# דבה



## Isidore Demsky

In Numbers 14:36, the word דבה is translated "slander," but in English, the word "slander" implies that a statement is false.

Does this Hebrew word (in itself) imply that?


----------



## slus

Yes. It is pronounced diBAH, and it implies that the statement is false.


----------



## Isidore Demsky

Thank you.

But isn't the same word used in Genesis 37:2?

Does it imply falsehood there?

Does the word itself imply falsehood, or is it neutral?


----------



## Drink

Just to point out, the English word "slander" does not necessarily imply falsehood. You can slander someone with true facts.


----------



## slus

It is the same word used in Genesis 37:2. I'm not sure it necessarily means falsehood there. In modern Hebrew it always does, but in Genesis 37:2 it is not clear from the context whether Joseph was lying or not.


----------



## Drink

I would say in both Numbers 14:36 and Genesis 37:2 it's not falsehoods (or not necessarily falsehoods).


----------



## Isidore Demsky

slus said:


> It is the same word used in Genesis 37:2. I'm not sure it necessarily means falsehood there. In modern Hebrew it always does, but in Genesis 37:2 it is not clear from the context whether Joseph was lying or not.


Thank you.

So, it may not have had a negative connotation to begin with, but it developed one?

Is that correct?


----------



## Isidore Demsky

Drink said:


> Just to point out, the English word "slander" does not necessarily imply falsehood. You can slander someone with true facts.



In English, the word "slander" is defined as follows:

1: the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation

2: a false and defamatory oral statement about a person

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slander

So it definitely does have a connotation of falsehood.


----------



## shalom00

The connotation is and was always negative.
The question is whether it implies something untrue.
For example, you can "bad-mouth" a person without it being untrue.
In Judaism, this is a form of "lashon hara", לשון הרע.


----------



## Drink

Isidore Demsky said:


> In English, the word "slander" is defined as follows:
> 
> 1: the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation
> 
> 2: a false and defamatory oral statement about a person
> 
> www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slander
> 
> So it definitely does have a connotation of falsehood.



Misrepresentations can be true.


----------



## Isidore Demsky

Drink said:


> Misrepresentations can be true.


"Misrepresent" is defined as follows:

1: to give a false or misleading representation of usually with an intent to deceive or be unfairmisrepresented the facts

2: to serve badly or improperly as a representative of

Definition of MISREPRESENT

And "or" can be defined as follows:

2 Introducing a synonym or explanation of a preceding word or phrase.

_‘yoga is a series of postures, or asanas’
_
or | Definition of or in English by Oxford Dictionaries

So *how* (exactly) can a "misrepresentation" "be true"?


----------



## Isidore Demsky

shalom00 said:


> The connotation is and was always negative.
> The question is whether it implies something untrue.
> For example, you can "bad-mouth" a person without it being untrue.
> In Judaism, this is a form of "lashon hara", לשון הרע.


Thank you.

But if "The question is whether it implies something untrue," what's the answer?

Slus said:


slus said:


> It is the same word used in Genesis 37:2. I'm not sure it necessarily means falsehood there. In modern Hebrew it always does, but in Genesis 37:2 it is not clear from the context whether Joseph was lying or not.



Is that true?

And if it is, did it aquire that connotation because of it's usage in passages like Numbers 14:36, or has it always had such a connotation?


----------



## Drink

Isidore Demsky said:


> "Misrepresent" is defined as follows:
> 
> 1: to give a false or misleading representation of usually with an intent to deceive or be unfairmisrepresented the facts
> 
> 2: to serve badly or improperly as a representative of
> 
> Definition of MISREPRESENT
> 
> And "or" can be defined as follows:
> 
> 2 Introducing a synonym or explanation of a preceding word or phrase.
> 
> _‘yoga is a series of postures, or asanas’
> _
> or | Definition of or in English by Oxford Dictionaries
> 
> So *how* (exactly) can a "misrepresentation" "be true"?



The definition of "or" that you give is not the one that was intended in the definitions above.

Misleading is not necessarily false.


----------



## Isidore Demsky

Drink said:


> The definition of "or" that you give is not the one that was intended in the definitions above.
> 
> Misleading is not necessarily false.


I think the definition of "or" I cited is precisely the sense the word is used in the definition of "misrepresentation"--"false *or* misleading."

Please explain how misrepresentations (by definition false or misunderstanding) can be "true."


----------



## Graciela J

The following is from *Introduction to Logic* by Irving M. Copi:

_Even the literal truth can be used, by manipulating its placement, so as to deceive with accent. Disgusted with his first mate, who was repeatedly inebriated while on duty, the captain of a ship noted in the ship's log, almost every day, "The mate was drunk today." The angry mate took his revenge. Keeping the log himself on a day when the captain was ill, the mate recorded, "The captain was sober today."_

So you can mislead by telling the truth.


----------



## Drink

Isidore Demsky said:


> I think the definition of "or" I cited is precisely the sense the word is used in the definition of "misrepresentation"--"false *or* misleading."



You are mistaken. This "or" is not presenting a synomym but rather an alternative, which actually implies that it is not a synonym. In cases where "or" introduces a synonym, it is normally separated by a comma: "He is crazy, or _meshuga_."


----------

