Biblical Hebrew Forum

[kenneth greifer <greifer AT hotmail.com>]

I understand that heart and kidneys (emotions) were related, and that many 
quotes say things two different ways, but I don't think the word "and" after 
kidneys sounds right, but maybe I am wrong. Doesn't the word "and" after the 
word "kidneys" sound funny or is it used in a normal way in Jeremiah 17:10?
 
Kenneth Greifer
 
> From: nir AT ccet.ufrn.br
> To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> CC: greifer AT hotmail.com
> Subject: Jeremiah 17:9-10
> Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 18:41:08 -0200
> 
> dear kenneth,
> 
> the association between LEV (heart?) and KLYWT (kidneys?) in the OT
> is very strong, so i stick with the traditional translation. 
> 
> below i add some material on heart-kidneys which i found on the internet.
> 
> nir cohen 
> 
> ---------------------
> 
> 
> (I) 
> 
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10213802
> 
> Am J Nephrol. 1999;19(2):101-6.
> The metaphorical and mythical use of the kidney in antiquity.
> Maio G.
> Source
> 
> Institute for the History of Medicine and Science, University of
> Lübeck, Germany. maio AT imwg.mu-luebeck.de
> Abstract
> 
> While the Syrians and the Arabs viewed the liver as the center of life, the
> kidneys, 
> in contrast, held a primary place of importance in Israel. In Hebrew
> tradition, they 
> were considered to be the most important internal organs along with the 
> heart.
> In the 
> Old Testament most frequently the kidneys are associated with the most inner
> stirrings 
> of emotional life. But they are also viewed as the seat of the secret 
> thoughts
> of the 
> human; they are used as an omen metaphor, as a metaphor for moral 
> discernment,
> for 
> reflection and inspiration. This field of tension in metaphoric usage is 
> resolved 
> under the conception of the kidneys as life center. In the Old Testament the
> kidneys 
> thus are primarily used as metaphor for the core of the person, for the 
> area of 
> greatest vulnerability. For us today, this metaphorical use of the kidneys 
> has
> lost 
> its meaning. One reason for its disappearance is certainly the monopoly of 
> causal-analytic rationality in science of today. The kidney has developed 
> from
> myth 
> to organ, and with this transition a variety of perspectives and ways of
> looking at 
> knowledge inherent in imaginative thought have been lost. But the metaphor
> uncovers 
> a deeper level of truth, it represents another form of reconstruction of
> reality which 
> needs not necessarily be subordinate to the scientific rationality. Today as
> well, 
> these imaginative ideas can provide an approach to an essential level of
> reality which
> may otherwise remain hidden.
> 
> -------------------------------
> 
> (II) (excerpt)
> 
> http://barrynewman.wordpress.com/2010/03/21/the-heart-in-the-old-testament-part-x%CE%B9/
> 
> arry Newman's Blog
> March 21, 2010
> “The Heart” in the Old Testament (part XΙ)
> Filed under: The Heart ― barrynewman @ 9:37 pm
> 
> Translations (cont.)
> 
> Not uncommonly, where there were the same or very similar linguistic 
> contexts,
> the 
> translators sometimes used quite different English words, albeit with the 
> same
> general 
> meaning. This is particularly noteworthy in the NIV. For example “to say in 
> the 
> heart” is translated: “to realise’, to say to oneself”, “to think” or “to 
> say
> in the 
> heart”. “Heart of the seas” is sometimes translated: “high seas” but on 
> other 
> occasions: “heart of the seas”. Sometimes an unnecessary word seems to be
> added, for 
> example where the NIV translates “heart” with “heart and soul” (1 Samuel
> 14:7). Both 
> the NIV and the ESV translate “kidneys and heart” with “heart and mind” 
> (Psalm
> 26:2), 
> seemingly equating the English word “heart” with the Hebrew word for 
> “kidneys”
> and the 
> English word “mind” with the Hebrew word for “heart”. The one-off 
> translation of 
> “spirit” for “heart” in the NIV (2 Kings 5:26) is remarkable. 
> 
> -------------------------
> 
> >>>>> De: kenneth greifer <greifer AT hotmail.com>
> Para: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Data: Fri, 27 May 2011 15:45:11 +0000
> Assunto: [b-hebrew] Jeremiah 17:9-10
> 
> 
> JEREMIAH 17:1 is usually translated something like "the sin of Judah is
> written with a pen of iron, by a stylus of diamond it is engraved on the
> tablet of their heart...."
> 
> JEREMIAH 17:9 is usually translated something like "the heart is deceitful 
> (is
> crooked) more than everything, and it is very sick (weak). Who will know 
> it?"
> 
> Then JEREMIAH 17:10 is usually translated something like "I the L-rd 
> examine a
> heart, I try the reins (the mind) (kaf lamed yud vav tav), (and) to give to 
> a
> man like (according to) his way, like the fruit of his deeds." I think this
> part has a mistake. "Reins and" sound funny.
> 
> I think the Hebrew letters might be divided a tiny bit differently. JEREMIAH
> 17:10 might actually say "I the L-rd investigate a heart, examining
> (infinitive) a tool (kaf lamed yud) and a mark (tav vav), to give to a man
> like (according to) his way, and like the fruit of his deeds." The tool 
> could
> be the pen or stylus used to write the mark, which could be the sin, on the
> tablet of the man's heart like JEREMIAH 17:1 describes.
> 
> Kenneth Greifer 
> 
> 
                                          
>From nir AT ccet.ufrn.br  Fri May 27 16:54:20 2011
Return-Path: <nir AT ccet.ufrn.br>
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 20217)
        id 9F8E7E9322; Fri, 27 May 2011 16:54:20 -0400 (EDT)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on 
mailman1.ibiblio.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
        version=3.2.5
Received: from venus.ccet.ufrn.br (venus.ccet.ufrn.br [200.19.174.45])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2321AE9320
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Fri, 27 May 2011 16:54:20 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from ccet.ufrn.br (localhost [127.0.0.1])
        by venus.ccet.ufrn.br (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69F4D15FC457
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Fri, 27 May 2011 18:09:20 -0300 
(BRT)
From: "Nir cohen - Prof. Mat." <nir AT ccet.ufrn.br>
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 19:09:20 -0200
Message-Id: <20110527210719.M1340 AT ccet.ufrn.br>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.6.1306512008.9477.b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
References: <mailman.6.1306512008.9477.b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
X-Mailer: OpenWebMail 2.53 
X-OriginatingIP: 10.9.2.191 (nir)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset=utf-8
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] b-hebrew Digest, Vol 101, Issue 27
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Biblical Hebrew Forum <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Fri, 27 May 2011 20:54:20 -0000

dear pere,

i guess there is none. BYCH=egg is the closest i could get.

i reiterate that in principle the niqud you suggest 
is not compatible with xoq hahavarot. 
(though no rule rules out the exceptions to the rule...)

this goes back to a previous issue which i raised some time ago, 
that the niqud of nouns  and verbs follows two different sets of 
rules. though i dont have exact details, i am pretty sure this 
statement is correct. 

if i remember correctly, a non-stressed closed syllable should 
have a niqud "lene", for nouns (excluding cere); whereas for verbs 
this depends on the declension.

help from the listers will be appreciated.

nir cohen

>>> De: Pere Porta <pporta7 AT gmail.com>
Para: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Data: Fri, 27 May 2011 16:23:46 +0200
Assunto: Re: [b-hebrew] sere versus segol
B-hebrew listers,

I remark that pattern consisting of three root letters + H so that the first
root letter has sere, the second has shewa and the third has qamats is that
of the Pi'el Past, third person singular feminine, of some verbs, as in

Lm 1:17 ------- P"R&FH, she spread out
Ex 23:28 -----  WG"R$FH, (and) she drove out

while the same thing with only the difference of segol in the place of
sere... these are feminine nouns having consonant het for their first root
consonant, as in

Gn 34:14 -------- XERPFH, reproach
Hos 13:15 ------  XEMDFH, desire

My question is: are there in biblical Hebrew any NOUNS fitting the pattern
of the Piel form shown in the first part of this post (namely sere in the
first root consonant)?

I think there is none.......  but maybe I'm missing some.

Pere Porta
(Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain)