Thursday, February 09, 2012

On Nahum ish Gam Zu's name

Evry child knows the Gemara Ta'anit 21a, "ואמאי קרו ליה נחום איש גם זו דכל מילתא דהוה סלקא ליה אמר גם זו לטובה," "Because whenever something untoward happened to him he would say: "This, too, is for a good purpose."

Normally the construction "ish such-and-such" indicates place of residence, and the Aruch pointed out that גִּמְזוֹ, Gimzo, is a place listed in ii Chron. 28.12: "גמזו. בתענית בפרק סדר תעניות בגמרא נחום איש גם זו י"מ שם מקום ואמר בדברי הימים יששם אחת מן העיירי' גמזו שמה."

Some have suggested that the Gemara's explanation must have been absent from the Talmud used by R. Nathan, author of the Aruch, because it explains the name based on his trait of saying "gam zo le-tovah" and he doesn't even mention it. Furthermore, Sefer Yuhasin quotes the Aruch followed by R. Nissim Gaon, and he simply gives the Gemara's explanation. Therefore it has been suggested that R. Nissim's explanation later became incorporated into the text of the Gemara from marginal notes (likely he had some source or tradition, or perhaps he just based it on the story, which quotes him as always saying gam zo le-tovah. One might even say that the story is clearly alluding to his name, even if the Gemara didn't spell it out.).

Whatever the case, it occurred to me that maybe he really was called "Gam zo," (or "Gamzo") rather than "Gimzo," and perhaps the Gemara (so to speak) or R. Nissim, being well aware of ii Chron. 28:12 was really asking how come his name is pronounced gam rather than gim. Not "why is this his name?" but "Why is his name pronounced this way?"

(I started writing this post last night, but then I looked in the edition of the Tishbi with the commentary Raglei Mevaser printed in 1910 and I saw the author, R. Eliezer Herstick (sp?) literally says exactly what I was thinking, although he takes it as an authentic original part of the Gemara.)

But I further wonder if this isn't a phenomenon of vowel shifting between /a/ and /i/, c.f., aben versus ibn (see my post) or names like miriam and mariam (Μαριαμ, in the Septuagint). There are many more examples.

Graetz made a very interesting and possibly compelling suggestion that Nahum ish Gimzo is identical with נחמיה העמסוני, mentioned in Pesachim 22b and Kiddushin 57a. In both places the Gemara first calls him Shimon, and then Nehemia. In other words, it is uncertain even of his name. Graetz points out that we know nothing of this person, but his teaching method is similar to that adopted by Rabbi Akiva, otherwise known as Nahum's student (or in one version, the teacher-student relationship was reversed). Furthermore, Hagigah 12a attributes the same exegetical method (explaining each particle et) to Nahum. Also a very guttural ayin is similar to gimmel, close to or identical with the letter ghayn in Arabic, and there are several examples in the Septuagint of words spelled in Hebrew with an ayin being transcribed by a gamma. The upshot is that עמסוני may be identical with גמזו (or, if you like, גמזוני). Graetz further explains both as the same as the place known by the Greek name Emmaus. See the Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums, Volume 19 pg. 527, and others accept this identification as well.

23 comments:

  1. The upshot is that עמסוני may be identical with גמזו (or, if you like, גמזוני).

    What about the shift from ז to ס (or vice-versa)? Is that attested elsewhere?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm not sure I can give an example off the top of my head, but they're both sibilants. Graetz was a talmid of Rav Hirsch, you know.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I once heard a fascinating talk by Prof. Yochanan Breuer about Lashon Chazal, and he mentioned that in Rabbinic Hebrew only "אף" is used, never "גם". He pointed out that גם זו לטובה is clearly just a play on the place name, not an example of the use of "gam".

    ReplyDelete
  4. The phenomenon is found in the name "Bithiah" (בִתיה) as it is written in Chronicles which is pronounced nowadays by most people as Basya (בַתיה). The same is true with the fourth book of the Torah which should really be called בְמדבר, yet everyone calls it בַמדבר.

    ReplyDelete
  5. By the way, does anyone have a source for what Rabbi Avraham Eliezer Sofer (son of Rav Yaakov Chaim Sofer) writes in Mileitzi Yosher (pg. 557) that Nachum Ish-Gamzu died on Tu B'Av???

    ReplyDelete
  6. As an aside, it's amazing to me that the Schottenstein doesn't bring this in the notes

    What's amazing to me is that you didn't realize that Schottenstein does indeed, bring it, in the name of Rabbenu Chananel! Maybe it's time for you to get a new scribe... :)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yes, Rabbeinu Channanel says the same vort "offenort", that he came from Gimzo. [Dont know about the Artscroll though.]

    Re Chaim hakoton's comment about Bamidbar - Most of us call it BAmidbar, but R’ Aryeh Kaplan writes it as BEmidbar (with an e). the reason we refer to it as we do is because we already know which desert is referred to, thus changing the vowel from a shva into a patach. But my friend the Dikdukian says: “ The custom is isolate the word or words that are the title and conjugate accordingly. This is why we have Tazriyah and not Sazriyah. Mishpatim and not HaMishpatim (since we do not use v'aileh and clarify it with asher ...). Devarim and not HaDevarim. Since the reference is to a specific desert (Sinai) the hay hayediyah is implemented. The names, according to tradition, are clearly not just the word or words of the beginning phrase.”

    ReplyDelete
  8. Zeke, wow , that's amazing to me too. The only explanation I can think of is that maybe I looked up one of the other places that mentions him but not Taanis 21a? I corrected the post.

    Reb Chaim, I'm not sure if Bitya/ Batya is the same thing if only because here "Batya" implies or means daughter. So that would be a reason in itself for people to make the mistake, rather than an actual vowel shift as a natural linguistic process. But you may be right.

    Balashon, Yochanan Breuer points out that the yud drops at the end of countless words in Aramic, and that this could be the real explanation of why the title is 'rabbi' in EY and 'rav' in Bavel.

    ReplyDelete
  9. R. Yaakov Emden writes in a few places that the practice of chazal was to explain even secular and mundane terms with significance בדרך רמז such as explaining that טבריה was so called because it sits בטבור ההרים even though it was really named for the roman governor Tiberius. Accordingly, there is really no reason to consider the explanation of chazal as a later interpolation on account of the differing view of the Aruch who may well have understood this gemara to be just a רמז.

    ReplyDelete
  10. R. Yaakov Emden writes in a few places that the practice of chazal was to explain even secular and mundane terms with significance בדרך רמז such as explaining that טבריה was so called because it sits בטבור ההרים even though it was really named for the roman governor Tiberius. Accordingly, there is really no reason to consider the explanation of chazal as a later interpolation on account of the differing view of the Aruch who may well have understood this gemara to be just a רמז.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thanks for the RYE reference.

    It's not only based on the Aruch, but also because the quotation from R. Nissim literally says what the Gemara said. I think in some Aruch manuscripts it even quotes R. Nissim (at least according to the Aruch Hashalem).

    ReplyDelete
  12. Schottenstein brings both the Aruch and Rabbeinu Chanenel in Sanhedrin 108: probably because the marsha there ask on the Aruch. The Haflah shebarchin, which very fortunately is included in with my Aruch, suggests that he came from the city but people broke the name into 2 words as per shas,

    http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?sits=1&req=23942&st=%u05D2%u05DE%u05D6%u05D5

    Midwest

    ReplyDelete
  13. On the other hand, we call it Shemot and not Sheimot.

    How about Yehoshua Bin Nun? What's that about?

    ReplyDelete
  14. The identification of Emmaus with Gimzo is nice in theory, but inaccurate. There's a bit of dispute about where Emmaus is, but it's clear that it was close to Jerusalem and in the Judean hills (or foothills). It is popularly identified with Nicopolis, near Latrun, due to the name of a nearby depopulated Arab village, Imwas.
    Gimzo, is near Lod and is identified with another Arab village, Jimzu.
    Also, I don't know how telling this is, but Emmaus is spelled in Hebrew with an א generally; most places that started with a ג would have been Latinized to start with a G, not an E.

    ReplyDelete
  15. A man goes to his rabbi, and says: "My wife gave birth to a baby girl this week, Parshas Mishpotim. What should we name her, connected to the parshe?"

    The rabbi says: "How about Makhsheyfe?"

    The man says: "No no, rabbi, my mother-in-law is alive and well!"

    ReplyDelete
  16. R. Matisyahu Shtrashun came to the same conclusion as Graetz in his Mivchar K'tavim p. 34

    ReplyDelete
  17. Looking at the publication dates (Graetz, 1870 and Nesivos Olam, 1859) I would have said that it looks like you caught Graetz ripping him off. But I wonder if it wasn't R. Matisyahu who ripped him off, since I discovered that Graetz already wrote this in Jeschurun vol. 3 (1857) p. 563 (link).

    ReplyDelete
  18. Wouldn't it make sense to vowelize gam zo, therefore not changing the zo part of the placename, as there are opinions that that's how זו should be vowelized in general.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anon, yes. I titled it "gam zu" because most people read it that way, at least who read English, and I wanted it to show up better in search results. I'm not sure if this is what you're getting at, but this very well may be evidence that "the Talmud" also vocalized it "gam zo" (and not "zu") because then the play on words is even stronger.

    ReplyDelete
  20. So is Ribbi-Rabbi the same shift as Bithia-Bathya?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Thanbo, I've thought about that, and my opinion is no and maybe.

    No; the shift came about for grammatical considerations, based on philological investigation into the origin of the title 'rabbi.' Each view derives it from either r-b-b or r-b-h and assigns proof for pronunciation based on that, and the understanding of the exact role the yud is meant to play in this title. In a word, it was not natural at all.

    Maybe; all Talmudic, Geonic and Paytanic evidence indicates that the true pronunciation is with a chirik (and that could of course have naturally shifted to a sheva, and I think it likely explains the shift to what amounts to a segol among many Ashkenazim, ie, rebbe). However, there are two other lines of evidence. The first is the New Testament, which spells it with an alpha. The second is the evidence of "epigraphic rabbis," where tomb inscriptions are in many cases written in Greek or Latin. In these literally everything goes. Everything from alpha to eta and more.

    At the very least we know that some people must have pronounced it with the patah vowel, and it is conceivable to me that *that* shifted (and stablized) to the more familiar chirik, and that's my "maybe."

    ReplyDelete
  22. Steg (dos iz nit der šteg)10:58 AM, February 14, 2012

    There was a general vowel shift of unstressed /a/ vowels to /i/ vowels in Hebrew, hence "maryam" » "miryam", "madbar" » "midbar" "yakhtov" » "yikhtov". I forget what the name of the rule is.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Steg: Not yaktub -> yiktub --> yikhtov? The /a/-->/i/ was so late?

    ReplyDelete