5

I have recently noted that the phrase אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים is consistently translated by Artscroll as gods of others, suggesting a construct state or semikhut. However, as Joel K pointed out, the construct state would be אֱלֹהֵי אֲחֵרִים. The choice of JPS is the more simple noun phrase with an adjective: other gods. I checked R' Hirsch, and he also wrote andern Göttern (other gods). Both versions assumes the existence of false idols, so from a philosophic perspective it seems to be the same. What sources support the semikhut version of Artscroll?

Kazi bácsi
  • 7,609
  • 4
  • 23
  • 51
  • 2
    Wouldn't the semikhut form be אלהי אחרים? – Joel K Aug 13 '20 at 14:01
  • 1
    Not necessarily, though. There are a lot of places in Tanach where a regular form is used instead of a construct one (Radak, in particular, often draws attention to these), like הארון הברית or העם המלחמה and so forth. – Meir Aug 13 '20 at 14:13
  • 1
    @Meir IIRC these are still in semikhut, just with an extra ה, like in Kings 2:16:24 or Jer 25:26. Compare musaf amidah האוהבי דבריה. – magicker72 Aug 13 '20 at 14:39
  • @magicker72 Perhaps for just that reason, some nuschaos have האוהבים דבריה. – Meir Aug 13 '20 at 14:56
  • @Meir That's not really a traditional nusach, but rather some publisher deciding to "correct" traditional prayers based on his own sense of grammar (or other publishers copying him without knowing better). – Double AA Aug 13 '20 at 15:12
  • @DoubleAA It's traditional enough that it's found in some manuscripts of R' Saadiah Gaon's siddur, among others. It is true that it was popularized by the (controversial) R' Zalman Hanau, but on the other hand it was accepted by authorities such as the Baal Hatanya. – Meir Aug 13 '20 at 15:30
  • 1
    @Meir Changes from tradition are still changes from tradition, even if someone accepted them. And thats not true about R' Saadia Gaon; you're probably looking at a documented typo in the last printed edition http://shorturl.at/blFOZ and https://www.academia.edu/13802377 but the mss. and planned future printed editions all say האוהבי. There are some mss. from Provence (not Ashkenaz) with האוהבים but it's hard to build much out of them given the likelihood of a founder effect of someone in provence having 'fixed' it (much more plausible than someone pregeonic breaking it everywhere but provence) – Double AA Aug 13 '20 at 15:37
  • 1
    @Meir On p. 97 this issue is discussed with the variants: https://opensiddur.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Tefiloh-Sefas-Yisroel-6-Shacharit-and-Musaf-for-Shabbat-and-Yom-Tov.pdf – Kazi bácsi Aug 13 '20 at 18:27
  • From a secular point of view you can very clearly see the bible was written in different periods. One of the indicators is that in the earlier texts the various nations had various gods, and wars were fought not just between the people, but also between their gods. So in this period, God is the only god of Israel (and later Judah). Later the text is clearly written from the point of view that those other gods are false gods, they do not truly exist in the same way as God. – Ink blot Aug 14 '20 at 09:08

2 Answers2

8

It's from Rashi, Shemos 20:3:

אלהים אחרים. שֶׁאֵינָן אֱלוֹהוּת אֶלָּא אֲחֵרִים עֲשָׂאוּם אֱלֹהִים עֲלֵיהֶם, וְלֹא יִתָּכֵן לְפָרֵשׁ אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים זוּלָתִי, שֶׁגְּנַאי כְּלַפֵּי מַעְלָה לִקְרֹאותָם אֱלוֹהוּת אֶצְלוֹ...

OTHER GODS — which are not gods, but others have made them gods over themselves. It would not be correct to explain this to mean “gods other than Me”, for it would be blasphemy of the Most High God to term them gods together with Him (cf. Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 20:3:1)...

Rashi's source, Mechilta d'Rabbi Yishmael, says the same but in different phrasing:

...ומה תלמוד לומר "אלהים אחרים"? אלא שאחרים קוראין אותם אלוהות

...What, then, is the intent of "other gods"? That others call "gods."

(Each of those sources does present other explanations as well.)

About the fact that (as Joel K pointed out) the expected form would then be אלהי אחרים: we do find in a lot of places where a regular form is used instead of a construct one. Examples include הארון הברית (Yehoshua 3:14) and העם המלחמה‎ (8:11). Closer to our case, we have אלהים צבאות, which Radak, at least, says means אלהים אלהי הצבאות, "G-d, the G-d of hosts" (i.e., that in his view צבאות isn't one of the Divine names, even though halachah considers it as such). See, for example, his commentary to Tehillim 80:5, and in more detail ibid. verse 15.

Kazi bácsi
  • 7,609
  • 4
  • 23
  • 51
Meir
  • 9,176
  • 19
  • 38
7

This translation is probably (ultimately) based on an opinion brought in Mekhilta 20:3:

וכי אלוהות הן? ... אלא שאחרים קוראין אותם אלוהות

Are they in fact gods? ... Rather, that others call them gods.

and popularized by Rashi to Shemot 20:3:

אלהים אחרים. שֶׁאֵינָן אֱלוֹהוּת אֶלָּא אֲחֵרִים עֲשָׂאוּם אֱלֹהִים עֲלֵיהֶם, וְלֹא יִתָּכֵן לְפָרֵשׁ אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים זוּלָתִי, שֶׁגְּנַאי כְּלַפֵּי מַעְלָה לִקְרֹאותָם אֱלוֹהוּת אֶצְלוֹ.‏

OTHER GODS — which are not gods, but others have made them gods over themselves. It would not be correct to explain this to mean “gods other than Me”, for it would be blasphemy of the Most High God to term them gods together with Him.

Joel K
  • 43,068
  • 4
  • 62
  • 166
  • Beat me by a minute... – Meir Aug 13 '20 at 14:02
  • How would Rashi, and those who consider it "blasphemy of the Most High God to term them gods together with Him," understand Psalm 82:6, אֲ‍ֽנִי־אָ֭מַרְתִּי אֱלֹהִ֣ים אַתֶּ֑ם וּבְנֵ֖י עֶלְיֹ֣ון כֻּלְּכֶֽם׃ ? Would they not agree that אֱלֹהִ֣ים has a broader range of meaning than only "true God"? Sorry if this is an ignorant question, but I am curious. – LarsH Aug 14 '20 at 14:49
  • @LarsH The term אלהים does have a broader range of meaning, as you said (it basically means "ones with power," so it is used of G-d, angels, judges, etc.). But אלהים אחרים would then suggest "powers other than/coequal with G-d," which would be blasphemous, since the Torah tells us that "there is none other than Him" (Deut. 4:35). – Meir Aug 14 '20 at 21:26