Title B 220.08_Metathesis as a Poetic Technique in Hodayot Poetry.pdf ✅

* This paper was originally presented at the March 2000 annual conference of NACAL, and I would like to thank those people, conversations with whom in any way helped to improve its contents: Patrick Bennett, Eva von Dassow, Stephen Kaufman and Andrew Gross. 1 All citations from 1QS and 1QHa refer to J. Licht, The Rule Scroll (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1965) [Hebrew] and J. Licht, The Thanksgiving Scroll (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1957) [Hebrew] respectively; Hebrew works are cited by English title wherever such is provided. All other citations are from F. Garc’a Mart’nez and E.J.C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (Leiden/New York/Kšln: Brill, 1997) [= DSSSE]. For the relationship between the last, poetic, section of 1QS and the Hodayot literature, see Licht, Rule, 201-3. 2 For a very similar phrase, cf. 1QHa 10:3-4: /[ ] METATHESIS AS A POETIC TECHNIQUE IN HODAYOT POETRY AND ITS RELEVANCE TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF HEBREW RHYME* MICHAEL RAND New York University I. The Root Among the lexical yields of the Dead Sea Scrolls (= DSS), the sequence has been identi ed in 1QHa 12:32; frag. 2:16 as well as the related 4Q511 (= Songs of the Sageb) and 1QS 11:21 (also known in the parallel 4QSj [4Q264 1 9]).1 To date, no solution has been com- monly accepted regarding either the correct reading or the interpreta- tion of this sequence. The present paper will propose that the sequence is to be understood as the preposition combined with the noun , a metathetic equivalent of *, the gerund of the verbal root , known in the pi®el stem from Biblical, DSS, and Mishnaic Hebrew. The proposal will be based on a discussion of consonantal (root) metathesis in Hebrew, and in particular, its role as a stylistic device in Hebrew poetry. The sources indicated above present the lexeme in the following contexts: 1QHa 12:32 ; 1QHa frag. 2:16-17 / ; 4Q511 28+29 3-4 [ ]/ ; 1QS 11:21-22 (= 4QSj [4Q264] 1 9) / .2 In the case of
MICHAEL RAND 1QHa 12:32, J. Licht reads and adds the following note: ÒThis appears to be a [technical] term and one cannot de ne it precisely.Ó3 This reading is also adopted by M. Delcor4 and S. Holm-Nielsen.5 In the Rule of the Community, Licht reads and expresses his doubts as to the analysis of the morphology and the meaning of the phrase: ÒThis [expression] has no parallel. means . . . . The meaning of is not clear to me.Ó6 P. Wernberg-M ller proposes the reading , suggests that Òbe taken as a noun Ôsomething which has been squeezed out, emittedÕ [i.e., deriving it from the root ],Ó and translates this as Òsaliva which has been emitted.Ó7 Most recently, J.H. Charlesworth has proposed the reading and the explanation that the form is a composite of ÒspitÓ and Ò. . . a contraction of the Hiphal [sic] participle of the root written defec- tiva [which] would then probably mean Ôcoming forthÕ.Ó8 None of the above explanations, which represent a fair sample of the available guesses, is completely satisfactory. In the case of the reading , the morphology is transparent, while the meaning in context is di cult if not impossible. The other alternatives all present serious morphological di culties. DSSSE has come closer to a solu- tion by identifying the attestations in the two texts as one and the same sequence (while apparently adopting either Wernberg- M llerÕs or CharlesworthÕs explanation).9 In addition, E. Qimron has presumably recognized the composite nature of the sequence, since he lists the lexeme (i.e., without the mem) as a word Ònot attested either in BH [= Biblical Hebrew] or MH [= Mishnaic Hebrew].Ó10 Finally, in his comments on the sequence in 4Q511, M. Baillet writes: ÒAnd what is man? He is earth. He was pinched [from dust] and will return to dust.Ó 3 Licht, Thanksgiving, 178. All translations, unless otherwise indicated, are mine. 4 M. Delcor, Les Hymnes de Qumran (Hodayot) (Paris: Letouzey et An , 1962) 254. 5 S. Holm-Nielsen, Hodayot Psalms from Qumran (ATDan 2; Universitetsforlaget Aarhus, 1960) 207. 6 Licht, Rule, 237. 7 P. Wernberg-M ller, The Manual of Discipline (STDJ 1; Leiden: Brill, 1957) 43, 155.8 J.H. Charlesworth, ÒMorphological and Philological Observations: Preparing the Crit- ical Text and Translation of the Serek ha-Yahad,Ó Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site (eds M. Wise et al.; Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 722; New York Academy of Sciences: New York, 1994) 277. 9 DSSSE, 1.99, 193. The translation o ered in both cases is Òspat saliva.Ó 10 E. Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (HSS 29; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986) 113 ( 500.3).
HODAYOT POETRY AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF HEBREW RHYME ÒThe meaning [of ] is obscure. The root does not appear to be attested in any Semitic language. However, the radicals are, in inverse order, those of , which appears subsequently, both here and in 1QS 11:21. It is therefore perhaps a form of cabalistic charac- ter, participating in a word-play with .Ó11 II. Root Metathesis Having tentatively suggested the correct reading of the sequence as well as its explanation as a prepositional phrase, we must now turn to a discussion of consonantal metathesis in order to grasp its possible meaning. Consonantal metathesis in Hebrew can be broken down into two basic types. The rst is properly morphological/derivational, and is best exempli ed by the metathesis of the pre x t- and a sibilant in rst-root-consonant position (= R1) in the hitpa®el stem. This type is completely regular. The second is properly lexical in that it a ects the root itself without respect to morphology. It is irregular in that no pre- cise conditions for its occurrence can be identi ed, and it consequently cannot be predicted in any particular case. This type of consonantal metathesis root metathesis is a prime example of ÒweakÓ phonolog- ical change. Root metathesis can result in an isogloss separating the sub-branches of the Semitic language family. Thus, Akkadian diápu corresponds to Hebrew (ÒhoneyÓ); Akk. kar ̈bu ~ Heb. (Òto blessÓ); Aram. /Arab. rukba ~ Heb. /Akk. birku (ÒkneeÓ). Alternately, it can be responsible for the existence of doublets, with one member clearly predominating, within Hebrew itself. Thus, in BH, we observe the fol- lowing parings: (29 cases) ~ (16); (29), (21) ~ (1); (107), (6), (2) ~ (13), (1); (122), (2) ~ (1); (4) ~ (10); (3) ~ (1). In MH we observe the following metathetic doublets of BH roots: (MH) ~ (BH, MH) (Òto ingÓ); (MH) ~ (BH) (Òto quake, limpÓ); (MH) ~ (BH, MH) (Òto insultÓ); (MH) ~ (BH, MH) (Òto shut the eyesÓ).12 Nor is root metathesis limited to Semitic lexemes within Hebrew. In MH, the Greek lexeme lim®n was borrowed as , and kat®gorow yielded the denominative 11 M. Baillet (ed.), Qumr‰n Grotte 4.III (4Q482-4Q520) (DJD 7; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982) 235 (my translation M.R.). 12 The examples are drawn from M.H. Segal, A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1927) 90c.
MICHAEL RAND verb (but cf. the noun ).13 The common denominator of all of these cases seems to be the presence of a sibilant or a liquid con- sonant within the root. Note as well that in the case of lim®n ~ and kar ̈bu ~ , the metathesis happens at a distance, across the second radical: R1R2R3 Õ R3R2R1. III. Metathetic Doublets in Hebrew Poetry The existence of such synonymous doublets was apparently not lost on the Hebrew poets, who were able to exploit it in an indirect man- ner. Just as one root could yield synonymous, metathetic doublets, so too two separate roots, each with its own ÒtrueÓ etymology, could yield antonymous, metathetic doublets within a given poetic context. Thus Isaiah o ers the following paronomastic phrase: , Òto give them a turban in place of ashesÓ (Isa. 61:3). Jeremiah, in turn, plays on the relationship between (ÒstumbleÓ) and (ÒprosperÓ): , ÒTherefore, my pursuers will stumble and will not succeed. They are greatly ashamed, for they do not prosperÓ (Jer. 20:11).14 Some examples from post-biblical poetry may be adduced.15 In the 13 Segal, Grammar, 61. 14 I am indebted for this example to J.E. Harding, ÒThe Wordplay between the Roots and in the Literature of the Yahad,Ó RevQ 73 (1999) 69-82. In the arti- cle, the author discusses an issue closely related to the one being treated in the present paper. In this connection, one should also note 1QpHab 1:5-6: . . .] [ ]/vac. [ Ò[. . . Why do you show me iniquity and] countenance [to]il? (Hab. 1:3a) vac. /[Its interpretation . . .] God with persecution and treachery.Ó D. Dimant, ÒQumran Sectarian Literature,Ó Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (ed. M.E. Stone; CRINT 2.2; Assen: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: For- tress Press, 1984) 505-6 n. 103, quotes this passage to illustrate one of the main exe- getical devices used in the pesher literature: Ò5. Changing the order of the letters or words in the lemma.Ó 15 In the following two paragraphs, examples are drawn from the poetic corpus which was created in Byzantine-period Palestine, and is commonly known as (< Greek poiht®w). The origins of piyyut may go back as far as the second century CE (cf. J. Schirmann, ÒHebrew Liturgical Poetry and Christian Hymnology,Ó JQR 44 [1953/54] 134), whereas the classical period of its owering may be dated to ca. 350 ca. 636, i.e., up to the conquest of Palestine by the Arabs. Yose ben Yose is commonly con- sidered to be the last poet of the pre-classical period, whereas the classical is most strongly represented by Yannai (for whose dates cf. Z.M. Rabinovitz, The Liturgical Poems of Rabbi Yannai [Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1987] 1.45-54 [Hebrew] and J. Schirmann, ÒThe Payyetan Yannai His Poetry and World View,Ó Studies in the History of Hebrew Poetry and Drama [Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1979] 1.63-65 [Hebrew]) and the somewhat younger Qalir (for an up-to-date summary of research on whom cf. I. Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy A Comprehensive History [trans. R.P. Scheindlin; Philadelphia: