[Avodah] Husband

[kennethgmiller at juno.com]

Lashon Hakodesh does not have any word which can be unambiguously translated as "wife". The word used in such contexts is "isha", but literally, this actually means "woman". If the context describes her as being in a marriage to a man, then we'll translate it as "wife", but we should realize that this is an extra layer of meaning which we are adding to the text, and it is not actually present in the Hebrew words.

(In fact, I think that in some cases this translation can be wrong and misleading. For example, if a pasuk describes Jewish men as having non-Jewish nashim, translating it as "their wives" could mislead a person into thinking that the pasuk recognizes the marriage as legal, when in truth the pasuk is merely talking about "their women".)

In contrast, although Lashon Hakodesh does not have a word which can be unambiguously translated as "husband", it does have TWO words which can have that meaning.

In the great majority of contexts where we would expect a word for "husband", the word actually used is "baal". The basic meaning of "baal" is "master", but in contexts involving a man-woman relationship, we usually translate it as "husband".

There is another word which is also translated as "husband", and that is "ish". The basic meaning of "ish" is "man", but in contexts involving a man-woman relationship, especially when used in the possessive form "ishahh" (with a mapik-heh) this word too is usually translated as "husband" (or "her husband").

In the beginning of this week's parsha, I found the word "ishahh" nine times (in pesukim 8, 9, 11, 12, twice in 13, twice in 14, and again in 15), but the word "baal" or "baalahh" does not appear even once.

I find this very odd. This parsha teaches us about the ability of a husband to cancel his wife's vows, just as her father had this ability previously. This is a very one-sided relationship: he can cancel her vows even against her wishes, while she cannot cancel his vows at all. It sounds (to me) like an ideal context for the word "baal". I would not expect to see "ishahh" used in such a "male chauvinistic" context. My expectation would be to see "ishahh" only in more egalitarian contexts (although, given the Torah's apparent preference for a patriarchal society, I can't think of any good examples offhand).

So my question is: Why was "ishahh" used in this parsha, instead of "baalahh"?

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Click for online loan, fast & no lender fee, approval today
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3m3WLib8bH93QLebe8ILnBmS77N4LKpk6uXHhi3esB8UCglk/