Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David Kolinsky <yishalom AT sbcglobal.net>]

Pere,
Actually a circumcision is a contract between an Israelite and G-d.  This 
comes through with the Hebrew word for circumcision B'ReyTh also which 
literally means "a thing made clear" or more specifically "a clear 
understanding between two parties > a covenant, a contract."  BRH is Sabaic 
means = testimony, BR in Arabic means "a true and valid statement."


Regards
David Kolinsky
--- On Mon, 1/17/11, Pere Porta <pporta7 AT gmail.com> wrote:

From: Pere Porta <pporta7 AT gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Father in law and son in law
To: "David Kolinsky" <yishalom AT sbcglobal.net>
Date: Monday, January 17, 2011, 10:21 PM

Maybe.
But some lexicons, DBD for an example, say that "chtn" relates to the meaning 
"circumcise" (nothing about a sealing of a contract). 
chtn  (ð of foll.; prob. circumcise; cf. Ar. häataana circumcise, häitaÀnun 
circumcision, circumcision-feast). 

Thanks!
 
Pere 
 


2011/1/17 David Kolinsky <yishalom AT sbcglobal.net>






Pere, 


Of course this proposal will be rejected by most on this list, but here is 
what I think.  In Biblical Hebrew times, marriage was more a contract between 
the father of the bride and her proposed husband.  The word for sealing a 
contract is ChaTaM and I suggest that the word ChaTaN evolved from that.  



Regards,


David Kolinsky
Monterey, CA





Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 07:06:06 +0100
From: Pere Porta <pporta7 AT gmail.com>

To: jimstinehart AT aol.com

Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Any reason?
Message-ID:
    <AANLkTi=r_uk1_PrLdrvmWgE6a-9tLK7vPO-M1RfXkw1G AT mail.gmail.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hi, list.


We have in Ex 18:1 noun XOT"N, father-in-law.
We have in 1Sa 18:18 XFTFN, son-in-law or daughter's husband.


It seems clear that both nouns are related: their consonants are the same
and appear in the same order....


I'm wondering whether there is a good reason for this:

Pattern of XOT"N is that of Qal Participle while pattern of XFTFN is that of

many Hebrew nouns (such as DFBFR, word (Gn 18:14) or ZFKFR, male in Gn
1:27).


Would the reverse equally have been possible?

Namely, that XOT"N would mean daughter's husband and XFTFN would mean

father-in-law...

Is there any reason for things having gone the way they have gone and not

the reverse way?

Pere Porta
(Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain)




-- 
Pere Porta



>From if AT math.bu.edu  Tue Jan 18 19:23:59 2011
Return-Path: <if AT math.bu.edu>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix, from userid 3002)
        id 403224C066; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 19:23:59 -0500 (EST)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on malecky
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,
        RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
Received: from smtp02.lnh.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.lnh.mail.rcn.net
        [207.172.157.102])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B25B64C063
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 19:23:58 -0500 
(EST)
Received: from mr16.lnh.mail.rcn.net ([207.172.157.36])
        by smtp02.lnh.mail.rcn.net with ESMTP; 18 Jan 2011 19:23:58 -0500
Received: from smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net (smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net 
[207.172.4.11])
        by mr16.lnh.mail.rcn.net (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id AWD18268;
        Tue, 18 Jan 2011 19:23:49 -0500
Received: from 146-115-31-220.c3-0.bkl-ubr1.sbo-bkl.ma.cable.rcn.com (HELO
        [192.168.2.2]) ([146.115.31.220])
        by smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net with ESMTP; 18 Jan 2011 19:23:49 -0500
In-Reply-To: <000b01cbb6d8$d5cc0560$81641020$ AT biu.ac.il>
References: <AANLkTinnOA1HdG8FaJovfZ3HLkL9VA85skifx+QizhCH AT mail.gmail.com>
        <000b01cbb6d8$d5cc0560$81641020$ AT biu.ac.il>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1)
Message-Id: <580E06FA-113A-4D05-B08A-25BDF2983CC9 AT math.bu.edu>
From: Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 19:23:57 -0500
To: Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753.1)
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset=US-ASCII;
        delsp=yes;
        format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.13
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Why not patah?
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
Precedence: list
List-Id: Biblical Hebrew Forum <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/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: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 00:23:59 -0000

I think you should add the explanation that the claim of "proper"
pronunciation is a theoretical corollary of the dubious proposition
that a schwa following a qamats is a schwa "NA", which should
actually be "moved". I must say that I have never heard a-me-ru, sha-
le-xu, which also barely sound Hebrew to me.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Jan 18, 2011, at 1:27 AM, Yigal Levin wrote:

> Ask any competent Torah-reader. The proper pronunciation is a-me-
> ru, sha-le-xu