Table of Contents
(?)
Site Page Counts
Public: 510
Restricted: 677
//add in logic required to do stories on each page
require_once './include/story_page_include.php';
include "./include/story_page_nav.php"
?>
[This article is by the interviewer/translator, Hannah Kadmon.]
I would like to explain Ipkha Mistabra. (Also spelled Hipkha Mistabra.) It is very difficult to define and includes a wealth of images.
The words are in Aramaic, the language of the Talmud, very close to Hebrew. First: Ipkha
איפכא
means: the opposite. The 3 root-letters of the word are
ה פ כ
and one of the derivations of the root means upside down. Then: Mistabra
מסתברא
means: probably, or turns out to be, or it seems that... or seems reasonable. The 3 root-letters are
ס ב ר
and from this root comes assumed, assumption, etc.
Put the two words together and you get something like: turns out to be the opposite of what you are saying. The people of the shtetl learned Talmud and were very well versed in it. In the Talmud this concept is used many times:
Not what you thought first, but the opposite.
The wisdom is in the ability to be the devil's advocate in a sense, to question the assumption and examine the opposing view. The debates between Rabbis quoted in the Talmud and the frequent repetition of Ipkha Mistabra, encouraged Jewish students of Talmud think outside of the box.
However, when Dov says that his grandfather [Rachmil Stavsky] used Ipkha Mistabra, he did not use this term correctly in that context. The term he should have used is:
לשון סגי נהור
meaning Leshon (the idiom of) Sagi Nahor. His grandfather may have been a person who always debated and was a devil's advocate, but in the context of his postcard he was using Leshon Sagi Nahor.
Consider the meaning of Sagi Nahor to understand the confusion: Sagi Nahor is Aramaic for a great light. The Talmud uses the expression to refer to a blind person. For example, Rabbi Sheshet was described as a sagi nahor (Talmud Berachot 58a). In truth, Rabbi Sheshet's eyes lacked light, and therefore sagi nahor is an ironic usage and a euphemistic way of referring to a disability.
When referring to something shameful, the Bible and the Talmud have, on occasion, used an opposite statement to avoid speaking coarsely. Hence, Jobs wife tells him literally “Bless (Barech) God and die” (Job 2:9). This verse is translated as: Blaspheme God and die. So distressing is the notion of committing such a transgression that the Bible prefers to speak in opposites.
It was not until the 19th century that this form of ironic speech became known as leshon sagi nahor. It is prevalent in Hebrew and Yiddish literatures, even in the modern literature. The great Yiddish writer Mendele Mokher Sforim wrote, “And each one calls his friend, in the style of sagi nahor, a great intellect, meaning a world-class idiot.” The biblical scholar Rabbi David Zvi Hoffman also refers to leshon sagi nahor as a rabbinic linguistic style.
Examples:
• Yiddish: a cemetery is called Beit Hakhayim, the house of life.
• Yiddish : A gut oig, a good eye conveys the evil eye.
• Hebrew and Yiddish: He is Khakham Gadol, a very clever person, communicates he is very stupid…
• Modern Hebrew slang: Khokhma Gdola, great wisdom or big deal!, meaning: really stupid.
• You say, He is a musical talent to convey he is completely tone-deaf.
• If someone tells you, It was very nice of you, you may understand that --in reality-- you behaved obnoxiously.
To sum up: both Ipkha Mistabra and Leshon Sagi Nahor have in common the saying of opposing things. The first presents an opposite view as a statement or challenge. The second is to use a euphemism, as to be “politically correct”…
//add in logic required to do stories on each page
require_once './include/story_page_include.php';
include "./include/story_page_nav.php"
?>
Editor's Notes: Is it possible that Dov and his Volchin ancestors knowingly mis-used the term Ipkha Mistabra, intending through irony to emphasize the unimportance of their everyday subject material as compared to Talmud study? The broadest conclusion might be: Dov's family was very familiar with the use of opposite statements in family conversations. So the circumlocution used in the postcard -- one quickly learned by people living under represessive regimes -- was natural. |