The Studies on the Hebrew Language / İbrani Dili Üzerine Araştırmalar 1443866288, 9781443866286 [PDF]

Zitiervorschau

The Studies on the Hebrew Language / İbrani Dili Üzerine Araştırmalar

The Studies on the Hebrew Language / İbrani Dili Üzerine Araştırmalar

Edited by

Ali Küçükler and Hüseyin İçen Translated into Turkish by Hüseyin İçen

The Studies on the Hebrew Language / İbrani Dili Üzerine Araştırmalar, Edited by Ali Küçükler and Hüseyin İçen This book first published 2014 Cambridge Scholars Publishing 12 Back Chapman Street, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2XX, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2014 by Ali Küçükler, Hüseyin İçen and contributors All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-4438-6628-8, ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-6628-6

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ................................................................................................. 1 Jacob M. Landau Chapter One ................................................................................................ 3 The Language of the Bible and the Mishnah Moshe Florentin Chapter Two ............................................................................................... 9 The Language of the Dead Sea Scrolls Steven Fassberg Chapter Three ........................................................................................... 15 The Cairo Genizah Avihai Shivtiel Chapter Four ............................................................................................. 21 Hebrew Printing in Ottoman Istanbul Jacob M. Landau Chapter Five ............................................................................................. 31 The Revival of Hebrew Shlomit Shraybom-Shivtiel Chapter Six ............................................................................................... 39 The Language War: Hebrew and Other Languages in Pre-First World War Palestine Dennis Kurzon Chapter Seven ........................................................................................... 51 Revival and Reform in Hebrew and Turkish: A Comparison İlker Aytürk Chapter Eight ............................................................................................ 59 The Rapport between Hebrew and Arabic Shlomo Alon

vi

Table of Contents

Chapter Nine ............................................................................................. 63 Hebrew in the Universities of Turkey Bedrettin Aytaç

İÇINDEKILER

Önsöz ......................................................................................................... 69 Jacob M. Landau Birinci Bölüm ........................................................................................... 71 Tevrat ve Mişna’nın Dili Moshe Florentin İkinci Bölüm ............................................................................................. 77 Ölü Deniz Elyazmalarının Dili Steven Fassberg Üçüncü Bölüm .......................................................................................... 83 Kahire Geniza Elyazmaları Avihai Shivtiel Dördüncü Bölüm ...................................................................................... 89 Osmanlı İstanbul’unda İbrani Basımcılığı Jacob M. Landau Beşinci Bölüm .......................................................................................... 99 İbranice’nin Yeniden Canlanması Shlomit Shraybom-Shivtiel Altıncı Bölüm ......................................................................................... 107 Dil Savaşı: Savaş Öncesi Filistin’inde İbranice ve Öteki Diller Dennis Kurzon Yedinci Bölüm ........................................................................................ 119 Türkçe ve İbranicede Dil Reformu Meselesine Karşılaştırmalı Bir Bakış İlker Aytürk Sekizinci Bölüm ..................................................................................... 127 İbranice ve Arapça Arasındaki Yakın İlişki Shlomo Alon

viii

İçindekiler

Dokuzuncu Bölüm .................................................................................. 131 Türk Üniversitelerinde İbranice Bedrettin Aytaç

INTRODUCTION

The idea of organizing a symposium on the history of the Hebrew language took shape in the thoughts of Professor Dr. M. Metin Hülagü, a distinguished historian and Associate Rector of Erciyes University in Kayseri. Several years earlier, he had undertaken to introduce the study of the Hebrew language into this institution, so beautifully located at the foot of the Erciyes Mountains. As the department of Hebrew grew and entered its third year, he thought it beneficial to invite a group of scholars to lecture before the department’s staff and students and present to them some of the issues on which research into Hebrew focuses. The lectures and debates were held over one long day, the 16th October 2012, and were followed the next day by a deeply interesting guided tour in Cappadocia, which was as well-organized as the previous day and praised by everybody. The guests greatly enjoyed the traditional Turkish hospitality throughout the tour. The symposium, greeted by Professor Dr. Hülagü, was comprised of seven Israeli and three Turkish speakers. The Israeli participants came from four of Israel’s best-known universities: the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Tel-Aviv University, Haifa University and Bar-Ilan University; there was also a senior official from Israel’s Ministry of Education, with another Israeli coming from the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom. The Turkish scholars were from Bilkent University, the University of Ankara and Erciyes University itself. Evidently, ten lectures could not cover the entire history of the Hebrew language. Several of its most characteristic aspects were therefore selected, aiming to cover the field from the time of the making of the Bible to the present. The subjects were defined by historical periods and contemporary relevance. For the ancient period, lecturers discussed the language of the Bible and the Mishnah as well as that of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which give us an additional insight into what kind of Hebrew was used at the time of their writing. For the Middle Ages the focus was on the Hebrew of the Genizah documents, mostly from Arabic speaking countries, and also on Hebrew printing in Istanbul, which pioneered the first printing presses in the Ottoman Empire. For the modern period the emphasis was on the renaissance of Hebrew and its vicissitudes, together with a comparison with the modernization of Turkish. Linguistic lectures were devoted to the

2

Introduction

relations of Hebrew with Aramaic, on the one hand, and with Arabic on the other. A review of the current study of Hebrew in Erciyes and other Turkish universities provided a suitable conclusion to the programme. All in all, the symposium and the publication of its proceedings provide an entry for those interested in the history of Hebrew as an ancient language revived today in the State of Israel and not unknown among many Jews outside it. Special thanks are due to Professor Dr. Hülagü, to Dr. Ali Küçükler, Indologist at Erciyes University, who not only assisted in the organization of the symposium but is also the editor of this volume; to the participating lecturers and, no less, to the students who attended all presentations, providing a very special feeling of youth to the entire enterprise. Prof. Dr. Jacob M. Landau Jerusalem, December 2012

CHAPTER ONE THE LANGUAGE OF THE BIBLE AND THE MISHNAH MOSHE FLORENTIN1

Surveying Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew in twenty minutes is quite impossible. Therefore, I will only try to mention in a nutshell some of the main topics and problems connected with the research of classical Hebrew. Texts whose language is clearly distinct from other Canaanite languages, and according to their political and cultural provenance are entitled as “Hebrew”, are known from the beginning of the first millennium BC. Those evidences, such as the inscription found in Gezer, located between the Mediterranean coast and Jerusalem, enjoy the advantage of authenticity since they are engraved on stones by their original writers. On the other hand, they lack any signs of vowels and because of their limited scope and quantity they cannot give us a comprehensive picture of ancient Hebrew. It is thus the Bible, the twenty-four books of the Old Testament, which is the main source from which we draw our knowledge about ancient Hebrew. No wonder, then, that the term Biblical Hebrew usually refers to Ancient or Classical Hebrew in general. The advantages of this unique source are clear. Comprising about 8,000 lexical entries it may give us a comprehensive, though far from complete, picture of ancient Hebrew. However, one should not ignore the inherent problems of this precious document. Let us mention some of them: The oldest complete manuscript of the Bible known to us is a copy made at the beginning of the 11th century. As known it is the Leningrad codex dated AD 1008. Indeed, other findings, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, prove that the Masoretic Version, which is faithfully represented in this codex, was in use already at the beginning of the common era. Yet, the 1

Prof. Dr. Tel Aviv University, Israel. [email protected]

4

Chapter One

biblical text no doubt contains a lot of scribal errors. These, of course, do not reflect the genuine language of the author – or the authors – of the text. Thus, learning about ancient Hebrew from the Bible is quite problematic. Speaking about the Masoretic version, one must remember that in addition to the consonantal skeleton it contains also the vowel sings, called niqud, i.e. punctuation, of the Masoretes. As just mentioned, the oldest manuscript, which contains this important evidence, dates to the beginning of the 11th century, i.e. more than one thousand years after the composition of the text itself. The system of this vocalization was probably not in use before the seventh century. What stage of language therefore does this punctuation represent? Indeed, all classical grammars of Biblical Hebrew are based entirely on these late signs, which pretend to represent the language of the First Temple Period, i.e. the four hundred years till its destruction at the beginning of the 6th century BC, and most of the second Temple period, i.e. till the beginning of the common era. However, nobody denies that quite a few language phenomena reflected in the Masoretic punctuation are not part of Classical Hebrew of the First Temple Era, but rather are the result of penetration of late language characteristics through the punctuation of the Masoretes. Moreover, the language evidence of the Masoretes, with all its problems, reveals only one form of ancient Hebrew. Other systems of vocalization – i.e. the so called Babylonian and the so called Palestinian, reveal other faces – i.e. dialects - of Hebrew. Other evidence of ancient Hebrew, such as those embedded in Greek and Latin transcriptions of the first centuries of the common era, add further details which are different from the evidence of the Masoretic vocalization. Scholars do not agree about the relative dating of these sources. If so, what should we think about the grammatical description based on the Masoretic vocalization, using the evidence of the second column of the Hexapla only as a secondary source, while quite a few scholars tend to believe that the latter is older than the first? Fortunately, these problems are not only obstacles in the long and Sisyphean way of the Hebrew linguist. It is thanks to these contradictory evidence that we may have some notion about dialects and variety of language in ancient times. However, the relationships between all these evidences are complicated and obscure. Yet, it seems that the main problem which the Hebrew linguist confronts is the origin and nature of the Biblical text itself. While we can exactly locate Shakespeare and Charles Baudelaire in frame of time and cultural and political circumstances, we cannot do it in regard to the Bible and its language.

The Language of the Bible and the Mishnah

5

Who is then the author of the Bible? When and where was this eternal piece composed? Well, as is well known, the Bible is a collection of many compositions, each of which is the result of a long and complicated process of editing. We do not have an exact idea who were the authors of those compositions, when and where exactly they operated and what exactly were the sources upon which they based their writings. Take for example the wonderful piece of the Song of Songs. Is it a late composition, as quite a few important scholars tend to believe, or rather it is, on the contrary, an ancient book, whose language deviations from what we call “Classical Biblical” Hebrew are due to its northern origin, i.e. the old Palestinian regions whose language was deeply influenced by northern Canaanite dialects? The severe problems of such literary sources are quite obvious. Imagine that we have to represent Hebrew in court, and we, the advocate team, do not possess anything but this anonymous undated document. *** However, from the point of view of the history of Hebrew, the complex nature of the biblical text has its important advantages. An extensive comparison of Biblical Hebrew to other Semitic dialects and other strata of Hebrew, as well as firm historical facts, teach us that the text in its contemporary condition contains linguistic phenomena, the oldest of which go back to the very beginning of ancient Hebrew, i.e. the beginning of the first millennium BC, while the latest can be firmly dated to the second century BC. Thus, a spectrum of about one thousand years is exposed before the historian of Hebrew. One should stress again: we do not know when and where exactly all the portions of this fantastic collection were composed. Yet, scholars have managed to distinguish between two main language strata in the Hebrew Bible, and even to discern with quite a high degree of certainty more than two strata. I shall describe these strata below, however a short notice is required regarding this glance over biblical Hebrew and the division of Hebrew to historical periods, especially due to the fact that the title of my lecture is “The language of the Bible and the Mishna”. I keep this notice to the end of this article.

6

Chapter One

1. Classical Biblical Hebrew This term refers to the written Hebrew, which was in use during the First Temple Era, i.e. the first four centuries of the first millennium BC. This Hebrew is well reflected in the early books of the Bible, i.e., the Pentateuch and the books of Joshua, Judges and Kings. It is characterized by a relatively regular and firm organization of the verbal forms – the waw consecutive, the cohortative, the jussive, etc. Let us see, for example, the first two verses of Genesis 30: -‫ וְאִם‬,‫לִּי ָבנִים‬-‫יַעֲק ֹב ָהבָה‬-‫ ַבּאֲח ֹתָ הּ; וַתּ ֹאמֶר ֶאל‬,‫ וַתְּ קַ נֵּא ָרחֵל‬,‫ כִּי ֹלא יָלְדָ ה ְליַעֲק ֹב‬,‫וַתֵּ ֶרא ָרחֵל‬ ‫אַי ִן מֵ תָ ה אָנֹכִי‬. ‫ ב‬-‫ פּ ְִרי‬,‫ ָמנַע ִממְֵּך‬-‫ ֲאשֶׁר‬,‫ הֲתַ חַת אֱ ֹלהִים אָנֹכִי‬,‫ בּ ְָרחֵל; וַיּ ֹאמֶר‬,‫אַף יַעֲק ֹב‬-‫ַויִּחַר‬ ‫ ָבטֶן‬. “And when Rachel saw that she bore Jacob no children, Rachel envied her sister; and she said to Jacob: ‘Give me children, or I shall die.’ And Jacob's anger was kindled against Rachel; and he said: ‘Am I in the place of God, who has withheld from you the fruit of the womb?’”

2. Late Biblical Hebrew A sharp turn in the shape of Hebrew happened at the beginning of the sixth century BC, after the destruction of the first temple in Jerusalem and the exile of the majority of the Jewish population to Babylonia. With this decisive event the political and cultural circumstances totally changed and the language has been affected accordingly. A deep influence of Aramaic is now discernible and old uses of the languages are profoundly undermined. This late language was in use during a very long period – from the beginning of the 6th century BC up to the end of the 2nd century AD, i.e. about hundred years after the destruction of the second temple. This stratum is well reflected in the books of Chronicles, Nehemiah, Esther, Ezra and Daniel. The fact that considerable parts of Ezra and Daniel are written in Aramaic is of course not coincident. Let us see, for example, the first two verses of Nehemiah 2: ,‫ ַהיַּי ִן וָאֶ תְּ נָה ַל ֶמּלְֶך‬-‫יַי ִן ְל ָפנָיו; וָאֶ שָּׂא אֶת‬--‫שׁסְתְּ א ַה ֶמּ ֶלְך‬ ַ ‫ְאַרתַּ ְח‬ ְ ‫ שְׁ נַת ֶעשׂ ְִרים ל‬,‫ַויְהִי בְּח ֹדֶ שׁ נִיסָן‬ ‫ ָהי ִיתִ י ַרע ְל ָפנָיו‬-‫וְֹלא‬. ‫אִם ב‬-‫ כִּי‬,‫אֵ ין זֶה‬--‫ וְאַתָּ ה אֵינְָך חוֹלֶה‬,‫וַיּ ֹאמֶר לִי ַה ֶמּלְֶך מַדּוּ ַע ָפּנֶיָך ָרעִים‬ ‫ ה ְַרבֵּה מְא ֹד‬,‫ִירא‬ ָ ‫ר ֹ ַע לֵב; ָוא‬. “In the month of Nisan, in the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes, when wine was before him, I took up the wine and gave it to the king. Now I had not been sad in his presence. And the king said to me, ‘Why is your face sad, seeing you are not sick? This is nothing else but sadness of the heart.’ Then I was very much afraid.”

The Language of the Bible and the Mishnah

7

The best way to see clearly the differences between the ancient stratum of Biblical Hebrew and the late one is by comparing the parallel passages in the Bible, i.e. those historical reports which appear firstly in the books of Samuel and Kings, versus the same passages which were edited by the late redactors of the book of Chronicles. Let us have a look at just one pair of parallel verses: ‫שׁבְתְּ ָך עוֹ ָלמִים‬ ִ ‫בָּנ ֹה ָבנִיתִ י בֵּית זְבֻל לְָך מָ כוֹן ְל‬: 1 Kings 8:13: “I have surely built You an exalted house, [and] a place for You to dwell in forever.” :‫שׁבְתְּ ָך עוֹלָמִ ים‬ ִ ‫ַו ֲאנִי ָבּנִיתִ י בֵית זְבֻל לְָך וּמָכוֹן ְל‬ 2 Chronicles 6:2: “I have built you an exalted house, and a place for you to dwell in forever.”

The difference between the old structure ‫ בָּנ ֹה ָבנִיתִי‬and the late structure ‫ ַו ֲאנִי ָבּנִיתִי‬is not accidental at all. It reflects the use of absolute infinitive [‫ ]בָּנ ֹה‬in ancient Hebrew versus the almost total avoidance of such forms in later strata of Hebrew. These are thus the main strata of Biblical Hebrew. However, reading in the old songs – such as The Blessing of Jacob, The Blessing of Moses and Song of the Sea, reveals language phenomena, which are older than those characterizing Classical Hebrew and may form another stratum of BH. Scholars also discern a forth stratum – the language of the exile epoch reflected in the Books of Ezekiel and Jeremiah. *** In this short paper I tried to explain some of the problems and principles of the research of Biblical Hebrew. There is however another issue which is relevant to the division of Hebrew to historical periods. The common division clearly distinguishes between Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew. Indeed, nobody can deny the essential grammatical differences between the languages of these two distinct texts. At the same time, however, one cannot deny the problematic character of this division. From the point of view of the History of Hebrew, “Mishnaic” Hebrew is not just the term, which defines the language of the Mishna itself. It is rather an epithet, which refers to the relatively late – but still spoken! – language which was in use during the last generations of the second temple, i.e. the time before and after the common era. However, at least partly this time overlaps the later part of Late Biblical Hebrew! If so, the differences between Biblical Hebrew and

8

Chapter One

Mishnaic Hebrew, should be regarded as two distinct styles and norms of writing belonging historically to the same stratum. They both belong to the era in which Hebrew was a vivid spoken language. After all, the grammatical and lexical differences between these two texts are not more essential than, say, the differences between contemporary Hebrew writings such as the compositions of Sh.Y Agnon and H. Hazaz on the one hand, and a scientific article dealing with political issues on the other. To sum up, not only the language of the Bible is problematic. Even the historical frame of this ancient language is disputable.

CHAPTER TWO THE LANGUAGE OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS STEVEN E. FASSBERG1

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls is the romantic story of a Bedouin shepherd, who, in 1947, while looking for a stray animal, stumbled by chance on manuscripts in a cave above Khirbet Qumran, not far from the northwestern shore of the Dead Sea Sea. This serendipitous find led to the unearthing of many more fragments in the following decades. Since the end of the 1940’s, fragments have been found in another ten caves and when pieced together yield more than 900 manuscripts. Most of the manuscripts were written in Hebrew in the Jewish script, a few were written in the ancient paleo-Hebrew script, some manuscripts were written in Aramaic, and a few manuscripts were written in Greek. All books of the Hebrew Bible with the exception of Esther are attested in the caves above Qumran, and they constitute a quarter of all the manuscripts. Some manuscripts are classified as “rewritten Bible” in that they seem to be paraphrases of biblical texts. Other manuscripts appear to be sectarian writings (e.g., the Community Rule relates the regulations for joining the Sect and for proper behavior), yet others are non-sectarian, and roughly 10% of the manuscripts remain unidentified. The earliest manuscripts are dated to the beginning of the second century B.C.E. based on paleographic sequences and radio-carbon 14 tests. The youngest of the manuscripts belong to the period before the destruction of Qumran in 68 C.E. during the First Jewish Revolt against Rome. It was suggested early on in the scholarly literature, and it still is generally maintained today, that the manuscripts were part of a library of an Essene community that lived at Qumran and whose scribes wrote and copied many of the documents found in the caves. The claim of scribal activity at Qumran has been based partially upon the archaeological evidence of a scriptorium (i.e., a room for scribes) that the original excavator identified among the ruins at 1

Prof. Dr. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel. [email protected]

10

Chapter Two

Qumran. Not all, however, have interpreted the archaeological evidence as pointing to a scriptorium, nor have all accepted the identification of the community as Essene. Those who do believe that the Essenes were at Qumran find support in the sectarian writings found in the Qumran caves, which depict a lifestyle similar to that mentioned in the classical sources of Philo, Pliny the Elder, and Josephus; moreover, Pliny located the Essenes near the Dead Sea, which is exactly where Qumran happens to be situated. When the Scrolls were first discovered, many Hebrew scholars held to the view espoused by Paul Kahle and his students that certain aspects of Biblical Hebrew as transmitted by the Tiberian Masoretes were unauthentic. Similarly, Hebrew at the end of the Second Temple Period and during the Mishnaic period, commonly known as Mishnaic Hebrew, was considered by many an artificial and learned language created by the Rabbis. Abraham Geiger helped to popularize this view in the middle of the 19th century, and though his theory of artificiality, like that of Kahle, was refuted already by M. H. Segal in 1908, back in 1947 it too still commanded widespread support, especially among those who could not follow the pathbreaking research on Mishnaic Hebrew that was being conducted in Modern Hebrew. This was the general background of the study of Second Temple Period Hebrew when the first Dead Sea Scrolls appeared. Although the Scrolls alone did not demolish the arguments that the Tiberian Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew traditions were artificial, the language of the Dead Sea Scrolls contributed greatly to showing that this scholarly approach was incorrect. As the Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls were published and their language became available for study, Hebrew linguists noticed, in particular Henoch Yalon, Ze’ev Ben-Ḥayyim, and Eduard Yechezkel Kutscher in his monumental book The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll, that many linguistic phenomena found in the Scrolls were also attested in the post-exilic books of the Bible (i.e., Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 1st and 2nd Chronicles), in the Hebrew manuscripts of Ben-Sira discovered in the Cairo Geniza, in the Samaritan written and oral traditions of the Pentateuch, in Greek and Latin transcriptions of Hebrew, and also in the Mishna. Moreover, these and other linguists noted the significant influence of Aramaic on the Hebrew of the Scrolls. The most convincing explanation for the distribution of these features was that they all were current during the Second Temple Period. Though one might argue that some of the salient features that are common to the Dead Sea Scrolls and other contemporaneous sources stem from the acquaintance with and attempts of scribes to imitate the language of the Hebrew Bible, such reasoning fails to explain why scribes often imitated

The Language of the Dead Sea Scrolls

11

phenomena that diverged notably from the earlier Hebrew writings of the First Temple Period. This is readily apparent in an examination of the socalled sectarian works, e.g., the Community Rule (1QS) or the War Scroll (1QM), for which there were no biblical models whose language the scribes could imitate. Current Hebrew linguistic scholarship holds that Hebrew was still spoken and written during the Second Temple Period, though there are still a few dissenters among historians and New Testament scholars. Today, linguists accept that the Hebrew of the Second Temple Period differed from Classical Biblical Hebrew as reflected in the older books of the Hebrew Bible and in the epigraphic evidence from the First Temple Period. The precise nature of the language of the Scrolls, however, is hotly debated. Most scholars believe that scribes strove, with great success, to imitate the classical biblical style. Yet, on occasion, they failed to write in a classical Hebrew because their underlying spoken language interfered. The attempt to write classically, while at the same time speaking a colloquial form of the language, resulted, according to the majority of scholars, in the creation of a literary Hebrew with both archaisms and vernacular features. A different view, however, is held by others who research the language of the Scrolls. Led today by Elisha Qimron (who is also the author of the only grammar of the Hebrew of the Scrolls), and before him to a more limited extent by Ze’ev Ben-Ḥayyim and Shelomo Morag, there are scholars who view the language of the Scrolls as an accurate reflection of a dialect spoken in Palestine during the Second Temple Period. These scholars maintain that the written texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls should not be viewed as a literary creation made up of an amalgamation of old and new, but rather reflect a natural, unified linguistic system that was actually spoken by a number of speakers. It must be noted, however, that, in fact, sometimes the two schools disagree merely as to the extent of the phenomena: those who hold to the more traditional view of the Scrolls as reflecting a literary language also acknowledge that spoken features have found their way into the language, whereas those who insist that the language reflects a living Hebrew dialect of the Second Temple Period admit that archaisms exist. Scholars quibble over the extent and nature of what may be taken as either a pseudo-classicism or a genuine neologism. These are not the only approaches to the language of the Scrolls, however. William Schniedewind, followed by Gary Rendsburg, seeks to explain the unique type of Hebrew at Qumran as an ‘anti-language’, i.e., a language chosen especially by the speakers at Qumran in order to distinguish themselves from the regular Hebrew language of their

12

Chapter Two

ideological opponents (i.e., the Pharisees and the Sadducees). In a similar vein, Steve Weitzman has argued that the Qumran sect wrote in Hebrew for ideological reasons. According to Weitzman, the Essenes chose to write in Hebrew because it was the language of holiness and the Essenes were preoccupied with the notion of holiness. Writing in Aramaic, the everyday lingua franca, would have been, in their eyes, a profane act. There is not only one type of Hebrew attested in the Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls. The languages of the Copper Scroll (3Q15) and of Miq at Ma aśe ha-Torah (4QMMT) have both been described as close to, but not identical with, Mishnaic Hebrew. Yet, at the same time, these two Scrolls differ from each other and from the language of most other Dead Sea Scrolls. In a survey and analysis of the different language types found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Morag characterized most of the Hebrew scrolls as having been written in ‘General Qumran Hebrew’, 4QMMT as written in ‘Qumran Mishnaic’, and the Copper Scroll as written in what he called, for lack of a better term, simply ‘Copper Scroll Hebrew’. The following is a partial list of salient features found in the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Many of them are also found in the post-exilic biblical books and other Second Temple Period corpora.

Orthography • Plene (i.e., “full”) spelling with matres lectionis is much more frequent than in Classical Biblical Hebrew. This is particularly true for the use of waw to represent the o and u vowel sounds. • The letter alef is often suffixed to short words that end in a vowel, e.g., ‫‘ כיא‬thus’, ‫‘ לוא‬no’.

Phonology • The guttural consonants are weakened. • The diphthong aw > ō.

Morphology • There is a preference for long forms of independent, suffixed, and object pronouns (e.g., ‫הואה‬, ‫היאה‬, ‫אתמה‬, ‫)יכתבמה‬ • Unexpected plene spellings are thought by some to reflect increased use in context of pausal forms, e.g., ‫ יכתובו‬instead of ‫יכתבו‬. • Aramaic elements occur on verbs and nouns.

The Language of the Dead Sea Scrolls

13

• There is a general tendency towards pluralization. It appears in the pluralization of both members of a construct chain (‫ גבורי חילים‬vs. ‫‘ גבורי חיל‬men of valor’), pluralization of abstract nouns (e.g., ‫גבורות‬ vs. ‫‘ גבורה‬bravery’), and pluralization of collective nouns ( ‫העם‬ ‫ ההלכים‬vs. ‫)העם ההולך‬ • The consecutive tense system with waw ha-hippukh is on the wane and is in the process of being replaced by the non-consecutive forms as in Mishnaic Hebrew. • There is a weakening of the relationship between modal forms and function with the result that the lengthened imperfect (‫ נכתבה‬,‫)אכתבה‬ does not always express modality; rather its occurrence is dependent upon its (initial) position in the sentence. • Some transitive verbs abandon the Qal stem for Piel and Hiphil, and some intransitive verbs move from the Qal to Niphal • There is an increase in the use of periphrastic tenses based on forms of the verb ‘to be’ ‫ היה‬and the participle.

Syntax • Word order changes and one finds evidence of a shift from VS (verb-subject) to SV (subject-verb). • The object may precede the infinitive. • Imperatives may be preceded by temporal phrases. • A noun and its modifier, when a title, reverse places, e.g., ‫המלך דוד‬ ‫‘ < דוד המלך‬King David’ > ‘David, the King’; similarly a numeral and noun reverse their order, e.g., ‫‘ שלושה ימים < ימים שלושה‬three days’ > ‘days, three’; the same is true for nouns marking weights or measure and the object weighed or measure, e.g., ‫ִכּכּ ְַרי ִם ֶכּסֶף < כסף‬ ‫‘ ככרים‬silver talents’ > ‘talents, silver’; • The elements of binominal expressions invert their position with regard to the classical period (this has been called ‘diachronic chiasm’), e.g., ‫‘ כסף וזהב < זהב וכסף‬silver and gold’ > ‘gold and silver’, ‫‘ מדן ועד באר שבע < מבאר שבע ועד דן‬from Dan to Beer Sheva’ > ‘from Beer Sheva to Dan’. • The conjunction waw is added in the so-called quivis construction ‫‘ יום יום‬day by day, daily’ becomes ‫‘ יום ויום‬day and day’ and similarly the conjunction waw is repeated before a list of similar prepositions and the direct object marker. • The compound ‫ לאין‬negates infinitives and abstract nouns. • The preposition ‫ עם‬+ infinitive function as a temporal clause.

14

Chapter Two

• The common verbal form wayhi ‫‘ ויהי‬and it was’ before an infinitive construct (e.g., ‫ )ויהי בקטלו‬is omitted (‫)ובקטלו‬.

Lexicon • Several new lexemes and phrases appear that differ from corresponding lexemes and phrases of the First Temple Period, e.g., ‫ אורה‬light’, ‫‘ חשבון‬reckoning’, ‫‘ נשא אישה‬take a wife’, ‫‘ ספר משה‬the book of Moses’, ‫‘ אוט‬secret’, ‫‘ אוש‬foundation’, ‫‘ בדנים‬forms’, ‫בעול‬ ‘accustomed’ (qal passive participle), ‫‘ גער‬drive away’, ‫‘ זרק‬dart’, ‫‘ מזקנה‬chin’, ‫‘ מלוש‬constellation, horoscope’, ‫‘ עצה‬council’, ‫תכמים‬ ‘limbs of the body’, ‫‘ תעודה‬appointed time, assembly’, ‫תסובות‬ ‘revolutions’.

Summary In closing, the contribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the study of the history of the Hebrew language cannot be overestimated. The Scrolls corroborate the use of Hebrew during the Second Temple Period, known previously from the evidence of Late Biblical Hebrew, Mishnaic Hebrew, Samaritan Hebrew, and the Hebrew from Greek and Latin inscriptions. It is now clear to all linguists that Hebrew did not die before the Common Era. Scholars are divided, however, over whether or not the Hebrew in the Scrolls reflects an attempt to write Classical Biblical Hebrew into which penetrated colloquial elements or a spoken dialect of the period. That remains for future scholars to decide.

CHAPTER THREE THE CAIRO GENIZAH AVIHAI SHIVTIEL1 What is the Cairo Genizah? The name “The Cairo Genizah” was given to a collection of over 250,000 fragments, which were discovered in Cairo in the second half of the nineteenth century and were removed and scattered around some twenty institutes all over the world. In addition, an unknown number of documents from the same source are assumed to have reached private hands. The word genizah means in Hebrew ‘hiding’ and subsequently ‘a hoard of precious things’. Originally, the word comes from the Persian language and was borrowed by some of the Semitic languages and probably by many of the European languages. (See, A. Shivtiel, The Genizah and its roots). The Jewish and later the Muslim custom of burial in the ground or depositing in special places of worn-out scrolls, codices, books and, as a matter of fact, odd leaves and even tiny pieces of documents, is based on a decree issued by Jewish rabbis (See, Babylonian Talmud, Megilla, 26:2) and is intended to avoid the disposal by fire and the like of written materials which may contain the word God or any other word that refers to Him. The bulk of the Genizah of Cairo was found inside a special room on the first floor of the ancient Jewish synagogue of Ben Ezra and in the Basatin cemetery which are situated in Old Cairo (Fustat). Early information about the Genizah came to our attention from travellers, such as Simon van Gelderen (18th century) and Jacob Saphir (1822-1886), who reported its existence as early as almost one hundred years prior to its final removal from Cairo, but since they presumably had only discerned the worn-out printed books which were lying on top of the pile, they misjudged the importance of the material. 1

Dr. University of Cambridge, United Kingdom. [email protected]

16

Chapter Three

Later, an unknown number of fragments reached some antique dealers who sold them to interested parties without knowing anything about their contents and value. Then, when the hoard started to ‘leak out’, a large amount of it was transferred to Russia as from 1863 by Abraham Firkovich (1786-1874), who was a Polish-Russian Karaite Jew and a collector of manuscripts and Jewish artefacts. All these materials were later moved to the state library in St. Petersburgh. However, it was only after two Scottish twin sisters, who were associated with Cambridge University, Agnes Smith Lewis (1843-1926) and Margaret Dunlop Gibson (1843-1920), had returned from Cairo in 1896, bringing with them one leaf written in Hebrew characters, and consulted the then lecturer in Judaism at the University of Cambridge, Dr. Solomon Schechter, (18471915) about its nature, that the breakthrough of Genizah research had begun. The leaf showed to Schechter turned to be one page from the Book of Ecclesiasticus, which was originally composed in the second century BC and is known as the Wisdom of Jesus, Son of Sirach. Similar to the biblical Book of Proverbs, this work contains aphorisms that where later incorporated in the Apocrypha. Until the discovery of this leaf no proof for the claim by Jewish sources that the book had originally been written in Hebrew could have been found, except for an early translation into Greek. However, when Schechter identified the fragment his interest in its source grew and with the assistance of Dr. Charles Taylor (1840-1908), formerly vice-chancellor of the University of Cambridge and later Master of St John's College, he set off to Cairo in 1897 and obtained permission from the Jewish community to transfer the collection to Cambridge. This treasure was the largest collection of Genizah fragments, comprising some 140,000 fragments to which two more collections, which were in private hands, have lately been added. Hence, the total number of Genizah documents now found at Cambridge exceeds 150,000 out of an estimated 250,000 fragments in total which are scattered across other places of learning.

The general physical description of the documents The overwhelming majority of the fragments are single leaves usually written on both sides (recto and verso) often by different hands. The materials used were paper and to a lesser extent parchment and very rarely papyrus and cloth. The ink is mainly black, while red ink may be used for titles of chapters, for emphasizing certain words or in illustrations. Other colours are extremely rare and are mainly used in illustrations. Most

The Cairo Genizah

17

documents use semi-cursive letters in texts written in Hebrew, Aramaic, Judaeo-Arabic, Persian, Spanish, Yiddish, Armenian, Georgian and others, while Arabic, Greek, Coptic and Latin are usually written in their own alphabets. Since a large number of the documents are fragments their size may vary between foolscap and minute pieces, usually torn from a larger document. Several pages are bi-folios, which originally belonged to larger treatises or codices.

What do the Cambridge collections contain? Since the documents found were composed between the ninth and the nineteenth centuries, the collection comprises materials, which almost cover any discipline and literary genre, in addition to daily correspondence. The major items include: Biblical texts, including commentaries, translations into Aramaic, Greek and Arabic. Post-biblical materials such as portions of Ben Sirach, the Damascus Document which was later found in full among the Dead Sea Scrolls and various portions from the Mishnah, the two Talmuds and the Midrash. Thousands of piyyuts and other poems, mainly composed by medieval Jewish poets. Responsa. Legal documents, Rabbinic court records, appeals and court verdicts. Parts of essays on philosophy, sciences, including mathematics, physics, medicine, pharmacology, botany, astronomy and astrology. Commerce and business and banking correspondence. Social correspondence, including public and private letters, and magic, amulets and children's note-books.

Who were the writers of the documents? While the overwhelming majority of the composers of the materials are anonymous, a number of the writers could be identified by their known literary works or from their signatures. Thus, leading personalities of the time and heads of various Jewish communities are widely represented in the Genizah, such as the famous philosopher, commentator, physician and scientist Moshe ben Maimon (=Maimonides) and the renowned poet Yehuda Ha-Levi. Moreover, some scholars have succeeded in ascribing

18

Chapter Three

many documents to various writers by identifying their hand-writing and it is hoped that many more will be unveiled with the help of the computer.

What are the languages that are used in the documents? The major languages used in the documents are Hebrew, JudaeoArabic, Arabic and Aramaic, and to a lesser extent, Judaeo-Spanish, Georgian, Armenian, Yiddish, as well as Coptic, Greek and Latin. To this list one may add now one document recently discovered which is written in Turkish-Karamenli.

What can the documents teach us? The contribution of the Genizah to our knowledge of the history of the Middle Ages is invaluable since it has brought to our attention information hitherto unknown about many spheres of life. Moreover, while the documents have helped us confirm many facts known from other sources, they have also enabled us to reach fresh conclusions, which have sometimes invalidated claims previously made by scholars. For example, we find in the Genizah thousands of new piyyutim hitherto unknown as well as new commentaries, responsa and new information about personalities who lived in the Middle Ages in the Middle East, North Africa and beyond. Furthermore, the documents teach us many facts about daily life of the community, including information on the education system, the economy, the customs and manners, the relationship inside the community and with the Muslim authorities and the Christian neighbours. Book-lists teach us about books found in private libraries, while lists of medicines and herbs disclose to us the methods of treatment current in those days. The scores of documents relating to trade and commerce teach us about practices of export and import, marketing methods and the banking system. Thus we find in the Genizah samples of the early version of bank cheques, orders of goods and I.O.U. statements as well as common practices and codes of law regarding pricing, accountkeeping and invoices. Moreover, the Genizah documents are a rich source of information on international trade around the Muslim Empire, India and China. Also, valuable information is provided about various professions and occupations, vocational education and apprenticeship. The literary crop contains, apart from poetry, scores of parts of works in prose, some famous, some unknown, including parts of Hebrew literature, as well as Arabic texts including some chapters from the Qur'an,

The Cairo Genizah

19

the Hadith, and other works which clearly indicate the interest among Jews, Christians and Muslims in each other's culture. However, perhaps the most interesting ‘genre’, which is not only piquant but which is an inexhaustible source of information is no doubt the private correspondence, which reflects views and notions, moods and feelings and also attitudes and mentality of the individual as well as the society at large. Finally, one should also mention the valuable information found in the Genizah concerning the Karaites, whose one of their most important centres was in Cairo.

Who are the “giants” of the Genizah studies? The list of scholars who have studied the Genizah documents and provided us with an in-depth analysis and valuable conclusions contains many names. It will therefore be impossible to mention all of them in such a brief account. Hence, it will suffice to mention here those whose contribution is particularly extraordinary. Solomon Schechter, who not only brought the Genizah over to Cambridge, but also published several important documents from the collection. S. D. Goitein, who produced the most comprehensive study of the Genizah under the title Mediterranean Society and Moshe Gil who deciphered several thousands of the fragments which were published in eight volumes and in several articles.

Present and future The Taylor-Schechter Genizah Unit at Cambridge founded by Professor Stefan Reif in 1973 has catalogued up until now most of the materials and work is on going to complete the description of all the documents in the collection. Moreover, thanks to close co-operation between scholars in Cambridge, Israel and the United States projects to digitize all the materials and cross-reference all the documents are ongoing. When both projects will be completed in the near future all Genizah materials will be put at the disposal of scholars worldwide. Future work will also include identification and matching of fragments that will be carried out with the help of the computer, so that students of the Genizah will continue to study the documents and reach fresh conclusions that will enrich our knowledge of one of the most thrilling periods of the Mediterranean society.

20

Chapter Three

Bibliography Ghosh, Amitav, In an Antique Land, Vintage Books, 1992 Goitein, S. D., A Mediterranean Society, (six vols.) (Paperback edition) University of California, 1999 Hoffman, Adina and Cole, Peter, Sacred Trash, The Lost and Found World of the Cairo Genizah, Schoeken, 2011 Reif, S. C., A Jewish Archive from Old Cairo, Curzon, 2000 Shivtiel, Avihai, The Genizah and its roots, in The Written Word Remains, Shulie Reif (Ed.) Cambridge, 2004, pp. 4-8

CHAPTER FOUR HEBREW PRINTING IN OTTOMAN ISTANBUL JACOB M. LANDAU1 1. Introduction I am honoured and grateful for being invited to participate in this congress. Permit me to explain briefly the title of my paper. By ‘Hebrew,’ I refer to the alphabet of the works printed in Ottoman Istanbul. This alphabet was used in the Ottoman Empire not only for the Hebrew language, but also for Ladino (sometimes called ‘Judeo-Spanish’). Ladino was a Spanish language brought over from Spain and used by Jews exiled from the Iberian Peninsula. It was frequently employed by Ottoman Jews. Although very different from Hebrew, it is written in Hebrew characters (like all ‘Jewish languages’ such as Yiddish, Judeo-Arabic and Judeo-Persian) – so that my paper will deal with printing in both Hebrew and Ladino in Istanbul. Research on works printed in Ottoman Istanbul has almost solely been carried out by bibliographers. They have listed many works, their titles and years of publication, more rarely other details, generally where a copy of the work can be found at present (usually in Israel, France or the United States). This is important and useful research but, having been carried out by bibliographers and subject to their professional skills, there has been no attempt to investigate the general circumstances, that is, the characteristic methods of printing, proofreading and distribution. What is particularly lacking is a more general analysis of the character of the printed works and of their topics – not one by one but in a general view and in what may be deduced regarding the contribution of Hebrew printings to the overall culture of Ottoman Istanbul. I shall try to fill this gap, at least in part.

1

Prof. Dr. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel. [email protected]

22

Chapter Four

2. Jewish Printers in Istanbul For most of the long history of the Ottoman Empire, the Jewish community of Istanbul lived in closed social and religious parameters within its own millet, with hardly any cultural interactions with the large Muslim environment, which had a different religion and, anyway, did not read Hebrew script. Cultural relations were usually established, however, with other Jewish communities in the empire and abroad during the first centuries of Ottoman rule, for many of which the Istanbul community served as an intellectual resource. While at first exiles from Spain (where Hebrew printing had started in the 1470s) formed the bulk of the Hebrew printers in Istanbul, others were later attracted to the empire’s capital and Hebrew printers came from Salonica, Izmir, Venice, Prague, Poland, Russia and elsewhere. Istanbul became an important centre of Hebrew-language printing from the early sixteenth century to the mid-eighteenth, and the printers were its active agents in this process. However, in the last generations of the Ottoman Empire, a change occurred and publications in Ladino supplemented those in Hebrew and soon became more common than the Hebrew-language ones. Some of the publications in Ladino focused on more practical matters, such as translations of Ottoman laws, while others reacted to political events, such as the Young Turk revolution (as will be described below). Also, a few Hebrew and Ladino newspapers reported events in the Ottoman Empire. Unlike today, when there is an established division of labour between the publisher, printer and bookseller, the Jewish printer in Ottoman Istanbul performed all three functions. Consequently, he sometimes listed his name on the title page, but more frequently in the introduction or in the collophon at the very end of the work he had printed. In this collophon he usually said something about the date of printing (always according to the Jewish calendar), about the author and about himself, the printer, as well as about the contents of the work, generally concluding with praise and good wishes for the reigning Sultan. Therefore, since we know the names of the printers, we can deduce that frequently the same Jewish families were active in Hebrew printing in Istanbul, transmitting the trade from father to son (this applies both when a printer worked alone or with a partner). A famous example is that of the Jabez brothers in the second half of the sixteenth century, from 1559 to 1586, who printed rabbinic, philosophical and Karaite works. Regrettably, we do not know how many copies were printed of each work; it is probable that the number was between one-hundred and one-

Hebrew Printing in Ottoman Istanbul

23

hundred-and-fifty. Nor is the price of the printed work ever mentioned and we do not know how the printing of works in Hebrew was financed. Various sources tell us that the price of printed works was rather high, at least in the first centuries of Hebrew printing, and only the well-to-do could afford to acquire them. Printers had a special way of selling their products. They often introduced a newly printed work to the local synagogue at prayer time on Saturday, when the whole congregation was present. Since Jewish religious law forbids buying or selling on the Sabbath, and certainly the handling of money, the sale was consummated moneywise on another day. In a community where almost everyone knew everyone else, chiefly during the earlier centuries of Jewish life in Istanbul, trust was not in question. At first, the folios were not numbered, but since 1509 some Hebrew works, printed in Istanbul, have used pagination. Every Jewish printing establishment had its own compositor and proofreader – whose names were often mentioned in many of the printed works as responsible workers. Sometimes the printers acted as their own compositors and proofreaders. Over time, compositors and proofreaders opened their own printing establishments to meet a growing demand. Further, every printing house had it own artistic emblem (logo), which appeared at the beginning of each printed work. The choice of the emblem reflected the printer’s name, location, specialization, or a blessing for success. The first emblems were made up of simple geometrical designs, changing later to works of art (but not representing people, as this was forbidden by Jewish religious practice, just as in Islam).

3. Printing in Hebrew and Ladino The earliest Hebrew printers in Istanbul were Jews exiled from Spain in 1492 and those who left Portugal en masse in 1497, generously invited to settle in the Ottoman Empire. Printing, invented not long before, reached the Ottoman Empire via some of these Jewish immigrants who brought with them not only the necessary skills but sometimes their printing equipment and, more frequently, some important Hebrew manuscripts and books which they had saved. The Jewish printers benefited from the fact that there was no censorship on the publishing or sale of books in the Ottoman Empire – a very different situation from that of many lands in Christian Europe from mid-sixteenth century onward. This liberal atmosphere attracted to Istanbul, later, Jewish printers from other countries, who settled in Istanbul and increased the scope of Hebrew printing there.

24

Chapter Four

The first book printed in the Hebrew language in Istanbul is an important work on Jewish religious practice, published by David Ibn Nahamias and his son, Samuel, who also were the first ones in Istanbul to adopt an artistic emblem for their Hebrew books. The first book was entitled Arba‘ah Tƻrţm (Four Columns), since every one of its more than 800 pages was printed in four columns. This monumental undertaking in four volumes and copious folios needed dedication, technical skills, scholarship and financial investment. It carried a Hebrew calendar date equivalent to 13 December 1493. Some scholars have argued that it was impossible to start a printing press so soon after arrival in Istanbul, just sixteen months after the exile from Spain, and that the date should be corrected to 1503. Other scholars support the earlier date. The main argument against the 1493 date is that, while one has evidence that they took with them from Spain Hebrew manuscripts and books, the exiles could hardly have carried their printing equipment with them and, therefore, could not possibly have restarted their printing business so soon. The argument sounds conclusive, but it is known from many sources that numerous exiles stopped in Italy on their way to Istanbul. Certain Italian cities, like Venice, Naples and Leghorn, already had thriving printers’ businesses, including Hebrew printing, at the end of the fifteenth century. It is not too farfetched to assume that those exiles who had owned printers’ shops in Spain bought Hebrew printing equipment in Italy in order to begin their work anew in Istanbul and elsewhere. The letters are the same as those used in Hebrew printing in Naples and so is the paper which was used at the time in southern Italy and some other parts of that country. This supports 1493, rather than a few years later, as the probable starting date of Hebrew printing in Istanbul. At all events, the printing of Arba‘ah Tƻrţm was the starting point and, until the break-up of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War, about 800 works in Hebrew characters, in both Hebrew and Ladino, were printed in Istanbul. Just as Istanbul became the cultural centre of the entire empire, Hebrew printing in it acquired a similar status. Many Jewish communities sent to Istanbul their orders for book printing. Numerous Hebrew and Ladino works were exported from Istanbul to other Jewish communities in the empire and out of it. However, Hebrew printing was not available consistently: From 1585 to 1638 and from 1683 to 1710, Istanbul experienced almost complete breaks in Hebrew printing, for reasons unknown; shorter breaks in the Hebrew printing activity occurred later. Still, Hebrew printing was the first and for some times the only kind of regular printing in the empire. In 1567 an Armenian press was set up, but did not last long. In 1627, a Greek printing house was opened in Istanbul

Hebrew Printing in Ottoman Istanbul

25

by Nikodemos Metaxas, but this attempt soon failed, too, and only a century later, in 1727, did Ibrahim Müteferrika print his first book in Turkish. The Ottoman Turks had an extensive reading and writing culture but prohibited the printing of books in Turkish for a long time. This was probably due to their suspecting European technical innovations and their effect on Islam (perhaps, also, due to opposition by the guild of hattĈt-s, copiers of manuscripts). The authorities did not ban, however, Turkish printing in Hebrew, Armenian or Greek transcription. Even when they permitted later the printing of Turkish works in Arabic characters, they still forbade, however, the printing of religious books in Turkish. The permission of printing in Turkish in Arabic letters, granted to Ibrahim Müteferrika, needed a special firman signed by the Sadrâzam Damad øbrahim Paúa and a fetva by the ùeyhülislam. Hebrew printers in Istanbul printed some works by Istanbul Jews but many more originally authored by Jews of other communities in the empire, such as Izmir, Salonica, Edirne, Cairo and Safed (which afterwards acquired their own printing presses). They also printed works sent them by Jews in communities outside the empire, such as those in Italy, Poland and elsewhere. In certain cases, printing houses had branches in various places, such as the well-known Soncino press in Venice which opened a branch in Salonica in 1527-1528 and another in Istanbul in 1530. The 800 known books and fascicles printed in Ottoman Istanbul in Hebrew and Ladino were not as many different works. Some were original compositions by authors throughout the empire or translations, while many others were reprints in a second (or, more rarely, a third) edition. At first, the contents dealt mainly with strictly internal matters, chiefly such that were related to the Jewish religion, beliefs and practices, commentaries on the holy texts, or textbooks for the study of the Hebrew language. Later, Ladino works moved on to more worldly matters, as we shall see. The following is a condensed account of the more common topics covered by Hebrew printers in Istanbul, with several examples. I shall first discuss those in the Hebrew language, and then those in Ladino. Besides providing various mundane documents (such as contracts, promissory notes, advertisements, etc.), printing in the Hebrew language over the years exhibited mainly a religious character, chiefly during the sixteenth, seventeenth and first half of the eighteenth centuries. This indicated the traditional character of the Jewish community at the time and probably also the readiness of benefactors to subsidize such works rather than others. Printed works consisted mostly of prayer books, reprints of the Bible and the Talmud as well as commentaries on these books, Haggada books (needed for Passover), works on legal practice in religious

26

Chapter Four

matters (such as kosher food, marriage and divorce), treatises on morals and ethics (that is, human relations), responsa (that is, replies by famous rabbis to queries relating to correct religious behaviour), collections of speeches by well-known rabbis in matters of faith and religion, legal recommendations by Istanbul’s rabbis, books by distinguished Jewish thinkers (such as Maimonides) and commentaries on those books, primers for the study of the Hebrew language (chiefly grammar, but also spelling), a Hebrew-French dictionary, collections of legends, Jewish history, Ottoman history (notably, a book by Joseph Sambari, completed in 1673), accounts by Jewish travellers, projections of the Jewish calendar, astronomy, Kabbalah, proverbs, poems and songs (mainly religious), and works on miracles and superstitions. To these may be added a few translations from Arabic and European literature. By mid-nineteenth century, the number of Hebrew-language works dwindled to a trickle, with one notable exception, a Zionist weekly, Ha-Mĥvasser, published in 19091911. As for works in Ladino printed in Ottoman Istanbul, their growing number reflects the increased use of this language at the expense of Hebrew. The same occurred in the Hebrew printing workshops in Izmir. This phenomenon is noticeable in the translation of Hebrew works into Ladino (even the Bible), the adding of introductions in Ladino to Hebrew works and the printing of some books in two parallel columns, Hebrew and Ladino. The first original Ladino work printed in Istanbul (a book on religious practice) came out in 1594, and the second (a translation from Hebrew of a prayer book) only in 1729, that is 135 years after the first one. These two and other works printed in Ladino at first covered approximately the same areas as those in Hebrew, that is, mostly religious matters. Many were translations from Hebrew into Ladino, allowing us to hypothesise that a part of the Jews in Istanbul may have been able to read Ladino more fluently than Hebrew. Perhaps these included women, who talked Ladino at home but had no opportunity to attend Hebrew schools, the so-called heder, reserved for male pupils, all of whom could read Hebrew, at least in the first centuries of Ottoman rule in Istanbul. Over time, most works printed in Istanbul in Hebrew characters were in Ladino, particularly since the mid-eighteenth century or soon afterwards, when the use of lithography, brought over from Munich, and other printing innovations and devices, became increasingly common in Istanbul’s printing workshops. This also indicates the growing role of the Ladino language in Jewish life in many regions of the empire at the expense of Hebrew, which remained, however, the medium for prayer and religious instruction. Ladino, anyway, was increasingly employed for secular

Hebrew Printing in Ottoman Istanbul

27

reading and conversation. The first secular book in Ladino was the translation of a Spanish romance, Amadis de Gaula, which was printed in Istanbul in the mid-sixteenth century. Printed works in Ladino focused on the following subjects: Books on the Jewish religion (such as laws for keeping the Sabbath), primers and dictionaries for studying Ladino (Hebrew-Ladino, Turkish-Ladino), Jewish history, Ottoman history, the siege of Rhodes, accounts by Jewish travellers, astronomy, the Jewish calendar, and education. There were also original novels, stories, and poems, along with numerous translations of fiction, chiefly from French and a few from Hebrew. Notably, there were also a collection of Ottoman laws, the 1868 mizamnameh of the Istanbul municipality, the 1870 penal law (with 264 paragraphs), the 1876 Ottoman Constitution, the Stamp Law, and the Organic Law of the Istanbul Chamber of Commerce (all of them translated from Turkish); also, the constitution of the Bulgarian Principality, in a parallel translation into Ladino and Hebrew. These and other translations into Ladino express an increased interest in current events. They include three liberty songs, printed in 1908 in Turkish or in Ladino, all in Hebrew characters, as well as translations of novels on Midhat Pasha and on Abdühamid II, the latter with photographs of Turkish statesmen and public buildings. There were hardly any photographs of Jewish personalities because (as already said) Judaism, like Islam, forbids the photographing of people, but Christian photographers found ways to photograph Ottoman personalities. A special feature is the relatively large number of Ladino newspapers (compared with only one in Hebrew, Ha-Mevasser, mentioned before). All were printed in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, several of them praising the Young Turk revolution. They include weeklies and magazines published two or three times a week or once a fortnight and were of a socio-economic-cultural nature, chiefly interested in Jewish affairs. Special mention should be made of El Tiempo, printed in Istanbul three times a week, over a long existence, 1872 to 1897. Edited for a long part of this period by David Fresco, it remains an important source for Jewish life in the late Ottoman Empire. Others were El Nasionál (18751880), El Telegrafo (1881-1913) and El Judío (1910-1924).

4. Conclusion In concluding, one may say that each ethnic or religious minority in Ottoman Istanbul was part of the diversity which made up cultural life in the Ottoman Empire. As such, the printing and publishing activities of each community are one of the best indices of its cultural life. Jewish

28

Chapter Four

printers in Ottoman Istanbul seem to have been well aware of the trilingual character of their community, many of whose members used Hebrew for prayer and some religious activities, Ladino for conversing with one another, and Turkish for dealing with the non-Jewish population. According to the nature and number of their printings, they seem also to have been conscious that Ladino was gaining ground at the expense of Hebrew not only in verbal communication, but also in reading – and acted accordingly in their printing economy. The results were threefold: First, the large number of printed works in Istanbul. Second, the almost unbroken continuity of printing in both Hebrew and Ladino, which was not the case in other Jewish towns in the Ottoman Empire, like Safed. Third, the variety of publications, chiefly in Ladino. Moreover, the printers also grasped that Turkish was advancing as a language used in the community and therefore started printing in Turkish as well, a feature even more obvious later in the Republic of Turkey.

Bibliography Ben-Naeh, Yaron, “Hebrew Printing Houses in the Ottoman Empire.” In Gad Nassi, ed., Jewish Journalism and Printing Houses in the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey. Istanbul: ISIS, 2001, pp. 73-96. —. Sultanlar diyarÕnda Yahudiler. Istanbul: Goa, 2009. Ersoy, Osman. Türkiye’de matbaanÕn giriúi ve ilk basÕlan eserler. Ankara: 1959. Gerçek, Selim Nüzhet. Türk matbaacÕlÕ÷Õ. østanbul: 1939. Hacker, Joseph R. “Authors, Readers and Printers of Sixteenth-Century Hebrew Books in the Ottoman Empire.” In Peggy K. Pearlstein, ed., Perspectives on the Hebraic Book. Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 2012, pp. 17-63. —. “Dĥfƻsey QƻshƜa ba-me’ah ha-shesh-‘esreh” (Hebrew: Istanbul Prints in the Sixteenth Century). Areshet 5: 1972, pp. 457-475. øsmet, Binark. “Türkiye’ye matbaanÕn geç giriúinin sebepleri üzerine.” Türk Kültürü 65: March 1968, pp. 295-304. Landau, Jacob M. “Comments on the Jewish Press in Istanbul: The Hebrew Weekly Hamĥvasser.” Études Balkaniques 2: 1990, pp. 78-82. Mitterauer, Michael. “Das gedruckte Buch im Vorderen Orient.” Wiener Zeitschrift für Kunde des Morgenlandes 98: 2008, pp. 347-352. Ofenberg, A. K. “The First Printed Book Produced at Constantinople.” Studia Rosenthaliana 3:1969, pp. 96-112. Rumpf, S. “Die Anfänge des Buchdrucks in der Türkei.” Biblos 43(1-2): 1994, pp. 33-39.

Hebrew Printing in Ottoman Istanbul

29

Tamari, Ittai Joseph. “Jewish Printing and Publishing Activities in the Ottoman Cities of Constantinople and Saloniki at the Dawn of Early Modern Europe.” In Lehrstul für türkische Sprache, Geschichte und Kultur, Universität Bamberg, eds., The Beginnings of Printing in the Near and Middle East: Jews, Christians and Muslims. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2001, pp. 9-10. —. “Jüdische Drücke aus Konstantinopel. Ein Druckort und seine Bedeutung.” In Ulrich Marzolph, ed., Das gedruckte Buch im Vorderen Orient.” Dortmund: Verlag für Orientkunde, 2002, pp. 118-127. Weil, G. “Die ersten Drücke der Türkei.” Zentralblatt für Bibliothekwesen 24: 1907, pp. 49-61. Yaari, Abraham. Digley ha-madpţsţm ha-‘ivriyyţm (Hebrew: Hebrew Printers’ Marks). Jerusalem: Hebrew University Press Association, 1943, 19562. —. Ha-Dĥfƻs ha-‘ivrţ bĥ-QƻshƜa (Hebrew: Hebrew Printing in Constantinople). Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1967.



CHAPTER FIVE THE REVIVAL OF HEBREW SHLOMIT SHRAYBOM-SHIVTIEL1

The emergence of Zionism at the end of the 19th century – influenced by the ideology of Nationalism which spread all over Europe – produced the need for a national common language for the Jewish people.

Nationalism and Zionism According to the ideology of nationalism, as it is known, a nation is a group which has a common basis: a common heritage, traditional culture, language etc. The Jewish people had a common heritage and a common tradition but Hebrew, the language of the Bible and the other Jewish classical resources, was almost dead. It was the language of the Synagogue where Jews pray and read the Torah but for centuries, Jews had not used it as a spoken language for daily life. Instead, they spoke various languages and dialects, that were used in their different surroundings all over the world. Only in Palestine2 and sometimes in special limited circumstances abroad, Jews used it as a means of communication. During the 19th century, the world order changed. Ethnic groups in Europe who were a part of the large empires, strove for national identity and self- determination. Consequently, new countries materialized all over Europe according to a different parceling based on the nationalistic idea. The times and the prevailing atmosphere provided the Jewish population in Europe with the best opportunity to fulfill its long-term aspirations for building its identity as one united nation speaking one language.

 1

Dr. Bar-Ilan University, Israel – The Jewish Theological Seminary, New York. [email protected] 2 T.V. Parfitt, 'The Use of Hebrew in Palestine, 1800-1882', Journal of Semitic Studies 17 (1972), pp. 237-252

32

Chapter Five

Unfortunately, after almost 2000 years (between 200-1880) during which Hebrew had not been a living language and had not developed naturally as any other living language, it was inadequate in meeting the needs of modern daily life. At the same time in Europe, scientific and technological development advanced rapidly. New technological innovations had become useful; new vehicles, instruments, chemicals, came into use for daily life. Unfortunately history “caught” Hebrew unprepared for the new reality of the new world. Neither in the Bible nor in the other Jewish resources were there adequate expressions for naming such a huge quantity of technological innovations, scientific data and new human notions. Neither in the Bible nor in the Mishna can one find a word for “train” or “telephone”, “electricity” etc., not to mention new concepts such as “nationalism”, “self-determination” etc. This historical linguistic situation was complicated since the idea of a national language could not be fulfilled unless it went hand in hand with modernism. In other words, Hebrew had to become not only a common national language but a modern language as well.

Writing in Hebrew: Haskala Literature The first steps towards the revival of Hebrew started in Europe in the mid 19th century by Jewish Intellectuals, the members of the Jewish Enlightenment movement (Haskala),3 who started writing secular literature in Hebrew. Striving to make Hebrew a relevant and up-to-date language, adequate to be used as an appropriate means for their writing needs, they even started the process of creating neologisms. They were interested in writing in Hebrew and aimed to promote the Jewish literature, but the idea of making Hebrew a spoken language was too far-fetched even to dream about. The first Zionist to speak about it loudly and clearly, was Eliezer Ben Yehuda.

Ben Yehuda (1858-1922) Ben Yehuda was born in Lithuania, Eastern Europe (in the south eastern shore of the Baltic Sea) in 1858 and grew up in a Jewish religious Hasidic home. Like virtually all Jewish children of that time and place, he

 3

The Haskala was a cultural movement of Jewish intellectuals operating in the 18th–19th centuries in Europe. Its purpose was to reform the Jewish society using reason, rather than religion or faith, and advance knowledge through science.

The Revival of Hebrew

33

began learning Hebrew from a very tender age as part of a thoroughly religious upbringing. He excelled in his studies and ultimately was sent to a Talmudic academy (yeshiva) in the hope that he would become a rabbi. However, like many promising young Jews, he became interested in the secular world and joined the Haskala-Enlightenment Movement. He arrived in Jerusalem in 1881, settled there and started his activities for the revival of Hebrew, aiming to make it a living language to be used in every aspect of life, both in writing and in speaking. Although Hebrew was still inadequate to express modern needs, BenYehuda published a newspaper in Hebrew using Classical Hebrew and a sparse quantity of Hebrew terms invented by members of the Enlightenment Movement. When he could not find a word to express some “modern” notion he invented it by himself: New words for ‘office’, ‘exhibition’, ‘socks’, ‘towel’ and many others that he invented were published in his paper to be spread among the Jewish people and to be used in daily natural communication. Along with his journalistic work, Ben Yehuda endeavored to translate European literature into Hebrew. He was the first translator – into Hebrew – of Jules Verne’s book: Around the World in 80 Days.4 Since this book is full of technical terms that did not exist in Hebrew, Ben-Yehuda had to take pains to create them. However, his most important creation is The Dictionary of Ancient and New Hebrew.5 In this dictionary Ben Yehuda collected all ancient Hebrew words along with the new words created during his time either by him or by his colleagues. In his preface to his dictionary Ben Yehuda explains: “The profession of linguistics was not my favorite and I did not have any passion to compile a dictionary but I see it as an acute necessity for speaking Hebrew.” He even invented a special word for the thing itself: millon (=dictionary) derived from milla (=word). 6



4 Jules Verne and Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, S'viv Ha-Aretz Bi-Shmonim Yom, Jerusalem 1908. This translation was followed by a few other translations into Hebrew, published in Israel during the 20th century. 5 Eliezer Ben Yehuda, A Complete Dictionary of Ancient and Modern Hebrew, Jerusalem, 1948 (Specially published for Hebrew Teachers’ Organisation in Eretz, Israel) 6 Ibid, Ha-Mavo Ha-Gadol pp.5-6

34

Chapter Five

Doubts and opposition But although Ben Yehuda was ardent about his idea at the very beginning of his activity he was also doubtful about the likelihood of it being fulfilled. In the preface of his dictionary he wrote: “Coming back to the language of our ancestors is our choice, nobody can prevent us from this if only we want, but is it possible? Is it possible that people will start speaking in all spheres of life a language which they abandoned and stopped using for centuries?”7 Unfortunately, he had good reasons for being skeptical. Many people did not believe in the idea of the revival of Hebrew. They criticized him and even laughed at his dream.8 Moreover, experts saw the idea as unreasonable. One of the most important Semitic linguists in the world at that time, Theodor Nöldeke, did not believe in it. In 1911, when the language revival was already in process, he wrote about it in The Encyclopaedia Britanica as a dream with no prospect of becoming real.9 Ben Yehuda also encountered strong opposition based on religious reasons. The idea of making Hebrew a spoken language irritated and infuriated the Ultra-Orthodox Jews in Jerusalem, who considered Hebrew as a holy language. They accused him of blasphemy and struggled strongly against him and his activities. Nevertheless, he did not relent.

The Hebrew Language Committee Ben Yehuda gathered Jewish intellectuals around him who were interested in his idea. Together they founded the Hebrew Language Committee for the improvement of Hebrew aiming to make it a living, spoken language. The Committee’s platform set the targets, and determined the ways for achieving them: The committee would prepare Hebrew for use in every realm of life: at home, in school, in public life, in trading and commercial life, in professional life, in studies and sciences.10

 7

Ibid, p. 2 For example, Shim'on Bernfeld, 'Mannihei Ha-Lashon', Ha-Academia La-Lashon Ha-Ivrit, Leket Te'udot Le-Toldot Va'ad Ha-Lashon Ve-Ha- Academia La-Lashon Ha-'Ivrit, Jerusalem 1970, pp. 135-138 9 'Semitic Languages', The Encyclopaedia Britanica, V. 24, 1911, p. 622 10 Ha-Academia La-Lashon Ha-'Ivrit, Zikhronot Va'ad Ha-Lashon Ha-'Ivrit, A, Jerusalem 1912, pp. 11-12 8

The Revival of Hebrew

35

In order to overcome the lack of vocabulary the committee undertook to fill the language with: 1. Words taken from the Jewish traditional sources: The Bible, The Mishna and the Gemara. 2. Words and roots taken from Semitic languages, especially from Arabic. The committee declared that it would never use ‘foreign words’ which are not Semitic by origin.11 Although Aramaic is closer to the Jewish religion, since many prayers and cultural documents are written in Aramaic, Ben Yehuda and his colleagues preferred Arabic for expanding the Hebrew vocabulary rather than Aramaic for certain reasons: 1. Arabic is a Semitic language, a sister of Hebrew. 2. A great part of the Jewish resources compiled in medieval times is written in Arabic. 3. In Ben Yehuda's times Arabic was not a foreign language for the Jewish population in Jerusalem. Moreover Arabic was used widely along with other languages amongst the population in Jerusalem and all over the country. 4. Ben Yehuda and his colleagues wanted the New Hebrew to keep its Semitic, biblical origins. In their view Arabic was a model for the ancient Hebrew of the Jewish people’s ancestors.12 All these reasons made Arabic the best model for creating modern Hebrew as a Semitic living language. Thus, some Arabic words were adopted by Ben-Yehuda and his colleagues and they have been used in Hebrew up to now: Avzam = buckle (Ar) Ibzi:m Adi:v = polite (Ar) Adi:b Bubba = doll (Ar) Bu'bu' (the pupil of the eye)13 Boreg = screw (Ar) burghi: Rishmi= (AR) Rasmi:

Itamar Ben Avi In 1882 Ben-Yehuda's son Ben-Zion Itamar was born. Ben Yehuda was so ardent and fanatic about his idea that he did not allow anyone to speak to his child in any language other than Hebrew. Itamar’s mother was not able to speak Hebrew naturally. On the one hand, it was not a spoken

 11

Ibid, p. 14 Eliezer Ben Yehuda, A Complete Dictionary of Ancient and Modern Hebrew, Ha-Mavo Ha-Gadol, p. 13 13 French: poupée 12

36

Chapter Five

language at all, and, on the other hand, many words required in conversation between the mother and child were still lacking. So the child began to speak at the relatively late age of four. In his Memoirs Itamar Ben Avi (an acronym of Itamar, the son of Eliezer Ben Yehuda) tells us how he started to speak. He relates that one day when his father was not at home, his mother absentmindedly sang to him a lullaby in her native language, Russian. Suddenly his father entered and heard it. He was so angry with his wife for using Russian rather than Hebrew that Itamar described the scene in the following words: “It caused a great shock to pass over me when I saw my father in his anger and my mother in her grief and tears, and the muteness was removed from my lips, and speech came to my mouth.” 14 Itamar is known as the first child in the world who spoke Hebrew as a mother tongue. He grew up to become a journalist and linguist like his father and even invented many words which are used in Hebrew until today. For example: the words for ‘independence’, ‘car’, ‘cinema’ ‘whipping top’. An interesting detail: Itamar Ben Avi met with Atatürk in Jerusalem sometime at the beginning of the 20th century. Like Atatürk, Itamar BenAvi advocated Latinization of the script. He called for the replacement of the Hebrew script with the Latin one and even published a newspaper in Hebrew written in the Latin script.

The Role of the Teachers One of the most important powers which caused Hebrew to become a living language spread amidst the Jewish society in Palestine at that time was the Teachers’ Organization. In 1903 the first conference of this fledgling organization was held, and it made a decision that became the turning point in the history of the Jewish people in Israel: To establish the Hebrew language as the only language of instruction in the Jewish schools. Without suitable words for any field of studies: not for Mathematics or Geography, the teachers insisted on teaching in Hebrew.15 Obviously, a nation seeking political independence must ensure its cultural independence as well. This decision was either a naive or a very courageous one. However, with the wisdom of hindsight we can say that

 14

Itamar Ben Avi, 'Im Shahar 'Atsma'utenu, 2, Jerusalem 1961, p. 18 Protocol Ha-Asefa Ha-Rishona Sefer Ha-Yovel Shel Histadrut Ha-Morim (Ed. D. Kimhi) Tel-Aviv 1929, p. 382 15

The Revival of Hebrew

37

this decision, to speak only Hebrew in school, was for all intents and purposes a declaration of independence. It meant that the people of Israel from now on live their lives in their own language to be used as the basis for creating their own culture. As the educational system undertook to make Hebrew the language of life, Hebrew schools were founded, new books were compiled in Hebrew, children’s songs were written in Hebrew. The teachers prompted their students to speak only Hebrew; children encouraged their parents to abandon their mother tongues and speak Hebrew. A very interesting phenomenon occurred: Schools operated in Hebrew, the children heard and spoke only Hebrew and then, at home, they taught the language to their parents. The old generation learned the new language from the young generation.

A song: Only Hebrew16 Only Hebrew! Only Hebrew! Only only Hebrew! Only Hebrew, Hebrew! Hebrew, Hebrew, Hebrew! When you speak – Hebrew, When you tell something – Hebrew, When you are angry – Hebrew, When you appease – Hebrew, In your store – Hebrew, In your exile – Hebrew, When you study – Hebrew, When you work – Hebrew, In your city – Hebrew, In your field – Hebrew, When you sit down – Hebrew, When you walk –Hebrew, When you lie down – Hebrew, When you get up – Hebrew,

 16

Written in Hebrew by Kadish Yehuda Silman, 1928

38

Chapter Five

Consequently, the Jewish public opinion became more and more enthusiastic about the idea. Thus, when Tel-Aviv was established in 1909 it was clear from the very beginning of its operating as a city that only Hebrew would be used as the official language of municipal life.17

Hebrew: A Living Language In 1922 Ben-Yehuda and David Yelin, the most prominent members of The Hebrew Language Committee, applied to the British high commissioner of Palestine, Sir Herbert Samuel, asking for the acceptance of Hebrew as a formal and official language along with English and Arabic. The Mandatory authorities accepted their request and appointed Hebrew as one of the official languages of the country.18 On 16 December 1922, less than 5 months after this decision, BenYehuda passed away, having seen his dream come true. Eventually and against all odds Hebrew had won. In 2009, the UNESCO decided to add Ben-Yehuda to the list of people who uniquely contributed to the history of the world. And so he did: the people in Israel speak Hebrew, create in Hebrew and bring up new generations of Hebrew speakers.

 17

Zohar Shavit, 'Tel-Avivi Dabber 'Ivrit,' Panim-Ketav 'Et Le-Tarbut, Hevra VeHinnukh, 45 (2008), pp. 50-64 18 H. Merhavia, Ha-Ziyyonut, Otzar Ha-Te'udot Ha-Politiyyot, Jerusalem 1943, p.214



CHAPTER SIX THE LANGUAGE WAR: HEBREW AND OTHER LANGUAGES IN PRE-FIRST WORLD WAR PALESTINE DENNIS KURZON1 1. Introduction The term “Language War” relates to a struggle – before the outbreak of the First World War – over the medium of instruction in the technical college, the Technikum, on the Carmel in Haifa. The languages involved in this “war” were not Arabic, which was the language of most of the residents in the area of Southern Syria (Palestine – Eretz Israel), nor Turkish, the language of the Ottoman Empire which ruled the area until the end of the First World War. Neither was it Yiddish, the language of the Jewish Ashkenazi residents of the Old Yishuv in Jerusalem, Safed, Hebron and Tiberias (the Sephardi Jews were for the most part Arabic speaking). The war was between Hebrew, on the one hand, which was not only the sacred language of the Jews but, relevant in our context, the spoken language of the Zionists living in Palestine, and German, on the other. French, too, was involved but indirectly. Three organizations influenced or were directly involved in the “war”: the Hebrew Language Committee (Va’ad ha-Lashon ha-Ivrit), the Teachers Union (Ichud ha-Morim, which then became Histadrut haMorim in 1928) and Hilfsverein der deutschen Juden, the German Jewish aid organization. The Hebrew Language Committee was founded in 1904, thirteen years after the original short-lived committee was dissolved. The aims of the Committee were (1) To prepare the Hebrew language for use as a language spoken in all affairs of life, at home, in schools, in public life, commerce and property, industry and art, knowledge and sciences.

 1

Prof. Dr. University of Haifa, Israel. [email protected]

40

Chapter Six

(2) To maintain the eastern patterns of the language and its special primary form in the pronunciation of the letters, in the structure of words and style, adding the necessary flexibility, so one can fully express contemporary human thought. Eliezer ben Yehuda, the “father of Modern Hebrew”, as it were, became the first president of the Committee in 1912 until his death in 1922. Pamphlets and posters were put up persuading the Jewish population to speak Hebrew. A well-known poster read: “Yehudi – Daber Ivrit!” – “Jew – Speak Hebrew!” The Teachers’ Union – Ichud ha-Morim – was founded in 1903 by Menahem Ussishkin, one of the leaders of the Zionist organization Hovevei Zion, at a meeting of teachers in Zichron Yaakov, a settlement near the coast in the centre of Palestine. Teachers who were members of this organization supported the exclusive use of Hebrew in educational establishments for the Jewish population of Palestine. It organized the demonstrations in favour of Hebrew (see 4.2. below). One of the leading figures in education, David Yellin, a teacher at the Jerusalem teachers’ seminary, resigned from the seminary at the time of the “language war”, and set up a new teachers’ seminary in Bet HaKerem in west Jerusalem, which still functions today and carries his name. The Germany-based Hilfsverein der deutschen Juden (Relief Organization of German Jews) was set up in 1901 in Berlin, and was run by Dr. Paul Nathan, a cotton magnate. Its aim was (1) to improve the situation of Jews in Eastern Europe, and (2) to develop an educational system in the Ottoman Empire – a counterpart to the French-based Alliance Israélite Universelle (see 3. below).

2. The Roots of the “War” The root of the conflict (the “language war”) started in 1908 when the Hilfsverein reached an agreement with the Wissotzky Foundation to buy land on the Carmel near Haifa in order to build an educational complex including a grammar school and a tertiary technical college – the Technikum. The two people negotiating to buy land for the Hilfsverein were Shmaryahu Levin, an active Zionist living in Berlin at the time, and Ephraim Cohn-Reiss, the director of the Lämel School in Jerusalem, which was run by the Hilfsverein. They finally found suitable land – a sufficiently large strip of land to build a number of buildings: the Technikum itself, the grammar school or Reali School (which still exists today in Haifa, although at another location), a boarding school (for

The Language War

41

students living outside Haifa), a water-well, workshops and Hilfsverein offices. They asked for planning permission, but because of Arab agitation against the project, published in local newspapers, permission was given only in December 1911 (Ben Artzi 1988). The medium of instruction of the new college was to be German, the language of science at that time (see 4. below). Similar to the campaign to persuade the local Jewish population (the Yishuv) to speak Hebrew, they were also encouraged to employ Jewish workers only, as this was the case in the building of the Technikum complex. In the course of the work, the workers learned the various skills needed in the building trade (Ben-Artzi 1988). On April 11, 1912, the ceremony of the laying of the foundation stone of the Technikum took place. It was attended, among others, by the German consul in Haifa, Julius Loytved-Hardegg. His presence gave the impression that the entire project was under German protection. It was believed that the project would help to promote Deutschtum in the East. (This term has been defined in the Duden dictionary as “Typical manifestations of German life; German nature”.) Loytved-Hardegg spoke warmly of the birth of Hebrew from a written to a spoken language. However, he knew only about East European Jews living mainly in Poland and Russia, who spoke Yiddish, which started its life in the middle ages as a dialect of Middle High German. He believed that the Jews would prefer German goods and culture. Moreover, the headquarters of the Zionist Organization, of its newspaper Die Welt, and of the Jewish National Fund, an organization whose task was to buy land in Palestine for the Jews living there – were all in Berlin. He also thought that the Hilfsverein should be more aware of the Zionists’ aspirations, seeing in the proposed College “a purely Jewish undertaking”, which will help to spread knowledge of the German language and science. He was quoted as saying that “Neither Berlin nor the Consulate in Palestine nourished any intention of pushing German Kultur at the expense of Hebrew education” (cited by Friedman 1977: 161). That may have been the viewpoint of the German consul in Haifa, but in general, the interest of the Germans in the Technikum was limited, and did not threaten the Zionists. The Zionists’ concern that the Technikum would become a German institution was exaggerated. But the Hilfsverein in their support of Deutschtum and their fear of Ottoman reaction – the Ottomans were thought to be opposed to Zionism – adopted the policy not to be associated with the Zionists. However, the Committee of Union and Progress (C.U.P., the "Young Turks"), who had come into power in 1908 in Istanbul (Ahmad 2010), may

42

Chapter Six

have seen in the Zionist movement a counterweight to growing Arab aspirations. Talaat Bey, the new Minister of the Interior, lifted immigration restrictions in Palestine, and changed the regulations concerning land purchase. In the six years from their taking over the Ottoman Empire to the outbreak of the First World War, 6000 Jews arrived in Palestine, and there was no restriction either on urban development or on agricultural settlements. In fact, writes Friedman (1977: 167), there was Turkish support for the Zionist movement and their work in Palestine “provided they adopted Ottoman nationality”. Though at the time of Friedman writing his book (1977), the Ottoman archives had hardly been explored, both the Germans and the Turks saw that Zionism had “certain advantages for their respective interests” (p. 167). Ironically, the principal opponents of the Zionists in fact were Jews close to the C.U.P. leadership; this may be contrasted with Arabs, Armenians and people of other nationalities close to the C.U.P. leadership who used their influence to help their co-nationals. Three Jews stood out: Emanuel Carasso, who was a lawyer and freemason from Salonica), Moise Cohen (also from Salonica) who saw in Zionism a “separatist political movement” (Landau 1983: 203), which may threaten the unity of the empire and increase anti-Semitism. Finally, there was Rabbi Haim Nahoum (born in Manisa in Turkey’s Aegean Province), who was appointed Haham-Bashi (Chief Rabbi) in 1908 (until 1920), much to the delight of the French and to the chagrin of the Germans (see 3. below). Although he was approached by representatives of the Zionist Organization to persuade the C.U.P. leaders to “moderate their antagonism” towards the Zionists and their activities in the empire, “he repeatedly took a clear and often firm stand against Zionism and the dangers it allegedly harbored for the Ottoman Empire” (Landau 1983).

3. French and the Alliance Israélite Universelle I mentioned earlier that one language involved indirectly in the “Language War” was French. The French were interested in controlling Syria after the eventual demise of the Ottoman Empire. Geographically, Syria included Palestine and modern-day Lebanon, since the distinction between Syria and Palestine was never “explicitly admitted” (Friedman 1977: 167). So, for the Ottomans as well as for the local population, Palestine was considered Southern Syria. The French encouraged the dissemination of the French language and culture, which led to higher prestige, and “handsome political and economic dividends” (p. 163). As for Jewish organizations, the Alliance Israélite Universelle was founded

The Language War

43

by Adolphe Crémieux in 1860, some 40 years or so before the Hilfsverein, as a means of advancing the Jews of the Middle East through French culture and education. The Francophiles in Istanbul won a victory when Haim Nahoum Effendi became Chief Rabbi of Turkey in 1908 despite opposition from Germany and the Hilfsverein (see 2. above). The French embassy asked other foreign missions to request the cancellation of restrictions on Jewish land purchase in Palestine (and in Syria), and the French were ready to protect Jewish interests in the east.

4. The “War” The Teachers’ Union claimed that since 1911 the progress of Hebrew had been held back in favour of German in the Hilfsverein schools, which they blamed on Cohn-Reiss, the director of the Lämel School, “suspecting he had submitted to ‘secret pressure exercised by the German Government’” (Friedman 1977: 175). However, Cohn-Reiss was not against Hebraization in schools, since he himself had introduced Hebrew in Hilfsverein schools, but believed it should be done at a slower pace. The Teachers’ Union’s stand against the Hilfsverein schools was supported only by the settlements and the intelligentsia (Friedman 1977: 177). The question may be asked whether the stand against the Hilfsverein and its wish for Deutschtum was anti-German in essence. There was no reason for this to be so. The struggle was not between the Zionist organizations in Palestine and the Germany government, but between the Zionists and the Hilfsverein. The head of the Girls’ School in Jerusalem, Miss Vera Pinczower, was reported to have told the German ConsulGeneral Edmund Schmidt that the protest and the subsequent teachers’ strike (see below) should not be seen as an anti-German move. German, after all, was strongly encouraged as a foreign language (Friedman 1977: 183). Chaim Weizman, one of the leading Zionists, and with Asher Ginsburg (known as Ahad Ha’am) one of the leaders of cultural Zionism, said during the First World War that Jews are “neither German nor French, but Hebrew, and those who would support our Hebrew culture would obtain our support in return” (p. 185). Being pro-Hebrew did not mean being anti-German. In the spring of 1913, the school was complete, as was most of the college. It was planned to open the institution in autumn of that year. The “war” broke out shortly after. Why? Because of the choice of German as the language of instruction. Paul Nathan of the Hilfsverein did not see the choice of language as a question of principle. The medium of instruction of any subject would be decided according to the language the teacher and

44

Chapter Six

students had in common. At a meeting of the Hilfsverein board in October 1913, it was decided – against the wishes of the three Zionist members – that Hebrew, Turkish, English and French would be taught in the College, while German would be used as medium of instruction for technical and scientific subjects. After a large demonstration near the Technikum buildings in November 1913, and then in Jerusalem, it was decided to limit the use of German to technical subjects only, but by then it was too late. Let us look at some examples of the demonstrations against the Hilfsverein’s stand.

4.1. Students’ Reactions The student body in Palestine was active, as may be seen among the students of the Jerusalem teachers’ seminar attached to the Lämel School (Rinot 1972). There were two groups: firstly, young Jerusalemites who had gone through Lämel School, in which Hebrew took second place to German, and submitted to the regime of the seminar. The second group was of so-called “Russians” (many of them had come from East Europe as Zionists). They had not studied in Lämel, and were active in the revival of Hebrew and Hebrew culture. Furthermore, they objected to the singing of the German and Austrian anthems on the birthdays of the respective emperors, and to the submission of the School director and others to the non-Jewish German teachers. This group was later joined by students who had not gone through Lämel but had studied previously at one of the yeshivot (rabbinical seminaries). High school students in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem sent a letter to Ahad Ha’am, in which they wrote: We have proved to the entire world that it is only the Hebrew language that can and should serve as the tongue for speech and instruction in our land; we have pinned so much hope on the only institution of higher learning which is now being established in our country. We are delighted in the hope of directly continuing our studies and receiving a full Hebrew education – THE LANGUAGE OF THE TECHNION CAN AND SHOULD BE HEBREW!

4.2. Public Demonstrations In mid-November, 1913, there took place in Jerusalem a demonstration opposite the Lämel School, attended by leading figures of the Yishuv in Palestine, as may be seen in the following poster (Shilo 1995):

The Language War

45

BIG PUBLIC ASSEMBLY Tonight 19 Heshvan [19 November 1913] at 8 in the garden of Beit Ha’am opposite Lämel School The Hebrew language in the Hebrew Yishuv. Speakers: Tel Aviv Mayor M[eir]. Dizengoff, the writer S[imha]. Benzion In the name of the Yafo committee on the maintenance of Hebrew education in Eretz Yisrael Dr. B[enzion]. Mosenson in the name of the Teachers’ Centre and others from Jerusalem Assembly Chair: Eliezer Ben Yehuda The Provisional Committee in Jerusalem

Parents of pupils at the Ezra (“aid” – the Hebrew name of the Hilfsverein) School in Jaffa insisted on Hebrew as the language of instruction at their school, and threatened to leave the institution, as may be seen in the following poster (ibid.):

46

Chapter Six

Decisions of parents’ meeting of pupils of the Ezra School in Yafo [Jaffa] (1) We the undersigned undertake to remove our children immediately from the Ezra School and not return them until our conditions have been satisfied. (2) A telegram will be sent to Ezra in Berlin with all our signatures and in it we demand from the above Society [Ezra] that the learning of sciences in the School be only in Hebrew and we ask for an answer by telegram. We will wait for the answer until Tuesday. (3) A committee of five parents has been elected to supervise the carrying out of the decisions. The committee together with the teachers’ centre will make sure a school will open without delay if the Ezra does not agree to our demands.

4.3. The Ultra-Orthodox and the End of the “War” In 1914, the first teachers’ strike took place in the Yishuv. This strike was not concerned with pay demands, as was and is usual in teachers’ strikes, but was part of the language war. Dr Nathan, the head of the Hilfsverein, on a visit to Palestine, thought that since the ultra-Orthodox Jews of the Old Yishuv sympathized with the Hilfsverein, there was no general support for the strike. But he misunderstood the situation: the ultra-Orthodox were not only against the use of Hebrew for non-religious

The Language War

47

matters, but were against the modern education offered by the Hilfsverein schools (Friedman 1977: 176). This may be seen in earlier instances in which children had been sent to Hebrew-speaking educational establishments. In 1898 there opened in Rishon LeZion (near Jaffa) the first Hebrew-speaking kindergarten, and five years later, in 1903, a Hebrew-speaking kindergarten opened in Jerusalem. This was met by posters from the ultra-Orthodox community warning people not to send their children to such a kindergarten because it would mean taking the children away from the traditional heder and Talmud Torah, educational institutions where young children learned religious texts in Hebrew, and where teachers and pupils would not speak Hebrew, but Yiddish. This was answered in the following poster, among others, signed by David Yellin (see 1. above) and Yeshayahu Press (first secretary of the Teachers’ Union): We have established a kindergarten to prevent these little children from rolling about in the dust and garbage in the yards and roads… We have opened a kindergarten to gather the small children in large rooms under the supervision of well-known instructors and nannies, upholding the words of King Solomon, “Train a child in the way he should go.” [Proverbs 22, 7] Be merciful to them as mothers, entertain them and delight them when teaching them reading out of joy and not as a burden. (Hasson 2012)

Then, in August 1914, the First World War broke out, and that spelled the end of the “Language War”. Both wars had long-term effects: by the end of the First World War the German, Austro-Hungarian, Russian and Ottoman empires had collapsed, and new nation states were created in Europe, e.g. Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia. The end of the “language war” meant that Hebrew had become well established as the national language of the Jews living in Palestine (the Yishuv).

5. Other “Language Wars” in Israel 5.1. Yiddish There have been other “language wars” among the Jewish population in Palestine, and then after 1948 in Israel. A major one was between Hebrew and Yiddish. This war, however, was not carried out in Palestine, but in East Europe between the Zionists and the Bundists – members of the Jewish Labour Union (or Bund in Yiddish, and in German). As for Israel after 1948, Yiddish was ostracized, since it was a symbol of the Diaspora, in line with the popular picture of the Diaspora Jews in the

48

Chapter Six

Holocaust, who were “inferior beings that went like lambs to the slaughter” (Porat 1990: 239). Today, however, with Hebrew wellestablished as the official language of Israel (alongside Arabic), there is a revival of Yiddish culture: plays in Yiddish are performed at leading theatres, and Yiddish songs are heard on the state radio stations. The number of Yiddish speakers in the world has been given as just over 2.2 million (Ethnologue 2009). Of the 1.7 million Eastern Yiddish speakers, 215,000 live in Israel, while the Western Yiddish dialect is spoken by about 50,000 people, mainly in Germany.

5.2. Other Jewish Languages The situation of Yiddish may be compared to other “Jewish” languages. For example, Ladino (Judezmo or Judeo-Spanish) is spoken by 110,000 Turkish, Bulgarian, Greek and Yugoslav Jews mainly living in Israel. In Turkey itself, there are around 8,000 speakers. Speakers of Judeo-Arabic living in Israel come from a number of Arab countries: there are 250,000 from Morocco, 100,000 speakers from Iraq, 50,000 from Yemen, and 45,000 from Tunisia (out of 325,000 worldwide). But in most cases these languages are gradually dying out in Israel, Hebrew being the dominant language of the Jewish population. Yiddish may be an exception, since many of the ultra-Orthodox communities insist on speaking Yiddish among themselves as their first language.

5.3. Hebrew vs. English May we say that there exists a language war between Hebrew and English? The language situation in Israel vis-à-vis English is very similar to the situation in many countries in the world. Any conflict that does exist is part of globalization – what may be called “Coca Cola” or “Macdonald” culture. However, at an international conference held in June 2012 at Haifa University of the Association for Israel Studies (AIS), a controversy arose which could be interpreted as a new language war – this time between Hebrew and English (Hovel 2012). Since the AIS is an American-run association, and not Israeli, it was decided that the international language – English – would be used throughout the conference. This was met with some opposition by several Israeli participants who argued that the local language should not be ignored, especially since the conference was being held in Israel. Simultaneous interpretation would be provided. It was felt that Hebrew does not receive the respect it deserves from Israeli academics.

The Language War

49

5.4. Hebrew vs. Russian And what of a “war” between Hebrew and Russian after the massive immigration of about 800,000 Soviet Jews after 1991 – after the collapse of the Soviet Union? We have witnessed the establishment of newspapers in Russian, the opening of bookshops selling Russian books. Even a school here and there have been opened catering for Russian speakers. But in the long run, with the young generation becoming Hebrew speakers, Russian will become the second language of the children and grandchildren of the immigrants, and will not challenge Hebrew.

Bibliography Ahmad, Feroz. 2010. The Young Turks: The Committee of Union and Progress in Turkish Politics, 1908-1914. Columbia University Press. Ben Artzi, Yossi. 1988. “The Old Technion”. In Ze’ev Anar (ed.) Stories of Buildings. Tel Aviv: Orbach, 106-108. [in Hebrew] Ethnologue: Languages of the World (2009). http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=yid, accessed Oct. 5, 2012. Friedman, Isaiah. 1977. Germany, Turkey and Zionism 1897-1918. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Hasson, Nir. 2012. “The war started in the kindergarten”. Haaretz, 5/10/12, p. 13. Hovel, Revital. 2012. “Academic – speak Hebrew!” Haaretz, 12/10/12, p. 11. Landau, Jacob M. 1983. “The ‘Young Turks’ and Zionism: Some comments”. In Victor D. Sanua (ed.) Fields of Offerings: Studies in Honor of Raphael Patai. Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, pp. 197-205. Porat, Dina. 1990. The Blue and the Yellow Stars of David: The Zionist Leadership in Palestine and the Holocaust, 1939–1945 . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Rinot, Moshe. 1972. The Hilfsverein of German Jews. School of Education, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. [in Hebrew] Shilo, Margalit. 1995. “The language war as a grassroots movement”. Kathedra 74, 86-119. [in Hebrew]



CHAPTER SEVEN REVIVAL AND REFORM IN HEBREW AND TURKISH: A COMPARISON øLKER AYTÜRK1

The State of Israel and the Republic of Turkey are avowedly the two democratic countries in the Middle East. The unfolding of a dramatic series of events culminated in the establishment of Turkey and Israel in 1923 and 1948, respectively. Turkey was founded on the remains of the multi-ethnic Ottoman Empire. A quarter of its population of approximately 12 million people, then, was new immigrants from the lost Ottoman lands and another two million were Kurdish-speakers. Israel, on the other hand, provided refuge to all the Jews wherever they could be found. The Jewish settlement in Ottoman and Mandatory Palestine, which we call the Yishuv, absorbed waves of immigration from 1880s onwards. Despite the specificities of each case, both the pre-state Jewish settlement, the Yishuv, and Turkey faced mounting pressure at their foundation and afterwards the problems of how to create a nation out of the diverse groups of people as well as how to integrate the immigrants into the political center, because the attachment to the political center was fragile at the beginning. There were similarities and differences in the ways in which Zionists and Turkish nationalists have responded to the challenge of nation-building. Language in this respect emerged in both cases as one of the battlegrounds for the definition of Jewish and Turkish nationhood, as well as a major instrument of the nation-building project. Why was language so central to nationalism? It is no surprise that all modern mass movements employed and continue to employ vernacular languages as opposed to languages of high culture. This is the only way ideologues of those mass movements make sure that they could reach out to the maximum number of potential followers. Nationalism, on the other

 1

Dr. Bilkent University, Turkey. [email protected]

52

Chapter Seven

hand, is different from other mass movements in that while it conveys its message in the simple language of the folk in order to increase the appeal of the message, it also attaches great importance to the national language as an end in itself. For the nationalist, language is more than a medium of communication. It is rather regarded the embodiment of the spirit of the nation and the storehouse of the culture of its speakers. The glory of the nation is, thus, symbolized by the state of its language according to the nationalist imagination: The revival of the language and advances in its expressive capabilities signal the awakening of the nation, whereas its decline and extinction lead to the death of the nation itself. Nationalist ideologues have always underlined the significance of the language in delineating the borders of the nation. So much so that language has even replaced common descent and perceived blood ties in the eyes of the nationalist, since the language of a nation is a more demonstrable criterion to distinguish its members from others. Hans Kohn, a well-known specialist in this field, argued persuasively that “the spoken language was accepted as a natural fact” before the advent of the age of nationalism and in no way was it “regarded as a political or cultural factor, still less as an object of political and cultural struggle”. Language did become a political issue, however, toward the end of the eighteenth century – and certainly by the beginning of the nineteenth – with the birth of what we might call linguistic nationalism. The term refers to an “action-oriented idea, which aims to revive, enrich and standardize the language of an ethnic community in all walks of life, and to make this language co-extensive with present or future political boundaries”. The aim of nationalist philologists, linguists and lexicographers, on the one hand, and of political leaders who lend them crucial support in this project, on the other, is nearly always to construct an all-purpose language for a nation-state. Linguistic nationalism is a common feature of all late nationalisms, which flourished around and after the mid-nineteenth century and struggled against dominant empires. When Czechs, Estonians, Bulgarians or the Catalans confronted their imperial masters, demanding further political rights – or even sovereignty – they were rebuffed on the grounds that “small peoples” without a history, a literary language and a distinct culture could not be admitted into the family of “nations” and, hence, could not rule themselves. For the cultural and political elites of those so-called “small peoples”, therefore, the main target was to prove their nationhood by discovering – or if necessary by inventing – a national history, language and culture. In the case of the Jews and Jewish nationalism, the same pattern is discernible. While Hebrew had always been an important marker of Jewish

Revival and Reform in Hebrew and Turkish: A Comparison

53

identity and culture in being the lingua Adamica and the language of the Tanakh and prayers, it ceased to be a spoken language in the middle of the second century of the Common Era, if not earlier. From the biblical period down to the late nineteenth century we do not come across an important Jewish figure or a source – religious or otherwise – that ascribed a political significance to Hebrew. For 1700 or 1800 years, Jews everywhere maintained a diglossic existence: while Hebrew continued to be used for mainly religious purposes, Jews spoke the language of their place of residence as their daily medium of expression. On top of this, the loss of the last vestiges of Jewish sovereignty in Erets Israel in the second century CE and, thereafter, the practical impossibility of independence for many centuries also severed the link between Hebrew and the national territory, and prevented a nationalistic approach to the language question among the Jews. This approach started to change somewhat toward the end of the eighteenth century under the triple impact of the Enlightenment, emancipation and nationalism. With the Berlin Haskalah and its influence on the Jews of Central and Eastern Europe, the language question came to occupy a prominent place in literary and academic debates within the Jewish circles, a question to which nearly all the maskilim referred to. Believing that only a “healthy”, “pure” language could lead to Bildung, the Prussian maskilim and their later followers elsewhere decided to replace Yiddish—the mother tongue of the vast majority of European Jews and a language which they regarded as “corrupt” and “barbarous” – with Hebrew, the ancestral Holy Tongue. However, the maskilic drive for Hebraization was far from being a case of linguistic nationalism. Their aim was more practical in nature: first, to get rid of the stigmatized Yiddish as soon as possible and, second, to communicate the message of the Jewish Enlightenment to the largest number of heder-educated and, thus, Hebrewreading Jewish public. The maskilim did not want to eliminate diglossia in the Jewish world; revived Hebrew was meant to be used mainly by the thriving Jewish press as a literary language, while Jews everywhere were still expected to speak the language of their respective nation-state. The revival of Hebrew as a literary language was going to unite the Hebrewwriting Jewish authors and their reading public under a Hebrew Republic of Letters throughout the nineteenth century. Yet, this was truly a republic of letters only, lacking any other pretensions, since the idea of an independent Jewish state was not to be heard until the last quarter of the same century, and the revival of Hebrew had no political meaning whatsoever. This is best exemplified by the work of an important maskil, Perets Smolenskin (1842-1885), who, with pragmatic realism, considered

54

Chapter Seven

the Diaspora a perpetual condition and argued that it was pointless to revive Hebrew as a daily language as long as Jews remained a people without a land on which they could be sovereign. The fatalistic tone in Smolenskin’s articles prompted a young man by the name of Eliezer Perlman (1858-1822) to send a strongly-worded rejoinder to Smolenskin’s journal Ha-shahar in which he declared his faith in the establishment of a monolingual Jewish society, living on the land of their fathers. Perlman, who was later to be known with his adopted surname Ben-Yehuda, is generally regarded as one of the founding fathers of Zionism and is credited with the “miracle” of the revival of Hebrew as a daily language. Revisionist historiography after the 1970s attempted to demythologize Ben-Yehuda, first, by bringing our attention to other groups or individuals who participated in the revivalist movement and, second, by highlighting socio-economic conditions in the Yishuv, which made the revival possible. Nevertheless, Ben-Yehuda’s 1878 article, “Mikhtav leBen-Yehudah” is undoubtedly the first instance of Hebrew linguistic nationalism, linking language and territory, on the one hand, and independence and Hebrew monolingualism, on the other. Ben-Yehuda and his wife moved to Ottoman Palestine in 1881. His impact there was threefold: First, the Ben-Yehuda family resolved to speak Hebrew only and, therefore, their son, Itamar became the first known native speaker of Hebrew in the last two millennia. The family set an example for other immigrants, particularly for those who arrived with the Second Aliya (1905-1914), by proving the possibility of a revival. Second, BenYehuda’s landmark Hebrew dictionary and a variety of Hebrew daily newspapers played a role in the modernization of Hebrew vocabulary and the spread of newly-coined words. Third, Ben-Yehuda made every effort to give an institutional form to the revival process in order to attract the attention of the Jewish literati in the Yishuv and the Diaspora. While two earlier societies, Tehiyat Israel (Revival of Israel, 1882) and Safah Berurah (Clear Language, 1889), were not very successful, another one, Va‘ad ha-lashon (The Language Council, 1904), in which BenYehuda assumed a leading role, gradually became the national institution responsible for the revival process and transformed into the Hebrew Language Academy after the establishment of the State of Israel. Aided by various institutions in the Diaspora and, most notably, by the Teachers’ Union and workers’ organizations in the Yishuv, Va‘ad ha-lashon did considerable work on status and corpus planning. On the one hand, it elevated the official status of Hebrew over Yiddish and safeguarded the oriental pronunciation of the language. On the other hand, members of the

Revival and Reform in Hebrew and Turkish: A Comparison

55

Va‘ad contributed to the lexical modernization of Hebrew by coining new words and terms from Hebrew and Semitic roots. The outcome was, then, introduced to Jewish students in the Yishuv, who were enrolled in Hebrew schools ranging from kindergartens to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. By the early 1920s, Mandatory Palestine was already home to thousands of native speakers of Hebrew who lived in an entirely Hebraicized world, complete with schools, community institutions, local press and even movie theaters. It is remarkable that all these achievements took place in a political vacuum. Gospels of Jewish nationalism such as Moses Hess’ Rom und Jerusalem (1862) and Leon Pinsker’s Autoemanzipation (1882) did not even contain a reference to the language question, nor did they determine the role of Hebrew in a future Jewish state. To make things worse, the father of political Zionism, Theodor Herzl, neglected the role of a national language as a factor in Zionism altogether. Herzl’s diaries are replete with his lukewarm attitude toward Hebrew and especially well-known is his infamous question, “Who among us knows enough Hebrew to ask for a railroad ticket in this language?” (Herzl 1960: 170-171). In his most important work, Der Judenstaat (1896), Herzl suggested establishing a “federation of tongues” (Sprachenföderalismus) in the future Jewish state and to let every citizen to decide his or her daily language (Herzl 1896: 8889). The attitude of the founding fathers was also reflected in the World Zionist Organization (WZO), which remained indifferent to the language question for many years. Another source of opposition to linguistic nationalism could be found in religious Zionist circles, who exercised a veto on all cultural matters at the WZO and refused to support linguistic nationalism. Their opposition could be overcome only at the Eleventh Zionist Congress in 1913, after which “Am ehad ve-safah ahat” (One Nation and One Language) was adopted as an official slogan of the Zionist movement. Finally, let me now compare the language factor in Zionism and Turkish nationalism and to underscore similarities and differences between the two. As regards similarities, both nationalisms fall into the category of ‘late-comers,’ as they joined the late nineteenth century wave of Central and Eastern European nationalist movements. Both Zionism and Turkish nationalism were ethnic nationalisms, although it has to be added that Jewish nationalism seemed less so, since centuries of Diaspora life had eroded most of the objective factors that made up the Jewish nation. Zionists and Turkish nationalists sought to modernize their nations and that pro-modernization outlook brought them closer to other nationalist movements in Central and Eastern Europe. In addition, revivalism was one

56

Chapter Seven

of the central tenets of both Zionism and Turkish nationalism. Both movements approached history from an instrumentalist point of view, recycling it and making decisions on what to keep from it and what to discard. Language, in particular, had a symbolic value for them for basically three reasons: First, it was the evident proof of the connection between the members of the ‘imagined community.’ Knowledge of a language marks off a social group from others who cannot read, write or speak it, and this has been a sociological dynamic that nationalists always capitalized on. Second, studies on Hebrew and Turkish armed nationalists of both sides with arguments regarding the antiquity and respectability of their nations. To put it differently, linguistic studies had political consequences in that they reinforced the sovereignty and equality claims of nationalist movements. Third, the revival of Hebrew as a spoken language and the success of the Turkish language reform symbolized in the eyes of the nationalists the possibility of a broader regeneration, this time, of the nation itself. Accomplishments in the field of language motivated them and gave a boost to the movement, increasing hopes of speedy modernization and catching up with, or replicating, the Western experience. The differences that could be discerned between Zionism and Turkish nationalism regarding the language factor are also instructive in their own right. First, there was a vectorial incongruity between the two linguistic nationalisms. While Turkish nationalism aimed at creating a common literary language out of the undeveloped spoken Turkish, Zionists had to take the opposite trajectory and fashioned a spoken language primarily for daily use out of a purely literary language. One other critical discrepancy can be observed in the institutional support for linguistic nationalism. Turkish linguistic nationalism had received state support as far back as the Young Turk governments on the eve of World War I. Republican governments, and especially those of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, inherited that nationalist guiding principle and transformed it into a state policy, founded institutions to steer it, and allotted considerable sums from the public budget for their implementation. In contrast, there was no counterpart to the Turkish state in the case of Hebrew. From the 1870s, when Ben-Yehuda pronounced linguistic nationalism for the first time, to 1913, when the WZO revised its cultural policy, the revival and reform of the Hebrew language continued without the legal, political and financial assistance of a state, an important condition which differentiates the revival of Hebrew from many other cases of language reform and revival elsewhere. The lack of state support

Revival and Reform in Hebrew and Turkish: A Comparison

57

deprived revivalists from financial sources, institutional penetration and, most importantly, from monopolizing the revival process in the hands of one institution only. Turf wars between the Va‘ad and other Hebrew institutions were rife. Yet, this was a mixed blessing. The non-state environment and institutional rivalries had the extraordinary effect that at the earliest stage of revival and reform the task was shouldered by a wide range of concerned individuals, societies and organizations, making the process much more democratic, participatory and popular. In comparison, the dependence of Turkish reformists on state support caused the identification of language reform with the state and to be more precise, with the ruling party, the Republican People’s Party. For that reason, language reform in Turkey became an extremely politicized issue and opponents of the ruling party became instinctive enemies of its language policy in that sharply divided political setting. There is one more, important, contrast between the two movements. In Turkish linguistic nationalism, the Turkish language had had no rival. All Turks in Antaolia conversed in Turkish, though they spoke with various accents of the same language. Even the Ottoman officials and literati, who created and used the Ottoman high language, spoke plain Turkish, like all other common people, in daily life. Jewish nationalism, on the other hand, suffered from a bifurcation of interests early on. We have to remember at this point that Zionism was not the only form of Jewish nationalism. The, so-called, Diaspora nationalists, who fought for the recognition of the cultural autonomy of the Jews in Eastern Europe, took the path of Yiddishism. That was a natural choice for them, in view of the fact that Yiddish was the mother tongue of the vast majority of the Eastern European Jewry, and that the Diaspora nationalists did not want to establish a state for all the Jews. They did not have to take into consideration, in other words, the Jews of Asia and Africa, who did not speak or understand a word of Yiddish. Zionist linguistic nationalists, however, opted for Eretz Israel. They linked the ancient land of the Jews with the ancient language of the Jews, that is, Hebrew, and aimed at making it the official language of a Jewish state. What other language could have united all Jewish communities without creating intercommunal tensions? To put it shortly, the Hebrew language had a formidable rival in the Jewish nationalist movement and a choice of language was possible according to the type of Jewish nationalism one subscribed to. Yet, the Diaspora nationalism and, with it, the Yiddishist option was wiped out by the Holocaust, while Zionism achieved its goals in the Yishuv.

58

Chapter Seven

Bibliography Aytürk, ølker. 2010. “Revisiting the Language Factor in Zionism: The Hebrew Language Council from 1904 to 1914”. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 73: 45-64. Bar-Adon, Aaron. 1986. “økinci Aliya’nÕn ønranicenin CanlanÕúÕna KatkÕsÕ” [in Hebrew]. Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies in Jerusalem, August 4-12, 1985, Division D, Vol. 1, 63-70. Kudüs: World Union of Jewish Studies. Bartal, Israel. 1993. “From Traditional Bilingualism to National Monolingualism.” Lewis Glinert, (ed.) Hebrew in Ashkenaz: A Language in Exile, 141-150. New York ve Oxford: Oxford University Press. Barzilay, Isaac E. 1959. “National and Anti-national Trends in the Berlin Haskalah”. Jewish Social Studies 21: 165-192. Ben-Yehuda, Eliezer. 1943. Ben-Yehuda’nÕn Toplu Eserleri (øbranice), Vol. 1. Kudüs-Talpiot: Ben Yehuda YayÕnlarÕ. Efrati, Natan. 1997. “øbranicenin CanlanÕúÕ ve Siyonist Hareket” [in Hebrew]. Leúonenu la-am 48: 93-134. Haramati, Shlomo. 1978. Ben-Yehuda’dan Önceki Üç Kiúi [in Hebrew]. Kudüs: Yad Yitshak Ben Zvi. —. 1984. “Yisrael Halevi Teller: Birinci Aliya Mensubu Reformist Bir Gramerci” [in Hebrew]. Kathedrah : 91-124. Harshav, Benjamin. 1990. “øbranicenin CanlanÕúÕ Üzerine Bir Deneme” [in Hebrew]. Alpayim 2: 8-54. Herzl, Theodor. 1896. A Jewish State: An Attempt at a Modern Solution of the Jewish Question. London: David Nutt. —. 1960. The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl, Vol. 2. New York and London: Herzl Press and Thomas Yoseloff. Karmi, Shlomo. 1997. Tek Millet ve Tek Dil: ønterdisipliner Bir BakÕú AçÕsÕndan øbranicenin CanlanÕúÕ [in Hebrew]. (no publishing place): Savunma BakanlÕ÷Õ YayÕnlarÕ. Kohn, Hans. 1944. The Idea of Nationalism: A Study in Its Origins and Background. New York: The Macmillan Company. Rinott, Moshe. 1984. “Religion and Education: The Cultural Question and the Zionist Movement, 1897-1913”. Studies in Zionism 5: 1-17. Shavit, Yaacov. 1993. “A Duty Too Heavy to Bear: Hebrew in the Berlin Haskalah, 1783-1819, between Classic, Modern and Romantic”. Lewis Glinert, (ed.) Hebrew in Ashkenaz: A Language in Exile, 111-128. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.



CHAPTER EIGHT THE RAPPORT BETWEEN HEBREW AND ARABIC SHLOMO ALON1

Arabic and Hebrew are the two Semitic old languages, not only to have survived as vehicles of literary expression, but to have doubled their strength in order to cope with the needs of a modern world. Arabic and Hebrew are the two official languages of Israel. Both Hebrew and Arabic are two sisters from the family of the Semitic languages, written, read and composed from the right side to the left. The Semitic languages are a group of related languages, whose living representatives are spoken by about 300 million people, across much of the Middle East, North Africa and the Horn of Africa. The most widely spoken and written Semitic languages today are Arabic, Hebrew, Amharic (Ethiopian), Tigrinya and Aramaic. Semitic languages are arrested in written form, from a very early period, from around the middle of the third millennium BC. Most scripts used to write Semitic languages are ABJADs-a type of alphabetic script that omits some or all of the vowels, because the consonants in the Semitic languages are the primary carriers of meaning. Arabic is suffering a deep diglossia between the written and spoken language. Hebrew celebrates a revival as a modern language, spoken and written in Israel, and by Jewish people around the globe. Israel is nowadays one of the very few countries with two independent national language academies – The Academy of the Hebrew language and the Academy of the Arabic language. I am honored and very privileged to be a permanent member of the Academy of the Arabic language. Both, Hebrew and Arabic are mandatory in the Hebrew and Arab education in Israel. Students are obliged to study the Literary Modern

 1

Dr. Ministry of Education, Jerusalem, Israel. [email protected]

60

Chapter Eight

Standard Arabic (MSA). Hebrew and Arabic Reading Projects (HARP) are an essential challenge for Israel as a society. Arabic is taught in the Israel Educational System, within the context of Islamic Culture. The universities and colleges in Israel, from the Upper Galilee in the north, to Beer Sheva in the south, include departments for Arabic and Islamic Studies and departments for Hebrew language and literature. There is a recognition of the need of the two communities – Jews and Arabs – to learn the other’s language. We have already heard from former presenters that for many generations Judeo-Arabic served as the writing system of Jewish scholars in the Arabic-speaking world. Mutual borrowings between Hebrew and Arabic are very common. The frequent word for ‘OK’ in Hebrew is ahla (sweet in Arabic). The Hebrew word beseder (agreed) is used in Arabic discourse in Israel for OK. The same is applicable for the Arabic word sababa (longing, love), which is used in spoken Hebrew for ‘well, great, wonderful’ and other examples are too many to be counted here. The rapport between Arabic and Hebrew is big and wide, while we consider the ‘root’ system, the vocabulary and the morphology of the two languages. Let us look at some examples (H=Hebrew, A=Arabic):1. wrote - katav (H) - kataba (A) 2. ate - aakhal (H) - aakala (A) 3. market - shuq (H) - suq (A) 4. day - yom (H) - yaum (A) 5. dog- kelev (H) - kalb (A) 6. blessing - brakha (H) - baraka (A) 7. year -shanah (H) - sanah (A) 8. night -laylah (H and A) 9. apple - tappuah (H) - tuffah (A) 10. onion - basal (H and A) 11. Saturday - shabat (H) - sabt (A) 12. camel - gamal (H) - djamal (A) 13. week - shavua (H) - usbu (A) 14. hand - yad (H and A) 15. leg - regel (H)- ridjl (A) 16. father - aav (H) - aab (A) 17. brother - aah (H) - aakh (A) 18. no - lo (H) - la (A) 19. to me - li (H and A) 20. to you (m.) - lekha (H) - laka(A)

The Rapport between Hebrew and Arabic

61

21. I - aani (H) - aana(A) 22. you (m.) - atta (H) - anta (A)

Bibliography Amara, Muhammad Hasan, 1988: “Arabic diglossia: conditions for learning the standard variety” (in Arabic), Aljadid, 12: 14-23. Ben-Rafael Eliezer, 1994: Language, Identity and Social division – The case of Israel (Ed. By P. Mulhauser and S. Romaine, Oxford Studies in Language Contact), Oxford, Clarendon Press. Cooper, Robert L, 1984: “A Framework for the Description of Language Spread-The case of Modern Hebrew”, ISSJ (International Social Science Journal), 36, 1: 87-112. Crystal, David: A Little Book of Language (Yale University Press, 2011). Ferguson, A. Charles: “Diglossia Revisted” in Studies in Diglossia, The Journal of Linguistic Association of the Southwest, Volume 10, November 1, 1991: 214-234. Fisherman, H, 1972: “The Official Languages of Israel: their status in law and police attitudes and knowledge concerning them.” Language Behaviour Papers, 1:3-23. Goshen-Gottstein, M. H. (ed.): A Modern Dictionary Arabic-Hebrew, 2 volumes (Tel Aviv, 1972-1976). Hallel, Michael and Bernard Spolsky, 1993: “The teaching of additional languages in Israel”. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13: 37-49. Koplewitz, Immanuel, 1992: “Arabic in Israel: The Sociolinguistic situation of Israel’s linguistic minority”, International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 98: 29-66. Landau, M. Jacob (ed.): The Teaching of Arabic as a Foreign Language – Selected Articles (Jerusalem, The School of Education of the Hebrew University, 1961). Ministry of Education: Policy for Language Education in Israel [in Hebrew] (Jerusalem, Office of the Director General, 1996). Ministry of Education: The Israel Education System (January, 2011). Rozenthal, R: The Comprehensive Slang Dictionary (in Hebrew) (Keter Publishing House, Jerusalem, 2005). Shohamy, Elana, 1994: “Issues in Language planning in Israel: Language and Ideology”, in R. D. Lambert (ed.): Language planning around the world: contexts and systematic change (Washington DC: National Foreign Language Center): 131-142.

62

Chapter Eight

Spolsky, Bernard, 1994: “The Situation of Arabic in Israel”, in Y. Suleiman (ed.), Arabic Sociolinguistics: Issues and Perspectives (Richmond Curzon Press): 236-277. Spolsky, Bernard, 1996b: “Prolegomena to an Israeli Language Policy”, in T. Hickey and J. Williams (ed.), Language Education and Society in a Changing World (Dublin and Clevedon: IRAAL/Multilingual Matters): 45-53.





CHAPTER NINE HEBREW IN THE UNIVERSITIES OF TURKEY PROF. DR. BEDRETTøN AYTAÇ1

In this paper I will examine the emergence and the development of the teaching of the Hebrew language in Turkish universities. In Istanbul Darülfunun’s Faculty of Arts, in the years 1915-1918 the German orientalist Gotthelf Bergstraesser (1886-1933) taught courses about Comparative Semitic languages. He also wrote a book in Turkish on the history of the Semitic languages, entitled Elsine-i Samiye Tarihi. After he left his teaching position in Darulfunun, his assistant, a Turkish Jew, historian Avram Galanti (1873-1961), who wrote a lot of books, taught at the Department of Comparative Semitistic as a professor. In his article, titled Türkiye ve Elsine-i Samiye (Turkey and the Semitic Languages), Galanti underlines the significance of the studies of the Semitic languages in Turkey and states that Turkey is the most relevant country to Semitic languages because those who use these languages lived in the Ottoman Empire and have still been in living in Turkey (Galanti, 2004:105). The teaching of Eastern languages in modern Turkish universities started with the opening of the departments of Arabic and Persian Languages and Literatures, of Hindology and of the Chinese language and culture. Though Arabic and Persian belong to different language families, they have been considered and taught together because they are the main languages that constitute the Ottoman Turkish and the Turkish culture. Consequently, Arabic and Persian languages and literatures have started to be taught in independent departments. In modern Turkish universities and during the years that followed the closure of Darulfunun in 1933, we don’t see the teaching of any living Semitic language except Arabic, including Hebrew, nor the founding of independent departments concerning these languages until 1990’s.We can say this situation posed a shortcoming regarding the teaching of foreign languages in Turkey. The teaching of the Hebrew language has a significance, considering the historical ties

 1

Prof. Dr. Ankara University, Turkey. [email protected]

64

Chapter Nine

between Turkish and Jewish societies, Turkish-Israeli relations today, comparative Semitic studies, Jewish studies and for a better understanding of classical Arabic texts. The teaching of modern Hebrew started for the first time in Ankara University’s Faculty of Language, History and Geography in the academic year of 1999-2000. In that academic year a Modern Hebrew course was taught at that Faculty by the Israeli Hebrew lecturer Tal Fishman as a selective course in the Department of Arabic Language and Literature. After Tal Fishman left the university in 2000, the Hebrew course was taught by me between the years 2000-2003. I studied Hebrew in Israeli Ulpans in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and in Haifa University in the summer terms of 2000, 2007, and 2008. From 2003 until 2006 Hebrew courses were discontinued in this Faculty. Starting from the academic year 2006-2007, in the newly designed Erasmus curriculum, a modern Hebrew course has been taught by me for four hours a week as a compulsory course in the 1st and 2nd semesters of the 3rd year in the Department of Arabic Language and Literature. For the first time in Turkish universities Hebrew was taught in the curriculum of Arabic departments at the Faculty of History, Language and Geography. In these courses, the Hebrew alphabet, verb declinations, verb forms (binyanim), basic grammar rules were taught, and texts for beginners were studied. Due to its being a Semitic language, Hebrew, offers the students of Arabic an opportunity for comparison with Arabic, thereby students better comprehend the linguistic logic of Hebrew. The majority of the students selecting these courses state that they find Hebrew easier to learn than Arabic. Besides Arabic and Hebrew belonging to the same language family, particularly regarding their relations in the Middle Ages, learning Hebrew offers the graduates of Arabic an opportunity to seek new academic areas of study. The number of students in these courses has been around 35 in each semester. In these Hebrew courses Edna Amir Coffin’s books entitled Lessons in Modern Hebrew Level I and Lessons in Modern Hebrew Level II (Ann Arbor, The University of Michigan Press) are followed as main textbooks. Additional books are also used. Another faculty of Ankara University, in which Hebrew courses are taught, is the Faculty of Divinity. In this Faculty, in the year of 1962, three faculty members, Dr. Hüseyin Atay, Dr. Hikmet Tanyu and Dr. Yaúar Kutluay were sent to Israel by Ankara University to study Hebrew. During their two-year stay there, in addition to learning Hebrew, they carried out researches. In this Faculty, in the academic year of 1989-1990, a 4-hour a week Hebrew course was taught in upper graduate level by Tamar Millo, the wife of the Israeli Charge des Affairs in Ankara at that time. This

Hebrew in the Universities of Turkey

65

course was taught for one year, and Hebrew courses at that Faculty were interrupted until 1998. From the 1998-1999 academic year on, in the upper graduate curriculum of the Department of Quranic Interpretations, a four-hour Hebrew course was taught under the title “Antique Languages in the Process of Apocalypse” by Prof. Dr. Salih Akdemir. In this course, the main textbook was Eliezer Tirkel’s Everyday Hebrew / øvrit B’kalut (Passport Books, Illinois 1994). Salih Akdemir states in his publications that a knowledge of Hebrew is also necessary for a better understanding of the Quran and for more correct Quran translations. In 2002 he submitted a project for establishing a research institute on comparative Semitic languages in Ankara University but so far that project hasn’t been realized. In the same Faculty, another academician, who taught Hebrew is Prof. Dr. Baki Adam from the Department of the History of Religions. Adam, stayed in Tel-Aviv University on a scholarship and learned Hebrew and conducted researches there. He started to teach Hebrew at the Faculty of Divinity in 2002, in the upper graduate curriculum of the Department of the History of Religions and continued teaching it for three years. In 2007, the Department of World Religions was opened in this Faculty. From 2010 on, in this department’s 3rd and 4th years’ bachelor’s curriculum, a selective Hebrew course has been taught by Baki Adam. If a certain number of students select that course, the course is opened. In this course, the book entitled øvrit min ha hethala was used as a textbook. The first Hebrew department in Turkey was founded as a subdepartment in Erciyes University’s Faculty of Humanities: Department of Eastern Languages and Literatures, and in the academic year 2010-2011 this department started to receive students. Another Hebrew sub-department was established in Istanbul Bahçeúehir University’s Faculty of Arts & Sciences, Department of Eastern Languages and Literatures, and started to receive students in 2012. In the curriculum of this Hebrew sub-department we see the courses Hebrew Grammar, Phonetics, Hebrew Culture, Vocabulary, Translation, Hebrew Literature, and Stylistics. A sub-department of Hebrew Language and Literature was founded in Istanbul Medeniyet University’s Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Department of Eastern Languages and Literatures, but has not yet started teaching. In Ankara, in YÕldÕrÕm BeyazÕt University’s Faculty of Humanities, the Department of Eastern Languages and Literatures announced that a subdepartment of Hebrew Language and Literature was to be founded, but that was not realized yet.

66

Chapter Nine

18 Mart University in Çanakkale in its Senate resolution of 8th July 2011 announced that it would submit to the Higher Education Council a project for establishing a Department of Eastern Languages and Literatures, which will contain a sub-department of Hebrew Language and Literature. The Senate of the University of Trakya, in its meeting on March, 26, 2009, decided to submit to the Higher Education Council a project for establishing a Department of Hebrew Language and Literature and open a Hebrew preparatory class in the School of Foreign Languages that will receive 20 students from the academic year of 2009-2010. In recent years, due to the growing interest in learning Hebrew in Turkey, we see that Hebrew courses have been opening in several universities. At Bilkent University, Hebrew is taught at levels of Hebrew I, II, and III. In Bo÷aziçi University’s lifelong education centre (BÜYEM)’s curriculum, there are Hebrew courses in Basic, Intermediate and Advanced Levels. Mardin Artuklu University’s Institute of the Living Languages in Turkey decided to start in the academic year of 2012-2013 Hebrew and Syriac courses open to the public. In these courses, the Hebrew course was scheduled to be 2 hours a week in Alef Level. Hebrew was accepted in Turkey by the resolution of the Ministers’ Council on 24th May 2007 as a language that can be taught in official and private courses. According to the Turkish-Israeli Cultural Agreement, every academic year one Turkish student receives a summer language scholarship to study Hebrew in Ulpan in Israel for 3-4 weeks. When we look at the publications on learning Hebrew in Turkey, we see that their number is very limited. A Hebrew Speaking Guide, prepared by Mehmet Hengirmen and translated by Richard Dietrich, was published in 1996. A Hebrew-Turkish dictionary (øbranice-Türkçe Sözlük), prepared by me and published in 2012, will be filling out a gap in this field. In addition, regarding Hebrew literature, Gershon Shaked’s A History of Modern Hebrew Literature was translated by me into Turkish (Modern øbrani EdebiyatÕ Tarihi) from its German edition and was published in 2007. In conclusion, even though Hebrew studies and teaching Hebrew are quite new in Turkish universities, newly opened Hebrew departments and courses will make a contribution to this field of study.

Hebrew in the Universities of Turkey

67

Bibliography Aytaç, Bedrettin. (2012). øbranice Türkçe Sözlük. Ankara: Kurmay Kitap YayÕn Da÷ÕtÕm. Bergstrasser, Gotthelf. (2006). Sami Dilleri Tarihi. (ed: Prof. Dr. Hulusi KÕlÕç, Dr. Eyyüp TanrÕverdi) østanbul: Anka YayÕnlarÕ. Galanti, Avram. (2002). Üç Sami Kanun Koyucu (ed. Eyyüp TanrÕverdi). østanbul: Anka YayÕnlarÕ. —. (2004). Türkiye ve Sami Dilleri (ed: Nurettin Ceviz, Musa YÕldÕz) Nüsha. 15: 97-106. Hengirmen, Mehmet (1996). øbranice Konuúma KÕlavuzu (tr. Richard C. Dietrich). Ankara: Engin YayÕnevi. Shaked, Gershon. (2007) Modern øbrani EdebiyatÕ Tarihi (tr. Bedrettin Aytaç) Ankara: Phoenix.

People interviewed Prof. Dr. Baki Adam, Ankara University, Faculty of Divinity. Prof. Dr. Hüseyin Atay, retired, Ankara University, Faculty of Divinity. Prof. Dr. Salih Akdemir, Ankara University, Faculty of Divinity.



ÖNSÖZ

øbranice’nin tarihi üzerine bir sempozyum düzenleme fikri, Kayseri Erciyes Üniversitesi rektör yardÕmcÕsÕ ve seçkin bir tarihçi olan Prof. Dr. M. Metin Hülagü’nün zihninde biçimlendi. Erciyes da÷larÕ eteklerine yerleúmiú olan bu e÷itim kurumunda øbranice’nin ö÷retilmesini birkaç yÕl önce SayÕn Hülagü baúlatmÕútÕ. øbranice bölümü büyüyüp de üçüncü yÕlÕna girince, kendisi bölüm ö÷retim elemanlarÕ ve ö÷renciler için konuúmalar yapÕp onlara øbranice araútÕrmalarÕnÕn üzerinde yo÷unlaútÕ÷Õ birtakÕm konularÕ anlatmak için bir araútÕrmacÕlar toplulu÷unu üniversiteye davet etmenin yararlÕ olaca÷ÕnÕ düúünmüú. Bu konuúma ve tartÕúmalar 16 Ekim 2012 tarihinde bütün bir gün sürdü ve ertesi gün bunu çok iyi düzenlenmiú ve herkesçe övülen, kÕlavuzlu çok ilginç bir Kapadokya turu izledi. Konuklar tur boyunca geleneksel Türk konukseverli÷inin tadÕnÕ çÕkardÕ. Prof. Dr. Hülagü’nün açÕú konuúmasÕnÕ yaptÕ÷Õ sempozyumun katÕlÕmcÕlarÕ yedi øsrailli ve üç Türk konuúmacÕdan oluúuyordu. øsrailli katÕlÕmcÕlar, øsrail’in en iyi bilinen dört üniversitesinden geliyordu: Kudüs øbrani Üniversitesi, Tel-Aviv Üniversitesi, Hayfa Üniversitesi ve Bar-Ilan Üniversitesi. AyrÕca, øsrail E÷itim BakanlÕ÷Õndan bir üst düzey görevli ve Birleúik KrallÕk Cambridge Üniversitesinden bir øsrailli katÕlÕmcÕ da vardÕ. Türk katÕlÕmcÕlar, Bilkent, Ankara ve Erciyes üniversitelerindendi. Belliydi ki, on konuúma øbranice’nin tüm tarihini kapsayamazdÕ. Bu yüzden, belli karakteristik konular seçilerek Tevrat’Õn yapÕmÕndan günümüze kadar olan dönem kapsam içine alÕndÕ. Konular tarihsel dönemler ve günümüzle ba÷lantÕlarÕ yoluyla belirlendi. Eskil döneme iliúkin olarak, konuúmacÕlar Tevrat’Õn ve Miúna’nÕn, ayrÕca Ölü Deniz ElyazmalarÕ’nÕn dilini tartÕútÕlar. Elyazmalar’Õn dili, yazÕldÕklarÕ dönemde ne tür bir øbranice kullanÕldÕ÷Õna iliúkin belirtiler sa÷lÕyordu. Ortaça÷a iliúkin olarak, daha çok Geniza belgelerindeki, ço÷unlukla Arap ülkelerinde görülen øbranice ve OsmanlÕ ømparatorlu÷u’ndaki ilk basÕmevi olarak görülen østanbul’daki øbranice kitap basÕmÕ vurgulandÕ. Ça÷daú döneme iliúkin olarak da øbranice rönesansÕ ve karúÕlaúÕlan güçlükleri ile birlikte Türkçe’nin ça÷daúlaúmasÕ ile karúÕlaútÕrÕlmasÕ üzerinde duruldu. Dilbilimsel tartÕúmalar, øbranice’nin bir yandan Aramice, öte yandan Arapça ile iliúkisi üzerineydi. Erciyes Üniversitesi ve öteki Türk üniversitelerindeki øbranice araútÕrmalarÕnÕn genel durumunun de÷erlendirilmesi, sempozyuma

70

Önsöz

uygun bir bitiú sa÷ladÕ. Genel olarak bakÕldÕ÷Õnda, sempozyum ve sunulan bildirilerin basÕmÕ, eski bir dil olan ve bugün øsrail devletinde canlandÕrÕlan ve øsrail dÕúÕndaki Yahudiler’in de bildi÷i øbranice’nin tarihi ile ilgilenenler için iyi bir baúlangÕç oluúturmaktadÕr. Prof. Dr. M. Metin Hülagü’ye, bu sempozyumun düzenlenmesinde katkÕ sa÷lamanÕn dÕúÕnda, bu bildiriler kitabÕnÕn editörlü÷ünü de yapan Dr. Ali Küçükler’e, bildiri sunan katÕlÕmcÕlara ve ayrÕca bildirilerin sunulmasÕna katÕlarak kendine özgü bir gençlik ortamÕ sa÷layan ö÷rencilere de özel olarak teúekkür etmek isterim. Prof. Dr. Jacob M. Landau Kudüs, AralÕk 2012



BøRøNCø BÖLÜM TEVRAT VE MøùNA’NIN DøLø MOSHE FLORENTøN1

Tevrat ve Miúna’nÕn dilini yirmi dakikanÕn içinde incelemek olanaksÕzdÕr. Bu yüzden, ben klasik øbranice’ye iliúkin konu ve sorunlarÕn birkaçÕna kÕsaca de÷inece÷im. Öteki Kenan dillerinden kesin olarak ayrÕ bir dille yazÕlmÕú, özel siyasal ve kültürel kaynak olarak, øbranice denen metinler, øsa’dan Önce (øÖ) ilk binyÕldan beri bilinir. Bu kanÕtlar, örne÷in, Akdeniz kÕyÕsÕ ile Filistin arasÕndaki Gezer’de bulunan yazÕtlar, gerçek olmanÕn üstünlü÷ü taúÕr, çünkü özgün yazarlarca taúlara kazÕnmÕúlardÕr. Öte yandan, dildeki ünlü seslere iliúkin simgeler içermedikleri ve sÕnÕrlÕ kapsam ve nicelikleri dolayÕsÕyla eskil øbranice’nin bütüncül bir resmini vermezler. Bu yüzden, yirmi dört kitabÕyla Eski Ant (ya da Ahit), bize eskil øbranice’ye iliúkin bilgi sa÷layan temel kaynaktÕr. DolayÕsÕyla, ‘Tevrat øbranicesi’ terimi genel olarak ‘eskil’ ya da ‘klasik’ øbranice anlamÕnda kullanÕlÕr. Bu özgün kayna÷Õn üstünlükleri açÕktÕr. 8 bin madde baúÕ sözcükten oluútu÷u için, bize, tam olmasa bile, bütüncül bir eskil øbranice resmi sunar. Ama bu de÷erli belgede var olan kimi sorunlarÕ da gözden uzak tutmamalÕyÕz. Birkaç tanesine göz atalÕm: Tevrat’Õn bildi÷imiz en eski elyazmasÕ, 11. yüzyÕlÕn baúlarÕnda yazÕlmÕú bir nüshadÕr. øsa’dan Sonra (øS) 1008 tarihli, Leningrad adlÕ elyazmasÕ bir kitaptÕr. AslÕnda, Ölü Deniz ElyazmasÕ gibi baúka bulgular da Masoterik Sürüm’ün, aslÕna sadÕk olarak kopya edildi÷i bu kitapta ortak dönemin baúlarÕnda kullanÕlmaya baúlanmÕú oldu÷unu göstermektedir. Yine de Tevrat metninde birçok elyazÕcÕ yanlÕúÕnÕn bulundu÷u kuúku götürmez. Elbette, bunlar, metnin yazar –ya da yazarlarÕnÕn– gerçek dilini yansÕtmaz. Yani Tevrat’tan eskil øbranice’ye iliúkin bilgi edinme konusu, sorunlar içerir.

 1

Prof. Dr. Tel Aviv Üniversitesi, øsrail. [email protected]

72

Birinci Bölüm

Masoterik Sürüm dendi÷inde, ünsüz yapÕsÕnÕn yanÕnda, ünlüler için Masoret’lerin niqud denen yazÕm iúaretleri de içerdi÷ini unutmamak gerekir. De÷indi÷imiz gibi, bu önemli kanÕtÕ içeren en eski elyazmasÕ 11. yüzyÕlÕn baúlarÕna rastlar, yani metnin yazÕlmasÕndan bin yÕlÕ aúkÕn bir zaman geçtikten sonra. Bu ünlü belirtme sistemi belki de 7. yüzyÕldan önce kullanÕlmÕyordu. Öyleyse, bu yazÕm iúaretleri dilin hangi geliúme düzeyini iúaret etmektedir? AslÕnda, øÖ 6. yüzyÕlda yok edilmesine kadar süren 4 yüzyÕllÕk Birinci TapÕnak dönemini ve günümüze kadar süren økinci TapÕnak döneminin büyük bölümünü temsil etti÷i söylenen Tevrat øbranicesi’nin klasik dilbilgisi kitaplarÕnÕn hepsi bütünüyle bu geç dönem yazÕm iúaretlerine dayanmaktadÕr. Ama Masoterik yazÕm iúaretlerinin yansÕttÕ÷Õ birkaç dil olayÕnÕn Birinci TapÕnak döneminin Klasik øbranice’sinin bir parçasÕ olmadÕ÷Õnda ve aslÕnda Masoretlerin yazÕm iúaretleri dolayÕsÕyla dile girmesinin sonucu oldu÷u konusunda kimsenin kuúkusu yok. Bunun yanÕnda, Masoretlerin dilsel kanÕtlarÕ, bütün sorunlarÕna karúÕn, tek tür bir eskil øbranice ortaya koymaktadÕr. Öteki ünlendirme sistemleri, yani Babil ve Filistin sistemleri, dilin baúka yüzlerini (diyalektlerini) ortaya çÕkarmaktadÕr. øsa’dan sonra ilk yüzyÕllardaki Yunan ve Latin çevriyazÕlarÕnda gömülü olarak bulunanlar gibi baúka eskil øbranice örneklerinde de Masoterik ünlendirme kanÕtlarÕndan de÷iúik ayrÕntÕlar bulunmaktadÕr. Bu kaynaklarÕn görece tarihleri konusunda da araútÕrmacÕlar aynÕ görüúleri paylaúmÕyorlar. O zaman, Masoterik ünlendirmeye dayanan ve Hexapla’nÕn ikinci sütununu yalnÕzca ikincil bir kaynak olarak kullanan dilbilgisi betimlemeleri konusunda ne düúünmemiz gerekir? Oysa, belli sayÕda araútÕrmacÕ bu ikinci kayna÷Õn birinciden daha eski oldu÷una inanmaktadÕr. Neyse ki bu sorunlar øbranice dilbilimcisinin uzun ve zorlu yolculu÷unda yalnÕzca engel yaratmakla kalmazlar. Bu çeliúkili kanÕtlar sayesinde, eski ça÷larÕn dil ve diyalektlerindeki çeúitlili÷i de anlamÕú oluruz. Ama bu kanÕtlarÕn arasÕndaki iliúkiler karmaúÕk ve belirsizdir. Yine de øbranice dilbilimcisinin karúÕsÕna çÕkan temel sorun, Tevrat’taki metnin kendisinin kayna÷Õ ve yapÕsÕdÕr. Shakespeare ve Charles Baudelaire’i belli bir kültürel ve siyasal koúullar çerçevesi içine oturtabilirken, aynÕ úeyi Tevrat ve dili konusuna iliúkin olarak yapamÕyoruz. Tevrat’Õn yazarÕ kim o zaman? Bu önsüz ve sonsuz metin ne zaman ve nerede yazÕldÕ? Herkesin bildi÷i gibi, bu, her biri uzun ve karmaúÕk bir düzeltmeler sürecinden geçmiú bir metinler derlemesidir. Bu metinleri yazanlar kim, ne zaman ve nerede bunu yapmÕúlar ve bu metinleri dayandÕrdÕklarÕ kaynaklar nedir, bugün tam olarak bilmiyoruz.

Tevrat ve Miúna’nÕn Dili

73

Örne÷in, güzelim “ùarkÕlar ùarkÕsÕ” parçasÕnÕ ele alÕn. Bu, birçok araútÕrmacÕnÕn inandÕ÷Õ gibi, bir geç dönem metni mi; yoksa tersine ‘Klasik Tevrat’ øbranicesi dedi÷imiz dilden olan sapmalarÕ, kuzey kaynaklÕ, yani Kenan diyalektlerinden derinden etkilenmiú eski Filistin kaynaklÕ olan bir eski kitap mÕdÕr? Böyle yazÕnsal kaynaklarÕn ortaya çÕkardÕ÷Õ ciddi sorunlar kolayca anlaúÕlabilir. Bir mahkemede øbranice’yi savundu÷umuzu ve avukatlar olarak elimizde ne zaman ve kim tarafÕndan yazÕldÕ÷Õ belli olmayan bu belgeden baúka bir úey olmadÕ÷ÕnÕ düúünün.

*** Ama yine de øbranice’nin tarihi açÕsÕndan bakÕlÕrsa, Tevrat’taki metnin karmaúÕk yapÕsÕnÕn önemli üstünlükleri vardÕr. Tevrat øbranicesi’nin öteki Sami diyalektlerle, öteki øbranice katmanlarÕyla ve sa÷lam tarihsel gerçeklerle karúÕlaútÕrÕlmasÕ sonucu, metnin günümüzdeki durumuyla önemli dilbilimsel olaylar içerdi÷ini ö÷reniyoruz. Bu olaylarÕn en eskileri, eskil øbranice’nin baúlangÕcÕna, yani øÖ birinci binyÕlÕn baúÕna, en yenileri ise kesin olarak øÖ ikinci yüzyÕla kadar gider. Böyle, øbranice tarihçisinin önünde yaklaúÕk bin yÕllÕk bir tarih dönemi açÕlÕr. Bir noktayÕ yeniden vurgulamalÕyÕz: Bu görkemli derlemenin bütün parçalarÕ ne zaman ve nerede toplanmÕútÕr, bilmiyoruz. Ama araútÕrmacÕlar øbrani TevratÕ’nda iki ana dil katmanÕ ayÕrt edebiliyorlar ve ikiden de fazla katmanÕ oldukça kesin sayÕlabilecek biçimde görüyorlar. Tevrat øbranicesi ile øbranice’nin dönemlere ayrÕlmasÕ konusuna göz atmak için yeterince zaman olmasa da, özellikle konuúmamÕn baúlÕ÷ÕnÕn “Tevrat ve Miúna’nÕn Dili” olmasÕ dolayÕsÕyla, bu iki katmanÕ aúa÷Õda betimleyece÷im. Bu dikkati makalenin sonuna kadar da gösterece÷im.

1. Klasik Tevrat øbranicesi Bu terim, Birinci TapÕnak döneminde, yani birinci binyÕlÕn ilk dört yüzyÕlÕnda kullanÕlan øbranice anlamÕna gelir. Bu øbranice, Tevrat’Õn ilk kitaplarÕnda, yani ilk beú kitap ve Yeúu, YargÕçlar ve Krallar bölümlerinde açÕkça görülür. Bu, eylem biçimlerinin oldukça düzenli ve sa÷lam yapÕlanmasÕyla kendini gösterir –waw consecutive, the cohortative, the jussive gibi. Örnek olarak, Genesis 30’un ilk iki dizesine bir göz atalÕm: -ʭʑʠʍʥ ,ʭʩʑʰʡʕ ʩʑ˘-ʤʕʡʤʕ ʡʖ ʷʏʲʔʩ-ʬ ʓʠ ʸʓʮʠʖ ˢʔʥ ;ˑ ʕʺʖ ʧʏʠʔˎ ,ʬʒʧʸʕ ʠʒ˚ ʔʷ ʍˢʔʥ ,ʡʖ ʷʏʲʔʩʬʍ ʤ ʕʣʍʬʕʩ ʠ˄ ʩʑ˗ ,ʬʒʧʸʕ ʠʸʓ ʒˢʔʥ ʩʑʫʖʰˌ ʤ ʕʺ ʒʮ ʯʑ ʩˋ. ʡ -ʩʸʍʑ ˝ ,˂ʒ˙ ʑʮ ʲʔʰ ʕʮ-ʸʓˇ ʏʠ ,ʩʑʫʖʰˌ ʭʩʑʤ˄ ʎʠ ʺʔʧ ʔʺʏʤ ,ʸʓʮʠʖ ˕ʔʥ ;ʬʒʧʸʍʕ ˎ ,ʡʖ ʷʏʲʔʩ ʳˋ-ʸʔʧʑ˕ʥʔ ʯʓʨʡʕ . “Raúel Yakup’a çocuk do÷uramayÕnca, ablasÕnÕ kÕskanmaya baúladÕ. Yakup’a, ‘Bana çocuk ver, yoksa ölece÷im,’ dedi. Yakup Raúel’e

74

Birinci Bölüm öfkelendi: ‘Çocuk sahibi olmanÕ TanrÕ engelliyor. Ben TanrÕ de÷ilim ki!’ diye karúÕlÕk verdi.”

2. Son Tevrat øbranicesi øbranice’nin yapÕsÕnda önemli bir dönemeç, øÖ 6. yüzyÕlÕn baúlarÕnda Kudüs’teki Birinci TapÕna÷Õn yÕkÕlÕp Yahudi nüfusun büyük ço÷unlu÷unun Babil’e sürülmesinden sonra ortaya çÕktÕ. Bu önemli olayla birlikte, siyasal ve kültürel koúullar kökten de÷iúti ve dil de buna uygun olarak etkilendi. Derin bir Aramice etkisi görülmeye baúlandÕ ve dillerin eski kullanÕú biçimleri kökten de÷iúti. Bu son dil çok uzun süre kullanÕldÕ –øÖ 6. yüzyÕl baúlarÕndan øS 2. yüzyÕla, yani økinci TapÕna÷Õn yÕkÕlmasÕndan yaklaúÕk yüzyÕl sonraya kadar. Bu dönem Tarihler Nehemya, Ester, Ezra ve Daniel kitaplarÕnda tam olarak yansÕtÕlÕr. Ezra ve Daniel’in epeyce büyük bölümlerinin Aramice ile yazÕlmÕú olmasÕ rastlantÕ de÷il elbette. Örne÷in, Nehemya 2’nin ilk iki dizesine bir göz atalÕm: ,˂ʓʬ˙ʓ ʬʔ ʤʕʰ ʍˢ ʓʠʕʥ ʯʑ ʩʔ˕ʤʔ -ʺʓʠ ʠʕˊ ʓʠʕʥ ;ʥʩʕʰʴʕ ʬʍ ʯʑ ʩʔʩ--˂ʓʬ ʓ˙ʔʤ ʠ ʍˢʍʱ ʔˇʍʧ ʔˢʸˋʍ ʍ ʬ ʭʩʸʍʑ ˈʲʓ ʺʔʰˇ ʍ ,ʯʕʱʩʑʰ ˇ ʓʣʖ ʧʍˎ ʩʑʤʍʩʥʔ ʥʩʕʰʴʕ ʬʍ ʲʸʔ ʩ ʑʺʩʑ ʩʤʕ -ʠ˄ʍʥ. ʡ ʭʑʠ-ʩʑ˗ ,ʤʓʦ ʯʩ ʒʠ--ʤʓʬˣʧ ˃ʍʰʩʒʠ ʤ ʕˢʔʠʍʥ ,ʭʩʑʲʸʕ ˃ʩʓʰ˝ʕ ʲʔ ˒ːʔʮ ˂ʓʬ˙ʓ ʤʔ ʩʑʬ ʸʓʮʠʖ ˕ʔʥ ʣʖ ʠʍʮ ʤʒˎʸʔʍ ʤ ,ʠʸʩʑ ʕ ʠʥʕ ;ʡʒʬ ʲʔ ʖ ʸ. “Kral Artahúasta’nÕn krallÕ÷ÕnÕn yirminci yÕlÕ, nisan ayÕnda, krala getirilen úarabÕ alÕp kendisine sundum. O güne kadar beni hiç üzgün görmemiúti. Kral bana sordu: ‘Hasta olmadÕ÷Õna göre, neden böyle üzgün görünüyorsun? Kalbinin üzüntüsünden olmalÕ.’ O zaman çok korktum.”

Klasik Tevrat ile son Tevrat øbraniceleri arasÕndaki farkÕ görmenin en iyi yolu, Tevrat’daki paralel pasajlarÕ karúÕlaútÕrmaktÕr. Yani ilk olarak Samuel ve Krallar’da görülen tarihsel anlatÕlarla Tarihler’de, sonraki düzelticilerce edit edilen aynÕ pasajlarÕ karúÕ karúÕya getirmek. ùimdi bir çift paralel dizeye bir göz atalÕm: ʭʩ ʑʮʕʬˣʲ ˃ ʍˢʍʡ ʑˇʍʬ ʯˣʫʮʕ ˂ʕʬ ʬʗʡʍʦ ʺʩʒˎ ʩ ʑʺʩʑʰʡʕ ʤʖ ʰʕˎ: 1 Krallar 8:13: “Senin için kesin olarak görkemli bir tapÕnak, [ve] sonsuza dek yaúayaca÷Õn bir konut yaptÕm.” :ʭʩ ʑʮʕʬˣʲ ˃ ʍˢʍʡ ʑˇʍʬ ʯˣʫʕʮ˒ ˂ʕʬ ʬʗʡʍʦ ʺʩʒʡ ʩ ʑʺʩʑʰˎʕ ʩʑʰʠʏ ʥʔ 2 Tarihler 6:2: “Ben senin için görkemli bir tapÕnak, ve sonsuza dek yaúayaca÷Õn bir konut yaptÕm.”

ølk yapÕyla [ʩ ʑʺʩʑʰʡʕ ʤʖ ʰʕˎ] sonraki yapÕ [ʩ ʑʺʩʑʰˎʕ ʩʑʰʠʏ ʥʔ ] arasÕndaki fark hiç de rastlantÕ de÷il. Fark, eskil øbranice’deki kök mastar (absolute infinitive) [ʤʖ ʰʕˎ] kullanÕlmasÕ ile sonraki øbranice katmanÕnda böyle bir yapÕnÕn neredeyse hiç kullanÕlmadÕ÷ÕnÕ açÕkça gösteriyor.

Tevrat ve Miúna’nÕn Dili

75

øúte bunlar Tevrat øbranicesi temel katmanlarÕ. Ama “Yakup’un KutsanmasÕ”, “Musa’nÕn KutsamasÕ” ve “Denizin Türküsü” gibi eski úarkÕlarÕn okunmasÕ, Klasik øbranice’de olandan daha eski dil olaylarÕnÕ ortaya çÕkarÕp Tevrat øbranicesi’nin bir baúka katmanÕnÕ oluúturabilir. AraútÕrmacÕlar ayrÕca Books of Ezekiel and Jeremiah’da sürgün döneminin dilinde dördüncü bir katman da görebilir. *** Bu kÕsa makalede Tevrat øbranicesi’ni incelemede görülen sorunlar ile ilkeleri belirtmeye çalÕútÕm. Ama øbranice’yi tarihsel dönemlere ayÕrmaya iliúkin bir baúka sorun daha var. YaygÕn anlayÕú Tevrat øbranicesi ile Miúna øbranicesini kesin olarak ayÕrÕr. Do÷rusu, bu iki apayrÕ metnin dilleri arasÕndaki temel dilbilgisi ayrÕmlarÕnÕ kimse reddetmiyor. Ama aynÕ zamanda bu bölümlemenin sorunlu niteli÷ini de kimse reddetmiyor. øbranice’nin Tarihi açÕsÕndan, Miúna øbranicesi, yalnÕzca Miúna dilinin kendisini tanÕmlamaz. O daha çok økinci TapÕnak döneminin, yani øsa’dan öncesi ve sonrasÕnÕn son kuúaklarÕnca kullanÕlmÕú –ama hâlâ kullanÕlan– geç dönemin dilini belirten bir sÕfattÕr. Yine de en azÕndan bu dönem Geç Tevrat øbranicesi ile kÕsmen aynÕ döneme rastlar. Bu durumda, Tevrat øbranicesi ile Miúna øbranicesi, tarihsel olarak aynÕ katmana ait olan iki ayrÕ yazÕú biçim ve ölçütü sayÕlmalÕdÕr. økisi de øbranice’nin canlÕ bir konuúma dili döneme aittir. Ne de olsa, bu iki tür metnin arasÕndaki dilbilgisel ve sözcüksel ayrÕlÕklar, günümüzde S. Y. Agnon ve Haim Hazaz’Õn yazÕlarÕyla, siyasal konularÕ tartÕúan bilimsel bir makalenin arasÕndaki ayrÕlÕklardan çok daha temelli de÷ildir. Özet olarak, yalnÕz Tevrat’Õn dili olarak de÷il, bu eski dilin tarihsel çerçevesi de tartÕúmalara açÕktÕr.



øKøNCø BÖLÜM ÖLÜ DENøZ ELYAZMALARININ DøLø STEVEN E. FASSBERG1

Ölü Deniz ElyazmalarÕnÕn bulunmasÕ, 1947 yÕlÕnda, bir Bedevi çobanÕn kaybolan bir hayvanÕnÕ ararken, Ölü Deniz’in kuzeybatÕ kÕyÕsÕndan çok uzakta olmayan Kumran Harabeleri yükseklerindeki bir ma÷arada bu elyazmalarÕnÕ rastlantÕ sonucu bulmasÕnÕn romantik öyküsüdür. Bu úans eseri bulgu, daha sonraki onyÕllarda baúka parçalarÕn da bulunmasÕnÕ sa÷lamÕútÕr. 1940’larÕn sonundan bu yana, baúka on ma÷arada da yeni parçalar bulunmuú ve bunlarÕn bir araya getirilmesiyle 900 elyazmasÕ ortaya çÕkmÕútÕr. ElyazmalarÕnÕn ço÷u øbranice olarak Yahudi yazÕsÕyla yazÕlmÕúlardÕr; birkaç tanesi øbranice öncesi eski bir yazÕyla, kimisi Arami dilinde, birkaç elyazmasÕ da Yunanca’dÕr. øbrani Tevrat’ÕnÕn, Ester dÕúÕndaki bütün kitaplarÕ Kumran’Õn üstündeki ma÷aralarda bulunmuútur ve bunlar bütün elyazmalarÕnÕn dörtte birini oluúturur. Bunlardan kimisi “yeniden yazÕlmÕú Tevrat” olarak sÕnÕflanÕr, yani Tevrat metinlerinin yeni baútan düzenlenmesi gibidirler. Öteki elyazmalarÕ cemaatçi yazÕlar olarak görünüyor (örne÷in, Topluluk KuralÕ cemaata katÕlma ve düzgün davranÕú kurallarÕnÕ anlatÕr). Kimisi de cemaatla ilgili de÷ildir ve elyazmalarÕnÕn % 10 kadarÕnÕn da niteli÷i belirlenememiútir. ElyazmalarÕnÕn en eskileri, paleografik sÕralamaya ve radyo-karbon testlerine göre, øÖ 2. yüzyÕl baúlarÕna dayanÕr. ElyazmalarÕnÕn en yenisi, øS 68 yÕlÕnda, Roma’ya KarúÕ ølk Yahudi BaúkaldÕrÕsÕ sÕrasÕnda Kumran’Õn yÕkÕlÕúÕndan önceki döneme aittir. AraútÕrmalarÕn daha baúlangÕcÕnda araútÕrmacÕlarÕn belirtti÷i ve bugün de genel olarak benimsendi÷i gibi, bu elyazmalarÕ Kumran’da yaúayan bir Essene cemaatindeki kütüphanenin bir parçasÕydÕ ve ma÷arada bulunmuú olan belgeleri bu kütüphaenin elyazmacÕlarÕ yazarak kopyalamÕútÕr. Kumran’da bir yazma etkinli÷inin varlÕ÷Õ, kÕsmen, Kumran harabelerinde ilk kazÕcÕ ekibin belirledi÷i bir ‘yazÕcÕ odasÕ’na (elyazmasÕ yazÕcÕlarÕ için) iliúkin arkeolojik bulgulara dayanÕr. Ama ne arkeolojik bulgularÕn bir yazÕcÕ

 1

Prof. Dr. Kudüs øbrani Üniversitesi, øsrail. [email protected]

78

Ikinci Bölüm

odasÕnÕn varlÕ÷ÕnÕ gösterdi÷inde ne de orada yaúayan Essene adlÕ bir topluluk oldu÷unda herkes aynÕ görüúte de÷il. Kumran’da Esseneler’in yaúadÕ÷Õna inananlar, bu görüúlerini, Kumran ma÷aralarÕnda bulunan cemaata iliúkin yazÕlara ve bu yazÕlarÕn betimledi÷i, Philo, YaúlÕ Pliny ve Josephus’un klasik kaynaklarÕnda belirtilenlere benzer yaúama biçimine dayandÕrÕyorlar. AyrÕca Pliny de Esseneler’in Ölü Deniz yakÕnlarÕnda yaúadÕklarÕnÕ söylemiútir. Kumran’Õn da bulundu÷u yer orasÕ zaten. ElyazmalarÕ ilk bulundu÷unda, birçok øbranice araútÕrmacÕsÕ Paul Kahle ve ö÷rencilerinin savundu÷u, Tiberian Masoretleri aracÕlÕ÷Õyla günümüze gelen Tevrat øbranicesi’nin belirli yönlerinin özgün dilden farklÕ oldu÷una inanÕyorlardÕ. Benzer biçimde, økinci TapÕnak döneminin ve Miúna döneminin, Miúna øbranicesi denen øbranice, birçoklarÕnca hahamlar tarafÕndan üretilmiú yapay bir bilim dili olarak kabul edilir. Bu görüúün geniú yÕ÷Õnlara tanÕtÕlmasÕna 19. yüzyÕlda Abraham Geiger katkÕda bulundu. Onun bu yapaylÕk kuramÕnÕn, Kahle’ninkinde oldu÷u gibi, yanlÕú oldu÷u 1908 yÕlÕnda M. H. Segal tarafÕndan kanÕtlanmÕú olsa da 1947’de, özellikle Ça÷daú øbranice’de Miúna øbranicesi üzerinde sürdürülen öncü çalÕúmalarÕ izleyemeyenler arasÕnda geniú bir destek kazandÕ÷Õ görülüyordu. Ölü Deniz ElyazmalarÕ ilk ortaya çÕktÕ÷Õnda, økinci TapÕnak Dönemi üzerine yapÕlan incelemelerin geliúmesi böyleydi. ElyazmalarÕnÕn ortaya çÕkÕúÕ tek baúÕna, Tiberian Tevrat øbranicesi ve Miúna øbranicesi geleneklerinin yapay oldu÷u tartÕúmalarÕnÕ sona erdirmediyse de Ölü Deniz ElyazmalarÕnÕn dili, bu araútÕrma yaklaúÕmÕnÕn yanlÕúlÕ÷ÕnÕ göstermede büyük katkÕda bulundu. Ölü Deniz ElyazmalarÕ yayÕnlanÕp da yazmalardaki dil herkesin incelemesine açÕlÕnca, øbranice dilbilimcileri, özellikle Henoch Yalon, Ze’ev Ben-ণayyim ve anÕtsal kitabÕ Isaiah ElyazmasÕnÕn Dili ve Dilbilimsel OrtamÕ ile Eduard Yechezkel Kutscher, ElyazmalarÕnda görülen birçok dilsel olgunun, Tevrat’Õn sürgün sonrasÕ dönemlerine ait kitaplarÕnda (özellikle, Ezra, Nehemya, Ester, 1. ve 2. Tarihler, Ben-Sira’nÕn Kahire Geniza’sÕnda buldu÷u øbranice elyazmalarÕnda, øbrani Tevrat’ÕnÕn ilk beú kitabÕndaki yazÕlÕ ve sözlü geleneklerin yazÕldÕ÷Õ Samaritan dilinde, øbranice’nin Yunanca ve Latince çevriyazÕlarÕnda ve ayrÕca Miúna’da da oldu÷unun kanÕtlarÕ görüldü. Bunun dÕúÕnda, hem sözü geçen hem de baúka dilbilimciler, ElyazmalarÕnÕn øbranicesi üzerinde Aramice’nin etkisi oldu÷unu da gördüler. Bu niteliklerin da÷ÕlÕmÕnÕn en dikkati çeken açÕklamasÕ ise bunlarÕn hepsinin de økinci TapÕnak Döneminde var oldu÷u idi. Elü Deniz ElyazmalarÕ ile dönemin öteki kaynaklarÕnda ortak olan önemli özelliklerin kimisinin, yazÕcÕlarÕn øbrani TevratÕ’nÕ bilmelerinden ve onun dilini taklit etmeye çalÕúmalarÕndan kaynaklandÕ÷Õ ileri sürülse de bu akÕl

Ölü Deniz ElyazmalarÕnÕn Dili

79

yürütme, bu, yazÕcÕlarÕn, Birinci TapÕnak Döneminin daha önceki yazÕlarÕndan bu kadar farklÕ olgularÕ neden taklit ettikleri sorusunu yanÕtlayamÕyor. Tarikatçi denen ve yazÕcÕlara Tevrat modeli olmamasÕ gereken yapÕtlar, örne÷in, Toplum KuralÕ (1QS) ya da Savaú ElyazmasÕ (1QM) incelendi÷inde, bu çabucak ortaya çÕkar. Günümüzün øbranice incelemecileri, økinci TapÕnak Döneminde øbranice’nin hâlâ konuúulup yazÕldÕ÷ÕnÕ kabul eder, ama yine de tarihçiler ve Yeni Ant incelemecileri arasÕnda az sayÕda farklÕ düúünenler vardÕr. Bugün dilbilimciler, økinci TapÕnak Dönemi øbranicesi’nin Klasik Tevrat øbranicesi’nden farklÕ oldu÷unu, øbrani TevratÕ’nÕn daha eski kitaplarÕyla Birinci TapÕnak Dönemindan kalan yazÕtsal kanÕtlardan yola çÕkarak kabul ederler. Ama ElyazmalarÕnÕn dilinin tam nitelikleri hâlâ ciddi olark tartÕúÕlmaktadÕr. øncelemecilerin ço÷u, yazÕcÕlarÕn klasik Tevrat biçemini büyük bir beceriyle taklit etmeye çalÕútÕklarÕnÕ kabul eder. Yine de kimi durumlarda alttaki konuúma dilinin iúe karÕúmasÕ dolayÕsÕyla klasik øbranice’yle yazmayÕ becerememiúlerdir. øncelemecilerin ço÷una bakÕlÕrsa, klasik biçemde yazma giriúimi, aynÕ zamanda aynÕ dilin o gün kullanÕlan sözel biçimini konuúmalarÕ dolayÕsÕyla, hem eskiden gelen hem de yaúayan dilin özelliklerinden oluúan yazÕnsal bir øbranice’nin yaratÕlmasÕna yol açmÕútÕr. Ama ElyazmalarÕnÕn dilini inceleyen baúkalarÕnÕn benimsedi÷i farklÕ bir görüú var. (ElyazmalarÕ øbranicesi’nin tek dilbilgisini yazmÕú olan) Elisha Qimron’un ve ondan önce de belli oranda Ze’ev Ben-ণayyim ile Shelomo Morag’un öncülük etti÷i kimi incelemecilere göre, ElyazmalarÕ’nÕn dili, økinci TapÕnak Dönemi’nde Filistin’de konuúulan diyelekin kesin bir yansÕmasÕ olarak görülmelidir. Bu incelemeciler, Ölü Deniz ElyazmalarÕ’nÕn yazÕlÕ metinlerinin eski ve yeninin bir yazÕnsal karÕúÕmÕ olarak görülmemesi; belli sayÕda kullanÕcÕn konuútu÷u tek bir do÷al dilsel sistem olarak görülmesi gerekti÷ini ileri sürmektedirler. Öte yandan, bu iki ayrÕ akÕmÕn yalnÕzca olgunun kapsamÕ bakÕmÕndan ayrÕldÕklarÕ unutulmamalÕdÕr: ElyazmalarÕ’na daha daha geleneksel açÕdan bakanlarÕn aynÕ zamanda konuúulan dilin ö÷elerinin de dile sÕzdÕ÷ÕnÕ kabul ettikleri gibi; ElyazmalarÕ’nÕn, økinci TapÕnak Döneminin yaúayan bir øbranice diyelekini yansÕttÕ÷ÕnÕ ileri sürenler de eski dilsel türevlerin var oldu÷unu kabul ediyorlar. øncelemeciler, yari klasikçilik ya da tam yenilikçili÷in kapsamÕ ve yapÕsÕ üzerinde tartÕúmalarÕnÕ sürdürüyorlar. Ama ElyazmalarÕ’nÕn diline iliúkin tek yaklaúÕm bunlar de÷il elbette. William Schniedewind ve onu izleyen Gary Rendsburg, Kumran’daki kendine özgü øbranice’yi ‘karúÕ-dil’ olarak açÕklamaya çalÕúÕr; demek istedi÷i, Kumran’daki dil kullanÕcÕlarÕnÕn kendilerini ideolojik karúÕtlarÕnÕn (yani Ferisi ve Saddukiler’in) genel dilinden ayÕrmak için özellikle seçtikleri bir dil. Steve Weitzman da benzer bir açÕdan bakarak, Kumran

80

Ikinci Bölüm

cemaatinin ideolojik nedenlerle øbranice yazdÕ÷ÕnÕ söyler. Weitzman’a göre, Esseneler øbranice yazmayÕ seçti, çünkü bu kutsallÕ÷Õn diliydi ve Esseneler de kutsallÕk kavramÕyla yakÕndan ilgiliydiler. Günlük konuúma dili olan Aramice yazmak onlara göre din dÕúÕ bir davranÕú olurdu. Ölü Deniz ElyazmalarÕ’nda tek tür øbranice yoktur. BakÕr ElyazmasÕ’nda (3Q15) ve bulunan Miq‫܈‬at MaҵaĞe ha-Torah’ta (4QMMT) bulunan diller, Miúna øbranicesi’ne yakÕn ama onunla tÕpatÕp aynÕ de÷il diye betimlenmiúlerdir. Ama aynÕ zamanda bu iki ElyazmasÕ da hem birbirlerinden hem de öteki Ölü Deniz ElyazmalarÕ’nÕn dilinden farklÕdÕr. Morag, Ölü Deniz ElyazmalarÕ’nda bulunan de÷iúik dil türlerini inceleyip çözümledi÷i bir çalÕúmasÕnda, ço÷u øbranice elyazmalarÕnÕn dilini ‘Genel Kumran øbranicesi’, 4QMMT’yi ‘Kumran Miúna øbranicesi’, BakÕr ElyazmalarÕ’nÕn dilini de, daha iyi bir terim bulamadÕ÷Õ için, ‘BakÕr ElyazmalarÕ øbranicesi’ olarak belirlemiútir. Ölü Deniz ElyazmalarÕ’nÕn øbranice’sinin en baúta gelen özellikleri aúa÷Õda liste olarak verilmiútir. Bunlardan ço÷u, sürgün sonrasÕ dönemi Tevrat kitaplarÕnda ve økinci TapÕnak Döneminin kitaplarÕnda da bulunur.

YazÕ x Ünsüz harflerin ünlü yerine kullanÕldÕ÷Õ tam yazÕma, Klasik Tevrat øbranicesi’nden daha sÕk rastlanÕr. Bu özellikle o ve u ünlüleri yerine waw kullanÕlmasÕnda görülür. x SÕk olarak ünlüyle biten kÕsa sözcüklere sonek olarak alef harfi eklenir. (Örne÷in, ʠʩʫ ‘böylece’, ʠʥʬ‘hayÕr’.)

Sesbilim x GÕrtlaksÕ ünsüzler zayÕflatÕlÕr. x Kayanses aw > ǀ.

Biçimbilim x Ba÷ÕmsÕz, sonekli ve uzun zamir biçimleri ye÷lenir. (Örne÷in, ʤʠʥʤ, ʤʠʩʤ, ʤʮʺʠ, ʤʮʡʺʫʩ) x Kimileri beklenmedik tam yazÕmlarÕn gittikçe artan ‘duraklama biçim’lerini (pausal form) ba÷lamÕnÕ yansÕttÕ÷ÕnÕ düúünmektedir. (Örne÷in, ʥʡʥʺʫʩ yerine ʥʡʺʫʩ kullanmak gibi.) x Eylem ve adlarda Aramice ö÷eler görülür

Ölü Deniz ElyazmalarÕnÕn Dili

81

x Ço÷ullamaya yönelik genel bir e÷ilim var. De÷iúik yerlerde görülebilir: Bir yapÕ zincirinin her iki ö÷esinde (ʭʩʬʩʧ ʩʸʥʡʢ ve ʬʩʧ ʩʸʥʡʢ ‘cesur adamlar’); soyut adlarÕn ço÷ullamasÕnda (e.g., ʺʥʸʥʡʢ ve ʤʸʥʡʢ ‘cesaret’); ve topluluk adlarÕnÕn ço÷ullamasÕnda (ʥʫʬʤʤ ʭʲʤ ve ʪʬʥʤʤ ʭʲʤ). x waw ha-hipukh ile kullanÕlan ‘bitiúik’ (consecutive) zaman biçimleri kaybolup yerlerini Miúna øbranicesi gibi ‘bitiúik olmayan’ (non-consecutive) zaman biçimleri almaktadÕr. x Kip biçimleri ve iúlevleri arasÕndaki iliúkide bir zayÕflama var ve sonuç olarak uzamÕú imperfect (ʤʡʺʫʰ ,ʤʡʺʫʠ) her zaman kip anlamÕ ifade etmez. Bu daha çok onun tümcede (baúlangÕç) konumunda olmasÕna ba÷lÕdÕr. x Kimi geçiúli eylemler Qal kökünden Pi'el ve Hif'il’e yönelirken, kimi geçiúsiz eylemler de Qal’dan Niphal’e yönelir. x ‘Olmak (ʤʩʤ) eyleminin de÷iúik biçimlerine ve ekeylemlere (participle) dayanan sözcüklerden oluúan (periphrastic) zamanlarÕn kullanÕlÕúÕnda bir artÕú görülür.

Sözdizimi x Sözcük sÕrasÕ de÷iúir ve eylem-özne yapÕsÕndan özne-eylem yapÕsÕna do÷ru bir yönelme vardÕr. x Nesne, eylem kökünden önce gelebilir. x Komut eylemlerinden önce zaman bildiren sözcükler gelebilir. x Bir ad ve onu niteleyen sözcük, adÕn bir makam bildirmesi dumunda, yer de÷iútirebilir. (Örne÷in, ʪʬʮʤ ʣʥʣ < ʣʥʣ ʪʬʮʤ‘Kral Davut’ >); benzer biçimde, sayÕ sÕfatÕ ile ad, yer de÷iútirebilir. (Örne÷in, ʤʹʥʬʹ ʭʩʮʩ < ʭʩʮʩ ʤʹʥʬʹ ‘üç gün’ > ‘gün, üç’); ayrÕ durum, a÷ÕrlÕk ve ölçü birimi olan sözcüklerle, tartÕlan ya da ölçülen nesneler için de geçerlidir. (Örne÷in, ʭʩʸʫʫ ʳʱʫʥ < ʳʓʱ˗ʓ ʭʑ ʩʸʍʔ ˗˗ʑ ‘gümüú mücevherler’ > ‘mücevherler’, gümüú’. x AlÕúÕlagelmiú olarak birlikte kullanÕlan kimi adlarÕn sÕrasÕ, klasik döneme göre de÷iúebilir (buna ‘zamansal sÕrabozum’ (diachronic chiasm) denir). (Örne÷in, ʳʱʫʥ ʡʤʦ < ʡʤʦʥ ʳʱʫ ‘gümüú ve altÕn’ > ‘altÕn ve gümüú’, ʯʣ ʣʲʥ ʲʡʹ ʸʠʡʮ < ʲʡʹ ʸʠʡ ʣʲʥ ʯʣʮ ‘Dan’dan Beerúeba’ya’ > ‘Beerúeba’dan Dan’a’.) x waw ba÷lacÕ, quivis denen yapÕya eklenir. (Örne÷in, ʭʥʩ ʭʥʩ ‘günden güne, her gün’, ʭʥʩʥ ʭʥʩ ‘gün ve gün’ olur. Benzer biçimde, waw ba÷lacÕ, benzer bir dizi ilgeç (preposition) ve do÷rudan nesne öncesinde yinelenir. x ʯʩʠʬ bileúik sözcü÷ü, mastarlar ile soyut adlarÕ olumsuz yapar.

82

Ikinci Bölüm

x ʭʲ + mastar, zaman yantümcesi olarak iúlev görür. x SÕk rastlanan eylem biçimi wayhi ʩʤʩʥ‘ve öyle idi’, mastardan önce kullanÕlmaz. (Örne÷in, ʥʬʨʷʡ ʩʤʩʥ) çÕkarÕlÕr (ʥʬʨʷʡʥ).

Söz da÷arcÕ÷Õ x ølk TapÕnak Döneminin sözcük ve söz öbeklerinden farklÕ yeni sözcük ve söz öbekleri bulunuyor. (Örne÷in, ʤʸʥʠ ‘ÕúÕk’, ʯʥʡʹʧ ‘hesaplama’, ʤʹʩʠ ʠʹʰ ‘kendine zevce bulma’, ʤʹʮ ʸʴʱ ‘Musa’nÕn kitabÕ’, ʨʥʠ ‘giz’, ʹʥʠ ‘temel’, ʭʩʰʣʡ ‘biçimler’, ʬʥʲʡ ‘alÕúmÕú’ (qal eylemden elde edilmiú edilgen sÕfat), ʸʲʢ ‘sürüyüp götürmek’, ʷʸʦ h ‘konsey’, ʭʩʮʫʺ ‘ok’, ʤʰʷʦʮ ‘çene’, ʹʥʬʮ ‘burç, yÕldÕz falÕ’, ʤʶʲ ‘kol ve bacaklar’, ʤʣʥʲʺ ‘belirlenmiú zaman, toplanma’, ʺʥʡʥʱʺ ‘döngüler’.

Özet Son söz olarak, Ölü Deniz ElyazmalarÕ’nÕn øbranice tarihinin incelenmesine katkÕsÕnÕn çok büyük oldu÷u tartÕúma götürmez. ElyazmalarÕ, daha önce Geç Dönem Tevrat øbranicesi, Miúna øbranicesi, Samaritan øbranicesi ve Yunan ve Latin yazÕtlarÕndan elde edilen kanÕtlar aracÕlÕ÷Õyla tanÕnan økinci TapÕnak Dönemi øbranicesi’nin kullanÕlÕúÕna büyük katkÕda bulunmuútur. ArtÕk øbranice’nin HÕristiyanlÕk’tan önce yok olmadÕ÷Õ bütün dilbilimciler için açÕktÕr. Ama ElyazmalarÕ’ndaki øbranice’nin, Klasik Tevrat øbranicesi’ne halk dilinden eklemeler mi olmuú, yoksa dönemin bir konuúma diyeleki mi oldu÷u konusunda araútÕrmacÕlar de÷iúik görüúler savunuyorlar. Buna da gelecekteki incelemeciler karar verecek.



ÜÇÜNCÜ BÖLÜM KAHøRE GENøZA ELYAZMALARI AVIHAI SHIVTIEL1 Kahire GenizasÕ Nedir? Kahire Genizah adÕ, 19. yüzyÕlÕn ikinci yarÕsÕnda Kahire’de keúfedilen, daha sonra oradan götürülüp dünyanÕn her yerindeki yirmi kuruma da÷ÕlmÕú olan ve 250.000’in üzerinde parçadan oluúan bulgular bütününe verilen addÕr. AyrÕca, aynÕ kaynaktan bilinmeyen sayÕda belgenin özel kiúilerin eline geçti÷i de sanÕlÕyor. Genizah sözcü÷ü øbranice’de ‘saklÕ olan’ ve dolayÕsÕyla ‘de÷erli úeylerin gömüldü÷ü yer’ anlamÕna geliyor. Sözcük köken olarak Farsça’dan geliyor ve Semitik dillerin bir bölümüne ve Avrupa dillerinin ço÷una girmiútir. (bak., A. Shivtiel, Genizah ve kökenleri). Önce Yahudiler’in, sonra Müslümanlar’Õn benimsedi÷i ölüleri topra÷a gömmek, özel yerlere yÕpranmÕú elyazmalarÕ, elle yazÕlmÕú ya da basÕlmÕú kitaplar, hatta tuhaf bitki yapraklarÕ, küçük belge parçalarÕ yerleútirme gelene÷i, Yahudi hahamlarÕn çÕkardÕklarÕ bir fetvaya dayanmaktadÕr (bak. Babil Talmudu, Megilla, 26:2) ve yazÕlÕ gereçlerin yangÕn ya da baúka bir yolla yok edilmesinin önlenmesine yöneliktir, çünkü bunlar TanrÕ sözcü÷ünü ya da TanrÕ yerini tutan bir sözcü÷ü içerebilir. Kahire GenizasÕ’nÕn büyük bölümü Ben Ezra’daki eski Yahudi havrasÕnÕn birinci katÕndaki özel bir odayla Eski Kahire’deki (Fustat) Basatin mezarlÕ÷Õnda bulunmuútur. Geniza’ya iliúkin ilk bilgileri, Simon van Gelderen (18. yüzyÕl) ve Jacob Saphir (1822-1886) gibi gezginlerden edindik. Bu gezginler, Geniza’nÕn Kahire’den tam olarak götürülüúünden hemen hemen yüz yÕl kadar önce onlarÕn varlÕ÷ÕnÕ bildirmiúlerdir. Ama büyük olasÕlÕk onlar belgeler yÕ÷ÕnÕnÕn en üstündeki yÕpranmÕú kitaplarÕ gördüklerinden, bu gereçlerin önemini tam olarak de÷erlendirememiúlerdir. Daha sonra, bilinmeyen sayÕda parçalar, onlarÕ ilgilenenlere içerik ve de÷erlerini bilmeden satan antika satÕcÕlarÕnÕn eline geçmiú. Sonra asÕl büyük bölüm dÕúarÕya sÕzmaya baúlayÕnca, büyük bir miktar, Polonya-Rus

 1

Dr. Cambridge Üniversitesi, øngiltere. [email protected]

84

Üçüncü Bölüm

Karayit Yahudisi olan ve elyazmalarÕ ve Yahudi araçlarÕ biriktiren Abraham Firkovich’un (1786-1874) eline geçerek 1863’ten baúlayarak Rusya’ya götürülmüú. Bütün bu gereçler daha sonra St. Petersburgh’daki devlet kütüphanesine aktarÕlmÕú. Ama ancak iki øskoç ikiz kÕzkardeú olan ve Cambridge Üniversitesiyle ba÷lantÕlÕ Agnes Smith Lewis (1843-1926) ve Margaret Dunlop Gibson (1843-1920) 1896’da Kahire’den yanlarÕnda øbranice karakterlerle yazÕlmÕú bir sayfa ile dönüp Cambridge Üniversitesinde Yahudilik üzerine ders veren ö÷retim görevlisi Dr. Solomon Schechter’e (1847-1915) bu sayfanÕn niteli÷ini anlattÕklarÕnda, Geniza araútÕrmasÕnÕn asÕl önemli dönemi baúlamÕú oldu. Schechter’e gösterilen sayfanÕn, en baúta øS 2. yüzyÕlda yazÕlan ve Sirach’Õn O÷lu ya da øsa’nÕn Bilgeli÷i olarak bilinen Ecclesiasticus kitabÕndan bir sayfa oldu÷u ortaya çÕktÕ. Tevrat’taki Atasözleri KitabÕ’na benzer olarak, bu yapÕt da özdeyiúler içerir ve bunlar daha sonra Apocrypha’ya eklenmiútir. Bu sayfanÕn keúfediliúine kadar, Yunanca’ya eski bir çevirinin dÕúÕnda, kitabÕn özgün olarak øbranice yazÕldÕ÷Õ savÕna iliúkin hiçbir kanÕt bulunamamÕútÕ. Ama, Schechter sayfanÕn neye ait oldu÷unu belirleyince, onun kayna÷Õna iliúkin ilgisi arttÕ ve önce Cambridge Üniversitesi rektör yardÕmcÕsÕ, daha sonra St John’s College ö÷retim üyesi olan Dr. Charles Taylor’un yardÕmÕyla 1897 yÕlÕnda Kahire’ye gitti ve Yahudi cemaatinden bütün koleksiyonu Cambridge’e aktarma izni aldÕ. 140.000 parçadan oluúan bu de÷erli gömü, en büyük Geniza koleksiyonudur ve daha sonra buna özel kiúilerin elinde bulunan iki koleksiyon daha eklenmiútir. Böylece, úu an Cambridge’de bulunan Geniza belgelerinin sayÕsÕ, bütün dünyaya da÷ÕldÕ÷Õ tahmin edilen 250.000 parçadan, 150.000’i aúmÕútÕr.

Belgelerin genel fiziksel durumu Belgelerin büyük ço÷unlu÷u, her iki yüzünde de (ön ve arka) ayrÕ ellerden çÕkmÕú yazÕ bulunan parçalardan oluúur. KullanÕlan gereçlerin ço÷unlu÷u kâ÷Õt, pek azÕ parúömen ve çok ender olarak da papirus ya da bezdir. Mürekkep genellikle siyah, ama kÕrmÕzÕ mürekkep de bölüm baúlÕklarÕ ve belli sözcüklerin vurgulanmasÕ için ya da çizimlerde kullanÕlabiliyor. Baúka renklerin kullanÕlmasÕ çok enderdir ve genellikle çizimlerde kullanÕlmÕútÕr. Belgelerin ço÷unda, øbranice, Aramice, Yahudi ArapçasÕ, Farsça, øspanyolca, Yidiú, Ermenice, Gürcüce ve öteki dillerde yazÕlmÕú metinlerde yarÕ bitiúik harfler kullanÕlmÕú; Arapça, Yunanca, KÕptice ve Latince dillerinde ise kendi abeceleri kullanÕlmÕútÕr. Belgelerin büyük ço÷unlu÷unun parçalardan oluúmasÕ dolayÕsÕyla, daha büyük boyda belgelerden kopmuú 30x40 santimetre ve daha küçük

Kahire Geniza ElyazmalarÕ

85

boyuttadÕrlar. Birkaç sayfa yarÕm-folyo biçimindedir ve özgün olarak daha büyük yazÕ ya da elle yazÕlmÕú kitaplara aittirler.

Cambridge koleksiyonlarÕ ne içeriyor? Bulunan belgeler 9. ve 11. yüzyÕllar arasÕnda yazÕlmÕú oldu÷u için, koleksiyon, günlük yazÕúmalarÕn yanÕnda, neredeyse her bilim alanÕndan ya da yazÕnsal türden belgeler içerir. Temel ö÷ler úunlardÕr: Tevrat metinleri: yorumlarÕ ve Aramice, Yunanca ve Arapça’ya çeviriler de içinde olmak üzere. Tevrat sonrasÕ gereçler: Ben Sira’dan parçalar, daha sonra Ölü Deniz ElyazmalarÕ arasÕnda bütünü keúfedilen ùam Belgesi ve Miúna, iki Talmud’dan ve Midraú’tan çeúitli parçalar Genellikle ortaça÷ Yahudi úairlerince yazÕlmÕú dinsel ya da baúka içerikli úiirler. Fetvalar ve mahkeme kararlarÕ: Yasal belgeler, hahamlÕk mahkeme kayÕtlarÕ, mahkeme baúvurularÕ ve kararlarÕ. Felsefe, matematik, fizik, tÕp, eczacÕlÕk, bitkibilim, gökbilim ve astroloji gibi bilimler üzerine yazÕlardan bölümler. Ticaret, iú alanlarÕ ve bankacÕlÕ÷a iliúkin yazÕúmalar. Kamusal ya da özel mektuplar, büyü, nazarlÕk olarak kullanÕlan süs eúyalarÕ ve çocuk defterleri gibi toplumsal iletiúim örnekleri.

Belgelerin yazarlarÕ kimlerdi? Belgelerin büyük ço÷unlu÷unu yazanlarÕn kimli÷i belirsiz ise de belli sayÕda yazarÕn kimlikleri, yazÕnsal yapÕtlarÕ ya da imzalarÕ dolayÕsÕyla bilinmektedir. Böylece, dönemin önde gelen kiúileri ve de÷iúik Yahudi cemaatlerinin baúÕnda bulunanlar Geniza’da geniú oranda temsil edilmektedir. Örne÷in, ünlü filozof, yorumcu, hekim ve bilim adamÕ Moshe ben Maimon (=Maimonides) ve tanÕnmÕú úair Yehuda Ha-Levi. AyrÕca, kimi araútÕrmacÕlar, elyazÕlarÕnÕ tanÕyarak birçok belgenin hangi yazarlarca yazÕldÕ÷ÕnÕ belirleyebilmiúlerdir ve bilgisayar yardÕmÕyla birço÷unun daha ortaya çÕkaca÷Õ umulmaktadÕr.

Belgelerde hangi diller kullanÕlmÕútÕr? Belgelerde kullanÕlan baúta gelen diller, øbranice, Yahudi ArapçasÕ, Arapça ve Aramice ve daha az oranda olmak üzere, Yahudi øspanyolcasÕ, Gürcüce, Ermenice, Yidiú, ayrÕca KÕptice, Yunanca ve Latince. Bu listeye yeni keúfedilen bir belgenin dili de eklenebilir: KaramanlÕ Türkçesi.

86

Üçüncü Bölüm

Belgeler bize ne ö÷retebilir? Geniza’nÕn ortaça÷ tarihiyle ilgili bilgilerimize yaptÕ÷Õ katkÕ çok büyüktür, çünkü úimdiye kadar yaúamÕn birçok alanÕnda hiç bilmedi÷imiz bilgileri bize getirmiútir. AyrÕca, belgeler baúka kaynaklardan edindi÷imiz birçok verinin kanÕtlanmasÕnÕ sa÷ladÕ÷Õ gibi, daha önce araútÕrmacÕlarca ileri sürülen kimi görüúlerin yanlÕúlanmasÕnÕ sa÷layarak yeni sonuçlara ulaúmamÕza yardÕmcÕ olmuútur. Örne÷in, Geniza’da daha önce bilinmeyen binlerce yeni ilahi, yeni yorumlar, fetvalar ve ortaça÷da Orta Do÷u, Kuzey Afrika ve ötesinde yaúamÕú kiúilere iliúkin yeni bilgiler bulmaktayÕz. Bunlardan baúka, belgeler bize cemaatin günlük yaúantÕsÕna, örne÷in e÷itim sistemine, ekonomiye, gelenek ve göreneklere, cemaatin hem iç, hem Müslüman yetkililerle, hem de HÕristiyan komúularla iliúkilerine iliúkin yeni veriler ö÷retmektedir. Kitap listeleri, özel kütüphanelerde bulunan kitaplarÕ bize tanÕtabilir; ilaç ve yararlÕ bitki listeleri, o günlerde kullanÕlan tedavi yöntemlerini açÕ÷a çÕkarabilir. Ticaret ve iú iliúkileri üzerine olan birçok belgeden, bize dÕúalÕm ve dÕúsatÕm uygulamalarÕnÕ, pazarlama yöntemlerini ve bankacÕlÕk sistemini ö÷renebiliriz. Bu yolla, Geniza bulgularÕnda, banka çeklerinin ilk örneklerini, sipariú belgeleri ile borç senetlerini, ayrÕca fiyatlama, hesap tutma ve faturalara iliúkin günlük uygulamalarÕ ve yasa maddelerini bulmaktayÕz. Bunlardan baúka, Geniza belgeleri, øslam ømparatorlu÷u, Hindistan ve Çin çevresindeki uluslararasÕ ticaret konusunda zengin bir bilgi kayna÷ÕdÕr. AyrÕca, meslek ve zenaatlara, mesleki e÷itime ve çÕraklÕ÷a iliúkin önemli bilgiler bulunmaktadÕr. YazÕnsal ürünler arasÕnda, úiirin dÕúÕnda, kimisi bilinen, kimisi bilinmeyen, øbrani yazÕnÕ da içinde olmak üzere, düzyazÕ yapÕtlardan çok sayÕda bölümler; aralarÕnda Kuran’dan, hadislerden bölümler de bulunan Arapça metinler; ve Yahudiler, HÕristiyanlar ve Müslümanlar’Õn, birbirlerinin kültürüne olan ilgilerini gösteren baúka yapÕtlar da var. Ama belki de en ilginç ‘tür’, çok çarpÕcÕ olmasÕnÕn yanÕnda, bitip tükenmez bir bilgi kayna÷Õ olan kiúisel yazÕúmalardÕr kuúkusuz. Bunlar hem bireyin hem de onun içinde yaúadÕ÷Õ toplumun görüúleri ile bakÕú açÕlarÕnÕ, ba÷landÕklarÕ kavramlar, ruh durumlarÕ ve duygularÕnÕ; aynÕ zamanda, takÕndÕklarÕ tavÕr ve zihinsel yapÕlarÕnÕ yansÕtmaktadÕr. Son olarak, en önemli merkezleri Kahire olan Karayitler’e iliúkin de÷erli bilgilerin de Geniza’da bulundu÷unu belirtmek gerekir.

Kahire Geniza ElyazmalarÕ

87

Geniza araútÕrmalarÕnÕn “devleri” kimdir? Geniza belgelerini inceleyip bize derinlemesine çözümlemeler ve de÷erli yorumlar sa÷layan araútÕrmacÕlarÕn listesinde çok sayÕda ad var. Bu kadar kÕsa bir yazÕda hepsini belirtmek olanaksÕz elbette. Onun için, burada katkÕlarÕ özellikle ola÷aüstü olanlarÕ belirtmek yeterli olacaktÕr. Geniza’yÕ Cambridge’e getirmekle kalmayÕp koleksiyonun içinden belli önemli belgeleri yayÕnlayan Solomon Schechter. Akdeniz Toplumu adÕ altÕnda Geniza’ya iliúkin en kapsamlÕ incelemeyi yapan S. D. Goitein; ve Geniza’dan birkaç bin parçanÕn dilini çözüp sekiz cilt ve birkaç makale içinde yayÕnlayan Moshe Gil.

Günümüz ve gelecek 1973’te Cambridge’de Professor Stefan Reif’in kurdu÷u TaylorSchechter Geniza Birimi, günümüze kadar belgelerin ço÷unun kataloglamasÕnÕ bitirmiú ve koleksiyondaki belgelerin betimlenme-sinin tamamlanmasÕ iúi de sürmektedir. AyrÕca, Cambridge, øsrail ve ABD’de bulunan incelemeciler sayesinde, bütün gereçlerin ve belgelerin karúÕlÕklÕ ba÷lantÕlarÕnÕn sayÕsallaútÕrÕlmasÕ sürmektedir. øki proje yakÕn zamanda sona erdi÷inde, bütün Geniza gereçleri dünyanÕn her yanÕndaki araútÕrmacÕlarÕn elinin altÕnda olacaktÕr. Gelecekteki çalÕúmalar, bilgisayar yardÕmÕyla parçalarÕn belirlenmesi ve birleútirilmesi iúini de içerecektir. Böylelikle, bütün Geniza incelemecileri belgeleri inceleyip yeni sonuçlara ulaúarak Akdeniz toplumunun en etkileyicilerinden birine iliúkin bilgilerimizi zenginleútireceklerdir

Kaynakça Ghosh, Amitav, In an Antique Land, Vintage Books, 1992 Goitein, S.D., A Mediterranean Society, (six vols.) University of California 1999 (Paperback edition) Hoffman, Adina and Cole, Peter, Sacred Trash, The Lost and Found World of the Cairo Genizah, Schoeken, 2011 Reif, S.C., A Jewish Archive from Old Cairo, Curzon, 2000 Shivtiel, Avihai, The Genizah and its roots, in The Written Word Remains, Shulie Reif (Ed.) Cambridge, 2004, pp. 4-8



DÖRDÜNCÜ BÖLÜM OSMANLI øSTANBUL’UNDA øBRANø BASIMCILIöI JACOB M. LANDAU1 1. Önsöz Bu uluslararasÕ kongreye katÕlmak için ça÷rÕlmaktan onur duyuyorum. Sunaca÷Õm konuúmanÕn baúlÕ÷ÕnÕ kÕsaca açÕklamama izin verin. ‘øbranice’ sözcü÷üyle OsmanlÕ østanbul’unda basÕlan yapÕtlarÕn abecesi demek istiyorum. Bu abece OsmanlÕ ømparatorlu÷unda yalnÕz øbrani dili için de÷il, (bazen ‘Yahudi øspanyolcasÕ’ da denen) Ladino için de kullanÕlmÕútÕr. Ladino øspanya’dan getirilen ve øber YarÕmadasÕ’ndan sürgün edilmiú Yahudilerce kullanÕlan bir dildi. OsmanlÕ Yahudilerince de sÕk olarak kullanÕlmÕútÕ. øbranice’den çok de÷iúik olmakla birlikte, (Yidiú, Yahudi ArapçasÕ ve Yahudi FarsçasÕ gibi bütün öteki ‘Yahudi dilleri’ gibi) øbrani karakterleri kullanÕlarak yazÕlmÕútÕr. Bu yüzden, konuúmamda østanbul’daki hem øbrani hem Ladino dillerine de÷inece÷im. OsmanlÕ østanbul’unda basÕlmÕú yapÕtlara iliúkin araútÕrmalar hemen hemen bütünüyle kaynakça (bibliografi) yazarlarÕnca yapÕlmÕútÕr. Bu yazarlar birçok yapÕtÕ, baúlÕklarÕ, basÕm yÕlÕnÕ, daha ender olarak da baúka ayrÕntÕlarÕ ve genellikle kopyalarÕn nerede bulunabilece÷ini (genellikle, øsrail, Fransa ve ABD) listelemiúlerdir. Bu araútÕrma, önemli ve yararlÕdÕr, ama kaynakça yazarlarÕna ve onlarÕn mesleki becerilerine ba÷lÕ olarak yapÕldÕ÷Õ için, tipik basÕm yöntemleri, düzelti ve da÷ÕtÕm gibi genel koúullarÕ araútÕrma gibi bir giriúimde bulunulmamÕútÕr. Özellikle eksik olan, basÕlÕ yapÕtlarÕn ve konularÕnÕn daha genel bir çözümlemesidir –tek tek de÷il, ama øbranice basÕlmÕú yapÕtlarÕn OsmanlÕ østanbul’unun ortalama kültürüne yaptÕ÷Õ katkÕya genel bir bakÕú olarak. Bu boúlu÷u, en azÕndan bir bölümüyle kapatmaya çalÕúaca÷Õm.

 1

Prof. Dr. Kudüs øbrani Üniversitesi, øsrail. [email protected]

90

Dördüncü Bölüm

2. østanbul’daki Yahudi basÕmcÕlar OsmanlÕ ømparatorlu÷unun uzun tarihinin büyük bir bölümü boyunca, østanbul’daki Yahudi cemaati kapalÕ bir toplumsal ve dinsel sÕnÕrlar ve kendi millet’i içinde yaúadÕ; ayrÕ bir dini olan ve øbrani yazÕsÕnÕ okuyamayan, dÕúarÕdaki Müslüman çevreyle çok az iliúki kurdu. Ama imparatorluk içinde ve dÕúÕndaki öteki Yahudi cemaatleriyle OsmanlÕ egemenli÷inin genellikle ilk yüzyÕllarÕnda iliúkiler kuruldu ve østanbul cemaati ötekiler için düúünsel bir kaynak iúlevini gördü. Önceleri østanbul’daki øbrani basÕmevcilerinin ço÷unlu÷unu (øbranice basÕmÕn ilk olarak 1470’lerde baúladÕ÷Õ) øspanya’dan gelen sürgünler oluútururken, daha sonra Selanik, øzmir, Venedik, Prag, Polonya, Rusya ve baúka yerlerden de baúkente basÕmcÕlar geldi. 16. yüzyÕl baúlarÕndan 18. yüzyÕl ortalarÕna kadar, østanbul øbranice basÕmcÕlÕ÷Õn önemli bir merkezi oldu ve basÕmevciler bu sürecin önemli etkeni oldu. Ama OsmanlÕ ømparatorlu÷unun son kuúaklarÕnda bir de÷iúim baúladÕ ve Ladino dilinde basÕlan kitaplarÕn, øbranice dilinde basÕlanlara katkÕsÕ artarak kÕsa zamanda øbranice basÕlanlardan daha çok yaygÕnlaútÕ. Ladino dilinde basÕlanlarÕn bir bölümü daha çok, örne÷in OsmanlÕ yasalarÕnÕn çevirisi gibi, gündelik konularda yo÷unlaúÕrken kimisi de, örne÷in (aúa÷Õda anlatÕlacak olan) Genç Türk devrimi gibi siyasal olaylarla ilgilendi. BunlarÕn yanÕnda, birkaç øbranice ve Ladino gazetesi OsmanlÕ ømparatorlu÷undaki olaylarÕ aktarÕyordu. Bugünkü, yayÕmcÕ, basÕmcÕ ve kitapçÕ arasÕnda görülen emek da÷ÕlÕmÕ uygulamasÕndan farklÕ olarak, OsmanlÕ østanbul’unda Yahudi basÕmevci üç iúlevi de birlikte yürütüyordu. Bunun sonucu olarak, adÕnÕ bazen baúlÕk sayfasÕna koyardÕ, ama daha sÕk olarak önsöze ya da kitabÕn sonunda basÕmevinin logosu ile birlikte bir sayfaya koyardÕ. Bu sayfada genellikle basÕm tarihini (mutlaka Yahudi takvimine göre), yazarÕ ve basÕmcÕ olarak kendisini belirtir, kitabÕn içeri÷ine de÷inir ve genellikle baúta bulunan sultan için övgü ve iyi dilekleriyle sözü bitirirdi. Böylece, basÕmcÕlarÕn adÕnÕ bildi÷imiz için, østanbul’a øbranice kitap basma iúini hangi Yahudi ailelerin yürüttü÷ünü, mesle÷in babadan o÷ula geçti÷ini de ö÷renebiliyoruz. (Bir basÕmcÕ yalnÕz ya da bir ortakla çalÕúÕyor olsa da durum aynÕ olurdu.) Çok bilinen bir örnek, 16. yüzyÕlÕn ikinci yarÕsÕnda, 1559’dan 1586’ya kadar, hahamlarÕn yazÕlarÕnÕ ve felsefi ve Karayit yapÕtlar basan Jabez kardeúlerdir. Ne yazÕk her kitaptan kaç kopya basÕldÕ÷ÕnÕ bilemiyoruz; büyük olasÕlÕk, yüz-yüz elli kadar olmalÕ. BasÕlan kitabÕn fiyatÕ da belirtilmez; dolayÕsÕyla, øbranice yapÕtlarÕn basÕlmasÕ için para nasÕl sa÷landÕ÷ÕnÕ da bilmiyoruz. De÷iúik kaynaklarÕn dedi÷ine göre, basÕlÕ yapÕtlarÕn fiyatÕ, en

OsmanlÕ østanbul’unda øbrani BasÕmcÕlÕ÷Õ

91

azÕndan øbranice basÕmÕn ilk yüzyÕllarÕnda oldukça yüksekti ve yalnÕzca paralÕ kimseler alabiliyordu. BasÕmcÕlarÕn ürünlerini satmak için özel yöntemleri vardÕ. Genellikle, yeni basÕlan bir kitabÕ cumartesi günü cemaatin bulundu÷u ibadet zamanÕnda en yakÕndaki havraya getirirlerdi. Yahudi dinsel yasasÕ kutsal cumartesi günü alÕúveriúi, özellikle paraya dokunmayÕ yasakladÕ÷Õ için, para bakÕmÕndan satÕú baúka bir gün gerçekleúirdi. østanbul’da özellikle Yahudi yaúantÕsÕnÕn ilk yüzyÕllarÕnda herkesin herkesi tanÕdÕ÷Õ bir toplulukta, güven sorun olmazdÕ. BaúlangÕçta folyolar numaralanÕrdÕ, ama 1509’dan beri østanbul’da basÕlan kimi øbranice yapÕtlarda sayfa numaralarÕ kullanÕlmÕútÕr. Her Yahudi basÕmevinin kendi dizgicisi ve düzeltmeni vardÕ; bunlarÕn adlarÕ sorumlu çalÕúanlar olarak ço÷u basÕlÕ yapÕtta sÕkça belirtilmiútir. Kimi zaman basÕmcÕlar kendi dizgicileri ve düzeltmenleri olarak da iú görürlerdi. Zamanla, dizgiciler ve düzeltmenler, yükselen istemi karúÕlamak için kendi basÕmevlerini de açtÕlar. AyrÕca, her basÕmevinin kendi özgün simgesi (logosu) vardÕ ve her basÕlan yapÕtÕn baúÕna yerleútirilirdi. Seçilen simge basÕmcÕnÕn adÕnÕ, basÕm yerini, basÕm uzmanlÕk alanÕnÕ ya da baúarÕ dile÷ini yansÕtÕrdÕ. BaúlangÕçta basit geometrik tasarÕmlar olan simgeler, daha sonra sanatsal biçim aldÕ. (Ama øslam’da oldu÷u gibi, Yahudiler’in dinsel geleneklerinde de yasaklandÕ÷Õ için, bunlarda insan tasarÕmÕ yoktu.)

3. øbranice ve Ladino’da basÕm østanbul’daki ilk øbranice basÕmcÕlar 1492 yÕlÕnda øspanya’dan sürgün edilen ve 1497’de Portekiz’i terkettikten sonra OsmanlÕ ømparatorlu÷unun yüce gönüllülükle yerleúmeye ça÷ÕrdÕ÷Õ Yahudiler’di. Keúfedileli çok olmayan basÕmcÕlÕk, bu Yahudi göçmenlerce OsmanlÕ ømparatorlu÷una ulaútÕrÕldÕ. Bunlar kendileriyle birlikte yalnÕzca gerekli becerileri sa÷lamakla kalmadÕlar, aynÕ zamanda kimi zaman kendi basÕm araçlarÕnÕ ve daha sÕk olarak da kurtarmayÕ baúardÕklarÕ kimi önemli øbranice elyazmalarÕ ve kitaplarÕ da getirdiler. Yahudi basÕmcÕlar OsmanlÕ ømparatorlu÷unda kitap basma ya da satma üzerine hiçbir yasa÷Õn olmadÕ÷Õ gerçe÷inden yararlandÕlar. Bu, 16. yüzyÕlÕn ortasÕndan baúlayarak birçok HÕristiyan Avrupa ülkesinde görülenden farklÕ bir durumdu. Bu özgürlükçü ortam daha sonralarÕ baúka ülkelerden de Yahudi basÕmcÕlarÕ østanbul’a çekti ve bunlar buraya yerleúerek øbranice basÕmcÕlÕ÷Õn kapsamÕnÕn geniúlemesini sa÷ladÕlar. østanbul’da øbranice basÕlan ilk kitap Yahudi ibadetine iliúkin önemli bir yapÕttÕr. KitabÕ basan David Ibn Nahamias ve o÷lu Samuel, aynÕ zamanda øbranice bastÕklarÕ kitaplar için ilk olarak sanatsal bir logo

92

Dördüncü Bölüm

kullanan basÕmcÕlardÕr. BasÕlan bu ilk kitap Arba’ah TnjrƯm ‘Dört Sütun’ olarak bilinir, çünkü 800’ü aúkÕn sayfalarÕndan her biri dört sütun olarak basÕlmÕútÕr. Dört cilt ve çok sayÕda folyodan oluúan bu anÕtsal giriúime, kendine bu iúe adama, teknik beceri, araútÕrmacÕlÕk ve mali destek gerektiriyordu. 13 AralÕk 1493’e denk gelen bir øbrani takvim tarihi taúÕyordu. Kimi araútÕrmacÕlar øspanya’dan sürgünden yalnÕzca 16 ay sonra bir basÕmevi iúinin baúlamasÕnÕn olanaksÕz oldu÷unu düúünerek, bu tarihin 1503’e düzeltilmesi gerekti÷ini ileri sürüyorlar. BaúkalarÕ, önceki tarihi uygun görüyor. 1493 yÕlÕna karúÕ ileri sürülen görüúe göre, gelenlerin yanlarÕnda øbranice elyazmalarÕ ve kitaplar getirdiklerine iliúkin kanÕt olmasÕna karúÕn, sürgün gelenlerin yanlarÕnda basÕm araçlarÕnÕ getirememiúler, dolayÕsÕyla basÕm iúine bu kadar erken baúlayamamÕúlardÕr. Bu görüú yerinde gibi görünüyor, ama baúka birçok kaynaklardan bilindi÷i gibi, çok sayÕda sürgün østanbul’a gelirken øtalyada duraklamÕúlardÕr. Venedik, Napoli ve Leghorn gibi çok sayÕda øtalyan kentinde, øbranice basÕmcÕlÕ÷Õ da içinde olmak üzere, geliúen basÕmcÕlÕk iúi bulunmaktadÕr. øspanya’da basÕmevleri olan kimi sürgünlerin, østanbul ya da baúka yerlerde basÕmcÕlÕ÷Õ sürdürmek için øtalya’dan øbranice basÕm araçlarÕ almÕú olmalarÕ çok uzak bir olasÕlÕk de÷ildir. Harfler, Napoli’deki øbranice basÕmcÕlÕ÷ÕnÕn kullandÕklarÕyla aynÕdÕr; kullanÕlan kâ÷Õt da güney øtalya’da ve ülkenin baúka bölgelerinde kullanÕlanÕn aynÕdÕr. Bu durum østanbul’da øbranice basÕmcÕlÕ÷ÕnÕn olasÕ baúlangÕç tarihi olarak birkaç yÕl sonrasÕnÕ de÷il de 1493 tarihini desteklemektedir. Hangisi olursa olsun, Arba’ah TnjrƯm’in basÕlmasÕ, I. Dünya SavaúÕ sonrasÕ OsmanlÕ ømparatorlu÷u’nun parçalanmasÕna kadar geçen sürede yaklaúÕk 800 kadar yapÕtÕn øbrani harfleriyle, hem øbranice hem de Ladino dilleriyle, basÕlmasÕnÕn baúlangÕç noktasÕdÕr. østanbul nasÕl bütün imparatorlu÷un kültürel merkezi olmuúsa, øbranice basÕmcÕlÕk da aynÕ konuma ulaúmÕútÕr. Birçok Yahudi cemaat kitap basÕmÕ için sipariúlerini østanbul’a göndermiútir. øbranice ve Ladino yazÕlmÕú yapÕtlar çok sayÕda yapÕt østanbul’dan imparatorlu÷un içinde ve dÕúÕndaki Yahudi cemaatlerine ihraç edildi. Yine de øbranice kitap basÕmÕ varlÕ÷ÕnÕ tutarlÕ biçimde sürdürmedi: 1585’ten 1638’e ve 1683’ten 1710’a, bilinmeyen nedenlerden dolayÕ, øbranice basÕmÕ konusunda tam kesintiler yaúandÕ. Daha sonraki yÕllarda øbranice basÕm etkinli÷inde daha kÕsa süren kesintiler de oldu. Buna karúÕn, øbranice basÕm, imparatorlukta ilk ve belli bir süre düzenli yürüyen tek basÕm etkinli÷i oldu. 1567’de bir Ermeni basÕmevi kuruldu, ama varlÕ÷ÕnÕ uzun sürdüremedi. 1627’de Nikodemos Metaxas’ça bir Yunan basÕmevi açÕldÕ, ama bu giriúim de uzun yaúamadÕ ve ancak yüz yÕl sonra, 1727’de øbrahim Müteferrika Türkçe ilk kitabÕnÕ basabildi. OsmanlÕ Türkleri’nin yaygÕn bir okuma ve yazma kültürleri

OsmanlÕ østanbul’unda øbrani BasÕmcÕlÕ÷Õ

93

vardÕ, ama uzun süre Türkçe kitap basÕmÕnÕ yasakladÕlar. Bu belki de Avrupa’nÕn teknik alanda geliúmelerinden ve bu geliúmenin øslam dinine yapaca÷Õ etkiden kuúkulanmalarÕndandÕ (belki aynÕ zamanda elyazmasÕ ço÷altan hattƗt’larÕn loncasÕnÕn karúÕ çÕkmasÕndan da). Ama yetkililer øbranice, Ermenice ve Yunanca yapÕtlarÕn basÕlÕp ço÷altÕlmasÕnÕ yasaklamadÕlar. Daha sonralarÕ Türkçe yapÕtlarÕn Arap harfleriyle basÕlmasÕna izin verdilerse de din kitaplarÕnÕn Türkçe basÕlmasÕ yine yasaklÕ kaldÕ. øbrahim Müteferrika’ya Türkçe yapÕtlarÕn Arap harfleriyle basabilme izni, Sadrazam Damat øbrahim Paúa’nÕn özel bir ferman’Õ ve úeyhülislamÕn fetva’sÕyla olabildi. østanbul’daki øbranice basÕm yapanlar østanbul Yahudiler’inin kimi kitaplarÕnÕ, ama daha çok imparatorluktaki, örne÷in øzmir, Selanik, Edirne, Kahire ve Safed’deki (daha sonra kendi basÕmevlerini kuran) öteki Yahudi cemaatlerin yayÕnladÕ÷Õ kitaplarÕ bastÕlar. AynÕ zamanda, imparatorlu÷un dÕúÕnda, örne÷in øtalya, Polonya ve baú yerlerdeki Yahudi cemaatlerin gönderdikleri yapÕtlarÕ da bastÕlar. Belli durumlarda, bu basÕmevlerinin de÷iúik yerlerde úubeleri de vardÕ. Örne÷in, Venedik’teki ünlü Soncino basÕmevi Selanik’te 1527-1528’de ve østanbul’da 1530’da birer úube açtÕ. OsmanlÕ østanbul’unda øbranice ve Ladino dilinde basÕldÕ÷Õ bilinen 800 kitap, ayrÕ kitaplar de÷ildi. Kimisi imparatorlu÷un her yanÕndaki yazarlarÕn yazdÕ÷Õ ya da çevirdi÷i kitaplarken, birço÷u da kimi yapÕtlarÕn ikinci (ya da ender olarak üçüncü) basÕmlarÕydÕ. BunlarÕn içerikleri baúlangÕçta genellikle kesin olarak iç konularla ilgiliydi –en baúta Yahudi dini, inançlarÕ ve uygulamalarÕ, kutsal metinler üzerine yorumlar ya da øbranice dilini ö÷retmek için kullanÕlan ders kitaplarÕ gibi. Daha sonra Ladino dilinde yazÕlanlar, ileride görece÷imiz gibi, daha dünyasal konulara yöneldiler. Aúa÷Õda, østanbul’daki øbrani basÕmcÕlarÕn ilgilendi÷i konularÕn kÕsa bir özetini çeúitli örnekleriyle bulacaksÕnÕz. Önce øbranice, sonra da Ladino dilinde olanlara göz ataca÷Õm. Sözleúmeler, borç senetleri, tanÕtma yazÕlarÕ gibi sÕradan belgelerin dÕúÕnda, øbranice dilinde basÕlan kitaplar yÕllar boyu, özellikle 16., 17. yüzyÕllarda ve 18. yüzyÕlÕn ilk yarÕsÕnda temel olarak dinsel bir nitelik taúÕmÕútÕr. Bu, Yahudi cemaatinin o dönemdeki geleneksel yapÕsÕnÕ ve belki de basÕma mali destek verenlerin baúka yapÕtlara de÷il de bu tür yapÕtlara para ayÕrmaya hazÕr olduklarÕnÕ göstermekteydi. BasÕlan yapÕtlar ço÷unluk olarak dua kitaplarÕ, Tevrat’Õn ve Talmud’un yeniden basÕmlarÕ, bu kitaplar üzerine yorumlar, (Hamursuz BayramÕ için gerekli olan) Haggada kitaplarÕ, dinsel konulardaki yasal uygulamalar üzerine kitaplar (örne÷in dine uygun yiyecekler, evlilik ve boúanma), ahlak ve etik (yani insan iliúkileri) üzerine yazÕlar, fetvalar (yani ünlü hahamlarÕn, do÷ru

94

Dördüncü Bölüm

dinsel davranÕú kurallarÕna iliúkin sorulara verdikleri yanÕtlar), tanÕnmÕú hahamlarÕn inanç ve din konularÕnda yaptÕklarÕ konuúmalarÕn derlemeleri, seçkin Yahudi düúünürlerin (örne÷in Maimonides’in) kitaplarÕ ve bu kitaplara iliúkin yorumlar, øbranice dilinin ö÷renilmesi için temel kitaplar (özellikle dilbilgisi, aynÕ zamanda yazÕm kÕlavuzlarÕ da), bir øbraniceFransÕzca sözlük, ermiúler üzerine menkÕbeler, Yahudi tarihi, OsmanlÕ tarihi (özellikle Joseph Sambari’nin 1673 yÕlÕnda tamamladÕ÷Õ bir kitap), Yahudi gezginlerin gezi notlarÕ, Yahudi takvimi ve gökbilime iliúkin resimler, Kabbalah (Tevrat’Õn úifrelere dayanan mistik yorumlarÕ), mucizeler ve körinançlar üzerine yapÕtlar. Bunlara Arap ve Avrupa yazÕnÕndan yapÕlan birkaç çeviri de eklenebilir. 19. yüzyÕlÕn ortalarÕna varÕncaya kadar, øbranice yazÕlan yapÕtlar gittikçe, yok olacak kadar azaldÕ. Bir tek Siyonist bir dergi olan ve 1909-1911 yÕllarÕnda basÕlan HaMƟvasser’Õn dÕúÕnda. OsmanlÕ østanbul’undaki Ladino dilinde basÕlan yapÕtlara gelince: BunlarÕn sayÕsÕnÕn artmasÕ, bu dilin, øbranice pahasÕna kullanÕmÕnÕn artmasÕ anlamÕna geliyor. øzmir’deki basÕmevi atölyelerinde de aynÕ durum oldu. Bu olgu øbranice yapÕtlarÕn (hatta Tevrat’Õn bile) Ladino diline çevirisinde, øbranice yapÕtlara Ladino önsöz yazÕlmasÕnda ve kimi kitaplarÕn iki paralel sütun halinde, Hebrew and Ladino olarak, özellikle dikkati çeker. østanbul’da ilk özgün Ladino yapÕt (ibadet konusunda) 1594’te ortaya çÕkar; (øbranice bir dua kitabÕnÕn çevirisi olan) ikincisi ise ancak 1729 yÕlÕnda, birinciden 135 yÕl sonra basÕlÕr. Bu ikisi ve öteki Ladino yapÕtlar baúlangÕçta øbranice ile yaklaúÕk olarak aynÕ konularÕ kapsÕyordu, yani ço÷unlukla dinsel konularÕ. Birço÷u øbranice’den Ladino’ya çeviriydi. Bu da bizi østanbul’daki Yahudiler’in bir bölümünün øbranice’den çok Ladino’yu daha iyi okudu÷u varsayÕmÕna götürüyor. Belki de bunlarÕn arasÕnda evde Ladino konuúan ve heder denen øbranice ö÷retim yapan, hepsi de øbranice okuyabilen (en azÕndan østanbul’daki OsmanlÕ egemenli÷inin ilk yüzyÕllarÕnda) erkek çocuklarÕnÕn gidebildi÷i din okullarÕna gidemeyen kadÕnlar vardÕ. Zamanla, østanbul’da øbranice harflerle basÕlan yapÕtlarÕn ço÷u Ladino diliyle basÕlÕr oldu –özellikle Münih’ten getirilen litografi baskÕ yönteminin ve baúka buluú ve araçlarÕn østanbul’daki basÕmevlerinde gittikçe daha çok yaygÕnlaútÕ÷Õ 18. yüzyÕl ortasÕ ve hemen sonrasÕnda. Bu aynÕ zamanda Ladino dilinin, Yahudi yaúamÕnda imparatorlu÷un birçok bölgesinde øbranice karúÕsÕnda etkisinin büyüdü÷ünü göstermektedir. Yine de øbranice tapÕnma ve dinsel ö÷retim alanÕnda varlÕ÷ÕnÕ sürdürmüútür. Ladino da dindÕúÕ alanlarda okuma ve konuúma alanÕnda gittikçe daha fazla oranda kullanÕlmaktaydÕ. Ladino dilindeki ilk dindÕúÕ kitap,

OsmanlÕ østanbul’unda øbrani BasÕmcÕlÕ÷Õ

95

østanbul’da 16. yüzyÕl ortalarÕnda basÕlan Amadis de Gaula adÕndaki bir øspanyol romanÕnÕn çevirisiydi. Ladino dilindeki yapÕtlar úu konularda yo÷unlaúmÕútÕ: Yahudi dini, örne÷in kutsal cumartesi günü, üzerine kitaplar, Ladino (øbranice-Ladino, Türkçe-Ladino) üzerine ders kitaplarÕ ve sözlükler, Yahudi tarihi, OsmanlÕ tarihi, Rodos kuúatmasÕ, Yahudi gezginlerin gezi notlarÕ, gökbilim, Yahudi takvimi ve e÷itim. AyrÕca, özgün roman, öykü ve úiirler; bunlarÕn dÕúÕnda, özellikle FransÕzca ve az sayÕda da øbranice’den çeviri çok sayÕda kurmaca yapÕtlar. Dikkati çeken birkaç tanesi: Bir OsmanlÕ yasalarÕ derlemesi, østanbul belediyesinin 1868 yönergesi, (264 maddeden oluúan) 1870 ceza yasasÕ, 1876 OsmanlÕ AnayasasÕ, Damga YasasÕ, østanbul Ticaret OdasÕ’nÕn Organik YasasÕ (bütün bunlar Türkçe’den çevrilmiú). AyrÕca, Ladino’ya ve øbranice’ye birlikte çevirisiyle, Bulgar Prensli÷i AnayasasÕ. Ladino’ya bunlar ve baúka çeviriler güncel olaylara iliúkin artan bir ilgiyi göstermektedir. BunlarÕn arasÕnda, 1908’de Türkçe ya da Ladino dilinde hepsi øbrani harfleriyle basÕlmÕú üç tane özgürlük úarkÕsÕ, Mithat Paúa ve II. Abdulhamit üzerine romanlarÕn çevirileri (Abdulhamit üzerine olanÕn içinde Türk devlet adamlarÕ ve kamu binalarÕnÕn resimleri bulunuyor). Yahudi kimselerin foto÷raflarÕ hiç kullanÕlmamÕú, çünkü (daha önce de belirtildi÷i gibi) Yahudi dini, øslam dininde oldu÷u gibi, insan resimlerini yasaklamaktadÕr, ama HÕristiyan foto÷rafçÕlar OsmanlÕ kiúilerin resimlerini çekmenin yollarÕnÕ bulmuúlardÕr. Özel bir durum da (daha önce sözü geçen tek bir øbranice gazeteye, Ha-Mevasser, karúÕlÕk), çok sayÕda Ladino dilinde gazetelerin bulunmasÕ. Hepsi 19. yüzyÕlÕn sonlarÕyla 20. yüzyÕlÕn baúlarÕnda basÕlmÕú ve birkaç tanesi Genç Türk devriminden övgüyle söz etmektedir. BasÕlanlar arasÕnda, haftalÕk, haftada iki ya da üç kez ya da onbeú günde bir basÕlan, toplumsalekonomik-kültürel nitelikte, özellikle Yahudiler’e iliúkin olaylarla ilgilenen dergiler de var. østanbul’da 1872 ile 1897 yÕllarÕ arasÕnda uzun süre yayÕnlanan El Tiempo’dan özel olarak söz etmek gerekir. Bu dönemin uzun bir süresi boyunca David Fresco’nun yayÕn yönetmenli÷ini yaptÕ÷Õ dergi, OsmanlÕ ømparatorlu÷u’nun son zamanlarÕndaki Yahudi yaúantÕsÕ bakÕmÕndan önemli bir kaynaktÕr. Ötekiler de El Nasionál (1875-1880), El Telegrafo (1881-1913) ve El Judío’dur (1910-1924).

4. Sonuç Sonuç olarak, OsmanlÕ østanbulu’ndaki her etnik ya da dinsel azÕnlÕk OsmanlÕ ømparatorlu÷u’nun kültürel yapÕsÕnÕ oluúturan karmaúÕklÕ÷Õn bir parçasÕydÕ denebilir. Böyle bir durumda, her toplulu÷un basÕm ve yayÕm etkinlikleri onun kültürel yaúantÕsÕnÕn en önemli ölçütlerinden biridir.

96

Dördüncü Bölüm

OsmanlÕ østanbulu’ndaki Yahudi basÕmcÕlar, topluluklarÕnÕn üç dilli yapÕsÕnÕn farkÕnda gibi görünüyorlar: Toplulu÷un üyeleri dua ve dinsel etkinliklerde øbranice, birbirleriyle konuúurken Ladino ve Yahudi olmayan nüfusla iliúkilerinde de Türkçe kullanmÕúlardÕr. BasÕlan yapÕtlarÕn niteli÷i ve sayÕsÕna bakÕlÕrsa, Ladino’nun, yalnÕz sözel iletiúimde de÷il, okumada da øbranice pahasÕna geliúti÷inin farkÕndaydÕlar ve basÕm ekonomilerinde buna göre davrandÕlar. Bunun üç türlü sonucu oldu: Birincisi, østanbul’da çok sayÕda yapÕtÕn basÕmÕ. økincisi, hem øbranice hem de Ladino dilinde hemen hemen sürekli basÕm; oysa, OsmanlÕ ømparatorlu÷u’ndaki Safed gibi Yahudi kentlerinde durum böyle de÷ildi. Üçüncüsü, özellikle Ladino dilindeki yapÕtlarÕn çeúitlili÷i. AyrÕca, basÕmcÕlar Türkçe’nin de topluluk içinde yaygÕnlaútÕ÷ÕnÕn farkÕndaydÕlar ve bu yüzden Türkçe basÕma da baúladÕlar. Bu özellik, daha sonra Türkiye Cumhuriyeti’nde daha da açÕk biçimde ortaya çÕkar.

Seçilmiú Kaynakça Ben-Naeh, Yaron, “Hebrew Printing Houses in the Ottoman Empire.” In Gad Nassi, ed., Jewish Journalism and Printing Houses in the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey. Istanbul: ISIS, 2001, pp. 73-96. Ben-Naeh, Yaron, Sultanlar DiyarÕnda Yahudiler. Istanbul: Goa, 2009. Binark, øsmet, “Türkiye’ye matbaanÕn geç giriúinin sebepleri üzerine.” Türk Kültürü 65: March 1968, pp. 295-304. Ersoy, Osman, Türkiye’de matbaanÕn giriúi ve ilk basÕlan eserler. Ankara: 1959. Gerçek, Selim Nüzhet, Türk matbaacÕlÕ÷Õ. østanbul: 1939. Hacker, Joseph R., “Authors, Readers and Printers of Sixteenth-Century Hebrew Books in the Ottoman Empire.” In Peggy K. Pearlstein, ed., Perspectives on the Hebraic Book. Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 2012, pp. 17-63. Hacker, Joseph R, “DƟfnjsey QnjshĠa ba-me’ah ha-shesh-’esreh” (Hebrew: Istanbul Prints in the Sixteenth Century). Areshet 5: 1972, pp. 457-475. Landau, Jacob M., “Comments on the Jewish Press in Istanbul: The Hebrew Weekly HamƟvasser.” Études Balkaniques 2: 1990, pp. 78-82. Mitterauer, Michael, “Das gedruckte Buch im Vorderen Orient.” Wiener Zeitschrift für Kunde des Morgenlandes 98:2008, pp. 347-352. Ofenberg, A. K., “The First Printed Book Produced at Constantinople.” Studia Rosenthaliana 3:1969, pp. 96-112. Rumpf, S., “Die Anfänge des Buchdrucks in der Türkei.” Biblos 43(1-2): 1994, pp. 33-39.

OsmanlÕ østanbul’unda øbrani BasÕmcÕlÕ÷Õ

97

Tamari, Ittai Joseph, “Jewish Printing and Publishing Activities in the Ottoman Cities of Constantinople and Saloniki at the Dawn of Early Modern Europe.” In Lehrstul für türkische Sprache, Geschichte und Kultur, Universität Bamberg, eds., The Beginnings of Printing in the Near and Middle East: Jews, Christians and Muslims. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2001, pp. 9-10. Tamari, Ittai Joseph, “Jüdische Drücke aus Konstantinopel. Ein Druckort und seine Bedeutung.” In Ulrich Marzolph, ed., Das gedruckte Buch im Vorderen Orient.” Dortmund: Verlag für Orientkunde, 2002, pp. 118-127. Weil, G., “Die ersten Drücke der Türkei.” Zentralblatt für Bibliothekwesen 24: 1907, pp. 49-61. Yaari, Abraham, Digley ha-madpƯsƯm ha-’ivriyyƯm (Hebrew: Hebrew Printers’ Marks). Jerusalem: Hebrew University Press Association, 1943, 19562. Yaari, Abraham, Ha-DƟfnjs ha-’ivrƯ bƟ-QnjshĠa (Hebrew: Hebrew Printing in Constantinople). Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1967.



BEùøNCø BÖLÜM øBRANøCE’NøN YENøDEN CANLANMASI SHLOMIT SHRAYBOM-SHIVTIEL1

Bütün Avrupa’ya yayÕlan ulusalcÕlÕk ideolojisinin etkisiyle, 19. yüzyÕlÕn sonunda Siyonizmin ortaya çÕkÕúÕ, Yahudi halkÕ için ortak bir ulusal dil gereksinimine yol açtÕ.

UlusalcÕlÕk ve Siyonizm Bilindi÷i gibi, ulusalcÕlÕk ideolojisine göre, ulus ortak bir temeli olan insan toplulu÷udur: ortak tarih, geleneksel kültür, dil, vb. Yahudi halkÕnÕn ortak tarihi ve geleneksel kültürü vardÕ, ama Tevrat’Õn ve öteki klasik Yahudi kaynaklarÕnÕn dili olan øbranice hemen hemen ölü bir dildi. Yahudiler Tevrat’Õ (Eski Ant) havrada okuyup ibadet etmek için øbranice’yi kullanmÕúlar, ama yüzyÕllardÕr günlük yaúantÕlarÕnda konuúma dili olarak kullanmamÕúlardÕ. Onun yerine, bütün dünyada de÷iúik ortamlarda de÷iúik dil ve diyelekler konuúmuúlardÕ. Yahudiler yalnÕzca Filistin’de 2 bazen de baúka yerde özel, sÕnÕrlÕ ortamlarda øbranice’yi iletiúim aracÕ olarak kullanmÕúlardÕ. Dünya düzeni 19. yüzyÕlda de÷iúti. Avrupa’da büyük imparatorluklarÕn bir parçasÕ olan etnik topluluklar ulusal kimlik ve kendi geleceklerini belirleme hakkÕ arayÕúÕna girdiler. Bunun sonucu olarak, Avrupa’nÕn her yanÕnda ulusalcÕ düúünceye uygun yeni devletler ortaya çÕktÕ. O dönem ve geçerli olan ortam Avrupa’daki Yahudi nüfus için uzun zamandÕr var olan tek bir dili konuúan tek bir ulus kurma ülkülerini uygulamaya geçirmek için olanak sa÷ladÕ. Ama ne yazÕk aradan 2.000 yÕl (200-1880 yÕllarÕ arasÕ) geçmiú ve bu süre içinde øbranice yaúayan bir dil olmaktan çÕkmÕú ve öteki yaúayan

 1

Dr. Bar-Ilan Üniversitesi, øsrail – Yahudi ølahiyat Fakültesi, New York. [email protected] 2 T. V. Parfitt, “The Use of Hebrew in Palestine, 1800-1882”, Journal of Semitic Studies 17 (1972), ss. 237-252.

100

Besinci Bölüm

diller gibi do÷al yoldan geliúmemiú oldu÷u için, ça÷daú yaúantÕnÕn günlük gereksinimlerini karúÕlamada yetersiz durumdaydÕ Avrupa’da aynÕ zamanda, bilimsel ve teknolojik alanda ilerlemeler görülüyordu. Yeni teknolojik buluúlar ortaya çÕkmÕú, yeni taúÕtlar, araçlar, kimyasallar günlük yaúantÕda kullanÕlmaya baúlanmÕútÕ. Ne yazÕk, tarih øbranice’yi yeni bir dünya gerçe÷ini karúÕlamada hazÕrlÕksÕz olarak yakalamÕútÕ. Ne Tevrat’ta ne de öteki Yahudi kaynaklarÕnda, bu kadar çok sayÕdaki teknolojik yenilikleri, bilimsel verileri ve yeni insani kavramlarÕ adlandÕrmak için yeterli terimler yoktu. Ne Tevrat’ta ne de Miúna’da ‘tren’, ‘telefon’ ya da ‘elektrik’ ya da yeni kavramlar olan ‘ulusalcÕlÕk’ ve ‘gelece÷ini belirleme hakkÕ’ için sözcük bulunmuyordu. Bu tarihsel dilbilimsel durum, karmaúÕk bir konumu gösteriyordu, çünkü ça÷daúlÕkla el ele gitmezse, ulusal dil ülküsü gerçekleúemezdi. Yani, baúka türlü söylersek, øbranice yalnÕz ulusal de÷il, aynÕ zamanda ça÷daú bir dil haline de gelmeliydi. Haskala, 18. yüzyÕl Avrupa’sÕnda Yahudi aydÕnlarÕ arasÕnda ortaya çÕkan kültürel bir akÕmdÕ. AmacÕ, din ya da inancÕ de÷il de aklÕ kullanarak Yahudi toplumunda yenilikler yapmak ve bilim yoluyla bilgiyi artÕrmaktÕ.

øbranice yazmak: Haskala YazÕnÕ øbranice’nin canlandÕrÕlmasÕ için ilk adÕmlar Avrupa’da 19. yüzyÕlda Yahudi AydÕnlanmasÕnÕn (Haskala),3 üyeleri olan Yahudi aydÕnlarca atÕldÕ. Bunlar øbranice ile laik nitelikli yapÕtlar yazmaya baúladÕlar. øbranice’yi geliúmiú bir dil durumuna sokmak, kendi yazÕn gereksinimleri için yeterli duruma getirmek için, yeni sözcükler türetme iúine giriútiler. Ama øbranice’yi bir konuúma dili yapmayÕ düúünmek bile zordu. Bunu yüksek sesle ve açÕkça konuúan ilk Siyonist Eliezer Ben-Yehuda idi.

Ben-Yehuda (1858-1922) Ben-Yehuda, Litvanya’da, Do÷u Avrupa’da (BaltÕk Denizi’nin güneydo÷u kÕyÕsÕnda) 1858 yÕlÕnda do÷du ve Yahudi dindar Hasidik bir ailede yetiúti. O çevre ve dönemin hemen hemen bütün öteki Yahudi çocuklarÕ gibi, tam anlamÕyla dindar bir e÷itimin bir parçasÕ olarak çok küçük yaútan itibaren øbranice ö÷renmeye baúladÕ. Ö÷renim yaúantÕsÕ çok

 3

Haskala, 18. – 19. yüzyÕl Avrupa’sÕnda Yahudi aydÕnlarÕ arasÕnda ortaya çÕkan kültürel bir akÕmdÕ. AmacÕ, din ya da inancÕ de÷il de aklÕ kullanarak Yahudi toplumunda yenilikler yapmak ve bilim yoluyla bilgiyi artÕrmaktÕ.

øbranice’nin Yeniden CanlanmasÕ

101

iyi gitti ve sonunda haham olsun diye bir Talmud akademisine (yeshiva) gönderildi. Ama umut ba÷lanan birçok genç Yahudi gibi, laik dünyayla daha çok ilgilenerek Haskala-AydÕnlanma AkÕmÕna katÕldÕ. 1881’de Kudüs’e gelerek oraya yerleúti ve øbranice’nin yeniden canlandÕrÕlÕp hem konuúma hem yazmada yaúamÕn her alanÕnda kullanÕlabilecek yaúayan bir dile dönüútürmek amacÕyla çalÕúmalara baúladÕ. øbranice ça÷daú gereksinimleri anlatmak için hâlâ yeterli olmasa da Ben-Yehuda klasik øbranice’ye AydÕnlanma AkÕmÕnÕn türetti÷i az sayÕda øbranice terimi de kullanarak øbranice bir gazete çÕkarmaya baúladÕ. Herhangi bir ‘ça÷daú’ kavramÕ karúÕlayacak bir sözcük bulamayÕnca sözcü÷ü kendi üretti: ‘øúyeri’, ‘sergi’, ‘çorap’, ‘havlu’, vb. için türetti÷i sözcükler günlük do÷al iletiúimde kullanÕlarak yayÕlmasÕ için gazetesinde yayÕnlandÕ. Ben-Yehuda, gazete çÕkarmanÕn yanÕnda, Avrupa yazÕnÕndan øbranice’ye çeviri iúine de giriúti. Jules Verne’in Seksen Günde Devrialem kitabÕnÕ –øbranice’ye– ilk çeviren kiúidir. 4 Kitap øbranice’de olmayan teknik terimlerle dolu oldu÷u için, Ben-Yehuda bunlarÕn karúÕlÕklarÕnÕ kendi türetmeye çalÕútÕ. Ama Ben-Yehuda’nÕn en önemli yapÕtÕ Eski ve Yeni øbranice Sözlü÷ü’dür. 5 Bu sözlükte bütün eski øbranice sözcüklerle kendi ve arkadaúlarÕnÕn türetti÷i yeni sözcükler bulunmaktadÕr. Ben-Yehuda, sözlü÷e yazdÕ÷Õ önsözde durumu úöyle açÕklÕyor: “Dilbilimcilik mesle÷i çok sevdi÷im bir iú de÷ildi ve bir sözlük derleme tutkum da yoktu. Ama bunu øbranice konuúmak için kaçÕnÕlmaz bir gereklilik olarak gördüm.” øúin kendisi için de bir sözcük türetti: milla (=sözcük) sözcü÷ünden türetti÷i millon (=sözlük) sözcü÷ü.6

Kuúkular ve KarúÕ ÇÕkÕúlar Ben-Yehuda kendi görüúünde direniyordu, ama eylemi baúlattÕ÷Õnda bunun gerçekleúme olasÕlÕ÷ÕnÕn kuúkulu oldu÷unu da düúünüyordu. Sözlü÷ünün önsözünde úöyle demiú:

 4

Jules Verne ve Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, S'viv Ha-Aretz Bi-Shmonim Yom, Jerusalem 1908. Bu çeviri 20. yüzyÕlda øsrail’de basÕldÕ ve bunu baúka birkaç çeviri izledi. 5 Eliezer Ben Yehuda, A Complete Dictionary of Ancient and Modern Hebrew, Jerusalem (1948, Eretz, øsrail’deki øbranice Ö÷retmenleri Örgütü için özel olarak basÕldÕ. 6 ay, Ha-Mavo Ha-Gadol ss. 5-6.

102

Besinci Bölüm

“AtalarÕmÕzÕn diline geri dönmek kendi seçimimiz; biz istedikten sonra kimse bizi engelleyemez. Ama bu geri dönüú olanaklÕ mÕ? ønsanlarÕn yüzyÕllardÕr terkedip kullanmaktan vazgeçtikleri bir dili yaúamÕn bütün alanlarÕnda yeniden konuúmaya baúlamalarÕ olanaklÕ mÕ?”7 Ne yazÕk, bu konuda kuúkucu olmak için iyi nedenleri vardÕ. Birçok kiúi øbranice’nin canlandÕrÕlmasÕ düúüncesini paylaúmÕyordu. Onu hem eleútiriyorlar hem de alay ediyorlardÕ onunla.8 Bir de üstelik, uzmanlar da onun görüúünü mantÕksÕz buluyorlardÕ. O dönemin en önemli Semitik diller dilbilimcilerinden olan Theodor Nöldeke bunun gerçekleúebilece÷ine inanmÕyordu. 1911 yÕlÕnda, Britannica Ansiklopedisi’nde bunun gerçekleúemeyecek bir düúlem oldu÷unu yazÕyordu.9 Ben-Yehuda dinsel nedenlerden dolayÕ da güçlü kepkilerle karúÕlaútÕ. øbranice’yi bir konuúma diline dönüútürmek, øbranice’yi kutsal bir din olarak gören, Kudüs’teki aúÕrÕ tutucu Yahudiler’i öfkelendirip çileden çÕkarmÕútÕ. Ben-Yehuda’yÕ dinin kutsallÕ÷ÕnÕ çi÷nemekle suçlayarak ona ve eylemlerine úiddetle karúÕ çÕkÕyorlardÕ. Ama bu onu durdurmadÕ.

øbranice Dili Yarkurulu Ben-Yehuda çevresine kendi görüúüyle ilgilenen Yahudi aydÕnlarÕ topladÕ. Birlikte, øbranice’yi yaúayan bir konuúma diline dönüútürmek için øbranice Dili Yarkurulu’nu kurdular. Yarkurul platformu, amaçlarÕ saptayÕp bunlarÕ gerçekleútirmenin yollarÕnÕ belirledi: “Bu yarkurul øbranice’nin yaúamÕn her alanÕnda kullanÕlmasÕ için hazÕrlÕk yapacaktÕr: Evde, okulda, günlük yaúamda, alÕúveriúte, ticarette, meslek yaúantÕsÕnda, bilim ve inceleme alanlarÕnda.”10 Sözcük eksikli÷ini yenmek için, yarkurul, dili úöyle geniúletme görevini yüklendi: 1. Yahudili÷in geleneksel kaynaklarÕndan alÕnacak sözcükler: Tevrat, Miúna ve Gemara’dan. 2. Öteki Semitik dillerden, özellikle Arapça’dan, alÕnacak sözcük ve kökler

 7

ay, s. 2. Örne÷in, Shim'on Bernfeld, 'Mannihei Ha-Lashon', Ha-Academia La-Lashon HaIvrit, Leket Te'udot Le-Toldot Va'ad Ha-Lashon Ve-Ha- Academia La-Lashon Ha'Ivrit, Jerusalem 1970, ss. 135-138 9 “Semitic Languages”, The Encyclopaedia Britanica, C. 24, 1911, s. 622. 10 Ha-Academia La-Lashon Ha-'Ivrit, Zikhronot Va'ad Ha-Lashon Ha-'Ivrit, A, Jerusalem 1912, ss. 11-12. 8

øbranice’nin Yeniden CanlanmasÕ

103

Yarkurul, kaynak olarak Semitik olmayan ‘yabancÕ sözcükler’ kullanmayaca÷ÕnÕ açÕkladÕ.11 Aramice birçok dua ve kültürel belge bu dilde yazÕldÕ÷Õ için Yahudi dinine daha yakÕn olsa da Ben-Yehuda ile arkadaúlarÕ øbranice sözda÷arcÕ÷ÕnÕ geniúletmek için, aúa÷Õdaki nedenlerden dolayÕ, Aramice’yi de÷il Arapça’yÕ ye÷lediler: 1. Arapça Semitik bir dildir ve øbranice’ye yakÕndÕr. 2. Ortaça÷da derlenmiú Yahudi kaynaklarÕnÕn büyük bölümü Arapça yazÕlmÕútÕr. 3. Ben-Yehuda’nÕn zamanÕnda, Arapça, Kudüs’teki Yahudi nüfus için yabancÕ bir dil sayÕlmazdÕ. AyrÕca, Arapça Kudüs’te ve ülkenin her yanÕnda yaúayan halk arasÕnda baúka dillerle birlikte yaygÕn olarak kullanÕlmaktaydÕ. 4. Ben-Yehuda ile arkadaúlarÕ yeni øbranice’nin Tevrat’tan gelen Semitik kayna÷Õna ba÷lÕ kalmasÕnÕ istiyorlardÕ. Onlara göre, Yahudi halkÕnÕn atalarÕnÕn eski øbranicesi için Arapça bir örnek olmalÕydÕ.12 Bütün bu nedenler, ArapçayÕ, Yeni øbranice’nin yaúayan Semitik bir dil olabilmesi için en iyi model yapÕyordu. Böylece, kimi Arapça sözcükler Ben-Yehuda ve arkadaúlarÕnca benimsendi ve øbranice’de günümüze kadar kullanÕldÕ: Avzam = kemer tokasÕ (Ar) /ibzi:m/ Adi:v = kibar (Ar) /adi:b/ Bubba = bebek (Ar) /bu’bu’/ (gözün bebe÷i)13 Boreg = vida (Ar) /burghi:/ Rishmi= (Ar) /rasmi:/

Itamar Ben Avi 1882’de Ben-Yehuda’nÕn o÷lu Ben-Zion Itamar do÷du. Ben-Yehuda dil görüúü konusunda öyle inatçÕydÕ ki o÷luyla kimsenin øbranice dÕúÕnda bir dille konuúmasÕna izin vermiyordu. Itamar’Õn annesi øbranice’yi do÷al biçimde konuúamÕyordu. Bir yandan, øbranice bir konuúma dili de÷ildi; öte yandan da anne ile çocu÷u arasÕndaki konuúmanÕn gerektirdi÷i sözcüklerden yoksundu. Bu yüzden, çocuk epeyce geç bir yaú olan dördünde ancak konuúmaya baúladÕ. Itamar Ben Avi (Eliezer BenYehuda’nÕn o÷lu Itamar’Õn takma adÕ) yazdÕ÷Õ anÕlarÕnda konuúmaya nasÕl

 11

ay, s. 14. Eliezer Ben Yehuda, A Complete Dictionary of Ancient and Modern Hebrew, Ha-Mavo Ha-Gadol s. 13. 13 FransÕzca: poupée. 12

104

Besinci Bölüm

baúladÕ÷ÕnÕ anlatÕr. Dedi÷ine göre, bir gün babasÕ evde de÷ilmiú ve annesi dalgÕnlÕkla anadili olan Rusça bir ninni söylemeye baúlamÕú. Birden babasÕ içeri girip bunu duymuú. KarÕsÕnÕn øbranice de÷il de Rusça ninni söylemesine öyle kÕzmÕú ki olayÕn gerisini Itamar úöyle anlatÕyor: “BabamÕ büyük bir öfke içinde, annemi de üzüntü ve gözyaúlarÕna bo÷ulmuú olarak görünce, dilsizli÷im sona erdi ve birden konuúmaya baúladÕm.14 Itamar dünyada øbranice’yi anadili olarak konuúan ilk çocuk olarak bilinir. Büyüyüp gazeteci ve babasÕ gibi dilbilimci olmuú ve bugün øbranice’de kullanÕlan birçok sözcük türetmiútir. Örne÷in, ‘ba÷ÕmsÕzlÕk’, ‘otomobil’, ‘sinema’, ‘topaç’ sözcüklerinin karúÕlÕklarÕ gibi. ølginç bir ayrÕntÕ: Itamar Ben Avi, 20. yüzyÕlÕn baúlarÕnda Kudüs’te Atatürk ile karúÕlaúmÕú. Atatürk gibi, Itamar Ben-Avi de Latin abecesinin kullanÕlmasÕnÕ savunuyordu. øbrani harflerinin Latin harfleriyle de÷iútirilmesi ça÷rÕsÕnÕ yapmÕú ve Latin abecesiyle bir øbranice gazete yayÕnlamÕútÕr.

Ö÷retmenlerin rolü øbranice’nin o dönemde Filistin’deki Yahudi toplum içinde yayÕlÕp yaúayan bir dil haline gelmesinde en büyük katkÕlardan birini yapan Ö÷retmenler Birli÷i’dir. 1903’te yeni yeni güçlenmeye baúlayan bu örgüt, øsrail’deki Yahudi halkÕnÕn tarihinde bir dönüm noktasÕ olacak olan bir karar aldÕ: Yahudi okullarÕnda øbranice’nin tek ö÷retim dili olarak kullanÕlmasÕnÕ sa÷lamak. Hiçbir bilgi alanÕ için uygun sözcükler yokken (ne matematik ne co÷rafya için), ö÷retmenler øbranice ö÷retimde diretti.15 AçÕktÕr ki, siyasal ba÷ÕmsÕzlÕk arayan bir ulus kültürel ba÷ÕmsÕzlÕ÷ÕnÕ da güvenceye almalÕdÕr. Ama bu karar ya çok safçaydÕ ya da çok cesur. Yine de sonradan gördüklerimize dayanarak söyleyebiliriz ki, okulda yalnÕzca øbranice konuúmak her yönüyle bir ba÷ÕmsÕzlÕk bildirgesidir. Bu, øsrail halkÕnÕn o andan sonra yaúamlarÕnda kültürlerine temel olarak kendi dillerini kullanacaklarÕ anlamÕna gelmektedir. E÷itim sistemi øbranice’yi yaúamÕn dili olarak ele alÕnca, øbranice okullar kuruldu, øbranice yeni kitaplar ve çocuk úarkÕlarÕ yazÕldÕ. Ö÷retmenler ö÷rencilerini yalnÕzca øbranice kullanmalarÕ için uyardÕlar. Çocuklar, anadillerini bÕrakÕp øbranice konuúmada anne ve babalarÕnÕ

 14

Itamar Ben Avi, 'Im Shahar 'Atsma'utenu, 2, Jerusalem 1961, s. 18 Protocol Ha-Asefa Ha-Rishona Sefer Ha-Yovel Shel Histadrut Ha-Morim (Ed. D. Kimhi) Tel-Aviv 1929, s. 382

15

øbranice’nin Yeniden CanlanmasÕ

105

teúvik ettiler. Burada ilginç bir olgu ortaya çÕktÕ: Okullarda øbranice ö÷retim sürdükçe, çocuklar yalnÕzca øbranice iúitip konuútukça, kendileri de evlerinde anne ve babalarÕna øbranice ö÷rettiler. YaúlÕ kuúak, dili genç kuúaktan ö÷rendi.

Bir úarkÕ: YalnÕz øbranice16 YalnÕz øbranice! YalnÕz øbranice! YalnÕz yalnÕz øbranice! YalnÕz øbranice, øbranice! øbranice, øbranice, øbranice! Konuútu÷unda –øbranice, Bir úey söyledi÷inde –øbranice, Öfkelendi÷inde –øbranice, Sakinleúti÷inde –øbranice, Dükkândayken –øbranice, Sürgündeyken –øbranice, Ders çalÕúÕrken –øbranice, øú yaparken –øbranice, Kentte –øbranice, Tarlada –øbranice, Otururken –øbranice, Yürürken –øbranice, YattÕ÷Õnda –øbranice, KalktÕ÷Õnda –øbranice. Sonuç olarak, Yahudi kamuoyu bu konuda gittikçe daha fazla istekli olmaya baúladÕ. Sonunda, 1909 yÕlÕnda Tel-Aviv kuruldu÷unda, bir kent olarak daha iúlemeye baúlar baúlamaz, øbranice’nin kent yaúantÕsÕnda tek resmi dil olaca÷Õ anlaúÕlmÕútÕ.17

 16

Kadish Yehuda Silman tarafÕndan øbranice olarak yazÕlmÕútÕr, 1928. Zohar Shavit, 'Tel-Avivi Dabber 'Ivrit,' Panim-Ketav 'Et Le-Tarbut, Hevra VeHinnukh, 45 (2008), ss. 50-64.

17

106

Besinci Bölüm

øbranice: Yaúayan bir dil øbranice Dili Yarkurulunun baúta gelen iki üyesi olan Ben-Yehuda ile David Yelin 1922’de Filistin Yüksek Komiseri Sir Herbert Samuel’e baúvurarak, øngilizce ve Arapça yanÕnda, øbranice’nin de resmi dil olarak kabul edilmesini istedi. Yetkililer bu iste÷i kabul etti ve øbranice’yi ülkenin resmi dillerinden biri olarak benimsedi.18 Ben-Yehuda, 16 AralÕk 1922’de, bu kararÕn verilmesinin beúinci ayÕ dolmadan, düúü gerçekleúmiú olarak yaúama gözlerini yumdu. Bütün olumsuz koúullara karúÕn, øbranice üstün gelmiúti. UNESCO 2009 yÕlÕnda Ben-Yehuda’nÕn adÕnÕn, dünya tarihine özgün katkÕsÕ olanlar listesine eklenmesine karar verdi. KatkÕsÕ özgündü elbette: øsrail’de halk artÕk øbranice konuúuyor, øbranice yaratÕyor ve øbranice konuúan yeni kuúaklar yetiútiriyor.

 18

H. Merhavia, Ha-Ziyyonut, Otzar Ha-Te'udot Ha-Politiyyot, Jerusalem 1943, s. 214



ALTINCI BÖLÜM DøL SAVAùI: SAVAù ÖNCESø FøLøSTøN’øNDE øBRANøCE VE ÖTEKø DøLLER DENNIS KURZON1 1. Önsöz ‘Dil SavaúÕ’ terimi –1. Dünya SavaúÕndan önce– Hayfa’daki Carmel Da÷ÕnÕn eteklerinde kurulan Technikum teknoloji yüksek okulunda ö÷retim dili üzerine çÕkan bir çatÕúmayÕ anlatÕr. Bu ‘savaú’ta sözü geçen diller, ne Güney Suriye’de (Filistin –Eretz Israel) yaúayanlarÕn ço÷unlu÷unun dili olan Arapça’ydÕ ne de 1. Dünya SavaúÕnÕn sonuna kadar bu çevreye egemen olan OsmanlÕ ømparatorlu÷unun dili olan Türkçe’ydi. Bu savaú, Kudüs’teki Eski Yishuv, Safed, Hebron ve Tiberias’te yaúayan Yahudi Ashkenazi toplulu÷unun dili olan Yidiú de de÷ildi. Sephardi Yahudileri ço÷unlukla Arapça konuúurlardÕ. Savaú bir yanda yalnÕz Yahudiler’in kutsal dili olmayÕp aynÕ zamanda, konumuzla daha ba÷lantÕlÕ olarak, Filistin’de yaúayan Siyonistler’in konuúma dili de olan øbranice ile öte yanda Almanca ile ilgiliydi. FransÕzca da dolaylÕ olarak iúin içine giriyordu. ‘Savaú’a karÕúan ve onu etkileyen üç örgüt vardÕ: øbranice Dili Yarkurulu (Va’ad ha-Lashon ha-Ivrit), Ö÷retmenler Birli÷i (Ichud haMorim, ki sonradan 1928’de Histadrut ha-Morim oldu) ve Alman Yahudi YardÕm Kuruluúu (Hilfsverein der deutschen Juden). øbranice Dili Yarkurulu 1904’te, ilk kurulan ve kÕsa bir süre sonra sonra kapanan yarkuruldan on üç yÕl sonra kurulmuútur. Yarkurulun amaçlarÕ úunlardÕ: 1. øbranice’yi yaúamÕn her alanÕnda, evde, okulda, günlük yaúantÕda, alÕúveriúte, ticarette, meslek yaúantÕsÕnda, sanat bilim ve inceleme alanlarÕnda kullanmak için hazÕrlamak. 2. Dilin do÷u kökenini ve kendine özgü temel biçimini, harflerin telaffuzu, sözcük yapÕsÕ ve üslup olarak koruyarak, ça÷daú insan düúüncesini eksiksiz olarak anlatabilecek esnekli÷i katmak.

 1

Prof. Dr. Haifa Üniversitesi, øsrail. [email protected]

108

Altinci Bölüm

‘Yeni øbranice’nin babasÕ’ olarak bilinen Eliezer Ben-Yehuda 1912 yÕlÕnda Yarkurulun ilk baúkanÕ oldu ve 1922 yÕlÕnda ölene kadar baúkan olarak kaldÕ. Yahudi nüfusu øbranice konuúmaya ikna etmek için el kitaplarÕ ve posterler hazÕrlandÕ. øyi bilinen bir poster úöyle diyordu: “Yahudi – øbranice konuú!” (Yehudi – Daber Ivrit!) Ö÷retmenler Birli÷i, Siyonist örgüt Hovevei Zion’un önderlerinden biri olan Menahem Ussishkin tarafÕndan 1903 yÕlÕnda Filistin’in ortasÕnda, denize yakÕn bir yerleúim birimi olan Zichron Yaakov’daki bir ö÷retmenler toplantÕsÕnda kuruldu. Bu örgütün üyesi olan ö÷retmenler, Filistin’deki Yahudi nüfus için e÷itim kurumlarÕnda kesin olarak øbranice kullanÕlmasÕnÕ destekliyorlardÕ. øbranice için gösteriler düzenlediler (aúa÷Õda 4.2’ye bakÕn). E÷itimin önemli adlarÕndan biri ve Kudüs ö÷retmenler seminerinde ö÷retmen olan David Yellin, ‘dil savaúÕ’ sÕrasÕnda seminerdeki görevinden istifa ederek, batÕ Kudüs’teki Bet HaKerem’de yeni bir ö÷retmenler semineri kurdu. Bu seminer bugün hâlâ varlÕ÷ÕnÕ sürdürmekte ve Yellin’in adÕnÕ taúÕmaktadÕr. Alman kökenli Alman Yahudi YardÕm Kuruluúu (Hilfsverein der deutschen Juden) 1901’de Berlin’de kuruldu ve zengin bir pamuk tüccarÕ olan Dr. Paul Nathan tarafÕndan yönetildi. AmaçlarÕ úunlardÕ: 1. Do÷u Avrupa’daki Yahudiler’in durumlarÕnÕ düzeltmek. 2. OsmanlÕ ømparatorlu÷u’nda FransÕzca kaynaklÕ Alliance Israélite Universelle (bak. 3) benzeri bir e÷itim sistemi geliútirmek

2. ‘Savaú’Õn kökenleri ‘Dil savaúÕ’ denen tartÕúmanÕn kökeni 1908 yÕlÕnda Hilfsverein’in Hayfa yakÕnlarÕndaki Carmel’de bir toprak satÕn alÕp Technikum adÕyla bir ortaö÷retim okulu ve yüksekokul içeren bir e÷itim kurumu kurmak için Wissotzky VakfÕyla anlaúmasÕyla patlak verdi. Topra÷Õ satÕn almak için Hilfsverein adÕna pazarlÕk yapan iki kiúiden biri Berlin’de yaúayan ve Siyonist akÕmÕn etkin adlarÕndan biri olan Shmaryahu Levin, öteki de Filistin’de Hilfsverein’in mülkiyetindeki Lämel Okulunun yöneticisi olan Ephraim Cohn-Reiss idi. Sonunda üzerine birkaç tane bina yapÕlabilecek büyüklükte uygun bir yer buldular. Buraya úunlar yapÕlacaktÕ: Technikum’un kendisi, bir ortaö÷retim okulu ya da Reali Okulu (bugün Haifa’da baúka bir yerde hâlâ varlÕ÷ÕnÕ sürdüren), (Hayfa dÕúÕndan gelen ö÷renciler için) bir yatÕlÕ okul, bir su kuyusu, atölyeler ve Hilfsverein ofisleri. Planlama izni için baúvurdular, ama Araplar’Õn projeye gazetelerde yayÕnlanan karúÕ çÕkÕúlarÕ nedeniyle, izin ancak 1911 AralÕ÷Õnda çÕkabildi (Ben Artzi 1988). Bu yeni okuldaki ö÷retim dili, zamanÕn bilim dili olan Almanca’ydÕ (bak. 4).

Dil SavaúÕ: Savaú Öncesi Filistin’inde øbranice ve Öteki Diller

109

Yerel Yahudi nüfusu (Yishuvlar) øbranice konuúmaya ikna etme kampanyasÕna benzer olarak, Technikum binalarÕnÕn yapÕlmasÕnda oldu÷u gibi, öteki binalarÕn yapÕmÕnda da yalnÕzca Yahudi iúçiler tutulmasÕ teúvik edildi. øúin sürmesi sÕrasÕnda, iúçiler inúaat konusunda de÷iúik beceriler kazandÕlar (Ben-Artzi 1988). 11 Nisan 1912’de, Technikum’un açÕlÕú töreni yapÕldÕ. Törene baúkalarÕnÕn yanÕnda Hayfa’daki Alman konsolosu olan Julius LoytvedHardegg de katÕldÕ. Onun varlÕ÷Õ, sanki bütün projenin Alman korumasÕ altÕnda oldu÷u izlenimini verdi. Projenin do÷uda Deutschtum’Õ (Duden sözlü÷ünde as “tipik Alman nitelikleri, Alman kimli÷i” olarak tanÕmlanÕyor.), yani Alman çÕkarlarÕnÕn desteklenmesini sa÷layaca÷Õna inanÕlÕyordu. Loytved-Hardegg heyecanlÕ biçimde øbranice’nin yazÕlÕ bir dilden sözlü bir dile dönüúü üzerinde konuútu. Ama o yalnÕzca ortaça÷da Orta Yüksek Almanca’nÕn bir diyeleki olarak ortaya çÕkmÕú olan Yidiú dilini konuúan Do÷u AvrupalÕ Yahudiler’i tanÕyordu. Yahudiler’in Alman mallarÕ ile Alman kültürünü ye÷leyeceklerine inanÕyordu. AyrÕca, Siyonist Örgüt’ün, onun Die Welt gazetesinin ve görevi Filistin’de yaúayan Yahudiler için toprak satÕn almak olan Yahudi Ulusal Fonu’nun merkezleri hep Berlin’deydi. Loytved-Hardegg, bunun yanÕnda, önerilen yüksekokulu “tam bir Yahudi giriúimi” olarak gördü÷ü için Hilfsverein’in Siyonist ülkülerden daha çok haberli olmasÕ gerekti÷ini ve yüksekokulun Alman dili ve bilimini yaymaya katkÕda bulunaca÷ÕnÕ düúünüyordu. ùöyle dedi÷i söylenir: “Ne Berlin’in ne de Filistin’deki konsoloslu÷un øbranice ö÷retimin zararÕna olarak Alman kültürünü dayatmak gibi bir niyeti yoktur.” (Friedman 1977:161’den alÕntÕ). Bu, Hayfa’daki konsoloslu÷un görüúü olabilir, ama genel olarak Almanlar’Õn Technikum’a olan ilgisi sÕnÕrlÕydÕ ve Siyonistler’in gözünü korkutmuyordu. Siyonistler’deki, Technikum’un bir Alman kurumuna dönüúmesi kaygÕsÕ abartÕlÕ bir düúünceydi. Ama Hilfsverein yanlÕlarÕ Alman kültürüne olan destekleri ve OsmanlÕ tepkisinden korkmalarÕ dolayÕsÕyla (OsmanlÕ’nÕn Siyonizm’e karúÕ oldu÷u düúünülüyordu), Siyonistler’le iliúki kurmama gibi bir politika benimsediler. Buna karúÕn, østanbul’da 1908 yÕlÕnda yönetime gelen øttihat ve Terakki Cemiyeti (øTC, “Genç Türkler”) (Ahmad 2010), Siyonist akÕmda yükselen Arap ülkülerine karúÕ bir a÷ÕrlÕk görmüú olabilir. Yeni øçiúleri BakanÕ Talat Bey, Filistin’deki göç sÕnÕrlamalarÕnÕ kaldÕrdÕ ve toprak satÕn almaya iliúkin düzenlemeleri de÷iútirdi. OsmanlÕ yönetimini ele geçirmelerinden 1. Dünya SavaúÕna kadar olan altÕ yÕl içinde, Filistin’e 6.000 Yahudi yerleúti ve ne kentsel geliúmede ne de tarÕmsal yerleúim birimlerinde hiçbir sÕnÕrlama yoktu. Friedman’Õn yazdÕ÷Õna göre (1977:167), daha da ötesi, Siyonist akÕma ve onlarÕn Filistin’deki

110

Altinci Bölüm

eylemlerine destek de vardÕ –yeter ki “onlar OsmanlÕ yurttaúlÕ÷ÕnÕ benimsemiú olsunlar.” Friedman’Õn kitabÕnÕ yazdÕ÷Õ sÕralarda (1977), OsmanlÕ arúivleri incelenmemiú olsa da hem Almanlar hem de Türkler Siyonizm’da “kendi çÕkarlarÕ için belli avantajlar” görüyorlardÕ (p. 167). øúin tuhaf yanÕ, Siyonistler’in esas karúÕtlarÕ øTC yönetimine yakÕn olan Yahudiler’di. Bu, øTC yönetimine yakÕn olan Araplar, Ermeniler ve baúka milliyetten olanlarÕn bu yakÕnlÕ÷Õ kullanarak kendi milliyetlerinden olanlara yardÕm etmesinin tersi bir durumdu. Üç Yahudi özellikle dikkati çekiyordu: Selanik’ten gelen bir avukat ve mason olan Emanuel Carasso; yine Selanik’ten olan ve Siyonizm’i “bölücü bir siyasal akÕm” (Landau 1983:203) olarak gören, imparatorlu÷un birli÷ini tehdit eden ve Yahudi düúmanlÕ÷ÕnÕ artÕran bir akÕm olarak gören Moise Cohen. Üçüncü kiúi, (Türkiye’nin Ege bölgesinde bir il olan Manisa’da do÷muú) 1908’de hahambaúÕ olarak atanarak (1920’ye kadar) FransÕzlar’Õ sevindirip Almanlar’Õ kaygÕlandÕran Haim Nahoum’dur (bak. 3). øTC yöneticilerini Siyonistler’e ve onlarÕn eylemlerine karúÕ “tepkilerini yumuúatmaya” ikna etmek için Siyonist Örgüt’ün temsilcileri kendisiyle görüúmüúse de o “Siyonizm’e ve bu akÕmÕn OsmanlÕ ømparatorlu÷u için yarattÕ÷ÕnÕ düúündü÷ü tehlikelere karúÕ tekrar tekrar kesin ve açÕk direnme göstermiútir (Landau 1983).

3. FransÕzlar ve Alliance Israélite Universelle ‘Dil SavaúÕ’na dolaylÕ olarak karÕúan dilin FransÕzca oldu÷unu daha önce söylemiútim. FransÕzlar OsmanlÕ ømparatorlu’nun da÷ÕlmasÕ durumunda, Suriye’yi denetim altÕnda tutmak istiyorlardÕ. Co÷rafi yönden, Suriye, Filistin’i ve günümüzdeki Lübnan’Õ içeriyordu, çünkü Suriye ile Filistin’in farklÕlÕ÷Õ hiçbir zaman “açÕk olarak” kabul edilmemiúti (Friedman 1977:167). Bu yüzden, yerel halk için oldu÷u gibi, OsmanlÕlar için de Filistin, Güney Suriye anlamÕna geliyordu. FransÕzlar, FransÕz dili ile kültürünün yayÕlmasÕnÕ ve kiúilere yüksek saygÕnlÕk sa÷lamasÕnÕ teúvik ederek “büyük siyasal ve ekonomik yarar” sa÷ladÕlar (s. 163). Yahudi örgütlere gelince, Alliance Israélite Universelle, Hilfsverein’den 40 yÕl kadar önce, ortado÷unun Yahudiler’inin FransÕz kültürü ve e÷itimi aracÕlÕ÷Õyla geliútirilmesi amacÕyla, Adolphe Crémieux tarafÕndan 1860 yÕlÕnda kurulmuútur. Almanya’nÕn ve Hilfsverein’in karúÕ çÕkmasÕna karúÕn, 1908 yÕlÕnda Haim Nahoum Efendi Türkiye’nin hahambaúÕ olunca, østanbul’daki FransÕz yanlÕlarÕ bir zafer kazanmÕú oldu (bak. 2). FransÕz Büyükelçili÷i öteki yabancÕ misyonlarÕ Yahudiler’in Filistin’de toprak satÕn almasÕ üzerindeki sÕnÕrlandÕrmalarÕn kaldÕrÕlmasÕnÕ istemeye davet etti; FransÕzlar artÕk do÷udaki Yahudi çÕkarlarÕnÕ korumaya hazÕrdÕlar.

Dil SavaúÕ: Savaú Öncesi Filistin’inde øbranice ve Öteki Diller

111

4. “Savaú” 1911 yÕlÕnda Ö÷retmenler Birli÷i øbranice’nin Hilfsverein okullarÕnda Almanca’nÕn lehine geri çekildi÷ini ileri sürdü ve bunun için Lämel Okulunun yöneticisi Cohn-Reiss’i suçlayarak, onun “‘Alman Hükümetinin gizli baskÕsÕna’ boyun e÷di÷inden kuúkulandÕklarÕnÕ” söyledi (Friedman 1977:175). Ama Cohn-Reiss okullarda øbraniceleúme’ye karúÕ de÷ildi, çünkü Hilfsverein okullarÕnda øbranice’yi kendi baúlatmÕútÕ, ama bunun daha yavaú yapÕlmasÕ gerekti÷ine inanÕyordu. Ö÷retmenler Birli÷i’nin Hilfsverein okullarÕna karúÕ çÕkÕúÕ yalnÕzca yerleúim yerlerince ve aydÕnlarca desteklendi (Friedman 1977:177). Hilfsverein’e ve onun Deutschtum iste÷ine karúÕ çÕkÕú, öz olarak Almanca’ya karúÕ çÕkÕú mÕdÕr sorusu sorulabilir. Böyle olmasÕ için bir neden yoktu. ÇatÕúma, Filistin’deki Siyonist örgütler ile Alman hükümeti arasÕnda de÷il, Siyonistler’le Hilfsverein arasÕndaydÕ. Kudüs’teki KÕzlar Okulunun baúö÷retmeni Bayan Vera Pinczower’in Alman baúkonsolosu Edmund Schmidt’e bu kÕnamanÕn ve daha sonraki ö÷retmenler grevinin (aúa÷Õya bakÕnÕz) Almanca karúÕtÕ bir eylem olarak görülmemesi gerekti÷ini söyledi÷i bildirilmiútir Do÷rusu, Almanca, yabancÕ bir dil olarak açÕkça teúvik ediliyordu. (Friedman 1977:183). Baúta gelen Siyonistler’den biri olan Chaim Weizman, kültürel Siyonizm’in öncülerinden olan (ve Ahad Ha’am olarak bilinen) Asher Ginsburg ile birlikte, 1. Dünya SavaúÕnda, Yahudiler’in “Alman ya da FransÕz de÷il, øbrani olduklarÕnÕ ve bizim øbrani kültürümüzü destekleyenler, karúÕlÕ÷Õnda bizim deste÷imizi de alÕrlar,” (s. 185) demiúti. øbrani yanlÕsÕ olmak, Alman karúÕtÕ olmak de÷ildir. 1913 ilkbaharÕnda, ortaö÷retim okulunun tamamÕ, yüksekokulun da büyük bölümü bitirilmiúti. Kurumun, o yÕlÕn sonbaharÕnda açÕlmasÕ planlanmÕútÕ. ‘Savaú’ hemen sonra patlak verdi. Neden? Almanca’nÕn ö÷retim dili olarak seçilmesinden dolayÕ. Hilfsverein’den Paul Nathan dil seçimini ilke sorunu olarak görmüyordu. Herhangi bir alanÕn ö÷retim dili, ö÷retmen ve ö÷rencilerin ortak diline göre belirlenecekti. Hilfsverein yönetiminin 1913 ekim ayÕndaki bir toplantÕsÕnda –Siyonist üyelerin isteklerine karúÕ olarak– yüksekokulda øbranice, Türkçe, øngilizce ve FransÕzca’nÕn ö÷retilmesine ve teknik ve bilimsel konularda Almanca’nÕn ö÷retim dili olarak kullanÕlmasÕna karar verildi. 1913 kasÕmÕnda Technikum binalarÕnÕn yakÕnÕnda, sonra da Kudüs’te yapÕlan büyük bir gösteriden sonra, Almanca’nÕn yalnÕzca teknik alanla sÕnÕrlanmasÕna karar verildi, ama artÕk geç kalÕnmÕútÕ. Hilfsverein’in duruúuna karúÕ çÕkan gösterilerden birkaçÕna bir göz atalÕm:

112

Altinci Bölüm

4.1. Ö÷renci tepkileri Lämel Okuluna ba÷lÕ olan Kudüz ö÷retmenler semineri ö÷rencileri arasÕnda görüldü÷ü gibi, Filistin’deki ö÷renci toplulu÷u çok etkindi (Rinot 1972). øki kesim vardÕ: Birincisi, øbranice’nin Almanca’dan sonra ikinci planda kaldÕ÷Õ Lämel Okulunda okuyup seminerin gösterdi÷i yola boyun e÷miú genç Kudüslülerdi. økincisi ise (ço÷u Do÷u Avrupa’dan Siyonist olarak gelmiú) kendine “Ruslar” denen kesimdi. Bunlar Lämel’de okumamÕúlar ve øbrani yenilenmesi ve kültüründe etkin konumdaydÕlar. AyrÕca, Alman ve Avusturya ulusal marúlarÕnÕn, imparatorlarÕn do÷umgününde çalÕnmasÕna ve okul yöneticisi ile ötekilerin, Yahudi olmayan Alman ö÷retmenlere boyun e÷melerine de karúÕ çÕkÕyorlardÕ. Bu toplulu÷a daha sonra Lämel’de okumamÕú ama daha önceleri yeshivot’tan (hahamlÕk seminerlerinden) geçmiú olanlar da katÕldÕ. Tel Aviv ve Kudüs’teki yüksekö÷retim ö÷rencileri Ahad Ha’am’a bir mektup gönderdiler. Mektupta úunlar yazÕyordu: Ülkemizde konuúma ve ö÷retim için yalnÕzca øbranice’nin kullanÕlabilece÷ini ve kullanÕlmasÕ gerekti÷ini bütün dünyaya kanÕtladÕk; ülkemizde kurulmakta olan tek yüksekö÷retim kurumuna büyük umut ba÷ladÕk. E÷itimimizi sürdürmek ve tam øbranice bir e÷itim alma umuduyla sevinçliyiz – TECHNION’UN DøLø øBRANøCE OLABøLøR VE OLMALI!

4.2. Toplu halk gösterileri 1913 kasÕmÕnÕn ortalarÕnda, Kudüs’te Lämel okulunun karúÕsÕnda bir gösteri açÕkhava gösterisi düzenlendi. Buna Yishuv’un Filistin’deki öncü kiúileri katÕldÕ. Bunlar aúa÷Õdaki posterde görülebilir (Shilo 1995):

Dil SavaúÕ: Savaú Öncesi Filistin’inde øbranice ve Öteki Diller

113

BÜYÜK HALK GÖSTERøSø Bu gece [19 KasÕm 1913], saat 8’de Beit Ha’am Bahçesinde Lämel Okulu karúÕsÕnda Yishuv øbrani yerleúim biriminde øbrani dili KonuúmacÕlar: Tel Aviv Belediye BaúkanÕ M[eir]. Yazar Dizengoff S[imha]. øsrail ülkesinde øbranice e÷itimin sürdürülmesi için kurulan Yafo yarkurulu adÕna Ö÷retmenler Merkezi adÕna Dr. B[enzion] Mosenson ve Kudüs’ten baúkalarÕ ToplantÕ BaúkanÕ: Eliezer Ben Yehuda Kudüs Geçici Yarkurulu

Jaffa’daki Ezra (‘yardÕm’, Hilfsverein’in øbranice adÕ) Okulundaki ö÷rencilerin anne ve babalarÕ, okullarÕndaki ö÷retim dilinin øbranice olmasÕ için diretiyorlar ve aúa÷Õdaki posterde görüldü÷ü gibi, okuldan ayrÕlmakla tehdit ediyorlardÕ (agy).

114

Altinci Bölüm

Yafo’daki [Jaffa] Ezra Okulundaki ö÷rencilerin anne ve babalarÕ verdi÷i kararlar: 1. Biz aúa÷Õda imzalarÕ bulunanlar, çocuklarÕmÕzÕ Ezra Okulundan alÕp koúullarÕmÕz yerine getirilmedikçe onlarÕ geri getirmeyece÷imize söz veriyoruz. 2. Berlin’deki Ezra’ya imzalarÕmÕzÕ içeren bir telgraf gönderilecek ve Ezra Derne÷inden okuldaki ö÷retim dilinin yalnÕzca øbranice olmasÕnÕ isteyece÷iz ve telgrafla yanÕt bekleyece÷iz. SalÕ gününe kadar yanÕtÕ bekleyece÷iz. 3. KararlarÕn yerine getirilmesini dizlemek için beú anne-babadan oluúan bir yarkurul seçilmiútir. E÷er Ezra isteklerimizi kabul etmezse, bu yarkurul, Ö÷retmenler Merkezi ile birlikte hareket ederek gecikmeksizin bir okul açÕlmasÕnÕ sa÷layacaktÕr.

4.3. AúÕrÕ Gelenekçiler ve ‘Savaú’Õn Sonu 1914 yÕlÕnda Yiúuv’da, ö÷retmenlerin gerçekleútirdi÷i ilk grev yapÕldÕ. Bu grev, genel olarak ö÷retmen grevlerinden beklendi÷i gibi, ücret isteklerine iliúkin de÷ildi ve dil savaúÕnÕn bir parçasÕydÕ. Hilfsverein’in baúö÷retmeni Dr Nathan, Filistin’e yaptÕ÷Õ bir ziyarette, Eski Yishuv’un ayÕrÕ gelenekçi Yahudiler’inin Hilfsverein’a duyduklarÕ yakÕnlÕk nedeniyle

Dil SavaúÕ: Savaú Öncesi Filistin’inde øbranice ve Öteki Diller

115

greve genel bir deste÷in olmayaca÷ÕnÕ düúünüyordu. Ama durumu yanlÕú anlamÕútÕ: AúÕrÕ gelenekçiler øbranice’nin dindÕúÕ konularda kullanÕlmasÕna karúÕ olmakla kalmayÕp, aynÕ zamanda Hilfsverein okullarÕnda sunulan ça÷daú e÷itime de karúÕydÕlar (Friedman 1977:176). Bu durum, çocuklarÕn øbranice konuúulan e÷itim kurumlarÕna gönderildi÷i daha önceki örneklerde görülebilir. 1898 yÕlÕnda, (Jaffa yakÕnlarÕndaki) Rishon LeZion’da øbranice ö÷retim yapÕlan ilk anaokulu açÕldÕ ve bundan beú yÕl sonra 1903 yÕlÕnda øbranice ö÷retim yapÕlan bir anaokulu Kudüs’te açÕldÕ. Bu durum, aúÕrÕ gelenekçi topluluklarÕn astÕklarÕ posterlerle tepki gördü. Bu posterlerde, çocuklarÕn dinsel metinleri øbranice olarak ö÷rendikleri, ama ö÷retmen ve ö÷rencilerin øbranice de÷il Yidiú dili konuútuklarÕ kurumlar olan heder ve Talmud, Tevrat’tan uzaklaútÕrmak anlamÕna gelecece÷i için, insanlar çocuklarÕnÕ böyle bir anaokuluna göndermemeleri için uyarÕlÕyordu. Bu baúkalarÕ yanÕnda, David Yellin (bak. 1) ve Ö÷retmenler Derne÷inin birinci sekreteri Yeshayahu Press’in de aúa÷Õdaki posterle yanÕtlandÕ: Bu küçük çocuklarÕn avlularda ve yollarda toz toprak ve çöpler içerisinde yuvarlanmasÕnÕ önlemek için bir anaokulu kurduk… Kral Süleyman’Õn “Çocu÷u gitmesi gereken yola göre yetiútir” (Meseller 22,7) sözüne uyarak, küçük çocuklarÕ tanÕnmÕú e÷itimcilerin ve çocuk bakÕcÕlarÕnÕn gözetimi altÕnda geniú odalarda bir araya getirmek için bir anaokulu açtÕk. Onlara anneleri gibi merhametli olun, yük olarak de÷il neúe ile onlara okumayÕ ö÷retirken onlarÕ e÷lendirin ve hoúnut edin. (Hasson 2012) Daha sonra 1914 yÕlÕ a÷ustos ayÕnda 1. Dünya SavaúÕ patlak verdi ve bu ‘Dil SavaúÕ’nÕn sonunu getirdi. Her iki savaúÕn da uzun süreli etkileri oldu: 1. Dünya SavaúÕnÕn sona erdi÷inde, Alman, Avusturya- Macaristan, Rusya ve OsmanlÕ ømparatorluklarÕ yÕkÕlmÕú ve Avrupa’da Çekoslovakya, Yugoslavya gibi yeni ulus devletler oluúturulmuútu. ‘Dil SavaúÕ’nÕn” sona ermesi de øbranicenin Filistin’de yaúayan Yahudilerin ulusal dili olarak yerleúmiú oldu÷u anlamÕna gelmiútir (Yishuv).

5. øsrail’deki öteki ‘dil savaúlarÕ’ 5.1. Yidiú Filistin’deki Yahudi nüfus içinde ve 1948’den sonra øsrail’de baúka dil savaúlarÕ da olmuútur. BunlarÕn baúlÕcalarÕndan biri de øbranice ile Yidiú arasÕndaydÕ. Ama bu savaú Filistin’de de÷il, Do÷ru Avrupa’da Siyonistler ile Bundistler –Yahudi øúçi SendikasÕ (Yidiú ve Almanca’da Bund) üyeleri– arasÕndaydÕ. 1948 yÕlÕndan sonra øsrail’e gelince, Yidiú dÕúlandÕ,

116

Altinci Bölüm

çünkü bu dil SoykÕrÕm sÕrasÕnda “koyun gibi kesime giden aúa÷Õ kiúiler” (Porat 1990:239) sayÕlan Diaspora Yahudileri’ne iliúkin bilindik betimlemeye uygun olarak Diaspora’nÕn bir simgesi durumundaydÕ. Ama günümüzde (ArapçanÕn yanÕ sÕra) øbranice’nin øsrail’in resmi dil olarak yerleúmesiyle, Yidiú kültürü yeniden canlandÕ: en önemli tiyatrolarda Yidiú dilinde oyunlar sergilenmekte ve Yidiú devlet radyo istasyonlarÕnda Yidiú dilinde úarkÕlar söylenmektedir. Dünyada Yidiú dilini konuúanlarÕn sayÕsÕ 2,2 milyonun üzerindedir (Ethnologue 2009). Do÷u Yidiú diyelekini konuúan 1,7 milyon kiúiden 215.000’i øsrail’de yaúarken, BatÕ Yidiú diyelekini ço÷u Almanya’da olmak üzere yaklaúÕk 50.000 kiúi konuúmaktadÕr.

5.2. Öteki Yahudi dilleri Yidiú’in durumu öteki ‘Yahudi’ dilleri ile karúÕlaútÕrÕlabilir. Örne÷in, Ladino (Judezmo ya da Yahudi øspanyolcasÕ) ço÷unlukla øsrail’de yaúayan 110.000 Türk, Bulgar, Yunan ve Yugoslav Yahudisi’nce konuúulmaktadÕr. Türkiye’de bile bu dili konuúan yaklaúÕk 8.000 kiúi vardÕr. øsrail’de yaúayÕp Yahudi ArapçasÕ konuúanlar, birkaç Arap ülkesinden gelmektedir: Fas’tan 250.000, Irak’tan 100.000, Yemen’den 50.000 ve Tunus’tan 45.000 kiúi vardÕr (dünyanÕn baúka yerlerinden 325.000 kiúi). Ancak ço÷u durumda, øbranice Yahudi halkÕ arasÕnda baskÕn dil olurken, bu diller øsrail’de yavaú yavaú ölmektedir. Yidiú bir istisna sayÕlabilir, çünkü aúÕrÕ gelenekçi cemaatlerin birço÷u kendi aralarÕnda ilk dil olarak Yidiú konuúma konusunda diretmektedirler.

5.3. øbranice’ye karúÕ øngilizce øbranice ve øngilizce arasÕnda bir dil savaúÕnÕn oldu÷unu söyleyebilir miyiz? øsrail’deki dil durumuna øngilizce açÕsÕndan bakÕldÕ÷Õnda, durum dünyadaki birçok ülkeyle benzerlik gösterir. Var olan çatÕúma, küreselleúmenin –‘Coca Cola’ ya da ‘Macdonald’ denebilecek bir kültürün– bir parçasÕdÕr. Ancak 2012 yÕlÕ haziran ayÕnda Hayfa Üniversitesi øsrail øncelemeleri Birli÷inde (AIS) düzenlenen uluslararasÕ bir konferansta, yeni bir dil savaúÕ olarak yorumlanabilecek bir anlaúmazlÕk –bu kez øbranice ve øngilizce arasÕnda– ortaya çÕktÕ (Hovel 2012). AIS, øsrail’in de÷il ABD’nin yürüttü÷ü bir birlik oldu÷u için, konferans boyunca uluslararasÕ dilin –øngilizce’nin– kullanÕlmasÕna karar verildi. Bu karara, özellikle konferans øsrail’de gerçekleútirildi÷i için, yerel dilin göz ardÕ edilmemesi gerekti÷ini savunan birkaç øsrailli katÕlÕmcÕ

Dil SavaúÕ: Savaú Öncesi Filistin’inde øbranice ve Öteki Diller

117

tarafÕndan karúÕ çÕkÕldÕ. Konferansta anlÕk çeviri yapÕldÕ. øbranice’nin øsrailli akademisyenlerden hak etti÷i saygÕyÕ görmedi÷i duygusu yaygÕndÕ.

5.4. øbranice’ye karúÕ Rusça Ya Sovyetler Birli÷i yÕkÕldÕktan sonra 1991 yÕlÕnda yaklaúÕk 800.000 Sovyet Yahudisi’nin kitlesel göçünden sonra øbranice ile Rusça arasÕndaki ‘savaú’? Rusça gazetelerin yayÕnlandÕ÷ÕnÕ ve Rusça kitaplar satan kitapçÕlarÕn açÕldÕ÷ÕnÕ gördük. Hatta sa÷da solda Rusça konuúanlara seslenen okul bile açÕldÕ. Ancak uzun vadede, genç kuúa÷Õn øbranice konuúmasÕyla, Rusça, göçmenlerin çocuklarÕnÕn ve torunlarÕnÕn ikinci dili olacak ve øbranice için bir tehdit oluúturmayacaktÕr.

Kaynakça Ahmad, Feroz. 2010. The Young Turks: The Committee of Union and Progress in Turkish Politics, 1908-1914. Columbia University Press. Ben Artzi, Yossi. 1988. “The Old Technion”. In Ze’ev Anar (ed.) Stories of Buildings. Tel Aviv: Orbach, 106-108. [øbranice] Ethnologue: Languages of the World (2009). http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language. asp?code=yid, accessed Oct. 5, 2012. Friedman, Isaia. 1977. Germany, Turkey and Zionism 1897-1918. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Hasson, Nir. 2012. “The war started in the kindergarten”. Haaretz, 5/10/12, p. 13. Hovel, Revital. 2012. “Academic – speak Hebrew!” Haaretz, 12/10/12, p. 11. Landau, Jacob M. 1983. “The ‘Young Turks’ and Zionism: Some comments”. In Victor D. Sanua (ed.) Fields of Offerings: Studies in Honor of Raphael Patai. Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, pp. 197-205. Porat, Dina. 1990. The Blue and the Yellow Stars of David: The Zionist Leadership in Palestine and the Holocaust, 1939–1945 . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Rinot, Moshe. 1972. The Hilfsverein of German Jews. School of Education, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. [øbranice] Shilo, Margalit. 1995. “The language war as a grassroots movement”. Kathedra 74, 86-119. [øbranice]



YEDøNCø BÖLÜM TÜRKÇE VE øBRANøCEDE DøL REFORMU MESELESøNE KARùILAùTIRMALI BøR BAKIù øLKER AYTÜRK1

Türkiye ve øsrail Orta Do÷u bölgesinin demokratik standartlarÕ yakalamÕú iki ülkesidirler. Bir seri dramatik geliúmenin sonucunda ve diplomatik haritayÕ de÷iútirecek biçimde Türkiye 1923, øsrail ise 1948 yÕlÕnda do÷muútur. Türkiye çok etnisiteli, çok dinli ve çok kültürlü OsmanlÕ topraklarÕnÕn üzerinde bir ulus-devlet olarak ortaya çÕkÕyordu. 1923 yÕlÕ itibariyle Türkiye topraklarÕnda yaúayan yaklaúÕk 12 milyon Türk vatandaúÕnÕn bir kÕsmÕ, kaybedilmiú OsmanlÕ topraklarÕndan göç eden muhacirler iken, di÷er bir kÕsmÕ da Kürt asÕllÕ vatandaúlardan oluúmaktaydÕ. Di÷er taraftan, øsrail ise diasporadaki tüm Yahudilere kucak açmaktaydÕ. Yiúuv adÕnÕ verdi÷imiz, OsmanlÕ ve mandater Filistin topraklarÕndaki Yahudi millî varlÕ÷Õ, 1881 yÕlÕ sonrasÕnda aliya denilen pek çok göç dalgasÕnÕ kendine çekecek ve absorbe edecekti. AyrÕca, 1948 yÕlÕnda kurulacak olan øsrail’in nüfusunun beúte biri Filistinli Araplardan oluúuyordu. Her iki ülkenin kimi özgün koúullarÕnÕ bir tarafa bÕrakacak olursak, gerek Türkiye gerekse Yiúuv kuruluú aúamalarÕnda yeni bir ulus inúa etme konusunda büyük bir baskÕ altÕnda kalacaklardÕ, çünkü her iki ülkenin sÕnÕrlarÕ içinde yaúayan vatandaúlarÕndan bazÕlarÕnÕn merkeze ba÷lÕlÕklarÕ tartÕúÕlÕr durumdaydÕ. Bir yandan Siyonistlerin (øsrail merkezli Yahudi milliyetçilerin), di÷er yandan da Türk milliyetçilerin ulus inúasÕ sürecinde karúÕlaútÕklarÕ zorluklarla baú etme süreçleri bazÕ yönlerden benzemekle birlikte önemli farklÕlÕklar da göstermektedir. Her iki örnek olayda da, dil meselesi, ulus inúasÕnÕn en önemli tecrübe alanlarÕndan biri olarak ortaya çÕkmakta, ulus inúasÕnÕn en görünür, en úekillendirilebilir ve en kolay kullanÕlabilir aracÕ olarak ön plana geçmektedir. Niçin dil meselesi milliyetçiliklerin ajandasÕnda en üst sÕraya çÕkmaktadÕr? Tarihsel olarak dünyadaki bütün kitle hareketleri ve

 1

Dr. Bilkent Üniversitesi, Türkiye. [email protected]

120

Yedinci Bölüm

ideolojilerinin, elit tabakalarÕn üst kültür dilindense, geniú halk gruplarÕnÕn yerel dil ve a÷ÕzlarÕnÕ kullanmaya çalÕúmalarÕ kimseyi úaúÕrtmayacaktÕr. Çünkü bu, kitle hareketlerinin ideologlarÕnÕn en çok sayÕda bireye hitap edebilmelerinin yegane yöntemidir. Milliyetçilik ise di÷er kitle hareketleri ve ideolojilerden úu yönüyle farklÕdÕr ki, halka kendi diliyle hitap edip mesajÕnÕ en çok sayÕda bireye ulaútÕrmayÕ hedeflerken, bir yandan da millî dile sadece bir enstrüman olmanÕn çok ötesinde, özel bir önem verir. Milliyetçi için dil kendini ifade etmenin basit bir aracÕ de÷ildir. Dil, milletin ruhunun cisimleúmiú hali ve millî kültürün yüzlerce, binlerce yÕl boyunca içinde barÕndÕ÷Õ canlÕ bir depo olarak algÕlanÕr. Milliyetçi dünya görüúünde milletin halihazÕrdaki durumuna diline bakÕlarak karar verilebilir: dilin canlanÕúÕ, ifade gücünün ve uluslararasÕ prestijinin artmasÕ milletin úan ve úerefinin de artmasÕdÕr; aynÕ úekilde, dilin zayÕflamasÕ, bazÕ hayat alanlarÕndan çekilmesi ve kullanÕlmaz hale gelmesi, hatta ölümü, milletin de ortadan kalmasÕna iúaret eder. Milliyetçi ideologlar dili, milletin sÕnÕrlarÕnÕ belirlemekte de kullanÕrlar. Öyle ki, bu bakÕú açÕsÕndan dil, ortak ata ve ortak kan ba÷Õ inancÕnÕ bile geride bÕrakarak, kimin millete dahil olmadÕ÷ÕnÕ, kiminse dahil oldu÷unu belirlemekte en önemli kÕstas mertebesine yükselir, çünkü dil beúerî sÕnÕrlarÕ çizerken kullanÕlabilecek en somut ve en kullanÕúlÕ kÕstastÕr. Bu alanÕn en bilinen uzmanlarÕndan Hans Kohn, bir çalÕúmasÕnda, milliyetçilik ideolojisinin ortaya çÕkmasÕnda önce “dilin bir do÷al gerçeklik olarak algÕlandÕ÷ÕnÕn”, ve hiç bir úekilde “siyasî ve kültürel bir faktör olarak görülmedi÷inin, siyasî ve kültürel bir mücadelenin hedefi ve aracÕ olmadÕ÷ÕnÕn” altÕnÕ çizer. Fakat dilin bizzat kendisi, 18. yüzyÕlÕn sonu ve 19. yüzyÕlÕn baúÕndan itibaren, dil milliyetçili÷i adÕnÕ verece÷imiz bir vakÕa ile birlikte siyasî bir mesele haline gelmiútir. Dil milliyetçili÷ini, “bir etnik grubun dilini günlük hayatÕn her alanÕnda canlandÕrmak, zenginleútirmek ve standartlaútÕrmak hedefini güden, aynÕ zamanda da bu dili halihazÕrdaki yahut gelecekteki siyasî sÕnÕrlarla örtüútürmeyi amaçlayan, aksiyoner bir fikir akÕmÕ” olarak tanÕmlayabiliriz. Bir yandan, milliyetçi filologlar, dilbilimciler ve sözlük yazarlarÕnÕn, di÷er yandan da bu ekibe destek veren siyasetçilerin, baúlÕca hedefi bir ulus-devlet dili yaratmak olmuútur. Dil milliyetçili÷i, 19. YüzyÕlÕn ikinci yarÕsÕndan sonra ortaya çÕkÕp emperyal efendilere karúÕ mücadele eden bütün “geç milliyetçilikler”in ortak bir özelli÷iydi. Çekler, EstonyalÕlar, Bulgarlar yahut Katalanlar kendilerini yöneten imparatorluklara karúÕ çÕkÕp siyasî haklar ve hatta kimi zaman ba÷ÕmsÕzlÕk istediklerinde, tarihi, edebiyat dili ve kendine özgü bir kültürü olmayan “küçük halklar”Õn millet sayÕlamayaca÷Õ argümanÕyla geri çevrilmiúlerdi. Tarihsiz, dilsiz, kültürsüz “küçük halklar” kendi kendilerini yönetemezlerdi. DolayÕsÕyla, “küçük

Türkçe ve øbranicede Dil Reformu Meselesine KarúÕlaútÕrmalÕ Bir BakÕú 121

halklar” denilerek horlanan ve talepleri bastÕrÕlan bu milletlerin kültürel ve siyasî elitlerinin amacÕ, millet olduklarÕnÕ, millî tarihlerini, millî dillerini ve millî kültürlerini keúfederek –bazÕ durumlarda ise icat ederek– kanÕtlamak yönünde úekillenecekti. Yahudi milliyetçili÷inin ortaya çÕkÕúÕ ve tarihî geliúiminde de aynÕ olay örgüsünü izleyebiliyoruz. Yahudiler tarafÕndan insanlÕ÷Õn ilk dili kabul edilen, Tevrat’Õn ve dinî ritüellerin dili olan øbranice, Yahudi kimli÷i ve kültürünün her zaman ayrÕlmaz bir ö÷esi olmuútu. Fakat bu dil M.S. 150 yÕllarÕndan itibaren bir konuúma dili olma hüviyetini kaybetti. Nitekim, kadim dönemlerden 19. yüzyÕl sonuna kadar øbraniceye siyasî bir önem ve anlam atfeden herhangi bir Yahudi din adamÕna, cemaat önderine rastlamÕyoruz. YaklaúÕk 1800 yÕl boyunca dünyanÕn her köúesine da÷ÕlmÕú olan Yahudiler iki dilli bir yaúam (diglossia) sürüyorlardÕ: øbranice ibadet dili olarak kullanÕlmakla birlikte, günlük yaúamda içinde yaúanan ülkenin ve halkÕn dili ye÷lenmekteydi. AyrÕca M.S. 2. yüzyÕldan itibaren Yahudiler kutsal topraklarÕ olarak gördükleri Erets Israel üzerindeki son egemenlik kÕrÕntÕlarÕnÕ da kaybedip, Roma tarafÕndan sürgün edilince –ve bu noktadan itibaren yüzyÕllar boyunca bir Yahudi devleti fikri pratik olarak imkansÕzlaúÕnca– dil ile vatan arasÕndaki ba÷ da kopmuú, øbraniceye bir millî dil olarak bakmak zorlaúmÕútÕ. Bu yaklaúÕmÕn ancak 18. yüzyÕl sonunda, aydÕnlanma, özgürleúme ve milliyetçilik akÕmlarÕnÕn üçlü etkisi altÕnda de÷iúmeye yüz tuttu÷unu söyleyebiliriz. Berlin’de baúlayan Yahudi aydÕnlanmasÕ Orta ve Do÷u Avrupa Yahudilerini etkileyerek, dil meselesini yüzyÕllardan sonra ilk defa akademik ve edebî tartÕúmalarÕn oda÷Õna koymuútu. Maskil adÕ verilen Yahudi entelektüelleri, aydÕnlanmaya sadece ve sadece “sa÷lÕklÕ” yani “saf” bir dille ulaúÕlabilece÷ine inanÕyorlar, bu sebeple de Yahudi AlmancasÕ da denilen ve “bozulmuú”, “barbarca” bir dil oldu÷una inanÕlan Yidcenin (Yiddish) yerine øbranicenin geçmesi gerekti÷ini düúünüyorlardÕ. O sÕrada Orta ve Do÷u Avrupa Yahudilerinin ezici ço÷unlu÷unun anadili olan Yidce hakkÕnda böyle bir teklif, gene de yukarÕda tanÕmlandÕ÷Õ úekliyle dil milliyetçili÷i kapsamÕna girmemektedir. Çünkü Yahudi entelektüeller bu teklifi yaparken meseleye ideolojik yaklaúmÕyorlardÕ: öncelikli hedefleri, Yahudilerin aúa÷ÕlanmasÕna sebep olan Yidceden bir an önce kurtulmak, daha sonra da Yahudi aydÕnlanmasÕ fikrini øbranice okuyabilen Yahudi kitlelere en kÕsa yoldan ulaútÕrabilmekti. Bir di÷er deyiúle, øbranicenin canlandÕrÕlarak tekrar bir edebiyat ve Yahudiler-arasÕ iletiúim dili haline getirilmesi teklifi Yahudilerin çift dilli olmalarÕ gerçe÷ini de÷iútirmiyordu; Yahudiler øbraniceyi sadece bir ortak yazÕ dili olarak kullanacaklar, fakat her cemaat kendi ülkesini dilini konuúmaya devam edecekti. Bir Yahudi devleti kurulmasÕ fikri hala ufukta görünmüyordu ve øbranicenin

122

Yedinci Bölüm

canlanmasÕ talebinin siyasî bir anlamÕ bulunmamaktaydÕ. Bu çaresizli÷in en iyi örne÷ini dönemin çok önemli Yahudi aydÕnlarÕndan Perets Smolenskin’de (1842-1885) görebiliyoruz: Smolenskin, tipik bir pragmatizm ve gerçekçi tonda yazdÕ÷Õ gazete ve dergi makalelerinde Yahudilerin diasporada sonsuza kadar kalacaklarÕnÕ, bu vatansÕzlÕk durumunda øbraniceyi millî bir dil haline getirmenin anlamsÕzlÕ÷ÕnÕ savunuyordu, çünkü üzerinde egemen olacaklarÕ bir vatanlarÕ olmadÕ÷Õ sürece Yahudiler için millî bir dil de gereksizdi. Smolenskin’in makalelerindeki kaderci ton, Eliezer Perlman (18581922) adlÕ genç bir adamÕ sert bir cevap mektubu yayÕnlatmaya itti. Smolenskin’in dergisi Ha-úahar’da yayÕnlanan bu mektupta genç Perlman, atalarÕnÕn topraklarÕ üzerinde tek dilli Yahudilerin ev sahipli÷i yapacak bir Yahudi devletinin kurulaca÷Õna inandÕ÷ÕnÕ anlatÕyordu. Daha sonraki yÕllarda, Eliezer Ben-Yehuda adÕyla tanÕnacak olan bu genç adam Siyonizmin ideologlarÕndan biri olacak ve øbranicenin yaúayan bir dil olarak yeniden do÷uúu “mucizesi” neredeyse münhasÕran ondan bilinecektir. øsrailli revizyonist tarihçiler 1970’lerden sonra BenYehuda’nÕn kahramanlaútÕrÕlmasÕna karúÕ çÕkacaklar ve “mucize” denilen vakÕaya hem di÷er grup ve figürlerin katkÕsÕnÕn altÕnÕ çizecekler, hem de øbranicenin canlanÕúÕnda rol oynayan sosyo-ekonomik úartlara dikkati çekeceklerdir. Bununla birlikte, Ben-Yehuda’nÕn 1878 yÕlÕnda yayÕnlamÕú oldu÷u meúhur mektubu “Mikhtav le-Ben-Yehuda”, hiç úüphesiz Yahudi dil milliyetçili÷inin baúlangÕcÕ olacaktÕr; ilk defa bu makalede bir yandan dil ve vatan, di÷er yandan da ba÷ÕmsÕzlÕk ve sadece øbranice konuúan tek dilli Yahudi halkÕ özlemi birbirine ba÷lanmÕútÕr. Ben-Yehuda ve eúi 1881 yÕlÕnda OsmanlÕ Filistini’ne taúÕnÕrlar. Kudüs’e yerleúen ailenin kök salmakta olan Yiúuv üzerinde üç temel etkisi olur. Öncelikle, Ben-Yehuda ailesi evde sadece øbranice konuúma prensibini benimseyerek, o÷ullarÕ øtamar’Õ, son iki bin yÕldÕr anadili øbranice olan ilk Yahudi olarak yetiútirirler. Bu úekilde, aile, baúka Yahudi göçmenlere de øbranice konuúmak konusunda örnek olur. økinci olarak, Ben-Yehuda’nÕn anÕtsal øbranice sözlü÷ü ve yayÕnlamÕú oldu÷u pek çok øbranice gazete ve dergi, bu dilin söz da÷arcÕ÷ÕnÕn modernleúmesine büyük katkÕda bulunacak ve yeni türetilen kelimeleri popülerleútirecektir. Üçüncü olarak da, Ben-Yehuda øbranicenin canlanÕúÕna kurumsal bir yapÕ kazandÕrabilmek ve bu úekilde hem diasporadaki ve hem de Yiúuv’da yaúayan Yahudi edebiyatçÕlar ve dilbilimcileri sürece katabilmek için çok u÷raúmÕútÕr. 1882’de kurdu÷u Tehiyat Israel ve 1889’da kurdu÷u Safa Berura adlÕ dernekler baúarÕlÕ olamamÕúsa da, 1904 yÕlÕnda kuraca÷Õ Va’ad Ha-Laúon canlanma sürecini yöneten millî kurum hüviyetini kazanacak ve 1948’de øsrail’in kurulmasÕndan sonra da øsrail Dil Akademisi olarak

Türkçe ve øbranicede Dil Reformu Meselesine KarúÕlaútÕrmalÕ Bir BakÕú 123

resmen tanÕnacaktÕr. Diasporadaki çeúitli milliyetçi kurumlar ve özellikle de Yiúuv’daki ö÷retmen ve iúçi sendikalarÕ tarafÕndan desteklenen Va’ad Ha-Laúon 1920’li ve 1930’lu yÕllar boyunca øbranicenin yeni bir neslin anadili haline gelmesi, iúlenmesi ve zenginleúmesinde en büyük rolü oynayacaktÕr. Bu süreçte bir taraftan øbraniceye resmî dil statüsü verilerek Yidcenin üzerine çÕkarÕlacak, øbranicenin Do÷u Avrupa aksanÕ ile telaffuzunun önüne geçilerek, úarklÕ tonu ve telaffuzu benimsenecektir. Di÷er taraftan da Va’ad üyeleri modern hayatÕn gere÷i olan, fakat klasik øbranicede bulunmayan pek çok kelime, deyiú ve terimi eski köklerden türetecek ve dile modern bir yapÕ kazandÕrmaya çalÕúacaklardÕr. Daha sonra bu yeni kelimeler Yiúuv’daki Yahudi okullarÕnda anaokulundan üniversite seviyesine kadar dolaúÕma sokulacaktÕ. 1920’li yÕllara gelindi÷inde Mandater Filistin’de binlerce genç Yahudi sadece øbranice konuúarak, øbranileúmiú bir ortamda yaúÕyorlardÕ: okullar, cemaat kurumlarÕ, yerel Yahudi basÕnÕ, sinema, tiyatro ve operalar, ve hatta spor kulüpleri bu yeni ortama ayak uydurmuúlardÕ. Çok çarpÕcÕ olan nokta úudur ki bütün bu baúarÕlÕ adÕmlar, tamamen siyasî bir boúlukta atÕlmÕútÕ. Yahudi milliyetçili÷inin en önemli metinlerini üretmiú olan Moses Hess ve Leon Pinsker’in eserlerinde dil bahsi hiç açÕlmadÕ÷Õ gibi, ileride kurmayÕ hedefledikleri Yahudi devletinde resmî dilin ne olaca÷Õ konusu da belirsiz bÕrakÕlmÕútÕ. Siyonizmin babasÕ sayÕlan Theodor Herzl ise dil milliyetçili÷inden fersah fersah uzakta duruyordu. Herzl’Õn günlükleri, øbraniceye ne kadar önem vermedi÷ini gösteren örneklerle doludur; “øçimizde kim øbraniceyi bu dilde bir tren bileti alacak kadar biliyor?”, diye yazarken günlü÷üne aslÕnda tam olarak kastetti÷i dil meselesinin hiç de önem taúÕmadÕ÷ÕdÕr. 1896’da yayÕnladÕ÷Õ ve Siyonizmin manifestosu kabul edilen Der Judenstaat adlÕ kitabÕnda, Yahudi devletinde resmî bir dile gerek olmadÕ÷Õ, bunun yerine bir “diller federasyonu” kurulmasÕ gerekti÷ini savunur. Her vatandaú istedi÷i dilde konuúacak ve yazacaktÕr. Siyonizmin kurucu ideologlarÕnÕn bu olumsuz ve umursamaz yaklaúÕmÕ Dünya Siyonist TeúkilatÕ’nÕn çalÕúmalarÕna da yansÕyacak ve bu teúkilat uzun yÕllar boyunca øbranice konusunu gündemine almayacaktÕr. øbranice önündeki bir di÷er engel ise Ortodoks Yahudilerden gelecek, kutsal kabul ettikleri øbranicenin ibadet dÕúÕnda baúka bir alanda kullanÕlmasÕnÕ engellemek için ellerinden geleni yapacaklardÕr. øbranicenin önüne konulan bu engeller ancak 1913 yÕlÕnda toplanan 11. Siyonist Kongre’de aúÕlabilecek ve “Tek Millet Tek Dil” (Am Ehad ve-Safa Ahat) ifadesi Dünya Siyonist TeúkilatÕ’nÕn resmî sloganlarÕndan biri olarak kabul edilecektir. En son olarak, Yahudi ve Türk milliyetçiliklerinde dil faktörünü kÕyaslamak ve benzerlikler ile farklÕlÕklarÕn altÕnÕ çizmek çok faydalÕ

124

Yedinci Bölüm

olacaktÕr. Benzerliklerden baúlayacak olursak, hem Yahudi hem de Türk milliyetçilikleri “geç milliyetçilikler” adÕnÕ verdi÷imiz kategoriye girmektedirler; çünkü her ikisi de Orta ve Do÷u Avrupa’daki halklarÕn ço÷u gibi 19. yüzyÕlÕn sonunda ortaya çÕkÕp yaygÕnlaúmÕúlardÕr. Yine, her iki milliyetçilik için de modernleúmeci diyebilir ve BatÕ’ya yetiúmek isteyen dalganÕn bir parçasÕ olduklarÕnÕ savunabiliriz. AyrÕca, gerek Yahudi ve gerekse Türk milliyetçili÷inin tarih ve dile çok araçsal bir bakÕú açÕsÕndan yaklaútÕklarÕnÕ söylemek mümkündür. Özellikle dil birkaç sebepten dolayÕ çok kullanÕúlÕ bir semboldü: Öncelikle, dil milletin bireylerini birbirlerine ba÷layan en apaçÕk delil niteli÷indeydi. Bir dili konuúabilen bir sosyal grup, o dili konuúamayan di÷er gruplardan mutlak sÕnÕrlarla ayrÕlÕr ve bu sÕnÕrlarÕn varlÕ÷Õ milliyetçi bakÕú açÕsÕndan kimin millete ait oldu÷u ve kimin de ait olmadÕ÷ÕnÕ anlamakta kullanÕlacak en sarih kÕstastÕr. økinci olarak, øbranice ve Türkçe üzerine yapÕlan çalÕúmalar her iki tarafÕn milliyetçilerine de milletlerinin ne kadar eski ve úanlÕ bir tarihe sahip oldu÷una dair argümanlar sunuyordu. Bir di÷er deyiúle, dil çalÕúmalarÕnÕn siyasî sonuçlarÕ vardÕ: milliyetçilerin egemenlik taleplerini güçlendiriyor ve di÷er milletlerle eúitlik arzularÕnÕ gerçekleútirmeye yarÕyordu. Üçüncü olarak ise, øbranicenin konuúulan bir dil olarak yeniden can bulmasÕ ve Türk dil devriminin baúarÕsÕ, her iki tarafÕn milliyetçilerini de daha geniú çaplÕ, toplumsal bir inkiúafÕn mümkün oldu÷una dair ümitlendiriyordu. E÷er diller müdahale ile hÕzla tekamül edebiliyor iseler, aynÕ úekilde BatÕ karúÕsÕnda geride kalmÕú, haklarÕ çi÷nenmiú Yahudi ve Türk milletleri de neden hÕzla kalkÕnamasÕn, ilerleyemesindi? Meseleye di÷er yönden bakacak olursak, Yahudi ve Türk dil milliyetçilikleri arasÕndaki farklar da, bizatihi benzerlikler kadar önemli ve ö÷reticidir. Öncelikle her iki dil milliyetçili÷inin farklÕ istikametlerde geliúti÷inin altÕnÕ çizelim. Türk milliyetçileri ve dilcileri, iúlenmemiú, modernize edilmemiú ama halk arasÕnda konuúulan bir Türkçeden, bir ortak edebiyat ve kültür dili üretmeye çalÕúÕrken, Yahudi milliyetçileri ve dilcileri ise yarÕ ölmüú ve havra dÕúÕnda kullanÕlmayan bir ibadet dilinden, ortak bir konuúma dili yaratmayÕ hedefliyorlardÕ. Bir di÷er çok önemli farklÕlÕk ise dil milliyetçiliklerine verilen kurumsal destek noktasÕndadÕr. Türk dil milliyetçileri daha økinci Meúrutiyet döneminden ve øttihatçÕlardan itibaren devletin deste÷ini arkalarÕnda hissetmiúler, malî imkanlarla, altyapÕ sa÷lanmasÕyla, devlet memuru olarak çalÕúmalarÕnÕn sa÷lanmasÕyla çalÕúmalarÕnÕ sürdürebilmiúlerdir. Atatürk ve cumhuriyet hükümetleri de dil milliyetçili÷ini bir devlet politikasÕ olarak benimsemiúler, Türk Dil Kurumu’nu kurarak bu siyasete kurumsal bir nitelik kazandÕrmÕúlar ve devletin imkanlarÕnÕ dilcilerin kullanÕmÕna

Türkçe ve øbranicede Dil Reformu Meselesine KarúÕlaútÕrmalÕ Bir BakÕú 125

sunmuúlardÕr. Yahudi dil milliyetçili÷inde ise bu durumun tam tersini görmekteyiz. 1870’lerde Ben-Yehuda’nÕn øbranicenin canlanÕúÕnÕ baúlatmasÕndan, 1913’te Dünya Siyonist TeúkilatÕ’nÕn dil politikasÕnÕ de÷iútirmesine kadar geçen yaklaúÕk 40 yÕllÕk sürede øbranicenin reformu bir devletin yasal, hukukî ve malî deste÷i olmaksÕzÕn gerçekleúmiútir ki bu øbranice örnek olayÕnÕ di÷er hemen hemen bütün dil milliyetçiliklerinden ayÕran bir özelliktir. Devlet deste÷inin olmayÕúÕ, dil milliyetçilerini çok önemli bir baúka imkandan, yani dil reformu sürecini tek elde toplayÕp tek bir kurumun güdümünde sürdürme imkanÕndan da mahrum bÕrakmÕútÕ. øbraniceyi canlandÕrmakta kimin daha yetkili oldu÷u konusunda Va’ad ile Ö÷retmenler SendikasÕ gibi kurumlar arasÕnda ciddi anlaúmazlÕklar çÕkÕyordu. Halbuki, bu durumun bazÕ çok faydalÕ yanlarÕ da görülmüútür. Reformun ilk 40 yÕlÕ boyunca øbranice tek bir kurumun sorumlulu÷unda olmayÕp, pek çok kiúi ve kurum tarafÕndan aynÕ anda iúlendi÷i için reformun kendisi çok daha demokratik, katÕlÕmcÕ ve popüler olmuútu. Bununla kÕyaslandÕ÷Õnda, Türkçenin reformu ise TDK elinde kaldÕ÷Õ için tek parti yönetimi ve CHP ile özdeúleúmiú ve bu nedenle de çok politize olmuútu. Yeni rejimin düúmanlarÕ do÷rudan do÷ruya reforme edilmiú Türkçenin de karúÕsÕnda yer alÕyorlardÕ. Türkçe ve øbranice kÕyaslamasÕnÕn bizi gösterece÷i bir fark daha vardÕr. Türk dil milliyetçili÷inde Türkçenin rakibi yoktu, bu nedenle de alternatifsizdi. Anadolu Türkleri her ne kadar Türkçeyi farklÕ a÷Õzlarla konuúsalar da sonuçta hâlâ Türkçe ortak paydasÕnda buluúuyorlardÕ. Hatta sanatlÕ yüksek OsmanlÕcayÕ yaratan OsmanlÕ eliti dahi kendi aralarÕnda çok daha basit bir Türkçe ile iletiúim kuruyordu. Yahudi milliyetçili÷inin dezavantajÕ daha en baútan itibaren bir ikilemle karúÕlaúÕyor olmaktÕ: Siyonist olmayan ve sadece diasporada kültürel haklar isteyen Yahudi milliyetçileri dil tercihlerini Yidceden yana kullanÕyorlardÕ. Devlet kurmayÕ düúünmedikleri ve diasporayÕ da terk etmek istemedikleri için, Orta ve Do÷u Avrupa Yahudilerinin anadili olan Yidceyi tercih etmeleri çok do÷aldÕ. Ne de olsa, mesela Orta Do÷u’da yaúayan ve anadilleri Arapça olan yüzbinlerce Yahudi ile ortak bir devlette yaúama gibi bir düúünceleri yoktu. Siyonistler ise en baútan beri øsrail devletini kurmaya odaklanmÕúlar ve dünyadaki bütün Yahudilere mekan olacak bu devlette øbraniceden baúka bir dilin birleútirici rol oynayamayaca÷Õna ikna olmuúlardÕ. Bununla birlikte 1910’lar, 1920’ler ve 1930’lar boyunca bir Yahudi milliyetçisinin önünde hangi tip milliyetçili÷i seçti÷ine ba÷lÕ olarak iki farklÕ dil tercihi durmaktaydÕ. Ancak 1940’larda, Holokost sonucu Avrupa Yahudili÷i dünya yüzünden silindi÷i zaman Yidce opsiyonu ortadan kalkacak ve Siyonistlerin önerdi÷i øbranice ço÷unlu÷un tercihi haline gelecekti.

126

Yedinci Bölüm

Kaynakça Aytürk, ølker. 2010. “Revisiting the Language Factor in Zionism: The Hebrew Language Council from 1904 to 1914”. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 73: 45-64. Bar-Adon, Aaron. 1986. “økinci Aliya’nÕn ønranicenin CanlanÕúÕna KatkÕsÕ” [øbranice]. Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies in Jerusalem, August 4-12, 1985, Division D, Cilt 1, 63-70. Kudüs: World Union of Jewish Studies. Bartal, Israel. 1993. “From Traditional Bilingualism to National Monolingualism.” Lewis Glinert, (der.) Hebrew in Ashkenaz: A Language in Exile, 141-150. New York ve Oxford: Oxford University Press. Barzilay, Isaac E. 1959. “National and Anti-national Trends in the Berlin Haskalah”. Jewish Social Studies 21: 165-192. Ben-Yehuda, Eliezer. 1943. Ben-Yehuda’nÕn Toplu Eserleri (øbranice), cilt 1. Kudüs-Talpiot: Ben Yehuda YayÕnlarÕ. Efrati, Natan. 1997. “øbranicenin CanlanÕúÕ ve Siyonist Hareket (øbranice)”. Leúonenu la-am 48: 93-134. Haramati, Shlomo. 1978. Ben-Yehuda’dan Önceki Üç Kiúi (øbranice). Kudüs: Yad Yitshak Ben Zvi. —. 1984. “Yisrael Halevi Teller: Birinci Aliya Mensubu Reformist Bir Gramerci” [øbranice]. Kathedrah : 91-124. Harshav, Benjamin. 1990. “øbranicenin CanlanÕúÕ Üzerine Bir Deneme ” [øbranice]. Alpayim 2: 8-54. Herzl, Theodor. 1896. A Jewish State: An Attempt at a Modern Solution of the Jewish Question. Londra: David Nutt. —. 1960. The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl, cilt 2. New York ve Londra: Herzl Press ve Thomas Yoseloff. Karmi, Shlomo. 1997. Tek Millet ve Tek Dil: ønterdisipliner Bir BakÕú AçÕsÕndan øbranicenin CanlanÕúÕ (øbranice). (yayÕn yeri yok): Savunma BakanlÕ÷Õ YayÕnlarÕ. Kohn, Hans. 1944. The Idea of Nationalism: A Study in Its Origins and Background. New York: The Macmillan Company. Rinott, Moshe. 1984. “Religion and Education: The Cultural Question and the Zionist Movement, 1897-1913”. Studies in Zionism 5: 1-17. Shavit, Yaacov. 1993. “A Duty Too Heavy to Bear: Hebrew in the Berlin Haskalah, 1783-1819, between Classic, Modern and Romantic”. Lewis Glinert, (der.) Hebrew in Ashkenaz: A Language in Exile, 111-128. New York ve Oxford: Oxford University Press.



SEKøZøNCø BÖLÜM øBRANøCE VE ARAPÇA ARASINDAKø YAKIN øLøùKø SHLOMO ALON1

øki eski Sami dili olan Arapça ve øbranice, yalnÕzca yazÕnsal anlatÕm aracÕ olarak varlÕklarÕnÕ sürdürmekle kalmamÕú, aynÕ zamanda ça÷daú dünyanÕn gereksinimlerinin üstesinden gelmek için de güçlerini ikiye katlamÕútÕr. Arapça ve øbranice øsrail’in iki resmi dilidir. økisi de Sami dil ailesinden iki kardeú dildir ve sa÷dan sola do÷ru yazÕlÕr, okunur ve dizilir. Sami dilleri, yaúayan biçimlerini Ortado÷u, Kuzey Afrika ve Afrika Boynuzu’nun büyük bölümünde yaklaúÕk 300 milyon kiúinin konuútu÷u, bir akraba diller toplulu÷udur. Bugün en çok konuúulan ve yazÕlan Sami dilleri, Arapça, øbranice, Amhar dili, Tigrinya ve Aramice’dir. Sami dilleri çok eski dönemlerden, yaklaúÕk øÖ üçüncü binyÕlÕn ortalarÕndan beri yazÕlÕ olarak varlÕklarÕnÕ korumaktadÕrlar. Sami dillerini yazmak için kullanÕlan yazÕlarÕn ço÷u, ünsüzler anlamÕ taúÕyan baúlÕca birimler oldu÷u için ünlülerin bir bölümünü ya da tümünü yoksayan bir abece yöntemi olan ebced tekni÷ini kullanÕr. Arapça’da konuúma ve yazÕ dilleri arasÕnda derin bir ayrÕlÕk görülür. øbranice, øsrail’deki ve dünyadaki Yahudiler tarafÕndan konuúulan ve yazÕlan ça÷daú bir dil olarak yeniden do÷uúunu kutlamaktadÕr. øsrail günümüzde iki ba÷ÕmsÕz ulusal dil akademisine sahip çok az ülkeden biridir –øbranice Dili Akademisi ve Arapça Dili Akademisi. Arapça Dili Akademisinin asil bir üyesi olmaktan ötürü çok gururluyum ve kendimi ayrÕcalÕklÕ hissediyorum. øsrail’de hem øbranice hem Arapça, øbranice ve Arapça e÷itimde zorunlu dillerdir. Ö÷rencilerin YazÕnsal Ça÷daú Standart Arapça (MSA) ö÷renimi görmesi zorunludur. øbranice ve Arapça Okuma Projeleri (HARP) øsrail için toplum olarak temel bir zorunluluktur.

 1

Dr. E÷itim BakanlÕ÷Õ, Kudüs, øsrail. [email protected]

128

Sekizinci Bölüm

Arapça, øsrail E÷itim Sisteminde øslam Kültürü ba÷lamÕ içerisinde ö÷retilir. Kuzeydeki YukarÕ Galilee’den güneydeki Beer Sheva’ya kadar, øsrail’deki üniversiteler ve yüksekokullarda Arapça ve øslam ønceleme bölümleri ile øbrani dili ve yazÕnÕ bölümleri bulunur. Bu iki toplulu÷un –Yahudiler ve Araplar’Õn– birbirlerinin dilini ö÷renmeleri gerekti÷i kabul edilir. Yahudi ArapçasÕ’nÕn, birçok kuúak boyunca, Arapça konuúulan ülkelerde Yahudi araútÕrmacÕlarÕn yazÕ sistemi olarak iúlev gördü÷ünü önceki konuúmacÕlardan dinledik. øbranice ile Arapça arasÕnda karúÕlÕklÕ ödünç alma çok yaygÕndÕr. ‘Tamam’ karúÕlÕ÷Õ øbranice’de sÕkça kullanÕlan sözcük ‘ahla’dÕr (Arapça’da ‘tatlÕ’). øbranice sözcük ‘beseder’ (anlaúÕldÕ), øsrail’deki Arapça günlük konuúmada ‘tamam’ karúÕlÕ÷Õ kullanÕlÕr. AynÕ durum, øbranice’de konuúma dilinde ‘iyi, harika, müthiú’ karúÕlÕ÷Õ kullanÕlan ve Arapça bir sözcük olan ‘sababa’ (özlem, aúk) için de geçerlidir. Örnekler burada sayÕlamayacak kadar çoktur. Arapça ile øbranice’nin ‘kök’ sistemini, sözda÷arcÕ÷ÕnÕ ve biçimbilimini gözden geçirdi÷imizde, iki dilin arasÕndaki uyumun büyük ve yaygÕn oldu÷unu görürüz. ùu örneklere bakalÕm (ø=øbranice, A=Arapça): 1. yazdÕ: katav (ø) – kataba (A) 2. yedi: aakhal (ø) – aakala (A) 3. çarúÕ: shuq (ø) – suq (A) 4. gün: yom (ø) – yaum (A) 5. köpek: kelev (ø) – kalb (A) 6. bereket: brakha (ø) – baraka (A) 7. yÕl: shanah (ø) – sanah (A) 8. gece: laylah (ø ve A) 9. elma: tappuah (ø) – tuffah (A) 10. so÷an: basal (ø ve A) 11. cumartesi: shabat (ø) – sabt (A) 12. deve: gamal (ø) – djamal (A) 13. hafta: shavua (ø) – usbu (A) 14. el: yad (ø ve A) 15. bacak: regel (ø) – ridjl (A) 16. baba: aav (ø) – aab (A) 17. a÷abey: aah (ø) – aakh (A) 18. hayÕr: lo (ø) – la (A) 19. bana: li (ø ve A) 20. sana: lekha (ø) – laka (A)

øbranice ve Arapça ArasÕndaki YakÕn øliúki

129

21. ben: aani (ø) – aana (A) 22. sen (m.) – atta (ø) – anta (A)

Kaynakça Amara, Muhammad Hasan, 1988 : “Arabic diglossia: conditions for learning the standard variety” (in Arabic ), Aljadid, 12:14-23. Ben-Rafael Eliezer, 1994: Language, Identity and Social division-The case of Israel (ed. By P. Mulhauser and S. Romaine, Oxford Studies in Language Contact ), Oxford, Clarendon Press. Cooper, Robert L, 1984: “A Framework for the Description of Language Spread-The case of Modern Hebrew”, ISSJ (International Social Science Journal), 36, 1:87-112. Crystal, David: A Little Book of Language (Yale University Press, 2011). Ferguson, A. Charles: “Diglossia Revisted” in Studies in Diglossia, The Journal of Linguistic Association of the Southwest, Volume 10, November 1, 1991: 214-234. Fisherman, H, 1972: “The Official Languages of Israel: their status in law and police attitudes and knowledge concerning them.” Language Behaviour Papers, 1:3-23. Goshen-Gottstein M. H. (ed.): A Modern Dictionary Arabic-Hebrew, 2 volumes (Tel Aviv, 1972-1976). Hallel, Michael and Bernard Spolsky, 1993: “The teaching of additional languages in Israel”. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13:37-49. Koplewitz, Immanuel, 1992: “Arabic in Israel: The Sociolinguistic situation of Israel’s linguistic minority”, International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 98: 29-66. Landau M. Jacob (ed.): The Teaching of Arabic as a Foreign Language – Selected Articles (Jerusalem, The School of Education of the Hebrew University, 1961). Ministry of Education: The Israel Education System ( January, 2011). Ministry of Education: Policy for Language Education in Israel [øbranice] (Jerusalem, Office of the Director General, 1996). Rozenthal R: The Comprehensive Slang Dictionary (in Hebrew) (Keter Publishing House, Jerusalem, 2005). Shohamy, Elana, 1994: “Issues in Language planning in Israel: Language and Ideology”, in R. D. Lambert (ed.): Language planning around the world: contexts and systematic change (Washington DC: National Foreign Language Center): 131-142.

130

Sekizinci Bölüm

Spolsky, Bernard, 1994: “The Situation of Arabic in Israel”, in Y. Suleiman (ed.), Arabic Sociolinguistics: Issues and Perspectives (Richmond Curzon Press): 236-277. Spolsky, Bernard, 1996b: “Prolegomena to an Israeli Language Policy”, in T. Hickey and J. Williams (ed.), Language Education and Society in a Changing World (Dublin and Clevedon: IRAAL/Multilingual Matters): 45-53.



DOKUZUNCU BÖLÜM TÜRK ÜNøVERSøTELERøNDE øBRANøCE PROF. DR. BEDRETTøN AYTAÇ1

Bu sunumda, Türk Üniversitelerinde øbranice ö÷retiminin ortaya çÕkÕúÕ ve geliúmesini ele alaca÷Õm. østanbul Darülfünunun’da, Edebiyat Fakültesi’nde, 1915-1918 yÕllarÕ arasÕnda Alman do÷u bilimci Gotthelf Berstraesser (1886-1933), karúÕlaútÕrmalÕ Sami Diller dersi vermiútir. AynÕ zamanda, Sami Dillerin tarihi üzerine, Türkçe olarak Elsine-i Samiye Tarihi adlÕ bir kitap hazÕrlamÕútÕr. Darü’l-Fünun’daki hocalÕk görevini bÕraktÕktan sonra, onun asistanÕ ve çok sayÕda kitaplar yazmÕú, bir Türk Musevisi, tarihçi Avram Galanti (1873-1961), karúÕlaútÕrmalÕ Sami Diller Bölümünde profesör olmuútur. (Galanti, 2002:4) Türkiye ve Elsine-i Samiye adlÕ makalesinde, Galanti, Türkiye’de Sami Dilleri incelemelerinin önemine iúaret eder ve Türkiye’nin Sami diller araútÕrmalarÕ için en elveriúli ülke oldu÷unu, çünkü bu dilleri kullananlarÕn OsmanlÕ devleti içinde yaúadÕklarÕnÕ ve halen de Türkiye’de yaúamakta olduklarÕnÕ ifade eder (Galanti, 2004:105). Modern Türk üniversitelerinde Do÷u Dilleri ö÷retimi, Arap, Fars dilleri, Hindoloji ve Sinoloji bölümlerinin açÕlmasÕ ile baúlamÕútÕr. Arapça ve Farsça, farklÕ dil ailelerine mensup olmakla birlikte, OsmanlÕ Türkçesi ve Türk kültürünü oluúturan ana unsurlar olmalarÕ dolayÕsÕyla birlikte mütalaa edilip ö÷retilmiúlerdir. Müteakiben, Arap ve Fars Dilleri ve EdebiyatlarÕ ba÷ÕmsÕz Anabilim DallarÕ çerçevesinde okutulmaya baúlanmÕútÕr. Modern Türk üniversitelerinde ve Darü’l-Fünun’un 1933 te kapatÕlmasÕnÕ izleyen yÕllarda, 1990lara kadar, Arapça dÕúÕnda, yaúayan herhangi bir Sami dilinin ö÷retilmedi÷ini ve bu dillerle ilgili ba÷ÕmsÕz bölümlerin açÕlmadÕ÷ÕnÕ görmekteyiz. Bu durumun, Türkiye’de yabancÕ dil ö÷retimi açÕsÕndan bir eksiklik yarattÕ÷ÕnÕ söyleyebiliriz. Türkiye’de øbranice ö÷retimi, tarihte Türk ve Yahudi toplumlarÕ arasÕndaki iliúkiler, günümüz Türk-øsrail iliúkileri, karúÕlaútÕrmalÕ Sami diller araútÕrmalarÕ ve klasik Arapça metinlerin do÷ru anlaúÕlmasÕ için önem taúÕmaktadÕr.

 1

Prof. Dr. Ankara Üniversitesi, Türkiye. [email protected]

132

Dokuzuncu Bölüm

Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Co÷rafya Fakültesi’nde øbranice ö÷retimi, ilk olarak 1999-2000 ö÷retim yÕlÕnda baúlamÕútÕr. Bu akademik yÕlda, Dil ve Tarih-Co÷rafya Fakültesi’nde modern øbranice dersi, øsrailli okutman Tal Fishman tarafÕndan Arap Dili ve EdebiyatÕ Anabilim DalÕnda verilmiútir. Tal Fishman’Õn 2000 yÕlÕnda Fakültedeki görevinden ayrÕlmasÕndan sonra, øbranice dersi 2000-2003 yÕllarÕ arasÕnda tarafÕmdan verilmiútir. øbranice ö÷renimimi büyük ölçüde 2007, 2008, 2009 yÕllarÕnda Kudüs øbrani Üniversitesi ve Hayfa Üniversiteleri yaz kurslarÕnda gördüm. 2003-2006 yÕllarÕ arasÕnda Dil ve Tarih-Co÷rafya Fakültesinde, øbranice dersleri kesintiye u÷ramÕútÕr. 2006-2007 akademik yÕlÕndan itibaren, yeni oluúturulan Erasmus programÕnda modern øbranice dersi, tarafÕmdan, Arap Dili ve EdebiyatÕ ders programÕnÕn 3. YÕlÕnÕn 1. ve 2. dönemlerinde haftada dört saat olarak verilmektedir. Türk üniversitelerinde ilk defa olarak, Arap Dili ve EdebiyatÕ Anabilim DalÕ programÕnda øbranice dersi Dil ve Tarih-Co÷rafya Fakültesi’nde verilmiútir. Bu derslerde, øbranice alfabe, fiili çekimleri, fiil kalÕplarÕ (binyanim), temel dilbilgisi kurallarÕ ö÷retilmekte ve baúlangÕç düzeyinde metinler ele alÕnmaktadÕr. Sami bir dil olmasÕ nedeniyle, øbranice, Arap Dili ve EdebiyatÕ ö÷rencilerine, Arapça ile karúÕlaútÕrma yapma imkânÕ sunmakta ve böylelikle, ö÷renciler, øbranicenin dil mantÕ÷ÕnÕ daha iyi kavramaktadÕrlar. Bu dersi alan ö÷rencilerin ço÷unlu÷u, øbraniceyi Arapçaya göre daha kolay ö÷rendiklerini belirtmektedirler. øbranice ve ArapçanÕn aynÕ dil ailesinden gelmesinin yanÕ sÕra, özellikle, Ortaça÷daki iliúkileri göz önüne alÕndÕ÷Õnda, øbraniceyi ö÷renmek, akademik çalÕúma yapmayÕ hedefleyen Arap Dili ve EdebiyatÕ mezunlarÕna, yeni araútÕrma alanlarÕ sunmaktadÕr. Bu derslerde ö÷renci sayÕsÕ, her dönemde 35 civarÕnda olmaktadÕr. Bu øbranice derslerinde, Edna Amir Coffin’in Lessons in Modern Hebrew Level I ve Lessons in Modern Hebrew Level II (Ann Arbor, The University of Michigan Press) adlÕ kitaplarÕ temel ders kitabÕ olarak izlenmektedir. AyrÕca baúka kitaplardan da yararlanÕlmaktadÕr. Ankara Üniversitesi’nin, øbranice dersleri verilen bir baúka fakültesi, ølahiyat Fakültesidir. Bu fakültede, 1962 yÕlÕnda, üç ö÷retim elemanÕ, Dr. Hüseyin Atay, Dr. Hikmet Tanyu ve Dr. Yaúar Kutluay, Ankara Üniversitesi tarafÕndan øbranice ö÷renimi için øsrail’e gönderilmiúlerdir. Orada kaldÕklarÕ iki yÕl süresince, øbranice ö÷reniminin yanÕ sÕra, araútÕrmalarda bulunmuúlardÕr. Bu fakültede, 1989-1990 ö÷retim yÕlÕnda, 4 saatlik lisansüstü düzeyde bir øbranice dersi, øsrail’in o zamanki Ankara maslahatgüzarÕnÕn eúi olan Tamar Millo tarafÕndan verilmiútir. Bu kurs, bir yÕl süreyle verilmiútir ve bu fakültedeki øbranice dersleri 1998 yÕlÕna kadar kesintiye u÷ramÕútÕr. 1998-1999 ö÷retim yÕlÕndan itibaren, Tefsir Bölümü lisansüstü programÕnda, dört saatlik bir øbranice dersi, Prof. Dr. Salih

Türk Üniversitelerinde øbranice

133

Akdemir tarafÕndan, “Vahiy Sürecinde Antik Diller” baúlÕ÷Õ altÕnda verilmektedir. Bu derste, esas olarak, Eliezer Tirkel’in Everyday Hebrew / øvrit B’kalut (Passport Books, Illinois 1994) adlÕ kitabÕ izlenmektedir. Salih Akdemir, yayÕnlarÕnda, Kur’an’Õn daha iyi anlaúÕlmasÕ ve daha do÷ru Kur’an çevirileri yapÕlmasÕ için øbranice bilgisinin de gerekli oldu÷unu ifade etmiútir. Prof. Dr. Akdemir, 2002 yÕlÕnda, Ankara Üniversitesi’nde bir KarúÕlaútÕrmalÕ Sami Diller Enstitüsü kurulmasÕ için bir proje hazÕrlamÕútÕr, ancak bu proje henüz gerçekleúmemiútir. AynÕ fakültede, øbranice dersi veren bir baúka akademisyen, Dinler Tarihi Bölümü’nden Prof. Dr. Baki Adam’dÕr. Prof. Dr. Adam, burslu olarak Tel-Aviv Üniversitesi’nde kalmÕú, orada øbranice ö÷renmiú ve araútÕrmalar yapmÕútÕr. 2002 yÕlÕnda ølahiyat Fakültesi’nde Dinler Tarihi Bölümü’nde lisansüstü programÕnda øbranice ö÷retmeye baúlamÕú ve bu dersler üç yÕl devam etmiútir. 2007 yÕlÕnda, bu Fakültede Dünya Dinleri Bölümü açÕlmÕútÕr. 2010 dan itibaren, bu bölümün lisans programÕnÕn 3. Ve 4. YÕllarÕnda, seçmeli bir øbranice dersi, Baki Adam tarafÕndan verilmiútir. Yeterli sayÕda ö÷renci seçti÷i takdirde, bu ders açÕlmaktadÕr. Bu derste, øvrit min ha hethala adlÕ kitap izlenmektedir. Türkiye’deki ilk øbrani Dili ve EdebiyatÕ birimi, Erciyes Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Do÷u Dilleri ve EdebiyatlarÕ Bölümü bünyesinde, Anabilim DalÕ olarak faaliyete geçmiútir. Bu Anabilim DalÕ, 2010-2011 ö÷retim yÕlÕnda ö÷renci almaya baúlamÕútÕr. Bir di÷er øbrani Dili ve EdebiyatÕ Anabilim DalÕ, østanbul Bahçeúehir Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Do÷u Dilleri ve EdebiyatlarÕ Bölümünde kurulmuú ve 2012 de ö÷renci almaya baúlamÕútÕr. Bu øbrani Dili ve EdebiyatÕ Anabilim dalÕnÕn ders programÕnda, øbranice dilbilgisi, fonetik, øbrani kültürü, kelime bilgisi, çeviri, øbrani edebiyatÕ ve üslup bilgisi derslerinin yer aldÕ÷ÕnÕ görmekteyiz. østanbul Medeniyet Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Do÷u Dilleri ve EdebiyatlarÕ Bölümünde bir øbrani Dili ve EdebiyatÕ Anabilim DalÕ kurulmuútur, ancak henüz e÷itime baúlamamÕútÕr. Ankara’da YÕldÕrÕm BeyazÕt Üniversitesi ønsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Fakültesi’nde Do÷u Dilleri ve EdebiyatlarÕ Bölümü’nde bir øbrani Dili ve EdebiyatÕ Anabilim DalÕnÕn kuruldu÷u bildirilmektedir, ancak henüz e÷itime baúlamamÕútÕr. Çanakkale 18 Mart Üniversitesi, 8 Temmuz 2011 tarihli Üniversite Senatosu kararÕnda, Yüksekö÷retim Kurulu’na, içinde øbrani Dili ve EdebiyatÕ Anabilim DalÕ olan bir Do÷u Dilleri ve EdebiyatlarÕ bölümü kurulmasÕ teklif edilmiútir. Trakya Üniversitesi Senatosu, 26 Mart 2009 tarihli toplantÕsÕnda, Yüksekö÷retim Kurulu’na, øbrani dili ve EdebiyatÕ bölümü ve YabancÕ

134

Dokuzuncu Bölüm

Diller Yüksekokulu’nda øbranice hazÕrlÕk sÕnÕfÕnÕn açÕlmasÕ ve 2009-2010 ders yÕlÕndan itibaren 20 ö÷renci alÕnmasÕnÕ içeren bir taslak sunmuútur. Son yÕllarda, Türkiye’de øbranice ö÷renimine giderek artan ilgi dolayÕsÕyla, bazÕ üniversitelerde øbranice kurslarÕnÕn açÕlmakta oldu÷unu görmekteyiz. Bilkent Üniversitesi’nde I, II, III düzeylerinde øbranice ö÷retilmektedir. Bo÷aziçi Üniversitesi Yaúam Boyu ö÷renim merkezin (BÜYEM) programÕnda temel, orta ve ileri düzeyde øbranice kurslarÕ bulunmaktadÕr. Mardin Artuklu Üniversitesi Türkiye’de Yaúayan Diller Enstitüsü,2012-2013 ö÷retim yÕlÕnda halka açÕk øbranice ve Süryanice kurslarÕ açÕlmasÕna karar vermiútir. øbranice kurslarÕ, Alef düzeyinde haftada 2 saat olarak programa konmuútur. øbranice, Bakanlar Kurulu’nun 24 MayÕs 2007 tarihli kararÕyla Türkiye’de resmi ve özel kurslarda ö÷retilebilecek dillerden biri olarak kabul edilmiútir. Türk-øsrail kültür anlaúmasÕna göre, her ö÷retim yÕlÕnda, bir Türk ö÷renci øsrail’de Ulpan’da 3-4 hafta süreyle øbranice e÷itimi için burs almaktadÕr. Türkiye’de øbranice ö÷retimi alanÕnda yapÕlan yayÕnlara baktÕ÷ÕmÕzda, sayÕlarÕnÕn az oldu÷unu görmekteyiz. Bir øbranice Konuúma KÕlavuzu, Mehmet Hengirmen tarafÕndan hazÕrlanmÕú ve Richard Dietrich tarafÕndan Türkçeye çevrilerek 1996 yÕlÕnda yayÕnlanmÕútÕr. TarafÕmdan hazÕrlanan ve 2012 yÕlÕnda yayÕnlanan øbranice Türkçe Sözlük (Kurmay YayÕnlarÕ), bu alanda bir boúlu÷u dolduracaktÕr. øbrani edebiyatÕ alanÕnda ise, Gerúon ùaked’in Modern øbrani EdebiyatÕ Tarihi adlÕ eseri, tarafÕmdan Almanca nüshasÕndan Türkçeye çevrilmiú ve 2007 de yayÕnlanmÕútÕr. Sonuç olarak, Türk Üniversitelerinde øbranice araútÕrmalarÕ ve ö÷retimi geç baúlamÕú olsa da, yeni açÕlan øbranice bölümleri bu alana katkÕlarÕnÕ sa÷layacaktÕr.

YararlanÕlan kaynaklar Aytaç, Bedrettin.(2012). øbranice Türkçe Sözlük. Ankara. Kurmay Kitap YayÕn Da÷ÕtÕm. Bergstrasser, Gotthelf. (2006). Sami Dilleri Tarihi. (HazÕrlayanlar: Prof. Dr. Hulusi KÕlÕç, Dr. Eyyüp TanrÕverdi) østanbul: Anka YayÕnlarÕ. Galanti, Avram (2002). Üç Sami Kanun Koyucu (HazÕrlayan Eyyüp TanrÕverdi). østanbul: Anka YayÕnlarÕ. Galanti, Avram.(2004). Türkiye ve Sami Dilleri (Sadeleútiren: Nurettin Ceviz, Musa YÕldÕz) Nüsha. 15:97-106.

Türk Üniversitelerinde øbranice

135

Hengirmen, Mehmet (1996). øbranice Konuúma KÕlavuzu. Ankara: Engin YayÕnevi. Shaked, Gershon.(2007). Modern øbrani EdebiyatÕ Tarihi (Çeviren: Bedrettin Aytaç) Ankara: Phoenix.

Görüúülen kiúiler Prof. Dr. Baki Adam, Ankara Üniversitesi ølahiyat Fakültesi. Prof. Dr. Hüseyin Atay, Emekli Ö÷retim Üyesi, Ankara Üniversitesi ølahiyat Fakültesi. Prof. Dr. Salih Akdemir, Ankara Üniversitesi ølahiyat Fakültesi.