506) Reading the biblical word אות (‘sign’) in its earlier context

 

Introduction

This article—based extensively on the research by Professors Idan Dershowitz and Na’ama Pat-El[1]—examines possible lost meanings of the Hebrew word אות (‘ot’) which is usually simply translated and commonly understood as a ‘sign.’ The word ‘ot’ appears most famously in the Shema prayer in reference to the tefillin (phylacteries) which does seem to refer to a tangible 'sign': 

וּקְשַׁרְתָּ֥ם לְא֖וֹת עַל־יָדֶ֑ךָ וְהָי֥וּ לְטֹטָפֹ֖ת בֵּ֥ין עֵינֶֽיךָ׃

“And you shall bind them for a sign on your hand and they shall be as a symbol (or frontlets) between your eyes” (Deuteronomy 6:8). 

Because the biblical word ‘ot’ is usually translated as a ‘sign,’ it is commonly associated with some object, or some miraculous future event as a symbol of either an ominous or auspicious occurrence. 

“This understanding [of ‘ot’ as a ‘sign’] has long informed interpretations of biblical passages and Hebrew inscriptions” (Dershowitz and Pat-El 2025:1). 

Despite the almost universal translation of ‘ot’ as a ‘sign,’ Dershowitz and Pat-El challenge that assertion and—while acknowledging that 'ot' can indeed sometimes retain the meaning of a physical 'sign'—suggest that a translation akin to ‘promise,’ ‘commitment’ or ‘proclamation’ would better serve the texts in many of their immediate contexts. 

Dershowitz and Pat-El agree with Wittgenstein[2] that “[t]he meaning of a word is its use in the language,” and that the meaning of a word is determined more by its context and usage than by etymology. 

Noam Mizrachi[3] notes that the meanings of post-biblical Hebrew words sometimes differ from Biblical Hebrew; and that biblical words do not just have a singular meaning but rather a range or spectrum of meanings. Mizrachi's view is rather interesting because the Talmudic rabbis often seem acutely aware of nuances and 'spectrums of meaning' in their rich exegesis of biblical texts.

The static translations of ‘ot’ as a ‘sign,’ do not, however, reflect this semantic range: 

“We suggest that the word [‘ot’] has two distinct semantic families: its better-known definitions relating to ‘sign’ and an additional cluster of meanings surrounding ‘proclamation.’ We discuss several biblical passages where ‘sign’ is inapt, and in all these examples, our proposed semantics resolve the exegetical difficulties” (Dershowitz and Pat-El 2025:3). 

The word אות, ‘Ot’

The noun, ‘ot’ appears about eighty times in the Torah. Most biblical dictionaries translate ‘ot’ as a ‘sign,’ ‘miraculous sign,’ ’omen,’ ‘warning’ or ‘deterrent.’ Thus, ‘ot’ is conceived as either a physical sign or a prophetic omen or foretelling. Dershowitz and Pat-El (2005:5) maintain that these meanings relating to ‘signs’ are generally from later texts. However, the earlier texts would read better if understood more along the lines of a ‘promissory’ reading rather than a ‘sign.’ This ‘promissory’ reading could change the interpretations of some very significant texts. 

‘Ot’ in the context of Rachav

The book of Joshua describes the Israelite scouts' interaction with Rachav [רָחָב]— the woman of questionable virtues—who hides the two scouts in her Jericho home. Rachav then asks them for reciprocal protection for when the Israelite army attacks her city and she implores them: 

וּנְתַתֶּ֥ם לִ֖י א֥וֹת אֱמֶֽת

“Give me a true sign” (Joshua 2:12). 

The problem with this translation is that there is no direct reference to any physical sign in this narrative. It is true that the text later refers to a crimson cord which identifies Rachav’s house as immune from attack by the Israelites, but this is mentioned just before the spies depart and is not related to her request for a “true sign” (Dershowitz and Pat-El 2025:7). It is most unlikely that the spies carried crimson threads to distribute to worthy future fugitives and, in any case, the text presents the thread “as already in the possession of Rahab” (Dershowitz and Pat-El 2025:8). It is, of course, possible that they could have told her to find or take a crimson thread and display that outside her house. Still, Rachav had asked for a “true sign,” but she received no physical sign. This indicates that the word ‘ot’ may have been used within the context of her requesting a ‘promise’ or an 'undertaking' but not for a 'physical sign.'

‘Ot’ in the context of Cain

In Genesis 4, after Cain killed Hevel (Abel) we read: 

וַיָּ֨שֶׂם ה׳ לְקַ֙יִן֙ א֔וֹת לְבִלְתִּ֥י הַכּוֹת־אֹת֖וֹ כׇּל־מֹצְאֽוֹ

“God placed a sign on Cain so that those who found him would not kill him” (Genesis 4:15). 

The ‘sign’ of Cain has attracted much speculation in various commentaries with suggestions that he was given some physical sign. Bereishit Rabbah, for example, states that “קרן הצמיח לו, [G-d caused] horns to grow on him.”[4] 

“Indeed, the problem of whatאות  refers to disappears once we let go of the assumption that it must be a sign and allow for the possibility that it is a promise or assurance” (Dershowitz and Pat-El 2025:10). 

In this case, G-d is described as having “וַיָּשֶׂם...אוֹת, making a promissory declaration” with the proposed translation “And God made a promise to Cain that none who finds him shall kill him” (Dershowitz and Pat-El 2025:10). 

‘Ot’ in the context of Isaiah 7:14 (‘virgin birth’)

In Isaiah 7, we find the famous passage uttered by Isaiah concerning the birth of Immanuel: 

לָ֠כֵ֠ן יִתֵּ֨ן אֲדֹנָ֥־י ה֛וּא לָכֶ֖ם א֑וֹת הִנֵּ֣ה הָעַלְמָ֗ה הָרָה֙ וְיֹלֶ֣דֶת בֵּ֔ן וְקָרָ֥את שְׁמ֖וֹ עִמָּ֥נוּ אֵֽל

“Therefore, God himself shall give you a sign [אות]; a young woman [עַלְמָה] shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14). 

A simple and plain reading of the Masoretic Text describes a common and natural occurrence where an 'almah' (עַלְמָה) or young woman is pregnant with a child (Dershowitz and Pat-El 2025:10). However, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint (produced around the Third Century BCE), does not translate ‘עַלְמָה’ as a ‘young woman,’ but rather as ‘παρθένος’ or ‘virgin.’ 

The problem is not so much the translation of 'almah' as virgin instead of young woman, but rather that the appearance of the word ‘ot’ (אות), translated as a sign (from heaven) implies that the verse is referring to a miraculous event. Matthew (1:23) seems to use the Septuagint’s translation of 'almah' (עַלְמָה) as ‘παρθένος’ or ‘virgin’ to confirm the miraculous ‘ot’ or ‘sign’ of the virgin Mary giving birth to Jesus: 

“Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bring forth a son and they shall call him Immanuel” (Matthew 1:23). 

Dershowitz and Pat-El, propose that the reason why the Septuagint chose to use ‘παρθένος’ or ‘virgin’ instead of ‘עַלְמָה’ or ‘young woman,’ was simply a result of its translation of ‘ot’ as a miraculous ‘sign.’ The Septuagint had to present a subject for the anticipated miraculous ‘sign,’ and that was the virgin giving birth: 

“[I]t may not have been a misinterpretation of the nuances of עַלְמָה [young woman] that led to the Septuagint’s rendition. Instead, the problem is the word אות, which leads a reader of post-Biblical Hebrew to look for a ‘sign’” (Dershowitz and Pat-El 2025:12-13). 

Dershowitz and Pat-El suggest that had the Septuagint maintained the original rendering of ‘ot’ as a ‘promise’—then a young woman would naturally give birth to a future leader (Immanuel), without the need to introduce the miraculous notion of a Virgin Birth. 

‘Ot’ in the context of Shabbat

Shemot 31 describes Shabbat as an ‘ot’ or ‘sign’: 

אַ֥ךְ אֶת־שַׁבְּתֹתַ֖י תִּשְׁמֹ֑רוּ כִּי֩ א֨וֹת הִ֜וא בֵּינִ֤י וּבֵֽינֵיכֶם֙

“you shall keep my Sabbath as it is a sign [אות] between me and you…” (Exodus 31:13). 

Here again, the use of ‘ot’ seems out of place with the sensus literalis of the text as no extraordinary ‘sign’ is manifest. Also, if Shabbat was a ‘sign’ given by G-d to Israel, then instead of בֵּינִ֤י וּבֵֽינֵיכֶם֙ (between me and you), the verse should have read אל or ל (from me to you). This verse can be better read if we take ‘ot’ to reflect not just a ‘promise’ but in this case a perpetual ‘mutual promise’ between two parties, but certainly not a ‘sign.’ 

‘Ot’ in the context of G-d’s ‘sign’ to Moshe

Exodus 3 deals with G-d’s ‘sign’ to Moshe seemingly indicating that he is capable of delivering the Israelites from Egyptian bondage: 

וְזֶה־לְּךָ֣ הָא֔וֹת כִּ֥י אָנֹכִ֖י שְׁלַחְתִּ֑יךָ בְּהוֹצִֽיאֲךָ֤ אֶת־הָעָם֙ מִמִּצְרַ֔יִם תַּֽעַבְדוּן֙ אֶת־הָ֣אֱלֹקים עַ֖ל הָהָ֥ר הַזֶּֽה

“This shall be the sign [אות] that I have sent you: when you have brought this people out of Egypt, you shall serve God on this mountain” (Exodus 3:12). 

Once more there is no apparent ‘sign’ forthcoming. Commentators have long been perplexed by this and in the twelfth century, R. Yosef Bechor Shor—maintaining the meaning of ‘ot’ as a tangible ‘sign’—wrote that only in the future, when the redeemed people would gather at the foot of Mt Sinai, would the actual ‘sign’ be given (ואז אודיע ואתן אות). 

In the same century, Rashbam, faced with similar difficulty tried to find some reference to a miraculous and tangible (וְזֶה־לְּךָ֣) ‘sign,’ and he found it in the earlier scriptural mention of the burning bush. However, even after the episode of the burning bush, Moshe is still unconvinced of his ability to redeem his people and he challenges G-d—just one verse before he is informed of the ‘sign’—declaring “Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh?” (Exodus 3:11). This makes the burning bush an unlikely contender in the search for the elusive ‘sign’ as it didn’t assuage Moshe’s fears. In fact, there are as many as ten competing theories as to what this ‘sign’ is meant to refer to. 

“Clearly, the commentators are grasping at straws; there is simply no sign in this passage. A better translation would be: ‘I will be with you; and this shall be my promise to you, for it is I who sent you: when you have brought the people out of Egypt, you shall worship God on this mountain” (Dershowitz and Pat-El 2025:17). 

‘Ot’ in the context of Moshe’s staff and his leprous hand

A very interesting verse appears in Shemot 4, where the two miracles of Moshe’s staff turning into a snake and his hand becoming leprous, are both described as an ‘ot.’ This seems to imply that ‘ot’ is used here in terms of a ‘miraculous sign’ and not as a ‘promise’ or ‘proclamation,’ as it does in the rest of this section or pericope. 

וְהָיָה֙ אִם־לֹ֣א יַאֲמִ֣ינוּ לָ֔ךְ וְלֹ֣א יִשְׁמְע֔וּ לְקֹ֖ל הָאֹ֣ת הָרִאשׁ֑וֹן וְהֶֽאֱמִ֔ינוּ לְקֹ֖ל הָאֹ֥ת הָאַחֲרֽוֹן

“And if they do not believe you and do not listen to the voice of the first sign [אות], then they will believe in the voice of the latter sign” (Exodus 4:8). 

While on the surface this seems to be an example of ‘ot’ used in the sense of a ‘miraculous sign,’ the expressions “listen to the voice of the first sign” and “believe in the voice of the latter sign,” seem to portray the notion of trusting a ‘promise’ rather than being affected by ‘miraculous signs.’ This is borne out by one of the concluding verses of this pericope: 

וַיַּגֵּ֤ד מֹשֶׁה֙ לְאַֽהֲרֹ֔ן אֵ֛ת כׇּל־דִּבְרֵ֥י יְהֹוָ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר שְׁלָח֑וֹ וְאֵ֥ת כׇּל־הָאֹתֹ֖ת אֲשֶׁ֥ר צִוָּֽהוּ׃

“And Moshe told Aharon about all the words of God who had sent him, and about all the signs [אֹתֹת] of which he had been instructed” (Exodus 4:28). 

Moshe meets with Aharon and relates (וַיַּגֵּ֤ד) all that G-d told him (דִּבְרֵ֥י ה) and the signs [אֹתֹת] that G-d instructed him (צִוָּֽהוּ). 

“It is hard to reconcile either of the verbs וַיַּגֵּ֤ד [told him] or צִוָּֽהוּ [commanded him] with visual miracles. Furthermore, the effect of the presentation of the אֹתֹת [‘signs’/’promises’] to the people is that they “believe and hear” (וַֽיַּאֲמֵ֖ן הָעָ֑ם וַֽיִּשְׁמְע֡וּ)[Exodus 4:31]…once again points straightforwardly to speech, rather than any optical wonder” (Dershowitz and Pat-El 2025:27-28). 

Dual meanings of the word ‘ot’ 

Clearly, there are instances where the word ‘ot’ conveys the meaning of a specific, tangible ‘sign’ in a very literal sense. But, as we have seen, this is not always the case. We must conclude, therefore, that there are dual meanings for the word ‘ot.’ It can mean a literal and pragmatic ‘sign’ as well as a ‘promise,’ ‘commitment’ or ‘pronouncement.’ A similar process occurs with the word דָבׇר, which can mean both speech as well as a tangible item. 

Dershowitz and Pat-El suggest that there are two strata at play surrounding the meaning of the word ‘ot’—an early meaning of ‘promise’ or ‘proclamation’ and a later meaning of an actual physical or miraculous ‘sign.’ Reading the biblical text in later times usually involves the translation of every instance of ‘ot’ as a ‘sign,’ but it is possible that in many cases the word ‘ot’ rather means a ‘promise’ or ‘commitment’ absent of any ‘sign.’ 

“The meaning [of ‘ot’ as a] ‘statement, proclamation’ seems to have fallen into disuse in post-Biblical Hebrew” (Dershowitz and Pat-El 2025:31). 

Interestingly, a similar process can also be traced in other Semitic languages where an earlier meaning may have “gradually faded, leaving later readers perplexed” (Dershowitz and Pat-El 2025:37). 

In post-Biblical Hebrew, as is evident from the Tannaic (=Mishnaic) literature the word ‘ot’ survives in its more concrete meaning of ‘sign,’ having lost the earlier connotation of ‘promise’ or ‘proclamation.’” In fact: 

“in no known post-biblical dialect is אות [‘ot’] used to refer to a proclamation or other types of speech” (Dershowitz and Pat-El 2025:32).

Dershowitz and Pat-El (2025:38) suggest that future biblical lexicons update their translations and interpretations of the word ‘ot’ to include not just physical ‘signs’ but also more intangible renderings such as ‘promise,’ ‘pronounce,’ ‘assure’ and ‘commit.’ 

It’s fascinating to see how the translation and particularly mistranslation of words can give rise to new theologies, ideologies, and interpretations that, over time, gain authority and are treated with the same reverence as biblical doctrines themselves.

Further Reading:

Kotzk Blog: 497) Language as incubators of theological ideas

---

[1] Dershowitz, I., and Pat-El, N., 2025, ‘The Forgotten Meaning of אות’, Vetus Testamentum, 1–43.

[2] Wittgenstein, L, 1953, Philosophical Investigations, Part 1, Section 43.

[3] Mizrachi, N., 2021, ‘Reconsidering the Semantics of the “Inclination” (yeṣer) in Classical Biblical Hebrew’ in The Evil Inclination in Early Judaism and Christianity. Cambridge University Press, edited by James Aitken and Hector M. Patmore,13-32.

[4] Bereishit Rabbah, 22:12.