6 Comments

If אשה comes from אנוש, then how come the Aramaic for אשה is אתתה or אנתא but the Aramaic for אנוש is אנש? And isn't Ibn Ezra saying the dagesh in אשה comes from the yod of איש?

Expand full comment

good point. I missed up Ibn Ezra by not reading it carefully. More in a bit.

Expand full comment

Here is Balashon discussing it, as well as Shadal and modern linguists.

https://www.balashon.com/2008/10/ish-and-isha.html

Expand full comment

I should have cited Shadal for this, instead:

https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.2.23?ven=The_Koren_Jerusalem_Bible&vhe=Tanach_with_Ta%27amei_Hamikra&lang=bi&with=Shadal&lang2=en&p3=Rashi_on_Genesis.2.23.2&lang3=bi

אשה כי מאיש וגו': משה הזכיר השמות האלה כפי מה שהיו מבטאים אותם בימיו, אעפ"י שאשה לא נגזר מתחלה מאיש אלא מאנש, ומן אנש אמרו אנש (כמו מן גבר גבר) וממנו אנשים, וממנו אמרו אנשה ואח"כ אשה, אמנם שם איש כך היה מתחילתו, וממנו יש, ובארמית איתי.

Expand full comment

Fascinating. Where does this Aramaic אית as איש appear?

Nobody, though, seems to note that אנש has shin in Aramaic and אתתא a tav, usually the sort of thing that prompts modern linguists to say they're different roots.

Expand full comment

I don't know. But here is what Balashon quoted one linguist as saying, that there are actually three roots at play.

"Kil in the Daat Mikra in a footnote (with no apologetics) writes that ish is from אוש and isha is from אשש, whereas the plural of both comes from אנש. Cassuto makes a similar comment, but has isha coming from the root אנת / אנש as we've mentioned above."

Expand full comment