(PDF) Prepositional Predicates with Nomi

Hebrew Studies 58 (2017): 25–46 PREPOSITIONAL PREDICATES WITH NOMINALIZED SUBJECTS IN CLASSICAL HEBREW* Uri Mor Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Abstract: The paper characterizes the PP–nominal (prepositional phrase + nominalization) pattern in Biblical Hebrew and Rabbinic Hebrew (e.g., ‫‘ עלינו לעשות‬it is our duty to do’) and discusses its relation to the so-called evaluative or ‫ חג״ם‬pattern (e.g., ‫‘ טוב לנו עבֹד‬it would have been better for us to serve’). In spite of the resemblance between the two, it is argued that the former is a distinct pattern both historically and typologically, but that both share similar generalizations within predicate-initial sentence patterns. Historically, the PP-nominal sentences are a unique case of prepositional phrase predicate sentences with simple noun phrase subjects, having fixed word order and nominalized subjects. Typologically, they are essentially marked for person. Changes in the PP-nominal pattern in Rabbinic Hebrew suggest that it grew closer to the evaluative pattern. Prepositional predicates in initial position with nominalized subjects constitute a modal pattern in Hebrew. Only a scanty group of prepositions is employed for this purpose. Three examples follow—two from Biblical Hebrew and one from Rabbinic Hebrew:1 (1) ‫אָר ָצה וְ ָע ַלי‬ ְ ‫א־ה ִכּיתֹו ָשׁם‬ ִ ֹ ‫דּוּע ל‬ ַ ‫וּמ‬ ַ ‫ית‬ ָ ‫אמר יֹואָב ָל ִאישׁ ַה ַמּגִּ יד לֹו וְ ִהנֵּ ה ָר ִא‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ יּ‬ ‫ָל ֶתת ְלָך ֲע ָשׂ ָרה ֶכ ֶסף וַ ֲחג ָֹרה ֶא ָחת‬ * This study was initially presented in November 2015 at the 12th International Colloquium on Ancient Hebrew (MICAH), held at Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz. I wish to thank Reinhard G. Lehmann and Anna Zernecke, who organized the conference, for their warm and attentive hospitality, and Na’ama Pat-El for commenting on an earlier version of this paper. 1. The examples from rabbinic literature are given according to Ma’agarim (the database for the Historical Dictionary of the Hebrew Language of the Academy of the Hebrew Language. Online: http://maagarim.hebrew-academy.org.il). The English translations are based primarily on the New Revised Standard Version (1989). The English translations to rabbinic literature are based on the following editions: H. Danby, The Mishna: Translated from the Hebrew with Introduction and Brief Explanatory Notes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933); J. Neusner et al., The Tosefta: Translated from the Hebrew (New York: Ktav, 1977–1986); J. Z. Lauterbach, Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2004 [1933]); J. Neusner, Sifré to Numbers: An American Translation and Explanation (BJS 118; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986); R. Hammer, Sifre: A Tannaitic Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986); J. Neusner, The Talmud of the Land of Israel (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998–1999); I. Epstein, The Babylonian Talmud (London: Soncino, 1935). Uri Mor Joab said to the man who told him: If you saw him, why did you not strike him there to the ground? It would have been incumbent on me to give you ten pieces of silver and a belt (2 Sam 18:11). (2) ‫י־אַהר ֹן ַה ְמ ֻק ָדּ ִשׁים ְל ַה ְק ִטיר‬ ֲ ֵ‫לֹא־לְ ָך ֻעזִּ יָּ הוּ ְל ַה ְק ִטיר ַליהוָ ה ִכּי ַלכּ ֲֹהנִים ְבּנ‬ It is not for you, Uzziah, to make offering to the Lord, but for the priests the descendants of Aaron, who are consecrated to make offering (2 Chr 26:18). (3) ‫אנשי חצר ששכח אחד מהן ולא עירב עליו לבטל רשות‬ If one of them that lived in the courtyard forgot (to take part in the Eruv), he must forego his right of access (t. Eruv. 5:12). At first sight, these examples seem to belong to a larger group of modal predicate-initial sentences, the so-called ‫( חג״ם‬i.e., indeclinable or imper- sonal) pattern or evaluative pattern.2 In Classical Hebrew, the predicate in this type of sentence may be an adjective, a verbal phrase, a nominal phrase (NP), a particle, or an interjection: (4) ‫ת־מ ְצ ַריִ ם ִמ ֻמּ ֵתנוּ ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָבּר‬ ִ ‫ִכּי טֹוב ָלנוּ ֲעבֹד ֶא‬ For it would have been better for us to serve the Egyptians than to die in the wilderness (Exod 14:12). (5) ‫א־יִבּ ֵצר ֵמ ֶהם כֹּל ֲא ֶשׁר יָ זְ מוּ ַל ֲעשֹׂות‬ ָ ֹ ‫וְ ַע ָתּה ל‬ And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them (Gen 11:6). (6) ‫מצוה מן התורה לפרוק אבל לא לטעון‬ It is a religious duty enjoined in the law to unload, but not to load (m. B. Metzi’a 2:10). 2. R. Kuzar, Sentence Patterns in English and Hebrew (CAL 12; Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2012), pp. 104–106. 26 Prepositional Predicates (7) ‫ל־שׁ ַער ַה ֶמּ ֶלְך ִבּ ְלבוּשׁ ָשׂק‬ ַ ‫ִכּי ֵאין ָלבֹוא ֶא‬ For no one shall enter the king’s gate clothed with sackcloth (Esth 4:2). (8) ‫אוי לי שהרגתי את בת יש' אוי לי שניוולתי את בת ישר' אוי לי שהייתי‬ ‫משמש עם הטמאה‬ Woe to me that I have put an Israelite woman to death, woe to me that I have caused the humiliation of an Israelite woman, woe to me that I used to have sexual relations with a woman who was in fact unclean (Sifre Num. 21). However, a closer look reveals a significant syntactic difference: in examples 4–8 the prepositional phrase, if one exists, complements a predicate, while in examples 1–3 the prepositional phrase is the predicate. In syntactic descriptions of Classical and Modern Hebrew, cases of prepositional predicates with nominalized subjects (henceforth: PP– nominal pattern) are normally listed under the evaluative pattern.3 In what follows, the occurrences of the PP–nominal pattern in Biblical Hebrew (with additional examples from Qumranic Hebrew) will be presented and analyzed in order to determine the origin and status of this pattern within the network of sentence patterns in Classical Hebrew. Next, the data from Rabbinic Hebrew (with an additional example from Judean Hebrew) will be studied. 1. BIBLICAL HEBREW In Biblical Hebrew, only four prepositions are used as predicates with nominalization. The first two are a composition of preposition + pro- nominal suffix/the distributive pronoun ‫‘ (ה)אחד‬each one’ (in 4QMMT we find a demonstrative [example 18]), and the other two, whose distri- bution is more restricted, are a composition of preposition + noun (metonym for self) + pronominal suffix/proper name. 3. For example, C. Brockelmann, Hebräische Syntax (Neukirchen: Kreis Moers, 1956), p. 12; J. M. Solá-Solé, L’infinitif Sémitique (Paris: H. Champion, 1961), pp. 79–80; P. Joüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (revised English ed.; Subsidia Biblica 27; Rome: Pontificio Istituto biblico, 2006), §124b; M. Azar, ‫( תחביר לשון המשנה‬The syntax of Mishnaic Hebrew; Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1995), p. 92; H. B. Rosén, Contemporary Hebrew (The Hague: Mouton, 1977), p. 211. 27 Uri Mor 1.1. The Prepositions 1.1.1. ‫על‬ Predicative ‫( על‬primarily “on”) with a nominalized subject expresses obligation or responsibility, as demonstrated in example 1 above. Three other instances are found in Biblical Hebrew: (9) ‫ת־בּיתֹו ח ֶֹדשׁ‬ ֵ ‫ת־ה ֶמּ ֶלְך וְ ֶא‬ ַ ‫ל־כּל־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל וְ ִכ ְל ְכּלוּ ֶא‬ָ ‫ים־ע ָשׂר נִ ָצּ ִבים ַע‬ ָ ֵ‫וְ ִל ְשֹׁלמֹה ְשׁנ‬ ‫ל־א ָחד ] ָה ֶא ָחד[ ְל ַכ ְל ֵכּל‬ ֶ ‫ַבּ ָשּׁנָ ה יִ ְהיֶה ַע‬ Solomon had twelve officials over all Israel, who provided food for the king and his household; each one had to provide for one month in the year (1 Kgs 4:7). Compare with a nominal phrase subject: ‫רוּמה‬ ָ ‫ל־ה ְתּ‬ ַ ‫כֹּל ָה ָעם ָה ָא ֶרץ יִ ְהיוּ ֶא‬ ַ ‫‘ ַהזֹּאת ַלנָּ ִשׂיא ְבּיִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל וְ ַע‬All the people of ‫ל־הנָּ ִשׂיא יִ ְהיֶ ה ָהעֹולֹות וְ ַה ִמּנְ ָחה וְ ַהנֵּ ֶסְך‬ the land shall give to this offering for the prince in Israel; And It shall be the prince’s duty to furnish the burnt offerings, grain offerings, and drink offerings’ (Ezek 45:16–17). (10) ‫אמרוּ קֹול גָּ דֹול ֵכּן ִכּ ְד ָב ֶריָך ] ִכּ ְד ָב ְרָך[ ָע ֵלינוּ ַל ֲעשֹׂות‬ ְ ֹ ‫ל־ה ָקּ ָהל וַ יּ‬ ַ ‫וַ יַּ ְענוּ ָכ‬ Then all the assembly answered with a loud voice: It is so; as you have said, so it is our duty to do (Ezra 10:12). (11) ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫יהם ַל ֲחֹלק ַל ֲא ֵח‬ ֶ ‫ִכּי נֶ ֱא ָמנִ ים נֶ ְח ָשׁבוּ וַ ֲע ֵל‬ For they were considered faithful, and it was their duty to distribute to their associates (Neh 13:13). In example 9, the predicate is expanded by the auxiliary verb ‫היה‬, and the complement of the preposition is the distributive pronoun ‫(ה)אחד‬ ‘each one’ rather than a pronominal suffix, but the pattern is identical. The auxiliary verb might have been added in order to strengthen the modal expression.4 4. On the modal function of yiqtol in Biblical Hebrew see J. Joosten, “Do the Finite Verbal Forms in Biblical Hebrew Express Aspect?” Journal of Ancient Near East Studies 29 (2002): 64–65; J. 28 Prepositional Predicates This modal sense of ‫ על‬is not restricted to the PP–nominal pattern, but rather appears in other syntactic environments, where ‫ על‬serves as a predicate or a complement, for example: (12) ‫ל־דּ ָבר‬ ָ ‫ִכּי־יִ ַקּח ִאישׁ ִא ָשּׁה ֲח ָד ָשׁה לֹא יֵ ֵצא ַבּ ָצּ ָבא וְ לֹא־יַ ֲעבֹר ָע ָליו ְל ָכ‬ When a man is newly married, he shall not go out on a military expedition, nor shall any duty be imposed on him (Deut 24:5). (13) ‫זִ ְב ֵחי ְשׁ ָל ִמים ָע ָלי ַהיֹּום ִשׁ ַלּ ְמ ִתּי נְ ָד ָרי‬ I was due to offer peace offerings, today I have paid my vows (Prov 7:14). (14) ‫קוּם ִכּי־ ָע ֶליָך ַה ָדּ ָבר‬ Arise, for this matter is your responsibility (Ezra 10:4). ‫ על‬denoting obligation is also found in Aramaic, Ugaritic, and other Semitic languages.5 It appears that the link between the concept of “on” and modality of obligation is typological, as it is found in English, for example, “It is incumbent on all of us to preserve these assets,” and also with on being the predicate: “It is on you to decide how long you will watch clips.”6 1.1.2. -‫ל‬ PP–nominal sentences with -‫( ל‬primarily “to”) have developed from possessive constructions (see below). Like the ‫ על‬cases, they express obligation: (15) ‫וְ ַע ָתּה ְל ָכל־אַוַּ ת נַ ְפ ְשָׁך ַה ֶמּ ֶלְך ָל ֶר ֶדת ֵרד וְ ָלנוּ ַה ְסגִּ ירֹו ְבּיַ ד ַה ֶמּ ֶלְך‬ Now come down, O king, according to all your heart’s desire, and it will be our task to surrender him into the king’s hand (1 Sam 23:20). Joosten, The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew: A New Synthesis Elaborated on the Basis of Classical Prose (Jerusalem Biblical Studies 10; Jerusalem: Simor, 2012), pp. 39–41, 65–69, 266–276. 5. E. Y. Kutscher, “New Aramaic Texts,” JAOS 74 (1954): 242; D. G. Pardee, “The Preposition in Ugaritic,” Ugarit-Forschungen 8 (1976): 250, 302, 316. 6. Examples are taken from R. Kuzar (Sentence Patterns, pp. 214–215), who discusses the similarities between the Hebrew pattern and the English one. 29 Uri Mor (16) ַ ‫ לָ ֶכם ָל ַד ַעת ֶא‬7‫וּק ִצינֵ י ֵבּית יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ֲהלֹוא‬ ‫ת־ה ִמּ ְשׁ ָפּט‬ ְ ‫אשׁי יַ ֲעקֹב‬ ֵ ‫ִשׁ ְמעוּ־נָ א ָר‬ Listen, you leaders of Jacob and rulers of the house of Israel! You ought to know what is right (Mic 3:1). (17) ‫ֹלהי יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל נָ ַתן ַמ ְמ ָל ָכה‬ ֵ ‫ְשׁ ָמעוּנִ י יָ ָר ְב ָעם וְ ָכל־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ֲהלֹא ָל ֶכם ָל ַד ַעת ִכּי יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫ְל ָדוִ יד ַעל־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ְל‬ Listen to me, Jeroboam and all Israel; You ought to know that the Lord God of Israel gave the kingship over Israel forever to David (2 Chr 13:4–5). (18) ‫והאוסף [א] ̇ת‬ ̇ ‫השוח ֯ט אותה והסורף אותה‬ ̇ ‫החטא ֯ת‬ ̇ ‫טהר ̇ת פרת‬ ̇ ‫ואף על‬ ‫להי̇ ות טהורים‬ ֯ ‫את [מי] החטאת לכול אלה להערי[בו] ̇ת השמש‬ ̇ ‫אפרה והמזה‬ And concerning the purity-regulations of the cow of the purification- offering, he who slaughters it and he who burns it and he who gathers its ashes and he who sprinkles the [water of] purification—all these should become pure at sun[se]t (4QMMT B 13–15)8 In Late Biblical Hebrew the prepositional predicate may be focused through fronting and contrastive negation.9 In addition to example 2 above, two such cases were found: (19) ‫ֹלהי יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ֵ ‫אֹלהינוּ ִכּי ֲאנַ ְחנוּ יַ ַחד נִ ְבנֶ ה ַליהוָ ה ֱא‬ ֵ ‫א־ל ֶכם וָ ָלנוּ ִל ְבנֹות ַבּיִת ֵל‬ ָ ֹ‫ל‬ You shall have no part with us in building a house to our God, but we alone will build to the Lord God of Israel (Ezra 4:3). 7. Here and in the following example ‫ הל(ו)א‬is taken to be a presentative particle integrated in a rhetorical inceptive formula (see U. Mor, “ ‫ מילות ההצגה 'הרי' ו'והלא' בלשון חז״ל על פי כתב‬:‫הרי אתה דן‬ ‫ לספרי במדבר‬32 ‫[ ”יד וטיקן‬Two presentative particles in Mishnaic Hebrew according to Ms. Ebr. 32.2 to Sifré on Numbers], Lešonenu 68 [2006]: 209, 228–229, 240; A. Moshavi, “Rhetorical Question or Assertion? The Pragmatics of ‫ ֲהלֹא‬in Biblical Hebrew,” JANES 32 [2011]: 91–105), and not an interrogative particle. Nor is it a negation particle, as suggested by P. J. A. Kieviet, “The Infinitive Construct Combined with the Particles ‫אין‬, ‫ישׁ‬, ‫ לא‬in the Hebrew Bible: Syntax and Semantics,” Dutch Studies on Near Eastern Languages and Literatures 4 (1999): 17. 8. E. Qimron and J. Strugnell, et al., Qumran Cave 4, V: Miqṣat Maˁaśe Ha-Torah (DJD 10; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), pp. 48–49; E. Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2013), 2:206. 9. In applying the concept of focusing, I follow A. Moshavi, Word Order in the Biblical Hebrew Finite Clause (Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic 4; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2010), pp. 35–36, 90–97. 30 Prepositional Predicates (20) ‫אֹלהים…לֹא ָל ֶכם ְל ִה ָלּ ֵחם ָבּזֹאת‬ ִ ‫ִכּי לֹא ָל ֶכם ַה ִמּ ְל ָח ָמה ִכּי ֵל‬ For the battle is not yours but God’s…It is not for you to fight in this battle (2 Chr 20:15–17). Possession, like the concept of “on” mentioned above, is typologically linked to modality of obligation.10 1.1.3. ‫לבב‬/‫עם לב‬ The complex predicate ‫לבב‬/‫( עם לב‬literally “with one’s heart”) expresses intention. It is found only in the context of building or renewing the house of God. The affectee is realized either in a pronominal suffix or a proper name: (21) ‫ל־דּוִ יד‬ ָ ‫אמר יְ הוָ ה ֶא‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ֹלהי יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל וַ יּ‬ ֵ ‫אָבי ִל ְבנֹות ַבּיִת ְל ֵשׁם יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ִ ‫ם־ל ַבב ָדּוִ יד‬ ְ ‫וַ יְ ִהי ִע‬ ‫ם־ל ָב ֶבָך‬ ְ ‫יבֹות ִכּי ָהיָ ה ִע‬ ָ ‫אָבי יַ ַען ֲא ֶשׁר ָהיָה ִעם־לְ ָב ְבָך ִל ְבנֹות ַבּיִת ִל ְשׁ ִמי ֱה ִט‬ ִ And it was in the heart of David my father to build a house for the name of the Lord God of Israel; And the Lord said to my father David: Because it was in your heart to build a house for my name, you did well, for it was in your heart (1 Kgs 8:17–18 = 2 Chr 6:7–8; similarly 1 Chr 22:7). (22) ‫ם־ל ָב ִבי ִל ְבנֹות ֵבּית‬ ְ ‫אַחי וְ ַע ִמּי ֲאנִ י ִע‬ ַ ‫אמר ְשׁ ָמעוּנִ י‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ל־רגְ ָליו וַ יּ‬ ַ ‫וַ יָּ ָקם ָדּוִ יד ַה ֶמּ ֶלְך ַע‬ ‫ֹלהינוּ‬ ֵ ‫נוּחה ַל ֲארֹון ְבּ ִרית־יְ הוָ ה וְ ַל ֲהד ֹם ַרגְ ֵלי ֱא‬ ָ ‫ְמ‬ Then King David rose to his feet and said: Hear me, my brothers and my people, me, it was in my heart to build a house of rest for the ark of the covenant of the Lord and for the footstool of our God (1 Chr 28:2). (23) ‫ת־בּית יְ הוָ ה‬ ֵ ‫ם־לב יֹואָשׁ ְל ַח ֵדּשׁ ֶא‬ ֵ ‫יכן ָהיָה ִע‬ ֵ ‫אַח ֵר‬ ֲ ‫וַ יְ ִהי‬ After this it was in the heart of Joash to restore the house of the Lord (2 Chr 24:4). 10. H. Narrog, Modality, Subjectivity, and Semantic Change: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), pp. 268–273; B. Bjorkman and E. Cowper, “English Modal Have,” in Proceedings of the 2014 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association (ed. L. Teddiman. Online: http://cla-acl.ca/wp-content/uploads/Bjorkman_Cowper-2014.pdf). Indeed, E. Jenni (Die Präposition Lamed, vol. 3 of Die hebräischen Präpositionen [Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1992], pp. 73–74) classified PP–nominal sentences with -‫ ל‬under “Lamed ascriptionis,” together with cases of possessive -‫ל‬. 31 Uri Mor (24) ‫ֹלהי יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל וְ יָ שׁ ֹב ִמ ֶמּנּוּ ֲחרֹון אַפֹּו‬ ֵ ‫ם־ל ָב ִבי ִל ְכרֹות ְבּ ִרית ַליהוָ ה ֱא‬ ְ ‫ַע ָתּה ִע‬ Now it is in my heart to make a covenant with the Lord God of Israel, that his fierce anger may turn away from us (2 Chr 29:10). Six of the seven occurrences appear in the book of Chronicles. Exam- ple 21, from 1 Kings, might be the origin of the formula, but it might also be a late feature which was introduced into the book of Kings anachronis- tically during the redaction process, in a context that befits its usage in Chronicles.11 The latter solution would make the ‫לבב‬/‫ עם לב‬PP–nominal sentences a character of Late Biblical Hebrew. 1.1.4. ‫ביד‬ ‫( ביד‬literally “in one’s hand”) expresses ability. It has one occurrence in Biblical Hebrew, but it is also found once in Qumranic Hebrew: (25) ‫וּל ַחזֵּ ק ַלכֹּל‬ ְ ‫בוּרה וּ ְב ְיָדָך ְלגַ ֵדּל‬ ָ ְ‫וּביָ ְדָך כּ ַֹח וּג‬ ְ In your hand are power and might, and it is in your hand to make great and to give strength to all (1 Chr 29:12). (26) ‫לפתו֯ [ח‬ ̇ ‫כיא בידכה‬ For it is in your hand to ope[n (4Q511 42 8)12 The evidence is not abundant, yet it is clear that these are not isolated cases, but rather a consistent group of sentences whose syntactic distinc- tion within (or alongside) the larger group of evaluative sentences should be acknowledged. 1.2. The Origin of the Pattern The PP–nominal examples resemble simple nominal sentences with prepositional predicates, for example, ‫( וְ ָע ַלי ָל ֶתת ְלָך‬example 1) can be 11. On this phenomenon, see J. Joosten, “Textual History and Linguistic Developments: The Doublet in 2 Kgs 8:28–29 // 9:15–16 in Light of 2 Chr 22:5–6,” in Textual Criticism and Dead Sea Scrolls Studies in Honour of Julio Trebolle Barrera: Florilegium Complutense (ed. A. Piquer Otero and P. A. Torijano Morales; Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplement 157; Leiden: Brill, 2012), pp. 133–145, esp. p. 137 n. 9. I am indebted to Noam Mizrahi for this reference. 12. E. Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 2:326. 32 Prepositional Predicates compared to ‫י־ע ֶליָך ַה ָדּ ָבר‬ ָ ‫( קוּם ִכּ‬example 14), ‫( וְ ָלנוּ ַה ְסגִּ ירֹו‬example 15) can be compared to ‫ר־ס ֶתר ִלי‬ ֵ ‫( ְדּ ַב‬example 33), and so on. This syntactic paral- lelism finds support in cases of contextual equivalence between PP + infinitive and PP + NP: ‫]ה ֶא ָחד[ ְל ַכ ְל ֵכּל‬ ָ ‫ל־א ָחד‬ ֶ ‫ יִ ְהיֶ ה ַע‬and ‫ל־הנָּ ִשׂיא יִ ְהיֶ ה‬ ַ ‫וְ ַע‬ ‫ ָהעֹולֹות וְ ַה ִמּנְ ָחה וְ ַהנֵּ ֶסְך‬in example 9 (note the disagreement between the auxiliary verb ‫יִ ְהיֶ ה‬, in the singular, and the nominal phrase, which is plural); ‫ לֹא ָל ֶכם ַה ִמּ ְל ָח ָמה‬and ‫ לֹא ָל ֶכם ְל ִה ָלּ ֵחם‬in example 20; ‫בוּרה‬ ָ ְ‫וּביָ ְדָך כּ ַֹח וּג‬ ְ and ‫וּל ַחזֵּ ק‬ ְ ‫וּביָ ְדָך ְלגַ ֵדּל‬ ְ in example 25. It therefore seems that the PP–nominal pattern is a unique case of prepositional phrase predicate sentences with simple nominal phrase subjects. In fact, its diversion from the original structure is rather minor, and includes the morphological nature (catego- rial affiliation) of the nominal constituent: nominal phrase > infinitive, and the order of constituents. Other essential characteristics of the pattern— its modal function, the addition of the auxiliary verb ‫היה‬, and its frequent occurrence in direct speech—exist in plain prepositional phrase predicate sentences as well. The word order difference is striking. In nominal sentences with pre- dicative ‫ על‬the unmarked order is NP–PP, which is the regular order of prepositional phrase predicate sentences in Biblical Hebrew:13 (27) ‫יה ֲא ֶשׁר ָא ְס ָרה ַעל־נַ ְפ ָשּׁה‬ ָ ‫יה אֹו ִמ ְב ָטא ְשׂ ָפ ֶת‬ ָ ‫יה ָע ֶל‬ ָ ‫ם־היֹו ִת ְהיֶ ה ְל ִאישׁ וּנְ ָד ֶר‬ ָ ‫וְ ִא‬ If she marries while obligated by (lit.: while on her are) her vows or any thoughtless utterance of her lips by which she has bound herself (Num 30:7).14 13. P. Joüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, §154ff. This is also the case in Egyptian Aramaic (T. Muraoka and B. Porten, A Grammar of Egyptian Aramaic [2nd ed.; Leiden: Brill, 2003], §77bf), Judean Hebrew (U. Mor and T. Zewi, “The Nominal Clause in the Hebrew Legal Documents and Letters from the Judean Desert,” in Hebrew of the Late Second Temple Period: Proceedings of a Sixth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira [ed. E. Tigchelaar and P. Van Hecke; STDJ 114; Leiden: Brill, 2015], pp. 67–68, 74–75), and Mishnaic Hebrew (M. Azar, The Syntax of Mishnaic Hebrew, pp. 74–77). In Late Biblical Hebrew, Qumranic Hebrew, and Aramaic, the order seems to be less stable (M. F. J. Baasten, “Nominal Clauses with Locative and Possessive Predicates in Qumran Hebrew,” in Sirach, Scrolls, and Sages: Proceedings of a Second International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, and the Mishnah, Held at Leiden University, 15–17 December 1997 [ed. T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde; STDJ 33; Leiden: Brill, 1999], pp. 46–47; T. Zewi, “Nominal Clauses in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” JJS 59 [2008]: 280–281, 283–284; T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Qumran Aramaic [ANESSup 38; Leuven: Peeters, 2011], §77b [but see §77d]). 14. The nominal phrase is split: ‫יה‬ ָ ‫אֹו ִמ ְב ָטא ְשׂ ָפ ֶת‬...‫יה‬ ָ ‫( וּנְ ָד ֶר‬see also example 32 below). On this phenomenon see T. Zewi, “The Nominal Sentence in Biblical Hebrew,” in Semitic and Cushitic Studies (ed. G. Goldenberg and S. Raz; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1994), pp. 154–155 and n. 30. Note that this is a circumstantial clause, the expected order of which is NP–PP, that is, subject–predicate (T. Muraoka, 33 Uri Mor (28) ‫ל־תּ ַלן‬ ָ ‫סֹורָך ָע ָלי ַרק ָבּ ְרחֹוב ַא‬ ְ ‫ל־מ ְח‬ ַ ‫אמר ָה ִאישׁ ַהזָּ ֵקן ָשׁלֹום ָלְך ַרק ָכּ‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ יּ‬ The old man said: Peace be to you, let all your needs be my responsibility, only do not spend the night in the square (Judg 19:20). (29) ‫עֹולם זֹאת ַעל־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ָ ‫ְל‬ This is an ordinance forever to (lit.: on) Israel (2 Chr 2:4 [2:3 Hebrew]). The reverse order (PP–NP) often involves focusing, that is, it is marked: (30) ‫יִיתי ְב ֵעינָ יו ִכּ ְמ ַת ְע ֵתּ ַע‬ ִ ‫יְמ ֵשּׁנִ י ָא ִבי וְ ָה‬ ֻ ‫אוּלי‬ ַ ...‫ל־ר ְב ָקה ִאמֹּו‬ ִ ‫אמר יַ ֲעקֹב ֶא‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ יּ‬ ‫אמר לֹו ִאמֹּו ָעלַ י ִק ְל ָל ְתָך ְבּנִי‬ ֶ ֹ ‫אתי ָע ַלי ְק ָל ָלה וְ לֹא ְב ָר ָכה וַ תּ‬ ִ ‫וְ ֵה ֵב‬ And Jacob said to Rebekah his mother…Perhaps my father will feel me, and I shall seem to be mocking him, and bring a curse on myself and not a blessing; and his mother said to him, upon me be your curse, my son (Gen 27:11–13). (31) ‫יכם ִכּי ַעל־יְ הוָ ה‬ ֶ ‫לֹא־ ָע ֵלינוּ ְת ֻלנּ ֵֹת‬ Your complaining is not against us but against the Lord (Exod 16:8). (32) ‫ל־בּית ָא ִבי‬ ֵ ‫ל־ה ֶמּ ֶלְך ָע ַלי ֲאד ֹנִ י ַה ֶמּ ֶלְך ֶה ָעו ֺן וְ ַע‬ ַ ‫קֹועית ֶא‬ ִ ‫אמר ָה ִא ָשּׁה ַה ְתּ‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ תּ‬ ‫וְ ַה ֶמּ ֶלְך וְ ִכ ְסאֹו נָ ִקי‬ The woman of Tekoa said to the king: On me be the guilt, my lord the king, and on my father's house; let the king and his throne be guiltless (2 Sam 14:9). Another possible motivation for PP–NP order is topicalization in Ezek 45:16–17 (see example 9).15 “The Biblical Hebrew Nominal Clause with a Prepositional Phrase,” in Studies in Hebrew and Aramaic Syntax Presented to Professor J. Hoftijzer on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday [ed. K. Jongeling, H. L. Murre-van den Berg, and L. van Rompay; SSLL 17; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1991], p. 149; T. Zewi, “The Nominal Sentence,” p. 158 and the coda of n. 31). 15. Following A. Moshavi, Word Order, pp. 33–35, 97–103. 34 Prepositional Predicates Similar distribution may be argued for -‫ל‬. NP–PP is either unmarked (example 33) or rhematic (after ‫;כי‬16 example 34): (33) ‫ר־ס ֶתר ִלי ֵא ֶליָך ַה ֶמּ ֶלְך‬ ֵ ‫אמר ְדּ ַב‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ יּ‬ And he said: I have a secret message for you, O king (Judg 3:19). (34) ‫וּב ְב ָק ֵרנוּ נֵ ֵלְך ִכּי ַחג־יְ הוָ ה ָלנוּ‬ ִ ‫נֹותנוּ ְבּצֹאנֵ נוּ‬ ֵ ‫וּב ְב‬ ִ ‫וּבזְ ֵקנֵ ינוּ נֵ ֵלְך ְבּ ָבנֵ ינוּ‬ ִ ‫ִבּנְ ָע ֵרינוּ‬ With our young and old we must go, with our sons and daughters, with our flocks and herds we must go, for it is a pilgrimage feast of the Lord for us (Exod 10:9). The reverse order, on the other hand, is reserved for focused (examples 35–36) or topicalized (example 37) sentences, that is, it is marked: (35) ‫ר־לי‬ ִ ‫ל־א ֶשׁ‬ ֲ ‫ ְלָך ֲאנִ י וְ ָכ‬...‫־הם‬ ֵ ‫ּטֹובים ִלי‬ ִ ‫וּבנֶיָך ַה‬ ָ ‫ַכּ ְס ְפָּך וּזְ ָה ְבָך ִלי־הוּא וְ נָ ֶשׁיָך‬ Your silver and gold are mine, your fairest wives and children are mine…I am yours and all that I have (1 Kgs 20:3–4) (36) ‫אוּ־שׁם ְבּ ֵאר ַמיִ ם ַחיִּ ים וַ יָּ ִריבוּ ר ֵֹעי גְ ָרר ִעם־ר ֵֹעי יִ ְצ ָחק‬ ָ ‫יִּמ ְצ‬ ְ ַ‫וַ יַּ ְח ְפּרוּ ַע ְב ֵדי־יִ ְצ ָחק ַבּנָּ ַחל ו‬ ‫ֵלאמֹר ָלנוּ ַה ָמּיִם‬ And Isaac’s servants dug in the valley, and found there a well of springing water; And the herders of Gerar quarreled with Isaac’s herders, saying: The water is ours (Gen 26:19–20). (37) ‫ן־מנַ ֶשּׁה ֲא ֶשׁר ַבּגִּ ְל ָעד לֹו ֶח ֶבל ַא ְרגֹּב ֲא ֶשׁר‬ ְ ‫ֶבּן־גֶּ ֶבר ְבּ ָרמֹת גִּ ְל ָעד לֹו ַחוֺּת יָ ִאיר ֶבּ‬ ‫ַבּ ָבּ ָשׁן‬ Ben Geber in Ramoth Gilead; to him belonged the towns of Jair the son of Manasseh in Gilead; to him also belonged the region of Argob in Bashan (1 Kgs 4:13). 16. In ‫ כי‬clauses the psychological predicate (the rheme) is normally fronted (T. Zewi, “The Nominal Sentence in Biblical Hebrew,” p. 154 and n. 27). The determining factor that facilitates the word order is not the element ‫ כי‬itself, but rather the clause type (J. Joosten, The Verbal System, p. 250). 35 Uri Mor In all these examples -‫ ל‬denotes possession. There is also one example of focused -‫ ל‬that may be interpreted as denoting obligation,17 like PP– nominal -‫ל‬: (38) ‫י־לָך ִמ ְשׁ ַפּט ַהיְ ֻר ָשּׁה וּ ְלָך ַהגְּ ֻא ָלּה‬ ְ ‫כּ‬...‫נֹות‬ ִ ‫ִכּי ְלָך ִמ ְשׁ ַפּט ַהגְּ ֻא ָלּה ִל ְק‬ For the duty (or: right) of redemption by purchase is yours…for the right of inheritance is yours and the duty (or: right) of redemption is yours (Jer 32:7–8). These examples of predicative ‫ על‬and -‫ ל‬with nominal phrase subjects establish the importance of the part that word order plays in the interpre- tation of the prepositional phrase predicate pattern, and hence the signifi- cance of the steady order of the PP–nominal pattern, which is opposite to the unmarked order of the original pattern. The stabilization of the word order together with the substitution of the nominal phrase with the infini- tive brought about the creation of a new pattern. The two other prepositional phrase predicates, ‫לבב‬/‫ עם לב‬and ‫ביד‬, do not provide sufficient data for comparison. However, a few relevant examples that can be interpreted in line with the general inclination of the ‫ על‬and -‫ ל‬sentences should be mentioned. Unmarked, PN–PP: (39) ‫ם־ל ָב ֶבָך‬ ְ ‫יְתה זֹאת ִע‬ ָ ‫יַ ַען ֲא ֶשׁר ָה‬ Because this was in your heart (2 Chr 1:11). Possibly marked (focused), PP–PN: (40) ‫ֹלהי ָא ָתּה‬ַ ‫וַ ֲאנִ י ָע ֶליָך ָב ַט ְח ִתּי יְ הוָ ה ָא ַמ ְר ִתּי ֱא‬ ‫וּמר ְֹד ָפי‬ ֵ ‫ד־אֹויְבי‬ ַ ַ‫ְבּיָ ְדָך ִעתּ ָֹתי ַה ִצּ ֵילנִ י ִמיּ‬ But I trust in you, O Lord, I say: You are my God; In your hands are my times, deliver me from the hand of my enemies and persecutors (Ps 31:15–16). 17. See M. Bolle, ‫( ספר ירמיה‬The book of Jeremiah; Da’at Miqra; Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1983), pp. ‫תד–תג‬. 36 Prepositional Predicates (41) ‫וּביָ ְדָך כּ ַֹח‬ ְ ‫מֹושׁל ְבּכֹל ַמ ְמ ְלכֹות ַהגֹּויִם‬ ֵ ‫ֹלהים ַבּ ָשּׁ ַמיִ ם וְ ַא ָתּה‬ ִ ‫ֲהלֹא ַא ָתּה־הוּא ֱא‬ ‫יַצּב‬ ֵ ‫בוּרה וְ ֵאין ִע ְמָּך ְל ִה ְת‬ ָ ְ‫וּג‬ You alone are God in heaven, you rule over all the kingdoms of the nations, and in your hand are power and might, so that none is able to withstand you (2 Chr 20:6). 1.3. Syntactic Characterization We now return to the question of the relationship between the PP– nominal pattern and the larger evaluative pattern. The similarity is undeniable: in both, the predicate is indeclinable and stands in initial po- sition, its meaning does not involve agency, the pattern includes a nomi- nalized constituent (or, secondarily, a nominal phrase or a prepositional phrase) and carries a modal meaning,18 and the auxiliary verb ‫ היה‬may be applied in order to express time or aspect. Additionally, both are also used, to a lesser extent, in Aramaic. They differ, as stated above, in person marking: the PP–nominal pattern is essentially marked for person, as it contains as one of its core elements a pronominal suffix or a proper name governed by the preposition, while the evaluative pattern is essentially impersonal.19 An intriguing explanation for ‫ על‬PP–nominal sentences in Modern Hebrew was suggested by Kuzar, taking the PP–nominal pattern to be an elliptic sub-pattern of the evaluative pattern: The EV S-pattern [=evaluative sentence pattern] is quite distinct from other S-patterns in its slot structure even without the predicate. Therefore, a re- duced variant of this S-pattern, in which the predicate is absent, does not impair the classification of such a sentence as a proper instantiation of the EV S-pattern. Theoretically, several modal meanings could be restored for 18. The modal notion is inherent in the predicates, and therefore it is unnecessary to ascribe modality to the nominalized constituent (see R. Bhatt, “Obligation and Possession,” in Papers from the UPenn/MIT Roundtable on Argument Structure and Aspect [ed. H. Harley; MIT Working Paper in Linguistics 32; Cambridge: MITWPL, 1998], pp. 29–31), but the modal force of Hebrew nominalizations is well established (O. Cohen, “ ‫שימושים פרדיקטיביים בצורות המקור הנטוי 'לקטל' בעברית‬ ‫ בלשונה של מגילת אסתר ובלשון מגילות מדבר יהודה‬:‫[ ”של בית שני‬Predicative uses of the infinitive construct ‫ לקטל‬in the Hebrew of the Second Temple period: The language of Esther and the Dead Sea Scrolls] Language Studies 10 [2005]: 80–81; U. Mor, “One More Look at the Negation of the Infinitive Construct in Second Temple Hebrew,” VT 65 [2015[: 445). 19. On the impersonality of the evaluative pattern, see R. Kuzar, Sentence Patterns, p. 111; U. Mor and N. Pat-El, “The Development of Predicates with Prepositional Subjects in Hebrew,” JSS 61 (2016): 336–337; U. Mor, “One More Look,” p. 451 (‫ אין‬predicate). 37 Uri Mor the absent predicate. The reduced form, however, has been conven- tionalized to have one particular modal meaning, that of obligation, and the P [=preposition] al ‘on’ echoes the specific transitive behavior of xova ‘duty’.20 Kuzar’s solution is synchronically brilliant, and might be suitable for Modern Hebrew, but historically it is unlikely, since ‫ על‬is not included in the variety of prepositions that are applied in the biblical evaluative pat- tern. One seemingly relevant example is found in Late Biblical Hebrew: (42) ‫ִכּי ַרע ָע ַלי ַה ַמּ ֲע ֶשׂה ֶשׁנַּ ֲע ָשׂה ַתּ ַחת ַה ָשּׁ ֶמשׁ‬ For what is done under the sun was grievous to me (Eccl 2:17). But this is not an evaluative sentence. The integration of ‫ על‬of obligation into the evaluative pattern is much later: it is documented, rather scantily, in Tannaitic literature with the predicates ‫(‘ (ב)חובה‬part of a) duty’ and ‫‘ מצוה‬commandment’: (43) ‫ להביאו בית הבחירה‬21‫שומע אני אפי׳ הוא במקום רחוק יהיה בחובה עליו‬ I might understand that even if one is in a far-off place, it is incumbent upon him to bring them to the Temple (Mek. Pisha 16 [MS Oxford]). (44) ‫ר׳ יהודה או׳ מצוה על כל העומדים שם לומר חלוץ הנעל חלוץ הנעל‬ Rabbi Judah says: It was a duty upon all them that stood there to cry out: The man that has his shoe loosed! The man that has his shoe loosed! (m. Yev. 12:6). This usage does not seem to be dominant enough, even in Tannaitic times, to have motivated a structural change. 20. R. Kuzar, Sentence Patterns, p. 214. 21. MS Munich (Cod. hebr. 117) has ‫ ;יהיה חובה עליו‬the first print (Constantinople edition) has ‫יהיה עליו חובה‬. ‫ (ב)חובה‬is also found, in similar contexts with similar variants, in Mek. Kaspa 1; Sifre Num. 118; Mek. Deut. 12:5. According to Ma’agarim (Online: http://maagarim.hebrew-academy .org.il), these are the only occurrences of predicative evaluative ‫ בחובה‬in rabbinic literature. 38 Prepositional Predicates It therefore appears that the PP–nominal sentences constitute their own domain, independent of the evaluative pattern both historically and typo- logically. Their similarity with respect to linearization and function allows us only to consider them as two synchronically related patterns that exhibit similar generalizations within a mutual root-node of predicate-initial sen- tence patterns (Kuzar’s P-1 S-patterns22). Nevertheless, the crystallization of the PP–nominal pattern might have been motivated or catalyzed by the development of the evaluative pattern, since both of them involved a shift from an inherited construction with a nominal phrase to a new construc- tion with a nominalized constituent whose form and function are more fixed.23 Hence, the development of the PP–nominal pattern is an integra- tion of two interdependent factors: the specific syntactic changes that the prepositional phrase predicate nominal sentences underwent and a more general influence of the modal predicate-initial sentences. The examples from Biblical Hebrew suggest that this process reached its most produc- tive phase during the Second Temple era. 2. RABBINIC HEBREW The PP–nominal pattern is well documented in Rabbinic Hebrew, where it demonstrates the same basic features as the biblical pattern and a similar tendency to occur in direct speech. Several changes in the pattern, all of which conform to the larger group of PP–nominal and evaluative sentences, can be recognized. Most of these changes point to gradual approximation of the former to the latter. As the aim of the following survey is to contrast the rabbinic pattern with the biblical one, no preliminary distinction is made here between dif- ferent phases or genres within Rabbinic Hebrew; however, pertinent cases of variation are acknowledged and assessed. 2.1. Variety of Predicates Three prepositions serve as predicate in the rabbinic PP–nominal pat- tern. Of the biblical predicates only ‫ על‬is used, together with the complex -‫‘ על אסר‬on one’s binding agreement’. Instead of ‫לבב‬/‫ עם לב‬we find ‫בלב‬ ‘in one’s heart’. The absence of ‫ביד‬, which is very rare already in Biblical 22. R. Kuzar, Sentence Patterns, pp. 63–64. 23. For the development of the evaluative pattern, see U. Mor and N. Pat-El, “The Development of Predicates,” pp. 336–339; U. Mor, “One More Look,” pp. 448–450. 39 Uri Mor and Qumranic Hebrew, is not surprising. The reason for avoiding -‫ ל‬as a PP–nominal predicate might have been its many other functions in Hebrew,24 which would make it indistinct and therefore unfit for marking the pattern (compare Kuzar’s claim presented above regarding ‫)על‬. The number of occurrences of PP–nominal predicates in rabbinic literature in relation to the total number of words is identical to the one in Biblical Hebrew: 0.003%. In other words, the general distribution of the pattern is the same. 2.2. Categorial Affiliation of the Nominalization In the biblical pattern, the subject has the form of an infinitive (see the examples above). This is true for the most part in Rabbinic Hebrew as well, but two instances were found in which the nominalized constituent is a clause: (45) ‫ הרי עלי שלא אסלסל ושלא אכלכל‬... ‫הרי עלי שלא אסלסל שלא אכלכל‬ I pledge myself that I will not plait (or) tend (my hair)…I pledge myself that I will not plait or tend (my hair) (y. Nazir 1:1 [51b]). (46) ‫ארבעת האנשים הלו̇ ו̇ שוקלים תחכו̇ ר המקומות הלו̇ ו‬ ̇ ‫על אסרי שיהיוו‬ It is on (the terms of) my binding agreement that these four men shall be weighing out (to you) the lease price of these sites (Yadin 44:16–18).25 Such alternation between different types of nominalizations is charac- teristic of the evaluative pattern.26 2.3. Categorial Affiliation of the Nominal Component of the PP In Biblical Hebrew the affectee is realized in a pronominal element (pronominal suffix, the distributive pronoun ‫(ה)אחד‬, or a demonstrative) 24. As illustrated in detail in E. Jenni, Die Präposition Lamed. 25. Y. Yadin, J. C. Greenfield, A. Yardeni, and B. A. Levine, eds., The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters: Hebrew, Aramaic and Nabatean-Aramaic Papyri (JDS 3; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2002), pp. 44–45. 26. M. Azar, The Syntax of Mishnaic Hebrew, p. 91. 40 Prepositional Predicates or a proper noun. This is in line with the subject-like nature of the prepo- sitional phrase in the evaluative pattern.27 In Rabbinic Hebrew, too, this slot is regularly filled by a pronominal suffix, but it may also be filled by definite (generic) nominal phrases: (47) ‫על בעל הבית להביא ראיה‬ It is the householder’s duty to bring proof (t. B. Metzi’a 7:16). (48) ‫ או‬... ‫עשר על מי לבדוק? על המשכיר לבדוק‬-‫המשכיר בית לחבירו בארבעה‬ ‫דלמא על השוכר לבדוק‬ If one rents a house to his fellow from the fourteenth (of Nissan), who should be the one to make the search? The landlord should make the search…or perhaps the tenant should make the search (b. Pesah. 4a). Compare, in the evaluative pattern: (49) ‫דרך בעל הבית להיות מוציא מלפסו‬ It is the custom of a house-holder to take out of his stewpot (m. Pe’ah 8:4). 2.4. The Construction -‫ מה על‬+ Pronominal Suffix + Infinitive (50) ‫אמ׳ ישר׳ למשה רבינו משה מה עלינו לעשו׳? אמ׳ להם אתם תהו מרוממים‬ ‫ומפארים ומשבחין ונותנין שיר ושבח וגדולה ותפארה ונצח והוד למי‬ ‫שהמלחמות שלו‬ The Israelites then said to Moses: Moses, our teacher, what should we do? And he said to them: You should be exalting, glorifying and praising, uttering songs of praise, adoration, glorification, victory, and majesty to Him in whose hands are the fortunes of wars (Mek. Vayehi 2). (51) ‫ומה עלי לעשות? לברוח‬ So what should I do? (I have no choice but to) flee (y. Sanh. 11:5 [30b]). 27. U. Mor and N. Pat-El, “The Development of Predicates,” pp. 335–336. 41 Uri Mor (52) ‫מה עליך לשמע? דברי רבך‬ What must you listen to? The words of your master (Sifre Deut. 29). This construction is typical of haggadic passages in midrashic con- texts, both in Tannaitic and Amoraic literature. The inclusion of the in- finitive in the interrogative sentence—‫ מה עלי לעשות‬rather than ‫—מה עלי‬ implies that the infinitive is an integral part of the PP–nominal pattern, which has grown apart from the original prepositional phrase predicate pattern. This construction resembles ‫ה־לּ ֲעשֹׂות‬ ַ ‫ ַמ‬in Biblical Hebrew, for example: (53) ‫יתי בֹּו‬ ִ ‫ה־לּ ֲעשֹׂות עֹוד ְל ַכ ְר ִמי וְ לֹא ָע ִשׂ‬ ַ ‫ַמ‬ What more was there to do for my vineyard, that I have not done in it? (Isa 5:4). The equivalence might give the impression that the two differ only in valency, that is, these are two complementary realizations of a single con- struction, one being intransitive or impersonal and the other transitive or personal.28 However, they are syntactically different, and were never simultaneously productive.29 2.5. Proleptic Pronoun (54) ‫ מה עליו על‬,‫משל למה הדבר דומה? לפרדס של מלך ועלייה בנויה על גביו‬ ‫ לאיסתרטא העוברת בין שני‬... ‫אדם? להציץ ובלבד שלא יזין את עיניו ממנו‬ ‫ הטה לכן וניכווה באור הטה לכן וניכווה‬,‫דרכים אחד של אור ואחד של שלג‬ 28. Compare ‫‘ ומוטב להניח את דברי היחיד ולאחוז את דברי המרובין‬It is better to leave the opinion of the individual and to hold to the opinion of the majority’ (m. Ed. 5:7) versus ‫מוטב לי ליקרות שוטה כל‬ ‫‘ ימי ולא לעשות שעה אחת רשע לפני המקום‬Better that I be called a fool all my days than that I be made a godless man before God even for an hour’ (m. Ed. 5:6). 29. Among the rest, the biblical construction is interchangeable with the finite ‫מה ֶא ֱע ֶשׂה‬, ָ for ִ ‫‘ וְ ִהנֵּ ה נָ ַטשׁ ָא ִביָך ֶא‬And now your father has ceased example, ‫ת־דּ ְב ֵרי ָה ֲאתֹנֹות וְ ָד ַאג ָל ֶכם ֵלאמֹר ָמה ֶא ֱע ֶשׂה ִל ְבנִ י‬ to care about the donkeys and is anxious about you, saying: What shall I do about my son?’ (1 Sam 10:2). 42 Prepositional Predicates ‫ אדם? להלך באמצע ובלבד שלא יהא נוטה לא לכן ולא‬30‫ מה עליו של‬,‫בשלג‬ ‫לכן‬ To what is the matter to be compared? To a royal garden, with an upper room built over it (to guard it). What should a man (the guard) do? (He should) look, but not to feast his eyes from it.… To a platoon passing be- tween two paths, one of fire and one of ice. If it turns to this side, it will be smitten by fire, and if it turns to that, it will be smitten by ice. What should a man do? (He should) go right down the middle and not turn either to this side or to that (t. Ḥag. 2:5 [MS Vienna]). What is of interest here for our discussion is the application of the pro- leptic pronoun and the noun ‫‘ אדם‬man’,31 which are typical (although not exclusively) of the evaluative pattern: (55) ‫וכי היאך איפשר לו לאדם ליהרג בכל יום‬ How can a man be slain every day? (Sifre Deut. 32). 30. The expectable, normative, version ‫ על‬is found in MS Erfurt, MS London, and the first printed edition (Venice Edition). The application of ‫ של‬after a preposition with a proleptic pronominal suffix is certainly a calque from Aramaic -‫ד‬/‫( די‬N. Pat-El, Studies in the Historical Syntax of Aramaic [Piscataway: Gorgias, 2012], pp. 108–109 [pattern A]; E. A. Bar-Asher Siegal, Introduction to the Grammar of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic [Münster: Ugarit, 2013], pp. 95, 204 n. 229). This Aramaic feature is typical of eastern dialects (C. Stadel, review of N. Pat-El, Studies in the Historical Syntax of Aramaic, Aramaic Studies 12 [2014]: 137), therefore its reflection in the Tosefta, in which proleptic dative pronouns are significantly common (R. Shemesh, “The Proleptic Dative Pronoun in Tannaitic Language,” FO 51 [2014]: 110), should be attributed to eastern Babylonian influence (on the eastern character of the Tosefta see Y. Elitzur, “‫”מפגשי לשון וריאליה בלשון חז״ל ושאלת קדמותה של התוספתא‬ [Meeting-points between reality and language in Tannaitic Hebrew and the question of the ancienty of the Tosefta], Language Studies 5–6 [1992]: 109–121). It is also found in the Mishna: ‫אחריו של משה‬ ‘after Moses’ (Sotah 5:4); M. Azar (The Syntax of Mishnaic Hebrew, p. 208) recognized the hybrid nature of this phrase but did not mention the Aramaic phenomenon. 31. The noun that follows a proleptic pronoun in Hebrew and Aramaic is typically definite (proper or common) and animate (N. Pat-El, Studies in the Historical Syntax, pp. 105–106 and n. 35, 114 n. 50; R. Shemesh, “The Proleptic Dative Pronoun,” pp. 114–116; U. Mor, ‫ לשון‬:‫עברית יהודאית‬ ‫[ התעודות העבריות ממדבר יהודה בין המרד הגדול למרד בר כוכבא‬Judean Hebrew: The language of the Hebrew documents from Judea between the First and the Second Revolts; Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language, 2015], pp. 320–321), and appears to mark “contextual definiteness” (N. Pat-El, Studies in the Historical Syntax, p. 115; see also M. Morgenstern, Studies in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic Based upon Early Eastern Manuscripts [HSS 62; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011], pp. 246–247). ‫אדם‬ is, of course, animate, but it is not definite (both syntactically and semantically). Nevertheless, it is generic and not indefinite (see M. Azar, The Syntax of Mishnaic Hebrew, p. 244; M. Agmon-Fruchtman, ‫ קטגוריות של יידוע ותיחום בעברית הישראלית‬:‫[ הידוע והסתום‬A question of determination: Determinative and delimitative categories in Israeli Hebrew; Tel-Aviv: Papyrus, 1982], pp. 159–160), and in the context of rabbinic literature it denotes a Jewish male adult subject. In Babylonian Aramaic, we find an equivalent construction with ‫‘ איניש‬man,’ for example, ‫זמנין דניחא ליה לאיניש בחבריה טפי מרביה‬ ‘Sometimes (it may happen) that a man is more pleased to meet his fellow than his teacher’ (b. Eruv. 36b). 43 Uri Mor (56) ‫ לבן דוסא‬32‫אילו לאדם שנשכו ערוד אילו לערוד שנשכו‬ Woe to the man who is bitten by a lizard. Woe to the lizard that bit Ben Dosa (t. Ber. 3:20). (57) ‫אסור לו לאדם לצאת בהמייני‬ It is forbidden to a man to go forth wearing belts (y. Shabb. 6:1 [7d]). The two parables in example 54 appear in the Palestinian Talmud—in a somewhat different, more standard, formulation, which does not make use of proleptic pronouns: as opposed to the Tannaitic wording ‫מה עליו‬ ‫ על אדם? להציץ‬the Talmud has ‫‘ עליו להציץ‬he should look’ (Hag. 2:1 [77c]), and as opposed to ‫ מה עליו של אדם? להלך באמצע‬it has ‫מה יעשה? יהלך‬ ‫‘ באמצע‬What should he do? He should go right down the middle’ (Hag. 2:1 [77a]). 2.6. Alternative Nominal Phrase Predicate The predicate -‫ בלב‬is rather productive in Rabbinic Hebrew, for example: (58) ‫ והמסרב בחבירו לאורחו ואין בלבו לקרותו‬... ‫שבעה גנבין הן‬ There are seven kinds of thieves.… And he who urges his neighbor to be his guest when in his heart he does not mean to invite him (t. B. Qam. 7:8). An alternative predicate without the preposition is attested once: (59) ‫מפני שלבו לתרום על הכל‬ For it was his intention (lit.: his heart) to separate heave-offering for all (t. Ter. 3:4). 32. This is an additional proleptic (object) pronoun. 44 Prepositional Predicates This change might have been inspired by similar nominal phrase predi- cates, such as ‫‘ רצון‬will’, ‫‘ נפש‬soul’, and ‫‘ כונה‬intention’,33 or by the inter- change between ‫ חובה‬and ‫( בחובה‬example 43). In contrast to these changes, in expressions of commitments, which reflect by their nature an early phase of Rabbinic Hebrew,34 the old equivalence is felt between the PP–nominal pattern and PP predicate sentences: (60) ‫הרי עלי לגלח חצי נזיר ושמע חבירו ואמ' ואני ועלי לגלח חצי נזיר‬ (If a man said:) I pledge myself to bring the hair-offering of a Nazirite, and his fellow heard him and said: I, too, and I pledge myself to bring the hair- offering of a Nazirite (m. Naz. 2:6; similarly 2:5). (61) ‫האומר הרי עלי עצים‬ If a man said: I pledge myself (to offer pieces of) wood (m. Sheqal. 6:6). Similarly: (62) ‫ להביא ראיה‬35)‫המוציא מחבירו עליו (הראיה‬ On him that would claim something from his fellow lies the burden of proof (t. Bek. 2:8). The first printed edition (the Venice edition) reads: ‫המוציא מחברו עליו‬ ‫הראייה‬, which is the regular, and the very common, version of this mid- rashic idiom (e.g., m. Bik. 2:10). 33. For examples see S. Sharvit, Studies in Mishnaic Hebrew (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2008), p. 260. 34. This is implied by their idiomatic and conventional character in Rabbinic Hebrew (on which see M. Azar, ‫[ לשונות התחייבות במקרא ובמשנה‬Expressions of commitments in the Old Testament and in the Mishna; Haifa: Pinath Hasefer, 1981], p. 56). Almost all of the PP–nominal examples in expressions of commitments occur in the Mishna and the Tosefta. 35. Two dots were added above the word to mark deletion. 45 Uri Mor 3. CONCLUDING REMARKS The process that began in Biblical Hebrew—the shift from plain prepositional phrase predicate sentences to modal predicate-initial ones— continues in Rabbinic Hebrew. It seems that the diverse nature of the evaluative group, with respect to valency and categorial affiliation, has made possible the absorption of the new PP–nominal pattern in spite of the typological differences between them.36 It is interesting to note that the rabbinic pattern is not typologically different from the biblical one. The dissimilarities can all be attributed to the chronological distinction between the two, rather than to the well- established dialectal one.37 In this category, therefore, no essential dif- ference prevailed between Biblical Hebrew and Rabbinic Hebrew. 36. Kuzar has pointed out the general diversity of the predicate-first sentence pattern (R. Kuzar, “‫[ ”תבנית החג״ם הפשוטה בלשון המיוצגת כמדוברת‬The simple impersonal construction in texts represented as colloquial Hebrew], in Speaking Hebrew: Studies in the Spoken Language and in Linguistic Variation in Israel [ed. S. Izre’el; Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University, 2002], pp. 331–332; R. Kuzar, Sentence Patterns, e.g., p. 85). 37. On the fundamental typological distinction between Biblical Hebrew and Rabbinic Hebrew, as well as the complex ties between them, see M. Bar-Asher, Studies in Classical Hebrew (ed. A. Koller; SJ 71; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014), pp. 383–394. 46

(PDF) Prepositional Predicates with Nominalized Subjects in Classical Hebrew