Sunday, May 31, 2026

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.

Friday, May 01, 2026

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.