avakesh

Veritas linguam latinum discit

Veritas contributed this:

I took up the study of Latin. You may ask why?

One could explain it, as some would say, that you do not choose what you love it.This is how the culture that surrounds us would respond to a question like this, assuming that why one does things is mysterious and impossible to understand, and we should just follow what we are and do what our heart tells us to do, without questions. I do not agree with that. As Yidden we should at least make an effort to understand what motivates us, so that we may know  whether it is worthy or unworthy and how to proceed with it or manage it, and thus we gain self insight and wisdom.

My wife not bothered by it. In fact, she is proud of her husband, the scholar. But, my kids.....they don't like it at all.

The other day, one of my younger ones asked me why I took up the study of Latin. The older one  broke in and answered for me: "Because Totty is studying to be a priest!". 

Why would one study Latin? It is a dead language and everyone who ever spoke it is long dead. As one, now immortal student had said:

'Latin is a dead language,
As dead as dead can be.
It killed the ancient Romans,
And now it's killing me.

All are dead who ever spoke it
All are dead who ever wrote it
All will die who ever learned it
Blessed death, they surely earned it!

There the facile explanations for I am drawn to Latin, the ones that come first to mind.

It helps the study of the Talmud, which contains many words of Latin provenance. This is especially true of Yerushalmi, and as Professor Shaul Lieberman and Samuel Krauss have shown, many times the knowledge of these words opens up the sugya in ways that are otherwise not possible. I always paid a lot of attentions to understanding the realia of daily life  described in the Talmud and learning Latin would be nothing more than an extension of that.

But, then I should study Greek, which everyone agrees was a much stronger presence in the Talmud than Latin.

Perhaps I can trace my interest in Latin to a conversation with a former student, a classics major, who explained how he first came into contact with Jewish learning. He found a copy of a translated Tanya in his college library, and was fascinated by it. However, h could not understand anything in it and was tempted to put it away and never come back; but, he reminded himself that he is a student of ancient texts and has the skills to tackle this challenge - so he did, and made headway, and now can boast of generations of Lubavitch Hassidim.

So, I thought to myself - Hmm, Latin is an ancient text! I also study ancient texts!

On a deeper level, Roman culture was a counterpart and counterweight to the Jewish culture. It was a reflection and a mirror image of our civilization, and by comparison, one can understand one by reference to the other. When one  rises, the other one falls (Megilla 6a). It is interesting that modern scholars have come to the same conclusions without a reference to the Talmudic maxim. 

Is this enough? Who knows? May be one really cannot explain or account for what and who one loves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Children's book in Ladino

 
En el Instituto Maale-Adumim se kumplio la preparasion de una edision en djudeo-espanyol (ladino) de la ovra de Antoine de Saint Exupéry, “El Princhipiko”, ke milyones de lektores, djovenes i adultos, de todo el mundo estiman tanto.

(My translation): The institute Maale-Adumim competed the preparation of an edition in Judeo-Spanish (Ladino) of the work of Antoine de Saint Exupery, "The Little Prince", which millions of readers world-wide, youngsters and adults (alike), so value.

If you read Ladino, or Spanish, here is more.

A little Akkadain goes a long way

An Akkadian Lexical Companion for Biblical Hebrew: Etymological- Semantic and Idiomatic Equivalents With Supplements on Biblical Aramaic
By Hayim ben Yosef Tawil
KTAV Publishing House, 456 pages, $125

Reading the Tanach, the Hebrew Bible, is tough. For one thing, it’s very, very old, and not refracting the text through our 21st-century prism is difficult. For another, it’s written in two odd languages, Hebrew and Aramaic, in such a way that even those familiar — even fluent — in these tongues find that the simplest passages beg analysis.

COURTESY OF JEWISH PUBLICATION SOCIETY

The Expert: Hayim Tawil’s ‘Lexicon’ is a watershed study.

“What’s the p’shat?” — the basic meaning of the text — is the toughest question of all.

Where does Akkadian fit into this question? ...

A little expensive at $125.00

More

More

Aramaic by Chaim Gershon with Avakesh

There are many "Jewish" languages: Yiddish, Ladino, Judeo-Persian, Judeo-Italian. There are two "holy" Jewish Languages: Hebrew and Aramaic.

 

Hebrew is Holy because in its original formulation it has no words for the sexual act and the parts of the body associated with it or because it is the language in which the Torah was given (see Ramban to Shmos 30:13 and Rambam, Guide 3:8). Parts of the books of Ezra-Nehamiah and Daniel were written in Aramaic as well as the Talmud and the Holy Zohar.

According to Kabbalah, HaShem spoke and thereby created the world with the letters of Lashon HaKodesh. Aramaic, however, is less holy. We wrote elsewhere that Aramaic is not only not truly holy but that it obscures the holiness of the Holy Tongue.  For elaborations of this concept, see here and here. The source of this concept is the comments of Shach's commentary on the Torah. We also recently discussed how Og represents the "back" of holiness. Similarly, Aramic represents the "back" of the Holy Tongue..

In this weeks parasha, the Aramaic translations, Targum Onkelos and Targum Yonason use different Aramaic words to translate the word "curse". Lubavitcher Rebbe noted and expounded on this fact, here (from Likutei Sichos 19, 133, see also  here)

One way to understand how Aramaic is the backside of Hebrew is through the concept that it is an enclothing and concealment of kedushah.

This is further evidenced by a contrasting and differentiating the perspectives of Rebbe Akiva and Nachum Ish Gam Zu. Rabbi Akiva said: "All that Hashem does it for Good", and he said it in Aramaic. His teacher, Nachum Ish Gam Zu formualted it differently. He said: "This is also Good", and he said it in Hebrew. 

 Likutei Levi Yitzhak and other sefarim quote the Kabbalah dictionary for the entry "tardema", which in English means sleep. This word is shown to be the same expression kabbailisitically as "Targum(translation)". Translation inevitably loses something, hence the expression, "lost in translation". Adam underwent "tardema" as Chava came into being out of him. Rabbi Levi Yitzhak explains that the splitting of Adam and Chava from one into two seprate beings disconnected their relationship leading to galus.

The mystical reason why Jews read "Shnayim Mikra v'echad Targum "

is (p.19) is to repair the sin of speaking non-Jewish languages. For this reason, many Jews in the past spoke only Hebrew on Shabbos.  Indeed one can see this contrast of Lashon HaKodesh and Aramaic as replaying the contrast between the Land of Israel and Egypt .

 

Rectification of speech can take place through learning. Mishna is written in Hbrew whereas Talmud is in Aramaic. Aramaic terms represent greater distance from the Source than Hebrew.  When one learns Mishna with its Aramaic explanation, one rectifies the separation between the two languages and brings Aramaic and Hebrew back together. 

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

---