RABBI JUDAH ḤAYYŪJ
The three grammatical treatises of Ḥayyùj1, as well as the extant portion of his grammatical commentary to the Prophets, namely, Kitāb al-Nutaf (“The Book of Plucked Feathers” i.e. selected exegetical notes)2 contain virtually no treatment of language comparison. Only one single comparison has been located in the grammatical works of Ḥayyùj3—his comparison of the morphological formation of the words(Josh. 10:24) and 4 (Isa. 28:12) with the 3rd person plural perfect verb form in Arabic, 5 . In each, the vocalic “orthographic” is followed by a quiescent (see Kitāb al-Afʿāl Dhawāt Ḥurūf al-Līn, p. 20). In fact, Ḥayyùj, citing the other grammarians,
1 See Ḥayyùj—in the Bibliographical References. For recent systematic analyses of
Ḥayyùj's theory see Goldenberg 1980, Basal 1992, Watad 1994. See also Maman
(2000a), pp. 263–67.
2 On the name “Nutaf” see Maman (2000a), note 3. The extant parts of Nutaf; Abramson, 1978–79, pp. 203ff.; Eldar (1979). Basal (2001)
have been published in Harkavy (1895a); Harkavy (1901); Kodowtzow (1916); Allony
1963, 1970, pp.
republished all that material, along with new remnants from the ENA and Firkowitch
3 See Bacher, 1884, p. 5; P.K. Kokowtzow, 1916, p. 64, n. 1; Wechter, 1964,
4 This grammatical comparison is not reiterated in the grammatical comment toitself in Kitāb al-Nutaf to Isa. 28:12 (Allony, 1970, p. 25; Basal, 2001,
p. 176 and n. 180). There he describes the additional as a matter of eloquence
of the language Ps.
139:20); but he does not mention . It cannot be assumed that Ḥayyùj with-
drew his original opinion. In such cases the grammarian would be expected to state
expressly his revision regarding grammatical elucidation. It is more probable that
ḫayyùj intended to provide additional data—namely that the Arabic form is primary
and that, therefore, linguistic habit or inflection in accord with the primary
form is considered a linguistic eloquence . Ibn Janah, however, opposed this
comparison; see Becker 1998, §119.
5 Wechter (1947, p. 384) maintains that Ḥayyùj avoided the use of comparisonrecorded
with Arabic; Wechter himself remarks on the comparison
by Ḥayyùj, without offering an explanation of the paradox of a scholar who opposed
comparison with Arabic nonetheless allowing himself to establish this comparison!