David M. Bunis (Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Israel) : Echoes of Judezmo in Syria

ECHOES OF JUDEZMO IN SYRIA
David M. Bunis (Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Israel) 1
1. Judezmo: The Ibero-Romance language of the Sephardim in the

Ottoman Empire
During their centuries of residence in medieval Spain, Jews interacted
on a daily basis with Ibero-Romance-speaking Christians and, in Spain
under Islam, with Arabic-speaking Muslims. By the eve of the expulsion
from Castile and Aragon in 1492, this interaction had resulted in the rise
of varieties of Ibero-Romance—especially varieties of Castilian—
unique to the Jewish communities of Iberia. These linguistic varieties
were written in Hebrew letters, and included words and phrases of He-
brew, Aramaic, and Jewish Greek origin not found in the Romance of
their non-Jewish neighbors. Even some elements of Romance origin
used by the Spanish Jews diverged from the corresponding forms used
by non-Jewish Spaniards. 2 With the expulsions from Iberia, most of the
exiled Jews found refuge in the regions of the former Ottoman Empire.
Into the modern era, in most parts of the empire, where their neighbors
spoke Turkish, Greek, varieties of South Slavic, Romanian, and other
European languages, the descendants of the Iberian Jews continued to
use ever-evolving forms of their Jewish Ibero-Romance. Judezmo (also
known as Judeo-Spanish and Ladino) in the Arabic-speaking regions of
the Ottoman Empire, however, constituted a special case. The present
paper examines the fate of Judezmo among the Sephardim of Syria.
2. Judezmo among contemporary Jews from Syria?
In 1983 Israel television aired a dramatization of the Hebrew novel,
Mišel ‘Ezra Safra u-vanaw (Michel Ezra Safra and Sons), published in
1978 by Aleppo-born Amnon Shamosh. The novel portrayed the life of
————
1
The late Prof. Yom Tov Assis ‫ז"ל‬, a great historian and a fine man, shared
very generously with me his personal reminiscences concerning the language use
of the Jews of Syria. His comments helped enrich this paper and his contribution
to it is hereby gratefully acknowledged. May his memory be for a blessing. The
research was supported by The Israel Science Foundation (grant no. 1105/11).
2
For an overview of the Judezmo language in its historical development see
Bunis (2016).
64
D. BUNIS. ECHOES OF JUDEZMO IN SYRIA
a successful if problematic Jewish family in Aleppo over three genera-

tions, beginning in the 1930s. For viewers interested in the Judezmo—or
Judeo-Spanish or Ladino—language, and having some familiarity with
the contemporary Jews from Syria in the United States and Israel, the
miniseries offered a surprise. As in the book, at a poignant moment, the
series characters Raḥmo3 and his daughter Roza cited proverbs in Ju-
dezmo to support their opposing points of view on a family matter. 4
It is well known that some contemporary Syrian Jewish families
trace their ancestry to the Jews who had found refuge in the provinces
of Ottoman Syria following the expulsions of the Jews from Iberia at
the end of the fifteenth century. They settled primarily in Aleppo and
Damascus. However, during many years of work with Judezmo and its
speakers, I never met a Jew from Syria who could speak Judezmo, or
remembered hearing the language spoken in his or her hometown. This
prompted me to question Amnon Shamosh about his use of the Judez-
mo proverbs. In answer, Mr. Shamosh kindly e-mailed me the fol-
lowing note (here translated from Hebrew):
Ladino was overpowered and almost obliterated in all of the Arabic-
speaking regions of the East. The Arabic language became the all-
embracing lingua franca, and the Arabic-speaking Jews smuggled into it a
few Ladino expressions and proverbs they had brought with them to Arab
lands […]. In Aleppo […] the Jews did not speak Ladino. They seasoned
the Arabic and French they spoke with a little Ladino and a lot of Hebrew. 5
That is why I added to my book the two proverbs you cited. 6
Present-day Jews belonging to families from Syria tend to support

Shamosh’s thesis that Judezmo was no longer spoken by Jews in Syria
in the twentieth century. So do historians and outside observors of the
Jewish communities of Syria. Yaron Harel, in his article on Damascus in
the Encyclopedia of Jews in the World of Islam, suggested in fact that by
————
3
Cf. H. masculine name Raḥamim (‫)רחמים‬.
4
Roza said to Raḥmo, her father: ‘And wasn’t it from you that I heard, ya Aba
[oh father], Mas vale una dracma de mazal que una oca de ducados (An ounce of
luck is worth more than a pound of ducats)’? Raḥmo pinched her cheek and
answered: ‘An old proverb of ours states “Y el ḥaxam yerra en la torá” ‘The rabbi
too can make a mistake in the Torah’ (Shamosh, 1978: 186). These proverbs,
reproduced here using the romanization appearing in the book by Shamosh, are well
documented in Judezmo proverb collections which were available when Shamosh
wrote his book, and were perhaps his source for them.
5
On the distinctive Arabic of the Jews of Aleppo see Nevo (1991; 2009), Ar-
nold (2013).
6
Amnon Shamosh, personal communication, 16 February 2012.
65
M. STUDEMUND-HALÉVY JUBILEE VOLUME (LANGUAGE SECTION)
the seventeenth century the “European languages [once used by the Jews
of the city, such as Judezmo, Spanish and Italian] were forgotten, and
Arabic became the common spoken language for all the Jews of the
city” (Harel, 2013; cf. also 1997; 2010: 153). 7
Most other historians of the modern Syrian Jewish community in situ
and in immigrant centers such as New York City, including Avraham
Cohen-Tawil (1993: 31-40), Walter Zenner (c. 2000: 80, 109), Joseph
Sutton (c. 1988: 25, 495-496), and Avraham Safdie (2009: 121-122),
also agree with Shamosh that, from at least the middle of the twentieth
century, Judezmo was not spoken by Syrian Jews. But what had been
the status of Judezmo in Syria earlier on?
3. Judezmo among the Jews of Syria before the late twentieth centu-
ry: Data from non-native speakers
Visitors to the Jewish communities of Aleppo and Damascus before the
twentieth century provide some partial answers to this question. In a let-
ter dated 6 September 1625, Pietro della Valle (1586–1652), an Italian
pilgrim who visited Aleppo the same year, described the Sephardic con-
gregants who sat on the left side of its synagogue as “all Spanish,” and
speaking “the Spanish language as their natural language”:
La parte […] finistra da gli Hebrei Europei, che quantunque habitatori, &
accasati in Aleppo, sono però d’origine aduentitij; e questi tutti sono
Spagnuoli, e parlano la lingua Spagnuola per loro lingua naturale, anzi molti
di loro nati, & alleuati se non in Spagna, ò in Portogallo, almeno in Italia, ò in
Alemagna, ò in altri paesi di Christianità. (Valle, 1650–1658 [1667], 3: 514)
The same Valle, in a letter which he had written in Constantinople on 13

June 1615, described his interaction with a Jew in that city from whom
he was supposed to receive lessons in Hebrew. In the end, Valle found
communication with the Jew impossible, since, according to Valle, his
‘Spanish’ was ‘highly corrupt’ and ‘half Turkized’—i.e., the process of
linguistic fusion which ultimately resulted in the emergence of a unique
Ottoman Judezmo language, composed of elements derived from several
stock languages—was already well on its way:
————
7
In 1855, Aleppo-born Rabbi Rĕfa’el Qaṣin published a bilingual anti-
Missionary tract entitled Sefer liqquṭe ’amarim in Izmir. The Hebrew text was au-
thored by Qaṣin; however, as Harel (2009) suggested, the La‘az or Judezmo transla-
tion was probably the work of a local Sephardi, rather than Qaṣin himself. Harel
(2010: 153) noted the presence of Judezmo speakers in modern Aleppo, but re-
marked that they were immigrants, and few in number. For papers on the history of
the Jews of Aleppo see Harel et al. (2009).
66
[…] non parla in lingua, che io intenda, e non si può esplicare; perche quella
lingua Spagnuola, que parlano quì tutti gli Ebrei, oltre che è corrottissima, a
lui non è naturale: e se ben la parla, non ne intende la forza, e non può espli-
carsi, che è cosa da morire; e V.S. ci compatirebbe amendue, à veder, con che
stento leggiamo. Bisognerà verbi gratia dichiarar Mektublerì ghiundurdilèr; 8
e mi dirà, mezo in Ispagnuolo, e mezo in Turco Spagnuolato, che il Diauolo
non l’intenderebbe, Embiaron los mektubes, e mille altre simili. Basta, non si
può hauere altri che costui, & è senza dubbio il migliore: bisogna hauer pa-
tienza, e far come si può […] (Valle, 1650–1658 [1667], 1: 259-260)
In 1634 Domingo de Toral (1598–after 1635), a Spanish captain and
adventurer, wrote that he had been saved from captivity in Aleppo by a
rabbi whom he considered a “judío muy entendido,” who had in his pos-
session “muchos libros de comedias de Lope de Vega y de historias.” 9
Toral further remarked that “en esta ciudad hay más de 800 casas de ju-
díos […]; tienen su barrio aparte […]” (Toral, 1879: 545). With respect to
their language he wrote: “La lengua común suya y casera entre ellos es
castellana, la cual conservan desde que fueron echados de España” (Toral,
1879: 545). He described the language of the rabbi who had helped him in
the following terms:
El judío que me favoreció era tan sabio en la lengua castellana que en
abundancia de vocablos y en estilo y lenguaje podía enseñar a muchos muy
presumidos, repitiendo a cada paso muchos versos de los insignes poetas de
España, como Góngora y Villamediana y otros. El tiempo que estuve en
Alepo […] gastaba lo más en su conversación; había vivido en Madrid en la
parroquia de San Sebastián y nombraba muchas personas de puesto que
había conocido. (Cid, 2001: 253)
It is hard to imagine that “Castilian” was the language of all 800 Jewish
families which Toral cited as living in Aleppo at the time, since the ma-
jority were undoubtedly indigenous Jewish-Arabic-speaking Mus-
ta‘rabim. Many of the Jews in Aleppo described by Pietro della Valle had
been born in Italy or Germany. Their “Spanish,” and the “Castilian” os-
tensibly spoken by the Jew who helped Toral in Aleppo and who had
resided in Madrid—suggesting that at some stage he had lived as a con-
vert to Catholicism and presented himself as a Christian while in In-
quisitorial Spain, where he certainly would have been required to speak
Castilian rather than any kind of Judezmo—appear to be different from
————
8
Cf. modern T. mektupları gönderdiler ‘they send the letters.’ (The following ab-
breviations of language names are used in the present article: A. = Arabic, C. = Cata-
lan, G. = Greek, H. = Hebrew, J. = Judezmo, L. = Latin, Mod.J. = Modern Judezmo,
O.S. = Old Spanish, O.T. = Ottoman Turkish, S. = Spanish, T. = Turkish).
9
Cassol (2001: 310), citing Toral (1879: 505a) (cf. Cid, 2001: 251-253).
67
the “Spanish” which Valle depicted as used among the Sephardim of

Constantinople living openly as Jews at around the same time. The lin-
guistic difference can probably be explained by a significant difference
in the two types of “Spanish” Jews discussed: those who spoke “flaw-
less” Castilian were probably, like the “rabbi” who had helped Toral,
conversos who had returned to Judaism outside of Iberia, perhaps in the
seventeenth century, after leaving the peninsula as crypto-Jewish Chris-
tians who had of necessity assimilated linguistically to their Christian
Spanish surroundings. Those in Constantinople were probably more
veteran residents of the Ottoman Empire, whose ancestors had left Iberia
as fully-practicing Jews who had spoken a somewhat distinctive Jewish
variety of Ibero-Romance in Iberia itself. The Spanish of the presumed
conversos of Aleppo cannot, of course, be relied upon to provide data on
the Judezmo of individuals who had left Iberia as Jews and set up resi-
dence in Ottoman Syria. But the conversation between Toral and his
Spanish-speaking Jewish interlocutors, as reconstructed by Toral himself,
offer a glimpse of the linguistic complexity of the Jews of Syria in the
seventeenth century. George Sandys (1577–1644), who travelled in the
Ottoman Empire at the beginning of the seventeenth century, summa-
rized the linguistic complexity of the contemporaneous Ottoman Jews
in the following words: “Their familiar speech is Spanish; yet few of
them are ignorant in the Hebrew, Turkish, Moresco [=Arabic], vulgar
Greek and Italian languages” (Sandys, 1673: 115).
Historian Sarina Roffé suggests that Judezmo was still spoken in
Aleppo into the eighteenth century (“the Ladino language of the Spanish
Jews died out by the middle of the 18th century”), when the city’s Iberian
and indigenous Jewish-Arabic-speaking communities merged into one,
but not afterward (Roffé, N.d.). Marcus and Ayalon, in their article on
Aleppo in the Encyclopedia of Jews in the World of Islam, argued that
the demise of Judezmo in that city was not complete until several centu-
ries later:
As Ladino gave way to Arabic and intermarriage increased [among the Se-
phardim and Musta‘rabim, or indigenous Judeo-Arabic speakers in Syria],
the differences between the groups faded. By the twentieth century many fami-
lies no longer knew from which of the two groups they had originated. (Mar-
cus & Ayalon, 2013)
According to visitors’ reports, by the middle of the nineteenth century
the status of Judezmo in Syria had become questionable. Israel Joseph
Benjamin II (1818–1864), who visited Damascus and Aleppo in the
middle of that century, mentions no use of Judezmo among the Jews in
68
Aleppo, instead remarking that “Die Juden hier [...] sprechen Arabisch;
jedoch reden sehr viele Hebräisch mit der sogenannten portugiesischen
Ausprache und Italienisch recht fertig” (Benjamin, 1858: 55). And yet
Efraim Neimark (b. 1860), who visited Aleppo in the 1880s, wrote that
among the city’s frankos, or ‘Jews of Iberian origin (who had generally
passed through Italy on their way to the East),’ “the Spaniolic [or
Judezmo] language is still not strange” (Neimark, 1947: 54-55, apud Ha-
rel, 2003: 199). Historians Landau and Maoz (1981: 11) also suggest that
‘many Jews in Syria spoke Arabic or Ladino’ in the nineteenth century
(apud Harel, 2003: 199), although the basis of their assertion is unclear.
In 1912, Abraham Elmaleh (1885–1967) wrote that “it is impossible
to find in Damascus a single [Sephardic] family […], even among those
who have recently arrived [from communities in which Judezmo was
spoken], that speaks Spanish [i.e., Judezmo]” (Elmaleh, 1912: 18).
Elmaleh further remarked that, of the Judezmo which had once been
spoken in Damascus, “only a few isolated words remain, and the
younger generation has forgotten even them” (Elmaleh, 1912: 45-46). 10
Nevertheless, in a personal communication, historian Yom Tov As-
sis, who was born in Aleppo in 1942 and passed away in Jerusalem in
2013, informed me that, in the first half of the twentieth century, there
were still families in his native city who spoke Judezmo. Moreover, the
Judezmo which had once been spoken widely in Aleppo continued to
leave its mark on the Jewish Arabic of Jews from Aleppo into the twen-
tieth century. Assis noted that words of Judezmo origin denoting objects
used in the home, such as kabesal ‘pillow’ (cf. J. kavesal, S. cabezal)
and tubaja ‘towel’ (cf. J. tovaja, OS. tovalla), were freely used in the
Judeo-Arabic spoken in the city during his childhood (cf. also Sutton, c.
1979: 166).
Assis’s observation on Judezmisms in modern Aleppo Jewish Arabic
is corroborated by rabbinical and creative writers, as well as other histo-
rians of the community. For example, in his responsa collection Ma‘ăśe
’iš (’Even ha-‘ezer, no. 7), Rabbi Ya‘ăqov Sha’ul Elyashar (b. Safed
1817, d. 1906) replied to a query dated 16 Tammuz 5650 [=4 July 1890]
concerning the preferred Hebrew-letter spelling of the Hispanic-origin
feminine name Buena in a bill of divorce prepared for a Jewish woman
in Aleppo. Elyashar wrote that he perceived the Aleppo community to
————
10
Elmaleh further remarked that even the few Judezmo words which still sur-
vived among the Jewish Arabic speakers of Safed and Tiberias had been forgotten
by the Jews of Damascus, presumably because the influence of Arabic was more
intense there.
69
be essentially Sephardic in origin, since, in their Arabic, all of its mem-

bers expressed certain concepts using words originating in lĕšon sĕfara-
di—which here, as we shall see, would better be translated as in the
“Sephardic” than the “Spanish” language. The examples he used to illus-
trate his claim were the kinship terms ‫ קונספ'ואיגרו‬konsfueǥro ‘in-law,
parent of one’s child’s spouse’ and ‫ קונייאדו‬kunyaḏo ‘brother-in-law,’
and the names for household items such as ‫ קאביסאל‬kabesal [cf. J. kave-
sal] ‘pillow’ and chanaka ‘earthenware pot or pan.’11 The first three
10F
words may be compared with Spanish consuegro, cuñado and cabezal;

the fourth, widely used in all varieties of Judezmo and documented from
the early eighteenth century, 12 in fact derives from Turkish çanak, with
1F
the Hispanic-origin femininizing suffix -a, which was originally added

to avoid word-final -k, something irregular in Spanish.
Avraham Safdie (2009: 124, 126) noted another Judezmo-origin
word connected with marriage used by twentieth-century Syrian Jewish-
Arabic speakers: (il) dota ‘dowry’ [cf. A. il- ‘the,’ J. dota, contemporary
S. dote). To these terms Joseph A. D. Sutton (c. 1979: 166) added the
Hispanic-origin culinary terms meḏias ‘stuffed vegetable halves’ and
meza franka ‘European-style table’ (cf. S. mesa franca).13 In his Hebrew-
language collection of tales about the Jews of Aleppo, Shĕmu’el ben
Moshe Laniado (1999: 195, 274) referred to the walking stick held by an
elderly man as a bastón, and the embroidered bag used for carrying a
prayer shawl as kurasa, both of which may be compared with words
used in Judezmo.14 Laniado’s stories also incorporate elements of Ara-
bic and Turkish origin which are widely documented in the Judezmo of
many regions—e.g., boyadji/-í ‘shoeshine man,’ maḥkame ‘court house,’
fasulie ‘white beans,’ adjibé ‘strange’; 15 but in his case they may reflect
————
11
Since, for Elyashar, the Aleppo Jews were primarily Sephardic in origin, he
suggested that the preferred spelling of Buena in their documents should be ‫בואינה‬,
as accepted among Judezmo speakers, rather than ‫בווינא‬, as would be expected
among Jewish Arabic speakers. Elyashar mentioned that Jews in Aleppo had a copy
of the Pentateuch printed with a Hebrew-letter translation in lĕšon La‘az (i.e., Ladi-
no) and in it they could see this spelling of the word buena (Elyashar, 1892, ’Even
ha-‘ezer, no. 7). See also sections 6.1.4-6.1.5 below.
12
E.g., Bever una chanaka de vino ‘to drink down a pot full of wine’ (Xulí,
1730: f. 145b).
13
In the Judezmo of other regions (e.g., Salonika), meza franka often refers to
the meals provided for a young married couple at the table of their parents (Ne-
hama, 1977: 361).
14
For parallel Salonika Judezmo bastón and koracha, see Nehama (1977: 82, 303).
15
Cf. T. boyacı, mahkeme (A. maḥkama), fasulye (G. fasólia/-soúli), acibe (A.
‘aǧība).
70
local Jewish Arabic rather than preservations from Judezmo. The Ju-
dezmo novel La novia aǥuná, by Elia Rafael Karmona (Istanbul 1922),
revolves around the troubled marriage of a Jewish girl from Syria to a
Sephardic man in Jerusalem. Presumably the story reflects actual mar-
riages between Jews from Ottoman Syria and those from other parts of
the Ottoman Empire in the modern period, for whom Judezmo might
have been a common language. But by the second half of the twentieth
century, Judezmo as a full-fledged language among the Jews in and
from Syria was probably a thing of the past.
4. Judezmo among the Jews of Syria before the late twentieth centu-
ry: Data from native speakers
4.1. Judezmo incipits heading the Hebrew poetry of Yisra’el Nadjara
If Judezmo is not used by Jews from Syria today, 16 and there is some
question as to the extent of its use among them during the past two cen-
turies, there can be no doubt that the language was spoken by some Se-
phardim in Syria long ago. Echoes of the Jewish Ibero-Romance which
the Jewish exiles from Iberia spoke in Ottoman Syria, perhaps for two
centuries or more—very possibly as their primary family and group lan-
guage—continue to resound in several first-hand written sources that
have come down to us from the Judezmo speakers of those times. One
such source is Zĕmirot Yiśra’el (Venice 1599 [Safed 1587]), a liturgical
poetry collection by Yisrael Nadjara, who was born into a family of
Jewish exiles from Spain in Damascus around 1555 and died in Gaza
around 1625. The collection was studied by Yahalom (1982), Seroussi
(e.g., 1990; Seroussi & Havassy, 2009, esp. 49-58), Tietze and Yahalom
(1995), and others; the collection contains incipits of songs and ballads
(romances) in Judezmo, although these are relatively few compared with
the incipits of popular songs in Turkish and Arabic, as well as a few in
Greek, which constituted part of the song repertoire known among the
Judezmo-speaking Sephardim of Nadjara’s time and place.17
————
16
In 2012 there were estimated to be no more than 16 Jews in Syria (Raphael
Ahren, The Times of Israel, 17 August 2012; https://www.timesofisrael.com/thank-
god-there-are-almost-no-jews-in-syria-now-says-the-woman-who-rescued-most-of-
them-judy-feld-carr [Accessed: 07/06/2018]). Most of the Jews who left Syria after
the founding of the State of Israel in 1948 immigrated to Israel, the United States
and Latin America.
17
Benjamin (1858: 46) noted that most of the hymns sung by the Jews of Alep-
po on the eve of the Sabbath were Nadjara’s compositions. Nadjara’s Aramaic
hymn, “Ya Ribbon ‘Alam,” has been sung in Judezmo-speaking congregations, in
71
Some of the Judezmo incipits cited by Nadjara demonstrate charac-

teristic features of Judezmo of that period and later, as opposed to Castil-
ian correspondents; for example, “Aǥora lo niegásh ['‫ ]נייגאש‬sinyora”
‘Now you deny it, lady,’ cf. contemporaneous Castilian Agora lo negáis,
señora, 18 Modern Castilian Ahora …; “Linda era i fermoza” ‘Handsome
was she and beautiful’ [f. 32a; cf. Seroussi & Havassy, 2009: 280], OS.
… fermosa (M.S. hermosa); “Un fijo [apparently misprinted as pojo or
podjo [‫‘ ]פוג'ו‬well,’ cf. S. pozo] tiene la kondesa” ‘The countess has a
son [“well”]’ [f. 45b; cf. Seroussi & Havassy, 2009: 377-378], OS. Un
fijo …, Mod.S. hijo; “Maḏre, un manseviko” ‘Mother, a young man’ [f.
76b; cf. Frenk Alatorre, 1987: 1074; Seroussi & Havassy, 2009: 284;
more usual S. mancebito/-illo]; “Al dereḏor al kaiḏe” ‘Around the com-
mander’ [f. 122b; cf. Seroussi & Havassy, 2009: 172] (S. Alrededor…; S.
alcaide < A. al-qā’id). Some of the incipits incorporate conservati-
ve/older forms typical of the period which were discontinued in the later
language, e.g., “Partístesh ['‫ ]פארטישטיש‬amiǥo” ‘You departed, friend’ [f.
15a, cf. Frenk Alatorre, 1987: 1076; Seroussi & Havassy, 2009: 322-
323; 19 Mod.S. partisteis; Mod.J. partítesh]; “Dulse suenyo avéḏesh
['‫‘ ”]אב'ידיש‬You have a sweet sleep/dream’ [f. 46b; cf. Seroussi & Ha-
vassy, 2009: 226] (OS. … avedes and variants, Mod.S. habéis; Mod.J.
avésh); “Ya se va el invierno i viene el verano” ‘Now the winter is going
and the summer is coming’ [f. 75b] (cf. later Judezmo enverano ‘sum-
mer’); 20 [“Vilyansete <‫ >ויליינשטי‬Enteremos kon los buenos anyos”
‘Villancete: Let us bury with the good years’ [f. 103a; cf. Seroussi &
Havassy, 2009: 243-244]. In his writings Nadjara identified with his city
of birth, Damascus, and sang its praises in Hebrew on f. 174a; he also
mentioned the city, as well as other cities in the region having Jewish
communities (e.g., Aleppo), in various notes throughout the book.
Aramaic and in Ladino translation, into the modern era (see for example Levy,
[1965?]: 71-73).
18
The phrase “Agora lo negáis, señora” appears in verse 2120 of La verdad
sospechosa: Comedia famosa, Parte segunda de las comedias del licenciado don
Juan Ruiz de Alarcón y Mendoza. Barcelona: Sebastián de Cormellas, 1634
[http://www.cervantesvirtual.com/obra-visor/la-verdad-sospechosa [Accessed:
07/06/2018]. In Seroussi and Havassy (2009: 140-141) the characteristic Judezmo
second-person plural '‫ש‬- (-sh) is reflected in the Romanization as s, corresponding
to Castilian, and this is also true of the other incipits cited here which show '‫ש‬-.
19
Both Frenk Alatorre and Seroussi Romanize the characteristic Judezmo '‫ש‬-
(-sh) in the verb form as -s, as in Castilian.
20
Seroussi and Havassy (2009: 401) cites later variants where verano is re-
placed by enverano, which is the universal form in Modern Judezmo.
72
4.2. Syrian Judezmo in a personal letter to a consul in Aleppo

In 1981 Bernard Lewis published a Hebrew-letter Judezmo manuscript
epistle which had been sent to the English consul in Aleppo, apparently
in the early seventeenth century. The letter includes a few elements of
Hebrew origin—‫( וחצי‬J. vahesi, H. wa-ḥeṣi) ‘and a half,’ ‫ היום‬ayom (ha-
yom) ‘today,’ ‫ חידוש‬ḥiddúsh 21 (ḥidduš) ‘news,’ ‫ ושלום‬veshalom (wĕ-
šalom) ‘and [with greetings of] peace’—which bring its language closer
in character to the so-called “corrupt” language, i.e., fusion Judezmo,
described by Valle for Constantinople, than the “flawless Castilian/Spa-
nish” portrayed by Valle and Toral for Aleppo. 22 It must be assumed
that the letter was translated for the consul by a Sephardi in Aleppo
familiar with this variety of language written in Hebrew letters. Lewis
suggested that the letter had been written in Izmir; but the spelling
‫( מאכ'אזאניש‬maxazanes) ‘storehouses’ (cf. A. maxzan, pl. maxāzin; S.
magacén), with the sound [x] transcribed by xaf + diacritic ('‫ )כ‬rather
than ḥet (‫—)ח‬the latter being the more usual trancription of [x] in
Judezmo writings from non-Arabic-speaking lands—hints at a region in
which Arabic was the predominant language, such as Aleppo or
Damascus.
4.3. Syrian Judezmo in rabbinical responsa collections
Another, if lesser known source exemplifying the use of Judezmo
among the Jews of Syria in the sixteenth through eighteenth centuries is
————
21
The transcription of the elements of Hebrew origin appearing in Judezmo
texts by Sephardim of Syria attempts to reflect their presumed realization at the
time the texts were written. See further discussion below in the section on the reali-
zation of Hebrew among the Sephardim of Syria.
22
The transcription of Judezmo from the Hebrew alphabet into romanization
used in the present article essentially conforms to that proposed by the Israel Na-
tional Authority for Ladino and Its Culture, with the following exceptions: a dalet
(‫ )ד‬which most likely denoted fricative [ð] is represented by ḏ; a dalet which repre-
sented occlusive [d] is denoted by d. Similarly, a gimal (‫ )ג‬which probably denoted
fricative [γ] is represented by ǥ; a gimal which represented occlusive [g] is denoted
by g. Note also the following correspondences between the special characters used
here and their International Phonetic Association correspondences: ch = [ʧ]; dj =
[ʤ]; h = [h] or phonological zero; (l)y = [ʎ] or [y]; q = [q], [k] or [ʔ]; r = [r̄ ] or [r]; ṣ
= [ṣ] or [s]; sh = [ʃ]; t (representing syllable-final taw) = [t], [ð] or [θ]; x = [χ]; j =
[ʒ]; ʕ = [ʕ]. In elements of Hispanic origin s is used to reflect the sound represented
in the texts by śin (‫ ;)ש‬c (before a front vowel: e, i) or ç (before a back vowel: a, o,
u) denotes the sound denoted by samex (‫)ס‬. Unless otherwise indicated by an acute
accent over a stressed vowel, stress is final in words ending in a consonant other
than -n or -s, and penultimate in words ending in a vowel or -n or -s.
73
the Ottoman Sephardic responsa literature. The responsa literature

documents rabbinical replies to pressing questions of Jewish law which
arose in Jewry’s diverse communities. Words and short texts illustrating
the use of Judezmo among the Sephardim of Syria appear in responsa
concerning several types of halakhic issues dealt with by local Sephardic
rabbis and by other rabbis in touch with Sephardim in Syria. The aim of
the remainder of this paper is to capture some of the echoes of Syrian
Judezmo resounding in this literature, and to suggest what linguistic
facts we can learn from it.
4.3.1. The ‘aguna or ‘straw widow’
One issue which the authors of responsa collections had to address all
too frequently was the establishment of the identity of a Jewish husband
who had left his native locale on business or for other reasons, never
returned, and was presumed to be dead. Without actual identification of
the missing man’s body, his wife remained an ‘aguna or straw widow
who could not remarry and therefore lacked economic and social
security. To determine the dead man’s identity, a reliable witness who
had seen his corpse and recognized it through its physical features, the
clothes adorning it, and so on had to supply minimal identifying details
such as the name of the deceased, his father’s name, his place of origin,
and preferably other distinguishing information such as his profession,
nickname, and so on.23 If the testimony was by a non-Jew, he had to
have been speaking mesiaḥ lĕ-fi tummo ‘in casual conversation.’
a. The death of Ya‘aqov Kohen
One such case was reported in question no. 44 in the responsa collection
of Rabbi Moshe Alshekh (b. Edirne, c. 1520, d. Safed, 1593), published
in Venice, 1605. In his preface to the responsum Alshekh stated that
relevant written and signed vernacular testimony by Yĕsha‘ya Gavezón,
recorded in Safed on Monday, 2 Elul 5322 [= 13 August 1562] had
reached him in Safed from Aleppo; it was reproduced in the responsum,
ostensibly verbatim, from Gavezón’s original document in Hebrew let-
ters.24 The responsum focused on a rumor about the death of Ya‘aqov
————
23
On the criteria required by the rabbis of the Ottoman Empire for the identifi-
cation of a Jewish husband’s corpse for the purpose of freeing his wife from ‘aguna
status, see Alshekh (1605, no. 44).
24
The question of whether oral depositions by witnesses in Ottoman rabbinical
courts were actually transcribed verbatim in rabbinical responsa, as claimed by the
authors, is considered in Bunis (forthcoming), a summary of which was delivered
by the author at Jewish Languages: Original Works and Translated Works: The
74
Kohen and a certain Jewish woman who had left Aleppo together in the
direction of Ḥama (in present-day Syria). The following is a romaniza-
tion of the Judezmo testimony: 25
La muerte de Yaʕaqov Kohén, Ha[shem] yinqom niqmató, fue deste moḏo:
ke el i una djuḏía salieron de Ḥáleb para la a. 26 [?] de Ḥamá i el mukirí los
(l)yevó por otro kamino para matarlos i vinieron otros laḏrones i mataron a
e(l)yos i a el mukirí. Esto disho un mukirí pariente de el mukirí ke mataron,
mesíaḥ lefí tummó, a Moshé [=Gavezón], mi fijo, yi[shmerehu]
Ṣ[uró]”ve[ǥoaló]. I en esto, baʕavonotenu, no ay safeq, ke tan bien a·este
moḏo oímos otro ʕedut. Veshalom meʔet hammezummán lemaʔamarexa,
Yeshaʕyá Gavezón [...] (Alshekh, 1605, no. 44) 27
[Translation: The death of Ya‘aqov Ha-Kohen, may God take revenge for
him, was in the following manner: that he and a Jewish woman left Aleppo
for the [fair?] of Ḥama and the muleteer brought them by a different road
[than usual] in order to kill them, and other thieves came and killed them and
the muleteer. So said a muleteer who was a relative of the muleteer whom
they killed, speaking in casual conversation, to Moshe [Gavezón], my son,
may his Rock and Savior protect him. And in this, unfortunately, there is no
doubt, because we also heard other testimony to this effect. And peace from
the man summoned to your responsum, Yĕša‘ya Gavezón[…]]
Yĕsha‘ya’s Judezmo testimony was followed by a Hebrew note signed
by Moshe Gavezón confirming what his father, Yĕša‘ya, had written.28
b. The death of Khalifa ben Mordĕxay
A strangely similar but apparently unrelated case was reported in volume
one, number 20, of the responsa of Rabbi Eliyyahu Ben Ḥayyim of Cons-
Fourth International Congress of the Center for Jewish Languages and Literatures,
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 21–24 June 2010, with additional issues
raised by the author in a lecture delivered at the International Workshop on Ladino
and Yiddish Rabbinic Writings, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 9-10 March 2016.
25
Many additional details regarding this case are supplied by Rabbi Yosef Karo
(or ‘Maran,’ b. Toledo 1488, d. Safed. 1575) in his responsa collection, Bet Yosef,
Laws concerning a non-Jew speaking in casual conversation, no. 11. There Karo
spells the surname of the witness ‫גאבישון‬, which during that period may be read
Gavesón or Gavezón. The case receives further discussion in the responsa collec-
tions of Moshe ben Yosef Mitrani (or ‘Mabbiṭ,’ b. Salonika, 1500, d. Safed, 1580),
vol. 1, no. 326; Mordĕkai Ha-Levy (Cairo, seventeenth century), ’Even ha-‘ezer,
no. 64; and Rĕfa’el Šĕlomo Laniado (Aleppo, 1710–1794), no. 10.
26
Perhaps a typographical error or abbreviation for feria (‫פ'ירייה‬, S. feria)
‘fair’ or ‘arḍ (‫ערד‬, A. ‘fair’)?
27
For the original Hebrew-letter text appearing in the responsum of Moshe
Alshekh see below, Appendix, Text 1.
28
For the Hebrew text by Moshe Gavezón as presented in the responsum see
below, Apendix, Text 2.
75
tantinople (b. Edirne 1530?, d. 1610?), published in Constantinople in

1610. The case concerned Khalifa, the son of Mordĕkhay and husband of
Ester, who Ben Ḥayyim described as a “šami mi-Guš ḥalav.” By this he
apparently meant a Jew from Damascus, or possibly Syria, from the ad-
ministrative region of Aleppo. 29 I will return to this terminology later on.
According to Ben Ḥayyim’s undated introductory note, Khalifa, pre-
sumably having left home on business, had inexplicably failed to return
to his wife and community. After Ester had been living in misery for
some time following Khalifa’s disappearance, three Jews in Constanti-
nople—two of them apparently from Syria, residing or engaged in busi-
ness at the time in the Ottoman capital—uncovered significant facts about
the incident and disclosed them to judges of the local rabbinical court.
The first of the three individuals to testify before the rabbinical
judges was Ya‘aqov, son of Yiṣḥaq Ha-Kohen, evidently from Syria and
a relative of the deceased. Appearing personally before the Constan-
tinople rabbinical court on Monday, 24 Adar II 5339 [=1 April 1579],
Ya‘aqov offered testimony relevant to the case “according to the laws of
witness testimony.” 30 Ben Ḥayyim wrote that Ya‘aqov testified bi-lšon
sĕfaradi (i.e., in the Spanish or Sephardic language), which was probably
Ya‘aqov’s mother tongue:
Saverésh/-s, sinyores, ke·a tienpo, ke estava yo kon un ḥaver mío en·la
ori(l)ya de·la mar en·el Iskutar lav[a]ndo una eskovi(l)ya, en·esto (l)yeǥóse
aí un katridjí morisko, i komo nos viḏo favlar en morisko nos demandó de
donde éramos i le dishimos ke de Damasko. Entonses meneó la kavesa i di-
sho, “Ǥuay de akel desdichaḏo ḥaleblí ke iva a Kará Isar, ke por se aḏelan-
tar de·la karavana para repozar el shabbat, fue mataḏo kon un katridjí i un
moso mío.” I le dishimos, “Ǥuay de·su ventura, adjabá konosíalo, kien poḏía
ser?” Díshonos, “No konosésh/-s a Xalifa, el yerno de Basán?” Demandi-
mos, “Komo supiste ke fueron mataḏos?” Disho, “Komo fuimos la karavana
aḏelante los vimos a toḏos tres mataḏos, i kojimos tiera i pieḏras i lo kuvri-
mos” (Ben Ḥayyim, 1610, no. 20)
[Translation: Know, sirs, that some time ago, when I was with an associate of
mine at the seashore in Üsküdar washing a brush, there arrived there an Arab
muleteer, and as he saw us speaking in Arabic he asked us where we were
————
29
It is difficult to explain Ben Ḥayyim’s phrase, since at the time of the incident
Aleppo and Damascus stood at the center of two separate Ottoman eyalets or ad-
ministrative provinces. Perhaps the reference is to the original Ottoman eyalet of
Şam, constituting all of Syria, established by Selim I in 1517.
30
For the Hebrew-letter transcription of Eliyyahu Ben Ḥayyim’s preface to the
responsum and Ya‘aqov ben Yiṣḥaq Ha-Kohen’s Judezmo testimony see the Ap-
pendix, Text 3.
76
from. And we told him that [we were] from Damascus. Then he shook his
head and said, “Woe to that unfortunate man from Aleppo who was going to
[Afyon]karahisar, because, in order to get ahead of the caravan to rest on the
Sabbath, he was killed with a muleteer and a servant of mine.” And we said
to him, “Woe to his fate. I wonder if I knew him. Who could he be?” He said
to us, “Don’t you know Khalifa, the son-in-law of Bassán?” We asked, “How
did you learn that they were killed?” He said, “When we advanced with the
caravan we saw all three of them, killed, and we gathered some earth and
stones and covered them”]
On 4 Nisan 5339 [=10 April 1579] the second witness—Yokheved

[Bassán], the mother of Ester, who was also in Constantinople at the
time—appeared before Rabbi Eliyyahu’s court and corroborated
Ya‘aqov’s testimony. She was also described as having testified bi-lšon
sĕfaradi, as follows: 31
No pensésh/-s, sinyores, ke por ser yo maḏre, diǥa mentira, ḥa[s]
ve[shalom], ke yo diré toḏo lo·ke en·esto se. Los días p[a]saḏos fui yo al
Iskutar kon un mi sovrino por un mi m[a]ṣl[a]ḥat i, aviendo kaminaḏo mu-
cho por a(l)yí, me arimí en una butika frente del karvasará por repozar, ke
estava en taʕanit. I·en·la puerta del karvasará estavan siertos katridjís mo-
ros, i komo vieron a·mi sovrino uno de(l)yos enpesó a·maldezirlo i disho
a·los otros, “Por kavza/-wza de akel pero djuḏió, ke me dio un su pariente ke
lo (l)yevase a Kará Isar, akel pero, por ǥuardar su shabbat, lo mataron a él i
a un mi primo i a un mi moso. Mal mundo tenga.” Yo, kuando oí dezir esto,
al katridjí ǥrití, i dishe al katridjí en ʕarabí, “Kien es ese djuḏió ke mata-
ron?” Me respondió el katridjí, “Ese pero ke está aí. No lo konosí, ke el
me·lo trusho.” Yo le torní a·dezir, “Dímelo, por tu vida, kien es ese djuḏió?”
Respondió el katridjí i disho, “Eres tu de Ḥáleb?” 32 Díshele, “Yo si.”
Díshome, “Pues no konoses a Xalifa, hijo de Mordexay?” Díshele, “Yo sí lo
konosko.” Díshome, “Pues ese es el ke mataron.” Estonses le demandó mi
sovrino, “Komo savésh ke lo mataron, ke yo se ke está bivo?” Respondió el
katridjí i le disho, “Ho, chupek, si yo le viḏe a el i el katridjí i a mi moso
toḏos tres mataḏos, komo dizez tu ke está bivo?” Esto es por la kuenta ke
e·de dar al Dio lo·ke en·esto se. I también Moshé Munyón, ke está akí, favló
el kon un ʕarabiaḏo, kon·el mesmo este katridjí (Ben Ḥayyim, 1610, no. 20)
[Translation: Don’t think, sirs, that because I am the mother [of the straw
widow] that I might lie, Heaven forbid; because I am going to say everything
I know about this. [One of] the past days I went to Üsküdar with my nephew
on a matter of business and, having walked a lot there, I leaned on a shop op-
posite the caravan inn to rest, because I was fasting. And in the door of the
inn there were a few Arab muleteers. And when they saw my nephew one of
————
31
For the preface and Hebrew-letter transcription of Yokheved’s testimony see
the Appendix, Text 4.
32
Or Ḥálab.
77
them began to curse him and said to the others, “Because of that Jew dog
who gave me one of his relatives to bring to [Afyon]karahisar, that dog, [left
the caravan] to keep his Sabbath, they killed him and a cousin of mine and a
servant of mine. May he have a bad world.” I, when I heard this said, shouted
to the muleteer and said to the muleteer in Arabic, “Who is that Jew whom
they killed?” The muleteer answered me, “That dog that’s over there. I didn’t
know him, because he brought me him.” I said again to him, “Tell me, on
your life, who is that Jew?” The muleteer replied and said, “Are you from
Aleppo?” I said to him, “I am.” He said to me, “Then don’t you know Kha-
lifa, the son of Mordĕkhai?” I said to him, “I do know him.” He said to me,
“Well that’s who they killed.” Then my nephew asked him, “How do you
know they killed him, because I know that he’s alive.” The muleteer answered
and said, “Ho, dog, if I saw him and the muleteer and my servant, all three
dead, how do you say that he’s alive?” This is the account that I have to give
to God, what I know about this. And also Moshe Munyón, who is here,
spoke, with an Arabicized [Jew], 33 with this same muleteer]
The following day, Wednesday, 5 Nisan 5339 [=11 April 1579], the
third witness—Moshe Munyón, apparently a local Constantinople Se-
phardi in touch with the affected family—gave his own testimony bi-
lšon Sĕfaradi, which was reported to have been as follows: 34
Saverésh/-s, sinyores, ke a muchos días, ke andando yo akí en·Estanbol kon
un djudió ʕarabiaḏo, fui por una ka(l)ye i estava un katridjí paraḏo en una
ventana. Favló el djuḏió ʕarabiaḏo kon akel katridjí en morisko un buen
peḏaso. I estonses el ʕarabiaḏo me disho a·mi, “No savésh/-s, ri[bí] Moshé,
ke este katridjí me disho ke mataron a Xalifa, el yerno del Basán.” Entonses
yo dishe en turkesko al katridjí, “Komo saves tu ke lo mataron?” Respon-
dióme el katridjí en turkesko, “Yo lo viḏe kon mis ojos.” Estonses el katridjí
se torvó i disho, “Muchas preǥuntas me hazez. Mieḏo me e ke me·keres hazer
traición i ponerme en poḏer de·la djustisia. No me demandes mas” (Ben
Ḥayyim, 1610, no. 20).
[Translation: Know, sirs, that many days ago, when I was walking here in Is-
tanbul with an Arabicized Jew, I went on a certain street and there was a mu-
leteer looking out a window. The Arabicized Jew spoke with that muleteer in
Arabic for a good while. And then the Arabicized [Jew] said to me, “Don’t
you know, Ribbi Moshe, that this muleteer told me that they killed Khalifa,
the son-in-law of Bassán?” Then I said to the muleteer in Turkish, “How do
you know that they killed him?” The muleteer answered me in Turkish, “I
saw it with my own eyes.” Then the muleteer became upset and said,
“You’re asking me a lot of questions. I’m afraid that you want to betray me
and turn me over to the authorities. Don’t ask me anything else”]
————
33
That is, a Jew whose family was indigenous to Syria and whose native lan-
guage was Jewish Arabic.
34
For the preface to Munyón’s testimony and the Hebrew-letter transcription of
his remarks appearing in Ben Ḥayyim’s responsum see the Appendix, Text 5.
78
The complexity of the linguistic space occupied by the Jews of the Ot-
toman Empire, and of those of Syria in particular, as portrayed in this
responsum, is further illustrated in responsa collections by other Sephar-
dic rabbis in Syria. One of particular interest in this respect is Sefer
nivḥar mi-kesef (Aleppo [1869]), by Rabbi Yošiyyahu Pinto (Damascus,
1565–1648), a grandson of Ya‘aqov Be Rav, who was appointed chief
rabbi of Aleppo and Damascus in 1620. In Pinto’s responsum no. 58,
section ’Even ha-‘ezer, we find testimony furnished in Judeo-Arabic
(below in bold) by Nissim Birwani which seems to relate to the disap-
pearance of the above-mentioned ‘Khalifa bĕkhar Mordĕkhay’:
‫ קדמנא ב"ד דח"ל אסהיד נסים בירואני אחר האיום והגזום להגיד‬.‫שאלה על מעשה בית דין‬
‫האמת והעיד כי באותם הימים שנפקד מדמשק כליפה הכהן ונמצא בכפר אחד והיה עוסק‬
‫במלאכתו ואמר לו גוי אחד ולחבירו העומד עמו אתם יהודים או נוצרים ואמרו לו עברים אנחנו‬
‫אמר להם הל יהודי אלי קותל איש יכון לכום אמרו לגוי אישו הל יהודי אמר להם האדה אל‬
‫יהודי אל סכאפי אל אשקראני באייע פי אל צ'ייע אמרו לו מאין אתה יודעו והשיב להם‬
‫אותו שהיה רצען פי טאלע קובה אחרי אל בואבה מסכין כאן מעו חמארתין וקתלו תחת אל‬
‫ג'וזי קבל אל לוזי ענד תורבת אל יהוד וטמרו פי אל בסתאן וג'ו אל יהוד מן מדינה ופתשו‬
‫עליה ומא לקוה וכאן תחת רג'ליהם ומא דרו פיה ואל חמארתין אל ואחיד ראח צוב אל‬
‫צ'יעה ואל אכ'ר ג'א צוב אל מדינה והעיד נסים שכן היה כדבריו שהחמור האחד בא מאליו‬
‫אל ביתו של כליפה כהן ההרוג ולראיה חתמנו מה ששמענו פלוני פלוני פלוני יורנו מו"ר כיצד‬
.‫דינא דהאי איתתא ושכמ"ה‬
In this responsum, Khalifa’s surname is cited as Ha-Kohen, identical
with that of one of the witnesses cited above, who was perhaps
Khalifa’s first cousin, the son of his mother’s brother. This text, and
other Jewish Arabic passages which Yošiyyahu Pinto discussed in his
responsa collection (e.g., 1869, nos. 26, 53, 57-59), demonstrate that he
was familiar with (Jewish) Arabic. In the writings of Syrian rabbis in
general, the terms la‘az and ‘arabi constituted linguistic complements,
the one designating the Jewish Ibero-Romance of the descendants of
Iberian Jews, the other, the Jewish Arabic of the indigenous
Musta‘rabim, 35 or ‘Arabicized Jews,’ as well as non-Jewish Arabic.
4.3.2. Dubious statements of betrothal in the vernacular

The responsa of Yošiyyahu Pinto also resonate with sounds of the Ju-
dezmo used in Aleppo and Damascus during the sixteenth through seven-
teenth centuries. Two such responsa relate to a second legal issue often
discussed by the Ottoman rabbis: whether or not an apparent act of be-
————
35
See for example the responsa of Yiṣḥaq Abu’lafia of Damascus [1830–1910]
(1871–1903: I: f. 14a); Yosef ben Mordĕxay Yadid [1866–1930] of Aleppo and
Jerusalem (1929: f. 37b).
79
trothal (qiddušin) was binding when Jewish men witnessed a man pass
some object to an unmarried woman, or to her father, and state that the
object was given for the sake of the betrothal of that woman, and the
woman or her father gave some sign of acquiescence. If such an act was
valid, then if it was later deemed undesirable—for example, by the
parents of those apparently betrothed—a divorce would technically be
required to nullify it. One such case (Pinto [1869], ’Even ha-‘ezer, no.
32) involved guests gathered for a Sabbath feast at the home of Ya‘ăqov
Mĕnashe. A guest, Moshe Mididi <‫>מידידי‬, was pouring wine for the
others, and when he passed a cup to David Barbaṣán he said to him: Esto
es qiddushín por tu hija36 ‘This is for the consecration of your daughter.’
35F
David drank the wine. His mother immediately reprimanded David, who
had two daughters, for what she called a ‘bad deed’ (Hb. ma‘ăśe ra‘),
and he at once let the glass drop to the floor. Rabbi Pinto was asked
whether the betrothal was binding. The words of apparent betrothal sug-
gest that Judezmo was the language used at the feast. Yošiyyahu Pinto
demonstrated his knowledge of Judezmo by stating that the vague
phrasing of Mididi’s statement, which Pinto quoted twice in his ruling in
Hebrew, was one of the reasons why Mididi’s statement was not legally
binding: in it Mididi had not mentioned himself as the one making the
consecration, nor which of the two daughters he meant to betroth.
Another problematic phrasing of a consecration act, apparently per-
formed in jest, was discussed by Rabbi Pinto in number 33 ([1869], sec.
’Even ha-‘ezer) of his responsa. In his ruling Pinto made reference to a
statement of consecration appearing in the responsa of the sixteenth-
century Ottoman Sephardic rabbi, Yosef Ibn (or Ben) Lev (or ‘Mahari-
val,’ 1505–1580), (1561, vol. 2, no. 7: Esto[s] te do por qiddushim/-ín
‘This/These I give you for consecration’),37 again demonstrating his ac-
quaintance with the language of the statement.
A similar question was considered by Yosef Karo (or ‘Maran,’ b. To-
ledo 1488, d. Safed 1575) in his responsa collection Bet Yosef (1550–
1559, Dine qiddušin, no. 4). Karo reported that members of the Aleppo
community were divided in their reaction to the apparent statement of
betrothal made by a member of the community to one of its maidens
before witnesses. Some testified (in the same responsum) that they
heard the man make the general statement: “Toma estos dos shahís por
qiddushín” ‘Take these two Persian shahis for betrothal,’ saw him give
————
36
The Hebrew-letter text reads: "‫איסטו איס קידושין פור טו היג'א‬."
37
The Hebrew-letter text reads: ‫[ אישטוש טי דו פור‬...] ‫"אישטו טי דו פור קידושים‬
"‫[ קידושין‬...] ‫קדושים‬.
80
the girl the two Persian coins, and saw her take them and walk away.
Others said they heard him say more specifically “Yo te do estos dos
shahís por qiddushín” ‘I give you these two shahis for betrothal.’38 Rab-
bi Karo was asked whether, on the basis of the statements, a certificate
of divorce was needed in order to nullify the ostensible act of betrothal.
4.3.3. Conditional certificates of divorce in the vernacular

In another responsum, Yošiyyahu Pinto discussed the formulas used in
conditional certificates of divorce prepared by husbands who had to
travel on business. The certificates stipulated that the traveler would be
considered divorced from his wife if he did not return home within a
specified number of years, thus preventing her from becoming an
‘aguna if he failed to return. Pinto cited both the Judezmo (or as he
called it, la‘az) and Judeo-Arabic (bi-lšon ‘aravi [in the Arabic lan-
guage]) formulations of conditional divorce appearing in part one
(1586), no. 83 in the responsa of Rabbi David ben Zimra (or ‘Radbaz,’
b. Spain 1479, d. Safed 1573): (J.) “Por dos anyos kon kondición ke es-
pere dos anyos” ‘For two years on condition that she wait two years,’39
(A.) ‫“ בשרט‬bišarṭ” (on condition).
4.3.4. Commercial matters

Short Judezmo phrases concerning commercial transactions between
Sephardim in Aleppo and those in Erets Yisrael appear in the responsa
literature as well. For example, question no. 170 in the new responsa of
Yom Ṭov Ṣahalon (or ‘Mahariṭaṣ,’ Safed, 1559–c. 1620) contains the
following phrase from a communication between Sephardic business
associates, one of whom visited Aleppo, in which one associate made it
clear to the other that he nullified former agreements, since he claimed
they had no foundation: “A Peloní ke me paǥe, ke tanto el konsierto ke
fizo en Sefat ti[kkonén] veti[bbané] bi[m(h)erá]”be[yamenu] komo lo ke
fizimos akí, toḏo no vale ke era sovre ke no tenía” ‘To So-and-So that he
pay me, because both the agreement that he made in Safed, may it be re-
built and re-established speedily in our days, and what we did [i.e.,
————
38
The Hebrew-letter texts read: ‫ ייו טי‬...‫"טומא אישטוש דוש ששאהיש ]![ פור קידושין‬
"‫דו אישטוש שאהיש פור קידושין‬.
39
Ben Zimra’s statement contained a disjunctive absent in Pinto’s adaptation:
"‫“ "פור דוש אניוש או קון קונדיסיון קי אישפירי דוש אניוש‬Por dos anyos, o kon kondición ke
espere dos anyos” ‘For two years, or on condition that she wait two years’ [empha-
sis mine]). https://www.responsa.co.il/default.aspx [Accessed: 17/06/2018].
81
agreed upon] here, all of it is invalid because all of it was on what he did
not have’ (Ṣahalon, 1980, no. 170). 40
Another of Pinto’s responsa ([1869], no. 89) dealt with a Jew who
wanted to move to Erets Yisrael and requested of his brothers that they
sell his stock of merchandise to provide him with the necessary funds.
They did so, and suggested sending him the money when they received
it; but he preferred that they put it to use instead. They replied that Jewish
law would forbid lending it to a Jew on interest, and if they used it as a
mortgage for a Muslim there was the danger that the Muslim authorities
would later prevent him from reclaiming the money. “Therefore, our
brother,” they were reported as saying in Pinto’s Hebrew text, “if we
receive the cash, then, and these are their words in the La‘az language,
Komo se kovraren se verá o alǥún esmerço o alǥún kambio [“kam-
buyo”] ke se fará en e(l)yo komo koza propia [“porpaya”] i el She[m]
yit[barax] ponga su beraxá amén” (How it will be collected will [remain
to] be seen, either some purchase or some transaction will be made with it
as a thing of its own and may the Name Blessed Be He give his blessing,
amen). 41 In his ruling Pinto cited parts of the text, demonstrating that,
whether or not it originated among Syrian Sephardim (something which
is impossible to determine, given the hypothetical phrasing of the ques-
tion), he was able to understand it and use it as a basis for his decision. 42
4.3.5. Games and gambling

In his reply to a query, in light of communal ordinances enacted in 1664
and 1710 regarding the permissibility of gambling games played in
various settings, Rĕfa’el Shĕlomo Laniado (1710–1794) of Aleppo
mentioned expressions connected with such games (‫ פאלה קורבא‬pala
korva, ‫ טרוקיס‬trokes ‘exchanges,’ menos de ocho kartas ‘fewer than
eight cards,’ daḏos sinko ‘five hits’); he also mentioned the kavanés
‘coffeehouses’ in which they were played (cf. T. kahvehane [<A. qahwa
+ P. xāne] + J./S. pl. -s) (Laniado, 1982, Yore de‘a, no. 3). But he was
apparently not proficient in Judezmo; when quoting the phrase “dando
————
40
The Hebrew-letter text reads: ‫"אה פלוני קי מי פאגי קי טאנטו איל קונשיירטו קי פיזו אין‬
"‫צפת תוב"ב קומו לו קי פיזימוש אקי טודו נו וואלי קי אירא שוברי קי נו טיניאה‬.
41
The Hebrew-letter text reads: ‫"לכן אחינו אם נקבל המעות נראה וז]ה["ל]שונם[ בלשון‬
‫לעז קומו שי קוברארין שי וירה או ﭏגון אישמירסו או ﭏגון קאמבוייו ]![ קי שי פארה אין איליו קומו‬
"‫קוזה פורפאייא ]![ אי ﭏ ש]ם["ית]ברך[ פונגא שו ברכה אמן‬.
42
In Pinto’s citation of the Judezmo phrase, ‫ פורפאייה‬was altered to ‫( פרופייה‬pro-
pia), as expected in Judezmo (cf. S. propia); ‫( אישמירסו‬with śin) was changed to
‫איסמירסו‬, implying that there was no differentiation in their pronunciation (cf. C.
esmersar); and ‫ קאמבוייו‬was corrected to ‫( קאמביו‬cf. S. cambio).
82
por lícito en kazas” ‘making it permitted in houses,’ apparently from the

response of Šĕmu’el de Medina of sixteenth-century Salonika, Laniado
had to admit that the meaning of the phrase was explained to him by
“ha-baqi bi-lšon la‘az” ‘someone proficient in the La‘az language’
(Laniado, 1982, Yore de‘a, no. 4). 43
5. Jewish multilingualism and ethnicity in the sixteenth-century Ot-

toman Empire
The Judezmo depositions of Yĕsha‘ya Gavezón, Ya‘aqov Ha-Kohen and
Yokheved [Bassán] noted above, which, as was noted above, are directly
referred to by Moshe Alshekh (1605) and Eliyyahu Ben Ḥayyim (1610)
in the Hebrew-language decisions (tĕšuvot) regarding the cases they
deliberated upon, 44 as well as the other Judezmo material appearing in
the responsa of Sephardic rabbis from Syria, or of those who wrote
about Jews in Syria, offer a rare glimpse of the Judezmo spoken by
Sephardim in late sixteenth-century Ottoman Syria. The Judezmo
passages in the responsa of Alshekh and Ben Ḥayyim also give us an
idea of the linguistic space, multilingualism, and ethnic-related
terminology of the Sephardim in the Ottoman Empire during that
century. It is evident from these and other responsa of the time that the
in-group language of the Ottoman Sephardim was Judezmo, which
enabled communication among the Sephardim throughout the empire.
By at least the second half of the sixteenth century, and probably earlier,
there were Sephardim—both men and women—who could also interact
with the local non-Jews in the predominant language of the region: in a
form of Arabic, in areas having an Arab majority such as Syria; in
Turkish, in Constantinople and most other areas of the empire having a
substantial Turkish-speaking population; as well as in other languages,
such as varieties of South Slavic and Greek, as documented in other
response (see for example Bunis, 2017 for references to the use of
Bulgarian and Bosnian during this period). In lands with an Arabic-
speaking majority, such as Syria and Lebanon, Arabic (or Jewish
————
43
The Hebrew-letter text reads: "‫דאנדו פור ליסיטו אין קאסאש‬."
44
Ben Ḥayyim (1610, no. 20) made it clear in his Hebrew response that, in his
legal deliberations, he had taken into consideration the testimony uttered in Judez-
mo: he cited the phrase “Ǥuay de akel djuḏió desdichaḏo” [see testimony above]
once; he quoted the abbreviated phrase “Ǥuay de akel djuḏió,” as well as “Xalifa,
yerno de Basán,” several times; and he repeated the words katridjí and karavana
(the latter, variously spelled ‫קאראבאנה‬/‫קאראבנה‬/‫)קראבנה‬. Ben Ḥayyim even slightly
rephrased one of the witnesses’ statements, noting that: “Este katridjí disho [not me
disho] ke mataron a Xalifa, yerno de [not del] Basán”—perhaps a regional variant.
83
Arabic) was also the language of communication between Sephardim

and Musta‘rabim, or Judeo-Arabic-speaking Jews.
In the rabbinical court procedure brought to life in the depositions of
Ben Ḥayyim’s witnesses, the establishment of language-related facts
was important because it immediately clarified for the judges the lin-
guistic skills, and possible handicaps, of the parties involved. For exam-
ple, all three Jews who testified personally in his rabbinical court in
Constantinople were fluent in Judezmo; but for contact with non-Jews,
the two from Aleppo seem to have been limited to Arabic, while the lo-
cal Sephardi could speak Turkish, but did not understand Arabic. From
the testimony of Ya‘aqov Ha-Kohen we understand that, when the Arab
muleteer arrived on the scene at the Üsküdar shore, Ya‘aqov had been
speaking with a friend or associate in Arabic. Ya‘aqov did not mention
whether the friend was a djuḏió ʕarabiaḏo ‘Arabicized Jew.’ Perhaps he
was a fellow Sephardi from Syria, and the two men of their generation
were simply accustomed to speaking with one another in Arabic, the
predominant language of the Ottoman province of Syria, rather than in
Judezmo. The ‘Arabicized Jew’ later mentioned by Yokheved could
communicate with her, and also with the Muslim muleteer, in Arabic,
but apparently could not use Judezmo with the Sephardim. Nor could
the Muslim muleteer, whose preferred language was evidently Arabic;
but who could also converse in Turkish. By delineating this linguistic
roadmap for the judges, the witnesses made the circumstances of their
original contact with the muleteer clear to the judges, and added credi-
bility to their testimony.
As the passages of testimony suggest, language, ethnicity, religion
and religious rite and custom, and geographic provenance were major
parameters used by the Ottoman Sephardim in classifying Jews as well
as non-Jews in the Ottoman Empire. In the sixteenth century, the Otto-
man Sephardim used the Judezmo term (djuḏió) (ʕ)arabiaḏo, as well as
its Hebrew equivalent, yĕhudi ʕaravi, 45 and Judeo-Arabic mustaʕrabi
(cf. A. ‘Arabicized’), to denote an ‘Arabicized Jew’ whose in-group lan-
guage was Judeo-Arabic, as distinct from themselves, whom they desig-
nated as sĕfaradim. 46 In the Hebrew passages in their responsa, the Se-
————
45
For example, "‫‘ "והיהודי הערבי אמר לו למשה מוניון עדות הקטריג'י‬And the Arabicized
Jew told Moshe Munyón the testimony of the muleteer’ (Ben Ḥayyim, 1610, no. 20).
46
For example, the opposition between sĕfaradim (‫‘ )ספרדים‬Jews of Iberian
origin’ and mustaʕrabim (‫‘ )מסתערבים‬Arabicized Jews,’ with respect to prayer rite,
pronunciation of Hebrew, religious custom and so on is employed in the responsa
of Sephardic rabbi Yoshiyyahu ben Yosef Pinto of Damascus (1565–1648), e.g.,
84
phardic rabbis of Syria generally referred to their spoken language by

names such as lĕšon sĕfaradi ‘Sephardic (or Spanish) language,’ as in
the responsum cited above, and la‘az ‘(Jewish) Romance.’47 In the Ju-
dezmo of Arabic speech regions in the sixteenth-century, an Arabic-
speaking Arab was called a moro (as in Spanish of the period) or moris-
ko, 48 and the latter term was also used to denote their language, as was
Arabic-origin ʕarabí (‫)ערבי‬, also used in Turkish; while Muslim Turks
were known as Hispanic-origin turkos or Hebrew-origin toǥar(m)im,49 48F
and their language was referred to as Hispanic-origin turkesko. 50 In 49F
places such as Constantinople and Salonika, where the Arab presence

was minor, turko was sometimes used to denote Arabs as well as Turks,
because of their shared Muslim (or “Turkish”) religion.
In Jewish law, the city of origin or residence of a missing Jew, espe-
cially a married male, was a key ingredient in establishing his identity,
and the presiding judge in the case of the aforementioned Khalifa did not
fail to mention his geographical provenance. As was noted, in Ben Ḥay-
yim’s Hebrew preface to the responsum, Khalifa was called a šami mi-
Guš ḥalav/-b. The first term is of Arabic origin (cf. A. Šāmī ‘Damascan’
< aš-Šām ‘Damascus’), and a derivative of it was also used in Ottoman
Turkish (Şami < Şam), as in Judezmo in Syria (šami) 51—although in the
‫"ציבור בעיר אחת נהגו מימי קדם להתפלל כסדר הספרדים בקהלם ולא נודע ונשמע להם סדר תפלה‬
‫זולת הסדר הנז]כר[' וגם כי באו אנשי]ם[' מסתערבים בעיר ההיא נהגו גם הם להתפלל עם הציבור‬
"‫( כמנהגם הקדום בלשון ומנהג ספרדים‬Pinto, [1869], ’Oraḥ ḥayyim, no. 1).
47
For example, the chickpea bandaged to the back of a man’s neck as a remedy
against a sore was described in the following way in the responsa of Yoshiyyahu
Pinto: ‫"ואחרי צוארו בערפו היה לו אפון אחד קשור שם דהיינו חומצה בלשון ערבי כאי שקרוי בלשון‬
"‫לעז גארבאנסו‬. ‘And at the back of his neck he had a chickpea tied on, namely, a
ḥumṣa [cf. A. ḥummuṣ] in the Arabic language, such as that called in the La‘az lan-
guage garvanso [cf. S. garvanzo]’ (Pinto, [1869],’Even ha-‘ezer, no. 63).
48
In Spanish, morisco (literally, Moorish) often denotes an Iberian Arab who
converted to Christianity rather than leaving Spain with the expulsion of practicing
Muslims in 1502.
49
The use among Ottoman Sephardim of m.sg. toǥar (‫‘ )תוגר‬Muslim Turk’—a
back-formation of the Biblical anthroponym Togarma (‫תוגרמה‬, Genesis 10:3),
apparently deriving from the name of a kingdom in Anatolia—is illustrated in the
responsa of Yošiyyahu Pinto (e.g., Pinto, [1869], ’Even ha-‘ezer, nos. 49-50,
102); cf. also m.pl. toǥarmim, f.pl. toǥarmot in the responsa of Syrian Sephardic
rabbi Ḥayyim Mordĕkhay ben Ḥalfon Labaton (b. Aleppo 1780, d. 1869), 1868,
’Even ha-‘ezer, no. 14.
50
Muslims were also referred to as goyim (‫)גוים‬, e.g., Pinto, [1869], ’Even ha-
‘ezer, nos. 48-50.
51
In other regions, a male from Damascus was generally known in Judezmo as
a shamlí, using the suffix -lí, from Turkish -lı (cf. T. Şamlı). For example, ‫"ראיתי‬
85
Judezmo testimony of Ya‘aqov Ha-Kohen, Damascus is called by its

Hispanic-origin name, Damasko, probably because Damascus was more
well-known to residents of Spain before the expulsion than Aleppo, and
the former city continued to receive its Hispanic name in sixteenth-
century Judezmo. 52
The second term, Guš ḥalav, is found in the Mishnah (‘Araxin, 9:10),
where the original reference was apparently to a Jewish town of the
Second Temple period. Our text, however, suggests that the toponym
was used by the Sephardim of sixteenth-century Syria to denote Aleppo,
perhaps due to the phonological similarity between Arabic Ḥalab and
Hebrew ḥalav. In Ya‘aqov Ha-Kohen’s Judezmo reconstruction of the
Arab muleteer’s statement, Aleppo is denoted by its Arabic-origin name,
unvocalized in the text: ‫חלב‬, which could have represented Ḥálab or
Ḥáleb; presumably this was the form of the name used by the Sephardim
of Syria and other Arabic speech regions. 53 In other areas, the form
Xalep, reflecting the Turkish derivative Halep, was used. 54 In Hebrew
works by Syrian Sephardic rabbis, Aleppo is often referred to by the
Biblical toponym ‫ה‬-/‫’( )ארם( צובא‬Aram) Ṣova (cf. I Samuel 14:47, II
Samuel 10:6), or its abbreviation, ‫אר"ץ‬. In the Judezmo reconstruction of
the Muslim muleteer’s testimony, the victim is called a ḥaleblí, using a
reflex of the Turkish derivative of the Arabic toponym, Halebli/-pli,
constructed with the Turkish suffix -lı. 55 According to Rabbi Moshe Ga-
54 F
"‫ הא]חד[' היה שאמלי א]חד[' זקן‬,‫השני יהודים‬. ‘I saw the two Jews, one was an elderly
Damascan’ (Yosef ben Moshe Mitrani [or ‘Mahariṭ,’ b. Safed 1568, d. Constanti-
nople 1639], 1645, vol. two, ’Even ha-‘ezer, no. 34).
52
Nevertheless, in Hebrew rabbinical works by Syrian Sephardic rabbis Da-
mascus is often referred to by its Hebrew name, ‫( דמשק‬Dammeśeq; cf. Genesis 14:
15), e.g., Pinto, [1869], ’Even ha-‘ezer, no. 58.
53
For example, ‫( חל"ב‬Ḥálab/-eb) appears in Karo (1791, no. 146).
54
For example, ‫( חליף‬Xalep) appears in Medina, 1594–1597, Ḥošen mišpaṭ, no.
219; Galante (1809, no. 11); Alshekh (1605, no. 105); Mĕlammed (of Morea)
(1799), no. 35, from Lepanto (1620).
55
In Hebrew passages in the works of Syrian Sephardic rabbis, the Ara-
bic/Ottoman form ‫( חליבי‬ḥalabi/-ebi/-ibi; cf. T. Halebî < A. ḥalabī) is often used to
denote a native or resident of Aleppo, e.g., Pinto, ([1869], ’Even ha-‘ezer, no. 63).
The word xalebí/-ibí is documented in other varieties of Judezmo as well, in the
following senses:
m. noun (1) ‘native of or to Aleppo; (2) (fig.) a person of very short stature (a
characteristic common to many natives of Aleppo), a dwarf; a person whom one
hardly takes into account, for whom one has no consideration ’ (Nehama, 1977:
249); (3) ‘measure of length or weight (as opposed, for example, to the shami, or
86
lante (d. Safed 1608), greater Ottoman Syria and its environs was known
among the Jews as ‘Arabistán (cf. T. Arabistan < A. ‘arab + P. -istan).56
6. Structural features of Judezmo in Ottoman Syria as reflected in

the responsa
Taken together, the small Judezmo linguistic corpus forming part of the
responsa of the Sephardic rabbis in Syria, and Sephardic rabbis else-
where with whom those rabbis were in contact or whose responsa they
cited, enable us to form an impression of some of the linguistic features
of Judezmo as used among the Sephardim of Ottoman Syria. 57 Generally
speaking it may be said that the language reflected in this corpus bears a
basic resemblance to Spanish as documented in literary texts of the peri-
od. Nevertheless, at several linguistic levels, the language of the corpus
reveals some distinctive features. When compared with the two major
varieties of Ottoman Judezmo most heavily documented in the sixteenth
through twentieth centuries—those of Salonika and Constantinople—the
language of the corpus representing the language of the Sephardim in
pre-modern Syria resembles that which would come to be used in Salo-
nika somewhat more than that of Constantinople.58
6.1. Romance component

6.1.1. Sound system
At the level of phonology this resemblance is manifested primarily in
the following features, both of which are also documented as variants
in Spanish in the same period:
(1) As in texts from sixteenth-century Salonika, Latin word-initial f-
is reflected mainly as f- (e.g., ‫ פאבלאר‬favlar ‘to speak,’ ‫ פאבלו‬favló
‘spoke’ [two instances]) or h- (e.g., ‫ היג'ו‬hijo ‘son,’ ‫ האזיז‬hazez ‘[2sg.]
you do,’ ‫ האזיר‬hazer ‘to do’). It must be noted, however, that Judezmo
measure used in Damascus),’ e.g., '‫"שיעור ארבעים סאה קל"ח משקלות חאליב"יש וח‬
"‫( אונקיו]ת[' שהם קס"ו משקלות שאמ"יש‬Karo, 1791, no. 52).
f. noun (3) ‘women’s hairdo (in a knot or bun; cf. Danon, 1903: 94); women’s
headgear in the shape of a ball (similar to the Turkish hotoz), characteristic of Alep-
po and worn by Sephardic women in Istanbul, Bursa and Jerusalem until the mid-
nineteenth century (Kohen & Kohen-Gordon, 2000: 399; for an illustration of a
Jewish woman from Aleppo in traditional costume see Rubens, 1967: 45).’
56
"‫‘ "ובלשון לעז ערבישטן‬in La‘az [or Judezmo], ‘Arabistán’ (Galante, 1809, no. 55).
57
See also the notes above on characteristic Judezmo features in the incipits
preceding the poetry of Yisra’el Nadjara, and the personal letter to Aleppo.
58
For a detailed study of regional variation in Judezmo see Quintana (2006).
87
texts from sixteenth-century Constantinople also reveal many instances

of the f- and h- reflections of medieval f-. Those with h- were to fall into
disuse later on, both in Salonika and Constantinople; but they would be
preserved into the modern era in Salonika, while they would be reflected
in Constantinople as phonological zero (avlar, ijo). 59
(2) In the testimony of both of Eliyyahu Ben Ḥayyim’s witnesses
from Syria in Constantinople, ‫ קיין‬kien is used for ‘who,’ as in the dia-
lect of Salonika and as in standard contemporary Spanish. On the other
hand, the Constantinopolitan Moshe Munyón’s testimony contains the
verb form ‫ קיריש‬keres ‘you (2sg.) want,’ as in the dialect of later-day
Istanbul, corresponding to kieres in later-day Salonika (as in modern
standard Spanish, quieres). 60 59F
As general in Judezmo from the sixteenth century on (and as

characteristic of Andalusian Spanish), the distinct medieval Castilian
phonemes /ç/ vs. /s/ are reflected in a reduction to /s/ (represented
variously by śin, e.g., ‫ קונושיאלו‬konosíalo ‘I knew him,’ and samex, e.g.,
‫ קונוסיש‬konoses ‘(2sg.) you know,’ in the transcription of Ya‘aqov ben
Yiṣḥaq Ha-Kohen’s testimony; cf. S. conocíalo, conoces). On the other
hand, medieval Spanish [ʎ] (denoted in Spanish orthography by <ll>)
consistently corresponds to lamed + yod (+ yod) in the Syrian Judezmo
texts (e.g., ‫אורילייא‬, cf. S. <orilla>), making it unclear whether the
phonological realization was as conjectured for contemporaneous
Castilian (i.e., [o'riʎa]), or whether the Hebrew transcription disguised
actual realization as yod [j] or, when adjacent to a front vowel, perhaps
even zero, as in later Judezmo (e.g., modern Salonika [o'rija]/[o'ria])
(e.g., Nehama, 1977: 394).
6.1.2. Morphology
At the level of morphology the following features are worthy of note:
(1) Verb forms now considered archaic or non-standard in Spanish
include: viḏe ‘I saw’ and viḏo ‘(3sg.) saw’, do ‘I give’ (cf. Mod.S. vi,
vio, doy). Archaisms with respect to later Judezmo, but standard in
Modern Spanish, are: eres ‘(2 sg.) you are,’ supiste (Mod.J. supites)
‘(2sg.) you knew’; (me dio un su pariente ke lo) (l)yevase (a Kará Isar)
‘(he brought me a relative) to bring (to Afyonkarahisar)’ (Mod.J. sos;
————
59
Cf. favlar in Nehama (1977: 206) vs. avlar in Perahya et al. (2012: 106).
60
Cf. kierer in Nehama (1977: 319-320) vs. kerer in Perahya et al. (2012: 281).
The parallel variant quen ‘who’ (S. quien) is widely documented in pre-modern
Spanish, as illustrated in over 300 texts in the Corpus diacrónico del espa-
ñol (CORDE) of the Real Academia Española [http://www.rae.es].
88
yevara, versus S. llevase/-ara). Forms corresponding to archaisms or

genre-restricted literary forms, both in modern Judezmo and Spanish,
include: saverés(/-sh) ‘(2 pl.) you will know,’ (l)yeǥóse ‘he arrived,’
díshonos ‘he told us’ (cf. more usual J. sav[e]résh, se yeǥó, mos disho;
Mod. S. sabréis, se llegó, nos dijo). Because of a lack of vocalization it
cannot be determined whether the first-conjugation (-ar) verb forms in
the preterite indicative tense with final ‫י‬- in the singular (e.g., ‫ )טורני‬and
‫ימוש‬- in the plural (e.g., ‫ )דימאנדימוש‬should be read, respectively, with -é
(as in Spanish) and -emos (a variant known in Spanish of the period
which eventually fell before normative -amos), or -í and -imos, as in
later Judezmo (torní ‘I returned,’ demandimos ‘we asked’). It also
cannot be determined from the spelling whether verb forms in the
second person plural with final ‫ש‬- (unaccompanied by a diacritic) are
meant to be read with -s, as in Spanish, or with -sh, as is already
documented for Ottoman Judezmo in the middle of the sixteenth
century: ‫ שאביריש‬saverés/-sh ‘you know’; ‫ נו פינשיש‬no pensés/-sh ‘don’t
think.’61
60F
(2) The possessive constructed with an indefinite article followed by

a possessive adjective, which is now archaic both in Spanish and Ju-
dezmo: e.g., kon un mi sovrino ‘with a nephew of mine,’ un su pariente
‘a relative of his’ (cf. Mod.J. kon mi sovrino / kon un sovrino mío, S. con
mi sobrino / con un sobrino mío, etc.). 62
6.1.3. Syntax and stylistics

As in the dialect of modern Salonika, and as documented as a variant in
Spanish of the period, after a preposition the reflexive pronoun precedes
the infinitive: por se adelantar ‘to get ahead’ (versus S., Istanbul J. por
aḏelantarse). 63 When referring to the father-in-law of the missing Kha-
lifa, Ya‘aqov Ha-Kohen of Syria used the indefinite form el yerno de
Basán, as in Spanish; but Moshe Munyón, apparently a native of Con-
stantinople, used definite el yerno del Basán, as in Italian and French (cf.
Hall, 1941).
————
61
On the first-person singular and plural preterite forms and the second-person
plural verbal inflection in sixteenth-century Judezmo see section 4.1 above and
Bunis (2004: 109-110, 113-114).
62
Cf. S. “con un mi amigo” in Delicado ([1528] 1994: 393). My source for this
and the subsequent citations from Spanish historical works appearing in the present
article is the online Corpus diacrónico del español (CORDE).
63
Cf. “Venían […] por se encontrar con Brontaxar” (Rodríguez de Montalvo,
[1508] 1991: 1047).
89
The introductory phrase of address used by the two witnesses from

Syria in the responsa of Eliyyahu Ben Ḥayyim, Saverés/-sh, sinyores, ke
[...] corresponds to the phrase Sabréis, señores, que [...] widely found in
Spanish literary works of the period (e.g., Silva, [1530] 2004: 401). Also
nearly paralleling phrases encountered in Spanish literary texts of the
fourteenth through seventeenth centuries are formulations such as: Esto es
por la kuenta ke e·de dar al Dio, 64 lo·ke en·esto se; 65 Mieḏo me e ke
[…]. 66 The curse Mal mundo tenga ‘May he have a bad world,’
presumably a translation from an Arabic phrase used by the Arab
muleteer with reference to a Jew, perhaps derives from Qur’an verse
33:57: “Those who annoy Allah and His Apostle—Allah has cursed them
in this World and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them a
humiliating Punishment.”
6.1.4. Lexicon
With respect to lexemes of Hispanic origin, it is worthy of note that both
Yokheved and Moshe used mucho for ‘much’ (S. mucho); that form
would later predominate in Salonika, while muncho, corresponding to a
popular regional and social-level variant in Spanish, 67 would be preferred
in Constantinople. The testimony of Yokheved also contains the form
djuḏió (‫ )ג'ודייו‬for ‘Jew,’ its Hebrew spelling reflecting the distinctive
Judezmo final stress (vs. S. judío). Later, djuḏió would continue to be
widespread in Constantinople, while djiḏió would become prevalent in
Salonika and certain other cities.
The responsa of rabbis from or connected with Jewish communities
in Syria offer sporadic Romance-origin vernacular words and phrases
introduced mostly in discussions of commerce, costume, custom or cui-
sine, further corroborating the use of Judezmo as an everyday spoken
language among Syrian Sephardim before the eighteenth century. The
responsa of Yoshiyyahu Pinto include terms such as: kambio ‘bill of ex-
change’ (no. 89), pólisa ‘(commercial, insurance) policy’ (no. 85), rea-
les ‘[old Spanish coins]’ (no. 115), florines ‘florins’ (no. 120), 68 (kĕtav)
————
64
Cf. “y protesto, por la cuenta que he de dar á Dios en su tribunal santísimo,
que [...]” (Villalobos, [1685]1899: 297).
65
Cf. “ ‘Yo, señora,’ respondió el Conde, ‘ya he dicho lo que en esto sé’ ”
(Boscán, [1534]1994: 156).
66
Cf. “Certas, miedo me he que por el començamiento de desagradesçimiento
que auedes mostrado…,” Juan Fernández de Heredia (2003, f. 114v).
67
Muncho occurs in 138 different documents cited in the Corpus diacrónico
del español.
68
E.g., Pinto ([1869], no. 120). See also section 3. Above.
90
provenṣal ‘Hebrew cursive script used by Sephardim’ (no. 39), aǥua ar-
diente ‘brandy’ (no. 31), koral ‘coral’ (no. 79), kapa ‘cape’ (no. 74, which
included discussion of persons who spoke bĕ-la‘az ‘in Judezmo’ re-
garding their intended bequests). 69 Pinto (no. 41) noted the use of the
Romance-origin masculine personal name B-/Vivant (‫ ;ביבנט‬cf. C. vivent)
as a translation of Hebrew Ḥayyim (Live). 70 69F
From the seventeenth into the early nineteenth century the responsa
of other Sephardic rabbis of Syria or other parts of the Ottoman Empire
(e.g., cities in Ereṣ Yiśra’el) in touch with Jews in or from Syria, such as
Moshe Alshekh, Yosef ben Moshe Mitrani (or ‘Mahariṭ,’ b. Safed 1568,
d. Constantinople 1639), Moshe Galante, Yom Ṭov Ṣahalon, Ḥayyim
Palachi (Izmir, 1788–1868), and members of the Laniado, Labatón,
Qaṣin, Duek, ‘Antebi, Abu’lafia, and ‘Aṭiyya families, also incorporated
into their Hebrew discussions Hispanic-origin words and phrases
apparently exemplifying preservations from Judezmo as used in the
Jewish Arabic which by then had become the everyday language of the
Sephardim in Syria. It is worthy of note that the plurals of these lexemes
were still formed with Hispanic-origin -(e)s. For example, in connection
with discussion of the commercial world of the Jews in Aleppo one
encounters words of Hispanic origin such as pólvora ‘ashes (remaining
from a burning ship)’ (Yosef Mitrani, 1642, vol. 1, no. 66); chamelotes
‘strong cloth (generally of wool) (Galante, 1809, no. 78; Ṣahalon, 1694,
old responsa, no. 84; cf. S. camelote, C. xamelote); tavlas ‘trays’
(Galante, 1809, no. 78; cf. S. tabla); korientes ‘currency’ (Alshekh,
1605, no. 129; cf. S. corriente); kintales ‘a measure of weight’ (Laniado,
1982, Ḥošen mišpaṭ, no. 4; cf. S. quintales); salinas ‘saltworks’
(Laniado, 1997, no. 8), piesas ‘pieces of money,’ febrero ‘February’
(Laniado, 1997, no. 18; cf. S. piezas, febrero); and allusions to the
frankos ‘Western Europeans (sometimes, but not exclusively, Jews),’71
or more respectfully, sinyores frankos, in the Ottoman Empire (Laniado,
————
69
Cf. S. cambio, póliza, reales, florines, provenzal, aguardiente, coral, capa,
and relevant cognates in Italian.
70
Cf. also Bivante (‫ )ביבאנטי‬in ‘Ovadya Hadaya [Jerusalem, 1890–1969]
(1939, vol. 3, ’Even ha-‘ezer, no. 11).
71
The use of frankos in the sense of non-Jews (who write in the Latin alpha-
bet) is well documented among Judezmo speakers; e.g., Qaṣin et al. (1904, no.
23) "‫‘ "זה כתבו בכתב של הפראנקוס‬they wrote this in the [Latin] script of the Western
Europeans’; no. 24 "‫‘ "ערל פ'ראנקו אחד סוחר גדול‬about a certain Christian franko
[who was] a major merchant’ (cf. S./I. franco); cf. also part 2, [no. 1] ‫"הסוחר‬
"‫‘ פ'ראנקו ששמו סי]נייור[' איסמיד‬the European merchant whose name is Mr. Smith.’
91
1997, no. 4; cf. S., I. franco). The title sinyor (cf. S. señor, I. signore)
occasionally precedes personal names; e.g., sinyor David Altarás. 72
As a result of the commercial relations which Judezmo speakers of the
Ottoman Empire entertained with merchants in Italy, as well as the in-
fluence in the empire of the so-called (sinyores) frankos—most of whom
reached the empire through Italy—Ottoman Judezmo in all its regional
varieties incorporated elements from Italian and Portuguese. In the
responsa literature by or concerning Syrian Jews, many of these elements,
too, belong to the spheres of commerce, e.g., fatores ‘commercial agents’
(I. fattore); 73 kambial ‘bill of exchange, promissory note’ (I. cambiale);74
gabela ‘tax on kosher meat, cheese, etc.’ (I. gabella < regional A. gabēla
< A. qabāla), 75 komisión ‘commission’ (I. commissione), protesto ‘pro-
test’ (P. protesto). 76
In number 34 of his responsa collection Ḥayyim ba-yad (1873), Ḥay-
yim Palachi dealt with a question addressed to him by Rabbi Mĕnashe
Sethon (b. Safed 1879, d. 1916) of Aleppo concerning the folk magic
ceremony apparently still known among the Aleppo Jews by its Judez-
mo name, endulko.77
6.1.5. Culinary terminology of Iberian origin
Because of the prominence in the responsa of queries regarding the
suitability for Jewish use of foods and their constitutent components,
vernacular culinary terms appear widely in the responsa in general, and
in those of the rabbis of Syria in particular. The food terms, and others
referring to material culture, which appear in halakhic collections by
Syrian rabbis from the seventeenth century on are almost entirely of
Arabic or Ottoman origin, demonstrating the assimilation of the Se-
phardim in Syria to the culinary traditions of the indigenous Mus-
ta‘rabi Jews and their non-Jewish neighbors by that time. 78
Nevertheless, some foods from the distinctive earlier traditions of the
Judezmo speakers survived, as—at least for a certain period of time—
————
72
Qaṣin (1904, part 2, [no. 1]).
73
E.g., Pinto ([1869], no. 13).
74
E.g., Abu’lafia (1871, vol. 1, Yore de‘a, sec. 7).
75
Abu’lafia (1886, vol. 2, Yore de‘a, no. 2); also ‘Antebi (1843, Ḥošen
mišpaṭ, no. 9).
76
Abu’lafia (1871, vol. 1, Ḥošen mišpaṭ, no. 24).
77
On the endulko ceremony see Nehama (1977: 165); on the controversy con-
cerning its practice in Syria, see Harel (2010: 41).
78
For numerous food terms of Arabic origin cited in the responsa of Syrian
rabbis see Borenstein-Makovetsky (2012: 278-288).
92
did their Hispanic, Hispano-Arabic, or Italian names and traditional Ju-

dezmo spellings. For example, Shim‘on Duek of eighteenth-century
Aleppo makes reference to the food term ‫ פ'ידיאוס‬fiḏeos ‘kind of noodles’
in the context of a business transaction between Jews from Aleppo and
Livorno. 79 Yĕhuda Qaṣin (1708–1783) of Aleppo refers to Judezmo
78F
food terms of Hispanic and Ottoman origin, well documented in other

Judezmo regional varieties, which had already appeared in earlier respon-
sa but with which he himself appears to have been familiar: ǥachas,
hormiǥo, faro ‘kinds of porridge,’ 80 biskochos ‘kind of cookie, bis-
79F
cuit.’ 81 Perhaps incorporated from the culinary traditions of the frankos

80F
are foods such as: kalsones ‘kind of baked good,’ 82 djelato ‘ice cream.’83
81F 82F
In the responsa of Yiṣḥaq Abu’lafia (b. Damascus 1825, d. Tiberias

1910), most of the vernacular terms are (Jewish) Arabic, but the author
occasionally cites isolated la‘az (Judezmo) terms, most of them
appearing in their traditional Judezmo spellings (perhaps because they
were adopted from earlier responsa by Judezmo-speaking rabbis in other
regions): e.g., “lĕ-tomates <‫‘ ”>טומאטיס‬for tomatoes’; 84 “(narandja)
<‫(‘ ”>נאראנג'א‬sour) orange’ 85 and “narandjaḏa <‫”>נארנג'אדה‬
‘orangeade’; 86 “roskitas de alxashú <‫ ]…[ >רוסקיטאס די אלחשו‬bimuelos
<‫ ]…[ >בימואילוס‬biskochos <‫‘ ”>ביסקוג'וס‬nut-filled rusks […] fritters […]
biscuits’;87 “makarones <‫ >מאקארוניס‬wĕ-alitrea <‫‘ ”>אליטריאה‬macaroni
and noodles.’88 The responsa of Shĕmu’el ben Shĕlomo Laniado (1923)
87F
also contain references to the roska, kalsones and makarón. 89 8F
————
79
Duek (1738, no. 3); cf. also Laniado (1984, no. 4); cf. S. fideo < Hispano-
Arabic fidáwš?
80
Qaṣin (1904, part 1, no. 11 "‫ ;)"הג'אג'ס והורמיג'ו והפאר'ו מה מברכין עליהם‬cf. S.
gachas, hormigo, farro.
81
Qaṣin (1904, part 1, no. 19 "‫;)"על הבישקוג'וס הנק]ראים[' בערבי כעך שעושין הגוים‬
cf. S. bizcocho.
82
Abu’lafia (1871, vol. 1, ’Oraḥ ḥayyim, no. 1, 175); cf. also ‫ כלסונ"יס‬kalsones
in Shĕmu’el ben Shĕlomo Laniado (1923, f. 35b); cf. I. calzone.
83
Abu’lafia (1871, vol. 1, ’Oraḥ ḥayyim, no. 1, 46); cf. I. gelato.
84
Abu’lafia (1871, vol. 1, ’Oraḥ ḥayyim, no. 1, 25); cf. S. tomate.
85
Abu’lafia (1871, vol. 1, ’Oraḥ ḥayyim, no. 1, 46); cf. S. naranja, Hispano-
A. naranǧa, A. nāranǧ (< P. nārang < Sanskrit nāraṅga).
86
Abu’lafia (1871, vol. 1, ’Oraḥ ḥayyim, no. 1, 205); cf. S. naranjada.
87
Abu’lafia (1871, vol. 1, ’Oraḥ ḥayyim, no. 1, 155). The form roskilya
appears in Yosef Karo’s sixteenth-century Bet Yosef (1550–1559, ’Oraḥ ḥayyim,
nos. 168); cf. S. rosca, S. dimin. rosquilla; S. buñuelo.
88
Abu’lafia (1871, vol. 1, ’Oraḥ ḥayyim, no. 1, 175); cf. S. macarrones,
aletría < Hispano-A. ala-/ aliṭríyya < A. al-iṭriya.
89
Laniado (1923, f. 35b).
93
Some of the Judezmo culinary terms of Iberian origin, perhaps cited

from earlier responsa by rabbis who actually spoke Judezmo, appear
alongside their (Jewish) Arabic equivalents, the use of which by this
time was probably more widespread among the Syrian Sephardim than
their Judezmo equivalents: for example, the responsa of Yiṣḥaq Abu’lafia
contain references to: “p(e)reshil <‫ >פרשיל‬ha-niq[ra] bil[šon]” ‘a[ravi]
baqduns <‫‘ ”>בקדונס‬p[e]reshil [parsley], called in the Arabic language
baqduns’; 90 “’egozim laḥim ha-kĕvušim ‘im ṣuqar še-qorin bĕ-la‘az
(dulse) <‫‘ ”>דולסי‬moist nuts soaked in sugar that are called in Judezmo
dulse’; 91 “min ’etrog ha-niqra bĕ-‘aravi (kabad) u-v-la‘az siḏra <‫”>סידרא‬
‘a type of citron called in Arabic kabad and in Judezmo siḏra’; 92 “boser
ha-niqra bĕ-‘aravi (ḥaṣrum) u-v-la‘az aǥrás <‫‘ ”>אגראס‬unripe [grapes]
called in Arabic ḥaṣrum and in Judezmo aǥrás’; 93 “gidniyot ha-niqra’in
bĕ-‘aravi qaraṣia <‫ >קראציא‬o garaz <‫ >גרז‬u-v-la‘az vishnas <‫ >ווישנס‬o
serezas <‫[‘ ”>שיריזס‬types of] cherries called in Arabic qaraṣia or griz
and in Judezmo vishnas or serezas.’ 94 In some instances, the same
Judezmo-origin term was cited as being used in both Judezmo and
Jewish Arabic, e.g., kastanyas (‫‘ )קסטניאס‬chestnuts.’ 95 94F
The few Judezmo terms of Iberian origin which continue to appear in

Syrian rabbinical responsa of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries are
often spelled using the orthographic conventions of Jewish Arabic rather
than Judezmo. This is exemplified by the partial absence of matres lec-
tionis to denote some vowels (e.g., ‫[ ]אל[ מסאפן‬al] masapán ‘marzipan’,
vs. traditional ‫)מאסאפאן‬,96 and the use of kaf instead of qof for k (e.g.
‫ כלסוניס‬kalsones ‘kind of baked dish,’ 97 ‫ מכרו"ן‬makarón ‘kind of pasta,’98 97F
————
90
Abu’lafia (1871, vol. 1, ’Oraḥ ḥayyim, no. 1, 219.
91
Abu’lafia (1871, vol. 1, ’Oraḥ ḥayyim, no. 1, 16); cf. S. dulce.
92
Abu’lafia (1871, vol. 1, ’Oraḥ ḥayyim, no. 1, 19); cf. S. cidra.
93
Abu’lafia (1871, vol. 1, ’Oraḥ ḥayyim, no. 1, 20); cf. S. agraz.
94
Abu’lafia (1871, vol. 1, ’Oraḥ ḥayyim, no. 1, 54); cf. T. vişne (< Slavic), S.
cereza.
95
“ ‘Armonim [...] min perot ha-niqra’im bi-lšon ‘aravi wĕ-la‘az kastanyas”
‘chestnuts [...] a kind of fruit called in Arabic and Judezmo kastanyas’ (Abu’lafia,
1871, vol. 1, ’Oraḥ ḥayyim, f. 14b, sec. 215); cf. S. pl. castañas.
96
‘Ades (1990: 36). Cf. ‫( אזמיר‬Ezmir) ‘Izmir’ and ‫( אזמירלי‬ezmirlí) ‘(person, etc.)
from Izmir’ (rather than ‫לי‬- ,‫ )איזמיר‬in Abu’lafia (1886, vol. 2, ’Even ha-‘ezer, no. 13).
97
E.g., Abu’lafia (1871, vol. 1, ’Oraḥ ḥayyim, no. 1, 175); cf. I. calzone; cf. also
‫ כלסונ"יס‬kalsones in Shĕmu’el ben Shĕlomo Laniado (1923, f. 35b).
98
E.g., cf. S. macarrón(es); cf. also ‫ מכרו"ן‬makarón in Shĕmu’el ben Shĕlomo
Laniado (1923, f. 35b); ‫ מכרוניס‬makarones in ‘Ades (1990: 42); but traditional
Judezmo ‫ מאקארוניס‬makarones in Abu’lafia (1871, vol. 1, ’Oraḥ ḥayyim, no. 1, 175).
94
‫ כלבסאדה‬kalavasaḏa ‘candied pumpkin’); 99 and taw rather than ṭet for t

(e.g., ‫[ ]אל[תרי"ה‬ali]trea ‘kind of pasta,’ 100 ‫ פסתרייאל‬pastareal ‘kind of
cake’).101 Also worthy of note is the use of the Arabic-origin definite arti-
cle al- with al masapán, in accommodation to Arabic.
By at least the nineteenth century, Sephardic rabbis from the Syrian
community, including those with surnames which had been known
among the Jews of Spain such as ‘Ades, were no longer familiar with
the Judezmo terms they occasionally cited from earlier responsa. This
is demonstrated by their being mispelled. For example, Abu’lafia re-
ferred to ‘gifts taken from the butchers’ as ‫ מוליזוס‬molezos, 102 by which
he probably meant Judezmo ‫ מוליז'אס‬molejas ‘gizzards.’ 103 The term
nuéǥaḏo ‘nougat’ which had appeared in Yosef Karo’s sixteenth-
century Bet Yosef (1550–1559, ’Oraḥ ḥayyim, no. 202), is misspelled
‫*( נואינד"ו‬nuen[a]ḏo) by ‘Ades (1998, vol. 1, p. 44).
The sporadic incorporations of Judezmisms in the responsa of Syrian
rabbis of the seventeenth through nineteenth centuries notwithstanding,
an indirect allusion to the actual demise of Judezmo as an everyday lan-
guage of interchange among the Sephardim of Syria from this period on
is the incorporation into the responsa of Syrian rabbis of witness testi-
mony—sometimes by Jews with Hispanic-origin surnames—in Jewish
Arabic, but none in Judezmo. The Jewish Arabic testimony is illustrated
in the responsa of rabbis of Sephardic origin such as the Aleppo scholars
Rĕfa’el Shĕlomo Laniado, 104 and Avraham ‘Antebi (1765–1858), 105 and
the Damascan Yiṣḥaq Abu’lafia. 106
As compared with all varieties of Spanish used in the everyday
speech of non-Jews, the texts ostensibly representing Syrian Judezmo
which appear in the responsa also offer two unique features: lexical
————
99
‘Ades (1990: 34); cf. traditional ‫קאלסוניס‬, ‫יס‬-/‫מאקארון‬, ‫( קאלאב'אסאדה‬cf. S.
calzones, macarrones, calabazada).
100
Laniado (1923: 127); cf. traditional ‫( אליטריאס‬cf. S. aletrías); also ‫אל טרייא‬
al [i]trea in ‘Ades (1990: 42).
101
‘Ades (1990: 32); cf. traditional ‫( פאסטה ריאל‬cf. I. pasta reale).
102
Abu’lafia (1871, vol. 1, Yore de‘a, no. 7: ‫[ מן הקצבים המתנות‬...] ‫"לוקחים‬
"‫שנקראים מוליזוס‬.
103
There is a reference to molejas (‫ )מוליז'אס‬in Palači (1873, Ḥayyim ba-yad,
no. 7); cf. S. mollejas.
104
E.g., Qaṣin (1904, part 2, no. 2); testimony by Yosef Roza in Laniado
(1982, ’Even ha-‘ezer, no. 5); Laniado (1997, no. 10).
105
E.g., ‘Antebi (1843, ’Even ha-‘ezer, nos. 2, 9; Ḥošen mišpaṭ, no. 11).
106
E.g., Abu’lafia (1886, vol. 2, ’Even ha-‘ezer, ff. 36b-37a, 68a-68b, 83b-
84a; 1903, vol. 6, ’Even ha-‘ezer, no. 5).
95
items of Hebrew-Aramaic origin, and lexemes of Ottoman origin. Such

lexemes appear in the testimony of both the male and female witnesses
from Syria cited by Eliyyahu Ben Ḥayyim, as well as in the Judezmo
passages in the responsa of other Sephardic rabbis from Syria.
6.2. Hebrew-Aramaic Component

Since the Hebraisms appearing in Judezmo passages in the responsa are
spelled ‘consonantally,’ as in Hebrew, rather than phonemically, by
means of the alternating consonants and matres lectionis traditionally
used in Judezmo to transcribe words of Hispanic and other origins, it is
impossible to tell how they were realized phonologically. But it is very
likely that they were realized close to or identically with their
pronunciation in Eastern varieties of Jewish Arabic, especially those of
Syria, as documented in the modern era.107 Such pronunciation would
feature: both bet (‫ )ב‬and vet (‫ )בּ‬realized as occlusive [b], 108 and ḥet
realized as pharyngeal [ḥ] (e.g., ‫ חבר‬ḥaber [or ḥaver] ‘associate’);109
ṣadi (‫ )צ‬realized as pharyngeal [ṣ] (e.g., ‫ צפת‬ṣefat/-t ‘Safed’); 110 pointed
gimal (‫ )גּ‬realized as occlusive [g], as opposed to unpointed gimal (‫)ג‬,
realized as fricative [γ], 111 and he (‫ )ה‬realized as aspirated [h] (e.g.,
[‫ י]שמרהו[ צ]ורו["ו]גואלו‬yishmerehu ṣuró veǥoaló ‘may his Rock and
Savior protect him’);112 both pointed (‫ )תּ‬and unpointed taw (‫ )ת‬realized
————
107
On the traditional realization of Hebrew among the Judeo-Arabic speakers
of Syria see Idelsohn (1917); on that among the Jews of Aleppo in particular see
Katz (1981).
108
Cf. Katz (1981: 2-3). She explained the rarer fricative [v] and [β] variants
as reflecting local Arabic influence but one wonders if they could be relics of an
earlier Hispano-Jewish tradition.
109
Cf. Katz (1981: 11-12).
110
Cf. Katz (1981: 8).
111
Cf. Katz (1981: 8-9). The presence of fricative [γ] in the speech of the
Syrian Sephardim would also seem to be alluded to in the transcription ‫אכו'אה‬
‫( ארדיינ'טי‬i.e., ['axwa ar'djente/-ðjente]) for ‘brandy’ (cf. S. aguardiente) in Pinto
(’Even ha-‘ezer, no. 31).
112
Cf. Katz (1981: 12-13). The realization of Hebrew he among the Syrian
Sephardim as [h]—rather than as phonological zero, as among Judezmo speakers
outside Arabic speech regions—is suggested by Pinto’s use of he in spelling the
feminine personal name Aldjóhar as ‫( אל ג'והר‬Pinto, [1869], ’Even ha-‘ezer, no. 68; cf.
Hispano-A. alǧáwhar < Cl.A. ǧawhar < P. ǧōhr ‘pearls’). In responsa by Ottoman
rabbis outside Arabic speech regions, the name is occasionally spelled ‫אלג'ואר‬, that is,
with zero reflection of historical h, corresponding to their zero reflection of Hebrew
he (e.g., ‫ אלג'ואר‬in the responsa of Ḥayyim Šabbĕtay [Salonika, c. 1550–1647], 1722,
vol. 3, no. 69).
96
as occlusive [t], 113 and ‘ayin realized as pharyngeal [ʕ] (e.g., ‫תענית‬
taʕanit ‘fast’); 114 and pointed (‫ )דּ‬and unpointed dalet (‫ )ד‬realized as
occlusive [d] (e.g., ‫ עדות‬ʕedut ‘testimony’). 115 As among the Jews of
Syria in the modern era, waw was probably pronounced [v] (e.g.,
‫ בעונותינו‬baʕavonotenu ‘for our sins’), 116 and qof as [q] or the glottal
stop [ʔ], 117 or perhaps as [k], as among Judezmo speakers in Turkey
(e.g., ‫ ספק‬safek/-q/-ʔ ‘doubt’). Šin was perhaps realized as [š] (e.g., ‫חס‬
‫ ושלום‬ḥas veshalom ‘Heaven forbid’). 118 Consonants bearing a dageš
ḥazaq might have been geminated (e.g., ‫ קדושין‬/ki-/qi-/ʔiddushín
‘nuptials,’ ‫ שבת‬shabbat ‘Sabbath’).119 Such realizations would have
18F
differed from those which were probably used by the Jews of Christian
Spain on the eve of the expulsion, 120 as well as those which came to be
19F
used among the Sephardim of Constantinople and Salonika, who

distinguished between pointed and unpointed bet and vet as [b] vs. [v],
dalet vs. dhalet as [d] vs. [ð]; and syllable-final taw as fricative [ð] or
[θ]; and who realized he as phonological zero; both ḥet and xaf as [x];121 120F
kaf and qof as [k]; ‘ayin as phonological zero (at least in syllable-initial
position); ṣadi as [s]; and sometimes šin as [s] (varying with [š]).122 12F
Support for the suggestion that the Sephardim of Syria realized the
Hebrew letters as did Syrian Jewish Arabic speakers in the modern era is
to be found in the spellings which elements of Ottoman origin receive in
the responsa of the Syrian Sephardic rabbis, as will be discussed below
in the section on Ottomanisms.
————
113
Cf. Katz (1981: 5-6).
114
Cf. Katz (1981: 11).
115
Cf. Katz (1981: 4-5). Could the variant fricative [ð] realization of unpointed
dalet be a preservation from the Hispano-Hebrew tradition?
116
Cf. Katz (1981: 4).
117
Cf. Katz (1981: 9-10), where [qx] and [x] variants are also noted; cf. also
Hadaya (1935, vol. 2, ’Oraḥ ḥayyim, no. 3): ‫"בארם צובה לקוי אצלם מבטא הקוף שמבטאים‬
‫ לכן נשתבש גם‬.‫ לקוי אצלם מבטא הקוף כמו אלף‬.‫ בהיות כי השפה הערבית ההמונית‬.‫כמו אלף‬
"‫בשפתינו העברית‬.
118
Cf. Katz (1981: 6).
119
Cf. Katz (1981: 30).
120
On the realization of Hebrew among the Jews of Christian Spain see Gar-
bell (1954); Bunis (2013).
121
The letter ṭet (‫ )ט‬does not appear in any Hebraisms in our Syrian Judezmo
corpus; if realized as among the Jewish Arabic speakers of Syria, its realization
there would have been pharyngeal [ṭ] (cf. Katz, 1981: 7); if as among Judezmo
speakers in other areas, as simple [t].
122
For a brief sketch of the realization of Hebrew among Judezmo speakers in
twentieth-century Salonika, see Crews (1962).
97
The Hebraisms occurring in our small corpus are used to denote

business and social association (‫ חבר‬ḥaber ‘associate’), concepts
connected with Jewish religion and law (‫ שבת‬shab[b]at ‘Sabbath,’ ‫קדושין‬
k-/q-/ʔiddushín ‘nuptials,’ ‫ תענית‬taʕanit ‘fast,’ ‫ עדות‬ʕedut ‘testimony’),
and abstract concepts (‫ ספק‬safek/-q/-ʔ ‘doubt,’ beraxá ‘blessing,
bounty’). There is also an expression referring to the Deity (el Shem
yitbarax ‘the Name Blessed Be He’), and a toponym (‫ צפת‬ṣ-/sefat
‘Safed’). Interjections are either spelled fully (‫ בעונותינו‬baʕavonotenu
‘for our sins,’ ‫ אמן‬amén ‘amen’) or appear in abbreviated form: ‫חס = ח"ו‬
‫ ושלום‬ḥas veshalom/-salom ‘Heaven forbid,’ ‫י]שמרהו[ צ]ורו["ו]גואלו[ = יצ"ו‬
yishmerehu ṣuró veǥoaló ‘may his Rock and Savior protect him’). In
one text a Hebrew letter also serves as a numeral: (‫ א' )דיליוש‬álef
(de[l]yos) ‘one (of them).’
6.3. Ottoman Component

6.3.1. Phonology
The spelling of some of the Ottomanisms which derive from Arabic in
the testimony of the two Sephardim from Syria in the responsa of
Eliyyahu Ben Ḥayyim suggest that their phoneme inventory included
phonemes characteristic of Semitic languages, as is also true of the
Arabisms in Turkish as realized among Turks in the East, who are in
contact with speakers of Arabic and Aramaic. To judge from the
realization of those Turkisms of Arabic origin in modern Istanbul
Judezmo, the judges and scribes in Eliyyahu Ben Ḥayyim’s court would
not have pronounced them in Arabicized fashion. Perhaps the Syrian
Sephardic witnesses were asked to submit a written as well as oral
statement, and their own Arabicized spellings were then incorporated in
Ben Ḥayyim’s court proceedings.
/ṣ/; /ḥ/ vs. /x/:
For example, in the testimony of Yokheved, the word denoting ‘business
affair’ is written ‫( מצלחאט‬i.e., <mṣlḥʔṭ>), with ṣadi and ḥet perhaps
representing the Arabic pharyngeals [ṣ] and [ḥ], respectively, i.e.,
[maṣla'ḥat] (cf. A. maṣlaḥa + ta marbuṭa). In contrast, in the responsa of
the contemporaneous Sephardic rabbi Yosef Ibn/Ben Lev, who lived in
Monastir, Salonika, and Constantinople—that is, in areas in which
Arabic was not spoken by the majority of non-Jews—the definite plural
form of the same word is spelled ‫( המאשלהאטים‬i.e., <hmʔślʔhʔṭym>), 123 12 F
with śin and he, suggesting a pronunciation with simple s and with h (or
————
123
Ben Lev (1573, vol. 3, no. 42).
98
phonological zero), as in Rumelian Turkish [masla'(h)at], rather than as

in Eastern Turkish and Arabic [maṣla'ḥat]. The letter ṣadi, apparently
denoting [ṣ], is also incorporated in Pinto’s spelling of the names
‫מצטפא‬, [Muṣṭafa], 124 ‫[ צבאח‬ṣa'baḥ], 125 and ‫[ מנצור‬man'ṣur]. 126 Such
spellings stand in opposition to those with samex or śin instead of ṣadi
in rabbinical queries from non-Arabic-speaking parts of the empire,
e.g., ‫ מוסטפא‬127 and ‫ מושטפה‬128 [mustafa].
In the testimony of Ben Ḥayyim’s two witnesses from Syria, the
initial sound in the words ‫ חלב‬Ḥaleb/-ab and derived ‫ חליבלי‬ḥaleblí are
both denoted by the letter ḥet, presumably reflecting pharyngeal ḥ of
Arabic Ḥalab. As was noted, among Judezmo speakers outside of
Arabic speech regions, ḥet (‫ )ח‬is ordinarily realized identically with xaf
(‫)כ‬, as velar [x]; but among the Sephardim in sixteenth-century Syria, it
might well have been pronounced as pharyngeal [ḥ], corresponding to
Arabic ḥa, as documented later on among the Jews of Syria
generally. 129 On the other hand, in the witness testimony regarding the
missing Khalifa from Syria, the initial consonant in his proper name is
represented by xaf rather than ḥet (i.e., ‫)כליפ"א‬, suggesting realization
as velar [x], corresponding to the pronunciation of the name in Arabic
(Xalīfa), and as accepted among all Judezmo-speaking Sephardim.130
From the eighteenth century on, in some responsa by Sephardic rabbis
from non-Arabic-speaking Ottoman regions, the name is spelled with
initial ḥet (i.e., ‫)חליפה‬, since the Sephardim outside Arabic lands did
not distinguish between the realization of ḥet and xaf, pronouncing
both as [x], and they ordinarily used ḥet to denote [x] in Judezmo
words. 131
130F
————
124
Pinto ([1869], ’Even ha-‘ezer, no. 48).
125
126
127
Moshe Mitrani (1629, vol. 3, no. 57).
128
Adribi (1582, no. 106).
129
Katz (1981: 11-12).
130
Katz (1981: 9). The same spelling of Khalifa (‫ )כליפ"א‬is used in the responsa
of other sixteenth-century Sephardic rabbis who lived, at least for some time, in
lands where Arabic was spoken, such as David ben Zimra (1586, vol. 1, no. 67);
Yosef Karo (1791, no. 113); and Moshe Mitrani (1629, vol. 2, no. 28), in a respon-
sum addressed to him regarding Arabicized Jews in Damascus.
131
The alternate spellings of Khalifa, with ḥet and xaf, were noted by Moshe
ben Shĕlomo Ben (or Ibn) Ḥabib (b. Salonika 1654, d. Jerusalem 1696) (1731, ff.
75a, 79b); Rĕfa’el Bĕxar Shĕmuel Mĕyuḥas (Jerusalem, 1705–1771) (1752–1763),
in chapter 10 of the Hilxot gerušin section of his responsa; and Moshe ben Rĕfa’el
Avraham Bĕxar Barki (Izmir, 1829–1913) (2003), in section Mazkeret ha-giṭṭin, no.
99
Additional corroboration of the phonemic distinction between [ḥ]

and [x] in the sound system of the Syrian Sephardim, as opposed to the
reflection of both Arabic [ḥ] and [x] (through Turkish) as [x] in the
phonology of Judezmo speakers outside Arabic speech regions, is to be
found in spellings such as: ‫כראג'יש‬, presumably denoting [xa'raʤes]
‘taxes,’ with initial xaf, in Pinto’s responsa, 132 corresponding to initial
xa in Arabic and Ottoman Turkish (sg.) xarāǧ (Mod.T. haraç); and
xaf+diacritic in ‫ כ'אן‬xan ‘inn’ (cf. T. han < P. xān); 133 and ‫מכזנג'י‬
maxzanʤi ‘warehouse owner’ (cf. A. maxzan + T. -ci); 134 and also in
the transcription ‫( אכו'אה ארדיינ'טי‬i.e., ['axwa ar'djente/-ðjente]) for
‘brandy’ (cf. S. aguardiente), 135 in which xaf appears to denote
voiceless [x], reflecting original voiced [γ]. These spellings stand in
opposition to the use of ḥet denoting velar [x] in: (def. pl.) ‫החאראג'יש‬
‘the taxes,’ in the responsa of Yiṣḥaq Adribi (or Adarbi, 1510?–1584?)
of Salonika; 136 and ‫ חאן‬in the responsa of Yosef Mitrani. 137 136F
/ʕ/:
The initial ‘ayin in the words ‘arabi (‫ )ערבי‬and ‘arabiaḏo/-viaḏo
‫עראביאדו‬, occurring in the testimony of Yokheved, probably exemplified
the pronunciation among Syrian Sephardim of ‘ayin as pharyngeal [ʕ],
rather than as zero, its realization among Judezmo speakers outside of
Arabic speech regions. Again, the responsa of Yosef Ben Lev (1557?,
vol. 1, no. 2) offer a contrast: Jewish witnesses in Belgrade were cited as
having testified in 1547 that one of three Jews who left the city on a ship
and were killed en route was called Daviḏ Bar Yosef arabiaḏo/-viaḏo
32. In the seventeenth century, Rabbi Mordĕkhay Ha-Levy of Cairo remarked that
Khalifa (which he spelled ‫ )כליפא‬was a name of Arabic origin used by Jews (1697,
’Even ha-‘ezer, no. 45). Ben Ḥabib further specified that Khalifa was used by Arabi-
cized Jews ("‫"כליפה שם זה מצוי בין היהודים הערביים‬, 1731, f. 79a); but in Ben Ḥayyim’s
responsum we see that the name was used by Judezmo speakers in Syria as well.
132
"‫‘ "הקדימו לתבוע הכ'ראגיש‬They collected the taxes earlier than usual’ (Pinto,
[1869], Ḥošen mišpaṭ, no. 109); cf. also sg. ‫ כראג‬in ‘Antebi (1843, Ḥošen mišpaṭ,
no. 13).
133
"‫[ ובכאניס‬...]‫‘ "כ'אן‬inn [...] and in the inns’ (‘Antebi, 1843, Ḥošen mišpaṭ, no. 12).
134
"‫‘ "שהמכזנג'י הלזה דנ"ד איננו פראנקו אלא מבני טורקיאה‬that this warehouse owner
is not a western European but a native of Turkey’ (Laniado, 1997, no. 1); cf. also
"‫‘ "והמכזאנגיה שלהם‬and their warehouse owners’ (‘Antebi, 1843, Ḥošen mišpaṭ, no.
13).
135
136
"‫( "ספר החאראגי"ש‬Adribi, 1582, no. 59, from 1525).
137
“Estando dita mosa en la puerta del xan <‫‘ ”>חאן‬When the said maiden was
standing at the door of the inn’ (Yosef Mitrani, 1645, vol. 2, ’Even ha-‘ezer, no. 43,
from Izmir 1617).
100
(‫)דוד בר יוסף אראביאדו‬, that is, ‘David Bar Yosef, the Arabicized-Jew’—
the last word spelled with initial ’alef, reflecting realization with initial
a, without a preceding ‘ayin, just as one would expect in the Judezmo of
Ottoman Sephardim living outside of Arabic speech regions.
The Arabisms found in the responsa of other Sephardic rabbis in
sixteenth-century Syria corroborate the hypothesis that, by at least the
latter part of the century, the consonantism of the Arabisms used in the
language of the Syrian Sephardim resembled that of Arabic—
sometimes in contrast with reflexes of the same Arabic etyma in Old
Spanish, and in Turkish and Judezmo outside the Arabic speech
territory. Thus, in the responsa of Yošiyyahu Pinto, a ‘water-wheel’ is
referred to as ‫נאעור"א‬, i.e., nāʕūra or naʕura, 138 corresponding to
Classical Arabic and Ottoman Turkish nāʕūra, rather than to the
Hispanic reflex, noria (without pharyngeal [ʕ]), derived from Hispano-
Arabic naʕúra (with influence from acequia and acenia), or to
Modern, non-Arabicized Turkish naure.139 Pinto referred to a certain
Ottoman ‘extraordinary tax’ as '‫( העואריץ‬cf. Classical Arabic and
Ottoman Turkish ʕawariḍ), 140 spelled with ʕayin, waw and ḍad,
suggesting realization (or at least identification with the classical form
of the Arabic etymon) as ʕawariḍ (or perhaps ʕavariḍ), i.e., with the
Semitic realization of ʕayin, ḍad, and perhaps waw. Pinto’s spelling
stood in contrast to ‫אואריס‬, with initial ’alef and final samex, in the
responsa of Šĕmuel de Medina (or ‘Maharashdam,’ 1505–1589) of
Salonika, suggesting pronunciation of the word among the Sephardim
of Salonika as avarís, without the Semitic realization of the Arabic
consonants, 141 and thus closer to non-Arabicized Modern Turkish
avarız. Pinto also incorporated ‘ayin, apparently denoting pharyngeal
[ʕ], in his spelling of the word ‫טעריפה‬/‫טאעריפה‬, taʕrīfa/-ifa ‘amount list’
(cf. A. taʕrīfa, T. ta’rife), 142 and the name ‫( מסעוד‬cf. A. Masʕūd). 143 142F
————
138
"‫‘ "גלגל גדול הנקרא נאעור"א‬A large wheel called a nāʕūra/naʕura’ (Pinto, [1869],
no. 18).
139
DRAE (2001), s. noria.
140
"‫‘ "באו בני העיר לתבוע את העואריץ' של אותם הבתים‬The [Jewish] natives of the
city came to claim the tax on those houses’ (Pinto, [1869], no. 113); cf. also
Laniado (1997, no. 8) "‫"ומהעוואריץ‬.
141
Medina (1596, Ḥošen mišpaṭ, no. 364).
142
"‫[ יתנהגו על פי הטעריפה של הערלים‬...]‫‘ "לא יספיק הקצבה שקצבו בטאעריפה‬The
amount listed in the list of sums will not suffice [...] they will act according to the
list of the Christians’ (Pinto, [1869], Ḥošen mišpaṭ, no. 97).
143
101
/ṭ/ vs. /t/:

The incorporation of pharyngeal [ṭ] in the phoneme inventory of the
Syrian Sephardim is suggested indirectly by the representation of non-
pharyngeal [t] as taw (‫ )ת‬rather than ṭet (‫—)ט‬the latter being the
traditional transcription of simple t in Judezmo outside of Arab lands—
in spellings of Ottomanisms in Syrian Sephardic responsa such as:
‫תורקמאניש‬, 144 hinting at realization of the first consonant in the word with
non-pharyngeal [t], i.e., [turk'manes], corresponding to Arabic and
Ottoman Turkish ta/te in turkmān/-an ‘Turkmen’; ‫ תשקיריש‬teskerés
‘certificates’ (cf. T. tezkere < A. tadkira); 145 ‫ אלתזם‬iltizam ‘tax farming’
(cf. T. iltizam < A. iltizām) and ‫ מלתזם‬multezim ‘tax farmer’ (cf. T.
mültezim < A. multazim); 146 ‫ מינתלייאן‬mintián ‘short-bodied coat’ (cf. T.
mintan, nimten(e) < P. nīm-ten).147 Such spellings stand in opposition to
spellings with ṭet in the responsa of some Sephardic rabbis outside of
Syria: e.g., ‫( טיסקרי‬Moshe Mitrani, 1629, vol. 1, no. 178); 148 ‫אלטי"זאם‬
(Eliyyahu Ben Ḥayyim, 1610, vol. 2, no. 95); 149 ‫( מינטיניש‬Karo, 1550–
1559, Bet Yosef, ’Oraḥ ḥayyim, sec. 10).
However, the variant denotation in the responsa of some Syrian
rabbis of simple t as ṭet in Judezmo lexemes ultimately of Arabic origin
probably borrowed through Ottoman Turkish, such as ‫ט)א(עריפה‬
(taʕrifa), 150 ‫( אינטירי‬enterí) ‘long-sleeved jacket’ (cf. T. e-/anteri < A.
‘antarī), 151 and the variant ‫( טורקמאניש‬turkmanes), 152 as well as in
15F
————
144
"‫‘ "הרגו אותם תורקמאניש‬Turkmen killed them’ (Pinto, [1869], ’Even ha-
‘ezer, no. 59).
145
"‫‘ "אני נותן לך כל החזוקים והתשקיריש‬I give you all the reinforcements and the
certificates’ (Pinto, [1869], Ḥošen mišpaṭ, no. 91).
146
‫[ כדי לרצותה‬...] ‫[ ובכן חקר על כתו]בת[' אשתו‬...] ‫"נעשה ראובן מלתזם בממון המלך‬
"‫‘ מצד דין ודברים שנפלו בניהם קודם האלתזאם‬Re’uven became a tax farmer of the
king’s money [...] and so he investigated his wife’s marriage contract [...] in order
to satisfy her regarding a disagreement between them before the tax farming’
(Pinto, [1869], Even ha-‘ezer, no. 73).
147
"‫‘ "הכיס התפור בבגדו פנימי הנקרא קיומג'יבי דיל מינתלייאן‬the pocket sewn in his
inner garment called k[i]yumdjebí of the mintián’ (Abu’lafia, 1887, vol. 3, Ḥošen
mišpaṭ, no. 5).
148
"‫‘ "ראובן קנה מתוגרמי אחד טיסקרי‬Re’uven bought a certificate from a Turk’
(Moshe Mitrani, 1629, vol. 1, no. 178).
149
"‫( "שקמו כמה אנשי מעבדי המלך בשער המלך ועשו אלטי"זאם‬Ben Ḥayyim, 1610, 2,
r. 95).
150
Pinto ([1869], Ḥošen mišpaṭ, no. 97).
151
152
Pinto ([1869], ’Even ha-‘ezer, no. 59). The spelling <‫[ >טורקמאן‬turk'man]
‘Turkman’ in the Salonika Judezmo periodical El lunar (1865: 213) exemplifies
102
elements of Turkish origin in which simple t is denoted in Ottoman

Turkish by te (‫)ت‬, such as ‫( טוט"ון‬tutún < T. tütün), 153 suggests either that
152F
pharyngeal [ṭ] was not deeply incorporated in the Syrian Judezmo

phonological system, or that Judezmo speakers in Syria sometimes used
ṭet to represent simple [t], as part of a general tendency to retain the
graphemes of traditional Judezmo orthography, for the most part as they
had been employed in Christian Spain, 154 for transcribing Ottoman
153F
Judezmo as well.
/q/ vs. /k/:
As already referred to above with reference to the depiction of simple
velar k by kaf (‫ )כ‬rather than qof (‫ )ק‬in Hispanisms such kalsones and
makarón, the responsa of the Sephardic rabbis of Syria also reveal
signs of a phonemic opposition between simple velar [k] and pharyn-
geal [q] in their Hebrew-letter reflections of the sounds in Ottoman-
isms. For example, the sound k is denoted by kaf in ‫( כולאהלי‬kulahlí)
‘person wearing a külâh or long hat’ (cf. T. külâhlı, O.T. k- in ‫< ﻛﻼھﻠﻲ‬
P. kulāh + T. -lı),155 corresponding to kaf in Ottoman Turkish and Ara-
bic; while the sound corresponding to Arabic qof (q) is denoted by qof in
‫( קאווי‬qavé/qawe?) ‘coffee’ (cf. T. kahve, O.T. q- in ‫ < ﻗﮭﻮه‬A. qahwa). 156 15F
Interestingly, Ḥayyim Yosef David Azulay (b. Jerusalem 1724, d.

Livorno 1806), who was familiar with the language traditions of the
Sephardim in Erets Yisrael (where Arabic was spoken by some), as well
as in other regions, expressed surprise over the demands of earlier
Sephardic rabbis such as Yosef Almosnino (1642–1689) and Moshe Ben
Ḥabib (1654–1696), 157 that Romance-origin k be denoted by kaf rather
than traditional qof in official documents. Azulay argued that the
Sephardim of Erets Yisrael, although they were careful in their
pronunciation of Hebrew, were not punctilious in distinguishing
between kaf and qof. Thus he saw no reason to transcribe the feminine
personal name Ǧudeka as ‫ ג'ודיכה‬rather than ‫ג'ודיקה‬. 158 And in fact, as
157F
the usual use of ṭet to denote non-pharyngeal t in Judezmo speech communities

outside of Arabic speech regions.
153
Pinto ([1869], ’Oraḥ ḥayyim, no. 6).
154
For differences between the transcription of early Judezmo in Muslim as op-
posed to Christian Spain, see Bunis (1974; 2005).
155
Qaṣin (1904, part 2, no. 2). Cf. qof in <‫[ >קייולה‬kju'la] ‘conical hat’ in El Lu-
nar (Salonika, 1865, 212).
156
Pinto ([1869], ’Oraḥ ḥayyim, no. 6).
157
Cf. Almosnino (1711, vol. 1, no. 52).
158
Azulay (1792, vol. 1, no. 37): ‫"ומאי דנקיטי רבנן לכתוב גודיכא בכ']ף[ לכאור' נראה‬
‫דאין כל כך קפידא בדבר כיון דגם אנחנו בני ארץ ישראל צחי הלשון אין אנו מפרישים כל כך בין‬
103
was noted, before the eighteenth century and to a great extent even
afterwards, qof was used to denote k in Hispanisms, as well as in
Ottomanisms in which the corresponding sound was represented in
Arabic script by kaf, such as ‫( מוקירי‬mukirí) ‘muleteer’ (cf. T. mükâri,
O.T. -k- in ‫ < ﻣﻜﺎري‬A. mukārī), 159 ‫( קארבאסארה‬karvasará) ‘inn with a
large courtyard’ (cf. T. kervansaray, O.T. q- in ‫ < ﻛﺮواﻧﺴﺮاي‬P.
kārvānsarā), 160 and not only when qof was used in Ottoman Turkish,
such as ‫( קאטריג'י‬katridjí) 161 ‘muleteer’ (cf. T. katırcı, O.T. q- in ‫)ﻗﺎطﺮﺟﻲ‬,
‫( קישלא‬kishla) 162 ‘barracks’ (cf. T. kışla, O.T. q- in ‫)ﻗﺸﻼ‬, kuyumdjebí
‘jewelry pocket’ (cf. T. kuyumcebi, O.T. q- in ‫)ﻗﻮﯾﻤﺠﯿﺒﻲ‬. 163 162F
6.3.2. Orthography
As already alluded to, the ‘Arabicized’ spellings of Arabisms or
Ottomanisms in the testimony of the two Jews from Syria recorded in
the sixteenth-century responsa of Eliyyahu Ben Ḥayyim of Constan-
tinople are curious. The Semitic phonemes those spellings seem to
document in the speech of the Syrian Judezmo speakers were apparently
absent from the phoneme inventory of Judezmo in contemporaneous
Constantinople, as in that of Judezmo speakers in Istanbul today, and
thus it is improbable that Ben Ḥayyim or his court scribe used such
sounds themselves. It is possible that the court scribe had some
familiarity with Ottoman Turkish and its tendency to spell Arabisms
etymologically and sought to emulate it. Nevertheless, although the
spellings of the Arabisms used in Ben Ḥayyim’s responsa often make
use of Hebrew letters corresponding to the Semitic consonants in the
Arabic etyma, thus suggesting their realization as in Arabic, the Hebrew-
letter spellings do not always correspond exactly to those of the
Arabisms in Ottoman Turkish. For example, the Judezmo text shows
‫( מצלחאט‬i.e., <mṣlḥʔṭ>), with the medial mater lectionis ’alef denoting a;
and with final ṭet, corresponding to ṭa (realized as ṭ) in the Arabic
alphabet, but here perhaps denoting simple t, as the letter was realized
"[‫ק]ו"ף[ לכ']ף[ וגם במכתב לאמר כי יקרא שם גודיקא קונפראדה וכיוצא אנו כותבין בק']ו"ף‬. See
also discussion in Yosef (1960, vol. 3, no. 23).
159
Alshekh (1605, no. 44).
160
Ben Ḥayyim (1610, vol. 1, no. 20). The masculine gender assigned to the
word in the passage cited, despite final -á which ordinarily prompts feminine gen-
der, is perhaps a reflection of the Turkish form with final -ay: saray, since Judezmo
saray ‘palace’ is masculine.
161
Ben Ḥayyim (1610, no. 20).
162
Abu’lafia (1886, vol. 2, ’Even ha-‘ezer, ff. 83b-84a).
163
104
among Judezmo speakers outside Arabic speech regions. Ottoman

Turkish, however, spelled the word ‫( ﻣﺼﻠﺤﺖ‬i.e, <mṣlḥt>), without alif as
a mater lectionis, and with final ta rather than ṭa. Thus, features of the
spellings found in the passages in Ben Ḥayyim’s responsa would appear
to reflect the actual phonology of the Syrian Judezmo speakers during
his time, as these features would have been transcribed by the speakers
themselves, rather than an artificial Ottomanized spelling of the words
introduced by Ben Ḥayyim’s court scribe.
6.3.3. Morphology
The toponym el Iskutar ‘Üsküdar (on the Asiatic shore of Istanbul)’
includes the definite article. As true of the Ottomanisms appearing in the
responsa of Judezmo-speaking rabbis in other parts of the empire, the plu-
ral forms of those in the Syrian responsa are constructed with the addition
of Hispanic-origin -(e)s, e.g., teskerés ‘certificates’ (cf. T. sg. tezkere, pl.
-ler), 164 or tautological -z+es, e.g., bilibizes ‘roasted chickpeas’ (cf. T. sg.
leblebi). 165
6.3.4. Semantic fields
The Ottomanisms occurring within passages of discourse in Judezmo
and as isolated lexemes in the responsa of the Sephardic rabbis of Sy-
ria are probably a representative sampling of those constituting the Ot-
toman component of their group language. The Ottomanisms may be
divided into the following categories:
Tobacco, foods and food components, flowers: tutún ‘tobacco,’ kavé/-we
‘coffee,’ yasmín ‘jasmine’ (cf. T. yasemin < P. yāsemen, also A.
yās[a]mīn),’ 166 salata ‘lettuce [or salad]’ (cf. T. salata), 167 xoshaf ‘stewed
fruit’ (cf. T. hoşaf < P. xoš-āb); 168 kahvé [or kahwa] ‘coffee,’ 169 chikolate
‘chocolate’ (cf. T. çı-/çikolata < I. cioccolata); 170 chorekes ‘round, ring-
shaped breads’ (cf. T. çörek); 171 lokum ‘Turkish delight’ (cf. T. lokum < A.
[raḥat] ḥalqum); 172
————
164
165
Abu’lafia (1871, vol. 1, ’Oraḥ ḥayyim, no. 1, 6).
166
167
168
Abu’lafia (1871, vol. 1, ’Oraḥ ḥayyim, no. 1, 90): “xoshaf <‫ >ח'ושאף‬dĕ-
haynu perot śĕruyim bĕ-mayim” ‘xoshaf, i.e., fruits soaked in water.’
169
170
171
Abu’lafia (1871, vol. 1, ’Oraḥ ḥayyim, no. 1, 50): “chorekes <‫ >ג'וריקיס‬ha-
nilošim bĕ-mayim šel ’afunim” ‘round-shaped breads kneaded with water from peas.’
172
‘Ades (1990: 42).
105
Commerce and currency: maṣlaḥat ‘business affair,’ grosh ‘Turkish

piaster’ (cf. T. g-/kuruş), 173 lirá (turka) ‘(Turkish) lira’ (Cf. T. lira < I.
lira); 174
Vocations and locales: mukirí ‘muleteer,’ katridjí ‘muleteer,’ karvasará
‘inn with a large courtyard,’ xanes ‘stores,’ medán ‘open area in a city’ (cf.
T. meydan < A. maydān); 175
Toponyms: Ḥálab/-eb ‘Aleppo,’ Kará Isar ‘[Afyon]karahisar (a
stopping-place between Istanbul and Antalya), el Iskutar ‘Üsküdar (on the
Asiatic shore of Istanbul)’;
Administration and military: teskerés ‘certificates,’ iltizam ‘tax farming,’
multezim ‘tax farmer,’ taʕrifa ‘amount list,’ kishla ‘barracks,’ tabur
‘regiment’ (cf. T. tabur); 176
Ethnic groups, languages, and places of origin: turkmanes ‘Turkmen’;
‘arabí ‘Arabic’ and derived ‘arabiaḏo ‘Arabicized,’ ḥaleblí ‘Aleppan’;
Clothing: mintián ‘short-bodied coat,’ kuyumdjebí ‘jewelry pocket,’
enterí ‘long-sleeved jacket’;
Household items: sepetes ‘wicker baskets’ (< T. sepet < P. sapad). 177
As a result of their full integration within Judezmo, some borrowings

from Turkish are noted as part of La‘az, and thus standing in opposition
to their Arabic correlates: compare, for example, “’afunim ha-niq[ra’im]
bĕ-‘aravi (qadama) <‫ >קצ'מיה‬kĕ-še-hem qĕluyim u-wĕ-la‘az (bilibizes)
<‫‘ ”>ביליביזיס‬peas called in Arabic qadama when they are roasted, and in
Judezmo bilibizes’ (cf. T. leblebi). 178
17F
6.4. Regional Arabic Component

Judezmo speakers probably began to incorporate elements from local,
especially urban, Arabic upon their first arrival in Ottoman Syria.
During the process of switching from Judezmo to local Jewish Arabic as
their primary language, the Arabic component in their Judezmo
undoubtedly assumed ever-growing proportions, eventually reaching a
state signaling the onset of language death. Early on, the responsa reveal
the use among the Syrian Jews of Arabic forms of elements which, in
Judezmo outside lands of Arabic speech, instead resembled their
Ottoman reflexes. For example, in a query from Aleppo, perhaps by a
————
173
174
175
176
Abu’lafia (1886, vol. 2, ’Even ha-‘ezer, no. 13).
177
Pinto ([1869], ’Even ha-‘ezer, no. 64). For additional Ottoman terms used in
the responsa of the rabbis of Syria see Borenstein-Makovetsky (2012: 395-399).
178
106
Sephardi, to Sephardic Rabbi Moshe Mitrani of Safed, a ‘title-deed’ is

referred to as a ‫חג"א‬/‫( חג"ה‬ḥudjdja), reflecting Arabic ḥuǧǧa, while in
Mitrani’s reply the same document is referred to as a ‫( חוגיט‬xudjet),
corresponding to Turkish hüccet (from Arabic ḥuǧǧa with ta marbuṭa,
through Persian hojjat).179 However, since no distinctively Arabic (as
178F
opposed to Arabic through Ottoman) elements appear in Judezmo

passages of discourse by the Syrian Sephardim cited above, but only as
single, isolated words occurring in the responsa in Hebrew passages, it is
impossible to determine if the latter words were actually used in the
Judezmo of Syrian Jews, or only in their Arabic.
Concluding remarks
Judezmo is no longer used by the descendants of the Iberian Jewish
exiles who, at the end of the fifteenth century, found refuge in the Syrian
provinces of the Ottoman Empire. Nevertheless, the fact that Lĕšon
sĕfaradi or La‘az once played a vital role in the social and religious life
of the Syrian Sephardim is demonstrated directly by the Judezmo words,
phrases and paragraphs appearing in the responsa of the Sephardic
rabbis of Ottoman Syria. The Iberian provenance of an important
segment of Syrian Jewry is also hinted at in the Hispanic-origin personal
names, such as Buena, 180 Luna, Oro, 181 Alegra, 182 Senyora/Senyorul,
Reyna, Klara, Roza, Grasya/Graz, and Vida, 183 by which some of their
womenfolk have been known until recent times, as well as by the
Iberian-origin surnames documented for members of the pre-modern
community in the rabbinical responsa of former centuries, and in the
surnames borne by some members of the community to this day,
including Vital, Galante, 184 Gavezón, 185 Cordo[v]ero, 186 Rubio,187
————
179
Moshe Mitrani (1629, vol. 3, no. 12).
180
Elyashar (1892, ’Even ha-‘ezer, no. 7), discussing the preferred Hebrew-
letter spelling of the name.
181
E.g., Ḥayyim Mordechai Labaton, born in Aleppo around 1780, was the son
of Luna Labaton (Harel, http://referenceworks.brillonline.com; Isaac Abulafia
(Abū ʾl-ʿĀfiya) was born in Damascus in 1825, the son of Oro Abū ʾl-ʿĀfiya. My
thanks to Renée Levine-Melamed for details on women’s personal names of His-
panic origin still used among Syrian Sephardim today.
182
Cf. Sutton (c.1988: 247).
183
Cf. Borenstein-Makovetsky (2012: 259-262).
184
Elmaleh (1912: 8-9).
185
Alshekh (1605, no. 44).
186
187
Laniado (1997, no. 1).
107
Laniado (Lañado), Silvera, 188 Filas, 189 Mansano (Manzano), Pinto,

Toledo, Ventura, Vi(l)yalovos (Villalobos), 190 Alcastel, Catalán,
Fier(r)o, Hilado de Córdoba, Lo-/Labatón, Albo, 191 Angel, Lisbona,192
Blanco, Franco, Pardo, 193 P-/Baredes, 194 Calvo, Castro, Fernández,
Fuerte, Lombrozo, López/-fez, Murcia, Pinheiro, Rosa, 195 Martínez,
Matalón, Moreno, and Señor. 196
As has happened in many other Jewish communities around the
world, the ‘minority’ group within the Jewry community of Syria—that
is, the Jews of medieval Iberian ancestry—eventually assimilated
linguistically and culturally to the Jewish ‘majority’—that is, to the
more veteran, Jewish Arabic-speaking Musta‘rabim.197 Perhaps this was
because the Sephardim felt greater external and internal pressure to
conform to the majority culture in linguistically homogeneous Ottoman
Syria than in the non-Arabic-speaking regions of the empire, such as the
linguistically heterogeneous Balkans and Anatolia, where Judezmo was
preserved into modern times. As a result, the Syrian Jews lost one of their
distinctive Jewish languages, Judezmo. But at the same time they emerged
from the processes of linguistic and cultural assimilation a stronger, more
cohesive and unified community, whose members today take pride in
their diverse origins and traditions, and possess a strong sense of Jewish
identity, wherever they reside.
————
188
Laniado (1997, no. 18).
189
Karo (1550–1559), Bet Yosef, Dine qiddušin, no. 4.
190
Cf. Pinto ([1869], ’Even ha-‘ezer, no. 31).
191
Levi Ben Ḥabib (b. Zamora, c. 1480; d. Jerusalem, c. 1545) (1565, no. 134).
192
Abu’lafia (1871, vol. 1, introduction).
193
Cf. Sutton (c.1988: 322, 258, 261, 375).
194
Cf. Sutton (c. 1979: 166).
195
Cf. Harel (2010: 264, 266, 267).
196
For additional details on the surnames of the Jews of Syria see ‘Surnames’ in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Jews [Accessed: 03/06/2018]. Surnames of
Arabic and other origins documented among the medieval Iberian Jews, such as
Qaṣin, ‘Aṭṭiye, and Dayyan, are also known among the Syrian Jews.
197
In twentieth-century Cuba the converse process occurred, when a relatively
small number of Jewish-Arabic-speaking immigrants from Syria assimilated lin-
guistically to the larger Judezmo-speaking Sephardic community (Zenner, c. 2000:
113). Ultimately, both groups adopted Spanish.
108
‫‪D. BUNIS. ECHOES OF JUDEZMO IN SYRIA‬‬
‫‪APPENDIX‬‬
‫‪Text 1 (testimony of Yĕša‘ya Gavezón, from the response of Moshe Alshekh 1605,‬‬
‫)]‪no. 44, transcribed in Safed on Monday, 2 Elul 5322 [=13 August 1562‬‬
‫שאלה נוסח קיום שנעשה על כתב שבא לצפת מחליב על שמועה כי באה‪ .‬במותב תלתא כחדא בי‬
‫דינא הוינא יתבי כד הנפק קדמנא כתב א' על עגונה דאיתתא וזה נוסחה אות באות תיבה בתיבה לא‬
‫מואריטי ]![ די יעקב כהן ה' ינקום נקמתו פואי דישטי מודו קי איל אי אונא 'גודיאה שאליירון די חליב‬
‫פארא לה‪ .‬אה די חמה אי איל מוקירי לוש לייבו פור אוטרו קאמינו פארא מאטארלוש אי ויניירון‬
‫אוטרוש לאדרוניש אי מאטארון אה אלייוש אי אה איל מוקירי אישטו דישו און מוקירי פאריינטי די איל‬
‫מוקירי קי מאטארון מסיח לפי תומו אה משה מי פי"גו י]שמרהו[ צ]ורו["ו]גואלו[ אי אין אישטו‬
‫בעונותנו נו איי ספק קי טאן ביין אאישטי מודו אואימוש אוטרו עדות ושלום מאת המזומן למאמרך‬
‫ישעי]ה[' גאביזון ע]ד[ כ]אן["ל]שון[ הכתב‪ .‬וכתו]ב[' עוד תחתיו בלשון הזה זה משכתוב למעלה‬
‫שמעתי מהמוקירי מזומן למאמרך משה גאביזון ע]ד["כ]אן[ ונתקיימה בפנינו הכתב הזה דהיא גופא‬
‫כתיבת וחתימת כ]בוד["ר]בי[ ישעיה הנ]זכר["ל]עיל[ וכתיבת וחתימת בנו כ]בוד["ר]בי[ משה‬
‫הנ]זכר["ל]עיל[ ודאיתברר לנו אשרנוהו וקיימנוהו כתב זו כדחזי ולראיה ממה שנעשה על ידינו היום‬
‫יום שני ב' ימים לחדש אלול משנת הש"כב ליצירה פה העירה צפת תו"בב כתבנו וחתמנו שמותנו פה‬
‫וקים‪:‬‬
‫)‪Text 2 (statement of Moše Gavezón, cited in Text 1 above‬‬
‫וכתוב עוד תחתיו בלשון הזה זה מה שכתוב למעלה שמעתי מהמוקירי מזומן למאמרך משה גאביזון‬
‫ע"כ ונתקיימה בפנינו הכתב הזה דהיא גופא כתיבת וחתימת כ"ר ישעיה הנ"ל וכתיבת וחתימת בנו כ"ר‬
‫משה הנ"ל ודאיתברר לנו אשרנוהו וקיימנוהו כתב זו כדחזי ולראיה ממה שנעשה על ידינו היום יום‬
‫שני ב' ימים לחדש אלול משנת הש"כב ליצירה פה העירה צפת תו"בב כתבנו וחתמנו שמותנו פה וקים‪.‬‬
‫‪Text 3 (testimony of Ya‘aqov, son of Yiṣḥaq Ha-Kohen, presented before the‬‬
‫‪Constantinople rabbinical court, Monday, 24 Adar II 5339 [= 1 April 1579], with‬‬
‫)‪the preface by Rabbi Eliyyahu Ben Ḥayyim 1610, in his responsa, vol. 1, no. 20‬‬
‫כ אנחנו בית דין חתומי מטה נדרוש נדרשנו לקבל עדות אחד על דבר עגונא דאתתא הלא היא‬
‫אסתר אשת כלי"פא ב]ן[ כ]בוד["ר]בי[ מרדכי שאמי מגוש חלב היושבת זה ימים ושנים כאשה עלובה‬
‫ועצובת רוח במאסר עגונא‪ :‬ובא לפנינו ה"ר]ב[ יעקב ב]ן[ כ]בוד["ר]בי[ יצחק הכהן נ]שמתו["ע]דן[‬
‫ואחר כל האיום וגזום כראוי עמד והעיד בתורת עדות בלשון ספרדי וכן אמר שאביריש שיניוריש קיאה‬
‫טיינפו קי אישטאבה יו קון און חבר מיאו אינלה אורילייא דילה מאר איניל אישקוטאר לאבנדו אונה‬
‫אישקוב'לייא אינישטו לייגושי אאי און קאטריג'י מורישקו אי קומו נוש וידו פאבלאר אין מורישקו נוש‬
‫דימאנדו די דונדי איראמוש אי לי דישימוש קי די דאמאשקו אינטונשיש מיניאו לה קאביסה אי דיג'ו‬
‫גואי די אקיל דישדיג'אדו חליבלי קי איבה אה קארה איסאר קי פור שי אדילאנטאר דילה קאראבאנה‬
‫פארה ריפוזר איל שבת פ'ואי מאטאדו קון און קאטריג'י אי און מוסו מיאו אי לי דיש'מוש גואי דישו‬
‫וינטורה אג"ב קונושיאלו קיין פודיאה שיר דישונוש נו קונוסיש אה כל'פא איל יירנו דיל בשן‪.‬‬
‫דימאנדימוש קומו שופישטי קי פואירון מאטאדוש דיג"ו קומו פ'ואימוש לה קאראבנה אדילאנטי לוש‬
‫וימוש אה טודוש טריש מאטאדוש אי קוג'ימוש טיירה אי פיידראש אי לו קוברימוש עד כאן דברי‬
‫העדות הנז]כר[' יום ב' כ"ד לאדר ב' השל"ט פה קושטאנ]דינה[' והכל שריר וקיים‪.‬‬
‫‪Text 4 (testimony of Yokheved [Bassán], presented in Constantinople, 4 Nisan‬‬
‫)]‪5339 [=10 April 1579‬‬
‫אנחנו בית דין חתומי מטה נדרוש נדרשנו לקבל עדות אחר על עגונא דאתתא הלא היא אסתר אשת‬
‫כליפא ב]ן[ כ]בוד["ר]בי[ מרדכי שאמי מגוש חלב היושבת זה ימים ושנים כאשה עלובה ועצובת רוח‬
‫במאסר עגונה‪ .‬ובאה לפנינו מרת יוכבד אם העגונה הזאת ואחר כל האיום והגזום כראוי עמדה והעידה‬
‫בתורת עדות בלשון ספרדי וכך אמרה‪ :‬נו פינשיש שיניוריש קי פור שיר יו מאדרי דיגה מינטירה‬
‫‪109‬‬
‫)‪M. STUDEMUND-HALÉVY JUBILEE VOLUME (LANGUAGE SECTION‬‬
‫ח]ס["ו]שלום[ קי יו דירי טודו לוקי אינישטו שי לוש דיאש פשאדוש פואי יו אל אישקוטאר קון און מי‬
‫שוברינו פור און מי מצלחאט אי אביינדו קאמינאדו מוג'ו פור אליי מי ארימי אין אונה בוטיקה פרינטי‬
‫דיל קארבאסארה פור ריפוזאר קי אישטאבה אין תענית‪ .‬אי אינלה פואירטה דיל קארבאסארה‬
‫אישטאבאן שיירטוש קאטריג'יש מורוש אי קומו ויירון אמי שוברינו א' דיליוש אינפישו אמאלדיזירלו‬
‫אי דיש'ו אלוש אוטרוש פור קאוזה די אקיל פירו ג'ודייו קי מי דייו און שו פאריינטי קי לו לייבאשי אה‬
‫קאראיסר אקיל פירו פור גוארדאר שו שבת לו מאטארון אה איל אי אה און מי פרימו אי אה און מי‬
‫מוסו‪ .‬מאל מונדו טינגה‪ .‬יו קואנדו אואי דיזיר אישטו אל קאטריג'י גריטי אי דיש'י אל קאטריג'י אין‬
‫ערבי קיין איש אישי ג'ודייו קי מאטארון‪ .‬מי רישפונדייו איל קאטריג"י אישי פירו קי אישטה אאי נו לו‬
‫קונושי קי איל מילו טרוש'ו‪ .‬יו לי טורני אדיזיר די מילו פור טו וידה קיין איש אישי ג'ודייו‪ .‬רישפונדיו‬
‫איל קטריג'י אי דיש"ו איריש טו די חלב‪ .‬דישילי ייו שי‪ .‬דישומי פואיש נון קונושיש אה כלי"פא היג'ו‬
‫די מרדכי דישילי ייו שי לו קונושקו‪ .‬דיש'ו פואיש אישי איש איל קי מאטארון‪ .‬אישטונשיש לי דימאנדו‬
‫מי שוברינו קומו שאבי"ש קילו מאטארון קי ייו שי קי אישטה ביבו‪ .‬רישפונדייו איל קאטריג'י אי לי‬
‫דיש"ו הו ג"ופיק שי יו לי וידי אה איל אי איל קאטריג"י אי אמי מוסו טודוש טריש מאטאדוש קומו‬
‫דיזיז טו קי אישטה ביבו‪ .‬אישטו איש פור לה קואינטה קי אידי דאר אל דייו לוקי אינישטו שי אי‬
‫טאמביין משה מונייון קי אישטה אקי פאבלו איל קון און עראביאדו קוניל מישמו אישטי קאטריג"י‬
‫ע]ד["כ]אן[ דברי עדות אם העגונה הזאת שהעידה יום ג' ד' לניסן השל"ט פה קושטאנדינה והכל שריר‬
‫וקיים‪:‬‬
‫‪Text 5 (testimony of Moshe Munyón, presented in Constantinople, Wednesday, 5‬‬
‫)]‪Nisan 5339 [=11 April 1579‬‬
‫אנחנו ב]ית["ד]ין[ נדרוש נדרשנו לקבל עדות אחד על דבר עגינה דאתת']א[ הלא היא אסתר אשת‬
‫כל"יפא ב]ן[ כ]בוד["ר]בי[ מרדכי שאמי מגוש חלב היושבת זה ימים ושני]ם[' כאשה עלובה ועצובת‬
‫רוח במאסר עגונה‪ :‬ובא לפנינו ר]בי[' משה מוניון ואחר כל האיום והגזום כראוי עמד והעיד בתורת‬
‫עדות בלשון ספרדי וכן אמר‪ :‬שא]ב‪/‬ו[יריש שיניוריש קי אה מוג'וש דיאש קי אנדאנדו יו אקי‬
‫אינישטאנבול קון און ג'ודייו ערביאדו פ'ואי פור אונה קאליי אי אישטאבה און קאטריג"י פאראדו אין‬
‫אונה וינטאנה‪ .‬פ'אבלו איל ג'ודייו עראביאדו קון אקיל קאטריג"י אין מורישקו און בואין פידאסו אי‬
‫אישטונשיש איל עראביאדו מי דיש'ו אמי נו שאביש ר]בי[' משה קי אישטי קאטריג'י מי דישו קי‬
‫מאטארון אה כליפא איל יירנו דיל בשן‪ .‬אינטונשיש יו דיש"י אין טורקישקו אל קאטירג"י קומו שאביש‬
‫טו קי לו מטארון רישפונדייומי איל קאטריג"י אין טורקישקו יו לו וידי קון מיש אוג'וש‪ .‬אישטונסיש‬
‫איל קאטריג'י שי טורבו אי דיש"ו מוג'אש פריגונטאש מי האזיז מיידו מי אי קי מיקיריש האזיר‬
‫טראיסיון אי פונירמי אין פודיר דילה ג'ושטישיאה‪ .‬נו מידימאנדיש מאש‪ .‬ע]ד["כ]אן[ דברי העדות‬
‫הנז]כר[' יום ד' ה' לניסן השל"ט פה קושטאנ]דינה[' וקיים‪.‬‬
‫‪BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES‬‬
‫;‪Abu’lafia, Y. (1871–1903) Sefer pĕne Yiṣḥaq. 6 vols. Vol. 1, Aleppo 1871‬‬
‫‪vol. 2, Livorno 1886; vol. 3, Izmir 1887; vol. 4, Izmir 1887; vol. 5, Izmir‬‬
‫‪1898; vol. 6, Jerusalem 1903.‬‬
‫‪‘Ades, A. (1990) Derex ’ereṣ. Bĕne Bĕraq: Ha-Maxon lĕ-Hafaṣat ‘Erke‬‬
‫‪Ha-Massoret šel Yahădut ’Aram Ṣova.‬‬
‫‪Adribi (or Adarbi), Y. (1582) Sefer šĕ’elot u-tšuvot […] divre rivot. Salo-‬‬
‫‪nika.‬‬
‫‪Almosnino, Y. (1711–1733) Sefer ‘edut bi-Yhosef. 2 vols. Constantinople.‬‬
‫‪Alshekh, M. (1605) Sefer šĕ’elot u-tšuvot Maharam Alšex. Venice.‬‬
‫‪‘Antebi, A. (1843) Sefer mor wa-’ăhalot. Livorno.‬‬
‫‪110‬‬
Arnold, W. (2013) Hebrew component in Judeo-Arabic, Syria. In G. Khan

(ed.), Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics. Online:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2212-4241_ehll_EHLL_COM_00000031. [Ac-
cessed: 17/05/2018].
Azulay, Ḥ.Y.D. (1792–1795) Sefer ḥayyim ša’al. 2 vols. Livorno.
Barki, Moshe ben Rĕfa’el Avraham Bĕxar (2003) Mazkeret Moše. Jerusa-
lem.
Ben (or Ibn) Ḥabib, L. (1565) Sefer šé’elot u-tšuvot. Venice.
Ben (or Ibn) Ḥabib, M. (1731) Sefer ‘ezrat našim. Constantinople.
Ben Ḥayyim, E. (1610) Šĕ’elot u-tšuvot. Constantinople.
Benjamin, J. J. (1858) Acht Jahre in Asien und Afrika von 1846 bis 1855.
Hannover: Wilh. Riemschneider.
Ben (or Ibn) Lev, Y. (1557?–c.1580) Šĕ’elot u-tšuvot. 4 volumes. Vol. 1,
Salonika, 1557?; vol. 2, Constantinople, 1561; vol. 3, Constantinople,
1573.
Ben Zimra, D. [b. Spain, 1479; d. Safed, 1573] (1586–1730) Šĕ’lot u-
tšuvot. Sedilkov: Yiṣḥaq Ben Eli‘ezer.
Borenstein-Makovetsky, L. (2012) A City of Sages and Merchants: The
Community of Aleppo (Halab, Aram Tzova During the Years 1492–
1800). Ariel: Ariel University Center of Samaria [Hebrew].
Boscán, J. ([1534] 1994) Traducción de El cortesano de Baltasar de Casti-
glione. Ed. Mario Pozzi. Madrid: Cátedra.
Bunis, D.M. (forthcoming) Judezmo passages in the responsa of Rabbi
Shemuel de Medina (Salonika 1506–1589): Verbatim quotation or edited
reconstruction? In D.M. Bunis et al. (eds.), Rabbinical Literature in Ju-
dezmo and Yiddish. Jerusalem.
—. (2017) Lexical elements of Slavic origin in Judezmo on South Slavic
territory, 16–19th centuries: Uriel Weinreich and the history of contact
linguistics. Journal of Jewish Languages 5 (Leiden: Brill), 217-252.
—. (2016) Judezmo (Ladino). In L. Kahn and A.D. Rubin (eds.), Hand-
book of Jewish Languages (pp. 365-450). Leiden: Brill.
—. (2013) The Whole Hebrew reading tradition of Ottoman Judezmo
speakers: The medieval Iberian roots. Hispania Judaica Bulletin 9, 15-
67.
—. (2005) Writing as a symbol of religio-national identity: On the histori-
cal development of Judezmo spelling. Pe‘amim 101-102, 111–171 [He-
brew].
—. (2004) Distinctive characteristics of Jewish Ibero-Romance, circa 1492.
Hispania Judaica Bulletin 4, 105-137.
—. (1974) The historical development of Judezmo orthography: A brief
sketch. New York: YIVO Institute for Jewish Research.
111
Cassol, A. (2001) Entre historia y literatura: la autobiografía del capitán

Domingo de Toral y Valdés (1635). In C. Strosetzki (ed.), Actas del
Quinto Congreso de la Asociación Internacional Siglo de Oro (Münster
1999) (pp. 308-318). Frankfurt am Main – Madrid: Vervuert – Iberoa-
mericana.
Cid, J.-A. (2001) Judíos en la prosa española del siglo XVII (Imperfecta sín-
tesis y antología mínima). In I.M. Hassán and R. Izquierdo Benito (eds.),
Judíos en la literatura española (pp. 213-266). Cuenca: Universidad de
Castilla – La Mancha.
Cohen-Tawil, A. (1993) Aleppo Jewry in the Mirror of the Generations.
Tel Aviv: World Center for the Legacy of the Aleppo Jews [Hebrew].
Crews, C.M. (1962) On the vulgar pronunciation of Hebrew in the Judaeo-
Spanish of Salonica. Journal of Jewish Studies 13, 83-95.
Danon, A. (1903) Proverbes judéo-espagnols de Turquie. Zeitschrift für
romanische Philologie 27, 72-96.
Delicado, F. ([1528] 1994) La Lozana Andaluza, ed. C. Allaigre. Madrid:
Cátedra.
DRAE = Real Academia Española (2001) Diccionario de la lengua espa-
ñola, 22ª ed., 2 vols. Madrid: Espasa Libros.
Duek, S. (1738) Sefer reaḥ śade. Constantinople.
Elmaleh, A. (1912) Ha-yĕhudim bĕ-Dammeśeq u-maṣavam ha-kalkali wĕ-
ha-tarbuti. Jaffa: Ha-Po‘el Ha-Ṣa‘ir.
Elyashar, Y. S. (1892) Sefer Ma‘ăśe ’iš. Jerusalem: Shĕmu’el Tsukerman.
Fernández de Heredia, J. (2003) Historia troyana, 1376–1396. Ed. J.M.
Cacho Blecua. Zaragoza: Universidad de Zaragoza.
Frenk Alatorre, M. (ed.) (1987) Corpus de la antigua lírica popular hispá-
nica (siglos XV a XVII). Madrid: Castalia.
Galante, Moshe ben Mordĕxay. (1809) Berax Moše. Livorno.
Garbell, I. (1954) The pronounciation of Hebrew in Medieval Spain. In
Homenaje a Millás-Vallicrosa, vol. I (pp. 647-696). Barcelona: CSIC.
Hadaya, ‘O. (1931–1980) Sefer šĕ’elot u-tšuvot yaśkil ‘avdi. 8 vols. Jerusa-
lem: Abiqasis & Sabba‘ et al.
Ha-Levy, M. (1697) Darxe no‘am. Venice.
Hall, R.A. (1941) Definite article + family name in Italian. Language 17,
33-39.
Harel, Y. (2013) Damascus. In N.A. Stillman (ed.), Encyclopedia of Jews in
the Islamic World. Online: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/en-
tries/encyclopedia-of-jews-in-the-islamic-world/labaton-mordechai-
SIM_000157?s.num=0&s.f.s2_parent=s.f.book.encyclopedia-of-jews-
in-the-islamic-world&s.q=labaton. [Accessed: 17/05/2018].
112
—. (2010) Syrian Jewry in Transition, 1840–1880. Tr. D. Ordan. Ox-

ford/Portland, OR: The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization.
—. (2009) An anti-Missionary tract in Ladino: Raffael Kassin’s Likutei
amarim en ladino (Izmir 1855). In D.M. Bunis (ed.), Languages and
Literatures of Sephardic and Oriental Jews (pp. 106-119). Jerusalem:
Misgav Yerushalayim – Mossad Bialik [Hebrew].
—. (2003) By Ships of Fire to the West: Changes in Syrian Jewry during
the Period of the Ottoman Reform (1840–1880). Jerusalem: Zalman
Shazar Center for Jewish History [Hebrew].
—. (1997) The Books of Aleppo: The Rabbinic Literature of the Scholars of
Aleppo. Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute [Hebrew].
Harel, Y. et al. (eds.) (2009) ‘Ereṣ u-mlo’a: Studies in the History of the
Jewish Community of Aleppo and its Culture. Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Insti-
tute [Hebrew].
Idelsohn, A.Z. (1917) Phonographierte Gesänge und Aussprachsproben
des Hebräischen der jemenitischen, persischen und syrischen Juden.
Vienna: Alfred Hölder.
Karo, Y. (1791) ’Avqat roxel. Salonika.
—. (1550–1559) Šĕ’elot u-tšuvot bet Yosef. Venice.
Katz, K. (1981) The Hebrew Language Tradition of the Jews of Aleppo in
the Reading of the Bible and Mishnah. Jerusalem: Magnes Press [He-
brew].
Kohen, E. and Kohen-Gordon, D. (2000) Ladino-English / English-Ladino
Concise Encyclopedic Dictionary. New York: Hippocrene.
Labaton, Ḥayyim Mordĕkhay ben Ḥalfon (1868) Noxaḥ ha-šulḥan. Izmir.
Landau, J. M. and Maoz, M. (1981) Jews and non-Jews in Egypt and Syria
in the nineteenth century. Pĕ‘amim 9, 4-13 [Hebrew].
Laniado, R.S. (1997) Šĕ’elot u-tšuvot Maharaš ha-ḥadašot. Jerusalem:
Mĕxon Bet ’Ahăron Wĕ-Yiśra’el.
—. (1984) Kisse Šĕlomo. Jerusalem: Mĕxon Ha-Kĕtav.
—. (1982) Bet dino šel Šĕlomo. Jerusalem: Mĕxon Ha-Kĕtav.
Laniado, Shĕmu’el ben Shĕlomo (1923) Šulḥan ha-melex. Aleppo.
Laniado, Shĕmu’el ben Moshe (1999) Dĕvaš wĕ-ḥalab ‘al lĕšonĕxa. Jeru-
salem: The author.
Levy, I. [1965?] Antología de liturgia judeo-española. [Jerusalem: The au-
thor].
Lewis, B. (1981) A letter from Little Menahem. In S. Morag (ed.), Studies
in Judaism and Islam Presented to Shelomo Dov Goitein on the Occa-
sion of His Eightieth Birthday (pp. 181-184). Jerusalem: Magnes Press.
113
Marcus, A. and Ayalon, Y. (2013) Aleppo. Online: http://referenceworks.

brillonline.com/entries/encyclopedia-of-jews-in-the-islamic-world/alep-
po-COM_0001210?s.num=3&s.q=aleppo. [Accessed: 17/05/2018].
Medina, S. de (1594–1597) Šĕ’elot u-tšuvot Maharašdam. Salonika.
Mĕlammed, Me’ir ben Šem Ṭov (1799) Sefer mišpaṭ ṣedeq. Vol. 2. Salo-
nika.
Mĕyuḥas, R.B.S. (1752–1763) Pĕri ha-’adama. 4 vols. Salonika.
Mitrani, Moshe ben Yosef (1629) Sefer šĕ’elot u-tšuvot. Venice.
Mitrani, Yosef ben Moshe (1642–1645) Šĕ’elot u-tšuvot […] me-harav
[…] Yosef ben […] Moše Mitrani. Vol. 1, Constantinople 1642; Vol. 2,
Venice 1645.
Nehama, J. (1977) Dictionnaire du judéo-espagnol. Madrid: CSIC.
Neimark, E. (1947) Masa‘ bĕ-’ereṣ ha-qedem [Journey to the Lands of the
East]. Ed. A. Yaari. Jerusalem: Levin Epstein.
Nevo, M. (2009) The Judeo-Arabic dialect of Aleppo. In Y. Harel et al.
(eds.), ‘Ereṣ u-mlo’a: Studies in the History of the Jewish Community of
Aleppo and its Culture (pp. 121-130). Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute [He-
brew].
— (1991) The Arabic dialect of the Jews of Aleppo: Phonology and mor-
phology, PhD. dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem [Hebrew].
Online: http://digital.cjh.org [Accessed: 17/05/2018].
Palachi, Ḥ. (1873) Ḥayyim ba-yad. Izmir.
Perahya, K. et al. (2012) Diksyonaryo judeo espanyol – türkçe. Second edi-
tion, ed. K.G. Şarhon. Istanbul: Gözlem – Sefarad Kültürü Araştırma
Merkezi.
Pinto, Yoshiyyahu ben Yosef [1869] Nivḥar mi-kesef. Aleppo.
Qaṣin, Y. et al. (1904) Sefer ro‘e Yiśra’el. Jerusalem: n.p.
Quintana, A. (2006) Geografía lingüística del judeoespañol: Estudio sin-
crónico y diacrónico. Bern: Peter Lang.
Rodríguez de Montalvo, G. ([1508] 1991) Amadís de Gaula, libros I y II,
ed. J. M. Cacho Blecua. Madrid: Cátedra.
Roffé, S. (n.d.) The Jews of Aleppo. Online: http://www.jewish-
gen.org/sephardic/aleppojews.htm; http://www.dayanof-aleppo.com/
docs/AleppoHistB.aspx [Accessed: 23/06/2018].
Rubens, A. (1967) A History of Jewish Costume. New York: Funk & Wag-
nalls.
Šabbĕtay, Ḥ. (1713–1722) Torat ḥayyim. Salonika: Vol. 1, 1713; vol. 2,
1715; vol. 3, 1722.
Safdie, A. (2009) Tree’s Branches between Aram-Zova and Safed. [Ramat
Hasharon: A. Safdie] [Hebrew].
114
Ṣahalon, Yom Ṭov ben Moshe (1980) Šĕ’elot u-tšuvot Mahari”ṭ Ṣahalon
ha-ḥadašot. Annotated by Y. Boksboym, et al. Two vols. Jerusalem:
Mĕkhon Yĕrušalayim.
— (1694) Šĕ’elot u-tšuvot […] Yom Ṭov Ṣahalon. Venice.
Sandys, G. (1673) Sandys Travels. 7th ed. London: John Williams Jr.
Seroussi, E. (1990) Rabbi Israel Nadjara, composer of sacred songs after
the expulsion from Spain. Assufot 4 (Jerusalem), 285-310 [Hebrew].
Seroussi, E. and Havassy, R. (2009) Incipitario sefardí: El cancionero ju-
deoespañol en fuentes hebreas (siglos XV–XIX). Madrid: CSIC.
Shamosh, A. (1978) Mišel ‘Ezra Safra u-vanaw [Michel Ezra Safra and
Sons]. [Ramat Gan]: Massada [Hebrew].
Silva, F. de ([Cuenca 1530] 2004) Amadís de Grecia. Ed. A.C. Bueno Se-
rrano and C. Laspuerta Servisé. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Cervantinos.
Sutton, J.A.D. (c. 1988) Aleppo Chronicles. New York: Thayer-Jacoby.
—. (c. 1979) Magic Carpet: Aleppo-In-Flatbush. New York: Thayer-
Jacoby.
Tietze, A. and Yahalom, J. (1995) Ottoman Melodies, Hebrew Hymns: A
16th-Century Cross-Cultural Adventure. Budapest: Akademiai Kiado.
Toral, D. de (1879) Relación de la vida del Capitán Domingo de Toral y
Valdés, escrita por el mismo Capitán. In M. Serrano y Sanz (ed.), Colec-
ción de documentos inéditos para la historia de España 71 (pp. 495-
547). Madrid: Imprenta de Manuel Ginesta.
Valle, P. Della (1650–1658 [1667]). Viaggi di Pietro Della Valle il pelle-
grino, con minuto raguaglio di tutte le cose notabili osservate in essi:
descritti da lui medesimo in 54 lettere familiari all'erudito suo amico
Mario Schipano, divisi in tre parti cioè: la Turchia, la Persia e l'India.
Colla vita e ritratto dell'autore. Rome [Venice].
Villalobos, G.F. de [Marqués de Varinas] ([1685] 1899) Desagravios de
los indios y reglas precisamente necesarias para jueces y ministros.
Madrid: Real Academia de la Historia.
Xulí, Ya‘aqov ben Maxir (1730) Me-‘am lo‘ez [...] bĕrešit. Constantinople.
Yadid, Yosef ben Mordĕxay Ha-Levi (1929) Wa-yḥi Yosef. Jerusalem:
’Aviv Pinĕḥas ‘Anaw.
Yahalom, J. (1982) Rabbi Yisrael Nadjara and the revival of Hebrew song
in the East following the expulsion from Spain. Pĕ‘amim 13, 96-124
[Hebrew].
Yosef, ‘O. (1938, 1954–1995) Sefer yabbia‘ ‘omer. 1, 8 vols. Jerusalem:
Tsukerman, Porat Yosef.
Zenner, W.P. (c. 2000) A Global Community: The Jews from Aleppo, Syria.
Detroit: Wayne State University Press.

David M. Bunis (Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Israel) : Echoes of Judezmo in Syria

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

David M. Bunis (Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Israel) : Echoes of Judezmo in Syria

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

ECHOES OF JUDEZMO IN SYRIA

David M. Bunis (Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Israel) 1

1. Judezmo: The Ibero-Romance language of the Sephardim in the

a successful if problematic Jewish family in Aleppo over three genera-

Present-day Jews belonging to families from Syria tend to support

The same Valle, in a letter which he had written in Constantinople on 13

the “Spanish” which Valle depicted as used among the Sephardim of

be essentially Sephardic in origin, since, in their Arabic, all of its mem-

words may be compared with Spanish consuegro, cuñado and cabezal;

the Hispanic-origin femininizing suffix -a, which was originally added

Some of the Judezmo incipits cited by Nadjara demonstrate charac-

4.2. Syrian Judezmo in a personal letter to a consul in Aleppo

the Ottoman Sephardic responsa literature. The responsa literature

tantinople (b. Edirne 1530?, d. 1610?), published in Constantinople in

On 4 Nisan 5339 [=10 April 1579] the second witness—Yokheved

4.3.2. Dubious statements of betrothal in the vernacular

4.3.3. Conditional certificates of divorce in the vernacular

4.3.4. Commercial matters

4.3.5. Games and gambling

por lícito en kazas” ‘making it permitted in houses,’ apparently from the

5. Jewish multilingualism and ethnicity in the sixteenth-century Ot-

Arabic) was also the language of communication between Sephardim

phardic rabbis of Syria generally referred to their spoken language by

and their language was referred to as Hispanic-origin turkesko. 50 In 49F

places such as Constantinople and Salonika, where the Arab presence

Judezmo testimony of Ya‘aqov Ha-Kohen, Damascus is called by its

6. Structural features of Judezmo in Ottoman Syria as reflected in

6.1. Romance component

texts from sixteenth-century Constantinople also reveal many instances

As general in Judezmo from the sixteenth century on (and as

yevara, versus S. llevase/-ara). Forms corresponding to archaisms or

(2) The possessive constructed with an indefinite article followed by

6.1.3. Syntax and stylistics

The introductory phrase of address used by the two witnesses from

did their Hispanic, Hispano-Arabic, or Italian names and traditional Ju-

food terms of Hispanic and Ottoman origin, well documented in other

cuit.’ 81 Perhaps incorporated from the culinary traditions of the frankos

In the responsa of Yiṣḥaq Abu’lafia (b. Damascus 1825, d. Tiberias

also contain references to the roska, kalsones and makarón. 89 8F

Some of the Judezmo culinary terms of Iberian origin, perhaps cited

The few Judezmo terms of Iberian origin which continue to appear in

‫ כלבסאדה‬kalavasaḏa ‘candied pumpkin’); 99 and taw rather than ṭet for t

items of Hebrew-Aramaic origin, and lexemes of Ottoman origin. Such

6.2. Hebrew-Aramaic Component

used among the Sephardim of Constantinople and Salonika, who

The Hebraisms occurring in our small corpus are used to denote

6.3. Ottoman Component

phonological zero), as in Rumelian Turkish [masla'(h)at], rather than as

Additional corroboration of the phonemic distinction between [ḥ]

/ṭ/ vs. /t/:

elements of Turkish origin in which simple t is denoted in Ottoman

pharyngeal [ṭ] was not deeply incorporated in the Syrian Judezmo

Interestingly, Ḥayyim Yosef David Azulay (b. Jerusalem 1724, d.

the usual use of ṭet to denote non-pharyngeal t in Judezmo speech communities

among Judezmo speakers outside Arabic speech regions. Ottoman

Commerce and currency: maṣlaḥat ‘business affair,’ grosh ‘Turkish

As a result of their full integration within Judezmo, some borrowings

6.4. Regional Arabic Component

Sephardi, to Sephardic Rabbi Moshe Mitrani of Safed, a ‘title-deed’ is

opposed to Arabic through Ottoman) elements appear in Judezmo

Laniado (Lañado), Silvera, 188 Filas, 189 Mansano (Manzano), Pinto,

Arnold, W. (2013) Hebrew component in Judeo-Arabic, Syria. In G. Khan

Cassol, A. (2001) Entre historia y literatura: la autobiografía del capitán