Matos-Masei: The Wormy Place
Reuven Chaim Klein
Matos-Masei: The Wormy Place
"Know from whence you came, to where you are going, and before whom you are destined to give an accounting." These are the famous words of Akavya ben Mahalalel as recorded in the Mishnah, and, in some circles, these words are recited at every funeral. As the Mishnah explains, the answers to the questions are that one comes from a putrid drop, one is going to a dusty place of rimah and toleah, and one is destined to present an accounting of their life's deeds before the King of Kings, the Holy One Blessed be He (Avot 3:1). In this essay, we focus on the words rimah and toleah — which are both associated with “worms” — in order to differentiate between these two apparent synonyms.
The morbid fact that all men are destined to arrive at a place of "rimah and toleah" is mentioned several times in the Talmud. In one instance, this fact is mentioned in a supplication that one sage recommended saying if one had to flatulate in middle of reciting the prayers (Brachot 24b). In another case, a good-looking man convinced himself not to go out and sin by reminding himself that his physical body is destined to rot and decompose while turning into rimah and toleah (Nedarim 9b). In a third passage, the Talmud (Bava Batra 17a) states that there were seven righteous people whose post-mortem bodies were not subject to rimah and toleah: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aharon, Miriam, and Benjamin. Finally, in another instance, the Talmud relates that Rabbi Elazar, the son of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, said about himself that his innards will not be subject to rimah and toleah after his death (Bava Metzia 83b). In all of these cases, the words rimah and toleah appear together as a tandem, just as they do in the Mishnah that we cited in the beginning of this essay. The phrase is also used in the Midrash (Shemot Rabbah §20, Vayikra Rabbah §18, Devarim Rabbah §11, and Kohelet Rabbah §5, 12), but curiously it never appears in the Talmud Yerushalmi.
Let’s unpack the phrase "rimah and toleah" by looking at each word separately, and then looking at how they are used together. The word rimah appears seven times in the Bible, five of which occur in the Book of Job (Job 7:5, 17:14, 21:26, 24:20, 25:6) and two of which occur elsewhere (Ex. 16:24, Isa. 14:11). Of those final two cases, one refers to the fact that the manna left from Friday to Shabbat did not become infested — “and there was no rimah in it” (Ex. 16:24). This stands in stark to contrast to what the Torah reported a few verses earlier that manna left over from previous days to the next became infested with worms, using the verb form of vayarum (an inflection of rimah) to denote “infestation,” and the noun tolaim to denote “worms” (Ex. 16:20).
Among the classical Hebrew lexicographers, Ibn Janach and Radak in their respective Sefer HaShorashim write that the word rimah derives from the triliteral root REISH-MEM-MEM. The same is understood by Rabbi Shlomo Ibn Parchon in his Machberet HeAruch. However, Menachem Ibn Saruk in Machberet Menachem writes that rimah actually comes from the biliteral root REISH-MEM. Either way, the semantic range of words deriving from either of those two roots — as well as the root REISH-VAV-MEM — include “lifting,” “exalting,” “separating,” “removing,” “producing,” and “throwing.”
Rabbi Shlomo Pappenheim (in both Yeriot Shlomo and Cheshek Shlomo) expands on Ibn Saruk’s understanding that rimah derives from REISH-MEM by specifically connecting “worms” to the “throwing” meaning of that root. The way he explains it, the sort of “throwing” denoted by this root is when one throws something upwards in such a way that the object will travel in a semi-circle formation as when it reaches its peak, it will freefall downwards adding gravity and its own weight to the force of the impact. This is the theory behind ballistic missiles. In the case of rimah, these “worms” do not have legs that they can use to jump, but instead they gather up their inner fortitude to "throw" themselves and form an arc as they land on their intended spot. Interestingly, when discussing the word rimah and its etymological basis, Rabbi Pappenheim suggests that perhaps the word rimmon ("pomegranate") derives from rimah because that fruit is highly susceptible to worm infestation. [To learn more about Hebrew synonyms for “throwing,” see my earlier essay “A Real Toss Up” (Dec. 2019). In my book G-d versus Gods: Judaism in the Age of Idolatry, I discuss how Rimmon was an alternate name for the Syrian god Hadad and the Canaanite god Baal.]
Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (to Ex. 16:20) writes that when an inanimate item (like food) is left on the ground, it appears lifeless. But if that item then becomes infested with worms that are moving about on top of it, it suddenly appears alive, as though the item had been “lifted” from its state of lifelessness into a state of animation. He uses this optical illusion in the eye of one who sees something infested with worms to explain the connection between the word rimah and the “lifting” meaning of the roots mentioned earlier. As an aside, Rabbi Hirsch stresses that his explanation is based on how worm-infestation appears to the naked eye, but has no bearing on the etiological question of whether such worms are created by spontaneous generation or are born of eggs (which was a controversial issue in his time).
Alternatively, we could account for the etymology of rimah by noting that when worms swarm upon something rotting, they “ascend” upon the item in question as though “lifted up” on top of it (such an explanation is somewhat implied by the Malbim in Sefer HaCarmel).
Rabbi Yehudah Aryeh of Carpentras in Aholei Yehuda offers two more theories as to the etymology of rimah: First, he argues (in line with the science of his times) that “worms” are generated by excess fat when a rotting food item becomes hot and putrid. According to this, he sees the root REISH-MEM-MEM mentioned by the lexicographers as somehow related to the three-letter root CHET-MEM-MEM, but he does not explain how the letters REISH and CHET might be interchangeable. Secondly, he sees rimah as related to the "lifting" meaning of the aforementioned roots, arguing that a worm is such a small and insignificant creature that its body barely appears to “lift” off the ground.
Rabbi David Chaim Chelouch (Michtam L'David Luach HaShorashim to Ps. 24:4 and Ohr Chadash Luach HaShorashim to Ex. 16:20) takes a different approach. He understands that in many roots in the Hebrew language, the meanings derived from a single root can refer to one thing and its polar opposite. This is because such exact opposites are always thematically related (in an inverse relationship), and thus could be semantically/etymologically-related. In line with this thinking, he writes that REISH-MEM can refer to something objectively “uplifted” and “exalted” (ram) or to its complete opposite — the lowest of the low (rimah, a “worm”). He also notes that this root can refer to something in between, like mirmah ("trickery") or ramai ("trickster") which give off the impression of being wise and exalted, but are really the opposite.
We will return to the word rimah later, but for now, let us segue to the other Biblical Hebrew word for “worm.” The word toleah only appears twice in Biblical Hebrew (Isa. 14:11, Job 25:6), as does its alternate form tola (Lam. 4:5, Isa. 1:18). But their close relative tola’at occurs close to forty times throughout the Bible. In one case, the Jewish people are called a tola’at: Hashem reassures the Jews in exile by saying "do not fear, O Worm of Jacob [tola’at Yaakov]" (Isa. 41:14). As Radak explains, the exiled Jews are compared to a worm because of their weakened state and flimsy circumstances. But the Midrash (Tanchuma Beshalach §9) offers another explanation, stating that just as a lowly worm can fell a mighty cedar with its mouth, so can the Jewish People fell great nations with just their mouth (i.e., through the power of prayer). Tola also appears in the Bible as a given name, borne by a son of Jacob’s son Issachar (Gen. 46:13, Num. 26:23, I Chron. 7:1–2) and by a later judge from the Isaacharite tribe (Jud. 10:1).
All the early lexicographers (Ibn Saruk, Ibn Janach, Radak, and Ibn Parchon) trace the word toleah to the triliteral root TAV-LAMMED-AYIN. That root also yields the Biblical Hebrew word mitalot (Job 29:17, Joel 1:6, and Prov. 30:14), which means “teeth.” The connection between “worms” and “teeth” is not insignificant, as we have already cited that the rabbis in the Midrash see the worm’s “mouth” (i.e., capacity for consumption) as its most outstanding feature. Indeed, Midrash Sechel Tov (to Ex. 16:24) explains the difference between rimah and toleah by noting that rimah do not eat or drink, while toleah eat as though they were creatures with teeth.
Rabbi Pappenheim takes the etymology of toleah in a slightly different direction, arguing that in both toleah and mitalot, the TAV is extraneous to the core root, which he sees as simply LAMMED-AYIN — defined as “the organ of swallowing.” In fact, the word loa (LAMMED-AYIN) appears once in the Bible in sense of “throat” (Prov. 23:2), and Rabbi Pappenheim sees mitalot as related because “teeth” are also integral to the digestive system and work together with one’s throat to help process food. Rabbi Pappenheim even views the verb bala ("swallowing") as related to this two-letter root, parsing the triliteral BET-LAMMED-AYIN as a portmanteau of BET-ALEPH ("coming/entering") and LAMMED-AYIN. Of course, the act of “swallowing” is simply the act of causing food to “enter” the “throat,” so it all fits together. Following this understanding, Rabbi Pappenheim further argues that the word toleah also derives from this biliteral root because “worms” consume their food quite quickly, as though simply “swallowing” without chewing. [For more about the Hebrew words for “teeth,” see “Showing Teeth” (Apr. 2023).]
Before we move on to exploring the possible differences between rimah and toleah, I wanted to once again indulge my predilection for onomastics by focusing on the given name Tola. In offering an exegetical basis for this rather bizarre name, Midrash Sechel Tov (to Gen. 46:13) writes that this name is associated with the Tribe of Issachar, a tribe otherwise known for its outstanding Torah Study (see I Chron. 12:33). Accordingly, the name Tola is explained as a reference to the fact that its bearer would bask in the study of Torah, like a worm who consumes Torah content (similar to the English idiom “book worm”). A similar Midrash says about the family of Tola (Yalkut Midrashei Teiman to Num. 26:23) that just as a worm penetrates a fruit in order to infest it, so too did the Tolaites enter deep into the depths of Halacha when studying Torah. Alfred Jones in The Proper Names of the Old Testament Scriptures Expounded and Illustrated (London, 1856), p. 360 conjectures that Issachar’s son was called Tola “because of his poor, weak, and scarlet [related to tola’at shani, “red”] appearance when he was born.”
Now that we have explored rimah and toleah to familiarize ourselves with how they are used in the Bible and what their etymological bases might be, it is time to discuss what the difference between these two apparent synonyms might be. If both words refer to “worms,” then why are they two different words?
Rabbi Shaul Goldman explains that rimah refers to specifically to larvae/maggots, but not actual worms. In the broader sense, it always refers to internal decay and decomposition. By contrast, he argues that toleah refers to worms as creatures that consume grub/food — an external force of destruction that feasts upon whatever is being broken down. As mentioned earlier, many commentators connect the word toleah to the words for “throat” and “teeth,” and this relates to the core implication of toleah as such. As we will see below, there are several sources that may be adduced to support Rabbi Goldman’s assertion.
Our first data point is the word-order in the Bible. In verses wherein rimah and toleah appear as a tandem, the word rimah always precedes the word toleah (isa. 4:11, Job 25:6), just like in the rabbinic phrase “rimah and toleah.” This implies that rimah chronologically precedes toleah, so rimah can refer to unborn worms, while toleah refers to a later stage.
Indeed, that very point is made by some very important rabbinic authorities: Rabbi Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin, also known as the Netziv, writes in his work Birkat HaNetziv (to Mechilta D’Rabbi Yishmael on Ex. 16:20, see also Ha'Emek Sheilah §56:3) that rimah refers to smaller worms that begin to appear on something before it starts to rot, while toleah refers to longer creepy, crawling worms that infest rotten things after it has already spoiled. For this reason, when discussing the manna going bad after the day is over, the Torah first uses a verbal inflection of rimah (vayarum), and only afterwards mentions the plural form of the noun toleah. From this, we see that rimah implies a less mature worm than toleah does.
A similar explanation is cited by Rabbi Binyamin Rivlin (Giviyay Giviya HaKesef to Ex. 16:20) in the name of the Vilna Gaon. He writes that infestation usually begins with small worms (rimah) and then devolves into larger worms (toleah), such that when the Torah said that the manna from Friday left over for Shabbat did not become wormy, it specifically uses the term rimah (Ex. 16:24) to stress that the manna did not even reach the first stage of infestation and, a frioriti, it did not reach the second, more-advanced stage (which would have been represented by the word toleah). Rabbi Shlomo Aharon Wertheimer (in Beiurei Shemot Nirdafim) finds support for the Vilna Gaon’s explanation the words of Rashbam (to Ex. 16:20).
In a similar vein, Rabbi Moshe Tedeschi-Ashkenazi (Otzar Nirdafim §482) writes that rimah refers to early-stage infestation when the maggots are still larvae in their eggs. He clarifies that although the word rimah seems like it is in singular form, it actually refers to a cluster of such larvae, not just a single egg. By contrast, he explains that toleah — which is in singular form — refers to a single fully-formed “worm” that has already grown up and takes on a life of its own.
Alternatively, Rabbi Tedeschi-Ashkenazi explains that rimah refers to the small worms that can be found in fruits and cheese, while toleah refers to the sorts of worms that can be found in the intestinal innards of a human or animal, or buried in the ground. Rabbi Wertheimer similarly infers from the Mishnah (Avot 2:7) that rimah specially infests fatty flesh. [I later found that Rabbi Tedeschi-Ashkenazi comments are probably based on Rabbi Eliyahu Bachur's glosses to Radak's Sefer HaShorashim who notes that rimah refers to maggots that infest flesh and cheese, while toleah refers to worms.]
Turning to some etymological speculation, Rabbi Tedeschi-Ashkenazi suggests that rimah is related to the root REISH-BET (via the interchangeability of MEM and BET), which refers to the “multiplication” and “proliferation/spawning” (rav/harbeh/ribui) of larvae that occurs with the onset of infestation. He further suggests the word toleah relates to loa (“throat”) because a worm’s form resembles the long tubular shape of a person’s “throat.”
Rabbi Hirsch (to Ex. 16:20) offers another difference between rimah and toleah: Whilst rimah form from within the rotting item (or at least appear to do so), toleah refers to worms that (clearly) come from the outside in order to consume the rotting food. He too writes that because toleah is characterized by its “consumption” or “eating,” the very word toleah etymologically relates to the loa (“throat”), a body part integral for eating.
The Malbim (to Isa. 4:11) explains the difference between rimah and toleah by noting that rimah refer to when the larvae/maggots have not left their place of generation, while toleah refers to a worm that can already ambulate and move around. Elsewhere, Malbim (Yair Ohr when discussing the difference between the words adam and enosh) writes that rimah refers to specifically worms that infest something rotting, while toleah refer to worms per se.
Kol Tuv,
Reuven Chaim Klein
Beitar Illit, Israel
Books | Articles | Lectures (YouTube) | Book Reviews
