kerach and kereach

It was frosty here this weekend, so I got to thinking - is there any connection between the homographs קרח kerach - "ice" and kereach - "bald"?

Even Shoshan discusses the verb root קרח (as found in Vayikra 21:5), and says that the meaning is "to pull out hair", and notes that in Arabic the cognate is qara'a - or קרע in Hebrew. In Hebrew this root means "to tear, rend." (Meshullam Klarberg writes here that only in modern Hebrew does kore'a mean to tear by hand, while in Biblical and Talmudic Hebrew it could also mean cutting with an implement.)

As far as kerach ("ice"), a footnote in the Ben Yehuda dictionary points out that the Syriac cognate primarily means "storm", and speculates that this might be a connection between the two meanings: a storm can tear the leaves off of trees (making them bald), and a storm can bring with it cold and snow.

Another theory is proposed by Gesenius, that the common root means "to make smooth", which applies both to ice and to a bald head. That might be a simpler suggestion, but his book was written in 1836, with far less exposure to research into related Semitic languages. So perhaps the evidence here leads to a more complicated conclusion.

What about the name Korach קורח, found first among the sons and leaders of Esav (Bereshit 36:5, 36:16) and most famously the Levite who led the rebellion against Moshe. Daat Mikra (Bereshit 36:5) says that it probably means a bald man (which stands in contrast to the "hairy" name of Seir - also found in Esav's family).

This made me think: while certainly a bald man might get a nickname referring to his baldness, why would anyone name a baby that? Then of course, I remembered that my kids all entered life rather bald...

Tweet

teruah

Rosh Hashana is coming up this week, and I thought I'd look at some of the words associated with the shofar sounds heard on that day. Since the biblical name for Rosh Hashana is Yom Teruah יום תרועה (Bamidbar 29:1) or Zichron Teruah זכרון תרועה (Vayikra 23:24), lets start by looking at the word teruah תרועה.

In the section of the Torah detailing the laws of the trumpets (Bamidbar 10:1-10), a distinction is made between the tekiah תקיעה - "the long blast" and the teruah, "the short blast". The tekiah is used for gathering the camp together and happy occasions, whereas the teruah indicates the camp should move, and is used at times of war. However, the verse (10:5) uses a combination of the roots to describe the blowing of the teruah: וּתְקַעְתֶּם תְּרוּעָה (ut'kat'em teruah). Milgrom, in his JPS commentary there, explains as follows:

short blasts:  Hebrew teru'ah, verbal form heri'a, in contrast to "blow long blasts," taka'. It should be noted that the term "blow long blasts" is expressed simply by the verb taka' (vv. 3-4), but "blow short blasts" requires the compound expression taka' teru'ah (vv. 5-6). The reason for these distinct forms is twofold.

(1) The term teru'ah and its corresponding verb heri'a refer elsewhere to a vocal shout by warriors (e.g. Josh. 6:5,10, 16, 20) and worshipers (e.g. Pss. 47:2; 95:2), whereas the sole verb signifying the blowing of a horn is taka' (e.g. Josh. 6:13). Hence when the text wishes to express the idea of blowing the teru'ah signal on the trumpet it must either use the verb taka', signifying blowing on an instrument, and the object teru'ah to indicate the appropriate signal, or, if it uses the verb heri'a, it must specify that the sound was produced by a trumpet (v. 9).

(2) Teru'ah can refer to a battle cry (cf. Amos 1:14, Jer. 14:19); and hence, its use in breaking camp implies signaling the Israelites to move from an encamped peaceful position to a mobile battle formation. Thus the trumpets taken into the Midianite war are actually called "the trumpets of teru'ah" (31:6, cf 2 Chron 13:12).

So we see from Milgrom that teruah (or the verb heria הריע) can be used to refer both to the noise of a trumpet/shofar, or the noise of people. Dr. Nissan Netzer discusses this in the latest issue of the parasha sheet Me'at Min Ha'or. He writes that the original meaning of the verb heria (from the root רו"ע) meant to blow on a shofar or trumpet, and later that was expanded to mean the shouts of a crowd of people (Klein seems to indicate the reverse development). Netzer then goes on to point out than in Rabbinic Hebrew, the verb hitria התריע was created by adding the letter tav from the word teruah (similar to the process we saw in the verb taram from teruma). Whereas originally the Biblical and Rabbinic forms of the verb had the same meaning, in Modern Hebrew they diverge: heria has a positive connotation - "to applaud", whereas hitria has a negative one - "to protest, to warn" (and neither meaning today refers to blowing a shofar; for that we only have the verb taka).

It is very easy to mix up hatra'ah התרעה - warning, with the similar sounding hatraah התראה - which also means warning. But the former means also "alert, alarm" (think of the shofar, and the original distinction of teruah), while the latter also has the sense of "give advance notice" (for example, as witnesses are required to do in capital cases). Or as the site Safa Ivrit has it, התראה means "warning someone not do something" and התרעה means "warning about something that is about to happen" (see also this explanation by the Hebrew Language Academy).

Tweet

solet and semolina

In a previous post, I said I would discuss the difference between solet סולת and kemach קמח. There's a lot of confusion about this issue. Both are ground wheat; and while kemach is consistently translated as "flour", the best translation of each isn't entirely obvious. The most obvious distinction between the two is the granularity, but here too we find uncertainty.  If you go to a supermarket in Israel, the solet you can purchase is coarser than the kemach. However, when I asked a number of people as to whether they thought the "original" (Biblical and Talmudic) solet was more or less coarse than kemach, they generally thought that kemach was coarser. So what's the story?

For now, let's look at the "ancient" solet. There are a number of opinions as to its granularity. The common translation of solet is "fine flour", and this is also found in most dictionaries. (Since the word fine can mean both "of superior quality" and "consisting of very small particles", I'll be using the synonym "powdery" from here throughout this post - except when quoting sources). A number of commentaries insist that solet is coarser than kemach (Radak, Sefer HaShorashim; Rashi, Menachot 66a, s.v. shel garosot¹). Of those who agree with these commentaries, they translate solet as "semolina" (which we'll look at later). One of the most prominent ones to do so was Milgrom (Leviticus p.179), who writes:

Solet is identified with grits or, more precisely, semolina, "The grain-like portions of wheat retained in the bolting-machine after the fine flour has been passed through" (Webster)²

How did this significant disagreement arise?

The answer seems to lie in the process of milling and sifting the flour. The one thing that I think almost everyone can agree on is that solet was more precious than kemach, as can be seen in here in Melachim I 5:2

וַיְהִי לֶחֶם-שְׁלֹמֹה, לְיוֹם אֶחָד:  שְׁלֹשִׁים כֹּר סֹלֶת, וְשִׁשִּׁים כֹּר קָמַח

[King] Shlomo's daily provisions consisted of 30 kors of solet and 60 kors of kemach

What made it more valuable? Well, part of it may have been the granularity, but that was a side effect of its purity - how white it looked³. Today we get our white flour white by bleaching, but that wasn't available back then. They used a two part process to remove the bran and germ, and to leave only the white endosperm. If the kernel was ground to a fine powder right away, then it wouldn't be possible to sift out the bran later. So for special occasions, in order to make particularly refined flour, they would grind the kernel coarsely, creating "grits" (or "groats"), sift out the two kinds of coarse bran (subin סובין and mursan מורסן) and the "bran dust"⁴, which is very powdery and not desirable, and then grind the remainder again. What was left was more white and powdery than what would have resulted from a one-time milling. (In the Temple, they would repeat this process a number of times to get a purer result⁵).

So actually both those that say that solet was coarse and those that say that it was powdery were correct. In the beginning of the process, solet was coarser than the kemach that would result from a standard milling. But by the end of the process, solet was powdery⁶, whereas the kemach would have been comparatively coarse. Nahum Sokolow (in Bemarot Hakeshet, pgs 552-4) distinguishes between the two stages, by calling the first one "solet" and the second one "kemach solet"⁷, which was later abbreviated to simply "solet", adding to the confusion. But in the end, what distinguishes solet from kemach is quality more than granularity⁸.

All of this helps to explain a well known, but not so well understood passage in Pirkei Avot (5:15): a student is compared to a sieve (napa נפה), which "lets out the kemach and retains the solet":

וְנָפָה, שֶׁמּוֹצִיאָה אֶת הַקֶּמַח וְקוֹלֶטֶת אֶת הַסֹּלֶת

For those who claim that solet is more powdery than kemach, the sentence is difficult to understand - since a sieve retains the coarser material. There have been attempts to force the mishna into this preconception. Kaempf, in his siddur, Siach Yitzchak, emends the text to read "pesolet" פסולת - waste - instead of solet. The Tiferet Yisrael commentary explains that the solet actually refers to the undesired dust (which is more powdery than the preferred kemach), and it is "retained" by sticking to the sides of the sieve. But both approaches miss the point, as the mishna clearly is referring to a good student, who keeps the good and ignores the worthless⁹. But if we note that the mishna is referring to the beginning of the process, then yes - the coarser solet is retained, and the kemach is discarded (as explained by the Bartenura).

So what's the best definition of solet? The JPS suggests "choice flour"¹⁰. Despite Ginsberg's protests (see footnote #2), I think this is the most accurate definition, since it isn't dependent on the variation in granularity found in the different stages of the process. However, I believe I have what might be even a simpler suggestion. As seen here, the English word "flour" was spelled "flower" until the 19th century, and was short for the "flower of meal" - the best (part) of the (ground) meal. This is still the term used in many European languages, such as the Italian fiore di farina¹¹ and the French fleur de farine, as quoted by Ben Yehuda in his translation of solet. Meal is defined as "the usually coarsely ground and unbolted seeds of a cereal grass or pulse" - this seems appropriate for kemach. So maybe the best definition of solet would simply be "flour", and kemach could be translated as "meal".

Of course all this applies to ancient solet - not how it is used in Modern Hebrew. Today solet means semolina, which is indeed coarser than regular flour. But there's more to semolina than its granularity - let's look at why I don't prefer Milgrom's translation of ancient solet as "semolina".

First of all, the meaning of the word semolina as Milgrom suggests is relatively recent (its first mention in the OED is from 1797), but it has a long and interesting history. We've looked at it briefly earlier, but I've since found sources that explain it better, particularly an Italian article by Gabriella Giacomelli entitled "'Semola' in Italia: ambiguità di una parola", which discusses the semantic shift of the word semola. As we pointed out, the Aramaic semida סמידא gave us the Greek semidalis and the Latin simila¹². Both are good parallels for solet, as they are generally translated as "fine flour" (although we're still stuck with the ambiguity of the word "fine" - powdery or best?). Giacomelli quotes Pliny and Celsus as saying that the Latin simila (and a similar term similago) wasn't the most powdery of flours - that would be reserved for other terms, such as the Latin pollen (our English word pollen is related) - it was rather of an intermediary granularity, somewhat coarse, although of good quality, and that meaning is still found in some parts of Italy (although the more widespread use is more recent). In the Northern part of Italy and further north into Germany, the derivatives of simila mean "powdery flour" (Italian semola, German semmel, Yiddish zeml, and later the English word "simnel" - cakes or rolls made of fine wheat flour.). But in the rest of Italy, to the south, semola progressed in the other direction, to the coarser "bran"¹³. From here came the diminutive "semolino" (from which came the English "semolina"¹⁴) - little bran, i.e. a coarser flour than the generic Italian word for flour "farina" (although it originally meant "meal"¹⁵).

So I think the complicated history of the word and the various definitions of its "ancestors" makes it an awkward choice of a translation. It's particularly disingenuous to hint to semidalis being the Septuagint's translation of solet and the Vulgate using simila¹⁶ - the word has gone through so many changes from semidalis and simila to semolina to render the connection almost irrelevant. And if we go back far enough, semida was used by Targum Yonatan as an Aramaic synonym for solet - so a derivative of semida doesn't really describe what solet was¹⁷.

However, there's another reason to reject this translation. Since we're focusing on the modern word semolina, we shouldn't limit ourselves to Webster's definition, but we should rather take into account the word's general connotation. Today semolina is not used for preparing bread¹⁸ - which solet certainly was during Biblical times. A more comprehensive modern definition of semolina can be found here:

The inner, granular, starchy endosperm of hard or durum wheat (not yet ground into flour); used to make pasta and semolina milk pudding.

That's not a good definition for ancient solet. However, while solet does appear more frequently than kemach in Biblical Hebrew, in later Hebrew kemach is much more prominent. It seems that since Temple times, solet has fallen out of common usage¹⁹. Therefore, I don't see any problem with solet becoming the modern word for semolina, which is used for products like couscous and pasta. Modern solet/semolina is more coarse than regular flour, and as we've seen during one stage of the ancient process, solet was more coarse than kemach. And although it does lead to some confusion, it encourages the discussion of the granularity of solet - which is what led me to research this post...

notes

¹ In his commentary on Menachot 27a (s.v. misolta), Rashi goes so far as to say that solet and grits (geres) are synonymous: גרש וסולת חד הוא.

² H.L. Ginsberg defended the translation "semolina" a number of times, such as in his article, The Grain Harvest Laws of Leviticus 23:9-22 and Numbers 28:26-31. There he writes about the word semolina: "This is notoriously the exact equivalent of the Hebrew solet; see G. Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte in Palastina, III, 292-294. I therefore apologize for the pusillanimity that made me yield to the vehement objections of my colleagues on the committee that produced the Jewish Publication Society's translation of the Torah and the Nevi'im, who are such esthetes that they insist on poetry in a recipe; whence that translation's 'choice flour,' which is not very choice." However, I do see that the JPS translates solet as semolina in Melachim I 5:2.

³ In addition to purity, the Roman doctor Celsus (quoted here) felt that the more flour was bolted (sifted) the healthier it was. While modern science certainly says that whole wheat flour is healthier than white flour, "Joe Pastry" correctly points out that the fat in whole wheat flour can cause it to become rancid much sooner, so there were other considerations to sifting flour other than "purity".

⁴ This is probably the avak  אבק  which rendered the solet for the sacrifices invalid (Menachot 85a).

⁵ Menachot 76b. See this article by Rabbi Shalom Ohana for a detailed description of the process in the Temple and the various opinions in the commentaries as to how it was performed. He points out that while in general at the time the wheat was wetted before grinding to help the bran separate from the endosperm (as described here), that couldn't be done in the Temple since most of the grain sacrifices were matza (and therefore couldn't have extended contact with water.)

⁶ Gesenius says that the word solet derives from the root סלל meaning "shaking, sifting", but most other sources (such as Klein and Milgrom) link it to the Akkadian salatu (to crush) and siltu (grits), which would connect it to the connotation of "coarse".

⁷ This is the phrase found in Bereshit 18:5, where Avraham had Sarah prepare "kemach solet". For a full discussion of the meaning of the phrase there, see this article by Gil Marks. He discusses the disagreement between Rashi, who says it refers to two separate items (not a construct), and the Ramban, who says this means solet that is made from kemach. The Gur Aryeh explains Rashi's approach by saying that you can't say "kemach from solet", because solet is made from kemach (this would of course support the Ramban as well.) However, Onkelos translates the phrase (in some versions) as קמחא סולתא kimcha d'solta - kemach of solet, which would seem to support Sokolow's view that the kemach was made from solet. Note also Rav Saadia Gaon here, who explains the phrase as meaning "powdery solet."


⁸ Another factor that some discuss is the type of grain. The Sifra, based on Shmot 29:2, points out that only wheat (not barley) can be used for solet. In addition, some sources distinguish between the various kinds of wheat. See the Gil Marks article mentioned above, as well as this blog post.

⁹ This is clear from the parallel section in Avot D'Rabbi Natan (chapter 40) where it says that the sieve-like student "lets out the bad and retains the good". Neusner makes an interesting point that in this chapter the wicked category is listed last, but I don't see how he can ignore the Avot D'Rabbi Natan.

¹⁰ Strangely, the JPS Numbers 28:12 has "choice flour", but the following verse has "fine flour." Everett Fox has "(proper) flour". Another suggestion (found here) is חלב חיטה chelev chita - the "fat of the wheat", i.e. the best of the wheat. It is possible that the cereal "Cream of Wheat" was inspired by this earlier term.

¹¹ This 1820 book describes fiore di farina in a manner that strongly recalls solet: "The flour is divided into three parts, to obtain the kind which is proper for manipulation. The first separated is the coarse and husky part; the next, the white impalpable powder; after which operation remains the fiore di farina, which is neither very finely pulverized, nor remarkably white, and is by far the smallest quantity of the whole mass. This is found to contain the purest part of the wheat, and to make the finest bread."

¹² For a detailed description of how the Greeks borrowed the Akkadian samidu (both the term and the product) for their semidalis, as well as what type of wheat was used in both locations, see Robert Sallares, Ecology of the Ancient Greek World, pgs. 317-326.

¹³ This leads to the strange phenomenon of semola being translated in Italian-English dictionaries (such as Cassell's)  as "bran; fine flour".

However, the more common word for "bran" in Italian is crusca. This led to even more confusion for me in my research, since the name of the Italian Language Academy is Accademia della Crusca!

¹⁴ I think that Giacomelli's etymology is much more clear than the popular one: "Alteration of Italian semolino, diminutive of semola, bran, from Latin simila, fine flour."

Why should "bran" derive from "fine flour"?

¹⁵ Note that the Vulgate on 1 Kings Chapter 4, Verse 22 has simila for "solet" and farina for "kemach". In Modern Italian, the derivatives have switched connotations.

¹⁶ I refer to Ginsberg's comment here, where he writes, "Yet it is my personal opinion that we should have gone farther. Our 'choice flour' is, to be sure, a better rendering of soleth than the conventional 'fine flour,' since the word certainly means in actuality "semolina" (witness, among other proofs, the renderings of the ancient versions), which is not at all 'fine.' I do not see why we could not have said 'semolina,' at least in a great majority of the relevant passages, which are technical descriptions of ritual." [emphasis mine]

¹⁷ However, Targum Yonatan was a later translation than Onkelos (who used solta סולתא), and had a lot of Greek influence. So it could be that TY used semida for stylistic reasons - it was an Aramaic word similar to the familiar Greek semidalis.

¹⁸ Somewhat complicating the issue is the fact that semolina has a different meaning in British and American English. This book writes: "In the U.K. where Triticum durum wheats are not regularly milled the term 'semolina' is used to describe a coarse intermediate stock produced from the break system, in the milling of flour from T. aestivum wheats. In the U.S.A., where durum, common and club wheats are milled, the term 'semolina' is reserved for the durum product; and the coarse milling intermediate from the other wheats, equivalent to the U.K. 'semolina' is called 'farina'."

¹⁹ It appears that not only did the terminology change, but the technology as well. Tosafot (Taanit 9b, s.v. nehila) describes the Talmudic process of creating solet, but notes that it "was not done as we do in our times". The Tosafot were composed in the 12th and 13th centuries, but as this book notes, only around 1300 did the process of advanced sifting return to Europe: "From the 1300s to the 1700s, the sifting process consisted of putting the flour first through a net or sieve to remove the coarse particles, and then through a woolen bolting cloth. The resulting flour [was] the finest white flour of its day...". This description, nearly identical to the Talmudic description of the creation of solet, implies that until then, the wheat was ground whole without significant sifting. However, Ibn Ezra, a contemporary of the Tosafot, notes (Shmot 29:2, extended commentary) that in the Arab lands they still prepare solet, and make the best bread from it.

Update (Jan 8 2010):  In the course of researching pashtida, I found a fascinating insight into the understanding of solet, with real relevance to halacha. The gemara in Pesachim 74b discusses the case of a bird roasted in a coating of dough. If it is made of semida / solet, then it is permitted to eat (even without salting), because the blood will pass through. If it is made of other kinds of flour, then only depending of the color of the dough will it be permitted. The Rambam (Hilchot Maachalot Asurot 6:19) explains that the solet is coarse, and therefore allows the blood to pass through. This makes sense, as the Rambam lived in lands where they still had the technology to produce solet. On the other hand, Rashi (Pesachim 74b, s.v. בחיורתא) writes that they only use other flours (in his time) and not solet. The Shibolei HaLeket (as quoted by the Beit Yosef on Tur, Yoreh Deah 78) says that they are no longer familiar with the different types of flours, and because of this, the Beit Yosef abandons the halacha, allowing only salted meat to be cooked in dough.

Tweet

orez and orzo

When I was researching the meaning of the word "omer", I found that Rabbi David Zvi Hoffman quoted Shadal as saying that the word in Vayikra 23:10 probably means "sheaf". In my copy of Shadal's commentary on the Torah he doesn't discuss that there, so I contacted someone who has a copy of Shadal's translation of the Torah into Italian (with notes.) He wrote to me:

Although Shadal has no comment on Vayikra 23:10, his Italian translation is apparently what R. Hoffman was referring to. Here it is:

"...recherete al sacerdote un manipolo [secondo la tradizione: farina d'orzo della misura d' un Omer] delle primizie della vostra messe."

In English: "...you shall bring to the priest a sheaf [according to the tradition: barley flour of the measure of an Omer] of the first fruits of your harvest."

When I first read this, I was confused. I saw the word "orzo" and thought it meant rice, like the Hebrew orez אורז. It made sense, since "orzo" in English means "rice shaped pasta". But it turns out there's no connection.

Let's first look at orez. It derives from the Greek word oryza - from where the European words for rice also derive:

rice - 1234, from O.Fr. ris, from It. riso, from L. oriza (cf. It. riso), from Gk. oryza "rice," via an Indo-Iranian language (cf. Pashto vrize, O.Pers. brizi), ult. from Skt. vrihi-s "rice." The Gk. word is the ult. source of all European words (cf. Welsh reis, Ger. reis, Lith. rysai, Serbo-Cr. riza, Pol. ryz).

(See here for the words for rice in even more languages).

Professor Yehuda Feliks, in his article אורז בספרות חז"ל - "Rice in Rabbinic Literature" (Bar Ilan, Vol 1), writes how the Greeks were exposed to rice (oryza sativa) when Alexander the Great reached India, and that rice spread to the Land of Israel at the end of the Second Temple period. By the times of the Mishna, it had become a very important crop, and there were many discussions amongst the Tannaim as to the halachic status of rice - what blessing should be made on it, what is the status of rice on Pesach, how do we relate to rice in terms of the various agricultural mitzvot (chadash, terumot and maaserot, shemita, gifts to the poor), etc. (See also the Encyclopedia Talmudit entry on orez for further discussion.)

The Medieval commentators have some disagreement as to the identification of orez. Rashi, for example, in Berachot 37a, says orez is "mil" - meaning millet, probably specifically proso millet (this site points out that Rashi probably never saw rice, as it was only introduced to his area of Europe in the 15th century). Tosfot there disagrees, and says that orez is rice. In any case, both based on the description of orez in Talmudic literature, and the etymology of the word (orez and oryza), Feliks says there is no doubt at all that orez refers to rice, and this is also the position of the Aruch HaShulchan (Orach Chaim 208:21).

Orzo, on the other hand, in Italian means "barley" (where they make an espresso type drink called caffé d'orzo from ground roasted barley.) It derives from the Latin hordeum meaning barley (and isn't connected to oryza), as offered by the Oxford English Dictionary:

Italian orzo, lit. ‘barley’ (1231-62; c1200 as orzeo; hordeum barley: see HORDEATE n.), in allusion to the shape of the pasta.]

A variety of pasta formed in small pieces shaped like grains of barley or rice.

1917 J. CUSIMANO Econ. Ital. Cookbk. 7 Take two pints oysters..boil them ten minutes..into this add half pound No. 39 Orzo, boil twenty minutes.

1952 N. TSELEMENTES Greek Cookery 110 Simmer for 15 minutes and add the kritharaki (orzo).

1983 J. FAMULARO & L. IMPERIALE Joy of Pasta x. 165 We have filled whole tomatoes with orzo and crabmeat and we have used tomatoes, basil, and garlic to fill giant pasta shells.

1994 Mod. Maturity July-Aug. 59/1 This morning in my supermarket I counted 53 different pasta shapes. Six were the tiny variety used in soups or as side dishes: stelline, acini di pepe, farfalline, tubettini, orzo and ditalini.

I'm not sure when orzo took on the meaning of "rice shaped pasta" in English. It probably first meant "barley shaped pasta" (whole barley looks much more like rice than the pearl barley we usually eat). As far as the references in the OED, I'm not so sure about the first two. The 1917 reference comes from an Italian cookbook, so perhaps it's talking about actual barley (the Italians call rice shaped pasta "risi" or "risoni"). And the Greek word kritharaki, mentioned in the 1952 quote, does mean "rice shaped pasta" today, but I found a couple of sources that say that kritharaki refers to barley as well. The earliest quote I could find that confirmed that orzo meant a rice shaped pasta was from this 1968 magazine article:

Orzo, sometimes called manestra, is a pasta sold in Greek stores which resembles rice in appearance.

It then appears fairly infrequently (usually mentioned as a specialty item) until the 1990s - which is when I first encountered the terms, working in a rice and pasta factory in Massachusetts. In fact, that's probably where I first made the connection between orez and orzo.

In Israel, we also find a rice shaped pasta, but it's not actually orzo (or called that). These are rice shaped petitim פתיתים (related to the Hebrew word pat פת). These were created by the Osem company during Israel's austerity period in the 1950s (when rice was scarce), and received the nickname "Ben Gurion Rice". Later, they developed round petitim that imitate couscous. Recently, these have become trendy in the West, and are known as "Israeli couscous".

What's the difference between orzo and couscous on the one hand, and Israeli petitim (whatever the shape) on the other? Orzo and couscous are made from solet סולת (semolina), whereas petitim are made from kemach קמח (flour). What's the difference between kemach and solet? That will be dealt with in an upcoming post...

Tweet

omer

We're between Pesach and Shavuot now, the time that we "count the omer". But do we really?

Let's look at the word "omer" עומר. It has clearly different meanings in its various appearances in the Tanach. In Devarim 24:19, Rut 2:7 it is usually translated as "sheaf" - a bundle of stalks of grain. However, in the story of the mahn (manna) מן - Shemot 16:16-36, it refers to a measure of volume, one tenth of an ephah.

However, the real question is what does it mean in Vayikra 23:10-16 - the section discussing the omer offering and the subsequent counting. The Septuagint translates the word here as "sheaf" and this is also the translation of the Vulgate and most non-Jewish translations and modern scholars. However, almost all Jewish sources say that the word omer in this section is referring to the measure of volume.

This brings up a number of questions. First of all - what is the source of the disagreement? And secondly, why hasn't this question received more attention? If we look at another verse in the same section - 23:11, it discusses how the omer was brought on ממחרת השבת - the day after "shabbat". Starting with the earliest mishnaic sources, we find countless discussions about the meaning of that phrase. Does it mean a "Sunday" or the 16th of Nissan (the day following the first day of Pesach)? However, in regards to the discussion about the meaning of omer, we find very few "proofs" in Talmudic literature. Even Rashi, who clearly states in his commentary on 23:11 that omer here means "measure", doesn't bring a proof, only quotes the verse in Shmot. Why?

When approaching this issue, it is important to note at the beginning that there is a significant lack of consistency in the translation of the word. The translation "sheaf" has become so popular, that even sources that openly take the view of the Rabbis occasionally use the other translation. For example, the Artscroll siddur describes omer as the "Omer meal offering" in the section "Counting the Omer". But in their commentary on Avot 5:7, they write that the omer was "the sheaf of barley offered in the Temple". This caution may serve us in understanding earlier sources as well.

Let's start by looking at the translation "sheaf". Actually, we should be discussing the Greek word dragma δράγματα, since that's what was used in the Septuagint. While most people translate this as "sheaf", that's not the only opinion. The literal meaning of dragma is "handful". The Greek-English Lexicon defines dragma as "handful; esp. as many stalks of corn as the reaper can grasp in his left hand." Milgrom, in his Anchor Bible (page 1983) says that "handful" is a good translation based on an Egyptian painting (unfortunately, no mention of what painting). He also mentions a theory mentioned by the scholar Gustaf Dalman, and promoted by H. L. Ginsberg in The Israelian Heritage of Judaism (page 73), that the translation should be "armful" - "whatever is swathed with a sickle and swooped under the arm". If we trace the word dragma, we find that it is the origin of dram, which interestingly is also a unit of measure. I don't think that this indicates that dragma in the Septuagint meant a measure - a handful of flour. It uses a related word - draka - for that (e.g. to translate קמץ in Vayikra 2:2). But this could have led to some confusion as to the meaning of the word later.

I think it is rather difficult to separate the terms handful and sheaf. The Latin Vulgate translates omer as manipulus (the root of the word "manipulation"), which also means "handful" and "sheaf". The Syriac Peshitta translates omer in Vayikra 23:10 as kafa, as does R' Saadia Gaon in his Arabic translation to Devarim 24:19 - and I assume there's a connection between kafa and kaf (hand). And even in Hebrew the two words are related, as in Tehilim 129:7 -

שֶׁלֹּא מִלֵּא כַפּוֹ קוֹצֵר; וְחִצְנוֹ מְעַמֵּר.

"It will never fill a reaper's hand, nor an yield an armful for the gatherer of sheaves (me'amer)"

So what are the arguments of those who claim that omer in Vayikra means sheaf (or handful/armful)? Well, they would probably say that the burden of proof lies on those who want to claim otherwise. If it means sheaf - then the meaning of Vayikra 23:10 is clear:

דַּבֵּר אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם, כִּי-תָבֹאוּ אֶל-הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי נֹתֵן לָכֶם, וּקְצַרְתֶּם אֶת-קְצִירָהּ--וַהֲבֵאתֶם אֶת-עֹמֶר רֵאשִׁית קְצִירְכֶם, אֶל-הַכֹּהֵן.

"Speak to the Israelite people and say to them: When you enter the land that I am giving you and you reap its harvest, you shall bring the first sheaf [omer] of your harvest to the priest" (JPS translation)

But if omer is a unit of measure - then what exactly is being measured?

The Rabbis in their description of the omer service (Mishna Menachot chapter 10), complete the picture by integrating the offering described in Vayikra 2:14

וְאִם-תַּקְרִיב מִנְחַת בִּכּוּרִים, לַה'--אָבִיב קָלוּי בָּאֵשׁ, גֶּרֶשׂ כַּרְמֶל, תַּקְרִיב, אֵת מִנְחַת בִּכּוּרֶיךָ.

The JPS translates this as, "If you bring a meal offering of first fruits to the Lord, you shall bring new ears parched with fire, grits of the fresh grain, as your meal offering of first fruits". Levine in his JPS commentary points out that some of the same words appear in Vayikra 23:14 (קלוי, כרמל) and continues:

The similarity of our text to 23:14-17 has raised the question as to whether both texts are speaking of the same offerings. Both are called bikkurim, "first fruits", and most traditional commentators, including Rashi and Ramban, have argued for the identity of the two laws.

Rashi writes that the word "ki" should be read as "when", not as "if", making it the mandatory offering we find in chapter 23.

However, a number of challenges can be brought to show why these are two different offerings:

1) This article notes that in Vayikra 2, all the other offerings are voluntary, and none are calendar based. That makes it less likely that this one offering would be mandatory and brought at a specific time.

2) This article (page 374 in the original pagination) points out that in Vayikra 23:10, we find the phrase "omer reishit". The author points out that like all first fruits, they should be viewed not as a mincha (meal offering), but rather as a korban (sacrifice). However, Milgrom (quoted above) says that reishit actually refers to processed fruits:

The priestly texts distinguish very clearly between bikkurim and reshit (Num 18:12-13; cf. Ezek 44:30; Neh 10:36,38). The former is designated as first-ripened fruits; the latter as first-processed fruits. Thus the first of the grain kernels, wine and oil (Num 18:12) as well as fruit syrup (Lev 2:11-12; 2 Chr 31:5), leaven (Lev 2:11-12) and dough (Num 15:20-21; Neh 10:38) are termed reshit. Hence this term could not be applied to standing grain. Since it also cannot denote first ripe fruits, a meaning reserved for bikkurim, it takes on the connotation "first" in a temporal sense - the very first 'omer to be harvested.

While Milgrom clearly believes that the offering was a sheaf, I think that his arguments could actually be used to prove that the offering was processed grain - flour - as the rabbis claim.

3) Rav David Tzvi Hoffman writes that many of the menachot (meal offerings) were one tenth of an ephah - why weren't they called omer? And even in the section dealing with the omer offering, we find the mention of two tenths of an ephah (23:13) - וּמִנְחָתוֹ שְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרֹנִים - why isn't it called here "two omers" שְׁנֵי הָעֹמֶר as in Shmot 16:22?

In fact, even some of the Jewish commentaries such as Ibn Ezra and Shadal say that the plain meaning of Vayikra 2:14 is referring to a voluntary offering.

One interesting "proof" is brought by the Academy of the Hebrew Language in their pamphlet about the three festivals. They point out a comparison between the omer offering, and the Shavuot offering 50 days later. If we explain the word according to the understanding of the rabbis, we see a nice parallel between the two first fruit offerings:

. Omer Shavuot . grain brought barley wheat . form brought flour bread . amount 1 tenth of ephah 2 tenths of ephah

So if we view the omer offering as the beginning of a process, and the Shavuot offering as its culmination, then it makes sense that the omer would be a measure of flour - not a sheaf.

One other potential proof of the omer meaning here a tenth of an ephah comes from a comparison between the mahn and the omer offering. But we'll discuss that later.

An interesting third option is presented by Rabbi David Zvi Hoffman in his commentary on Vayikra 23:10 (quoted partially here by Nechama Leibowitz, and the full original German is here). He has difficulty accepting either the explanation of omer as "sheaf" or "measure" in this verse. He then quotes the Sifra on Emor (156):

והניף את העומר לפני ה' (ויקרא כג, יא) – ג' שמות יש לו: "עומר שבלים", "עומר תנופה", "עומר" שמו

The omer has three names: omer of the ears of grain, omer that is waved and omer as such.

R' Hoffman explains (based on the Raavad, and a similar view found in the Vilna Gaon's commentary) the Sifra as saying that in addition to the understanding of omer as sheaf ("ears of grain") in Devarim and Rut, and omer as a measure ("omer as such") in Shmot - the verses in Vayikra are talking about an independent third meaning - "omer that is waved". He writes that omer he should be translated as "gift" or "levy". He quotes Fleischer as saying that the Hebrew word meches מכס, meaning "tax, levy" has an Arabic cognate meaning "oppress", and so omer as "levy" could be cognate with the Hebrew verb עמר, which is also explained as meaning "oppress" (Devarim 21:14, 24:7).

While this theory helps avoid the conflict between the two prominent explanations of "omer", there are some serious issues. First of all, the Malbim in his commentary shows how all three names for omer mentioned in the Sifra are referring to Vayikra: "Omer as such" refers to the volume of the offering, "omer of the ears of grain" relates to how the grain was cut for the offering, and "omer that is waved" refers to the special requirement of waving that is only found with the omer meal offering (and that of the sotah).

However, there's even a bigger issue regarding R' Hoffman's interpretation - what was actually brought as the offering? His commentary seems to indicate that he follows the mishna, and that it was a meal offering, not a sheaf. So in the end, he too ends up on one side of the debate.

If R' Hoffman tried to split the word omer into three meanings, Abarbanel does the opposite. He writes that the verse in Vayikra is probably talking about a sheaf, but the yield of one sheaf of barley is approximately one tenth of an ephah. So by saying that the two meanings share a common etymology, he defuses the controversy - omer means both. This suggestion is also offered by Bechor Shor, Shadal on Shmot 16:36, and Mandelkern in his concordance.

I'm not sure whether or not the two meanings of omer have an etymological connection. Klein seems to indicate they don't. For omer as sheaf, he says it is "a metathesized form of ערם" - a verb meaning "to heap, pile". Gesenius writes that "heap" is the "primary sense of the Hebrew word", and HALOT goes so far as to say that sheaf should not be used for omer at all, but is reserved for aluma אלומה. (Mandelkern disagrees and writes that omer is connected to the Arabic word for coerce – so one forces all the stalks together and binds them in to a sheaf.)

As far as omer as a measure, Klein connects it to the Arabic ghumr - a small bowl (perhaps based on Driver). However, this site quotes the Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic as having the entry "غمر (ghumr) which means armful". We've seen before that armful is nearly identical with "sheaf", so this might mean the meanings have a common origin. And Steinberg writes that omer as measure might also derive from the root ערם - a "piled up measure".

Whether or not omer as sheaf and measure derive from a common root, I don't think it's as reasonable to say that they share a common meaning in the Torah. Omer as sheaf is measured, but not by the yield. In Masechet Peah, we find the laws of shichecha שכחה - the forgotten sheaves that are left for the poor (mentioned in Devarim 24:19 that we've quoted above). Mishna 6:6 says:

העומר שיש בו סאתיים, ושכחו--אינו שכחה
A sheaf which contains two se'ahs and was forgotten is not [considered to be] shichecha

The Yerushalmi explains:

א"ר אלעזר כתיב (דברים כב) כי תקצור קצירך בשדך ושכחת עומר בשדה עומר שאתה יכול לפשוט ידך וליטלו

Said Rabbi Elazar, "It is written (Devarim 24:19), 'When you reap the harvest in your field, and overlook a sheaf (omer) in the field [do not turn back to get it]' [This law refers to] a sheaf that you can reach back with your hand and take [but a sheaf too large for you to take your hand is not included in this law]

I think this law is very much in tune with the association we have seen between sheaf and handful that we have seen in many languages, including Hebrew. So if an omer meant any kind of measurement, it meant "a handful" (according to the mishna, not more than two se'ahs, and see this article as to why this is a question of volume, not weight).

So how do we resolve this issue? I think the answer lies in the fact that omer always appears in the Torah in an unusual manner. Why not just say isaron עשרון or tenth of an ephah when describing the mahn? Why not call it an aluma in Devarim? And most importantly, why use an ambiguous word in Vayikra?

I believe the Torah is trying to give us a message by using words this way. Had the word aluma been used in Vayikra, we would never have made any association between this offering and the mahn. But as these articles by Rabbi Frand, Rabbi Tzvi Shalva, and particularly by Erel Sharf (mentioned here, with a link to the ZIP file here) there is a very deep connection between the two.

They note that the mahn stopped the day they were obligated to bring the omer (Yehoshua 5:11-12). And Sharf writes that the purpose of the mahn was to help us realize that everything is from God – in the desert that meant all food was from Him. In the Land of Israel, there was human involvement via agriculture, but we still need to remember our dependence on God. So the word omer was used (according to Sharf an actual measure, but the message would still work if it meant sheaf but brought up the memory of the mahn.)

Similarly, immediately following the description of the omer offering are the mitzvot of peah and leket (already mentioned in chapter 19), which bring up the association of the mitzva forgetting the omer in the field (shichecha), which all emphasize passivity–and remind of the same educational message –that the land belongs to God. So with the use of one word, we are taught deep lessons about a number of commandments.

Now we can return to our second question - why did the issue of the meaning of omer receive less attention than the issue of the when the omer was brought? I think this is because the question of what omer meant was an issue of peshat vs derash (literal meaning vs exegisis) - but not a question of what was actually done. The Oral Law determined that a barley flour was offered as the omer, and that seems to have been widely accepted.

I have seen here and there sources that say that the Sadducees or other groups claimed that a sheaf should be brought. But I haven't found them very convincing. They are primarily based on the writings of Philo, does not describe the offering in detail - only calling it "the offering of the first ears, the sacred sheaf (dragma)" (2.11.41). But what did Philo base this on? Was it his understanding of the Torah or was he simply influenced by the Septuagint? Did he witness the sheaf being offered or have testimony as such, or was this a kind of misreading as we saw with Artscroll above?

In any case, Philo's contemporary, Josephus, also uses the term dragma to describe the offering, but then goes on to follow the opinion of the Rabbis:

They take a handful / sheaf (dragma) of the ears, and dry them, then beat them small, and purge the barley from the bran; they then bring one tenth deal to the altar, to God; and, casting one handful (draka) of it upon the fire, they leave the rest for the use of the priest.

So while the peshat of the verse in Vayikra may be talking about offering a sheaf, I think the halacha should clearly be a measure of volume.

Now that we know what the omer is (I hope!), it should be clear that there was only one omer offered, on the 16th of Nisan. The truth is that before I started researching this, I might have thought that an omer was offered each of the 49 days (and I've found a number of publications - 1, 2, 3 - who've made that mistake.) But aside from the verses themselves, the midrash in Vayikra Rabba 28 emphasizes how only one omer was brought:

R. Berachyah taught: The Holy One, blessed is He, said to Moshe: "Go and remind Israel that when I gave them the manna, I gave each and every one of them the measure of an omer, as the verse (Shemot 16:16) states: An omer for each person. But now that you offer the omer, I receive only one omer from all of you together!"

So if there is only one omer (per year), how do we "count the omer"? That should be a pretty short count - one!

The confusion is due to the unusual phrase "sefirat haomer" ספירת העומר that we find in the blessing recited before counting. I did a search of all Talmudic literature in the database of the Academy of the Hebrew Language, and only found it once - in Yerushalmi Megillah 2:6 -73c (the Bar-Ilan database also has it in Midrash Tanaim Devarim 16, but R' Hoffman corrects it to read "k'tzirat haomer" קצירת העומר). I then found a fascinating article by Prof. David Henshke called - מניין לספירת העומר מן התורה? (printed in the Sefer Hayovel for Rabbi Mordechai Breuer). He discusses when the practice of counting the omer verbally began. And discusses there how that source in the Yerushalmi should be viewed as being edited in much later. So the phrase was probably coined at the time of the Geonim.

If sefirat haomer doesn't mean "counting the omer" - what does it mean? I looked for other constructs with "sefirat" followed by a noun. One of the only ones I found was in Mishna Zavim 1:2, where it says l'sefirat zovo לספירת זובו, which means "counting after his flux". This seems like a very reasonable way to understand sefirat haomer as well, and in fact, we see that R' Louis Jacobs made that correction:

This practice is known as "counting the Omer," although, as we have seen, it is actually counting from the Omer.

(Noting that we count from the omer helps us to understand the disagreement between those who end their counting with la'omer לעומר vs those who end with ba'omer בעומר. The Taz 489 explains the Rama's position for saying ba'omer by saying that we count "in" the first day. But the Chok Yaakov says that only applies to the first day, not the entire counting period. The Shaarei Teshuva adds that the prefix lamed can indicate "from", as in Bamidbar 1.1 - בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ הַשֵּׁנִי בַּשָּׁנָה הַשֵּׁנִית, לְצֵאתָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם - "in the first day of the second month in the second year after they came out of the land of Egypt".)

I have found the form "to count the omer" לספור העומר in a number of Rishonim (Abudraham, Sefer HaAgur, Sefer HaIttur, the Ran and the Tur) and it is codified in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 489:1 - interestingly the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch corrects it to לספור ספירת העומר.)

Why is it so common (and so comfortable) to make this error? I think it is due to the mulitple uses of the semichut (construct) form in Hebrew. I've recently heard a number of people say in Hebrew (or in English translation) that they blessed the trees (בירכתי את האילנות) or that they blessed the sun (בירכתי את החמה). This is based on a misunderstanding of the phrases birkat ha'ilanot ברכת האילנות and birkat hachama ברכת החמה - they blessed God, not the trees or the sun. However, not all is lost, as few people would say that the were going to bless the food (לברך את המזון) when they are going to say birkat hamazon ברכת המזון.

The different uses of semichut led to this cute joke in Hebrew (sorry, but really won't work in translation):

ב"הפסקת עישון"- כולם מעשנים.

ב"הפסקת אוכל"- כולם אוכלים.

ב"הפסקת קפה"- כולם שותים.

אחר כך מתפלאים ש...

ב"הפסקת אש"-כולם יורים.

To conclude, I'd like to mention Henshke's interesting idea that there was no verbal sefirat haomer in the times of the Temple (and even after - he writes that it only began when the calendar was made static). He brings a popular question as to why sefirat haomer is followed by a prayer for the rebuilding of the temple, when other mitzvot that are also in memory of the Temple (like lulav on the last 6 days of sukkot) do not have such a prayer. He writes that perhaps sefirat haomer is unique because the entire practice was initiated in memory of the Temple; it wasn't performed at that time at all.

Today we have no omer offering - only the counting. But we can at least study what was done, and try to be as familiar with the omer offering as if we were living in those times...

Tweet

seder

We're all familiar with the seder סדר on Pesach, but the word seder in regards to the Pesach meal only appears first in Rashi's Sefer HaOrah. We find seder - meaning "arrangement" - in the Mishna in a context that is not exactly kosher for Passover - in the description of the lechem hapanim (showbread) in Masechet Menachot, chapter 2.

In the Torah (Vayikra 24:6) where it discusses the lechem hapanim it uses the synonym maarechet מערכת - meaning "set, row". Onkelos translates maarechet into Aramaic as seder, and both verbs - ערך and סדר - have the same meaning - "to order, arrange".

Other meanings of seder and sidra סדרה in Rabbinic Hebrew relate to an order or set of items - the sidrot - weekly Torah portions, the six sedarim of the Mishna, and the seder hamazalot סדר המזלות - the constellations. We also find in Rabbinic Hebrew reference to seder hatefila סדר התפילה - the order of the prayers (Rosh Hashana 17b), but the more common word for the prayerbook, siddur סידור, does not appear until Medieval times.

The word seder only appears once in the Tanach - in Iyov 10:22 as סדרים sedarim. There are those that feel that the word seder entered Hebrew from Aramaic, and is also related to the Akkadian sadaru.

Another theory is that seder is related to the Hebrew word שדרה - sdera - also meaning "row" and in Melachim II 11:8 means "a row of soldiers". In modern Hebrew it also means "boulevard, avenue" and Sderot שדרות is a town in Southern Israel famous for being attacked by Kassam rockets. It got its name from the rows of trees planted there at the founding of the State.

A common mistake in Hebrew is to pronounce שדרה as shdera and שדרות as Shderot (the latter has 12,000 hits on Google, with 300 on official government sites!) This is probably due to a confusion with the word שידרה shidra - "spinal column, backbone" - which also has a sense of something straight. However, according to Klein, shidra has a very different etymology: it is related to the word שזרה shizra (dalet and zayin can interchange), also meaning "backbone", which comes from the root שזר - "to interweave, intertwine, twist".

Tweet

atzeret

After Sukkot comes שמיני עצרת Shmini Atzeret (or Shemini Atseret or some similar spelling). We find the term first in Bamidbar 29:35:

בַּיּוֹם, הַשְּׁמִינִי--עֲצֶרֶת, תִּהְיֶה לָכֶם
"On the eighth day you will have an atzeret"

Similarly we find it mentioned in Vayikra 23:36:
בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי מִקְרָא-קֹדֶשׁ יִהְיֶה לָכֶם ... עֲצֶרֶת הִוא--כָּל-מְלֶאכֶת עֲבֹדָה, לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ
"On the eighth day you shall observe a sacred occasion ... it is an atzeret; you shall not work at your occupations"

The last day of Pesach is called atzeret in Devarim 16:8:
וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי, עֲצֶרֶת
"On the seventh day, an atzeret"

Additionally, in Rabbinic Hebrew, the holiday of Shavuot is known as Atzeret.

What is atzeret? It probably won't surprise you to read that there are a number of opinions:

a) Assembly, gathering: In Yeshayahu 1:13, we find the word atzara עצרה which has this meaning. Onkelos translates the word as כניש kenish - "gathering", which is related to the word בית הכנסת - beit haknesset, literally "house of gathering".

b) Stoppage of work: The gemara gives this explanation in Hagiga 9a and 18a: עצרת - עצור מעשיית מלאכה - "atzeret - stop doing work". This is the opinion of Ibn Ezra and Sforno.

c) Delay: This is Rashi's explanation, based on the Midrash where God asks us to stay with him just one day more. Radak in Sefer Hashorashim takes a similar approach, and says that those that went up to Jerusalem for Sukkot were delayed there for one more day. Rav David Tzvi Hoffman writes that while the earlier meanings are found in other books of the Bible, in the Torah עצר only means "to delay, to restrain". The modern Hebrew verb לעצור - "to arrest, to detain" is related to this meaning.

d) Conclusion: This is how the Septuagint translates the word into Greek: exodion, meaning "finale" (and related to the word "exodus".) Bula in Daat Mikra Vayikra says this meaning applies well to the last day of Pesach and Shavuot - which concludes the period of the Omer. Jastrow defines the term as "a festive gathering for the conclusion of a festive season, concluding feast".

Of the more modern scholars, Steinberg and Klein agree with "stoppage of work", while Kaddari offers "assembly".

The concept that atzeret has more than one explanation can help us understand a difference in the text of the Yaaleh V'Yavo prayer (as discussed here and here). When mentioning Shmini Atzeret, Nusach Ashkenaz says:
ביום השמיני חג העצרת הזה
while Nusach Sefard has:
ביום השמיני העצרת החג הזה

The Nusach Ashkenaz version refers to the chag of atzeret - a holiday on its own, which fits with the definitions of "assembly" or "stoppage of work".

The Nusach Sefard version, however, has "the atzeret of the chag", where chag would seem to refer to Sukkot. Therefore the atzeret mentioned would be either be the conclusion of Sukkot, or one additional delay after the seven days of Sukkot.

Tweet

etrog

In the Torah, we are commanded to take פרי עץ הדר - the fruit of the hadar tree. However, today we all know this fruit by a different name - אתרוג etrog (or ethrog or esrog). What is the etymology of this name?

Klein writes:

a loan word from Persian turnuj, whence also Arabic turunj, utrunj, utrujj

He adds that this is the root of the Spanish word toronja, meaning "grapefruit".

Mike Gerver elaborates on Klein in this Mail-Jewish discussion:

Etrog, on the other hand, is listed in the same book as borrowed from Persian turung or Mandaic trunga. (The form "etrunga" is found in Kiddushin 70a.) The Persian word, according to Chaim Rabin's article "Lexical Borrowings from Indian Languages as Carriers of Ideas and Technical Concepts" (in "Between Jerusalem and Benares: Comparative Studies in Judaism and Hinduism", page 25, edited by Hananya Goodman, SUNY Press) comes from Tamil, and is related to "matulankam" and "matulai" which mean pomegranate or lemon. (In modern Tamil, pomegranate is "matulanpazham," where "pazham" means ripe fruit.) Rabin says that there is no similar word in Sanskrit, suggesting that etrogs were originally found only in southern India where Tamil and other Dravidian languages are spoken, and only spread to northern India and Persia in a later period (after Sanskrit). I'm not sure what this implies about the question of whether "pri etz hadar" always meant only the etrog, and whether the "etz hadaat" could have been an etrog. It is quite possible, of course, that "trunga" did not mean an etrog, but a different kind of fruit, at the time the word was borrowed from Dravidian, and that it was this other fruit that was only found in southern India. The "kam" at the end of "matulankam" (and hence the "nga" at the end of "trunga") are presumably related to "kaay" meaning "fruit" in modern Tamil. The same root is apparently found in the Persian word "naranga" (source of "naranja" in Spanish and hence "orange" in French and English), which was also borrowed from a Dravidian language. In modern Tamil, "naru" means "smelly," so "naranga" could mean "fragrant fruit." (Words that mean "fragrant" tend to evolve to mean "smelly" in any language.) Oranges are thought to have come to the Middle East and Europe from northern India, according to the Encyclopedia Brittanica, and to there from southern China and Indochina, so the question arises as to why the word would be borrowed from a Dravidian language. One possibility is that the word dates back to the period before the Indo-European conquest of India, when Dravidian languages were spoken in Northern India as well. So the "g" in etrog would be cognate with the "g" in orange.

The Gemara that Mike quotes is a fascinating one for those interested in language. It contains a dialogue between Rav Nachman and Rav Yehuda, where Rav Nachman insists on using "fancier" words, instead of the more commonly used ones. For example, Rav Nachman calls a fence a גונדריתא gundarita. Rav Yehuda asks, why couldn't you use the Biblical מעקה ma'akeh or the Rabbinic מחיצה mechitza? Similarly, Rav Nachman uses the term etrunga אתרונגא , and Rav Yehuda accuses him of being snobby for not using either the Rabbinic etrog or the common Aramaic etroga אתרוגא. Whatever your opinion of Rav Nachman's linguistic approach (and I'm sure many of us know people who like to do the same), he certainly seemed to use a word closer to the original Persian. And in the Yerushalmi (Gittin chapter 3, and Sukkah chapter 3) actually uses the term תרונגא trunga.

Tweet

netila

While most people use the night after Yom Kippur to begin building their sukkah, I prefer to begin by hammering out posts relating to the upcoming holiday. I have a bunch of topics planned, but if you have any Sukkot related language questions - please post them in the comments.

The verse where we receive the mitzva of lulav (Vayikra 23:40) says:
וּלְקַחְתֶּם לָכֶם בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן, פְּרִי עֵץ הָדָר כַּפֹּת תְּמָרִים, וַעֲנַף עֵץ-עָבֹת, וְעַרְבֵי-נָחַל

"On the first day you shall take ( u'lkachtem ) the product of hadar trees, branches of palm trees, boughs of leafy trees and willows of the brook"

Kutscher asks an important question. If the verb in the verse is לקח - why is the blessing על נטילת לולב - al netilat lulav? Why is the root נטל used instead of לקח? Both would seem to mean "to take".

His explanation is that while in Biblical Hebrew לקח meant "to take", by the time the Rabbis coined the blessing, the verb - from Akkadian influence - meant only "to buy". And the halacha is that one need not buy the lulav - it can come from hefker (i.e. have no previous owner) or be received as a gift. (I recently heard from Prof. Moshe Bar-Asher that Kutscher heard this idea from a high school student of his, who later became a famous rabbi - Mordechai Breuer).

What is "taken" in the ritual washing of the hands known as "netilat yadayim" נטילת ידים ? Kehati offers two possible explanations in his introduction to Masechet Yadayim:

a) Netilat yadayim refers to the taking of the water in the utensil used to wash the hands, and therefore refers to washing hands with a utensil. Kehati here quotes the Tosfot Yom Tov and Malechet Shlomo. Mark Steiner explains this approach here:

On the expression netilat yadayim: the expression seems to me to be elliptical for "netilat mayim leyadaim" (what is taken is water, not the hands). In Tractate Yadayim, the object of the verb "netila" is always mayim [water], not the hands, as in Yadayim 1:1 "natal [mayim] leyado ahat", Yadayim 1:2 "natal [hamayim] harishonim lemakom ehad," etc. In short, netalat yadayim is simply an elliptical expression for "taking water FOR the hands."

b) The action netilat yadayim comes from the Aramaic word natla נטלא - the vessel used for washing hands. The word natla, in turn, comes from the Greek antlion (bucket). Klein rejects this etymology of natla, and says it derives from נטל and should be viewed literally as "that which is lifted" or "that which is taken". A description and picture of a Greek antlia - machine for raising water - can be found here, and from this Greek root we also get the name of the constellation Antlia.

Tweet