Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Yaakov Stein" <yaakov_s AT rad.com>]

Karl,

> And why not? Samson was more than just a simple farmer, he ended up
> judging Israel for 20 years. That indicates superior intelligence.

Please note that the word "to judge" as used in the book of Judges means
something like "to rule", without any implication of legal or
philosophical
knowledge. It was quite common in the ancient world for military heros
to become rulers. For that matter, it is not uncommon for military
leaders
to become presidents and prime ministers even today.
And it is not uncommon for rather dull people to be world leaders today.


>> Samson was not a "deep" person, but he certainly like his word play.
>   Where is your evidence that he was not a "deep" person?

That is my interpretation of the text. There is certainly nothing
stating
that he was wise (as with Solomon) or wrote proverbs.
There is a lot that says he goes somewhere,
falls in love with the wrong woman, gets in trouble,
and only saves himself by his physical strength.
Not quite the wise man of Kohelet chapter 9.

> "Rachel" means "ewe", a female sheep, not "calf". No, it is not a
> common term for woman (in 2 Samuel 3:5 it is a personal name).

I meant female animal. It was a common name given to a girl,
signifiying some form of endearment.
It is not common for people to give their baby girls names like "cow" or
"elephant".

> Please give examples, I know of no such uses. 

My next line gave examples, namely XWR$Y R( and XWR$Y )BN.

>> (see Joshus 2:1, Isaiah 3:3, Judges 16:2) and "to make a plan
against"
>> as in XWR$Y R( and XWR$Y )BN.

> Whereas he made a play on his words, are you implying that he used
> words in other than their usual meaning, i.e. contrary to how others
> used them?

No, that he was purposely using double entendre.

> You don't seem to recognize how high priced a bet he made. The reason
> his guests went after Samson's wife was because they would have found
> it difficult to pay him.

OK. Doesn't effect my argument. Samson purposely used a VERY HARD
riddle,
but it was still a riddle that was possible to decipher. 
Otherwise, why would the Phillistines have agreed in the first place ?

> No. Even to bring it up is the etymological error.

I would appreciate your derivation.

> Maybe, but I have not found it. Furthermore, we don't need it to
> understand this passage.

I guess you don't. I do.

Yaakov (J) Stein