The dynamic nature of Biblical Hebrew.
There are languages that have nouns at their center. Many European languages favor the nouns as the centerpiece of its structure. These languages possess the bias to visual perception; they can be termed static – reality is objects and thing rather than actions or processes. They tend generally to form verbs out of nouns or, alternatively, to use verbs that are totally unrelated to nouns. In English, for example, the majority of nouns (except those of occupation – run, runner, teach, teacher etc) are independent of any intimation of action. If anything, verbs are fashioned form nouns. Consider light, to lighten; bright, to brighten; sad, to sudden; do, deed etc. In Hebrew, on the other hand, most nouns reliably proceed out of verbs. Most of the meaning in a sentence is carried by a variety of verb forms that possess sophistication and versatility unmatched in other tongues.
The Hebrew verbs relate to time in an entirely different way than in English. Let us consider one feature among others.
Hebrew does not possess suffixes and does not distinguish between initiation or completion of an action and its progression. Thus, the same verb is used for sitting and sitting up (yashav)[1] and, standing, starting, standing up or persisting (kum)[2]; same is true of many other verbs[3]. For the speakers of the Holy Tongue, sitting was not different from sitting down for all motion represented a continuum. Sitting down is a part of the process of sitting and vice versa. It does not warrant a separate term. . Some other examples: anaf (to become angry and be angry), ohr(become light and be light or be a light) arakh (to lengthen or be long), Gabar (to perform an act of heroism or the be strong), gadal (to wax great or be large), zaken (grow old or be old), chazak (to overcome or be strong), chacham (to gain insight or be wise), Taher (to become pure or be pure), Yare (to scare or to fear), Kabed (to make heavy or give gravity or be heavy), Marar (become bitter or be bitter), Mashal (to gain control or to rule), Kadash (to become sanctified or to be holy), rabbah ( to increase or to be great) etc[4].
******
Let us consider the root “ches yod hey” - living, but also of being well, healthy or successful. Some attempt to apportion these two meanings to two different roots (see Ibn Ezra Pirush Haaruch to Exodus 1, 15, Netsiv Ne’emek Davar to Genesis 2,10). With the dynamic understanding of the nature of Lashon hakodesh, both meaning coalesce into one[5].
Another example:, the root “hey yod hei” ”. It was long noted that this word seems to carry disparate meanings of both being or becoming (as other verbs that we just discussed).
Dynamic view of the word allows a much stronger sense of being not only as identification (being something) but also of being as existing and even sustaining. Thus, it possesses the implications of causing an object (itself or another) to exist. To be is not all that far from to become. The relevance of this understanding to the Ineffable Name of G-d as expressing not only a self-sufficient existence but as a cause of all existence is self-evident.
Action is the center of attention in a Hebrew sentence, not the object nor the subject of the sentence but its center. When a question about whether something has happened is asked in English, the answer is expected to b “Yes” or “No’. Not so in Biblical Hebrew where it is usually a repetition of the verb[6]. On the other hand, when Biblical Hebrew uses a noun instead of a verb, its static and nominative features are thereby emphasized. It has long been noted that Hebrew has a way of identifying and defining that is more direct than that of European languages, some of which use a copula “is” to convey identity. Aside form the fact that “is” introduces a certain remoteness into the attempt to make two nouns equal, in psychological terms, it allows a man to escape consequences on their actions. I “ am a sinner” puts a distance between the person who sinned and what he does done, making the effect of the sin on the sinner more remote and inconsequential. Just as “I am a teacher” expresses a superficial connection between an individual and his professions, so does “I am a sinner” lacks the impact of the Hebrew “Ani Choteh[7]”. Similarly, “All of Hashems’ ways are kindness and truth (Psalms 25, 10)" in Hebrew carries a much stronger equivalence; that is that kindness and truth is what his ways are exactly: that it is not a comparison or metaphor of some kind but an actual identification. This insight leads can be applies to understanding great many things in the Tanach – from compound names of G-d to the solution of the problem of Attributes that so confounded medieval philosophers[8].
This feature of Biblical Hebrew accounts for the difficulty of translating it into European tongues. “Ani shomer” means not only “I am watching?“, or “I watch” but also “I am a watchman”[9]. It is difficult to translate this phrase because in Hebrew the action (shomer) is the focus of description while in English it is the object (watcher) that stands at the center. Compare it to “Ani tefila” (I am prayer)” which expresses an equivalence without using verbs. The primacy of action is exemplified by the omission of the object or subject (lashon katsar) that is so common in Biblical sentences[10].
*********
The emphasis on verbs goes along with the sensibility that judges all things according to the impressions that they make. The world is seen through human eyes, not as consisting of things, among which we are interlopers but as a made up of constant actions, Divine actions, sustained and constantly modified by the Creator for the sake of His human subjects. There are no Rules of Nature; rather all is directly sustained and managed by the All-Powerful and Omniscient Creator.
These unique feature of the Holy Tongue are well attested and grounded in the works on grammar, syntax, commentary and even philosophy[11]. Their importance lies not only in opening for us a window to a truer understanding of Tanach but also in affording us a tool to comprehend some drashos of Chzal. What greater honor can we pay to our Sages than demonstrating how their statements that were until now assigned to the realm of drash, in reality represent a sophisticated understanding of the native language and sensibility of Scripture.
[1] Appreciating this fact enables one to understand the tendency of Chazal to understand this word as signifying a beginning or appointment to a position. See Rashi Genesis 19, 19 from Genesis Rabbah 50,3
[2] Psalms 24,3
[3] A partial list of words of other this type includes: Natsav, Amad,Yatsav, Shakhan.
[4] There are 209 such verbs. F. R. Blake, The So-called intransitive forms in semitic languages,Yale University Press, 1903
[5] This also explains how it can mean sustain as in Nechamiah 19 “… and you sustain them all).
[6] …and David saw that his servants were whispering among themselves and David understood that the child died and David said to the people: “Did the child die?” and they said :”Died” (Samuel II, 12,19).
[7] See Tanya who makes the point that people sin because they think that a transgression does not truly change them or damage their connection to G-dliness. Hebrew language does not allow one to escape the direct conclusion that sin causes an identity of the sinner and sin.
[8] Quite simply, when G-d is ascribed an action or feeling, the language does not carry the same sense of connection between its author and itself as it would carry in Greek, Latin or English. It does not claim anything about the nature of its executor. If G-d laughs, that says nothing about G-d as being a kind of being that laughs but only something about His actions. The answer that medieval philosophers gave to the implication that G-d is not Perfect and Unchangeable if He engages in various actions, is therefore implied in the very way that Hebrew language functions.
[9] For this reason, this form does not neatly fit into standard grammar. Some grammarians viewed is a form of a verb and others as a type of a noun. See Torat Halashon shel R. Avraham Ibn Ezra: Mesoret V’Vhidush, Ben Gurion University, 199, p.101 and 108.
[10] For example Samuel II 13, 39
[11] For an advanced student one can point to Gesenius Grammar; T. Boman, Hebrew thought compared with Greek, W.W. Norton Co, 1960; and some of the works on literary approaches to Bible interpretation. For very philosophically sophisticated – L. Shestov, Athens and Jerusalem, Simon and Schuster, 1966
Comments