The book of Leviticus, at 6:3, in the context of the daily burnt offering, tells us that every morning it was the duty of the priest to go to the altar and “take up the דשן that the fire has consumed” and place it next to the altar. (Later, the accumulated דשן would be taken outside the camp.) “Deshen” is usually translated here (and in the few other sacrifice verses) as “ashes.”

Now let us look at other occurrences of the root דשן in Tanach. It usually has a positive meaning. At Psalms 92:15, referring to the righteous who flourish (tzadik ka-tamar yifrach), we are told that, in their old age, “desheinim ve-raananim yihiyu.” Raanan means “fresh.” דשנים must mean something similar and positive.

At Prov. 15:30: “The light of the eyes rejoices the heart, and a good report ‘tedashen etzem.’ ” “Tedashen etzem” is parallel to “rejoices the heart.” It must be a good thing that is being done to the bones. At Prov. 28:25 we have “one who puts his trust in God ידשן.”

What is going on here? The answer is that deshen in Tanach means “fat,” in a positive way. When deshen is used in the context of offerings, it really means what is produced when the fat is burned. The regular term for ashes in Tanach is אפר. The translation “ashes” in the offering context is a poor one. It should have been translated as “remnants of the fat.” Unlike אפר, our “deshen” word is not at all a symbol of grief.

What about that well-known verse Ps. 23:5: “dishanta va-shemen roshi”? What does our verb mean here? A common translation is “anoint” but this is not what the word means. It means “to put a lot of something on,” related to the word “fat.” “Fattened my head with oil” would be a rough translation. (There was a custom in Biblical times to put oil on the head as a sign of happiness. We see this from Kohelet 9:8: “At all times your garments should be white, and ‘shemen al roshcha’ should not be lacking.” See Daat Mikra and Soncino on 23:5. I am sure that there is such a custom today somewhere on our large planet.)

Another interesting thing about the root D-Sh-N is its use at Num. 4:13: “ve-dishnu et ha-mizbeach.” We might expect that it means “to put deshen on” the mizbeach. But it means “removal of the deshen.” Also, at Ex. 27:3, “le-dashno” means “removal of the deshen.” (The active form of this root is always in the piel. Whether it means “fatten” or “remove the fat” depends on the context.)

We also have opposite meanings when the root חטא is used as a verb. The Even-Shoshan concordance lists ten times that it means “purify, removal of the negative state.” See, e.g., Lev. 14:49. When the root is in the piel, this is usually the meaning. When this root is in the hitapel, it always has the “removal” meaning. See, e.g., Num. 19:12: יתחטא. (See also Ps. 51:9.) As we all know, in the kal it means “to sin.” (I doubt that we have instances of opposite meanings in Tanach where both forms are in the kal.)

The above verse Ex. 27:3 has a well-known Rashi. (Admittedly, most Rashis are well-known!) Here Rashi gives examples of other roots that mean one thing and also seem to mean their opposite. He gives four examples, including the roots שרש and סקל.

For example, we all know that the root סקל means “to stone.” But at Isa. 62:10, we have “saklu mei-even”=remove the stones. We all know that שרש means “root.” But at Job 31:12 “tesharesh” means something like “root out, remove.” (The ArtScroll Rashi points out that even in English, “to dust” can mean “to cover with dust” or “to clean the dust.”)

Now I will provide another example of a verb that evolved into its opposite, or at least into a noun that means its opposite. The root is עקר. In the Hebrew portion of Tanach (the older part), the meaning of the verb is “to uproot,” and the adjective is “uprooted” or similarly: “barren, without children.” But we know in Hebrew today that the עקר (ikar) is “the main thing.” This meaning is already evident in Mishnaic Hebrew. See, e.g., Avot 1:17. How did this change in meaning happen?

As further background, the Tanach also has an Aramaic part (parts of Daniel and Ezra, and Jer. 10:11). Here, in the fourth chapter of Daniel, three times we have our word with a meaning like “the root of a tree.” See, e.g., Dan. 4:12 (and Daat Mikra). The root of a tree is the basis of a tree. At first thought, we could suggest that Hebrew had the “uproot” meaning and Aramaic had the “root” meaning. But Daniel 7:8, a verse in the Aramaic section, has the “uproot” meaning, so we have to offer a different explanation. Most likely, the explanation is that the thing that was uprooted became referred to as “the root, main part.”

People today sometimes refer to an important woman as an “akeret ha-bayit,” borrowing the expression from Psalms. They intend the later meaning “basis.” But in the verse they are citing, “akeret” means “barren/uprooted.” I had always thought this was an error from modern times due to lack of knowledge of Biblical Hebrew. But recently I learned that Midrash Tanchuma adopts such an interpretation on a similar verse, Gen. 29:31. This verse has the phrase “ve-Rachel akarah” and this Midrash comments: “ve-hi hayta ikar ha-bayit.” This comment is surely only a homiletical one as it does not fit the context. Nevertheless, it is found in this ancient source and later sources repeat it (e.g., Ruth Rabbah, and Zohar). See also Rashi on Gittin 52a. I learned all of this from Heshey Zelcer, “Thoughts on our Daily Prayers” (Aug. 2020), p. 89. (This is a work that came about as a result of Zoom learning due to COVID.)

(Zelcer is one of the founders of the journal Hakirah. I owe much of my success as a Jewish scholar to the existence of this journal. Before it started in 2004 there was no place for me to write. It is ordinarily too hard for a non-academic to get into an academic journal and for someone who is not a rabbi or a Jewish educator to get into the Tradition journal. How the founding of the journal Hakirah helped all those like me is explained in an article in Mosaic magazine from Nov. 15 2021 by Moshe Krakowski.)

There is one more verse with the root דשן that I need to address. That is Psalm 20:4, which we recite daily: “yizkor kol minchotecha ve-olatcha yedashene.” Those last two words are probably a short-hand way of saying “accept the olah by turning it into fat ashes.” See, e.g., Daat Mikra for this interpretation (and one more). (The ArtScroll Siddur has the awkward translation “consider your burnt sacrifices generous.” For a different approach, see R. Hirsch.)

On the subject of opposites, Mitchell First has a distant relative (through marriage) named Last. He can be reached at [email protected].