shaka, shkiah, and sheka

The Hebrew root שקע shaka means "to sink [down], submerge, depress." It only appears six times as a verb in the Tanakh, and once more as the noun מִשְׁקָע mishka in the phrase מִשְׁקַע־מַיִם, meaning "settled [literally 'settling/sinking of'] water" in Yechezkel 34:18.

However, the uses, forms, and derivatives expanded in Rabbinic, Medieval, and Modern Hebrew. Let's take a look some of them.

While the primary meaning of the kal form of the verb שָׁקַע is physical sinking, we already find in the Torah a more figurative sense. Bamidbar 11:2 says וַתִּשְׁקַע הָאֵשׁ - that the fire subsided, died down.

In Rabbinic Hebrew we find the verb used to describe the setting of the sun - שקע השמש (or שקע החמה). From here we find in Medieval Hebrew the familiar term שְׁקִיעָה skkiah - "sunset" (an abbreviated form  of the longer term שְׁקִיעַת־הַחַמָּה, which is found in earlier Talmudic literature). 

This is also the origin of the modern word שֶׁקַע sheka. It originally could mean depression, indentation, or hollow recess, but today it means electrical socket or outlet, presumably because of the recession it's formed by.

The piel form of the verb, שִׁקַּע, isn't used frequently today. It can mean submerge, but I think הִטְבִּיעַ is more common. However שִׁקַּע does have a scientific use - "to precipitate" and the noun form שִׁקּוּעַ means "precipitation", in the chemical sense of the "sedimentation of a solid material from a liquid solution". But the meteorological version of precipitation - "water that forms in the atmosphere and falls back to the Earth's surface" - is rendered into Hebrew as מִשְׁקָעִים miska'im. That's a form of the biblical word miskha we saw earlier, which in Modern Hebrew now means "sediment, residue, deposit."

The hifil form, הִשְׁקִיעַ, originally was the transitive form of שָׁקַע, and meant "to cause to sink [lower]".  Today, however, it means "to invest." That sense appears in the piel form in Rabbinic Hebrew, for example, in Yerushalmi Shekalim 3:4  כַּמָּה מָמוֹן שִׁיקְּעוּ אֲבוֹתַיי כָאן - "How much money did my forefathers invest here?". This extension of the meaning can be understood by thinking about how "deposit" can mean both "to put down" and "to invest." (You can also "sink your money" into something.) At some point in the Modern period, this usage moved to the hifil form, as noted. The noun, הַשְׁקָעָה hashka'ah - means "investment." In colloquial Hebrew, the adjective מֻשְׁקָע mushka means "well-made", something that someone clearly "invested" a lot of effort in.

The hitpael form, which is usually more intensive, is הִשְׁתַּקֵּעַ hishtakea. It has a few different meanings. According to Morfix, they include: 

to settle, to put down roots, to establish a permanent residence ; to immerse oneself (in an activity)

Klein adds the post-biblical sense of "sank into oblivion, was forgotten."

This form might be most familiar from the Pesach Haggadah:

וַיָּגָר שָׁם. מְלַמֵּד שֶׁלֹא יָרַד יַעֲקֹב אָבִינוּ לְהִשְׁתַּקֵּעַ בְּמִצְרַיִם אֶלָּא לָגוּר שָׁם

"And resided there: From this, learn that our father Yaakov went down not to permanently settle [לְהִשְׁתַּקֵּעַ] in Egypt, but only to reside there [for a time]."

I was curious as to why the verb לְהִשְׁתַּקֵּעַ was used here. It's rather uncommon in Rabbinic Hebrew, and I might have expected the more familiar הִתְיַשֵּׁב, with a similar meaning. I couldn't find a commentary on the Haggadah (or the parallel midrash to it), but I have a theory.

In three of the six biblical verses where the root שקע appears (Yechezkel 32:14, Amos 8:8, Amos 9:5), there is a reference to Egypt, particularly the waters of the Nile. 

The same root also appears elsewhere in the Haggadah, in the Dayenu song:

אִלּוּ הֶעֱבִירָנוּ בְתוֹכוֹ בֶּחָרָבָה וְלֹא שִׁקַּע צָרֵנוּ בְתוֹכוֹ דַּיֵּנוּ.

"Had He brought us through [the sea] dry without drowning [שִׁקַּע] our enemies in it, that would have been enough for us."

So perhaps the verb לְהִשְׁתַּקֵּעַ was chosen here because of its association with Egypt and the Egyptians. And the midrash on the verse might be hinting that had Yaakov intended to settle there permanently, his descendants might have ended up just like those Egyptians. 

That might explain why Rambam (Hilchot Melachim 5:8) chose the same verb when describing the halakhic prohibition to settle in Egypt. He first mentions that it is permissible to return to Egypt for trade and commerce, but then notes:

וְאֵין אָסוּר אֶלָּא לְהִשְׁתַּקֵעַ שָׁם.

"It is only prohibited to settle [לְהִשְׁתַּקֵעַ] there."

Later [5:9], when referring to living in other lands, Rambam does not use that verb, rather:

אֲבָל לִשְׁכֹּן בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ אָסוּר

"It is forbidden to reside [לִשְׁכֹּן] outside the Land of Israel."

It seems that Rambam, like the author of the Haggadah, understood the ancient connection between שקע and Egypt.

Tweet

tzfardea

The Hebrew word for "frog", צְפַרְדֵּעַ tzfardea, appears 13 times in the Tanakh. All of them are related to the plague in Egypt. Eleven of them are in the book of Shemot during the narrative of that plague, and two are from separate chapters of Tehillim recounting the plagues - Tehillim 78:45 and Tehillim 105:30.

Klein provides the following etymology:

Related to JAram. אוּרְדּעָא, עוּרדְּעָא, Syr. אוּרְדְּעָא, Arab. ḍafda‘, ḍifdi‘ (= frog).

He also points to his entry for the verb ערדע:

to croak; lit.: ‘to make the sound of the frog’. [From Aram. עֻרדּעָא (= frog), which is related to Heb. צְפַרְדֵּע.]

While Klein doesn't say it explicitly, many scholars claim that the origin of tzfardea is ultimately onomatopoeic - it sounds like the sound of a frog croaking (for example, see Encyclopedia Mikrait, entry צפרדע). This is more clearly seen in the Aramaic form urda or the Arabic form dafda, which both sound like a frog. The assumption is that Hebrew might have added a consonant to the Semitic root - either a resh to the version expressed in the Arabic form or a tzade to the one in the Aramaic form, creating a longer word which doesn't immediately carry the association of a frog's croak. The five letters of tzfardea are rare in Hebrew words, which led some scholars to propose that it was borrowed from Egyptian or another non-Semitic language. But since no evidence has been found in those languages for such a word, the onomatopoeia theory is the most convincing.

In his book "Wordplay" in Ancient Near Eastern Texts, Scott B. Noegel describes the use of this onomatopoeia as a literary device in the story of the plague (page 61):

The narrative depicting the plague of frogs offers an extraordinary display of onomatopoeia. Not only do we hear croaking in the very word ְצַפְרְדִּעים ṣǝp̄ardǝʿīm “frogs,” itself an onomatopoeia, we hear it eleven times in only sixteen verses, far more often than the story demands. Three of the consonants in the noun “frog” (p, r, ʿ ) repeat eight times in the title ַפְּרֹעה parʿōh “pharaoh.” Four times we also hear the sounds /r/ and /ṣ/ repeated in ִמְצָרִים miṣrāyīm “Egypt” (Exod 8:2) and ֶאֶרץִ מְצָרִים ʾɛrɛṣ miṣrāyīm “the land of Egypt” (Exod 8:1, 2, 3). In Exod 8:5, Moses asks pharaoh, “do you glorify yourself ( ִהְתָפֵּאר hiṯpāʾēr)?,” using a verb that reverberates the consonants p and r. 

Perhaps surprisingly (considering the parallels in the other Semitic languages), not all scholars identify the tzfardea as "frog", instead proposing the more threatening "crocodile." This is suggested by the description of the tzfardea in Tehillim 78:45:

יְשַׁלַּח בָּהֶם עָרֹב וַיֹּאכְלֵם וּצְפַרְדֵּעַ וַתַּשְׁחִיתֵם׃

He sent against them [Egypt] the horde [arov] to consume them and the tzfardea to destroy them.

A plague of frogs might be disturbing, but they wouldn't fit the word "destroy" here. Saadia Gaon in his Arabic translation to Tehillim therefore identifies the tzfardea with "crocodile" (although not in his commentary and translation of Shemot), and Ibn Ezra in his commentary on Shemot 7:27 cites this opinion before rejecting it in favor of the more common identification with "frog." Other commentaries who mention this approach include Rabbeinu Chananel, Ramban, Abarbanel, and Rabbeinu Bachye.

Frogs seem like a more likely candidate than crocodiles particularly due to the description in Shemot 7:28, where Moshe warns Pharoah that the tzfardea will "enter your palace, your bedchamber and your bed, the houses of your courtiers and your people, and your ovens and your kneading bowls." Frogs could easily swarm into ovens and kneading bowls, but crocodiles obviously could not. Similar imagery is found in Tehillim 105, which says the tzfardea were "swarming" (more appropriate for smaller animals like frogs) in the room of the king:

שָׁרַץ אַרְצָם צְפַרְדְּעִים בְּחַדְרֵי מַלְכֵיהֶם׃ 

R. Samson Raphael Hirsch adds that had the tzfardea been crocodiles, no Egyptians would have survived that plague.

So how should the phrase "destroy them" in Tehillim 78 be understood? Daat Mikra on the verse suggests that "destroy them" applies to the arov [perhaps wild animals] and the tzfardea together. This is supported by the fact that the verb for destroy, שחת, appears in Shemot 8:20 in association with the arov. 

In the description of the plague, sometimes we find tzfardea in the singular, and other times in the plural - צְפַרְדְּעִים. In his commentary on Shemot 8:2, where the singular tzfardea is used, Rashi provides two explanations for this:

There was only one frog, but when they struck at it, it was split into many swarms. This is a Midrashic explanation. But as a literal explanation one must say that the swarm of the frogs is denoted by the singular form. 

He goes on to cite Shemot 8:14, which refers to lice in the singular, also meaning a swarm of lice. Chizkuni adds that we also find a group of snakes referred to in the singular in Bamidbar 21:7.

Further reading:

• "The Frog was a Crocodile" by Prof. Daniel Sperber
• TZEFARDE’A: FROGS OR CROCODILES? by by Rabbi Dr. Natan Slifkin (republished more recently here)
• צפרדע וקרפדה by the Academy of the Hebrew Language

Tweet

geula

When we think of the word גְּאֻלָּה geula - we typically think of a divine redemption or salvation, perhaps with a messianic bent. It could be spiritual or it could be physical, but God is the one doing the redeeming.

However, the root גאל - "to redeem" - doesn't have that meaning exclusively. In the Tanakh, we find it frequently referring to redemption by humans: redemption of land, or redemption of other humans (for example, slaves).

For example, in Vayikra 25:25, if an Israelite becomes poor and sells part of his ancestral property, the Torah says:

וּבָא גֹאֲלוֹ הַקָּרֹב אֵלָיו וְגָאַל אֵת מִמְכַּר אָחִיו
“His nearest goel shall come and redeem what his relative sold.”

The goel here is the close relative who has the right, and in some cases the responsibility, to recover property that has left the family.

The same chapter extends this role to a relative who has sold himself into servitude. A brother, uncle, cousin, or other close relative can redeem him.

This is also the background to the role of the goel in the book of Ruth. Boaz is a goel because he belongs to Naomi's family circle. There is an even closer relative who has the first claim, and when he declines, Boaz steps in.

In Ruth 4:6, the nearer relative tells Boaz:

גְּאַל־לְךָ אַתָּה אֶת־גְּאֻלָּתִי כִּי לֹא אוּכַל לִגְאֹל

 "You redeem my geula, for I cannot redeem."

Here גְּאֻלָּתִי does not mean “my salvation.” It means something like “my right [or obligation] of redemption,” the claim that belongs to him as the closer relative.

This helps explain another Biblical expression that otherwise seems quite far removed from “redemption”:  goel hadam גּוֹאֵל הַדָּם.

This is usually translated “the avenger of blood,” the relative who acts in response to the killing of a family member.

Why call such a person a goel?

The answer seems to lie in the role rather than in one specific action. The goel is the relative who represents the family's interests and is authorized to act when something has been lost, violated, or taken away.

Some linguists claimed that this legal sense of restoring family property was the original meaning of the root גאל, and it only later expanded to the divine one we're more familiar with today. However, there are early examples of supernatural redemption. For example, Yaakov says in Bereishit 48:16:

הַמַּלְאָךְ הַגֹּאֵל אֹתִי מִכָּל־רָע

“the angel who redeems me from all evil.”

In addition to the angel mentioned (as opposed to human intervention), there is no land transaction here, no purchase price, and no family property. The meaning is clearly “rescue” or “deliver” in the broader sense.

Sometimes both meanings can overlap. Take Shemot 6:6, where God says:

וְגָאַלְתִּי אֶתְכֶם בִּזְרוֹעַ נְטוּיָה

“I will redeem you with an outstretched arm.”

On the one hand, God is redeeming Israel from Egyptian slavery, in the same way a family member would redeem an enslaved relative. But on the other hand, God is redeeming His people, so this is a case of divine salvation. 

In modern times, we find the same dual meaning. The Zionist project talked about גְּאֻלַּת הָאָרֶץ geulat ha'aretz - literally, "redemption of the land." It describes both a practical project of acquiring and settling parcels of land while at the same time evoking a much larger historical and religious vision.

There is also a second Biblical root spelled גאל, traditionally understood as meaning “defile” or “pollute.” It only appears in 11 verses, as opposed to the 105 verses with the meaning "redeem."

Some scholars try to connect the two meanings (see here), but the widespread approach (for example cited by Klein) is that this second meaning is related to the root געל, also meaning to "defile." (See my post here about how the root געל came to mean "defile" and  "rinse, clean, purify,")

Tweet

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