¹ Differences of opinion prevail among scholars regarding the root of the word. Gesenius-Buhl connects it with ‘to gaze at’ equivalent to the Hebrew with the letters transposed. Compare also the Arabic . Jastrow derives it from , a very unlikely supposition from a morphological point of view, but see Yalqūt Shim'oni on 1 Sam. xvi, 18, . Fuerst in his concordance connects it with both and . He adduces part of his thesis from the fact that tō'ar is used in parallel with and in consequence claims that they are synonymous. Ben-Yehuda derives it from which means ‘to go round’, ‘to circle’. This would then be equivalent to the Arabic from form IV (see Lane, s.v.).

As a verb it occurs in the qal (Joshua, xv, 9, 11; xviii, 14,17)Google Scholar; in the pi'el (, Isa. xliv, 13)Google Scholar; and in the pu'al (Joshua, xix, 13)Google Scholar. It is possible, however, that the text here is corrupt.

All traditional commentators explain the root as being synonymous with ‘to circle’, ‘to trace’, ‘to mark’, ‘to sketch’, ‘to delineate’ (see Targum, Rashi, Radaq, and Mesudot).

Apart from the verbal forms the noun tō'ar occurs a number of times in the Bible. (Gen. xxix, 17; xxxix, 6; xli, 18, 19; Deut. xxi, 11; Judges viii, 18; 1 Sam. xvi, 18; xxv, 3; xxviii, 14; 1 Kings i, 6; Isa. Hi, 14; liii, 2; Jer. xi, 16; Lam. iv, 8; Esther ii, 7 and the question is what is the meaning of the noun tō'ar? If we accept the view that it is synonymous with then we have a tautology in the expression (Gen. xxix, 17). If, however, we take the noun tō'ar to be derived from Till then we would have a clear distinction between tō'ar (form) and (appearance). It should be noted that the various translations of the Bible are inconclusive. We find sometimes ‘form’and sometimes ‘appearance’.

Some of the traditional commentators explain the noun tō'ar as implying the idea of form.

On the verse (Gen. xxix, 17), the P'siqta zuṭrata has Rashi Ibn Ezra Sforno; Radaq Rashbam

S. Ibn Tibbon uses tō'ar to translate the Arabic (see Be'ūr hammillōṯ hazzar‘trace’ . Already we see a slight shift in meaning from the verb for while the verb means ‘trace’, ‘circle’, ‘delineate’ the noun has come to mean ‘form’, ‘shape’.

The meaning of the noun tō'ar shifted still farther and came to mean ‘beauty’. On the verse (I Sam. xvi, 18) Radaq writes: . Radaq considers that there is an ellipsis in the verse as according to him tō'ar means ‘form’. On the verse (Jer. xi, 16) Radaq writes:

H. P. Smith comments on 1 Sam. xvi, 18 (ICC): ‘Generally we find (Gen. xxxix, 6) but in English we also speak of a man of presence instead of a man of “good” presence’. But if we say that the noun tō'ar has shifted its meaning there is no need to explain the verse as being elliptical. Compare the verse in Isa. liii, 2, , where tō'ar is used in the sense of ‘beauty’. Accordingly, the Midrash uses tō'ar in the sense of ‘beauty’, e.g. (Rabba Num., 10). The Targum paraphrases in Isa. lii, 14, by , which means ‘beauty’. Rashi, on the verse (Isa. xliv, 13), writes: Only Meṣudot is consistent for he writes:

² See Prijs, Leo, Dīe grammatikalische Terminologie des Abraham Ibn-Ezra, Basel, 1950, 142Google Scholar. According to S. Baer and H. L. Strack, Ben-Asher uses to translate the Arabic . See Diqdūqē haṭṭ^eamīm, ed. Baer, and Strack, , Leipzig, 1879, p. 61Google Scholar, n. e. It is, however, more likely that Ben-Asher has in mind and not

³ See Bacher, W., Leben und Werke des Abul Walid Martvan Ibn-Janah, Leipzig, 1885, 1Google Scholar.

⁴ Sēfer hariqmāh, ed. Goldterg-Kircheim, , Frankfurt am Main, 1856Google Scholar, ch. xi.

⁵ Sēfer ṣabūt, ed. Lipman, , Fürth, 1827, 40Google Scholar, and cf. his commentary on Exod. iii, 15.

⁶ Sēfer miklōl, ed. Ritterberg, , Lyk, 1862, 142, 149Google Scholar.

⁷ Sēfer haššōrāšī;m', ed. Bisenthal-Lebrecht, , Berlin, 1847Google Scholar.

⁸ Duran, Profiat, Ma'asē ēfōd, ed. Friedlander, and Cohn, , Wien, 1885Google Scholar, ch. xxiv.

⁹ Sēfer pirqē Eliyāhū, Berlin, 1788Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Ṣōhar hattēbāh, Berlin, 1769, 52Google Scholar.

¹¹ Talmūḏ lāšōn 'iḇrī, Breslau, 1796, 51–4Google Scholar.

¹² Tōraṯ hallāšōn b⁸hiṯpatḥūtāh, Vilna, 1923, § 74Google Scholar.

¹³ Diqdūq hallāšōn ha'iḇrīṯ, Jerusalem, 1942, 263–7Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Diqdūq hallāšōn ha'iḇrīṯ, Tel-Aviv, , 1953, part I, book III, p. 117Google Scholar.

¹⁵ See Malter, H., Saadia Gaon, his life and work, Philadelphia, 1921, 34Google Scholar.

¹⁶ See , J. and Derenbourg, H., Opuscules et traités d'Abul Walid Marwan Ibn-Janaḥ, Paris, 1880, introduction, 74Google Scholar. In this respect S. Munk was right when he wrote: ‘Il y a peu de questions relatives à la grammaire hébraique qui n'aient pas ćté abordées et approfondies par Ibn-Janah. Certains sujets ont été traités dans le kitab al-luma' d'une manière plus complete que dans les meilleurs ouvrages modernes et il y a dans ce vaste repertoire de quoi enrichir les travaux d'un mesenius ou d'un Ewald’, Journal Asiatique, iv^e Sér., xvi, 76, 1850, 244Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Gesenius-Kautzsch-Cowley, , Hebrew grammar, Oxford, 1910, 221Google Scholar, cf. Joüon, P., Grammaire de I'hébreu biblique, Rome, 1923, 186Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Cf. Zamakhsharī, , Mufaṣṣl, ed. Broch, , Christiania, , 1859, 46Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Sēfer ṣaḥūṯ, 34–5.

²⁰ Sēfer pirqē Eliyāhū, 2.

²¹ Ṣōhar hattēḇāh, 52.

²² Talmūd Iāšōn'iḇrī, 50.

²³ Coestlin, Hayyim, Sēfer maslūl, Brünn, 1796, 95Google Scholar.

²⁴ Ma'^asē ēfōḏ, 45.

²⁵ Sēfer habbāḥūr, Prague, , 1789, 9Google Scholar.

²⁶ See Bnøndal, V., Les parties du discours, études sur les categories lhiguistiques, Copenhagen, 1948Google Scholar, and Robins, R. H., Ancient and mediaeval grammatical theory in Europe, London, 1951Google Scholar.

²⁷ See Renan, E., Histoire générate des latigues sémitiques, third edition, Paris, 1863Google Scholar.

²⁸ See for example de Biberstein Kazimirsky, A., Dictionnaire arabe-français, Paris, 1860Google Scholar, s.v., and Hava, J. C., Arabic-English dictionary, Beirut, 1899Google Scholar, s.v.

²⁹ See Encyclopaedia of Islam, s.v. ṣifa, and Zamakhsharī, , op. cit., 46Google Scholar, ‘Ṣifa is a noun that indicates one of the states of a substance’.

³⁰ Sēfer hariqmāh, ed. Wilensky, M., Berlin, 1929, 133Google Scholar.

³¹ .

³² See Ibn Ezra's commentary on Exod. xxiii, 8, . See also Ibn Ezra's commentary on Exod. xxi, 35, where he quotes a certain Ben-Zuṭa who took the word in the verse to be an adjective. We do not know who this Ben-Zuṭa was but judging from Ibn Ezra's comment he must have been a Karaite grammarian:

³³ Ṣēfer hariqmāh, 1,

³⁴ S^efātēnū, II, 1923, 54Google Scholar.

³⁵ N^ed., vi.9;Neg., xiv.6;Pa., xi.7.

³⁶ L^ešōnēnū, I, 2, 1928, 193Google Scholar.

³⁷ Hanau, ,op. cit.,52:Google Scholar

³⁸ Bréal, M., Essai de sémantique, Paris, 1897, 167Google Scholar. Compare Qimḥi's, miḵlōl p. 3, n 2Google Scholar, . Compare Livni, I., Diqdūq hallāšōn ha'iḇriṯ, Jerusalem, 1958, 243Google Scholar,

³⁹ It should be noted, however, that this criterion should be applied cautiously. Although according to the rule both words normally take the article (Gesenius, 408), one nevertheless finds instances when the definite article is omitted from the substantive accompanying defined adjectives, e.g.: 1 Kings xx, 13, ; Jer. vi, 20, ; Ps. lxii, 4, Ps. civ, 18, . Such a usage is particularly common with ordinal numbers after , e.g.

In the Mishna, the adjective is found with the article while the noun is without, e.g.: P^es., iii.1, ; Hul., iv.7, ; Abot, i.1, ; Abot, i.11, . SeeSegal, M. H., A grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew, Oxford, 1927, 183Google Scholar.

In the Middle Ages such a usage was quite common.

Modern Hebrew is rich in expressions like . Rosen, H. B., L^ešōnēnū La'am, VIII, 1957, 170Google Scholar, considers the expression as wrong but the fact that the usage is already found in the Bible and is fairly common in Rabbinic and Medieval Hebrew makes it legitimate in Modern Hebrew.

⁴⁰ L^ešōnēnū La'am, xvi, 1965, 195Google Scholar.

⁴¹ Sèfer ṣaḥūṯ, 35: ‘Pronominal suffixes can be used with adjectives. However, while it is correct to use “my wise men”, “his wise men”, “his wise ma n” seems a little strange’.

⁴² In the Bible, examples of adjectival attributes placed before the substantives are: Gen. xviii, 4, ; lsa. x, 30, ; jer. iii, 7, ; Jer. iii, 11, Ezek. xli,42, ; Prov. xv, 20, . Furthermore, in a great number of expressions the adjective appears before the substantive in the construct state, e.g.,

The adjectives and are sometimes placed before the substantives, e.g. Jer. xvi, 16, ; Ps. Ixxxix, 51, ; Prov. xix, 21, ; Prov. xxxi, 29, ; Neh. ix, 28, . The adjective is also placed before the substantive when expressing a superlative, e.g. Prov. xxx, 24, ; 2 Chron. xxi, 17, .

⁴³ Wizen, M.,Tōraṯ hallāšn, Wein, 1923, 32,Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Ben-Or, A. (Oronovsky), Lāšōn w^esignōn, Tel-Aviv, 1959, 76:Google Scholar

⁴⁵ yellin, David, op. cit., 263:Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Ibn Janah, Sēfer hariqmāh, ch. xi, calls this phenomenon or . According to Lane, Arabic-English lexicon, root , ‘an epithet in which the substantive character predominates’. According to the Encyclopaedia of Islam, s.v. ṣifa, ‘when the active participle loses its temporary character and hardens into a substantive it becomes ṣifa ghaliba’.

⁴⁷ S^ebu., iv.3. It is worth noting that some words have a different vocalization when used as attribute of God, e.g. ; see Mandelkern and Ben-Yehuda, s.v., . similarly (attribute), (adjective).

⁴⁸ Except in cases where adjectives are used adverbially, especially in Modern Hebrew slang, e.g.

⁴⁹ Lumsden, M., A grammar of the Arabic languages, Calcutta, 1813, 266Google Scholar. He appears to be the first grammarian to have used this term to translate the Arabic ṣifa and to have opposed it to the adjective. The following discussion is a summary of his arguments.

⁵⁰ The ‘s’here is an indication that it is used as a noun.

⁵¹ Gesenius, , op. cit., 416—17Google Scholar. In Medieval and Modern Hebrew this deficiency is made up by the use of the suffix ī forming derived adjectives.