Going for [the] one

 Just some linguistic thoughts regarding a certain word in biblical Hebrew.

Is “echad” ordinal, cardinal or something else? Who decides, using what rules and with what expectation of consistency? Are there subtle differences in meaning depending on the precise form?

 

In the korban tamid (related in Bamidbar 28:1-8) the two lambs are required. The text writes of them as follows:

Pasuk 4: ד אֶת-הַכֶּבֶשׂ אֶחָד, תַּעֲשֶׂה בַבֹּקֶר; וְאֵת הַכֶּבֶשׂ הַשֵּׁנִי, תַּעֲשֶׂה בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם.

 

So why is the first lamb keves echad, one lamb?

The Stone edition has “The one lamb shall you make in the morning and the second lamb shall you make in the afternoon.” Echad is used as an cardinal, the one lamb – not an item in a list. Contrast this with the word HA-sheini. Sheini is the ordinal form, showing that this is the second (some translations have “the other”).

Question 1 – why not list the keves echad as keves rishon (the first) if the second item is in ordinal form as a CONTINUATION of a list. Rishon is a word which was used in the biblical text (cf Ex 12:2 and the Aramaic “reish” for it).

As a comparison, the version of the Tamid in Sh’mot 29:39 has

אֶת־הַכֶּ֥בֶשׂ הָאֶחָ֖ד תַּעֲשֶׂ֣ה בַבֹּ֑קֶר וְאֵת֙ הַכֶּ֣בֶשׂ הַשֵּׁנִ֔י תַּעֲשֶׂ֖ה בֵּ֥ין הָעַרְבָּֽיִם

The label for the one lamb is HA-echad, not "echad". The Ibn Ezra deals with this (sort of)

https://www.sefaria.org/Exodus.29.39?lang=bi&with=Ibn%20Ezra&lang2=en

and makes the case that the construction leads one to understand this verse as meaning “the lamb, one lamb”. But before that he makes a comment about how the text SHOULD read and then lists it exactly as we have it, indicating either a variant written text or a memorial mistake on his part.

Pesukim 7 and 8 have

וְנִסְכּוֹ֙ רְבִיעִ֣ת הַהִ֔ין לַכֶּ֖בֶשׂ הָאֶחָ֑ד בַּקֹּ֗דֶשׁ הַסֵּ֛ךְ נֶ֥סֶךְ שֵׁכָ֖ר לַהֹ׃

Its libation [shall be] one fourth of a hin for the one lamb, in the Holy [Sanctuary], you shall pour an intoxicating libation [of aged wine] to [before] Adonoy.

וְאֵת֙ הַכֶּ֣בֶשׂ הַשֵּׁנִ֔י תַּעֲשֶׂ֖ה בֵּ֣ין הָֽעַרְבָּ֑יִם כְּמִנְחַ֨ת הַבֹּ֤קֶר וּכְנִסְכּוֹ֙ תַּעֲשֶׂ֔ה אִשֵּׁ֛ה רֵ֥יחַ נִיחֹ֖חַ לַהֹ ׃ {פ}

Offer the second lamb in the afternoon…

Sh’mot 29:40-41 has

וְעִשָּׂרֹ֨ן סֹ֜לֶת בָּל֨וּל בְּשֶׁ֤מֶן כָּתִית֙ רֶ֣בַע הַהִ֔ין וְנֵ֕סֶךְ רְבִיעִ֥ת הַהִ֖ין יָ֑יִן לַכֶּ֖בֶשׂ הָאֶחָֽד׃

And a tenth [of an ephah] of fine flour mixed with one fourth of a hin of pressed olive oil, and a libation of a fourth of a hin of wine for the first lamb.

וְאֵת֙ הַכֶּ֣בֶשׂ הַשֵּׁנִ֔י תַּעֲשֶׂ֖ה בֵּ֣ין הָעַרְבָּ֑יִם

And the second lamb shall you make in the afternoon.

The above translation is from the Sefaria website using the Metsudah Chumash translation – others have “one lamb” except for the Stone edition which has “each” which would make no sense because why list the inclusive “each” when the verses explicitly list the wine libation for each separately? There are no others to be included who aren’t listed.

Why would this one translation go with “each” and why would the other go with “first”?

Question (group) 2 – While, again, the second number is present (HA-sheini) the first is now introduced with the specifying definite article הָאֶחָֽד and the translation has it as “the ONE.” It still isn’t first, just 1. If the point is to use the word for the cardinal, what changes by adding the letter hey in front of it? What is lost by the text of verse 4 NOT having that letter?

Question 2 continued – the first biblical use of “HA-echad” is Bereisheet 2:11:

שֵׁ֥ם הָֽאֶחָ֖ד פִּישׁ֑וֹן ה֣וּא הַסֹּבֵ֗ב אֵ֚ת כׇּל־אֶ֣רֶץ הַֽחֲוִילָ֔ה אֲשֶׁר־שָׁ֖ם הַזָּהָֽב׃

The name of the first is Pishon which surrounds all the land of Chavilah, where there is gold.

Somehow, the English (in multiple translations) sees ha-echad now as “first” instead of any other ordinal (rishon). No commentator that I could find addresses either the use of “echad” instead of “rishon” or the specific use of “HA-echad” as opposed to just echad though the Radak does spend time on the use of the introductory hey on the word Hachavilah in the same verse.

Side note – the Targum Onkelos has, for “echad “ the word “chad” in BOTH CASES. The addition of a hey in verse 7 makes no difference to the Aramaic! [in Gen 1:5, the Hebrew “echad” is translated by Onkelos as “chad” so the precedent seems clear]

Question 3 – taking a look a little further, one can read pasuk 13 “וְעִשָּׂרֹ֣ן עִשָּׂר֗וֹן סֹ֤לֶת מִנְחָה֙ בְּלוּלָ֣ה בַשֶּׁ֔מֶן לַכֶּ֖בֶשׂ הָאֶחָ֑ד” which is translated in multiple versions as “And one tenth [of an eiphah] of fine flour as a meal-offering mixed with the [olive] oil for each lamb…” In this case, suddenly, HA-echad is now “each”, neither ordinal nor cardinal. And in the Aramaic, the same word, “chad” appears. Though this connects to the translation cited above for Sh’mot 29, the contexts are numerically different as the Bamidbar use is in a case of 7 lambs (28:11) and the Sh’mot case has 2, both addressed explicitly.

 Entertaining any answers...