Does יחיד refer to “only”?

For discussions which focus upon specific words, their origin, meaning, relationship to other ANE languages.
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
Post Reply
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Does יחיד refer to “only”?

Post by kwrandolph »

A common meaning listed for יחיד is “only”, but is that accurate?

For example, Genesis 22:2, 12 and 16 refer to Isaac as יחיד, but he was not Abraham’s only son. But Isaac was the son who was together with Abraham and would inherit Abraham. Rather, in this case, did not יחיד refer to a close, personal relationship while living together?

Jeremiah 6:26, Amos 8:10 and Zechariah 12:10 would refer to mourning over one with whom one is very close.

Judges 11:34 why is it mentioned separately that he had no other sons and daughters, after mentioning that the one daughter is יחידה, unless the two phrases referred to different ideas?

Proverbs 4:3 the idea of being close to his mother.

Twice יחיד is found in Psalms, 25:16 and 68:7 (6) where “sole” or “only” is not the only reading that can be derived from the verses. Even in those verses, the idea of being with God can be understood.

These are all ten of the occurrences I found in Tanakh, which leads me to the question, does יחיד ever refer to “only”?

Karl W. Randolph.
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Does יחיד refer to “only”?

Post by kwrandolph »

aavichai wrote:The יחיד can be looked at like being one with someone
this form is Qatil of the root יח"ד

Qatil is a form that represent somthing that the action been done to it or could be/worthy to be done to it
All ten uses of יחיד are either an adjective or an adjective used as a noun. Nowhere is it a verb.
aavichai wrote:יח"ד in Qal means to connect with, or be together with..
Which is one of the reasons I ask my question whether it ever referred to “only” or “sole” in Tanakh.
aavichai wrote:Psalm 22:21 and 35:17 uses the word יחידה in the meaning of soul
I question the definition of that word too.
aavichai wrote:and I'll just finish with something nice that Rashi (a famous Rabbi) said …
Ah … Rashi, possibly the most prolific commenter on the Talmud. At least the most authoritative.

(A personal note: I lived for a while in Germany, in a small village near where Rashi lived. In dealing with the locals, I not only had to learn “high German”, but also the local dialect. Later, I discovered that because of learning the local dialect, I could also understand a lot of Yiddish because of the similarities between that dialect and Yiddish.)

Avichai, are you a rabbi or at least yeshiva trained? I don’t mean this as a personal attack nor to cut you down, but to clarify and understand your postings here on this forum.

It appears that at times you are using darosh, or even sod, in your postings. You often bring up things that appear irrelevant to the question at hand. For most Christians, only sfat readings are considered authoritative. Further, in linguistic studies, I use only sfat readings to tease out understanding of words, phrases, euphemisms, grammar, syntax, idioms, and so forth.

Another thing relevant to linguistic studies, is that languages change over time. Hebrew is no exception. Just because a term may have had a certain definition in medieval Hebrew, doesn’t mean that it had the same definition in Biblical Hebrew. I have noticed evidence that some of the rarer terms in Tanakh were forgotten even as early as the LXX. יחיד is used only ten times in Tanakh, and it appears that it had a different meaning in medieval Hebrew from what it had in Biblical Hebrew.

Well … my latest 2¢

Karl W. Randolph.
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Does יחיד refer to “only”?

Post by kwrandolph »

aavichai wrote:
All ten uses of יחיד are either an adjective or an adjective used as a noun. Nowhere is it a verb
So what...
did you read that I wrote it is a verb?
Yes.
aavichai wrote:I didn't say it wasn't an adjective
What is your point?
also אהוב, חביב,
both came from a verb
So do many other words. But not all nouns and adjectives have verbal roots in Hebrew.
aavichai wrote:I just wanted to point out and connect to its verb to show why your thought was acceptable
OK, that I understand.
aavichai wrote:About יחידה
I question the definition of that word too.
Psalm 21:22
הצילה מחרב נפשי
מיד כלב יחידתי

Psalm 35:17
השיבה נפשי משאיהם
מכפירים יחידתי

I'm waiting for your definition
In this context, יחידתי is a noun with a first person singular suffix. It occurs only in these two verses. There’s not much to go on to tease out an understanding of this term. So anything we say will end up being tentative.

From its root, we get the idea of close and intimate companionship.

From its form, we get the idea that it refers to an abstract idea, not a concrete object—companionship, not companion.

These look like prayers for close companionship away from violent and wicked people. Now, how to say that in English?
aavichai wrote:
Ah … Rashi, possibly the most prolific commenter on the Talmud. At least the most authoritative.
Didn't have nothing with the Talmud - hundreds of years later
A “commenter” is someone who writes commentaries on other writings. So Rashi wrote commentaries on the Talmud, he didn’t author the Talmud himself.
aavichai wrote:And the last words that I wrote - was just something nice to read, at least in my opinion

Nothing to do with my reply at all
my reply was based on the hebrew and the last part was just a nice ending
Rashi’s commentary is interesting in that it shows that he struggled with the same questions that I have. However, we approached answers in different ways.

Rashi took medieval Hebrew as authoritative, not to be questioned. So how to understand “only” in light of Ishmael being alive, and how many of Abraham’s other six sons had been born by that time?

I, on the other hand, come to the question as a lexicographer—do we have the correct meanings of the words used?
aavichai wrote:
Just because a term may have had a certain definition in medieval Hebrew, doesn’t mean that it had the same definition in Biblical Hebrew
I hope you'll give me the credit (maybe in time) that I know this and know to make the seperations if needed

If you see me talking about Jewish commentary, it can be either that I think it's right in an objectibe way
or Just throwing a nice thing - like I did here - at the end of my reply
But I thank you for the advice

But as I see with your reply, It seems that you are quite comfotable with mine
are there any objections that you want to put out
I'd like to hear if you have one
Yes, I grant that the medieval to modern use of יחיד means “only” or “sole”. But I don’t see evidence with its use in Biblical Hebrew that it had the same meaning. In fact, I see evidence that contradicts that meaning. Most notably in the history of Abraham.

From its root I get the idea of being together. This is not merely as fellow travelers, but an intimate closeness.

None of the contexts contradicts that understanding of intimate closeness.

Some of the contexts contradict the understanding of “sole” or “only”.

So looking at this as a lexicographer, which meaning, if either, should be chosen for the definition of יחיד?

Karl W. Randolph.
Post Reply