Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Uri Hurwitz <uhurwitz AT yahoo.com>]

One guess, would be that this is simply a scribal error   of vocalization. A 
different error is conceivable: the peculiar hataf patach here masks another  
now vanished word instead of Sadeh.
 
Uri

Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il> wrote:
In most primts that I've seen, the second letter (Sin) of the first word of 
Lev. 25:34, "usedeh" is vocalized with a Hataph-Patah; in Brauer and BHS it 
has a Shewa. Any guesses about the source of the unusual spelling?

Yigal
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
                
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price.
>From unikom AT paco.net  Sun May 16 04:28:19 2004
Return-Path: <unikom AT paco.net>
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from snark.paco.net (snark.paco.net [195.114.128.41])
        by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63E9B20174
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Sun, 16 May 2004 04:27:50 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from mail.paco.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
        by snark.paco.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id i4G8RQcd013380
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Sun, 16 May 2004 11:27:27 +0300 
(EEST)
Received: from 217.194.137.112 (proxying for 192.168.30.100)
        (SquirrelMail authenticated user unikom) by mail.paco.net with HTTP;
        Sun, 16 May 2004 11:27:27 +0300 (EEST)
Message-ID: <33496.217.194.137.112.1084696047.squirrel AT mail.paco.net>
Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 11:27:27 +0300 (EEST)
From: unikom AT paco.net
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=koi8-r
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
Subject: [b-hebrew] Isaiah 53
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4
Precedence: list
List-Id: Hebrew Bible List <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 08:28:19 -0000

Dear Yigal,

I prefer word-for-word translation, while only suggesting the
interpretation. Thus, I rendered nasa with the main meaning, "lifted" and
put a remark:
"An alternative reading is forgave [the sin], as in Gen50:17. The man
could forgive, but the author could hardly have been sympathetic.
Forgiveness is the prerogative of God, and so the reading is highly
unlikely. In Genesis, Joseph is urged to forgive his brothers the evil
they did to him specifically, not their sins in general."
"Illnesses" in this verse evidently refers to "avonot," so they are,
basically, religious sins, and isaiah could not imagine a person forgiving
them. Such concept was simply non-existent in his time.

An established meaning of avon is guiltless transgression - an honest
delusion (digression) from truth. In this sense, avon is contrasted to
pesha - a guilt sin, for which an expiatory offering is due. The
difference was very important in that time of sacrifices.

I don't see any reference to the sword in Deut21:1 and, in fact, sword was
not a common instrument of murder then. The reference is to a dead body,
"emptied" of nafsho. The matter about Ezekiel is more interesting - and I
posted a relevant rejoinder in another letter to the list, under the title
"pierced?" I would be glad to know your opinion on that.

Here's an extract from the article text on havurah:
"The common translation of haburah (bruise) in the plural is incorrect; it
is clearly singular. The author would hardly have suggested that the
entire nation was healed by one livid spot.
Haburah supposedly relates to havurah and is normally employed in
conjunction with peza (wound), distinguishing between kinds of bruises.
Peza does not appear in  Chapter 53. The vowelization of patah-hatuf under
het in Isaiah's havurah (this is why no dagesh) evidences shortening from
kamatz, which is encountered in a single noun, haver, friend - thus,
girlfriend."

Verse 6, ifgia bo, usually translated as laid on him
>Enough said about this!<
Anything convinces you?

Nigas is really not an oppression. Your example of Ex3:7: noges,
taskmaster, the one who clashes or hits. So is noges as the driver,
Job39:7. The idea is to hit, not to oppress.

waiten is "he gave." "he made" is a fringe translation, non-standard
enough so that I don't remember encountering this meaning of natan in
other places. Would you suggest any?

"his death" the only possible meaning." I demonstrate that "his altars"
fits semantically. And don't forget, it's not just "his death," but "he
gave with rich in his death." See any possible meaning here?

You're right on the double meaning of asham. Here's an excerpt from the
article:
"The guilt offering of the soul is repentance. Possibly the man was given
a chance to repent of his delusion.
Brought a guilt offering can be translated as laid away the guilt. Both
meanings, to lay down the sin and to bring sin offering, are essentially
the same."

the righteous one shall> make many righteous> This translation is made
impossible by the preposition le
>Why?<
Because it would go something like, "the righteous one will justify [or,
make righteous] for many," not "make many righteous."
The correctv translation is, "justify the righteous before multitude."

Your comments are very welcome.


Best regards,

Vadim