Words, in their primary or immediate signification, stand for nothing but the ideas in the mind of him who uses them.
John Locke, “An Essay Concerning
Human Understanding” (1690, 3.2.2)
Language is the most revelational aspect of the inner thoughts and attitudes of human beings. Freud made us aware of this when he discussed the “slip of the tongue” phenomenon. It is in language that human beings reveal their inner lives. Their subconscious overflows and, before they are aware of it, they have already exposed their inner selves.
Languages are constantly in flux. Whole societies could be identified by studying their changing attitudes toward their words and expressions, including words that have fallen into disuse and those that have replaced them.
Hebrew is a most powerful example of this phenomenon. A comparison of how the biblical and Talmudic mind used Hebrew and how the language has deteriorated in our day is most telling.
It has often been noticed that Hebrew does not possess a word that is equivalent to the expression “to have.” In his monumental book, To Have or To Be, Erich Fromm commented on this:
To those who believe that “to have” is a most natural category of human existence, it may come as a surprise to learn that many languages have no word for “to have.” In Hebrew, for instance, “I have” must be expressed by the indirect form yesh li (it is to me). In fact, languages that express possession in this way, rather than by “I have,” predominate. It is interesting to note that in the development of languages the construction, “it is to me,” is followed later on by the construction, “I have,” but as Emile Benveniste has pointed out, the evolution does not occur in the reverse direction. (Erich Fromm, To Have or To Be. London: Abacus, 1979, 32)
This does not mean that there is no such concept as possession in Hebrew. Rather, the difference between the secular attitude towards property and the religious one is that the secular attitude emphasizes the development of private property in which property in itself becomes dominant (without a specific function), while the biblical attitude only knows of functional property – in other words, property that is owned not for the sake of possession but for use.
While a word that really represents “to have” still does not exist in modern Hebrew, the general use of the language is becoming more and more inclined toward possession.
Regrettably, we have experienced a vulgarization of the Hebrew language over the past several decades. This is not only noticeable in Israeli society in general but also among Israeli leaders and debates in the Knesset, Israel’s parliament. While at the inception of the state one would be able to enjoy a Knesset debate because of the use of superior Hebrew, today we are confronted with a situation where we feel more and more uncomfortable listening to some of the members of this institution using Hebrew slang. Even rabbinical figures who used to speak a dignified language have lowered themselves in this respect.
This fact has entered into the collective consciousness of Israeli society. While in earlier days the content of Israeli advertisements reflected a Jewish outlook on life, today this is often not the case. Years ago, when trying to convince people to buy sweets and other delicacies, names such as “kreplach,” “bagelach” and “rogelach” were used. All emphasize the relationship we have with other people. These names all end with the Hebrew word “lach,” “to you.” This is not accidental. While those who created these names may not have been aware of their choice of words, their subconscious revealed inherently Jewish values.
Looking at modern Hebrew advertisements, we see a rather disturbing change: No longer is it “lach” which invites people to buy various tasty foods, but “li” (me): Bissli, Prili, Egozi, Ta’ami. A recent advertisement that we noticed says, “Tihiyeh egoist ad ha-sof” (Be an egoist to the end).
We would do well to notice this. Like the Freudian slip of the tongue, such expressions reveal more than we might like to admit.
Ultimately, it shows how Israeli society is falling prey to some Western concepts, which badly misunderstands values such as love. For many, love for others or even for spouse and child is nothing more than the use of other human beings for one’s own pleasure. The expression “falling in love” is a case in point. Anybody who has any understanding of love knows that while one may be able to fall into a pit, one cannot fall in love, but only walk, stand or grow in love. It is even more important to remember that love does not exist if it is not motivated by a deep commitment to give. According to some authorities, the root of the Hebrew word for love, ahava, is hav, which means “to give.” Those who do not know the art of giving do not possess the capacity to love.
Frank Leahy once observed that “Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of foolishness” (Look Magazine, January, 10, 1955). If Israeli society and the world at large were to start listening once more to the language of the Torah, it would prevent a great deal of unnecessary pain.
