Difference between revisions of "Dictionary:Changing Meanings/0"

From AlHaTorah.org
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
m
Line 113: Line 113:
 
<li><b>בִּירָה</b>&#160;– Though today, "בִּירָה" is used to refer to a capital city, in Biblical Hebrew the word generally means simply palace or fortress,<fn>See <a href="Nechemyah2-8" data-aht="source">Nechemyah 2:8</a>, <a href="DivreiHaYamimI29-1" data-aht="source">Divrei HaYamim I 29:1</a>, and <a href="DivreiHaYamimI29-19" data-aht="source">Divrei HaYamim I 29:19</a>.</fn> related to the Akkadian "<i>birtu</i>".</li>
 
<li><b>בִּירָה</b>&#160;– Though today, "בִּירָה" is used to refer to a capital city, in Biblical Hebrew the word generally means simply palace or fortress,<fn>See <a href="Nechemyah2-8" data-aht="source">Nechemyah 2:8</a>, <a href="DivreiHaYamimI29-1" data-aht="source">Divrei HaYamim I 29:1</a>, and <a href="DivreiHaYamimI29-19" data-aht="source">Divrei HaYamim I 29:19</a>.</fn> related to the Akkadian "<i>birtu</i>".</li>
 
<ul>
 
<ul>
<li>The later usage of the term has influenced many to understand the phrase "שׁוּשַׁן הַבִּירָה" throughout Megillat Esther to mean "Shushan, the capital city".<fn>See, for example,&#160;<multilink><a href="RashbamEsther1-2" data-aht="source">Rashbam</a><a href="RashbamEsther1-2" data-aht="source">Esther 1:2</a><a href="R. Shemuel b. Meir (Rashbam)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel b. Meir</a></multilink> and&#160;<multilink><a href="RYosefNachmiasEsther1-2" data-aht="source">R"Y Nachmias</a><a href="RYosefNachmiasEsther1-2" data-aht="source">Esther 1:2</a><a href="R. Yosef Nachmias" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef Nachmias</a></multilink> on Esther 1:2.</fn> See, though,&#160;<multilink><a href="IbnEzraEstherSecondCommentary1-2" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraEstherFirstCommentary1-2" data-aht="source">Esther First Commentary 1:2</a><a href="IbnEzraEstherSecondCommentary1-2" data-aht="source">Esther Second Commentary 1:2</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink> (and <multilink><a href="RBachyaKadHaKemach" data-aht="source">R. Bachya </a><a href="RBachyaKadHaKemach" data-aht="source">Kad HaKemach</a><a href="R. Bachya b. Asher" data-aht="parshan">About R. Bachya b. Asher</a></multilink>in his wake) who point out that a distinction should be made between "שׁוּשַׁן" or "העיר שושן", which do refer to a city, home to many Jews, and "שׁוּשַׁן הַבִּירָה" which refers to the fortified castle. <fn><div>This distinction might impact one's understanding of several verses in the Megillah:</div>
+
<li>The later usage of the term has influenced many to understand the phrase "שׁוּשַׁן הַבִּירָה" throughout Megillat Esther to mean "Shushan, the capital city".<fn>See, for example,&#160;<multilink><a href="RashbamEsther1-2" data-aht="source">Rashbam</a><a href="RashbamEsther1-2" data-aht="source">Esther 1:2</a><a href="R. Shemuel b. Meir (Rashbam)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel b. Meir</a></multilink> and&#160;<multilink><a href="RYosefNachmiasEsther1-2" data-aht="source">R"Y Nachmias</a><a href="RYosefNachmiasEsther1-2" data-aht="source">Esther 1:2</a><a href="R. Yosef Nachmias" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef Nachmias</a></multilink> on Esther 1:2.</fn> See, though,&#160;<multilink><a href="IbnEzraEstherSecondCommentary1-2" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraEstherFirstCommentary1-2" data-aht="source">Esther First Commentary 1:2</a><a href="IbnEzraEstherSecondCommentary1-2" data-aht="source">Esther Second Commentary 1:2</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink> (and <multilink><a href="RBachyaKadHaKemach" data-aht="source">R. Bachya </a><a href="RBachyaKadHaKemach" data-aht="source">Kad HaKemach</a><a href="R. Bachya b. Asher" data-aht="parshan">About R. Bachya b. Asher</a></multilink>in his wake) who point out that a distinction should be made between "שׁוּשַׁן" or "העיר שושן", which do refer to a city, home to many Jews, and "שׁוּשַׁן הַבִּירָה" which refers to the fortified castle.<fn>This distinction might impact one's understanding of several verses in the Megillah:<br/>
<div>
 
 
<ul>
 
<ul>
 
<li><a href="Esther1-5" data-aht="source">Esther 1:5</a>&#160;– The second seven day party might have been only for those in the castle.&#160; If so, in contrast to what is suggested by <a href="EstherRabbah2-5" data-aht="source">Esther Rabbah</a>, there were likely very few, if any, Jews in attendance.</li>
 
<li><a href="Esther1-5" data-aht="source">Esther 1:5</a>&#160;– The second seven day party might have been only for those in the castle.&#160; If so, in contrast to what is suggested by <a href="EstherRabbah2-5" data-aht="source">Esther Rabbah</a>, there were likely very few, if any, Jews in attendance.</li>
 
<li><a href="Esther2-5" data-aht="source">Esther 2:5</a>&#160;– This verse might teach not that Mordechai lived in the city of Shushan, but that he had a position (and perhaps lived) in the palace even before Esther was taken.</li>
 
<li><a href="Esther2-5" data-aht="source">Esther 2:5</a>&#160;– This verse might teach not that Mordechai lived in the city of Shushan, but that he had a position (and perhaps lived) in the palace even before Esther was taken.</li>
 
<li><a href="Esther9-6" data-aht="source">Esther 9:6</a>&#160;– This verse might refer to the killing of 500 supporters of Haman in the castle complex itself.</li>
 
<li><a href="Esther9-6" data-aht="source">Esther 9:6</a>&#160;– This verse might refer to the killing of 500 supporters of Haman in the castle complex itself.</li>
</ul>
+
</ul></fn></li>
</div></fn></li>
 
 
</ul>
 
</ul>
 
</ul>
 
</ul>
Line 147: Line 145:
 
<ul>
 
<ul>
 
<li>The פיעל form appears in four places in Tanakh, but its meaning is ambiguous.&#160; Based on the context, in three cases (<a href="Shemot3-22" data-aht="source">Shemot 3:22</a>, <a href="Shemot12-35-36" data-aht="source">Shemot 12:35-36</a>, and <a href="DivreiHaYamimII20-25" data-aht="source">Divrei HaYamim II 20:25</a>) the word appears to mean to strip or despoil,<fn>In Divrei HaYamim the word is surrounded on both sides by the verb "בזז".</fn> while in a fourth case it appears to mean to "save".&#160; Both possibilities stand in contrast to the modern usage of "to exploit". See <a href="Reparations and Despoiling Egypt" data-aht="page">Reparations and Despoiling Egypt</a> for how the different understandings might affect how one reads the command to borrow / ask for vessels from the Egyptians.</li>
 
<li>The פיעל form appears in four places in Tanakh, but its meaning is ambiguous.&#160; Based on the context, in three cases (<a href="Shemot3-22" data-aht="source">Shemot 3:22</a>, <a href="Shemot12-35-36" data-aht="source">Shemot 12:35-36</a>, and <a href="DivreiHaYamimII20-25" data-aht="source">Divrei HaYamim II 20:25</a>) the word appears to mean to strip or despoil,<fn>In Divrei HaYamim the word is surrounded on both sides by the verb "בזז".</fn> while in a fourth case it appears to mean to "save".&#160; Both possibilities stand in contrast to the modern usage of "to exploit". See <a href="Reparations and Despoiling Egypt" data-aht="page">Reparations and Despoiling Egypt</a> for how the different understandings might affect how one reads the command to borrow / ask for vessels from the Egyptians.</li>
<li>The&#160;התפעל form of "נצל" appears only once, in&#160;<a href="Shemot33-5-6" data-aht="source">Shemot 33:6</a> where it appears to mean remove from one's self.<fn>Cf. "הוֹרֵד עֶדְיְךָ" in the previous verse</fn> Today, in contrast, the word means to apologize.&#160; Yaakov Etzion<fn>See his article, &#8207;"<a href="http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/ktav_et/maamar.asp?ktavet=1&amp;id=859.">ארבע לשונות סליחה</a>", מעמקים 31, תש"ע.</fn> notes that the connotation of the verb has changed over the years. In medieval times it was used in the context of defending one's self against others' arguments (rather than acknowledging guilt),<fn>See Ramban</fn> and it meant to save one's self or cast off blame (thus, somewhat in keeping with the Biblical usage of the term). Only in modern times does it refer to the taking responsibility for one's actions and expressing regret for them.</li>
+
<li>The&#160;התפעל form of "נצל" appears only once, in&#160;<a href="Shemot33-5-6" data-aht="source">Shemot 33:6</a> where it appears to mean remove from one's self.<fn>Cf. "הוֹרֵד עֶדְיְךָ" in the previous verse</fn> Today, in contrast, the word means to apologize.&#160; Yaakov Etzion<fn>See his article, &#8207;"<a href="http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/ktav_et/maamar.asp?ktavet=1&amp;id=859.">ארבע לשונות סליחה</a>", מעמקים 31, תש"ע.</fn> notes that the connotation of the verb has changed over the years. In medieval times it was used in the context of defending one's self against others' arguments (rather than acknowledging guilt),<fn>See Ramban Bereshit 20:12, 31:35 or 44:1 where he uses the term in this manner.</fn> and it meant to save one's self or cast off blame (thus, somewhat in keeping with the Biblical usage of the term). Only in modern times does it refer to the taking responsibility for one's actions and expressing regret for them.</li>
 
</ul>
 
</ul>
<li><b>רגז</b> – Today, this root relates to anger. See, though,&#160;<multilink><a href="RashbamBereshit45-24" data-aht="source">Rashbam</a><a href="RashbamBereshit45-24" data-aht="source">Bereshit 45:24</a><a href="RashbamShemot22-1" data-aht="source">Shemot 22:1</a><a href="RashbamVayikra16-10" data-aht="source">Vayikra 16:10</a><a href="R. Shemuel b. Meir (Rashbam)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel b. Meir</a></multilink> who notes that in Tanakh it takes the meaning of "tremble" or "agitate",<fn>See, for example, <a href="Yoel2-10" data-aht="source">Yoel 2:10</a>, <a href="Tehillim18-8" data-aht="source">Tehillim 18:8</a>, <a href="Tehillim77-19" data-aht="source">Tehillim 77:19</a>, and <a href="Iyyov9-6" data-aht="source">Iyyov 9:6</a>.</fn> and is often paired with fear,<fn>See, for example, <a href="Shemot15-14" data-aht="source">Shemot 15:14</a>, <a href="Devarim2-25" data-aht="source">Devarim 2:25</a>, <a href="ShemuelI14-15" data-aht="source">Shemuel I 14:15</a>, and <a href="Yirmeyahu33-9" data-aht="source">Yirmeyahu 33:9</a>.</fn> not &#160; anger.<fn>In Biblical Hebrew anger is expressed via the terms, "חרון אף", "קצף", or "חמה".</fn></li>
+
<li><b>רגז</b> – Today, this root relates to anger. See, though,&#160;<multilink><a href="RashbamBereshit45-24" data-aht="source">Rashbam</a><a href="RashbamBereshit45-24" data-aht="source">Bereshit 45:24</a><a href="RashbamShemot22-1" data-aht="source">Shemot 22:1</a><a href="RashbamVayikra16-10" data-aht="source">Vayikra 16:10</a><a href="R. Shemuel b. Meir (Rashbam)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel b. Meir</a></multilink> who notes that in Tanakh it takes the meaning of "tremble" or "agitate",<fn>See, for example, <a href="Yoel2-10" data-aht="source">Yoel 2:10</a>, <a href="Tehillim18-8" data-aht="source">Tehillim 18:8</a>, <a href="Tehillim77-19" data-aht="source">Tehillim 77:19</a>, and <a href="Iyyov9-6" data-aht="source">Iyyov 9:6</a>.</fn> and is often paired with fear,<fn>See, for example, <a href="Shemot15-14" data-aht="source">Shemot 15:14</a>, <a href="Devarim2-25" data-aht="source">Devarim 2:25</a>, <a href="ShemuelI14-15" data-aht="source">Shemuel I 14:15</a>, and <a href="Yirmeyahu33-9" data-aht="source">Yirmeyahu 33:9</a>.</fn> not &#160; anger.<fn>In Biblical Hebrew anger is expressed via the terms: חרון אף, קצף, or חמה.</fn></li>
 
<ul>
 
<ul>
 
<li><a href="Bereshit45-24" data-aht="source">Bereshit 45:24</a>– The difference in usage might lie at the core of the debate between commentators over the meaning of Yosef's words to the brothers, "אַל תִּרְגְּזוּ בַּדָּרֶךְ".&#160; While&#160;<multilink><a href="RashiBereshit45-24" data-aht="source">Rashi</a><a href="RashiBereshit45-24" data-aht="source">Bereshit 45:24</a><a href="R. Shelomo Yitzchaki (Rashi)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki</a></multilink> and&#160;<multilink><a href="IbnEzraBereshitFirstCommentary45-24" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraBereshitFirstCommentary45-24" data-aht="source">Bereshit First Commentary 45:24</a><a href="IbnEzraTehillimSecondCommentary66-7" data-aht="source">Tehillim Second Commentary 66:7</a><a href="IbnEzraEstherSecondCommentary1-2" data-aht="source">Esther Second Commentary 1:2</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink> suggest that Yosef is warning the brothers not to be angry with one another,&#160;<multilink><a href="RashbamBereshit45-24" data-aht="source">Rashbam</a><a href="RashbamBereshit45-24" data-aht="source">Bereshit 45:24</a><a href="R. Shemuel b. Meir (Rashbam)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel b. Meir</a></multilink> and&#160;<multilink><a href="RambanBereshit45-24" data-aht="source">Ramban</a><a href="RambanBereshit45-24" data-aht="source">Bereshit 45:24</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Nachman (Ramban, Nachmanides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe b. Nachman</a></multilink> claim that Yosef is telling the brothers not to fear robbers en route home.&#160; See&#160;<multilink><a href="ShadalBereshit45-24" data-aht="source">Shadal</a><a href="ShadalBereshit45-24" data-aht="source">Bereshit 45:24</a><a href="R. Shemuel David Luzzatto (Shadal)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto</a></multilink> who attempts to defend both readings, suggesting that the root "רגז" simply means tremble, and can thus take on the secondary meaning of any strong emotion.</li>
 
<li><a href="Bereshit45-24" data-aht="source">Bereshit 45:24</a>– The difference in usage might lie at the core of the debate between commentators over the meaning of Yosef's words to the brothers, "אַל תִּרְגְּזוּ בַּדָּרֶךְ".&#160; While&#160;<multilink><a href="RashiBereshit45-24" data-aht="source">Rashi</a><a href="RashiBereshit45-24" data-aht="source">Bereshit 45:24</a><a href="R. Shelomo Yitzchaki (Rashi)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki</a></multilink> and&#160;<multilink><a href="IbnEzraBereshitFirstCommentary45-24" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraBereshitFirstCommentary45-24" data-aht="source">Bereshit First Commentary 45:24</a><a href="IbnEzraTehillimSecondCommentary66-7" data-aht="source">Tehillim Second Commentary 66:7</a><a href="IbnEzraEstherSecondCommentary1-2" data-aht="source">Esther Second Commentary 1:2</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink> suggest that Yosef is warning the brothers not to be angry with one another,&#160;<multilink><a href="RashbamBereshit45-24" data-aht="source">Rashbam</a><a href="RashbamBereshit45-24" data-aht="source">Bereshit 45:24</a><a href="R. Shemuel b. Meir (Rashbam)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel b. Meir</a></multilink> and&#160;<multilink><a href="RambanBereshit45-24" data-aht="source">Ramban</a><a href="RambanBereshit45-24" data-aht="source">Bereshit 45:24</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Nachman (Ramban, Nachmanides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe b. Nachman</a></multilink> claim that Yosef is telling the brothers not to fear robbers en route home.&#160; See&#160;<multilink><a href="ShadalBereshit45-24" data-aht="source">Shadal</a><a href="ShadalBereshit45-24" data-aht="source">Bereshit 45:24</a><a href="R. Shemuel David Luzzatto (Shadal)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto</a></multilink> who attempts to defend both readings, suggesting that the root "רגז" simply means tremble, and can thus take on the secondary meaning of any strong emotion.</li>

Version as of 04:06, 22 October 2020

Lexical: Changing Meanings

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Overview

All languages evolve, and semantic shift can result in a word's modern meaning being radically different than its original usage.  Hebrew is no exception, as Ri writes in Tosafot Kiddushin 37b,Kiddushin 37bAbout Ba'alei HaTosafot "לשון התורה לחוד ולשון נביאים לחוד ולשון חכמים לחוד". Words might take on one meaning in Torah, another in the Prophets and yet another in Rabbinic or modern Hebrew.  Often, one's familiarity with the contemporary usage of a word influences the way one interprets Tanakh, as one might not recognize that a word's definition might have evolved, becoming more narrow, more expansive, or changing totally.  Below is a listing of many terms whose meaning has shifted, with examples of how the changing definitions might have influenced different understandings of the Biblical text.

Changes Within the Biblical Period

There are several words whose meaning might have changed from one period within Tanakh to another:

  • אֲבָל – The meaning of this word has shifted over time, from meaning "indeed" or "verily" in the earlier book of Tanakh1 to meaning "but" in later books such as Daniel, Ezra and Divrei HaYamim.2
  • בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל – The connotation of this word has changed slightly over time. In Sefer Bereshit3 and the opening verses of Sefer Shemot4 the term  refers to the literal sons of Yaakov, whereas afterwards it refers to the nation of Israel.  The turning point might be Shemot 1:9, which uniquely states "עַם בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל",‎5 perhaps to clarify that the people have become a nation.6  There are a couple of cases in which the meaning of the term is ambiguous:
    • "לֹא יֹאכְלוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה" (Bereshit 32:33) – See the debate in Bavli Chulin 100bChulin 100bAbout the Bavli whether this refers to a prohibition Yaakov's sons accepted upon themselves or whether this was first commanded to the nation at Sinai and placed in Sefer Bereshit only to provide the reasoning behind the command.7
    • "וַיַּשְׁבַּע יוֹסֵף אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל... וְהַעֲלִתֶם אֶת עַצְמֹתַי" (Bereshit 50:25) – It is ambiguous from this verse whether Yosef is speaking to his brothers or all their descendants. The difference relates to a larger question: Did Yosef assume that after his death, the family would immediately return to Canaan and take his bones with them, or was Yosef aware the nation was to remain in Egypt for centuries and was requesting that the nation remember him when redeemed?8
  • דָּת – ShadalDevarim 33:2About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto points out that the word "דָּת" is a Persian loan word, first appearing as an independent word in the Book of Esther, where it means law or decree. The term appears only once earlier in Tanakh, in Devarim 33:2, but only as part of a larger term "אשדת". The word is written as just one word "אשדת" but read as if written "אֵשׁ דָּת". This has led commentators to debate the term's meaning:
  • חֹדֶשׁ – It is possible that in Torah, "חֹדֶשׁ" refers to the full month,9 while in Prophets it also takes on the more specific meaning of "Rosh Chodesh", the first of the month.10 See, though, R. Moshe ibn ChiquitillaShemot Second Commentary 12:2About R. Moshe ibn Chiquitilla who claims that the primary meaning of "חֹדֶשׁ" in Torah, too, is "Rosh Chodesh".11  The different possibilities might affect one's reading of several verses:
  • שַׁבַּת – It is possible that it is first in Prophets that the word "שַׁבַּת" refers to the seventh day of the week,15 while in Torah it refers to either a state of cessation,16 or the full week.17 When Torah speaks of the seventh day, it instead uses the terms "יּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי"‎18 or "יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת".‎19
    • The meaning of the word has important implications for the debate regarding the meaning of the phrase "מִמׇּחֳרַת הַשַּׁבָּת" in Vayikra 23:15, and hence the dating of both the bringing of the Omer offering and Shavuot. See MiMachorat HaShabbat for discussion.
  • רֹאֶה, נָבִיא, חֹזֵה – Tanakh itself attests to the changing terms used to describe a prophet.  See Shemuel I 9:9, " כִּי לַנָּבִיא הַיּוֹם יִקָּרֵא לְפָנִים הָרֹאֶה".

Biblical vs. Rabbinic Hebrew

There are many words whose usage might have changed from the Biblical period to the Mishnaic period:20

  • אמה – In Tanakh, the word אמה means either maidservant (when spelled without a dagesh)21 or a unit of measure (when spelled with a dagesh).22 In Rabbinic Hebrew, it may be used to refer also to the forearm itself.
  • בָּיִת – In Tanakh, this root generally refers to either a physical house26 or receptacle,27 or a family or household.28 In Rabbinic Hebrew it is also understood more narrowly to refer specifically to a wife.29
  • גּוֹי – Though the Sages use this word to refer to a non-Jew,30 in Tanakh it simply means nation, and can even refer to the Nation of Israel.31 In his Sefer HaShorashim, RadakSefer HaShorashimAbout R. David Kimchi attempts to explain the change in usage, suggesting that when the Sages wanted to identify a person as a non-Israelite but did not know his nationality, they would refer to him as simply "גוי", so as to say that he was from a different nation. This later usage has influenced the interpretation of certain verses32:
    •  "לָקַחַת לוֹ גוֹי מִקֶּרֶב גּוֹי" (Devarim 4:34) - Though the simple meaning of the verse is that Hashem took the nation of Israel out from Egypt, Pesikta Rabbati15About Pesikta Rabbati33 notes that Israel is referred to as a "גוי" because she behaved like a non-Jew (not being circumcised in Egypt).

Biblical vs. Modern Hebrew

Many modern Hebrew words might take on different meanings than their Biblical counterparts:

  • בִּירָה – Though today, "בִּירָה" is used to refer to a capital city, in Biblical Hebrew the word generally means simply palace or fortress,68 related to the Akkadian "birtu".
  • דּוֹד – Though today "דּוֹד" can refer to an uncle on either the mother or father's side, see RashiYirmeyahu 32:12About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki71 who notes that in Tanakh, the term is reserved for a father's brother.72  [It also takes the meaning of beloved, as in Shir HaShirim]. 
    • See Yirmeyahu 32:12 where Rashi attempts to explain how Chanamel can be  referred to as both Yirmeyahu's cousin and uncle,73 rejecting the possibility raised by some that he was Yirmeyahu's cousin on his father side and his uncle on his mother's side, claiming, "לא מצינו בכל המקרא אח האם קרוי דוד".‎74  
    • See also RadakAmos 6:10About R. David Kimchi75 on Amos 6:10, who raises the possibility that the hapax legomenon "מסרף" in the phrase "דּוֹדוֹ וּמְסָרְפוֹ" might refer to an uncle on the mother's side (suggesting that the words  דוד and מסרף are a pair).76
  • "דָּת" – The word "דָּת" is a Persian loan word,77 which appears predominantly in Sefer Esther, and consistently means "law" or "decree".78 This stands in contrast to the word's prevalent usage today where it means "religion".79
  • להתחתן – In Tanakh, in contrast to modern Hebrew, the parties who are "מתחתן" are the חֹתֵן (father80 of the bride) and the חָתָן (son-in-law)81 or the חֹתֵן (father of the bride) and the father of the groom,82 not the husband and wife. The verb "להתחתן" is not used to describe the forming of the marital relationship between the bride and groom83 as it was the father of the bride and not the bride herself who was the active party in the marital contract. This betrays the nature of marriage in Tanakh as the formation of an alliance84 rather than a bonding of love.
  • ירא א-להים – Today, this phrase is used to refer to a person who is a believing, God-fearing Jew, and focuses on the person's relationship to Hashem.  In Tanakh, though, it might also be used in the context of interpersonal relations, referring to someone's moral or ethical conduct.85 ShadalShemot 1:15About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto suggests that the term might refer to anyone who fears even a false god, for someone who fears such a higher authority will have some sense of morality.  The difference in meaning might affect how one reads several stories:
    • The Midwives – As the midwives are said to have "feared God" (Shemot 1:17), whether one understand the phrase to refer to having belief in Hashem or having a sense of morality will influence whether one suggests that they were Egyptian or Hebrew. See Who are the Midwives.
    • Amalek - In speaking of Amalek's attack, Devarim 25:18 states, "וְאַתָּה עָיֵף וְיָגֵעַ וְלֹא יָרֵא אֱלֹהִים".  Commentators debate whether the description "יָרֵא אֱלֹהִים" refers to Amalek or Israel, and, if the former, whether it describes the Amalekites' lack of ethics or disregard for God. See Annihilating Amalek.
  • מִדְבָּר– In modern Hebrew a "מדבר" is defined as an area with a hot, dry climate and less than 250 mm of precipitation a year. RadakYehoshua 8:15Yirmeyahu 12:12About R. David Kimchi86 points out that in Tanakh, in contrast, the term refers to grazing land, unfit for agriculture but well suited for shepherding.  He suggests that the word "מִדְבָּר" might relate to the root "דבר" meaning to lead (or shepherd).
    • The difference in meaning affects how one thinks about the forty years in the wilderness.  Did the nation trek through barren, arid land, with intense heat and almost no water,87 or were the conditions considerably better, with pasture for their livestock?88  See Life in the Wilderness.
  • נִין וָנֶכֶד‎‎89‎‎‎‎‎ – This pair of words appears three times in Tanakh,90 always in this order.  As such, in context, the terms would appear to mean child and grandchild respectively,91 or perhaps refer more generally to descendants (with no differentiation between the terms).92 In modern Hebrew, in contrast, נין and נכד no longer take on the general connotation of "descendant", and the chronological order is reversed and moved down a generation, with נכד referring to a grandson and נין referring to a great-grandson.93
  • נצל - The הפעיל form of this verb (הציל) has maintained the meaning of to save or deliver until today, but the meaning of the פיעל and התפעל forms might have changed over time:
    • The פיעל form appears in four places in Tanakh, but its meaning is ambiguous.  Based on the context, in three cases (Shemot 3:22, Shemot 12:35-36, and Divrei HaYamim II 20:25) the word appears to mean to strip or despoil,94 while in a fourth case it appears to mean to "save".  Both possibilities stand in contrast to the modern usage of "to exploit". See Reparations and Despoiling Egypt for how the different understandings might affect how one reads the command to borrow / ask for vessels from the Egyptians.
    • The התפעל form of "נצל" appears only once, in Shemot 33:6 where it appears to mean remove from one's self.95 Today, in contrast, the word means to apologize.  Yaakov Etzion96 notes that the connotation of the verb has changed over the years. In medieval times it was used in the context of defending one's self against others' arguments (rather than acknowledging guilt),97 and it meant to save one's self or cast off blame (thus, somewhat in keeping with the Biblical usage of the term). Only in modern times does it refer to the taking responsibility for one's actions and expressing regret for them.
  • רגז – Today, this root relates to anger. See, though, RashbamBereshit 45:24Shemot 22:1Vayikra 16:10About R. Shemuel b. Meir who notes that in Tanakh it takes the meaning of "tremble" or "agitate",98 and is often paired with fear,99 not   anger.100
  • שופט – In modern Hebrew, a "שופט" serves solely in a judicial capacity.  In Biblical Hebrew, however, the verb "לשפט" might also refer to the execution of judgement, and the noun form has the broader connotation of "governor" or "savior" as well.
    • The difference in meaning might influence how one perceives the various "שופטים" of Sefer Shofetim. Were they religious leaders or simply warriors who took vengeance on Israel's enemies?  See Hoil Moshe on Shofetim 10:4
  • Body parts as metaphors – Though both Biblical and modern Hebrew have various body parts act as metaphors, they disagree regarding what is expressed by each part:
    • לב – In Tanakh the heart, rather than the brain, is home to thought and the intellect.101
    • כליות, כבד and מעיים – In Tanakh, it is the kidneys, liver and intestines, not the heart, which is home to emotions and affections.102