Biblical Hebrew Forum

[James Christian <jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com>]

Hi,

the torah also talks about heart circumcision if I am not mistaken.

I think the translation 'you should not wear a mix of wool and linen' is the
favoured interpretation.

James Christian

2010/2/14 Brak <Brak AT neo.rr.com>

>  James,
> I found the end of your reply to be inappropriate.
> For one, not everyone on this board is a Christian - so for Jews this is
> subject has relevance.
> For two, in Christianity there are varying beliefs in regards to its
> relationship to the Torah - so for Torah observant Christians this subject
> has relevance.
>
> If you read the text in Jeremiah in which you quoted, you will see the
> context for the "heart circumcision" takes place not in this World, but in
> the World to Come - for its states that when is "heart circumcision" takes
> place people will not need others to teach or explain things to them. And
> the fact that this thread, this entire forum, is proof that it hasn't
> happened yet. But I greatly diverge from the actual point of my post, for
> which I apologize.
>
> Again, my question is not about the word shatnaz itself, but rather the
> clause "wool and linen" is there anything in the grammar of the verse to
> suggest "hey, this is the definition" or "hey, these are just examples". How
> does the clause "wool and linen" relate to the word "shatnez".
> Which transation for be more valid:
> "shatnez, which is wool and linen"
> or
> "shatnez, for example wool and linen"?
>
>
> B"H
> John Steven
>
>
>
> James Christian wrote:
>
> I offer the following contribution to the discussion.
>
>  Many times when I have found two conflicting traditions further
> inspection has shown that both are correct in their own ways. It is a well
> known fundamental linguistic truth that words have different uses and evolve
> in different ways. Let's take the Greek word stauros as an example. In
> ancient Greek it had many uses predominantly that of a wooden stake. In
> modern Greek, largely catalysed by Orthodox Christian traditions the word
> pretty much exclusively means cross.
>
>  In generic terms Shatnez most likely did mean mixes in general as the
> Karaites assert and your example from Leviticus 19:19 shows. However, the
> prohibition in Deuteronomy 22:11 clearly isn't talking about mixes in
> general in this context. It is saying something like "You shouldn't wear a
> mix of wool and linen together". Just like the evolution of the Greek
> language forced by religious belief has caused the Greek word stauros to
> completely change its primary usage it is highly likely that over the
> centuries Rabbinic take on the Torah has caused Shatnez to lose its generic
> sense and become the more specialised sense of 'wool and linen'.
>
>  In conclusion, I find the most highly likely answer that they are both
> right and yet both not entirely right. The Karaites being right in the sense
> that it was used of mixes in general. The Rabbis being right in the sense
> that this prohibition was a very specific one. However, for Christians who
> are circumcised in heart rather than in flesh as they are not under Mosaic
> law but guided by the law of the spirit the question is what symbolic,
> prophetic meaning what foreshadow what spiritual content and relevance to us
> could this prohibition have?
>
>  James Christian
>
> 2010/2/12 Richard <aaa AT endlyss.com>
>
>> The only other time the word appears is in Leviticus 19:19 talking of
>> mingling unlike things whether seed, animals, or clothing so it seems to
>> me
>> at a quick look that the word shaatnez would not be the definition but it
>> is
>> very ambiguous. My take is that the Karaite view would be correct.
>>
>> Hopefully we will get more insight.
>>
>> Richard Conaway
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Brak [mailto:Brak AT neo.rr.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 9:37 PM
>>  To: aaa AT endlyss.com; b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org >> Hebrew
>> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Shatnez: Wool and Linen, or Animal Fiber and Plant
>>  Fiber?
>>
>> What about just the clause "wool and linen"? Without looking into the word
>> shatnez itself, and the phrase "wool and linen" be interpreted as the
>> definition or example or ambiguous? Does the grammar support it to be one
>> over the other (or even more than the other)?
>>
>> B"H
>> John
>>
>> "He who makes a mistake is still our friend; he who adds to or shortens a
>> melody is still our friend; but he who violates a rhythm unawares can no
>> longer be our friend."
>> -Ishaq Ibn Ibrahim 767-850 CE.
>>
>> "If you don't behave as you believe, you will end by believing as you
>> behave."
>> -Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen
>>
>> "The difference between the intelligent man and the simpleton is not the
>> correctness of their decisions, but rather the cunning sinner can more
>> skillfully defend and justify his iniquity."
>> - Rabbi Tovia Singer
>>
>>
>> Richard wrote:
>> Everything I can find so far the word simply means "mixed stuff".
>>
>> Richard Conaway
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:b-hebrew-
>> bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Brak
>> Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 8:20 PM
>> To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
>> Subject: [b-hebrew] Shatnez: Wool and Linen, or Animal Fiber and Plant
>>
>> Fiber?
>>
>> In Deut 22:11 it states:
>> <LO) TIL:B.A$ $A75(A+:N"Z CEMER W.PI$:T.IYM YAX:D.FW00>
>> "You shall not wear Shatnez, wool and linen together."
>>
>> My question is thus:
>> Linguistically, is the phrase "wool and linen" a definition of Shatnez
>> (according to Rabbinic Judaism) or an example of Shatnez (according to
>> Karaite Judaism). Or is it ambiguous, and can be read either way?
>>
>> Thanks in advance
>>
>> --
>>
>> B"H
>> John Steven
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>