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

From AlHaTorah.org
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
m
Line 12: Line 12:
 
<ul>
 
<ul>
 
<li><b>אֲבָל&#160;</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>,&#160;<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&#160;</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>,&#160;<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>,&#160;<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&#160;<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&#160; refers to the literal sons of Yaakov, whereas afterwards it refers to the nation of Israel.&#160; 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",&#8206;<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&#160;<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>&#160; 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, becoming more expansive in meaning. In Sefer Bereshit<fn>See <a href="Bereshit42-5" data-aht="source">Bereshit 42:5</a>,&#160;<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&#160;<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&#160; refers to the literal sons of Yaakov, whereas afterwards it refers to the nation of Israel.&#160; 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",&#8206;<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&#160;<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>&#160; There are a couple of cases in which the meaning of the term is ambiguous:</li>
 
<ul>
 
<ul>
 
<li>"לֹא יֹאכְלוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה" (<a href="Bereshit32-33" data-aht="source">Bereshit 32:33</a>) – See the debate in&#160;<multilink><a href="BavliChulin100b" data-aht="source">Bavli Chulin 100b</a><a href="BavliChulin100b" data-aht="source">Chulin 100b</a><a href="Talmud Bavli" data-aht="parshan">About the Bavli</a></multilink> 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.<fn>Compare also <multilink><a href="RYosefBekhorShorBereshit32-33" data-aht="source">R"Y Bekhor Shor</a><a href="RYosefBekhorShorBereshit32-33" data-aht="source">Bereshit 32:33</a><a href="R. Yosef Bekhor Shor" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a></multilink>,&#160;<multilink><a href="RadakBereshit32-33" data-aht="source">Radak</a><a href="RadakBereshit32-33" data-aht="source">Bereshit 32:33</a><a href="R. David Kimchi (Radak)" data-aht="parshan">About R. David Kimchi</a></multilink> and <multilink><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaParashah32-33" data-aht="source">Ralbag</a><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaParashah32-33" data-aht="source">Bereshit Beur HaParashah 32:33</a><a href="R. Levi b. Gershom (Ralbag, Gersonides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Levi b. Gershom</a></multilink>'s reading of the verse.</fn></li>
 
<li>"לֹא יֹאכְלוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה" (<a href="Bereshit32-33" data-aht="source">Bereshit 32:33</a>) – See the debate in&#160;<multilink><a href="BavliChulin100b" data-aht="source">Bavli Chulin 100b</a><a href="BavliChulin100b" data-aht="source">Chulin 100b</a><a href="Talmud Bavli" data-aht="parshan">About the Bavli</a></multilink> 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.<fn>Compare also <multilink><a href="RYosefBekhorShorBereshit32-33" data-aht="source">R"Y Bekhor Shor</a><a href="RYosefBekhorShorBereshit32-33" data-aht="source">Bereshit 32:33</a><a href="R. Yosef Bekhor Shor" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a></multilink>,&#160;<multilink><a href="RadakBereshit32-33" data-aht="source">Radak</a><a href="RadakBereshit32-33" data-aht="source">Bereshit 32:33</a><a href="R. David Kimchi (Radak)" data-aht="parshan">About R. David Kimchi</a></multilink> and <multilink><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaParashah32-33" data-aht="source">Ralbag</a><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaParashah32-33" data-aht="source">Bereshit Beur HaParashah 32:33</a><a href="R. Levi b. Gershom (Ralbag, Gersonides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Levi b. Gershom</a></multilink>'s reading of the verse.</fn></li>
<li>"וַיַּשְׁבַּע יוֹסֵף אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל... וְהַעֲלִתֶם אֶת עַצְמֹתַי" (<a href="Bereshit50-24-25" data-aht="source">Bereshit 50:25</a>) – 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?<fn>See the third approach in <a href="Yosef's Economic Policies" data-aht="page">Yosef's Economic Policies</a> for discussion of whether the brothers had originally planned to return to Canaan immediately after the famine and its repercussions eased.</fn></li>
+
<li>"וַיַּשְׁבַּע יוֹסֵף אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל... וְהַעֲלִתֶם אֶת עַצְמֹתַי" (<a href="Bereshit50-24-25" data-aht="source">Bereshit 50:25</a>) – It is ambiguous from this verse whether Yosef is speaking to his brothers or all their descendants (the nation). 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?<fn>See the third approach in <a href="Yosef's Economic Policies" data-aht="page">Yosef's Economic Policies</a> for discussion of whether the brothers had originally planned to return to Canaan immediately after the famine and its repercussions eased.</fn></li>
 
</ul>
 
</ul>
 
<li><b>דָּת&#160;</b>–&#160;<multilink><a href="ShadalDevarim33-2" data-aht="source">Shadal</a><a href="ShadalDevarim33-2" data-aht="source">Devarim 33:2</a><a href="R. Shemuel David Luzzatto (Shadal)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto</a></multilink> 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 <a href="Devarim33-2" data-aht="source">Devarim 33:2</a>, 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:</li>
 
<li><b>דָּת&#160;</b>–&#160;<multilink><a href="ShadalDevarim33-2" data-aht="source">Shadal</a><a href="ShadalDevarim33-2" data-aht="source">Devarim 33:2</a><a href="R. Shemuel David Luzzatto (Shadal)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto</a></multilink> 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 <a href="Devarim33-2" data-aht="source">Devarim 33:2</a>, 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:</li>
Line 46: Line 46:
 
<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. 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>
+
<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 the following verse:</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 61: Line 61:
 
<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&#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>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 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>
 
<li>See the discussion in <a href="Avraham's Guests – Angels or Men" data-aht="page">Avraham's Guests – Angels or Men</a> regarding the identity of the "מלאכים" / "אנשים" in Bereshit 18-19.</li>
 
<li>See the discussion in <a href="Avraham's Guests – Angels or Men" data-aht="page">Avraham's Guests – Angels or Men</a> regarding the identity of the "מלאכים" / "אנשים" in Bereshit 18-19.</li>
Line 76: Line 76:
 
<li>See also R. Shimon in&#160;<multilink><a href="MishnaAvot3-3" data-aht="source">Avot 3:3</a><a href="MishnaAvot3-3" data-aht="source">Avot 3:3</a><a href="MishnaAvot4-11" data-aht="source">Avot 4:11</a><a href="Mishna" data-aht="parshan">About the Mishna</a></multilink> who takes the verse כִּי כׇּל שֻׁלְחָנוֹת מָלְאוּ קִיא צֹאָה" בְּלִי מָקוֹם" (<a href="Yeshayahu28-7-8" data-aht="source">Yeshayahu 28:8</a>) 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.</li>
 
<li>See also R. Shimon in&#160;<multilink><a href="MishnaAvot3-3" data-aht="source">Avot 3:3</a><a href="MishnaAvot3-3" data-aht="source">Avot 3:3</a><a href="MishnaAvot4-11" data-aht="source">Avot 4:11</a><a href="Mishna" data-aht="parshan">About the Mishna</a></multilink> who takes the verse כִּי כׇּל שֻׁלְחָנוֹת מָלְאוּ קִיא צֹאָה" בְּלִי מָקוֹם" (<a href="Yeshayahu28-7-8" data-aht="source">Yeshayahu 28:8</a>) 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.</li>
 
</ul>
 
</ul>
<li><b>נס</b> – In the Rabbinic period this word refers to a miracle,<fn>See, for instance, Tosefta Yoma 2:4, Sifra Vayikra 22:32, Mishna Berakhot 9:1, Avot 5:4-5.</fn> while in the Biblical period the predominant meaning is standard (or flagpole).<fn>see Bemidbar 21:8-9, Yeshayahu 5:26, Yeshayahu 13:2. or Yirmeyahu 51:12.</fn>&#160; The shift in meaning might not actually be so great given that miracles in Tanakh are understood to be wondrous actions that are meant to serve as signs, as per the Biblical term "אוֹתֹת וּמֹפְתִים" used to refer to the plagues and wonders in Egypt.</li>
+
<li><b>נס</b> – In the Rabbinic period this word refers to a miracle,<fn>See, for instance, Tosefta Yoma 2:4, Sifra Vayikra 22:32, Mishna Berakhot 9:1, Avot 5:4-5.</fn> while in the Biblical period the predominant meaning is standard (or flagpole).<fn>see Bemidbar 21:8-9, Yeshayahu 5:26, Yeshayahu 13:2. or Yirmeyahu 51:12.</fn>&#160; Though at first&#160; glance it seems as if the two definitions are totally unconnected, an understanding of the role of miracles in Tanakh suggests that the shift in meaning might not actually be so great. In Tanakh are miracles are viewed as wondrous actions that are meant to serve as signs, as per the Biblical term "אוֹתֹת וּמֹפְתִים" used to refer to the plagues and wonders in Egypt.</li>
 
<li><b>עוֹלָם</b>&#160;–<multilink><a href="IbnEzraKohelet3-11" data-aht="source"> Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraKohelet3-11" data-aht="source">Kohelet 3:11</a><a href="IbnEzraTehillimSecondCommentary66-7" data-aht="source">Tehillim Second Commentary 66:7</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink> notes that throughout Tanakh the word "עוֹלָם" is a marker of time, connoting a long duration or eternity. It is only in Rabbinic sources<fn>See, for instance, <multilink><a href="MishnaBerakhot9-2" data-aht="source">Mishna Berakhot 9:2</a><a href="MishnaBerakhot9-2" data-aht="source">Berakhot 9:2</a><a href="Mishna" data-aht="parshan">About the Mishna</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="MishnaRoshHaShanah1-2" data-aht="source">Mishna Rosh HaShanah 1:2</a><a href="MishnaRoshHaShanah1-2" data-aht="source">Rosh HaShanah 1:2</a><a href="Mishna" data-aht="parshan">About the Mishna</a></multilink>, and<multilink><a href="MishnaChagigah2-1" data-aht="source"> Mishna Chagigah 2:1</a><a href="MishnaChagigah2-1" data-aht="source">Chagigah 2:1</a><a href="Mishna" data-aht="parshan">About the Mishna</a></multilink>.</fn> that the word takes on the extra meaning of "world".<fn>See M. Kadushin, The Rabbinic Mind (New York, 1972): 293-294, who suggests that this is a result of Rabbinic universalism. See, though, K.A. Fudeman and M.I. Gruber, "Eternal King / King of the World" From the Bronze Age to Medieval Times: A Study in Lexical Semantics", REJ 166:1 (2007): 209-242, who disagrees and assumes that the semantic shift took place earlier, already at the end of the Biblical period, pointing to&#160;<a href="Kohelet3-11" data-aht="source">Kohelet 3:11</a> and Daniel 12:7 as examples where the word "עולם" refers to the world.</fn> [In Tanakh, the word used to describe the world is "תֵּבֵל".]</li>
 
<li><b>עוֹלָם</b>&#160;–<multilink><a href="IbnEzraKohelet3-11" data-aht="source"> Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraKohelet3-11" data-aht="source">Kohelet 3:11</a><a href="IbnEzraTehillimSecondCommentary66-7" data-aht="source">Tehillim Second Commentary 66:7</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink> notes that throughout Tanakh the word "עוֹלָם" is a marker of time, connoting a long duration or eternity. It is only in Rabbinic sources<fn>See, for instance, <multilink><a href="MishnaBerakhot9-2" data-aht="source">Mishna Berakhot 9:2</a><a href="MishnaBerakhot9-2" data-aht="source">Berakhot 9:2</a><a href="Mishna" data-aht="parshan">About the Mishna</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="MishnaRoshHaShanah1-2" data-aht="source">Mishna Rosh HaShanah 1:2</a><a href="MishnaRoshHaShanah1-2" data-aht="source">Rosh HaShanah 1:2</a><a href="Mishna" data-aht="parshan">About the Mishna</a></multilink>, and<multilink><a href="MishnaChagigah2-1" data-aht="source"> Mishna Chagigah 2:1</a><a href="MishnaChagigah2-1" data-aht="source">Chagigah 2:1</a><a href="Mishna" data-aht="parshan">About the Mishna</a></multilink>.</fn> that the word takes on the extra meaning of "world".<fn>See M. Kadushin, The Rabbinic Mind (New York, 1972): 293-294, who suggests that this is a result of Rabbinic universalism. See, though, K.A. Fudeman and M.I. Gruber, "Eternal King / King of the World" From the Bronze Age to Medieval Times: A Study in Lexical Semantics", REJ 166:1 (2007): 209-242, who disagrees and assumes that the semantic shift took place earlier, already at the end of the Biblical period, pointing to&#160;<a href="Kohelet3-11" data-aht="source">Kohelet 3:11</a> and Daniel 12:7 as examples where the word "עולם" refers to the world.</fn> [In Tanakh, the word used to describe the world is "תֵּבֵל".]</li>
 
<ul>
 
<ul>

Version as of 04:45, 26 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, becoming more expansive in meaning. 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 nation). 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 the following verse:
    •  "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:

  • אֶמֶת – In modern Hebrew אמת stands in contrast to שקר and means truth.  In Biblical Hebrew, however, the meaning of the word is broader and includes also the connotation of being steadfast or faithful,76 "אֶמֶת" being synonymous with "נאמנות".‎77 See Radak who suggests that the original root of the word is "אמן" where the nun was dropped.
    • The dual meaning of the word in Tanakh is highlighted when comparing two instances of the phrase "תּוֹרַת אֱמֶת".  In Malakhi 2:6, the context "תּוֹרַת אֱמֶת הָיְתָה בְּפִיהוּ וְעַוְלָה לֹא נִמְצָא בִשְׂפָתָיו בְּשָׁלוֹם וּבְמִישׁוֹר הָלַךְ אִתִּי" might suggest that the phrase refers to truth or honesty.78 In Tehillim 119:142, "צִדְקָתְךָ צֶדֶק לְעוֹלָם וְתוֹרָתְךָ אֱמֶת, the parallel to "לְעוֹלָם" might instead support a meaning of steadfast, that Hashem's laws are constant and unchanging.
  • בִּירָה – Though today, "בִּירָה" is used to refer to a capital city, in Biblical Hebrew the word generally means simply palace or fortress,79 related to the Akkadian "birtu".
  • בטח – Y. Etsion82 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).83  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?84
    • "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.
  • דּוֹד‎85 – Though today "דּוֹד" can refer to an uncle on either the mother or father's side, see RashiYirmeyahu 32:12About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki86 who notes that in Tanakh, the term is reserved for a father's brother.87  [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,88 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".‎89  
    • See also RadakAmos 6:10About R. David Kimchi90 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).91
  • "דָּת" – The word "דָּת" is a Persian loan word,92 which appears predominantly in Sefer Esther, and consistently means "law" or "decree".93 This stands in contrast to the word's prevalent usage today where it means "religion".94
  • להתחתן – In Tanakh, in contrast to modern Hebrew, the parties who are "מתחתן" are the חֹתֵן (father95 of the bride) and the חָתָן (son-in-law)96 or the חֹתֵן (father of the bride) and the father of the groom,97 not the husband and wife. The verb "להתחתן" is not used to describe the forming of the marital relationship between the bride and groom98 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 alliance99 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.100 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 Kimchi101 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,102 or were the conditions considerably better, with pasture for their livestock?103  See Life in the Wilderness.
  • נִין וָנֶכֶד‎‎104‎‎‎‎‎ – This pair of words appears three times in Tanakh,105 always in this order.  As such, in context, the terms would appear to mean child and grandchild respectively,106 or perhaps refer more generally to descendants (with no differentiation between the terms).107 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.108
  • נער – Though in modern Hebrew, this word refers to a youth rather than an infant or adult, in Tanakh, it might refer also to any of the three.109
    • Familiarity with the later meaning is likely what lies behind Rashi and Ibn Ezra's questioning of why baby Moshe is referred to as a "נער", with Rashi suggesting that his voice was like that of a "נער" and Ibn Ezra suggesting that he was big-boned.110 Contrast Ramban who points out that this is simply normal Biblical usage of the word.
  • 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,111 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.112 Today, in contrast, the word means to apologize.  Y. Etsion113 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),114 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 Tanakh115 it takes the meaning of "tremble" or "agitate",116 and is often paired with fear,117 not anger.118
  • 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
  • שמלה – This word has narrowed in meaning over the years, from referring to a garment appropriate for either a man119 or woman, to one worn only by women.120
  • 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.121
    • כליות, כבד and מעיים – In Tanakh, it is the kidneys, intestines, and liver, which is home to emotions and affections.122
  • 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.