This is a phrase that appears in the context of the plague on the first born. Here are verses 11:6-7: “There shall be a loud cry in all the land of Egypt, as has never been or will ever be again. But to all of Bnei Yisrael, a dog shall not יחרץ his tongue, at human or beast, so that you may know that God distinguishes between Egypt and Israel.”
A similar phrase also appears at Joshua 10:21: “The whole nation returned safely to the camp, to Joshua, at Makkedah—lo charatz liBnei Yisrael leish et leshono.” The context here is the return from a major victory against five Canaanite kings. Here, the verse seems to be referring to something that enemy people did not do to the Israelites.
This raises a fundamental issue with our idiom. Is it an idiom that originally could have arisen in the contexts of both people and dogs? Or is it an idiom that first arose only in one of these two contexts and then expanded to the other (even if not a good fit)?
If we look at the root חרץ in Tanach, all will agree that it has the meanings “cut” and “sharp.” See, e.g., Rashi in our verse. (As in the case of the root גזר, the “cut” meaning expanded to “decree, determine.”) But חרץ also seems to have a meaning like “move” at Samuel 2, 5:24 (discussed below).
Returning to our phrase at Exodus 11:7, in one view, our phrase is an idiom for “did not bite.” See, e.g., Ibn Ezra and Abarbanel. The “bite” meaning could loosely be derived from the “cut” or “sharp” meaning. (But it is not a good contrast to the “loud cry” in Egypt.) In another view, our phrase means “did not move his tongue.” See, e.g., Radak (Sefer HaShorashim), Metzudat Tziyon on Samuel 2, 5:24 and Rav Hirsch (translation at the top). This could be taken literally. But more likely, it is an idiom for “did not bark.”
But many commentaries and scholars derive the “bark” meaning in a different way: from the “cut” and “sharp” meanings. For example, “barking” can be considered a sharp sound. Or, as the Anchor Bible puts it, to “sharpen the tongue” means to extend it in a hostile utterance, i.e., to bark threateningly.
Mandelkern makes the comment that dogs make the sound “הב הב.” (This is Hebrew for “woof, woof!”) This is a type of sound that can be considered a “cutting” sound.
Samuel David Luzzatto points out that “bark” makes sense in the context. When they hear shouting, dogs normally bark. The verse is telling us that this time they will not. (But as I explain below, most likely our phrase is merely a proverbial expression—not to be taken literally here.)
Some avoid the “barking” translation and believe that “sharp” implies “snarl, growl or whine.” See, e.g., Etz Hayim Chumash: “snarl.” The Living Torah: “whine.” (The Septuagint had “growl.”)
———
A few other observations:
- There is a verb in Tanach that appears only one time and based on its context it is usually translated as “bark.” That is נבח, at Isaiah 56:10.
- The “tongue” is analogized to an arrow at Jeremiah 9:7, to a sharp sword at Psalms 57:5 and 64:4, and to a sharp razor at Psalms 52:4. See also Psalms 140:4.
———
Most likely, the general import of our expression at Exodus 11:7 and Joshua 10:21 is that no adverse things at all would occur (or did occur) to Bnei Yisrael. See, e.g., Bechor Shor, Ralbag, Rav Hirsch and Daat Mikra. See also Soncino to Joshua 10:21: it is “a proverbial phrase to express the idea that there were no signs of hostility.”
After all that, what do I think חרץ of the tongue means? We could try to come up with a meaning that works for both dogs and people. If we understand חרץ in its literal sense as “move,” then we have a meaning that works for both verses—even though in the Exodus verse, it ends up referring to a bark. (This approach is taken by Rav Hirsch.) Even today, moving your tongue in certain ways towards others is considered offensive.
The 19th century commentary Hoil Moshe—on alhatorah.org—attempts to explain the idiom in Joshua further. The Canaanites were not only defeated militarily. They also did not have the strength to curse the Israelites for taking over their land. Finally, there is at least one Rishon, Rabbi Yosef Kara, who writes that the word כלב should be read into the verse in Joshua! Many verses in Tanach are elliptical, with implied words missing. Perhaps this one is as well. The Anchor Bible agrees with this approach.
(It is also possible to read this approach into the words of Rashi in Joshua. See the Mikra LeYisrael commentary. Rashi was often influenced by his contemporary Rabbi Kara. But I think Rashi would have said it clearly, if he meant to take this approach.)
———
A few other matters:
- Regarding Samuel 2, 5:24, here David is given an instruction by God: “When you hear the sound of marching in the tops of the bechaim (a type of tree), then תחרץ. God will be going in front of you … ” From the context, the meaning seems to be “move, get going.” (See, e.g., Radak and Metzudat Tziyon.) This is a very different meaning of חרץ than “cut, sharp.” But as I stated earlier, it gives us a simple way to explain Exodus 11:7. (Rashi seems to view the meaning at 5:24 as deriving from the “sharp” meaning of the root. He believes it means “shout your war cry.”)
- A few times in Tanach, the root חרץ refers to something that is yellow or gold.
It is not surprising that חרץ seems to have various meanings that are not related. In a previous column, I have explained that Hebrew has a “reduced alphabet.” The letters ח and צ are some of the letters that reflect the coalescing of different letters from an earlier stage.
There are a few times in Mishlei (e.g. 10:4), where the root חרץ refers to individuals who are praiseworthy for their industriousness. Possibly, this meaning is related to the “move” meaning. See, e.g., E. Klein’s etymological work, pages 231 and 233, Rabbi Isaiah de Trani to Samuel 5:24 and Radak, Sefer HaShorashim.)
- Rashi on 11:7 cites many verses to show that חרץ means “sharp.” But he does not explain what the import of this “sharp” meaning is. One has to look at his commentaries to Joshua 10:21 and Samuel 2, 24:5 to realize that he is referring to a sharp sound at 11:7. The ArtScroll Rashi Exodus volume (Sapirstein edition) solves this problem by adding the word “cry” after “sharp” in its translation of 11:7.
It is possible that Rashi was a bit rushed when writing his commentary to verse 11:7. The Silbermann edition notes that Rashi started his commentary with the phrase “omer ani.” This work explains that his comment “is made in opposition to an explanation given by Menachem ben Saruk: ‘no dog shall move his tongue.’” This work comments that Rashi usually mentions Menachem’s interpretation before disagreeing with it. This work continues: “One can almost see (Rashi) with a copy of the Machbereth before him, reading this explanation of חרץ in its pages, and, forgetting to cite it, writing down at once, ‘But I say etc.’”
- On the subject of dogs, there is an interesting idiomatic use of the word כלב at Deuteronomy 23:19. Here “mechir celev” is parallel to “etnan zonah.” Most scholars understand כלב here to mean “male prostitute.” I believe they are correct, but I am not going to explain further.
Mitchell First can be reached at [email protected]. He has a fear of dogs and does not like to think about them. But he was able to overcome these issues and write this column due to his intense desire to understand the idiom at Exodus 11:7.
