In Genesis 38:29, the progeny of Yehudah's incestuous relationship with his daughter-in-law Tamar were, with the Masoretic pointing, Parets (פָּרֶץ) and Zarach (זָרַח).
In Genesis 46:12 however, the Masoretic pointing this time gives Pherets (פֶרֶץ), while Zarach remains the same (though elsewhere he is given as Zerach); and 1 Chronicles 2:4 leaves the dagesh in the Pey, making it Perets. Which version is correct? The difficulty is caused by that first-letter Pey, which should be pronounced "hard", as though there were a dagesh, but the Masoretic on this occasion softens it to Phey, which is normal when there is a Vav prefix (the conjunction "and" which is always a prefix, never a separate word; and this because it is a single letter and cannot therefore stand alone). But perhaps, because it is his name, it doesn't soften it; perhaps it is a scribal error which has been retained by tradition or oversight? Or perhaps it was a foreign word which conflicted with the Yehudit grammar? We cannot know.
Most English translations make the matter worse by rendering the final letter Tsade (ץ) as though it were a Zayin (ז), with this word and almost any other with the Tsade ending (Uts - עוּץ - for example, in the Book of Job; and see Perizim). This transforms Parets/Pherets into Perez (פרז), or even Peres, as in Shimon Peres the Israeli politician, which is a completely different word from a completely different root.
Or two actually.
The first is Paraz (פרז), used in Habakkuk 3:14 to mean a military officer, and in Judges 5:7 to mean "rulers" or possibly "dominion", though some translations, such as the one linked here, confuse Paraz with Perizim and mistranslate it as "peasantry".
The second is the Perizim (פרזים), which refers to a Kena'ani (Canaanite) tribe who lived in the mountains of Yehudah (Genesis 13:17, 15:20, Exodus 3:8, Joshua 11:3, 17:15 et al); the name derives from the Hurrian word for "village". Neither of these two has anything to do with Parets/Pherets, which is complex enough on its own; but explained here because it shows how many errors are made, even by the most scholarly, in writing down, or translating, the scriptures.
The root that we are seeking for Zerach's twin-brother (or it may be Zarach's twin-brother) is Parats (פרץ) = "to break"; used for breaches of a wall in siege, and for breach-births (Amos 4:3, Ezekiel 13:5, 1 Kings 11:27, and many more); we know it was the latter from the story, but what makes this particularly interesting, in a book in which Tanism and ultimogeniture are such a major subject, is that this tale consciously describes a situation in which, even in the most difficult circumstances, the sort that could easily come to court for a judge to pronounce upon, it is still possible to know which is the elder and which the latter. In this case there are twins, but they are breached. Whether they are identical or fraternal is neither known nor relevant. Which one is lying closest to the mother's cervix is not known, though today, with technology, it would be easy to identify, and in modern practice the one lying closest would be called Twin 1 or Twin A, and the second Twin 2 or Twin B; in the event that a Caesarean is performed Twin 1/Twin A is the baby that is first born, and therefore deemed to be the elder in law.
The root that we are seeking for Zerach's twin-brother (or it may be Zarach's twin-brother) is Parats (פרץ) = "to break"; used for breaches of a wall in siege, and for breach-births (Amos 4:3, Ezekiel 13:5, 1 Kings 11:27, and many more); we know it was the latter from the story, but what makes this particularly interesting, in a book in which Tanism and ultimogeniture are such a major subject, is that this tale consciously describes a situation in which, even in the most difficult circumstances, the sort that could easily come to court for a judge to pronounce upon, it is still possible to know which is the elder and which the latter. In this case there are twins, but they are breached. Whether they are identical or fraternal is neither known nor relevant. Which one is lying closest to the mother's cervix is not known, though today, with technology, it would be easy to identify, and in modern practice the one lying closest would be called Twin 1 or Twin A, and the second Twin 2 or Twin B; in the event that a Caesarean is performed Twin 1/Twin A is the baby that is first born, and therefore deemed to be the elder in law.
In Biblical times this was not achievable, and so legal disputes between twins may well have been commonplace. The key to this tale is that Zerach's hand was the first part of either twin to come out, so he is deemed to be Twin 1/Twin A, and the midwife tied a scarlet thread to it to identify him later should they turn out to be identical; but the hand went back in, and then out came the whole of Parets first instead. So, students of law, there is your case, now please your verdict. Does a single retreated hand count as "born", or does it require the whole body? Who is the elder, who the younger? Who gets the birthright and the inheritance?
See also Numbers 26:20 for the tribe of Parets, called Ha-Partsi (הַפַּרְצִי), with a Tsade (צ) not a Zayin (ז), and a dagesh in the Pey (פ) in the Masoretic in verse 20, but then without it for their eponymous ancestor Pherets (פֶרֶץ) in verse 21, and this despite the fact that there is no prefix to soften the Pey. Even the most Jewish of translations (look at Mechon-Mamre for example) give the tribe as Perez and Perizites as though it were a Zayin and not a Tsade. So many weeds and tarnels cluttering up the tel!
See also Numbers 26:20 for the tribe of Parets, called Ha-Partsi (הַפַּרְצִי), with a Tsade (צ) not a Zayin (ז), and a dagesh in the Pey (פ) in the Masoretic in verse 20, but then without it for their eponymous ancestor Pherets (פֶרֶץ) in verse 21, and this despite the fact that there is no prefix to soften the Pey. Even the most Jewish of translations (look at Mechon-Mamre for example) give the tribe as Perez and Perizites as though it were a Zayin and not a Tsade. So many weeds and tarnels cluttering up the tel!
Copyright © 2019 David Prashker
All rights reserved
The Argaman Press
No comments:
Post a Comment