From: carroll@bifur.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll)
Subject: Re: Almah (was Re: Supposed Talmud quotes  (was Re: Almah in Isa 7:14)
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 21:00:36 GMT

In article <141794.2B4D63A9@paranet.FIDONET.ORG> Harvey.Smith@p0.f1.n7002.z8.FIDONET.ORG (Harvey Smith) writes:
]
]To: Bruce Krulwich
]
] BK] Ah, the plot thickens, as more "proofs" come to light about what 
] BK] the Hebrew word "alma" means.  Let's take a look at Laura's 
] BK] input...
]
] BK] the virgin who offers to help..." ??  The first makes alot 
] BK] more sense, and is the essence of the prayer.  Hardly a case 
] BK] of "can only mean virgin."
]
]Nope you would say "a young maid" who is a virgin, as that was the law. See
]Deut 22 for more information on what happened to Jewish maids who could not
]prove their virginity at marriage, and if their husbands wanted to get rid 
]of them...
]
]Are you saying that Rebecca was not a 'Virgin'????
]
] BK] the young woman ran to get Moses's mother.  Again, I don't 
] BK] see how it makes sense to mean "virgin," let alone that it 
] BK] "can only be a virgin."
]
]Nope but unless you are saying that she wasn't a virgin....  Again, my 
]friend, the "young maid in every instance was a Virgin...

He isn't saying that she *wasn't* a virgin; he's saying that the
reference is *non-specific*. It refers to a young woman, without
reference to her sexual experience. That doesn't mean that it's
implausible that she was a virgin; just that the textual reference
does take note of whether or not she was.

] BK] hard to say it means a virgin.  "The way of a man with a 
] BK] woman" makes perfect sense.
]
]Sure it sure does especially during the time when Israel kept the law.
]Of course now the Law is irretrievably broken, because there are very very 
]few virgins in either Israel or the Jewish community before marriage...

You're again ignoring Bruce's point: that it isn't specific. Do men
only have sex with virgins? Certainly not. Why *must* this be read as
"the way of a man with a virgin" rather than "the way of a man with a
woman"? Remember, you're arguing that *the only correct reading* is
virgin.

]AGAIN, in every instance and the Rabbis back me up on this, In every 
]instance where the term is utilized for a specific maiden, it refers to 
]a virgin...

No - in every case it refers to a young woman, without regard to
whether or not she is a virgin. You don't provide *any* support of any
kind that any of the references indicate the virginity of the women.
Again remember that you are claiming that this word means *only*
virgin; this means that you have to provide evidence that the other
reading "young woman", which INCLUDES virgins, cannot be correct. If
you cannot show for these examples that the virginity of the women
mentioned is indicative of the exclusive meaning of the word, then
your entire case falls apart.

Oh, and incidentally, please provide a reference showing that "the
Rabbis back you up on this". 

] BK] ** SO HERE WE HAVE IT: All the verses that you cited as "can only 
] BK] be a virgin" ** can in fact be read quite nicely as 
] BK] not-necessarily--virginal young woman. ** In fact, several of 
] BK] them (Prov 30:19, S'o'S 6:8, and Is 7:14) are much ** easier 
] BK] to see meaning a non-virgin.
]
]Again you are speculating.hardly good scholarship thats for sure... In 
]accordance with the Law of Moses which you are supposed to be going by but 
]can't, because over 80% of it is abrogated by the breaking of the 
commandments by you and all of us...So in the light of the Torah, my friend,
]it would always be Virgin.  anything else is speculation.

Speculating, or reading?

There is a specific method for discovering meanings on the Torah.
Bruce is using that method to criticize your claim about the meaning
of almah.  That is not speculation, that is scholarship. You are *not*
providing any evidence to support your claim; Bruce is criticizing
your claim from within the traditional structure of Torah scholarship.
Bruce is providing specific references demonstrating his claim, and
you are making non-specific claims that "the Rabbis support me". Who
is being a better scholar?

] BK] That's right.  The Hebrew definitively says "Hashem _will_give_ 
] BK] you a sign ... a woman _is_ pregnant and _will_ bear a son."  
] BK] Simple grammer tells us that the woman is already pregnant, 
]
]And again you are just wrong, just another modern flick of the switch in an 
]attempt to neutralize a prophecy of HaShem...

Why is he wrong? You are attacking his translation or his
interpretation of his translation. Fine: if you know that he's wrong,
tell us. Simply saying "you're wrong" with no reasons, and then going
on to the next point is *not* exactly scholarly.


]The scholarship has already found it lacking and non proveable.  YOu are out 
]of step and time friend... 

What scholarship? Please provide references.

]
]The Ugaritic always uses in the poetic sense, the word almah with blw, 
]Betullah, and hence from antiquity we have the sense that Isaiah utilized it.
]As far as "Hara" is concerned it can be present tense or future...
]

Provide references.

]Since it is a "sign" it can only be utilized as future,  Shall be and that is
]how the Jewish publication societies have properly translated it....

The Jewish publication societies have properly translated it? Then surely
you can provide us with a specific reference to support the claim.

]What for Dov, why should we even ask you anything.  You prove your lack of 
]interest in real scholarship....  And always attempt coverups...

Ah, and YOU engage in Lashon Harah. Hardly the act of a Jewish
scholar.

	<MC>



-- 
|| Mark Craig Carroll: <MC>     ||"In all seriousness of truth, hear this:
|| Univ of Delaware, Dept of CIS|| without the It, one cannot live. But
|| Grad Student/Labstaff Hacker || whoever lives with It alone is not
|| carroll@udel.edu             || human" - _I_and_Thou_, by Martin Buber