Skip to content

Arabic Book Culture in the Work of a Jerusalem Karaite: Abū l-Faraj Hārūn and his Glossary of Difficult Biblical Words

Pages 345 - 373



Presentation and analysis of the Judeo-Arabic postface, or conclusion, composed in Jerusalem by the 11th-century Karaite grammarian Abū l-Faraj Hārūn b. al-Faraj for his “bestselling” biblical glossary, which is extant in at least forty manuscript copies. Hārūn's postface is quite similar to a preface, and includes many of the elements traditional to authorly prefaces of the period. Yet even while employing literary topoi that were de rigueur in Arabic literature and in composition of the period, Hārūn produced a highly personal postface that conveys his conception of his own literary production in addition to adding important information about his personal biography.


1 I thank Julia Rubanovich for her insightful comments on this article, and Haggai Ben-Shammai for his generous advice on the Judeo-Arabic text which follows it. This research was supported by the German-Israeli Foundation for Scientific Research, grant no. 2270–2177.4.

2 The following analysis is based in part on my lecture at the 11th International Conference of the Society for Judaeo-Arabic Studies, St. Petersburg State University (August 2003), as well as my lecture at the Van Leer Colloquium on Book Cultures and Religious Literacies in the Eastern Mediterranean held on March 14–16, 2011 in Jerusalem, Israel. I first encountered this composition in the framework of my employment at the Center for the Study of Judeo-Arabic Literature and Culture of the Ben Zvi Institute for the Study of Jewish Communities in the East, and I thank the Center and its directors, Haggai Ben-Shammai and David Sklare, for their support.

3 The first to mention the existence of the glossary was A. A. Harkavy, who did so in the year 1881. A few years later, S. Poznanski followed him and edited part of a manuscript that he mistakenly identified as the Glossary (MS British Library Or. 2499, described in footnote 15 below). Most recently, J. Olszowy-Schlanger describes the work and its genre on the basis of five additional manuscripts, some of which represent the Glossary (RNL Evr.-A rab. I:1552 is not the Glossary; RNL Evr.-Arab. I:1826 is an abbreviation of the Glossary—see further below in “The manuscript evidence”). See A. A. Harkavy: “Mittheilungen aus Petersburger Handschriften.” In: Zeitschrift fur die altestamentliche Wissenschaft 1 (1881), pp. 150–159; S. Poznanski: “Abou-l-Faradj Haroun ben al- Faradj, le Grammairien de Jerusalem et son Moushtamil.” In: Revue des Études Juives 33 (1896), pp. 24–39, 197–218; S. Poznanski: “Nouveaux renseignements sur Abou-l-Faradj Haroun ben Al-Faradj et ses ouvrages.” In: Revue des Études Juives 56 (1908), pp. 42–69; J. Olszowy-Schlanger: “The ‘Explanation of Difficult Words’ by Abu al-Faraj Harun ibn al-Faraj.” In G. Khan (ed.): Exegesis and Grammar in Medieval Karaite Texts. Oxford 2001, pp. 179–194. An edition of sections of the Glossary is currently being prepared by Nasir Basal at Tel Aviv University.

4 On the term “postface” see G. Genette: Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation. Cambridge 1997, pp. 237–238. Genette's discussion of “paratexts” includes prefaces, postfaces and many other types of authorial notes in texts.

5 Consideration of this issue is vast. On the adoption of written composition in the Islamic milieu, see M. Cook: “The Opponents of the Writing of Tradition in Early Islam.” In: Arabica 44,4 (1997), pp. 437–530; S. Guenther: “The excellence of the written word in medieval Islam.” In: Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 32 (2006), pp. 125–143; P. Heck: The construction of knowledge in Islamic civilization: Qudāma b. Jaʿfar and his Kitāb alkharāj wa-ṣināʿat al-kitāba. Leiden 2002; G. Schoeler: The oral and the written in early Islam. London 2006; G. Schoeler: “Writing and publishing: on the use and function of writing in the first centuries of Islam.” In: Arabica 44,3 (1997), pp. 423–435; G. Schoeler: The Genesis of Literature in Islam: From the Aural to the Read. Trans. and collab. S. Toorawa. Cairo 2009. Regarding the gradual adoption of written composition in the Jewish milieu during the same time period, see R. Brody: “Geonic Literature and the Talmudic Text” (Hebrew). In: Y. Sussman / D. Rosenthal (eds.): Meḥqerei Talmud [Talmudic Studies]. Jerusalem 1990, pp. 237–303; N. Danzig: “From Oral Talmud to Written Talmud: On the Methods of Transmission of the Babylonian Talmud and its Study in the Middle Ages” (Hebrew). In: Bar-Ilan 30–31 (2006); Y. Sussman: “Oral Torah Means Just That” (Hebrew). In: Y. Sussman / D. Rosenthal (eds.): Meḥqerei Talmud 3 [Talmudic Studies Dedicated to the Memory of Professor Ephraim E. Urbach]. Jerusalem 2005, pp. 209–384.

6 Recent considerations of the development of the composition in Arabic include, for instance, H. Kilpatrick: Making the great book of songs: compilation and the author's craft in Abū l-Faraj al-Iṣbahānī's Kitāb al-aghānī. London / New York 2003; Schoeler 2009, especially pp. 68–110; S. Toorawa: Ibn Abī Ṭāhir Tayfūr and Arabic writerly culture: a ninth-century bookman in Baghdad. London 2005. A. Ghersetti also sets out the situation I describe in her introduction to a recent volume of Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies (JAIS) devoted to the topic of the Arabic book: see A. Ghersetti: “Editor's Introduction: The Book in Fact and Fiction in Pre-Modern Arabic Literature.” In: JAIS 12 (2012), especially pp. 1–4. See also the sources mentioned in note 39.

7 See for example on this question M. Gil: “The Origins of the Karaites.” In: M. Polliack (ed.): Karaite Judaism: A Guide to its History and Literary Sources. Leiden/Boston 2003, pp. 73–118.

8 On Ibn Nūḥ, see G. Khan: The early Karaite tradition of Hebrew grammatical thought: including a critical edition, translation and analysis of the Diqduq of Abū Yaʿqūb Yūsuf ibn Nūḥ on the Hagiographa. Leiden 2000, pp. 5–8.

9 The major source for this information is the fifteenth-century Karaite chronicler Ibn al-Hītī: see G. Margoliouth: “Ibn al-Hiti's Arabic chronicle of Karaite doctors.” In: JQR, O.S. 9 (1896–1897), pp. 429–443.

10 Aharon Maman of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem is currently preparing an edition of this work. For recent studies, see N. Basal: “Part one of al-Kitāb al-Mushtamil by Abū al-Faraj Hārūn and its dependence on Ibn al-Sarrāj's Kitāb al-Uṣūl fi-l-Naḥw” (Hebrew). In: Leshonenu 61 (1998), pp. 191–209; N. Basal: “The concept of 'ḥāl' in the ʿAl-Kitāb al-Muštamil' of Abū al-Farag Hārūn in comparison with Ibn al-Sarrāǧ.” In: Israel Oriental Studies 19 (1999), pp. 391–408; N. Basal: “A fragment of Abū al-Faraj Hārūn's ‘Al-Kitab al-Muštamil’ in Arabic script.” In: JQR 92,1–2 (2001), pp. 1–20; N. Basal: “The Tamyīz in the grammatical theory of the Karaite grammarian Abū al-Faraj Hārūn” (Hebrew). In: Peʿamim 90 (2002), pp. 97–114; A. Maman: “The infinitive and the verbal noun according to Abū al-Faraj Hārūn” (Hebrew). In: M. Bar-Asher (ed.): Studies in Hebrew and Jewish languages presented to S. Morag. Jerusalem 1996, pp. 119–149; A. Maman: “The ‘ʿamal’ theory in the grammatical thought of Abū al-Faraj Hārūn.” In: M. Bar-Asher (ed.): Massorot: Studies in Language Traditions and Jewish Languages. Jerusalem 1997, pp. 263–274; A. Maman: “The Hebrew alphabet as a grammatical mnemotechnic framework: Introduction to al-Kitāb al-Mushtamil, Part III” (Hebrew). In: Language Studies [Meḥqarim be-Lashon] 8 (2001), pp. 95–139; A. Maman: “Order and meaning in the letters of the root: the seventh part of Abū al-Faraj Hārūn's al-Kitāb al-Mushtamil” (Hebrew). In: Peʿamim 89 (2002), pp. 83–95.

11 An edition of the composition along with an introduction is provided in G. Khan / M. A. Gallego / J. Olszowy-Schlanger: The Karaite tradition of Hebrew grammatical thought in its classical form: a critical edition and English translation of al-Kitāb al-Kāfī fī al-Luga al-ʿIbrāniyya. Leiden 2003.

12 There exist two epitomes of the Sufficient book, the Abridgment (al-Mukhtaṣar) and the Book of rules regarding the grammatical inflections of the Hebrew language (Kitāb al-ʿuqūd fī taṣārīf al-lugha al-ʿibraniyya). On the latter, see N. Vidro: Verbal Morphology in the Karaite Treatise on Hebrew Grammar Kitāb al-ʿuqūd fī taṣārīf al-lugha al-ʿibrāniyya. Leiden 2011. Both works were formerly attributed to Abū l-Faraj Hārūn, but Vidro has demonstrated that while the abridgments were carried out in his lifetime, they cannot be attributed to Hārūn (see pp. 5–9).

13 See description and analysis of this work in M. Goldstein: Karaite exegesis in medieval Jerusalem: The Judeo-Arabic Pentateuch commentary of Yūsuf ibn Nūḥ and Abū al-Faraj Hārūn. Tübingen 2011.

14 On the Guide see I. Eldar: The Art of Correct Reading of the Bible (Hebrew). Jerusalem 1994. The Book of introduction survives in manuscript; see Khan/Gallego/Olszowy-Schlanger 2003, p. xiii.

15 I have identified four fragments of this work. One of the fragments (MS British Library Or. 2499) was mistakenly identified by Poznanski as the Glossary: see note 3. While similar to the glossary in certain ways, the translation treatise has fewer lemmata and longer translations and grammatical explanations. RNL Evr.-Arab. I:1607 has parallels with the fragment identified by Poznanski (this parallel was also noted in Olszowy-Schlanger 2001, pp. 185–186) and is an additional fragment of the translation treatise. Further fragments of the treatise include RNL Evr.-Arab. I:3545 and RNL Evr.-Arab. I:4068.

16 A pathbreaking discussion of the new literary models adopted by Jews living in the Arabic-Islamic milieu can be found in R. Drory: The Emergence of Jewish-Arabic Literary Contacts at the Beginning of the Tenth Century (Hebrew). Tel Aviv 1988; R. Drory: Models and Contacts: Medieval Arabic Literature and Its Impact on Jewish Literature. Leiden 2000.

17 See Basal 1998; Basal 1999; G. Khan: “Abū al-Faraj Hārūn and the Early Karaite Tradition.” In: Journal of Jewish Studies 48 (1997), pp. 323–25.

18 See Khan 1997. Despite these divergences, in preparing the abridgment of his teacher's work known as the Talkhīṣ, Abū l-Faraj Hārūn preserved comments referencing Ibn Nūḥ's grammatical method even though he himself did not subscribe to them.

19 As, for example, in MS RNL Evr.-Arab. I:1391, 88 r-v: see note 34.

20 The first to note the existence of bilingual Hebrew—Judeo-Arabic glossaries was S. D. Goitein: see S. D. Goitein: Jewish education in Muslim countries (Hebrew). Jerusalem 1962, p. 56. On early glossaries predating the translation of the Pentateuch by Saʿadya Gaon see J. Blau / S. Hopkins: “On Early Judaeo-Arabic Orthography.” In: ZAL 12 (1984), pp. 9–27; J. Blau / S. Hopkins: “The beginnings of Judaeo-Arabic Bible exegesis according to an old glossary to the Book of Psalms” (Hebrew). In: M. M. Bar-Asher / S. Hopkins / S. Stroumsa / B. Chiesa (eds.): “A Word Fitly Spoken:” Studies in Qur'an and Bible Exegesis Presented to Haggai Ben-Shammai. Jerusalem 2007, pp. 234–284; Y. Tobi: “Tafsīr Alfāẓ in Phonetic Script of Exodus and Additional Translations.” In: Bein ʿEver Le-ʿArav 1 (1998), pp. 53–74; M. Polliack: “Bible Translations and Word-Lists in the Cairo Genizah.” In: Bulletin of the Israeli Academic Center in Cairo 21 (1997), pp. 31–34. Two word-lists published by M. Polliack and S. Somekh also likely predate the tenth century: see M. Polliack / S. Somekh: “Two Hebrew-Arabic Biblical Glossaries from the Cairo Geniza” (Hebrew). In: Peʿamim 83 (2000), pp. 17–19. See also the review of the latter, and the authors' response, in H. Ben-Shammai: “On Meira Polliack and Sasson Somekh, 'Two Hebrew-Arabic Biblical Glossaries from the Cairo Geniza' [Peʿamim 83 (2000): 15–47]” (Hebrew). In: Peʿamim 88 (2001), pp. 124–138; M. Polliack: “Response to Ben-Shammai review: On Meira Polliack and Sasson Somekh, ‘Two Hebrew-Arabic Biblical Glossaries from the Cairo Geniza’” (Hebrew). In: Peʿamim 88 (2001), pp. 139–156.

21 For a discussion of glossaries in the context of Arabic Bible translation in general, see M. Polliack: “Arabic Bible Translations in the Cairo Genizah Collection.” In: U. Haxen / H. Trautner-Kromann / K. L. Goldschmidt Salamon (eds.): Jewish studies in a new Europe: Proceedings of the EAJS Copenhagen Congress. Copenhagen 1998, pp. 54–56. See also the discussion of the evolution of lexicographical works in I. Eldar: “The beginnings of Hebrew lexicography in the Orient” (Hebrew). In: M. Bar-Asher (ed.): Language Studies [Meḥqarim be- Lashon]. Jerusalem 1992, pp. 355–382.

22 The genre of gharīb is discussed in the context of other lexicographical works in A. Rippin: “Lexicographical texts and the Qur'an.” In: A. Rippin (ed.): Approaches to the History of the Interpretation of the Qurʾān. Oxford 1988, pp. 158–174.

23 On the educational function of glossaries, see Goitein 1962, pp. 55–56; M. Polliack: The Karaite Tradition of Arabic Bible Translation. Leiden 1997, pp. 615–616; M. Polliack 1997 b, p. 34; Y. Tobi: “Pre-Saadianic Arabic Translation of the Pentateuch” (Hebrew). In: Massorot 7 (1993), p. 115; Ben-Shammai 2001, p. 124; M. Greenberg: Jewish Bible Exegesis: An Introduction (Hebrew). Jerusalem 1983, pp. 68–69.

24 A. Maman: Otzrot Lashon: The Hebrew philology manuscripts and Genizah fragments in the library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America (Hebrew). New York / Jerusalem 2006, pp. 26*–30*.

25 An important exception to this statement is the composition of Judeo-Arabic glossaries of the Mishnah and Talmud by Rabbanite scholars, as in the glossary-like commentary on the Mishnah composed around the turn of the twelfth century by R. Natan b. Abraham, av bet din of yeshivat Eretz Israel: see S. Assaf: “The commentary on the Mishnah by R. Natan Av ha-Yeshiva” (Hebrew). In: Qiryat Sefer 10 (1930) 381–388. See also Eldar 1992, pp. 360–361.

26 In his bibliography of works in Judeo-Arabic, M. Steinschneider mentions a figure named Abū l-Ṭayyib al-Jabalī, Samuel b. Asher b. Manṣūr, who is grouped by the late tenth-century exegete Sahl b. Maṣliaḥ with other Karaites who wrote responses to Saʿadiah Gaon (M. Steinschneider: Die arabische Literatur der Juden. Frankfurt a. M. 1902, p. 79, #42). This figure is almost assuredly too early. Two other possibilities arise concerning the kunya Abū l-Ṭayyib. J. Mann, in his anthology of Karaite texts, mentions an Abū l-Ṭayyib, who was the son-in-law of Yūsuf al-Baṣīr: see J. Mann: Texts and Studies in Jewish History and Literature: Karaitica. Philadelphia 1935, II, p. 40. Finally, Abū l-Ṭayyib is also the kunya of a Karaite exegete known as al-Tinnisī who composed a work on the book of Psalms, which served as one of the sources used by the late eleventh-century Karaite exegete ʿAlī b. Sulaymān in composing his own commentary on Psalms (Mann 1935, p. 41). Given that this kunya was common, for now the identity of the issuer of the request must remain unknown.

27 Similar numbers are attested regarding Abū l-Faraj Hārūn's highly popular Sufficient book, which is attested in some sixty manuscripts as well: see Khan/Gallego/Olszowy-Schlanger 2003, pp. 1056–1057. The Sufficient book was much more popular than the Comprehensive book, and its popularity was not eclipsed by its own abridged versions (Khan/Gallego/Olszowy-Schlanger 2003, p. xlvii). Thus the Sufficient book and the Glossary were Abū l-Faraj Hārūn's most widely-attested works. Determining to what extent Abū l-Faraj Hārūn's Glossary is attested in other Genizah manuscript collections requires significant further research and cataloguing, as glossaries largely survived in anonymous fragments alone. See Maman 2006, p. 28*.

28 For a discussion of this type of arrangement, as well as other elements of the arrangement of biblical glossaries in the East which are also attested in Abū l-Faraj Hārūn's work, see I. Eldar: “Biblical Glossography in the Realm of Spoken Arabic in the East” (Hebrew). In: Studies in Hebrew Language and its Contact with Semitic Languages and Jewish Languages 1 (2001), pp. 26–28.

29 On this use of “etymological parallels” see also Eldar 1992; Eldar 2001, pp. 3–4. Various elements of this structure were removed to create later adaptations of the glossary; for example, the removal of prooftexts, which I will discuss below.

30 The first and second manuscripts include colophons with dates (1204, 1222/1223); the other manuscript dates and those that follow are my own estimates based on script.

31 As in RNL Evr.-Arab. I:2619, 1 v; RNL Evr.-Arab. I:2888, 10 v.

32 As in RNL Evr.-Arab. I:1346, 1 v; or Sharḥ al-alfāẓ allatī fīhā ṣuʿūbat ishtiqāqiha (RNL Evr.-Arab. I:2603, 1 v.).

33 RNL Evr.-Arab. I:2297, 25 v; Sharḥ alfāẓ al-Torah al-ṣaʿba: RNL Evr.-Arab. I:2655, 2 r. So also RNL Evr.-Arab. I:4464, 241 r.

34 RNL Evr.-Arab. I:1391, 88 v.

35 A: RNL Evr.-Arab. I:1391, 95 v–96 v. B: RNL Evr.-Arab. I:4344, 4 r–5 v (see Fig. 1). The Judeo-Arabic text of the postface which follows this article is based on manuscript A.

36 C: RNL Evr.-Arab. I:4461, 165 v, which preserves only the beginning of the postface. D: RNL Evr.-Arab. I:4598, 1 r.

37 Regarding the use of the preface in the commentary tradition in the Near East, mainly in the sixth and seventh centuries, and in Europe up till the fourteenth century, see respectively E. Riad: Studies in the Syriac preface. Uppsala 1988, pp. 41–42; A. Minnis: Medieval Theory of Authorship: Scholastic Literary Attitudes in the Later Middle Ages. London 1984, pp. 10–28.

38 See Riad 1988, pp. 19–21. Regarding the adoption of the preface for personal composition in Europe, see Minnis 1984, p. 161ff.

39 The first to examine features of authorial introductions in Arabic was Freimark: P. Freimark: Das Vorwort als literarische Form in der arabischen Literatur. Münster 1967. S. Harvey has examined a number of introductions to philosophical works: S. Harvey: “The author's introduction as a key to understanding trends in Islamic philosophy.” In: R. Arnzen / J. Thielmann (eds.): Words, texts, and concepts cruising the Mediterranean Sea: studies on the sources, contents and influences of Islamic civilization and Arabic philosophy and science: dedicated to Gerhard Endress on his sixty-fifth birthday. Leuven/Dudley, Mass. 2004. S. Stroumsa has examined the introductions of Saʿadya Gaon (d. 942 ce) in their Syriac and Arabic context: S. Stroumsa: “A Literary Genre as an Historical Document: On Saadia's Introductions to his Bible Commentaries” (Hebrew). In: M. M. Bar-Asher / S. Hopkins / S. Stroumsa / B. Chiesa (eds.): “A Word Fitly Spoken:” Studies in Qur'an and Bible Exegesis Presented to Haggai Ben-Shammai. Jerusalem 2007, pp. 193–204. See also M. Frenkel's discussion of authorial prefaces as part of her enlightening discussion of aspects of medieval Jewish book culture in the Islamic milieu: M. Frenkel: “Literary Canon and Social Elite in the Geniza Society” (Hebrew). In: R. Brody / A. Lieblich / D. Shalev / M. Ben-Sasson (eds.): Uncovering the Canon: Studies in Canonicity and Genizah. Jerusalem 2010, pp. 101–108. A recent contribution to the study of prefaces in a variety of literatures and cultures, including the Arabic-Islamic milieu is J.-D. Dubois / B. Roussel (eds.): Entrer en matière: Les prologues. Paris 1998.

40 See Freimark 1967, pp. 36–40.

41 This lack of clarity actually accords well with other aspects of giving and charity in this community, where community functionaries were remunerated for their services via an intricate and indirect method. See M. Frenkel: “Charity in Jewish society of the medieval Mediterranean world.” In M. Frenkel / Y. Lev (eds.): Charity and giving in monotheistic religions. Berlin 2009, pp. 343–364.

42 That said, it is clear that during this period members of the Muslim middle class, in addition to the courtier class, were increasingly taking on roles of patronage and the commissioning of works of poetry or prose. See, for example, in an issue of al-Qantara devoted to the topic of patronage, S. Ali: “The Rise of the Abbasid Public Sphere: The Case of al-Mutanabbi and Three Middle Ranking Patrons.” In: al-Qantara: Revista de Estudios Arabes 29,2 (2008), pp. 467–494.

43 See discussion in Freimark 1967, p. 40.

44 A somewhat different and formulaic statement of the “duty of the author” often appears as a topos in Arabic prefaces, in which the author proclaims that he composes his work because of his duty to promulgate knowledge he has acquired. See Freimark 1967, pp. 45–48.

45 Text and translation from Khan/Gallego/Olszowy-Schlanger 2003, pp. 10–11.

46 The introduction to the Guide to the reader can be found in N. Allony: “Rabbi Yehuda Ibn Balaam's Book ‘Horayat Hakore’” (Hebrew). In S. Israeli / N. Lamm / Y. Raphael (eds.): Jubilee volume in honor of Joseph B. Soloveitchik. Jerusalem / New York 1984, pp. 644–680. The introduction to the Sufficient book can be found in Khan/Gallego/Olszowy-Schlanger 2003, pp. 10–19.

47 The comment, on Leviticus 10:20, is preserved in RNL Evr.-Arab. I:4116, 110 v–112 r.

48 On this element of introductions, see Riad 1988, pp. 218–24.

49 I. e., synonyms.

50 Abū l-Faraj Hārūn cites the verse in Hebrew; I use the JPS translation for English here and in all further translation.

51 Or according to the reading in ms B: “lacking familiarity with”.

52 This example from Jeremiah 31:16 is an apt example of how Abū l-Faraj Hārūn's Glossary builds on his earlier grammatical compositions. He employs the same verse in the Sufficient book to exemplify a case where the letter lamedh substitutes for an entire word, in this case for the word “with” (Heb. ʿim) (Khan/Gallego/Olszowy-Schlanger 2003, pp. 282–283). In his explanation here, Abū l-Faraj Hārūn accordingly translates li- as the Arabic maʿ, “with”, smoothly and silently incorporating the grammatical teaching from the Sufficient book while presenting the verse for a different purpose.

53 See Khan 2000, pp. 8–25.

54 On the term tasqīm see J. Blau: A dictionary of mediaeval Judaeo-Arabic texts (Hebrew). Jerusalem 2006, p. 301.

55 Or “exceed the parameter”.

56 I. e., to treat more of the issues of this type, rather than doing so sporadically as in this composition.

57 The standard appeal to the reader in Arabic is described in Freimark 1967, pp. 58–60.

58 On this element in Arabic prefaces, see Freimark 1967, pp. 53–58. Regarding Syriac prefaces see Riad 1988, pp. 197–202. For similar protestations of humility in Latin works of the fourteenth century see Minnis 1984, pp. 172–173.

59 See Frenkel 2010, pp. 107–108, for insightful analysis of a progression from the former call to the latter prohibition in the context of the development of conceptions of authorship between the tenth and twelfth centuries.

60 See Freimark 1967, pp. 61–63.

61 For mention of this epilogue see A. Maman: “The Hebrew Alphabet as a Grammatical Mnemotechnic Framework: Introduction to al-Kitāb al-Mushtamil, Part III” (Hebrew). In: Language Studies 8 (2001), p. 98.

62 A has אבו and I have modified on the basis of B (אבן) and C (בר).

63 A is missing פי כ‘ללה ותצ‘אעפה מא ליס מנה and I have completed the text on the basis of B, 4 r and D, 1 r. D has an additional פי at the end of the phrase which appears to be superfluous.

64 Kitāban for expected kitāb: see J. Blau: A Grammar of Medieval Judeo-Arabic (Hebrew). Jerusalem 21980, pp. 150–154.

65 A, 96r.

66 Iʿṭā for expected iʿṭā': see Blau 1980, p. 28.

67 B, 4v: קראאתה; “one with little learning of the art of translation.”

68 Jazā for expected jazā': see Blau 1980, p. 28.

69 For this verb as “to deem superfluous”, see Blau 2006, p. 508.

70 A, 96v.


Export Citation