Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Nir cohen - Prof. Mat." <nir AT ccet.ufrn.br>]

pere, david, 

it seems that the xatan/xoten issue is indeed not simple, see e.x.

http://parsha.blogspot.com/2004/11/another-interesting-cognate-from.html

apparently, father and sun in law, to-be, always disputed the active role in
the contract (see isaac and jacob), maybe explaining the grammatical ambiguity
you indicate.

at the moment i am without the Book, but i remember a case where the suns of
yehudah (i think) made a whole tribe circumcise because they wanted to marry
into israel, and then killed them all as they were 
recovering the operation. i'm sure you will easily find the reference. 

curiously, once more (as in samson) we see a biblical story based on a
word game (marriage-circumcision) which can be (nowadays) understood only in
arabic (as pere observed, xatan in arabic refers to circumcision, not 
marriage). 

also, as indicated in the emails of pere and david, both marriage and
circumcision represent a kind of treaty (in ancient marriage, a real 
contract between the xoten and xatan!). this might explain, assuming
proto-semitic, a possible connection between the words xatan in arabic and 
hebrew.

regards
nir

PS david, XATAM refers to a written contract on paper, clay etc. but the word
which represents the BH religious pact is KARAT, which, again, brings
circumcision to mind... :)


---------

>>> From: Pere Porta <pporta7 AT gmail.com>
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?

>>> De: David Kolinsky 
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."

>>> From: Pere Porta <pporta7 AT gmail.com>
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).

>>> 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.  
David Kolinsky
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 13:20:29 -0500, b-hebrew-request wrote
> Send b-hebrew mailing list submissions to
>       b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>       http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>       b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>       b-hebrew-owner AT lists.ibiblio.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of b-hebrew digest..."


--
Open WebMail Project (http://openwebmail.org)