derech eretz

The phrase דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ derekh eretz appears hundreds of times in rabbinic literature. Literally meaning "the way of the world," it has multiple meanings. Generally, they are divided into these three categories:

• accepted manners, etiquette, and customs
• work, occupation, livelihood
• a euphemism for sexual relations

Shmuel Safrai in his essay The Term Derekh Ereẕ / מובנו של המונח 'דרך-ארץ' and David Flusser in his 'Which is the Right Way that a Man Should Choose for Himself?' (Sayings of the Fathers, 2:1) / 'איזוהי דרך ישרה שיבור לו האדם?' (אבות ב, א) (both in Tarbiz 60, 1991), add another meaning: morally right behavior, not merely "good manners." 

Safrai supports this by the frequent pairing of derech eretz with Torah, and argues that this pairing fits ethical behavior better than the other definitions. Flusser finds parallels to this broader ideal of morality in the ancient Jewish doctrine of "the two ways" that a human must choose - between the way of life and the way of death. This doctrine eventually appeared in the Talmudic tractates Derech Eretz Rabbah and Derech Eretz Zuta.

Take, for example, Avot 2:2. Rabban Gamliel says:

יָפֶה תַלְמוּד תּוֹרָה עִם דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ, שֶׁיְּגִיעַת שְׁנֵיהֶם מְשַׁכַּחַת עָוֹן

"Beautiful is Torah study with derech eretz, for exertion in both of them causes sin to be forgotten."

Rambam and others explain derech eretz here as work or livelihood. Safrai (following the medieval interpretation of Rabbi Yisrael Yisraeli) says it means here good qualities and their realization in action. Among his arguments is the fact that the same mishna continues:

וְכָל תּוֹרָה שֶׁאֵין עִמָּהּ מְלָאכָה, סוֹפָהּ בְּטֵלָה וְגוֹרֶרֶת עָוֹן

"Any Torah without work [melacha] will ultimately cease and lead to sin."

If both derech eretz and melacha here mean work, then there is unnecessary repetition. Safrai gives each clause a distinct function: the first combines Torah with moral action, and the second says that Torah must be accompanied by a livelihood.

However, Safrai accepts the meaning of "livelihood" in other cases, such as Avot 3:5 - עֹל דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ - "the yoke of derech eretz" means a worldly occupation.

Both Safrai and Flusser focus on the phrase דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ קָדְמָה לַתּוֹרָה - "derech eretz preceded the Torah." While later explanations render the phrase in the present tense, "derech eretz precedes the Torah", indicating a sense of derech eretz as a prerequisite for Torah, the original source is a midrash, which emphasizes chronological precedence:

 עֶשְׂרִים וְשִׁשָּׁה דוֹרוֹת קָדְמָה דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ אֶת הַתּוֹרָה

"Derech eretz preceded the Torah by twenty-six generations." (Vayikra Rabbah 9:3)

From this midrash, they learn that all humanity was subject to moral conduct since the days of Adam, long before the Torah was given at Sinai. 

Safrai claims that the original meaning of the phrase was probably "the upright way that all human beings must follow," with work, social manners, marital relations, and morality all becoming aspects of that way.

Flusser proposes that the expression derech eretz was chosen because it described "the way a person must choose on earth." However, he concedes that the word eretz does not appear in the phrases from that early literature. For him, the concept is more of a historical inference than an actual definition.

However, for at least one sense of the phrase, there might be an earlier biblical antecedent. While the actual phrase derech eretz appears in Shemot 13:17 - דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּים - "by way of the land of the Philistines" - that meaning has little to do with our phrase derech eretz. Yet there is a verse where the phrase nearly appears, and is much closer to our understanding. In the aftermath of the destruction of Sedom, Lot's daughters say:

 אָבִינוּ זָקֵן וְאִישׁ אֵין בָּאָרֶץ לָבוֹא עָלֵינוּ כְּדֶרֶךְ כׇּל־הָאָרֶץ

"...Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to cohabit with us in the way of all the world [ke-derech kol ha-aretz" (Bereshit 19:31)

The daughters are referring to sexual relations with their father, but they are contrasting it with non-incestuous relations - normal human practice, "the way of the world." Euphemistically, derekh eretz was extended to marital relations in general, perhaps most familiar from the Pesach Haggadah:

וַיַּרְא אֶת־עָנְיֵנוּ. זוֹ פְּרִישׁוּת דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ

"And He saw our affliction: this refers to suspension of marital relations."

Rashi and Rashbatz in their Haggadah commentaries tie this midrash to the verse I cited from Lot's daughters.

One last meaning that we haven't yet mentioned is the one suggested by Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch. He identified derech eretz with "culture" and used that sense in his slogan Torah im Derech Eretz, which encouraged integration between Torah and the modern world.

Interestingly, I think that of all these meanings, the one that has persevered into Modern Hebrew is the sense of moral conduct. Other than citations from traditional sources, the senses of culture, livelihood, and marital relations are uncommon. Derech eretz can mean proper etiquette and manners, but it more broadly means acting decently. It's best captured by the Yiddish phrase menschlichkeit - to be a mensch. Being a mensch is essentially being a good human, that same requirement that applies to all people since the days of Adam.

Tweet

anah

The root (or perhaps better to say roots) ענה anah is generally said to have four meanings in Hebrew. Klein identifies them as follows:: 

• answer

• sing 

• afflict

• occupy 

Let’s look at each of them and the words deriving from them.

Answer

This includes the senses of “answer, reply, respond”. It’s the most popular use of the verb in Hebrew today. A particular type of response is responding as a witness, i.e., to testify. This is the sense found in the ninth commandment:

לֹא־תַעֲנֶה בְרֵעֲךָ עֵד שָׁקֶר

“You shall not testify against your neighbor as a false witness.” (Shemot 20:13)

Derivatives include: הֵעָנוּת he’anut - “response, consent” and מַעֲנֶה  ma’aneh - “answer, reply, solution.” 

Sing

Klein treats this as a distinct root. Others say that it reflects a form of singing - where one sings, and others respond with a refrain. This distinction can be found in translations of the phrase וַתַּעַן לָהֶם מִרְיָם (Shemot 15:21) describing the song Miriam led after the splitting of the Red Sea. Some translations render it as “And Miriam chanted for them” and others have “And Miriam answered them.”

One derivative of the verb is עַנּוֹת anot - “singing”, which only appears in one biblical verse, when Moshe tells Yehoshua what he hears from the activity around the Golden Calf:

וַיֹּאמֶר אֵין קוֹל עֲנוֹת גְּבוּרָה וְאֵין קוֹל עֲנוֹת חֲלוּשָׁה קוֹל עַנּוֹת אָנֹכִי שֹׁמֵעַ׃

“But he said: Not the sound of the song of prevailing, not the sound of the song of failing, it is the sound of choral-song that I hear!” (Shemot 32:18)

Afflict

Klein provides a number of different meanings for this verb sense: to be bowed down, be afflicted, was low, was humbled, or in the transitive sense, to humble, oppress, afflict, or violate (a woman). In Modern Hebrew, the most common meaning is “to torture.”

It has a number of common derivatives:

• עָנָו anav - “humble, modest”

• עֲנָוָה anava - “humility, modesty”

• תַּעֲנִית ta’anit- “self-affliction, fasting” (today used almost always for religious fasts, with צום tzom being a more general term also used for things like medical fasts)

• עָנִי ani - “poor (person)”

• עֹנִי oni - “affliction, oppression, poverty”

This last meaning is familiar from the identification of matza as לֶ֣חֶם עֹ֑נִי lechem oni, or as it appears in the Aramaic translation in the Pesach Haggadah, לַחְמָא עַנְיָא lachma anya.

The Hebrew phrase appears in Devarim 16:3, in the laws of Pesach:

לֹא־תֹאכַל עָלָיו חָמֵץ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים תֹּאכַל־עָלָיו מַצּוֹת לֶחֶם עֹנִי כִּי בְחִפָּזוֹן יָצָאתָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם לְמַעַן תִּזְכֹּר אֶת־יוֹם צֵאתְךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם כֹּל יְמֵי חַיֶּיךָ׃

JPS translates it as follows:

“You shall not eat anything leavened with it; for seven days thereafter you shall eat unleavened bread [matzot], bread of distress—for you departed from the land of Egypt hurriedly—so that you may remember the day of your departure from the land of Egypt as long as you live.”

Lechem oni is translated here as “bread of distress.” Similar translations by others include the popular “bread of affliction” and “bread of anguish.” These renderings reflect an understanding of the phrase as referring to the distress the Israelites suffered in Egypt (this is Rashi’s approach in his commentary on the verse). Support for this reading can be found in the occurrence of oni, describing the oppression they suffered found in Shemot 3:7, 3:17, 4:31 and Devarim 26:7.

Others say that lechem oni refers to the poor quality or taste of matza, as compared to the better tasting leavened bread. Perhaps aligned with this, Alter translates the phrase as “poverty’s bread.” This is the approach of Bekhor Shor and Hizzkuni.

A slightly different take is offered by Tigay, in the JPS Devarim, who notes that bread of poverty suggests “that it is eaten by the poor or those intentionally deprived, such as prisoners.” He mentions a theory that as such, matza was eaten by the Israelites while they were slaves (see Seforno on the verse), but then rejects it because “eating unleavened bread recalls the haste of the Exodus, not the bondage.” 

In a footnote to his commentary, Tigay sees how this disagreement is reflected in different versions of the Haggadah. In the passage of ha lachma anya, some manuscripts have it as “this is the bread of affliction that our fathers ate in the Land of Egypt” (בְּאַרְעָא דְמִצְרָיִם)  and others read “when they left the land of Egypt” (דנפקו מארעא דמצרים).

Occupy

Here occupy means “to busy oneself.” It only appears in Kohelet, along with its derivative עִנְיַן inyan, such as in this verse:

וְנָתַתִּי אֶת־לִבִּי לִדְרוֹשׁ וְלָתוּר בַּחׇכְמָה עַל כׇּל־אֲשֶׁר נַעֲשָׂה תַּחַת הַשָּׁמָיִם הוּא  עִנְיַן רָע נָתַן אֱלֹהִים לִבְנֵי הָאָדָם לַעֲנוֹת בּוֹ׃

“I set my mind to study and to probe with wisdom all that happens under the sun.—An unhappy business, that, which God gave men to be concerned with!” (Kohelet 1:13)

Here the verb is translated as “to be concerned with” and the noun inyan as “business” However, others such as Ibn Ezra, prefer to translate the verb as “to be afflicted with” and the noun as “task.” 

But even if in Kohelet it means to afflict (a claim I agree with in my book, based on parallels with other biblical texts - see pages 132-133), the meanings “occupy, occupation” certainly do continue throughout later Hebrew. Klein notes that in Talmudic Hebrew, inyan means “matter, subject”, and in Medieval Hebrew it gained the sense “meaning.” In Modern Hebrew it also means “interest” (as in something that draws attention), and from here we get the words הִתְעַנְיֵן hitanyen - “to express interest”, מְעַנְיֵן me’anyen - “interesting”, and מְעֻנְיָן me’unyan - “interested.”

----

A possibly related word is עוֹנָה onah - meaning “marital duty, cohabitation” in Shemot 21:10, and later Hebrew “time, period, season.” The etymology of this word is seriously debated, and I won’t get into it in this post. For further reading, see Klein’s etymology, and these essays: Onah: A Husband’s Conjugal Duties? - TheTorah.com  and The Etymology of “Onah” – The Seforim Blog. 

Tweet

ra'al and re'ala

Is there any connection between the words ra’al רַעַל - “poison, toxin” and re’ala רְעָלָה - “veil, scarf”?

There are three primary theories. Let’s review them.

The first suggests a connection between the root רעל and the root ערל, via a metathesis (a rearrangement of the letters). The adjective עָרֵל arel means “uncircumsized”, and this theory proposes a common sense of both roots meaning “to cover.” A veil covers the wearer, poison (in this view) “covers” the heart, and the orlah עָרְלָה - “foreskin” - is a type of cover. Support for this view is found in this verse:

שָׂבַעְתָּ קָלוֹן מִכָּבוֹד שְׁתֵה גַם־אַתָּה וְהֵעָרֵל תִּסּוֹב עָלֶיךָ כּוֹס יְמִין ה' וְקִיקָלוֹן עַל־כְּבוֹדֶךָ׃

“You, sated by scandal rather than filled with glory, 

now you too drink from the poisoned cup and become exposed; 

the cup of the Lord’s right hand will turn upon you, 

and shame will replace your glory.” (Habakkuk 2:16)

While there are other translations to the word וְהֵעָרֵל here, and some scholars don’t see a connection between the root here and the meaning "uncircumcised", there are those who claim a common origin. 

Rashi is a prime proponent of this theory. See for example his commentary on Yeshaya 51:17, where he identifies the word תַּרְעֵלָה as a “drink that clogs and weakens the strength of a person, like one bound, tied, and enwrapped.” Similar comments by Rashi can be found in his commentaries on Tehilim 60:5 and Zecharia 12:2.

Further discussion of this theory can be found in Ben Yehuda’s dictionary here.

The second theory claims that the root רעל means “to stagger, quiver, dangle” (see for example the BDB definition). This meaning appears in Aramaic, which is found in Targum Yonatan’s translation of Yeshaya 35:3. Many scholars, such as Gesenius and Aruch HaShalem, suggest a possible connection between רעל and the root רעד, meaning “to tremble.” The meaning “veil” reflects the way a veil billows or dangles, similar to a staggering or wavering motion. This theory also has support from the Septuagint translation of Yeshaya 51:17, which renders כּוֹס הַתַּרְעֵלָה as “the cup of falling/collapse” and of Tehillim 60:5 as "wine of stupor/piercing,” neither of which mention poison.

The promoters of this interpretation find that none of the biblical appearances of the root refer to poison, which they claim only appears in Medieval Hebrew (for example, see Klein here.) When exactly this usage began is unclear. Mandelkern in his concordance writes that the meaning of רעל is trembling (like in Syriac and Arabic), but the קדמונים (“early ones”) say it means poisons - and it’s unclear who the early ones are. Steinberg, in his Milon HaTanakh, also identifies רעל with trembling, but says that בלשון ימינו (“in the language of our days”), it means poison. Steinberg wrote that dictionary between 1891 and 1895, so he couldn’t have been referring to Modern Hebrew in the Zionist/Israeli sense, but I can’t say how far back he felt it was adopted. The most recent Even Shoshan dictionary offers the meaning poison for ra’al “על פי המשמע הרווח” - according to popular usage. Even that definition is clearly hedging a bit, not accepting the usage as fully legitimate.

In any case, we do find רעל meaning poison in Jewish commentaries in the Middle Ages. For example, Radak mentions this theory in his commentary on Yeshaya 51:17 and in his Sefer HaShorashim,  contrasting his interpretation to the identification of רעל with trembling that his father offered. This later meaning of poison could have first developed from the staggering walk of an intoxicated person, which later suggested “toxicity” (as the two similar words, intoxicate and toxic, indicate.) 

This second theory (“staggering/ quivering”) appears to be the most widespread theory, found both in traditional Jewish medieval (like Ibn Ezra) and modern commentaries (like Shadal), as well as in scholarly literature.

The third theory does not assume a connection between ra’al and re’ala, but does claim that the meaning of poison is found in Biblical Hebrew. Their proof is the parallel appearance of רַעַל with חֵמָה chemah. While chemah can mean “anger, rage” in many biblical verses, in others it clearly means poison or venom (for example, Devarim 32:24, 32:33, Tehillim 58:5). In fact, Tawil in his entry for chemah writes that the original meaning of the word was “poison” and only later developed into the meaning “rage”. (More on that here).

The parallelism found in Yeshaya 51:17 and 51:22 has convinced these linguists that ra’al did mean poison in those texts, and the Medieval scholars who identified ra’al with poison weren’t coming up with an innovative meaning, but rather were revealing the original meaning of the word. 

This theory has grown in popularity in recent decades. It is found in the Daat Mikra commentary (on Nachum 2:4 and Zecharya 12:2), Even Shoshan’s concordance, and in Kaddari’s dictionary of Biblical Hebrew (in the entries for חמה, רעל and תרעלה). Robert Alter, in his commentary on Yeshaya 51:17 writes:

The usual translation of the term tarʿeilah is “reeling” or “staggering” but it is more plausibly related to raʿal, which definitely means “poison” in postbiblical Hebrew, as it may also do in Zechariah 12:2. This understanding is supported by the fact that the word for “wrath” in “the cup of His wrath” also means “venom.”

The earliest modern academic sources I found were from the linguist Prof Chaim Cohen. For example, in his entry in the 1971 edition of the Encyclopedia Judaica, entry “Poison” (Vol 13, p 703), Cohen writes: 

Ra‘al, Tar‘elah. The exact meaning of ra‘al and tar‘elah is unknown. That it must refer to some kind of poison is clear from Isaiah 51:17, 22, where tar‘elah parallels hemah. The occurrence with yayin (“wine”) in Psalm 60:5 (yayin tar‘elah) also fits in well with the usage of hemah and mererah as stated above. The other few passages (Isa. 3:19; Nah. 2:4; Hab. 2:16 [read יהועל, as in 1QpHab]; Zech. 12:2) in which this substantive or its denominative verb occurs are far from clear, however, and offer nothing in the way of identification. What is clear from the little evidence is that the biblical ra‘al cannot be derived from Aramaic r‘l (“to reel, tremble”) because its usage is identical with that of two known biblical words for poison, hemah and mererah. While the etymology of the Modern Hebrew ra‘al (“poison”) is unclear (ra‘al “poison” is almost nonexistent in the Talmud and Midrash), because its usage in modern Hebrew appears consistent with biblical usage, it is more likely that it is derived from the biblical term than from the Aramaic r‘l.

While I don’t quite understand the value of Cohen’s citation of “its usage in modern Hebrew”, the parallel to chemah is persuasive. And there was an ancient practice of using poisoned wine as a punishment, as we discussed here.

The challenge in determining which of these theories is correct is primarily due to two factors: the appearance of רעל in only a few biblical verses - and those verses allow multiple interpretations, and the lack of the use of רעל in Talmudic literature, except in one case where it clearly means “veiled” in a discussion of what articles of clothing aren’t considered carrying on Shabbat:

עַרְבִיּוֹת יוֹצְאוֹת רְעוּלוֹת

“[Jewish] women [in] Arab [countries] may go out veiled (reulot) [with a scarf covering their face]” (Mishna Shabbat 6:6)

This use is found today in the phrase רְעוּל פָּנִים - a masked person, usually someone involved in a violent act or crime.

But there is no other appearance that could be interpreted as “poison”, and the cognates in other Semitic languages, while certainly allowing for the trembling/reeling position don’t rule out the possibility of the ancient Hebrew meaning of רעל being “poison.”.

So if we take a look at the Biblical verses where רעל appears, we see even today a variety of translations. In most translations, only the second and third theories I’ve presented are represented, and you can see that in this table:

Translation	Nachum 2:4	Zecharia 12:2	Yeshaya 3:19	Yeshaya 51:17	Tehilim 60:5
Original Hebrew	וְהַבְּרֹשִׁים הׇרְעָלוּ׃	סַף־רַעַל	וְהָרְעָלוֹת	כּוֹס הַתַּרְעֵלָה	יַיִן תַּרְעֵלָה
New JPS	The [arrows of] cypress wood are poisoned	a bowl of reeling	the veils	the cup of reeling	wine that makes us reel
JPS 1917	And the cypress spears are made to quiver	a cup of staggering	the veils	the cup of staggering	the wine of staggering
Koren (Old)	the spears of cypress wood are brandished	a cup of staggering	the scarves	bowl of staggering	the wine of staggering
Alter	the cypress shafts are poisoned	a bowl of poison	the veils	the chalice of poison	poison wine
Koren (New)	the cypress spears are poisoned and ready	a cup of reeling	the scarves	the poisoned goblet	poisoned wine
Artscroll	his cypress [spears] are poisoned	a cup of poison	the veils	the cup of bewilderment	wine of bewilderment

There is one sense in Modern Hebrew that while it might appear to be related to either of the above roots, most certainly isn’t. The adjective מֻרְעָל mur’al means “highly motivated.” This term is found in army slang, and as the linguist Ruvik Rosenthal points out, the Hebrew phrase רוּחַ הַלְּחִימָה ruach halechima - “the fighting spirit”, was later abbreviated to רה”ל, and that became pronounced ra’al, leading to the eventual spelling רעל, and the adjective mur’al.

Tweet

rachatz

In Hebrew, the verb רחץ rachatz means “to wash” or “to bathe.” In Aramaic, it means “to trust” or “to rely.” Is there any connection between the two?

Let’s start by looking at the Hebrew root. It appears frequently in Biblical Hebrew — 72 times throughout the Tanakh. When talking about physical washing, as opposed to metaphorical cleansing, it refers to washing the human body, as in bathing, or parts of the body. It can also refer to rinsing parts of sacrificial animals. Washing clothes has a different verb — kibes כבס, The reflexive התרחץ means “to wash oneself.”

In Talmudic Hebrew, רחיצה also becomes a legal category of washing, for example as one of the five prohibitions of Yom Kippur.

In Modern Hebrew, the verb isn’t used as frequently, and often sounds more formal or official. For example, to wash hands or to wash a car, it’s more common to use the root שטף than רחץ. To shower, the common verb is התקלח when showering oneself, or קילח / לקלח when showering others, like a child.

When רחץ is used in Modern Hebrew, it often maintains that formal sense. For example, a sign near a beach might say רַחֲצָה אֲסוּרָה — “bathing is forbidden,” but an average person wouldn’t say they were going to the sea for רַחֲצָה. They’d either say they were just going to the sea — הוֹלֵךְ לַיָּם — or going to swim — לִשְׂחוֹת. That said, רחצה could be used when describing entering or being in the water, as a bather, as opposed to the more active form of swimming. Similarly, a doctor or medical protocol preparing hands carefully before surgery might use the more official רחיצה, as compared to an average person who would use שטיפה.

The Academy of the Hebrew Language notes that in the twentieth century a distinction developed between two gerund forms of רחץ, with רַחֲצָה referring to “bathing oneself” and רְחִיצָה indicating cleaning, usually with water and soap.

The Aramaic verb רחץ, meaning “to trust,” only appears once in the Tanakh, in Daniel 3:28. It appears more frequently in the Aramaic of the Talmudic period, and is perhaps most familiar today from a prayer recited when taking the Torah out of the ark. Coming from a passage in the Zohar on Parashat Vayakhel, the prayer includes the phrase בֵּהּ אֲנָא רָחִיץ — “in Him I trust.”

As to a connection, there is a theory that connects the two meanings, “through the accessory idea of ministering as a servant at the bath,” which led to a broader sense of “attend upon” and from there “to trust.” However, that hasn’t been adopted by modern scholarship.

Yet there is an interesting possible connection between the two meanings. In Tehilim 60:10 and Tehilim 108:10, we find the root in an unusual phrase:

מוֹאָב סִיר רַחְצִי עַל־אֱדוֹם אַשְׁלִיךְ נַעֲלִי עָלַי פְּלֶשֶׁת הִתְרוֹעָעִי׃

The JPS translates the verse as:

“Moab would be my washbasin; on Edom I would cast my shoe; acclaim me, O Philistia!”

This translation, which is found in most English translations, identifies סִיר רַחְצִי as “my wash-basin” or “my washpot.” As Robert Alter explains it, “Moab is a humble receptacle for bathing water.” That certainly fits our understanding of the Hebrew root רחץ.

However, the Greek Septuagint provides an unusual translation of this same verse:

“Moab is the cauldron of my hope; over Idumea will I stretch out my shoe; the Philistines have been subjected to me.”

Where did the phrase “cauldron of my hope” come from? Why does it not refer to washing or bathing?

In this book, Prof. Seulgi L. Byun writes:

The rare BH word רַחְץ “washing” is represented by ἐλπίς “hope” in the LXX, which corresponds semantically to Aramaic רחץ, “trust, lean on.” Frankel was the first to suggest that the LXX translator was influenced by Aramaic רחץ, and the evidence is convincing. Though the Hebrew verb רחץ “bathe, wash” continues to be used in PBH, the noun רַחְץ “washing” is not attested in PBH. If, as it appears, the translator did not know a nominal form of the root רחץ “wash,” he could easily have made a guess on the basis of the verb, which he correctly translates elsewhere in LXX Pss (26[25].6; 58[57].11; 73[72].13). Instead, he renders it on the basis of an Aramaic meaning that was available to him.

The Frankel here appears to be Zecharias Frankel, in his study of the Septuagint, Vorstudien zur Septuaginta (Leipzig, 1841). I don’t know how accurate the claim is, but it’s fascinating to think that an example of :false friends" could go so far back in history.

Tweet