A A A

1. Rabba and Rava, ʾAbba and ʾAva: Spelling, Pronunciation and Meaning

Yochanan Breuer1

1. Introduction

In the Babylonian Talmud there frequently occur two similar proper names that differ in spelling as well as pronunciation: רבה Rabba and רבא Rava; the former ends with a heh and has a doubled bet, while the latter ends with an alef and has singleton bet. Since these similar names tended to be confused with each other, Rav Hai Gaon was sent a question in which he was asked to attribute each name to the proper Amora. In his response he divided all the bearers of one of these names into two lists according to the correct form. At the end he added an explanation for the difference between the names — it stems from a difference between the nouns from which they are derived:

ודעו כי ראבה — אַבָּה שמו, וזה ריש שהוסיפו עליו במקום רב; ורַאבָא — אֲבָא שמו, וזה ריש המוסף עליו כמו רב. ופירוש אַבָּה — כמי שאומר אָבִי; ופירוש אֲבָא — כמי שאומר אבא סתם. כי תרגום אבי — אבה; ותרגום וישימני לאב — ושויני אבא.

You should know that Rabba — his name is אַבָּה ʾAbba, and the resh which was added to it stands for Rav; and Rava — his name is אֲבָא ʾAva, and the resh which is added to it stands for Rav. And the meaning of אַבָּה ʾAbba is as one says ‘my father’; and the meaning of אֲבָא ʾAva is as one says only ‘a father’. Because the translation of אבי ‘my father’ is אבה, and the translation of וישימני לאב ‘and he has made me as a father’ (Gen. 45.8) is ושויני אבא.2

At the outset Rav Hai explains that the name רבה Rabba derives from the compound רב אבה Rav ʾAbba, while the name רבא Rava derives from the compound רב אבא Rav ʾAva. According to this explanation, the difference between the proper names results from a difference between the nouns ʾabba and ʾava. He goes on to explain the difference between these nouns, which is one not only of spelling and pronunciation, but also of meaning: the meaning of ʾabba is ‘my father’, and that of ʾava is ‘a father’. He concludes by bringing examples from the Aramaic Targum: the Hebrew אָבִי ‘my father’ translated by the Aramaic אַבָּה ʾabba, while the Hebrew אָב ‘a father’ is translated by the Aramaic אֲבָא ʾava.3

It is not clear whether this distinction existed in the living language or only in the copying and reading tradition of the Targum. The structure of the response seems to point to living language, since the distinction is introduced at the outset, while the Targum is only presented at the end in order to supply a proof or an example. In any case, we have here an important testimony of a distinction so far unknown from any other source. This distinction deserves an explanation: how did this threefold distinction evolved, according to which אבה ʾabba means ‘my father’ while אבא ʾava means ‘a father’?

I will first introduce the classical forms in Hebrew and Aramaic relevant to our discussion:

	1: a father	2: the father	3: my father
Hebrew:	ʾav	ha-ʾav	ʾavi
Aramaic:	ʾav	ʾava	ʾavi

This system underwent certain changes in Late Hebrew as well as in Late Aramaic.

2. The dagesh

The bet of this noun was originally singleton, as in Hebrew ʾaviḵa and Aramaic ʾavuḵ. At a certain point, only the bet of the Aramaic emphatic form was geminated: ʾabba. This happened only in Western Aramaic.4 In Eastern Aramaic, as far as we know, the bet was not doubled.5 Accordingly, a difference between Western and Eastern Aramaic evolved: in Eastern Aramaic ʾava, in Western Aramaic ʾabba.

3. Eastern Aramaic

In Eastern Aramaic two general processes changed the original system: first, the (originally) emphatic form came to be used in all circumstances, so columns 1–2 integrated. Second, the vowel that stands for the 1 sg. pronominal suffix dropped, and the pronominal suffix came to be expressed by the absence of a vowel.6 Accordingly, the form of column 3 is ʾav; this is the form in Syriac and Mandaic and to some extent also in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic. Examples:

Meanings 1–2 — ʾava:

Syriac: ‎יֶשׁ־לָ֙נוּ֙ אָ֣ב זָקֵ֔ן ‘we have an old father’ (Gen. 44.20) — אית לן אבא סבא (Peshitta).

Mandaic: לדילאן ליתלאן אבא ‘we have no father’.7

Babylonian Aramaic: קריביה דר׳ יוחנן הוה ליה איתת אבא ‘a relative of R. Yochanan had a father’s wife’ (b.Ketuboth 52b); ולא אמרן אלא באחי דאבא אבל באחי דאימא לית לן בה ‘and what we said concern only the father’s brothers, but concerning the mother’s brothers this is not valid’ (b.Baba Metzia 39b).8

Meaning 3 — ʾav:

Syriac: ‎הַֽבְרָכָ֙ה אַחַ֤ת הִֽוא־לְךָ֙ אָבִ֔י בָּרֲכֵ֥נִי גַם־אָ֖נִי אָבִ֑י ‘Is that the only blessing you have, my father? Give a blessing also to me, even me, my father’ (Gen. 27.38) — בורכתא חדא הי לך אבי ברכיני אף לי אבי .9

Mandaic: כמא תיהויא שותא דאב ‘how will be the conversation of my father’.10

Babylonian Aramaic: האיי חרובא מאן שתליה אמ׳ ליה אבוה דאב ‘who planted this carob tree, so he said, my father’s father’ (b.Taanith 23a according to He).11

The following is the system in Eastern Aramaic:

1: a father	2: the father	3: my father
ʾava	ʾava	ʾav

4. Western Aramaic

In Western Aramaic the distinction between the emphatic and non-emphatic forms was preserved, so the difference between columns 1–2 was maintained. On the other hand, the meaning of the emphatic form ʾabba was expanded to include meaning 3 ‘my father’ and it supplanted the original form ʾavi altogether.12 The following examples demonstrate only meaning 3 (in meanings 1–2 the original forms were maintained):

Galilean Aramaic: ‎מִמִּשְׁפַּחְתִּ֖י וּמִבֵּ֥ית אָבִֽי ‘from my relations and my father’s house’ (Gen. 24.40) — מן זרעיתי ומן ביתיה דאבא (Targum Neophiti);13 אמ׳ ליה את שמעת מאבוך הדא מילתא אמ׳ ליה אבא לא הוה אמר כן אלא בעין טב ‘he said to him: did you hear this from your father? He said to him: my father said so only in Ein Tav’ (y.Berakhoth 7c [4.1]); ‎וֵֽאלֹהֵ֣י אָבִ֔י הָיָ֖ה עִמָּדִֽי ‘but the God of my father has been with me’ (Gen. 31.5) — ואלדה אבה הווה בסעדי.14

Samaritan Aramaic: מִמִּשְׁפַּחְתִּ֖י וּמִבֵּ֥ית אָבִֽי ‘from my relations and my father’s house’ (Gen. 24.40) — מכרני ומבית אבה.15

Christian Palestinian Aramaic: ‎אָבִ֞י הִשְׁבִּיעַ֣נִי ‘my father made me take an oath’ (Gen. 50.5) — אבא אומי יתי;16 ‎אֲשֶׁ֣ר שָׁמַ֗רְתָּ לְעַבְדְּךָ֙ דָּוִ֣ד אָבִ֔י ‘which you gave to your servant David, my father’ (1 Kgs 8.24) — מא דנטרת לעבדך דויד אבא.17

Accordingly, in contrast with Eastern Aramaic, where columns 1–2 merged, in Western Aramaic it was columns 2–3 that merged:

1: a father	2: the father	3: my father
ʾav	ʾabba	ʾabba

5. Mishnaic Hebrew

The Aramaic form ʾabba was borrowed into Mishnaic Hebrew and is very common in Rabbinic Literature. However, it is used only in the (new) meaning ‘my father’.18 It is never used in the original Aramaic meaning ‘the father’, where the original Hebrew form ha-ʾav is maintained.19 Here are some examples of the different forms:

ʾav ‘a father’: אב ובנו שראו את החודש ילכו ‘a father and his son who saw the new moon will go’ (m.Rosh ha-Shanah 1.7).
ha-ʾav ‘the father’: האב זכאי בבתו בקידושיה בכסף ובשטר ובביאה ‘the father has control over his daughter as regards her betrothal, whether it is effected by money, by writ, or by intercourse’ (m.Ketuboth 4.4).
ʾabba ‘my father’: שמונה מאות דינר היניח אַבָּא ונטל אחי ארבע מאות ואני ארבע מאות ‘my father left 800 dinars and my brother took 400 and I took 400’ (m.Nedarim 9.5); שלא יאמר(ו) אדם לחבירו אַבָּא גדול מאביך ‘so that people should not say to each other: my father is bigger than your father’ (m.Sanhedrin 4.5). In contrast, the original form ʾavi almost entirely disappeared.20 It is important to note that it does not appear in the Mishna; it may have been reintroduced towards the end of the Tannaitic period.

This is the system in Mishnaic Hebrew:

1: a father	2: the father	3: my father
ʾav	ha-ʾav	ʾabba

6. Babylonian Aramaic

In Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, which belongs to Eastern Aramaic, columns 1–2 are in accordance with Eastern Aramaic. However, in column 3, the expected form ʾav almost completely vanished and the form ʾabba took its place.21 Here are two examples: אמר ליה מר בר אמימר לרב אשי אבא מגמע ליה גמועי ‘Mar son of Amemar said to Rav Ashe: my father did indeed drink it’ (b.Pesahim 74b);22 הכי שלחא ליה בר אהוריאריה דאבא את אבא לקביל אלפא חמרא שתי ולא הוה רוי ‘She sent him back an answer: you, son of my father’s steward. My father drank wine in the presence of a thousand and did not get drunk’ (b.Megillah 12b).23 This means that two of the aforementioned processes operated in Babylonian Aramaic: columns 1–2 merged as in Eastern Aramaic, columns 2–3 merged as in Western Aramaic, and as a result the same form appears in all three columns.24

How did the form ʾabba reach column 3 (‘my father’)? There are two possibilities: either it was an independent process, similar to what happened in Western Aramaic,25 or it is a borrowing from Mishnaic Hebrew.26 Here we should point once again to the testimony of Rav Hai, according to which the forms are not absolutely identical: in columns 1–2 it is ʾava, while in column 3 it is ʾabba. At least the dagesh (if not the very use) must have resulted from Mishnaic Hebrew influence.27 I will reintroduce the two systems in the two languages used by Babylonian Jews, vocalised according to Rav Hai’s testimony:

	1: a father	2: the father	3: my father
Mishnaic Hebrew	ʾav	ha-ʾav	ʾabba
Babylonian Aramaic	ʾava	ʾava	ʾabba

The difference between the columns is now explained: in Mishnaic Hebrew, ʾabba only exists in column 3 and has a dagesh. This form was borrowed by Babylonian Aramaic, and this is why the dagesh appears only in column 3. In columns 1–2 it does not exist in Mishnaic Hebrew and could not affect Babylonian Aramaic, so the original Eastern Aramaic forms were maintained.28

This explanation may also account for the difference in spelling. In the Babylonian Talmud a final a vowel is marked by alef in Aramaic words and by heh in Hebrew words, e.g., תנא מעולם לא שנה אדם בה ‘it was taught, no one ever repeated it’ (b.Yoma 26a); אמ׳ ליה אביי ובלבד שיכניסם בצנעה לתוך ביתו אמ׳ ליה צנעא דהני יממא הוא ‘Abbaye said to him, [have we not learnt that] he should bring them into his house privately? He answered, the day is the [time of] privacy for these’ (b.Moed Katan 12b).29 According to my suggestion, the word in columns 1–2 is written with alef as an authentic Aramaic word, while in column 3 it is written with heh because it was borrowed from Hebrew.

For this explanation we need not assume a tradition of exceptional conservative power. In Babylonian Aramaic the form ʾava was the ordinary form. Speakers of Babylonian Aramaic were exposed to Tannaitic texts, where they found only ʾabba and only in the meaning ‘my father’, so the form and the meaning seemed to them connected. Since these two phenomena are typical of Hebrew texts, they viewed it as Hebrew, different from their Aramaic form ʾava.

7. Mishnaic Hebrew — a bridge between Western and Eastern Aramaic

According to this suggestion, the form ʾabba ‘my father’ was created in Western Aramaic, borrowed into Mishnaic Hebrew, and then made its way into Babylonian Aramaic. Both phenomena — influence of Western Aramaic on Mishnaic Hebrew and influence of Mishnaic Hebrew on Babylonian Aramaic — are well attested.30 Accordingly, Mishnaic Hebrew, which was studied by Jews in Palestine and Babylon alike, became a bridge between Western and Eastern Aramaic.

I will adduce another example for this process. The word כאן kan ‘here’ was created in Western Aramaic. Its Aramaic origin is proven by the lack of the Canaanite Shift (in contrast with its Hebrew cognate ko), and its Palestinian origin is proven by the addition of final nun.31 This word was borrowed into Mishnaic Hebrew and then again into Babylonian Aramaic. As a result, we have in Babylonian Aramaic a doublet: the original Babylonian Aramaic הכא haḵa alongside the Western Aramaic loan kan.32

Appendix: did the distinction of spelling survive in the manuscripts?

In the second footnote of this article I mentioned Shraga Abramson’s conclusion, that the distinction of spelling according to meaning has not been preserved in the texts that have reached us. I have rechecked a list of manuscripts and have been unable to confirm this distinction. I do not claim that such a distinction never existed. There is no reason to doubt Rav Hai’s clear testimony that he was familiar with texts that exhibited this distinction, but so far we have not been able to trace them.

It is true that the spelling with heh is widespread in certain manuscripts, and one may conclude that this distinction does exist in them.33 Therefore I would like to present the considerations for my claim that this distinction has not yet been found.

In my view, the distinction is proven only if the two spellings are distributed according to meaning, not according to language; i.e., if one spelling is typical of Hebrew and one of Aramaic, then the spelling is governed by language, not by meaning. Since within Hebrew ʾabba is used in only meaning 3 (‘my father’), this distinction cannot be found in Hebrew. Therefore, the question is only if this distinction is to be found in Aramaic. In order to check it, I chose a group of texts where a spelling with heh was preserved, and separated the data between Hebrew and Aramaic.34 I omitted proper names altogether, since according to the testimony of Rav Hai there are two distinct proper names, ʾabba and ʾava. In proper names it is impossible to know, whether by form or by context, the meaning of the name and, consequently, whether the spelling is dependent on the meaning. Spelling of names is thus useless for this investigation.

Hebrew, meaning 3 (‘my father’; in Hebrew only this meaning is used):

	אבא	אבה
Mishnah	29	2
Sifra	1	5
Sifre Be-midbar	2	2
Sifre Devarim	3	5
Tosefta	55	8
Mekhilta de-Rashbi	2	1
Palestinian Talmud	71
Bereshith Rabbah	33	6
b. Sukkah	2	1
b. Taanith	2
b. Ketuboth	12	6
b. Baba Kamma	6	2
b. Baba Metzia	9
b. Baba Bathra	10
b. Sanhedrin	9	7
Halachot Pesuqot	6	11

Aramaic:

	1: a father		2: the father		3: my father
	אבא	אבה	אבא	אבה	אבא	אבה
Palestinian Talmud	5		2		34	1
Bereshit Rabba					11
b.Sukkah					2
b.Taanith						2
b.Ketuboth	2		1
b.Baba Kamma	2
b.Baba Metzia			3		3
b.Baba Bathra	4		9		2
b.Sanhedrin	3		1		5	1
Halachot Pesuqot	2		10		1

Here are some examples:35

Hebrew:
	Mishnah:
		Alef: בית אבא ‘my father’s house’ (m.Betzah 2.6).
		Heh: שאמ׳ לי אבה ‘that my father said to me’ (m.Menahoth 13.9).
	Babylonian Talmud, tractate Sukkah:
		Alef: כשבאתי אצל אחי אבא ‘when I came to my father’s brother’ (20b).
		Heh: כך אמ׳ אבה ‘so said my father’ (18a).
	Halachot Pesuqot:
		Alef/heh: שלא פיקדנו אבה שלא אמר לנו אבה שלא מצינו בין שטרותיו שלאבא שטר זה פרוע ‘that our father did not leave us any order, nor did our father tell us, nor have we found in the documents of our father that this note of indebtedness has been paid’ (ed. Sassoon, p. קכד, line 19).

Aramaic (all the examples are from the Babylonian Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin):
	Meaning 1:
		Alef: ונכיסנא אבא אפום ברא ‘I will slaughter father with son’ (25b).
	Meaning 2:
		Alef: טבא קולפי דאימא מן שוקיתא דאבא ‘the blows of the mother are better than the kisses of the father’ (106a).
	Meaning 3:
		Alef: אבא לא תתנינה הכי ‘my father, teach it not thus’ (80b).
		Heh: קורבא דאחווה אית לי בהדה מאבה ולאו מאימא ‘I am fraternally related to her on my father’s side but not on my mother’s side’ (58b).

According to these findings, the spelling with heh is widespread in Hebrew, but rare in Aramaic, as will be emphasised by two facts: (1) in Aramaic the spelling with heh occurs only four times, which is less than 4 percent of the occurrences of this word in Aramaic, and a little more than 6 percent of the occurrences of this word in meaning 3 in Aramaic. If we add to the total the Hebrew and the proper names, these four occurrences become such a small portion that no conclusion can be based on them. (2) In the book of Halachot Pesuqot, there are twice as many occurrences of the spelling with heh in Hebrew as with alef, while in Aramaic there is no spelling with heh whatsoever.

Accordingly, in these texts the spelling with heh is typical only of Hebrew, and if so, the spelling is dependent on language, not meaning.

This survey also explains the illusion that the distinction does exist in these texts: since the spelling with heh is widespread in Hebrew and is restricted to meaning 3 (which is the only meaning in Hebrew), while in Aramaic the normal spelling is with alef and is used in all meanings, it seems as if the spelling with heh is typical of meaning 3. However, separating the languages leads to the opposite conclusion: this distinction exists neither in Hebrew — where only meaning 3 exists, nor in Aramaic — where only the spelling with alef exists (with a few exceptions).

However, this very illusion seems to have created the distinction that probably existed in the texts mentioned by Rav Hai: since the spelling with heh is typical of Hebrew and only in meaning 3, it penetrated Aramaic only in this meaning, but not in the other meanings that do not exist in Hebrew.

1 This topic was the subject of a paper presented at a workshop on Mishnaic Hebrew which took place at the University of Cambridge on 5–6 July, 2016. I thank the organisers, Geoffrey Khan and Shai Heijmans, and all the participants for their enriching comments. I also thank Chanan Ariel for his important comments on a previous version of this article.

2 Shraga Abramson, Tractate ʿAbodah Zarah of the Babylonian Talmud (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1957), p. 129. The vocalisation is copied from the source. Another version of this responsum was published by Benjamin M. Lewin, ʾIggeret Rav Sherira Gaʾon (in Hebrew; Haifa: Golda-Itskovski, 1921), appendices, pp. xiv–xv, according to MS Parma 327, but this version is missing and incomprehensible, and it is a wonder that Lewin did not comment on this.

3 For a discussion of this responsum see Shraga Abramson, “Qetaʿ geniza mi-Yerushalmi Shabbat pereq ha-matsniaʿ” (in Hebrew), Kobez Al Yad: Minora Manuscripta Hebraica 8/18 (1976), pp. 1–13, at pp. 7–9. He notes that he could not find a text that preserved this distinction, but Rav Hai may have had a Targum version where this distinction did exist. I, too, have been unable to find any text that preserves this distinction; see the appendix below. Of course, the parallel distinction between רבה Rabba and רבא Rava does exist. In the case of proper names there is a recognisable tendency to use heh for a final a vowel even in the Babylonian Talmud; see Yechiel Kara, “Babylonian Aramaic in the Yemenite Manuscripts of the Babylonian Talmud” (in Hebrew; PhD dissertation, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1982), p. 41; Shamma Yehuda Friedman, “Early Manuscripts of Tractate Bava Metzia” (in Hebrew), Alei Sefer 9 (1981), pp. 5–55, at pp. 14–16. It seems that this tendency, together with the influence of Rav Hai’s response and the necessity to differentiate between personalities, combined to preserve this distinction specifically in these proper names. However, even in these names it is not preserved in all sources, and this has led some scholars to conclude that the very distinction is not original; see Shamma Yehuda Friedman, “Orthography of the Names Rabbah and Rava in the Babylonian Talmud” (in Hebrew), Sinai 110 (1992), pp. 140–164; Eljakim Wajsberg, “The spelling of the Name of Rava bar Yosef in the ספר הלכות גאונים למסכת שבת” (in Hebrew), Leshonenu 57 (1993), pp. 157–173; idem, “The Orthography of the Names Rabba and Rava: Rav Hai’s and Rivalling Rules” (in Hebrew), Language Studies 5–6 (1992; Israel Yeivin Festschrift), pp. 181–214; Kara, Babylonian Aramaic, p. 41.

4 Thus the transcription αββα in the New Testament: καὶ ἔλεγεν, Αββα ὁ πατήρ ‘and he said, Abba, Father’ (Mark 14.36); ἐν ᾧ κράζομεν, Αββα ὁ πατήρ ‘whereby we cry, Abba, Father’ (Rom. 8.15); κρᾶζον, Αββα ὁ πατήρ ‘crying, Abba, Father’ (Gal. 4.6). So also in the Palestinian Targum im, in Christian Palestinian Aramaic and in manuscripts of Rabbinic Literature; see Steven E. Fassberg, A Grammar of the Palestinian Targum Fragments from the Cairo Genizah (Harvard Semitic Studies, vol. 38, Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), pp. 66, 126, 137; Friedrich Schulthess, Grammatik des christlich-palästinensischen Aramäisch (Tübingen: Mohr–Siebeck, 1924), pp. 42–43; Eduard Y. Kutscher, Words and Their History (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Kiryat Sepher, 1961, p. 2. For examples see below, sections 4–5. According to Schulthess, the dagesh was added under the influence of ʾimma (so also Kutscher, see ibid.). As Schulthess noted, the vowel of the first syllable was also changed into an e vowel, this also under the influence of ʾimma. However, it seems that this change is attested only in Aramaic.

5 In Syriac the bet is not doubled; see Theodor Nöldeke, Compendious Syriac Grammar, transl. James A. Crichton (London: Williams and Norgate, 1904), p. 91; Carl Brockelmann, Syrische Grammatik (Leipzig: Verlag Enzyklopädie, 1960), pp. 58, 149*. Kutscher, Words, p. 2, too, pointed out that in Syriac there is no dagesh, while in Palestine at the end of the Second Temple period and afterwards both forms lived side by side, which means that the dagesh is to be found only in Western Aramaic. Rudolf Macuch, Handbook of Classical and Modern Mandaic (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1965), p. 33, also wrote that the bet has no dagesh, but since there is no vocalisation system, this pronunciation is only conjectured; see Theodor Nöldeke, Mandäische Grammatik (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1964), pp. 36–37.

6 For Syriac see, e.g., Brockelmann, Syrische Grammatik, p. 58. For Mandaic see Nöldeke, Mandäische Grammatik, pp. 88, 175; Macuch, Handbook, pp. 132, 169; Ethel S. Drower and Rudolf Macuch, A Mandaic Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963), p. 1. For Babylonian Aramaic see Jacob N. Epstein, A Grammar of Babylonian Aramaic (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1960), p. 122; Michael Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2002), p. 72; Yochanan Breuer, “Rabbi is Greater than Rav, Rabban is Greater than Rabbi, the Simple Name is Greater than Rabban” (in Hebrew), Tarbiẓ 66 (1997), pp. 41–59, at pp. 53–54.

7 Nöldeke, Mandäische Grammatik, p. 431.

8 The text of the quotations from Rabbinic Literature, unless otherwise specified, is according to the text that is presented in the Maagarim database of the Historical Dictionary Project of the Academy of the Hebrew Language, accessible at http://maagarim.hebrew-academy.org.il.

9 The final yod in Syriac is only an archaic spelling, and the pronunciation is ʾav.

10 Nöldeke, Mandäische Grammatik, p. 437.

11 This form survived only rarely in Babylonian Aramaic due to the penetration of ʾabba (see below, paragraph 6). For example, in this quotation the reading is אבוה דאבא in the following manuscripts: GF22 LH M95 M140 O23 V134 (for these abbreviations see the end of this footnote). Beyond this case, I have found it only in two places (both are mentioned in Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, p. 72): (1) in b.Baba Bathra 159a it appears in all the witnesses, including once in the printed editions (the full quotations are according to the printed editions) ומאי קושיא דלמא מצי אמר מכח אבוה דאבא קאתינא (the first occurrence) ‘What objection is this! Could he not reply, I succeed to the rights of the father of my father?’: דאב — E F Ha165 M95 Ps1337; הכא נמי אמר מכח אבוה דאבא קאתינא ‘in this case also he might plead, I come as successor to the rights of my father’s father’: דאבא — Ha165; דאב — E F M95 Ps1337; אי מכח אבוה דאבא קא אתיא ‘if I come as successor to the rights of my father’s father’: דאב — E Ha165 Ps1337; דאביך — M95; ומאי קושיא דלמא מצי אמר מכח אבוה דאבא קאתינא (the second occurrence) ‘But what difficulty is this? Could he not reply, I succeed to the rights of my father’s father?’: דאב — E F Ps1337; דאכ — M95; missing — Ha165; ובמקום אב קאימנא ‘but take also the place of my father’: so also E F Ha165 M95 Ps1337. In the last two cases the reading is אב ,דאב also in a Geonic responsum; see Simcha Asaf, Geonic Responsa and Fragments of Halachic Literature from the Genizah and Other Sources (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Darom, 1933), p. 28. (2) אח מאב ולא מאם והוא בעלה דאם ואנא ברתה דאנתתיה ‘my paternal, but not my maternal, brother, and he is the husband of my mother, and I am the daughter of his wife’ (b.Yebamoth 97b according to the printed editions, similarly M141); בייא בייא מאח והוא אב והוא בעל והוא בר בעל והוא בעלה דאם ואנא ברתה דאיתתיה ‘woe, woe, for my brother who is my father; he is my husband and the son of my husband; he is the husband of my mother and I am the daughter of his wife’ (ibid., according to the printed editions, similarly M141); compare Rashi ad loc., who ‘restored’ the unseen pronominal suffixes in his Hebrew rendering: בייא מאח — קובלת אני על אחי שהוא אבי ובעלי ובן בעלי ‘bayya meʾaḥ — I complain about my brother who is my father and my husband and the son of my husband’. See also Eliezer Shimshon Rosenthal, “Rav ben-aḥi R. Ḥiyya gam ben-aḥoto?”, in Saul Lieberman, Shraga Abramson, Eduard Y. Kutscher and Shaul Esh (eds.), Henoch Yalon Jubilee Volume (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sepher, 1963), pp. 281–337, at p. 287, n. 14, who mentioned the case in b.Yebamoth. The following are the abbreviations for the Manuscripts: Co = Columbia X893-T141; E = Escorial G-I-3; F = Florence II-I-7; G = Göttingen 3; GF22 = Genizah fragment, Oxford Heb. e. 22/10; Ha165 = Hamburg 165; He = Yad Harav Herzog; LH = London Harley 5508; M140 = Munich 140; M141 = Munich 141; M6 = Munich 6; M95 = Munich 95; O23 = Oxford Opp. Add. Fol. 23; Ps1337 = Paris 1337; V109 = Vatican 109; V125 = Vatican 125; V134 = Vatican 134.

12 For Christian Palestinian Aramaic see Friedrich Schulthess, Lexicon Syropalaestinum (Berlin: Reimer, 1903), p. 1. For Samaritan Aramaic see Abraham Tal, A Dictionary of Samaritan Aramaic (Leiden: Brill, 2000), p. 1. For Galilean Aramaic see Michael Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine period (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1990), p. 31; Caspar Levias, A Grammar of Galilean Aramaic (in Hebrew; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1986), p. 55, n. 1, where he notes that the nouns אַבָּא ʾabba, אִמָּא ʾimma, אֲחָא ʾaḥa never take the 1 sg. pronominal suffix. Indeed, I have not found in Galilean Aramaic sources the form ʾavi in this function. According to Gustaf Dalman, Grammatik des jüdisch-palästinischen Aramäisch (2nd ed.; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1905), pp. 90–91, the final a vowel in this function does not reflect the definite article but is a form of the 1 sg. pronominal suffix ay which was contracted into a. Even if this is correct, the result is a merge of columns 2–3.

13 Alejandro Díez Macho, Neophyti 1: Targum Palestinense, vol. 1 (Textos y Estudios, vol. 7; Madrid–Barcelona: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1968), p. 143.

14 Michael L. Klein, Genizah manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1986), vol. 1, p. 53.

15 Abraham Tal, The Samaritan Targum of the Pentateuch: A Critical Edition, vol. 1 (Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University, 1980), p. 86.

16 Christa Müller–Kessler and Michael Sokoloff, The Christian Palestinian Aramaic Old Testament and Apocrypha Version from the Early Period (Corpus of Christian Palestinian Aramaic, vol. 1; Groningen: Styx, 1997), p. 22.

17 Ibid., p. 55.

18 See Abraham Geiger, Lehr- und Lesebuch zur Sprache der Mischnah (Breslau: Leuckart, 1845), p. 50; Jacob Levy, Wörterbuch über die Talmudim und Midraschim, vol. 1 (Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1876), p. 3; Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi and Midrashic Literature (London: Luzac, 1903), p. 2. Levy and Jastrow combined Hebrew and Aramaic in the same entry.

19 Geiger, Lehr- und Lesebuch, p. 50, brought the following mishnah as an example: האומ׳ לאשה הרי את מקודשת לי […] על מנת שירצה אבא רצה האב מקודשת ‘if a man said to a woman: be you betrothed to me […] on the condition that my father consents, and the father consented, her betrothal is valid’ (m.Kiddushin 3.6). Similarly, in the following quotation there is a distinction between ʾabba ‘my father’ and ha-ʾav ‘the father’, and also between ʾabba ‘my father’ and bni ‘my child’ (with the normal first person pronominal suffix): על מנת שתשמשי את אבא שתי שנים ועל מנת שתניקי את בני שתי שנים מת הבן או שא׳ האב אי אפשי שתשמשיני שלא בהקפדא אינו גט ‘[if he said: here is your get] on condition that you wait on my father for two years, or suckle my child two years, and the child dies, or the father says: I do not want you to wait on me, without being angry with her, the get is not valid’ (m.Gittin 7.6). In Modern Hebrew ʾabba has the meaning ‘the father’, but mainly within the family circle, making clear to which father is referred, as in ‘the king’ within that king’s monarchy; see Shoshana Bahat and Mordechay Mishor, Dictionary of Contemporary Hebrew (Jerusalem: Maʿariv and Eitav, 1995), p. 9. Thus, it takes the function of (and may have been influenced by) similar words in European languages, such as English dad, German Papa and Yiddish tate — showing a clear difference from ha-ʾav.

20 It appears only twice in Tannaitic literature and in seven places in Amoraic literature, e.g., זכור אני שהיה אבי מקרא אותי את הפסוק הזה בבית הכנסת ‘I recall my father read with me this verse in the synagogue’ (y.Sanhedrin 28c [10.2]).

21 See Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, p. 72.

22 So also Co M6 M95 V125 V109 V134.

23 So also G LH M95 M140. See also קורבא דאחווה אית לי בהדה מאבה ולאו מאימא ‘I am fraternally related to her on my father’s side but not on my mother’s side’ (b.Sanhedrin 58b), which refers to the Biblical verse ‎אֲחֹתִ֤י בַת־אָבִי֙ הִ֔וא אַ֖ךְ לֹ֣א בַת־אִמִּ֑י ‘she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother’ (Gen. 20.12).

24 This is also the case in Targum Onkelos , to which the quotation cited from Rav Hai refers.

25 This possibility also depends on the question of the extent to which this phenomenon occurs in Syriac. As noted above, the normal form for this meaning in Syriac is ʾav. I have checked the entire Pentateuch according to the version of the Leiden edition (accessible via the site of The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon Project: http://cal1.cn.huc.edu) and found that Hebrew ʾavi is always translated by ʾav, except for Gen. 22.7, where it is translated by ʾava . According to some readings, it appears several times in the New Testament: Matthew 10.32 ; 15.13 ; Luke 2.49 ; John 6.32 ; see Michael Sokoloff, A Syriac Lexicon: A Translation from the Latin, Correction, Expansion, and Update of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2009), p. 1. However, in all these places the reading is ʾav according to the British Foreign Bible Society edition (presented on the site mentioned above). In CAL ʾava is listed in this meaning according to Matthew 6.15, but according to the above-mentioned edition the reading is ʾavuḵon. It seems thus that the main form is ʾav, not ʾava. This is supported by the fact that where the Greek has αββα ὁ πατήρ (see above, note 3) it is translated ʾava ʾav (Mark 14.36) or ʾava ʾavun (Romans 8.15 ; Galatians 4.6 ), which shows that ʾava alone did not express this meaning (this translation is mentioned by Kutscher, Words, p. 1). However, it may also reflect a desire to translate each word. It is interesting to note that in Mark 14.36 it is translated in the Peshitta ʾava ʾav, while in Christian Palestinian Aramaic it is translated ʾabba ʾabba; see Christa Müller–Kessler and Michael Sokoloff, The Christian Palestinian Aramaic New Testament Version from the Early Period: Gospels (Corpus of Christian Palestinian Aramaic, vol. IIA, Groningen: Styx, 1998), p. 118. In Western Aramaic, where the only way to express ‘my father’ is ʾabba, there is no way but to repeat it, whereas in Syriac it is translated by ʾav. This is a clear manifestation of the difference between Western and Eastern Aramaic.

26 Even if this form did exist in Syriac, it is very marginal, while in Babylonian Aramaic this is the main form, so at least its wide distribution has to be attributed to Hebrew influence. It should be emphasised that in Western Aramaic ʾabba is the only form in all dialects, and the original ʾavi disappeared, while in Eastern Aramaic the original ʾav appears in all three dialects, so ʾabba seems to be foreign.

27 To the best of my knowledge, there is no proof of direct influence of Galilean Aramaic on Babylonian Aramaic, so the only language which can be considered is Mishnaic Hebrew.

28 Even if we assume that the use of this form developed independently and only the dagesh is influenced by Mishnaic Hebrew, in columns 1–2 it does not exist in Mishnaic Hebrew, so the original eastern form was preserved.

29 On the spelling with alef in Babylonian Aramaic see Shelomo Morag, The Book of Daniel: A Babylonian-Yemenite Manuscript (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Kiryat Sepher, 1973), p. 15 and n. 6; Kara, Babylonian Aramaic, pp. 38–42; Eduard Y. Kutscher, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1 Q Isaa) (Leiden: Brill, 1974), p. 164; idem, “Studies in Galilean Aramaic” (in Hebrew), in: Zeev Ben-Ḥayyim, Aharon Dotan, and Gad Sarfatti (eds.), Hebrew and Aramaic Studies (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1977), p. קעח and n. 8. On the spelling with heh in the Hebrew of the Babylonian Talmud see Yochanan Breuer, The Hebrew in the Babylonian Talmud According to the Manuscripts of Tractate Pesaḥim (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2002), pp. 27–37.

30 Aramaic influence is one of the most important factors in the shaping of Mishnaic Hebrew. For the influence of Mishnaic Hebrew on Babylonian Aramaic see Yochanan Breuer, “The Hebrew Component in the Aramaic of the Babylonian Talmud” (in Hebrew), Leshonenu 62 (1999), pp. 23–80.

31 See, e.g., Harold L. Ginsberg, “Zu den Dialekten des Talmudisch-Hebräischen”, Monatsschrift für die Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums 77 (1933), pp. 413–429, at pp. 428–429.

32 See, e.g., עד כאן לא קאמ׳ ר׳ נתן הכא דכזית בעי רביעית אלא ביין דקליש ‘R. Nathan states that it [sc. a congealed piece the size of an olive] requires a rebiʿith [of liquid] only here in the case of wine, which is thin’ (b.Shabbath 77a). It seems to me that in a similar way the co-existence in Babylonian Aramaic of mammasha and meshasha can be explained, e.g., הנני ענני דצפרא לית בהו מששא ‘the morning clouds have no significance’ (b.Taanith 6b) as against ושני הכא דליכא ב[י]ה ממשא כלל ‘but here it is different, because there is nothing concrete at all’ (b.Shabbath 62b). Meshaha is the eastern form and is also found in Syriac, while mammash or mammasha is found in Western Aramaic and in Mishnaic Hebrew, so it was probably borrowed from Mishnaic Hebrew into Babylonian Aramaic; see Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, p. 312; idem, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, pp. 683, 717.

33 See Friedman, “Orthography”, p. 141 n. 10.

34 The data is collected from Maagarim, where it is easy to survey numerous sources, so the reading in each source is decided according to the manuscript selected for this source in Maagarim.

35 The examples are brought to demonstrate the various kinds, while the conclusion relies on the numbers in the table.

Previous Chapter

Next Chapter