Plural of "Nafka Minah"

Question

(Inspired by HodofHod's commment here: Four Holy Cities)

What is the proper plural for the common Aramaic phrase Nafka Minah נפקא מינה which means something along the line of "practical differences"?

As in "This distinction leads to multiple XXXXX XXXX."

Nafkot Minah? Nafkei Minah? Nafka Minam?

for that matter, i'm not sure its a noun in the original, it may only be used as such in yeshivish. — HodofHod, Jan 03 '12 at 02:21
Why in the question, and both asnwers the natural aramaic suggestion of Nafkei Minin is not suggested? — avi, Jan 03 '12 at 06:46
Gemara says nafka mina tlat, without plural. what is on the basket? 3 things. — kouty, Jun 05 '16 at 00:16
I strongly suspect that this phrase is used as a noun only in the context of Torah study jargon. [Edit] the words "in Torah study jargon" into the question, and it's unambiguously on-topic. — Isaac Moses, Jun 05 '16 at 02:13

score 15 · Accepted Answer · answered Jan 03 '12 at 03:44

15

Grammatically, I guess "nafkei minah" would have to be the correct plural if there are two practical differences emerging from one distinction, or "nafkei minayhu" if they're completely disjoint. (See Avodah Zarah 28b and Shabbos 23b, respectively, although in neither place is the expression being used in the sense of "a practical difference or outcome.")

However, HodofHod is right: it's definitely not a noun in Aramaic - it's basically an adjectival phrase. So we might analogize it to words from Latin that have become nouns in English ("omnibus" and "virus," for example), which correctly use English plurals. So here, the plural would be "nafka minahs" (or for Israelis, I guess, "nafka minot").

answered Jan 03 '12 at 03:44

Alex

90,513
2
162
379

Wouldn't Minam (from them) make sense somehow? – Hacham Gabriel Jan 03 '12 at 03:49
@HachamGabriel: only if it was Hebrew. In Aramaic (Bavli Aramaic, at least), "their/them" is expressed with the suffix ייהו, as in מילייהו (their words/things), שבחייהו (their praise), etc. – Alex Jan 03 '12 at 03:55
My mistake. Ashrecha – Hacham Gabriel Jan 03 '12 at 04:02
2

+1. But re "it's basically an adjectival phrase" in Aramaic: it's actually a predicate, a verb phrase (rather than an adjectival phrase), meaning "comes out [=can be derived] from it", no? – msh210 Jan 03 '12 at 05:36
Great answer! I suspected as much, but my knowledge of Aramaic grammar is too weak to have known for certain that it couldn't be pluralized in the original. – HodofHod Jan 03 '12 at 05:50
It is most definitely not an adjectival phrase. I'm inclined to +1 @msh210's comment after some more research. Also, Alex, are you sure in the cases you cite that the correct vocalization is Nafkei, and not Nefakei? I need to break out my old Aramaic texts/notes. I studied this in college. It may be quicker to just email my old professor.... – Seth J Jan 03 '12 at 15:03
@msh210: you're probably right - grammatical classifications have never been my strong suit. :) – Alex Jan 03 '12 at 16:51
@SethJ: in Daniel 3:26 we have it punctuated as נָפְקִין (and, as usual, Bavli Aramaic drops the final nun). Then again, though, in 5:5 the ksiv is נפקו and the kri is נְפַקָה, so maybe we'd need to start by figuring out whether in נפקא מינה the verb is present or past tense. – Alex Jan 03 '12 at 16:59
@alex ok, but that's Biblical Aramaic, not Talmudic Aramaic. – Seth J Jan 03 '12 at 17:25

Seth J · Answer 2 · 2015-09-08T13:45:28.873

11

I posed this question to a tenured professor, whose PhD was in Aramaic Biblical Exegesis, and who is a published expert on several Semitic languages. This is what he wrote (edited for brevity; it was over several email exchanges over several months):

Nafka minnah means the "thing that come out from it" The plural will therefore ought be "the things that come out from it" not "the thing that come out from them."

I.e., nafkei minnah is the likely form.

I'll be happy to remain anonymous!

nafka minnah = Heb. (ha-)yotze' mimmenah (or possibly yotza mimmena.

The Hebrew plural would be (ha-)yotz'im mimmenah

There's a slight ambiguity with nafka -- it's clearly singular but could in theory be masculine or feminine.

It is also an active participle qal. and will therefore always have its qamats gadol, just as its Hebrew counterpart will always have the vav-holam.

The plural of nafka masc. is nafkei; the plural of nafka fem. would be nafkan (but this really applies to older Aramaic)

minnah is clearly from her.

EDIT:

After all of that, however, in the case of the expression in question, I would posit that it ought to be used in the singular (Nafka Minnah) in all instances. The reason for that is the fact that the expression itself is referring to the consequence - encompassing all possible variables - of the comparison being made. In other words, when the text asks "LeMai Nafka Minnah", it is asking in parallel English, "What IS the CONSEQUENCE of this comparison," which deserves the singular form of the word Nafka, just as it is used so commonly across virtually all Talmudic (and Talmudic-style) analysis I've ever encountered. Hence, the expression itself only exists in the singular form.

edited Sep 08 '15 at 13:45

answered Aug 13 '12 at 19:45

Seth J

41,606
7
85
245

So either Nafkei Minah or Nafkan Minah depending on gender? – Double AA Aug 13 '12 at 19:49
@DoubleAA, no, his point is it would be Nafkah either way, unless you're writing in the early part of the Talmudic period. – Seth J Aug 13 '12 at 19:57
1

Well, maybe I am! – Double AA Aug 13 '12 at 20:43
Just be careful you don't violate the Rambam/Hawking theory, or cross over the dateline (it could get messy). – Seth J Aug 13 '12 at 21:07
@DoubleAA, my apologies. I made a very obvious typo in my comment above, and I hope it didn't cause any confusion. I think I either misunderstood you or mistyped my response (I don't actually remember). Acc. to this prof., it is Nafkei for the expression. However, see my edit. – Seth J Jan 02 '13 at 23:05
1

It's not "LeMai Nafka Minnah" but "may nafka minah" (no "l-"). So it's really "what comes out of it", and can be pluralized. That is, I disagree with your new, last paragraph. – msh210 Jan 03 '13 at 00:50
@msh210 same outcome, IMO. (Or: MN"M?) – Seth J Jan 03 '13 at 02:10

score 7 · Answer 3 · answered Jan 03 '12 at 05:35

7

In my Yeshiva experience I have always heard Nafkah Minahs (or Minot).

Example: "Really? So what are the Nafkah Minahs"

But I must say that usage of this plural form is rare.

answered Jan 03 '12 at 05:35

yydl

38,600
6
88
285

2

+1. I've heard this also, and don't think it's all that rare, but do think it's not in accordance with Aramaic grammar. – msh210 Jan 03 '12 at 07:04
@msh210 Well not necessarily rare, but rare to hear. I noticed that people tend to subconciously convert it to the singular form when they want to say it in plural. E.g. "Really? And what would a possible Nafkah Minah be?" – yydl Jan 03 '12 at 22:29
That's the way we said it in (an American) yeshiva – Menachem Jan 04 '12 at 00:45

score 7 · Answer 4 · answered Jan 03 '12 at 07:14

7

The correct translation of Nafka Minah is not 'practical differences'. It is 'comes out from it'. The reason this has evolves as slang for 'practical differences' is because people used to ask each other after a certain logic or din has been applied, what comes out from it i.e. what is the practical difference with that logic/din added. However whether only one difference comes out or a myriad of them makes no difference, they still all are Nafka Minah, which means they still all come out of it.

It is like people say one mustn't listen to music in the middle of Bein Hamtzorim (the three weeks). But really Bein Hamtzorim translates as the middle of Metzarim (harsh days) so the correct terminology is one mustn't do something Bein Hamtzorim means one mustn't listen to music in the middle of the three weeks.

answered Jan 03 '12 at 07:14

Yehuda

6,006
21
51

But verbs inflect for number in Aramaic. – msh210 Jan 03 '12 at 07:35
2

Like ATM machine :) – avi Jan 03 '12 at 07:35
1

... OTOH, if you stick "be" before it ("they are nafka minah") then I suppose you're all right, much like "they're bodek the lungs" or "they were niftar": this Yiddish-influenced use in English of Hebrew (which I try to avoid in writing, myself) is quite common and I suppose can be used for Aramaic verbs like nafka minah, too. – msh210 Jan 03 '12 at 07:38

score 1 · Answer 5 · answered Feb 18 '19 at 23:43

I'd suggest the following answer based on how the Talmud itself references certain internal terminology.

The Talmud refers to the gezeirah shava to its plural form as גזירות שוות in Temurah (a search will reveal other locations among the Jewish canon of literature).

Therefore we can take each of these words as well and expand them to their plural form respectively. The common Babylonian Talmud Aramaic term would render נפקא as נפקי and מינה as מינייהו. However, these are only shortened versions of נפקין and מינהון.

Thus, we have [נפקי[ן] מינהו[ן as the plural. So as with gezeirah shava the meaning would transfer by both words to mean 'the things that come out of them'. This is essentially what one is doing when referencing multiple nafkin minhon, these 'things (many)' are coming out of those 'things (many)'.

גזירות שוות is the only grammatical way to express the plural because שווה is an adjective and is forced to agree with the noun. (There are other cases like בתי מדרשות that could fit with your argument) — b a, Feb 19 '19 at 14:56

score 0 · Answer 6 · answered Sep 08 '15 at 13:53

0

In Israel we say Nafke Minot.....

answered Sep 08 '15 at 13:53

Danny Lieberman

346
2
7

4

And in America we say Nafka Minas. – Double AA Sep 08 '15 at 13:55

avi · Answer 7 · 2012-01-03T07:09:12.163

-1

I have no source, but I would assume that you pluralize it with Nefkei Minin.

puting the suffix of "in" is the same, in aramaric as adding an "s" to the word. I believe.

edited Jan 03 '12 at 07:09

answered Jan 03 '12 at 06:47

avi

18,985
1
52
81

Ok, that is doubly funny. But, I still think it is correct, and in my mind helps explain why Minim means heretics in other contexts. – avi Jan 03 '12 at 07:07
@msh210 aww, that was a good comment, put it back! :) – avi Jan 03 '12 at 07:07
Actually, in Bavli Aramaic the plural often drops the final nun, so more likely it would be "mini." – Alex Jan 03 '12 at 17:01

Plural of "Nafka Minah"

7 Answers7

Linked