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

From AlHaTorah.org
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
m
Line 45: Line 45:
 
<li>See also&#160;<multilink><a href="LekachTovShemot1-1" data-aht="source">Lekach Tov</a><a href="LekachTovShemot1-1" data-aht="source">Shemot 1:1</a><a href="LekachTovEsther4-14" data-aht="source">Esther 4:14</a><a href="R. Toviah b. Eliezer (Lekach Tov)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Toviah b. Eliezer</a></multilink> and&#160;<multilink><a href="ChizkuniShemot1-1" data-aht="source">Chizkuni</a><a href="ChizkuniShemot1-1" data-aht="source">Shemot 1:1</a><a href="ChizkuniShemot22-2" data-aht="source">Shemot 22:2</a><a href="R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach (Chizkuni)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach</a></multilink> on&#160;<a href="Shemot1-1" data-aht="source">Shemot 1:1</a> who understand the phrase&#160; "אִישׁ וּבֵיתוֹ בָּאוּ" to refer to Yaakov's sons and their wives. See, though,&#160;<multilink><a href="IbnEzraKohelet3-11" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraShemotSecondCommentary1-1" data-aht="source">Shemot Second Commentary 1:1</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink> who argues against this reading, noting: "אין בית בכל המקרא אשה".</li>
 
<li>See also&#160;<multilink><a href="LekachTovShemot1-1" data-aht="source">Lekach Tov</a><a href="LekachTovShemot1-1" data-aht="source">Shemot 1:1</a><a href="LekachTovEsther4-14" data-aht="source">Esther 4:14</a><a href="R. Toviah b. Eliezer (Lekach Tov)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Toviah b. Eliezer</a></multilink> and&#160;<multilink><a href="ChizkuniShemot1-1" data-aht="source">Chizkuni</a><a href="ChizkuniShemot1-1" data-aht="source">Shemot 1:1</a><a href="ChizkuniShemot22-2" data-aht="source">Shemot 22:2</a><a href="R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach (Chizkuni)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach</a></multilink> on&#160;<a href="Shemot1-1" data-aht="source">Shemot 1:1</a> who understand the phrase&#160; "אִישׁ וּבֵיתוֹ בָּאוּ" to refer to Yaakov's sons and their wives. See, though,&#160;<multilink><a href="IbnEzraKohelet3-11" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraShemotSecondCommentary1-1" data-aht="source">Shemot Second Commentary 1:1</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink> who argues against this reading, noting: "אין בית בכל המקרא אשה".</li>
 
</ul>
 
</ul>
<li><b><b>גּוֹי </b></b>– Though the Sages use this word to refer to a non-Jew,<fn>See <a href="MekhiltaDeRabbiYishmaelShemot12-43" data-aht="source">Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael Shemot 12:43</a>, <multilink><a href="MishnaAvodahZarah2-6" data-aht="source">Mishna Avodah Zarah 2:6</a><a href="MishnaAvodahZarah2-6" data-aht="source">Avodah Zarah 2:6</a><a href="MishnaAvodahZarah4-8" data-aht="source">Avodah Zarah 4:8</a><a href="Mishna" data-aht="parshan">About the Mishna</a></multilink> and <multilink><a href="MishnaAvodahZarah4-8" data-aht="source">4:8</a><a href="MishnaAvodahZarah2-6" data-aht="source">Avodah Zarah 2:6</a><a href="MishnaAvodahZarah4-8" data-aht="source">Avodah Zarah 4:8</a><a href="Mishna" data-aht="parshan">About the Mishna</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="ToseftaBerakhot6-18" data-aht="source">Tosefta Berakhot 6:18</a><a href="ToseftaBerakhot6-18" data-aht="source">Berakhot 6:18</a><a href="Tosefta" data-aht="parshan">About the Tosefta</a></multilink>.</fn> in Tanakh it simply means nation, and can even refer to the Nation of Israel.<fn>See, for instance, <a href="Bereshit18-18" data-aht="source">Bereshit 18:18</a>, <a href="Bereshit46-3" data-aht="source">Bereshit 46:3</a>,&#160;<a href="Devarim26-5" data-aht="source">Devarim 26:5</a> or <a href="Yehoshua4-1" data-aht="source">Yehoshua 4:1</a>.&#160; See also the debate in <a href="SifreDevarim32-28" data-aht="source">Sifre Devarim 32:28</a> regarding&#160;<a href="Devarim32-28" data-aht="source">Devarim 32:28</a>.&#160;&#160;<multilink><a href="ShadalDevarim32-43" data-aht="source">Shadal</a><a href="ShadalDevarim32-43" data-aht="source">Devarim 32:43</a><a href="R. Shemuel David Luzzatto (Shadal)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto</a></multilink> goes further to suggest that even the plural form "גויים" in&#160;<a href="Devarim32-43" data-aht="source">Devarim 32:43</a> might refer to the Nation of Israel.</fn> In his Sefer HaShorashim, <multilink><a href="RadakSeferHaShorashim" data-aht="source">Radak</a><a href="RadakSeferHaShorashim" data-aht="source">Sefer HaShorashim</a><a href="R. David Kimchi (Radak)" data-aht="parshan">About R. David Kimchi</a></multilink> 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.<fn>See Y. Etzion, "<a href="file:///C:/WEB/WEB1/TANAKH/LEXICAL/Lexicon%20-%20Etzion%20-%20Safa%20Ivrit/goy.html">גוי</a>",&#160; who offers a different explanation.&#160; Since already in Tanakh the plural form "גויים" refers to Gentile nations, eventually the singular form of the word was used to refer to an individual gentile.</fn> This later usage has influenced the midrashic interpretation of certain verses:</li>
+
<li><b><b>גּוֹי </b></b>– Though the Sages use this word to refer to a non-Jew,<fn>See <a href="MekhiltaDeRabbiYishmaelShemot12-43" data-aht="source">Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael Shemot 12:43</a>, <multilink><a href="MishnaAvodahZarah2-6" data-aht="source">Mishna Avodah Zarah 2:6</a><a href="MishnaAvodahZarah2-6" data-aht="source">Avodah Zarah 2:6</a><a href="MishnaAvodahZarah4-8" data-aht="source">Avodah Zarah 4:8</a><a href="Mishna" data-aht="parshan">About the Mishna</a></multilink> and <multilink><a href="MishnaAvodahZarah4-8" data-aht="source">4:8</a><a href="MishnaAvodahZarah2-6" data-aht="source">Avodah Zarah 2:6</a><a href="MishnaAvodahZarah4-8" data-aht="source">Avodah Zarah 4:8</a><a href="Mishna" data-aht="parshan">About the Mishna</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="ToseftaBerakhot6-18" data-aht="source">Tosefta Berakhot 6:18</a><a href="ToseftaBerakhot6-18" data-aht="source">Berakhot 6:18</a><a href="Tosefta" data-aht="parshan">About the Tosefta</a></multilink>.</fn> in Tanakh it simply means nation, and can even refer to the Nation of Israel.<fn>See, for instance, <a href="Bereshit18-18" data-aht="source">Bereshit 18:18</a>, <a href="Bereshit46-3" data-aht="source">Bereshit 46:3</a>,&#160;<a href="Devarim26-5" data-aht="source">Devarim 26:5</a> or <a href="Yehoshua4-1" data-aht="source">Yehoshua 4:1</a>.&#160; See also the debate in <a href="SifreDevarim32-28" data-aht="source">Sifre Devarim 32:28</a> regarding&#160;<a href="Devarim32-28" data-aht="source">Devarim 32:28</a>.&#160;&#160;<multilink><a href="ShadalDevarim32-43" data-aht="source">Shadal</a><a href="ShadalDevarim32-43" data-aht="source">Devarim 32:43</a><a href="R. Shemuel David Luzzatto (Shadal)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto</a></multilink> goes further to suggest that even the plural form "גויים" in&#160;<a href="Devarim32-43" data-aht="source">Devarim 32:43</a> might refer to the Nation of Israel.</fn> In his Sefer HaShorashim, <multilink><a href="RadakSeferHaShorashim" data-aht="source">Radak</a><a href="RadakSeferHaShorashim" data-aht="source">Sefer HaShorashim</a><a href="R. David Kimchi (Radak)" data-aht="parshan">About R. David Kimchi</a></multilink> 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.<fn>See Y. Etsion, "<a href="https://www.safa-ivrit.org/writers/etsion/goy.php">גוי</a>",&#160; who offers a different explanation.&#160; Since already in Tanakh the plural form "גויים" refers to Gentile nations, eventually the singular form of the word was used to refer to an individual gentile.</fn> This later usage has influenced the midrashic interpretation of certain verses:</li>
 
<ul>
 
<ul>
 
<li>&#160;"לָקַחַת לוֹ גוֹי מִקֶּרֶב גּוֹי" (<a href="Devarim4-34" data-aht="source">Devarim 4:34</a>) - Though the simple meaning of the verse is that Hashem took the nation of Israel out from Egypt, <multilink><a href="PesiktaRabbati15" data-aht="source">Pesikta Rabbati</a><a href="PesiktaRabbati15" data-aht="source">15</a><a href="Pesikta Rabbati" data-aht="parshan">About Pesikta Rabbati</a></multilink><fn>See Chizkuni similarly, "שאף אתם הייתם גויים כמוהם כדכתיב ואומר אליכם איש גלולי עיניו השליכו".</fn> notes that Israel is referred to as a "גוי" because she behaved like a non-Jew (not being circumcised in Egypt).</li>
 
<li>&#160;"לָקַחַת לוֹ גוֹי מִקֶּרֶב גּוֹי" (<a href="Devarim4-34" data-aht="source">Devarim 4:34</a>) - Though the simple meaning of the verse is that Hashem took the nation of Israel out from Egypt, <multilink><a href="PesiktaRabbati15" data-aht="source">Pesikta Rabbati</a><a href="PesiktaRabbati15" data-aht="source">15</a><a href="Pesikta Rabbati" data-aht="parshan">About Pesikta Rabbati</a></multilink><fn>See Chizkuni similarly, "שאף אתם הייתם גויים כמוהם כדכתיב ואומר אליכם איש גלולי עיניו השליכו".</fn> notes that Israel is referred to as a "גוי" because she behaved like a non-Jew (not being circumcised in Egypt).</li>
Line 59: Line 59:
 
<ul>
 
<ul>
 
<li><b>ה״א הקריאה – </b>Contrast&#160;<multilink><a href="IbnEzraBemidbar15-15" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraBemidbar15-15" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 15:15</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> on&#160;<a href="Bemidbar15-15" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 15:15</a> who claims that there is no such thing as a "ה״א לקריאה" in Biblical Hebrew<fn>He writes, "כי לא ימצא בלשון הקדש, כי אם בלשון חכמים."</fn> with&#160;<multilink><a href="RYehudaibnBalaamBemidbar15-15" data-aht="source">Ibn Balaam</a><a href="RYehudaibnBalaamBemidbar15-15" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 15:15</a><a href="R. Yehuda ibn Balaam" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yehuda ibn Balaam</a></multilink> who suggests that though rare, it does exist.&#160;&#160; As examples, Ibn Balaam points to <a href="Bemidbar15-15" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 15:15</a>, <a href="Yirmeyahu2-31" data-aht="source">Yirmeyahu 2:31</a>,&#160;<a href="Mikhah2-7" data-aht="source">Mikhah 2:7</a> and <a href="ShirHaShirim8-13" data-aht="source">Shir HaShirim 8:13</a>.<b><br/></b></li>
 
<li><b>ה״א הקריאה – </b>Contrast&#160;<multilink><a href="IbnEzraBemidbar15-15" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraBemidbar15-15" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 15:15</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> on&#160;<a href="Bemidbar15-15" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 15:15</a> who claims that there is no such thing as a "ה״א לקריאה" in Biblical Hebrew<fn>He writes, "כי לא ימצא בלשון הקדש, כי אם בלשון חכמים."</fn> with&#160;<multilink><a href="RYehudaibnBalaamBemidbar15-15" data-aht="source">Ibn Balaam</a><a href="RYehudaibnBalaamBemidbar15-15" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 15:15</a><a href="R. Yehuda ibn Balaam" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yehuda ibn Balaam</a></multilink> who suggests that though rare, it does exist.&#160;&#160; As examples, Ibn Balaam points to <a href="Bemidbar15-15" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 15:15</a>, <a href="Yirmeyahu2-31" data-aht="source">Yirmeyahu 2:31</a>,&#160;<a href="Mikhah2-7" data-aht="source">Mikhah 2:7</a> and <a href="ShirHaShirim8-13" data-aht="source">Shir HaShirim 8:13</a>.<b><br/></b></li>
<li><b>חותן/חותנת and חם/חמות </b>– Biblical Hebrew distinguishes between a father-in-law on the husband and wife's side, using distinct terms for each.&#160; The wife's father is referred to as a חותן,&#8206;<fn>See, for example,&#160;<a href="Shofetim19-4-9" data-aht="source">Shofetim 19:4-9</a>&#160; It is possible that the term might refer also to a brother-in-law (or even another relative) as the term relates to the individual who contracts the marriage. [See Ibn Janach.] This bears on the identity of "חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה" who is mentioned in many verses, but with reference to different individuals. See&#160;<a href="Yitro – Names" data-aht="page">Yitro – Names</a> and <a href="Dictionary:חֹתֵן – חֹתֶנֶת" data-aht="page">חֹתֵן / חֹתֶנֶת</a> for elaboration.</fn> while the husband's father is referred to as a חם.&#8206;<fn>See, for instance, see&#160;<a href="Bereshit38-13" data-aht="source">Bereshit 38:13</a>,&#160;<a href="Bereshit38-25" data-aht="source">Bereshit 38:25</a> and <a href="ShemuelI4-19-21" data-aht="source">Shemuel I 4:19-21</a>.</fn> 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.<fn>See, for example, see <multilink><a href="MishnaDemai3-6" data-aht="source">Mishna Demai 3:6</a><a href="MishnaDemai2-2" data-aht="source">Demai 2:2</a><a href="MishnaDemai3-6" data-aht="source">Demai 3:6</a><a href="Mishna" data-aht="parshan">About the Mishna</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="MishnaPesachim3-7" data-aht="source">Pesachim 3:7</a><a href="MishnaPesachim3-7" data-aht="source">Pesachim 3:7</a><a href="Mishna" data-aht="parshan">About the Mishna</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="MishnaYevamot1-1" data-aht="source">Yevamot 1:1</a><a href="MishnaYevamot1-1" data-aht="source">Yevamot 1:1</a><a href="Mishna" data-aht="parshan">About the Mishna</a></multilink>, and <multilink><a href="MishnaKetubot1-5" data-aht="source">Ketubot 1:5</a><a href="MishnaKetubot1-5" data-aht="source">Ketubot 1:5</a><a href="Mishna" data-aht="parshan">About the Mishna</a></multilink>.</fn>&#160; For further discussion, see&#160;<a href="Dictionary:חֹתֵן – חֹתֶנֶת" data-aht="page">חֹתֵן / חֹתֶנֶת</a>.</li>
+
<li><b>חותן/חותנת and חם/חמות&#8206;<fn>See also the discussion in Y. Etsion, "<a href="https://www.safa-ivrit.org/writers/etsion/hatan.php">החתן, הכלה והחותנת</a>"</fn>&#8206; &#8206;&#8206;&#8206; </b>– Biblical Hebrew distinguishes between a father-in-law on the husband and wife's side, using distinct terms for each.&#160; The wife's father is referred to as a חותן,&#8206;<fn>See, for example,&#160;<a href="Shofetim19-4-9" data-aht="source">Shofetim 19:4-9</a>&#160; It is possible that the term might refer also to a brother-in-law (or even another relative) as the term relates to the individual who contracts the marriage. [See Ibn Janach.] This bears on the identity of "חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה" who is mentioned in many verses, but with reference to different individuals. See&#160;<a href="Yitro – Names" data-aht="page">Yitro – Names</a> and <a href="Dictionary:חֹתֵן – חֹתֶנֶת" data-aht="page">חֹתֵן / חֹתֶנֶת</a> for elaboration.</fn> while the husband's fath<a class="btn" href="../Lexical:_Changing_Meanings/5"><i></i> Sources</a>er is referred to as a חם.&#8206;<fn>See, for instance, see&#160;<a href="Bereshit38-13" data-aht="source">Bereshit 38:13</a>,&#160;<a href="Bereshit38-25" data-aht="source">Bereshit 38:25</a> and <a href="ShemuelI4-19-21" data-aht="source">Shemuel I 4:19-21</a>.</fn> 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.<fn>See, for example, see <multilink><a href="MishnaDemai3-6" data-aht="source">Mishna Demai 3:6</a><a href="MishnaDemai2-2" data-aht="source">Demai 2:2</a><a href="MishnaDemai3-6" data-aht="source">Demai 3:6</a><a href="Mishna" data-aht="parshan">About the Mishna</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="MishnaPesachim3-7" data-aht="source">Pesachim 3:7</a><a href="MishnaPesachim3-7" data-aht="source">Pesachim 3:7</a><a href="Mishna" data-aht="parshan">About the Mishna</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="MishnaYevamot1-1" data-aht="source">Yevamot 1:1</a><a href="MishnaYevamot1-1" data-aht="source">Yevamot 1:1</a><a href="Mishna" data-aht="parshan">About the Mishna</a></multilink>, and <multilink><a href="MishnaKetubot1-5" data-aht="source">Ketubot 1:5</a><a href="MishnaKetubot1-5" data-aht="source">Ketubot 1:5</a><a href="Mishna" data-aht="parshan">About the Mishna</a></multilink>.</fn>&#160; For further discussion, see&#160;<a href="Dictionary:חֹתֵן – חֹתֶנֶת" data-aht="page">חֹתֵן / חֹתֶנֶת</a>.</li>
 
<li><b>מַלְאָךְ</b>&#160;– In Biblical Hebrew "מַלְאָךְ" refers to any type of messenger,<fn>See, for example, <a href="Bemidbar20-14" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 20:14</a>, <a href="Bemidbar21-21" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 21:21</a>,<a href="Devarim2-26" data-aht="source">Devarim 2:26</a>, or <a href="Yehoshua6-25" data-aht="source">Yehoshua 6:25</a>.</fn> not specifically an angel. Divine messengers are singled out by the terms "מַלְאַךְ אֱלֹהִים" or "'מַלְאַךְ ה".&#8206;<fn>However, even in such cases, there is ambiguity as to whether an angel or human messenger&#160; is referred to.</fn>&#160; In Rabbinic Hebrew, in contrast, "מַלְאָךְ" takes on the much more specific connotation of "angel".<fn>It is possible that the change is usage is related to the increasing prevalence of the word "שליח" in Mishnaic times. This synonym never appears in Tanakh, but by Mishnaic times it is widespread, becoming the preferred word to express a human messenger, allowing for a narrower definition of "מלאך".</fn> Tanakh's broader definition of the word allows for ambiguity and in several cases, commentators debate what type of messenger is referred to:</li>
 
<li><b>מַלְאָךְ</b>&#160;– In Biblical Hebrew "מַלְאָךְ" refers to any type of messenger,<fn>See, for example, <a href="Bemidbar20-14" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 20:14</a>, <a href="Bemidbar21-21" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 21:21</a>,<a href="Devarim2-26" data-aht="source">Devarim 2:26</a>, or <a href="Yehoshua6-25" data-aht="source">Yehoshua 6:25</a>.</fn> not specifically an angel. Divine messengers are singled out by the terms "מַלְאַךְ אֱלֹהִים" or "'מַלְאַךְ ה".&#8206;<fn>However, even in such cases, there is ambiguity as to whether an angel or human messenger&#160; is referred to.</fn>&#160; In Rabbinic Hebrew, in contrast, "מַלְאָךְ" takes on the much more specific connotation of "angel".<fn>It is possible that the change is usage is related to the increasing prevalence of the word "שליח" in Mishnaic times. This synonym never appears in Tanakh, but by Mishnaic times it is widespread, becoming the preferred word to express a human messenger, allowing for a narrower definition of "מלאך".</fn> Tanakh's broader definition of the word allows for ambiguity and in several cases, commentators debate what type of messenger is referred to:</li>
 
<ul>
 
<ul>
Line 80: Line 80:
 
</ul>
 
</ul>
 
<li><b>עַם הָאָרֶץ</b> – 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.<fn>See, for example, <a href="MishnaDemai2-2" data-aht="source">Mishna Demai 2:2</a>, <a href="MishnaHorayot3-8" data-aht="source">Mishna Horayot 3:8</a> or <a href="MishnaTahorot7-1" data-aht="source">Mishna Tahorot 7:1</a>.</fn>&#160; 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.<fn>See S. Talmon, "תולדות עם הארץ בממלכת יהודה", Beit Mikra 12:3 (1967): 27-55 and A. Brawer, "עם הארץ כפשוטו במקרא", Beit Mikra 15:2 (1970): 202-206. See also the discussion in&#160;<multilink><a href="HaKetavVeHaKabbalahShemot5-5" data-aht="source">HaKetav VeHaKabbalah</a><a href="HaKetavVeHaKabbalahShemot5-5" data-aht="source">Shemot 5:5</a><a href="R. Yaakov Mecklenburg (HaKetav VeHaKabbalah)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yaakov Mecklenburg</a></multilink> on Shemot 5:5.</fn></li>
 
<li><b>עַם הָאָרֶץ</b> – 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.<fn>See, for example, <a href="MishnaDemai2-2" data-aht="source">Mishna Demai 2:2</a>, <a href="MishnaHorayot3-8" data-aht="source">Mishna Horayot 3:8</a> or <a href="MishnaTahorot7-1" data-aht="source">Mishna Tahorot 7:1</a>.</fn>&#160; 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.<fn>See S. Talmon, "תולדות עם הארץ בממלכת יהודה", Beit Mikra 12:3 (1967): 27-55 and A. Brawer, "עם הארץ כפשוטו במקרא", Beit Mikra 15:2 (1970): 202-206. See also the discussion in&#160;<multilink><a href="HaKetavVeHaKabbalahShemot5-5" data-aht="source">HaKetav VeHaKabbalah</a><a href="HaKetavVeHaKabbalahShemot5-5" data-aht="source">Shemot 5:5</a><a href="R. Yaakov Mecklenburg (HaKetav VeHaKabbalah)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yaakov Mecklenburg</a></multilink> on Shemot 5:5.</fn></li>
<li><b>עֶרֶשׂ</b> – Y. Etzion points out that In Tanakh, this word is almost always paired with "מִטָּה" and its synonyms (מִשְׁכָּבִי, יְצוּעָי), and is generally associated with adults, implying that it refers to a normal-sized bed or couch. This stands in contrast to the Rabbinic period where the word also takes the specific meaning of a crib or cradle, like the modern ערש or עריסה.&#160; <b><br/></b></li>
+
<li><b>עֶרֶשׂ</b> – Y. Etsion<fn>See his article, "<a href="https://www.safa-ivrit.org/writers/etsion/eres.php">שיר ערש במלונה</a>".</fn> points out that In Tanakh, this word is almost always paired with "מִטָּה"<fn>See, for example, Amos 3:12, 6:4 or Tehilim 6:7.</fn> and its synonyms מִשְׁכָּבִ" or "יצוע"&#8206;<fn>See, for instance, Tehillim 41:4, 132:3 or Iyyov 7:13.</fn> and is generally associated with adults, implying that it refers to a normal-sized bed or couch. This stands in contrast to the Rabbinic period where the word also takes the specific meaning of a crib or cradle, like the modern ערש or עריסה.&#160; <b><br/></b></li>
 
<ul>
 
<ul>
 
<li>The difference in meaning might have influenced the various understandings of Devarim 3:1, which describes the size of Og: "עַרְשׂוֹ עֶרֶשׂ בַּרְזֶל... תֵּשַׁע אַמּוֹת אׇרְכָּהּ": While Ramban appears to read the verse as referring to a normal bed, R"Y Kara and Rashbam assume that it speaks of Og's crib.<fn>Others raises the possibility that the verse refers to Og's coffin, which might more accurately describe his height than his bedstead which might have been longer than the giant himself.&#160; [See Rambam.]</fn> The various possibilities have major ramifications for just how big Og was.</li>
 
<li>The difference in meaning might have influenced the various understandings of Devarim 3:1, which describes the size of Og: "עַרְשׂוֹ עֶרֶשׂ בַּרְזֶל... תֵּשַׁע אַמּוֹת אׇרְכָּהּ": While Ramban appears to read the verse as referring to a normal bed, R"Y Kara and Rashbam assume that it speaks of Og's crib.<fn>Others raises the possibility that the verse refers to Og's coffin, which might more accurately describe his height than his bedstead which might have been longer than the giant himself.&#160; [See Rambam.]</fn> The various possibilities have major ramifications for just how big Og was.</li>
Line 112: Line 112:
 
</category>
 
</category>
 
<category>Biblical vs. Modern Hebrew
 
<category>Biblical vs. Modern Hebrew
<p>Many modern Hebrew words might take on different meanings than their Biblical counterparts:</p><ul>
+
<p>Many modern Hebrew words might take on different meanings than their Biblical counterparts:</p>
 +
<ul>
 
<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>
Line 122: Line 123:
 
</ul></fn></li>
 
</ul></fn></li>
 
</ul>
 
</ul>
</ul><ul>
+
</ul>
<li><b>בטח&#160;</b>– Y. Etzion<fn>See the discussion in his article, "<a href="file:///C:/WEB/WEB1/TANAKH/LEXICAL/Lexicon%20-%20Etzion%20-%20Safa%20Ivrit/bitahon.html">מה בין ביטחון לאבטיח</a>".</fn> suggests that though today this root is associated with stability and means to trust and rely upon another, it is possible that originally in Tanakh, like in Arabic today, it meant to fall (and hence, also to lean upon or to trust).<fn>See Melakhim II 18:19, "הִנֵּה בָטַחְתָּ לְּךָ עַל-מִשְׁעֶנֶת הַקָּנֶה הָרָצוּץ הַזֶּה, עַל-מִצְרַיִם אֲשֶׁר יִסָּמֵךְ אִישׁ עָלָיו, וּבָא בְכַפּוֹ וּנְקָבָהּ", where the root is associated with the terms "מִשְׁעֶנֶת" and "יִסָּמֵךְ".</fn>&#160; There are several verses in which the traditional understanding of "trust" is difficult, yet the definition of "fall" is appropriate:</li>
+
<ul>
 +
<li><b>בטח&#160;</b>– Y. Etsion<fn>See the discussion in his article, "<a href="https://www.safa-ivrit.org/writers/etsion/bitahon.php">מה בין ביטחון לאבטיח</a>".</fn> suggests that though today this root is associated with stability and means to trust and rely upon another, it is possible that originally in Tanakh, like in Arabic today, it meant to fall (and hence, also to lean upon or to trust).<fn>See Melakhim II 18:19, "הִנֵּה בָטַחְתָּ לְּךָ עַל-מִשְׁעֶנֶת הַקָּנֶה הָרָצוּץ הַזֶּה, עַל-מִצְרַיִם אֲשֶׁר יִסָּמֵךְ אִישׁ עָלָיו, וּבָא בְכַפּוֹ וּנְקָבָהּ", where the root is associated with the terms "מִשְׁעֶנֶת" and "יִסָּמֵךְ".</fn>&#160; There are several verses in which the traditional understanding of "trust" is difficult, yet the definition of "fall" is appropriate:</li>
 
<ul>
 
<ul>
 
<li>"וּבְאֶרֶץ שָׁלוֹם אַתָּה בוֹטֵחַ וְאֵיךְ תַּעֲשֶׂה בִּגְאוֹן הַיַּרְדֵּן" (Yirmeyahu 12:5) – See Targum Yonatan and Rashi that the analogy might mean that if Yirmeyahu is already falling in peaceful territory, what will he do in enemy territory?<fn>Other commentators are forced to read the clause as if it is truncated and the ending assumed: If in peaceful territory which you thought was trustworthy [you are nevertheless weary], what will you do when faced with true enemies?</fn></li>
 
<li>"וּבְאֶרֶץ שָׁלוֹם אַתָּה בוֹטֵחַ וְאֵיךְ תַּעֲשֶׂה בִּגְאוֹן הַיַּרְדֵּן" (Yirmeyahu 12:5) – See Targum Yonatan and Rashi that the analogy might mean that if Yirmeyahu is already falling in peaceful territory, what will he do in enemy territory?<fn>Other commentators are forced to read the clause as if it is truncated and the ending assumed: If in peaceful territory which you thought was trustworthy [you are nevertheless weary], what will you do when faced with true enemies?</fn></li>
 
<li>"חָכָם יָרֵא וְסָר מֵרָע וּכְסִיל מִתְעַבֵּר וּבוֹטֵחַ" (Mishlei 14:16) – Rashi and Radak explain that the verse is contrasting the wise person who wary of&#160; and avoids obstacles, with the fool who is not and therefore falls.&#160; Ralbag, in contrast, suggests that the verse speaks of the wise man who is afraid and therefore avoids evil, with the angry fool who is so self-confident that he does not worry about the consequences of his anger.</li>
 
<li>"חָכָם יָרֵא וְסָר מֵרָע וּכְסִיל מִתְעַבֵּר וּבוֹטֵחַ" (Mishlei 14:16) – Rashi and Radak explain that the verse is contrasting the wise person who wary of&#160; and avoids obstacles, with the fool who is not and therefore falls.&#160; Ralbag, in contrast, suggests that the verse speaks of the wise man who is afraid and therefore avoids evil, with the angry fool who is so self-confident that he does not worry about the consequences of his anger.</li>
 
</ul>
 
</ul>
<li><b>דּוֹד&#8206;<fn>For a discussion of the different usages of this word, see Y. Etzion, "<a href="file:///C:/WEB/WEB1/TANAKH/LEXICAL/Lexicon%20-%20Etzion%20-%20Safa%20Ivrit/dod.html">הדודה והדוד</a>".</fn>&#160;</b>– Though today "דּוֹד" can refer to an uncle on either the mother or father's side, see <multilink><a href="RashiYirmeyahu32-12" data-aht="source">Rashi</a><a href="RashiYirmeyahu32-12" data-aht="source">Yirmeyahu 32:12</a><a href="R. Shelomo Yitzchaki (Rashi)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki</a></multilink><fn>See also Sefer HaShorashim of both Ibn Janach and Radak.</fn> who notes that in Tanakh, the term is reserved for a father's brother.<fn>See also&#160;<multilink><a href="TargumOnkelosVayikra10-4" data-aht="source">Onkelos</a><a href="TargumOnkelosBereshit21-23" data-aht="source">Bereshit 21:23</a><a href="TargumOnkelosVayikra10-4" data-aht="source">Vayikra 10:4</a><a href="TargumOnkelosVayikra20-20" data-aht="source">Vayikra 20:20</a><a href="TargumOnkelosVayikra25-49" data-aht="source">Vayikra 25:49</a><a href="TargumOnkelosBemidbar36-11" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 36:11</a><a href="Targum Onkelos" data-aht="parshan">About Targum Onkelos</a></multilink> who consistently translates "דוד" as אַחְבּוּהִי and דֹדֵיהֶן as אֲחֵי אֲבוּהוֹן.</fn>&#160; [It also takes the meaning of beloved, as in Shir HaShirim].&#160;</li>
+
<li><b>דּוֹד&#8206;<fn>For a discussion of the different usages of this word, see Y. Etsion, "<a href="https://www.safa-ivrit.org/writers/etsion/dod.php">הדודה והדוד</a>".</fn>&#160;</b>– Though today "דּוֹד" can refer to an uncle on either the mother or father's side, see <multilink><a href="RashiYirmeyahu32-12" data-aht="source">Rashi</a><a href="RashiYirmeyahu32-12" data-aht="source">Yirmeyahu 32:12</a><a href="R. Shelomo Yitzchaki (Rashi)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki</a></multilink><fn>See also Sefer HaShorashim of both Ibn Janach and Radak.</fn> who notes that in Tanakh, the term is reserved for a father's brother.<fn>See also&#160;<multilink><a href="TargumOnkelosVayikra10-4" data-aht="source">Onkelos</a><a href="TargumOnkelosBereshit21-23" data-aht="source">Bereshit 21:23</a><a href="TargumOnkelosVayikra10-4" data-aht="source">Vayikra 10:4</a><a href="TargumOnkelosVayikra20-20" data-aht="source">Vayikra 20:20</a><a href="TargumOnkelosVayikra25-49" data-aht="source">Vayikra 25:49</a><a href="TargumOnkelosBemidbar36-11" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 36:11</a><a href="Targum Onkelos" data-aht="parshan">About Targum Onkelos</a></multilink> who consistently translates "דוד" as אַחְבּוּהִי and דֹדֵיהֶן as אֲחֵי אֲבוּהוֹן.</fn>&#160; [It also takes the meaning of beloved, as in Shir HaShirim].&#160;</li>
 
<ul>
 
<ul>
 
<li>See&#160;<a href="Yirmeyahu32-7-12" data-aht="source">Yirmeyahu 32:12</a> where Rashi attempts to explain how Chanamel can be&#160; referred to as both Yirmeyahu's cousin and uncle,<fn>See Yirmeyahu 32:7,9 and 12.</fn> 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".&#8206;<fn>Cf.&#160;<multilink><a href="ShadalYirmeyahu32-12" data-aht="source">Shadal</a><a href="ShadalShemot1-15" data-aht="source">Shemot 1:15</a><a href="ShadalShemot2-5" data-aht="source">Shemot 2:5</a><a href="ShadalShemot3-1" data-aht="source">Shemot 3:1</a><a href="ShadalDevarim32-43" data-aht="source">Devarim 32:43</a><a href="ShadalYirmeyahu32-12" data-aht="source">Yirmeyahu 32:12</a><a href="R. Shemuel David Luzzatto (Shadal)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto</a></multilink> brings an opinion that the word "דוד" in the verse should be understood as "ידיד". This understanding might relate to the usage of "דוד" to refer to a beloved.</fn>&#160;&#160;</li>
 
<li>See&#160;<a href="Yirmeyahu32-7-12" data-aht="source">Yirmeyahu 32:12</a> where Rashi attempts to explain how Chanamel can be&#160; referred to as both Yirmeyahu's cousin and uncle,<fn>See Yirmeyahu 32:7,9 and 12.</fn> 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".&#8206;<fn>Cf.&#160;<multilink><a href="ShadalYirmeyahu32-12" data-aht="source">Shadal</a><a href="ShadalShemot1-15" data-aht="source">Shemot 1:15</a><a href="ShadalShemot2-5" data-aht="source">Shemot 2:5</a><a href="ShadalShemot3-1" data-aht="source">Shemot 3:1</a><a href="ShadalDevarim32-43" data-aht="source">Devarim 32:43</a><a href="ShadalYirmeyahu32-12" data-aht="source">Yirmeyahu 32:12</a><a href="R. Shemuel David Luzzatto (Shadal)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto</a></multilink> brings an opinion that the word "דוד" in the verse should be understood as "ידיד". This understanding might relate to the usage of "דוד" to refer to a beloved.</fn>&#160;&#160;</li>
Line 151: Line 153:
 
<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; Y. 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 <multilink><a href="RambanBereshit20-12" data-aht="source">Ramban Bereshit 20:12</a><a href="RambanBereshit20-12" data-aht="source">Bereshit 20:12</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Nachman (Ramban, Nachmanides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe b. Nachman</a></multilink>,&#160;<multilink><a href="RambanBereshit31-35" data-aht="source">31:35</a><a href="RambanBereshit20-12" data-aht="source">Bereshit 20:12</a><a href="RambanBereshit31-35" data-aht="source">Bereshit 31:35</a><a href="RambanBereshit44-1" data-aht="source">Bereshit 44:1</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Nachman (Ramban, Nachmanides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe b. Nachman</a></multilink> or&#160;<multilink><a href="RambanBereshit44-1" data-aht="source">44:1</a><a href="RambanBereshit20-12" data-aht="source">Bereshit 20:12</a><a href="RambanBereshit31-35" data-aht="source">Bereshit 31:35</a><a href="RambanBereshit44-1" data-aht="source">Bereshit 44:1</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Nachman (Ramban, Nachmanides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe b. Nachman</a></multilink> 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>
+
<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; Y. Etsion<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 <multilink><a href="RambanBereshit20-12" data-aht="source">Ramban Bereshit 20:12</a><a href="RambanBereshit20-12" data-aht="source">Bereshit 20:12</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Nachman (Ramban, Nachmanides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe b. Nachman</a></multilink>,&#160;<multilink><a href="RambanBereshit31-35" data-aht="source">31:35</a><a href="RambanBereshit20-12" data-aht="source">Bereshit 20:12</a><a href="RambanBereshit31-35" data-aht="source">Bereshit 31:35</a><a href="RambanBereshit44-1" data-aht="source">Bereshit 44:1</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Nachman (Ramban, Nachmanides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe b. Nachman</a></multilink> or&#160;<multilink><a href="RambanBereshit44-1" data-aht="source">44:1</a><a href="RambanBereshit20-12" data-aht="source">Bereshit 20:12</a><a href="RambanBereshit31-35" data-aht="source">Bereshit 31:35</a><a href="RambanBereshit44-1" data-aht="source">Bereshit 44:1</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Nachman (Ramban, Nachmanides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe b. Nachman</a></multilink> 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, perhaps under the influence of Aramaic, 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="R. Shemuel b. Meir (Rashbam)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel b. Meir</a></multilink> who notes that in the Hebrew sections of Tanakh<fn>It is only n the Aramaic sections of Ezra (5:12) and Daniel (3:13), that the root relates to anger or fury.</fn> 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 anger.<fn>In Biblical Hebrew anger is expressed via the terms: חרון אף, קצף, or חמה.</fn></li>
 
<li><b>רגז</b> – Today, perhaps under the influence of Aramaic, 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="R. Shemuel b. Meir (Rashbam)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel b. Meir</a></multilink> who notes that in the Hebrew sections of Tanakh<fn>It is only n the Aramaic sections of Ezra (5:12) and Daniel (3:13), that the root relates to anger or fury.</fn> 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 anger.<fn>In Biblical Hebrew anger is expressed via the terms: חרון אף, קצף, or חמה.</fn></li>

Version as of 06:20, 25 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, ""לשון התורה לחוד ולשון נביאים לחוד ולשון חכמים לחוד" (Tosafot Kiddushin 37bKiddushin 37bAbout Ba'alei HaTosafot). 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.32 This later usage has influenced the midrashic interpretation of certain verses:
    •  "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,73 related to the Akkadian "birtu".
  • בטח – Y. Etsion76 suggests that though today this root is associated with stability and means to trust and rely upon another, it is possible that originally in Tanakh, like in Arabic today, it meant to fall (and hence, also to lean upon or to trust).77  There are several verses in which the traditional understanding of "trust" is difficult, yet the definition of "fall" is appropriate:
    • "וּבְאֶרֶץ שָׁלוֹם אַתָּה בוֹטֵחַ וְאֵיךְ תַּעֲשֶׂה בִּגְאוֹן הַיַּרְדֵּן" (Yirmeyahu 12:5) – See Targum Yonatan and Rashi that the analogy might mean that if Yirmeyahu is already falling in peaceful territory, what will he do in enemy territory?78
    • "חָכָם יָרֵא וְסָר מֵרָע וּכְסִיל מִתְעַבֵּר וּבוֹטֵחַ" (Mishlei 14:16) – Rashi and Radak explain that the verse is contrasting the wise person who wary of  and avoids obstacles, with the fool who is not and therefore falls.  Ralbag, in contrast, suggests that the verse speaks of the wise man who is afraid and therefore avoids evil, with the angry fool who is so self-confident that he does not worry about the consequences of his anger.
  • דּוֹד‎79 – Though today "דּוֹד" can refer to an uncle on either the mother or father's side, see RashiYirmeyahu 32:12About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki80 who notes that in Tanakh, the term is reserved for a father's brother.81  [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,82 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".‎83  
    • See also RadakAmos 6:10About R. David Kimchi84 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).85
  • "דָּת" – The word "דָּת" is a Persian loan word,86 which appears predominantly in Sefer Esther, and consistently means "law" or "decree".87 This stands in contrast to the word's prevalent usage today where it means "religion".88
  • להתחתן – In Tanakh, in contrast to modern Hebrew, the parties who are "מתחתן" are the חֹתֵן (father89 of the bride) and the חָתָן (son-in-law)90 or the חֹתֵן (father of the bride) and the father of the groom,91 not the husband and wife. The verb "להתחתן" is not used to describe the forming of the marital relationship between the bride and groom92 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 alliance93 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.94 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 Kimchi95 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,96 or were the conditions considerably better, with pasture for their livestock?97  See Life in the Wilderness.
  • נִין וָנֶכֶד‎‎98‎‎‎‎‎ – This pair of words appears three times in Tanakh,99 always in this order.  As such, in context, the terms would appear to mean child and grandchild respectively,100 or perhaps refer more generally to descendants (with no differentiation between the terms).101 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.102
  • 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,103 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.104 Today, in contrast, the word means to apologize.  Y. Etsion105 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),106 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, perhaps under the influence of Aramaic, this root relates to anger. See, though, RashbamBereshit 45:24About R. Shemuel b. Meir who notes that in the Hebrew sections of Tanakh107 it takes the meaning of "tremble" or "agitate",108 and is often paired with fear,109 not anger.110
  • 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.111
    • כליות, כבד and מעיים – In Tanakh, it is the kidneys, intestines, and liver, which is home to emotions and affections.112
  • 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, in Tanakh, "קֶדֶם" (literally: forward) is not north, but east, "אָחוֹר" (literally: backward) is west, "יָמִין" is south, and "שְׂמֹאל" is north.