l'zot yikarei ishah

Mesorah
1

An acquaintance of mine posed the following question:

: In Gen. 2:23, Adam says "l'zot yikarei ishah," usually translated
: something like "this one shall be called Woman." However, the gender of
: the verb "yikarei" is masculine, while the pronoun (zot) and the
: predicate noun (ishah) are both feminine. I know that there are
: occasions where the gender or number of the verb does not agree with
: that of the subject, but my impression has been that that generally
: occurs where the "incorrectly"- gendered or -numbered verb precedes the
: subject noun, so it's as if the text tells us the verb before focusing
: on what the subject is.

Any thoughts?

-- Sholom

2

Ibn Ezra ad loc. explains, "...v'ta'am 'yiqqarei'[20] al sheim[30]," to
which the "peirush" explains:
  FN 20: shehu lashon zachar
  FN 30: R'tzono lomar k'ilu nichtav, "yiqqarei *sh'mah* ishah," ki
"yiqqarei" hu lashon zachar v'hu mibbinyan hakkaveid.

If I understand correctly, ibn Ezra is saying that the word is masculine
to match the elided word "sh'mah" (shin-mem-mappiq_haih), as "sheim" is
masculine, and the translation would be "her name shall be called
'ishah.'"

Shabbas Shalom and all the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ, USA

Sholom Simon <sholom@aishdas.org>
Sent by: mesorah-bounces@lists.aishdas.org
10/24/2006 11:11 PM

To
mesora@aishdas.org
cc

Subject
[Mesorah] l'zot yikarei ishah

An acquaintance of mine posed the following question:

: In Gen. 2:23, Adam says "l'zot yikarei ishah," usually translated
: something like "this one shall be called Woman." However, the gender of
: the verb "yikarei" is masculine, while the pronoun (zot) and the
: predicate noun (ishah) are both feminine. I know that there are
: occasions where the gender or number of the verb does not agree with
: that of the subject, but my impression has been that that generally
: occurs where the "incorrectly"- gendered or -numbered verb precedes the
: subject noun, so it's as if the text tells us the verb before focusing
: on what the subject is.

Any thoughts?

-- Sholom

3

MPoppers@kayescholer.com wrote:

If I understand correctly, ibn Ezra is saying that the word is masculine to match the elided word "sh'mah" (shin-mem-mappiq_haih), as "sheim" is masculine, and the translation would be "her name shall be called 'ishah.'"

http://www.cs.indiana.edu/metastuff/looking/ch8.html.gz

"The name of the song is called "HADDOCKS' EYES."'

`Oh, that's the name of the song, is it?' Alice said, trying to
feel interested.

`No, you don't understand,' the Knight said, looking a little vexed.
`That's what the name is CALLED. The name really IS "THE AGED AGED MAN."'

`Then I ought to have said "That's what the SONG is called"?' Alice
corrected herself.

`No, you oughtn't: that's quite another thing! The SONG is called
"WAYS AND MEANS": but that's only what it's CALLED, you know!'

`Well, what IS the song, then?' said Alice, who was by this time
completely bewildered.

`I was coming to that,' the Knight said. `The song really IS
"A-SITTING ON A GATE": and the tune's my own invention.'

4

Sholom Simon wrote:

: In Gen. 2:23, Adam says "l'zot yikarei ishah," usually translated
: something like "this one shall be called Woman." However, the gender of
: the verb "yikarei" is masculine, while the pronoun (zot) and the
: predicate noun (ishah) are both feminine.

Bepashtus, it seems to me that the pasuk isn't saying "this one shall
be called Woman". That would be "zot..", not "lezot", and it would
indeed have been "zot tikarei isha". When the pasuk says "lezot
yikarei", it means not "this one will be called", but that "it will
be called (in the Hebrew language) about this one". The difference
is clear in my mind, but it isn't coming out well in English - this
is my third draft and I'm still not happy with it, but maybe you'll
understand what I mean.

5

R. Zev Sero wrote:

Zvi Lampel wrote:
Sholom Simon wrote:

> : In Gen. 2:23, Adam says "l'zot yikarei ishah," usually translated
> : something like "this one shall be called Woman." However, the
gender of
> : the verb "yikarei" is masculine, while the pronoun (zot) and the
> : predicate noun (ishah) are both feminine.

ZL:

I always thought the translation was "For this reason she shall be
called ishah." Just have to find what pronoun for reason (or similar
word) would be feminine.

RZS:
: Where do we find "lezot" meaning "therefore" in Chumash? And if it
: means "therefore", shouldn't it be "lazot", not "lezot"?

: If you are right though, that just brings RSS's question back -
: according to your translation it should definitely be "tikarei".

"LaZos" actually only appears in Chumash one other time (Shemos 7:23), and in Nach only another three times (Yeshaya 30:4; Yirmiahu 5:7; Iyov 37:1--and "laZeh" appears in Shmuel Aleph 21:12 and 25:21) and, as you suspected, the contexts in each case shows it does not mean "for this" in the sense of "therefore." However, on the verse in question (Bereishis 2:23), Rabbeynu Saadia Gaon and the Ibn Ezra do explain it as "for this reason."

Unfortunately, neither RSG nor Ibn Ezra directly address the question of why the posuk says "yikarei" in the masculine rather than "tikarei." But once "Zos" is not read as a pronoun Adam used in reference to his new wife, one may suggest that the pronoun of "yikarei" refers to the masculine "etsem" and/or "bassar." So the posuk can read: "And the man said, 'This time! Bone of my bone! Flesh of my flesh! Therefore it [this flesh and bone, or this "tsella" (both words masculine or neuter) which comes from me, myself] shall [henceforth be referred to not in the masculine/neuter, but] shall be called Ishah [a female form of me] because from a man (ish) she is taken."

True, the narrative of the preceding posuk already referred to the part of Adam that became the ishah in the feminine form ("VaYikach /achas/ mi-tsalo/sav/," "vayisgor bassar tacteh-/ha/," and "Vayiven Hashem Elokim ess ha-tsella ahser lakach min-haAdam l'ishah va-y'vi-e/ha/ el haAdam"--Hashem Elokim built the tsella (masculine), that he tool from the man, into a woman, and He brought [what was now a feminine] /her/ to the man"). But our posuk is speaking from Adam's viewpoint, and as he saw it, what was previously masculine/neuter, he now declared to be a feminine being.

Zvi Lampel