part. of relation (Moab.
id.; origin dub.:
1. according to Tsepreghi
Diss. Lugd. p. 171 Mühlau
Bö Lb. ii. 79 n. Sta
Morg. Forsch. 1875, 188; Lb. § 167 Hom
ZMG 1878, 708 ff. Müll
§ 153 Sayce
Hbr. ii. 51 Lag
M. i. 255 & especially Kraetzschmar
Hbr. vi. 298 ff, orig. a subst. ‘place’ =
أَثَرٌ footstep, mark አሠr (do.),
אֲתַר,
ܐܰܬܰܪ place, Assyrian
ašar, used (v. Kraetz.) both as a subst. ‘there, where,’ and as a relative of place ‘where’: in Heb. this development has advanced further, and it has become a relative sign generally. The chief objection to this explanation is that it would isolate Heb. from the other Semitic languages, in which pronouns are formed regularly from
demonstrative roots (cf. also Nö
ZMG 1886, 738).
2. according to Phi
St. C. 73 Sperling
Nota Rel. im Hebr. 1876, 15–22 for
אֲשֶׁל, developed from the relative
שׁ (q.v.) by (1) the prefixing of either a merely prosthetic א, or, better, a pronominal א (giving rise to
אש, the form of the relative in Ph.), and (2) the addition of the demonstr. root ל [found also in
אֵל,
אֵלֶּה,
הַלָּזֶה (q.v.).
اَلَّذِى he who, እለ
who (pl.)]: the main objection to this explanation is the change of ל to ר, which is hardly rendered probable by the comp. of Syriac
ܗܳܪܟܳܐ by side of Targ.
הָלְכָּא.
1 seems preferable, the primitive root having acquired different significations in the different Semitic languages, and having been weakened in Heb. to a mere particle of relation
). A
sign of relation, bringing the clause introduced by it into relation with an antecedent clause. As a rule
אֲשֶׁר is a mere
connecting link, and requires to be supplemented (see the grammars) by a pron. affix, or other word, such as
שָׁם, defining the nature of the relation more precisely: e.g.
Breishis 1:11 אֲשֶׁר זַרְעוֹ־בוֹ lit.
as to which, its seed is in it = in which is its seed,
Tehillim 1:4 like the chaff
אֲשֶׁר־תִּדְּפֶנּוּ רוּחַ as to which, the wind drives it = which the wind drives, etc.; & so
אֲשֶׁר …
שָׁם =
where,
אֲשֶׁר …
מִשָּׁם =
whence,
Breishis 2:11;
Breishis 3:23;
Breishis 20:13 etc. Sometimes also (v. infr.) the relation expressed by it is specifically temporal, local, causal, etc. More particularly
The opinion that
אֲשֶׁר has an asseverative force (like
כִּי, q.v.), or introduces the apodosis, is not prob., being both alien to its general usage & not required by the passages alleged. Render
Yeshaya 8:20 either ‘Surely according to this word will those speak
who have no dawn,’ or ‘… will they speak
when (cf. supr.
8 d Devarim 11:27;
Yehoshua 4:21) they have no dawn.’