Biblical Hebrew Forum

["B. M. Rocine" <brocine AT twcny.rr.com>]

Hi Yigal, you wrote:

> Hi Bryan,
>
> Your right that it's not simple - if it was we'd have nothing to discuss.

It is indeed a nice discussion!

> Assuming that we don't know what "sephoth" means,

why would we assume that?

>what we have is that this
> unruly person thinks he can get away with whatever he's doing, "lema'an -
> in order to - (somthing) the saturation, the thirsty".

lema`an + infinitive is often used to predict resulting consequence
including resulting judgement.  See Deu 2:30, Josh 11:20, 2Ki 10:19.

You are right that
> "the thirsty" is the object. "harawah" would then be the subject, and
> "sephoth" the verb.
> What about reading "hassim'ah", "the thirst", instead of "hasseme'ah",
"the
> thirsty". Then the saturation would be quenching the thirst (what else
> could it do).

One thing that folks seem to be agreed upon is that 'et is of the
preposition variety rather than the marker of the direct object.

>
> Yigal
>

Might you criticize tha possibilites proposed in my first post on this
verse?  The tranlsation was something llike this:  "...resulting in the
wipe-out of the saturated with the thirsty."  To put it another way:  you
mentioned that you don't like the JPS--"...to the utter ruin of moist and
dry alike"--why not?  I wonder why.

Shalom,
Bryan