A clarification of what I said about mediaeval Hebrew. There are two styles. (a) One is a style mainly used in narratives, or in speeches and arguments and so on within narratives. It is sometimes used for poetry. This is a simplified and standardised Biblical Hebrew, even using the distinctive tenses of Biblical Hebrew. There is influence from Mishnaic Hebrew. (b) The second is used in philosophical, theological, kabbalistic, and halachic books, and also in books on astronomy, mathematics, physics, and so on. It is Mishnaic Hebrew with noticeable influence from Biblical Hebrew. There is a lot of new technical vocabulary, because of the subjects written about. It is partly made up from existing roots using the standard word-forming structues. Often the analogy of technical expressions in Greek, Latin, Syriac, and Arabic is followed. It is partly borrowed from Aramaic (including Syriac) and adapted to the phonetics and morphology of Hebew. It is partly borrowed from Arabic and adapted the same way as for words from Aramaic. Combination of the first and third categories is very very common in mediaeval Hebrew, and still extensively used in Modern Hebrew. Thus from the ancient root Hebrew H.ET-SHIN-BET and Arabic H.ET-SIN-BET we get Arabic h.âsûb a computer, and Hebrew mah.shev with the same meaning.
It is quite easy to speak and write mediaeval Hebrew of both categories. The second category is essentially the same as Modern Hebrew.
You will often hear it said that Mediaeval Hebrew is debased. Not so. There is admittedly a debased form, but nothing of significance is written in that form.
Stephan Huller has had a life long interest in religion and spirituality 
dating back to conversations with his grandfather, Gaston Frank. "He said we represent one of the last descendants of the Frankist Jewish faith in the world," he muses. "I grew up thinking that our family was something like the Last of the Mohicans."