Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Vadim Cherny" <VadimCherny AT mail.ru>]

Harold, thanks for pointing out about the variants. I agree with Moshe that
"pierced" is an unlikely translation, not evident from other uses.

"Scratching," I would say, like one scratches a hole in hard surface. The
lion made sense, but was unclear, and the variants clarify the lion's
action: he touches with hostility, scratches, bites. The hostile enemies act
allegorically similarly. They do not dig. I think, it is very clear that the
word "lion" was changed abit for the ostensible clarity.

To ask, as Peter does, for the proof that the word cannot mean "pierced," is
illogical. Negative proof could never be formally asserted. We can only say
that nowhere else the word means "pierced."

As for the kamatz in ca-ari, why couldn't it be a phrase-final elongation,
especially before the aleph?

Vadim Cherny