Biblical Hebrew: עד היום הזה (Deut. 29:3)

T

TamidTalmid

Member
English
The verse reads: ולא־נתן יי לכם לב לדעת ועינים לראות ואזנים לשמע עד היום הזה

So my question is why this being translated as “Yet to this day hashem has not given you…” instead of “Until today, hashem has not given you.”

I know ad is a range of prepositions we use in English, but I just don’t understand what is happening with it so that meaning should be rendered from that particular combination of words.

I don’t see why the לא should necessarily be acting on the עד and if it isn’t, I don’t understand why עד means “as of yet” instead of “until”.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_8810.jpeg
    IMG_8810.jpeg
    73.3 KB · Views: 29
    • In light of the fact that the verbs in the sentence are negated, it may be best to translate עד as "still has not" or "not yet".
     
    "Yet to this day", "until this day", and "still" all mean the same thing in English so I don't understand the question.
     
    Drink said:
    "Yet to this day", "until this day", and "still" all mean the same thing in English so I don't understand the question.
    Click to expand...
    Reading this in Hebrew, to me, I understood the meaning to be “Until now (meaning now you have these things but once did not) hashem has not given you…” while the translation reflects the idea that the people to this day continue to have no hearts to understand, no eyes to see, and no ears to hear.

    If the rules of Biblical Hebrew are such that the negation found in לא־נתן also applies to “עד” then I take this verse to mean “Yet to this day hashem has not given…”, however if there’s any linguistic ambiguity here, I wonder if the verse doesn’t mean “Until today (suggesting today they DO have hearts to understand, eyes to see, and ears to hear), hashem has not given you…”

    I’m assuming the translation IS in fact correct and thus the meaning is the people have not and continue not to have ____, but if that’s the case I’m just finding it difficult to understand what rules are dictating that.

    It just looks very ambiguously worded to me, commentary hasn’t been helpful so far, and I don’t know if a case can be made that the verse’s meaning might suggest something changed that day considering the larger context of the parashah in question.

    I’m sorry if I’m still being unclear.
     
    Drink said:
    "Yet to this day", "until this day", and "still" all mean the same thing in English so I don't understand the question.
    Click to expand...
    An example in English: “I haven’t learned anything until today.”

    That’s not the same as “Yet to this day I haven’t learned anything.”
     
    Last edited:
    TamidTalmid said:
    An example in English: “I haven’t learned anything until today.”

    That’s not the same as “Yet to this day I haven’t learned anything.”
    Click to expand...
    Ah I see the distinction you're making. Really it's a matter of context. The first version is ambiguous, and can mean two different things, depending on the context. But in the Hebrew it is clearly means that even today it still didn't happen.
     
    Drink said:
    Ah I see the distinction you're making. Really it's a matter of context. The first version is ambiguous, and can mean two different things, depending on the context. But in the Hebrew it is clearly means that even today it still didn't happen.
    Click to expand...
    Are you able to elaborate further on why that is? I believe you and as I said I trusted the translation, I’m just trying to understand why I should be certain that’s how it should be interpreted.

    You say “in the Hebrew it clearly means” it still hasn’t happened and because my Hebrew isn’t great, to me it’s not at all clear and *seems* like fair game as subject matter for biblical interpretation.

    From what you’re saying that certainly is not the case, it definitely only means “to date, this hasn’t happened”, and I just want to understand what rule or reading convention makes that so.

    Thank you for taking a look at this question.
     
    You know what, I take that back. I took another look at the verse in context and I see now that it is grammatically ambiguous and that both interpretations are semantically plausible in this context.

    Thanks for pressing the issue or I wouldn't have taken a second look.
     
    Drink said:
    You know what, I take that back. I took another look at the verse in context and I see now that it is grammatically ambiguous and that both interpretations are semantically plausible in this context.

    Thanks for pressing the issue or I wouldn't have taken a second look.
    Click to expand...
    Still, can you explain how you made your determination?
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top