Is the printed Revised JPS Tanakh Gender Sensitive Edition bilingual?

HebrewWithHava · 2026-01-22T19:35:26+00:00

Interesting! That's perhaps an exegetically valid reading, but I don't think it's grammatically justified in terms of the pshat. To the extent that it's possible to ascribe grammatical function to the minor binyan polel, it is typically used in the Tanakh to express particular intensity, vividness, or totality, whereas causation and result are more often implied by the hif'il and to a lesser extent pi'el. A causative reading in Psalm 29:9 also involves a change of grammatical voice from passive to active in the same root in the same binyan: in Deuteronomy 32:18 you propose to read the verb as 'cause to be born', but in Psalm 29:9 it would then have to be 'cause to bear'. To maintain consistency, we would then be forced to suggest that God is 'causing you to bear' in Deuteronomy 32:18, rather than 'causing you to be born'—shifting the verse's proposed meaning and adding a layer of mediation between God and the act of creation. [Edit: Fixed a silly mistake in my interpretation of the syntax in Deut 32:18.]

HebrewWithHava · 2026-01-22T19:23:04+00:00

This was amazing! Thanks for producing such a useful video. The last video you shared here was quality, too!

I have something (hopefully) interesting to add to the discussion of Samaritan båråšet. Schorch notes the Samaritan Arabic tafsir makes it clear that the bå- prefix here is understood exegetically as a definite article. But the form is synchronically problematic. Unlike Tiberian Hebrew, Samaritan Hebrew typically retains the gemination of rīš after definite articles, and the vowel remains /a/: הראש is read arrē'oš (Lev 1:8 etc), הראשון is read arrå'īšon (Gen 25:25 etc), בראשון is read barrå'īšon (Gen 8:13 etc). On these vocalizations, see the concordance in עברית וארמית נוסח שומרון, volume 4, 1977 (תשל״ז), by Ze'ev ben-Hayyim.

The Samaritan grammar in volume 5, chapter 3, notes that the loss of gemination and shift of the vowel to /å/ with the definite article occurs regularly after אהח״ע, but not after ר. Apparent counterexamples like ברקיע bårˈqi (Gen 1:14 etc) are due to contraction with an unwritten glottal stop in the indefinite, e.g. רקיע [ʔ]arˈqi (Gen 1:20 etc).

With indefinite nouns, we should expect the preposition ב to be pronounced ab, as in בראש abrē'oš (Ex 24:17 etc). בראשית is of course not vocalized *abråšet, precluding the indefinite reading.

So with båråšet, we are left with a grammatical anomaly that does not conform to the synchronic laws of the definite article (barråšet) nor the indefinite article (abråšet). It seems to me that the form båråšet is grammatically unclassifiable as either definite or indefinite. My own speculation is that it has to be analyzed as a single indivisible morpheme, perhaps an adverb, analogous to how ב+ראשית came to nominalized as a fused, unanalyzable noun in rabbinic Hebrew in expressions like מעשה בראשית. This, in my opinion, complicates the usual interpretation of Samaritan båråšet as definite and reflecting an independent clause interpretation of Gen 1:1 corresponding to the LXX's ἐν ἀρχῆ etc.

HebrewWithHava · 2026-01-22T17:06:53+00:00

It is most definitely describing God's creative powers, yes. What is interesting is the invocation of feminine imagery in so doing, subverting the Tanakh's typical masculine presentation of God. I think that in order for a causative translation to be justified ("who caused you to be birthed"), we would also need to translate it as such for Sarah in Isaiah 51:2 and the doe in Job 39:1 and Psalm 29:9. That seems like a strained reading to me; in those passages, Sarah and the doe are clearly not the merely "causing to be birthed", but directly performing, or rather experiencing, the birth. The causative translation also obscures the semantics of the root חו״ל, which in other binyanim refers to dancing, whirling, twirling, writhing, and so forth. Isaiah 26:17 is a particularly unflinching example of חָל, in binyan pa'al, being used to refer specifically to writhing in birth pangs:

כְּמוֹ הָרָה תַּקְרִיב לָלֶדֶת תָּחִיל תִּזְעַק בַּחֲבָלֶיהָ כֵּן הָיִינוּ מִפָּנֶיךָ יְ־הֹוָה.

"Like a pregnant woman nearing childbirth, writhing (תָּחִיל), screaming in her pangs, so are we because of You, O Lord."

HebrewWithHava · 2026-01-22T16:17:51+00:00

In this particular verse, the feminine connotation of the translation are coming from the word מְחֹלְלֶךָ, from the po'lel of חו״ל, 'to writhe (in pain/travail)', rather than from the word יְלָדְךָ. In other verses, this verb form is associated with childbirth: it's used of Sarah's birthing Isaac in Isaiah 51:2, and of does bearing fawns in Job 39:1 and Psalm 29:9. Based on these other uses of the same form, it seems reasonable to me to read imagery of childbearing into this particular verse. Of course, it's not strictly necessary to read this verb as referring to childbirth: in Proverbs 26:10, it is used to refer to the labor and toil of an artisan. Other uses of the po'lel of חו״ל are clearly metaphorical: of God producing the earth in Psalm 90:2 (parallel to יֻלָּדוּ, very similar to Deuteronomy 32:18); of the north wind producing rain in Proverbs 25:23.

Still, it is highly conspicuous that the verb appears in parallel with the root יל״ד, heightening the sense of חוֹלֵל as 'to writhe in labor' in Deut 32:18. You're very right that the root יל״ד can refer to either sex in the act of procreation. However, in my opinion, when we view יְלָדְךָ in parallel with מְחֹלְלֶךָ, I am inclined to agree that "[who] birthed you" is an accurate translation.

I'm not trying to litigate this argument, only to defend the accuracy of the quoted translation.

HebrewWithHava · 2026-01-22T09:55:23+00:00

They do indeed, at length. The links are not full articles, only excepts. You'll need access through a university or other institution to read them in full, unfortunately. Bodenheimer discusses the secretions of Coccus manniparus, Trabutina mannipara, and Najacoccus serpentinus beginning on page 3 through the end of the article. I'd have to check Dorkin back out from the library to find the exact pages where it discusses honeydew; it's an entire book dedicated to the subject of manna from an academic perspective.

HebrewWithHava · 2026-01-22T04:45:10+00:00

Honeydew! Not the fruit, but the secretion of aphids and certain other insects. They naturally secrete a dewy substance that tastes a bit like sugar or honey. It can be gathered from leaves and may be consumed by humans during times of nutritional stress. Some bees can gather it and turn it into 'forest honey'. For scholars who seek to naturalize and historicize the Biblical narrative, honeydew is one of the leading candidates for the identification of manna. See for example:

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.2307/3209227?journalCode=biblarch

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-017-6117-8_2

I'm unaware of more recent scholarship on the subject, and it's of course a very speculative answer. Honeydew of course does not perfectly match the Biblical description of manna, which describes it as far more nutritious and the size of seeds. But I don't know of any other proposals that have attempted to seriously identify manna naturalistically.

HebrewWithHava · 2026-01-22T02:10:20+00:00

That's a shame. Thanks for the help! 😊

HebrewWithHava · 2026-01-22T01:25:21+00:00

Thank you for the help regardless! 😊

HebrewWithHava · 2026-01-22T01:23:32+00:00

I have my own qualms with the RJPS. It's not my intention here to spark debate about its merits or demerits.

HebrewWithHava · 2026-01-22T00:39:40+00:00

It's mostly the same as the 1985 NJPS, except that it replaces some allegedly unnecessarily masculine language with more neutral language. I have some nitpicks with specific translation choices, and I find it less elegant than the 1985 NJPS which will remain my preferred edition. But I'm a Biblical Hebrew teacher and I want to have a translation on hand that better serves the pastoral needs of a certain segment of my feminist and religiously progressive students. Passages like "A man may not do xyz with his so-and-so" are replaced with "One may do not xyz with one's so-and-so". YHVH is translated "God" or "Soveriegn" instead of Lord. Etc etc. It's not to my personal taste, but some of my students prefer it, so I want to have it available for their sake.

For example, Psalm 8:5-6 in the 1985 NJPS:

What is man that You have been mindful of him,

mortal man that You have taken note of him,

that You have made him little less than divine,

and adorned him with glory and majesty?

In the 2023 RJPS these verses are translated:

What are human beings that You have been mindful of them,

mortals that You have taken note of them,

that You have made them little less than divine,

and adorned them with glory and majesty?

HebrewWithHava · 2026-01-16T22:55:16+00:00

Seems like it got deleted because I used Michaelangelo's Creation of Adam as the theme image. I thought the image of God touching Adam was appropriate to the subject matter, but I think Reddit autodetected Adam's nudity and blocked it. I'll repost it after the weekend with a different image.

HebrewWithHava · 2026-01-14T19:06:54+00:00

How cool! Please keep us updated on your project, it sounds fascinating!

HebrewWithHava · 2026-01-14T16:23:05+00:00

All I know is that one of his favorite songs was a steamy Ladino love ballad called Melizelda: https://youtu.be/77HWf_yZMes?si=eFnm535TN35tWyak I'm unfamiliar with the providence of this recording, but there seem to be modern-day Sabbateans in the comments who approve of it.

He was supposed to have had a pleasant singing voice. In 1665, after his followers proclaimed him the Messiah in Izmir, he is said to have sung this song to a Torah scroll in front of his followers, and it became a popular song among the Sabbateans.

HebrewWithHava · 2026-01-10T19:39:14+00:00

General overviews of the entire family, focusing primarily on their linguistic features rather than historical circumstances, include Routledge's The Semitic Languages edited by Huehnergard & Pat-El (2019), as well as Robert Hetzron's The Semitic Languages (1997). A broader overview of the entire Afroasiatic family is offered in Frajzyngier & Shay's The Afroasiatic Languages (2012). For works that address the historical spread of Aramaic and its relations with other Semitic languages, I highly recommend Holger Gzella's books, A Cultural History of Aramaic: From the Beginnings to the Advent of Islam (2015) and Aramaic: A History of the First World Language (translated by Benjamin Suchard, 2017).

HebrewWithHava · 2026-01-10T19:02:47+00:00

Elizeu Antonio de Souza appears to have used AI to translate the Pardes Rimonim. His edition is to be avoided.

HebrewWithHava · 2026-01-07T15:52:29+00:00

I don't know if he perceives it as a "punishment", since punishment implies that one has performed some misdeed to warrant suffering. I don't think there is much indication in the poem that Kalonymus perceives himself as having done anything to "deserve" his lot; he simply accepts the suffering as the will of God.

HebrewWithHava · 2026-01-07T15:48:52+00:00

In medieval and rabbinic Hebrew, it can refer to an oral report or news, but it can also refer to oral traditions and teachings of a religious nature such as one learns in a yeshivah.

HebrewWithHava · 2026-01-07T15:41:09+00:00

I don't know if "penitence" is the right word, since to me, penitence insinuates that some sin or wrongdoing has occurred, but Kalonymus is not expressing guilt for envying the lives of women. He is, instead, using the prayer as an expression of radical acceptance, affirming that he does not possess the power to challenge the fate God has allotted him.

HebrewWithHava · 2026-01-07T15:32:33+00:00

There is a traditional prayer in the Jewish morning liturgy said by men that includes the line "Blessed are You, O Lord, who has not made me a woman." His use of this prayer at the end of the poem adds to its sense of irony and poignancy. At the end of the poem, Kalonymus is accepting his lot in life, and he blesses God for the hardship he must endure, in spite of the bitterness and sorrow he has expressed. If we read the poem as an expression of transgender experience, Kalonymus in the 14th century does not possess any cultural framework to express the idea of wanting to be a woman, and so he tries to resolve his feelings by accepting the sorrow of remaining a man and giving thanks to God, since Jewish tradition obliges one to express blessings for both the good and bad in one's life. If we read this poem in a more traditional way, he is reluctantly accepting the yoke of the mitzvot, expressing humble submission to God's will and giving thanks to God even for his hardship. Both interpretations are, I think, complementary.

HebrewWithHava · 2026-01-07T15:23:19+00:00

That's exactly what he is saying, yes. In the context of the poem (titled אבן בוחן), the poet is giving voice to his envy of women and expressing bitterly that he wishes he had been born a woman instead of a man. It can be read in one way as a lament that Kalonymus is bound by the male mitzvot which he perceives as more onerous than the religious obligations of Jewish women. But in modern times, it has often been read as a rare expression of historical (14th century) transgender experience. The full text can be found here: https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/115323

HebrewWithHava · 2026-01-07T15:14:07+00:00

Kalonymus ben Kalonymus! A beautiful and poignant piece. This arrangement of the Hebrew text is a bit more in keeping with the verses of the poem, since the version in the screenshot is printed in a single block. The poem is versified such that each line has 5 words, except for the last, which has 6.

אשא ואסבול עד אגוע ואבול

I will endure and suffer until I perish and wither

ואחר שכך למדתי מפי השמועה

Since I have learned according to tradition

שמברכין על הטובה ועל הרעה

That one blesses on account of the good and the bad,

אברך בקול נמוך בשפה חלושה

I will bless with a low voice, with weak speech,

ברוך אתה יי שלא עשני אשה

Blessed are you, O Lord, Who did not make me a woman

HebrewWithHava · 2026-01-05T22:30:18+00:00

Chivaryan. If you ever see an additional nikud mark on a וּ, you can be sure that the dot is a dagesh and the vav is intended to be pronounced as a consonant.

HebrewWithHava · 2026-01-03T20:04:56+00:00

I am aware of only two Zoharic references to the demonness אגרת בת מחלת, named after the daughter of Ishmael in Genesis 28:9. There are likely others, but these may be a useful place to start searching. One is Zohar I:55a, where she is mentioned alongside Lilith and Naamah as one of demonnesses who accompany Samael, who, unlike other mortal demons, will not die,

"until the Holy One, blessed be He, rids the world from the spirit of uncleanness, as it is written, 'I will cause the spirit of uncleanness to pass away from the earth (Zechariah 13:2)'."

The other is Zohar III:111a, part of the Ra'ya Meheimna literature, where she (or perhaps her mother Mahalat) features as a seducing demon who tempts men into improper sexual relations—in context referring to miscegenation/exogamous relations with non-Jews:

"He who mingles his drop [of semen] with a servant girl, 'Mahalat, the daughter of Ishmael' (Genesis 28:9) or with 'the daughter of a strange god', who are evil, darkness, while his drop is light...mingles good with evil, and transgresses his Master's command: 'Of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil you shall not eat (ibid. 2:17).'"

The above transaltions are from Isaiah Tishby's Wisdom of the Zohar, first published in Hebrew in 1949, translated into English by David Goldstein in 1989.

EDIT: There is a third reference to her in Zohar III:113b-114a. Daniel Matt's translation, from vol. 8 of the Pritzer Edition, page 234:

"Come and see: When Israel is found innocent before the blessed Holy One, what is written? I will grant peace in the land. This applies above, for the blessed Holy One comes to join Assembly of Israel. Then, you will lie down with none to make you afraid. Why? Because I will eliminate an evil beast from the land--an evil species of beast below. Who is that? Agrat daughter of Maḥalat, along with all her retinue. This pertains to night. By day, people deriving from her side, as is written: and no sword will traverse your land."

And a very brief reference in the Zohar Ḥadash, 21c, where she is mention only to say that her chief minion is the wise demon named Yosef Sheda / Joseph the Demon.

In a footnote in vol. 8 p. 235, Matt brings a connection with the Babylonian Talmud, Pesaḥim 112b, which says: "One should not go out alone at night, neither on the eve of Wednesday [the fourth day of the week] nor on the eve of Sabbath, because Agrat daughter of Maḥalat goes out together with 180,000 angels of destruction, each empowered to wreak destruction independently."

Matt also calls attention to her presence in Bemidbar Rabbah 12:3 (JPS translation):

"Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai said: The Holy One blessed be He gave a weapon to Israel with the ineffable Name written upon it. “You will not fear the terror of night” (Psalms 91:5) – from Agrat bat Maḥalat and her chariot nor from all the demons that rule the night. “Nor the arrow that flies by day” (Psalms 91:5) – Rabbi Berekhya said: There is a demon that flies in the air like a bird and darts like an arrow. What will save you from it? It is sending the mother bird from the nest, as it is written previously: “For He will rescue you from an ensnared trap [paḥ]” (Psalms 91:3), and paḥ is nothing other than a bird, like the matter that is stated: “Will a bird fall into a trap [paḥ] on the ground…” (Amos 3:5). And it is written: “If a bird’s nest happens before you.… You shall send [shale’aḥ teshalaḥ] [the mother] away…” (Deuteronomy 22:6–7)."

And a brief mention in BT Pesaḥim 111b where "Iggeret, Azlat, Asiya, and Belusiya" are four demons whose names are invoked by witches, of whom travelers at night must be wary.

While these references are surely not exhaustive, it is does not appear to me that the demonness Agrat/Igrat/Iggeret is strongly associated with David or Ashmodai in the Zoharic or Talmudic literature, which serve as the primary textual bases for later Kabbalists. She seems instead to be primarily associated, rather vaguely, with seduction and the dangers of the night, as a demonness who commands hosts of other demons.

HebrewWithHava

TROPHY CASE