avakesh

Modern Hebraish and Tanach Ram

Linguists know, and do not hesitate to point out that Modern Hebrew is compound language with  Semitic words but Indo-European syntax. Those who revived it, people who spoke Yiddish, German, Russian and other European languages have given it a distinct non-Semitic flavor. Word order, formation of tenses and idiomatic expressions of Ivrit are European and not Semitic. However, it is not only that  the syntax is not, well, Jewish, many words take on meanings in modern Hebrew that are not the same as the original meanings of the same words in Tanach.

An interesting example is discussed in an article in the most recent issue of Jewish Bibilical Quarterly (XXXVII:2), And Dinah the Daughter of Lea went out: The meaning of Yatzanit in Rashi's commentary, by Gilad J. Gevaryahu. Rashi uses this term twice, both based on the same passage in Bereshis Rabba 8:12. Rashi uses it in his commentary to Gen.34:1 to explain why Dina was called, the daughter of Lea.

...because of her going out, she is called the daughter of Lea, for she also was a yatzanis.

The other place is in Gen. 1:28, where Hashem blesses man to be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and conquer it. Here Rashi says: "...to teach that man conquers woman so she should not be a yatzanis".

Yatzanis is probably a term that I think means someone who spends too much time in the street and is excessively friendly, especially with men, not a virtue for a modest Jewish woman. Similarly, Rashi brings the following etymology of the name of Shlomis bas Divri (Lev.24:11)-this Shlomis chatted with everybody and so attracted the attention of an Egyptian taskmaster who ultimately had a son with her, the Danite man who argued with the Israelite man and "blessed" the Divine Name. 

Whatever yatzanis means, it does not mean what it means in modern Hebrew, where it means a woman of ill repute. The Biblical Quarterly article shows how an otherwise astute journalist in Yediot Acharonot, misread this term to mean exactly that and wrote a column making much ado about nothing. This example shows how modern meanings interfere with the even educated Israeli's understanding of the language of Tanach.

Here are some other examples from Prof. Zuckerman:

"Israelis might understand the very basic meaning of bereshit bara elohim et hashamayim ve'et ha'aretz (In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth) rather than, say, hatzvi yisrael al bamotekha alal (II Samuel 1:19: The beauty of Israel is slain upon thy high places). But how many Israelis can really fathom tohu vavohu or tehom (Genesis 1:2), the Israeli misleading senses being "mess" and "abyss"? How many Israelis know that an egla meshulleshet (Genesis 15:9) is not a triangular cow but "a heifer of three years old"? If they studied the RAM Bible, they would know because it is translated as such: egla bat shalosh.

Most Israelis misunderstand yeled sha'ashuim (Jeremiah 31:19) as "playboy" rather than "pleasant child." Ba'u banim ad mashber (Isaiah 37:3) is misinterpreted by Israelis as "children arrived at a crisis" rather than as "children arrived at the mouth of the womb, to be born." Adam l'amal yulad (Job 5:7) is taken to mean "man was born to do productive work" rather than "mischief" - an accusation of the inherent wickednessof mankind. One could give thousands of examples, and from post-biblical Hebrew too: for instance, how many Israelis can follow the meaning of

the Hanukka hymn "Ma'oz Tzur Yeshu'ati"?

ISRAELIS ARE INCAPABLE of recognizing fine points of aspects and tenses in the Bible. I remember in my IDF basic training, the commander ordered us "od hamesh dakot hayitem kan!" (Within five minutes you will have been here), hayitem referring to an action in the future. In the Bible, heyitem regularly refers to an action that has been completed, independently of whether or not it is in the past or future. Such a biblical mind-set is in strong contradistinction to the weltanschauung of the Homo sapiens sapiens israelicus vulgaris and to the way Israelis read the Bible.

Ask Israelis what avanim sha'aqu mayim (Job 14:19) means and they will tell you that the stones eroded the water. On second thought, they might guess that it would make more sense that the water eroded the stones. Yet such an object-verb-subject order is ungrammatical in Israeli today. "

Taking note of this fact, the Tanach has now been translated into....Hebrew.

 

There are those who do not approve:

"That is the problem - lack of reverence. The RAM Bible conveys a message: The Bible is nothing special; it's not important enough to learn the sometimes difficult language so we are converting it to child-talk. It is not a cosmic experience. Children in the non-religious school system won't be privileged to hold an authentic Bible in their hands at an impressionable age.

A second problem is that widespread use of RAM will exacerbate the fragmentation of Israeli society into those in touch with the Jewish book shelf, and those cut off from our wellsprings. Not only are traditional Jewish texts informed by the Bible, but the script of modern Jewish and Israeli life is suffused with Scripture. In his novel Black Box, Amos Oz expresses the disappointment of a pioneer crestfallen when he comes on aliya to the Promised Land, by using the phrase from Genesis 29:25 "Vayehi vaboker vhinei hi Leah" (And it came to pass, that in the morning, behold, it was Leah!). I was crestfallen when I read the RAM version, which flattens and overtranslates this poetic exclamation: "Uvaboker hitgaleh l'Ya'acov shehinei zu Leah v'lo Rahel." (In the morning Jacob discovered it was Leah and not Rachel.) "

However, while more education can avoid the gross kinds of errors, the ability to fully understand the Biblical idiom comes with many years of study and application. It is not realistic to expect even the educated Israelis to possess instinctive recognition of the fine points of Biblical Hebrew. The example of yazsanis shows that even a well-educated woman whose craft is Hebrew words is liable to substitute the modern meaning of the word for it true meaning. In this way, those of is who study Tanach without the knowledge of modern Hebrew may actually have an advantage over native Israelis.

Yeshivishe Reid

It is common to hear yeshiva bochurim criticized for speaking Yinglish, a form of Yiddish influenced and inflected English  (If you don't know what I mean listen to number 7, here ). I am somewat conversant with the dialect but still find it difficult to express myself clearly and precisely in it (and in my experience so do others). It is interesting to realize that even in Talmudic times, the scholars spoke a dialect that was neither spoken by the population at large and not by the Jews.

We have, for example, several accounts of amoraim not understanding common speech. Rovo seems to be at the center of several such reports. He did not know what "kiddusha rabba" means in Pesachim 106a, or what "terima" is (Brochos 38a).

"A certain rabbi asked Rovo, "what blessing does one make on terima"? He did not know. Ravina was sitting before Rovo. He asked: "Do you mean if it is made of seasame or of "grape mush"... So Rovo reminded hmself (of what this meant". He said: You mean chashilta...."

This is what Maharsho writes on Rosh Hashana 26a

" We find the rabbis at times used neither the language of verses nor the language in which people spoke. Sometimes they did not even know the language of the rabbis, as it  says in chapter "asara yuchasin". R. Nachman said to R. Yehuda, "I made pursa d'gundara". He told him, "Why would it bad to say "maaka (fence)" as the verse calls it, or "mechitsa" as the language of the rabbis... (and other examples)"

R. Nachman was, of course, an aristocrat (Seder ha-Dorot, pp. 283) who was close to roylaty and he was the exilarch's son-in-law, and yet he apparently spoke yeshivish. only.  He was fond of collecting folk saying(see Yoma 28b-29a), and used popular expressions in his speech (Chullin 12a, 172a; Ta'anit 24a).

The House of Rebbi, on the other hand, was keen on languages. Rambam writes in the Introduction to the Mishna that even the maids in his houshold spoke Biblical Hebrew well.

והיה צח לשון ובקי בשפה העברית יותר מכל אדם, עד שהיו החכמים ע"ה לומדין ביאור מלים שנסתפקו להם בלשון המקרא מפי עבדיו ומשרתיו, וזה מן המפורסמות בתלמוד

 

The source for this is here (Rosh Hashana 26a)

לא הוו ידעי רבנן מאי סירוגין שמעוה לאמתא דבי רבי דחזתנהו רבנן דהוו עיילי פסקי פסקי אמרה להו עד מתי אתם נכנסין סירוגין סירוגין לא הוו ידעי רבנן מאי חלוגלוגות יומא חד שמעוה לאמתא דבי רבי דחזית לההוא גברא דקא מבדר פרפחיניה אמרה ליה עד מתי אתה מפזר חלוגלוגך לא הוו ידעי רבנן מאי (משלי ד) סלסלה ותרוממך יומא חד שמעוה לאמתא דבי רבי דהוות אמרה לההוא גברא דהוה קא מהפך בשעריה אמרה ליה עד מתי אתה מסלסל בשערך לא הוו ידעי רבנן מאי (ישעיהו יד) וטאטאתיה במטאטא השמד יומא חד שמעוה לאמתא דבי רבי דהוות אמרה לחבירתה שקולי טאטיתא וטאטי ביתא לא הוו ידעי רבנן מאי (תהילים נה) השלך על ה' יהבך והוא יכלכלך אמר רבה בר בר חנה יומא חד הוה אזלינא בהדי ההוא טייעא הוה דרינא טונא ואמר לי שקול יהביך ושדי אגמלאי

The Rabbis did not know what was meant by serugin, until one day they heard the maidservant of Rabbis household, on seeing the Rabbis enter at intervals, say to them, How long are you going to come in by serugin?

The Rabbis did not know what was meant by halugelugoth, til one day they heard the handmaid of the household of Rabbi, on seeing a man peeling portulaks, say to him, How long will you be peeling your portulaks? (halugelugoth).

The Rabbis did not know what was meant by, salseleah (and it shall exalt). One day they heard the handmaid of the house of Rabbi say to a man who was curling his hair, How long will you be mesalsel with your hair?... [Then comes a similar example which does not involve Rabbi Judah’s maidservant. I

The Rabbis did not know what was meant by we-tetethia bematate (of destruction), til one day they heard the handmaid of the household of Rabbi say to her companion, Take the tatitha (broom) and tati (sweep) the house.

The Rabbis did not know what was meant by Cast upon the Lord thy yehab and he shall sustain thee. Said Rabbah b. Bar Hanah: One day I was travelling with an Arab and was carrying a load, and he said to me, Lift up your yehab and put it on [one of] the camels.

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

Saying Shema in other languages

The Mishna in Sota(3a) includes the Shma in the list of  those declarations that can be said on any language. In fact, there is a disgreement between Rabbi and “Rabbanan” about this fact. I quote:” ‘The Shma(must be said) as it is written(Rashi -in the Holy Tongue)’- the words of Rabbi. The Sages say:”in any language”.What is the reasoning of Rabbi? It states: ...and these words shall be... As they are, they should be.And the Sages, what is their reasoning? Hear, O Israel-in any language that you understand.’ ”(Brachot 13a)[1].

Despite this unambigous source, the Rif is quoted by Beit Yosef (Orach Chaim 63) as proscribing recitation of the Shma in languages other than Hebrew based on a passage in Shabat 12a where R.Yochanan states:” A person should not ask his needs in the Aramaic language for the angels (who carry the prayers ) do not understand Aramaic[2]. This version of the Rif clearly implies that the Shema is a type pf prayer. Only if it is a prayer would the passage in Shabbos apply to it.

The Beit Yosef objects that the recitation of the Shma is in no way “asking his needs”, meaning that it si not a parayer and should not be restricted by the statemetn of R. Yochanon. I do not believe that the Beit Yosef  disagrees with the premise that the Shema can be viewed as a form of prayer for he himself writeds in Orach Chaim 57 that” the words of the Shma are words of Prayer". A prefferable explanation of the Beit Yosef’d position relies on the distinction between communal and private aspect of prayer.

The Rosh in Brachot(Ch.2,2) restates the problem that occupied many of his predecessors in relation to the above quoted passage in the tractate Shabbat. The women in Ashkenaz were not in the habit of attending public prayers and many of them did not know Hebrew[3].   They prayed at home and in the vernacular. This practice appears to contradict what we just read from tractate Shabbos, for prayer in other languages should not be permitted to anyone, men of women. The justification offered by many Rishonim was that women’s prayers  are 'formal', of a specific text, and thus analogous to those of the public and are acceptable in any language. Only those prayers that are completely original and individual are included in the statement of R.  Yochanan.[4].

We see,  however,  from this issue that the mainstream position  is to accept the Shema as being to at least some extent and for at least ceratain purposes a form of prayer. It is less clear what kind of prayer it may be, as it does not fit neasily into conventional framework of supplication, praise or thanksgiving.

The Beit Yosef certainly appears to posit that its character is that of a  of communal prayer. That would make sense if we define prayer Ias being not only a personl but also a communal and formal rite. If so, any text that is accepted by teh community to be used in formal apryers is simply "prayer", even if it has nothing to do with personal conversation between GOd and man. If so, such parayer is not limited by restrictions that apply to original and  individual prayers and can be recited in any language. One need not , however, go as far as to see  the Shma as only formal in origin, for we know from common practice that it is as much a communal as a private prayer.  Rather, the communal element is another strand in the multifaceted nature of this basic and unifying prayer.

---

[1] The disagreement appeats to be about the meaning of the word “Shma” as used in this verse. The root S’MA is used in the Tanach to sometimes mean “understand”or “accept” and sometimes to “hear” or “listen”. Both meanings are nicely presented in Rashi to Genesis 33,27.  See also  Sipporno                .

[2] Our text in the Rif does not appear to bear out this version of his position.

[3] Tosafot Brachot 45b sv Sheani.

[4] This can be best explained by the principle espoused by Rav Y.D> Sooloveitchik based on his explanation of Berakhot 29b ck in Kavana in prayer. To paraphrase him, an insignificant, lowly, sinful individual has no right to approach his Creator alone but only as a member of the community. It is for this reason that all our prayers are phrased in plural. The Rav said that the Gomel blessing represents the only exception to this rule(but  see  Siddur Chazon Ovadia, beginning note 69) and that only because it includes the phrase”...who has dealt kindness to the sinners”. As noted in Magen Avrahm 219,1 no one has a right to call others  sinners while standing before G-d in prayer. This is why we phrase this blessing in singular even if the intent is still for plural.

Science in Yiddish

"E=mc2 sounded better in Yiddish

in Haaretz

"Science and Scholarship in Yiddish" will be the topic of a symposium to be held today at Tel Aviv University. "We picked a subject that people don't even know existed," Professor Leo Corry, head of the Cohn Institute for History and Philosophy of Science and Ideas, which is jointly sponsoring the symposium together with the Goldreich Family Institute for Yiddish Language, Literature, and Culture. The symposium marks the publication of a special issue of the journal Science in Context, edited at the Cohn Institute in Tel Aviv and published by Cambridge University Press. The journal contains essays by leading scholars in a field that rescues from oblivion a variety of scientific works published in Yiddish. .."

English and Lashon Hakodesh

Every native English speaker has at times been stricken with similarities between English and Hebrew, There are many points of resemblance, in fact so many that a relationship between these two languages are impossible to ignore. There are similarities in vocabulary, syntax and even in grammar. Let's look at some of these resemblances:

1.Vocabulary

There are many words that either directly or by reverse application of Grimm's Law ( a statement of how certain sounds systematically transform to other sounds) are shared by both languages. Examples include chitah/wheat, tsippor/sparrow, gedi/kid, and many others. The shared vocabulary is especially prominent in the case of Germanic languages. Curiously about a third of Germanic vocabulary is not Germanic at all and much of it appears to be of Semitic origin.

Much of this material is found in The Word, a dictionary of resemblances between Hebrew and English, see here http://www.homestead.com/edenics/word_contents.html.

However, these facts have not escaped notice of mainstream linguists, who, without any evidence whatsoever conjecture that Semitic sailors must have reached and settle European coast in numbers large enough to have an influence of such extent upon proto-Germanic. Others have posited a common proto-language, the so called Nostratic that gave rise of both the Semitic and Indo-European family of languages.

Linguists believe that words that are used most often tend to change the least. Among such words are personal pronouns and prepositions. There is no question that the words of I , thou , he and she, they etc are remarkably similar in the Indo-European languages and the Semitic tongues.

2.Grammar

Semitic languages are unique in using a consonantal root system. Words are formed by varying the vowels within a three consonant root. This characteristic of Semitic languages is so unique that there is no other language group (there is apparently one American Indian language that uses the same system) built upon this principle. Because it is so unique, most linguists continue to classify Semitic as a part of Afro-Semitic family. relating it to the languages of Northern Africa, with which Semitic languages also share certain characteristics.

However, there are traces of this system in Germanic languages. For example, in English there are many irregular verbs that vary meaning by changing vowels within a root. Examples include break/ broke, hang/ hung, and in German -bruder/ brider etc.

There are those who attempt to explain these connections by positing that the ten lost tribes of Israel ended up in Europe. On one visit to Israel I met a Scottish ger who devoted his life to this kind of research. He gave me his book on the subject. See http://www.britam.org/

What does one make of it? I think that it makes the candidacy of Hebrew or something like Hebrew a more likely proto-language than many others. I understand that that is not what the linguists currently think, but the general trend is to accept the existence of at least a few proto-languages. While controversy shrouds the  attempts by Greenberg to reconstruct at least some words and phrases in the original proto-language, the field as a whole agrees that this is a reasonable supposition, only that such a language is not within our capacity to reconstruct.

It occurred to me that the consonantal root-structure  of Semitic languages is conservative. Languages tend to change though a variety of ways, accretion, grammatization, borrowing etc. The structure of Semitic languages tends to work against indiscriminate change. Hebrew did not change for over a thousand years, and not because everything was written at the same time period, but because the language is conservative and because written Scripture tend to preserve a language.

I think that the claim that Lashon Hakodesh was the original language is not implausible. It is as easy to construct a language tree with Hebrew as the trunk as to shunt it away into a branch of Afro-Hamitic. The real reasons not to do so is more cultural than scientific.

The Tongue and the Interpretation III

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

---

The Tongue and the Interpretation III

We had previously discussed the unique features of Biblical Hebrew - especially its ambiguity and poly-vocality. We noted that Rabbinic interpretation is based on this feature of the Holy Tongue.

Why did G-d write his Bible in such an unwieldy tongue, one that required extended interpretation and exegesis? This is the question that we will yet take up at length. Suffices to say for now that multiplicity of association and richness and multiplicity of meaning is particularly suitable for how He communicates with men. The Jew perceives the world as having arisen from the Divine word. The characteristic of spoken word is that, unlike sight, it is a medium that is modulated in volume, tonality, inflection and inner construction. The world that leapt into being when the Almighty spoke is correspondingly multi-faceted, inter-related, polyphonic and fraught with complexity. It requires interpretation to make sense. Since our earliest childhood, our parents, neighbors, society and later on the cultural heritage in the form of books and ideas provide the data and theory that enable us to make some sense of this complex world in which we find ourselves.  The book that expresses such a world must correspondingly be multileveled, appear contradictory, require keys to be properly decoded and at times, be intentionally even ambiguous  – and so it is.  Its keys lie in the Oral Law.

The dynamic nature of Biblical Hebrew

At first approach to Tanakh, the new reader is struck by the liveliness and quick flow of its narratives, the rapid movement of feeling, emotion and action throughout its pages. You find in its pages unrestrained liveliness, surprising metaphors, unexpected personifications. Mountains jump and quake, trees clap hands and the Spirit of G-d moves men. It is rare to see the Bible pause for a leisurely description of a scene or event, a rumination or meditation on a concept or a prolonged consideration of a thought or idea. Instead, it almost races from one profundity to another. Time does not flow, it leaps - from one event to another; more a series of vignettes than a continuous narrative. The Torah does not take the time to provide background information or to fill-in missing historical or descriptive elements for it focuses on the flow of happening and how it fits into the overall scheme. Some situations are presented in copious detail while whole other epochs are skipped over with nary a mention. In it all is Action, feeling trumps emotion, and life is viewed through the prism of the heart more than intellect. It is this feature that accounts for a sense of plastic time, as something that picks up and slows down to serve the purpose of the Narrator. Similarly, the Tanach does not describe people, events or places in significant detail, preferring to intimate them with a feature or two. It does not lecture or draw explicit morals for it prefers that the reader draws his or her conclusions. By drawing the reader into the process of interpretation and inference, he or she becomes a part of the process.

These features of Biblical writing are even more striking when we compare them with other works of the same  general period, such as the Odyssey and the Iliad or even the epic of Gilgamish. These epics have all the features with which we have become familiar from Western literature. They patiently sketch the background, expound at length upon appearances and features of characters and locations, provide extended meditations on the characters’ feelings and reactions and abound in descriptions of every kind. Tanach is written very differently and knwing this is of great importance to being able to read it properly[1]. The uniqueness of Biblical literature in comparison with Near Eastern and Greek literature has been acknowledged by academic scholars, some of whom suggested that it is purposeful. The form had to be made unique and different from pagan literature to fit the unique monotheistic content. The theology determines the structure.

While some of the features of Biblical writing are related to the unique features of its language,  others are intentional literary devices. We will postpone the discussion of  the latter to a separate section and focus , for now, on the former.

to be continued

---

[1] These features were first pointed out by E. Auerbach, in Mimesis: The representation of reality in Western literature. Tr. W. R. Task, Princeton University Press, 1953

The Tongue and the interpretation - II

In the previous installlment of this series we argued that Chazal's approach to finding multi-level meaning in the Torah verses relates to a  basic feature fo Biblical Hebrew - its building of a matrix of meanings around the basic mishkal, so that every word both is defined and defines others in context. In other words, unlike in the European languages, the consideration of the immediate and distant context actually defines the meaning of words, not merely helps determine their set, pre-existent meaning. We continue:

One would be hard pressed to write a chemistry textbook in ancient Hebrew but it makes for truly great mystical poetry. One can say and pack a great deal of diverse meaning into a few words of the Holy Tongue.

This feature of Biblical Hebrew has been appreciated in the past but has been systematically and purposefully suppressed since the rise of European Enlightement[1]. The Gentile rationalists were confused and put off by the magical and mystical qualities of Biblical Hebrew and Jewish maskilim were ashamed of anything that was not scientific, accurate, or European. The rise of modern Hebrew, a creation of native speakers of Yiddish, Russian and German, farther confused the issue, for they recreated this resurrected language along the lines of their native tongues.

The fact that every word is dynamically defined by its immediate context as well as all other instances of its appearance in the Bible leads us directly to an essentail feature of Rabbinic approach to exegesis. The Rabbis always sought to compare and contrast words and phrases on the assumption that similar usages of the word convey similar or identical meaning. One specific reflection of this general tendency is the concept of the gezeirah shava or banyan av, a method of imparting the same significance to the same word and then modifying it based on context. How does the context modify the meaning of the word, does one go back and forth between passages to modify them in conformity to each other, to what extent,  are subject to well documented tannaitic disputes. What is important is to realize that this basic indeterminacy of word meaning practically demands the existence of Oral Law as an outside parameter to particularize meaning. “A beautiful fruit” describes the Ethrog beautifully but it is not in the nature of Biblical Hebrew to assign a specific name to a particular fruit. The context will tell. The Rabbis ( as other users of language) would collate other usages of such terms, collect internal clues, weigh and consider alternative explanations and ultimately bequeath to us the definition of the intended fruit that would have been so easy for an European language to provide but is not in the nature of the Hebrew tongue. On the other hand, our appreciation and perception of the ethrog is immeasurably richer for it including these other meanings and associations.

These concepts are best grasped thorough an example.

The Talmud in Sukka 35a attempts to establish the identity of the fruit we now called ethrog prescribed to be taken on the first day of the festival of Sukkot.

The Rabbis taught: “…grand fruit of tree” – one that the taste of the fruit and tree is the same, one would say that this is ethrog. But may be it is peppers as we taught:’ “Rabbi Meir  used to say: Since it states: …and you shall plant every edible tree – do I not know  that it is a tree that produces food? So what is “edible tree” – that the taste of the fruit and the tree is the same-one would say that it is peppers…”.

That is different. There it is impossible (to use peppers).  How shall one perform (the mitsva)?. If he takes one pepper, it is not visible. If he takes two or three – the Torah intimates one.

Rebbi says: do not read hadar (grand) but hadir (corral). A tree that houses small and large fruit at the same time (as corral houses young and old animals at once)…Rabbi Abbahu says: do not read (hadar) grand but hadar (that dwells) – that dwells (persists) on the tree from year to year. Ben Azzai says: Do not read Hadar but hadur for in the Greek language they call water hadur (hydro). Which specie requires constant watering – one would say that it is ethrog”.

This passage is mystifying until we realize that in the Holy Tongue there are no proper names for most fruits as there are no individual and specific names for places, concepts or events. They are derived form descriptions and retain a character of description. Thus for example, grapes are usually called anavim; however, this word really means something like berries[2]. Nouns are weak in Biblical Hebrew and are really congealed verbs, actions stopped at a single point in time. Although usually applied to grapes, this word can be found used in its generic form to signify an oval fruit or tree product of certain size and characteristics[3] . The same is the case for the word tapuach[4] that is used for decorations as well as fruits but now has come to signify specifically apples. A native speaker of the ancient Hebew language would use clues to determine how a word is being used or meant; to him, the word tapuach does not necessarily refer to apples and whether it does or does not will be determined by context and local and general associations.

I do not meant to claim that our verse should be interpreted as purely descriptive and that any grand fruit is acceptable. This is, in fact, how the Karaites understood this passage but they erred in approaching Bibicla Hebrew asw they would any other language. One must guard against the error of either extreme. Biblical Hebrew neither made use of specific noun-names nor did it lack the concept of proper linguistic identification. Rather, it approached the task of assigning a specific meaning to a word to the context and association of this word. When a language like this uses descriptive terms for a specie of fruit, the way to identify that specie lies in careful consideration of associations of the general term. This is exactly what are our Talmudic passage attempts to do. It is important to realize that they are simply using the internal rules of the language to ascertain its precise meaning.

The Rabbis first pointed out the contextual association in this verse between tree and fruit, likely also drawing an allusion to Breishit 1,11 (see Rashi there). Rebbi goes a bit farther afield in his search for cognates and finds the word hadir which can impart specific association or meaning that can be applied to the determination of the word hadar. R. Abbahu, on the other hand, finds an association in the sound of the word and uses it as a specifier. Ben Azzai goes the farthest and applies the same methodology to a Greek word that sounds similar to hadar and appears to carry significance that can apply in our case. In fact, Ben Azzai, in his willingness to apply this method even to foreign words,  can be seen as confirming the thesis. It throws into relief the centrality of this process of searching for contextual clues and associative meaning in the process of understanding the significance of the text[5].

Why did G-d write his Bible in such an unwieldy tongue, one that required extended interpretation and exegesis? This is the question that we will yet take up at length. Suffices to say for now that multiplicity of association and richness and multiplicity of meaning is particularly suitable for how He communicates with men. The Jew perceives the world as having arisen from the Divine word. The characteristic of spoken word is that, unlike sight, it is a medium that is modulated in volume, tonality, inflection and inner construction. The world that leapt into being when the Almighty spoke is correspondingly multi-faceted, inter-related, polyphonic and fraught with complexity. It requires interpretation to make sense. Since our earliest childhood, our parents, neighbors, society, and later cultural heritage in the form of books and ideas provide the data and theory that enable us to make some sense of this complex world in which we find ourselves.  The book that expresses such a world must correspondingly be multileveled, appear contradictory, require keys to be properly decoded and at times, be intentionally ambiguous  – and so it is.  Its keys lie in the Oral Law.

---

[1]  That the Bible is written in poetry had been widely accepted in the Middle Ages. Among the medieval (and some early modern) Gentile scholars this feature of the Hebrew language has often been confused with the defining feature of European poetry – meter. Hence, their attempts re-accentuate Biblical test to prove that the Bible was written in meter. 

[2] Although the Ramban and Ritva (based on the Targum to Breishis 3,6) ibid claim that ethrog is simply the Arameic name for the fruit that was known as hadar in Hebrew, this more properly applies to later Hebrew that began to incorporate certain features of Greek and Latin tongues. As the Torah Temima points out, this explanations is difficult to reconcile with the above Talmudic passage.

[3] We will discuss the dynamic and descriptive nature of Hebrew signifiers somewhat later on in this section.

[4] Taanit 29b and Tosafot ibid. See Torah Temima to Breishit 27,27 for other examples.

[5] It may simply be that the Sages viewed Greek language as privileged for purposes of interpretation. See Genesis Rabba  36,12, Megila 8b-9a, Shabat 31b,  and 63b, Yerushalmi Megila,1,Baba Kama 82b, genesis Rabba 36, Pirkei DR. Eliezer 38,. See Pesachim 61a where Syriac is similarly expounded. It is noteworthy that Aquilas Greek translation also translates hadar exactly as water.

The Holy Tongue and Indo-european languages

Much of the charm, beauty and impact of the Hebrew language, its power to convey meaning and impart emotion and its ability to tersely represents a multitude of shades and gradations of meaning derives out of its unique structure, so unlike that of the European languages with which we are most familiar[1]. A great deal of Chazal’s heuristic (system of interpretations) relates directly to specific features of the Holy Tongue. It is, therefore, vital to address some of these features of the Holy Tongue before we can concern ourselves with the broader issues of interpretation and exegesis.

One of the basic problems that every language has to solve as it attempts to extend its reach beyond the basic vocabulary is how to form new words to name new things or to express previously unknown concepts. Such new words must be able to accurately describe the thing, action or event for which they will be used and therefore, be sufficiently different from the existing words to not be confused with them; at the same time, without a defined, predictable and reproducible method of new word formation, a language will quickly find itself burdened with tens of thousands of new terms that even a native speaker cannot figure out. An average speaker of the language must be able to at least make some kind of guess about a new word from its structure, sound or construction. Imagine for a moment a language that forms every new word through borrowing from completely unrelated languages. These new words will not only sound foreign but look and seem so unfamiliar that their meaning will be impossible to fathom. If you do not know the meaning of such a word, you will find no clues in its sound, similarity to a word that you already recognize or a shared grammatical structure to deduce its meaning. There is however an advantage to this method of new word formation for the new word is unlikely to be confused with any word that already exists. When words are formed by extension of pre-existent forms they carry some of the associations of their origin into their new life. This can be confusing. In other words, there is a balance between the ease of understanding and precision/ accuracy. Languages that form de-novo words are particularly suited for scientific and other uses, where precision and accuracy are all important, for no word would share much meaning or significance with any other word.  It is quite difficult, however, to express multiple meanings, to nuance significantly or to easily write poetry in such languages. The European languages are an example of this group.

Another way to form new words is to possess a set of rules that allow stretching, re-vocalizing or augmenting an already existing word. An advantage of this method is that you can usually recognize the old root of the new word and thus be guided to its approximate meaning. There is, however, also a disadvantage for it allows a certain degree of imprecision. The reason for that is that new words will always possess some of the meaning and nuance of the original root. On the other hand, if you want words to carry multiple associations and nuances, it is precisely what you would favor. This description typifies the Holy Tongue. Every new word derives its meaning primarily out of its root and secondarily from every other word of the same root, since it relies on all of them for clues for meaning. You might say that every word oscillates with possibilities and is pregnant with meanings. Which of the associations predominates is determined by the local and overall context. In different situation, the same word might mean distinct, albeit related, things. In other situations, several related meanings exist contemporaneously, and it may be difficult to determine precisely which shade of meaning or conceptualization is primary. A tongue that uses this system will have little use for vocalization, for the meaning can quite satisfactorily be carried solely by the consonants that make up its roots. It is they that constitute the predictable part of the word - what we call mishkal. 

Take for example the English word peel. One cannot possible dispense with syllables for “pl” could be read as peel, pail, pool, pale, pol, pole, etc. These are not related items that draw from the same root. There is nothing in these words that allows you to figure out" their meaning, if you do not already know what they signify. Syllables are co-equal with consonants in such languages. Not so the Holy Tongue.

One can see the basic difference in language structure by exploring what we do when we encounter a new word. In English, we instinctively reach for the dictionary or search for cognates in Romance or Germanic languages. In Hebrew we automatically try to isolate a root to figure out he word’s meaning.

Let us consider a word that so perplexes novice students of Hebrew – the root “KDSH”. Out of this root many words arise but all of them carry the basic meaning of separateness or dedication. The basic root is preserved but vowels differ.We have Kodesh (holy), mikdash (sanctified place or object), Kedusha (holiness), kodoshim (sacrifices), kadesh (dedicated to prostitution), kiddush (a prayer to sanctify the Shabbat) and others. One who does not know one of these words but meets it in a sentence, will immediately recognize the pattern significance of the word and then will rely on the context to narrow its significance farther in a particular circumstance. It is important to realize that thus context is provided not only by the words that immediately surround it but also by all other usages of the root. One can see Hebrew words as constituting concentric circles of meaning, such as might occur when one drops a pebble into a pool. All of these meanings are present, although we might choose to disregards some of them for use in a particular context. What I am trying to convey is that the meaning of a specific word is not specific and unique but fluid and shared among all the words of the same root. In fact, every word partakes of the meanings of all other words of the same root and in modifies all of them in return; they depend on it as much as it depends on them.

One would be hard pressed to write a chemistry textbook in ancient Hebrew but it makes for truly great mystical poetry. One can say and pack a great deal of diverse meaning into a few words of the Holy Tongue. In this fashion, the most prominent feature of Rabbinic interpretation, multi-vocality, is incipient in the very structure of its language.

(1] See R. S.R. Hirsch commentary to Genesis 11 for an elaboration of this point.

What they said, not what they meant...

R. Boruch Ber Leibowitz defined the difference between rishonim and acharonim in that of the rishonim it is not appropriate to say, "they erred", whereas of acharonim, it is possible to say that they erred. He related that the Chofetz Chaim disagress with him on this and that his opinon is that it the rubric "these and those are words of the living God" appply also to acharonim, like Ketsos or Nesivos.

On a related topic, HG'R Moshe Soloveitchik related: "One time I said a shiur to explain a Rambam in a certain place, and later they showed me that from Rambam's words in his responsae it is clear that he had a different text, according to which there was no problem. Our master (R. Boruch Ber) retorted that that you are right. However, the Magid Mishna already had the same text that we have and he did not ask the question (that R. Moshe asked). Therefore, it is our duty to explain how the Magid Mishna undestood this Rambam.

He took the opportunity to relate about the Netsiv who one time explained a certain Rambam and after that he was shown that Rambam himself explains in a different vein in his responsae. The Netsiv told them, "You must know that all the words of our masters, the rishonim until the Pnei Yehoshua were written through Ruach Hakodesh. It is self-understod that this includes Mishneh Torah. What Rambam writes in his responsae is his explanation and there is still place for additional explanations, for the Torah has 70 explanations".

(In other words, Rambam percieved a certain halacha through Ruach Hakodesh and then he elaborated and interpreted it as anyone else would have. This is difficult to square with the Netsiv we know as the pursuer of alternate texts and Geonic sources to serve as sources for new explanations of the rishonim).

R. Moshe added that this explains what we find in the Ra'avad's notes (Lulav 8), "And the Ruach Hakodesh has already appeared in our House of Study .. and we concluded". It would seem to be a contradiction. If they know by Divine Inspiration, how could they conclude?". It must be that when one labors in Torah and goes deeply into it, all that one innovates is a form of Ruach Hakodesh'

Comment: This statement of the Raavad is often interpreted to refer to his Kabbalistic endeavors and not as a reference to a particular halacha).

(Harav Dome Lemalach, a biography of R. Boruch Ber, p. 115)

The question of whether Authorial Intent is a valid guide to interpretation is  an important one in literary crticism, Law and, really in any area that requires interpretation.  (Can the intent of the Founding Fathers, their opinons about slavery, for example,  be used to support a restrictive interpetation of the Consititution?) R. Boruch Ber argues clearly that Authorial Intent is not relevant for understanding the rishonim and comes down clearly (and ingeniously) on the side of the deconstructionists.