שור vs. שעיר: “Single Livestock Animal”?

[Jim Stinehart]

שור vs. שעיר: “Single Livestock Animal”?

1. שור.

This word (which appears, for example, at Genesis 32: 5) is often thought to mean “bull, ox”. But BDB says that it more properly means: “a single head of cattle”. Gesinius says: “This is a general word for one of the ox tribe”.

2. שעיר.

This word (which appears, for example, at Genesis 37: 31) is often thought to mean “goat”. But Gesinius remarks that “the name of goat seems to have belonged, in a wider sense, to other animals also”. So in order to specify a he-goat, at Genesis 37: 31 we see the 2-word phrase עזים plus שעיר, where the first word, שעיר, means “a male livestock animal” [not necessarily a goat], and the second word, עזים, means “goats”. The phrase thus means “a male livestock animal [from the] goats”, i.e., “goat” or “he-goat”.

If that analysis is right (and it sounds good to me), then perhaps BDB errs in defining this word שעיר as “he-goat, buck, hairy one”, for the following two reasons: (i) first, שעיר does not necessarily refer to a “goat” at all (which is why we see the above-referenced 2-word phrase at Genesis 37: 31, with the second word, עזים, being needed in order to specify “goat”); and (ii) second, one can question whether this meaning of שעיר has anything to do with “hairy”. I believe that the word “hairy” always has a different spelling: שער (as at Genesis 25: 25).

3. Do b-o-t-h of these two Hebrew common words mean “single livestock animal”? In particular, per the analysis of Gesinius above (and contra BDB), could שעיר possibly refer to an “ox” or “bull”?

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

[Jim Stinehart]

The Hebrew letter ע in the Hebrew word שער meaning “hair, hairy” is a ghayin/ġ, not an ayin. We see that by comparing Ugaritic and Assyrian. In Ugaritic, the word for “hair” or “wool” is š‘rt. That is viewed as being ša-ḫar-tu in syllabic Ugaritic. John Huehnergard, “An Introduction to Ugaritic” (2012), p.156. But that analysis in turn is presumably based primarily on Assyrian, where ša-ḫar-tu means “woolen leggings” in Assyrian. Nicholas Postgate, “Wool, Hair and Textiles in Assyria”, in “Wool Economy in the Ancient Near East”, ed. Catherine Breniquet, Cécile Michel (2014), p. 424.

Assyrian cuneiform could not distinguish heth/ḫ from ghayin/ġ. Everything makes sense in all three languages if the middle consonant here is ghayin/ġ. The Semitic word for “hair” is ša-ġar-tu, or in Hebrew shortened form (where the -tu¬ was apparently viewed as an ending that could be dropped, since this word already had three true consonants), “hair” is ša-ġar : [רġש] : [שער].

Why is that important? It’s important because שעיר, featuring ayin-yod and meaning “a male livestock animal” (which could mean a [divine] “ox”, including as the geographical place name “Seir”), has nothing whatsoever to do with [רġש] : [שער], featuring ghayin/ġ, and meaning “hair” or “hairy”. In particular, שעיר does n-o-t mean “a hairy animal”. Not! [שעיר] : [ר - עי - ש] : še-e-ri could refer to an “ox” just as easily as a “goat”, since its meaning is “a male livestock animal”, and (contra BDB) its meaning has nothing to do with “hairy”.

All the many words for “goat” in the various Semitic languages are set forth at p. 205 of Stefan Weninger, “The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook” (2011). Not a single Semitic word for “goat” in any language is remotely similar to שעיר. That’s because שעיר does not mean “goat”. Nor does any other Semitic language use a word meaning “hairy” to refer to “goat”. (We will eventually find that this mysterious Hebrew common word שעיר has a non-Semitic etymology.)

But now let’s consider a different Hebrew common word, which by the 7th century BCE was spelled the same as “hair” : [רġש] : [שער], but is not the same word. The Hebrew word שער means “gate”. That very likely derives from the Canaanite word meaning “gate”, which is rendered in cuneiform as ša-aḫ-ri at Amarna Letter EA 244: 16. That Canaanite word doubtless featured a ghayin/ġ (with heth/ḫ not being distinguished orthographically in cuneiform from ghayin/ġ), so it likely was pronounced ša-aġ-ri. Such Canaanite word came into Hebrew as שער (Genesis 19: 1), having the same meaning (“gate”). The early Hebrew pronunciation (as opposed to the medieval Masorete pronunciation) of this Hebrew common word meaning “gate” likely was correspondingly with a ghayin/ġ (instead of an ayin): ša-aġ-ri.

So back in the day, prior to the 7th century BCE: (1) the Hebrew word for “gate” was ša-aġ-ri : [רġש]: [שער], whereas (2) the Hebrew word for “hair” or “hairy” was, after dropping the final tu, as follows: ša-ġar : [רġש]: [שער]. These two words eventually ended up having the same spelling, but they are two different words, with completely different meanings. Note in particular that both of these two words feature a ghayin/ġ in the middle, not an ayin.

The point is that “hair” : “hairy” : ša-ġar : [רġש]: [שער] has n-o-t-h-i-n-g whatsoever to do with “a male livestock animal”, which could be “ox” : “[divine] ox” : “Seir” : [שעיר] : [ר - עי - ש] : še-e-ri : Še-e-ri : Še-ri. The ayin-yod in the latter word/name שעיר (which can mean “[divine] ox” in two languages, and is somewhat similar to Akkadian šūru, meaning “bull” or “ox”, and hence is related to the Hebrew common word שור meaning “bull, ox, a single head of cattle”) is completely different from the ghayin/ġ in the prior word, שער, which means “hair” or “hairy”.

When you’re talking “Seir”, you’re not talking “hairy”. No way. Rather, the “Seir” reference is historically to a famous divine “ox”.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

[Isaac Fried]

שעיר is possibly a variant of זעיר and צעיר, 'tiny, young'. In fact, in Lev. 4:28 we encounter the female שְׂעִירַת עִזִּים תְּמִימָה נְקֵבָה, where שׂעירת=שׂעיר-את. The word שׂעיר S'IR may also be related to the שְׁאֵר, later שָׁאִיר, 'relative', as in Lev. 25:49.
In Deut. 32.2 we encounter שׂעיר in the sense of droplet.
Then there is שְׂעוֹרָה, 'barley', which is either זְעוֹרָה for its tiny grain, or actually שְׂעוֹרָה for its hairy head.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Jim Stinehart]

Isaac Fried: Thank you so much for coming up with several Hebrew common words that look quite a bit like שעיר. Much appreciated. But when we look at their meanings, I don’t think any of them work as a west Semitic etymology for שעיר, which means “a male livestock animal”. [I hope the computer interface doesn’t mix up the Hebrew letters when I quote what you wrote.]

1. You wrote: “שעיר is possibly a variant of זעיר and צעיר, 'tiny, young'. In fact, in Lev. 4:28 we encounter the female שְׂעִירַת עִזִּים תְּמִימָה נְקֵבָה, where שׂעירת=שׂעיר-את.”

(a) Per Genesis 38: 17, a “young goat” is גדיעזים. By contrast, except for KJV, virtually all translators today see שעירעזים at Genesis 37: 31 as having a different meaning, namely a “male goat”, not a “young goat”.

זעיר does not appear in the older parts of the Bible. In the Patriarchal narratives, צעיר always means “the younger”. Yes, as to the spellings, for those two words you mention only the initial sibilant differs. But for both words, the meaning does not fit. שעיר means “a male livestock animal”: (i) it does not apply to humans, and (ii) it has nothing to do with “tiny, young”.

(b) As to Leviticus 4: 28, I believe that שעירת is feminine construct singular of the feminine version of this word, namely שעירה.

2. You wrote: “The word שׂעיר S'IR may also be related to the שְׁאֵר, later שָׁאִיר, 'relative', as in Lev. 25:49.”

I don’t see the connection there. שאר means “kin”, which is a completely different meaning than שעיר.

3. You wrote: “In Deut. 32.2 we encounter שׂעיר in the sense of droplet.”

שעירם only appears once in the Bible, in the plural, where in context it must mean “small rain, droplet”.
The meaning does not seem to be related. Per #1 above, שעיר does not mean a “small” or “young” animal, it means a “male” livestock animal.

4. You wrote: “Then there is שְׂעוֹרָה, 'barley', which is either זְעוֹרָה for its tiny grain, or actually שְׂעוֹרָה for its hairy head.”

“Barley” is שערה, from its “hairy” : שער ears, where neither such word has a yod/י, and neither such word has a meaning related to שעיר : “a male livestock animal”.

* * *

The problem, as I see it, is that there is no Semitic etymology for the Hebrew common word שעיר meaning “a male livestock animal”. None of the Hebrew common words you have mentioned has a similar meaning to שעיר. Linguists look to other Semitic languages, especially Ugaritic and Akkadian, but they have likewise drawn a blank, as their assertion simply is not true that שעיר (with a yod/י) allegedly means “hairy” : שער (without a yod/י), or that by extension שעיר means “[hairy] goat”.

I see this mysterious Hebrew common word שעיר as being a rare case of a Hebrew common word having a non-Semitic etymology.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

[Isaac Fried]

In Deut. 32.2
יַעֲרֹף כַּמָּטָר לִקְחִי תִּזַּל כַּטַּל אִמְרָתִי
כִּשְׂעִירִם עֲלֵי דֶשֶׁא וְכִרְבִיבִים עֲלֵי עֵשֶׂב
שְׂעִירִם is parallel to רְבִיבִים which is from רב, 'many', and רבבה, 'ten tousand', namely a myriad of droplets, like the multitude of שְׁאִירִים in an עדר, 'herd'.
It appears to me that רביב RABIYB is a variant of רסיס RASIYS (so close to רציץ, 'crushed') as in Song 5:2
שֶׁרֹּאשִׁי נִמְלָא טָל קְוֻצּוֹתַי רְסִיסֵי לָיְלָה
KJV: "for my head is filled with dew, and my locks with the drops of the night."
In a broader sense רביב - רסיס is a variant of
רביב, רדיד, רטיט, רכיך, רסיס, רמים, רנין, רפיף, רציץ, רקיק, רשיש

in spoken Hebrew לרסס is 'to spray', and תַּרְסִיס=אתה-רסיס is the mist producing liquid found in spraying cans. רְסִיס=רס-היא-ס is 'fragment'.

In Ps 72:6
יֵרֵד כְּמָטָר עַל גֵּז כִּרְבִיבִים זַרְזִיף אָרֶץ
we find another inventive word זַרְזִיף, possibly זעיר-זעיף.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Jim Stinehart]

Isaac Fried:

Why are you talking about “a myriad of droplets”, and thinking gentle, pleasant thoughts? What we’re trying to figure out here is why that big, bad he-goat at Genesis 37: 31 is referred to by a phrase unique to Hebrew (having no counterpart in any other language, including any other Semitic language): שעירעזים.

Speaking of male goats and Bible mysteries, in a long holy book often concerning shepherds of sheep and goats, why does the normal Semitic word for “he-goat”, namely תיש, only appear 4 times in the Hebrew Bible? תיש is there twice in the Patriarchal narratives (Genesis 30: 35; 32: 14), but after that, it’s scarce as hen’s teeth, appearing only at Proverbs 30: 31 (its only appearance in the singular) and at II Chronicles 17: 11. What gives?

To figure out this 3,000-year-old Bible mystery, let’s go back to Genesis 37: 31 and take a closer look. Joseph’s older half-brothers want his coat-of-many-colors to be stained with blood to look as if Joseph had been eaten alive by an evil beast (Genesis 37: 20). For that purpose, Simeon and Levi want a “beast” or “bull-like” animal among the flock, whose blood they will use; they do not want a pure young animal. Rather, they want an evil-appearing buck/adult male goat, who is strong like a “bull”, with the hope that the blood of such a “bull”-like beast/goat will make Joseph’s coat look like it was rent by an “evil beast”.

Please note that Simeon and Levi are n-o-t looking for the type of unblemished animal that would be appropriate for a religious sacrifice. On the contrary, the more blemishes, the better! As long as that big buck-goat looks “evil” and is strong like a “bull”.

T-h-a-t is why one sees this otherwise bizarre nomenclature at Genesis 37: 31: שעירעזים : a “bull” of a goat, that is, the biggest, baddest male goat you’re likely ever to see.

In the unique, very peculiar context of Genesis 37: 31, the early Hebrew author wanted his audience to realize that Simeon and Levi had selected the biggest, baddest male goat in the flock for this evil deed, which that brilliant early Hebrew author (the world’s greatest wordsmith) did by referring, literally, to “a ‘bull’ of a goat” : שעירעזים.

That early Hebrew author knew perfectly well what the normal Semitic word was for a he-goat, namely תיש, which he uses under ordinary circumstances at Genesis 30: 35; 32: 14.

But later Hebrew and Jewish authors, oddly enough, basically forgot about the normal Semitic word for “he-goat”, תיש, and instead, incongruously, picked up on this unique Hebrew phrase (unparalleled in any other language) which now came to mean simply “he-goat”, rather than its original meaning of “the biggest, baddest goat you’ll likely ever see, a veritable ‘bull’ of a goat” : שעירעזים. So in the rest of the Bible, you see beaucoup references to שעירעזים with the innocuous meaning of “he-goat”, now having completely lost its original overtones of “biggest, baddest, ‘bull’-like goat” that it had at Genesis 37: 31.

Remember, no other language on God’s green earth, in particular no other Semitic language, has a colorful phrase like this for a he-goat: שעירעזים. The first ever use of that phrase was at Genesis 37: 31, being a dramatic phrase dreamed up/created by the early Hebrew author, a phrase that has no parallel in any other language. As to the evil imagery conjured up by [שעיר] : [ש] - [עי] - [ר] , the divine bull Še-ri : Še-e-ri : [שעיר] : [ש] - [עי] - [ר] was truly a formidable beast in the Late Bronze Age Near East. The Hittites picked up the terrifying Hurrian imagery of destroyed hostile cities becoming pastureland of the divine bulls Še-ri [Še-e-ri] and Ḫur-ri. Itamar Singer, “The Thousand Gods of Hatti”, in “Israel Oriental Studies XIV: Concepts of the Other in Near Eastern Religions”, ed. Ilai Alon, Ithamar Gruenwald, Itamar Singer (1994), p. 84.

שעירעזים was originally meant at Genesis 37: 31 to be a scary image, used in a unique context that might never come up again. At Genesis 37: 31, שעירעזים meant “the biggest, baddest, ‘bull’-like goat you’ll likely ever see”. In later books of the Bible, by sharp contrast, שעירעזים simply means “he-goat”, having lost all of its original dramatic, terrifying overtones.

We should be thinking dark, evil thoughts when we contemplate the dark, evil, unique concept of שעירעזים at Genesis 37: 31.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

[Isaac Fried]

So as to remove any misunderstanding I will open by saying that I agree with you that שׂעיר עזים (like נער אנשים) is possibly but a young and vigorous member of the flock.

It is a good example to the maxim that a Hebrew word does not "come" from another Hebrew word, to wit, שׂעיר may have nothing to do with שׂער SEAR, 'hair'; a SEIYR is not a hairy animal. A Hebrew word comes from a root that imparts but a very essential and concrete common meaning to all the words derived from it.

It seems to me that תיש TAYI$ = TA-YI$ is אתה-איש.

Listening to שׂעיר I fancy to hear first שֶׂה SEH, 'lamb', then עֵר ER, 'alert, living independently', as in Song 5:2
אֲנִי יְשֵׁנָה וְלִבִּי עֵר
KJV: " I sleep, but my heart waketh"
or even the עַיִר, 'colt', of Zech. 9:9.

I could accept the possibility that שׂעיר, as well as שׁוֹר - תוֹר is at the bottom of the German Stier, 'bull', the Greek Satyr, and the Roman Saturn (cornus בעל קרניים).

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Jim Stinehart]

Isaac Fried:

1. You wrote: “So as to remove any misunderstanding I will open by saying that I agree with you that שׂעיר עזים (like נער אנשים) is possibly but a young and vigorous member of the flock.”

But it’s not “young”. In the context of Genesis 37: 31, we can expect that Simeon and Levi selected the biggest, ugliest, scariest male in the flock, symbolizing an “evil beast”.

2. You wrote: “It is a good example to the maxim that a Hebrew word does not "come" from another Hebrew word, to wit, שׂעיר may have nothing to do with שׂער SEAR, 'hair'; a SEIYR is not a hairy animal.”

I agree 100%! Can you please tell that to Semitic linguists? שעיר has n-o-t-h-i-n-g whatsoever to do with being “hairy : שער. Yes! Now we’re starting to get somewhere.

3. You wrote: “It seems to me that תיש TAYI$ = TA-YI$ is אתה-איש.”

In any event, תיש means “he-goat”, in a neutral sense. That neutral term just won’t do for the evil deed at Genesis 37: 31. A truly evil deed like that deserves truly evil terminology.

4. You wrote: “Listening to שׂעיר I fancy to hear first שֶׂה SEH, 'lamb', then עֵר ER, 'alert, living independently', as in Song 5:2 אֲנִי יְשֵׁנָה וְלִבִּי עֵר KJV: " I sleep, but my heart waketh" or even the עַיִר, 'colt', of Zech. 9:9.”

Please stop thinking pleasant thoughts like that. There’s nothing pleasant about Genesis 37: 31! Here’s the grim situation when the world hears, for the first time in history, the term שעירעזים, a term which has no counterpart in any other language in the world. Simeon and Levi had originally planned to murder their younger half-brother Joseph (who by the way is just under age 10 years in 12-month years, being age 19 archaic shaneh), and tell their father Jacob that an “evil beast” devoured Joseph. Genesis 37: 20. Then after Judah persuades them instead to sell Joseph into slavery to Midianites from eastern Syria, who (have just passed through northwest Gilead and) are on their way to Egypt, Simeon and Levi select a שעירעזים from the flock, kill that animal, and dip Joseph’s coat-of-many-colors into that animal’s blood (Genesis 37: 31). A highly distraught Jacob thinks that his favorite son Joseph was devoured by an “evil beast” (Genesis 37: 33). Please think dark, unpleasant thoughts.

Simeon and Levi do not select “a young and vigorous member of the flock”. Not. That would have been fine for a proper religious sacrifice, but this is anything but. Think evil. Simeon and Levi select the biggest, ugliest, scariest “bull” in the flock -- שעירעזים -- a male goat that symbolizes the “evil beast” that Jacob will suppose has devoured his favorite son. Before Genesis 37: 31 was composed, the term שעירעזים did not exist on planet Earth. No other Semitic language has such a term. Nor does any non-Semitic language either. The early Hebrew author created this colorful, dark, evil, scary term especially for the unique, dark, evil, scary circumstances of Genesis 37: 31.

5. You wrote: “I could accept the possibility that שׂעיר, as well as שׁוֹר - תוֹר is at the bottom of the German Stier, 'bull', the Greek Satyr, and the Roman Saturn (cornus בעל קרניים).”

Yes! That’s right. Now let’s figure out exactly what’s going on here.

Note that the first word in the term שעירעזים is identical to the non-Semitic geographical place name “Seir” : שׂעיר. That’s no coincidence. The early Hebrew author knew that “Seir” was Še-e-ri, being an elongated version of Še-ri, which was a mythical terrifying bull whose pastureland was reputed in the Late Bronze Age/Patriarchal Age to be the ruins of destroyed, hostile cities. An “evil beast” (cf. Genesis 37: 20, 33), if you will. So the early Hebrew author created the phrase “Seir of the goats” : שעירעזים. The odd Hebrew spelling of “Seir” : Še-e-ri : שׂעיר is because in order to render the foreign true vowel E as its own separate syllable (which was easy in cuneiform, but semi-impossible in alphabetical Hebrew), a Jewish scribe 700 years later in Jerusalem came up with עי. So to render the non-Semitic geographical place name “Seir” : Še-e-ri in alphabetical Hebrew, we see: ש plus עי plus ר, which is שׂעיר : Še-e-ri. (It’s a bit cumbersome in alphabetical Hebrew, because this is a non-Semitic name that the early Hebrew author had a scribe record in cuneiform in rural southern Canaan in the Late Bronze Age/Patriarchal Age.)

As you properly point out, there’s a semantic connection to “bull” here. “Bull” is šū-ru in Akkadian, and it’s the same in Hebrew (since long Akkadian U is rendered by Hebrew ו, even in defective spelling): שור. So then why is E the middle vowel? That’s because in Hurrian, the name for this famous mythical bull that is associated with destruction and ruins, Še-ri, or in elongated form Še-e-ri, in addition to meaning “day”, also reflects a Hurrian word for “king”, šerri, hence the choice of E as the vowel. šū-ru plus šer-ri = Še-ri : Še-e-ri : “Seir” : שעיר. Although the textbooks say this bull’s name means “day”, in fact the overtones of Še-ri are “bull”/šū-ru + “king”/šer-ri = “a fearsome bull fit for a king” = Še-ri : Še-e-ri : “Seir” : שעיר.

So you’re right to say that “שׂעיר, as well as שׁוֹר - תוֹר is at the bottom of the German Stier, 'bull', the Greek Satyr, and the Roman Saturn”. But this ain’t no ordinary bull. No, this is “Seir”, the terrifying mythical bull whose pastureland was reputed in the Patriarchal Age to be the ruins of destroyed, hostile cities, a true “evil beast” of a bull. The phrase “Seir-of-goats” is an evil, dark phrase, which is perfectly fitting for, and indeed was created precisely for, the evil, dark deed at Genesis 37: 31. It means “fearsome, destructive bull of the goats”. It would have been the biggest, strongest, ugliest, scariest male animal in the entire flock. The innocuous word “he-goat” : תיש just wouldn’t do for this evil, dark purpose. No, when the agenda is to be able to show that younger half-brother Joseph has supposedly been devoured by an “evil beast”, one needs an “evil beast” of a word for male goat. That’s “Seir” of the goats, where “Seir” is a non-Semitic geographical place name that is Še-e-ri, being an elongation of Še-ri. The non-Semitic name Še-ri is “bull”/šū-ru + “king”/šer-ri = “a fearsome bull fit for a king” = a terrifying mythical bull whose pastureland was the ruins of destroyed, hostile cities = a true “evil beast” of a bull = Še-ri : Še-e-ri : “Seir” : שעיר.

It’s exciting when the greatest wordsmith of all time -- the early Hebrew author of the Patriarchal narratives -- makes use of a dark non-Semitic place name, “Seir”, to create a unique term for the animal that Simeon and Levi killed to make it look like an “evil beast” had devoured younger half-brother Joseph: שעירעזים.

Now let’s confirm the above analysis by taking a quick look at the relevant geography here. Chapters 31-33 of Genesis portray Jacob as being unable to avoid meeting his possibly hostile older twin-brother Esau when Jacob is passing through Gilead on his way back home from eastern Syria to Canaan. In that context, “Seir” m-u-s-t have the same historical meaning, geographically, as it does at Amarna Letter EA 288: 26: northwest Gilead. (There’s no there there south of the Dead Sea, being a locale where, quite sensibly, Esau never went; the locale of the future state of Edom south of Judah has no relevance of any kind to the path that Jacob takes through northwest Gilead in returning to Canaan from eastern Syria.) Now consider where those Mitannian : מדינים merchants (Genesis 37: 28) from eastern Syria who bought Joseph had likely just been before they passed by Dothan on their way from eastern Syria through central Canaan to Egypt: Seir! That is, northwest Gilead. So Mitannian : מדינים merchants who had just passed through Še-e-ri : “Seir” : שעיר : northwest Gilead a day or so earlier are the ones who purchase Joseph, who is claimed by his older half-brothers Simeon and Levi to have been “devoured by an evil beast”, with the evidence for that being Joseph’s coat-of-many-colors that is soaked in the blood of “Seir”-of-goats : שעירעזים : an “evil-beast”-of-a-bull of the goats = Še-ri : Še-e-ri : “Seir” : שעיר.

The unique aspect of the unique term שעירעזים is the word/name שעיר, which is the non-Semitic place name Še-ri : Še-e-ri : “Seir” : שעיר. It references a terrifying mythical bull that was associated in the Patriarchal Age with ruins and destruction. There’s nothing like the term שעירעזים in any other language.

When you’re talking super-exciting Hebrew nomenclature, you’re talking שעירעזים at Genesis 37: 31. Please compare the שעיר element of שעירעזים to the non-Semitic place name “Seir” : שעיר, and you’ll see it.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois