(p.328) Appendix C: Examples of Qṭil li from Jewish Babylonian Aramaic
(p.328) Appendix C: Examples of Qṭil li from Jewish Babylonian Aramaic
The following examples are drawn from secondary sources on Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, then checked with the texts. In most cases I include more text than the secondary sources gave, in order to give relevant context. There is no critical edition of the whole Talmud and the standard Vilna edition is not considered the most reliable text. Editions and manuscripts show considerable variation in the text, to the extent that Qṭil li may be present in one and absent in another. I have therefore consulted the main textual witnesses through the Lieberman Institute’s Talmud Text Databank (Version 5), here Databank v. 5. I have used the textual witness selected by the Academy of the Hebrew Language (AHL) online database Ma’agarim22 as the default variant (which is often different to the version in the secondary source), unless otherwise indicated, and then indicated variants present in other textual witnesses. I give these usually only when they are relevant in any way to the Qṭil li construction, e.g. where the one variant shows agreement and the other non-agreement.
In the Aramaic text, both in original script and transliteration, following the convention in the AHL database and Talmud Databank, round brackets (…) indicate a deletion in the original manuscript, while square brackets […] indicate an addition in the original manuscript. Question marks ?…? indicate that the letters between them are uncertain; !…! indicates a mistake. I give variants and corrections in the transliteration, transcription, and translation in square brackets, marked as var. and corr. respectively.
In the transcription, round brackets (…) complete a word which has been abbreviated in the original, e.g. 'אמ is transliterated as ʔm' but transcribed as it would have been read, as ʔam(ar) ‘he said’. In the translation, square brackets […] add words not present in the original which aid comprehension, e.g. ‘I saw [in a dream]’.
(22) The textual witnesses selected by the AHL for each book of the Talmud are given in Sokoloff (2002a: 55–60): the witness at the top of each list is the AHL preferred witness, unless several witnesses were used for a given book, in which case it is indicated which parts were taken from which witness.
(23) All the other textual witnesses in the Databank v. 5 have the Qṭil li construction here.
(24) The other textual witnesses in the Databank v. 5 have the Qṭil li construction here.
(25) The Qṭil li variant actually occurs directly after šlip̄ l-ḵu (yarqā) ‘you have pulled out (vegetables)’.
(26) Immediately preceding context: ‘Shall it be said that R. Assi holds the opinion that [both days] have one continuous holiness? But R. Assi recited the habdalah between the first and second Festival-days?’
(27) Var. ʔwrzylʔ drymʔ = /ʔurzelā d-rimā/.
(28) Pronunciation unknown.
(29) Variant di-šmaʕ b-i (REL-hear.PST_PFV.3MS in-1SG) ‘who heard (anything) against me’ is only found in one textual witness (according to the Databank v. 5), while variant d-šāmiʕ ʕl-ay (REL-hear.AP.3MS on-1SG) ‘who hears (anything) against me’ is only found in the Soncino and Vilna editions, which are considered less reliable. Therefore these variants will not be taken into account here.
(30) A few manuscripts (Munich 95; Oxford Opp. Add. fol. 23 ; Vatican 125) have the feminine noun dukkṯā but still with the masculine singular participle ḥze instead of the expected feminine participle ḥazy-ā, i.e. with non-agreement.
(31) The variant ʔabbā (ʔbʔ) is probably a misreading of ʔanā (ʔnʔ), as the letters are similar and ʔabbā makes no sense here.
(32) Similar sequences occur elsewhere in the same passage.
(33) Two textual witnesses (Soncino and Vilna editions) lack the ly /li/, but as these are considered less reliable, I will not take this into account.
(34) The variant šmyʕ (šmiʕ-?Ø) in both occurrences here is only found in the Munich 95 manuscript. All other witnesses in the Databank v. 5 have šmyʕʔ or šmyʕ' (šmiʕ-ā) for both.
(35) The variant where 1sg. l-i is replaced by 3ms. l-eh is only found in the manuscript Oxford Opp. Add. fol. 23. The variant where the Qṭil li form ṭʕym ly (ṭʕim li) is replaced apparently by the active participle ṭʕym (ṭāʕim) is only found in the manuscript Munich 95.
(36) I have extracted the cases of Qṭil li from a more general set of (medio-)passives of various types with l-.
(37) This variant is only found in one manuscript.
(38) This variant is only found in one manuscript.
(39) This variant is only found in one manuscript.
(41) Variants have šmyʕ /šmiʕ-?Ø/ [hear.PP-?MS] and šmyʕy /šmiʕ-i/ [hear.PP-MPL]. Feminine singular inflection would be expected here, however.
(42) A single textual witness (Escorial G-I-3) has, instead of lkw, ly' lr' ʔbyn, i.e. l-e(h) l-r(aḇ) PN [l-3MS l-Rav PN]. The whole phrase is translated as ‘Rav PN has not heard’ or ‘Has Rav PN not heard?’.
(43) Vatican 140 lacks Qṭil li here, having instead lʔ šmʕ ly' lr' yṣḥq, to be transcribed as lā šmaʕ le(h) l-r(aḇ) PN ‘he did not hear R. Isaac’. Vilna likewise has a (past perfective) Suffix Conjugation, but with the verb ydʔ Peʿal ‘to know’.
(44) The variant with Qṭil li is found in all other textual witnesses in the Databank v. 5, as well as fitting the context better, so is probably more reliable.
(45) Note that the formatting of Bar-Asher Siegal’s (2011: 124) examples in the original script, namely Giṭṭin 6b, Bava Meṣia 93b, and Bava Batra 33a/33b, apparently went awry and parts of the text are in the wrong order.
(46) These variants are each only attested in one textual witness of the Databank v. 5. The variant with l- marking the P argument (l-hā) is from Florence II-I-8.
(47) A single manuscript (Paris 1337) in the Databank v. 5 has the object marker l- marking the P argument in both instances of this passage.
(48) The P argument (hā millṯā) is absent in a single manuscript of the Databank v. 5 (Oxford—Bodl. heb. c. 21 (2666) 25–30).
(49) The variant with unambiguous feminine inflection (šmyʕʔ, i.e. šmiʕ-ā) is only attested in one textual witness of the Databank v. 5, oddly the same one where the P argument is absent (Oxford—Bodl. heb. c. 21 (2666) 25–30). See, however, §5.3.1 for a possible phonetic explanation of the common lack of agreement with this verb.
(50) The variant with 3ms. agent is only attested in one textual witness of the Databank v. 5 (Escorial G-I-3).
(51) All the textual witnesses have the same phrase apart from Munich 95 and Venice Print (1522), which have it in the 3ms. form, negated: לדידיה לא סבירא ליה ldydyh lʔ sbyrʔ lyh, transcribed l-ḏiḏeh lā sḇirā leh ‘as for him, he does not hold the opinion’.
(52) None of the other textual witnesses have precisely this construction—either the hwā is absent or in a different form of the verb, or the ḥazyā is absent or (in Vatican 113) in a different, less explicable, form of the verb. Only the manuscript Cambridge—T-S F1 (2) 110 may have had precisely the same construction: some letters are obscured, leaving it ambiguous.
(53) All the textual witnesses of the Databank v. 5 have Qṭil li: all have the independent pronoun ʔanā, except for the Munich 95 manuscript, where it is missing, and Oxford Opp. Add. fol. 23 which has the 1pl. pronoun instead.
(54) The other textual witnesses of the Databank v. 5 have both Qṭil li forms (in a single case with sbr Peʿal ‘to think’), except for one printed edition (Spanish Print 1489 or later), apparently through textual corruption. All textual witnesses have the two independent pronouns (1pl. and 2mpl.). Only the Vatican 111, given here, has the differential object marker l‑ on the patient hā.
(55) The AHL selected textual witness, the Jerusalem Yad Harav Herzog 1 manuscript, has an active participle here, as apparently do a couple of print editions (with progressive particle qā in addition), but several other textual witnesses have ḥryk l-. Some have the second person pronominal suffix, others the 3fs. suffix. Two have the verb ḥrb Peʿal ‘to be destroyed’, apparently a corruption. The Goettingen 3 manuscript appears to lack this passage altogether.
(56) One other textual witness in the Databank v. 5 has ḥlip̄ li here, namely London—BL Harl. 5508 (400), though without the independent pronoun ʔanā. The others, including the AHL selected textual witness, the Jerusalem Yad Harav Herzog 1, have the finite verb in a mediopassive derivation, either in the Suffix or Prefix Conjugations. Other wording in the passage also varies.
(57) Three other instances of almost precisely the same phrase are found in the same volume in Bowls 186, 1911–12, and 249, although the readings are not as clear.
(58) Shaked does not treat this as a Qṭil li form, translating ‘and the crown of his forehead stands upright on their heads’, presumably interpreting triṣ as ‘erect’ and the dative phrase as some kind of affectee.