rosends

הסתר פּה "נא"-ים

as in all 4, the phrase ends with the anapest

@LeakyNun there are 4 sets of "im" phrases and in each one, the word following "im" has a stress on the final syllable. The question of whether Tamim is connected to g'var or if it is connected to titamam -- I think that commentators discuss that.(either of which would turn g'var into more of a pyhrric preceding an iamb than an iamb preceding an iamb, sort of like שְׁבַ֥ע מֵא֖וֹת)

@LeakyNun If my reading is correct, the phrase parallels others in which the words are stressed at the end (chaSId titchaSAD, k'VOR yaDAI, naVA titbaRAR) but gEver would have a stress on the first which, when connected to taMIM would not flow.

@LeakyNun it seems that there is discussion about the precise meaning (whether it is a form of gvr used when connected to tamim or whether it isn't connected and is an stylistic choice). 2 points - one is that gvar is Aramaic but is a form that might have crossed into Hebrew usage because 2, this use is poetic and the form scans better with the surrounding phrases.

a resource tora.us.fm/tnk1/ljon/jorj/gbr.html

@LeakyNun the Targum Onkelos of 2:24 עַל כֵּן יִשְׁבּוֹק גְּבַר . Are you asking about meaning, grammar or style? Also, why is your sense that the Greek transliteration is right and the Hebrew is a mistake? Is it because of the preponderance of gever uses comparatively or is there a substantive reason?

Are you saying that the 9th century translation is a transliteration so γαβρ would indicate that the source Hebrew should read Gav'r? In terms of meaning, gever and g'var seem to have the same meaning -- man. The Radak connects the form to the targum of Genesis 2:24.

@user6591 and I still believe that a prophet gives mussar as a result of a mission/charge from Hashem and not based on his own ideas, so since Yosef didn't get that, he had no reason to say anything else other than what he was given -- the meaning of the dream.

@user6591 for the same reason I don't assume that the famine was a punishment. There was a larger plan at work, set in motion many years earlier, having to do with Avraham's children, not Paroh's behavior.

@user6591 no, I'm saying that Yosef learned that Paroh would be blessed with 7 years of plenty and he could parlay that into incredible riches and control over all the land. Why would he assume that suffering needed to be mitigated, or that it was the result of bad behavior? The 7 years of plenty weren't the result of good behavior, were they?

Does that sugyah address the source of all pleasure as well? 7 years of plenty came first, from the same divine source.

Did yosef assume that the years of plenty were the result of sinning? A Navi gets a message to transmit - did Hashem tell yosef that paroh had done wrong?

So you also don't know the basic grammar of Hebrew, that a feminine demands a feminine agreement...OK, so noted. Good thing you aren't responding to me.

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ewe שְׂעִירָה (n-f) heb she-goat עֵז (n-f) heb female goat, she-goat, goat, kid

So you don't know about agreement of gender in nouns in Hebrew. So noted. "or the sin of which he is guilty is brought to his knowledge—he shall bring a female goat without blemish as his offering for the sin of which he is guilty." Good thing you aren't responding to me.

כִּבְשָׂה, כַּבְשָׂה f.n. ewe, lamb. [f. of כֶּבֶשׂ.] Derivative: כִּשְׂבָּה. "and he shall bring his guilt offering to the Lord for his sin which he had committed, a female [animal] from the flock either a sheep or a goat, for a sin offering." Kid?

haven't read Rashi on 12:5, have you? Good thing you aren't responding to me...

Good thing you aren't responding to me or I would have to point out that the text has to include "ben shanah" in 12:5 because without it, seh doesn't necessarily mean of that age. That quote only reinforces the point that seh, without an explicit age listed, can include something older (cf Gen 30:32 and loads of other places).

@Mordecai I'm glad that was your last reply. You continue to make an assertion about age which is unsupported textually and you keep insisting on a translation which isn't textual and then you complain about other translations which interpret differently from you. Trying to shoehorn the prefiguring of some "Lamb" into the text is transparent and inappropriate but not textually viable.

@Mordecai the age has no bearing on why it "can't" be a ram. The word "seh" isn't limited to an age. Then you accept that yir'eh means something but then you decide on your favorite interpretation as the best option. It is clear why you are pushing in a particular direction even though it contradicts what the text says.

If "seh" is, as its root indicates (check Klein, for example), "small cattle" or "goat, sheep" then why wouldn't ram (male sheep) be included? By limiting it to "lamb" which indicates age, absent from the text, you are skewing the meaning so that you can find something missing. As for the translation, you insist that the "best" is "it will be seen" when the Hebrew word "yir'eh" doesn't mean that. It means "he will see." So your translation is clearly wrong. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why you are working towards what you are working towards.

@Mordecai Abraham says that God will provide an animal from a category and that's what happens, but he makes the form of the animal one that presages the shofar. As to the meaning of the mountain's name, I have 2 translations handy, one which says “On the mount of the LORD there is vision.” and the other says, "The Lord will see, as it is said to this day: On the mountain, the Lord will be seen".

@Mordecai " in the binding of Isaac, the RAM imho becomes the symbol that points to הַשֶּׂ֛ה" I don't see this at all.

The sefaria.org/… Daat Z'keinim makes a connection (from B"R) between the ram here and the Yom Kippur ram, but if your question is "why did Avraham anticipate that H' would show a 'lamb' but he shows a ram?" the best I can find is the R' Bahyah who connects some of the more generic terminology for the class of animal (though not lamb explicitly). Are you wondering if "lamb" was intended more symbolically?

Yes, to be leavened. No mention of sourdough starter. As to tghe entirety of the oral law as interpretation, if that is your starting position then you have an underlying different understanding of Judaism and you probably habve all sorts of questions like "why slaughter animals" and "why should we fast on Yom kippur"? Yet you focus on meat/milk.

@rebecca what do I think? Why does that matter? That makes it personal interpretation and you reject that. And I have a Hebrew dictionary (of biblical hebrew) and I see no referene to starter sefaria.org/…

that still doesn't mention health or pagans. Or starter.

@rebecca So ALL the commandments are for "health"? Not only doesn't the section you cite mention health, it lumps all commandments into one group, to be "high above all the nations" nor does it mention pagans.

What you have is your interpretation until you can show me explicitly in the text that your reasoning is supported.

I also can't find any mention of sourdough starter in my text.

@rebecca you give those as the reasons, but those aren't in my Torah.

"wouldn't we be better off"? In what sense? What makes you think we are adding to the Torah? Why do you think the dietary commandments are about health? Why impute a reason behind the command?

2 issues -- one, if we read it and it quotes the Tanach, is that a problem in the bathroom and, if we read it to be able to refute it, then we will have Torah-defense thoughts in the bathroom so would reading it there be a michshol?

@larry909 the big challah bakes are initiatives with 3 aims: to increase involvement in making challah (not a mitzvah, just a cultural thing, and I'm not dealing with segulahs for healing right now), to make for a social gathering when prepping for Shabbat (not a mitzvah) and to encourage the taking of Challah (a mitzvah which, in other contexts, rarely comes us). Messianic awareness comes up frequently so it doesn't need a particular event. I see this like saying "why doesn't Orthodoxy have "tikkun olam" as a central theme like Reform Judaism does." Except it does, just not with that label.

@larry909 I think that for most observant Jews, the messianic hope is paramount (of all the "ani ma'amin" statements, which one was made into a song that kids sing?). It is in our prayers, thrice daily and not just in the amida; it is the backbone of our musaf service; it is the underlying point to most every mitzvah we do. Other than add in a sentence after every action (like the "bimheirah b'yameinu" type which people DO add in often) I don't see what is expected by this question.

@IsaacMoses does that last statement ("it's Rosh Chodesh somewhere") contradict the statement that Americans can't answer yet?

by what time zone does the season open (and close)?

@IsaacMoses No -- the names was something asked of me by a student and I wanted to fill HER curiosity about it. I was more concerned about my interest in the trivia of which is more infrequent: 2 torah week days or 3 torah shabbatot. No real reason to care; I just wanted to know.

@IsaacMoses " it's based on what you see as the value of the post." -- Absolutely. I have no use for a question about dafyomi on Long Island, but unless I see something problematic about the post, I would rather just ignore it than vote it down because it is of little use to the majority of the world. Many questions spring from personal need and their transferable (generalizable) value is hit or miss.

This all answers the question that I had originally asked and I appreciate it. I will go on whatever record as saying that I won't be voting based on what I think is useful or not useful. Hope that doesn't pose a problem.

@IsaacMoses Is there an FAQ which can explain "usefulness"? My urge to know something simply because I want to know it is the ultimate in "useful" for me. Questions which aren't useful to me are ones I don't vote on positive or negative. If I should be changing my voting matterns, please let me know.

@DoubleAA I don't know if it is closure as much as it is curiosity -- he never found an answer so I'm wondering if one exists. For other questions, they are matters of trivia and nothing more. Does it matter what the answer is? No. I just want to know because I found it interesting.

Thank you for the response -- my concern is split. It is reassuring to hear that such a question wouldn't be necessarily closed but even the idea that it would be downvoted because it has "no clear value" is troubling. What has value as trivia to me should not need to have value to any other. If it isn't worth answering then a no answer seems sufficient. Down voting seems uncalled for. There was a question that my great uncle put a family cash bounty on. He died, but I'm still curious, just because I'm curious. Should that merit a down vote because someone else isn't curious?

@Lucian my lack of familiarity could be ameliorated by the presentation of actual and relevant content in the question.

@YaacovDeane and in that case, ק"ו I wouldn't rely on it to support this purported claim.

@Lucian I don't need to go find sources. I don't think that the underlying idea exists outside of the B of J talking about 3 commandments so I'm not claiming it does. If you have actual sources that say what you claim to be the case, you should edit them into your question.

@ba I don't see it as particularly clear or substantiated and I won't compare it to other questions -- just on its own. It seems to want to ask "Do the angels still observe the isolated commandments that the Book of Jubilees says they observed" but instead it asks "Do angels still keep the Torah".

@YaacovDeane That's my point. If it is a comment by a writer and not anything sourced in classical texts, then it shouldn't be taken as an historically valid observation which has its place in a canonical body of thought.

@Lucian I guess I don't see them as a verifiable historical witness chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/3671027/jewish/…