Difference between revisions of "Dictionary:Changing Meanings/0"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This topic has not yet undergone editorial review
m |
|||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
All languages evolve, and semantic shift can sometimes result in a word's modern meaning being radically different than its original usage.  Hebrew is no exception, as is said, "לשון התורה לחוד ולשון נביאים לחוד ולשון חכמים לחוד" (<multilink><a href="TosafotKiddushin37b" data-aht="source">Tosafot Kiddushin 37b</a><a href="TosafotKiddushin37b" data-aht="source">Kiddushin 37b</a><a href="Ba'alei HaTosafot" data-aht="parshan">About Ba'alei HaTosafot</a></multilink>). 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.</div> | All languages evolve, and semantic shift can sometimes result in a word's modern meaning being radically different than its original usage.  Hebrew is no exception, as is said, "לשון התורה לחוד ולשון נביאים לחוד ולשון חכמים לחוד" (<multilink><a href="TosafotKiddushin37b" data-aht="source">Tosafot Kiddushin 37b</a><a href="TosafotKiddushin37b" data-aht="source">Kiddushin 37b</a><a href="Ba'alei HaTosafot" data-aht="parshan">About Ba'alei HaTosafot</a></multilink>). 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.</div> | ||
<category>Within the Biblical Period | <category>Within the Biblical Period | ||
− | <p>There are several words whose meaning might have changed from one period within Tanakh to another:</p><ul> | + | <p>There are several words whose meaning might have changed from one period within Tanakh to another:</p> |
+ | <ul> | ||
<li><b>אֲבָל </b>– The meaning of this word has shifted over time, from meaning "indeed" or "verily" in the earlier books of Tanakh<fn>See, for example, <a href="Bereshit17-18-19" data-aht="source">Bereshit 17:19</a>, <a href="Bereshit42-20-21" data-aht="source">Bereshit 42:21</a> and <a href="ShemuelII14-4-5" data-aht="source">Shemuel II 14:5</a> (and see Rashi there, who explains "<b></b>אבל – בקושטא").</fn> to meaning "but" in later books such as Daniel, Ezra and Divrei HaYamim.<fn>See, for instance, <a href="Daniel10-7" data-aht="source">Daniel 10:7</a>, <a href="DivreiHaYamimII1-2-4" data-aht="source">Divrei HaYamim II 1:4</a>, or <a href="DivreiHaYamimII33-15-17" data-aht="source">Divrei HaYamim II 33:17</a>.</fn></li> | <li><b>אֲבָל </b>– The meaning of this word has shifted over time, from meaning "indeed" or "verily" in the earlier books of Tanakh<fn>See, for example, <a href="Bereshit17-18-19" data-aht="source">Bereshit 17:19</a>, <a href="Bereshit42-20-21" data-aht="source">Bereshit 42:21</a> and <a href="ShemuelII14-4-5" data-aht="source">Shemuel II 14:5</a> (and see Rashi there, who explains "<b></b>אבל – בקושטא").</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, becoming more expansive in meaning. In Sefer Bereshit<fn>See <a href="Bereshit42-5" data-aht="source">Bereshit 42:5</a>, <a href="Bereshit45-17-21" data-aht="source">Bereshit 45:21</a> and <a href="Bereshit46-5" data-aht="source">Bereshit 46:5</a>.</fn> and the opening verses of Sefer Shemot<fn>The phrase "בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל" in <a href="Shemot1-1" data-aht="source">Shemot 1:1</a> clearly refers to the sons of Yaakov but verse 7 is ambiguous and could refer either to Yaakov's sons or to the entire Israelite nation. This depends on whether the verse is still part of the opening summary of Sefer Bereshit or is referring to events after the brothers' death.</fn> the term refers to the literal sons of Yaakov, whereas afterwards it refers to the nation of Israel.  The turning point might be <a href="Shemot1-7-9" data-aht="source">Shemot 1:9</a>, which uniquely states "<b>עַם</b> בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל",‎<fn>This is the only place in Tanakh in which this exact term is used and there are only two other places in Tanakh (Shemot 3:10, 7:4) where Hashem uses a similar term, "עַמִּי בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל".</fn> perhaps to clarify that the people have become a nation.<fn>See <multilink><a href="RSRHirschShemot1-1" data-aht="source">R. Hirsch</a><a href="RSRHirschShemot1-1" data-aht="source">Shemot 1:1</a><a href="RSRHirschShemot1-9" data-aht="source">Shemot 1:9</a><a href="R. Samson Raphael Hirsch" data-aht="parshan">About R. Samson Raphael Hirsch</a></multilink> on Shemot 1:1 and 9 who implies this.</fn>  There are a couple of cases in which the meaning of the term is ambiguous:</li> | <li><b>בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל</b> – The connotation of this word has changed slightly over time, becoming more expansive in meaning. In Sefer Bereshit<fn>See <a href="Bereshit42-5" data-aht="source">Bereshit 42:5</a>, <a href="Bereshit45-17-21" data-aht="source">Bereshit 45:21</a> and <a href="Bereshit46-5" data-aht="source">Bereshit 46:5</a>.</fn> and the opening verses of Sefer Shemot<fn>The phrase "בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל" in <a href="Shemot1-1" data-aht="source">Shemot 1:1</a> clearly refers to the sons of Yaakov but verse 7 is ambiguous and could refer either to Yaakov's sons or to the entire Israelite nation. This depends on whether the verse is still part of the opening summary of Sefer Bereshit or is referring to events after the brothers' death.</fn> the term refers to the literal sons of Yaakov, whereas afterwards it refers to the nation of Israel.  The turning point might be <a href="Shemot1-7-9" data-aht="source">Shemot 1:9</a>, which uniquely states "<b>עַם</b> בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל",‎<fn>This is the only place in Tanakh in which this exact term is used and there are only two other places in Tanakh (Shemot 3:10, 7:4) where Hashem uses a similar term, "עַמִּי בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל".</fn> perhaps to clarify that the people have become a nation.<fn>See <multilink><a href="RSRHirschShemot1-1" data-aht="source">R. Hirsch</a><a href="RSRHirschShemot1-1" data-aht="source">Shemot 1:1</a><a href="RSRHirschShemot1-9" data-aht="source">Shemot 1:9</a><a href="R. Samson Raphael Hirsch" data-aht="parshan">About R. Samson Raphael Hirsch</a></multilink> on Shemot 1:1 and 9 who implies this.</fn>  There are a couple of cases in which the meaning of the term is ambiguous:</li> | ||
Line 220: | Line 221: | ||
<li><b>רגז</b> – Today, this root relates primarily to anger. See, though, <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 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> He suggests that it is only in the Aramaic sections of Ezra (5:12) and Daniel (3:13), that the root relates to anger or fury.</li> | <li><b>רגז</b> – Today, this root relates primarily to anger. See, though, <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 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> He suggests that it is only in the Aramaic sections of Ezra (5:12) and Daniel (3:13), that the root relates to anger or fury.</li> | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
− | <li><a href="Bereshit45-24" data-aht="source">Bereshit 45:24</a>– | + | <li><a href="Bereshit45-24" data-aht="source">Bereshit 45:24</a> – This difference in usage might lie at the core of the debate between commentators over the meaning of Yosef's words to the brothers, "אַל תִּרְגְּזוּ בַּדָּרֶךְ".  While <multilink><a href="RashiBereshit45-24" data-aht="source">Rashi</a><a href="RashiBereshit45-24" data-aht="source">Bereshit 45:24</a><a href="R. Shelomo Yitzchaki (Rashi)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki</a></multilink> and <multilink><a href="IbnEzraBereshitFirstCommentary45-24" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraBereshitFirstCommentary45-24" data-aht="source">Bereshit First Commentary 45:24</a><a href="IbnEzraTehillimSecondCommentary66-7" data-aht="source">Tehillim Second Commentary 66:7</a><a href="IbnEzraEstherSecondCommentary1-2" data-aht="source">Esther Second Commentary 1:2</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink> suggest that Yosef is warning the brothers not to be angry with one another, <multilink><a href="RashbamBereshit45-24" data-aht="source">Rashbam</a><a href="RashbamBereshit45-24" data-aht="source">Bereshit 45:24</a><a href="R. Shemuel b. Meir (Rashbam)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel b. Meir</a></multilink> and <multilink><a href="RambanBereshit45-24" data-aht="source">Ramban</a><a href="RambanBereshit45-24" data-aht="source">Bereshit 45:24</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Nachman (Ramban, Nachmanides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe b. Nachman</a></multilink> claim that Yosef is telling the brothers not to fear robbers en route home.  See <multilink><a href="ShadalBereshit45-24" data-aht="source">Shadal</a><a href="ShadalBereshit45-24" data-aht="source">Bereshit 45:24</a><a href="R. Shemuel David Luzzatto (Shadal)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto</a></multilink><fn>See also the Sefer HaShorashim of both Ibn Janakh and Radak.</fn> who attempts to defend both readings, suggesting that the root "רגז" simply means tremble, and can thus take on the secondary meaning of any strong emotion.</li> |
</ul> | </ul> | ||
<li><b>שופט</b> – 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.<fn>For an analysis of how the root "שפט" is used throughout Tanakh and a discussion of the role played by the Shofetim, see M. Rozenberg, "The Šofetim in the Bible", Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies 12 (1975): 77-86.</fn></li> | <li><b>שופט</b> – 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.<fn>For an analysis of how the root "שפט" is used throughout Tanakh and a discussion of the role played by the Shofetim, see M. Rozenberg, "The Šofetim in the Bible", Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies 12 (1975): 77-86.</fn></li> |
Version as of 04:08, 3 April 2024
Changing Meanings
Overview
All languages evolve, and semantic shift can sometimes result in a word's modern meaning being radically different than its original usage. Hebrew is no exception, as is said, "לשון התורה לחוד ולשון נביאים לחוד ולשון חכמים לחוד" (Tosafot Kiddushin 37b). 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.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 books 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 100b whether this refers to a prohibition Yaakov's sons accepted upon themselves or whether this was first commanded to the nation at Sinai and placed in Sefer Bereshit only to provide the reasoning behind the command.7
- "וַיַּשְׁבַּע יוֹסֵף אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל... וְהַעֲלִתֶם אֶת עַצְמֹתַי" (Bereshit 50:25) – It is ambiguous from this verse whether Yosef is speaking to his brothers or all their descendants (the 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
- דֶּגֶל9 – Shadal asserts that the original meaning of this word is not flag or banner, but rather military unit.10 As such, when Sefer Bemidbar states that the nation camped "אִישׁ עַל דִּגְלוֹ" or traveled "לְדִגְלֵיהֶם" the verses are emphasizing the nation's military organization, not the fact that they had military flags. He claims that it is only later that the word came to also refer to the standard that marked the unit.11 Thus, in Shir HaShirim 2:4, the beloved uses the secondary meaning, saying: "וְדִגְלוֹ עָלַי אַהֲבָה", that her lover's banner is his love for her.12
- דָּת – Shadal points out that the word "דָּת" is a Persian loan word, first appearing as an independent word in the Book of Esther, where it means law or decree. The term appears only once earlier in Tanakh, in Devarim 33:2, but only as part of a larger term "אשדת". The word is written as just one word "אשדת" but read as if written "אֵשׁ דָּת". This has led commentators to debate the term's meaning:
- Adopting the later meaning of "law" back to this verse, Rashi and R"Y Bekhor Shor assume that the verse is referring to the Torah which was given amidst the fire. Shadal, though, claims that the word has no connection to"דת". It is instead related to the noun "אשדה", meaning slope, and like many other words in the verse refers to a location.
- חֹדֶשׁ – It is possible that in Torah, "חֹדֶשׁ" refers to the full month,13 while it is first in the Prophets that it also takes on the additional meaning of "Rosh Chodesh", the first of the month specifically.14 See, though, R. Moshe ibn Chiquitilla who claims that the primary meaning of "חֹדֶשׁ" in Torah is "Rosh Chodesh".15 The different possibilities might affect one's reading of several verses:
- "בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁלִישִׁי" (Shemot 19:1) – This verse states that the nation arrived in Sinai, "בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁלִישִׁי לְצֵאת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם", understood by many to mean that they arrived in the third month. However, R. Moshe ibn Chiquitilla, Ralbag and Shadal all suggest that "בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁלִישִׁי" means the third "new moon" rather than the "third month"16 and that the verse is stating that the nation arrived in Sinai on the first of Sivan.
- "וּבְרָאשֵׁי חׇדְשֵׁיכֶם" – Most understand the phrase "רָאשֵׁי חׇדְשֵׁיכֶם" in both Bemidbar 10:10 and Bemidbar 28:11 to refer to the new moon, the "head" (ראש) of the month (חדש). R. Moshe ibn Chiquitilla, though, assumes that it refers to the first of the new moons17 (i.e. Rosh Chodesh Nissan specifically). According to him, the trumpets discussed in Bemidbar 10 are blown specifically on the first of Nissan (and not every month) since it is the beginning of the year.18
- זֹאת עֹלַת חֹדֶשׁ בְּחׇדְשׁוֹ"" (Bemidbar 28:14)19 – Compare Ibn Ezra, R"Y Bekhor Shor, and Ibn Chiquitilla as to whether this verse means: This is the Olah that was brought monthly, this is the Olah of the month, to be brought when the moon is renewed, or this is the Olah of the new moon, to be brought each month.
- עצר/ת – R. D"Z Hoffmann asserts that in Torah this root means to restrain. The holiday immediately following Sukkot and the last day of Pesach are given this name as they are days in which one is restrained from engaging in work and other activities.20 Only later did the word take the additional meaning of gathering, as such days tended to be days of gathering.
- שַׁבַּת – It is possible that it is first in Prophets that the word "שַׁבַּת" refers to the seventh day of the week,21 while in Torah it refers to either a state of cessation,22 or the full week.23 When Torah speaks of the seventh day, it instead uses the terms "יּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי"24 or "יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת".25
- 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.
- שָׂטָן – In earlier books of Tanakh this word refers to any adversary or enemy, and not to a demonic being.26 In the later books of Zekharyah and Iyyov, in contrast, the word is used as a proper noun (prefaced by a definite article) and appears to refer to an independent supernatural figure, Satan.27 In several instances, commentators debate whether the term takes on the earlier or later meaning:28
- "הַפְקֵד עָלָיו רָשָׁע וְשָׂטָן יַעֲמֹד עַל יְמִינוֹ" (Tehillim 109:6) – Contrast Ibn Ezra who assumes that the psalmist is praying that his enemy (spoken of in prior verses) should be forced to face his own human adversary, with Radak who assumes the verse is speaking of Satan who will act as his enemy's prosecutor.
- "וַיַּעֲמֹד שָׂטָן עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיָּסֶת אֶת דָּוִיד" (Divrei HaYamim I 21:1) – Ibn Ezra and Radak have the same dispute regarding this verse.29
- 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". The different terms might reflect varying conceptions of the prophet's main role. Was he primarily a "seer", fore-teller of the future, or a spokesman,30 someone whose job it was to relay the word of Hashem or rebuke the people?
Biblical vs. Rabbinic Hebrew
There are many words whose usage might have changed from the Biblical period to the Mishnaic period:
- אֶגְרֹף 31 – This word appears in only two places in Tanakh (Shemot 21:18 and Yeshayahu 58:4), making it difficult to define. In his Sefer HaShorashim,32 Radak notes that while the word means fist in Rabbinic Hebrew, in Tanakh it refers to a clump of earth,33 connecting it to the word "עָבְשׁוּ פְרֻדוֹת תַּחַת מֶגְרְפֹתֵיהֶם" in Yoel 1:17.34 Ramban and R. D"Z Hoffmann, disagree, allowing for the possibility that the meaning of the word has not changed over time, and that in Tanakh, too, it means fist.35
- "וְהִכָּה אִישׁ אֶת רֵעֵהוּ בְּאֶבֶן אוֹ בְאֶגְרֹף" (Shemot 21:18) – According to Radak's reading, "בְּאֶבֶן" and "בְאֶגְרֹף" are somewhat parallel terms, and the verse is simply giving two similar examples of external objects used to smite. According to Ramban, the verse is setting up a contrast, declaring that whether one smites with a tool that is likely to kill or one which is not, the same law applies.
- אמה – In Tanakh, the word אמה means either maidservant (when spelled without a dagesh)36 or a unit of measure (when spelled with a dagesh).37 In Rabbinic Hebrew, it may be used to refer also to the forearm itself.
- See the dispute in Bavli Sotah regarding the meaning of the phrase "וַתִּשְׁלַח אֶת אֲמָתָהּ וַתִּקָּחֶהָ" in Shemot 2:5, where one opinion suggests that the daughter of Paroh extended her arm, rather than sending her servant, to retrieve Moshe.38 Ibn Ezra rejects this possibility noting both the missing dagesh39 and the fact that this usage is not found in Tanakh: "אמה מדה היא, כי הזרוע לא תקרא אמה".40
- בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת – As opposed to Rabbinic Hebrew, where "בדק הבית" refers to Temple maintenance or repairs, and "בדק" is understood in terms of inspection or fixing41 (as in the root's verbal form),42 in Tanakh "בֶּדֶק" means a crack or fissure,43 and "בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת" refers to the breaches of the Mikdash.44 As such, when speaking of maintenance in Tanakh, the term is always accompanied by the verb "לחזק".
- The change in meaning was a key factor in the debate over the authenticity of the so-called Yehoash Inscription. The relevant part of the inscription reads, "ואעש את בדק הבית", a usage which would have been anomalous in the time of Yehoash where בדק meant breaks rather than repairs.45
- בָּיִת – In Tanakh, this root generally refers to either a physical house46 or receptacle,47 or a family or household.48 In Rabbinic Hebrew it is also understood more narrowly to refer specifically to a wife.49
- See Sifra Vayikra and Mishna Yoma 1:1 who adopt this later meaning to Vayikra 16, explaining, "וְכִפֶּר בַּעֲדוֹ וּבְעַד בֵּיתוֹ" to mean "and he will atone for himself and his wife".
- See also Lekach Tov and Chizkuni on Shemot 1:1 who understand the phrase "אִישׁ וּבֵיתוֹ בָּאוּ" to refer to Yaakov's sons and their wives. See, though, Ibn Ezra who argues against this reading, noting: "אין בית בכל המקרא אשה".
- גּוֹי50 – Though the Sages use this word to refer to a non-Jew,51 in Tanakh it simply means nation, and can even refer to the Nation of Israel.52 In his Sefer HaShorashim, Radak attempts to explain the change in usage, suggesting that when the Sages wanted to identify a person as a non-Israelite but did not know his nationality, they would refer to him as simply "גוי", so as to say that he was from a different nation.53 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 Rabbati54 notes that Israel is referred to as a "גוי" because she behaved like a non-Jew (not being circumcised in Egypt).
- דָּמִֽים – In Tanakh this word is related to blood or life whereas in Mishnaic Hebrew it also takes the meaning of "money".55
- The later usage might have influenced the interpretation of Rashbam and Chizkuni to Shemot 22:1-2 who understand the phrases "אֵין/יש לוֹ דָּמִים" to mean "תשלומי דמים", perhaps combining the Biblical and Rabbinic usage of the term.
- Cf. Ibn Janach who explains similarly, claiming that the verse in Shemot and the parallel phrase "אֵין לוֹ דָּם" in Bemidbar 35:27 both mean ransom. He further claims that the phrase in Tehillim 72:14, "וְיֵיקַר דָּמָם בְּעֵינָיו" means not life but value or worth.
- ה״א הקריאה – Contrast Ibn Ezra on Bemidbar 15:15 who claims that there is no such thing as a "ה״א לקריאה" in Biblical Hebrew56 with Ibn Balaam who suggests that though rare, it does exist. As examples, Ibn Balaam points to Bemidbar 15:15, Yirmeyahu 2:31, Mikhah 2:7 and Shir HaShirim 8:13.
- חותן/חותנת and חם/חמות – Radak57 notes that Biblical Hebrew distinguishes between a father-in-law on the husband and wife's side, using distinct terms for each. The wife's father is referred to as a חותן,58 while the husband's father is referred to as a חם.59 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.60 For further discussion, see חֹתֵן / חֹתֶנֶת.
- מַלְאָךְ – In Biblical Hebrew "מַלְאָךְ" refers to any type of messenger,61 not specifically an angel. Divine messengers are singled out by the terms "מַלְאַךְ אֱלֹהִים" or "'מַלְאַךְ ה".62 In Rabbinic Hebrew, in contrast, "מַלְאָךְ" takes on the much more specific connotation of "angel".63 Tanakh's broader definition of the word allows for ambiguity and in several cases, commentators debate what type of messenger is referred to:
- See the discussion in Avraham's Guests – Angels or Men regarding the identity of the "מלאכים" / "אנשים" in Bereshit 18-19.
- See also Ralbag regarding the "מלאך" who appeared to Hagar in both Bereshit 16 and 21, those who meet Yaakov in Bereshit 32:2, and those that appeared to Gidon and to Manoach's wife and many others. In each case Ralbag suggests that the verse refers to a prophet of Hashem.64
- מַס – Hoil Moshe points out that "מַס" in Tanakh refers to a labor tax rather than a monetary one,65 noting that the Biblical term for a monetary tribute is "מנחה" or "מכס".
- This relates to a dispute among commentators regarding how to understand the role of the "tax officers" mentioned in Shemot 1:11. Though many assume this refers to those who oversaw the forced labor, Ralbag suggests it refers to collection of a fiscal payment (as per the later usage of the word). Ralbag opines that only those who could not afford the monetary fine were forced to labor for Paroh. See discussion in Who was Enslaved in Egypt and how the various readings lead to vastly different perspectives on the severity of the enslavement.
- מָקוֹם – Ibn Ezra notes that in Tanakh, the word "מקום" never refers to Hashem and always connotes a location. It is only the Sages who use the term to refer also to Hashem due to His omnipresence.66
- This leads Ibn Ezra to reject the Midrashic interpretation67 that the phrase "וַיִּפְגַּע בַּמָּקוֹם" in Bereshit 28:11 means that Yaakov prayed to Hashem.
- Ibn Ezra similarly objects to those who explain68 that Esther 4:14, "רֶוַח וְהַצָּלָה יַעֲמוֹד לַיְּהוּדִים מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר", refers to Hashem's salvation.69
- נֵס – In the Rabbinic period this word refers to a miracle,70 while in the Biblical period it takes the meaning of a banner / ensign (or flagpole) .71 Though at first 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 be natural. In Tanakh, 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. Hence, "נֵס" too can refer to both an ensign and a miracle.72
- "וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ ה' נִסִּי" – The change in meaning might underlie the dispute regarding the meaning of the name "ה' נִסִּי" in Shemot 17. Adopting the later usage, Rashi73 explains that the altar is supposed to recall the miracle performed by Hashem, while Rashbam,74 applying the Biblical usage of the word, says that the name refers to how Hashem's staff served as a banner during the war.
- עוֹלָם – Ibn Ezra notes that throughout Tanakh the word "עוֹלָם" is a marker of time, connoting a long duration or eternity. It is only in Rabbinic sources75 that the word takes on the extra meaning of "world".76 [In Tanakh, the word used to describe the world is "תֵּבֵל".]
- As such, he claims that when explaining verses which can sustain both meanings (see, for instance, Tehillim 66:7, Tehillim 89:3,77 Mishlei 10:24-25, Eikhah 3:6, Kohelet 3:11, Daniel 12:7),78 the prevalent meaning of "eternity" should be adopted.
- עַם הָאָרֶץ – In Rabbinic Hebrew this term refers to an individual who does not have much Torah knowledge or is not careful in keeping the laws of purity or tithing.79 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.80
- עֶרֶשׂ – Y. Etsion81 points out that in Tanakh, this word is almost always paired with "מִטָּה"82 and its synonyms "מִשְׁכַּב" or "יָצוּעַ"83 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.
- The difference in meaning might have influenced the various understandings of Devarim 3:11, which points to the gigantic proportions of Og by describing his bed: "עַרְשׂוֹ עֶרֶשׂ בַּרְזֶל... תֵּשַׁע אַמּוֹת אׇרְכָּהּ". While Ramban appears to read the verse as referring to a normal bed, R"Y Kara and Rashbam, adopting the later usage, assume that it speaks of Og's crib.84 The various possibilities have obvious ramifications for just how big Og was.
- צְדָקָה85 – Though, in Rabbinic sources, the word צדקה refers to charity and giving of alms, R"Y Kara notes that it never takes this meaning in Tanakh, but rather refers to justice or righteousness.86 ["צְדָקָה" is, thus, often paired with the word "משפט".]87 Cf. Malbim that, at least when used in reference to Hashem, "צדקה" refers to actions done out of loving kindness and mercy rather than out of justice. Thus, though he does not think the word takes the meaning of "alms" in Torah, he does think it can refer to acts of bounty or mercy.88 In several cases this dispute is evident in the interpretation of verses. For example:
- "חָטָאתִי הַפָּעַם י״י הַצַּדִּיק וַאֲנִי וְעַמִּי הָרְשָׁעִים" (Shemot 9:27) – Contrast R"Y Bekhor Shor who explains that Paroh is saying that Hashem acted justly in punishing him, with Shemot Rabbah 12:2 who has Hashem acting in kindness, by warning the Egyptians of the upcoming plague.
- "וְהָאֵל הַקָּדוֹשׁ נִקְדָּשׁ בִּצְדָקָה" (Yeshayahu 5:16) - Contrast R"Y Kara, Ibn Ezra and Radak who assume that "צְדָקָה" here is parallel to the word "משפט" found in the beginning of the verse, with Tanchuma who thinks it refers to Hashem's mercy and defense of Israel.89
- צַדִּיק – In Rabbinic sources the word צדיק often refers to one who is extraordinarily righteous. In Tanakh, though, it is possible that the word simply means innocent or just, but not exceptionally so.90 The difference might affect one's understanding of several verses:
- Was Noach (an "אִישׁ צַדִּיק") saved because he was extremely virtuous, or was he simply the only upright, innocent individual of the time? See Ramban Bereshit 6:9.
- Was Avraham asking that Hashem not destroy the righteous of Sedom, or only that He not collectively punish the innocent? For discussion, see Avraham's Prayer for Sedom.
- רֹב – In contrast to Mishnaic and modern Hebrew where "רוב" means "most" or a "majority",91 in Tanakh the word consistently means abundance or many.92
- The change in meaning might have influenced Bavli Megillah's reading of Esther 10:3, "כִּי מׇרְדֳּכַי הַיְּהוּדִי מִשְׁנֶה לַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ וְגָדוֹל לַיְּהוּדִים וְרָצוּי לְרֹב אֶחָיו". The Bavli suggests that the verse is highlighting that only most were pleased with Mordechai, while others were not. Contrast Hoil Moshe who explains the verse to mean: "ורצוי לאחיו הרבים". See Mordechai's Legacy – ורצוי לרב אחיו for more.
- שְׁאוֹל – Tanakh never speaks of distinct afterworlds for the righteous and wicked, and instead uses one term, "שְׁאוֹל", to refer to the place to which all the dead go,93 being synonymous with either death itself, a grave, or perhaps the "underworld".94 By Mishnaic times, a distinction between an afterworld for the righteous (גן עדן) and wicked (גיהנום) already exists and the term "שְׁאוֹל" comes to refer to the latter.95
- See Ibn Ezra on Bereshit 37:35 who argues on these grounds against the Vulgate's translation of this verse which defines "שְׁאוֹל" as "hell".
- שֵׁכָר – See Hoil Moshe on Bemidbar 28:7 who suggests that the word "שכר" in Tanakh refers to a strong wine rather than an alcoholic beverage made of wheat (as per its later usage).96
- שקע – This word did not undergo a change in meaning from Biblical to Mishnaic times, but one of context. In both eras it means to sink, but only in the later period does it refer to the setting of the sun.97 Tanakh never uses the formulation "שקיעת החמה", but instead consistently employs variations of "בָא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ".98 Y. Etsion99 suggests that the difference relates to changing conceptions of sunrise/sunset. Does one think of the sun as coming in and out of its abode, or as rising and sinking into the sea (as it might appear from the perspective of one on earth)?
- תּוֹרָה100 – In Rabbinic Hebrew the word "תּוֹרָה" refers to the Five Books of Chumash or a Torah scroll. In Tanakh, the term is more general, referring to a set of instructions, teaching, or law.101 The difference in meaning might affect how commentators interpret several verses:
- "וְכָתַבְתָּ עֲלֵיהֶן אֶת כׇּל דִּבְרֵי הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת" (Devarim 27:1-8) – Commentators dispute what was written on the stones: the entire Torah, only the laws, the Decalogue, or the blessings and curses mentioned in the unit. See the differing opinions of R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, Ibn Ezra in the name of R. Saadia, and Ralbag.102
- "תוֹרַת חֶסֶד עַל לְשׁוֹנָהּ" (Mishlei 31:26) – On a simple level, this phrase might be translated: "And a law of kindness was on her tongue", meaning that the woman of valor is guided by ways of kindness. Bavli Sukkah, though, understands the verse to refer to the Torah itself, questioning what it means to have a "Torah of Chesed" and concluding that the phrase refers to one who learns (or observes) Torah for its own sake.
- תשובה – Though in Tanakh one can "return to Hashem"103 or "turn away from Hashem"104 the noun form "תשובה" is never used in this context. It, instead, refers to either a physical return from one place to another,105 a reply,106 or the turn of the year.107 In Rabbinic Hebrew, in contrast, the noun form is often used to refer to a spiritual return108 (repentance) and phrases like "לעשות תשובה", "בעל תשובה" or "לחזור בתשובה" appear.
Biblical vs. Modern Hebrew
Many modern Hebrew words might take on different meanings than their Biblical counterparts:
- אָחֻז – The meaning of this word has become narrower with time. In Tanakh it refers to taking a part from a whole, but not necessarily one from one hundred.109 It is first in modern times that it comes to mean percent specifically.110
- 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,111 with "אֶמֶת" being synonymous with "נאמנות".112 Radak even suggests that the original root of the word is "אמן" where the nun was dropped.113
- The two possible Biblical meanings of the word are 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.114 In Tehillim 119:142, "צִדְקָתְךָ צֶדֶק לְעוֹלָם וְתוֹרָתְךָ אֱמֶת, the parallel to "לְעוֹלָם" might instead support the meaning "steadfast", that Hashem's laws are constant and unchanging.
- אֶפֶס – It is relatively recent that the word "אֶפֶס" is used to express the number zero,115 but it is not difficult to see how the modern word might have stemmed from the Biblical "אֶפֶס". In Tanakh the root relates to cessation. As such, in noun form it can mean nought116 or it might refer to the ends of the earth (as in the phrase "אַפְסֵי אָרֶץ").117 [In Tanakh the word might also express "but",118 qualifying a previous statement.]119
- אֶקְדָּח120 – This word refers to a handgun in modern Hebrew, a usage obviously not found in the Biblical period. The word appears only once in Tanakh, in Yeshayahu 54:12, "וְשַׂמְתִּי כַּדְכֹד שִׁמְשֹׁתַיִךְ וּשְׁעָרַיִךְ לְאַבְנֵי אֶקְדָּח".
- As the root "קדח" relates to burning or fire,121 the phrase "אַבְנֵי אֶקְדָּח" is understood by most commentators to refer to a fiery or sparkling stone such as a carbuncle.122 As such, when looking for a word to describe a pistol (something which "fires stones"), Ben Yehuda raised it as a possibility.123 Rashi brings an alternative understanding of the phrase, suggesting that the verse speaks of a "מקדח", a hollowed out stone. This, though, is taking an anachronistic understanding of the root "קדח", as it is first in Rabbinic Hebrew that the root "קדח" takes on the meaning to bore a hole.124
- בטח – Y. Etsion125 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 only from there also to lean upon or to trust).126 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 Rashi that the analogy might mean that if Yirmeyahu is already falling in peaceful territory, what will he do in enemy territory?127
- "חָכָם יָרֵא וְסָר מֵרָע וּכְסִיל מִתְעַבֵּר וּבוֹטֵחַ" (Mishlei 14:16) – Rashi and Radak explain that the verse is contrasting the wise person who is 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.
- בִּירָה – Though today, "בִּירָה" is used to refer to a capital city, in Biblical Hebrew the word generally means simply palace or fortress,128 related to the Akkadian "birtu".
- The later usage of the term has influenced many to understand the phrase "שׁוּשַׁן הַבִּירָה" throughout Megillat Esther to mean "Shushan, the capital city".129 See, though, Ibn Ezra (and R. Bachya in his wake) who point out that a distinction should be made between "שׁוּשַׁן" or "העיר שושן", which do refer to a city, and "שׁוּשַׁן הַבִּירָה" which refers to the fortified castle.130
- בקר – Today this root can mean both to visit and to criticize, inspect or oversee. In Tanakh it generally takes the connotation of inquiring or inspecting/discerning rather than visiting.
- There is one verse, though, which can sustain also the later meaning of visit, though it is not suggested that the root etymologically means that. In Tehillim 27:4, the psalmist expresses the wish that he be able to dwell in Hashem's Temple and "וּלְבַקֵּר בְּהֵיכָלוֹ". See Radak and Ibn Ezra that the connotation is that He wishes to inquire of God or contemplate His laws. Rashi, though, connects the word to the noun "בוקר", morning, and suggest that the author requests "to appear in the sanctuary (or perhaps: visit) every morning".
- דּוֹד131 – Though today "דּוֹד" can refer to an uncle on either the mother or father's side, see Rashi132 who notes that in Tanakh, the term is reserved for a father's brother.133 [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,134 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".135
- See also Radak136 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).137
- "דָּת" – The word "דָּת" is a Persian loan word,138 which appears predominantly in Sefer Esther, and consistently means "law" or "decree".139 This stands in contrast to the word's prevalent usage today where it means "religion".140
- The difference in usage might lie at the core of a debate regarding the meaning of Haman's words, "וְדָתֵיהֶם שֹׁנוֹת מִכׇּל עָם וְאֶת דָּתֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֵינָם עֹשִׂים" in Esther 3:8. While Rashi and Rashbam asserts that Haman is complaining that the nation does not keep the king's laws, not paying taxes or participating in the army, Malbim presents Haman as pointing to the different religious beliefs of the nation.
- חֹזֶה – While today this word refers to a contract, in Tanakh it refers to a prophet, or more literally a "seer". The modern usage might stem from Yeshayahu 28:15, "כָּרַתְנוּ בְרִית אֶת מָוֶת וְעִם שְׁאוֹל עָשִׂינוּ חֹזֶה" where the definition "prophet" is somewhat difficult and the parallel to "בְרִית" implies that "חֹזֶה" might mean an agreement:
- See Shadal141 who notes the parallel, but attempts to maintain the regular Biblical meaning of the root "חזה", suggesting that "חֹזֶה" refers to an open, viewable (rather than sealed) document.142 He compares it to the term "הַגָּלוּי" (an open contract) in Yirmeyahu 32:11.143 Contrast Rashi who suggests that "חֹזֶה" of this verse stems from a totally different root, the word "מָחוֹז",144 meaning place or edge.145
- חשל – This root appears twice in Tanakh, once in Devarim 25:18, "וַיְזַנֵּב בְּךָ כׇּל הַנֶּחֱשָׁלִים אַחֲרֶיךָ" where it refers to weary stragglers and once in Daniel 2:40, where the Aramaic means to shatter or be beaten (by a hammer or the like).146 In modern Hebrew, in contrast, the word takes on an almost opposite meaning: to forge or strengthen. The contemporary usage likely stems from the Aramaic, where to "crush by a blow" evolved into "forge",147 and from there to "strengthen".
- להתחתן (חתן)148 – In Tanakh, in contrast to modern Hebrew, the parties who are "מתחתן" are the חֹתֵן (father149 of the bride) and the חָתָן (son-in-law)150 or the חֹתֵן (father of the bride) and the father of the groom,151 not the husband and wife. The verb "להתחתן" is not used to describe the forming of the marital relationship between the bride and groom152 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 alliance153 rather than a bonding of love.
- יָרֵא אֱ-לֹהִים – 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.154 Shadal suggests that the term might refer to anyone who fears even a false god, for someone who fears such a higher authority will have some sense of morality. The difference in meaning might affect how one reads several stories:
- The Midwives – As the midwives are said to have "feared God" (Shemot 1:17), whether one understand the phrase to refer to having belief in Hashem or having a sense of morality will influence whether one suggests that they were Egyptian or Hebrew. See Who are the Midwives.
- Amalek - In speaking of Amalek's attack, Devarim 25:18 states, "וְאַתָּה עָיֵף וְיָגֵעַ וְלֹא יָרֵא אֱלֹהִים". Commentators debate whether the description "יָרֵא אֱלֹהִים" refers to Amalek or Israel, and, if the former, whether it describes the Amalekites' lack of ethics or disregard for God. See Annihilating Amalek.
- "יְרַקְרַק אוֹ אֲדַמְדָּם"– In modern Hebrew the doubling in each of these words signifies a lighter shade of the color (greenish rather than green). There is a dispute as to whether this is true in Tanakh as well. While Ibn Ezra writes, "וזה הכפל לחסרון", explaining, "ואדמדם – כמו כן קל האדמומית", the Sifra declares the opposite, explaining ירקרק to refer to "יָרֹק שֶׁבַּיְּרֻקִּים".
- כן – Though this word appears hundreds of times in Tanakh, it never means "yes" as it does in modern Hebrew, but rather "thus" (כך)155 or veritably / right (נכון).156 In Biblical Hebrew there is actually no equivalent of the word "yes". A positive reply is instead expressed by repeating the verb mentioned in the question. For example, in answer to Yaakov's question, "הַיְדַעְתֶּם אֶת לָבָן בֶּן נָחוֹר", the people do not say yes, but "יָדָעְנוּ" (Bereshit 29:5).157
- כַּעַס – The meaning of this word has become narrower over time. Today, it means "anger" but in Tanakh it also takes the connotation of sorrow and pain. See, for example, Shemuel I 1:6, 15, Tehillim 6:8 or Kohelet 1:18. In some cases it is debated whether anger or sorrow is implied:
- Kohelet 7:3: "טוֹב כַּעַס מִשְּׂחוֹק כִּי בְרֹעַ פָּנִים יִיטַב לֵב" – According to several commentators158 the verse is exhorting that it is better to get angry and rebuke one who does wrong than to be lighthearted about the wrong-doing. Others,159 though, connect the verse to the previous one (טוֹב לָלֶכֶת אֶל בֵּית אֵבֶל מִלֶּכֶת אֶל בֵּית מִשְׁתֶּה) and suggest that it, too, is stressing that sorrow (rather than happiness) leads to reflection and is ultimately good for the heart.
- לֶחֶם160– The meaning of this word has become narrower over time. Whereas today it refers specifically to bread, in Tanakh it can also refer to any food or meal.161 As bread was the staple of the diet, all foodstuffs could be spoken of in terms of "לֶחֶם".162 This general understanding exists in English as well, in the term, "breaking bread," which refers to sharing a meal.
- 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. Radak163 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,164 or were the conditions considerably better, with pasture for their livestock?165 See Life in the Wilderness.
- מוֹקֵד – The modern meaning of this word, center or focus, appears to have nothing in common with its Biblical counterpart which means fire.166 Y. Etsion suggests that the choice can be understood in light of the etymology of the English word focus. In Latin, "focus" originally referred to an oven or fireplace, but in the 17th century was adopted to refer to the center of a lens, the site where the suns rays concentrate enough to produce enough heat to ignite a fire. From here the word's meaning slowly moved to refer to any center. When modern linguists were looking for an appropriate Hebrew translation for the word focus, they looked to מוקד as a fitting choice.
- מַחֲמָאָה – This word appears only once in Tanakh, in Tehillim 55:22. It is likely the source of the modern "מחמאה", meaning compliment, though the Biblical usage of the word might be somewhat different. In the verse, the phrase "חָלְקוּ מַחְמָאֹת פִּיו" is parallel to "רַכּוּ דְבָרָיו מִשֶּׁמֶן", leading Radak and the commentary attributed to Rashbam to suggest that "מַחְמָאֹת" relates to חמאה, meaning butter or cream. The verse is saying that the person's speech was "smoother than cream".167 It speaks of false flattery rather than sincere compliments.
- מֶשֶׁק168– Today this word refers to running a farm, household or even to the economy as a whole, which leads many to naturally assume that the phrase "וּבֶן מֶשֶׁק בֵּיתִי הוּא דַּמֶּשֶׂק אֱלִיעֶזֶר" in Bereshit 15:2 refers to one who was in charge of administering Avraham's household. The word "מֶשֶׁק", though, is a hapax legomenon and its original meaning is unclear:
- The modern understanding stems from Onkelos and Rashi's explanation of the verse which connects "משק" with the root "נשק", as in Bereshit 41:40's: "אַתָּה תִּהְיֶה עַל בֵּיתִי וְעַל פִּיךָ יִשַּׁק כׇּל עַמִּי".169 However, R. D"Z Hoffmann, in contrast, suggests that "משק" is related to "משך" and refers to one who acquires, i.e. an inheritor.170 He compares the verse to Zephanyah 2:9, "מִמְשַׁ֥ק חָר֛וּל", which he understands to mean "the acquisition of the "חרול". A third possibility is raised (and rejected) by Shadal in the name of the scholar Quatremère who associates the word with "משקה", suggesting that Eliezer was a "שר המשקים", or butler.171
- נוֹרָא – This word has shifted in connotation, from primarily meaning "awesome" in the Biblical era172 to meaning "awful" in the modern period. The shift might relate to the few exceptional cases in Tanakh where the word takes the negative connotation, dreadful. See the descriptions of the wilderness in Devarim 1:19, Devarim 8:15 or Yeshayahu 21:1.
- נִין וָנֶכֶד173 – This pair of words appears three times in Tanakh,174 always in this order. As such, in context, the terms would appear to mean child and grandchild respectively,175 or perhaps refer more generally to descendants (with no differentiation between the terms).176 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.177
- נַעַר – Though in modern Hebrew this word refers to a youth rather than an infant or adult, in Tanakh, it might refer to any of the three.178
- 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", a question which assumes that an infant cannot be a "נער". [Rashi, thus, suggests that his voice was like that of a "נער" and Ibn Ezra proposes that he was big-boned.]179 Contrast Ramban who points out that this is simply normal Biblical usage of the word.
- נפש – In modern Hebrew this word has a range of meanings including soul or pysche, a person or life, the seat of appetite, emotion or desire, and breath. These meanings all exist in Biblical Hebrew, but it is possible that originally the word had a much more concrete meaning, neck or throat,180 stemming from the Akkadian "napistu", and it was only later that it took on all the secondary meanings above.181
- 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,182 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.183 Today, in contrast, the word means to apologize. Y. Etsion184 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),185 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.
- עָיֵף – Today this word refers to being tired, while in Tanakh186 it has a broader meaning, also referring to one who is thirsty (or hungry).187 The two meanings might be connected as thirst/ hunger is often connected to weariness. The less well known usage might shed new light on verses which can sustain both meanings:
- "הַלְעִיטֵנִי נָא מִן הָאָדֹם הָאָדֹם הַזֶּה כִּי עָיֵף אָנֹכִי" (Bereshit 25:30) – Ibn Ezra and R"Y Bekhor Shor suggest that the verse refers not to weariness but to thirst and hunger, with R"Y Bekhor Shor suggesting that Esav was literally starving and would soon die if he did not eat. This reading has important ramifications for how one evaluates Yaakov's actions in the episode. See Sale of the Birthright – A Fair Deal.
- "וְאַתָּה עָיֵף וְיָגֵעַ" (Devarim 25:17-18) – Though many assume that "עָיֵף" in this verse is parallel to "יָגֵעַ", Rashi and Ibn Ezra suggest that the verse refers to Israel's thirst, noting that Amalek attacked when the nation was in Refidim, without water. See Annihilating Amalek for how this reading might impact one's understanding of the immorality of Amalek's actions.
- עתק188 – In Tanakh this root means to move from one place to another (as in "וַיַּעְתֵּק מִשָּׁם הָהָרָה", Bereshit 12:8),189 or to advance,190 whereas today it refers to copying. The change is not fundamental, however, as copying is in effect moving text from one place to another. Such usage is already attested to at the end of the Biblical period, in Mishlei 25:1, "גַּם אֵלֶּה מִשְׁלֵי שְׁלֹמֹה אֲשֶׁר הֶעְתִּיקוּ אַנְשֵׁי חִזְקִיָּה".191 As such, the semantic shift is simply a narrowing of the original meaning.192
- רגז – Today, this root relates primarily to anger. See, though, Rashbam who notes that in the Hebrew sections of Tanakh it takes the meaning of "tremble" or "agitate",193 and is often paired with fear,194 not anger.195 He suggests that it is only in the Aramaic sections of Ezra (5:12) and Daniel (3:13), that the root relates to anger or fury.
- Bereshit 45:24 – This difference in usage might lie at the core of the debate between commentators over the meaning of Yosef's words to the brothers, "אַל תִּרְגְּזוּ בַּדָּרֶךְ". While Rashi and Ibn Ezra suggest that Yosef is warning the brothers not to be angry with one another, Rashbam and Ramban claim that Yosef is telling the brothers not to fear robbers en route home. See Shadal196 who attempts to defend both readings, suggesting that the root "רגז" simply means tremble, and can thus take on the secondary meaning of any strong emotion.
- שופט – In modern Hebrew, a "שופט" serves solely in a judicial capacity. In Biblical Hebrew, however, the verb "לשפט" might also refer to the execution of judgement, and the noun form has the broader connotation of "governor" or "savior" as well.197
- The difference in meaning might influence how one perceives the various "שופטים" of Sefer Shofetim. Were they religious leaders, judges, or simply warriors who took vengeance on Israel's enemies? See Hoil Moshe on Shofetim 10:4
- שזף - Though today this root relates to suntanning, in Tanakh it means to see or look upon.198 The modern usage most likely stems from the verse, "אַל תִּרְאוּנִי שֶׁאֲנִי שְׁחַרְחֹרֶת שֶׁשְּׁזָפַתְנִי הַשָּׁמֶשׁ" (Shir HaShirim 1:6), which literally means "for the sun has looked down upon me"199 but nonetheless results in the beloved's becoming tanned.
- שיכול ידיים – Today this phrase refers to crisscrossing one's arms. The term comes from Bereshit 48:14, when Yaakov puts his right hand on Ephraim's head and his left on Menashe's, with the verse stating "שִׂכֵּל אֶת יָדָיו". Perhaps, surprisingly, though, many commentators200 do not think that the word "שִׂכֵּל" refers to the physical positioning of Yaakov's arms, but to the word "שֶׂכֶל", explaining that Yaakov "acted in wisdom".201 Rashbam and Ralbag are exceptional, relating the word to the root "סכל", which is generally understood to mean foolish but might also take the connotation of crooked.202
- שִׂמְלָה – This word has narrowed in meaning over the years, from referring to a garment appropriate for either a man or woman,203 to one worn only by women.204
- צרפ – In Tanakh, this root means to purify or refine.205 Today, the root also means to join. In some ways the two meanings are opposites, as refining generally means getting rid of impurities, and is a process of separation rather than attachment.
- 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.206
- כליות, כבד and מעיים – In Tanakh, it is the kidneys, intestines, and liver, which are home to emotions and affections.207
- 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.