As some of you may know, I'm in the middle of reading a truly fascinating book called Barzilai by R' Ahron Marcus, about the origins and psychology of the Hebrew language. The book is a Hebrew translation of the original German, translated and edited by one of his grandchildren, Yosef Marcus. Unfortunately the second half of the book (dedicated, at least in part, to the meaning of Biblical names) was lost (at least this was the case in 1983 when the Hebrew edition came out), but the first half is amazing enough.
One of the interesting things about his work is that he was not afraid to disagree with and attack anyone, including notable scholars, both Jewish and non-Jewish. He maintains, for example, that antisemitic bias led to a great many flaws in certain linguistic and archaeological researchers' work, he explains in depth why he disagrees with the scholarly notion that the famed Masorites R' Aharon Ben Asher and the earlier Moshe Ben Asher were Karaites, and so forth.
While going through the many different aspects of the Hebrew language, Marcus discusses many different ideas. One section of the book is dedicated to identifying the Kosher and non-Kosher animals listed in the Torah and explaining the meaning of their names and how those names traveled over to other languages.
One of the most fascinating entries in that section, in my opinion, is what he wrote on the identification of the mysterious Re'em:
And later in the book, in the section dedicated as a Shinarian (a type of Babylonian dialect derived from proto-Hebrew) dictionary, he adds:
So, any thoughts? Also, if anyone has any idea who Matphalo the Indian was, I'd appreciate the info. Thanks!
One of the interesting things about his work is that he was not afraid to disagree with and attack anyone, including notable scholars, both Jewish and non-Jewish. He maintains, for example, that antisemitic bias led to a great many flaws in certain linguistic and archaeological researchers' work, he explains in depth why he disagrees with the scholarly notion that the famed Masorites R' Aharon Ben Asher and the earlier Moshe Ben Asher were Karaites, and so forth.
While going through the many different aspects of the Hebrew language, Marcus discusses many different ideas. One section of the book is dedicated to identifying the Kosher and non-Kosher animals listed in the Torah and explaining the meaning of their names and how those names traveled over to other languages.
One of the most fascinating entries in that section, in my opinion, is what he wrote on the identification of the mysterious Re'em:
"The linguists didn't notice the fact that the calling of names to animals depends by the nomadic tribes upon the traditions of their fathers and upon the animals that they come across. The nomadic tribe that travels from their original home to a far-off area, saves in their linguistic treasury the past names of the animals, that aren't around at all in their new home area. And without many hesitations, they pass the name that's familiar from their fathers to a different animal, which was unknown to their fathers. The name "Re'em" or also "Rem" (psalm. 22:22) or "Reym" (Jo. 39:9-10) is a perfect example of this. The LXX translates the "Re'em" as μονόκερως (one-horned) [meaning, a unicorn], according to the imaginary zoology of Aristotle and Plinius. On the other hand, Rav Saadya Gaon translates according to Aquilas [Aquila] the "Re'em" as a rhinoceros. While the Arab calls by the name "Re'em" the Arabian prairie cow (leucoryx), while the Assyrian called by this name, "Rimo", the aurochs, as is proven from his pictures. Both of them, the Assyrians and the Arabs, used this ancient name for an animal from their new area. For this reason the Arab calls his ayalah (gazelle) by the name "tzvi" (stag).
From the list in Deut. (14:5) it seems, that the wild ox (Aurochs) wasn't called prior "Re'em", but "Teo". Were it meant to refer there to the Re'em - his place would not have been missing from among the wild animals. It is almost certain, that the word "Re'em" is a combination of the words: "Ra'am" and "Ram", meaning - something that stands out in its height. Therefore, it seems that the elephant was known as "Re'em". And this is based on the following reasons: First, it is hard to imagine, that in the rich treasury of the Hebrew language, in it were chosen names for the rarest of animals from Africa, Central Asia and north of it, would be missing of all things the name of the elephant, a very famous animal from the most ancient of days. And secondly, the previous reason is made stronger by the discovery, that the elephant lived in Aram Naharaim, as is proven by the embossed legend of Tiglat Pilasser I (about 2500 years to the creation of the world), that describes the hunting of elephants. That is the land, that was the ancient birthplace of the ancestors of the Hebrews, and it cannot be that they didn't know of the elephant. And another, third reason, from Psalms (29:6). The poet of the song compares "Lebanon and Sirion like a child of Re'ems". From this comparison it is understood that it is referring to a giant animal whose size is like that of a "mountain". And "mountain" is how the elephant is called by Matphalo the Indian, from affection and anger alike. The parallelization of the horns of the Re'ems to the jaws of the lion in the verse: "Deliver me from a lion’s mouth; from the horns of Remim rescue me." (Psalm. 22:22), points to the ivory tusks of the elephant. This hypothesis is assisted from the words of Rabbi Menachem Di Fano, that a horn is essentially a tooth, because the horns of the cattle fill the place of the fangs in the jaws of the predator animal, that are missing by the herbivores."
And later in the book, in the section dedicated as a Shinarian (a type of Babylonian dialect derived from proto-Hebrew) dictionary, he adds:
""Am" - the name of the Re'em in Sumerian. "Amsi" - the horned Re'em, meaning the elephant. And so, an unexpected approval of my previous hypothesis that by the name "Re'em" and "horn of the Re'em" we must understand them as the elephant and his 'jaws'."
What I found particularly convincing about this hypothesis is that he was well aware of what is, to this day, the most well-accepted theory, which is that the Re'em is the now-extinct (great job, mankind...) aurochs, and was also aware of all of the other possibilities - the unicorn, rhinoceros and the Arabian oryx, which is what is called Re'em in modern Hebrew (apparently, thanks to the misidentification of the Arab people) and yet figured that none of the possibilities made enough sense, all things considered.
So, any thoughts? Also, if anyone has any idea who Matphalo the Indian was, I'd appreciate the info. Thanks!
Last edited:
