Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>]

Jack:

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/