Thursday, May 28, 2020

21st Century Bible Hebrew -- about that dagesh....


So there’s a comment on my Talmud teacher’s blog about object suffixes saying that when there’s a dagesh in the nun, it’s 3rd person and when there’s not a dagesh, it’s first person.

Meaning that in Genesis 1:26 b’tsalmenu and ki-d’mutenu have to be 1st plural.

But that doesn’t explain Genesis 3:22. Transliterating with double consonants where dagesh appears, it says k’achad mimmennu. How do you translate that?

וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, הֵן הָאָדָם הָיָה כְּאַחַד מִמֶּנּוּ, לָדַעַת, טוֹב וָרָע; וְעַתָּה פֶּן-יִשְׁלַח יָדוֹ, וְלָקַח גַּם מֵעֵץ הַחַיִּים, וְאָכַל, וָחַי לְעֹלָם.

Well, normally mimmennu is translated “as one with us”. But see Numbers 9:12 where it has to be 3rd singular.
לֹא-יַשְׁאִירוּ מִמֶּנּוּ עַד-בֹּקֶר, וְעֶצֶם לֹא יִשְׁבְּרוּ-בוֹ; כְּכָל-חֻקַּת הַפֶּסַח, יַעֲשׂוּ אֹתוֹ.
Don’t leave [any] of it until morning, but don’t break a bone of it; according to all the law of the Passover he shall make it.

This is the law of the Little Passover to be observed when somebody is disqualified from the normal Passover.

So once again, the answer I keep giving is that it’s the context, stupid. I wrote last week about “us” meaning “man and Gd together” in both the creation narrative and the Gan Eden narrative. Especially in the latter, there’s nothing else it can mean, since we know the angels don’t know good from evil. So I’m covered.

Thursday, May 21, 2020

21st Century Bible Hebrew -- object suffixes and "our"

After what I just said about pronoun suffixes, I have a curve to throw you.

This goes all the way back to April 2018 when I discussed Genesis 1:26 and showed that naaseh was mistaken for a masculine plural qal verb when it’s really a masculine singular nifal. The other answer was that verse 27 uses elohim with a singular verb, so there’s no reason to think that the verses have different grammar.

But there’s another issue in verse 26; it also contains the words b’tsalmenu and ki-d’mutenu, the endings which “normally” reflect 1st plural usage.

Well, not normally, only in some spots. In a new pass through Torah while finishing Narrating the Torah, I became aware of verses that show that the -enu ending is also 3rd singular. See Genesis 18:22, 43:9, and 44:14, and Exodus 22:20. In each of those verses there’s an -enu (OK in 43:9 it’s just -nu) which can’t be anything except a masculine singular.

So the real translation of Genesis 1:26, which brings out what all the grammar and words mean, could be “Gd said the making of man is decreed with his image according to his likeness,” with “his” referring to adam, not to elohim.

וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ; וְיִרְדּוּ בִדְגַת הַיָּם וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם, וּבַבְּהֵמָה וּבְכָל-הָאָרֶץ, וּבְכָל-הָרֶמֶשׂ, הָרֹמֵשׂ עַל-הָאָרֶץ.

Some of you are saying “But I distinctly remember it saying man was created in Gd’s image.” You’re thinking of verse 27.

וַיִּבְרָ֨א אֱלֹהִ֤ים ׀ אֶת־הָֽאָדָם֙ בְּצַלְמ֔וֹ בְּצֶ֥לֶם אֱלֹהִ֖ים בָּרָ֣א אֹת֑וֹ זָכָ֥ר וּנְקֵבָ֖ה בָּרָ֥א אֹתָֽם:

The only thing in this material, implying that man was created in Gd’s image, is the trop under b’tselem elohim, a mercha and a tipcha, the first a conjuction, the second cutting elohim off from bara oto. This impression is contradicted immediately after the etnach by saying “male and female He created them”.  This is a topic order clause emphasizing “male and female”. Gd is incorporeal and has no simanim of gender.

Now remember that the preposition b’ can be translated a lot of ways other than “in”: “against, with, by means of, at the time of” are examples. What if we think of it as “by means of the image of Gd”? What if tselem means “imaging, the faculty of creating images”? This would mean that Gd gave an image to humans, according to His powers, not according to His own form – which He doesn’t have.

What I’m getting at is something I say on the Fact-Checking thread: translation is not meaning.

Now let’s look at another consequence of b’tselem as meaning Gd’s faculty of imaging. Look back at verse 26. From this new standpoint, it could mean “by means of His power of creating images,” and then we could have “according to His likeness.” What likeness? Well, a few verses later we have the very first specification of Shabbat and Gd observing it Himself. Humans being the likeness of Gd, they should follow His example. 

In the next narrative, the Gan Eden narrative, Gd says “the man is become as one of Us,” meaning people are now like Gd in being able to distinguish good from evil. In midrash, that leads directly to the next statement, what if man eats from the Tree of Life and lives forever? Then nothing else on earth will be able to distinguish Gd from man. I mean, the angels can’t distinguish good from evil; they simply obey Gd’s commands without thinking about it. That’s what they’re for. Now, not only does man have somebody to argue against his actions – his wife, his helper k’negdo – but so does Gd. That plays out in Avraham’s argument about destroying the Cities of the Plain, and it plays a role in the book of Job. But Avraham and Job are not immortal because Gd expelled people from the Gan before they could eat from the other tree.

I emailed my Talmud teacher with the citations using the singular object suffixes and, with my permission, he posted the citations I give on his blog. So now some people are turning this over in their minds to see what falls out. I just said what fell out when I turned it over.

You never get to the end of it.

Thursday, May 14, 2020

21st Century Bible Hebrew -- object suffixes

So somebody who was reading the old Bit at a Time thread was doing his job and asked a question I haven’t dealt with here. Until now.

One of the features of Biblical Hebrew is that conjugated verbs, like aspectless verbs, can take personal suffixes as direct objects.

An example of the aspectless verb situation is Genesis 2:4.
אֵ֣לֶּה תֽוֹלְד֧וֹת הַשָּׁמַ֛יִם וְהָאָ֖רֶץ בְּהִבָּֽרְאָ֑ם בְּי֗וֹם עֲשׂ֛וֹת יְהוָֹ֥ה אֱלֹהִ֖ים אֶ֥רֶץ וְשָׁמָֽיִם:

The bolded word is actually a prepositional phrase: b meaning “at the time of”; hibar, the nifal aspectless for “create”, and -am, a personal suffix meaning “them”. The whole phrase means “at the time of [Gd] decreeing their creation [out of nothing].”

Here are examples of four of the personal suffixes.

Exodus 1:22
כב וַיְצַ֣ו פַּרְעֹ֔ה לְכָל־עַמּ֖וֹ לֵאמֹ֑ר כָּל־הַבֵּ֣ן הַיִּלּ֗וֹד הַיְאֹ֨רָה֙ תַּשְׁלִיכֻ֔הוּ וְכָל־הַבַּ֖ת תְּחַיּֽוּן:
The bolded word has the 3rd singular masculine suffix so, “throw him”, the son of the Israelitess.

Exodus 2:3
ג וְלֹא־יָֽכְלָ֣ה עוֹד֘ הַצְּפִינוֹ֒ וַתִּֽקַּֽח־לוֹ֙ תֵּ֣בַת גֹּ֔מֶא וַתַּחְמְרָ֥ה בַֽחֵמָ֖ר וּבַזָּ֑פֶת וַתָּ֤שֶׂם בָּהּ֙ אֶת־הַיֶּ֔לֶד וַתָּ֥שֶׂם בַּסּ֖וּף עַל־שְׂפַ֥ת הַיְאֹֽר:
The suffix is 3rd singular feminine, referring to tevah so, “pitched it with pitch”, that is Yocheved coated the box with pitch to make it waterproof.

Exodus 3:13
יג וַיֹּ֨אמֶר מֹשֶׁ֜ה אֶל־הָֽאֱלֹהִ֗ים הִנֵּ֨ה אָֽנֹכִ֣י בָא֘ אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵל֒ וְאָֽמַרְתִּ֣י לָהֶ֔ם אֱלֹהֵ֥י אֲבֽוֹתֵיכֶ֖ם שְׁלָחַ֣נִי אֲלֵיכֶ֑ם וְאָֽמְרוּ־לִ֣י מַה־שְּׁמ֔וֹ מָ֥ה אֹמַ֖ר אֲלֵהֶֽם:
This is 1st singular, “sent me”, Mosheh, to you…

Exodus 5:3
ג וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ אֱלֹהֵ֥י הָֽעִבְרִ֖ים נִקְרָ֣א עָלֵ֑ינוּ נֵֽלְכָה־נָּ֡א דֶּ֩רֶךְ֩ שְׁל֨שֶׁת יָמִ֜ים בַּמִּדְבָּ֗ר וְנִזְבְּחָה֙ לַֽיהוָֹ֣ה אֱלֹהֵ֔ינוּ פֶּ֨ן־יִפְגָּעֵ֔נוּ בַּדֶּ֖בֶר א֥וֹ בֶחָֽרֶב:
This is 1st plural, “let He strike us”.

Now. In first person you will always see -n- before the final vowel. In 2nd person, the ending always starts with a consonant and there are no worries. In 3rd person, there’s a problem. The feminine ending is -ah. When the conjugated verb ends in a vowel, it’s hard to say that combination. Hebrew will stick in either a -h- or an -n-. If it’s an -n-, it will take dagesh. 

So: Deuteronomy 1:38
יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן־נוּן הָעֹמֵד לְפָנֶיךָ הוּא יָבֹא שָׁמָּה אֹתוֹ חַזֵּק כִּי־הוּא יַנְחִלֶנָּה אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵל:
“…he [Joshua] will cause to inherit it…” literally inherit her, the Holy Land, because erets is feminine.

Before you ask, these suffixes work with both imperfect and perfect aspect verbs. Most of the ones above were imperfect, but shlachani was based on perfect aspect – I think. The unsuffixed perfect aspect would be shalach. I don’t know why shva replaces the qamatz unless it has something to do with the suffix.

These are not common. Torah frequently uses a suffixed form of et, but only when there’s a non-suffixed form of et that goes with a noun.

So say thanks to the guy who asked the question on the other Hebrew thread, because if you’ve been reading on your own you might have come across these and you didn’t know what you were looking at.

There’s just one little wrinkle and I’ll talk about it next week.

Thursday, May 7, 2020

21st Century Bible Hebrew -- a little more et


A little more et won’t kill you. When you see the collective et (tseire vowel) with kal, make sure you think “all”. When you see the distinctive et (segol and hyphen) with kal, make sure you think “every”.

This is especially important with erets.

Genesis 1:1 deals with heaven and earth as wholes. This is part of the basis for the midrash that the creation story isn’t about the exact order in which things happened. We don’t get the details.
בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ:

Here’s Exodus 20:11. Notice the contrast with the tseire version in Genesis 1:1; this verse is dealing with the four different parts of the creation – actually five when you get to yom ha-shabbat. There is no definite article with yom, but it is understood because this is a construct phrase.
כִּי שֵׁשֶׁת-יָמִים עָשָׂה יְהוָה אֶת-הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֶת-הָאָרֶץ, אֶת-הַיָּם וְאֶת-כָּל-אֲשֶׁר-בָּם, וַיָּנַח, בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי; עַל-כֵּן, בֵּרַךְ יְהוָה אֶת-יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת—וַיְקַדְּשֵׁהוּ
Because in six days **** made the heavens and the earth, the sea and every thing that is in them, He rested on the seventh day; that's how, **** blessed the Shabbat day -- He showed its sanctity.

When there’s a restrictive sense to erets, we get the segol version as in Deuteronomy 3:8:
נִּקַּח בָּעֵת הַהִוא אֶת־הָאָרֶץ מִיַּד שְׁנֵי מַלְכֵי הָאֱמֹרִי אֲשֶׁר בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן מִנַּחַל אַרְנֹן עַד־הַר חֶרְמוֹן:
We took at that time the land from the two Emori kings that are across the Yarden, from the brook of Arnon as far as Mt. Chermon.

It’s pretty obvious that the only land concerned here is that of Sichon and Og. It can’t possibly mean all of the world. That’s why it has segol.

We have a problem in Leviticus 26:42. We have three contrasted covenants using the segol version, and we also have erets as a definite noun with NO et. Why not? The last phrase is in topic order, not normal word order. The verb has a future sense, not narrative past, and not with an adverbial like in Exodus 20:11.
וְזָכַרְתִּי אֶת־בְּרִיתִי יַעֲקוֹב וְאַף אֶת־בְּרִיתִי יִצְחָק וְאַף אֶת־בְּרִיתִי אַבְרָהָם אֶזְכֹּר וְהָאָרֶץ אֶזְכֹּר:
...such that I call to mind My covenant Yaaqov, also My covenant Yitschaq and also My covenant Avraham I shall call to mind and the earth I shall call to mind.

Leviticus 7:2-4 rings the changes, as Exodus 29 rang the changes on agentless verbs.
ב בִּמְקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁחֲטוּ אֶת־הָעֹלָה יִשְׁחֲטוּ אֶת־הָאָשָׁם וְאֶת־דָּמוֹ יִזְרֹק עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּחַ סָבִיב:
ג וְאֶת־כָּל־חֶלְבּוֹ יַקְרִיב מִמֶּנּוּ אֵת הָאַלְיָה וְאֶת־הַחֵלֶב הַמְכַסֶּה אֶת־הַקֶּרֶב:
ד וְאֵת שְׁתֵּי הַכְּלָיֹת וְאֶת־הַחֵלֶב אֲשֶׁר עֲלֵיהֶן אֲשֶׁר עַל־הַכְּסָלִים וְאֶת־הַיֹּתֶרֶת עַל־הַכָּבֵד עַל־הַכְּלָיֹת יְסִירֶנָּה:

In verse 2, the olah is referred to here in contrast with the asham and they both take the segol version of et. The blood is being considered as a specific part of the sacrifice so it does the same. Same thing for the chelev at the start of verse 3; there is more than one place to get chelev and the et kal shows that each one of them is meant.

In verse 3 the alyah, the “fat tail”, is considered as an entire entity, separate unto itself, and there are halakhot that specifically address it in Mishnah and Gemara.

In verse 4, the kidneys are another entity, like the alyah, and require the tseire version; the segol version is used with the chelev because it is considered in contrast to the actual kidneys and also to the other kind of chelev. The yoteret is listed in contrast to the liver of which it is part.

One special thing about the segolate et is that you will often find a suffixed version of et nearby: otam, oto, etc, see this lesson for the chart. https://pajheil.blogspot.com/2018/01/21st-century-bible-hebrew-genesis-117.html

This is in contrast to putting an object suffix directly on the verb, which I will discuss next time.