SurfTheSite
12:1 MASA DEVAR YHVH AL YISRA-EL NE'UM YHVH NOTEH SHAMAYIM VE YOSED ARETS VE YOTSER RU'ACH ADAM BE KIRBO
12:1 MASA DEVAR YHVH AL YISRA-EL NE'UM YHVH NOTEH SHAMAYIM VE YOSED ARETS VE YOTSER RU'ACH ADAM BE KIRBO
מַשָּׂא דְבַר יְהוָה עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל נְאֻם יְהוָה נֹטֶה שָׁמַיִם וְיֹסֵד אָרֶץ וְיֹצֵר רוּחַ אָדָם בְּקִרְבּוֹ
BN (BibleNet translation): The detail of the Word of YHVH concerning Yisra-El. Thus says YHVH, who stretches forth the heavens, and lays the foundation of the Earth, and forms the spirit of Man within him...
DEVAR YHVH: As noted previously, this is "Word" in the Genesis 1 sense, the naming into existence of natural events; a metaphorical word, uttered by a metaphorical deity, to explain and describe the only parts of this which are corporeally real: the incidents of Nature.
DEVAR YHVH: As noted previously, this is "Word" in the Genesis 1 sense, the naming into existence of natural events; a metaphorical word, uttered by a metaphorical deity, to explain and describe the only parts of this which are corporeally real: the incidents of Nature.
pey break. Should this verse have been the final verse of the last chapter? And if so, why did the Christians who defined the chapters not put it there? Or is the pey break simply a way of separating the introductory-title line from the main text? And if so, it is not the custom through the remainder of this book, or elsewhere in the Tanach.
12:2 HINEH ANOCHI SAM ET YERU-SHALA'IM SAPH RA'AL LE CHOL HA AMIM SAVIV VE GAM AL YEHUDAH YIHEHEY VA MATSOR AL YERU-SHALA'IM
הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי שָׂם אֶת יְרוּשָׁלִַם סַף רַעַל לְכָל הָעַמִּים סָבִיב וְגַם עַל יְהוּדָה יִהְיֶה בַמָּצוֹר עַל יְרוּשָׁלִָם
BN: "You will see, how I will reduce Yeru-Shala'im to a reeling-bowl before all the peoples round about, and Yehudah too; so Yeru-Shala'im will be besieged...
SAPH RA'AL: "cup of trembling", and "reeling-bowl", do not convince me, though this is what the Yehudit says; I have gone for "reeling-bowl" because the bowl conveys the image of something completely encircled. The intention seems to be a reduction to a state akin to Parkinson's, though how and why this should then function as a "buttress" is unclear (several translations offer this).
SAPH RA'AL: "cup of trembling", and "reeling-bowl", do not convince me, though this is what the Yehudit says; I have gone for "reeling-bowl" because the bowl conveys the image of something completely encircled. The intention seems to be a reduction to a state akin to Parkinson's, though how and why this should then function as a "buttress" is unclear (several translations offer this).
MATSOR is the root of MITSRAYIM, which is lower Egypt, but it probably isn't that either. Deuteronomy 28:53 plays a word-game with MATSUR and MATSOK, the first being the siege and the second the consequent distress; I suspect that this is the intended allusion. See the notes following.
SAPH: A basin or bowl in Exodus 12:22, where its meaning is very, very precise. Jeremiah 52:19 and 1 Kings 7:50 also use it, but in a more generalist manner.
RA'AL: Isaiah 3:19 has RA'ALOT for a woman's veil - presumably the lace sort which wobbles in the wind or against the breath, rather than the heavy linen sort of the burqa.
SAPH: A basin or bowl in Exodus 12:22, where its meaning is very, very precise. Jeremiah 52:19 and 1 Kings 7:50 also use it, but in a more generalist manner.
RA'AL: Isaiah 3:19 has RA'ALOT for a woman's veil - presumably the lace sort which wobbles in the wind or against the breath, rather than the heavy linen sort of the burqa.
12:3 VE HAYAH VA YOM HA HU ASIM ET YERU-SHALA'IM EVEN MA'AMASAH LE CHOL HA AMIM KOL OMSEYHA SAROT YISARETU VE NE'ESPHU ALEYHA KOL GOYEY HA ARETS
וְהָיָה בַיּוֹם הַהוּא אָשִׂים אֶת יְרוּשָׁלִַם אֶבֶן מַעֲמָסָה לְכָל הָעַמִּים כָּל עֹמְסֶיהָ שָׂרוֹט יִשָּׂרֵטוּ וְנֶאֶסְפוּ עָלֶיהָ כֹּל גּוֹיֵי הָאָרֶץ
BN: "And it shall come to pass on that day, that I will make Yeru-Shala'im a burdensome stone for all the peoples; all who burden themselves with it shall be sorely wounded; and all the nations of the Earth shall be gathered together against it."
Sadly, the evidence of history suggests that this oracle was entirely accurate.
12:4 BA YOM HA HU NE'UM YHVH AKEH CHOL SUS BA TIMAHON VE ROCHVO BA SHIGA'ON VE AL BEIT YEHUDAH EPHKACH ET EYNAI VE CHOL SUS HA AMIM AKEH BA IVARON
בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא נְאֻם יְהוָה אַכֶּה כָל סוּס בַּתִּמָּהוֹן וְרֹכְבוֹ בַּשִּׁגָּעוֹן וְעַל בֵּית יְהוּדָה אֶפְקַח אֶת עֵינַי וְכֹל סוּס הָעַמִּים אַכֶּה בַּעִוָּרוֹן
BN: "On that day," says YHVH, "I will smite every horse with terror, and his rider with madness; and I will open my eyes upon the house of Yehudah, and smite every horse of the nation as with blindness...
This is one of the places where I have a problem with deities. Wanting to deal with failed humans is all very well, but why is it necessary to take it out on the innocent equines? (Oh, it's another metaphor. Of course. How silly of me!)
12:5 VE AMRU ALUPHEY YEHUDAH BE LIBAM AMTSAH LI YOSHVEI YERU-SHALA'IM BA YHVH YSEVA'OT ELOHEYHEM
BN: "And the rulers of Yehudah will say in their hearts, The inhabitants of Yeru-Shala'im are my strength in YHVH, the Lord of the Hosts of the Heavens, their god'...
12:6 BA YOM HA HU ASIM ET ALUPHEY YEHUDAH KE CHIYOR ESH BE ETSIM U CHE LAPID ESH BE AMIR VE ACHLU AL YAMIN VE AL SEM'OL ET KOL HA AMIM SAVIV VE YASHVAH YERU-SHALA'IM OD TACHTEYHA BIYRU-SHALA'IM
בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא אָשִׂים אֶת אַלֻּפֵי יְהוּדָה כְּכִיּוֹר אֵשׁ בְּעֵצִים וּכְלַפִּיד אֵשׁ בְּעָמִיר וְאָכְלוּ עַל יָמִין וְעַל שְׂמֹאול אֶת כָּל הָעַמִּים סָבִיב וְיָשְׁבָה יְרוּשָׁלַםִ עוֹד תַּחְתֶּיהָ בִּירוּשָׁלָםִ
BN: "On that day I will make the rulers of Yehudah like a pan of fire set among wood, and like a flaming torch set among sheaves. And they shall devour all the nations round about, on the right hand and on the left. And they of Yeru-Shala'im shall once again dwell in their own place, even in Yeru-Shala'im."
CHIYOR: Tricky word, this, and this the only occasion when it appears to be used to mean a cooking pan. Exodus 30:18 and 28 (et al) use it for a laver, employed as part of the ritual washing before the act of prayer or sacrifice; and if that is the intention then it both makes the war here "holy", but also prefigures the MAKOR which opens the following chapter. On the other hand, 2 Chronicles 6:13 uses it for a "platform", made by King Shelomoh (Solomon) out of bronze, "five cubits long, five cubits wide, and three cubits high", and "placed in the middle of the courtyard"; its purpose a stage, a temporary pulpit really, for him to make the dedication speech for the opening of the now-completed Temple - and I cannot imagine that this allusion was unintended by Zechar-Yah, in the context of his vision.
LAPID: And if CHIYOR was both complex and allusionary, the LAPIDOT are even more so. In the Book of Judges it is used in both the masculine (Judges 7:16 and 7:20) and the feminine (Judges 4:4 and 4:6) In 4:4 Devorah the Prophetess' husband was named Lapidot - but see my note there rather than me repeating it here; enough to say that these are the torches that light the way to She'ol, the Underworld, and are again a prefiguration of the Apocalypse in the following chapter.
pey break
12:7 VE HOSHIY'A YHVH ET AHALEY YEHUDAH BE RI'SHONAH LEMA'AN LO TIGDAL TIPH'ERET BEIT DAVID VE TIPH'ERET YOSHEV YERU-SHALA'IM AL YEHUDAH
וְהוֹשִׁיעַ יְהוָה אֶת אָהֳלֵי יְהוּדָה בָּרִאשֹׁנָה לְמַעַן לֹא תִגְדַּל תִּפְאֶרֶת בֵּית דָּוִיד וְתִפְאֶרֶת יֹשֵׁב יְרוּשָׁלַםִ עַל יְהוּדָה
BN: But YHVH will save the tents of Yehudah first, so that the glory of the house of David, and the glory of the inhabitants of Yeru-Shala'im, are not exalted higher than Yehudah.
DAVID: On every occasion that the name recurs in this chapter the Yehudit spelling includes a Yud, and should therefore be transliterated as Daviyd. However - was that Yud in the original, or a Masoretic addition? If the latter, we can state with absolute conviction that it was added because the Ashkenazim of the early middle ages had altered the pronunciation of the name, hardening the Vav in this and all its other usages, where it had almost certainly been soft before. Daoud, not Daviyd.
DAVID: On every occasion that the name recurs in this chapter the Yehudit spelling includes a Yud, and should therefore be transliterated as Daviyd. However - was that Yud in the original, or a Masoretic addition? If the latter, we can state with absolute conviction that it was added because the Ashkenazim of the early middle ages had altered the pronunciation of the name, hardening the Vav in this and all its other usages, where it had almost certainly been soft before. Daoud, not Daviyd.
Why would this distinction even need to be made? Are the house of David, the inhabitants of Yeru-Shala'im, and the tents of Yehudah, not the same people, living in the same land, worshipping the same gods, under the same rulers? Ah yes, but the land is now named Yehudah, which gives the tribe prominence - in the same way that naming it England places the Anglii above the Saxons, the Jutes, the Frisians, who then become forgotten. And that is not acceptable, lest the tribe of Yehudah become arrogant, and forget that Yeru-Shala'im was part of the inheritance of Bin-Yamin, not that of Yehudah, and that the house of David includes all the remnants of all the tribes, as well as those other inhabitants of the land of Kena'an, all of them, Yehudi and non-Yehudi.
12:8 BA YOM HA HU YAGEN YHVH BE AD YOSHEV YERU-SHALA'IM VE HAYAH HA NICHSHAL BA HEM BA YOM HA HU KE DAVID U VEIT DAVID K'ELOHIM KE MAL'ACH YHVH LIPHNEYHEM
KJ: In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them.
BN: On that day YHVH will defend the inhabitants of Yeru-Shala'im. And he who is feeble among them shall be like David on that day; and the house of David shall be like the Elohim, like the messenger of YHVH before them.
KE DAVID: On which day? The one that he captured Yeru-Shala'im? There is no such day. There were seven hilltop villages that would be conurbated by him to form Yeru-Shala'im, and each of them fell under his rule at entirely different times and in entirely different ways. Is this perhaps a reference to the boy David throwing his stone at Gol-Yat?
12:9 VE HAYAH BA YOM HA HU AVAKESH LEHASHMID ET KOL HA GOYIM HA BA'IM AL YERU-SHALA'IM
KJ: And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.
BN: "And it shall come to pass on that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Yeru-Shala'im...
The unstated switch again, the voice of YHVH, not that of the Prophet.
12:8 BA YOM HA HU YAGEN YHVH BE AD YOSHEV YERU-SHALA'IM VE HAYAH HA NICHSHAL BA HEM BA YOM HA HU KE DAVID U VEIT DAVID K'ELOHIM KE MAL'ACH YHVH LIPHNEYHEM
בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא יָגֵן יְהוָה בְּעַד יוֹשֵׁב יְרוּשָׁלַםִ וְהָיָה הַנִּכְשָׁל בָּהֶם בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא כְּדָוִיד וּבֵית דָּוִיד כֵּאלֹהִים כְּמַלְאַךְ יְהוָה לִפְנֵיהֶם
KJ: In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them.
BN: On that day YHVH will defend the inhabitants of Yeru-Shala'im. And he who is feeble among them shall be like David on that day; and the house of David shall be like the Elohim, like the messenger of YHVH before them.
KE DAVID: On which day? The one that he captured Yeru-Shala'im? There is no such day. There were seven hilltop villages that would be conurbated by him to form Yeru-Shala'im, and each of them fell under his rule at entirely different times and in entirely different ways. Is this perhaps a reference to the boy David throwing his stone at Gol-Yat?
12:9 VE HAYAH BA YOM HA HU AVAKESH LEHASHMID ET KOL HA GOYIM HA BA'IM AL YERU-SHALA'IM
וְהָיָה בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא אֲבַקֵּשׁ לְהַשְׁמִיד אֶת כָּל הַגּוֹיִם הַבָּאִים עַל יְרוּשָׁלִָם
KJ: And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.
BN: "And it shall come to pass on that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Yeru-Shala'im...
The unstated switch again, the voice of YHVH, not that of the Prophet.
12:10 VE SHAPHACHTI AL BEIT DAVID VE AL YOSHEV YERU-SHALA'IM RU'ACH CHEN VE TACHANUNIM VE HIBIYTU ELAI ET ASHER DAKARU VE SAPHDU ALAV KE MISPED AL HA YACHID VE HAMER ALAV KE HAMER AL HA BECHOR
וְשָׁפַכְתִּי עַל בֵּית דָּוִיד וְעַל יוֹשֵׁב יְרוּשָׁלַםִ רוּחַ חֵן וְתַחֲנוּנִים וְהִבִּיטוּ אֵלַי אֵת אֲשֶׁר דָּקָרוּ וְסָפְדוּ עָלָיו כְּמִסְפֵּד עַל הַיָּחִיד וְהָמֵר עָלָיו כְּהָמֵר עַל הַבְּכוֹר
KJ: And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
BN: "And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Yeru-Shala'im, the spirit of grace and of supplication. And they will look at me whom they have pierced; and they will beat their breasts for him, as one would beat one's breast for one's only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his first-born...
DAKARU: Pierced? As with the tusks of the boar (click here, or here, which connects all three of my suggestions), the point of the Sha'uline javelin (1 Samuel 18:11 and 19:10), the Roman spear (John 19:34)?
SAPHDU: "Mourning" is correct, as a generalisation. But mourning in general is AVEL (אבל), as in Genesis 23:2 and 50:11. The root SAPHAD means "to beat", so we should probably translate it more specifically than "mourning", as I have done here; however Micah 1:8 makes it more specific somewhat differently, as do some translations of Jeremiah 22:18; see also Ecclesiastes 3:4 and 12:5, and Zechar-Yah 7:5.
HA YACHID: I have gone for the slightly old-fashioned "one", because in this context it is very important to avoid genderising; however, given the nature of the mythology being alluded to, if a translator does genderise here, it really ought to be "she", not "he". The "only son" is always Tammuz, Jesus, Bin-Yamin (or Adonis, Osher, Attis, as you prefer); the mourning is always at the north gate of the Temple (Ezekiel 8:14), the "bitterness" in Yehudit is "mar" (HAMER in this verse), the root of both the location of the temple (Mor-Yah) and, in the Jesus story, the names of the women who are mourning (Mary, Maria, Martha).
BECHOR: As opposed to BACHUR. "Chosen one" or "first-born" - see my note to Psalm 89:28.
12:11 BA YOM HA HU YIGDAL HA MISPED BIYRU-SHALA'IM KE MISPAD HADAD-RIMON BE VIK'AT MEGIDON
בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא יִגְדַּל הַמִּסְפֵּד בִּירוּשָׁלַםִ כְּמִסְפַּד הֲדַדְ רִמּוֹן בְּבִקְעַת מְגִדּוֹן
KJ: In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon.
BN: "On that day the mourning in Yeru-Shala'im will increase, like the mourning of Hadad-Rimon in the valley of Megidon...
YIGDAL: Is surely a verb in the future tense, not a noun.
HADAD-RIMON: Where Yoshi-Yahu (Josiah) was killed in battle, according to 2 Kings 23:29 and 2 Chronicles 35:20-25. It is not obvious whether the allusion to Yoshi-Yahu is because he was the king who "discovered" copies of the Mosaic Torah (2 Kings 22:8 ff) and reinstated them, or because that "discovery" was made during the process of renovating and restoring the Temple, or simply an opportunity to mention Megidon as another prefiguration of the apocalypse about to be described. Probably all three.
The name comes from an amalgamation of two remarkably similar deities, who ended up under this combined name as one and the same. HADAD was the Kena'ani storm-god who appears, with minor variations of his name, throughout the ancient Middle East; Rimmon came from further east, probably Akkadian originally, and also gave his name to both the pomegranete (cf Exodus 28:33/34) and the silver handle-coverings used for scrolls of the Torah; though actually that latter is a double-error; the handle-coverings were adorned with pomegranete-shaped bells, called Rimmonim, and eventually the name became attached to the whole covering. But actually the word RIMMONIM comes from an entirely different root, RIMAH, meaning "a worm", whence the fruit's connection with the Underworld - thus does language evolve with time and usage!
MEGIDON: Have I mentioned the phrase "apocalyptic literature" yet? When we think "apocalypse" we think Armageddon, which is Har Megido, the hill, rather than the valley that is referenced here.
12:12 VE SAPHDAH HA ARETS MISHPACHOT MISHPACHOT LEVAD MISHPACHAT BEIT DAVID LEVAD U NESHEYHEM LEVAD MISHPACHAT BEIT NATAN LEVAD U NESHEYHEM LEVAD
KJ: And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart;
BN: "And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Natan apart, and their wives apart...
NATAN: An entirely new concept this. And where does it come from? If Beit David is an allusion, not to a historical king but to the mythological "beloved son" - and this is certainly the inference of verse 10 - can we then read Natan as Yah-Natan or Yeho-Natan or even Yehonatan, the various spellings of the name of King Sha'ul's firstborn son, whom David both befriended and supplanted as the succeeding king. And if so, does this then give us a confirmation that Tanism had been, perhaps still was, a facet of the "Yisra-Eli" cult - much discussion of this in my commentaries on the Book of Genesis? And if not, then I am afraid I have no idea who is being referred to here (unless Natan us being used as a generalism for regular folk, a Biblical Joe Bloggs).
MEGIDON: Have I mentioned the phrase "apocalyptic literature" yet? When we think "apocalypse" we think Armageddon, which is Har Megido, the hill, rather than the valley that is referenced here.
12:12 VE SAPHDAH HA ARETS MISHPACHOT MISHPACHOT LEVAD MISHPACHAT BEIT DAVID LEVAD U NESHEYHEM LEVAD MISHPACHAT BEIT NATAN LEVAD U NESHEYHEM LEVAD
וְסָפְדָה הָאָרֶץ מִשְׁפָּחוֹת מִשְׁפָּחוֹת לְבָד מִשְׁפַּחַת בֵּית דָּוִיד לְבָד וּנְשֵׁיהֶם לְבָד מִשְׁפַּחַת בֵּית נָתָן לְבָד וּנְשֵׁיהֶם לְבָד
KJ: And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart;
BN: "And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Natan apart, and their wives apart...
NATAN: An entirely new concept this. And where does it come from? If Beit David is an allusion, not to a historical king but to the mythological "beloved son" - and this is certainly the inference of verse 10 - can we then read Natan as Yah-Natan or Yeho-Natan or even Yehonatan, the various spellings of the name of King Sha'ul's firstborn son, whom David both befriended and supplanted as the succeeding king. And if so, does this then give us a confirmation that Tanism had been, perhaps still was, a facet of the "Yisra-Eli" cult - much discussion of this in my commentaries on the Book of Genesis? And if not, then I am afraid I have no idea who is being referred to here (unless Natan us being used as a generalism for regular folk, a Biblical Joe Bloggs).
Or one possibility: because Sha'ul and Yah-Natan were from the tribe of Bin-Yamin, while David was a Yehudan - but see my second note to 12:7, rather than me repeating it here.
12:13 MISHPACHAT BEIT LEVI LEVAD U NESHEYHEM LEVAD MISHPACHAT HA SHIMI'Y LEVAD U NESHEYHEM LEVAD
KJ: The family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of Shimei apart, and their wives apart;
BN: "... the family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of the Shimi'yites apart, and their wives apart...
SHIMI'Y: Or maybe there is another explanation of NATAN in the previous verse. After the death of Shemu-El, the Prophet who guided David was named Natan (2 Samuel 7:2, 1 Chronicles 17:1). And when David became king, he had two senior counsellors, one named Re'i and the other named Shimi'y (1 Kings 1:8). So even if it is not Yehonatan, it still seems to be David, and David is always the key name when the idea of the Messiah is being discussed, whether as Mashiyach or as Moshi'a. The intention may well be to separate the various parts of the whole into their specific components, te tribes of Bin-Yamin and Yehudah first, the secular realm from the spiritual here. And then everybody else in the next verse.
12:14 KOL HA MISHPACHOT HA NISH'AROT MISHPACHOT MISHPACHOT LEVAD U NESHEYHEM LEVAD
KJ: All the families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart.
BN: "... all the remaining families, every family apart, and their wives apart..."
I can understand that each family will sit shiva as a separate entity, but cannot explain why the men and women are expected to, perhaps required to, conduct their mourning separately; this does not have a parallel anywhere in Mosaic, proto-Jewish, or Talmudic Jewish law.
12:13 MISHPACHAT BEIT LEVI LEVAD U NESHEYHEM LEVAD MISHPACHAT HA SHIMI'Y LEVAD U NESHEYHEM LEVAD
מִשְׁפַּחַת בֵּית לֵוִי לְבָד וּנְשֵׁיהֶם לְבָד מִשְׁפַּחַת הַשִּׁמְעִי לְבָד וּנְשֵׁיהֶם לְבָד
KJ: The family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of Shimei apart, and their wives apart;
BN: "... the family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of the Shimi'yites apart, and their wives apart...
SHIMI'Y: Or maybe there is another explanation of NATAN in the previous verse. After the death of Shemu-El, the Prophet who guided David was named Natan (2 Samuel 7:2, 1 Chronicles 17:1). And when David became king, he had two senior counsellors, one named Re'i and the other named Shimi'y (1 Kings 1:8). So even if it is not Yehonatan, it still seems to be David, and David is always the key name when the idea of the Messiah is being discussed, whether as Mashiyach or as Moshi'a. The intention may well be to separate the various parts of the whole into their specific components, te tribes of Bin-Yamin and Yehudah first, the secular realm from the spiritual here. And then everybody else in the next verse.
12:14 KOL HA MISHPACHOT HA NISH'AROT MISHPACHOT MISHPACHOT LEVAD U NESHEYHEM LEVAD
כֹּל הַמִּשְׁפָּחוֹת הַנִּשְׁאָרוֹת מִשְׁפָּחֹת מִשְׁפָּחֹת לְבָד וּנְשֵׁיהֶם לְבָד
KJ: All the families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart.
BN: "... all the remaining families, every family apart, and their wives apart..."
I can understand that each family will sit shiva as a separate entity, but cannot explain why the men and women are expected to, perhaps required to, conduct their mourning separately; this does not have a parallel anywhere in Mosaic, proto-Jewish, or Talmudic Jewish law.
The text is in fact unfinished, and will resume in the following chapter; the Yehudit version does not make a break.
No comments:
Post a Comment