| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Peter T. Daniels
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 1:08 pm Post subject: Re: Arabic word for fat |
 |
|
On Jul 27, 12:51 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Jul 27, 2:00 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Jul 26, 5:52 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"alan" <in_flagra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bAuik.7325$vn7.3969@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com...
On Jul 25, 10:36 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"alan" <in_flagra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:KCbik.8860$L_.958@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com...
BTW, Zev, it>d be interesting to see how "shuman" is used in the Tanakh,
and if its specifically contrasted with "chelev" --- do you have any
examples?
No, I don>t and the lack of examples
makes every definition we make speculation.
No; it means that the distinction you are referring to is post-
biblical, i.e., rabbinic.
Some people call that speculation ;-)
[/quote]
It>s not in the Bible, it>s in the rabbis. How is that "speculation"? |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Peter T. Daniels
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 1:10 pm Post subject: Re: Arabic word for fat |
|
|
On Jul 27, 1:44 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]"alan" <in_flagra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fFPik.14836$cW3.5988@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...
"Zev" <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9d39caa9-095b-46d9-8cde-0494f5c53871@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
"alan" <in_flagra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bAuik.7325$vn7.3969@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com...
Alan, I liked the way you paraphrase it but Lev 7:6
is referring to those parts of the guilt-offering
which are *not* sacrificed which means the priest
doesn>t get the chelev after all, if all of it is sacrificed.
Maybe I>m being too literal here, but how can you get from a
list/description of chelev to be offered which is followed by "Every male
among the priests may eat thereof; it shall be eaten in a holy place; it
is most holy" the notion that it>s actually something *other* than that
which has just been described?
Alan, the question here is:
what is the subject of the "thereof" of Lev 7:6.
I say it>s the guilt-offering of Lev 7:1,
you seem to say that it>s the fats of Leviticus 7:3-6.
Lev 7:1 is not that far-fetched,
and it fits better into everthing else we know.
The priests eat *of* the sacrifices,
they never get what has *been* sacrificed, on the alter.
[/quote]
"Thereof" is not a verb and therefore does not have a subject.
It doesn>t matter _what_ the English says, only what the Hebrew says
matters. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Peter T. Daniels
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 1:11 pm Post subject: Re: Arabic word for fat |
|
|
On Jul 27, 2:03 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]"Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:
3dbda692-1c19-49e3-89dd-25b731dca...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 26, 6:03 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 26, 11:55 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Jul 26, 2:23 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 25, 8:08 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Jul 25, 10:10 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 25, 3:57 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net
wrote:
On Jul 24, 11:19 pm, "alan" <in_flagra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in
messagenews:510d17ff-3d62-4253-a7c7-c8213f788dbd@b2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 24, 4:06 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 24, 9:45 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com
wrote:
On Jul 24, 11:18 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Thank you. (But why do you use <kh> to transliterate Chet?) I
wonder
whether we>ll hear from Zev.-
I used it because <ch> is easily confused
with the ch of choir or of church.
I thought you were talking about Hebrew words.
Chizbat, Check, Chupar are not Hebrew?
I haven>t any idea. I don>t know how a Hebrew word could be
transliterated "Check."
I think it>s silly to transliterate as "Chek.",
knowing the source is English "Check."
I thought the English "ch" sound is normally written with Tsade-prime?
I>ve seen that, and it>s also written Shin-prime, or just plain Shin.
Everyone I know pronounces it as in English.
But if you>re now using <ch> for Chet, you>re more likely to be
understood.
Kh has no standard pronunciation in English
and if you try to say K and H close together
it should come out close to the real thing.
I>ve seen others using it, I assume for the same reason.
How do you spell Chanukkah?
Honestly, I>ve seen Kh for this.
In fact, that>s probably where I got the idea from.
But I don>t remember.
Do you usually spell Chanukkah with a Kaf?
Yes.
Chet nun vav kaf heh.
Sure looks like you>ve written a Chet there.
Look again.
[/quote]
I was ignoring your stupid joke. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Zev
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 4:16 pm Post subject: Re: Arabic word for fat |
|
|
"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:17e3b0ff-8434-4af9-b5cf-
ffaadf60f807@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On Jul 27, 1:44 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"alan" <in_flagra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fFPik.14836$cW3.5988@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...
"Zev" <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9d39caa9-095b-46d9-8cde-0494f5c53871@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
"alan" <in_flagra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bAuik.7325$vn7.3969@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com...
Alan, I liked the way you paraphrase it but Lev 7:6
is referring to those parts of the guilt-offering
which are *not* sacrificed which means the priest
doesn>t get the chelev after all, if all of it is sacrificed.
Maybe I>m being too literal here, but how can you get from a
list/description of chelev to be offered which is followed by "Every
male
among the priests may eat thereof; it shall be eaten in a holy place;
it
is most holy" the notion that it>s actually something *other* than that
which has just been described?
Alan, the question here is:
what is the subject of the "thereof" of Lev 7:6.
I say it>s the guilt-offering of Lev 7:1,
you seem to say that it>s the fats of Leviticus 7:3-6.
Lev 7:1 is not that far-fetched,
and it fits better into everthing else we know.
The priests eat *of* the sacrifices,
they never get what has *been* sacrificed, on the alter.
"Thereof" is not a verb and therefore does not have a subject.
It doesn>t matter _what_ the English says, only what the Hebrew says
matters.
[/quote]
I think everyone who is taking part
in this thread understands Hebrew.
Tell us about it. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Peter T. Daniels
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 7:59 pm Post subject: Re: Arabic word for fat |
|
|
On Jul 27, 3:40 pm, "alan" <in_flagra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[quote]"Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in messagenews:17e3b0ff-8434-4af9-b5cf-ffaadf60f807@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 27, 1:44 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"alan" <in_flagra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fFPik.14836$cW3.5988@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...
"Zev" <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9d39caa9-095b-46d9-8cde-0494f5c53871@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com....
"alan" <in_flagra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bAuik.7325$vn7.3969@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com...
Alan, I liked the way you paraphrase it but Lev 7:6
is referring to those parts of the guilt-offering
which are *not* sacrificed which means the priest
doesn>t get the chelev after all, if all of it is sacrificed.
Maybe I>m being too literal here, but how can you get from a
list/description of chelev to be offered which is followed by "Every
male
among the priests may eat thereof; it shall be eaten in a holy place;
it
is most holy" the notion that it>s actually something *other* than that
which has just been described?
Alan, the question here is:
what is the subject of the "thereof" of Lev 7:6.
I say it>s the guilt-offering of Lev 7:1,
you seem to say that it>s the fats of Leviticus 7:3-6.
Lev 7:1 is not that far-fetched,
and it fits better into everthing else we know.
The priests eat *of* the sacrifices,
they never get what has *been* sacrificed, on the alter.
"Thereof" is not a verb and therefore does not have a subject.
It doesn>t matter _what_ the English says, only what the Hebrew says
matters.
And what the Hebrew says is this:
*ו כָּל-זָכָר בַּכֹּהֲנִים, יֹאכְלֶ*נּוּ
בְּמָקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ יֵאָכֵל
קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים הוּא
kol-zakhar ba kohanim yokhle*nu*
b>maqom qadosh yeakhel
qodesh qadashim hu
Every male of Kohanim shall eat *it*.
In a holy place he shall eat..
Holy of holies it is.
Pretty straightforward --- none of the complications of the English
"thereof".
The dispute is what *it* refers to. Is it logical to assume that *it*
refers to what has just been discussed in the immediately preceding lines
(i.e. "chelev") or it is logical to assume that *it* refers to something
that had been been discussed
several lines back?
The logic of language tells us that *it* refers to chelev. However, since
that appears to contradict prohibitions elsewhere against the eating of
chelev, it>s my contention that tradition, in the name of consistency, has
ignored that logic to assume it has to refer something other than chelev.
Is Torah free of contradictions? Just a thought . . .
[/quote]
Of course Torah isn>t free of contradictions, since Torah was
assembled from a bunch of different independent sources ranging over
several centuries and several different locations of origin. The
rabbis felt the necessity to magically make it all internally self-
consistent, so they invented all sorts of nonexistent distinctions,
and clearly this is one of them. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
alan
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 12:40 am Post subject: Re: Arabic word for fat |
|
|
"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:17e3b0ff-8434-4af9-b5cf-ffaadf60f807@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On Jul 27, 1:44 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"alan" <in_flagra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fFPik.14836$cW3.5988@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...
"Zev" <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9d39caa9-095b-46d9-8cde-0494f5c53871@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
"alan" <in_flagra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bAuik.7325$vn7.3969@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com...
Alan, I liked the way you paraphrase it but Lev 7:6
is referring to those parts of the guilt-offering
which are *not* sacrificed which means the priest
doesn>t get the chelev after all, if all of it is sacrificed.
Maybe I>m being too literal here, but how can you get from a
list/description of chelev to be offered which is followed by "Every
male
among the priests may eat thereof; it shall be eaten in a holy place;
it
is most holy" the notion that it>s actually something *other* than that
which has just been described?
Alan, the question here is:
what is the subject of the "thereof" of Lev 7:6.
I say it>s the guilt-offering of Lev 7:1,
you seem to say that it>s the fats of Leviticus 7:3-6.
Lev 7:1 is not that far-fetched,
and it fits better into everthing else we know.
The priests eat *of* the sacrifices,
they never get what has *been* sacrificed, on the alter.
"Thereof" is not a verb and therefore does not have a subject.
It doesn>t matter _what_ the English says, only what the Hebrew says
matters.
[/quote]
And what the Hebrew says is this:
*ו כָּל-זָכָר בַּכֹּהֲנִים, יֹאכְלֶ*נּוּ
בְּמָקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ יֵאָכֵל
קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים הוּא
kol-zakhar ba kohanim yokhle*nu*
b>maqom qadosh yeakhel
qodesh qadashim hu
Every male of Kohanim shall eat *it*.
In a holy place he shall eat..
Holy of holies it is.
Pretty straightforward --- none of the complications of the English
"thereof".
The dispute is what *it* refers to. Is it logical to assume that *it*
refers to what has just been discussed in the immediately preceding lines
(i.e. "chelev") or it is logical to assume that *it* refers to something
that had been been discussed
several lines back?
The logic of language tells us that *it* refers to chelev. However, since
that appears to contradict prohibitions elsewhere against the eating of
chelev, it>s my contention that tradition, in the name of consistency, has
ignored that logic to assume it has to refer something other than chelev.
Is Torah free of contradictions? Just a thought . . .
--
alan |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Zev
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 9:12 am Post subject: Re: Arabic word for fat |
|
|
"alan" <in_flagrante@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cb4jk.9022$L_.7577@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com...
[quote]"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:17e3b0ff-8434-4af9-b5cf-ffaadf60f807@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 27, 1:44 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"alan" <in_flagra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fFPik.14836$cW3.5988@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...
"Zev" <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9d39caa9-095b-46d9-8cde-0494f5c53871@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com....
"alan" <in_flagra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bAuik.7325$vn7.3969@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com...
Alan, I liked the way you paraphrase it but Lev 7:6
is referring to those parts of the guilt-offering
which are *not* sacrificed which means the priest
doesn>t get the chelev after all, if all of it is sacrificed.
Maybe I>m being too literal here, but how can you get from a
list/description of chelev to be offered which is followed by "Every
male
among the priests may eat thereof; it shall be eaten in a holy place;
it
is most holy" the notion that it>s actually something *other* than
that
which has just been described?
Alan, the question here is:
what is the subject of the "thereof" of Lev 7:6.
I say it>s the guilt-offering of Lev 7:1,
you seem to say that it>s the fats of Leviticus 7:3-6.
Lev 7:1 is not that far-fetched,
and it fits better into everthing else we know.
The priests eat *of* the sacrifices,
they never get what has *been* sacrificed, on the alter.
"Thereof" is not a verb and therefore does not have a subject.
It doesn>t matter _what_ the English says, only what the Hebrew says
matters.
And what the Hebrew says is this:
*ו כָּל-זָכָר בַּכֹּהֲנִים, יֹאכְלֶ*נּוּ
בְּמָקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ יֵאָכֵל
קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים הוּא
kol-zakhar ba kohanim yokhle*nu*
b>maqom qadosh yeakhel
qodesh qadashim hu
Every male of Kohanim shall eat *it*.
In a holy place he shall eat..
Holy of holies it is.
Pretty straightforward --- none of the complications of the English
"thereof".
[/quote]
"It" is indeed a better translation,
I used the translation which you yourself had brought us.
BTW, "Thereof" seems not to imply
that the priests must eat *all* of whatever "it" is.
Your improved translation gets you into trouble.
How could the priests eat *all* of the chelev?
[quote]The dispute is what *it* refers to. Is it logical to assume that *it*
refers to what has just been discussed in the immediately preceding lines
(i.e. "chelev") or it is logical to assume that *it* refers to something
that had been been discussed
several lines back?
[/quote]
In ordinary speech your view would be beyond dispute.
In what you might call technical literature,
mine is not far-fetched, as I have already said.
Read the chapter from the beginning,
the subject *is* the offering,
and an undefined "it" just might refer to it.
I also think you>re mistaken about the nature of chelev.
For the alter, it>s "choice"
because it>s a big block of fat and burns well.
For eating, the priests would certainly prefer the other fat,
the kind which is intertwined with the meat.
It is absurd to think that some chelev was taken down
from the alter and handed out to priests.
[quote]The logic of language tells us that *it* refers to chelev. However, since
that appears to contradict prohibitions elsewhere against the eating of
chelev, it>s my contention that tradition, in the name of consistency, has
ignored that logic to assume it has to refer something other than chelev.
Is Torah free of contradictions? Just a thought . . .
[/quote]
Assume it was written by a supernatural genius,
you>ll will explain away, somehow, all difficulties.
You will use the effort itself as a proof of its depth.
Assume it was written by a bunch of primitive story-tellers,
you will find unexplainable contradictions.
You will use that to prove its mundaneness.
I>m trying to take the middle road here,
you and Peter don>t seem to like that.
Just a thought . . . |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Peter T. Daniels
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 11:22 am Post subject: Re: Arabic word for fat |
|
|
On Jul 28, 5:12 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]Assume it was written by a supernatural genius,
you>ll will explain away, somehow, all difficulties.
You will use the effort itself as a proof of its depth.
Assume it was written by a bunch of primitive story-tellers,
you will find unexplainable contradictions.
You will use that to prove its mundaneness.
I>m trying to take the middle road here,
you and Peter don>t seem to like that.
Just a thought . . .
[/quote]
"Primitive story-tellers"??
You are not taking a "middle road." You are taking an Orthodox
position, that everything the rabbis "find" in the text was there from
the very beginning. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Zev
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 12:25 pm Post subject: Re: Arabic word for fat |
|
|
"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:107372d1-bcf7-45b7-
b673-11796a01de0b@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On Jul 28, 5:12 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Assume it was written by a supernatural genius,
you>ll will explain away, somehow, all difficulties.
You will use the effort itself as a proof of its depth.
Assume it was written by a bunch of primitive story-tellers,
you will find unexplainable contradictions.
You will use that to prove its mundaneness.
I>m trying to take the middle road here,
you and Peter don>t seem to like that.
Just a thought . . .
"Primitive story-tellers"??
You are not taking a "middle road." You are taking an Orthodox
position, that everything the rabbis "find" in the text was there from
the very beginning.
[/quote]
My beliefs are Orthodox.
The position I>m supporting in this thread is "middle road".
Since there is no other, I accept the text "as is". |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Peter T. Daniels
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:11 pm Post subject: Re: Arabic word for fat |
|
|
On Jul 28, 8:25 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]"Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:107372d1-bcf7-45b7-
b673-11796a01d...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 28, 5:12 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Assume it was written by a supernatural genius,
you>ll will explain away, somehow, all difficulties.
You will use the effort itself as a proof of its depth.
Assume it was written by a bunch of primitive story-tellers,
you will find unexplainable contradictions.
You will use that to prove its mundaneness.
I>m trying to take the middle road here,
you and Peter don>t seem to like that.
Just a thought . . .
"Primitive story-tellers"??
You are not taking a "middle road." You are taking an Orthodox
position, that everything the rabbis "find" in the text was there from
the very beginning.
My beliefs are Orthodox.
The position I>m supporting in this thread is "middle road".
Since there is no other, I accept the text "as is".
[/quote]
Good -- then you recognize that the text "as is" makes no distinction
between two kinds of fat; any such distinction is post-biblical, i.e.,
rabbinic. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Zev
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 4:11 pm Post subject: Re: Arabic word for fat |
|
|
"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:39bf2d52-2e1e-47c1-ac4d-
ea3de16c682e@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On Jul 28, 8:25 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:107372d1-bcf7-45b7-
b673-11796a01d...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 28, 5:12 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Assume it was written by a supernatural genius,
you>ll will explain away, somehow, all difficulties.
You will use the effort itself as a proof of its depth.
Assume it was written by a bunch of primitive story-tellers,
you will find unexplainable contradictions.
You will use that to prove its mundaneness.
I>m trying to take the middle road here,
you and Peter don>t seem to like that.
Just a thought . . .
"Primitive story-tellers"??
You are not taking a "middle road." You are taking an Orthodox
position, that everything the rabbis "find" in the text was there from
the very beginning.
My beliefs are Orthodox.
The position I>m supporting in this thread is "middle road".
Since there is no other, I accept the text "as is".
Good -- then you recognize that the text "as is" makes no distinction
between two kinds of fat; any such distinction is post-biblical, i.e.,
rabbinic.
[/quote]
My position on the issue under discussion is as I stated previously.
Here you are questioning by beliefs.
I discussed with Alan the issue you bring up here.
The Torah gives examples of chelev.
They are all large blocks of fat.
The Rabbis say that this is the defining characteristic.
It seems reasonable to me.
Can you speculate on a different characteristic
which makes sense?
Do you believe that chelev refers to all fat
and simply means, "fat"? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Antnio Marques
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 4:15 pm Post subject: Re: Arabic word for fat |
|
|
Zev wrote:
[quote]I haven>t any idea. I don>t know how a Hebrew word could be
transliterated "Check."
I think it>s silly to transliterate as "Chek.",
knowing the source is English "Check."
[/quote]
The point of transliteration is to render tokens of a script in a
different script. That emphatically makes the source of the words
themselves not usable.
--
Antnio Marques
--
This signature does not include a prefab parting phrase
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Peter T. Daniels
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 6:12 pm Post subject: Re: Arabic word for fat |
|
|
On Jul 28, 12:11 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]"Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:39bf2d52-2e1e-47c1-ac4d-
ea3de16c6...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 28, 8:25 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:107372d1-bcf7-45b7-
b673-11796a01d...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 28, 5:12 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Assume it was written by a supernatural genius,
you>ll will explain away, somehow, all difficulties.
You will use the effort itself as a proof of its depth.
Assume it was written by a bunch of primitive story-tellers,
you will find unexplainable contradictions.
You will use that to prove its mundaneness.
I>m trying to take the middle road here,
you and Peter don>t seem to like that.
Just a thought . . .
"Primitive story-tellers"??
You are not taking a "middle road." You are taking an Orthodox
position, that everything the rabbis "find" in the text was there from
the very beginning.
My beliefs are Orthodox.
The position I>m supporting in this thread is "middle road".
Since there is no other, I accept the text "as is".
Good -- then you recognize that the text "as is" makes no distinction
between two kinds of fat; any such distinction is post-biblical, i.e.,
rabbinic.
My position on the issue under discussion is as I stated previously.
Here you are questioning by beliefs.
I discussed with Alan the issue you bring up here.
The Torah gives examples of chelev.
They are all large blocks of fat.
The Rabbis say that this is the defining characteristic.
It seems reasonable to me.
Can you speculate on a different characteristic
which makes sense?
Do you believe that chelev refers to all fat
and simply means, "fat"?
[/quote]
I am not discussing your views of the rabbinic interpretation of the
words. I am simply pointing out that it is a rabbinic interpretation
-- and hence normative for your sect of Judaism -- and not a plain
feature of any vocabulary in Torah. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Zev
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 6:02 am Post subject: Re: Arabic word for fat |
|
|
"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:0001169b-2cb7-43c4-bd18-
e0c5026b57ae@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On Jul 28, 12:11 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:39bf2d52-2e1e-47c1-ac4d-
ea3de16c6...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 28, 8:25 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:107372d1-bcf7-45b7-
b673-11796a01d...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 28, 5:12 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Assume it was written by a supernatural genius,
you>ll will explain away, somehow, all difficulties.
You will use the effort itself as a proof of its depth.
Assume it was written by a bunch of primitive story-tellers,
you will find unexplainable contradictions.
You will use that to prove its mundaneness.
I>m trying to take the middle road here,
you and Peter don>t seem to like that.
Just a thought . . .
"Primitive story-tellers"??
You are not taking a "middle road." You are taking an Orthodox
position, that everything the rabbis "find" in the text was there
from
the very beginning.
My beliefs are Orthodox.
The position I>m supporting in this thread is "middle road".
Since there is no other, I accept the text "as is".
Good -- then you recognize that the text "as is" makes no distinction
between two kinds of fat; any such distinction is post-biblical, i.e.,
rabbinic.
My position on the issue under discussion is as I stated previously.
Here you are questioning by beliefs.
I discussed with Alan the issue you bring up here.
The Torah gives examples of chelev.
They are all large blocks of fat.
The Rabbis say that this is the defining characteristic.
It seems reasonable to me.
Can you speculate on a different characteristic
which makes sense?
Do you believe that chelev refers to all fat
and simply means, "fat"?
I am not discussing your views of the rabbinic interpretation of the
words. I am simply pointing out that it is a rabbinic interpretation
-- and hence normative for your sect of Judaism -- and not a plain
feature of any vocabulary in Torah.
[/quote]
No argument.
I am making assumptions about the text,
but they they seem to make sense.
That was the point of the questions I asked you. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Peter T. Daniels
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 12:37 pm Post subject: Re: Arabic word for fat |
|
|
On Jul 29, 2:02 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]"Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:0001169b-2cb7-43c4-bd18-
e0c5026b5...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 28, 12:11 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:39bf2d52-2e1e-47c1-ac4d-
ea3de16c6...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 28, 8:25 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:107372d1-bcf7-45b7-
b673-11796a01d...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 28, 5:12 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Assume it was written by a supernatural genius,
you>ll will explain away, somehow, all difficulties.
You will use the effort itself as a proof of its depth.
Assume it was written by a bunch of primitive story-tellers,
you will find unexplainable contradictions.
You will use that to prove its mundaneness.
I>m trying to take the middle road here,
you and Peter don>t seem to like that.
Just a thought . . .
"Primitive story-tellers"??
You are not taking a "middle road." You are taking an Orthodox
position, that everything the rabbis "find" in the text was there
from
the very beginning.
My beliefs are Orthodox.
The position I>m supporting in this thread is "middle road".
Since there is no other, I accept the text "as is".
Good -- then you recognize that the text "as is" makes no distinction
between two kinds of fat; any such distinction is post-biblical, i.e.,
rabbinic.
My position on the issue under discussion is as I stated previously.
Here you are questioning by beliefs.
I discussed with Alan the issue you bring up here.
The Torah gives examples of chelev.
They are all large blocks of fat.
The Rabbis say that this is the defining characteristic.
It seems reasonable to me.
Can you speculate on a different characteristic
which makes sense?
Do you believe that chelev refers to all fat
and simply means, "fat"?
I am not discussing your views of the rabbinic interpretation of the
words. I am simply pointing out that it is a rabbinic interpretation
-- and hence normative for your sect of Judaism -- and not a plain
feature of any vocabulary in Torah.
No argument.
I am making assumptions about the text,
but they they seem to make sense.
That was the point of the questions I asked you.
[/quote]
"Assumptions about the text" are religion, not linguistics. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
