The Etymology of “Onah”
The Etymology of “Onah”
by Mitchell First (MFirstAtty@aol.com)
I thought it would be useful if everyone would have a better understanding of how the root ענה, occurring at Exodus 21:10 in the form “onatah,” can refer to the sexual obligation. I will offer several possibilities.
First I must provide a brief overview of this widely occurring root. It is typically viewed as having four meanings as a verb: 1) respond, 2) sing, 3) afflict, and 4) occupy oneself with.
It is hard to unify all these meanings. But it is easy to see that perhaps the first and second meanings have a common origin.
As to the third meaning, the word ענו, a submissive, humble individual, probably derives from this meaning and the word עני, a poor individual, also probably derives from this meaning.
The fourth meaning is a rare one in Tanakh. It is only found in the book of Kohelet.
It is also possible that ענה has a “time-related” meaning in Tanakh. We will discuss this below.
—–
Exodus 21:10 reads: “If he marries another, he must not diminish her food, her clothing, or ‘onatah’ (=her onah).” The person being protected is the Israelite slave who was the first wife.
The Mishnah at Ketuvot 5:6 understands “onah” (without any discussion) as referring to the man’s sexual obligation to his wife,[1] and then proceeds to delineate the obligation for various occupations.
Our first question is whether we can fit this meaning of “onah” into any of the first four meanings above. Note that Rashi on our verse explains the word as “tashmish” but does not provide any explanation.
We could connect our word with the “response” meaning above and suggest that “onatah” means “a response to her request for intimacy.” But it is hard to imagine that such an important obligation would be phrased in such a vague way.[2]
Here are a few better approaches:
1. There is a word מעון and other words related to it that appear many times in Tanakh and mean “dwelling.” Presumably, their root would have been עון. If the root of our “onatah” (which has no vav) would be עון with its “dwelling” meaning, we can interpret the word “dwelling” as symbolizing a main activity that goes on in a dwelling, i.e., sexual relations.[3] Our verse would be referring to sexual relations but doing it euphemistically. As a parallel, in English the word “cohabit” typically now has a sexual meaning, even though the word originated with a “habitation” meaning.
Of course, we can alternatively interpret our verse to be stating that a man may not diminish the living quarters of his wife and that the verse has nothing to do with sexual relations. Rashbam and Cassuto are among the many who take this approach.[4] But obviously we would like to avoid this interpretation.
2. It has been argued that Ayin-Nun-Heh has a meaning related to “time” in Tanakh. We know that it has such a meaning in early Rabbinic Hebrew. See, e.g., Mishnah Peah 4:8: “onat ha-ma’aserot.”[5]
If there was a root Ayin-Nun-Heh (or Ayin-Nun-Tav) with a time-related meaning in the era of Tanakh, “onatah” could be referring to a husband’s obligation to provide relations to his spouse at certain time intervals. R. Saadiah Gaon and Ibn Ezra are among the many who follow this approach. Daat Mikra offers it as its second interpretation.
But this is still not a simple way of reading the verse. As Luzzatto observes: “It does not stand to reason that the Torah would designate a man’s relations with his wife by the term ‘set time,’[6] besides the fact that nowhere in the Torah is there any timetable for this matter.”[7]
There is an alternative way of obtaining the relations meaning based on the “time” meaning of “onah.” We can say that “onah” means “her time,” and in the case of two competing women, as is the case here, it means “her turn.”[8]
——
We still have to address the issue of whether Ayin-Nun-Heh or Ayin-Nun-Tav really did have a time-related meaning in Tanakh.
There are three arguments to support this.
First, the word עת means “time” many times in Tanakh. Many believe this derives from a root [9]ענת, but many disagree with this etymology.[10]
Second, עונן and מעונן refer to one who engages in divination. Many understand this word as deriving from Ayin-Nun-Heh with a “time” meaning. I.e., perhaps these individuals made predictions as to what is a good time to do things. But others interpret these words with a different etymology altogether. E.g., perhaps these individuals made predictions by looking at cloud formations. Many other possibilities have been suggested for the etymology of עונן and מעונן. But the time-related etymology is a real possibility.
– Third, the fact that our word appears in early Rabbinic Hebrew with a time-related meaning is some evidence that this meaning already existed in Biblical Hebrew.
3. A third approach observes that there are many instances in Tanakh where Ayin-Nun-Heh occurs in the piel construct in a context of a man forcing a woman to have intercourse. See, e.g., Gen. 34:2 (Dinah), and Deut. 21:14 (woman captured in war).[11] We are used to translating these piel verbs with an “afflict sorrow or pain” meaning, or perhaps a “humbled” meaning.12 But perhaps Ayin-Nun-Heh in the piel in all or some of these cases is better understood as “rape.”[13] If Ayin-Nun–Heh in the piel construct can mean “rape,” that same root in the kal construct can mean “consensual relations.” Then we could utilize this meaning for our word at Ex. 21:10.[14]
To complete our discussion, I must mention two other Tannaitic passages about “onah”: one in the Mekhilta, and the other: a baraita in the Talmud.
As I mentioned at the outset, the Mishnah at Ketuvot 5:6 assumes that the “onah” of our verse means “relations” and does not offer any alternative view or any derivation.
The Mekhilta in Mishpatim offers three different interpretations of “onah.” The first is “relations” (“derech eretz”). This view is brought in the name of R. Yoshiah. The prooftext he cites is Gen. 34:2 (regarding Dinah): “va-yishkav otah va-ye’aneha.” This citation is surprising because it is usually assumed that “va-ye’aneha” here has the “afflict” or ”humbled” meaning. (This citation fits loosely with our third approach.)
A second view (in the name of R. Yonatan) interprets “onah” to be a reference to giving clothing that is appropriate to the season. A third view (in the name of Rebbi) interprets “onah” as food (giving a strange prooftext, Deut. 8:3). This third view interprets a different word in verse 21:10, one from the root שׁאר, as referring to “relations.”
At Ketubot 47b, there is a baraita very similar to the Mekhilta (although with different Tannaim) that also gives the above three views. In the view of the tanna kamma, the verse cited for the “relations” meaning is a statement of Lavan at 31:50: “If you will ‘ta’aneh’ my daughters and/or take other wives besides my daughters…” Yet in this verse, our root clearly means “afflict” and does not mean “relations.”[15]
——
To sum up, if one wants to interpret “onah” as “relations,” one approach is to relate it to the word מעון and its meaning “dwelling.” “Dwelling” can symbolize a main activity that goes on in a dwelling. Alternatively, the approach that “onah” simply refers to “her time” (=her turn) sounds plausible as well. Finally, we have the suggestion that Ayin-Nun-Heh in the kal construct may refer to consensual relations.
[1] The Mishnah does not cite our verse but is implicitly referring to it. Admittedly there are other interpretations of “onah” among the Tannaitic Sages. I will discuss them at the end of this article.
[2] Nevertheless, S.D. Luzzatto is willing to adopt something like this approach. S. Mandelkern takes it seriously as well. The Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon mentions it as a possibility. In more modern times, M.Z. Kaddari, Millon Ha-Ivrit Ha-Mikrait (2006), p. 815, adopts it without any discussion.
For more on the view of Luzzatto and on this entire topic, see the article by Marty Lockshin from Jan. 27, 2022 on thetorah.com: “Onah: A Husband’s Conjugal Duties?”
Lockshin points out that Targum Onkelos merely renders the Hebrew term with an Aramaic equivalent, so we cannot determine how it was understood in this translation. He also discusses the views of the other early Aramaic translations. He also mentions the view of the Septuagint. It has “homilian,” which literally means “company” or “conversation,” but which many scholars think is being used euphemistically here for “relations.”
[3] Daat Mikra adopts something like this as the first of its two interpretations. Luzzatto mentions some who take this approach, even though he disagrees with it.
The scholars who view there to have been a root Ayin-Vav-Nun (=to dwell) view the vav as being vocalized with a shuruk. See, e.g., Brown-Driver-Briggs, p. 732 and Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (2000), vol. 11, p. 229. If the underlying meaning was “dwell,” then one can argue that our word should have been vocalized as “unatah.” Even if this is correct, probably most of us could live with the idea that there was an error in the vocalization of the vav by the post-Talmudic Masoretes.
[4] More recently, it is adopted in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. 11, p. 229. Prior to Rashbam, it was one of two interpretations offered by Menahem Ibn Saruq (10th cent.). It was also offered by Karaites.
[5] See also the baraita at Ketuvot 48a (view of the tanna R. Eliezer b. Yaakov) and the Mekhilta, Mishpatim (view of the tanna R. Yonatan). Other aspects of these passages are discussed at the end of this article.
[6] For further elaboration on this point, see Lockshin’s article. The passage itself is ambiguous as to what Luzzatto’s reasoning was.
[7] Translation from D. Klein’s edition.
[8] This view is mentioned in the Anchor Bible in the name of Arnold Ehrlich (d. 1919). It is one of many views mentioned in the long and very speculative discussion there.
[9] See Ernest Klein, A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language for Readers of English (1987) p. 489-90. See also Ibn Ezra to Ex. 21:10 and to Ecc. 9:11. See also the similar words at the end of Ezra 4:10, 4:11, and 4:17.
[10] See Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. 11, p. 229 and p. 437.
[11] The additional occasions are: Deut. 22:24 and 22:29, Judges 19:24 and 20:5, 2 Sam. 13: 12,14,22, and 32, Ezekiel 22:11, and Lam. 5:11.
[12] When you “humble” someone, you make them submit to your authority. This is a different meaning than “afflicting” them, even though the two meanings are related. The 1917 Jewish Publication Society of America translation uses “humbled” often in these sexual contexts. See also their translation of God’s statement to Pharaoh at Ex. 10:3: “How long wilt thou refuse to humble thyself (לענת) before Me?.”
[13] What if we can argue compellingly that the piel of Ayin-Nun-Heh does not mean “rape” in at least one of these cases? For example, at Gen. 34:2, we have “va-yishkav otah va-ye’aneha.” Since we are already told “va-yishkav otah,”perhaps the next word has the “afflict” or “humble” meaning. Of course, this is not a strong question. Moreover, even if we can argue compellingly that, in one or more of the verses with the piel construct, ענה does not mean “rape,” that does not mean that it cannot mean “rape” in some of the others.
[14] I have seen this suggestion made by Ariella Deem. See her “The Goddess Anath and Some Biblical Hebrew Cruces,” Journal of Semitic Studies 23 (1978), pp. 25-30. This suggestion was probably made by others prior to this. Deem like this interpretation because she uses it to give a new meaning to the name of the ancient goddess “Anat” (a “sexual love” meaning). Deem also uses this idea to explain the third “anot” at Ex. 32:18. She suggests: “the sound of an orgy.”
[15] One can claim that the meaning is “afflict my daughters by withholding relations,” but this would not be a proper prooftext that the root Ayin-Nun-Heh meant “relations.”
