[b-hebrew] Father in law and son in law

David Kolinsky yishalom at sbcglobal.net
Tue Jan 18 15:32:17 EST 2011


Pere,
Actually a circumcision is a contract between an Israelite and G-d.  This comes through with the Hebrew word for circumcision B'ReyTh also which literally means "a thing made clear" or more specifically "a clear understanding between two parties > a covenant, a contract."  BRH is Sabaic means = testimony, BR in Arabic means "a true and valid statement."


Regards
David Kolinsky
--- On Mon, 1/17/11, Pere Porta <pporta7 at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Pere Porta <pporta7 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Father in law and son in law
To: "David Kolinsky" <yishalom at sbcglobal.net>
Date: Monday, January 17, 2011, 10:21 PM

Maybe.
But some lexicons, DBD for an example, say that "chtn" relates to the meaning "circumcise" (nothing about a sealing of a contract). 
chtn  (ð of foll.; prob. circumcise; cf. Ar. häataana circumcise, häitaÀnun circumcision, circumcision-feast). 

Thanks!
 
Pere 
 


2011/1/17 David Kolinsky <yishalom at sbcglobal.net>






Pere, 


Of course this proposal will be rejected by most on this list, but here is what I think.  In Biblical Hebrew times, marriage was more a contract between the father of the bride and her proposed husband.  The word for sealing a contract is ChaTaM and I suggest that the word ChaTaN evolved from that.  



Regards,


David Kolinsky
Monterey, CA





Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 07:06:06 +0100
From: Pere Porta <pporta7 at gmail.com>

To: jimstinehart at aol.com

Cc: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Any reason?
Message-ID:
    <AANLkTi=r_uk1_PrLdrvmWgE6a-9tLK7vPO-M1RfXkw1G at mail.gmail.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hi, list.


We have in Ex 18:1 noun XOT"N, father-in-law.
We have in 1Sa 18:18 XFTFN, son-in-law or daughter's husband.


It seems clear that both nouns are related: their consonants are the same
and appear in the same order....


I'm wondering whether there is a good reason for this:

Pattern of XOT"N is that of Qal Participle while pattern of XFTFN is that of

many Hebrew nouns (such as DFBFR, word (Gn 18:14) or ZFKFR, male in Gn
1:27).


Would the reverse equally have been possible?

Namely, that XOT"N would mean daughter's husband and XFTFN would mean

father-in-law...

Is there any reason for things having gone the way they have gone and not

the reverse way?

Pere Porta
(Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain)




-- 
Pere Porta





More information about the b-hebrew mailing list