[b-hebrew] fred on "beer"
tensorpath at gmail.com
Sat Jan 1 23:52:54 EST 2011
1. פרש or strong's numbers 6567, 6569, and 6571 could find commonality in
the root meaning "to spread out" (c.f., פשה , strong's 6581; and פוש
a. words spread out to make plain or distinct;
b. fecal matter spreads out by cattle excreted;
c. riders of horses spread their legs.
2. I am not trying to put three meanings of "explain" in one bag. Rather, i
am suggesting, that deuteronomy 1:5; 4:1-2; 12:32; 17:8-11; 31:24-26 ....;
read together, yield the following conclusions reasonable:
a. the entire scroll of deuteronomy represents a complete and
finished statutory code;
b. the government judges were expected to apply only this legal code to
future & specific factual disputes, and issue rulings;
c. the "b" rulings would never be reduced to writing, in contradistinction
to "a," ... and so as to avoid competition with "a;"
d. whether "a" also includes "repetition," "interpretation,"
"justification," "background," "meaning," "new rules," etc., becomes quite
irrelevant to the judges. Why? Because "a," represents the sole, exclusive
and only source of the law for the judges to apply in deciding all future
p.s. ... i would comment on the title of this thread; but i don't think
humor allowed here ...
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. <nir at ccet.ufrn.br>wrote:
> > in בראשית כא לא , the term means "well."
> > in דברים א ה , the same three ordered letters, vocalized in essentially
> same manner, now means "explain."
> > a. what is the tie that binds the two different meanings? "dig deep?" ...
> there a tie that binds?
> probably none. instead of "beer" let us take "pere$". PR$ would give
> "explain"="excrement"="knight". the last two words have some connection,
> we city people are hardly aware of; but the first?
> > b. and does "explain" imply a separate unadorned list of התורה elsewhere,
> without commentary?
> 1) you are putting in one bag three meanings of "explain":
> "explain-A=give the moral justification and historical background for",
> "explain-B=interpret=find the exact meaning of a law",
> "explain-C=add new rules or subrules".
> moses did A, the talmud did B+C.
> 2) in addition, you are confusing LAW and RULING. what the judge in
> france or england (king solomon is no exception) explains or not,
> is the ruling; whereas what moses is said to "explain" is
> the law.
> now, there is no problem adding an explan-A-ation to a codex of law,
> making it more understood. especially if this is done by the original
> legislator. even in france, i assume, the law is explained out in the
> constitution (ironically, in israel .... not) and in numerous volumes of
> text books.
> 3) reading the torah, it makes sense to assume that moses found himself
> to repeat the same rules to his not too obedient people. maybe he decided
> one point to include an "explan-A-ation", appealing to reason.
> if so, the torah includes both rule and explanation, and clearly, only
> once. i
> dont see the necessity of conjecturing a second set of laws.
> 4) i suspect that a claim that the torah must be making a specific
> on a future-time codex (if this is indeed your motivation) might be
> our limits.
> nir cohen
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
More information about the b-hebrew