Richard Steiner, Kol Nidre - Yeshiva University Blogs

Kol Nidre: Past, Present and Future37Late Aramaic dialects: “Syriac has qāber....” 124 In his review of thebook, E. Y. Kutscher points out the error: “This is a faulty form. As iswell known, Syriac (and other Aramaic dialects) turn an e before rinto an a. Therefore, the root ‘qbr’ for the paradigms turns out to beill-chosen.” 125The reading נדירנא is probably not original in Sefer Abudarham, butit is original in Bet Yosef, as is clear from the discussion there. R.Joseph Caro may have taken that reading from the printed edition ofSefer Abudarham and/or the printed edition of Toledot Adam we-Ḥawwah, both of which were published decades before thecompletion of Bet Yosef (1542). 126 The reading נדירנא is probably bestviewed as a hypercorrection—an overreaction to the nonsensical pasttensereading, הנהיג לומר דנדרנא ודאישתבענא ‏,וגם that was current atthe time. R. Abraham Abele Gombiner attributes the form נדירנא to R.Jeroham b. Meshullam (Toledot Adam we-Ḥawwah), rejecting it infavor of the form נדרנא used earlier by R. Meir ha-Kohen (HaggahotMaimuniyyot). 127In the passage quoted above, R. Joseph Caro also introduces a newdistinction into the discussion: די vs. - ‏.ד As noted by a few authorities,this distinction is totally irrelevant, 128 a blatant red herring:R. Abraham b. Mordecai ha-Levi:ופי'‏ דשתי תיבות מורה על העבר ‏(צ"ל העתיד?)‏ וכשהם תיבה א'‏מורה על העתיד ‏(צ"ל העבר?)‏ ואין דברים אלו נכונים וטעות גמורה124Sabatino Moscati, et al., An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar ofthe Semitic Languages (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1964), 146.125E. Y. Kutscher, review of Sabatino Moscati, et al., An Introduction to theComparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages in Asian and African Studies2 (1966), 200 = E. Y. Kutscher, Hebrew and Aramaic Studies (ed. Zeev Ben-Ḥayyim et al.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1977), 182.126Both of those works are cited in Bet Yosef, but I am unable to say whetherthey were cited from the printed editions or from manuscripts.127ספר מגני ארץ והוא חיבור נחמד על in ‏,מגן אברהם Gombiner, .R Abraham Abeleהש"‏§619. 306a (Dyrenfurth: Shabbetai Meshorer Bass, 1692), ע הטור אורח חייםFor the forms in Toledot Adam we-Ḥawwah and Haggahot Maimuniyyot, see atnn. 78 and 115 above.128The form - דְּ‏ is a proclitic form of דִּ‏ י that developed in ancient colloquialAramaic; see Richard C. Steiner, “Papyrus Amherst 63: A New Source for theLanguage, Literature, Religion, and History of the Arameans,” StudiaAramaica: New Sources and New Approaches (ed. M. J. Geller, J. C.Greenfield, and M. P. Weitzman; Oxford, 1995), 201-202.http://www.biu.ac.il/JS/JSIJ/12-2013/Steiner.pdf