The Talmud (Shabbat 49b, 73b-74b, 96b) teaches that the thirty-nine forms of labor that are forbidden on Shabbat reflect the thirty-nine sorts of creative crafts used in the construction of the Tabernacle and its paraphernalia. One of those is known as tzovea — the act of “coloring/dyeing” (Mishnah Shabbat 7:2, 13:4). That labor entails taking an uncolored material and placing it within some colored substance that will cause the material to change color. In Hebrew, the general term for “color” is tzeva, a word derived from the verb tzovea. In this essay, we look at several different Hebrew words for “color,” including tzeva, gavan, ein, and mareh.
Let’s begin with the word tzeva. Its root TZADI-BET-AYIN does not appear in the Pentateuch, but does appears four times in Biblical Hebrew. For example, when Sisera’s mother fantasized that her son will have defeated the Jews and will take from them various prizes of war, she imagines tzevaim among those spoils (Jud. 5:30). That particular verse uses inflections of this root three times. Radak (to Jud. 5:30) explains that tzevaim refers to “colorful clothing,” that is, a single article of clothing that is made of many colors. Likewise, Jeremiah wonders whether the Jewish People are like a “colorful” (tzavua) bird of prey who is hated by all the other birds (Jer. 12:9). These four examples are the only times that derivatives of TZADI-BET-AYIN appear in Biblical Hebrew (except for perhaps the given name Zibeon in Gen. 36 and the place-name Zeboim in Neh. 11:34, I Sam. 13:18).
Various inflections of tzeva appear in the Mishnah in many different contexts, like when discussing what happens when one gives wool to be “dyed” one color, and the hired hand “dyes” it a different “color” (Bava Kamma 9:4), what happens if one “dyes” a garment with peels from fruits that are orlah (Orlah 3:1), and how to tell when a spot of red colorization is blood or simply paint (Niddah 9:6). The term also appears in various other contexts in Rabbinic literature. For example, when the Midrash (Tanchuma Tazria §2; see also Bereishit Rabbah §7:4) states that the peacock has thirty-hundred and sixty-five colors, it refers to the peacock’s “types of tzivonim.” Additionally, people who are “superficial” or even “duplicitous” are sometimes called tzavua (literally, “colored”) because, as Rashi (to Sotah 22b) explains, the “color” of their outside veneer does not match what is really inside of them.
In Biblical Aramaic and Targumic Aramaic, the root TZADI-BET-AYIN assumes a totally different meaning: “immersing/soaking/submerging” (for Biblical examples see Dan. 4:12, 4:20, 4:22, 4:30, 5:21; for Targumic examples, see Targum to Lev. 4:6, 11:25, 15:17). This meaning is seemingly unrelated to the meaning of the Hebrew TZADI-BET-AYIN in reference to “color.” Nonetheless, Rabbi Yehoshua Steinberg of the Veromemanu Foundation explains that the core meaning of this Aramaic root does indeed refer to “dyeing,” but that since that process is achieved through soaking the material in a dye solution, this root also came to refer to all acts of “soaking.” Indeed, this explanation is also implied by Menachem Ibn Saruk in Machberet Menachem and Rabbi Natan of Rome in Sefer HeAruch who list both of these meanings under the root TZADI-BET-AYIN, without clarifying that they are two separate meanings as they normally would do.
Dr. Alexander Kohut in HeAruch HaShaleim asserts that TZADI-BET-AYIN is related to TET-BET-AYIN, which means “sinking/drowning,” but also “stamping” and “nature.” This connection is seemingly predicated on the interchangeability of the letters TZADI and TET. The way he presumably understands the link is that the process of “dyeing” involves “immersing” an object in liquid, much like something that “sinks” or “drowns” in water. This connection is further supported by the idea that dyeing imprints a lasting color onto a material, analogous to the way stamping leaves a permanent mark. Additionally, the root TET-BET-AYIN carries the meaning of “nature” (teva) in the sense of something being ingrained or inherent, just as a dyed fabric absorbs color in a way that it becomes an inseparable part of its essence.
Another word said to derive from the root TZADI-BET-AYIN is etzba (“finger”). As Radak puts it, the root of etzba is not quadriliteral as one might otherwise think, but rather the initial ALEPH in the word etzba is radical to the word’s triliteral root. He notes that in Mishnaic Hebrew, the act of using one’s finger to enter a raffle is matzbia (see Mishnah Yoma 2:1), which is a verb form of TZADI-BET-AYIN sans the ALEPH. That verb eventually came to refer to “pointing,” and since “pointing” is a gesture often used to mark what one has chosen, the term matzbia is used in Modern Hebrew to refer to the act of “voting” in democratic elections. But how does the word etzba fit with the “color/soaking” meanings of the same root?
Rabbi Yaakov Tzvi Mecklenburg (HaKtav VeHaKabbalah to Ex. 8:15, 31:18, and Lev. 4:25) explains that the core meaning of the root TZADI-BET-AYIN refers to the notion of “gripping” or otherwise “holding strongly.” Accordingly, he explains that the act of “dyeing” serves to forge a strong chemical bond between the material being colored and the colorant, such that the new color will hold steadfast and remain on said material. He understands that the “pigment,” “paint,” “color” meaning of tzeva is a derivative meaning because they are related to the act of “dyeing.”
Along these lines, Rabbi Mecklenburg explains that the role of the etzba is to allow a person to more strongly “hold” on to whatever is within one’s grip and take control of it. For this reason, Rabbi Mecklenburg explains, the Ten Plagues are described as “Hashem’s finger” (Ex 8:15) and the Ten Commandments are described as “written with the Finger of Hashem” (Ex. 31:18), as both of those represent Hashem’s strong hold over His creation in dictating what supernatural plagues will be wrought and what the expectations for mankind ought to be.
This explanation fits with Rabbi Shmuel Yehudah Steiger’s broader proposal in his work Avnei Shayish, wherein he argues for a common meaning for all words containing the two-letter string TZADI-BET as relating to the concepts of “binding and gathering.” In the case of tzeva, these ideas converge in that the colorant and material being colored are bound together. Other examples of words that use that two-letter string and relate to this idea include tzava (“army,” a group of soldiers gathered together), tzover (“collecting”), and tzibbur (“public”).
Maimonides sometimes uses forms of the word tzeva or tzovea when referring to colors or coloring, like when referring to the prohibition of a man dyeing his hair black (Laws of Avodah Zarah 12:10), regarding the coloring of tzitzit (Laws of Tzitzit 2:3), regarding dyeing on Shabbat (Laws of Shabbat 9:13), regarding red spotting (Laws of Issurei Biah 9:36, Laws of Mitamei Mishkav U’Moshav 4:11), and regarding using shemitta fruit for dyeing (Laws of Shemitta 5:1). Yet, in other cases, Maimonides consistently uses a different Hebrew word to mean “color”—ein. For example, Maimonides uses this word when describing how the galgalim have no physical “color” (Laws of Yesodei HaTorah 3:3), when describing how tzaraat of the garment entails the clothing changing color (Laws of Tumat Tzaraat 16:10), and when describing how one cannot sell something abstract like the taste of honey or the color of a crystal (Laws of Mechirah 22:14). In one place, Maimonides even uses these two terms together, when talking about making an ein ha’tzeva (i.e., a colorant) on Shabbat (Laws of Shabbat 9:14). Where does this word ein come from?
The word ein (spelled AYIN-YOD-NUN) is the construct form of the word ayin (“eye”). In many cases, the word ein refers to a picture that one sees in one’s mind’s eye. In some cases, it can refer to one particular aspect of that picture, i.e., the color of an item. For example, when describing the manna, the Torah says that its color is like the color of bdellium, eino k’ein habedolach (Num. 11:7). Similarly, when the Torah gives instructions for a Kohen examining a person’s tzaraat, it refers to what happens if on the seventh day, the Kohen sees that the spot “remains in its color (eino)” without becoming lighter or darker (Lev. 13:5).
Raavad I (Emunah HaRamah, Maamar #1 ch. 6) writes that ein/ayin means “color” because the “eye” is the biological device used to detect differences in colors. He compares this to the way that the Hebrew words lashon (literally, “tongue”) and safah (literally, “lip”) also refer to “language” because those are the biological tools used in implementing language. [For more about the difference between the words lashon and safah, see “Speaking in Tongues” (Dec. 2017).]
Likewise, the Maharal of Prague writes (in Gur Aryeh to Lev. 13:5) that although the word ein refers primarily to “color,” it can also refer to any other property of an item in comparison to another item, even if not visually comparable or comparable in color. This is why the words k’ein or m’ein can refer to something being a microcosm or otherwise “resembling” another thing, even if they do not “look” the same from a visual perspective.
An additional Biblical Hebrew word for “color” is mareh (or marei in the construct form). For example, the Bible reports about the Sinaitic Spectacle that the sight (mareh) of Hashem’s honor appeared like a fire (Ex. 24:17; similar verbiage appears in Num. 9:15 and Ezek. 1:27, 8:2). Likewise, the “color” or “appearance” of the tzaraat spot is often referred to as its mareh (Lev. 13). This word is clearly a noun derived from the root REISH-ALEPH-HEY, which usually yields verbs related to the act of “seeing” (roeh, lirot, vayera, re’iyah, etc…), which is why it refers to the content of one’s vision in general, and to color in specific.
Indeed, Malbim (to Lev. 13:5) explains that ein and mareh are not synonyms, but that ein specifically refers to something’s “color,” while mareh refers to the entire picture of the thing (which could include its color). Similarly, in an essay on various sets of synonyms, Shadal differentiates between these various terms we have encountered thus far by explaining that mareh refers specifically to the sight of something that might include more than one color, while ein refers to one specific “color.” He further clarifies that while ein and mareh refer to something’s natural color, the word tzeva refers to an artificial color as the result of “painting” or “dyeing” something.
Our final word for “color” is gavan. This word does not appear in the Bible, nor does it seem to appear in the Mishnah or Jerusalemic Talmud, but it is used quite often in Aramaic sources like the Babylonian Talmud and Targum. For example, the Babylonian Talmud (Eruvin 53b) relates a story in which one person announced that he had a tallit to sell, and somebody else responded by asking, “What color (gavan) is the tallit?” Likewise, the Talmud (Shabbat 140a) refers to separating the egg yolk from the egg white in order to use the yolk to give a stronger yellowish color to mustard (l’gaven, “to colorize”).
An additional example is seen in the word sasgavana (Targum to Num. 4:6) used to translate the Hebrew word tachash, an animal whose hides were used in the construction of the Tabernacle. Rashi (there) explains that sasgavana is a portmanteau of the Hebrew word sas (“glad/happy”) and the Aramaic word gavan (“color”), as the tachash was a creature that was said to rejoice in its being multicolored. Another example cited by Rabbi Eliyahu Bachur in Sefer Tishbi comes from Targum (to Est. 1:6), who translates the word chur as “gavan chivar” meaning “white color.” [For more about the Hebrew and Aramaic words for the color “white,” see “White is Light” (Dec. 2023).]
There might be a single instance of gavan in the Mishnah: The Mishnah (Niddah 3:3) rules that if a woman expels or miscarries an embryonic sac that is full or water, blood, or genunim, she does not need to suspect that she birthed an actual female stillborn that would make her ritually impure for fourteen days and require her to bring a sacrifice. The Talmud (Niddah 24b) offers some discussion on what the word genunim means, and the conclusion of Rabbi Ada bar Ahavah is that it should be read as gavanim, which refers to organic tissue of variegated “colors.” Rashi (there) actually defines genunim as gavanim, and Sefer HeAruch also seems to do the same. [In Modern Hebrew, the word gavan refers to a specific “shade/tint/tinge” within a color but does not refer to the parent color itself.]
Interestingly, Rabbi Eliyahu Bachur in both Sefer Tishbi and Meturgaman offers three separate entries on the Aramaic root GIMMEL-VAV-NUN. One entry is used to mean “form/likeness” (as in the Targum of k’demut in Ps. 58:5), one, to mean “color,” and one, to mean “topic/subject” (as in the Targum of inyan in Ecc 1:13, 2:23). Nevertheless, Rabbi Aharon Fuld in his glosses to Sefer Tishbi disagrees with this characterization of three different meanings of the same root, instead preferring to see all three meanings as different shades of the same idea. Just as “color” is used to visually differentiate things from each other and other aspects of “likeness” can do the same, the “topic” can be used to thematically differentiate things from each other. Rabbi Eliyahu Bachur also writes that the very common word Rabbinic Hebrew word k’gon (or k’gavna in Zoharic Aramaic) used to mean “for example” or “such as” is derived from this triliteral Aramaic root.
Rabbi Shalom Pushinsky makes the argument that gavan is not a native Hebrew or Aramaic word—and, in fact, he claims that it does not even come from a Semitic language. Rather, he traces the word gavan to the Old Persian word gün/gune (“color”). He buttresses this assertion by noting that gavan is not found in earlier Aramaic works (like the Targumim, save for the case of sasgavan per above or the relatively late Targum to Esther), and only occurs in later Aramaic works that exhibit heavy Persian influence (like the Babylonian Talmud). Moreover, Rabbi Pushinsky writes that in light of this, the VAV of GIMMEL-VAV-NUN was originally pronounced as a vowel (u), even though it later came to be pronounced like a consonant (v). Likewise, Rabbi Ernest Klein (in his etymological dictionary of Hebrew) also writes that gavan derives from Old Persian. Dr. Kohut actually connects gavan to the Sanskrit word gaona/gauna, which apparently also refers to “color.” In fact, Sanskrit and Old Persian both belong to the Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European language family, with both languages sharing a common ancestor known as Proto-Indo-Iranian.
Rabbi Meir Hellman in Levush HeAron differentiates between the apparent synonyms tzeva and gavan by explaining that tzeva bears the more concrete meaning of “colorant” (that is, a substance used for dyeing), while gavan refers to the more abstract concept of “color” (that is, the specific color of something as perceived by the eye). Nonetheless, Rabbi Hellman’s assertion that tzeva only has a concrete meaning and not an abstract one is disproven from the Bible itself, which uses the word tzavua in reference to a “colorful” bird of prey (as noted above), albeit that this usage only occurs once in the Bible. This was actually pointed out over one hundred years ago by Rabbi Shalom Pushinsky. The botanist Aharon Aaronsohn offers another way of differentiating between these two ostensible synonyms by claiming that gavan refers to something’s natural color, while tzeva refers specifically to a man-made color imposed on something. In light of the above, I would say that the difference between these two synonyms is simply that tzeva is a native Hebrew word, while gavan is an Aramaic borrowing of an Indo-European word.
For other essays about colors, see “The True Blue” (Mar. 2019), “The Color Purple” (Feb. 2022), and “White is Light” (Dec. 2023). n
Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein is an author and freelance researcher based in Beitar Illit. He studied in Yeshiva Gedolah of Los Angeles, the Mir Yeshiva in Jerusalem, and Beth Medrash Govoha of America in Lakewood, and received semichah from leading rabbis. He also holds an MA in Jewish Education from Middlesex University/London School of Jewish Studies. Rabbi Klein authored two popular books that were published by Mosaica Press, as well as countless scholarly articles published in various venues. His articles on Hebrew synonyms are commissioned by Yeshivas Ohr Somayach in Jerusalem and have appeared on their website since 2016.
