Some Unattested Occurrences of Zeh as a Derogatory Demonstrative

The demonstrative pronouns and adjectives — zeh/zo (masc.), zo’t (fem.) and their plurals, eileh, heim/heimah, and heinah (fem.) — are a recurring category in the biblical lexicon, and, in most instances, do no more than indicate a straightforward positive or negative demonstrative. Our purpose, however, is to highlight several examples of the zeh paradigm that are indicative of a derogatory overtone.

It will be noted that we have not included in our analysis the adjectival forms — ha-zeh, ha-zo’t, ha-zo, and ha-eileh — which would bring the total biblical occurrence of this demonstrative to over one thousand. This is because they do not possess the same emphatic force or derogatory sense as the word zeh in the passages under review, and, in most of those instances, the phrases in question make adequate sense without the addition of the word zeh; its insertion may therefore be perceived as a gloss adding sharpness to the derogatory application.

Peter Schmidt has drawn attention to the fact that the zeh demonstrative frequently leaves ambiguous whether it refers anaphorically to something mentioned earlier in the discourse, or cataphorically to what follows later.¹ As Schmidt notes, “Readers of translated texts do not always perceive that it makes a big difference whether one reckons with anaphoric or cataphoric use . . . the reader is not served well with ambiguous texts. They take more effort to be understood. And the sense will be different, at least in nuances.”² It is not a matter of establishing such textual associations — the subject of Schmidt’s study — but rather of providing an English rendering of each demonstrative which allows the zeh to express more accurately and emphatically the cynicism or antipathy with which it is contextually infused. We shall also draw attention to some translations that have failed to bring out the derogatory nuance, or have done so ineffectively.

Examples of Zeh as a Derogatory Demonstrative

1. Rebecca, depressed and frightened by the unnatural thrashing of her twin fetuses within her womb, exclaims, im kein lamah zeh anokhi (Gen. 25:22). JPS renders it literally, “If this is so, why am I living?” — though such a death wish seems an exaggerated reaction to antenatal anxiety. Understanding zeh as derogatory yields the cri de coeur, “Why am I in — zeh — such a terrible state?”

2. When Esau, exhausted, exchanges his birthright for Jacob’s pottage, he says (literally), “I am about to die — v’lamah zeh li bekhorah — so why do I possess this birthright?” (Gen. 25:32). Only reading zeh as derogatory gives full expression to the deprecatory nuance: “Why do I need this worthless birthright?”

3. Defending his flight from Laban, Jacob twice inserts zeh to intensify the miseries he suffered: zeh esrim shanah anokhi immakh — not merely “these twenty years,” but “twenty dreadful years I spent with you” (Gen. 31:38, 41).³

4. Wrestling with Esau’s guardian angel, Jacob asks its name; the angel, affronted, replies lama zeh tish’al lishmi (Gen. 32:30). Translators consistently miss the implied derogatory nuance — the Koren edition omits the word zeh entirely, rendering simply “Why do you ask my name?”

5. When Joseph’s brothers catch sight of him, they cry, hinnei ba’al ha-chalomot hallazeh ba — JPS’s “Here comes that dreamer” (Gen. 37:19) does not do justice to the depth of cynicism invested in the double demonstrative hallazeh, better rendered “Here comes that wretched dreamer.”

6. Pharaoh’s servants beg him to free the Israelites: ad matai yihyeh zeh lanu l’mokesh — “How long shall this be a snare unto us?” (Ex. 10:7). The omission of the noun “this people” creates a derogatory tone: “this contemptible people.”

7. When Moses fails to return from Sinai on schedule, the people demand of Aaron, ki zeh Mosheh ha’ish, lo yada’nu meh hayah lo — “because this fellow Moses, we don’t know what has become of him” (Ex. 32:23) — better, “this no-good fellow, Moses!”

8. Sending the spies, Moses tells them, alu zeh banegev — “Go up into this (inhospitable) desert” (Num. 13:17). Rashi notes the desert is the worst part of Canaan, shown first so that the better land would be appreciated all the more.

9. The parents of a delinquent son declare before the courts, b’neinu zeh sorer umoreh — “Our son is a zeh — a worthless fellow — stubborn and rebellious” (Deut. 21:20).

10. God reminds the people that they tested Him zeh eser pe’amim — “on ten (shameful) occasions” (Num. 14:22).

11. When some Israelites attempt to reach Canaan against God’s decree, Moses calls after them, lamah zeh attem ovrim et piy Adonai — “Why, so blatantly, do you transgress the Lord’s command?” (Num. 14:41).

12. After Saul is designated king, a rabble group scorns him: mah yoshi’einu zeh — “How can this one save us?” (I Sam. 10:27). The immediately following words — that they scorned him and brought him no gifts — support a derisory rendering: “How can the likes of him save us?”

13. Feigning madness before Achish of Gath, David is doubly demeaned by the king’s double use of zeh: chasar m’shuga’im ani ki haveitem et zeh l’hishtagei’a alai, hazeh yavo el beiti — “Do I lack lunatics that you brought such a one to play the lunatic before me? Should such a one be let into my house?” (I Sam. 21:16), reducing David from a king to a “thing.”

14. During a famine, Elisha’s attendant, told to distribute a small gift of food among the townspeople of Gilgal, replies with unmistakable irony, mah etein zeh lifnei me’ah ish — “Am I supposed to hand out this paltry portion to a hundred people?” (II Kgs. 4:43).

15. Hosea lambasts the northern kingdom’s failed diplomatic overtures to Egypt (Hos. 7:16), where zo la’agam b’eretz mitzrayim is best rendered “this very folly will cause them to be mocked in the land of Egypt.”

16. Psalm 49, uniquely lacking praise, lament, or petition, criticizes those who waste their years pursuing wealth and status: zeh darkam keisel lamo (v. 14). Rather than the Koren’s “Such is the fate of the foolish” — a sense not supported by the lexicons for derekh — we render it “Such degenerate behaviour is their folly.”

17. Lamentations 5:17’s repetitive demonstratives, al zeh hayah daveh libeinu, al eileh chashkhu eineinu, carry a derogatory or depreciative emphasis best rendered, “For this tragedy, our hearts are sick; for these losses our eyes are dim.”

18. When Esther reveals the enemy within the kingdom, Achashverosh demands, mi hu zeh v’eizeh hu asher m’la’o libbo la’asot kein (Est. 7:5). JPS’s “Who is he and where is he who dared to do this?” fails to capture the king’s wrath. Reading both occurrences of zeh as derogatory yields, “Who is this scoundrel and what sort of rogue is he whose heart could have prompted him to do such a thing?”

Conclusion

The current state of “poststructuralist” biblical scholarship has largely determined that there is no such thing as “the” correct meaning of a text, since meaning is instead determined by the individual reader’s subjective response.⁴ The present writer, while not taking a stance on this or related literary and theological approaches, nevertheless contends that such subjective interpretations are still inevitably triggered, to a greater or lesser extent, by the language or sense of the text or translation. This especially underscores the importance of reflecting precise textual nuances whenever they can be detected — for, in their absence, the reader is misled into believing that his or her reactions flow directly and authentically from the text itself, when in fact a flattened translation has obscured half of what the text conveys. That broader readership should welcome, therefore, the examples we have presented of the demonstrative zeh in its heightened derogatory sense.