This may sound like a somewhat “nitpicking” question to some “untrained ears”, but it is actually an extremely significant question which reveals great insight into the importance and even kabbalistic understanding of our holy Hebrew language.
In the Hebrew language words always express the essence of what they portend to describe. While the words of other languages simply represent a consensus shared by several individuals that those words should have those meanings, the meaning of words of Hebrew is Divinely inherent. In Hebrew, the word for a “word” and the word for a “thing” is the same — “davar” — because all elements of Creation are simply Divine words crystallized into material existence. Therefore, a close study of words and their true meanings is not only justified, but is fully warranted. This, however, creates a problem: There are many Hebrew words in the Torah and in traditional rabbinic writings which seem to have the same meaning. If the meanings of words are Divine and intrinsic, then why would multiple words be needed for conveying the same concept? Multiple words for the same concept are not only superfluous, but also redundant!
The solutions to these sorts of dilemmas usually follow certain “templated” answers. In some instances the words in question only seemingly mean the same thing, but, in truth, there is a slight, barely-discernable difference between them. In other cases a given set of words may actually refer to the exact same concept, but recall or focus on different aspects/properties of it. Similarly, when dealing with verbs, multiple words can sometimes be used for the same action, but the different words can represent that action taken to different degrees or with different intentions. Sometimes, different words actually complement each other in a taxonomical way, as one might be a general way of referring to something (hypernym), while the other is a more specific element (hyponym), collapsible into the category defined by the first word. Finally, the Torah sometimes borrows words from different languages in order to illustrate a point, and those words might bear the same meaning as others words in Hebrew.
Thus, the words you asked about, madua and lamah can be explained as follows:
Some explain that lamah seeks to find the ultimate purpose of something while madua seeks to find its immediate cause. A second approach is that lamah implies something negative about that which he is questioning, while madua has a neutral implication. A third view explains that why-questions using lamah are generally meant rhetorically, while such questions using madua seek an answer in earnest.
All of these different nuances are reflected in a simple word change in Hebrew, but in English we’re stuck with just asking: “Why?”
- Our thanks to Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein, author of the book Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew (Mosaica Press)
