Tag Info

New answers tagged

3

No, Modern Hebrew, the contemporary spoken and written language, is not identical with Biblical Hebrew, the version[s] of the language in which Tanach was written. Hebrew, like all natural languages, has evolved over time from the times of Tanach until today, and on top of that, Modern Hebrew is the result of an intentional revival and modernization of the ...


0

The Hebrew used in the Tanakh is often the source for most of Modern Hebrew. However, influences of history have changed the modern day Hebrew in ways that are not always so noticeable. For Example: A lot of Aramaic has slipped its way into modern Hebrew, even down to the most basic words. Father in Tanakh: "Av" Father in Modern Hebrew: "Abba" (Aramaic) ...


1

See the introduction to the Jerusalem Bible by Koren Publishers. They go to great lengths to explain how they crafted a font so as to solve the issue you raise: they differentiate between the Cholem and the Shin/Sin dots by height and weight so that you can see both - and not confuse them. So, as DoubleAA already commented, what you are referring to is ...


0

El means power. It is used as a descriptiona as well as a name for G-d, humans, angels and even pagan gods. The plural of el is elim (powers or gods), and not “elohim." Hebrew has a full conjugation (with different forms for 1st, 2nd and 3rd person, singular and plural, masculine and feminine). A noun by itself isn't plural (so an "im" ending doesn't ...


6

The Ibn Ezra (cited by the Malbim as being in Parshas Bo, but I assume he means to refer to his comments to Shemos 3:15) explains that ה' צבא-ות refers to Hashem being the upholder of the צבא השמים. The Radak to Yeshaya 6:3 says that it refers to the armies on High and below. The Malbim to Yeshaya 6:3 (you can see it here), in explaining the line ק' ק' ק' ...


8

See here for more. Biblical Hebrew employs a rule called the "vav ha-hipuch." The preceding "v'" flips the tense from past to future, or vice versa. Thus "yehi chen", it will be so; "vayhi chen", it was so. "Amar Paroh", Pharaoh said; "v'amar Paroh livnei yisrael" -- Pharoh will say regarding the Jews. "Moshe yedaber", Moses would speak. "Vaydaber Moshe" ...


5

I have no source for this answer besides for my understanding of Hebrew. I'm pretty sure that there's an implicit (elliptical [h/t Yishai]) object here. We see this by the use of the definite article ה. Also, notice how we translate it: The Holy One Blessed Be He. Here, holy is clearly an adjective, describing the object one. In Hebrew, the object is ...


-2

Assuming the writing in the painting is Ketav 'Ivri, which I humbly propose is quite clear, the incorrect letter in the painting is the final one. The verse in Daniel ends with the word "ופרסין" ("ufarsin"), spelled with a final Nun ("Nun Sofit") to indicate a plural noun. The Nun Sofit, in Ketav 'Ivri, should resemble the rightmost letter in the following ...


0

Is one word a noun and the other an adjective? Yes, exactly. Wiktionary explains that קדוש is an adjective, and קודש is a noun. So, קְדֹשִׁ֤ים יִהְיוּ֙ לֵאלֹ֣הֵיהֶ֔ם means they shall be holy (adj.) to their God. וְהָ֥יוּ קֹֽדֶשׁ means they shall be holy (n.).


2

The Gemara in Berachot 13a says that there is a dispute about whether the Torah was given in Lashon ha-Kodesh or in every language. The Shitah Mekubetzet ibid. cites the Ra'avad who explains that the question is about Torah study: if the Torah was given in every language, one can study it in every language, but if it was not, then one only fulfills והגית בו ...


0

In terms of the difference between the tow words for what we call in English, "work" here are some quotes from websites exploring this: http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/95906/jewish/Melacha-A-Unique-Definition-of-Work.htm "The Hebrew language has two words for "work"--avodah and melachah. Avodah is a general term meaning work, while ...


6

The word is אֵת. When the word is "joined" with the next word with a makaf "־" then they become treated as one long word, and there is no longer an accent on that syllable. Unaccented closed syllables (unlike accented closed syllables) take short vowels, so the vowel shifts to its shorter counterpart: tzere -> segol. You can also see this same phenomenon in ...


12

When the word stands on its own, with its own trup-mark, it's אֵת, with a tzeireh. When it's attached to the next word with a dash and therefore does not have its own trup-mark, it's אֶת, with a segol. I think I learned this in high school; unfortunately, I don't know a more precise source. I'm not sure what would be the underlying reason behind some ...


2

To summarize from Yishai's answer, the Talmud says there was something funny about the way it was written; "in columns" is one possible interpretation. Assuming Manasseh ben Israel gave Rembrandt a sketch of what the letters should look like, I'd find it far more likely that Rembrandt was faithful to the sketch he was given (i.e. it was in columns) than that ...


12

The discussion is in the Talmud Sanhedrin 22a. The background is the disagreement among the Rabbis if the Torah was originally in Ivri or Ashuri. The Talmud says that according to the view that it was in Ivri, Ashuri script was first seen when the Angel wrote it on the wall, thus the Jews were not familiar with it - this is why they couldn't read it. ...



Top 50 recent answers are included