Dictionary:Changing Meanings/0
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This topic has not yet undergone editorial review
Lexical: Changing Meanings
Within the Biblical Period
There are many words whose meaning might have changed from one period within Tanakh to another:
- 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
- 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. Ibn Ezra rejects this possibility noting both the missing dagesh7 and the fact that this usage is not found in Tanakh: "אמה מדה היא, כי הזרוע לא תקרא אמה".8
- בית - In Tanakh, this root generally refers to either a physical house9 or receptacle,10 or a family or household.11 In Rabbinic Hebrew it is also understood more narrowly to refer specifically to a wife.12
- 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,13 in Tanakh it simply means nation, and can even refer to the Nation of Israel.14 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 /life whereas in Mishnaic Hebrew it also takes the meaning of "money".15
- 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.16
- 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 he 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".
- 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". It is possible that the change is usage is related to the increasing prevalence of the word "שליח". 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". Tanakh's broader definition of the word allows for ambiguity and in several cases, commentators debate whether an angel or human 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 and many others. In each case Ralbag suggests that the verse refers to a prophet of Hashem.23
- מס – Hoil Moshe points out that "מס" in Tanakh refers to a labor tax rather than a monetary one,24 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.25
- This leads Ibn Ezra to reject the Midrashic interpretation26 that the phrase "וַיִּפְגַּע בַּמָּקוֹם" in Bereshit 28:11 means that Yaakov prayed to Hashem.
- Ibn Ezra similarly objects to those who explain27 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".28 [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, Mishlei 10:24-25 and Kohelet 3:11)29 the prevalent meaning of "eternity" should be adopted.
- עַם הָאָרֶץ – In Rabbinic Hebrew this term refers to someone who does not have much Torah knowledge or is not careful in keeping the laws of purity or tithing.30 In Tanakh, in contrast, it refers to those living in the land.31
- 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".]32
- 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,33 but not exceptionally so.34 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?
- Was Avraham asking that Hashem not destroy the righteous of Sedom, or only to not collectively punish the innocent?35 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 the verse which defines "שאול" as "hell".
- תשובה – Though in Tanakh one can "return to Hashem"41 or "turn away from Hashem"42 the noun form "תשובה" is never used in this context. It, instead, refers to either a physical return from one place to another,43 a reply,44 or the turn of the year.45 In Rabbinic Hebrew, in contrast, the noun form is often used to refer to a spiritual return46 (repentance) and phrases like "לַעֲשׁוֹת תְּשׁוּבָה", "בעל תשובה" or "לחזור בתשובה" appear.
Biblical vs. Modern Hebrew
- בירה – Though today, "בירה" is used to refers to a capital city, in Biblical Hebrew the word means palace or fortress,47 related to the Akkadian "birtu". The later usage has influenced many to understand the term "שושן הבירה" throughout Megillat Esther to mean "Shushan, the capital city".48 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.49 This distinction might impact one's understanding of several verses in the Megillah:
- Esther 1:5 – The second seven day party might have been only for those in the castle. If so, in contrast to what is suggested by Esther Rabbah, there were probably very few, if any, Jews attendance,
- Esther 2:5 – Mordechai had always had a place in the palace even before Esther was taken, and might even have dwelled there.
- Esther 9: – There were 500 supporters of Haman in the castle itself who were killed.
- להתחתן – In Tanakh, in contrast to Modern Hebrew, the verb "התחתן" is not used to describe the forming of the marital relationship between the bride and groom50 as it was the father of the bride and not the bride herself who was the active party in the marital contract. Thus, the parties who are "מתחתן" in Tanakh are the חֹתֵן (father, or maybe brother, of the bride) with the חָתָן (son-in-law)51 or the חֹתֵן (father of the bride) and the father of the groom.52
- נִין וָנֶכֶד53 – This pair of words appears three times in Tanakh,54 always in this order. As such, in context, the terms would appear to mean child and grandchild respectively,55 or perhaps refer more generally to descendants (with no differentiation between the terms).56 Grandchildren and great-grandchildren are instead referred to as "שלש" and "רבע" (the third and fourth generations).57 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.
- נצל - The הפעיל form of this verb (הציל) has maintained the meaning of to save or deliver, 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, 12:36, and Divrei HaYamim II 20:25) the word appears to mean to strip or despoil,58 while in the last 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
- The התפעל form appears only once, in Shemot 33:6, where it appears to mean remove from one's self.59 Today, in contrast, the word means to apologize. Even Shoshan in his dictionary suggests that this usage emerged from the Biblical connotation of removing from one's self; in apologizing one is removing blame from one's self. Yaakov Etzion 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),60 and it meant to save one's self or cast off blame.