A Semantic Differentiated Approach to Relational Words

This paper studies relational words, that is, words which neither refer to objects (e.g. nouns), activities (e.g. verbs), emotional reactions (e.g. interjections), or their properties (e.g. adjectives and adverbs), but rather, the words define, clarify, connect, and relate different parts of the sentence or narrative. Examples illustrating relational words within a single sentence are found among conjunctions, prepositions, and some adverbs: e.g. because, to, from, on, after, since, despite. It will be convenient throughout the paper to refer to these types of words as connectives.¹ Additionally, some relational words may not even have meaning, such as the biblical Hebrew word eth which indicates that the following word functions as the object of the verb of the underlying sentence, as in, for example, the verse kabed eth avichah ve-eth imechah (honor your father and mother (Ex. 20:12)); the word eth itself has no meaning (i.e. the sentence would read fine without it), but rather it serves to mark or indicate the function of the next word. The linguists call these words markers. They can connect passages both within single sentences and entire narratives.

Besides connectives and markers there is a third class of relational words connecting parts of the broader narrative. To fully explain this third category, we introduce concepts from the recent new field of pragmatics. Pragmatics argues that completely understanding sentences does not suffice to understand the biblical narrative; we must also understand the relationship between sentences, paragraphs, chapters, narrative scenes, and the underlying context to fully understand the bible. Although pragmatics is comprehensive in seeking understanding through study of the entire context of a word, in this paper, we are only interested in how pragmatics changes our perception of word function. The following two examples succinctly clarify the contrast of traditional grammar and pragmatics. Jacob said to Laban…Why have you deceived me (Gen. 29:25). Laban said: (because) it is not the local custom to marry the younger daughter before the older (Gen. 29:26). Classical grammar explains that the word why functions as an interrogative adverb in verse 25. Pragmatics points out or emphasizes that why also connects or relates v25, the question, with an expected response which in fact is presented in v26. The pragmatist asserts that a major function of why in verse 25 is to alert the reader that a future sentence, in fact verse 26, is expected which relates to verse 25. For purposes of this paper, what is important is that why connects and relates parts of the narrative.

Va-yehi provides another example with distinct single sentence and multiple-sentence functions. In a sentence like I Samuel 28:16, va-yehi functions as a verb indicating becoming: God has turned from you and has become (va-yehi) your enemy. Contrastively, in I Samuel 20:24, va-yehi does not function by indicating becoming; it functions to indicate the temporal sequence of a collection of sentences. Indeed, if vayehi is translated as becoming, I Samuel 20:24 would be translated David hid in the fields, the new month came (va-yehi), and the king sat at the new month meal which might incorrectly indicate that the new month came immediately after David hid. Translating vayehi with a multi-sentence function translates I Samuel 20:24 as David hid in the fields, and then (va-yehi) (when) the new month came, the king sat at the new month meal which more correctly indicates that David was hiding for some time before the incidents that happened at that meal occurred. For purposes of this article va-yehi functions as a verb in 1 Sam 28:16 but as a relational word in I Samuel 20:24.²

To recap, the common denominator of connectives, markers, and words with pragmatic function is that they do not refer to the real world (objects, emotions, activities, and their attributes) but rather refer to connection and relation between parts of the narrative. Since the term connective technically refers to a within-sentence connective, we chose to indicate the commonality of these three categories using the term relational.

Of specific interest to this article are the situations where a single Hebrew relational word is naturally translated into multiple English words or conversely where multiple Hebrew relational words are translated into a single English word. In such a case, the multiple Hebrew relational words might be classified as different forms of the same word; the article brings sources suggesting that the multiple Hebrew forms of the same word may have multiple and distinct nuances. The article is organized as a series of examples, with the introductory example in the next section familiar to students of Rashi. Throughout the article we emphasize the degree of support and proof for suggested alternate meanings to alternate forms. The article explores (i) examples with minimal support, (ii) examples, which although not solving textual problems, have stronger support because of the clarification they bring to the textual narrative, (iii) examples which nicely solve textual problems, and (iv) examples requiring study and classificatory research of the biblical examples illustrating it.

The Varied Multiple Meanings and Nuances of Ki

This example, brought first because of its familiarity, also emphasizes the continuously evolving nature of interpretation of relational words. The Talmud presents four meanings (if, perhaps (possibly), rather, because); Rashi expands on these by adding two more (that, when); Malbim further expands by pointing out that the pair ki-im can indicate an initial broad statement of a principle followed by a bulleted collection of cases; BDB a modern dictionary adds several more meanings of ki (an indication of quotation, emphasis, an oath, contrastive, even-though, despite).³ Biblical examples are numerous: Sarah denied [she laughed] saying, “I did not laugh,” because (ki) she was afraid; He [Abraham] said, “No! Rather [ki] you laughed. (Gen. 18:15); When (ki) a person from amongst you offers an offering to God, [then] it shall be [taken] from animals, from cattle and penned animals (Lev. 1:2); perhaps (ki) you will say to yourself, “These nations are more numerous than me; How can I conquer them?” Don’t be afraid of them . . . (Deut. 7:17). God saw that (ki) the light was good (Gen. 1:4), She conceived again and bore a child, she said “God heard (Shamah) that I was hated”; she named him Shimon (Gen. 29:33) (the quotation is indicated by (ki)), If you don’t bring Benjamin) then I swear by the life of Pharoh, “You are spies” (Gen. 42:16), Don’t abuse at all any widow or orphan; if you (dare) abuse him, surely (ki) I will hear his prayers (Ex. 22:22); When (ki) they have a matter (needing resolution) they come to me (Ex. 18:16). Even though (ki) I have fallen, I will rise (Mi. 7:8), or We are prepared: We will go to the place God said even though (despite) (ki) we have sinned (Num. 14:40).

Examples with Minimal Support

This section presents examples without, or with minimal, support. We have, in the opening paragraphs of the article, become familiar with words like eth which although having no meaning serve to mark and indicate grammatical function as in the verse Honor (eth) your father and (eth) your mother (Ex. 20:12). Shimon Imsoni (possibly Nehmia Imsoni) and other scholars such as Rabbi Akiva, scholars living during the Talmudic period, set forth the thesis that eth has relational meaning: it indicates a broader or expansive interpretation of the word following it (TB Pesachim 22b). Thus honor your father and mother would be interpreted literally and restrictively: the requirement is only to honor those two individuals, while honor (eth) your father and (eth) your mother would be interpreted expansively and broadly, honor any family father or mother figures and hence would apply the honor-requirements of Jewish law to one’s older siblings.

Although the suggested approach adds nuances to biblical readings, it does not solve any textual problems. One can read the entire bible smoothly without ever encountering a problematic text requiring an expansive reading. Thus, the suggested approach has no support. Consistent with this lack of support, modern dictionaries such as BDB only mention the marker function of eth (meanings #1 and #2 of eth) but do not mention the expansive interpretation suggested in the Talmud.

Another example without biblical support is afforded by the Malbim, a 19th century scholar living during the beginning of the enlightenment period. He wrote commentaries on the entire Bible as well as a book on synonym nuances. He suggests a semantic versus a form difference to mi – min, the prefix and word meaning from: a prefix mem should be translated, as from while the word min should be translated as from some or from select. Consistent with this approach, Malbim translates Lev. 1:2 as when a human amongst you offers an offering to God, [then] from select animals: from select cattle or from select penned animals, you should offer your offerings. The nuances of from select vs. from suggests that not all cattle or penned animals may be offered. This creates an unspecified emphasis; we are told something is excluded but not told the specifics.⁴ Malbim citing the Sifrah provides the details of what types of animals are excluded from worship: unblemished animals who have been worshiped, who have killed people, or used for purposes of intimacy, may not be offered. In other words, the unspecified emphasis is concretized with the exclusion of animals participating in major crimes for which there is a death penalty.

Although Malbim uses this principle throughout his commentary, there is no proof text that would force this interpretation upon us. Rather, it is an insight that enriches the traditional reading with meaningful nuances. Indeed, min occurs 710 times in Tanakh; although we can read into these passages nuances, it is not clear the extent that these readings conform to the intent of the author. Malbim, however, does have minimal support for his thesis since it explains the approach of the Sifrah, which consistently inferred very reasonable exegetical nuances of exception from min such as the preclusion of animals that have sinned from being offered. Consistent with this weak support, modern dictionaries such as BDB offer form distinctions as determining prefix mem versus min and only list the partitive meaning, from (BDB, Min, meaning #3).

Examples with Pragmatic Support

This section presents examples where the support comes from pragmatic relational words or markers that connect parts of narrative.

Cook⁵ points out that there are three main problems addressed by modern grammarians and pragmatists, one of them being the difference (if any) between say the past conjugation (e.g. pakad) and the future conjugation with a prefixed (i.e. consecutive) vav (e.g. va-yiphkod). The medieval grammarians believed that these were two alternate forms, both indicating the past. However, modern grammarians and pragmatists present a rich and varied collection of theories on different nuances of these two forms (e.g. Waltke and O’Connor, Section 33.2.1). We can illustrate using the biblical-structure of Gen 18 through Gen 21.

Angels announce to Abraham that Sarah, his wife, will give birth in a year

Abraham prays that Sedom and Amorah not be destroyed provided a core of righteous people live in the city

Angels arrive in Sedom and urge Lot to leave the city which is about to be destroyed

Sedom and Amorah are destroyed, Lot flees, and is saved

Abraham journeys to Gerar where the King, believing that Abraham’s wife is his sister, attempts to marry her

A year later, Abraham’s wife, Sarah, gives birth to a son.

As can be seen, scenes (A) and (F) are naturally connected. However, they are “interrupted” by scenes B – E. Such interruptions of the temporal sequence of scenes are common in all literature; when used skillfully by an author these interruptions can have great effect. When the temporal sequence is broken, each language may use any of several literary devices to alert the reader that they are continuing a previous scene. The discourse-pragmatic school states that one method of indicating scene resumption in Biblical Hebrew is to begin the scene with a past conjugation (pakad) followed by future conjugations with the consecutive vav (va-ya’as, va-tahar, va-talayd, va-yikrah…).

The strength of this approach to biblical readings lies in the added clarity given to the reader.

Our next example is also a contribution of the discourse-pragmatic approach. It seems to have been first suggested by Malbim (Commentary to Lev 1:2, comment #12). BDB formulates the technique as follows: the structure of a unit of biblical discourse with a broad unifying theme followed by various alternatives can be indicated by opening the narrative with ki and then beginning each alternative with im.⁶ Following BDB, the perhaps clearest example of this is Ex. 21:1-6 whose structure is as follows:

The cases (Ki) of purchasing a Hebrew slave…

(Im) If he is purchased while single…

(Im) If he is purchased while married….

(Im) If the purchaser gives him a wife…

(Im) If the purchased servant does not want to go free…

This example, in modern orthography, would be indicated by a bulleted paragraph as shown. Malbim also applies this ki-im interpretation to chapter-paragraph structures which modern orthography skillfully indicates using differing font sizes and white space.

For example, Chapter 1 of Leviticus begins with when (ki) a person from amongst you offers an offering to God, [then] from the animals, cattle and penned animals offer your offerings. Chapter 1 deals with elevation (olah) offerings and has three sections, each beginning with im: (i) If (im) his elevation offering comes from cattle . . . (verse 2), (ii) If (im) his offering comes from the penned animals (verse 10), (iii) if (im) his offering comes from the birds (verse 14). Chapter 3 dealing with peace offerings and chapter 4 dealing with sin offerings has the same structure.⁷

In these examples, although the text reads fine without the chapter-section distinction or without the past-conjugation – consecutive vav distinction, the suggested approach to the biblical reading just made adds organizational clarity to the reader similar to techniques used in modern orthography. Hence, the suggestion, supported by many examples, is believable.

We also emphasize that these structures were not seen by the medieval grammarians who focused exclusively on the sentence. As indicated in the opening paragraphs of this article, the discourse-pragmatists felt an exclusive focus on sentence does not suffice to understand the biblical narrative; there should be focus on the entirety of the narrative including the relationship of various parts and scenes. Therefore, they do not see the ki, im, consecutive vav as conditional words; rather, they see them as words with relational pragmatic implications.

Examples Which Resolve Textual Difficulties

Both the Hebrew words, LAM-mah and la-MAH are translated as “why?” Hirsch (Commentary to Exodus 32:11-12) summarizes the medieval approach to the two forms: “If the next word begins with an aleph, hey, or ayin then the word is written la-MAH while otherwise it is written, LAM-mah.”⁸ In other words, the classical medieval grammatical explanation is based on form, in this case, the letters of the following word.

Hirsch proposes an alternate rule based on meaning. La-MAH means “why,” “what is the reason or cause,” while LAM-mah means “for what purpose,” “what is the expected outcome.”

Hirsch defends his approach by citing several verses where one of these two translations why or for what purpose doesn’t make sense in context (because the answer is obvious). He therefore concludes that the verse took the form indicating the non-obvious meaning. Some examples might be the following: (i) Jacob said to them (his children), “Why (la-MAH) did you tell the person that you have a brother?” (Gen. 43:6). Here, the translation of la-MAH as what will come from this is inappropriate since Jacob knew what might happen (he might lose Benjamin). Rather Jacob asked why they volunteered the information; hence, the la-MAH form. (ii) (After the sin of the golden calf) Moses said to God, “What will happen (be the consequences) (LAM-mah) of God getting angry at His nation (Ex. 32:11). Hirsch argues that translating LAM-mah as “why?” is inappropriate since we know why God is getting angry, the Jews worshipped an idolatrous object. More appropriate, in the context of the narrative of Moses interceding to change God’s mind, is pointing out that the consequences of God getting angry might be the destruction of the Jewish people; hence the LAM-mah form.

Interestingly, there is another semantic approach to the LAM-mah form: Shemot Rabbah (43:7) interprets this verse as follows: “Moses said, if this golden calf has no powers why are you angry they worshipped it.” We can explain the Midrash as interpreting LAM-mah as a rhetorical why, that is, Moses negated the assumption on which God’s anger rested. Another example of a why that is rhetorical may be found in I Samuel 1:8, where Elkanah, seeing his wife Chanah crying because her co-wife Peninah teased her on her lack of children, says Chanah, “Why (LA-meh) do you cry? . . . Am I not better towards you than 10 children.” In other words, Elkanah rhetorically questioned the apparent assumption of Channah that her lack of children made her inferior to Peninah.

In summary: The medieval grammarians explained the LAM-mah la-MAH distinction based on form; both Hirsch and the Midrash offer alternative semantic differentiations: la-MAH means why in the sense of what is the cause while LAM-mah according to Hirsch means what will be the consequences while according to Shemot Rabbah it indicates a rhetorical why. A third approach is presented in modern dictionaries: BDB, (entry mah) gives two translations for lamah: why (meaning #4(d)), and expostulation, deprecations, and rhetorical as in the English translation lest (meaning #4(e)); however, BDB does not attempt to correlate the multiple meanings with any forms.

Examples Requiring Research

The last three examples of the paper illustrate how further research uncovers subtleties and nuances of translation. The first example deals with the two conditionals for when, ki and prefix-beth. Seven verses begin commandments with when you come to the land (ki thavou) (Ex. 12:25, Lev. 14:34, 19:23, 23:10, 25:2, Num. 15:2, Deut. 26:1) while one verse Numbers 15:18 formulates using the phrase upon coming to the land (be-voachem el ha-aretz). Since Deuteronomy 26:1 continues when you come to the land that God your Lord gives you and you conquer it and inhabit it, we conclude that the ki thavou form makes conquest a prerequisite for the commandment performance (Rashi, Num. 15:18). Contrastively, the biblical command listed in Numbers 15:18, was required immediately upon entry to the land even before conquest (Sifre Numbers 15:18).

Malbim (Lev 1:2, Comment #12) reviews all instances of upon…ing (beth coupled with the infinitive or gerund form). He suggests three uses of this phrase: Durative: It indicates an ongoing requirement versus a one-time requirement. For example, upon coming to the Temple of Meeting they should wash themselves (Ex. 30:20) indicating a continuing requirement. Immediacy: According to the midrash just cited, when you come (ki thavou) could refer to the moment of coming or to the completion of the act of coming (after conquest and inhabitance) while upon coming (be-voachem) indicates immediately, at the point of entry. Inevitability: This mirrors the same distinction between when and if; while both indicate the conditional; when indicates an expected condition, while if indicates a possible condition. Malbim (ibid.) points out that inevitability refers both to real-world inevitability, for example, upon (be..) harvesting your land’s harvest (Lev. 23:22), as well as the inevitability arising from a commandment, as in upon (be..) offering a new Minchah to God (Num. 28:26). Notice that this analysis is much more thorough than found in BDB (beth, meaning #4) which only lists direction indicating finally arriving at (into) a destination.

The next example shows that semantic differentiation may (i) require subsetting our initial goals and (ii) depend on the reading of the texts by the researcher. Genesis Rabbah (44:5) states a controversy seeking to differentiate the meanings of the phrase achar ha-devarim ha-eleh and acharay ha-deveraim ha-eleh: “Rabbi Yudan and Rabbi Huna both cited Yosi Ben Zimra: Rabbi Yudan states that achar implies nearby while acharay implies distantly; Rabbi Huna states that acharay implies nearby; acahar implies distantly.”

On first blush we might wish to interpret this midrash indicating the dimension of time; achar would mean immediately afterwards while acharay would mean sometimes after. But applying the rule that acharay means sometimes afterwards, to the verse, the first of Rivkah’s twins was ruddy, like a hairy coat…and they called him Esav; and sometime afterwards (acharay) came his brother grasping Esav’s ankle, and he called his name Jacob (Gen. 25:25-26), contradicts this differentiation dependent on time since, clearly, the two births were immediately sequential (Genesis Rabbah ibid, Yefay Toar).

The Yefay Toar (ibid.) suggests an interpretation of the Midrashic principle by looking at a subset of the examples: The rule refers not to the individual words achar and achary but to the phrases acahar hadevarim ha-eleh and acharay hadevarim ha-eleh; moreover, the rule does not indicate temporal relationship (immediate or distant) but rather indicates whether the passage introduced by the acahar(ay) ha-devarim ha-eleh phrase is related to the immediately preceding material: Rabbi Yudan’s approach is that the phrase beginning with achar indicates a logical connection and consequence of the immediately preceding narrative while the phrase beginning with acharay indicates a new scene unrelated to the preceding narrative. Rabbi Huna indicates the complementary position.

There are only 8 occurrences of achar ha-devarim ha-eleh in Tanakh. In some of them the idea of connection to the previous passage is clear: e.g. (i) As a consequence (achar) of Abraham conducting a successful military campaign he was presumably concerned that the might have killed someone he shouldn’t have; hence, God appeared to Abraham and assured him he had much merit (Gen. 15:1); (ii) As a consequence (achar) of Joseph’s success in his master’s house and his attention to appearance and grooming, his master’s wife wanted to have an affair with him (Gen. 39:7); (iii) As a consequence of Achashverosh prohibiting his wife Vashti to appear in the palace, and when Achashverosh’s anger subsided, he realized he didn’t have a wife and he arranged for virgins to compete for the royal position (Esther 2:1-3). Some passages, however, require exegetical ingenuity to interpret acahar ha-devarim ha-eleh as meaning as a consequence of what just happened; e.g. (iii) As a consequence (achar) of Abraham making a treaty with the Philistines, God tested him (because he should rely on God not on treaties) (Gen. 22:1, see Ibn Ezra); (iv) As a consequence (achar) of Joseph being falsely imprisoned, (God arranged that) the royal butler and baker were thrown into his prison (which ultimately led to Joseph being saved) (Gen. 40:1, see Rashi).

Similarly, acharay ha-devarim ha-eleh only occurs three times in the Bible and the interpretation that acharay refers to something unrelated seems reasonable. For example, preparing us or the next chapter where Isacc gets married the text mentions that Bethuel had several children one of which was Isaac’s wife. This passage does not seem to have anything to do with the immediately preceding chapter dealing with the sacrifice of Isaac (Gen. 22:20).

This example is interesting and perhaps typical. There are only 11 verses involved and suggested interpretations don’t neatly fit all of them. Thus, each researcher reflects their reading of the narratives. Interestingly, according to this reading of the Midrash by the Yefay Toar, the semantic differentiation between the words achar and acharay remains unsolved.⁹ The modern dictionaries such as BDB (achar, meaning 1(b)) only mention the achar ha-devarim ha-eleh form and do not mention the acharay ha-deverarim ha-eleh form (which only occurs 3 times) at all. BDB interprets the acahar ha-devarim ha-eleh temporally, immediately afterwards, but does not mention its relation to the immediately preceding narrative.

For our last example, we introduce a novelty to illustrate how the idea of semantic differentiation of relational words can be used by readers and researchers. We start with a comment of Rashi (commentary to Genesis 46:01, Exodus 15:23), who describes two methods to indicate the preposition to: either by a prefix lamed or a suffix hey,¹⁰ without any further elaboration on the possible semantic difference between these two methods. Examining many verses seems to suggest that the terminal hey approach emphasizes both motion to and arrival at a destination, while the prefix lamed approach seems to emphasize direction, possibly without even knowing the destination or the possibility of intermediate occurrences before arrival.

A clear example of the terminal hey indicating arrival is found in Genesis 44:14, Judah and his brothers arrived (lit. came) to Joseph’s house (baythah Yosef). Many other verses with the verb to come (boh) similarly use a terminal hey to indicate arrival (e.g. Gen. 19:01, Ex. 15:23, Gen. 46:01). However, the terminal hey can also occur with other verbs (e.g. Gen. 37:17).

Contrastively, the prefix lamed (or the word el) will be used if one has direction but is unaware of the destination as in Genesis 22:3 Abraham got up and travelled in the direction that God had commanded him (Recall in v. 2 that God emphasized that He would show him the place at some future moment). Prefix lamed is also used if there are important intermediate events prior to arrival such as in Genesis 24:10 where Eliezer ‘parked’ his camels and prayed prior to arriving at the wells or in Numbers 16:25 where prior to Moses’ arrival at Dathan and Aviram’s tent the text clarifies that the elders of the community joined Moses. Thus, the suggested semantic differentiation seems to fit many cases. Further research could either confirm the rule as is or suggest added nuances.

Modern scholars point out that the dictionaries often devote only a small amount of space to this phenomenon; one paper takes a historical-grammatical approach correlating the two forms with when they are used and with the syntax of the words they are suffixed to.¹¹

Conclusion

This article has examined several instances where differentiation of two biblical Hebrew connective forms was semantic. We showed a wide array of examples with four suggested levels of proof or support. We both innovated as well as cited Talmudic, medieval, and modern scholarship. We encourage readers to use these tools and perspectives in their own studies and to come up with novel exegesis.

Footnotes

1. Medieval Hebrew, inheriting classifications from the Arab grammarians and Aristotle, used a 3-part classification: Noun-items, Verb-items, and Connective words. Radak, Michlool, calls the three categories poalim (verbs), shaymoth (names, actually nouns), and millim which literally translated means words. Other authors use the translation particle. For expositional purposes I have used the term connectives emphasizing that the purpose of these words is not to refer to the real world as do verbs and nouns, but to connect various parts of sentences and phrases. For discussions on the 3-part classification adopted by the medieval Jewish grammarians see Anthony J. Klijnsmit, “Some Seventeenth-Century Grammatical Descriptions of Hebrew,” Histoire Epistemologie Language, 12-I (1990). However, other approaches than the 3-part classification are possible such as found for example in Shmuel Bolozky and Ruth Berman, “Chapter 9, Parts of Speech categories in the lexicon of Modern Hebrew,” in Ruth Berman (Ed.), Usage-Based Studies in Modern Hebrew: Background, Morpho-lexicon, and Syntax, pp. 265-330 (John Benjamin Publishing Company, 2020). Similarly, although it is well known, and in fact found in many textbooks, that English grammar classifies words into eight categories traditionally known as the eight parts of speech: noun, adjective, verb, adverb, preposition, conjunction, pronoun, and interjection (John E. Kierzik, The Practice of Composition, 3rd edition, Part I, Chapter 7 (NY, NY: Macmillan, 1951)), other approaches are possible. In fact, in modern times, computer scientists, in their attempt to computerize natural language, have contributed to the classification of parts of speech; as a simple example, they have broadened our understanding of language by pointing out the complexities of the adjective. To appreciate the difficulties raised by the adjective consider the simple adjective-noun phrase toy gun. Unlike a red ball referring to a ball that is red, a toy gun is not a gun. The toy in toy gun is called a privative adjective since it deprives the noun of its meaning. See for example, Nabil Abdullah & Richard Frost, “Adjectives: A Uniform Semantic Approach” In B. Kégl, & G. Lapalme (Eds.), Advances in Artificial Intelligence. 18th Conference of the Canadian Society for Computational Studies of Intelligence, pp. 330-341 (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2005). It emerges from these references that classification of parts of speech (whether in Hebrew or English) is not fixed but evolving. Consistent with this evolution we have coined the term relational words to discuss the various examples presented in this article. ↩

2. C. H. J. van der Merwe, “The Elusive Biblical Hebrew Term ויהי a perspective in terms of its syntax, semantics, and pragmatics in 1 Samuel,” Hebrew Studies, 40 (1999), 83–114. ↩

3. For the Talmudic citation see TB RH 3a. For Rashi’s explicit amplification see his comments on Gen. 18:15, 24:33, Ex. 23:5,33, Num. 20:29, Gen. 43:7. For the Malbim’s innovation see his commentary to Lev. 1, comment number 12. The BDB version used is the electronic English version, Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, Charles A. Briggs, “The enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English lexicon,” 2000. ↩

4. See Russell J. Hendel, “Biblical Formatting”, Jewish Bible Quarterly, (2007), 35:17–27, for the concept of exegesis through unspecified emphasis. ↩

5. John A. Cook, Time and the Biblical Hebrew Verb. The Expression of Tense, Aspect, and Modality in Biblical Hebrew (Winona Lake: Indiana, Eisenbrauns, 2012). ↩

6. A word of caution should be mentioned. BDB is structured by first listing biblical roots, and then under each biblical root, indicating major meaning categories with Arabic numerals (1, 2, 3,..) and (in the English) version indicating sub-categories of meaning with lower case English letters (e.g. under 1 we might have a, b, c). (Further subdivisions of meaning would be indicated by italicized lower-case English letters (a), (b), etc.) In BDB, meanings 2a, 2b, and 2c of ki are when, if, and even-though respectively. The bulleted paragraph rule indicated by ki-im should have been listed as a separate meaning but is instead subsumed under 2b (ki meaning if). As we explained earlier in this article, a word can function one way in a sentence and another way in a narrative. Apparently, BDB misses the point that ki meaning if is a sentence-relevant translation while ki-im indicating a bulleted structure is a pragmatic-related translation. ↩

7. This principle of the ki-im form is capable of further development; for example, Leviticus 2 has a ki-ki-im form. Another area of possible development is found in Chapter 5, with sub-sections beginning at 7, 11. It is interesting that these sections do not correspond to the torah-scroll paragraph indicators of either a newline or 9 characters of space. ↩

8. Hirsch’s citation of the rule is partially incorrect. In addition to the next word beginning with hey, aleph, or ayin, the two words must be joined with a connective cantillation. Hirsch also criticizes the medieval explanation of LAM-mah la-MAH being based on form, depending on whether the first letter of the next word is aleph, hey, or ayin: “The rule has a large number of exceptions.” However, a review of cases does not seem to support this. For example there are 11 examples in Genesis where la-MAH or LAM-mah is followed by a word to which it is joined by a connective cantillation: In 3 of them la-MAH is followed by a word beginning with an aleph, hey, or ayin (Gen. 12:19, 27:45, 43:6), while in the remaining eight the LAM-mah form is used (18:13, 24:31, 25:22, 27:45, 31:27, 31:30, 32:30, 33:15). Thus, there are no exceptions. BDB in its introductory paragraph under the entry lamah gives a more thorough analysis of both the rule and the statistics. ↩

9. The interaction between this Midrash, Rashi, and the commentators has interest in its own right. Although there are two opinions in the Midrash, Rashi cites only one of them. As noted, the Midrash speaks about achar versus acharay. There are so many counterexamples to the interpretation of the midrash as referring to the words achar and acharay that the Yefay Toar suggests emendation; that phrases beginning with achar and acharay are addressed. However, the Maharzu, in his commentary on the Midrash Rabbah, suggests that the literal reading of the Midrash (as referring to words) is correct and that we have lost the interpretations of Rabbi Yudan and Rabbi Huna which would justify this. ↩

10. For purposes of this example we combine prefix lamed and el though a more thorough analysis might uncover three different nuances. ↩

11. Kathryn Medill, “Directional strategies in Biblical Hebrew: Influences on the use of locative ‘hey’”, IULC Working papers (2014), 14(1). ↩