Responsum: On Grammar

And now, please listen to my response to you regarding when the master makes a sheva na‘ vowel [mobile sheva] into a sheva naḥ [resting sheva] and vice versa, and when he composes poetry in the Jewish language using the meters of Arabic [poetry].

If he made a sheva naḥ into a sheva na‘ and vice versa, [it was] only for the sake of the rules of Arabic verse, [and] nobody can claim that Dunash ben Labraṭ erred by using meter for his expression when composing poetry in the Jewish language in the meter from Arabic poetry. For he did so because he was establishing a foundation for our poetry that had not been established in the days of our ancestors, and he set fixed boundaries in his poems, so that they cleave to our hearts. Not even an entire book would suffice for me to relate a small part of the praise of that metered poetry! I therefore declare that if he made a sheva na‘ into a sheva naḥ and vice versa in a poem, as is done by the Arabs, no error can be accounted to him, neither small nor great.

This is especially the case in light of the fact that changing a sheva naḥ into a sheva na‘ and vice versa is a known occurrence in the Jewish language, in the Bible. For example: In my distress I called upon [ekera1] the Lord (2 Samuel 22:7). There are no other instances in the Bible of ekera with a sheva na‘ and a pataḥ gadol [large pataḥ]; the other cases of ekra are punctuated with two dots. Likewise, attend [hakeshiva] and act (Daniel 9:19): the letter kof has a sheva na‘, as it is punctuated with two dots and a pataḥ gadol. This differentiates it from attend [hakshiva] to me and hear me (Psalms 55:3),2 which has a sheva naḥ. It is punctuated with two dots, apart from the pataḥ of the letter heh, which is mobile.

There are many similar instances of a sheva naḥ where there should be a sheva na‘. These are handed down by tradition, and here are some cases: maḥeseh has a soft sheva na‘ vowel on three occasions in the Bible, while the rest have strong, sheva naḥ vowels. The three instances are as follows: God is our refuge [maḥeseh] (Psalms 46:2); God is a refuge [maḥeseh] for us; Selah (Psalms 62:9); but the Lord will be a refuge [maḥeseh] for His people (Joel 4:16). The rest are maḥseh, with a sheva naḥ, such as and for a refuge [u-le-maḥseh] and for a covert (Isaiah 4:6). Likewise, to Jahaz [yahtsah] (Numbers 21:23), which is punctuated with two dots, and its accent is on the letter yod, whereas and Jahaz [ve-yahetsah], and Kedemoth3 (Joshua 13:18) is punctuated with a sheva na‘, by means of two dots and a mobile pataḥ, while the accent is on the letter tsadi. There are numerous cases like these in the Bible. Reflect on them, backsliding children [see Jeremiah 3:22], and do not imagine yourself to be like those who turn the many to righteousness, who shine forever as the stars [see Daniel 12:3]!

Translated by Avi Steinhart.

Notes

[Current editions of the Bible read ekra in 2 Samuel 22:7.—Trans.]

[Current editions of the Bible read hakshiva in Daniel 9:19.—Trans.]

[Current editions of the Bible read ve-yahtsah, similar to Numbers 21:23.—Trans.]

Published in: The Posen Library of Jewish Culture and Civilization, vol. 3: Encountering Christianity and Islam.

Engage with this Source

Judah ben Sheshet wrote this responsum at the height of a heated battle over comparisons between Hebrew and Arabic and the use of Arabic meter in Hebrew poetry. Judah upheld the views of his teacher, Dunash ben Labraṭ, and wrote a biting response to the students of Menaḥem Ibn Sarūq. His responsum consists primarily of a lengthy poem, written in the same meter his opponents used, and a consideration of forty grammatical issues. In this excerpt, Judah asserts that Dunash simply restored the glory of Hebrew poetry, even if he violated certain grammatical conventions, in particular confusing two different types of the sheva vowel. Some of his examples of biblical vocalization do not correspond to the now-standard biblical text.

Read more

You may also like