Difference between revisions of "Dictionary:Changing Meanings/0"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This topic has not yet undergone editorial review
m |
|||
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
<category name="Within the Biblical Period"> | <category name="Within the Biblical Period"> | ||
Changes Within the Biblical Period | Changes Within the Biblical Period | ||
− | <p>There are several words whose meaning might have changed from one period within Tanakh to another:</p> | + | <p>There are several words whose meaning might have changed from one period within Tanakh to another:</p><ul> |
− | <ul> | ||
<li><b>אֲבָל </b>– The meaning of this word has shifted over time, from meaning "indeed" or "verily" in the earlier book of Tanakh<fn>See, for example, <a href="Bereshit17-18-19" data-aht="source">Bereshit 17:19</a>, <a href="Bereshit42-20-21" data-aht="source">Bereshit 42:21</a> and <a href="ShemuelII14-4-5" data-aht="source">Shemuel II 14:5</a>.</fn> to meaning "but" in later books such as Daniel, Ezra and Divrei HaYamim.<fn>See, for instance, <a href="Daniel10-7" data-aht="source">Daniel 10:7</a>, <a href="DivreiHaYamimII1-2-4" data-aht="source">Divrei HaYamim II 1:4</a>, or <a href="DivreiHaYamimII33-15-17" data-aht="source">Divrei HaYamim II 33:17</a>.</fn></li> | <li><b>אֲבָל </b>– The meaning of this word has shifted over time, from meaning "indeed" or "verily" in the earlier book of Tanakh<fn>See, for example, <a href="Bereshit17-18-19" data-aht="source">Bereshit 17:19</a>, <a href="Bereshit42-20-21" data-aht="source">Bereshit 42:21</a> and <a href="ShemuelII14-4-5" data-aht="source">Shemuel II 14:5</a>.</fn> to meaning "but" in later books such as Daniel, Ezra and Divrei HaYamim.<fn>See, for instance, <a href="Daniel10-7" data-aht="source">Daniel 10:7</a>, <a href="DivreiHaYamimII1-2-4" data-aht="source">Divrei HaYamim II 1:4</a>, or <a href="DivreiHaYamimII33-15-17" data-aht="source">Divrei HaYamim II 33:17</a>.</fn></li> | ||
<li><b>בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל</b> – The connotation of this word has changed slightly over time. In Sefer Bereshit<fn>See <a href="Bereshit42-5" data-aht="source">Bereshit 42:5</a>, <a href="Bereshit45-17-21" data-aht="source">Bereshit 45:21</a> and <a href="Bereshit46-5" data-aht="source">Bereshit 46:5</a>.</fn> and the opening verses of Sefer Shemot<fn>The phrase "בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל" in <a href="Shemot1-1" data-aht="source">Shemot 1:1</a> clearly refers to the sons of Yaakov but verse 7 is ambiguous and could refer either to Yaakov's sons or to the entire Israelite nation. This depends on whether the verse is still part of the opening summary of Sefer Bereshit or is referring to events after the brothers' death.</fn> the term  refers to the literal sons of Yaakov, whereas afterwards it refers to the nation of Israel.  The turning point might be <a href="Shemot1-7-9" data-aht="source">Shemot 1:9</a>, which uniquely states "<b>עַם</b> בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל",‎<fn>This is the only place in Tanakh in which this exact term is used and there are only two other places in Tanakh (Shemot 3:10, 7:4) where Hashem uses a similar term, "עַמִּי בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל".</fn> perhaps to clarify that the people have become a nation.<fn>See <multilink><a href="RSRHirschShemot1-1" data-aht="source">R. Hirsch</a><a href="RSRHirschShemot1-1" data-aht="source">Shemot 1:1</a><a href="RSRHirschShemot1-9" data-aht="source">Shemot 1:9</a><a href="R. Samson Raphael Hirsch" data-aht="parshan">About R. Samson Raphael Hirsch</a></multilink> on Shemot 1:1 and 9 who implies this.</fn>  There are a couple of cases in which the meaning of the term is ambiguous:</li> | <li><b>בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל</b> – The connotation of this word has changed slightly over time. In Sefer Bereshit<fn>See <a href="Bereshit42-5" data-aht="source">Bereshit 42:5</a>, <a href="Bereshit45-17-21" data-aht="source">Bereshit 45:21</a> and <a href="Bereshit46-5" data-aht="source">Bereshit 46:5</a>.</fn> and the opening verses of Sefer Shemot<fn>The phrase "בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל" in <a href="Shemot1-1" data-aht="source">Shemot 1:1</a> clearly refers to the sons of Yaakov but verse 7 is ambiguous and could refer either to Yaakov's sons or to the entire Israelite nation. This depends on whether the verse is still part of the opening summary of Sefer Bereshit or is referring to events after the brothers' death.</fn> the term  refers to the literal sons of Yaakov, whereas afterwards it refers to the nation of Israel.  The turning point might be <a href="Shemot1-7-9" data-aht="source">Shemot 1:9</a>, which uniquely states "<b>עַם</b> בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל",‎<fn>This is the only place in Tanakh in which this exact term is used and there are only two other places in Tanakh (Shemot 3:10, 7:4) where Hashem uses a similar term, "עַמִּי בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל".</fn> perhaps to clarify that the people have become a nation.<fn>See <multilink><a href="RSRHirschShemot1-1" data-aht="source">R. Hirsch</a><a href="RSRHirschShemot1-1" data-aht="source">Shemot 1:1</a><a href="RSRHirschShemot1-9" data-aht="source">Shemot 1:9</a><a href="R. Samson Raphael Hirsch" data-aht="parshan">About R. Samson Raphael Hirsch</a></multilink> on Shemot 1:1 and 9 who implies this.</fn>  There are a couple of cases in which the meaning of the term is ambiguous:</li> | ||
Line 157: | Line 156: | ||
<li><b>כליות, כבד and מעיים</b> – In Tanakh, it is the kidneys, intestines, and liver, which is home to emotions and affections.<fn>See <a href="Yirmeyahu12-2" data-aht="source">Yirmeyahu 12:2</a>, <a href="Yirmeyahu31-19" data-aht="source">Yirmeyahu 31:19</a>, <a href="Mishlei23-16" data-aht="source">Mishlei 23:16</a>, <a href="Eikhah1-20" data-aht="source">Eikhah 1:20</a> and <a href="Eikhah2-11" data-aht="source">Eikhah 2:11</a>.</fn></li> | <li><b>כליות, כבד and מעיים</b> – In Tanakh, it is the kidneys, intestines, and liver, which is home to emotions and affections.<fn>See <a href="Yirmeyahu12-2" data-aht="source">Yirmeyahu 12:2</a>, <a href="Yirmeyahu31-19" data-aht="source">Yirmeyahu 31:19</a>, <a href="Mishlei23-16" data-aht="source">Mishlei 23:16</a>, <a href="Eikhah1-20" data-aht="source">Eikhah 1:20</a> and <a href="Eikhah2-11" data-aht="source">Eikhah 2:11</a>.</fn></li> | ||
</ul> | </ul> | ||
− | <li><b> | + | <li><b>Directions and orientation</b> – In modern times, people tend to orient themselves to the North, and so one's left would be to the west and one's right would be to the east.  In the Ancient Near East, in contrast, people oriented themselves towards the sun, and hence to the east.  Thus "קֶדֶם" (literally: forward) is not north, but east, "אָחוֹר" (literally: backward) is west, "יָמִין" is south, and "שְׂמֹאל" is north .</li> |
</ul> | </ul> | ||
</category> | </category> |
Version as of 04:00, 22 October 2020
Lexical: Changing Meanings
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, "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 100b 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 – Shadal 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:
- Adopting the later meaning of "law" back to this verse, Rashi and R"Y Bekhor Shor assume that the verse is referring to the Torah which was given amidst the fire. Shadal, though, claims that the word has no connection to"דת". It is instead related to the noun "אשדה", meaning slope, and like many other words in the verse refers to a location.
- 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 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:
- "בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁלִישִׁי" (Shemot 19:1) – This verse states that the nation arrived in Sinai, "בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁלִישִׁי לְצֵאת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם" without mentioning a specific date within the month. As such, R. Moshe ibn Chiquitilla, Ralbag and Shadal all suggest that "בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁלִישִׁי" means the third "new moon" rather than the "third month" and that the verse is stating that the nation arrived in Sinai on the first of Sivan.12
- "וּבְרָאשֵׁי חׇדְשֵׁיכֶם" – Most understand the phrase "רָאשֵׁי חׇדְשֵׁיכֶם" in both Bemidbar 10:10 and Bemidbar 28:11 to refer to the new moon, the "head" of the month. R. Moshe ibn Chiquitilla, though, assumes that it refers to the first of the new moons13 (i.e. Rosh Chodesh Nissan specifically). According to him, the trumpets discussed in Bemidbar 10 are blown specifically on the first of Nissan since it is the beginning of the year.
- זֹאת עֹלַת חֹדֶשׁ בְּחׇדְשׁוֹ"" (Bemidbar 28:14)14 – Compare Ibn Ezra, R"Y Bekhor Shor, and Ibn Chiquitilla as to whether this verse means: This is the Olah that was brought monthly, this is the Olah of the month, to be brought when the moon is renewed, or this is the Olah of the new moon, to be brought each month.
- 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.
- See the dispute in Bavli Sotah regarding the meaning of the phrase "וַתִּשְׁלַח אֶת אֲמָתָהּ וַתִּקָּחֶהָ" in Shemot 2:5, where one opinion suggests that the daughter of Paroh extended her arm, rather than sending her servant, to retrieve Moshe.23 Ibn Ezra rejects this possibility noting both the missing dagesh24 and the fact that this usage is not found in Tanakh: "אמה מדה היא, כי הזרוע לא תקרא אמה".25
- 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
- See Sifra Vayikra and Mishna Yoma 1:1 who adopt this later meaning to Vayikra 16, explaining, "וְכִפֶּר בַּעֲדוֹ וּבְעַד בֵּיתוֹ" to mean "and he will atone for himself and his wife".
- See also Lekach Tov and Chizkuni on Shemot 1:1 who understand the phrase "אִישׁ וּבֵיתוֹ בָּאוּ" to refer to Yaakov's sons and their wives. See, though, Ibn Ezra who argues against this reading, noting: "אין בית בכל המקרא אשה".
- 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, Radak 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 Rabbati33 notes that Israel is referred to as a "גוי" because she behaved like a non-Jew (not being circumcised in Egypt).
- דָּמִֽים – In Tanakh this word is related to blood or life whereas in Mishnaic Hebrew it also takes the meaning of "money".34
- The later usage might have influenced the interpretation of Rashbam and Chizkuni to Shemot 22:1-2 who understand the phrases "אֵין/יש לוֹ דָּמִים" to mean "תשלומי דמים", perhaps combining the Biblical and Rabbinic usage of the term.
- Cf. Ibn Janach who explains similarly, claiming that the verse in Shemot and the parallel phrase "אֵין לוֹ דָּם" in Bemidbar 35:27 both mean ransom. He further claims that the phrase in Tehillim 72:14, "וְיֵיקַר דָּמָם בְּעֵינָיו" means not life but value or worth.
- ה״א הקריאה – Contrast Ibn Ezra on Bemidbar 15:15 who claims that there is no such thing as a "ה״א לקריאה" in Biblical Hebrew35 with Ibn Balaam who suggests that though rare, it does exist. As examples, Ibn Balaam points to Bemidbar 15:15, Yirmeyahu 2:31, Mikhah 2:7 and Shir HaShirim 8:13.
- חותן/חותנת and חם/חמות – Biblical Hebrew distinguishes between a father-in-law on the husband and wife's side, using distinct terms for each. The wife's father is referred to as a חותן,36 while the husband's father is referred to as a חם.37 Rabbinic Hebrew, in contrast, does not preserve the distinction and uses the terms חם and חמות to refer also to the parents of the wife.38 For further discussion, see חֹתֵן / חֹתֶנֶת.
- מַלְאָךְ – In Biblical Hebrew "מַלְאָךְ" refers to any type of messenger,39 not specifically an angel. Divine messengers are singled out by the terms "מַלְאַךְ אֱלֹהִים" or "'מַלְאַךְ ה".40 In Rabbinic Hebrew, in contrast, "מַלְאָךְ" takes on the much more specific connotation of "angel".41 Tanakh's broader definition of the word allows for ambiguity and in several cases, commentators debate what type of messenger is referred to:
- See the discussion in Avraham's Guests – Angels or Men regarding the identity of the "מלאכים" / "אנשים" in Bereshit 18-19.
- See also Ralbag regarding the "מלאך" who appeared to Hagar in both Bereshit 16 and 21, those who meet Yaakov in Bereshit 32:2, and those that appeared to Gidon and to Manoach's wife and many others. In each case Ralbag suggests that the verse refers to a prophet of Hashem.42
- מַס – Hoil Moshe points out that "מַס" in Tanakh refers to a labor tax rather than a monetary one,43 noting that the Biblical term for a monetary tribute is "מנחה" or "מכס".
- This relates to a dispute among commentators regarding how to understand the role of the "tax officers" mentioned in Shemot 1:11. Though many assume this refers to those who oversaw the forced labor, Ralbag suggests it refers to collection of a fiscal payment (as per the later usage of the word). Ralbag opines that only those who could not afford the monetary fine were forced to labor for Paroh. See discussion in Who was Enslaved in Egypt.
- מָקוֹם – Ibn Ezra notes that in Tanakh, the word "מקום" never refers to Hashem and always connotes a location. It is only the Sages who use the term to refer also to Hashem due to his omnipresence.44
- This leads Ibn Ezra to reject the Midrashic interpretation45 that the phrase "וַיִּפְגַּע בַּמָּקוֹם" in Bereshit 28:11 means that Yaakov prayed to Hashem.
- Ibn Ezra similarly objects to those who explain46 that Esther 4:14, "רֶוַח וְהַצָּלָה יַעֲמוֹד לַיְּהוּדִים מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר", refers to Hashem's salvation.
- See also R. Shimon in Avot 3:3 who takes the verse כִּי כׇּל שֻׁלְחָנוֹת מָלְאוּ קִיא צֹאָה" בְּלִי מָקוֹם" (Yeshayahu 28:8) out of context, using the later understanding of the word "מקום", to teach that a table which does not have words of Torah (בְּלִי מָקוֹם), is like an altar of the dead, filled with filth.
- עוֹלָם – Ibn Ezra notes that throughout Tanakh the word "עוֹלָם" is a marker of time, connoting a long duration or eternity. It is only in Rabbinic sources that the word takes on the extra meaning of "world".47 [In Tanakh, the word used to describe the world is "תֵּבֵל".]
- As such, he claims that when explaining verses which can sustain both meanings (see Tehillim 66:7, Tehillim 89:3,48 Mishlei 10:24-25 and Kohelet 3:11),49 the prevalent meaning of "eternity" should be adopted.
- עַם הָאָרֶץ – In Rabbinic Hebrew this term refers to an individual who does not have much Torah knowledge or is not careful in keeping the laws of purity or tithing.50 In Tanakh, in contrast, the term does not have a derogatory meaning and refers to a group rather than an individual, speaking of those living in the land. It is debated whether the term refers to the poorer masses or specifically to the higher classes, or if it is more general in nature.51
- צְדָקָה – Though, in Rabbinic sources, the word צדקה refers to charity and giving of alms (and perhaps also to general acts of kindness), R"Y Kara notes that it never takes this meaning in Tanakh, but rather refers to justice or righteousness. ["צְדָקָה" is, thus, often paired with the word "משפט".]52 In several cases the later usage has influenced interpretation of verses. For example:
- "חָטָאתִי הַפָּעַם י״י הַצַּדִּיק וַאֲנִי וְעַמִּי הָרְשָׁעִים" (Shemot 9:27) – Contrast R"Y Bekhor Shor who explains that Paroh is saying that Hashem acted justly in punishing him, with Shemot Rabbah 12:2 who has Hashem acting in kindness, by warning the Egyptians of the upcoming plague.
- "וְהָאֵל הַקָּדוֹשׁ נִקְדָּשׁ בִּצְדָקָה" (Yeshayahu 5:16) - Contrast R"Y Kara, Ibn Ezra and Radak who assume that "צְדָקָה" here is parallel to the word "משפט" found in the beginning of the verse, with Tanchuma who thinks it refers to Hashem's mercy and defense of Israel.
- צַדִּיק – In Rabbinic sources the word צדיק often refers to one who is extraordinarily righteous. In Tanakh, though, it is possible that the word simply means innocent or just, but not exceptionally so.53 The difference might affect one's understanding of several verses:
- Was Noach (an "אִישׁ צַדִּיק") saved because he was extremely virtuous, or was he simply the only upright, innocent individual of the time? See Ramban Bereshit 6:9.
- Was Avraham asking that Hashem not destroy the righteous of Sedom, or only that He not collectively punish the innocent? For discussion, see Avraham's Prayer for Sedom.
- רֹב – In contrast to Mishnaic and modern Hebrew where "רוב" means "most" or a "majority",54 in Tanakh the word consistently means abundance or many.55
- The change in meaning might have influenced Bavli Megillah's reading of Esther 10:3, "כִּי מׇרְדֳּכַי הַיְּהוּדִי מִשְׁנֶה לַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ וְגָדוֹל לַיְּהוּדִים וְרָצוּי לְרֹב אֶחָיו". The Bavli suggests that the verse is highlighting that only most were pleased with Mordechai, while others were not. Contrast Hoil Moshe who explains the verse to mean: "ורצוי לאחיו הרבים". See Mordechai's Legacy – ורצוי לרב אחיו for more.
- שְׁאוֹל – Tanakh never speaks of distinct afterworlds for the righteous and wicked, and instead uses one term, "שְׁאוֹל", to refer to the place to which all the dead go,56 being synonymous with either death itself, a grave, or perhaps the "underworld".57 By Mishnaic times, a distinction between an afterworld for the righteous (גן עדן) and wicked (גיהנום) already exists and the term "שְׁאוֹל" comes to refer to the latter.58
- See Ibn Ezra on Bereshit 37:35 who argues on these grounds against the Vulgate's translation of this verse which defines "שְׁאוֹל" as "hell".
- שכר – See Hoil Moshe on Bemidbar 28:7 who suggests that the word "שכר" in Tanakh refers to a strong wine rather than an alcoholic beverage made of wheat (as per its later usage).59
- תּוֹרָה – In Rabbinic Hebrew the word "תּוֹרָה" refers to the Five Books of Chumash or a Torah scroll. In Tanakh, the term is more general, referring to a set of instructions, teaching or law.60 The difference in meaning might affect how commentators interpret several verses:
- Ceremony at Mt. Eval (Devarim 27:1-8) – Commentators dispute what was written on the stones, the entire Torah, only the laws, the Decalogue, or the blessings and curses mentioned in the unit. See R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, Ibn Ezra and Ralbag.61
- "תוֹרַת חֶסֶד עַל לְשׁוֹנָהּ" (Mishlei 31:26) – On a simple level, this phrase might be translated: "And a law of kindness was on her tongue", meaning that the woman of valor is guided by ways of kindness. Bavli Sukkah, though, understands the verse to refer to the Torah itself, questioning what it means to have a "Torah of Chesed" and concluding that the phrase refers to one who learns (or observes) Torah for its own sake.,
- תשובה – Though in Tanakh one can "return to Hashem"62 or "turn away from Hashem"63 the noun form "תשובה" is never used in this context. It, instead, refers to either a physical return from one place to another,64 a reply,65 or the turn of the year.66 In Rabbinic Hebrew, in contrast, the noun form is often used to refer to a spiritual return67 (repentance) and phrases like "לעשות תשובה", "בעל תשובה" or "לחזור בתשובה" appear.
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".
- The later usage of the term has influenced many to understand the phrase "שׁוּשַׁן הַבִּירָה" throughout Megillat Esther to mean "Shushan, the capital city".69 See, though, Ibn Ezra (and R. Bachya 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.70
- דּוֹד – Though today "דּוֹד" can refer to an uncle on either the mother or father's side, see Rashi71 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 Radak75 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
- The difference in usage might lie at the core of a debate regarding the meaning of Haman's words, "וְדָתֵיהֶם שֹׁנוֹת מִכׇּל עָם וְאֶת דָּתֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֵינָם עֹשִׂים" in Esther 3:8. While Rashi and Rashbam asserts that Haman is complaining that the nation does not pay keep the king's laws, not paying taxes or participating in the army, Malbim presents Haman as pointing to the different religious beliefs of the nation.
- 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 Shadal 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. Radak86 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, Rashbam who notes that in Tanakh it takes the meaning of "tremble" or "agitate",98 and is often paired with fear,99 not anger.100
- Bereshit 45:24– 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". While Rashi and Ibn Ezra suggest that Yosef is warning the brothers not to be angry with one another, Rashbam and Ramban claim that Yosef is telling the brothers not to fear robbers en route home. See Shadal 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.
- 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, intestines, and liver, which is home to emotions and affections.102
- Directions and orientation – In modern times, people tend to orient themselves to the North, and so one's left would be to the west and one's right would be to the east. In the Ancient Near East, in contrast, people oriented themselves towards the sun, and hence to the east. Thus "קֶדֶם" (literally: forward) is not north, but east, "אָחוֹר" (literally: backward) is west, "יָמִין" is south, and "שְׂמֹאל" is north .