Jewish Studies

Journal Articles
Bar-Asher Siegal EA. Is the Aramaic of the Zohar artificial?. Late Aramaic: The Linguistic and Literary Background of the Zohar. Forthcoming.
Bar-Asher Siegal EA, Bar-Asher Siegal M. The Hebrew-Based Traditions in Galatians 4:21–31. Early Christianity. 2018;9 (4) :404–431. bar-asher_siegal_404-431_final.pdf
Bar-Asher Siegal EA. Can the Grammar of Babylonian Aramaic Be Used in Evaluating the Language of the Zohar, and If So, How?. ?" Kabbalah: Journal for the Study of Jewish Mystical Texts. 2017;37 :17-28.
Bar-Asher Siegal EA, Bar-Asher Siegal M. ‘Rejoice, O barren one who bore no child’: Beruria and the Jewish-Christian Conversation in the Babylonian Talmud. The Faces of Torah. Studies in the Texts and Contexts of Ancient Judaism in Honor of Steven Fraade, Journal of Ancient Judaism. Supplements. 2017;22 :199-220. rejoice_o_barren_one_who_bore_no_child.pdf
Bar-Asher Siegal EA. Who separated from whom and why? A philological study of 4QMMT. Revue de Qumran. 2011;98 :229-256.
Bar-Asher EA. Linguistic Markers in the Book of Ruth. Shnaton – An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies. 2008;18 :25-42. linguistic_markers_in_the_book_of_ruth.pdf
Bar-Asher EA. Nahmanides’ Hidden Motives in the Treatise ‘Quntres Dina D’Garme’. Sidra 20 . 2005 :57-67. nahmanides_hidden_motives_in_the_treati.pdf
Bar-Asher EA. An Explanation of the Etiology of the Name Ammon in Genesis 19, Based on Evidence from Nabataean Aramaic and the Safaitic Arabian Dialect. Zeitschrift für Althebraistik . 2004;17-20 :3-10. an_explanation_of_the_etiology_of_the_n.pdf
Bar-Asher EA. Theodor Herzl’s Theory of Quasi-Contract - Ideological Background to Theodor Herzl’s Theory of the Moral Justification for the Establishment of a State. Hayo-Haya . 2004;4 :7-23 . theodor_herzl_s_theory_of_quasi-contrac.pdf
Bar-Asher EA. Head Covering – Mosaic or Jewish Law?. Akdamot . 2000;9 :101-115. head_covering_mosaic_or_jewish_law.pdf
Bar-Asher EA, Furstenberg Y. A Reexamination of a Talmudical Discussion ‘teqafo kohen’. Sinay . 2000;125 :48-80 . a_reexamination_of_a_talmudical_discuss.pdf
Book Chapters
Bar-Asher Siegal EA. The Language of the Mishnah – Between Late Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew. In: What's the Mishna. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press ; Forthcoming.Abstract

In discussing the history of the Hebrew language, a distinction must be made between its history as a linguistic system and the history of its written forms. The former assumes an idealized periodization of the language and distinguishes between Early Hebrew (EH) and Late Hebrew (LH). The latter bases the division on corpora, resulting in the traditional classification into Biblical Hebrew, Qumranic Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew, with further sub-divisions such as early vs. late Biblical Hebrew, Early vs. Late Mishnaic Hebrew, Babylonian vs. Palestinian Talmudic Hebrew, etc. Although these two perspectives are fundamentally different, they are clearly interrelated: on the one hand, our knowledge about the history of the structure(s) of the language is based on data gathered from the Hebrew corpora and on the historical setting of these texts; on the other hand, the analysis of the linguistic information in the corpora is a de facto description of how the different linguistic systems were used in each corpus. This paper aims to examine the language of the Mishnah from these two perspectives and explore the conceptual distinction between the two categories with which it is associated, namely Late Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew. I will outline what it means to provide a description of Late Hebrew as a linguistic system, and what it means to examine Mishnaic Hebrew as the language of a written corpus. Accordingly, this paper has a twofold goal: 1) to explain the difference between the two perspectives as relevant to the language of the Mishnah. 2) to demonstrate the advantages of keeping them separate.