other
why
למה · מדוע
Bottom line
Both mean why. Madua is the neutral question, asking on what reasoning a thing rests; lamah asks toward what end, and in most of the authorities it carries a charge, either complaint or rebuke, and often expects no answer. English has one word for both, so the difference has to be carried by the rest of the sentence: render madua "why" plainly, and lamah, where the context supports it, as "why on earth," "for what purpose," or with the objection said outright.
At a glance
| Hebrew | translit | English | what sets it apart |
|---|---|---|---|
| למה | lamah | why, for what purpose | la- plus mah, "for what"; ultimate purpose (Mecklenburg, Malbim); complaining or rebuking, often rhetorical (Wertheimer) |
| מדוע | madua | why, on what grounds | mah deah, "what thinking" (Ibn Janach); the effective cause; neutral, and expects a real answer |
Where the authorities disagree
Whether there is a difference at all. Ibn Parchon and Radak hold the two words synonymous. Everyone else quoted here holds that they are not, and the Bottom line follows the majority, since Hebrew does not carry two words for one sense.
What the difference is. Three accounts, and they are not the same account:
- Cause against purpose. Rabbi Yaakov Tzvi Mecklenburg (HaKesav VeHaKabbalah to Shemos 5:4) and the Malbim: madua asks after the effective cause of a thing, lamah after its final purpose. This falls out of the etymologies, mah deah (what reasoning produced this) against la-mah (for what end).
- Neutral against loaded. Rabbi Shlomo Aharon Wertheimer: madua asks about something that strikes the asker as strange or out of the ordinary, but implies nothing for or against it; lamah implies that the matter is wrong, and is the word of complaint ("why are you doing this to me?") and of rebuke ("why did you do such a thing?").
- Earnest against rhetorical. A further view: one who asks lamah is not waiting for an answer, only registering his objection, while one who asks madua genuinely wants a reply.
A fourth, narrower position holds that madua is specifically the word for questioning the reasoning of a ruling or a command, lamah being free for other contexts. The Bottom line combines readings 2 and 3, which agree in practice and are what a translator can actually act on; reading 1 is the etymological account underneath them.
Distinctions
madua (מדוע)
Rabbeinu Yonah ibn Janach (Sefer Rikmah), cited by Radak, reads it as a contraction of mah deah, "what thinking," a question after the rationale behind an occurrence or an act. Ibn Ezra (to Shemos 18:14) says the same, and Ramban (to Bereishis 30:20) writes that madua is a contraction of two words without spelling out which.
lamah (למה)
A compound of the prefix la-, "for," and mah, "what," so that the question is for what objective the thing exists or was done.
Rendering guidance
- Default madua to a plain "why." It is the word that carries no verdict.
- Where lamah stands in a complaint or a rebuke, let the English sentence carry the tone: "Why would you do this?", "For what?", "And why, then…?" Simply writing "why" leaves the pasuk flat.
- Trap: English "why" absorbs both words completely. When both appear near each other, or when a commentary is built on the choice of one, mark the difference explicitly rather than translating both identically, and say in a note which word the pasuk used.
- Where lamah is rhetorical, consider dropping the question mark's expectation in the surrounding prose ("as if to say") rather than inventing an English interrogative that Hebrew does not have.
Sources
Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein, "Why? Which 'Why'?", What's in a Word?, Ohr Somayach, 10 Kislev 5777 (2016-12-10): https://articles.ohr.edu/articles/why-which-why; raw text in sources/whats-in-a-word/raw/7039-why-which-why.md. Primary loci cited: Rabbeinu Yonah ibn Janach, Sefer Rikmah (cited also by Radak); Ibn Ezra to Shemos 18:14; Ramban to Bereishis 30:20; Rabbi Mecklenburg, HaKesav VeHaKabbalah to Shemos 5:4; the Malbim; Rabbi Shlomo Aharon Wertheimer; Ibn Parchon.