Chukas: Words for War
At the end of Parashat Chukat, the Jews fought their inaugural battles in the long war to conquer the Holy Land. Their first enemies were Sichon and Og, Emorite kings who ruled over territories in the trans-Jordan region. The common word for “war” in Biblical Hebrew is milchamah, and its associated verb to mean “warring” is lochem. This essay explores the various words for “war” in Hebrew, including the apparent synonyms milchamah, krav, pulmus, batrunya, and knigi (the last three are actually Greek).
The noun milchamah (inflections of which appear over 300 times in the Bible) and the verb lochem (inflections of which also appear around 300 times in the Bible) are almost unanimously traced to the triliteral root LAMMED-CHET-MEM. That root yields words with three different meanings: “bread,” “meat,” and “war.” Menachem Ibn Saruk in Machberet Menachem lists these three different sets of meanings as distinct declensions of LAMMED-CHET-MEM without insinuating any connection between them. However, Ibn Janach in his Sefer HaShorashim collapses the difference between the first meanings of this root by explaining that it refers broadly to “[staple/primary] food” with most instances of lechem in the Bible used in reference to “bread” and some remaining instances in reference to “meat.” This approach can be confirmed by looking to cognate languages, like Arabic, where in lahm usually means “meat,” yet in the South Arabic dialect spoken on the island of Soqotra, it actually means "fish.” Radak in his Sefer HaShorashim further collapses the gap between these meanings derived from LAMMED-CHET-MEM by explaining that war can be figuratively characterized as the sword of the combatants "eating" the fatalities of war. [For more about the Hebrew word lechem and other words for “bread,”see “Let them Eat Bread” (June 2018) and “Eating Cake” (April 2024).]
Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (to Gen. 3:19, 10:9, 14:2) takes the discussion in a slightly different direction, explaining how the root LAMMED-CHET-MEM denotes the "struggle," especially when it comes to the struggle for survival. In order to eat bread (lechem), man must "struggle" against nature (which only provides raw wheat, but not processed bread) and his fellow man (who might try to take way his food resources for his own purposes). The latter type of struggle typifies a milchamah, which is a battle or war fought between two or more human parties struggling for survival in a bid to win against the other. Using his signature phonetic etymology system, Rabbi Hirsch points to the existential nature of the struggle by connecting LAMMED-CHET-MEM to LAMMED-ALEPH-MEM (leum, "nation/state"). Just as the latter represents the existential essence of a nation or polity that oftentimes must overcome its enemies in order to survive, so too does the former refer to bread (or food in general) as the means of human existence and war as the means for preserving one's bread.
Rabbi Shlomo Pappenheim in his work Cheshek Shlomo has a totally different approach. He traces the words lechem and milchamah to the biliteral root CHET-MEM. This is noteworthy because in general Rabbi Pappenheim understands that core biliteral roots can only joined with the letters HEY, ALEPH, MEM, NUN, TAV, YUD, or VAV to create a three-letter root, but in this case, he understands the biliteral root CHET-MEM as joining with an initial LAMMED to form the words lechem and milchamah. Either way, Rabbi Pappenheim explains the core meaning of CHET-MEM as “heat.” He lists a whole bevy of words as deriving from this: cham ("hot"), cheimah ("anger," when a person's wrath had been heated up), chamah ("sun," the world's main source of heat), chaman (a pagan idol formed in the shape of the sun), chum ("brown," the color of what appears to be sun-burnt), chemah ("butter," a dairy product derived from milk by agitating the liquid and thereby heating it up), cheimat ("flask," a vessel commonly used for storing butter or one that resembles the vat used for making butter), and chami/chamot ("parents-in-law," because a woman's husband's parents shower her with warm love). To this, he adds the word lechem ("bread") on account of the heat used to bake the dough into bread and the word milchamah on account of the heated nature of battle. As Rabbi Pappenheim explains, two sides only resort to war when things have heated up so much that they are ready to fight. [For a discussion of how the word chomah ("wall") relates to this, see “Remembering the Wall” (July 2020)].
Another approach is adopted by the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (vol. 7) which suggest that the basic idea of LAMMED-CHET-MEM refers to "coming together." In the case of lechem (“food”) it refers to people joining together for a meal or eaters coming into direct contact with foodstuff, while in the case of war, this root refers to enemy combatants coming into close contact on the battlefield as they fight. The scholars of that dictionary also point to the Arabic word lahhama ("soldering/welding") as evidence of their hypothesis that LAMMED-CHET-MEM primarily refers to “coming together.” The truth is that this last meaning is not just found in Arabic, but is already found in Rabbinic Hebrew where halchamah already refers to "soldering/welding" (Jerusalemic Talmud Beitzah 1:5, Vayikra Rabbah §3:3, Shir HaShirim Rabbah §4:30, 5:10) as it does in Modern Hebrew. In fact, Rabbi Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin, also known as the Netziv, in his work Ha'Emek Davar (to Num. 28:2) already partially makes this point by explaining that lechem relates to halachamah in the sense that food is what solidifies the connection between the body and soul by keeping a person alive. He further expands on this idea to explain that ritual sacrifices are called lechem because they likewise cement the bond between the Jewish People and Hashem. Nonetheless, the Netziv does not explicitly connect this to the idea of milchamah like the scholars behind TDOT did.
Before we move on to the next word for “war,” I just wanted to point out that the name Lachmi appears in the Bible as the brother of the Phillistine warrior Goliath (I Chron. 20:5), and Lachman ben Ristak was the name of a gentile mentioned in the Talmud (Eruvin 63b).
The Biblical Hebrew word krav also means “war/battle/combat” and appears in such phrases as yom krav — “Day of Battle” (Zech. 14:3, Ps. 78:9, Job 38:23) and klei krav — literally, “Instruments of Battle [Weapons] (Ecc. 9:18). This word derives from the triliteral root KUF-REISH-BET, which means “approaching,” “inside/innards,” and “war.” While the classical Hebrew lexicographers (like Ibn Saruk, Ibn Janach, and Radak) presents these three meanings as distinct, the truth is blurrier than that. The closer one approaches towards something, the more one is closer to coming “inside” a certain perimeter and reaching its “innards.” Similarly, when two sides are pitted against each other in battle, those on the offense “approach” their enemies, while those one the defense eared try to protect whatever lies within the innards of their line of resistance. There are instances of the verbal form of KUF-REISH-BET that literally referring to “approaching” but contextually refer to potentially “battling” (for examples, Ex. 14:10, Lev. 20:10, Deut. 2:19, 20:10).
The root KUF-REISH-BET is also used in the word korban (“sacrifice”), which literally refers to bringing something close to the alter, but in a metaphysical sense also represents the worshipper coming closer to Hashem. This root also appears in the context of sexual relations, which represents two people physically coming together (for examples, Gen. 20:4, Lev. 18:6 Deut. 22:14, Isa. 8:3). And Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (to Ps. 140:2) writes that the word akrav ("scorpion") is also related to this three-letter root (with the addition of an initial AYIN) because that poisonous creature is always ready and poised to attack. Interestingly, Rabbi Yehudah Aryeh of Carpentras in his work Aholei Yehuda connects the word garav (a type of “boils/pimple”) to the krav (via the interchangeability of the GIMMEL and KUF), explaining that the garav is so itchy that a person feels impelled to “wage war” against himself and scratch the garav, even though it could lead to bleeding. [For more about garav, see “No More Boils” (Sep. 2024).]
The word pulmus appears in the Mishnah in the sense of “war/battle.” It appears three times in the same Mishnah (Sotah 9:14) when listing various rabbinic enactments that were respectively instituted at the time of the Pulmus of Vespasian, the Pulmus of Titus, and the Last Pulmus. This Mishnaic Hebrew word is actually a loanword borrowed from the Greek pólemos (Πόλεμος), which means “war.” This Greek word is also the etymon of the English word polemic (meaning, “warlike,” “hostile,” and “contentious”), although the meaning has shifted slightly to refer more commonly to a strong verbal or written attack on someone or something (i.e., a “war of words”). In other words, the English polemic retains the core idea of “combat,” but it is now used in a verbal or intellectual context, rather than a military context. The same is true of the Modern Hebrew word pulmus which often refers to a “controversy” or “debate,” but not an actual war.
The Talmud relates that in the future Messianic Times, Hashem will punish the nations of the world for failing to uphold the Seven Noahide Laws even while the Jews continued to observe the more cumbersome 613 Commandments of the Torah. The gentiles will attempt to deflect the criticism levelled against them by answering that Hashem should have given them the Torah. The Talmud continues to explain how Hashem will then test those gentiles’ sincerity in saying that they would have kept the Torah had it been given to them by Him offering them the commandment of Sukkah. As the Talmud foretells, the non-Jews will end up spurning that commandment and showing that they indeed deserve whatever punishments He had planned for them (Avodah Zarah 2b-3a).
During that lengthy discussion, the Talmud asks how Hashem could give the non-Jews the commandment of Sukkah, if the whole concept of commandments only applies in This World, but not in the future Messianic World to Come, by when people will no longer have a chance to accrue more merits because it will be too late. To this, the Talmud answers that Hashem does not enter in a batrunya with His creations.
I was always under the impression that the word was pronounced batrunya and means “battle,” and the Talmud means that Hashem does not try to “fight” against those whom He created. However, after further investigation, it appears the word should actually be read as b’tarunya, with the initial BET not serving as part of the core root, but rather as grammatical function to mean “with/through.” Rabbi Binyamin Mussafia in Mussaf He’aruch writes that tarunya is a Hebraization of the Greek word tyronia (τυραννία) meaning “tyranny” — a type of state in which power is taken by one person (i.e., the tyrant), either by force or by fraud. Obviously, that Greek word is the etymon of the related English words. According to this, what the Talmud means by saying that Hashem dos not engage in tarunya is that He does not want to impose His will upon people like a dictator in order strongarm them through coercive, combative ways into following His decisions. Rather, Hashem in His eternal benevolence always wants to give people a chance to “prove” or “disprove” the soundness of His decisions by giving them another chance.
This word also appears in rabbinic literature in other contexts. For example, the Phillistine governors/lords are known in Biblical Hebrew as sarnei plishtim (Josh. 13:3, Jud. 3:3, 16:5-27, I Sam. 5:8-11, 6:4, 6:16, 7:7, 29:7, and I Chron. 12:20), but which the Targumim translate into Aramaic turnaei plishtaei, using an Aramaicized form of the Greek tyronia. [In Modern Hebrew, seren is an official rank in the military/police that is roughly the equivalent of “captain.”]
Additionally, the Midrash (Bereishit Rabbah §42:4) identifies Rome as the kingdom that has imposed a tironya on the nations. The commentary Matnot Kehunah (there) explains this refers to the Romans imposing “tyranny” (i.e., sovereignty/lordship) on those nations that came under their control. On the other hand, it should be noted that Rabbi Natan of Rome (in Sefer He'Aruch understands that tironya refers to a sort of tax used for military funding, and Dr. Alexnader Kohut (in his He'Aruch HaShaleim) writes at great length to defend that understanding.
Finally, the Talmud teaches that in the End of Days, the archangel Gabriel is destined to do kenigia with the Leviathan (Bava Batra 74b-75a). The word kenigia is a hapax legomenon in the Babylonian Talmud, so its precise meaning is not readily apparent. The Mainz Commentary ascribed to Rabbeinu Gershom (to Bava Batra 75a) defines the word kenigia as milchamah (as does Rashba). However, Rashbam (to Bava Batra 75a) explains that kenigia actually refers to "hunting," thus Gabriel is said to hunt down that powerful sea creature in the future. Rashbam buttresses his understanding from another Talmudic passage which rhetorically asks whether moses was a kenigi or balistiri (Chullin 60b). In context, the Talmud meant to stress that the level of detail in which the Torah enters when discussing the kosher and non-kosher animals could only mean that the Torah came from Above because — as Rashi and Rabbeinu Gershom (there) interpret the two terms in question — Moses was not a “hunter” (kenigi) or “archer” (balistiri).
The word kenigia in Talmudic Hebrew is indeed a loanword from the Greek word kynigia (κυνηγία in Ancient Greek, or κυνήγι in Modern Greek), which in fact refers to the act of “hunting/chasing/pursuing” predatory beasts. According to linguists, this word is etymologically derived from the Greek ky��n/kwon meaning “dog.” Two obvious derivatives of that term in English are canine (“dog”) and cynicism (because Cynic philosophers compared themselves to “dogs” through their shamelessness and boldness in guarding the truth like a watchdog).
But after a brief lesson in comparative linguistics, you will understand that there are some more, less obvious English words that are etymologically related. When we compare Greek words like kardia ("heart") and keras ("horn") with their English counterparts heart and horn, we notice a pattern: while the Greek words start with the letter k, the English words start with the letter h. The same is true of the Latin centum that because hundred in English. That is not because English borrowed from Greek/Latin and changed the initial sound, but rather it is because both English and Greek/Latin come from a common linguistic ancestor known as Proto-Indo-European (PIE). The Greeks kept the original k-sound, while English, through its Germanic roots, shifted the k-sound to an h-sound. In the same way, the Greek ky��n ("dog") is related to the English word hound (“dog”) and the Yiddish/German word hünt (“dog”). The same is true of kynigia (with an initial k) which is also likewise a cousin of the English hunt (with an initial h). [Although I originally though that kenigia might be related to the English word king, German Koenig and Yiddish kenig, Rabbi Shaul Godman assures mean that those Germanic words are actually related to kin, kind, and genus to denote the regent’s rightful parentage as the royal heir.]
