Thursday, October 20, 2016

Bit at a Time Bible Hebrew -- et 2

If you didn’t see that title coming, you need to read more Shakespeare.
Here I’ll demonstrate some cases illustrating rules 6 and 7 from last week.
Leviticus 7:2-4 rings the changes, as Exodus 29 rang the changes on “passives”.
ב בִּמְקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁחֲטוּ אֶת־הָעֹלָה יִשְׁחֲטוּ אֶת־הָאָשָׁם וְאֶת־דָּמוֹ יִזְרֹק עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּחַ סָבִיב:
ג וְאֶת־כָּל־חֶלְבּוֹ יַקְרִיב מִמֶּנּוּ אֵת הָאַלְיָה וְאֶת־הַחֵלֶב הַמְכַסֶּה אֶת־הַקֶּרֶב:
ד וְאֵת שְׁתֵּי הַכְּלָיֹת וְאֶת־הַחֵלֶב אֲשֶׁר עֲלֵיהֶן אֲשֶׁר עַל־הַכְּסָלִים וְאֶת־הַיֹּתֶרֶת עַל־הַכָּבֵד עַל־הַכְּלָיֹת יְסִירֶנָּה:
In verse 2, the olah is referred to here in contrast with the asham and they both take the segol version of et.  The blood is being considered as a specific part of the sacrifice so it does the same.  Same thing for the chelev at the start of verse 3; there is more than one place to get chelev and the et kal shows that each one of them is meant.
The alyah, the “fat tail” is considered as an entire entity, separate unto itself, and there are halakhot that specifically address component parts of it in Mishnah and Gemara.
The kidneys are another entity, like the alyah, and require the tseire version; the segol version is used with the chelev because it is considered in contrast to the actual kidneys and also to the other kind  of chelev.  The yoteret is listed in contrast to the liver of which it is part.
Test yourself.  Go through Torah and watch for the word erets.  I’ll give you the main examples that demonstrate my point.
Genesis 1:1 deals with heaven and earth as wholes.  This is part of the basis for the midrash that the creation story isn’t about the exact order in which things happened.  We don’t get the details.
בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ:
Exodus 20:11.  Notice the contrast with the tseire version in Genesis 1:1; this verse is dealing with the four different parts of the creation – actually five when you get to yom ha-shabbat.  There is no definite article with yom, but it is understood because this is a construct phrase.
כִּי שֵׁשֶׁת-יָמִים עָשָׂה יְהוָה אֶת-הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֶת-הָאָרֶץ, אֶת-הַיָּם וְאֶת-כָּל-אֲשֶׁר-בָּם, וַיָּנַח, בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי; עַל-כֵּן, בֵּרַךְ יְהוָה אֶת-יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת—וַיְקַדְּשֵׁהוּ
When there’s a restrictive sense to erets, we get the segol version as in Deuteronomy 3:8:
נִּקַּח בָּעֵת הַהִוא אֶת־הָאָרֶץ מִיַּד שְׁנֵי מַלְכֵי הָאֱמֹרִי אֲשֶׁר בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן מִנַּחַל אַרְנֹן עַד־הַר חֶרְמוֹן:
It’s pretty obvious that the only land concerned here is that of Sichon and Og.  It can’t possibly mean all of the world.  That’s why it has segol. 
We have a problem in Leviticus 26:42.  We have three contrasted covenants using the segol version, and we also have erets as a definite noun with NO et.  Why not?  Beats me.  Unless the emphasis  of the topic order clause  means et  shouldn’t be  used.
וְזָכַרְתִּי אֶת־בְּרִיתִי יַעֲקוֹב וְאַף אֶת־בְּרִיתִי יִצְחָק וְאַף אֶת־בְּרִיתִי אַבְרָהָם אֶזְכֹּר וְהָאָרֶץ אֶזְכֹּר:
Just a few more dogs and cats to cover.

© Patricia Jo Heil, 2013-2018 All Rights Reserved

No comments:

Post a Comment