home | what's new | other sites | contact | about

Word Gems 

exploring self-realization, sacred personhood, and full humanity

the meaning of the Hebrew word for 'bless'

return to the main-page article on "Bible"

from https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/371079/jewish/What-Is-Kaddish.htm

When we say that this great name should "be blessed", we mean that it should become real in our world. That's the meaning of the word ‘blessing’ in Hebrew (bracha) - it means to bend something downward. In this case, we want to draw that higher reality downward into our reality. We want to feel how everything in the universe is permeated with G_dliness - with the light of an infinite Creator that transcends all things.

from http://www.jewishmag.com/92mag/blessings/blessings.htm 

Each day Jews make one hundred blessings. When we make the blessings, we know the meaning of the words just from the sheer weight of repetition but we are not aware of the deeper meaning that is embodied in the words. It is only through the revelation from our great Chassidic masters that we can come to a deeper meaning that is in our prayers.

All brachot [blessings] begin following the same general basic structure:

Baruch Atah A-donai, E-lokanu Melech Ha-Olam …

Let us now examine each word individually so that we may understand the deeper connotation hidden in each of them:

Baruch is commonly translated as "blessed". If we contemplate on this word, we see that the translation "blessed" does not make sense. What does it mean to say someone is "blessed"? Perhaps it means that he has a lot. Are we saying that G-d has a huge amount of everything?

A better translation of baruch is obtained by relating this word to other similar words in Hebrew. When Eliezer, the servant of Abraham, brought his camels to the well where he met Rebecca, he caused his camels to bend their knees. The word used there is, "Vi'yavrach" (a derivative of "baruch") which means to make the camels kneel down. (Genesis 24:11)

The word baruch is also related to the word in Hebrew "berach" which means knee. Another use of the root of baruch is the Hebrew word "L'havrich" which refers to taking a vine and putting part of the growing branch under the ground so that it may sprout roots. Baruch is also related to the Hebrew word barak, which means lightning. Barak is of a similar, although different root.

What we see by comparing the word baruch to all the various forms of the root of the word is something that has to do with a downward motion: the lowering of the camels, bending, planting of the vine, and lightning, all have in common a downward motion.

What we now understanding is that the definition of baruch means coming down. In the standing silent prayer, the Amidah, we bend our knees when mentioning the word "baruch" in the first blessing. This is indicative of our newfound meaning of the word baruch meaning going in a downward direction.

More specifically in the general context of a "blessing", it means that G-d is bringing something down to the earth. What could it be that He is bringing down? To answer this question, let us proceed to the next word.

Atah means "you" in Hebrew. If baruch means coming down, we can connect the two words and "Baruch Atah…" to mean "You ( G-d ) are coming down"! The real intent of a blessing is causing G-d to come down to us.

The word Atah is indicative of the second person present state. It means that at this point we are talking to G-d directly! Therefore in the first blessing of the Amidah we must bow since we are directly facing the Almighty King of Kings, G-d. We have already bent our knees when we mentioned the word "baruch" and now we are speaking directly to G-d, so we must be in the most humble manner of prostration.

A-donai is the next word in a blessing. It is the only word that is not pronounced as it is written. It is the unutterable four lettered name of G-d, YHVH, but because of Its great holiness, it is pronounced as A-donai. The real meaning of the name YHVH is can be understood based on a compilation of several Hebrew words with deal with the time states, past, present and future.. The first is the verb meaning "was" HiyaH, the next verb is "is" HoVeH, and the third verb is the future tense, "will be" YeHeyeH. These three verbs when put together mean "was, is and will be" an expression of eternity, which is an appropriate description of G-d's relation to time. Or is simpler terms: Eternal.

This name of G-d, A-donai, is in the third person. We have switched from the second person of "Atah" in which we bow to Him, to the third person of A-donai, in which we revert to the upright position.

The reason is that we can not relate to G-d as He is since He is completely beyond our realm of experience and of our mental ability to comprehend Him. Therefore when we refer to Him in the second person present form, Atah, we must bow. We are completely without any ability to comprehend or relate to Him at this stage. But the name, A-donai, although it is the holiest name, is only a name in comparison to the essence of G-d, Atah.

E-lokanu, the next word in the blessing, is a name of G-d that differs from the name A-donai. A-donai, as we explained above, really is in place of the name YHVH which means the eternal or even more exact, the infinite. This refers to G-d as He is in his essence, beyond the boundary of worlds.

E-lokanu, we are told by the sages, has the numerical equivalent of "the nature". This means that E-lokanu or E-lokim refers to the powers of G-d which are manifest in the world, i.e. nature. What is nature? When we try to find out why something is the way it is using scientific methods, we can trace things back just so far. When we reach a limit to which we cannot probe the matter any deeper, we say this is nature. Therefore "nature" is the medium that G-d uses to conceal Himself from our apprehension of Him and at the same time it is a manifestation of His powers to run the world.

But why do we need to mention this name at all? If we have mentioned G-d's essence, Atah, "you", why do we mention in the blessing E-lokanu, translated as "our G-d"?

The answer is in the next two words:

Melech Ha-Olam are two words that must be understood. The second word, "Ha-Olam" is translated as "the world". It is related to the word helem, meaning hidden or concealed. Both helem and olam are made from the same three Hebrew letters, but have different pronunciations. Those who have studied mystical thought know that the world is a concealment which hides the reality of G-d from us and at the same time permits us to see the world as an entity that exists unto itself. Through this helem of the olam, G-d is able create and sustain the world with out being revealed.

This means that if we were actually able to perceive G-dliness with our own eyes, not only would we not be able to comprehend what we are seeing, but we would no longer be able to functions as independent beings in the world. We would merge into the G-dliness and our separate existence would disappear like a flame would vanish into the sun.

It is only because of the concealment of G-d in the world, (olam = helem) that we are able to continue to exist. However that does not mean that we must relate to the world as a separate entity from G-d. Just the opposite, we must relate to the world as an extension of G-d. Since we would cease to exist if G-d were to reveal Himself to us in His essence, Atah, both He and we need the intermediary of the world as a concealment. In this manner, we can exist as independent individuals and G-d can interact with the world with out being revealed.

The word immediately preceding "ha-olam", melech", means simply "king". But the deeper meaning of the word "melech" is "ruler".

A king is indicative of a ruler, which G-d surely is. But he is more that merely a ruler of the world who may rule the world in what ever manner he desires. G-d is the true "master" of the world, (or in terms of our understanding:) He is the Master of Concealment! He has concealed Himself to such a degree that it is close to impossible to discern Him.

Let us now re-examine the beginning of a blessing to see what our new meanings have opened for us:

Baruch Atah A-donai, E-lokanu Melech Ha-Olam means "You have come down from being identified as the Infinite/Eternal One to conceal Yourself as the Force of Nature in the world…" This is the meaning of a "blessing" or "bracha" - The goodness and pleasure of G-d which is normally manifest as the Infinite and unrevealing Eternal One is now alive in the entire world. Via this understanding, there really does not exist any distance between us and G-d. G-d delights in our mention of His secret hiding place, the world, and waits for us to uncover Him. Through the simple utterance of a "bracha" we have brought about a revelation that we, together with the world, in a most a sublime expression of Oneness with G-d.

from https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/20728/why-does-job-use-bless-to-mean-curse 

Why does Job use "bless" to mean "curse"?

This is bizarre to me... There are 8 instances of brk – the normal word for "bless" – in Job.2 The ESV is consistent with most translations:

1:5: It may be that my children ... cursed God
1:10: You [God] have blessed the work of his hands.
1:11: ... [Job] will curse you [God] to your face
1:21: Naked I came ... blessed be the name of the LORD.
2:5: [same as 1:11]
2:9: [You, Job,] Curse God and die.
31:20: if [the needy's] loins have not blessed me [Job]
42:12: And the LORD blessed the latter days of Job
 

The pattern (if three makes a pattern) is that when God is the object, the word is understood as "curse". This is consistent with Google searches which suggest that these originally said "curse" ... and was later changed to avoid the notion of cursing God.

• Is it likely that this represents a secondary change to the text?
• If not, does brk mean anything different from the normal word for "curse"?
• Are there any passages in Job where the interpretation as "curse" rather than "bless" is seriously in question?

________________________________________
1. In addition to the four in Job, there are three other instances of this phenomenon mentioned in BDB (with an explanation I found not entirely satisfying – "a blessing overdone and so really a curse"): 1 Kings 21:10, 21:13; ψ 10:3.
2. All piel or pual.The normal terminology for "curse" is notably sparse in Job, but the author manages to find two words for this in 3:8 that do not mean "bless".
3. For those who care, the relevant LXX bits: 1:5, κακ? ?νεν?ησαν πρ?ς θε?ν = they considered evil against God; 1:11 and 2:5, ε?λογ?σει = bless; 2:9, ε?π?ν τι ??μα ε?ς κ?ριον = say some word to the Lord.

... It is telling us that G_d encompasses all of existence and yet remains entirely beyond all space and time. When we say that this great name should "be blessed", we mean that it should become real in our world. That's the meaning of the word ‘blessing’ in Hebrew (bracha)—it means to bend something downward. In this case, we want to draw that higher reality downward into our reality. We want to feel how everything in the universe is permeated with G_dliness—with the light of an infinite Creator that transcends all things...

[others think] The word translated "curse", barak (also in 2:5. 9), which usually means "bless," is used euphemistically. Many consider it a scribal change for an original qillelu (which Targ. reads here), but there is no reason why this euphemistic style may not have been original...

Reference is to Improper Blessing

The word ??? in the piel, when God is the object, typically means to actively "praise God" for something, and in the pual, to refer passively to "God being praised" for something.

I do not think there is reason to have that meaning changed in these instances, nor to conjecture that it is a euphemism, as many have. Rather, contexts indicates a particular intention.

What these instances indicate is that one can praise God for something they should not be praising Him for; i.e., improper praise of God is equivalent to "cursing" or despising God, because one is improperly commenting on the character of God through a misapplied blessing. So the choice to translate ??? as "curse" is to reflect that the blessing is in fact not being to God's glory, to His praise.

When one blesses sinfulness, and then attributes that sin as being God's blessing, one actually malign's God and His ways. Such is the idea of the Psa 10:3 usage (NKJV):

For the wicked boasts of his heart’s desire;
He blesses the greedy and renounces the LORD.

The wicked blesses that which is wrong to bless, attributing it to YHWH, but in doing so, truly renouncing YHWH's ways.

Note how in 1 Kings 21:10 and 13 the set up for the accusation against Naboth was to first "seat Naboth with high honor among the people." This exaltation by others would then make the false witness believable that Naboth might have blessed God and the king inappropriately with respect to Naboth's own current exaltation, i.e., a prideful boast perhaps, such as "I praise God and king for their overdue recognition of my great worth... blah, blah."

Whatever the exact charge, we are not told. But the point, I believe, is that Naboth is being charged with praising God and king for something they ought not be praised for, thus maligning the character of both.

The usages in Job are linked to circumstances as well; circumstances in which one may not be in the right state of mind, and thus improperly bless God for that which one should not.

One time when this wrong state of mind is likely to occur is when one is celebrating, especially if alcohol is included (but not necessarily so). In Job 1:5, we find that it was after Job's children's times of feasting that he would offer intercessory sacrifice for them, as during that time they might have "sinned" and offered a misplaced blessing to God for that sin. Not to be too graphic here in illustrating, but how many people have attended parties, got drunk, done things they should not have with one another, and in their hearts thanked God for the "good time" they had, when that "good time" was filled with sin? That, I believe, is the image Job 1:5 is intended to evoke, causing Job to feel the need to sanctify his children again to God, giving sacrifice to cover any sin they may have done, and done thinking it was God's blessing to them.

In like manner, but a distinctly different situation, in Job 1:11 and 2:5 Satan is saying that the calamity God allows in Job's life will bring about circumstances in which Job will praise God "to his face" for things Job should not praise God for.

Perhaps Satan believes Job will sarcastically react: "Thanks, God, for wiping out my possessions and my children, and thanks, God, for such wonderful health you have granted me with these boils...." This seems to be the essence of what Job's wife is encouraging him to do in 2:9.

Or, if not sarcastically, improperly otherwise, like Job praising God for the judgment brought upon him, though he was righteous in God's eyes (so Job 1:1), and thus praising God for apparently judging righteousness, which reflects poorly on God's character.

This seems to be precisely in part the error Job's friends make—they did not speak right about God's ways (42:7), failing to recognize that Job was righteous and not deserving of such things based upon anything Job had specifically done.

How did Job really respond? Not as Satan intended. After the first incident, we learn Job "blessed" God's name (1:21) and "did not sin nor charge God with wrong" (1:22), and after the second, that "In all this Job did not sin with his lips" (2:10).

Job had some character flaws revealed through the incidents (e.g. Job 42:1-6), but his actions toward God and fellow man were never in question prior to Job's testing. This testing was what the calamities came for; to prove Job faithful, including not to praise God for that which He should not be praised.

The word ???, though translated "curse" to indicate the "praise" is not true to glorifying God, does not really need to be remapped to a meaning opposite what it always has. Mis-given praise to God is not a blessing to God, it is blasphemy, a curse to His name, His character. This appears to be the idea in all the contexts in which it arises that it is translated as "curse."2
________________________________________
NOTES
1 The only reason to conjecture such is a misplaced notion of thinking God cannot be associated with cursing. But Exo 22:28, Lev 24:15, Isa 8:21 all use ??? ("curse") in conjunction with God, so the use of it was established before the writing of 1 Kings and Psalm 10:3. One would have to argue that these writers, along with the author of Job, specifically felt compelled to not associate a person cursing God, when Moses had.
2 So rather than "a blessing overdone and so really a curse," the context appears to indicate "a blessing mis-attributed and so really a curse" to the one it is mis-attributed toward.