Biblical Hebrew Forum

[George F Somsel <gfsomsel AT juno.com>]

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
___________
>From peterkirk AT qaya.org  Wed Jun 15 05:43:45 2005
Return-Path: <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.Ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.Ibiblio.org
Received: from pan.hu-pan.com (unknown [67.15.6.3])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFC6C4C00B
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.Ibiblio.org>; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 05:43:41 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from 213-162-124-237.peterk253.adsl.metronet.co.uk
        ([213.162.124.237] helo=[10.0.0.1])
        by pan.hu-pan.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.50)
        id 1DiUQr-0007FQ-EW; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:43:40 +0100
Received: from 127.0.0.1 (AVG SMTP 7.0.323 [267.7.3]);
        Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:43:49 +0100
Message-ID: <42AFF855.3030409 AT qaya.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:43:49 +0100
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
        rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
To: Steve Miller <smille10 AT sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Zechariah 12:1-2
References: <002a01c5705b$b9aa2e80$6900a8c0@Dad> <42ADFAB2.5080707 AT qaya.org>
        <005601c57068$9279e960$6900a8c0@Dad> <42AE1A19.3080700 AT qaya.org>
        <00d901c5715a$5db27920$6900a8c0@Dad>
In-Reply-To: <00d901c5715a$5db27920$6900a8c0@Dad>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse,
        please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - pan.hu-pan.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.ibiblio.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [0 0] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - qaya.org
X-Source: 
X-Source-Args: 
X-Source-Dir: 
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.Ibiblio.org
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
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: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 09:43:45 -0000

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 יִֽהְיֶה (shall be) because יִֽהְיֶה 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