Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament on מחה and מחא (cf. "Mahan" in "Master Mahan")

  

 

מָחָה māḥâ

 

Contents: I. Etymology. II. OT Usage: 1. Literal Meaning; 2. Figurative-theological Meaning; 3. Overview; 4. Special Cases. III. LXX.

 

I. Etymology. The Hebrew term māḥâ corresponds to Ugar. mḥy, “wipe away,” Phoen. mḥh, “extinguish, wipe off,” and perhaps Akk. maʾû, “throw down, destroy, exterminate,” Arab. maḥa (III. w), “wipe away.”

 

II. OT Usage

 

1. Literal Meaning. Since the theological use of māḥâ constitutes a figurative understanding of the word’s literal sense, it is advisable to begin with those cases in which māḥâ exhibits its physical aspect of action or process. These include:

 

a. 2 K. 21:13. A dish “is wiped” inside and out; i.e., with the help of water and perhaps something else (object or substance) a spot or impurity is removed from an article or utensil. The text mentions both object and verb (dish and “wipe off”); the other factors, namely, spot or stain and water, are implied. The parallel expression “stretch the measuring line” is not synonymous, but serves rather as another image for destruction. The stain appears in a general form in v. 13, while v. 16 speaks of spilled blood. This text can be compared with Isa. 4:4, probably a later text which speaks of unclean blood and “washing” (rāḥaṣ). One further significant parallel with related imagery is Ezk. 24:11, which speaks of “melting the filthiness and consuming the rust” on the kettle defiled by spilled blood.

 

b. Nu. 5:23 is part of the law concerning jealousy. After the priest has pronounced a curse, he writes it down, perhaps on parchment; he then washes the document off with the water (māḥâ ʾel-mê) so that the water eradicates the words; the accused woman drinks the water, thus taking the curse into her own body. The text thus mentions the material on which something is written, what is actually written, and the water that washes that writing away. The transition from formless spot or stain to writing is significant. Although the meaning of the writing does not really influence the physical process itself, it radically influences the sense of the statement. Menaḥem Haran⁶ believes that the use of māḥâ here and in similar contexts suggests the use of papyrus; the eradication of writing from parchment is indicated by the verb grd.

 

c. Prov. 30:20. The adulteress “eats, and wipes (māḥ^aṯâ) her mouth.” Here the verb is used in its literal meaning in a context which when taken as a whole exhibits metaphorical or figurative meaning.

 

d. Isa. 25:8. “God will wipe away the tears.” Here the physical act underlies the symbolic meaning. Here and in the previous case we find a person, a body instead of an object, something that stains or disrupts, and the act of wiping away (māḥâ). These latter two constitute theological symbols: reproachable ethical behavior, and an ultimate salvific act.

 

2. Figurative-theological Meaning. The theological meaning of the verb māḥâ appears only in contexts containing various individual or compound features: the object or person which is soiled or described; the image of the stain itself or of the writing which is to be eradicated. The factor that actually wipes away is less influential. This analysis permits the following corresponding classification. What is actually eradicated includes:

 

a.   a name from a register;

b.   sin/guilt: such as a stain from the person or inscribed guilt; virtue/merit: such as catalogued credit;

c.   living beings from the face of the earth, objects of idolatry from the land.

 

a. Registers. In these cases eradication occurs either explicitly or implicitly (the uttering of a name can be the same as something written): Ex. 17:14; 32:32f.; Dt. 9:14; 25:6, 19; 29:19(Eng. v. 20); Jgs. 21:17; 2 K. 14:27; Ps. 9:6(5); 69:29(28); Sir. 44:13. There is no difference between the qal, niphal, and hiphil. Synonyms in the wider sense include: hišmîḏ, šāḵaḥ, sālaḥ, ʾibbēḏ, hiḵrîṯ; antonyms include: kāṯaḇ, hôšîaʿ, zāḵar, pālaṭ, ʿāmaḏ, qûm ʿal šēm.

 

b. Guilt (Sin) or Merit. Neh. 3:37(4:5); 13:14; Ps. 51:3, 11(1, 9); 109:14; Prov. 6:33; Isa. 43:25; 44:22; Jer. 18:23 (conj.); Zec. 3:9 (conj.); Sir. 3:14; 1QS 11:3. No difference is discernible between the qal, niphal, and hiphil. Synonyms include: nāšâ, kibbes, ṭihar, kissâ, kipper; antonyms include: zāḵar, nimṣāʾ.

 

c. Living Beings or Cultic Objects. Gen. 6:7; 7:4, 23; Jgs. 21:17; Prov. 31:3; Ezk. 6:6; Sir. 31:1. The same meaning is exhibited in the qal and niphal. Synonyms include: himṭîr, ḥrb, šmm, šbr, hišbîṯ, hēsîr; antonyms include: nišʾar.

 

3. Overview. This classification yields the following brief overview. We began with two examples without identifying them chronologically, namely, the spot or stain that is washed out or wiped away, and the writing that is eradicated. It is always something external cleaving to a body. The example of writing leads us into the world of the word that names, registers, effects. Although the verb kāṯaḇ and the noun sēp̱er are not frequently mentioned in the same context, they are presupposed in many instances. There is then an easy transition from writing to its oral equivalent: from the written to the spoken name, from the document to the register of a person’s memory. In both cases the word can function either as solicitation or as simple verification: eradicating a name or guilt can have juridical status; forgetting a transgression constitutes forgiveness. The consequences of the act can also have an enduring effect, e.g., the wiping out of a name, or of remembrance (šēm, zēḵer): Ex. 17:14; Dt. 9:14; 25:6, 19; 29:19(20); 2 K. 14:27; Ps. 9:6(5); 109:13. In this sense a person implores that his merit not be eradicated, but that his guilt be wiped away.

 

The semantic scope of māḥâ is illuminated by those texts that speak of ineradicable writing, e.g., Jer. 17:1: “The sin of Judah is written with an iron pen; with a diamond point it is engraved on the tablet of their hearts” (cf. also Job 19:23f.). The conceptual range of the notion of eradicating spots or stains is considerable; the passages initially cited are unequivocal (2 K. 21:13; Prov. 30:20; Isa. 25:8). Perhaps this group also includes Isa. 44:22 (the clouds are like spots in the heavens; cf. ṭāhôr as an epithet for heaven) and Ps. 51:3(1) with its parallels kbs and ṭhr (v. 4[2]); Prov. 6:33 is more dubious (ineradicable disgrace). To which category do the living beings and human structures belong? One might assume the first, which proceeds from the notion of eradicating writing or of destroying something actual. One might also understand the human beings or objects as spots or stains on the earth that are to be eradicated. It is best, however, to dispense with any classification. The flood and its waters remove all living things from the earth (Gen. 6:7; 7:4, 23), and systematic destruction eradicates all structures belonging to the cults of idols (Ezk. 6:6).

 

Three texts reveal the vague semantic fixation of māḥâ in connection with transgressions and persons. Ex. 32:32: When in a given instance a sin is not forgiven (nāśāʾ), a person or name is blotted out of the register. Ps. 109:13: When guilt is not similarly eradicated, descendants are annihilated. Dt. 29:19(20): The curses written down will be visited upon the guilty party and will blot out his name.

 

The term māḥâ occurs in various combinations in the theological semantic sphere. They can be classified as follows:

eradicate	something	from something
	writing	from a document
	spot/stain	from a body
	living beings/objects	from their normal place
Several texts illustrate the validity of this schema:
Gen. 6–7	living beings	from the face of the earth
Ex. 17:14	names/remembrance	from under heaven
Ex. 32:32	person/name	from the register (book)
Jgs. 21:17	a tribe	out of Israel
Isa. 25:8	tears	from a person’s face
Dt. 25:6	his name	out of Israel

This schema does not hold up when a member of the second column occupies the position of the direct object, which normally corresponds to the first column, e.g., eradicate/wash off Jerusalem (2 K. 21:13), wipe off one’s mouth (Prov. 30:20).

 

4. Special Cases. This illustrates the theological use of māḥâ, its basic schema, and its semantic variations. It can be useful, however, to examine individually several problematic or especially interesting cases.

 

a. Ex. 32:32f.; Ps. 69:29(28). The consequences of blotting out a name depend on the kind of book in which it is registered in the first place. Being entered in the book of the elect registers and guarantees membership in the community; being entered in the book of the living guarantees life.

 

b. Dt. 25:6. If a person dies without progeny, “his name is blotted out”; this eradication is avoided if a firstborn comes who carries his name on (yāqûm ʿal-šēm). Sir. 44:13 must be understood similarly, except that kāḇôḏ is used instead of šēm.

 

c. Ezk. 6:6. The accoutrements of the worship of idols, bāmôṯ, altars, idols, ḥammānîm, defile the land and must be violently destroyed so that such works (not “deeds”) of those who serve idols are “wiped out.”

 

d. Jgs. 21:17. Due to scarcity of wives the men have no inheritance (y^eruššâ), and a tribe “is blotted out.” This is a reflection of reality, not a literary notice in a register; this passage is related to Dt. 25:6.

 

e. Sir. 31:1. The expression ymḥh šʾrw, literally, “wipe away his flesh,” refers to dissipating or debilitating one’s health, allowing one’s body to waste away.

 

f. Prov. 31:3. The variant lamḥôṯ is dubious. Similar to Sir. 31:1, the reference is to women who destroy or debilitate the health of kings. Compared with Dt. 25:6; Jgs. 21:17, this would mean that sexual deviation can “eradicate” a dynasty and bring about its end; this would yield an insightful but uncertain contrast: a tribe is extinguished because of scarcity of women; a dynasty is blotted out because of a superfluity of women.

 

III. LXX. The LXX does not translate consistently; the most frequent renderings are exaleíphein and apaleíphein, though aponíptein, aphaírein, ektēkein, and epilanthánein also occur. (L. Alonso-Schökel, “מָחָה,” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, 16 vols. [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1997], 8:227–231)

 

 

מחי/מחא mḥʾ/mḥī

 

I. Etymology, Phonetic Development. II. “Hitting, to Strike, to Hammer.” III. As a Gesture of Oath-taking.

 

I. Etymology, Phonetic Development. Aramaic mḥʾ is a phonetic variant of the root mḫṣ́ that arose through the shift from */ṣ́/ to /ġ/, rendered in Old Aramaic orthography with the letter q, and the subsequent dissimilation of the fricative pharyngeal /ḫ/, spelled with ḥ, and the fricative velar /ġ/. The phonetic similarity of the two phonemes also sometimes manifests itself in cuneiform transcriptions of the Aramaic phoneme, which was reproduced alphabetically with q which corresponded to the older Semitic /ṣ́/ (/ḍ/) either with q or ḫ, as in Ra-qi-a-nu or Ra-ḫi-a-nu, Hebrew Rṣy(ʾ)n. A simplification of the pronunciation produced the dissimilation that reduced the articulation of the sound indicated by q to a glottal. The incompatibility rules concerning incompatible root letters does not apply here since the phonetic similarity was not original but resulted from the typical Aramaic shift from */ṣ́/ (*/ḍ/) to /ġ/ (q). Thus, this development differs from the shift from /q/ to /ʾ/ in some modern Semitic languages. The noun mḥʾh in TADAE C1.1, 178 demonstrates that /ʾ/ is the third radical.

 

The later loss of the syllable-closing /ʾ/ (mḥʾ > m^eḥā) led to the transfer of the root mḥʾ to the class of III-ī verbs and thus to the spelling mḥy or mḥh in later Jewish Palestinian and Jewish Babylonian. The shift is already apparent in Ezr. 6:9 (mḥy), Num 34:1 (mḥh), 4Q531 19:4 (4QGiants^c) (ntmḥh), 1QapGen 2:1 (mtmḥyn); 21:28, [30] (mḥw); 21:28; 22:4 (mḥyn). Yet, mḥq “to eradicate, to wipe out,” that appears in Jewish Palestinian and Jewish Babylonian, seems to be a scribal continuation of the nondissimilated old Aramaic root mḥq, which may have arisen from the specific meaning “to erase an inscription by hammering.” A form of the Old Aramaic root mḥq in the original meaning “to strike” occurs in the Song of Deborah (Jgs. 5:26), dissimilated mḥʾ in Isa. 55:12; Ezk. 25:6 and Ps. 98:8. The development mḥʾ > m^eḥā led to confusion, perhaps already in TADAE C3.11, 5.

 

II. “Hitting, to Strike, to Hammer.” The first instance of the dissimilated from mḥʾ dates to the early eighth century b.c.e., some 250 years after the use of mḥq in Jgs. 5:26. Yet, in this inscription, mḥʾ does not mean, “to strike,” but refers to the erection of a ramp or a siege wall that one stamps or tramps on the floor. The expression mḥʾ mṣr ʿl constitutes a parallel to the Akkadian aram-ma kabāsu or šukbusu eli. The basic meaning “to strike” occurs in a Sefire stele from the middle of the eighth century b.c.e. and in the Bukan inscription from the late eighth century. At the end of the curses against the king who desecrates the stele stands, “May the whole curse of this stele strike him.” The same meaning “to strike” also appears in Dnl. 2:34, 35; 5:19 (ptcp.) and regularly in texts from Qumran, at least where sufficient context has been preserved. The hithpeel in Ezr. 6:11 has the corresponding passive meaning: since z^eqīp̄ in this context has the nuance “to stake” like ana iṣē zaqāpu in Akkadian, the passage must be translated “a beam should be torn from his house and he should be impaled on it.” A more figurative sense “to meet, encounter” appears in Nu. 34:11, while the plural mḥy of the derived noun in Ezk. 26:9 means “shocks.”

 

III. As a Gesture of Oath-taking. Aramaic contracts from the seventh century b.c.e. employ mḥʾ yd in reference to someone “vouching, acting as guarantor” for a debtor. That is an abbreviation for a more extensive formula that appears in various Neo-Assyrian clay tablets from the same period and reads in full: qātāte ša N₁ (debtor) N₂ (guarantor) isse (TA*) qātāte N₃ (creditor) ittaḫaṣ(a), literally “the guarantor smote the hand of the debtor with the hand of the creditor.” The form ittaḫaṣ is a perfect of maḫāṣu with assimilation mt > tt. The formula appears to describe a symbolic act, not just a handshake, and expresses the fact that the guarantor vouches for the debtor with the creditor. The fulfillment of the obligation was guaranteed primarily by the assets of the debtor, including his family members, and only supplementarily could another person vouch that the debtor would meet his obligation to the creditor. Aramaic employs the singular yd, however, instead of the Akkadian plural qātāte, as in the analogous Hebrew formula tāqaʿ l^eyaḏ (Job 17:3) or tāqaʿ kāp̄ (Prov. 6:1; 17:18; 22:26; Nah. 3:19; cf. Prov. 11:15). It remains uncertain, therefore, whether the complete expression in Aramaic agreed exactly with the Neo-Assyrian. The expression mḥʾ yd b-N₃ in D 54:8f.; 60:5 (see above) demonstrates, in any case, that “the guarantor struck his hand with the creditor.” The parallel in Dnl. 4:32 also shows that the “hand” of the creditor was introduced by b- “with,” which confirms the reading of the Neo-Assyrian sign TA* as isse “with.”

 

The Greek translators (4:35) did not understand the expression mḥʾ byd in Dnl. 4:32. Literally, it clearly means, “There is no one who can vouch to him (for the heavenly host and the inhabitants of earth) or who can say, ‘What did you do?’ ” A precisely parallel, abbreviated formula occurs in a Neo-Assyrian legal text from circa 633 b.c.e. There one reads at best, ^mAḫi-imme ⸀isse⌝ qātāti ša-rēši (⸀TA*⌝^! ŠU.2.MEŠ LÚ*.SAG^!) ittaḫaṣa “Ahimme (guarantor) vouched to the eunuchs (creditors)” for the debtor, not “the guarantor smote the witnesses” as the editor translates. This parallel may demonstrate that the hymn in Dnl. 4:31b–32 was borrowed from a much older text. The abbreviation mḥʾ yd already seems to occur as ma-ḫa-ṣí i-da in a bilingual word list from Ebla, although entirely without context, while māḥā ḵāp̄ in Isa. 55:12; Ps. 98:8 and māḥā yāḏ in Ezk. 25:6 means simply “to applaud.”

 

A further abbreviation of the formula appears in Jewish Aramaic texts, namely the first century b.c.e. grave inscription of Jason from Jerusalem and in tractates of the Talmud, especially in B. Bat. 38a–b and 39b. These texts employ the verb without yd in the sense of “to secure” and the verbal noun mḥʾh (derived from the D-stem) occurs in B. Bat. in the meaning “security.” The Jason inscription, l. 4, reads, ḥny br ywsh mḥ˹ʾ˺ qwnʾ hyk ylyn šlm, “Honi, son of Yose, has secured this property, so that he may find rest. Peace!” There is still room for the right arm of the cursive ʾ after the ḥ of mḥʾ; the letter is no longer visible, however. According to B. Bat. the security of the property against unpermitted occupation must occur in the presence of two witnesses in order to be able to realize the claim to uninterrupted possession even without written evidence. (E. Lipiński, “מחי/מחא,” Aramaic Dictionary, ed. Holger Gzella [Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament 16; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2018], 407–409)