avakesh

Important finding provides proof Bible written much earlier than scholars believe

A piece of pottery is providing a new insight.

Finding such an early example of Hebrew makes it possible the Bible could have been written several centuries before the current estimates.

"The inscription is similar in its content to biblical scriptures, but it is clear that it is not copied from any biblical text.

The inscription itself, which was written in ink on a 15 cm X 16.5 cm trapezoid pottery shard, was discovered a year and a half ago at excavations that were carried out by Prof. Yosef Garfinkel at Khirbet Qeiyafa near the Elah valley. "This text is a social statement, relating to slaves, widows and orphans. It uses verbs that were characteristic of Hebrew, such as asah ("did") and avad ("worked"), which were rarely used in other regional languages. Particular words that appear in the text, such as almanah ("widow") are specific to Hebrew and are written differently in other local languages," Prof. Galil explained.

The deciphered text:

1' you shall not do [it], but worship the [Lord].

2' Judge the sla[ve] and the wid[ow] / Judge the orph[an]

3' [and] the stranger. [Pl]ead for the infant / plead for the po[or and]

4' the widow. Rehabilitate [the poor] at the hands of the king.

5' Protect the po[or and] the slave / [supp]ort the stranger.

 The find demonstrates that Biblical Hebrew was spoken and writen in in David's time,and dealing with the same issues that the Bible deals in, and in the same style and language.

 More importantly it undercuts the argument that Tanach must have all be written around the same time because the language of the different books that cover over a thousand year period, is so similar. We now have the inscription of Chizkia's tunnel, the silver scroll with the birkat cohanim written at the end of the First Temple Period and this new inscription - all in the same style of pure Biblical Hebrew. To me it shows the existence of diglossia - the official language of the court and the elite and the colloquial language of the common folk. The former tends to be preserved, especially when there is a "Holy Book", much in the same way that the Korah preserved the Standard Arabic for the past 1400 years. This fact can be extrapolated from the quotations within the Tanach text that serve to categorize the speaker, when that speaker is deliberately shown to speak the common dialect and the folk language. Recongizing the change from the "high" to "low" dialects is an important interpretative technique.

Here is an abridged quote from the book, Dawn of Redemption", that illustrates how this works:" The book of Yonah is full of unusual expressions and words. Many of them are more typical of later Mishnaic rather than pure Biblical Hebrew and others appear to be imported from Arameic, a related and widely spoken language at that time, the lingua franca of the ancient world. A list of 15 of these can be found in the introduction to the Jewish Publication Society (JPS) translation of Yonah and three of them are found in our verse.

1. How come you slumber. In classical Hebrew this would be phrased as "ma lkha ki nirdamta". The form "ma lkah nirdam", without preposition and the present participle, is found only in Ezekiel 18:22 and is typical of Mishnaic Hebrew.

2. Give us thought - an Arameic form of the word as found in the Arameic portion of Daniel 6:4. It is not the Hebrew form of Pslams 40:18.

3. Captain - Rav Hachovel. The usage is extremely peculiar. If the chief of rope pullers is intended, as most commentators suggest, the term should be Gadol Hachovlim. Rashi in Ezekiel 27:8 suggests that this is the term used for the fellow who commands the wheel at the stern and directs the ship. Still, the word Rav is widely used in the Mishna to mean great but it is never used that way in Tanakh, where it always means numerous (See Vilna Gaon's commentary to Proverbs 3:3); this example seems to have been missed by the JPS translation).

The reader therefore is faced with a two-fold problem. First, we much account for the general tendency of the book to use unusual words or expressions. Secondly, we must determine whether we must approach these linguistic peculiarities as examples of general tendency or as specific and intentional clues to the author's intention in that particular case.

There are three approaches to these questions that are consistent with Torah and Tradition.

1. Although the language of the Bible is remarkably preserved along a range of Biblical compositions spanning almost a thousand years, it is possible that a certain process of language development was taking place. Ultimately it evolved into the language that is familiar to us from the Mishna. Yonah being a late work from the end of the First Temple period reveals the beginning of this process of change; similar deviations are regularly found in other late works - Ezekiel, Esther, Ezra/ Nehemiah, Daniel and Chronicles. If so, we should not ascribe too much significance to deviation form "pure" Biblical patterns. Were we to do so, we might over-interpret and end up with meanings that the author never intended.

2. Yonah is written in the so-called Northern dialect (see G. A. Rendsburg, Morphological Evidence for Regional Dialects in Ancient Hebrew, in Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, ed. W. R. Bodine, Eisenbrauns, In., 1992). It has long been proposed, primarily to explain stylistic and linguistic peculiarities of the Song of Devorah, a Northern prophetess (Judges 5), that the language of the Northern tribes differed somewhat from the reigning dialect of Judea. The linguistic maps of the ancient Middle East show multiple overlapping language belts stretching from the Summerian in the far North-East to Amharic in Ethiopia. The middle of the map is dominated by Arameic as it slowly transitions into Hebrew. There are indications from the Tanach itself (see Judges 12:5-6) to the existence of this putative Northern dialect. In this view, we also should also not ascribe too much significance to linguistic deviations in the book of Yonah, a prophet from the North.

3. As in our English, there may have been a distinction between literary and colloquial language, often termed di-glossia. It is reasonable to suppose that both co-existed during the Biblical period. Professor Steven (not Saul) Lieberman suggested that the elite spoke and wrote Biblical language while the common-folk spoke a variety of Mishnaic Hebrew (Response, Jewish Languages, 1978, 21-8). The discovery of the pure Biblical inscription in the Siloam aqueduct constructed at the time of Hezekiah appears to argue against this theory (See http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jspartid=713&letter=S&search=aqueduc t). However, if true, use of colloquial expressions within the literary matrix would be intentional and must be noted and interpreted.  We will adopt this approach here.

What could the use of colloquiallisms and Arameisms signify in this verse? It could, of course, serve to characterize the Gentile captain as speaking a foreign language (saying to us that even a non-Jew recognized that the storm came from God while Yonah continued to resist Him) or to call attention to Yonah's Northern origins at this critical juncture...etc "

HIttites

An interesting new work on the Chittim, best known to us as the people who sold Maaras Hamachpela to Avrohom. They were a people with an Indo-European language and customs, who also shared many Middle Eastern cultural norms. Being Indo-European, why are they classified as one the seven canaanite nations Perhaps, the refugees escaping the wreck of the mightly HIttile Empirey mixed with the native cannaanite population in the Land of Canaan and this is why they were considered to be one of seven nations. Pelishtim, on the other hand, retained their culture and ethnicity in entirety and are not considered as one of the seven nations.

Language similarities between Canaanites and Europeans are nothing new: Har Chermon -- Sidonites would call Chermon 'Siryon' and the Amorite would call it 'Snir'" (Devarim 3:9)

"'Snir'--that is snow in lashon Ashkenaz and in lashon Canaan." (Rashi)

Foreign prisoners of Ramesses III: Libyan, Nubian, Syrian, Shasu Bedouin, and Hittite

(Note that the Libyan has peyos. There is significant pictorial evidence that several Middle

Estern peoples cultivated peyos.)

Table of Nations

“stands absolutely alone in ancient literature, without a remote parallel, even among the Greeks, where we find the closest approach to a distribution of peoples in genealogical framework. … The Table of Nations remains an astonishingly accurate document” William F. Albright

Comment: There are of course, many differing resconstructions and identifications of the nations in Geneis 11. However, this is one of the better maps and so I share it with you. Click to enlarge.

One thing I never understood is why Hittites had an Indo-European language and culture if they were descendents of Ham. Anyone has an explanation?

An exchange about Ashrei

One of my children challenged me this past Shavuos about a well-known Chazal and this is how it went.

Child: Tatty, how come the Ashrei is missing the letter "nun"? (Ashrei is in alphabetical order but the verse that should have started with the NUN is missing, so that we go directly form MEM to SAMECH).

Tatty: Well, Chazal say that it is because Dovid Hamelech did not want to mention "nefila" (Falling) and had Ashrei included the verse that started with NUN it would have had to say that word.

Why is there no nun in Ashre? Because the fall of Israel's enemies begins with it. For it is written: Fallen is the virgin of Israel, she shall no more rise. (In the West this verse is thus interpreted: She is fallen, but she shall no more fall. Rise, O virgin of Israel). R. Nahman b. Isaac says: Even so, David refers to it by inspiration and promises them an uplifting. For it is written: The Lord upholdeth all that fall (Brochos 4b).

Child: That doesn't make sense...oops..they taught us in the yeshiva never to say it like that.... I mean that I don't understand! In Eishes Chayl, in Tehilim 119 and 34, in brochos of Shema, we have the full alphabet and we have the letter NUN that starts verses without any mention of nefila.

Comment: Acrostics also occur in Psalms 111 and 112, where each letter begins a line; in Psalms 25, where each letter begins a half-verse; in Psalm 37, Proverbs 31:10-31, and Lamentations 1, 2, and 4, where each letter begins a whole verse; and in Lamentations 3, where each letter begins three verses.

Tatty: Well, In Amos it does say such a verse with a nun. It says: "  Fell (nofla), shall not arise, the young woman of Israel( Amos 5:7).

Child: But Amos is not alphabetical. What does that verse have to do with Ashrei?

Tatty: But it feels like something is missing in Ashrei, as we have it.

Comment: in Amos Chacham's
commentary in the Mossad Harav Kook edition of Tehillim. in a footnote,
he mentions that there is a Nun verse in the Septuagint: Neeman Hashem bidvarav ve-chasid bechol ma'asav (we have it in the blessings of the Haftorah).  The Qumran scroll has the same
verse, except that H' is replaced by Elokim.  This indicates that they also felt that something is missing and tried to replace it.

Tatty (thinking): I think I might be able to explain it. You know, when you read Ashrei you see that it breaks up into a series of themes, or domains. Each one consists of several lines and they repeat the same word or concept.

Child: How is that?

Tatty: like this ( I will put repetitions in bold) -

I. Praise

A Psalm of praise; of David. I will extol Thee, my G-d, O King; and I will bless Thy name for ever and ever.

Every day will I bless Thee; and I will praise Thy name for ever and ever.

Great is HaShem, and highly to be praised; and His greatness is unsearchable.

II. What will they say?

One generation shall laud Thy works to another, and shall declare Thy mighty acts.

The glorious splendour of Thy majesty, and Thy wondrous works, will I rehearse.

And men shall speak of the might of Thy tremendous acts; and I will tell of Thy greatness.

They shall utter the fame of Thy great goodness, and shall sing of Thy righteousness.

 

III.What justifies this praise?

 

HaShem is gracious, and full of compassion; slow to anger, and of great mercy.

HaShem is good to all; and His tender mercies are over all His works.

 

IV.Therefore:

All Thy works shall praise Thee, O HaShem; and Thy saints shall bless Thee.

They shall speak of the glory of Thy kingdom, and talk of Thy might;

To make known to the sons of men His mighty acts, and the glory of the majesty of His kingdom.

 Thy kingdom is a kingdom for all ages, and Thy dominion endureth throughout all generations.

IV. Verse out of place.

Now comes a lonely verse that seems out of place. It mentions the word "fall "noflim" that seems to be a repetition of the previous verse following the pattern tha twe have just seen... except that no such verse exists. This lonely pasuk is neither tied to the previous verse nor connected thematically or by repetition to the following verse. By reading closely, Chazal understood that there was a previous verse that started with NUN and and it contained the word "noflim", or falling, and intially made a unit of two verses with this verse. It must have been removed and left this verse standing by itself, and so, they said that a verse starting with NUN and talking about the fall of Israel was deliberately removed. The next verse is the only unti of one in Ashrei.

HaShem upholdeth all that fall, and raiseth up all those that are bowed down.

 

V. God sustains all beings

 

The eyes of all wait for Thee, and Thou givest them their food in due season.

Thou openest Thy hand, and satisfiest every living thing with favour.

 

VI.Hashem is gracious to all

 

HaShem is righteous in all His ways, and gracious in all His works.

HaShem is nigh unto all them that call upon Him, to all that call upon Him in truth.

 

VI.I trust and praise Him 

 

He will fulfil the desire of them that fear Him; He also will hear their cry, and will save them.

HaShem preserveth all them that love Him; but all the wicked will He destroy.

 VII. Conclusion

My mouth shall speak the praise of HaShem; and let all flesh bless His holy name for ever and ever.

 

Child: Wow... so Chazal really could read closely.

Tatty: Yes, Chazal really read and understood very well.

Yechezkel's vision

The following video is an interesting attempt to visualize Yechezkel's vision. It is, unquestionably faulty. The producer, having no benefit of the Jewish perspective fails to realize the underlying message of Yechezkel's vision, that it is a procession, a chariot that bears upon it Hashem's Glory that is driven from the Land of Israel and now makes its way to Bavel, to dwell with the exiled remnants of Israel (R. Yoseph Carlebach, Die drei grossen Propheten Jesajas, Jirmija und Jecheskel). I think that this also explains why the vision was on the river of Kevar, since following the course of the river spares the Divine chariot from passing over uncleanliness inherent in Chutz La'aretz, or Jewish bodies that may be haphazardly buried within it (see Gittin 7b). The video does not see "the big picture" and is excessively literal, visualizing the Ofanim, for example, as free standing wheels, rather than the wheels of the Merkaba (of course the wording is obscure and different interpretations can be offered) . This is a good example of how loosing track of the larger context results in an excessively literal, and therefore incorrect, interpetation. The same goes for the other video that I post, a model of keruvim, which, as the carriers of the Merkaba should have the body of a human but be shaped more like a beast of burden. However, there is nothing like having to construct a model that forces one to deepen his understanding of all the details. Despite the caveats, I think that these videos are very interesting and make us think about what Yechezkel actually saw, withotu having to consider the underlying meaning, and so, I share them with the readers.

Foot Enclosures

 The discovery of gigantic foot-shaped enclosures in the Jordan Valley may shed light on ancient Jewish holiday practices, according to University of Haifa researchers (from Jerusalem Post).

 The sites, identified with what the Torah terms "gilgal" (a camp or stone structure), were used for assemblies, preparation for battle, and rituals, according to a press release the university put out last week.

The researchers, led by Prof. Adam Zertal, found five such structures, each shaped like an enormous foot.

 

The term "gilgal" is mentioned 39 times in the Bible, the press release said - the most famous referring to the site where Joshua and the Israelites encamped after crossing the Jordan River into Israel. However, no archeological site had yet been identified with it. The five enclosures, presumed to have been established in the 13th-12th centuries BCE, were excavated between 1990 and 2008.

In at least two cases, archeologists found paved circuits around the structures, believed to have been used to circle the sites during ceremonies.

"Ceremonial encirclement of an area in procession is an important element in the ancient Near East," Zertal said.

He added that the Hebrew word "hag" (festival) in Semitic languages originated from the verb "hug," meaning "encircle."

According to Zertal, the foot shape would also explain another holiday-related term: aliya la'regel - the pilgrimage to Jerusalem on Pessah, Succot and Shavuot - literally translated as "ascending to the foot."

"The discovery of these 'foot' structures opens an entirely new system of linguistic and historical perceptions," Zertal said. "Identifying the 'foot' enclosures as ancient Israeli ceremonial sites leads us to a series of new possibilities to explain the beginnings of Israel, of the People of Israel's festivals and holidays."

He said the constructions had been used for assemblies during the first Iron Age, and when the religious center was moved to Jerusalem, the command of "aliya la'regel" (pilgrimage) became associated with the city.

Zertal also noted that the foot traditionally symbolized ownership of territory, control over an enemy, connection between people and land, and the presence of a deity.

The Bible alludes to some of these, as does ancient Egyptian literature, he said.

Comment: A perfect example of an interesting finding which is then overinterpreted into ridiculous. Aliya L'Regel related to these "foot enclosures"? My foot!

Digital Torah: An opportunity

 

Tagged Tanakh: This ambitious project would create digital versions of ancient Hebrew text and allow users to append their own comments and links.

The Jewish Publication Society, a 120-year-old organization devoted to publishing ancient and modern texts on Jewish subjects, has begun work on a project to publish the Jewish Bible, or Tanakh, as an electronic, online text, integrating the original Hebrew with JPS’s English translation and selected commentaries. But the most radical part of the project is an ambitious plan to make the text of the Tanakh into an open platform for users of all stripes to collectively erect their own structure of commentary, debate and interpretation, all linked to the text itself. The publishers hope that the project will radically democratize the ancient process of Talmudic disputation by bringing it into cyberspace.

“The Talmud only had a limited amount of space to allow Rashi and Tosafot and the bigwigs of the Jewish world to have their interpretation,” said J.T. Waldman, director of JPS Interactive and the project. “Now we want to allow everybody to have a space at that table.”

The JPS project, nicknamed the “The JPS project would harness the enormous resources of the Internet — and, like Wikipedia, the collective energy of individual users. Those behind it hope to use the Hebrew Bible as a foundation for an online version of the beit midrash, the traditional house of study where Jews study sacred texts through a process of discussion and debate.

“If you’re able to bring to bear better information, to facilitate more questions and more engagement than in a printed text with a document about which we have a lot of information, then you have a chance to achieve a major goal, which is to imprint [the text] more deeply on someone’s mind and heart and to provoke a dialogue,” said Gregory Crane, editor-in-chief of the Perseus Project at Tufts University, a similar online effort with classical Greek and Roman texts, who has consulted with JPS on the Tanakh project. “It starts a chain reaction of inquiry that can pull you in.”The Tagged Tanakh has a long way to go before it sees the light of day. The project, in its current form, was conceived in November of 2007. In July 2008, JPS received a grant of $200,000 from the Ziering Family Foundation to put together a prototype and to work out a business plan.

According to JPS CEO and editor-and-chief Ellen Frankel, by the beginning of June 2009, JPS expects to make the first 20 chapters of the book of Exodus, tagged and with links to established commentaries, available for a limited group of testers. By early 2010, a preliminary version should be available to the public. It will take three to five years to get the Torah — the Bible’s first five books — tagged and online, and another five years to put up the rest of the Hebrew Bible. Frankel estimates the total cost at $2 million to $3 million.

Though JPS has a fairly clear concept of how it wants the project to turn out, there are major obstacles to navigate. JPS must figure out how to link across the original Hebrew and the English translation, how to screen users to ensure that their comments are appropriate, how to integrate existing software tools, and how to create an architecture flexible enough to incorporate new and unexpected functions that may not yet even exist.

The most unpredictable part of the project may be how people will actually use it. Will it be a path to serious engagement or succumb to the lowest-common denominator of discussion prevalent in many Internet forums?

Comment: I wish they consulted some Orthodox scholars to make this usable to Jewry as a whole. I would have advised that the classical commentators are formatted differently than the "comments of a nurse in Milwaukee", and that there be domains dedicated to various methods of commentary, pshat/drush/remez/sod, acedemic etc, as well as a way for readers to pre-view what they are about to see. Withouu attetion payed to ideological and methodological issues I expect this to turn into a Conservative romp-playground and an opportunity lost.

By the way, who are the bigwigs of the Jewish world and who does that mean? Ramban, Rashbam, Netsiv, Ohr HaChaim...? Disrespecting the classics at the very inception of the project is a bad sign.

The Amber Witch and Biblical Critics

This is an excerpt of a Wiki article.

 

Mary Schweidler was the daughter of the Reverend Schweidler. Schweidler was purported to be a 17th century pastor of Coserow, in the Island of Usedom, famous for his fire and brimstone sermons. Meinhold was urged by his church leaders to publish The Amber Witch as an instructional tool.

When it first appeared almost all of the German critics believed it to have been an authentic historical document. It is only in a later edition that the author admitted it to be entirely a work of imagination.

[

The author's intention was "as a trap for the disciples of David Straussand his school who pronounced the scriptures of the Old and New Testament, to be a collection of legends from historical research assisted by "internal evidence".

In a direct challenge to the "modern documentary critics" he writes:

"This I have done with much trouble, and after many ineffectual attempts; but I refrain from pointing out the particular passages which I have supplied, so as not to disturb the historical interest of the greater part of my readers. For modern criticism, which has now attained to a degree of acuteness never before equalled, such a confession would be entirely superfluous, as critics will easily distinguish the passages where Pastor Schweidler speaks from those written by Pastor Meinhold." (From the Introduction to The Amber Witch)

The work met with the most complete success, the book was received with high commendation as a medievaldocument happily brought to light. It soon attracted critical interest; a sharp argument soon arose as to the extent of Pastor Meinhold's "editorial additions" and which passages were original and which only good imitations. The discussion soon became a literary tempest in a teapot.

Meinhold observed a strict silence for months; then he abruptly announced that "Maria Scweidler, the Amber-Witch" was a total fabrication and that he had written the whole story. It is interesting to note that Meinhold's confession was at first rejected although he soon proved the story to be indeed a result of his scholarship and quaint imagination.

He had desired to prove to the learned Biblical critics of the date (it was the time of the attacks of Strauss and Bauron the authenticity of certain books of the Scriptures) how untrustworthy was their reasoning, from purely internal evidence, as to the sources of the Canon.

Meinhold did not spare them when they fell into his snare and made merry with the historical knowledge and critical acumen that could not detect the contemporary romancer under the mask of two centuries ago, while they decide so positively as to the authorities of the most ancient writings in the world.

The book was originally written and printed in German. It was translated into English by Lady Duff-Gordon and republished in 1861.In fact, the translation was so well done that she was credited with authorship of the story and the existence of the German original denied. Thus resulting in a double deception.

Number 6, Lot's daughters and marriage

‘Boaz did not know that the Holy One Blessed Be He was set to bring forth from him David, Solomon, all other kings and the King Messiah. Of  Lot ’s daughters it says, “in her rising up”; of Ruth it says … and she arose before one man would recognize another”. On that day she was raised up and Boaz was joined to her to set the name of the dead upon their inheritance and to set up all these kings and all men of stature in Israel . In Genesis 10:31 it says, “and he ( Lot ) did not know of her lying down”. Of Ruth is says, “and she lay at his feet until morning”. Corresponding to “in her(the daughter of Lot ) rising in Genesis, it says of Ruth, “and she rose before one man recognized another”. This is why there is dot over the Vav of ‘vkumah’(rising) (and an extra Vav in the word “baterem’, before”) ( Zohar 1,110b)

The numerical value of the letter Vav is 6.

We will now address the 6 barleys that Boaz gave to Ruth and their significance.The background to this is that Ruth was a "daughter of Lot", who both repaired the sin of Lot's daughter and brought Lot back into the Jewish nation via David, the King of Israel, her descendent.

Rith, 3:6…and he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her; and he went into the city.

And when she came to her mother-in-law, she said: 'Who are you, my daughter?' And she told her all that the man had done to her. And she said: 'These six of barley gave he me; for he said to me: Go not empty unto your mother-in-law.' Then said she: 'Sit still, my daughter, until thou know how the matter will fall; for the man will not rest, until he have finished the thing this day.' (3:15-18)

The six barleys are mystifying and it is tempting to see them as symbols. “If you say actually six grains of barley, is it the way of Boaz to give just six grains? Perhaps it is six seah of barley? Is it possible for a woman to carry six seah of barley? It must be that (it is a symbolic act), hinting that she will produce six sons who are blessed with six blessings and they are: David, the Messiah, Daniel, Chananiah, Mishael and Azariah (Sanhedrin 93a).

On a simpler level of interpretation, it may refer to some smaller and unspecified measure of grain; in fact the words ‘barley’- s’orim’ can also be vocalized as ‘measures – shearim’, a usage known to us from Genesis 26:12 ( this interpretation is marred by its inconsistency with the Masoretic vocalization). Alternatively it may actually refer to six seah which Boaz carried almost all of the way until he came to the city and only then transferred them to Ruth. An early morning riser who sees them would assume that Ruth went extra early to the granary to bring her accumulated gleanings home and that Boaz met her by chance and was simply and gallantly nassisting her with her load.

A novel interpretation arises from the verse that follows. We begin by noting that Naomi’s question to Ruth is hard to understand. Did she not recognize Ruth (..who are your. My daughter?) and if she did not, how can she call her “my daughter”? Ruth Rabbah 7:4 suggests: “She said to her, ‘Are you still single or are you now a married woman? She said to Naomi: “I am single”. A fascinating interpretation that is rich with psychological insight is suggested by Nachalas Yosef. Naomi asked Ruth, “Do you still belong to me? Are you still mine or has Boaz taken you away from me? Whose are you now, my daughter, mine or his?”

Boaz foresaw and acted to forestall this reaction. He was wise and realized that he is coming to an already formed, deep and complex relationship. Extreme caution and sensitivity behooves those who enter into such situations for every addition also detracts, and no end of trouble awaits those who insert themselves blindly into such complications. This is something that Boaz understood and he promptly acted to forestall antagonism and jealousy. He did not assume that Naomi was above feelings of resentment and abandonment; instead, he signaled to Naomi that she will retain an important part in the life that he and Ruth will soon share. “'These six of barley gave he to me; for he said to me: Go not empty unto your mother-in-law.” The six barleys were a message to Naomi, a message that committed Boaz to restore what she has lost and may be losing again. At the peak of Naomi ’s success her family consisted of herself, Elimelech, Machlon, Kilyon, Opra and Ruth – six individuals – hence six barleys. Boaz reassured Naomi that when he redeems Ruth he will not leave Naomi behind. Soon Naomi will be restored to the family she has known previously. Thus reassured, Naomi gave consent. ‘Then said she: 'Sit still, my daughter, until thou know how the matter will fall; for the man will not rest, until he have finished the thing this day.'

There is one more thought that deserves expression.

When the Jews first saw the Manna, a man said to his brother, “Man Hu”. In Hebrew it means – “it is a prepared portion”; however in the cognate language Arameic it is a question that means, “Who is he?”. This recalls Naomi’s question to Ruth. The Hassidic Master, Chozeh of Lublin explained it in the following fashion. Those who ate manna reached new and elevated levels every day, so much so that every day a man no longer recognized his fellow and asked, “Who is he?” (Sippurei Chassidim (Zevin), Beshalach). In a similar vein, after David slew Goliath Saul did not recognize him even though the two have met but a few chapters previously.  Why was David not recognized? Because, before he was a simple page; now he possessed great stature.

When Ruth walked through the portals of Naomi’s dwelling, she was taller, straighter, more radiant and infused with illumination of the events of that blessed night. Naomi did not recognize this stranger who so resembled and yet appeared so different from her sister-in-law and she asked in wonder and confusion: “Who are you, my daughter?[1]”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] In the same vein R. Shimshon Raphael Hirsch writes in his commentary at the end of parshas Vyetsei that when Yakov left Beer Sheva and encountered the vision of the angels of Hashem, he marveled and was moved. Twenty years later, as he returned to the land of Israel , the verse states that the angels met him, for after twenty years of striving and growth, he has grown to such an extent that they marveled at him.

Biblical names

We assume that names of Biblical characters are not accidental but reflect the essence of their task or destiny, or they memorialize pivotal events of their lives and the lives of the nation. This makes perfect sense when we consider that Biblical individuals were called by several different names over their lifetimes and that names could be given at any time in their lives as well as in commemoration of major events. There were no state registries or social security numbers and names served a much more fluid purpose than they do today.

For example: "And he called his name Noach, meaning to say, "This one will give us comfort (e-noach-meinu) (Genesis 5, 29)". Here the name reflects the man's essence. Another example: "The name of one was Peleg, for in his days, the entire world became divided (ni-peleg-a) (Geneis 10,25)" This name was given in memory of the Dispersion (after the Tower of Babel)  that occurred during Peleg's lifetime. "The ancestors, since they knew their genealogies, would derive names from events. We, who are not certain of our genealogies, derive names from our forefathers. Rabbi Shimon Ben Gamliel said: The ancestors who used the power of Divine Inspiration drew names out of (future) events; we who do not have access to Divine Inspiration, draw names from our forefathers (Genesis Rabbah 37,7)."

This midrash may lie behind the much questioned statement of the Mabit (Shu, 1:271, see Beris Avos 8:34 , Birchei Yosef Y'D 265:6, Shut Teshuva Meahava 1:35 quoted in Pische Teshuva ibid, Teshuvos V'Hanhogos 605) that one should not given names after individuals who lived before Avraham. He may have understood this midrash to mean that Jewish namegiving began with Avrom. It has been questioned because, after all. Moshe called his son Eliezer, the same name as Abraham's servant, Reuven had a son Chanoch and we find Talmuidc sages with names like Akavia ben Mehale'el.

It is noteworthy that Biblcal names sometimes are not exactly like the etymologies that are offered for them. These derivations also exhibit a flluidity. For example, Kain has a yud that the word KNH (kanisi, acquired man with Hashem) does not have. Other exceptions include Reuven, in which there is no ayin (ireh Hasem b'anyi), Shmuel, in which there is an extra mem (meHashem sh'altiv). In the name "Noach", on the other hand, a mem is missing (yinachameinu). These examples are discussed in Gur Arye to Bareishis 4:1, with partial answers. In the case of Noach, clearly the stated derivation of the name plays off the comforting that Hashem expressed both in destroying and in rebuilding the world, in which cases the word that is used is N'CH'M.The point seems to be the humanity and God both found consolation in the person of Noach.