הרב ראובן חיים קליין Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein

Twin Cities of Zion

Perhaps many of us have never stopped to think about the names Zion and Jerusalem. We may have always assumed that the two terms are synonymous, and even interchangeable. However, if one closely examines the Scriptures and other traditional works, one will realize that Zion and Jerusalem do not necessarily refer to the exact same place. In fact, the customary formula recited in consoling mourners already implies such: “May the Omnipresent console you amongst the other mourners of Zion and Jerusalem.” Zion and Jerusalem — two different places.

When inaugurating the newly-built Holy Temple, the Bible states, “King Solomon gathered the Elders of the Jewish People and leaders of the tribes in Jerusalem in order to bring up the Ark from the City of David — which is Zion” (I Kings 8:1, II Chron. 5:2). The wording of this passage clearly demonstrates that Jerusalem and Zion are indeed two different places. This proof-text is adduced by Rabbi Ashtori HaParchi (1280-1366), Rabbi David Ibn Zimra (1479-1589), and Rabbi Elazar Azkiri (1533-1600). Indeed, Rashi (to Sotah 5a and Yoma 77b) writes quite emphatically that Zion is outside of Jerusalem.

Zion is sometimes known in the Bible as the “City of David” (Ir David) or “Fortress of David” (Metzudat David). That city had its own wall (see Rashi to II Sam. 8:7). However, later on, the outer walls of Jerusalem were expanded to include Zion as well. This may have happened in the late First Temple period, or in the beginning of the Second Temple period. Because Zion was added to the Holy City only later, it may not have had the same halachic status as the rest of Jerusalem regarding permission to eat certain sacrifices and tithes. For this reason, the inner walls known as chomat beit pagi separated Jerusalem proper from Zion, even in the late Second Temple period by which time the two cities had already merged. That wall served to demarcate the area inside greater Jerusalem within which one may or may not eat from the ritual sacrifices.

Rabbi Eliyahu Kramer of Vilna (1720-1797), also known as the Vilna Gaon, writes (in his commentary to Isa. 1:9) that the population demographics of Zion differed from that of Jerusalem: the noblemen lived in Zion, while ordinary people lived in Jerusalem.

We all know where Jerusalem is on a map, but where is Zion?

Psalms 48 speaks about the City of Our G-d in the most superlative terms. In that context, the Psalmist mentions that Mount Zion is the most beautiful of all places, is the happiest place on Earth, and is tucked away in the north (Ps. 48:3). Ibn Ezra and Radak explain that this means that Mount Zion is in the northern part of Jerusalem. Rashi, on the other hand, cites Dunash ibn Labrat (925-990) as explaining that Mount Zion is another name for Mount of Olives (Har HaZeitim).

However, none of these sources are in consonance with the location of what we call nowadays “Mount Zion”, which is southwest of the Old City. This point is actually made by the Sages, as Midrash Socher Tov asks: “Is Mount Zion really in the north of Jerusalem? Is it not actually in the south of Jerusalem?” Rather, explains the Midrash, “north” in this context does not refer to the physical direction were Mount Zion stood vis-à-vis Jerusalem. Rather, it refers to the intense elation one can experience at Zion/Jerusalem when one slaughters a sin-offering north of the altar (as required by Lev. 1:11). For this reason, Mount Zion is described as being in the north.

The thirteenth century exegete Rabbi Yosef Tuv-Elem (Bonfils), in his super-commentary Tzafnat Paneach (to Lev. 1:11), also discusses this. He cites Ibn Ezra’s assertion concerning the location of Mount Zion and disagrees with it. Instead, he asserts that Mount Zion is not north of Jerusalem, but south of Jerusalem. To this effect he cites the abovementioned Midrash Socher Tov, which clearly positions Mount Zion to be to the south of Jerusalem. Rabbi Tuv-Elem writes that this Midrashic source is more believable than Ibn Ezra’s assertion because its author, Rabbi Yochanan, actually lived in the Holy Land. Although he admits that Ibn Ezra also visited Jerusalem, he assumes that Ibn Ezra did so only after he already mistakenly wrote that Mount Zion is north of Jerusalem. Rabbi Tuv-Elem further notes that he personally lived in Jerusalem, and saw that Mount Zion is south of Old Jerusalem.

Some sources suggest that Tziyon is sometimes used as a synonym for Jerusalem (see Jer. 31:5 and Ps. 132:14). Actually, a more accurate term might be synecdoche — which is when a literary device, whereby a term that really refers to part of something, is used to refer to the entire thing. Indeed, in our daily prayers we beseech G-d that He restore the Holy Temple by saying, “May our eyes see Your return to Zion with mercy”. In this case we refer to the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem by mentioning Zion instead of Jerusalem. Similarly, in the Mussaf prayer on Rosh Chodesh we request of G-d: “You shall prepare a new altar in Zion”, again referring to the site of the Temple as Zion, instead of Jerusalem.

Nonetheless, the Zohar (Idra Zuta, 296b) states that Zion and Jerusalem are two spiritual levels, as one refers to the aspect of mercy and the other to the aspect of justice. This suggests that both terms refer to the same physical location.

Rabbi Yechiel Michel Tukachinsky (1871-1955) too disagrees with some of what we have written. He understands that Zion in the Bible does not always refer to a separate city adjoining Jerusalem, but rather refers to a neighborhood within Jerusalem itself.

Rabbi Tukachinsky further notes that sometimes the word tziyon appears in the Bible as a synonym for the Holy Temple (e.g., Joel 4:18 and Ps. 2:6) or, as a general term for the Jewish People (such as Isa. 51:3). In those cases, the word tzion is not a proper name for a Jerusalemite neighborhood, but is a common noun which means “outstanding” (derived from the word tziyun). In this vein, Rabbi Tukachinsky explains that sometimes Mount Zion actually refers to Mount Moriah, where the Temple stood.

Rabbi Ashtori HaParchi — a prominent rabbinic topographer — actually concedes this point by admitting that sometimes the phrase “mountains of Zion” or “mountain of Zion” does not refer to Mount Zion, per se, but to the mountains in that general vicinity, which includes Mount Zion, Mount Moriah and the Mount of Olives. Accordingly, Rabbi HaParchi maintains that when Zion appears in conjunction with the Temple, it refers to the general area of Mount Zion, which can also include the Temple Mount.

Somebody once asked the anti-Zionist rabbinic figure, Rabbi Yosef Rozin (1858-1936), better known as the Rogatchover Gaon, for his opinion about Zionism. Instead of directly answering the question, Rabbi Rozin playfully replied by explaining that Zion is an area outside of Jerusalem proper where gentile heretics historically gathered. The Mishnah (Shekalim 8:1) rules that spittle found in the Upper Marketplace of Jerusalem should be assumed to originate from a non-Jew, and the Rogatchover Gaon explains that this refers to the area known as Zion. By highlighting the historical fact that Zion in Mishnaic times was essentially a slum, the Rogatchover Gaon registered his disapproval with secular Zionists, whom he deemed akin to said historical heretics.

“A Song of Ascent for David: How good and how pleasant it is, the dwelling of brothers together” (Ps. 133:1). The Targum explains that this refers specifically to the unity between the twin cities of Zion and Jerusalem. In fact, the spelling of Jerusalem in the Bible, and the Aramaic name of the Holy City, Yerushalem/Yerushaleim are written in the singular form, as though the city is made up of one singular component (the English name Jerusalem is derived from this form of the name). However, the way we traditionally pronounce the city’s name in Hebrew — Yerushalayim — is in the double form, as if to allude to the fact that Jerusalem is actually made up of two cities joined together. Just as the Hungarian cities Buda and Pest united to become one city — Budapest — so do Zion and Jerusalem unite to become one Unified Jerusalem.

Much of the information for this article was culled from Har HaKodesh by the late Rabbi Moshe Nachum Shapiro, and Ir HaKodesh VeHaMikdash by Rabbi Yechiel Michel Tukachinsky.

Kol Tuv,

Reuven Chaim Klein

Beitar Illit, Israel

Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein is the author of God versus Gods: Judaism in the Age of Idolatry (Mosaica Press, 2018). His book follows the narrative of Tanakh and focuses on the stories concerning Avodah Zarah using both traditional and academic sources. It also includes an encyclopedia of all the different types of idolatry mentioned in the Bible.

Rabbi Klein studied for over a decade at the premier institutes of the Hareidi world, including Beth Medrash Govoha in Lakewood and Yeshivas Mir in Jerusalem. He authored many articles both in English and Hebrew, and his first book Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew (Mosaica Press, 2014)  became an instant classic. His weekly articles on synonyms in the Hebrew language are published in the Jewish Press and Ohrnet. Rabbi Klein lives with his family in Beitar Illit, Israel and can be reached via email to: rabbircklein@gmail.com

The Sofrim Group is proud to invite you to a moderated discussion about one of the most intriguing topics of our times:

With great excitement and fanfare, I’m happy to announce that my good friend Rabbi Shloimy Klein (no relation) will be opening a Yeshiva in Yerushalayim for American bachurim after Pesach. They will be studying Kodshim under the  tutelage of the famed Rabbi Michoel Kritzler (who authored a commentary to the Ohr Somayach) and other known Talmidei Chachamim.

Boorish Animals

When the Torah states that a person is liable for damages caused by his animal eating or trampling in another’s field, it says “when a man brings to graze in a field or vineyard, and he send his animal (be’ir), and it consumes in another’s field, he [the owner of the animal] shall pay from the best of his field and he shall pay from the best of his vineyard” (Ex. 22:4). In this context, the Hebrew term for “animal” is be’ir, which is a relatively-obscure word that only appears in that sense six times in the Bible (see Gen. 45:17, Num. 20:4, 20:8, 20:11, Ps. 78:48). The standard Hebrew word for “animal” is behemah, which appears close to two-hundred times through the Bible. In this essay, we will try to understand the possible differences between behemah and be’ir, determining whether or not they are perfect synonyms.

The early Hebrew lexicographers Rabbi Yonah Ibn Janach and Radak in their respective Sefer HaShorashim trace the word behemah to the triliteral root BET-HEY-MEM, which can refer to a “single beast” or to “animals” in general. As opposed to them, Rabbi Yaakov Tzvi Mecklenburg (1785–1865) argues that the letter BET in behemah is not part of the core root, which is simply comprised of the string HEY-MEM-(HEY). That latter string makes up the Hebrew root that means “noise/confusion,” and is the basis of the word behamah because animals make confused, incoherent noises, in contrast to humans whose oral expressions have semantic meaning. [For more about Hebrew words for specific animal sounds, see “Animal Sounds” (March 2021).]

Similarly, Rabbi Yehudah Aryeh of Carpentras (an 18^th century grammarian and dayan) writes in Ohalei Yehuda that behemah is derived from a merger of BET-HEY (“in it/her”) and HEY-MEM (“confusion, harried”). Alternatively, he explains that behemah refers to the smallness and insignificance of animals (as opposed to humans which are loftier beings), because they have no significance or import in their own right — as if to say about such creatures, bah mah (“what is in it/her?”). This phraseology mirrors Moses and Aaron’s self-negating statement, “and we are [but] mah [what, i.e., nothing]?”(Ex. 16:7, 16:8), said as an expression of their humble humility.

Before we discuss the etymology of be’ir, I wanted to mention that some commentators see the name Balaam son of Beor as an allusion to the Talmudic assertion that Balaam consorted with his beloved donkey (Sanhedrin 105a). This is because the name Balaam can be parsed as a metathesized form of the verb “fornicating” (boel), and Beor can be read as a form of be’ir, which means “animal” (see Meor Ha’Afeilah to Num. 22:2 and Yad Ramah to Sanhedrin 105a).

The early lexicographers like Menachem Ibn Saruk, Ibn Janach, and Radak unanimously see the word be’ir as derived from the triliteral root BET-AYIN-REISH. In Biblical Hebrew, that root has a whole slew of different meanings, including “removing,” “grazing,” “consuming,” “destroying,” “burning,” “kindling,” and “fool.” The way Ibn Janach categorizes the different tributaries of this root, be’ir in the sense of “animal” derives from the “grazing/consuming” meaning of BET-AYIN-REISH, as animals are typified by their propensity to consume food. However, the way Ibn Saruk categories the words derived from BET-AYIN-REISH, be’ir actually falls into the same category as “fool” (ba’ar), as we will explain below. [Rashi (to Ex. 22:4) seems to weigh in on this question by commenting that “grazing/consuming” is related to “animal,” but his exact intent remains unclear. See Rabbi Yaakov Yechiel Weinberg (1884–1966) in responsa Seridei Aish (vol. 4 Chakirat HaMekorot §7:2) who discusses the possibilities of what exactly Rashi means.]

Mitchell First in his book Words for the Wise (Kodesh Press, 2022) on page 149 reasons that the word be’ir is unrelated to any of the other meanings of the BET-AYIN-REISH root. He also notes that a cognate of BET-AYIN-REISH in Arabic means “camel,” and in some dialects (like South Arabic), it is a general term for “animals” much like the Biblical be’ir. Based on this, Rabbi Shet bar Yefet in Chemat HaChemdah (to Ex. 22:4) argues that be’ir is actually Arabic, not Hebrew.

Others see the letter BET in be’ir as unrelated to its core root. For example, Rabbi Shlomo Yehuda Rapoport (1786-1867) — who was a son-in-law of the Ketzot HaChoshen and is typically considered a maskil — argues that be’ir should be read as “in the city,” as though the word comprised of the initial BET as the grammatical prefix “in” and ir meaning “city.” He takes this as reflective of the fact that be’ir refers specifically to “domesticated animals” of the sort one might find in an urban setting, as opposed to the term behemah, which can include non-domesticated, wild animals (see Ps. 8:8).

Similarly, Rabbi David Chaim Chelouche (1920–2016) sees the core root of be’ir as AYIN-REISH, which means “bare/naked.” He explains that a foolish person is bereft of the adornment of wisdom, and thus is left “bare.” He also connects this with the term be’ir by noting that animals tend to consume the food left in a field, such that they bereave the field of its produce, leaving it naked. [I’ve discussed the root AYIN-REISH previously in multiple essay, so if you’d like to learn more about it and the words derived thereof, check out “Razor’s Edge” (May 2018), “Boys and Girls Part II” (Nov. 2020), “Piles and Piles” (Jan. 2022).]

In one my earliest essays in this series (“Don’t be a Behemah or a Chayah,” Nov. 2016), I presented the idea that the term behemah refers specifically to a “domesticated animal,” while chayah refers to a “wild animal.” Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (to Gen. 1:24, 45:17, Ex. 22:4, Lev. 1:2, Ps. 73:21) also follows this approach and adds be’ir to the fray in discussing the etymological basis for all three Hebrew words for “animal.”

Rabbi Hirsch explains that the word behemah is related to the word bamah (“elevation/high place” or “platform”), because behemah denotes an animal that is subservient to man. As such, a behemah serves as a platform for the elevation of man, because the behemah can take of the menial tasks that man needs done, thus allowing man to pursue more lofty things. Alternatively, animals themselves serve as the lower rung of life which are figuratively “trampled upon” by their servility to man. When offering this latter explanation, Rabbi Hirsch compares the root BET-HEY-MEM (from which behemah derives) to the root PEH-AYIN-MEM (“stepping”), via the interchangeability of BET and PEH, plus HEY and AYIN.

By contrast, Rabbi Hirsch explains that chayah relates to the word chai/chaim (“life”), because it connotes a wild animal as something that constitutes an independent life-form that is not subservient to man. Alternatively, he writes that chayah invokes the notion that animalistic living is yet a higher form of existence than plant/flora (chai vs. tzomeach).

Finally, Rabbi Hirsch discusses be’ir, which he understands refers to a totally-subdued creature (even more so than the merely domesticated behemah) that is trapped in a cage and only takes care of what its natural instincts pushes it to do in order to survive. In sharpening this view, Rabbi Hirsch explains that be’ir is cognate with ba’ar (“unintelligent/totally ignorant person”), which refers to a boorish person who is likewise motivated solely by his animalistic instincts. Interestingly, these nuances are lost in Targumic Aramaic, wherein the Hebrew words behemah and be’ir are both typically rendered as be’ira (which is clearly cognate with be’ir).

The connection between be’ir and baar is not just noted by Rabbi Hirsch; it is ubiquitous amongst other commentators, as well. For example, Rabbi Yehuda Leib Edel (1760–1828) and the Malbim (1809–1879) explain that a ba’ar is called so because his lack of intelligence makes him sub-human, as though he is like a be’ir. Conversely, Ohalei Yehuda writes that an animal is called be’ir, because it behaves like a ba’ar. Either way, this connection between be’ir and baar may be alluded to in the Bible itself, in which King David humbly states, “I am a baar and I do not know, I was [like] an animal (behemah) with You” (Ps. 73:22).

The Mishnah (Avot 2:5) states that a bur (“brute” or “uncultured person”) cannot be a fearer of Heaven. Some explain the word bur as cognate with a similar word bur used by the Mishnah (Peah 2:1) and Targum Onkelos (Gen. 47:19) in reference to the desolation of an “uncultivated” field (see Rashi, Tashbetz, Bartenua and other others to Avot 2:5). Alternatively, Rabbi Dr. Asher Weiser explains bur as a cognate of bor (“pit”), in this context referring to a person whose mind is empty like a “pit.” He also sees the words be’er (“wellspring,” which only contains a limited amount of water) and beiur (“explanation,” the antidote to the ba’ar’s ignorance) as related. But Rabbi Eliyahu HaBachur (1469–1549) in Sefer HaTishbi understands bur as a form of ba’ar (based on Targum to Prov. 12:1, 30:2).

Before I worked on this essay, I genuinely thought that the English word boor was derived from the Hebrew term bur. However, when asked about this possible connection, the translator and literary critic Hillel Halkin (writing under his cryptonym Philologos) replied that they are unrelated. He claims that the Rabbinic Hebrew word bur is more closely related to the Aramaic word bar (“outside,” like in Baraita), and is unrelated to either the Biblical Hebrew ba’ar or the English boor. Halkin masterfully notes: “although Hebrew bur and English boor are similar in meaning, they come at it from opposite ends. Bur reflects rural values: The ignorant mind is like unfarmed land. Boor is an urban term: There is no one as ignorant as a bumpkin of a farmer. There’s a world of difference in such similarity.”

Indeed, among etymologists there are two main theories as to the origins of the English boor: Some maintain it is derived from the French bouvier (“herdsman”), which, in turn, goes back to the Latin word bovarius (“bovine,” or “relating to oxen/cows”), that come from bos/bov. Interestingly, a Celtic tribe named the Boii derive their name from Proto-Indo-European cognates of this term for cows, and their name is immortalized in the names of two regions in Europe: Bohemia and Bavaria. There is also the word boustrophedon, which refers to a script that is not written strictly left-to-right or right-to-left, rather has one line written in one direction and the next line written in the opposite direction, just like the ox plows one row left to right and then the next row from right to left. Others relate the English word boor to the Old English gebur (“dweller,” “peasant”, “farmer”), which is a cognate of the English word neighbor and the German word bauer (“peasant/farmer”).

Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein is the author of God versus Gods: Judaism in the Age of Idolatry (Mosaica Press, 2018). His book follows the narrative of Tanakh and focuses on the stories concerning Avodah Zarah using both traditional and academic sources. It also includes an encyclopedia of all the different types of idolatry mentioned in the Bible.

Rabbi Klein studied for over a decade at the premier institutes of the Hareidi world, including Beth Medrash Govoha in Lakewood and Yeshivas Mir in Jerusalem. He authored many articles both in English and Hebrew, and his first book Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew (Mosaica Press, 2014)  became an instant classic. His weekly articles on synonyms in the Hebrew language are published in the Jewish Press and Ohrnet. Rabbi Klein lives with his family in Beitar Illit, Israel and can be reached via email to: rabbircklein@gmail.com

The video recording from A.S. Adler’s lecture last week is now available on YouTube:

The audio recording (which is probably higher quality than the video) is available at https://archive.org/details/IvriScript