Order (‘Arukh)

Peh-samekh-kof

[This root appears] in Chapter “Even though,” when it says [b. Ketubbot 63a]: “This master did not eat the concluding [meal] [afsik] before Yom Kippur, and that master did not eat the concluding [meal that day].” Meaning: Neither R. Joseph nor R. ‘Abuah ate the concluding meal on Yom Kippur eve.

[It appears] in chapter “These are the unkosher animals,” when it says [b. Ḥullin 51a]: “And if he struck it like a slash [pesakit].” Meaning: if he strikes the animal with a stick, neither from its head down to its tail nor from its tail up to its head along the length of the animal, but across the width of the animal by standing at its side, striking [it] from the center—this is called a pesakit strike.

In chapter 11 of m. Nega‘im: “If it consisted of broken threads [pesikot], it does not contract the uncleanness of nega‘im [blemishes, i.e., symptoms of the biblical disease of tsara‘at]. R. Judah says: even if the thread was broken [pesikah] only in one place, and he knotted it together, it does not contract the uncleanness [of nega‘im].” Meaning: pieces. [ . . . ]

At the beginning of chapter “The judgment was done,” in [b. Sanhedrin 44b]: He [the angel Gabriel] has three names: Piskon, because he splits [posek] words [and argues] with God on high. ‘Itmon, because he conceals the sins of the Jewish people. Siggaron, because once he closes [his arguments on behalf of the Jewish people,] no one reopens [the discussion].

[H]e was at Chezib when she bore him (Genesis 38:5): Targum Yerushalmi [Aramaic translation]: “It was in Paskat that she gave birth to him.” [ . . . ]

At the end of the Gemara in Yevamot, and at the end of the Gemara in the chapter [that begins] “One who purchases an animal” [b. Bekhorot 25a]: “R. Simeon concedes in the case of: cut off its head [pesik resheh], will it not die?” Meaning: Everyone knows that if one beheads a living thing, it will die. [Even] if one says: “I didn’t intend to kill it, but to let blood from it for some purpose,” his words are meaningless, for it is as if he intends to kill it and wishes [to do so]. [ . . . ]

In the beginning of b. Megillah [3a] and in chapter “Not between one who has vowed,” in [b. Nedarim 37b] [there is this interpretation:] “And caused them to understand the reading (Nehemiah 8:8); this refers to punctuation [of the text] with cantillation notes [pisuk te‘amim]. And some say: these are the [Masoretic] traditions [that determine the proper vocalization of the Bible, pesuke ha-mesorot].”

In Leviticus Rabbah, at the beginning of chapter six [near section 15]: “Beiri prophesied two verses [pesukim] that were not sufficient to be recounted [in a book of their own], so they were appended to the book of Isaiah. These are: Now, should people say to you (Isaiah 8:19) and its companion [verse] (Isaiah 8:20).”

In Leviticus Rabbah: If your kinsman is in straits (Leviticus 25:25, 35), [in] chapter “Death and life” [section 33]: “When you lived in your own land, you formed parties [piska’ot piska’ot] for various idols. This is the same as (Ezekiel 16:25): and spread [va-tefaski] your legs, etc.” [This is] merely a support. Similar to this is the Targum [Aramaic translation] of So shall your judgment be; you have decided it yourself (1 Kings 20:40): danta dinakh u-fasakta [pronounced]. And the Targum of or maimed (Leviticus 22:22) is “or cut [fesik].” And from this comes the phrase: pesak halakhah [legal ruling].

In the beginning of the Gemara, on [chapter] Mashkin [b. Mo‘ed Katan 4a]: “Pools [pesikot] and ponds.” Meaning: These are one and the same.

Translated by Naftali (Neal) Kreisler.

Published in: The Posen Library of Jewish Culture and Civilization, vol. 3: Encountering Christianity and Islam.

Engage with this Source

The Order (‘Arukh), perhaps the most important medieval Jewish dictionary, provides an alphabetical glossary of rabbinic literature with a particular focus on the Babylonian Talmud. To understand the talmudic lexicon, Nathan drew on his knowledge of Arabic, Italian, Latin, Greek, and Persian, as well as the interpretations and traditions of the geonim and the academies in the Rhineland. From a linguistic perspective, Nathan does not adopt the triliteral theories of Judah Ḥayyūj, instead repeating the older idea that Hebrew verbs may have two- or one-letter roots. This excerpt from an even longer entry traces words with the root peh-samekh-kof and illustrates some of the linguistic range of Nathan’s work. He begins by locating the word in question, usually by reference to the first words of a chapter of the Talmud, and then he quotes the line and explains the meaning of the word as it appears there. Over the centuries, the ‘Arukh accreted many commentaries and supplements. It was first printed in the fifteenth century and continued to be used by scholars well into the twentieth.

Read more

You may also like