Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 08:37:19 -0500 "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
writes:
> George:
> 
> It is not that I oppose the idea of euphemisms for what we 
> also have euphemisms in English, rather I questioned how the 
> use of "feet" is such a euphemism.
> 
> In your verses listed below, there is not one that clearly 
> shows such a euphemism existed in B-Hebrew. The last two are 
> not in the text, just in later Qere. I tend to be very 
> suspicious of Qeres that are there for reasons other than 
> correcting obvious copiest errors. Even as a Qere, it is not 
> obvious as such a euphemism, for it could refer to the fluid
> that ends up on one's feet.
> 
> Of the other verses, angels are described elsewhere as 
> sexless creatures, hence wouldn't have private parts to 
> cover. "Covering one's feet" is precisely the opposite, 
> uncovering privates so that relief is possible. I was taught 
> that RGL, though it emphasized the feet, also included the 
> legs. so that "shaving the hair of the legs" does not 
> necessarily refer to pubic hair. 
> 
> So where is the evidence of such a euphemism? The verse in 
> Exodus has no need for such.
> 
> Karl W. Randolph.
___________

Karl,

The Ex passage makes no sense if it is not understood that it was Moses'
privates which were touched.  I don't know offhand where you get the idea
that angels were supposed to be sexless creatures since Enoch certainly
portrays them as sexual.  I'm not Peter, however, so I won't argue the
point with you until the cows come home.  Believe what you will since
you're the one who will miss the significance of the text (and not merely
 with respect to Ex 4.25).

george
gfsomsel
___________