[b-hebrew] Re:plurality & divinity

John Gray jgray at lfmp.com.au
Tue Jun 21 01:22:32 EDT 2005


Dear b-hebrew members - I wonder if any of you would be kind enough to 
comment on, or direct me to an information source on the question of 
plurality in relation to the divinity? e.g. the word elohim, G-d speaking as 
"we", and the manifestations of G-d as, for example, three men in at least 
one Genesis story, also the mention of G-d in Psalms as the greatest, or 
foremost,  among the Gods. Is this something which stikes others, as well as 
myself, a very novice scholar? John Gray
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <b-hebrew-request at lists.ibiblio.org>
To: <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 2:00 AM
Subject: b-hebrew Digest, Vol 30, Issue 12


> Send b-hebrew mailing list submissions to
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> b-hebrew-request at lists.ibiblio.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> b-hebrew-owner at lists.ibiblio.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of b-hebrew digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: Gen 25:29 - 30 - Adom & Edom (Karl Randolph)
>   2. stew of Edom (Yigal Levin)
>   3. Leviticus 11:33 (Lisbeth S. Fried)
>   4. Re: Re: Zechariah 12:1-2 (Steve Miller)
>   5. Re: Zechariah 12:1-2 (Steve Miller)
>   6. Re: Leviticus 11:33 (George F Somsel)
>   7. Re: Zechariah 12:1-2 (Peter Kirk)
>   8. impure food (Lisbeth S. Fried)
>   9. Re: impure food (George F Somsel)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 14:53:03 -0500
> From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph at email.com>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Gen 25:29 - 30 - Adom & Edom
> To: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <20050614195303.0B4916EEF6 at ws1-5.us4.outblaze.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Jack:
>
> Look at the context. Esau is coming from the hunt and is very tired. He 
> sees his brother stirring a stew with red beans. He then demands to be fed 
> (a happax verb, we guess at its meaning) from the stew *comma* this 
> stew... (the *comma* not in Hebrew, but understood and added for English 
> use). The emphasis is not grammatical, but contextual. He wants to eat, 
> now, from the stew that is already prepared, he does not want to wait for 
> the next serving to be made.
>
> While we are on this verse 30, is there any clue from cognate languages 
> that can clarify the meaning of &#1500;&#1506;&#1496; l(+ ? Could it 
> actually have a meaning such as to put in a bowl, portion out, or 
> something similar?
>
> Karl W. Randolph.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: tladatsi at charter.net
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> In Gen 25:29 Jacob is cooking *naziyd* (boiled food) and
>> Esau comes in asks to eat *ha-adom ha-adom* ...
>>
>> I have a few questions.
>>
>>...
>>
>> 2) Is *ha-adom* repeated simply for dramatic effect, to
>> show Esau's desperation or is there some gramatical or
>> semantic point being made.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Jack Tladatsi
>
> -- 
> ___________________________________________________________
> Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
> http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 23:13:44 +0200
> From: "Yigal Levin" <leviny1 at mail.biu.ac.il>
> Subject: [b-hebrew] stew of Edom
> To: "b-hebrew" <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <002501c57125$f43a7e90$09664684 at xp>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-8-i"
>
> Hi Jack,
>
> The color Adom (red) is always spelled with the defective holem, except in
> Cant. 5:10, where it means something like "ruddy".
> The eponym/land of Edom is almost spelled with a full holem (that
> s,   )DWM  ), except in Ez. 25:24, where the word "be'edom" ("in Edom")
> appears twice, the first of which is defective. On the other hand, "Adomi"
> (Edomite) is always defective, although the plural Adomim can go either 
> way.
>
> The word Edom appears in a couple of the Arad ostraca, dated to the early
> sixth century. There, it's spelled defectively.
>
>
> And yes, I think that "that red, red, soup", is meant for effect.
>
> Yigal
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <tladatsi at charter.net>
> To: <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 6:31 AM
> Subject: [b-hebrew] Gen 25:29 - 30 - Adom & Edom
>
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> In Gen 25:29 Jacob is cooking *naziyd* (boiled food) and
>> Esau comes in asks to eat *ha-adom ha-adom* with a qamets
>> under th aleph and what I take to be a defective holem over
>> the dalet.  He is thus called Edom with a hateph segol
>> under the aleph and a holem vav after the dalet.
>>
>> I have a few questions.
>>
>> 1) Is there any information on when a defective holem is
>> used?  Are there any thoughts on why the defective holem
>> was used for Esau's cry for the red lentil soup but not for
>> his new nickname Edom?  Since one of the points of these
>> verses is to explain how Esau came to be called Edom, it
>> would seem that using a holem vav in adom would, at least
>> visually, strengthen that link.
>>
>> 2) Is *ha-adom* repeated simply for dramatic effect, to
>> show Esau's desperation or is there some gramatical or
>> semantic point being made.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Jack Tladatsi
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 18:24:57 -0400
> From: "Lisbeth S. Fried" <lizfried at umich.edu>
> Subject: [b-hebrew] Leviticus 11:33
> To: <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <200506142225.j5EMP253021504 at reformers.mr.itd.umich.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> Dear All,
> This probably is not strictly a question of the
> Hebrew, but what type of earthenware vessel is
> implied here (Lev. 11:33)?
> Milgrom (1991:675) says that the prohibition would
> not apply to glazed clay which does not absorb
> impurities or to unfired clay which would maintain
> its status as soil, and so cannot be contaminated.
> I don't understand what type of vessel is left
> then which must be broken.
> Thanks.
>
> Liz Fried
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 23:45:11 -0400
> From: "Steve Miller" <smille10 at sbcglobal.net>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Re: Zechariah 12:1-2
> To: "B-Hebrew" <b-hebrew at lists.Ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <000701c5715c$a2930080$6900a8c0 at Dad>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15"
>
>
> Thanks Baruj. I just ordered _The Stone Edition Tanach_.
>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Baruj Diez" <barujdiez at yahoo.es>
>> To: <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
>> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 6:16 PM
>> Subject: [b-hebrew] Re: Zechariah 12:1-2
>>
>>
>> Dear B-Hebrew citizens,
>>
>> >> Zechariah  [...]  Putting  12:1-2  together could it
>> >> also  be rendered "the burden of the word of Jehovah
>> >> concerning Israel ... and also concerning Judah"?
>>
>> > I  think  this  must be interpreted in the sense that
>> > whatever  is against Jerusalem is also against Judah,
>> > so  meaning  something  like  "this  cup will also be
>> > against Judah, a siege against Jerusalem".
>>
>>    This  is  how  _The Stone Edition Tanach_ translates
>> it:
>>
>>          Behold,  I am making Jerusalem a cup of poison
>>          for  all  the  peoples all around;* also Judah
>>          will take part in the siege of Jerusalem.
>>
>>          *  Before  the  End  of Days, the nations will
>>          besiede Jerusalem, and even force Jews to join
>>          them,   but  the  enemies  will  be  destroyed
>>          instead (_Targum_).
>>
>>    Best wishes,
>>
>> --
>>    Baruj Diez
>>      Asturias, España
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> Renovamos el Correo Yahoo!
>> Nuevos servicios, más seguridad
>> http://correo.yahoo.es
>> _______________________________________________
>> b-hebrew mailing list
>> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 23:50:34 -0400
> From: "Steve Miller" <smille10 at sbcglobal.net>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Zechariah 12:1-2
> To: "B-Hebrew" <b-hebrew at lists.Ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <000e01c5715d$62a4ec80$6900a8c0 at Dad>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> >> >>On 13/06/2005 22:06, Steve Miller wrote:
> > >>>Zechariah chapters 12-14 are "the burden of the word of Jehovah
> concerning
> > >>>Israel" (12:1).   Putting 12:1-2 together could it also be rendered
> "the
>> >>>burden of the word of Jehovah concerning Israel ... and also 
>> >>>concerning
>> > >>Judah"?
>> > >>...
>> > >>If  the 2nd ×¢Ö·×oÖ¾ is translated "concerning" like the 1st, then it 
>> > >>is
>>>>> the
>> > >>burden of the word of Jehovah which is on Judah, rather than the
> siege.
>
>> > >From: "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk at qaya.org>
> > >>The subject of the second part of verse 2 is an interesting question.
> It
> > >>is not "they" as KJV, for it is singular. It is not YHWH for he is in
> > >>the first person. I think it must be the "cup of bewilderment". But it
> > >>cannot possibly be the burden, as this is far too remote. I think this
> > >>must be interpreted in the sense that whatever is against Jerusalem is
> > >>also against Judah, so meaning something like "this cup will also be
> > >>against Judah, a siege against Jerusalem".
>
> > >From: Steve Miller
> > >Thanks Peter. But, the cup of bewilderment is what Jehovah will put on
>>> all
> > >the nations that come against Jerusalem. It is not the portion of
>>> Jerusalem
> > >or of Judah.
>
> >From: Peter Kirk
>> Indeed, my mistake as I was rushing this. I think in fact the subject of
>> the clause must be impersonal, so meaning more like "Also against Judah
>> will be the state of siege against Jerusalem", in other words not only
>> Jerusalem but also Judah will suffer. NIV has "Judah will be besieged as
>> well as Jerusalem", which gets my point.
>
> Thanks again Peter. I have to agree with your argument, at least for now,
> that "the burden" could not be the subject of  Zech 12:2b, because it is 
> too
> remote. If I had another passage where the antecedent is that far from the
> verb, then I would have a case for "burden", but I don't.
>
> If the meaning were "Judah will also suffer in the siege against 
> Jerusalem":
> 1) Why should the Bible, which doesn't waste a word, bother to say it at
> all? Isn't it obvious that if Jerusalem is besieged, the surrounding area
> will also suffer?
> 2) Why should Zechariah say something so simple in such a
> difficult-to-understand way?
>
> The Stone Tanach translation gives the most straight-forward 
> understanding,
> if you just read Zech 12:2 by itself. That impresses me, although I don't
> think that is the right understanding because I don't see it supported in
> the rest of the passage nor anywhere else in the Bible.
>
> The KJV translation may be correct "when they [the peoples] shall be in 
> the
> siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem." You objected to "they" as
> the subject for ×TÖ´Ö½×"Ö°×TÖ¶×" (shall be) because ×TÖ´Ö½×"Ö°×TÖ¶×" is 
> singular. But the
> 3rd masculine singular is used in Hebrew as the indefinite pronoun, which
> is
> best translated in English as "they". Examples are:
> Zech 13:9 :
> ×.Ö°×"Öµ×'ֵאתִ×T אֶת־×"ַשְּׁ×oִשִׁ×Tת ×'ָּאֵשׁ 
> ×.ּצְרַפְתִּ×Tם ×>ִּצְרֹף אֶת־×"Ö·×>ֶּסֶף
> ×.Ö¼×'Ö°×-Ö·× Ö°×ªÖ¼Ö´×Tם ×>Ö¼Ö´×'Ö°×-Ö¹×Y אֶת־×"Ö·×-Ö¼Ö¸×"Ö¸×' 
> ×"×.ּא ×? ×Tִקְרָא ×'ִשְׁ×zÖ´×T ×.Ö·Ö½×Ö²× Ö´×T
> ×Ö¶×¢Ö±× Ö¶×"
> אֹתֹ×. אָ×zַרְתִּ×T ×¢Ö·×zÖ¼Ö´×T ×"×.ּא ×.Ö°×"×.ּא 
> ×Tֹא×zַר ×TÖ°×"×.Ö¸×" אֱ×oÖ¹×"Ö¸Ö½×T×f ס
> â?oAnd I will bring the third part through the fire,
> Refine them as silver is refined,
> And test them as gold is tested.
> They will call on My name,
> And I will answer them;
> I will say, â?~They are My people,â?T
> And they will say, â?~The Lord is my God.â?Tâ? (NASB)
>
> and Isa 7:14 DSS where Matthew translated ×.ְקָרָא שְׁ×zÖ¹×. 
> ×¢Ö´×zÖ¼Ö¸× ×.Ö¼ אֵֽ×o×f as
> "and they shall call His name Immanuel."
> -Steve Miller
> Detroit
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 03:24:00 -0400
> From: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at juno.com>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Leviticus 11:33
> To: lizfried at umich.edu
> Cc: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <20050615.032400.-1032373.3.gfsomsel at juno.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 18:24:57 -0400 "Lisbeth S. Fried"
> <lizfried at umich.edu> writes:
>> Dear All,
>> This probably is not strictly a question of the
>> Hebrew, but what type of earthenware vessel is
>> implied here (Lev. 11:33)?
>> Milgrom (1991:675) says that the prohibition would
>> not apply to glazed clay which does not absorb
>> impurities or to unfired clay which would maintain
>> its status as soil, and so cannot be contaminated.
>> I don't understand what type of vessel is left
>> then which must be broken.
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Liz Fried
> _______________________________________________
>
> The _Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament_, ed. Harris, Archer &
> Waltke states s.v.
> __________________________________________________
> 759     XR% (?rs). Assumed root of the following.
> 759a     XeRe% (?eres) earthenware.
> 759b    XeReS (?eres) an eruptive disease (Deut 28:27).
> 759c     XRSWT (?rswt) (Kethib), XaR:SiYT (?arsi^t) (Qere) potsherds (Jer
> 19:2).
> This word, which occurs seventeen times, represents the potter's product
> (Isa 45:9) which is dried and fired (Ps 22:15 [H 16]), or even glazed
> (Prov 26:23). Bottles (baqbuq), bowls (keli^), and pots/pitchers (nebel)
> are made of it. It is in vessels made of ?eres that documents were stored
> (Jer 32:14). ?eres can apply generally to a vessel (Prov 26:23), or it
> can mean pieces of potsherd at least large enough to use to carry a coal
> from a hearth or dip water for a drink (Isa 30:14). Hence, ?eres is the
> baked clay so commonly unearthed by archaeologists.
> Being porous, it absorbed the fat of holy things and the uncleanness of
> unclean things. Thus it was to be broken when contacted by either
> holiness or uncleanness (Lev 6:28 [H 21]; Num 15:12). A clay vessel was
> to be used in the trial of jealousy (Num 5:17) and in leprosy
> purification rites, symbolizing man's commonness before God. The Psalmist
> prophetically compares the Messiah's strength to a dried up and baked
> piece of clay (potsherd, Ps 22:15 [H 16]). During the exile the "most
> precious" royalty of Israel became as valueless and common as clay pots
> (Lam 4:2). God reminds the people of their relative worthlessness and
> vulnerability by comparing them to clay vessels (Isa 45:9). Jeremiah
> (19:1) bought (and subsequently broke) an earthenware pot to symbolize
> how Israel had so absorbed sin that they had to be destroyed according to
> God's law regarding polluted pottery (Lev 11:33).
> ____________________________________________
>
> It would appear that it does refer only to fired clay, but other than
> that, it doesn't seem to specify whether it is glazed or not.
>
> george
> gfsomsel
> ___________
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:43:49 +0100
> From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk at qaya.org>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Zechariah 12:1-2
> To: Steve Miller <smille10 at sbcglobal.net>
> Cc: b-hebrew at lists.Ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <42AFF855.3030409 at qaya.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> On 15/06/2005 04:28, Steve Miller wrote:
>
>> ...
>>
>>If the meaning were "Judah will also suffer in the siege against 
>>Jerusalem":
>>1) Why should the Bible, which doesn't waste a word, bother to say it at
>>all? Isn't it obvious that if Jerusalem is besieged, the surrounding area
>>will also suffer?
>>
>>
>
> I'm not sure that I accept the premise. Well, I can accept that in God's
> sovereignty every word in the Bible has a purpose, if that is what you
> mean. But it is simply not true that the Bible always says what it says
> in the most compact way, without any apparent redundancy. There is a lot
> of repetition in the Bible. The poetic books are full of poetic
> parallelism which is essentially repetitious. Chronicles largely repeats
> Samuel and Kings, and there are other examples of repetition. This
> repetition has its reasons, of course, but they cannot easily be
> understood in terms of there being no redundancy as judged by our own
> standards.
>
> Maybe it is obvious that Judah will suffer if Jerusalem is besieged,
> maybe not. But many obvious things are stated in the Bible. Why not this
> one?
>
>>2) Why should Zechariah say something so simple in such a
>>difficult-to-understand way?
>>
>>
>
> I don't think it was difficult to understand for mother tongue Hebrew
> speakers. It is perhaps a rather compressed way of writing, whose
> meaning is not as clear to us now as it was to the prophet and his
> original audience.
>
>>The Stone Tanach translation gives the most straight-forward 
>>understanding,
>>if you just read Zech 12:2 by itself. That impresses me, although I don't
>>think that is the right understanding because I don't see it supported in
>>the rest of the passage nor anywhere else in the Bible.
>>
>>
>
> The Stone Tanach is easy to understand, but it is wrong. "also Judah
> will take part in the siege of Jerusalem" implies that Judah will be
> among those attacking Jerusalem. Well, the possibility of such treachery
> gives the answer "No" to your question "Isn't it obvious that if
> Jerusalem is besieged, the surrounding area will also suffer?" But this
> is certainly not what the author had in mind, for the same preposition
> `AL is used for both Judah and Jerusalem, surely implying that they both
> play the same role as those besieged.
>
>>The KJV translation may be correct "when they [the peoples] shall be in 
>>the
>>siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem." You objected to "they" as
>>the subject for ×TÖ´Ö½×"Ö°×TÖ¶×" (shall be) because ×TÖ´Ö½×"Ö°×TÖ¶×" is 
>>singular. But the
>>3rd masculine singular is used in Hebrew as the indefinite pronoun, which 
>>is
>>best translated in English as "they". ...
>>
>
> Well, I accept that the subject of YIHYEH may be indefinite in this
> sense, and in principle may be translated into English by "they". But
> this cannot be done immediately following another plural noun which can
> fit the context. The KJV rendering "...unto all the people round about,
> when they shall be in the siege..." implies that "they" refers to "the
> people" - and this would be even clearer if instead of "the people" the
> translation was the more accurate (at least in modern English) "the
> peoples". But in Hebrew the subject of YIHYEH cannot be the peoples,
> even though this seem to make sense.
>
> -- 
> Peter Kirk
> peter at qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk at qaya.org (work)
> http://www.qaya.org/
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.7.3/15 - Release Date: 14/06/2005
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 08:46:07 -0400
> From: "Lisbeth S. Fried" <lizfried at umich.edu>
> Subject: [b-hebrew] impure food
> To: "'George F Somsel'" <gfsomsel at juno.com>
> Cc: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <200506151246.j5FCkC59023852 at reformers.mr.itd.umich.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Thanks George,
>
> I guess earthenware can be fired but unglazed, and that according to 
> Milgrom
>
> this is the only type  that need be broken. That must be rabbinic, itâ?Ts 
> not in the text.
>
> Also, I donâ?Tt understand why food that is wet becomes impure. What about 
> soup?
>
> They boiled the meat before the ark at Shiloh.
>
> Lisbeth S. Fried, Ph.D.
> Visiting Scholar
> The Frankel Center for Judaic Studies
> and the Department of Near Eastern Studies
> University of Michigan
> 2068 Frieze Bldg
> 105 S. State St.
> Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1285
>
>  _____
>
> From: George F Somsel [mailto:gfsomsel at juno.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 3:24 AM
> To: lizfried at umich.edu
> Cc: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Leviticus 11:33
>
>
>
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 18:24:57 -0400 "Lisbeth S. Fried" <lizfried at umich.edu> 
> writes:
>> Dear All,
>> This probably is not strictly a question of the
>> Hebrew, but what type of earthenware vessel is
>> implied here (Lev. 11:33)?
>> Milgrom (1991:675) says that the prohibition would
>> not apply to glazed clay which does not absorb
>> impurities or to unfired clay which would maintain
>> its status as soil, and so cannot be contaminated.
>> I don't understand what type of vessel is left
>> then which must be broken.
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Liz Fried
> _______________________________________________
>
> The _Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament_, ed. Harris, Archer & 
> Waltke states s.v.
>
> __________________________________________________
>
> 759     XR% (ḥrÅ>). Assumed root of the following.
>
> 759a     XeRe% (ḥereÅ>) earthenware.
>
> 759b    XeReS (ḥeres) an eruptive disease (Deut 28:27).
>
> 759c     XRSWT (ḥrswt) (Kethib), XaR:SiYT (ḥarsıÌ,t) (Qere) potsherds 
> (Jer 19:2).
>
> This word, which occurs seventeen times, represents the potterâ?Ts product 
> (Isa 45:9) which is dried and fired (Ps 22:15 [H 16]), or even glazed 
> (Prov 26:23). Bottles (baqbÅ«q), bowls (kÄ.lıÌ,), and pots/pitchers 
> (nÄ"bel) are made of it. It is in vessels made of ḥereÅ> that documents 
> were stored (Jer 32:14). ḥereÅ> can apply generally to a vessel (Prov 
> 26:23), or it can mean pieces of potsherd at least large enough to use to 
> carry a coal from a hearth or dip water for a drink (Isa 30:14). Hence, 
> ḥereÅ> is the baked clay so commonly unearthed by archaeologists.
>
> Being porous, it absorbed the fat of holy things and the uncleanness of 
> unclean things. Thus it was to be broken when contacted by either holiness 
> or uncleanness (Lev 6:28 [H 21]; Num 15:12). A clay vessel was to be used 
> in the trial of jealousy (Num 5:17) and in leprosy purification rites, 
> symbolizing manâ?Ts commonness before God. The Psalmist prophetically 
> compares the Messiahâ?Ts strength to a dried up and baked piece of clay 
> (potsherd, Ps 22:15 [H 16]). During the exile the â?omost preciousâ? 
> royalty of Israel became as valueless and common as clay pots (Lam 4:2). 
> God reminds the people of their relative worthlessness and vulnerability 
> by comparing them to clay vessels (Isa 45:9). Jeremiah (19:1) bought (and 
> subsequently broke) an earthenware pot to symbolize how Israel had so 
> absorbed sin that they had to be destroyed according to Godâ?Ts law 
> regarding polluted pottery (Lev 11:33).
>
> ____________________________________________
>
>
>
> It would appear that it does refer only to fired clay, but other than 
> that, it doesn't seem to specify whether it is glazed or not.
>
>
>
> george
> gfsomsel
> ___________
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 09:22:56 -0400
> From: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at juno.com>
> Subject: [b-hebrew] Re: impure food
> To: lizfried at umich.edu
> Cc: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <20050615.092256.-66119045.1.gfsomsel at juno.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 08:46:07 -0400 "Lisbeth S. Fried"
> <lizfried at umich.edu> writes:
> Thanks George,
> I guess earthenware can be fired but unglazed, and that according to
> Milgrom
> this is the only type  that need be broken. That must be rabbinic, it's
> not in the text.
> Also, I don't understand why food that is wet becomes impure. What about
> soup?
> They boiled the meat before the ark at Shiloh.
> Lisbeth S. Fried, Ph.D.
> Visiting Scholar
> The Frankel Center for Judaic Studies
> and the Department of Near Eastern Studies
> University of Michigan
> 2068 Frieze Bldg
> 105 S. State St.
> Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1285
> _____________
>
> It would seem that anything which comes in contact with such unclean
> animals partakes of the uncleanness.  This would include water which
> would then communicate the uncleanness second-hand.
>
> george
> gfsomsel
> ___________
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
> End of b-hebrew Digest, Vol 30, Issue 12
> **************************************** 




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list