Difference between revisions of "Dictionary:Changing Meanings/0"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This topic has not yet undergone editorial review
m |
m |
||
Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
<li>See also <multilink><a href="RadakAmos6-10" data-aht="source">Radak</a><a href="RadakAmos6-10" data-aht="source">Amos 6:10</a><a href="R. David Kimchi (Radak)" data-aht="parshan">About R. David Kimchi</a></multilink><fn><multilink><a href="IbnEzraAmosFirstCommentary6-10" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraBemidbar15-15" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 15:15</a><a href="IbnEzraKohelet3-11" data-aht="source">Kohelet 3:11</a><a href="IbnEzraBereshitFirstCommentary28-11" data-aht="source">Bereshit First Commentary 28:11</a><a href="IbnEzraBereshitFirstCommentary37-35" data-aht="source">Bereshit First Commentary 37:35</a><a href="IbnEzraShemotFirstCommentary2-5" data-aht="source">Shemot First Commentary 2:5</a><a href="IbnEzraAmosFirstCommentary6-10" data-aht="source">Amos First Commentary 6:10</a><a href="IbnEzraEstherFirstCommentaryIntroduction" data-aht="source">Esther First Commentary Introduction</a><a href="IbnEzraEstherFirstCommentary1-2" data-aht="source">Esther First Commentary 1:2</a><a href="IbnEzraShemotSecondCommentary1-1" data-aht="source">Shemot Second Commentary 1:1</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> brings this possibility in the name of R. Yehuda ibn Kuraish, but rejects it. See also Sefer HaShorashim of Ibn Janach.</fn> on <a href="Amos6-8-11" data-aht="source">Amos 6:10</a>, 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).<fn>Others suggest that the word is a variant of "משרף" and refers to one who comes to burn a corpse so it does not rot.</fn></li> | <li>See also <multilink><a href="RadakAmos6-10" data-aht="source">Radak</a><a href="RadakAmos6-10" data-aht="source">Amos 6:10</a><a href="R. David Kimchi (Radak)" data-aht="parshan">About R. David Kimchi</a></multilink><fn><multilink><a href="IbnEzraAmosFirstCommentary6-10" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraBemidbar15-15" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 15:15</a><a href="IbnEzraKohelet3-11" data-aht="source">Kohelet 3:11</a><a href="IbnEzraBereshitFirstCommentary28-11" data-aht="source">Bereshit First Commentary 28:11</a><a href="IbnEzraBereshitFirstCommentary37-35" data-aht="source">Bereshit First Commentary 37:35</a><a href="IbnEzraShemotFirstCommentary2-5" data-aht="source">Shemot First Commentary 2:5</a><a href="IbnEzraAmosFirstCommentary6-10" data-aht="source">Amos First Commentary 6:10</a><a href="IbnEzraEstherFirstCommentaryIntroduction" data-aht="source">Esther First Commentary Introduction</a><a href="IbnEzraEstherFirstCommentary1-2" data-aht="source">Esther First Commentary 1:2</a><a href="IbnEzraShemotSecondCommentary1-1" data-aht="source">Shemot Second Commentary 1:1</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> brings this possibility in the name of R. Yehuda ibn Kuraish, but rejects it. See also Sefer HaShorashim of Ibn Janach.</fn> on <a href="Amos6-8-11" data-aht="source">Amos 6:10</a>, 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).<fn>Others suggest that the word is a variant of "משרף" and refers to one who comes to burn a corpse so it does not rot.</fn></li> | ||
</ul> | </ul> | ||
− | <li><b> "דָּת" </b>– The word "דָּת" is a Persian loan word, appearing predominantly in Sefer Esther, and consistently means "law" or "decree".<fn>See, for example, Esther 3:14-15, Esther 4:3 or Esther 8:17.</fn> This stands in contrast to the word's prevalent usage today where it means "religion".<fn>In the Rabbinic period, one might find attestations to both usages.  See Tosefta Ketubot 4:9 which speaks of "דת משה וישראל", referring to the laws of the Torah or customs of Israel and Bavli Sukkah 56b, which speaks of Miryam, " שהמירה דתה", who apostated.  It is possible, though, that In Bavli Sukkah, too, the phrase literally means that she "changed her laws."</fn><b><br/> </b></li> | + | <li><b> "דָּת" </b>– The word "דָּת" is a Persian loan word,<fn>See discussion above.</fn> appearing predominantly in Sefer Esther, and consistently means "law" or "decree".<fn>See, for example, Esther 3:14-15, Esther 4:3 or Esther 8:17.</fn> This stands in contrast to the word's prevalent usage today where it means "religion".<fn>In the Rabbinic period, one might find attestations to both usages.  See Tosefta Ketubot 4:9 which speaks of "דת משה וישראל", referring to the laws of the Torah or customs of Israel and Bavli Sukkah 56b, which speaks of Miryam, " שהמירה דתה", who apostated.  It is possible, though, that In Bavli Sukkah, too, the phrase literally means that she "changed her laws."</fn><b><br/> </b></li> |
<ul> | <ul> | ||
<li>The difference in usage might lie at the cource of a debate regarding the meaning of Haman's words, "וְדָתֵיהֶם שֹׁנוֹת מִכׇּל עָם וְאֶת דָּתֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֵינָם עֹשִׂים" in Esther 3:8. While Rashi and Rashbam asserts that Haman is complaining that the nation does not pay keep the king's laws, not paying taxes or participating in the army, Malbim presents Haman as pointing to the different religious beliefs of the nation.</li> | <li>The difference in usage might lie at the cource of a debate regarding the meaning of Haman's words, "וְדָתֵיהֶם שֹׁנוֹת מִכׇּל עָם וְאֶת דָּתֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֵינָם עֹשִׂים" in Esther 3:8. While Rashi and Rashbam asserts that Haman is complaining that the nation does not pay keep the king's laws, not paying taxes or participating in the army, Malbim presents Haman as pointing to the different religious beliefs of the nation.</li> | ||
</ul> | </ul> | ||
− | <li><b>להתחתן</b>– In Tanakh, in contrast to modern Hebrew, the parties who are "מתחתן" are the חֹתֵן (father<fn>See the discussion above that this term might also refer to the brother of the bride, if he is the one contracting the marriage.</fn> of the bride) and the חָתָן (son-in-law)<fn>See <a href="Bereshit34-9" data-aht="source">Bereshit 34:9</a>, <a href="ShemuelI18-22-27" data-aht="source">Shemuel I 18:22-27</a>, <a href="MelakhimI3-1" data-aht="source">Melakhim I 3:1</a>.</fn> or the חֹתֵן (father of the bride) and the father of the groom,<fn>See <a href="Devarim7-1-4" data-aht="source">Devarim 7:3</a> and <a href="DivreiHaYamimII18-1" data-aht="source">Divrei HaYamim II 18:1</a>.</fn> not the husband and wife. The verb "להתחתן" is not used to describe the forming of the marital relationship between the bride and groom<fn>To describe the groom's taking of a wife, the verbs נשא or לקח are used instead.</fn> 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 alliance<fn>See, for instance, Shelomo's many marriages.</fn> rather than a bonding of love.</li> | + | <li><b>להתחתן </b>– In Tanakh, in contrast to modern Hebrew, the parties who are "מתחתן" are the חֹתֵן (father<fn>See the discussion above that this term might also refer to the brother of the bride, if he is the one contracting the marriage.</fn> of the bride) and the חָתָן (son-in-law)<fn>See <a href="Bereshit34-9" data-aht="source">Bereshit 34:9</a>, <a href="ShemuelI18-22-27" data-aht="source">Shemuel I 18:22-27</a>, <a href="MelakhimI3-1" data-aht="source">Melakhim I 3:1</a>.</fn> or the חֹתֵן (father of the bride) and the father of the groom,<fn>See <a href="Devarim7-1-4" data-aht="source">Devarim 7:3</a> and <a href="DivreiHaYamimII18-1" data-aht="source">Divrei HaYamim II 18:1</a>.</fn> not the husband and wife. The verb "להתחתן" is not used to describe the forming of the marital relationship between the bride and groom<fn>To describe the groom's taking of a wife, the verbs נשא or לקח are used instead.</fn> 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 alliance<fn>See, for instance, Shelomo's many marriages.</fn> rather than a bonding of love.</li> |
<li><b>ירא א-להים</b> – 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.<fn>For examples where this usage might be implied, see <a href="Bereshit20-10-11" data-aht="source">Bereshit 20:10-11</a>, <a href="Shemot1-15-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 1:17</a>,<a href="Vayikra19-14" data-aht="source">Vayikra 19:14, 32</a>, <a href="Devarim25-18" data-aht="source">Devarim 25:18</a>, and <a href="Iyyov1-1" data-aht="source">Iyyov 1:1</a>. See N. Leibowitz, Iyyunim Chadashim BeSefer Shemot (Jerusalem, 1970): 32-33 and N. Sarna, Exploring Exodus (New York, 1986): 25-26, 120-121 who elaborate on this point</fn> <multilink><a href="ShadalShemot1-15" data-aht="source">Shadal</a><a href="ShadalShemot1-15" data-aht="source">Shemot 1:15</a><a href="R. Shemuel David Luzzatto (Shadal)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto</a></multilink> 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:</li> | <li><b>ירא א-להים</b> – 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.<fn>For examples where this usage might be implied, see <a href="Bereshit20-10-11" data-aht="source">Bereshit 20:10-11</a>, <a href="Shemot1-15-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 1:17</a>,<a href="Vayikra19-14" data-aht="source">Vayikra 19:14, 32</a>, <a href="Devarim25-18" data-aht="source">Devarim 25:18</a>, and <a href="Iyyov1-1" data-aht="source">Iyyov 1:1</a>. See N. Leibowitz, Iyyunim Chadashim BeSefer Shemot (Jerusalem, 1970): 32-33 and N. Sarna, Exploring Exodus (New York, 1986): 25-26, 120-121 who elaborate on this point</fn> <multilink><a href="ShadalShemot1-15" data-aht="source">Shadal</a><a href="ShadalShemot1-15" data-aht="source">Shemot 1:15</a><a href="R. Shemuel David Luzzatto (Shadal)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto</a></multilink> 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:</li> | ||
<ul> | <ul> |
Version as of 07:33, 20 October 2020
Lexical: Changing Meanings
Within the Biblical Period
There are many words whose meaning might have changed from one period within Tanakh to another:
- אבל – The meaning of this word has shifted over time, from meaning "indeed" or "verily" in most of Tanakh to "but" in later books such as Daniel, Ezra and Divrei HaYamim.
- בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל – In most of Sefer Bereshit1 and the opening verses of Sefer Shemot2 the term refers to the 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",3 perhaps to clarify that the people have become a nation.4 There are several cases in which the meaning of the term is ambiguous:
- Bereshit 32:33 "לֹא יֹאכְלוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה" – See the debate in Bavli Chulin 100b whether this refers to something Yaakov's sons accepted upon themselves or whether this was a prohibition first commanded to the nation at at Sinai and placed in Sefer Bereshit to provide the reasoning.5
- Bereshit 36:30
- דת – 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 word appears only once earlier in Tanakh, in Devarim 33:2, where it is connected to another word, being written "אשדת", but read as if written "אֵשׁ דָּת". This has led commentators to debate its meaning:
- Adopting the later meaning of "law" back to this verse, Rashi and R"Y Bekhor Shor and others assume that the verse is referring to the Torah which was given amidst the fire. Shadal, though, claims that the word is related to the noun "אשדה", meaning slope, and like many other words in the verse refers to a location.
- שבת
- חדש – In Torah the word refers to a month, while in Neviim it also takes on the meaning of "Rosh Chodesh", the first of the month.6
- חתן
Biblical vs. Rabbinic Hebrew
- אמה – In Tanakh, the word אמה means either maidservant (when spelled without a dagesh) or a unit of measure (when spelled with a dagesh). 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.7 Ibn Ezra rejects this possibility noting both the missing dagesh8 and the fact that this usage is not found in Tanakh: "אמה מדה היא, כי הזרוע לא תקרא אמה".9
- בית – In Tanakh, this root generally refers to either a physical house10 or receptacle,11 or a family or household.12 In Rabbinic Hebrew it is also understood more narrowly to refer specifically to a wife.13
- See Sifra Vayikra 16:32 and Mishna Yoma 1:1 who adopt this later meaning to Vayikra 16, explaining, "וְכִפֶּר בַּעֲדוֹ וּבְעַד בֵּיתוֹ" to mean "and he will atone for himself and his wife".
- See also Lekach Tov and Chizkuni on Shemot 1:1 who understand the phrase "אִישׁ וּבֵיתוֹ בָּאוּ" to refer to Yaakov's sons and their wives. See, though, Ibn Ezra who argues against this reading, noting: "אין בית בכל המקרא אשה".
- גּוֹי – Though the Sages use this word to refer to a non-Jew,14 in Tanakh it simply means nation, and can even refer to the Nation of Israel.15 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.
- דָּמִֽים – In Tanakh this word is related to blood or life whereas in Mishnaic Hebrew it also takes the meaning of "money".16
- 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 Hebrew17 with Ibn Balaam who suggests that though rare, it does exist. As examples, Ibn Balaam points to Bemidbar 15:15, Yirmeyahu 2:31, Mikhah 2:7 and Shir HaShirim 8:13.
- חותן/חותנת and חם/חמות – Biblical Hebrew distinguishes between a father-in-law on the husband and wife's side, using distinct terms for each. The wife's father is referred to as a חותן,18 while the husband's father is referred to as a חם.19 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.20 For further discussion, see חֹתֵן / חֹתֶנֶת.
- כל – In Biblical Hebrew the word "" can mean either all or "most".
- מועד
- מלאך – In Biblical Hebrew "מַלְאָךְ" refers to any type of messenger,21 not specifically an angel. Divine messengers are singled out by the terms "מַלְאַךְ אֱלֹהִים" or "'מַלְאַךְ ה".22 In Rabbinic Hebrew, in contrast, "מַלְאָךְ" takes on the much more specific connotation of "angel".23 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.24
- מס – Hoil Moshe points out that "מס" in Tanakh refers to a labor tax rather than a monetary one,25 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.
- מקום – 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.26
- This leads Ibn Ezra to reject the Midrashic interpretation27 that the phrase "וַיִּפְגַּע בַּמָּקוֹם" in Bereshit 28:11 means that Yaakov prayed to Hashem.
- Ibn Ezra similarly objects to those who explain28 that Esther 4:14, "רֶוַח וְהַצָּלָה יַעֲמוֹד לַיְּהוּדִים מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר", refers to Hashem's salvation
- עולם – Ibn Ezra notes that throughout Tanakh the word "עוֹלָם" is a marker of time, connoting a long duration or eternity. It is only in Rabbinic sources that the word takes on the extra meaning of "world".29 [In Tanakh, the word used to describe the world is "תֵּבֵל".]
- As such, he claims that when explaining verses which can sustain both meanings (see Tehillim 66:7, Tehillim 89:3,30 Mishlei 10:24-25 and Kohelet 3:11),31 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.32 In Tanakh, in contrast, the term does not have a derogatory meaning and refers to a group rather than an individual, speaking of those living in the land. It is debated whether the term refers to the poorer masses or specifically to the higher classes, or if it is more general in nature.33
- צדקה - 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. [It is, thus, often paired with the word "משפט".]34
- צדיק – 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.35 The difference might affect one's understanding of several verses.
- Was Noach 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 to not collectively punish the innocent? For discussion, see Avraham's Prayer for Sedom.
- רוב – In contrast to Mishnaic and modern Hebrew where "רוב" means "most" or a "majority",36 in Tanakh the word consistently means abundance or many.37
- 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.
- שאול – Tanakh never speaks of distinct after-worlds for the righteous and wicked, and instead uses one term, "שאול", to refer to the place to which all the dead go,38 being synonymous with either death itself, a grave, or perhaps the "underworld".39 By Mishnaic times, a distinction between an afterworld for the righteous (גן עדן) and wicked (גיהנום) already exists and the term "שאול" comes to refer to the latter.40
- See Ibn Ezra on Bereshit 37:35 who argues on these grounds against the Vulgate's translation of this verse which defines "שאול" as "hell".
- שכר – See Hoil Moshe on Bemidbar 28:7 who suggests that the word "שכר" in Tanakh refers to a strong wine rather than an alcoholic beverage made of wheat.41
- תורה – In Rabbinic Hebrew the word "תורה" 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. The difference in meaning might affect how commentators understand the several places in which there is a command to write or read " דִּבְרֵי / הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת":
- Ceremony at Mt. Eval – 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.
- Writing / reading of the "Torah" in Devarim 31 – Here, too, exegetes dispute both what Moshe wrote and what the king is obligated to read during hakhel: the enitre Torah, Sefer Devarim or specific teachings therein.
- תשובה – Though in Tanakh one can "return to Hashem"42 or "turn away from Hashem"43 the noun form "תשובה" is never used in this context. It, instead, refers to either a physical return from one place to another,44 a reply,45 or the turn of the year.46 In Rabbinic Hebrew, in contrast, the noun form is often used to refer to a spiritual return47 (repentance) and phrases like "לַעֲשׁוֹת תְּשׁוּבָה", "בעל תשובה" or "לחזור בתשובה" appear.
Biblical vs. Modern Hebrew
- בירה – Though today, "בירה" is used to refer to a capital city, in Biblical Hebrew the word generally means simply palace or fortress,48 related to the Akkadian "birtu".
- The later usage of the term has influenced many to understand the phrase "שושן הבירה" throughout Megillat Esther to mean "Shushan, the capital city".49 See, though, Ibn Ezra (and R. Bachya in his wake) who point out that a distinction should be made between "שושן" or "העיר שושן", which do refer to a city, home to many Jews, and "שושן הבירה" which refers to the fortified castle. 50
- דוד – Though today this can refer to an uncle on either the mother or father's side, see Rashi51 who notes that in Tanakh, the term is reserved for a father's brother.52 [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,53 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".54
- See also Radak55 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).56
- "דָּת" – The word "דָּת" is a Persian loan word,57 appearing predominantly in Sefer Esther, and consistently means "law" or "decree".58 This stands in contrast to the word's prevalent usage today where it means "religion".59
- The difference in usage might lie at the cource of a debate regarding the meaning of Haman's words, "וְדָתֵיהֶם שֹׁנוֹת מִכׇּל עָם וְאֶת דָּתֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֵינָם עֹשִׂים" in Esther 3:8. While Rashi and Rashbam asserts that Haman is complaining that the nation does not pay keep the king's laws, not paying taxes or participating in the army, Malbim presents Haman as pointing to the different religious beliefs of the nation.
- להתחתן – In Tanakh, in contrast to modern Hebrew, the parties who are "מתחתן" are the חֹתֵן (father60 of the bride) and the חָתָן (son-in-law)61 or the חֹתֵן (father of the bride) and the father of the groom,62 not the husband and wife. The verb "להתחתן" is not used to describe the forming of the marital relationship between the bride and groom63 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 alliance64 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.65 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.
- מדבר – In modern Hebrew a "מדבר" is defined as an area with a hot, dry climate and less than 250 mm of precipitation a year. Radak66 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 "מדבר" 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,67 or were the conditions considerably better, with pasture for their livestock?68 See Life in the Wilderness.
- נִין וָנֶכֶד69 – This pair of words appears three times in Tanakh,70 always in this order. As such, in context, the terms would appear to mean child and grandchild respectively,71 or perhaps refer more generally to descendants (with no differentiation between the terms).72 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.73
- 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,74 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.75 Today, in contrast, the word means to apologize. Yaakov Etzion76 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),77 and it meant to save one's self or cast off blame (thus, somewhat in keeping with the biblical usge of the term). Only in modern times does it refer to the taking responsibility for one's actions and expressing regret for them.
- רגז – Today, this root relates to anger. See, though, Rashbam who notes that in Tanakh it takes the meaning of "tremble" or "agitate",78 and is often paired with fear,79 not anger.80
- Bereshit 45:24– The difference in usage might lie at the core of the debate between commentators over the meaning of Yosef's words to the brothers, "אַל תִּרְגְּזוּ בַּדָּרֶךְ". While Rashi and Ibn Ezra suggest that Yosef is warning the brothers not to be angry with one another, Rashbam and Ramban claim that Yosef is telling the brothers not to fear robbers en route home. See Shadal who attempts to defend both readings, suggesting that the root "רגז" simply means tremble, and can thus take on the secondary meaning of any strong emotion.
- שופט – In modern Hebrew, a "שופט" serves solely in a judicial capacity. In Biblical Hebrew, however, the verb "לשפט" might also refer to the execution of judgement, and the noun form has the broader connotation of "governor" or "savior" as well.
- The difference in meaning might influence how one perceives the various "שופטים" of Sefer Shofetim. Were they religious leaders or simply warriors who took vengeance on Israel's enemies? See Hoil Moshe on Shofetim 10:4