No, I want to know your opinion.
One need only look at Tenach to find a clear biblical reference to כושי referring specifically to someone with a particular pigmentation. This carries over into Talmudic, Halochic and Medrishic literature where כושי is used regularly to refer to any black person regardless of what country he was from. Outside of population and geography, we find numerous examples in the gemoro where the Hebrew term כושי is also used for things which are unusual or distinctive: יין כושי or 'yoyin kushi' (
black wine) – אתרוג כושי or 'esrog kushi' (
black esrog).
We know ancient Africa from the Sahara and onwards was called Ethiopia (Cush). This is different from the modern day country Ethiopia. And yes, to ancient Greeks East India was known as Hindu Kush. I don't know if the ancient Hebrews knew anything about that part of the world. But to claim that East India was referred to the Cush as is in the Torah, that's irrational, since India linguistically and culturally doesn't form a pattern with the Afroasiatic phylum. Simply put. They do not have this history. Africa has proto-Afroasiatic languages and cultures, the most Afroasiatic and Semitic languages, whereas East India has not at all. It would make sense unless Nubia is in East India, since Nubia is Cush. If East India is Cush, how does it explain Mizraim, the Nile etc.?
That ancient Hodu and Kush were adjoined is a machlokes amoroim between Rav (Abba Aricha) and Shmuel (of Nehardea) regarding the opening verse of Esther 1:1 which says that Achashveirosh reigned "מהדו ועד כוש" (from Hodu to Kush). One states that Hodu and Kush are two countries situated on either end of the world; the other states that Hodu and Kush are situated adjacent, one next to the other, therefore the verse teaches the following: Just as Achashveirosh ruled over the adjacent countries of הודו (Hodu) and כוש (Kush) with ease, so, he ruled with ease from one end of the world to the other. Nevertheless, the Hebrew term 'Hodu' (and its Aramaic equivalent - 'Hindevo') was often associated with Kush. Whether the two were adjoined was more of a parenthetical assertion than anything.
Unless Mizraim is not the place being claimed now.
From Biblical Hebrew to Mishnaic Hebrew to Modern Hebrew, Egypt has always been known as "מצרים". The Biblical Hebrew מצרים or 'Mitsroyim' is the actual Hebrew term for Egypt. מצרים is plural and has the meaning "straits", a reference to the two sea "straits" (Tiran and Jubal) which border the Sinai Peninsula. The plurality of מצרים also denotes the dual nature of Egypt's geography, the Predynastic separation between 'Upper Egypt' and 'Lower Egypt'. In Arabic and Egyptian Arabic, Egypt is known as مِصْر/مِصْرُ and مَصْر ('Miṣr/Miṣru' and 'Maṣr'), also of Semitic origin and direct cognates with other Semitic words for Egypt such as that of the Biblical Hebrew מצרים. Even prior to Masan Torah, Avrohom Ovinu and Sorah Imeinu identified Egypt as מצרים when forced to sojourn there due to the famine in Eretz Yisroel. Similarly, in Aramaic, Egypt is known as מצרין (cf. מצרים in Hebrew). In the Amarna tablets which were written in Akkadian cuneiform ca. 14th century
BCE, Egypt is known as 'Miṣri'; this is equivalent to how we refer to an Egyptian in Hebrew, מצרי or 'Mitsri'.
Let me put it this way. What was the language before Hebrew that gave rise to the interpretation of Hebrew.
The interpretation of Biblical Hebrew relies on the oral tradition: in particular, what a certain biblical term may be referring to (ערלה means 'covering', but how do we know this is the male membrum?), or how it ought to be pronounced (חלב can mean 'milk' (cholov) or 'fat' (chelev); יראה can mean 'fear/awe' (yirah) or 'see' (yireh) or 'appear' (yera'eh); חלק can mean 'part' (cheilek) or 'smooth' (chalak).) Many such examples in the Torah have halochic implications, meaning mitzvos we must observe. And in Biblical Hebrew the differentiation between heteronyms is a matter of vowelization which, until the medieval period, was kept entirely oral. The Saifer Torah (Handwritten Hebrew Torah Scroll) was committed to writing without nikkud (vowels), or any marks to show the ends of sentences. Thus in order to know when to stop, and how each word was pronounced, you had to know the oral tradition. In fact, to this day it is forbidden for ANY such markings to be added to a Saifer Torah. It would be rendered פסול or 'posul' (unfit) and discarded (entombed). Only the Chumesh (the printed book of Torah with written markings) and the Tenach contain nikkud. So in order to read from the scroll, you must know which vowel points belong where, and where the full stops materialize. Without the instruction of our oral tradition we are completely lost.
What do you mean by "the end of the biblical period"? Why did they stop speaking (classical) Hebrew, and what are the "somewhat" differences?
The vocabulary of Mishnaic Hebrew is largely derived from its biblical predecessor, material that underwent changes in its syntactic structure, as well as loanwords from numerous other languages, especially Aramaic. Mishnaic Hebrew is very Aramaic
-y as Aramaic had become the lingua franca of the Jews during golus Bavli. לשון חכמים or 'loshon chochumim' consists of two strata: the older linguistic stratum, the spoken language of the Tannoim, is found in the Mishnah, Toisefta, and the Braisos in both Bavli and Yerushalmi, as well as the Halochic Medrishim; its successor, the language of the Amoroim, was the language of literary and religious discourse, and characterizes the Haggodic Medrishim and the gemoros in both Talmudim. (When mishnayos and braisos are being quoted the Hebrew in the gemoros is Amoroic.) The difference between the earlier (Tannoitic) and later (Amoroitic) Mishnaic Hebrew is dialectic—akin to the difference between the dialectic roots of the Aramaic found in Talmud Yerushalmi (Western Aramaic) and Talmud Bavli (Eastern Aramaic).
Biblical Hebrew is far more compact, concise and poetic than Mishnaic Hebrew, the latter of which is quite colloquial in exchange and discussion in order to rote memorization. Biblical Hebrew predominately uses a verb-subject-object word order, while Mishnaic Hebrew is generally subject-verb-object. As an illustration, the common expression "וידבר י-ה-ו-ה אל משה" that is found throughout Torah would translate literally as "and He spoke (V), Hashem (S), to Moshe (O)"; but in Mishnaic Hebrew one would generally say something like "י- ה-ו-ה ידבר אל משה" ("Hashem (S) will speak (V) to Moshe (O)"). This brings us to the 'perfect' (past) and 'imperfect' (future) tense-aspect. Notably, a 'perfect' tense command with the letter
vov in front of it (a vov-consecutive) becomes an 'imperfect' tense, and vice versa. Therefore, the Hebrew word ידבר or 'yidaber' means "he will speak" (imperfect), but וידבר or 'va'yidaber' in Biblical Hebrew means "and he spoke" (perfect). (It should be noted that this is only if the
vov is punctuated in a certain way, namely that a patach is underneath).)
It's indeed interesting that both language were used as a Lingua Franca. Something extraordinary must have happened during that time.
From a logical standpoint, the Mishnah, Toisefta, Braisos and Halochic Medrishim were written in Eretz Yisroel at a time when Mishnaic Hebrew was still a spoken, not yet moribund language. So it makes sense for these writings to have been scribed in Hebrew. Despite Aramaic having been the lingua franca in the Jewish world (perhaps even more so than Hebrew), a process of gradual influence by reason of golus Bavli (hence the reason for Teimanim's unique minhag of counting the days of Sefiras HaOmer in Aramaic as opposed to Hebrew since they preserved the ancient Babylonian minhag where the lingua franca of most people was Aramaic), it was considered to be the language of the common people. Jews used Aramaic in their daily speech and did so in the major Jewish population centers. Recall that there were meturgamen in the shuls for Torah layning (learning from the Saifer Torah - handwritten Hebrew Torah Scrolls) for the common folk (those who we might today call the "chilonim"), because many of them did not know Hebrew but did know Aramaic.
During the time the oral Mishnah was being committed to writing, Jewish sovereignty in Eretz Yisroel was at a low, and Judaism itself was threatened, but there was still hope that the Jewish community could once again flourish; however, by the time the Yerushalmi was interrupted, and the Jewish presence in Eretz Yisroel dwindled, taking with it the Torah academies and yeshivos, it was clear to the Jewish world that they had lost all sovereignty in Eretz Hakodesh and the golus was going to be an especially lengthy and cruel one. The Talmudim were therefore going to be used by the Jewish People in many foreign lands. It is brought down in Bavli (from one of the Amoroim of Eretz Yisroel, interestingly enough) by Yochonon bar Napocha that the malachim don't understand Aramaic. And we have an ancient tradition that each land has its own administering malach, and that these malachim are strengthened by the tefilos of the Jews in Hebrew; they are able to bring the tefilos before Hashem and claim credit for the merits of the Jewish People in these foreign lands.
The Talmudim were therefore written in Aramaic so that the malachim of golus would not be able to intercept the gemoro learning of the Jewish People. This is also why the language of the Jews in chuts lo'orets ("the land outside of Israel") has always been a language other than Hebrew, and why the gemoro is the most important part of Talmud. Since the malachim understand Hebrew but not Aramaic, certain tefilos (prayers) are only recited with a minyon (a group of ten Jews of bar mitzva age) when the Sch'china is present, that is, at shul, for instance. That is why the kaddish and many other Jewish tefilos are composed and recited in Aramaic, for Aramaic is a direct line to Hashem without intervention of malachim. Many Jewish texts which comprise Toras Ha'Sod, the mystical or esoteric parts of Torah, are written in Aramaic for this reason. Aramaic is not Hebrew, but it was holy enough that Hashem saw its inclusion in Tenach; and not only Nach, but Torah itself. We learn from Talmud Yerushalmi that Aramaic exists in all three sections: Torah, Neviyim, Ksuvim.
I am confused here. Are you saying that taken into bondage is synonyms with the C'na'an?
Not necessarily. In medieval Bohemia and Moravia, though, the widespread bondage of Slavs certainly evoked the C'na'an of Torah.
What do you mean by the "lands–Xian"?
You asked how medieval Bohemia and Moravia came to be known as 'C'na'an' by the Jews—on account of the Slavic trade—when in fact millions of Africans were enslaved by Arabs for well over a thousand years. However, this assumes that the Jews who relocated to the Bohemian lands witnessed both, and decided—irrationally—that Bohemia was more fit. When in reality, the Jews who designated the Bohemian lands as 'C'na'an' were not living in Arab lands (or at least not in lands where Africans were being traded by the Arabs to the extent to which they witnessed in Bohemia). On the contrary; these Jews sojourned in Xian Europe, in Bohemia and Moravia which lie east of the Elbe River where they witnessed firsthand the Slavs being traded en masse, after migrating from other parts of Europe.
Lastly, how far did the Hebrew topology reach and what lands did the ancient Hebrews know? How far did this topological knowledge stretch globally?
It depends on the historical period.
