Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>]

Bet_yaakov,

I believe it. By fourteen Dinah was probably a mother, and by thirty  
a grandmother.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Jul 16, 2007, at 9:16 PM, bet_yaakov wrote:

> I am sure in the old days some girls just dripped a little red  
> grape juice
> of sum form on the sheets to keep everyone happy!! This was proof  
> of their
> virginity!
> But the chastity of a Jewish or Israelite Girl was precious.
> The Rabbis say Dinah was like only twelve or so, so this is not  
> really about
> premarital sex. Its abuse and Simeon and Levi had a right to be angry.
> Its how they did it that was wrong, not what they did!
> The information in the text is sparse and difficult to prove much,  
> but the
> reaction of the two brothers is to the wrong their little sister  
> had and
> seems to indicate a wrong had been committed. Then the fact that  
> the man
> could not do it again due to his member being out of action after
> circumcision seems a good idea! Jacob never forgave these two  
> brothers even
> at his death bed, which seems harsh! But he must have had his  
> reasons!!
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
> [mailto:b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Isaac Fried
> Sent: Tuesday, 17 July 2007 7:20 a.m.
> To: Tory Thorpe
> Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] virginity
>
> Tory,
>
> There is no, and there can not be, any reference in the Hebrew bible
> to physical virginity as it MEANS NOTHING. We know, and the ancient
> Hebrews certainly knew as well, that a girl may inadvertently lose
> her virginity for no fault of her own. Some girls are born non
> virgins, some girls need a certain medical intervention to facilitate
> their blood flow during menstruation which may lead to virginity
> loss, and a good number of girls loose their virginity by some common
> non sexual activities. Lack of physical virginity is surely no
> admissible evidence against any woman. You can rest assured that the
> ancient Hebrews never stoned a woman to death for sheer lack of
> virginity.
>
> Isaac Fried, Boston University
>
> On Jul 16, 2007, at 2:10 PM, Tory Thorpe wrote:
>
> > On Jul 16, 2007, at 8:51 AM, K Randolph wrote:
> >
> > > Tory:
> > >
> > > You are guilty of pushing a particular reading for what historically
> > > have been ideological reasons.
> >
> > I disagree that the reading "young woman" in Isa. vii 14 is
> > ideologically driven. In fact, I have never heard or read any modern
> > Hebrew scholar make that claim. This reading allows for physical
> > virginity.
> >
> > > It is my understanding that there was no problem among Jews with the
> > > understanding of (LMH meaning "virgin" until after the Christian
> > > claim
> > > that Jesus was born of such. The belief that Messiah would be  
> > > born of
> > > a virgin continued among some Jews as late as the 1400s AD  
> > > (mentioned
> > > in Rafael Patai "The Messiah Texts", I'm citing from memory having
> > > read the book decades ago
> >
> > I have this book and I've been searching but cannot find where a
> > belief in a virginal conception and birth of the Jewish Messiah was
> > maintained in Judaism from ? down to the 15th century. And you must
> > understand, saying there was "no problem among Jews with the
> > understanding of (LMH meaning 'virgin' until after the Christian
> > claim that Jesus was born of such" is unfounded and highly offensive.
> > It reminds one of a similar libelous claim that Jews altered their
> > Bible in response to Christian claims.
> >
> > > The reasons that I and many others claim that (LMH means "virgin"  
> > > are
> > > both linguistic and ideological:
> >
> > The reason for reading "young woman" is simply linguistic and does
> > not exclude your ideology. That's why the reading "young woman" is
> > nonpartisan.
> >
> > > The claim that Mariam the mother of Jesus was a virgin at the time
> > > she
> > > got pregnant and gave birth.
> >
> > I am not disputing this claim.
> >
> > > By prior agreement, we are enjoined from pushing the ideologic
> > > reasons
> > > (the only reason I mention them above is to admit that they exist  
> > > and
> > > that they are not linguistic), but we can mention the linguistic
> > > reasons which, contrary to your claims, is not "pushing our
> > > ideology".
> >
> > If you translate almah as "virgin" in Isa. vii 14 you leave no room
> > for much else. That is why it is a partisan translation. The "young
> > woman" is not because physical virginity is not ruled out.
> >
> > > For you to deny that the linguistic reasons exist can only be
> > > understood as pushing your ideology,
> >
> > I don't think this part of your argument can be taken seriously. I
> > have not denied that you have linguistic reasons for your reading.
> > However, your reading, which you yourself admit is part ideology,
> > denies me mine. I stand by my claim that "young woman" cannot be
> > construed as an ideological reading.
> >
> > Tory Thorpe
> > _______________________________________________
> > b-hebrew mailing list
> > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew