|
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 (māḥaṯâ)
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 (yeruššâ), 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 > meḥā) 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 (4QGiantsc)
(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
> meḥā 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 zeqīp̄
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
leyaḏ (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)
