b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Re: [b-hebrew] Princess Ruth

From: Arne Halbakken <1stluth AT smig.net>
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Princess Ruth
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 23:22:00 -0500

Yigal,

As you know, the targumim are very difficult to date with precision.

E. Levin ("The Aramaic Version of Ruth," Analecta Biblica 76, Rome: 1973) would contend that Tg Ruth has some pre-Rabbinic halakah. (But that does not necessarily mean that Tg Ruth pre-dates the Mishnah.)

It would be interesting to check Ruth Rabba as well. However, the classical amoraic midrashim would be dated later than Tg Ruth.

Arne Halbakken

Thank you. Depending on the date of the Targum of Ruth, which I don't know
offhand, this could be the earliest refference to this midrash, or have been
influenced by the Talmud.

Yigal

----- Original Message -----
From: "Arne Halbakken" <1stluth at smig.net>
To: <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 3:41 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Princess Ruth?

At 12:00 PM -0400 6/18/06, b-hebrew-request at lists.ibiblio.org wrote:

Dear George,

The Talmud (if its really important I'll look up the source) says that
Ruth
was the daughter of Eglon king of Moab. Would you think that David would
be
descended from just ANY Moabitess? :-)

Yigal

I'm not sure about the Talmud, but "daughter of Eglon king of Moab"
is mentioned in a targum of Ruth 1:4.

Arne Halbakken

From rosewalk AT concentric.net Mon Jun 19 09:58:34 2006

by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D18A4C00B
for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Mon, 19 Jun 2006 09:58:34 -0400
(EDT)
Received: from [66.236.160.134] (ts003d0134.nyc-ny.xod.concentric.net
[66.236.160.134])
by warspite.cnc.net (ConcentricHost(2.54) Relay) with ESMTP id
E0706BE7A3; Mon, 19 Jun 2006 09:58:31 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: rosewalk AT rosewalk.cnc.net@pop3.rosewalk.cnc.net
Message-Id: <v04210102c0bc5ceb268d@[66.236.160.134]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 08:58:30 -0500
To: C60605 AT aol.com, b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
From: Shoshanna Walker <rosewalk AT concentric.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 11:25:42 -0400
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] .. appreciating shoshonna's detail
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.8
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: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 13:58:34 -0000

I don't think it would have referred to this son in addition to the others, rather it was talking about this particular instance of childbirth. And yes, I did think that according to this verse all you would know if you didn't believe in Oral Torah (that there is a longstanding tradition of knowledge passed down orally and that G-d actually gave Moshe Torah orally together with the written), is that in addition to THIS daughter in THIS instance of childbirth there was also a son, but I accept that written Torah cannot be understood completely or correctly without Oral Torah, and I believe that our Sages knew, by unbroken handed down tradition, correctly, what they taught to us.

Shoshanna

Rachel's midwife said to her when she was having difficulty in
childbirth - "Have no fear, for this one, too, is a son for you" -
THIS ONE TOO -

Couldn't this just mean she would have this son in addition to the others
borne to her?

Rev. Doug Pickrel, Litt.D.
Tejas Valley
San Antonio, Texas

Re: [b-hebrew] Princess Ruth, Arne Halbakken, 06/19/2006