94 Meira Polliack
Th e Karaite tradition of Hebrew grammar originated in centers of gram-
matical study in the East during the late 9th and early 10th centuries and
was brought to the Land of Israel by Karaite scholars who migrated from
the Persian regions, sometimes via Iraq. An important fi gure among these
was Abū Ya‘qūb Yūsuf ibn Nūh., who wrote a grammatical commentary on
the Bible, known as the Diqdūq, during the second half of the 10th century.
Ibn Nūh established in Jerusalem a Karaite “house of learning” or “learning
compound” (dār lil-‘ilm; h.as.er), in which other famous Karaite scholars
were active. It is possible that the special fusion between the branches of
grammar, translation, and exegesis typical of Karaite biblical study crystal-
lized within the Jerusalem school, in an atmosphere of open intellectual
debate in pursuit of the Bible’s meaning.
Grammar and exegesis were intertwined in early Karaite thought much
in the way that early Arabic grammar was closely associated with Qur’ānic
exegesis prior to the work of Sībawayhi, the founder of Arabic grammar. In
both traditions, grammar was primarily conceived as a tool in the clarifi ca-
tion of the meaning of Scripture, and only later did it become an indepen-
dent discipline. Th e Karaites’ subordination of grammar to exegesis enabled
them to perceive that form and meaning were inextricably connected. Th us,
a leading principle in Ibn Nūh.’s Hebrew grammar is that “one category of
linguistic form consistently has one type of meaning. In order to establish
the precise meaning of the Biblical text, therefore, it was thought to be es-
sential to analyse the form of words.”16 Th e Karaites’ concern with linguis-
tic form arose from their understanding that a direct link exists between
form and meaning. Th is understanding is also refl ected in their Arabic
Bible translations, which were designed to represent, as much as possible,
the original word order and syntax of the Hebrew text. In contrast, Sa‘adiah
Gaon’s translation of the Torah became separated from his lengthier com-
mentary on it at an early stage of its transmission. Th is was probably due
to the functional diff erentiation which Sa‘adiah himself initiated, wherein
his interpretive translation was deemed a self-suffi cient mode of address-
ing the biblical text. In the same vein, the Karaites’ lengthier commentaries,
which served as the third layer of their Bible compositions, were generally
bound to the immediate literary context of the annotated passage.
Th e Bible as LiteratureTh e leading Karaite exegete of the 10th century, Yefet ben ‘Eli, was able to
pursue the linkage between form and meaning a step further, by applying