Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-tn8tq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-05T01:29:02.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Meaning of 'Ein Lo Domeh and Similar Phrases in Medieval Biblical Exegesis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 October 2009

Frederick E. Greenspahn
Frederick E. Greenspahn
Affiliation:
Brighton, Massachusetts
Get access

Extract

Medieval lexicographers and commentators frequently note unique words in the Bible. The descriptions they use for this purpose are regularly understood to be equivalent to the modern term hapax legomenon. One example of this is Joshua Blau's assertion that in “Hebrew literature hapax legomena are called ’en lo ’ah, 'en lo haver, ’en lo re‘a ba-Miqra'.” Although there is not complete consensus as to the definition of the modern term, overall its meaning is clear and constant: a hapax legomenon is a word which occurs only once within a defined corpus; to identify a word as a hapax legomenon is to make an assertion about its frequency of use.

Type
Research Article
Information
AJS Review , Volume 4 , April 1979 , pp. 59 - 70
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Jewish Studies 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Encyclopedia Judaica (Jerusalem, 1972), s.v. “Hapax Legomena”Google Scholar; see also Torczyner, Harry, Encyclopedia Judaica (Berlin, 1931), s.v. “Hapax Legomena”Google Scholar; Prijs, Leo, Die Grammatikalische Terminologie des Abraham ibn Esra (Basel, 1950), pp. 24, 44Google Scholar; and Rabin, Chaim, Ensiqlopediya miqra'it (Jerusalem, 1962), s.v. “Millim bodedot. ”It should be noted that millah bodedet is not used in this sense before the modern period, although it is found with the meaning “intransitive, ”i.e., a verb without an object.Google Scholar See Eppenstein, Simon, 'lyyun ve-heqer(Jerusalem, 1976), p. 200 as well as David Qimhi to Ps. 109:22 and QSh, s.v. RK.Google Scholar

2. To Ps. 64:2, 68:18, Job 30:13, 33:24; see also SS, pp. 146 and 170.

3. Lane, pp. 2363ff.; regarding the study of rare and unusual words in Arabic see Haywood, John A, Arabic Lexicography (Leiden, 1965), especially pp. 18–19, 42ff., 95–96, 105, and 113. AFD, s.v. LS; IJSh, s.v. BK; David Qimlji to Ps. 119:131; Moses Qimfoi to Job 26:9; and IPM, s.v. RTPSh, SQD. ShNS, ShSh\Google Scholar

4. IQR, p. 2 bis; see Lane, pp. 2780ff.

5. See Lane, p. 2813. AFD, s.v. 7WF, BSh, SKT, SQ, $PD. RPQ. SQD. SQR, TZZ; SS, p. 145; IQR, p. 3; and Judah ibn Bal'am to Isa. 56:10.

6. IQR, p. 2 bis; see Lane, pp. 1499–1500.

7. AFD, s.v VT. see Lane. pp. 1479ff.

8. MM, s.v. BU, BRK, GL, 'TWN, L$, PL, GLB. GBL, GP, GRD, GRZ, DHM, ZBD, ZHM, ZNQ, Z'K, ZRB, ZRZYP, IJRG, TH, TPSh, KSM, MHL, MRU, and MM*, s.v. TM. In only two of the entries examined (P$M and $NM) is a different phrase used, viz. 'ein lo fiaver. See also Rashi to Gen. 41:45, Judg. 16:16, 1 Sam. 15:33, 1 Kings 18:46, Isa. 1:22, 9:18, 44:8, Ezek. 16:40, Hos. 11:3, Ps. 63:2, Job 6:10, Ruth 2:14, Lam. 4:8.

9. For example, DST, p. 57, QG, pp. 33 and 45.

10. DST, p. 33, Rashi to Exod. 16:14, Jacob ben Reuben to Isa. 3:16, 33:20, 44:8, Ibn Ezra to Isa. 9:4, Job 29:4, Cant. 3:9, 4:1, 8:5, IPM, s.v. $BT. Moses Qimlii to Job 6:10, 33:2, Moses benNahmanto Job 6:10, and Isaiah of Trani to 1 Sam. 15:33, Isa. 3:16, 9:17f., 11:8, 18:6, 33:20, 44:8, 47:13, 56:10f., Jer. 14:9, Ezek. 16:40, 17:9, 39:2, Amos 5:11, 7:14, Ps. 55:9, 63:2, 68:17, 99:1, 119:103, 119:131, Job 17:1, 19:3, 26:9, 30:11, 33:26, 39:23, Ruth 2:14, Lam. 1:14, 4:8.

11. SS, pp. 151 and 170, AFD, s.v. ZRB, IJSh, s.v. BShS. See Lane, pp. 1577 and 1680–81, and Ibn Janah to Isa. 18:4 and Ibn Barun regarding HBR (both in Pavel Kokovtsov, Mi-sifrei ha-balshanut ha-'ivrit bi-yemei ha-beinayim [Jerusalem, 1970], pp. 19 and 168a). Ibn Tibbon translates la ishtiqaq as 'ein gizrah (see also MM, s.v. 'PL).

12. Moses Qimlji to Job 39:23, Aaron ben Joseph to 1 Sam. 21:9, Judah ibn Bal'am to Isa. 3:1.

13. “There is no other [occurrence] in the Bible, ”IQR, p. 31; see Lane, p. 2315.

14. DST, p. 79; MM, s.v. $NM and P$M; Ibn Ezra to Gen. 25:30, 41:23, Exod. 12:9, 16:14, 16:31f., 32:16, Isa. 7:19, 48:19, Hos. 13:1, Joel 1:17, Amos 6:10, Ps. 63:2, Job 15:12, 21:32, 26:9, 30:25, 33:20, 33:24, 40:12, 40:31, Cant. 1:10, 7:2, 7:9, Ruth 1:13; David Qimhi to 1 Sam. 21:9, 2 Sam. 17:20, Isa. 9:4, 11:15, 33:20, 56:10, Ezek. 6:1, 21:20, 23:23, Joel 2:7, Amos 3:12, 5:11, Ps. 55:9, 63:2. See also Jacob ben Reuben to Isa. 1:22 and 50:4, Samuel ben Meir to Gen. 41:23 and Exod. 16:14, Moses Qimlji to Job 2:8, 9:3, 30:25, 40:12, Joseph ibn Kaspi to Amos 7:14, Aaron ben Elijah to Gen. 25:30 and 40:11, Levi ben Gershon to Cant. 8:5, and Joseph Bekhor Shor to Exod. 16:14.

15. For 'ein lo re'a see Ibn Ezra to Gen. 26:20, 35:10, Exod. 29:20, Lev. 25:21, Deut. 22:8, 32:25, Isa. 10:15, 33:20, 44:8, 44:19, 47:2, Amos 5:11, Ps. 18:46, 60:4, 140:11, Job 41:14, 41:21; David Qimlji (e.g., to Isa. 1:22) and Aaron ben Elijah (e.g., to Deut. 27:9) also use this frequently. For 'ein lo 'ah see Ibn Ezra to Gen. 30:20, Lev. 6:14, Deut. 32:15, 33:19, Job 2:8, Lam. 3:16, 6:14.

16. For 'afiol see Ibn Ezra to Lev. 14:37, Isa. 11:8, 14:23; for 'av ve-'em see to Lam. 1:14, and for mishpahah to Deut. 32:34. Note also his comments to Job 40:17 and Eccles. 10:8.

17. See comments to Lev. 19:19, Num. 11:2 (if not a textual error for 'ein lo 'ah), Isa. 3:19, Hos. 11:3, Job 17:1, Lam. 4:8. Michael Friedlander translates Ibn Ezra's millah zarah, which would correspond to the Arabic al-alfaz al-gharfb (Sa'adiah to Job 6:6, see SS, p. 164 and IQR, pp. 1, 2, 111), as hapax legomenon (at Isa. 9:17, 15:5), and in his comment to Isa. 50:4 it is joined with 'ein re'a lah (for an Arabic example see IQR, p. 110). It is not, however, clear that Ibn Ezra intended it in the same sense as the other phrases here treated (see comments to Esther 1:3 and Dan. 1:3).

18. To Isa. 9:17; see also to Isa. 1:22, 61:6, Joel 1:17, Amos 6:10 and IKSh, s.v. DWB&nd HZH. This apparent deviation from standard phraseology may be the result of Ibn Kaspi's desire to use rare words as evidence that only a limited amount of ancient Hebrew literature had survived in the Bible; see Halkin, A. S., “The Medieval Jewish Attitude Toward Hebrew, ” in Biblical and Other Studies ed. Alexander Altmann (New York, 1963).Google Scholar Not all freely phrased remarks are late. Sa'adiah makes a similar point in his comment to Ps. 80:14. Sometimes the lack of fixed phraseology is deceptive; lo mafanu lo haver is repeated verbatim five times by David Qimhi (to Isa. 9:4, Ezek. 5:1, 9:4, 23:23, 33:20; see also to Amos 3:12).

19. In its original Greek usage, hapax legomenon seems subject to similar variability of formulation; see Martinazzoli, Franco, Hapax Legomenon (Rome, 1953).Google Scholar

20. E.g., DST, p. 33; Jacob ben Reuben to Isa. 3:10, 33:20, 44:8; Ibn Ezra to Cant. 3:9, 4:1; IPM, s.v. $BT: Moses ben Naljman to Job 6:10; Aaron ben Elijah to Gen. 41:23, and most often by Isaiah of Trani (see above, n. 10).

21. To Isa. 33:20. At Ps. 63:2 he uses the anomalous 'ein lekha domeh; see also Rashi to Exod. 16:14.

22. Ibn Ezra to Isa. 9:4; Moses Qimhi to Job 33:25; see Sa'adiah's description of RTPSh and PD' as mufradatan (to Job 33:24).

23. Ibn Ezra to Job 29:4; IPM, s.v. R$D (see also s.v. TM and RNH); Moses Qimhi to Job 6:10.

24. The criterion leading to the use of lah seems to be the closeness to the word millah itself. Menaljem uses 'ein lo dimyon several times, except when preceded by a phrase such as la-millah ha-zot 'ein lah dimyon (MM, s.v. Z'K, ZRB, ZRZYP, KSM, MRH). Most often, he uses neither, preferring instead something like 'ein la-millah dimyon in which case the issue of gender is irrelevant. By the time of Rashi, the phrase was fixed as 'ein lo domeh, illustrating again that this was a formative period for these phrases although the tendency for them to become formulaic is apparent.

25. IPM, s.v. RNH, see also s.v. 'TM, R$D, and above n. 17. A similar conflation of terms can occur in Arabic, e.g., hadhihi l-kalima min al-kalimdt al-mufrada al-ghariba fl l-'ibrdnl allati la nazir lahu (IQR, p. 100, see also p. 2 bis).

26. Viz. BK, BShS, HDH, HZH, ZK, Y'B, KMH, MLS, NWT, PRShZ, S'N, SPD, RHH, SQD. Ibn Ezra alone notes GRD, DWS, HDK. ZHM, HTM, USPS, IJRG, HRT, TPSh, YZ, KMS, KPSh, KSH, L'T. MHL, SRP, BSh. 'GM, 'GN, WT, ZQ, “R, SQ, PD\ PSM, SNM, RZM, RPQ, SPN. Isaiah of Trani alone notes BLS, HBR, HKR, NTS, SH, TM, SBT, RTPSh, RNH, RSD. SQR, TZZ, as well as BTQ, DHM, QSS, ShSP, and ShSh' which are in books for which no commentary by Ibn Ezra was available.

27. It should be noted that in his famous treatise on the so called seventy hapax legomena Sa'adiah makes no claim that his is an exhaustive list, nor really a collection of mufraddt, but according to his title mufraddt al-qur'dn wa-sharfruhd min takhftf al-mishna, that is, words which lack related forms in the Bible but are known from rabbinic usage. In other words, the treatise is based on a subgroup of the mufraddt, namely those with rabbinic cognates. The reason for this is now well known: Sa'adiah used the existence of such words to buttress his theological position as to the importance of rabbinic literature from a linguistic perspective; see Benjamin Klar, Mebqarim ve-'iyyunim (Tel Aviv, 1954), p. 260. That its contents are selective is therefore hardly surprising; his criterion is explicit from the very first line.

28. MM, pp. 22 and 56; DST, p. 57.

29. To Exod. 32:16; see also to Exod. 12:9, Deut. 32:15, Isa. 5:2, 9:4, 11:8, 25:11, 46:6, 47:2, Cant. 4:1 and Jacob ben Reuben to Isa. 50:4.

30. E.g., DST, p. 57 and Rashi to Isa. 33:20. 'Afiot is similarly used by Ibn Ezra at Isa. 24:1 although the text of that comment is not entirely clear (see Michael Friedlander there). Ibn Quraish frequently uses the Arabic analogs of these terms in this way, e.g., (IQR, pp. 11, 17, 18, 48, 107; see also p. 14) and ishtiqaq (see especially, pp. 107–15 which are designated alahrafallati laha ishtiqaqat and also p. 27); most often he uses mithl in this sense, corresponding functionally and semantically to the Hebrew domeh.

31. To Gen. 26:20; see DST, p. 33 and Rashi to Lam. 3:16. It is such cases which Sa'adiah collected in his famous treatise; see above n. 27.

32. AFD, s.v. TZ and $PD. Comparison of biblically unique words with tannaitic forms can be found also in MM (s.v. 'PL, GBL, GRD, TH, SLD, and $PD; see also s.v. GP), Rashi (to Job 6:10 and Ruth 2:14) and Isaiah of Trani (to Isa. 18:5).

33. AFD, s.v. SQ; see also s.v. SAT and Ibn Ezra to Hos. 13:1. Menahem's inclusion of DHB in his list of unique forms must therefore allude to the use at Isa. 14:4 rather than the frequently occurring Aramaic cognate of Hebrew ZHB (see MM, p. 23 and IQR, p. 2 bis), against Nehemiah Allony, “Hashqafot qara'iyyot be-mahberet Menahem, ”in 0}ar yehudei Sefarad 5 (1962): 51.

34. AFD, s.v. 'BSh and David Qimhi to Isa. 1:22; see also Ibn Ezra to Hos. 13:1, Joseph Qimhi to Prov. 10:8, and Ibn Bal'am to Isa. 6:10.

35. MM, p. 56, see also s.v. 'BH. The medievals often combine assertions as to a word's uniqueness with the conclusion that it can be understood only from context, so much so in fact that it has been suggested that statements about contextual reliance are alone sufficient justification for the conclusion that the particular exegete believed the word in question to be unique; see E. Z. Melamed, Mefareshei ha-miqra (Jerusalem, 1975), p. 625.

36. IPM, p. 74b.

37. The word occurs also in the nonparallel Num. 11:7, albeit in the same context. Ibn Ezra is also able thereby to describe tenukh as unique (at Exod. 29:20) although it occurs six times in the book of Leviticus. In this regard, see Ibn Ezra's observation at Gen. 40:12. Perhaps this accounts for those observations regarding unique words which lack any explanation as to their meaning (e.g., Ibn Ezra to Job 17:1 and Ruth 1:13; QG, p. 45 regarding KMH; and Joseph Bekhor Shor to Exod. 16:14) that the evidence in such cases was deemed inadequate to permit conclusive interpretation.

38. E.g., Ibn Ezra to Deut. 21:14 and Job 39:19.

39. 39. E.g., Ibn Ezra to Gen. 7:4, Eccles. 2:16, Esther 1:3, 1:20, and Dan. 1:3; see also to Gen. 40:12 and Joseph Qimlji to Prov. 10:8.

40. E.g., Ibn Ezra to Isa. 64:5, Joel 1:11, and Lam. 4:17.

41. E.g., DGH (Gen. 48:16), HP' (2 Kings 17:9), K7/(Jer. 10:7), S'S' (Isa. 27:8), RPP (Job 26:11), SWH (Gen. 24:63).

42. Similarly, the hapax legomena SMN (Isa. 28:25) and PNQ(Pwv. 29:21) are identified as unique only by Sa'adiah for whom other factors clearly played an important part (SS, pp. 149 and 155, see above n. 27). KHL (Ezek. 23:40) and PShH (Lam. 3:11) are also never identified as unique although MSh (p. 81) relates the former to hakhlili (Gen. 49:12) by way of metathesis and Jacob ben Reuben (to Lam. 3:11) identifies PShH with PSH on the basis of sibilant interchange.

43. Against Nehemiah Allony, “Hashqafot qara'iyyot, ”p. 53. This is clear also from David Qimlji's comment (to Ezek. 2:20) regarding T&H that 'ein la-millah ha-zot haver le-fi ha-'inyan. Similar criteria must have governed his identification of demeseq (Amos 3:12) and BT (Joel 2:7) as well as Menabem's description of GPR, HRK, TRP, $H. SRK (MM, s.v. GLB) and Ibn Ezra's comments regarding kivrat (Gen. 35:16), na (Exod. 12:9), ShQ (Num. 11:2), 'orbot (Isa. 25:11), but (Isa. 44:19), shovel (Isa. 47:2), felasal (Deut. 28:42, Job 40:31; see also Isa. 18:1), and 'aman (Cant. 7:2).

44. For example, Sa'adiah notes T'T and sumponyah, while Menahem includes 'RGZ, ZBD, P$L, QRM, SDYM, ShTY, and ShTM. In this category Ibn Ezra includes ZBD (Gen. 30:20), QRY (Lev. 26:21), TT (Isa. 14:23), and GISA (Cant. 4:1) as well as S'N (Isa. 9:4) which is included also by David Qimhi.

45. Thus SS includes tofafot, shetum, and ta'aruvot while Menabem's list contains 'eshpar, GLSh and sha'afnez which Ibn Ezra (to Lev. 19:19) also considers unique.

46. The possibility of error should not be gainsaid; cf. Menabem's inclusion of 'TNN, BG, GLM, ZRM, HLMWT, HLMYSh, PDR, $NV, RBK, and RGSh in his list of unique words (MM, s.v. GLB) for each of which several related usages are cited at the appropriate entries of the Mahberet. Internal consistency was not always the case; see, for example, QSh, pp. 37 and 50 where differing explanations of BShS are given.

47. Harold Cohen, “Biblical Hapax Legomena in Light of Akkadian and Ugaritic ”(Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1975), p. 21.

48. SS, p. 154 regarding TPL and pp. 168–69 for SM.

49. Ibn Ezra thus includes gadish (Job 21:32) despite its occurring several times elsewhere; see also references pertaining to Ibn Ezra and David Qimjji in notes 37 and 43–45 above.