with

At a glance

אתes
with
unequal pair (Vilna Gaon, Malbim); deliberate, equal with (Pappenheim, Mecklenburg); the same as im (HaKsav VeHaKabbalah to Devarim 5:4)
עםim
with
full partnership (Vilna Gaon, Malbim); mere circumstance (Pappenheim, Mecklenburg); the same as es (HaKsav VeHaKabbalah to Devarim 5:4)

In short

Both es and im can mean with, and Tanach uses now one and now the other. The Vilna Gaon and Malbim hold that im is "with" in the full sense, two equal and cooperative parties, while es does not connote equality: one party is dominant and active, the other passive. Rabbi Shlomo Pappenheim and Rabbi Yaakov Tzvi Mecklenburg take the opposite approach: im is circumstantial, two who merely happened to be together, while es is the stronger, more deliberate and more equal "with." For both schools the difference is whether the two parties stand as equals. They read the same pesukim, Lot's itto and imo, in opposite ways, though on Bilam Rabbi Mecklenburg's reading mirrors the Gra's. At Devarim 5:4, HaKsav VeHaKabbalah, Rabbi Mecklenburg's own commentary, says that es and im mean the same, in that both set the two parties as equals.

Distinctions

Es (את) as a preposition

Es is by far the commonest word in Tanach, roughly twelve thousand appearances, and usually cannot be translated at all: it marks the object of a verb, working more like punctuation than a word with meaning, and Rabbi Nachman Marcuson likens it to an arrow pointing the reader to what the verb acts on. As Ibn Janach and Radak explain, it sometimes does carry meaning: "to" (Vayikra 13:49; Bamidbar 13:17), "from" (Bereishis 44:4; Bamidbar 35:26), "next to" (Bereishis 40:4, 44:24), "instead of" (Vayikra 22:14; Shmuel II 12:6), "on top of" (Melachim I 9:25), and "with." Suffixed it gives itto, itti, ittah. Rashi (to Bereishis 37:18) simply glosses itto as imo.

Im (עם)

Ayin-mem, "with," suffixed as imo, imi, imah.

The Vilna Gaon and Malbim: im is the stronger

The Gra (Rabbi Eliyahu Kramer of Vilna, 1720 to 1797) reads the Bilam narrative on this. Hashem first forbade him to go imahem (Bamidbar 22:12), then told him to rise and go itam (22:20), and the Torah reports that he went im Balak's men, whereupon Hashem was angered (22:21-22). The Gra asks why Hashem seemingly changed His mind, and, having allowed Bilam to go, why He was angry. His answer: im is "with" in the fullest sense, the joining of two completely equal and cooperative parties; es also means "with" but carries no such equality and congruence. So Bilam was barred from joining Balak's effort to curse the people (im), permitted only to go physically with the men (es), and when he went im, with them in the fullest sense, he violated the directive. The Gra and Malbim both derive this from es's ordinary grammatical use of marking an object. Rabbi Klein illustrates with achalta es halechem, where the eater and the bread are not equal; likewise es in the sense of "with" marks an unequal pair, one dominant and active and the other passive. Malbim applies it to Lot: he came to Eretz Yisrael itto with Avraham (Bereishis 12:4), deferentially following his lead, and at the parting he is imo (13:14), having asserted his independence and tried to show that he was an equal.

Rabbi Shlomo Pappenheim and Rabbi Yaakov Tzvi Mecklenburg: es is the stronger

Rabbi Shlomo Pappenheim of Breslau (1740 to 1814), in Cheshek Shlomo, and Rabbi Yaakov Tzvi Mecklenburg (1785 to 1865), in HaKsav VeHaKabbalah, take the opposite approach: es denotes a stronger and more equal "with" than im. In Rabbi Pappenheim's words, im is "with" circumstantially, two who happen to be together, and es is "with" deliberately and absolutely. Rabbi Mecklenburg applies it in several places. The same Lot verses: the switch from itto to imo is, he explains, the basis for the Zohar's contention (Bereishis 78b) that Lot first attached himself to Avraham to learn from him and become his equal, but never reached that goal. Eliezer: Besuel washed the feet of the men who were itto with Eliezer (Bereishis 24:32), and at the banquet Eliezer and the men imo ate and drank (24:54); Rabbi Mecklenburg postulates that the switch reflects the family's attitude, which at first took Eliezer and his men for equals, until Eliezer took charge, explained his mission, and emerged as the leader. Yaakov's burial: Pharaoh's servants, the elders of his house and the elders of Mitzrayim went up itto with Yosef (Bereishis 50:7), as equals or near-equals, while the chariots and horsemen, far lower in rank, went up imo (50:9). Curiously, in his commentary on Bilam Rabbi Mecklenburg's approach mirrors the Gra's rather than his own general rule.

HaKsav VeHaKabbalah (to Devarim 5:4): es and im mean the same insofar as both set the two parties as equals.

Where the authorities disagree

Which is the fuller "with," or whether they differ at all.

  • The Vilna Gaon and Malbim: im is "with" in the full sense, two equal and cooperative parties; es sets one party active and the other passive.
  • Rabbi Shlomo Pappenheim and Rabbi Yaakov Tzvi Mecklenburg: the opposite. Es is the deliberate, equal "with," and im is circumstantial.
  • HaKsav VeHaKabbalah, Rabbi Mecklenburg's own commentary, to Devarim 5:4: es and im mean the same insofar as both set the two parties as equals.

Also discussed in

Rav Pappenheim on this root

Cheshek Shlomo

ע-ם

In English, our account of his entry

With: the incidental sharing one relation with the essential, or the secondary with the main; at root ע, movement, so existence at one and the same time.

With, and its suffixed forms

He classes עם as a particle (מלה). It is the relation shared between an accident and a substance, or between a main thing and a secondary one, and it is said of the incidental party, in that it is present in the same relation the essential party is in: ויהי שם עם ה׳ (Shemos 34:28), and he was there with Hashem; עם המלך (Shmuel I 20:5), with the king; באה עם הצאן (Bereishis 29:6), coming with the sheep. With suffixes: עמי, with me; עמו, with him; עמך, with you; עמם, with them, as in הולך עמם לשלחם (Bereishis 18:16), going with them to send them off; or עמהם, as in לא תלך עמהם (Bamidbar 22:12), you shall not go with them.

Taken out of the relation

Leaving the shared relation takes the mem of removal: ויצא מעמך (Vayikra 25:41), he shall go out from with you; מעמו (Shmuel I 18:13), from with him; מעמהם, from with them. With the ayin concealed: והסיר ה׳ ממך (Devarim 7:15), and Hashem will remove from you; and ממכם, from you all: ממך and ממכם are מעמך and מעמכם, from with you.

With the one acted upon

At times עם stands as if it were the object itself, as in כחסד אשר עשיתי עמך (Bereishis 21:23), according to the kindness I did with you. That is not the sense of האיש אשר עשיתי עמו (Rus 2:19), the man with whom I worked, where both were working, he and she. Here only Avimelech acted, and Avraham received the act; yet עם is still the right word, since the kindness is an incidental act that attaches itself to Avraham's very self. So too אם תעשה עמנו רעה (Bereishis 26:29), that you do us no harm, and אשר אני עושה עמך (Shemos 34:10), which I am doing with you.

עם and את

How עם differs from the particle את Rav Pappenheim sets out under the root את, not here.

The verb עמם, joined in relation

From the particle the framer of the language made a verb, עמם, for the joining of accident with substance, just as ותהינו לעלות ההרה (Devarim 1:41), you made ready to go up the mountain, is made from הן, behold. ארזים לא-עממהו (Yechezkel 31:8), the cedars were not with it: they did not enter with it into one relation, which is to say לא דמו אליו, they were not like it. Likewise כל סתום לא עממוך (Yechezkel 28:3), no hidden thing stood with you, meaning there was nothing hidden. And איכה יועם זהב (Eichah 4:1), how the gold is mixed: fine gold must have nothing foreign with it and be clean of all waste and dross, so יועם names the opposite, gold mixed in with other things.

נעם, pleasant

Adding the nun of the passive form makes the noun נעם from עם, meaning pleasantness: ואת הארץ כי נעמה (Bereishis 49:15), and the land, that it was pleasant; מה יפית ומה נעמת (Shir HaShirim 7:7), how fair you are and how pleasant.

Good and bad are relations

As Rav Pappenheim says he has shown many times in this work, no physical good or bad is something essential in the thing that bears it; each is a relation that comes about with the receiving sense, as it agrees with that sense or opposes it. What agrees with the receiving sense is called טוב, good, and what opposes it רע, bad. So עריבות, sweetness, comes from התערבות, mixing in with the sense; טעם, taste, from נטיעה, planting (see the root טע); and נעם, pleasantness, from עמיות, being with: a good agreement and attachment with the sense. The German speaker likewise says of a thing well received "es geht mit", it goes with.

עמת, alongside

The abstract noun from עם is עמת: the side that stands in one relation with the side over against it, when the two are on two sides, as לעמת המסגרת (Shemos 25:27), alongside the frame; or with the side next to it, when they are on one side, as לעמת העצה יסירנה (Vayikra 3:9), he shall remove it alongside the backbone. It is said of sharing in number, as לעמת קלעי החצר (Shemos 38:18), corresponding to the hangings of the courtyard; of order, one thing related to the next, as משמר, a watch, and לעמת משמר (Divrei HaYamim I 26:16), alongside a watch; and of quality, where one has what the other has or its opposite, as כל-עמת שבא כן ילך (Koheles 5:15), just as he came so shall he go, and גם את-זה לעמת-זה (Koheles 7:14), this one too alongside that one. Every עמת is from עם, sharing with a thing in some relation or other, and he takes עמת to mean עמיות, being with, as זולת, besides, comes from זל (see the root זל).

Alongside, opposite, facing

The difference between עמת, alongside; מול, in front of; נכח, facing; לקראת, toward; and נגד, opposite, he sets out at length in his Yerios Shlomo, under נגד, and not here.

עמית, a fellow

As the noun עמת comes from עם, so does the adjective עמית: ואל אשת עמיתך (Vayikra 18:20), and to your fellow's wife; או קנה מיד עמיתך (Vayikra 25:14), or buy from your fellow's hand; ועל גבר עמיתי (Zecharyah 13:7), and against the man who is My fellow. From עם, with, it is the one who stands with you in a relation of brotherhood and friendship, or in some other civic or religious relation. Rav Pappenheim allows too that עמית may come from עם with a patach, a people, and then means in particular one's fellow who is of his own people.

עם, a people

From עם, with, comes עם with a patach: a body of persons who share with one another some relation of quality or of character. הן עם אחד (Bereishis 11:6), they are one people; כל העם מקצה (Bereishis 19:4), all the people from every quarter; וישתחו לעם הארץ (Bereishis 23:7), and he bowed to the people of the land, where those alike in the traits of the common crowd are called together עם הארץ, the people of the land. הנמלים עם לא עז (Mishlei 30:25), the ants are a people not strong, sharing one particular quality.

Peoples within a people

Every large body holds smaller bodies alike in a quality that does not extend over the whole kind. The men of Europe share one quality that sets them apart from the men of Africa, and so are called עם אייראפא, the people of Europe; it divides again into many peoples, the French, the Germans and the like, each set apart from the next in some way and each called a people of its own; and each people divides again into lands, families and fathers' houses, each set apart in some quality, as one might say the men of such a land are warriors and the men of such a family given to anger and strife. Each is called עם for its sharing in one particular matter.

Why the plural

Since within every people are many smaller peoples, עם comes mostly in the plural, said of the great body: ויאסף אל עמיו (Bereishis 25:8), and he was gathered to his peoples; ונכרת מעמיו (Shemos 30:33), and he shall be cut off from his peoples; ונכרתה מעמיה (Vayikra 23:29), it shall be cut off from its peoples; לא יטמא בעל בעמיו (Vayikra 21:4), a husband shall not make himself impure among his peoples; אחריך בנימין בעממיך (Shoftim 5:14), after you, Binyamin, among your peoples.

The root: ע, movement

The root of עם is the ayin alone, whose basic sense is movement, as set out under the root עה. The added mem makes it movement at one time, that is, existence at one time (in German, being at the same time, simultaneity), since the sign of existence is movement, and movement is in time, time being its foundation. So עם falls on the existence of two things under one relation: they share in the movement of what befalls them, that is, in existence, this one's lot like that one's.

Rav Shlomo Pappenheim, Cheshek Shlomo (Shorashim), first printed from his manuscript by Moshe Tzuriel, Bnei Brak 5777. The English is our account of his entry.

Sources

Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein, "Are You Really 'With Me'?," What's in a Word?, Ohr Somayach, 13 July 2019.

Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein, "Are You Really “With Me”?," What's in a Word? Synonyms in the Hebrew Language (book manuscript).

Cited in the essay: Bereishis 12:4 and 13:14 with Malbim and HaKsav VeHaKabbalah; Bereishis 24:32, 24:54, 50:7 and 50:9 with HaKsav VeHaKabbalah; Bereishis 37:18 with Rashi; Bereishis 40:4, 44:4, 44:24; Vayikra 13:49, 22:14; Bamidbar 13:17, 35:26; Bamidbar 22:12, 22:20, 22:21-22 with the Vilna Gaon; Shmuel II 12:6; Melachim I 9:25; Zohar Bereishis 78b; Ibn Janach and Radak; Rabbi Nachman Marcuson; Rabbi Shlomo Pappenheim, Cheshek Shlomo; Rabbi Yaakov Tzvi Mecklenburg, HaKsav VeHaKabbalah; HaKsav VeHaKabbalah to Devarim 5:4.