Book of Clear Speech

And so, I will first inquire into which language is the first of all languages. Many have said that Aramaic is the earliest language, and that all people have the capacity to speak it without a teacher—and if a baby is placed in an uninhabited desert, with only a mute nursemaid to nurse him, then he will speak Aramaic, and that in order for the infant to learn a foreign language, he must first be made to forget the language he was born with. But this is nonsense, because something which is an accident [i.e., superadded] will not make one forget what is inborn, which is fundamental. Moreover, it is said about Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic that they are one language and one speech (Genesis 11:1). [ . . . ]

We can know from the Torah that Hebrew is the primary language. The basis of this [claim] is that the reason man is called Adam [Hebrew: man] is that it is from the root adamah [earth]. This [correspondence] does not hold in Aramaic or Arabic, yet all admit that Adam was his name and is not a translation. Only in the name Eve do the three languages agree, and the name Seth is [another] proof [based on an etymology that only works in Hebrew].

And now, my son, take note of our predecessors, who transmitted the commandments and interpreted chapters and verses, also words and letters, in a midrashic manner, in the Mishnah, Talmud, and the baraitot [rabbinic teachings not included in the Mishnah]. There is no doubt that they knew the straight path, as it is, which is why they formulated the principle that a text cannot be removed from its simple meaning, and midrash is but an additional meaning. But the coming generations made midrash the principle and root of all, among them R. Solomon [Rashi], who interpreted the Torah, Prophets, and Writings according to the midrash, while thinking that he was doing so according to the “plain meanings” interpretation [peshat]. In reality, there is only one among a thousand (Job 33:23) simple meanings in his books, yet the scholars of our generation praise those books. [ . . . ]

Know that our predecessors would say that the root of yarad is resh-dalet alone, and the root shin-vav the same, and the root of ‘asah is ‘ayin-sin. And so you will find in most of the early liturgical poems. And, similarly, [they would say] the root of naga‘ is gimel-‘ayin, and the root of natah is tet alone, and the root of vayaz is zayin alone, and the root of makeh is kaf alone. This was the opinion of R. Judah Ibn Quraysh and R. Menaḥem Ibn Sarūq. Only the masterful R. ha-Levi awoke a bit from this sleep of folly, as a deep sleep from the Lord had fallen upon those mentioned above [see 1 Samuel 26:12]. But God opened the eyes of the heart of R. Judah ben David, called Ḥayyūj, so that he came to know the silent letters and how they are added, taken away, and switched around.