טמה טמא

[Chris Watts]

Leviticus 11:43 אַל־תְּשַׁקְּצוּ אֶת־נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם בְּכָל־הַשֶּׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ וְלֹא תִטַּמְּאוּ בָּהֶם וְנִטְמֵתֶם בָּם

1. Does the fact that וְנִטְמֵתֶם is indicative of a Lamed-Heh verb require then that the accepted form of טַּמְּא should then be changed to טמה?This then Apparently according to Gesenius changes the meaning to 'Stupid'?

2. Also, this verse begins with that preposition אַל, since it is followed by an imperfect it could be a jussive translation requiring a softer "do not' rather than the harsher and stricter 'Do Not' (לא)ְ Also bearing in mind that if we translate both negative particles within this verse as 'Do Not', we have a tautology that is rather pointless in meaning in my ears. So I decided to translate this as "You should not allow yourselves to become unclean amongst the..." then the second clause is clearly a stronger clarification/consequence = "So do not make yourselves unclean because of them and be polluted of them". The first clause becomes a sort of 'Reasoning' like you would to a child, then strengthened with a deliberate "Therefore don't do it".

Chris watts

[ducky]

Hi,

1. Does the fact that וְנִטְמֵתֶם is indicative of a Lamed-Heh verb require then that the accepted form of טַּמְּא should then be changed to טמה?This then Apparently according to Gesenius changes the meaning to 'Stupid'?

In this case of ונטמיתם, it seems that it is just a drop of the Aleph.
It happens many times in the bible.

Here's a few examples:
Num 11:11: מָצָתִי (מצאתי)
Deut: 28:57: הַיּוֹצֵת (היוצאת)
Num: 15:24 לחטת (לחטאת)
Job: 8:8 רִישׁוֹן (ראשון)
and more.

And indeed, some sees it as root טמה as being stupid.
(And that root טמה considered by many as doubtful from the start.
I mean, also the one in Job)

2. Also, this verse begins with that preposition אַל, since it is followed by an imperfect it could be a jussive translation requiring a softer "do not' rather than the harsher and stricter 'Do Not' (לא)

I think it is just a matter of style.
I would just see them both as "you shall not" (or something like that) with no difference between them.

[kwrandolph]

Leviticus 11:43 אַל־תְּשַׁקְּצוּ אֶת־נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם בְּכָל־הַשֶּׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ וְלֹא תִטַּמְּאוּ בָּהֶם וְנִטְמֵתֶם בָּם

1. Does the fact that וְנִטְמֵתֶם is indicative of a Lamed-Heh verb require then that the accepted form of טַּמְּא should then be changed to טמה?This then Apparently according to Gesenius changes the meaning to 'Stupid'?

Yes and No. Yes in that the word is most likely from טמה and not טמא missing the א. No it does not mean “stupid”. Rather it most likely meant “to be debased” as in degraded, devalued.

I have found that Gesenius was often wrong, especially in words like this that are used only a few times in Tanakh. I compared his definitions with the actual uses as listed in Lisowski’s concordance and found time and time again that Lisowski’s definitions fit the actual uses better than Gesenius’. It appears that Gesenius opted not for the greatest accuracy in making his definitions, rather opted to try to make evidence for a theory of which he was a co-developer.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Chris Watts]

Hallo Karl,

I agree with the idea of "Debased", in the sense of 'Lowering yourself', 'undignified behaviour'. This nuance is different from the idea of simply absorbing 'Impurity' into the very breath of life God gave them. I then believe that most English translations are lazy on this point. We do not read two "Do Nots" but rather an exhortation 'Not to lose your dignity' followed by a definite command of 'therefore do not do this'.
This is the nuanced difference between the אַל and the וְלֹא here.

As for your comments on Gesenius, I can not comment, I only know that while I have access to that horrible Brown driver briggs, Tragelles's translation of Gesenius is the most explanatory, user friendly dictionary that I have ever read, and I often compare BDB with Gesenius to double check and can not remember coming across any radically different interpretations, except that Gesenius offers extremely detailed information that BDB utterly lacks.

Regards, Chris watts

[ducky]

Hi,

I think I need to specify some things.



About נטמתם according to root טמא

It is likely, in my opinion, that the word ונטמתם is a defective form of ונטמאתם.
The Letter Aleph=א was dropped, as it happens sometimes.
As in the examples I gave above:
Num. 11:11: מָצָתִי (מצאתי)
Deut. 28:57: הַיּוֹצֵת (היוצאת)
Num. 15:24 לחטת (לחטאת)
Job. 8:8 רִישׁוֹן (ראשון)
and more.

And when it happens, we don't seek a new meaning for that word, but we accept the fact that the Silent Aleph was dropped.

Another thing is that it fits the verse that comes exactly right after.
It is actually the same message, using positive words.
Leviticus 11:43 אַל־תְּשַׁקְּצוּ אֶת־נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם בְּכָל־הַשֶּׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ וְלֹא תִטַּמְּאוּ בָּהֶם וְנִטְמֵתֶם בָּם
Leviticus 11:44 וְהִתְקַדִּשְׁתֶּם וִהְיִיתֶם קְדֹשִׁים... וְלֹא תְטַמְּאוּ אֶת נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם בְּכׇל הַשֶּׁרֶץ הָרֹמֵשׂ עַל הָאָרֶץ

In verse 44 we see the verse in the opposite order, and with the same root twice.
וְהִתְקַדִּשְׁתֶּם
וִהְיִיתֶם קְדֹשִׁים

Just like
וְלֹא תִטַּמְּאוּ בָּהֶם
וְנִטְמֵתֶם בָּם

Leviticus 11:43 אַל־תְּשַׁקְּצוּ אֶת־נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם בְּכָל־הַשֶּׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ
Leviticus 11:44 לֹא תְטַמְּאוּ אֶת נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם בְּכׇל הַשֶּׁרֶץ הָרֹמֵשׂ עַל הָאָרֶץ

Leviticus 11:43 וְלֹא תִטַּמְּאוּ בָּהֶם (Hitpael Stem)
Leviticus 11:44 וְהִתְקַדִּשְׁתֶּם (Also Hitpael Stem)

Leviticus 11:43 וְנִטְמֵתֶם בָּם (result state)
Leviticus 11:44 וִהְיִיתֶם קְדֹשִׁים (result state)

So it seems that the two verses come in the same style.
Only One uses a negative state (being unpure),
And one uses a positive state (being Holy).
And therefore, it seems that נטמתם is simply נטמאתם that repeats the Hitpael form of תטמאו,
Just like קדושים repeats the Hitpael form of והתקדשתם.

******************************************************************************************************************************
About root טמה...

Some doubt that this root even exists in Hebrew, and they don't see it even in the נִטְמִינוּ of Job 18:3.
And some accept it in Job, but not in this case of Levi. (which is understood as טמא).

On the other hand, some indeed see this נטמתם as root טמה.
And the meaning of "stupid" is not just because of context, but it comes from the meaning of "block"
As if the one is block-minded (mentally), or with a blocked heart - and that led to the meaning of dumb and stupid and so on.
This meaning comes from the understanding that the root טמה is close to אטם, טמן, plus fits close Aramaic root טממ and such, plus fits to other layers of Hebrew that also used an expanded root of טמטם in the same meaning, and also טממ, and more.
And since Hebrew roots have a switch relationship, it is natural to see that טממ=טמה=אטם and such (both in Hebrew and Aramaic).

As for Karl's suggestion as "debased", it also fits the context, and I must also understand it through the basic meaning of blocking or covering and so on.
And that would be as if a man is blocked-spiritually which cause him to lower his spiritual status (or human-status).

*************************************************************************************************************************************
As for לא-אל

These negating words are so common (in every language) that I don't think we should have a problem to accept them being used sometimes freely in the sentences.

For example:
Jer. 7:6
גֵּר יָתוֹם וְאַלְמָנָה לֹא תַעֲשֹׁקוּ
וְדָם נָקִי אַל תִּשְׁפְּכוּ בַּמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה
וְאַחֲרֵי אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים לֹא תֵלְכוּ לְרַע לָכֶם

So about oppressing the foreigner, the fatherless, and the widow, it says לא.
And about shedding innocent blood, it says אל (I guess it is not that important).
And about walking after other gods, it says לא again.

So do you think that there is a difference here between the power of negations, or maybe, it is just a matter of style...?

Another example using לא and אל:
Num. 14:42 אַל תַּעֲלוּ כִּי אֵין י״י בְּקִרְבְּכֶם וְלֹא תִּנָּגְפוּ לִפְנֵי אֹיְבֵיכֶם
Deut. 1:42 לֹא תַעֲלוּ וְלֹא תִלָּחֲמוּ כִּי אֵינֶנִּי בְּקִרְבְּכֶם וְלֹא תִּנָּגְפוּ לִפְנֵי אֹיְבֵיכֶם

And don't get me wrong, there is a difference in the usage between לא and אל. But it seems that in some verses, the usage is just for the style.

[Chris Watts]

As for לא-אל

These negating words are so common (in every language) that I don't think we should have a problem to accept them being used sometimes freely in the sentences.

For example:
Jer. 7:6
גֵּר יָתוֹם וְאַלְמָנָה לֹא תַעֲשֹׁקוּ
וְדָם נָקִי אַל תִּשְׁפְּכוּ בַּמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה
וְאַחֲרֵי אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים לֹא תֵלְכוּ לְרַע לָכֶם

So about oppressing the foreigner, the fatherless, and the widow, it says לא.
And about shedding innocent blood, it says אל (I guess it is not that important).
And about walking after other gods, it says לא again.

So do you think that there is a difference here between the power of negations, or maybe, it is just a matter of style...?

Another example using לא and אל:
Num. 14:42 אַל תַּעֲלוּ כִּי אֵין י״י בְּקִרְבְּכֶם וְלֹא תִּנָּגְפוּ לִפְנֵי אֹיְבֵיכֶם
Deut. 1:42 לֹא תַעֲלוּ וְלֹא תִלָּחֲמוּ כִּי אֵינֶנִּי בְּקִרְבְּכֶם וְלֹא תִּנָּגְפוּ לִפְנֵי אֹיְבֵיכֶם

And don't get me wrong, there is a difference in the usage between לא and אל. But it seems that in some verses, the usage is just for the style.

I would like to answer this particular question that you asked : """So do you think that there is a difference here between the power of negations, or maybe, it is just a matter of style...?

In Numbers 14:42, Moses is speaking directly to his audience. In Deut 1:42 Moses is relaying what God told him to say. So actually yes I detect a difference between the use of אל and לא. The difference I perceive is that in Numbers Moses pleads, in Deut he relays what God spoke to Him. Now none of this changes the message, and no doubt to most people I would seem pedantically annoying or totally nutty. I used to read the Hebrew scriptures as Icy words on a piece of paper, picking through the cold meanings and frosty grammar. But I learned from the likes of Robert Alter how there is subtlety and emotion infused into the web of cold material that confronts us; in reading the Hebrew it is so easy to be cut off from the feelings of the person writing; even today in our email exchanges miscommunication happens because the writer writes with emotion and the receiver reads without the necessary non-verbal cues and subtle intonations that speech produces in order to convey good and not so good feelings. Moses no doubt commanded authority and shouted and roared God's words at times, but that does not mean that whenever God told him to say something it came without a heart-felt emotional appeal, even tenderness on occasion. And so maybe there are times when there is a subtle difference between the two negatives, at times, depending on the situation and context within which a message is delivered.

This is the best I can say

Chris watts

[ducky]

Hi Chris,

I actually knew that this answer would come. And I was hesitating if I should write these two verses.
There are (at least) two more cases like that, and different excuses can be found about each one of them.
And therefore, I don't want to debate about that.
That is why I put it at the end.

My question was about Jer. 7:6.

Jer. 7:6
גֵּר יָתוֹם וְאַלְמָנָה לֹא תַעֲשֹׁקוּ
וְדָם נָקִי אַל תִּשְׁפְּכוּ בַּמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה
וְאַחֲרֵי אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים לֹא תֵלְכוּ לְרַע לָכֶם

So about oppressing the foreigner, the fatherless, and the widow, it says לא.
And about shedding innocent blood, it says אל (I guess it is not that important).
And about walking after other gods, it says לא again.

So do you think that there is a difference here between the power of negations, or maybe, it is just a matter of style...?

This is the main case that I want to bring.

[Chris Watts]

Hi Chris,

I actually knew that this answer would come. And I was hesitating if I should write these two verses.
There are (at least) two more cases like that, and different excuses can be found about each one of them.
And therefore, I don't want to debate about that.
That is why I put it at the end.

My question was about Jer. 7:6.

Jer. 7:6
גֵּר יָתוֹם וְאַלְמָנָה לֹא תַעֲשֹׁקוּ
וְדָם נָקִי אַל תִּשְׁפְּכוּ בַּמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה
וְאַחֲרֵי אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים לֹא תֵלְכוּ לְרַע לָכֶם

So about oppressing the foreigner, the fatherless, and the widow, it says לא.
And about shedding innocent blood, it says אל (I guess it is not that important).
And about walking after other gods, it says לא again.

So do you think that there is a difference here between the power of negations, or maybe, it is just a matter of style...?

This is the main case that I want to bring.

Hi Ducky, great, sorry, ok; It would appear on the cold unfeeling surface of written type that this is just a poetic or convenient change between two adverbial negatives. I agree, and that is how I use to read things. However, oh here it comes you say, however, this particular passage is not a set of commands like the 10 commandments where לֹא is used throughout. Neither are we reading prohibitions from Leviticus or a list of do's and do nots. What we are reading is conversational, Jeremiah pleading with the audience. Imagine this for example, He is standing at the entrance to the temple courtyard area and a whole queue entering in, there he is saying (as per the hebrew) "If you could mend your ways and your actions, and execute right judgement between neighbours; if you do not oppress the foreigner and children without fathers, and oh stop shedding innocent blood in this place, and neither walk after......". There is emotion here, not simply grammar on paper. So yes, even in Jeremiah 7:6 there is a difference.

The אַל here does NOT lessen the severity of murder, but within this context it softens the appeal, it is not a command, it is an appeal, Please please stop killing. It is exactly the same as when people cry out today : "Stop cheating the consumer, stop making cheap pharmaceuticals, and please stop being responsible for another persons death because of your greed". The first clause. by your grammatical reading might seem stronger, but in actual fact, this first clause actually strengthens the severity of the appeal. And this is how I see it, the אַל is slightly softer and does not command the same power as the לֹא . Its use however is not simply poetical nor does one throw it in because לֹא gets boring after a while. Its use is deliberate. (Leaving aside the Jussive and cohortative in this conversation)

I look forward to your next challenge

Chris watts

[ducky]

Hi Chris,

When you say that you're waiting for the next challenge, it means that you feel that the excuse was accepted.
But I can see you enjoy it.

Here is another one to explain:
Levi. 10:6 רָאשֵׁיכֶם אַל תִּפְרָעוּ וּבִגְדֵיכֶם לֹא תִפְרֹמוּ.

Let me help you.
Moses came and said: Listen guys, eehhh... ooooh... if you may, don't loosen your hair. But don't you dare tear your clothes.

Another one:
Ex. 23:7 וְנָקִי וְצַדִּיק אַל תַּהֲרֹג.
Only אל? For killing the innocent? In Exodus? Inside a set of laws?
I think that God may had a typo here.

Another one:
In the verse that opened the thread:
Levi. 11:43 אַל תְּשַׁקְּצוּ אֶת נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם בְּכׇל הַשֶּׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ וְלֹא תִטַּמְּאוּ בָּהֶם וְנִטְמֵתֶם בָּם.
It says אַל תְּשַׁקְּצוּ.

Levi. 20:25 וְהִבְדַּלְתֶּם בֵּין הַבְּהֵמָה הַטְּהֹרָה לַטְּמֵאָה... וְלֹא תְשַׁקְּצוּ אֶת נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם בַּבְּהֵמָה וּבָעוֹף... אֲשֶׁר הִבְדַּלְתִּי לָכֶם לְטַמֵּא.
It says לֹא תְשַׁקְּצוּ.

So is that command is a harsh Don't-Command, or a light Don't-Command?

[Chris Watts]

When you say that you're waiting for the next challenge, it means that you feel that the excuse was accepted.
But I can see you enjoy it.

Hi Chris,

Here is another one to explain:
Levi. 10:6 רָאשֵׁיכֶם אַל תִּפְרָעוּ וּבִגְדֵיכֶם לֹא תִפְרֹמוּ.

Let me help you.
Moses came and said: Listen guys, eehhh... ooooh... if you may, don't loosen your hair. But don't you dare tear your clothes.

Another one:
Ex. 23:7 וְנָקִי וְצַדִּיק אַל תַּהֲרֹג.
Only אל? For killing the innocent? In Exodus? Inside a set of laws?
I think that God may had a typo here.

Lev 10:6 - Could this be a jussive? Yes. The context allow for it. Reason for a moment. You yourself would not be screaming "Do Nots" just after two well known guys, especially Aaron's own sons, Moses dear sons also by attachment, were toasted right in front of your eyes. the atmosphere would have been filled with solemnity and awe and shock, and the people wanted to mourn, but Moses instructed them otherwise with a soft approach. It's so simple. The dialogue begins with a softened negative to establish Moses's tone of voice אַל and proceeds with two negatives in the form of neither do this nor do that.

As for Exodus 23:7. Did you notice that jussive in 23:1? לֹ֥א תִשָּׂ֖א שֵׁ֣מַע שָׁ֑וְא אַל־תָּ֤שֶׁת יָֽדְךָ֙ עִם־רָשָׁ֔ע לִהְיֹ֖ת עֵ֥ד חָמָֽס
Could this easily have been a לֹ֥א do you think? Think about it, this is not an arbitrary use of the two negatives interchanging simply because of grammatical boredom. It's deliberate setting of tone in the speaker's voice.

מִדְּבַר־שֶׁ֖קֶר תִּרְחָ֑ק וְנָקִ֤י וְצַדִּיק֙ אַֽל־תַּהֲרֹ֔ג כִּ֥י לֹא־אַצְדִּ֖יק רָשָֽׁע

As for the whole translation of 23:7 I read it like this : "Keep yourselves far from a false matter that the innocent and the righteous you do not kill". That Vav in וְנָקִ֤י could be translated as 'That' instead of 'and'. The emphasis of the first seven verses in in ch 23 is actually upon not being a false witness to your fellow man, and actually verse 1,2,3,6,7 and 8 are all about the same thing. The killing of the innocent and the righteous is the emphasis, NOT killing in general, because the thrust of this dialogue is that all this false witnessing and deceiving leads to that slaying, it leads to another person's death. The אַֽל in no way lessens the severity of the command, it is strengthened by what has led up to it. Do not Kill is the second most important commandment, it is a fundamental act that needs no law or teaching about it being wrong, and Yet, and yet It is here placed as a side note half way through a dialogue. It is the speaker's voice here that you are listening to, not grammar on paper. It is added not as a command but as a comment, the command not to kill was already known, was already a logical conclusion, was already pretty darn obvious to everyone.

The idea of raising a false report is all about the innocent and the righteous, one does not raise a false report against the guilty.

Chris watts

Ok, as for the difference between ch 11 and ch 20, for me it is straight-forward. Both are commands carrying equal weight, strength and authority. This whole subject for me is not about whether the command carries less or more authority, its about the speaker's tone of voice and the context within which something is said. The negative in Leviticus 20:25 is stressed, I could go on with this waffle, the best I can explain is by example. I tell my son for the first time ever not to take biscuits from the table without first asking. So I say to him : You must not take any biscuits from the table without asking", then later on in the day I am leaving him in that room and I remind him : "Don't take any biscuits now" Which one sounds harsher? English goes to great lengths to convey emotion and tone of voice, can you not imagine that Hebrew does as well, but with more subtlety and less wordiness?

EDIT: I think I should summarise this:The imperfect with לֹא expresses a more emphatic definite prohibition, and one could say it says : Do not do that! Obedience is demanded on this! Whereas the אַל with imperfect is often a Jussive, but in any case serves more as an additional warning, appeal not to do something, a milder form, it introduces negative wishes/desires and pleas. this is how I read it anyway.

Chris watts