[b-hebrew] Exodus 12:11 - 12

Karl Randolph kwrandolph at email.com
Tue Jan 31 11:37:36 EST 2006


This is not an unusual sentence structure in Hebrew, 
where the reason for the action is not structurally set apart 
in the text. It is as if there were a comma placed before the 
three last words.

PSX means to hop over, such as on one foot, an example 
being a cripple hopping on one leg. It is also used of a 
healthy person quickly hopping over a small obstruction, 
such as a step leading into a house or temple.

Karl W. Randolph.

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: tladatsi at charter.net
> To: "B-Hebrew" <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Subject: [b-hebrew] Exodus 12:11 - 12
> Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 21:55:58 -0800
> Hello,
> I am reading Exodus 12:11 and I am confused by the last three 
> words.  The rest of the passage is clear enough - this is how you 
> eat the meal, with your loins girded up, scandals on you feet, and 
> your staff in your hand, and you eat it in haste.  It seems like 
> you could put the sof pasuq on *behipazon* and the sentance would 
> be just fine.  The last three words seem like, if not a complete 
> non sequitur, at least disjointed.   The first part of the verse 
> indicates that those eating the *pesakh * meal should be ready to 
> move on out at a moments notice.
> Then they are advised to stay in doors the entire night because 
> Yahweh will visit the latest and worst plague unpon the animals, 
> humans, and gods of Egypt.  So there is no real reason to have the 
> staff in hand since one will be going anywhere for some time, not 
> before sunrise.
> Ending the verse telling the Isrealites to be ready to move at 
> anytime during the meal are three words -
> *pesakh khu layahweh*
> As an ending for 12:11 it does not flow.  There is no logical 
> connection between being ready to move at a moments notice and that 
> fact that the pesakh is Yahweh's.  Grammatically, there is no 
> connection either.  There is no *because* for *for*.  Even the 
> cantilation marks do not seem to fit.  If this were some sort of 
> dependent clause, shouldn't there be some sort of disjunctive mark, 
> like an atnakh or segol or something.  It does not work as a link 
> to the next verse either.
> Even the phrase itself seems odd, is the *pesakh* every anything 
> other than Yahwehs?
> BTW, What is root of *pesakh*?
> --
> Jack Tladatsi

Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list