16.20, etc.
‘you shall pursue’). The whole of Scripture follows this
rule. The words that I have just shown you, under which
356 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

the shewa is vocalic, are only nouns. Do not mix these with
verbs and fall into error.122

The intention of the statement that the shewa is pronounced

as pataḥ (yuftaḥ) is that the shewa was pronounced vocalic. This
was the default pronunciation of vocalic shewa and was the pro-
nunciation of most of the cases cited, e.g. ‫[ ָּה ְר ָּׁש ִ ֹ֑עים‬hɔːʀ̟ɑʃɔːˈʕiːim],
‫[ ֵמ ְר ָ֥כּוׁש‬meːʀ̟ɑˈχuːuʃ]. In some of the cases cited in the Treatise on
the Shewa, however, the vocalic shewa occurs before a guttural
and so one would expect that it would have had the quality of
the vowel after the guttural, e.g. ‫[ ָּב ְר ִׂ֖חֹוב‬vɔːʀ̟oˈħoːov]. In some
cases in the early manuscripts, the quality of the vocalic shewa
before the guttural is made explicitly by a ḥaṭef sign, e.g. ‫ָּּב ֳר ָּה ִ ִׂ֖טים‬
[bɔːʀ̟ɔhɔːˈtˁiːim] (L [BHS] Gen. 30.38 ‘in the troughs’).
The reading of the shewa as vocalic in these forms appears
to have had a morphological motivation. It was a strategy to keep
the morpheme boundary perceptually distinct, aligning the pros-
ody with the morphology by creating a foot boundary between
the grammatical affix and the stem of the word:

hɔː. ʀ̟ɑ. ʃɔː. ˈʕiː. im

(*) (. *) (* .)

122
ַַ‫ַכלַרישַתחתהַשואַפאלחרףַאלתאניַמןַאלכלמה‬:‫יַיחרךַאלשוא‬
̇ ‫שרטַאלרישַאלד‬
̇
ַ‫חֹובַב ְרחֹובֹוֿת‬
ָּ ‫רכושַב ְר‬
ָּ ‫כושַב‬
ָּ ‫לַמ ְר‬
ֵַ ‫עיםַומת‬
̇ ‫איםַיחוללוַה ְר ָּש‬
ָּ ‫לַה ְר ָּפ‬
ָּ ‫יפתחַאלשואַלעולםַמת‬
̇
ַ.‫ַואעלםַאןַשרטהאַאןַיכוןַקבלהאַקמץַאוַשתיַנקודותַפקט‬.‫יםַוהרמחיםַוגירהמא‬
̇ ‫ָּב ְר ָּמ ִח‬
ַ‫יםַברחובַכ ְרצון‬
ִ ‫יםַמֹור ִד‬
ְ ‫לַיֹור ִד‬
ְ ‫יןַאלסימניןַפלאַיפתחַאבדאַמת‬
̇ ‫ירַהד‬
̇ ‫ואמאַאןַכאןַבג‬
̇
ַ‫ַאלדי ַאורינאך ַמן‬
̇ ‫והדא ַאלכלאם‬
̇ ַ ‫ַהדא ַאלשרט ַכל ַאלמקרא‬
̇ ‫ ַעלי‬.‫ַת ְרדוף‬
ִ ‫ַמ ְרדֹוף‬
ִ ‫ִל ְרצֹון‬
‫לטַמעהַאלאפעאלַפתכטי‬
̇ ‫אלשואַיתחרךַתחתהַהואַאסמאַפקטַפלאַתכ‬
̇ ַ‫קבלהַאן‬.
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 357

In the same phonological conditions, i.e. resh preceded by

long qameṣ or ṣere, in other contexts the shewa was generally si-
lent and the resh footed with the preceding syllable, e.g. in the
following verbal forms (feet indicated by round brackets):

‫([ יָּ ְר ָ֥דּו‬jɔː.ɔʀ̟).(ˈðuː)] ‘they went down’ (Exod. 15.5)

‫([ יֵ ְר ֵּ֨דּו‬jeː.eʀ̟).(ˈðuː)] ‘they (m) will come down’ (1 Sam.

13.12)

‫([ י ְֹור ִ ִ֔דים‬joː.oʀ̟).ˈ(ðiː.im)] ‘coming down (mpl)’ (Jud. 9.37)

The statement at the end of the passage from the Treatise

on the Shewa implies that the reading of the shewa as vocalic after
a prefixed grammatical particle only applied to nouns, suggesting
ַֹ ‫( ֵמ ְר‬Isa. 21.3 ‘from seeing’), ‫( ֵמ ְר ַ֣עֹות‬Ezek.
that in forms such as ‫את‬
34.10 ‘from feeding’), ‫( ֵמ ְר ָּ ַ֣דה‬Gen. 46.3 ‘from going down’) the
shewa would be silent, viz. [meːeʀ̟ˈʔoːoθ], [meːeʀ̟ˈʕoːoθ],
[meːeʀ̟ˈðɔː]. In the Hebrew Masoretic treatise §11 in Baer and
Strack’s (1879) corpus, however, it is stated that the shewa in
‫את‬
ַֹ ‫( ֵמ ְר‬Isa. 21.3) and ‫( ֵמ ְר ַ֣עֹות‬Ezek. 34.10) is read vocalic.
The strategy of reading the shewa as vocalic to mark the
morpheme boundary only applied to cases where the particle had
a vowel phoneme with inherent length, i.e. long qameṣ /ɔ̄/ or
long ṣere /ē/. In such cases, the reading of an epenthetic after the
resh would be achieved by syllabifying the resh in the onset of the
initial syllable of the noun, e.g. ‫ ֵמ ְר ָ֥כּוׁש‬/mē.rχū.ʃ/ [meː.-
ʀ̟ɑ.ˈχuː.uʃ]. When the particle had a short vowel phoneme, e.g.
‫ּב ְרחֹוב‬,
ִ the syllabification of the resh in the onset would require
compensatory lengthening by the replication of the short pho-
358 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

neme to fill the slot of the resh, i.e. /bir.ħō.v/ > /bii.rħō.v/. Ev-
idently, there was a constraint against this additional adjustment
of the syllable structure.
The Diqduqe ha-Ṭeʿamim (ed. Dotan 1967, §20) includes
some cases of constructions consisting of a prefixed particle with
qameṣ or ṣere before resh as examples of the practice of the Mas-
orete Pinḥas Rosh ha-Yeshiva to use ḥatef pataḥ to indicate that
a shewa on a non-guttural consonant was vocalic, viz.

‫‘ ֵמ ֲַר ִפ ִ ֵ֗ידים‬from Rephidim’ (L [BHS]: ‫מ ְר ִפ ִ ֵ֗ידים‬,

ֵ Exod. 19.2)

‫‘ ָּה ֲַרוָּ ִָּ֔חה‬the respite’ (L [BHS]: ‫ה ְרוָּ ִָּ֔חה‬,ָּ Exod. 8.11)

‫יעי‬ ַ ָּ ‘the fourth’ (L [BHS]: ‫יעי‬

ִׂ֖ ִ ‫ה ֲַר ִב‬ ִׂ֖ ִ ‫ה ְר ִב‬,ָּ Gen. 2.14, etc.)

‫‘ ָּה ֲרכּוׁש‬the property’ (L [BHS]: ‫ ָּה ֲרכּוׁש‬Num. 16.32, ‫ה ְר ִ֔כּוׁש‬

ַָּ 1
Chron. 27.31, ‫כּוׁש‬
ַ ‫ ָּה ְר‬2 Chron. 21.17)

ַָּ ‘the bad ones’ (L [BHS]: ‫ה ְר ָּׁש ִעים‬,

‫ה ֲַר ָּׁש ִעים‬ ָּ Exod. 9.27, etc.)

With the exception of ‫( ָּה ֲרכּוׁש‬Num. 16.32), L vocalizes all

cases of resh in these constructions with a simple shewa. Even in
Num. 16.32 the ḥaṭef pataḥ is misshapen and the pataḥ appears
to have been added during a later revision. As one would expect,
A marks a ḥaṭef pataḥ in many cases to indicate explicitly that the
shewa was vocalic. The extant examples include:

ִ ִ֔ ‫‘ ָּה ֲַר ִב‬the fourth’ (L [BHS]: ‫יעית‬

‫יעית‬ ִ ִ֔ ‫ה ְר ִב‬,ָּ 1 Kings 6.37)

‫‘ וְ ָּה ֲר ָּכ ִ ִׂ֖סים‬and the rough places’ (L [BHS]: ‫ וְ ָּה ְר ָּכ ִ ִׂ֖סים‬Isa. 40.4)

‫‘ וְ ָּה ֲר ָּׁש ִ ִׂ֖עים‬and the wicked’ (L [BHS]: ‫וְ ָּה ְר ָּׁש ִ ִׂ֖עים‬, Isa. 57.20)

‫(‘ ַ ָּּב ֲר ָּׁש ִעים‬do not envy) the wicked’ (L [BHS]: ‫ּב ְר ָּׁש ִעים‬,
ָּ Prov.
24.19)
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 359

‫‘ ָּה ֲר ָּׁש ָּ ִׂ֖עה‬the evil (way)’ (L [BHS]: ‫ה ְר ָּׁש ָּ ִׂ֖עה‬,

ָּ Ezek. 3.18)

‫‘ ָּל ֲרוָּ ָּיה‬to relief’ (L [BHS]: ‫ל ְרוָּ ָּיה‬,ָּ Psa. 66.12)

‫‘ ָּה ֲר ִ֔כּוׁש‬the property’ (L [BHS]: ‫ה ְר ִ֔כּוׁש‬,

ָּ 1 Chron. 27.31)

ַ ‫‘ ָּה ֲר‬the property’ (L [BHS]: ‫כּוׁש‬

‫כּוׁש‬ ַ ‫ה ְר‬,
ָּ 2 Chron. 21.17)

‫‘ ֵמ ֲר ָ֥כּוׁש‬from the property of’ (L [BHS]: ‫מ ְר ָ֥כּוׁש‬,

ֵ 2 Chron. 35.7)

It is significant to note, however, that a proportionally

larger number of cases of these constructions are vocalized in A
with simple shewa. Some selected examples include:

ֹ֑ ִ ‫‘ ָּה ְר ִב‬the fourth’ (Josh. 19.17 + 20 other cases)

‫יעי‬

ִ ‫‘ ָּּב ְר ִב‬on the fourth’ (Ezek. 1.1)

ַ‫יעי‬

ִ ָ֜ ‫‘ ָּה ְר ִב‬the fourth’ (1 Kings 6.1, + 8 other cases)

‫יעית‬

‫‘ ָּה ְר ָּׁש ִ ֹ֑עים‬the evil ones’ (Zeph. 1.3 + 3 other cases)

‫( ָּל ְר ָּׁש ִעים‬Isa. 48.22 + 1 other case)

‫‘ ֵמ ְר ָּׁש ִ ִׂ֖עים‬from wicked ones’ (1 Sam. 24.14 +5)

These include cases in which a preposition is attached to a

verbal infinitive and so, judging by the statement in the Treatise
on the Shewa, one would expect the shewa to be read as silent:

‫( ֵמ ְראֹות‬Isa. 21.3 + five other cases)

‫( ֵמ ְר ַ֣עֹות‬Ezek. 34.10)

It is possible that the use of simple shewa in A before many

nominal forms is due to inconsistency of the marking of ḥaṭef
pataḥ on non-guttural consonants. There are also a number of
cases in A in which a vocalic shewa would have had the quality
360 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

of [o] before guttural with ḥolem. In such cases, there was no

available ḥaṭef sign to represent this quality, e.g.

‫‘ ָּה ְרחֹו ִ ִָּׂ֖קים‬the distant ones’ (Isa. 46.12, 66.19)

ַ֣ ָּ ‘and in the squares’ (Cant. 3.2)

‫ּוב ְרח ִֹ֔בֹות‬

‫‘ ֵמ ְר ַ֣חֹב‬from the square of’ (2 Sam. 21.12)

Some of the Karaite transcriptions use the Arabic sukūn

symbol to mark explicitly that a shewa is silent. It is significant
that examples can be found in the manuscripts of the sukūn
marked on the transcription of resh where, according to the rule
in the Treatise on the Shewa just described, one would expect the
shewa to be vocalic, e.g.

‫[ وبارࣦحوبوث‬wuvɔːɔʀ̟ħoːˈvoːoθ] (BL Or 2554 fol. 56v, 9 | L

ַ֣ ָּ Cant. 3.2 ‘and in the squares’)
[BHS]: ‫ּוב ְרח ִֹ֔בֹות‬

This indicates that in some streams of the Tiberian tradition

the shewa was not consistently pronounced vocalic after a long
vowel of a prefixed particle.

I.2.5.7.5. Shewa in Inflections of Specific Verbal Roots

A shewa on the medial radical of the verbal roots ‫‘ גר"ׁש‬to drive

out’, ‫‘ אכ"ל‬to eat’, ‫‘ בר"ך‬to bless’, ‫‘ יר"ד‬to go down’, and ‫‘ הל"ך‬to
go’ is vocalic after a long vowel in certain circumstances, accord-
ing to Ben Asher. In some of the cases where Ben Asher read the
shewa as vocalic, Ben Naftali read it as silent.
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 361

In forms with shewa on the resh following a long vowel from

the root ‫‘ בר"ך‬to bless’,123 if the accent is on the bet, the shewa is
silent. This applies to cases where the accent has been retracted
by nesiga, e.g.

L: ‫[ וְ ִה ְת ָּ ָּ֥ב ְרכּו ַ ָ֛בֹו‬vihiθˈbɔːɔʀ̟χuː ˈvoː] ‘they will bless themselves

in him’ (A: ‫וְ ִה ְת ָּ ָּ֥ב ְרכּו‬, Jer. 4.2)

L: ‫[ וְ יִ ְת ָּ ָּ֥ב ְרכּו ַ ֹ֑בֹו‬vijiθˈbɔːɔʀ̟χuː ˈvoː] ‘and may they bless them-

selves in him’ (A: ‫וְ יִ ְת ָּ ָּ֥ב ְרכּו‬, Psa. 72.17)

L: ‫ˈ[ ָּ ָּ֥ב ְרכּוַ ָּנִׂ֖א‬bɔːɔʀ̟χuː ˈnɔː] ‘bless!’ (A: ‫ּב ְרכּו‬,

ָ֥ ָּ 1 Chron. 29.20)

If, however, the accent is on the kaf, the shewa after a long
vowel is vocalic.124 The manuscript A regularly indicates the vo-
calic realization by a ḥaṭef pataḥ sign and this is frequently the
case also in L, e.g.

L: ‫[ ָּּב ֲר ֵ ָ֥כנִ י‬bɔːʀ̟aˈχeːniː] ‘bless (ms) me!’ (Gen. 27.34)

L: ֵָּ֗ ְ‫[ ָּּב ֲר ָ֥כּוַי‬bɔːʀ̟aˈχuː] ‘bless the Lord’ (A: ‫ּב ֲר ָ֥כּו‬,
‫הוה‬ ָּ Psa. 103.20)

L: ְ ‫[ ַּב ֲע ִׂ֖ב‬tavɔːʀ̟aˈχaːanniː] ‘in order that your soul

‫ּורַת ָּב ֲר ַ ָ֥כנִּ יַנַ ְפ ֶׁשך‬
blesses me’ (Gen. 27.19)

L: ָּ ְ‫[ ָּּב ֲר ִׂ֖כּוַי‬bɔːʀ̟aˈχuː] ‘bless the Lord’ (Jud. 5.2)

‫הוה‬

123
For this rule see Diqduqe ha-Ṭeʿamim (ed. Dotan 1967, §21), Treatise
on the Shewa (ed. Levy, 1936, ‫ל‬-‫)כט‬.
124
According to Diqduqe ha-Ṭeʿamim (ed. Dotan, 1967, §21) the only
exception in the Bible is the Aramaic form ‫‘ ָּּב ְר ִֵ֔כת‬I blessed’ (Daniel 4.31),
in which the accent falls on the syllable beginning with the kaf but the
shewa is silent.
362 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

The marking of ḥaṭef pataḥ is not completely regular in L

and, moreover, many cases seem to be corrected from an original
simple shewa sign. Other manuscripts written by the scribe of L,
Samuel ben Jacob, mark the ḥaṭef pataḥ more regularly, such as
the manuscript known as L17:125

L: ָּ [wuvɔːʀ̟aˈχuː] ‘and bless’ (L17, A ‫ּוב ֲַר ִׂ֖כּו‬

‫ּוב ְר ִׂ֖כּו‬ ָּ , 2 Sam. 21.3)

L: ְ ‫[ ַ֣ל ֹא‬θavɔːʀ̟aˈχɛːɛnnuː] ‘do not bless him’ (L17, A

‫ַת ָּב ְר ִֶ֔כנּּו‬
‫ ְת ָּב ֲַר ִֶ֔כנּּו‬, 2 Kings 4.29)

The shewa was vocalic also when a secondary accent oc-

curred on the syllable beginning with the bet. This is the case, for
example, in the following form, although it is written with a sim-
ple shewa in L:126

L: ‫[ ְמ ָּ ַ֣ב ְר ִֶ֔כיך‬maˌvɔːʀ̟aˈχɛːχɔː] ‘and I will bless those that bless

you’ (Gen. 12.3)

According to Masoretic sources,127 Ben Asher read a shewa

on the resh in forms from the root ‫‘ גר"ׁש‬to drive out’ as vocalic

125
The manuscript in the I Firkovitch collection labelled L17 by Yeivin
(1968) has recently been identified by Phillips (2017) as being written
by Samuel ben Jacob. See Phillips (2020) for a study of distribution of
ḥaṭef pataḥ in L, L17 and other manuscripts attributed to Samuel ben
Jacob.
126
This is confirmed by Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, which states that ‫ַכיך‬
ִֶ֔ ‫‘ ְמ ָּ ַ֣ב ְר‬has
two accents and the shewa is vocalic’ (Long version, edition in vol. 2 of
this book, §II.L.3.2.7.).
127
Baer and Strack (ed. 1879, §52), Kitāb al-Khilaf (ed. Lipschütz 1965,
17).
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 363

when the third radical has segol before a suffix with a geminate
nun, i.e. in the following three forms:

L: ‫ׁשנּּו‬ ֲ ‫[ ל ֹא‬ʔaʁɔːʀ̟aˈʃɛːɛnnuː] ‘I will not drive them out’

ָ֛ ֶ ‫ַאגָּ ְר‬
(Exod. 23.29)

L: ‫[ ֲאגָּ ְר ֶ ִׁׂ֖שנּּו‬ʔaʁɔːʀ̟aˈʃɛːɛn.nuː] ‘I will drive them out’ (Exod.

23.30)

L: ‫[ וַ ֲאגָּ ְר ֶ ִׁׂ֖שנּּו‬ʔaʁɔːʀ̟aˈʃɛːɛn.nuː] ‘and I will drive them out’ (Num.

22.6)

Elsewhere Ben Asher read a shewa on the resh of forms from

this root as silent, e.g.

L: ‫[ וַ יְ גָּ ְר ַׁ֣שּו‬vajʁɔːɔʀ̟ˈʃuː] ‘and they drove out’ (Jud. 11.2)

L: ‫[ גֵ ְר ַׁ֣שּונִ י‬ʁeːeʀ̟ˈʃuːniː] ‘they have driven me out’ (1 Sam.

26.19)

There was one exception, in which Ben Asher read the

shewa as vocalic (indicated by ḥaṭef pataḥ in L and A):

L, A: ‫ˌ[ ַוְ֝יְ גָּ ֲר ֵֵׁ֗שהּו‬vaːjʁɔːʀ̟aˈʃeːhuː] ‘and he drove him out’ (Psa. 34.1)

By contrast, Ben Naftali read the shewa in all forms of the

root ‫ גר׳׳ש‬as silent.128
The same applies to the root ‫אכ"ל‬.129 Ben Asher read the
shewa as vocalic in forms in which the third radical has segol
before a suffix with geminate nun. These amount to 24 cases in
total in the Hebrew Bible. All cases that are extant in A are

128
Kitāb al-Khilaf (ed. Lipschütz 1965, 17, ‫ַג‬,‫)מה‬.
129
Diqduqe ha-Ṭeʿamim (ed. Dotan 1967, §22), Treatise on the Shewa (ed.
Levy, 1936, ‫)ל‬.
364 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

vocalized with a ḥaṭef pataḥ. In L the marking of ḥaṭef pataḥ is not

systematic. The ḥaṭef sign is found in only 14 cases out of 24, and
in some of these the ḥaṭef appears to be a later modification of an
original simple shewa sign:130

L: ֲ ֹ ‫[ ת‬tʰoːχaːˈlɛːɛnnɔː] ‘you shall eat it’ (Gen. 3.17)

‫אכ ִ֔ ֶלנָּּ ה‬

L: ֲ ֹ ‫[ י‬joːχaːˈlɛːɛnnɔː] ‘he may eat it’ (Lev. 6.11)

‫אכ ִ֔ ֶלנָּּ ה‬

L: ֲ ‫[ ת‬tʰoːχaːˈlɛːɛnnuː] ‘you may eat it’ (Num. 18.10)

‫ֹאכ ֶלֹ֑נּּו‬

ֲ ֹ ‫[ ת‬tʰoːχaˈlɛːɛnnɔː] ‘you (ms) shall eat it’ (Ezek. 4.12)

L, A: ‫אכ ֶלֹ֑נָּּ ה‬

Examples from L with simple shewa:

L: ְ ֹ ‫[ י‬joːχaːˈlɛːɛnnuː] ‘he may eat it’ (Lev. 7.6)

‫אכ ֶלֹ֑נּּו‬

L: ְ ‫[ וְ נ‬vanoːχaːˈlɛːɛnnuː] ‘that we may eat him’ (A: ‫אכ ֶלַ֣נּּו‬

‫ֹאכ ֶלַ֣נּּו‬ ֲַ ֹ ‫וְ נ‬,
2 Kings 6.28)

L: ְ ֹ ‫[ וְַ ַ֣נ‬vanoːχaːˈlɛːɛnnuː] ‘that we may eat him’ (A: ‫אכ ֶלַ֣נּּו‬

‫אכ ִ֔ ֶלנּּו‬ ֲַ ֹ ‫וְ נ‬,
2 Kings 6.29)

In other contexts, Ben Asher read the shewa as silent. In L

and the extant portions of A a simple shewa sign is regularly
marked in such cases:

L: ְ ‫[ ת‬θoːoχˈluː] ‘you shall [not] eat’ (Deut. 14.21)

‫ֹאכלַ֣ ּו‬

L: ְ ‫[ ת‬tʰoːoχˈluː.un] ‘you shall [not] eat’ (Num. 11.19)

‫ֹאכלִׂ֖ ּון‬

ְ ֹ ‫[ וַ יּ‬vaɟɟoːoχˈluː] ‘and they ate’ (Jos. 5.11)

L, A: ‫אכ ָ֜לּו‬

ְ ֹ ‫[ י‬joːoχˈluː] ‘they will eat’ (1 Kings 21.23)

L, A: ‫אכלָ֥ ּו‬

130
Cf. Phillips (2020), who notes that simple shewa is marked in these
forms in the extant portions of other manuscripts written by Samuel ben
Jacob, the scribe of L.
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 365

The sources indicate that also in the following form, where

the lamed has segol but is not followed by a geminated nun, Ben
Asher read the shewa as silent:

L: ‫ֹ֑יה‬ ְ [ʔoːoχˈlɛːhɔː] ‘those (m) who eat it’ (Ecc. 5.10)

ַָּ ‫אֹוכ ֶל‬

By contrast, Ben Naftali read the shewa as silent in all forms

of the root ‫אכ׳׳ל‬, including those that are followed by a suffix with
segol and geminated nun.131
According to Diqduqe ha-Ṭeʿamim (ed. Dotan 1967, §25),
when forms from the roots ‫‘ יר"ד‬to come down’ and ‫‘ הל"ך‬to go’
are in deḥiq constructions (§I.2.8.1.2.) and are followed by a
word beginning with a consonant with dagesh, then a shewa on
the medial radical is vocalic. In L all of the cases are vocalized
with ḥaṭef pataḥ, but most of these are the result of later correc-
tions from an original simple shewa sign,132 e.g.

L: ָּ ‫[ ֵא ֲר ָּד‬ʔeːʀ̟aðɔˑ-ˈnnɔː] ‘I will go down’ (Gen. 18.21)

‫ה־נַּ֣א‬

L: ָּ ֵ֗ ‫ˈ[ ֵ ַ֣אלֲ ָּכ‬ʔeːla.χɔˑ-ˈnnɔː] ‘let me go’ (Exod. 4.18)133

‫הַנּא‬

L: ָּ ֞ ‫ˌ[ ֵנלֲ ָּכ‬neːlaχɔˑ-ˈnnɔː] ‘let us go’ (Exod. 3.18)

‫ה־נּא‬

In the extant portions of A and in L17 (written by the scribe

of L) they are regularly vocalized with ḥaṭef pataḥ, e.g.

131
Kitāb al-Khilaf (ed. Lipschütz 1965, 17, ‫)ג‬. Phillips (2020) suggests
that the frequent lack of ḥaṭef pataḥ in this verb in L where Ben Asher
read the shewa as vocalic may reflect that the scribe of L intended the
vocalization to reflect a tradition corresponding to that of Ben Naftali.
132
Dotan (1967, 276), Phillips (2020).
133
In BHS the word is vocalized ‫ ֵ ַ֣א ְל ָּכה‬according to the vocalization of
the first hand in the manuscript.
366 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

L, A: ‫( וְ נֵ לֲ ָּכה־ ָּלּנּו‬1 Sam. 26.11)

L, A: ‫( נֵ לֲ ָּכה־ ָּנַּ֣א‬2 Kings 6.2)

L, A: ‫א‬ ָּ ‫‘ ֵ ַּ֤א‬I shall go’ (Jer. 40.15)134

ַ ָּ‫לֲַכהַנּ‬

L, A, L17: ִָּ֔ ‫‘ ֵנַ֣לֲ ָּכ‬let us go there’ (1 Sam. 9.6)

‫הַשּׁם‬

L, A, L17: ָּ ֵ֗ ‫‘ ֵ ַ֣אלֲ ָּכ‬I shall go’ (‫אלֲ ָּכה‬,

‫הַנּא‬ ַ֣ ֵ 2 Sam. 15.7)

Diqduqe ha-Ṭeʿamim only mentions these two verbs in this

rule. Saadya, however, in his Kutub al-Lugha gives the general
rule that shewa after a long vowel is always vocalic when the
vowel two syllables after it is stressed and is preceded by dagesh
(ed. Dotan 1997, 464–69). In addition to forms of the verb ‫הל׳׳ך‬,
he cites the following examples:

L: ָּ ‫ˈ[ ִנ ֲַ֣יר ָּׁש‬niːʀ̟aʃɔˑ ˈllɔːnuː] ‘let us take possessions for our-

‫הַלֹּ֑נּו‬
selves’ (A: ‫נ ֲַ֣יר ָּׁשה‬,ִ Psa. 83.13)

L: ‫ה־ּבהּ‬ ְ ‫ˌ[ נ‬noːθɑrˁɔˑ-ˈbbɔːɔh] ‘there is left in it’ (A: ‫ֹות ָּרה‬

ָָּ֜ ‫ֹות ָּר‬ ְ ‫נ‬,
Ezek. 14.22)

L: ֹ‫ˈ[ ָּ ָ֥י ְִֽר ָּעה ַלּו‬jɔːʀ̟ɔʕɔˑ ˈlloː] ‘[his soul] trembled’ (A: ‫י ְִֽר ָּעה‬,
ָ֥ ָּ Isa.
15.4)

Only the first of these examples is vocalized with ḥaṭef

pataḥ in A. Saadya also cites the following Biblical Aramaic form
as a case that follows the rule and so has vocalic shewa after the
long vowel. This form is not a deḥiq construction, but has a dagesh
in a suffix:

134
In BHS the word is vocalized ‫ ֵ ַּ֤א ְל ָּכה‬according to the vocalization of
the first hand in the manuscript.
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 367

L: ‫[ יְ ֵׁשיזְ ִב ָּנְִּֽך‬jaʃeːzavinˈnɔːɔχ] ‘he will deliver you’ (Dan. 6.17)

There are numerous other cases attested in the Hebrew Bi-

ble with the structure that according to Saadya’s formulation of
the rule would be expected to have a vocalic shewa, although he
does not refer to them explicitly. In all such cases, both L and A
have a simple shewa sign, suggesting that these manuscripts re-
flect a reading with silent shewa, e.g.

ָ֥ ִ ‫‘ ָּע ְׁש ָּק‬it has oppressed me’ (Isa. 38.14)

L, A: ‫ה־לּי‬

ֹ֑ ‫‘ַ ָּע ְַ֣ש ָּת‬it did that’ (Isa. 41.20)

L, A: ‫הַז ֹאת‬

ֹ֑ ‫‘ ָּנ ְַׁ֣ש ָּב‬it breathed upon it’ (Isa. 40.7)

L, A: ‫הַּבֹו‬

ִ ‫‘ ָּ ָ֥ע ְר ָּב‬it was pleasant to me’ (Jer. 31.26)

L, A: ‫הַלּי‬

Some Karaite transcriptions explicitly mark the shewa as si-

lent in such forms by an Arabic sukūn sign, e.g.

‫عاسثا زوث‬
ْ (BL Or 2548 fol. 50v, 7ַ| L [BHS]: ‫הַז ֹאת‬
ֹ֑ ‫ ָּע ְַ֣ש ָּת‬Isa.
41.20 ‘it did’)

The manuscripts L and A sporadically mark a ḥaṭef pataḥ in

place of shewa after a long vowel in forms that are not mentioned
in the Masoretic sources, e.g.

L, A: ‫‘ ֲא ָּק ֲר ֶבנּּו‬I would approach him’ (Job 31.37)

ֲ ‫‘ וְ ִת‬columns’ (Joel 3.3)

L, A: ‫ימ ִׂ֖רֹות‬

A: ‫‘ ָּ ַ֣אזֲַ ַלתַ ִָּ֔יד‬the power has gone’ (L [BHS]: ‫תַיד‬

ִָּ֔ ‫ ָּ ַ֣אזְַ ַל‬, Deut. 32.36)

In most cases where the shewa is vocalic in the forms cited

in this section, one of the consonants involved is a sonorant ‫ ר‬/r/
or ‫ ל‬/l/. The general rule given by Saadya, however, would
368 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

potentially include cases where the sequence of consonants does

not include a sonorant, and he indeed cites one such example
from Biblical Aramaic (‫ יְ ֵׁשיזְ ִב ָּנְִּֽך‬Dan. 6.17). The consonants in
potential contact here, nevertheless, are still relatively weak
(fricatives). The distribution of ḥaṭef pataḥ in A, on the other
hand, appears to indicate that shewa was frequently read as silent
in the context that Saadya claims would have a vocalic shewa,
including several cases where one of the consonants is a sonorant.
There was variation with regard to the reading of the shewa
in these contexts in various streams of the Tiberian tradition, as
shown, for example, by the differences between Ben Asher and
Ben Naftali in this regard that are referred to in Kitāb al-Khilaf.
Saadya presents a type of reading in which the shewa was more
regularly read as vocalic than in the traditions of Ben Asher and
Ben Naftali and the evidence reflected by the early Bible codices.
The result of the reading of the shewa as vocalic was to
break the contact between two consonants. This would have
ensured that each consonant was flanked by vowels. The
motivation for this may have been to increase the salience of the
sonorants, which were weak consonants and vulnerable to loss or
inadequate realization in certain circumstances.
In many of the forms discussed above, the shewa is read as
vocalic where the form in question contains a geminated conso-
nant in a suffix (e.g. ‫אכ ִ֔ ֶלנָּּ ה‬
ֲ ֹ ‫ ת‬Gen. 3.17) or a following word to
which the first word is bound prosodically by maqqef or deḥiq
(‫ נֵ לֲ ָּכה־ ָּנַּ֣א‬2 Kings 6.2, ‫ ֵ ַ֣אלֲ ָּכהַ ֵ֗ ָּנּא‬Exod. 4.18). This may have induced
a quicker reading of the syllables and so increased the potential
weakness of the sonorants. The Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ refers to the
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 369

quick reading and compression of vowels in constructions with

dagesh associated with deḥiq (see §I.2.8.1.2.). Furthermore, long
vowels in closed syllables in words read with a quick tempo were
particularly vulnerable to contract due to their suboptimal struc-
ture. In the Karaite transcriptions, for example, a long vowel in a
closed syllable in a word bound by maqqef to what follows is
sometimes transcribed without a mater lectionis, reflecting the
shortening of the vowel, e.g.

‫( هذ‬Genizah MS 13, Khan 1990a, 13 | L [BHS]: ‫ הֹוד־‬Psa.

111.3 ‘majesty’)

‫( هن‬Genizah MS 13, Khan 1990a, 13 | L [BHS]: ‫ הֹון־‬Psa.

112.3 ‘wealth’)

This potential contraction would have been prevented by

reading the shewa as vocalic.
In forms with suffixes such as ‫אכ ִ֔ ֶלנָּּ ה‬
ֲ ֹ ‫ ת‬it could be hypothe-
sized that the prolonged timing of the gemination resulted in a
corresponding quickening of reading of the rest of the word.
With regard to the rules relating to the reading of forms
from the root ‫בר׳׳ך‬, in a form without the stress before the resh
such as ‫( ָּּב ֲר ֵ ָ֥כנִ י‬Gen. 27.34) the resh may have been weaker than
in a form in which the stress is placed before the resh, such as
‫( וְ ִה ְת ָּ ָּ֥ב ְרכּו ַ ָ֛בֹו‬Jer. 4.2), and this motivated a reading with vocalic
shewa that made the sonorant resh more salient in the first type
of form.
370 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

I.2.5.7.6. Eliphelehu
In A a ḥaṭef pataḥ is written on the pe after a long vowel in the
ֲ ‫[ וֶ ֱא ֵּ֨ ִל‬vɛːʔɛˌliːfaˈleːhuː] ‘and ‘Eliphelehu’ (Lַ
proper name ‫יפ ָ֜ ֵלהּו‬
‫יפ ָ֜ ֵלהּו‬
ְ ‫וֶ ֱא ִל‬, 1 Chron. 15.18). This indicates that the shewa was read
as vocalic although it is preceded by a long vowel. The etymology
of this name is not fully clear (possibly: ‘God distinguishes him’
< ‫ אל‬+ ‫)פלה‬. The vocalic shewa evidently reflects the interpreta-
tion of the name as a compound with a morphological division
after the initial element ‫א ִלי‬.
ֱ

I.2.5.8. Vocalic Shewa after Short Vowel Phonemes

A shewa in the middle of a word on a consonant without dagesh
after a short vowel is normally silent and syllabified with the con-
sonant that precedes it, e.g.,

‫[ ַמ ְמ ֵ ִׂ֖רא‬mam.ˈʀ̟eː] (Gen. 13.18) ‘Mamre’

In some circumstances, however, a consonant with shewa

after a short vowel is syllabified in the onset of the following
syllable. In such cases, the preceding short vowel is lengthened
in compensation. This applies to the following cases.

I.2.5.8.1. The Definite Article

When the definite article is attached to a word beginning with
the sonorant consonant mem with shewa, the gemination of the
mem expected after the article is often lost, but the mem is syllab-
ified with what follows, e.g.

‫[ ַה ְמ ַד ֵ ָּ֥בר‬haːmaðabˈbeːeʀ̟] ‘the one speaking’ (Gen. 45.12)

 Vowels and Syllable Structure 371

As can be seen, the pataḥ of the article is lengthened by

compensation. This can be analysed as the replication of the short
/a/ phoneme to take the place of /m/, i.e.

/ham.mðab.bē.r/ > /haa.mðab.bē.r/

This compensatory lengthening is regularly marked by a

gaʿya sign in the manuscripts. Yeivin (1980, 257–264) refers to
the gaʿya in his context as a ‘phonetic gaʿya’, i.e. it reflects
lengthening for the sake of resyllabification rather than musical
cantillation. A pataḥ in an unstressed syllable followed by shewa
would otherwise be read as a short vowel in a closed syllable. As
with the case of a shewa on resh after the article (§I.2.5.7.4.), here
also the motivation for this syllabification is morphological. Plac-
ing the mem in the syllable following that of the article creates a
prosodic division between the article and the stem of the word
following it. The compensatory lengthening, moreover, makes
the article bimoraic and so brings it into line with its normal
weight in other contexts, i.e. [hVC] or [hVV].
This resyllabification and compensatory lengthening do not
take place in all cases where the gemination in mem is lost after
the article. According to Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, the length of the word
is a conditioning factor:
In words containing not more than five letters the shewa is
ִָּ֔ ‫‘ ַה ְמס ָּכַ֣ן ַ ְת‬he who is impoverished in
vocalic, as in ‫רּומה‬
respect to offering’ (Isa. 40.20), ‫‘ ַה ְמ ַד ֵ ָּ֥בר‬the one speaking’
(Gen. 45.12, etc.), except for one case, namely ‫ַה ְמׁש ָּ ָ֥גע ַ ַה ֶזִׂ֖ה‬
‘this madman’ (2 Kings 9.11).135

135
Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.2.13.1.
372 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

In all such words in L a gaʿya occurs on the pataḥ after the

he, with the exception of ‫( ַה ְמׁש ָּגָ֥ע‬2 Kings 9.11). In A the vocalic
shewa in such forms with an article is represented by ḥaṭef pataḥ,
e.g. ‫מס ָּכַ֣ן‬
ֲַ ‫( ַה‬Isa. 40.20), ‫מ ַד ֵ ַּּ֤בר‬
ֲַ ‫( ַה‬2 Sam. 14.10), but in ‫( ַה ְמׁש ָּגָ֥ע‬2
Kings 9.11) simple shewa is marked, reflecting the fact that it was
read as silent.
Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ was referring to cases where the article is
not preceded by a prefixed preposition. There are more excep-
tions among forms that have such prepositions before the article,
e.g.

L, A: ‫‘ ַּב ְמ ָּ ֹ֑צד‬in the stronghold’ (1 Chron. 11.7)

L, A: ‫‘ ַַל ְמ ַצד‬to the stronghold’ (1 Chron. 12.9)

ַ ַ ‫‘ ַל ְמנַ ֵ ָ֥צ‬to the choirmaster’ (Psa. 4.1, and passim)

L, A: ‫ח‬

L, A: ‫‘ ַל ְמ ִ ָ֥ני‬for destiny’ (Isa. 65.11)

ַ the shewa in these words without gaʿya was

As in ‫ה ְמׁש ָּגָ֥ע‬,
silent. The passage in Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ continues:
As for words beginning with he and mem that have more
than five letters, … when the accent is on the fourth letter,
the shewa is vocalic, for example, ‫‘ ַה ְמ ַח ִ ַ֣כים‬those who wait’
(Job 3.21), ‫‘ ַה ְמנַ ִ ִׂ֖דים‬those who remove’ (Amos 6.3), and the
like.136

Again A has ḥaṭef pataḥ in the cited words (‫מ ַח ִ ַ֣כים‬

ֲַ ‫ ַה‬, ‫) ַהמֲַנַ ִ ִׂ֖דים‬.
In the medieval manuscripts words fitting the description in this
passage have gaʿya and vocalic shewa (indicated by ḥaṭef pataḥ in
the extant sections of A), with only a few exceptions, e.g. ‫ת‬
ַ ‫ַה ְמיַ ֶלּ ֶד‬

136
Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.2.13.1.
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 373

‘the midwife’ (Gen. 35.17) and, if the vowel letter is ignored,

‫ׁשֹורר‬ ַַ ‘the singer’ (L and A, 1 Chron. 6.18), which do not have
ִ֔ ֵ ‫ה ְמ‬
gaʿya and so the shewa was silent.
With regard to longer words, Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ states the fol-
lowing:
As for words beginning with he and mem that have more
than five letters, the rule concerning these is that if the
accent is on the fifth letter or later, the shewa is silent, for
ַ ‫‘ ַה ְמ ַד ְּב ִר‬those who speak’ (Exod. 6.27), ‫ַה ְמ ָּא ֲר ִ ִׂ֖רים‬
example ‫ים‬
‘those that curse’ (Num. 5.19), apart from some exceptions
that deviate from this rule, for example ‫‘ ַה ְמ ַב ְק ִ ִׁׂ֖שים‬those
who seek’ (Exod. 4.19, etc.).137

ַ ‫ ַה ְמ ַד ְּב ִר‬the gaʿya reflects the lengthening

In a form such as ‫ים‬
of the pataḥ after the he but the shewa on the mem is silent. The
key factor that conditions the reading of the shewa as silent
emerges more clearly from Diqduqe ha-Ṭeʿamim (ed. Dotan 1967,
§14), where a more detailed list of forms with silent shewa on the
mem is given. The full list of these forms with silent shewa is as
follows:138

L: ַ ‫ˌ[ ַה ְמ ַד ְּב ִר‬haˑmðabbaˈʀ̟iːim] ‘those who speak’ (Exod. 6.27)

‫ים‬

L: ַ ‫ˌ[ַ ַה ְמיַ ְלּד‬haˑmjallaˈðoːoθ] ‘the midwives’ (Exod. 1.17)

‫ֹת‬

L, A: ‫ˌ[ ַה ְמזַ ְמּ ַ֣רֹות‬haˑmzammaˈʀ̟oːoθ] ‘the snuffers’ (2 Kings 25.14),

‫( ַה ְמזַ ְמּ ָ֜רֹות‬Jer. 52.18)

137
Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.2.13.1.
138
A similar list is cited in the treatise on the shewa (ed. Levy 1936, ‫)כט‬.
374 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

L, A: ‫ˌ[ ַה ְמ ַק ְט ִ ַ֣רים‬haˑmqɑ
̟ ttˁɑˈʀ̟iːim] ‘those who burn incense’ (2
Kings 23.5)

L: ‫[ וְ ַה ְמ ַה ְל ִ ִׂ֖לים‬vaˌhaˑmhaːlaˈliːim] ‘those who praise’ (A ‫וְ ַה ְמ ַהלֲ ִ ִׂ֖לים‬,

2 Chron. 23.12)

L, A: ‫ˌ[ ַה ְמ ַב ְשּׁ ִ֔ ִלים‬haˑmvaʃʃaˈliːim] ‘those who cook’ (Ezek. 46.24)

L, A: ‫ˌ[ ַה ְמ ַש ֲח ִׂ֖קֹות‬haˑmsaːħaˈqo
̟ ːoθ] ‘the ones (fpl) playing’ (1 Sam.
18.7)

L, A: ַ‫ˌ[ ַה ְמח ָּלּל‬haˑmħulˈlɔːɔl] ‘the one profaned’ (Ezek. 36.23)

L, A: ‫ˌ[ ַ ָ֜ה ְמ ַב ְש ֵ֗רֹות‬haˑmvassaˈʀ̟oːoθ] ‘those who bear tidings’ (Psa.

68.12)

L: ‫ˌ[ ַה ְמ ַע ְש ִ ִ֔רים‬haˑmʕassaˈʀ̟iːim] ‘those who collect tithes’ (Neh.

10.38)

L: ‫ˌ[ ַה ְמ ָּא ֲר ִ ִׂ֖רים‬haˑmʔɔːʀ̟aˈʀ̟iːim] ‘those that curse’ (Num. 5.19)

L: ‫ˌ[ ַה ְמׁש ְֹר ִ ֹ֑רים‬haˑmʃoːʀ̟aˈʀ̟iːim] ‘the singers’ (Ezra 2.41)

L, A: ‫ˌ[ ַה ְמ ַצ ְפ ְצ ִ ִׂ֖פים‬haˑmsˁɑfsˁɑˈfiːim] ‘those who chirp’ (Isa. 8.19)

L, A: ‫ˌ[ ַ ָ֜ה ְמיַ ְשּׁ ִ ֵ֗רים‬haˑmjaʃʃaˈʀ̟iːim] ‘those who make straight’ (Prov.

9.15)

L, A: ‫ˌ[ ַה ְמע ָּשּׁ ָּ ֞קה‬haˑmʕuʃʃɔːˈqɔ̟ ː] ‘the oppressed’ (Isa. 23.12)

L, A: ‫ˌ[ ַה ְמ ַק ְּב ִ ִ֔רים‬haˑmqa̟ bbaˈʀ̟iːim] ‘those who bury’ (Ezek. 39.15)

L: ‫ˌ[ ַה ְמ ַה ְלּ ִ ִׂ֖כים‬haˑmhallaˈχiːim] ‘those who move’ (Ecc. 4.15)

ַ ‫ˌ[ ַ ַה ְמ ַק ְט‬haˑmqɑ
L, A: ‫רֹות‬ ̟ ttˁɑˈʀ̟oːoθ] ‘(altars) for burning incense’
(2 Chron. 30.14)

As can be seen, A, in the portions that are extant, always

marks the mem with a simple shewa sign.
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 375

The vast majority of the forms in this list have the syllable
structure that is associated with the so-called minor gaʿya. This is
a musical secondary stress that occurs predominantly in words
with disjunctive accents on a short vowel in a closed syllable. It
occurs predominantly on a syllable that is separated from the
stressed syllable by another closed syllable, which in turn is fol-
lowed by vocal shewa or by an open syllable followed by a ḥaṭef
with an identical quality. These syllabic patterns may be repre-
sented thus: ‫ ִמ ְת ַפ ְל ְפ ִלִַ֔ים‬, ‫ ִמ ְת ַק ְט ִ֔ ִלים‬and ‫ ִמ ְת ַפ ֲע ִלִַ֔ים‬. Examples of each of
these are:

‫ˌ[ ַה ַכ ְר ְמ ִלית‬haˑkkʰaʀ̟maˈliːiθ] ‘the woman of Carmel’ (1 Sam.

27.3)

‫ˌ[ ִנ ְת ַח ְכ ָּ ִׂ֖מה‬niˑθħakkʰaˈmɔː] ‘let us deal wisely’ (Exod. 1.10)

‫ˌ[ ַה ַמּ ֲח ֶנִׂ֖ה‬haˑmmaːħaˈnɛː] ‘the camp’ (Gen. 50.9)

‫ˌ[ ִמ ְׁש ַת ֲחִ ִׂ֖וים‬miˑʃtʰaːħaˈviːim] ‘prostrating (mpl) themselves’

(Gen. 37.9).139

There is evidence that the duration of the vowel lengthened

by minor gaʿya was less than that of a long vowel in an open
syllable or of a vowel in a syllable with the main stress (§I.2.8.2.).
It appears not to have been fully bimoraic and did not induce the
insertion of an epenthetic vowel or resyllabification of the
consonant in the coda with the next syllable. For this reason, the
vowel is transcribed with the IPA symbol for half-long [CVˑC].

139
Yeivin (1980, 244–245). For more details concerning the minor gaʿya
see §I.2.8.2.2.
376 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Minor gaʿya also occurs less consistently on a range of other

closely related structures, e.g.

‫( ַה ְכנַ ֲע ִנֹ֑ית‬with vocalic shewa additional to the ‫ ִמ ְת ַפ ֲע ִלִַ֔ים‬pat-

tern) ‘the Canaanite woman’ (1 Chron. 2.3)

‫( וַ ִיּ ָּלּ ֲח ִׂ֖מּו‬with a vowel of different quality before the ḥaṭef)

‘and they fought’ (Josh. 10.36)

It very rarely occurs on a syllable that is separated from the

accent by only one syllable, e.g.

ֶ ‫‘ ִנ ְמ ָּצ‬a conspiracy is found’ (Jer. 11.9).

ַ‫א־ק ֶׁשר‬

Most of the cases where the shewa on the mem is silent after
the gaʿya that are cited in Diqduqe ha-Ṭeʿamim have the syllabic
patterns that are suitable for minor gaʿya, e.g. ‫ˌ[ ַה ְמ ַצ ְפ ְצ ִ ִׂ֖פים‬haˑm-
sˁɑfsˁɑˈfiːim] ‘those who chirp’ (Isa. 8.19), ‫ים‬
ַ ‫ˌ[ ַה ְמ ַד ְּב ִר‬haˑmðab-
baˈʀ̟iːim] ‘those who speak’ (Exod. 6.27) and as ‫ˌ[ ַה ְמ ַש ֲח ִׂ֖קֹות‬haˑm-
saːħaˈqo
̟ ːoθ] ‘the ones (fpl) playing’ (1 Sam. 18.7). In such cases,
therefore, it can be assumed that the gaʿya is the musical minor
gaʿya. The reading with musical minor gaʿya in such forms evi-
dently outranked the morphologically motivated syllabification
that conditioned the reading of the shewa as vocalic.
Two of the forms cited by Diqduqe ha-Ṭeʿamim as cases with
silent shewa under the mem have conjunctive accents, viz. ‫ַה ְמזַ ְמּ ַ֣רֹות‬
(L and A) ‘the snuffers’ (2 Kings 25.14), ‫( ַה ְמ ַק ְט ִ ַ֣רים‬L and A) ‘those
who burn incense’ (2 Kings 23.5). As remarked, minor gaʿya does
not commonly occur on forms with conjunctive accents and so
they must be considered to be not fully optimal for it. Some of
the cited forms, moreover, have syllable structures that are not
fully optimal for minor gaʿya, e.g. ‫( ַה ְמ ָּא ֲר ִ ִׂ֖רים‬L) ‘those that curse’
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 377

(Num. 5.19), ‫( ַה ְמׁש ְֹר ִ ֹ֑רים‬L) ‘the singers’ (Ezra 2.41), in which the
vowel in the second open syllable is not of the same quality as
the following vocalic shewa. Two of the cited cases have a syllable
structure that deviates more radically from the one that is opti-
mal for minor gaʿya, viz. the puʿal participles ‫( ַה ְמע ָּשּׁ ָּ ֞קה‬L and A)
‘the oppressed’ (Isa. 23.12) and ‫( ַה ְמח ָּלּ ַל‬L and A) ‘the one pro-
faned’ (L and A, Ezek. 36.23). By contrast, the puʿal participle
‫ׁש‬ ַ ַ ‘the consecrated’ (A ‫ׁש‬
ַ ‫ה ְמק ָּד‬ ַ ‫ה ֲמק ָּד‬,ַ Ezek. 48.11), which is identi-
cal in syllable structure to ‫ה ְמח ָּלּ ַל‬,ַ has a vocalic shewa.
Forms cited by Diqduqe ha-Ṭeʿamim as cases that have vo-
calic shewa include a construction with a disjunctive accent that
has the main accent on the fifth letter but has a syllable structure
that is not optimal for minor gaʿya, viz. ‫( ַה ְמ ַב ְק ִ ִׁׂ֖שים‬L) ‘those who
seek’ (Exod. 4.19), in which the shewa on the qof is silent. An
analogous case is ‫( וְ ַה ְמ ַמ ְל ִ ִׂ֖אים‬L) ‘and those who fill’ (A ‫וְ ַה ֲמ ַמ ְל ִ ִׂ֖אים‬,
Isa. 65.11). The cited forms with vocalic shewa, confirmed by the
occurrence of ḥaṭef pataḥ in the extant portions of A, include also
cases that have a syllable structure optimal for minor gaʿya but
have a conjunctive accent, which is not optimal for minor gaʿya,
e.g.

L: ‫‘ ַה ְמ ַד ְּב ִ ַ֣רים‬those who speak’ (A: ‫מ ַד ְּב ִ ַ֣רים‬

ֲַ ‫ ַה‬2 Chron. 33.18)

L: ַ ַ ‘those that send’ (A: ‫מ ַׁש ְלּ ִ ַּ֤חים‬

‫ה ְמ ַׁש ְלּ ִ ַּ֤חים‬ ֲַ ‫ה‬
ַ ַ 2 Chron. 32.31)

L, A: ‫‘ ַה ֲמ ַת ֲע ִ ַ֣בים‬the ones abhorring’ (Mic. 3.9)

Also cited is ‫( ַה ְמצ ָֹּר ִעים‬L) ‘the lepers’ (A ‫מצ ָֹּר ִעים‬
ֲַ ‫ ַה‬, 2 Kings
7.8), which has a conjunctive accent and a syllable structure that
is not optimal for minor gaʿya. The list of forms with vocalic
shewa includes ‫‘ ַה ְמלקקים‬those who lap’. A version of the rule
378 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

specifies ‫המלקקים ַבידם ַוחברו‬, which indicates that the two

occurrences of this word in Jud. 7, (verses 6 and 7) are
intended.140 In L and also L17, written by Samuel ben Jacob, the
scribe of L (Phillips 2020), marks a ḥaṭef pataḥ on both
occurrences, but A marks ḥaṭef pataḥ only on the form in Jud.
7.7:

L, L17 ‫( ַה ֲמ ַל ְק ִ ַָּּ֤קים‬A ‫מלַ ֲקָּ ִ ַּ֤קים‬

ְַ ‫ ַה‬, Jud. 7.6)

L, L17, A: ‫ים‬
ַ ‫( ַה ֲמ ַל ְק ִק‬Jud. 7.7)

In Jud. 7.6 the form has a conjunctive accent and in Jud.

7.7 a disjunctive. It has a syllable structure that is suitable for
minor gaʿya but has vocalic shewa even when it has a disjunctive
accent. It is not clear why A vocalizes the form in Jud. 7.6 with
a simple shewa sign.
A similar case is the following pair:

L: ְַ ‫‘ ַה‬those who spy’ (A: ‫ה ֲמ ַרגְ ִ ַּ֤לים‬,ַ Josh. 6.22)

‫מ ַרגְ ִ ַּ֤לים‬

L: ‫מ ַרגְ ֵ֗ ִלים‬
ְַ ‫( ַה‬A ‫ה ֲמ ַרגְ ֵ֗ ִלים‬,ַ Josh. 6.23)

These both have a structure optimal for minor gaʿya but the
shewa is vocalic in both occurrences even though the second oc-
currence (Josh. 6.23) has a disjunctive accent.
In conclusion, there is no absolute rule or consistency re-
lating to places where the shewa under the mem was read as si-
lent. The somewhat arbitrary distribution of forms with silent
shewa was fixed in particular streams of the Tiberian tradition.
The gaʿya on such forms should be identified as a musical minor

140
The Treatise on the Shewa in the Genizah manuscript CUL Or
1080.13.3.2, fol. 2r; cf. Yeivin (1968, 27).
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 379

gaʿya, since the majority of forms have a structure that is optimal

for minor gaʿya. The minor gaʿya was a secondary accent and so
the short vowel was lengthened by stress rather than by the aug-
mentation of the syllable at an underlying level. For this reason,
the shewa was silent. The underlying syllabic structures of ‫ַה ְמ ַד ֵ ָּ֥בר‬
‘the one speaking’ (Gen. 45.12) and ‫ים‬
ַ ‫‘ ַה ְמ ַד ְּב ִר‬those who speak’
(Exod. 6.27) can be represented thus:

/haa.mðab.bē.r/ [haːmaðabˈbeːeʀ̟]

/ham.ðab.brī.m/ [ˌhaˑmðabbaˈʀ̟iːim]

Some words beginning with the article + mem with shewa

(ְַ‫)המ‬
ַ that consist of more than five letters and are stressed on the
fifth letter or later are not marked with a gaʿya in the manu-
scripts, suggesting that the pataḥ was pronounced short and the
shewa was silent, e.g.

L: ַ֒ ‫ה ְמק ָּשּׁרֹו‬
‫ת‬ ̟ ʃʃɔːˈʀ̟oːoθ] ‘the ones bound’ (Gen. 30.41)
ַַ [hamqu

L: ‫[ ַה ְמ ָּא ָּד ִִ֔מים‬hamʔɔddɔːˈmiːim] ‘those dyed red’ (Exod. 39.34)

L: ‫[ ַה ְמ ָּא ְר ִ ַּ֤רים‬hamʔɔːʀ̟aˈʀ̟iːim] ‘the cursing’ (Num. 5.22)

L: ֹ ַ֣ ‫[ ַה ְמ‬hamˌʔoːʀ̟ɔːˈʃɔː] ‘the betrothed one’ (Deut. 22.25)

‫א ָּר ִָּ֔שה‬

According to Kitāb al-Khilaf, there were differences be-

tween Ben Asher and Ben Naftali regarding the reading of words
beginning with ְַ‫ ַהמ‬with minor gaʿya. In Exod. 6.27, for example,
it is reported that Ben Asher read ‫ ַהמדברים‬without minor gaʿya
whereas Ben Naftali read this ‫ ַהמדברים‬with minor gaʿya (ed. Lip-
schütz 1965, ‫)י‬. In this case, L corresponds to the reading of Ben
Naftali (ַ‫‘ ַה ְמ ַד ְּב ִרים‬the ones who speak’). Ben Asher read the shewa
on the mem in the word ‫ ַה ְמ ַרגְ ִ ַּ֤לים‬in Josh. 6.22 and Josh. 6.23 as
380 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

vocalic, but Ben Naftali regularly read it as silent (ed. Lipschütz

1965, 20, ‫)כד‬.
ְַ has gaʿya, the Karaite
When the pataḥ of the article before ‫מ‬
Arabic transcriptions generally represent it as long by transcrib-
ing it with mater lectionis ʾalif, e.g.

ࣦ‫ه۟ امۖ زۚم۠ اث۠ا‬ [haːmazimmɔːˈθɔː] (BL Or 2549 fol. 82r, 7 | L

[BHS]: ‫ה‬ ַ ‫ה ֲמזִ ָּמּ ָּת‬,ַ Jer. 11.15 ‘the wickedness’)

ַ ‫ה ְמזִ ָּמּ ָּת‬,ַ A ‫ה‬

‫[ ه۟ امۖ ب۟قۖ ۚشيم‬haːmavaqˈ̟ ʃiːim] (BL Or 2544, fol. 111v, 12 | L

[BHS]: ‫ ַה ְמ ַב ְק ִ ִׁׂ֖שים‬Exod. 4.19 ‘those who seek’)

‫ˌ[ هاميلذوث‬haˑmjallaˈðoːoθ] (BL Or 2542, fol. 43v, 6 | L

ַ ‫ ַה ְמיַ ְלּד‬Exod. 1.17 ‘these, who help to give birth’)
[BHS]: ‫ֹת‬

In the manuscript BL Or 2555, a vocalic shewa is explicitly

marked with a pataḥ sign and so forms with vocalic and silent
shewa are distinguished. This corresponds to the distribution of
vocalic and silent shewa discussed above, e.g.

‫[ ه۟ امࣦ۟ ۣࣦش ۠لࣦاش‬haːmaʃulˈlɔːɔʃ] (BL Or 2555 fol. 29r, 3 | L [BHS]:

‫ ַה ְמׁש ִ֔ ָּלּׁש‬phonetic gaʿya and vocalic shewa, Ecc. 4.12 ‘the
threefold’)

‫ˌ[ ه۟ امۖ هلࣦ ۚخيم‬haˑmhallaˈχiːim] (BL Or 2555 fol. 33r, 3 | L

[BHS]: ‫ ַה ְמ ַה ְלּ ִ ִׂ֖כים‬minor gaʿya and silent shewa, Ecc. 4.15
‘those who move’)
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 381

It is significant that in some manuscripts a phonetic gaʿya

on ‫מ‬
ְַ ‫ ַה‬is neither marked in the manuscript nor represented in the
transcription where it occurs in L and A, e.g.

ࣦ‫لي ۖۛح‬ٟ ۟‫[ هࣦ۟مۖ ه‬hamhalˈleːeχ] (BL Or 2551 fol. 78v, 6 | L [BHS]:
‫ה ְמ ַה ֵ֗ ֵלְּך‬, ְ֝ ַ Psa. 104.3 ‘he who walks’)
ְ֝ ַ A ‫ה ֲמ ַה ֵ֗ ֵלְּך‬,

ࣦ‫[ ه۟ مۖ ۟سلࣦۛ ۟يح‬hamʃalˈleːaχ] (BL Or 2551 fol. 81v, 3 | L [BHS]:

‫ַ֣ח‬ ַ ַ ‫ה ֲמ ַׁש ֵלּ‬,ַ Psa. 104.10 ‘he who sends’)
ַ ַ ‫ה ְמ ַׁש ֵלּ‬,ַ A ‫ַ֣ח‬

This evidently reflects other variant streams of the Tiberian

tradition in which the shewa was pronounced silent without
lengthening of the pataḥ in these forms. Further evidence for this
can be found in manuscripts with Babylonian vocalization that
reflect a reading that has converged very closely with the
Tiberian tradition. Of particular relevance is the manuscript I
Firkovitch Evr. I B 3, containing the Latter Prophets, which
distinguishes length of vowels in closed syllables by means of the
compound Babylonian sign system (§I.2.5.1.).141 Where L and A
have gaʿya on the pataḥ of the definite article, the pataḥ in I
Firkovitch Evr. I B 3 is sometimes represented as long. In several
cases, however, the pataḥ is represented as short (Yeivin 1985,
413), e.g.

‫[ הֲמְלֵאָה‬hamleːʔˈɔː] ‘the one full’ (L: ‫ה ְמ ֵל ָּ ָ֥אה‬,ַ A: ‫ה ֲמלֵ ָּ ָ֥אה‬,ַ Amos

2.13)

141
Named the Codex Babylonicus Petropolitanus in the facsimile edition
by Strack (1876).
382 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

‫[ הֲמְבֲקְׁשיִם‬hamvaqˈ̟ ʃiːim] ‘those who seek’ (L: ‫ה ְמ ַב ְק ִ ָׁ֥שים‬,ַ A:

‫ה ֲמ ַב ְק ִ ָׁ֥שים‬,ַ Jer. 11.21)

‫[ הֲמְתַעֲביִם‬hamθaːʕaˈviːim] ‘the ones abhorring’ (L, A:

‫ה ֲמ ַת ֲע ִ ַ֣בים‬,ַ Mic. 3.9)

Such manuscripts with Babylonian vocalization, the Kara-

ite transcriptions and the lists of differences between Ben Asher
and Ben Naftali provide evidence of degrees of variation in the
Tiberian tradition both within the Tiberian school and outside of
the inner circles of the Tiberian Masoretic school. The variation
relating to the particular feature in question appears to have been
arbitrary. Also within the inner Tiberian tradition, as we have
seen, there was some degree of arbitrariness in the distribution
of the vocalic and silent shewa in this feature. A particular distri-
bution containing some apparently arbitrary inconsistency (e.g.
the silent shewa in ‫ ַה ְמׁש ָּגָ֥ע‬2 Kings 9.11) became fixed in the tra-
dition.
The gemination of a mem with shewa after the definite arti-
cle is retained in numerous cases, e.g.

‫‘ ַה ְמּ ָּל ִִ֔כים‬the kings’ (Gen. 36.31)

‫‘ ַה ְמּזּו ִֹׂ֖זת‬the doorposts’ (Exod. 12.7)

‫ה‬ ָּ ‫‘ ַה ְמּ‬the lampstand’ (Exod. 25.31)

ַ ‫נֹור‬

‫‘ ַה ְמּצ ָּ ִֹ֔רע‬the leper’ (Lev. 14.2)

The vocalization of the definite article exhibits different

patterns before other consonants that have a tendency to lose
gemination when vocalized with shewa, i.e. the sonorants nun,
yod, lamed, the sibilants and qof.
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 383

Gemination is occasionally lost in nun and the pataḥ is

marked with gaʿya, e.g.

L: ‫[ וְ ַהנְ ַׁש ָ֥מֹּות‬vahaːnaʃamˈmoːoθ] ‘and the desolated ones’ (A

‫ וְ ַהנֲַ ַׁש ָ֥מֹּות‬Ezek. 36.35)

The vocalization with ḥaṭef pataḥ in A demonstrates that

the shewa was vocalic.
The lengthening of the pataḥ in such cases is represented
by mater lectionis ʾalif in the Karaite transcriptions, even when a
gaʿya sign is not marked in the transcription manuscript, e.g.

‫[ ه۟ ان ۟ۖش ّم ۢوث‬haːnaʃamˈmoːoθ] (BL Or 2549 fol. 106v, 15 | L

[BHS]: ‫הנְ ַׁש ֵ֗מֹּות‬,ַ A ‫ ַהנֲַ ַׁש ֵ֗מֹּות‬, Jer. 33.10 ‘those that are deso-
late’)

In ‫‘ ַּבנְ ח ְׁש ִַ֔תיִ ם‬with bronze fetters’ (Jud. 16.21) both L and A
have simple shewa, so the reading of the shewa is not clear. In
many cases the gemination is retained, e.g.

ַַ ‘the young men’ (Gen. 14.24)

‫הנְּ ָּע ִ ִ֔רים‬

ַַ ‘the Nephilim’ (Gen. 6.4)

‫הנְּ ִפ ֞ ִלים‬

Gemination is sometimes lost in yod, but the shewa is silent

and there is no compensatory lengthening, e.g.

‫‘ ַהיְ ָּל ִ ֵּ֕דים‬the children’ (Gen. 33.5)

ִ ְ‫‘ַ ַהי‬the Jebusite’ (Josh. 15.8, etc.)

ַ‫בּוסי‬

‫‘ ַליְ ָּׁש ִ ֹ֑רים‬for the upright’ (Psa. 112.4)

‫‘ ַּביְ ִר ָּיעַ֣ה‬on the curtain’ (Exod. 26.5)

In several places the gemination is retained, e.g.

384 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

‫‘ ַהיְּ ֵע ִלים‬the wild goats’ (1 Sam. 24.3)

‫ים‬ ִ ְ‫‘ַ ַהיּ‬the Jews’ (2 Kings 25.25)

ַ ‫הּוד‬

‫‘ ַהיְּ וָּ ִנֹ֑ים‬the Greeks’ (Joel 4.6)

Lamed loses gemination after the definite article in the fre-

quent phrase ‫‘ ַה ְלוִ ִיִּׂ֖ם‬the Levites’ (Exod. 6.25, etc.) without com-
pensatory lengthening. Elsewhere the lamed is geminated, e.g.

‫‘ ַה ְלּב ִ֔ ָֹּנה‬the frankincense’ (Lev. 6.8)

‫‘ ַה ְלּ ָּבנֹ֑ ֹון‬Lebanon’ (Josh. 9.1)

The sibilants generally have gemination after the article. It

is lost in a few words. In some such cases, the shewa is vocalic
and there is compensatory lengthening, e.g.

L: ‫[ ַּב ְס ָּע ָּ ִׂ֖רה‬baːsɔʕɔːˈʀ̟ɔː] ‘by the whirlwind’ (A ‫ס ָּע ָּ ִׂ֖רה‬

ֳַ ‫ ַּב‬2 Kings
2.1, 11)

L: ‫[ ַל ְׁש ַפ ִנּים‬laːʃafanˈniːim] ‘for the badgers’ (A ‫ׁש ַפ ִנּים‬

ֲַ ‫ ַל‬Psa.
104.18)

L: ‫[ וְַ ַה ְׁש ַפ ֵַ֗תיִ ם‬vahaːʃafatˈtʰiːim] ‘and the hooks’ (A ‫וְ ַה ֲׁש ַפ ֵַ֗תיִ ם‬,
Ezek. 40.43)

In other cases the shewa is silent and there is no

compensatory lengthening, e.g.

L, A: ‫‘ ַה ְׁש ַל ִּבים‬the frames’ (1 Kings 7.28)

L: ‫‘ ַהזְ ֵק ִנַּ֤ים‬the elders’ (A: ‫ ַהזְַ ֵק ִנַּ֤ים‬1 Kings. 21.8)

L: ‫‘ ַּב ְש ֵאת‬in the swelling’ (Lev. 13.10)

As for the word ‘the frogs’ (Exod. 8.9, etc.), a surviving

fragment of A of Exod. 8.9 has a ḥaṭef pataḥ under the ṣade of this
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 385

word (‫) ַה ֲַצ ַפ ְר ְד ִ֔ ִעים‬, indicating that the shewa was vocalic despite
the fact that its structure is appropriate for minor gaʿya.
Qof generally retains gemination, e.g.

‫‘ ַה ְקּ ֵד ָּ ָׁ֛שה‬the harlot’ (Gen. 38.21)

‫‘ ַה ְקּ ָּר ִ ִׁׂ֖שים‬the boards’ (Exod. 26.15)

There are a few exceptions, e.g.

L: ‫‘ ַה ְק ַט ִנֹּ֑ים‬the small ones’ (A ‫ ַה ְק ַט ִנֹּ֑ים‬Isa. 36.9)

L, A: ‫‘ ַּב ְק ָּרב‬in the battle’ (2 Sam. 17.11)

L, A: ‫‘ ַל ְק ָּ ֹ֑רב‬for the battle’ (Psa. 144.1).

I.2.5.8.2. Interrogative He
When interrogative he is prefixed to a word beginning with a let-
ter with shewa, the interrogative he is often vocalized with pataḥ
and the shewa is silent, e.g.

ַ ‫[ַ ַה ְמ ַע‬hamˈʕɑːɑtˁ] ‘Is it a small matter?’ (Gen. 30.15)

‫ט‬

‫ַה ֶזָ֛ה‬
ַ ‫ַה ַּביִת‬
ַ ‫ַה ָּיה‬
ָּ ‫ַפ ִר ִֵ֗צים‬ ַַ ַ [hamʕɔːˈʀ̟aːaθ] ‘Has this house
ָּ ‫ה ְמ ָּע ַ ַ֣רת‬
become a den of robbers?’ (Jer. 7.11)

‫חֹותנּו‬
ֵ ‫ת־א‬
ֲ ‫הַא‬ ָּ ֵּ֕ ‫[ ַה ְכ‬haχzoːˈnɔː] ‘Should he treat our sister
ֶ ‫זֹונהַיַ ֲע ֶ ִׂ֖ש‬
as a harlot?’ (Gen. 34.31)

‫ַא ָּ ַ֣תהַא ִֵֹ֔מר‬ ַַ [halhɔʀ̟ˈʁeːniː] ‘Do you intend to kill me?’

ַ ‫ה ְל ָּה ְרגֵ נִ י‬
(Exod. 2.14)

‫םַלנּו‬
ִׂ֖ ָּ ‫את‬ ְ ‫[ ַה ְליָּ ְר ֵֵּׁ֕ש‬haljɔʀ̟ˈʃeːnuː] ‘Have you invited us here
ָ֥ ֶ ‫נּוַק ָּר‬
to impoverish us?’ (Jud. 14.15)

‫ַת ְׁש ָּ ֹ֑מע‬ ֱ ‫[ ַה ְב ַ֣ס‬havˈsoːoð] ‘Have you listened to the coun-

ִ ‫ֹודַאלַ֣ ַֹוה‬
cil of God?’ (Job 15.8)
386 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

‫ַ֣לַיִׁשפֹוט‬ ֲ ‫[ ַה ְב ַ ִׂ֖ע‬havˈʕaːað] ‘Can he judge through the deep

ְ ‫דַע ָּר ֶפ‬
darkness?’ (Job 22.13)

On some occasions, a phonetic gaʿya is marked on the pataḥ

and the shewa is read as vocalic. One such case is listed in §14 of
Diqduqe ha-Ṭeʿamim:

L: ִׂ֖ ַ ‫[ ַה ְמ ָּצ‬haːmasˁɔːˈθaːniː] ‘have you found me?’ (A ‫אתנִ י‬

‫אתנִ י‬ ִׂ֖ ַ ‫מ ָּצ‬
ֲַ ‫ה‬
ַַ
1 Kings 21.20)

As is the case with the phonetic gaʿya on the definite article,

the purpose of this is likely to be to create a syllabic division
between the interrogative particle and the following word in or-
der to mark a clear morphological division. When the initial con-
sonant of the word is syllabified in the onset of the following
syllable, the pataḥ is lengthened by compensation:

/ham.sˁɔ̄.θɔ̄.nī/ > /haa.msˁɔ̄.θɔ̄.nī/ [haː.ma.sˁɔː.ˈθaː.niː].

In the extant portions of A, the vocalic reading of the shewa

is made explicit by a ḥatef sign. Further examples:

L: ֲ ‫[ ַה ְמ ַכ ֶ ַּ֤ס‬haːmaχaˈsɛː] ‘Shall I hide?’ (Gen. 18.17)

ַ‫הַאנִ י‬

L: ַ ‫[ ַה ְב ָּר ָּכ‬haːvaʀ̟ɔːˈχɔː] ‘one blessing?’ (Gen. 27.38)

‫הַא ַ ַּ֤חת‬

L: ‫[ ַהנְ ַק ָּלַּּ֤ה‬haːnaqa̟ lˈlɔː] ‘Is it a little thing?’ (A: ‫ ַהנֲַ ַק ָּלַּּ֤ה‬1 Sam.
18.23)

L: ַ‫[ ַ ַה ְׁש ַכ ְח ֶתם‬haːʃaχaħˈtˁɛːɛm] ‘Have you forgotten?’ (A:

ַ‫ׁש ַכ ְח ֶתם‬
ֲַ ‫ ַה‬Jer. 44.9)

L: ‫[ ֶַ֭ה ְת ַק ֵשּׁר‬haːθaqa̟ ʃˈʃeːerˁ] ‘Can you bind?’ (A: ‫ת ַק ֵשּׁר‬

ֲַ ‫ ֶַ֭ה‬Job
38.31)
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 387

L: ‫[ ַה ְת ַׁש ַלַּ֣ח‬haːθaʃalˈlaːaħ] ‘Can you send forth?’ (A: ‫ת ַׁש ַלַּ֣ח‬

ֲַ ‫ ַה‬Job
38.35)

L: ‫[ַ ַה ְת ַמ ֵלַּ֣א‬haːθamalˈleː] ‘Can you fill?’ (A: ‫ת ַמ ֵלַּ֣א‬

ֲַ ‫ ַה‬Job 40.31)

In a few cases where gaʿya is marked on interrogative he

both L and A have a simple shewa on the following consonant:

L, A: ‫ָ֥ח׀ַאד ָֹּנֹ֑י‬ ָּ ‫‘ ֶַ֭ה ְל‬Will the Lord spurn forever?’ (Psa. 77.8)
ֲ ‫עֹול ִמיםַיִ זְ ַנ‬

ֶ֭ ‫‘ ַה ְת ַש ֶח‬Will you play with him?’ (Job 40.29)

L, A: ‫ק־ּבֹו‬

In the first case, the lack of a ḥaṭef in A is most likely due

to the fact that there was no suitable ḥaṭef to represented the
short [o] quality of the shewa before the guttural: [haːlo-
ʕoːlɔːˈmiːim].
The lengthening of the pataḥ of the interrogative particle is
reflected by mater lectionis ʾalif in the Karaite Arabic transcrip-
tions, e.g.

‫[ ࣦ۟ۚهاثۖق۟ ۛسير‬haːθaqa̟ ʃˈʃeːeʀ̟] (BL Or 2552 fol. 81r, 15 | L [BHS]:

‫ה ְת ַק ֵשּׁר‬, ֲַ ‫ ֶַ֭ה‬, Job. 38.31 ‘will you bind?’)
ֶַ֭ A ‫ת ַק ֵשּׁר‬

‫[ ه۟ اثۖم۟ لۛ ي‬haːθamalˈleː] (BL Or 2552 fol. 85r, 9 | L [BHS]:

ֲַ ‫ ַה‬, Job. 40.31 ‘will you fill?’)
‫ה ְת ַמ ֵלַּ֣א‬,ַ A ‫ת ַמ ֵלַּ֣א‬

ࣦ‫ࣦۚب ۢو‬-‫[ ه۟ اث ۟ۖس ۟احق‬haːθasaːħɛq-ˈboː] (BL Or 2552 fol. 84v, 11 | L

ֶ֭ ‫ה ְת ַש ֶח‬,ַ Job. 40.29 ‘will you play with him?’)
[BHS], A ‫ק־ּבֹו‬

The early Tiberian biblical codices exhibit some degree of

variation, e.g.
388 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

L: ‫תַה ֶזָ֛ה‬
ַ ִ‫הַה ַּבי‬
ַ ‫יםַה ָּי‬
ָּ ‫תַפ ִר ִֵ֗צ‬ ַַ ַwithout gaʿya [hamʕɔːˈʀ̟aːaθ] ‘Has
ָּ ‫ה ְמ ָּע ַ ַ֣ר‬
this house become a den of robbers?’ (A ‫מ ָּע ַ ַ֣רת‬
ֳַ ‫ה‬
ַ ַ [haːmɔ-
ʕɔːˈʀ̟aːaθ], Jer. 7.11)

Some variation is found also in the Tiberian tradition re-

flected by manuscripts with Babylonian vocalization, such as I
Firkovitch Evr. I B 3, containing the Latter Prophets, which dis-
tinguishes length of vowels in closed syllables by means of the
compound Babylonian sign system:

L: ַ‫[ ַ ַה ְׁש ַכ ְח ֶתם‬haːʃaχaħˈtˁɛːɛm] ‘Have you forgotten?’ (A:

ֲַ ‫ ַה‬, I Firk. Evr. I B 3 ‫תם‬
ַ‫ׁש ַכ ְח ֶתם‬ ֓‫ח‬
֓ ‫ש ֓כ‬
֓ ‫ה‬
֓ [haʃkaħˈtʰaːam], Jer.
44.9)

Another strategy to mark clear a morphological division be-

tween the interrogative particle and what follows is to geminate
the consonant following the particle (§I.3.1.8.), e.g.

‫[ ַ ַה ְכ ַצ ֲע ָּק ָּ ָ֛תהּ‬hakkʰɑsˁɑːʕɑqɔ̟ ːˈθɔːɔh] ‘whether it according to

its outcry’ (Gen. 18.21)

‫ַהוא‬
ִׂ֖ ִ ָ֛‫תנֶ ת ַ ִּבנְ ך‬
ֹ ‫ַה ְכ‬ ָּ ֵ֗ ‫[ ַה ֶכ‬hakkʰaˈθoːnɛθ] ‘acknowledge now
ַ ‫ר־נא‬
whether it is your son's robe’ (Gen. 37.32)

‫[ ַה ְּב ַמ ֲח ִנִׂ֖ים‬habbamaːħaˈniːim] ‘is it in camps?’ (Num. 13.19)

ִ ‫[ ַה ְכ ַמ ַ ָ֥כתַ ַמ ֵ ִׂ֖כ‬hakkʰamakˈkʰaːaθ] ‘Has he struck him as

‫הּוַה ָּ ֹ֑כהּו‬
the one who struck him?’ (Isa. 27.7)

‫ם‬ ֶ ‫[ַ ַה ְר ִא‬haʀ̟ʀi̟ ʔiːˈθɛːɛm] ‘Have you seen?’ (1 Sam. 10.24)

ַ ‫ית‬
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 389

I.2.5.8.3. Two Identical Consonants

As remarked in §I.2.5.7.3., a shewa that occurs on the first of two
identical consonants after a short vowel was read as silent in the
Tiberian tradition, e.g.

ַ‫[ ִהנְ נִ י‬hinˈniː] ‘behold me’ (Gen. 6.17)

On many occasions, however, the vowel before the identi-

cal consonants in such forms is lengthened and the shewa is read
as vocalic. The lengthening of the vowel is, in principle, marked
by a gaʿya sign in the early codices. In the extant portions of A,
the vocalic reading of the shewa is generally indicated explicitly
by marking a ḥaṭef pataḥ sign. A ḥaṭef pataḥ is sometimes found
also in L, but most of these are misshapen and are clearly the
result of a later correction, e.g.

L, A: ‫[ ִצלֲ לֹ֑ ֹו‬sˁiːlaˈloː] ‘his shade’ (Job 40.22)

L, A: ‫[ ִקלֲ ַלִׂ֖ת‬qi̟ ːlaˈloːoθ] ‘the curse of’ (Jud. 9.57)

L: ִ ‫[ ִמלֲ ִ֡ ַל‬miːlaˈlaːj giːlaˈlaːj] ‘Milalai, Gilalai’ (Neh. 12.36)

‫יַגלֲ ִ֡ ַלי‬

The main motivation for reading the shewa as vocalic was

doubtless to ensure that the two identical letters in contact were
given their full articulation and not slurred together. The inser-
tion of a vowel between them would have made each more sali-
ent. This was achieved by augmenting the preceding syllable
with a vowel mora, which would have conditioned a resyllabifi-
cation. The gaʿya can be identified with what Yeivin calls a pho-
netic gaʿya. This was, in essence, a mark of ‘mora-augmenting’
lengthening:

/sˁil.lō/ > /sˁii.llō/ [sˁiː.laloː]

390 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

The normal practice in L, however, is for a phonetic gaʿya

to be marked on the vowel and a simple shewa sign on the first
of the identical consonants. In the extant portions of A, a ḥaṭef
pataḥ is usually marked in such cases, e.g.

L: ‫[ ִר ְב ִׂ֖בֹות‬ʀ̟iːvaˈvoːoθ] ‘the ten thousands of’ (Num. 10.36)

L: ‫[ ְּב ִר ְב ִׂ֖בֹות‬baʀ̟iːvaˈvoːoθ] ‘with ten thousands of’ (A ‫ּב ִר ֲב ִׂ֖בֹות‬,

ְ
Mic. 6.7)

L: ‫[ ְּב ַח ְַצ ָ֥צ ֹן ַ ָּת ָּמר‬baħaːsˁɑˈsˁoːon tʰɔːˈmɔːɔʀ̟] ‘in Hazazontamar’

(Gen. 14.7)

L: ‫[ ִּופ ְַללַ֣ ֹו‬wufiːlaˈloː] ‘and he will mediate for him’ (A: ‫ּופלֲ לַ֣ ֹו‬,
ִ 1
Sam. 2.25)

L: ‫[ ַח ְַל ֵלַּ֤י‬ħaːlaˈleː] ‘the slain of’ (A: ‫חלֲ ֵלַּ֤י‬,ַ 1 Sam. 17.52)

L: ̟ ːlaˈloː] ‘when he cursed’ (A: ‫ּב ַָּקלֲ לֹ֑ ֹו‬,

‫[ ְּב ַָּק ְַללֹ֑ ֹו‬baqa ְ 2 Sam. 16.7)

L: ַ‫[ ַמה־ ִת ְת ַה ְַל ִלי‬maː-ttiθhaːlaˈliː] ‘why do you boast?’ (A: ‫ת ְת ַהלֲ ִלַי‬,
ִ
Jer. 49.4)

L: ְַ [baʁɛːlaˈleː] ‘the dung of’ (A: ‫ּב ֶגלֲַ ֵלי‬

‫ּב ֶג ְל ֵלי‬ ְַ , Ezek. 4.12)

L: ְַ ‫[ ִׁש‬ʃiːmaˈmoːoθ] ‘devastations of’ (A: ‫ׁש ֲמ ַּ֤מֹות‬,

‫מ ַּ֤מֹות‬ ִ Ezek.
35.9)

L: ‫[ יִ ְל ַלַ֣ת‬jiːlaˈlaːaθ] ‘the howling of’ (A: ‫יִ לֲַ ַלַ֣ת‬, Zech. 11.3)

L: ‫[ ְּב ַענְַ ִ ָ֥ני‬baʕaːnaˈniː] ‘when I bring clouds’ (A: ‫ּב ַענֲ ִ ָ֥ני‬,
ְ Gen. 9.14)

L: ‫[ ָּחנְַ ֹ֬ ֵננִ י‬ħɔːnaˈneːniː] ‘be gracious to me’ (A: ‫חנֲ ֹ֬ ֵננִ י‬,ָּ Psa. 9.14)

In a few cases, a gaʿya is marked but a simple shewa is

written instead of ḥaṭef pataḥ in both L and A, e.g.
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 391

L, A: ‫[ ְ֝ ְל ֶחנְ ֵ֗ ָּנהּ‬lɛħɛːnaˈnɔːɔh] ‘in order to favour it (fs)’ (Psa.

102.14)

L, A: ‫[ ַה ְללִׂ֖ ּו‬haːlaˈluː] ‘praise’ (Jer. 20.13)

L, A: ‫[ וְ ִה ְת ַפ ְללָ֥ ּו‬vihiθpʰaːlaˈluː] ‘and pray’ (Jer. 29.7)

L, A: ‫[ ַה ְללּו־ ָּיהּ‬haːlaluː-ˈjɔːɔh] ‘praise the Lord’ (Psa. 106.48)

Sporadically the gaʿya is omitted, though A has a ḥaṭef

pataḥ, e.g.

A: ‫[ נְ גַ ֲׁש ָּ ַּׁ֤שה‬naʁaːʃaˈʃuː] ‘we grope’ (L: ‫ׁש ָּ ַּׁ֤שה‬

ְַ ‫נְ ַַג‬, Isa. 59.10)

L: ‫[ גֶ ְַל ֵלַ֣י‬gɛːlaˈleː] ‘the dung of’ (A: ‫גֶ לֲ ֵלַ֣י‬, Ezek. 4.15)

L: ַָּ‫[ יְ ַה ְל ֶלֹ֑ך‬jahaːlaˈlɛːɛkkʰɔː] ‘and it will praise you’ (A: ַָּ‫י ְַהלֲ ֶלֹ֑ך‬, Isa.
38.18)

In the following example, the gaʿya is omitted in both L and

A, with a ḥaṭef pataḥ indicating the vocalic shewa. There is a mu-
sical gaʿya on the shewa at the beginning of the word, which is
normally associated with syllabic structures with a vocalic shewa
before the main stress, i.e. ‫מ ַפ ְל ְפ ִלים‬
ַ ְ , ‫מ ַפ ֲע ִלים‬
ַ ְ (§I.2.9.).

L, A: ‫ˌ[ ְ ֶ֭כגֶ לֲ לֹו‬kʰaˑʁɛːlaˈloː] ‘like his dung’ (Job 20.7)

In such cases, the ḥaṭef pataḥ is often omitted in L, e.g.

L: ‫ˌ[ יְ ַה ְַללָ֥ ּו‬jaˑhaːlaˈluː] ‘they praise’ (A: ‫יְ ַהלֲ לָ֥ ּו‬, Psa. 74.21)

L: ‫ˌ[ יְ ַה ְַללָ֥ ּוך‬jaˑhaːlaˈluː] ‘they praise you’ (A: ‫יְ ַהלֲ לָ֥ ּוך‬, Psa. 84.5)

L: ְַ ‫ˌ[ יְ ַמ‬jaˑmaːʃaˈʃuː] ‘they grope’ (A: ‫יְ ַמ ֲׁש ָׁ֥שּו‬, Job 5.14)
‫ׁש ָׁ֥שּו‬

When the word contains a musical minor gaʿya, in L there

is often no marking of either the phonetic gaʿya or the ḥaṭef pataḥ.
Likewise in A the phonetic gaʿya is omitted and also the ḥaṭef
392 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

pataḥ in some examples. As was the case with the musical gaʿya
on shewa, the musical minor gaʿya is associated with syllabic pat-
terns that have a vocalic shewa before the main stress, i.e.
ַ ִ , ‫§( ִמ ְת ַפ ֲע ִלים‬I.2.8.2.2.), so the marking of the minor gaʿya
‫מ ְת ַפ ְל ְפ ִלים‬
was evidently felt by the vocalizers to be sufficient to ensure that
the reader read the shewa on the first of the two identical conso-
nants as vocalic:142

L, A: ‫ˌ[ ַוִֽיְ ַק ְללִׂ֖ ּו‬vaˑqa̟ ːlaˈluː] ‘and they cursed’ (Jud. 9.27)

L, A: ‫[ וְ יִ ְת ַה ְללִׂ֖ ּו‬viˌjiˑθhaːlaˈluː] ‘and they will glory’ (Isa. 45.25)

L: ַ‫ˌ[ ַַוִֽיְ ַה ְללּו‬vaˑjhaːlaˈluː] ‘and they praised’ (A: ‫לּו‬

ַ ֲַ‫ַוִֽיְ ַהל‬, 2 Chr.
29.30)

L: ‫ˌ[ ִ ֶ֭ה ְת ַה ְללּו‬hiˑθhaːlaˈluː] ‘glory!’ (A: ‫ ִ ֶ֭ה ְת ַהלֲַלּו‬, Psa. 105.3)

Some early manuscripts do not mark minor gaʿya in a num-

ber of the forms just listed, but mark the shewa as vocalic either
by a phonetic gaʿya before the shewa or by a ḥaṭef pataḥ, e.g.143

JTS 232/ENA 346: ‫ה ְללִׂ֖ ּו‬

ַ ַ ‫[ וְ יִַ ְת‬vijiθhaːlaˈluː] (Isa. 45.25)

C: ‫[ וְ יִַ ְת ַהלֲַלִׂ֖ ּו‬vijiθhaːlaˈluː] (Isa. 45.25)

Both phonetic gaʿya and ḥaṭef pataḥ are omitted in L and A

in some words that do not have a musical gaʿya but which else-
where are normally read with a vocalic shewa. This applies to
some words that are attested in both L and A, and to some that
are attested only in L, e.g.

142
See the discussion concerning the lack of phonetic gaʿya in such
forms in Phillips (2020).
143
See Heijmans (2018, 99).
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 393

L, A: ‫‘ יְ ַה ְללּוהּו‬they praise him’ (Psa. 107.32)

L: ‫‘ ְמ ַק ְל ֶלך‬he who curses you’ (Ecc. 7.21)

In a few cases, the vowel before the first of two identical

consonants is lengthened by a retracted accent. The shewa was
pronounced vocalic here also, as demonstrated by its being rep-
resented by a ḥaṭef pataḥ:

L: ‫ˌ[ ַ ַ֣אלֲ ַליַ ֵ֗ ִלי‬ʔaːlalaj] ‘woe is me’ (A: ‫אלֲ ַלי‬,

ַ֣ ַ Mic. 7.1)

L: ‫ˈ[ ַ ָ֥הלֲ לּוַ ֵָּּ֨יהּ‬haːlaluː] ‘praise the Lord’ (A: ‫הלֲ לּו‬,
ָ֥ ַ Psa. 135.1)

In all these cases, the Karaite transcriptions represent the

lengthened vowel preceding the first of the two identical conso-
nants as long by an Arabic mater lectionis. This includes cases in
which L and/or A do not mark a gaʿya or ḥaṭef pataḥ, e.g.

‫ۜاخا‬
۠ ‫[ م۟ ق۟ ا ۟لل‬maqa̟ ːlaˈlɛːχɔː] (BL Or 2555 fol. 72v, 12 | L [BHS]:
‫ ְמ ַק ְל ֶלך‬Ecc. 7.21 ‘he who curses you’)

‫يهاللاكا‬ [jahaːlaːˈlɛːɛkkɔː] (BL Or 2548 fol. 32v, 12 | L

[BHS]: ַָּ‫י ְַה ְל ֶלֹ֑ך‬, A: ַָּ‫יְ ַהלֲ ֶלֹ֑ך‬, Isa. 38.18 ‘and it (msg) will praise
you )’

ࣦ‫[ ۜجا ۖللۛي‬gɛːlaˈleː] (BL Or 2549 fol. 149r, 11 | L [BHS]: ‫גֶ ְל ֵלַ֣י‬,
A ‫גֶ לֲ ֵלַ֣י‬, Ezek. 4.15 ‘dung of’)

Lengthening by retraction of the accent is likewise

represented in the transcriptions, e.g.
394 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

ࣦٟ‫ࣦوࣦي ۚ۠اه‬ٟ‫ˈ[ ࣦ۟ࣵهالۖل‬haːlaluː ˈjɔːɔh] (BL Or 2551 fol. 99v, 1 | L [BHS]:

‫ ַ ָ֥ה ְללּוַיָּ הּ׀‬, A: ‫ ַ ָ֥הלֲ לּוַ ֵָּּ֨יהּ‬, Psa. 135.1 ‘praise!’)

The manuscript I Firkovitch Evr. I B 3 (Codex Babylonicus

Petropolitanus), which represents the Tiberian tradition in com-
pound Babylonian vocalization, represents as long some vowels
before a pair of identical consonants in forms that do not have a
phonetic gaʿya in L and A, e.g.144

L, A: ‫[ וְ יִ ְת ַה ְללִׂ֖ ּו‬viˌjiˑθhaːlaˈluː] ‘and they will glory’ (I Firk. Evr. I B

3 ‫ה ֓ללוּ‬
֓‫ת‬֓ ‫[ ו֓֓י‬vijiθhaːlaˈluː] Isa. 45.25)

The Kitāb al-Khilaf records some differences between Ben

Asher and Ben Naftali in the lengthening of the short vowels be-
fore two identical consonants, e.g.145

Ben Asher: ִַׂ֖‫‘ ִק ְל ָּל ְתך‬your curse’ (Gen. 27.13)

Ben Naftali: ‫ִק ְל ָּל ְתך‬

Some differences are found across the manuscripts. In I

Firkovitch Evr. I B 3, which represents the Tiberian tradition with
compound Babylonian vocalization, for example, some of the
vowels that are marked as long by a phonetic gaʿya or ḥaṭef pataḥ
in A and/or L are represented as short, e.g.146

L: ‫[ ְַל ִׁש ְמ ָּ ִׂ֖מה‬laʃiːmaˈmoː] ‘into a desolation’ (A ‫ל ִׁש ֲמ ָּ ִׂ֖מה‬,

ְ I Firk.
Evr. I B 3 ‫[ לְשְֽמְמָה‬laʃimˈmɔː], Ezek. 35.7)

144
Cf. Heijmans (2018, 102).
145
Ed. Lipschütz (1965, ‫)ז‬.
146
Cf. Heijmans (2018, 103–4).
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 395

L: ַ ֲ‫קנ‬,ִ I Firk. Evr. I B 3 ‫קֽנְ נּו‬

ַ‫[ ִקנְַנּו‬qi̟ ːnaˈnuː] ‘they nested’ (A ‫נּו‬
[qi̟ nˈnuː], Ezek. 31.6)

In some cases, I Firk. Evr. I B 3 marks a dagesh in the fol-

lowing consonant, indicating explicitly that it was closed sylla-
ble:

L: ‫[ ְמ ַק ְל ַלוְ נִ י‬maqa̟ ːlaˈlaːavniː] ‘they curse me’ (A ‫מ ַָּק ְל ַלוְ נִ י‬,

ְ I Firk.
Evr. I B 3 ‫וני‬ ֓ ‫ק ֓ל ֓ל‬
֓‫מ‬֓ [maqa̟ llaˈlaːavniː], Jer. 15.10)

L: ‫[ ְמ ַח ְל ֶליך‬maħaːlaˈlɛːχɔː] ‘those who slay you’ (A ‫ ְמ ַחלֲַ ֶליך‬, I

Firk. Evr. I B 3 ‫יך‬
֓ ‫ח ֓ל ֓ל‬
֓‫מ‬֓ [maħallalaːχɔː], Ezek. 28.9)

Conversely, some vowels that are short in L and A are rep-

resented as long in I Firk. Evr. I B 3, e.g.

L, A: ‫[ ַח ְל ֵלי־‬ħalleː] ‘the slain of’ (I Firk. Evr. I B 3 ֓‫ח ֓ללי‬

֓ [ˈħaːlaleː],
Isa. 22.2)

In I Firk. Evr. I B 3 this word is marked with a retracted

accent (‫חללי‬
ַַ֣ ) rather than being unstressed as in L and A, which
would have lengthened the vowel.147

I.2.5.8.4. Conjunctive Vav

A silent shewa after a word-initial conjunctive vav is sometimes
made vocalic by lengthening the vav with a phonetic gaʿya, e.g.

L: ְַ ‫[ ּו‬wuːqa̟ ˈʀ̟ɔːʔuː] ‘and read’ (A ‫ּו ֲק ָּ ִ֔ראּו‬, Isa. 34.16)

‫ק ָּ ִ֔ראּו‬

In such cases, A regularly marks the vocalic shewa with

ḥaṭef pataḥ. A ḥaṭef pataḥ is sometimes marked also in L.

147
Cf. Heijmans (2018, 102).
396 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

The marking of an Arabic sukūn in some transcriptions after

vav without a gaʿya demonstrates that the shewa in such forms
was pronounced silent, e.g.

‫[ و ْرعي‬wuʀ̟ˈʕiː] (BL Or 2554 fol. 35r, 2 | L [BHS]: ‫ ְּור ִעַי‬Cant.

1.8 ‘and graze!’)

‫[ ُو ْقذوش‬wuqˈ̟ ðoːoʃ] (BL Or 2548 fol. 50v, 8ַ| L [BHS]: ‫ְּוק ָ֥דֹוׁש‬
Isa. 41.20 ‘and holy of’)

The reading of the shewa as vocalic after a lengthened vav

separates two consonants that are relatively weak by their nature.
These include sonorants, fricatives (frequently sibilants), guttur-
als and qof. The motivation, therefore, appears to have been or-
thoepic. Two weak consonants in contact do not constitute an
optimal boundary between syllables (Vennemann 1988). They
were split by a vowel to ensure that they were maximally salient:

L, A: ‫‘ ַּולֲ ִציֵּּ֨ ֹון‬and regarding Zion’ (Psa. 87.5)

L, A: ‫‘ ּו ֲק ָּרב־ ֶ֫ ִל ָּ֥בֹו‬the war of his heart’ (Psa. 55.22)

L, A: ‫‘ ּו ֲׁש ֵ ָ֥בה‬and capture’ (Jud. 5.12)

L, A: ‫‘ ּו ֲׁש ֵַּ֨בע‬and seven’ (1 Kings 14.21)

L: ‫‘ ּולֲ ַה ְב ִ ִ֔דיל‬and to divide’ (Gen. 1.18)

L: ‫‘ ּוזֲ ַ ָ֛הב‬and the gold of’ (Gen. 2.12)

L: ‫‘ ּוכְַגַ ִ֔ ָּנּה‬and like a garden’ (A: ‫ּו ֲכגַ ִ֔ ָּנּה‬, Isa. 1.30)

L: ‫‘ ּו ְַכ ָּכל־כ ִֹ֞חי‬as far as I was able’ (A: ‫ּו ֲכ ָּכל‬, 1 Chron. 29.2)

L: ִָּ֡ ‫‘ ּו ֲכ ַכ‬and when they had finished’ (A: ‫לֹּותם‬

‫לֹּותם‬ ִָּ֡ ‫ּו ֲכ ַכ‬, 2 Chron.
24.14)
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 397

L: ְַ ‫‘ ּו‬and close’ (A: ‫ּו ֲס ָֹ֥גר‬, Isa. 26.20)

‫ס ָֹ֥גר‬

L: ‫כּוׁש‬ ְַ ‫‘ ּו‬and the merchandise of Ethiopia’ (A: ‫ּו ֲס ַחר‬, Isa.

ַ ‫ס ַחר־‬
45.14)

L: ְַ ‫‘ ּו‬and read’ (A: ‫ּו ֲק ָּ ִ֔ראּו‬, Isa. 34.16)

‫ק ָּ ִ֔ראּו‬

L: ְַ ‫‘ ּו‬and send’ (A: ‫ּו ֲׁש ַ ָ֥לח‬, 2 Kings 9.17)

‫ׁש ַ ָ֥לח‬

L: ְַ ‫‘ ּו‬and let it cover us’ (A: ַ‫ּו ֲת ַכ ֵסנּו‬, Jer. 3. 25)

ַ‫ת ַכ ֵסנּו‬

When the vocalic shewa occurs before a guttural with

qameṣ, it is represented in A and sometimes also in L by ḥaṭef
qameṣ, reflecting the assimilation of the shewa to the quality of
the following vowel, e.g.

ָָּ֜ ‫‘ ּו ֳט ָּה‬and clean of hands’ (Job 17.9)

L, A: ‫ר־י ַ ֵ֗דיִ ם‬

L: ‫‘ ּו ְס ָּ ֹ֑ע ָּדה‬and refresh yourself’ (A ‫ּו ֳס ָּ ֹ֑ע ָּדה‬, 1 Kings 13.7)

L: ‫‘ ּו ְצ ִ֔ ָּע ִקי‬and cry out’ (A ‫ּו ֳצ ִ֔ ָּע ִקי‬, Jer. 22.20)

According to some medieval sources, the shewa after a vav

with gaʿya is silent in some phrases consisting of words joined by
maqqef.148 The examples mentioned in these sources and several
other cases with maqqef do not have ḥaṭef pataḥ in L or A, e.g.

L: ְ ‫ˌ[ ַּו ְד ֵמ‬wuˑðmeː-laˈχɔː] ‘make yourself similar’ (Cant.

ַַּ֤‫ה־לך‬
8.14)

L, A: ַ‫ˌ[ ּו ְׁש ַלח־ ִלי‬wuˑʃlaˑħ-ˈliː] ‘and send me’ (1 Chron. 2.7)

ַָּ ‫ˌ[ ּו ְל ָּכל־ ָּּב ֶנ‬wuˑlχɔl-bɔːˈnɛːhɔː] ‘and to all her sons’ (1 Sam.
L, A: ‫ָ֛יה‬
1.4)

148
Dotan (1967, 258, 374), Ibn Nūḥ, Diqduq (ed. Khan 2000b, 36).
398 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

L, A: ‫ˌ[ ּו ְל ָּכל־ ַה ְמּק ָֹ֛מֹות‬wuˑlχɔl-hammaqo

̟ ːˈmoːoθ] ‘and to all the
places’ (1 Sam. 30.31)

L, A: ‫ˌ[ ּו ְל ָּכל־גִ ָּ֥בֹור‬wuˑlχɔl-gibˈboːoʀ̟] ‘and every warrior’ (1 Chron.

28.1)

L, A: ‫ˌ[ ּו ְש ַבע־ר ֹגֶ ז‬wuˑʃvaˑʕ-ˈʀ̟oːʁɛz] ‘and full of trouble’ (Job 14.1)

The maqqef, however, is unlikely to be the key conditioning

factor for the reading of the shewa as silent, since there are ex-
amples where a word with maqqef has a vocalic shewa after vav
with gaʿya, e.g.

L, A: ‫[ ּו ֲק ָּרב־ ֶ֫ ִל ָּ֥בֹו‬wuːqa̟ ʀ̟ɔːɔv-libˈboː] ‘and the war of his heart’ (Psa.

55.22)

L: ‫כּוׁש‬ ְַ ‫[ ּו‬wuːsaħaʀ̟-ˈkʰuːuʃ] ‘and the merchandise of Ethio-

ַ ‫ס ַחר־‬
pia’ (A ‫ּו ֲס ַחר‬, Isa. 45.14)

It appears that in those cases where the shewa is silent the

gaʿya is a musical minor gaʿya, which requires that the syllable in
which the gaʿya occurs be closed (§I.2.8.2.2.).149 Minor gaʿya also
occurs on vav in some cases that are single words, especially in
those with a syllable structure that is suitable for minor gaʿya. In
such cases A has a simple shewa sign, reflecting its reading as
silent, e.g.

L, A: ִַ֔‫ˌ[ ּו ְכ ִל ְּבך‬wuˑχlibˈboː] ‘and according to your heart’ (2 Sam.

7.21)

L, A: ‫ˌ[ ּו ְב ַמגְ זְ ַ֣ר ֹת‬wuˑvmaʁzaˈrˁoːoθ] ‘and with axes of’ (2 Sam.

12.31)

149
Yeivin (1980, 247).
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 399

L, A: ַ‫ˌ[ ּו ְבגַ ְלּחֹו‬wuˑvʁalloˈħoː] ‘and when he shaved’ (2 Sam. 14.26)

Kitāb al-Khilaf mentions several differences between Ben

Asher and Ben Naftali regarding the reading of the vav and the
following shewa in the types of constructions discussed above. In
some cases, the difference seems to be between reading a word
or phrase with or without musical minor gaʿya. Minor gaʿya was,
indeed, the subject of the majority of differences in Kitāb al-
Khilaf. Examples:150

Ben Asher: ַ ‫‘ ַּו ְב ָּכ‬and in every beast of’ Gen.

‫( ּובכלַחית‬L: ‫ל־ח ַיָּ֥ת‬
9.10)

Ben Naftali: ‫ּובכלַחית‬

Ben Asher: ‫( ּובהעלותַאהרן‬L: ‫תַא ֲהר ֹן‬ ְ ‘and when Aaron set
ַ ‫ּוב ַה ֲעֹל‬
up’ Exod. 30.8)

Ben Naftali: ‫ּובהעלות‬

In some cases, Ben Naftali read the vav with a phonetic

gaʿya and the following shewa as vocalic where Ben Asher read
vav without a gaʿya and the shewa as silent, e.g.151

Ben Asher: ‫וקטרתי‬ ְ ‘and my incense’ Ezek. 16.18)

ְ (L, A: ‫ּוק ָּט ְר ִִ֔תי‬

Ben Naftali: ‫קטרתיַבפתח‬

ֲַ ‫ַּו‬

In the case of the following example it appears that Ben

Asher read the vav with a minor gaʿya and the shewa as silent

150
Ed. Lipschütz (1965, ‫ה‬, ‫)יב‬.
151
Ed. Lipschütz (1965, ‫)לה‬.
400 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

whereas Ben Naftali read the vav with phonetic gaʿya and the
shewa as vocalic:152

Ben Asher: ְ (L, A; ‫‘ ּו ְש ַבע־ר ֹגֶ ז‬and full of trouble’ Job

‫ושבע ַרגז‬
14.1)

Ben Naftali: ‫ושבע‬

ֲַ

I.2.5.8.5. Elsewhere
Also in other contexts, a silent shewa preceded by a short vowel
is sometimes converted into a vocalic shewa by imposing a resyl-
labification by lengthening the short vowel by a phonetic gaʿya.
As in the case of shewa after vav, which was discussed in the pre-
vious section, this typically occurs where the two consonants are
relatively weak, in that they are sonorants, fricatives (especially
sibilants), gutturals or qof. The motivation, therefore, is to repair
a suboptimal syllable contact, by splitting the consonants with a
vowel to make them more salient and syllabifying them as onsets,
i.e. CVC.C > CVV.CV.C. In A the vocalic shewa is generally rep-
resented by ḥaṭef pataḥ. The lengthened vowel before the shewa
is in most cases ḥireq or pataḥ. In some sporadic cases it is segol.
Examples:

L: ‫[ יִ ֲצ ַחק־ ִלי‬jiːsˁɑħaq-̟ ˈliː] ‘will laugh at me’ (Gen. 21. 6)

L: ‫[ ְּב ִׁש ֲק ַ֣תֹות‬baʃiːqa̟ ˈθoːoθ] ‘in the troughs of’ (Gen. 30.38)

L: ְַ ‫[ ֲה ִת‬haθiːmaˈloːoχ] ‘are you a king?’ (A: ‫ה ִת ֲמ ִֹ֔לְך‬,

‫מ ִֹ֔לְך‬ ֲ Jer.
22.15)

152
Ed. Lipschütz (1965, ‫)נ‬.
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 401

L: ְַ ‫[ ַח‬ħaːʃaʀ̟aθ-ˈmaːjim] ‘a gathering of water’ (A:

‫ׁש ַרת־ ַ ִׂ֖מיִ ם‬
‫ח ֲׁש ַרת‬,ַ 2 Sam. 22.12)

L: ֵָ֜ ֵ֗ ‫[ ִּב ֲס ָּב‬biːsavɔχ-ˈʕeːesˁ] ‘in the thicket of trees’ (A: no

‫ְך־עץ‬
gaʿya ‫ ִּב ֲס ָּבְך־ ְ֝ ֵעץ‬, Psa. 74.5)

L: ‫[ ַא ְ ַרזֵ י־ ֵאל‬ʔaːʀ̟azeː-ˈʔeːel] ‘the cedars of God’ (A: ‫א ֲרזֵ י‬,ַ Psa.

80.11)153

When the vocalic shewa occurs before a guttural with ḥireq,

A sometimes represents the shewa with a ḥaṭef ḥireq sign, which
reflects the regular assimilation of the quality of vocalic shewa to
that of the vowel after the guttural (§I.2.5.1.), e.g.

A: ‫ת ִ ָ֥עיבּו‬ ִַ ְ ‫[ ִה‬hiːʃiˈħiːθuː hiːθiˈʕiːvuː] ‘they have acted

ִַ ְ ‫ׁש ִֵ֗חיתּו ַ ִה‬
corruptly and have done abominable deeds’ (L: ַ‫ִה ְׁש ִֵ֗חיתּו‬
‫ה ְת ִ ָ֥עיבּו‬,ִ Psa. 14.)

Examples occur in which a vocalic shewa before a guttural

with qameṣ is represented by ḥaṭef qameṣ, likewise reflecting
vowel assimilation, e.g:

L: ‫[ ִנ ֳב ָּ ָ֥הל‬niːvɔˈhɔːɔl] ‘hastening’ (A: ‫נ ֳב ָּהל‬,

ָ֥ ִ Prov. 28.22)

In one case a ḥaṭef pataḥ occurs in A before a guttural with

qameṣ, instead of the expected ḥaṭef qameṣ, e.g.

A: ‫‘ ִ ָׁ֥ש ֲמ ָּעה‬hear!’ (L ‫מ ָּעה‬

ְַ ‫ ִ ָׁ֥ש‬, Psa. 39.13)

153
Forms such ‫רַאנִ י‬ ֲ ‫‘ וְ ֵנ‬and I remained’ (Ezek. 9.8) and ‫‘ ְּבמ ַֹצ ֲא ֶ ִׂ֖כם‬when
ֹ֑ ָּ ‫אׁש ַ ִׂ֖א‬
you find’ (Gen. 32.20), in which, it seems, an original contact between
two weak consonants has been split, may be related to this phen-
omenon.
402 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Diqduqe ha-Ṭeʿamim (ed. Dotan, 1967, §19), however, re-

fers to the practice of some scribes to vocalize this word with
ḥaṭef qameṣ (‫)שמעה‬.
ֳ
The Treatise on the Shewa refers to the reading of the vocalic
shewa in ‫‘ ַס ְל ִ ָ֥עי‬my rock’ (2 Sam. 22.2, Psa. 18.3) as a ḥireq
[saːliˈʕiː].154
Where L has a simple shewa and A is not extant, the vocalic
reading of the shewa can sometimes be established from Karaite
transcriptions that mark vocalic shewa with an Arabic fatḥa vowel
sign, e.g.

‫[ َماْ َم َثق ِيم‬maːmaθaqˈ̟ qi̟ ːim] (BL Or 2554 fol. 65v, 1 | L [BHS]:
‫ ַמ ְמ ַת ִִ֔קּים‬Cant. 5.16 ‘sweet things’)

In some cases, the weak consonant with the vocalic shewa

has lost original gemination, e.g.

L, A: ‫[ וַ ְת ַאלֲ ֵצֹ֑הּו‬vattaʔaːlaˈsˁeːhuː] ‘and he urged him’ (Jud. 16.16,

< ‫א ְַלּ ֵצֹ֑הּו‬
ַ ַ ‫)וַ ְת‬

L, A: ‫[ ִכנֲ ִׂ֖רֹות‬kʰiːnaˈrˁoːoθ] ‘Chinneroth’ (Josh. 11.2, < ‫) ִ ַכנְַּ ִׂ֖רֹות‬

In many cases in the three books, A has a slanting merkha

accent where L has a vertical gaʿya, e.g.

L: ַ ִ [tʰiːvaˈħaːaʀ̟] ‘you choose’ (A: ‫ת ֲב ַ ַ֣חר‬,

‫תבְַ ַ ַ֣חר‬ ָ֥ ִ Psa. 65.5)

L: ַ ִ [tʰiːlaˈʕaːaʁ] ‘it mocks’ (A: ‫תלֲ ַעַ֣ג‬,

‫ת ְַל ַ ַ֣עג‬ ָ֥ ִ Prov. 30.17)

L: ‫[ ִל ְׁש ַ֣אֹול‬liːʃoˈʔoːol] ‘for Sheol’ (A: ‫ל ְׁש ַ֣אֹול‬,

ָ֥ ִ Psa. 49.15)

L: ‫[ ִז ְב ֵ ַ֣חי‬ziːveˈħeː] ‘the sacrifices of’ (A: ‫ז ְב ֵ ַ֣חי‬,ָ֥ ִ Psa. 51.19)

154
Ed. Levy (1936, ‫)כה‬.
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 403

L: ‫[ ִמ ְמ ִ ָ֥תים‬miːmaˈθiːim] ‘from men’ (A: ‫מ ֲמ ִתים‬,

ָ֥ ִ Psa. 17.14, <
‫מּ ִ ָ֥תים‬
ְַ ‫) ִמ‬

L: ַ ֶ [ʔɛːvaˈħaːaʀ̟] ‘I choose’ (A: ‫א ֲב ַ ַ֣חר‬,

‫א ֲב ַ ַ֣חר‬ ָ֥ ֶ Job 29.25)

L: ַ ִ [ʔiːmaˈʀ̟oːoθ] ‘the promises of’ (A: ‫א ֲמ ַ֣רֹות‬,

‫א ֲמ ַ֣רֹות‬ ָ֥ ִ Psa. 12.7)

L: ‫ק ָּ ַ֣רא‬ ַ ֶ [ʔɛːqa̟ ˈʀ̟ɔː] ‘I call’ (A: ‫א ֲק ָּ ַ֣רא‬,

ְַ ‫א‬ ָ֥ ֶ Psa. 18.7)

In a few cases where A has a merkha, an original gaʿya has

been corrected to a merkha in L, e.g.

L, A: ‫‘ ַ ָ֥אנֲ ֵ ָׁ֥שי‬the men of’ (L first hand: ‫אנֲ ֵ ָׁ֥שי‬

ַ ַ , Job 34.10)

L, A: ‫‘ וְ ִ ָ֥ל ֲׁש ֵכ ֵּ֨ ַני‬and to my neighbours’ (L first hand: ‫וְ ִַל ֲׁש ֵכ ֵּ֨ ַני‬, Psa.
31.12)

In the parallel passages of 2 Sam. 22 and Psa. 18, both man-

uscripts have gaʿya in the 2 Sam. 22 passage whereas in the Psa.
18 passage L has gaʿya and A has merkha:

L, A: ‫‘ ַס ְל ִ ָ֥עי‬my rock’ (2 Sam. 22.2)

L: ַ ַ ‘my rock’ (A ‫ס ְל ִ ָ֥עי‬,

‫ס ְל ִ ָ֥עי‬ ָ֥ ַ Psa. 18.3)

Examples such as these with merkha in A from the three

books are referred to in §13 of Diqduqe ha-Ṭeʿamim (ed. Dotan
1967). The most satisfactory reading of this passage is the variant
text that Dotan cites in the apparatus of his edition:
ַ ‫כלַתיבהַערוכהַובמארכהַארוכהַובגרשַתמוכהַבפתחאַמשוכה‬

‘Every word that occurs that is lengthened by merkha and

is stressed with an accent is extended by pataḥ’
404 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

This, apparently original,155 version of the rule states that

in words in the three books that have a merkha before a shewa in
addition to a following main accent156 the shewa is read as a pataḥ
(i.e. vocalic).157 The passage in Diqduqe ha-Ṭeʿamim goes on to
give four exceptions to this rule, in which the shewa is silent:

L: ַ‫ˌ[ ָּׁש ְמ ָּ ַ֣רהַנַ ְפ ִׁשי‬ʃɔːɔmˈʀ̟ɔː] ‘preserve my life’ (A: ‫ׁש ְמ ָּ ַ֣רה‬,

ָ֥ ָּ Psa. 86.2)

L: ‫ˌ[ ָּׁש ְב ָּ ָ֥רהַ ִל ִֵּ֗בי‬ʃɔːɔvˈʀ̟ɔː] ‘it has broken my heart’ (A: ‫ׁש ְב ָּ ָ֥רה‬,
ָ֥ ָּ Psa.
69.21)

L: ַ ָּ [ˌtˁɔːɔmˌnuː-ʁeːˈʔiːim] ‘arrogant men have hidden’

‫ט ְמנּו־גֵ ִאים‬
(A: ‫ט ְמנּו‬,
ָ֥ ָּ Psa. 140.6)

155
This formulation of the rule is cited in the Treatise on the Shewa (ed.
Levy, 1936, ‫)יד‬. When discussing one of the examples, moreover, al-Fāsī
uses the term merkha; cf. Jāmiʿ al-ʾAlfāẓ (ed. Skoss 1936, vol. 2, 684),
which, he states, brings about ‘a strengthening of the accents’ (ַ‫תקויה‬
‫)ללאלחאן‬.
156
The term ‫ גרש‬and the verbal root ‫ גר׳׳ש‬is used elsewhere in Diqduqe
ha-Ṭeʿamim as a generic term to refer to the main accent, e.g. §6, line 6
(ed. Dotan, 1967).
157
A later version of the passage, which Dotan adopts as his preferred
text, refers to gaʿya: ‫כלַתיבהַערוכהַובמרפאַארוכהַובגעיאַתמוכהַפתחאַמשוכה‬
‘Every word that occurs made long with a softening (of vocalic shewa?)
and stressed with gaʿya is extended by pataḥ’. This version cannot easily
be accommodated with the exceptions to the rule listed at the end of
the passage. It appears to have arisen due to the fact that many scribes,
such as Jacob ben Samuel in L, marked gaʿya rather than merkha in such
words.
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 405

L: ַ ָּ‫ˌ[ יִ ִֽ ְר ַ ַ֣את ַיְ הו‬jiːʀ̟ˈʔaːaθ] ‘the fear of the Lord’ (A: ‫יִ ְִָֽ֥ר ַ ַ֣את‬, Prov.
‫ה‬
8.13)

In A all of these have merkha rather than gaʿya on the first

syllable, and the rule in Diqduqe ha-Ṭeʿamim is referring specifi-
cally to such cases with merkha. The first example (A ‫ׁש ְמ ָּ ַ֣רה‬,
ָ֥ ָּ Psa.
86.2) is an imperative form with a lengthened originally short
qameṣ after the shin. On account of this lengthening and the silent
shewa, it would have been pronounced in the same way as the
3fs. past verbal form ‫ׁש ְמ ָּרה‬,
ָּ since this also had a silent shewa. Such
past forms in A all have gaʿya on the first syllable: ‫( ָּׁש ְמ ָּ ַ֣רה‬Psa.
119.167), ‫( ָּׁש ְמ ָּ ָ֥רה‬Job 10.12). It is for this reason that they were
not included in the exceptions, since the rule is referring only to
forms with merkha.158 The merkha evidently marks a secondary
stress. The second two exceptions (A: ‫ׁש ְב ָּ ָ֥רה‬,
ָ֥ ָּ Psa. 69.21; A: ‫ט ְמנּו‬,
ָ֥ ָּ
Psa. 140.6) are past forms. As remarked, such past forms regu-
larly had silent shewa after the long vowel. The exceptional fea-
ture here, therefore, is the fact that they contain merkha. The
fourth exception (A: ‫יִ ִָֽ֥ ְר ַ ַ֣את‬, Prov. 8.13) is evidently listed since a

158
Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ states that in some codices gaʿya is written slanting
either to the right or to the left (Eldar 2018, 76-77). This would result
in signs resembling the shapes of ṭifḥa and merkha respectively. See also
short version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.S.9.0. Moreover, gaʿya
is sometimes referred to as maʾarikh in some sources (Wickes 1887, 24;
Ben-David 1957b, 390–91). Given the exclusion of the forms ‫( ָּׁש ְמ ָּ ַ֣רה‬Psa.
119.167) and ‫( ָּׁש ְמ ָּ ָ֥רה‬Job 10.12) from the list of exceptions to the rule
discussed by Diqduqe ha-Ṭeʿamim, however, it appears that the
discussion concerns the accent merkha.
406 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

merkha occurs on an originally short ḥireq without the shewa be-

ing made vocalic as happens elsewhere.
Kitāb al-Khilaf reports differences between Ben Asher and
Ben Naftali with regard to the occurrence of phonetic gaʿya and
the reading of shewa in forms of the type discussed in this section,
e.g.159

Ben Asher: ‫( ִכ ְקסם ַשוא‬L: ‫א‬

ַ ְ‫ם־ׁשו‬ ַָּ ‫‘ ַ ִכ ְק‬like a false divination’
ָּ ‫סו‬
Ezek. 21.28)

Ben Naftali: ‫ִ ַכ ֲקסםַשוא‬

In some cases, manuscripts with compound Babylonian vo-

calization that represent the Tiberian reading tradition such as I
Firk. Evr. I B 3 mark a vowel as short where L and A have a gaʿya,
e.g.

L, A: ‫[ ִס ְב ֵ ָ֥כי‬siːvaˈχeː] ‘the thickets of’ (I Firk. Evr. I B 3 ֓‫ב ֓כי‬

֓‫ס‬
֓
[sivχeː] Isa. 10.34)

I.2.5.9. Marking of Shewa at the End of a Word

The shewa sign marks a vowelless consonant in the coda of a syl-
lable in the middle of a word, but a vowelless consonant at the
end of a word is generally not marked by a shewa sign, e.g.

ִׂ֖ ִ ‫[ ְּב ֵר‬baʀ̟eːˈʃiːiθ] ‘in the beginning’ (Gen. 1.1)

‫אׁשית‬

ֹ֑ ִ ‫[ ֱא‬ʔɛloːˈhiːim] ‘God’ (Gen. 1.1)

‫ֹלהים‬

‫[ ָּה ָּא ֶרץ‬hɔːˈʔɔːʀ̟ɛsˁ] (Gen. 1.1).

159
Ed. Lipschütz (1965, ‫)לה‬.
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 407

In the following circumstances, however, a shewa sign oc-

curs on the final consonant of a word.

I.2.5.9.1. In Word-final Consonantal Clusters

When a word ends with a cluster of two vowelless consonants,
both consonants are marked with a shewa sign, e.g.

L: ְַ‫[ וַ ֵיּ ְַ֣בך‬vaɟˈɟeːevk] ‘and he wept’ (Gen. 45.15)

L: ְַ‫[ וַ ִיּ ְָׁ֥שּב‬vaɟˈɟiːiʃb] ‘and he captured’ (Num. 21.1)

L: ְַ ‫[ וַ ֵיּ ְָׁ֥ש‬vaɟˈɟeːeʃtʰ] ‘and he drank’ (Gen. 9.21)

‫ת‬

L: ְַ ‫ˈ[ ַי ְַּ֤פ‬jaːaftʰ] ‘may he enlarge’ (Gen. 9.27)

‫ת‬

L: ְַ ‫[ וַ ִיּ ְַ֣פ‬vaɟˈɟiːiftʰ] ‘and [my heart] has been enticed’ (Job

‫ת‬
31.27)

L: ‫[ ְוֶ֭יֵ ְר ְַד‬viˈjeːeʀ̟d] ‘and may he have dominion’ (Psa. 72.8)

L: ‫ˈ[ ֵ ַ֣נ ְִֽר ְַד‬neːeʀ̟d] ‘nard’ (Cant. 4.14)

L: ‫ˈ[ ִַ֔י ְר ְַד‬ja:aʀ̟d] ‘he causes him to dominate’ (Isa. 41.2)

L: ְַ‫ֹוסף‬
ְ ‫ל־ת‬ ַַ [ʔal-ˈtʰoːospʰ] ‘do not add’ (Prov. 30.6)
ָ֥ ‫א‬

L: ְַ ‫[ וַ ַ ִׂ֖ת ְׁש‬vatˈtʰaːaʃq]̟ ‘and she gave to drink’ (Gen. 21.19)

‫ק‬

L: ְַ ‫[ וַ ֵַּ֕יּ ְׁש‬vaɟˈɟaːaʃq]̟ ‘and he watered’ (Gen. 29.10)

‫ק‬

L: ְַ ‫ˈ[ ֶ֭קֹ ְׁש‬qo

‫ט‬ ̟ ːoʃtˁ] ‘truth’ (Prov. 22.21)
L: ְַ ‫ˈ[ ֵי ְַ֣ש‬jeːeʃtˁ] ‘let [not your heart] turn aside’ (Prov. 7.25)
‫ט‬

As can be seen, such word-final clusters have falling sonor-

ity, in that the first consonant is sonorant or fricative and the
second an obstruent. The Tiberian Masoretic sources state that
408 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

both shewas at the end of such words were silent.160 According to

some western medieval sources, the final shewa was vocalic in
such words when they were not in major pause.161
In a number of manuscripts, including some of the earliest
model codices, the shewa is marked on the final consonant in
words of this structure only when it is a ‫ בגדכפת‬consonant with
dagesh but is omitted in final qof or ṭet, e.g.162

‫ת ְׁשק‬
ִַׂ֖ ַ ַ‫( ו‬A, S, Gen. 29.10)

‫( ֵי ְַ֣שט‬Parma di Rossi 3214 [1278 C.E.], Prov. 7.25)

This practice of omission of the shewa by some scribes is

referred to in the Treatise on the Shewa, where all the examples
cited have final ṭet or qof:
It is the practice of some people (to mark shewa) under
ְַ ‫‘ וַ ֵַּ֕יּ ְׁש‬and he watered’
other letters at the end of words like ‫ק‬
(Gen. 29.10, etc.), ‫ט‬ ֵ ‫‘ ַא‬let it not turn aside’ (Prov. 7.25),
ְַ ‫ל־י ְַ֣ש‬
and like ‫ט‬
ְַ ‫יעךֵַ֗ ַ ֶ֭קֹ ְׁש‬ ִ ‫‘ ְל‬to inform you of the truth’ (Prov.
ֲ ‫הֹוד‬
22.21) …. All of these do not have a function and they are
not necessary. They are only for embellishment so that the

160
Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book,
§II.L.2.12.14.; short version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.S.5.12;
and earlier Masoretic treatises, e.g. Allony and Yeivin eds. (1985, 92–
93)
161
Cf. Chomsky (1952, 16–17).
162
Shashar (1983, 22), Ofer (1989, 318; 1993, 113–14).
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 409

letters do not remain bare of pointing, and some people do

not mark them.163

In the following examples an original word-final cluster of

a ḥet and a plosive dalet has been split by an epenthetic vowel:

L: ‫[ וַ ִיּ ַַ֣ח ְַד‬vaɟˈɟiːħad] ‘and he rejoiced’ (Exod. 18.9)

L: ִ ‫[ ַא‬ʔal-ˈjiːħad] ‘let it not rejoice’ (Job 3.6)

‫ל־י ֶַ֭ח ְַד‬

The dalet remains plosive, despite the preceding vowel, in-

dicating that the ḥet must originally have been vowelless and the
epenthetic vowel was inserted at a late period after the rule of
fricativization of ‫ בגדכפת‬consonants following vowels had ceased
to operate. The shewa is marked on the final dalet by analogy with
the vocalization of words with clusters such as ‫ ְוֶ֭יֵ ְר ְַד‬, etc. Segolate
forms with a medial ḥet such as ‫‘ ִַ֔י ַחד‬together’ (2 Sam. 14.16), ‫ַפ ַַ֣חד‬
‘fear’ (Job 4.14) and ‫‘ ׁש ֹ ַחד‬bribe’ (Deut. 10.17), by contrast, have
an epenthetic before the dalet that must have been inserted at an
earlier period, when the ‫ בגדכפת‬fricativization rule was still op-
erating.

I.2.5.9.2. Before a Final ʾAlef in the Orthography

When a consonant that closes a syllable at the end of a word is
followed by an ʾalef that is not read as a consonant or vowel let-
ter, a shewa sign is placed on this consonant, e.g.

163
ַ‫שטַומתלַלהודיעך‬
ְ ֵ‫וקדַיעמלוןַקוםַתחתַאחרףַאכרַפיַאכרַאלתאבותַמתלַוַ יַַּשקְַַאלַי‬
ַ‫ַוהדהַכלהאַליסַתפעלַשיַולאַתחתאגַאליהאַואנמאַהיַללתחסיןַלילאַתבקא‬...ַ‫קׁש ְט‬
ְ
‫אלאחרףַעריאנהַמןַאלנקטַובעצהםַלאַיעמלהא‬
̇ (ed. Levy. 1936, ‫כח‬, and CUL
Or 1080.13.3.2, fol. 2r).
410 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

L: ‫[ ַּב ֵ֗ ַגיְ א‬bagˈgaːaj] ‘in the valley’ (Deut. 4.46)

L: ‫ˈ[ ָּ ֹׁ֑שוְ א‬ʃɔːɔv] ‘emptiness’ (Exod. 23.1)

L: ‫[ וַ ַ ָ֥יּ ְִֽרא‬vaɟˈɟaːaʀ̟] ‘and he saw’ (Gen. 1.10)

L: ‫[ ֵח ְטא‬ħeːetˁ] ‘sin’ (Lev. 19.17)

The purpose of marking the shewa on the penultimate letter

and omitting it on the final ʾalef was to ensure correct reading,
alerting the reader to the fact that only the penultimate letter
should be read. This contrasts with vocalizations such as ‫ּב‬
ְַ ‫וַ ִיּ ְָׁ֥ש‬, in
which the final letter was read.
The common spelling of the name ‘Artaxerxes’ exhibits a
word-final consonant cluster followed by an ʾalef that is not read:

L: ַַ [ʔaʀ̟tʰaħˈʃaːastʰ] (Ezr. 8.1)

‫א ְר ַת ְח ַ ָׁ֥ש ְס ְתא‬

Here there is a difference between qere and ketiv, whereby

the ketiv represents a reading with a final vowel, as attested in
Ezr. 4.7: ‫א ְר ַת ְח ֵַׁ֗ש ְש ָּתא‬
ַַ (Ezr. 4.7), and the qere is a reading without
the final vowel, as attested in the qere note to the second occur-
rence of the name in Ezr. 4.7: ‫תא‬
ְַ ‫ ַא ְר ַת ְח ַ ִׁׂ֖ש ְש‬, ‫ק ַשת‬,
̇ i.e. the correct
orthography of the qere ends in ‫שת‬, without final ‫א‬. Throughout
the rest of the book of Ezra the name is written ‫תא‬
ְַ ‫ש‬
ְַ ‫ׁש‬
ַַ ‫ ַא ְר ַת ְח‬or
‫תא‬
ְַ ‫ס‬
ְַ ‫ׁש‬
ַַ ‫ ַא ְר ַת ְח‬, without a qere note, but the vocalization is still
clearly intended to correspond to an orthography without a final
ʾalef. The vocalization, therefore, corresponds to that of a word
with a final cluster such as ‫ּב‬
ְַ ‫וַ ִיּ ְָׁ֥ש‬. This should be distinguished
from vocalizations such as ‫ח ְטא‬,ֵ in which the final ʾalef is consid-
ered part of the appropriate orthography of the word, although
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 411

not pronounced. The shewa would, therefore, occur on a vowel-

less consonant in the middle of the orthographic word, which
follows normal vocalization practice.
In Biblical Aramaic, a vocalization similar to that of
‫תא‬
ְַ ‫ש‬
ְַ ‫ׁש‬
ַַ ‫ ַא ְר ַת ְח‬/‫תא‬
ְַ ‫ס‬
ְַ ‫ׁש‬
ַַ ‫ ַא ְר ַת ְח‬is found before a final he that is not read
in the word ‫‘ ַ ַ֣אנְ ְתה‬you (ms)’ (Dan. 2.29). Here again, the vocali-
zation corresponds to that of an orthography without a final
vowel letter.
In L a shewa is marked on the word-final yod in ְַ‫‘ ַ ַבגַ י‬in the
valley’ (A ‫בגַ ַי‬,
ַ Deut. 34.6) by analogy with the normal orthogra-
phy with final ʾalef ‫גַ יְא‬.

I.2.5.9.3. Second Person Feminine Singular Pronominal

Suffix
When the tav of the 2fs verbal suffix follows a consonant with
silent shewa and is pronounced as a stop, a shewa sign is marked
under the suffix, e.g.

L: ְַ ‫[ וְ י ַֹל ְַ֣ד‬vijoːˈlaːaðtʰ] ‘and you shall bear [a son]’ (Gen. 16.11)

‫ת‬

L: ְַ ‫[ ָּצ ָּח ְק‬sˁɔːˈħɔːɔqt̟ ʰ] ‘you (fs) laughed’ (Gen. 18.15)

‫ת‬

L: ְַ ‫[ וְ ָּא ַ ָ֥מ ְר‬vɔʔɔːˈmaːaʀ̟tʰ] ‘and you (fs) will say’ (Jud. 4.20)
‫ת‬

L: ְַ ‫[ ִַל ַ ַּ֤קּ ְט‬liqˈ̟ qa̟ ːatˁtʰ] ‘you gleaned’ (Ruth 2.19)

‫ת‬

L: ַ ְ ‫[ וְ ָּה ַל ְכ‬vɔhɔːˈlaːaχtʰ] ‘and you should go’ (Ruth 2.9)

‫ת‬

This is analogous to the marking of shewa on the final con-

sonant in clusters in words such as ‫ת‬
ְַ ‫ וַ ֵיּ ְָׁ֥ש‬and ‫ּב‬
ְַ ‫§( וַ ִיּ ְָׁ֥ש‬I.2.5.9.1.) ex-
cept that clusters ending in the tav of the 2fs suffix regularly oc-
412 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

cur in verbs ending in a strong consonant and they are not re-
stricted to clusters with falling sonority, as shown by cases such
as ‫ת‬
ְַ ‫לִַ ַ ַּ֤קּ ְט‬. It is possible that the practice of marking a shewa on a
final consonant in all contexts originated in the 2fs plosive verbal
suffix and the primary motivation for this was to distinguish it
clearly from the 2ms verbal suffix ‫ת‬
ַָּ -. It was then extended to
word-final root consonants with dagesh, probably first to tav in
forms such as ‫ת‬
ְַ ‫וַ ֵיּ ְָׁ֥ש‬, and subsequently elsewhere, in forms such as
ְַ‫ וַ ִיּ ְָׁ֥שּב‬and ‫וַ ִיּ ַַ֣ח ְַד‬. Finally, it was extended to other word-final conso-
nants in clusters, as in ‫ק‬
ְַ ‫וַ ַ ִׂ֖ת ְׁש‬, by analogy with forms such as
ְַ‫וַ ִיּ ְָׁ֥שּב‬.164
ְַ ‫‘ וְ י ַֹל ְַ֣ד‬and (you) will give birth to’ (Gen. 16.11)
The form ‫ת‬
should be interpreted as a feminine singular participle (equiva-
lent to ‫)י ֶֹל ֶדת‬, and so the final tav is the feminine nominal inflec-
ַ ְ ‫‘ י ַֹׁש ְב‬dwelling in’ (Jer. 22.23)
tion rather than a verbal suffix. In ‫תי‬
ְַ ְ‫‘ ְמק ַנִּׂ֖נ‬nested’ (Jer. 22.23), which are likewise participles,
and ‫תי‬
there is a difference between ketiv and qere, the final yod being
the orthography of the ketiv but not read in the qere.
When the 2fs suffix follows a vowel in a final weak verb,
the tav is fricative and is not marked with shewa, e.g.

L: ‫[ ָּע ִ ֹ֑שית‬ʕɔːˈsiːiθ] ‘you have done’ (Gen. 3.13)

L: ‫[ַוְ ָּׁש ִֵּ֕תית‬vaʃɔːˈθiːiθ] ‘and you should drink’ (Ruth 2.9)

L: ‫[ וְ ָּצ ִֵ֗מת‬vasˁɔːˈmiːiθ] ‘and [when] you are thirsty’ (Ruth 2.9)

164
For this argument see Ofer (1993, 115-117).
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 413

Sporadically in L, however, a shewa is marked on a final

fricative 2fs suffix in weak verbs, by analogy with the marking of
the shewa on the suffix in strong verbs, e.g.

L: ְַ ִ‫[ ָּהי‬hɔːˈjiːiθ] ‘you were’ (A ‫היִ ַ֣ית‬,

‫ַ֣ית‬ ָּ Jud. 11.35)

L: ְַ ִ‫[ וְ ָּהי‬vɔhɔːˈjiːiθ] ‘and you shall be’ (A ‫וְ ָּהיִ ָ֛ית‬, Isa. 62.3)
‫ָ֛ית‬

This is found more regularly in some other early manu-

scripts, e.g.

S: ְַ ‫[ ָּב‬vɔːɔθ] ‘you have come’ (L: ‫באת‬,

‫את‬ ָּ Gen. 16.8)165

II Firk. Evr. II B 94: ְַ ‫[ וְ ָּׁש ִֵּ֕ת‬vaʃɔːˈθiːiθ] ‘and you will drink’ (L:
‫ית‬
‫וְ ָּׁש ִֵּ֕תית‬, Ruth 2.9) 166

In the early model manuscript codex known as C3, shewa

signs that were originally marked on several cases of fricative tav
were erased by Mishaʾel ben ʿUzziʾel, who corrected the
manuscript in many places. This suggests that the marking of
shewa on a fricative 2fs suffix was an earlier layer of tradition.167
In manuscripts with Babylonian vocalization, the tav of the
suffix after vowels in final-weak verbs is generally fricative, as in
Tiberian, but there is an isolated case of it being marked with
dagesh in an Old Babylonian (OB) manuscript (Yeivin 1985, 350).
This reflects its pronunciation as a stop by analogy with the form
of the suffix on strong verbs:

165
Cf. Shashar (1983, 22).
166
Cf. Yeivin (1968, 370).
167
For this manuscript and the correction work of Mishaʾel ben ʿUzziʾel
see Penkower (1989). For the erasure of the shewa signs see Ofer (1993,
116).
414 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

‫ית‬
ֹ ִ‫פ‬
ֹ ָ‫[ י‬jɔːfiːtʰ] ‘you are beautiful’ (L [BHS]: ‫ית‬
ַ ‫יָּּ ִפ‬, Cant. 7.7)

In verbs with final guttural radicals a late insertion of an

epenthetic vowel has occurred before the final suffix leaving the
tav a stop, similarly to the process we have seen above in the
form ‫( וַ ִיּ ַַ֣ח ְַד‬Exod. 18.9), e.g.

L: ַ ְ ‫[ַיָּ ַד ַע‬jɔːˈðaːʕatʰ] ‘you (fs) know’ (1 Kings 2.15)

‫ת‬

L: ְַ ‫[ יָּ ַג ִַׂ֖ע‬jɔːˈʁaːʕatʰ] ‘you have laboured’ (Isa. 62.8)

‫ת‬

L: ַ ְ ‫[ ָּׁש ַכ ַח‬ʃɔːˈχaːħatʰ] ‘you have forgotten’ (Isa. 17.10)

‫ת‬

L: ְַ ‫[ ַה ְמ ִ֔ ַל ַח‬humˈlaːħatʰ] ‘you were [not] rubbed with salt’

‫ת‬
(Ezek. 16.4)

The shewa sign is marked on the tav by analogy with verbs

with a final strong radical, such as ‫ת‬
ַ ְ ‫( וְ ָּה ַל ְכ‬Ruth 2.9), etc. The
dagesh in the tav indicates that the consonant was a stop. It was
an ungeminated stop and the dagesh was read as a dagesh lene.
This is shown by Karaite transcriptions that mark geminated con-
sonants with an Arabic shadda sign but omit the shadda on ‫בגדכפת‬
consonants with dagesh lene, e.g.

‫[ ۠ساب۠ اع۟ ت‬sɔːˈvɔːɔʕatʰ] (BL Or 2549 fol. 234r, 5 | L [BHS]:

ְַ ‫ ָּש ָּב ַע‬Ezek. 16.29 ‘you were [not] satisfied’)
‫ת‬

It should be noted that in this manuscript the shewa is omit-

ted on the tāʾ transcribing the tav.
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 415

The plosive tav and vocalization with shewa of the 2fs inde-
pendent pronoun ‫ת‬
ְַ ‫( ַא‬in pause ‫ת‬
ְַ ‫א‬,ָּ e.g. Gen. 12.11)168 has, like-
wise, arisen be analogy with the form and vocalization of the 2fs
suffix on strong verbs. As is the case with the dagesh in the suf-
fixes, the dagesh in the independent pronoun ‫ת‬
ְַ ‫ ַא‬was read as
dagesh lene and the tav was not geminated.169 The lack of gemi-
nation is shown by Karaite transcriptions that mark geminated
consonants with Arabic shadda. In these manuscripts, the shadda
sign is not marked on the tāʾ that transcribes the tav, e.g.
ࣤ
‫مۚ ى ࣦ ۟ا ۖات ࣦه۟ ۚ ࣵجيذۚ ى‬-‫ب۟ث‬ [baθ-ˈmiː ˈʔaːatʰ hagˈgiːðiː] (BL Or

2544, fol. 10r, 3 | L [BHS]: ‫ַה ִ ָ֥ג ִידי‬

ַ ‫יַא ְת‬ ַ֣ ִ ‫ ַּב‬Gen. 24.23 ‘tell
ִַ֔ ‫ת־מ‬
whose daughter you are’)

The reading of ‫ת‬

ְַ ‫ ַא‬with ungeminated tav is found also in
modern oral reading traditions that distinguish between gemi-
nated and ungeminated consonants.
In the Karaite transcriptions, the shewa sign is sometimes
omitted on the tāʾ that transcribes the tav of ‫ת‬
ְַ ‫א‬,
ַ e.g.

‫[ وۖاࣦ۟ت‬vaˈʔaːatʰ] (BL Or 2549 fol. 226r, 1 | L [BHS]: ‫ וְ ַ ִׂ֖א ְַת‬Ezek.

16.7 ‘and you’)

168
In L the shewa is omitted in ‫( ָּ ֹ֑את‬Ruth 3.9).
169
Some reference grammars, such as Bergsträsser (1918, 141), Bauer
and Leander (1922, 219–20), erroneously claim that the final tav of the
independent 2fs pronoun was geminated by analogy with the 2ms
independent pronoun ‫א ָּתה‬.
ַ The analogy, however, was with the 2fs
verbal suffix, which was not geminated.
416 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

ࣤ
‫ˈ[ ۟اࣦت‬ʔaːatʰ] (BL Or 2549 fol. 238v, 2 | L [BHS]: ‫ ִַ֔א ְַת‬Ezek.
16.45 ‘you’)

A similar type of vocalization is found in the 2fs suffix con-

jugation of the verb ‫‘ נת׳׳ן‬to give’, e.g.

L: ְַ ‫‘ נָּ ַ ִׂ֖ת‬you (fs) gave’ (Ezek. 16.36)

‫ת‬

In contrast to the independent pronoun ‫ת‬

ְַ ‫א‬,
ַ the final tav in
this form was pronounced geminate, as demonstrated by Karaite
transcriptions, e.g.

ࣦ‫[ ࣦ۠ناثاࣦ۟ ۖت‬nɔːˈθaːattʰ] (BL Or 2549 fol. 235r, 2 | L [BHS]: ‫נָּ ַ ִׂ֖ת ְַת‬
Ezek. 16.36 ‘you (fs) gave’)

This form, therefore, had a final consonant cluster.

I.2.5.9.4. Final Kaf

A shewa sign is regularly written on a vowelless word-final kaf,
e.g.

L: ‫‘ וְ ִׂ֖חֹ ֶׁשְך‬and darkness’ (Gen. 1.2)

L: ‫‘ וַ יְ ָּב ֶרְך‬and he blessed’ (Gen. 1.22)

L: ‫‘ ְּב ַ֣תֹוְך‬within’ (Gen. 2.9)

This practice is likely to have originated as a means of

clearly distinguishing the 2fs possessive suffix from the 2ms
possessive suffix, both of which are written without a final vowel
letter, e.g.

L: ‫‘ ָּא ִִ֔חיְך‬your (fs) brother’ (2 Sam. 13.7)

L: ‫‘ ָּא ִחיך‬your (ms) brother’ (2 Sam. 2.22)

 Vowels and Syllable Structure 417

The marking of the shewa was then extended to all

occurrences of final kaf. This explanation is found already in the
Mikhlol of David Qimḥi (1160–?1235):170

But the kaf of the feminine pronoun, as in ‫‘ יָּ ֵדְך‬your (fs)

hand’, ‫‘ ַרגְ ֵלְך‬your (fs) leg’, ‫‘ ֵעינֵ ְך‬your (fs) eye’, ‫‘ ָּאזְ נֵ ְך‬your (fs)
ear’, is pointed with shewa since there is a possibility of
erring and reading qameṣ, although a soft letter (i.e. mater
lectionis) is not written after it. Therefore, they always
pointed the kaf that designated the feminine with shewa.
In conformity with the way they customarily pointed this
kaf they regularly pointed also a root letter kaf at the end
of a word, as in ‫‘ ֶׁש ֶפְך‬pouring’, ‫‘ ח ֶֹׁשְך‬darkness’, ‫‘ ֶד ֶרְך‬way’.
The kaf in these are the like the resh of ‫ ָּא ַמר‬and the lamed
of ‫א ַכל‬,
ָּ but they did not point the resh and the lamed
whereas they pointed the kaf (with shewa).171

I.2.5.9.5. Further Cases in L

In L there are two cases where a shewa sign is marked at the end
of a word that is linked to the following word by maqqef and does
not fall into any of the categories mentioned above:

L: ‫‘ ֲה ַד ְד ִ־ר ִׂ֖מֹּון‬Hadadrimmon’ (A, C: ‫ ֲה ַדד־ ִר ִׂ֖מֹּון‬, Zech. 12.11)

170
Cf. Ofer (1993).
171
David Qimḥi, Mikhlol (ed. Rittenberg, 1862, 139b), Chomsky (1952,
17): ַ‫ְךַאזְ נֵ ְךַינקדוַבשו׳׳אַכיַישַדרךַלטעותַבו‬
ָּ ֵ‫ְךַעינ‬
ֵ ‫ְךַרגְ ֵל‬
ַ ‫אבלַכ׳׳ףַכינויַהנקבהַכמוַיָּ ֵד‬
ַ‫שתקראַ קמץַאע׳׳פַשאיןַאותַנחהַכתובהַאחריהַלפיכךַנקדוַהכ׳׳ףַסימןַהנקבהַבשו׳׳א‬
ַ‫לעולםַולפיַשהרגילוַבנקידתַזאתַהכ׳׳ףַנקדוַג׳׳כַהכ׳׳ףַהשרשיתַבשאחריתַהמלהַלעולם‬
ַ‫רַולמ׳׳דַא ַכלַולאַנקדוַהרי׳׳שַוהלמ׳׳ד‬
ָּ ‫ְךַהנהַהכ׳׳ףַבהםַכמוַרי׳׳שַא ַמ‬
ָּ ‫כמהַׁש ֶפְךַח ֶֹׁשְךַ ֶד ֶר‬
ֶַ
‫ונקדוַהכ׳׳ף‬.
418 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

L: ִׂ֖ ָּ ‫‘ ָּק ָּב ְל‬in front of the people (?)’ (A: ‫ ָּק ָּבל־ ָּ ִׂ֖עם‬, 2 Kings 15.10)
‫־עם‬

I.2.5.9.6. Non-Standard Tiberian Manuscripts

Many manuscripts with Non-Standard Tiberian vocalization
exhibit patterns of occurrence of shewa on word-final letters that
can be regarded as further extensions of the principles of marking
shewa.
In some manuscripts with Non-Standard Tiberian vocaliza-
tion, a shewa sign is marked regularly on the fricative tav of the
3fs verbal suffix, e.g.

‫ת‬
ְַ ‫א‬
ַ ‫( ָּ ִּׂ֖ב‬T-S A12.1, Blapp 2017, 80 | L [BHS]: ‫ ָּ ִּׂ֖באת‬Ruth 2.12
‘you have come’)

‫יֿת‬
ְַ ‫( וְ גִַ ִ ָ֥לּ‬T-S A12.1, Blapp 2017, 80 | L [BHS]: ‫ וְ גִ ִ ָ֥לּית‬Ruth 3.4
‘and you will uncover’)

‫ֿת‬
ְַ ‫מ‬
ִֵַ֗ ‫( וְ ַָּצ‬T-S A12.1, Blapp 2017, 80 | L [BHS]: ‫ וְ ָּצ ִֵ֗מת‬Ruth 2.9
‘and [when] you are thirsty’)

The shewa is often written on a word-final guttural conso-

nant that is preceded by a vowel, especially ḥet and ʿayin (§I.1.8.,
§I.1.16.), e.g.

‫ח‬
ְַ ‫ת ְש ַ ַָ֛כ‬
ִַ ַָּ‫( ו‬T-S A11.1, Blapp 2017, 48 | L [BHS]: ‫ ַ ֶ֭ו ִת ְׁש ַכח‬Job
39.14 ‘and she forgot’)

‫ח‬
ְַ ַַּ֤‫( וַ יִּ בְַ ָּר‬Codex Reuchlinianus, Morag 1959, 233 | L [BHS]:
‫ וַ יִּ ְב ַ ַּ֤רח‬1 Kings 11.40 ‘and he fled’)

ְַ‫הֹודע‬
ַֹ֑ ַ (T-S A13.18, Blapp 2017, 127 | L [BHS]: ‫הֹודע‬
ֹ֑ ַ Psa.
90.12 ‘teach!’)
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 419

ְַ‫מע‬
ַַּ֤ ָּ ‫ּש‬
ַ ְ ִ‫( וַ יּ‬Codex Reuchlinianus, Morag 1959, 233 | L [BHS]:
‫ וַ יִּ ְׁש ַ ַּ֤מע‬2 Sam. 22.7 ‘and he heard’)

‫וה‬
ְַ ַ֣‫( אל‬T-S A11.1, Blapp 2017, 47 | L [BHS]: ‫ֹוה‬
ַ ַ ַ֣‫אל‬
ֱַ Job 39.17
‘God’)

‫יה‬ ַ ַ ‫ יַ ִ ָ֥ג‬Isa. 13.10 ‘[does

ְַ ‫( יַַ ִ ָ֥ג‬Codex Reuchlinianus | L [BHS]: ‫יה‬
not] give light’)

The purpose of the shewa here appears to be to ensure that

the weak guttural letter was read and not slurred over. It marks
explicitly that the letter closes a syllable, and is therefore conso-
nantal.
Similarly, shewa in Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts is
often marked on final consonantal vav that is preceded by a
vowel, to ensure that they are read as consonantal (§I.1.6.), e.g.

ְַ‫( ָּע ִַָּׂ֖ליו‬T-S A13.18, Blapp 2017, 125 | L [BHS]: ‫ ָּע ָּלִׂ֖יו‬Psa. 89.46
‘on him’)

ְַ‫ּוליו‬
ִַָּׂ֖ ‫ּש‬
ַ ְ‫( ו‬Codex Reuchlinianus, Morag 1959, 219 | L [BHS]:
ָּ ְ‫‘ ו‬and his train’ Isa. 6.1)
ַ‫ׁשּולִׂ֖יו‬

Some Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts occasionally

mark shewa on other word-final consonants that are preceded by
a vowel and not in clusters, e.g.

‫ֹוׁש‬
ְַ ֵ֗‫אנ‬
ֱַָ֜ (JTS ENA 2640 f. 11, Díez Macho 1971, 293-4 | L
[BHS]: ‫ַ ֱָ֜אנֵ֗ ֹוׁש‬Psa. 10.18 ‘man’)

‫ה ָּ ַַ֣כ ְַל‬
ֵֶַּ֨ ‫ב‬
ַָּ (JTS ENA 2640 f. 11, Díez Macho 1971, 293-4 | L
[BHS]: ‫ ְּב ֵֵּ֨ה ַיכַּ֤ל‬Psa. 11.4 ‘in the temple of’)

‫ּור‬ ַֹ֑ ‫( ַא‬JTS ENA 2118 f. 14, Murtonen 1961, 55 | L [BHS]:

ַ ְ ‫ּש‬
‫ ַא ֹ֑שּּׁור‬Isa. 20.6 ‘Ashur’)
420 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

‫ֿת‬
ְַ ‫ֹופ‬
ַָ֛ ֵ ‫( ְַכמּ‬T-S A13.20, Blapp 2017, 155 | L [BHS]: ‫מֹופת‬
ֵ ‫ ְ ֶ֭כ‬Psa.
71.7 ‘like a sign’)

In a number of Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts of non-

biblical texts vocalizers have marked shewa on all word-final con-
sonants, e.g. in the liturgical text Maḥzor Vitry: ‫ב‬
ְַ ‫ר‬,ַ ‫א ַח ְַד‬,
ֵ ‫ט‬
ְַ ‫מ ַע‬,
ְ ְַ‫נִ גְ ַאל‬,
ְַ‫( ְע ַב ִדים‬Eldar 1975, 194).
In some Non-Standard Tiberian biblical manuscripts shewa
is marked on word-final he and ʾalef that are matres lectionis and
are not realized as consonants, e.g.

‫ֿה‬
ְַ ‫( ָּׁשבְַ ָּ ַַ֣ר‬T-S A13.20, Blapp 2017, 156 | L [BHS]: ‫ ָּׁש ְב ָּ ָ֥רה‬Psa.
69.21 ‘has broken’)

‫ֿה‬
ְַ ‫ׁש‬
ַָּ ַָ֥‫( חּו‬T-S A13.20, Blapp 2017, 156 | L [BHS]: ‫ּוׁשה‬
ֶָּ֫ ‫ ח‬Psa.
70.6 ‘hasten’)

‫ֹוא‬
ְַ ‫( ַָּלּב‬T-S A13.20, Blapp 2017, 156 | L [BHS]: ‫ ָּל ֵ֗בֹוא‬Psa. 71.3
‘to come’)

It seems that this practice arose by extending the use of

shewa that marks syllable closure to letters that are pronounced
as vowels without consonantal realization. A similar devel-
opment is attested in Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts in the
use of mappiq on he and dagesh on ʾalef, which are in some cases
extended from marking consonantal he and ʾalef to the marking
also of matres lectionis he and ʾalef (§I.1.1., §I.1.5.). This type of
extension of the marking of shewa is sometimes applied also to
word-internal matres lectionis, e.g.

‫אנּו‬
ְַ ‫( ָּח ָּט‬T-S NS 18.5, Arrant 2020 | L [BHS]: ‫ ָּח ָּטאנּו‬Num.
14.40 ‘we have sinned’)
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 421

‫א ְַכ ִׂ֖תֹו‬
ְַ ‫( ְמ ַל‬T-S A22.54, Khan 1991, 855 | L [BHS]: ‫אכ ִׂ֖תֹו‬
ְ ַ‫ ְמל‬Gen.
2.2 ‘his work’)

‫א ֶמר‬
ְַ ‫ת‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ וַ ָ֥ת‬Gen. 3.2 ‘and she said’)
ֹ ָ֥ ַ‫( ו‬T-S A22.54 | L [BHS]: ‫אמר‬

‫( ַד ִ ֹ֑לּיְַם‬T-S A12.1, Blapp 2017, 80 | L [BHS]: ‫ ַד ִ ֹ֑לּים‬Prov. 29.14

‘the poor’)

‫מר‬
ֹ ‫א‬
ְַ ‫( ֵלּ‬T-S ASַ8.123, Arrant 2020 | L [BHS]: ‫מר‬
ֹ ‫ ֵלּא‬Lev. 24.1
‘saying’)

Such a marking of shewa on word-internal matres lectionis

has been identified in manuscripts of European provenance con-
taining non-biblical Hebrew texts with a Non-Standard Tiberian
type of vocalization, e.g. ‫ל ְאמֹור‬,
ֵ ‫ר ְא ִשית‬,ֵ ‫מ ָּצ ְא ִתי‬,
ָּ ‫מ ֶל ְא ֶכת‬,
ְ ‫צ ְֹאנָּ ך‬, ‫מ ַכ ְאן‬.
ִ 172
In some European manuscripts, mater lectionis ʾalef is marked by
ḥaṭef pataḥ instead of shewa, e.g. ‫ר ֲאשי‬,ָּ ‫ר ֲאשֹון‬,ִ ‫ּב ֲא ִתי‬.
ָּ 173 This is un-
likely to reflect a consonantal realization of the ʾalef but rather
has arisen by analogy with the use on matres lectionis of the shewa
sign, which alternates with ḥaṭef pataḥ in other contexts.
Another Non-Standard Tiberian vocalization practice found
in non-biblical texts is to mark shewa on a consonant preceding a
mater lectionis that is marked by a vowel sign. This is found before
shureq, which is always marked on mater lectionis vav, e.g. in
Mishnaic texts: ‫ּוב ָּחר‬
ְ ‫ה ְמ‬,
ַ ‫( ָּא ָּב ְדּו‬Sharvit 1968, 24), and also before
other matres lectionis on which a vowel is marked contrary to the
standard Tiberian system, e.g. ‫( ְכ ַאן‬Bar-Asher 1980, 48). Alterna-
tively, when the mater lectionis has a vowel sign, the preceding

172
Eldar (1975, 195; 1978, 68–69), Bar-Asher (1980, 48).
173
Eldar (1978, 69), Beit-Arié (1965, 38).
422 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

consonant is sometimes also marked with a vowel sign, e.g.

‫ב ֵצ ֵא ִתי‬,
ְ ‫ּובצֹאֹן‬,
ַ ‫כ ָּאן‬.
ָּ 174

I.2.6. SYLLABIFICATION AND METRICAL STRUCTURE OF

WORD-FINAL SYLLABLES
The syllable structure of words with final consonantal clusters
such as ְַ‫‘ וַ ֵיּ ְַ֣בך‬and he wept’ (Gen. 45.15), ‫ּב‬
ְַ ‫‘ וַ ִיּ ְָׁ֥ש‬and he captured’
ְַ ‫‘ ִַל ַ ַּ֤קּ ְט‬you gleaned’ (Ruth 2.19) can be analysed
(Num. 21.1) and ‫ת‬
as having extra-syllabic consonants. These would have the
underlying structure /vaj.jev.k/, /vaj.jiʃ.b/ and /liq.̟ qa̟ tˁ.t/, in
which the final consonant of the cluster at the periphery of the
word is extrasyllabic. This can be compared to the analysis of the
underlying syllable structure of a word such as ‫ קֹול‬as /qō
̟ .l/ with
an extrasyllabic final consonant (§I.2.4.). In both cases the extra-
syllabicity of the final consonant is conditioned by the fact that a
syllable should not have more than two morae. Words with final
consonant clusters such as /vaj.jev.k/, /vaj.jiʃ.b/ and /liq.̟ qa̟ tˁ.t/
have in their final syllables a vowel without inherent length. On
the phonetic level, however, the final vowel would be lengthened
by stress and so it would split into a CV̄.VC structure with an
epenthetic vowel after the long vowel, as is the case with /qō
̟ .l/
[ˈqo
̟ ːol] and /lev/ [ˈleːev], viz. [vaɟ.ˈɟeː.ev.k], [vaɟ.ˈɟiː.iʃ.b] and

174
Eldar (1975, 195), Bar-Asher (1980, 48). These three types of double
vocalization of vowels marked by matres lectionis are also found in
medieval Judaeo-Arabic texts that are vocalized with Tiberian vowel
signs, see Khan (1992a).
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 423

[liq.̟ ˈqa̟ ːatˁ.t]. The consonant on the word-final periphery would

remain extrasyllabic at the phonetic level.
As is the case with words such as [ˈqo̟ ːol] and [ˈleːev], on
the level of metrical parsing the unstressed epenthetic in words
such as [vaɟ.ˈɟeː.ev.k], [vaɟ.ˈɟiː.iʃ.b] and [liq.̟ ˈqa̟ ːatˁ.t] would be-
long together with the preceding long vowel in a trochaic foot.
The final consonant can be considered to have been
extrametrical:
[vaɟ. ˈɟeː.ev.k]

(*) (ˈ* .)

Word-final extrasyllabic consonants can be posited to exist

also in segolate forms, e.g. ‫ˈ[ ֶֶ֫מ ֶלְך‬mɛː.lɛχ] ‘king’, ‫ס ֶפר‬
ֵֶַ֫ [ˈseː.fɛʀ̟]
‘book’, ‫קֹ ֶדׁש‬
ֶַ֫ [ˈqo
̟ ː.ðɛʃ] The underlying forms of these would be
/mɛl.χ/, /sef.r/, /qoð.ʃ/, and the final extrasyllabic consonant
would be syllabified by an epenthetic on the phonetic level.175 As
is the case with other epenthetics, we should assume that these
epenthetics did not stand in an independent foot. They would be
analogous to the epenthetic of words such as [ˈqo ̟ ː.ol] and be
weak syllables bound prosodically to the previous strong syllable
in a trochaic foot:
/mɛl.χ/

[ˈmɛː.lɛχ]

(ˈ* .)

175
Such underlying representations without the epenthetic vowel are
adopted in analyses of Tiberian Hebrew made within the framework of
generative phonology and optimality theory, e.g. Prince (1975),
Greenstein (1992), Malone (1993), Coetzee (1999), Edzard (2013).
424 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

The vowel in the underlying syllable structure /mɛl.χ/ is

short. After the insertion of the epenthetic, it has become length-
ened. A stressed vowel would have been lengthened. A further
factor that brought about this lengthening is likely to have been
a metrical constraint on having a sequence of a light CV syllable
and a following weak epenthetic syllable.
ִ ‫‘ ַא‬let
A similar analysis would apply to forms such as ‫ל־י ֶַ֭ח ְַד‬
it not rejoice’ (Job 3.6) and ‫ת‬
ַ ְ ‫‘ ָּׁש ַכ ַח‬you (fs) have forgotten’ (Isa.
17.10), which also end in trochaic feet:
/jiħ.d/ /ʃɔːχaħ.t/
[ˈjiː.ħad] [ʃɔːˈχaː.ħat]
(ˈ* .) (*) (ˈ* .)
Some nouns that derive historically from a *CVCC pattern
have stress on the syllable containing the vowel that breaks the
final cluster. This applies, for example, to nouns with a medial
ʾalef, e.g.
‫ְּב ֵאר‬ ‘well’ < *biʾr
‫זְ ֵאב‬ ‘wolf’ < *ðiʾb
‫ְּבאֹׁש‬ ‘stench’ < *buʾš
In such forms an original epenthetic takes the main stress.
The original short lexical vowel is left without stress and comes
to be in a metrically weak CV syllable, and so is represented by
shewa. Since the second vowel is stressed it should be assumed
that, although originally an epenthetic, it has become reanalysed
as a lexical vowel in the underlying form of the word:
*biʾr > ‫ְּב ֵאר‬ [beˈʔeːeʀ̟] /bʔe.r/
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 425

This process of shifting the stress to the epenthetic is regu-

lar with medial-ʾalef nouns, in which it may have been motivated
by an effort to preserve the weak ʾalef. By making the ʾalef the
ֵֶַ֫ ‫[ ְּב‬beˈʔeːeʀ̟] (.
onset of a strong stressed syllable of a foot, i.e. ‫אר‬
ˈ* .) rather than of a weak unstressed syllable of a foot, as in ‫ֶֶ֫מלֶ ְך‬
[ˈmɛː.lɛχ] (ˈ* .) the articulation of the ʾalef is strengthened. The
same orthoepic metrical principle is likely to have given rise to
the ṣere on initial ʾalef in forms such as ‫‘ ֵאזֹור‬girdle’ and ‫‘ ֵאבּוס‬crib’,
which have a ‫ ְקטֹול‬and ‫ ְקטּול‬morphological pattern respectively.
The ʾalef with ṣere is a metrically strong syllable (*), whereas an
ʾalef with ḥaṭef segol, which would have been expected according
to the morphological pattern, would have been a metrically weak
syllable. The same explanation holds for the vocalization of ʾalef
with ṣere in verbal forms such as ‫‘ ְת ֵא ֲה ֶ֫בּו‬you love’ (Prov. 1.22),
where a ḥaṭef segol would be expected (cf. ‫ ֶת ֱא ָּ ֹ֑הבּו‬Zech. 8.17). Note
also the form ‫‘ ְ ֶ֭ת ָּא ְכ ֵלהּו‬it consumes him’ (Job 20.26), where this
process has preserved the ʾalef, which is normally weakened and
ְ ֹ ‫ י‬Isa. 62.9 ‘they will eat it’).
after prefixes (cf. ‫אכ ִ֔להּו‬
Stress shifts to the epenthetic syllables also in many nouns
with a final weak radical, e.g.
‫ְפ ִרי‬ ‘fruit’ < *pary
‫גְ ִדי‬ ‘kid’ < *gady
‫ְּב ִכי‬ ‘weeping’ < *baky
In such cases, the motivation for the stress shift appears to
be that the long vowel created by the combination of the epen-
thetic and the final weak radical was favoured for stress place-
ment over the short vowel in the first syllable.
426 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Clusters of two consonants on the phonetic level occur in

principle on word peripheries. This includes the word-final pe-
riphery, as in the forms discussed above, and the word-initial pe-
riphery, as in the isolated case of the numeral ‘two’ ‫ ְׁש ַתיִ ם‬/ ‫ׁש ֵתי‬,
ְ
in which the shewa is silent: [ˈʃtaːjim], [ˈʃteː]. As with word-final
clusters, the initial consonant of the word-initial cluster in this
word can be analysed as extrasyllabic on the underling and pho-
netic level, viz. /ʃ.tē/ [ʃ.ˈteː] (§I.2.5.3.).
It has been shown (§I.2.5.6.) that the parsing of a form such
as /qō
̟ .l/ [qo
̟ ːol] with a long vowel followed by an extrasyllabic
consonant, which is realized phonetically as a strong syllable fol-
lowed by a light epenthetic syllable in a trochaic foot (* .), has
been extended by analogy into word-internal position in cases
where a long vowel is followed by silent shewa, e.g. ‫ָּׁש ְמרּו‬
/ʃɔ̄.m.rū/ [ʃɔː.ɔm.ˈʀ̟uː] (* .) (*).
There are a few cases of the extension of the syllabic struc-
ture and/or metrical pattern of underlying word-final consonan-
tal clusters to word-internal position. One such case is that of
forms with word-internal gutturals in a closed syllable such as
‫[ יַ ַע ְמדֶַּ֫ו‬jaː.ʕam.ˈðuː] ‘they stand’. The metrical structure of this can
be represented as follows:

[jaː.ʕam. ˈðuː]

(* .) (*)

The word would consist of two feet, the first of which is

trochaic. Evidence for this is the fact that the accent can be re-
tracted to the vowel before the guttural by the process of nesiga
(Revell 1983), e.g.
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 427

ָּ ‫ˈ[ ַנ ַַ֣ע ְמ ָּד‬naː.ʕam.ðɔː] ‘let us stand’ (Isa. 50.8)

‫הַיּ ַֹ֑חד‬

The normal rule of nesiga is that the accent cannot be

retracted further than the first syllable before the final syllable
that has a full vowel sign, so long as this syllable has a long
vowel. This means that the accent in a word such as ‫‘ ָּה ַא ָּמּה‬the
cubit’ [hɔː.ʔam.mɔː] cannot be retracted to the initial syllable. We
propose that the reason nesiga is possible in a form such as ‫ַנ ַַ֣ע ְמ ָּדה‬
[ˈnaː.ʕam.ðɔː] but not in a word such as ‫[ ָּה ַא ָּמּה‬hɔː.ʔam.mɔː] is
that nesiga takes account of metrical feet rather than phonetic
syllables. The rule is that the accent cannot be moved back
further than the foot immediately preceding the word-final foot.
These two words have different metrical structures, ‫ ַנ ַַ֣ע ְמ ָּדה‬has
two feet, whereas ‫ ָּה ַא ָּמּה‬has three:
naː. ʕam. ðɔː
(* .) (*)
hɔː. ʔam. mɔː
(*) (*) (*)
ֶ ‫‘ ָּ ַ֣ר ֲח ָּק‬it is far
Nesiga can take place in a word such as ‫הַמנִּ י‬
from me’ (Job 21.16) since it too consists of two feet:
[ˈʀ̟ɔː. ħa.qɔ̟ ː]
ˈ(*) (. *)
The trochaic foot in a word such as ‫[ יַ ַע ְמ ֶַ֫דּו‬jaː.ʕam.ˈðuː] (* .)
(*) is analogous to that of a segolate form such as ‫ˈ[ ֶֶ֫מלֶ ְך‬mɛː.lɛχ]
(* .) ‘king’ or ‫ˈ[ ֶ֫ ַנ ַער‬naːʕaʀ̟] (* .) ‘youth’, in which the final syllable
is unstressed.
428 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

A form such as ‫[ יַ ַע ְמ ֶַ֫דּו‬jaː.ʕam.ˈðuː] can be assumed to have

the underlying phonological form /jaʕmðū/, which would corre-
spond to the syllable structure of the equivalent morphological
form in strong verbs, e.g.. ‫ יִ ְׁש ְמרּו‬/jiʃmrū]. The process of deriva-
tion would be as follows:

/jaʕmðū/ > (i) [ja.ʕam.ðū] > (ii) [jaː.ʕam.ˈðuː]

In stage (i), an epenthetic is added after the guttural in the

phonetic form and the guttural is syllabified in a closed syllable
with the following consonant. In stage (ii), the vowel of the pre-
ceding syllable is lengthened due to a metrical constraint against
having a sequence of a light CV syllable followed by weak un-
stressed epenthetic syllable. This would be similar to the pro-
posed derivation of forms with gutturals such as ‫ה ֱע ָּלה‬,
ֶ viz.
/heʕ.lū/ > (i) [hɛ.ʕɛ.ˈluː] > (ii) [hɛː.ʕɛ.ˈluː] (§I.2.5.4.).
Another case of a word-internal trochaic foot is in proper
names such as ‫[ ֶּב ֶר ְכ ָּיִׂ֖הּו‬bɛːʀ̟ɛχˈjɔːhuː] ‘Berechiah’ (1 Chron. 2.24).
Here the syllabification and metrics of a word-final segolate pat-
tern have been extended to word-internal position:

/bɛr.χ.jɔ̄.hū/

[bɛː.ʀ̟ɛχ ˈjɔː huː]

(* .) ˈ(*) <*>

In the Babylonian reading tradition, the vowel before the

epenthetic has not been lengthened but rather reduced (Yeivin
1985, 1082):

‫[ בְרַכיָהו‬braχˈjɔːhuː]
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 429

This can be compared to the lack of lengthening in Babylo-

nian pronunciation of the vowel before the epenthetic of guttur-
als in forms such as ‫‘ נְעַרה‬young woman’, which was read as
[nʕaˈrɔː] or [naʕaˈrɔː] (§I.2.5.4.).
One possible case of a word-internal syllable-final conso-
nant cluster is reflected by the vocalization of the Hebrew gentilic
‘the Jerahmeelite’ in L. In most cases this is vocalized ‫ַהיְּ ַר ְח ְמ ֵא ִַלי‬
[haɟ.ɟa.ʀ̟aħ.me.ʔeː.ˈliː]. In 1 Sam. 27.10, however, it is vocalized
in L as follows:

L: ‫( ַהיַּ ְר ְח ְמ ֵא ִ֔ ִלי‬A: ‫היְּ ַר ְח ְמ ֵא ִ֔ ִלי‬,

ַ 1 Sam. 27.10)

This was also the original vocalization of the form in 1 Sam.

30.29, though it has been corrected to ‫היְּ ַר ְח ְמ ֵא ִ֔ ִלי‬.
ַ The vocalization
‫ ַהיַּ ְר ְח ְמ ֵא ִ֔ ִלי‬is found in 1 Sam. 27.10 and 1 Sam. 30.29 also in other
manuscripts written by the scribe of L, Samuel ben Jacob,
showing that it is unlikely to be a random error (Phillips 2017,
16). This vocalization, therefore, may be a case of a word-internal
consonant cluster at the end of a syllable analogous to word-final
clusters in words such as ‫‘ ֵ ַ֣נ ְִֽר ְַד‬nard’ (Cant. 4.14) and ‫‘ ִַ֔י ְר ְַד‬he causes
him to dominate’ (Isa. 41.2). As in the word-final clusters, the
word-internal cluster in ‫ ַהיַּ ְר ְח ְמ ֵא ִ֔ ִלי‬would have falling sonority.
The cluster would come before the boundary between the stem
of the name and the theophoric element (cf. the remarks concern-
ing the name Eliphelehu in §I.2.5.7.6.).

I.2.7. LEXICAL ḤAṬEF VOWELS

Some short vowels in open syllables are lexical vowels rather
than epenthetic vowels. This applies mainly to a set of vowels
430 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

represented by ḥaṭef qameṣ. In such cases, the ḥaṭef qameṣ [ɔ] pre-
serves the rounded quality of a historical lexical vowel of the
morphological form and there has not been quality reduction and
neutralization. They should be represented as the phoneme /o/
with unspecified length in the phonological form of the word. In
conformity with the normal rule, this phoneme is realized as [ɔ]
in unstressed syllables, and [oː] in syllables with the main stress,
e.g.

ֳַ ‫[ ַה‬haq.̟ qɔ̟ .ðɔː.ˈʃiː.im] /haq.̟ qo

‫קּ ָּד ִִׁ֡שים‬ ̟ .ðɔ̄.ʃī.m/ (2 Kgs 12.19
‘the holy things’) < *qoðɔ̄šīm; cf. sing. ‫ˈ[ ק ֶֹדׁש‬qo ̟ ːðɛʃ])
‫[ ֳח ָּר ֵ֗בֹות‬ħɔ.ʀ̟ɔː.ˈvoː.oθ] /ħo.rɔ̄.vō.θ/ (Psa. 9.7 ‘waste places’)
< *ḥurɔ̄vōθ; cf. sing. ‫ח ְר ִָּּ֔בה‬
ַָּ [ħɔʀ̟ˈbɔː] Lev. 26.31 ‘waste
place’)

‫[ ֶא ֳצ ֶרנָּּ ה‬ʔɛsˁ.sˁɔ.ˈʀ̟ɛː.ɛn.nɔː] /ʔɛsˁ.sˁo.rɛn.nɔ̄/ (Isa. 27.3 ‘I

guard it’) < *ʾeṣorɛnnɔ̄; cf. ‫[ ֱא ֹ֬צ ֹר‬ʔɛsˁˈsˁoːorˁ] (Psa. 119.69 ‘I
keep’)

‫[ ֳח ִלי‬ħɔ.ˈliː] /ħol.j/ (‘illness’) < *ḥuly; cf. pausal form ‫ֹ֑חֹ ִלי‬
[ˈħoːliː] (Deut. 7.15)

‫[ ֳר ִ ֹ֑אי‬ʀ̟ɔ.ˈʔiː] /roʔ.j/ (Gen. 16.13 ‘seeing’) < *ruʾy; cf. pausal

form ‫ˈ[ ֹ֑ר ֹ ִאי‬ʀ̟oːʔiː] (1 Sam. 16.12)

‫[ ֳצ ִרי‬sˁɔ.ˈʀ̟iː] /sˁor.j/ (‘balm’) < *ṣury; cf. pausal form ‫וָּ ִ֔צ ֹ ִרי‬
[vɔːˈsˁoːʀ̟iː] (Ezek. 27.17)

‫[ ֳַד ִמי‬dɔ.ˈmiː] /dom.j/ (‘silence’) < *dumy

‫[ ֳח ִרי‬ħɔ.ˈʀ̟iː] /ħor.j/ (‘burning’) < *ḥury

In the examples cited above the ḥaṭef qameṣ is the reflex of

a short round historical vowel. In some cases ḥaṭef qameṣ in an
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 431

open syllable is the result of the shortening of an original [oː] /ō/

or [ɔː] /ɔ̄/ in an unstressed syllable, e.g.

‫[ ִצ ֳפ ִ ֹ֑רים‬sˁip.pʰɔ.ˈʀ̟iː.im] /sˁip.pʰo.rī.m/ (Lev. 14.49 ‘birds’) <

*ṣippōrīm; cf. sing. ‫[ ִצפֹור‬sˁippʰoːoʀ̟])

‫[ כ ֳת ֹנת‬kʰut.tʰɔ.ˈnoː.oθ] /kʰut.tʰo.nō.θ/ (Exod. 29.8 ‘tunics’)

< *kuttōnōθ; cf. sing. ‫[ כתֹנֶ ת‬kʰutˈtʰoːnɛθ]

‫ˈ[ ָּ ַּ֣ב ֳמ ֵתי‬bɔː.mɔ.θeː] /bɔ̄.mo.θē/ (Isa. 14.14 ‘the heights of’) <
*ˈbɔ̄mōθē; cf. ‫[ ָּּבמֹות‬bɔːˈmoːoθ] ‘heights’

ֶַ [hɛː.ħɔ.ˈðaː.al.tʰiː] /hɛɛ.ħo.ðal.tʰī/ (Jud. 9.9. ‘shall I

‫ה ֳח ַד ְל ִתי‬
cease?’) < *ḥɔ̄ˈðāltī

There are some cases where the qere has a lexical ḥaṭef
qameṣ where the ketiv has a mater lectionis vav, e.g.

Neh. 13.23: ketiv ‫אשדודיותַעמוניות‬, qere ‫‘ ַ ַא ְׁש ֳד ִדיִּ֔ ֹותַ ַע ֳמּנִ יִּׂ֖ ֹות‬Ash-
dodite, Ammonite (women)’

The ketiv, in such cases, would seem to reflect a variant

reading in which a historical long /ō/ had not been shortened.
Some words with ḥaṭef qameṣ in an open syllable exhibit
variants in which the reduction to an epenthetic has taken place.
This is seen, for example, in the vocalization ‫‘ ַה ְקּ ָּד ִ ֹׁ֑שים‬the holi-
nesses’ (Ezek. 44.13) instead of the more common ‫ה ֳקּ ָּד ִׁשים‬.
ַ Com-
pare also ‫( וְ ֶא ְצ ֶ ָ֥רנָּּ ה‬Psa. 119.33 ‘and I will keep it’) to ‫( ֶא ֳצ ֶרנָּּ ה‬Isa.
27.3 ‘I guard it’), and ‫‘ ִׁש ֲּב ֵלַ֣י‬branches of’ (Zech. 4.12), which
seems to be the same lexical item as ‫‘ ִׁש ֳּב ֵ֗ ִלים‬ears of grain’ (Gen.
41.5). In some cases, the variants are differences between Maso-
retic authorities. Mishaʾel ben ʿUzziʾel, for example, in his Kitāb
al-Khilaf records a variation between the reading of Ben Asher
432 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

‫‘ ֶא ְכ ֳת ֶ ֹ֑בנָּּ ה‬I will write it’ (Jer. 31.33) and that of Ben Naftali ‫ֶא ְכ ֲת ֶ ֹ֑בנָּּ ה‬
(Lipschütz 1965, ‫)לג‬.
Yeivin (1980, 283) identifies some cases of ḥaṭef segol on
non-guttural consonants as a lexical vowels (‘morphological use’
in his terminology). These are found mainly in Biblical Aramaic,
ַ ‫(ַ ֱבנַ יְ ַת‬Dan. 4.27 ‘I built it’), ‫( ֱק ִ ִׂ֖רי‬Ezra 4.18 ‘it was read’), ‫גֱ ִ ַ֣לי‬
e.g. ‫הּ‬
(Dan. 2.30 ‘it was revealed’). A Hebrew example is ‫( ּו ְב ֶצ ְל ֱצ ִלים‬A, C
2 Sam. 6.5 ‘and with cymbals’). L has simple segol here: ‫ּו ְב ֶצ ְל ֶצ ִלים‬.
It is not clear, however, whether any of these preserve the origi-
nal quality of a lexical vowel or whether they reflect some kind
of assimilation to the phonetic environment.
The qualities of ḥaṭef qameṣ [ɔ] and ḥaṭef segol [ɛ] share the
property of being lax vowels, in that they were produced in the
central vowel space. Phonetic studies of other languages have
shown that, all other things being equal, unstressed lax vowels
are shorter than unstressed tense vowels.176 This feature of the
lax vowels [ɔ] and [ɛ] could have been the principal reason why
the retention of their qualities was allowed in conditions where
tense vowel qualities were reduced.
In some manuscripts, a shewa sign is marked where L has a
lexical vowel represented by ḥaṭef qameṣ. In MS Sassoon 507 (S),
for example, the plural form ‫ כ ֳתנֹת‬is vocalized ‫כ ְתנֹת‬.177 The trea-
tise Diqduqe ha-Ṭeʿamim (ed. Dotan 1967, §19) states that some
scribes wrote shewa rather than ḥaṭef qameṣ in the words ‫ָּמ ְר ֳד ַכי‬
and ‫כַ ֳתנֹות‬, where the ḥaṭef qameṣ represented a lexical vowel. The
following passage from Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ also refers to the practice

176
For example, Delattre and Hohenberg (2009).
177
Yeivin (1968, 35), Shashar (1983, 21).
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 433

of some scribes to mark short lexical vowels in open syllables

with shewa rather than a ḥaṭef sign:
It is said … that some scribes wanted to remove
uncertainty from places that may lead to error and have
combined a vowel with shewa … because they thought that
people would err in the reading of (for example) ‫מ ְר ֳד ַכי‬.
ָּ
When some people saw shewa without qameṣ in ‫מ ְר ְד ַכי‬,
ָּ they
read it as pataḥ. If they saw qameṣ alone, they were at risk
of giving the qameṣ its full length. So, the scribes decided
to combine them so that this degree of uncertainty be
removed. This applied also to similar cases. This is an
exception to their customary practice. What supports the
claim that this is the view of only some of them with regard
to letters not belonging to the group of the four (guttural
letters) is that in most codices one does not find what has
been presented as counterevidence (i.e. the marking of
ḥaṭef signs on non-guttural letters), but all codices are
uniform in the combination of shewa with a vowel under
the four (guttural) letters.178

These variations in vocalization whereby the shewa sign is

written instead of ḥaṭef qameṣ representing lexical vowels in
words such as ‫ ָּמ ְר ֳד ַכי‬and ‫ ַכ ֳתנֹות‬are variations in notation of the
lexical vowel rather than its reduction to an epenthetic.
The form ‫[ ֳר ִ ֹ֑אי‬ʀ̟ɔ.ˈʔiː] (Gen. 16.13 ‘seeing’) indicates that a
ḥaṭef qameṣ that represents a lexical vowel does not assimilate to
the quality of the vowel after a following guttural, unlike epen-
thetic vowels.

178
Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book,
§II.L.2.12.6.
434 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

The status of these lexical vowels represented by ḥaṭef

qameṣ involved not only the resistance to neutralization of their
historical vowel quality and to assimilation to the quality of ad-
jacent vowels but also retention of a stronger metrical structure
than epenthetics. This is demonstrated by the distribution of the
allophones of resh. In the medieval sources, the resh was said to
have its default uvular realization in a word such as ‫[ ֳצ ִרַי‬sˁɔ.ˈʀ̟iː]
‘balm’ (Gen. 43.11),179 i.e., after an alveolar consonant with ḥaṭef
qameṣ. As remarked in §I.1.20., when the alveolar has vocalic
shewa in this environment, as in the word ‫רּופה‬
ָּ ִ֔ ‫[ ְצ‬sˁɑ.rˁuː.ˈfɔː]
‘refined (fs)’ (2 Sam. 22.31), the resh was in the same foot as the
alveolar and had a pharyngealized apico-alveolar realization.
This reflects the fact that the domain of the conditioning of the
allophones of resh was the foot rather than the syllable:

[(sˁɑ.rˁuː.) (ˈfɔː)]

(. *) (ˈ*)

The realization of the resh in ‫[ ֳצ ִרַי‬sˁɔ.ˈʀ̟iː] as an uvular can

be interpreted as reflecting the fact that such a ḥaṭef qameṣ on a
non-guttural consonant was in a separate foot from that of the
following syllable:

[(sˁɔ.) (ˈʀ̟iː)]

(*) (ˈ*)

The foot containing the ḥaṭef qameṣ consists of light mono-

moraic syllable CV. Metrical phonologists term this a ‘degenerate

179
See the commentary on Sefer Yeṣira by Saadya Gaon (ed. Lambert
1891, 79) and the sources cited in Khan (1995, 70–71).
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 435

foot’, since feet would normally be expected to be bisyllabic or

bimoraic (Prince 1990; Kager 2007, 200–201). Such degenerate
feet are tolerated in some languages, but often only under certain
conditions, such as peripheral position or main stress. In Tiberian
Hebrew, a degenerate foot consisting of a light CV syllable is only
tolerated with a lax vowel quality of qameṣ or segol. Furthermore,
it is only allowed if it is immediately followed by a stronger bi-
moraic syllable (CVV or CVC). This is analogous to the fact that
a light epenthetic CV syllable, represented by a shewa or a ḥaṭef
vowel, is only allowed if it is bound prosodically with a following
bimoraic syllable in the same foot. This can be captured by pro-
posing metrical tree structures such as the following:

Word Word

w s w s

φ φ φ φ

w s s s s

[(sˁɑ. rˁuː) (ˈfɔː)] [(sˁɔ.) (ˈʀ̟iː)]

Key: w = weak, s = strong, φ = foot

These trees show that CV syllables with lexical vowels have

at a higher metrical level the same rhythmic relationship with
what follows as does a CV epenthetic vowel within a foot. The
bimoraic syllable following a lexical vowel is stronger than the
436 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

lexical vowel on a higher metrical level, just as a bimoraic sylla-

ble is stronger than a preceding epenthetic CV within a foot.
A series of two light CV syllables is not tolerated, and a foot
with the syllabic structure CVCV is not licit. So a degenerate CV
foot cannot be combined with a preceding monomoraic syllable
of a vocalic shewa of a preposition or a short /u/ of the
conjunctive vav. In such cases the ḥaṭef qameṣ vowel is elided and
in this respect it behaves like a vocalic shewa, e.g.

ִַ [bið.ˈmiː] (Isa. 38.10 ‘in the silence of’ versus ‫( ֳד ִ ִׂ֖מי‬Isa.

‫ּב ְד ִ ָ֥מי‬
62.6)

ְ [wusˁ.ˈrˁiː] (Gen. 37.25 ‘and balm’) versus ‫( ֳצ ִרַי‬Gen.

‫ּוצ ִ ַ֣רי‬
43.11)

Another repair strategy is to lengthen a preceding short

vowel, as is found when the degenerate foot is preceded by
interrogative he, e.g.

‫יןַּבגִ ְל ִ֔ ָּעד‬
ְ ‫ַא‬ ַ֣ ֵ ‫[ ַה ֳצ ִרי‬haː.sˁɔ.ˈʀ̟iː] ‘is there no balm in Gilead?’ (Jer.
8.22)

Another way in which syllables with lexical vowels behave

like vocalic shewa is in the retraction of the accent (nesiga). It was
established in §I.2.6. that nesiga operates within the domain of
metrical feet rather than syllables and the general rule is that it
retracts not further than the foot that immediately precedes the
word-final foot. In a construction such as ‫‘ ָּ ַּ֣ב ֳמ ֵתיַ ָּ ֹ֑עב‬the heights of
the clouds’ (Isa. 14.14) with a CV syllable containing a lexical
ḥaṭef qameṣ vowel, the foot of this syllable is ignored and the
stress retracts back to a syllable that is the third foot from the
end:
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 437

[ˈbɔː mɔ θeː]

ˈ(*) (*) (*)

It would seem, therefore, that a degenerate foot containing

a short CV syllable with a lexical short vowel was ignored by
nesiga and so such a syllable behaves like the syllable of an epen-
ֶ ‫‘ ָּ ַ֣ר ֲח ָּק‬it is
thetic vowel that does not have its own foot, as in ‫הַמנִּ י‬
far from me’ (Job 21.16):
[ˈʀ̟ɔː ħa.qɔ̟ ː]

ˈ(*) (. *)

Nevertheless, there is evidence that such ḥaṭef qameṣ and

ḥaṭef segol lexical vowels where metrically stronger than vocalic
shewa due to their being parsed in a separate foot. Some reflec-
tions of the higher degree of metrical strength of a ḥaṭef qameṣ
on non-guttural consonants in words like ‫ ֳד ִמי‬include the follow-
ing.
These short [ɔ] vowels represented by ḥaṭef qameṣ can re-
ceive a secondary stress, in which case they are lengthened and
are represented by a simple qameṣ sign in the vocalization, e.g.,

‫( ָּק ָּד ִִׁ֔שים‬Exod. 29.37 ‘holinesses’)

[ˌqɔ̟ ː.ðɔː.ˈʃiː.im]

ˌ(*) (*) ˈ(* .)

Such secondary stress, marked in this case by a major gaʿya,

occurs, in principle, two syllables back from the main stress at
the end of the word (§I.2.8.2.1.). Secondary stress does not occur
in words with vocalic shewa in this position, since the vowel is
epenthetic and is metrically weak, e.g.
438 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

‫‘ ְד ָּב ִרים‬words’

[da.vɔː.ˈʀ̟iː.im]

(. *) ˈ(* .)

In some early Tiberian Masoretic manuscripts, moreover,

qameṣ is written in place of ḥaṭef qameṣ also in pretonic syllables
that do not take secondary stress, e.g.,

II Firkovitch Evr. II B 10: ‫‘ ָּצ ִרַי‬balm’ (Gen. 43.11, most manu-

scripts have ‫)צ ִרַי‬
ֳ

L: ‫‘ יִ גָּ ֶ ֹ֑פנּּו‬he will strike him’ (1 Sam. 26.10, A and most manu-
scripts have ‫)יִ גֳַ ֶ ֹ֑פנּּו‬

The same applies to cases of ḥaṭef segol that sporadically

occur under non-guttural consonants, e.g.,

L: ‫‘ ּו ְב ֶצ ְל ֶצ ִלים‬and with cymbals’ (2 Sam. 6.5, most manuscripts

have ‫)ּו ְב ֶצ ְל ֱצ ִלים‬

I.2.8. VARIATION IN THE DURATION OF LONG VOWELS

I.2.8.1. Syllables with the Main Stress and

Unstressed Syllables
According to the general principles of vowel length (§I.2.2.),
vowels represented by basic vowel signs are long when they are
either (i) in a stressed syllable or (ii) in an unstressed open sylla-
ble. There was, however, some variation in the relative duration
of such long vowels. Some details of this variation can be recon-
structed from the medieval sources.
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 439

I.2.8.1.1. Stressed and Unstressed Vowels

We learn from some sources that vowels in stressed syllables were
longer than long vowels in unstressed syllables. This was most
clearly formulated in the grammatical treatises of the Qimḥi
family, e.g. Joseph Qimḥi, Sefer Zikkaron:
The big vowels are always long unless the stress is adjacent
to them [i.e. they are in an unstressed syllable], e.g. ‫ׁש ַמר‬:
ָּ
the stress is on the mem, so you do not lengthen the qameṣ
of the shin.180

David Qimḥi, Sefer Mikhlol:

If adjacent to the ‘big’ vowel there is another vowel, either
‘small’ or ‘big’, and the stress falls on the letter next to it,
you shorten the first vowel even though it is ‘big’, e.g. ַ‫זָּ ַ ַּ֤כ ְר ִתי‬
ַ‫‘ ָּלְך‬I remember for you’ (Jer. 2.2): here the stress is on the
kaf and you lengthen the stressed vowel despite the fact
that it is ‘small’ Just as you lengthen this vowel, so you
shorten the vowel of the zayin, although this is qameṣ.181

180
Bacher (ed.) (1888, 17): ַ‫הגדולותַישַלהםַעיכובַואיחורַבכלַקריאתםַחוץַאם‬
‫טעםַהתיבהַסמוךַלהַכמוַׁש ַמרַהטעםַבמ׳׳םַלאַתאריךַקמצותַהשי׳׳ן‬
ָּ . The Qimḥis
classified the Hebrew vowels into ‘big’ vowels and ‘small’ vowels
according to their quantity. The ‘big’ vowels were ṣere, ḥolem and long
qameṣ, shureq, and ḥireq. The ‘small’ vowels were pataḥ, segol, qameṣ
ḥaṭuf, short ḥireq and qibbuṣ.
181
Ed. Rittenberg (1862, 137b–138a): ַ‫ואםַתהיהַבצדַהתנועהַהגדולהַתנועה‬
ַ‫אחרתַקטנהַוגדולהַובאותַאשרַלצדהַטעםַאתהַמשפילַהתנועהַהראשונהַאע׳׳פַשהיא‬
ַ‫גדולהַ כמוַזכרתיַלךַהנהַהטעםַבכ׳׳ףַהיאַתנועהַקטנהַואע׳׳פַכןַתעמידנהַמפניַהטעם‬
‫שבהַולפיַשתעמידנהַתשפילַקריאתַהזי׳׳ןַאע׳׳פַשהיאַקמוצה‬.
440 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Given that the Karaite transcriptions and other medieval

sources182 clearly indicate that vowels in unstressed open
syllables were long, these statements by the Qimḥis were
probably not intended to mean that the unstressed long vowels
were reduced completely to short ones but rather that these were
still long relative to the short vowels although they were not as
long as vowels that were lengthened by stress. This relative
quantity difference between stressed and unstressed long vowels
can also be inferred from other grammatical works, e.g. the
epitome of Saadya’s grammatical work known as Kitāb Naḥw al-
ʿIbrānī ‘The Book of the Grammar of Hebrew’, which was
published by Eldar (1981, 128):

ִ ‫‘ ָ֥ק‬Arise! Shine out!’ (Isa. 60.1) you

In the words: ‫ּומי ַ ִׂ֖א ִֹורי‬
lengthen the beginning of the word because it is feminine,
ַ֣ ִ ַ‫‘ ְליִׂ֖ ֹום‬for the day
but when it is masculine, you say ‫קּומיַ ְל ַ ֹ֑עד‬
that I arise as a witness’ (Zeph. 3.8), lengthening the end
of the word because it is masculine.183

This tendency to reduce the duration of the long vowel in

unstressed syllables may explain the occurrence of ḥaṭef qameṣ in
place of the expected qameṣ in the form ‫ה ֳח ַד ְל ִתי‬
ֶַ [hɛːħɔðaːaltiː]
‘shall I cease?’ (Jud. 9.9) or in place of the expected ḥolem in ‫ָּ ַּ֣ב ֳמ ֵתי‬

182
E.g. Saadya’s commentary on Sefer Yeṣira (ed. Lambert 1891, 76–77).
183
ַ‫הַותקולַפיַמאַהואַמדכרַליום‬
̇ ‫וריַתמדַאולַאלכלמהַלאנהאַמונת‬
̇ ‫ַקומיַא‬
ִׂ֖ ̇‫מתלַקו‬
̇
]‫רַאלכלמהַלאנהַמ[דכר‬
̇ ‫דַתמדַאכ‬
̇ ‫יַלע‬
ַ ‫קומ‬.
ַ֣ The concept of lengthening vs. non-
lengthening/shortening in this passage and also in the extracts from the
Qimḥis corresponds to the use of the terms madd and qaṣr in the Arabic
tajwīd literature to denote ‘extra length’ and ‘normal length’
respectively, cf. Bravmann (1934, 76).
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 441

[ˈbɔːmɔθeː] ‘the heights of’ (Isa. 14.14) (cf. §I.2.7.). It is likely

that orthoepic efforts were made to keep the relatively weak un-
stressed open syllables long and cases such as ‫ ֶה ֳח ַד ְל ִתַי‬and ‫ָּ ַּ֣ב ֳמ ֵתי‬
reflect lapses in this orthoepy.
In the Karaite transcriptions, an unstressed ḥolem within
words is sometimes represented without a mater lectionis, reflect-
ing its shortening. This applies to the following example, in
which a ḥolem occurs in an unstressed syllable before the second-
ary stress:

ۜࣤ ‫صوث‬
‫ۚيخام‬ ٘٘
ۢ ‫وثۖف‬ٟ (BL Or 2543 MS A, fol. 7r, 8 | L [BHS]:

‫יכם‬
ִֶ֔ ‫ֹות‬
ִ ‫פֹוצ‬ ְ Jer. 25.34 ‘and your dispersions’)
ַ֣ ‫ּות‬

In less careful reading, the duration of these unstressed long

vowels was regularly reduced. This is reflected, for example, by
a Karaite transcription of the Psalms (Khan 1990a, Genizah MS
13), in which long qameṣ in unstressed open syllables is not tran-
scribed by an Arabic mater lectionis, e.g.

‫( علاو‬Genizah MS 13, Khan 1990a, 13 | L [BHS]: ‫ ָּע ָּלַ֣יו‬Psa.

109.6 ‘against him’)

‫( شلاح‬Genizah MS 13, Khan 1990a, 13 | L [BHS]: ‫ ֵָּּׁ֨ש ַלַּ֤ח‬Psa.

111.9 ‘he sent’).

In this manuscript and also in other Karaite transcriptions

a long vowel in a closed syllable in an unstressed word bound by
maqqef to what follows is, likewise, sometimes transcribed with-
out a mater lectionis, e.g.
442 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

‫( هذ‬Genizah MS 13, Khan 1990a, 13 | L [BHS]: ‫ הֹוד־‬Psa.

111.3 ‘majesty’)

‫( هن‬Genizah MS 13, Khan 1990a, 13 | L [BHS]: ‫ הֹון־‬Psa.

112.3 ‘wealth’)

‫ ࣦۚكنࣦۜا ۜرࣦث‬-‫( ࣦ۠يم‬BL Or 2546, fol. 118v, 5 | L [BHS]: ‫ם־כ ֶ ִׂ֖נּ ִֶֽרת‬
ִ ָּ‫ י‬Num.

34.11 ‘sea of Chinnereth’)

ࣦ‫ ۟فرۖعو‬-‫( لۛب‬BL Or 2540, fol. 20v, 7 | L [BHS]: ‫ב־פ ְרע ַֹה‬

ַ ‫ ֵל‬Exod.

7.22 ‘the heart of Pharaoh’)

‫( بۛثࣦا۟بوث۠ ام‬BL Or 2540, fol. 17r, 2 | L [BHS]: ‫ית־אב ָּ ֹֹ֑תם‬

ֲ ‫ ֵב‬Exod.

6.14 ‘the house of their fathers’)

As has been remarked in §I.2.7., in some manuscripts words

that normally have ḥaṭef qameṣ in a pre-stress syllable are vocal-
ized with qameṣ, such as II Firkovitch Evr. II B 10: ‫‘ ָּצ ִרַי‬balm’ (Gen.
ֳ L: ‫‘ ִיגָּ ֶ ֹ֑פנּּו‬he will strike him’ (1
43.11, most manuscripts have ‫)צ ִרַי‬,
Sam. 26.10, A and most manuscripts have ‫)יִ גֳַ ֶ ֹ֑פנּּו‬. This could reflect
the application of this orthoepic measure to these vowels also,
which resulted in their being lengthened. Moreover, in some me-
dieval manuscripts with Non-Standard Tiberian vocalization this
orthoepic tendency is reflected by the frequent marking of gaʿya
on the pre-stress unstressed syllable, e.g. Vatican MS Urbinati 2
(Yeivin 1980, 250–51), e.g.

‫ׁשים‬
ַַ֣ ִ ֹ ‫ׁש ַל‬ ַ֣ ִ ‫ ִּב ְׁש‬Ezek. 1.1 ‘in the thirtieth [year]’)
ְַ ‫( ִּב‬L [BHS]: ‫ֹלׁשים‬
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 443

‫ה ַָּיַֿ֣ה‬ ָּ ‫ ָּה ַֹ֣י‬Ezek. 1.3 ‘it was’)

ַ ָּ ַ‫( ָּה ַֹ֣יֿה‬L [BHS]: ‫הַה ָּיַ֣ה‬

I.2.8.1.2. Deḥiq
In the Masoretic literature it is reported that a long vowel in
word-final position is shortened by the phenomenon known as
deḥiq (Aramaic: ‘compressed’). The long vowel in question is
usually qameṣ [ɔː] or segol [ɛː], which are lax, rather than the
tense long vowels shureq [uː], ḥolem [oː] and ḥireq [iː].184 The
compression takes place typically when (i) the final lax vowels
qameṣ and segol occur in a word that has the stress on the penul-
timate syllable and is read with a conjunctive accent or when the
word has maqqef and (ii) the following word has stress on its in-
itial syllable, or at least on a full vowel after an initial shewa, i.e.
on the initial metrical foot. On account of the conjunctive accent
or the maqqef, the first word is closely bound prosodically with
the following word. When a vowel is in deḥiq, the consonant at
the beginning of the following word has dagesh,185 e.g.,

L: ‫‘ וְ ָּא ִ ַ֣ע ָּידה ַ ִָּּ֔בם‬I shall cause to witness against them’ (Deut.
31.28)

L: ַֹ֑ ָּ ַ‫(‘ ָּע ֶלַ֣יך‬you breached) for yourself a breach’ (Gen. 38.29)
‫פ ֶרץ‬

L: ְ ‫‘ ַ ַ֣א ְר ָּצ‬to the land of Canaan’ (Gen. 12.5)

‫הַכ ִ֔ ַנ ַען‬

L: ַַ֣ ֵ ‫‘ ִמ‬who are these to you?’ (Gen. 33.5)

‫י־א ֶַלּהַ ַָֹּ֑לְּך‬

184
Phonetic studies of other languages have shown that, all other things
being equal, unstressed lax vowels are shorter than unstressed tense
vowels; cf., for example, Delattre and Hohenberg (2009).
185
For further details concerning deḥiq see Yeivin (1980, 292–93).
444 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

L: ‫ה־טֹוב‬
ַ ‫‘ ְּב ִמ ְר ֶע‬in good pasture’ (Ezek. 34.14)

L: ‫‘ ִת ְהיֶ ה־ּבֹו‬will be in it’ (Josh. 2.19)

L: ַַ֣‫ה־לּך‬ ַַ ‘you make for yourself’ (Prov. 24.6)

ְ ‫ת ֲע ֶש‬

According to Hidāyat al-Qārīʾ, the final vowel here ‘is not

dwelt upon or prolonged in pronunciation,’186 ‘it does not have
an exhalation of breath but is very compressed.’187 In an anony-
mous Masoretic treatise, the syllable containing a vowel in deḥiq
is described as ‘shortened’ (makhṭūf).188 The vowel can be repre-
sented, therefore, as half-long, e.g. ‫[ וְ ָּא ִ ַ֣ע ָּידה ַ ִָּּ֔בם‬vɔʔɔːˈʕiːðɔˑ
ˈbbɔːɔm].
When the first word is connected by maqqef without an ac-
cent, Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ refers to the construction as ʾathe me-raḥiq
(Aramaic: ‘coming from far’).189 This is because the conjunctive
accent before the deḥiq is further away, on the second word be-
fore the main accent, e.g.

L: ‫ַל ְׁש ִ ֹ֑מי‬ ִׂ֖ ַ ֶ‫‘ ָ֥הּוא ַיִ ְבנ‬He will build a house for my name’ (2
ִ ‫ה־ּביִ ת‬
Sam. 7.13)

186
‫לאַיתאנאַולאַיטולַפיַאלנטקַבדלךַאלמלך‬, Long version, edition in vol. 2
of this book, §II.L.1.7.4.
187
‫ליסַפיהַתנפסַבלַהוַמציקַגדא‬,
̇ Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book,
§II.L.1.7.4.
188
Bod. Heb. d 33, fol. 16: ‫‘ כאןַאלחרףַאלדיַתחתהַאלתלתהַנקטַמכטוף‬the
letter under which the segol occurs is shortened’.
189
Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book,
§II.L.1.7.5.
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 445

L: ‫ה־פ ֶֹ֑לא‬ ַ ‫‘ ֲה ַל ֵמּ ִ ָ֥ת‬Do you work wonders for the dead?’ (Psa.
ֶ ‫יםַת ֲע ֶש‬
88.11)

L: ְ ‫‘ ָ֥ס ָּּור‬Turn aside, sit here’ (Ruth 4.1)

‫הַׁש ָּבה־ ִֹׂ֖פה‬

Some cases that are identified as ʾathe me-raḥiq have a dis-

junctive on the second word before the main accent, e.g.

L: ‫ה־ּבהּ‬
ֹ֑ ָּ ‫ִׂ֖יה ַוְ ֶא ְד ְר ָּׁש‬ ֵ ‫‘ וְ ֵא ְל ָּ ָ֥כ‬that I may go to her and inquire of
ָּ ‫הַא ֶל‬
her’ (1 Sam. 28.7)

This suggests that the main conditioning factor for the com-
pression of the vowel is not the preceding accent but rather the
status of the word with maqqef as prosodically subordinate to the
following word. So these types of cases reflect the same basic
phenomenon as cases of deḥiq where the word with the main ac-
cent is preceded by a word with a conjunctive accent. Some Mas-
oretic treatises, indeed, use the term ʾathe me-raḥiq to refer to all
cases of deḥiq.190
When unstressed tense vowels, such as the high vowels
shureq and ḥireq, occur at the end of a word in the configurations
for deḥiq that have just been described, the vowel is generally not
compressed and there is no dagesh on the following word, e.g.

L: ‫רַהֹור ְד ֵ ַ֣תנּוַ ִ֔בֹו‬

ַ ַ֣ ֶ ‫[ ֲא‬hoːʀ̟aðˈtʰeːnuː ˈvoː] ‘through which you let
‫ׁש‬
us down’ (Josh. 2.18)

L: ָ֥ ‫[ ָּב ַח ְר ִתי‬vɔːˈħaːaʀ̟tʰiː ˈvoː] ‘I have chosen him’ (1 Chron.

‫ַבֹו‬
28.6)

190
E.g. the treatise published by Baer and Strack (1879, §29). See the
remarks of Dotan (1969).
446 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

In such cases where the first word ends in a tense vowel, a

gaʿya is sporadically marked on this vowel in early manuscripts,
alerting the reading to the fact that the vowel should be given its
full length and should not undergo compression through deḥiq,
e.g.

L: ַ‫יַׁש ַער‬
ַ ‫יל‬ ַּ֤ ִ ‫‘ ֵה‬wail, oh gate’ (Isa. 14.31)
ִַ ‫יל‬

This gaʿya is most commonly marked when the second

word begins with a guttural consonant and cannot take a dagesh.
In such cases, compression of the final vowel does not occur
whatever its quality, e.g.

L: ָ֛ ֵ ‫‘ ֲע ָּב ֶ ָ֥דיך‬these servants of yours’ (2 Kings 1.13)

‫ַא ֶלּה‬

A: ַ‫‘ ָּע ִ ַּ֤ש ָּיתהַ ֶח ֶסד‬you did a kindness’ (1 Sam. 15.16)

A: ַ ‫‘ ָּר ִ ַּ֤א ִיתיַ ֶא ֶמ‬I saw yesterday’ (2 Kings 9.26)

‫ׁש‬

L: ַ ‫‘ יַַ ְע ִלימּו‬the people hide’ (Lev. 20.4)

‫ַעם‬

It is also marked on lax vowels before non-guttural conso-

nants that do not take an expected dagesh in conditions suitable
for deḥiq, e.g.191

L: ‫ח‬ ֶ ‫‘ וְ ָּ ַּ֤ע ָּש‬and he keeps the Passover’ (Num. 9.14)

ַ ‫הַפ ַס‬

A: ַ ֶ‫‘ ָּ ַּ֤ע ָּלהַ ָּמו‬death has come up’ (Jer. 9.20)

‫ת‬

The dagesh that occurs on the first letter of the second word
in deḥiq constructions, such as ‫וְ ָּא ִ ַ֣ע ָּידהַ ִָּּ֔בם‬, marked the gemination
of the consonant. This is likely to have been a strategy to mark
clearly a boundary between the two words, which was in danger

191
For details of the occurrence of the gaʿya after the stress see Yeivin
(1968, 188–91).
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 447

of being lost due to the shortening of the vowel (§I.3.1.9.). A

short vowel was not licit in word-final position. The gemination
of the consonant was a repair strategy that compensated for the
loss of duration in the preceding vowel and closed the word-final
syllable. This was a fortition of the onset of the syllable in the
second word. This fortition, it seems, was facilitated by the fact
that the syllable was strong due to the incidence on it of the main
stress:192

‫וְ ָּא ִ ַ֣ע ָּידהַ ִָּּ֔בם‬

[vɔ.ʔɔː.ˈʕiː.ðɔˑ b.ˈbɔː.ɔm]

Such a process applied also to constructions in which the

interrogative word ‫ ָּמה‬is joined to the following word by maqqef
such as the following:

L: ‫ה־ז ֹאת‬
ֹ֑ ‫מ‬ַַ ‘what is this?’ (Exod. 13.14)

L: ‫ן־לי‬ ִ ‫‘ ַמ‬what will you give me?’ (Gen. 15.2)

ִ ִ֔ ‫ה־ת ֶת‬

The fact that the vowel in the interrogative word in such

constructions is pataḥ can be interpreted as reflecting a complete
shortening of the vowel at an early period. The long Tiberian
qameṣ vowel /ɔ̄/ developed historically from a long */ā/. A short
*/a/, on the other hand, retained its non-rounded quality of /a/

192
A parallel to such a process of compensatory gemination of a word-
initial consonant is the so-called raddoppiamento sintattico in spoken
Italian, e.g. città bellissima [t͡ʃitˈta‿bbelˈlissima] ‘beautiful city’ (Nespor
and Vogel 2012, 165–74). A parallel to the restriction of compensatory
gemination to consonants following lax vowels is found in Neo-Mandaic
(Häberl 2009, 76).
448 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

in the Tiberian tradition. The pataḥ quality in the interrogative

word reflects the shortening of */ā/ to */a/ at a period before
*/ā/ shifted to /ɔ̄/. The fact that deḥiq constructions such as
‫ וְ ָּא ִ ַ֣ע ָּידהַ ִָּּ֔בם‬have qameṣ in the final syllable of the first word rather
than pataḥ either reflects a later date of the shortening, after */ā/
had shifted quality to /ɔ̄/, or reflects a process whereby the long
vowel did not reduce completely to a short vowel and remained
sufficiently long to undergo the quality shift.
The Karaite Arabic transcriptions, most of which indicate
long vowels by Arabic matres lectionis, represent the final qameṣ
and segol in deḥiq constructions, with a mater lectionis, e.g.

ࣦ‫ب۠ا ۖخ‬ٟ ‫( ۖوا۠عيۚد۠ ا‬BL Or 2551 fol. 41r, 8 | L [BHS]: ‫הַּבְך‬

ֹ֑ ָּ ‫ וְ ָּא ִ ַ֣ע ָּיד‬Psa.

81.9 ‘I shall testify for you’)

‫( و ۚۖسيم ع۠ الۜ ࣵاه۠ ا ۠كࣦارۚ يم‬BL Or 2549 fol. 145r, 1 | L [BHS]: ‫וְ ִשים־‬
‫ַכ ִ ִׂ֖רים‬ ָּ ‫ ָּע ֶ ָ֥ל‬Ezek. 4.2 ‘and set up against it the battering rams’)
ָּ ‫יה‬

‫ ࣦ۠شام‬-‫ۚذم۠ ا‬ٟۖ ‫( ۖون‬BL Or 2549 fol. 64r, 1 | L [BHS]: ‫ה־שּׁם‬

ֹ֑ ָּ ‫ וְ נִ ְד ָּמ‬Jer.

8.14 ‘and let us be silent there’)

These show that in the Tiberian reading tradition, which is

what most of the transcriptions reflect, the final vowel was not
fully reduced to a short vowel. This is likely to have been an or-
thoepic measure to prevent complete shortening.
The Babylonian tradition exhibits a lesser tendency than
the Tiberian tradition for such an orthoepic measure. In many
manuscripts with compound Babylonian vocalization, the vowel
at the end of the first word in a deḥiq construction is marked with
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 449

a ḥiṭfa sign, which indicates that it was pronounced as a short

vowel (Yeivin 1985, 338), e.g.193

‫[ ה֬שָבְע֔הֹ ֹל ִי‬hiʃʃɔːvʔɔ lliː] ‘swear to me’ (Gen. 21.23 | L [BHS]:

‫הַלּי‬
ַּ֤ ִ ‫)ה ֵָּּ֨שּׁ ְב ָּע‬
ִ

‫[ גַרְת֔הֹבָה‬gaˈrtʰɔ bbɔː] ‘[the land] where you have sojourned’

(Gen. 21.23 | L [BHS]: ‫הַּבהּ‬
ָּ ‫ַ)ג ְִָֽ֥ר ָּת‬

‫הֹטוב‬
ֹ ֶ‫[ בְמֲרְע‬bmarʕa ttˁoːv] ‘in good pasture’ (Ezek. 34.14 | L
[BHS]: ‫ה־טֹוב‬
ַ ‫)ּב ִמ ְר ֶע‬.
ְ

‫ֹבו‬
ֹ ‫[ תֽהְיֶה‬tihya bboː] ‘will be in it’ (Josh. 2.19 | L [BHS]:
‫)ת ְהיֶ ה־ּבֹו׃‬
ִ

Greek transcriptions also reflect a full shortening of the

vowel. This is seen in the transcription of the vowel correspond-
ing to Tiberian qameṣ with epsilon in the following example:194

ωσειεννα (Klostermann 1933, Heikel 1913, Gaisford 1842) |

L [BHS]: ‫הַנֹּ֑א‬
ָּ ‫יע‬ ִ Psa. 118.25 ‘save, I pray!’)
ָ֥ ָּ ‫הֹוׁש‬

Likewise, in modern reading traditions the vowel in deḥiq

constructions is read as short, e.g.

Baghdad

waʾəqbeˈreːhašˈšam (Morag 1977, 37 | L [BHS]: ‫ם‬

ַ ‫ַשּׁ‬
ָּ ‫וָּ ֶא ְק ְּב ֶ ַּ֤ר ָּה‬
Gen. 48.7 ‘and I buried her there’)

Aleppo

193
Data supplied by Shai Heijmans.
194
Data supplied by Ben Kantor.
450 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

neːlxašˈšam (Katz 1981, 30 | L [BHS]: ‫הַשּׁם‬

ִָּ֔ ‫ ֵנַ֣לֲ ָּכ‬1 Sam. 9.6
‘let us go there’)

The Karaite transcriptions show that also the pataḥ of the

interrogative word ‫ ַמה‬in constructions such as ‫ה־ז ֹאת‬
ֹ֑ ‫מ‬ַַ (Exod.
13.14) was pronounced long. Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ refers to the com-
pression of this long vowel (see below), so it can be represented
as half-long, like other long vowels compressed in deḥiq,195 e.g.

‫[ م۟ اࣦلࣦ۠اخ‬maˑ ˈllɔːɔχ] (BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 64r, 7 | L [BHS]:

ָּ ‫ ַמ‬Gen. 21.17 ‘What is to you (fs)?’)
‫ה־לְַּ֣ך‬
ࣤ
‫[ م۟ اࣦ ۚتتۜنࣦلࣦى‬maˑ ttʰittʰɛn ˈliː] (BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 57v, 8 |
L [BHS]: ‫ן־לִַ֔י‬ ִ ‫ ַמ‬Gen. 15.2 ‘What will you (ms) give to
ִ ‫ה־ת ֶת‬
me?’)

‫[ م۟ اࣦ ۖش ࣦࣤمو‬maˑ ʃʃaˈmoː] (BL Or 2540, fol. 9r, 7 | L [BHS]: ‫ַמה־‬

‫ ְשּׁ ִ֔מֹו‬Exod. 3.13 ‘What is his name?’)

‫[ ما زوث‬maˑ ˈzzoːoθ] (BL Or 2542, fol. 60v, 11 | L [BHS]:

ֹ֑ ‫ ַמ‬Exod. 13.14 ‘What is this?’).
‫ה־ז ֹאת‬

In this light, we can understand the qere note in Exod. 4.2:

L: ‫ַמ ֶַַ֣זה‬ ‫מהַזהַקר‬

ַ̇

195
Constructions with ‫ ַמה־‬followed by dagesh are considered to be ʾathe
me-raḥiq in the Masoretic treatise published in Baer and Strack (1879,
§29).
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 451

This was pronounced [maˑ-ˈzzɛː] in the reading tradition, as

shown by the Karaite transcriptions, e.g.

‫( م۟ ازࣦۜا‬BL Or 2540, fol. 10v, 3 | L [BHS]: qere ‫מהַזה‬, ketivַ‫ַמֶַַ֣זה‬

Exod. 4.2 ‘What is this?’)

The qere note indicates that the appropriate orthography

for the reading [maː-ˈzzɛː] is ‫מהַזה‬, not ‫מזה‬.
There are some Karaite transcriptions that reflect a less
careful reading tradition and represent the pataḥ in ‫ ַמה‬as short,
e.g.

‫( مياقار‬Genizah MS 13, Khan 1990a, 156 | L [BHS]: ‫ַמה־יָּּ ָּ ָָּ֥קר‬

‘How precious!’ Psa. 36.8)

‫( ملخا‬Genizah MS 13, Khan 1990a, 156 | L [BHS]: ַַ֣‫ַמה ְ־לּך‬

‘What ails you?’ Psa. 114.5)

Manuscripts with compound Babylonian vocalization indi-

cate that the pataḥ continued to be pronounced short in the Bab-
ylonian tradition (Yeivin 1985, 338–39):

‫[ מֶהֹזאת‬ma ˈzzoːθ] ‘What is it?’ (Exod. 13.14 | L [BHS]: ‫ַמה־‬

‫)ז ֹאת‬
ֹ֑

‫[ מֶהֹיֵעָשַה‬ma jjeːʕɔːˈsaː] ‘What will be done?’ (Exod. 2.4 | L

[BHS]: ‫)מה־יֵּ ָּע ֶ ִׂ֖שה‬
ַ

Furthermore, there is an extant Greek transcript in Origen’s

Hexapla that represents the vowel corresponding to the Tiberian
pataḥ with epsilon, indicating that it was read short:196

196
Data supplied by Ben Kantor.
452 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

μεββεσε` (Ambrosiana palimpsest | L [BHS]: ‫ה־ּב ַצע‬

ָ֥ ֶ ‫ ַמ‬Psa.
30.10 ‘what profit?’)

The lengthening of the pataḥ in ‫ ַמה‬appears, therefore, to be

an orthoepic measure in some core streams of the Tiberian tradi-
tion to keep the written word prosodically separate from the fol-
lowing word.
Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ classifies constructions with ‫ ַמה‬followed by
dagesh as deḥiq:
The compression [of a long vowel] may occur in a word
that does not have an accent but is a small word, as in ‫ַמה־‬
ָ֥ ַ ‫‘ ת‬whatever (your soul) says’ (1 Sam. 20.4), ‫ה־ּב ִ ָ֥ני‬
‫ֹאמר‬ ְ ֶ‫‘ ז‬This
is my son’ (1 Kings 3.23), ‫ה־ּב ִרי‬
ֶ֭ ְ ‫‘ ַמ‬What, my son?’ (Prov.
31.2).197

According to Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, therefore, the pataḥ in ‫ַמה־‬

‫ֹאמר‬
ָ֥ ַ ‫( ת‬1 Sam. 20.4) and the qameṣ in ‫( וְ ָּא ִ ַ֣ע ָּידה ַ ִָּּ֔בם‬Deut. 31.28) in
the Tiberian tradition are both long vowels that have undergone
compression. The status of the pataḥ in ‫ ַמה‬as a long vowel must
have been the result of later orthoepic lengthening, since the
presence of the pataḥ clearly shows that it had undergone short-
ening at some earlier period. Likewise, despite the compression
described in the Hidāya of other vowels in deḥiq, efforts were
made in the Tiberian tradition to retain their length, to keep them
clearly separate from what follows. In traditions that had less
concern for orthoepy, such as the Babylonian tradition, the vow-
els were read as short in both contexts.

197
Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.7.4.
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 453

When constructions with ‫ ַמה‬have the configuration that is

optimal for minor gaʿya, the pataḥ is marked with minor gaʿya
and is lengthened by this musical gaʿya rather than by orthoepic
lengthening. These constructions have disjunctive accents and
the pataḥ in the ‫ ַמה‬in the closed syllable is separated from the
stressed syllable either (i) by another closed syllable, followed by
vocal shewa or (ii) by an open syllable followed by a ḥaṭef with
an identical quality (i.e. patterns that may be represented thus:
‫מ ְת ַפ ְל ְפ ִלִַ֔ים‬,ִ ‫ ִמ ְת ַק ְט ִ֔ ִלים‬and ‫)מ ְת ַפ ֲע ִלִַ֔ים‬,
ִ e.g.198

L: ַ‫‘ ַמה־נַּ ֲעבֹד‬What we will serve?’ (Exod. 10.26)

L: ַ ‫‘ ַּומ‬and what will you do?’ (Josh. 7.9)

‫ה־ת ֲע ֵ ִׂ֖שה‬

Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ includes the last example ‫ה־ת ֲע ֵ ִׂ֖שה‬

ַ ‫( ַּומ‬Josh.
7.9) in the section on deḥiq indicating that the pataḥ vowel was
compressed. It can be represented, therefore, [umaˑ-ttaːʕaˈseː]
with half-long [aˑ]. This would be compatible with minor gaʿya,
which results in only half-lengthening of the vowel it falls on
(§I.2.8.2.2.). Karaite transcriptions transcribe the pataḥ in these
circumstances with a mater lectionis, e.g.

‫( ما ناعبوذ‬BL Or 2542, fol. 56v, 10 | L [BHS]: ‫ ַמה־נַּ ֲעב ַֹד‬Exod.

10.26 ‘What we will serve’)

I.2.8.1.3. The Impact of Musical Accents on Duration

The duration of a given stressed vowel relative to another
stressed vowel clearly varied according to the musical accent it

198
For more details concerning the minor gaʿya see Yeivin (1980, 244–
245).
454 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

carried. It may be assumed that words with disjunctive accents,

which marked a syntactic boundary, were chanted at a slower
tempo than words with conjunctives. This is reflected by several
phenomena connected with the occurrence of the secondary
stress that will be discussed in §I.2.8.2.199 Stressed vowels with
disjunctives were, therefore, generally longer than those with
conjunctives.200 Moreover, the phenomenon of pausal forms
suggests that the lengthening of stressed syllables of words
occurring at a major syntactic division has deep historical roots
in the reading tradition.201
The duration of a vowel also varied according to the
musical motif of each accent. There are a number of allusions to
differences in the length of the various accents in the Masoretic
sources. Merkha, as its name suggests, is said to be a relatively

199
The practice of speakers of a language to lengthen the final word in
a syntactic phrase has been discussed in several places in the literature
on phonetics, e.g. O’Connor (1973, 256–60), Klatt (1975; 1976), Wight-
man (1992), Berkovits (1993; 1994, referring to Modern Hebrew), Turk
and Shattuck-Hufnagel (2007), Gabriel and Lleó (2011). It functions as
an important signal of the grammatical structure of the utterance. In
the Biblical Hebrew reading tradition the musical accents underscored
prosodic features which were inherent in the language (Dresher 1994).
200
Cf. the words of the thirteenth-century naqdan Yequtiʾel bar
Yehudah: ‫‘ איןַהעמדהַבמשרתיםַכמוַבמלכיםַולאַנכוןַלמושכםַכלַכך‬There is no
lengthening on the conjunctive accents as there is on the disjunctives
and it is not correct to make them long’ (Gumpertz 1958, 145).
201
The occurrence of qameṣ in place of pataḥ in pausal forms such as in
‫‘ ָּׁש ָּמר‬he guarded’ (Hos. 12.13), for example, must date to a period before
the */ā/ > /ɔ̄/ quality shift took place.
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 455

long accent.202 According to Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, the low, sustained

accents,203 viz. pashṭa, zaqef, ṭifḥa, ʾatnaḥ and silluq, were
lengthened with a concomitant modulation (hazz) and rise in
tone (rafʿ) if the syllable upon which they fell was followed by
another syllable, e.g. ‫‘ ַה ָּשּׁ ַ ִׂ֖מיִ ם‬heaven’ (Gen. 1.1), ‫‘ ָּה ָּא ֶרץ‬the earth’
(Gen. 1.1). If, however, they fell on the final syllable of a word,
they were chanted quickly without a modulation or rise in
tone.204 Durational differences of the stressed vowel were

202
Cf. Diqduqe ha-Ṭeʿamim (ed. Dotan 1967, 106): ‫מחוברתַלאחותהַבארוכה‬
‘joined to its partner with a long tone’, also Wickes (1887, 24), Ben-
David (1957b, 390).
203
The early sources divided the accents into three groups according to
the nature of their tone, two of the groups contained high tone accents
and the third low tone accents; cf. Yeivin (1980, 168), Eldar (2018, 85–
88).
204
Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, long version (ed. Eldar 2018, 86–87): ַ‫פכלַלחןַיבקא‬
ַ‫בעדהַמלךַפיַאלכלמהַאסתופיהַות[תוקף]ַפיהַולכלַלחןַלאַיבקאַבעדהַמלךַארסלה‬
‫‘ ולאַת[תוקף]ַפיה‬Every accent that has a vowel remaining after it in the
word you should give its full quantity and dwell on it. Every accent after
which there is no vowel remaining, however, you should read quickly
and not dwell on it’. The Hebrew Maḥberet ha-Tījān, a derivative of
Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ uses the Hebrew term hanada (‫ )הנדה‬as the equivalent
of hazz to denote ‘modulation’ (ed. J. Derenbourg 1871, 97); cf. also
Hommel (1917, 95). Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ and its derivative texts only lists
pashṭa/yetiv, zaqef and ʾatnaḥ in the category of low tone accent (Arabic
waḍʿ, Hebrew niṣṣav, šeḥiyya). The accents silluq and ṭifḥa are stated to
have had the same properties as the low tone accents in so far as they
were lengthened with a concomitant modulation and rise in tone if they
fell on a penultimate syllable. See Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ (ed. Eldar 2018, 85),
456 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

doubtless occasioned also by the musical structure of the other

accents, but these cannot be established from the sources with
any certainty.
The conjunctive accent preceding the disjunctive accent
pashṭa is merkha when the two stressed syllables are not separated
by another syllable (Yeivin 1980, 196), e.g.

L: ָ֥ ֵ ‘creating light’ (Isa. 45.7)

ַ‫יֹוצרַאֹור‬

L: ַ‫‘ ָּהיְ ָּ ָ֥תהַת ֹהּו‬was without form’ (Gen. 1.2)

Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ states with regard to such combinations:

When its word (i.e. the word with pashṭa) has only one
vowel (as in ַ‫יֹוצרַאֹור‬
ָ֥ ֵ ), you give the merkha its full value and
lengthen it, but when there are more (vowels) than that in
the word (with the pashṭa) (as in ‫הּו‬
ַ ֹ ‫) ָּהיְ ָּ ָ֥תה ַת‬, the merkha is
not lengthened’.205

Maḥberet ha-Tījān (ed. J. Derenbourg 1871, 97), Sefer Ṭaʿame ha-Miqra

(ed. Mercerus 1565, facsimile ed. 1978, Diii, a-b). The shift of ṭifḥa from
a high to a low tone in word final position is probably also alluded to
in Diqduqe ha-Ṭeʿamim (ed. Dotan, 1967, 106, 155): ַ‫במהרה ַבא ַלשיחה‬
‫[‘ וסמוך ַלה ַאתנחה ַלאחור ַמתוחה‬When it occurs on the final syllable] it
quickly passes to the category of low tone accents, and so the accent
ʾatnaḥ is close to its tone’.
205
Ed. Eldar (2018, 138): ַ‫אדא ַלם ַיכון ַפי ַכלמתה ַאלא ַמלך ַואחד ַאסתופית‬
̇
‫אַצארַפיַכלמתהַאזידַמןַדלךַלאַתוסתופאַאלמארכה‬
̇ ‫אלמארכהַוטולתהאַואד‬.
̇ In the
corresponding passage in the Hebrew Maḥberet ha-Tījān it is stated that
when the word with pashṭa has more than one vowel, readers ‘skip over’
(‫ )ידלגַבה‬the merkha and ‘cause its melisma to be swallowed’ (ַ‫מבליעים‬
‫( )בנעימתה‬ed. J. Derenbourg 1871, 95).
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 457

The reduction in the duration of the vowel with merkha was

evidently correlated with the increased length of the vowel with
pashṭa and the concomitant rise in tone. We learn from the
descriptions of the three different categories of tone in the
orthoepic treatises that the high tones had a greater intensity
(magnitude of sound) than the low tones. This is clearly
expressed in the following passage from the Arabic Maḥberet ha-
Tījān. The two high tones are termed ʾiʿlān (‘announcing’) and rafʿ
(‘raising’) and the low tone waḍʿ (‘laying down’):206
The meaning of the term ʾiʿlān is that you ... raise the pitch
of the voice and ‘make it known’ forcefully … The meaning
of the term waḍʿ is that you lower the pitch at which you
chant the word that has them [i.e. the low tone accents]
and you do not ‘make the voice known’ nor raise its pitch,
but rather you reduce its sound intensity .... The meaning
of the term rafʿ is that it is intermediate between ʾiʿlān and
waḍʿ.207

In physiological terms, when pashṭa occurred on a word

with two vowels and penultimate stress such as ‫הּו‬
ַ ֹ ‫ת‬, it required a
greater volume of lung air, both due to its increased duration and
to the rise in subglottal pressure necessary to bring about an
increase in intensity. One may, therefore, explain the reduction

206
For similar terminology in the surviving sections of Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ
see Eldar (2018, 85-88).
207
Ed. Neubauer (ed. 1891, 28):ַ‫ַתרפעַאלצותַותעלנה‬...ַ‫ומעניַאלאעלאןַהוַאנך‬
ַ‫ַומעניַאלוצעַהוַאן‬...ַ‫אליַפוקַבקווה‬:ַ‫יַהםַעליהאַולאַתעלןַאלצות‬
̇ ‫תחטַאלכלמהַאלד‬
̇
ַ‫ַומעניַאלרפעַאןַיכוןַמתוסטַביןַאלאעלאן‬...ַ‫עהַוצעאַסאכנא‬
̇ ‫בהאַולאַתרפעהַבלַתצ‬
̇
‫יןַאלוצע‬
̇ ‫וב‬.
458 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

in the duration of the vowel with merkha as a means of decreasing

air expenditure to counterbalance the increase in air expenditure
elsewhere in the same expiration or ‘breath group’. It will be
shown in the next section that this physiological factor also
conditioned the length of vowels with secondary stress.

I.2.8.2. Syllables with the Secondary Stress

I.2.8.2.1. On Open Syllables with Long Vowels

In general, a secondary stress falls on a long vowel in an open
syllable that is separated from the main stress by at least one
other syllable, i.e. there is a eurhythmic alternating sequence of
prominent and non-prominent syllables. The secondary stress in
these contexts may be marked by certain conjunctive accents, e.g.

L: ‫‘ וְ ָּ ַ֣ה ָּא ָּ ִ֔דם‬and the man’ (Gen. 4.1)

L: ‫יהם‬ ֵ ‫‘ ְּב ִקינ‬in their lamentations’ (2 Chron. 35.25)

ַּ֤ ֶ ‫ֹות‬

L: ִׂ֖ ִ ִ‫‘ ַמ ְב ִ ָ֥ליג‬my comfort’ (Jer. 8.18)

‫יתי‬

In many cases the secondary stress is marked by a gaʿya

sign, e.g.

L: ‫‘ ָּה ָּא ָּ ֵ֗דם‬the man’ (Gen. 2.7)

If the second syllable before the main stress syllable has a

short vowel and is closed but some preceding syllable is open,
then the secondary stress, in principle, falls on that syllable, e.g.

L: ָ֛ ִ ‫‘ ָּה ַע‬the columns’ (Exod. 38.11)

‫מּּודים‬

L: ַ֣ ֶ ‘who are with them’ (1 Chron. 5.20)

‫ׁש ִע ָּמּ ֶ ֹ֑הם‬
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 459

Similarly, if a vocalic shewa or ḥatef occurs two places back

from the accent, the major gaʿya is placed on a preceding syllable,
e.g.

L: ‫‘ ָּה ֲא ָּד ָּ ָ֛מה‬the ground’ (Gen. 9.2)

An additional secondary stress may be marked by a gaʿya

on an open syllable that is separated from the first secondary
stress by at least one syllable, though such gaʿyas are rare in the
early manuscripts, e.g.

L: ‫‘ ָּה ַא ְש ִר ֵא ִ ֹ֑לי‬the Asrielite’ (Num. 26.31)

A long vowel which is separated from the main stress

syllable by a ḥaṭef vowel or shewa also takes secondary stress, e.g.

L: ‫‘ ַי ֲע ֶלַ֣ה‬goes up’ (Gen. 2.6)

L: ‫‘ וְ ָּע ְַ֣ב ִ֔דּו‬and they will serve’ (Jer. 30.9)

L: ַ‫‘ ָּׁש ְמרּו‬they have kept’ (Deut. 33.9)

We have seen that shewa after a long vowel is generally

silent (§I.2.5.6.). The secondary stress does not, however, clash
with the main stress since there is an intervening epenthetic syl-
lable before the consonant with the silent shewa. e.g.
[ˌʃoː.om.ˈʀ̟iː.im]. A secondary stress may also occur on a long
vowel that is separated from the main stress by a geminated con-
sonant, e.g.

L: ‫‘ ַה ָּ ַּ֣ב ִִ֔תים‬the houses’ (Exod. 12.7)

L: ‫‘ ָּ ַ֣א ֵ֗ ָּנּא‬Oh!’ (Exod. 32.31)

460 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

In such words, too, a syllable formed by an epenthetic

vowel separates the syllable with the secondary stress from main
stress: [hab.ˌbɔː.ɔt.ˈtʰiː.im].
In the metrical structure, secondary and main stresses in
words such as ‫רּו‬
ַ ‫ ָּׁש ְמ‬and ‫ ַה ָּ ַּ֣ב ִִ֔תים‬would occur in adjacent feet,
whereas in a word such as ‫ ָּה ָּא ָּ ֵ֗דם‬there is an intervening foot be-
tween those of the stresses:

[ˌʃɔː.ɔm. ˈʀ̟uː]

(ˌ* .) (ˈ*)

[hab. ˌbɔː.ɔt. ˈtʰiː.im].

(*) (ˌ* .) (ˈ* .)

[ˌhɔː ʔɔː ˈðɔː.ɔm]

(ˌ*) (*) (ˈ* .)

The stress rhythm is, therefore, based on the sequence of

phonetic syllables rather than the sequence of feet.
In the early Masoretic sources, the gaʿya was not regarded
as one of the accents but rather a sign to denote the slowing down
of the reading. It appears, however, that it acquired a musical
motif of its own in some cases. This is seen in the following pas-
sage on the gaʿya from Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ:
[The gaʿya] should not be considered to belong either with
the disjunctive accents or the conjunctive accents, since it
is only an exhalation in speech, which carries the words
forward … Its distinctive property is the imparting of a
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 461

melody to the reading so that joy is diffused in the heart,

in order to conduct the reading along.208

The term in the early sources is vocalized ‫גָּ ְעיָּה‬, reflecting its
ַָּ ְַ‫‘ ג‬to roar, to
origin as an Aramaic active participle of the verb ‫עה‬
low’, or, occasionally, ‫יעיָּ ה‬
ְ ִ‫ג‬. In Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ ‫ גָּ ְעיָּ ה‬has an Arabic
broken plural ‫ גואעי‬gawāʿī. The sign later came to be known as
the ‫ ֶמ ֶתג‬meteg, a term that was introduced by Yequtiʾel ha-Naqdan
(first half of the thirteenth century) (Gumpertz 1958) and still
widely used today.
Yeivin, who carried out detailed studies of the gaʿya in the
early manuscripts, classified it into two main categories (Yeivin
1968, 89–194; 1980, 240–64):

(i) Musical gaʿya. This type of gaʿya is related to the musical

cantillation and generally marks some kind of secondary
stress preceding the main accent. It is dependent on the
syllable structure of the word and the type of accent that is
adjacent to it.

(ii) Phonetic gaʿya. This slows down the reading of vowels in

various places to ensure the correct pronunciation of the
word, usually to indicate that a following shewa should be
made vocalic or to ensure that certain consonants were not
slurred over.

The musical gaʿya is divided into a variety of categories.

The type that marks a secondary accent on open syllables, as in

208
Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.3.1.
462 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

‫ה ָּא ָּ ֵ֗דם‬,ָּ is known as ‘major gaʿya’.209 In the early Masoretic codices,

major gaʿya is not marked on all words that have a syllable struc-
ture suitable for it. Moreover, there are differences across the
early manuscripts with regard to the frequency with which it is
marked. This reflects the fact that the marking of major gaʿya was
not standardized in the Tiberian tradition and it is rarely men-
tioned in the Masoretic treatises. It is marked infrequently in A,
about 30% of the possible cases, mainly on words with the dis-
junctive accents pashṭa or zaqef. It is marked slightly more fre-
quently in L, in about 40% of the possible cases. The other early
manuscripts mark it in different proportions, some quite fre-
quently (e.g. C marks it in about 75% of the possible cases). In
general, however, the early manuscripts mark it less frequently
than later ones and some printed editions regularly mark it on
every open syllable that is suitable for it.
Mordechai Breuer (1971) has shown that some accent
sequences are determined by the number of intervening full
vowels without taking into account mobile shewas or ḥaṭefs. In
these systems, a vowel with secondary stress counts as two
unstressed vowels. For instance, munaḥ before zaqef is
transformed into pashṭa if the accent syllable of the word with
zaqef is preceded by at least two full vowels: ‫רַש ָּ ִ֔רה‬ ֶ ֹ ‫‘ וַ ַ֣ת‬and Sa-
ָּ ‫אמ‬
rah said’ (Gen. 21.6), ‫ַא ְב ָּר ִָּ֔הם‬ ֶ ֹ ‫‘ וַ יּ‬and Abraham said’ (Gen.
ַ ‫אמר‬

209
In some Masoretic sources the terms ‫ גָּ ֵרׁש‬garesh, ‫ גָּ ְר ָּׁשה‬garsha
‘extending’ and ‫ ַמ ֲא ִריְך‬maʾarikh ‘lengthening’ are used as general terms
to refer a secondary accent in an open syllable marked either by a
conjunctive accent or by a gaʿya; cf. Dotan (1967, 163, 342), Yeivin
(1980, 86).
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 463

20.11), ‫‘ ְּבזֹאת ֵַת ְד ִ֔עּון‬you will know by this’ (Num. 16.28—the ṣere
with secondary stress counts as two full vowels), ‫ַבזַ ְר ֲע ִַ֔ך‬
ְ ‫וְ ִה ְת ָּּב ֲר ַ֣כּו‬
‘and they will be blessed in your seed’ (Gen. 22.18—the shewa
and the ḥaṭef vowel are not counted).
Major gaʿya, as we have seen, often signals the occurrence
of a secondary stress. The fact that some manuscripts do not
always mark a gaʿya in a syllable that one would have expected
to take the secondary stress does not necessarily imply that in the
reading tradition the secondary stress was not pronounced. When
the presence of a gaʿya on an open syllable has an effect on the
distribution of the accents or of other gaʿyas, the effect is often
sustained even when the gaʿya is not marked, the necessary
condition being only that the open syllable could have been
marked by a gaʿya (i.e. it is appropriate for secondary stress). A
couple of examples of this will suffice:
(i) If zarqa has two conjunctive servi and the word bearing
the zarqa has a major gaʿya, then the first servus before the zarqa
is merkha. If, however, the word bearing the zarqa has no gaʿya,
then the first servus is usually munaḥ. The merkha occurs even if
the following word does not explicitly mark the gaʿya on the open
syllable that is suitable for it.210
(ii) In word structures that are suitable for taking either a
minor gaʿya or a major gaʿya, such as ‫‘ וָּ ֶא ְׁש ַת ְמּ ָּ ִׂ֖רה‬and I kept myself’
(2 Sam. 22.24), the fact that the word can take a major gaʿya (in
this case on the open syllable at the beginning of the word)

210
Yeivin (1980, 206–7). If, however, the second servus before zarqa is
munaḥ, the first is always munah.
464 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

obviates the occurrence of the minor gaʿya, even if the major

gaʿya sign is not marked (Yeivin 1968, 141).
Compare also some of the statements concerning the major
gaʿya in the Masoretic literatureַwith reference to a gaʿya on a
word with zarqa:
‘The reader pronounces the gaʿya, whether it is written or
not written.’211

‘In some books the gaʿya is written whereas in others it is

not written but rather the knowledge of the reader is relied
upon.’212

It may be assumed, therefore, that the secondary stress fell

on the appropriate syllable irrespective of whether it was marked
graphically. A long vowel that had secondary stress was longer
than an unstressed long vowel. This may be inferred from the
statements in the early Masoretic and grammatical literature that
a vowel with gaʿya is lengthened, e.g. Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ:
‘Its distinctive property is the extension of the melody.’213

211
Sefer Ṭaʿame ha-Miqra (ed. Mercerus, 1565, Eiii): ַ‫והקוראַיטעיםַהגעיא‬
‫בפיוַאוַכתובהַאוַלאַכתובה‬.
212
Hebrew Maḥberet ha-Tījān (ed. J. Derenbourg 1871, 98): ַ‫במקצתַספרי‬
‫כותביןַהגעיהַובמקצתַאיןַכותביןַאלאַסומכיןַעלַדעתַהקורא‬.
213
‫וכאציתהַאלאמדאדַבאלנגם‬, Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book,
§II.L.3.1. Cf. the orthoepic works derived from the Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, e.g.
the Hebrew Maḥberet ha-Tījān (ed. J. Derenbourg, 77) and the Arabic
Maḥberet ha-Tījān, (ed. Neubauer 1891, 27), and also the references
given by Yeivin (1968, 142).
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 465

It has been shown above, moreover, that in some accent

sequences a syllable with secondary stress was treated as
equivalent to two unstressed syllables, implying that the duration
of the vowel nucleus of the syllable with secondary stress was
increased by virtue of the stress. The gaʿya sign was, in fact, called
maʾarikh in some sources (Wickes 1887, 24; A. Ben-David 1957b,
390–91).
Joseph and David Qimḥi say explicitly that a long vowel in
a syllable that is not adjacent to the accent syllable (i.e. one that
takes secondary stress) is lengthened, but not one that is in a
syllable adjacent to the accent (and so does not take secondary
stress), e.g. the qameṣ on the shin in the word ‫ת‬
ַ ָּ ‫ וְ ָּׁש ַמ ְר‬is longer than
that in ‫ש ַמר‬.
ָּ ְ֝ 214
It has been remarked above that the early Tiberian
manuscripts differ in their consistency of marking the secondary
stress by gaʿya. Those manuscripts that marked major gaʿya
consistently emanated from a scribal circle that tended to give
graphic expression to a relatively greater number of the phonetic
details of the reading tradition. The trend towards a more
complete graphic notation reached its apogee in many of the
Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts, which in addition to the
abundant marking of gaʿyas, also indicate subtle differences in
the strength of consonants according to their phonetic
environment (§I.3.3.). Yeivin has shown that in A, in which major
gaʿyas are marked inconsistently, their notation is not random
but follows certain trends. If the difference between the gaʿya

214
Cf. the passages from the Sefer Zikkaron and the Sefer Mikhlol quoted
by Yeivin (1981b, 48–49).
466 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

notation of A and that of early manuscripts that mark them more

consistently arises from a tendency to indicate less phonetic
minutiae, we may postulate that the selective gaʿya notation of A
corresponds to differences in the duration of vowels with
secondary stress. That is to say, some vowels with secondary
stress were longer than others and only the longer ones tended
to be marked. This seems plausible, since the medieval sources
state that the gaʿya was essentially a marker of vowel duration.
The words that are marked with major gaʿya in A nearly all
have disjunctive accents. It is very rarely marked on words with
conjunctives (Yeivin 1968, 147–48). In conformity with the
foregoing discussion, this may be interpreted as a reflection of
the fact that vowels with secondary stress were generally shorter
in words with conjunctives than in those with disjunctives. Such
durational differences are not alluded to in the early Masoretic
and grammatical literature. It should be pointed out, however,
that the thirteenth-century naqdan, Yequtiʾel ha-Kohen bar
Yehudah, the first scholar to deal systematically with the
question of gaʿyas and secondary stress, states explicitly that
‘metegs (= gaʿyas) of disjunctives are greater than metegs of
conjunctives’.215 This can be explained by the fact that words with
disjunctive accents were read slower than words with
conjunctives and so the relative duration of the constituent
syllables was increased.
Within the set of words with disjunctive accents, A marks
major gaʿya most frequently on those with pashṭa. After pashṭa
the accents with which it occurs most often are, in descending

215
‫מתיגתַהמלכיםַגדול׳ַממתיג׳ַהמשרתים‬: ʿEn ha-Qore (Gumpertz 1958, 141).
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 467

order, zaqef, ʾatnaḥ, ṭifḥa and reviaʿ (Yeivin 1968, 148–60). The
major gaʿya, therefore, is marked predominantly with the low
sustained tone accents. With regard to the accents with which
gaʿya is marked most frequently, pashṭa and zaqef, Yeivin notes
that the gaʿya generally does not occur if the word is milʿel, i.e.
has the accent on the penultimate syllable (Yeivin 1968, 152,
156). It is reasonable to assume that the omission of the gaʿya
before pashṭa and zaqef on milʿel words was connected with the
fact that the low tone accents were lengthened with a
concomitant rise in pitch and intensity when they fell on a
penultimate syllable (see above). The duration of the vowel with
secondary stress was evidently reduced in the same way as the
duration of a vowel with merkha was reduced before a pashṭa on
a milʿel word. In both cases, the reason for the reduction was that
the increase in lung air required to sustain the longer duration
and greater intensity of the pashṭa (and zaqef) necessitated a
decrease in air expenditure elsewhere in the same breath group.
Similarly, gaʿya was seldom marked on words with the high tone
accents since these required a larger volume of air to sustain the
greater subglottal pressure necessary for their higher intensity.
The vowel with the secondary stress before such accents was,
therefore, of shorter duration. When, however, the low tone
accents pashṭa, zaqef, ʾatnaḥ and tifḥa were on the final syllable
of a word, they required relatively little air expenditure since
they were pronounced quite short and with low intensity (see
above). There was, consequently, more air available for the
articulation of other segments in the same breath group and so
468 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

the secondary accent was pronounced with a relatively long

duration.
In his study of accent retraction (nesiga), Praetorius
suggested that in word pairs in which the expected retraction of
the accent did not take place, the accent of one or of both of the
words was weak and so the clash of the two stress syllables was
felt to be more acceptable. The circumstances in which the stress
was weakened include:
(i) Long accent groups, i.e. a disjunctive preceded by two
or more words with conjunctives (Praetorius 1897, 11, 43);
(ii) When a word pair in a short accent group has a close
syntactic connection to a following accent group, e.g. when the
second accent group is a complement of a verb contained in the
preceding accent group (Praetorius 1897, 39), e.g. the preposi-
tional phrase in:

‫ירַּב ָּד ִ ֹ֑מים‬ ִׂ֖ ִ ‫‘ ָ֛הֹויַּב ֶֹנ‬Woe to him who builds a town with blood’
ְ ‫ָ֥הַע‬
(Hab. 2.12)

(iii) When one of the words of a short accent group has

strong contrastive stress (Praetorius 1897, 51–58), e.g.

‫ל־א ֶרץ‬
ִֶ֔ ‫הַבי ַיִ נְ ַח‬ ָ֥ ֶ ‫‘ וְַ ַה‬but he who takes refuge in ME will in-
ִ ‫חֹוס‬
herit the earth’ (Isa. 57.13)

Nesiga sometimes also fails to occur in a short accent group

when it is in close syntactic connection with the preceding accent
group and contrastive stress falls on the last word of this accent
group (Praetorius 1897, 51–58), e.g.

ַ‫ַבי‬
ִ ָ֥‫יתך‬
ְ ‫הַה ִס‬ ָּ֞ ְ‫‘ ִאם־י‬If (it is) THE LORD (who) has incited you
ֱ ‫הו‬
against me’ (1 Sam. 26.19)
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 469

In all these cases, it is plausible to assume that the stress

was reduced due to a diminution in the supply of lung air. This
diminution arose in the first two cases as a result of the fact that
the breath group was relatively long. In the third case, a large
proportion of the air of the breath group was expended on the
word with strong contrastive stress and so the amount of air
available for the rest of the breath group was correspondingly
reduced. The reduction in the volume of air expended on a
stressed syllable would have resulted in a decrease not only of
the intensity of the vowel but also of its duration. Consequently,
we may infer that the aforementioned factors that conditioned
the occurrence patterns of nesiga were also conditioning factors
of vowel duration. The reduction of vowel duration in the
environment of contrastive stress arose for essentially the same
reason as did the reduction of the duration of vowels with merkha
or with secondary stress before high tone disjunctives.
There is one feature of the distribution of major gaʿyas in
the Aleppo Codex that may have been conditioned by the length
of the breath group. Major gaʿya occurs with some accents more
frequently when there are no preceding words with dependent
conjunctives.216 The absence of preceding words with conjunc-
tives may have motivated a shorter breath group and so given
rise to a corresponding increase in the duration of the stressed
vowels. It is, of course, not possible to establish with absolute
certainty where the boundaries of breath groups occurred in the
medieval Tiberian reading tradition. Nevertheless, it is

216
Yeivin (1968, 150 [ʾatnaḥ], 151 [zaqef]).
470 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

reasonable to assume that they coincided to some extent with the

boundaries of accent groups and/or of syntactic units.

I.2.8.2.2. On Closed Syllables with Short Vowels

(Minor Gaʿya)
Gaʿya also marked secondary stress on closed syllables with short
vowels, i.e. vowels that are unspecified as to length in their pho-
nological features (viz. pataḥ /a/, segol /ɛ/, ḥireq /i/,
qibbuṣ/shureq /u/, /o/, /e/), as opposed to a vowel that is inher-
ently specified by a phonological feature as long (long qameṣ /ɔ̄/,
ḥolem /ō/, ṣere /ē/, long shureq /ū/, long ḥireq /ī/) (for details of
this classification of vowels see §I.2.3.). This occurs most consist-
ently on the first syllable of words with disjunctive accents that
have the following patterns: ‫ˌ[ ִמ ְת ַפ ְל ְפ ִלִַ֔ים‬miˑθpʰalpʰaˈliːim],
‫ˌ[ ִמ ְת ַק ְט ִ֔ ִלים‬miˑθqɑ
̟ ttˁɑˈliːim] (with a geminated consonant) and
‫ˌ[ ִמ ְת ַפ ֲע ִלִַ֔ים‬miˑθpʰaːʕaˈliːim] (with a ḥaṭef preceded by a vowel of
the same quality).217 These are patterns in which the main accent
syllable is preceded by sequences of two closed syllables with
short vowels followed by a mobile shewa or by a sequence of one
closed syllable with a short vowel and an open syllable followed
by a syllable with a ḥatef vowel that is the same quality as the
vowel of the preceding open syllable.
Such vowels of unspecified length with gaʿya in words in
these patterns are generally transcribed in the Karaite transcrip-
tions with an Arabic mater lectionis, which indicates that they
were lengthened by the secondary stress, e.g.

217
Cf. Yeivin (1980, 244).
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 471

ࣦ‫و‬ٟ ࣦ‫۟ايشمۖ ع‬
ۖ ‫ˌ[ و‬vaˑɟɟiʃmuˈʕuː] (BL Or 2544 fol. 118v, 4 | L [BHS]:
‫ ַוִֽיִּ ְׁש ְמ ִ֡עּו‬Exod. 4.31 ‘and they heard’)

‫ˌ[ ب۟ ام۟ ۟احنࣦۜࣵا‬baˑmmaːħaˈnɛː] (BL Or 2544, fol. 32v, 1 | L [BHS]:

‫ ַּב ַמּ ֲח ֶנה‬Gen. 32.22 ‘in the camp’)

‫حوث‬
ۢ ۖ‫ˌ[ مۚ يمۚ ۖشف‬miˑmmiʃpʰoˈħoːoθ] (BL Or 2546, fol. 132r, 11
| L [BHS]: ‫ ִמ ִמּ ְׁש ְפ ִׂ֖חֹת‬Num. 36.1 ‘from the families of’)

ࣦ‫وو ۖلي۟اع۟ ق ۢو ٘ب‬ٟ [ˌwuˑljaːʕaˈqo̟ ːov] (BL Or 2546, fol. 85v, 8 | L

[BHS]: ‫ ּו ְליַ ֲע ֹ֑קֹב‬Num. 32.11 ‘and to Jacob’)

In the Masoretic literature, this type of gaʿya was termed

‘minor gaʿya (‫ )געיה ַקטנה‬whereas the gaʿya that marked the
incidence of secondary stress on an open syllable was termed, as
remarked, ‘major gaʿya’ (‫)געיה ַגדולה‬.218 This implies that when
secondary stress fell on a short vowel in a closed syllable, the
vowel was not lengthened as much as a vowel in an open syllable
with secondary stress.219 Evidence for this lesser degree of dura-
tion is the fact that some Karaite manuscripts that transcribe long

218
Cf. Diqduqe ha-Ṭeʿamim (ed. Dotan 1967, 302, 383).
219
Yequtiʾel ha-Naqdan refers to the gaʿya in a closed syllable as ‘heavy’
ָּ and the gaʿya in an open syllable as ‘light’. These terms of Yequtiʾel
(‫)כ ֵבד‬
do not denote the way the gaʿyot were pronounced. He states that he
called the gaʿya in closed syllables ‘heavy’ since: ‘The heart of many
sages is heavy for not having understood them ... and the door [of
understanding] which is open for the light ones is closed for those which
are heavy’ (Gumpertz 1958, 142).
472 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

vowels in open syllables or syllables with the main stress with an

Arabic mater lectionis omit a mater lectionis in a syllable with sec-
ondary stressed marked by a minor gaʿya, e.g.

ࣦ‫و‬ٟ ‫ۖص‬
ࣦ ‫ˌ[ وࣦ۟ ۚيࣦ ۖشر‬vaˑɟɟiʃʀ̟ɑˈsˁuː] (BL Or 2542, fol. 43r, 6 | L [BHS]:
‫ ַוִֽיִּ ְׁש ְר ָ֛צּו‬Exod. 1.7 ‘and they swarmed’)

‫نۚ ـࣦۖثحࣦ۟كࣦۖ ࣦ۠ما‬ [ˌniˑθħakkʰaˈmɔː] (BL Or 2542, fol. 43r, 9 | L

[BHS]: ‫ ִנ ְת ַח ְכ ָּ ִׂ֖מה‬Exod. 1.10 ‘let us deal wisely’)

‫ࣦو ۖلࣦࣦ۟ياعࣦۘقࣦࣦۢوب‬ٟ [ˌwuˑljaːʕaˈqo̟ ːov] (BL Or 2542, fol. 49r, 13 | L

[BHS]: ‫ ּו ְליַ ֲע ֹ֑קֹב‬Exod. 6.8 ‘and to Jacob’)

For this reason, the vowel with minor gaʿya is represented

as half-long in my phonetic transcription of the forms, e.g. [aˑ],
[iˑ], [uˑ].
Some Karaite transcriptions regularly omit a mater lectionis
only when the minor gaʿya is on one of the high vowels ḥireq [i]
or shureq [u], but transcribes lower vowels that have minor gaʿya
with a mater lectionis, e.g.

ࣦ‫و‬ٟ ‫ˌ[ و۟ ا ۚيتۖن‬vaˑɟɟittʰaˈnuː] (BL Or 2549 fol. 18v, 9 | L [BHS]: ‫ַוִֽיִּ ְתנָ֛ ּו‬
Jer. 4.16 ‘and they gave’)

‫لۚ مۖ ۟نا ۟ ࣤۖصاي‬ [ˌliˑmnaːʔaˈsˁɑːɑj] (BL Or 2549 fol. 87r, 6 | L

[BHS]: ‫ ִל ְמנַ ֲא ִַ֔צי‬Jer. 23.17 ‘to those who despise me’)

‫و ۖخمۚ ۖسرۖفࣦ ۢوث‬ٟ [ˌwuˑχmisrˁɑˈfoːoθ] (BL Or 2549 fol. 112r, 14 |

L [BHS]: ‫ ּו ְכ ִמ ְש ְר ַ֣פֹות‬Jer. 34.5 ‘and like the burning of’)
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 473

This appears to reflect the universal phonetic phenomenon

whereby, all other things being equal, high vowels tend to be of
shorter duration than low vowels. This difference in duration can
be above the threshold of perception (Lehiste 1970, 18–19). Evi-
dently, the scribes of the Karaite transcriptions perceived the
high vowels with minor gaʿya to be of shorter duration than the
low vowels. Since many other transcriptions represent the high
vowels with minor gaʿya with matres lectionis, we can assume that
the high vowels with minor gaʿya were not completely short, but
half-long vowels of a shorter duration relative to low vowels.220
Attempts were made to standardize the distribution of the
minor gaʿya in the Tiberian Masoretic tradition and there is
general agreement among the early manuscripts in its marking.
This standardization is reflected by the fact that a large
proportion of the differences between Aharon ben Asher and
Moshe ben Naphtali that are recorded in Kitāb al-Khilaf of
Mishaʾel ben ʿUzziʾel relate to the minor gaʿya.
Minor gaʿya occurs in the patterns described above across
the boundary of words that are connected by maqqef, e.g. ‫מר‬
ֹ ִ֔ ‫ל־ה ֲח‬
ַ ‫ַע‬
‘on the ass’ (Exod. 4.20). Minor gaʿya also occurs less consistently
on a range of other related structures in which the syllable with
the gaʿya is separated from the main accent syllable by at least
one other syllable and a vocalic shewa, e.g.

L: ‫( ַה ְכנַ ֲע ִנֹ֑ית‬with vocalic shewa additional to the ‫ִמ ְת ַפ ֲע ִלִַ֔ים‬

pattern) ‘the Canaanite woman’ (1 Chron. 2.3)

220
For further details concerning the representation of minor gaʿya in
the Karaite transcriptions, see Khan (1992c).
474 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

L: ‫( וַ ִיּ ָּלּ ֲח ִׂ֖מּו‬with a vowel of different quality before the ḥaṭef)

‘and they fought’ (Josh. 10.36)

It very rarely occurs on a syllable that is separated from the

accent by only one syllable, e.g.

L: ֶ ‫‘ ִנ ְמ ָּצ‬a conspiracy is found’ (Jer. 11.9).

ַ‫א־ק ֶׁשר‬

Yeivin (1968, 89–194; 1980, 240–64) classifies major gaʿya

and minor gaʿya as musical gaʿyas and it is reasonable to assume
that the secondary stress that they represented was adorned by a
short musical motif. The frequent use of conjunctive accents on
open syllables to mark the secondary stress supports this view.
Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ described gaʿya as bringing about ‘the extension
of the melody so that joy is diffused in the heart, … animating
the reader and moving him to read more’.221 One may interpret
this as referring to some kind of melismatic embellishment. The
Diqduqe ha-Ṭeʿaimim, moreover, classifies gaʿya among the
accents, presumably on account of its musical value.222 Secondary
stress normally fell on a long vowel in an open syllable since it
was a feature of long vowels that they were more amenable to
being stretched (‘dehnungsfähig’, according to the terminology
of Trubetzskoy 1936; 1938) than short vowels and so could
accommodate the musical contour of the secondary stress more
easily. When secondary stress fell on a short vowel, the vowel
was lengthened but its duration was less than that of a long vowel

221
Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.3.1.
222
Ed. Dotan (1967, 108, §1). Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, on the other hand, does
not consider gaʿya to be an accent; cf. Long version, edition in vol. 2 of
this book, §II.L.3.1; ed. Eldar 2018, 74-75.
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 475

in an open syllable that had secondary stress. It was for this

reason that short vowels in closed syllables were not usually
suitable for secondary stress, since they were not lengthened
enough to accommodate the melisma of the stressed syllable.
The occurrence of the secondary stress of minor gaʿya on
short vowels in closed syllables in the patterns ‫ ִמ ְת ַפ ְַל ְפ ִלִַ֔ים‬, ‫ִמ ְת ַק ְט ִ֔ ִלים‬
and ‫ ִמ ְת ַפ ֲע ִלִַ֔ים‬can be explained by the hypothesis that the sequence
of two CVC-CVC syllables with short vowel nuclei functioned,
under certain conditions, analogously to a single syllable with a
long bimoraic nucleus CVV. Secondary stress was allowed to fall
on a short vowel in such patterns since the motif associated with
the stress was spread over both the stressed syllable and the
syllable that followed it. There subsequently followed a buffer
syllable in the form of a mobile shewa or haṭef, which separated
the melismatic unit of the secondary stress from the main stress
syllable. Just as the most prominent component of the CVCCVC
sequence accommodating the secondary stress of minor gaʿya was
the first syllable, reflected by the lengthening of its vowel, so in
a bimoraic CVV syllable the main prominence was on the first
vowel mora, which is the most sonorous segment of the syllable
(Kager 1993).
It would be more precise to say that the melisma of the
secondary stress spread across the strong syllables of two metrical
feet. This explains why minor gaʿya is frequently found also on
structures such as ‫‘ ַה ְכנַ ֲע ִנֹ֑ית‬the Canaanite woman’ (1 Chron. 2.3)
ְ ‫‘ ֲא ֶׁש‬what you cook’ (Exod. 16.23) (Yeivin 1980, 246),
and ַ‫ר־ת ַב ְשּׁלּו‬
in which the syllable with secondary stress is separated from the
476 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

buffer syllable by two phonetic syllable nuclei (vocalic shewa +

pataḥ) but only one metrical foot:

[(ˌhaˑk.) (kʰa.naː.) (ʕa.ˈniːiθ)]

(ˌ*) (. *) (. ˈ* .)

[(ʔa.ˌʃɛˑʀ̟) (tʰa.vaʃ) (ʃa.ˈluː)]

(. ˌ*) (. *) (. ˈ*)

A form such as ‫‘ ִמ ְפנֵ ֶיכם‬from before you’ (Lev. 18.24) was

unsuitable for minor gaʿya since the shewa belongs to the second
foot and the strong syllable of this foot is not separated from the
main stress by the statutory buffer syllable:

[(mip.) (pʰa.neː.) (ˈχɛːɛm)]

(*) (. *) (* .)

It is for this reason that the separation between minor gaʿya

and the main stress had to be a full vowel + mobile shewa/ḥaṭef
vowel (‫ ) ִמ ְת ַפלְ ְפ ִלִַ֔ים‬but could not be the same in reverse sequence
(‫)מ ְפנֵ ֶיכם‬.
ִ
A secondary accent marked by minor gaʿya does not occur
on all closed syllables that are separated from the main stress by
a second foot and a buffer syllable. It tends to occur only in those
circumstances in which the vowel of the syllable under secondary
stress was maximally long. In conditions in which the duration
of the vowel was reduced, the minor gaʿya tends not to be
marked. It is not clear whether the absence of the minor gaʿya
indicates that the secondary stress was omitted or whether it
denotes that the vowel was still under secondary stress but of
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 477

shorter duration and, consequently, unable to accommodate a

melisma.
There were two major conditioning factors of vowel
duration that affected the duration of the vowel with minor gaʿya.
One of these was the tempo at which the word containing minor
gaʿya was read. When chanted at a slower tempo, the vowels were
stretched. Consequently, the vowels of words that had disjunctive
accents were generally longer in duration than the vowels of
words with conjunctives. This factor has already been inferred
from the distribution of major gaʿyas. From the distribution of
minor gaʿyas one may infer another factor, viz. there was a strong
tendency to make the interval between the secondary stress and
the main stress in all words isochronous, irrespective of
differences in the number of syllables that separated them. This
meant that the duration of the syllables between the two stress
beats including those on which the stress occurred varied
according to their number. The more intervening syllables there
were, the shorter was their duration. The variation in duration of
the syllable would doubtless have been achieved by lengthening
or shortening of the vowels that were the most ‘stretchable’
constituents of a syllable. It is not clear whether this affected all
the vowels, both long and short, or just the long vowels, which,
by their nature, had a more flexible duration.
In the conditions in which minor gaʿya was regularly
marked, the vowel under secondary stress was maximally long
according to these two aforementioned criteria: (i) The gaʿya
normally occurs when the word has a disjunctive accent but not
when it has a conjunctive; (ii) Apart from the syllable that was
478 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

necessary to carry part of the melisma of the secondary stress,

the material constituting the unstressed buffer between the two
stress beats was the absolute minimum, viz. an open syllable with
a short vowel nucleus (vocalic shewa or a ḥaṭef vowel): ‫ ִמ ְת ַפ ְל ְפ ִלִַ֔ים‬,
‫ ִמ ְת ַק ְט ִ֔ ִלים‬and ‫ ִמ ְת ַפ ֲע ִלִַ֔ים‬. When the buffer between the two stresses
was longer, the duration of the vowels of the word was reduced
out of an effort to keep the time interval between them the same
and so the gaʿya was usually omitted. This explains the
phenomenon described in the Diqduqe ha-Ṭeʿamim whereby the
gaʿya was omitted if the structures that regularly had it were
ֹ֑ ָּ ‫‘ וַ יִּ ְפ‬and they
attached to a following word by maqqef, e.g. ‫לּו־ׁש ָּמּה‬
fell there’ (Gen. 14.10).223 Even forms that have no more than an
additional vocalic shewa between the two stress syllables, such as
‫‘ ַה ְכנַ ֲע ִנֹ֑ית‬the Canaanite woman’ (1 Chron. 2.3) and ‫לּו‬
ַ ‫ר־ת ַב ְשּׁ‬
ְ ‫ֲא ֶׁש‬
‘what you cook’ (Exod. 16.23) exhibit slightly less consistency in
the placement of minor gaʿya than the ‘fully regular structures’
(Yeivin 1968, 107). Forms which have a bimoraic syllable as a
buffer, i.e. an independent foot, rather than a light monomoraic
syllable with mobile shewa or ḥaṭef, such as ‫‘ לַ ִמּ ְל ָּח ָּ ִׂ֖מה‬to war’
(Num. 21.33) do not have gaʿya with any degree of regularity
(Yeivin 1968, 117; 1980, 247). By contrast, additional syllables
preceding the secondary stress fell outside the isochronous
interval between the two stress beats and so had no influence on
ַ ‫‘ וְ ֶא‬and the knife’ (Gen.
the duration of the vowels, e.g. ‫ת־ה ַמּ ֲא ֶכ ֶֹ֑לת‬
22.6).

223
Diqduqe ha-Ṭeʿamim (ed. Dotan 1967, §15), Dotan (1964, 65), Yeivin
(1968, 97–98).
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 479

Minor gaʿya was marked with equal consistency before all

the disjunctives. The duration of a vowel with minor gaʿya, unlike
that of a vowel with major gaʿya, was not reduced significantly
as the result of greater air expenditure on a subsequent high tone
accent. This was most likely because the relatively short duration
of a vowel with minor gaʿya required by its very nature far less
air expenditure than a long vowel with major gaʿya. As remarked
above, however, the Karaite transcriptions reflect differences in
duration in the vowel with minor gaʿya according to intrinsic dif-
ferences in duration between high and low vowels.
If an open syllable preceded the syllable that took minor
gaʿya in a form of regular structure, the secondary stress fell on
this open syllable and was either marked with major gaʿya or was
left without graphical representation, e.g. ‫‘ וָּ ֶא ְׁש ַת ְמּ ָּ ִׂ֖רה‬and I kept
myself’ (A, 2 Sam. 22.24; cf. Yeivin 1968, 98). A long vowel in
an open syllable was, all other things being equal, more suitable
for taking the melisma of the secondary stress than a sequence of
two short syllable nuclei. The duration of a stressed vowel in an
open syllable, moreover, was not reduced by the pressure of
isochrony between stress beats to the extent that it could not
accommodate the melisma.
By this argument, in the structure ‫מ ְת ַפ ֲע ִלים‬
ִַ one would have
expected that the vowel in the open syllable before the haṭef
could have accommodated the melisma of the secondary stress,
since this vowel was long, as shown by the Karaite transcriptions,
e.g.
480 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

ࣦ‫( و۟ اي۟اعۘ ۢقوذ‬BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 67v, 2 | L [BHS]: ‫ ַוִֽיַּ ֲעק ַֹד‬Gen.
22.9 ‘and he bound’)

ࣦ‫( و۟ ا ۟يࣦاع۟ ٘بير‬BL Or 2544, fol. 32v, 11 | L [BHS]: ‫ ַוִֽיַּ ֲע ֵ ִׂ֖בר‬Gen. 32.24
‘and he caused to pass over’)

‫( ۟عال ࣦه۟ ۟اح ࣦࣤموور‬BL Or 2540, fol. 12v, 2 | L [BHS]: ‫ל־ה ֲח ִ֔ ֹמר‬
ַ ‫ַע‬

Exod. 4.20 ‘upon the donkey’)

When a long vowel in this position is followed by an

ordinary shewa, minor gaʿya generally does not occur (Yeivin
1968, 111), e.g. ‫‘ וְ יִ ָּכ ְל ִׂ֖מּו‬so they may be ashamed’ (Ezek. 43.10).
Here the secondary stress evidently generally fell on the syllable
before the shewa: [vi.jik.ˌkʰɔː.ɔl.ˈmuː]. When the long vowel is
followed by a laryngeal/pharyngeal with a vowel of a different
quality, e.g. ‫‘ וַ ִיּ ָּלּ ֲח ִׂ֖מּו‬and they fought’ (Josh. 10.5), the tendency
for the word to have minor gaʿya is greater than when it is
followed by a non-guttural consonant with shewa (‫ )וְ יִ ָּכ ְל ִׂ֖מּו‬but less
than when the vowel preceding the ḥaṭef is of the same quality
(ַ‫)וִֽיַּ ֲעקֹד‬.
ַ If the word has pashṭa, for example, there is a preference
to have secondary stress in the form of a major gaʿya on the syl-
lable before the guttural rather than minor gaʿya on the preceding
ַ ‫‘ וַ יִּ ָּצ ֲע‬and they were called’ (Jud. 10.17; cf. Yeivin
syllables, e.g. ‫קּו‬
1968, 109).
These facts can be explained by the assumption that the
duration of the vowel varied in each of these three structures,
those of shorter duration being less suitable for taking the full
secondary stress melisma than those of longer duration. In some
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 481

manuscripts that exhibit a selective notation of major gaʿya, there

is a greater tendency for the major gaʿya to be omitted on a vowel
before a ḥaṭef than on a long vowel before a shewa.224 This was
probably motivated by the shorter duration of the vowel before
a ḥaṭef.
A vowel in an open syllable that is followed by a ḥaṭef of
the same quality must be considered to have been the shortest of
the three types of vowel. The rules for accent sequences that
treated a syllable with secondary stress as two syllables counted
a vowel preceding a ḥaṭef of the same quality as only one syllable
(M. Breuer 1971, 184, n.45). Consequently, if any secondary
accent at all fell on such vowels, it could not have increased the
vowel duration to the full length of other vowels in open syllables
under secondary stress. One may also adduce as evidence of the
relatively short duration of vowels of this type the fact that they
do not usually take munaḥ before zaqef where the occurrence of
munaḥ would have been expected (Yeivin 1968, 201–2; Breuer
1971, 184, n.45). It is plausible to interpret this as being due to
the unsuitability of the vowels to accommodate the necessary
melismatic structure of the accent due to their short duration.
The relatively short duration of a vowel before a ḥaṭef of
the same quality was conditioned by two factors.
First factor: A number of phoneticians have shown that in
some languages the duration of a vowel varies according to the

224
Menachem Cohen (1982a, 66, 67, 69, 70, 73) has found this feature
of gaʿya notation in the manuscripts L, C and in the later medieval
Spanish manuscripts BL Or 2201 (dated 1246) and BL Or 2626-8 (dated
1483).
482 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

extent of the movement of the speech organs required in order to

come from the vowel position to the position of the following
phonetic segments. The greater the extent of movement, the
longer the vowel.225 It may be inferred that this principle
influenced vowel duration in Tiberian Hebrew. In the sequence
of a vowel, a laryngeal/pharyngeal, and a ḥaṭef of the same
quality, no significant movement of speech organs in the oral
cavity was required to make the transition from the first member
to the last. There were two relevant processes involved: the
tongue position for the two vowels, and the speech organ
movement and muscle activity required to articulate the
intervening consonant. Phonetic segments are not produced in
speech as independent units, but rather the sounds overlap and
flow into one continuously changing stream of sound. Several
phoneticians have postulated on the basis of studies of gestures
in the vocal tract that the tongue moves from vowel shape to
vowel shape with the consonantal gestures superimposed,
overlapping in time with the articulatory gestures for the
vowels.226 Therefore in a sequence of vowel + consonant +
vowel when the two vowels are of the same quality the speech
organ movement necessary to pass from the first vowel to the
second would always be less than when the two vowels were of
different quality, irrespective of what the intervening consonant
might be.
Second factor: In Tiberian Hebrew the patterns of stress and
the distribution of the accents only reflect a consistent reduction

225
E.g. Lehiste (1970, 20).
226
E.g. Öhman (1966), Browman and Goldstein (1989).
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 483

in the duration of the first vowel when the intervening consonant

is a pharyngeal/laryngeal. There is no evidence for a similar
reduction when an oral consonant intervenes between two
vowels of the same quality, except, occasionally, when the
consonant is a lax continuative, especially sonorants. An
important factor contributing to the reduction of duration must,
therefore, have been the phonetic nature of the pharyngeals/
laryngeals. It is relevant here to draw attention to a phenomenon
that is attested in North African Arabic dialects whereby long
vowels are shortened before pharyngeal consonants, Moroccan,
Jewish Algiers: draʿ ‘arm’ < *dhirāʿ, jnaḥ ‘wing’ < *jināḥ
(Brockelmann 1908 vol. 1, 64; Marcel Cohen 1912, 135). Brock-
elmann explains this as the result of the articulation of the phar-
yngeal taking away part of the duration of the vowel. This was
no doubt due to the weak vowel-like nature of non-oral conso-
nants.227 We may, therefore, identify this as a second factor that

227
Another relevant parallel can be found in stress placement patterns
in the Modern South Arabian languages. Dufour (2017) has
demonstrated that in the history of these languages syllables attracted
stress according to a hierarchy of vowel qualities thus: *a > *i > *u.
This means that a syllable with an *a was favoured over syllables with
higher vowels for stress placement. What is of interest is that a syllable
with an *a vowel that was followed by a guttural consonant was less
favoured for stress than one that containing an *a vowel that was not
followed by a guttural. This can be interpreted as showing that the
duration of the vowel was reduced when followed by a guttural and
thus the vowel in this context was less suitable for stress. Cf. also
Hayward et al. (1988).
484 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

is likely to have reduced the duration of Hebrew vowels before

gutturals.228
Although the articulation of ‫ אהח׳׳ע‬in Tiberian Hebrew was
weak, it was only reduced completely to zero in the case of ‫ א‬and
‫ ה‬in a number of word forms, such as ‫יָּ בֹוא‬, ‫אכל‬
ַ ֹ ‫י‬, ‫ ָּמ ָּצא‬and forms
that used ‫ ה‬as a mater lectionis for a final long vowel. Where ‫אהח׳׳ע‬
were articulated, they often caused a lowering of adjacent
vowels, in many cases to the quality of pataḥ, the lowest vowel.
This was evidently occasioned by the narrowing of the pharynx,
which was achieved by pulling the back of the tongue into the
pharynx and this, in turn, was facilitated by the lowering of the
tongue. The association of ‫ אהח׳׳ע‬with a low vowel shape may
explain the following phenomenon of gaʿya distribution in the
early manuscripts that has been noted by Yeivin (1968, 99-100).
Among the cases of words of regular structure for minor gaʿya
that, contrary to expectation, do not take minor gaʿya with a
disjunctive accent, there is a large proportion of forms of the
ַַ ‫ ִמ ְת‬with segol + haṭef segol, e.g. ‫‘ וַ יֶּ ֱא ֞חֹז‬and he took
pattern ‫פ ֲע ִלים‬

228
There is some evidence that the duration of a vowel in an open
syllable was also reduced when it was separated from a subsequent haṭef
of the same quality by a sonorant oral continuant. When the position of
the laryngeal/pharyngeal in the form ‫פ ֲע ִלים‬
ַַ ‫ ִמ ְת‬is taken by one of the
sonorant consonants that characteristically do not tolerate dagesh in a
syllable with shewa, minor gaʿya regularly occurs (Yeivin 1968, 112–
13), e.g. A ַ‫‘ ַוִֽיְ ַהלֲַלּו‬and they praised’ (L ‫לּו‬
ַ ‫וִֽיְ ַה ְל‬,ַ 2 Chr. 29.30) (§I.2.8.2.2.).
Again we may assume that the vowel-like sonorant took away some of
the duration from the preceding vowel, making it unsuitable for
secondary stress.
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 485

hold of’ (Jud. 16.3), ‫ף־א ֱע ֶשנָּּ ה‬

ֶ ‫‘ ַא‬and I will do it’ (Isa. 46.11). This
can be interpreted as indicating that a long vowel preceding
‫ אהח׳׳ע‬with a haṭef vowel of the same quality tended to be shorter
in proportion to the lowness of the vowel quality. The tongue
position for pataḥ was the closest to that which was appropriate
for the narrowing of the pharynx and so less movement of
articulatory organs was required. We may again draw a parallel
with North African Arabic, where the vowel shortening before
pharyngeals is restricted in principle to long low ā vowels.
Finally, if a long vowel was followed by a closed syllable
beginning with ‫ אהח׳׳ע‬and containing a vowel nucleus of the same
quality, it was apparently longer than a long vowel followed by
‫ אהח׳׳ע‬with a ḥaṭef of the same quality. This is shown by the
regular occurrence of munaḥ on the long vowel before the closed
syllable to mark secondary stress before zaqef, e.g. ‫‘ וְ ַל ַַ֣ח ָּט ִ֔אֹות‬for
the sin offerings’ (Neh. 10.34) (Yeivin 1968, 203). This was prob-
ably due to the fact that a consonantal onset of a prosodically
strong syllable (CVC, CVV) was of a stronger articulation, there-
fore less vowel-like, than that of a prosodically weak syllable con-
taining vocalic shewa or a ḥaṭef. This would have made the con-
sonant less likely to take away duration from the preceding
vowel.
It follows from the first factor discussed above that a vowel
preceding a laryngeal/pharyngeal with a haṭef of a different
quality, as in ‫‘ וַ ִיּ ָּלּ ֲח ִׂ֖מּו‬and they fought’ (Josh. 10.36) and ‫‘ ִמג ֲֹא ֵלִׂ֖נּו‬of
our nearest kin’ (Ruth 2.20), was of a slightly longer duration
than a vowel before a haṭef of the same quality. This was because
the transition to the haṭef vowel required some movement of
486 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

tongue and lip position. Through the operation of the second fac-
tor, however, the following guttural took away some of the pre-
ceding vowel duration and so these vowels did not have quite
their full duration. Although they took secondary stress in the
form of munaḥ before zaqef in preference to minor gaʿya, e.g.
ִַ ‘[do not] fight’ (1 Kings 22.31), they were, in general, not
‫ת ָּלּ ֲַ֣ח ִ֔מּו‬
so suitable for secondary stress as were long vowels of full
duration. There was, consequently, a certain tendency for secon-
dary stress in other circumstances to pass over a syllable with
such a vowel when conditions were favourable for the melisma
of the stress to be spread over two syllables instead.
In forms such as ‫‘ וְ יִ ָּכ ְל ִׂ֖מּו‬so they may be ashamed’ (Ezek.
43.10), it may be expected from the operation of the first factor
that the long qameṣ would be reduced in duration since this was
followed by an epenthetic of the same quality: [vi.jik.-
kʰɔː.ɔl.ˈmuː]. Such structures, however, exhibit a lesser tendency
to take minor gaʿya than forms such as ‫‘ וַ ִיּ ָּלּ ֲח ִׂ֖מּו‬and they fought’
(Josh. 10.5). Evidently, the qameṣ in forms such as ‫ וְ יִ ָּכ ְל ִׂ֖מּו‬was
longer in duration and more suitable for taking the full secondary
stress melisma. This would have been due to the absence of a
guttural consonant following the vowel that would have taken
over part of the duration of the vowel.

I.2.9. SHEWA GAʿYA

The gaʿya sign is sometimes marked next to shewa or ḥaṭef signs.
This is referred to by the terms gaʿyat shewa or shewa gaʿya. The
second term will be used here. It is rare in the twenty-one books
(only some 200 cases occur) but is common in the three books. It
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 487

is a musical shewa, but is often marked before a guttural, which

suggests that there may be also a phonetic motivation for its
use.229
There are some parallels between the occurrence of shewa
gaʿya and that of minor gaʿya. Shewa gaʿya occurs mainly in words
with disjunctive accents. Some cases of shewa gaʿya, moreover,
occur on patterns that correspond to the regular patterns for mi-
nor gaʿya, viz. ‫מ ַפ ְל ְפ ִלים‬
ַ ְ , ‫ ְמ ַק ְט ִלים‬and ‫( ְמ ַפ ֲע ִלים‬the counterparts of
‫ת ַפ ְל ְפ ִלים‬
ְַ ‫ ִמ‬, ‫ ִמ ְת ַק ְט ִלים‬and ‫פ ֲע ִלים‬
ַַ ‫) ִמ ְת‬, e.g.

L: ‫‘ ְת ַׁש ְלּ ִ֡חּו‬you should set free’ (Jer. 34.14)

L: ַ֞‫‘ ְכ ָּׁש ְמ ֲעך‬when you hear’ (1 Chron. 14.15)

L: ַ ‫‘ ְּב ַמ ֲע ֵל‬in the ascent of’ (2 Chron. 32.33)

‫ה‬

The occurrence of shewa gaʿya, however, is not so concen-

trated on these regular patterns as the minor gaʿya is concen-
trated on its regular patterns. Gaʿya is found in a variety of other
patterns on a shewa or ḥatef that is separated from the accent by
at least one vowel, e.g.

L: ָּ ֵ֗ ‫‘ ְו‬but’ (Job 12.7)

‫אּולם‬

L: ָּ ֞ ‫‘ ְצ ִא‬go out’ (Cant. 1.8)

‫י־לְך‬

L: ‫את‬ ָּ ‫‘ ְו ִָּֽר ִִ֔א‬you will see and you will read’ (Jer. 51.61)
ַָּ ‫ית ְַו ִָּֽק ָּ ִ֔ר‬

L: ‫‘ ְו ְָּֽ֠היָּ ה‬and it will be’ (Hos. 2.1)

L: ְ ֹ ‫‘ ְוי‬and let them say’ (Joel 2.17)

‫אמ ֞רּו‬

229
For detailed treatments of the distribution of shewa gaʿya see Yeivin
(1968, 128–37, 252–61; 1980, 252–54), Dotan (1967, 128, 218–22,
357–58, 381), M. Breuer (1982, 193–97).
488 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

L: ‫יאם‬ ִ ‫‘ ְ ַכ‬when they brought out’ (Josh. 10.24)

ָּ֞ ‫הֹוצ‬

L: ‫‘ עֶַ֭ ִטיׁש ָֹּתיו‬his sneezings’ (Job 41.10)

L: ‫ל־ה ָּש ִ ֞רים‬ ָּ ‫‘ ְו ֶא‬and all the princes’ (2 Kings 24.14)

ַ ‫ת־כ‬

Shewa gaʿya also occurs on a conjunctive vav when it has a

shureq before a labial, e.g.

L: ְ ‫‘ ּו ַמ‬and what do you awaken?’ (Cant. 8.4)

‫ה־תעֹ ְר ָ֛רּו‬

Given the strict conditions of word length for the occur-

rence of the secondary stress of minor gaʿya, these freer occur-
rence patterns of shewa gaʿya suggest that its motivation was not
exclusively to mark a secondary stress. Rather, in some cases at
least, its purpose was to slow down reading for orthoepic reasons.
As remarked, this is likely to apply to some cases where it occurs
before a guttural. Evidence for this is the fact that there are in-
stances where shewa gaʿya occurs before a guttural on a word that
has an ʾazla accent sign that itself marks a secondary stress, e.g.

L: ‫‘ ְו ָּהיְ ָָּ֜תה‬and it will be’ (Isa. 28.4)

In most cases, shewa gaʿya occurs at the beginning of a

word, as in the examples cited above. In a few cases in the three
books, it occurs in the middle of a word, e.g.

ָּ ‫‘ ַ ָ֥א ְׁש ֵר‬blessed is the man’ (Psa. 1.1)

L, A: ‫י־ה ִֵ֗איׁש‬

L: ‫שּו־עֹוֹלת‬
ֵ֗ ‫‘ ַי ְח ְפ‬they search out iniquities’ (A: ‫עֹוֹלת‬
ֵ֗ ַ ‫ ַי ְָ֥ח ְפשּו‬, Psa.
64.7)

In both these cases, the shewa gaʿya clashes with an imme-

diately preceding gaʿya or merkha, suggesting that it reflected the
slowing of the reading for orthoepic purposes rather than a sec-
ondary stress beat.
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 489

According to Masoretic treatises, a shewa with gaʿya was

read with the length of a full vowel. This is seen, for example, in
a passage concerning the pronunciation of shewa before gutturals
in the Treatise on the Shewa edited by Levy (1936, ‫)כ־יט‬:
It (the shewa) should not be pronounced (in the word
‫)ה ְּב ָּע ִלים‬
ַ as a pure qameṣ, equal (to the following qameṣ), i.e.
with lengthening, but rather it is pronounced short, as if it
were qameṣ, but not a full qameṣ, e.g. ‫ה ְּב ָּע ִלים‬,
ַ but you do
not say ‫ה ָּּב ָּע ִלים‬,
ַ for that is a mistake. Likewise, when it is
adjacent to vowels other than qameṣ, it is pronounced
short. This is also the case when two shewas come together,
as in ‫א ְׁש ְמ ָּעה‬,
ֶ ‫א ְרגְ ָּעה‬,
ֶ ‫א ְר ְּב ָּעה‬,
ֶ and likewise ‫וִֽיִּ ְק ְראּו‬,ַ ‫וִֽיִּ ְמ ְצאּו‬,ַ
‫וִֽיִּ ְׁש ְמעּו‬,ַ ‫הנִּ ְמ ְצאּו‬.
ַ Follow this (rule), do not add to it or sub-
tract from it, unless gaʿya occurs with shewa, in which case
you make it long and it is pronounced as a qameṣ. For in-
stance, the word ‫וְ ָּהיָּ ה‬, when you add gaʿya to the shewa, i.e.
‫ו ָּהיָּ ה‬,ְ is pronounced ‫ וָּ ָּהיָּ ה‬with a full qameṣ. The same is so
in the case of segol, e.g. ‫ ְו ֵֶה ֱחזִ יקּו‬is pronounced ‫וֶ ֶה ֶחזִ יקּו‬. Like-
ָּ ֞ ‫‘ ְצ ִא‬go out’ (Cant. 1.8) is read with ḥireq as if it
wise ‫י־לְך‬
were ‫י־לְך‬
ָּ ‫;צ ִא‬ ִֵ֡ ַ‫‘ ְׁש ֵאלּונּו‬our captors asked us’ (Psa. 137.3)
ִ ‫ׁשֹובינּו‬
ֵ ‫‘ ְת ֵא ֲה ֶ֫בּוַ ֶ ָ֥פ ִתי‬you will love being simple’ (Prov.
is read ‫;ׁש ֵאלּונּו‬
1.22) is read ‫ ֵת ֵאהבו ַפתי‬. All such instances of shewa are
pronounced full with the pronunciation of the (vowel of
the) adjacent guttural letter, on account of the principle of
the gaʿya, for it is the gaʿya that lengthens them. If there is
no gaʿya, shewa is always pronounced short and is not
lengthened. This condition is never changed. So it is with
‫‪490‬‬ ‫‪The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew‬‬

‫‪all the occurrences of shewa that we have discussed, all‬‬

‫‪instances of its vocalic realization follow this rule.230‬‬

‫‪The purport of this and similar passages from other Maso-‬‬

‫‪retic treatises231 is that a shewa with gaʿya was pronounced as a‬‬
‫‪long vowel, which was equal in status to a full vowel represented‬‬
‫‪by a vowel sign.‬‬
‫‪The Karaite transcriptions into Arabic indicate that shewa‬‬
‫‪gaʿya was pronounced as a long vowel, since they represent it‬‬
‫‪with a mater lectionis, e.g.‬‬
‫ࣤ‬
‫‪ְּ Josh. 13.6‬בנַ ֲח ִ֔ ָּלה ‪ (BL Or 2547 fol. 15r, 11 | L [BHS]:‬بۖ ان ۖ۟احل۠ا‬
‫)’‪‘as an inheritance‬‬

‫‪230‬‬
‫רגַבתכפיףַ‬
‫̇‬ ‫קילַבלַאנמאַיכ‬
‫̇‬ ‫הַפתרתיַבתת‬
‫̇‬ ‫ַב ָּשוֵ‬
‫לַקמץַמחץ ְ‬
‫̇‬ ‫רגַמת‬
‫̇‬ ‫יַאןַיכ‬
‫̇‬ ‫ליסַינבג‬
‫̇‬
‫ןַכרוגהַ‬
‫לךַכטא‪ַ.‬ומ ̇‬
‫כאנהַקמץַולאַקמץַתאםַכקולךַהבעליםַולאַיקולַהבעליםַפיכוןַד ̇‬
‫̇‬
‫הַא ְרגְ ָּעהַ‬
‫ניןַמזוגיןַכמוַתאמרַא ְש ְמ ָּע ֶ‬
‫ֶ‬ ‫אַאתפקַאת‬
‫̇‬ ‫לךַאד‬
‫̇‬ ‫פיףַוכד‬
‫̇‬ ‫ירַאלקמץַבתכ‬
‫̇‬ ‫אַגאורַג‬
‫̇‬ ‫אד‬
‫̇‬
‫עּוַהנמצאיםַאקיסַעליַהדאַלאַתזידַולאַתנקץַאלאַ‬
‫̇‬ ‫אּוַוִֽיִ ְש ְמ‬
‫אּוַוִֽיִ ְמ ְצ ַ‬
‫לַוִֽיִ ְק ְר ַ‬
‫הַומת ַ‬
‫̇‬ ‫ֶא ְר ְב ָּע‬
‫אדאַגעלתַמעהַגעיהַ‬
‫רגַחינידַבקמץַכקולךַהויהַ ̇‬
‫̇‬ ‫קלהַפיכ‬
‫̇‬ ‫אןַיתפקַמעַאלשואַגעיהַפתת‬
‫̇‬
‫לַו ֶה ֶחזִ יקּוַכאנךַ‬
‫הַנקטַמת ְ‬
‫̇‬ ‫לת‬
‫לךַבת ̇‬
‫̇‬ ‫הַבמקץַתאםַוכד‬
‫̇‬ ‫לַו ָּהיָּ הַיקאלַוָּ ָּהיָּ‬
‫אַאלמת ְ‬
‫̇‬ ‫עליַהד‬
‫̇‬
‫להַש ֵאלּונּוַשובינוַ‬
‫יַלךַומת ְ‬
‫̇‬ ‫ךַיקראַבנקטהַואחדהַכאנךַתקולַצ ִא‬
‫ִ‬ ‫יַל‬
‫לַצ ִא ָּ‬
‫יקּוַומת ְ‬
‫̇‬ ‫תקולַוֶ ֱחזִ‬
‫רגַכרוגַתאםַ‬
‫הַומאַשאכלהאַתכ ̇‬
‫̇‬ ‫כלַהד‬
‫̇‬ ‫בוַיקראַת ֵאהבוַפתי‪ַ.‬‬
‫ֵ‬ ‫לךַת ֵא ַה‬
‫לּונּוַוכד ְ‬
‫̇‬ ‫יקראַש ֵא‬
‫ֵ‬
‫ככרוגַאלחרףַאלמגאורַלהאַמןַהחהעַבסבבַאלעלהַאלתיַללגעיהַלאןַאלגעיהַהיַאלתיַ‬
‫̇‬
‫ַהדאַ‬
‫ַיתגיר ̇‬
‫ַבתתקיל ַולא ̇‬
‫̇‬ ‫ַבתכפיף ַיכון ַאבדא ַולא‬
‫̇‬ ‫ַפכרוגהא‬
‫תתקלהא‪ַ .‬ואן ַליס ַגעיה ̇‬
‫̇‬
‫הדאַ‬
‫לךַפיַגמיעַאקסאםַטהורהַאלתיַשרחנאהאַוגמיעַחרכאתהַעליַ ̇‬
‫̇‬ ‫אלשרטַלעולםַוכד‬
‫̇‬
‫‪.‬אלמתל‬
‫̇‬
‫‪231‬‬
‫‪E.g. Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ (short version, edition in vol. 2 of this book,‬‬
‫‪§II.S.5.1, §II.S.5.3), Baer and Strack (1879, 12–13); cf. Khan (2009, 3*-‬‬
‫‪7*).‬‬
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 491

‫امو ّࣦۜخام‬
ۢ ۖ‫( ك‬BL Or 2552 fol. 16v, 13 | L [BHS]: ‫מֹוכם‬
ֵֶ֗ ‫ ְכ‬Job. 12.3

‘like you’)

‫( وۖ ۢاثومۖ ۜخاه۠ ا‬BL Or 2553 fol. 5v, 5 | L [BHS]: ‫ ְות ְֹמ ֶ ָ֥כ ַָּיה‬Prov. 3.18
‘and those who support her’)

‫يسࣦۢوࣦ۠ثاو‬
ࣦ ࣦۚ‫( عࣦۚ ۘـࣦــࣦاط‬BL Or 2552 fol. 87v, 14 | L [BHS]: ‫ ֲֶ֭ע ִטיׁש ָֹּתיו‬Job.
41.10 ‘his sneezings’)

The default pronunciation of vocalic shewa was with the

quality of pataḥ [a]. This explains why the shewa gaʿya in the
foregoing examples is represented by Arabic mater lectionis ʾalif,
which represents long [aː]. A lengthened ḥaṭef pataḥ is likewise
represented by mater lectionis ʾalif.
A mater lectionis is, however, sometimes omitted in the tran-
scriptions of shewa gaʿya. This is regularly the case in many man-
uscripts in contexts where shewa has a higher vowel quality than
pataḥ before yod or gutturals, e.g.

ࣦ‫و‬ٟ ‫( وۖ ۟۟يࣦاعۘ ࣦۢࣵبوذ‬BL Or 2552 fol. 63r, 15 | L [BHS]: ‫ ְוִֽ ֶַ֫י ֲע ָ֥בֹדּו‬Job.
36.11 ‘and they will serve’), in which the shewa before yod
is pronounced with the quality of ḥireq [ˌviˑjaːʕaˈvoːðuː]
ّ
‫و ۠لࣦام‬ٟ ‫( وۖ ا‬BL Or 2552 fol. 18v, 7 | L [BHS]: ‫אּולם‬
ָּ ֵ֗ ‫ ְו‬Job. 12.7

‘but’), in which the shewa has the quality of shureq before a

guttural followed by shureq [ˌwuˑʔuːˈlɔːɔm]
492 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

‫( صايࣦلاخ‬BL Or 2554 fol. 35r, 1 | L [BHS]: ‫ ְצ ִא ֞ ָּי־לְך‬Cant.

1.8 ‘go out’), in which the shewa is pronounced with the
quality of ḥireq before a guttural followed by ḥireq [ˌsˁiˑʔiː-
ˈlɔːɔχ]

۠ ‫( ۤوࣦعۛ ين‬BL Or 2549 fol. 112r, 6 | L [BHS]: ‫ ְו ְֵֽ֠עינֶ יך‬Jer. 34.3

‫ۜاخا‬
‘and your eyes’), in which the shewa is pronounced with the
quality of ṣere before a guttural followed by ṣere
[ˌveˑʕeːˈnɛːχɔː]

‫حو ۖطاۚي‬
ۢ ࣦۚ‫( و‬BL Or 2553 fol. 22v, 8 | L [BHS]: ‫ וְ ֶ֭ ח ְֹט ִאי‬Prov. 8.36
‘he who misses me’), in which the shewa is pronounced with
the quality of ḥolem before a guttural followed by ḥolem
[ˌvoˑħoːotˁˈʔiː]

In such manuscripts a mater lectionis is also sometimes omit-

ted when the shewa with gaʿya has the quality of [a], e.g.

ࣦ‫و‬ٟ ‫( ࣦت ۟شلۖح‬BL Or 2549 fol. 115r, 14 | L [BHS]: ‫ ְת ַׁש ְלּ ִ֡חּו‬Jer. 34.14

‘you will send off’)

‫( كࣦۖـن۟اعۘ نۚ يم‬BL Or 2552 fol. 85r, 3 | L [BHS]: ‫ ְכנַ ֲע ִנים‬Job. 40.30

‘merchants’)

This distribution of matres lectionis representing shewa gaʿya

in the Karaite transcriptions corresponds closely to the distribu-
tion we have seen representing minor gaʿya. This reflects a lesser
duration of such vowels than vowels in other contexts. In my
phonetic transcription of such forms, therefore, I transcribe the
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 493

vowels with half-length [aˑ], [iˑ], etc. Moreover, vowels of shewa

gaʿya with a high quality were of a lesser duration than those
with the low quality [a], as was the case with vowels marked by
minor gaʿya. Manuscripts that do not represent high vowels of
shewa gaʿya or minor gaʿya would regularly represent them if they
are long vowels that are represented by vowel signs in an open
syllable, as in

‫وص‬ٟ ࣦ‫( ميۚح‬BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 113v, 5 | L [BHS]: ‫ִַמ ַ֣חּוץ‬

Deut. 23.11 ‘from outside’)

Likewise, inherently long vowels followed by silent shewa

are regularly transcribed by a mater lectionis, as in

ࣦ‫و‬ٟ ࣦ‫( ۟ويۚيرا‬BL Or 2547 fol. 7v, 1 | L [BHS]: ‫ וַ ִיּ ְִֽר ַ֣אּו‬Josh. 4.14 ‘and
they (mpl) feared’)

The fact that the ḥireq vowel in a word such as ‫( מִַ ַ֣חּוץ‬Josh.
4.14) is regularly represented by a mater lectionis but a vowel of
the same quality with shewa gaʿya in a word such as ‫( ְו ִֶַֽ֫י ֲע ָ֥בֹדּו‬Job.
36.11) is not regularly represented by a mater lectionis suggests
that an open syllable containing vocalic shewa with gaʿya was
different in status from the open syllable with a vowel sign. The
syllable with a ḥireq vowel in a word such as ‫ מִַ ַ֣חּוץ‬was bimoraic
(CVV) whereas the vocalic shewa with gaʿya was monomoraic
(CV) but was increased in duration phonetically by the gaʿya. The
same applied to CVC syllables, in which the single vowel mora
was increased in duration by a minor gaʿya. We may say that the
shewa gaʿya stretched phonetically a short vowel, but did not, in
principle, cause it to be lengthened to the duration of a long
494 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

vowel with underlying bimoraic length. The underlying syllable

structure and phonetic syllable structure of a word such as ‫ְו ְֵֽ֠עינֶ יך‬
(Jer. 34.3) ‘and your eyes’ would be: /vʕē.nɛ̄.χɔ̄/
[ˌveˑ.ʕeː.ˈnɛː.χɔː]. In a word such as ‫ם‬
ַ ‫‘ ֵמ ָּא ָּד‬from man’ (Gen. 6.7),
on the other hand, the long ṣere would be in the underlying syl-
lable structure: /mē.ʔɔ̄.ðɔ̄.m/ [ˌmeː.ʔɔː.ˈðɔː.ɔm].
This appears to contradict the passage in the Treatise on the
Shewa cited above, which claimed that a shewa with gaʿya was
pronounced like a full long vowel. A more nuanced statement is,
however, found in another passage in this treatise:
If someone objected and said to you: If shewa according to
you is marked only with short vowels, why do you vocalize
ִ ‫‘ ֱא‬God’ with shewa, in which the ʾalef has a long vowel.
‫ֹלהים‬
Likewise, ‫‘ ֲאד ֹנִ י‬my Lord’, ‫ית‬
ַָּ ‫‘ ֲה ָּר ִִ֔א‬have you seen?’ (1 Kings
21.29), ‫ֹות‬ ִ֔ ‫‘ ֱה ִט‬you did well’ (2 Chron. 6.8), ‫ב־א ִָּ֔שּׁה‬
ַָּ ‫יב‬ ִ ‫‘ ֵלְַ֣ךַ ֱא ַה‬go
and love a woman’ (Hos. 3.1), and also ‫( ֲֶ֭ה ִמיָּּ ֶמיך‬A, L: ‫)ה ִמיָּּ ֶמיך‬
ֶ֭ ְ
‘since your days (began)’ (Job 38.12), ‫‘ ֲֶ֭ה ִמ ִּב ָּינ ְַ֣תך‬is it from
your understanding?’ (Job 39.26). The answer is that in all
these words, and the like, when the gaʿya is removed, they
are pronounced with a short vowel. We vocalize them with
shewa on account of this shortness. The gaʿya is a
subsidiary addition. We should not change the basic rule
on account of a subsidiary case.232

232
Ed. Levy (1936, ‫)כה‬, lacunae supplied by CUL Or 1080.13.3.2, fol. 1r:
ַ‫להים‬
ִ ‫פיףַפלםַתנקטַא‬
ְ ‫אַכאןַאלשואַענדךַלאַיכוןַאלאַמעַאלכ‬
̇ ‫ךַוקילַלךַאד‬
̇ ‫פאןַעארצ‬
̇
ַ‫ַוכדלך‬
̇ ‫ַא ָּשה‬
ִ ‫ַלך ֶַא ַהב‬
ֵ ‫טיבות‬
ָּ ‫ַומתלה ְַהראית ְַה‬
̇ ‫ַמתלה ְַאד ֹנִ י‬
̇ ‫וכדלך‬
̇ ַ ‫ַתקיל‬
̇ ‫בשוא ַואלאלף‬
ַ‫אַשאכלהאַאדא‬
̇ ‫הַאלאלפאט ַכלהאַומ‬
̇ ‫לךַאעלםַאןַהד‬
̇ ‫ַאלגואבַפיַד‬.‫תך‬
̇ ָּ‫מבנ‬
ִ ‫יךַה‬
ַ ‫ַה ִמיָּ ֶמ‬
ַ‫ַכפתהא ַואנמא‬
̇ ‫ַמכטופה ַפנחן ַננקטהא ַבשוא ַלאגל‬
̇ ‫ַכפיפה‬
̇ ‫רפע ַענהא ַאלגעיה ַצארת‬
‫יַנגירַאלאצלַמןַאגלַאלפרע‬
̇ ‫אלגעיהַטפילהַמזאדהַפיהאַוליסַינבג‬.
̇
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 495

This passage could be interpreted as reflecting the notion

that although the gaʿya lengthens the vowel of the shewa, it does
not fundamentally change the status of the shewa to that of a full
vowel. This can be reformulated in terms of metric analysis by
the hypothesis that a gaʿya on a vocalic shewa does not change
the foot structure, i.e. the shewa still remains within the foot of
the following vowel and is not parsed as a separate foot. The foot
structure of the words ‫( ְת ַׁש ְלּ ַּ֤חּו‬1 Sam. 6.3) and such as ‫( ְת ַׁש ְלּ ִ֡חּו‬Jer.
34.14) would be the same (indicated by brackets):

‫ְת ַׁש ְלּ ַּ֤חּו‬

[(ta.ʃal.)(la.ˈħuː)]

‫ְת ַׁש ְלּ ִ֡חּו‬

[(ˌtaˑ.ʃal.)(la.ˈħuː)]

This should be contrasted with a CV syllable with a lexical

vowel such as the ḥaṭef qameṣ in a word such as ‫‘ ַה ֳקּ ָּד ִׁשים‬holi-
nesses’ (Exod. 26.33). We have seen that such syllables are in
their own separate foot, although, since it consists of a mono-
moraic syllable, it should be classified as degenerate (§I.2.7.).
When these take secondary stress, they are lengthened to the full
duration of long bimoraic vowels in open syllables and repre-
sented by a full qameṣ vowel. A gaʿya marking the secondary
stress should, therefore, be interpreted as a major gaʿya. This pro-
sodic structure was facilitated by the fact that they have their
own foot:

‫‘ ָּק ָּד ִִׁ֔שים‬holinesses’ (Exod. 29.37)

[(ˌqɔ̟ ː.)(ðɔː.)(ˈʃiː.im)]
496 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

The syllable of a shewa with gaʿya, by contrast, remains

subordinate prosodically to the following syllable in an iambic
foot (. *). It is lengthened phonetically by the gaʿya but does not
achieve the full bimoraic weight of the following syllable of the
foot. This could be analysed as a case of ‘multi-plane metrics’
(Bosch 1996, Gordon 2006, Ryan 2016) whereby the phon-
etically prominent position and the metrically prominent
position in a prosodic domain such as a foot or prosodic word do
not necessarily coincide. The shewa with gaʿya is phonetically
prominent in the foot due to the lengthening of the vowel, but
the following syllable remains the metrically prominent syllable
in the foot due to its weight and stronger beat.
In the Karaite transcriptions one case has been identified in
which a shewa with gaʿya is transcribed with gemination of the
following consonant and the shewa is replaced in the vocalization
with a full vowel:

‫( ب۟امࣦ۟اع۟ ۠ساو‬BL Or 2555 fol. 19r, 5 | L [BHS]: ‫ ְּב ַמ ֲע ִָּ֔שיו‬Ecc. 3.22

‘in his works’)

Here the phonetic prominence and the metrical promi-

nence have been brought into line, in that the syllable of the
strengthed shewa has become bimoraic and so parsed as an inde-
pendent foot.

I.2.10. METRICAL EPENTHESIS

As we have seen, patterns of secondary stress in principle exhibit
eurhythmic alternating sequences of prominent and non-promi-
nent syllables. The clash of a prominent syllable with the main
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 497

stress immediately adjacent to a prominent syllable with second-

ary stress marked by an accent or gaʿya is, in principle, avoided.
There are some cases, however, where such a clash appears to
take place. These include words in which a syllable with a short
vowel immediately before the syllable with the main stress is
marked by gaʿya. Such patterns occur when the contact between
the two syllables consists of two weak consonants, i.e. the first
syllable has a weak consonant as its coda and the following syl-
lable has a weak consonant as its onset. This occurrence of gaʿya
is found, for example, on a pataḥ where the syllable contact con-
sists of coda that is a guttural and an onset that is one of the
sonorants yod, lamed, or nun, or another guttural,233 e.g.

‫[ יְ ַׁש ְע ָּיַ֣הּו‬ja.ˌʃaˑʕ.ˈjɔː.huː] ‘Isaiah’ (Isa. 1.1)

ְ [wuf.ˌθaˑḥ.ˈjɔː] ‘and Pethahiah’ (Neh. 11.24)

‫ּופ ַת ְח ֵָּּ֨יה‬

‫[ יְ ַד ְע ָּיה‬jaˌðaˑʕˌjɔː] ‘Jedaiah’ (Neh. 12.6)

‫[ ְׁש ַמ ְע ָּיֹ֑ה‬ʃa.ˌmaˑʕ.ˈjɔː] ‘Shemaiah’ (Neh. 10.9)

ְ [wuʃ.ˌmaˑʕ.ˈjɔː.huː] ‘and Shemaiahu’ (2 Chron. 35.9)

‫ּוׁש ַמ ְעיָּ הּו‬

This type of lengthening before a guttural followed by an-

other weak consonant is found also across word boundaries,
where the two words are connected by maqqef or where they are
independent words, e.g.

ָּ ‫[ ְׁש ַמ‬ʃa.ˌmaˑʕ.-ˈnɔː] ‘listen!’ (1 Sam. 28.22)

‫ע־נַּ֤א‬

ֵּ֨ ‫[ ָּל ַָּק‬lɔː.ˌqa̟ ˑħ.-ˈloː] ‘he took him’ (Exod. 6.25)

‫ח־לֹו‬

ָּ ‫ˌ[ ַד‬daˑʕ.-ˈlɔː.ɔχ] ‘know you!’ (Job. 5.27)

‫ע־לְך‬

233
Yeivin (1980, 262) refers to this as a phonetic gaʿya.
498 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

ָּ ‫ˌ[ ַק‬qaˑḥ.-ˈlɔːɔχ] ‘take for yourself’ (Gen. 14.21)

‫ח־לְך‬

ָּ ‫[ ֲה ָּ ַׁ֣ש ַמע‬ha.ˈʃɔː.ˌmaˑʕ. ˈʕɔː.ɔm] ‘did any people hear?’

ַ‫ַעם‬
(Deut. 4.33)

It is even marked occasionally on furtive pataḥ in such cir-

cumstances, e.g.

‫מ ַע ִַ֔לֹו‬
ֹ ַ֣ ‫[ ִל ְׁש‬liʃ.ˈmoː.ˌaˑʕ-ˈloː] to listen to him’ (Jud. 19.25)

‫ˈ[ ַ֣כֹ ַח ֵַלב‬kʰoː.ˌaˑħ ˈleː.ev] ‘strength of heart’ (Job. 36.5)

This type of gaʿya is found also before other sequences of

weak consonants across syllables in word-internal position. These
consonants include gutturals, sonorants, continuants, sibilants ,
fricatives, and qof, e.g.

‫ˌ[ ַׁשוְ ַעַ֣ת‬ʃaˑv.ˈʕaː.aθ] ‘cry of’ (Jer. 8.19)

‫ˌ[ ַה ְׁש ִ ָ֥חית‬haˑʃ.ˈħiː.iθ] ‘to destroy’ (Isa. 65.8)

‫ˌ[ ַח ְס ֵ ָ֥די‬ħaˑs.ˈðeː] ‘love of’ (Isa. 55.3)

‫ˌ[ ַס ְרגִׂ֖ ֹון‬saˑrˁ.ˈʁoː.on] ‘Sargon’ (Isa. 20.1)

ַ‫ˌ[ ַ ַכ ְדכֹד‬kʰaˑð.ˈχoː.oð] ‘ruby’ (Isa. 54.12)

ַ ֵ‫ˌ[ ַכ ְלנ‬χaˑl.ˈneː] ‘Calneh’ (Amos 6.2)

‫ה‬

‫ˌ[ ַע ְר ָ֥בֹות‬ʕaˑʀ̟.ˈvoː.oθ] ‘desert plains’ (Josh. 4.13)

It is found also on high vowels, e.g.

ְ [wuv.ˌsˁiˑq.̟ ˈlaː.aʁ] ‘and in Ziklag’ (Neh. 11.28)

‫ּוב ִצ ְק ַ ָ֥לג‬

‫ˌ[ ִמ ְׁש ֵ֗כּו‬miˑʃ.ˈχuː] ‘pull out!’ (Exod. 12.21)

ַ ‫[ ָּה ִר ְצ ָּפ‬hɔː.ˌrˁiˑsˁ.ˈfɔː] ‘the pavement’ (2 Chron. 7.3)

‫ה‬

ַ [wu.vaq.̟ ˌbuˑq.ˈjɔː] ‘and Bakbukiah’ (Neh 12.9)

‫ּוב ְקּב ְק ֵָּּ֨יה‬
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 499

The lengthening of the vowel is reflected by the Karaite

transcriptions by an Arabic mater lectionis, although the gaʿya sign
is not always marked in the manuscripts, e.g.

‫( شسم۟ اعۖ ي۠ ا‬BL Or 2556, fol. 65r, 1 | L [BHS]: ‫ ְׁש ַמ ְעָּיֹ֑ה‬Neh. 10.9
‘Shemaiah’)

‫۟اح ࣤ ۠يࣦا‬
ۖ ‫( ۖفث‬BL Or 2556, fol. 54v, 2 | L [BHS]: ‫ ְפ ַת ְח ִָּ֔יה‬Neh. 9.5
‘Pethahiah’)

ࣦ‫اخ‬ ࣦ٘ ۟‫( د‬BL Or 2552 fol. 7v, 4 | L [BHS]: ‫ע־לְך׃‬

ۖ ۠‫ل‬-‫اع‬ ָּ ‫ ַד‬Job. 5.27

‘know you!’)

‫نࣦ۠ا‬-‫( ۖسم۟ اع‬BL Or 2552 fol. 47v, 1 | L [BHS]: ‫ע־נַ֣א‬

ָּ ‫ ְׁש ַמ‬Job. 33.1

‘hear please!’)

‫( لاقاح لو‬BL Or 2542, fol. 50r, 5 | L [BHS]: ‫ח־לֹו‬

ֵּ֨ ‫ ָּל ַָּק‬Exod.

6.25 ‘he took him’)

ۤ
ࣦ‫اخ‬
ۖ -‫( وا ۠ۜشاب۟اع‬BL Or 2549 fol. 226v, 9 | L [BHS]: ‫עַלְך‬
‫ل‬
۠ ָּ ְֽ֠ ‫וָּ ֶא ָּ ַ֣שּׁ ַב‬

Ezek. 16.8 ‘and I swore to you’)

][‫( ا۟سبۚ ي۟اع ࣦلاح‬BL Or 2551 fol. 96r, 13 | L [BHS]: ַ‫ַא ְש ִ ָּ֥ב ַיע‬
‫ ָּל ֶחם׃‬Psa. 132.15 ‘I will satisfy (with) bread’)

ࣦ‫( هࣦۘ ࣦ۠سࣦام۟ اعࣦع۠ ام‬BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 88v, 1 | L [BHS]: ַ‫ֲה ָּ ַׁ֣ש ַמע‬
ַ‫ ָּעם‬Deut. 4.33 ‘did a people hear’)
500 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

‫( ۟شاوۖع۟ ࣦاث‬BL Or 2549 fol. 65v, 1 | L [BHS]: ‫ ַׁשוְ ַעַ֣ת‬Jer. 8.19

‘cry of’)

‫( حاسذى‬BL Or 2548 fol. 168r, 7 | L [BHS]: ‫ ַח ְס ֵ ָ֥די‬Isa. 55.3

‘love of’)

‫( كاذخوذ‬BL Or 2548 fol. 164v, 11 | L [BHS]: ‫ ַכ ְדכ ַֹד‬Isa. 54.12

‘ruby’)

‫و ۖق ۚ ۠يࣦا‬ٟ ‫ب‬ٟ ۖ‫وب۟ق‬ٟ (BL Or 2556, fol. 79r, 9 | L [BHS]: ‫ ַּוב ְקּב ְק ֵָּּ֨יה‬Neh. 12.9
‘and Bakbukiah’)

‫( وب ۚۖصيقۖ لࣦ۟ࣵاغ‬BL Or 2556, fol. 78r, 2 | L [BHS]: ‫ ְּוב ִצ ְק ַ ָ֥לג‬Neh.

11.28 ‘and in Ziklag’)

In some manuscripts, the mater lectionis is occasionally

omitted in places where the gaʿya in L occurs on high vowels, e.g.

‫( مشحو‬BL Or 2542, fol. 58v, 7 | L [BHS]: ‫ ִמ ְׁש ֵ֗כּו‬Exod. 12.21

‘pull out!’)

This is analogous to the omission of a mater lectionis where

minor gaʿya or shewa gaʿya occur on a high vowel. It indicates
that the duration of the vowel lengthened by this type of phonetic
gaʿya was less than that of a long bimoraic vowel in an open
syllable and that high vowels were inherently shorter than low
vowels. The vowel, therefore, should be represented as half-long
in roman transcription, e.g. [aˑ], [iˑ], [uˑ], as is the case with the
vowels with minor gaʿya or the vowels of shewa gaʿya.
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 501

The shewa after this type of gaʿya was silent. This is shown
by the representation of the silent shewa by Arabic sukūn in some
of the Karaite transcriptions and by the fact that A regularly has
a simple shewa sign rather than a ḥaṭef pataḥ. This should be
contrasted with cases of phonetic gaʿya that augment the short
vowel by an extra mora and cause the shewa to be vocalic by
inducing a resyllabification (§I.2.5.8.), e.g.

L: ְַ ‫[ ֲה ִת‬ha.θiː.ma.ˈloː.oχ] ‘Are you a king?’ (A ‫ה ִת ֲמ ִֹ֔לְך‬,

‫מ ִֹ֔לְך‬ ֲ Jer.
22.15)

In such cases, the vowel should be transcribed as fully long,

viz. [aː], [iː], [uː].
The purpose of the phonetic gaʿya before a silent shewa in
forms such as ‫[ יְ ַׁש ְע ָּיַ֣הּו‬ja.ˌʃaˑʕ.ˈjɔː.huː] was orthoepic, just as was
the case with the phonetic gaʿya before a vocalic shewa in a word
such as ‫מ ִֹ֔לְך‬
ְַ ‫[ ֲה ִת‬ha.θiː.ma.ˈloː.oχ]. Both cases were a measure to
avoid the slurring of the weak letters together in the reading.
They were evidently felt to be vulnerable to such slurring due to
the fact that they formed a suboptimal syllable contact. The op-
timal contact between two adjacent syllables is where the onset
of the second syllable is stronger than the offset (coda) of the
preceding syllable (Vennemann 1988, 40).
In forms such as ‫[ יְ ַׁש ְעיָּ ַ֣הּו‬ja.ˌʃaˑʕ.ˈjɔː.huː], the clash of two
prominent syllables can be assumed to have induced a repair
mechanism in the form of a short pause equivalent to a weak
beat, in effect a metrical epenthetic or zero syllable. The foot and
grid structure of this can be represented thus (the final syllable
enclosed in angular brackets is extra-metrical):
502 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Level 4 x
Level 3 x x
Level 2 x x <x>
Level 1 x x x x <x>
Feet (. ˌ*) (. ˈ*) <*>
ja ˌʃaˑʕ ∅ ˈjɔː huː

In some cases lengthening of the vowel before the weak

consonants is represented in the Karaite transcriptions where a
gaʿya is not marked in L. It regularly occurs, for example, in the
word ‫ יְ ַׁש ְעיָּ הּו‬even where L does not have gaʿya on the shin, e.g.

‫( يشاعياهو‬BL Or 2548 fol. 14r, 9 | L [BHS]: ‫ יְ ַׁש ְעָּיהּו‬Isa. 37.5

‘Isaiah’)

A minor gaʿya is marked on some constructions that have a

phonetic gaʿya of this nature, e.g.

A: ‫ ַמ ַפח־ ָּנ ֶפׁש‬, [ˌmaˑpˌpʰaˑħ∅ˈnɔːfɛʃ] ‘the breathing out of the

soul’ (L [BHS]: ‫ח־נ ֶפׁש‬
ָּ ‫ ַמ ַפ‬Job. 11.20)

L: ‫[ וְ יִ ְׁש ַמ ְע ָּיה‬viˌjiˑʃˌmaˑʕ∅ˈjɔː] ‘and Ishmaiah’ (1 Chron. 12.4)

L: ‫[ וַ ִיּ ִַֽקּח־לָ֥ ֹו‬vaɟˌɟiˑqˌ̟ qa̟ ˑħ∅ˈloː] ‘and he took for himself’ (Gen.

4.19)

The lengthening is reflected in the Karaite transcriptions,

e.g.

‫ۜس‬
ࣦ ‫ن۠اف‬-‫( م۟ اف۟اح‬BL Or 2552 fol. 16r, 5 | A ‫ ַמ ַפח־ ָּנ ֶפׁש‬Job. 11.20)
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 503

‫( و۟يۚ يزۖر۟ اح ࣦلࣦࣦۢو‬BL Or 2544, fol. 34r, 9 | L [BHS]: ‫ וַ ִיִּֽזְ ַרח־לַ֣ ֹו‬Gen.
32.32 ‘and it rose for him’)

This indicates that the pattern of the constructions was pro-

sodically equivalent to the regular structures of minor gaʿya. They
may be compared, in particular, to the pattern ‫מ ְת ַפ ֲע ִלים‬.ִ In a struc-
ture such as ‫[ וְ יִ ְׁש ַמ ְע ָּיה‬viˌjiˑʃˌmaˑʕ∅ˈjɔː], therefore, the metrical ep-
enthetic ∅ would correspond to the short ḥaṭef vowel of ‫מ ְת ַפ ֲע ִלים‬.ִ
This is evidence for the existence of the metrical epenthetic.
Moreover, the equivalence of the two structures demonstrates
that the duration of the pataḥ before the ḥaṭef in ‫ ִמ ְת ַפ ֲע ִלים‬and of
the pataḥ with the phonetic gaʿya in ‫ וְ יִ ְׁש ַמ ְע ָּיה‬was equivalent, i.e.
a half-long [aˑ].
Metrical epenthesis between two weak consonants in the
contact of two syllables can be identified as an orthoepic strategy
in some forms of the verbs ‫‘ ָּהַָּיה‬to be’ and ‫‘ ָּחיָּ ה‬to live’. This is
achieved by lengthening the ḥireq of prefixes before he or ḥet and
lengthening the pataḥ of the conjunctive prefix va- before yod,
e.g.

‫ˌ[ יִ ְה ֶיִׂ֖ה‬jiˑhˈjɛː] ‘it will be’ (Gen. 1.29)

‫ˌ[ יִ ְח ֶָ֜יה‬jiˑħˈjɛː] ‘he lives’ (Ecc. 6.3)

‫ˌ[ ִמ ְהיָ֥ ֹות‬miˑhˈjoːoθ] ‘from being’ (Jer. 31.35)

‫ˌ[ ַוִֽיְ ִ ִׂ֖הי‬vaˑjˈhiː] ‘and it was’ (Gen. 4.3)

‫ˌ[ ַוִֽיְ ִ ַ֣חי‬vaˑjˈħiː] ‘and he lived’ (Gen. 5.3)

In the model Tiberian codices, the prefixes of these verbs

are frequently, though not regularly, marked with a gaʿya sign.
504 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

The marking of gaʿya differs across the manuscripts. In places

where it is omitted in L and A, it is often marked in C. The Karaite
transcriptions indicate that the vowel of the prefixes was
regularly lengthened, including where it is omitted in L and A,
e.g.

‫( يۚيهۖ يࣦۜا‬BL Or 2549 fol. 87r, 6 | L [BHS]: ‫ יִ ְהֶיַ֣ה‬Jer. 23.17 ‘it

(ms) will be’)

ࣦ‫و‬ٟ ‫( و۟ييه ࣵي‬BL Or 2549 fol. 55r, 14 | L [BHS], A: ‫וַ יִּ ְהיָ֥ ּו‬, C: ‫ וַ ִַיּ ְהיָ֥ ּו‬Jer.
7.24 ‘and they were’)

‫( تۚيهۖ يۜ ࣵا‬BL Or 2549 fol. 58r, 12 | L [BHS], A: ‫ת ְהיֶ ָ֥ה‬,ִ C: ‫ ִ ַת ְהֶיָ֥ה‬Jer.

7.34 ‘it (fs) will be’)

‫( مۚ يهۖ ۢيوࣵث‬BL Or 2549 fol. 92r, 12 | L [BHS]: ‫ ִמ ְהיָ֥ ֹות‬Jer. 31.35

‘from being’)

ࣦ‫و‬ٟ ‫ۚيح ࣬ي‬

ۖ ‫( ت‬BL Or 2549 fol. 120r, 10 | L [BHS]: ‫ ִת ְחיָ֜ ּו‬Jer. 35.7
‘you (mpl) will live’)

‫( و۟ايۖهّࣦۚى‬BL Or 2540, fol. 3v, 4 | L [BHS]: ‫ וַיְ ִֵ֗הי‬Exod. 1.5 ‘and

it was’)

‫( وايحي‬BL Or 2548 fol. 28r, 9 | L [BHS]: ‫ וַ יְ ִ ִׂ֖חי‬Isa. 38.9 ‘and

he lived’)

Since the Karaite transcriptions mark the vowels as long

even where the model codices, even C, do not mark gaʿya, the
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 505

lengthening of the vowel is not directly correlated with the mark-

ing of the gaʿya.
When the prefix of the verb begins with a consonant other
than yod, the pataḥ in the va- prefixed particle is not lengthened,
since there was no contact of two weak consonants and metrical
epenthesis was unnecessary, e.g.

‫[ וַ ְת ִ ַּ֤הי‬vattʰiˈhiː] ‘and it (fs) was’ (Jud. 11.29)

This is shown by the fact that Karaite transcriptions

regularly have no mater lectionis in such contexts, e.g.

‫( ۟وت ۚ ࣴۖهي‬BL Or 2547 fol. 34r, 5 | L [BHS]: ‫ וַ ְת ִ ַּ֤הי‬Jud. 11.29 ‘and

it (fs) was’)

Some manuscripts of the Karaite transcriptions represent

only the pataḥ of the forms ‫ וַ יְ ִהי‬and ‫ וַ יְ ִחי‬but not ḥireq in the pre-
fixes of these verbs, reflecting the lengthening only of pataḥ, e.g.
Or 2539 fols. 56–114:

ࣦ‫ۖهي‬
ۚ ‫( و۟اي‬BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 71v, 6 | L [BHS]: ‫ ַוִֽיְ ִהי־‬Gen.
24.15 ‘and it was’)

‫( يۚهيࣦۜ ۜا‬BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 97r, 8 | L [BHS]: ‫ י ְִהֶיַּ֤ה‬Deut. 18.22

‘he will be’)

ࣦ‫و‬ٟ ‫( يۚهۖ ࣦࣵي‬BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 103r, 4 | L [BHS]: ‫ יִ ְהיָ֥ ּו‬Deut.

20.11 ‘they will be’)
506 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Manuscripts such as Or 2539 fols. 56–114 that do not rep-

resent the ḥireq with mater lectionis mark long ḥireq in other con-
texts with a mater lectionis, e.g.
ۚ ۚ‫( م‬BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 57r, 8 | L [BHS]: ‫חּוט‬
ࣦ‫يحوط‬ ַ ‫־מ‬ ִ Gen.

14.23 ‘from a thread’)

This suggests that the ḥireq in the prefixes of these verbs

was long, but was perceived to be shorter in duration than the
pataḥ in prefixes of these verbs and shorter than long ḥireq in
other contexts. This is reminiscent of the short vowels in closed
syllables that were lengthened by minor gaʿya. These, likewise,
were only half-long and exhibit a lesser duration when the vowel
is a high vowel (§I.2.8.2.2.).
I have presented evidence elsewhere (Khan 2018b) that the
orthoepic measure of lengthening the vowels before two weak
consonants in forms of the verbs ‫ ָּהיָּה‬and ‫ ָּחיָּה‬had deep historical
roots that can be traced to the proto-Masoretic reading in Second
Temple Palestine before the split of the Tiberian and Babylonian
branches. It arose as a measure to ensure that the gutturals were
not weakened in these verbs and thus to prevent them from being
confounded. The argument, in brief, is that all initial he and
initial ḥet verbs originally had an /i/ vowel in prefixes in the
proto-Masoretic reading. This situation has been preserved in the
Babylonian reading tradition, whereas in the Tiberian tradition
the vowel generally underwent lowering to a segol or pataḥ
(Yeivin 1985, 302), e.g.234

234
Data supplied by Shai Heijmans.
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 507

‫[ תִהדפו‬tihdoːfuː] (L [BHS]: ‫ ֶת ְה ִ֔ד ֹפּו‬Ezek. 34.21 ‘you will

push’)

‫הר ֹגו‬
ֹ ִ‫[ י‬yihroːʁuː] (l [BHS]: ‫יַה ֹ֑ר ֹגּו‬
ֲ Psa. 94.6 ‘they will kill’)

The /i/ has been preserved in the verbs ‫ ָּהיָּה‬and ‫ ָּחיָּ ה‬in the
Tiberian tradition because it was lengthened for orthoepic
reasons. This must have taken place before the vowel lowering
took place in initial he and ḥet verbs at a remote historical period
when such verbs originally had /i/ in the prefixes before the
Babylonian and Tiberian branches split.
This demonstrates that orthoepy was already a feature of
the ancient reading and that care over the oral reading of the text
went hand in hand with care over the copying of the written text
at an ancient period, presumably within Temple circles.
Vowels lengthened before weak consonants for the purpose
of orthoepic metrical epenthesis such as the constructions men-
tioned in this section, although not fully bimoraic vowels, appear
to have been of a slightly longer duration than vowels in closed
syllables lengthened by musical minor gaʿya. This is shown by the
fact that there are manuscripts of Karaite transcriptions that tran-
scribe the ḥireq or prefixes of the verbs ‫ ָּהיָּ ה‬and ‫ ָּחיָּ ה‬with an Arabic
mater lectionis but omit the mater lectionis where a ḥireq has minor
gaʿya, e.g.

ࣦ‫و‬ٟ ‫( يۚيهۖ ي‬BL Or 2549 fol. 59r, 1 | L [BHS]: ‫ יִ ְהיּו׃‬Jer. 8.2 ‘they
will be’)

ࣦ‫وو‬ٟ ‫۟اح‬
ۘ ‫( ۚهشت‬BL Or 2549 fol. 58v, 13 | L [BHS]: ‫ ִה ְׁש ַת ֲחוִׂ֖ ּו‬Jer. 8.2
‘they worshipped’)
508 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Likewise, there are some manuscripts that regularly

transcribe a pataḥ lengthened in metrical epenthesis cons-
tructions by an Arabic mater lectionis, but sometimes omit a mater
lectionis in the transcription of pataḥ with minor gaʿya, e.g.

ࣦ‫وايهي‬
ۚ (BL Or 2542, fol. 43r, 3 | L [BHS]: ‫ וַיְ ִֵ֗הי‬Exod. 1.5 ‘and
it was’)

‫( لاقاح لو‬BL Or 2542, fol. 50r, 5 | L [BHS]: ‫ח־לֹו‬

ֵּ֨ ‫ ָּל ַָּק‬Exod.

6.25 ‘he took for himself’)

ࣦ‫و‬ٟ ‫ۖص‬
ࣦ ‫( وࣦ۟ ۚيࣦ ۖشر‬BL Or 2542, fol. 43r, 6 | L [BHS]: ‫ ַוִֽיִּ ְׁש ְר ָ֛צּו‬Exod. 1.7
‘and they swarmed’)

The lengthening of the vowel before weak consonants in

syllable contact in constructions with metrical epenthesis de-
scribed in this section is occasionally extended by analogy to sit-
uations in which the vowel occurs before weak consonants but is
not immediately followed by the syllable bearing the main stress.
These often occur before maqqef, e.g.

ֶ ‫[ ַא ְר ַּב‬ʔaʀ̟ˌbaˑʕ-ʕɛsˈʀ̟eː] ‘fourteen’ (Gen. 31.41)

‫ע־ע ְש ֵ ַּ֤רה‬

ָ֥ ֶ ‫ˌ[ ַוִֽיְ ִה‬vaˑjhiː-ˈʕɛːʀ̟ev] ‘and it was evening’ (Gen. 1.5)

‫י־ע ֶרב‬
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 509

I.2.11. MAQQEF
The maqqef sign joins words that are read together as a group
with a single main stress.235 The number of words joined in this
way is most frequently two, e.g.

L: ָּ ‫‘ ֶא‬the light’ (Gen. 1.4)

‫ת־ה ִׂ֖אֹור‬

There are some cases of three, or, sporadically, even four

words joined together into a single main stress group, e.g.

L: ‫ֹה‬
ַ ‫ב־פ ְרע‬ ֵ ‫‘ַ ֶא‬the heart of Pharaoh’ (Exod. 14.4)
ַ ‫ת־ל‬

L: ‫ר־פ ַׁשע‬
ֶ ִ֡ ‫ל־ד ַב‬ ָּ ‫‘ ַע‬for every case of crime’ (Exod. 22.8)
ְ ‫ל־כ‬

There are three main factors that condition the use of

maqqef.
(i) When there would be a clash of two main accents across
two words, i.e. where one word has word-final stress and the fol-
lowing has word-initial stress, the stress of the first word is some-
times eliminated by joining it together with second by maqqef,
e.g

L: ִׂ֖ ִ ‫‘ ִא ְמ ִר‬say with regard to me’ (Gen. 20.13)

‫י־לי‬

L: ֵָּ֗ ‫‘ נִ ְמ ְצ‬they were found among them’ (Jer. 41.8)

‫אּו־בם‬

L: ֵ ‫‘ ְמגִ ַלּ‬the scroll of a book’ (Jer. 36.2)

֒‫ת־ס ֶפר‬

(ii) Small monosyllabic words are often attached to a fol-

lowing word even if there would not have been a clash of accents.

235
For a detailed description of the use of maqqef see Yeivin (1980, 228–
36) and the literature cited there. See also Holmstedt and Dresher
(2013).
510 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

This occurs particularly frequently when the short word has a

short vowel in a closed syllable, e.g.

L: ‫ל־א ְב ָּר ָּ ֹ֑הם‬

ַ ‫א‬ֶַ ‘to Abraham’ (Gen. 20.10)

L: ַ ‫‘ ַָּכ‬all the words’ (Exod. 4.30)

‫ל־ה ְד ָּב ִ ִ֔רים‬

L: ָּ ‫‘ ֶּב‬son of the slave woman’ (Gen. 21.10)

‫ן־ה ָּא ָּ ַ֣מה‬

(iii) Maqqef that does not fall into one of the two previous
categories may be motivated by the constraints of the musical
accent system. This is the case where a particular disjunctive can
be preceded only by a limited number of conjunctive accents. In
the following extract, for example, the ṭifḥa can only be preceded
by one conjunctive, so the two preceding words are joined to-
gether in a single accent group by maqqef:

L: ‫לַח ָּ ֹ֑דל‬
ֲ ‫יַב ֶ ִׂ֖ב‬
ָּ ‫ֹוא־א ִ ָ֥ת‬
ִ ‫עַּב ֵע ֶינָ֛יךַ ָּלב‬ ַ ‫‘ וְ ִא‬but if it seems wrong in your
ְ ‫ם־ר‬
eyes to come with me to Babylon, desist.’ (Jer. 40.4)

As remarked, a maqqef after a word, in principle, deprives

the word of its main stress. As a result, vowels that do not have
an inherent length feature are pronounced short when they are
left unstressed, e.g.

‫ ֶַ֫כֹל‬/kʰol/ [ˈkʰoːol], ‫ ָּכל־‬/kʰol/ [kʰɔl] ‘all’

‫ ֶ֫עֹז‬/ʕoz/ [ˈʕoːoz], ‫ ָּעז־‬/ʕoz/ [ʕɔz] ‘strength’ (Isa. 26.1)

ִַ /tʰimʃol/ [tʰimˈʃoːol] (Gen. 37.8), ‫ ִת ְמ ָּׁשל־‬/tʰimʃol/

‫ת ְמ ִׁׂ֖ש ֹל‬
[tʰimʃɔl] (Gen. 4.7) ‘you master’

‫ ֵֶ֫את‬/ʔeθ/ [ˈʔeːeθ], ‫ ֶאת־‬/ʔeθ/ [ʔɛθ] object marker

ֵֶַ֫ ִ‫ וַ יּ‬/vajjittʰen/ [vaɟɟitˈtʰeːen], ‫תן־‬

‫תן‬ ֶַ ִ‫ וַ יּ‬/vajjittʰen/ [vaɟɟittʰɛn]
‘and he gave’
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 511

Vowels with an inherent length feature do not in principle

undergo such shortening in words followed by maqqef, e.g.

L: ָּ ‫ ֵּב‬/bēθ/ [beːeθ] ‘your father’s house’ (Gen. 24.23)

‫ית־א ִ ָ֛ביְך‬

L: ‫יׁש־א ָּ ִׂ֖חד‬
ֶ ‫ ִא‬/ʔīʃ/ [ʔiːiʃ] ‘one man’ (Gen. 42.11)

L: ‫ֹלׁש־מ ָ֥אֹות‬
ֵ ְַ /ʃlōʃ/ [ʃaloːoʃ] ‘three hundred’ (Num. 31.36)
‫ׁש‬

On some sporadic occasions, an inherently long ḥolem in a

closed syllable in a word with maqqef is shortened to short qameṣ,
e.g.

L: ‫ׁש־א ֶלּה‬ ְ ‫‘ וְ ִא‬if these three’ (Exod. 21.11)

ִֵ֔ ‫ם־ׁש ֵּ֨ ָּל‬

On a number of occasions, the Karaite transcriptions omit

a mater lectionis in their representation of inherently long ḥolem,
qameṣ or ṣere in closed syllables in words with maqqef, which re-
flects a wider range of shortening of inherently long vowels than
is represented by the Masoretic vocalization, e.g.

‫( شلش مۛ ياࣦࣵوث‬BL Or 2549 fol. 145v, 15 | L [BHS]: ‫ֹלׁש־מ ָ֥אֹות‬

ֵ ‫ְׁש‬

Ezek. 4.5 ‘three hundred’)

‫( هذ‬Genizah MS 13, Khan 1990a, 13 | L [BHS]: ‫ הֹוד־‬Psa.

111.3 ‘majesty’)

‫( هن‬Genizah MS 13, Khan 1990a, 13 | L [BHS]: ‫ הֹון־‬Psa.

112.3 ‘wealth’)

‫ ࣦۚكنࣦۜا ۜرࣦث‬-‫( ࣦ۠يم‬Or. 2546, fol. 118v, 5 | L [BHS]: ‫ם־כ ֶ ִׂ֖נּ ִֶֽרת‬
ִ ָּ‫ י‬Num.

34.11 ‘sea of Chinnereth’)

512 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

ࣦ‫ ۟فرۖعو‬-‫( لۛب‬BL Or 2540, fol. 20v, 7 | L [BHS]: ‫ב־פ ְרע ַֹה‬

ַ ‫ ֵל‬Exod.

7.22 ‘the heart of Pharaoh’)

‫( بۛثࣦا۟بوث۠ ام‬BL Or 2540, fol. 17r, 2 | L [BHS]: ‫ית־אב ָּ ֹֹ֑תם‬

ֲ ‫ ֵב‬Exod.

6.14 ‘the house of their fathers’)

In contrast to these indicators of prosodic reduction due to

lack of stress, there are some features of words with maqqef that
reflect an effort to pronounce such words with some degree of
prosodic independence.
In some cases, for example, an intrinsically short /o/ vowel
in a word with maqqef is represented by ḥolem [oː] rather than
the expected short qameṣ [ɔ]. In the following two examples, the
syllable with the ḥolem is marked by a gaʿya, reflecting a second-
ary stress:

L: ‫יׁש‬ ִ ‫‘ יִ גְ ֹנ‬a man steals’ (Exod. 21.37)

ַ ‫ב־א‬

L: ָּ ֹ‫‘ ע‬strength to them’ (Psa. 28.8)

‫ז־לֹ֑מֹו‬

L: ‫ֹ֑יה‬ ְ ‫‘ ר‬the multitude of her sins’ (Lam. 1.5)

ַָּ ‫ֹב־פ ָּׁש ֶע‬

Compound numerals with elements joined by maqqef gen-

erally reflect a secondary stress on the first element before the
maqqef, either by a gaʿya or by a long realization of an intrinsi-
cally short vowel, e.g.

L: ֶ ‫‘ ַא ְר ַּב‬fourteen’ (Gen. 14.4)

‫ע־ע ְש ֵ ַּ֤רה‬

L: ֶ ‫‘ ְׁש ַב‬seventeen’ (Gen. 37.2)

‫ע־ע ְש ֵ ַּ֤רה‬

L: ֶ ‫‘ וְ ֵׁש‬and sixteen’ (2 Kings 15.33)

‫ׁש־ע ְש ֵ ַ֣רה‬
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 513

The Masoretic treatises discuss the distribution of monosyl-

labic words with the intrinsically short vowels /e/ and /o/,
which, in principle, are realized as the long vowels ṣere [eː] and
ḥolem [oː] respectively when stressed and the short vowels segol
[ɛ] and qameṣ [ɔ] when in words with maqqef, e.g. ‫הן‬/‫ן‬
ֵ ‫ה‬,
ֶ ‫ׁשׁש‬/‫ׁש‬
ֵ ‫ׁש‬,
ֶ
‫עת‬/‫ת‬
ֵ ‫ע‬,ֶ ‫לב‬/‫ב‬
ֵ ‫ל‬,ֶ ‫ּבן‬/‫ן‬
ֵ ‫ּב‬,
ֶ ‫כן‬/‫ן‬
ֵ ‫כ‬,ֶ ‫ׁשן‬/‫ן‬
ֵ ‫ׁש‬,
ֶ ‫כֹל‬/‫כל‬.
ָּ 236 The sources point out,
however, that these vowels have a long realization in a word with
maqqef when they are separated from the main accent by at least
one intervening syllable, e.g.

L: ַ ‫‘ ֵׁש‬six (measures) of barley’ (Ruth 3.17)

‫ׁש־ה ְשע ִ ָֹ֥רים‬

L: ַ ‫‘ ֵׁש‬a crag of rock’ (1 Sam. 14.4)

‫ן־ה ֶ ַּ֤ס ַלע‬

L: ָּ ‫‘ ֵּב‬a robber son’ (Ezek. 18.10)

‫ן־פ ִ ִׂ֖ריץ‬

L: ‫ה‬ ָּ ‫‘ ֵא‬everything that is high’ (Job 41.26)

ַ ַ ֹ‫ת־כל־גָּ ָ֥ב‬

This, likewise, may have been conditioned by secondary

stress, although a gaʿya is not marked on the syllable in all these
cases in L, A and C.
Conversely, forms of these words with segol or qameṣ occa-
sionally take an accent (§I.2.3.2.), e.g.

L: ‫( ֶּבַ֣ןַיָּ ִאיר‬Esther 2.5) ‘son of Yair’

L: ‫תַא ַ ַ֣רםַנַ ֲה ַריִ ם‬

ֲ ‫א‬ַָ֥ ֶ (Psa. 60.2) ‘with Aram-naharaim’

L: ‫י־רׁש‬ ֲ ‫( ָּ ָ֥כ‬Prov. 19.7) ‘all the brothers of a poor man’

ָּ ‫לַא ֵח‬

These may have arisen by a process of giving greater pro-

sodic independence to a word that was originally unstressed.

236
E.g. Diqduqe ha-Ṭeʿamim (ed. Dotan, 1967, §§6-8), Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ,
long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.3.2.4.
514 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

There are, indeed, some variants in the sources. According to

Diqduqe ha-Ṭeʿamim (ed. Dotan, 1967, §8), for example, the word
‫ ָּכל‬in Psa. 87.7 has its own accent but in L it has a maqqef (‫ָּכל־‬
‫‘ ַמ ְעיָּ ַנָ֥י‬all my springs’).
The lists of differences in Kitāb al-Khilaf, moreover, show
that Ben Naftali in a number cases read a word with a conjunctive
accent where Ben Asher read it with maqqef (A. Ben-David
1957b, 391–92), e.g.

Lev. 24.16:

Ben Asher: ‫בֹו־ׁשם‬

ִׂ֖ ֵ ‫ּבנָּ ְק‬, ַָ֥ ‫‘ ְּבנָּ ְק‬when he
ְ Ben Naftali: ‫בֹו ַ ֵ ִׁׂ֖שם‬
blasphemes the Name’

Gen. 39.6:

Ben Asher: ‫ת ַאר‬

ֹ ִׂ֖ ‫יְ ֵפה־‬, Ben Naftali: ‫ת ַאר‬ ַָ֥ ֵ ‫‘ י‬beautiful in form’
ֹ ִׂ֖ ַ‫ְפה‬

Job 12.3:

Ben Asher: ‫י־אין‬

ָ֥ ֵ ‫ת־מ‬ ִַׂ֖ ִ ‫‘ וְ ֶא‬with whom is
ִ ‫וְ ֶא‬, Ben Naftali: ‫ת־מיַ ֵ ָ֥אין‬
not?’

This is a reflection of the general tendency of Ben Naftali

to introduce a greater number of orthoepic innovations into the
reading than Ben Asher, who was usually more conservative.237

237
In the manuscript II Firkovitch Evr. II B 159 (referred to as L2 by
Yeivin 1980, 23) the maqqef sign is sometimes marked when the first
ִֶ֔ ‫‘ ְּב ֶ ַ֣ט ֶרם־ ֲא ִב‬before I brought them’
word has a conjunctive accent, e.g. ‫יאנּּו‬
(Deut. 31.21) and conversely a maqqef sign is sometimes omitted after
ֹ ֹ֑ ָּ‫‘ וְ ַאלַי‬and may he not die’ (Deut.
a short word without an accent, e.g. ‫מת‬
33.6). This appears to reflect the overlapping of two traditions with
regard to the division of words.
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 515

In some cases, there are variations between the qere and

the ketiv of a word with maqqef, e.g.

ְ ‫‘ ֶא ְכ ָּר‬I make (a covenant)

Josh. 9.7: ketiv ‫אכרותַלך‬, qere ַָ֥‫ת־לך‬
for you’

ִ֔ ‫‘ ֶא ְכ ָּת‬I write for him’

Hosea 8.12: ketiv ‫אכתובַלו‬, qere ‫ב־לֹו‬

In such cases, the ketiv with mater lectionis vav reflects a

reading with greater prosodic independence that the qere.
In the early manuscripts, when a word with maqqef ends in
an open syllable and the subsequent word has the stress on its
initial syllable, the final open syllable of the first word often has
a gaʿya (Yeivin 1968, 165; 1980, 250), e.g.

L: ָ֛ ֵ ‫( ִכ‬Jer. 17.4) ‘for fire’

‫י־אׁש‬

A: ַ‫י־חיִ ל‬ ַ ֵ ְ‫( ַאנ‬Nah. 2.4) ‘men of strength’

ַ ‫ׁש‬

The occurrence of secondary stress on the syllable

immediately adjacent to the main stress implies that the two
words were separated somewhat, since otherwise there would be
a clash of prominent accent syllables. The metrical structure of a
phrase such as ‫י־אׁש‬
ָ֛ ֵ ‫כ‬,ִ therefore, may be represented as follows:

[(ˌkʰiː)(∅)(ˈʔeːeʃ)]

A metrical epenthesis of an intervening interval between

the two prominent syllables can be assumed to have occurred.
This is analogous to the analysis of the metrical structure of
words such as ‫[ יְ ַׁש ְע ָּיַ֣הּו‬jaˌʃaˑʕ∅ˈjɔːhuː], in which metrical epenthe-
sis makes a clear division between weak consonants (§I.2.10.).
In the discussion of deḥiq above in §I.2.8.1.2. we have seen
that the vowel in a final open syllable in a word with maqqef is
516 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

given sufficient duration to be represented by the Karaite tran-

scriptions with a mater lectionis. This applies even to the pataḥ in
constructions with the interrogative word ‫מה‬, which must have
been short at some earlier period, e.g.

L: ָּ ‫[ ַמ‬maˑ-ˈllɔːɔχ] (Gen. 21.17) ‘What [is] to you (fs)’

‫ה־לְַּ֣ך‬

This was a strategy of making a clear division prosodically

between the orthographically separate word with maqqef and the
word following it. Another strategy to achieve the same purpose
that is reflected by some of the Karaite transcriptions was to glot-
talize the offset of the pataḥ vowel of ‫מה‬. This is represented by
an Arabic hāʾ, e.g.

‫ ۖشࣦمۜ اخا‬-‫م۟ ه‬ [mah-ʃʃaˈmɛːχɔː] (BL Or 2544 fol. 33v, 1 | L

ְ ‫ ַמ‬Gen. 32.28 ‘What is your name?’)

[BHS]: ‫ה־שּׁ ֶ ֹ֑מך‬

ࣦ‫ ۖشࣦ ࣤم ۢو‬-‫[ م۟ ه‬mah-ʃʃaˈmoː] (BL Or 2544 fol. 76v, 12 | L [BHS]:

ְ ‫ ַמ‬Exod. 3.13 ‘What is his name?’)
‫ה־שּׁ ִ֔מֹו‬

‫ ۜزࣦا‬-‫[ م۟ ه‬mah-ˈzzɛː] (BL Or 2544 fol. 79v, 8 | L [BHS]: ketiv

ֶ ‫ ַמ‬Exod. 4.2 ‘What is this?’)
‫מזה‬, qere ‫ה־זַ֣ה‬

‫[ مه تاعيرو وما تعوررو‬mah-ttʰɔːˈʕiːʀ̟uː ˌwuˑmah-ttʰoʕoːʀ̟aˈʀ̟uː]

(BL Or 2554 fol. 86v, 11 | L [BHS]: ‫ה־תעֹ ְר ָ֛רּו‬
ְ ‫ה־ת ִעירּו ַ׀ ַּו ַמ‬
ָּ ‫ַמ‬
Cant. 8.4 ‘What do you stir up and what do you awaken?’)

‫[ مه شاهايا‬mah-ʃˌʃɛːhɔːˈhɔː] (BL Or 2555 fol. 12v, 1 | L

[BHS]: ‫ה‬ ֶ ‫ ַמ‬Ecc. 3.15 ‘that which was’)
ַ ָּ‫ה־שּׁ ָּהי‬
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 517

Such glottalization involves the devoicing of the offset of

the vowel, which is a cross-linguistically attested device for
marking divisions between prosodic words.238
Glottalization of final vowels as a strategy to separate
words joined by maqqef is attested in other contexts in the Karaite
transcriptions, e.g.

‫[ نقراهࣦشمى‬niqˌ̟ ʀ̟ɔˑh-ʃaˈmiː] (Genizah MS 14, Khan 1990a,

ְ ‫ נִ ְק ָּר‬Jer. 32.34 ‘My name is called’)
2r, 8 | L [BHS]: ‫א־ׁש ִ ָ֥מי‬

Evidence for glottalization of word-final vowels can also be

found in the use of the dagesh sign in some manuscripts with Pal-
estinian vocalization, e.g. ‫מהֵ ֵלי‬
ֵ (Revell 1970a, 21). The use of the
element [h] as a pausal device is reminiscent of the Arabic hāʾu
al-sakt, which was used to preserve a final short vowel from being
elided in pause, especially in the recitation of poetry.239 A number
of instances of it occur in the Qurʾānic reading tradition of Ibn
Kathīr.240

I.2.12. FURTHER CASES OF SECOND ACCENTS IN A WORD

ON CLOSED SYLLABLES WITH SHORT VOWELS
In some cases, a word contains an accent sign on a closed syllable
before the accent marking the main stress.

238
See, for example, Vayra (1994) for this function of glottalization in
Italian and Khan (2016b vol. 1, 144-45) for Neo-Aramaic.
239
Birkeland (1940, 31–45), Roman (1983, 494–501).
240
Nöldeke et al. (1938, vol. 3, 199), Ibn Khālawayh (ed. Bergsträsser,
1934, 109).
518 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

We have seen (§I.2.5.8.5.) that merkha often occurs in the

three books on closed syllables containing short vowels with the
function of a phonetic gaʿya in order to lengthen the vowel and
cause the following shewa to be read as vocalic, e.g.

L: ַ ִ ‘you choose’ (A: ‫ת ֲב ַ ַ֣חר‬,

‫תבְַ ַ ַ֣חר‬ ָ֥ ִ Psa. 65.5)

L: ‫‘ ִ ָ֥ת ְַל ַ ַ֣עג‬it mocks’ (A: ‫תלֲ ַ ַ֣עג‬,

ָ֥ ִ Prov. 30.17)

Under certain conditions (Yeivin 1980, 185) a zaqef accent

is preceded in the same word by a metiga accent on a closed syl-
lable with a short vowel that is separated from the main zaqef
accent by another syllable, e.g.

L: ַ ‘and on the plunder’ (Esther 9.10)

‫ּוב ִּב ִָּ֔זה‬

L: ִֵּ֨ ‘at the end of them’ (Dan. 1.5)

‫ּומ ְק ָּצ ִָּ֔תם‬

The Karaite transcriptions do not represent the vowel of the

syllable with metiga with an Arabic mater lectionis, e.g.

‫( ࣭ويبقعࣦصور‬BL Or 2548 fol. 128r, 5ַ| L [BHS]: ‫ע־צּור‬

ִ֔ ‫ וַ ִֵּ֨יּ ְב ַק‬Isa.

48.21 ‘and he cleaved the rock’)

ࣤ
‫و ۚمࣦۚقۖ ۠صا ࣦ۠ثام‬ٟ (BL Or 2556, fol. 2v, 5 | L [BHS]: ‫ ִֵּּ֨ומ ְק ָּצ ִָּ֔תם‬Dan. 1.5
‘at the end of them’)
ࣤ
ࣦ۠٘ ۟‫( ۖلز۟رع‬BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 70v, 4 | L [BHS]: ‫ ְל ֵַּ֨ז ְר ֲע ִַ֔ך‬Gen.
‫خا‬
24.7 ‘unto your seed’)

The same applies to accents on short vowels in closed syl-

lables before the main stress in the three books, such as the first
accent of the composite reviaʿ mugrash. Transcriptions such as the
 Vowels and Syllable Structure 519

following show that the vowel was not lengthened by the first
accent:

‫( مۚ ۖسلا۟ ۟حث‬BL Or 2551, fol. 31r, 3 | L [BHS]: ‫ ִָ֜מ ְׁש ֵ֗ ַל ַחת‬Psa.

78.49 ‘delegation’)

This suggests that metiga and the first element of composite

accents in the three books did not represent a secondary stress
beat, but rather some musical phenomenon that did not result in
the lengthening of the vowel.
 I.3. DAGESH AND RAFE

I.3.1. DAGESH

I.3.1.1. Preliminary Remarks

Dagesh is a dot that is marked within a letter. It is in origin an
Aramaic active participle meaning ‘stabbing’ from the Aramaic
root d-g-š ‘to stab’. This referred, it seems, to the ‘stabbing’ of the
letter by the pen when the sign was marked.
The dagesh sign was used mainly in two contexts. These are
(i) on a consonant that was geminated (traditionally referred to
in modern grammars as dagesh forte) and (ii) on the consonants
‫ בגדכפת‬when they were realized as plosives (traditionally referred
to as dagesh lene).1 In both cases the letter with dagesh was
pronounced with greater pressure than its counterpart without
dagesh.
The majority of consonants in the Tiberian pronunciation
tradition could be marked with a dagesh.

1
Our terms dagesh forte and dagesh lene go back to David Qimḥi (1160-
1235), who uses the Hebrew terms ‫( דגש חזק‬dagesh forte) and ‫דגש קל‬
(dagesh lene) in his Mikhlol. The terms ‫ דגש חזק‬and ‫ דגש קל‬are used also
by Yequtiʾel ha-Naqadan, who was active in medieval Ashkenaz in the
second half of the thirteenth century. He does not mention David
Qimḥi’s Mikhlol, which was written earlier, but it is possible that
Yequtiʾel borrowed this terminology from Qimḥi (Yarqoni 1985, 105–
13).

© Geoffrey Khan, CC BY 4.0 https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0163.03

 Dagesh and Rafe 521

Dagesh is not marked, however, on the laryngeals and

pharyngeals (‫ )אהעח‬in the Standard Tiberian tradition, except in
a few isolated cases to ensure correct reading (e.g. the dagesh in
ʾalef in four words, see §I.1.1.). In principle, therefore, these
consonants are not geminated.
The letter resh, like the laryngeal and pharyngeal conso-
nants, is generally not geminated by dagesh. Occasionally, how-
ever, the resh does have dagesh, e.g.

L: ָּ ‫‘ ֹֽל‬your navel string was not cut’ (Ezek. 16.4)

‫א־כ ַּ֣רת ָּש ֵּ֔רְך‬

L: ‫‘ ָּמ ַּ֣רת נ ְפ ׁ֑שֹו‬the bitterness of its soul’ (Prov. 14.10)

L: ִּ ‫‘ ֶׁשר‬because my head’ (Cant. 5.2)

‫אשי‬

L: ָּ ‫‘ ְמ ַּ֣א‬anything bad’ (Jer. 39.12)

‫ּומה ָּ ׁ֑רע‬

L: ‫‘ ה ְר ִּע ָּ ׁ֑מּה‬to irritate her’ (1 Sam. 1.6)

When it is marked in cases such as these, it should be iden-

tified as dagesh forte, indicating the gemination of the consonant.
In the attested examples, the resh with dagesh in the Tiberian
Masoretic tradition would have had its primary realization as an
uvular trill according to the rules that have come down to us from
the medieval sources (§I.I.1.20.). This does not appear, however,
to have been a relevant conditioning factor for the dagesh. Some
Middle Eastern Jewish communities pronounce the resh as gemi-
nate in their biblical reading where the dagesh was marked, but
in all cases they pronounce the resh as an apical-alveolar.2
In medieval manuscripts of Rabbinic Hebrew that belong
to the eastern tradition of transmission, dagesh is marked on resh

2
Morag (1960, 207–8).
522 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

more frequently than it is in the Tiberian biblical text.3 The ten-

dency to mark dagesh is greater in some eastern manuscripts than
in others. It is particularly common in the Parma B manuscript of
the Mishnah. The dagesh is marked on resh after the relative par-
ticle ‫ ֶׁש‬še and on the medial resh of a number of verbal and nom-
inal morphological patterns with a geminated middle radical, e.g.
‫‘ ִּעירב‬he mixed’ (piʿel) and ‫עּור ֶׁבת‬
ֶׁ ‫‘ ְמ‬mixed’ (puʿal), ‫‘ ס ָּרגִּ ין‬weavers.’4
The resh is pronounced geminated in a similar range of contexts
in Middle Eastern reading traditions of Rabbinic Hebrew that
have survived into modern times, e.g. Aleppo [ʃerrɑʔaˈta]
ֶׁ ‘who has seen (fs)’ (Berakhot 3.6), [ʕərˈreːβ] (‫)ערב‬
(‫)ש ָּר ֲא ָּתה‬ ִּ ‘he
created an ʿeruv’ (ʿEruvin 2.6), [leharraˈgin] ‘to murderers’ (‫)לה ָּרגִּ ין‬
ְ
(Nedarim 3.4).5 The gemination is more widespread in some
traditions than in others. Also in verbal and nominal patterns
with a geminated middle radical it tends to be restricted to
certain verbal roots and lexical items, as is the case in the
medieval manuscripts. Sometimes there are variations within the
same root that are exploited to express a semantic distinction. In
Jerba, for example, the resh in the root ‫ ערב‬is geminated in the
piʿel when it has the meaning of mixing one thing with another,
but it is not geminated when it has the sense of creating an ʿeruv.
Morag believes that the lack of consistency in the gemination of
the resh across the traditions of Rabbinic reading and within

3
Bar-Asher (1987).
4
Bar-Asher (1987, 13–14).
5
Katz (1981, 32–36).
 Dagesh and Rafe 523

individual traditions may have been the result of varying degrees

of influence from biblical reading traditions.6
The dagesh in the resh in the Tiberian biblical tradition in a
ִּ ‫‘ ֶׁשר‬because my head’ (Cant. 5.2) after the parti-
case such as ‫אשי‬
cle -‫ ֶׁש‬, which corresponds to one of the contexts where it occurs
in the eastern Rabbinic traditions, suggests that the tradition of
gemination of this letter is of considerable time depth. It is likely
to have had its origin at a period when Hebrew was a living
language, assuming that Rabbinic Hebrew originated in the
vernacular of the Tannaitic period. Its occurrence here may
reflect the influence of spoken Hebrew at the time of the
formation of the Tiberian reading tradition, the particle -‫ ֶׁש‬itself
being a feature of Rabbinic Hebrew.

I.3.1.2. Morphological Gemination

A dagesh may reflect gemination that is a feature of the morpho-
logical pattern of a word. This typically occurs in the second rad-
ical of the root, e.g. ‫‘ ִּבקש‬he sought’, ‫‘ גנָּ ב‬thief’, ‫‘ חנּון‬gracious’. A
possible case of morphological gemination of resh in the Tiberian
ָּ ‫‘ ֹֽל‬your navel string was not cut’
biblical tradition is ‫א־כ ַּ֣רת ָּש ֵּ֔רְך‬
(Ezek. 16.4).
Morphological gemination also includes gemination that is
inherent to the root. When a root has identical consonants as its
two final radicals, these appear as a geminated consonant with
dagesh when adjacent to each other before an affix. This

6
Morag (1960, 208–16).
524 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

gemination does not occur in word final-position when the stem

does not have an affix, e.g.

‫‘ ע ִּמים‬peoples’, ‫‘ עמֹו‬his people’; cf. sing. ‫* < עם‬ʿamm

‫‘ גנִּ ים‬gardens’, ‫‘ גנֹו‬his garden’; cf. sing. ‫* < גן‬gann

I.3.1.3. Dagesh to Distinguish Meaning

In various cases, gemination of a consonant reflected by a dagesh
sign is used in the Tiberian tradition as a strategy to distinguish
homophones (Yeivin 1980, 49, 294).
This may be contextually dependent. When, for example,
the negator ‫ לא‬is juxtaposed with the homophonous prepositional
phrase ‫ לֹו‬a dagesh is added to the negator to distinguish the two,
e.g.

L: ‫ˈ[ ֹּ֥לא ל֖ ֹו יִּ ְה ֶׁי ַּ֣ה ה ָּ ׁ֑זָּ֑רע‬lloː ˈloː] ‘The offspring would not be his’
(Gen. 38.9)

L: ‫א־לֹו‬ ֹּ֥ ִּ ‫ˌ[ ע‬lloː-ˈloː] ‘in an argument that is not his’ (Prov.
ֹֽ ‫ל־ריב ֹֽל‬
26.17)

Gemination to distinguish homophones, however, is gener-

ally a permanent feature of the morphological pattern. It can be
regarded, therefore, as a type of morphological gemination. Ex-
amples of this include cases such ‫‘ ֲא ִּביר‬powerful’ referring to
God, used in phrases such as ‫‘ ֲא ִּביר י ֲעקב‬the Mighty One of Jacob’
(Gen. 49.24, Isa. 49.26, Isa. 60.16, Psa. 132.2, 5) vs. ‫א ִּביר‬
‘powerful’, used to refer to humans, ‫‘ ֲע ָּצ ִּבים‬toils’ vs. ‫‘ ֲעצ ִּבים‬idols’,
‫‘ יָּ נִּ יח‬he gives rest’ vs. ‫‘ ינִּ יח‬he places’, ‫‘ ָּת ִּלינּו‬you spend the night’
vs. ‫‘ ת ִּלינּו‬you murmur against’, and the historical gemination
 Dagesh and Rafe 525

separating the pairs ‫‘ יָּ חל‬he begins’ (Jud. 10.18) vs. ‫‘ יחל‬he pro-
fanes’ (Num. 30.3).7 The gemination in these pairs of forms most
likely originates in existing variant morphological patterns that
have been exploited to avoid homophony.8
The gemination marked by dagesh in the interjection word
‫( ָּא ָּ֫ ָּנה‬also written ‫)א ָּ֫ ָּנא‬
ָּ may have been a device to distinguish it
from ‫‘ ָּא ָּ֫ ָּנה‬to where?.’9
The use of dagesh to distinguish the meaning of homo-
phones or polysemous words is more frequently encountered in
the Babylonian tradition of Biblical Hebrew (Yeivin 1985, 355–
63). In Babylonian vocalization, a dagesh (known as digsha in the
Babylonian tradition) is represented by a superscribed minute
gimel and rafe (known as qipya) by a superscribed minute qof.
In many cases in the Babylonian tradition a dagesh is added
to distinguish between the use of a word that has an association
with God and the use of the same word that has an association
with humans (often with negative connotations) or foreign gods.
This has been seen already in the Tiberian tradition in pairs such
as ‫ א ִּביר‬vs. ‫ ֲא ִּביר‬and ‫ ֲעצ ִּבים‬vs. ‫ע ָּצ ִּבים‬.
ֲ As in the Tiberian tradition,
the dagesh is used in the Babylonian tradition in the member of
the pair associated with humans or foreign gods. The word

7
Yeivin (1985, 361–63).
8
A few cases of a dagesh that appear in the BHS edition and were
identified by Knauf (1979) as serving to distinguish meaning have
recently been shown by Golinets (2013, 247–52) to be no more than
specks on the parchment of the manuscript.
9
Yeivin (1985, 1119).
526 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

‫אלוהים‬, for example, is marked with dagesh when it refers to for-

eign gods (Yeivin 1985, 357, 909–10), e.g.10

‫( אלֹּה ִים‬OB | L [BHS]: ‫ֹלהים ֲאח ִּ ֵּ֔רים‬

ַּ֣ ִּ ‫ ֱא‬Deut 11.16 ‘other gods’)

‫( אלהי‬OB | L [BHS]: ‫ֹלהי ִּמ ְצ ַ֛ריִּ ם‬

ֹּ֥ ‫ ֱא‬Exod. 12.12 ‘the gods of
Egypt’)

The dagesh is used also in the cognate word in Biblical

Aramaic when it refers to foreign gods, e.g.

‫( לְאֹּלָּהֵי דהבא‬MB | L [BHS]: ָּ ‫ ֹֽל‬Dan 5.4 ‘the

‫אל ֵ֞הי ד ֲה ָּ ָ֧בא‬
gods of gold’)

The word ‫ כהנים‬is marked with a dagesh when it refers to

‘priests of foreign gods’ (Yeivin 1985, 358), e.g.

‫( הכֹּהַנ ִים‬MB | L [BHS]: ‫ הכ ֲה ִּ ֹֽנים‬Zeph 1.4 ‘the priests’)

‫( כֹּהַנ ִים‬MB | L [BHS]: ‫ ות ֲע ׂ֨שּו ָּל ֶׁכֶ֤ם כ ֲהנִּ ים ְכע ַּ֣מי ָּה ֲא ָּר ֵּ֔צֹות‬2 Chron.
13.9 ‘and you will make for yourselves priests like the
peoples of the lands’)

A dagesh is used elsewhere in manuscripts with Babylonian

vocalization to mark other types of semantic distinctions of
homophones. It is frequently marked on the prepositional phrase
‫לו‬, for example, to distinguish it from the homophone ‫( לא‬Yeivin
1985, 1132–33), e.g.

‫( ישַל ֵם ל ֹּו‬OB | L [BHS]: ‫ם־לֹו‬

ֹֽ ‫ ִּ ַּ֣מי יְ ש ֶׁל‬Job 21.31 ‘who will repay
him’)

10
Data supplied by Shai Heijmans. OB = Old Babylonian, MB = Middle
Babylonian.
 Dagesh and Rafe 527

‫( לא ֹּויֵב ל ֹּו‬OB | L [BHS]: ‫ לְ אֹוי ַּ֣ב ֹֽלֹו‬Job 33.10 ‘as an enemy for
him’)

This includes cases where the qere is ‫ ל ֹּו‬but the ketiv is ‫לא‬,
e.g

‫( ולא‬OB | ketiv ‫ולא־שם‬,

֖ qere ‫ וְ לֹו־‬1 Chron. 11.20 ‘and he has
a name’)

Other cases include, for example, a dagesh on the word ‫נא‬

in Exod. 12.9, where it denotes ‘raw’, to distinguish it from ‫נא‬
expressing a request (Yeivin 1985, 357) and a dagesh on the resh
of ‫‘ עריך‬your enemy’ in 1 Sam. 28.16 presumably to distinguish it
from the plural of ‫‘ ערים‬towns’ (Yeivin 1985, 354):

‫( מִמַנ ֻו נא‬OB | L [BHS]: ‫אכלֶ֤ ּו ִּמ ֶׁׂ֨מנּו ֵּ֔ ָּנא‬

ְ ‫ אל־ת‬Exod. 12.9 ‘do not
eat any of it raw’)

ָּ‫( ע ַָּרך‬OB | L [BHS]: ‫ ָּע ֶׁ ֹֽרָך‬1 Sam. 28.16 ‘your enemy’)

The examples of dagesh functioning to distinguish meaning

in the Babylonian tradition cited above are most easily
interpreted as innovative additions to existing forms rather than
morphological variants. It should be noted that in some cases the
dagesh is marked after a long vowel, e.g. ‫עָּמָּל‬, ָּ‫עָּרַך‬. The question
arises as to whether these dagesh signs reflect gemination or are
simply diacritical signs. Yeivin (1985, 355–63) believes they
indeed have the function of dagesh forte. There is, moreover, ob-
jective evidence of gemination of dagesh to distinguish meaning
in the Tiberian tradition in forms with a long vowel such as ‫ָּא ָּ֫ ָּנה‬
by the marking Arabic shadda in the Karaite transcriptions, e.g.
528 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

‫( ا۠ن۠ࣴ ّ۠ا‬BL Or 2556, fol. 40r, 9 | L [BHS]: ‫ ָּ ֹֽא ָּנֶ֤א‬Neh. 1.5. ‘Oh!’)
11

There is also evidence of morphophonemic restructuring by

means of innovative gemination in a variety of other reading tra-
ditions, including those that have come down to modern times in
oral form.
The function of gemination to distinguish meanings of
homophones is identifiable, for example, in the reading traditions
of Rabbinic Hebrew that are reflected in the early vocalized
manuscripts of the Mishnah. Kutscher (1969, 56, 76) drew atten-
tion to the following pair of words in the Kaufmann manuscript:

ָּ ‫‘ ֲח ִּת‬cutting’ vs. ‫יכה‬

‫יכה‬ ָּ ‫‘ ֲח ִּת‬piece’

The use of the pattern with dagesh to distinguish the

concrete entity that is the result of the cutting from the verbal
noun of the same root is likely to have developed by analogy with
other nouns with the morphological pattern CCiCCa that express
concrete entities in Rabbinic Hebrew (Bar-Asher 2015, 1342).
Various cases of gemination to distinguish meaning have
been identified in the living oral tradition of Rabbinic Hebrew of
the Yemenite Jews and the Hebrew component in their speech
by Gluska (1995). These include distinctions between verbal
forms and nouns, in which the noun has the gemination, e.g.

11
In this manuscript initial ʾalef + long qameṣ, i.e. [ʔɔː], is represented
by a single Arabic ʾalif. In Biblical Aramaic a long vowel is more widely
tolerated in an unstressed syllable closed by a geminated consonant,
e.g. ‫‘ ָּע ִּ֗ ִּלין‬they enter’ (Dan. 4.4 qere); cf. also Syriac ʿāllīn (Nöldeke 1869,
457).
 Dagesh and Rafe 529

‫‘ גְ ִּבינָּ ה‬making cheese’ vs. ‫‘ גְ ִּבנָּ ה‬cheese (noun)’

‫‘ ָּחיִּ ים‬living (3pl. verbal adjective)’ vs. ‫‘ חיִּ ים‬life (noun)’

Morag (1996) draws attention to some uses of gemination

to distinguish meaning in the living oral tradition of Aramaic
among the Yemenite Jews, e.g.

‫‘ חיָּ א‬living’ (referring to God) vs. ‫‘ חיָּ א‬living’ (referring to

humans)

In the Samaritan oral tradition of reading the Pentateuch

there are numerous examples of morphophonemic restructuring
to distinguish homophones.12 These include the strategy of dis-
tinguishing forms by the addition of gemination to one of the
pair, e.g.

ʿāːrəm ‘the cities’ (Tiberian ‫)ה ָּע ִּרים‬

ֶׁ vs. ʿarrəm ‘cities’
(Tiberian ‫)ע ִּרים‬
ָּ 13
̄
wåmå ‘and the cubit’ (Tiberian ‫ )וְ ָּהא ָּמה‬vs. wåmmå ‘and a
cubit’ (Tiberian ‫)וא ָּמה‬14
̄ ni
ådå ̄ ‘Lord’ (divine) vs. ådanni
̄ ‘master’ (human)15
̄
åːsīdå ‘the stork’ (animal) (Tiberian ‫ ה ֲח ִּס ָּ ֵּ֔ידה‬Lev. 11.19) vs.
assidåk ‘your pious one’ (human) (Tiberian ‫ידָך‬
ׁ֑ ֶׁ ‫ ֲח ִּס‬Deut.
33.8)16

12
See in particular Florentin (1996) for examples of this phenomenon.
13
Ben-Ḥayyim (2000, 92).
14
Ben-Ḥayyim (2000, 92).
15
Ben-Ḥayyim (1957a-77 vol. 4, 8-9, vol. 5, 194, 2000, 260).
16
Florentin (1996, 231).
530 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

yamən ‘Yamin’ (proper name) (Tiberian ‫יָּמין‬

ַ֛ ִּ Gen. 46.10) vs.
yammən ‘right hand’ (Tiberian ‫)יָּ ִּמין‬17
̄
wyåbåd ̄
‘and he perished (past)’ (Tiberian ‫ )ויאבד‬vs. yåbbåd
‘he perishes (non-past)’ (Tiberian ‫)יאבד‬18

I.3.1.4. Gemination Resulting from Assimilation

In some cases, gemination has resulted from the process of a con-
sonant assimilating another consonant with which it is contact.
This typically occurs at the boundary between the stem of a word
and an affix. It also functions, therefore, as a marker of a
morphological boundary, e.g.

‫[ יִּ ָּ֫פל‬jip-ˈpʰoːol] ‘he falls’ < *yinpol

‫[ נָּ ָּ֫ת ְת‬nɔːˈθaːatʰ-tʰ] ‘you (fs) gave’ < *natant

‫[ ִּמ ָָּּ֫שם‬miʃ-ˈʃɔːɔm] ‘from there’ < ‫ִּמן ָּשם‬

‫[ יִּ ָּ֫קח‬jiq-̟ ˈqa̟ ːaħ] ‘he takes’ < *yilqaḥ

֖ ‫( וְ ִּת‬Num. 21.7) [vaθikʰ-kʰoːˈneːen] ‘and let it be estab-

‫כֹונָּ֑ן‬
lished’ < ‫ִּת ְתכֹונן‬

17
Florentin (1996, 234).
18
Florentin (1996, 218). This particular minimal pair is not attested in
the Samaritan Pentateuch, but it can be inferred from the contrasting
patterns used for the attested forms of the past and non-past, e.g.
̄ du
wyåbå ̄ ‫אב ֖דּו‬ ̄
ְ ‫‘ וי‬and they perished’ (Num. 16.33) vs. tåbbåd ֹּ֥ ‫‘ ת‬it
‫אבד‬
becomes lost’ (Deut. 22.3).
 Dagesh and Rafe 531

I.3.1.5. Gemination to Preserve High Lexical Vowels

In a number of cases a consonant after a high lexical vowel, most
commonly /u/, though occasionally /i/, has been geminated to
preserve it. High lexical vowels exhibit a higher tendency to be
reduced to an epenthetic shewa than low vowels:

I.3.1.5.1. After qibbuṣ

‫ ֲעמ ָּקה‬, ‫‘ ֲעמ ִּקים‬deep (fs, mpl)’; cf. ms. ‫* ָּעמֹוק‬ʿamuq

ֲ ‫‘ ֲאד ִּמים‬red (fs, mpl)’; cf. ms. ‫* ָּאדֹום‬ʾaðum

‫אד ָּמה‬,

‫( ֹֽעיר ִּ ֖מם‬Gen. 3.7) ‘naked’ (mpl); cf. ms. ‫* עירֹום‬ʿērum

‫( ק ְרד ֵּ֔מֹו‬1 Sam. 13.20) ‘his axe’; cf. sing. ‫* ק ְרדֹום‬qardum

This can be identified in various puʿal forms verbs that ap-

pear to be in origin passives of the qal pattern without morpho-
logical gemination (Gesenius, Hebrew Grammar, §52e):

‫‘ א ְכלֹּ֥ ּו‬they have been eaten’ (Neh. 2.3) < *ʾukalū

‫‘ ל ֖קח‬he was taken’ (Gen. 3.23) <*luqaḥ

‫‘ וְ ש ֶ֤פְך‬and it will be poured’ (Zeph. 1.17) < *šupak

I.3.1.5.2. After ḥireq

‫‘ ִּא ָּסר‬bond’ < *ʾisār

I.3.1.6. Gemination of a Consonant in Place of

Vowel Lengthening
In a number of cases, a consonant is geminated after an original
short *a. This is attested predominantly at a morphological
532 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

boundary between the stem of a noun or adjective and an inflec-

tional suffix. As a result, the vowel remains short and does not
undergo pretonic lengthening, as would have typically been the
case if the *a was in an open pretonic syllable, e.g.

‫‘ גְ מ ִּלים‬camels’; cf. sing. ‫גָּ ָּמל‬

‫‘ ְקטנִּ ים‬small (mpl)’; cf. ms. ‫ָּק ָּטן‬

‫‘ ְמע ִּטים‬few’; cf. ms. ‫ְמעט‬

‫‘ ֲאג ִּמים‬marshes’; cf. sing. ‫ֲאגם‬

‫‘ ֲהד ִּסים‬myrtles’; cf. sing. ‫ֲהדס‬

‫ ;ע ְקר ִּבים‬cf. sing. ‫‘ ע ְק ָּרב‬scorpion’

‫( נִּ ְכבדי‬Isa. 23.8) ‘honoured of’; cf. ms. ‫נִּ ְכ ָּבד‬

‫( ִּמ ְשג ִּ ֹֽבי‬Psa. 18.3) ‘my stronghold’; cf. sing. ‫ִּמ ְשגָּ ב‬

‫( ֹֽמ ֲעמקי‬Isaiah 51.10) ‘the depths of’

‫( ִּב ְפלגַּ֣ ֹות‬Jud. 5.15) ‘among the clans’

‫( מ ְטע ִִּּ֜מים‬Gen. 27.4) ‘tasty foods’

‫( מ ֲחמ ִּ ׁ֑דים‬Cant. 5.16) ‘desirable things’

In the following the *a vowel undergoes attenuation to a

ḥireq:

‫( וְ המ ִּר ִּגַ֛ים‬2 Sam. 24.22) ‘and the threshing-sledges’; cf. sing.

‫( ְלמֹורג‬Isa. 41.15)

Historical gemination of this nature can be reconstructed

for ḥet in various forms where this letter is now preceded by
pataḥ, e.g.

ִּ ‫* <( ב‬baḥḥūrīm) ‘young men’; cf. sing. ‫* <( ָּבחּור‬bāḥūr)

‫חּורים‬
 Dagesh and Rafe 533

‫* <( ִּמ ְבט ִּחים‬miḇṭaḥḥīm) ‘confidences’; cf. sing. ‫<( ִּמ ְב ָּטח‬
*miḇṭāḥ)

‫* < ( א ִּחים‬ʾaḥḥīm) ‘brothers’; cf. sing. ‫* <( ָּאח‬ʾāḥ)

I.3.1.7. Gemination Associated with Stress

In a few verbal forms, a final sonorant radical is geminated when
preceded by a main stress accent and followed by an inflectional
suffix, e.g.

‫( ָּח ׁ֑דלּו‬Jud. 5.7) ‘they ceased’

‫( וְ יִּ ׁ֑חלּו‬Job 29.21) ‘and they waited’

‫( ָּ ֹֽרמּו‬Job 29.12) ‘they are lofty’

‫( נָּ ָּ ׁ֑תנּו‬Ezek. 27.19) ‘they gave’

I.3.1.8. Gemination after a Prefix

In some cases, gemination occurs at the boundary between a
prefixed particle and the stem of a word, e.g.

‫‘ ב ָָּּ֫מה‬in what?’ < *ba + mā

‫‘ כ ָָּּ֫מה‬how much?’ < *ka + mā

‫( ֶ֤עד שק ְמ ִּתי‬Jud. 5.7) ‘until you (fs) arose’ < *ša + stem

ִּ ‫‘ ֶׁשר‬because my head’ (Cant. 5.2) < *šɛ + stem

‫אשי‬

We can include here ‫‘ ָּ֫ ָּל ָּמה‬why’ < *la + ma. The gemina-
tion in this word is also associated with stress on the preceding
syllable (see §I.3.1.7.), since it, in principle, does not occur in
variant forms in which the stress occurs on the final syllable, e.g.
534 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

‫( ָּל ָּ ֶ֤מה‬Exod. 5.22). Gemination, however, still occurs when the

word has maqqef and so is unstressed, e.g. ‫( ָּל ָּמה־‬Prov. 17.16).
Another possible case of this type of gemination is the
dagesh that occurs after the prefixed conjunction vav in the ‫ויִּ ְק ָּ֫טל‬
[vaɟɟiqˈ̟ tˁoːol] verbal form. Another motivation for the dagesh
here, however, is likely to be to distinguish the meaning of this
form from the potentially homophonous but semantically distinct
form ‫§( וְ יִּ ְק ָּ֫טל‬I.I.3.1.3.).
Gemination is occasionally used as a strategy to mark a
morphological boundary between the interrogative particle he
and what follows, when the following word begins with shewa,
e.g.

ָּ ִּ֗ ‫[ ה ֶׁכ‬hakkʰaˈθoːnɛθ] ‘acknowledge now

‫ר־נא ה ְכ ָ֧תנֶׁ ת ִּבנְ ָךַ֛ ִּ ֖הוא‬
whether it is your son's robe’ (Gen. 37.32)

ֶׁ ‫[ ה ְר ִּא‬haʀ̟ʀi̟ ʔiːˈθɛːɛm] ‘Have you seen?’ (1 Sam. 10.24)

‫יתם‬

‫[ ה ְכצ ֲע ָּק ָּ ַ֛תּה‬hakkʰɑsˁɑːʕɑqɔ̟ ːˈθɔːh] ‘Is it according to its outcry’

(Gen. 18.21)

‫[ ה ְב ֹֽמ ֲח ִּנ֖ים‬habbamaːħaˈniːim] ‘is it in camps?’ (Num. 13.19)

When the word following interrogative he begins with a

guttural, the particle has a full pataḥ vowel or, before qameṣ, a
full segol. These were pronounced as long vowels and can be re-
garded as substitutes for gemination of the initial guttural, e.g.

‫[ ה ֹּ֥עֹוד‬haːˈʕoːoð] ‘is here still’ (Gen. 31.14)

‫[ הא ִּ֗לְך‬haːʔeːˈleːeχ] ‘shall I go’ (Exod. 2.7)

‫[ ֶֶׁ֭ה ָּאנ ִּכי‬hɛːʔɔːnoːˈχiː] ‘Is (it the case that) I …’ (Job 21.4)
 Dagesh and Rafe 535

I.3.1.9. Gemination at Word Boundaries (Deḥiq)

The phenomenon known as deḥiq (Aramaic ‘compressed’) has
been described in §I.2.8.1.2. This involves the gemination of a
word-initial consonant after an unstressed vowel in the preceding
word, e.g.

‫‘ וְ ָּא ִּ ַּ֣ע ָּידה ֵָּּ֔בם‬I shall cause to witness against them’ (Deut.
31.28)

ְ ‫‘ ת ֲע ֶׁש‬you make for yourself’ (Prov. 24.6)

ַּ֣‫ה־לָך‬

Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ includes constructions with the interroga-

tive word ‫ מה‬such as the following in the category of deḥiq:

ׁ֑ ‫‘ מ‬what is this?’ (Exod. 13.14)

‫ה־זאת‬

In all cases in the Tiberian tradition the final vowel of the

word before the geminated consonant was pronounced long but
with reduced duration. In other traditions of Hebrew, there is
evidence that the final vowel was pronounced short (see
§I.2.8.1.2. for details). The dagesh exhibits properties of the
dagesh in forms such as ‫‘ ב ָָּּ֫מה‬in what?’, in which it marks the
boundary between morphemes, and the dagesh in forms such as
‫‘ גְ מ ִּלים‬camels’, where it substitutes for the lengthening of the pre-
ceding vowel. Also in words such as ‫‘ גְ מ ִּלים‬camels’, as remarked
above, the dagesh coincides with a morpheme boundary. The
dagesh of deḥiq can, therefore, be identified as primarily a marker
of a boundary between two words that were closely connected
prosodically. In the Tiberian tradition, efforts were made to make
a clear prosodic division between the words also by maintaining
some degree of vowel length in the final vowel or, in the case of
536 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

constructions with ‫מה־‬, by introducing length in a fully shortened

vowel.

I.3.1.10. The Distribution of the Fricative and Stop

Variants of the Letters ‫בגדכפת‬

For the distribution of the fricative and stop variants of ‫בגדכפת‬

consonants within words, see §I.1.25.
When a ‫ בגדכפת‬consonant occurs at the beginning of a word
and the preceding word ends in a vowel, the general rule is that
the consonant is fricative if the accent of the preceding word is
conjunctive or if the preceding word is connected by maqqef, but
is plosive if the accent of the preceding word is disjunctive, e.g.

ַּ֣ ָּ ‫[ ְש‬ʃaloːˈʃɔː vɔːˈniːim] ‘three sons’ (Gen. 6.10)

‫ֹלשה ָּב ִּנׁ֑ים‬

‫[ זָּ ָּ ֹּ֥כר ּונְ ק ָּ ֖בה ְב ָּר ָּ ׁ֑אם‬zɔːˈχɔːɔʀ̟ wunqe̟ ːˈvɔː baʀ̟ɔːˈʔɔːɔm] ‘male and
female he created them’ (Gen. 5.2)

ִָּּ֗ ‫[ נִּ ְמ ְצ‬nimsˁuʔuː-ˈvɔːɔm] ‘they were found among them’

‫אּו־בם‬
(Jer. 41.8)

There are several exceptions to this principle. These are

mentioned in the Masoretic treatises19 and include the following.

(i) When a paseq occurs after a word with a conjunctive accent,

e.g.

‫‘ ָּע ַּ֣שּו׀ ָּכ ָּלׁ֑ה‬They have done completely’ (Gen. 18.21)

19
Cf. Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, long version, edition in volume 2 of this book,
§II.L.1.7., short version, edition in volume 2 of this book, §II.S.2.0. A
version of these exceptions appears also in the Hebrew Masoretic
treatise published by Ginsburg (1885, 36-37).
 Dagesh and Rafe 537

‫‘ יֹוס ֩ף יְ הוָּ ה על־ע ֶ֤מֹו׀ ָּכהם‬May the Lord add to his people (a hun-
dred times as many) as them’ (1 Chron. 21.3)

(ii) When the first word ends in a consonantal vav, the ‫בגדכפת‬
letter at the beginning of the next word is normally a plosive, as
it is after words ending in other consonants, e.g.

‫(‘ ֲחצר ָּ ֹּ֥תיו ִּב ְת ִּה ָּלׁ֑ה‬enter) his courts with praise’ (Psa. 100.4)

‫אתי‬ ָּ ‫‘ א ָּ ֹּ֥ליו ִּ ֹֽפ‬I cried aloud to him’ (Psa. 66.17)

ִּ ‫י־ק ָּ ׁ֑ר‬

There are, however, two cases where the ‫ בגדכפת‬consonant

is fricative after consonantal vav:

‫ו־תהּו‬ ָּ ‫‘ וְ נָּ ָּ ֹּ֥טה ָּע ֶׁל‬He will stretch the line of confusion over it’
֖ ‫ַ֛יה ֹֽק‬
(Isa. 34.11)

‫‘ וְ ַּ֣קֹול ָּהמֹון֘ ָּשלַּ֣ו ָּבּה‬The sound of a carefree multitude was with

her’ (Ezek. 23.42)

(iii) When the first word ends in a consonantal consonant yod,

the ‫ בגדכפת‬letter at the beginning of the next word is normally a
plosive, e.g.

‫ֹוצי‬ ֹּ֥ ‘perhaps you may inspire terror’ (Isa. 47.12)

ִּ ‫אּולי ת ֲע ֹֽר‬

‫‘ ִּ ִּ֚כי ִּמי־גַּ֣ ֹוי גָּ ֵּ֔דֹול‬for what great nation’ (Deut. 4.7)

‫‘ ְלגֹוי־גָּ ֹּ֥דֹול וְ ָּע ֖צּום‬into a great and mighty nation’ (Num. 14.12)

There is one exception to this:

‫‘ ֲאד ָּנֹּ֥י ִָּּ֜ ִּ֗בם‬the Lord in them’ (Psa. 68.18)

(iv) If two bets or kafs follow one another and under the first of
them there is a vocalic shewa, then the first of the pair is plosive
even when the preceding word ends in a vowel and has a con-
junctive accent, e.g.
538 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

ִָּּ֗ ‫‘ ויְ ִּ ַּ֣הי ְב‬and when she came’ (Josh. 15.18)

‫בֹואּה‬

‫‘ ו ִּת ְת ְפ ָ֧שהּו ְב ִּבגְ ַ֛דֹו‬and she caught him by his garment’ (Gen.
39.12)

‫‘ ֲה ֹּ֥לא ְככ ְר ְכ ִּ ֖מיש‬Is it not like Carchemish?’ (Isa. 10.9)

If a vowel occurs under the first of the two consonants ra-

ther than shewa, the first remains fricative according to the usual
rule, e.g.

‫֖יה‬ ֶׁ ‫‘ וְ ֕הּוא ִּא ָּ ֹּ֥שה ִּב ְב‬And he (shall take) a wife in her virginity’
ָּ ‫תּול‬
(Lev. 21.13)

ַּ֣ ְ‫‘ וְ אנ‬men of Babylon’ (2 Kings 17.30)

‫שי ָּב ִֶּׁ֗בל‬

We can generalize and say two fricative bets or kafs are

avoided in syllable onsets in the same foot (feet indicated below
by round brackets, extrametrical syllables are in angled brack-
ets):

‫([ ְב ִּבגְ ַ֛דֹו‬ba.viʁ.)(ˈdoː)]

‫([ ָּב ִֶּׁ֗בל‬vɔː.)(ˈvɛː.ɛl)]

‫֖יה‬
ָּ ‫תּול‬
ֶׁ ‫([ ִּב ְב‬viv.)(θuː.)(ˈlɛː.)<hɔː>]

A further factor is that the initial bet and kaf in construc-

tions such as ‫ ְב ִּבגְ ַ֛דֹו‬and ‫ ְככ ְר ְכ ִּ ֖מיש‬are prepositional affixes. Other
‫ בגדכפת‬consonants that are not prepositions under the same con-
ditions remain fricative, e.g.

ְ ‘and the sons of Dedan’ (Gen. 25.3)

‫ּובנַּ֣י ְד ָּ ֵּ֔דן‬

ְ ‫‘ ֹֽל‬you shall not abhor’ (Deut. 23.8)

‫א־תתעַּ֣ב‬
 Dagesh and Rafe 539

The plosive pronunciation of the bet and kaf, therefore, is

made further optimal by the fact that it clearly demarcates a mor-
pheme boundary. This factor can be identified in a variety of
other features of the reading tradition (§I.3.1.8.).

(v) Likewise, when the preposition bet has shewa and is followed
by pe, the bet is plosive even when preceded by a word with a
conjunctive accent ending in vowel, e.g.

‫‘ וְ ִּא ָּכ ְב ָּ ֶ֤דה ְבפ ְרעה‬and I will get glory over Pharaoh’ (Exod.
14.4)

ַּ֣ ‫‘ ְּוד ָּב ֖רי ֲא ֶׁש‬and my words which I have put in your
‫ר־ש ְמ ִּתי ְב ִּ ׁ֑פיָך‬
mouth’ (Isa. 59.21)

When the bet has a vowel, it is fricative in these conditions,

e.g.

ֹּ֥ ‫‘ א‬He will not look upon the rivers’ (Job 20.17)
‫ל־י ֶָּׁ֑רא ִּב ְפלגׁ֑ ֹות‬

A pe is closely related to bet in its articulation. A preposition

bet or kaf that is followed by a fricative ‫ בגדכפת‬consonant that is
not of similar articulation is not made plosive under the condi-
tions in question, e.g.

‫ן־ע ֶׁדן‬
ֵּ֔ ‫‘וינִּ ַּ֣חהּו ְבג‬and he put him in the garden of Eden’ (Gen.
2.15)

֩ ‫‘ ֲה‬surely when [the east wind] strikes it’ (Ezek.

‫לֹוא ְכגעת ִָּּ֜בּה‬
17.10)

(vi) Seven cases do not fit into the previous categories, over
which there was no disagreement by the Masoretes. Four of these
are in the Song of the Sea (Exod. 15):

‫‘ גָּ ַּ֣אה גָּ ֵָּּ֔אה‬he has triumphed gloriously’ (Exod. 15.1, 21)
540 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

‫‘ ִּ ֹּ֥מי ָּכ ֖מ ָּכה‬Who is like you?’ (Exod. 15.11)

‫‘ יִּ ְד ַּ֣מּו ָּכ ָּ ׁ֑א ֶׁבן‬they are as still as a stone’ (Exod. 15.16)

‫‘ וְ ש ְמ ִּ ֶ֤תי ֹֽכ ְדכד‬and I shall make (your pinnacles) of agate’ (Isa.

54.12)

ִּ ‫‘ וְ נִּ ְל ֹּ֥א‬and I am weary of holding it in’ (Jer. 20.9)

‫יתי ֹֽכ ְל ֖כל‬

ֱ ‫‘ וְ ָּח ְכ ָּ ֹּ֥מה ְכ ָּח ְכמ‬and wisdom like wisdom of the gods’

‫ת־א ָּל ִּ ֖הין‬
(Aramaic, Dan. 5.11)

Some of these appear to have been motivated by an effort

to avoid a series of identical fricative consonants in contiguous
syllables or words.20
Cases over which there is said to be disagreement between
Ben Asher and Ben Naftali include the following. L in some cases
follows Ben Asher and in others Ben Naftali:

Ben Asher (L): ‫‘ עם־זַּ֣ ּו גָּ ָּ ׁ֑א ְל ָּת‬the people whom you have
redeemed’ (Exod. 15.13); Ben Naftali: ‫גָּ ָּ ׁ֑א ְל ָּת‬

ָּ ‫‘ ב ַּ֣ח ֶׁדש ה ְש ִּמ ִּינַּ֣י ב ֲח ִּמ ָּ ֹֽש‬in the eighth month on

Ben Asher: ֩‫ה־ע ָּשר‬
the fifteenth (day)’ (1 Kings 12.32); Ben Naftali (L): ‫ב ֲח ִּמ ָּ ֹֽשה‬.

Ben Asher (L): ‫‘ ֲאד ְרגָּ זְ ריָּ ֩א גְ ָּד ְבר ָּיֶ֤א ְד ָּת ְבריָּ א‬the counsellors, the
treasurers, the justices’ (Aramaic, Dan. 3.2, 3); Ben Naftali:
‫גְ ָּד ְבר ָּיֶ֤א‬.

20
According to the Hebrew Masoretic treatise published by Ginsburg
(1885, 37) the kaf in ‫( ְכ ָּח ְכמת‬Dan. 5.11) was made a plosive since ḥet
and fricative kaf were difficult to combine due to the fact that they were
similar in articulation (‫)קרובים במוצא הבטוי‬.
 Dagesh and Rafe 541

Ben Asher: ‫‘ ס ְב ָּכֶ֤א ְפסנְ ת ִּרין‬trigon, harp’ (Aramaic, Dan. 3.5);

Ben Naftali (L): ‫פסנְ ת ִּרין‬.
ְ

On balance, Ben Naftali prefers clearer separation by read-

ing dagesh in the majority of these case.

(vii) Ben Naftali read the preposition kaf as plosive after ‫ ויְ ִּהי‬with
a conjunctive accent in seven cases where Ben Asher read the kaf
as fricative according to the usual rule.21 L follows Ben Asher in
this respect:

Ben Asher (L) Ben Naftali

‫ויְ ִּהי֩ ִּכ ְשמע ֲאד ִּ֜ ָּניו‬ ‫ויְ ִּהי֩ ִּכ ְשמע ֲאד ִּ֜ ָּניו‬
‘when his master heard’ (Gen. 39.19)

‫ויְ ִּ ַּ֣הי ְכ ָּש ְמ ֵּ֔עֹו‬ ‫ויְ ִּ ַּ֣הי ְכ ָּש ְמ ֵּ֔עֹו‬

‘and when he heard’ (Gen. 39.15)

‫ויְ ִּהי֩ ִּכ ְראֹות‬ ‫ויְ ִּהי֩ ִּכ ְראֹות‬

‘and when (the king) saw’ (Esther 5.2)

‫ויְ ִּהי֩ ִּכ ְראֹותֹו‬ ‫ויְ ִּהי֩ ִּכ ְראֹותֹו‬

‘and when he saw’ (Jud. 11.35)

‫יאם‬
ָּ ‫הֹוצ‬
ִּ ‫ויְ ִּהי֩ ְכ‬ ‫יאם‬
ָּ ‫הֹוצ‬
ִּ ‫ויְ ִּהי֩ ְכ‬
‘and when they brought out’ (Gen. 18.17)

‫ויְ ִּ ַּ֣הי ְכ ָּמ ְל ִּ֗כֹו‬ ‫ויְ ִּ ַּ֣הי ְכ ָּמ ְל ִּ֗כֹו‬

‘when he became king’ (1 Kings 15.29)

‫ר־תמּו‬
ִּ֜ ‫ויְ ִּהי כ ֲא ֶׁש‬ ‫ר־תמּו‬
ִּ֜ ‫ויְ ִּהי כ ֲא ֶׁש‬
‘and when they had perished’ (Deut. 2.16)

21
Kitāb al-Khilaf (ed. Lipschütz, 1965, 18-19).
542 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

I.3.1.11. Orthoepic Uses of Dagesh

In a number of circumstances, gemination marked by dagesh has
been introduced into the reading for orthoepic purposes to ensure
that letters are clearly articulated and not slurred over. The cases
in question fall into various categories.

I.3.1.11.1. Splitting Weak Consonants by Shewa

When two weak consonants are in contact across a syllable
boundary, the first is sometimes geminated and marked with
dagesh. This has the effect of introducing a vowel in the form of
vocalic shewa between the two consonants, which increases their
distinctness and reduces the risk of elision. This is found in
particular in syllable contact involving sonorants (‫)למנר‬, gutturals
and qof, e.g.

ָּ ‫[ ִּמ ְקר‬miqq
‫ה־לׁ֑יְ ָּלה‬ ̟ a̟ ʀ̟eː-ˈlɔːɔjlɔː] ‘accident of the night’ (Deut.
23.11)

‫[ מ ְמר ִּ ֹֽרים‬mammaʀ̟oːˈʀ̟iːim] ‘bitterness’ (Job 9.18)

‫ˌ[ ּוֹֽ נְ ת ְק ֵּ֔נהּו‬wuˑnθaqq

̟ a̟ ˈnuːhuː] ‘and we shall draw him away’
(Jud. 20.32)

‫[ יִּ ְק ֹּ֥הת‬jiqq
̟ a̟ ˈhaːaθ] ‘obedience of’ (Gen. 49.10)
‫[ ה ְר ִּע ָּ ׁ֑מּה‬haʀ̟ʀi̟ ʕiːˈmɔːh] ‘to irritate her’ (1 Sam. 1.6)22

22
According to Melamed (1948, 1) the purpose of the dagesh in ‫ה ְר ִּע ָּ ׁ֑מּה‬
(1 Sam. 1.6) is to disinguish this human activity (‘to irritate her’) from
the meaning of the verb in ‫‘ ֹֽאל־ה ָּכ ֹּ֥בֹוד ִּה ְר ִּ ׁ֑עים‬the God of glory thundered’
(Psa. 29.3), which refers to an action of God. This is a possible interpre-
 Dagesh and Rafe 543

In some cases, this strategy is applied when only one of the

consonants in contact belong to this group, and occasionally also
elsewhere, e.g.

‫[ ִּע ְק ֹּ֥בֹות‬ʕiqq
̟ a̟ ˈvoːoθ] ‘footprints of’ (Psa. 89.52)
‫[ ִּמ ְק ָּ ֕דש‬miqq
̟ a̟ ˈðɔːoʃ] ‘sanctuary’ (Exod. 15.17)
‫[ ִּמ ְט ָּה ׁ֑רֹו‬mittˁɔhɔːˈʀ̟oː] ‘his lustre’ (Psa. 89.45)

ׁ֑ ָּ ‫[ ִּמ ְצ ִּע‬missˁiʕiːˈʀ̟ɔː] ‘small’ (Dan. 8.9)23

‫ירה‬

‫[ ה ְצ ִּפינֹו‬hɑssˁɑfiːˈnoː] ‘to hide him’ (Exod. 2.3)

As can be seen from the list of examples above, the letter

before the geminated consonant is frequently mem, especially
when the mem has a ḥireq. Such forms may have been facilitated
by the fact that similar sequences occur when the preposition ‫ִּמן‬
assimilates to a word. The same may apply to examples with ini-
tial he with pataḥ, which resemble the prefixed definite article
(Ariel 2020, 142).
This orthoepic strategy achieves a similar result as the strat-
egies of lengthening the preceding vowel to induce reading of the
shewa as vocalic, e.g. ‫[ ֹֽסלְ ִּ ֹּ֥עי‬saːliˈʕiː] ‘my rock’ (2 Sam. 22.2, Psa.
18.3) (§I.2.5.8.5.), and the lengthening of the preceding vowel to

tation, especially since in such pairs of homophones the dagesh is typi-

cally put in forms relating to a human (see §I.3.1.3.). Ariel (2020), how-
ever, has argued that the motivation is phonetic rather than semantic,
and I follow his view here.
23
For the case for interpreting the dagesh in the forms ‫ ִּמ ְט ָּה ׁ֑רֹו‬and ‫ירה‬
ׁ֑ ָּ ‫ִּמ ְצ ִּע‬
as orthoepic see Ariel (2020).
544 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

introduce metrical epenthesis between the two consonants, e.g.

‫[ יְ ֹֽש ְע ָּיַּ֣הּו‬jaˌʃaˑʕ∅ˈjɔːhuː] ‘Isaiah’ (Isa. 1.1) (§I.2.10.).
A variant type of orthoepic strategy is to insert a vowel af-
ter the first of the two consonants in contact and geminate the
second consonant, i.e. CC > CVCC rather than CC > CCVC. This
is found in:

‫[ יִּ ָֹּֽ֑ר ֹּ֥דף‬jiːṛaddoːof] ‘let him pursue’ (Psa. 7.6)

This may have been applied to avoid geminating resh. Par-

allels to such restructuring of the syllable structure of words are
found in the Samaritan reading tradition, e.g.

tēšåbbəṣ < *tašbeṣ (Ben Ḥayyim 2000, 59 | L [BHS]: ‫ת ְש ֖בץ‬

Exod. 28.4 ‘checkered work’)

I.3.1.11.2. Dagesh to Strengthen Syllable Onsets

In the standard Tiberian manuscript codices there are a few cases
of the marking of the dagesh sign on letters other than ‫ בגדכפת‬on
the second of two consonants in contact at the boundary of syl-
lables for the purpose of ensuring that the consonants and sylla-
bles are kept distinct. This ensured a clear division of syllables
and words. In L, for example, a dagesh is sometimes placed on an
initial lamed of the second word of a phrase connected with
maqqef when the first word ends in nun, e.g. ‫‘ ויִּ ֶׁתן־ל֖ ֹו‬and he gave
him’ (Gen. 24.36) (Yeivin 1980, 294–95). This can be regarded
as a measure to separate the two words clearly and prevent the
coalescence and slurring of weak sonorant consonants. The
dagesh would mark the articulation of the lamed with increased
muscular pressure to ensure it maintains its correct articulation.
 Dagesh and Rafe 545

According to Kitāb al-Khilaf, Ben Naftali placed a dagesh in the

first nun of the name ‫ נּון‬in the combination ‫‘ ִּבן־נּון‬the son of Nun’
(ed. Lipschütz 1965, ‫)כד‬. This was a measure to prevent the
coalescence of two identical weak sonorant letters across a word-
boundary.24 An alternative strategy to separate the two letters
was to place a paseq between the words, e.g.

L: ‫‘ ְלהגְ ִּ ׂ֨דיל ׀ ְל ִּ֜מ ְע ָּלה‬to make exceedingly great’ (1 Chron. 22.5)

L: ‫‘ ּוב ְר ֶׁזַּ֣ל ׀ ָ֠ ָּלרב‬iron in abundance’ (1 Chron. 22.3).

According to Kitāb al-Khilaf, Ben Naftali marked a dagesh in

the qof of the verb ‫‘ י ְע ֵּ֔קב‬he supplants’ (Jer. 9.3, L: ‫( )י ְע ֵּ֔קב‬ed.
Lipschütz 1965, ‫ )לג‬and this is found in C and in a number of
other Tiberian Masoretic manuscripts (Yeivin 1968, 51). This en-
sured a clear syllable division and also, by implication, indicated
that the ʿayin had a silent shewa. This, moreover, alerted the
reader to the fact that the syllable division was different from
that of the more frequent form ‫‘ י ֲעקב‬Jacob’. Qof falls into the
category of weak letters, which is demonstrated, for example, by
the fact that it often loses dagesh when in a metrically weak syl-
lable with shewa (§I.2.5.2.). The practice of the Masorete Ben
Naftali to use dagesh in this way reflects his general tendency to
introduce innovative measures to ensure a careful reading to a
greater extent than Ben Asher, who was more conservative (A.
Ben-David 1957b).

24
For the need to avoid coalescence in such contexts see the discussion
in Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book,
§II.L.1.4.10.
546 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

The phenomenon of marking dagesh to give prominence to

syllable division has a natural phonological explanation. The
optimal contact between two adjacent syllables is where the
onset of the second syllable is stronger than the offset (coda) of
the preceding syllable (Vennemann 1988, 40). According to this
principle, strength is equated with the degree of sonority or the
quality of being vowel-like. This optimality principle can
influence how a sequence of phonological segments is sylla-
bified.25 In a sequence of two consonant segments CC, a syllable
division between the two is more preferred if the second
consonant is less sonorant, i.e. stronger, than the first. The
sonority of a consonant can be decreased by a process of fortition.
Gemination is a clear process of fortition (Bybee 2015, 45), so it
follows that gemination of a consonant is a natural way to mark
a clearer syllable division. This also indicates that the dagesh in
such forms as ‫ י ְע ֵּ֔קב‬should indeed be interpreted as having the
phonetic realization of gemination and is not purely an abstract
symbol of syllable division.
The practice attributed to Ben Naftali to mark dagesh in a
weak letter after a guttural with silent shewa (‫ )י ְע ֵּ֔קב‬and in the
second word in phrases such as and ‫ ִּבן־נּון‬to mark a clear division
of syllables occurs in a number of later Bible manuscripts, e.g.
‫‘ ויֶׁ ְא ֖סר‬and he harnessed’ (Exod. 14.6), ‫‘ י ְע ֖זר‬Jazer’ (Num. 32.35),
ׁ֑ ָּ ‫‘ ֶׁל ֱא ָּכ‬to eat bread’ (Gen. 31:54), ‫‘ לָּ ֶׁ ֶ֤הם ִּמיָּ גֹון‬to them from sor-
‫ל־ל ֶׁחם‬
row’ (Esther 9.22) (Ginsburg 1897, 114–36; Luzzatto 2005, 169–

25
Alvestad and Edzard (2009) have demonstrated how this principle
can explain the distribution of the insertion of ḥaṭef vowels in verbs
with initial ḥet in Tiberian Hebrew.
 Dagesh and Rafe 547

72). These can be interpreted as reflecting a tradition of marking

syllable divisions that is descended, directly or indirectly, from
the practice attributed to Ben Naftali.
There is a reference in some early Masoretic sources to the
practice of marking dagesh in the yod of the word ‫‘ ו ְעיָּ ִּ ֖רם‬and male
donkeys’ (Gen. 32.16, L: ‫)ו ְעיָּ ִּ ֖רם‬, which is attributed to either Ben
Asher or Moshe Moḥe (Baer and Strack 1879, xxxviii–xxxix). This
would be a use of dagesh on a weak letter after a vowelless
guttural analogous to ‫י ְע ֵּ֔קב‬.

I.3.1.11.3. Extended Dagesh Forte

There is evidence that the practice of strengthening syllable
onsets for orthoepic purposes by geminating a syllable-initial
consonant was more widespread than is apparent from the
vocalized Tiberian manuscripts. The process in question involved
the reading of the dagesh lene in the stop variants of the letters
‫ בגדכפת‬as dagesh forte, i.e. as geminate.
This is seen by examining in particular the Karaite
transcriptions and passages in Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ.
In several of the extant manuscripts of the Karaite
transcriptions, the scribes marked the Arabic shadda sign where
the Tiberian reading tradition had dagesh. In some manuscripts,
the shadda is written only where the dagesh is dagesh forte
according to the conventional interpretation of the distribution
of dagesh forte and dagesh lene. In some manuscripts, however,
the shadda sign is written both on letters with dagesh forte and on
‫ בגדכפת‬letters with what is conventionally interpreted as being
dagesh lene. Some examples are given below.
548 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Manuscripts that mark shadda corresponding to only dagesh forte

BL Or 2539, fols. 56-114

Dagesh forte

ّ ‫( ه۟ ࣴدّ۠اب‬BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 63r, 8 | L [BHS]: ‫ ה ָּד ָּ ַ֛בר‬Gen.

‫۠ار‬
21.11 ‘the word’)

‫( ه۟ مّ۟ࣴ ّاي ۚم‬BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 64r, 1 | L [BHS]: ‫ ה ֖מיִּ ם‬Gen.

21.15 ‘the water’)

Dagesh lene

‫( دۖ ب۠ا ًرا۟ي‬BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 84r, 1 | L [BHS]: ‫ ְ־ד ָּב ָּ ׁ֑רי‬Deut.

4.10 ‘my words’)

ّ‫( ه۟ م ࣤزب ۟ۛيح‬BL Or 2539 MS A, fol. 67v, 1 | L [BHS]: ‫ ־ה ִּמזְ ֵּ֔בח‬Gen.

22.9 ‘the altar’)

BL Or 2544 + Or 2545 + Or 2546

Dagesh forte
ࣴ
‫وࣦم‬ٟ ‫( و۟ا ࣴ۟يّكّۖث‬BL Or 2546, fol. 3r, 7 | L [BHS]: ‫ וָֹּֽ֑י ְכ ֖תּום‬Num. 14.45
‘and they beat them into pieces’)

ّ۠ࣴ ‫( ي‬BL Or 2545, fol. 207v, 5 | L [BHS]: ‫ יִּ גָּ ֹֽאל‬Lev. 27.33
‫جا ۛايٖل‬
‘it will be redeemed’)
 Dagesh and Rafe 549

ّ‫( ه۟ مّ۟ࣴ ۖراۜا‬BL Or 2544 fol. 74v, 2 | L [BHS]: ‫ המ ְר ֶׁ ֹּ֥אה‬Exod. 3.3

‘the sight’)

Dagesh lene
ࣤ
‫ب۠ا ۛايس‬ٟ (BL Or 2544 fol. 74r, 10 | L [BHS]: ‫ ָּב ֵּ֔אש‬Exod. 3.2
‘with the fire’)

‫( ف۠ا ࣤ ۠ناو‬BL Or 2544 fol. 75r, 6 | L [BHS]: ‫ ָּפ ֵָּּ֔ניו‬Exod. 3.6 ‘his
face’)

‫حوࣦث‬
ۢ ۖ‫( ميٖم ۖشف‬BL Or 2546, fol. 132r, 11 | L [BHS]: ‫ִּ ֹֽמ ִּמ ְש ְפ ֖חת‬
Num. 36.1 ‘from the family of’)

Manuscripts that mark shadda corresponding to both dagesh forte

and dagesh lene

BL Or 2540

Dagesh forte
ࣴ
‫( نٖيث ۟ۖحكّۖم۠ ّࣦا‬BL Or 2540, fol. 4r, 4 | L [BHS]: ‫ ִּ ֹֽנ ְתח ְכ ָּ ֖מה‬Exod.
1.10 ‘let us deal wisely’)

ّ‫و‬ٟ ‫( وٖ ࣴ۟ات ۖصفۖ ۛناࣦه‬BL Or 2540, fol. 5v, 4 | L [BHS]: ‫ ו ִֹּֽת ְצ ְפנ֖הּו‬Exod.
2.2 ‘and she hid him’)
550 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Dagesh lene

‫( يرۖبّۜࣴ ࣦا‬BL Or 2540, fol. 4v, 1 | L [BHS]: ‫ יִּ ְר ֶׁ ֖בה‬Exod. 1.12 ‘He
increases’)

‫( ۠ ࣴجّاذ‬BL Or 2540, fol. 3v, 4 | L [BHS]: ‫ ָּגֹּ֥ד‬Exod. 1.4 ‘Gad’)

‫( دّ۠ࣴان‬BL Or 2540, fol. 3v, 3 | L [BHS]: ‫ ָּ ֹּ֥דן‬Exod. 1.4 ‘Dan’)
‫( ميه۟ ّۖر تّۜࣴان‬BL Or 2540, fol. 7r, 5 | L [BHS]: ‫ ִּמה ְר ֶׁ ֹּ֥תן‬Exod. 2.18
‘you hurried’)

BL Or 2548 fols. 1-185

Dagesh forte

ّࣴ (BL Or 2548 fol. 3r, 10 | L [BHS]: ‫ מ ָ֧דּוע‬Isa. 5.4 ‘why?’)

‫مدوع‬
‫( َه َّمالخ‬BL Or 2548 fol. 13r, 9 | L [BHS]: ‫ ה ֶׁ ֹּ֥מלֶׁ ְך‬Isa. 37.5 ‘the
king’)

Dagesh lene

‫( ِص ْم ࣴدي خارم‬BL Or 2548 fol. 6r, 10 | L [BHS]: ‫ִּצ ְמד ֵֶּׁ֔י־כ ֶׁרם‬
Isa. 5.10 ‘acres of the vineyard’)

‫( عذ ࣴدور‬BL Or 2548 fol. 10r, 5 | L [BHS]: ‫ד־דֹור‬

ַּ֣ ‫ ע‬Isa. 13.20

‘until generation’)
 Dagesh and Rafe 551

ْ ْ
‫( شا َما ْع ࣴتا‬BL Or 2548 fol. 14r, 10 | L [BHS]: ‫ ָּש ֵּ֔מ ְע ָּת‬Isa. 37.6
‘you (ms) heard’)
ࣴ ْ
‫( َيش ْاعياهوّ كو‬BL Or 2548 fol. 14r, 9 | L [BHS]: ‫ יְ ֹֽש ְע ֵָּּ֔יהּו ֹּ֥כה‬Isa.
37.6 ‘Isaiah, thus’)

In Arabic orthography, the shadda sign represents the

application of greater muscular pressure to a consonant in order
to lengthen it. In medieval manuals concerning the correct
reading (tajwīd) of the Arabic Qurʾān, descriptions are given of
various degrees of lengthening expressed by shadda, but it was
never used like dagesh lene to mark a non-geminated plosive
consonant. The Karaite transcriptions that mark the shadda sign
are essentially phonetic representations of the Hebrew reading
with an Arabic orthography and so one can assume that when the
shadda is marked, it was intended to represent lengthening of the
consonant. What the data above reflect, therefore, are two
varieties of reading. In one variety the dagesh is given its expected
pronunciation, with dagesh forte strengthened but not dagesh lene.
In the other variety, however, both dagesh forte and dagesh lene
are strengthened and so are given the same phonetic realization.
We may call this latter type of reading the ‘extended dagesh forte’
reading. The reading without this extension of dagesh forte will
be referred to as the ‘dagesh forte—dagesh lene reading.’
A passage from Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ also reflects a type of
reading that does not conform to the traditional classification of
dagesh into dagesh forte expressing gemination and dagesh lene
552 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

expressing a non-geminated stop realization of a ‫בגדכפת‬

consonant.
The passage in question concerns the consonant tav, which
is said to differ from other letters in having three grades of
strength. The form of the passage from the long version of this
work is as follows:26
Chapter concerning letters that occur in three grades

Take note that just as there are among the letters those that
when they are adjacent to another letter, this latter makes
them light with rafe, likewise among the letters are those
that occur in three grades with regard to heaviness and
lightness. The first grade is lightening. The second is the
normal dagesh. The third is the major dagesh. This includes
the tav.

Take note that the tav, unlike the other letters, may occur
rafe, as in ‫‘ וְ ָּת ׂ֨אי ה ִּ֜שער‬and rooms of the gate’ (Ezek. 40.10);
it may occur with dagesh, as in ‫‘ ַּ֣תחת הנְ ִּ֜ח ֶׁשת‬instead of
bronze’ (Isa. 60.17), ‫תֹורי זָּ ָּהב‬
ֶ֤ ‘ornaments of gold’ (Cant.
1.11); and it may occur with major dagesh. The latter
includes three tavs: ‫ל־עֹולם‬
ָּ ֶ֤ ֶׁ ‫‘ ויְ ִּש‬He made it an eternal
‫ימ ָּה ת‬
heap of ruins’ (Josh. 8.28), ‫ת־ב ִָּּ֜תיו וְ גנְ ז ָּ ָ֧כיו‬
ָּׂ֨ ‫‘ ֹֽו ְֶׁא‬and its houses
and its treasuries’ (1 Chron. 28.11), ‫‘ וְ ג ְבר ָּיֶ֤א ִּאלְך ְת ָּלַּ֣ת ֵּ֔הֹון‬and
these three men’ (Dan. 3.23). I do not know anybody who
differs (in reading) with regard to these three tavs. As for
the form ‫ב ִּתים‬,
ָּ there were differences (of reading) with
regard to it. Take note that the Tiberians said that they
have a resh that is not read (in the same way) by anybody
else. It is likely that the climate of their town caused this.

26
Edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.9.2.
 Dagesh and Rafe 553

It has the same status as the tav in the word ‫ ָּב ִּתים‬according
to the view of Ben Naftali, who gives it a grade in between
two grades.

The short version of Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ supplies more details

about the differences in the reading of ‫ב ִּתים‬:
ָּ 27

Take note that tav in three places is strengthened with

dagesh to a greater degree than (other) cases of tav with
dagesh. These are ‫ל־עֹולם ְש ָּמ ֵָּּ֔מה‬
ָּ ֶ֤ ֶׁ ‫‘ ויְ ִּש‬He made it an
‫ימ ָּה ת‬
eternal heap of ruins’ (Josh. 8.28), ‫ת־ב ִָּּ֜תיו וְ גנְ ז ָּ ָ֧כיו‬
ָּׂ֨ ‫‘ ֹֽו ְֶׁא‬and its
houses and its treasuries’ (1 Chron. 28.11), ‫וְ ג ְבר ָּיֶ֤א ִּאלְך‬
‫‘ ְת ָּלַּ֣ת ֵּ֔הֹון‬and these three men’ (Dan. 3.23). Note that there is
disagreement concerning every tav in the form ‫ב ִּתים‬,
ָּ except
in ‫ת־ב ִָּּ֜תיו וְ גנְ ז ָּ ָ֧כיו‬
ָּׂ֨ ‫( ֹֽו ְֶׁא‬1 Chron. 28.11). Whoever wishes to
pronounce it with the normal dagesh of tav, may do so and
whoever wishes to pronounced it with with the heaviness
of the tav of ‫ת־ב ִָּּ֜תיו וְ גנְ ז ָּ ָ֧כיו‬
ָּׂ֨ ‫( ֹֽו ְֶׁא‬1 Chron. 28.11), may do so, on
condition that this is when there are a conjunctive accent
and a disjunctive accent in the word without an interven-
ing letter.

Since in these passages it is stated that there are only three

tavs that all readers agree should be given a major dagesh, this
major dagesh must be something different from normal dagesh
forte. Both what is traditionally regarded as dagesh lene and also
what is traditionally regarded as dagesh forte would, therefore,
have to be considered to belong to the second grade, the ‘normal
dagesh’. The examples cited for the ‘normal dagesh’ include only
words that contain what is traditionally identified as dagesh lene,

27
Edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.S.3.0.
554 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

viz. ‫ ַּ֣תחת‬and ‫תֹורי‬.

ֶ֤ It does not follow, however, that ‘normal
dagesh’ must be identified as dagesh lene. Rather the author makes
no distinction between dagesh lene and dagesh forte. This could
have been because the ‘normal dagesh’ was considered to include
a range of phonetic realizations and degrees of muscular pressure
that included an ungeminated stop and a geminated stop. This is
the usual interpretation of the function of the dagesh sign.
Alternatively the passage could be interpreted as meaning that
there was no phonetic distinction between what we call dagesh
lene and dagesh forte. Rather tav with dagesh was normally
realized with a similar degree of muscular pressure and duration,
whether in contexts where it is traditionally interpreted as dagesh
lene or in contexts where it is traditionally interpreted as dagesh
forte. This, in fact, is the more straightforward interpretation of
the passage, especially since the point of the passage is the
division into ‘grades’ based on differences in degrees of
‘heaviness’ (thiqal), i.e. muscular pressure, and one grade would
not be expected to contain a range of different pressures. The
third grade would, therefore, involve an exceptionally high
degree of muscular pressure and, one can infer, duration, which
are found only in a few isolated words. What we seem to have
here, therefore, is a description of an ‘extended dagesh forte’ type
of reading with the addition of three cases of extra-long dagesh.
According to Mishaʾel ben ʿUzziʾel in his Kitāb al-Khilaf, the
Masorete Ben Naftali read all cases of ‫ ָּב ִּתים‬that had two accents
by applying more muscular force than in cases without two
 Dagesh and Rafe 555

accents (Lipschütz 1965, 4; Eldar 1994, 77).28 Ben Asher,

however, is said to have disagreed with Ben Naftali and read only
‫( ָּׂ֨ב ִָּּ֜תיו‬I Chron. 28.11) and ‫ּוב ִִּּ֜תים‬
ָּׂ֨ (Deut. 6.11) with strong pressure.
The second example is not mentioned in Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ but has
the same accents (ʾazla and geresh). Ben Asher did not read any
other cases of ‫ ָּב ִּתים‬with the same degree of pressure.29 Mishaʾel
ben ʿUzziʾel (Lipschütz ibid.) cites a Masoretic statement that is
attributed to Ben Asher: ‘because he (Ben Asher) mentioned in
his Masora saying that in the Bible are four cases with intense
dagesh.’30 These statements in Kitāb al-Khilaf indicate that the
pronunciation of tav as extra-long in some cases was a feature of
the reading of Ben Asher and Ben Naftali.
At the end of the passage from the long version of the
Hidāya it is stated that in the Tiberian reading there is a
realization of resh that is not found in any other reading and that
this ‘has the same status as the tav in the word ‫ ָּב ִּתים‬according to
the opinion of Ben Naftali,’ who pronounced the tav of this word
with ‘a grade in between two grades’ (manzila bayna
manzilatayn). The author of Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ applies a

28
‫כל לשון בתים מא כאן מנה בלחנין כאן בן־נפתלי ידגשה אעני ישד פיה זאיד עלי גירה‬
‘Every case of ‫ ָּב ִּתים‬with two accents was given dagesh by Ben Naftali, I
mean he pronounced it with force more than other cases (of the word
without two accents)’.
29
‫הדא אלשד‬
̇ ‫אמתאל‬
̇ ‫‘ ומא כאן גירהא מא כאן ישד פיה‬He did not pronounce
other cases with the similar strength’ (Lipschütz 1965, 4; Eldar 1994,
77).
30
Ed. Lipschütz (1965, 4): ‫לאנה ̇דכר פי מאסרתה וקאל אן פי אלקראן ארבעה‬
‫בלשון מרובה דגשין‬.
556 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

classification based on grades (manāzil) to three variant

articulations of resh. These were non-emphatic advanced uvular
[ʀ̟], emphatic alveolar [rˁ] and geminate respectively, which can,
likewise, be correlated with three degrees of muscular pressure.
The non-emphatic advanced uvular realization of resh is referred
to in the Hidāya as the ‘light’ (khafīf) grade, the geminate resh,
marked by a dagesh, is the ‘major’ (kabīr) grade, and the emphatic
alveolar is ‘the grade between grades’ (manzila bayna
manzilatayn) (Khan 1995, 2013c). Unlike the classification of the
three variants of tav, the classification of three variants of resh is
presented as two basic grades, with a third variant that is
between two grades. The term manzila bayna manzilatayn is likely
to originate in the Muʿtazilite theological tradition.31 It is used in
Arabic grammatical literature to refer to cases of intermediate
grammatical status. Al-Jurjānī (d. 471/1078), for example, states
that the Arabic negator laysa has an intermediate position
(manzila bayna manzilatayn) between the verb kāna and the
negative particle mā with regard to the extent of its inflection.32
Mishaʾel ben ʿUzziʾel states that the distinctive feature of Ben
Naftali’s reading of ‫ ָּב ִּתים‬was that he regularly pronounced the tav
in it with more force when it had two accents than when it lacked
a secondary accent. The term manzila bayna manzilatayn,

31
It was one of the principles of Muʿtazilite doctrine that the term ‘un-
believer’ could not be applied to a Muslim believer who had committed
a grave sin. The latter, therefore, could be neither a believer nor an
unbeliever, but in an intermediate state (manzila bayna manzilatayn); cf.
Gimaret (2015).
32
See Baalbakki (2008, 132).
 Dagesh and Rafe 557

therefore, must be referring to a degree of strength that was

greater than a normal dagesh. In the passage on the tav in the
Hidāya, the normal dagesh was read as a geminate so the
intermediate position of Ben Naftali is presumably referring to a
degree of strength that was greater than normal gemination but
less than the extra-long pronunciation in the specified cases. The
practice of pronouncing the dagesh of tav with a strength greater
than normal gemination was, according to the Hidāya, unique to
the Tiberian tradition.33
The passage cited above from the original Arabic versions
of Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ underwent an adaptation in the Hebrew
versions of the work that were produced in medieval Europe,
such as Horayat ha-Qore (twelfth century) and Sefer Ṭaʿame ha-
Miqra (thirteenth century) (Eldar 1994, 16–18). In Horayat ha-
Qore the passage has the following form:34

33
The Masorah Parva to I Chron. 28.11 contains the note: ‫ה׳ תוין דגשי׳‬
‫‘ בחוזק‬There are five tavs that have strong dagesh’. It is not clear in which
words these tavs occur apart from the tav in ‫ ָּׂ֨ב ִָּּ֜תיו‬in the 1 Chron. 28.11
(Dotan 1967, 15).
34
Ed. Busi (1984, 60): ‫ מכל התוי׳׳ן הנדגשות‬,‫ בג׳ מקומות נדגשת התי׳׳ו‬.‫שער התי׳׳ו‬
,‫ שהן לשון מדה‬,‫ וכל בתים‬.‫ וגובריא אלך תלתיהון‬,‫ ובתיו וגנזכיו‬,‫והם וישימה תל עולם‬
.‫ דכותהון פתח ודגש‬,‫ ויין בתים עשרים אלף ושמן בתים עשרים אלף‬:‫ בתים כגון‬,‫אבל‬
:‫ כגון‬,‫ שהן לשון דירה‬,‫ הניס את עבדיו ואת מקנהו אל הבתים‬,‫ובתים מלאים כל טוב‬
:‫ מבלעדי‬.‫ ואין ידגיש בחוזק‬,‫ שאע׳׳פ שהוא לשון דירה כולהון קמצין‬,‫ואת בתיו וגנזכיו‬
‫ ויש‬.‫ ונראה כאילו הוא שני תיבות‬,‫ מפני שיש בו משרת וטעם‬,‫הוא מדגיש בחוזק ובקמץ‬
:‫ להדגיש בחוזק‬,‫ הואיל שהמשרת והטעם יחד שמוסיפין עליהן‬,‫ובתים מליאים טוב‬
‫בתיבה‬.
558 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Chapter on the tav. In three places tav has a (stronger)

dagesh than all (other) tavs with dagesh, namely : ‫ימ ָּה תל־‬
ֶ֤ ֶׁ ‫ויְ ִּש‬
ָּ ‘He made it an eternal heap of ruins’ (Josh. 8.28), ‫ֹֽו ְֶׁאת־‬
‫עֹולם‬
‫‘ ָּׂ֨ב ִָּּ֜תיו וְ גנְ ז ָּ ָ֧כיו‬and its houses and its treasuries’ (1 Chron.
28.11), ‫‘ וְ ג ְבר ָּיֶ֤א ִּאלְך ְת ָּלַּ֣ת ֵּ֔הֹון‬and these three men’ (Dan. 3.23),
and all cases of ‫ בתים‬that denote measurement, such as ‫וְ ִּ֗ייִּ ן‬
‫‘ ב ִּתים ֶׁע ְש ִּ ַּ֣רים ֵֶּׁ֔א ֶׁלף וְ ֶׁ֕ש ֶׁמן ב ִּ ֖תים ֶׁע ְש ִּ ֹּ֥רים ָּ ֹֽא ֶׁלף‬and twenty thousand
baths of wine, and twenty thousand baths of oil’ (2 Chron.
2.9) and the like with pataḥ and dagesh. But (cases of) ‫בתים‬
ָּׂ֨ ‘and houses
that denote habitation, like ‫ּוב ִִּּ֜תים ְמל ִּ ַּ֣אים ָּכל־טּוב‬
full of all good things’ (Deut. 6.11), ‫ת־מ ְקנ֖הּו‬
ִּ ‫ת־ע ָּב ָּ ֹּ֥דיו וְ ֶׁא‬
ֲ ‫ה ִּנַ֛יס ֶׁא‬
‫‘ ֶׁאל־ה ָּב ִּ ֹֽתים‬he made his slaves and his cattle flee into the
houses’ (Exod. 9.20), all have qameṣ and are not given
strong dagesh (i.e. they have dagesh lene), with the excep-
tion of ‫ת־ב ִָּּ֜תיו וְ גנְ ז ָּ ָ֧כיו‬
ָּׂ֨ ‫( ֹֽו ְֶׁא‬1 Chron. 28.11), which, although it
denotes habitation, it has strong dagesh and qameṣ, because
it contains a conjunctive accent and main accent, and it is
as if it is two words. Some add to the ones (i.e. these ex-
amples) that should be given strong dagesh ‫ּוב ִִּּ֜תים ְמל ִּ ַּ֣אים ָּכל־‬
ָּׂ֨
‫( טּוב‬Deut. 6.11), because the conjunctive accent and main
accent are together in the word.’

Here a section has been added to the original passage

referring to the plural form ‫‘ ב ִּתים‬baths’. This version of the
passage conveys the sense that there are two types of dagesh, viz.
dagesh forte and dagesh lene. The three cases of dagesh in the tav
after qameṣ in ‫ל־עֹולם‬
ָּ ‫ימ ָּה ת‬
ֶ֤ ֶׁ ‫( ויְ ִּש‬Josh. 8.28), ‫ת־ב ִָּּ֜תיו וְ גנְ ז ָּ ָ֧כיו‬
ָּׂ֨ ‫( ֹֽו ְֶׁא‬1 Chron.
28.11) and ‫( וְ ג ְבר ָּיֶ֤א ִּאלְך ְת ָּלַּ֣ת ֵּ֔הֹון‬Dan. 3.23), and some also include
the dagesh after the qameṣ in ‫ּוב ִִּּ֜תים ְמל ִּ ַּ֣אים ָּכל־טּוב‬
ָּׂ֨ (Deut. 6.11), are
equated with the dagesh of ‫ב ִּתים‬, i.e. they are interpreted as
‘normal’ dagesh forte. In all other cases of ‫ ָּב ִּתים‬the dagesh is dagesh
 Dagesh and Rafe 559

lene. There is no reference here at all to an extra-long grade of

dagesh. Evidently the author of Horayat ha-Qore was not familiar
with the version of the Tiberian reading tradition in which the
extra-long dagesh existed. For this reason, he misunderstood the
point of the original passage that the dagesh in the tav after qameṣ
in the specified cases was exceptional in the degree of its strength
and was not like the normal dagesh forte of words such as ‫ב ִּתים‬.
The author of Horayat ha-Qore was also unfamiliar with the
extended dagesh forte reading, since he alludes to a dagesh lene in
most cases of ‫ב ִּתים‬.
ָּ 35
One may infer from this that extra-long dagesh was a
phenomenon of the extended dagesh forte reading and was not
known in the dagesh forte—dagesh lene reading. It would appear
that only the latter was transmitted to Europe, or at least in the
circles where the European recensions of Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ were
produced. If this is the case, then the reference to the Masoretes
Ben Asher and Ben Naftali having extra-long dagesh in their

35
The passage has the same adapted form also in Sefer Ṭaʿame ha-Miqra.
Eldar (1984, 28) used this adapted version of the passage on the tav in
his interpretation of the original Arabic version of Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ and
this, therefore, led him to misinterpret the original. According to Eldar
the al-dagesh al-kabīr ‘major dagesh’ of tav was not a fully geminated tav,
but only a half-geminated one [tt]. The fully geminated tav [tt] is found
in the word ‫ב ִּתים‬. This argument is based on the assumption that the
passage is excluding consideration of dagesh forte used to express
gemination. In the passage on the grades of resh, however, the ‘major’
(kabīr) grade of the letter is said to be geminate resh with dagesh, as in
‫יתם‬
ֶׁ ‫( ה ְר ִּא‬1 Sam. 10.24). This is evidence that the classification of the
grades of strength of tav includes the full range of the realization of tav.
560 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

reading of tav in specific words would imply that their reading

was of the extended dagesh forte type.
Another section of Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ that could be
interpreted as evidence for the extended dagesh forte reading is
one that concerns the reading of word-initial ‫ בגדכפת‬letters with
dagesh after a preceding word with a conjunctive accent in
contexts where a fricative reading may be expected.36 Most of the
constructions in this section contain word-initial ‫בגדכפת‬
consonants with what is normally interpreted as dagesh lene. The
section, however, also includes word-initial ‫ בגדכפת‬consonants in
deḥiq constructions. There is no doubt that the dagesh of deḥiq
constructions was dagesh forte (§I.2.8.1.2.). It appears that
Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ considered these to have the same type of ‫בגדכפת‬
stop as the other constructions, which would imply that the
word-initial ‫ בגדכפת‬in the other constructions would have been
pronounced with dagesh forte.
The extended dagesh forte reading arose by giving the
dagesh sign its full value in all contexts. One motivation for this
was an attempt to make a maximally clear distinction between
fricative and plosive forms of the ‫ בגדכפת‬letters. Another
motivation for strengthening the pronunciation of the dagesh in
this way was to mark a clear separation between syllables. This
enhanced accuracy of reading words with ‫ בגדכפת‬consonants was
achieved without deviating from the standard Tiberian notation
system.

36
Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.1.7; short version,
edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.S.2.0.
 Dagesh and Rafe 561

Without doubt, there was a distinction historically between

geminate and non-geminate ‫ בגדכפת‬stops (i.e. between dagesh
forte and dagesh lene). This is seen, for example, in pre-Masoretic
Greek and Latin transcriptions such as the Greek transcriptions
of the second column of Origen’s Hexapla and the Latin
transcriptions of Jerome:

βοκρ = ‫ב ֶׁקר‬, ερδοφ = ‫א ְרדף‬,

ֶׁ vs. ιδαββερ = ‫יְ דבר‬, σαδδικιμ =
‫יקים‬
ִּ ‫( צ ִּד‬Brønno 1943, 357, 383)

iegdal = ‫( ִּיגְ דל‬Sperber 1937, 158), marphe = ‫מ ְרפא‬

(Sperber 1937, 192), baddim = ‫( ב ִּדים‬Sperber 1937, 211),
thephphol = ‫( ִּתפל‬Sperber 1937, 159)

The evidence we have of the extended dagesh forte reading

is datable to the tenth and early eleventh centuries in the use of
the shadda in a certain group of the Karaite transcriptions and in
Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ. This can be interpreted as reflecting the fact that
it was in the late Masoretic period that the extended dagesh forte
reading began to be used by some readers. Since the orthoepic
work Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ seems to be assuming that the extended
system is the correct Tiberian reading, it can be hypothesized that
the extended system was regarded as the preferred system among
the surviving teachers of the Tiberian reading at that period. In-
deed, we have argued above that the sources can be interpreted
as indicating that this was a feature of the reading of Ben Asher
and Ben Naftali, who belonged to the last generation of Tiberian
Masoretes.
562 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

As the Karaite transcriptions suggest, the extended dagesh

forte reading appears to have existed alongside the more con-
servative dagesh forte—dagesh lene reading. Fragments of anony-
mous Masoretic treatises datable to the tenth or eleventh centu-
ries reflect this variation. In one such treatise (ed. Allony and
Yeivin 1985, 101), there is a reference to a distinction between
‘heavy dagesh’ (dagesh thaqīl) and ‘light dagesh’ (dagesh khafīf)
that corresponds to the normally accepted distinction between
dagesh forte and dagesh lene. In another treatise, on the other
hand, cases that are traditionally regarded as dagesh lene are re-
ferred to by the Arabic term for gemination tashdīd (II Firkovitch
Evr.-Arab II 365, fols. 6r, 21r).
The orthoepic development of the orally transmitted Tibe-
rian reading tradition appears not to have been known outside of
Palestine and in the later Middle Ages it fell into complete obliv-
ion. This lack of knowledge of the latest stages of the Tiberian
reading arose because the tradition was disseminated outside Pal-
estine and to later generations only in the form of the written
vocalization. The vocalization in its standard form did not reflect
these orthoepic developments. There is, therefore, a scholarly
amnesia with regard to the final form of the Tiberian reading
tradition, which can only be reconstructed in sources such as the
Karaite transcriptions and the original Arabic versions of the or-
thoepic treatise Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ.
This extended dagesh forte reading is likely to have been the
stimulus for the use of dagesh forte on other consonants at the
onset of syllables to mark clear syllable division in forms such as
the verb ‫‘ י ְע ֵּ֔קב‬he supplants’ (Jer. 9.3), which is attributed to Ben
 Dagesh and Rafe 563

Naftali in Kitāb al-Khilaf (ed. Lipschütz 1965, ‫)לג‬, and the ex-
tended use of dagesh in non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts (see
§I.3.3. below).

I.3.1.12. Dagesh in the Word ‫ָּב ִּתים‬

According to the passage on the tav in Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ that was
discussed in the previous section, the dagesh in the word ‫ ָּב ִּתים‬was
pronounced in two ways. When the word had a secondary accent,
it was pronounced extra-long, with the third grade of muscular
force, greater than cases of ‫ ָּב ִּתים‬without a secondary accent. Ben
Naftali pronounced all cases of the word with a secondary accent
in this way, whereas Ben Asher read it as extra-long only in one
(or according to the Kitāb al-Khilaf two) specific verse(s). The tav
of the word was pronounced as a ‘normal’ dagesh (second grade
tav) when the word did not have a secondary accent and also, in
the case of the reading of Ben Asher, in cases where it had a
secondary accent outside of the one (or two) specific verse(s). As
discussed, the term ‘normal’ dagesh in this passage referred to a
‘normal’ geminate dagesh forte, since Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ is des-
cribing an extended dagesh forte type of reading.
The extra-long duration of the dagesh is possibly the result
of a prosodic epenthesis between stress prominences. When there
was a secondary accent in the word, the tav was given an added
duration to ensure a clearer separation between the stresses for
the sake of rendering the reading eurhythmic to a maximal
extent. The same applies to the other two words in which,
according to Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ, the tav was pronounced extra-long,
viz. These are ‫ל־עֹולם ְש ָּמ ֵָּּ֔מה‬
ָּ ֶ֤ ֶׁ ‫‘ ויְ ִּש‬He made it an eternal heap of
‫ימ ָּה ת‬
564 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

ruins’ (Josh. 8.28, ‫‘ וְ ג ְבר ָּיֶ֤א ִּאלְך ְת ָּלַּ֣ת ֵּ֔הֹון‬and these three men’ (Dan.
3.23). In both cases the tav occurs in between two stress promi-
nences that are close to each other. In ‫ל־עֹולם‬
ָּ ‫ימ ָּה ת‬
ֶ֤ ֶׁ ‫ ויְ ִּש‬one could
assume that the word ‫ תל־‬had a secondary stress, although it is
not marked by an accent or a gaʿya. The word has a short /e/
vowel, without inherent length (cf. ‫תלֹו‬,
ִּ like ‫לב‬, ‫)לִּ בֹו‬, so it would
be expected to be segol if not lengthened by some kind of stress
(see §I.2.11.).
In the group of Karaite transcriptions that reflect an ex-
tended dagesh forte reading a shadda sign is marked on the tāʾ
representing the Hebrew tav in all cases, e.g.

‫( َّبـ ࣴباتّي‬BL Or 2550 fol. 18v, 5 | L [BHS]: ‫ ְב ָּב ַּ֣תי‬Zeph. 2.7 ‘in
the houses of’).

In the group of Karaite transcriptions that reflect a dagesh

forte—dagesh lene reading, however, a shadda is not marked on
the tāʾ, indicating that in this type of reading the word was read
as a non-geminated stop, e.g.

‫( هب ّٖ۠اتىم‬BL Or 2544, fol. 189r, 13 | L [BHS]: ‫ ה ָּב ִּ ֹֽתים‬Exod.

9.20 ‘the houses’)

‫ه۟ ࣴ ۠بّاتيم‬-‫( من‬BL Or 2544, fol. 159r, 8 | L [BHS]: ‫ִּמן־ה ָּב ִּ ֹּ֥תים‬
Exod. 8.9 ‘from the houses’)

‫( ب۠اتّۛ ۠ى‬BL Or 2544, fol. 181v, 4 | L [BHS]: ‫ ָּב ֶ֤תי‬Exod. 8.17 ‘the
houses’)
 Dagesh and Rafe 565

ّ‫( ب۠اتۛيهۜ ام‬BL Or 2549, fol. 40v, 8 | L [BHS]: ‫ ָּ ֹֽבת ֶׁיהם‬Jer. 6.12
‘their houses’)

‫( وم ࣴ ۠بّاتۜ ً۠اخا‬BL Or 2544, fol. 158r, 13 | L [BHS]: ‫ ִּּומ ָּב ֶׁ ׁ֑תיָך‬Exod.

8.5 ‘and from your houses’)

Also where there is a secondary accent in the word, the

transcriptions of this group do not mark a shadda sign, reflecting
a pronunciation with an ungeminated tav. This applies even to 1
Chron. 28.11, which is the form in which, according to the
Masoretic treatises, both Ben Asher and Ben Naftali read the tav
as extra-long:

‫ومبّ۠۠ ّࣤۜات ۠اخا‬ٟ (BL Or 2544, fol. 158v, 10 | L [BHS]: ‫ ִּּומ ָּב ֵֶַּּׁ֣֔תיָך‬Exod.
8.7 ‘and from your houses’)

‫و ۠۠بّ ۚاتّيم‬ٟ (BL Or 2442, fol. 213v, 13 | L [BHS]: ‫ ָּּׂ֨וב ִִּּ֜תים‬Deut. 6.11
‘and houses’)

‫( ۠۠بّا ّۚ۠تاو‬BL Or 2556, fol. 122r, 7 | L [BHS]: ‫ ָּׂ֨ב ִָּּ֜תיו‬1 Chron. 28.11
‘its houses’)

We have seen that the author of Horayat ha-Qore in

medieval Europe states that the tav of the word has dagesh lene,
except in ‫ת־ב ִָּּ֜תיו וְ גנְ ז ָּ ָ֧כיו‬
ָּׂ֨ ‫( ֹֽו ְֶׁא‬1 Chron. 28.11) and ‫ּוב ִִּּ֜תים ְמל ִּ ַּ֣אים ָּכל־טּוב‬
ָּׂ֨
(Deut. 6.11).
Ḥayyūj, writing in Spain at the end of the tenth century,
considered that the tav in all instances of ‫ ָּב ִּתים‬was pronounced
566 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

as an ungeminated stop. This is implied by the following passage

from his Kitāb al-ʾAfʿāl Dhawāt Ḥurūf al-Līn:37

‘As for the “light” (type of ‫)בגדכפת‬, this is like ‫אשית ָּב ָּ ַּ֣רא‬
֖ ִּ ‫ְבר‬
ׁ֑ ִּ ‫‘ ֱא‬in the beginning God created’ (Gen. 1:1) … and like
‫ֹלהים‬
‫ל־ע ָּב ֶׁדיָך‬
ֲ ‫ּוב ַּ֣תי ָּכ‬ ָּ ‘and they shall fill your houses and
ָּ ‫ּומ ְל ׂ֨אּו ָּב ִֶּׁ֜תיָך‬
the houses of your servants’ (Exod. 10.6).38

Yequtiʾel ha-Naqdan, who was active in medieval Ashkenaz

in the second half of the thirteenth century, writes in his work
ʿEn ha-Qore that the tav in the word ‫ ָּב ִּתים‬should be read with
dagesh lene following Ḥayyūj:39
‘I have found that Rabbi Yehudah Ḥayyūj, of blessed
memory, said that there is a dagesh lene in the tavs of ‫ב ֶׁ ֹֽתיָך‬,
ֹֽ ָּ
‫ ָּ ֹֽב ִּ ֹֽתים‬and the like. …. Be careful not to pronounce the
dagesh strongly.’

37
Ed. Jastrow (1897, 12–13): ‫ ومثل ומלאו‬... ‫אשית ָּב ָּרא אלהים‬
ִּ ‫فا ّما الخفيف فمثل ְבר‬
‫ּובתי כל עבדיך‬
ָּ ‫ב ֶׁתיָך‬.
ָּ
38
The plosive pronunciation of the tav after long qameṣ was regarded
as anomalous by Ḥayyūj and he is quoted by Ibn Ezra in his Sefer Ṣaḥot
(ed. del Valle Rodríguez 1977, 1:289) to the effect that the qameṣ occurs
to differentiate the word in meaning from ‫‘ ב ִּתים‬baths’ (measure of
capacity); cf. Charlap (1999, 121–22). The source of such a statement
about the differentiating function of the qameṣ cannot be identified in
the extant corpus of Ḥayyūj’s writings. It may be based on Ibn Ezra’s
misinterpreation of the passage concerning the ‫ בגדכפת‬consonants and
‫ ָּב ִּתים‬in Kitāb al-ʾAfʿāl Dhawāt Ḥurūf al-Līn (ed. Jastrow 1897, 12–13)
(José Martínez Delgado, personal communication).
39
Ed. Gumpertz (1958, 46): ‫מצאתי שאמר ר׳ יהודה חיוג ז׳׳ל ָּ ֹֽב ֶׁ ֹֽתיָך ָּ ֹֽב ִּ ֹֽתים ודומי׳‬
‫ השמר לך שלא תדגיש את התי׳׳ו בחזק‬... ‫יש בהם דגש קל בתו׳׳יהם‬.
 Dagesh and Rafe 567

The reading traditions of the Jewish communities in

Arabic-speaking countries in modern times preserved the
gemination of dagesh forte according to the distribution of the
dagesh forte—dagesh lene system of reading. There is no trace of
an extended dagesh forte type of reading. Nor is there any trace
of an extra-long gemination of tav. The plural form ‫ ָּב ִּתים‬is
regularly read with dagesh lene, e.g. Yemen: bavoːtʰeːxäm (‫יכם‬
ֹֽ ֶׁ ‫ְב ָּבת‬
‘in your houses’ Isa. 3.14) (Morag 1963, 38; Yaʾakov 2015, 72
n.134). This applied even to cases where the word has a
secondary accent.
It appears, therefore, that the extended dagesh forte reading,
which included the reading of the tav of ‫ ָּב ִּתים‬as geminate and as
extra-long in some cases where it had two accents, fell into obliv-
ion in Jewish communities outside of medieval Palestine.

I.3.1.13. Loss of Gemination

Gemination has been lost in the Tiberian tradition in the follow-
ing circumstances.

I.3.1.13.1. Guttural Consonants

Guttural consonants, and frequently also resh, lost their gemina-
tion in the pre-Masoretic period due to their weakness. In such
cases the preceding vowel was lengthened by way of compensa-
tion:

‫[ ָּה ָּא ָּ ָּ֫דם‬hɔːʔɔːˈðɔːɔm] ‘the man’ < *haʾʾadam

‫[ ָּה ָּ֫עץ‬hɔːˈʕeːesˁ] ‘the tree’ < *haʿʿeṣ

‫[ ה ָּ֫ח ֶׁדש‬haːˈħoːðɛʃ] ‘the month’ < *haḥḥodeš

568 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

‫[ ה ָּ֫הּוא‬haːˈhuː] ‘that’ < *hahhū

‫[ ָּה ֶׁר ֶׁמש‬hɔːˈʀ̟ɛːmɛʃ] ‘the creeping creature’ < *harrɛmɛš

I.3.1.13.2. Weak Consonants with Shewa

Gemination is occasionally lost in a consonant that has vocalic
shewa. This applies in particular to sibilants, sonorants (yod,
lamed, mem, nun) and qof, which are weak consonants. The loss
of gemination in such cases has two causes, viz. the articulatory
weakness of the consonants and the prosodic weakness of the syl-
lable of the shewa (§I.2.5.2.). There is some variation across the
manuscripts with regard to the loss of gemination in such forms.
In some cases, there is no compensatory lengthening of the pre-
ceding vowel, and the consonant that loses the gemination is syl-
labified as the coda of the preceding syllable, e.g.

L: ‫‘ ה ְשל ִּ ֹֽבים‬the frames’ (1 Kings 7.28 < ‫)ה ְשל ִּ ֹֽבים‬

L: ‫‘ ה ְלוִּ ִּי֖ם‬the Levites’ (Exod. 6.25, etc. < ‫)ה ְלוִּ יִּ ם‬

L: ‫‘ ויְ ד ֹּ֥בר‬and he spoke (Gen. 8.15, etc. < ‫)ויְ ד ֹּ֥בר‬

In some cases, the preceding vowel is lengthened, generally

indicated by a gaʿya, and the consonant that has lost the gemina-
tion is read with vocalic shewa. This applies most commonly to a
mem after the definite article (§I.2.5.8.1.) and a sequence of two
identical consonants (§I.2.5.8.3.):

L: ‫‘ ֹֽה ְמד ֹּ֥בר‬the one speaking’ (Gen. 45.12, etc.< ‫‘ ה ְמד ֹּ֥בר‬the one
speaking’)

L: ‫‘ ְב ְֹֽק ְללׁ֑ ֹו‬when he cursed’ (A: ‫ב ְֹֽקלֲ לׁ֑ ֹו‬,

ְ 2 Sam. 16.7 < ‫) ְבק ְללֹו‬
 Dagesh and Rafe 569

I.3.1.13.3. Loss of Gemination when Adjacent to another

Geminated Consonant
Dotan (1983) has shown that in L a dagesh marking gemination
is sometimes omitted in a consonant with a full vowel when it is
immediately followed by another geminated consonant. The
omission of dagesh in this context is too systematic to be regarded
as simply a scribal error, but rather it must be considered to re-
flect a phenomenon of the reading tradition. It is attested most
commonly in weak consonants of the type that tend to omit
dagesh when they are pronounced with shewa, i.e. sibilants, son-
orants and qof. The majority of examples occur after the inter-
rogative ‫מה־‬, the preposition ‫מן‬,
ִּ the definite article or the vav
consecutive. In many cases the dagesh is printed in BHS, although
it does not appear in the manuscript L, e.g.

‫‘ מה־מ ָּ ֖שא‬What is the burden’ (Jer. 23.33) < ‫מה־מ ָּ ֖שא‬

‫‘ ִּמש ֹּ֥די‬from the Almighty’ (BHS ‫מש ֹּ֥די‬,

ִּ Isa. 13.6) < ‫ִּמש ֹּ֥די‬

‫‘ ה ִּציַּ֣ ּון‬the monument’ (BHS ‫ה ִּציַּ֣ ּון‬, 2 Kings 23.17) < ‫ה ִּציַּ֣ ּון‬

‫‘ וְ המס ָּ ֹּ֥כה‬and the covering’ (BHS ‫וְ המס ָּ ֹּ֥כה‬, Isa. 28.20) <
‫וְ המס ָּ ֹּ֥כה‬

‫‘ ה ִּש ֳּב ִּ ַּ֣לים‬the ears of corn’ (Gen. 41.24, BHS mistranscribes

the first vowel as a qameṣ due to erroneously interpreting a
fleck on the parchment as the lower dot of a qameṣ: ‫;ה ִּש ֳּב ִּ ַּ֣לים‬
ָּ
cf. B ‫)ה ִּש ֳּב ִּ ַּ֣לים‬

‫‘ ויִּ ָּל ֶׁ֖חם‬and he fought’ (BHS ‫ויִּ ָּל ֶׁ֖חם‬, Jud. 11.20) < ‫ויִּ ָּל ֶׁ֖חם‬

‫‘ עזִּ ָּיֹֽה‬Uzziah’ (2 Kings 15.30) < ‫עזִּ ָּיֹֽה‬

‫‘ אמ ָּיַּ֣א‬nations’ (Aramaic, Dan. 3.7)< ‫אמ ָּיַּ֣א‬

570 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

This kind of omission of dagesh occurs in the onset of un-

stressed syllables and the following geminated consonant typi-
cally, though not invariably, forms the onset of a stressed sylla-
ble. The consonant that has lost the gemination is, therefore, gen-
erally prosodically weaker. The condition that the omission of
the gemination occurs adjacent to other gemination could reflect
a rhythmic phenomenon, whereby the clash of two strengthened,
and so prosodically prominent, consonants is avoided.

I.3.1.14. Erroneous Printing of Dagesh in BHS

Golinets (2013), in an important study of the manuscript L, has
drawn attention to a number of errors in the diplomatic edition
of L that is printed in BHS and its derivative digital editions in
the reading of vocalization signs. This is due to various reasons,
including confusion of natural specks on the parchment for pen
marks, the concealment of vocalization signs by the strokes of
letters and the overwriting or erasure of vocalization signs by a
later hand.
Many of the errors in reading relate to the dagesh sign. Sev-
eral dagesh signs that appear in unusual places in various words
in BHS and are not found in other manuscripts have been demon-
strated by Golinets (2013, 250–51) to be specks on the parchment
of L. These include the following cases:40

40
There are a few additional places where the printed version of BHS is
correct, but some of the digital versions and BHQ have an erroneously
marked dagesh; see Golinets (2013, 250-251) for details.
 Dagesh and Rafe 571

L BHS

Gen. 26.1 ‫ימ ֶׁלְך‬

ֹּ֥ ֶׁ ‫ֲא ִּב‬ ‫ימ ֶׁלְך‬
ֹּ֥ ֶׁ ‫ֲא ִּב‬ ‘Abimelech’

Gen. 34.28 ‫יהם‬

ׁ֑ ֶׁ ‫ֲחמר‬ ‫יּהם‬
ׁ֑ ֶׁ ‫ֲחמר‬ ‘their asses’

Gen. 39.19 ‫ָּ ֹּ֥ע ָּשה‬ ‫ָּ ֹּ֥ע ָּשּה‬ ‘he has done’

Deut. 12.9 ‫א־בא ֶׁ ֖תם‬

ָּ ‫ל‬ ‫אתם‬
֖ ֶׁ ‫א־ב‬
ָּ ‫ל‬ ‘you have not come’

Jud. 14.2 ‫חּו־אֹותּה ִּ ֖לי‬

ֹּ֥ ָּ ‫ְק‬ ‫חּו־אֹותּה ִּ ֖לי‬
ֹּ֥ ָּ ‫ְק‬ ‘take her for me’

Jud. 19.5 ‫ֶׁח ְר ָּפ ִּ ֹֽתי‬ ‫ֶׁח ְר ָּפ ִּ ֹֽתי‬ ‘insult of me’

Cant. 6.8 ‫ְמ ָּל ֵּ֔כֹות‬ ‫ְמ ָּל ֵּ֔כֹות‬ ‘queens’

I.3.2. RAFE
The rafe sign is a horizontal line written over a letter. As with
several other Masoretic terms, it appears to be an Aramaic parti-
ciple in origin ‫רפה‬.ָּ In Judaeo-Arabic Masoretic treatises it is
sometimes Arabicized as an Arabic participle, e.g. the anonymous
treatise preserved in the Genizah CUL T-S NS 157.52: ‫ראפיה‬
rāfiyya, pl. ‫ רואפי‬rawāfī.
The main use of the sign is to mark ‫ בגדכפת‬consonants as
fricative. It is not, however, marked consistently in manuscripts.
The marking of the sign was not standardized in the Tiberian
tradition to the same extent as the marking of dagesh and it differs
from one manuscript to another. Some of the model Tiberian
manuscripts mark it more frequently than others. Rafe signs are,
for example, more abundant in C and S than in L and A. It is
marked only rarely in B. If two letters together both require rafe,
the sign is generally only marked once over the space between
them.
572 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Rafe is not represented in most printed editions, including

BHS and BHQ, which are based on L.41
The inconsistent marking of rafe on fricative ‫ בגדכפת‬conso-
nants in L can be seen in the two sample verses below:
L: Gen. 30.1-2
‫אמר ֶׁ ֹֽאל־י ֲעקב ָּ ֹֽה ָּבה־‬
ֶׁ ‫ו ַּ֣ת ֶׁרא ָּר ִּ֗חל ִּ ַּ֣כי ֶ֤לא ָּי ְֹֽל ָּדה ְלי ֲע ֵּ֔קב ו ְתקנֹּ֥א ָּר ֖חל ב ֲאח ָּ ׁ֑תּה ו ֶ֤ת‬
‫ֹלהים‬
ִּ ‫אמר ֲה ֶ֤תחת ֱא‬
ֶׁ ‫ר־אף י ֲע ֖קב ְב ָּר ׁ֑חל ו ִּ֗י‬
ֹּ֥ ‫ם־איִּ ן מ ָּ ֹּ֥תה ָּא ֹֽנ ִּכי׃ ו ִּ ֹֽיח‬
֖ ‫ִּ ַּ֣לי ָּב ִֵּּ֔נים וְ ִּא‬
‫י־ב ֶׁטן׃‬
ֹֽ ָּ ‫ר־מנֹּ֥ע ִּמ ֖מְך ְפ ִּר‬
ָּ ‫ָּא ֵּ֔נ ִּכי ֲא ֶׁש‬

When Rachel saw that she bore Jacob no children, she

envied her sister; and she said to Jacob, “Give me children,
or I shall die!”Jacob's anger was kindled against Rachel,
and he said, “Am I in the place of God, who has withheld
from you the fruit of the womb?”

In most manuscripts, the rafe sign is generally, but not

always, marked also on non-consonantal he and ʾalef, e.g. ‫מ ְל ָּכֿה‬
‘queen’, ‫‘ ָּבא‬he came.’ A few manuscripts, especially C and S, of-
ten mark a rafe on the ʾalef in ‫יִּש ָּראל‬
ְ ‘Israel’, possibly reflecting its
elision in this frequently occurring word.
The rafe sign is used sporadically on other letters in the
manuscripts.42 This is found mainly in contexts in which dagesh
would be expected according to normal morphological patterns
and prosodic processes, e.g.

Weak letters that have lost dagesh when pointed with shewa:

A: ‫‘ ו ְיב ְק ֵּ֔שּו‬and they inquired’ (Jud. 6.29)

41
Rafe signs are marked in Ginsburg’s Massoretico-Critical Text of the
Hebrew Bible (1894).
42
Yeivin (1980, 286-7), Blapp (2017, 17-19).
 Dagesh and Rafe 573

A: ‫‘ ִּש ְל ַּ֣חּו‬send’ (Psa. 74.7)

Omission of dagesh in word-initial position where it would nor-

mally occur according to the rules of deḥiq (§I.2.8.1.2.):

A: ָּ ‫‘ ִּ ַּ֣ש‬a meditation for me’ (Psa. 119.99)

‫יחה ִּ ֹֽלי‬

After an accent in words where gemination would normally oc-

cur:

A: ‫‘ ָּל ֶָּ֤מה‬why’ (Job 7.20)

The rafe sign is sometimes marked in contexts that closely resem-

ble contexts where dagesh would be expected, e.g. on a prefix of
a verbal form that is preceded by vav with shewa to distinguish it
clearly from a geminated prefix of a wayyiqṭol form:

A: ‫‘ וְ ִּי ְש ֖מע‬and will listen’ (Isa. 42.23)

A: ‫‘ וְ ָּי ַּ֣בא‬that he may come’ (1 Sam. 4.3)

After a prefixed preposition with shewa to distinguish the con-

struction from constructions with a preposition combined with a
definite article:

C: ‫‘ ְבמ ֲעלַּ֣ה‬on he the hill of’ (1 Sam. 9.11)

On the nun of first person and third person feminine verbal suf-
fixes to distinguish them from verbal suffixes with geminate nun:

A: ‫‘ ְ ֶ֭פד ִּני‬redeem me’ (Psa. 119.134)

A: ‫‘ ש ְמ ַּ֣ת ִּני‬you have made me’ (Job 7.20)

L: ָּ ‫‘ ְת ִּצ ֶׁל‬they will tingle’ (1 Sam. 3.11)

‫֖ינה‬
574 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ uses the term rafe for an ungeminated consonant

in such contexts, e.g.

When a rafe (letter) follows it, it has segol, as in ‫ֶׁמה לידידי‬

(L: ‫ידי‬ ֵ֞ ִּ ‫ ֶׁ ַּ֣מה ִּ ֹֽל ִּיד‬Jer. 11.15 ‘what has my be-
ֵ֞ ִּ ‫ ֶׁ ַּ֣מה ִּ ֹֽל ִּיד‬, A: ‫ידי‬
loved?’).43

The letters with rafe in the contexts just described typically

belong the set of weak sonorant letters ‫נ‬, ‫מ‬, ‫ל‬. Rafe is sometimes
marked on these letters in the manuscripts, no doubt by a process
of analogical extension, when they are ungeminated in other con-
texts, where there is no risk of confusion with geminated letters,
e.g.

C: ‫‘ גְ ָּמ ָּ ֖לנּו‬he has granted us’ (Isa. 63.7)

C: ‫‘ ח ְמ ָּצ ֹֽתֹו‬its leavening’ (Hos. 7.4)

S: ‫‘ יִּ ְדע ִּ ֖ני‬wizard’ (Lev. 20.27)

S: ׁ֑ ָּ ‫‘ וְ ִּל ְש ִּנ‬and into a byword’ (Deut. 28.37).44

‫ינה‬

In some manuscripts, rafe is occasionally marked on vav to

indicate its consonantal value. This is found before ‫ ּו‬expressing
[uː] and also in other contexts (§I.1.6.), e.g.45

C: ‫‘ וְ ת ְש ׁ֑וּו‬and you make equal’ (Isa. 46.5)

L: ֶ֤ ִּ ‫‘ ִּו‬and let it be’ (Psa. 90.17)

‫יהי‬

43
Long version, edition in vol. 2 of this book, §II.L.3.2.2.: ‫ומא תבעה רפי‬
‫כק ֶׁמה לידידי‬
̇ ‫כאן בסגולה‬.
44
Yeivin (1980, 286–87).
45
Yeivin (1980, 286).
 Dagesh and Rafe 575

I.3.3. DAGESH AND RAFE IN MANUSCRIPTS WITH NON-

STANDARD TIBERIAN VOCALIZATION
There is a considerable degree of variation in the use of the dagesh
sign in manuscripts with Non-Standard Tiberian vocalization, but
there is a clear tendency in many manuscripts for the sign to be
used more frequently than in the standard Tiberian vocalization.
Concomitantly there is also a wider use of the rafe sign.
The distribution of dagesh and rafe in Codex Reuchlinianus,
the best known biblical manuscript with this system of vocaliza-
tion, has been studied by Morag (1959). The use of dagesh and
rafe in numerous other manuscripts of this type written in Eu-
rope, both biblical and non-biblical, has been described by Eldar
(1978, 125–43). He shows that many of the manuscripts follow a
basic principle of marking of dagesh similar to that of Codex
Reuchlinianus, although there is a considerable amount of diver-
sity in points of detail. Yeivin (1986) has described the distribu-
tion of dagesh in Vatican Urbinati 2, which was also written in
Europe and exhibits a somewhat different distribution from the
aforementioned manuscripts. The investigation by Blapp (2017,
2018) of Genizah fragments with Non-Standard Tiberian vocali-
zation of a predominantly eastern origin from an earlier period
(tenth–thirteenth centuries) has revealed a basic distribution sim-
ilar to Codex Reuchlinianus and the material surveyed by Eldar,
although each fragment exhibits some variant features.
In the Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts, the rules of the
marking of dagesh and rafe on the ‫ בגדכפת‬letters in the Standard
Tiberian system are, in principle, applied to all letters, except the
576 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

pharyngeals (‫ח‬, ‫)ע‬, ‫ ר‬and those that function as both matres lec-
tionis and consonants (‫ י‬,‫ ו‬,‫ ה‬,‫)א‬. The dagesh sign, therefore, is
marked on the majority of letters at the beginning of a word and
within a word after a silent shewa.

Genizah manuscripts

‫יקים‬
ִּ ‫( ֶ֭צ ִּד‬T-S A12.1, Blapp 2018, 138 | L [BHS]: ‫יקים‬
ִּ ‫תֹוע ַּ֣בת ֶ֭צ ִּד‬
ֲ
Prov. 29.27 ‘abomination of the righteous’)

‫( ק ְרנַּ֣י‬T-S A13.35, Blapp 2018, 139 | L [BHS]: ‫ וְ ָּכל־ק ְרנַּ֣י‬Psa.

75.11 ‘all the horns of’)

‫( מ ְח ׁ֑סֹור‬T-S A12.1, Blapp 2018, 141 | L [BHS]: ‫ מ ְח ׁ֑סֹור‬Prov.

28.27 ‘lack’)

‫( ֶׁח ְלקת‬T-S A12.1, Blapp 2018, 141 | L [BHS]: ‫ ֶׁח ְלקת‬Ruth 4.3
‘portion of’)

European manuscripts

‫( ִּמ ְס ָּ ַּ֣פר‬Codex Reuchlinianus, Morag 1959, 217 | L [BHS]:

‫ ִּמ ְס ָּ ַּ֣פר‬Isa. 10.19 ‘number’)

‫( מ ְמ ָּל ָּ ׁ֑כֿה‬Codex Reuchlinianus, Morag 1959, 225 | L [BHS]:

‫ מ ְמ ָּל ָּ ׁ֑כה‬Jer. 18.9 ‘kingdom’)

‫( כ ְר ִּ ֹֽמי‬Codex Reuchlinianus, Morag 1959, 217 | L [BHS]:

‫ כ ְר ִּ ֹֽמי‬Isa. 5.3 ‘my vineyard’)

‫( נ ֹֽסס‬Codex Reuchlinianus, Morag 1959, 217 | L [BHS]: ‫נ ֹֽסס‬

Isa. 10.18 ‘sick’)

Another aspect of the extension of dagesh in the Non-Stand-

ard Tiberian system is the use in some manuscripts of dagesh on
 Dagesh and Rafe 577

word-initial ‫ בגדכפת‬consonants after a preceding word with a fi-

nal vowel and conjunctive accent, where a fricative form of the
letter would be expected in Standard Tiberian. In these manu-
scripts, dagesh is used also on other consonants in this context.
Examples:

‫אב ֶ֤דּו ָּכל־אֹויְ ֶׁביָך‬

ְ ‫( ֹֽי‬Vatican Urbinati 2, Yeivin 1986, 495 | L
ְ ‫ י‬Jud. 5.31 ‘may all your enemies per-
[BHS]: ‫אב ֶ֤דּו ָּכל־אֹויְ ֶׁביָך‬
ish’)

‫( ִּ ַּ֣כי נִּ ָּגׁ֑פּו‬Vatican Urbinati 2, Yeivin 1986, 495 | L [BHS]: ‫ִּ ַּ֣כי‬
‫ נִּ ָּגׁ֑פּו‬Jud. 20.36 ‘that they were defeated’)

According to Morag (1959, 226–28), the dagesh sign at the

beginning of a word and after silent shewa in this system of vo-
calization did not have a phonetic realization of gemination but
only had the function of indicating a syllable boundary. Eldar
(1978, 125–43) likewise takes the view that this dagesh did not
have a phonetic realization but rather was a ‘separative dagesh’.
Yeivin (1983, 1986) agrees with Morag and Eldar that the
function of the dagesh in the Non-standard Tiberian manuscripts
was to express the division of syllables. He argues, however, that
it was not simply an abstract sign but rather had the phonetic
value of a dagesh forte. This would explain why it is not marked
on consonants that do not in principle take dagesh forte, in
particular the pharyngeal consonants.
I should like to argue that the distribution of the dagesh in
manuscripts with Non-Standard Tiberian vocalization reflects a
type of reading that arose by an analogical extension of the
extended dagesh forte reading (§I.3.1.11.3.). The analogical
process involved extending the gemination marking strengthened
578 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

syllable onsets from ‫ בגדכפת‬consonants to all consonants in

syllable onsets that could be geminated. Since gemination was a
potential feature also of a range of other consonants, this distri-
bution of gemination of the ‫ בגדכפת‬consonants in the extended
dagesh forte reading was extended further to include these other
consonants. This took place by a process of regularization, which
resulted in a more consistent distribution of the orthoepic use of
dagesh to mark clear syllable divisions, e.g.

Extended dagesh forte Non-Standard Tiberian

reading Tiberian reading
‫ִּת ְשבר‬ [ttʰiʃ.ˈbboːoʀ̟] ‫ִּת ְשבר‬ [ttʰiʃ.ˈbboːoʀ̟]
‫ִּת ְשמר‬ [ttʰiʃ.ˈmoːoʀ̟] ‫ִּת ְשמר‬ [ttʰiʃ.ˈmmoːoʀ̟]
‫נִּ ְשמר‬ [niʃ.ˈmoːoʀ̟] ‫נִּ ְשמר‬ [nniʃ.ˈmmoːoʀ̟]

The incipient extension of dagesh to strengthen the onsets

of syllables is found in forms such as ‫‘ ויִּ ֶׁתן־ל֖ ֹו‬and he gave him’ (L,
Gen. 24.36) and forms attributed to Ben Naftali such as ‫‘ ִּבן־נּון‬the
son of Nun’ and ‫‘ י ְע ֵּ֔קב‬he supplants’ (Jer. 9.3).
The orthoepic marking of dagesh on the second of two iden-
tical letters across word-boundaries, such as ‫בן־נּון‬,
ִּ and on a letter
after a vowelless guttural, such as ‫י ְע ֵּ֔קב‬, is found also in some
manuscripts with Palestinian pronunciation (Fassberg 1987), e.g.

]‫ּב[בך‬-]‫( ע[ל‬T-S A43.1, Revell 1970a, 76 | L [BHS]: ‫ל־לבְׁ֑ך‬

ִּ ‫ע‬
Isa. 57.11 ‘on your heart’)

]‫מ[צדקה‬
ָ ָ ]‫ח[ו]ק[ים‬
ָ ]‫ה[ר‬
ָ (Bod. Heb. e 30 ff. 48-49, Revell
1970a, 76 | L [BHS]: ‫ ָּה ְרחֹו ִּ ְ֖קים ִּמ ְצ ָּד ָּ ְֹֽקה‬Isa. 46.12 ‘who are far
from righteousness’)
 Dagesh and Rafe 579

]‫ש[בו‬
ָ ]‫( [נח‬Bod. Heb. e 30 ff. 48-49, Revell 1970a, 77 | L
[BHS]: ‫ נֶׁ ְח ֵָּּ֔שבּו‬Isa. 5.28 ‘they seemed’

]‫מ[ק‬
ָ ]‫ה[ע‬
ָ (Bod. Heb. e 30 ff. 48-49, Revell 1970a, 77 | L
[BHS]: ‫ ה ְע ַּ֣מק‬Isa. 7.11 ‘let it be deep’)

The use of the rafe sign is likewise extended in some Pales-

tinian manuscripts analogously to its extension in Non-Standard
Tiberian manuscripts. It is found in particular on consonants
following ḥet and ʿayin that do not close a syllable, thus con-
trasting with dagesh that marks syllable closure after these con-
sonants as we have just seen, e.g.

‫פעמן‬
ָ (T-S A43.1, Revell 1970a, 77 | L [BHS]: ‫ פ ֲע ֶ֤מן‬Exod.
28.34 ‘bell’)

]‫ש[ה‬
ָ ]‫א[ח‬
ָ (T-S A43.1, Revell 1970a, 77 | L [BHS]: ‫ ֶׁא ֱח ֵֶּׁ֔שה‬Isa.
62.1 ‘I will not keep silent’)

In some Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts, dagesh is

added to a letter after a vowel, where a dagesh is lacking in the
standard Tiberian tradition. This is found predominantly on the
weak letters ‫ל‬, ‫מ‬, ‫נ‬, ‫ ק‬and the sibilants in word-medial or word-
final position, e.g.

‫יכֹותיָך‬
ַּ֣ ֶׁ ‫( ה ִּל‬T-S A13.20, Blapp 2018, 144 | L [BHS]: ‫יכֹותיָך‬
ַּ֣ ֶׁ ‫ֲה ִּל‬
Psa. 68.25 ‘your processions’)

‫( יִּ ְמח ֘ץ‬T-S A13.20, Blapp 2018, 144 | L [BHS]: ‫ י ְִּמח ֘ץ‬Psa.
68.22 ‘he will shatter’)

‫( ָּע ִּ ֶ֤ני‬T-S A13.20, Blapp 2018, 144 | L [BHS]: ‫ ָּע ִּנַּ֣י‬Psa. 70.6
‘poor’)
580 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

‫( ְמב ְק ֶׁשיׁ֑ ָך‬T-S A13.20, Blapp 2018, 144 | L [BHS]: ‫ ְמ ָּ֫ב ְק ֶׁ ֹּ֥שיָך‬Psa.
70.5 ‘those who seek you’)

‫( ָּא ִּ ׁ֑שיב‬T-S A13.20, Blapp 2018, 144 | L [BHS]: ‫ ָּא ִּ ׁ֑שיב‬Psa.

68.23 ‘I will bring back’)

‫( יִּ ֿג ַּ֣ד ְל‬T-S A13.20, Blapp 2018, 144 | L [BHS]: ‫ יִּ גְ ַּ֣דל‬Psa. 70.5
‘he is great’)

‫( ֹֽכל‬T-S A13.20, Blapp 2018, 144 | L [BHS]: ‫ ָּכל־‬Psa. 69.20

‘all of’)

‫( ְב ָּ ֹּ֥דם‬T-S A13.20, Blapp 2018, 144 | L [BHS]: ‫ ְָּ֫ב ָּ ֹּ֥דם‬Psa. 68.24

‘in blood’)

These letters exhibit features of weakness in the standard

Tiberian tradition, such as the loss of dagesh when they have
shewa (§I.2.5.2.). It is likely, therefore, that the dagesh that is
added to them in these contexts after open syllables was primar-
ily intended as an orthoepic measure to guard against their weak
articulation and to ensure that they were pronounced distinctly.
Another consonant that is sometimes marked with dagesh
after a vowel in such manuscripts is ṭet, e.g.

‫ּותפ ְל ַ֛טנִּ י‬
ְ (T-S A13.20, Blapp 2018, 144 | L [BHS]: ‫ ּוֹֽ ְתפ ְל ׁ֑טנִּ י‬Psa.
71.2 ‘and you rescue me’)

The manuscript T-S A13.20, where Blapp has identified

many examples of this feature, also exhibits the marking of
dagesh on word-initial consonants that do not usually take word-
initial dagesh in Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts, such as ḥet,
vav and yod:
 Dagesh and Rafe 581

‫( חיִּ ׁ֑ים‬T-S A13.20, Blapp 2018, 143 | L [BHS]: ‫ ִּמ ַּ֣ס ֶׁפר ח ִּיׁ֑ים‬Psa.
69.29 ‘of the living’)

‫( ּוָּ ָּ ׁ֑א ֶׁרץ‬T-S A13.20, Blapp 2018, 143 | L [BHS]: ‫ ָּש ַּ֣מיִּם וָּ ָּ ׁ֑א ֶׁרץ‬Psa.
69.35 ‘and earth’)

‫( יבשּו‬T-S A13.20, Blapp 2017, 163 | L [BHS]: ‫ י ַּ֣בשּו‬Psa. 70.3

‘let them be put to shame’)

There are numerous Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts

with the extended use of dagesh in the Genizah, which are datable
to the Masoretic period or shortly after, i.e. tenth–thirteenth
centuries (Díez Macho 1963; Blapp 2017, 2018). Arrant (2020)
has shown that many of these manuscripts were written in a
monumental format with three columns similar to the model
Tiberian manuscripts. This suggests that the marking of dagesh in
such manuscripts reflected a living reading tradition in the
Middle East at the time when such manuscripts were written.46
Manuscripts with Non-Standard Tiberian extended dagesh
were widely distributed in medieval Ashkenaz. Yequtiʾel ha-
Naqdan, who was writing in medieval Ashkenaz in the second
half of the thirteenth century, is aware of the existence of such
manuscripts. He and readers in his community, however, thought
that the dagesh was a dagesh lene and so, understandably, the
dagesh had no phonetic realization in consonants that did not

46
Some medieval Arabic sources report marginal cases of tashdīd (i.e.
gemination) of consonants at the beginning of syllables in the recitation
of the Qurʾān, e.g. ُ‫ َي ْخ ِّطف‬yakhṭṭifu ‘it takes away’ (Q 2.20) (ed.
Bergsträsser, 1934, 3). This would, presumably, reflect a similar
orthoepic measure to ensure clear syllable division.
582 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

belong to the ‫ בגדכפת‬group. This is expressed in the following

passage from his ʿEn ha-Qore (ed. Yarqoni 1985, 105):

‘Now you should understand that the letters ‫ בגדכפת‬with

dagesh are heard in all words (marked with them). Their
being pronounced with dagesh or rafe is known in the
language and fixed in the mouth, in the place of
articulation, whether it be dagesh forte or dagesh lene. But
as for the letters ‫וזלטמנסצקש‬, the dagesh lene is not heard in
them in most places … most people of our land do not
know how to pronounce the dagesh lene that occurs in these
letters.’47

Yequtiʾel then gives a number of examples of dagesh lene in

the letters ‫ וזלטמנסצקש‬both after guttural letters, e.g. ‫ב ְע ֶָּׁלּה‬, and
after non-guttural letters, e.g. ‫( נִּ ְב ְקעּו‬Yarqoni 1985, 107).
Although the tradition of marking this dagesh continued in
medieval Ashkenaz, Yequtiʾel’s remarks indicate that the reading
of the dagesh as dagesh forte had largely fallen into oblivion. He
qualifies his remarks with the phrase ‘in most places … most
people of our land’, which may indicate that he was aware of
some vestiges of the type of pronunciation that was originally
reflected by the extended dagesh of the Non-Standard Tiberian
vocalization. Indeed a statement by David Qimḥi, writing in
southern France at roughly the same period as Yequtiʾel, could

47
‫ועתה הבן לך כי אותיות ̇ב ̇ג ̇ד ̇כ ̇פ ̇ת נשמעים בכל מלה בדגש ודיגושם ורפיונם ניכר בלשון‬
‫ותקוע בפה במוצא הדיבור בין שהוא דגש קל בין שהוא דגש חזק אבל ו̇ ז̇ ̇ל ̇ט ̇מנ̇ ̇ס ̇צ ̇ק ̇ש‬
‫ ורוב אנשי ארצנו לא ידעו להשמיע את הדגש‬... ‫הדגש הקל לא נשמע בהם ברוב מקומות‬
‫הקל הבא בותיות האלה‬.
 Dagesh and Rafe 583

be interpreted as indicating that there were still memories of this

original pronunciation. In his Mikhlol he states:
‘Whenever mobile shewa is followed by one of the letters
‫בגדכפת‬, the letter from the ‫( בגדכפת‬letters) is soft … The
same applies to the other letters with regard to their
strength and lightness, for example in ‫‘ ָּל ָּמה‬why’ the
reading of the lamed is strong and in ‫‘ וְ ָּל ָּמה‬and why?’ the
reading of the lamed is light because of the mobile shewa
ָּ ָ֠ ‫‘ ָּש ַּ֣אֹול ָּ ֹֽשא‬the man questioned us carefully’
in it. In ‫ל־ה ִּאיש‬
(Gen. 43.7) the reading of the shin is strong; in ‫‘ וְ ָּ ֹּ֥שאל ַ֛לֹו‬and
he shall ask for him’ (Num. 27.21) the reading of the shin
is light. In ‫(‘ נָּ ְפ ֹּ֥לּו ָּפ ֶׁנֹֽיָך‬why) has your countenance fallen?’
(Gen. 4.6) the reading of the nun is strong; in ‫וְ נָּ ְפ ֖לּו וְ לא־יָּ ֹּ֥קּומּו‬
‫‘ ֹֽעֹוד‬they will fall and not rise again’ (Amos 8.14) the read-
ing of the nun is light. Likewise, the other letters (are read)
in this way, except for yod, which is always light unless it
has dagesh.’48

In this passage, Qimḥi refers to strong and weak variants of

consonants. He states that this variation is found not only in the
consonants ‫בגדכפת‬, but also in other consonants. The distribution
of the variation in the other consonants is the same as is found
with the ‫ בגדכפת‬consonants, i.e. the weak variant occurs after a
vowel. This appears, therefore, to be an allusion to the type of

48
Ed. Rittenberg (1862, 140a): ‫כל שו׳׳א נע וסמוך לה אחת מאותיות בג׳׳ד כפ׳׳ת‬
‫ וכן בשאר האותיות כפי חזקתם וכפי קלותם‬... ‫האות ההיא אשר הוא מבג׳׳ד כפ׳׳ת תרפה‬
,‫ול ָּמה קריאת הלמ׳׳ד קלה מפני שו׳׳א הנע אשר עליה‬
ָּ ,‫כמו ָּל ָּמה קריאת הלמ׳׳ד חזקה‬
‫ נָּ ְפלּו פניך קריאת‬,‫ָּשאל שאל האיש קריאת השי׳ ׳ן חזקה וְ ָּשאל לו קריאת השי׳׳ן קלה‬
‫ וְ נָּ ְפלּו ולא יקומו עוד קריאת הנו׳׳ן קלה וכן שאר האותיות על זו הדרך זולתי‬,‫הנו׳׳ן חזקה‬
‫היו׳׳ד שהיא קלה לעולם זולתי אם תדגש‬.
584 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

pronunciation that is reflected by the extended dagesh of Non-

Standard Tiberian vocalization, although Qimḥi does not refer to
the marking of the dagesh sign on the strong variant of the
consonants outside the ‫ בגדכפת‬group. His remark at the end of
the passage that yod does not have strong and weak variants in
the same way as the other consonants ‘unless it has dagesh’ can
also be correlated to the type of pronunciation reflected by Non-
Standard Tiberian vocalization. In manuscripts exhibiting this
type of vocalization yod often lacks dagesh in word-initial or post-
consonant position and takes dagesh only where this occurs in the
standard Tiberian vocalization.49 In this passage, therefore, we
may have evidence that features of the extended dagesh type of
Non-Standard Tiberian pronunciation survived in Ashkenaz and
were applied to biblical manuscripts with standard Tiberian
vocalization. It should be noted, however, that Qimḥi makes a
distinction between dagesh lene (‫ )דגש קל‬and dagesh forte (‫)דגש חזק‬
in the ‫ בגדכפת‬consonants and does not identify the fortition of the
other consonants in word-initial position with the gemination of
dagesh forte.
As alluded to by Yequtiʾel ha-Naqdan, the type of
pronunciation that made a distinction in pronunciation between
consonants outside the ‫ בגדכפת‬group after a vowelless consonant
or word-initial position was not widely followed in medieval
Ashkenaz. Yequtiʾel describes a reading tradition in which there
was a general tendency to weaken dagesh forte, especially when
the letter had shewa (Yarqoni 1985, 113). There is evidence from

49
Cf. Morag’s (1959, 220) description of the distribution of dagesh in
Codex Reuchlinianus.
 Dagesh and Rafe 585

transcriptions of Hebrew into Latin script in medieval France that

letters with dagesh forte, according to the standard Tiberian
vocalization, were not pronounced geminated (Gumpertz 1953,
5; Yarqoni 1985, 108–11). The marking of dagesh forte is,
moreover, frequently omitted in medieval Ashkenazi prayer-
books (Eldar 1978, 115–22), and is completely lost in modern
Ashkenazi reading traditions (Glinert 2013, 192). This general
weakening of gemination in Ashkenaz that had begun already in
the Middle Ages would have eliminated the gemination that was
distinctive of the extended Tiberian pronunciation tradition.
 I.4. REFLECTIONS OF THE IMPERFECT
LEARNING OF THE TIBERIAN
PRONUNCIATION IN THE MIDDLE AGES

I.4.1. PRELIMINARY REMARKS

The Tiberian pronunciation was highly prestigious when it was a
living oral tradition (§I.0.9.). For this reason, many readers strove
to adopt it in their reading of the Bible and orthoepic measures
were taken to ensure that it was pronounced correctly and
distinctly. The fact that the Tiberian pronunciation was the ideal
target of readers of the Bible is reflected by the fact that many
manuscripts pointed with Babylonian and Palestinian vowel signs
display a tendency to convergence with the Tiberian tradition.
Although the prestigious Tiberian pronunciation tradition
was the ideal target, many readers fell short of achieving this
target due to imperfect learning and interference from other
reading traditions and vernacular languages.1 This is reflected by
the fact that manuscripts with Babylonian and Palestinian
systems of vocalization that were adapted to the Tiberian
tradition rarely exhibit complete convergence. Even those of a
manuscript such as I Firkovtich Evr. I B 3 (Codex Babylonicus

1
For the phenomenon of imperfect learning and its role in conditioning
linguistic change see Thomason and Kaufman (1988, 251–55) and
Thomason (2001, 66–76).

© Geoffrey Khan, CC BY 4.0 https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0163.04

 Imperfect Learning of the Tiberian Pronunciation 587

Petropolitanus), which appears to represent the Tiberian tradi-

tion very closely, exhibits some differences from the tradition of
the inner circle of the Tiberian Masoretic school (§I.2.5.8.).
The various Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts that have
come down to us from the Middle Ages exhibit some developed
orthoepic features of the Tiberian tradition, such as the extended
use of dagesh, but in many cases their vocalization reflects a read-
ing that falls short of the Tiberian model.
The Karaite transcriptions into Arabic script exhibit read-
ings of various degrees of closeness to the Tiberian tradition.
Most are very close, whereas a few reflect a reading that falls
short of the Tiberian ideal due to imperfect learning and interfer-
ence. The transcriptions are particularly important for our under-
standing of the processes at work that resulted in such a failure
to reach the ideal target. The discussion in this chapter, therefore,
will be based to a large extent on the evidence from the transcrip-
tions.
The failure to achieve the target is due to imperfect learn-
ing and the impact of the phonology of a substrate on the pro-
duction of the reading. The key process involves the matching of
phonetic sounds in the Tiberian target pronunciation with pho-
nemic prototypes in the substrate rather than learning the Tibe-
rian phonemic prototypes and matching the phonetic sounds
with these. This can lead to a distribution of sounds that does not
correspond to that of the Tiberian target. Such a suboptimal out-
come can be classified into two types. (i) The distribution of
sounds may correspond to that of the substrate. (ii) The distribu-
tion of sounds may correspond neither to that of the substrate
588 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

nor to that of Tiberian target. In the latter case, the resulting type
of pronunciation can be said to be a ‘hypercorrection’.

I.4.2. CONSONANTS
The main case study concerning the interference of a substrate in
the achievement of a Tiberian target in the reading of consonants
is the pronunciation of the interdental consonants.
In most of the Sefardi reading traditions of the Levant and
North Africa that have continued down to modern times the let-
ters tav and dalet are pronounced as stops in all contexts. They
are not pronounced as interdentals where the Tiberian tradition
had fricative tav [θ] or fricative dalet [ð],2 e.g.

Aleppo

ˌkəvrat ˈʔeˌrøˑs̴ (Katz 1981, 9 | L [BHS]: ‫ת־א ֶרץ‬

ֶ֖ ֶ ‫ ִכּ ְב ַר‬Gen. 49.19
‘some distance’)

ˈgad geˈdud (Katz 1981, 8 | L [BHS]: ‫ ִֶ֖גּדִגְִּ ִדוּד‬Gen. 49.19 ‘Gad,

a troop … ’)

Jerba

weˌhəthalˈleˑx (Katz 1977, 17 | L [BHS]: ‫הלְִּך‬

ִַ ‫ וְ ה ְת‬Exod. 21.19
‘and he walks about’)

jaʕaˈbod (Katz 1977, 18 | L [BHS]: ‫ יַ ֲע ֹ֑בד‬Exod. 21.2 ‘he will

work’)

2
For this phenomenon see Garbell (1954, 232), Katz (1977, 16–18,
1981, 4–5), Akun (2010, 35–37, 46–47), Henshke (2013, 861–182).
 Imperfect Learning of the Tiberian Pronunciation 589

Morocco

tihuˈmut (Akun 2010, 46 | L [BHS]: ‫ ְתה ֶ֖מת‬Exod. 15.8

‘depths’)

miˈyad (Akun 2010, 36 | L [BHS]: ‫מ ִַיּד‬

ִ Exod. 14.30 ‘from the
hand of (cstr.)’)

The Sefardi reading traditions had their origin in the Pales-

tinian reading tradition of Hebrew. This phenomenon, however,
was not an original feature of the Palestinian reading tradition,
but rather it appears to be the result of interference from the Ar-
abic dialects spoken by the Jews of the regions in question, in
which stops have replaced the interdental consonants.3 In regions
where the Arabic dialects of the Jews preserved the interdentals,
these consonants were generally preserved also in the local Se-
fardi reading traditions of Hebrew.4
In some medieval Karaite transcriptions, there is evidence
that readers sometimes pronounced tav and dalet as stops where
interdental realizations would be expected. This is seen particu-
larly clearly in the case of the transcription of tav, since the stop
and fricative realizations are distinguished by different Arabic di-
acritics (i.e. ‫ ت‬vs. ‫)ث‬, whereas the occurrence of an Arabic ‫ د‬with-

3
See, for example, Nevo (1991, 3–4: Aleppo), David Cohen (1975, 19:
Tunis), Marcel Cohen (1912, 21: Algiers).
4
This is seen, for example, in the reading traditions of the Jews of
Yemen (Morag 1963, 41–42) and of the Jews of Baghdad (Morag 1977,
5)
590 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

out a diacritic in a manuscript of a transcription could, in princi-

ple, be the result of the scribal omission of the diacritic from the
letter dhāl and need not necessarily be interpreted as a dāl.
One manuscript of interest in this respect is BL Or 2551,
fols. 31-101, which is an Arabic transcription of Psalms accom-
panied by an Arabic commentary. Where fricative tav occurs in
the Tiberian tradition, this manuscript generally has the Arabic
letter interdental thāʾ, e.g.

‫۟احث‬
۟ ‫( مۚ ۖشل‬BL Or 2551 fol. 31r, 3 | L [BHS]: ‫ ִ ִ֜מ ְש ַ֗ ַל ַחת‬Psa.

78.49 ‘sending of’)

‫( مۚۚ۩اوۜث‬BL Or 2551 fol. 31v, 10 | L [BHS]: ‫ִממוֶ ת‬Psa. 78.50

‘from death’)

‫( ر ۚ ࣵۛاشيث‬BL Or 2551 fol. 32r, 6 | L [BHS]: ‫ ראשית‬Psa. 78.51

‘beginning’)

‫( ق۠ا ۖنث۠ا‬BL Or 2551 fol. 32v, 13 | L [BHS]: ‫ קנְ תה‬Psa. 78.54 ‘(it
f.) acquired’)

On several occasions, however, it has Arabic tāʾ where the

Tiberian pronunciation has a fricative tav, reflecting the
pronunciation of the consonant as a stop, e.g.

‫( هۚ تۖعۘ ب۠ار‬BL Or 2551 fol. 34v, 3 | L [BHS]: ‫ ה ְת ַע ָּֽבר‬Psa. 78.62

‘he was angry’)
 Imperfect Learning of the Tiberian Pronunciation 591

‫( اۜت‬BL Or 2551 fol. 37r, 14 | L [BHS]: ‫ ֶאת־‬Psa. 79.1 object

marker)

In some cases the vocalizer adds a rafe sign over the tāʾ:

‫( ك٘ۚۖتوم‬BL Or 2551 fol. 36v, 9 | L [BHS]: ‫ ְכּתם‬Psa. 78.72

‘according to the integrity’)

‫ۖبون ۢوث‬
ۚ ‫( وبۚت‬BL Or 2551 fol. 36v, 9 | L [BHS]: ‫ וּב ְתבוּנֶ֖ ֹות‬Psa.
78.72 ‘and with the skilfulness of’)

‫ۖتولوت۠او‬
ۢ ‫( وب‬BL Or 2551 fol. 34v, 6 | L [BHS]: ‫תוֹּלתיו‬
ַ֗ ‫ וּ ְּ֝ב‬Psa.

78.63 ‘and its maidens’)

‫( ب ۖۚختۢ٘ۚوب‬BL Or 2551 fol. 55r, 2 | L [BHS]: ‫ ב ְכתֹוב‬Psa. 87.6

‘when writing’)

The fact that in many places the manuscript has thāʾ where
expected in the Tiberian tradition shows that the reading that it
represents is not a type of Sefardi reading without any interdental
consonants such as those discussed above. It appears to be an
attempt at reading with a Tiberian pronunciation. The reader was
successful in achieving the correct pronunciation of fricative tav
in many places, but in several cases interference from a substrate
resulted in this being read incorrectly as a stop. The rafe sign
written over tāʾ in some cases reflects the reader’s Tiberian target,
which was not achieved.
It is significant to note that in this manuscript transcrip-
tions of Tiberian fricative tav with the Arabic stop tāʾ are much
592 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

more common in the Hebrew words that are embedded within

the Arabic commentary. None of these is marked with the rafe
sign, e.g.

‫( مۚ ۖشل۟حت‬BL Or 2551 fol. 31v, 7 | L [BHS]: ‫ ּ֝מ ְש ַ֗ ַל ַחת‬commen-

tary on Psa. 78.49 ‘sending of’)

‫( ن۠اتيۚب‬BL Or 2551 fol. 31v, 12 | L [BHS]: ‫ נ ַ֗תיב‬commentary

on Psa. 78.50 ‘a path’)

‫( لۢا ۚت۠اسور‬BL Or 2551 fol. 31r, 13 | L [BHS]: ‫ לאִת ַ֗סוּר‬Deut

17.11 in the commentary on Psa. 78.50 ‘you shall not
decline’)

The isolated Hebrew words within the commentary

evidently reflect a less learned type of reading than the reading
of the biblical text itself. Less effort was made to achieve the
prestigious Tiberian target.
The ultimate origin of this elimination of interdentals in the
Hebrew reading is likely to have been the lack of interdentals in
the vernacular Arabic speech of the reader, as is the case with the
modern Sefardi traditions without interdentals. There is, indeed,
evidence from inscriptions and papyri that interdental
consonants were lost in some Arabic dialects as early as the
beginning of the eighth century C.E. (first century A.H.).5

5
See Hopkins (1984, 33–36). To the material cited by Hopkins can be
added the inscription no. 15 in Combe, Sauvaget and Wiet eds. (1931-
 Imperfect Learning of the Tiberian Pronunciation 593

A possible way of explaining the suboptimal distribution of

stops and interdentals in the manuscript is the model proposed
by Blevins (2017) for phonological processes that take place in
language contact situations. In the spoken vernacular of the
reader, there was not an unvoiced interdental phoneme /θ/ but
only a stop phoneme /t/ or, more likely, /tʰ/, i.e. an aspirated
unvoiced stop. This had only stops as its phonetic realization, i.e.
[tʰ] and most likely also deaspirated [t]. When the reader heard
in the Tiberian pronunciation the interdental phonetic tokens
[θ], these were perceptually matched to the stop /tʰ/ prototype
phoneme of the reader’s vernacular. This matching brought
about a ‘perceptual magnet effect’, to use Blevins’ metaphor,
whereby the interdental tokens of Tiberian were perceived as
being like the stop tokens of the prototype in the native
vernacular. As a result of this lack of perception, or at least
difficulties of perception, of phonetic difference, the two tokens
were confused. The ultimate result of such a process would be
the pulling of the interdental into a change that would level its
difference from the token of the prototype in the vernacular, i.e.
a stop. In the attempted pronunciation reflected by the
manuscript, however, the reader still had some knowledge, if
imperfect, of the Tiberian distribution of interdentals and a desire
to implement it, at least in the learned reading of the biblical text
section. This has prevented a complete levelling of the distinction
between interdentals and stops.

1991). The main evidence in these sources is the occurrence of the

pointing of Arabic tāʾ where thāʾ is expected.
594 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Another manuscript of a Karaite transcription, BL Or 2552

fols. 90-141, in most cases has an Arabic tāʾ where a fricative tav
occurs in the Tiberian tradition, e.g.

‫( كيۚموتۚناموت‬BL Or 2552 fol. 90v, 2 | L [BHS]: ִ‫כּי־מֹות‬

‫ נ ֔מוּת‬2 Sam. 14.14 ‘because we have to die’)

‫( قوهالت‬BL Or 2552 fol. 90v, 3 | L [BHS]: ‫ ק ֶה ֶלת‬Ecc. 1.1

‘preacher’)

‫( يترون‬BL Or 2552 fol. 92v, 2 | L [BHS]: ‫ ־יּ ְת ִֶ֖רֹון‬Ecc. 1.3

‘profit’)

A Tiberian fricative tav is represented by Arabic thāʾ only

in a few cases, e.g.

‫( رايثي‬BL Or 2552 fol. 106v, 3 | L [BHS]: ‫ ר ִ֙איתִִ֙י‬Ecc 4.15 ‘I

saw’)

‫( ناحلاثانو‬BL Or 2552 fol. 133v, 1 | L [BHS]: ‫ נַ ֲחל ִ֙ת ִִ֙נוּ‬Lam. 5.2

‘our inheritance’)

‫( يثوميم‬BL Or 2552 fol. 133v, 11 | L [BHS]: ‫תֹומים‬

ִ֤ ְ‫ י‬Lam. 5.3

‘orphans’)

This indicates that the reader was making some attempt at

the prestigious Tiberian pronunciation. The process of levelling
of vernacular and Tiberian phonetic tokens had, however, pro-
gressed further than in BL Or 2551, fols. 31-101. This would have
 Imperfect Learning of the Tiberian Pronunciation 595

involved, presumably, a lesser degree of ability to perceive dif-

ferences between the tokens and a lesser degree of knowledge of
the correct distribution of tokens in the Tiberian pronunciation.
A further reflection of this in the manuscript is the occurrence of
an Arabic thāʾ where there was a stop in the correct Tiberian
reading:

‫( الۚثرشاع‬BL Or 2552 fol. 113v, 2 | L [BHS]: ‫ ַאל־ת ְר ַשע‬Ecc.

7.17 ‘do not be wicked!’)

This can be regarded as a hypercorrection, whereby the

reader strives to achieve the prestigious Tiberian reading by
using an interdental token, but this is used incorrectly where the
stop token should have occurred, resulting in a distribution of
tokens that corresponds neither to that of Tiberian pronunciation
nor to that of the vernacular substrate.
Another type of phenomenon that may be interpreted as
the result of imperfect learning of the Tiberian tradition is at-
tested in the following transcriptions. In some manuscripts, the
ְִ ‫‘ ַא‬you (fs)’ and ‫‘ בתים‬houses’ is transcribed by
tav in the words ‫ת‬
a fricative thāʾ, e.g.

‫اث‬
ۚۖ ࣵۚ۟‫( ا‬BL Or 2544, fol. 14v, 2 | L [BHS]: ‫ ַא ְִת‬Gen. 24.60 ‘you
(fs))

‫( ب۠اث ۜۛيهࣶام‬BL Or 2549, fol. 34v, 1 | L [BHS]: ‫יהם‬

ֶ֖ ֶ ‫ בת‬Jer. 5.25

‘their houses’)

Elsewhere in these manuscripts, the stop and fricative

realization of tav are transcribed with their correct Tiberian
596 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

distribution. The tav in these two words in Tiberian pronun-

ciation have the anomalous feature of being pronounced as a stop
after a vowel although they are not geminated, at least in the
conservative dagesh forte—dagesh lene stream of the Tiberian
reading tradition (§I.2.5.9.3., §I.3.1.12.).6 The fricative pronun-
ciation that is reflected in these manuscripts may be the result of
an analogical levelling that eliminated the anomalous
distribution of the ungeminated stop. This would be a natural
phonological process, but it reflects imperfect learning of the
standard Tiberian tradition.7

I.4.3. VOWELS

I.4.3.1. Interchanges of Signs Reflecting a Substrate

of Palestinian Pronunciation
Many biblical manuscripts with Non-Standard Tiberian vocal-
ization exhibit interchanges of pataḥ and qameṣ vowel signs and
interchanges of segol and ṣere vowel signs. Similar interchanges
are found in many biblical texts with Palestinian vocalization.

6
In the more advanced extended dagesh forte stream of the Tiberian
tradition the tav would have been geminated in both words
(§I.3.1.11.3.).
7
A parallel to this phenomenon of fricativization of the tav by analogy
is attested in the Babylonian tradition of Biblical Hebrew, in that one
manuscript with Babylonian vocalization has a Babylonian rafe sign
over the tav of the plural form ‘houses: ‫ָתי‬
ֵֿ ‫( וְב‬BHS ‫ וּבתי‬Ezek. 26:12 ‘and
the houses of’ (Yeivin 1985, 868)).
 Imperfect Learning of the Tiberian Pronunciation 597

Different patterns of interchanges are attested across the

manuscripts.8
These interchanges reflect the fact that the reading
tradition of the scribe had only one ‘a’ vowel phoneme and only
one ‘e’ vowel phoneme, which was characteristic of the Pales-
tinian reading tradition. This corresponded to the sound system
of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, which, in turn, is likely to have
arisen by convergence with the sound system of Greek in
Byzantine Palestine.
It is significant to note that non-biblical texts, generally of
a liturgical nature, which reflect the Palestinian type of
pronunciation, whether expressed in Tiberian or Palestinian
vowel signs, sometimes have only one ‘a’ vowel sign and one ‘e’
vowel sign.9 Such liturgical texts no doubt reflect more directly
the Palestinian sound system. The biblical manuscripts that ex-
hibit interchanges of vowels reflect the result of readers attempt-
ing to pronounce the text with the prestigious Tiberian pronun-
ciation but failing to achieve the target. The interchanging of
written signs in the manuscripts reflects the phenomenon, but we
must turn to some Karaite transcriptions to have more insight

8
For this phenomenon in Non-Standard Tiberian biblical texts see
Morag (1959), Díez Macho (1963), and Blapp (2017). For biblical texts
in Palestinian vocalization see Revell (1970a).
9
For liturgical texts with Tiberian vocalization of this nature see Mishor
(2002, 235), Rand and Loeffler (2015, 9) [I thank my colleague Michael
Rand for these references] and for texts with Palestinian vocalization
see Revell (1970a; 1970b) and Yahalom (1997).
598 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

into how the signs were pronounced and the phonological pro-
cesses that lay behind these interchanges of signs.

I.4.3.2. Evidence for the Phonetic Realization of

Interchanged Signs
Of particular interest in this regard is the Karaite transcription in
BL Or 2555. This manuscript exhibits an interchange of ṣere and
segol signs in syllables where the vowel is long. In the
transcription such vowels are represented sometimes by Arabic
ʾalif and sometimes by Arabic yāʾ. This can be interpreted as
reflecting the fact that the scribe read each of the two vowel signs
with two different qualities. These may be reconstructed as [ɛː],
which was represented by ʾalif, and [eː], which was represented
by yāʾ. Some examples are as follows.

Where Standard Tiberian has segol

(i) Segol sign corresponding to Tiberian segol is represented by

ʾalif:

‫[ ي۠اذۜ ۠اخا‬jɔːˈðɛːχɔː] (BL Or 2555 fol. 71v, 5 | L [BHS]: ‫־י ֶ ֹ֑דָך‬

Ecc. 7.18 ‘your hand’)

(ii) Ṣere sign corresponding to Tiberian segol is represented by

ʾalif:

‫ˈ[ هۛ ابۜل‬hɛːvɛl] (BL Or 2555 fol. 26r, 12 | L [BHS]: ‫ ֶ ֶ֛ה ֶבל‬Ecc.

4.8 ‘vanity’)

(iii) Segol sign corresponding to Tiberian segol is represented by

yāʾ:
 Imperfect Learning of the Tiberian Pronunciation 599

‫[ ي۠افۜي‬jɔːˈfeː] (BL Or 2555 fol. 10r, 5 | L [BHS]: ‫ י ֶפה‬Ecc. 3.11

‘beautiful’)

(iv) Ṣere sign corresponding to Tiberian segol is represented by

yāʾ:

‫ˈ[ ۛۚيـيلۜذ‬jeːlɛð] (BL Or 2555 fol. 31v, 1 | L [BHS]: ‫ ֶי ֶלד‬Ecc. 4.13

‘child’)

Where Standard Tiberian has ṣere

(i) Ṣere sign corresponding to Tiberian ṣere is represented by yāʾ:

‫[ ۛۚيـيذ۟ اع‬jeːˈðaːaʕ] (BL Or 2555 fol. 81r, 2 | L [BHS]: ‫ י ַ ֶ֖דע‬Ecc.

8.5 ‘he will know’)

(ii) Segol sign corresponding to Tiberian ṣere is represented by

yāʾ:

‫[ هبهۜ يم۠ ا‬habbeheːˈmɔː] (BL Or 2555 fol. 18r, 1 | L [BHS]:

‫ ַה ְבה ֔מה‬Ecc. 3.21 ‘the beast’)

(iii) Ṣere sign corresponding to Tiberian ṣere is represented by

ʾalif:

‫ˈ[ هۛ ام۠ۚا‬hɛːɛmmɔː] (BL Or 2555 fol. 14v, 2 | L [BHS]: ‫ ֶ֖המה‬Ecc.

3.18 ‘they’)

(iv) Segol sign corresponding to Tiberian ṣere is represented by

ʾalif:
600 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

‫ˈ[ كۜان‬kʰɛːɛn] (BL Or 2555 fol. 14v, 5 | L [BHS]: ‫ כּן‬Ecc. 3.19

‘thus’)

This shows that interchanges of vowel signs can reflect a

pronunciation with interchanges of vowel qualities that is inde-
pendent of the interchange of the signs. This situation can be ex-
plained by the model used above (§I.4.2.). We may assume that
the reader had only one long ‘e’ vowel prototype phoneme in the
pronunciation tradition that he was most competent in. We can
represent this as /ē/ and assume that it had the phonetic token
[eː]. When the reader heard in the target Tiberian pronunciation
the phonetic tokens of ṣere [eː] and long segol [ɛː], both of these
were perceptually matched with the prototype /ē/. This mat-
ching brought about a ‘perceptual magnet effect’, whereby the
[eː] and [ɛː] tokens of Tiberian were perceived as being like the
[eː] tokens of the prototype in the source pronunciation. The
reader attempted to pronounce the tokens of the Tiberian target
pronunciation but had difficulty in distinguishing between them
and, moreover, could not match the signs with the phonetic to-
kens that he pronounced.

I.4.3.3. Interchanges of Signs Reflecting a Substrate

of Arabic Vernacular
Several medieval Bible manuscripts vocalized with Tiberian signs
exhibit the interchange of segol and pataḥ. The vocalization of
some of these manuscripts exhibits a variety of other Non-Stand-
ard Tiberian features, such as the extended use of dagesh. This
applies, for example, to manuscripts such as the following:
 Imperfect Learning of the Tiberian Pronunciation 601

‫תי‬
ִָּֽ ‫( ְִלּ ַעִִ֜זְ ר‬T-S A13.20, Blapp 2018, 148 | L [BHS]: ‫ לְ ֶעזְ רתי‬Psa.
70.2 ‘to my help’)

‫ער‬
ִֶ ‫ש‬
ִֹ֑ (T-S A13.20, Blapp 2018, 148 | L [BHS]: ‫ ֹ֑ש ַער‬Psa. 69.13
‘gate’)

‫ע ְש ֔רים‬
ִַ (T-S Misc 1.46, Arrant 2020 | L [BHS]: ‫ ֶע ְש ֔רים‬Exod.
27.10 ‘twenty’)

‫בע‬
ִֶ ‫( ֶר‬T-S Misc 1.46, Arrant 2020 | L [BHS]: ‫ ֶר ַבע‬Exod. 29.40
‘quarter’)

The interchange is sporadically found, however, also in

early model manuscripts that have a vocalization that is other-
wise standard Tiberian. One such manuscript is II Firkovitch Evr.
II B 10 (Yeivin 1980, 23 = L3), which was dedicated in 946 C.E.,
e.g.

‫א ְר ֶ ֶ֖בה‬
ִֶ (II Firkovitch Evr. II B 10 | L [BHS]: ‫ ַא ְר ֶ ֶ֖בה‬Gen. 16.10
‘I shall multiply’)

There is evidence of this phenomenon even in L. In Deut.

28.11 BHS has the form ִֶ֖‫‘ ְב ַה ְמ ְתָך‬your cattle’ with a pataḥ in place
of an expected segol, which occurs elsewhere in this form in L and
also in Deut. 28.11 in other early model manuscripts (e.g. S
ִֶ֖‫ה ְמ ְתָך‬
ִֶ ‫) ְב‬. Golinets (2013, 254–355) has shown that the pataḥ in L
was written over an original segol by a second hand after, it
seems, the ink of the segol had become faint. It is not clear at
what period this second hand made this change, but it reflects
the type of segol—pataḥ interchange that is discussed here.
Some Non-Standard Tiberian manuscripts exhibit a ten-
dency to substitute pataḥ for segol specifically in the environment
of gutturals, e.g.
602 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

‫( ַע ְרַות‬T-S AS 5.144, Outhwaite 2020 | L [BHS]: ‫ ֶע ְרַות‬Lev.

18.15 ‘nakedness’)

‫( ה ַאזְ רח‬T-S AS 5.144, Outhwaite 2020 | L [BHS]: ‫ ָּֽה ֶאזְ ֔רח‬Lev.

18.26 ‘the native’)

As can be seen from other examples cited above, however,

the interchange of pataḥ and segol is not restricted to this pattern
in many manuscripts.
The Babylonian vocalization system did not have a sign
that corresponded to Tiberian segol. The Babylonian sign miftaḥ
pumma corresponded to both Tiberian pataḥ and Tiberian segol.
In principle, therefore, it may be thought that the interchange of
segol and pataḥ was due to a substrate of a Babylonian pronunci-
ation tradition. The manuscripts described above, however, do
not exhibit other features of Babylonian pronunciation. It is more
likely that the interchange was brought about by the influence of
the vernacular language of the vocalizers, which, at the period in
question, must have been Arabic. Following the model of expla-
nation used for other interference features, the interchange can
be said to have arisen by the process of matching the pataḥ and
segol phonetic tokens, i.e. [a], [aː], [ɑ], [ɑː], [ɛ] and [ɛː], with the
Arabic prototype phonemes /a/ and /ā/, rather than with the
distinct prototypes of pataḥ and segol in Tiberian pronunciation.
In modern Arabic vernaculars the Arabic phonemes /a/ and /ā/
have a range of phonetic allophonic realizations that include [æ],
[æː], [ɛ], [ɛː], [ɑ] and [ɑː] (Barkat-Defradas 2011b, 2011a). As-
suming that this was the case also in the Middle Ages, then this
would have facilitated the perceptual matching of the Arabic pro-
totypes /a/ and /ā/ with the tokens of Tiberian pataḥ and segol.
 Imperfect Learning of the Tiberian Pronunciation 603

As a result of this imperfect learning of Tiberian prototype pho-

nemes and consequent difficulties of perceiving the differences
between them, the phonetic qualities and their graphic represen-
tation were confused.
Some Non-Standard Tiberian Bible manuscripts that have
the pataḥ—segol interchange exhibit also interchanges of these
vowels with other vowels, resulting in three-way or even four-
way interchanges. Some examples of these from the data pre-
sented in Arrant (2020) include the following:

pataḥ—segol—ṣere interchanges:

‫ת‬
ִִ֙ ‫ש ְל‬
ִֶ ‫( וּב‬T-S AS 67.133, Arrant 2020 | L [BHS]: ‫ת‬
ִִ֙ ‫ וּב ַש ְל‬Deut.
16.7 ‘and you will cook’)

‫אה‬
ִַ ‫( יר‬T-S AS 67.133, Arrant 2020 | L [BHS]: ‫ יר ֶאה‬Deut.
16.16 ‘shall appear’)

‫בבָּקר‬
ִ (T-S AS 67.133, Arrant 2020 | L [BHS]: ‫ ַבבָּקר‬Deut.
14.26 ‘in oxen’)

‫( י ְהִיה‬T-S AS 67.133, Arrant 2020 | L [BHS]: ‫ י ְה ֶיה‬Deut. 15.9

‘will be’)

pataḥ—segol—qameṣ interchanges:

‫א ֶתם‬
ִֶ (T-S NS 18.5, Arrant 2020 | L [BHS]: ‫ ַא ֶתם‬Num. 14.41
‘you (pl)’)

‫אמר‬
ִ ‫( וַ יּ‬T-S NS 18.5, Arrant 2020 | L [BHS]: ‫אמר‬
ֶ ‫ וַ יּ‬Num. 14.41
‘and he said’)

‫ת ֶנֶ֣גְ ֔פוּ‬
ִ (T-S NS 18.5, Arrant 2020 | L [BHS]: ‫ תנֶ֣גְ ֔פוּ‬Num. 14.42
‘you will [not] be struck down’)
604 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

pataḥ—segol—qameṣ—ṣere interchanges:

ִ‫( וַ יַּ עִֶן‬LG B1.56, Arrant 2020 | L [BHS]: ‫ וַ יַּ ַעִן‬Gen. 23.10 ‘and

he answered’)

‫שעִֶר‬
ִָּֽ ֶ (LG B1.56, Arrant 2020 | L [BHS]: ‫ ַ ָּֽש ַער‬Gen. 23.10
‘gate’)

‫( זִֶ ֔קן‬LG B1.56, Arrant 2020 | L [BHS]: ‫ ז ֔קן‬Gen. 24.1 ‘old’)

‫ס ָּֽביב‬
ִַ (LG B1.56, Arrant 2020 | L [BHS]: ‫ ס ָּֽביב‬Gen. 23.17
‘around’)

ִִ֙ ‫ ַע ְב‬Gen. 24.2 ‘his

ִִ֙‫( ע ְבדֹו‬LG B1.56, Arrant 2020 | L [BHS]: ‫ֹּדֹו‬
slave’)

ִ ֶ ‫( ְל‬LG B1.56, Arrant 2020 | L [BHS]: ‫ ְלעת‬Gen. 24.11 ‘at

‫עת‬
the time of’)

‫ה‬
ִִ֙ ‫א‬
ִ ‫( ַמ ְר‬LG B1.56, Arrant 2020 | L [BHS]: ‫ה‬
ִִ֙ ‫ ַמ ְר ֶא‬Gen. 24.16
‘appearance’)

These three-way and four-way interchanges can also be ex-

plained as being due to the interference of an Arabic vernacular
substrate. In such cases, the Arabic prototype phonemes /a/ and
/ā/ are matched with the phonetic tokens of not only Tiberian
pataḥ and segol but also with those of ṣere and qameṣ i.e. [eː], [ɔ]
and [ɔː]. Arabic /a/ and /ā/ can be realized with the high allo-
phones [e], [eː] by the process of vowel raising (known as ʾimāla)
in various modern Arabic dialects and this can be reconstructed
for earlier periods (de Jong 2011). This is reflected by some me-
dieval Judaeo-Arabic texts with Tiberian vocalization signs,
which represent such raised /a/ and /ā/ vowels by ṣere (Khan
2010, 204), e.g.
 Imperfect Learning of the Tiberian Pronunciation 605

ַ ‫[ ֲעלי ִעב‬ʕaleː ʕibeːdak] = Classical Arabic ʿalā ʿibādak

‫אֹּדּך‬
‘on your servants’ (T-S Ar.8.3, fol. 16v)

‫[ וְ לם‬walem] = Classical Arabic wa-lam ‘and not’ (T-S

Ar.8.3, fol. 22v)

In these medieval vocalized Judaeo-Arabic manuscripts the

Tiberian qameṣ sign is generally restricted to the representation
of the /a/ vowel in the diphthong /aw/, reflecting, it seems, the
partial phonetic assimilation of the vowel to /w/, which resulted
in a back open-mid quality close to that of Tiberian qameṣ, i.e.
[ɔw] (Khan 2010, 210), e.g.

‫[ נוְ ַבה‬nɔwba] = Classical Arabic nawba ‘accident’ (T-S

Ar.8.3 fol. 17r)

This suggests that the range of phonetic allophones of Ara-

bic /a/ included also [ɔ].
The existence of a range of qualities in the phonetic allo-
phones of Arabic /a/ and /ā/ that corresponded to those of the
Tiberian vowels pataḥ, segol, ṣere and qameṣ would have facili-
tated the matching of the Arabic prototypes with these four pho-
netic qualities. One may say that the three-way and four-way in-
terchanges reflect a lesser ability to perceive the distinct qualities
of the Tiberian vowels than the two-way pataḥ—segol interchange
and so a lesser competence in the Tiberian pronunciation.10

10
Such a breakdown in the perception of differences in vowel qualities
is reflected also in the rhymes of some medieval Hebrew poetry, in
which, for example, a syllable with qameṣ can rhyme with a syllable
with ṣere (Rand 2020).
606 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

I.4.3.4. Hypercorrect Lengthening of Vowels

In §I.2.8.1.2. it was shown how the duration of long qameṣ and
segol in word-final position was compressed in deḥiq construc-
tions such as

L: ‫‘ וְ אעידה ֔בם‬I shall cause to witness against them’ (Deut.

31.28)

L: ִ ‫‘ מ‬who are these to you?’ (Gen. 33.5)

‫י־א ִֶלּהִ ִֹ֑לְּך‬

In the Tiberian tradition, however, an effort was made to

sustain the duration of these vowels in deḥiq to ensure that they
were not completely reduced to short vowels, as happened in
other reading traditions.
Due to imperfect learning of the Tiberian tradition, this
orthoepic measure of sustaining the duration of the word-final
vowels qameṣ and segol in deḥiq was sometimes extended
hypercorrectly to historically short qameṣ and segol. This is re-
flected by the Karaite transcription BL Or 2539 MS B (=ff. 115-
132), which represents historically short qameṣ and segol in un-
stressed closed syllables with mater lectionis ʾalif. The fact that
other historically short vowel qualities in these conditions are not
represented by matres lectionis suggests that this phenomenon is
related to the orthoepic lengthening of qameṣ and segol in deḥiq,
e.g.

‫( ق۠اذۖ ۛشي‬BL Or 2539 MS B, fol. 125r, 15 | L [BHS]: ‫ ק ְדשי‬Num.

18.8 ‘the holy gifts of’)
 Imperfect Learning of the Tiberian Pronunciation 607

‫اشحا‬
۠ ۠‫( لۖم‬BL Or 2539 MS B, fol. 125r, 16 | L [BHS]: ‫ְלמ ְש ֶ֛חה‬
Num. 18.8 ‘a priestly portion’)

‫( ل ۠ۖحاق‬BL Or 2539 MS B, fol. 125r, 16 | L [BHS]: ‫ לְ חק־‬Num.

18.8 ‘as a due’)

ۚ‫( عۜ اغۖ ل ۢ ࣵوت‬BL Or 2539 MS B, fol. 115v, 6 | L [BHS]: ‫ֶעגְ ֹלת‬

Num. 7.3 ‘covered wagons’)

This manuscript reflects the hypercorrect lengthening also

of ḥaṭef qameṣ, e.g.

‫( ا۠هۙ الۛيهۜ ام‬BL Or 2539 MS B, fol. 122v, 13 | L [BHS]: ‫ָּֽא ֳהל ֶ֔יהם‬
Num. 16.27 ‘their tents’)

I.4.4. THE READING OF THE TIBERIAN VOCALIZATION IN

THE LATER MIDDLE AGES
The various phenomena described above arose when the Tiberian
pronunciation was still a living tradition. It was familiar to the
scribes of the manuscripts, even if imperfectly, and it was re-
garded as a prestigious target. In the later Middle Ages, after the
Tiberian pronunciation had fallen into oblivion, the prestige and
authority of the oral Tiberian reading shifted to the written sign
system (§I.0.12.). The Tiberian vocalization of manuscripts was
then largely disconnected from the pronunciation of readers.
Since there was no longer any attempt at achieving a pronuncia-
tion that differed from the local traditions, the Hebrew Bibles
came to be read with these local traditions.
 I.5. SUMMARY OF THE TIBERIAN
PRONUNCIATION AND SAMPLE
TRANSCRIPTIONS OF BIBLICAL
PASSAGES

I.5.1. SUMMARY OF THE PHONETICS AND PHONOLOGY

OF THE CONSONANTS

Name Phonetic Pho- References

realization neme
Letter

‫א‬ ʾalef [ʔ] /ʔ/ §I.1.1.

‫ב‬ bet (dagesh) [b], [bb] /b/ §I.1.2., §I.1.25.,
§I.3.1.11.3.
‫ב‬ bet (rafe) [v] /v/ §I.1.2., §I.1.25.
‫גּ‬ gimel [g], [gg] /g/ §I.1.3., §I.1.25.,
(dagesh) §I.3.1.11.3.
‫ג‬ gimel (rafe) [ʁ] /ʁ/ §I.1.3., §I.1.25.
‫ֹּד‬ dalet [d], [dd] /d/ §I.1.4., §I.1.25.,
(dagesh) §I.3.1.11.3.
‫ד‬ dalet (rafe) [ð] /ð/ §I.1.4., §I.1.25.
‫ה‬ he [h] /h/ §I.1.5.
‫ו‬ vav [v], [w] /v/ §I.1.6.
‫ז‬ zayin [z] /z/ §I.1.7.
‫ח‬ ḥet [ħ] /ħ/ §I.1.8.
‫ט‬ ṭet [tˁ] /tˁ/ §I.1.9.

© Geoffrey Khan, CC BY 4.0 https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0163.05

 Summary and Sample Transcriptions 609

‫י‬ yod [j], [ɟ] /j/ §I.1.10. The stop al-

lophone [ɟ] occurs
only when the conso-
nant is geminated.
‫כּ‬, kaf (dagesh) [kʰ], /kʰ/ §I.1.11., §I.1.25.,
‫ּך‬ [kkʰ] §I.3.1.11.3.
‫כ‬, kaf (rafe) [χ] /χ/ §I.1.11., §I.1.25.
‫ך‬
‫ל‬ lamed [l] /l/ §I.1.12.
‫מ‬, mem [m] /m/ §I.1.13.
‫ם‬
‫נ‬, ‫ן‬ nun [n] /n/ §I.1.14.
‫ס‬ samekh [s] /s/ §I.1.15. This was
equivalent in the oral
reading tradition to
sin (§I.1.21.). The
distinction in orthog-
raphy is an archaism
(§I.0.8.).
‫ע‬ ʿayin [ʕ] /ʕ/ §I.1.16.
‫ּפ‬ pe (dagesh) [pʰ], /pʰ/ §I.1.17., §I.1.25.,
[ppʰ] §I.3.1.11.3.
‫ּפ‬ pe (dagesh) [pˁ], /pˁ/ This is attested only
[ppˁ] in ‫‘ ַא ַּפ ְדנ֔ ֹו‬his palace’
(Dan. 11.45), where
its occurrence is not
conditioned by the
610 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

phonetic environ-
ment, so it should be
identified as a pho-
neme (§I.1.17.).
‫פ‬ pe (rafe) [f] /f/ §I.1.17., §I.1.25.
‫צ‬ ṣade [sˁ], [zˁ] /sˁ/ §I.1.18. For the
voiced variant see
§I.1.7.
‫ק‬ qof [q]̟ /q/̟ §I.1.19.
‫ר‬ resh [ʀ̟], [rˁ] /r/ §I.1.20. The two vari-
ant realizations are
conditioned by the
phonetic environ-
ment and so should
be identified as allo-
phones.
‫ש‬ sin [s] /s/ §I.1.21. This was
equivalent in the oral
reading tradition to
samekh (§I.1.15.).
The distinction in or-
thography is an ar-
chaism (§I.0.8.).
‫ש‬ shin [ʃ] /ʃ/ §I.1.22.
‫ת‬ tav (dagesh) [tʰ], [ttʰ] /tʰ/ §I.1.23., §I.1.25.,
§I.3.1.11.3.
‫ת‬ tav (rafe) [θ] /θ/ §I.1.23., §I.1.25.
 Summary and Sample Transcriptions 611

I.5.2. SUMMARY OF THE PHONETICS AND PHONOLOGY

OF THE FULL VOWEL SIGNS

Sign Name Phonetic Phoneme References

(placed realization
on ‫)א‬

‫א‬
ִַ pataḥ [a], [ɑ], [aː], /a/ §I.2.1.,
[ɑː] §I.2.2.,
Long in §I.2.3.
stressed sylla-
bles or open
unstressed syl-
lables.
‫א‬
ִ qameṣ [ɔ], [ɔː] (i) /o/ (when §I.2.1.,
Long in realized as §I.2.2.,
stressed sylla- short [ɔ]) §I.2.3.
bles or open /ɔ̄/ (when re-
unstressed syl- alized as long
lables. [ɔː])
‫א‬
ִֶ segol [ɛ], [ɛː] /ɛ/ §I.2.1.,
Long in /e/ (in the fi- §I.2.2.,
stressed sylla- nal syllable of §I.2.3.
bles or open certain nomi-
unstressed syl- nal and verbal
lables. forms)
‫א‬
ִ ṣere [eː] /e/, /ē/ §I.2.1.,
§I.2.2.,
§I.2.3.
612 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

‫א‬
ִ ḥireq [i], [iː] /i/, /ī/ §I.2.1.,
Long in §I.2.2.,
stressed sylla- §I.2.3.
bles or open
unstressed syl-
lables.
‫א‬
ִ ḥolem [oː] /o/ (in final §I.2.1.,
syllable of §I.2.2.,
certain nomi- §I.2.3.
nal and verbal
forms)
/ō/
‫אוּ‬, ‫א‬
ִ shureq, [u], [uː] /u/, /ū/ §I.2.1.,
qibbuṣ Long in §I.2.2.,
stressed sylla- §I.2.3.
bles or open
unstressed syl-
lables.

I.5.3. SUMMARY OF THE PHONETICS AND PHONOLOGY

OF SHEWA AND THE ḤAṬEF SIGNS

Sign Name Phonetic realization Pho- Refer-

(placed neme ences
on ‫)א‬
‫א‬
ְִ shewa Silent shewa: [∅] /∅/1 §I.2.5,
§I.2.6.

1
Epenthetic vowel, without phonological representation.
 Summary and Sample Transcriptions 613

Vocalic shewa: [a], [ɔ],

[ɛ], [e], [i], [o], [u].

The default realization

of vocalic shewa is a
short [a].
The other vowel quali-
ties are conditioned by
some specific environ-
ments, viz.:
(i) Before a guttural
consonant (‫ )אהחע‬a vo-
calic shewa is pro-
nounced as a short
vowel with the quality
of the vowel after the
guttural.
(ii) Before yod, a vo-
calic shewa is pro-
nounced as a short [i].
‫א‬
ֲִ ḥaṭef pataḥ [a] /∅/2 §I.2.5.
‫א‬
ִ ḥaṭef segol [ɛ] /∅/3 §I.2.5.,
§I.2.7.
‫א‬
ֳִ ḥaṭef qameṣ [ɔ] /∅/ 4
§I.2.5.,
/o/5 §I.2.7.

2
Epenthetic vowel, without phonological representation.
3
Epenthetic vowel, without phonological representation.
4
When an epenthetic vowel.
5
When a lexical vowel.
614 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

I.5.4. SAMPLE TRANSCRIPTIONS OF BIBLICAL PASSAGES

Each verse has two versions of transcription, which represent two
different sub-traditions of the standard Tiberian reading. The first
represents the dagesh forte—dagesh lene reading, whereas the sec-
ond represents the extended dagesh forte reading (§I.3.1.11.3.). If
a verse would have been pronounced the same in both streams
of tradition, only one reading is given.
Links are given to audio files of oral performances by Alex
Foreman of the Tiberian pronunciation reconstructed for the pas-
sages.

I.5.4.1. Genesis 1.1-13

Oral Performances
Dagesh forte—dagesh lene reading with-
out melody (Alex Foreman
https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0163.06)
Dagesh forte—dagesh lene reading with
Sefardi melody (Alex Foreman
https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0163.07)
Extended dagesh forte reading without
melody (Alex Foreman
https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0163.08)
Extended dagesh forte reading with Se-
fardi melody (Alex Foreman
https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0163.09)
 Summary and Sample Transcriptions 615

‫תִהש ַ ֶ֖מיםִוְ אתִה ָּֽא ֶרץ׃‬

ַ ‫ֹלהיםִא‬ ֶ֖ ‫ִ ְבר‬
ֹ֑ ‫אשיתִבראִא‬ 1
[baʀ̟eːˈʃiːiθ6 bɔːˈʀ̟ɔː ʔɛloːˈhiːim ˈʔeːeθ haʃʃɔːˈmaːjim7 veˈʔeːeθ8
hɔːˈʔɔːʀ̟ɛsˁ]

[bbaʀ̟eːˈʃiːiθ bbɔːˈʀ̟ɔː ʔɛloːˈhiːim ˈʔeːeθ haʃʃɔːˈmaːjim veˈʔeːeθ

hɔːˈʔɔːʀ̟ɛsˁ]

ִ‫ִת ֹ֑הֹום ִוְ ר ַוּח‬

ְ ‫ל־ּפני‬
ְ ‫ִע‬ַ ‫הוּ ִו ֔בהוּ ִוְ ֶ֖ח ֶשְך‬
ִ֙ ‫ִת‬
ִ֙ ‫ִוְ ה ַ֗א ֶרץ ִהיְ תה‬ 2
‫ל־ּפניִ ַה ָּֽמים׃‬
ְ ‫תִע‬
ַ ‫יםִמ ַר ֶ ֶ֖ח ֶפ‬
ְ ‫ֹלה‬֔ ‫א‬
[vɔhɔːˈʔɔːʀ̟ɛsˁ9 hɔːɔjˈθɔː10 ˈθoːhuː vɔːˈvoːhuː voˈħoːʃɛχ11 ʕal-
pʰaˈneː θoˈhoːom12 vaˈʀ̟uːwaħ13 ʔɛloːˈhiːim maʀ̟aːˈħɛːfɛθ14
ʕal-pʰaˈneː hamˈmɔːjim]

6
Default realization of vocalic shewa: §I.2.5.1. Insertion of an epenthetic
vowel in a closed syllable with a long vowel: §I.2.4.
7
All stressed vowels are lengthened: §I.2.2.1.
8
Default pronunciation of vav is [v]: §I.1.6. Assimilation of a vocalic
shewa to the quality of the vowel after a following guttural: §I.2.5.1.
9
Assimilation of a vocalic shewa to the quality of the vowel after a fol-
lowing guttural: §I.2.5.1.
10
Insertion of epenthetic in closed syllable with a long vowel: §I.2.4.
11
Assimilation of a vocalic shewa to the quality of the vowel after a
following guttural: §I.2.5.1.
12
Assimilation of a vocalic shewa to the quality of the vowel after a
following guttural: §I.2.5.1.
13
Glide [w] before furtive pataḥ: §I.1.6.
14
Stressed vowels and vowels in open unstressed syllables are length-
ened: §I.2.2.1.
 616 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

[vɔhɔːˈʔɔːʀ̟ɛsˁ hɔːɔjˈθɔː ˈθoːhuː vɔːˈvoːhuː voˈħoːʃɛχ ʕal-

ppʰaˈneː θoˈhoːom vaˈʀ̟uːwaħ ʔɛloːˈhiːim maʀ̟aːˈħɛːfɛθ ʕal-
ppʰaˈneː hamˈmɔːjim]

ִ ‫י־אֹור׃‬
ָּֽ ‫ֹורִוֶָּֽ֣יְ ה‬
ַ ‫יִא‬ֹ֑ ‫ֹלהיםִיְ ה‬
ֶ֖ ‫אמרִא‬
ֶ ‫ִוַ יּ‬ 3
[vaɟˈɟoːmɛʀ̟15 ʔɛloːˈhiːim jiˈhiː ˈʔoːoʀ̟ ˌvaˑjhiː-ˈʔoːoʀ̟16]

ִ‫ֹלהיםִביןִה ֶ֖אֹור‬
֔ ‫י־טֹובִוַ יַּ ְבֹּדלִא‬
ֹ֑ ‫יםִאת־ה ֶ֖אֹורִכּ‬
ֶ ‫ֹלה‬ֶ֛ ‫ִוַ ַיּ ְֶ֣ראִא‬ 4
ִ ‫יןִה ָּֽח ֶשְך׃‬
ַ ‫וּב‬
[vaɟˈɟaːaʀ̟ ʔɛloːˈhiːim ʔɛθ-hɔːˈʔoːoʀ̟ kʰiː-ˈtˁoːov vaɟɟavˈdeːel
ʔɛloːˈhiːim beːen hɔːˈʔoːoʀ̟ wuˈveːen17 haːˈħoːʃɛχ]

[vaɟˈɟaːaʀ̟ ʔɛloːˈhiːim ʔɛθ-hɔːˈʔoːoʀ̟ kkʰiː-ˈtˁoːov vaɟɟavˈddeːel

ʔɛloːˈhiːim bbeːen hɔːˈʔoːoʀ̟ wuˈveːen haːˈħoːʃɛχ]

ִ‫י־ע ֶרב‬
ֶ ‫הִוֶ֣יְ ה‬
ָּֽ ַ ‫אֹור ִי֔ ֹוםִוְ ַל ֶ֖ח ֶשְךִקראִלֹ֑יְ ל‬
ִ֙ ‫ֹלהיםִ׀ִל‬
ִ֤ ‫ִוַ יּ ְקראִ א‬ 5
‫ֹוםִא ָּֽחד׃‬
ֶ ‫י־ב ֶקרִי‬
ֶ֖ ‫ַוֶָּֽ֣יְ ה‬
[vaɟɟiqˈ̟ ʀ̟ɔː ʔɛloːˈhiːim lɔːˈʔoːoʀ̟ ˈjoːom valaːˈħoːʃɛχ ˈqɔ̟ ːʀ̟ɔː
ˈlɔːɔjlɔː ˌvaˑjhiː-ˈʕɛːʀ̟ɛv ˌvaˑjhiː-ˈvoːqɛ̟ ʀ̟ ˈjoːom ʔɛːˈħɔːɔð]

15
A geminated yod is pronounced as a voiced palatal stop [ɟ]: §I.1.10.
16
In [ˌvaˑjhiː] there is orthoepic lengthening of the vowel before two
weak consonants in contact: §I.2.10.
17
Word-initial ‫ וּ‬is pronounced [wu]: §I.1.6.
 Summary and Sample Transcriptions 617

ִ‫יןִמים‬
ֶ֖ ַ ‫יִמ ְב ֹּ֔דילִב‬
ַ ‫ֹוְךִה ֹ֑מיםִויה‬
ַ ‫ִבת‬ ְ ‫ֹלהיםִ יְ היִר ֶָּ֖ק ַיע‬
֔ ‫אמרִא‬
ֶ ‫ִוַ יּ‬ 6
ִ ‫ל ָּֽמים׃‬
[vaɟˈɟoːmɛʀ̟ ʔɛloːˈhiːim jiˈhiː ʀ̟ɔːˈqi̟ ːjaʕ baˈθoːoχ hamˈmɔːjim
viːˈhiː mavˈdiːil ˈbeːen ˈmaːjim lɔːˈmɔːjim]

[vaɟˈɟoːmɛʀ̟ ʔɛloːˈhiːim jiˈhiː ʀ̟ɔːˈqi̟ ːjaʕ bbaˈθoːoχ hamˈmɔːjim

viːˈhiː mavˈddiːil ˈbbeːen ˈmaːjim lɔːˈmɔːjim]

ִ‫ִא ֶש ִ֙ר ִמ ַת ַחת‬

ֲ ‫יןִה ִַ֙מי ִ֙ם‬
ַ ‫לִב‬
ִ֤ ‫ִאת־הרק ַיעִַ֒וַ יַּ ְב ַֹּ֗ד‬
ֶ ‫ים‬
֮ ‫ִ וַ ַיּ ַעשִאֹלה‬ 7
ִ ‫י־כן׃‬
ָּֽ ‫םִא ֶ ֶ֖שרִמ ַעלִלר ָֹּ֑ק ַיע ִָּֽוַיְ ה‬
ֲ ‫יןִה ַ֔מי‬
ַ ‫לר ֔ק ַיעִוּב‬
[vaɟˈɟaːʕas ʔɛloːˈhiːim ʔɛθ-hɔːʀ̟ɔːˈqi̟ ːjaʕ vaɟɟavˈdeːel beːen
hamˈmaːjim ʔaˈʃɛːɛʀ̟ mitˈtʰaːħaθ lɔːʀ̟ɔːˈqi̟ ːjaʕ wuˈveːen
hamˈmaːjim ʔaˈʃɛːɛʀ̟ meːˈʕaːal lɔːʀ̟ɔːˈqi̟ ːjaʕ ˌvaˑjhiː-ˈχeːen]

[vaɟˈɟaːʕas ʔɛloːˈhiːim ʔɛθ-hɔːʀ̟ɔːˈqi̟ ːjaʕ vaɟɟavˈddeːel bbeːen

hamˈmaːjim ʔaˈʃɛːɛʀ̟ mitˈtʰaːħaθ lɔːʀ̟ɔːˈqi̟ ːjaʕ wuˈveːen
hamˈmaːjim ʔaˈʃɛːɛʀ̟ meːˈʕaːal lɔːʀ̟ɔːˈqi̟ ːjaʕ ˌvaˑjhiː-ˈχeːen]

ִ‫י־ב ֶקר ִיֹום‬

ֶ֖ ‫י־ע ֶרב ִַוֶָּֽ֣יְ ה‬
ֶ ‫ִלר ֶָּ֖ק ַיע ִש ֹ֑מים ִַוֶָּֽ֣יְ ה‬
ָּֽ ‫ֹלהים‬
ֶ֛ ‫ִ וַ יּ ְקרא ִא‬ 8
‫ש ָּֽני‬
[vaɟɟiqˈ̟ ʀ̟ɔː ʔɛloːˈhiːim ˌlɔːʀ̟ɔːˈqi̟ ːjaʕ ʃɔːˈmɔːjim ˌvaˑjhiː-ˈʕɛːʀ̟ev
ˌvaˑjhiː-ˈvoːqɛ̟ ʀ̟ ˈjoːom ʃeːˈniː]

ִ‫ֹוםִא ֔חד‬
ֶ ‫ִאל־מק‬
ֶ ‫תִהש ִַ֙מי ִ֙ם‬
ַ ‫וִּה ִַ֜מיםִמ ַ ִ֤ת ַח‬
ַ ‫ֹלהיםִיקו‬
ַ֗ ‫אמרִא‬
ֶ ‫ִוַ יּ‬ 9
‫י־כן׃‬
ָּֽ ‫הִוֶָּֽ֣יְ ה‬
ַ ‫הִהיַּ ב ֹ֑ש‬
ַ ‫וְ תר ֶ ֶ֖א‬
618 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

[vaɟˈɟoːmɛʀ̟ ʔɛloːˈhiːim jiqq

̟ ɔ̟ ːˈvuː hamˈmaːjim mitˈtʰaːħaθ
haʃʃɔːˈmaːjim ʔɛl-mɔːˈqo ̟ ːom ʔɛːˈħɔːɔð vaθeːʀ̟ɔːˈʔɛː haɟɟab-
bɔːˈʃɔː ˌvaˑjhiː-ˈχeːen]

ִ‫הִה ַ ֶ֖מיםִקראִיַ ֹ֑מים‬

ַ ‫ץִוּלמ ְקו‬
ְ ‫ִא ֶר‬
ֶ֔ ‫יםִ׀ִליַּ בש ִ֙ה‬
ַ ‫ֹלה‬
ִ֤ ‫ ִ וַ יּ ְקראִא‬10
‫י־טֹוב׃‬
ָּֽ ‫ֹלהיםִכּ‬
ֶ֖ ‫וַ ַיּ ְֶ֣ראִא‬
[vaɟɟiqˈ̟ ʀ̟ɔː ʔɛloːˈhiːim laɟɟabbɔːˈʃɔː ˈʔɛːʀ̟ɛsˁ wulmiqˈ̟ veː
hamˈmaːjim qɔ̟ ːˈʀ̟ɔː jamˈmiːim vaɟˈɟaːaʀ̟ ʔɛloːˈhiːim kʰiː-
ˈtˁoːov]

[vaɟɟiqˈ̟ ʀ̟ɔː ʔɛloːˈhiːim laɟɟabbɔːˈʃɔː ˈʔɛːʀ̟ɛsˁ wulmiqˈ̟ veː

hamˈmaːjim qɔ̟ ːˈʀ̟ɔː jamˈmiːim vaɟˈɟaːaʀ̟ ʔɛloːˈhiːim kkʰiː-
ˈtˁoːov]

ִ‫בִמזְ ר ַיע ִֶ֔ז ַרעִעץ‬

ַ ‫אִע ֶש‬
ֵ֚ ‫ִֹּד ֶש‬
֔ ֶ ‫יםִת ְד ִ֤שאִה ִ֙א ֶר ִ֙ץ‬
ָּֽ ַ ‫ֹלה‬
ַ֗ ‫אמרִא‬
ֶ ‫ ִ וַ יּ‬11
‫י־כן׃‬
ָּֽ ‫ץִוֶָּֽ֣יְ ה‬
ַ ‫ֹוִעל־ה ֹ֑א ֶר‬
ַ ‫עֹו־ב‬
ֶ֖ ‫ֹוִא ֶשרִזַ ְר‬
ֲ ֔‫ִלמינ‬
ְ ‫הִּפ ִ֙רי‬
ְ ‫ְּפ ִ֞ריִ ִ֤ע ֶש‬
 Summary and Sample Transcriptions 619

[vaɟˈɟoːmɛʀ̟ ʔɛloːˈhiːim ˌtʰaˑðˈʃeː18 hɔːˈʔɔːʀ̟ɛsˁ ˈdɛːʃɛː ˈʕeːsɛv

mɑzˈrˁiːjaʕ19 ˈzɛːʀ̟aʕ ˈʕeːesˁ pʰaˈʀ̟iː ˈʕoːsɛˑ ppʰaˈʀ̟iː20 lamiːˈnoː
ʔaˈʃɛːɛʀ̟ zɑrˁʕoː21-ˈvoː ʕal-hɔːˈʔɔːʀ̟ɛsˁ ˌvaˑjhiː-ˈχeːen]

[vaɟˈɟoːmɛʀ̟ ʔɛloːˈhiːim ˌttʰaˑðˈʃeː hɔːˈʔɔːʀ̟ɛsˁ ˈddɛːʃɛː ˈʕeːsɛv

mɑzˈrˁiːjaʕ ˈzɛːʀ̟aʕ ˈʕeːesˁ ppʰaˈʀ̟iː ˈʕoːsɛˑ ppʰaˈʀ̟iː lamiːˈnoː
ʔaˈʃɛːɛʀ̟ zɑrˁʕoː-ˈvoː ʕal-hɔːˈʔɔːʀ̟ɛsˁ ˌvaˑjhiː-ˈχeːen]

‫ץִע ֶשה־‬
ָּֽ ‫ִלמ ֔ינהוִּוְ ע‬
ְ ‫בִמזְ ִ֤ר ַיעִ ִ֙ ֶז ַר ִ֙ע‬
ַ ‫ץִֹּד ֶשאִע ֶש‬
ֶּ֠ ֶ ‫ ִוַ תֹוצאִה ִ֜א ֶר‬12
‫י־טֹוב׃‬
ָּֽ ‫ֹלהיםִכּ‬
ֶ֖ ‫ֹוִלמינֹ֑הוִּוַ ַיּ ְֶ֣ראִא‬
ְ ‫עֹו־ב‬
ֶ֖ ‫ְּפ ֶ֛ריִ ֲא ֶשרִזַ ְר‬
[vattʰoːˈsˁeː hɔːˈʔɔːʀ̟ɛsˁ ˈdɛːʃɛː ˈʕeːsɛv mɑzˈrˁiːjaʕ ˈzɛːʀ̟aʕ
lamiːˈneːhuː veˈʕeːesˁ ˈʕoːsɛˑ ppʰaˈʀ̟iː ʔaˈʃɛːɛʀ̟ zɑrˁʕoː-ˈvoː
lamiːˈneːhuː vaɟˈɟaːaʀ̟ ʔɛloːˈhiːim kʰiː-ˈtˁoːov]

[vattʰoːˈsˁeː hɔːˈʔɔːʀ̟ɛsˁ ˈddɛːʃɛː ˈʕeːsɛv mɑzˈrˁiːjaʕ ˈzɛːʀ̟aʕ

lamiːˈneːhuː veˈʕeːesˁ ˈʕoːsɛˑ ppʰaˈʀ̟iː ʔaˈʃɛːɛʀ̟ zɑrˁʕoː-ˈvoː
lamiːˈneːhuː vaɟˈɟaːaʀ̟ ʔɛloːˈhiːim kkʰiː-ˈtˁoːov]

18
Orthoepic lengthening of the vowel before two weak consonants in
contact: §I.2.10.
19
The pharyngealized alveolar realization of resh [rˁ] is conditioned by
contact with the preceding alveolar: §I.1.20. Pataḥ is pronounced as
back [ɑ] in the environment of pharyngealized consonants: §I.2.1.3.
20
Deḥiq involving the compression of the vowel and compensatory gem-
ination of the following consonant: §I.2.8.1.2.
21
The pharyngealized alveolar realization of resh [rˁ] is conditioned by
the fact that it is preceded by an alveolar consonant in the same syllable
and/or the same foot: §I.1.20.
620 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

‫ישי׃‬
ָּֽ ‫ֹוםִשל‬
ְ ‫י־ב ֶקרִי‬
ֶ֖ ‫י־ע ֶרבִ ָּֽוַיְ ה‬
ֶ ‫ ִָּֽוַיְ ה‬13
[ˌvaˑjhiː-ˈʕɛːʀ̟ev ˌvaˑjhiː-ˈvoːqɛ̟ ʀ̟ ˈjoːom ʃaliːˈʃiː]

I.5.4.2. Psalm 1

Oral Performances
Dagesh forte—dagesh lene reading with-
out melody (Alex Foreman
https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0163.10)

Dagesh forte—dagesh lene reading with

Sefardi melody (Alex Foreman
https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0163.11)

Extended dagesh forte reading without

melody (Alex Foreman
https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0163.12)

Extended dagesh forte reading with Se-

fardi melody (Alex Foreman
https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0163.13)
 Summary and Sample Transcriptions 621

ִ‫ִוּב ֶד ֶרְך‬
ְ ‫ִב ֲע ַצַ֪ת ְִר ָׁ֫שעים‬
ַ ‫ִ ַא ְ ָּֽשרי־ה ַ֗איש ִ ֲא ֶ ִ֤שר ִ׀ ִלא ִה ַל ְ֮ך‬ 1
‫בִל ַ֗ציםִלאִי ָּֽשב׃‬
ּ֝ ‫מֹוש‬
ַ ‫דִוּב‬
ְ ‫ַ ַ֭חטאיםִלאִע ֹ֑מ‬
[ˌʔaːˌʃaˑʀ̟eː22-hɔːˈʔiːiʃ ʔaˈʃɛːɛʀ̟ ˈloː hɔːˈlaːaχ baːʕɑˈsˁɑːɑθ
ʀ̟aʃɔːˈʕiːim wuvˈðɛːʀ̟ɛχ ħɑttˁɔːˈʔiːim ˈloː ʕɔːˈmɔːɔð
wuvmoːˈʃaːav leːˈsˁiːim ˈloː jɔːˈʃɔːɔv]

[ˌʔaːˌʃaˑʀ̟eː-hɔːˈʔiːiʃ ʔaˈʃɛːɛʀ̟ ˈloː hɔːˈlaːaχ bbaːʕɑˈsˁɑːɑθ

ʀ̟aʃɔːˈʕiːim wuvˈðɛːʀ̟ɛχ ħɑttˁɔːˈʔiːim ˈloː ʕɔːˈmɔːɔð
wuvmoːˈʃaːav leːˈsˁiːim ˈloː jɔːˈʃɔːɔv]

ִ ‫הִח ְפצֹוִוָּּֽ ְבתֹורתֹוִיֶ ְה ַ֗ ֶגּהִיֹומםִו ָּֽליְ לה׃‬

ֶָׁ֫ ‫הו‬
ַ֗ ְ‫תֹורתִי‬
ַ ‫ִ ִ֤כּיִאםִ ְב‬ 2
[ˈkʰiː ˈʔiːim baθoːˈʀ̟aːaθ ʔaðoːˈnɔːɔj ħɛfˈsˁoː ˌwuˑvθoːʀ̟ɔːˈθoː23
jɛhˈgɛː joːˈmɔːɔm vɔːˈlɔːɔjlɔː]

[ˈkkʰiː ˈʔiːim bbaθoːˈʀ̟aːaθ ʔaðoːˈnɔːɔj ħɛfˈsˁoː ˌwuˑvθoːʀ̟ɔːˈθoː

jɛhˈggɛː joːˈmɔːɔm vɔːˈlɔːɔjlɔː]

ִ‫ןִבע ַ֗תֹו‬
ְ ‫םִא ֶ ִ֤שרִּפ ְריֹוִ׀ִי ֵּ֬ת‬
ֲ ‫ל־ּפ ְל ָׁ֫גיִמי‬
ַ ‫וּלִע‬
ָּֽ ַ ‫הִכּע ֮ץ ִש ַ֪ת‬
ְ ‫ִ ְ ָּֽוה ַ֗י‬ 3
ִ ‫לִא ֶשר־יַ ֲע ֶשהִיַ ְצ ָּֽל ַיח׃‬
ֲ ‫הוִּלא־י ֹ֑בֹולִוְ ֶ֖כ‬
ָּֽ ‫וְ על‬

22
The short vowel in the first syllable is lengthened by a merkha to
condition the reading of the following shewa as vocalic: §I.2.5.8.5. The
vocalic shewa has gaʿya, which causes it to be read as half-long: §I.2.9.
23
The initial ‫ וּ‬before a consonant with silent shewa is normally
pronounced [wu] (§I.1.6.), but is here pronounced half-long due to the
fact that it has minor gaʿya: §I.2.8.2.2.
622 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

[ˌvɔˑhɔːˈjɔː24 kʰeˈʕeːesˁ ʃɔːˈθuːul ˌʕaˑl-pʰalˈʁeː25 ˈmɔːjim

ʔaˈʃɛːɛʀ̟ pʰiʀ̟ˈjoː jitˈtʰeːen biʕitˈtʰoː vɔʕɔːˈleːhuː ˌloː -jibˈboːol
26

vaˈχoːol ʔaʃɛʀ̟-jaːʕaˈsɛː jɑsˁˈliːjaħ]

[ˌvɔˑhɔːˈjɔː kkʰeˈʕeːesˁ ʃɔːˈθuːul ˌʕaˑl-ppʰalˈʁeː ˈmɔːjim ʔaˈʃɛːɛʀ̟

ppʰiʀ̟ˈjoː jitˈtʰeːen bbiʕitˈtʰoː vɔʕɔːˈleːhuː ˌloː-jibˈboːol
vaˈχoːol ʔaʃɛʀ̟-jaːʕaˈsɛː jɑsˁˈliːjaħ]

ִ ‫נוִּר ַוּח׃‬
ָּֽ ‫ץִא ֶשר־ת ְֹּד ֶפ‬
ִ ‫ם־כּ ַ֗מ‬
ַּ֝ ‫ִלא־כןִה ְרש ֹ֑עיםִכּיִא‬ 4
[loː-ˈχeːen hɔːʀ̟aʃɔːˈʕiːim27 ˈkʰiː ʔim-kʰamˈmoːosˁ28 ˌʔaˑʃɛʀ̟29-
tʰiddaˈfɛːɛnnuː ˈʀ̟uːwaħ]

[loː-ˈχeːen hɔːʀ̟aʃɔːˈʕiːim ˈkkʰiː ʔim-kkʰamˈmoːosˁ ˌʔaˑʃɛʀ̟-

ttʰiddaˈfɛːɛnnuː ˈʀ̟uːwaħ]

ִ‫ִב ֲע ַדת‬
ַ ‫ִבמ ְש ֹּ֑פט ִוְ ַּ֝חט ַ֗אים‬
ַ ‫ִ ַעל־כִּ֤ן ִ׀ ִלא־יָּקמוּ ְ ִַ֭רשעים‬ 5
ִ ‫ַצֹּדי ָָּּֽקים׃‬

24
The shewa is pronounced half-long due to its being read with gaʿya:
§I.2.9.
25
The vowel in ‫ ַ ָּֽעל־‬is read with minor gaʿya and so is half-long:
§I.2.8.2.2.
26
The major gaʿya on the long vowel in the open syllable marks second-
ary stress: §I.2.8.2.1.
27
The shewa on a resh after the definite article is vocalic (§I.2.5.7.4.),
although by default a shewa after a long vowel is silent (§I.2.5.6.).
28
The first element of the composite accent reviaʿ mugrash does not
lengthen the short vowel in the first syllable: §I.2.12.
29
The ḥaṭef pataḥ is half-long since it has gaʿya: §I.2.9.
 Summary and Sample Transcriptions 623

[ʕal-ˈkʰeːen ̟ ːmuː
loː-jɔːˈqu ʀ̟aʃɔːˈʕiːim bammiʃˈpʰɔːɔtˁ
vaħɑttˁɔːˈʔiːim baːʕaˈðaːaθ sˁɑddiːˈqi̟ ːim]

̟ ːmuː ʀ̟aʃɔːˈʕiːim bbammiʃˈppʰɔːɔtˁ

[ʕal-ˈkkʰeːen loː-jɔːˈqu
vaħɑttˁɔːˈʔiːim bbaːʕaˈðaːaθ sˁɑddiːˈqi̟ ːim]

ִ ‫אבד‬
ָּֽ ‫ְךִרשעיםִת‬
ְ ‫ְךִצֹּדי ָֹּ֑קיםִוְ ֶ ֶ֖ד ֶר‬
ַ ‫הִֹּד ֶר‬
ֶ ‫ִ ָּֽכּי־יֹוד ַע ְִיַ֭הו‬ 6
[ˌkʰiː-joːˈðeːjaʕ ʔaðoːˈnɔːɔj ˈdɛːʀ̟ɛχ sˁɑddiːˈqi̟ ːim vaˈðɛːʀ̟ɛχ
ʀ̟aʃɔːˈʕiːim tʰoːˈveːeð]

[ˌkkʰiː-joːˈðeːjaʕ ʔaðoːˈnɔːɔj ˈddɛːʀ̟ɛχ sˁɑddiːˈqi̟ ːim vaˈðɛːʀ̟ɛχ

ʀ̟aʃɔːˈʕiːim ttʰoːˈveːeð]
 REFERENCES AND ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS
A = Aleppo Codex

BHQ = Biblia Hebraica Quinta

BHS = Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 4th ed.

BL = British Library, London

Bod. = Bodleian Library, University of Oxford

C = The Cairo Codex of the Prophets

CUL = Cambridge University Library

JTS ENA = Jewish Theological Seminary, Elkan Nathan Adler

collection

L = Codex Leningradensis, St. Petersburg (Leningrad), National

Library of Russia, I Firkovitch Evr. I B 19a

LB = Late Babylonian (vocalization)

LG = Lewis-Gibson Genizah collection, Cambridge University

Library

NLR = National Library of Russia, St. Petersburg

MB = Middle Babylonian (vocalization)

OB = Old Babylonian (vocalization)

S = Jerusalem National and University Library, Heb. 24, 5702

(formerly MS Sassoon 507)
 References and Abbreviations 625

T-S = Taylor-Schechter Genizah collection, Cambridge Uni-

versity Library

REFERENCES
Abraham Ibn Ezra. 1827. ‫ספר ִצחות‬. Edited by Gabriel Hirsch
Lippmann. Fürth: Ṣirndorfer.
Adriaen, Marcus. 1969–1970. S. Hieronymi Presbyteri Opera: Pars
I: Opera Exegetica 6: Commentarii in Prophetas Minores. 2 vol-
umes. Turnhout: Brepols.
Akun, Natali. 2010. ‘ִ,‫העברית ִשבפי ִיהודי ִמרוקו ִ(קהילות ִתאפילאלת‬
‫ִתורתִההגה‬:)‫’מראכּשִומכּנאס‬. Ph.D. thesis. Jerusalem: Hebrew
University.
Albrektson, Bertil. 1978. ‘Reflections on the Emergence of a
Standard Text of the Hebrew Bible’. In Congress Volume, 49–
65. Vetus Testamentum Supplement 29. Leiden: Brill.
Allony, Nehemiah. 1963. ‘ִ‫ספר ִהקולות—כתאב ִאלמצותאת ִלמשה ִבן‬
‫’אשר‬. Lĕšonénu 29: 9–23, 136–59.
———. 1964. ‘?‫’איזהוִ"הניקודִשלנו"ִבמחזורִויטרי‬. Beit Mikra 8: 135–
44.
———. 1965. ‘‫’סדרִהסימנים‬. Hebrew Union College Annual 35: 1-40
(Hebrew section).
———. 1972. ‘‫’השיטה ִהאנאגרמטית ִשל ִהמילונוּת ִהעברית ִבס׳ ִיצירה‬.
Temirin 1: 63–99.
———. 1973. ‘"‫’עלי ִבן ִיהודה ִהנזיר ִוחיבורו ִ"יסודות ִהלשון ִהעברית‬.
Lĕšonénu 34: 75–105, 187–205.
———. 1979. ‘ִ‫ספרִהתורהִוהמצחףִבקריאתִהתורהִבציבורִבעדתִהרבנים‬
‫’ובעדתִהקראים‬. Beit Mikra 78: 321–34.
———. 1982a. ‘‫’זמןִחיבורוִשלִספרִיצירה‬. Temirin 2: 41–50.
626 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

———. 1982b. ‘‫’ספר ִיצירה ִנוסח ִהרס"ג ִבצורת ִמגילה ִמגניזת ִקהיר‬.
Temirin 2: 9–29.
Allony, Nehemiah, and Israel Yeivin. 1985. ‘ִ‫מספרוּת ִהקֹולֹות‬
)‫’(אלמצותאת) ִ(ארבעה ִקטעים ִמגניזֹות ִקהיר—מארבעה ִחיבוּרים‬.
Lĕšonénu 48–49: 85–117.
Alvestad, Silje, and Lutz Edzard. 2009. La-Ḥšōḇ but La-Ḥǎzōr?:
Sonority, Optimality, and the Hebrew ‫פ׳׳ח‬ Forms.
Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, Bd. 66.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Ariel, Chanan. 2013. ‘Orthography: Biblical Hebrew’. In
Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, edited by
Geoffrey Khan, Shmuel Bolozky, Steven E. Fassberg, Gary
A. Rendsburg, Aaron D. Rubin, Ora R. Schwarzwald, and
Tamar Zewi, 2:940–48. Leiden–Boston: Brill.
———. 2020. ‘Three Methods of Preserving Guttural Consonants
ִ ‫’ ַה ְר‬. Journal of
in the Tiberian Tradition: ‫ ִוַ יְּ ַקנְ אוּ‬,ִ ‫ ִוּזֲ ַהב‬,ִ ‫עמּה‬
Semitic Studies 65: 137-146.
Arrant, Estara. 2020 (to appear). ‘An Exploratory Typology of
Near-Model and Non-Standard Tiberian Torah Manuscripts
from the Cairo Genizah’. In Studies in Semitic Vocalization
and Reading Traditions, edited by Aaron Hornkohl and
Geoffrey Khan. Cambridge Semitic Languages and Cultures
2. Cambridge: University of Cambridge & Open Book
Publishers.
Artom, Elia S. 1922. ‘La Pronuncia dell’ebraico presso gli Ebrei
della Tripolitania,’. Vessillo Israelitico 70: 5–6.
 References and Abbreviations 627

Avni, Gideon. 2014. The Byzantine-Islamic Transition in Palestine:

An Archaeological Approach. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Baalbakki, Ramzi. 2008. The Legacy of the Kitāb: Sībawayhi’s
Analytical Methods within the Context of the Arabic
Grammatical Theory. Leiden–Boston: Brill.
Bacher, Wilhelm. 1895a. ‘Jehuda Hadassi’s Hermeneutik und
Grammatik’. Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft
des Judentums 40: 109–26.
———. 1895b. ‘Le Grammairien Anonyme de Jérusalem’. Revue
des Études Juives 30: 232–56.
———. 1974. Die Anfänge der Hebräischen Grammatik. Die
Hebräische Sprachwissenschaft vom 10. bis Zum 16.
Jahrhundert. Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History
of Linguistic Science 4. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Baer, Seligmann, and Franz Delitzsch. 1890. Liber Jeremiae.
Leipzig: Tauchnitz.
Baer, Seligmann, and Hermann Leberecht Strack. 1879. Die
Dikduke Ha-Teamim des Ahron ben Moscheh ben Ascher und
andere alte grammatisch-massoretische Lehrstücke. Leipzig: L.
Pernoy.
Bar-Asher, Moshe. 1980. The Tradition of Mishnaic Hebrew in the
Communities of Italy (According to MS Paris 328-329).
Publications of the Hebrew University Language Traditions
Project 6. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University (in
Hebrew).
———. 1987. ‘The Different Traditions of Mishnaic Hebrew’. In
“Working with No Data”: Semitic and Egyptian Studies
Presented to Thomas O. Lambdin, edited by David M.
Golomb, 1–38. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns.
628 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

———. 2015. A Morphology of Mishnaic Hebrew. Introductions and

Noun Morphology. Part I. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute,
Academy of the Hebrew Language.
Barkat-Defradas, Melissa. 2011a. ‘Vowel Backing’. In
Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, edited by
Lutz Edzard and Rudolf de Jong. Online: Brill.
———. 2011b. ‘Vowel Raising’. In Encyclopedia of Arabic
Language and Linguistics, edited by Lutz Edzard and Rudolf
de Jong. Online: Brill.
Barr, James. 1968. Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old
Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
———. 1981. ‘A New Look at the Kethib-Qere’. Oudtestamentische
Studien 21: 19–37.
———. 1984. ‘Migraš in the Old Testament’. Journal of Semitic
Studies 29: 15–31.
Bauer, Hans, and Pontus Leander. 1922. Historische Grammatik
der Hebräischen Sprache des Alten Testaments. Halle: M.
Niemeyer.
Beit-Arié, Malachi. 1965. ‘‫’ניקודוִשלִמחזורִק׳׳קִוורמייזא‬. Lĕšonénu 29:
27–46, 80–102.
Beit-Arié, Malachi, Colette Sirat, and Mordechai Glatzer. 1997.
Codices Hebraicis Litteris Exarati quo Tempore Scripti Fuerint
Exhibentes. Monumenta Palaeographica Medii Aevi. Series
Hebraica. Turnhout–Paris–Jérusalem: Brepols, Institut de
Recherche et d’Histoire des Textes, CNRS, Académie Natio-
nale des Sciences et des Lettres d’Israël.
 References and Abbreviations 629

Bellem, Alex. 2007. ‘Towards a Comparative Typology of

Emphatics across Semitic and into Arabic Dialect
Phonology’. Ph.D. thesis, London: University of London.
Ben Yehuda, Eliezer. 1980. A Complete Dictionary of Ancient and
Modern Hebrew. Jerusalem: Makor.
Ben-David, Abba. 1957a. ‘?‫’מנַ יין ִהחלוקה ִלתנועות ִגדולות ִוקטנות‬.
Lĕšonénu 22: 7–35, 110–36.
———. 1957b. ‘?‫נפתלי‬-‫אשרִובן‬-‫’עלִמהִנחלקוִבן‬. Tarbiẕ 26: 384–409.
———. 1960. ‘‫’עלִניקודִתמוהִשלִפיוטִאחד‬. Tarbiẕ 29: 250–60.
Ben-David, Israel. 1995. Contextual and Pausal Forms in Biblical
Hebrew. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University (in
Hebrew).
Ben-Ḥayyim, Zeev. 1946. ‘‫’הוראותִוצורות‬. Lĕšonénu 14: 190–97.
———. 1954. Studies in the Traditions of the Hebrew Language.
Madrid: Instituto Arias Montano.
———. 1957a-77. The Literary and Oral Tradition of Hebrew and
Aramaic amongst the Samaritans. 5 vols. Jerusalem: Bialik
Institute, Academy of the Hebrew Language (in Hebrew).
———. 1957b. ‘‫’מסורהִומסורת‬. Lešonénu 21: 283–92.
———. 1958. ‘ִ‫מסורתִהמשומרוניםִוזיקתהִלמסורתִהלשוןִשלִמגילותִים‬
‫’המלחִוללשוןִחז׳׳ל‬. Lĕšonénu 22: 223-245.
———. 2000. A Grammar of Samaritan Hebrew: Based on the
Recitation of the Law in Comparison with the Tiberian and
Other Jewish Traditions. With assistance from Abraham Tal.
Jerusalem–Winona Lake: Hebrew University Magnes Press,
Eisenbrauns.
Bergsträsser, Gotthelf. 1918. Hebräische Grammatik. Mit
Benutzung der von E. Kautzsch Bearbeiten 28. Auflage von
630 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Wilhelm Gesenius’ Hebräischer Grammatik. 2 vols. Leipzig:

F.C.W. Vogel.
Berkel, Maaike van. 2014. ‘Reconstructing Archival Practices in
Abbasid Baghdad’. Journal of Abbasid Studies 1: 7–22.
Berkovits, Rochele. 1993. ‘Progressive Utterance-Final
Lengthening in Syllables with Final Fricatives’. Language
and Speech 36: 89–98.
———. 1994. ‘Durational Effects in Final Lengthening, Gapping
and Contrastive Stress’. Language and Speech 37: 237–50.
Birkeland, Harris. 1940. Altarabische Pausalformen. Skrifter utgit
av det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo. II. Historisk-
Filosofisk Klasse 4. Oslo: Dybwad.
Bīrūnī, Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad al-. 1878. Chronologie
Orientalischer Völker von Albêrûnî. Edited by Eduard Sachau.
Leipzig: F.A. Brockhaus.
Blanc, Haim. 1964. Communal Dialects in Baghdad. Harvard
Middle Eastern Monographs 10. Cambridge MA.
Blapp, Samuel. 2017. ‘The Non-Standard Tiberian Hebrew
Language Tradition According to Bible Manuscripts from
the Cairo Genizah’. Ph.D. thesis. Cambridge: University of
Cambridge.
———. 2018. ‘The Use of Dageš in the Non-Standard Tiberian
Manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible from the Cairo Genizah’.
In Studies in Semitic Linguistics and Manuscripts: A Liber
Discipulorum in Honour of Professor Geoffrey Khan, edited by
Nadia Vidro, Ronny Vollandt, Esther-Miriam Wagner, and
Judith Olszowy-Schlanger, 132–50. Uppsala: University of
Uppsala.
 References and Abbreviations 631

Blau, Joshua, and Simon Hopkins. 1985. ‘A Vocalized Judaeo-

Arabic Letter From The Cairo Geniza’. Jerusalem Studies in
Arabic and Islam 6: 417–76.
Blevins, Juliette. 2017. ‘Areal Sound Patterns: From Perceptual
Magnets to Stone Soup’. In The Cambridge Handbook of
Areal Linguistics, edited by Raymond Hickey. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bloom, Jonathan. 2001. Paper before Print: The History and Impact
of Paper in the Islamic World. New Haven-London: Yale
University Press.
———. 2010. ‘Literary and Oral Cultures’. In The New Cambridge
History of Islam, V: Islamic Cultures and Societies to the End
of the Eighteenth Century, edited by Robert Irwin, 668–81.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Borjian, Habib. 2012. ‘Judeo-Kashani: A Central Iranian Plateau
Dialect’. Journal of the American Oriental Society 132: 1–21.
Bosch, Anna. 1996. ‘Prominence at Two Levels: Stress versus
Pitch Prominence in North Welsh’. Journal of Celtic
Linguistics 5: 121–65.
Bosch, Anna, and Caroline Wiltshire. 1993. ‘The Licensing of
Prosodic Prominence in Tamil’. Third Annual Formal
Linguistics Society of Midamerica Conference, 1–15.
Boyarin, Daniel. 1988. ‘4ִ ‫’ללקסיקון ִהתלמודי‬. In Studies in Hebrew
and Arabic in Memory of Dov Eron, edited by Aron Dotan,
63–75. Teʿuda 6. Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University.
Bravmann, Max. 1934. Materialien und Untersuchungen zu den
Phonetischen Lehren der Araber. Göttingen: Dieterichsche
Universitäts Buchdruckerei.
632 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Breuer, Mordechai. 1971. ‘ִ‫נוּסחִהטעמיםִב”כּתר“ִלאֹורִספרֹוִשלִישראל‬

‫’ייבין‬. Lĕšonénu 35: 85–98, 175–91.
———. 1982. ‫טעמי ִהמקרא ִבכ"א ִספרים ִובספרי ִאמ"ת‬. Jerusalem:
Ḥorev.
———. 1997. ‘‫’כתיבִוקרי‬. In Hebrew Through the Ages: In Memory
of Shoshanna Bahat, edited by Moshe Bar-Asher, 7–13.
Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language.
Breuer, Yochanan. 2013. ‘Amoraic Hebrew’. In Encyclopedia of
Hebrew Language and Linguistics, edited by Geoffrey Khan,
Shmuel Bolozky, Steven E. Fassberg, Gary A. Rendsburg,
Aaron D. Rubin, Ora R. Schwarzwald, and Tamar Zewi,
1:102–7. Leiden–Boston: Brill.
Brockelmann, Carl. 1908. Grundriss der Vergleichenden Grammatik
der Semitischen Sprachen. 2 vols. Berlin: Reuther &
Reichard.
Brønno, Einar. 1943. Studien über Hebräische Morphologie und
Vokalismus auf Grundlage der Mercatischen Fragmente der
Zweiten Kolumne der Hexapla des Origenes. Abhandlungen
für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 28. Leipzig: F. A. Brock-
haus.
———. 1970. Die Aussprache der Hebräischen Laryngale nach
Zeugnissen des Hieronymus. Aarhus: Universitetsforlget.
Browman, Catherine, and Louis Goldstein. 1989. ‘Articulatory
Gestures as Phonological Units’. Phonology 6: 201–52.
Bruck, Amnon. 2013. ‘Diphthongs: Pre-Modern Hebrew’. In
Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, edited by
Geoffrey Khan, Shmuel Bolozky, Steven E. Fassberg, Gary
 References and Abbreviations 633

A. Rendsburg, Aaron D. Rubin, Ora R. Schwarzwald, and

Tamar Zewi, 1:738. Leiden–Boston: Brill.
Busi, Giulio. 1984. Horayat Ha-Qoreʾ: Una Grammatica Ebraica del
Secolo XI. Judentum und Umwelt 11. Frankfurt am Main:
Peter Lang.
Bybee, Joan L. 2015. Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Carr, David. 2005. Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of
Scripture and Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Charlap, Luba. 1999. ִ‫ ִמסורת‬: ‫תורת ִהלשון ִשל ִרבי ִאברהם ִאבן־עזרא‬
‫וחידוש‬. Beer-Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
Press.
Chiesa, Bruno. 1978. L’Antico Testamento Ebraico secondo la
Tradizione Palestinese. Torino: Bottega d’Erasmo.
Chomsky, William. 1952. David Ḳimḥi’s Hebrew Grammar
(Mikhlol). New York: Bloch Publishing Company.
Ciancaglini, Claudia A. 2008. Iranian Loanwords in Syriac.
Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Clanchy, Michael T. 2013. From Memory to Written Record:
England, 1066-1307. 3rd ed. Chichester–Malden, MA: John
Wiley & Sons.
Coetzee, Andries W. 1999. Tiberian Hebrew Phonology: Focussing
on Consonant Clusters. Studia Semitica Neerlandica 38. As-
sen: Uitgeverij Van Gorcum.
Cohen, David. 1975. Le Parler Arabe des Juifs de Tunis. Tome II,
Étude Linguistique. Janua Linguarum. Series Practica 161.
The Hague: Mouton.
634 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Cohen, Maimon. 2007. The Kethiḇ and Qeri System in the Biblical
Text: A Linguistic Analysis of the Various Traditions Based on
the Manuscript ‘Keter Aram Tsova’. Jerusalem: Magnes Press,
Hebrew University (in Hebrew).
Cohen, Marcel. 1912. Le Parler Arabe des Juifs d’Alger. Collection
Linguistique (Société de linguistique de Paris) 4. Paris: H.
Champion.
Cohen, Menachem. 1982a. ‘Systems of Light Gaʿyot in Medieval
Biblical Manuscripts and Their Importance for the History
of the Tiberian Systems of Notation’. Textus 10: 44–83.
———. 1982b. ‘ִ‫אשרִאתִכ׳׳חִקהירִשלִהנביאים?ִעיון‬-‫האמנםִכתבִמשהִבן‬
‫’מחודשִלאורִנוהגוִשלִכה׳׳יִבהטעמתִהמשרתִלזרקא‬. Alei Sefer 10:
5-12.
———. 1987. ‘ִ‫מסורתית' ִושיעור‬-‫שיטות ִשל ִהטעמה ִטברנית ִ'חוץ‬-‫תת‬
‫ידִשלִמקראִבימיִהביניים‬-‫’תפוצתןִבכתבי‬. Lĕšonénu 51: 188-206.
Combe, Étienne, Jean Sauvaget, and Gaston Wiet, eds. 1931-
1991. Répertoire Chronologique d’Épigraphie Arabe. Le Caire:
l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale.
Cross, Frank Moore, and David Noel Freedman. 1952. Early
Hebrew Orthography: A Study of the Epigraphic Evidence.
American Oriental Series 36. New Haven: American
Oriental Society.
Crosswhite, Katherine. 2000. ‘Vowel Reduction in Russian: A
Unified Account of Standard, Dialectal, and “dissimilative"
Patterns’. University of Rochester Working Papers in the
Language Sciences 1: 107–72.
———. 2001. Vowel Reduction in Optimality Theory. Outstanding
Dissertations in Linguistics. New York–London: Routledge.
 References and Abbreviations 635

———. 2004. ‘Vowel Reduction’. In Phonetically Based Phonology,

edited by Bruce Hayes, Robert Kirchner, and Donca
Steriade, 191–231. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Crowther, Daniel. 2018. ‘Qumrān and Qurʾān’. Journal for the
Study of the Old Testament 43: 109–29.
Dalman, Gustaf. 1894. Grammatik des Jüdisch-Palästinischen
Aramäisch. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung.
DeCaen, Vincent. 2003. ‘Hebrew Sonority and Tiberian Contact
Anaptyxis: The Case of Verbs Primæ Gutturalis’. Journal of
Semitic Studies 48: 35–46.
DeCaen, Vincent, and B. Elan Dresher. 2020 (to appear). ‘Pausal
Forms and Prosodic Structure in Tiberian Hebrew’. In
Studies in Semitic Vocalization and Reading Traditions, edited
by Aaron Hornkohl and Geoffrey Khan. Cambridge Semitic
Languages and Cultures 3. Cambridge: University of
Cambridge & Open Book Publishers.
Delattre, Pierre, and Margaret Hohenberg. 2009. ‘Duration as a
Cue to the Tense/Lax Distinction in German Unstressed
Vowels’. International Review of Applied Linguistics in
Language Teaching 6: 367–390.
Delgado, José Martínez. 2020 (to appear). ‘The Prosodic Models
of Andalusian Hebrew Metrics’. In Studies in Semitic
Vocalization and Reading Traditions, edited by Aaron
Hornkohl and Geoffrey Khan. Cambridge Semitic
Languages and Cultures 3. Cambridge: University of
Cambridge & Open Book Publishers.
636 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Derenbourg, Hartwig. 1889. Le Livre de Sîbawaihi; Traité de

Grammaire Arabe. Vol. 2. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale.
Derenbourg, Joseph. 1871. Manuel du Lecteur, d’un Auteur In-
connu : Publié d’après un Manuscrit Venu du Yémen et Accom-
pagné de Notes. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale.
———. 1886. Kitāb Al-Lumaʿ. Le Livre des Parterres Fleuris:
Grammaire Hébraïque en Arabe d’Abou ’l-Walid Merwan Ibn
Djanah de Cordoue. Paris: F. Vieweg.
Dietrich, Manfried. 1968. Neue Palästinisch Punktierte
Bibelfragmente. Leiden: Brill.
Díez Macho, Alejandro. 1956. ‘Un Manuscrito Hebreo
Protomasoretico y Nueva Teoria acerca de los Llamados
MSS. Ben-Naftali’. Estudios Biblicos 15: 187–213.
———. 1963. ‘A New List of So-Called “Ben Naftali”
Manuscripts’. In Hebrew and Semitic Studies. Presented to
Godfrey Rolles Driver in Celebration of his Seventieth Birthday,
edited by D. Winton Thomas and William D. McHardy, 16–
52. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
———. 1971. Manuscritos Hebreos y Arameos de la Biblia:
Contribución al Estudio de las Diversas Tradiciones del Tecto
del Antiguo Testamento. Rome: Institutum Patristicum
Augustinianum.
Dotan, Aron. 1953. ‘‫’שמותיו ִשל ִהשוא ִבראשיתו ִשל ִהדקדוק ִהעברי‬.
Lĕšonénu 19: 13–30.
———. 1964. ‘The Minor Gaʿya’. Textus 4: 55–75.
———. 1967. The Diqduqé Haṭṭĕʿamim of Ahăron Ben Moše Ben
Ašér. Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language (in
Hebrew).
 References and Abbreviations 637

———. 1969. ‘‫’לבעיית ִדחיק ִואתי ִמרחיק‬. Proceedings of the World

Congress of Jewish Studies 4: 101-105.
———. 1981. ‘The Relative Chronology of Hebrew Vocalization
and Accentuation’. Proceedings of the American Academy for
Jewish Research 48: 87–99.
———. 1983. ‘Deviation in Gemination in the Tiberian Vocal-
isation’. In Estudios Masoreticos: V Congreso de la IOMS,
edited by Emilia Fernández-Tejero, 63–77. Textos y
Estudios ‘Cardenal Cisneros’ 33. Madrid: Consejo Superior
de Investigaciones Cientificos.
———. 1985. ‘‫ ִעיון ִברבדים ִהקדומים ִשלי ִהניקוד‬:‫’פתחי ִחטפין‬. In
Avraham Even-Shoshan Volume, edited by Ben-Zion Luria,
157–65. Jerusalem: Kiryath Sepher.
———. 1993. ‘Reflections towards a Critical Edition of
Pentateuch Codex Or. 4445’. In V Congreso de la IOMS,
edited by Emilia Fernández Tejero, 39–51. Estudios
Masoreticos 10. Madrid: Consejo Superior de
Investigaciones Cientificos.
———. 1997. Dawn of Hebrew Linguistics: The Book of Elegance of
the Language of the Hebrews. Jerusalem: ha-Iggud ha-ʿOlami
le-Madaʻe ha-Yahadut (in Hebrew).
———. 2007. ‘The Masorah’. In Encyclopaedia Judaica, edited by
Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik, 16:604–56. Detroit:
Macmillan Reference USA.
Dresher, B. Elan. 1994. ‘The Prosodic Basis of the Tiberian
Hebrew System of Accents’. Language 70: 1–52.
Drory, Rina. 1988. The Emergence of Jewish-Arabic Literary
Contacts at the Beginning of the Tenth Century. Literature,
638 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Meaning, Culture 17. Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University (in

Hebrew).
Dufour, Julien. 2017. ‘La Morphologie des Formes Verbales
Simples en Sudarabique Moderne’. In Linguistic Studies in
the Arabian Gulf, edited by Simone Bettega and Fabio
Gasparini, 37–67. Quaderni Di RiCOGNIZIONI 7. Torino:
Università di Torino.
Dukes, Leopold. 1845. ִ‫קונטרסִהמסורהִהמיוחסִלבן־אשרִונלווִאליוִאיזה‬
‫העתקותִמפירושִספרִיצירהִלר׳ִיעקובִבןִנסים‬. Tübingen: L. F. Fues.
Dutton, Yasin. 1999. ‘Red Dots, Green Dots, Yellow Dots and
Blue: Some Reflections on the Vocalisation of Early
Qurʾanic Manuscripts—Part I’. Journal of Qurʾanic Studies 1:
115–40.
———. 2000. ‘Red Dots, Green Dots, Yellow Dots and Blue: Some
Reflections on the Vocalisation of Early Qurʾanic
Manuscripts—Part II’. Journal of Qurʾanic Studies 2: 1–24.
Edzard, Lutz. 2013. ‘Phonology, Generative’. In Encyclopedia of
Hebrew Language and Linguistics, edited by Geoffrey Khan,
Shmuel Bolozky, Steven E. Fassberg, Gary A. Rendsburg,
Aaron D. Rubin, Ora R. Schwarzwald, and Tamar Zewi,
3:130–34. Leiden–Boston: Brill.
Eldar, Ilan. 1975. ‘)535ִ‫’ניקוּדִההגדהִשלִּפסחִבמחזֹורִויטריִ(כ׳׳יִששֹון‬.
Lĕšonénu 39: 192–216.
———. 1978. The Hebrew Language Tradition in Medieval
Ashkenaz (ca. 940-1350 C.E.). Publications of the Hebrew
University Language Traditions Project 4–5. Jerusalem:
Magnes Press.
 References and Abbreviations 639

———. 1980. ‘ִ‫שער ִבדבר ִמקֹומֹות ִהחיתוּך ִשל ִהעיצוּרים ִמתֹוך ִהדאיה‬
‫’אלקארִהארֹוך‬. Lĕšonénu 45: 233-59.
———. 1981. ‘‫ִתקצירִמדקדוּקֹוִשלִרבִסעדיהִגאֹון‬:‫’כּתאבִנחוִאלעבראני‬.
Lĕšonénu 44: 105–32.

———. 1983. ‘ִ,‫עיון ִמחודש ִבשאלת ִחלוקת ִהתנועות ִהעבריות ִלדרך ִרום‬
‫’דרך ִמטה ִודרך ִניצב‬. In ִ‫ ִמוגשים ִלזאב ִבן־חיים ִבהגיעו‬:‫מחקרי ִלשון‬
‫לשיבה‬, edited by Moshe Bar-Asher et al., 43–55. Jerusalem:
Magnes.

———. 1984a. ‘‫’ההגייהִהכּפוּלהִשלִהרי׳׳שִהטברנית‬. Lĕšonénu 48–49:

22-34.
———. 1984b. ‘‫’חוק ִאוי׳׳ה ִובגדכפת‬. Hebrew Union College Annual
55: 1–14.
———. 1986. ‘ִ‫ ִכתאב‬:‫האמנם ִנמצאו ִבגניזה ִשרידי ִהחיבורים ִהאבודים‬
‫ִניקודִרבִסעדיהִומחברתִעליִבןִיהודהִהנזיר‬,‫’אלמצותאת‬. Alei Sefer
12: 51–61.
———. 1988. ‘‘‫’רחוקיםִשנעשוִקרובים—עלִ’מאמרִהשווא‘ִו’סדרִהסימנים‬.
In Studies in Hebrew and Arabic in Memory of Dov Eron,
edited by Aron Dotan, 127–38. Teʿuda 6. Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv
University (in Hebrew).
———. 1994. The Study of the Art of Correct Reading as Reflected
in the Medieval Treatise Hidāyat al-Qāri. Jerusalem:
Academy of the Hebrew Language (in Hebrew).
———. 2013. ‘Ashkenazi Pronunciation Tradition: Medieval’. In
Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, edited by
Geoffrey Khan, Shmuel Bolozky, Steven E. Fassberg, Gary
A. Rendsburg, Aaron D. Rubin, Ora R. Schwarzwald, and
Tamar Zewi. Vol. 185–192. Leiden–Boston: Brill.
640 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

———. 2018. The Masoretic Accentuation of the Hebrew Bible

According to the Medieval Treatise HORAYAT HAQORE.
Jerusalem: Bialik Institute (in Hebrew).
Epstein, Jacob Nahum. 1950. ‘‫’תרגוםִערביִשלִמשניות‬. In Alexander
Marx: Jubilee Volume on the Occasion of His Seventieth
Birthday, 23–48. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary
of America.
———. 1964. ‫מבואִלנוסחִהמשנה‬. 2nd ed. Jerusalem: Magnes Press.
Ewen, Colin J., and Harry van der Hulst. 2001. The Phonological
Structure of Words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fassberg, Steven E. 1987. ‘Supralinear ⸦ and ⌒ in Palestinian
Pointed Manuscripts of Hebrew and Aramaic from the
Cairo Genizah’. In ‘Working with No Data’: Semitic and
Egyptian Studies Presented to Thomas O. Lambdin, edited by
David M. Golomb and Susan Tower Hollis, 75–103. Winona
Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns.
———. 1989. ‘The Origin of the Ketib/Qere in the Aramaic
Portions of Ezra and Daniel’. Vetus Testamentum 39: 1–12.
———. 1991. A Grammar of the Palestinian Targum Fragments
from the Cairo Genizah. Harvard Semitic Studies 38. Atlanta,
Ga: Scholars Press.
———. 2001. ‘The Movement from Qal to Piʿʿel in Hebrew and
the Disappearance of the Qal Internal Passive’. Hebrew
Studies 42: 243–55.
———. 2013. ‘Dead Sea Scrolls: Linguistic Features’. In
Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, edited by
Geoffrey Khan, Shmuel Bolozky, Steven E. Fassberg, Gary
 References and Abbreviations 641

A. Rendsburg, Aaron D. Rubin, Ora R. Schwarzwald, and

Tamar Zewi, 1:663–69. Leiden–Boston: Brill.
Fishbane, Michael A. 1988. ‘Use, Authority and Interpretation of
Mikra at Qumran’. In Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and
Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and
Early Christianity, edited by Martin J. Mulder, 339–77.
Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum Ad Novum Testamentum 1.
Assen: Van Gorcum.
Florentin, Moshe. 1996. ‘ִ:‫עיונים ִבתורת ִהצורות ִשל ִעברית ִהשומרונים‬
‫’בידוליםִסמנטייםִבאמצעיםִמורפולוגיים‬. Lĕšonénu 59: 217–41.
Forsström, Jarmo. 2013. ‘Kerala, Pronunciation Tradition’. In
Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, edited by
Geoffrey Khan, Shmuel Bolozky, Steven E. Fassberg, Gary
A. Rendsburg, Aaron D. Rubin, Ora R. Schwarzwald, and
Tamar Zewi, 2:460–63.
Friedman, Matti. 2012. The Aleppo Codex: A True Story of
Obsession, Faith, and the Pursuit of an Ancient Bible. Chapel
Hill, NC: Algonquin Books.
Gabriel, Christoph, and Conxita Lleó. 2011. Intonational Phrasing
in Romance and Germanic: Cross-Linguistic and Bilingual
Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gaisford, Thomas. 1842. Eusebii Pamphili Episcopi Caesariensis
Eclogae Propheticae. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Garbell, Irene. 1954. ‘Quelques Observations sur les Phonèmes
de l’Hébreu Biblique et Traditionnel’. Bulletin de La Société
de Linguistique de Paris 50: 231–43.
Gil, Moshe. 1992. A History of Palestine, 634-1099. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
642 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Gimaret, Daniel. 2015. ‘Muʿtazila’. Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed.

Edited by Peri Bearman, Thierry Bianquis, C. Edmund
Bosworth, Emeri van Donzel, Wolfhart P. Heinrichs.
Online: Brill.
Gindin, Thamar E. 2013. ‘Persian Loanwords’. In Encyclopedia of
Hebrew Language and Linguistics, edited by Geoffrey Khan,
Shmuel Bolozky, Steven E. Fassberg, Gary A. Rendsburg,
Aaron D. Rubin, Ora R. Schwarzwald, and Tamar Zewi,
3:66–70. Leiden–Boston: Brill.
Ginsberg, Harold Louis. 1934. ‘‫’מבעדִלמסורת‬. Tarbiẕ 5: 208-223.
Ginsburg, Christian D. 1880. The Massorah, Compiled from
Manuscripts, Alphabetically and Lexically Arranged. Vol. I.
Aleph-Yod. London–Vienna: G. Brögg.
———. 1885. The Massorah, Compiled from Manuscripts,
Alphabetically and Lexically Arranged. Vol. III. Supplement.
London(-Vienna): G. Brögg.
———. 1894. Massoretico-Critical Text of the Hebrew Bible.
London: Trinitarian Bible Society.
———. 1897. Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the
Hebrew Bible. Reprint. New York: Trinitarian Bible Society.
———. 1905. The Massorah, Translated into English with a Critical
and Exegetical Commentary, Being Vol. IV of the Entire Work.
Vienna: Carl Fromme.
Glatzer, Mordechai. 1989. ‘ִ‫מלאכת ִהספר ִשל ִכתר ִארם ִצובה‬
‫’והשלכותיה‬. Sefonot 4: 167-276.
Glinert, Lewis. 2013. ‘Ashkenazi Pronunciation Tradition:
Modern’. In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics,
edited by Geoffrey Khan, Shmuel Bolozky, Steven Fassberg,
 References and Abbreviations 643

Gary A. Rendsburg, Aaron D. Rubin, Ora R. Schwarzwald,

and Tamar Zewi, 1:192–99. Leiden–Boston: Brill.
Glorie, François. 1964. S. Hieronymi Presbyteri Opera: Pars I: Opera
Exegetica 4: Commentariorum in Hiezechielem: Libri XIV.
Turnhout: Brepols.
———. 1964. S. Hieronymi Presbyteri Opera: Pars I: Opera Exeget-
ica 5: Commentariorum in Danielem Libri III <IV>. Turn-
hout: Brepols.
Gluska, Isaac. 1995. ‘‫’קוויםִדיאלקטייםִבלהגִהעבריִשלִיהודיִתימןִבגלותם‬.
Peʿamim: Studies in Oriental Jewry 64: 22–38.
Goldberg, Arnold. 1990. ‘The Rabbinic View of Scripture’. In A
Tribute to Geza Vermes. Essays on Jewish and Christian
Literature and History, edited by Philip R. Davies and
Richard T. White, 153–66. Sheffield: JSOT Press.
Goldschmidt, Ernst D. 1960. The Passover Haggadah: Its Sources
and History. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute (in Hebrew).
Golinets, Viktor. 2013. ‘Dageš, Mappiq, Specks on Vellum, and
Editing of the Codex Leningradensis’. In ‘Schrift Und
Sprache’. Papers Read at the 10th Mainz International
Colloquium on Ancient Hebrew (MICAH), Mainz, 28-30
October 2011, edited by Reinhard G. Lehmann and Anna
Elise Zernecke, 233–63. Kleiner Untersuchungen zur
Sprache des Alten Testaments under Seiner Umwelt 15.
Gordis, Robert. 1971. The Biblical Text in the Making; a Study of
the Kethib-Qere. New York: Ktav.
Gordon, Matthew K. 2006. Syllable Weight: Phonetics, Phonology,
Typology. New York-London: Routledge.
644 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe. 1960. ‘The Authenticity of the Aleppo

Codex’. Textus 1: 17–58.
———. 1962. ‘Biblical Manuscripts in the United States’. Textus
2: 28–59.
———. 1975. The Hebrew University Bible. The Book of Isaiah. Vol.
1–3. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University.
———. 1976. ‫ִמסרו ִונקדו ִר׳ ִאהרון ִבן ִאשר‬:‫כתר ִארם ִצובא‬. Jerusalem:
Magnes Press, Hebrew University.
Gottheil, Richard. 1905. ‘Some Hebrew Manuscripts in Cairo’.
Jewish Quarterly Review 17: 609–55.
Gottlieb, Leeor. 2016. ‘Targumim and the Biblical Dead Sea
Scrolls: Separate Versions, Shared Solutions’. Paper read at
the Fifteenth International Orion Symposium. Jerusalem.
Grabbe, Lester L. 1977. Comparative Philology and the Text of Job:
A Study in Methodology. Dissertation Series, Society of
Biblical Literature 34. Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press,
for the Society of Biblical Literature.
Graham, William A., and Navid Kermani. 2007. ‘Recitation and
Aesthetic Reception’. In The Cambridge Companion to the
Qurʾān, edited by Jane Dammen McAuliffe, 115–41.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Greenstein, Edward. 1992. ‘An Introduction to the Generative
Phonology of Biblical Hebrew’. In Linguistics and Biblical
Hebrew, edited by Walter R. Bodine, 29–40. Winona Lake,
Indiana: Eisenbrauns.
Grossberg, Manasseh. 1902. ִ‫ִעם‬...ִ ‫ספר ִיצירה ִהמיוחס ִלאברהם ִאבינו‬
‫ִאבוִסהלִדונשִבןִתמים‬...ִ‫פירוש‬. London.
 References and Abbreviations 645

Gruenwald, Ithamar. 1971. ‘A Preliminary Critical Edition of

Sefer Yezira’. Israel Oriental Studies 1: 132–77.
Gryson, Roger. 1993–1999. Commentaires de Jérôme sur le
Prophète Isaïe. 5 volumes. Freiburg: Herder.
Gumpertz, Yehiel Gedalyahu. 1953. Mivṭa’e Śefatenu: Studies in
Historical Phonetics of the Hebrew Language. Jerusalem:
Mosad ha-Rav Kook (in Hebrew).
———. 1958. ‘‫’שערִהמתיגותִלר׳ִיהב׳י‬. Lĕšonénu 22: 36–47, 137–46.
Häberl, Charles. 2009. The Neo-Mandaic Dialect of Khorramshahr.
Semitica Viva 45. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Habib, Joseph. 2020. ‘Qere and Ketiv in the Exegesis of the
Karaites and Saadya Gaon’. In Semitic Vocalization and
Reading Traditions, edited by Geoffrey Khan. Cambridge:
University of Cambridge & Open Book Publishers.
Hall, Nancy. 2011. ‘Vowel Epenthesis’. In The Blackwell
Companion to Phonology, edited by Marc van Oostendorp,
Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume, and Keren Rice, 1576-
1596. Malden, MA-Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Halle, Morris, and Jean-Roger Vergnaud. 1987. An Essay on
Stress. Current Studies in Linguistics 15. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Hamdan, Omar. 2006. Studien zur Kanonisierung des Korantextes:
al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrīs Beiträge zur Geschichte des Korans.
Diskurse der Arabistik 10. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Harkavy, Abraham E. 1970. ִ‫חדשיםִגםִישניםִמקורותִוחמחקריםִתולדות‬
‫ישראלִובספרותו‬. Jerusalem: Karmiel.
Harviainen, Tapani. 1977. On the Vocalism of the Closed Unstressed
Syllables in Hebrew: A Study Based on the Evidence Provided
646 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

by the Transcriptions of St. Jerome and Palestinian

Punctuations. Helsinki: Societas Orientalis Fennica.
———.1993. ‘Karaite Arabic Transcriptions of Hebrew in the
Saltykov-Shchedrin Public Library in St. Petersburg.’ In
Estudios Masorericos. En Memoria de Harry M. Orlinsky,
edited by Emilia Fernandez Tejero and María Teresa Ortega
Monasterio, 63–72. Textos y Estudios «Cardenal Cisneros»
de la Biblia Políglota Matritense 55. Madrid: Consejo
Superior de Investigaciones Cientificos.
———. 1993b. ‘Karaite Bible Transcription with Indiscriminate
Use of Tiberian Pataḥ and Segol Vowel Signs’. In Semitica.
Serta Philologica Constantino Tsereteli Dicata, edited by
Riccardo Contini, Fabrizio Pennacchietti, and Mauro Tosco,
83–97. Pubblicazioni del Gruppo di Ricerca «Lessicografia
Semitica e Lessico Ebraico» Finanziato dal C.N.R. 6. Torino:
Silvio Zamorani Editore.
———. 1994. ‘A Karaite Bible Transcription with Indiscriminate
Counterparts of Tiberian Qameṣ and Ḥolam (Ms. Firkovitsh
II, Arab.-Evr.1)’. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Congress of
the International Organization for Masoretic Studies (IOMS),
Jerusalem June 21-22, 1993, edited by Aron Dotan, 33–40.
Jerusalem: The World Union of Jewish Studies.
———. 1995. ‘A Karaite Letter-for-Letter Transliteration of
Biblical Hebrew—MS Firkovitsh II, Arab.-Evr. 355’. Textus
18: 196–177.
———. 1996. ‘MS Arab.-Evr. 2 of the Second Firkovitsh
Collection, A Karaite Bible Transcription in Arabic Script’.
In Studies in Hebrew and Jewish Languages Presented to
 References and Abbreviations 647

Shelomo Morag, edited by Moshe Bar-Asher, *41-*59.

Jerusalem: Bialik Institute.
Haupt, Paul. 1901. ‘The Names of the Hebrew Vowels’. Journal
of the American Oriental Society 22: 13–17.
Hayes, Bruce. 1985. ‘Iambic and Trochaic Rhythm in Stress
Rules’. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Society 11: 429-
46.
———. 1995. Metrical Stress Theory: Principles and Case Studies.
London: University of Chicago Press.
Hayman, A. Peter. 2004. Sefer Yeṣira: Edition, Translation and
Text-Critical Commentary. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Hayward, Katrina M., Richard J. Hayward, and Salim Bakhit al-
Tabuki. 1988. ‘Vowels in Jibbali Verbs’. Bulletin of the
School of Oriental and African Studies 51: 240–50.
Ḥayyuj, Yehudah ben David. 1897. The Weak and Geminative
Verbs in Hebrew. Edited by Morris Jastrow. Leiden: Brill.
Heijmans, Shai. 2013a. ‘Greek Loanwords’. In Encyclopedia of
Hebrew Language and Linguistics, edited by Geoffrey Khan,
Shmuel Bolozky, Steven E. Fassberg, Gary A. Rendsburg,
Aaron D. Rubin, Ora R. Schwarzwald, and Tamar Zewi,
2:148–51. Leiden–Boston: Brill.
———. 2013b. ‘Vocalization, Palestinian’. In Encyclopedia of
Hebrew Language and Linguistics, edited by Geoffrey Khan,
Shmuel Bolozky, Steven E. Fassberg, Gary A. Rendsburg,
Aaron D. Rubin, Ora R. Schwarzwald, and Tamar Zewi,
3:964–67. Leiden–Boston: Brill.
———. 2013c. ‘Vocalization, Palestino-Tiberian’. In Encyclopedia
of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, edited by Geoffrey Khan,
648 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Shmuel Bolozky, Steven E. Fassberg, Gary A. Rendsburg,

Aaron D. Rubin, Ora R. Schwarzwald, and Tamar Zewi,
3:967–71. Leiden–Boston: Brill.
———. 2016. ‘Babylonian Tradition’. In A Handbook of Biblical
Hebrew, edited by W. Randall Garr and Steven E. Fassberg,
133–46. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
———. 2018. ‘The Shewa in the First of Two Identical Letters and
the Compound Babylonian Vocalisation’. In Studies in
Semitic Linguistics and Manuscripts: A Liber Discipulorum in
Honour of Professor Geoffrey Khan, edited by Nadia Vidro,
Ronny Vollandt, Esther-Miriam Wagner, and Judith
Olszowy-Schlanger, 96–108. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis
Studia Semitica Upsaliensia 30. Uppsala: Uppsala
Universitet.
Heikel, Ivar August 1913. Eusebius Werke 6. Leipzig: J. C. Hin-
richs’sche Buchhandlung
Henning, Walter B. 1944. ‘Bráhman’. Transactions of the
Philological Society, 108–18.
Henshke, Yehudit. 2013. ‘Tunisia, Pronunciation Traditions’. In
Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, edited by
Geoffrey Khan, Shmuel Bolozky, Steven E. Fassberg, Gary
A. Rendsburg, Aaron D. Rubin, Ora R. Schwarzwald, and
Tamar Zewi, 3:860–67. Leiden–Boston: Brill.
Hilberg, Isidorus. 1910–1918. Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi Epistulae.
3 volumes. Vindobonae; Lipsiae: Tempsky.
Himmelreich, Roman. 2019. ‘Positional Allomorphy: Pausal vs.
Context Forms in Tiberian Hebrew’. MA thesis. Tel-Aviv:
Tel-Aviv University.
 References and Abbreviations 649

Hoberman, Robert. 1989. ‘Initial Consonant Clusters in Hebrew

and Aramaic’. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 48: 25–29.
Holmstedt, Robert D., and R. Elan Dresher. 2013. ‘Clitics: Pre-
Modern Hebrew’. In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and
Linguistics, edited by Geoffrey Khan, Shmuel Bolozky,
Steven E. Fassberg, Gary A. Rendsburg, Aaron D. Rubin,
Ora R. Schwarzwald, and Tamar Zewi, 1:458–63. Leiden–
Boston: Brill.
Hommel, Eberhard. 1917. Untersuchungen zur Hebräischen
Lautlehre. Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten Testament
23. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung.
Honeyman, Alexander M. 1944. ‘Traces of an Early Diacritic Sign
in Isaiah 8:6b’. Journal of Biblical Literature 63: 45–50.
Hopkins, Simon. 1984. Studies in the Grammar of Early Arabic:
Based Upon Papyri Datable to Before 300 A.H./912 A.D.
London Oriental Series 37. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hornkohl, Aaron. 2020 (to appear). ‘The Hebrew 3ms Possessive
Suffix ‫יו‬- and Its Realisation(s)’. In Studies in Semtic
Vocalization and Reading Traditions, edited by Aaron
Hornkohl and Geoffrey Khan. Cambridge: University of
Cambridge & Open Book Publishers.
Hovav, Malka Rappaport. 1984. ‘Issues in the Phonology of
Tiberian Hebrew’. Ph.D. thesis. Cambridge MA:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Ibn Janāḥ, Abū al-Walīd Marwān. 1886. Kitāb al-Lumaʿ. Le Livre
des Parterres Fleuris: Grammaire Hébraïque en Arabe d’Abou
’l-Walid Merwan Ibn Djanah de Cordoue. Edited by Joseph
Derenbourg. Paris: F. Vieweg.
650 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Ibn Khālawayh. 1934. Ibn Ḫālawaih’s Sammlung Nichtkanonischer

Koranlesarten. Edited by Gotthelf Bergsträsser. Bibliotheca
Islamica 7. Leipzig: Brockhaus.
Ibn Mujāhid, ʾAḥmad ibn Mūsā. 1972. ‫كتاب السبعة فى القراءات‬. Edited
by Shawqi Ḍayf. Cairo: Dār al-Maʿārif.
Jakobson, Roman. 1978. ‘Mufaxxama: The “Emphatic” Phonemes
in Arabic’. In Readings in Arabic Linguistics, edited by
Salman H. Al-Ani, 269–83. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana
University Linguistics Club.
Janssens, Gerard. 1982. Studies in Hebrew Historical Linguistics
Based on Origen’s Secunda. Orientalia Gandensia 9. Leuven:
Uitgeverij Peeters.
Jong, Rudolf de. 2011. ‘Gahawa-Syndrome’. In Encyclopedia of
Arabic Language and Linguistics, edited by Lutz Edzard and
Rudolf de Jong. Online: Brill.
Juusola, Hannu. 1999. Linguistic Peculiarities in the Aramaic Magic
Bowl Texts. Studia Orientalia 86. Helsinki: Finnish Oriental
Society.
Kager, René. 1993. ‘Alternatives to the Iambic-Trochaic Law’.
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 11: 381–432.
———. 2007. ‘Feet and Metrical Stress’. In The Cambridge
Handbook of Phonology, edited by Paul de Lacy, 195–228.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kahle, Paul. 1901. ‘Beiträge zur Geschichte der Hebräischen
Punktation’. Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentiliche
Wisssenschaft 21: 273–317.
 References and Abbreviations 651

———. 1902. Der Masoretische Text des Alten Testaments: Nach der
Überlieferung der Babylonischen Juden. Leipzig: Hin-
richs’sche Buchhandlung.
———. 1913. Masoreten des Ostens: Die Ältesten Punktierten
Handschriften des Alten Testaments und der Targume.
Beiträge Zur Wissenschaft Vom Alten Testament 15.
Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung.
———. 1927. Masoreten des Westens I. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer.
———. 1928. ‘Die Hebräischen Bibelhandschriften aus Bab-
ylonien’. Zeitschrift Für Die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 46:
113–37.
———. 1930. Masoreten des Westens II: Das Palästinische
Pentateuch Targum, Die Palästinische Punktation, Der
Bibeltext des Ben Naftali. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer.
———. 1959. The Cairo Geniza. Schweich Lectures of the British
Academy. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kantor, Benjamin. 2017. ‘The Second Column (Secunda) or
Origen’s Hexapla in Light of Greek Pronunciation’. Ph.D.
thesis. Austin: University of Texas at Austin.
———. forthcoming. ‘ִ13-‫מסורתִהעבריתִשלִיהודיִדרוםִאיטליהִבמאהִה‬
ִ‫לפי ִתעתיקים ִיווניים ִלמילים ִעבריות ִבדיאלוג ִ"דיון ִנגד ִהיהודים" ִמן‬
‫’אוטרנטו‬. Lĕšonénu 82.
Kantor, Benjamin, and Geoffrey Khan. forthcoming. ‘The
Background of the Labio-Dental Pronunciatoin of Waw in
the Tiberian Tradition of Biblical Hebrew’.
Katz, Dovid. 1993. ‘The Phonology of Ashkenazic’. In Hebrew in
Ashkenaz: A Language in Exile, edited by Lewis Glinert, 46–
87. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
652 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Katz, Ktzia. 1977. The Hebrew Language Tradition of the

Community of Djerba (Tunisia). Publications of the Hebrew
University Language Traditions Project 2. Jerusalem:
Magnes Press, Hebrew University (in Hebrew).
———. 1981. The Hebrew Language Tradition of the Aleppo
Community. Publications of the Hebrew University
Language Traditions Project 7. Jerusalem: Magnes Press,
Hebrew University (in Hebrew).
Khan, Geoffrey. 1987. ‘Vowel Length and Syllable Structure in
the Tiberian Tradition of Biblical Hebrew’. Journal of
Semitic Studies 32 (1): 23–82.
———. 1990a. Karaite Bible Manuscripts from the Cairo Genizah.
Cambridge University Library Genizah Series 9. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. 1990b. ‘Standardisation and Variation in the
Orthography of Hebrew Bible and Arabic Qurʾān
Manuscripts’. Manuscripts of the Middle East 5: 53–58.
———. 1990c. ‘The Opinions of al-Qirqisānī concerning the Text
of the Bible and Parallel Muslim Attitudes towards the Text
of the Qurʾān’. Jewish Quarterly Review 81: 59–73.
———. 1991. ‘The Syllabic Nature of Tiberian Hebrew
Vocalization’. In Semitic Studies in Honor of Wolf Leslau,
edited by Alan S Kaye, 850–65. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
———. 1992a. ‘The Function of the Shewa Sign in Vocalized
Judaeo-Arabic Texts from the Genizah’. In Genizah Research
after Ninety Years: The Case of Judaeo-Arabic, edited by
Joshua Blau and Stefan Reif, 105–11. University of
 References and Abbreviations 653

Cambridge Oriental Publications 47. Cambridge: Cam-

bridge University Press.
———. 1992b. ‘The Medieval Karaite Transcriptions of Hebrew
in Arabic Script’. Israel Oriental Studies 12: 157–76.
———. 1992c. ‘ִ‫מבטא ִהגעיה ִהקטנה ִהמשתקף ִבכתבי־יד ִקראיים ִשל‬
‫’המקרא ִבתעתיק ִערבי‬. In Meḥqarim Ba-Lashon, edited by
Mosheh Bar-Asher, 5–6:465-479. Festschrift for Israel
Yeivin. Jerusalem: Magnes Press.
———. 1993. “The Orthography of Karaite Hebrew Bible
Manuscripts in Arabic Transcription.” Journal of Semitic
Studies 38: 49–70.
———. 1994. ‘The Historical Background of the Vowel Ṣere in
Some Hebrew Verbal and Nominal Forms’. Bulletin of the
School of Oriental and African Studies 57: 133–44.
———. 1995. ‘The Pronunciation of the Reš in the Tiberian
Tradition of Biblical Hebrew’. Hebrew Union College Annual
66: 67–80.
———. 1997. ‘ִ‫העומק ִההיסטורי ִשל ִשתי ִתכונות ִשל ִמסורות ִהקריאה‬
‫’הספרדיות‬. In Massorot: Studies in Language Traditions and
Jewish Languages IX-X-XI. Gideon Goldenberg Festschrift,
edited by Moshe Bar-Asher, 91–99. Jerusalem: Magnes
Press.
———. 2000a. Early Karaite Grammatical Texts. Masoretic Studies
9. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
———. 2000b. The Early Karaite Tradition of Hebrew Grammatical
Thought: Including a Critical Edition, Translation and Analysis
of the Diqduq of ʾAbū Yaʿqūb Yūsuf Ibn Nūḥ on the
654 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Hagiographa. Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics

32. Leiden: Brill.
———. 2003. ‘The Contribution of the Karaites to the Study of
the Hebrew Language’. In A Guide to Karaite Studies: The
History and Literary Sources of Medieval and Modern Karaite
Judaism, edited by Meira Polliack, 291–318. Handbuch Der
Orientalistik 73. Boston: Brill.
———. 2007. Arabic Documents from Early Islamic Khurasan.
London: Nour Foundation in association with Azimuth E.
———. 2008. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Barwar. 3 vols. Leiden:
Brill.
———. 2009. ‘The Pronunciation of Gaʿya with Šewa’. In Mas’at
Aharon: Linguistic Studies Presented to Aron Dotan, edited by
Moshe Bar-Asher and Chaim E. Cohen, 3*–18*. Jerusalem:
Bialik.
———. 2010. ‘Vocalised Judaeo-Arabic Manuscripts in the Cairo
Genizah’. In “From a Sacred Source”: Genizah Studies in
Honour of Professor Stefan C. Reif, edited by Ben Outhwaite
and Siam Bhayro, 201–18. Leiden–Boston: Brill.
———. 2012. ‘The Medieval Karaite Tradition of Hebrew
Grammar’. In The Foundations of Arabic Linguistics:
Sībawayhi and Early Arabic Grammatical Theory, edited by
Amal Elesha Marogy, 211–30. Leiden ; Boston: BRILL.
———. 2013a. A Short Introduction to the Tiberian Masoretic Bible
and Its Reading Tradition. 2nd ed. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias.
———. 2013b. ‘Grammarians: Karaite’. In Encyclopedia of Hebrew
Language and Linguistics, edited by Shmuel Bolozky, Steven
E. Fassberg, Gary A. Rendsburg, Aaron D. Rubin, Ora R.
 References and Abbreviations 655

Schwarzwald, and Tamar Zewi, 2:76–82. Leiden–Boston:

Brill.
———. 2013c. ‘Resh, Pre-Modern Hebrew’. In Encyclopedia of
Hebrew Language and Linguistics, edited by Geoffrey Khan,
Shmuel Bolozky, Steven E. Fassberg, Gary A. Rendsburg,
Aaron D. Rubin, Ora R. Schwarzwald, and Tamar Zewi,
3:384–89. Leiden–Boston: Brill.
———. 2013d. ‘Transcriptions in Arabic Script: Medieval Muslim
Sources’. In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics,
edited by Geoffrey Khan, Shmuel Bolozky, Steven E.
Fassberg, Gary A. Rendsburg, Aaron D. Rubin, Ora R.
Schwarzwald, and Tamar Zewi, 3:799–801. Leiden–Boston:
Brill.
———. 2013e. ‘Transcriptions into Arabic Script: Medieval
Karaite Sources’. In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and
Linguistics, 3:792–99. Leiden–Boston: Brill.
———. 2013f. ‘Vocalization, Babylonian’. In Encyclopedia of
Hebrew Language and Linguistics, edited by Geoffrey Khan,
Shmuel Bolozky, Steven E. Fassberg, Gary A. Rendsburg,
Aaron D. Rubin, Ora R. Schwarzwald, and Tamar Zewi,
3:953–63. Leiden–Boston: Brill.
———. 2013g. ‘Vowel Length: Biblical Hebrew’. In Encyclopedia
of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, edited by Shmuel
Bolozky, Steven E. Fassberg, Aaron D. Rubin, and Ora R.
Schwarzwald, 3:981–85. Leiden–Boston: Brill.
———. 2014. ‘‫’יחסִהדאיתִאלקאריִלמסורתִהדקדוקִהקראי‬. In Studies in
Hebrew and Related Fields Presented to Ilan Eldar, edited by
656 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Moshe Bar-Asher and Irit Meir, 277-283. Jerusalem:

Karmel.
———. 2016a. ‘Karaite Transcriptions of Biblical Hebrew’. In A
Handbook of Biblical Hebrew, edited by W. Randall Garr and
Steven Fassberg, 147–60. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
———. 2016b. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of the Assyrian Christians
of Urmi. 4 vols. Studies in Semitic Languages and
Linguistics 86. Leiden–Boston: Brill.
———. 2017a. ‘Orthography and Reading in Medieval Judaeo-
Arabic’. In Arabic in Context. Celebrating 400 Years of Arabic
at Leiden University, edited by Ahmad al-Jallad, 395–404.
Leiden–Boston: Brill.
———. 2017b. ‘The Background of the So-Called Extended
Tiberian Vocalization of Hebrew’. Journal of Near Eastern
Studies 76 (2): 265–73.
———. 2018a. ‘How was the Dageš in Biblical Hebrew ‫בתים‬
Pronounced and Why is it There?’ Journal of Semitic Studies
63: 323–51.
———. 2018b. ‘Orthoepy in the Tiberian Reading Tradition of
the Hebrew Bible and Its Historical Roots in the Second
Temple Period’. Vetus Testamentum 68: 1–24.
———. 2019 (to appear). ‘Remarks on Syllable Structure and
Metrical Structure in Biblical Hebrew’. Journal of
Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics.
Khan, Geoffrey, María Ángeles Gallego, and Judith Olszowy-
Schlanger. 2003. The Karaite Tradition of Hebrew
Grammatical Thought in Its Classical Form: A Critical Edition
 References and Abbreviations 657

and English Translation of al-Kitāb al-Kāfī fī al-Luġa al-ʿIb-

rāniyya by ʾAbū al-Faraj Hārūn Ibn al-Faraj. Studies in
Semitic Languages and Linguistics 37. Leiden: Brill.
Khan, Muhammad Muhsin. 1997. Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī: The
Translation of the Meanings of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī. Riyadh:
Darussalam Publishers and Distributors.
Kiparsky, Paul. 2003. ‘Syllables and Moras in Arabic’. In The
Syllable in Optimality Theory, edited by Caroline Féry and
Ruben Florentius Hendricus Eduardus van de Vijver, 147–
82. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kister, Menahem. 1992. ‘‫’בעיות ִלקסיקוגראפיות—מוקדם ִומאוחר‬.
Tarbiẕ 61: 45-59.
———. 1998. ‘Lexicographical Problems Early and Late’. Scripta
Hierosolymitana 37: 244–63.
Klatt, Dennis H. 1975. ‘Vowel Lengthening is Syntactically
Determined in a Connected Discourse’. Journal of Phonetics
3: 129–40.
———. 1976. ‘Linguistic Uses of Segmental Duration in English:
Acoustic and Perceptual Evidence’. Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America 59: 1208–20.
Klostermann, Erich. 1933. Origenes Werker: Zehnter Band:
Origenes Matthäuserklärung. Lepzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche
Buchhandlung.
Knauf, Ernst Axel. 1979. ‘Dagesh Agrammaticum Im Codex
Leningradensis’. Biblische Notizen 10: 23–35.
Knobloch, Frederick W. 1995. ‘Hebrew Sounds in Greek Script:
Transcriptions and Related Phenomena in the Septuagint,
658 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

with Special Focus on Genesis.’ Ph.D. Thesis, Philadelphia:

University of Pennsylvania.
Kooij, Arie van der. 2014. ‘Standardization or Preservation?
Some Comments on the Textual History of the Hebrew
Bible in the Light of Josephus and Rabbinic Literature’. In
The Text of the Hebrew Bible from the Rabbis to the Masoretes,
edited by Elvira Martín Contreras and Lorena Miralles-
Marciá, 63–78. Journal of Ancient Judaism. Supplements
13. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Kutscher, Edward Y. 1965. ‘Contemporary Studies in North-
Western Semitic’. Journal of Semitic Studies 10: 21–51.
———. 1969. ‘)‫’מחקרים ִבדקדוק ִלשון ִחז׳׳ל ִ(לפי ִכ׳׳י ִקאופמן‬. In Sefer
Bar-Ilan. Decennial Volume II, 1955-1965, edited by
Manaḥem Zvi Kaddari, 51–77. Ramat-Gan: Kiryat Sepher.
———. 1976. Studies in Galilean Aramaic. Translated by Michael
Sokoloff. Bar-Ilan Studies in Near Eastern Languages and
Culture. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University.
———. 1979. The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah
Scroll (1 QIsaa). Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah
6. Leiden: Brill.
———. 1982. A History of the Hebrew Language. Jerusalem:
Magnes Press.
Lagarde, Paul, de, Germain Morin, and Marcus Adriaen. 1959. S.
Hieronymi Presbyteri Opera: Pars I: Opera Exegetica 1: Hebra-
icae Quaestiones in Libro Geneseos; Liber Interpretationis He-
braicorum Nominum; Commentarioli in Psalmos; Commen-
tarius in Ecclesiasten. Turnhout: Brepols.
 References and Abbreviations 659

Lambert, Mayer. 1889. ‘Quelques Remarques sur les Voyelles

Hébraiques chez les Grammarien Juifs avant Qamchi’.
Revue Des Études Juives 18: 123–26.
———. 1891. Commentaire sur Le Séfer Yesira, uu Livre de la
Création. Paris: É. Bouillon.
Lange, Nicholas de. 1996. Greek Jewish Texts from the Cairo
Genizah. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 51.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Leemhuis, Frederik. 2017. ‘Readings of the Qurʾān’. In
Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān, edited by Jane Dammen
McAuliffe. Online: Brill.
Lehiste, Ilse. 1970. Suprasegmentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Leslau, Wolf. 1987. Comparative Dictionary of Geʿez (Classical
Ethiopic): Geʿez-English/English-Geʻez with an Index of the
Semitic Roots. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Levy, Kurt. 1936. Zur Masoretischen Grammatik. Bonner Oriental-
istische Studien 15. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Liberman, Mark, and Alan Prince. 1977. ‘On Stress and Linguistic
Rhythm’. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 249–233.
Lim, Timothy. 2013. The Formation of the Jewish Canon. New
Haven: Yale University Press.
Lipschütz, Lazar. 1964. ‘Kitāb al-Khilaf, the Book of the Ḥillufim:
Mishael Ben Uzziel’s Treatise on the Differences between
Ben Asher and Ben Napthali’. Textus 4: 2–29.
———. 1965. Kitāb al-Khilaf: Mishael Ben Uzziel’s Treatise on the
Differences between Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali. Publications
of the Hebrew University Bible Project 2. Jerusalem:
Magnes Press.
660 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Loewinger, David S. 1970. ִ‫ִכתב‬: ‫תורה ִנביאים ִוכתובים ִכתב ִיד ִלנינגרד‬

‫הידִהשלםִהקדוםִביותרִשלִהמקרא‬. Jerusalem: Maqor.
———. 1971. ִ‫ִכתבִהידִהעברי‬: ‫תנ"ךִכתבִידִקאהירִמביתִהכנסתִבעבאסיה‬
‫ ִעל ִידי ִמשה ִבן ִאשר‬895ִ ‫ ִנכתב ִבשנת‬,‫הקדום ִביותר ִשהגיע ִאלינו‬.
Jerusalem: Maqor.
Luzzatto, Samuel David. 2005. Prolegomena to a Grammar of the
Hebrew Language. Translated by Aaron D. Rubin.
Piscataway: Gorgias Press.
Lyons, David L. 1983. ‘The Vocalization, Accentuation and
Masora of Codex Or. 4445 (Brit. Mus.) and their Place in
the Development of the Tiberian Masora’. Ph.D. thesis.
London: University of London.
Makkī ibn ʾAbī Ṭālib al-Qaysī. 1996. Al-Riʿāya li-Tajwīd al-Qirāʾa
wa-Taḥqīq Lafẓ al-Tilāwa. Edited by Aḥmad Ḥasan Farḥāt.
Amman: Dār ʿAmmār.
Malone, Joseph L. 1993. Tiberian Hebrew Phonology. Winona
Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns.
Mann, Jacob. 1931. Texts and Studies in Jewish History and
Literature. Vol. 1. 2 vols. The Abraham and Hannah
Oppenheim Memorial Publications. Cincinnati: Hebrew
Union College Press.
———. 1935. Texts and Studies in Jewish History and Literature.
Vol. 2. 2 vols. Cincinnati: Jewish Publication Society.
———. 1969. The Jews in Egypt and in Palestine under the Fātimid
Caliphs. Reprint. Vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mansour, Jacob. 1974. The Judaeo-Arabic Dialect of Baghdad.
Haifa: University of Haifa (in Hebrew).
 References and Abbreviations 661

Martín Contreras, Elvira. 1999. ‘Terminología masorética en la

exégesis de Génesis rabba (secciones “Bere’sit” y Noah’)’.
Sefarad 59 (2): 343–52.
———. 2002. ‘Noticias masoréticas en el midrás " Lamentaciones
Rabbâ "’. Sefarad 62 (1): 125–41.
———. 2003. ‘Noticias masoréticas en los midrasim halákicos
más antiguos y su comparación con los midrassim
exegéticos’. Sefarad 63 (1): 119–39.
McCarthy, Carmel. 1981. The Tiqqune Sopherim and Other
Theological Corrections in the Masoretic Text of the Old
Testament. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 36. Freiburg,
Schweiz: Universitätsverlag.
McCarthy, John. 1979. ‘Formal Problems in Semitic Phonology
and Morphology’. Ph.D. thesis. Cambridge MA:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Melamed, Ezra Zion. 1948. ‘‫’שימושיִלשוןִבמקראִהמיוחדיםִלה‬. Tarbiẕ
19: 1–18.
Mercerus, Johannes, ed. 1978. ‫ספרִטעמיִהמקרא‬. Reprint of Paris
edition, 1565. Jerusalem: Makor.
Mishor, Mordechai. 1998. ‘?‫ִהשתקפותִשלִרי"שִדגושה‬:‫’פורשתִאשקלון‬.
Lĕšonénu 61: 339–42.
———. 2002. ‘‫’עלִהנקודִבכתב־ידִארפורטִשלִהתוספתא‬. Lĕšonénu 64:
231–44.
———. 2007. ‘‫’העבריתִשבקערותִההשבעהִמבבל‬. In Sha’arei Lashon.
Studies in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Jewish Languages Presented
to Moshe Bar-Asher, edited by Aharon Maman, Steven
Fassberg, and Yochanan Breuer, 2:204–27. Jerusalem:
Bialik Institute.
662 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Molin, Dorota. 2020 (to appear). ‘The Biblical Quotations in the

Aramaic Incantation Bowls and their Contribution to the
Study of the Babylonian Reading Tradition’. In Studies in
Semitic Vocalization and Reading Traditions, edited by Aaron
Hornkohl and Geoffrey Khan. Cambridge Semitic
Languages and Cultures. Cambridge: University of
Cambridge & Open Book Publishers.
Mor, Uri. 2013a. ‘Bar Kokhba Documents’. In Encyclopedia of
Hebrew Language and Linguistics, edited by Geoffrey Khan,
Shmuel Bolozky, Steven E. Fassberg, Gary A. Rendsburg,
Aaron D. Rubin, Ora R. Schwarzwald, and Tamar Zewi,
1:254–58. Leiden–Boston: Brill.
———. 2013b. ‘Guttural Consonants: Pre-Masoretic’. In
Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, edited by
Geoffrey Khan, Shmuel Bolozky, Steven E. Fassberg, Gary
A. Rendsburg, Aaron D. Rubin, Ora R. Schwarzwald, and
Tamar Zewi, 2:161–65. Leiden–Boston: Brill.
———. 2015. Judean Hebrew: The Language of the Hebrew
Documents from Judea between the First and the Second
Revolts. Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language (in
Hebrew).
Morag, Shelomo. 1952. ‘‫המעבר‬-‫’לבעייתִהיכפלותםִשלִהגיי‬. Tarbiẕ 23:
236–39.
———. 1959. ‘The Vocalization of Codex Reuchlinianus: Is the
Pre-Masoretic Bible Pre-Masoretic?’ Journal of Semitic
Studies 4: 216–37.
———. 1960. ‘‫’שבעִכפולותִבגדכפר׳׳ת‬. In ִ‫ִמאמריםִבחקר‬:‫ספרִטור־סיני‬
‫התנ׳׳ךִמוגשִלכבודִהפרופ׳ִנ׳׳הִטור־סיניִלמלאתִלוִשבעיםִשנה‬, edited
 References and Abbreviations 663

by Menahem Haran and Ben-Tsiyon Lurya, 207–43.

Jerusalem: Kiryath Sepher.
———. 1962. The Vocalization Systems of Arabic, Hebrew, and
Aramaic: Their Phonetic and Phonemic Principles. Janua
Linguarum 13. ’s-Gravenhage: Mouton.
———. 1963. The Hebrew Language Tradition of the Yemenite Jews.
Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language (in He-
brew).
———. 1971. ‘Pronunciations of Hebrew’. In Encyclopaedia
Judaica, 13:1120–45. Jerusalem: Keter.
———. 1974. ‘On the Historical Validity of the Vocalization of
the Hebrew Bible’. Journal of the American Oriental Society
94: 307–15.
———. 1977. The Hebrew Language Tradition of the Baghdadi
Community. Publications of the Hebrew University
Language Traditions Project 1. Jerusalem: Hebrew
University, Magnes Press (in Hebrew).
———. 1988. Babylonian Aramaic. The Yemenite Tradition.
Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute.
———. 1996. ‘64ִ ‫’תוספות ִאחדות ִלמאמרים ִשנתפרסמו ִב׳פעמים׳‬.
Peʿamim: Studies in Oriental Jewry 65: 104–8.
———. 2003. Studies in Hebrew. Edited by Moshe Bar-Asher,
Yochanan Breuer, and Aharon Maman. Jerusalem: Hebrew
University Magnes Press (in Hebrew).
Mordell, Phineas. 1914. The Origin of Letters and Numerals
According to the Sefer Yetzirah. Philadelphia: Mardell.
Morgenstern, Matthew. 2013. ‘Second Temple Period’. In
Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, edited by
664 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Geoffrey Khan, Shmuel Bolozky, Steven E. Fassberg, Gary

A. Rendsburg, Aaron D. Rubin, Ora R. Schwarzwald, and
Tamar Zewi, 3:504–11. Leiden–Boston: Brill.
Murtonen, A. 1961. ‘Spoken Hebrew from the Tenth Century
A.D.’ Abr-Nahrain 3: 45–59.
Myers, Peter D. 2019. ‘A Grammar of Transcriptions in 2 Esdras:
Text, Philology, Phonology’. Ph.D. thesis. Cambridge:
University of Cambridge.
Naeh, Shlomo. 1992. ‘ִ‫ִהאםִדרשוִהתנאיםִאתִכתיב‬:‫איןִאםִלמסורתִאו‬
‫’התורהִשלאִכקריאתוִהמקובלת‬. Tarbiẕ 61: 401-448.
———. 1993. ‘‫’איןִאםִלמסורת—פעםִשנייה‬. Tarbiẕ 62: 455-462.
Nasser, Shady Hekmat. 2013. The Transmission of the Variant
Readings of the Qurʾān : The Problem of Tawātur and the
Emergence of Shawādhdh. Leiden: Brill.
Nelson, Kristina. 2001. The Art of Reciting the Qurʾan. Cairo:
American University in Cairo Press.
Nespor, Marina, and Irene Vogel. 2012. Prosodic Phonology. Ber-
lin–New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Neubauer, Adolf. 1891. Petite Grammaire Hébraïque Provenant de
Yemen: Texte Arabe publié d’après les Manuscrits Connus.
Leipzig: Harrassowitz.
Nevo, Moshe. 1991. ‘ִ‫הלהג ִהערבי ִשל ִיהודי ִהעיר ִחלב—פונולוגיה‬
‫’ומורפולוגיה‬. Ph.D. thesis. Jerusalem: Hebrew University.
Niditch, Susan. 1996. Oral World and Written Word: Ancient
Israelite Literature. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.
Nöldeke, Theodor. 1869. ‘Kleine Beiträge zur Hebräischen
Grammatik’. In Archiv für Wissenschaftliche Erforschung des
 References and Abbreviations 665

Alten Testaments, edited by Adalbert Merx, 1:456–60. Halle:

Verlag der Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses.
———. 1910. Neue Beiträge zur Semitischen Sprachwissenschaft.
Strassburg: K.J. Trübner.
———. 1912. ‘Inkonsequenzen in der Hebräischen Punktation’.
Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 26: 1–15.
Nöldeke, Theodor, Gotthelf Bergsträsser, and Otto Pretzl. 1938.
Geschichte des Qorans. 2nd Edition, Part 3. Leipzig:
Dieterichsche Verlagsbuchhandlung.
Nyberg, Henrik S. 1931. ‘Ein Iranische Wort im Buche Daniel’. Le
Monde Orientale 25: 178–204.
———. 1934. ‘Das Textkritische Problem des Alten Testaments’.
Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentiliche Wisssenschaft 11: 241–
54.
O’Connor, Joseph D. 1973. Phonetics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Ofer, Yosef. 1989. ‘‫’כתר ִארם ִצובה—לאור ִרשימותיו ִשל ִמ׳׳ד ִקאסוטו‬.
Sefunot 68: 277–344.
———. 1993. ‘‫’שוואִבסוףִהמילהִבניקודִטברני‬. Lĕšonénu 57: 109–18.
———. 2008. ‘ִ‫ִדרכיִהסימוןִשלהִודעותִהקדמונים‬,‫ִפשרִהתופעה‬:‫כתיבִוקרי‬
‫’עליה‬. Lĕšonénu 70: 55–73.
———. 2009. . ‘ִ‫ ִדרכי ִהסימון ִשלה ִודעות‬,‫ ִפשר ִהתופעה‬:‫כתיב ִוקרי‬
)‫’הקדמוניםִעליהִ(המשך‬. Lĕšonénu 71: 255–79.
———. 2013. ‘Mappiq’. In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and
Linguistics, edited by Geoffrey Khan, Shmuel Bolozky,
Steven E. Fassberg, Gary A. Rendsburg, Aaron D. Rubin,
Ora R. Schwarzwald, and Tamar Zewi, 2:577. Leiden–
Boston: Brill.
666 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

———. 2019. The Masora on Scripture and Its Methods. Fontes et

Subsidia ad Bibliam Pertinentes 7. Berlin–Boston: de
Gruyter.
Öhman, Sven E. G. 1966. ‘Coarticulation in VCV Utterances:
Spectrographic Measurements’. Journal of the Acoustic
Society of America 39: 151–68.
Outhwaite, Ben. 2018. ‘Beyond the Leningrad Codex: Samuel b.
Jacob in the Cairo Genizah’. In Studies in Semitic Linguistics
and Manuscripts: A Liber Discipulorum in Honour of Professor
Geoffrey Khan, edited by Nadia Vidro, Ronny Vollandt,
Esther-Miriam Wagner, and Judith Olszowy-Schlanger,
320–40. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis Studia Semitica
Upsaliensia 30. Uppsala: Uppsala University Library.
———. 2020 (to appear). ‘The Tiberian Tradition in Common
Bibles from the Cairo Genizah’. In Semitic Vocalization and
Reading Traditions, edited by Aaron Hornkohl and Geoffrey
Khan. Cambridge: University of Cambridge & Open Book
Publishers.
Payne Smith, Robert. 1879. Thesaurus Syriacus. Vol. 1. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Penkower, Jordan. 1981. ‘Maimonides and the Aleppo Codex’.
Textus 9: 39–128.
———. 1983. ‘ִ‫מהדורתִהתנ"ךִהראשונהִשהוציאִבומברגִלאורִוראשיתִבית‬
‫’דפוסו‬. Kiryat Sefer 58: 586-604.
———. 1989. ‘ִ‫יד ִירושלמי ִשל ִהתורה ִמן ִהמאה ִהעשירית ִשהגיהו‬-‫כתב‬
)3ִ‫ידִק‬-‫’מישאלִבןִעוזיאלִ(כתב‬. Tarbiẕ 58: 49-74.
Pérez Castro, Federico. 1979. El Codice de Profetas de el Cairo:
Edición de su Texto y Masoras. Textos y Estudios ‘Cardenal
 References and Abbreviations 667

Cisneros’ 20, 26, 30–31, 36–37, 44, 51. Madrid: Consejo

Superior de Investigaciones Cientificos.
Person, Raymond F. 1998. ‘The Ancient Israelite Scribe as
Performer’. Journal of Biblical Literature 117: 601–9.
———. 2010. The Deuteronomic History and the Book of Chronicles:
Scribal Works in an Oral World. Ancient Israel and Its
Literature 6. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
Phillips, Kim. 2016. ‘Two New Fragments from the Scribe behind
the Leningrad Codex’. Paper given at the EAJS LAB
Conference Research Approaches in Hebrew Bible Manuscript
Studies, 6-8 June 2016, Aix-En-Provence.
———. 2017. ‘A New Codex from the Scribe behind the
Leningrad Codex: L17’. Tyndale Bulletin 68 (1): 1–29.
———. 2020 (to appear). ‘Samuel Ben Jacob’s Treatment of
Exceptional Vocalic Shewas’. In Semitic Vocalization and
Reading Traditions, edited by Aaron Hornkohl and Geoffrey
Khan. Semitic Languages and Cultures. Cambridge:
University of Cambridge & Open Book Publishers.
Pilocane, Chiara. 2004. Frammenti dei più Antichi Manoscritti Bib-
lici Italiani (secc. XI-XII): Analisi e Edizione Facsimile.
Firenze: Casa Editrice Giuntina.
Polychronius, Commentarii in Danielem, edited by E. Moutsoulas,
Πολυχρόνιος Ἀπαμείας (Μέρος Αʹ) [Βιβλιοθήκη Ἑλλήνων
Πατέρων καὶ Ἐκκλησιαστικων Συγγραφέων (ΒΕΠΕΣ) 88.
Athens: Ἀποστολικὴ Διακονία τῆς Ἐκκλησίας τῆς Ἑλλάδος,
2007]: 200-290.
Posegay, Nicholas. 2019. ‘Reciting Hebrew with an Arabic
Accent: A Partial List of Ṭeʿamim from T-S K9.11’. Fragment
of the Month (blog). July 2019. https://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/
668 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

collections/departments/taylor-schechter-genizah-
research-unit/fragment-month/fotm-2019/fragment-5.
———. 2020 (to appear). ‘Connecting the Dots: The Shared
Phonological Tradition in Syriac, Arabic, and Hebrew
Vocalisation’. In Studies in Semitic Vocalization and Reading
Traditions, edited by Aaron Hornkohl and Geoffrey Khan.
Cambridge Semitic Languages and Cultures. Cambridge:
University of Cambridge & Open Book Publishers.
Praetorius, Franz. 1897. Über den Rückweichenden Accent im
Hebräischen. Halle: Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses.
Prijs, Joseph. 1957. ‘Über Ben Naftali-Bibelhandschriften und
ihre Paläographische Besonderheiten’. Zeitschrift für
Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 69: 171–84.
Prince, Alan. 1975. ‘The Phonology and Morphology of Tiberian
Hebrew.’ Ph.D. thesis. Cambridge MA: Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
———. 1983. ‘Relating to the Grid’. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 19–100.
———. 1990. ‘Quantitative Consequences of Rhythmic Organ-
ization’. In Parasession on the Syllable in Phonetics and
Phonology, edited by Michael Ziolkowski, Manuela Noske,
and Karen Deaton, 355–98. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic
Society.
Qimḥi, David. 1862. ‫ספרִמכלול‬. Edited by Yiṣḥaq ben Aharon Rit-
tenberg. Lyck: Peṭṣalel.
Qimḥi, Joseph. 1888. Sepher Sikkaron: Grammatik der Hebräischen
Sprache. Edited by Wilhelm Bacher. Berlin: M’kize
Nirdamim.
 References and Abbreviations 669

Qimron, Elisha. 1986. The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Atlanta,
GA: Scholars.
———. 2018. A Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute.
Qirqisānī, Yaʿqūb ibn Isḥāq al-. 1939. Kitab al-Anwār w-al-
Marāqib. Edited by Leon Nemoy. New York: The Alexander
Kohut Memorial Foundation.
Rand, Michael. 2020 (to appear). ‘Marginalia to the Qillirian
Rhyme System’. In Studies in Semitic Vocalization and
Reading Traditions, edited by Geoffrey Khan and Hornkohl,
Aaron. Cambridge Semitic Languages and Cultures.
Cambridge: University of Cambridge & Open Book
Publishers.
Rand, Michael, and Binyamin Loeffler. 2015. ‘Evidence of an
Early Form of the Ashkenazic Liturgical Rite from the Cairo
Genizah’. Journal of Jewish Studies 66: 1–23.
Razhaby, Yehuda. 1983. ‘‫’ברכות ִמזון ִמפויטות ִלמועדי ִתשרי‬. Tarbiẕ
53:373–85.
Reiter, Siegfried. 1960. S. Hieronymi Presbyteri Opera: Pars I:
Opera Exegetica 3: In Hieremiam Libri Vi. Turnhout: Brepols.
Rendsburg, Gary A. 1990. Diglossia in Ancient Hebrew. American
Oriental Series 72. New Haven: American Oriental Society.
———. 2013a. ‘Biblical Hebrew: Dialects and Linguistic
Variation’. In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and
Linguistics, edited by Geoffrey Khan, Shmuel Bolozky,
Steven E. Fassberg, Gary A. Rendsburg, Aaron D. Rubin,
Ora R. Schwarzwald, and Tamar Zewi, 1:338–41. Leiden–
Boston: Brill.
670 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

———. 2013b. ‘Diglossia: Biblical Hebrew’. In Encyclopedia of

Hebrew Language and Linguistics, edited by Geoffrey Khan,
Shmuel Bolozky, Steven E. Fassberg, Gary A. Rendsburg,
Aaron D. Rubin, Ora R. Schwarzwald, and Tamar Zewi,
1:724–25. Leiden–Boston: Brill.
———. 2013c. ‘Shibboleth’. In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language
and Linguistics, edited by Geoffrey Khan, Shmuel Bolozky,
Steven E. Fassberg, Gary A. Rendsburg, Aaron D. Rubin,
Ora R. Schwarzwald, and Tamar Zewi, 3:556–57. Leiden–
Boston: Brill.
Revell, E. John. 1969. ‘A New Subsystem of Tibero-Palestinian
Pointing’. In Proceedings of the Fifth World Congress of Jewish
Studies, 4:91–107. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish
Studies.
———. 1970a. Hebrew Texts with Palestinian Vocalization. Near
and Middle East Series 7. Toronto: University of Toronto
Press.
———. 1970b. ‘Studies in the Palestinian Vocalization of
Hebrew’. In Essays on the Ancient Semitic World, edited by
John. W. Wevers. and Donald. B. Redford, 59–100.
Toronto: Toronto University Press.
———. 1971. ‘The Oldest Evidence for the Hebrew Accent
System’. Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 54: 214–22.
———. 1977. Biblical Texts with Palestinian Pointing and Their
Accents. Masoretic Studies 4. Missoula, Montana: Published
by Scholars Press for the Society of Biblical Literature.
 References and Abbreviations 671

———. 1980. ‘Pausal Forms in Biblical Hebrew, Their Function,

Origin and Significance’. Journal of Semitic Studies 25: 165–
79.
———. 1981. ‘The Nature of Resh in Tiberian Hebrew’.
Association for Jewish Studies Review 6: 125–36.
———. 1983. ‘Nesiga and the History of the Masorah’. In Estudios
Masoreticos, edited by Emilia Fernández-Tejero, 37–48.
Textos y Estudios ‘Cardenal Cisneros’ 33. Madrid: Consejo
Superior de Investigaciones Cientificos.
———. 2015. The Pausal System: Divisions in the Hebrew Biblical
Text as Marked by Vowelling and Stress Position. Sheffield:
Sheffield Phoenix Press.
Reymond, Eric D. 2014. Qumran Hebrew: An Overview of Ortho-
graphy, Phonology, and Morphology. Atlanta: Society of
Biblical Literature.
Roberts, Bleddyn Jones. 1951. The Old Testament Text and
Versions; the Hebrew Text in Transmission and the History of
the Ancient Versions. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.
Roman, André. 1983. Étude de La Phonologie et de La Morphologie
de La Koine Arabe. 2 vols. Aix-en-Provence: Université de
Provence.
Roxburgh, David J. 2008. Writing the Word of God: Calligraphy
and the Qurʾan. London: Yale University Press.
Rozenfeld, Ben Tsiyon. 2010. Torah Centers and Rabbinic Activity
in Palestine, 70-400 CE: History and Geographic Distribution.
Translated by Chava Cassel. Supplements to the Journal for
the Study of Judaism 138. Leiden: Brill.
672 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Ryan, Kevin M. 2016. Prosodic Weight. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.
Ryzhik, Michael. 2013. ‘Italy, Pronunciation Traditions’. In
Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, edited by
Shmuel Bolozky, Steven E. Fassberg, Gary A. Rendsburg,
Aaron D. Rubin, Ora R. Schwarzwald, and Tamar Zewi,
2:362–66. Leiden-Boston: Brill.
Sabar, Yona. 2013. ‘Kurdistan, Pronunciation Tradition’. In
Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, edited by
Geoffrey Khan, Shmuel Bolozky, Steven E. Fassberg, Gary
A. Rendsburg, Aaron D. Rubin, Ora R. Schwarzwald, and
Tamar Zewi, 2:479–81. Leiden–Boston: Brill.
Saenz-Badillos, Angel. 1996. A History of the Hebrew Language.
Translated by John Ewolde. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Sarauw, Christian Preben Emil. 1939. Über Akzent und
Silbenbildung in den Älteren Semitischen Sprachen. Historisk-
Filologiske Meddelelser, Det Kongelige Danske
Videnskabernes Selskab 26, 8. København: Ejnar
Munksgaard.
Schiffman, Lawrence H. 1991. From Text to Tradition : A History
of Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism. Hoboken: Ktav.
Schniedewind, William M. 2004. How the Bible Became a Book:
The Textualization of Ancient Israel. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
———. 2013. A Social History of Hebrew: Its Origins through the
Rabbinic Period.
 References and Abbreviations 673

Schoeler, Gregor. 2006. The Oral and the Written in Early Islam.
Edited by James E. Montgomery 1962-. Translated by Uwe
Vagelpohl. Routledge Studies in Middle Eastern Literatures
13. London: Routledge.
Scholem, Gershom Gerhard. 1965. On the Kabbalah and Its
Symbolism. New York: Schocken Books.
———. 2007. ‘Yeẓirah, Sefer’. In Encyclopedia Judaica, 2nd ed.,
21:328–31.
Schorch, Stefan. 2004. Die Vokale des Gesetzes: Die Samaritanische
Lesetradition als Textzeugin der Tora. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift
für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 339. Berlin: de
Gruyter.
Schramm, Gene M. 1964. The Graphemes of Tiberian Hebrew.
Berkeley–Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Schreiner, Martin. 1886. ‘Zur Geschichte der Aussprache des
Hebräischen’. Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft 6: 213–59.
Segal, Judah Benzion. 1989. ‘Quššaya and Rukkaḵa: A Historical
Introduction’. Journal of Semitic Studies 34: 483–91.
Segal, Michael, Emanuel Tov, William Brent Seales, Clifford Seth
Parker, Pnina Shor, Yosef Porath, and Ada Yardeni. 2016.
‘An Early Leviticus Scroll from En-Gedi: Preliminary
Publication’. Textus 26: 1–30.
Segal, Moshe Hirsch. 1927. A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1984. Phonology and Syntax: The Relation
between Sound and Structure. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
674 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Shaked, Shaul. 1985. ‘‫’פרקים ִבמורשתם ִהקדומה ִשל ִיהודי ִפרס‬.

Peʿamim: Studies in Oriental Jewry 23: 22–37.
Shamosh, Amnon. 1987. ‫צובה‬-‫ִסיפורוִשלִכתרִארם‬:‫הכתר‬. Jerusalem:
Ben-Zvi Institute.
Sharvit, Shimon. 1968. ‘‫’מסכתִביכוריםִעלִפיִהגניזה‬. Bar-Ilan Annual
6: 22–32.
Shashar, Y. 1983. ִ‫ִומקומוִבהתהוות‬:ִ)507ִ‫ִ(ששון‬24ִ5702ִ‫ידִירושלים‬-‫כתב‬
‫נוסחִהמסורהִהטברניִהמקובל‬. Ph.D. thesis. Jerusalem: Hebrew
University.
Shehadeh, Haseeb. 1983. ‘ִ‫מתי ִתפסה ִהערבית ִאת ִמקום ִהארמית‬
‫’השומרונית‬. In Hebrew Language Studies Presented to Professor
Zeev Ben-Ḥayyim, edited by Moshe Bar-Asher et al., 513–
28. Jerusalem: Magnes Press.
Shoshany, Ronit. 2003. ִ‫ ִכללי ִההטעמה‬:‫מערכת ִהטעמים ִהבבלית‬
‫ִוהזיקהִלמערכתִהטברנית‬,‫ִשלביִההתפתחוה‬,‫והחלוקה‬. Ph.D. thesis.
Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University.
———. 2013. ‘Biblical Accents: Babylonian’. In Encyclopedia of
Hebrew Language and Linguistics, edited by Geoffrey Khan,
Shmuel Bolozky, Steven E. Fassberg, Gary A. Rendsburg,
Aaron D. Rubin, Ora R. Schwarzwald, and Tamar Zewi,
1:268–75. Leiden–Boston: Brill.
Siegfried, Carl. 1884. ‘Die Aussprache des Hebräischen bei
Hieronymus’. Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft 4: 34–83.
Sijpesteijn, Petra M. 2007. ‘The Archival Mind in Early Islamic
Egypt: Two Arabic Papyri’. In From al-Andalus to Khurasan.
Documents from the Medieval Muslim World, edited by Petra
 References and Abbreviations 675

M. Sijpesteijn, Lennart Sundelin, Sofía Torallas Tovar, and

Amalia Zomeño, 163–86. Leiden: Brill.
Sirat, Colette. 2002. Hebrew Manuscripts of the Middle Ages.
Translated by Nicholas R. M de Lange. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Skinner, John. 1994. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on
Genesis. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.
Skoss, Solomon Leon. 1936. The Hebrew-Arabic Dictionary of the
Bible, Known as Kitāb Jāmiʻ al-Alfāẓ (Agrōn) of David Ben
Abraham al-Fāsī the Karaite. Yale Oriental Series Researches
20–21. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Smelik, Willem. 2013. Rabbis, Language and Translation in Late
Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sokoloff, Michael. 1968. ‘30ִ‫ִלפיִכ"יִואטיקן‬,‫’העבריתִשלִבראשיתִרבה‬.
Lĕšonénu 33: 25-42.
———. 1992. Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the
Byzantine Period. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press.
———. 2002. A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the
Talmudic and Geonic Periods. Ramat Gan–Baltimore–
London: Bar Ilan University Press, Johns Hopkins
University Press.
———. 2009. A Syriac Lexicon: A Translation from the Latin,
Correction, Expansion, and Update of C. Brockelmann’s
Lexicon Syriacum. Winona Lake-Piscataway: Eisenbrauns-
Gorgias.
Sperber, Alexander. 1937. ‘Hebrew Based upon Greek and Latin
Transliterations’. Hebrew Union College Annual 12–13: 103–
274.
676 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

———. 1956-1959. The Pre-Masoretic Bible. Corpus Codicum

Hebraicorum Medii Aevi 2. Copenhagen: E. Munksgaard.
Steiner, Richard. 1993. ‘)‫ִמה‬,‫ּפ ְִדנֹו ִ(דניאלִיא‬
ִַ ‫א‬
ִַ ִ‫’הפ"אִהנחציתִבמלה‬. In
Hebrew and Arabic Studies in Honour of Joshua Blau, edited
by Haggai Ben-Shammai, 551–61. Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv
University.
———. 1996. ‘Ketiv-Ḳerē or Polyphony: The ‫ש‬-‫ ש‬Distinction ac-
cording to the Masoretes, the Rabbis, Jerome, Qirqisānī,
and Hai Gaon’. In Studies in Hebrew and Jewish Languages
Presented to Shelomo Morag, edited by Moshe Bar-Asher,
*151-*179. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute.
———. 2005a. ‘On the Dating of Hebrew Sound Changes (*Ḫ >
Ḥ and *Ġ > ʿ) and Greek Translations (2 Esdras and
Judith)’. Journal of Biblical Literature 124: 229–67.
———. 2005b. ‘Påṯaḥ and Qåmeṣ: On the Etymology and
Evolution of the Names of the Hebrew Vowels’. Orientalia
74: 372–81.
———. 2009. ‘ִ‫פתחִוקמץ—עיוןִבגזרונםִובהתפתחותםִשלִשמותִהתנועות‬
‫’בעברית‬. In Masʾat Aharon: Linguistic Studies Presented to Aron
Dotan, edited by Moshe Bar-Asher and Chaim E. Cohen,
487–97. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute.
———. 2016. ‘Phonemic Spelling and Scriptio Continua for
Sandhi Phenomena and Glottal Stop Deletion: Proto-
Sinaitic vs. Hebrew’. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 75:
311–34.
Stern, David. 2017. The Jewish Bible: A Material History. Samuel
and Althea Stroum Lectures in Jewish Studies. Seattle:
University of Washington Press.
 References and Abbreviations 677

Strack, Hermann Leberecht. 1876. Prophetarum Posteriorum

Codex Babylonicus Petropolitanus: Auspiciis Augustissimi
Imperatoris Alexandri II. St. Petersburg.
Suchard, Benjamin. 2018. ‘The Vocalic Phonemes of Tiberian
Hebrew’. Hebrew Studies 59: 193–207.
Sutcliffe, Edmund F. 1948. ‘St. Jerome’s Pronunciation of
Hebrew’. Biblica 29: 112–25.
Theodoretus, Commentarius in Visiones Danielis Prophetae, edited
by Jacques Paul Migne, 1857-1866, Patrologiae Cursus Com-
pletus (Series Graeca) (MPG) 81, Paris: Migne, 1256-1546.
Thomason, Sarah G. 2001. Language Contact: An Introduction.
Edinburgh and Washington: Edinburgh University Press,
Georgetown University Press.
Thomason, Sarah G., and Terence Kaufman. 1988. Language
Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Tirosh-Becker, Ofra. 2011. Rabbinic Excerpts in Medieval Karaite
Literature. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute and the
Hebrew University (in Hebrew).
Tov, Emanuel. 2008. Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran:
Collected Essays. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
———. 2012. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 3rd ed.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
———. 2014. ‘The Myth of the Stabilization of Text of Hebrew
Scripture’. In The Text of the Hebrew Bible from the Rabbis to
the Masoretes, edited by Elvira Martín Contreras and Lorena
Miralles-Marciá, 37–45. Journal of Ancient Judaism.
Supplements 13. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
678 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

———. 2015. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Qumran,

Septuagint: Collected Essays, Volume 3. Supplements to Vetus
Testamentum 167. Leiden: Brill.
———. 2016. ‘The Development of the Text of the Torah in Two
Major Text Blocks’. Textus 26: 1-26.
Trubetzskoy, Nikolai S. 1936. ‘Die Phonologischen Grundlagen
der Sogenannten “Quantität” in den Verschiedenen
Sprachen’. In Scritti in Onore di Alfredo Trombetti, 155–74.
Milano: Ulrico Hoepli.
———. 1938. ‘Quantität als Phonologisches Problem’. In Actes
Du IVème Congrès International de Linguistes, 117–21.
Copenhagen: Munksgaard.
Turk, Alice, and Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel. 2007. ‘Multiple
Targets of Phrase-Final Lengthening in American English
Words’. Journal of Phonetics 35: 445–61.
Ulrich, Eugene. 2015. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental
Composition of the Bible. Leiden–Boston: Brill.
Vajda, Georges. 1954. ‘Nouveaux Fragments Arabes du
Commentaire de Dunash B. Tamin’. Revue des Études Juives
113: 37–61.
———. 1963. ‘Deux Nouveaux Fragments Arabes du Commen-
taire de Dunas b. Tamim’. Revue des Études Juives 122: 149–
62.
Valle Rodríguez, Carlos del. 1977. Sefer Ṣaḥot de Abraham Ibn
ʿEzra : Edición Crítica y Versión Castellana. Vol. 1.
Salamanca: Universidad Pontificia.
Vayra, Mario. 1994. ‘Phonetic Explanations in Phonology:
Laryngealization as the Case for Glottal Stops in Italian
 References and Abbreviations 679

Word-Final Stressed Syllables’. In Phonologica 1992:

Proceedings of the 7th International Phonology Meeting, edited
by Wolfgang U. Dressler, Martin Prinzhorn, and John R.
Rennison, 275–93. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier.
Vennemann, Theo. 1988. Preference Laws for Syllable Structure
and the Explanation of Sound Change. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Versteegh, Kees. 2011. ‘Ḍād’. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language
and Linguistics, edited by Lutz Edzard and Rudolf de Jong.
Online: Brill.
Vidro, Nadia. 2011. Verbal Morphology in the Karaite Treatise on
Hebrew Grammar: Kitāb al-ʿUqūd fī Taṣārīf al-Luġa
al-ʿIbrāniyya. Études sur le Judaïsme Médiéval 51. Leiden:
Brill.
Vidro, Nadia. 2013. A Medieval Karaite Pedagogical Grammar of
Hebrew: A Critical Edition and English Translation of Kitab
al-ʿUqūd Fī Taṣārīf al-Luġa al-ʿIbrāniyya. Études sur le
Judaïsme Médiéval 62. Boston: Brill.
Wagner, Esther-Miriam. 2010. Linguistic Variety of Judaeo-Arabic
in Letters from the Cairo Genizah. Leiden: Brill.
Watson, Janet C. E. 2007. The Phonology and Morphology of
Arabic. Oxford. Oxford University Press.
Wechsler, Michael. 2013. ‘New Data from Saadia Bearing on the
Relocation of the Palestinian Yeshiva to Jerusalem’. Jewish
Studies, an Internet Journal 12: 1–9.
Weinreich, Uriel. 1965. Ashkenazic Hebrew and Hebrew in Yiddish.
Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language (in
Hebrew).
680 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Weinstock, Israel. 1972. ‘‫’לברור ִהנוסח ִשל ִספר ִיצירה‬. In Temirin I,

edited by Israel Weinstock, 9–71. Jerusalem: Mossad Harav
Kook.
Wickes, William. 1887. A Treatise on the Accentuation of the
Twenty-One so-Called Prose Books of the Old Testament: With
a Facsimile of a Page of the Codex Assigned to Ben-Asher in
Aleppo. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Wightman, Colin W. 1992. ‘Segmental Durations in the Vicinity
of Prosodic Phrase Boundaries’. Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America 91: 1707–17.
Yaʾakov, Doron. 2013. ‘Yemen, Pronunciation Traditions’. In
Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, edited by
Geoffrey Khan, Shmuel Bolozky, Steven E. Fassberg, Gary
A. Rendsburg, Aaron D. Rubin, Ora R. Schwarzwald, and
Tamar Zewi, 4:1012–21. Leiden–Boston: Brill.
———. 2015. The Hebrew Language Tradition of the Jews of
Southern Yemen: Phonetics and Mishnaic Hebrew. Public-
ations of the Hebrew University Language Traditions
Project 34. Jerusalem: Magnes Press (in Hebrew).
Yahalom, Joseph. 1985. Poetic Language in the Early Piyyut.
Jerusalem: Magnes Press (in Hebrew).
———. 1997. Palestinian Vocalised Piyyut Manuscripts in the
Cambridge Genizah Collections. Cambridge University
Library Genizah Series 7. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
———. 2016. ‘Palestinian Tradition’. In A Handbook of Biblical
Hebrew, edited by W. Randall Garr and Steven E. Fassberg,
1:161–74. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
 References and Abbreviations 681

Yalon, Hanoch. 1964. Introduction to the Vocalization of the

Mishna. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute (in Hebrew).
Yarqoni, Rivqa. 1985. ‘‫’עיןִהקוראִליקותיאלִהכוהן‬. Ph.D. thesis. Tel-
Aviv: Tel-Aviv University.
Yeivin, Israel. 1962. ‘The Vocalization of Qere-Kethiv in A’.
Textus 2: 146–49.
———. 1968. Aleppo Codex. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew
University (in Hebrew).
———. 1972. ‘ִ‫ִיקטולנוִבמגילותִמדברִיהודהִלאורִמסורת‬,‫הצורותִיקוטלנו‬
‫’הניקודִהבבלי‬. In The Bible and the History of the Jews. Studies
in the Bible and in the Literature of the Second Temple Period
in Honour of Jacob Lever, edited by Benjamin Oppenheimer,
258–61. Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University (in Hebrew).
———. 1978. ‘‫’א ִדגושה ִבמקרא‬. In ִ‫מחקרים ִבמקרא ִובמזרח ִהקדמון‬
‫מוגשים ִלש"א ִליונשטם ִבמלאת ִלו ִשבעים ִשנה‬, edited by Yitzhak
Avishur and Joshua Blau, 223–27. Jerusalem: Rubinshten.
———. 1980. Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah. Masoretic
Studies. Missoula: Scholars Press.
———. 1981a. ‘‫’מתורתםִשלִבעליִהמסורה‬. Textus 9: 1-27.
———. 1981b. ‘‫’הגעיֹותִותפקידן‬. Lĕšonénu 46: 39–56.
———. 1983. ‘‫’משמעות ִסימן ִהדגש ִבניקוד ִהטברני ִהמורחב‬. In Hebrew
Language Studies Presented to Professor Zeev Ben-Ḥayyim,
edited by Moshe Bar-Asher, Aron Dotan, David Tene, and
Gad Ben-Ṣarfatti, 293–307. Jerusalem: Magnes Press.
———. 1985. The Hebrew Language Tradition as Reflected in the
Babylonian Vocalization. Jerusalem: The Academy of the
Hebrew Language (in Hebrew).
682 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

———. 1986. ‘2ִ‫’סימןִ“הדגשִהמפריד”ִבכ׳׳יִוטיקןִאוּרבינאטי‬. Sefarad 46:

493–506.
Yuditsky, Alexey. 2013. ‘Transcription into Greek and Latin
Script: Pre-Masoretic Period’. In Encyclopedia of Hebrew
Language and Linguistics, edited by Geoffrey Khan, Shmuel
Bolozky, Steven E. Fassberg, Gary A. Rendsburg, Aaron D.
Rubin, Ora R. Schwarzwald, and Tamar Zewi, 3:803–22.
Leiden–Boston: Brill.
———. 2017. A Grammar of the Hebrew of Origen’s Transcriptions.
Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language (in Hebrew).
Zbrzezny, Jakub. 2019. ‘Biblioclasm and the Bible: the Origin of
the Sefer Tehillim.’ Ph.D. thesis, Aberdeen: University of Ab-
erdeen.
Zer, Rafael. 2003. ‘?‫’ההיהִמסרןִהכתרִרבניִאוִקראי‬. Sefunot 8: 573–
87.
 INDEXES

GENERAL INDEX 292, 321, 338, 348,

376, 377, 378, 443,
Abbasid: 12
444, 445, 454, 456,
abbreviation: 22, 33
458, 460, 462, 474,
ʾAbū al-Faraj Hārūn: 95, 107,
510, 514, 536, 537,
120, 125, 126, 154, 160
539, 541, 553, 558,
accents: 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 25,
560, 577
49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 56, 96,
disjunctive accent: 53,
97, 99, 100, 101, 108, 109,
82, 100, 321, 375, 377,
116, 120, 121, 125, 126,
378, 453, 454, 456,
139, 171, 227, 269, 283,
460, 462, 466, 470,
292, 293, 294, 298, 321,
477, 484, 487, 553
325, 327, 336, 337, 338,
advanced uvular: 221, 222,
348, 353, 354, 361, 362,
223, 224, 230, 233, 556
372, 373, 376, 377, 378,
Aggadic: 86
379, 393, 395, 402, 403,
ʾAḥiyyahu ha-Kohen: 86
404, 405, 426, 427, 436,
airflow: 247, 263, 266
443, 444, 445, 452, 453,
al-Bīrūnī: 153, 251
454, 455, 457, 459, 460,
ʾalef: 29, 43, 135, 136, 137,
461, 462, 463, 465, 466,
138, 139, 140, 141, 142,
468, 469, 470, 473, 474,
143, 144, 145, 146, 147,
476, 479, 481, 482, 487,
148, 149, 150, 165, 177,
488, 497, 509, 510, 513,
178, 194, 197, 198, 204,
514, 515, 517, 518, 519,
209, 212, 267, 268, 315,
533, 536, 554, 555, 556,
328, 340, 409, 410, 411,
558, 563, 565, 567, 573,
420, 421, 424, 425, 494,
622
521, 528, 572
conjunctive accent: 50,
82, 100, 101, 139, 195,
684 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Aleppo: 143, 146, 170, 187, 152, 153, 155, 156, 174,
188, 249, 309, 449, 522, 179, 193, 199, 205, 206,
588, 589 209, 220, 221, 235, 237,
al-Fāsi, David ben Abraham: 239, 250, 259, 261, 264,
106 267, 268, 300, 302, 360,
al-Jurjānī, ʿAbd al-Qāhir: 556 367, 369, 380, 382, 383,
al-Khalīl: 155, 201 387, 393, 402, 414, 415,
al-Khaṣāʾiṣ: 296 416, 440, 441, 448, 450,
al-Kitāb al-Kāfī fī al-Lugha 451, 453, 470, 472, 473,
al-ʿIbrāniyya: 126 479, 490, 492, 496, 499,
al-Kitāb al-Mushtamil ʿalā 501, 502, 504, 505, 507,
al-ʾUṣūl wa-l-Fuṣūl fī al-Lugha 511, 516, 517, 518, 527,
al-ʿIbrāniyya: 126 547, 551, 561, 562, 564,
allophone: 192, 230, 240, 587, 589, 590, 597
260, 294 Arabic transcriptions by
al-Nahāwendī, Benjamin: 3 Muslims: 153, 251
al-Qirqisānī, ʾAbū Yūsuf Aramaic: 23, 24, 33, 41, 67,
Yaʿqūb: 3, 69, 85, 89, 106, 68, 69, 71, 73, 74, 84, 90,
123 118, 134, 161, 218, 219,
al-Riʿāya li-Tajwīd al-Qirāʾa wa- 232, 233, 234, 243, 245,
Taḥqīq Lafẓ al-Tilāwa: 193 256, 257, 261, 262, 264,
al-Shām: 89 361, 366, 368, 411, 432,
Amoraic: 2, 106 443, 444, 461, 520, 526,
ʾanḥāʾ: 305 528, 529, 535, 540, 541,
Antiochus IV Epiphanes: 38 569, 571
Aquila: 10 Christian Palestinian
Arabic dialects: 35, 110, 151, Aramaic: 232
156, 201, 207, 232, 483, Jewish Palestinian
589, 592, 604 Aramaic: 67, 90, 109,
Arabic transcriptions by 110, 154, 190, 231,
Karaites: 122, 123, 151, 245, 261, 597
 Indexes 685

Neo-Aramaic: 84, 229, Baghdad: 143, 146, 189, 190,

232, 517 233, 248, 299, 309, 449,
Samaritan Aramaic: 15 589
Samaritan Aramaic: 232 Bar-Kochba: 1, 85
archive: 12 Ben Asher, Aharon: 15, 18,
Ashkenaz: 112, 130, 131, 132, 22, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31,
206, 520, 566, 581, 582, 87, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 101,
584 102, 105, 106, 107, 108,
Ashkenazi pronunciation: 112, 116, 120, 131, 174, 175,
114, 310, 585 312, 360, 362, 363, 364,
ʾaṣl: 156, 158, 207, 238 365, 368, 379, 382, 394,
aspirated: 60, 61, 155, 204, 399, 400, 406, 431, 473,
205, 206, 213, 214, 215, 514, 540, 541, 545, 547,
217, 218, 220, 237, 238, 555, 559, 561, 563, 565
239, 593 Ben Naftali, Moshe: 25, 27,
ʾatnaḥ: 455, 467, 469 28, 29, 30, 87, 94, 95, 96,
ʿayin: 21, 194, 209, 210, 211, 97, 101, 102, 103, 105, 107,
212, 213, 236, 346, 351, 108, 120, 131, 174, 175,
418, 545, 579 301, 312, 360, 363, 365,
ʾazla: 488, 555 368, 379, 382, 394, 399,
Babylonian exile: 9 400, 406, 432, 514, 540,
Babylonian pronunciation: 12, 541, 545, 546, 553, 554,
184 555, 559, 561, 563, 565,
Babylonian vocalization: 13, 578
51, 56, 63, 65, 76, 77, 79, Ben-Ezra synagogue: 26
88, 133, 143, 185, 186, 202, bet: 2, 67, 68, 150, 151, 152,
307, 319, 333, 341, 343, 153, 154, 173, 174, 176,
381, 382, 388, 413, 525, 188, 214, 215, 227, 305,
526, 596, 602 361, 362, 538, 539
Bet-Guvrin: 2
Biblia Hebraica Quinta: 17
686 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Biblia Hebraica: 17, 27 147, 148, 150, 154, 156,

bilabial: 150, 151, 171, 173, 164, 165, 166, 167, 179,
174, 175, 176, 185, 186, 183, 185, 186, 187, 195,
187, 188, 189, 213, 298 197, 202, 204, 211, 213,
bimoricity: 279 237, 303, 313, 317, 328,
Bomberg, Daniel: 16 342, 344, 346, 347, 368,
buffer syllable: 293, 475, 476, 381, 387, 389, 394, 405,
478 413, 418, 419, 433, 462,
bureaucracy: 12 503, 544, 575, 576, 584,
Byzantine: 31, 205, 597 586
Cairo: 25, 33, 93, 111, 123, codicology: 17, 133
130, 134, 316 colophon: 19, 22, 23, 25, 26,
cantillation: 17, 49, 51, 53, 27, 29, 32
96, 371, 461 compensatory gemination:
chronological layering (of 447, 619
vocalization): 72 compensatory lengthening:
Chronology of Nations (al- 357, 371, 383, 384, 568
Bīrūnī): 153, 251 compound Babylonian
cluster: 257, 327, 329, 330, vocalization: 133, 319, 394,
349, 407, 409, 410, 416, 406, 448, 451
422, 424, 426, 429, 326, Crimea: 309
333, 407, 409, 411, 419, Crusaders: 105, 123
422, 426, 429 dagesh: 29, 60, 69, 72, 78,
coda: 135, 162, 335, 350, 102, 103, 111, 129, 131,
352, 375, 406, 497, 501, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139,
546, 568 140, 141, 142, 143, 147,
codex: 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 149, 150, 151, 154, 155,
26, 30, 31, 32, 33, 38, 55, 156, 157, 165, 171, 172,
93, 98, 99, 106, 108, 109, 186, 194, 195, 197, 201,
115, 116, 120, 121, 130, 204, 205, 207, 209, 210,
131, 133, 137, 138, 139, 211, 213, 215, 224, 226,
 Indexes 687

229, 236, 237, 238, 239, extended dagesh forte

242, 315, 319, 322, 328, reading: 103, 112,
330, 342, 343, 365, 366, 551, 554, 559, 560,
369, 370, 395, 408, 412, 561, 562, 563, 564,
413, 414, 415, 420, 443, 567, 577, 596
445, 446, 450, 452, 484, dagesh to distinguish
517, 520, 521, 523, 524, homophones: 524
525, 526, 527, 528, 534, dalet: 110, 156, 157, 158, 159,
535, 541, 542, 543, 544, 160, 161, 207, 216, 228,
545, 546, 547, 548, 549, 238, 409, 588, 589
551, 552, 553, 555, 556, ḍamma: 180, 266
557, 558, 559, 560, 561, Dead Sea Scrolls: 4, 6, 254
562, 563, 564, 565, 566, definite article: 245, 280, 370,
567, 569, 570, 571, 572, 381, 382, 384, 386, 543,
573, 575, 576, 577, 578, 568, 569, 573, 622
579, 580, 581, 582, 583, degenerate foot: 434, 436,
584, 587, 596, 600 437, 495
dagesh forte: 104, 111, deḥiq: 139, 365, 366, 368,
142, 143, 520, 521, 443, 444, 445, 446, 448,
527, 547, 548, 549, 449, 450, 452, 453, 515,
550, 551, 553, 558, 535, 560, 573, 606
559, 560, 561, 562, digsha: 319, 525
563, 564, 567, 577, diphthong: 3
578, 582, 584, 596 Diqduq: 125, 126, 140, 141,
dagesh lene: 104, 414, 259, 397
415, 520, 547, 548, Diqduqe ha-Ṭeʿamim: 98, 226,
549, 550, 551, 553, 228, 283, 345, 352, 353,
558, 559, 560, 561, 354, 358, 361, 363, 365,
562, 564, 565, 566, 366, 373, 376, 377, 386,
567, 581, 582, 584, 402, 403, 404, 405, 432,
596
688 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

455, 456, 471, 478, 513, 459, 460, 486, 501, 503,
514 531, 613, 615
directive he: 338 epigraphy: 1
distinction in meaning: 79, 81, Europe: 12, 25, 120, 130, 132,
82, 83, 525, 527, 528, 529 316, 557, 559, 565, 575
dorsal: 156, 207, 222 extrametrical: 335, 337, 353,
dual: 70, 81 423, 538
ḏ̣uhūr: 162 extrasyllabic: 290, 329, 348,
Dunash ibn Tamīm, ʾAbū Sahl: 349, 422, 423, 426
128, 260 Ezra the scribe: 16
Egypt: 26, 108, 123, 124, 221, farʿ: 154, 156, 158, 207, 238
338, 526 fatḥa: 180, 251, 266, 402
Elias Levita: 246 foot: 229, 230, 291, 321, 322,
emphatic (i.e. pharyngealized): 323, 324, 335, 338, 349,
60, 156, 158, 160, 161, 191, 356, 357, 423, 424, 425,
192, 193, 207, 216, 219, 426, 427, 428, 434, 435,
220, 221, 222, 227, 228, 436, 437, 443, 460, 475,
230, 231, 236, 556 476, 478, 495, 496, 501,
En Gedi: 8 538 → degenerate foot
ʿEn ha-Qore: 466, 566, 582 fortition: 300, 447, 546, 584
energic: 170 furtive pataḥ: 91, 173, 175,
epenthetic: 150, 230, 269, 265, 289, 291, 293, 295,
282, 288, 289, 290, 291, 298, 299, 302, 303, 304,
292, 293, 296, 297, 298, 350, 498, 615
304, 308, 312, 324, 325, Fusṭāṭ: 26
326, 327, 329, 330, 331, Galilee: 85
332, 334, 336, 339, 342, garesh: 462
343, 348, 349, 350, 352, garsha: 462
357, 375, 409, 414, 422, gaʿya: 27, 28, 29, 30, 94, 97,
423, 424, 425, 426, 428, 99, 116, 122, 182, 294, 330,
429, 431, 433, 435, 437, 371, 372, 373, 376, 377,
 Indexes 689

378, 379, 380, 381, 383, musical gaʿya: 391, 392,

387, 388, 389, 390, 391, 453, 461, 474
393, 396, 397, 398, 399, phonetic: 183, 371, 380,
401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 381, 386, 389, 390,
406, 442, 446, 453, 458, 391, 392, 394, 395,
459, 460, 461, 462, 463, 399, 400, 406, 497,
464, 465, 467, 469, 470, 500, 501, 502, 503,
471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 518
476, 477, 479, 480, 481, gemination: 74, 81, 83, 140,
484, 486, 487, 488, 489, 141, 142, 143, 144, 165,
490, 492, 493, 494, 495, 167, 195, 196, 201, 210,
496, 497, 498, 499, 500, 216, 218, 224, 240, 242,
501, 502, 503, 504, 507, 280, 288, 296, 299, 300,
512, 513, 515, 564, 568, 301, 322, 329, 330, 365,
621, 622 368, 369, 370, 371, 382,
major gaʿya: 98, 99, 437, 383, 384, 385, 402, 414,
459, 462, 463, 464, 415, 447, 459, 470, 496,
465, 466, 469, 471, 520, 521, 522, 523, 524,
474, 477, 479, 480, 525, 527, 528, 529, 530,
481, 495, 622 531, 532, 533, 534, 535,
minor gaʿya: 94, 97, 99, 542, 543, 546, 551, 554,
182, 375, 376, 377, 557, 559, 562, 564, 567,
378, 379, 380, 385, 568, 569, 570, 573, 574,
391, 392, 398, 399, 577, 581, 584, 585, 596,
453, 463, 471, 472, 616
473, 474, 475, 476, Genizah: 22, 25, 26, 55, 109,
477, 479, 480, 484, 123, 129, 130, 132, 134,
486, 487, 488, 492, 138, 147, 153, 163, 164,
493, 500, 502, 503, 166, 175, 176, 184, 187,
506, 507, 508, 621, 195, 196, 202, 211, 224,
622 250, 263, 265, 274, 298,
690 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

303, 316, 342, 347, 369, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339,
378, 441, 442, 451, 511, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344,
517, 571, 575, 576, 581 345, 346, 350, 351, 356,
geresh: 555 358, 359, 387, 396, 397,
German: 112 400, 401, 414, 418, 419,
gimel: 21, 154, 155, 156, 201, 426, 428, 429, 432, 433,
221, 343, 346, 525 434, 437, 438, 446, 480,
glide: 60, 84, 139, 173, 175, 483, 484, 486, 487, 488,
186, 265, 298, 299, 300, 489, 491, 492, 497, 498,
301 506, 534, 542, 546, 547,
glottal: 36, 135, 161, 297, 328 578, 582, 601, 615
glottalization: 102, 516, 517 Hadassi, Jehuda: 106
grammarians: 91, 92, 107, Hai Gaon: 318
120, 123, 124, 125, 126, Ḥajjāj ibn Yūsuf: 39
155, 156, 157, 194, 201, half-long vowel: 182, 375,
209, 222, 227, 237, 239, 444, 450, 453, 472, 473,
260, 267, 276, 296 493, 500, 503, 506, 621,
grammaticalization: 332 622
Great Assembly: 86 Hammat: 86
Greek transcriptions: 5, 10, hamza: 297, 298, 328
11, 49, 61, 90, 181, 189, hamza bayna bayna: 297, 298
199, 203, 205, 217, 219, ḥarakāt: 305
220, 238, 253, 284, 295, ḥaṭef ḥireq: 313, 346, 401
333, 449, 561 ḥaṭef: 27, 28, 30, 44, 72, 78,
grid: 324, 335, 336, 349, 501 94, 98, 99, 106, 129, 132,
guttural: 4, 5, 11, 27, 28, 30, 135, 276, 279, 280, 312,
73, 77, 91, 98, 99, 103, 104, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317,
106, 142, 156, 172, 207, 318, 319, 320, 325, 331,
211, 280, 288, 295, 301, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336,
302, 303, 304, 310, 326, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341,
329, 331, 332, 333, 334, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346,
 Indexes 691

350, 351, 353, 354, 356, 140, 142, 150, 151, 154,
358, 359, 361, 362, 363, 155, 156, 157, 158, 162,
364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 171, 173, 190, 191, 193,
370, 372, 375, 376, 377, 194, 199, 205, 207, 208,
378, 383, 384, 387, 389, 209, 210, 213, 220, 221,
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 223, 224, 229, 234, 237,
395, 397, 400, 401, 402, 238, 245, 246, 257, 258,
421, 425, 430, 431, 432, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263,
433, 434, 436, 437, 438, 266, 267, 268, 283, 305,
440, 442, 453, 459, 463, 310, 311, 320, 321, 327,
470, 474, 476, 478, 480, 328, 362, 368, 371, 372,
481, 482, 485, 486, 491, 373, 405, 408, 432, 433,
495, 501, 503, 546, 607, 444, 450, 452, 453, 455,
622 456, 457, 460, 461, 464,
hāʾu al-sakt: 517 474, 490, 513, 535, 536,
Ḥayyūj, Yehudah: 267, 297, 545, 547, 551, 553, 555,
565, 566 557, 559, 560, 561, 562,
he: 161-171 563, 574
Hebrew University Bible: 17, 26 Ḥijāz: 36
ḥet: 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, ḥireq: 72, 73, 94, 122, 131,
208, 209, 314, 335, 409, 182, 202, 244, 260, 261,
418, 503, 506, 507, 532, 265, 266, 267, 271, 274,
540, 546, 579, 580 278, 279, 288, 299, 308,
Hexapla: 10, 66, 90, 181, 189, 311, 312, 313, 326, 330,
200, 203, 206, 214, 222, 346, 347, 400, 401, 402,
239, 254, 284, 287, 288, 406, 439, 443, 445, 470,
295, 296, 333, 451, 561 472, 489, 491, 492, 493,
Hezekiah: 12 503, 505, 506, 507, 531,
Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ: 85, 87, 89, 532, 543
95, 96, 98, 99, 101, 107, ḥiṭfa: 319, 449
108, 119, 121, 126, 136,
692 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

ḥolem: 68, 69, 185, 244, 247, inherent length feature: 291,
248, 251, 252, 262, 263, 357, 422, 510, 511, 564
264, 265, 266, 267, 275, interference: 63, 586, 587,
277, 278, 281, 287, 288, 588, 589, 591, 602, 604
298, 332, 339, 355, 360, interrogative: 315, 385, 386,
439, 440, 441, 443, 470, 387, 388, 436, 447, 450,
492, 511, 512, 513 516, 534, 535, 569
homophonous: 78, 82, 83, intransitive: 58, 71, 83
524, 534 Iranian dialects: 69
Horayat ha-Qore: 121, 557, Iraq: 16, 39, 56, 69, 87, 89,
559, 565 129, 174, 187
ḥurūf al-līn: 267 Isaac Israeli: 129, 158, 159,
hypercorrection: 588, 595, 160, 216, 219, 228
606, 607 Islam: 12, 19, 31, 35, 37, 39,
iambic: 321, 323, 325, 349, 86, 110, 111, 127, 251
496 Islamic period: 12, 19, 31, 37,
Ibn Ezra, Abraham: 108, 566 110, 127
Ibn Janāḥ, 92, 107, 157, 194, isochrony: 479
236, 237 Istanbul: 309
Ibn Jinnī: 296 Italy: 121, 130, 132, 309
Ibn Kathīr: 517 Jacob ben Ḥayyim: 16
Ibn Khālawayh: 111, 517 jazm: 305
Ibn Khaldūn: 153, 192 Jerba: 249, 299, 302, 309,
Ibn Mujāhid: 36, 111 522, 588
Ibn Sīnā: 201, 246 Jerome: 10, 11, 61, 66, 91,
ʾiʿlān: 457 189, 200, 201, 215, 217,
ʾimāla: 151, 260, 604 223, 239, 254, 255, 307,
imperfect learning: 586, 587, 561
595, 596, 603, 606 Jerusalem: 26, 30, 31, 32, 34,
infinitive absolute: 70, 82 59, 80, 93, 94, 105, 107,
120, 123, 125
 Indexes 693

jīm: 155, 160, 201 Kaufmann manuscript of the

Joseph ibn Yazdād: 27 Mishnah: 528
Josephus: 38 Kerala: 170, 308, 309
Judaeo-Arabic: 22, 134, 160, ketiv: 10, 33, 34, 35, 39, 40,
318, 422, 571, 604, 605 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47,
Judaeo-Greek: 134 48, 49, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58,
kaf: 94, 204, 205, 206, 221, 59, 60, 63, 64, 65, 103, 106,
223, 227, 361, 416, 417, 123, 144, 145, 179, 219,
439, 538, 539, 540, 541 410, 412, 431, 515, 516,
Kairouan: 129, 158 527
Karaites: 3, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, khafḍ: 265, 266
33, 56, 69, 87, 89, 91, 92, Kitāb al-ʾAfʿāl Dhawāt Ḥurūf al-
93, 106, 107, 120, 122, 123, Līn: 566
124, 125, 126, 127, 140, Kitāb al-ʾAnwār: 69, 89
141, 151, 152, 153, 154, Kitāb al-Khilaf: 25, 27, 93, 94,
155, 156, 171, 174, 179, 95, 96, 97, 100, 101, 102,
193, 199, 205, 206, 209, 107, 173, 174, 302, 312,
220, 221, 235, 237, 239, 362, 363, 365, 368, 379,
245, 250, 259, 261, 264, 394, 399, 406, 431, 473,
267, 268, 298, 300, 302, 514, 541, 545, 554, 563
309, 360, 367, 369, 380, Kitāb al-Lumaʿ: 92, 108, 158,
382, 383, 387, 393, 402, 194, 236, 237
414, 415, 416, 440, 441, Kitāb al-Muṣawwitāt: 117, 119,
448, 450, 451, 453, 470, 257
471, 472, 473, 479, 490, Kitāb al-Sabʿa fī al-Qirāʾāt: 111
492, 496, 499, 501, 502, Kitāb Faṣīḥ Lughat al-
504, 505, 507, 511, 516, ʿIbrāniyyīn: 124
517, 518, 527, 547, 551, Kitāb Jāmiʿ al-ʾAlfāẓ: 106, 127,
561, 562, 564, 587, 589, 171, 172, 298
594, 597, 598, 606 Kitāb Naḥw al-ʿIbrānī: 440
kasra: 266 Kurdistan: 189, 308
694 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Kutub al-Lugha: 124, 311, 352, Maḥberet ha-Tījān: 120, 151,

366 154, 157, 191, 224, 259,
labial: 176, 181, 207, 213, 455, 456, 457, 464
231, 252, 488 Maḥzor Vitry: 420
labialization: 232 Maimonides: 25, 96
labio-dental: 67, 68, 150, 151, Makkī ibn ʾAbī Ṭālib al-Qaysī:
153, 171, 172, 173, 174, 193
175, 176, 184, 185, 187, makrūkh → zāy markrūkh, resh
188, 213, 214 makrūkh
labio-velar: 113, 171, 178, Manual of Discipline: 52
183 manzila bayna manzilatayn:
lamed: 139, 140, 148, 207, 224, 555, 556
322, 365, 382, 384, 417, maqqef: 101, 102, 283, 368,
497, 544, 568, 583 397, 398, 417, 441, 443,
larynx: 143 444, 445, 447, 473, 478,
Latin transcriptions: 10, 199, 497, 508, 509, 510, 511,
214, 217, 218, 222, 238, 512, 513, 514, 515, 516,
306, 561 517, 534, 536, 544
lax vowel: 304, 432, 435, 443, maqṭaʿ: 320, 323
446, 447, 483 Masada: 8
letter of extension (ḥarf al- Masora magna: 137
madd): 297 Masora parva: 318
Levant: 187, 588 Masoretes: 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,
Lithuania: 309 20, 22, 23, 25, 27, 29, 30,
liturgy: 20, 24, 32, 33, 106, 31, 62, 86, 93, 95, 100, 105,
118, 122, 130, 176, 198, 107, 114, 115, 116, 120,
234, 265, 420, 597 123, 124, 133, 246, 327,
maʾarikh: 405, 462, 465 339, 343, 345, 358, 539,
madd: 297, 440 545, 554, 559, 561
Maḥberet (Menaḥem ben Masoretic notes: 21, 22, 23,
Saruq): 194 25, 30, 45, 56, 57, 93, 121,
 Indexes 695

122, 136, 137, 138, 165, milʿel: 467

168, 219, 268 Minḥat Shai: 186
Masoretic treatise: 2, 18, 25, minimal pair: 75,
32, 85, 87, 93, 95, 96, 98, 243, 530
100, 107, 116, 117, 119, miqpaṣ pumma: 251
125, 126, 131, 136, 142, Miqraʾot Gedolot: 16
151, 152, 161, 173, 192, Mishaʾel ben ʿUzziʾel: 25, 93,
213, 220, 224, 228, 229, 95, 100, 107, 173, 175, 185,
245, 257, 258, 261, 262, 413, 431, 473, 554, 556
263, 264, 283, 298, 321, miṣḥaf: 19, 21
328, 329, 330, 343, 357, model codex: 23, 25, 408, 504
408, 444, 445, 450, 462, Modern South Arabian: 62,
489, 490, 513, 536, 540, 483
562, 565, 571 monosyllabic word: 509, 513
melisma: 456, 474, 475, 477, monumental manuscripts: 56,
478, 479, 480, 481, 486 93, 133, 581
melody: 96, 287, 461, 464, mora: 290, 300, 323, 325,
474 348, 389, 475, 493, 501
mem: 60, 207 Morocco: 146, 161, 170, 231,
mem: 322, 370, 371, 372, 373, 310, 483, 589
374, 376, 378, 379, 382, morphology: 5, 10, 13, 34, 39,
439, 543, 568 41, 69, 126, 141, 169, 171,
Menaḥem ben Saruq: 194 252, 253, 254, 255, 280,
merkha: 402, 403, 404, 405, 281, 331, 356, 370, 371,
456, 457, 458, 463, 467, 386, 388, 425, 428, 430,
469, 488, 518, 621 432, 522, 523, 524, 527,
meteg: 461 528, 530, 531, 534, 572
metiga: 518, 519 Moshe ben Asher: 29
metrical phonology: 323, 324 Moshe Moḥe: 94, 547
Midrash: 31, 52, 53, 86 Muḥammad, prophet: 35
miftaḥ pumma: 251, 602
696 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Mukhtaṣar fī Shawādhdh al- Norzi, Jedidiah: 186

Qurʾān min Kitāb al-Badīʿ: nun: 21, 34, 58, 102, 170,
111 208, 322, 329, 343, 354,
mulūk: 305, 321 363, 365, 382, 383, 497,
munaḥ: 462, 463, 481, 485, 544, 568, 573, 578, 583
486 nuqṭaṭayn qāʾimatayn: 305
muṣawwitāt: 117, 305 onset: 61, 103, 135, 162, 178,
muṣḥaf: 19, 21 → miṣḥaf 180, 182, 183, 297, 298,
Muʿtazilite: 556 327, 329, 330, 335, 349,
naghamāt: 305 350, 357, 370, 386, 425,
Naḥal David: 8 447, 485, 497, 501, 546,
Naḥal Ḥever: 8 562, 570
Naḥal Ṣeʾelim: 8 oral: 2, 8, 9, 12, 18, 22, 33,
naqdan: 22, 25, 454, 466 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 42, 48,
naṣb: 265, 266 49, 53, 54, 55, 98, 105, 107,
nesiga: 292, 293, 294, 338, 108, 109, 110, 112, 114,
354, 361, 426, 427, 436, 122, 132, 193, 216, 241,
437, 468, 469 246, 415, 482, 483, 484,
neutralization: 322, 326, 430, 507, 528, 529, 586, 607
434 Origen: 10, 11, 66, 90, 91,
New Testament: 52 181, 189, 200, 203, 206,
nifʿal: 47, 58, 60, 69, 71, 74, 214, 222, 239, 254, 284,
80, 83 306, 307, 333, 451, 561
Non-Standard Tiberian orthoepy: 64, 97, 99, 100,
vocalization: 12, 56, 130, 102, 103, 104, 110, 111,
131, 132, 138, 139, 147, 112, 144, 146, 191, 304,
148, 183, 195, 302, 312, 306, 317, 331, 334, 343,
313, 418, 421, 442, 575, 350, 352, 396, 425, 441,
577, 582, 584, 596 442, 448, 452, 453, 457,
North Africa: 158, 192, 483, 464, 488, 501, 503, 506,
485, 588 507, 514, 542, 543, 544,
 Indexes 697

547, 561, 562, 578, 580, pataḥ: 13, 73, 77, 80, 91, 94,
581, 586, 587, 606 102, 109, 112, 129, 131,
palatal: 155, 201, 237, 299, 173, 175, 244, 245, 246,
616 247, 248, 250, 251, 256,
Palestine: 2, 4, 11, 31, 65, 67, 257, 259, 265, 266, 267,
68, 85, 86, 87, 89, 90, 104, 268, 270, 273, 276, 279,
105, 107, 120, 123, 127, 281, 289, 291, 292, 293,
152, 171, 187, 191, 192, 295, 298, 299, 302, 303,
232, 256, 506, 562, 567, 304, 305, 313, 314, 318,
597 341, 344, 345, 346, 350,
Palestinian pronunciation: 12, 351, 354, 355, 356, 358,
13, 89, 90, 109, 110, 130, 359, 361, 362, 363, 364,
578 365, 366, 367, 368, 370,
Palestinian vocalization: 14, 371, 372, 373, 377, 378,
56, 63, 89, 90, 91, 110, 130, 379, 380, 381, 383, 384,
131, 149, 164, 185, 187, 385, 386, 387, 389, 390,
196, 210, 211, 303, 307, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395,
517, 596, 597 397, 400, 401, 403, 404,
paper: 12, 70 421, 433, 439, 447, 450,
paragraph: 17 451, 452, 453, 454, 470,
para-Masoretic: 32 476, 484, 491, 497, 498,
parasha division: 17, 26, 50 501, 503, 505, 506, 508,
Parma B manuscript of the 516, 532, 534, 543, 558,
Mishnah: 522 596, 600, 601, 602, 603,
participle: 33, 59, 74, 80, 82, 604, 605, 615, 619, 622
161, 165, 245, 258, 294, pausal: 50, 51, 52, 97, 116,
295, 296, 377, 412, 461, 281, 287, 288, 430, 454,
520, 571 517
paseq: 536, 545 pe: 60, 61, 66, 67, 153, 154,
pashṭa: 327, 455, 456, 457, 158, 186, 188, 213, 214,
462, 466, 480
698 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

215, 216, 217, 218, 219, Pinḥas Rosh ha-Yeshiva: 31,

220, 370, 539 86, 345, 358
Pentateuch: 6, 15, 21, 28, 30, pisqaʾot: 17
34, 60, 75, 529, 530 piyyuṭ: 91
Persian pluriformity: 7, 9, 37, 54, 114,
Judaeo-Persian: 134 132
Middle Persian: 216 Poland: 309
Old Persian: 61 Polychronios: 61, 218, 220
Old Persian: 216, 219, popular Bible manuscripts: 24
220 Post-biblical Hebrew: 59
Pesher: 52 post-dental: 156
Peshitta: 49 post-lexical: 291
Pharisees: 8 prefix conjugation: 58, 67, 72,
pharyngeal fricative: 5, 193, 77, 331
209 pre-Islamic period: 198, 219,
pharyngealization: 158, 160, 232, 251
161, 191, 199, 208, 209, pre-Masoretic: 10, 188, 199,
216, 218, 220, 221, 223, 203, 205, 214, 217, 231,
227, 228, 229, 231, 232, 238, 561, 567
236, 248, 250, 434, 619 pre-palatal: 237
pharynx: 156, 205, 263, 484 pretonic: 176, 438, 532
phoneme: 240, 241, 278, 279, priest: 38, 77, 350, 526
280, 281, 282, 284, 288, Prophets: 21, 29, 32, 34, 201,
289, 291, 292, 293, 294, 223, 255, 381, 388
295, 332, 333, 357, 371, proto-Masoretic: 6, 8, 65, 75,
430 78, 79, 83, 85, 90, 91, 104,
phoneme: 593, 597, 600, 602, 114, 256, 506
604 Qabbalah: 127
phonemicization: 243 qal: 47, 58, 60, 71, 83, 531
piʿel: 59, 71, 73, 77, 83, 522 qameṣ: 244, 245, 246, 251,
269, 273, 276
 Indexes 699

qaṣr: 440 Rabbi Yonatan: 2

qere: 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, Rabbinic: 1, 2, 14, 16, 17, 19,
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 26, 31, 45, 57, 63, 67, 69,
47, 48, 49, 53, 55, 56, 57, 71, 81, 106, 122, 137, 232,
59, 60, 63, 64, 65, 106, 123, 256, 261, 300, 521, 523,
144, 145, 150, 231, 235, 528
340, 341, 410, 412, 431, radical letter: 67, 69, 73, 116,
450, 451, 515, 516, 527, 360, 363, 365, 414, 425,
528 522, 523, 533
qibbuṣ: 72, 150, 179, 180, rafʿ: 266, 455, 457
244, 262, 263, 264, 265, rafe: 28, 30, 129, 131, 146,
267, 272, 275, 277, 279, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151,
439, 470, 531 152, 153, 154, 156, 159,
Qimḥi, David: 96, 346, 417, 160, 166, 167, 168, 171,
439, 465, 520, 582 173, 174, 175, 176, 183,
Qimḥi, Joseph: 264, 439 186, 187, 196, 202, 204,
qirāʾāt: 35, 54, 97 210, 211, 213, 226, 237,
qof: 29, 103, 218, 221, 222, 525, 552, 571, 572, 573,
223, 322, 377, 382, 385, 574, 575, 579, 582, 591,
396, 400, 408, 498, 525, 592, 596
542, 545, 568, 569 rasm: 36
Qumran: 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 37, resh: 2, 118, 128, 158, 191,
39, 40, 50, 52, 55, 57, 58, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227,
66, 67, 68, 91, 109, 114, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232,
144, 146, 153, 188, 235, 233, 234, 256, 288, 320,
252, 341 324, 325, 355, 357, 358,
Qurʾān: 20, 35, 38, 39, 54, 55, 360, 361, 362, 363, 369,
97, 100, 109, 111, 193, 296, 371, 417, 434, 521, 523,
551, 581 527, 544, 552, 555, 559,
Rabbi Aqiva: 15 567, 619, 622
Rabbi Joḥanan: 85 resh makrūkh: 225, 227
700 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

retraction of stress: 158, 199, scanned: 297, 333

232, 248, 292, 293, 294, scansion: 323, 333
295, 324, 325, 338, 354, scribe: 9, 15, 17, 18, 21, 22,
361, 393, 395, 426, 427, 24, 34, 56, 93, 98, 109, 113,
436, 468 122, 124, 175, 226, 314,
retroflection: 229 362, 364, 365, 378, 402,
reviaʿ mugrash: 518, 622 404, 408, 429, 432, 433,
rhyme: 178, 291, 349, 605 473, 547, 597, 598, 607
rhythm: 324, 460 scroll: 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 19, 20,
Romans: 1 21, 23, 24, 33, 40, 50, 57,
Saadya Gaon: 91, 92, 124, 106, 144, 146, 169, 197,
128, 157, 201, 215, 218, 198, 204, 209, 212, 509
225, 226, 229, 230, 231, Second Temple Period: 4, 5, 6,
232, 233, 238, 246, 257, 9, 13, 37, 48, 49, 56, 62, 63,
259, 260, 261, 263, 264, 65, 69, 71, 83, 86, 235
265, 266, 269, 305, 311, Seder ha-Simanim: 117
352, 366, 367, 368, 434, Sefardi: 248, 309, 588, 589,
440 591, 592
Sadducees: 8 Sefer Mikhlol: 346, 439, 465
ṣade: 21, 159, 160, 192, 193, Sefer Ṣaḥot: 108, 566
220, 221, 234, 258, 384 Sefer Ṭaʿame ha-Miqra: 121,
Samaritan: 13, 15, 59, 62, 66, 456, 464, 557, 559
68, 73, 74, 75, 79, 80, 81, Sefer Yeṣira: 127, 128, 151,
90, 188, 198, 212, 232, 289, 157, 158, 190, 201, 208,
301, 304, 529, 530, 544 215, 216, 220, 225, 226,
samekh: 62, 63, 64, 65, 103, 229, 230, 232, 237, 238,
208, 209, 220, 231, 234, 260, 269, 434, 440
235, 237, 257 Sefer Zikkaron: 264, 439, 465
Samuel ben Jacob: 22, 93, segol: 13, 72, 94, 109, 112,
314, 362, 364, 378, 429 129, 131, 139, 244, 256,
šawādhdh: 111 257, 258, 259, 265, 266,
 Indexes 701

267, 270, 274, 276, 279, shewa: 67, 72, 78, 86, 94, 97,
292, 294, 313, 332, 340, 98, 99, 103, 116, 117, 119,
341, 363, 365, 400, 425, 120, 129, 131, 135, 151,
432, 435, 437, 438, 439, 152, 162, 166, 173, 176,
443, 444, 448, 470, 484, 178, 180, 181, 182, 183,
489, 506, 513, 534, 564, 187, 195, 196, 211, 220,
574, 596, 598, 599, 600, 227, 229, 230, 257, 259,
601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 264, 268, 303, 305, 306,
606 307, 308, 309, 310, 311,
semisyllable: 290, 291, 348 312, 313, 314, 315, 316,
Sepphoris: 86 317, 318, 319, 320, 321,
Septuagint: 5, 14, 47, 49, 51, 322, 323, 325, 326, 327,
52, 60, 66, 189, 200, 203, 328, 329, 330, 334, 336,
204, 206, 214, 219, 222, 338, 339, 340, 341, 343,
239, 253, 306 344, 345, 346, 347, 348,
ṣere: 13, 68, 73, 77, 109, 112, 350, 351, 352, 353, 354,
129, 131, 161, 244, 256, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359,
257, 258, 260, 261, 262, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364,
265, 266, 267, 277, 278, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369,
281, 287, 288, 294, 295, 370, 371, 372, 373, 374,
296, 299, 332, 355, 357, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379,
358, 425, 439, 463, 470, 380, 381, 382, 383, 384,
492, 494, 511, 513, 596, 385, 386, 387, 389, 390,
598, 599, 600, 603, 604, 391, 392, 393, 395, 396,
605 397, 398, 399, 400, 401,
serugin: 64 402, 404, 405, 406, 407,
servile letter: 116 408, 409, 410, 411, 412,
servus: 463 413, 414, 415, 416, 417,
shadda: 141, 142, 300, 414, 418, 419, 420, 421, 424,
415, 527, 547, 548, 549, 426, 432, 433, 434, 435,
551, 561, 564, 565 436, 437, 443, 453, 459,
702 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

461, 463, 470, 473, 475, sign system: 11, 12, 14, 33,
476, 478, 480, 481, 484, 56, 58, 98, 105, 108, 109,
485, 486, 487, 488, 489, 110, 112, 114, 115, 121,
490, 491, 492, 493, 494, 132, 381, 388, 607
495, 496, 500, 501, 518, silluq: 52, 455
531, 534, 537, 538, 539, sin: 62, 63, 64, 65, 103, 194,
542, 543, 545, 546, 568, 231, 234, 235, 236, 410,
569, 572, 573, 576, 577, 485, 556
580, 583, 584, 615, 621, sofer: 15, 21
622 soft letter (ḥarf al-lin): 267,
shewa gaʿya: 94, 97, 99, 486, 417
487, 488, 490, 491, 492, sonorant: 139, 322, 335, 354,
493, 500 367, 368, 369, 370, 382,
shibboleth: 4 396, 400, 407, 483, 484,
shin: 21, 62, 63, 64, 103, 234, 497, 498, 533, 542, 544,
237, 328, 329, 330, 405, 546, 568, 569, 574
439, 465, 502, 583 sonority: 299, 306, 329, 335,
Shlomo ben Buyāʿā: 22, 25 339, 407, 412, 429, 546
shureq: 69, 150, 179, 184, Spain: 92, 107, 124, 137, 236,
185, 186, 244, 262, 263, 267, 276, 333, 565
264, 265, 266, 267, 272, St. Petersburg: 25, 26, 123
275, 277, 278, 279, 298, standardization: 3, 7, 14, 35,
421, 439, 443, 445, 470, 93, 462, 473, 571
472, 488, 491 suffix: 5, 6, 11, 34, 39, 40, 44,
Sībawayhi: 155, 192, 201, 45, 58, 72, 77, 82, 90, 91,
227, 267 168, 170, 171, 245, 317,
sibilant: 62, 190, 208, 220, 337, 338, 363, 365, 366,
221, 234, 237, 322, 382, 368, 369, 411, 412, 413,
384, 396, 400, 498, 568, 414, 415, 416, 418, 532,
569, 579 533, 573
sukūn: 360, 367, 396, 501
 Indexes 703

superheavy syllable: 290 Tetragrammaton: 34, 46, 340,

Symmachus: 10 341
Syriac: 2, 190, 218, 257, 528 textualization: 9, 12, 14, 108,
tafkhīm: 250, 267 112
tagin: 21 Theodoretus: 61, 217
tajwīd: 100, 193, 440, 551 Theodotion: 10, 61, 217, 220
Talmud: 6, 15, 38, 49, 51, 86, Tiberias: 2, 14, 31, 85, 87, 88,
106, 127 105, 110, 118, 123, 124,
Talmud, Babylonian: 1, 15, 51 233, 234
Talmud, Palestinian: 1, 2, 86, ṭifḥa: 405, 455, 467, 510
245 Tokhen ʿEzra: 121
Tannaitic: 1, 2, 127, 523 Torah: 15, 21, 37, 93
Targum: 23, 24, 43, 47, 53, Tripoli: 309
55, 80, 118, 218, 234 trochaic: 291, 324, 349, 423,
tav: 110, 140, 237, 238, 239, 424, 426, 427, 428
320, 328, 329, 330, 411, Tunisia: 309
412, 413, 414, 415, 416, Ukraine: 309
418, 552, 553, 554, 555, ʾumma: 124
557, 558, 559, 560, 563, unaspirated: 60, 193, 199,
564, 565, 566, 567, 588, 205, 214, 215, 216, 217,
589, 590, 591, 594, 595, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222
596 ʿUthmān recension (Qurʾān):
Temple, First: 38 35, 38, 55
Temple, Second: 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, uvular: 154, 156, 204, 205,
13, 15, 37, 40, 48, 49, 50, 207, 222, 223, 224, 233,
51, 52, 56, 57, 58, 62, 63, 434, 521, 556
64, 65, 69, 71, 83, 85, 86, vav: 44, 45, 46, 48, 67, 68,
104, 114, 153, 169, 188, 150, 151, 152, 154, 171,
197, 212, 235, 256, 506 172, 173, 174, 175, 176,
ṭet: 21, 159, 160, 199, 218, 178, 181, 182, 183, 184,
219, 408, 580 185, 186, 187, 188, 189,
704 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

231, 251, 252, 267, 298, Yeshiva: 31, 85, 86, 105, 110,
395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 345, 358
400, 419, 421, 431, 436, yetiv: 283, 327, 455
488, 515, 534, 537, 569, Yiddish: 113
573, 574, 580, 615 yiqṭol: 74
velar fricative: 5 yod: 40, 41, 45, 46, 48, 60,
vernacular: 1, 2, 3, 10, 18, 67, 94, 131, 201, 202, 203, 204,
68, 83, 90, 92, 110, 113, 258, 267, 278, 301, 308,
118, 160, 192, 233, 234, 310, 311, 312, 322, 326,
523, 586, 592, 593, 594, 347, 382, 383, 411, 412,
595, 602, 604 491, 497, 503, 505, 537,
virtual: 280, 288 547, 568, 580, 583, 584,
Vulgate: 10, 49, 82 616
waḍʿ: 455, 457 Yūsuf ibn Bakhtavaih: 93
Wādī Murabbaʿāt: 8 Yūsuf ibn Nūḥ: 125, 126, 141,
Wadi Sdeir: 8 259, 397
wayyiqṭol: 74, 573 zaqef: 455, 462, 467, 469,
Writings: 21, 34 481, 485, 486, 518
Yaʿbeṣ ben Shlomo: 32 zarqa: 463, 464
Yehudah ha-Nasi: 1 zāy: 190, 191, 192, 193
Yehudah ha-Nazir, ʿEli ben: 2, zāy makrūkh: 191, 192,
118, 192, 229 193
Yehudah ibn Balʿam: 121 zayin: 21, 190, 191, 193, 208,
Yemen: 109, 120, 143, 146, 220, 234, 236, 237, 439
190, 191, 236, 300, 304, zujj: 264
308, 567, 589
Yequtiʾel ha-Kohen bar
Yehudah ha-Naqdan: 454,
461, 466, 471, 520, 566,
581, 582, 584
 Indexes 705

MANUSCRIPTS T-S A13.18: 187, 197, 202,

210, 211, 303, 316, 340,
Cambridge, University 418, 419
Library T-S A13.20: 149, 167, 184,
195, 210, 211, 347, 420
CUL Or 1080.13.3.2: 178
T-S A13.20: 579, 580, 581,
CUL Or 1080.A3.21: 316
601
CUL Or 1080.A4.18: 164
T-S A13.35: 164, 576
Genizah MS 1 (Khan 1990a, T-
T-S A2.3: 316
S Ar.52.242 + T-S NS
T-S A21.14: 316
327.139 + T-S NS
T-S A21.125: 174
327.140): 153, 175, 176,
T-S A22.54: 421
250, 265, 274, 369, 441,
T-S A43.1: 210, 578, 579
442, 451, 511, 517
T-S A5.12: 164
Genizah MS 12 (Khan 1990a,
T-S A5.7: 174
T-S AS 182.158): 153, 250,
T-S Ar. 8.3: 318
265
T-S Ar.37.89: 265
Genizah MS 13 (Khan 1990a,
T-S AS 44.35: 174, 311
Or 1081.1.23): 176, 369,
T-S AS 5.144: 602
441, 442, 451, 511
T-S AS 67.133: 316, 603
LG B1.56: 604
T-S AS 68.100: 311
T-S 12.195: 187, 196, 307
T-S AS 8.123: 165, 421
T-S 12.197: 164
T-S D1.2: 161
T-S 20.53: 185
T-S Misc 1.46: 601
T-S A11.1: 147, 163, 166,
T-S NS 18.5: 420, 603
167, 184, 196, 203, 303,
T-S NS 68.22: 165
340, 418, 419
T-S NS 157.52: 571
T-S A12.1: 138, 139, 147,
T-S NS 248.2: 148
148, 186, 202, 303, 342,
T-S NS 249.3: 210
347, 418, 421, 576
T-S NS 249.6: 210, 307
T-S NS 284.85: 165
706 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

T-S NS 301.21: 97, 328 XHev/Se5: 236

T-S NS 301.32: 299
T-S NS 301.69: 263 London, British Library
T-S NS 301.84: 321 BL Add MS 21161: 144, 147,
T-S NS 311.113: 224 342
BL Or 2539 MS A: 155, 179,
Dead Sea Scrolls
180, 181, 194, 199, 205,
a
1QIsa : 4, 40, 41, 55, 57, 145, 209, 221, 222, 235, 250,
169, 197, 198, 204, 212, 262, 265, 269, 270, 271,
236, 252, 253 272, 273, 274, 275, 276,
1QS 8: 52 277, 450, 480, 493, 499,
3Q15: 219 505, 506, 518, 548
4Q6: 153, 169 BL Or 2539 MS B: 179, 180,
4Q27: 212, 252 199, 276, 606, 607
4Q51: 169 BL Or 2540: 182, 272, 274,
4Q57: 252 275, 277, 442, 450, 451,
4Q59: 252 480, 504, 512, 549, 550
4Q76: 209 BL Or 2542: 380, 450, 453,
4Q78: 145, 154 472, 499, 500, 508
4Q79: 145 BL Or 2543: 275, 276, 441
4Q93: 236 BL Or 2544: 183, 265, 271,
4Q98g: 204 272, 273, 277, 380, 415,
4Q111: 188 471, 480, 503, 516, 548,
4Q134: 236 549, 564, 565, 595
4Q136: 235 BL Or 2545: 548,
4Q138: 145 BL Or 2546: 182, 442, 471,
4Q141: 145 548, 549
4Q512: 59 BL Or 2547: 275, 490, 493,
5Q6: 212 505
8Q4: 169 BL Or 2548: 152, 175, 270,
11Q5: 252 274, 276, 367, 393, 396,
 Indexes 707

500, 502, 504, 518, 550, 223, 239, 254, 284, 285,
551 286, 287, 288, 295, 296,
BL Or 2549: 260, 271, 272, 306, 307
273, 380, 383, 393, 414,
415, 416, 448, 472, 492, Model Masoretic Codices
499, 500, 504, 507, 511, Aleppo Codex: 22, 25, 27, 30,
565, 595 32, 46, 313, 344, 346, 469
BL Or 2550: 564 C3: 93, 413
BL Or 2551: 175, 235, 270, Cairo Codex of the Prophets:
272, 302, 381, 394, 448, 29, 32
499, 519, 590, 591, 592, Codex Babylonicus
594 Petropolitanus: 133, 381,
BL Or 2552: 142, 181, 275, 394, 587 → I Firkovitch
387, 491, 492, 499, 502, Evr. I B 3
594, 595 Codex Hilleli: 23
BL Or 2553: 491, 492 Codex Leningradensis: 22, 26
BL Or 2554: 155, 180, 250, → I Firkovitch Evr. I B 19a
251, 360, 396, 402, 492, Codex Muggah: 23
516 Codex Reuchlinianus: 130,
BL Or 2555: 183, 221, 300, 131, 138, 147, 164, 165,
380, 393, 496, 516, 598, 166, 167, 187, 195, 197,
599, 600 202, 211, 303, 317, 342,
BL Or 2556: 273, 499, 500, 347, 418, 419, 575, 576,
518, 528, 565 584
BL Or 2559: 300 Codex Yerushalmi: 23
Codex Zambuqi: 23
Milan, Biblioteca
Ha-Keter: 17
Ambrosiana Jerusalem National and
Ambrosiana Palimpsest University Library, Heb. 24,
(Hexapla): 181, 189, 200, 5702 (formerly MS Sassoon
203, 206, 214, 215, 222, 507): 30, 345, 432
708 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

L17: 362, 365, 366, 378 133, 381, 388, 394, 395,
Sassoon 507 → Jerusalem 406
National and University I Firkovitch Evr. I B 52: 341
Library, Heb. 24, 5702 II Firkovitch Arab.-Evr. 1: 250
II Firkovitch Evr. II B 3: 33,
Modena, Archivio della 341
Curia Arcivescovile II Firkovitch Evr. II B 10: 438,

ACAMO 28: 211 442, 601

II Firkovitch Evr. II B 34: 33
New York, Jewish II Firkovitch Evr. II B 94: 413
Theological Seminary II Firkovitch Evr. II B 159: 514
II Firkovitch, Evr.-Arab II 365:
JTS 232/ENA 346: 392
328
JTS ENA 2118: 419
JTS ENA 2640: 419
BIBLICAL VERSES
Nonantola, Archivio
Genesis
Storico Comunale
Gen. 1.1: 135, 189, 301, 406,
ASCNON B.I: 184, 197, 317
455
Gen. 1.2: 198, 304, 456
Oxford, Bodleian Library
Gen. 1.3: 162, 231
Bod. Heb. d 44, fols. 1-4: 185 Gen. 1.4: 509
Bod. Heb. d 33, fol. 16: 444 Gen. 1.5: 508
Bod. Heb. e 30 fols. 48-49: Gen. 1.6: 304
149, 578, 579 Gen. 1.10: 410
Gen. 1.11: 304
St. Petersburg, National Gen. 1.18: 396
Library of Russia Gen. 1.22: 416
I Firkovitch Evr. I B 19a: 26 Gen. 1.28: 178
I Firkovitch Evr. I B 3 (Codex Gen. 1.29: 503
Babylonicus Petropolitanus): Gen. 1.31: 135
 Indexes 709

Gen. 2.2: 421 Gen. 6.4: 213, 383

Gen. 2.6: 459 Gen. 6.7: 301, 494
Gen. 2.7: 458 Gen. 6.10: 536
Gen. 2.9: 416 Gen. 6.17: 352, 389
Gen. 2.10: 311 Gen. 7.9: 172
Gen. 2.11: 174 Gen. 8.1: 47
Gen. 2.12: 396 Gen. 8.15: 322, 568
Gen. 2.14: 358 Gen. 8.17: 47
Gen. 2.15: 539 Gen. 9.2: 459
Gen. 2.17: 311 Gen. 9.10: 399
Gen. 2.23: 255 Gen. 9.14: 390
Gen. 3.2: 421 Gen. 9.21: 407
Gen. 3.7: 531 Gen. 9.27: 407
Gen. 3.13: 412 Gen. 10.2: 253
Gen. 3.16: 135 Gen. 10.3: 206
Gen. 3.17: 364, 368 Gen. 10.6: 177
Gen. 3.19: 292, 293 Gen. 10.22: 214
Gen. 3.23: 531 Gen. 10.25: 200
Gen. 4.1: 458 Gen. 11.7: 213
Gen. 4.3: 503 Gen. 11.24: 239
Gen. 4.6: 583 Gen. 11.27: 200, 219
Gen. 4.7: 510 Gen. 11.31: 301
Gen. 4.10: 350 Gen. 12.3: 227, 362
Gen. 4.15: 189 Gen. 12.5: 443
Gen. 4.19: 502 Gen. 12.6: 206
Gen. 4.20: 253 Gen. 12.11: 231, 415
Gen. 4.23: 72 Gen. 12.14: 301
Gen. 5.2: 536 Gen. 13.9: 148
Gen. 5.3: 503 Gen. 13.10: 148
Gen. 5.4: 162 Gen. 13.18: 370
Gen. 6.3: 198, 301 Gen. 14.2: 177
710 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Gen. 14.4: 512 Gen. 21.6: 462

Gen. 14.7: 390 Gen. 21.7: 179, 222, 269
Gen. 14.10: 478 Gen. 21.8: 155, 209, 250, 262,
Gen. 14.17: 330 270, 271, 277
Gen. 14.21: 498 Gen. 21.10: 271, 510
Gen. 14.23: 199, 274, 506 Gen. 21.11: 269, 548
Gen. 14.24: 383 Gen. 21.12: 205, 209, 273
Gen. 15.1: 148 Gen. 21.15: 270, 548
Gen. 15.2: 341, 447, 450 Gen. 21.16: 199, 271
Gen. 15.4: 271 Gen. 21.17: 270, 450, 516
Gen. 15.8: 341 Gen. 21.19: 209, 407
Gen. 16.8: 413 Gen. 21.22: 221, 272, 273,
Gen. 16.10: 601 275
Gen. 16.11: 411, 412 Gen. 21.23: 40, 179, 194, 235,
Gen. 16.13: 430, 433 273, 276, 277, 449
Gen. 17.16: 242, 243 Gen. 22.1: 269
Gen. 17.17: 283 Gen. 22.3: 339
Gen. 18.1: 82 Gen. 22.6: 478
Gen. 18.6: 339 Gen. 22.9: 194, 271, 480, 548
Gen. 18.10: 82 Gen. 22.13: 205, 270, 277
Gen. 18.15: 411 Gen. 22.18: 344, 463
Gen. 18.17: 386, 541 Gen. 22.19: 272
Gen. 18.19: 172 Gen. 22.22: 206
Gen. 18.21: 365, 388, 534, Gen. 23.9: 352
536 Gen. 23.10: 604
Gen. 19.2: 141, 355 Gen. 23.17: 604
Gen. 19.23: 339 Gen. 24.2: 604
Gen. 19.37: 301 Gen. 24.7: 518
Gen. 20.10: 510 Gen. 24.11: 604
Gen. 20.11: 463 Gen. 24.14: 198, 329
Gen. 20.13: 509 Gen. 24.15: 505
 Indexes 711

Gen. 24.16: 604 Gen. 30.35: 311

Gen. 24.21: 229 Gen. 30.38: 356, 400
Gen. 24.23: 415, 511 Gen. 30.41: 379
Gen. 24.25: 242 Gen. 31.14: 534
Gen. 24.32: 180 Gen. 31.41: 508
Gen. 24.33: 205 Gen. 32.16: 547
Gen. 24.35: 222 Gen. 32.18: 182
Gen. 24.36: 544, 578 Gen. 32.20: 401
Gen. 24.47, 41 Gen. 32.22: 471
Gen. 24.53: 272 Gen. 32.24: 480
Gen. 24.60: 179, 595 Gen. 32.28: 516
Gen. 25.3: 538 Gen. 32.32: 503
Gen. 25.24: 144 Gen. 33.5: 383, 443, 606
Gen. 25.25: 188, 213 Gen. 34.1: 153
Gen. 25.27: 284 Gen. 34.25: 200, 350
Gen. 26.1: 306, 571 Gen. 34.28: 571
Gen. 27.4: 532 Gen. 34.31: 385
Gen. 27.5: 293 Gen. 35.12: 316
Gen. 27.13: 394 Gen. 35.17: 373
Gen. 27.19: 361 Gen. 35.22: 50
Gen. 27.29: 171 Gen. 36.27: 189
Gen. 27.34: 361, 369 Gen. 36.31: 382
Gen. 27.38: 386 Gen. 36.32: 332
Gen. 27.41: 236 Gen. 37.2: 512
Gen. 29.10: 407, 408 Gen. 37.8: 510
Gen. 29.34: 189 Gen. 37.9: 375
Gen. 30.1: 572 Gen. 37.11: 231
Gen. 30.8: 239 Gen. 37.25: 436
Gen. 30.12: 214 Gen. 37.32: 388, 534
Gen. 30.15: 385 Gen. 38.2: 213, 304
Gen. 30.33: 198 Gen. 38.9: 524
712 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Gen. 38.21: 385 Gen. 48.4: 249

Gen. 38.27: 144 Gen. 48.7: 449
Gen. 38.29: 443 Gen. 48.16: 190
Gen. 39.6: 101, 514 Gen. 48.19: 188
Gen. 39.12: 538 Gen. 49.1: 301, 309, 542
Gen. 39.14: 292 Gen. 49.8: 347
Gen. 39.15: 541 Gen. 49.10: 542
Gen. 39.19: 541, 571 Gen. 49.12: 301
Gen. 41.5: 431 Gen. 49.17: 309
Gen. 41.24: 569 Gen. 49.19: 588
Gen. 42.11: 511 Gen. 49.21: 87, 255
Gen. 43.7: 583 Gen. 49.24: 78, 524
Gen. 43.11: 434, 436, 438, Gen. 50.9: 375
442 Gen. 50.12: 172
Gen. 43.21: 345 Gen. 50.20: 170
Gen. 43.26: 135, 136, 139,
140, 141, 143 Exodus
Gen. 45.8: 177 Exod. 1.2: 275
Gen. 45.12: 322, 370, 371, Exod. 1.4: 550
379, 568 Exod. 1.5: 504, 508
Gen. 45.15: 407, 422 Exod. 1.7: 472, 508
Gen. 46.2: 312 Exod. 1.10: 375, 472, 549
Gen. 46.3: 357 Exod. 1.12: 550
Gen. 46.10: 74, 530 Exod. 1.13: 275
Gen. 46.13: 144, 171, 173, Exod. 1.17: 373, 380
185, 186 Exod. 2.2: 549
Gen. 46.29: 135 Exod. 2.3: 166, 168, 543
Gen. 47.6: 347 Exod. 2.4: 451
Gen. 47.28: 146, 188, 248, Exod. 2.7: 272, 534
249 Exod. 2.14: 385
Gen. 48.1: 146, 309 Exod. 2.18: 550
 Indexes 713

Exod. 3.2: 549 Exod. 8.17: 564

Exod. 3.3: 265, 272, 273, 549 Exod. 9.11: 99, 317
Exod. 3.6: 549 Exod. 9.18: 168
Exod. 3.8: 182 Exod. 9.20: 558, 564
Exod. 3.9: 350 Exod. 9.27: 316, 358
Exod. 3.11: 274 Exod. 10.6: 566
Exod. 3.13: 102, 450, 516 Exod. 10.26: 453
Exod. 3.16: 271 Exod. 12.7: 382, 459
Exod. 3.18: 365 Exod. 12.9: 527
Exod. 3.21: 165 Exod. 12.12: 526
Exod. 4.2: 43, 450, 451, 516 Exod. 12.21: 498, 500
Exod. 4.18: 365, 368 Exod. 12.48: 235
Exod. 4.19: 373, 377, 380 Exod. 13.14: 447, 450, 451,
Exod. 4.20: 473, 480 535
Exod. 4.30: 510 Exod. 13.16: 40
Exod. 4.31: 471 Exod. 14.4: 509, 539
Exod. 5.14: 277 Exod. 14.6: 546
Exod. 5.22: 534 Exod. 14.9: 230
Exod. 6.8: 472 Exod. 14.15: 102
Exod. 6.10: 141 Exod. 14.30: 146, 589
Exod. 6.14: 442, 512 Exod. 14.31: 309, 310
Exod. 6.25: 384, 497, 499, Exod. 14.7: 41
508, 568 Exod. 15.1: 231, 309, 539
Exod. 6.27: 373, 376, 379 Exod. 15.5: 161, 231, 357
Exod. 7.21: 135 Exod. 15.8: 589
Exod. 7.22: 442, 512 Exod. 15.11: 540
Exod. 8.4: 183 Exod. 15.13: 540
Exod. 8.5: 565 Exod. 15.16: 540
Exod. 8.7: 565 Exod. 15.17: 543
Exod. 8.9: 384, 564 Exod. 16.5: 135
Exod. 8.11: 358 Exod. 16.23: 475, 478
714 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Exod. 18.9: 409, 414 Exod. 28.34: 579

Exod. 19.2: 358 Exod. 29.8: 431
Exod. 19.13: 301 Exod. 29.37: 282, 437, 495
Exod. 20.13: 53 Exod. 29.40: 601
Exod. 21.2: 588 Exod. 30.8: 99, 317, 399
Exod. 21.3: 512 Exod. 30.38: 293
Exod. 21.5: 249 Exod. 32.31: 459
Exod. 21.10: 249 Exod. 34.24: 60
Exod. 21.11: 511 Exod. 35.26: 183
Exod. 21.18: 249 Exod. 38.11: 458
Exod. 21.19: 588 Exod. 38.26: 338
Exod. 21.29: 309 Exod. 39.23: 177
Exod. 21.37: 512 Exod. 39.34: 379
Exod. 22.4: 78 Exod. 40.13: 77
Exod. 22.8: 509
Exod. 22.25: 82 Leviticus
Exod. 22.26: 170 Lev. 1.3: 355
Exod. 23.1: 410 Lev. 1.5: 283
Exod. 23.21: 177 Lev. 1.11: 268
Exod. 23.29: 363 Lev. 3.12: 212
Exod. 23.30: 363 Lev. 4.25: 308
Exod. 25.20: 338, 345 Lev. 5.15: 311
Exod. 25.30: 277 Lev. 6.8: 384
Exod. 25.31: 382 Lev. 6.11: 364
Exod. 26.5: 383 Lev. 7.6: 364
Exod. 26.15: 385 Lev. 11.5: 338
Exod. 26.32: 188 Lev. 11.19: 74, 529
Exod. 26.33: 495 Lev. 13.4: 168
Exod. 27.10: 601 Lev. 13.10: 384
Exod. 28.4: 544 Lev. 13.20: 168
Exod. 28.17: 160 Lev. 14.2: 382
 Indexes 715

Lev. 14.49: 431 Num. 7.3: 607

Lev. 18.15: 602 Num. 9.11: 180
Lev. 18.24: 476 Num. 9.14: 446
Lev. 18.26: 602 Num. 10.36: 122, 390
Lev. 19.17: 302, 410 Num. 11.19: 364
Lev. 20.3: 317 Num. 13.6: 206
Lev. 20.4: 446 Num. 13.19: 388, 534
Lev. 20.18: 172 Num. 14.12: 537
Lev. 20.26: 41 Num. 14.27: 274
Lev. 20.27: 574 Num. 14.40: 420
Lev. 21.13: 538 Num. 14.41: 603
Lev. 22.4: 300 Num. 14.42: 603
Lev. 23.16: 319 Num. 14.43: 274
Lev. 23.17: 135, 136, 137, Num. 14.45: 548
139, 143, 327 Num. 15.22: 175
Lev. 24.1: 421 Num. 15.24: 274
Lev. 24.10: 283 Num. 15.31: 168
Lev. 24.16: 101, 514 Num. 16.1: 252
Lev. 24.21: 165 Num. 16.26: 179
Lev. 25.30: 42, 43 Num. 16.27: 607
Lev. 26.31: 430 Num. 16.28: 327, 463
Lev. 26.43: 162 Num. 16.32: 358
Lev. 27.33: 548 Num. 16.33: 530
Num. 17.25: 179
Numbers Num. 18.8: 606, 607
Num. 1.1: 162 Num. 18.10: 364
Num. 1.10: 162 Num. 18.32: 276
Num. 5.2: 379 Num. 19.6: 153
Num. 5.19: 373, 374, 377 Num. 19.8: 250
Num. 5.22: 379 Num. 19.9: 250
Num. 6.2: 316 Num. 19.10: 265
716 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Num. 19.19: 175 Num. 36.1: 471, 549

Num. 20.1: 276
Num. 20.3: 175 Deuteronomy
Num. 21.1: 407, 422 Deut. 2.16: 541
Num. 21.7: 530 Deut. 2.26: 222
Num. 21.23: 338 Deut. 4.7: 537
Num. 21.33: 478 Deut. 4.9: 177
Num. 22.6: 363 Deut. 4.10: 548
Num. 22.13: 73 Deut. 4.19: 222
Num. 22.37: 337 Deut. 4.28: 272
Num. 23.3: 177 Deut. 4.33: 498, 499
Num. 24.5: 199 Deut. 4.43: 253
Num. 24.6: 212 Deut. 4.46: 410
Num. 26.7: 149 Deut. 5.21: 236
Num. 26.23: 186 Deut. 5.24: 336
Num. 26.26: 204 Deut. 6.11: 555, 558, 565
Num. 26.31: 459 Deut. 7.15: 430
Num. 26.48: 204 Deut. 7.18: 221
Num. 27.1: 317 Deut. 8.1: 265
Num. 27.11: 184 Deut. 8.2: 352
Num. 27.21: 583 Deut. 9.2: 219, 222
Num. 28.19: 164 Deut. 9.27: 345
Num. 30.3: 525 Deut. 10.17: 409
Num. 31.36: 511 Deut. 11.2: 72, 76
Num. 32.11: 182, 471 Deut. 11.6: 145
Num. 32.35: 546 Deut. 11.11: 230
Num. 33.33: 204 Deut. 11.16: 169, 236
Num. 34.5: 338 Deut. 12.9: 571
Num. 34.11: 442, 511 Deut. 14.21: 364
Num. 34.26: 214 Deut. 14.26: 603
Num. 34.28: 162 Deut. 14.28: 316
 Indexes 717

Deut. 15.9: 603 Deut. 33.6: 514

Deut. 15.2: 101 Deut. 33.8: 74, 177, 529
Deut. 16.7: 603 Deut. 33.9: 459
Deut. 16.16: 47, 60, 603 Deut. 33.15: 353
Deut. 16.20: 355 Deut. 33.17: 122, 353
Deut. 18.22: 505 Deut. 33.20: 304
Deut. 19.15: 194 Deut. 33.26: 174
Deut. 20.11: 505 Deut. 34.6: 411
Deut. 21.4: 262, 271 Deut. 34.9: 299
Deut. 22.3: 530
Deut. 22.4: 164 Joshua
Deut. 22.25: 379 Josh. 1.17: 342
Deut. 23.8: 538 Josh. 2.18: 445
Deut. 23.11: 179, 274, 493, Josh. 2.19: 444, 449
542 Josh. 4.12: 275
Deut. 25.7: 338 Josh. 4.13: 498
Deut. 26.5: 52, 53 Josh. 4.14: 73, 493
Deut. 27.16: 185 Josh. 6.15: 352
Deut. 28.11: 601 Josh. 6.22: 378, 379
Deut. 28.12: 165 Josh. 6.23: 378, 379
Deut. 28.30: 46 Josh. 6.26: 177, 347
Deut. 28.37: 574 Josh. 7.9: 453
Deut. 28.43: 338 Josh. 7.25: 99, 317
Deut. 29.25: 183 Josh. 8.28: 552, 553, 558, 564
Deut. 31.20: 177 Josh. 9.1: 384
Deut. 31.21: 514 Josh. 9.7: 515
Deut. 31.28: 443, 452, 535, Josh. 10.5: 480, 486
606 Josh. 10.24: 488
Deut. 32.17: 145 Josh. 10.36: 376, 474, 485
Deut. 32.36: 367 Josh. 11.2: 402
Deut. 33.2: 302 Josh. 12.6: 149
718 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Josh. 13.6: 490 Jud. 11.2: 363

Josh. 15.8: 383 Jud. 11.20: 569
Josh. 15.18: 538 Jud. 11.29: 505
Josh. 17.15: 338 Jud. 11.35: 413, 541
Josh. 17.18: 177 Jud. 12.1: 4
Josh. 19.17: 359 Jud. 14.2: 571
Josh. 21.4: 346 Jud. 14.15: 385
Josh. 21: 57, 71, 346 Jud. 16.3: 485
Josh. 22.20: 177 Jud. 16.16: 402
Jud. 16.21: 322, 383
Judges Jud. 16.28: 329
Jud. 2.22: 347 Jud. 19.5: 571
Jud. 4.20: 411 Jud. 19.25: 498
Jud. 5.2: 361 Jud. 20.32: 542
Jud. 5.7: 533 Jud. 20.36: 577
Jud. 5.12: 344, 396
1 Samuel
Jud. 5.15: 532
Jud. 5.31: 577 1 Sam. 1.4: 397
Jud. 6.28: 332 1 Sam. 1.6: 224, 521, 542
Jud. 6.29: 572 1 Sam. 2.16: 42, 43
Jud. 7.6: 378 1 Sam. 2.25: 390
Jud. 7.7: 378 1 Sam. 3.11: 148, 573
Jud. 8.2: 352 1 Sam. 4.3: 573
Jud. 8.10: 294 1 Sam. 6.3: 495
Jud. 9.9: 172, 431, 440 1 Sam. 6.5: 177
Jud. 9.16: 293 1 Sam. 9.5: 335
Jud. 9.27: 392 1 Sam. 9.6: 366, 450
Jud. 9.37: 355, 357 1 Sam. 9.11: 573
Jud. 9.57: 314, 389 1 Sam. 10.24: 388, 534, 559
Jud. 10.17: 480 1 Sam. 13.12: 357
Jud. 10.18: 525 1 Sam. 13.20: 531
 Indexes 719

1 Sam. 14.4: 513 2 Sam. 6.5: 432, 438

1 Sam. 15.16: 446 2 Sam. 7.2: 398
1 Sam. 16.2: 50 2 Sam. 7.13: 444
1 Sam. 16.12: 430 2 Sam. 7.21: 398
1 Sam. 16.16: 322 2 Sam. 10.11: 99, 317
1 Sam. 16.23: 172 2 Sam. 11.25: 195
1 Sam. 17.52: 390 2 Sam. 12.31: 398
1 Sam. 18.7: 374, 376 2 Sam. 13.7: 416
1 Sam. 18.13: 230 2 Sam. 14.10: 372
1 Sam. 18.23: 344, 386 2 Sam. 14.14: 594
1 Sam. 20.4: 452 2 Sam. 14.16: 409
1 Sam. 20.20: 168 2 Sam. 14.26: 399
1 Sam. 20.40: 41 2 Sam. 15.7: 366
1 Sam. 23.8: 167 2 Sam. 15.19: 317
1 Sam. 23.28: 355 2 Sam. 16.7: 390, 568
1 Sam. 24.3: 384, 292 2 Sam. 16.8: 45
1 Sam. 24.14: 359 2 Sam. 16.12: 47
1 Sam. 26.7: 311 2 Sam. 17.11: 385
1 Sam. 26.10: 438, 442 2 Sam. 17.28: 177
1 Sam. 26.11: 366 2 Sam. 21.3: 362
1 Sam. 26.19: 363, 468 2 Sam. 21.12: 360
1 Sam. 27.3: 375 2 Sam. 22.2: 402, 403, 543
1 Sam. 27.10: 429 2 Sam. 22.7: 211, 419
1 Sam. 28.7: 445 2 Sam. 22.12: 401
1 Sam. 28.16: 527 2 Sam. 22.24: 463, 479
1 Sam. 28.22: 211, 497 2 Sam. 22.31: 230, 434
1 Sam. 30.29: 429 2 Sam. 22.40: 144
1 Sam. 30.31: 398 2 Sam. 23.37: 144
2 Sam. 24.22: 532
2 Samuel

2 Sam. 2.22: 416

720 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

1 Kings 2 Kings 4.2: 40

2 Kings 4.29: 362
1 Kings 1.3: 333
2 Kings 6.2: 366, 368
1 Kings 2.2: 165
2 Kings 6.28: 364
1 Kings 2.15: 414
2 Kings 6.29: 364
1 Kings 3.23: 452
2 Kings 6.32: 344
1 Kings 6.1: 359
2 Kings 7.8: 377
1 Kings 6.37: 358
2 Kings 9.11: 371, 372, 382
1 Kings 7.15: 72
2 Kings 9.17: 344, 397
1 Kings 7.28: 322, 384, 568
2 Kings 9.26: 446
1 Kings 11.17: 301
2 Kings 10.33: 149
1 Kings 11.40: 197, 418
2 Kings 15.10: 418
1 Kings 12.32: 540
2 Kings 15.30: 569
1 Kings 13.2: 80
2 Kings 15.33: 512
1 Kings 13.7: 397
2 Kings 17.30: 538
1 Kings 13.13: 339
2 Kings 20.4: 33, 41
1 Kings 14.2: 40
2 Kings 23.5: 374, 376
1 Kings 14.21: 396
2 Kings 23.17: 569
1 Kings 15.29: 541
2 Kings 24.14: 72, 76, 488,
1 Kings 16.12: 201
2 Kings 25.14: 373, 376
1 Kings 16.25: 211
2 Kings 25.18: 347
1 Kings 17.19: 293
2 Kings 25.25: 384
1 Kings 21.19: 344, 351
1 Kings 21.20: 386
Isaiah
1 Kings 21.23: 364
1 Kings 21.29: 494 Isa. 1.1: 166, 497, 544

1 Kings 22.31: 486 Isa. 1.5: 166

Isa. 1.7: 293
2 Kings Isa. 1.12: 77
Isa. 1.16: 299, 302
2 Kings 1.13: 446
Isa. 1.24: 202
2 Kings 2.1: 384
Isa. 1.30: 396
2 Kings 2.15: 185
 Indexes 721

Isa. 2.4: 190 Isa. 13.20: 81, 550

Isa. 2.6: 215 Isa. 14.14: 431, 436, 441
Isa. 3.12: 145 Isa. 14.21: 145
Isa. 3.14: 567 Isa. 14.30: 204
Isa. 4.5: 177 Isa. 14.31: 446
Isa. 5.3: 576 Isa. 15.2: 347
Isa. 5.4: 152, 550 Isa. 15.4: 366
Isa. 5.5: 212 Isa. 15.8: 353
Isa. 5.7: 200, 215 Isa. 16.1: 212, 256
Isa. 5.10: 550 Isa. 16.3: 145
Isa. 5.17: 252 Isa. 17.10: 414, 424
Isa. 5.28: 252, 579 Isa. 19.2: 146
Isa. 6.1: 187 Isa. 19.8: 79
Isa. 6.11: 149 Isa. 19.14: 164
Isa. 7.11: 579 Isa. 19.17: 164
Isa. 7.14: 307 Isa. 19.19: 164
Isa. 8.2: 283 Isa. 20.1: 498
Isa. 8.3: 252 Isa. 20.6: 419
Isa. 8.8: 351 Isa. 21.3: 357, 359
Isa. 8.19: 320, 374, 376 Isa. 21.8: 204
Isa. 10.1: 353 Isa. 21.10: 230
Isa. 10.9: 538 Isa. 22.1: 41
Isa. 10.18: 576 Isa. 22.2: 395
Isa. 10.19: 576 Isa. 22.16: 352
Isa. 10.24: 169 Isa. 23.1: 147
Isa. 10.34: 406 Isa. 23.3: 204
Isa. 13.1: 253 Isa. 23.7: 252
Isa. 13.4: 145 Isa. 23.8: 532
Isa. 13.6: 569 Isa. 23.12: 374, 377
Isa. 13.10: 166, 300, 303, 419 Isa. 23.17: 168
Isa. 13.17: 335, 339 Isa. 23.18: 168
722 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Isa. 24.6: 145, 253 Isa. 38.9: 239, 504

Isa. 24.14: 252 Isa. 38.10: 436
Isa. 24.16: 307 Isa. 38.14: 367
Isa. 24.19: 314, 345 Isa. 38.17: 276
Isa. 25.1: 212 Isa. 38.18: 391, 393
Isa. 26.1: 510 Isa. 40.3: 52
Isa. 26.14: 254 Isa. 40.4: 358
Isa. 26.17: 270 Isa. 40.7: 367
Isa. 26.19: 308 Isa. 40.11: 145
Isa. 26.20: 397 Isa. 40.18: 312
Isa. 27.3: 430, 431 Isa. 40.20: 253, 371, 372
Isa. 27.7: 388 Isa. 40.31: 152, 175
Isa. 27.10: 274 Isa. 41.2: 407, 429
Isa. 28.4: 171, 488 Isa. 41.15: 532
Isa. 28.15: 212 Isa. 41.18: 204
Isa. 28.20: 169, 212, 569 Isa. 41.20: 367, 396
Isa. 29.14: 177 Isa. 42.16: 197
Isa. 30.10: 169 Isa. 42.23: 573
Isa. 30.14: 236 Isa. 43.17: 242
Isa. 30.25: 243 Isa. 43.28: 198
Isa. 33.23: 354 Isa. 45.5: 135
Isa. 33.24: 253 Isa. 45.7: 456
Isa. 34.6: 254 Isa. 45.14: 397, 398
Isa. 34.11: 537 Isa. 45.20: 149
Isa. 34.16: 395, 397 Isa. 45.25: 392, 394
Isa. 36.9: 385 Isa. 46.5: 183, 574
Isa. 36.16: 145 Isa. 46.11: 485
Isa. 37.5: 502, 550 Isa. 46.12: 360, 578
Isa. 37.6: 551 Isa. 47.7: 41
Isa. 37.26: 144 Isa. 47.12: 537
Isa. 37.33: 138, 147 Isa. 48.21: 518
 Indexes 723

Isa. 48.22: 359 Isa. 60.17: 552

Isa. 49.5: 72, 76 Isa. 62.1: 579
Isa. 49.7: 295 Isa. 62.3: 413
Isa. 49.17: 252 Isa. 62.6: 436
Isa. 49.18: 236 Isa. 62.8: 414
Isa. 49.21: 73, 77 Isa. 62.9: 425
Isa. 49.23: 172 Isa. 63.7: 574
Isa. 49.26: 78, 524 Isa. 63.12: 295
Isa. 50.1: 182 Isa. 63.13: 169
Isa. 50.8: 427 Isa. 65.8: 498
Isa. 51.9: 41 Isa. 65.11: 372, 377
Isa. 51.19: 138
Isa. 53.5: 72 Jeremiah
Isa. 53.8: 299 Jer. 2.2: 439
Isa. 53.10: 198 Jer. 2.7: 164
Isa. 54.9: 346 Jer. 2.14: 351
Isa. 54.12: 498, 500, 540 Jer. 2.22: 272
Isa. 55.3: 498, 500 Jer. 2.31: 342
Isa. 55.10: 172 Jer. 4.2: 361, 369
Isa. 57.5: 236 Jer. 4.16: 472
Isa. 57.11: 578 Jer. 5.1: 352
Isa. 57.13: 468 Jer. 5.15: 255
Isa. 57.20: 358 Jer. 5.25: 595
Isa. 58.4: 169 Jer. 6.12: 565
Isa. 58.11: 198 Jer. 6.14: 144
Isa. 59.2: 539 Jer. 7.11: 385, 388
Isa. 59.10: 391 Jer. 7.18: 254
Isa. 59.19: 354 Jer. 7.24: 504
Isa. 59.21: 539 Jer. 7.34: 504
Isa. 60.1: 440 Jer. 8.2: 507
Isa. 60.16: 78, 524 Jer. 8.11: 144
724 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Jer. 8.14: 448 Jer. 24.1: 275

Jer. 8.18: 458 Jer. 25.1: 275
Jer. 8.19: 498, 500 Jer. 25.19: 210
Jer. 8.22: 436 Jer. 25.34: 441
Jer. 9.2: 158, 159, 228 Jer. 26.3: 276
Jer. 9.3: 29, 79, 103, 212, Jer. 29.7: 391
339, 545, 562, 578 Jer. 30.9: 459
Jer. 9.20: 446 Jer. 31.7: 322
Jer. 9.25: 230 Jer. 31.20: 77
Jer. 11.9: 376, 474 Jer. 31.21: 40
Jer. 11.15: 380, 574 Jer. 31.26: 367
Jer. 11.21: 382 Jer. 31.33: 432
Jer. 13.20: 46 Jer. 31.35: 503, 504
Jer. 15.7: 229 Jer. 31.38: 42, 54, 273
Jer. 15.10: 395 Jer. 32.34: 517
Jer. 17.4: 515 Jer. 33.10: 383
Jer. 17.11: 44 Jer. 34.3: 492, 494
Jer. 18.3: 43 Jer. 34.5: 472
Jer. 18.8: 202 Jer. 34.14: 487, 492, 495
Jer. 18.9: 303, 576 Jer. 35.7: 504
Jer. 20.9: 540 Jer. 36.2: 509
Jer. 20.13: 391 Jer. 38.12: 138
Jer. 20.15: 346 Jer. 39.12: 521
Jer. 22.15: 344, 400, 501 Jer. 40.4: 510
Jer. 22.20: 397 Jer. 40.14: 148
Jer. 22.23: 412 Jer. 40.15: 366
Jer. 23.17: 472, 504 Jer. 41.8: 509, 536
Jer. 23.20: 354 Jer. 44.9: 386, 388
Jer. 23.32: 276 Jer. 45.1: 242
Jer. 23.33: 569 Jer. 49.4: 390
Jer. 23.35: 102 Jer. 49.7: 76
 Indexes 725

Jer. 49.28: 317, 353 Ezek. 17.10: 539

Jer. 50.5: 183 Ezek. 17.23: 73
Jer. 51.61: 487 Ezek. 18.10: 215, 513
Jer. 52.18: 373 Ezek. 20.37: 14
Jer. 52.28: 72, 76 Ezek. 21.28: 406
Ezek. 23.23: 215
Ezekiel Ezek. 23.42: 537
Ezek. 1.1: 359, 442 Ezek. 27.10: 200
Ezek. 1.3: 443 Ezek. 27.17: 430
Ezek. 1.11: 327, 328 Ezek. 27.19: 533
Ezek. 3.18: 359 Ezek. 28.9: 395
Ezek. 4.2: 448 Ezek. 31.6: 395
Ezek. 4.3: 260, 271 Ezek. 32.20: 317
Ezek. 4.5: 511 Ezek. 34.10: 357, 359
Ezek. 4.12: 94, 364, 390 Ezek. 34.14: 444, 449
Ezek. 4.15: 197, 391, 393 Ezek. 34.21: 507
Ezek. 7.26: 172 Ezek. 35.7: 394
Ezek. 9.8: 401 Ezek. 35.9: 390
Ezek. 10.9: 239 Ezek. 36.23: 374, 377
Ezek. 14.15: 170 Ezek. 36.35: 383
Ezek. 14.22: 366 Ezek. 36.37: 72, 76
Ezek. 16.4: 414, 521, 523 Ezek. 37.9: 177
Ezek. 16.7: 415 Ezek. 39.15: 374
Ezek. 16.8: 499 Ezek. 40.10: 552
Ezek. 16.18: 399 Ezek. 40.16: 200
Ezek. 16.24: 254 Ezek. 40.43: 384
Ezek. 16.29: 414 Ezek. 42.9: 42
Ezek. 16.36: 416 Ezek. 43.10: 480, 486
Ezek. 16.45: 416 Ezek. 44.13: 431
Ezek. 17.6: 202 Ezek. 46.24: 374
Ezek. 17.9: 229 Ezek. 48.11: 377
726 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Hosea Amos 8.14: 583

Hos. 2.1: 487

Micah
Hos. 2.2: 145
Hos. 3.1: 494 Mic. 3.9: 377, 382

Hos. 4.12: 177 Mic. 6.7: 390

Hos. 5.15: 353 Mic. 7.1: 393

Hos. 7.4: 574

Nahum
Hos. 9.2: 294
Hos. 10.3: 146 Nah. 1.14: 11
Hos. 10.11: 335 Nah. 2.3: 268, 280
Hos. 12.13: 454 Nah. 2.4: 515
Hos. 14.1: 187
Habakkuk
Joel Hab. 1.15: 284, 332
Joel 1.6: 202 Hab. 2.12: 468
Joel 1.17: 154 Hab. 3.2: 11
Joel 1.19: 145 Hab. 3.4: 70, 82
Joel 2.17: 487
Joel 3.3: 367 Zephaniah
Joel 3.5: 201 Zeph. 1.3: 359
Joel 4.6: 384 Zeph. 1.17: 531
Zeph. 2.7: 564
Amos Zeph. 3.8: 440
Amos 1.5: 223
Amos 2.9: 164 Haggai
Amos 2.10: 167 Hag. 1.1: 137
Amos 2.13: 381
Amos 6.2: 498 Zechariah
Amos 6.3: 372
Zech. 4.12: 431
Amos 7.7: 255
Zech. 8.3: 345
Amos 7.14: 223
 Indexes 727

Zech. 8.17: 425 Psa. 18.31: 206, 286, 287,

Zech. 9.12: 293 296, 307
Zech. 11.2: 255 Psa. 18.33: 284
Zech. 11.3: 390 Psa. 18.35: 286, 295
Zech. 12.5: 255 Psa. 18.38: 206, 231, 285
Zech. 12.11: 417 Psa. 18.39: 67, 222. 254
Zech. 13.8: 294 Psa. 18.40: 66, 144
Psa. 18.43: 206, 254
Malachi Psa. 18.48: 295
Mal. 2.6: 181 Psa. 19.5: 172
Psa. 22.11: 77
Psalms Psa. 28.6: 287
Psa. 28.7: 200
Psa. 1.1: 488
Psa. 28.8: 512
Psa. 1.4: 355
Psa. 28.9: 181, 285
Psa. 4.1: 372
Psa. 29.3: 542
Psa. 6.3: 70, 79
Psa. 30.3: 185
Psa. 7.6: 544
Psa. 30.4: 334
Psa. 9.7: 430
Psa. 30.6: 286
Psa. 9.8: 287
Psa. 30.7: 200, 239
Psa. 9.14: 390
Psa. 30.8: 286
Psa. 10.3: 78
Psa. 30.10: 307, 452
Psa. 11.4: 419
Psa. 30.11: 295
Psa. 12.7: 403
Psa. 30.13: 285
Psa. 14.1: 313, 346
Psa. 31.1: 287
Psa. 17.14: 403
Psa. 31.2: 200
Psa. 18.3: 402, 403, 532, 543
Psa. 31.4: 90
Psa. 18.7: 403
Psa. 31.5: 288
Psa. 18.26: 239
Psa. 31.6: 215
Psa. 18.27: 287, 296
Psa. 31.9: 334
Psa. 18.30: 306
Psa. 31.12: 403
728 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Psa. 31.23: 286 Psa. 49.12: 189

Psa. 31.24: 286, 295 Psa. 49.15: 402
Psa. 32.7: 215 Psa. 50.23: 353
Psa. 32.8: 287 Psa. 51.19: 402
Psa. 32.11: 285 Psa. 52.9: 270
Psa. 33.1: 230 Psa. 52.11: 235
Psa. 34.1: 363 Psa. 53.2: 187
Psa. 35.2: 285 Psa. 53.4: 196
Psa. 35.10: 283 Psa. 54.2: 235
Psa. 35.14: 286 Psa. 55.11: 307
Psa. 35.17: 206 Psa. 55.22: 396, 398
Psa. 35.19: 203 Psa. 59.7: 354
Psa. 35.20: 287, 335, 339 Psa. 60.2: 283, 513
Psa. 35.23: 215, 223 Psa. 64.7: 488
Psa. 35.27: 295 Psa. 65.5: 402, 518
Psa. 35.28: 11, 181 Psa. 65.10: 292
Psa. 36.2: 214 Psa. 66.12: 359
Psa. 36.8: 451 Psa. 66.17: 537
Psa. 39.13: 345, 401 Psa. 68.12: 374
Psa. 40.13: 146 Psa. 68.18: 537
Psa. 46.4: 189 Psa. 68.22: 579
Psa. 46.5: 307 Psa. 68.23: 580
Psa. 46.6: 286 Psa. 68.24: 580
Psa. 46.10: 285, 286 Psa. 68.25: 579
Psa. 46.11: 181 Psa. 68.27: 167
Psa. 47.5: 101, 283 Psa. 68.28: 167
Psa. 49.1: 287 Psa. 68.36: 167, 210
Psa. 49.2: 254 Psa. 69.2: 167
Psa. 49.4: 285 Psa. 69.4: 149, 347
Psa. 49.7: 181 Psa. 69.6: 196
Psa. 49.9: 287 Psa. 69.13: 601
 Indexes 729

Psa. 69.20: 580 Psa. 79.1: 591

Psa. 69.21: 404, 405, 420 Psa. 80.11: 401
Psa. 69.29: 184, 195, 581 Psa. 81.9: 448
Psa. 69.35: 184, 581 Psa. 81.15: 302
Psa. 70.2: 601 Psa. 83.13: 366
Psa. 70.3: 581 Psa. 84.5: 391
Psa. 70.5: 580 Psa. 85.14: 162
Psa. 70.6: 420, 579 Psa. 86.2: 404, 405
Psa. 71.2: 580 Psa. 87.5: 396
Psa. 71.3: 420 Psa. 87.6: 591
Psa. 71.4: 211 Psa. 87.7: 283, 514
Psa. 71.5: 184 Psa. 88.11: 445
Psa. 71.7: 420 Psa. 89.7: 210
Psa. 72.8: 407 Psa. 89.11: 303
Psa. 72.17: 227, 361 Psa. 89.23: 204
Psa. 74.5: 401 Psa. 89.32: 288
Psa. 74.7: 573 Psa. 89.35: 202, 254, 284
Psa. 74.8: 293 Psa. 89.36: 285
Psa. 74.15: 164 Psa. 89.41: 11
Psa. 74.21: 391 Psa. 89.42: 286
Psa. 76.4: 242 Psa. 89.45: 543
Psa. 77.4: 77 Psa. 89.46: 187, 334, 419
Psa. 77.5: 210 Psa. 89.47: 197
Psa. 77.8: 387 Psa. 89.49: 285
Psa. 78.49: 519, 590, 592 Psa. 89.51: 215, 285
Psa. 78.50: 592 Psa. 89.52: 543
Psa. 78.51: 590 Psa. 90.5: 340
Psa. 78.54: 272, 590 Psa. 90.10: 316
Psa. 78.62: 590 Psa. 90.12: 211, 316, 418
Psa. 78.63: 591 Psa. 90.17: 183, 574
Psa. 78.72: 591 Psa. 91.4: 187
730 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Psa. 94.6: 507 Psa. 119.99: 573

Psa. 100.4: 537 Psa. 119.134: 573
Psa. 102.10: 175 Psa. 119.161: 252
Psa. 102.12: 202 Psa. 119.167: 405
Psa. 102.14: 391 Psa. 132.2: 78, 524
Psa. 103.4: 41 Psa. 132.15: 499
Psa. 103.20: 361 Psa. 135.1: 393, 394
Psa. 104.3: 381 Psa. 137.3: 489
Psa. 104.5: 236 Psa. 140.6: 404, 405
Psa. 104.10: 342, 381 Psa. 144.1: 385
Psa. 104.12: 146, 147 Psa. 145.12: 81
Psa. 104.18: 384 Psa. 150.2: 72
Psa. 105.3: 392
Psa. 106.48: 391 Proverbs
Psa. 107.32: 393 Prov. 1.22: 425, 489
Psa. 109.6: 441 Prov. 1.28: 353
Psa. 109.10: 176 Prov. 3.12: 283
Psa. 111.3: 369, 442, 511 Prov. 3.18: 491
Psa. 111.9: 441 Prov. 5.19: 163
Psa. 112.3: 369, 442, 511 Prov. 5.21: 343
Psa. 112.4: 383 Prov. 7.12: 355
Psa. 114.5: 451 Prov. 7.25: 407, 408
Psa. 116.6: 146 Prov. 8.13: 405
Psa. 118.25: 449 Prov. 8.15: 354
Psa. 119.1: 309 Prov. 8.17: 353
Psa. 119.33: 431 Prov. 8.36: 492
Psa. 119.69: 430 Prov. 9.15: 374
Psa. 119.76: 311 Prov. 11.26: 295
Psa. 119.80: 311 Prov. 12.1: 294
Psa. 119.88: 311 Prov. 14.10: 521
Psa. 119.92: 311 Prov. 15.16: 182
 Indexes 731

Prov. 17.3: 229 Prov. 31.10: 202

Prov. 17.16: 534 Prov. 31.18: 342
Prov. 19.7: 101, 283, 513 Prov. 31.20: 347
Prov. 22.21: 407, 408 Prov. 31.23: 342
Prov. 23.6: 44
Prov. 24.1: 44 Job
Prov. 24.6: 444, 535 Job 3.6: 409, 424
Prov. 24.17: 58 Job 3.7: 230
Prov. 24.19: 358 Job 3.21: 372
Prov. 26.3: 185 Job 4.14: 409
Prov. 26.17: 524 Job 5.14: 391
Prov. 27.6: 342 Job 7.20: 573
Prov. 27.20: 342 Job 8.18: 77
Prov. 27.25: 236 Job 9.18: 542
Prov. 28.22: 401 Job 9.31: 67, 77
Prov. 28.27: 576 Job 10.12: 405
Prov. 29.4: 333 Job 11.4: 177
Prov. 29.13: 347 Job 12.3: 101, 514
Prov. 29.14: 138, 421 Job 12.7: 487
Prov. 29.15: 138 Job 13.7: 301
Prov. 29.16: 138 Job 13.9: 140
Prov. 29.18: 138, 139 Job 14.1: 398, 400
Prov. 29.20: 138, 186 Job 15.8: 385
Prov. 29.23: 186 Job 17.9: 397
Prov. 29.24: 147 Job 20.7: 391
Prov. 29.27: 576 Job 20.17: 539
Prov. 30.2: 148 Job 20.26: 425
Prov. 30.6: 407 Job 21.4: 534
Prov. 30.9: 202 Job 21.16: 338, 427, 437
Prov. 30.17: 402, 518 Job 21.26: 305, 314
Prov. 31.2: 452 Job 21.31: 526
732 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Job 21.33: 185 Job 40.22: 389

Job 22.13: 386 Job 40.23: 340
Job 26.5: 355 Job 40.29: 387
Job 29.12: 533 Job 40.31: 387
Job 29.21: 533 Job 41.2: 203
Job 29.25: 403 Job 41.10: 488
Job 31.7: 150 Job 41.26: 513
Job 31.27: 407
Job 31.37: 367 Song of Songs
Job 32.15: 343 Cant. 1.7: 348
Job 33.10: 527 Cant. 1.8: 396, 487, 489, 492
Job 33.21: 136, 137, 139, Cant. 1.11: 552
141, 143 Cant. 1.12: 251
Job 33.22: 344 Cant. 2.13: 300
Job 33.25: 344 Cant. 2.15: 180
Job 34.10: 403 Cant. 3.2: 360
Job 38.12: 494 Cant. 3.4: 41
Job 38.31: 386 Cant. 4.6: 294
Job 38.35: 387 Cant. 4.14: 407, 429
Job 39.5: 303 Cant. 5.2: 521, 523, 533
Job 39.9: 147 Cant. 5.16: 402, 532
Job 39.14: 196, 418 Cant. 6.8: 571
Job 39.16: 163 Cant. 7.7: 180, 414
Job 39.17: 163, 166, 419 Cant. 7.10: 311
Job 39.23: 166, 184, 340 Cant. 8.2: 352
Job 39.25: 166 Cant. 8.4: 488, 516
Job 39.26: 494 Cant. 8.5: 251
Job 39.27: 166 Cant. 8.6: 242
Job 40.2: 163, 303 Cant. 8.14: 397
Job 40.5: 340
Job 40.20: 167
 Indexes 733

Ruth Ecclesiastes

Ruth 1.12: 186 Ecc. 1.1: 594

Ruth 2.1: 155 Ecc. 1.3: 594
Ruth 2.7: 73 Ecc. 2.19: 181
Ruth 2.9: 411, 412, 413, 414, Ecc. 2.21: 182
418 Ecc. 3.11: 599
Ruth 2.10: 137, 303 Ecc. 3.15: 516
Ruth 2.11: 137 Ecc. 3.18: 599
Ruth 2.12: 418 Ecc. 3.19: 600
Ruth 2.13: 342 Ecc. 3.21: 599
Ruth 2.18: 170 Ecc. 3.22: 496
Ruth 2.19: 411, 422 Ecc. 4.4: 300
Ruth 2.20: 485 Ecc. 4.8: 598
Ruth 3.4: 418 Ecc. 4.12: 380
Ruth 3.9: 415 Ecc. 4.13: 599
Ruth 3.17: 513 Ecc. 4.15: 374, 380
Ruth 4.1: 445 Ecc. 5.10: 365
Ruth 4.11: 178 Ecc. 6.3: 503
Ecc. 6.4: 141
Lamentations Ecc. 7.17: 595
Lam. 1.2: 196 Ecc. 7.18: 598
Lam. 1.5: 512 Ecc. 7.21: 393
Lam. 1.17: 188 Ecc. 8.5: 599
Lam. 2.7: 73, 78 Ecc. 8.11: 220
Lam. 2.15: 174 Ecc. 8.14: 300
Lam. 3.57: 311 Ecc. 9.7: 183
Lam. 5.2: 594 Ecc. 10.8: 221
Lam. 5.3: 594 Ecc. 11.4: 299
Lam. 5.10: 212
Esther

Esther 1.8: 301, 355

734 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

Esther 1.12: 249 Dan. 11.19: 58

Esther 1.19: 177 Dan. 11.20: 70, 81
Esther 1.20: 220 Dan. 11.45: 60, 61, 66, 158,
Esther 1.21: 249 159, 160, 215, 217, 219,
Esther 2.5: 283, 513 241
Esther 2.14: 305
Esther 2.6: 60 Ezra
Esther 3.12: 220 Ezra 1.6: 355
Esther 3.14: 220 Ezra 2.22: 306
Esther 5.2: 541 Ezra 2.41: 374, 377
Esther 8.15: 308 Ezra 2.50: 64
Esther 9.3: 320 Ezra 4.5: 63, 235
Esther 9.10: 518 Ezra 4.11: 63
Esther 9.22: 546 Ezra 4.18: 432
Ezra 4.23: 65
Daniel
Ezra 7.1: 63
Dan. 1.4: 150 Ezra 8.18: 135, 136, 137, 139,
Dan. 1.5: 518 140, 141, 143
Dan. 2.29: 411 Ezra 8.25: 73
Dan. 2.30: 432 Ezra 8.36: 220
Dan. 3.2: 540 Ezra 9.6: 308
Dan. 3.5: 219, 541 Ezra 9.8: 197
Dan. 3.7: 569 Ezra 10.9: 355
Dan. 3.21: 219 Ezra 10.37: 65
Dan. 3.23: 552, 553, 558, 564 Ezra 10.44: 65
Dan. 4.4: 528
Dan. 4.27: 432 Nehemiah
Dan. 4.31: 227 Neh. 1.5: 528
Dan. 5.11: 540 Neh. 1.7: 70, 82
Dan. 6.17: 367, 368 Neh. 2.3: 531
Dan. 8.9: 543 Neh. 2.19: 81, 355
 Indexes 735

Neh. 3.34: 70, 79 1 Chron. 3.5: 69, 80

Neh. 4.9: 44 1 Chron. 5.20: 458
Neh. 4.10: 355 1 Chron. 6.18: 373
Neh. 4.15: 355 1 Chron. 6: 57, 71, 373
Neh. 6.6: 172 1 Chron. 7.1: 144
Neh. 6.18: 283 1 Chron. 9.21: 283
Neh. 7.52: 64, 103 1 Chron. 11.7: 372
Neh. 8.8: 51 1 Chron. 11.17: 44
Neh. 9.1: 273 1 Chron. 11.20: 527
Neh. 9.5: 499 1 Chron. 11.39: 144
Neh. 10.3: 374, 485 1 Chron. 12.4: 502
Neh. 10.9: 497, 499 1 Chron. 12.9: 147, 372
Neh. 10.34: 485 1 Chron. 14.15: 487
Neh. 10.38: 374 1 Chron. 14.4: 70, 80
Neh. 11.24: 197, 497 1 Chron. 15.18: 370
Neh. 11.28: 498, 500 1 Chron. 16.5: 344
Neh. 12.6: 497 1 Chron. 21.3: 537
Neh. 12.9: 500 1 Chron. 22.3: 545
Neh. 12.36: 389 1 Chron. 22.5: 545
Neh. 13.2: 431 1 Chron. 27.31: 358, 359
Neh. 13.19: 338 1 Chron. 28.1: 398
Neh. 13.23: 45 1 Chron. 28.6: 445
1 Chron. 28.11: 552, 553,
1 Chronicles 557, 558, 565
1 Chron. 1.53: 66 1 Chron. 29.2: 396
1 Chron. 2.3: 376, 473, 475, 1 Chron. 29.18: 318
478 1 Chron. 29.20: 361
1 Chron. 2.7: 397
2 Chronicles
1 Chron. 2.24: 268, 281, 428
1 Chron. 2.35: 210 2 Chron. 2.9: 558
1 Chron. 3.1: 80 2 Chron. 6.8: 494
736 The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew

2 Chron. 6.42: 122, 318 Mishnah, Berakhot 3.6: 522

2 Chron. 7.3: 498 Mishnah, ʿEruvin 2.6: 522
2 Chron. 11.2: 211 Mishnah, Kelim 5.10: 300
2 Chron. 13.9: 526 Mishnah, Megillah 4.6: 304
2 Chron. 18.6: 77 Mishnah, Nedarim 3.4: 522
2 Chron. 21.17: 358, 359 Mishnah, Soṭah 1.7: 68
2 Chron. 23.12: 374 Palestinian Talmud: Megilla
2 Chron. 24.12: 63, 235 2.2: 1
2 Chron. 24.14: 396
2 Chron. 30.14: 374 HEBREW WORDS
2 Chron. 32.31: 377
‫אב׳׳ד‬
2 Chron. 32.33: 487
‫וַ ּיא ַֹבד‬: 75, 530
2 Chron. 33.18: 377
‫אבד‬
ַ ֹ ‫ֹי‬: 75, 530
2 Chron. 35.7: 355, 359
‫אבּוס‬:
ֵ 425
2 Chron. 35.9: 497
‫א ִביר‬:
ֲ 78, 81, 524, 525
2 Chron. 35.25: 458
‫א ִביר‬:
ַ 78, 81, 524, 525
‫אד ִֹמ ִִּּ֜יים‬:
ֲ 301
Maccabees
‫אה׳׳ב‬
1 Macc. 1.56-57: 38 ‫ת ֱא ָ֑הבּו‬:
ֶּ 425
‫ת ֵא ֲה ֫בּו‬:
ְּֽ 425, 489
Matthew
‫אזֹור‬:
ֵ 425
Matt. 3.3: 52 ‫פּנִ ים‬
ֹ ‫חשׁ ַֹדּ ֹר‬
ַֹ ‫ ֲא‬: 220
‫אכ׳׳ל‬: 360, 363
RABBINIC REFERENCES ‫תאכ ֵלהּו‬:
ְּ֭ 425
Babylonian Talmud, Berakhot ‫אכ ֶּלָ֑נה‬
ֲ ֹ ‫ת‬:
ְּֽ 94, 364
62a: 51 ִ ‫חד׳ה → ַא‬
‫ל־י ְַּ֭ח ֹדּ‬
Babylonian Talmud, Megilla ‫א ִ ִ֙ליפ ִּ֜ ֵלהּו‬:
ֱ 370
18a: 1 ‫יֹלי‬
ִ ִ֗ ‫א ֲל ַל‬:
ַ֣ ַ 393
Babylonian Talmud, Qiddushin ‫אמ ֫ ַלל‬:
ֻ 70, 79
30a: 15 ‫א ֵמל ִ ִ֖לים‬:
ֲ 70, 79
Mishnah, Avot 3.14: 15 ‫א ֫נה‬: 525
 ‫‪Indexes‬‬ ‫‪737‬‬

‫‪: 525, 527‬א ֫נה‬ ‫‪: 425‬ב ִכי‬

‫‪:‬א ַפּדנ֔ ֹו‬
‫‪ַ 60, 158, 159, 160, 215,‬‬ ‫‪: 401‬במ ַֹצ ֲא ֶּ ִ֖כם‬
‫‪216, 218, 219, 220, 241‬‬ ‫‪:‬במ ָ֑צד‬
‫‪ַ 372‬‬
‫נצ׳׳ר → ֶּא ֳּצ ֶּ ְּֽרנה‬ ‫‪:‬ב ֳּמ ֵתי‬
‫‪ַ֣ 431, 436, 440‬‬
‫‪:‬אר ַתח ַ ַ֣שׁסתא‬
‫‪ַ 63‬‬ ‫‪:‬בן־נּון‬
‫‪ִ 102, 545, 546, 578‬‬
‫‪:‬אר ַתח ַ ִ֖שׁשתא‬
‫‪ַ 63, 410‬‬ ‫‪:‬בנ ֻחשׁ ַ֔תיִ ם‬
‫‪ְּֽ ַ 322, 383‬‬
‫ת‬
‫‪:‬א ֹ‬
‫‪ַ 415, 416, 595‬‬ ‫ה‬
‫‪:‬בנַ י ַת ִֹ֙‬
‫‪ֱ 432‬‬
‫‪: 424‬ב ֵאר‬ ‫‪:‬בסע ִ֖רה‬
‫‪ְּֽ ַ 384‬‬
‫‪: 424‬באֹשׁ‬ ‫ב ַ ְּֽע ֹנ ִ ָ֥ני‬
‫‪ֹ : 390‬‬
‫‪: 28, 104, 128, 195,‬בגדכפת‬ ‫בע׳׳ר‬
‫‪223, 242, 243, 329, 342,‬‬ ‫‪ּ:‬וב ֵ ִ֖ער‬
‫‪ִ 78‬‬
‫‪343, 408, 409, 414, 520,‬‬ ‫‪: 390, 568‬בְ ַ ְּֽק ֹל ָֹ֑לֹו‬
‫‪536, 537, 538, 539, 544,‬‬ ‫בק׳׳שׁ‬
‫‪547, 552, 560, 561, 566,‬‬ ‫‪:‬ב ֵ ָ֥קשׁ‬
‫‪ִ 77‬‬
‫‪571, 572, 575, 577, 578,‬‬ ‫‪:‬בק ְּֽרב‬
‫‪ַ 385‬‬
‫‪582, 583, 584‬‬ ‫‪: 360, 361‬בר׳׳ך‬
‫‪: 390‬ב ֶּגְּֽל ֵלי‬ ‫‪:‬ב ֶּרכיהּו‬
‫‪ֶּ 268, 281, 428‬‬
‫בה׳׳ל‬ ‫‪: 552, 553, 554, 555, 556,‬ב ִתים‬
‫‪:ְּֽ ִ 401‬נ ֳּב ָ֥הל‬ ‫‪558, 563, 565, 566, 567,‬‬
‫ה‬
‫‪: 162‬בה ַשׁמ ִֹ֙‬ ‫‪595‬‬
‫בו׳׳א‬ ‫‪:‬ב ִתים‬
‫‪ַ 558‬‬
‫‪: 135, 136, 139,‬וַ ּי ִ ָ֥ביּאּו‬ ‫‪: 425‬ג ִדי‬
‫‪140, 141‬‬ ‫גד׳׳ל‬
‫‪: 135, 139, 140, 141‬וַ ּי ִִ֨ביּאּו‬ ‫‪: 73‬גִ ַ ַּ֤דּל‬
‫‪: 135, 136‬ת ִ ַ֣ביּאּו‬ ‫‪: 73, 77‬גִ ֵ ֔דּל‬
‫ת ְּֽמר בֹ ַ ְּֽחצֹ ָ֥צֹן‬
‫‪ֹ : 390‬‬ ‫‪: 72‬גֻ ד ְּֽלֹו‬
‫‪:‬ב ֲחר ֻט ִ ִ֖מם‬
‫‪ַ ְּֽ 99, 317‬‬ ‫‪: 72, 76‬גד ֕לֹו‬
‫יעה‬
‫‪:‬בי ִר ַ֣‬
‫‪ַ 383‬‬ ‫גל׳׳ה‬
‫‪: 263‬ביתֹהבליעה‬ ‫‪: 432‬גֱ ִ ַ֣לי‬
‫בכ׳׳ה‬ ‫‪:‬הגלַ֣ה‬
‫‪ִ 72, 76‬‬
‫‪: 407, 422‬וַ ֵּיַ֣בךֹ‬ ‫הגלִ֖ה‬
‫‪ֶֹּ : 72, 76‬‬
‫‪738‬‬ ‫‪The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew‬‬

‫‪: 391‬גֶֹּלֹ ֵלַ֣י‬ ‫ָ֑ך‬

‫‪: 391, 393‬י ַהל ֶּל ֹ‬
‫‪: 154‬גמאל‬ ‫‪:‬הת ַהללּו‬
‫‪ְְּּֽ֭ ִ 392‬‬
‫‪: 461‬געיה‬ ‫‪: 392‬ויִ ת ַה ֲל ִֹ֖לּו‬
‫‪: 360, 362‬גר׳׳שׁ‬ ‫‪: 392‬ויִ ת ַ ְּֽהל ִֹ֖לּו‬
‫‪: 59‬גֵ רשׁה‬ ‫‪: 392, 394‬ויִ ְּֽת ַהל ִֹ֖לּו‬
‫‪: 59‬תג ֵרשׁ‬ ‫‪:‬המאדּ ִ֔מים‬
‫‪ַ 379‬‬
‫גשׁ׳׳שׁ‬ ‫‪:‬המא ֲר ִ ִ֖רים‬
‫‪ְּֽ ַ 373, 374, 376‬‬
‫שׁה‬
‫‪: 391‬נגַֹ ֲשׁ ַֹּ֤‬ ‫‪:‬המאר ִ ַּ֤רים‬
‫‪ַ 379‬‬
‫‪: 157, 161‬דאל‬ ‫אר ֔שה‬
‫‪:‬המ ַ֣ ֹ‬
‫‪ַ 379‬‬
‫‪:‬דּ ִמי‬
‫‪ֳּ 279, 430, 437‬‬ ‫‪:‬המ ַבק ִ ִ֖שׁים‬
‫‪ְּֽ ַ 373, 377, 380‬‬
‫דר׳׳ך‬ ‫‪:‬המ ַבש ֔ ִלים‬
‫‪ְּֽ ַ 374‬‬
‫‪:ַ 158, 159, 228‬וְַּּֽֽיַ דר ַּ֤כּו‬ ‫‪:‬המ ַד ֵ ָ֥בר‬
‫‪ְּֽ ַ 322, 370, 371, 379,‬‬
‫דר׳׳שׁ‬ ‫‪568‬‬
‫‪: 77‬ונִ דר ִ֖שׁה‬ ‫ים‬
‫‪:‬המ ַדב ִר ִֹ֙‬
‫‪ְּֽ ַ 373, 376, 379‬‬
‫‪: 320‬ה ֲא ַחשׁ ַדּרפּ ִנַ֣ים‬ ‫‪:‬המ ַהל ִ ִ֖כים‬
‫‪ַ 374‬‬
‫‪: 70‬הדר‬ ‫‪:‬המזַ מ ִּ֜רֹות‬
‫‪ְּֽ ַ 373‬‬
‫‪:‬ה ֶּדר‬
‫‪ַ֣ ֶּ 70, 81‬‬ ‫‪:‬המזַ מ ַ֣רֹות‬
‫‪ְּֽ ַ 373, 376‬‬
‫‪:‬הז ֵק ִנַּ֤ים‬
‫‪ַ 384‬‬ ‫‪:‬המ ַח ִ ַ֣כים‬
‫‪ְּֽ ַ 372‬‬
‫בּוסיִֹ֙‬
‫‪:‬הי ִ‬
‫‪ַ 383‬‬ ‫‪:‬המ ֻחללִֹ֙‬
‫‪ְּֽ ַ 374, 377‬‬
‫‪: 104, 503, 506, 507‬הי׳׳ה‬ ‫ת‬
‫‪:‬המיַ ֶּ ִ֙ל ֶּד ִֹ֙‬
‫‪ַ 372‬‬
‫‪:‬היל ִ ֕דים‬
‫‪ַ 383‬‬ ‫ֹת‬
‫‪:‬המיַ לד ִֹ֙‬
‫‪ְּֽ ַ 373, 380‬‬
‫‪:‬הכנַ ֲע ִנָ֑ית‬
‫‪ְּֽ ַ 376, 473, 475, 478‬‬ ‫‪:‬המיַ ש ִ ִ֗רים‬
‫‪ְּֽ ִּ֜ ַ 374‬‬
‫‪:‬הלוִ ִּיִ֖ם‬
‫‪ַ 384, 568‬‬ ‫ים‬
‫‪:‬ה ֲמ ַלק ִק ִֹ֙‬
‫‪ְּֽ ַ 378‬‬
‫‪: 360, 365‬הל׳׳ך‬ ‫‪:‬ה ֲמ ַלק ִ ְַּ֤קים‬
‫‪ְּֽ ַ 378‬‬
‫הל׳׳ל‬ ‫‪:‬המנַ ִ ִ֖דּים‬
‫‪ְּֽ ַ 372‬‬
‫־יה‬
‫‪ְּֽ ַ : 391‬הללּו ְֹּֽ‬ ‫‪:‬ה ֲמ ֻסכַ֣ן‬
‫‪ְּֽ ַ 372‬‬
‫‪ָ֥ ַ : 393, 394‬ה ֲללּוֹיִֹ֨ה‬ ‫‪:‬המ ֻעש ָ֞קה‬
‫‪ְּֽ ַ 374, 377‬‬
‫‪ְּֽ ַ : 391‬הללִֹּ֖ו‬ ‫‪:‬המ ַעש ִ ֔רים‬
‫‪ְּֽ ַ 374‬‬
‫‪ְֹּֽ: 391‬י ַהללָֹּ֥ו‬ ‫אתנִ י‬
‫‪:‬המצ ַ ִ֖‬
‫‪ְּֽ ַ 386‬‬
‫‪: 393‬י ַהללְֹּּֽוהּו‬ ‫‪:‬המ ַצפצ ִ ִ֖פים‬
‫‪ְּֽ ַ 320, 374, 376‬‬
‫‪: 391‬י ְַּֽהללָֹּ֥וָך‬
 ‫‪Indexes‬‬ ‫‪739‬‬

‫‪:‬המצֹר ִ֙ ִעים‬
‫‪ְּֽ ַ 377‬‬ ‫לח׳׳ם → וַ ִּיְּֽל ֲח ִ֖מּו‬
‫‪:‬המ ַקב ִ ֔רים‬
‫‪ְּֽ ַ 374‬‬ ‫‪: 65‬ויַ ֲעשו‬
‫שׁ‬
‫‪:‬המ ֻקדּ ִֹ֙‬
‫‪ְּֽ ַ 377‬‬ ‫קל׳׳ל → ַוְַּֽֽי ַקל ִֹ֖לּו‬
‫רֹות‬
‫‪:‬המ ַקט ִֹ֙‬
‫‪ְּֽ ַ 374‬‬ ‫שׁב׳׳ה → וַ ִּיָ֥שׁ ֹ‬
‫ב‬
‫‪:‬המ ַקט ִ ַ֣רים‬
‫‪ְּֽ ַ 374, 376‬‬ ‫ק‬
‫שֹׁ‬‫שׁק׳׳ה → וַ ַּ֕י ֹ‬
‫‪:‬המ ֻקשרֹותֹ‬
‫‪ַ 379‬‬ ‫הל׳׳ל → ויִ ת ַה ֲל ִֹ֖לּו‬
‫‪ְּֽ ַ : 378‬המ ַ ֹרגֹ ִ֗ ִלים‬ ‫הל׳׳ל → ויִ ת ַ ְּֽהל ִֹ֖לּו‬
‫‪ְּֽ ַ : 378, 379‬המ ַ ֹרגֹ ִ ַּ֤לים‬ ‫הל׳׳ל → ויִ ְּֽת ַהל ִֹ֖לּו‬
‫‪:‬המ ֻשׁגָ֥ע‬
‫‪ַ 371, 372, 382‬‬ ‫ְּֽאשׁ ַ ִ֖אר‬
‫‪: 401‬ו ֵנ ֲ‬
‫שֹׁורר‬
‫‪:‬המ ֵ ֔‬
‫‪ַ 373‬‬ ‫‪: 547‬וַ עי ִ ִ֖רם‬
‫‪:‬המ ַש ֲח ִ֖קֹות‬
‫‪ְּֽ ַ 374, 376‬‬ ‫פל׳׳ל → ּו ִ ְּֽפ ֹל ַֹ֣לֹו‬
‫‪:‬המשׁ ֹר ִ ָ֑רים‬
‫‪ְּֽ ַ 374, 377‬‬ ‫‪: 424‬ז ֵאב‬
‫‪:‬הננִ י‬
‫‪ִ 352, 389‬‬ ‫זכ׳׳ר‬
‫‪: 99, 317‬ה ֲער ַ ִ֖ביִ ם‬ ‫‪:‬אזכ ַ֣רה‬
‫‪ֶּ 77‬‬
‫‪:‬ה ֲצ ַפרדּ ֔ ִעים‬
‫‪ְּֽ ַ 385‬‬ ‫‪:‬אזכ ֶּ ִ֖רנּו‬
‫‪ֶּ 77‬‬
‫‪:‬ה ֳּקד ִִׁ֡שׁים‬
‫‪ַ 430‬‬ ‫‪:‬ח ִ֖בֹלֹח ַ ַ֣בלנּו‬
‫‪ֲ 70, 82‬‬
‫‪:‬הק ַט ִנָ֑ים‬
‫‪ַ 385‬‬ ‫‪:‬ח ֻבר ִ֖תֹו‬
‫‪ֲ 72‬‬
‫ם‬
‫ית ִֹ֙‬
‫‪:‬הר ִא ֶּ‬
‫‪ַ 388‬‬ ‫‪:‬ח ֻבר ִ ְּֽתי‬
‫‪ַ 72‬‬
‫ם‬
‫ית ִֹ֙‬
‫‪:‬הר ִא ֶּ‬
‫‪ַ 534, 559‬‬ ‫חד׳׳ה‬
‫שׁח׳׳ת → ִ ְּֽהשׁ ִִ֗חיתּו‬ ‫ל־י ְַּ֭ח ֹדּ‬
‫‪:‬א ִ‬‫‪ַ 409, 424‬‬
‫‪:‬השׁ ַל ִ ְּֽבים‬
‫‪ַ 322, 384, 568‬‬ ‫‪: 409, 412, 414‬וַ ִּי ַַ֣ח ֹדּ‬
‫הל׳׳ל → ִ ְְּּֽ֭הת ַהללּו‬ ‫חד׳׳ל‬
‫מל׳׳ך → ֲה ִ ְּֽתמ ֔לְך‬ ‫‪: 533‬ח ֵ ָ֑דלּו‬

‫תע׳׳ב → ִ ְּֽהת ִ ָ֥עיבּו‬ ‫‪:‬ה ֳּח ַ ִ֙דל ִתי‬

‫‪ֶּ 431, 440‬‬

‫‪ּ: 432, 438‬וְּֽ ב ֶּצל ֱצ ִ ְּֽלים‬ ‫חז׳׳ק‬

‫‪: 374‬ו ַ ְּֽהמ ַ ְּֽהל ִ ִ֖לים‬ ‫‪: 99, 317‬יֶּ ֱחז ַ֣קּו‬

‫‪: 383‬ו ַ ְּֽהנ ַשׁ ָ֥מֹות‬ ‫‪: 104, 503, 506, 507‬חי׳׳ה‬

‫‪: 384‬ו ַ ְּֽהשׁ ַפ ִַ֗תיִ ם‬ ‫‪:‬ח ֶּירק‬

‫‪ִ 244, 261‬‬

‫פל׳׳ל → ו ִה ֹ‬
‫ת ַפְֹּּֽללָֹּ֥ו‬ ‫‪: 76‬חכ ִ֖מה‬

‫חד׳׳ה → וַ ִּי ַַ֣ח ֹדּ‬ ‫‪:‬ח ִלי‬

‫‪ֳּ 430‬‬
‫‪740‬‬ ‫‪The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew‬‬

‫חל׳׳ל‬ ‫‪: 69, 80‬נּולדּו‬

‫‪: 525‬יַ ֵחל‬ ‫ֹּלדים‬
‫‪: 70, 80‬יִ ִ ָ֥‬
‫‪: 525‬י ֵחל‬ ‫‪: 80‬ילּוד‬
‫‪:‬חל ֵלַּ֤י‬
‫‪ְּֽ ַ 390‬‬ ‫לּודים‬
‫‪: 70, 80‬י ִ ֔‬
‫‪:‬חל ֵלי־‬
‫‪ַ 395‬‬ ‫‪: 390‬יִ ְּֽל ַלַ֣ת‬
‫‪:‬ח ֶּלם‬
‫‪ֵ 263‬‬ ‫‪: 74, 530‬י ִמין‬
‫‪: 262‬חלמא‬ ‫יח‬
‫‪: 524‬יַ נִ ַ ֹ‬
‫‪:‬חנ ֵֵ֬ננִ י‬
‫‪ְּֽ 390‬‬ ‫יח‬
‫‪: 524‬ינִ ַ ֹ‬
‫ידה‬
‫‪:‬ח ִס ֔‬
‫‪ֲ 74, 529‬‬ ‫‪: 78, 79, 103, 339, 524,‬יַ ֲעקֹב‬
‫ידָך‬
‫‪:‬ח ִס ֶּ ָ֑‬
‫‪ֲ 74, 529‬‬ ‫‪545‬‬
‫‪:‬חר ִ֗בֹות‬
‫‪ֳּ 430‬‬ ‫‪: 79, 212, 339, 545‬יַ ע ֔קֹב‬
‫‪:‬ח ִרי‬
‫‪ֳּ 430‬‬ ‫‪: 29, 103, 212, 545, 546,‬יַ ע ֔קֹב‬
‫‪:‬ח ֶּרק‬
‫‪ֵ 261‬‬ ‫‪547, 562, 578‬‬
‫‪:‬ח ֶּרק‬
‫‪ֶּ 261‬‬ ‫‪: 360, 365‬יר׳׳ד‬
‫‪: 261‬ח ַרק‬ ‫‪: 74‬וַ ֵ֫ת ֶּרד‬
‫‪: 261‬חרקא‬ ‫‪:‬ת ֵ ֫רד‬
‫‪ֵ 74‬‬
‫חשׁ׳׳ב‬ ‫‪:‬ת ַ ֫רד‬
‫‪ֵ 74‬‬
‫‪: 72, 75, 78, 335,‬יַ ח ֔שׁ ֹבּו‬ ‫‪: 405‬יִ ְַּֽֽר ַ ַ֣את‬
‫‪339‬‬ ‫‪: 60‬ירּושׁ ַלם‬
‫‪: 72, 75, 78, 335,‬יַ ֲחשׁ ְֹּֽבּון‬ ‫שׁח׳׳ר → י ַשׁ ֲח ֻ ְּֽרננִ י‬
‫‪339‬‬ ‫שט׳׳ה → ֵיַ֣ש ֹ‬
‫ט‬
‫טר׳׳ף‬ ‫‪: 497, 501, 515, 544‬י ַ ְּֽשׁעיַ֣הּו‬
‫‪: 59‬ט ַֹרף‬ ‫‪: 94, 103‬יִ ששכר‬
‫‪: 59‬יִ ט ֵרף‬ ‫כב׳׳ד‬
‫חל׳׳ל → יַ ֵחל‬ ‫‪:‬אכ ֵב ִֹ֙ד‬
‫‪ֶּ 72, 76‬‬
‫חל׳ל → י ֵחל‬ ‫‪: 353‬י ְַּֽ֫כב ָ֥דננִ י‬
‫יר׳׳ה‬ ‫‪:‬כגֶּ ֲללֹו‬
‫‪ְּֽ ְּ֭ 391‬‬
‫‪: 301‬יִ ּי ֶּ ֔רה‬ ‫כה׳׳ן‬
‫יל׳׳ד‬ ‫‪: 77‬ו ִכ ֵ ָ֥הן‬
‫‪:‬נֹולד‬
‫ַ‬ ‫‪80‬‬ ‫כח׳׳שׁ‬
‫‪: 80‬נֹולד‬ ‫‪: 77‬ו ִ ָ֥כ ֶּחשׁ‬
 ‫‪Indexes‬‬ ‫‪741‬‬

‫כשׁ׳׳ל‬ ‫יה‬
‫‪:‬מגר ֶּשׁ ֹ‬
‫‪ִ 57, 71‬‬
‫‪: 58‬כ ַשׁל‬ ‫‪:‬מה־‬
‫‪ַ 102, 450, 451, 452, 453,‬‬
‫‪: 58‬נִ כ ַשׁל‬ ‫‪536, 569‬‬
‫‪ּ: 58‬ו ִּ֝בכשׁ ִ֗לֹו‬ ‫תת ַ ְּֽה ֹל ִלִֹ֙י‬
‫‪ַ : 390‬מה־ ִֹ‬
‫כת׳׳ב‬ ‫‪: 251‬מיפתחֹפומא‬
‫‪:‬אכ ֳּת ֶּ ָ֑בנה‬
‫‪ֶּ 432‬‬ ‫‪: 251‬מיקפץֹפומא‬
‫‪:‬כ ֳּת ְֹּֽנת‬
‫‪ֻ 431‬‬ ‫‪: 262‬מלֹאֹפּּום‬
‫‪:‬לֹו ָ֥ל ֹא‬
‫‪ִ֖ 524‬‬ ‫‪:‬מ ֶּלְך‬
‫‪ֶּ֫ 268, 423, 425, 427‬‬
‫לו׳׳ן‬ ‫‪: 305‬מלכים‬
‫‪:‬ת ִלינּו‬
‫‪ַ 524‬‬ ‫יֹג ֲל ִׁ֡ ַלי‬
‫‪:‬מ ֲל ִׁ֡ ַל ִ ְּֽ‬
‫‪ְּֽ ִ 389‬‬
‫‪: 524‬ת ִלינּו‬ ‫‪: 14, 15‬מסֹרה‬
‫לח׳׳ם‬ ‫‪:‬מ ִפּיק‬
‫‪ַ 161‬‬
‫‪: 376, 474, 480,‬וַ ִּיְּֽל ֲח ִ֖מּו‬ ‫‪:‬מ ֵפּיק‬
‫‪ַ 161‬‬
‫‪485, 486‬‬ ‫‪:‬מ ַפלפּ ִלים‬
‫‪ְּֽ 391, 487‬‬
‫‪:‬ל ֶּ ְּֽחנ ִ֗נה‬
‫‪ּ֝ 391‬‬ ‫‪:‬מ ַפ ֲע ִלים‬
‫‪ְּֽ 391, 487‬‬
‫‪: 29, 94, 131, 312‬ליִ שר ֵאל‬ ‫‪:‬מ ֵפּק‬
‫‪ַ 161‬‬
‫‪:‬לישׁ ִ ָ֑רים‬
‫‪ַ 383‬‬ ‫‪:‬מ ַפּק‬
‫‪ַ 162‬‬
‫‪: 207‬למאד‬ ‫מצ׳׳א‬
‫‪:֫ 533‬למה‬ ‫‪: 353‬יִ מצ ֻ ְּֽאננִ י‬
‫‪:‬למ ַ ָ֥טר‬
‫‪ִ 230‬‬ ‫‪:‬מצ ִרים‬
‫‪ִ 301‬‬
‫‪:‬למ ִ ָ֥ני‬
‫‪ַ 372‬‬ ‫‪: 395‬מ ַקל ַ ְּֽלונִ י‬
‫ח‬
‫‪:‬למנַ ֵ ָ֥צ ַ ֹ‬
‫‪ַ 372‬‬ ‫‪: 393‬מ ַקל ֶּ ְּֽלָך‬
‫‪:‬למ ִ֙ ַצד‬
‫‪ַ 372‬‬ ‫מל׳׳ך‬
‫לק׳׳ט‬ ‫‪:‬ה ִ ְּֽתמ ֔לְך‬
‫‪ֲ 344, 400, 501‬‬
‫ת‬
‫טֹ‬‫‪ִ : 411, 412, 422‬ל ַ ַּ֤ק ֹ‬ ‫‪: 432, 433‬מר ֳּדּ ַכי‬
‫‪:‬לק ָ֑רב‬
‫‪ַ 385‬‬ ‫משׁ׳׳ך‬
‫‪: 394‬ל ִ ְּֽשׁמ ִ֖מה‬ ‫‪:‬משׁ ִ֗כּו‬
‫‪ְּֽ ִ 498, 500‬‬
‫‪:‬לשׁ ַפ ִ ְּֽנים‬
‫‪ְּֽ ַ 384‬‬ ‫משׁ׳׳שׁ‬
‫‪: 207‬מאם‬ ‫שׁ ָ֥שּׁו‬
‫ְּֽמ ֹ‬
‫‪: 391‬י ַֹ‬
‫מא׳׳ן‬ ‫‪:‬מ ֶּתג‬
‫‪ֶּ 461‬‬
‫‪:‬מ ֵ ַ֣אן‬
‫‪ֵ 73‬‬
‫‪742‬‬ ‫‪The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew‬‬

‫‪ְּֽ ִ : 375, 453, 470, 475,‬מת ַפּלפּ ִֹ֔לים‬ ‫‪: 257‬סגֹול‬

‫‪476, 478‬‬ ‫‪: 257‬סגולה‬
‫‪ְּֽ ִ : 375, 376, 453, 470,‬מת ַפּ ֲע ִֹ֔לים‬ ‫‪:‬סגֵ ל‬
‫‪ֶּ 258‬‬
‫‪473, 475, 478‬‬ ‫‪: 305‬סימנים‬
‫‪:‬מת ַקט ֔ ִלים‬
‫‪ְּֽ ִ 375, 453, 470, 475,‬‬ ‫‪: 63, 235‬סֹכ ִ ִ֧רים‬
‫‪478‬‬ ‫‪: 208‬סמאך‬
‫נא׳׳ץ‬ ‫ס ֶּפר‬
‫‪ֵֹ֫ : 282, 423‬‬
‫‪:ִ ִ֘ 78‬נ ֵ ָ֥אץ‬ ‫עכ׳׳ר‬
‫נא׳׳ר‬ ‫‪: 99, 317‬יַ ע ֳּכרָךָֹ֥‬
‫‪: 73, 78‬נִ ֵ ַ֣אר‬ ‫עמ׳׳ד‬
‫בה׳׳ל → ִ ְּֽנ ֳּב ָ֥הל‬ ‫‪: 426, 427, 428‬יַ ַעמ ֹ֫דּו‬
‫נג׳׳שׁ‬ ‫‪:‬ע ַצ ִבים‬
‫‪ֲ 524, 525‬‬
‫‪: 59‬ב ִהנגשֹׁו‬ ‫‪:‬עצ ִבים‬
‫‪ֲ 524, 525‬‬
‫‪: 59‬נִ גַ שׁ‬ ‫‪: 263‬עקרֹהלשון‬
‫‪: 59‬יִ גַ שׁ‬ ‫‪:‬ער ִבי‬
‫‪ֲ 70, 81‬‬
‫‪: 59‬יִ נגֵ שׁ‬ ‫‪:‬ער ִבי‬
‫‪ַ 70, 81‬‬
‫גשׁ׳׳שׁ → נגַֹ ֲשׁ ַֹּ֤‬
‫שׁה‬ ‫‪: 75, 529‬ע ִרים‬
‫נה׳׳ג‬ ‫‪:‬עש ָ֥בֹות‬
‫‪ִ 236‬‬
‫‪:‬אנ ְּֽהגֲ ָךִֹ֗‬
‫‪ֶּ 352‬‬ ‫פּ ַדה ֵ ִ֖אל‬
‫‪ֹ : 162‬‬
‫‪: 305‬נעימות‬ ‫‪: 162‬פּ ַדה ֵ ִ֖אל‬
‫‪: 64, 103‬נ ִ ְּֽפושׁ ִ ְּֽסים‬ ‫הצּור‬
‫פּד ְֹּֽ‬
‫‪ֹ : 162‬‬
‫פּיסים‬
‫‪: 64‬נ ִ ְּֽ‬ ‫‪:‬פוִ֖ה‬
‫‪ֻ 172, 173‬‬
‫נצ׳׳ר‬ ‫ה‬
‫‪:‬פּטד ִֹ֙‬
‫‪ִ 160‬‬
‫‪:‬א ֳּצ ֶּ ְּֽרנה‬
‫‪ֶּ 430, 431‬‬
‫יהֹון‬
‫‪:‬פּט ֵשׁ ֔‬
‫‪ַ 219‬‬
‫‪: 65‬נש ִ֖אּי‬ ‫פל׳׳ל‬
‫נת׳׳ן‬ ‫פּל ָֹ֥לּו‬
‫ת ַ ְֹּֽ‬
‫‪: 391‬ו ִה ֹ‬
‫ת‬
‫‪: 416‬נ ַת ֹ‬
‫‪ּ: 390‬ו ִ ְּֽפ ֹל ַֹ֣לֹו‬
‫סב׳׳ב‬
‫‪: 219‬פּ ַסנ ֵת ִרין‬
‫‪: 72‬יִ ֔סֹב‬
‫‪: 50‬פסוק פסקהֹבאמצע‬
‫‪: 72‬י ִ֖סֹב‬
‫‪: 51‬פסקיֹטעמים‬
‫‪:‬סגֹול‬
‫‪ֶּ 244, 258‬‬
‫‪: 425‬פּ ִרי‬
 ‫‪Indexes‬‬ ‫‪743‬‬

‫‪: 220‬פִֹּתגם‬ ‫רא׳׳ה‬

‫‪: 244, 245‬פּ ַתח‬ ‫‪:ֻ 136, 137, 139, 141,‬ר ְּּֽאּו‬
‫‪:‬פּ ַתח‬
‫‪ַ 246‬‬ ‫‪142‬‬
‫‪:‬פּתח‬
‫‪ַ 246‬‬ ‫‪:ֳּ 430, 433‬ר ִ ָ֑אי‬
‫‪:‬פּתח‬
‫‪ַ 246‬‬ ‫‪:ְּֽ ִ 122, 390‬רב ִ֖בֹות‬
‫שׁגֶּ ן‬
‫ת ֶֹּ‬
‫‪: 220‬פַֹּ ֹ‬ ‫‪: 301‬ר ִמּיְּֽה‬
‫‪: 220‬צ ֵדי‬ ‫‪: 305‬שבא‬
‫‪:‬צ ִירי‬
‫‪ֵ 258‬‬ ‫שׁב׳׳ה‬
‫‪:‬ציריא‬
‫‪ִ 258‬‬ ‫ב‬
‫‪: 407, 410, 411, 422‬וַ ִּיָ֥שׁ ֹ‬
‫‪:‬צ ֲל ָ֑לֹו‬
‫‪ְּֽ ִ 389‬‬ ‫‪:‬שׁ ֲב ֵלַ֣י‬
‫‪ִ 431‬‬
‫‪:‬צ ֳּפּ ִ ָ֑רים‬
‫‪ִ 431‬‬ ‫‪:‬שׁ ֳּב ִ֗ ִלים‬
‫‪ִ 431‬‬
‫‪: 257‬צרא‬ ‫שׁב׳׳ר‬

‫רּופה‬
‫‪: 230, 434‬צ ֔‬ ‫‪:‬שׁב ָ֥רה‬
‫‪ְּֽ 404, 420‬‬

‫‪:‬צ ֵרי‬
‫‪ֵ 244, 258‬‬ ‫‪: 305‬שׁוא‬

‫‪:‬צ ִרי‬
‫‪ֳּ 279, 430, 434, 436, 438,‬‬ ‫‪:‬שׁו ַ ַ֣עת‬
‫‪ְּֽ ַ 498, 500‬‬

‫‪442‬‬ ‫שׁח׳׳ר‬

‫‪:‬צריא‬
‫‪ִ 258‬‬ ‫‪: 353‬י ַשׁ ֲח ֻ ְּֽרננִ י‬
‫שׁח׳׳ת‬
‫‪:‬קבּוץֹפּּום‬
‫‪ִ 262‬‬
‫‪:‬השׁ ִִ֗חיתּו‬
‫‪ְּֽ ִ 401‬‬
‫קֹ ֶּדשׁ‬
‫‪ֹ֫ : 423‬‬
‫שט׳׳ה‬
‫קל׳׳ל‬
‫ט‬
‫‪:ֵ 407‬יַ֣ש ֹ‬
‫‪ַ: 392‬וְַּֽֽי ַקללִֹּ֖ו‬
‫שׁכ׳׳ח‬
‫‪:ְּֽ ִ 314, 389‬ק ֲל ַלִ֖ת‬
‫ת‬
‫‪: 414, 424‬שׁ ִ֙ ַכ ַח ִֹ֙‬
‫‪:‬קללתָךִֹ֖‬
‫‪ִ 394‬‬
‫ים‬
‫‪: 63, 235‬ש ֹכ ִר ִֹ֙‬
‫‪: 244, 245‬ק ֵמץ‬
‫מֹות‬
‫מ ַֹּ֤‬
‫שֹׁ‬‫‪ְֹּֽ ִ : 390‬‬
‫‪: 246‬ק ַמץ‬
‫שׁמ׳׳ע‬
‫קנ׳׳ן‬
‫מ ַ ְּֽע ֹ֔לֹו‬
‫‪:‬לשׁ ַ֣ ֹ‬
‫‪ִ 498‬‬
‫‪ְּֽ ִ : 395‬קננּוִֹ֙‬
‫‪: 211, 497‬שׁ ַ ְּֽמע־נַּ֤א‬
‫‪:ֱ 432‬ק ִ ִ֖רי‬
‫‪: 336, 337, 353‬שׁ ַ ִ֖מענּו‬
‫‪: 70, 81‬קרנַ יִ ם‬
‫ּוה‬
‫‪: 337, 353‬שׁ ַ ְּֽמ ֲענָ֥ ֹ‬
‫‪:‬קר ַנַָֽ֥יִ ם‬
‫‪ַ 70, 82‬‬
‫‪744‬‬ ‫‪The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew‬‬

‫שׁמ׳׳ר‬ ‫‪: 327, 328, 329, 426‬שׁ ַתיִ ם‬

‫‪:‬שׁמ ַ֣רה‬
‫‪ְּֽ 404, 405‬‬ ‫אה׳׳ב → ֶּת ֱא ָ֑הבו‬
‫שׁק׳׳ה‬ ‫אה׳׳ב → ְּֽת ֵא ֲה ֫בּו‬
‫‪: 407, 408‬וַ ַּ֕ישׁקֹ‬ ‫אכ׳׳ל → ְּ֭תאכ ֵלהּו‬
‫שׁק׳׳ל‬ ‫ם‬
‫‪:‬תל־עֹול ִֹ֙‬
‫‪ֵ 552, 553, 558, 563‬‬
‫‪:‬אשׁ ֳּקולַ֣ה‬
‫‪ֶּ 73‬‬
‫לו׳׳ן → ַת ִלינּו‬
‫‪:‬שׁ ֶּרק‬
‫‪ֶּ 264‬‬
‫לו׳׳ן → ת ִלינּו‬
‫‪: 264‬שרקא‬
‫‪: 552, 553, 558, 564‬תל ֵַ֣ת ֔הֹון‬
‫שׁת׳׳ל‬
‫‪: 305‬תנועות‬
‫‪:‬אשׁ ֳּת ֔ ֶּלנּו‬
‫‪ֶּ 73‬‬
‫תע׳׳ב‬
‫‪: 327, 329, 426‬שׁ ֵתי‬
‫‪:‬הת ִ ָ֥עיבּו‬
‫‪ְּֽ ִ 346, 401‬‬
‫‪:‬עשׁ ֵרה שׁ ֵתים‬
‫‪ֶּ 327‬‬
 Cambridge Semitic
Languages and Cultures

General Editor Geoffrey Khan

OPEN
ACCESS
Cambridge Semitic Languages and Cultures

About the series

This series is published by Open Book Publishers in collaboration with
the Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies of the University of
Cambridge. The aim of the series is to publish in open-access form
monographs in the field of Semitic languages and the cultures
associated with speakers of Semitic languages. It is hoped that this will
help disseminate research in this field to academic researchers around
the world and also open up this research to the communities whose
languages and cultures the volumes concern. This series includes
philological and linguistic studies of Semitic languages and editions of
Semitic texts. Titles in the series will cover all periods, traditions and
methodological approaches to the field. The editorial board comprises
Geoffrey Khan, Aaron Hornkohl, and Esther-Miriam Wagner.
This is the first Open Access book series in the field; it combines the
high peer-review and editorial standards with the fair Open Access
model offered by OBP. Open Access (that is, making texts free to
read and reuse) helps spread research results and other educational
materials to everyone everywhere, not just to those who can afford it
or have access to well-endowed university libraries.
Copyrights stay where they belong, with the authors. Authors are
encouraged to secure funding to offset the publication costs and
thereby sustain the publishing model, but if no institutional funding is
available, authors are not charged for publication. Any grant secured
covers the actual costs of publishing and is not taken as profit. In
short: we support publishing that respects the authors and serves the
public interest.

Other titles of the series

Studies in Rabbinic Hebrew

Shai Heijmans (ed.)
doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0164

You can find more information about this serie at:

http://www.openbookpublishers.com/section/107/1
The Tiberian Pronunciation
Tradition of Biblical Hebrew (Vol. I)
Geoffrey Khan
The form of Biblical Hebrew that is presented in printed edi�ons, with vocaliza�on and
accent signs, has its origin in medieval manuscripts of the Bible. The vocaliza�on and
accent signs are nota�on systems that were created in Tiberias in the early Islamic period
by scholars known as the Tiberian Masoretes, but the oral tradi�on they represent has
roots in an�quity. The gramma�cal textbooks and reference grammars of Biblical Hebrew
in use today are heirs to centuries of tradi�on of gramma�cal works on Biblical Hebrew in
Europe. The paradox is that this European tradi�on of Biblical Hebrew grammar did not
have direct access to the way the Tiberian Masoretes were pronouncing Biblical Hebrew.

In the last few decades, research of manuscript sources from the medieval Middle East
has made it possible to reconstruct with considerable accuracy the pronuncia�on of the
Tiberian Masoretes, which has come to be known as the ‘Tiberian pronuncia�on tradi�on’.
This book presents the current state of knowledge of the Tiberian pronuncia�on tradi�on
of Biblical Hebrew and a full edi�on of one of the key medieval sources, Hidāyat al-Qāriʾ
‘The Guide for the Reader’, by ʾAbū al-Faraj Hārūn. It is hoped that the book will help to
break the mould of current gramma�cal descrip�ons of Biblical Hebrew and form a bridge
between modern tradi�ons of grammar and the school of the Masoretes of Tiberias.

Links and QR codes in the book allow readers to listen to an oral performance of samples
of the reconstructed Tiberian pronuncia�on by Alex Foreman. This is the first �me Biblical
Hebrew has been recited with the Tiberian pronuncia�on for a millennium.

As with all Open Book publica�ons, this en�re book is available to read for free on the
publisher’s website. Printed and digital edi�ons, together with supplementary digital
material, can also be found at www.openbookpublishers.com

Cover image: The Aleppo Codex. Courtesy of the Ben-Zvi Institute, Jerusalem. Photographer: Ardon Bar Hama.
Cover design: Luca Baffa.

e book
ebook and OA edi�ons
also available

OPEN
ACCESS