Chapter I

An Open and Closed Case

Welcome to the world of Hebrew word structure -- possibly one of the

least studied subjects of a least favorite subject -- ‫קדוק‬ ְ ‫ד‬ ִ . It was a discipline
introduced to us with the arrival of our first grade ‫רים‬ ִ ‫סדו‬ ִ , as we learned to
read Hebrew, and such seemingly foreboding terms as ‫נח‬ ָ ‫שָוא‬ְ /‫נע‬ ָ ‫שָוא‬ ְ , and
‫רע‬ַ ְ‫מל‬ ִ /‫עיל‬ ֵ ְ ‫מל‬
ִ came into our consciousness.
But, truth be told -- for many of us, familiarity with this subject was
ephemeral; it faded into the background till we (perhaps?) referenced it
again in preparing for our bar mitzvah. Then, unless we were committed to
become serious ‫ריאה‬ ִ ‫ק‬ ְ ‫לי‬
ֵ ‫ע‬ַ ַ ‫ב‬, or first-grade ‫כים‬ ִ ְ ‫חנ‬
ַ ‫מ‬
ְ , determined to teach the
proper reading of ‫מע‬ ַ ‫ש‬ ְ ‫ריאת‬ ִ ‫ק‬
ְ , or for want of a better term, "‫קדוק‬ ְ ‫ד‬ ִ freaks"
(yes, every shul has, or should have one!), it was ‫ני‬ ִ ַ ‫טר‬ָ ְ ‫שפ‬ ֶ ְ ‫ברוך‬ ָ from these
tedious yokes of Hebrew grammar. With great relief, we bid it a ‫כם‬ ֶ ְ‫צאת‬ֵ
‫שלום‬ ָ ְ‫ל‬, with the implied message that (along with the remainder of the
dreaded drudgery of ‫קדוק‬ ְ ‫ד‬ִ ?) never would our paths cross again.
The fallout from this parting of the ways is reflected in a general paucity
of knowledge of how ‫דש‬ ֶ ‫ק‬
ֹ ַ‫לשון ה‬ ְ is to be properly read. This particular skill is
usually not stressed or even included in the yeshiva curriculum, and is,
therefore, not taught in a formal classroom setting. This is understandable,
as ‫כים‬ ִ ְ ‫חנ‬
ַ ‫מ‬ְ will not teach material with which they themselves are less than
familiar.
My goal in this projct is an attempt to address this problem. What will
follow will not be a formal ‫קדוק‬ ְ ‫ד‬ ִ textbook, and will certainly not claim to
cover all the esoterica of grammatical minutia. It will be in the nature of
classroom ‫רים‬ ִ ‫שיעו‬
ִ , with its intention to familiarize the student with the basic
principles and terminology of Hebrew word structure. Hopefully then, he
would feel comfortable enough with these concepts -- that when he does
chance upon this subject in e.g. a commentary of ‫ש"י‬ ִ ַ ‫ ר‬or ‫רא‬ ָ ְ ‫עז‬
ֶ ‫בן‬ ְ ִ‫א‬, they are
not reflexively consigned to the "no-need-to-learn-it" category.
And before we get into the subject material -- one final observation, and a
plug for the material to be studied: Unlike the fare commonly offered up in
the teaching of ‫קדוק‬ ְ ‫ד‬ ִ -- a myriad of lists of verbs and nouns, ‫נים‬ ִ ָ ‫ בִנ ְי‬and
‫שים‬ ִ ָ ‫שר‬ ָ , seemingly without a unifying theme, and mastered, therefore only by
rote -- Hebrew word structure is truly the polar opposite. In it there does
exist a system of remarkably few basic principles from which all else logically
flows. Resorting to rote, therefore, to learn whether, for example, a particular
‫שָוא‬ְ is ‫נע‬ ָ or ‫נח‬ ָ or whether a ‫מץ‬ ַ ‫ק‬ ָ in question is ‫ גדול‬or ‫טן‬ ָ ‫ק‬ ָ will almost never
be necessary.
And with that intro, let's get underway!
As our point of embarkation, we'll start off with an observation that even
without any introductory ‫רים‬ ִ ‫שיעו‬
ִ , we would still be aware of: Hebrew and
English words share the basic building blocks of syllables, consonants, and
vowels.
Even, without formal training, therefore, we could apply "dissecting" skills
to words, and separate them into these component parts.
Somewhere along the line, for example, we learned that English words
such as Hebrew and holy may be subdivided into He-brew and ho-ly
respectively.
(Advisory of things to come-- though the subject is the Hebrew word,
these ‫רים‬ ִ ‫שיעו‬ִ are geared to an English speaking audience -- so be prepared
for many references to English language and words as we go along.)
Similarly, in Hebrew itself, ‫רית‬ִ ְ‫עב‬
ִ would be subdivided into ‫רית‬ ִ -ְ‫עב‬
ִ , and
‫דש‬ ֶ ‫ק‬
ֹ into ‫דש‬ ֶ -‫ק‬
ֹ .
Let's now proceed in reverse. We will not be breaking words down; rather
we'll be building them up. We'll take consonants and vowels, and see how
languages join them together to constitute syllables, from which, words will
eventually be formed.
That should not be complicated because you've observed it in the many
years that you've been reading Hebrew, English, or any other language. It's
just that the perspective will now be somewhat different.
So let's think of ourselves with a set of blocks before us, imprinted either
with consonants or vowels
The question is the following:
What is the least number of blocks needed to make the simplest of
syllables?
And of what type must these blocks be?
If we were to pose that question in English, the answer would be that no
match-up is even necessary. One block will do -- as long as it is a vowel.
Think of the a in a-corn, the e in e-ject, the i in i-con, the o in o-live, and
finally, the u in u-ni-ty. All of them are syllables in their own right.
And then there are the two examples of the vowels A and I. Not only are
they syllables, they even constitute complete words.
There are also diphthongs (a word you'll hear a good deal more of); these
are two vowels that join together to make one sound. In the process, they
might even create a syllable, such as ai in ai-ming, ea in ea- ting, and ou in
ou-ting.
In contrast, there are no consonants that alone, or even joined together,
make up a syllable.They would require at least one accompanying vowel for
a syllable to emerge.
Therefore -- the first important dictum to remember: No vowel means no
syllable. This, as we will see, carries over equally well into Hebrew.
Examples of a vowel attached to a consonant creating a syllable would be
ma, he, bi, no, du
and I could literally go on ad-infinitum.
But these will be sufficient -- so look carefully at them. What I'd like you
to notice is that these two-letter syllables all end with the sound of a vowel.
Of course, we could amend that by adding a consonant to each one of
their endings. We'll add..
*A p to ma to make it map.
*An r to he make it her.
*A t to bi to make it bit.
*A d to no to make it nod.
*And, finally, an n to du to make it dun.
Five new three-letter syllables (and, in these case, words) have emerged.
But, besides the increased number of letters, they are also of a different
sort.
Unlike the first group (ma, he, bi, no, du), each of which ended with the
sound of a vowel, all the new syllables are ending with the sound of a
consonant.
Another way of describing this second group, is that the vowel is being
closed in by the second consonant. The same cannot be said for the first
group. They are open-ended
Now let's turn to Hebrew.
It's going to have to be different because of the very nature of its vowels.
Setting aside for the moment the letters ‫א‬, ‫ו‬, ‫ה‬, and ‫יהוא ( י‬, for short --
you'll be hearing a great deal more about this foursome as we go along),
Hebrew vowels, unlike their English counterparts, are not separate entities.
And, for the most part, they're not even letters.
Unlike an A or an E, or an English diphthong ( two vowels making one
sound), a ‫תח‬ ַ ַ‫ ) ( פ‬for example, or a ‫רק‬
ִ ‫חי‬
ִ ( ), must be attached to a
consonant in order to make it functional. They have no independent
existence of their own.
On the other hand, in regard to the consonant itself, Hebrew would be
identical with English. A Hebrew consonant also cannot stand on its own to
constitute a syllable. It too must have an accompanying vowel.
(And even if the vowels are not formally written -- as is the case in most
Hebrew writings -- we are still very aware of their presence.)
 So now let's pose the exact same question with our Hebrew blocks as we
did with their English counterparts: What is the least number of blocks
needed to make the simplest of syllables? And, of what type must these
blocks be?
The answer is going to be similar to English -- with an added proviso.
True, the simplest Hebrew syllable can also be one letter, but, unlike
English (in which, we have noted, a vowel by itself can constitute a syllable)
it would have to be a consonant. Of course, it would have to be coupled with
a vowel such as ‫מץ‬ ַ ‫ק‬
ָ , ‫תח‬
ַ ַ‫ פ‬etc., in order for a syllable to emerge.
Examples of this would be ֵ ‫ צ‬,‫מ‬ ִ ,‫ל‬
ֹ ,‫ח‬
ֵ ,‫א‬
ֵ (and, again, countless others.)
Now, similar to our initial English observations, note that these one-letter
Hebrew syllables also all end with the sound of a vowel.
And, again, let's proceed with the same emendations that we performed
in English -- and "close" them off by adding a consonant to the end of each
one of them:
A ‫ ם‬to ‫א‬ ֵ to make it ‫אם‬ ֵ .
A ‫ ת‬to ‫ח‬ ֵ to make it ‫חת‬ ֵ .
A ‫ ג‬to ‫ל‬ֹ to make it ‫לג‬ ֹ .
A ‫ ן‬to ‫מ‬
ִ to make it ‫מן‬ ִ .
A ‫ ל‬to ֵ ‫ צ‬to make it ‫צל‬ ֵ .
And once more, we've changed the very character of the syllables. No
longer do they end with the sound of a vowel; no longer are they open-
ended. They conclude, rather, with the sound of a consonant. The vowel has
become closed.
We could also have taken the original one-letter syllables ֵ ‫ צ‬,‫מ‬
ִ ,‫ל‬
ֹ ,‫ח‬
ֵ ,‫א‬
ֵ ,
and while keeping them open-ended, turn them directly into words.
Hebrew, however, has no one-letter words (such as A or I.) It requires
even open-ended, one-syllable words, to be "finished off" with a vowel letter
from ‫יהוא‬.
So now, let's proceed to add a...
a ‫ י‬to ‫א‬ ֵ to make it ‫אי‬ ֵ
a ‫ י‬to ‫ח‬ ֵ to make it ‫חי‬ֵ
a ‫ ו‬to ‫ל‬
ֹ make it ‫לו‬ֹ
a ‫ י‬to ‫מ‬ִ to make it ‫מי‬ ִ
an ‫ א‬to ִֵ ‫ צ‬to make it ‫צא‬ ֵ
Carefully take note that the second letters (all from ‫ )יהוא‬in these one-
syllable words are serving as vowels and not as consonants. These
syllables, therefore, remain open-ended as they do not have a concluding
consonant to close them off.
****************************************************************
****
Note: For the present, we'll have to accept as a given -- that the ‫ יהוא‬letters are serving here as
vowels. For the impatiently curious, however, notice that when these letters were added, they did not,
for the most part, change the pronunciation of the syllables (‫א‬ ֵ sounds like ‫אי‬
ֵ ,‫ל‬
ֹ like ‫לו‬
ֹ etc.) This is a
hallmark of ‫ יהוא‬letters serving as vowels. Let's leave it at that for the present. The subject will be
completely covered in future discussions. ()
*************************************************************
*******
But it really would be quite easy also to change that. All it takes is to add
a consonant to the end of each word.
So let's add...
a ‫ ד‬to ‫אי‬
ֵ to make it ‫איד‬ֵ
a ‫ ק‬to ‫חי‬ֵ to make it ‫חיק‬ ֵ
a ‫ ט‬to ‫לו‬ ֹ to make it ‫לוט‬ ֹ
a ‫ ן‬to ‫מי‬
ִ to make it ‫מין‬
ִ
a ‫ ת‬to ‫צא‬ ֵ to make it ‫צאת‬ ֵ
And, as before, we come up with a new set of one-syllable words. In spite
of now having a middle letter, they are still of the same type as ‫מן‬ ִ ,‫לג‬
ֹ ,‫חת‬
ֵ ,‫אם‬
ֵ
and ‫צל‬ ֵ . That is, they begin with a consonant, go on to a vowel, and most
importantly, they then end with a consonant. These syllables are closed-
ended.
These two types of syllables represent the most fundamental units of a
Hebrew word. As we study the dynamics that mold a Hebrew word into its
definitive form, frequent reference will be made as to whether a syllable is
open or closed. It is almost impossible, therefore, to overstate the
importance of this distinction.
A comment for the ‫קים‬ ִ ‫ד‬
ְ ‫ק‬ ְ ‫ד‬
ַ ְ‫ מ‬in the ‫קים‬
ִ ‫קדו‬
ְ ‫ד‬
ִ of ‫קדוק‬ ְ ‫ד‬
ִ ‫קי‬ֵ ‫קדו‬ְ ‫ד‬ִ (even if its
mostly about English):
English is further differentiated from Hebrew in that, though syllables
may end with the sound of a consonant, they need not start with one.
Syllables (and, in these cases, words) such as an, ebb, if, on, and up
illustrate this point; they begin with vowels, and are, therefore, not closed in
at both ends.
In Hebrew, this almost never happens -- every syllable begins with a
consonant.
Note the qualification almost, because as is usual in ‫קדוק‬ ְ ‫ד‬ִ , there are
exceptions to this rule. They are two in number:
1) Words beginning with the vowel, ‫ו‬, as in ‫כל‬ ָ ְ‫וב‬, ‫כן‬
ֵ ְ‫וב‬, and ‫בין‬ ֵ ‫ו‬, where the
‫ ו‬is unaccompanied by any consonant. The latter word, ‫בין‬ ֵ -‫ו‬, as a matter of
fact, and other similar words (e.g. ‫כים‬
ִ ‫לי‬
ִ ‫מ‬
ְ ‫מ‬
ַ -‫ ו‬and ‫עה‬
ֹ ְ ‫פ ַר‬-‫ )ו‬are the only
examples in Hebrew where a vowel constitutes a syllable all of its own! (To
be discussed further in a later chapter.)
2) Words such as ‫ח‬ ַ ‫ ֹנ‬and ‫ח‬
ַ ‫רי‬
ֵ , in which the ‫תח‬ַ ַ ‫ פ‬is referred to as ‫תח‬
ַ ַ‫פ‬
‫בה‬
ָ ‫גנו‬
ְ . Here, the second syllable begins with the sound of a ‫תח‬ ַ ַ‫פ‬
unaccompanied by a consonant (‫ ֹנ ַח‬and ‫רי ַח‬ ֵ ).
***********************************************************************
********************
Note:(1) This is only in accordance with Ashkenazic pronunciation. The subject of ‫בה‬
ָ ‫גנו‬
ְ ‫תח‬
ַ ַ‫ פ‬will
be more full explored in a later discussion.
**************************************************************************
*********************
(2) Since, in discussing ‫קדוק‬ ְ ‫ד‬, we are invariably going to come upon exceptions to the rule (as
we just did!) -- an observation regarding the frequently heard expression, "the exception proves the
rule."
The statement would appear to be oxymoronic. After all, a very reasoned argument can be made
for exactly the opposite premise -- that the exception, in fact, disproves the rule!
The answer usually given is that the presence of an exception proves (i.e. verifies) that a rule, in
fact, exists -- for, obviously, there can never be an exception to a rule that does not exist!
A more meaningful understanding of this maxim, however, is based on another definition of the
verb, to prove, and that is to test the veracity of .
Viewed from this perspective, when an exception is said to prove a rule, it is not verifying the
rule's existence. Rather, it is testing (or even challenging!) its verifiability. After all, if there is a rule,
what then accounts for the exception?
Prove, interestingly, shares a common Latin root (probare -- to test) with the verb, probe. The
expression, therefore. would seemingly be better rendered, not as "the exception proves the rule", but
rather that "the exception probes the rule!"
**************************************************************
******
We are completing our initiation into the world of the Hebrew word.
Syllables, both open and closed, have come onto the stage, along with
vowels, consonants, and ‫ יהוא‬letters serving as vowels.
All, however, were presented in their English names.
But we are in the world of ‫דש‬ ֶ ‫ק‬
ֹ ַ‫לשון ה‬
ְ , and it is proper that we familiarize
ourselves with the Hebrew terminology for these ‫קדוק‬ ְ ‫ד‬
ִ items. So here they
are:
A vowel is a ‫עה‬ָ ‫תנו‬
ְ -- a term dating back to the period of the ‫נים‬ ִ ‫שו‬
ֹ ‫רא‬ ִ , and
a derivative of the ‫רש‬ ֶ ‫ש‬
ֹ , ‫ נעה‬-- to move. This is a phonetic reference,
describing how the sounds of vowels are produced -- by the [unimpeded]
movement of air from our lungs.
In modern Hebrew, ‫עה‬ ָ ‫תנו‬
ְ , i.e. movement, has a wide range of non-
grammatical applications, including, for example, [the movement of] traffic,
(referred to simply as ‫עה‬ ָ ‫תנו‬
ְ ), and spiritual movements (e.g. ‫סר‬ ָ ‫המו‬
ַ ‫עת‬ ַ ‫תנו‬ְ ).
 A synonym often encountered for grammatical ‫עות‬ ֹ ‫תנו‬
ְ is ‫דות‬ ֹ ‫נקו‬ ְ . This term
is no longer a phonetic reference, but rather a visual one, based on the fact
that most ‫עות‬ ֹ ‫תנו‬
ְ are, in fact, written as ‫דות‬ ֹ ‫נקו‬ְ i.e, dots -- as in the word
‫דות‬ ֹ ‫נקו‬ ְ itself!
A consonant is an ‫עצור‬ ִ -- a term of recent vintage. It is based on the ,‫עצר‬
‫רש‬ ֶ ‫ש‬ֹ -- to stop or to impede. This again is a phonetic reference, describing
the manner in which the sounds of consonants are produced -- specifically,
the movement of air from our lungs being impeded by our tongues, teeth,
lips, etc. ()
A syllable is a ‫רה‬ ָ ָ ‫ הֲב‬-- first appearing In the ‫שון‬ ֹ ָ ‫ ל‬of ‫חַזל‬ ֲ , where it refers
only to an indistinct, garbled sound. Only during the period of the ‫נים‬ ִ ‫שו‬
ֹ ‫רא‬ ִ ,
did ‫רה‬ ָ ָ ‫ הֲב‬take on the meaning of syllable. It also is defined as
pronunciation -- as in ‫זית‬ ִ ַ ‫שכ ְנ‬ְ ‫רה א‬ ָ ָ‫ הֲב‬and ‫דית‬ ִ ְ ‫ספ ַר‬ְ ‫רה‬ ָ ָ‫הֲב‬. The etymology of
the word is unclear.
An open syllable is a ‫חה‬ ָ ‫פתו‬ ְ ‫רה‬ ָ ָ‫ הֲב‬or ‫טה‬ ָ ‫פשו‬ ְ . Its closed counterpart is a
‫רה‬ָ ‫סגו‬ ְ ‫רה‬ ָ ָ ‫ הֲב‬-- also referred to as ‫בת‬ ֶ ֶ ‫מר ְכ‬
ֻ (i.e. complex) or ‫מה‬ ָ ‫סתו‬ ְ . (We will be
using the terms ‫חה‬ ָ ‫פתו‬ ְ and ‫רה‬ ָ ‫סגו‬ְ exclusively.)
‫ יהוא‬letters, when serving as vowels, are called ‫ריאה‬ ִ ‫ק‬
ְ ַ‫מות ה‬ֹ ִ‫ א‬-- yet one
more ‫קדוק‬ ְ ‫ד‬
ִ term that made its appearance during the period of the ‫נים‬ ִ ‫שו‬ֹ ‫רא‬ ִ .
The name (in Latin -- matres lectionis, i.e. reading mothers) refers to their
role as aids in helping to read Hebrew properly, especially when ‫עות‬ ֹ ‫תנו‬ְ (as
is the usual case) are omitted.
In all our forthcoming discussions, however, it's going to be Hebrew
written with ‫עות‬ ֹ ‫תנו‬
ְ . We will, therefore, first be referring to a ‫ יהוא‬letter
serving as a vowel, simply as a vowel letter -- with the Hebrew term "‫אות‬ ֹ
‫חה‬ ָ ָ ‫ "נ‬added on. This refers to the letter being in a state of "rest", i.e.
remaining silent and not contributing a sound of its own. (One other name
will be added when this subject is discussed more completely in a later
chapter.)
Which brings us finally to the one last term that took a free ride along
with the others. No formal introduction was needed as we all had
encountered this item many, many times in the past.
And that is the term, ‫קדוק‬ ְ ‫ד‬ִ .
Words that are overly familiar to us, however, often drop off the radar
screen of intellectual curiosity, and ‫קדוק‬ ְ ‫ד‬
ִ may very well fall into that
category. Its English translation is grammar, a word derived from the
German, gramma, meaning something written (as in the word, telegram, i.e.
written afar.)
In no way does the word, ‫קדוק‬ ְ ‫ד‬ ִ , share a similar Hebrew derivation. (Else,
the Hebrew word for grammar would be a derivative of the ‫רש‬ ֶ ‫ש‬ֹ ,l ‫כתב‬, and
‫קדוק‬
ְ ‫ד‬
ִ , obviously, is not.) So let's finish off this discussion with a brief
excursion into the etymology of the word, ‫קדוק‬ ְ ‫ד‬
ִ , and see how it came to be
the Hebrew word for grammar.
The antecedent of the term, ‫קדוק‬ ְ ‫ד‬ִ , is ‫דק‬ַ , mentioned several times in ‫נך‬ ַ ַ‫ת‬
with a meaning of small or fine. It is in the ‫שון‬ ֹ ָ ‫ ל‬of ‫חַזל‬ ֲ that we first find the
word being doubled, with the resultant strengthening, and the emergence of
a new term, ‫קדוק‬ ְ ‫ד‬
ִ , defined as exactness, precision, or attentiveness to
detail.
In Talmud, the word has absolutely no connection with grammar, but
rather is used to refer to the fine points of Torah and related subjects (e.g.
‫צות‬
ְ ‫מ‬ִ ‫קי‬ ֵ ‫קדו‬
ְ ‫ד‬ ִ ,‫רה‬ ָ ‫קי תו‬ ֵ ‫קדו‬ ְ ‫ד‬ ִ etc.). The closest it comes in Talmud to grammar is
the phrase ‫אותִֹיות‬ ֹ ‫קי‬ ֵ ‫קדו‬ ְ ‫ד‬ ִ , referring to the proper pronunciation of letters in
e.g. ‫מע‬ ַ ‫ש‬ְ ‫ריאת‬ ִ ‫ק‬
ְ .
It is only during the period of the ‫נים‬ ִ ‫שו‬
ֹ ‫רא‬ִ (as seen, for example, in the
writings of ‫נש‬ ַ ‫דו‬, ‫נאח‬ ַ 'ַ ‫בן ג‬ְ ִ‫א‬, and ‫רא‬ ָ ְ ‫עז‬ֶ ‫בן‬ְ ִ‫ )א‬that we see ‫קדוק‬ ְ ‫ד‬
ִ assuming the
meaning that we most associate it with today, i.e. grammar.
As applied to Hebrew grammar, the word ‫קדוק‬ ְ ‫ד‬
ִ transmits an all-too-clear
message regarding the nature of this subject -- it entails scrupulous
attention to minute detail. As we now proceed further into the study of
Hebrew word structure, keep this operative clearly in mind; it will be
reinforced over and over.
And please, don't be intimidated by this emphasis on exactitude. We
should all be quite used to it. The world of ‫רה‬ ָ ‫תו‬ ֹ and ‫כה‬ ָ ָ ‫ הֲל‬operates under
the exact same premise.
Moreover, most (okay -- not all!) of the ‫קדוק‬ ְ ‫ד‬ִ concepts we'll be learning (
‫חות‬ֹ ‫פתו‬ ְ ‫רות‬ ֹ ָ ‫ הֲב‬and ‫רות‬ ֹ ‫סגו‬ ְ are but two typical examples) will prove to be
surprisingly simple -- making this ‫למוד‬ ִ a challenging but ultimately
rewarding experience.
With that attempt at ‫חזוק‬ ִ , let's move on to the next chapter.