1

My understanding is that adding "Ha-" at the beginning of a noun in Hebrew is the same as adding "The" to the beginning of a noun in English. In other words, it means you're pointing to the noun and the noun is specific and known as opposed to being generic and unknown. If that is the case, then who is "The Almah" in Isaiah 7:14? Who is Isaiah pointing to?

To clarify, for the sake of this question, I'm looking for "The Almah" pointed out explicitly somewhere in Isaiah's scroll with evidence suggesting why she's "The Almah". To give an example, I believe "Ha-Na'ar" in verse 16, same chapter, refers to Isaiah's son whereas verse 15, refers to the son "The Almah" is going to conceive. Isaiah's son is explicitly mentioned in verse 3 and my reasoning for this is why else would God ask Isaiah to take his son with him? However, I cannot find "The Almah" anywhere in Isaiah's scroll. The prophetess in verse 3, the next chapter doesn't really fit the criteria because firstly, the son there is called "Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz" not "Immanuel"; secondly, Isaiah is explicitly asked to take his son in 7:3 and he's pointed at in verse 16 while he's not asked to take his wife with him to point at her in verse 14. And there's no explicit mention of the wife of Ahaz in this context so I can't see how it could be her either. The reason I believe explicit mention is necessary is because of the "Ha" emphasis. Surely the author of Isaiah knew that the scripture must have an explicit pointer somewhere for future readers to be able to identify "The Almah". Otherwise, it is my opinion that it opens the door to all sorts of interpretation. If you disagree, I'm open to hear your reasoning.

Mordecai
  • 43
  • 5
  • 4
    https://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/118899/14850 – Joel K Oct 11 '21 at 09:21
  • I believe your first premise is incorrect. "Ha-" doesn't always denote a specific person or object. – ezra Oct 15 '21 at 03:22
  • @ezra Oh really? What else can it mean or denote and what are the more clear examples in the Tanakh if any? – Mordecai Oct 15 '21 at 03:23
  • @MartínMills It may take me longer to find a more concrete example, but the first thing that comes to mind is Psalms 1:1 "Praiseworthy is the man..." האיש (the man) in this case certainly does not apply to one specific person but is a more general statement. – ezra Oct 15 '21 at 03:26
  • @ezra Thanks but from what I see in examples like this, though Ha-Ish the man is neither known nor identified by name but is certainly known and identified by his characteristics. It immediately says Asher אֲשֶׁ֤ר meaning who or that and then continues to describe the man's characteristics. – Mordecai Oct 15 '21 at 03:30
  • Nu, so in this case the Navi describes characteristics of ha-almah: she is with child and will give birth to a son... The purpose of this verse is to help Ahaz understand that children will grow up and not even taste the danger Ahaz was worried about. – ezra Oct 15 '21 at 03:33
  • @ezra I see what you're trying to paint here but I just don't see the grammar that would justify the alternative usage of the "Ha" prefix the same way I see it in say Psalm 1:1. – Mordecai Oct 15 '21 at 03:49
  • Why do you believe "Ha-Na'ar" in verse 16, same chapter, refers to Isaiah's son, but not the son to be born to "The Almah" (mentioned only two verses earlier)? The way I read it, he is saying: "The Almah" is pregnant, and will bare a son. That son will grow (to become "Ha-Na'ar"), will eat butter and honey, and will choose good over bad. By the time he does, the two threatening kings (and their kingdoms) will be gone. – Tamir Evan Oct 15 '21 at 09:13
  • "And there's no explicit mention of the wife of Ahaz in this context so I can't see how it could be her either". There's no explicit mention of there being anyone else there except Ahaz (and the prophet and his son), yet the prophet speaks to the House of David in the plural (v. 13: "שמעו נא בית דוד המעט מכם הלאות אנשים כי תלאו גם את אלהי"). If other members of the House of David could be there to be spoken to, without being explicitly mentioned as being there, why can't the King's wife? – Tamir Evan Oct 15 '21 at 09:25
  • @TamirEvan You may have a good point. However, the house of David is already an explicit identifier. If the prophet said my wife instead of "Ha-Almah" I wouldn't need yet another explicit evidence that she's present there. – Mordecai Oct 15 '21 at 10:51
  • @TamirEvan With regards to "Ha-Na'ar" in verse 16, my reason is simple. The prophet is asked to take his son with him. It makes no sense for God to ask him to take his son with him for no reason. He also mentions this explicitly in verse 3 in his scroll for a reason otherwise it seems pretty reduntant. Another reason I have is that the prophet switches from La-chem(plural you) in verse 14 to At-tah(single you) in verse 16. Also, it's a bit odd to use "Ha-Na'ar" to refer to a newborn son. A "Na'ar" is a boy, potentially a teenager. – Mordecai Oct 15 '21 at 11:02
  • @MartínMills As far as I see it, it doesn't really matter who she was. Both the prophet and the king knew of her: that's why he says "Ha-Almah" ("the young woman"). She could have been the king's wife, the prophet's wife, another member of the royal household, a maid in attendance, or some other woman (present or elsewhere) that those present knew. To us, the readers, it shouldn't matter. What matters is that [the prophet knew that], whoever she was, she was pregnant with a son, and by the time the boy knew "to reject the bad and choose the good", the two threatening kings would be gone. – Tamir Evan Oct 15 '21 at 11:27
  • @TamirEvan I have to disagree. It is of utmost importance to us the readers. Why even record it for future generations if it doesn't matter who an Almah that is pointed to in the prophecy is not explicitly identified to avoid confusion. Having said that, I believe Ha-Almah could refer to an Almah with known characteristics just as Ha-Ish in Psalms 1:1 does. The difference is that the characteristics of Ha-Ish in Psalms 1:1 are immediately listed in the same verse after Ha-Ish but the characteristics of this Almah aren't. Who could the profit be talking about? Some food for thought... – Mordecai Oct 15 '21 at 20:26
  • @MartínMills "Why even record it for future generations ...". Because that was what happened, and that was what was said. "... if it doesn't matter who an Almah that is pointed to in the prophecy is not explicitly identified to avoid confusion". What confusion? She (or her son, for that matter) wasn't the point of the prophecy. The only important points were, (a) that the prophet knew that a woman (known to him and the king) was [soon going to be] pregnant with a son, who she'd name Immanuel (that was the sign), and (b) that in a few years the two threatening kings would be gone. – Tamir Evan Oct 16 '21 at 17:03
  • @TamirEvan That kind of begs the question in my view. It seems to me that you're trying to force the traditional understanding into the text as opposed to critically examine and exhaust all the possible interpretations. It's not as black and white as you think, not to me at least. – Mordecai Oct 17 '21 at 08:50

1 Answers1

2

Since there appears to be no explicit mention of which particular woman the navi is pointing to, the meforshim state that it would be a woman who would normally accompany navi or the king. Thus it is either the queen or the wife of the navi. Any other woman would be referred to specifically. It could theoretically be one of the servants who would normally be found in the "washing place", but it is not likely. The king would not normally go there unless it is some sort of official inspection, which is why I think his wife would be with him.

Isaiah 7:14

Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.

Rashi

the young woman: My wife will conceive this year. This was the fourth year of Ahaz.

Metzudas David says:

העלמה. היא אשת אחז:

This is the wife of Ahaz (the king)

Radak says it can either be the wife of the navi or the wife of the king.

Tamir Evan
  • 2,429
  • 1
  • 20
  • 21
sabbahillel
  • 43,108
  • 7
  • 47
  • 88
  • Maybe my question wasn't clear but I'm looking for the Almah in the book of Isaiah since Isaiah is saying Ha-Almah so he must be referring to a woman in his writings ideally somewhere close to chapter 7. If he's referring to an Almah that is not found in his own writings, then her characteristics must at least be found somewhere in the Tanakh, ideally somewhere in the Torah, otherwise it makes no sense to say Ha-Almah if the Almah is unknown at the time. – Mordecai Oct 11 '21 at 16:35
  • 2
    @MartínMills it has to be someone who the people in the room at the time would know who he was referring to. Not to exclude other options, but it's very reasonable for that to refer to the queen or the prophet's wife. Maybe she was in the room at the time and he indicated that he was referring to her. – Heshy Oct 11 '21 at 18:44
  • @Heshy Don't you find it odd though that there's no indication of her being in the room? Why refer to her as Ha-Almah rather than "Your wife" or "Ahaz's wife"? Why make identifying her impossible for the reader? It's just such an odd way of referring to someone present in the room without identifying her in the same context either before or after. – Mordecai Oct 11 '21 at 23:17
  • @MartínMills It appears from the context that the woman was present and the navi was referring to her. Had she not been present, then your question would be valid. That is probably why the meforshim think that is was the wife of thenavi (earlier referred to) or the wife of the king who would have been sitting next to the king. – sabbahillel Oct 12 '21 at 01:56
  • @sabbahillel Let me rule out the wife of navi for you. In verse 3 HaShem asks Isaiah to take his son, Shear-jashub, with him. In verse 16, Isaiah refers to "the boy" which must be his son otherwise why would HaShem ask him to take his son with him! Notice that HaShem doesn't ask Isaiah to take his wife. Also doesn't ask Isaiah to go and meet Ahaz and his wife. It may also be noteworthy that the sign is not given to Ahaz because the "you" in verse 14 לָכֶ֖ם lachem is plural nor singular. – Mordecai Oct 12 '21 at 03:00
  • @MartínMills it is not clear to me why you disregard the answer in this manner. You could easily conclude based on your counterarguments that we simply do not and cannot know who is referred to. But you reject the theories in the meforshim in a manner that strongly suggests you have a better explanation. Why not add your theory to the question so that we can compare the strength of evidence against the competing claims? – RonP Oct 13 '21 at 08:17
  • @RonP I'm sorry if I've acted inappropriately. That is not my intention. With regards to my "better" explanation, I think I might open a new thread for that. I don't wanna ruin this thread. My main argument now is that this Almah must be somewhere in the book of Isaiah because Isaiah says Ha-Almah. And if she's not found anywhere in Isaiah's scroll, then there's something else going on. Notice for example, when I say הַנַּ֛עַר Ha-Na'ar in verse 16 refers to Isaiah's son, I also point to clear evidence in the same context that he's present there according to verse 3. – Mordecai Oct 14 '21 at 03:36
  • 1
    @MartínMills my point is not about the appropriateness of the discourse; its all very civil. My point is more about question clarity; apparently the question and the answerers are misaligned, answering peripheral points without touching upon the core of the question. If the question is as intended, than that suffices in my view; but than maybe some more explanation is needed of what you are missing to complete the puzzle, such as in you example just now. It might be worthwhile to explain why a presence that is heavily implied by context is less probable than a presence that is implicit. – RonP Oct 14 '21 at 07:58
  • @RonP Thanks for your feedback. I just edited the question and added more clarity! Let me know if it's looking better now? – Mordecai Oct 14 '21 at 19:29
  • 1
    @MartínMills I added a paragraph stating why meforshim would explain it as being the queen or the wife of the navi without an explicit reference. – sabbahillel Oct 14 '21 at 23:22
  • @sabbahillel I see. What do you think about verse 3 though? It specifically mentions that Isaiah should not go alone but with his son. It doesn't however mention his wife at all and I don't think the prophet would take his wife with himself everywhere he went. Moreover, verse 3 asks Isaiah to meet Ahaz at the end of the aqueduct of the Upper Pool, on the road to the Launderer’s Field. Doesn't sound like the palace to me. – Mordecai Oct 14 '21 at 23:49
  • @MartínMills Not necessarily, normally his son would not go with him. In fact for his son to go with him would make it more likely that so would his wife. Thank you for correcting my error, I made the change. – sabbahillel Oct 15 '21 at 00:44
  • @sabbahillel Thanks for your thoughts. It's really interesting though how we can't pin it down because there's no explicit reference to her which ultimately leaves the door open to all sorts of interpretation imho. – Mordecai Oct 15 '21 at 01:10
  • @MartínMills Just so you know, royalty is often referred to in the plural in Hebrew as a way of respect... So "lachem" could still be directed towards King Ahaz in this case. – ezra Oct 15 '21 at 03:37
  • @ezra But it's not just lachem that suggests Isaiah is speaking to the house of David rather than Ahaz. Isaiah himself explicitly addresses the house of David in verse 13 after Ahaz refuses to ask for a sign. – Mordecai Oct 15 '21 at 03:44
  • 1
    @MartínMills thx for the clarification of the question, it is definitely an improvement! – RonP Oct 15 '21 at 09:13
  • @Mordecai The king personifies bais David thus the king as the personification of Bais David and the monatrchy is being addressed. – sabbahillel Oct 18 '21 at 23:01